SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Soil stabalisation ppt

Download as PPTX, PDF
AbdulAhad334, profile picture
AbdulAhad334

The document presents a minor project on soil stabilization using burnt municipal solid waste ash, highlighting objectives such as reducing waste dumping, pavement costs, and improving soil bearing capacity. Various methodologies and experiments were conducted to analyze soil characteristics, including water content, grain size, liquid and plastic limits, Proctor tests, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values. Results indicate improvements in soil properties when using the burnt ash as a stabilizing agent, with specific values reported for moisture content and CBR in different samples.

Engineering
1 of 47
Downloaded 16 times
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
MINOR PROJECT PRESENTATION ON SOIL STABILIZATION USING BURNT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ASH Dr. AKHILESH DAS GUPTA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI Submitted To: Mr. Vikas Kataria Guided By: Mr. Ashwani Bharadwaj Mr. Ashish Malik Asst. Professor Civil Department Submitted By: RITESH KUMAR (41415603415) ANKUSH SINGH (40715603415) ABDUL AHAD (40115603415) VIPIN MADADH (36215603415) RACHIT TYAGI (35715603415)
Objectives • To reduce the dumping problem of waste produced by the method of incineration. • To reduce the thickness of sub-grade for flexible pavement. • To reduce the cost of flexible pavement design. • To increase the bearing capacity of soil.
Soil Stabilization Soil stabilization techniques involve changing soil characteristics by a physical action, such as vibration, or by the inclusion or mixing in the soil of a stronger material. The aim of this process is as follows:  Increase the load-bearing capacity and/or the shear strength  Reduce both absolute and differential settlements or in certain cases, accelerate them and so on.
Methodology • Mechanical method of Stabilization - In this method, soils of different gradations are mixed together to obtain the desired property in the soil. • Additive method of stabilization - It refers to the addition of manufactured products into the soil, which in proper quantities to enhance the quality of the soil.
Municipal Burnt Solid Waste For Soil Stabilization Solid Waste (SW) is the material that arises from various human and economic activities. In this method, waste collected from the dumping yards is set for burning for 24 hours on open yard to ensure complete burning of organic matter and all combustible matter like plastics, rubber paper, thermo coal etc,. which converts the solid waste into waste ash which known as Burnt Municipal Solid Waste.
List of experiments Water content by oven drying method Particle size analysis by Sieving Atterberg’s limit test Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Shrinkage Limit Proctor test CBR test
TESTS
1.WATER CONTENT The knowledge of the natural moisture content is essential in all studies of soil mechanics. To sight a few, natural moisture content is used in determining the bearing capacity and settlement. The natural moisture content will give an idea of the state of soil in the field.
2. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS The grain size analysis is widely used in classification of soils. The data obtained from grain size distribution curves is used in the design of filters for earth dams and to determine suitability of soil for road construction, air field etc.
3. LIQUID LIMIT Liquid limit is defined as the minimum water content at which a pat of soil cut by a groove of standard dimension will flow together for a distance of 12 mm under an impact of 25 blows in the device. It is the minimum water content at which the soil is still in the liquid state, but has a small shearing strength against flow.
4. PLASTIC LIMIT It is the percentage moisture content at which the soil changes with decreasing wetness from the plastic to the semi- solid consistency or with increasing wetness from the semi-solid to the plastic consistency.
5. PROCTER TEST • This test is done to determine the Optimum Moisture content and Maximum Dry Density. • This method covers the determination of the relationship between the moisture content and density of soils compacted in a mould of a given size with a 2.6 kg rammer dropped from a height of 30 cm.
6. CBR It is the ratio of force per unit area required to penetrate a soil mass with standard circular piston at the rate of 1.25 mm/min. to that required for the corresponding penetration of a standard material.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
FOR VIRGIN SOIL
A.WATER CONTENT We used Oven Drying method for water content determination whose temperature is maintained at 105 ̊C-110 ̊C Water Content = 13.63% S.No. Sample No. 1 2 3 1 Weight of container with lid 20 16 16 W1 gm 2 Weight of container with lid +wet 70 66 66 soil W2 gm 3 Weight of container with lid +dry 64 60 60 soil W3 gm 4 Water/Moisture content (Percentage,%) W = [(W2−W3)/(W3−W1)] 100 13.63 13.63 13.63
B. GRAIN SIZE We used Sieve Analysis Method for grain size analysis. As, Cu = 4 and Cc = 1, hence the soil is poor graded or uniformly graded soil. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10%FINER GRAIN SIZE (mm) IS Sieve Size Wt. Retained in each sieve(gm) %age retained on each sieve Cumulativ e %age %age Finer (100-D) A B C D E 4.75mm 56 11.2 11.2 88.8 2.36mm 38 7.6 18.8 81.2 1.18mm 46 9.2 28 72 0.60mm 25 5 33 67 0.30mm 30 6 39 61 0.150mm 62 12.4 51.4 31.4 0.075mm 112 22.4 22.4 21.14 Pan 107 17 100
C. LIQUID LIMIT We used Casagrande Apparatus for liquid limit determination. Liquid Limit of soil was found to be 21.1% S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 4 5 2. No. Blows 23 28 3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 16 23 4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 50 51 5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 44 46 6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 28 23 7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6 5 8. Moisture Content, 20.42 21.8
D. PLASTIC LIMIT The minimum water content is determined at which soil begins to crumble when rolled into the thread of 3mm. Plastic limit of soil was found to be 14.28% S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 13 2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 16 3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 24 4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 23 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 7 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 1 7. Moisture Content, 14.28
E. SHRINKAGE LIMIT 1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat S.No. Particulars Observations 1 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g 2 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g 3 Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g 4 Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 5 Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc 2. Moisture Content of Wet Soil S.No. Particulars Observation 1 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g 2 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 71g 3 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 65g 4 Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 27g 5 Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g 6 Moisture Content, 22.22
Shrinkage limit was found to be 10.77% 3. Volume of Dry Soil S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g 2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 253g 3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.29cc 4. Result From Above Calculation Particulars Result Shrinkage Limit, 10.77% Shrinkage Ratio, 1.7
F. OMC AND MDD OMC = 15.7% MDD = 1.777g/cc 1.7 1.71 1.72 1.73 1.74 1.75 1.76 1.77 1.78 1.79 0 5 10 15 20 25 DryDensity,g/cc Water Content (%)
G. CBR Penetration No. of Division Load in kg CBR Value 0 0 0 0.5 4 19.52 1 7 34.16 1.5 9 43.92 2 11 58.56 2.5 14 68.32 4.9 3 16 78.08 4 20 97.6 5 24 117.12 5.69 7.5 32 156.16 10 40 195.2 12.5 45 219.6 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Load,kg Penetration (mm) CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 4.9 and 5.69. So, CBR value of soil is 5.69.
SOIL WITH 4% BOTTOM ASH
A. LIQUID LIMIT  We used Casagrande apparatus for liquid limit determination Liquid Limit was found to be 21.76%. S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 8 23 2. No. Blows 28 22 3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 16 16 4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 37 40 5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 33 36 6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 17 20 7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 4 4 8. Moisture Content, 23.52 20
B. PLASTIC LIMIT  The minimum water content is determined at which soil begins to crumble when rolled into the thread of 3mm.  Plastic limit was found to be 15.38%. S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 10 2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11 3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 26 4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 24 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 13 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 2 7. Moisture Content, 15.38
C. SHRINKAGE LIMIT 1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g 3. Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g 4. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 5. Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc 2.Moisture Content of Wet Soil S.No. Particulars Observation 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g 3. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 65g 4. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 59g 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 26g 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g 7. Moisture Content, 23.07
 Shrinkage limit was found to be 11%. 3.Volume of Dry Soil S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g 2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 252g 3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.24cc 4.Result From Above Calculation Particulars Result Shrinkage Limit, 11% Shrinkage Ratio, 1.703
D. OMC AND MDD  OMC = 16%  MDD = 1.78g/cc 1.745 1.75 1.755 1.76 1.765 1.77 1.775 1.78 1.785 1.79 1.795 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 DryDensity,g/cc Water Content (%)
E. CBR Penetration (mm) No. of Division Load in kgf CBR Value 0 0 0 0.5 4 19.52 1 7 34.16 1.5 10 48.8 2 13 58.56 2.5 16 68.32 5.69 3 19 78.08 4 23 97.6 5 27 117.12 6.41 7.5 34 156.16 10 41 200.8 12.5 46 224.48 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Load,kg Penetration (mm) CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 5.69 and 6.41. So,  CBR value of soil is 6.41
A. LIQUID LIMIT Liquid Limit was found to be 23.61% S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 20 28 2. No. Blows 27 23 3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11 8 4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 22 23 5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 20 20 6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 9 12 7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 2 3 8. Moisture Content, 22.22 25
B. PLASTIC LIMIT  Plastic limit was found to be 16.6% S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 10 2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11 3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 25 4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 23 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 12 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 2 7. Moisture Content, 16.6
C. SHRINKAGE LIMIT 1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g 3. Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g 4. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 5. Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc 2.Moisture Content of Wet Soil S.No. Particulars Observation 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g 3. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 64g 4. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 58g 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 25g 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g 7. Moisture Content, 23.8
Shrinkage limit was found to be 11.8%. 3.Volume of Dry Soil S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g 2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 261g 3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.88cc 4.Result From Above Calculation Particulars Result Shrinkage Limit, 11.8% Shrinkage Ratio, 1.577
D. OMC AND MDD  OMC = 16.2%  MDD = 1.79g/cc 1.745 1.75 1.755 1.76 1.765 1.77 1.775 1.78 1.785 1.79 1.795 0 5 10 15 20 DryDensity,g/cc Water Content (%)
E. CBR Penetration (mm) No. of Division Load in kg CBR Value 0 0 0 0.5 2 14.64 1 6 29.28 1.5 9 43.92 2 13 63.44 2.5 17 82.96 6.05 3 20 102.48 4 27 141.52 5 35 170.8 8.3 7.5 41 219.6 10 52 258.64 12.5 61 297.68 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Load,kg Penetration (mm) CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 6.05 and 8.3. So, CBR value of soil is 8.3.
SOIL WITH 12% BOTTOM ASH
A. LIQUID LIMIT  Liquid Limit was found to be 21.82% S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 21 23 2. No. Blows 28 23 3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 4 7 4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 21 18 5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 17 16 6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 14 9 7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 3 2 8. Moisture Content, 21.42 22.22
B. PLASTIC LIMIT  Plastic limit was found to be 16%. S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 10 2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11 3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 40 4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 36 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 25 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 4 7. Moisture Content, 16
C. SHRINKAGE LIMIT 1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g 3. Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g 4. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 5. Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc 2.Moisture Content of Wet Soil S.No. Particulars Observation 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g 3. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 66g 4. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 60g 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 27g 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g 7. Moisture Content, 22
Shrinkage limit was found to be 11.2%. 3.Volume of Dry Soil S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g 2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 253g 3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.964cc 1. Result From Above Calculation Particulars Result Shrinkage Limit, 11.2% Shrinkage Ratio, 1.69
D. OMC AND MDD  OMC = 16.12%  MDD = 1.78g/cc 1.745 1.75 1.755 1.76 1.765 1.77 1.775 1.78 1.785 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 DryDensity,g/cc Water Content (%)
E. CBR Penetration (mm) No. of Division Load in kgf CBR Value 0 0 0 0.5 2 14.64 1 6 29.28 1.5 9 43.92 2 13 58.56 2.5 16 78.08 6.05 3 20 97.6 4 27 132.55 5 32 156.16 7.59 7.5 42 204.96 10 51 248.8 12.5 61 297.68 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Load,kg Penetration (mm) CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 6.05 and 7.59. So, CBR value of soil is 7.59.
CONCLUSION 21.1 14.28 10.77 15.7 21.76 15.38 11 16 23.61 16.6 11.8 16.2 21.82 16 11.2 16.12 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Shrinkage Limit OMC Atterberg's Limit & OMC Virgin Soil 4% Ash 8% Ash 12% Ash 1.777 5.69 1.78 6.41 1.79 8.3 1.78 7.59 MDD CBR MDD & CBR Virgin Soil 4% Ash 8% Ash 12% Ash
On the basis of various result such as liquid limit, plastic limit, shrinkage limit, max dry density and CBR value we conclude that optimum value of ash that is desirable to use to stabilize the soil is found to be 8%. As Plasticity index is 6.82 and liquid limit is 21.1 hence soil was found as low compressible silt and clay. As the value of CBR is more for soil with 8% ash than virgin soil. Hence it increased the bearing capacity of soil.
 As thickness is sub-grade is less than virgin soil so it will reduce the cost of flexible pavement design.  So, we can use the BMSW ash with optimum value in flexible pavement design for low traffic flow whose thickness will depend on the wheel load acting upon it.
REFRENCES  IS: 2720 (Part 5-1985, 6-1972) Methods of tests for soil - Determination of Atterberg's limits, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.  IS: 2720 (Part 7) 1980, Methods of tests for soil - Determination of water content - dry density relation using light compaction, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.  IS: 2720 (Part 16) 1987, Methods of tests for soil - Laboratory determination of CBR, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.  H.M. Alhassan and A.M. Tanko(2004) Characterization of solid waste incinerator bottom ash.  IRC (2001) Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements  Vegas, J.A., Ibanez, J.T., San Jose., A. and Urzelai (2008)., Construction demolition wastes, waste slag and MSWI bottom ash: a comparative technical analysis as material for road construction

More Related Content

PPTX
Soil stabilization using plastic bottle strips
TEJASKRIYA PRADHAN
 
PPSX
Geotechnical Engineering-I [Lec #21: Consolidation Problems]
Muhammad Irfan
 
PPTX
METHOD OF SOIL STABILIZARION
Rajnesh Sethiya
 
PPTX
Soil stabilisation
pradip dangar
 
PPTX
soil stabilization using waste finber by RAJ S PYARA
rajkumar pyara
 
PPTX
soil stabilization_by_using_plastics
nbkrist
 
PPTX
Soil improvement technique by plastic waste
DES Engineers Ltd
 
PDF
Stabilization of soft soil with granulated blast furnace slag and fly ash
eSAT Publishing House
 
Soil stabilization using plastic bottle strips
TEJASKRIYA PRADHAN
 
Geotechnical Engineering-I [Lec #21: Consolidation Problems]
Muhammad Irfan
 
METHOD OF SOIL STABILIZARION
Rajnesh Sethiya
 
Soil stabilisation
pradip dangar
 
soil stabilization using waste finber by RAJ S PYARA
rajkumar pyara
 
soil stabilization_by_using_plastics
nbkrist
 
Soil improvement technique by plastic waste
DES Engineers Ltd
 
Stabilization of soft soil with granulated blast furnace slag and fly ash
eSAT Publishing House
 

What's hot (20)

PPTX
Rubber concrete
Imtiyaz Topinkatti
 
PDF
IRJET- Soil Stabilization by using Plastic Waste
IRJET Journal
 
PPT
Plastic as a soil stabilizer by yashwanth sagar
yashwanth9611
 
PPTX
pre consolidation pressure
Nachiketa Mithaiwala
 
PDF
Lecture 8 consolidation and compressibility
Dr.Abdulmannan Orabi
 
PPT
GROUND IMPROVEMENT-DENSIFICATION METHODS
ramgsvhce
 
PPTX
GEOSYNTHETICS for FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
MERCHANT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BASNA
 
PDF
An Experimental Study of Soil Stabilization with Cement and Polymer
ijtsrd
 
PPTX
introduction to soil stabilization and introduction to geo textiles and synth...
husna004
 
PPTX
What is Ground Improvement Techniques?
roks99
 
DOCX
Majaor project
Sachin gupta
 
PPT
Soil Stabilization
EPA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
 
PPTX
SOIL STABILIZATION USING FLY ASH
HariKrishnan P A
 
PDF
THESIS
Abhimanyu Saraswat
 
PPTX
Cbr test
Kaushal Gamit
 
PPTX
Atterberg limit test
rasty abdulla
 
PPTX
Partial replacement of cement with glass powder and egg shell ash in concrete
Fresher Thinking
 
PPT
Marshall Mix Design
Akhil Ahuja
 
PPTX
Different layers of flexible pavement
Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology.
 
PPTX
Compaction tests
Ami jasani
 
Rubber concrete
Imtiyaz Topinkatti
 
IRJET- Soil Stabilization by using Plastic Waste
IRJET Journal
 
Plastic as a soil stabilizer by yashwanth sagar
yashwanth9611
 
pre consolidation pressure
Nachiketa Mithaiwala
 
Lecture 8 consolidation and compressibility
Dr.Abdulmannan Orabi
 
GROUND IMPROVEMENT-DENSIFICATION METHODS
ramgsvhce
 
GEOSYNTHETICS for FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
MERCHANT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BASNA
 
An Experimental Study of Soil Stabilization with Cement and Polymer
ijtsrd
 
introduction to soil stabilization and introduction to geo textiles and synth...
husna004
 
What is Ground Improvement Techniques?
roks99
 
Majaor project
Sachin gupta
 
Soil Stabilization
EPA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
 
SOIL STABILIZATION USING FLY ASH
HariKrishnan P A
 
THESIS
Abhimanyu Saraswat
 
Cbr test
Kaushal Gamit
 
Atterberg limit test
rasty abdulla
 
Partial replacement of cement with glass powder and egg shell ash in concrete
Fresher Thinking
 
Marshall Mix Design
Akhil Ahuja
 
Different layers of flexible pavement
Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology.
 
Compaction tests
Ami jasani
 
Ad

Similar to Soil stabalisation ppt (20)

DOCX
Peb802 capstone design project assesment 2
vishwaleenram
 
PPT
Ppt sieveanalysis-130303223118-phpapp02
Ranvijay Akela
 
PDF
Atterberg Limits Test
Abhinav Kumar
 
PDF
Atterberg Limits Test
A K
 
PDF
Proctor Compaction Test
Abhinav Kumar
 
PDF
Proctor Compaction Test
A K
 
PPT
Lecture 01 lab (Soil)
Muhammad Faisal
 
PPTX
Amir tantrayz
khalid wani
 
DOCX
Summer training report on soil testing experiments
ashishcivil098
 
PDF
Geotechnical Engineering - Year 3 Lab Report.pdf
Ignatius Shiundu
 
PPTX
Unit 1 PPT.pptx
mythili spd
 
PPTX
1309500025@coet.in
kailash pokhriyal
 
PPTX
Stabilization of black cotton soil by using plastic rf
AnurupJena1
 
PPT
5 soil compaction
Saurabh Kumar
 
PPTX
Summer training ppt
SomayaGangotiya
 
PPT
Pavement Engineering Materials_4
Muhammad Faisal
 
PPTX
Compaction test of soil ASTM-D698
JOYTI MABRUK
 
PDF
IRJET - Experimental Study on Properties of Soil
IRJET Journal
 
PDF
chapter 3 -basic characteristic of soil-print.pdf
allipiuwww
 
PDF
chapter 3 -basic characteristic of soil-print.pdf
allipiuwww
 
Peb802 capstone design project assesment 2
vishwaleenram
 
Ppt sieveanalysis-130303223118-phpapp02
Ranvijay Akela
 
Atterberg Limits Test
Abhinav Kumar
 
Atterberg Limits Test
A K
 
Proctor Compaction Test
Abhinav Kumar
 
Proctor Compaction Test
A K
 
Lecture 01 lab (Soil)
Muhammad Faisal
 
Amir tantrayz
khalid wani
 
Summer training report on soil testing experiments
ashishcivil098
 
Geotechnical Engineering - Year 3 Lab Report.pdf
Ignatius Shiundu
 
Unit 1 PPT.pptx
mythili spd
 
1309500025@coet.in
kailash pokhriyal
 
Stabilization of black cotton soil by using plastic rf
AnurupJena1
 
5 soil compaction
Saurabh Kumar
 
Summer training ppt
SomayaGangotiya
 
Pavement Engineering Materials_4
Muhammad Faisal
 
Compaction test of soil ASTM-D698
JOYTI MABRUK
 
IRJET - Experimental Study on Properties of Soil
IRJET Journal
 
chapter 3 -basic characteristic of soil-print.pdf
allipiuwww
 
chapter 3 -basic characteristic of soil-print.pdf
allipiuwww
 
Ad

Recently uploaded (20)

PDF
Human-AI Collaboration: Balancing Agentic AI and Autonomy in Hybrid Systems
ijccsa
 
PPTX
CURRICULAM DESIGN engineering FOR CSE 2025.pptx
Amuda3
 
PPTX
Feature types and data preprocessing steps
deepalishinkar1
 
PDF
ChapteR012372321DFGDSFGDFGDFSGDFGDFGDFGSDFGDFGFD
NotaProGamer
 
PDF
EXPLORING LEARNING ENGAGEMENT FACTORS INFLUENCING BEHAVIORAL, COGNITIVE, AND ...
johnmathew9417
 
PPTX
Fundamentals of Mechanical Engineering.pptx
MdMowdudAhmed
 
PDF
Improvement effect of pyrolyzed agro-food biochar on the properties of.pdf
LasFernandaJuchem
 
PPTX
Graph Data Structures with Types, Traversals, Connectivity, and Real-Life App...
usham61
 
PDF
August 2025 - Top 10 Read Articles in Network Security & Its Applications
IJNSA Journal
 
PDF
August -2025_Top10 Read_Articles_ijait.pdf
ijait
 
PDF
PREDICTION OF DIABETES FROM ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS
ijaia
 
PDF
Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) Alliance Vision Paper.pdf
SonaliPatil325517
 
PPTX
"Array and Linked List in Data Structures with Types, Operations, Implementat...
usham61
 
PDF
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS IN FRAUD DETECTION
IJNSA Journal
 
PDF
737-MAX_SRG.pdf student reference guides
ssusere2119a1
 
PPTX
communication and presentation skills 01
CdtAfrazAttaullah
 
PDF
SMART SIGNAL TIMING FOR URBAN INTERSECTIONS USING REAL-TIME VEHICLE DETECTI...
Niraj Aarya
 
PPTX
Management Information system : MIS-e-Business Systems.pptx
ShankarGowda22
 
PPTX
6ME3A-Unit-II-Sensors and Actuators_Handouts.pptx
anukaranugi
 
PPTX
AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE MANAGEMENT (MECHATRONICS).pptx
joanaabban6
 
Human-AI Collaboration: Balancing Agentic AI and Autonomy in Hybrid Systems
ijccsa
 
CURRICULAM DESIGN engineering FOR CSE 2025.pptx
Amuda3
 
Feature types and data preprocessing steps
deepalishinkar1
 
ChapteR012372321DFGDSFGDFGDFSGDFGDFGDFGSDFGDFGFD
NotaProGamer
 
EXPLORING LEARNING ENGAGEMENT FACTORS INFLUENCING BEHAVIORAL, COGNITIVE, AND ...
johnmathew9417
 
Fundamentals of Mechanical Engineering.pptx
MdMowdudAhmed
 
Improvement effect of pyrolyzed agro-food biochar on the properties of.pdf
LasFernandaJuchem
 
Graph Data Structures with Types, Traversals, Connectivity, and Real-Life App...
usham61
 
August 2025 - Top 10 Read Articles in Network Security & Its Applications
IJNSA Journal
 
August -2025_Top10 Read_Articles_ijait.pdf
ijait
 
PREDICTION OF DIABETES FROM ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS
ijaia
 
Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) Alliance Vision Paper.pdf
SonaliPatil325517
 
"Array and Linked List in Data Structures with Types, Operations, Implementat...
usham61
 
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS IN FRAUD DETECTION
IJNSA Journal
 
737-MAX_SRG.pdf student reference guides
ssusere2119a1
 
communication and presentation skills 01
CdtAfrazAttaullah
 
SMART SIGNAL TIMING FOR URBAN INTERSECTIONS USING REAL-TIME VEHICLE DETECTI...
Niraj Aarya
 
Management Information system : MIS-e-Business Systems.pptx
ShankarGowda22
 
6ME3A-Unit-II-Sensors and Actuators_Handouts.pptx
anukaranugi
 
AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE MANAGEMENT (MECHATRONICS).pptx
joanaabban6
 

Soil stabalisation ppt

  • 1. MINOR PROJECT PRESENTATION ON SOIL STABILIZATION USING BURNT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ASH Dr. AKHILESH DAS GUPTA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI Submitted To: Mr. Vikas Kataria Guided By: Mr. Ashwani Bharadwaj Mr. Ashish Malik Asst. Professor Civil Department Submitted By: RITESH KUMAR (41415603415) ANKUSH SINGH (40715603415) ABDUL AHAD (40115603415) VIPIN MADADH (36215603415) RACHIT TYAGI (35715603415)
  • 2. Objectives • To reduce the dumping problem of waste produced by the method of incineration. • To reduce the thickness of sub-grade for flexible pavement. • To reduce the cost of flexible pavement design. • To increase the bearing capacity of soil.
  • 3. Soil Stabilization Soil stabilization techniques involve changing soil characteristics by a physical action, such as vibration, or by the inclusion or mixing in the soil of a stronger material. The aim of this process is as follows:  Increase the load-bearing capacity and/or the shear strength  Reduce both absolute and differential settlements or in certain cases, accelerate them and so on.
  • 4. Methodology • Mechanical method of Stabilization - In this method, soils of different gradations are mixed together to obtain the desired property in the soil. • Additive method of stabilization - It refers to the addition of manufactured products into the soil, which in proper quantities to enhance the quality of the soil.
  • 5. Municipal Burnt Solid Waste For Soil Stabilization Solid Waste (SW) is the material that arises from various human and economic activities. In this method, waste collected from the dumping yards is set for burning for 24 hours on open yard to ensure complete burning of organic matter and all combustible matter like plastics, rubber paper, thermo coal etc,. which converts the solid waste into waste ash which known as Burnt Municipal Solid Waste.
  • 6. List of experiments Water content by oven drying method Particle size analysis by Sieving Atterberg’s limit test Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Shrinkage Limit Proctor test CBR test
  • 8. 1.WATER CONTENT The knowledge of the natural moisture content is essential in all studies of soil mechanics. To sight a few, natural moisture content is used in determining the bearing capacity and settlement. The natural moisture content will give an idea of the state of soil in the field.
  • 9. 2. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS The grain size analysis is widely used in classification of soils. The data obtained from grain size distribution curves is used in the design of filters for earth dams and to determine suitability of soil for road construction, air field etc.
  • 10. 3. LIQUID LIMIT Liquid limit is defined as the minimum water content at which a pat of soil cut by a groove of standard dimension will flow together for a distance of 12 mm under an impact of 25 blows in the device. It is the minimum water content at which the soil is still in the liquid state, but has a small shearing strength against flow.
  • 11. 4. PLASTIC LIMIT It is the percentage moisture content at which the soil changes with decreasing wetness from the plastic to the semi- solid consistency or with increasing wetness from the semi-solid to the plastic consistency.
  • 12. 5. PROCTER TEST • This test is done to determine the Optimum Moisture content and Maximum Dry Density. • This method covers the determination of the relationship between the moisture content and density of soils compacted in a mould of a given size with a 2.6 kg rammer dropped from a height of 30 cm.
  • 13. 6. CBR It is the ratio of force per unit area required to penetrate a soil mass with standard circular piston at the rate of 1.25 mm/min. to that required for the corresponding penetration of a standard material.
  • 16. A.WATER CONTENT We used Oven Drying method for water content determination whose temperature is maintained at 105 ̊C-110 ̊C Water Content = 13.63% S.No. Sample No. 1 2 3 1 Weight of container with lid 20 16 16 W1 gm 2 Weight of container with lid +wet 70 66 66 soil W2 gm 3 Weight of container with lid +dry 64 60 60 soil W3 gm 4 Water/Moisture content (Percentage,%) W = [(W2−W3)/(W3−W1)] 100 13.63 13.63 13.63
  • 17. B. GRAIN SIZE We used Sieve Analysis Method for grain size analysis. As, Cu = 4 and Cc = 1, hence the soil is poor graded or uniformly graded soil. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10%FINER GRAIN SIZE (mm) IS Sieve Size Wt. Retained in each sieve(gm) %age retained on each sieve Cumulativ e %age %age Finer (100-D) A B C D E 4.75mm 56 11.2 11.2 88.8 2.36mm 38 7.6 18.8 81.2 1.18mm 46 9.2 28 72 0.60mm 25 5 33 67 0.30mm 30 6 39 61 0.150mm 62 12.4 51.4 31.4 0.075mm 112 22.4 22.4 21.14 Pan 107 17 100
  • 18. C. LIQUID LIMIT We used Casagrande Apparatus for liquid limit determination. Liquid Limit of soil was found to be 21.1% S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 4 5 2. No. Blows 23 28 3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 16 23 4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 50 51 5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 44 46 6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 28 23 7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6 5 8. Moisture Content, 20.42 21.8
  • 19. D. PLASTIC LIMIT The minimum water content is determined at which soil begins to crumble when rolled into the thread of 3mm. Plastic limit of soil was found to be 14.28% S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 13 2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 16 3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 24 4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 23 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 7 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 1 7. Moisture Content, 14.28
  • 20. E. SHRINKAGE LIMIT 1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat S.No. Particulars Observations 1 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g 2 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g 3 Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g 4 Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 5 Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc 2. Moisture Content of Wet Soil S.No. Particulars Observation 1 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g 2 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 71g 3 Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 65g 4 Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 27g 5 Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g 6 Moisture Content, 22.22
  • 21. Shrinkage limit was found to be 10.77% 3. Volume of Dry Soil S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g 2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 253g 3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.29cc 4. Result From Above Calculation Particulars Result Shrinkage Limit, 10.77% Shrinkage Ratio, 1.7
  • 22. F. OMC AND MDD OMC = 15.7% MDD = 1.777g/cc 1.7 1.71 1.72 1.73 1.74 1.75 1.76 1.77 1.78 1.79 0 5 10 15 20 25 DryDensity,g/cc Water Content (%)
  • 23. G. CBR Penetration No. of Division Load in kg CBR Value 0 0 0 0.5 4 19.52 1 7 34.16 1.5 9 43.92 2 11 58.56 2.5 14 68.32 4.9 3 16 78.08 4 20 97.6 5 24 117.12 5.69 7.5 32 156.16 10 40 195.2 12.5 45 219.6 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Load,kg Penetration (mm) CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 4.9 and 5.69. So, CBR value of soil is 5.69.
  • 25. A. LIQUID LIMIT  We used Casagrande apparatus for liquid limit determination Liquid Limit was found to be 21.76%. S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 8 23 2. No. Blows 28 22 3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 16 16 4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 37 40 5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 33 36 6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 17 20 7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 4 4 8. Moisture Content, 23.52 20
  • 26. B. PLASTIC LIMIT  The minimum water content is determined at which soil begins to crumble when rolled into the thread of 3mm.  Plastic limit was found to be 15.38%. S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 10 2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11 3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 26 4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 24 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 13 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 2 7. Moisture Content, 15.38
  • 27. C. SHRINKAGE LIMIT 1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g 3. Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g 4. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 5. Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc 2.Moisture Content of Wet Soil S.No. Particulars Observation 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g 3. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 65g 4. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 59g 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 26g 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g 7. Moisture Content, 23.07
  • 28.  Shrinkage limit was found to be 11%. 3.Volume of Dry Soil S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g 2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 252g 3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.24cc 4.Result From Above Calculation Particulars Result Shrinkage Limit, 11% Shrinkage Ratio, 1.703
  • 29. D. OMC AND MDD  OMC = 16%  MDD = 1.78g/cc 1.745 1.75 1.755 1.76 1.765 1.77 1.775 1.78 1.785 1.79 1.795 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 DryDensity,g/cc Water Content (%)
  • 30. E. CBR Penetration (mm) No. of Division Load in kgf CBR Value 0 0 0 0.5 4 19.52 1 7 34.16 1.5 10 48.8 2 13 58.56 2.5 16 68.32 5.69 3 19 78.08 4 23 97.6 5 27 117.12 6.41 7.5 34 156.16 10 41 200.8 12.5 46 224.48 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Load,kg Penetration (mm) CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 5.69 and 6.41. So,  CBR value of soil is 6.41
  • 31. A. LIQUID LIMIT Liquid Limit was found to be 23.61% S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 20 28 2. No. Blows 27 23 3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11 8 4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 22 23 5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 20 20 6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 9 12 7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 2 3 8. Moisture Content, 22.22 25
  • 32. B. PLASTIC LIMIT  Plastic limit was found to be 16.6% S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 10 2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11 3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 25 4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 23 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 12 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 2 7. Moisture Content, 16.6
  • 33. C. SHRINKAGE LIMIT 1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g 3. Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g 4. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 5. Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc 2.Moisture Content of Wet Soil S.No. Particulars Observation 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g 3. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 64g 4. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 58g 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 25g 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g 7. Moisture Content, 23.8
  • 34. Shrinkage limit was found to be 11.8%. 3.Volume of Dry Soil S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g 2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 261g 3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.88cc 4.Result From Above Calculation Particulars Result Shrinkage Limit, 11.8% Shrinkage Ratio, 1.577
  • 35. D. OMC AND MDD  OMC = 16.2%  MDD = 1.79g/cc 1.745 1.75 1.755 1.76 1.765 1.77 1.775 1.78 1.785 1.79 1.795 0 5 10 15 20 DryDensity,g/cc Water Content (%)
  • 36. E. CBR Penetration (mm) No. of Division Load in kg CBR Value 0 0 0 0.5 2 14.64 1 6 29.28 1.5 9 43.92 2 13 63.44 2.5 17 82.96 6.05 3 20 102.48 4 27 141.52 5 35 170.8 8.3 7.5 41 219.6 10 52 258.64 12.5 61 297.68 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Load,kg Penetration (mm) CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 6.05 and 8.3. So, CBR value of soil is 8.3.
  • 38. A. LIQUID LIMIT  Liquid Limit was found to be 21.82% S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 21 23 2. No. Blows 28 23 3. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 4 7 4. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 21 18 5. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 17 16 6. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 14 9 7. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 3 2 8. Moisture Content, 21.42 22.22
  • 39. B. PLASTIC LIMIT  Plastic limit was found to be 16%. S.No. Particulars Observation 1. Container No. 10 2. Wt. of Empty Container(W1) 11 3. Wt. of Container + Wet Soil (W2) 40 4. Wt. of Container + dry Soil (W3) 36 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, Wd=W3-W1 25 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 4 7. Moisture Content, 16
  • 40. C. SHRINKAGE LIMIT 1.Volume of Shrinkage Pat S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish (W1) 33g 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Mercury (W2) 283g 3. Wt. of Mercury, Wm=W2-W1 250g 4. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 5. Volume of Shrinkage pat, V 18.38cc 2.Moisture Content of Wet Soil S.No. Particulars Observation 2. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish(W1) 33g 3. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + Wet Soil (W2) 66g 4. Wt. of Shrinkage Dish + dry Soil (W3) 60g 5. Wt. of Dry Soil, W0=W3-W1 27g 6. Wt. of Water, Ww=W2-W3 6g 7. Moisture Content, 22
  • 41. Shrinkage limit was found to be 11.2%. 3.Volume of Dry Soil S.No. Particulars Observations 1. Wt. of Evaporating Dish (W1) 45g 2. Wt. of Mercury Displaced by dry soil (W2) 253g 3. Density of Mercury, 13.6g/cc 4. Volume of dry soil pat, 15.964cc 1. Result From Above Calculation Particulars Result Shrinkage Limit, 11.2% Shrinkage Ratio, 1.69
  • 42. D. OMC AND MDD  OMC = 16.12%  MDD = 1.78g/cc 1.745 1.75 1.755 1.76 1.765 1.77 1.775 1.78 1.785 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 DryDensity,g/cc Water Content (%)
  • 43. E. CBR Penetration (mm) No. of Division Load in kgf CBR Value 0 0 0 0.5 2 14.64 1 6 29.28 1.5 9 43.92 2 13 58.56 2.5 16 78.08 6.05 3 20 97.6 4 27 132.55 5 32 156.16 7.59 7.5 42 204.96 10 51 248.8 12.5 61 297.68 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Load,kg Penetration (mm) CBR value at 2.5mm and 5.0mm penetration are 6.05 and 7.59. So, CBR value of soil is 7.59.
  • 44. CONCLUSION 21.1 14.28 10.77 15.7 21.76 15.38 11 16 23.61 16.6 11.8 16.2 21.82 16 11.2 16.12 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Shrinkage Limit OMC Atterberg's Limit & OMC Virgin Soil 4% Ash 8% Ash 12% Ash 1.777 5.69 1.78 6.41 1.79 8.3 1.78 7.59 MDD CBR MDD & CBR Virgin Soil 4% Ash 8% Ash 12% Ash
  • 45. On the basis of various result such as liquid limit, plastic limit, shrinkage limit, max dry density and CBR value we conclude that optimum value of ash that is desirable to use to stabilize the soil is found to be 8%. As Plasticity index is 6.82 and liquid limit is 21.1 hence soil was found as low compressible silt and clay. As the value of CBR is more for soil with 8% ash than virgin soil. Hence it increased the bearing capacity of soil.
  • 46.  As thickness is sub-grade is less than virgin soil so it will reduce the cost of flexible pavement design.  So, we can use the BMSW ash with optimum value in flexible pavement design for low traffic flow whose thickness will depend on the wheel load acting upon it.
  • 47. REFRENCES  IS: 2720 (Part 5-1985, 6-1972) Methods of tests for soil - Determination of Atterberg's limits, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.  IS: 2720 (Part 7) 1980, Methods of tests for soil - Determination of water content - dry density relation using light compaction, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.  IS: 2720 (Part 16) 1987, Methods of tests for soil - Laboratory determination of CBR, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.  H.M. Alhassan and A.M. Tanko(2004) Characterization of solid waste incinerator bottom ash.  IRC (2001) Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements  Vegas, J.A., Ibanez, J.T., San Jose., A. and Urzelai (2008)., Construction demolition wastes, waste slag and MSWI bottom ash: a comparative technical analysis as material for road construction