CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Shale is the product of highly consolidated clays, silts and sands or a mixture of all the three

fractions of soil derived from the weathering of rocks. These fractions of soil were deposited in

sea or riverbeds in layers and subjected to high overburden pressures, which lead to

consolidation and diagenesis (de Graft - Johnson et al. 1973). According to O’Flaherty (1974),

shale is essentially a clayey material, which is very likely to break down in the presence of

moisture and frost. Since shale is highly clayey in nature, it is subjected to swelling during the

rainy season and shrinkage during the dry season. Shale is a notorious unpredictable material, in

which a number of failures have been reported involving cracks on buildings, settlement and

shear failure of compacted shale embank-ments (Abeyesekera et al. 1978; El-Sohby et al. 1987;

Williams 1980). Makurdi town, the headquarters of Benue State is extensively underlain with

shale as confirmed by Agbede and Smart (2007).

Buildings and roads constructed in Makurdi town suffer distress in form of cracks ranging from

fraction of millimeters to about 10 mm, thereby reducing the lifespan of these structures and

posing threat to lives and properties (Iorliam et al. 2012b). Due to the challenge posed by shale

and other expansive soils, many researchers have utilized agricultural or industrial waste to

improve the geotechnical properties of these soils. The focus on utilization of waste in soil

improvement have received much attention in the recent times due to rising cost of industrial

stabilizers such as cement and lime as well as increased cost of waste disposal and environmental

constraints caused by waste. The need for economic soil stabilizer is necessary, especially in

localities where problem soils are encountered; with shortage of suitable construction materials,

1
avoiding or by- passing them is difficult, thus, prompting engineers to improve the unsuitable

natural soils for use in engineering work at economic cost.

The need to bring down the cost of waste disposal and the growing cost of soil stabilizers has led

to intense global research towards economic utilization of wastes for engineering purposes. The

safe disposal of industrial and agricultural waste products demands urgent and cost effective

solutions because of the debilitating effect of these materials on the environment and to the

health hazards that these wastes constitute. In order to make deficient soils useful and meet

geotechnical engineering design requirements, researchers have focused more on the use of

potentially cost effective materials that are locally available from industrial and agricultural

wastes in order to improve the properties of poor soils. The over dependence on industrially

manufactured soil improving additives (cement, lime, bitumen, etc) have kept the cost of

construction of stabilized road and other engineering structures economically high. This

previously have continued to deter the underdeveloped and poor nations of the world from

providing accessible roads to meet the need of their rural dwellers who constitute large

percentage of their population which are mostly rural farmers.

Bagasse is defined as fibrous residue of sugar cane stalks that remains after extraction of sugar

(Rainey, 2009). It is normally deposited as waste and it litters the environment. Most of the

bagasse produced, amounting to one-third of all the cane crushed in some cases supplies the fuel

for the generation of steam according to Bilba, Arsene, and Ouensanga, (2003) which eventually

results in bagasse ash. The resulting ash is deposited in stock piles which are normally dumped

in waste landfills and constitute environmental problem to the society. When bagasse is left in

the open, it ferments and decays, this brings about the need for safe disposal of the pollutant,

2
which when inhaled in large quantity can result in respiratory disease known as bagassiosis

(Laurianne, 2004).

Bagasse ash is a pozzolanic material which is very rich in the oxides of silica and aluminum, and

sometimes calcium Guilherme, Romildo, Eduardo, Luis, and Cristiano, (2004). Pozzolans usually

require the presence of water in order for silica to combine

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Most parts of Benue State are covered with expansive clay soils which have poor engineering

properties hence is not used during infrastructure development. Soils with desirable engineering

properties are usually borrowed some kilometers away hence raising the cost of construction. The

growing cost of traditional stabilizing agents and need for economic utilization of industrial and

agricultural wastes prompted an investigation into the stabilizing prospective of bagasse ash.

1.3 Area of the Study

Makurdi formation is comprised of three zones, the lower Makurdi sandstone: the upper Makurdi

sandstone and the Wadata limestone (Nwajide, 1982). The lower Makurdi sandstone, which

could be found around the Makurdi Airport, consists of sandstones and mudrocks. They are

micaceous throughout with mudrocks predominating. The upper Makurdi sandstone is similar to

the lower sandstone but with mudsrocks being relatively less common, as found around the

North Bank area of Makurdi. Sandstones and shales outcrop prominently and the sandstone

range from very fine to medium in grain size. In this zone, there are shale units of mainly fissile

siltstone, usually brownish grey in colour and often abundantly micaceous. shale outcrop is

located in College of Engineering, University of Agriculture Makurdi. Makurdi town is located

on 7o43’50’’N and 8o32’10’’E, on the geographical map of Nigeria

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makurdi, 2012).

3
1.4 Aim and Objectives

The aim of this research work is to investigate the effect of sugarcane bagasse ash on the engineering

properties of expansive soil.

Specific objectives includes;

i. To determine effect of physical and mechanical properties of shale soil stabilized with

bagasseh ash.

ii. To determine the optimum amount of bagasse ash required in stabilization of shale soil.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study provides an insight into how bagasse ash as a stabilizer is effective for stabilizing

shale soil. This report can be used as a guide to help in developing materials that can be used in

road construction and other engineering materials to improve the economy in the country. In

addition, it will solve a disposal problem for the companies and hence a pollution level that

endangers the lives of people.

1.6 Scope and Limitation

This research work is limited to the use of bagasse ash in combination with shale soil to get an

improved quality of composite material, which may be used, in various engineering applications.

1.7 The Limitations

The main research limitations are;

i. Due to inadequate time frame, the effect of this waste on some important engineering

properties are excluded.

ii. Lack of equipment like combustion chambers where high temperatures of bagasse

can be achieved.

4
iii. Lack of grinding machine that could have enabled the comparison of the effect of

burnt and unburnt bagasse on PI and CBR

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

5
2.1 Shale.

Shale, an abundant geological material accounting for approximately half the stratigraphic

column (Kuenen, 1941) is frequently encountered in road cuts and other construction sites where

economic and environmental considerations often recommend its use in the construction of

embankments. O’ Flaherty (1974) described shale as essentially a clayey material, which is very

likely to break down in the presence of moisture and frost. Since shale is highly clayey in nature,

it is subjected to swelling during the rainy season and shrinking during the dry season.

Abeyesekera et al (1978) described shale as a notoriously unpredictable material, in which a

number of failures have been reported involving settlement and shear failure of compacted shale

embankments. Richardson and Wiles (1990) described shale as any geologic material that is

indurated, non-metamorphosed sediment composed mainly of clay or silt. Thus, shale will

include siltstones, mudstones, mudshales, claystones, clayshales, arenaceous shales, siliceous

shales, bituminous shales, and gypsiferrous shales. Here, indurated denotes a rock hardened by

pressure, cementation or heat.

According to De Graft – Johnson et al (1973) shale is the product of highly consolidated clays,

silts and sands or a mixture of all the three fractions of soil derived from the weathering of rocks.

These fractions of soil are deposited in sea or riverbeds in layers and subjected to high

overburden pressures, which lead to consolidation and diagenesis.

2.2 Stabilization Process

6
Soil stabilization is the treatment of clay soils to improve their index properties and strength

characteristics such that they permanently become suitable for construction and meet engineering

design standards (Salahudeen and Akiije, 2014). Cementitious materials stabilize soils and

modify their properties through cation exchange, flocculation and agglomeration, and pozzolanic

reactions. The strength, bearing capacity and durability of soils can be increased by addition of

some chemical materials. The two frequently used methods of stabilizing soils are stabilization

by compaction or stabilization by chemical additives. Mechanical stabilization can be defined as

a process of improving the stability and shear strength characteristics of the soil without altering

the chemical properties of the soil. The main methods of mechanical stabilization can be

categorized into compaction, mixing or blending of two or more gradations, applying geo-

reinforcement and mechanical remediation (Guyer, 2011; Makusa, 2012).

2.2.1 Chemical Stabilization

2.2.1.1 Introduction

The main chemical stabilizing agent for expansive clay is lime which may be calcium oxide

(CaO) or calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2. Laboratory testing indicates that lime reacts with medium,

moderately fine and fine-grained soils to produce decreased plasticity, increased workability and

increased strength (Little, 1995). Strength gain is primarily due to the chemical reactions that

occur between the lime and soil particles. These chemical reactions occur in two phases, with

both immediate and long-term benefits. The first phase of the chemical reaction involves

immediate changes in soil texture and soil properties caused by cation exchange. When calcium

comes in contact with the pore water, hydration occurs resulting in the formation of calcium

hydroxide. Some of this calcium hydroxide is adsorbed onto the soil particles. Ion exchange

takes place and the soil is modified into drier and coarser structure due to slaking process and

7
flocculation of the clay particles that take place Boardman, Glendinning, and Rogers, (2001).

Free calcium from lime exchanges with the adsorbed cations of the clay mineral, resulting in

reduction in size of the diffused water layer surrounding the clay particles. This reduction in the

diffused water layer allows the clay particles to come into closer contact with one another,

causing flocculation/agglomeration of the clay particles, which transforms the clay into a more

silt-like or sand-like material. Overall, the flocculation and agglomeration phase of lime

stabilization results in a soil that is more readily mixable, workable and ultimately compactable.

According to (Christopher, 2005) practically all fine-grained soils undergo this rapid cation

exchange and flocculation/agglomeration reactions when treated with lime in the presence of

water. The second phase of the chemical reaction involves pozzolanic reactions within the lime-

soil mixture, resulting in strength gain over time. When lime combines with clay soil, the PH of

the mixture increases, and at 12.4, the silica and alumina from the clay become soluble and are

released from the clay mineral. The calcium hydroxide not consumed in the first process is free

to react with the silica (S) and alumina (A) contained in mineral present in the soil. The reactions

result into the formation of Calcium aluminate silicate hydroxide (CASH), Calcium Silicate

hydroxide (CSH) and calcium aluminate hydroxide (CAH) which has cementitous properties,

that strengthens gradually over several years. As long as there is sufficient calcium from the lime

to combine with the soluble silica and alumina, the pozzolanic reaction will continue as long as

the pH remains high enough to maintain the solubility of the silica and alumina (Little, 1995).

Strength gain also largely depends on the amount of silica and alumina available from the clay

itself; thus, it has been found that lime stabilization is more effective for montmorillonitic soils

than for kaolinitic soils (Lees et al., 1982). Due to limited silica in clay soil, there is always free

calcium form lime that is not utilized. Therefore the use of bagasse ash wastes which is rich in

8
silica enhances the pozzolanic reactions.

2.2.1.2 Cation Exchange

Negatively charged clay particles adsorb cations of specific type and amount. The replacement or

exchange of cations depends on several factors, primarily the valence of the cation. Higher

valance cations such as the calcium ion (Ca++) easily replace cations of lower valance such as

sodium ions (Na+). For ions of the same valance, size of the hydrated ion becomes important; the

larger the ion, the greater the replacement power. If other conditions are equal, trivalent cations

are held more tightly than divalent and divalent cations are held more tightly than monovalent

cations (Mitchell and Soga, (2005).

Below is an example of the cation exchange equation

Ca2+ + Na+ - Clay → Ca2+ Clay + (Na+)

The thickness of the diffused double layer decreases as replacing the divalent ions(Ca2+) from

stabilizers with monovalent ions (Na+) of clay. Thus, swelling potential decreases (Baser, 2009).

2.2.1.3 Flocculation and Agglomeration

Cation exchange reaction result in the flocculation and agglomeration of the soil particles with

consequent reduction in the amount of clay-size materials and hence the soil surface area, which

inevitably accounts for the reduction in plasticity. Flocculation and agglomeration change the

clay texture from that of a plastic, fine grained material to that of a granular soil (Yazici, 2004).

2.2.1.4 Pozzolanic Reactions

Calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH) are the two outputs in

pozzolanic reactions.

Ca2+ + 2(OH)- + SiO2 (Clay Silica) → CSH (2.2)

Ca2+ + 2(OH)- + Al2O3 (Clay Alumina) → CAH (2.3)

9
Pozzolans are a broad class of siliceous or siliceous and aluminous materials which, in

themselves, possess little or no cementitious value but which in finely divided form and in the

presence of water, react chemically with calcium hydroxide at ordinary temperature to form

compounds possessing cementitious properties. The quantification of the capacity of a Pozzolans

to react with calcium hydroxide and water is given by measuring its pozzolanic activity.

2.3 Industrial and Agricultural Waste as a Soil Stabilizing Material

The recent research in the field of geotechnical engineering and construction materials focuses

on agricultural and industrial wastes being locally available and has disposal problem. The use of

different industrial and agricultural wastes has become a common practice in the construction

industry. Fly ash, sugarcane bagasse ash, coconut husk ash and rice husk can be sited as an

example. Those by-products are increasingly playing a part in road construction and concrete

technology, hence minimizing the problem of resource depletion, environmental degradation and

energy consumption. This research focuses on the potential utilization of bagasse ash in soil

stabilization, specifically expansive clay. In recent years there has been focus on agricultural and

industrial by-product for soil stabilization because of pozzolanic activity of ash materials,

including the ash derived from combustion of sugarcane solid wastes Villar-Cocina, and

Valencia, (2008).

Yadu et al., (2011) presented the laboratory study of black cotton soil stabilized with fly ash

(FA) and rice husk ash (RHA). The soil was stabilized with different percentages of FA (i.e., 5,

8, 10, 12, and 15%) and RHA (i.e., 3, 6, 9 11, 13, and 15%). The Atterberg limits, specific

gravity, California bearing ratio (CBR), and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests were

10
performed on raw and stabilized soils. Results indicated that addition of FA and RHA reduces

the plasticity index (PI) and specific gravity of the soil.

Dayakar et al., (2003) conducted laboratory investigation for stabilization of expansive soil using

silica fume and tannery sludge with percentage of solid wastes varying from 0, 10, 20,30, 40, 50,

60- 70%. The addition of wastes did not improve the index properties and maximum dry density

but there was gain in strength of the expansive soil with both tannery sludge and silica fume up

to 15%.

Okagbue (2007) evaluated the potential of wood ash to stabilize clayey soil. Results showed that

the geotechnical parameters of clay soil are improved substantially by the addition of wood ash.

Plasticity was reduced by 35%, CBR, UCS increased by 23–50% and 49–67%, respectively,

depending on the compactive energy used. The highest CBR and strength values were achieved

at10% wood ash.

Ramírez et al., (2012) noted that Bagasse ash exhibits satisfactory behavior in blended

cementitious materials in concrete and has greater potential for use in other applications. The

addition of 10% Bagasse ash increased the compressive strength of cement paste at all ages of

hydration. The chemical deterioration of blended cement is also reduced due to the pozzolanic

nature of Bagasse ash and the reduced permeability of Bagasse ash-containing mixtures.

Replacement of fine aggregate with up to 20% by Bagasse ash resulted in equivalent or higher

compressive strength and reduced water permeability and chloride diffusion (Chusilp et

al.,(2009).

11
Cordeiro et al., (2008) reported that the physico-chemical properties of Bagasse ash are

appropriate for use as a mineral admixture and that reactivity is mainly dependent on particle

size and fineness, concluding that it is possible to produce high-strength concrete by using finely

ground Bagasse ash. The study to analyze the use of lime and sugar cane bagasse ash (SCBA) as

chemical stabilizers in compacted soil blocks was done. The blocks were tested for flexure and

compression in a dry and a saturated state. The tests were performed at 7, 14 and 28days of age

in order to evaluate the effects of the addition of lime and SCBA on the mechanical properties of

the compacted soil blocks. The results indicate that blocks manufactured with 10% of lime in

combination with 10% of SCBA showed better performance than those containing only lime.

Nevertheless, the addition of lime improved the strength of the blocks when compared with

blocks fabricated with plain soil. According to SEM and DRX analyses, considerable

improvement of the matrix was observed due to the formation of strong phases, such as CSH and

CAH for the mixtures with additives. It was also concluded that the combination of SCBA and

lime as a replacement for cement in the stabilization of compacted soil blocks seems to be a

promising alternative when considering issues of energy consumption and pollution.

Kiran and, Kiran (2013) carried out for different percentages (4%, 8% and 12%) of bagasse ash

and additive mix proportions. The strength parameters like CBR, UCS were determined. It was

observed that blend results of bagasse ash with different percentage of cement for black cotton

soil gave change in density, CBR and UCS values. The density values got increased from 15.16

KN/m3 to 16.5 KN/m3 for addition of 8% bagasse ash with 8% cement, Then CBR values got

increased from 2.12 to 5.43 for addition of 4% bagasse ash with 8% cement and UCS values got

increased to 174.91 KN/m2 from 84.92 KN/m2 for addition of 8% bagasse ash with 8% cement.

12
Chittaranjan, and Keerthi, (2011) studied the ‘Agricultural wastes as soil stabilizers’. In this

study Agricultural wastes such as sugar cane bagasse ash, rice husk ash and groundnut shell ash

are used to stabilize the weak sub grade soil. The weak sub grade soil is treated with the above

three wastes separately at 0%, 3%, 6%, 9%,12%and 15% and CBR test is carried out for each per

cent .The results of these tests showed improvement in CBR value with the increase in

percentage of waste.

Kharade et al., (2014) stated that bagasse ash can be used as stabilizing material for expansive

soils. Various experiments were conducted on black cotton soil with partial replacement by

Bagasse Ash at 3%, 6%, 9% and 12% respectively. It was seen that due to addition of bagasse

ash, CBR and Compressive strength increases almost by 40%, but density showed only

significant change. The blend suggested 6% bagasse ash, without any addition of cementing or

chemical material would be an economic approach. Furthermore if any cementing material is

added in suggested blend, then there will be definitely more improvement in properties of

expansive soils.

Osinubi (2006) studied the effect of compactive effort and elapse time on the strength of lime-

bagasse ash stabilized expansive clay from Gombe, Nigeria. The experimental study involved

unconfined compressive strength. The following conclusions are drawn from the study: The

results obtained indicate that UCS values increase with lime and bagasse ash treatment.

Salim (2014) conducted a study in Kenya to investigate the effect of adding 3%, 5%, 8% and

10% Sugarcane bagasse ash on the compressive strength of compressed earth brick. They

observed that improvement in its compressive strength by 65% with the addition of 10%

13
Sugarcane Bagasse Ash. This showed that the compressive strength of the Sugarcane Bagasse

Ash stabilized Compressed Earth Brick increased with an increase sugarcane bagasse ash. The

results could be attributed to the progressive densification of the soil/Sugarcane Bagasse Ash

matrix as a result of hydration and pozzolanic reactions (Alavez-Ramirez et al., 2012).

2.4 The Research Gap

The bagasse has been used in various ways like replacing cement and lime in soil block making,

lateritic soil stabilization, etc. but nothing has been done to check the feasibility of the bagasse

ash produced in Kenya to blending lime in expansive clay stabilization. In addition, sugar cane

bagasse ash has an effect on the strength of compressed earth brick (Salim et al., 2014). Cordeiro

et al., (2008) reported that the physico-chemical properties of bagasse ash are appropriate for use

as a mineral admixture and that reactivity is mainly dependent on particle size and fineness,

concluding that it is possible to produce high-strength concrete by using finely ground bagasse

ash. In Kenya, the application of sugarcane bagasse ash to stabilize expansive clay is yet to be

explored. The aim of this research was to study the effect of Sugarcane Bagasse Ash stabilization

expansive clay for road sub-base as a replacement to lime in Kenya.

14
 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the materials and methodology to be use in this research work.

3.2 Materials

3.2.1 Bagasse Ash

Bagasse is the fibrous residue obtained from sugarcane after the extraction of juice at sugar mill

factories and is burnt as a means of solid waste disposal. However, as the cost of fuel oil, natural

gas and electricity has increased, bagasse has become a major source of fuel rather than refuse in

the sugar mills. The fibrous residue used for this purpose leaves behind about 8-10% of bagasse

ash, Hailu, (2011). Since there is no Sugar producing factotry in Benue State, the Sugarcane

Bagasse ash to be use in this research work will be obtained from randomly collected Sugarcane

Bagasse in some parts of Makurdi Town. This Sugarcane Bagasse will be properly burnt into ash

and the bagasse ash obtained will be sieved through 75µmm sieve to obtain the fine powdery

ash. The ash will then be put into polythene bags in order to keep it air-tight and to maintain its

moisture. This ash will then be stored until when it will be required for tests and subsequent use.

3.2.2 Water

Water conforming to the requirements of water for concreting and curing as per IS; 456-2009

was used throughout in this research work.

3.2.3. Shale Soil

The soil used for this study was obtained from a borrow pit at a depth of 1.5 metres of shale

outcrop located in College of Engineering, University of Agriculture Makurdi. Makurdi town is

15
located on 7o43’50’’N and 8o32’10’’E, on the geographical map of Nigeria

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makurdi, 2012).

3.3 Methodology

Basic laboratory tests (Moisture Content, Specific Gravity, Attenberg limits, Grading test,

compaction test and California bearing ratio) were carried out on shale soil sample, and on

combination of soil and bagasse ash to determine the engineering properties of the soil sample.

Then the stabilization of shale soil with bagasse ash was carried out by blending the soil with

different percentages of sugarcane bagasse ash (0 %, 2 %, 4 %, 6 %, 8 % and 10 %) and then the

optimum percentage of Sugarcane Bagasse Ash were determined.

3.3.1 Determination of the Physical Properties

The research investigated the physical properties of clay which included the following; moisture

content, compaction test, atterbeg test, specific gravity.

3.3.1.1 Moisture Content

The test was conducted in accordance with AASHTO T265. Small representative sample of the

natural soil and soil-bagasse ash mixture specimen was obtained and oven-dried at 105 ± 5°C for

at least 12 hours. The samples was then reweighed, and the difference in weight was the weight

of the water driven off during drying. The difference in weight was divided by the weight of the

dry soil, giving the water content of the soil a dry weight basis.

3.3.1.2 Specific Gravity Test

Specific gravity which is the measure of heaviness of the soil particles was determined by using

the density bottle method. Empty flask (density bottle) was weighed as M1, about 5 g of the soil

plus different percentage of bagasseh ash passing through 20 mm BS test sieve was transferred to

the density bottle and weighed as M2, Sufficient water was added to the soil in the bottle and

16
shaken vigorously to expel air, the bottle was filled with more water and the stopper was

replaced. The bottle was wiped dry and the whole content was weighed as M3. The bottle was

emptied of its content and completely filled with water; the stopper was replaced and the whole

content was weighed as M4. The procedure was repeated for different admixtures, the specific

gravity was calculated using equation below.

M2−M1
𝐺𝑠 = (M 3.2
4 −M1 )−(M3 −M2 )

where,

Gs = specific gravity

M1 = weight of empty flask, (ɡ)

M2 = weight of empty flask + weight of the soil mixed with bagasseh ash, (ɡ)

M3= weight of empty flask + weight of the soil mixed with bagasseh ash + distilled water, (ɡ)

M4 = weight of empty flask + distilled water, (ɡ)

3.3.1.3 Atterberg Limits

The test included the determination of the liquid limits, plastic limits and the plasticity index for

the natural soil and the soil-bagasse ash mixtures. The tests are conducted for uncured and 7 days

cured stabilized soil samples in accordance with AASHTO T89-90 and T90-96 testing

procedures.

3.3.1.3.1 Liquid Limit

The soil sample for liquid limit is air dried and 200g of the material passing through No. 40sieve

(425μm aperture) was obtained and thoroughly mixed with water to form a homogeneous paste

on a flat glass plate. A portion of the soil water mixture is then placed in the cup of the

Casagrande apparatus, leveled off parallel to the base and divided by drawing the grooving tool

along the diameter through the centre of the hinge. The cup is then lifted up and dropped by

17
turning the crank until the two parts of the soil come into contact at the bottom of the groove.

The number of blows at which that occurred was recorded, a little quantity of the soil was taken

and its moisture content determined. The test is performed for well–spaced out moisture content

from the drier to the wetter states. The values of the moisture content (determined) and the

corresponding number of blows is then plotted on a semi–logarithmic graph and the liquid limit

is determined as the moisture content corresponding to 25 blows. The same procedure is also

carried out for the treated soil with increment of bagasse ash content.

3.3.1.3.2 Plastic Limit

A portion of the natural soil and the soil–bagasse ash mixture used for the liquid limit test is

retained for the determination of plastic limit. The ball of the natural soil and the soil– bagasse

ash mixture is moulded between the fingers and rolled between the palms of the hand until it

dried sufficiently, even though the soil is already relatively drier than the ones used for liquid

limit. The sample is then divided into approximately two equal parts. Each of the parts is rolled

into a thread between the first finger and the thumb. The thread is then rolled between the tip of

the fingers of one hand and the glass. This continued until the diameter of the thread is reduced

to about 3mm. The movement continued until the thread shears both longitudinally and

transversely. The crumbled natural soil and soil–bagasse ash mixture is then put in the moisture

container and the moisture content determined. The same procedure is also carried out for the

treated soil with increment of bagasse ash content.

3.3.1.3.3 Plasticity Index

The plasticity index of the samples is the difference between the liquid limits and their

corresponding plastic limits.

PI = LL-PL (3.1)

18
Where PI – Plasticity index

LL – Liquid Limit

PL – Plastic Limit

3.3.2 Determining the Mechanical Properties

The tests included the determination of the grading test, maximum dry density, optimum

moisture content and CBR for the natural soil and the soil stabilized by bagasse ash. The tests

will be conducted in accordance with AASHTO T99-94 testing procedures.

3.3.2.1 Grading Test

Determination of the particle size distribution for the natural soil will be conducted in accordance

with BS 1377 testing procedures. Approximately, 50gm of dry soil passing No. 200 sieve was

treated with a dispersing agent for 18 hours. First a sample was washed through a series of sieves

with progressively smaller screen sizes to determine the percentage of sand-sized particles in the

specimens. Then a hydrometer analysis test was performed to measure the amount of silt and

clay size particles.

3.3.2.2 Maximum Dry Density

The maximum dry density was conducted for both the natural and soil-bagasse ash mixture of

about 2.5kg, by varying the moisture content. The sample was then be compacted into three

layers of approximately equal mass with each layer receiving 25 blows. The blows were

uniformly distributed over the surface of each layer. The collar was removed and the compacted

sample leveled off at the top of the mould with a straight edge. The mould containing the leveled

sample was weighed to the nearest 1g. One small representative sample was taken from the

compacted soil for the determination of moisture content. The same procedure was repeated until

minimum of five sets of samples are taken for moisture content determination. The values of the

19
dry densities will be plotted against their respective moisture contents and MDD was deduced as

the maximum point on the resulting curves.

3.3.2.3 Optimum Moisture Content

The corresponding value of moisture contents at maximum dry densities, which was deduced

from the graph of dry density against moisture content, gave the optimum moisture content of the

soil.

3.3.2.4 California Bearing Ratio

The CBR test was conducted in accordance with AASHTO T193-93 for the natural soils and

soil- bagasse ash mixture The CBR was expressed by the force exerted by the plunger and the

depth of its penetration into the specimen; it is aimed at determining the relationship between

force and penetration. 5.0kg of the natural soil and the soil-bagasse ash mixture was mixed at

their respective optimum moisture contents in 2124 cubic centimeters mould. The samples was

compacted in three layers with 62 blows from the 4.5 kg rammer. The CBR test indirectly

measures the shearing resistance of a soil under controlled moisture and density conditions. The

CBR was obtained as the ratio of load required to affect a certain depth of penetration of a

standard penetration piston into a compacted specimen of the soil at some water content and

density to the standard load required to obtain the same depth of penetration on a standard

sample of crushed stone. In equation form, this is:

CBR= (test load on the sample/ standard load on the crushed stone)*100 %

3.4 Determining the Optimum ratio of Sugarcane Bagasse Ash as Partial Replacement in

Stabilization of Expensive Soil

The study was carried out by mixing shale soil sample with (2-10) % of varying quantities of

bagasse ash and water.

20
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results of laboratory tests and a discussion pertinent to the results. The

relevant engineering property of the soil is evaluated both for natural and stabilized soil samples

separately. The tests include Sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, compaction specific gravity and

California bearing ratio (CBR).

4.2 Properties of Material Used in the Study

4.2.1 Natural Soil

The results of the tests conducted for identification and/or determination of properties of the

natural soil before applying bagasse ash are presented in Table 4.1. The soil is grayish black in

color. As shown in Figure 4.1 on the particle size distribution curve almost 98.8% of the soil is

passing through No. 200 sieve; it exhibits a liquid limit of 47.20 %, a plastic limit of 31.0 % and

plasticity index of 16.20 %. Liquid limit less than 35% indicates low plasticity, between 35% and

50% intermediate plasticity, between 50% and 70% high plasticity and between 70% and 90%

very high plasticity (Whitlow, R., 1995). Hence, these values indicate that the soil is low plastic.

120
Percentage passing (%)

100

80

60

40

20

0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Sieve size (mm)

Fig 4.1: Particle Size Distribution Graph

21
Table 4.1: Geotechnical Properties of the Natural Soil.

Parameters Quantity
Natural Moisture content 10.30
Liquid limit 47.20
Plastic limit 31.00
Plasticity index 16.20
Linear shrinkage 12.10
Specific gravity 2.43
AASHTO Class A-7-6
USCS CH
MDD 1.61
OMC 17.53
CBR 7.29

Accordingly the soil falls under the A-7-6 and CH soil class based on AASHTO and USCS soil

classification system respectively. Soils under this class are generally classified as a material of

poor engineering property to be used as a sub-grade material. The soil has a maximum dry

density of 1.61 g/cm3, optimum moisture content of 17.53 % and CBR value of 7.29 %. The

general relationship between CBR values and the quality of the subgrade soils used in pavement

applications is as follows:

Table 4.2: Showing CBR values and the quality of the subgrade

CBR-values (%) Quality of subgrade

0-3 very poor subgrade

3-7 poor to fair subgrade
7-20 fair subgrade
20-50 good subgrade
> 50 excellent subgrade

22
Source: (Bowles, J., 1992).

Hence, the soil was found to be low plastic expansive shale with low bearing capacity and its fell

below the standard recommendations for most geotechnical construction works especially

highway construction. Therefore, the soil requires initial modification and/or stabilization to

improve its workability and engineering properties.

4.2.2 Atterberg Limit Test

Table 4.3: Summary of Atterberg Limit Results

Percentage Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Shrinkage Limit

Bagasse (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 47.20 31.00 16.20 12.10
2 45.06 31.57 13.49 10.70
4 44.96 33.02 11.94 10.28
6 45.32 34.28 11.04 9.71
8 45.95 35.59 10.26 9.12
10 45.54 36.43 9.11 8.81

The natural soil shows a low liquid limit (i.e. 35.50 % < 50.00 %). The liquid limit was observed

to range from 44.96 % to 47.20 % Bagasseh Ash, Whereas Plastic Limit (PL) was seen to

increase from 31.00 % at 0 % Bagasseh Ash to a maximum value of 36.43 % at 10 % Bagasseh

Ash. Plasticity index decreases with increase in Bagasseh Ash. The Plasticity Index (PI)

experienced a reduction from 16.20 % at 0 % Bagasseh Ash to a minimum value of 9.11 % at 10

% Bagasseh Ash. According to ASHTO and Unified soil classification system (USCS)

classification, the soil is classified as A-7-6 and CH soil respectively. Plasticity index is a

parameter which can be used as a preliminary indicator of the swelling characteristics of a soil.

The following values were proposed by Chen, (1988) to relate soil expansivity and plasticity

index.

23
Table 4.4: Soil Classification Based on Plasticity Index
Soil Expansivity Plastic index

Low ˂15
Medium 15-30
High 20-50
Very high ˃50
Source: Chen, 1988

Relating the plasticity index of the study soil with the above given range reveals that the soil falls

in the range of medium swell potential. It was observed that the linear shrinkage decreases from

12.10 % at 0 % to a minimum value of 8.81 % at 10 % Bagasseh Ash. The increase in Bagasseh

Ash content experience a considerable decrease in volume change which shows a sign of

improvement in the soil.

4.2.3 Compaction Test

Table 4.5 Showing Compaction Test Result
Percentage Bagasseh Ash Optimum Moisture Content Maximum Dry Density
(%) (g/cm3)
0 17.53 1.61
2 17.68 1.57
4 17.71 1.49
6 17.76 1.45
8 17.84 1.43
10 17.90 1.40

From the test results, the maximum dry density (MDD) of the sample ranges from 1.61 to 1.40

g/cm3 and the optimum moisture content ranges 17.53 to 17.90 percent. The decrease in the

maximum dry density is mainly due to;

i. the partial replacement of comparatively heavy soils with the light weight bagasse ash;

24
 ii. comparatively low specific gravity value (1.95) of bagasse ash than that of replaced soil

(2.43);

iii. it may also be attributed to coating of the soil by the bagasse ash which result to large

particles with larger voids and hence less density

The increase in the optimum moisture content was mainly due to;

i. The optimum moisture content of soil increase with the increase in bagasse ash, bagasse

ash is finer than the soil. The more fines the more surface area, so more water is required

to provide well lubrication.

ii. The bagasse ash forms coarser materials, which occupy larger spaces for retaining water.

iii. The increase of water content may also be attributed by the pozzolanic reaction of

bagasse ash with the soil.

iv. The increase in OMC due to addition of bagasse ash caused by the absorption of water by

bagasse ash. This implies that more water is needed in order to compact the soil with

bagasse ash mixture. So bagasse ash effectively dries wet soils and provides an initial

rapid strength gain, which is useful during construction in wet, unstable ground

conditions. In general it can be utilized in improving the workability of wet soils.

4.2.4 Specific Gravity Test

The effect of bagasse ash on the specific gravity of the expansive soil is shown in Figure 5

Specific gravity decreased from 2.43 to 2.22 with increased bagasse ash content from 0% to

10%. As it is shown in the figure, the reduction in specific gravity is directly proportional to the

quantity of bagasse ash. This decrease in specific gravity of the soil bagasse ash mix is due to

the lower value of specific gravity of bagasse ash.

25
Table 4.6 Specific Gravity Test

Percentage Bagasseh Ash Specific Gravity

0 2.43
2 2.40
4 2.37
6 2.34
8 2.25
10 2.22

4.2.5 California Bearing Ratio

The CBR of the shale soil increase with increase in bagasse ash contents but the increment is

insignificant. The optimum CBR value of soil treated with bagasse ash is almost 1.79 % higher

than the untreated soil sample of shale.

Table 4.7: California Bearing Ratio Result

Percentage Bagasseh Ash CBR Value (%)

0 7.29
2 9.08
4 13.47
6 15.40
8 16.37
10 18.38

According to Bowles, (1992), specified the general relationship between CBR values and the

quality of the subgrade soils used in pavement applications which were shown in table 4.2.

Relating the CBR of the study soil with the above given range reveals that the soil falls in the

range of fair subgrade which shows that the baggasseh can be combined with other additive in

other to stabilized the soil.

26
 CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion

The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of the study/investigation carried

out within the scope of the study.

i. The plasticity index slightly reduced with increased in bagasse ash content and curing

has also an insignificant effect on the plasticity of the shale soil. However, the

addition of bagasse ash alone has a minor effect on the plasticity index of shale soil.

ii. The optimum moisture content increased while the maximum dry density values

decreased with increment of bagasse ash content.

iii. CBR values slightly increased with the addition of bagasse ash. The increment for

bagasse ash was insignificant compare with the set standard by Road design manual part

III. Bagasse ash alone cannot be used for stabilization of shale. Addition of bagasse ash

alone does not improve the strength of soils due to presence of only reactive silica

with low amount of calcium content in bagasse ash.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this research, the following recommendations were forwarded:

i. Sugarcane bagasse ash as investigated in this research work can only be used as a soil

stabilizing agent when combined other stabilizing agents. Therefore sugar industries

should impress the new finding regarding the usage of bagasse ash to solve their disposal

problem.

27
ii. The sugar factories in collaboration with higher education organizations in the country

should work together and establish a research team to further study the use of bagasse ash

as a soil stabilizing material on different types of soils.

iii. Further study should be done using finely grinded unburnt bagasse and compare with the

existing results.

iv. The study of bagasse ash as agricultural fertilizer should be investigated.

28
 REFERENCE

Abeyesekera, R.A.; Lovell, C.W., and Wood, L.E. (1978): Stress-deformation and strength
characteristics of a compacted shale. Proc. AU J.T. 16(3): 174-180 (Jan. 2013) Technical
Report 179 Clay Fills Conference, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, England, UK,
14-15 November 1978, pp. 1-14.

Agbede, I.O. and Smart, P. 2007. Geotechnical properties of Makurdi shale and effects on
foundations. Nigerian Journal of Technology 26(2): 63-73.

Alavéz-Ramírez, R., Montes-García, P., Martínez-Reyes, J., Altamirano-Juárez, D. C., & Gochi-

Ponce, Y. (2012). The use of sugarcane bagasse ash and lime to improve the durability

and mechanical properties of compacted soil blocks. Construction and Building Materials,

34, 296-305.

Amin, N., (2011). Use of bagasse ash in concrete and its impact on the strength and chloride

resistivity. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering (ASCE) 23 (5), 717-720.

ASTM C618 – 03, “Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolanas for Use

as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete,” Philadelphia, American Society for

Testing and Materials, 4(2)

Austin, J. R., & Bartunek, J. M. (2003). Theories and practices of organizational development.

Handbook of psychology.

Başer, O. (2009). Stabilization of Expansive Soils Using Waste Marble Dust, Published M.S.c

Thesis, Turkey: METU.

Bilba, K., Arsene, M.A & Ouensanga, O. (2003). Sugar cane bagasse fibre reinforced cement

composites part I, Influence of the botanical components of bagasse on the setting of

bagasse /cement composite, Cement and Concrete Composites. 25(1), 91-96.

29
Boardman, D.L., Glendinning, S., & Rogers, CD.F. (2001). Development of stabilization and

solification in lime-clay mixes. Geotechnique, 50(60), 533-543.

BS 1377 (1990). Methods of Tests for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, BSI Publications

Chittaranjan, M. V. & Keerthi, D. (2011). Agricultural wastes as soil stabilizers International

Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, 4(6), 50-51.

Chusilp, N., Likhitsripaiboon, N., & Jaturapitakkul, C. (2009). Development of bagasse ash as a

pozzolanic material in concrete. Asian Journal on Energy and Environment, 10(3).

Clark, H. & Taplin, D. (2012). Theory of Change Basics: A Primer on Theory of Change. New

York: Actknowledge.

Cordeiro, G.C, Toledo, F, R.D, Tavares, L. & Fairbairn, L (2008). E.m.r Pozzolanic activity and

filler effect of sugarcane bagasse ash in Portland cement and lime mortars. Cement and

Concrete composites, 30. 410-418.

Dayakar, B. Sree, R.R., Prasad, A.S.& Madhurimanmadha, B. (2003). Use of cement – stabilized

fly ash cushion in minimizing swell of expansive clays Iac-, Roorkee.

De Graft-Johnson, J.W.S.; Bhatia, H.S.; and Yeboa, S.L. 1973. Geotechnical properties of Accra
shales. Proc. 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Moscow, USSR, 6-11 August 1973, Vol. 2, pp. 97-104.

El-Sohby, M.A.; Shook M.A.; and Elleboudy, A.M. 1987. Swelling and shear strength
characteristics of Mokattan shale. Proc. 9th Regional Conference for Africa on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Lagos, Nigeria, 15-18 September 1987, Vol. 1,
pp. 143-6. A. A.

Geiman, C. M. (2005). Stabilization of soft clay subgrades in Virginia phase I laboratory study

(Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University).

30
Guilherme, C.C., Romildo D.T.F., Eduardo, M.R.F, Luis, M.M.T. & Cristiano, H.O. (2004).

Influence of mechanical grinding on the pozzolanic activity of residual sugar cane bagasse

ash, Engng. Agric. 24(3), 484 – 492.

Guyer, J. P. (2011). Introduction to soil stabilization in pavements. Continuing Education

Development engineering, New York.

Hailu, B. (2011). Bagasse ash as a cement replacing material (Doctoral dissertation, aau).

Iorliam A.Y.; Agbede I.O. and Joel, M. 2012b. Effect of bamboo leaf ash on cement stabilization
of Makurdi shale for use as flexible pavement construction material. American Journal of
Scientific and Industrial Research 3(3): 166-74.

Kharade, A.S., Suryavanshi, V.V., Gujar, B. S. &; Deshmukh, R.R. (2014). Waste product

bagasse ash from sugar industry can be used as stabilizing material for expansive soils.

IJRET, 3(3), 2321-7308

Kiran, R.G. & Kiran, L. (2013). Analysis of strength characteristics of Black cotton soil using

Bagasse ash and additives as stabilizer, IJERT, issue 7. Laboratory Study, Unpublished

MSc. Thesis, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Laurianne, S. A. (2004). Farmers Lungs. Retrieved from www.emedicine.com/med/topic

771.htm/ 15.11.2005.

Lees, G., Abdelkader, M.O., & Hamdani, S.K. (1982). Sodium Chloride as an Additive in Lime-

Soil Stabilisation. Highway Engineer, 29(12), 2-8.

Little, D.N. (1995). Handbook for Stabilization of Pavement Subgrades and Base Courses with

Lime, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

Makusa, G.P. (2012). Soil Stabilization Methods and Materials in Engineering, New York:

Practice Hall.

31
Mishra, A.K., Dhawan, S, & Rao, M. (2008). Analysis of swelling and shrinkage behavior of

compacted clays. Geotech Geol Eng 26, 289–298.

Mitchell. J. K. and Soga. K. (2005). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 3rd Edition, John New

York: Wiley and Sons Inc.,

Muntohar, S., & Hantoro, G., (2000).Influence of Rice Husk Ash and Lime on Engineering

Properties of a Clayey Sub-grade, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 5.

Nigussie, E. (2011). Evaluation of sodium silicate and its combination with cement/lime for soil

stabilization.

Okagbue, C. (2007). Stabilization of clay using woodash J. Mater. Civ Eng. 19, SPECIAL

ISSUE Geochemical Aspects of stabilized materials. 14-18.

Osawa, B. (2004). Cogeneration in Kenya: Opportunities and implications?. Refocus, 5(5), 34-

37.

Osinubi, K. J. & Medubi, A. B. (1997). “Effect of lime and phosphatic waste admixture on

tropical black clay.” Proceedings, 4th Regional Conference on Geochemical Engineering,

GEOTROPIKA ’97, Johor Bahru, 11-12 Nov., Malaysia, 257– 272.

Osinubi, K. J. (2000). “Stabilization of tropical black clay with cement and pulverised coal

bottom ash admixture.” In: Advances in Unsaturated Geotechnics. Edited by Charles, D.

Shackelford, Sandra L. Houston and Nien-Yin Cheng. ASCE Geotechnical Special

Publication 99,289-302.

Osinubi, K.J. (2006). Influence of compactive efforts on lime - slag treated tropical black clay.

Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 18(2), 145-175.

Rainey, T.J. (2009). A study of the permeability and compressibility properties of bagasse pulp.

Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.

32
Ramesh, T., Chinnusamy, C. & Jayanthi, C. (2003). Green manuring in sugarcane - a review.

Agric. Rev. 24(2), 130-135.

Salahudeen, A. B., & Akiije, I. (2014). Stabilization of highway expansive soils with high loss

on ignition content kiln dust. NIJOTECH, 33 (2), 141-148.

Salim, R., Ndambuki, J., & Adedokun, D. (2014). Improving the Bearing Strength of Sandy

Loam Soil Compressed Earth Block Bricks Using Sugercane Bagasse Ash. Sustainability,

6(6), 3686-3696.

Stachowiak, S. (2010). Pathways for Change: 6 Theories about How Policy Change Happens.

Seattle: Organisational Research Services.

Taplin, D. Clark, H. Collins, E. & Colby, D. (2013). Sugar cane wastes as pozzolanic materials:

application of mathematical model. ACI Materials Journal, 105(3), 258-264.

Taplin, D. Clark, H. Collins, E. & Colby, D. (2013). Technical Papers: A Series of Papers to

support Development of Theories of Change Based on Practice in the Field . New York:

Acknowledge and The Rockefeller Foundation.

Villar-Cocina, E., Frías, M., & Valencia-Morales, E. (2008). Sugar cane wastes as pozzolanic

materials: applications of mathematical model. American Concrete Institute.

Walford, S.N. (2008). Sugarcane bagasse: how easy is it to measure its constituents? Proceedings

of the South African Sugar. Technologists Association, 81, 266-73.

West, T.R. (1995). Geology Applied to Engineering, New York: Prentice Hall.

Williams, A.A.B. 1980. Contribution from South Africa on building on expansive soil. General
Report. Gidigasu, M.D.; Hammond, A.A.; and Gogo, J.O. (eds.). Proc. 7th Regional
Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (SMFE), Accra,
Ghana, 1-7 June 1980, Vol. 2, pp. 695-703. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

33
Yadu, L., Tripathi, R. K. & Singh, D., (2011). Comparison of Fly Ash and Rice Husk Ash

Stabilized Black Cotton Soil, International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering,

4(6), 42-45.

Yazıcı, V. (2004). Stabilization of Expansive Clays Using Granulated Blast Furnace Slag

(GBFS), GBFS-Lime Combinations and GBFS Cement, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis,

Turkey: METU.

34
 APPENDIX
LABORATORY TEST
Appendix A.1: Hydrometer Test
Table

Sieve Weight retained Percentage weight Percentage passing

(mm) (g) retained (%) (%)
14.0 0 0.00 100
10.0 0.91 0.091 99.91
6.3 12.5 1.25 98.66
5.0 6.8 0.68 97.98
3.35 10.2 1.02 96.96
2.36 8.5 0.85 96.11
1.70 18.2 1.32 94.79
1.18 14.1 1.41 93.38
850 µm 20.8 2.08 91.3
600 µm 32.3 3.23 88.07
425 µm 61.6 6.16 81.91
300 µm 82.3 8.23 73.68
150 µm 110.5 11.05 62.63
75 µm 18.8 1.88 60.75

Table 4.2 Hydrometer test

Temperature Elapsed Actual Corrected Percentage Effective L/t K Particle
time hydrometer hydrometer finer (%) hydrometer diameter
(˚C)
(min) reading reading depth (L)
(D)

30 2 23 25 50 12.57 6.25 0.013 0.032

30 5 21 23 46 12.9 2.58 0.013 0.021
30 8 19 21 42 13.2 1.65 0.013 0.017
30 15 17 19 38 13.5 0.9 0.013 0.012
30 30 15 17 34 13.8 0.46 0.013 0.009
30 60 13 15 30 14.2 0.24 0.013 0.006
30 120 11 13 26 14.5 0.12 0.013 0.004
30 1440 9 11 22 14.8 0.01 0.013 0.001

35
Appendix A.2: Atterberg Limit tests
Table 4.9: Liquid Limit and Plastic Determination at 0 % Bagasse ash

LIQUID PLASTIC
LIMIT LIMIT
No of Blows 13 25 34 43
Sample 1 2 3 4 1 2
Can number 137 65 71 18 26 12
Can weight (g) 16.60 16.70 16.10 16.60 14.80 13.90
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 46.42 39.33 31.54 34.82 15.74 14.84
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 35.70 32.20 27.20 31.00 15.51 14.62
Mass of water (g) 10.72 7.13 4.34 3.82 0.23 0.22
Mass of solid (g) 19.10 15.10 11.10 14.40 0.71 0.72
Moisture content (%) 56.10 47.20 39.10 27.00 31.90 30.10
Average (%) 31.00

60

50
Moisture ontent (%)

40

30
LL = 47.2 %
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of blows

36
Table 4.10: Liquid Limit and Plastic Determination at 2 % Bagasse ash

LIQUID PLASTIC
LIMIT LIMIT
No of Blows 12 24 32 45
Sample 1 2 3 4 1 2
Can number 21 4 10 16 N6 A
Can weight (g) 13.10 15.00 11.50 12.50 11.50 13.10
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 27.68 47.20 50.94 43.48 12.82 14.80
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 22.70 37.20 40.50 36.50 12.50 14.40
Mass of water (g) 4.98 10.00 10.44 6.98 0.32 0.40
Mass of solid (g) 9.60 22.20 29.00 24.00 1.00 1.30
Moisture content (%) 51.90 45.06 36.00 29.10 32.44 30.70
Average (%) 31.57

60

50
Moisture ontent (%)

40

30
LL = 45.06 %
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of blows

37
Table 4.11: Liquid Limit and Plastic Determination at 4 % Bagasse ash

LIQUID PLASTIC
LIMIT LIMIT
No of Blows 12 26 35 43
Sample 1 2 3 4 1 2
Can number P22 D P18 16 P21 14
Can weight (g) 14.40 19.90 15.00 14.70 12.90 11.40
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 39.85 50.72 52.98 51.13 14.65 13.24
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 31.40 41.30 42.70 42.30 14.20 12.80
Mass of water (g) 8.45 9.42 10.28 8.83 0.45 0.44
Mass of solid (g) 17.00 21.40 27.70 27.60 1.30 1.40
Moisture content (%) 49.70 44.00 37.10 32.00 34.44 31.60
Average (%) 33.02

60

50
Moisture ontent (%)

40

30
LL = 44.96 %
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of blows

38
Table 4.12: Liquid Limit and Plastic Determination at 6 % Bagasse ash

LIQUID PLASTIC
LIMIT LIMIT
No of Blows 11 22 37 48
Sample 1 2 3 4 1 2
Can number N2 P11 N4 16.1 2 4
Can weight (g) 13.40 14.90 15.60 12.90 14.00 13.70
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 48.68 32.18 27.11 22.77 16.57 15.10
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 36.40 27.20 24.00 20.70 15.90 14.50
Mass of water (g) 12.28 4.98 3.11 2.07 0.67 0.60
Mass of solid (g) 23.00 12.30 9.00 7.80 1.90 1.80
Moisture content (%) 53.40 40.51 34.50 26.50 35.06 33.50
Average (%) 34.28

60

50
Moisture ontent (%)

40

30
LL = 45.32 %
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of blows

39
Table 4.13: Liquid Limit and Plastic Determination at 8 % Bagasse ash

LIQUID PLASTIC
LIMIT LIMIT
No of Blows 13 24 37 46
Sample 1 2 3 4 1 2
Can number 214 28 17 AB 5 13.3
Can weight (g) 16.10 14.20 15.00 14.60 14.00 12.00
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 41.98 42.58 35.97 28.21 15.65 13.48
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 32.70 33.60 30.80 25.50 15.20 13.10
Mass of water (g) 9.28 8.98 5.17 2.71 0.45 0.38
Mass of solid (g) 16.60 19.40 15.80 10.90 1.20 1.10
Moisture content (%) 55.90 46.30 32.70 24.90 37.12 34.26
Average (%) 35.69

60

50
Moisture ontent (%)

40

30
LL = 45.95 %
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of blows

40
Table 4.14: Liquid Limit and Plastic Determination at 10 % Bagasse ash

LIQUID PLASTIC
LIMIT LIMIT
No of Blows 12 25 38 43
Sample 1 2 3 4 1 2
Can number 40 16 4 5 P17 B
Can weight (g) 12.80 14.80 12.00 13.20 13.20 17.00
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 39.18 36.65 30.30 42.44 14.64 18.61
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 30.40 30.10 25.20 35.20 14.00 17.90
Mass of water (g) 8.78 6.55 5.10 7.24 0.64 0.71
Mass of solid (g) 17.60 15.30 13.20 22.00 1.80 1.90
Moisture content (%) 49.87 42.80 38.65 32.90 35.40 37.46
Average (%) 36.43

60

50
Moisture ontent (%)

40

30
LL = 45.54 %
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of blows

41
Appendix A.3: Compaction Test Result

Table 4.17: Compaction Test Results at 0 % Bagasseh ash

No of Layer = 3
Wt. of Mould = 3366 g
Mould Vol. = 1000cm3
No of Blows = 27
Sample Wt. = 3000g
3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% 21% 24%
Can number P10 21 4 16 137 65 12 50
Can weight (g) 14.80 14.00 13.10 15.40 15.00 16.30 15.20 14.80
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 23.34 23.19 19.85 22.22 24.97 26.16 43.80 46.16
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 23.10 22.70 19.30 21.50 23.70 24.70 38.90 40.10
Mass of solid (g) 8.30 8.70 6.20 6.10 8.70 8.40 23.70 25.30
Mass of water (g) 0.24 0.49 0.55 0.72 1.27 1.49 4.90 6.06
Moisture content (%) 2.90 5.60 8.90 11.80 14.60 17.53 20.70 23.96
Mould wt.+ soil (g) 4822 4908 5032 5126 5180 5254 5192 5022
Wt. of soil (g) 1456 1542 1666 1760 1814 1888 1826 1656
Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.46 1.54 1.67 1.76 1.81 1.89 1.83 1.66
Dry density (g/cm3) 1.42 1.46 1.51 1.57 1.58 1.61 1.52 1.34

1.8
1.6
1.4
Dry Density (g/cm3)

1.2
1
MDD = 1.61g/cm3
0.8 OMC = 17.53 %
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 OMC 20 25 30
Moisture Content (%)

Fig 4.11: Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content at 0 % Bagasseh Ash

42
Table 4.15: Compaction Test Results at 2 % Bagasseh Ash
No of Layer = 3
Wt. of Mould = 3366 g
Mould Vol. = 1000cm3
No of Blows = 27
Sample Wt. = 3000g
3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% 21% 24%
Can number 34 3 12.8 14 H B P9 P4
Can weight (g) 13.77 12.70 12.50 13.00 15.10 11.20 13.20 14.90
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 22.00 17.98 23.15 26.95 25.44 24.63 25.01 26.79
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 21.77 17.70 22.30 25.50 24.10 22.6 23.00 24.50
Mass of solid (g) 8.00 5.00 9.80 12.50 9.00 11.40 9.80 9.60
Mass of water (g) 0.23 0.28 0.85 1.45 1.34 2.03 2.01 2.29
Moisture content (%) 2.9 5.60 8.70 11.60 14.90 17.68 20.50 23.90
Mouldwt.+ soil (g) 4736 4826 4936 5046 5116 5216 5125 5012
Wt. of soil (g) 1370 1460 1570 1680 1760 1850 1759 1646
Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.37 1.46 1.57 1.68 1.75 1.85 1.76 1.65
Dry density (g/cm3) 1.33 1.38 1.44 1.51 1.52 1.57 1.46 1.33

1.5
1.49
1.48
1.47
Dry Density (g/cm3)

1.46
1.45
1.44 MDD = 1.57 g/cm3
1.43 OMC = 17.68 %
1.42
1.41
1.4
1.39
0 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture content (%)

Fig 4.11: Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content at 2 % Bagasseh Ash

43
Table 4.16: Compaction Test Results at 4 % Bagasseh Ash
No of Layer = 3
Wt. of Mould = 3366 g
Mould Vol. = 1000cm3
No of Blows = 27
Sample Wt. = 3000g
3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% 21% 24%
Can number 5 3 14 4 10 P21 32 K
Can weight (g) 16.80 13.80 13.00 13.80 13.50 12.80 17.30 18.48
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 22.65 20.37 19.43 20.28 21.64 21.52 30.84 36.15
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 22.50 20.00 18.90 19.60 20.60 20.20 28.50 32.78
Mass of solid (g) 5.70 6.20 5.90 5.80 7.10 7.40 11.20 14.30
Mass of water (g) 0.15 0.37 0.53 0.68 1.04 1.32 2.34 3.37
Moisture content (%) 2.70 5.96 8.98 11.70 14.60 17.71 20.89 23.60
Mould wt.+ soil (g) 4716 4786 4846 4926 5006 5258 5088 5026
Wt. of soil (g) 1350 1420 1480 1560 1640 1750 1822 1660
Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.35 1.42 1.48 1.56 1.64 1.75 1.72 1.66
Dry density (g/cm3) 1.31 1.34 1.36 1.40 1.43 1.49 1.42 1.34

1.41
1.4
1.39
Dry Density (g/cm3)

1.38
1.37
1.36
1.35
MDD = 1.49 g/cm3
OMC = 17.71 %
1.34
1.33
1.32
1.31
0 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture content (%)

Fig 4.11: Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content at 4 % Bagasseh Ash

44
Table 4.18: Showing Compaction Test Results at 6 % Bagasseh Ash
No of Layer = 3
Wt. of Mould = 3366 g
Mould Vol. = 1000cm3
No of Blows = 27
Sample Wt. = 3000g

Can number P4 P9 34 128 50 12 90 48

Can weight (g) 14.10 13.60 13.8 11.00 15.20 14.30 13.90 14.70
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 21.40 22.39 20.87 26.09 31.95 24.20 22.73 26.58
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 21.20 21.90 20.30 24.50 29.80 22.70 21.20 24.30
Mass of solid (g) 7.10 8.30 6.50 13.50 14.60 8.40 7.30 9.60
Mass of water (g) 0.20 0.49 0.57 1.59 2.15 1.50 1.53 2.28
Moisture content (%) 2.80 5.90 8.80 11.80 14.70 17.80 20.90 23.70
Mould wt.+ soil (g) 4716 4786 4856 4916 4996 5056 5056 5068
Wt. of soil (g) 1350 1420 1490 1550 1630 1710 1690 1702
Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.35 1.42 1.49 1.55 1.63 1.71 1.69 1.70
Dry density (g/cm3) 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.40 1.37

1.41
1.4
1.39
Dry Density (g/cm3)

1.38
1.37
1.36
1.35
MDD = 1.45 g/cm3
OMC = 17.80 %
1.34
1.33
1.32
1.31
0 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture content (%)

Fig 4.11: Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content at 6 % Bagasseh Ash

45
Table 4.19: Showing Compaction Test Results at 8 % Bagasseh Ash
No of Layer = 3
Wt. of Mould = 3366 g
Mould Vol. = 1000cm3
No of Blows = 27
Sample Wt. = 3000g
3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% 21% 24%
Can number C B P8 E 28 100 88 K
Can weight (g) 14.30 12.90 13.50 14.60 15.10 16.30 13.80 12.60
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 22.11 24.94 26.00 26.67 21.42 23.95 26.98 28.69
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 21.90 24.30 25.00 25.40 20.60 22.80 24.70 25.60
Mass of solid (g) 7.60 11.40 11.50 10.80 5.50 6.50 10.90 13.00
Mass of water (g) 0.21 0.64 1.00 1.27 0.82 1.15 2.28 3.09
Moisture content (%) 2.70 5.60 8.70 11.80 14.90 17.84 20.90 23.80
Mould wt.+ soil (g) 4656 4726 4786 4866 4936 5056 5071 5015
Wt. of soil (g) 1290 1360 1420 1500 1570 1690 1705 1649
Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.29 1.36 1.42 1.50 1.57 1.69 1.70 1.65
Dry density (g/cm3) 1.26 1.29 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.43 1.41 1.33

1.41
1.4
1.39
Dry Density (g/cm3)

1.38
1.37
1.36
1.35
MDD = 1.43 g/cm3
OMC = 17.84 %
1.34
1.33
1.32
1.31
0 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture content (%)

Fig 4.11: Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content at 8 % Bagasseh Ash

46
Table 4.20: Showing Compaction Test Results at 10 % Bagasseh Ash
No of Layer = 3
Wt. of Mould = 3366 g
Mould Vol. = 1000 cm3
No of Blows = 27
Sample Wt. = 3000 g
3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% 21% 24%
Can number D D10 D20 D28 D3 P13 AB M
Can weight (g) 14.80 14.10 15.90 17.20 14.20 15.00 13.30 13.80
Can wt. + wet soil (g) 25.47 23.41 25.57 31.48 25.35 31.14 24.52 26.52
Can wt. + dry soil (g) 25.20 22.90 24.80 30.00 23.90 28.70 22.60 24.10
Mass of solid (g) 10.40 8.80 8.90 12.80 9.70 13.70 9.30 10.30
Mass of water (g) 0.27 0.51 0.77 1.48 1.45 2.44 1.92 2.42
Moisture content (%) 2.60 5.80 8.70 11.60 14.90 17.90 20.60 23.50
Mould wt.+ soil (g) 4649 4720 4789 4884 4952 5017 5001 5012
Wt. of soil (g) 1283 1354 1423 1518 1586 1651 1635 1646
Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.28 1.35 1.42 1.52 1.59 1.65 1.64 1.65
Dry density (g/cm3) 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.36 1.38 1.40 1.32 1.30

1.41
1.4
1.39
Dry Density (g/cm3)

1.38
1.37
1.36
1.35
MDD = 1.40 g/cm3
OMC = 17.9 %
1.34
1.33
1.32
1.31
0 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture content (%)

Fig 4.11: Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content at 10 % Bagasseh Ash

47
Appendix A4:California Bearing Ratio Results.
0 % Bagasseh Ash
penetration Top load Bottom Standard Top CBR Bottom Highest
(KN) load (KN) load (%) CBR (%) CBR Value
(%)
0.5 0.24 0.37

1.0 0.37 0.49

1.5 0.49 0.73

2.0 0.61 0.98

2.5 0.61 0.98 13.44 4.54 7.29

3.0 0.61 0.98

3.5 0.73 1.22 7.29

4.0 0.73 1.34

4.5 0.73 1.34

5.0 0.73 1.46 20.16 3.62 7.24

5.5 0.73 1.46

6.0 0.73 1.46

6.5 0.73 1.59

7.0 0.73 1.59

7.5 0.73 1.59

48
2 % Bagasseh Ash
penetration Top load Bottom Standard Top CBR Bottom Highest
(KN) load (KN) load (%) CBR (%) CBR
Value (%)
0.5 0.24 0.37

1.0 0.49 0.49

1.5 0.61 0.61

2.0 0.73 0.73

2.5 0.85 0.85 13.44 6.32 6.32

3.0 0.98 0.85

3.5 1.10 0.98 9.08

4.0 1.10 0.98

4.5 1.22 0.98

5.0 1.22 0.98 20.16 9.08 7.29

5.5 1.34 0.98

6.0 1.34 0.98

6.5 1.34 1.10

7.0 1.34 1.10

7.5 1.34 1.10

49
4%
penetration Top load Bottom Standard Top CBR Bottom Highest
(KN) load (KN) load (%) CBR (%) CBR
Value (%)
0.5 1.47 1.51

1.0 1.53 1.59

1.5 1.58 1.63

2.0 1.65 1.74

2.5 1.78 1.81 13.44 13.24 13.47

3.0 1.80 1.92

3.5 1.94 1.98 13.47

4.0 2.10 2.17

4.5 2.34 2.24

5.0 2.51 2.68 20.16 12.28 13.11

5.5 2.57 2.82

6.0 2.60 2.96

6.5 2.60 2.96

7.0 2.60 2.96

7.5 2.60 2.96

50
6%
penetration Top load Bottom Standard Top CBR Bottom Highest
(KN) load (KN) load (%) CBR (%) CBR
Value (%)
0.5 0.12 0.24

1.0 0.24 0.85

1.5 0.48 1.59

2.0 0.85 1.95

2.5 1.22 2.07 13.44 9.08 15.40

3.0 1.46 2.32

3.5 1.71 2.32 15.40

4.0 1.83 2.44

4.5 1.95 2.44

5.0 1.83 2.56 20.16 9.08 12.70

5.5 1.71 2.56

6.0 1.71 2.56

6.5 1.59 2.56

7.0 1.59 2.56

7.5 1.59 2.56

51
8 % Bagasseh Ash
penetration Top load Bottom Standard Top CBR Bottom Highest
(KN) load (KN) load (%) CBR (%) CBR Value
(%)
0.5 1.30 1.41

1.0 1.43 1.57

1.5 1.47 1.63

2.0 1.50 1.86

2.5 1.52 2.22 13.44 11.30 16.37

3.0 1.54 2.49

3.5 1.58 2.63 16.37

4.0 1.64 2.82

4.5 1.71 3.05

5.0 1.83 3.19 20.16 9.08 15.82

5.5 1.88 3.28

6.0 1.96 3.30

6.5 2.17 3.34

7.0 2.25 3.23

7.5 2.25 3.14

52
10% Bagasseh Ash
penetration Top load Bottom Standard Top CBR Bottom Highest
(KN) load (KN) load (%) CBR (%) CBR
Value (%)
0.5 1.41 2.11

1.0 1.63 2.14

1.5 1.90 2.28

2.0 2.07 2.30

2.5 2.12 2.47 13.44 15.77 18.38

3.0 2.37 3.05

3.5 2.48 3.49 18.38

4.0 2.96 3.61

4.5 3.22 3.64

5.0 3.65 3.70 20.16 17.86 18.10

5.5 3.81 3.76

6.0 3.61 3.70

6.5 3.07 3.70

7.0 2.97 3.70

7.5 2.73 3.70

53
54