Strength Improvement of Black Cotton Soil by using Different Materials

Abstract

This study examines the effect of geotextiles, plastic rings, plastic shavings and fibres on soil California bearing capacity (CBR). The experiment evaluates the effectiveness of these additions to improve the bearing capacity and reduce the sedimentation of the soil samples. Geotextiles are introduced to improve soil compaction and reduce lateral movement. Plastic rings and chips are added to create voids and improve drainage, which can reduce water content and improve strength. Polypropylene Fibres were added to study their effect on soil reinforcement and stress distribution improvement. CBR tests are performed on soil samples with hand without these additives to quantify the improvement in strength and deformation properties. The results of this study should provide valuable information on the potential benefits of using geotextiles, plastic rings, plastic chips and polypropylene fibres in pavement construction to improve soil CBR of soils in pavement applications

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Black Cotton Soil :Black cotton soil, also known as regur soil, is a type of soil found in the Deccan Plateau region of India. It is characterized by its brown-black color, high clay content, and high shrink-swell properties.
2. CBR Test : CBR (California Bearing Ratio) testing is performed primarily to provide information for pavement design. It was first developed by the California State Highway Department. It is a penetration or subsidence test under load, mainly used to evaluate the base strength of roads, pavements and foundations..
3. Geotextiles: Geotextiles are essentially strong fabrics used in construction projects. They are the most Versatile type of geosynthetic material, with a wide range of applications. Due to the variety of Geotextiles available, choosing the right one for a specific project is crucial.
4. Polypropylene Fibres: Experiments were conducted using different Percentages of polypropylene fibres mixed with compacted soil samples. The tests measured the Soil’s strength, bearing capacity, and swelling behaviour. While the detailed results aren’t provided. This research suggests that fibre reinforcement has promise for improving problematic soils.
5. Plastic bottle : The project involves mixing the soil with various percentages of these plastic strips. Tests like Compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) will then be conducted to analyse the impact on Soil properties

IV. RESULT ANALYSIS

A. Free Swell Index Result Analysis

Here’s an analysis of the Free Swell Index test results :

• Free Swell Index: The Free Swell Index of the soil sample is 57.70%. A free swell index greater than 30% indicates a high swelling potential
• Interpretation:

The high Free Swell Index suggests that the soil sample has a high potential to swell when saturated with water. This can cause problems with foundations and other structures built on this soil, as the swelling soil can cause cracking and movement.

B. Liquid Limit Result Analysis

Atterberg Limits

• Liquid Limit (LL): The Liquid Limit is 65.50%. This is the moisture content at which the soil changes from a liquid state to a plastic state
• Plastic Limit (PL): The Plastic Limit is 27.40%. This is the moisture content at which the Soil changes from a plastic state to a brittle state .
• Plasticity Index (PI): The Plasticity Index (PI) is calculated as the difference between the
• Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). In this case, the PI is 65.50% - 27.40% = 38.10%. A higher PI value indicates a more plastic soil.

C. Grain Size Analysis Result Analysis

Here’s an analysis ofthe grain size distribution:

• Gravel(75-19 mm): 1.60% of the sample falls into the gravel size category.
• Sand (4.75-0.075 mm): 10.9% of the sample falls into the sand size category. This can be Further broken down into: Coarse sand (4.75-2.00 mm): 0.90% ,Medium sand (2.00-0.425 mm): 4.7% &Fine sand (0.425-0.075 mm): 5.3%
• Silt and Clay (particles smaller than 0.075 mm): 87.5% of the sample falls into the silt And clay size category.

D. Modified Proctor Test Result Analysis

• Dry Density (g/cm³): The data sheet shows the Dry Density for five different moisture Content values. The Dry Density increases as the moisture content increases up to a certain Point, and then starts to decrease. The highest Dry Density is 1.695 g/cm³ at a moisture Content of 22.00%, which is considered the Maximum Dry Density (MDD).
• Optimum Moisture Content (OMC): The Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) is the Moisture content at which the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) is achieved. In this case, the OMC is 22.00%

E. Cbr Test Result Analysis Noramal Black Soil

The report shows the results of the CBR test for three soil samples (moulds 24, 25, and 26).

The CBR values for the three samples are:

• Mould 24: 16.75 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 26.80 corrected load at 5.0 mm Penetration
• Mould 25: 33.50 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 53.60 corrected load at 5.0mm penetration
• Mould 26: 40.20 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 60.30 corrected load at 5.0 mm penetration
• The CBR values are all relatively low, which indicates that the soils are weak and may not be Suitable for use in pavements without additional treatment. The report does not specify what The soils will be used for, but the CBR values are typically used to design the thickness of Pavement layers.
• CBR VALUE IS :- 2.82%

F. CBR Test Result Analysis Black Soil + Geotextile

The report shows the results of the CBR test for three soil samples (moulds, 25, 26, and 34). The

CBR values for the three samples are:

• Penetration Mould 25: 20.10corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 30.15 corrected Load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration Mould 26: 30.15 corrected load at 2.5 mmpenetratioloa50.25 corrected Load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration Mould 34: 43.55 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 60.30 corrected Load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration The CBR values are all relatively low, which indicates that the soils are weak and

May not be suitable for use in pavements without additional treatment. The report does not

Specify what the soils will be used for, but the CBR values are typically used to design the

Thickness of Pavement layers

CBR VALUE IS :- 3.05%

G. CBR Test Result Analysis Black Soil + Fiber

The report shows the results of the CBR test for three soil samples (moulds, 33, 31, and 35). The

CBR values for the three samples are:

• Penetration Mould 33: 16.75 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 26.80 corrected load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration Mould 31: 20.10 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 33.50 corrected load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration Mould 35: 33.50 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 50.25 corrected load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration The CBR values are all relatively low, which indicates that the soils are weak and may not be suitable for use in pavements without additional treatment. The report does not specify what the soils will be used for, but the CBR values are typically used to design the thickness of Pavement layers
• CBR VALUE IS :- 2.40%

H. CBR Test Result Analysis Black Soil + Plastic Chips

The report shows the results of the CBR test for three soil samples (moulds, 20, 21, and 25). The

CBR values for the three samples are:

• Penetration Mould 20: 43.55 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 60.30 corrected load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration Mould 21: 46.90 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 67.00 corrected load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration Mould 25: 56.95 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 73.70 corrected load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration The CBR values are all relatively low, which indicates that the soils are weak and may not be suitable for use in pavements without additional treatment. The report does not specify what the soils will be used for, but the CBR values are typically used to design the thickness of Pavement layers
•  CBR VALUE IS : 4.00 %

I. CBR Test Result Analysis Black Soil + Plastic Rings

The report shows the results of the CBR test for three soil samples (moulds, 30, 34, and 31). The

CBR values for the three samples are:

• Penetration Mould 25: 23.45 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 33.50 corrected load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration Mould 26: 36.85 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 60.30 corrected load at 5.0 min
• Penetration Mould 34: 46.90 corrected load at 2.5 mm penetration, 63.65 corrected load at 5.0 mm
• Penetration The CBR values are all relatively low, which indicates that the soils are weak and May not be suitable for use in pavements without additional treatment. The report does not Specify what the soils will be used for, but the CBR values are typically used to design the Thickness of Pavement layers
• CBR VALUE IS :- 3.35 %

Conclusion

Black cotton soil, despite its weakness, can be boosted for embankments using plastic waste. Crushed plastic or strips mixed in the soil improve its strength and reduce swelling. This creates a Stronger, more stable material for building embankments. However, this method doesn’t address the core issue for subgrades – shrinkage and swelling with Moisture changes. Embankments sit above ground with less water exposure, but subgrades are Directly impacted by seasonal variations. The treated soil might still experience these drastic volume Changes, causing cracks and compromising the structural integrity of the road or building above. In short, plastic waste strengthens black cotton soil for embankments, but it doesn’t address the Moisture sensitivity that plagues subgrades.

References

[1] Tingle, J. S. And Jersey, S. R. (2005). “Cyclic plate load testing of geosynthetic reinforced Unbounded aggregate roads.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1936, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington ,D.C., pp. 60-69 [2] MILAD SAGHEBFAR (2014). “PERFORMANCE OF GEOTEXTILE-REINFORCED BASES FOR PAVED ROADS”. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Upload by Milad saghebfar. [3] Bayomy, F. M., Al-Shaikh, A. M., and Abduljauwad, S. N. (1996). “Effect of geotextile on Permanent deformation in salt-encrusted subgrade soils.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of The Transportation Research Board, No. 1534, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp.40-49. [4] Bhutta, S. A. (1998). “Mechanistic-empirical pavement design procedure for geosynthetically Stabilized flexible pavements.” Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA [5] Brandon, T. L., Al-Qadi, L. L., Lacina, B. A., and Bhutta, S. A. (2005). “Construction and Instrumentation of geosynthetically stabilized secondary road test sections.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1534, Transportation Research Board, Washington,D.C.pp.50-57. [6] BHBouacha, N.; Bouguerra, A.; Bouafia, (2023) Improving the Resilience Of the Road Network in Algeria A Comparative Analysis of Flexible, Geosynthetically Reinforced, and Rigid 14426.https://doi.org/10.3390/Su151914426 [7] Dr. Umesh Sharmaa, Abhishek Kanaoungob, And Ankita Khatric (2018). Application of Geotextiles In Pavement Drainage Systems” International Journal of Civil Engineering Research. ISSN 2278-3652 Volume 5, Number 4 (2014), pp. 385- 390 Research India Publications http://www.ripublication.com/ijcer.html [8] Dr. P. Senthil Kumar, R. Rajkumar (2012). “Effect of Geotextile on CBR Strength of Unpaved Road with Soft Subgrade”. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 17. Uploaded by rajkumar Ramasamy. [9] R. M. Tailor, M.D. Desai and N. C. Shah, (20115-17 “Geotextile as reinforcement in flexible Pavement for swelling” Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference December 15-17, 2011, Kochi(PaperNo.J-230.). [10] Nikhil Verma, Prateek Malik (2015). “Use of Geosynthetic Material To Improve the Properties of Subgrade Soil” ISSN: 2278-0181, Vol. 4 [11] Debasree Paul, Tarikul Islam, Mir Muhammad Fahad and Engr. Md. Eanamul Haque Nizam (2017),“Geotextiles-A Potential Technical Textile Product”. The Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research November 2017.uploaded by Tarikul Islam. [12] Ravindra Kumar, Utsav Singh, Priyanshu Saini, Varun Sharma and Matloob Ali (2020). A Study Review on Geosynthetics use on Flexible Pavement Design “.Published by International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181. Vol. 9 Issue 06, June-2020 [13] Natika Farooq, Er. Manish Kaushal(2022). “Use of Geosynthetic to improve the property of flexible Pavements”. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (JERT). Volume 10

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Mr. Alpesh K Sankhat , Shivani Joshi , Vijay Baraiya . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.