Page 1 !"#"$"%& %' ( ) ( * ( + (" ( " , " - ( (" * . * , " , " " / / 0 1 , 1/ 2 ...


      



                      !"#"$"%&  %' (    ) (             *(    +   ("(", "- ( (" *. *,"   ,"   " /  / 0  1  ,   1/  2        (      (" . ,   (      ,"  (     ," "  ,%'3 4   ( ,,( ( 55    (    6 ,, ,    ,,   #3 4  6/   ,,   $3  55    ( 2   1/  / 0     ,2   ,     (



      


           


27"2/8)* )" " "/)"1/)" 2)92
)")8 )/), 41(  "      ,/ / ,2 2
)8":10298;/;1(

 !"
#$





                



      

          

 
   


 
 
  
  

 
   

     
 

 


     
 
  
 





 ! 
  
"



 
# 

 
 $  !%
 !

   
& 
$
 '  

 
'  

($
 
 ' 

# %
 %
)   %
*  % '  
  $


'
 

 
 + 
 


" %
 
 
 

&
 '  !

#  



 
$, 
 

( 

$
    
  
 
-
 
 
   
.   
   

 
 

 
     
 
  
 

  

 
 
 ! 
"-
 
 

 
 


 


( 
   %
 

 
 


  

   

 
 

. 


 
 %
   %

 %
 
 %
 
 


$ 
   
 

 
$



$ -




 
  
 
 -

 

 

 

  
  
 
 


 


-
- /

/
 
$$$    0 

  1"
1"#23.
" 
  






  


4& 
)*
5
/
+)     6
78%
99:::
&  %
  

) 2 
 ;   *
 

&
 


 
 
 /- 


'(',&$7(' 72*2'7+()$7+(5621$1'+2//D/d&>KthZs͘ 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&>KthZsD^;ϲйͿ ϰϱ

tdZ KEdEd ;йͿ

ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ

Ϯϱ ϮϬ ϭϱ

ϭϬ ϱ Ϭ Ϭ

ϱ

ϭϬ

ϭϱ

ϮϬ

Ϯϱ

ϯϬ

ϯϱ

EhDZ 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&>KthZsD^ϵй ϰϱ

tdZ KEdEd

ϰϬ

ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ

ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ

ϱ Ϭ Ϭ

ϱ

ϭϬ

ϭϱ

ϮϬ

Ϯϱ

ϯϬ

ϯϱ

ϰϬ

EhDZ 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&>KthZsD^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

tdZ KEdEd

ϰϬ

ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ

ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ

ϱ Ϭ

Ϭ

ϱ

ϭϬ

ϭϱ

ϮϬ

Ϯϱ

ϯϬ

ϯϱ

ϰϬ

EhDZ 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

tdZ KEdEd ;йͿ

ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ

ϭϱ ϭϬ

ϱ Ϭ

Ϭ

ϱ

ϭϬ

ϭϱ

ϮϬ

Ϯϱ

ϯϬ

ϯϱ

ϰϬ

EhDZ 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&>KthZsD^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&>KthZsD^ϭϱй ϰϱ

tdZ KEdEd

ϰϬ ϯϱ ϯϬ

Ϯϱ ϮϬ ϭϱ

ϭϬ ϱ Ϭ Ϭ

ϱ

ϭϬ

ϭϱ

ϮϬ

Ϯϱ

ϯϬ

ϯϱ

ϰϬ

EhDZ 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

ସ଴ାଷଷǤଷାଷ଺Ǥଷହ 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

ଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ 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

ଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ 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

ଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵସǤଶ଼ 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

ଵସǤଶ଼ାଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ 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

ଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ 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

ଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵସǤଶ଼ାଵସǤଶ଼ 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

ଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵ଺Ǥ଺଺ାଵସǤଶ଼ 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% = =

ଵ଺ିଵଵ 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% = =

ଵ଴ି଻ ଻ 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 = ୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

8.

g/cc

Moisture Content (W) %

9. Dry density of soil

᤿

ଵ଴଴

ଵ଴଴ାௐ

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 ஝=

୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

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 ஝=

୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

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 =

୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

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 ஝=

୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

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 ஝=

୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

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

஝= ୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

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଴଴

ଵ଴଴ାௐ

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

஝= ୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

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଴଴

ଵ଴଴ାௐ

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

஝= ୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

g/cc 5

Moistur

.

e Content (W) %

6

Dry

.

density

1.53

of soil

஝= d

᤿

ଵ଴଴

ଵ଴଴ାௐ

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

஝= ୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

g/cc 5

Moistur

.

e Content (W) %

6

Dry

.

density

1.52

of soil

ϭϮϰ

஝= d

᤿

ଵ଴଴

ଵ଴଴ାௐ

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

஝= ୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

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଴଴

ଵ଴଴ାௐ

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

୛ଶȂ୛ଵ ௏

g/cc 5.

Moisture Content

6.

Dry density of

(W) %

soil

஝= d

᤿

ଵ଴଴

ଵ଴଴ାௐ

g/cc

Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of MNA 4 (12%) = 1.67g/cc. While Optimum Moisture content (OMC) = 9.99 %.

ZzE^d/zs^tdZKEdEdDEϭ;ϯйͿ ϭ͘ϲϰ

ZzE^/dz ;ŐͬĐĐͿ

ϭ͘ϲϮ ϭ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϱϲ ϭ͘ϱϰ ϭ͘ϱϮ ϭ͘ϱ ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ

ϱ

ϭϬ

ϭϱ

ϮϬ

Ϯϱ

tdZ KEdEd ;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

ZzE^/dz ;ŐͬĐĐͿ

ZzE^/dzs^KD&KZDEϮ;ϲйͿ ϭ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϱϵ ϭ͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϱϳ ϭ͘ϱϲ ϭ͘ϱϱ ϭ͘ϱϰ ϭ͘ϱϯ ϭ͘ϱϮ ϭ͘ϱϭ ϭ͘ϱ ϭ͘ϰϵ Ϭ

ϱ

ϭϬ

ϭϱ

ϮϬ

Ϯϱ

tdZ KEdEd ;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 %.

ZzE^/dzs^tdZ&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

WEdZd/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

WEdZd/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

WEdZd/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

WEdZd/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

WEdZd/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

WEdZd/KE͕ ŵŵ

Fig.5.23. CBR of MNA (1) at 3%

CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MNA 1) at 3%= ௅௢௔ௗ௦௨௦௧௔௜௡௘ௗ ௕௬௦௣௘௖௜௠௘௡ ௔௧ ଶǤହ௢௥ ହǤ଴௠௠௣௘௡௘௧௥௔௧௜௢௡  ௅௢௔ௗ௦௨௦௧௔௜௡௘ௗ ௕௬௦௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ ௔௚௚௥௘௚௔ ௧௘௦௔௧௧௛௘௖௢௥௥௘௦௣௢௡ௗ௜௡௚௣௘௡௘௧௥௔௧௜௢௡ ௟௘௩௘௟

=

× 100

ଷ଻ൈଵଽ଴ൈଵ଴଴ ଵ଴଴ൈଵଷ଻଴

=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

WEdZd/KE͕ŵŵ

Fig.5.24. CBR of MNA (2) at 6% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MNA 2) at 6%= ௅௢௔ௗ௦௨௦௧௔௜௡௘ௗ ௕௬௦௣௘௖௜௠௘௡ ௔௧ ଶǤହ௢௥ ହǤ଴௠௠௣௘௡௘௧௥௔௧௜௢௡  ௅௢௔ௗ௦௨௦௧௔௜௡௘ௗ௕௬௦௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ ௔௚௚௥௘௚௔ ௧௘௦௔௧௧௛௘௖௢௥௥௘௦௣௢௡ௗ௜௡௚௣௘௡௘௧௥௔௧௜௢௡ ௟௘௩௘௟

ϭϱϬ

× 100

=

ସ଼ൈଵଽ଴ൈଵ଴଴ ଵ଴଴ൈଵଷ଻଴

=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

WEdZd/KE ͕ŵŵ

Fig.5.25. CBR of MNA (3) at 9% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MNA 3) at 9%= ௅௢௔ௗ௦௨௦௧௔௜௡௘ௗ ௕௬௦௣௘௖௜௠௘௡ ௔௧ ଶǤହ௢௥ ହǤ଴௠௠௣௘௡௘௧௥௔௧௜௢௡  ௅௢௔ௗ௦௨௦௧௔௜௡௘ௗ ௕௬௦௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ ௔௚௚௥௘௚௔ ௧௘௦௔௧௧௛௘௖௢௥௥௘௦௣௢௡ௗ௜௡௚௣௘௡௘௧௥௔௧௜௢௡ ௟௘௩௘௟

=

× 100

ହ଺Ǥହൈଵଽ଴ൈ ଵ଴଴ ଵ଴଴ ൈଵଷ଻଴

=8%

ZK&DEϰdϭϮй >K/>Z/E'͘ŵŵ

ϭϮϬ ϭϬϬ

ϴϬ ϲϬ

ϰϬ ϮϬ

Ϭ Ϭ

Ϯ

ϰ

ϲ

ϴ

ϭϬ

WEdZd/KE͕ŵŵ

Fig.5.26. CBR of MNA (4) at 12% ϭϱϭ

ϭϮ

ϭϰ

CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MNA 4) at 12%= ௅௢௔ௗ௦௨௦௧௔௜௡௘ௗ ௕௬௦௣௘௖௜௠௘௡ ௔௧ ଶǤହ௢௥ ହǤ଴௠௠௣௘௡௘௧௥௔௧௜௢௡  ௅௢௔ௗ௦௨௦௧௔௜௡௘ௗ ௕௬௦௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ ௔௚௚௥௘௚௔ ௧௘௦௔௧௧௛௘௖௢௥௥௘௦௣௢௡ௗ௜௡௚௣௘௡௘௧௥௔௧௜௢௡ ௟௘௩௘௟

=

× 100

ହ଺Ǥହൈଵଽ଴ൈ 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

WEdZd/KE͕ ŵŵ

Fig.5.27. CBR of MNA (5) at 15% CBR% of Mango Nut Ash (MNA 4) at 12%= ௅௢௔ௗ௦௨௦௧௔௜௡௘ௗ ௕௬௦௣௘௖௜௠௘௡ ௔௧ ଶǤହ௢௥ ହǤ଴௠௠௣௘௡௘௧௥௔௧௜௢௡  ௅௢௔ௗ௦௨௦௧௔௜௡௘ௗ ௕௬௦௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ ௔௚௚௥௘௚௔ ௧௘௦௔௧௧௛௘௖௢௥௥௘௦௣௢௡ௗ௜௡௚௣௘௡௘௧௥௔௧௜௢௡ ௟௘௩௘௟

=

଼ଽǤହൈଵଽ଴ൈଵ଴଴ ଵ଴଴ൈଵଷ଻଴

= 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.

WZEd' /EZ^ /ED^͘

'ZW,K&WZEd'/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/yt/d,^K/>d/&&ZEd WZEd'^

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' WZEd'^ K&/d/KEK& DE

'ZW,K&DE/E/&&ZEdWZEd'^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/&&ZEd WZEd'^͘

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/dzdtED^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' WZEd'^WZEd' 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' WZEd'^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' WZEd'^ 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'WZEd'^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' WZEd'^ 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/EyK&D^ΘDE

'ZW,K&W>^d//dz/EyK&D^ΘDE'/E^d sZz/E'WZEd'^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' WZEd'^ 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>> /Ey

&Z^t>>/EyK&^K/>>Et/d,D^/E sZz/E'WZEd'^͘ 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' WZEd'^ 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>>/EyK&^K/>t/d,DE ϴϬ

&Z^t>> /Ey

ϳϬ ϲϬ ϱϬ ϰϬ ϯϬ

ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϭ ^ĞƌŝĞƐϭ

E^

DEϯй

DEϲй

DEϵй

DEϭϮй

DEϭϱй

ϲϲ͘ϲϳ

ϱϬ

ϰϮ͘ϴϱ

ϰϬ

ϯϯ͘ϯϯ

ϮϮ͘ϮϮ

sZz/E' WZEd'^ 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>> /Ey

KDWZd/s&Z^t>>K&D^EDE ϴϬ ϲϬ ϰϬ ϮϬ Ϭ ϯй

ϲй

ϵй

ϭϮй

sZz/E' WZEd'^ 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/sDEKDdsZz/E' WZEd'^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'WZEd'^ 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'WZEd'^ 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'WZEd'^ 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^ ;