performance evaluation of cement stabilized and fiber reinforced … · 2019-06-28 · and randomly...

DOI:10.21884/IJMTER.2019.6020.BZZFQ 10

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CEMENT STABILIZED AND

FIBER REINFORCED SURKHI/BRICK KILN DUST-CLAY MIXES

AS A HIGHWAY SUB-GRADE MATERIAL

Kanav Mehta1, Akshit Mahajan

2, Arjun Kumar

2

1Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar (Pb)

2Department of Civil Engineering, Vaishno College of Engineering, Thapkour (H.P.)

Abstract—Soil has the most important role for any civil engineering project as it is the most basic foundation for it. The soil is required to bear the loads coming on it without failure, but not

necessarily it happens in all the cases, as, it may be weak in some regions. There are many methods

available for the stabilization of soils with materials like cement, lime as additive, chemical

stabilization. Further, for achieving goal of sustainable development with environmental and

economic issues, various waste materials like kiln wastes, plastic wastes and industrial wastes, etc

have caught the eye of researchers in the past, say, like utilization of waste brick dust or surkhi/brick

kiln dust is helping the motives by elimination of solid waste problem. So, local weak soil stabilized

with surkhi/brick kiln dust- cement first and further, an effort has been made in this study by

introducing the fibers as polypropylene fibers randomly mixed to surkhi/brick kiln dust-cement

stabilized soil and checking the properties like compaction properties; Unconfined compression

strength (UCS), California bearing ratio (CBR) afterwards, expected to be improved further due to

tensile inclusions incorporated into soil. The CBR value is expected to increase with inclusion of

such fibers on surkhi/brick kiln dust- cement stabilized soil, helping decreasing the design thickness

of subgrade at desired strength based on specifications, and hence, decreasing the overall

construction cost with theme of sustainable development maintained. Samples with varying

surkhi/brick kiln dust- cement content were prepared prior to testing and the content of same giving

best results were further subjected to polypropylene fibers dose at the random to check the impact of

same to improved soil. Experimental results indicate there is a significant improvement in properties

of soil like California bearing ratio (soaked and unsoaked), Unconfined compression strength at

worked compaction levels. In extensive series of tests were carried out but due to time constraint

only one type of fiber at random was used on the improved soil. Hence, more researches are needed

to be executed with different type of fibers to observe the behavior of such soils.

Keywords— soil stabilization, surkhi/brick kiln dust, polypropylene fiber, Unconfined compression

strength (UCS), California bearing ratio (CBR).

I. INTRODUCTION

Soil is a dynamic natural body capable of supporting a vegetative cover. The supporting soil

beneath the pavement and its special under courses is called subgrade. Subgrade soil is an integral

part of the road pavement structure as it provides the support to the pavement from beneath.

Construction of pavement over weak subgrades such as clay creates a lot of problems for civil

engineers because of its low California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value and alternate swell-shrink

behavior. In such cases weak soil is wholly removed and replaced by the soil possessing better

stability. The method of removal and replacement of weak subgrade soil results in increasing the cost

of construction of pavement if large quantity of soil is to be replaced. This necessitates the use of soil

stabilization methods.

International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Research (IJMTER) Volume 06, Issue 06, [June– 2019] ISSN (Online):2349–9745 ; ISSN (Print):2393-8161

@IJMTER-2019, All rights Reserved 11

Soil stabilization is manipulation of foundation or base soils with or without admixtures, to

increase their load-carrying capacity and resistance to physical and chemical stresses of the

environment over the service life of the engineered facility. Properties of soil such as strength,

stiffness, compressibility, permeability, workability, swelling potential, frost susceptibility, water

sensitivity and volume change tendency may alter by various methods of soil stabilization.

Brick making is a traditional but important industry in India and other developing countries.

Based on the limited information available on the brick industry in India, it is estimated that more

than 100,000 kilns produce about 80 to 100 billion bricks per year. Hence, along with such enormous

production, brick industry is well versed with generation of large amount of wastes. Surkhi/brick kiln

dust or brick dust is a form of brick industry waste and has been collected from local brick kilns at

nominal cost. It has red color and is fine in nature. It has great ability to reduce the swelling potential

of soils like clays and black cotton soil. The surkhi/brick kiln dust have major constituents mainly

alumino- silicates and some silica quartz. It has pozzolanic properties and can be used as filler

material in concrete also. The advantages of using residue or waste as a fill material include low cost

and good strength. Some of the physical properties of brick dust as per observations by some

researchers/authors are as follows:

Table 1. Physical Properties of Brick Dust as per Observations of Various Authors

Authors Specific Gravity Fineness Modulus Water Absorption (%)

Aliabdo et al. (2013) [6] 2.43 2.44 20.00

Sharma et al. (2014) [3] 2.35 3.73 -

Kamal Uddin (2004) [1] 2.60 2.11 -

Number of researchers have studied the stabilization of different types of soils by surkhi/brick kiln

dust/brick dust, cement, fibers. However, only few studies have been carried out on the stabilization

of soil using waste materials like the above in combination or blend.

In this study the geotechnical behaviour of clay mixed with surkhi/brick kiln dust/brick dust, cement

and randomly distributed fibers has been studied with following objectives:

To study the influence of surkhi/brick kiln dust on properties of soil.

To study the compaction properties, Unconfined compression strength, and CBR values of cement treated and fiber reinforced soil and surkhi/brick kiln dust mix for highway subgrade

use.

To achieve these objectives the variation in surkhi/brick kiln dust/brick dust content has been

proposed as 0 to 20%, cement content as 3 and 6% by dry weight of soil sample respectively.

Polypropylene fibers of length 6 mm and 12 mm at a fibers content of 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5% (by dry

weight) have been used in the experiments.

II. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

A comprehensive series of laboratory tests were conducted on the selected clayey soil mixed with

various percentages of surkhi/brick kiln dust/ brick dust and cement. The tests performed include

modified Proctor compaction test, Unconfined compression strength test, California bearing ratio

tests. Table 2 presents a summary of tests to be conducted on various combinations of soil,

surkhi/brick kiln dust and cement. All specimens were prepared to the maximum dry density (MDD)

and optimum moisture content (OMC). The general expression for the total dry weight W of a

surkhi/brick kiln dust- soil- cement mixture is

W= WC + WSU + WC…………………….. (Eq. 1)



Where WSU, WC and WC = weights of surkhi/brick kiln dust, clay and cement respectively

Table 2. Detail of Surkhi/brick kiln dust- Soil- Cement- tests conducted

W= WSU + WS + WC

Variation of WSU

(% by total dry

weight)

Variation of WC (% by

dry weight)

Variation of WC (% by

total dry weight)

Curing Period

(Days)

Combination 1 0 100, 97, 94 0, 3, 6 0, 7, 14, 28

Combination 2 5 95, 92, 89 0, 3, 6 0, 7, 14, 28

Combination 3 10 90, 87, 84 0, 3, 6 0, 7, 14, 28

Combination 4 15 85, 82, 79 0, 3, 6 0, 7, 14, 28

Combination 5 20 80, 77, 74 0, 3, 6 0, 7, 14, 28

A. Modified Proctor Compaction Test

To determine the water content-dry density relation, modified compaction tests (heavy compaction

test) were conducted on plain soil and soil with admixtures. Compaction was done manually. Firstly,

the tests were conducted on plain soil sample by varying the percentage of water in order to find

optimum water content and maximum dry density. Later on the tests were conducted on soil admixed

with surkhi/brick kiln dust- cement by dry weight of soil and then to its optimum dosed configuration

of soil mass, with the inclusion of fibers at random. Individual compaction tests were conducted for

each percentage variations to find optimum water content and dry density.

B. OMC-MDD Relation for the Plain and Surkhi/brick kiln dust-Cement Treated Soil

These tests are performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The specimens were of 101.6mm

diameter and 116mm height. The mix was compacted for about 1 hour, as the degree of compaction

of soil influences several of its engineering properties such as CBR value, compressibility, stiffness,

compressive strength, permeability, shrink, and swell potential. It is therefore, important to achieve

the desired degree of relative compaction necessary to meet the required soil characteristics. Results

are presented in Figure 2 to 4.

Figure 1. Compaction Mould and Equipments Figure 2. Dry density versus moisture content (%) for

different combinations of mixes (cement 0%)

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

0 5 10 15 20

Dry D

en

sity

(g/c

c)

Moisture Content (%)

100% CLAY

95% CLAY + 5% SURKHI


85% CLAY+ 15% SURKHI

80% CLAY+ 20% SURKHI

Series5



Figure 3. Dry density versus moisture content (%) for




C. California Bearing Ratio Test

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test is an important test of sub grade soil performed to evaluate the

suitability of sub grade soil in design of pavement. In this test the soil sample is prepared in the

laboratory at OMC of virgin soil. The CBR sample is then tested in compression testing machine in

which load is applied to the confined soil sample and load readings are noted corresponding to

different penetrations i.e. 0.5 mm to 12 mm. The CBR value of the soil is then calculated at 2.5 mm

and 5.0 mm penetration respectively. Normally the CBR value at 2.5 mm penetration which is higher

than that at 5.0 mm penetration is reported as the CBR value of the material. However, if the CBR

value obtained from the test at 5 mm penetration is higher than that at 2.5 mm, then the test is to be

repeated for checking. If the check test again gives the similar results, the higher value obtained at

5.0 mm penetration is reported as the CBR value.

CBR value =

Test Load Corresponding to 2.5 mm penetration

or 5 mm penetration whichever is higher

Standard Load Corresponding to the above penetration× 100

CBR value is always reported in percentage.The following table gives the total standard load adopted

for different penetration depth for the standard material with a CBR value of 100% as per IS

standards.

Table 3. Standard Loads Adopted for different Penetrations

Sr.

No.

Penetration

Depth

(mm)

Total Standard Load

(kg) 1 2.5 1370

2 5.0 2055

3 7.5 2630

4 10.0 3180

5 12.5 3600

Figure 5. CBR Test Apparatus

1.6

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

0 5 10 15 20

Dry D

en

sity

(g/c

c)


97% CLAY+ 3% C

92% CLAY + 5%

SURKHI+ 3% C87% CLAY + 10%

SURKHI+ 3% C82% CLAY+ 15%

SURKHI+ 3% C77% CLAY+ 20%

SURKHI+ 3% C

1.58

1.63

1.68

1.73

1.78

1.83

1.88

0 5 10 15 20

Dry D

en

sity

(g/c

c)


94% CLAY+ 6% C

89% CLAY+ 5%

SURKHI+ 6% C

84% CLAY+ 10%

SURKHI+ 6% C

79% CLAY+ 15%

SURKHI+ 6% C

74% CLAY+ 20%

SURKHI+ 6% C



Hence, herewith the CBR tests were conducted on specimens prepared in a cylindrical mould of 150

mm diameter and 175mm height. The specimens were prepared by compacting samples in 5 layers at

its MDD and OMC based on modified Proctor compaction test. The tests were conducted in

accordance with ASTM D1883-07 (ASTM 2007). The specimens were immersed in water for 4 days

before crushing by applying compressive pressures. This condition produced a soaked CBR value.

D. Specimen Preparation and Testing Procedure for CBR Test for plain and treated soils

The CBR test on stabilized and un-stabilized soil specimens was conducted in accordance with

ASTM D 1883-07 (ASTM 2007). Similar procedure was followed for specimen preparation as

presented in this report. The specimens were made in the CBR-mould of 150 mm-diameter and 175-

mm height by compacting samples in five layers as in the modified Proctor compaction test.

Penetration testing was carried out with the help of a plunger of cross-sectional area of 19.35 cm2.

The rate of penetration was 1.27 mm/min. The CBR value was calculated corresponding to 2.5 mm

penetration, because this was always higher than the value obtained at a penetration of 5.0 mm. Test

results both for soaked and unsoaked conditions are shown in Figure 6 to 11.

Figure 6. Stress-penetration behavior of clay-surkhi/brick

kiln dust mix with 0% cement (Soaked)

Figure 7. Stress-penetration behavior of clay-

surkhi/brick kiln dust mix with 3% cement (Soaked)

Figure 8. Stress-penetration behavior of clay-surkhi/brick

kiln dust mix with 6% cement (Soaked)


surkhi/brick kiln dust mix with 0% cement (Unsoaked)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 2 4 6 8 10

Str

ess

(M

pa)

Penetration (mm)

100% CLAY

95% CLAY + 5%

SURKHI90% CLAY + 10%

SURKHI85% CLAY + 15%

SURKHI

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 2 4 6 8 10

Str

ess

(M

pa)

Penetration (mm)

97% CLAY + 3% C

92% CLAY + 5%

SURKHI + 3% C87% CLAY + 10%

SURKHI + 3% C82% CLAY + 15%

SURKHI+ 3% C77% CLAY + 20%

SURKHI + 3% C

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 2 4 6 8 10

Str

ess

(M

pa)

Penetration (mm)

94% CLAY + 6% C

89% CLAY + 5% SURKHI + 6% C

84% CLAY + 10% SURKHI + 6% C

79% CLAY + 15% SURKHI + 6% C

74% CLAY + 20% SURKHI + 6% C

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 2 4 6 8 10

Str

ess

(M

pa)

Penetration (mm)

100% CLAY











E. Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

The unconfined compression test may be considered as a special case of tri axial compression test

when the confining pressure is zero and the axial compressive stress is applied to the cylindrical

specimen. The stress may be applied and the deformation and the load readings are noted until the

specimen fails. The area of cross section of specimen for various strains may be corrected assuming

that the volume of the specimen remains constant and that the specimen retains cylindrical cross

sectional areas. The maximum strain is noted. The undrained shear strength (su) for clays is

commonly determined from an unconfined compression test. In the case of soils which behave as if

the angle of shearing resistance, ∅ = 0 (as in the case of saturated clays under undrained conditions) the undrained shear strength or cohesion of the soil may be taken to be equal to half the Unconfined

compression strength obtained. This is expressed as

su = c =qu

2

Where

su = undrained shear strength of cohesive soil qu = Unconfined compression strength of cohesive soil

F. Specimen Preparation and Testing Procedure for UCS Test for plain and treated soils

Initially oven-dried soil was thoroughly hand mixed (virgin mix) and then mixed with predetermined

quantity of stabilizers (surkhi/brick kiln dust and cement) in a large tray in dry state. Thereafter,

mixing was carried out in a laboratory mixer for at least 3 minutes after adding water (required for

the intended moisture content) and the mix was subsequently put into plastic bags, where the mixing

was continued by shaking and overturning the bag for at least 5 minutes. Finally, the air was

squeezed out by hand and the plastic bags were sealed and stored in the curing room (maintained at

23 ± 2˚ C, 95 ± 2% RH) for 20-24 h. Before the use, the material was remixed again in the plastic

bag by hand shaking, shaking and squeezing the bag. It was observed that the mix prepared by this

method contained no appreciable number of lumps larger than 5 mm. Then necessary quantity of

cement was added to the mix for preparation of samples.

The UCS test apparatus was employed in the test. Samples were shaped in a mould with a length of

76.2mm and an inner diameter of 38.1mm. The specimens were prepared at the state of MDD and

OMC. All specimens were prepared with the static compaction method at the optimum moisture

content and maximum density determined by the standard compaction test. To ensure uniform

compaction, the required quantity of the material was placed inside the mould in three layers and

compacted statically by applying comprehensive pressure from a hydraulic jack. Three identical

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 2 4 6 8 10

Str

ess

(M

pa)

Penetration (mm)

97% CLAY + 3% C92% CLAY + 5% SURKHI + 3% C87% CLAY + 10% SURKHI + 3% C82% CLAY + 15% SURKHI + 3% C77% CLAY + 20% SURKHI + 3% C

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0 2 4 6 8 10

Str

ess

(M

pa)

Penetrartion (mm)

94% CLAY + 6% C89% CLAY + 5% SURKHI + 6% C84% CLAY + 10% SURKHI + 6% C79% CLAY + 15% SURKHI + 6% C74% CLAY + 20% SURKHI + 6% C



specimens were used to determine the Unconfined compression strength. The specimens were

demoulded 1 min after completion of the compaction, and were wrapped with thin plastic film.

Samples were stored in the humidity controlled chamber until testing at 7, 14 and 28 days of curing.

Hence, the unconfined compression tests were carried out in accordance with ASTM D5102-09

(ASTM 2009b). After the curing period and before testing, the mass and dimension of specimen

were recorded. The tests were performed on a 25- KN testing machine. A force was applied until the

specimens reached a failure. The loading rate was approximate 1.14 mm/min.

Figure 12. Sample Extruder

Figure 13. UCS Sample

Figure 14. UCS Samples of Plain Soil

Results of testing have been shown as in Figure 15 to 23.

Figure 15. Stress versus strain (%) for different

combinations of mixes and 0% cement (fresh

samples)

Figure 16. Stress versus strain (%) for different curing period

(mix combination 92% clay + 5% surkhi/brick kiln dust and

3% cement)


(mix combination 87% clay + 10% surkhi/brick kiln dust and 3%

cement)

Figure 18. Stress versus strain (%) for different curing period (mix

combination 82% clay + 15% surkhi/brick kiln dust and 3% cement)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)

100% CLAY

95% CLAY +

5% SURKHI90% CLAY +

10% SURKHI85% CLAY +

15% SURKHI

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)

Curing period = 0 DAYS




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)

Curing period = 0 day

Curing period = 7 days



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 5 10 15

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)







Figure 19. Stress versus strain (%) for different curing

period (mix combination 77% clay + 20% surkhi/brick

kiln dust and 3% cement)


period (mix combination 89% clay + 5% surkhi/brick kiln

dust and 6% cement)

Figure 21. Stress versus strain (%) for different curing period (mix combination 84% clay + 10% surkhi/brick kiln dust and 6% cement)

Figure 22. Stress versus strain (%) for different curing period (mix combination 79% clay + 15% surkhi/brick

kiln dust and 6% cement)


(mix combination 74% clay + 20% surkhi/brick kiln dust and 6%

cement)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)





0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 5 10 15

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)





0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 2 4 6 8 10

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)


Curing period = 7 Days



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)





0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)







G. OMC-MDD Relation for Fiber Reinforced Surkhi/brick kiln dust-Cement Treated Soil

As this study is limited to use of polypropylene fibers (6 mm and 12 mm lengths) to surkhi/brick kiln

dust-cement treated soil at best/optimum dose of surkhi/brick kiln dust and cement by weight of dry

soil yielding best results . The studies have been conducted at fiber content 0%, 0.5%, 1.0% and

1.5% by dry soil weight to best treated surkhi/brick kiln dust-cement soil. Hence, OMC-MDD

relation for best treated soil, that is, with surkhi/brick kiln dust and cement at its optimum (viz. 15%

surkhi/brick kiln dust + 6% cement, by dry soil weight for soaked and unsoaked CBR and UCS) has

been presented in figure 24 to 25 below.


surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement mix combination

yielding best results (with inclusion of 6mm fibers

combinations)


surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement mix combination

yielding best results (with inclusion of 12mm fibers

combinations)

H. CBR Test For Fiber Reinforced Surkhi/brick kiln dust-Cement Treated Soil



soil yielding best results. The studies have been conducted at fiber content 0%, 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5%

by dry soil weight to best treated surkhi/brick kiln dust-cement soil. Hence, CBR for best treated soil,

that is, with surkhi/brick kiln dust and cement at its optimum (15% surkhi/brick kiln dust + 6%

cement, by dry soil weight for soaked and unsoaked CBR) has been presented in figure 26 to 29

below.

Figure 26. Stress-penetration behavior of surkhi/brick

kiln dust-soil-cement mix combination yielding best

soaked CBR results (with inclusion of 6mm fibers

combinations)



unsoaked CBR results (with inclusion of 6mm fibers

combinations)

1.45

1.55

1.65

1.75

1.85

0 10 20

Dry d

en

sity

(g/c

c)

Moisture content (%)

79 % CLAY +15 %

Surkhi + 6% cement

+ 0% fibers

78.5 % CLAY +15

% Surkhi + 6%

cement + 0.5%

78 % CLAY +15 %

Surkhi + 6% cement

+ 1.0% fibers

77.5 % CLAY +15

% Surkhi + 6%

cement + 1.5%1.43

1.48

1.53

1.58

1.63

1.68

1.73

1.78

1.83

0 10 20

Dry d

en

sity

(g/c

c)

Moisture content (%)

79 % CLAY

+15 % Surkhi + 6% cement +

0% fibers78.5 % CLAY


0.5%78 % CLAY


1.0% fibers77.5 % CLAY


1.5%

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

6

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9

Str

ess

(M

pa)

Penetration (mm)

Clay= 79%, Surkhi=

15%, Cement = 6%, Fibers=

0%

Clay= 78.5%, Surkhi=


0.5%

Clay= 78%, Surkhi=


1.0%

Clay= 77.5%, Surkhi=


1.5%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9

Str

ess

(N

/mm

2)

Penetration (mm)

Clay= 79%, SURKHI=

15%, Cement =

6%, Fibers= 0%

Clay= 78.5%, SURKHI=

15%, Cement =

6%, Fibers= 0.5%

Clay= 78%, SURKHI=

15%, Cement =

6%, Fibers= 1.0%

Clay= 77.5%, SURKHI=

15%, Cement =

6%, Fibers= 1.5%





soaked CBR results (with inclusion of 12mm fibers

combinations)



unsoaked CBR results (with inclusion of 12mm fibers

combinations)

I. UCS Test for Fiber Reinforced Surkhi/brick kiln dust-Cement Treated Soil



soil yielding best results. The studies have been conducted at fiber content 0%, 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5%

by dry soil weight to best treated surkhi/brick kiln dust-cement soil. Hence, UCS for best treated soil,

that is, with surkhi/brick kiln dust and cement at its optimum (15% surkhi/brick kiln dust + 6%

cement, by dry soil weight for UCS) has been presented in figure 30 to 37 below.


periods for surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement mix

combination yielding best UCS results with 6mm fiber

length (i.e, 79% clay+ 15% surkhi/brick kiln dust+ 6%

cement+ 0% fibers)




length (i.e, 78.5% clay+ 15% surkhi/brick kiln dust+ 6%

cement+ 0.5% fibers)

Legends for Figure 30 to 37

-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9

Str

ess

(M

pa)

Penetration (mm)

Clay=

79%, Surkhi=

15%, Cement =

6%, Fibers= 0%

Clay=

78.5%, Surkhi=

15%, Cement =

6%, Fibers= 0.5%

Clay=

78%, Surkhi=

15%, Cement =

6%, Fibers= 1.0%

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9

Str

ess

(N

/mm

2)

Penetration (mm)

Clay=

79%, SURKHI=

15%, Cement =

6%, Fibers= 0%

Clay=

78.5%, SURKHI=

15%, Cement =

6%, Fibers= 0.5%

Clay=

78%, SURKHI=

15%, Cement =

6%, Fibers= 1.0%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 5 10

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)





combination yielding best UCS results with 6mm fiber length

(i.e, 78% clay+ 15% surkhi/brick kiln dust+ 6% cement+

1.0% fibers)


curing periods for surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement

mix combination yielding best UCS results with 6mm

fiber length (i.e, 77.5% clay+ 15% surkhi/brick kiln

dust+ 6% cement+ 1.5% fibers)




length (i.e, 79% clay+ 15% surkhi/brick kiln dust+ 6%

cement+ 0% fibers)









length (i.e, 78.0% clay+ 15% surkhi/brick kiln dust+ 6%

cement+ 1.0% fibers)






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 5 10 15

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 5 10 15

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15

ST

RE

SS

(k

N/m

2)

STRAIN (%)



III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The objective of the study is to analyse the improvement in the geotechnical properties of clayey soil

like Compaction Characteristics, California Bearing Ratio value and Unconfined compression

strength (UCS) with utilization of surkhi/brick kiln dust/ brick dust, cement and then discrete and

randomly distributed polypropylene fibres on cement- surkhi/brick kiln dust treatment of soil at

different variations. This study helps in validation of the results obtained and shows whether the

blend of surkhi/brick kiln dust-cement-fibres can be used as a soil stabilizer or not. The discussion

on the results obtained from the experimental work has been made in this section, highlighting the

effects of different parameters item- wise along with the reference to relevant graph and plots.

a) 4.2 Compaction Characteristics

Figures 3.4 to 3.7 and Figs. 3.27 to 3.28 are the actual values of the compaction curves which

facilitates the comparison between compaction characteristics of soil with that of the mix proportions

made for the stabilization of the soil. The maximum dry density of the virgin soil is observed as 1.81

g/cc at OMC 14.71%. The tests were performed as per ASTM D698 (2000) specifications for

modified Proctor compaction tests. Modified Proctor compaction test were carried out on the virgin

soil and surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement-fiber mixture proportions. The dry weight of total mixture

(W) was taken as per Eq. (1). The compaction tests were performed for various combinations of

surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement mixtures as detailed in Table 3.5 and then the combination

yielding best result was introduced with fibers at different percentages . Figure 4.1 and 4.2 shows the

variation of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for different proportions of

surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement mixtures. From the results, it is observed that with the addition of

surkhi/brick kiln dust, there is decrease in MDD and decrease in OMC. The relatively low specific

gravity of surkhi/brick kiln dust may be the cause for this reduced dry density along with enhanced

porosity of the mix by introduction and increase of surkhi/brick kiln dust. The decrease in OMC can

be attributed lower affinity of surkhi/brick kiln dust to water due to some pozzolanic properties.

Further, with increase in cement content, the MDD of soil-cement mixes increased and OMC further

decreased. The rise in density may be attributed to higher specific gravity of cement. The decrease

in OMC is probably on the account of the lower affinity of cement to water due to pozzolanic

properties, hence requiring the only amount of water for absorption for development of heat of

hydration and completing pozzolanic activity.

The results of compaction tests showed that with inlusion of fibers, the OMC increases a little and

MDD falls for surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement-fiber mixtures. At and beyond 0.5%, OMC of fine

soils continues to increase a little due to increase in surface area due to inclusion of fibers

(roughness) but MDD reduces slightly probably because of much lower specific gravity of fibers

leading to lighter weight of the mass and increased porosity of the mix and trend continues in same

manner with increase in the fiber length as shown in Figure 38 to 39 based on test results.

Figure 38. Optimum moisture content (%) versus

Surkhi/brick kiln dust (%) by replacement of clay with

different percentages of surkhi/brick kiln dust and cement

Figure 39. Maximum dry density (g/cc) versus surkhi/brick

kiln dust (%) by replacement of clay with different

percentages of surkhi/brick kiln dust and cement

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 5 10 15 20

Op

tim

um

Mois

ture C

on

ten

t (%

)

BKD/Surkhi Content (%)

cement= 0%

Cement= 3%

Cement= 6%

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.9

0 5 10 15 20

Maxim

um

Dry D

en

sity

(g/c

c)

BKD/Surkhi Content (%)

cement= 0%

Cement= 3%

Cement= 6%



b) California Bearing Ratio Test

The CBR value of the sub grade is an important factor for designing the pavement thickness

composition. The CBR value is commonly used to evaluate the quality of road materials. Figs. 4.5

and 4.6 shows the 4- days (soaked) and unsoaked CBR values for unstabilized and stabilized soil

mixtures, resp. The unstabilized soil had the smallest CBR value at 2.6% (soaked, i.e., when

subjected to 4 days of water immersion) and 5.6% (unsoaked). The cement/surkhi/brick kiln dust

mixture enhanced the bearing of soil in which the soaked CBR improvement was because of the

cementing pozzolanic reaction between the soil and cement/surkhi/brick kiln dust material. The

chemical hydration during the reaction, regarded as the primary reaction, formed additional

cementitious material that particles together and enhanced the strength of the soil. The optimum dose

of surkhi/brick kiln dust and cement has been found to be 15% and 6%, resp. both for soaked as well

as unsoaked conditions of CBR values. Further, fall in CBR may be due to reduced cohesion of the

mix as the percentage of surkhi/brick kiln dust reaches 20%.

Figure 40. Optimum moisture content versus fiber content (%) for surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement mix combination yielding best results (For different fiber lengths)

Figure 41. Maximum dry density versus fiber content (%) for surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement mix combination yielding best results (For different fiber lengths)

Further, inclusion of randomly distributed polypropylene fibers kept on increasing both the soaked

and unsoaked CBR values from 0.5% to 1.5%, again, due to ductile and tension inclusion due to

fibers, frictional resistance and higher bond strength of fibers with soil in addition to cohesion in soil

and cementation due to hydration reaction in cement, making the optimum blend dosage to be 15%

surkhi/brick kiln dust, 6% cement and 1.5% polypropylene fibers. Again, much better CBR results

observed using 12 mm fiber length due to better bond development, though 6 mm fibers also

enhanced CBR values (see Figs. 4.7 and 4.8).

Figure 42. Variation of unsoaked CBR (%) with surkhi/brick

kiln dust (%) at different cement contents

Figure 43. Variation of soaked CBR (%) with surkhi/brick

kiln dust (%) at different cement contents (%)

1313.113.213.313.413.513.613.713.813.9

0 0.5 1 1.5

Op

tim

um

mois

ture c

on

ten

t(%

)

Fiber content (%)

6mm fibers

12mm fibers

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.8

0 0.5 1 1.5

Maxim

um

dry d

en

sity

(%)

Fiber content (%)

6mm fibers

12mm fibers

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20

CB

R (

%)

BKD Content (%)

Cement=0%

Cement =3%

Cement =6%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20

CB

R (

%)

BKD content (%)

Cement= 0%

Cement= 3%

Cement= 6%



Figure 44. Variation of unsoaked CBR (%) with fiber

content (%) for surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement mix

combination yielding best results (for different fiber

lengths)

Figure 45. Variation of soaked CBR (%) with fiber

content(%) for surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement mix

combination yielding best results (for different fiber

lengths)

c) Unconfined compression strength Tests (UCS)

Figs. 4.10 and 4.11 shows the effects of surkhi/brick kiln dust/ brick kiln dust on UCS clay

specimens for varying cement contents. UCS of surkhi/brick kiln dust- soil mix was found be best

again at 15% surkhi/brick kiln dust, and afterwards started decreasing. The UCS increased with

increasing cement content for all surkhi/brick kiln dust contents. The UCS value kept on increasing

when the cement content was increased from 0, 3 and 6% for a surkhi/brick kiln dust content of 15%.

This indicates that 6% was the optimum content for cement in surkhi/brick kiln dust- blended clays

also. For given cement content, UCS increased with increasing surkhi/brick kiln dust content.

However, a surkhi/brick kiln dust content of 15% gave the maximum value of UCS for all cement

contents. UCS decreased when surkhi/brick kiln dust content was increased to 20% attributed to

reduced cohesion without much effect of increased frictional resistance beyond 15% and

irrespective of cement content, thus, indicating that 15% was the optimum surkhi/brick kiln dust

content for clay- cement blends.The initial UCS with addition of surkhi/brick kiln dust is attributed

to the formation of cementitious compounds between the Ca(OH)2 present in the clay and some

pozzolanic properties of the surkhi/brick kiln dust. The decrease in the UCS values after addition of

15% surkhi/brick kiln dust may also be due to formation of weak bonds between the soil and the

cementitious compounds formed.

Figs. 4.12 and 4.13 present the effect of curing on the UCS of the samples, showing that the strength

increased as the curing period increased. Because of the time- dependent pozzolanic reactions, the

stabilization of soil is a long- term process. The strength of surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement blend

increases with increasing curing period. In addition, it can be observed that the Unconfined

compression strengths of surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement blend after 7, 14, and 28 days of curing

period are always higher than those of respective surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil samples. The higher

strength of surkhi/brick kiln dust, cement stabilized soils compared to natural soil is a result of

chemical reactions such as cation exchange, pozzolanic reaction, carbonation, and cementation due

to the pozzolanic reaction, flocculation of clay particles taking place, resulting in agglomeration into

large sized particles, which resist the applied compressive load more effectively than those of

untreated clay. The role of cementation is to produce cementitious materials, which also helping

resisting the load better.

Hence, the optimum value of surkhi/brick kiln dust and cement may be adopted as 15% and 6%

respectively, as is clear from Figs. 4.10 to 4.13.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 0.5 1 1.5

CB

R%

Fiber Content (%)

15% surkhi + 6% cement, 6mm fibers

15% surkhi + 6% cement, 12mm

fibers

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 0.5 1 1.5

CB

R%

Fiber Content (%)

15% surkhi + 6% cement, 6mm fibers

15% surkhi + 6% cement, 12mm

fibers



Further, figs. 4.14 to 4.16 shows the compression strength of the reinforced soil with different

percentage of cement, as the percentage of cement increases from 0 to 3 to 6%, the UCS value

increases and UCS value also increases with the addition of fiber from 0.5% to 1.5% fibers to

cement-surkhi/brick kiln dust treated soil by weight of dry soil. This may be or can be explained that

the total contact area/ interface between fibers and soil particles increases while increasing the fiber

content and consequently the friction between them increases, which contributes to the increase in

resistance to forces applied by making it difficult for soil particles that surround fibers to change in

position from one point to another and thereby improves the bonding force between soil particles,

i.e., cohesion of the soil. Moreover, when local cracks appear in the soil, fibers across the cracks will

take on the tension in the soil with fiber/soil friction, which effectively impedes further development

of cracks and improves the resistance of soil to the force applied (bridge effect, as shown in

Figure4.9 below). The plots show that at a given fiber content, the 12 mm size fiber gives higher

strength than 6 mm size fibers. For shorter fibers (6 mm) sufficient anchorage to fiber might not be

developed leading to pull- out failure and lesser mobilization of fiber capacity.

Figure 46. Figure showing resistance of surkhi/brick kiln

dust-cement treated soil to the force applied (Bridge

effect)

Figure 47. Variation of Unconfined compression strength

with percentage of surkhi/brick kiln dust for different

percentages of cement (0 days curing)

Figure 48. Variation of Unconfined compression

strength with percentage of cement for different

percentages of surkhi/brick kiln dust (0 days curing)

Figure 49. Variation of Unconfined compression strength

with curing period (Days) at 3% cement for different

percentage of Surkhi/brick kiln dust (Brick Kiln Dust)

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20

Un

con

fin

ed

Com

press

ive S

tren

gth

(KN

/m2)

Surkhi (BKD) (%)

Cement=0% Cement=3% Cement=6%

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 3 6

Un

con

fin

ed

Com

press

ive S

tren

gth

(KN

/m2)

Cement (%)

Surkhi= 0%

Surkhi= 5%

Surkhi= 10%

Surkhi= 15%

Surkhi= 20%

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 10 20 30

Un

con

fin

ed

Com

press

ive S

tren

gth

(k

Pa)

Curing Period (Days)

Brick Kiln Dust= 0%Brick Kiln Dust= 5%Brick Kiln Dust= 10%Brick Kiln Dust= 15%Brick Kiln Dust= 20%



Figure 50. Variation of Unconfined compression

strength with curing period (Days) at 6% cement for

different percentage of Surkhi/brick kiln dust (Brick Kiln

Dust)

Figure 51. Variation of unconfined compression strength

with curing period for surkhi/brick kiln dust-soil-cement

mix combination yielding best results and fibers at 0.5%







IV. CONCLUSIONS

The major conclusions drawn from this study are presented below.

Surkhi/brick kiln dust/brick kiln dust having pozzolonic behavior can be used as replacement material for cement.

The optimum percentage of surkhi/brick kiln dust/brick kiln dust is found to be 15% for UCS and CBR (soaked and unsoaked ), respectively .

The maximum percentage of cement used in study was 6%, which gave high strength .Further increase in cement content may prove to be uneconomical and brittleness .

The MDD of pure clay is found to be 1.81 g/cc and the replacement of clay with cement (6%)

increased the MDD to 1.86 g/cc. The replacement of clay with 15% surkhi/brick kiln dust

/brick kiln dust and 6% cement decreased MDD to 1.80 g/cc and decreased with further increase

in surkhi/brick kiln dust.

OMC of pure clay is found to be 14.7% and the replacement of clay with cement (6%) decreased the OMC of mix to 14.1% . The replacement of clay with 15% surkhi/brick kiln dust/brick dust

and 6% cement further decreased the OMC to 13.3% and decreased with further increase in

surkhi/brick kiln dust.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 10 20 30

Un

con

fin

ed

Com

press

ive S

tren

gth

(K

Pa)

Curing Period (Days)

Brick Kiln Dust= 0%

Brick Kiln Dust= 5%

Brick Kiln Dust= 10%



0

200

400

600

800

0 7 14 28

Un

con

fin

ed

com

press

ive s

tren

gth

(KN

/m2)

Curing period (Days)

0.0% fibers

0.5% fibers (6mm length)


0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 7 14 28

Un

con

fin

ed

com

press

ive s

tren

gth

(KN

/m2)


0.0% fibers



0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 7 14 28

Un

con

fin

ed

com

press

ive s

tren

gth

(KN

/m2)


0.0% fibers





The value of the strength (UCS) of pure clay is found to be 77.83 KPa. Subsequently, with the replacement of clay by 6% of cement , there is improvement of 179.83% in UCS (after 28 days

of curing) values respectively with reference to pure clay . Replacement of clay with 15%

surkhi/brick kiln dust/brick kiln dust and 6% cement , there is further improvement (after 28

days of curing) of 681.55% with reference to pure clay.

Since the incorporation of cement in clay-surkhi/brick kiln dust mix causes brittleness within the

specimens, hence fibers inclusion has been adopted to overcome the brittleness. The highest

improvement of 1000.02% after 28 days of curing has been achieved with the inclusion of 1.5%

fibers (12 mm length) as reinforcement with reference to pure clay.

The value of unsoaked and soaked CBR of pure clay is found to be 5.6 and 2.6% respectively. Subsequently with the replacement of clay with 6% cement, there is improvement of 62.5% and

338.46% with respect to CBR value of pure clay. Further, replacement of clay with optimum

dosage of surkhi/brick kiln dust/brick kiln dust (15%) and cement (6%) as stabilizer, there is

further improvement of 312.5% in unsoaked and 1134.6% in soaked respectively with respect to

pure clay.

The replacement of clay with surkhi/brick kiln dust/brick kiln dust and cement increases the unsoaked and soaked CBR value of overall mix in comparison to the individual stabilizers. With

the inclusion of fibers in clay-surkhi/brick kiln dust/brick kiln dust-cement combination yielding

best results, there is improvement of 535.71% and 1665.4% in unsoaked and soaked condition

respectively for 12mm length fibers (1.5%) with respect to CBR values of virgin soil specimens.

It can be concluded that the waste material such as surkhi/brick kiln dust with cement can be used

effectively in the engineering construction as per literature published earlier. Further, reinforcement

of such with fibres further increases the strength of clayey soil. Hence, the mix is recommended as a

highway subgrade material may help in sustainable development goal. Hence, the clayey soil of

Dinanagar region can be improved to great extends using brick kiln dust/surkhi-soil-cement-

polypropylene fibers to optimum for best results as mentioned in this study.

V. Scope of further Research

Based on the present trend, the possibility of research in the following areas can be explored:

Determination of durability properties

Shear strength under static and cyclic loading conditions

Stabilization of other soils like black cotton soil, silts

Utilization of other waste materials

Inclusion of other type of fibers such as natural and glass fibers

Study of liquefaction behavior, etc.

Cost analysis, though the CBR values at optimum mix indicate results to be very economical despite cement’s cost, but overall economy is expected.

REFERENCES

[1] Bhavsor S.N, S.N, Joshi H.B, Shrof P.K, Patel A.J (2014) “Effect of burnt brick dust on engineering properties on

expansive soil”. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, eISSN: 2319- 1163, pISSN:

2321- 7308, Volume: 03 Issue: 04, pp. 433- 441.

[2] Deepa Ra. B (2013) “Stabilization of pavement material using waste brick kiln dust”. International Journal of

Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN: 2278- 0181 Vol. 2 Issue 4, April- 2013, pp. 1684-1691.

[3] Gharib.M, Saba.H, Barazesh.A (2012) “An experimental study for identification and comparison of plastic index

and shrinkage properties of clay soils with the addition of cement”. European Journal of Experimental Bio logy,

2012, 2(4): pp. 1034- 1038.

[4] Jiang.L, Chirdchanin.M, Onitsuka.K (2004) “Stabilization effects of surplus soft clay with cement and GBF slag”.

Journal of Environmaental Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 397-403, 2004



[5] Kaniraj S.R, Havanagi V.G “Behavior of cement- stabilized fiber- reinforced fly ash- soil mixtures”. Journal of

geotechnical Engineering, vol. 127, pp 574-584

[6] Kumar.A, Kumar.A, Prakash.Ved (2016) “Stabilization of expansive soil with lime and brick dust”. International

Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM), ISSN: 2455- 6211, Volume 4, Issue 9,

September- 2016, pp. 36- 42.

[7] Kumar.D, Priya S.R, Kumar K.G (2015) “Effect of Polypropylene fiber content on lime treated marine clay”. 50th

Indian geotechnical conference, 17th- 19

th December, 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India, College of engineering,

Pune, India.

[8] Mathew.J, Ramesan. K (2016) “Comparative study on effect of soft soil stabilization using coir fibers and

polypropylene fibers”. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR- JMCE), e-ISSN: 2278-1684, p-

ISSN: 2320-334X, pp. 61-66.

[9] Mousavi.S, Wong.S (2015) “Performance of compacted and stabilized clay with cement, peat ash and silica sand”.

Jordon Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 9, No.1, 2015

[10] Muhunthan.B, Sariosseiri.F (2008) “Interpretation of Geotechnical properties of cement treated soils”. WA- RD

715.1, WSDOT research Report.

[11] Nangia.A, Nigam.S, Kumar.D, Tiwari.S (2015) “Effect of polypropylene fiber on the strength characteristics of

the soils along the Yamuna river bank in Delhi city”. International Journal of Engineering and technical Research,

vol. 3, Issue 5, 2015, pp. 285- 289.

[12] Patel. A.N, Mishra C.B (2014) “Improvement of the strength of inorganic clayey soil using cement additive”.

International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, vol. 4, No. 6 (Dec 2014), pp. 4266- 4269.

[13] Pradhan.P, Karand.R and Naik.A (2012) “Effect of random inclusion of polypropylene fibers on strength

characteristics of cohesive soil”. Geomechanical Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 19-28.

[14] Puppala A.J, Musenda.C (2002) “Effect of fiber reinforcement strength and volume changes in expansive soils”.

Transportation Research Record, No. 00-0716, pp. 134-140

[15] Sarkar.G, Islam.M, Alamgir.M, Rokonuzzam.M (2012) “Study on the geotechnical properties of cement based

composite fine- grained soil”. International Journal of Advanced structures and Geotechnical Engineering, ISSN

2319- 5347, Vol. 01, No. 02.

[16] Satyanarayan. B, Reddy K.P, Sravanthi A.S.S, Harsha I.H.S (2013) “Stabilization of expansive soils using brick

kiln waste”. International Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Management, ISSN 2320- 3439, Vol. 02,

No. 03, May 2013, pp. 50- 53.

[17] Senol.A (2012) “Effect of fly ash and polypropylene fibers content on the soft soils”. Bull Eng Geol Environ

(2012)71, pp. 379-387.

[18] Sharma. Sharda, Yadav S.K (2014) “Waste brick kiln dust as a construction material in civil engineering”. GJESR

Research Paper Vol. 1 [Issue 8] September, 2014, ISSN :- 2349- 283X, pp. 5- 10.

[19] Soundara.B, Kumar.S (2015) “Effect of fibers on properties of clay”. International Journal of Engineering and

Applied Sciences (IJEAS), ISSN: 2394- 3661, vol. 2, Issue-5, May 2015.

[20] Subhan.M (2016) “Effect of polypropylene fiber on engineering properties of expansive soils”. International

Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 5, Issue3, March 2016.

[21] Vaidya M.K, Chore H.S, Kousitha.P, Ukrande S.K (2013) “Geotechnical characterization cement- fly ash- fibers

mix”. IOSR Jornal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, pp. 60-66.

[22] Zerdi T.A, Pasha M.M, Ahmed M.K, Kumar.V, Zerdi M.N (2016) “Soil stabilization using lime and brick dust”.

Paripex- Indian Journal of Research, ISSN- 2250- 1991, Volume: 5, Issue: 5, May 2016, pp. 160- 162.

[23] ASTM D 1557 – 12, “Standard Test Methods For Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified

Effort”, ASTM International Standards and Publications.

[24] ASTM D 1883 – 14, “Standard Test Methods For California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laboratory Compacted

Soils”, ASTM International Standards and Publications.

[25] ASTM D2166/ D2166M – 13, “Standard Test Method For Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil”,

ASTM International Standards and Publications.

[26] IS: 1498-1970, “Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes”, Bureau of Indian

Standards, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

[27] IS Codes 2720-1993, “Indian Standards on Soil Engineering”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.

[28] www.google.com

[29] www.sciencedirect.com

[30] www.wikipedia.org

[31] www.springer.com

[32] www.asce.org

http://www.google.com/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/

http://www.springer.com/

http://www.asce.org/

performance evaluation of cement stabilized and fiber reinforced … · 2019-06-28 · and randomly...

Documents