The document presents a minor project on soil stabilization using burnt municipal solid waste ash, highlighting objectives such as reducing waste dumping, pavement costs, and improving soil bearing capacity. Various methodologies and experiments were conducted to analyze soil characteristics, including water content, grain size, liquid and plastic limits, Proctor tests, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values. Results indicate improvements in soil properties when using the burnt ash as a stabilizing agent, with specific values reported for moisture content and CBR in different samples.

1. MINOR PROJECT PRESENTATION
ON
SOIL STABILIZATION USING BURNT MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE ASH
Dr. AKHILESH DAS GUPTA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI
Submitted To:
Mr. Vikas Kataria
Guided By:
Mr. Ashwani Bharadwaj
Mr. Ashish Malik
Asst. Professor
Civil Department
Submitted By:
RITESH KUMAR (41415603415)
ANKUSH SINGH (40715603415)
ABDUL AHAD (40115603415)
VIPIN MADADH (36215603415)
RACHIT TYAGI (35715603415)

2. Objectives
• To reduce the dumping problem of waste
produced by the method of incineration.
• To reduce the thickness of sub-grade for flexible
pavement.
• To reduce the cost of flexible pavement design.
• To increase the bearing capacity of soil.

3. Soil Stabilization
Soil stabilization techniques involve changing soil
characteristics by a physical action, such as vibration,
or by the inclusion or mixing in the soil of a stronger
material. The aim of this process is as follows:
 Increase the load-bearing capacity and/or the
shear strength
 Reduce both absolute and differential settlements
or in certain cases, accelerate them and so on.

4. Methodology
• Mechanical method of Stabilization - In this
method, soils of different gradations are mixed
together to obtain the desired property in the soil.
• Additive method of stabilization - It refers to the
addition of manufactured products into the soil,
which in proper quantities to enhance the quality
of the soil.

5. Municipal Burnt Solid Waste
For Soil Stabilization
Solid Waste (SW) is the material
that arises from various human and
economic activities. In this method,
waste collected from the dumping
yards is set for burning for 24 hours
on open yard to ensure complete
burning of organic matter and all
combustible matter like plastics,
rubber paper, thermo coal etc,.
which converts the solid waste into
waste ash which known as Burnt
Municipal Solid Waste.

6. List of experiments
Water content by oven drying method
Particle size analysis by Sieving
Atterberg’s limit test
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Shrinkage Limit
Proctor test
CBR test

7. TESTS

8. 1.WATER CONTENT
The knowledge of the natural
moisture content is essential
in all studies of soil
mechanics. To sight a few,
natural moisture content is
used in determining the
bearing capacity and
settlement. The natural
moisture content will give an
idea of the state of soil in the
field.

9. 2. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
The grain size analysis is widely
used in classification of soils. The
data obtained from grain size
distribution curves is used in the
design of filters for earth dams and
to determine suitability of soil for
road construction, air field etc.

10. 3. LIQUID LIMIT
Liquid limit is defined as the
minimum water content at which
a pat of soil cut by a groove of
standard dimension will flow
together for a distance of 12 mm
under an impact of 25 blows in
the device. It is the minimum
water content at which the soil is
still in the liquid state, but has a
small shearing strength against
flow.

11. 4. PLASTIC LIMIT
It is the percentage moisture
content at which the soil
changes with decreasing
wetness from the plastic to
the semi- solid consistency or
with increasing wetness from
the semi-solid to the plastic
consistency.

12. 5. PROCTER TEST
• This test is done to determine
the Optimum Moisture content
and Maximum Dry Density.
• This method covers the
determination of the
relationship between the
moisture content and density
of soils compacted in a mould
of a given size with a 2.6 kg
rammer dropped from a height
of 30 cm.

13. 6. CBR
It is the ratio of force per
unit area required to
penetrate a soil mass with
standard circular piston at
the rate of 1.25 mm/min. to
that required for the
corresponding penetration
of a standard material.

14. RESULT
AND
DISCUSSION

15. FOR VIRGIN SOIL

16. A.WATER CONTENT
We used Oven Drying method for water content
determination whose temperature is maintained at
105 ̊C-110 ̊C
Water Content = 13.63%
S.No. Sample No. 1 2 3
1 Weight of container with lid 20 16 16
W1 gm
2 Weight of container with lid +wet 70 66 66
soil W2 gm
3 Weight of container with lid +dry 64 60 60
soil W3 gm
4
Water/Moisture content
(Percentage,%)
W = [(W2−W3)/(W3−W1)] 100 13.63 13.63 13.63

17. B. GRAIN SIZE
We used Sieve Analysis Method for grain size
analysis.
As, Cu = 4 and Cc = 1, hence the soil is poor graded or
uniformly graded soil.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10%FINER
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
IS Sieve
Size
Wt.
Retained
in each
sieve(gm)
%age
retained
on each
sieve
Cumulativ
e %age
%age Finer
(100-D)
A B C D E
4.75mm 56 11.2 11.2 88.8
2.36mm 38 7.6 18.8 81.2
1.18mm 46 9.2 28 72
0.60mm 25 5 33 67
0.30mm 30 6 39 61
0.150mm 62 12.4 51.4 31.4
0.075mm 112 22.4 22.4 21.14
Pan 107 17 100

18. C. LIQUID LIMIT
We used Casagrande Apparatus for liquid
limit determination.
Liquid Limit of soil was found to be 21.1%
S.No. Particulars Observation
1. Container No. 4 5
2. No. Blows 23 28
3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 16 23
4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 50 51
5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 44 46
6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 28 23
7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6 5
8. Moisture Content, 20.42 21.8

19. D. PLASTIC LIMIT
The minimum water content is determined at
which soil begins to crumble when rolled into
the thread of 3mm.
Plastic limit of soil was found to be 14.28%
S.No. Particulars Observation
1. Container No. 13
2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 16
3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 24
4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 23
5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 7
6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 1
7. Moisture Content, 14.28

20. E. SHRINKAGE LIMIT
1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat
S.No. Particulars Observations
1 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g
2 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g
3 Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g
4 Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc
5 Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc
2. Moisture Content of Wet Soil
S.No. Particulars Observation
1 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g
2 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 71g
3 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 65g
4 Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 27g
5 Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g
6 Moisture Content, 22.22

21. Shrinkage limit was found to be 10.77%
3. Volume of Dry Soil
S.No. Particulars Observations
1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g
2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 253g
3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc
4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.29cc
4. Result From Above Calculation
Particulars Result
Shrinkage Limit, 10.77%
Shrinkage Ratio, 1.7

22. F. OMC AND MDD
OMC = 15.7%
MDD = 1.777g/cc
1.7
1.71
1.72
1.73
1.74
1.75
1.76
1.77
1.78
1.79
0 5 10 15 20 25
DryDensity,g/cc
Water Content (%)

23. G. CBR
Penetration No. of
Division
Load in
kg
CBR
Value
0 0 0
0.5 4 19.52
1 7 34.16
1.5 9 43.92
2 11 58.56
2.5 14 68.32 4.9
3 16 78.08
4 20 97.6
5 24 117.12 5.69
7.5 32 156.16
10 40 195.2
12.5 45 219.6
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Load,kg
Penetration (mm)
CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 4.9
and 5.69. So,
CBR value of soil is 5.69.

24. SOIL WITH
4% BOTTOM ASH

25. A. LIQUID LIMIT
 We used Casagrande apparatus for liquid limit determination
Liquid Limit was found to be 21.76%.
S.No. Particulars Observation
1. Container No. 8 23
2. No. Blows 28 22
3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 16 16
4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 37 40
5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 33 36
6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 17 20
7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 4 4
8. Moisture Content, 23.52 20

26. B. PLASTIC LIMIT
 The minimum water content is determined at which
soil begins to crumble when rolled into the thread of
3mm.
 Plastic limit was found to be 15.38%.
S.No. Particulars Observation
1. Container No. 10
2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11
3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 26
4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 24
5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 13
6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 2
7. Moisture Content, 15.38

27. C. SHRINKAGE LIMIT
1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat
S.No. Particulars Observations
1. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g
2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g
3. Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g
4. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc
5. Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc
2.Moisture Content of Wet Soil
S.No. Particulars Observation
2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g
3. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 65g
4. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 59g
5. Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 26g
6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g
7. Moisture Content, 23.07

28.  Shrinkage limit was found to be 11%.
3.Volume of Dry Soil
S.No. Particulars Observations
1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g
2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 252g
3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc
4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.24cc
4.Result From Above Calculation
Particulars Result
Shrinkage Limit, 11%
Shrinkage Ratio, 1.703

29. D. OMC AND MDD
 OMC = 16%
 MDD = 1.78g/cc
1.745
1.75
1.755
1.76
1.765
1.77
1.775
1.78
1.785
1.79
1.795
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
DryDensity,g/cc
Water Content (%)

30. E. CBR
Penetration
(mm)
No. of
Division
Load in kgf CBR Value
0 0 0
0.5 4 19.52
1 7 34.16
1.5 10 48.8
2 13 58.56
2.5 16 68.32 5.69
3 19 78.08
4 23 97.6
5 27 117.12 6.41
7.5 34 156.16
10 41 200.8
12.5 46 224.48
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Load,kg Penetration (mm)
CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 5.69 and 6.41. So,
 CBR value of soil is 6.41

31. A. LIQUID LIMIT
Liquid Limit was found to be 23.61%
S.No. Particulars Observation
1. Container No. 20 28
2. No. Blows 27 23
3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11 8
4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 22 23
5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 20 20
6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 9 12
7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 2 3
8. Moisture Content, 22.22 25

32. B. PLASTIC LIMIT
 Plastic limit was found to be 16.6%
S.No. Particulars Observation
1. Container No. 10
2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11
3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 25
4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 23
5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 12
6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 2
7. Moisture Content, 16.6

33. C. SHRINKAGE LIMIT
1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat
S.No. Particulars Observations
1. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g
2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g
3. Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g
4. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc
5. Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc
2.Moisture Content of Wet Soil
S.No. Particulars Observation
2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g
3. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 64g
4. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 58g
5. Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 25g
6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g
7. Moisture Content, 23.8

34. Shrinkage limit was found to be 11.8%.
3.Volume of Dry Soil
S.No. Particulars Observations
1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g
2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 261g
3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc
4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.88cc
4.Result From Above Calculation
Particulars Result
Shrinkage Limit, 11.8%
Shrinkage Ratio, 1.577

35. D. OMC AND MDD
 OMC = 16.2%
 MDD = 1.79g/cc
1.745
1.75
1.755
1.76
1.765
1.77
1.775
1.78
1.785
1.79
1.795
0 5 10 15 20
DryDensity,g/cc
Water Content (%)

36. E. CBR
Penetration
(mm)
No. of
Division
Load in kg CBR
Value
0 0 0
0.5 2 14.64
1 6 29.28
1.5 9 43.92
2 13 63.44
2.5 17 82.96 6.05
3 20 102.48
4 27 141.52
5 35 170.8 8.3
7.5 41 219.6
10 52 258.64
12.5 61 297.68
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Load,kg
Penetration (mm)
CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 6.05 and 8.3. So,
CBR value of soil is 8.3.

37. SOIL WITH
12% BOTTOM ASH

38. A. LIQUID LIMIT
 Liquid Limit was found to be 21.82%
S.No. Particulars Observation
1. Container No. 21 23
2. No. Blows 28 23
3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 4 7
4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 21 18
5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 17 16
6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 14 9
7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 3 2
8. Moisture Content, 21.42 22.22

39. B. PLASTIC LIMIT
 Plastic limit was found to be 16%.
S.No. Particulars Observation
1. Container No. 10
2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11
3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 40
4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 36
5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 25
6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 4
7. Moisture Content, 16

40. C. SHRINKAGE LIMIT
1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat
S.No. Particulars Observations
1. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g
2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g
3. Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g
4. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc
5. Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc
2.Moisture Content of Wet Soil
S.No. Particulars Observation
2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g
3. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 66g
4. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 60g
5. Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 27g
6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g
7. Moisture Content, 22

41. Shrinkage limit was found to be 11.2%.
3.Volume of Dry Soil
S.No. Particulars Observations
1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g
2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 253g
3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc
4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.964cc
1. Result From Above Calculation
Particulars Result
Shrinkage Limit, 11.2%
Shrinkage Ratio, 1.69

42. D. OMC AND MDD
 OMC = 16.12%
 MDD = 1.78g/cc
1.745
1.75
1.755
1.76
1.765
1.77
1.775
1.78
1.785
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
DryDensity,g/cc
Water Content (%)

43. E. CBR
Penetration
(mm)
No. of
Division
Load in kgf CBR
Value
0 0 0
0.5 2 14.64
1 6 29.28
1.5 9 43.92
2 13 58.56
2.5 16 78.08 6.05
3 20 97.6
4 27 132.55
5 32 156.16 7.59
7.5 42 204.96
10 51 248.8
12.5 61 297.68
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Load,kg Penetration (mm)
CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 6.05 and 7.59. So,
CBR value of soil is 7.59.

44. CONCLUSION
21.1
14.28
10.77
15.7
21.76
15.38
11
16
23.61
16.6
11.8
16.2
21.82
16
11.2
16.12
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Shrinkage Limit OMC
Atterberg's Limit & OMC
Virgin Soil 4% Ash 8% Ash 12% Ash
1.777
5.69
1.78
6.41
1.79
8.3
1.78
7.59
MDD CBR
MDD & CBR
Virgin Soil 4% Ash 8% Ash 12% Ash

45. On the basis of various result such as
liquid limit, plastic limit, shrinkage
limit, max dry density and CBR value
we conclude that optimum value of ash
that is desirable to use to stabilize the
soil is found to be 8%.
As Plasticity index is 6.82 and liquid
limit is 21.1 hence soil was found as low
compressible silt and clay.
As the value of CBR is more for soil
with 8% ash than virgin soil. Hence it
increased the bearing capacity of soil.

46.  As thickness is sub-grade is less than virgin soil so it will reduce the cost of flexible
pavement design.
 So, we can use the BMSW ash with optimum value in flexible pavement design for
low traffic flow whose thickness will depend on the wheel load acting upon it.

47. REFRENCES
 IS: 2720 (Part 5-1985, 6-1972) Methods of tests for soil - Determination of
Atterberg's limits, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
 IS: 2720 (Part 7) 1980, Methods of tests for soil - Determination of water content -
dry density relation using light compaction, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
 IS: 2720 (Part 16) 1987, Methods of tests for soil - Laboratory determination of
CBR, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
 H.M. Alhassan and A.M. Tanko(2004) Characterization of solid waste incinerator
bottom ash.
 IRC (2001) Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements
 Vegas, J.A., Ibanez, J.T., San Jose., A. and Urzelai (2008)., Construction demolition
wastes, waste slag and MSWI bottom ash: a comparative technical analysis as
material for road construction