Phase 1 project for civil engineering 6th sem. Ppt

II JAI SRI GURUDEV II
SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST®
SJB Institute of Technology
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEEERING
BGS Health and Education City, Uttarahalli Road Kengeri, Bangalore 560 060
Project Phase 1 Review
Presented By:
Madhu VM 1JB23CV405
Rathan Gowda 1JB23CV410
Shoba 1JB23CV412
TITLE: A Laboratory Study on Durability
Characteristics of Cement Treated Sub-base Layer
Under the Guidance of:
Dr. Manjunath H.N
Associate Professor
&
Nisarga P
Assistant Professor

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SJBIT (2024-25)
 INTRODUCTION
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
 METHODOLOGY
 REFERENCES
2
CONTENTS

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SJBIT (2024-25) 3
Moisture infiltration into a pavement system significantly affects its durability,
leading to various forms of deterioration and reducing its lifespan. Understanding the
sources of moisture and their effects on pavement performance is crucial for long-
term durability.
 Sources of Moisture into PavementSystem
 Moisture Induced Damages in Pavement
Moisture is a primary factor affecting pavement durability, leading to structural deterioration
and reduced lifespan. When water infiltrates pavement layers, it weakens the materials,
reduces load-bearing capacity, and accelerates various types of failures. Below are the key
moisture-induced damages and their effects on durability.
INTRODUCTION

• Significance of Sub-base/ Drainage Laye r [IRC 37]
The Sub-base or Drainage Layer in pavement construction is a critical element in ensuring
the structural integrity and overall performance of the road. According to IRC 37 (Indian
Roads Congress guidelines for design of flexible pavements), the significance of the sub-base
or drainage layer can be summarized as follows:
INTRODUCTION

Sub-base Layer:
Materials Used in the Subbase Layer:
1.Granular Materials:
• Natural Aggregates: Natural aggregates consist of crushed stone, gravel, sand, and
other naturally occurring materials that are extracted from quarries, riverbeds, and
gravel pits.
• Recycled Materials: Recycled materials in construction, especially for use in
pavement layers like the sub-base, base, or even surface, offer sustainable alternatives
to natural aggregates.
Fig: Sub-base Layer
• The sub-base layer is a critical component in the
construction of pavement structures, particularly in
roads, highways, airport runways, and railways.
It lies between the subgrade (natural soil) and the
base course or surface layer.

2. Cement-Treated Materials:
• Cement-Stabilized Granular Base: In cement-stabilized granular base (CSGB)
layers, cement-treated materials (CTM) are used to improve the strength, durability,
and performance of the granular base in road construction.
• Soil-Cement: Local soils treated with cement, which hardens to create a stable
subbase.
3. Geosynthetics:
Geogrids and geotextile : These materials can be incorporated into the subbase layer to
enhance drainage, reinforce the structure, and improve load distribution.
4. Lime-Stabilized Soil:
Lime can be added to clayey soils to improve their properties, increasing strength and
reducing plasticity.

Cement Treated Sub-base Layer
A Cement-Treated Sub-Base (CTSB) layer is a stabilized layer of pavement that consists of a
mixture of aggregate, cement, and water. It is used as a foundation layer beneath asphalt or
concrete pavements to enhance strength, durability, and load-bearing capacity.
Advantages of Cement Treated Sub-base (CTSB) Layer
• Reduces pavement thickness requirements.
• Increases pavement lifespan and load-carrying capacity.
• Minimizes rutting and settlement over time.
• Improves resistance to water damage and freeze-thaw cycles.
• Provides a cost-effective alternative to full-depth asphalt or concrete bases.
• A wide variety of in-situ soils and manufactured aggregates can be used for CTB. This
eliminates the need to haul in expensive select granular aggregates.

OBJECTIVES
 To access the properties of materials used for Cement Treated Sub-Base (CTSB)
layer
 Determine the optimum cement content to produce a CTSB mix to achieve required
strength.
 To evaluate the performance of mix in terms of unconfined compressive strength and
Durability characteristics of CTSB
 Design pavement thickness using CTSB as per IRC-37:2018 and access cost benefits
using CTSB
CTSB is getting more and. more popular in road building because of all of its benefits. It
may offer road pavements as strong, reliable, and reasonably priced basis as building
activity-especially in highway sector-continues to increase. In the present study efforts
will be made to evaluate the performance of CTSB.
The objects of the study includes:

METHODOLOGY
Selection of grade of CTSB
Material Procurement
Basic material tests
Fine aggregates
• Sieve analysis
• Consistency Limits
• Specific Gravity and
water absorption
Coarse aggregates
• Sieve analysis
• Impact test
• Crushing test
• Specific Gravity and
water absorption
Cement
• Specific Gravity
• Normal Consistency
• Setting time
• Compressive strength
Determination of OMC & MDD at different cement content for varying % cement
Evaluation of Unconfined Compressive Strength of CTSB for various % of cement
Results & Discussions
Evaluation of Durability Charactericstics of CTSB for various % of cement

Sl. No.
1
Author Name
Sridhar Reddy Kasu
Summary
A various tests were conducted on CTSB, including
unconfined compressive strength (UCS), durability, and
flexural tests, on specimens with varying cement content
(2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, 10%) and recycled asphalt . The
results indicate that cement addition significantly
improved mechanical and durability properties .
2 Ahmed Ebrahim
Abu El-Maaty Behiry
Using several testing machines, the study shows that
RCA can enhance the mechanical properties of road
base and subbase materials, particularly in terms of
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and resilient
modulus when combined with cement.
3 Zeynab Nazari
This study investigates the effects of compaction delay
(CD) on the mechanical and consolidation
characteristics of cement-stabilized subgrade soil.
Experimental tests, including standard compaction,
unconfined compressive strength (UCS), and one-
dimensional consolidation, were conducted with varying
cement content (1.5%, 3%, 6%, and 9%) and CD times
up to 120 minutes.
LITERATURE REVIEW

Sl. No
4
Author Name
Sharma
Summary
The use of cement in pavement layers not only increases the
strength and design life of the road but also reduces the need
for large quantities of aggregates, leading to a reduction in
project costs. The study estimates up to 9% savings in the
overall project cost when using cement-treated granular
layers, making this approach both an economically and
environmentally sustainable solution for road construction
in India.
5 Nirmal Kumar
Pandit
The addition of cement (4% and 6%) to the fly ash-stone
dust mix improves its strength, durability, and resistance to
capillary rise and water absorption. The mass loss decreases
with higher cement and fiber content, and the material
complies with the IRC SP: 89 mass loss criterion for base
layer materials
LITERATURE REVIEW

 Sridhar Reddy Kasu , “ Investigations on design and durability characteristics of cement
treated reclaimed asphalt for base and subbase layers ELSEVIER , “Construction and
Building Materials 252 (2020) 119102
 Ahmed Ebrahim Abu El-Maaty Behiry , “Utilization of cement treated recycled
concrete aggregates as base or subbase layer in Egypt , ELSEVIER , “in Shams
Engineering JournalVolume 4, Issue 4, December 2013, Pages 661-673
 Zeynab Nazar , “Effect of compaction delay on the strength and consolidation
properties of cement-stabilized subgrade soil , ELSEVIER , “Transportation
Geotechnics 27 (2021) 100495
 Sharma Economic Analysis of use of Cement Treated Base & Sub-Base in Flexible
Pavement ELSEVIER , “ ISSN: 2278-0181Vol. 8 Issue 07. July-2019
 Nirmal Kumar Pandit Durability, Capillary Rise and Water Absorption Properties of a
Fiber-Reinforced Cement-Stabilized Fly Ash–Stone Dust Mixture ELSEVIER ,
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 17
REFERENCES

 Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) recommended the specification for
material used in granular sub-base (GSB) layer as given in Table below:
Table 1: Aggregation Gradation as per MORTH Section 401
The aggregate gradation for the CTSB material shall be Grading V of Table 1 given as
under (ref MoRTH Specification)
Material Specification

1 Specific gravity and Water absorption Test
 The coarse aggregate specific gravity test is used to calculate the specific gravity of a coarse
aggregate sample by determining the ratio of the weight of a given volume of aggregate to the
weight of an equal volume of water.
 Water absorption test determines the water holding capacity of the coarse
 Specific gravity and water absorption value of coarse aggregate is determined using wire
basket method, confirming to IS-2386 (part III) - 1936
• Bulk Specific Gravity =
• Apparent Specific Gravity =
• Water absorption (%) =
Tests on Coarse Aggregates

 Where:
W1 = Mass of saturated surface dry sample, gm
W2 = Mass of basket suspended in water, gm
W3 = Mass of material + basket suspended in water, gm
W4 = Mass of oven dry aggregate in air, gm

3. Aggregate Impact Test
confirming to IS-2386 (part III) - 1936
 The aggregate impact value gives a relative measure of the resistance of an aggregate to
sudden shock or impact.
 Aggregate Impact Value =
Where:
W1= Total weight of aggregate taken
W2 = Weight of the portion of crushed material passing 2.36 mm IS sieve
Specification:
10 -30% Satisfactory for road surfacing
Upto 35%- Weak for road surfacing, can be used in layers other than wearing course

Sl No Test Results Obtained Specifications
1 Specific Gravity
40mm down 2.60
Specific Gravity
2.6-2.8
20mm down 2.75
10mm down
6mm down
2.77
2.72
2 Water Absorption (%)
40mm down 0.50 Water Absorption Value
– less than 2%
20mm down 0.67
10mm down
6mm down
0.84
0.33
3 Impact Test 22% Upto 35% for layer other
than surface coarse
Table 1: Tests Results on Coarse Aggregates

 Aggregate Gradation
Grading is the particle-size distribution of an aggregate as determined by a sieve
analysis using wire mesh sieves with square openings.
According to ASTM
Fine aggregate - Sieves with openings from 2.36 mm to 0.75 mm
Coarse aggregate - Sieves with openings from 75 mm to 4.75 mm
Sieve Sets for Fine Aggregates Sieve Sets for Coarse Aggregates

i. Aggregate A - size 40mm down
 Trial 1
Sieve Size
mm
Weight retained % weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
40 3600 72 72 28
25 1400 28 100 0
10 0 0 0 0
4.75 0 0 0 0
pan 0 0 0 0
 Trial 2:
Sieve
Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight retained cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
40 3700 74 74 26
25 1300 26 100 0
10 0 0 0 0
4.75 0 0 0 0
pan 0 0 0 0

ii. Aggregate B - size 20mm down
 Trial 1:
Sieve Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
40 0 0 0 100
25 0 0 0 100
10 4900 98 98 2
4.75 100 2 100 0
pan 0 0 0 0
Sieve Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
40 0 0 0 100
25 0 0 0 100
10 4840 96.8 96.8 3.2
4.75 160 3.2 100 0
pan 0 0 0 0
 Trial 2:

iii. Aggregate C - size 10mm down
 Trial 1:
Sieve Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
75 0 0 0 100
40 0 0 0 100
25 0 0 0 100
10 2180 43.7 43.7 56.3
4.75 2748 55.03 98.68 1.3
2.36 46 0.92 99.60 0.4
0.85 7.7 0.15 99.75 0.2
0.425 1.2 0.02 99.78 0.2
0.075 12.3 0.25 100 0

iii. Aggregate C - size 10mm down
 Trial 2:
Sieve Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
75 0 0 0 100
40 0 0 0 100
25 0 0 0 100
10 2160 43.26 43.2 56.8
4.75 2780 55.68 98.94 1.06
2.36 30.5 0.61 99.56 0.44
0.85 5.1 0.10 99.66 0.34
0.425 1.8 0.04 99.69 0.31
0.075 15.3 0.31 100 0

 Trial 1:
Sieve Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
75 0 0 0 100
40 0 0 0 100
25 0 0 0 100
10 0 0 0 100
4.75 3146 63.2 63.2 36.8
2.36 1613 32.4 95.6 4.43
0.85 204 4.1 99.7 0.33
0.425 0 0.0 99.7 0.33
0.075 16.4 0.3 100 0
iv. Aggregate D - size 6mm down

iv. Aggregate D - size 6mm down
 Trial 2:
Sieve Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
75 0 0 0 100
40 0 0 0 100
25 0 0 0 100
10 0 0 0 100
4.75 3358 67.24 67.24 32.76
2.36 1432 28.67 95.9 4.08
0.85 179 3.58 99.5 0.50
0.425 9 0.18 99.7 0.32
0.075 16 0.32 100 0

V . Aggregate E- Quarry Dust
 Trial 1:
Sieve Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
75 0 0 0 100
40 0 0 0 100
25 0 0 0 100
10 0 0 0 100
4.75 10 0.34 0.34 99.66
2.36 523 17.56 17.89 82.11
0.85 907 30.45 48.34 51.66
0.425 417 14.00 62.34 37.66
0.075 1122 37.66 100 0

V . Aggregate E- Quarry Dust
 Trial 2:
Sieve Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
75 0 0 0 100
40 0 0 0 100
25 0 0 0 100
10 0 0 0 100
4.75 7 0.23 0.23 99.77
2.36 503 16.88 17.11 82.89
0.85 919 30.84 47.95 52.05
0.425 413 14.46 62.42 37.58
0.075 1120 37.58 100 0

Table: Obtained Gradation for Aggregates
Sieve size(mm)
Percentage Passing
A B C D E
75 100 100 100 100 100
53 27 100 100 100 100
26.5 0 100 100 100 100
9.5 0 2.6 56.55 100 100
4.75 0 0 1.2 34.78 99.72
2.36 0 0 0.4 4.26 82.50
1.18 0 0 0.3 0.41 51.85
0.425 0 0 0.3 0.32 37.62
0.075 0 0 0 0 0

Obtained Gradation Curve for Aggregates:

Aggregate Blending
After selecting the aggregates and their gradation, proportioning of aggregates has to be
done and following are the common methods of proportioning of aggregates:
I. Trial and error procedure: Vary the proportion of materials until the required
aggregate gradation is achieved.
II. Graphical Methods: Two graphical methods in common use for proportioning of
aggregates are
 Triangular chart method
 Rothfutch’s method

Rothfutch’s method Proportions of
Aggregated
Obtained from the
Graph
Agg A – 26%
Agg B – 19%
Agg C – 16%
Agg D – 16%
Agg E - 23%

Theoretical Gradation:
Aggregates A, B, C, D, and E with proportion 13%, 24%, 14% 37% and 12% are
taken considered to obtained the gradation requirement as per MORTH
The theoretical gradation obtained using above proportion are checked and results are
as in table below

Sieve
size
(mm)
A B C D E A
13%
B
24%
C
14%
D
37%
E
12%
Combi
nd
gradati
n
Requir
ed
gradat
ion
75 100 100 100 100 100 13 24 14 37 12 100 100
53 27 100 100 100 100 3.51 24 14 37 12 90.51 80-100
26.5 0 100 100 100 100 0 24 14 37 12 87 55-90
9.5 0 2.6 56.55 100 100 0 0.624 7.92 37 12 57.54 35-65
4.75 0 0 1.2 34.78 99.72 0 0 0.17 12.9 12.0 25 25-50
2.36 0 0 0.4 4.26 82.50 0 0 0.06 1.6 9.9 12 10-20
1.18 0 0 0.3 0.41 51.85 0 0 0.04 0.2 6.2 6.42 2-10
0.425 0 0 0.3 0.32 37.62 0 0 0.04 0.1 4.5 4.67 0-5
0.075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
 Theoretical Gradation:

 Practical Gradation:
Aggregates A, B C D and E are mixed in the proportion 15%, 25%, 15% , 35% and 10%
respectively and checked for the practical gradation. The results obtained are as in table
below
Sieve Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
75 0 0 0 100
40 670 13.9 13.9 86.1
25 100 2.1 15.9 84.1
10 1535 31.8 47.7 52.3
4.75 1330 27.5 75.3 24.7
2.36 740 15.3 90.58 9.4
0.85 3.9 3.9 94.58 5.5
0.425 1.7 1.7 96.17 3.8
0.075 3.8 3.8 100 0
 Trial 1:

 Trial 2:
Sieve Size
mm
Weight
retained
% weight
retained
cumulative %
weight retained
% passing
75 0 0 0 100
40 660 13.40 13.4 86.6
25 130 2.64 16.0 83.96
10 1545 31.37 47.4 52.59
4.75 1350 27.41 74.8 25.18
2.36 720 14.62 89.44 10.56
0.85 220 4.47 93.91 6.09
0.425 50 1.02 94.92 5.08
0.075 250 5.08 100 0

Obtained Gradation for Aggregates:
Sieve Size
mm
Average Required
gradation ( 5 )
75 100 100
40 86.4 80-100
25 84.0 55-90
10 52.4 35-65
4.75 25.0 25-50
2.36 10.0 10-20
0.85 5.8 2-10
0.425 4.5 0-5
0.075 0 -

Modified proctor Test:
 In order to achieve optimal compaction in the field, it is crucial to ascertain the link
between the ideal moisture content and dry density for CTSB Materials. This is why the
test is conducted.
 Compaction using the Large Size Mould: a 2,250 cm3
mould is used to compact the
aggregates as per the proportions obtained in practical gradation.
 Five (5) layers of the material are compacted, with each layer undergoing 55 blows from
the 4900-gm rammer.
 The maximum dry density, corresponding optimal moisture content (OMC), and dry-
density V/S moisture content are plotted on a curve

• Determining the OMC and MDD for CTSB mix using 15% of Aggregate A, 25% of
Aggregate B, 15% of Aggregate C, 35% of Aggregate D, 10% Aggregate E
• The cement is used in different proportion such as 0% 2%, 4%, 6%, and 8%. For every
proportion of cement content water is added starting at 4%, 6%, 8% 10% and 12% and
compacted to determine in OMC and MDD.

Result:
The graded blend of aggregate treated with 0%,2%, 4%, 6% and 8% (cement ) for sub-base
are batched to determine optimum moisture content and dry unit weight. Modified Proctor
compaction effort was applied by considered maximum size of particles
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
Relationship Between Maximum Dry Density
and Optimum Moisture Content
Optimum Moisture Content
Maximum
Dry
Density
OMC and MDD values for 0% cement content
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.82
1.84
1.86
1.88
1.9
1.92
1.94
1.96
1.98
2
2.02
Relationship Between OMC and MDD
Maximum
Dry
Density

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
Maximum
Dry
Density
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
Maximum
Dry
Density
Maximum
Dry
Density
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
2.3

Percentage of
Cement 0 2 4 6 8
OMC (in percentage) 8% 6% 5.5% 5.5%
5.5%
MDD (g/cc)
2.07% 2.01% 2% 2.01%
2.23%
Table 13: Modified Compaction Test Results

Phase 1 project for civil engineering 6th sem. Ppt

More Related Content

Similar to Phase 1 project for civil engineering 6th sem. Ppt (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Phase 1 project for civil engineering 6th sem. Ppt