Dec 3, 2016 - Fig.2.6. Expansive soil. Source ; http://mlsuau.wordpress.com (2014) ii. ...... To reduce the amount of wastes that must be managed. 2. ..... yeasts starter culture with fermentation allowed between 10 to 12 days, then the liquid is.
!"#"$"%& %' ( ) ( * ( + (" (", "- ( (" *. *," ," " / / 0 1 , 1/ 2 ( (" . , ( ," ( , " " ,%'3 4 ( ,,( ( 55 ( 6 ,, , ,, #3 4 6/ ,, $3 55 ( 2 1/ / 0 , 2 , (
27"2/8)* ) " " " /)" 1/)" 2)9 2)" ) 8 ) / ) , 41 ( " ,/ / ,2 2)8":10298; /; 1 (
!"#$
! " # $ !% ! & $ ' ' ($ ' # % % ) % * % ' $ ' + " % & ' !# $, ( $ - . ! "- ( % . % % % % $ $ $ - - - - / / $$$ 0 1"1"#23."
4& )*5/ +) 678%99:::& % ) 2 ; * & / -
'(',&$7(' 72*2'7+()$7+(5621$1'+2//D/d&>KthZs ͘ tĂƚĞƌĐŽŶƚĞŶƚĂŐĂŝŶƐƚEƵŵďĞƌŽĨďůŽǁƐ͘ ϳϬ
tĂƚĞƌĐŽŶƚĞŶƚ;йͿ
ϲϬ
ϱϬ ϰϬ
ϯϬ ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϭ Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
ϰϬ
EƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨďůŽǁƐ
Fig.5.1. Moisture content of Natural soil. From the flow curve as shown above, the Moisture content of Natural soil(NS) = 52.7 % From the flow curve as shown below, the Moisture content of MSA (3%) mixed with soil Sample = 32 % Thus, MSA 1= 32%
tĂƚĞƌŽŶƚĞŶƚ ;йͿ
>/Yh/>/D/d&>Kt,Zd&KZD^ϭ;ϯйͿD/y t/d,^K/>͘ ϰϱ ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ ϱ Ϭ Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
ϰϬ
EƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨďůŽǁƐ
Fig.5.2. LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR MSA MIXED WITH SOIL AT 3% (MSA 1).
From the flow curve as shown below, the Moisture content of MSA (6%) mixed with soil Sample = 33.3 % ϵϵ
>/Yh/>/D/d&>KthZs D^;ϲйͿ ϰϱ
td Z KEd Ed ;йͿ
ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ
Ϯϱ ϮϬ ϭϱ
ϭϬ ϱ Ϭ Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
EhD Z K&>Kt^
Fig.5.3. LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR MSA MIXED WITH SOIL AT 6% (MSA 2).
From the flow curve as shown below, the Moisture content of MSA (9%) mixed with soil Sample = 28.50% Thus MSA 4= 28.50 %
>/Yh/>/D/d&>KthZs D^ϵй ϰϱ
td Z KEd Ed
ϰϬ
ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ
ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ
ϱ Ϭ Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
ϰϬ
EhD Z K&>Kt^
Fig.5.4. LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR MSA MIXED WITH SOIL AT 9% (MSA 4). From the flow curve as shown below, the Moisture content of MSA (12%) mixed with soil Sample = 26.00% Thus MSA 5= 26.00 % ϭϬϬ
>/Yh/>/D/d&>KthZs D^dϭϮй ϰϱ
ϰϬ
džŝƐdŝƚůĞ
ϯϱ ϯϬ
Ϯϱ ϮϬ ϭϱ
ϭϬ ϱ Ϭ Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
ϰϬ
džŝƐdŝƚůĞ
Fig.5.5. LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR MSA MIXED WITH SOIL AT 12 % (MSA 5) From the flow curve as shown below, the Moisture content of MSA (15%) mixed with soil Sample = 20% Thus MSA 5= 20 %
>/Yh/>/D/d&>KthZs &KZD^ϭϱй ϰϱ
td Z KEd Ed
ϰϬ
ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ
ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ
ϱ Ϭ
Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
ϰϬ
EhD Z K&>Kt^
Fig.5.6. LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR MSA MIXED WITH SOIL AT 15 % (MSA 6)
From the flow curve as shown below, the Moisture content of MNA (3%) mixed with soil Sample = 31.5 % Thus MNA 1= 31.5% ϭϬϭ
>ŝƋƵŝĚ>ŝŵŝƚĨůŽǁŚĂƌƚĨŽƌDEϭĂƚ;ϯйͿ ϰϱ
td Z KEd Ed ;йͿ
ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ
ϭϱ ϭϬ
ϱ Ϭ
Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
ϰϬ
EhD Z K&>Kt^
Fig.5.7. LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR MNA MIXED WITH SOIL AT 3% (MNA 1). From the flow curve as shown below, the Moisture content of MNA (6%) mixed with soil Sample = 30 %
ŚĂƌƚdŝƚůĞ ϰϱ ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ
ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ ϱ
Ϭ Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
Fig.5.8. LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR MNA MIXED WITH SOIL AT 6% (MNA 2).
From the flow curve as shown below, the Moisture content of MNA (9%) mixed with soil Sample = 30.50% Thus MNA 4= 30..50 %
ϭϬϮ
ŚĂƌƚdŝƚůĞ ϰϱ ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ
ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ ϱ Ϭ
Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
Fig.5.9. LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR MSA MIXED WITH SOIL AT 9% (MNA 4). From the flow curve as shown below, the Moisture content of MNA (12%) mixed with soil Sample = 26.00% Thus MNA 5= 26.00 %
>/Yh/>/D/d&>KthZs D^dϭϮй ϰϱ ϰϬ
džŝƐdŝƚůĞ
ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ
ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ
ϱ Ϭ
Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
ϰϬ
džŝƐdŝƚůĞ
Fig.5.10. LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR MNA MIXED WITH SOIL AT 12 % (MNA 5)
From the flow curve as shown below, the Moisture content of MNA (15%) mixed with soil Sample = 28.50% Thus MSA 4= 28.50 %
ϭϬϯ
>/Yh/>/D/d&>KthZs D^ϭϱй ϰϱ
td Z KEd Ed
ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ
Ϯϱ ϮϬ ϭϱ
ϭϬ ϱ Ϭ Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϱ
ϰϬ
EhD Z K&>Kt^
Fig.5.11. LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR MNA MIXED WITH SOIL AT 15 % (MNA 6)
e.
PLASTIC LIMIT
The data collected from the test for the soil sample is as shown below. Table.5.26. Observations and Calculations of plastic Limit of Natural soil (NS). Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W0 )
16g
12g
11.24g
Weight of Can + Wet soil
23g
16g
15g
21g
15g
14g
Weight of Water (W1 ± W2 ) 2g
1g
1g
Weight of dry soil (W1 ±
5g
3g
2.75g
40
33.3
36.35
(W1 ) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W2 )
W2 ) W= W1 - W/W2 -W0 * 100 Plastic Limit is thus
ସାଷଷǤଷାଷǤଷହ ଷ
= 36.65%.
Plasticity Index = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value ϭϬϰ
Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 52.7 ± 33.35. = 16.35. Table.5.27. PLASTICITY LIMIT OF MSA 1 (3%) MIXED WITH SOIL. Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W 0 )
15g
15g
15g
Weight of Can + Wet
23g
23g
23g
21g
21g
21g
1g
1g
1g
6g
6g
6g
16.66
16.66
16.66
soil (W 1 ) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W 2 ) Weight of Water (W 1 ± W 2) Weight of dry soil (W 1 ± W 2) W= W 1 - W/W 2 -W 0 * 100
Plastic Limit is thus
ଵǤାଵǤାଵǤ ଷ
= 16.66%.
Plasticity Index of MSA 1 (3%) = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 32 ±16.66 = 15.34
Table.5.28. PLASTICITY LIMIT OF MSA 2 (6%) MIXED WITH SOIL Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W 0 )
15g
15g
15g
Weight of Can + Wet
23g
23g
23g
21g
21g
21g
soil (W 1 ) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W 2 )
ϭϬϱ
Weight of Water (W 1 ±
1g
1g
1g
6g
6g
6g
16.66
16.66
16.66
W 2) Weight of dry soil (W 1 ± W 2) W= W 1 - W/W 2 -W 0 * 100
Plastic Limit is thus
ଵǤାଵǤାଵǤ ଷ
= 16.66%.
Plasticity Index of MSA 2 (6%) = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 33.33 ±16.67 = 16.66
Table.5.29. PLASTICITY LIMIT OF MSA 3 (9%) MIXED WITH SOIL. Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W 0 )
15g
15g
15g
Weight of Can + Wet
23g
23g
23g
21g
21g
22g
1g
1g
1g
6g
6g
7g
16.66
16.66
14.28
soil (W 1 ) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W 2 ) Weight of Water (W 1 ± W 2) Weight of dry soil (W 1 ± W 2) W= W 1 - W/W 2 -W 0 100
Plastic Limit is thus
ଵǤାଵǤାଵସǤଶ଼ ଷ
= 15.86 %.
Plasticity Index of MSA 3 (9%) = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 28.5±15.86 = 12.64.
ϭϬϲ
Table.5.30. PLASTICITY LIMIT OF MSA 4 (12%) MIXED WITH SOIL Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W 0 )
15g
15g
15g
Weight of Can + Wet
23g
29g
23g
22g
21g
22g
1g
1g
1g
7g
8g
7g
14.28
12.5
14.28
soil (W 1 ) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W 2 ) Weight of Water (W 1 ± W 2) Weight of dry soil (W 2 ± W 0) W= W 1 - W/W 2 -W 0 * 100
Plastic Limit is thus
ଵସǤଶ଼ାଵଶǤହାଵସǤଶ଼ ଷ
= 13.68 %.
Plasticity Index of MSA 3 (9%) = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 26 ±13.68 = 12.32.
Table.5.31. PLASTICITY LIMIT OF MSA 5 (15%) MIXED WITH SOIL Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W 0 )
15g
15g
15g
Weight of Can + Wet
23g
29g
23g
22g
21g
22g
1g
1g
1g
7g
8g
7g
14.28
12.5
14.28
soil (W 1 ) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W 2 ) Weight of Water (W 1 ± W 2) Weight of dry soil (W 2 ± W 0) W= W 1 - W/W 2 -W 0 * 100
ϭϬϳ
Plastic Limit is thus
ଵସǤଶ଼ାଵଶǤହାଵସǤଶ଼ ଷ
= 13.68 %.
Plasticity Index of MSA 3 (15%) = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 20 ±13.68 = 6.32 Table.5.32. PLASTICITY LIMIT OF MNA 1 (3%) MIXED WITH SOIL Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W 0 )
15g
15g
15g
Weight of Can + Wet
23g
23g
23g
22g
21g
21g
1g
1g
1g
7g
6g
6g
14.28
16.66
16.66
soil (W 1 ) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W 2 ) Weight of Water (W 1 ± W 2) Weight of dry soil (W 1 ± W 2) W= W 1 - W/W 2 -W 0 * 100
Plastic Limit is thus
ଵସǤଶ଼ାଵǤାଵǤ ଷ
= 15.84%.
Plasticity Index of MNA 1 (3%) = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 31.5±15.84 = 15.66. Table.5.33. PLASTICITY LIMIT OF MNA 2 (6%) MIXED WITH SOIL Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W0)
15g
15g
15g
Weight of Can + Wet
23g
23g
23g
21g
21g
21g
soil (W1) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W2)
ϭϬϴ
Weight of Water (W1±
1g
1g
1g
6g
6g
6g
16.66
16.66
16.66
W2) Weight of dry soil (W1 ± W2) W= W1- W/W2-W0 * 100
Plastic Limit is thus
ଵǤାଵǤାଵǤ ଷ
= 16.66%.
Plasticity Index of MNA 2 (6%) = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 30 ±16.67 = 13.33. Table.5.34. PLASTICITY LIMIT OF MNA 3 (9%) MIXED WITH SOIL Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W 0 )
15g
15g
15g
Weight of Can + Wet
23g
23g
23g
21g
22g
22g
1g
1g
1g
6g
7g
7g
16.66
14.28
14.28
soil (W 1 ) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W 2 ) Weight of Water (W 1 ± W 2) Weight of dry soil (W 1 ± W 2) W= W 1 - W/W 2 -W 0 * 100
Plastic Limit is thus
ଵǤାଵସǤଶ଼ାଵସǤଶ଼ ଷ
= 15.07 %.
Plasticity Index of MNA 3 (9%) = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 30.50±15.07 = 15.43. ϭϬϵ
Table.5.35. PLASTICITY LIMIT OF MNA 4 (12%) MIXED WITH SOIL Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W 0 )
15g
15g
15g
Weight of Can + Wet
23g
23g
23g
21g
21g
22g
1g
1g
1g
6g
6g
7g
16.66
16.66
14.28
soil (W 1 ) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W 2 ) Weight of Water (W 1 ± W 2) Weight of dry soil (W 2 ± W 0) W= W 1 - W/W 2 -W 0 * 100
Plastic Limit is thus
ଵǤାଵǤାଵସǤଶ଼ ଷ
= 15.86 %.
Plasticity Index of MNA 4 (12%) = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 26.00 ± 15.86 = 10.14. Table.5.36. PLASTICITY LIMIT OF MNA 5 (15%) MIXED WITH SOIL. Determination No.
1
2
3
Can No.
A
B
C
Weight of can (W 0 )
15g
15g
15g
Weight of Can + Wet
23g
29g
23g
22g
21g
22g
1g
1g
1g
7g
8g
7g
14.28
12.5
14.28
soil (W 1 ) Weight of Can + Oven dry soil.(W 2 ) Weight of Water (W 1 ± W 2) Weight of dry soil (W 2 ± W 0) W= W 1 - W/W 2 -W 0 * 100
ϭϭϬ
Plastic Limit is thus
ଵସǤଶ଼ାଵଶǤହାଵସǤଶ଼ ଷ
= 13.68 %.
Plasticity Index of MNA 5 (15%) = Liquid Limit Value ± plastic Limit Value Therefore, Plasticity Index (Ip ) = 28.50 ±13.68 = 14.82.
f.
FREE SWELL
Reporting Results Free swell index
ௗି
ൈ 100%.
Where, Vd = Volume of soil specimen read from the graduated cylinder containing distilled water. Vk = Volume of soil specimen read from the graduated cylinder containing Kerosene.
i.
RESULT OF NATURAL SOIL
Free swell of soil in water container = 20- 15 = 5. Free swell of soil in Kerosene container = 18 ± 15 = 3. Free swell index of Natural Soil = Vd ± Vk /Vk ൈ100% =
ହିଷ ଷ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
= 66.67% ii.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MSA 1 (3%) = Free swell index of Natural Soil
= Vd ± Vk /Vk * 100% = =
ିସ ସ ଶ
ସ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
ൈͳͲͲΨ ϭϭϭ
= 50%
iii.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MSA 2 (6%) = Free swell index of Natural Soil
= Vd ± Vk /Vk ൈ100% = =
ଵିଵଵ ଵଵ ହ
ଵଵ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
= 45.45%
iv.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MSA 3 (9%) = Free swell index of Natural Soil
= Vd ± Vk /Vk ൈ100% =
ହ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
ଵଶ
= 41.66 %
v.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MSA 4 (12 %) = Free swell index of Natural Soil
= Vd ± Vk /Vk ൈ100% ଶ
= ହ ൈͳͲͲΨ =
ଶ
ହ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
= 40%
vi.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MSA 5 (15%) = Free swell index of Natural Soil
= Vd ± Vk /Vk ൈ100% = =
଼ି ଶ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
ϭϭϮ
= 33.33% vii.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MANGO NUT ASH (MNA) BLENDED WITH SOIL.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MNA 1 (3%) = Free swell index of Soil = Vd ± Vk /Vk ൈ100% = =
ିସ ଷ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
= 50%
viii.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MNA 2 (6%)
= Free swell index of Soil = Vd ± Vk /Vk ൈ100% = =
ଵି ଷ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
= 42.85 %
ix.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MNA 3 (9%)
= Free swell index of Natural Soil = Vd ± Vk /Vk ൈ100% ଶ
= ൈͳͲͲΨ ହ
= 40 %
x.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MNA 4 (12 %)
= Free swell index of Natural Soil = Vd ± Vk /Vk ൈ100% ଷ
= ଽ ൈͳͲͲΨ =
ଷ
ଽ
ൈͳͲͲΨ ϭϭϯ
= 33.33%
xi.
FREE SWELL INDEX OF MNA 5 (15%)
= Free swell index of Natural Soil = Vd ± Vk /Vk ൈ100% = =
଼ି ଽ ଶ
ଽ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
ൈͳͲͲΨ
= 22.22%
Table.5.37. COMPARATIVE FREE SWELL OF MSA & MNA AT VARYING PERCENTAGES. QUANTITY OF MSA &
MANGO SHELL ASH
MANGO
MNA (%).
(MSA)
NUT ASH
NATURAL SOIL(NS)
66.67%
66.67%
3%
50%
50%
6%
45.45%
42.85%
9%
41.66%
40%
12%
40%
33.33%
15%
33.33%
22.22%
(MNA)
g.
IN-SITU DRY DENSITY
The data collected from the test for the soil sample is as shown below. An average of three determinations was recorded to the second place of decimal in g/cc. Table.5.38. Observations and Calculations of in-situ dry density of Natural soil (NS) S/ No
Description
1st Reading ϭϭϰ
2nd Reading
3rd Reading
1.
Internal diameter of core
2.
Internal height of core cutter 129.95
100
100
100
129.95
129.95
1000
1000
cutter(mm)
(mm) 3.
Volume of core cutter (V) in 1000 cc
4.
Weight of core cutter (W1 ) g 886
886
886
5.
Weight of core cutter + soil 2668
2655
2652
1782
1769
1766
1.782
1.769
1.766
14.6
14.6
14.6
1.55
1.54
1.54
(W2 ) g. 6.
Weight of soil = W2 - W1 g/cc
7.
Bulk density of soil = ଶȂଵ
8.
g/cc
Moisture Content (W) %
9. Dry density of soil
ଵ
ଵାௐ
d
g/cc
Average dry density of soil
h.
=
d
=
ଵǤହହାଵǤହସାଵǤହସ ଷ
= 1.54 g/cc.
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
Observations and Calculations of in-situ dry density of Natural soil (NS). The data collected from the test for the soil sample is as shown below. Table.5.39. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF NATURAL SOIL (NS) S/ No
Description
1st Reading 2nd Reading
ϭϭϱ
3rd
4th
5th
Reading
Reading
Reading
1.
Weight of mould
2.
Weight of mould
3834
3834
3834
3834
3834
5644
5580
5603
5645
5644
1810
1746
1769
1811
1810
1.81
1.746
1.769
1.811
1.81
10.56
13.15
13. 96
13.15
1.61
1.65
1.58
1.5
(W1 ) g.
+ soil (W2 ) g. 3.
Weight of soil = W2 - W1 g/cc
4.
Bulk density of soil =
ଶȂଵ
g/cc 5.
Moisture Content 13.15
6.
Dry density of soil 1.5
(W) %
d =
ଵ ଵ ାௐ
g/cc
Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of Natural soil = 1.65 g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 13.15 %. Table.5.40. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE MSA 1 (3%) S/ No
Description
1st Reading 2nd Reading 3rd
4th
5th
1.
Weight of
3834
3834
Reading
Reading
Reading
3834
3834
3834
5644
5666
5603
5645
5644
1810
1832
1769
1811
1810
1.81
1.832
1.769
1.811
1.81
mould (W1 ) g. 2.
Weight of mould + soil (W2 ) g.
3.
Weigth of soil = W2 - W1 g/cc
4.
Bulk density of soil =
ଶȂଵ
g/cc
ϭϭϲ
5.
Moisture
6.
Dry density of
10.15
12.56
14.12
15. 96
16.15
1.64
1.62
1.65
1.56
1.55
Content (W) %
soil d =
ଵ ଵ ାௐ
g/cc
Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MSA 1 (3%) = 1.65 g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 14.12 %.
Table.5.41. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE MSA 2 (6 %) S/ No
1st Reading
Description
2nd Reading
3rd Reading
4th
5th
Reading 1.
Weight of mould
3834
3834
3834
3834
3834
2.
Weight of mould + 5644
5666
5603
5644
5645
3.
Weigth of soil =
1810
1832
1769
1810
1811
1.81
1.832
1.769
1.81
1.811
9.15
13.54
13.95
16.15
16. 96
1.61
1.65
1.69
1.53
(W1 ) g.
soil (W2 ) g.
W2 - W1 g/cc 4.
Bulk density of
soil =
ଶȂଵ
g/cc 5.
Moisture Content (W) %
6.
Dry density of soil 1.65
= d
ଵ
ଵ ାௐ
g/cc
Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MSA 2 (6%) = 1.69 g/cc.
ϭϭϳ
While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 16.15 %.
Table.5.42. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE MSA 3 (9 %) S/ No
Description
1st Reading
2nd Reading
3rd Reading
4th
5th
Reading
1.
Weight of mould
3834
3834
3834
3834
3834
5644
5666
5655
5561
5645
1810
1832
1769
1727
1811
1.81
1.832
1.769
1.81
1.811
12.01
13.54
13.95
14.5
13
1.45
1.61
1.65
1.54
1.43
(W1 ) g. 2.
Weight of mould
3.
Weight of soil =
4.
Bulk density of
+ soil (W2 ) g.
W2 - W1 g/cc
soil =
ଶȂଵ
g/cc 5.
Moisture Content (W) %
6.
Dry density of ଵ
soil d = ଵ ାௐ g/cc
Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MSA 3 (9%) = 1.65 g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 13.95 %.
Table.5.43. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF MSA 4 (12%) S/ No Description
1st Reading
2nd Reading
ϭϭϴ
3rd Reading
4th
5th
Reading
Reading
1.
Weight of mould
3834
3834
3834
3834
3834
2.
Weight of mould
5580
5603
5645
5644
5644
1746
1769
1811
1810
1810
1.746
1.769
1.811
1.81
1.81
5.
Moisture Content 10.56
12.36
13. 96
16.15
20.00
6.
Dry density of
1.58
1.58
1.55
1.50
(W1 ) g.
+ soil (W2 ) g. 3.
Weight of soil = W2 - W1 g/cc
4.
Bulk density of soil =
ଶȂଵ
g/cc
(W) %
soil d =
1.57
ଵ ଵ ାௐ
g/cc
Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MSA 4(12%) = 1.58 g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 12.36 %.
Table.5.44. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF MSA 5 (15 %) S
Descrip
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
/
tion
Read
Read
Read
Read
Read
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
3834
3834
3834
3834
3834
5580
5603
5682
5644
5644
N o 1
Weight
.
of mould (W1 ) g.
2
Weight
.
of
ϭϭϵ
mould + soil (W2 ) g. 3
Weight
.
of soil
1746
1769
1848
1810
1810
1.81
1.81
= W2 W1 g/cc 4
Bulk
1.74
1.76
1.84
.
density
6
9
8
of soil
= ଶȂଵ
g/cc 5
Moistur
10.5
12.6
14.
16.1
20.0
.
e
6
1
90
5
0
1.57
1.58
1.60
1.55
1.50
Content (W) % 6
Dry
.
density of soil
= d
ଵ
ଵାௐ
g/cc Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MSA 5 (15%) = 1.60 g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 14.90 %.
ϭϮϬ
Table.5.45. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF MNA 1 (3 %) S
Descrip
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
/
tion
Read
Read
Read
Read
Read
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
3834
3834
3834
3834
3834
5503
5603
5682
5644
5644
1669
1769
1848
1810
1810
1.81
1.81
N o 1
Weight
.
of mould (W1 ) g.
2
Weight
.
of mould + soil (W2 ) g.
3
Weight
.
of soil = W2 W1 g/cc
4
Bulk
1.66
1.76
1.84
.
density
9
9
8
6.56
11.6
13.
16.1
20.0
1
23
5
0
of soil
= ଶȂଵ
g/cc 5
Moistur
.
e Content (W) %
ϭϮϭ
6
Dry
.
density
1.56
1.58
1.63
1.55
1.50
of soil
= d
ଵ
ଵାௐ
g/cc
Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MNA 1 (3%) = 1.63 g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 13.23 %.
Table.5.46. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF MNA 2 (6 %) S
Descrip
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
/
tion
Read
Read
Read
Read
Read
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
3834
3834
3834
3834
3834
5503
5603
5682
5644
5644
1669
1769
1848
1810
1810
N o 1
Weight
.
of mould (W1 ) g.
2
Weight
.
of mould + soil (W2 ) g.
3
Weigth
.
of soil = W2 -
ϭϮϮ
W1 g/cc 4
Bulk
1.66
1.76
1.84
.
density
9
9
8
1.81
1.81
8.56
12.6
15.
18.1
20.0
1
99
5
0
1.57
1 .59
1.53
1.50
of soil
= ଶȂଵ
g/cc 5
Moistur
.
e Content (W) %
6
Dry
.
density
1.53
of soil
= d
ଵ
ଵାௐ
g/cc
Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MNA 2 (6%) = 1.63 g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 13.23 %.
Table.4.47. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF MNA 3 (9 %) S
Descrip
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
/
tion
Read
Read
Read
Read
Read
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
ϭϮϯ
N o 1
Weight
.
of
3834
3834
3834
3834
3834
5509
5608
5684
5644
5644
1675
1774
1850
1800
1756
mould (W1 ) g. 2
Weight
.
of mould + soil (W2 ) g.
3
Weigth
.
of soil = W2 W1 g/cc
4
Bulk
1.67
1.77
1.85
1.80
1.75
.
density
5
4
0
0
6
9.56
13.6
16.
18.1
22.2
1
99
0
1
1.56
1 .58
1.52
1.43
of soil
= ଶȂଵ
g/cc 5
Moistur
.
e Content (W) %
6
Dry
.
density
1.52
of soil
ϭϮϰ
= d
ଵ
ଵାௐ
g/cc Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MNA 3 (9%) = 1.58g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 16.99 %.
Table.5.48. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF MNA 4 (12 %) S
Descrip
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
/
tion
Read
Read
Read
Read
Read
ing
ing
ing
ing
ing
3834
3834
3834
3834
3834
5560
5679
5684
5655
5648
1726
1845
1850
1821
1814
N o 1
Weight
.
of mould (W1 ) g.
2
Weight
.
of mould + soil (W2 ) g.
3
Weight
.
of soil = W2 W1 g/cc
4
Bulk
1.72
1.84
1.85
1.82
1.81
.
density
6
5
0
1
4
of soil ϭϮϱ
= ଶȂଵ
g/cc 5
Moistur
.
e
8.56
10.6
12.
16.1
21.3
1
50
0
4
1.66
1 .64
1.56
1.49
Content (W) % 6
Dry
.
density
1.58
of soil
= d
ଵ
ଵାௐ
g/cc Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MNA 4 (12%) = 1.66g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 10.61 %.
Table.5.49. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF MNA 4 (12 %) S/ No Description
1.
Weight of mould
1st Reading
2nd Reading
3rd Reading
4th
5th
Reading
Reading
3834
3834
3834
3834
3834
5560
5680
5684
5655
5648
1726
1846
1850
1821
1814
(W1 ) g. 2.
Weight of mould
3.
Weight of soil =
+ soil (W2 ) g.
W2 - W1 g/cc
ϭϮϲ
4.
Bulk density of
soil =
1.726
1.846
1.850
1.821
1.814
8.00
9.99
12. 50
15.10
18.56
1.59
1.67
1 .64
1.58
1.53
ଶȂଵ
g/cc 5.
Moisture Content
6.
Dry density of
(W) %
soil
= d
ଵ
ଵାௐ
g/cc
Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MNA 4 (12%) = 1.67g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 9.99 %.
Zz E^d/zs^td ZKEd EdDEϭ;ϯйͿ ϭ͘ϲϰ
Zz E^/dz ;ŐͬĐĐͿ
ϭ͘ϲϮ ϭ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϱϲ ϭ͘ϱϰ ϭ͘ϱϮ ϭ͘ϱ ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
td Z KEd Ed ;йͿ
Fig.5.12. Maximum Dry Density of MNA From the graph, above, Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MNA 1 (3%) = 1.63 g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 13.23 %.
ϭϮϳ
Zz E^/dz ;ŐͬĐĐͿ
Zz E^/dzs^KD&KZDEϮ;ϲйͿ ϭ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϱϵ ϭ͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϱϳ ϭ͘ϱϲ ϭ͘ϱϱ ϭ͘ϱϰ ϭ͘ϱϯ ϭ͘ϱϮ ϭ͘ϱϭ ϭ͘ϱ ϭ͘ϰϵ Ϭ
ϱ
ϭϬ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
Ϯϱ
td Z KEd Ed ;йͿ
Fig.5.13. Dry Density V/S OMC for MNA 2 (6%) From the graph, above, Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MNA 2 (6%) = 1.63 g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 13.23 %.
Zz E^/dzs^td Z&KZDEϯ;ϵйͿ ϭ͘ϲ
h>K/>Z /E'^͕ /s/^/KE^͘
ZK&EdhZ>^K/>;E^Ϳ ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ
ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ ϱ Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
W E dZd/KE ;ŵŵͿ
Fig.5.17. CBR of Natural Soil CBR% of Natural Soil (NS) = 2%.
ZK&D^;ϮͿdϯй ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϭ Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
Fig.5.18. CBR of MSA (2) at 3% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash, (MSA 1) at 3%= 4 %
ϭϰϳ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
>ŽĂĚĚŝĂůZĞĂĚŝŶŐƐ͕ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶƐ͕ŵŵ
ZK&D^;ϯͿdϲй ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϭ Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
W E dZd/KE͕ ŵŵ
Fig.5.19. CBR of MSA (3) at 6% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MSA 2) at 6 %= 4 %
>K/>Z /E'^ ͕/s/^/KE^
ZK&D^;ϰͿdϵй ϳϬ ϲϬ
ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ
ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
W E dZd/KE ͕ŵŵ
Fig.5.20. CBR of MSA (4) at 9% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash, (MSA 3) at 9%= 5 %
ϭϰϴ
ZK&D^;ϱͿdϭϮй
>K/>Z /E'^͕/s/^/KE^
ϭϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϴϬ
ϲϬ ϰϬ ϮϬ Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
W E dZd/KE͕ŵŵ
Fig.5.21. CBR of MSA (5) at 12% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MSA 4) at 12% = 10 %
ZK&D^;ϲͿdϭϱй
>K/>Z /E'^͕/s/^/KE^
ϭϲϬ ϭϰϬ ϭϮϬ ϭϬϬ ϴϬ ϲϬ
ϰϬ ϮϬ Ϭ Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
W E dZd/KE͕ŵŵ
Fig.5.22. CBR of MSA (6) at 15% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MSA 5) at 15% = 12 %
ϭϰϵ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
>K/>Z /E'^͕ /s/^/KE^
ZK&DEϭdϯй ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϭ Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
W E dZd/KE͕ ŵŵ
Fig.5.23. CBR of MNA (1) at 3%
CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MNA 1) at 3%= ௗ௦௨௦௧ௗ ௬௦ ௧ ଶǤହ ହǤ௧௧ ௗ௦௨௦௧ௗ ௬௦௧ௗௗ ௧௦௧௧௦ௗ௧௧ ௩
=
× 100
ଷൈଵଽൈଵ ଵൈଵଷ
=5%
>K/>Z /E'^͕/s/^/KE^
Z&KZDEϮdϲй ϴϬ
ϳϬ ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ ϮϬ ϭϬ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
W E dZd/KE͕ŵŵ
Fig.5.24. CBR of MNA (2) at 6% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MNA 2) at 6%= ௗ௦௨௦௧ௗ ௬௦ ௧ ଶǤହ ହǤ௧௧ ௗ௦௨௦௧ௗ௬௦௧ௗௗ ௧௦௧௧௦ௗ௧௧ ௩
ϭϱϬ
× 100
=
ସ଼ൈଵଽൈଵ ଵൈଵଷ
=7 %
ZK&DEϯdϵй >K/>Z /E'^͕ŵŵ
ϵϬ
ϴϬ ϳϬ ϲϬ
ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ
ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
W E dZd/KE ͕ŵŵ
Fig.5.25. CBR of MNA (3) at 9% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MNA 3) at 9%= ௗ௦௨௦௧ௗ ௬௦ ௧ ଶǤହ ହǤ௧௧ ௗ௦௨௦௧ௗ ௬௦௧ௗௗ ௧௦௧௧௦ௗ௧௧ ௩
=
× 100
ହǤହൈଵଽൈ ଵ ଵ ൈଵଷ
=8%
ZK&DEϰdϭϮй >K/>Z /E'͘ŵŵ
ϭϮϬ ϭϬϬ
ϴϬ ϲϬ
ϰϬ ϮϬ
Ϭ Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
W E dZd/KE͕ŵŵ
Fig.5.26. CBR of MNA (4) at 12% ϭϱϭ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MNA 4) at 12%= ௗ௦௨௦௧ௗ ௬௦ ௧ ଶǤହ ହǤ௧௧ ௗ௦௨௦௧ௗ ௬௦௧ௗௗ ௧௦௧௧௦ௗ௧௧ ௩
=
× 100
ହǤହൈଵଽൈ ଵ ଵ ൈଵଷ
= 10%
ZK&DEϱdϭϱй >K/>Z /E'^͕ŵŵ
ϭϰϬ ϭϮϬ
ϭϬϬ ϴϬ ϲϬ ϰϬ
ϮϬ Ϭ
Ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϲ
ϴ
ϭϬ
ϭϮ
ϭϰ
W E dZd/KE͕ ŵŵ
Fig.5.27. CBR of MNA (5) at 15% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MNA 4) at 12%= ௗ௦௨௦௧ௗ ௬௦ ௧ ଶǤହ ହǤ௧௧ ௗ௦௨௦௧ௗ ௬௦௧ௗௗ ௧௦௧௧௦ௗ௧௧ ௩
=
଼ଽǤହൈଵଽൈଵ ଵൈଵଷ
= 12 %
ϭϱϮ
× 100
CHAPTER 6 RESULTS
6.1.Introduction
This chapter presents the results obtained from tests conducted. These results are those of both Mango Nut Ash and Mango Shell Ash, at varying percentages of 3%,6%.9%, 12% and 15 % of both Mango Nut Ash(MNA) and Mango Shell Ash(MSA). These results are results from specific gravity, Maximum Dry density, Optimum moisture content, Liquid Limit, Plastic limit, free swell, plasticity, California Bearing ratio and Unconfined Compression tests and are presented appropriately. Specific Gravity.
W Z Ed' /EZ ^ /ED^͘
'ZW,K&W Z Ed' /EZ ^ K&D^d '/E^d^W /&/'Zs/dzK&D^͘ ϭϱй
ϭϲй
ϭϰй
ϭϮй
ϭϮй
ϵй
ϭϬй ϴй
ϲй
ϲй ϯй
ϰй Ϯй
Ϭй
Ϭй ͲϮй
ϭ͘ϴ
Ϯ͘ϲ
Ϯ͘ϳ
Ϯ͘ϴϯ
Ϯ͘ϵϯ
ϯ
^W /&/'Zs/dz K&D^D/y t/d,^K/>d/&& Z Ed W Z Ed' ^
Fig.6.1. Specific gravity of Mango Shell Ash (MSA) at varying percentages From Fig.6.1., Specific gravity of Mango Shell Ash (MSA) at varying percentages it is evident that that there was a significant increment in the specific gravity of expansive soil blended with MSA at 3, 6,9,12 and 15 percentages with the highest value found of 3 at 15 % addition of MSA and the lowest value of specific gravity at 2.6 at 3% of MSA. ϭϱϯ
sZz/E' W Z Ed' ^ K&/d/KEK& DE
'ZW,K&DE/E/&& Z EdW Z Ed' ^t/d,^K/> '/E^d^W /&/'Zs/dz͘ ϭϱй
ϭϲй ϭϰй
ϭϮй
ϭϮй
ϵй
ϭϬй ϴй
ϲй
ϲй ϯй
ϰй Ϯй
Ϭй
Ϭй
ϭ͘ϴϯ
Ϯ͘ϭ
Ϯ͘Ϯϲ
Ϯ͘ϲϲ
Ϯ͘ϴϯ
Ϯ͘ϵ
Ϭй
ϯй
ϲй
ϵй
ϭϮй
ϭϱй
^ĞƌŝĞƐϭ
^W /&/'Zs/dz d/&& Z Ed W Z Ed' ^͘
Fig.6.2. Specific gravity of Mango Nut Ash (MNA) at varying percentages
From Fig.6.2., Specific gravity of Mango Nut Ash (MNA) at varying percentages it is obviously observed that there is a significant increment in the specific gravity of expansive soil blended with MNA at 3,6,9,12 and 15 percentages and the specific gravity was found to be 2.1,2.26,2.26,2.83 and 2.9 respectively, with the highest value found of 3 at 15 % addition of MSA and the lowest value of specific gravity at 2.6 at 3% of MNA.
^W /&/'Zs/dz
Z,Zd^,Kt/E'sZ/d/KEK&^W /&/ 'Zs/dz dt ED^EDE ϯ͘ϱ ϯ Ϯ͘ϱ Ϯ ϭ͘ϱ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ
Ϭй
ϯй
ϲй
ϵй
ϭϮй
D^
ϭ͘ϴϯ
Ϯ͘ϲ
Ϯ͘ϳ
Ϯ͘ϴϯ
Ϯ͘ϵϯ
ϭϱй ϯ
DE
ϭ͘ϴϯ
Ϯ͘ϭ
Ϯ͘Ϯϲ
Ϯ͘Ϯϲ
Ϯ͘ϴϯ
Ϯ͘ϵ
/EZ ^ K&D^E DE /EsZz/E' W Z Ed' ^W Z Ed' D^
DE
Fig. 6.3. Comparative Specific gravity of MSA and MNA in varying Percentages. In Fig.6.3., The Comparative Specific gravity of MSA and MNA in varying Percentages is shown, and this shows that there is generally very little differences in the values with the highest ϭϱϰ
difference noticed between MSA and MNA was found to be 0.5 at addition of 9% of both stabilizing agents, however, Values of MSA have shown to be generally higher than that of
>/Yh/>/D/dK&Kd,D^ΘDE
MNA at varying percentages. In both cases, all values increased.
'ZW,K&>/Yh/>/D/d'/E^dsZz/E' W Z Ed' ^K&D^ΘDE͘ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ ϱ Ϭ
ϯ
ϲ
ϵ
ϭϮ
ϭϱ
D^
ϯϮ
ϯϯ͘ϯ
Ϯϴ͘ϱ
Ϯϲ
ϮϬ
DE
ϯϭ͘ϱ
ϯϬ
ϯϬ͘ϱ
Ϯϲ
Ϯϴ͘ϱ
sZz/E' W Z Ed' ^ K&D^ΘDE D^
DE
Fig.6.4. Comparative Liquid Limits of MSA and MNA in varying Percentages Fig.6.4., above shows the Comparative Liquid Limits of MSA and MNA in varying Percentages, the values are seen to have varied, well there is a general decrement in Liquid Limits of both MSA and MNA at addition of 6% MSA there was a sharp increment in Liquid Limit of soil but decreased progressively. While in MNA the values were found to be moving up and down.
W>^d/>/D/dK&D^ΘDE
W>^d/>/D/d^'/E^dsZz/E'W Z Ed' ^K&DE ΨD^t/d,^K/> ϮϬ ϭϱ
ϭϬ ϱ Ϭ
ϯй
ϲй
ϵй
ϭϮй
ϭϱй
D^
ϭϲ͘ϲϲ
ϭϲ͘ϲϲ
ϭϱ͘ϴϲ
ϭϯ͘ϲϴ
ϭϯ͘ϲϴ
DE
ϭϱ͘ϴϰ
ϭϲ͘ϲϲ
ϭϱ͘Ϭϳ
ϭϱ͘ϴϲ
ϭϯ͘ϲϴ
sZz/E' W Z Ed' ^ K&^K/>> E t/d,D^ ΘDE D^
DE
Fig.6.5. Comparative Plastic Limits of MSA and MNA in varying Percentages ϭϱϱ
Comparative Plastic Limits of MSA and MNA in varying Percentages as shown in Fig.6.5., it was noticed that MSA had a constant value but gradually decreased as noticed while MNA was observed to have had a haphazard pattern.
W>^d//z/E yK&D^ΘDE
'ZW,K&W>^d//dz/E yK&D^ΘDE'/E^d sZz/E'W Z Ed' ^t/d,^K/> ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ
ϱ Ϭ
ϯй
ϲй
ϵй
ϭϮй
ϭϱй
D^
ϭϱ͘ϯϰ
ϭϲ͘ϲϲ
ϭϮ͘ϲϰ
ϭϮ͘ϯϮ
ϲ͘ϯϮ
DE
ϭϱ͘ϲϲ
ϭϯ͘ϯϯ
ϭϱ͘ϰϯ
ϭϬ͘ϭϰ
ϭϰ͘ϴϮ
sZ/E' W Z Ed' ^ K&^K/>t/d,D^ ΘDE D^
DE
Fig.6.6. Comparative Plasticity Index of MSA and MNA in varying Percentages Fig.6.6., shows the comparative Plasticity Index of MSA and MNA in varying Percentages of 3, 6,9,12 and 15%. For MNA it initially went high at 6 % addition with soil but later had a progressive decrement as noticed in the bar chart seen above. While MNA noticed a haphazard pattern of increment and decrement at various stages. The general decrement of Plasticity Index of the soil on addition of MSA shows there is significant improvement in soil engineer ing properties of the soil. MSA seemed to have a better improvement as compared to MNA.
&Z ^t >> /E y
&Z ^t >>/E yK&^K/>> E t/d,D^/E sZz/E'W Z Ed' ^͘ ϴϬ ϳϬ ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϭ
^ĞƌŝĞƐϮ
EdhZ> ^K/>
ϯй
ϲй
ϵй
ϭϮй
ϭϱй
ϲϲ͘ϲϳ
ϱϬ
ϰϱ͘ϰϱ
ϰϭ͘ϲϲ
ϰϬ
ϯϯ͘ϯϯ
sZz/E' W Z Ed' ^ K&D^͘
Fig.6.7. Free swell Index of Mango Nut Ash (MSA) ϭϱϲ
From Fig.6.7., it is noticed that there is a general progressive decrement of free swell on addition MSA at varying percentages with soil. This shows an appreciable improvement in the geotechnical characteristics the soil as too much swell of the soil implies danger for situatio n of engineering structures such as roads, as they would easily deteriorate before design life.
&Z ^t >>/E yK&^K/>t/d,DE ϴϬ
&Z ^t >> /E y
ϳϬ ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ
ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϭ ^ĞƌŝĞƐϭ
E^
DEϯй
DEϲй
DEϵй
DEϭϮй
DEϭϱй
ϲϲ͘ϲϳ
ϱϬ
ϰϮ͘ϴϱ
ϰϬ
ϯϯ͘ϯϯ
ϮϮ͘ϮϮ
sZz/E' W Z Ed' ^ K&DE
Fig.6.8. Free swell index of Mango Nut Ash (MNA) From Fig.6.8., it is noticed that there is a general progressive decrement of free swell on additio n MNA at varying percentages with soil. This shows an appreciable improvement in the geotechnical characteristics the soil as too much swell of the soil implies danger for situatio n of engineering structures such as roads, as they would easily deteriorate before design life.
&Z ^t >> /E y
KDWZd/s &Z ^t >>K&D^EDE ϴϬ ϲϬ ϰϬ ϮϬ Ϭ ϯй
ϲй
ϵй
ϭϮй
sZz/E' W Z Ed' ^ K&D^ΘDE EdhZ>^K/>
D^
DE
Fig.6.9. Comparative Free Swell Index of MSA and MNA ϭϱϳ
ϭϱй
As seen in Fig.6.9., both
MSA and MNA had their values decreased significa ntly
signifying they worked effectively in the improvement in free swell properties of the expansive soil with MSA having higher values signifying that MNA had a better effect on improvement of swell properties of expansive soil. Maximum Moisture Content Cumulative bar chart showing MDD and OMC at varying percentages of MSA with soil.
'ZW,K&hDDh>d/s DEKDdsZz/E' W Z Ed' ^K&D^͘ ϭϴ ϭϲ ϭϰ ϭϮ ϭϬ ϴ ϲ ϰ Ϯ Ϭ
E^
D^ϭ
D^Ϯ
D^ϯ
D^ϰ
D^ϱ
KD
ϭϯ͘ϭϱ
ϭϰ͘ϭϮ
ϭϲ͘ϭϱ
ϭϯ͘ϵϱ
ϭϮ͘ϯϲ
ϭϰ͘ϵ
D
ϭ͘ϲϱ
ϭ͘ϲϱ
ϭ͘ϲϵ
ϭ͘ϲϱ
ϭ͘ϱϴ
ϭ͘ϲ
KD
D
Fig.6.10. Cumulative MDD and OMC of MSA As seen in Fig.6.10., Values of optimum Moisture content was found to fluctuate as it started rising from the start but got decreased at addition of 9% MSA to the soil, but increased again at 15% addition while Maximum dry density was observed to have almost the same pattern of fluctuation in values with MDD. It will be observed that the Optimum Moisture content of MSA is at 6% just as the Optimum value of MSA is at 6%. Cumulative Bar Chart Showing MDD And OMC At Varying Percentages Of MNA With Soil.
ϭϱϴ
hDDh>d/s 'ZW,^,Kt/E'DΘKDK&DE ϭϴ ϭϲ ϭϰ ϭϮ ϭϬ ϴ ϲ ϰ Ϯ Ϭ
E^
DEϭ
DEϮ
DEϯ
DEϰ
DEϱ
KD
ϭϯ͘ϭϱ
ϭϯ͘Ϯϯ
ϭϯ͘Ϯϯ
ϭϲ͘ϵϵ
ϭϬ͘ϭϲ
ϵ͘ϵϵ
D
ϭ͘ϲϱ
ϭ͘ϲϯ
ϭ͘ϲϯ
ϭ͘ϱϴ
ϭ͘ϲϲ
ϭ͘ϲϳ
KD
D
Fig.6.11. Cumulative MDD and OMC of MNA As observed in the bar chart above, the optimum value of OMC for MNA is at 9% while the MDD is seen to be at 15%. The MDD was observed to have a progressive increment from 3% to 15% addition of MNA.
Table.6.1. Comparative maximum dry density and optimum dry density of both MSA and MNA QUANTITY
MDD
OMC
MDD
OMC
OF MSA &
OF
OF
OF
OF
MNA (%).
MANGO
MANGO
MANGO
MANGO
SHELL
SHELL
SHELL
SHELL
ASH
ASH
ASH
ASH
(MSA)
(MSA)
(MSA)
(MSA)
(g/cc)
(%)
(g/cc)
(%)
1.65
13.15
1.65
13.15
3%
1.65
14.12
1.63
13.23
6%
1.69
16.15
1.63
13.23
9%
1.65
13.95
1.58
16.99
NATURAL SOIL(NS)
ϭϱϵ
12%
1.58
12.36
1.66
10.61
15%
1.60
14.90
1.67
9.99
Z,Zd^,Kt/E'DK&Kd,D^EDEd sZz/E'W Z Ed' ^ ϭ͘ϳ
ϭ͘ϲϴ ϭ͘ϲϲ
ϭ͘ϲϰ ϭ͘ϲϮ
ϭ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϱϴ
ϭ͘ϱϲ ϭ͘ϱϰ
ϭ͘ϱϮ
ϯй
ϲй
ϵй
ϭϮй
ϭϱй
ϭ͘ϲϱ
D^
ϭ͘ϲϱ
ϭ͘ϲϵ
ϭ͘ϲϱ
ϭ͘ϱϴ
ϭ͘ϲ
DE
ϭ͘ϲϯ
ϭ͘ϲϯ
ϭ͘ϱϴ
ϭ͘ϲϲ
ϭ͘ϲϳ
D^
DE
Fig.6.12. Comparative maximum dry density of MSA and MNA at varying percentages From Fig.6.11., comparatively, MSA has the highest value of MDD which clearly shows that it has had more improvement of engineering properties of expansive soil as compared to MNA.
ϭϲϬ
Z,Zd^,Kt/E'KDK&Kd,D^EDEd sZz/E'W Z Ed' ^ ϭϴ ϭϲ ϭϰ ϭϮ ϭϬ ϴ ϲ ϰ Ϯ Ϭ
E^
ϯй
ϲй
ϵй
ϭϮй
ϭϱй
ϭϯ͘ϭϱ D^
ϭϰ͘ϭϮ
ϭϲ͘ϭϱ
ϭϯ͘ϵϱ
ϭϮ͘ϯϲ
ϭϰ͘ϵ
DE
ϭϯ͘Ϯϯ
ϭϯ͘Ϯϯ
ϭϲ͘ϵϵ
ϭϬ͘ϲϭ
ϵ͘ϵϵ
D^
DE
Fig.6.13. Comparative optimum moisture content of MSA and MNA at varying percentages It is expected that for soil engineering properties to improve in the process of stabilization, the OMC should decrease, from 6% addition of MSA, a decrement was noticed but later increased at 15% addition while, MNA addition had fluctuating values at different but noticed a decrement from 9% addition down to 15% thus, making MNA more effective in the Optimum moisture content consideration.
h^s>h ^ &KZD^;h ^K&D^d sZz/E'W Z Ed' ^ ϭ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϰ ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϭ E^
D^ϭ;ϯйͿ
D^Ϯ;ϲйͿ
D^ϯ;ϵйͿ
D^ϰ;ϭϮй
D^ϱ;ϭϱйͿ ϭ͘ϰϳ
h^
Ϭ͘ϵϳ
ϭ͘ϯ
ϭ͘ϯϵ
ϭ͘ϰϯ
ϭ͘ϰϱ
ϭ͘ϰϳ
K, ^/KE
Ϭ͘ϰϴ
Ϭ͘ϲϱ
Ϭ͘ϲϵ
Ϭ͘ϳϭ
Ϭ͘ϳϮ
Ϭ͘ϳϯ
h^
K, ^/KE
Fig.6.15. Bar chart showing UCS and cohesion values of MSA at varying percentages From the chart in fig.6.14., both values of UCS and Cohesion of the soil are shown and there is a gradual increment in both parameters which all suggests that there is an improvement in all cases.
h^s>h ^ ;
