Bio Based Method For Soil Improvement.pptx

Bio Based Methods for Soil Improvement
by
Patel Gaurav Kirtibhai (19BCL026)
Chaudhari Janvikumari Sunilbhai(19BCL045)
Bhagat Jay Bakulchandra (19BCL047)
Rami Zubin Manojkumar (19BCL109)
Dr. Uma Chaduvula
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engg.
School of Technology, PDEU
under
Minor Project
Review Presentation
on
1

Inevitable development
of roads
Leads To Soil
Stabilization
Mechanical
Chemical
Bio Based
Yojna
Sanctioned
(No. Of Roads)
Completed
(No. Of Roads)
PMGSY – 1 164806 159783
PMGSY - 2 6700 5755
2
NEED

◦ The aim of this research is to identify the mechanism of bio-enzyme soil
stabilization
◦ To analyze the change in vertical strain and the tensile strain with different
CBR value (Untreated soil & Treated Soil) by using IIT PAVE Software.
Objective
AIM
3
• To evaluate the CBR value of the subgrade layer used in the IIT PAVE.
• Evaluation of resilient modulus.
• Understanding the different terminologies of various topics used for designing the
pavement

http://www.cpeap.com.au/Enzymes https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijmicro
4
Working Principle

• Environmental Friendly
• Cost Effective
• Approved by many governing bodies
• Life-cycle of roads increase
• No extra care is need for using it
Bio-Enzyme Soil Stabilizer
Comparative Analysis
Fly Ash
• High Transportation cost
• Variation in properties
• Inadequate government
policies.
Lime
• Harmful to environment
• High cost to burn lime stone
Cement
• Generates cracks in the soil
• Harmful to environment
• High care is required for
hydrating the cement.
Traditional Methods
5

SR.NO AUTHOR TITLE/JOURNAL FINDINGS/OUTCOMES
1
Turkane S.D
et. al.
(2022)
Partial Replacement of Conventional Material with Stabilized Soil in
Flexible Pavement Design
International Journal of Engineering, Transactions B: Applications
(Springer)
• The design of flexible pavement thickness was carried out for conventional and
stabilized soil material using IITPAVE software as per IRC 37 guidelines.
• IIT pave conventional and stabilized by fly ash comparison table
2
Karanbir Singh Randhaw
a (2021)
Stabilizing black cotton soil in subgrade with municipal solid waste
incineration ash for lowering greenhouse gas emission
Materials Today: Proceedings (Scopus)
• Investigate the improvement of engineering properties of expansive soils with MSWI
ash.
• The optimum content of MSWI ash to be added to expansive soils varies between 10%
and 30%.
• 25% of MSWI ash increases the UCS of expansive black cotton soil from 28.8 kPa to
53.4 kPa and an increase in CBR value from 3.38% to 9.38%.
3
Ahmed Ejaz
Fazal,
Aravindan S (2021)
Stabilization of Residual Soil from Wastewater Treatment Plant by
using Bio-Enzyme
Procedia Engineering (Scopus)
• By treating soil with 2% dosage of TerrazymeUCS of residual soil gone by 300% and
further with 2% dosage of Terrazyme the OMC of residual soil decreases by 5% with
increase in maximum dry density of residual soil by 158%.
• Increases Specific Gravity and Decreased Plasticity index.
• Established2% dosage of terrazyme is optimum.
4
Tanveer Ahmed Khan et
al.
(2020)
Strength and Volume Change Characteristics of Clayey Soils:
Performance Evaluation of Enzymes
Clay Minerals in Geoengineering Applications: Behaviour, Hazards
and Solutions(MDIP)
• Three reference clays including bentonite, illite, and kaolinite were treated with
enzymes to study the effect on their strength characteristics
• Research says that three enzymes did not produce any significant improvement in
different tests conducted for the study even after the heavy dosage of bio enzyme and
4 months of curing
Literature Review
6

5
Vishal Sharma, Sandeep
Singh (2020)
Modeling for the use of waste materials (Bottom ash and fly ash) in
soil stabilization
Materials Today: Proceedings (Scopus)
• Investigated the improvement in the strength of soil by adding the proportion of
bottom ash and fly ash in the soil.
• Optimum content was identified as 12% bottom ash, 18% fly ash and 70% soil.
• The CBR value was 13.7% which is highest among all and decrease in the plasticity
characteristics was observed due to the filling of maximum voids with granular
particles of the ash in the structure of the soil.
6
Aswari Sultana Begum
et al.
(2020)
Influence of TerraZyme on Compaction and Consolidation Properties
of Expansive Soil
Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering (Spinger)
• This study observed the effect of Terrazyme on the properties of expansive soil on
consistency limits, compaction characteristics andShear strength of soil with four
different dosages of 200ml/1.5m3, 200ml/1.0m3, and 200ml/0.5m3,200ml/0.25m3
with curing periods of 7,14,21 days respectively.
• The application of 200ml/0.25m3Terrazyme reduced the liquid limit from 60.20% to
48% and the plasticity index from33.13% to 24.50% and increase the plastic limit.
7 F. Becquart (2017)
Upgraded mineral sand fraction from MSWI bottom ash: An
alternative solution for the substitution of natural aggregates in
concrete applications
Procedia Engineering (Scopus)
• Superplasticizer at 0 to 3 % by weight of cement were added to improve workability
of cement and to improve water absorption.
• MSWI bottom ash without superplasticizer could be used to substitute natural
aggregates in concrete applications and should get a good mechanical resistance
after 28 days of curing.
8
GreeshmaNizyEujine (2
017)
Accelerated Subgrade Stabilization Using Enzymatic Lime
Technique
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering (Scopus)
• Investigate locally available soils by using an enzyme as the stabilizer, and also by
introducing the enzyme with lime during stabilization.
• The enzymatic lime stabilizer was more effective in soil samples containing higher
clay contents.
• Improved results on locally available soil.
Literature Review
7

8
Harish G R
Assistant Professor , New
Horizon College of
Engineering, Bengaluru
(2017)
Analysis of Flexible Pavements using IIT Pave
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
This study shows the evaluation of rutting and fatigue performance of flexible pavement
for different composition of pavement materials. i.e,
i. Granular base and granular sub base (C- 1)
ii. Cemented base and cemented sub base with crack relief layer (C-2)
iii. Cemented base and cemented sub base with SAMI (C-3)
iv. Foamed bitumen/ bitumen emulsion treated RAP/ aggregate over cemented base (C-4)
This paper shows that, out of all the different materials’ composition the cemented base
and sub base with SAMI interface and bituminous layer provides good serviceability.
9
Shirsath H, Joshi S.R.
(2017)
EFFECT OF BIO-ENZYME (TERRAZYME) ON THE
PROPERTIES OF SUB GRADE SOIL OF ROAD
International Journal of Innovative Research in
Science and Engineering(Scopus)
• Unconfined Compressive Strength of all three soil has shown increased with curing
time with TerraZyme.
• Optimum dosage - 200ml/1.5m3 by weight of soil.
• It is found to be ineffective for improving consistency limits.
• The plasticity index of the soils decreases upto certain limit.
10
T. Khan,
M. Taha (2016)
Effect of Three Bioenzymes on Compaction , Consistency Limits ,
and Strength Characteristics of a Sedimentary Residual Soil
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering (Scopus)
• Three types of bioenzymes, DZ-1X , EarthZyme, and TerraZyme used.
• It was found that the three enzymes did not produce any comprehensible
improvement in the three tests conducted.
• Suggested that they only prevented moisture absorption to bring the particles closer.
11
Abdus Salaam Cadersa,
AkshaySeeborun (2014)
Use of Coal Bottom Ash as Mechanical Stabiliser in Subgrade Soil
International Journal of Engineering Science (Elsevier)
• Coal bottom ash by weight (15%, 30%, and 40%, resp.) mixed with subgrade soil
taken at a depth of 750mm.
• Observed a rise CBR values upon addition of a mixture of coal bottom ash and coal
fly ash to a soft soil.
• The swell decreased from 0.17% for the subgrade soil alone to 0.04% for the
mixture containing 40% by weight of CBA.
• Optimum Dosage - 30 to 40% of CBA in subgrade soil
Literature Review
8

Methodology
 Material Collections
◦ Soil sample collected from locally available construction site.
◦ Soil sample oven dried for 24 hours at 110° C for the evaporation of existing moisture.
Location of soil collection for SRP
(Near GIFT City – Metro Construction Site)
Sample after oven
drying
Bio-enzyme
9

Methodology
10
SOIL
CHARACTERIZATION
LABORATORY
EXPERIMENTS
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ATTERBERG LIMITS
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
PROCTOR TEST
pH TEST
CBR TEST
UCS TEST
ESEM TEST
ANALYSIS OF
EXPERIMENT RESULTS
CONCLUSION
For UCS and CBR:
• The Curing Period are:
(0, 7, 14, 21, 28) days
• Bio-enzyme Proportion:
(0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1, 1.2)%
per 5kg

Sieve size
(mm)
Empty
weight
(gm)
Retained
+ size
(gm)
Retained
(gm)
Cumulativ
e
Cumulative %
retained
Cumulative %
passing
4.75 338.8 393.4 54.6 54.6 13.60 86.39
2.36 372.2 476.9 104.7 159.3 39.68 60.31
1 312.6 452.3 139.7 299 74.48 25.51
0.6 305.1 357.8 52.7 351.7 87.61 12.38
0.425 319.6 341.4 21.8 373.5 93.04 6.95
0.3 298.7 300.3 1.6 375.1 93.44 6.55
0.15 306.8 317.6 10.8 385.9 96.13 3.86
0.075 289.7 293.3 3.6 389.5 97.03 2.96
Grain Size Distribution
Co-efficient of Uniformity CU = 8.6
Co-efficient of Curvature CC = 2.8
Gravel = 13.65%
Sand = 83.72%
%Finer = 2.36%
The above results indicates that the soil is well graded. 11
Experiments

Free Swell Index
Free Swell Index = 33.3% (Low - Moderate)
Cylinders of Water and Kerosene
mixed with soil
pH Test of Soil
pH of soil = 9.06 (Strongly alkaline soil)
12

Properties 1
W1 Empty weight of density bottle, gm 34.6
W2 Empty weight of density bottle + Dry soil, gm 54.6
W3
Empty weight of density bottle + Dry soil +
water, gm
94.9
W4 Empty weight of density bottle + water, gm 83.2
G Specific Gravity 2.41
Specific Gravity Bottle
13
Specific Gravity of Soil (IS 2720 Part-3)

Atterberg's Limit Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Properties 1 2 3 4 1 2
Blows, Nos 17 22 27 34 - -
a empty weight of container, gm 20.18 21.37 24.28 20.42 14.8 22.6
b empty weight of container + wet soil, gm 38.24 36.1 40.14 39.58 24 32.6
c empty weight of container + dry soil, gm 33.52 32.46 36.43 35.32 22.9 31.3
d weight of water, (b-c), gm 4.72 3.64 3.71 4.26 1.1 1.3
e weight of dry soil, (c-a), gm 13.34 11.09 12.15 14.9 8.1 8.7
w moisture content, (d/e*100), % 35.38 32.82 30.53 28.59 13.58 14.94
31.83 % 14.26 %
Liquid Limit Curve
Casagrande Apparatus
Liquid Limit = 31.83 %
Plastic Limit
Sample
Preparation
Plastic Limit =
14.26 %
Plasticity Index Chart IS : 1498
Plasticity Index (Ip) = LL – PL
= 31.83-14.26
= 17.57
The result indicates that the soil is good enough to compact. 14
Atterberg's Limit (IS 2720 Part-5)

Shrinkage limit
Property Weight(gm)
W1 empty weight of mould 62.1
W2 empty weight of mould + Wet soil 105.3
W3 empty weight of mould + Dry soil 91.6
Wo weight of dry soil (W3-W1) 29.5
w water content, w = (W2-W3)/(W3-W1) 46.75%
M empty weight of mould + Mercury 400.3
empty weight of container 25.4
M1 empty weight of container + Mercury 642.9
M2 empty weight of container + Mercury after spilling 397.1
Density of Mercury = 13.53 g/cc
weight of Mercury, (M-W1) 338.2
Initial, V volume, weight/density 338.2/13.53 = 24.99cc
weight of mercury after spilling, (M1-M2) 245.8
Final, Vo volume, weight/density 245.8/13.53 = 18.16cc
Shrinkage Limit = 23.42
Soil Sample
Mould filled with
Mercury 15
Shrinkage Limit

Compaction Test Sr. No
Property 1 2 3 4
W1 Weight of Mould , gm 4753.8 4753.8 4753.8 4753.8
W2 Weight of Mould + compacted soil, gm 6839.2 6927.9 6918.9 6862.4
W Weight of Compacted Soil, gm 2085.4 2174.1 2165.1 2108.6
Gb Bulk Density, (gm/cc) 2.07 2.13 2.15 2.01
w Water Content (%) 8.2 11.16 14.28 16.83
DD Dry Density (gm/cc) 1.9 1.92 1.88 1.79
• Maximum Dry Density (MDD) = 1.92 (gm/cc)
• Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) = 11.16 (%)
Sample Preparation Compacted Soil
Compaction Curve
It is the most common laboratory test conducted to derive the
compressibility of soils.
16
Standard Proctor Compaction Test (IS 2720 Part-7)

Specimen Diameter = 37mm
Specimen Height = 78mm
Dry weight of sample = 161gm
Bulk weight of sample ~ 180gm (60gm in each layer)
Soil sample divided into 3 parts
UCS test Sample
Sample Height = 7.8 cm
Sample Weight= 178 gm
UCS Test Specimen
Final Reading at Failure
Sample Failure Pattern
(Brittle)
Axial Deformation
(mm)
Axial Strain
E
Area (cm2),
A'= Ao/ (1-Ε)
Axial Load at Failure
(kN)
Compressive Strength
(Mpa)
1.68 0.022 10.98 0.129 0.12
17
Unconfined Compressive Strength (IS 2720 Part-10)

UCS VALUES (MPa)
0 ml
0.4
ml
0.6
ml
0.8
ml
1 ml 1.2 ml
0 days 0.126 0.178 0.212 0.256 0.249 0.233
7 days 0.163 0.214 0.267 0.313 0.279 0.255
14 days 0.212 0.284 0.335 0.381 0.357 0.323
21 days 0.293 0.311 0.382 0.418 0.396 0.358
28 days 0.308 0.359 0.408 0.456 0.416 0.368
0 days
14 days
28 days
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0 ml 0.4 ml 0.6 ml 0.8 ml 1 ml 1.2 ml
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(MPA)
DOSAGE OF BIO-ENZYME(ML)/5 KG OF SOIL
UCS Values(MPa)
0 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days
UCS Test Result Graph
Specimen of 78 mm Height & 36 mm Diameter Samples Kept For Curing in Desiccator 18

Sr.
Sample
Name
Soil
Type
Bio-Enzyme
(ml/5kg)
Curing
Periods (days)
No. of Test
Samples
1 P0
Local
Soil
0 0 1
2 P1
Local
Soil
0.2 0 1
3 P2
Local
Soil
0.4 0 1
4 P3
Local
Soil
0.8 0 1
5 P4
Local
Soil
1 0 1
Sr.
Sample
Name
Soil Type
Bio-Enzyme
(ml/5kg)
Curing Periods
(days)
No. of
Test Samples
1 P0 Local Soil 0 0 1
2 P1 Local Soil 0.8 0,7,14,21,28 4
CBR Test
Apparatus
CBR
Mould
Soaked
CBR Mould
19
California Bearing Ratio Test (CBR Test) [IS 2720(Part 16):1987]

CBR VALUES
Un-Treated
Soil
Treated Soil
0 DAY
0 DAY
(S1)
7 DAYS
(S2)
14 DAYS
(S3)
21 DAYS
(S4)
28 DAYS
(S5)
4.47 % 4.87 % 5.54 % 7.85 % 10.38 % 12.74 %
4.87
5.54
7.85
10.38
12.74
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 day 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days
CBR
VALUES
IN
%
CURING PERIODS
CBR Values (%)
20

ESEM images of pure soil
sample
Volume of
voids
ESEM images of 28 days treated
soil sample
Densification of
soil
Images Pure Soil Images of Treated Soil
21
ESEM Analysis

XRD Curve X-Ray Diffractometer
Detailed Information about the atomic structure of crystalline substance (soil) using XRD
22
X-Ray Diffraction

Flexible Pavement Design using IITPave Software
IITPave Software Interface

Flexible Pavement Design using IITPave Software
Critical Strain locations
Analysis Conditions
Material response
model
Linear elastic model
Layer interface
condition
Fully bonded (all layers)
No. of Wheels Dual wheel
Wheel loads 20 KN on each single wheel
Contact stress for
critical
parameter analysis
0.56 MPa for tensile strain in
bituminous layer and vertical
compressive strain on subgrade;
Critical Mechanistic Parameters
Bituminous layer Tensile strain at the bottom
Subgrade Compressive strain at the top
Standard Conditions For Pavement Analysis using IITPave

Inputs for IITPave
25
 Number of pavement layers.
 Resilient modulus/Elastic modulus (MPa).
 Poisson’s Ratio.
 Thickness (mm).
 Single Wheel Load (kN).
 Tyre Pressure.
 Number of location of application of stress/strain/deflection.
 Depth (mm) from pavement surface and radial distance (mm) from the centre of the wheel load contact area.
 Analysis for Single Wheel/Dual Wheel load set.

Analysis of Un-Treated Soil Using IITPave
26
CBR Value = 4.47%.
 Bituminous Layer:
• Elastic Modulus: 2000 MPa. (IRC-37:2018, Table 9.2)
• Poisson’s Ratio: 0.35 (IRC-37:2018)
• Thickness: 100mm. (40mm = Surface Course, 60mm = Base Course)
 Granular Layer:
• Elastic Modulus: 132.5 MPa. (From equation 7.1, IRC-37:2018)
• Thickness: 400mm. (250mm = WMM, 150mm = GSB)
 Sub-grade Layer:
• Elastic Modulus: 44.7 MPa. (From equation 6.1-6.2, IRC-37:2018)
Table 9.2, IRC-37:2018
Equation-7.1, IRC-37:2018
Equation-6.1-6.2, IRC-37:2018

Analysis of Un-Treated Soil Using IITPave
27
Input Window Output Window
Actual Fatigue Strain=399.5
Actual Rutting Strain=689.4
Allowable Fatigue Strain=410.6
Allowable Rutting Strain=784.3
𝑁𝑓 = 2.21 × 10−4
×
1
𝜀𝑡
3.89
×
1
𝐸
0.854
Allowable Fatigue Strain:
Allowable Rutting Strain: 𝑁𝑟 = 4.1656 × 10−8
×
1
𝜀𝑐
4.5337

Analysis of Treated Soil Using IITPave
28
CBR Value = 4.87% (0 Days curing).
 Granular Layer:
Table 9.2, IRC-37:2018
Equation-6.1-6.2, IRC-37:2018

29

30
 Granular Layer:
Table 9.2, IRC-37:2018
Equation-6.1-6.2, IRC-37:2018

31

32
 Granular Layer:
Table 9.2, IRC-37:2018
Equation-6.1-6.2, IRC-37:2018

33

34
 Granular Layer:
Table 9.2, IRC-37:2018
Equation-6.1-6.2, IRC-37:2018

35

36
 Granular Layer:
Table 9.2, IRC-37:2018
Equation-6.1-6.2, IRC-37:2018

37

Result and Graph
38
0
100
200
300
400
500
4.47 4.87 5.54 7.85 10.38 12.78
Fatigue
Strain
CBR Values (%)
Actual Fatigue Strain
Actual Fatigue Strain
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
4.47 4.87 5.54 7.85 10.38 12.78
Rutting
Strain
CBR Values (%)
Actual Rutting Strain
Actual Rutting Strain
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
4.47 4.87 5.54 7.85 10.38 12.78
Strain
Values
CBR Values (%)
Actual Fatigue Strain Actual Rutting Strain
CBR Values
(%)
Actual Fatigue
Strain
Actual
Rutting
Strain
Allowable Fatigue
Strain
Allowable
Rutting Strain
4.47 399.5 689.4
410.6 784.3
4.87 381.5 641.3
5.54 365.6 600.3
7.85 321.8 495.9
10.38 288.9 424.7
12.78 266 378.7

Advantages of Bio-enzyme
Increase in pavement durability Reduction in cost Enhances weather resistance
Environmentally Friendly Increase the life cycle of roads
39

40
Conclusion
 The MDD of soil sample without bio-enzyme was found out 1.92 g/cc and OMC to be 11.16 %.
 With the increase in the curing days CBR value is also increasing, i.e. strength increases.
 Bio enzyme is a liquid that is non-corrosive, natural, non-toxic, and biodegradable. It is environmentally
friendly and does not hurt the user.
 Bio enzyme also decreases pore spaces in the soil, increasing soil compaction and density, clearly shown by
the ESEM tests. It increases soil water resistance by lowering permeability.
 By analyzing the IIT pave, Different actual strains are generated on different CBR values. It shows that by
the increase in CBR value, Strain value decreases which means that the pavement having higher CBR Value
experiences less deflection.

Site Visit
41
Location of the site: Thol, Gujarat.

Timeline
42
Activity
Duration
July August September October November December
Literature Review
Material Procurement
Soil Index Properties Test
Engineering Properties Test
Micro-mechanical Properties Test
Design Recommendations in
IIT Pave
Analysis of Test Results

References
◦ Vijay Rajoria, Suneet Kaur (2014) “A Review on Stabilization of Soil Using Bio-Enzyme”. International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology.
◦ Anjali Gupta, Vishal Saxena, Ayush Saxena, Mohd. Salman, Shamshul Aarfin, Avinash Kumar (2017) “Review Paper on Soil
Stabilization by Terrazyme”. International Journal of Engineering Research and Application.
◦ Ravi, Shankar, Harsha, Kumar, Rai and Ramesha, Mithanthaya, L. (2009), Bio- enzyme stabilized lateritic soil as a highway
material. Journal of Indian Roads Congress, Paper No. 553, 143-151.
◦ Venkatesh A 2017 Study on Bc Soil Used as Subgrade and Treated with Terrazyme- a BioEnzyme Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 4
615–9.
◦ Sravan Muguda, H.B. Nagaraj (2019) “Effect of enzymes on plasticity and strength characteristics of an earthen construction
material”. International Journal of Geo Engineering,
◦ Gupta A, Saxena V, Saxena A, Salman M and Kumar A 2017 Review Paper on Soil Stabilization by Terrazyme Int. J. Res. Eng.
Technol. 754–7.
◦ A. U. Ravi Shankar, H. K. Rai, and I. R. Mithanthaya, Bio-Enzyme Stabilized Lateritic Soil as a Highway Material, Journal of
the Indian Roads Congress, Paper No. 553, 2009, 143-151.
◦ Apeksha Shete, Madhavi Lawand, Sujata Kamble, Mrunali Dahatre and Prof. Ashish Waghmare, Stabilization of black cotton
soil of various region from pune by using Terrazyme, Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR),
JETIR2206239
◦ Sravan Muguda, H.B. Nagaraj (2019) “Effect of enzymes on plasticity and strength characteristics of an earthen construction
material”. International Journal of Geo-Engineering,
◦ Aswar D. S et al. / IJETT, 70(4), 258-271, 2022. 43

Bio Based Method For Soil Improvement.pptx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Bio Based Method For Soil Improvement.pptx

Similar to Bio Based Method For Soil Improvement.pptx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Bio Based Method For Soil Improvement.pptx