Rice Husk Ash PDF

THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE
OF
MASTER OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

IN
SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING.
By
GOURHARI BISWAS
EXAM ROLL NO- M4CIV10-12.
Under The guidance of

Prof. S.Chakborti
&
Prof. S.P.Mukherjee
Department of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Engineering & Technology
Jadavpur University
Kolkata-700032
Jadavpur University
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL*
The foregoing thesis is hereby approved as a creditable study of an
engineering subject carried out and presented in a manner satisfactory to
warrant its acceptance as a pre-requisite to the degree for which it has been
submitted. It is understood that by this approval the undersigned do not
necessarily endorse or approve any statement made, opinion expressed or
conclusion drawn therein, but approve the thesis only for the purpose for
which it is submitted.
FINAL EXAMINATION FOR 1.

EVALUATION OF THESIS
2.
3.
(Signatures of Examiners)
*Only in case the thesis is approved.

Jadavpur University
2
Certificate
We hereby recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by
Gourhari Biswas, entitled “SOME STUDIES ON STABILIZATION OF
SUBGRADE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT WITH RICE HUSK, RICE HUSK ASH AND
LIME” be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree
of Master of Civil Engineering in Soil Mechanics & Foundation

Engineering from Jadavpur University.
In-Charge of Thesis
Countersigned:
Head of the Department:

(Civil Engineering Department)
Dean:
(Faculty of Engineering & Technology)
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am extremely thankful and indebted to Prof. S.Chakraborti, Head, Civil Engineering
Department and Prof. S.P.Mukherjee, Section-in-Charge, Soil Mechanics & Foundation
Engineering Division of Civil Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, for their
valuable guidance, constant support and encouragement throughout my thesis work.
I also express my gratitude to all the faculty members of civil engineering department of
Jadavpur University for their encouragement and moral support extended throughout my
thesis work.
I sincerely acknowledge the help from Mr. Rabin Pal, Mr. Apurba Banerjee and Mr. Ranjit
Kushari, Laboratory Technical staffs of Soil Mechanics Laboratory and Mr. Debasis of
Road Materials Laboratory and laboratory attendants Brindaban Naskar and Basudev
Goari of soil Mechanics laboratory of Civil Engineering Department, Jadavpur University,
Kolkata.
I am grateful to my family members, specially my wife and my sons for being with me in
the hard time that was needed to complete this thesis.
Last but not the least, I express my heartfelt thanks to all of my classmates, Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering section, whose friendship, cooperation, and suggestions
have helped me to complete this thesis work .
Kolkata …………………………………………
GOURHARI BISWAS
(ROLL NO – 000810402013).
EXAM. ROLL NO : M4CIV-10-12.
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING.
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING &TECHNOLOGY.
JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY
4
Abstracts
With the increase in road construction activities under different Govt.
schemes, an intense need has been arisen to economize the cost of
construction. As the subgrade supports the road pavements and the load
coming from the moving vehicles, improving the quality of natural weak
subgrade to enhance its strength and load bearing capacity and other
engineering properties as well will be a most essential part of economizing
construction activities.
The quality of a pavement depends on the strength of its sub-grade. The
subgrade, the layer of soil on which the pavement is built, acts as a support
for the entire pavement system. In case of the flexible pavement the sub-
grade must be uniform in terms of geotechnical properties like shear
strength, compressibility etc. Materials selected for use in the construction of
sub-grade must have to be of adequate strength and at the same it must be
economical for use. The materials selected must also be ensured for the
quality and compaction requirements. If the natural soil is very soft it needs
some improvement to act as a sub-grade. It is, therefore, needed to replace
the natural soil by stabilization with improved strength and compressibility
characteristics.
5
The paper highlights the effect of stabilization of low strength cohesive
soil with admixture of different materials like Rice Husk Ash, lime etc, which
are cheap and easily available.
The present investigation has been carried out with agricultural waste
materials like Raw Rice Husk (RRH) and Rice Husk Ash (RHA) individually
mixed with soil and also in combination with different percentage of Hydrated
Lime with several mix proportions to study improvement of weak road
subgrade. 5,10,15 and 20 percentages of RHA were mixed with soil
stabilized with 3,6,9,12 and 15 percentage of lime in different combinations
and also 2,3,4,5 and 6 percentage of RRH were mixed with soil stabilized
with 6,9 and 12 percentage lime in several combinations and compacted at a
water content of OMC+5% and tested for California Bearing Ratio(CBR) and
Unconfined Compressive Strength(UCS) tests. The results show marked
improvement in CBR & UCS values of the mixed soils in comparison with that
of the original soil. The high percentage of siliceous materials present in RHA
promises it to be used as a potential ground stabilizing/improving materials.
The effect of curing of specimens were also investigated. It has been found
that with increase in curing period UCS values as well as CBR value of lime
RHA stabilized soil as well as lime RRH stabilized soil are increasing
remarkably.
6
.
The main testing parameters selected for evaluation of improvement
and or comparison with that of the original properties of soil
were CBR tests (both soaked and unsoaked) and Unconfined Compressive
strength test as the CBR values give the most reliable information about the
quality of subgrade and its strength characteristics and UCS values give the
information about the effectiveness of stabilization. As a general rule for a
given type of stabilization, the higher the compressive strength and CBR
values the better is the quality of stabilized and compacted materials
The results of the test experiments promise not only RRH and RHA may be
used as a potential ground improving materials but also to reduce partially
the disposal hazard of waste material like RRH and RHA.
7
CONTENTS
TOPICS PAGES
Chapter One: Introduction 1-2
Chapter Two: Review of Literature 3-9

2.0 General 3
2.1 Literature Review on use of Rice Husk Ash 3
2.2 Literature Review on Use on Raw Rice Husk (RRH) 8
Chapter Three : Materials Used 10-15

3.1 Soil 10
3.2 Lime 11
3.3 Rice husk 12
3.4. Rice husk ash 14
Chapter Four : Objective and scope of the work 16-17

4.1 Objectives 16
4.2. Scopes 16
Chapter Five : Test program 20-23

5.0 General 20
5.1 Test Program 20
8
Chapter Six : Test procedures 24-25
6.0- General 24
6.1 Name of the tests and the relevant IS code 24
Chapter Seven : Presentation of test results 26-145

7.0 – General 26
7.1- Evaluated geotechnical properties of Original Soil 26
7.2. Results for Characterization test of stabilized soil 28
7.3 Compaction characteristics of Unstabilized and
stabilized soil 38
7.5 Strength characteristics of soil 65
7.6 Comparison of CBR test results with cured and
uncured specimens 139
7.7 Effect of curing on strength properties of soil 141
Chapter Eight : Interpretation of test results 146-164

8.0 General 146
8.1- Characteristics of original Soil 146
8.2 Characterization of unstabilized as well as
stabilized soils 147
8.3 Compaction Characteristics of Stabilized Soil- 150
8.3.1 Effect of Lime addition on Compaction
Characteristics of soil 150
8.3.2 Effect of RHA addition on Compaction
8.3.3Effect of Lime and RHA addition on
CompactioCharacteristics of soil 151
8.3.4 Effect of RRH addition on Compaction
8.3.5 Effect of Lime and RRH addition on
Compaction Characteristics of soil 152
8.4 Strength characteristics of Stabilized soil 152
8.4.0-General
8.4.1 Effect of Lime addition on strength
characteristics of soil 153
9
8.4.1.1-Effect on CBR 153
8.4.1.2-Effect on UCS 153
8.4.2 Effect of RHA addition on strength

8.4.3 Effect of RHA Lime addition on strength
8.4.4 Effect of RRH addition on strength
8.4.4.2 Effect on UCS 158
8.4.5 Effect of RRH Lime addition on strength
8.4.5.1 Effect on CBR 158
8.4.5.2. Effect on UCS 160
8.5 Effect of Curing on Strength properties of soil 161
8.5.1 Effect of Curing of specimens on CBR values
8.5.2 Effect of Curing of specimens on UCS values 161
8.6 Comparison of test results and evaluation
of Improvement 162
8.7Effect of admixtures on deformation
pattern of specimens 164
Chapter nine : Summary and conclusion 165-168

9.0; - General 165
9.1 Summary 165
9.2 Conclusions 166
9.2.1- Use of Lime 166
9.2.2-Use of Rice Husk Ash (RHA) 166
9.2.3 Use of Raw Rice Husk (RRH) 167
9.3- Addition of Lime with RHA and RRH 167
9.3.1. Addition of Lime with RHA 168
10
9.3.2. Addition of Lime with RRH 168
Chapter Ten : Scope of future work 170-171

10.1 General 170
10.2 Scopes for future work 170
References 172-174
11
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Soils are deposited or formed by nature under different environmental conditions. Man
does not have any control on the process of soil formations. As such soil strata at a site
are to be accepted as they are and any construction has to be adapted to suit the subsoil
conditions. The existing soil conditions at a given site may not be suitable for supporting
the desired facilities such as buildings, bridges, dams, roads and so on because the safe
bearing capacity of a soil may not be to support the given load. Here comes the need to
explore possibilities for improving the existing soft/weak ground by adopting different
artificial means.
Geotechnically soil improvement could either be by modification or stabilization or both.
Soil modification is the addition of a modifier (lime, cement etc.) to a soil to
change/improve its engineering properties, while soil stabilization is the treatment of soils
to enable their strength and durability to be improved such that they become totally
suitable for construction beyond their original classification.
Ground improvement in soil in soil has five major functions:
• To increase the bearing capacity of weak soil

• To control deformations and accelerate consolidations
• To provide lateral stability
• To form seepage cut-off and environment control
• To increase resistance against liquefaction
These functions can be accomplished by modifying the ground’s character with or without
the addition of foreign materials. Improving the ground at the surface is Usually easy to
accomplish and relatively inexpensive. When at depth, however, the task becomes more
difficult, usually requiring more rigorous analysis and the use of specialized equipments
and construction procedures.
Several methods of soil improvement using pozzolanic materials have been developed
and used successfully in practice. It has been applied in a variety of civil engineering
works, like in the construction of base courses where good materials are not economically
12
available, for reducing the permeability and compressibility of soils in hydraulic and
foundation works, for stabilization of slopes, embankments and excavations. Due to rapid
industrialization throughout the world the production of huge quantity of waste materials
create not only the environmental problem but also depositional hazards. Safe disposal of
the same is a very vital issue and such situation can be addressed by the bulk utilization
of these materials mainly in the field of civil engineering applications. In recent years the
use of various waste products in civil engineering construction has gained considerable
attention in view of the shortage and high costs of conventional construction materials, the
increasing costs of waste disposal and environmental constraints. A considerable amount
of research works concerning stabilization of soil with additives such as cement, lime, fly
ash bitumen etc is available in the literature. But soil stabilization with lime and rice husk
ash or lime and raw rice husk is relatively a new method, specially lime and raw rice husk
stabilization a completely new idea.
In recent times the demand for suitable subgrade materials has increased due to
increased constructional activities in the road sector and also the paucity of nearby lands
to allow to excavate fill materials for making subgrade .Again soft soil deposits are
problematic and needs large scale displacement to facilitate road construction works.
Such mass replacement methods which are cost and labour intensive can be avoided if
the poor soil is being improved or modified in situ and reused as road construction
materials. Different alternative generated waste materials which cause not only
environmental hazards but also the depositional problems. Some of these materials can
be economically and suitably used as admixtures or stabilizers for improving soft or weak
soil so as to make it fit for use as road subgrade materials. The modified soft to be used
for road construction work should be in line with the practice of engineering in an
environment friendly and sustainable way.
Over the years the two main materials for stabilizing, lime and cement have rapidly
increased in costs. The over dependence on the industrially manufactured soil improving
additives (cement, lime etc.) have kept the cost of construction of stabilized road
financially high. The use of agricultural wastes (such as Rice Husk, Rice Husk Ash etc.)
will considerably reduce the cost of construction and also the environmental and disposal
hazards they cause.
13
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.0 General:-
In this chapter an attempt has been made to present a review of past works carried out so
far by different researchers on the relevant topic. The works on Rice Husk Ash and Raw
Rice Husk ash as soil stabilizing materials are reported in the following section in
chronological order. Although a number of researchers have attempted soil stabilization
with Rice Husk Ash but soil stabilization with Raw Rice Husk is almost an unexplored field
specially the combined use of raw rice husk and lime for soil stabilization.
2.1 Literature Review of Use on Rice Husk Ash (RHA)
Brooks et al (2009) carried out experiments to study the effect of mixing RHA and fly ash
with expansive soil in an effort to upgrade it as a construction material. He investigated the
potential of RHA-fly ash blend as a swell reduction layer between the footing of a
foundation and road subgrade. A cost comparison was also made for the preparation of
the sub base of a highway project with and without the admixture stabilizers. From his
experimental work he came to the following conclusion:
1. Stress strain behavior of unconfined compressive strength showed that failure stress
and strains increased by 106% and 50% respectively when the flyash content was
increased from 0 to 25%.
2. When the RHA content was increased from 0 to 12%, Unconfined Compressive Stress
increased by 97%.
3. When the RHA content was increased from 0 to 12%, CBR improved by 47%.
4. The optimum RHA content was found at 12% for both UCS and CBR tests.
Okafor et al (2009) performed laboratory experiments to study the effects of RHA on

some geotechnical properties of a lateritic soil to be used for subgrade. Their investigation
14
included evaluation of properties such as compaction, consistency limits and strength of
the soil with RHA content of 5%, 7.5%, 10%, and 12.5%y soil. They concluded as follows:
1. The soil was classified to be A-2-6(0) or well-graded sand (SW).
2. RHA increased the OMC but decreased the MDD of the soil.
3. The increase in RHA content decreased the plasticity index of the soil. This confirms
that
the activity of the mixture reduced with the addition of RHA.
4. The addition of RHA increased the volume stability of the soil.
5. The addition of RHA improved the strength property (CBR) of the soil.
6. 10% RHA content was observed to be the optimum content for the lateritic soil.
7. From the foregoing investigation it would appear that RHA perform satisfactorily as a
cheap stabilizing agent for lateritic soil for sub-grade purposes.
Alhassan(2008) carried out extensive laboratory experiments to investigate the effect of

lime and RHA on permeability and strength properties of lateritic soils. In his experiments
A-7-6 lateritic soil(CH) was treated at British Standard Light (BSL) compaction energy with
upto 8% lime content (by dry weight of soil) at 2% variations and each was admixed with
upto 8% RHA at 2% variations. Effects of the ash on the soil lime mixtures were
investigated with respect to Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and coefficient of
permeability. The UCS of the specimens increased with increasing RHA content at
specified lime contents to their maximum values at 6% RHA and also the coefficient of
permeability of cured specimens decreased with increase in ash content to their minimum
values at 6% RHA content and beyond this point the permeability rises slightly. His
findings indicate that no more than 6% RHA can be used to increase UCS and reduce
permeability of lateritic soil.
Alhassan(2008) again carried out experiments to study the effect of stabilizing A-7-6
lateritic soil(CH) with 2-12% RHA by weight of dry soil. CBR and UCS tests were
conducted for the soil RHA composites. The results obtained indicate a general decrease
in the maximum dry density and increase in optimum moisture content. There was also
slight improvement in the CBR and UCS values with increase in RHA content. Peak UCS
values were recorded at between 6-8% RHA content, indicating a little potential of using 6-
08% RHA for strength improvement of A-7-6 lateritic soil.
Roy et al (2008) carried out experiments to study the effectiveness of utilization of RHA
and pond ash for improving subgrade for road construction. They have conducted tests on
15
mixed soils with different proportion of pond ash to find out the effect of mixing RHA on
CBR values of mixed soil. Their findings were as follows : addition of pond ash or RHA
shows a considerable effect on compaction characteristics of alluvial soil. MDD of mixed
soil decreases with increase in added percentage of either of pond ash or RHA and OMC
increases. Soaked CBR increases to a very high value i.e. about three times when RHA
and pond ash is mixed with virgin soil at the rate of 20% respectively.
From their experimental studies on effect of mixing various percentage of pond ash and
RHA to an alluvial soil they have concluded that when 20% of pond ash and 20% RHA
are mixed to the virgin soil by weight composite mix shows the maximum increase in CBR
values by around 200% with simultaneous maximum decrease in plasticity index.
Roy et al (2008) made an experimental study to explore the possibility of improving the
engineering properties of alluvial soil utilizing waste materials like pond ash and rice husk
ash and a little quantity of cement. Their experimental results indicated that significant
improvements in the index properties and CBR values specially soaked CBR value of
alluvial soil can be achieved by mixing alluvial soil with pond ash and rice husk ash and
the most cost effective proportion to the above mix was found to be 20:40:40.Further
experiment with addition of cement to the mix of above combination in 20:60:20 can
improve the soaked CBR to the largest increase and this proportion can use maximum
alternative materials attaining soaked CBR value the highest degree.
Hussain(2008) carried out research work on “Influence of pozzolans on mechanical

properties of cement column”. Ground settlement is one of the major crisis in Bankok due
to low bearing capacity of soft clay soil, causing problems of low stability and high
settlement. This problem can be overcome by cement columns when part of the port land
cement was replaced by pozzolans. His research also focuses on finding an effective mix
design that may be used on construction of cement columns by slurry mixing with
optimum water cement ratio.
The test results showed that soft clay treated with cement and a combination of cement-
pozzolans improved the stability and settlement of the ground by increasing the bearing
capacity and shear strength of the treated soil. The unconfined compressive strength has
improved with replacing definite amount of cement by pozzolans at higher binder contents
(200kg/m3) while showed a decreasing strength with increasing pozzolans percentage at
lower binder content (100 kg/m3). The setting times of cement column were found to be
16
significantly delayed as compared with those of cement paste. Moreover soil-cement
treatment with pozzolans used in this study further delayed the setting times. The highest
strength was achieved by replacing 25% of cement to rice husk ash type-I at a binder
content of 200kg/m3, while cement-fly ash combination was found to be the most
economical binder for deep mixing methods giving 30-40% replacement of cement to fly
ash at binder content of 200 kg/m3. The mechanical properties of treated clayey soil were
greatly influenced by the presence of pozzolans. Different pozzolans gave different
strength at different percentage replacement of cement. Cement in combination with fly
ash was found to be the most economical binder for deep mixing methods.
Jha et al(2006) carried out series of experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of using
RHA as a puzzuolanae to enhance the lime treatment of soil. They studied the influence of
different mix proportions of lime and RHA on compaction, strength properties, CBR values
and durability characteristics of soil. Their results show that addition of RHA enhances not
only the strength development but also the durability of lime stabilized soil. They have
also found that addition of lime and RHA to soil increases the OMC of mixed soil and
reduces the MDD. Adding RHA enhances the development of UCS of lime stabilized soil.
Curing period and temperature has a significant effect on on development of UCS when
RHA ios added to lime stabilized soil. As the curing time and temperature increases the
rate of strength gain is intensified by addition of RHA. Durability of lime stabilized soil is
enhanced by addition of RHA. Addition of RHA increases the CBR value considerably for
both soaked and unsoaked conditions.
Muntohar(2005) conducted laboratory experiments to study the influence of anount of

water available for the Lime RHA pozzolanic reaction. He founded that the strength gain of
stabilized soils is not only influenced by the type and proportion of the stabilizers and its
curing time, but also by the water content needed to maintain the reaction. The lime –RHA
reaction being pozzolanic will be greatly influenced by the amount of water to react with
admixtures apart from the proportions of admixtures. His paper presents the results of a
laboratory study on the UCS of soils stabilized with lime and RHA compacted at OMC
and at wet and dry side of OMC. The results show that the water content determines the
UCS characteristics of stabilized and unstabilized soils. The UCS of unstabilized soil is
affected by the density or unit weight of the compacted soil and the molded moisture
content. The UCS of stabilized soil decreases with increasing molding water content but it
is still higher than that of the unstabilized soils. Higher lime content results to a higher
UCS value. Maximum strength of the stabilized soil is attained at Lime/RHA ratio of ½.
17
The UCS of the stabilized soil increases significantly about 7-9 times to the unstabilized
UCS.
Muntohar(2002) carried out a series of laboratory experiments individually and in

combination of RHA and lime in stabilizing expansive soils in Indonesia. He found that the
geotechnical properties of expansive soils improved with addition of RHA and lime. RHA
and lime altered thew texture of clay soil by reducing the fine particles. The admixtures
also found to reduce the liquid limit, swelling [potential of expansive soils and also the
compressibility characteristics . The CBR value enhances with the addition of admixtures.
Ten percent lime content produced brittle failure under compression whereas soil treated
with combination of RHA and lime reveled a ductile behavior but the strength increased
marginally.
Sivapulliah et al(2004) investigated the possibility of using RHA as a cushion below the
footing in expansive soil. Placing a cushion below the expansive soil and foundation is an
attractive proposal for overcoming the problem associated with construction of structures
over expansive soils such as Indian black cotton soils. Extensive studies on cohesive non
swelling soil as a cushion have shown that it is ineffective over cycles of swelling and
shrinkage of soil. They have found that RHA stabilized with 3-9% of lime or 10% of
cement and cured for about a week develops the properties required for an effective
cushion material. Stabilized RHA reduces the bandwith of vertical movements of
expansive soil not only during the first cycle of swelling but also during the subsequent
cycles of swelling and shrinkage. The reduction increases with the thickness of the
cushion. They have also found that lime stabilized RHA is more effective than cement
stabilized RHA.
Ali et al (2004) carried out an investigation to study the influence of RHA and lime on
Atterberg limits, strength, compaction swell and consolidation properties of bentonite. The
results indicated that the plasticity properties of bentonite were significantly modified upon
the addition of RHA and lime. The RHA and lime have noticeable influence on
compaction, swell and consolidation properties of bentonite soil particularly at 15% RHA
and 8% lime contents individually and combinedly at 15% RHA +4% Lime.
Raju et al(1999) carried out a study on strength characteristics of expansive soils
stabilized with lime and RHA. They conducted UCS tests and soaked CBR tests for
different combinations of the stabilizing agents and concluded that 4% lime is very close to
18
the optimum either as the sole additive or with any other secondary additive from the view
point of optimum efficiency.
Rahman(1997) conducted a study on the effects of varies cement RHA proportions on

the geotechnical properties of lateritic soils. The influence of different mix proportions of
cement and RHA on Atterberg Limits , compaction characteristics, unconfined
compressive strength, California bearing ratio and swelling of lateritic soils were studied.
Test results show that lateritic stabilized with cement RHA mixing can be used
successfully in highway construction. From the point of view of compressive strength,
CBR and economy his study recommends a mix proportion of 6% RHA+3% cement for
sub base materials and 6% RHA+6% cement for base materials for optimum results.
2.2 Literature Review of Use on Raw Rice Husk (RRH)
Roy (2010) examined the effect of mixing of Rice Husk (RH) with soil to be used as road
subgrade construction materials. He mixed RH with various proportions of 5%, 10% and
15% with and studied the effect of addition of RH on compaction characteristics and CBR.
His test results showed that the OMC changes slightly with addition of RH and the value
remains within the range of 23 to 26%. However MDD showed a general decreasing value
of 1.64 to 1.41 with increasing percentage of RH. He evaluated CBR for both freshly
mixed soil sample and 30 days cured samples for soaked and unsoaked conditions and
found that CBR of soil decreases when RH is mixed in increasing percentage from 0 to
15% in both unsoaked and soaked conditions. Test results showed that with addition of
RH at increasing percentage with the original soil unsoaked CBR decreases from 4.9 to
3% only, To check the effect of curing on CBR, similar samples were prepared and cured
for 30 days in desiccators. Test results of cured samples indicated the similar trends as
that of uncured samples. However curing for 30 days shown improvement of soaked CBR
compared to that of uncured samples for any proportion of RH.
Chan et al(2008) studied the effect of Rice Husk on unconfined compressive strength of
soft clay soil stabilized with small amount cement. Instead of using conventional materials
like aggregates as the main constituents, the soft soil itself was being modified and used
as substitute at various layers, simultaneously reducing cost and utilizing the subsoil
which would have been otherwise removed. A laboratory based approach was adopted in
his study, where the modified soil specimen were subjected to UCS test upon 14 days of
19
curing. The specimen were prepared using small amount of cement only or cement
admixed rice husk. The test data indicates that alternative road construction material can
be produced from modified soft soil, where the initially weak and soft material was
significantly improved and strengthened. The test results show that for cement modified
specimens, 5% cement was able to increase the strength of clay by 25%, whereas 10%
cement addition increases the strength by almost 100%. For cement rice husk
specimens,5% cement addition displayed negligible improvement with UCS value,
bordering bat about 20KPa. This suggest that main binding effect resulted in strength
increase was dominated by cement content. On the other hand, UCS value of the cement
rice husk specimens with 10% of cement were markedly improved to as high as 150KPa.
They thus have concluded that for a given cement content there seemed to have an
optimum percentage of rice husk required to achieve high strength.
20
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS USED
3.1 Soil
Soil used in the present investigation has been collected from a pond of near Jadavpur
University. On visual inspection it was found to be light grey clayey silt. Evaluated
properties of the soil are shown in table-3.1 below. Based on L.L. and P.I. the soil may be
classified as CI.
Table-3 .1- Evaluated properties of original soil
Sl. No Characteristics Value
1 Specific Gravity 2.63
2 Particle Size Distribution(%)
a)Sand 9
b)Silt
81
c)Clay
10
3 Liquid Limit(%) 48
4 Plastic limit (%) 26
21
5 Plasticity Index(%) 22
6 Classification of soil CI
7 Maximum Dry Density 1.61
(gm/cc)
8 Optimum Moisture 20
Content(%)
9 Unconfined Compressive 390
strength(KN/m2)
10 Unsoaked CBR(%) 8.3
11 Soaked CBR(%) 3.36
12 Swelling Index(%) 14
3.2 Lime
Until the invention of Portland cement, lime was used as the chief cementing material in
the construction field. Usually lime in free state is not found in nature. The raw material for
the manufacture of lime (CaO) is calcium carbonate which is obtained by the calcinations
of lime stone.
Quick Lime-It is the lime obtained after the calcinations of lime stone.
Hydrated Lime- When the quick lime is sprinkled with water it slakes within 10 minutes
and becomes powder and the fine powder obtained in the process is called hydrated lime.
The process is known as hydration of lime.
CaO + H2O --------- Ca(OH)2 + 15.6 kcal
On addition of lime to soil two main types of chemical reactions occur:-
Alteration in the nature of absorbed layers through base exchange phenomenon

Cementing or pozzolanic action.
Lime reduces the plasticity index of highly plastic soils making them more friable and easy
to be handled and pulverized. It also reduces the shrink swell properties of expansive soil.
The plasticity index of soils of low plasticity generally increases. There is generally an
increase in Optimum Moisture Content and decrease in Maximum Dry Density but the
strength and durability increases. Hydrated (slaked) lime is very useful /effective in
22
treating heavy, plastic clayey soils. Lime may be used alone or in combination with
cement, bitumen, fly ash, or other pozzolanic materials like rice husk ash etc. Sandy soils
may also be stabilized with these combinations. Lime has been mainly used for stabilizing
the road bases and sub grades. Lime is an unparrelled aid in the modification and
stabilization of soil beneath road and similar construction projects. Using lime can
substantially increase the stability, impermeability and load bearing capacity of the
subgrade. And lime is a proven solution for soil modification and stabilization in USA
where more than one million metric tons of lime is used annually for this purposes.
gains. The key to pozolanic reactivity and stabilization is a reactive soil, a good mix design
protocol, and a reliable construction practices.
Characteristics of Lime
Lime possesses good plasticity and is easy to work with

It stiffens easily and is resistant to moisture
It has excellent cementitious property
The shrinkage on drying is small because of its high water retentivity.
Constituents Wt%
SiO2 4.11
Al2 O3 3.11
Fe2 O3 2.70
Ca CO3 3.80
CaO 63.70
CaSO4 19.26
MgO 1.62
Loss on ignition 1.70
Table-3.2, Chemical composition of Hydrated Lime

(Source- Dr. H. Katebi, ”Lime stabilization of Calcareous Soil”)
23
3.3 RICE HUSK
Rice husk is a major agricultural by product obtained from food crop paddy. It is a most
commonly available lignocellulosic materials that can be converted into different kinds of
fuels and chemical feedstocks through a variety of thermochemical conversion processes.
Generally it was considered earlier a worthless by product of the rice mills. For every four
tons of rice one ton of husk is produced. The husk is disposed of either by dumping in an
open heap near the mill site or on the road site to be burnt. Its bulk density ranges from 86
to 114 Kg/m3. It has high ash content, generally 15 to 24% and the ash has high silica
content. The silica content of the available ash ranges from 90 to 97%. Rice husk has a
chemical composition as follows:-
Sl. No Constituents % by weight

1. Cellulose 40 - 45
2. Lignin 25 - 30
3. Ash 15 - 24
4. Moisture 8 - 15
Table-3.3- Chemical composition of Rice Husk

(Source-“Utilization of uncontrolled Burnt Rice Husk Ash in Soil Improvement”,
Agus Setyo Muntohar. Sept. 2002)
Raw rice husk was collected from a nearby mini rice mill and it was used as they were
without further processing. This was to ensure minimal preparation procedure for cost and
labour saving in actual application.
Using natural materials like rice husk for ground improvement is not a novel idea but
practiced by early civilization too. Straws, for instance, were mixed and compacted with
mud to make walls and pathways in olden days. The artificial fibres were included to
enhance the strength and durability of the earth as construction materials.
24
3.4. RICE HUSK ASH
Rice Husk Ash is predominantly a siliceous material annually generated about 4.73
million tons after burning raw rice husk in a boiler or in open fire. The normal method of
conversion from rice husk to rice husk ash is by incineration. Burning rice husk generates
about 15-20% of its weight as ash. Many industries use rice husk as a relatively cheap
fuel. Concomitantly abundance of the ash (RHA) can be a potential waste product.
Indonesia produces paddy annually around 50 million tons. The amount of rice husk ash is
about 12.5 million tons and the ash (RHA) production is about 4 million tons. The ash
being very light easily is carried by wind and water by in its dry state. It is difficult to
coagulate and thus contribute to air and water pollution. Cumulative generation of ash
requires a large space for disposal. Utilization of rice husk ash by exploiting its inherent
properties is the only way to solve the environmental and disposal problem of rice husk
ash.
Chemically RHA consists of 82-87 % of silica, exceeding that of fly ash. Materials
containing high reactive silica (SiO2) is suitable to be used as lime-pozolana mixes and as
substitution of port land cement. The high percentage of siliceous materials in the RHA
makes it an excellent material for soil stabilization. The silica content in the rice husk ash
(RHA) is dependent on the following:- a) the variety of the rice, b) soil and climate
conditions, c) prevailing temperature and d) agricultural practices ranging from application
of fertilizers and insecticides etc.
A number of researchers has studied the physical and chemical properties of rice husk
ash (RHA). Rice husk ash can not be used alone for stabilizing soil because of the lack of
the cementitious properties. The high percentage of siliceous material in RHA indicates
that it has potential pozzolanic properties. The normal method of conversion of husk to
ash is incineration. The properties of RHA depend whether the husks have undergone
complete destructive combustion or have been partially burnt. The RHA has been
classified into high carbon char, low carbon ash and carbon free ash. The composition
and properties of rice husk ash is presented in table nos 3.4 and 3.5 below.
25
Sl. No Components % present in RHA
1. SiO2 93.2
2. Al2O3 0.59
3. Fe2O3 0.22
4. CaO 0.51
5. MgO 0.41
6. K2O 2.93
7. Loss in Ignition 1.19
Table-3.4 Composition of Rice Husk Ash(RHA) Used
Sl. No Property Value

1. Specific Gravity 1.95
2. Max. Dry Density 8.5
3. Optimum Moisture 31.8
Content
4. Angle of Internal Friction 38
5. Unsoaked CBR(%) 8.75
6. Soaked CBR(%) 8.15
Table 3.5- Properties of Rice Husk Ash (RHA)
Rice husk ash for the present investigation was obtained from a local rice mill at
Chandpara, North 24 Parganas the properties of which have been listed above.
26
CHAPTER FOUR
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE WORK
4.1 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the present study are as follows:-
To determine the applicability, effectiveness and suitability of lime and some locally
available agricultural waste materials e.g. Raw Rice Husk(RRH) and Rice Husk
Ash(RHA) in isolation and in different combinations as soil stabilizing materials for
use in road subgrade.
To characterize both the unstabilized and stabilized soil by conducting routine
laboratory tests like specific gravity, Atterberg Limits, grain size analysis etc.
To determine engineering properties e.g. optimum moisture content (OMC),
maximum dry density (MDD), California Bearing Ratio (CBR), both unsoaked and
soaked for both unstabilized and stabilized soil for assessing the improvement of
soil with stabilization in terms soil strength.
To find out the best possible design mix proportion of soil and admixtures which
gives maximum strength of stabilized soil compared to that of the original soil.
4.2. SCOPES:-
The scopes of work for the present study is summarized below :-
Procurement of soft soil, Rice Husk, Rice Husk Ash and lime.
Conducting routine laboratory tests of original soil, e.g. Liquid Limits, Plastic Limit,
grain size analysis, specific gravity, bulk density field moisture content, swelling
index etc. for characterizing the soil.
Preparation of soil admixtures mixes by percentage of dry weight with appropriate
preselected proportion as shown in tables 4.1 and 4.2 below.
27
Table4.1- Details of Mix Proportions of Lime and RHA with Soil
Mix No Soil (%) Lime (%) RHA (%)

1. 100 0 0
2 97 3 0
3 94 6 0
4 91 9 0
5 88 12 0
6 85 15 0
7 95 0 5
8 90 0 10
9 85 0 15
10 80 0 20
11 92 3 5
12 87 3 10
13 82 3 15
14 77 3 20
15 89 6 5
16 84 6 10
17 79 6 15
18 74 6 20
19 86 9 5
20 81 9 10
21 76 9 15
22 71 9 20
23 83 12 5
24 78 12 10
25 73 12 15
26 68 12 20
27 80 15 5
29 75 15 10
30 70 15 15
31 65 15 20
28
Table -4.2 Details of Mix Proportions of Lime and RRH with Soil
Mix No Soil (%) Lime (%) RRH (%)

1 100 0 0
2 98 0 2
3 97 0 3
4 96 0 4
5 95 0 5
6 94 0 6
7 92 6 2
8 91 6 3
9 90 6 4
10 89 6 5
11 88 6 6
12 89 9 2
13 88 9 3
14 87 9 4
15 86 9 5
16 85 9 6
17 86 12 2
18 85 12 3
19 84 12 4
20 83 12 5
21 82 12 6
Conducting routine laboratory tests with different mix proportions as tabulated above.
Conducting Standard Proctor Test as per IS: 2700(Part-VII),1980/87 on both

unstabilized and stabilized soil mixes to determine their individual OMC and MDD.
Conducting Laboratory CBR tests on both unstabilized and stabilized soil mixes as
tabulated above to find out the CBR value for each of them corresponding to
2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration after compacting the soil at moisture content 5%
more than their respective OMC.
Conducting Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Tests on samples obtained
by compacting each of the unstabilized and stabilized soil samples at OMC+ 5%
moisture content in Standard Proctor Mould.
29
Conducting soaked as well as unsoaked CBR tests on few stabilized soil samples
after curing for 7 days.
Conducting UCS tests for all stabilized soil samples after 7 days and 28 days
curing.
Comparison of test results and evaluation of improvement of weak soil in terms of
CBR and UCS value.
30
CHAPTER FIVE
TEST PROGRAM
5.0 General:
Detailed experimental study was under taken to investigate the characteristics and
behavior of typical locally available soil mixed with lime and waste materials like Raw
Rice Husk(RRH) and Rice Husk Ash (RHA) in different percentage and in several
combinations from the view point of applicability of such materials in road subgrade.
In view of the above the present experimental study has been aimed at to investigate the
behavior of soils with additions of alternative materials as detailed below:
Typical locally available soil

Typical locally available soil and lime
Typical locally available soil and RHA
Typical locally available soil, lime and RHA
Typical locally available soil and RRH
Typical locally available soil, RRH and lime
5.1 Test Program
5.1.1 Routine tests for characterization such as Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Specific gravity,
Free swell index test etc., compaction characteristics and strength properties of
unstabilized soil.
5.1.2 Relevant tests for characterization, compaction characteristics and strength

properties (CBR and UCS) of stabilized soil.
31
Detailed test program of the present study has been reported in this section in tables 5.1
and 5.2 below.
Table-5.1, Detail test program for Lime RHA mixed soil
Sl. Tes Mis L. P. UCS CBR CBR(after 7

No t Proportions L L days curing)
No Soil Li RH 0d 7 28 unso soa Unso soake
(%) me A(% ay day days aked ked aked d
(%) ) cu s curin
rin curi g
g ng
1 1 100 0 0
2 2 97 3 0
3 3 94 6 0
4 4 91 9 0
5 5 88 12 0
6 6 85 15 0
7 7 95 0 5
8 8 90 0 10
9 9 85 0 15
10 10 80 0 20
11 11 92 3 5
12 12 87 3 10
13 13 82 3 15
14 14 77 3 20
15 15 89 6 5
16 16 84 6 10
17 17 79 6 15
18 18 74 6 20
19 19 86 9 5
20 20 81 9 10
21 21 76 9 15
22 22 71 9 20
23 23 83 12 5
24 24 78 12 10
32
25 25 73 12 15
26 26 68 12 20
27 27 80 15 5
28 28 75 15 10
29 29 70 15 15
30 30 65 15 20
Table-5.2- Detail test program for Lime RRH mixed soil
Sl. Te Mis Proportions L. P. UCS CBR CBR(after 7

No st L L days curing)
No
Soil( Li RR 0d 7 28 unso soa Unso soake
%) me H(% ay day days aked ked aked d
(%) )
cu s curin
rin curi g
g ng
1 1 100 0 0
2 2 98 0 2
3 3 97 0 3
4 4 96 0 4
5 5 95 0 5
6 6 94 0 6
7 7 92 6 2
8 8 91 6 3
9 9 90 6 4
10 10 89 6 5
11 11 88 6 6
12 12 89 9 2
13 13 88 9 3
14 14 87 9 4
15 15 86 9 5
16 16 85 9 6
33
17 17 86 12 2
18 18 85 12 3
19 19 84 12 4
20 20 83 12 5
21 21 82 12 6
34
CHAPTER SIX
TEST PROCEDURES
6.0- General:-
In this chapter detailed test proc17edures have been presented. All the tests for
unstabilized soil as well as stabilized soil were carr18ied out as per the procedures laid
out in the relevant IS code of practice.1920
6.1 Name of the tests and the relevant IS code followed, have been presented in this
section in tabular form as below.
Table-6.1- Name of tests performed and Relevant IS Code followed.
25Sl. No Name of tests Relevant IS code

followed
126 Specific Gravity IS : 2720, Part-3, 1980
227 Atterberg Limits IS ; 2720, Part -5,1985
3 Classification and Identification of IS : 2720, Part-1498,1970
soil
4 Grain size analysis IS : 2720, Part-4,1985
5 Water content determination IS : 2720, Part -2, 1973
6 Free swell Index of soil IS : 2720, Part-40,1977
7 Unconfined Compressive Strength IS : 2720, Part-10,1973
8 Laboratory CBR IS :2720, Part-16,1979
9 Water content Dry density IS :2720, Part-7, 1980
Relationship using light compaction
10 Unconfined compressive strength IS :4332, Part-V, 1970
test for stabilized soil
35
All the tests of original soil were carried out as per the standard practice as laid out in the
relevant IS code of practice. For tests of specimens of mixed/stabilized soils , specimens
were prepared by thoroughly mixing the required quantity of soil and stabilizers in
preselected proportion in dry state and then required quantity of water was sprinkled and
mixed thoroughly to get a homogeneous and uniform mixture of soil and admixtures. To
maintain the homogeneity and uniformity in mix proportions, specimens for both the
Unconfined compressive strength tests and California Bearing Ratio tests were prepared
simultaneously, so as to ensure uniformity in materials and water content. Specimens for
UCS tests were collected from Standard Proctor mould after compacting the same in the
mould at a moisture content equal to respective OMC plus 5%. For every combinations, 9
samples were prepared. Three were tested on the same day of preparation of specimens
and another six specimens were kept in dessicator after putting the specimens in sealed
plastic bag for 7 days and 28 days testing to investigate the effect of curing.
For laboratory CBR tests, specimens were prepared in the CBR mould as per the
standard practice. Immediately after preparation of specimen the same tested for
unsoaked condition and then it was submerged for four days for soaked tests. Same
specimens were used for both unsoaked and soaked tests. For every combination of soil
and stabilizers, two specimens were kept in closed dessicator after covering the same by
plastic sheet for 7 days. Thereafter the specimens were tested for unsoaked and four days
soaked tests to investigate the effect of curing.
For Atterberg limit tests on mixed soils, specimens were prepared by mixing soil and
stabilizers in dry state as per the preselected proportions thoroughly and then water was
added as per the standard practice. To investigate the effect of mixing RHA, RHA lime
combination and also RRH and RRH Lime combination with the original soil to be used for
construction of road subgrade, RHA was mixed in various proportions of 5%,10%, 15%,
20% and RRH was mixed in proportions of 2%,3%,4%,5%,and 6% with soil in isolation
and in combination of lime in the proportions of 3%,6%,9%,12%,15%,with each of the
percentage of RHA and 6%,9%,12%,respectively with each of the percentage of RRH. To
determine the moisture content dry density relation ship, CBR and UCS of stabilized soil ,
Standard Proctor Test (IS 2720, Part-7, 1980) was carried out. Specimens for CBR tests
was compacted at moisture content equal to OMC plus five percent and for UCS tests
specimens were collected from Standard Proctor Mould after compacting it at moisture
content equal toOMC+5%.
36
CHAPTER SEVEN
PRESENTATION OF TEST RESULTS
7.0 - General:-
In this chapter the results of all the tests carried out have been presented in the following
sections.
7.1- Evaluated geotechnical properties of soil

In this section the evaluated geotechnical properties of the original soil have been
presented in tabular form in table 6.1 below and the necessary graphs have been
presented thereafter.
Table-7.1- Evaluated geotechnical properties of Original Soil
Sl. No Characteristics Value

1 Specific Gravity 2.63
2 Particle Size Distribution(%)
a)Sand 9
b)Silt 81
10
c)Clay
3 Liquid Limit(%) 48
4 Plastic limit(%) 26
5 Plasticity Index(%) 22
6 Classification of soil CI
7 Maximum Dry Density (gm/cc) 1.61
8 Optimum Moisture Content(%) 20
37
9 Unconfined Compressive strength(KN/m2) 390
10 Unsoaked CBR(%) compacted at OMC 8.3
11 Soaked CBR(%) compacted at OMC 3.36
12 Unsoaked CBR(%) compacted at moisture 4.3
content OMC+5%.
13 Soaked CBR (%) when compacted at 2.6
moisture content OMC+ 5%
14 Swelling Index(%) 14
Original Soil
2
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40
water content(%)
Fig 7.1(a)-Dry density moisture content relationship of original

Grain Size Distribution of Soil
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
G r ai n Siz e ( mm)
Fig 7.1(b)- Grain size distribution curve of original soil
38
Unsoaked CBR Test of Soil at 35% w ater Content
120
100
80
Load (Kg)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Penetration (m m )
Fig 7.1(c) – Unsoaked CBR of original soil

Soaked CBR Test of Soil at 30% Water Content
120
100
Load
80 (Kg)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Penetration (mm)
Fig 7.1(d) Soaked CBR of original soil
6.2. Results for Characterization test of stabilized soil
Results of laboratory tests for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index properties of
different mixes of soil with varying percentage of Lime, RHA, Lime and RHA , Raw Rice
Husk(RRH) and RRH plus Lime for characterization of Unstabilized and Stabilized Soil
have been presented in this section.
39
6.2.1. Consistency limits of soil with varying percentage of Lime are presented in this
section along with necessary graphical representation.
Table -7.2, Consistency limits of soil with varying percentage of Lime
% of Lime Liquid Limit(%) Plastic Limit(%) Plasticity

Index(%)
0 48 26 22
3 55.5 35.2 20.3
6 56.3 35.9 20.4
9 58.5 38.3 20.2

12 59.7 39.2 19.8
15 60.3 41.5 18.8
Variation of Plastic Limit with varying
percentage of lime
50
Plastic limit(%)
40
30
Plastic Limit(%)
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig -7.1(e)
40
Variation of Liquid Limt with varying
percentage of Lime
70
60
Liquid Limit(%)
50
40
Liquid Limt
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig 7.1(f)
Variation of Plasticity Index(%) with varying % of
Lime
23
Plasticity Index(%)
22
21
Plasticity Index(%)
20
19
18
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig 7.1 (g)
7.2.2 Consistency Limits of soil with varying percentage of Rice Husk Ash have been
presented in this section along with graphical representations.
41
Table-7.3, Consistency Limits of soil with varying percentage of RHA
% of RHA Liquid Limit(%) Plastic Limit(%) Plasticity Index(%)

0 48 26 22
5 56.6 37.2 19.4
10 58.3 39.4 18.9
15 61.7 43.95 17.75
20 63.5 45.69 17.81
Variation of Liquid Limit with varying % of RHA
70
60
Liquid Limit(%)
50
40
Liquid Limit
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
% of RHA
Fig 7.1(h)
Varyiation of Plastic Limit(%) with varying % of
Lime
50
Plastic Limit(%)
40
30
Plastic Limit(%)
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
% of Lim e
42
Fig7.1 (i)
Variation of Plasticity Index with varying % of

RHA
25
Plasticity Index(%0
20
15
Plasticity Index
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
% of RHA
Fig 7.1(j)
7.2.3 Consistency Limits of soil with lime and RHA addition have been presented in this
section along with graphical representations
Table-7.4, Consistency Limits of soil with varying percentage of Lime and RHA
Soil(%) Lime(%) RHA(%) L.L(%) P.L.(%) P.I(%)

100 0 0 48 26 22
92 3 5 56.5 38.2 18.3
87 3 10 57.3 39.3 18
82 3 15 58.5 41.1 17.4
77 3 20 60.4 42.4 18
89 6 5 57.5 38.6 18.9
84 6 10 59.3 39.2 20.1
79 6 15 61.5 41.3 20.2
74 6 20 62.5 43.2 19.3
86 9 5 59.6 41.1 18.5
81 9 10 60.4 42.5 17.9
76 9 15 61.3 43.2 18.1
43
71 9 20 63.2 43.6 19.6
83 12 5 59.3 41.5 17.8
78 12 10 61.5 42.9 18.6
73 12 15 63.5 43.2 20.3
68 12 20 64.3 44.5 19.8
80 15 5 60.4 42 18.4
75 15 10 62.6 42.8 19.8
70 15 15 64.5 43.7 20.8
65 15 20 66.2 45.2 21
Variation of Liquid Limit with varying % of RHA

for a given % of Lime
70
L.L. for 3% Lime
60 content
Liquid Limit(%)
50 L.L for 6% Lime

40
30 L.L. for 9% Lime
20 content
10 L.L. for 12% Lime
0 content
0 10 20 30 L.L.for 15% Lime
% of RHA content
Fig 7.2(a)
44
Variation of Plastic Limit with varying % of RHA
50 P.L. for 3% Lime

content
Plastic Limit(%)
40
P.L.for 6% Lime
30 content
20 P.L.for 9% Lime
content
10
P.L for 12% Lime
0 content
0 10 20 30 P.L.for 15% Lime
% of RHA content
Fig 7.2(b)
Variation of Plasticity Index of soil with varying

% of RHA for a given % of Lime
P.I. for 3% Lime
content
25
P.I.for 6% Lime
20 content
P.I.for 9% Lime
15
P.I.(%)
content
10 P.I.for 12% Lime
content
5
P.I. for 15% Lime
0 content
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.2(c)
7.2.4- Consistency Limits of soil with varying percentage of Raw Rice Husk(RRH)
addition have been presented in this section along with necessary graphical
representation.
Table-7.5- Consistency Limits of Soil with varying percentage of Raw

Rice Husk
45
% RRH L.L(%) P.L.(%) P.I(%)
0 48 26 22
2 59.2 37 22.2
3 60.5 38.2 22.3
4 62.2 39.4 22.8
5 63 40.3 22.7
6 64.4 42.1 22.3
Variation of Liquid Limit with varying % of RRH
70
60
Liquid Limit(%)
50
40
Liquid Limit
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8
% OF RRH
Fig 7.3(a)
46
Variation of Plastic Limitwith varying % of RRH
45
40
35
Plastic limit(%)
30
25
Plastic Limit
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8
% OF RRH
Fig7.3 (b)
Variation of Plasticity Index with varying % of

RRH
23
Plasticity Index(%)
22.8
22.6
22.4 Plasticity Index(%)
22.2
22
21.8
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.3(c)
7.2.5 Consistency Limits of soil with varying percentage of Lime and RRH addition have
been presented in this section along with necessary graphical representation.
Table-7.6, Consistency Limits of soil with varying percentage of Lime and RRH
47
Soil(%) Lime(%) RRH(%) L.L.(%) P.L.(%) P.I.(%)
100 0 0 48 26 22
6 2 56 39 17
6 3 57.2 39.4 17.8
6 4 58.1 41.2 16.9
6 5 59 42 17
6 6 59.3 39.5 19.8
9 2 58 41.9 16.1
9 3 58.8 41.8 17
9 4 59.2 42.4 16.8
9 5 60.7 43 17.7
9 6 62.2 42.9 19.3
12 2 62 43.3 18.7
12 3 62.9 44.3 18.6
12 4 63.4 45.1 18.3
12 5 64.2 46 18.2
12 6 65.6 46.6 19
Variation of Liquid Limit with varying % of RRH

70
60 L.L.for 6% Lime
Liquid Limit(%)
50 content
40 L.L.for 9% of Lime
30 content
20 L.L. for 12% Lime
10 content
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.4(a)
48
Variation of P.L. for varying % of RRH for a
given % of Lime
50
40
P.L (%)
30 P.L. for 6% of Lime
20
10 P.L. for 9% of Lime
0
0 2 4 6 8 P.L. for 12% of
Lime
% of RRH
9
Fig 7.4(b)
Variation of P.I. for varying % of RRH with a

given % of Lime
25
20 P.I. FOR 6% of Lime
15
P.I.(%)
P.I. for 9% of Lime

10
P.i. FOR 12% OF
5 lIME
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.4 (C)
7.3 Compaction Characteristics of Unstabilized and Stabilized Soil

In this section results of Compaction Characteristics of unstabilized and Stabilized Soil
obtained from Standard Proctor tests have been presented in tables and graphs.
7.4.1 Compaction characteristics of Unstabilized soil
49
Fig 7.5(a)
7.4.2 Compaction characteristics of Soil with varying percentage of Lime have been
presented in this section along with necessary graphical representation in table 6.7.
Table -7.7 Compaction characteristics of soil with varying percentageof Lime
Sl. No % of Lime O.M.C(%) Max.Dry Density(gm/cc)

1 0 20 1.61
2 3 22 1.51
3 6 22.5 1.46
4 9 23 1.45
5 12 25 1.43
6 15 26.2 1.42
50
Fig 7.5(b)
Soil +6% Lime
1.5
Dry Density(gm/cc)
1.45
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.5(c)
51
Soil + 9% Lime
DRY DENSITY (gm/cc)

2
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content(%)
Fig 7.5(d)
Soil +12% Lime
1.44
Dry Density(gm/cc)
1.42
1.4
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content(%)
Fig 7.5(e)
OMC+15% Lime
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.45
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig7.5(f)
52
7.4.3. Compaction characteristics of soil with varying percentage of RHA
Compaction Characteristics of Soil with varying percentage of RHA have been presented
in this section along with necessary graphical representation in table 7.8.
Table- 7.8, Compaction characteristics of Soil with varying percentage of RHA
Sl.No %of RHA OMC(%) Max.Dry Density(gm/cc)

1 0 20 1.61
2 5 23.5 1.43
3 10 25.4 1.39
4 15 28.3 1.35
5 20 30.8 1.29
Soil + 5% RHA
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.45
1.4
1.35
1.3
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.6(a)
53
Soil +10% RHA
1.4
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig7.6 (b)
OMC +15% RHA

Dry density(gm/cc)
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
0 10 20 30 40 50
Wqater Content (%)
Fig 7.6(c))
Soil +20% RHA
1.3
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Water Content (%)
54
Fig 7.6 (d)
7.4.4 Compaction Characteristics of soil with varying combination of Lime and RHA have
been presented in this section in table 7.9 along with necessary graphical representation.
Table -7.9, Compaction charactertistics of Soil with varying percentage of Lime and
RHA
Sl No Soil(%) Lime(%) RHA(%) OMC(%0 Mdd(gm/cc)
1 3 5 25 1.41
2 3 10 27.2 1.38
3 3 15 29.1 1.33
4 3 20 30.9 1.29
5 6 5 26 1.39
6 6 10 27.5 1.36
7 6 15 30.2 1.32
8 6 20 32.4 1.28
9 9 5 28 1.39
10 9 10 29.5 1.36
11 9 15 31.2 1.3
12 9 20 32.8 1.26
13 12 5 28.9 1.37
14 12 10 30.7 1.34
15 12 15 31.9 1.29
16 12 20 33.1 1.25
17 15 5 29.3 1.35
18 15 10 30.9 1.31
19 15 15 32.1 1.27
20 15 20 33.6 1.23
55
Soil+3% Lime +5% RHA
1.42
Dry Density(gm/cc)
1.4
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
1.28
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(a)
Soil+3 %Lime+ 10% RHA
1.4
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7 (b)
56
Soil+3% Lime +15% RHA
1.35
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(c)
Soil+3% Lime+20% RHA
1.3
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7 (d)
Soil+6% Lime+5% RHA
1.4
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
1.28
1.26
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content(%)
Fig 7.7(e)
57
Soil +6% Lime+10% RHA
1.4
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(f)
1.34
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.32
1.3
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.2
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig7.7(g)
1.3
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7 (h)
58
Soil+9% Lime+5% RHA
1.4
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.35
1.3
1.25
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(i)
1.4
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
0 10 20 30 40
Water Comtent (%)
Fig 7.7(j)
1.3
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.25
1.2
1.15
0 10 20 30 40 50
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(k)
59
Soil+9% Lim e+20% RHA
1.28
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.2
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.12
0 10 20 30 40 50
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(l)
1.4
Dry density(gm/.cc)
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content(%)
Fig 7.7(m)
1.34
Dry dfensity(gm/cc)
1.32
1.3
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.2
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(n)
60
1.3
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.2
1.18
1.16
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(o)
1.26
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.24
1.22
1.2
1.18
1.16
1.14
0 10 20 30 40 50
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(p)
1.38
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig7.7(q)
61
1.35
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(r)

DRY DENSITY(gm/cc)
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.2
1.18
1.16
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.7(s)

Dry density(gm/cc)
1.24
1.22
1.2
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.1
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig7.7 (t)
62
7.4.5 Compaction Characteristics of soil with varying percentage of RRH have been
presented in this section in table 6.10 along with necessary graphical representation.
Table- 7.10- Compaction characteristics of soil with varying percentage of Raw Rice
Husk
Sl. No % of RRH OMC(%) MDD(gm/cc)

1 0 20 1.61
2 2 23.2 1.47
3 3 24.3 1.43
4 4 25.3 1.38
5 5 26.5 1.34
6 6 28 1.31
Soil+2% RRH
1.48
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.46
1.44
1.42
1.4
1.38
1.36
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.8(a)
63
Soil+3% RRH
1.44
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.42
1.4
1.38
1.36
1.34
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.8 (b)
Soil+4% RRH
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
1.28
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.8 (c)
Soil+5% RRH
1.36
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.34
1.32
1.3
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
64
Fig 7.8(d)
Soil+6% RRH
1.32
Dry density9gm/cc)
1.3
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.2
1.18
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.8 (e)
7.4.6 Compaction Characteristics of soil with varying percentage of Lime and RRH have
been presented in this section in table 6.11 along with necessary graphical representation.
Table-7.11- Compaction characteristics of soil with varying percentage of Lime and

RRH
Sl. No Soil(%) Lime(%) RRH(%) OMC(%) MDD(gm/cc)
1 100 0 0 20 1.61
2 6 2 24 1.43
3 6 3 25 1.4
4 6 4 26.1 1.37
5 6 5 27.5 1.35
6 6 6 28.9 1.32
7 9 2 25.1 1.4
8 9 3 26.3 1.36
9 9 4 27.5 1.33
10 9 5 28.7 1.31
11 9 6 30.3 1.29
12 12 2 26.5 1.36
65
13 12 3 28.7 1.33
14 12 4 29.6 1.3
15 12 5 30.8 1.28
16 12 6 32.2 1.25
Soil+6% Lime+2% RRH

Dry density(gm/cc)
1.45
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.9(a)
Soil+6% Lime+3% RRH
1.4
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.9(b)
66
Soil+6% Lime+4% RRH
1.38
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
1.28
1.26
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.9(c)
Soil+6% Lime+5% RRH

Dry density(gm/cc)
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.9(d)
Soil+6% Lime+6% RRH
1.35
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.9 (e)
67
Soil+9% Lime+2% RRH
1.4
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.10(a)
Soil+9% Lime+3% RRH
1.4
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.10 (b)
Soil+9% Lime+4% RRH

Dry density(gm/cc)
1.34
1.32
1.3
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
68
Fig 7.10(c)
Soil +9% Lime+5% RRH
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.10(d)
Soil+9% Lime+6% RRH

Dry density(gm/cc)
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig7.10 (e)
Soil+12% Lime+2% RRH

Dry density(gm/cc)
1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.11(a)
69
1.35
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
0 10 20 30 40
Water5 Content (%)
Fig 7.11(b)
1.35
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.11(c)
1.3
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.11(d)
70
1.3
Dry density(gm/cc)
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0 10 20 30 40
Water Content (%)
Fig 7.11(e)
Variation of O.M.C. with Lime content
30
25
O.M.C(%)
20
15 O.M.C(%)
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lime
Fig 7.12(a)
71
Variation of M.D.D.(gm/cc) with Lime
content
1.65
M.D.D.(gm/cc)
1.6
1.55
M.D.D.(gm/cc)
1.5
1.45
1.4
0 10 20
% of Lime
Fig 7.12(b)
Variation of O.M.C with RHA content
35
30
25
O.M.C.(%)
20
O.M.C
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.12(c)
72
Variation of M.D.D.(gm/cc) with RHA content
2
M.D.D.(gm/cc)
1.5
1 M.D.D.(gm/cc)
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
% of RHA
Fig 7.12(d)
Variation of OMC for Lime RHA mixed soil with

Lime
40
35
30 OMC for RHA 5%
OMC(%)
25
OMC for RHA10%
20
15 OMC for RHA15%
10 OMC for RHA20%
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lime
Fig7 .12(e)
73
Variation of MDD for Lime RHA mixed soil with
Lime
1.45
1.4
MDD(gm/cc)
MDD for RHA 5%
1.35 MDD for RHA 10 %
1.3 MDD for RHA 20%
"MDD for RHA 15%"
1.25
1.2
0 5 10 15 20
%of Lime
Fig 7.12(f)
Variation of OMC(% ) WITH RRH content
30
25
20
OMC(%)
15 OMC(%)
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.12(g)
74
Variation of MDD(gm/cc) with RRH content
1.5
MDD(KN/m3)
1 MDD(KN/m3)
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.12(h)
7.5 Strength characteristics of soil

The strength characteristics (CBR and UCS) of both stabilized and unstabilized soil have
been presented in this section.
7.4.6.1 Strength characteristics of mixed soil with varying percentage of Lime have been
presented in this section with graphical representations.
Table -7.11 Strength Characteristics of soil with varying percent of lime
Sl No % of CBR(%), CBR(%) after 7 UCS(KN/m2 ),

Lime (compacted at days (Specimens compacted
OMC+5% moisture
curing(compacted at OMC+5%)
content) at OMC + 5%
moisture content)
Unsoaked Soaked Unsoaked Soaked 0day 7 days 28
curing curing days
curing
1 0 4.3 2.6 130
2 3 6.8 11.6 135 210 226
75
3 6 8.93 12.9 155 222 235
4 9 10.12 13.65 12.8 14.3 170 234 248
5 12 11.9 15.2 14.5 16 182 230 255

6 15 12.75 17.3 190 251 276
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
SOIL+6% LIME+10% RHA
600
500
400
LOAD(kg)
300
UNSOAKED
SOAKED
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
PENETRATION(mm)
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
UCS(SOIL+6% LIME)
250
200
STRESS(kg/cm2)
150
0-DAYS
7-DAYS
100 28-DAYS
50
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
STRAIN(%)
92
93
UCS(SOIL+10% RHA)
250
200
STRESS(kg/cM2)
150
0-DAYS
7-DAYS
28-DAYS
100
50
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
STRAIN(%)
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Variation of CBR with Lime content
at moisture content equal to OMC +
5%
20
15 Unsoaked
CBR(%)
C.B.R(%)
10
Soaked
5 C.B.R.(%)
0
0 10 20
% of Lime
Fig 7.13(a)
Variation of UCS with varying % of Lime

content compacted at moisture content
OMC + 5%
300
250
UCS(KN/m2)
200 UCS(Kpa) 0
150 day curing
100 UCS(Kpa) 7
50 days curing
0 UCS(Kpa) 28
0 5 10 15 20 days curing)
% of Lime
Fig 7.13(b)
7.4.6.2 Strength characteristics of mixed soil with varying percentage of RHA have been
presented in table 6.12 with graphical representation.
116
Table 7.12-Strength Characteristics of soil with varying percentage of RHA
Sl No % of CBR(%)(compacted CBR(%) after 7 UCS(KN/m2 )

RHA at OMC+5% days curing (Specimens compacted
moisture content (compacted at at OMC+5%)
OMC+5% moisture
content
Unsoaked Soaked Unsoaked Soaked 0day 7 days 28
curing curing days
curing
1 0 4.3 2.6 130
2 5 7.35 4.8 93 175 212
3 10 7.9 6.2 11.2 8.6 99 166 195
4 15 8.2 7.9 12.25 10.3 125 235 185
5 20 8.8 10.6 143 220 168
Variation of CBR with varying % of RHA content

(compacted at moisture content OMC+5%)
12
10
8
CBR(%)
Unsoaked CBR(%)
6
Soaked CBR(%)
4
2
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.14(a)
117
Variation of UCS with varying % of RHA
content(compacted at moisture content OMC+5%)
250
UCS(Kpa) 0 day
200
UCS(KN/m2)
curing
150 UCS(Kpa) 7 days
100 curing
50 UCS(Kpa) 28 days
curing
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.14(b)
7.4.6.3 Strength characteristics of mixed soil with varying percentage of Lime and RHA
have been presented in table 6.13 along with graphical representation.
Table-7.13 Strength characteristics of soil with varying percentage of Lime and

RHA
Sl Mix proportion(% by CBR(%)(%)(c CBR(5) after UCS(KN/m2 )

N dry weight) ompacted at 7 days curing (Specimens
o OMC+5% compacted at compacted at OMC+5%
moisture OMC+5%
content) moisture
content)
Soil( Lime( RHA( Unsoa Soa Unsoa Soa 0 7 28 days
%) %0 %) ked ked ked ked day day curing
curi s
ng curi
ng
0 0 4.3 2.6 130
3 5 8 12.5 9.2 13.1 155 178 230
118
3 10 12.85 17 205 244 260
3 15 12 12 13.3 14 106 116 190
3 20 12.4 11.4 90 98 145
5
6 5 9.26 15 11.2 16 158 236 332
6 10 12.95 17.4 146 205 210
6 15 14.4 20 16.3 19.8 110 175 196
6 20 12.6 15.6 87 150 166
9 5 9.8 15.4 13.2 17.2 172 164 260
9 10 12.4 23.1 175 242 296
8
9 15 11.53 20.6 14.3 22.3 188 260 315
5
9 20 14.25 25.4 210 353 464
12 5 12.4 22.6 190 207 292
12 10 13.2 19.4 15 20.4 188 290 400
12 15 14.8 23.6 16 24 195 295 405
12 20 15.7 26 200 320 415
15 5 12.2 21.6 203 340 442
15 10 14.3 23.6 17.5 25 218 494 530
15 15 16 26 193 294 264
15 20 21.3 32.1 21 33.7 188 251 270
7
119
Variation of CBR of soil with Lime- RHA content
(3% Lime)
20
15
CBR (%)
Unsoaked CBR(%)
10
Soaked CBR(%)
5
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.15(a)
Variation of UCS of soil with Lime-RHA

content(3% Lime)
300
250 UCS(Kpa) 0 day
UCS (KN/m2)
curing
200
UCS(Kpa) 7 days
150
curing
100
UCS(Kpa) 28days
50 curing
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.15(b)
120
Variation of CBR of soil with Lime RHA
content(6% Lime)
25
20
CBR(%)
15 Unsoaked CBR(%)
10 Soaked CBR(%)
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.15(c)
Variation of UCS of soil with Lime-RHA content

(6% Lime)
350
300 UCS(Kpa) for 0day
UCS (KN/m2)
250 curing
200 UCS(Kpa) for 7
150 days curing
100 UCS (Kpa) for 28
50 days curing
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.15(d)
121
Variation of CBR of soil with Lime-RHA
content(9% Lime)
30
25
20
CBR(%) Unsoaked CBR(%)
15
Soaked CBR(%)
10
5
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.15(e)

(9% Lime)
500
400 UCS(Kpa) for 0 day

UCS(KN/m2)
curing
300 UCS(Kpa) for 7
200 days curing
UCS(Kpa) for 28
100 days curing
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.15(f)
122
content(12% Lime)
500
UCS(KN/m2)
curing
300
UCS(Kpa) for 7
200 days curing
100 UCS(Kpa) for 28
days curing
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.15(g)
Variation of CBR with Lime-RHA content(12%

Lime)
30
25
20
CBR(%)
Unsoaked CBR(%)
15
Soaked CBR(%)
10
5
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.15(h)
123
Variation of CBR of soil with Lime-RHA content (
15% Lime)
35
30
25
CBR(%) 20 Unsoaked CBR(%)
15 Soaked CBR(%)
10
5
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.15(i)
Variation of UCS of soil with Lime-RHA copntent

(Lime 15%)
600
UCS(KN/m2))
curing
400
UCS (Kpa) for 7
300
days curing
200
UCS(Kpa) for 28
100 days curing
0
0 10 20 30
% of RHA
Fig 7.15(j)
124
Variation of CBR with Lime -RHA content(5%
RHA content)
25
20
CBR(%)
15 Unsoaked CBR(%)
10 Soaked CBR(%0
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig 7.15(k)
Variation of UCS of soil with Lime -RHA content

(5% RHA content)
500
400 UCS for 0 day

UCS (KN/m2)
curing
300
UCS for 7 days
curing
200
UCS for 28 days
100 curing
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig 7.15(l)
125
Variation of CBR with Lime-RHA content (10%
RHA content)
25
20
CBR(%)
15 Unsoaked CBR(%)
10 Soaked CBR(%0
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig 7.15(m)

content(10% RHA)
600
500 UCS for 0 day
UCS (KN/m2)
curing
400
UCS for 7 days
300
curing
200
UCS for 28 days
100 curing
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig 7.15(n)
126
Variation of CBR with Lime-RHA content(15%
RHA content)
30
25
20
CBR(%) Unsoaked CBR(%)
15
Soaked CBR(%0
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig 7.15(o)

(15% RHA content)
350
300 UCS for 0 day
UCS(KN/m2)
250 curing
200 UCS for 7 days
150 curing
100 UCS for 28 days
50 curing
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig 7.15(p)
127
Variation of CBR withg Lime -RHA content (20%
RHA content)
35
30
25
CBR(%) 20 Unsoaked CBR(%)
15 Soaked CBR(%0
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig 7.15(q)
Variation of UCS of soil with Lime- RHA content

(20% RHA content)
500
400 UCS for 0 day curing

UCS (KN/m2)
300 UCS for 7 days

curing
200
UCS for 28 days
100 curing
0
0 5 10 15 20
% of Lim e
Fig 7.15(r)
128
7.4.6.4.Strength characteristics of soil with varying percentage of RRH have been
presented in section in table 6.14 along with graphical representations.
Table – 7.14 Strength characteristics of soil with varying percentage of lime and
RRH
Sl No % of CBR(%)(compacted CBR(%) after 7 UCS(KN/m2 )9

RRH at moisture content days Specimens compacted
OMC+5%) curing(compacted at moisture content
at moisture OMC+5%)
content OMC+5%
Unsoaked Soaked Unsoaked Soaked 0day 7 28
curing days days
curing curing
1 0 4.3 2.6 130
2 2 3.73 3.52 116 128 136
3 3 3.66 3.62 3.4 3 103 125 138
4 4 3.8 2.8 84 100 124
5 5 4.8 3 4.3 3.9 94 133 141
6 6 5.2 4.8 84 117 120
Soil+2% RRH
140
120
100
Load(kg)
80 Unsoaked CBR
60 Soaked CBR
40
20
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.17(a)
129
Soil+3% RRH
140
120
100
Load(kg)
80 Unsoaked CBR
60 Soaked CBR
40
20
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.17(b)
Soil+4% RRH
160
140
120
Load in kg
100
Unsoaked CBR
80
Soaked CBR
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in m m
Fig 7.17(c)
130
Soil+5% RRH
180
160
140
120
Load in kg
100 Unsoaked CBR
80 Soaked CBR
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in m m
Fig 7.17(d)
Soil+6% RRH
180
160
140
120
Load in kg
100
Unsoaked CBR
80
60 Soaked CBR
40
20
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in m m
Fig 7.17(e)
7.4.6.4 Strength characteristics of soil with varying percentage of Lime and RRH have
been presented in section in table 6.15 along with graphical representations.
Table7.15- strength characteristics of soil with varying percentage of Lime and RRH
131
Sl Mix proportion(% by CBR(%)(com CBR(5) after UCS(KN/m2 )
N dry weight) pacted at 7 days Specimens compacted
o moisture curing(comp at moisture content
content acted at OMC+5%
OMC+5%) moisture
content
OMC+5%)
Soil( Lime( RRH( Unsoa Soak Unsoa Soak 0 7 28 days
%) %0 %) ked ed ked ed day day curing
curi s
ng curi
ng
0 0 4.3 2.6 130
6 2 7.6 8.6 125 169 195
6 3 8.8 10.9 10.8 12.2 144 250 248
6 4 8.9 10.6 118 218 222
6 5 9.8 17.8 11.3 18.2 146 356 395
6 6 7.5 9.9 119 131 180
9 2 8 11.4 183 189 210
9 3 8.13 13.32 11.5 15.6 159 183 201
9 4 9.2 14 132 220 237
9 5 10.12 15.8 12.7 17.7 115 195 206
9 6 9 16 133 212 225
12 2 9 13.8 145 250 270
12 3 17 20 18.2 20.5 261 380 390
12 4 10.33 18.87 194 344 360
12 5 10.7 16.7 16.7 14 188 309 342
12 6 9.5 16.8 172 296 303
132
Soil+6% Lime+2% RRH
300
250
200
Load in kg
Unsoaked CBR
150
Soaked CBR
100
50
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in m m
Fig 7.18(a)
Soil+6% Lime+3% RRH
400
350
300
Load in kg
250
Unsoaked CBR
200
Soaked CBR
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in m m
Fig 7.18(b)
133
Soil+6% Lime+4% RRH
400
350
300
Load in kg 250
Unsoaked CBR
200
150 Soaked CBR
100
50
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.18(c)
Soil+6% Lime+5%RRH
600
500
Load in kg
400
Unsoaked CBR
300
Soaked CBR
200
100
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.18(d)
134
Soil+6% Lime+6% RRH
350
300
250
Load in kg 200 Unsoaked CBR
150 Soaked CBR
100
50
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in m m
Fig 7.18(e)
Soil+9% Lime+2% RRH
400
350
300
Load in kg
250
Unsoaked CBR
200
150 Soaked CBR
100
50
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.18(f)
135
Soil+9% Lime+3% RRH
500
400
Load in kg
300 Unsoaked CBR
200 Soaked CBR
100
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.18(g)
Soil+9% Lime+4%RRH
400
350
300
Load in Kg
250
Unsoaked CBR
200
150 Soaked CBR
100
50
0
0 5 10 15
PENETRATION IN MM
Fig 7.18(h)
136
Soil+9% Lime+5% RRH
500
450
400
350
Load ion Kg
300 Unsoaked CBR

250
200 Soaked CBR
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.18(i)
Soil+9%+6% Lime
500
400
Load in kg
300 Unsoaked CBR

200 Soaked CBR
100
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.18(j)
137
Soil+12% Lime +2% RRH
450
400
Load in kg 350
300
250 Unsoaked CBR
200 Soaked CBR
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15
PENETRATION IN MM
Fig 7.18(k)
SOIL+12% Lime +3% RRH+
700
600
Load in Kg
500
400 Unsoaked CBR
300 Soaked CBR
200
100
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.18(l)
138
600
500
Load in Kg
400
Unsoaked CBR
300
Soaked CBR
200
100
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.18(m)
600
500
Load in Kg
400
Unsoaked CBR
300
Soaked CBR
200
100
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.18(n)
139
600
500
Load in Kg
400
Unsoaked CBR
300
Soaked CBR
200
100
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration in mm
Fig 7.18(o)
Variation of CBR with RRH content compacted

at moisture content OMC+5%
6
5
4
CBR(%)
Unsoaked CBR(%)
3
Soaked CBR(%)
2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
3
Fig 7.19(a)
140
Variation of UCS with RRH content
160
140
UCS(Kpa) for 0
120
UCS (KN/m2)
daycuring
100
UCS for 7 days
80
curing
60
UCS for28 days
40
curing
20
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.19(b)
Variation of CBR with Lime-RRH content (6%

Lime content)
20
15
CBR(%)
Unsoaked CBR(%)
10
Soaked CBR(%)
5
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.20(a)
141
Variation of UCS(kpa) of soil with Lime-RRH
content (6% Lime content)
500
400 UCS for 0 day
UCS(KN/m2)
curing
300
UCS for 7days
200 curing
UCS for 28 days
100 curing
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.20(b)

Lime content)
20
15
CBR(%)
Unsoaked CBR(%)
10
Soaked CBR(%)
5
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.20(c)
142
Variation of UCS of Lime-RRH content (9% Lime)
300
250
UCS for 0 day
UCS(KN/m2)
200 curing
UCS for 7days
150
curing
100 UCS for 28 days
curing
50
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.20(d)

Lime content)
25
20
CBR(%)
15 Unsoaked CBR(%)
10 Soaked CBR(%)
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.21(a)
143
Variation of UCS for Lime-RRH content(12%
Lime content)
500
400
UCS for 0 day
UCS(KN/m2) 300 curing
UCS for 7days
200 curing
100 UCS for 28 days
curing
0
0 2 4 6 8
% of RRH
Fig 7.21(b)
Variation of UCS with Lime- RRH content (2%

RRH content)
300
250 UCS for 0 day curing
UCS(Kpa)
200
UCS for 7 days
150
curing
100
UCS for 28 days
50 curing
0
0 5 10 15
% of Lim e
Fig 7.22(a)
144
Variation of CBR with Lime -RRH content (2%
RRH content)
16
14
12
CBR (%)
10
Unsoaked CBR(%)
8
Soaked CBR(%0
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15
% of Lim e
Fig 7.22(b)
Variation of UCS for Lime -RRH content(3% RRH

content)
500
UCS for 0 day
400
UCS(KN/m2)
curing
300 UCS for 7 day
200 curing
UCS for 28 days
100
curing
0
0 5 10 15
% of Lime
Fig 7.23(a)
145
Variation of CBR with Lime -RRH content(3%
RRH content)
25
20
CBR(%)
15 Unsoaked CBR(%)
10 Soaked CBR(%0
5
0
0 5 10 15
% of Lime
Fig 7.23(b)
Variation of UCS with Lime -RRH content(4% RRH

content)
400
UCS for 0 day
UCS(KN/m2)
300 curing
UCS for 7 days
200
curing
100 UCS for 28 days
curing
0
0 5 10 15
% of Lime
Fig 7.24(a)
146
Variation of CBR with Lime-RRH content(4% RRH
content)
20
CBR(%) 15
Unsoaked CBR(%)
10
Soaked CBR(%0
5
0
0 5 10 15
% of Lime
Fig 7.24(b)
Variation for UCS with Lime-RRH content (5%

RRH content)
500
UCS for o day
UCS (KN/m2))
400
curing
300 UCS for 7 days
200 curing
100 UCS for 28 days

curing
0
0 5 10 15
% of Lime
Fig 7.25(a)
147
Variation of CBR with Lime -RRH content(5%
RRH content)
20
CBR(%) 15
Unsoaked CBR(%)
10
Soaked CBR(%0
5
0
0 5 10 15
% of Lime
Fig7.25 (b)
Variation of UCS with Lime-RRH content(6% RRH

content)
350
300 UCS for o day
UCS(KN/m2)
250 curing
200 UCS for 7 days
150 curing
100 UCS for 28 days
50 curing
0
0 5 10 15
% of Lime
Fig7.26(a)
148
Variation of CBR with Lime -RRH content (6% RRH
content)
20
CBR(%) 15
Unsoaked CBR(%)
10
Soaked CBR(%0
5
0
0 5 10 15
% of Lime
Fig 7.26(b)
7.4.6.4 Comparison of CBR test results of 7 days cured specimens with uncured
specimens
In this section a comparative statement has been presented showing the CBR test results
of uncured and 7 days cured specimens in tables 6.16 and 6.17.
7.4.6.4.1 Soil mixed with Lime + RHA
Table-7.16- Comparative statement of CBR test results of 7 days cured

and uncured specimens (Lime+RHA)
Sl No Mix Proportions CBR(%)( compacted at CBR(%) after 7 days

moisture content curing( compacted at
OMC+5%) moisture content
OMC+5%)
Soil(%) Lime(%) RHA(%) Unsoaked Soaked Unsoaked Soaked
1 91 9 0 10.12 13.65 12.8
149
2 88 12 0 11.9 15.2 14.5
3 90 0 10 7.9 6.2 11.2
4 85 0 15 8.2 7.9 12.25
5 92 3 5 8 12.5 9.2
6 82 3 15 12 12 13.3
7 89 6 5 9.26 15 11.2
8 79 6 15 14.4 20 16.3
9 86 9 5 9.8 15.4 13.2
10 76 9 15 11.53 20.65 14.3
11 78 12 10 13.2 19.4 15
12 73 12 15 14.8 23.6 16
13 75 15 10 14.3 23.6 17.5
14 65 15 20 21.3 32.17 21
7.4.6.4.2 Soil mixed with Lime + RRH
Table-7.17- Comparative statement of CBR test results of 7 days cured

and uncured specimens (Lime+RRH)
Sl No Mix Proportions CBR(%) CBR(%) after 7 days

(compacted at curing(compacted at
moisture content moisture content
OMC+5%) OMC+5%)
Soil(%) Lime(%) RRH(%) Unsoaked Soaked Unsoaked Soaked
1 97 0 3 3.66 3.62 3.4 3
150
2 95 0 5 4.8 3 4.3 3.9
3 91 6 3 8.8 10 10.8 12.2
4 89 6 5 9.8 17.8 11.3 18.2
5 88 9 3 8.13 13.3 11.5 15.6
6 86 9 5 10.12 15.8 12.7 17.7
7 85 12 3 17 20 18.2 20.5
8 83 12 5 10.7 16.7 14 19.6
7.7.Effect of Curing on Strength Properties of Soil
In this section the effect of curing of specimens on strength properties of stabilized soil
have been presented. Although all the samples for UCS tests have been cured but for
CBR only two types of specimens from each category were cured for investigating the
effect of curing on CBR values. The effect of curing on UCS values have been presented
graphically below.
Variation of UCS of Lime-RHA soil mix with curing

periods(3% Lime Content)
300
250 UCS for 0% RHA
UCS(KN/m2)
200 UCS for 5% RHA

150 UCS for 10% RHA
100 UCS for 15% RHA
50 UCS for 20% RHA
0
0 10 20 30
Curing Periods (days)
Fig7 .27(a)
151
Variation of UCS of Lime-RHA mix with curing
periods (6% Lime content)
350
UCS (KN/m2) 300 UCS for 0% RHA
250 UCS for 5% RHA
200
UCS for 10% RHA
150
100 UCS for 15% RHA
50 UCS for 20% RHA
0
0 10 20 30
Curing Periods in days
Fig 7.27(b)
Variation of UCS of Lime -RHA mix with curing

500
UCS for 0% RHA
UCS (KN/m2)
400
UCS for 5% RHA
300
UCS for 10% RHA
200
UCS for 15% RHA
100
UCS for 20% RHA
0
0 10 20 30
Fig 7.27(c)
152
Variation of UCS for Lime-RHA mix with curing
periods (12 % Lime content)
500
UCS (KN/m2) UCS for 0% RHA
400
UCS for 5% RHA
300
UCS for 10% RHA
200
UCS for 15% RHA
100
UCS for 20% RHA
0
0 10 20 30
Curing periods in days
Fig 7.27(d)
Variation of UCS of Lime-RHA mix with curing

Periods (15% Lime content)
600
500 UCS for 0% RHA
UCS (KN/m2)
400 UCS for 5% RHA

300 UCS for 10% RHA
200 UCS for 15% RHA
100 UCS for 20% RHA
0
0 10 20 30
Fig 7.27(e)
153
Variation of UCS for Lime-RRH mix with Curing
periods(6% Lime content)
500
UCS (KN/m2)
400 UCS for 0% RRH
300 UCS for 2% RRH
200 UCS for 3% RRH
100 UCS for 4% RRH
0 UCS for 5% RRH
0 10 20 30 UCS for 6% RRH
Fig 7.28(a)
Variation of UCS of Lime-RRH mix with curing

Periods (9% Lime)
300
250
UCS (KN/m2)
UCS for 0% RRH

200
UCS for 2% RRH
150
UCS for 3% RRH
100
50 UCS for 4% RRH
0 UCS for 5% RRH
0 10 20 30 UCS for 6% RRH
Fig 7.28(b)
154
Variation of UCS of Lime-RRH mix with Curing
UCS (KN/m2) 500

400 UCS for 0% RRH
300 UCS for 2% RRH
200 UCS for 3% RRH
100 UCS for 4% RRH
0 UCS for 5% RRH
0 10 20 30 UCS for 6% RRH
Curing Piriod in days
Fig 7.28(c)
155
CHAPTER EIGHT
INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS
8.0 General-
In this chapter an attempt has been made to interpret the test results presented in the
previous chapter (Chapter-7).
8.1- Characteristics of original Soil
The detail test results of original soil have been presented in chapter 6 in table-8.1 and
accompanied graphs, from 7.1(a) to 7.1(f). The soil used for the present study was light
grey clayey silt. Based on the Plasticity Chart, the soil can be classified as “CI” and as per
IS: 1498-1970, the soil is fine grained silts and clays of medium compressibility with Liquid
Limit between 35 to 50.
From the grain size analysis, it was found that the soil gradation consists of the following
ranges: Sand-9%, Silt-81%, Clays- 10%.
Index properties of soil- Liquid Limit-48%, Plastic Limit-26%, Plasticity Index-22%.
Light compaction shows the compaction characteristics are as follows-
Maximum Proctor Density - 1.61 gm/cc

Optimum Moisture Content – 20%
Specific Gravity – 1.61
Strength Characteristics of soil are as follows
Unsoaked CBR (compacted at OMC) -

Soaked CBR(compacted at OMC) -
Unoaked CBR(compacted at moisture content OMC+ 5%) - 4.3%
Soaked CBR(compacted at moisture content OMC+ 5%) - 2.6%
156
UCS at OMC - 350KN/m2
UCS (compacted at moisture content OMC+5%) -130 KN/m2
UCS at OMC being - 350KN/m2, the soil consistency may be termed s “very stiff”.
8.2 Characterisation of unstabilized as well as stabilized soils
The Atterberg limits of stabilized as well as unstablized soils have been presented in
tables from No 7.2 to 7.6 and subsequent figures 7.1(e) to 7.4(c) in the previous
chapter(chapter-7). It can be observed from the table that Liquid Limit(L.L), Plastic
Limit(P.L.) and Plasticity Index(P.I.) of soil are 48,26 and 22 respectively. But when lime
or other admixture is added with soil individually or in combination with lime, the value of
L.L as well as P.L. of mixed soil increases sharply but at the same time P.I. of mixed soil
decreases. Careful observation of the tables will show that addition of admixtures make
soil MH in all the cases from CI i.e stabilized soil is turning to high compressibility
inorganic silty soil from medium compressible inorganic clayey silt.
In view of the results presented in the section 7.1, the unstabilized and stabilized soil can
be classified from Cassagrande Plasticity Chart as follows:-
8.2.1 Effect of Lime addition on soil characteristisation
Sl No Soi(l%) Lime(%) L..L.(%) P.I.(%) Soil

Characteristics
1 100 0 48 22 CI
3 94 6 56.3 20.4 MH
4 91 9 58.5 21.2 MH
5 88 12 59.7 19.8 MH
6 85 15 60.3 18.8 MH
8.2.2 Effect of RHA addition on soil Characterisation of mixed soil
Sl No Soi(l%) RHA(%) L..L.(%) P.I.(%) Soil

Characteristics
1 100 0 48 22 CI
157
2 95 5 56.6 19.4 MH
3 90 10 58.3 18.9 MH
4 85 15 61.7 17.75 MH
5 80 20 63.5 17.81 MH
8.2.3 Effect of Lime and RHA addition on soil Characterisation of stabilized soil
Soil(%) Lime(%) RHA(%) L.L(%) P.I(%) Soil

Characteris
tics
100 0 0 48 22 CI
92 3 5 56.5 18.3 MH
87 3 10 57.3 18 MH
82 3 15 58.5 17.4 MH
77 3 20 60.4 18 MH
89 6 5 57.5 18.9 MH
84 6 10 59.3 20.1 MH
79 6 15 61.5 20.2 MH
74 6 20 62.5 19.3 MH
86 9 5 59.6 18.5 MH
81 9 10 60.4 17.9 MH
76 9 15 61.3 18.1 MH
71 9 20 63.2 19.6 MH
83 12 5 59.3 17.8 MH
78 12 10 61.5 18.6 MH
73 12 15 63.5 20.3 MH
68 12 20 64.3 19.8 MH
80 15 5 60.4 18.4 MH
75 15 10 62.6 19.8 MH
70 15 15 64.5 20.8 MH
65 15 20 66.2 21 MH
158
8.2.4 Effect of RRH addition on soil Characterisation of mixed soil
% of RRH L.L (%) P.I. (%) Soil

chara
cteris
tics
0 48 22 CI
2 59.2 22.2 MH
3 60.5 22.7 MH
4 62.2 23.8 MH
5 63 23.8 MH
6 64.4 22.3 MH
8.2.5 Effect of Lime and RRH addition on soil Characterisation of stabilized soil
Soil(%) Lime(%) RRH(%) L.L.(%) P.I.(%) Soil

characteristics
100 0 0 48 22 CI
92 6 2 56 17 MH
91 6 3 57.2 17.8 MH
90 6 4 58.1 16.9 MH
89 6 5 59 17 MH
88 6 6 59.3 19.8 MH
89 9 2 58 16.1 MH
88 9 3 58.8 17 MH
87 9 4 59.2 16.8 MH
86 9 5 60.7 17.7 MH
85 9 6 62.2 19.3 MH
86 12 2 62 18.7 MH
85 12 3 62.9 18.6 MH
84 12 4 63.4 18.3 MH
83 12 5 64.2 18.2 MH
82 12 6 65.6 19 MH
159
8.3 Compaction Characteristics of Stabilized Soil-
In this section the effect of addition of different admixtures with the original soil in varying
proportion has been discussed. The dry density moisture content relation ship of
admixture contained soil has been presented in figures from 7.1(b) to 7.1(g) for lime soil
mixture, from 7.1(h) to 7.1(j) for soil RHA mixture, from 7.2(a) to 7.2(c) for different
combinations of lime soil and RHA, from 7.3(a) to 7.3( c) for soil RRH mixture and from
7.4(a) to 7.4(c) for different combinations of soil lime and RRH. From the curves it may
be observed that with the increase in admixture content optimum moisture content (OMC)
of admixed soil increases gradually and maximum dry density(MDD) decreases.
8.3.1 Effect of Lime addition on Compaction Characteristics of soil
Figures 7.12(a) show the variation of OMC with lime contents. The results indicated that
with increase in lime content OMC of the soil lime mix increases gradually with same
compactive effort. While the virgin soil has an OMC of 20% addition of 3% lime with soil
raise the OMC to 22% and an addition of 15% lime raise the OMC of mixed soil up to
26.2%. The increase in OMC with increased lime content is in aggrement with most of the
researchers in this area. The possible cause of increased water demand with increased
lime content may be the requirement of more water for the dissociation of lime into Ca and
OH ions to supply more Ca ions for the cation exchange reaction.
Fig 7.12(b) shows the relationship between MDD and lime contents in soil. It can be seen
from the figure that with the increase in lime contents MDD decreases gradually. While the
virgin soil has the MDD of 1.61gm/cc an addition of 3% lime reduces the OMC to 1.51
gm/cc and addition of 15% of lime further reduces the OMC of mixed soil to 1.42 gm/cc.
The decrease results from the flocculation and agglomeration of clay particles caused by
cation exchange reaction leading to corresponding decrease in dry density. The decrease
in the MDD of the lime treated soil is reflective of the increased resistance offered by the
flocculated soil structure to the compactive effort. This agrees with the findings of the other
investigators of this area.
160
8.3.2 Effect of RHA addition on Compaction Characteristics of soil
Fig 7.12(C) shows the relationship between OMC and RHA content of soil. It can be seen
from the figure that OMC increases with increase in RHA content almost linearly. An
addition of 5% RHA with soil gives OMC to 23.5% while an addition of 15% and 20%
RHA raise OMC to 28.3 5 and 30.8% respectively. This trend of increase in OMC may be
attributed to the fact that addition RHA decreases the quantity of free silt and clay fraction
and as a result quantity of coarser materials with greater surface area increases. More
water is therefore required to compact soil-RHA mixtures.
Fig 7..12 (d) represents the variation of MDD of soil mixed with RHA . The results
indicated that between 0% to 20% RHA content MDD reduces from 1.61 gm/cc (of virgin
soil) to 1.29 gm/cc. This decrease may be attributed to the replacement of soil in the RHA
soil mixture by RHA which have relatively low specific gravity (1.95) compared to that of
the virgin soil which has a specific gravity of 2.63. The decrease in MDD may also be
attributed to coating of the soil particles by RHA which results in larger particles with larger
voids and hence lesser density. (Alhassan, 2008; Okafor et al 2009).
8.3.3 Effect of Lime and RHA addition on Compaction Characteristics of soil
Fig 7.12(e) and 7.12(f) show the variation of OMD and MDD of Lime and RHA admixed
soil with % of lime at a given RHA content. From fig 18(j) it can be seen that MDD
continues to decrease with increase in lime content for a given RHA content as in the case
of soil lime mixture or soil RHA mixture. But unlike soil lime mixture the decrease in MDD
here is not abrupt but linear like the soil RHA mixture.
Fig 7.12 (g) also shows the same trend of gradual increase in OMC as in the case of soil
lime and soil RHA mixture with increase in percentage of lime for a given percentage of
RHA content.
8.3.4 Effect of RRH addition on Compaction Characteristics of soil
Fig 7.12(g) shows the variation of OMC of soil with Raw Rice Husk (RRH) content. The
results indicate that with the increase in RRH content OMC of the mixed soil increases
linearly. While 2% RRH content results an OMC of 23.2, 6% RRH content results OMC
161
28%. The possible cause for enhanced OMC may be attributed to the fact that more water
is required for preparing a homogeneous and uniform mixture of soil RRH.
Fig 7.12(h) show the variation of MDD of soil with RRH content. From the figure it is seen
that MDD of the soil RRH mixture decreases almost linearly with increase in RRH content.
The possible cause for sharp decrease in MDD of soil RRH combination may be the very
low specific gravity of RRH (1.6) compared to that of the virgin soil (2.63). Also the
addition of RRH to soil decreases the silt and clay content of soil and those space is
occupied by the low specific gravity RRH.
8.3.5 Effect of Lime and RRH addition on Compaction Characteristics of soil
Fig 7.12(g) and 7.12(h) shows the variation of OMC and MDD of Soil Lime RRH
combination with percentage of lime for different RRH contents. From fig 18(n) we see
that OMC of the mixed soil increases linearly upto 6% lime content thereafter it rises
sharply with lime content. The possible cause for enhanced OMC may be the requirement
of more water for the dissociation of lime into Ca and OH ions to supply Ca ions for cation
exchange reaction. The pozzolanic reaction between the lime and high silica content in
the 15-24% ash present in RRH also require water.
Fig 7.12(h) shows that MDD of mixed soil decreases linearly upto 6% lime content and
there after it decreases sharply. The same reason mentioned above may be cited here as
well.
8.4 Strength characteristics of Stabilized soil
8.4.0-General-
In this section the strength characteristics of admixture contained soil have been
presented. The CBR curves of individual admixture contained specimens have been
presented from figures to and the UCS curves have been presented from figures to in
the previous chapter(Chapter 7) From the general nature of the CBR curves it is seen that
the CBR values of lime admixed soil in increasing with increasing lime content and in all
the cases of lime soil combination soaked CBR is more than the unsosaked CBR. The
UCS value with lime addition also goes on increasing with lime content. Curing has
marked influence in the strength characteristics of the lime soil admixed soil. When RHA is
162
added to soil the strength characteristics also goes on increasing although at a slower rate
than lime soil admixed soil. But when lime and RHA both are mixed with soil the strength
characteristics have further increased. Whereas for RRH addition with soil has shown
initial decrease in strength properties but beyond 5% addition of RRH effects marginal
improvement in strength characteristics. Curing did not show any improvement in this
case. But Lime RRH addition with soil , on the other hand, has shown a marked
improvement in the strength characteristics of soil.
8.4.1 Effect of Lime addition on strength characteristics of soil
The tested values of CBR and UCS for different percentage of lime content have been
presented in table-7.11, and the variation of CBR and UCS with lime content have been
presented in figures 7.13(a) and 7.13(b).
8.4.1.1-Effect on CBR –
Fig 7.13(a) shows the variation of CBR with lime content for the soil lime mixture. We see
from the figure that both unsoaked as well as soaked CBR increase with increase in lime
content. While the unsoaked and soaked CBR for virgin soil were 4.3% and 2.6%
respectively when compacted at a moisture content equal to OMC plus 5% , the unsoaked
and soaked CBR for 3% lime addition were found to be 6.8% and 11.6% respectively, a
58% and 346% increase compared to the virgin soil when compacted at the respective
OMC +5% moisture content and for 15% lime content the value reaches to 12.75 and
17.3% respectively for unsoaked and soaked specimens, again compacted at respective
OMC + 5% moisture content, almost 196% and 565% increase compared to that of virgin
soil. In each case we see that soaked CBR is more than the unsoaked CBR when lime is
added to virgin soil. The increase in CBR value after addition of lime is due to the
formation of various cementing agents due to pozzolanic reaction between the amorphous
silica and / or alumina present in natural soil and lime. This reaction produces stable
calcium silicate hydrates and calcium aluminate hydrates as the calcium from the lime
reacts with the aluminates and silicates solubilized from the clay.
163
8.4.1.2-Effect on UCS-
Fig 7.13(b) shows the variation of UCS of soil with lime content. The specimens for UCS
tests were collected from Standard Proctor mould compacted at a moisture content equal
to respective OMC plus 5%. From the curve it is seen that the value of UCS of soil mixed
with different percentages of lime have increased substantially in comparison to that of the
virgin soil. It is also observed from the graph that curing period has marked influence on
UCS. For a given percentage of lime content optimum UCS increases with increasing
curing period. The gain in strength of lime stabilized soil is primarily a result of pozzolanic
reaction between silica and / or alumina present in the natural soil and lime to form
different cementing agents.
8.4.2 Effect of RHA addition on strength characteristics of soil
The tested values of CBR and UCS for different percentage of RHA content have been
presented in table-7.11, and the variation of CBR and UCS with RHA content have been
presented in figures 7.14(a) and 7.14(b).
8.4.2.1-Effect on CBR-
Fig 7.14(a) shows the variation of CBR with RHA content. From the curve it is seen that
the unsoaked CBR value of the soil RHA mixture is increasing linearly up to 5% RHA
content thereafter the rate of increase of CBR becomes very slow and becomes almost
constant even after increase in RHA content. . The increase in CBR due to addition of
RHA may be attributed to the gradual formation of cementitious compounds between the
RHA and CaOH naturally present in soil (Alhassan-2008). The decrease in the rate of
increase of CBR after 5% RHA content may be due to the excess RHA which was not
mobilized in the reaction as the presence of naturally occurring CaOH in soil may be
small. The excess RHA occupies space within the specimen and reduces the clay and silt
content in soil and hence reduces the bond/cohesion in the soil RHA mixture.
The value of soaked CBR initially remain below the unsoaked CBR although it increases
linearly with RHA content and at RHA content 15% the value of soaked CBR almost
becomes equal to unsoaked CBR, but unlike unsoaked CBR the soaked CBR does not
proceed towards a constant value but keep increasing with increase in RHA content. This
may be due to the enhanced rate of pozzolanic reaction between CaOH present in soil
164
and RHA in presence of moisture. CBR value of treated soil with lime is greater than soil
treated with only RHA. This confirms the results of Hassan (2008) and Roy et al (2008).
Fig 7.14(b) shows the variation of UCS of soil with RHA content. From the nature of curve
it is observed that initially the value of UCS has decreased compared to original soil for
RHA content upto 15% and for 20% RHA content it has slightly exceeded from that of
value of original soil. In this case also with curing period value of UCS has increased in
general. But for RHA content beyond 10% value of UCS increased upto 7 days curing but
thereafter it has decreased slightly from the 7 days UCS value. The increase in the UCS
for soil RHA mix with curing period may be due to the reaction between RHA and CaOH
present in natural soil. This reaction takes few days to be completed and hence the
strength development takes time, but beyond 10% RHA content, a portion of the RHA
added appears as free RHA and occupies void spaces inside the specimen which
ultimately produces a segregation effect on the soil matrix and reduces the bond among
soil particles and as a result strength development rate gets reduced.
8.4.3 Effect of RHA Lime addition on strength characteristics of soil
The tested values of CBR and UCS for different combinations of RHA and lime content
have been presented in table-7.13, and the variation of CBR and UCS with RHA content
for a given percentage of lime have been presented from figures 7.15(a) to 7.15(j).
Fig 7.15(a), 7.15(c), 7.15(e), 7.15(h) and 7.15(i) show the variation of CBR of soil- lime -
RHA combination with RHA content for a given percentage of lime. For both unsoaked
and soaked conditions. From curve 21(b), we see that for 3% lime addition the CBR value
for both unsoaked and soaked conditions increase gradually to a value slightly more than
those of 0% RHA content (soil+3% lime mixture) at 5% RHA content, but at 10% RHA
content both the unsoaked and soaked CBR reach to to a peak value of 12.85% and 17%
respectively and thereafter CBR values for both the conditions continue to drop with
further addition of RHA. This suggests that for each given percentage of lime content,
there exists an optimum amount of RHA which gives maximum value CBR. This may be
due to the fact that addition of RHA make available additional amount of silica than that
165
present in natural soil only. This enhances the lime pozzolanic reaction and as a result
CBR value increases. But further addition of RHA beyond 10% without increasing lime
content , manifests as free RHA which is in excess of RHA required for lime pozzolanic
reaction and this additional RHA occupies the space in between the soil particles in the
specimen and thus reduces the bond and CBR value of the soil lime RHA mixture.
Fig 7.15(c) shows the variation of CBR with RHA content with a given percentage of lime
(6%). Here also the CBR trend follows the trend as before. CBR value for both the
conditions increase initially almost linearly and reaches to a peak value of 14.4% and 20%
respectively at 15% RHA content, thereafter it continues to drop for both the conditions.
Fig 7.15(e), 7.15 (h) and 7.15(i) show the variation of CBR with RHA content for 9%,12%
and 15% lime contents respectively. In all the three cases CBR characteristics follow
almost same pattern. Both the unsoaked and soaked CBR increase almost linearly and
reaches a maximum value at 20% RHA content as can be seen from the respective
curves. This again supports the idea that for every given percentage of lime there exists
an optimum amount of RHA which can be mixed with soil to get a maximum value of CBR.
From the above discussion an inference may be drawn that with the increase in
admixtures content CBR values for both unsoaked and soaked conditions increase .Out of
the above discussed four cases, we see that the combination of 15% lime + 20% RHA
gives the highest value of CBR of 21.3% and 32.17% for unsoaked and soaked conditions
respectively, 395% and 1137% increase compared to that of original soil.
Fig 7.15(k), 7.15(m), 7.15(o) and 7.15(p) show the variation of CBR with lime content for a
given percentage of RHA content. In all the four cases almost same trend is followed.
Both the unsoaked and soaked CBR increase with increase in lime content and reaches to
a peak value at the maximum (15%) lime content.
Fig 7.15(b), 7.15(d), 7.15(f), 7.15(g) and 7.15(j) show the variation of UCS of lime RHA
mixed soil with RHA for a given percentage of lime. From fig6(a) we see that initially UCS
of mixed soil with 3% lime content has increased for RHA content upto 10% but beyond
that further addition of RHA sharply reduces the UCS. We see from the curve that curing
period has marked influence on strength development. It has been also observed that for
166
3% lime content, 10% RHA gives the optimum value of UCS in all the three cases of
curing.
Fig7.15 (d) shows the variation of UCS of lime RHA mixed soil with RHA for 6% lime
content. Here we see that 5% RHA content gives the maximum value of UCS in all the
three cases of curing. Beyond 5% RHA addition reduces the UCS. But for 9% lime content
as shown in fig7.15(f) it is observed that UCS value increases sharply in all the conditions
of curing and the peak value of UCS is attained at RHA content 20%. Almost the same
trend is followed for 12% lime content as well but the peak UCS is attained at 20% RHA
content. It can be observed from fig 7.15(bj that 15% lime content gives the highest value
(530KN/m2) of UCS at 10% RHA content.
This suggests that the main binding effect which results in strength increase, is primarily
dominated by lime content. Careful observation of the figures from 7.15(a) to 7.15(j)
strongly suggests that for a given lime content, there seemed to have an optimum
percentage of RHA requirement to gain maximum strength. For example for 3% lime
content 10% RHA, for 6% lime content 5% RHA and for 9 and 12% lime content 10% RHA
gives maximum strength.
Fig 7.15(l),7.15(n),7.15(p) and 7.15(r) show the variation of UCS with lime content for a
given percentage of RHA. For 5%,10% and 15% RHA content we see that 15% lime
addition gives highest strength whereas for 20% RHA content 9% lime gives the highest
strength and addition of further quantity of lime was found to affect the strength in a
negative way. This also suggests strongly that for each given percentage of RHA there
seemed to have an optimum percentage of lime which gives maximum strength.
8.4.4 Effect of RRH addition on strength characteristics of soil

The tested values of CBR and UCS for different percentage of RRH content have been
presented in table-7.14, and the variation of CBR and UCS with RRH content have been
presented in figures from 19(a) to 21(a) and 19(b) to 21(b).
Fig 7.17(a)(a) shows the variation of CBR for both unsoaked and soaked conditions of soil
with RRH content. All the specimens were compacted at a moisture content equal to
respective OMC plus 5%. From the curve it is observed that upto 4% RRH content the
unsoaked CBR of the mixed soil remains below the CBR value of the virgin soil. Beyond
167
that increase in RRH content increases the CBR value slightly. For soaked condition it is
found that the CBR of mixed soil initially increased slightly from that of the soaked CBR of
the original soil thereafter it decreases slightly for 4% RRH content and then again
increases at 5% RRH and beyond.
8.4.4.2 Effect on UCS-
Fig 7.17(b) shows the variation of UCS of soil with RRH content. It can be observed from
the figure that initial value of UCS for soil with any quantity of RRH content, decreases
from that of the value of virgin soil but with increase in curing period the value of UCS
increases gradually and on 28 days curing, it reaches to a value slightly higher than the
value of original soil. This marginal increase in UCS may be attributed to the pozzolanic
reaction between the small quantity of CaOH naturally present in soil and the available
silica in the 15-24 % ash content in RRH.
8.4.5 Effect of RRH Lime addition on strength characteristics of soil
In this section the effect of Lime RRH addition on CBR values of mixed soil have been
discussed.
8.4.5.1 Effect on CBR-
Fig 7.20(a),7.20(c) and 7.21(a) show the variation of CBR for both unsoaked and soaked
conditions, with RRH content for a given percentage of lime content. From fig 31(a)(6%
lime content), it is observed that both the unsoaked and soaked CBR for 2% RRH content
drops from the value of soil with 0% RRH(soil+6% lime) content. Beyond 2% of RRH
content CBR for both the conditions increase gradually and at 5% RRH content CBR for
both the conditions reach to the peak value. For unsoaked condition the peak value of
CBR observed is 9.8% and for soaked condition the value was observed to be 17.8%
which is 584% more than the soaked CBR value of original soil. Further increase of RRH
content were found to decrease the CBR value for both the conditions. But in both the
cases unsoaked CBR was found to be more than the soaked CBR.
The possible reason behind the initial decrease of CBR value of the soil lime RRH
combination may be the presence of low specific gravity (1.6) material RRH which
168
occupies a lot of space within the specimen and also silica contribution initially from its ash
component for pozzolanic reaction with lime was very low. The presence of low specific
gravity RRH also reduces the bond and cohesion of the soil particles which also contribute
to the initial decrease of the CBR value of soil lime RRH mixed soil. But with increase in
RRH content the silica contribution of RRH increases which enhances the pozzolanic
reaction with lime as a result CBR value of the mixed soil increases. But beyond the
certain percentage of RRH content, a certain portion of RRH may appear as free particles
which occupies a lot of space inside the specimen and as a result bond between the soil
particles decreases and consequently CBR value drops.
We see almost the same trends from the figures 32(a) and 33(a) for 9% and 12% lime
contents respectively. For 9% lime content peak value of soaked CBR was observed to be
16.8% while the unsoaked CBR was found to be 10.12% and both the value were
obtained for a RRH content of 5%. For 12% lime content the peak value were observed to
17% and 21% respectively for a RRH content of 3%.
Fig. 7.22(b), 7.23(a),7.24(a), 7.25(a) and 7.26(a) show the variation of CBR of lime RRH
mixed soil with a given percentage of RRH content. In all the five cases it is observed from
the figure that for a fixed percentage of RRH content CBR value increases with increase in
lime content and in all the cases unsoaked CBR was found to be more than the soaked
CBR and also the peak value were obtained at the maximum lime content.
8.4.5.2. Effect on UCS-
Figures 7.20 (b),7.20 (d) and 7.21 (b) represent the variation of UCS of soil with RRH
content for a given quantity of lime. From fig 7.20 (b) it can be observed that initial UCS
value increases with increasing RRH content upto 5% RRH content at a lime content of
6% and thereafter it drops to a lower value. But with increase in curing period sharp
increase in UCS value is noticed and at 5% RRH content it reaches to the maximum value
of 395 KN/m2 , a 204% increase from the UCS of the original soil. But beyond 5% RRH
content additional 1% RRH addition has the negative effect on the UCS value. This may
be due to the fact that the quantity of silica supplied by 5% RRH is just sufficient to
complete the pozzolanic reaction with 6% lime and additional 1% RRH appears as free
RRH and occupies a large volume inside the specimen and thereby causes a segregation
effect and ultimately reduces the strength development.
169
Fig 7.20(d) represent the variation of UCS with RRH content for 9% lime addition. It can
be observed from the figure that initial value of UCS for 2% RRH addition increases from
the UCS of soil with 0% RRH content (soil+9% lime ) but thereafter it decreases sharply
with further addition of RRH upto 5% RRH, but for 6% RRH addition it again increases
slightly. Whereas for 7 days curing UCS value for 2% RRH addition displays a sharp
decrease in UCS value and thereafter it rises sharply and reaches to a peak value at 4%
RRH content and then again it decreases with further addition of RRH. Almost a same
trend is observed for 28 days curing as well. In this case also the peak UCS value (237
KN/m2) is attained at 4% RRH content which is much lower than the peak UCS value at
6% lime plus 5% RRH content.
Fig 7.21(d)represent the variation of UCS of soil with RRH content at 12 % lime content.
From the figure it can be observed that in all the cases of curing on 2% RRH addition UCS
value increases very slightly than the UCS of soil with 0% RRH content (soil+12% lime)
but there after it increases sharply and reaches to peak value (390KN/m2) at 3% RRH
content and then further addition of RRH show gradual reduction in UCS value than the
peak value. This fact strongly suggests there seemed to be an optimum percentage of
RRH for a given amount of lime which gives maximum strength.
Figure 7.22(a),7.23(b), 7.24(b) 7.25(b) and 7.26(b) show the variation of UCS of soil with
lime content for a given percentage of RRH. A general pattern of increase in UCS value
with increase in lime content is observed from the figures except for 5% RRH content (fig
25a) for which 6% lime content displays the optimum UCS value of 395 KN/m2 and for all
other cases peak value of UCS is observed at the maximum lime content (12%).
8.4Effect of Curing on Strength properties of soil
In this section the effect of curing of specimens are discussed.
8.5.1 Effect of Curing of specimens on CBR values
It can be observed from tables 7.166 and 7.17 that curing of specimens has marked
influence on the strength properties of stabilized soil. Two types of specimens from each
category were subjected to 7 days curing and each of cured specimen showed marked
improvement in CBR values on curing except in the case of RRH addition with soil, where
no improvement in CBR value was observed even after 7 days curing. For 9% and 12%
lime addition with soil 7 days curing showed improvement in CBR(unsoaked value by 26%
170
and 21% respectively ) and for soaked condition the improvement was observed by 6 to
9%.For RHA addition unsoaked and soaked CBR increased by 40 to 50% and 25 to 36% .
Same trend was observed for lime RHA mixed and Lime RRH mixed soil as well.
8.5.2 Effect of Curing of specimens on UCS values
Fig 7.27(a) to 7.27(e) show the variation of UCS of different RHA content with curing
period for a given percentage of lime content. A general trend of increase of UCS with
curing period may be observed from the above figures. In almost all the cases, highest
UCS is attained at 28 days curing period for all the combinations. It can be seen that
addition of RHA produces not only higher strength but also higher rate of initial strength
development. 10% RHA combined with 15% lime produces the best result at 28 days
curing. It is also observed that strength increase takes place rapidly at the first seven days
of curing and thereafter it becomes slower and proceeds towards a constant value. This
supports the view that cementitious products are formed mainly at an early stage, that is
as soon as flocculation is completed due to lime clay reaction (Jha et al,2006).
Fig 7.27(a) to 7.28(c) show the variation of UCS of lime RRH mixed soil with curing
periods. From all the three figures a general trend of increase in UCS value is observed
with curing period upto 7 days but further curing thereafter does not increase UCS
substantially. Beyond 7 days curing UCS for all the combination of soil lime RRH become
almost constant.
8.6 Comparison of test results and evaluation of Improvement

The highest value of strength for each individual percentage of lime and RHA has been
presented below in tables from 8.6.1 to 8.6.8.
Table 8.6.1 Maximum value of CBR for a given percentage of Lime
Sl No % of Lime Maximum Corresponding Maximum

CBR(Uncured) % of RHA CBR(7 days
cured)
1 3 17 10
2 6 20 15 19.8
3 9 23.18 10
4 12 26 20
5 15 32.17 20 33.7
171
Table 8.6.2 Maximum value of UCS for a given percentage of Lime
Sl. No % of Lime Maximum value of Corresponding % of

UCS(KN/m2) RHA
1 3 260 10
2 6 332 5
3 9 464 20
4 12 415 20
5 15 530 10
Table 8.6.3 Maximum value of CBR for a given percentage of RHA

Sl No % of RHA Maximum Corresponding Maximum
CBR(Uncured % of Lime CBR(7 days
cured)
1 5 22.6 12
2 10 23.6 15 25
3 15 26 15
4 20 32.17 15 33.7
Table 8.6.4 Maximum value of UCS for a given percentage of RHA

Sl. No % of RHA Maximum value of Corresponding % of
UCS(KN/m2) Lime
1 5 442 15
2 10 530 15
3 15 405 12
4 20 464 9
Table 8.6.5 Maximum value of CBR for a given percentage of Lime
Sl No % of Lime Maximum Corresponding Maximum

CBR(Uncured % of RRH CBR(7 days
cured)
172
1 6 17.8 5 18.2
2 9 15.8 5 17.7
3 12 20 3 20.5
Table 8.6.6 Maximum value of UCS for a given percentage of RRH

Sl No % of Lime Maximum value of Corresponding % of
UCS(KN/m2) RRH
1 6 395 5
2 9 237 4
3 12 390 3
Table 8.6.7 Maximum value of CBR for a given percentage of RRH

Sl No % of RRH Maximum Corresponding Maximum
CBR(Uncured) % of Lime CBR(7 days
cured)
1 2 13.8 12
2 3 20 12 20.5
3 4 18.87 12
4 5 16.7 12 19.6
5 6 16.8 12
Table 8.6.8 Maximum value of UCS for a given percentage of RRH

Sl No % of RRH Maximum value of Corresponding % of
UCS(KN/m2) Lime
1 2 270 12
2 3 390 12
3 4 360 12
4 5 395 6
5 6 303 12
From table 8.6.1 it is observed that highest value of CBR is achieved for 15% lime
and 20% RHA combination and from table 8.6.2 it may be observed that highest value of
UCS is achieved for 15 % lime and 10% RHA combination again from tables 8.6.3 and
8.6.4 same observation is made.
173
From table 8.6.5 it may be observed that highest value of CBR for lime RRH
combination is achieved for 12% lime and 3% RRH mixture and from table 8.6.6 it is
observed that highest value of UCS for any lime RRH combination is achieved for 6% lime
and 5% RRH mixture and 12% lime and 3% RRH mixture also gives very close value of
UCS. From tables 8.6.7 and 8.6.8 same observation may be made.
8.7Effect of admixtures on deformation pattern of specimens
The specimens deformed vertically and laterally with compression very little initially but on
curing for the specified days, the specimens fast loose plasticity and behave like brittle
materials and almost no deformation either vertical or lateral was observed. The failure
under compressive load was sudden with no prior indication. The possible reason behind
the brittle behaviour of the UCS specimen may be the absorption of large quantity of water
by the pozzolanic reaction between lime and RHA and thus making it dry.
Unlike the “soil lime RHA” specimens “soil lime RRH” specimens displayed more plastic
behaviour and deformed laterally and vertically under compressive load even after curing
for specified days although the degree of deformation becomes lesser with passing days.
The possible reason for this type of behaviour of specimens may be the presence of
lesser quantity of silica for pozzolanic reaction with lime and hence less absorption of
water.
174
CHAPTER NINE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
9.0; - General:-
In this chapter an attempt has been made to summarise the whole experimental work
carried out and highlight the main conclusions. Experimental study performed in the
laboratory have shown that waste materials like Rice husk and Rice Husk Ash have high
potential to be used in bulk quantity in road construction work along with lime. This will not
only save construction cost but will also reduce the accumulation hazard and
environmental pollution arising from such wastes.
9.1 Summary-
The present investigation has been carried out with agricultural waste materials like Raw
Rice Husk and Rice Husk Ash individually mixed with soil and also in combination with
different percentage of Hydrated Lime with several mix proportions to study improvement
of weak subgrade material. Rice Husk Ash was mixed in different percentages e.g.,
5%,10%,15% and 20% with soil which was previously stabilized with different percentages
of lime. In a similar way Raw Rice Husk was mixed with soil-lime mixtures. In each case
the stabilized soil was compacted at a water content of 5% above the optimum and
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) tests were
conducted. The analysis of results suggested marked improvement in CBR and UCS
values of the stabilized soil samples in comparison with that of the non stabilized soil. The
high percentage of siliceous materials present in Rice Husk Ash proves its usefulness as
a potential ground stabilizing material. The effect of curing of stabilized soil on the results
of Unconfined Compressive Strength tests was also studied.
The paper highlights the effect of stabilization of low strength cohesive soil with admixture
of different materials like Rice Husk Ash, lime etc, which are cheap and easily available.
175
9.2 Conclusions-
In this section an attempt has made to highlight the main conclusions that may be drawn
from the whole of the experimental studies.
9.2.1- Use of Lime :-
1) Treatment of soil with lime has shown a general increase in optimum moisture content
(OMC) of lime mixed soil and a general decrease in Maximum Dry density(MDD).
2) Addition of lime with soil increases the CBR value in both unsosaked and soaked
conditions substantially. Addition of 15% lime with soil gives maximum value of unsoaked
and soaked CBR as 12.75% and 17.3% respectively. Curing has substantial impact on
CBR value.7 days curing of specimen containing 12% lime found to improve the
Unsoaked CBR by 22% and soaked CBR by %
3) Lime addition with soil has been found to improve the UCS value substantially. With
curing these values found to improve further. For 12% lime content the initial UCS value
was 182 KN/m2, whereas, on 7 days curing, it was increased to 230 KN/m,2 ands on 28
days curing the UCS value reached to 276 KN/m2, almost a 26% and 52% increase from
the initial value of UCSW, and 77% increase from that of the original soil.
4) From the above observation, it can be concluded that lime alone can be used as a
great stabilizing material for weak fine grained.
9.2.2-Use of Rice Husk Ash (RHA)
1) Treatment of soil with RHA has shown a general increase in optimum moisture content
(OMC) of mixed soil and a general decrease in Maximum Dry density(MDD)
2) Moderate improvement in CBR value with RHA addition with soil was observed for both
soaked and unsoaked conditions. Maximum value of unsoaked and soaked CBR was
observed for 20% RHA content which were 8.8% and 10.6% respectively. Curing of
specimen has shown a general increase in CBR value from that of uncured specimens.
From 40% to 50% increase in CBR value was observed for unsosaked condition and from
– to - % increase for soaked condition.
176
3) Almost a similar trend like the CBR was obtained for UCS as well. Initial value of UCS,
although found to be much less than the UCS of the original soil but 7 days curing
showed marked improved in UCS value for all the proportions of RHA addition. But on 28
days curing it was observed that UCS value upto 10% RHA addition have increased
further but for RHA content more than 10%, the UCS value found to decrease marginally
from that of the 7 days cured value of UCS.
4) The above discussion show that RHA has potential to be used in bulk quantity as soil
stabilizing materials.
9.2.3 Use of Raw Rice Husk (RRH)
1) Treatment of soil with RRH has shown a general increase in optimum moisture content
(OMC) of mixed soil and a general decrease in Maximum Dry density(MDD).
2) Addition of RRH with soil was found to decrease CBR value upto 4% RRH content for
both unsosaked and soaked conditions. But further addition of RRH, beyond 5%, found
top improve CBR value upto 20% for unsosaked condition from that of the original soil and
a little more than 805 from the soaked CBR value of the original soil.
3) Curing of specimens for 7 days did not show any improvement in CBR value, rather
curing has decreased the CBR value from that of the uncured CBR value.
4) The UCS value of RRH mixed soil was found to decrease initially with increase in RRH
content. But unlike the CBR specimens curing has improved the UCS value substantially.
5) From the above discussions, it may be said that RRH has very little potential to be used
as ground stabilizing material alone.
9.3- Addition of Lime with RHA and RRH
The observations of addition of lime with RHA and RRH have been included in this
section.
177
8.3.1. Addition of Lime with RHA
1) Same trend of general increase in OMC and decrease in MDD was found when lime
was added with RHA.
2) Addition of RHA with lime found to improve the strength characteristics substantially
from that of the respective values when only lime or only RHA was used. This may be due
to the increased pozzolanic activities in presence of lime and RHA. Addition of lime and
RHA with soil improves the CBR value of soil for both unsoaked and soaked conditions
sharply. 15% Lime and 20% RHA was found to give the maximum value of CBR for both
the conditions (21.3 and 32.17% for unsoaked and soaked conditions).For lime soil RHA
combination, 15% lime and 10% RHA combination was found to give maximum value of
UCS (530KN/m2).
3) Curing period has marked influence on the UCS value of admixture contained soil. In
most cases increase in curing period was found to increase the UCS value of mixed soil.
For example, for 15% lime and 10% RHA combination, initial UCS for 0 day curing was
found to be only 218KN/m2, but on 7 days curing this value increased to 494KN/m2 and on
28 days curing this value becomes 530KN/m2.. Curing has also found to affect the CBR
value positively. In all the cases of curing of specimens with lime RHA combination, both
unsosaked and soaked CBR values were found to improve substantially from that of
respective uncured values.
4) For every percentage of lime there seemed to have an optimum RHA content to attain
maximum value of strength. Similarly for every given percentage of RHA, increase in lime
content increases the value of CBR as well as UCS.
5) Rice Husk Ash has very high potential to be used as soil stabilizer when mixed with
lime.
9.3.2. Addition of Lime with RRH
1) Same trend of general increase in OMC and decrease in MDD was found when lime
was added with RRH.
2) Addition of lime and RRH with soil found to improve the CBR of the admixture
contained soil substantially. For example addition of 6% lime and 5% RRH to soil gives
178
unsoaked and soaked CBR value of 9.8 and 17.8% respectively, whereas addition of 12%
lime and 3% RRH gives unsoaked and soaked CBR respectively 17% and 21% which is
295% and 708% increase compared to that of the virgin soil.
3) Like lime RHA combination, curing of Lime RRH contained soil specimens also show
marked improvement in both CBR and UCS values.
4) For every percentage of lime there seemed to have a optimum RRH content to attain
maximum value of strength. Similarly for every given percentage of RRH, increase in lime
content increases the value of CBR as well as UCS
5) Raw Rice Husk has high potential to be used as soil stabilizer when mixed with lime.
179
CHAPTER TEN
SCOPE OF FUTURE WORK
1O.1 General:-
Although a number of researchers have worked with RHA as a potential ground improving
materials individually or in combination with other cementitious materials like lime, cement
etc. there remains still a lot of unexplored fields where RHA can be used as an effective
additive to change/improve the engineering properties of weak soil. But the use of RRH
as a potential ground improving material is comparatively a new idea. Very few
researchers have worked with this conception. Chan et al (2008) studied the effect of rice
husk on unconfined compressive strength of soft clay soil stabilized with small amount
cement. He noticed marked improvement in UCS value of soil cement rice husk
specimens. Roy (2010) examined the effect of mixing of Rice Husk (RH) with soil to be
used as road subgrade construction materials.
10.2 Scopes for future work
In this section the possible scopes of future works are highlighted as follows.
1) Extensive study may be undertaken to investigate the effect of admixtures on strength

properties of soil with several other combinations of admixtures.
2) Effect of curing of CBR specimens for 7 days only, was investigated which shows
encouraging results. Effect of curing on CBR and UCS values for longer periods(e.g. 30
days, 56 days, 90 days etc. ) may be evaluated.
3) Effect of combined use of RHA and RRH with lime stabilized weak/ expansive soil may
be evaluated.
4) In the present study same samples were tested for unsoaked condition first and then
soaked for four days for soaked CBR test. Different samples of same mix proportions may
be prepared and tested to get a more correct result.
180
5) Use of RRH in combination with either cement or lime as a potential ground improving
material may yet to be investigated thoroughly.
6) Investigation may be undertaken to evaluate the possible use of RHA/RHA-Lime

combination/RRH-Lime or Cement combination to improve the engineering properties of
weak/expansive foundation soils.
7) Efforts may be put to develop an empirical relationship between the optimum

proportions of soil and admixtures so that the strength properties may be predicted for the
benefit of the practicing engineers.
181
REFERENCES
Jha Dr. J.N. & Gill K.S., “Effect of Rice Husk Ash on lime stabilization”, published in
the journal of Institution of Engineers (I), Vol-87, Nov 28,2006.
Alhassan Musa, “Potentials of Rice Husk Ash for soil stabilization”, Technical
Report, Deptt of Civil Engg, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State,
Nigeria, April-2008.
Potentials of Rice Husk Ash for soil stabilization”, Technical Report, Deptt of Civil
Engg, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria, April-2008.
Muntohar Agas Setyo,”Utilization of uncontrolled burnt Rice Husk Ash in soil
improvement”, Demensi Teknik Sipil, Vol-4, No-2, page-100-105, Sept-2002.
Roy T.K., Chattopadhyay B.C., “Utilization of Rice Husk Ash and Pond Ash for
improving subgrade in road construction”, Institution of Engineers (I) Civil
engineering journal, January-2008.
Ameta N.K., Purohit D.G.M, A.S. Wayal, Dangda Sandeep, “Economics of
stabilizing Bentonite soil with lime –gypsum”-EJGE, Vol-12, Bund E.
Alsassan Mussa, “Permeability of Laterite soil Treated with lime and rice husk ash”-
Technical Report, Deptt of Civil Engg, Federal University of Technology, Minna,
Niger State, Nigeria, October-2008.
Chan C.M., Ibrahim, K.A., “The 12th International Conference of International
Association for computer methods and advances in Geomechanics(IACMAG)”, 1-6
October, 2008, Goa, India.
Munfakh George A, Wyllie Duncan C, “Ground Improvement Engineering issues
and selections”-Wllie & Norrish Rock Engineering Ltd,Suite 200, Viva Tower-1311,
Howe street, Vancouver B.C.-V6Z2P3, Canada.
Das Tapan Kumar, M.E.Thesis titled “A Study on effect of particle size distribution
and moisture content on laboratoiry CBR value”, J.U.-2007.
Lecture notes on Transportation Systems Engineering, Pavement materials: soil”,
26th Feb, 2009.
The Idiots Guide to Highway Maintenance”, 19/06/2009.
Sivapallaiah P.V., Subbarao K.S., Gurumurthy J.V., “Stabilization of RHA for use as
cushion below foundations on expansive soils,” Thomas Telford Journals, October-
2004.
182
U.S. Deptt of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration publication on
pavements.
Makela Harri and Hpynala Harri, “Byproducts and recycled materials in earth
structures, materials and applications”, National Technology Agency, Technology
Review, 2000, Hewlsinki, Finland.
Tensor Technical Note, Chemical and Mechanical stabilization of subgrades and
flexible pavement sections, 1998.
Technical Manual for the use of Recycled materials generated by other industries in
construction projects, July 2005, by Public Works Research Institute, Japan.
Shiv Kumar V, Mckinley J.D, Ferguson D, “Reuse of construction waste,
performance under repeated loading”, Proceedings of Institute of civil engineers ,
Geotechnical Engineering Division, 2004.uggal S.K.,” Building Materials”, 2nd
edision, New Age Internastional (P) Ltd, 4835/24, Ansari Road, Dariaganj, New
Delhi-110002.
Som N.N., Das S.C., “Theory and Practice of Foundation Design”, Printice Hall of
India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi-110001,2006.
Punmia B.C., Jain Ashoke Kumar, Jain Arun Kumar, “Soil Mechanics and
Foundations”-16th Edision, March -2005. Laxmi Publications(P) Ltd, New Delhi.
Reddy E. Saibaba, Sastri K.Rama, “Measurement of Engineering properties of
soils.” New Age Internastional (P) Ltd, 4835/24, Ansari Road, Dariaganj, New
Delhi-110002.
Murthy V.N.S,”Soil Mech and Foundation Engineering”, 3rd Edision, Sai Kripa
Technical Consultants, Bangaluru.
Mandal J.N., Divshiker D.G., “Soil Testing in Civilk Engineering”-Oxford & I.B.H.
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi-110001.
National Lime Association, 200N, Glebe Road, Suite-800, Arlington, Virginia-
22203-3728, “Using Lime for soil Stabilization and Modification.”
Rahman, M.A.,”Effect of cement rice husk ash mixtures on geotechnical properties
of lateritic soils”.Journal of soils and foundations, JSSMF, Vol.27 (2),1987, pp-61-
65.
M. Ali and V.Sreenivasalu, “An experimental study on the influence Rice husk ash
and lime on proprerties of bentonite”, Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical
Conference, December, 2004, p 468.
G.V.R.P.Raju. B.P.Chandra Sekhar, B.R.P.Kumar and G.Mariyana,”Strength
characteristics of Expansive soils stabilized with lime and rice husk ash.”
Proceedings of the national seminar on Road Transpiortation. Issues and
Strategies. Patiala, 1998,p 20.
183
IS; 2720, Part-5,1985, Code of practice for determination of Atterberg Limits.,
Bureo of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
IS: 1498, 1970, COP for Identification and classification of sol.
IS: 2720, part-4,1985 COP for grain size analysis
IS: 2720, part-2, 1973, COP for water content determination
IS: 2720, PART-3, 1980, COP for determination of specific gravity.
IS; 2720, PART -40,1977, COP for free swell index of soil.
IS: 2720, PART 10,1973, COP for determination of unconfined compressive
strength of soil.
IS; 2720, Part-16,1979, COP for laboratory CBR test.
IS: 2720, PART-7, 1980, COP for determining the watercontent dry density relation
using light compaction.
184

Rice Husk Ash PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rice Husk Ash PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE

MASTER OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Under The guidance of

Department of Civil Engineering

FINAL EXAMINATION FOR 1.

Department of Civil Engineering

of Master of Civil Engineering in Soil Mechanics & Foundation

Head of the Department:

Chapter Two: Review of Literature 3-9

Chapter Three : Materials Used 10-15

3.4. Rice husk ash 14

Chapter Four : Objective and scope of the work 16-17

Chapter Five : Test program 20-23

Chapter Seven : Presentation of test results 26-145

Chapter Eight : Interpretation of test results 146-164

8.4.2.1-Effect on CBR 154

Chapter nine : Summary and conclusion 165-168

Chapter Ten : Scope of future work 170-171

• To increase the bearing capacity of weak soil

2.1 Literature Review of Use on Rice Husk Ash (RHA)

Okafor et al (2009) performed laboratory experiments to study the effects of RHA on

Alhassan(2008) carried out extensive laboratory experiments to investigate the effect of

Hussain(2008) carried out research work on “Influence of pozzolans on mechanical

Muntohar(2005) conducted laboratory experiments to study the influence of anount of

Muntohar(2002) carried out a series of laboratory experiments individually and in

Rahman(1997) conducted a study on the effects of varies cement RHA proportions on

2.2 Literature Review of Use on Raw Rice Husk (RRH)

Table-3 .1- Evaluated properties of original soil

Sl. No Characteristics Value

1 Specific Gravity 2.63

2 Particle Size Distribution(%)

4 Plastic limit (%) 26

Alteration in the nature of absorbed layers through base exchange phenomenon

Lime possesses good plasticity and is easy to work with

Table-3.2, Chemical composition of Hydrated Lime

Sl. No Constituents % by weight

Table-3.3- Chemical composition of Rice Husk

Table-3.4 Composition of Rice Husk Ash(RHA) Used

Sl. No Property Value

Table 3.5- Properties of Rice Husk Ash (RHA)

The objectives of the present study are as follows:-

The scopes of work for the present study is summarized below :-

Mix No Soil (%) Lime (%) RHA (%)

Mix No Soil (%) Lime (%) RRH (%)

Conducting Standard Proctor Test as per IS: 2700(Part-VII),1980/87 on both

Typical locally available soil

5.1 Test Program

5.1.2 Relevant tests for characterization, compaction characteristics and strength

Table-5.1, Detail test program for Lime RHA mixed soil

Sl. Tes Mis L. P. UCS CBR CBR(after 7

Table-5.2- Detail test program for Lime RRH mixed soil

Sl. Te Mis Proportions L. P. UCS CBR CBR(after 7

Table-6.1- Name of tests performed and Relevant IS Code followed.

25Sl. No Name of tests Relevant IS code

7.1- Evaluated geotechnical properties of soil

Table-7.1- Evaluated geotechnical properties of Original Soil

Sl. No Characteristics Value

Fig 7.1(a)-Dry density moisture content relationship of original

Fig 7.1(b)- Grain size distribution curve of original soil

Fig 7.1(c) – Unsoaked CBR of original soil

Fig 7.1(d) Soaked CBR of original soil

6.2. Results for Characterization test of stabilized soil