by

DARSHAN GC
USN: 5WK12CHT04
Highway Technology
GSKSJTI Banglore-01
Under the Guidance of
Dr. K.V MANOJ KRISHNA
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Civil Engineering
Govt.S.K.S.J.T.I

Introduction

Literature review
Materials and Methods
Scope of the investigation
Results and discussion
Compaction behaviour of
lime treated shedi soil
Shear
strength
behaviour
of lime treated shedi
reinforced
with
randomly
reinforced
distributed with
fibersrandomly distributed fibers
Conclusion
References
Future scope of the work

soil

Stabilisation incorporates the various methods

employed for modifying the properties of

to improve its engineering performance.

Two main methods of stabilisation
Mechanical stabilisation
Chemical stabilisation

a soil

Mechanical

stabilisation

involves

composition of soil by addition

changing

or removal

constituents.

Chemical stabilisation involves addition of different

chemicals to soil for stabilisation.

the

of certain

Advantages of Chemical Stabilization of

Setting time and curing time can be controlled.

It gives more strength to soil.

The compacted density of the soil is increases.

Improves the permeability of soil.

Soil

Disadvantages of Chemical Stabilization

Relatively expensive

The treated soil may

loose strength

when exposed to air or

ground water

Requires experienced labours

Chemical should not be used directly to the surface

Reinforced soil is the technique where tensile

elements are placed in the soil to improve stability
and control deformation.
Advantages of soil reinforced with fiber
More importantly,
toughness

fibre reinforced

and ductility

soil exhibits

and smaller loss of

strength, as compared to soil alone.

greater

post peak

Advantages of lime treated soil reinforced with

fibers

It improves strength of soil

It improves ductility behaviour

of soil

LITERATURE REVIEW
YEAR

RESEARCHERS

TITLE

PUBLICATION

1989

Prakash K et.al

Effect of lime on the index and

engineering properties of
expansive soil

Indian
Geotechnical
Conference

1990

Jacques Locat et.al

Laboratory investigation on the

lime stabilization of sensitive clay

Canadian
Geotechnical
Conference

1994

Maher M H and Ho

Mechanical properties
kaolinite/fiber soil composite

Journal of

YC

1999

Dallas N Little

Mixture design and testing

procedures for lime stabilized soil

2003

Omer Salbas and

Temel Yetimoglu

A study on shear strength of

expansive soil reinforced with
randomly distributed fiber

2008

Naeini S A and
Sadjadi S M

Effect of waste polymer materials

on shear strength of unsaturated
clays

Geotechnical

Engineering
National lime
association
Geotextiles and
Geomembranes
Journal of
Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental
Engineering

YEAR

RESEARCHER

TITLE

PUBLICATIONS

2009

Suresh Praveen kumar and

Rajasekhar K

Laboratory investigation of shedi

soil stabilized with pond ash and
coir

Indian geotechnical
conference

2010

Ayyappan et.al

Investigation of engineering
behaviour of soil reinforced with
polypropylene fibers and fly ash
mixtures for road constructions

2011

Kiki A H et.al

Compressive and tensile

strength of fibrous clayey soil
stabilized with lime

2012

Muthu Kumar M

Strength behaviour of
polypropylene fiber reinforced
expansive soil

2013

Parag M et.al

2014

Harshita Bairagi R K and Yadav R

Jain

Performance of coir fiber

reinforced clayey soil

Effect of jute fibers on

engineering properties of lime
treated black cotton soil

International journal of
environmental science
and development

Al-Rafidain engineering

International journal of
engineering research and
applications

International journal of
engineering and science

International journal of
engineering research and
technology

MATERIAL AND METHOD

S
S

( Shedi Soil BIS 425

sieved)

PROPERTIES

RESULTS

Colour

Pink

Specific gravity

2.41

Liquid limit (%)

24.00

Plastic limit (%)

12.06

Shrinkage limit (%)

Plasticity Index (%)

9.96

11.94

Maximum Dry Density (kN/m^3)

19.52

Optimum Moisture Content (%)

11.18

Angle of internal friction ()

Cohesion (C) (kN/m^2)
Soaked CBR (%)

5
6.00
3.80

Lim used
e
for

Chemical composition
COMPOSITION

presen investigatio
t
n

PERCENTAGE

Assay (min)

95.00%

Chloride (max)

0.01%

Sulphate (max)

0.20%

Arsenic (max)

0.0004%

Lead (max)

0.001%

Insoluble matter
(max)

1.00%

Natural fibers
Coir fibre

Jute fibre

Artificial fibers
Nylon fibre

Polypropylene fibre

Type of fiber

Coir

Jute

Colour

Brown

Brown

Length (mm)

1-38

1-38

Specific gravity

0.95

0.56

Density (kN/m3)

1.30

1.24

Water absorption (%)

12.00

51.28

Cost of fiber per Kg

70.00

75.00

Type of fiber

Nylon

Polypropylene

Colour

Blue

White

Length (mm)

1-38

1-38

Specific gravity

1.05

0.10

Density (kN/m3)

1.10

1.01

Water absorption (%)

0.00

0.00

Cost of fiber per Kg

85.00

40.00

Compaction test
[Concept courtesy by Professor Shridharan and Professor Shivapullaiah IISc]

Special compaction apparatus used in present investigation

Direct shear test equipment used in present investigation

Samples kept for curing in desiccators

 Basic properties of shedi soil, coir, jute, nylon and

polypropylene fibre.
Compaction behaviour of shedi soil with randomly
distributed
coir fiber, jute fiber,
Nylon fiber
Polypropylene fiber with or without lime

Peak strength and stress-strain behaviour of shedi

soil
reinforced
with
coir,
jute,
nylon
polypropylene with and without lime

and

and

Compaction

behaviour

of lime treated shedi soil

20
Shedi soil(SS) alone
19

Shedi soil+1%Lime
Shedi soil+2%Lime

18

Dry density (KN/m^3)

Shedi soil+3%Lime
17

Shedi soil+4%Lime
Shedi soil+5%Lime

16
Shedi soil+6%Lime
15

14
0

12

15

18

21

24

water content (%)

Variation of Dry density Versus Water content for Shedi Soil treated
with varying percentage of lime

Compaction behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different percentage

of randomly distributed coir fiber
20.5

Shedi soil(SS) alone

SS+0.25%RDCF

19.5

SS+0.50%RDCF
SS+0.75%RDCF

18.5

SS+1.00%RDCF
SS+1.25%RDCF
SS+1.5%RDCF

(KN/m^3)

Dry density

17.5

16.5

15.5

14.5
0

12

15

18

21

24

water content (%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Shedi Soil reinforced with
varying percentage of randomly distributed Coir fiber

Compaction behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different percentage

of randomly distributed jute fiber
20.5
Shedi soil(SS) alone
SS+0.25%RDJF
19.5
SS+0.50%RDJF
SS+0.75%RDJF
18.5

SS+1.0%RDJF
SS+1.25%RDJF

17.5

SS+1.50%RDJF

16.5

(KN/m^3)

Dry density

SS+1.75%RDJF
SS+2.0%RDJF

15.5

14.5
3

12

15

18

21

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density Versus Water content for Shedi Soil reinforced
with varying percentage of randomly distributed jute fiber

Compaction behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different percentage

of randomly distributed nylon fiber
20.5

Shedi soil(SS) alone

19.5
SS+0.2%RDNF
SS+0.4%RDNF

18.5

SS+0.6%RDNF
17.5

(KN/m^3)

Dry density

SS+0.8%RDNF
SS+1.0%RDNF

16.5

15.5

14.5
0

12

15

18

21

24

Water
content(%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Shedi Soil reinforced with
varying percentage of randomly distributed Nylon fiber

Compaction behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different percentage

of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber
20.5
Shedi soil(SS) alone
SS+0.2%RDPPF

19.5

SS+0.4%RDPPF
18.5

SS+0.6%RDPPF
SS+0.8%RDPPF

17.5

(KN/m^3)

Dry density

SS+1.0%RDPPF

16.5

15.5

14.5
0

12

15

18

21

24

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density V/S Water content for Shedi Soil reinforced with
varying percentage of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber

Compaction behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with different

percentage of randomly distributed coir fiber
20.5

Shedi soil(SS) alone

SS+4%Lime

19.5
SS+4%L+0.25%RDCF
18.5

SS+4%L+0.5%RDCF
SS+4%L+0.75%RDCF

17.5

(KN/m^3)

Dry density

SS+4%L+1.0%RDCF
SS+4%L+1.25%RDCF

16.5

SS+4%L+1.50%RDCF
15.5

14.5
0

12

15

18

21

24

Water
content(%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Shedi Soil reinforced
with varying percentage of randomly distributed Coir fiber

Compaction behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with different

percentage of randomly distributed jute fiber
20
19.5
Shedi soil(SS) alone
19

SS+4%Lime
SS+4%L+0.25%RDJF

18.5

SS+4%L+0.50%RDJF

Dry density(kN/m^3)

18
SS+4%L+0.75%RDJF
17.5

SS+4%L+1.0%RDJF
SS+4%L+1.25%RDJF

17

SS+4%L+1.50%RDJF
16.5
SS+4%L+1.75%RDJF
16

SS+4%L+2.0%RDJF

15.5
15
0

12

15

18

21

24

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Lime treated Shedi Soil
reinforced with Randomly Distributed Jute Fiber

Compaction behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with different

percentage of randomly distributed nylon fiber
20.5

Shedi soil(SS) alone

SS+4%LIME

19.5

SS+4%L+0.2%RDNF
18.5

SS+4%L+0.4%RDNF

SS+4%L+0.6%RDNF
17.5

16.5
(kN/m^3)

Dry density

SS+4%L+0.8%RDNF
SS+4%L+1.0%RDNF

15.5

14.5
0

12

15

18

21

24

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Lime treated Shedi Soil
reinforced with randomly distributed nylon fiber

Compaction behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with different

percentage of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber
Shedi soil(SS) alone

20.5

SS+4%Lime
19.5
SS+4%L+0.2%RDPPF

SS+4%L+0.4%RDPPF

18.5

SS+4%L+0.6%RDPPF

density(kN/m^3)

Dry

17.5

SS+4%L+0.8%RDPPF

SS+4%L+1.0%RDPPF

16.5

15.5

14.5
0

12

15

18

21

24

Water content(%)

Variation of Dry density versus Water content for Lime treated Shedi Soil
reinforced with randomly distributed polypropylene fiber

Strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil

reinforced with randomly distributed fibers

Shear strength behaviour of shedi soil treated with lime
200
0 days
180

7 days

160

30 days

Peak shear strength (kN/m^2)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

Lime
(%)

Variation of shear stress with respect to varying percentage of lime

Shear strength behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different

percentage of randomly distributed coir fiber (30 days curing )
70
0 days
60
7 days
50

30 days

40

20

(kN/m^2)

Peak shear strength

30

10

0
0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.25

1.5

1.75

RDCF
(%)

Variation of shear stress with respect to varying percentage of randomly distributed

coir fiber

Shear strength behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different

percentage of randomly distributed jute fiber (30 days curing)
90
0 days
80
7 days
70
30 days
60

50

30

20
(kN/m^2)

Peak shear strength

40

10

0
0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.25

1.5

1.75

RDJF
(%)

Variation of shear stress with respect to varying percentage of randomly distributed

jute fiber

Shear strength behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different

percentage of randomly distributed nylon fiber (30 days curing)
60

50

40

30

7 days

20

30 days
(kN/m^2)

Peak shear strength

0 days

10

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

RDNF
(%)

Variation of shear stress with respect to varying percentage of randomly

distributed nylon fiber

Shear strength behaviour of shedi soil reinforced with different

percentage of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber (30 days curing)
80

70

60

40

0 days
7 days
30 days

30
(kN/m^2)

Peak shear strength

50

20

10

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

RDPPF
(%)

Variation of shear stress with respect to varying percentage of randomly

distributed polypropylene fiber

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with

different percentage of randomly distributed coir fiber (45 days curing)
200
180
Shedi soil(SS) alone
160

SS+4%Lime
SS+4%L+0.25%RDCF

120

SS+4%L+0.50%RDCF

100

SS+4%L+0.75%RDCF

80

SS+4%L+1.00%RDCF
SS+4%L+1.25%RDCF

60

SS+4%L+1.50%RDCF
(kN/m^2)

Peak shear strength

140

40
20
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Curing period (days)

Variation of shear stress of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with randomly
distributed coir fiber at different curing periods

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with

different percentage of randomly distributed jute fiber (45 days curing)
Shedi soi(SS) alone
200
SS+4%Lime
180
SS+4%L+0.25% RDJF

160

SS+4%L+0.50% RDJF

140

SS+4%L+0.75% RDJF

(kN/m^2)

Peak shear strength

120
100

SS+4%L+1.00% RDJF

80

SS+4%L+1.25% RDJF

60

SS+4%L+1.5%RDJF

40

SS+4%L+1.75% RDJF

20

SS+4%L+2.00% RDJF

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Curing period
(days)

Variation of shear stress of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with randomly
distributed jute fiber at different curing periods

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with

different percentage of randomly distributed nylon fiber (45 days curing)
200

Shedi soi(SS)l alone

180

SS+4%Lime

(kN/m^2)

Peak sh ar strength

160

SS+4%L+0.2% RDNF

140

SS+4%L+0.4% RDNF

120

SS+4%L+0.6% RDNF

100

SS+4%L+0.8% RDNF

80

SS+4%L+1.0% RDNF

60
40
20
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Curing period
(days)

Variation of shear stress of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with randomly
distributed nylon fiber at different curing periods

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with

different percentage of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber (45 days)
200
180

Shedi soi(SS)l alone

160

SS+4%Lime

140

SS+4%L+0.2%RDPPF

SS+4%L+0.4%RDPPF

100

SS+4%L+0.6%RDPPF

80
(kN/m^2)

Peak shear strength

120

SS+4%L+0.8%RDPPF

60
SS+4%L+1.0%RDPPF
40
20
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Curing period
(days)

Variation of shear stress of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with randomly
distributed polypropylene fiber at different curing periods

Shear strength behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with

optimum percentage of randomly distributed fibers (60 days curing)
200
180
160

120
Shedi soil alone
SS+4%Lime

100
(kN/m^2)

Peak shear strength

140

SS+4%L+1.25%RDCF
SS+4%L+0.75%RDJF

80

SS+4%L+0.6%RDNF
60

SS+4%L+0.2%RDPPF

40
20
0
0

15

30

45

60

Curing period
(days)

Variation of peak shear strength of lime treated shedi soil with optimum
percentage of all fibers with curing (60days)

Stress-strain behaviour of lime treated shedi soil reinforced with optimum

percentage of natural and artificial fibers with curing (60days)
250
Normal stress=100kN/m^2
Strain
rate=1.25mm/min
Conducted
at=Their OMC and
Conducted
MDD at=Their OMC and
Curing period = 60days

200

Shedi soil alone

Shedi
She soil 4%Lime
150

SS+4%Lime+1.25%RDCF
She

SS+4%Lime+0.6%RDNF
SS+
100

SS+4%Lime+0.2%RDPPF
SS+

(kN/^2)

Shear stress

SS+4%Lime+0.75%RDJF
SS+

SS+

50

0
0

6
Strain
(%)

10

12

14

Shedi soil treated with 4% Lime (by weight of soil) is found

to

be optimum from compaction and direct shear test.

Shedi soil reinforced
with 1.25%
RDCF(by
weight
soil), 1.5% RDJF(by weight of soil) 0.8% RDNF(by weight
soil) and shedi soil reinforced with 0.8% RDPPF(by weight
soil) shows higher maximum dry density compared to other

of

of
of

fibre combination.
Shedi soil reinforced with 1.25% randomly distributed coir
fiber(by weight of soil),shedi soil reinforced with
1.5%
randomly disturbed jute fiber(by weight of soil), shedi soil
reinforce with 0.8% randomly distributed nylon fiber (by
0.8% randomly
d weight soil)and shedi soil reinforced with
distributed
polypropylene fiber (by weight of soil) shows higher
of

strength on compared with shedi soil.

From Direct shear test it is found that Lime treated shedi

coir fiber
soil reinforced with 1.25% of randomly distributed
and lime treated shedi soil
reinforced with 0.75% of
randomly

distributed jute is found to be optimum.

Lime treated Shedi soil reinforced with 0.6%of randomly
distributed nylon and lime treated shedi soil reinforced with

0.2% of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber is found to

curing periods.

Which is found from the direct shear test.

Addition of fibres to the shedi soil changes the failure

pattern from brittle to ductile behaviour and strain
is
increased by 2.6 folds
on compared to shedi soil and strain
increased by 4.4 folds on compared to lime treated shedi soil.

This indicates it exhibits ductile behaviour in all lime treated

shedi soil-fiber combinations.

Prakash K., Sridharan A and Rao S.M. (1989). Effect of lime on

the index
and engineering properties of expansive soil.
Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 20, pp 39-44

Jacques Locat., Marc-Andre Berube and Marc Choquette., (1990).

Laboratory investigation on the lime stabilization of sensitive
clay. Canadian geotechnical conference, Volume 27, pp 294-303

Maher M.H and Y.C. Ho., 1994. Mechanical properties

of
Kaolinite/Fiber
soil
composite.
Journal
of
Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 120 [8], pp 1381-1393

Dallas N. Little (1999). Mixture design and testing procedures for

lime stabilized soil, National Lime Association

Peter Evans (1997). Update on lime stabilization, Geotechnical

Engineering, Volume. 2, pp 1-18

Suresh Praveen Kumar and Rajasekhar k (2009).

Laboratory Investigation of Shedi Soil Stabilized with Pond
Ash and Coir.IGC 2009, Guntur, INDIA, pp-428-430

Kate J.M., (2009). Behavior of expansive clays on

engineering properties treated with lime. International
geotechnical conference, pp 88-91

Suresh K., Padmavathi

V and Apsal sulthana (2009).
Experimental study on stabilization of black cotton soil with

stone dust and fibre. International geotechnical conference,

pp

502-505

Ramesh H.N., Manoj Krishna K V and Mamatha H.V (2010).

Compaction and strength behaviour of lime-coir fiber treated
black cotton soil. Geomechanics and Engineering, an
international
journal published in USA-Korea, Volume
2, Issue 1, pp 19-28

Ramesh H.N., Krishnaiah

A.J and Supriya M.D (2012).
Effect of Lime on the Compaction and Strength Behavior of

red earth soil. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil

Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 01-06

Parag M. Chaple and A I. Dhatrak (2013). Performance of

Coir fiber Reinforced Clayey Soil. The International Journal
Of Engineering And Science (IJES), Vol. 2, Issue 4, pp54-64
Pandey. K. Bajaj and A. P. Singh (2013). Soil Stabilization
Using Pozzolanic
Material and Jute Fibre. Indian
Geotechnical Conference (IGC), pp 01-08
Prathap Kumar M.T.and
Jairaj (2014). Shear Strength
Parameters of BC Soil Admixed with Different Length of Coir
Fiber.
IJERT,
ISSN:
2278-0181,
Vol.3
Issue
4, April-2014

X-ray diffraction studies and electronic

micro static (EDM)

studies at various curing period are necessary

As these results are validated for duration of 60 days curing

periods like 1 year to 2 years

Financial out-lay

of these combinations

necessary

for field

engineers for selection of combinations based on project and

financial constraints

Comparison of field study with laboratory values