Design of pavement on subgrade soil by stabilization with waste paper sludge

1. DESIGN OF PAVEMENT ON SUBGRADE SOIL BY
STABILIZATION WITH WASTE PAPER SLUDGE
Guided by: Presented by
Mrs.Emy Paulose Ajith Mathew
Assistant Professor Ameer muhammed.s
VJCET Balu haridas
Mr.Akhil Mohan(External Guide) Joseph philip

2. INTRODUCTION
• Soil -foundation material supports load from overlaying structure.
• All pavements rest on soil foundation.
• Weak soil is strengthened by stabilization.
• Two types of stabilization
• Mechanical stabilization:- compaction and drainage.
• Chemical stabilization :- adding cementitious materials like (cement,lime,flyash,etc).
• Waste paper sludge (WPS) is a waste product from the paper industry.
• They are Land spreading as agricultural fertilizer, incineration in plants, disposed to
land fill.
• WPS have cementitious properties,can be used for stabilization.
2

3. CRITICAL REVIEW OF LITERATURE
• Test for strength
• by conducting laboratory test
• Design of pavement thickness
• using IRC 37&kenlayer software
3

4. OBJECTIVE
• To study the physical and geotechnical properties of waste paper sludge and soil.
• To evaluate the strength characteristics of local soil blended with different
proportions of waste paper sludge.
• To design a flexible pavement on subgrade soil stabilized with waste paper sludge.
4

5. METHODOLOGY
MATERIAL
COLLECTION(WPS
,SOIL)
PROPERTIES
WPS,CLAY,CLAY-
WPS(2.5%,5%,
7.5%,10%)
COMPACTION
TESTS
UCC, CBR TESTS
ALTERNATE
PAVEMENT
DESIGN
5

6. MATERIAL COLLECTION
• Soil collected from piravom.
• Waste paper sludge from Hindusthan
Newsprint Limited,Vellor, Kottayam.
• Air dried for two weeks.
6

7. TESTS CONDUCTED
• Natural moisture content.
• Atterbergs limit test.
• Specific gravity test.
• Swelling test.
• pH test.
• Compaction test.
• Wet sieve analysis
• UCC test
• CBRTEST
7

8. ATTERBERGSTEST
• Casagrandes apparatus.
• 120gm oven dry soil passed through
425μ sieve.
• Graph was plotted.
8

9. • From graph liquid limit for 25 no.of blows found to be 56%.
31, 54.4
25, 55.52
22, 59.18
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
10 100
MOISTURECONTENT
LOG NO:OF BLOWS
Moisture content Vs Log no:of blows
9

10. SPECIFIC GRAVITYTEST
• Specific gravity bottle.
• 10 gm oven dried sample.
• Observed after 24 hours
for both soil andWPS.
• Specific gravity
• For soil - 2.535
• ForWPS – 1.352
10

11. DIFFERENTIAL FREE SWELLINGTEST
• Measuring cylinder 50 ml volume.
• 10 gm soil.
• After 24 hours observed .
• Swelling found to be 30%.
11

12. pHTEST
• Mix theWPS and distilled water.
• pH value is the amount of
hydrogen ion concentration.
• pH forWPS is determined by
Digital pH meter apparatus.
• pH forWPS – 6.84
12

13. WET SIEVE ANALYSIS
• 250 gm soil taken for testing
• Wet sieved through 75μ sieve.
• 70.34% passed through sieve and is classified as fine grained soil.
13

14. COMPACTIONTEST
• 3 kg of oven dried sample, 12% water initially
added .
• 4% water added in successive steps.
• Graph plotted between Dry density and
Moisture content.
• Optimum moisture content and Max dry
density found out from graph.
14

15. Sl no Amount of
WPS
Optimum
moisture content
Maximum dry
density
1 0% 26.79% 1.262
2 2.5% 31.71% 1.292
3 5% 30.97% 1.281
4 7.5% 34.9% 1.238
5 10% 34.33% 1.203
15

16. 1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
10 20 30 40 50
Drydensityγding/cc
Water content w in %
Water content Vs Dry density γd Graph
0%WPS
2.5%WPS
5%WPS
7.5%WPS
10%WPS
16

17. UCCTEST
• Test conducted for various proportions ofWPS.
• UCC test is an unconfined test.
• The test was conducted as an indicator for
Strength.
• Sample was a mixture of soil and waste paper
Sludge.
• water added at optimum moisture content.
• Test conducted on unconfined compression tester.
17

18. 0
0.00002
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
0.0001
0.00012
0.00014
0.00016
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
CompressivestressKN/mm2
Strain
COMPRESSIVE STRESS VS STRAIN
0%
2.50%
7.50%
5%
10%
18

19. Unconfined Compressive Strength ofWPS
Treated With Soil
Percentage of WPS UCC value(kn/mm2)
0% 5.78 x 10-5
2.5% 14.09 x 10-5
5% 9.6 x 10-5
7.5% 5.37 x 10-5
10% 4.13 x 10-5
19

20. 0
0.00004
0.00008
0.00012
0.00016
0% 2.50% 5% 7.50% 10%
UCCvaluesKN/mm2
Percentage of waste paper sludge
UCCValueVs Percentage OfWaste Paper Sludge
20

21. CBRTEST
• CBR test conducted for a proportion of maximum UCC value.
• 5 kg of sample was used including 97.5% soil& 2.5%WPS.
• CBR value was calculated for 2.5mm and 5mm penetration.
• Graph was plotted between load and penetration.
• The values are 2.46% for 2.5mm penetration and
3.29% for 5mm penetration.
• The value 3.29% was taken as the CBR value.
21

22. Penetration(mm)
Number Of Divisions On
Proving Ring
Corresponding
Loading(n)
Corrected
Load(n)
0 0 0 0
0.5 0/0/1 1 48.40
1 0/0/3 3 145.20
1.5 0/0/4 4 193.61
2 0/1/1 6 290.41
2.5 0/1/2 7 338.81
4 0/2/1 11 532.42
5 0/2/4 14 677.63
7.5 0/4/0 20 968.05
10 0/5/0 25 1210.06
12.5 0/5/4 29 1403.67
15 0/6/4 34 1645.69
22

23. 00.048
0.1450.193
0.290.338
0.532
0.677
0.968
1.21
1.403
1.645
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Load(KN)
Penetration (mm)
LOAD VS PENETRATION GRAPH
23

24. TEST RESULTS
• Properties of soil
SL.NO PROPERTIES VALUE
1 (a) Liquid limit 56%
(a) Plastic limit 43.66%
(a) Plasticity index 12.34%
(a) Flow index 32.09
(a) Toughness index 0.3845
2 Specifc gravity 2.535
3 Optimum moisture content 26.79%
4 Maximum dry density 1.262
5 Swelling 30%
6 Moisture content 4.16%
24

25. • Properties ofWPS
SL.NO. PROPERTIES VALUE
1 Moisture content 145%
2 pH 6.84
3 Specific gravity 1.352
25

26. Pavement design using IRC 37&
KENLAYER software
• Pavements are designed by considering
fatigue life and rutting life.
• Fatigue crack:- Due to repetition of wheel
load tensile strain develop at bottom
of bituminous layer, it develops micro cracks.
• Rutting:-The permanent deformation
in pavement occurs longitudinally
along the wheel path.
.
26

27. • Design life is defined in terms of the cumulative number of standard axles in msa.
• Assumed design traffic is 15 years.
• CBR value is 3.29%.
• Resilient modulus is the measure of elastic behaviour determined from recoverable
deformation in laboratory tests.
MR (MPa) = 10 * CBR for CBR upto 5
MR (MPa) = 17.6 * ( CBR)0.64 for CBR >5
• Resilient modulus for the subgrade was found to be 32.9 Mpa.
MRgsb=0.2 h 0.45 x MRsubgrade =0.2*6300.45*32.9= 119.65 Mpa
27

28. Resilient Modulus of Layers
Layer Classification Resilient Modulus(Mpa)
Bituminous concreting 3000
Dense bound macadam 3000
Granular base 119.65
Granular sub base 119.65
Subgrade 32.9 28

29. Thickness of layers
• Thickness of layers are found out from the design charts in IRC:37.
• We choose Plate 1 , which is for CBR = 3% . 29

30. Kenlayer software
• The software outputs stress and strain values for pre-specified locations in the
pavement.
• There are 2 points of stress action.
• Tensile strain(εt) acting at bottom of bituminous layer(fatigue) & vertical
strain(εv) at subgrade surface(rutting).
• With the strain values obtained, one is required to check the number of
repetitions of the standard axle that would be would result in the pavement
getting damaged.
• This value has to be compared with the originally obtained MSA.
30

31. Points of stress action
31

32. • fatigue life
• Rutting life N = 4.1656 x 10-8 [1/εv]4.5337(80% reliability)
N = 1.41x 10-8 x[1/εv]4.5337(90% reliability)
• We designed for 80% reliability
Strain
Tensile strain εt=1.542 x 10-4 Fatigue life=159.69msa >150 msa
Vertical strain εv=1.820 x 10-4
Rutting life=3761.76 msa >150 msa
32

33. 33

34. 34

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37

38. 38

39. 39

40. 40

41. 41

42. 42

43. 43

44. 44

45. 45

46. 46

47. 47

48. 48

49. 49

50. 50

51. 380
250
240
80
BITUMINOUS CONCRETING
WATER BOUND MACADAM
GRANULAR BASE
GRANULAR SUB-BASE
SUBGRADE SOIL
PAVEMENT LAYERS
51

52. Thickness of layer
Layers Thickness
Bituminous concreting 80mm
Dense bound macadam 240mm
Granular base 250mm
Granular sub base 380mm
subgrade -
52

53. ACTIVITY
SEP – OCT
2015
DEC 2015 JAN 2016 FEB 2016
MARCH
2016
APRIL 2016
LITERATURE REVIEW
DATACOLLECTION
TESTCONDUCTED FOR
SOILANDWPS
COMPATIONTEST
UCCAND CBRTEST
DESIGNOF PAVEMENT
ANALYSISAND
RESULTS
WORK PLAN
53

54. CONCLUSION
• The studies conducted onWaste paper sludge shown that it has
utilization potential to use for highway construction
• It will be more economical than other stabilizing methods.
• Local soil used is fine grained material and exhibited swelling
behavior.
• The OMC is found to be increased with the addition ofWPS and dry
density is decreasing indicating the changes in the behavior of soil.
• unconfined compressive strength is maximum while adding 2.5%
waste paper sludge.
• CBR value of the soil blended with 2.5%WPS is 3.29%.
• Pavement can construct on waste paper sludge stabilized soil. 54

55. REFERENCES
• Neva Elias,Civil Engineering,Cochin University of Science &Technology, (India)
,“strength development of soft soil stabilized with waste paper sludge”
International Journal of AdvancedTechnology in Engineering and Science
,Volume No.03, Issue No. 01, January 2015.
• G.H.A.J.J. Kumara and K.Tani,” use of improved dredged clay by paper sludge
ash in slope stability of river embankments” , Annual Research Journal of SLSAJ
(2011),Vol. 11, pp.35 - 42 .
• HaricharanT S,Vinay Kumar K S, Durga Prashanth L, M.R.Archana,
A.U.Ravishankar“laboratory investigation of expansive soil stabilized with
natural inorganicstabilizer ” Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, NITK,
Surathkal .
• Gregory Paul Makusa ,Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural resources
engineering ,Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering ,Luleå University
ofTechnology Luleå, Sweden.
• Segui P.*,Aubert J.E., Husson B. Université Paul Sabatier, LMDC (Laboratoire
Matériaux et Durabilité des Constructions), 31,Toulouse, France Measson M.
EiffageTravaux Publics, Recherche et Développement, 69, Corbas, France .
55

56. 56