Sharma 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 889 012010

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Experimental Study of Compressed Soil
Experimental Study on Stabilisation of Clayey Soil Bricks with Partial Replacement of Soil by
Bagasse Ash, Marble Powder and Rice
Using Cement and Bagasse Ash Straw
Raghav Sharma and Tarun Sharma
- Physicochemical analysis of sugarcane

To cite this article: Tarun Sharma and Sandeep Singh 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 889 bagasseash (SBA) blended concrete to
012010 evaluate the pozzolanic activity of SBA
Chidanand Patil, M Manjunath and Sneha
Bandekar
- Experimental Investigation on Mechanical

Properties of Compressed Soil Blocks
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Manufactured Using Waste Materials
Absar Yousuf Wani and Mohit Bhandari
This content was downloaded from IP address 195.43.22.135 on 12/03/2023 at 12:12

COSMEC 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 889 (2021) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/889/1/012010
Experimental Study on Stabilisation of Clayey Soil Using Cement

and Bagasse Ash
Tarun Sharma, Sandeep Singh
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, Chandigarh University, Gharuan-140413, Mohali, India,

tarun.23007@gmail.com
Abstract. In order for the foundation of building to be strong, the soil around it plays a critical
role. So, researcher or engineer should have thorough knowledge about the factors affecting
behaviour of soil which can be altered by the process of soil stabilisation. This study aims to
investigate the applicability of SCBA (Sugarcane Bagasse Ash) to stabilize the clayey soil. Sugar
factories produce waste after extraction of sugarcane gets brunt and the ash, hence produced is
known as bagasse ash. Soil is treated with partial replacement of cement (3%, 6%, 9% and 12%)
and with bagasse ash (2%, 4%, 6%and 8%). A total of 45 specimens were prepared in this study.
Later those test specimens were evaluated for compaction properties. The results found after
thorough study was that there was increase in the compaction properties with percentage increase
in Sugarcane Bagasse Ash up to certain limit.
Keywords: Clayey soil, optimum moisture content, bagasse ash, standard proctor test, maximum
dry density.
1. Introduction
In order for the foundation of building to be strong, the soil around it plays a critical role. So, researcher
or engineer should have thorough knowledge about the factors affecting behaviour of soil which can be
altered by the process of soil stabilisation [1–4]. In recent time there has been a great change in
technology. There are many Stabilisation techniques available to improve soil properties like addition of
bitumen, cement, lime etc. [5–7] conducted the study on using agricultural wastes i.e. sugar cane bagasse
ash, groundnut shell and rice husk ash on the CBR value of the subgrade soil. In this investigation, soil
was treated with all the three wastes separately from 0% till 15% in steps of 3% increment. All these
mixes were subjected to grain size analysis, compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests. [8–12]
examined the use of bagasse ash in the expansive clayey soil through series of laboratory tests. The
bagasse ash was replaced with soil in 0%, 3%, 5%, 7% and 10% by weight of dry soil. Those blends were
subjected to tests like Liquid Limit by Casagrande’s apparatus, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index, Shrinkage
Limit, Free Swell Index and Swelling Pressure. It was also found that wet soils are dried due to presence
of bagasse ash and rapid strength increment in initial stage due presence of silica in it which is favorable
for construction in wet areas. This paper presents the systematic investigation on the effects of the
addition of Sugarcane Bagasse Ash in soft soil on their compaction properties. The practical application
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
of this study is that the disposal of wastes is today’s major concern and the addition of sugarcane bagasse
ash for stabilisation of soil is a fruitful way of utilizing it and hence reducing disposal problem.
2. Materials Used
2.1 Clay Soil
The soil sample for this study was obtained from a village Gharuan, Punjab as shown in figure 1. The
engineering properties of the soil sample are listed in table 1.
Figure 1. Sample
Table 1. Engineering Properties of Soil Sample
Parameters Values obtained
Liquid Limit 22 %
Plastic Limit 15.44%
Natural Moisture Content (%) 10.03
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 14 %
Plasticity Index 41.74%
Specific gravity 2.07
UCS (Kg/cm2) 0.94
Maximum Dry Density (g/cc) 1.85
Soil Type CI
2.2.Sugarcane Bagasse Ash

In this study, the Sugarcane Bagasse ash was collected from Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Morinda, Punjab. It was of grayish black colour and comes in fibrous form as shown in figure 2. The
chemical properties of Bagasse ash after X-Ray fluorescence test is presented in table 2.
2
Figure 2. Bagasse ash
Table 2. Chemical composition of Bagasse ash
Chemical element % by weight

Silica (SiO2) 64.27
Fe2O3 5.76
Al2O5 5.53
LOI 4.97
K2O 2.96
CaO 3.73
SO3 1.84
Mn 0.35
Zinc 0.46
Cu 0.18
2.3 Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) 53 grade

The OPC (Ordinary Portland Cement) used in this investigation was Ultratech OPC-53 grade cement
bought from the market. Under this study [13,14], OPC is used as a stabilizing material along with
bagasse ash because of its better pozzolanic characteristics [15–18]. The properties of OPC- 53 grade
obtained from supplier are shown in table 3.
Table 3. Chemical Composition of OPC-53 used in this study
3
Constituents %age
Silica (SiO2) 18.23
Calcium Oxide (Cao) 69.84
Alumina (Al2O3) 4.72
Sodium Oxide (Na2O) 0.56
Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 1.37
Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) 2.34
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 1.62
Other Oxides 1.32
3. Methodology
The experimental work consisted of the following steps:
· Particle size distribution by sieve analysis
· Determination of specific gravity and natural moisture content of soil
· Determination of soil index properties (Atterberg’s Limits)
· Determination of the compaction properties of the soil by Proctor compaction test.
The type of tests performed and composition of the sample is shown in table 4.
Table 4. Tests performed and sample design in the study.
Sample Design Tests Performed

Sample
No. Bagasse
Soil (%) Cement MDD OMC
Ash (%)
(%)
US 100 0 0 √ √
C3 97 0 3 √ √
C6 94 0 6 √ √
4
C9 91 0 9 √ √
C 12 88 0 12 √ √
CBA 2 89 2 9 √ √
CBA 4 87 4 9 √ √
CBA 6 85 6 9 √ √
CBA 8 83 8 9 √ √
The Clayey soil was replaced with as 3%, 6%, 9% and 12% replacement and with Bagasse Ash i.e. 2% to
8% by weight of soil. The different samples were labeled as US, C3, C6, C9, C12, CBA2, CBA4, CBA6
and CBA8 representing Unstabilized Soil, Soil with different percentages of Cement and Bagasse ash as
shown in table 4. The stabilized soil samples were tested for Standard Proctor Test as per IS: 2720(Part
7)-1980.
4. Results & Discussion
4.1 Unstabilized Soil

Before adding Bagasse Ash to the soil, firstly the laboratory tests on unstabilized soil were performed.
The results of the same are presented in this section as shown in figure 3, table 5, table 6, table 7, table 8
and table 9.
4.1.1 Particle Size Distribution by Sieve Analysis
Table 5. Particle Size Distribution by Sieve Analysis
Weight (gm)
%age retained Cumulative %age %age finer
Sieve Size (mm) Retained
4.75 0 0 0 100
2.36 40.20 8 8 92
1.18 84.60 16.85 24.85 75.15
0.6 90.20 17.96 42.81 57.19
0.3 106.40 21.19 64.00 36.00
0.15 108.80 21.66 85.66 14.34
0.075 59.40 11.83 97.49 2.51
5
Seive Analysis
100
95
90
85
80
percentage passing %
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10 1 0.1 0.01
seive size (mm)
Figure 3. Particle Size Distribution
4.1.2 Natural Moisture Content

Table 6. Natural moisture content of the given soil sample
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Sample No.
Wt. of container (gm) 47 47 47
Wt. of container + wet soil (gm) 150 154 158
Wt. of container + dry soil (gm) 140 144 146
Wt. of water (gm) 10 10 12
Moisture content (%)

10.7 10.3 9.1
The natural moisture content of soil sample calculated from table 6 is 10.03 %
4.1.3 Specific Gravity of the Soil
Table 7. Specific Gravity by Pycnometer Method
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Sample No.
6
Empty pycnometer (M1) 633gm 633gm 633gm
Pycnometer with dry soil (M2) 828gm 828gm 828gm
Pycnometer filled with water (M4) 1405gm 1402gm 1406gm
Pycnometer with soil and water (M3) 1506gm 1502gm 1508gm
Specific gravity 2.07 2.05 2.09
Average value of Specific gravity (G) calculated from table 7 = 2.07
4.1.4 Liquid Limit of the Soil

Table 8. Liquid Limit by Casagrande’s Apparatus
Sample No. Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Wt. of container (gm) 44.9 46 44.6
Wt. of container + wet soil (gm) 78.3 81.3 76.8
Wt. of container + dry soil (gm) 70 75.30 74.10
Wt. of water (gm) 8.3 6 2.7
Moisture content (%) 33.07 20.30 10
No. of blows 17 26 34
7
Liquid Limit Graph

35
30
25
Moisture Content
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
No. of Blows
Figure 4. Water Content v/s No. of Blows
From figure 4, At 25 Number of blows[19], Moisture content is 22%

Therefore Liquid Limit is equal to 22%
4.1.5 Light Compaction Tests

Table 9. Proctor compaction test for unstabilized soil
Water Content taken initially 6% 10% 14% 18% 22%
Weight of empty mould (g) 3673 3673 3673 3673 3673
Volume of mould(cm3) 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Weight of soil passing through 4.75mm

2816 2816 2816 2816 2816
sieve
Weight of soil + mould (g) 5572 5670 5785 5833 5764
Weight of compacted soil 1899 1997 2112 2160 2091
Density (g/cc) 1.899 1.997 2.112 2.160 2.091
Dry unit weight (g/cc) 1.79 1.81 1.85 1.83 1.71
8
Unstabilised Soil
1.86
1.84
1.82
Dry Density
1.8
1.78
1.76
1.74
1.72
1.7
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Moisture Content
Figure 5. Variation in dry density with moisture content for Unstabilized soil
Figure 5 shows that Maximum Dry Density of Unstabilized soil is 1.85 g/cc at optimum moisture content
of 14%[20]. Further the effect of addition of cement on the MDD and OMC of the soil is observed and
results are shown in table 10 and figure 6.
Table 10. Proctor compaction test Cement stabilized soil

Dry density of cement stabilized soil at different cement content
Moisture
content 3% 6% 9% 12%
6% 1.68 1.68 1.63 1.60
11% 1.87 1.90 1.69 1.68
16% 1.82 1.75 1.74 1.67
21% 1.71 1.70 1.75 1.62
26% 1.69 1.68 1.71 1.60
31% 1.65 1.66 1.63 1.57
9
Cement Stabilised soil

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Dry Density
1.2 3%
1 6%
0.8
9%
0.6
0.4 12%
0.2
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Water Content
Figure 6. Variation in dry density with moisture content for cement stabilised soil at different cement
contents
On replacing the cement with soil at different percentages from 3% to 12%, we get the maximum value of
dry density as 1.90 g/cc when 6% of soil is replaced with cement and corresponding OMC comes out to
be 11% as shown in figure 6. So, taking an optimum value of 6% Cement, further proctor compaction test
was performed on 6% cement and varied percentages of Bagasse Ash from 2% to 8% replacement with
soil. The results of the same are presented in table 11.
Table 11. Proctor compaction test for 6% Cement and varied percentage of bagasse ash stabilized soil
Dry density for 6% cement and varied percentage of bagasse ash

Water content 2% 4% 6% 8%
6% 1.58 1.48 1.51 1.58
11% 1.81 1.52 1.66 1.62
16% 1.76 1.65 1.67 1.64
21% 1.64 1.68 1.57 1.52
26% 1.60 1.49 1.49 1.45
10
6% Cement+ Bagasse ash Stabilised soil

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Dry density
1.2 2%
1
4%
0.8
0.6 6%
0.4 8%
0.2
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Water content
Figure 7. Variation in dry density with moisture content for 6% cement stabilised soil at different bagasse
ash contents
Figure 7 show that maximum dry density achieves its peak value at 6% cement and 2% bagasse ash
replacement with soil. The MDD comes out to be 1.81 g/cc at an optimum moisture content of 11%.
5. Conclusion
This study examines the effect of Cement and Bagasse Ash on the compaction properties of clay soil. The
following interpretations are:
1. The MDD of soil increased from 1.85 g/cc for unstabilized soil to 1.90 g/cc for 6% cement
stabilized soil. However, further replacement of soil leads to MDD decrement.
2. The OMC of soil firstly increases from 14 % for untreated soil up to 21 % for soil replaced
with 9% cement and then it starts decreasing further replacement.
3. The maximum value of MDD on replacement of soil with 6% cement and varied percentage of
bagasse ash is achieved at 2% bagasse ash which comes out to be 1.81 g/cc at an OMC of 11%.
4. Thus an optimal mixture of 92% Soil / 6% Cement / 2% Bagasse Ash is advisable for
utilization in soil stabilization.
6. Limitations and Future Scope for studies
1. In this experimentation, Bagasse ash content of only up to 8% was taken, so the effect of bagasse
ash beyond 8% can also be studied.
2. The effect of bagasse ash on Durability and Shear strength (consolidation characteristics) can also
be tested in future.
7. Acknowledgement
I would like to show heartiest thanks to The Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Morinda, Punjab for
providing Sugarcane Bagasse Ash free of cost.
11
8. References
[1] Zorluer I and Gucek S 2014 The effects of marble dust and fly ash on clay soil Sci. Eng. Compos.
Mater. 21 59–67
[2] Muntohar A S 2011 Engineering characteristics of the compressed-stabilized earth brick Constr.
Build. Mater. 25 4215–20
[3] Onyelowe K C 2018 Kaolin soil and its stabilization potentials as nanostructured cementitious
admixture for geotechnics purposes Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 1–8
[4] Boko M and Sharma T 2017 An experimental study on effects of compaction energy on strenght
improvement of chemically stabilized soil Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 8 188–93
[5] Sabat A K and Nanda R P 2011 Effect of marble dust on strength and durability of Rice husk ash
stabilised expansive soil Int. J. Civ. Struct. Eng. 1 939–48
[6] Miller C J, Yesiller N, Yaldo K and Merayyan S 2002 Impact of soil type and compaction
conditions on soil water characteristic J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng.
[7] Soni M K and Singh S 2019 Statistical interpretation of marble dust and alccofine for soil
stabilization Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 8 1609–13
[8] Minhas A and Devi V U 2016 Soil stabilization of alluvial soil by using marble powder Int. J.
Civ. Eng. Technol. 7 87–92
[9] Sharma A and Singh S 2019 Experimental study on use of waste hdpe, ldpe and chloroprene
rubber in bituminous concrete Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 8 306–11
[10] Dhiman A and Singh S 2019 Utilization of assorted rubber as bitumen stand – by Int. J. Innov.
Technol. Explor. Eng. 8 2917–9
[11] Tomar A, Sharma T and Singh S 2020 Strength properties and durability of clay soil treated with
mixture of nano silica and Polypropylene fiber Mater. Today Proc. 26 3449–57
[12] Sharma T and Kaushik R 2019 Effect of Polypropylene Fiber on Properties of Bagasse Ash-
Cement Stabilized Clay Soil Int. J. Emerg. Technol. 10 255–66
[13] Kanoungo A, Sharma U, Goyal A, Kanoungo S and Singh S 2021 Assessment of Causes of
Pothole Development on Chandigarh Roads J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A
[14] Chohan J S, Mittal N, Kumar R, Singh S, Sharma S, Dwivedi S P, Saxena A, Chattopadhyaya S,
Ilyas R A, Le C H and Wojciechowski S 2021 Optimization of FFF Process Parameters by Naked
Mole-Rat Algorithms with Enhanced Exploration and Exploitation Capabilities Polymers (Basel).
13 1702
[15] Singh U and Rattan M 2014 Design of linear and circular antenna arrays using cuckoo
optimization algorithm Prog. Electromagn. Res. C 46 1–11
[16] Kumar S, Kumar M and Handa A 2018 Combating hot corrosion of boiler tubes – A study Eng.
Fail. Anal. 94 379–95
[17] Singh G, Pruncu C I, Gupta M K, Mia M, Khan A M, Jamil M, Pimenov D Y, Sen B and Sharma
V S 2019 Investigations of machining characteristics in the upgraded MQL-assisted turning of
pure titanium alloys using evolutionary algorithms Materials (Basel). 12
[18] Kaur M and Wasson V 2015 ROI Based Medical Image Compression for Telemedicine
12
Application Procedia Computer Science vol 70 pp 579–85

[19] IS: 2720 (part 5) 1985 Indian Standard, Methods of test for soils, Part 5: Determination of liquid
limit and plastic limit Bur. Indian Stand. New Delhi, India. Reaffirmed 1–16
[20] IS: 2720 (part 7) 2011 Methods of Test for Soils: Determination of Water Content-Dry Density
Relation using Light Compaction Bur. Indian Stand. New Delhi 1–9
13

Sharma 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 889 012010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sharma 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 889 012010

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sharma 2021 IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 889 012010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Physicochemical analysis of sugarcane

- Experimental Investigation on Mechanical

This content was downloaded from IP address 195.43.22.135 on 12/03/2023 at 12:12

Experimental Study on Stabilisation of Clayey Soil Using Cement

Tarun Sharma, Sandeep Singh

Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, Chandigarh University, Gharuan-140413, Mohali, India,

2.2.Sugarcane Bagasse Ash

Figure 2. Bagasse ash

Table 2. Chemical composition of Bagasse ash

Chemical element % by weight

2.3 Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) 53 grade

Silica (SiO2) 18.23

Calcium Oxide (Cao) 69.84

Alumina (Al2O3) 4.72

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) 0.56

Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 1.37

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) 2.34

Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 1.62

Other Oxides 1.32

· Determination of specific gravity and natural moisture content of soil

· Determination of soil index properties (Atterberg’s Limits)

· Determination of the compaction properties of the soil by Proctor compaction test.

Table 4. Tests performed and sample design in the study.

Sample Design Tests Performed

4. Results & Discussion

4.1 Unstabilized Soil

1.18 84.60 16.85 24.85 75.15

0.6 90.20 17.96 42.81 57.19

0.3 106.40 21.19 64.00 36.00

0.15 108.80 21.66 85.66 14.34

0.075 59.40 11.83 97.49 2.51

4.1.2 Natural Moisture Content

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Wt. of container (gm) 47 47 47

Wt. of container + wet soil (gm) 150 154 158

Wt. of container + dry soil (gm) 140 144 146

Wt. of water (gm) 10 10 12

Moisture content (%)

4.1.3 Specific Gravity of the Soil

Table 7. Specific Gravity by Pycnometer Method

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Empty pycnometer (M1) 633gm 633gm 633gm

Pycnometer with dry soil (M2) 828gm 828gm 828gm

Pycnometer filled with water (M4) 1405gm 1402gm 1406gm

Pycnometer with soil and water (M3) 1506gm 1502gm 1508gm

Specific gravity 2.07 2.05 2.09

Average value of Specific gravity (G) calculated from table 7 = 2.07

4.1.4 Liquid Limit of the Soil

Sample No. Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Wt. of container (gm) 44.9 46 44.6

Wt. of container + wet soil (gm) 78.3 81.3 76.8

Wt. of container + dry soil (gm) 70 75.30 74.10

Wt. of water (gm) 8.3 6 2.7

Moisture content (%) 33.07 20.30 10

Liquid Limit Graph

From figure 4, At 25 Number of blows[19], Moisture content is 22%

4.1.5 Light Compaction Tests

Water Content taken initially 6% 10% 14% 18% 22%