Me thesis effect of cement kiln dust on geotechnical properties of black cotton soil exam nov 2015

Geotechnical Engineering
Page | 1
A
DISSERTATION
ON
"EFFECT OF CEMENT KILN DUST ON GEOTECHNICAL
PROPERTIES OF BLACK COTTON SOIL"
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement
For the award of the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
With specialization in
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Under the Guidance of
Prof. Rajesh Jain
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
Department of Civil Engineering
Jabalpur Engineering College, Jabalpur
Submitted
By
VIVEK SINGH
0201CE13ME29
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Page | 2
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
JABALPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE, JABALPUR (M.P.)
(Established in 1947 as Government Engineering College, Jabalpur
SESSION: 2014-2015)

Page | 3
(Established in 1947 as Government Engineering College, Jabalpur)
C E R T I F I C A T E
This is to certify that the Dissertation entitled "Effect of Cement Kiln Dust on
Geotechnical Properties of Black Cotton Soil" which is being submitted by
Vivek Singh in fulfillment of the requirement of Thesis for the degree of
Master of Engineering in Geotechnical Engineering from Rajiv Gandhi
Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya Bhopal (M.P.), has been carried out under
my guidance and supervision. It has not been submitted elsewhere for my other
degree.
Guided By:
Prof. Rajesh Jain
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
Forwarded by
Dr. Rajeev Chandak
Professor& Head
Prof. A.K.S. Bhadoria
Principal
Jabalpur Engineering College,
Jabalpur

Page | 4
RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA,
BHOPAL (M.P.)
(UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY OF MADHYA PRADESH)
This is to certify that dissertation entitled " Effect of Cement Kiln Dust on
Geotechnical Properties of Black Cotton Soil " submitted by Vivek Singh
may be accepted for the partial fulfillment for the award of degree of MASTER
OF ENGINEERING in CIVIL ENGINEERING with specialization in
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING.
Internal Examiner External Examiner
Date: Date:

Page | 5
(Established in 1947 as Government Engineering College, Jabalpur
and declared autonomous by Govt. of M.P. and RGPV, Bhopal)
It is certified that Vivek Singh (0201CE13ME29) student of IV Semester
of Master of Engineering in Civil Engineering with specialization in Geotechnical
Engineering has completed his dissertation entitled “Effect of Cement Kiln Dust
on Geotechnical Properties of Black Cotton Soil” under our supervision and
guidance after the completion of his third semester examination. He was regularly
attending the college regarding his dissertation work. He has completed his
dissertation and submitting for viva-voice examination.
It is further certified that this dissertation work has not been submitted for
the award of any other degree.
Guided By:
Prof. RajeshJain
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Page | 6
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION
I hereby declare that all the work, which is being presented in
the dissertation, entitled “Effect of Cement Kiln Dust on Geotechnical
Properties of Black Cotton Soil” in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
award of degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING in CIVIL ENGINEERING
with specialization in GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING submitted in the
Department of Civil Engineering, JABALPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
JABALPUR is an authentic record of my own work carried under the guidance of
Prof. Rajesh Jain, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
JABALPUR ENGINEERINGCOLLEGE, JABALPUR.
I have not submitted the matter embodied in this dissertation for award of
any other degree.
Date:
Place: Jabalpur VIVEK SINGH
0201CE13ME29

Page | 7
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my gratitude to my guide and motivator Prof.
Rajesh Jain, Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Jabalpur
Engineering College, Jabalpur for his valuable guidance, encouragement and co-
operation for providing necessary facilities and sources throughout the entire
period of this M.E. Thesis.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Rajeev Chandak,
Head of Civil Engineering Department and Prof. A.K.S. Bhadoria, Principal,
Jabalpur Engineering College, Jabalpur for his encouragement inspiration and
facilities provided to me to carry out this work at Jabalpur Engineering
College , Jabalpur .
I am thankful to the staff of Civil Engineering Department, especially of
Geotechnical Laboratory who have extended me full co-operation in dissertation.
Last, I would also like to thank my friends and fellow batch mates for their
co-operation during dissertation work.
Date: VIVEK SINGH

Page | 8
CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………....................................03
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………...........................04
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………...................05
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………................................................06
CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General………………………………………………………..........................07
1.2 Objective and scope of study………………………………...........................08
1.3 Research significance.......................................................................................08
CHAPTER-2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General.............................................................................................................09
2.2 Cement Kiln Dust............................................................................................09
2.3 Review on expansive soil with cement kiln dust..............................................10
2.4 Identification and classification of black cotton soil........................................11
2.5 Factors affecting swelling of soils....................................................................13
2.6 Soil stabilization................................................................................................13
CHAPTER-3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMMES
3.1 Material used.....................................................................................................15
3.1.1 Black Cotton Soil............................................................................15
3.1.2 Cement Kiln Dust............................................................................15
3.2 Sample Preparation............................................................................................15
3.3 Laboratory Tests.................................................................................................16

Page | 9
3.3.1 Particle size analysis of black cotton soil........................................16
3.3.2 Liquid limit.......................................................................................17
3.3.3 Plastic limit.......................................................................................18
3.3.4 Shrinkage limit.................................................................................19
3.3.5 Plasticity index.................................................................................19
3.3.6 Differential free swell test................................................................19
3.3.7 Modified proctor compaction test....................................................20
3.3.8 Permeability test...............................................................................20
3.3.9 Unconfined compressive strength test..............................................21
3.3.10 CBR test...........................................................................................21
CHAPTER-4 OBSERVATION AND CALCULATION
4.1 General...........................................................................................23
4.2 Particle size distribution.................................................................23
4.2.1 Sieve analysis of black cotton soil..............................................23
4.2.2 Hydrometer analysis of black cotton soil....................................24
4.2.3Particle size distribution of Cement Kiln Dust............................26
4.3 Liquid limit....................................................................................28
4.4 Plastic limit....................................................................................32
4.5 Plasticity index...............................................................................34
4.6 Shrinkage limit...............................................................................34
4.7 Differential free swell test...............................................................35
4.8 Modified proctor compaction test...................................................36
4.9 Permeability test..............................................................................40
4.10 UCS test........................................................................................41
4.11 CBR test.........................................................................................46
CHAPTER-5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 General............................................................................................48
5.2 Discussion.......................................................................................49
5.3 Index properties..............................................................................49
5.4 Engineering properties....................................................................52
CHAPTER-6 CONCLUSION
6.1 Conclusion......................................................................................................55
6.2 Scope of future study......................................................................................56
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................57

Page | 10
PAPER PUBLISHED:
 EFFCT OF CEMENT KILN DUST ON INDEX PROPERTIES OF BLACK COTTON
SOIL [ISSN 2277-2685 IJSER/ APRIL 2015/ ISSUE-4/ 142-146].
 EFFCT OF CEMENT KILN DUST ON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF BLACK
COTTON SOIL [IJIRST / VOLUME 1/ ISSUE 12/ MAY 2015].
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE OF TABLE PAGE NO.
Table 2.1.................. Basic properties and typical oxide composition of CKD..........................................09
Table 2.2......................potential expansion from shrinkage limit & linear shrinkage.................................11
Table 2.3...............................IS classification system.................................................................................12
Table 3.1..........................................standard load penetration values.........................................................22
Table 4.1.......................................wet sieve analysis of BCS......................................................................23
Table 4.2..................................calibration of hydrometer.............................................................................24
Table 4.3...................................observation and calculation table for hydrometer.......................................25
Table 4.4.........................................dry sieve analysis of CKD...................................................................27
Table 4.5......................................liquid limit of sample 1..........................................................................28
Table 4.6.........................................Liquid limit of sample 2.....................................................................28
Table 4.7...........................................Liquid limit of sample 3....................................................................29
Table 4.8.......................................Liquid limit of sample 4........................................................................30
Table 4.9............................................Liquid limit of sample 5..................................................................30
Table 4.10.............................................Liquid limit of sample 6................................................................31
Table 4.11..............................................plastic limit of sample 1...............................................................32

Page | 11
Table 4.17...........................................plasticity index of samples.............................................................34
Table 4.18........................................shrinkage limit of samples..................................................................35
Table 4.19................................................DFS sheet of samples................................................................36
Table 4.20.....................................................permeability data sheet..........................................................40
Table 4.21..........................................................CBR observation data sheet..............................................47
Table 5.1........................................summaries of results..............................................................................48
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. PARTICULARS OF FIGURE PAGE NO.
Figure 3.1............................................dry mixed samples..............................................................................16
Figure 3.2:..........................................sieve analysis........................................................................................17
Figure 3.3:................................................sedimentation analysis...................................................................17
Figure 3.4:.....................................................liquid limit apparatus ................................................................18
Figure 3.5:..........................................................plastic limit apparatus............................................................18
Figure 3.6:.....................................................mercury and dry soil pat...........................................................19
Figure 3.7:.....................................................DFS test specimen......................................................................19
Figure 3.8:...................................................modified proctor compaction test.................................................20
Figure 3.9:..............................................permeability test apparatus................................................................20
Figure 3.10:................................................UCS test apparatus..........................................................................21
Figure 3.11:.................................................CBR test apparatus.........................................................................22
Figure 4.1:........................particle size distribution curve of BCS....................................................................26
Figure 4.2:........................particle size distribution curve of CKD....................................................................27
Figure 5.1:...............................liquid limit variation graph.................................................................................49
Figure 5.2: ...............................plastic limit variation graph................................................................................50
Figure 5.3: ...............................plasticity index variation graph...........................................................................50
Figure 5.4: ...............................shrinkage limit variation graph...........................................................................51

Page | 12
Figure 5.5: ...............................DFS variation graph............................................................................................51
Figure 5.6:..............................OMC variation graph............................................................................................52
Figure 5.7: ...............................MDD variation graph..........................................................................................53
Figure 5.8: ...............................permeability variation graph...............................................................................53
Figure 5.9: ...............................UCS variation graph...........................................................................................54
Figure 5.10: ...............................CBR variation graph.........................................................................................54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BCS: Black Cotton Soil
CKD: Cement Kiln Dust
IS: Indian Standard
DFS: Differential Free Swell
LL: Liquid Limit
PL: Plastic Limit
SL: Shrinkage Limit
PI: Plasticity Index
UCS: Unconfined Compressive Strength
OMC: Optimum Moisture Content
MDD: Maximum Dry Density
G: Specific Gravity
CBR: California Bearing Ratio
Sample 1: Black Cotton Soil+ 0% Cement Kiln Dust

Page | 13
0%CKD: Black Cotton Soil+ 0% Cement Kiln Dust
ABSTRACT
“EFFECT OF CEMENT KILN DUST ON GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF BLACK
COTTON SOIL”
VIVEK SINGH
ME-IV SEMESTER, Geotechnical Engineering
Guide: Prof. Rajesh Jain
Session: 2014-2015
In the field of Geotechnical Engineering in general the soil stabilization in
particular clayey soil, are distributed all over the world. In India black cotton soil is
available in many states and it covers about the (0.8 X 106 km2) area near about (20
– 25) % of surface area. Due to their moisture content variation characteristics they
cause severe damage to foundations and super structures of buildings leading to
high economic loss.
Thus, the improvement in the engineering properties of this soil
is necessary to increase its stability, strength and durability. Many studies have
been carried out to reduce its problematic properties like swelling, shrinkage and
unequal settlement, with the increase in urbanization and rapid industrialization the
suitable soil for constructional purpose is not easily available and simultaneously
the disposalof industrial waste has becomedifficult.
Thus, the need to utilize industrial waste in stabilization of weak
soils has been gaining importance. In the present study, industrial waste Cement
Kiln Dust is used in varying percentage for the improvement of Geotechnical
properties of black cotton soil. Laboratory research has been conducted on black
cotton soil samples mixed with 0% to 25% of cement kiln dust by dry weight of
the black cotton soil. The variation in geotechnical properties of soil with the

Page | 14
addition of various percentages of Cement Kiln Dust is determined and results are
analyzed.
The results shows that there is a significant improvement in
the index and engineering properties of black cotton soil on addition of cement kiln
dust and problematic properties that is swelling and shrinkage are checked. The
results also reveal that there is improvement in shear strength and CBR values of
the black cottonsoil, as the percentage of cement kiln dust increases.
CHAPTER – 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
The Black cotton soil is considered as expansive soil by practicing engineers due to its high
shrinkage and swelling properties. Black cotton soil when comes in contact with water, it shows
immense swelling but when the water dries out, it shrinks and cracks are developed. In worst
areas the cracks may sometimes extent to severe limits like 10 cm wide and 3.0m to 3.5m deep.
Swelling of soils is generally observed in the unsaturated clays which contain clay mineral as
montmorillonite. Black soils are credited with high fertility. In India it is commonly found in
major parts of Maharashtra, western Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. These soils are formed from basalt and rock traps.
These soils are quick suitable for growing cotton. Black soils are clays of high plasticity, as the
shear strength of the soil is quite low; soils are highly compressible with low bearing capacity. It
is extremely difficult to work with these soils. The globally growing demand of cement results in
vast collection of kiln dust from cement plants. The disposal of this fine dust is very difficult and
poses an environmental threat. Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) is a fine powdery material similar in
appearance to Portland cement. There are two types of cement kiln processes wet-process kiln
and dry-process kiln. Large quantities of cement kiln dust are produced during the manufacture
of cement clinker by the dry process.
Cement Kiln Dust used in various applications like soil stabilization, cement
production, pavements, waste product stabilization and in agriculture etc. Black cotton soils have
colour ranging from light grey to dark grey and black. Black cotton soils confined to the semi
arid regions of tropical and temperate climatic zones and are abundant where the annual

Page | 15
evaporation exceeds the precipitation. The absence of quartz in the clay mineralogy enhances the
formation of fined grained soil material, which is impermeable and water logged. Due to the
problem of expansive soil nature, soil stabilization is gaining importance, because waste
materials produced from different industries have disposal problem and may cause
environmental pollution. Billions of dollars are attributed to expansive soil in many countries
each year. Geotechnical design and analysis on expansive soils have involved additional
complications that otherwise would not have to be deal with if expansive soils were not present.
The uses of Cement Kiln Dust as soil stabilizer might potentially consume the bulk of the CKDs
being generated every year .Such use could significantly enhances the engineering characteristics
of unsuitable and marginal soils, allowing their use for improved sub-grade, sub-base or related
applications. In this study attempts are made to find the suitability of Cement Kiln Dust as soil
stabilizer for black cotton soil.
1.2 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
Main objective of this experimental study is to investigate the effect of Cement Kiln Dust on
geotechnical properties of black cotton soil. In view of the above present study has been chosen,
planned and carried out involving extensive laboratory investigations with the aim of the
following objectives:
 Characterization of Black Cotton soil and Cement Kiln Dust to obtain Physical
properties, Consistency Limits, Compaction characteristics, C.B.R., etc.
 Laboratory study of Black cotton soil mixed with different proportion of Cement Kiln
Dust.
 Evaluation and comparison of results of different mixes.
 To study the extent of improvement of engineering characteristics of Black Cotton soil.
 To find eco friendly and cost effective method of soil improvement by effective
utilization of Industrial wastes as Cement Kiln Dust.
1.3 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Black cotton soil is expansive soil. Construction on expansive soil always
creates a problem because of its swelling and shrinkage characteristics when black cotton soil
comes in contact of water then they cause swelling and when the water content decreases
shrinkage occurs in the soil.
In order to overcome this problem research has been carried out in the different
parts of the world, to find out the economical and efficient means of using cement kiln dust
(CKD). Large quantities of cement kiln dust are produced during the manufacture of cement
clinker by the dry process with modern manufacturing techniques it is technically possible to
introduce most CKD back into the clinker making cycle. However it is not done due to the

Page | 16
restrictions on alkalis and chloride content in the cement. All around the world cement industry
has estimated that over 35 million tons of CKD are produced annually.
In India black soil covers about (0.7x106 km2) approximately (20-
25%) of land cover. Black soil contains a high percentage of montmorillonite mineral which
imparts expansive behaviour to it. CKD is a mixture of partially calcined and unreacted raw feed,
clinker dust and ash, enriched with alkali sulphate and other volatile. The disposal of this fine
dust has become an environmental threat, by the research it can be used in the stabilization of the
soil.
In this study it is proposed to investigate the influence of cement kiln dust on expansive (black
cotton) soil and to examine the laboratory result whether it will be cost effective or not in the
field during their implementation.
CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
This chapter deals with a review of literature outcomes with the aspects of Cement Kiln Dust for
stabilizing poor soils like black cotton soils. This study presents the basic information on black
cotton soil and cement kiln dust. Basic review of previous study regarding performance of black
cotton soil with cement kiln dust as an admixture has also been discussed.
2.2 CEMENT KILN DUST
Cement kiln dust is an industrial waste from cement production. The quantities and
characteristics of CKD generated depend upon a number of operational factors and
characteristics of the inputs to the manufacturing process.
Cement Kiln Dust consists primarily of calcium carbonate and silicon dioxide which
is similar to the cement kiln raw feed, but the amount of alkalis, chlorides and sulphates is
usually considerably higher in the dust. CKD from three different types of operations: long-wet,
Long-dry and alkali by-pass with pre calciner were characterized for chemical and physical
traits. CKD generated from long-wet and long-dry kilns is composed of partially calcined kiln
feed fines enriched with alkalis sulphates and chlorides.
Dust collected from the alkali by-pass of pre calciner kilns tend to be
coarser, more calcined and also concentrated with alkali volatiles. The alkali by- pass process
contains the highest amount by weight of calcium oxide and lowest loss of ignition (LOI), both
of which are key components in many beneficial applications of CKD .With the modern
manufacturing techniques, it is technically possible to introduce most CKD back into the clinker-
making cycle. However it is not done due to restriction on alkalis and chloride contents in the
cement.

Page | 17
From its chemical constituents it is found to be more beneficial soil stabilizer as compared from
other alternatives.CKD in its last stage do not have the composition of gypsum in it composition
which makes it more effective admixture which does not change it properties on time differences
during settlement.
Table: 2.1Basic properties and typical oxide composition of the cement kiln dust
oxides CaO Al2O3 SiO2 Fe2O3 Mn2O3 Na2O K2O pH Gs
Concentration% 50.81 4.71 0 1.92 0.002 0.001 1.35 11.2 2.22
2.3 REVIEW OF EXPANSIVE SOIL WITH CEMENT KILN DUST
In order to overcome the problem in black soil, research has been carried out in the different
parts of the world, to find out the economical and efficient means of using cement kiln dust
(CKD).
Joe W. Button gave that CKD can be used to stabilize sub grade & pavement bases. Collins and
Emery (1983) conducted a major laboratory test to determine the effectiveness of kiln dust for
hydrated lime as aggregate road base system. Heckle, 2001, used CKD dust to enhance
successive pavement layers.
Amonkatz, Konstantin Kovler, gave ‘Utilization of industrial by products for the production of
controlled low strength material’ and compared experimental programs on CKD from other
additives and found CKD more durable.
‘Literature review of Cement Kiln Dust usage in soil and waste stabilization and experimental
investigation’ by M.K. Rahman, S. Rahman, and O.S.Amoudi gave the experimental results
clearly that use of 34% CKD is enough to stabilize the sludge.
White and Bergeson (2001) concluded that the high-volume application of CKD is an
economical and suitable alternative when used with an appropriate calcium activator.
Chesner et al. (1998) provided the condition of CKD at various stages of construction. Lakes
and Seaway, (2008) on research found that CKD can use as sub grade stabilization in highways.
MacKay and Emery (1994) stated more than 15 years of experience confirm that cementitious
systems, CKD can be used to durably stabilize and solidify a wide variety of soils by conducting
small laboratory experiments.Y.Keerthi, P.Kanthi (2003) gave CKD can be used as soil
additive to improve the texture, strength and reduce swelling.

Page | 18
Freer-Hewish et al. (1991) reported the successful stabilization of desert sand with CKD for
pavement structures. Although stabilization was achieved, large amounts of CKD were needed to
meet pavement layer standards.
Bhatty, J.I., S.Bhattacharja gave the outcome of CKD in stabilizing clay soils up to the 25%
by dry weight of soil.
Miller and Azad (2000) found that increases in the unconfined compressive strength of soil
occurred with the addition of CKD, which were inversely proportional to the plasticity index (PI)
Of the untreated soil.
G.K. Moses and A. Saminu Nigeria, Department of Civil Engineering defense Academy,
conducted test on BCS treated with 16% of CKD found suitable as road pavement material.
2.4 IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF BLACK COTTON SOIL
Several physico-chemical methods are employed in identification of clay minerals & each one
method helps in identification of predominant mineral in the soil. Chemical methods, like the
Base Exchange capacity & potentiometric titrations.
The simplest physical method is dehydration of clays. It consists of
heating the clay at different temperature for specified period. The percentage loss in weight is
determined at each temperature and curve is drawn between temperature and percentage loss.
The flexure point in the curves at that particular temperature is an indication of the type of
mineral present.
There are three methods for recognition of expansive soils:
1. Mineralogical method.
2. Indirect method.
3. Direct method.
Mineralogical identification is as described earlier are important for exploring the basic
properties of soil, but are impractical and uneconomical for the practicing engineers.
The indirect methods such as index property, Activity method, are valuable tools in evaluating
swelling property.
The third method provides direct measurement offers most useful data for practicing engineers.
The tests are sample to perform and do not require any costly & exotic laboratory equipment.
But the testing should be done to avoid erroneous conclusion.
The main property of expansive soil which differs from one soil to the other is the expansion
property. Hence “Potential Expansion PE” is a convenient term to classify the expansive soil.

Page | 19
Table: 2.2 Potential Expansion from Shrinkage limit & Linear Shrinkage (Altmeyer1955)
Shrinkage limit Linear shrinkage Potential expansion
12 0-5 Non-critical
10-12 5-8 marginal
10 8 critical
Classification is also done on basis of IS Classification System
Values of engineering characteristics listed in table also posses to classify the expansive soil.
Table: 2.3 IS Classification System
Liquid limit
%
Plasticity
index %
Shrinkage
index %
Free swell % Degree of
expansion
Danger of
severity
20-35 < 12 <15 <50 low Non-critical
35-50 12-23 15-30 50-100 medium marginal
50-70 23-32 30-60 100-200 high critical
70-90 >32 >60 >200 Very high severe
The clay soils have an effective diameter smaller than 0.002 mm as per geotechnical definition.
Mineralogists on the other hand define clay as particles formed by polymeric chains of some
specific minerals.
The basic units of which the clays are made are Silica (SiO2) tetrahedral sheets and Aluminium
(Al) or Magnesium (Mg) Oxides octahedral sheets. Sheets can be combine in different ways, so
as to form layers of different minerals.
Main clay minerals are:
 Kaolinite.
 Illite.
 Montmorillonite

Page | 20
Montmorillonite is said to be the different mineral from the three minerals. Since, it have highest
Base Exchange capacity, highest swelling and shrinkage capacity, can hold very high amount of
water over its surface.
Montmorillonite has basic structural unit consist of alumina sheet sandwiched between two silica
sheets. Successive units are stacked one over another, likes leaves of book. The thickness of each
structural unit is about 10Ao.
Two successive structural units are joined together by link between oxygen ions of the two silica.
The link is due to the natural attraction for the cations in the intervening space and due to Vander
Waal Forces. The negatively charged surface of silica sheet attracts water in the space between
two structural units. The soil containing a large amount of the mineral montmorillonite exhibits
high shrinkage and swelling characteristics. The water in the intervening space can be removed
by heating at 200o to 300o C. Montmorillonite minerals have lateral dimensions of 0.1 microns to
0.5 microns and the thickness of 0.001 microns to 0.005 microns. The specific gravity is about
800 m2/gm. The space between the combined sheets is occupied by water molecules and
exchangeable cations. There is a weak bond between the combined sheets due to these ions.
Considerable swelling of montmorillonite can occur due to additional water being absorbed
between the combined sheets.
2.5 FACTORS AFFECTING SWELLING OF SOILS
Factors affecting the swelling of soils are characterized as such:
 Soil characteristics:
Clay content, mineralogy, soil structure, initial water content, initial dry density, fined
grained fraction and plasticity index.
 State of stress:
They are influenced by properties of soil as stress history, loading and soil profile.
 Environmental factor:
Climate, groundwater, drainage, vegetation, permeability and temperature.
2.6 SOIL STABILIZATION
The soil stabilization means the improvement of stability or bearing power of the soil by the use
of controlled compaction, proportioning or the addition of suitable admixture or stabilizers.
There are several methods that have been used to minimize the effect of expansive soils on the
structures. These methods include soil replacement, pre wetting, surcharge loading and use of
geosynthetics.
Basic Principles of soil Stabilization
 Evaluating the properties of given soil.
 Deciding the lacking property of soil and choose effective and economical method of soil
stabilization.
 Designing the stabilized soil mix for intended stability and durability values.

Page | 21
Concept of Soil Stabilization
The concept of soil stabilization is to improve the weaker properties of the soil for attaining the
more stable soil strata, by modifying the physical or chemical properties of the soil. The physical
or chemical properties could be modified by adding various additives with the soil. In
mechanical stabilization, the physical characters are modified whereas chemical characters are
altered in case of other stabilizations.
Methods of Soil Stabilization
 Mechanical Stabilization.
 Soil Cement Stabilization.
 Soil Lime Stabilization.
 Soil Bitumen Stabilization.
 Thermal Stabilization.
 Chemical Stabilization.
 Geosynthetics.
 Electrical Stabilization.
 Stabilization by Grouting.
Mechanical Stabilization:
This method involves the correctly proportioning of aggregates and soil, adequately compacted
to get mechanically stable layer. The basic Principles of mechanical Stabilization are correct
proportioning and effective compaction.
Soil Cement Stabilization:
Soil-cement is an intimate mix of soil, cement & water, compacted to form a strong base course.
Cement modified soil refers to the compacted mix when cement is used in small proportions to
impart some strength.
Soil Lime Stabilization:
Soil-Lime is used as modifier in high plasticity soils in lime stabilization. It also imparts binding
action even granular soils. Lime could be used in powder form or pulverized form with soil to
make a homogenous blend.
Soil Bituminous Stabilization:
The basic Principles of this Stabilization are water proofing and binding. By water proofing
inherent strength and other properties could be retained. Bitumen stabilized layer may be used as
Sub-base or base course for all the roads. Most commonly used materials are Cutback and
Emulsion.
Thermal Stabilization:
Thermal change causes a marked improvement in the properties of the soil. Thermal stabilization
is done by heating the soil or cooling.
Chemical Stabilization:

Page | 22
Soils are stabilized by different chemicals. The advantage of chemical stabilization is that setting
time and curing time can be controlled.
Geosynthetics:
Made from the polymers and performs the following functions: separators, filters, drainage,
reinforcement, retaining walls etc. They acts as a barrier to the soil and outer atmospheric
condition.
Electrical stabilization:
As a direct current is passed through a clayey soil, pore water migrates to the negative electrode.
It occurs because of the attraction of positive ions that are present in water towards cathode. It is
an expansive method mainly used for drainage of cohesive soil.
Stabilization by grouting:
Stabilizers are introduced by injection into the soil. As the grouting is always done under the
pressure, the stabilizers with high viscosity are suitable only for soils with high permeability.
This method is not suitable for stabilizing clays because of their low permeability.
Various types of grouting are follows: cement grouting, clay grouting, chemical grouting,
chrome-lignin grouting, polymer grouting and bituminous grouting.
CHAPTER-3
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMMES
The purpose of this experimental study is to determine change in
engineering characteristics of Black Cotton soil on addition Cement Kiln Dust in the Black
Cotton soil. The various geotechnical properties and it value is determined for original Black
cotton soil (BC) and their variation on addition of different percentage of Cement Kiln Dust
(CKD). CKD is used as stabilizer in the prepared samples and its percentage is varied from 0%
to 25% by dry weight of soil. In this experimental study, the improvement in geotechnical
properties of the Black cotton soil is monitored.
The tests were conducted in the Geotechnical laboratory of Civil
Engineering department, Jabalpur Engineering College.
3.1 MATERIAL USED
Material used in the laboratory research as Black Cotton Soil and admixture as
Cement Kiln Dust.
3.1.1 BLACK COTTON SOIL
The soil sample is collected from Vijay Nagar District Jabalpur (M.P.). The Black
cotton soil collected from the site is brought to the laboratory for testing. Before testing it is
assured that the soil is free from any organic matter, polythene, etc. The soil collected is made
oven dried for testing purpose. BCS is classified as clay of high plasticity CH (Gs=2.6 with 96%
fines) with expansive behaviour.

Page | 23
3.1.2 CEMENT KILN DUST
The stabilizing material cement kiln dust was obtained from the cement industries
located in Maihar, Satna and Rewa district of Madhya Pradesh. A laboratory research was
conducted on black cotton soil and cement kiln dust mix in the different proportions.
3.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION
Samples used in this study are prepared by oven dried black cotton soil with
different percentages of Cement Kiln Dust as stabilizer. Oven dried ingredients (CKD, BCS) are
taken for the sample preparation for accurate proportioning by weight. The water is used to blend
the mix properly.
The samples are prepared as such:
 Black cotton soil and Cement kiln dust is oven dried separately.
 The oven dried BCS is mixed with CKD in proportions of (0%, 3%, 8%, 13%, 18% and
25%) by dry weight of the soil.
 The formed dry mixes are being blended together with water in order to get a
homogeneous blend.
 The formed mixes are kept aside for 24 hours and then oven dried.
 These oven dried mixes are now ready for laboratory testing and treated as samples.
The tests were conducted as per relevant IS codes.
Figure: 3.1 Dry Mixed Samples
NOTE: BCS+0%CKD=BLACK COTTON SOIL+0% CEMENT KILN DUST
BCS+3%CKD= BLACK COTTON SOIL+3% CEMENT KILN DUST

Page | 24
3.3 LABORATORY TESTS
Various tests were performed on samples to find variations in soil
properties in Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory.
3.3.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (IS: 1498-1970)
The main engineering properties of soil are permeability, compressibility, shear
strength and index properties. Particle size analysis is a method of separation of soils into
different fractions based on particle size; it expresses quantitatively the proportions, by mass, of
various sizes of particles present in the soil. It is graphically shown on a particle size distribution
curve. It is done in two stages:
 Sieve analysis: It is meant for coarse grained soils, particle size greater than 75
microns which can easily pass through a set of sieves. It is also known as dry
sieve analysis.
 Sedimentation analysis: It is done for fine grained soils size smaller than 75
microns. Sedimentation analysis is also known as wet analysis, as soil mass may
contain the particles of both types of soils, a combined analysis comprising both
sieves analysis and sedimentation analysis may be required for such soils.
Particle size smaller than 0.2 micron cannot be determined by the sedimentation method. These
can be determined by X-ray diffraction techniques.
Figure: 3.2 Sieve Analysis
Figure: 3.3 Sedimentation Analysis

Page | 25
3.3.2 LIQUID LIMIT (IS: 2720 (PART 5) – 1985)
The casagrande apparatus is used to determine the liquid limit of the soil. The liquid
limit (LL) is the water content at which a soil changes from plastic to liquid behaviour. Soil is
placed into the metal cup of the device and a groove is made down its center with a standardized
tool of 13.5 mm width. The cup is repeatedly dropped 10mm onto a hard rubber base at a rate of
120 blows per minute, during which the groove closes up gradually as a result of the impact. The
number of blows for the groove to close is recorded. The moisture content at which it takes 25
drops of the cup to cause the groove to close over a distance of 13.5 mm is defined as the liquid
limit. The test is normally run at several moisture contents, and the moisture content which
requires 25 blows to close the groove is interpolated from the test results.
Figure: 3.4 Liquid Limit Apparatus

Page | 26
3.3.3 PLASTIC LIMIT (IS: 2720 (PART 5) – 1985)
The plastic limit is determined by rolling out a thread of the fine portion of a soil on a
flat, non-porous surface. If the soil is plastic, this thread will retain its shape down to a very
narrow diameter. The sample can then be remoulded and the test repeated. As the moisture
content falls due to evaporation, the thread will begin to break apart at larger diameters. The
plastic limit is defined as the moisture content where the thread breaks apart at a diameter of 3
mm.
A soil is considered non-plastic if a thread cannot be rolled out down to 3mm at any moisture.
Figure: 3.5 Plastic Limit Specimens
3.3.4 SHRINKAGE LIMIT (IS: 2720 PART VII 1980/87)

Page | 27
The Shrinkage Limit (SL) is the water content when the water is just
sufficient to fill all the pores of the soil and the soil is just saturated. The volume of soil does not
decrease when the water content is reduced below the Shrinkage limit.
Figure: 3.6 Mercury and Dry soil Pat for Shrinkage Limit Apparatus
3.3.5 PLASTICITY INDEX (IS: 2720 PART VII 1980/87)
The plasticity index (PI) is a measure of the plasticity of a soil. The plasticity
index is the size of the range of water contents where the soil exhibits plastic properties. PI is
difference between liquid limit and plastic limit.
3.3.6 DIFFERENTIAL FREE SWELL TEST (IS: 2720(PART 40)-1977)
The Black cotton soil has a tendency to swell when submerged in water. Free Swell
index is the increase in volume of soil without any external constraint when subjected to
submerge in water. Two samples passing 425μ IS sieve is taken; both the samples are poured in
100 ml capacity graduated glass cylinder. Distilled water is poured in on cylinder and kerosene
in the other one. Remove the entrapped air by stirring with glass rod. Allow attainment of
equilibrium state for 24 hrs. Final volume of soil in each cylinder shall be read out.
Figure: 3.7 DFS Test Specimen
3.3.7 MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (IS: 2720 PART VIII)

Page | 28
To access the amount of compaction and the water content required in the field,
compaction test are done on the same soil in laboratory, the test provide a relationship between
the water content and the dry density. The water content at which the maximum dry density is
obtained from the relationship provided by the tests. Mould of 150 mm internal diameter,
effective height of 127.3 mm and capacity 2250 ml is used and 56 blows are required for each
layer.
Figure: 3.8 Modified Proctor Compaction Test
3.3.8 PERMEABILITY TEST (IS: 2720 PART 17)
Permeability is the property of soil which permits the flow of water through it. It controls
the hydraulic stability of soil masses. The soils having coefficient of permeability greater than
10-3 cm/sec are classified as pervious and those with a value less than 10-5 cm/sec as impervious.
Figure: 3.9 Permeability Test Apparatus
3.3.9 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST (IS: 2720 PART 10)

Page | 29
The primary purpose of this test is to determine the unconfined compressive strength, which is
then used to calculate the unconsolidated undrained shear strength of the clay under unconfined
conditions. The unconfined compressive strength (qu) is defined as the compressive stress at
which an unconfined cylindrical specimen of soil will fail in a simple compression test. The
testing is done by extruding the soil sample from the sampler. The ratio (L/d) should be
approximately between 2 and 2.5.
Figure: 3.10 UCS Test Apparatus
3.3.10 CBR TEST (IS: 2720 PART 14)
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.
C.B.R. = Test load/Standard load
The plunger in the CBR test penetrates the specimen in the mould at the rate of 1.25 mm per
minute. The loads required for a penetration of 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm are determined. The
penetration load is expressed as a percentage of the standard loads at the respective penetration
level of 2.5 mm or 5.0 mm.
The CBR value is determined corresponding to both penetration levels. The
greater of these values is used for the design of the pavement.
The test may be performed on undisturbed specimens and on remoulded specimens
which may be compacted either statically or dynamically.

Page | 30
Figure: 3.11 CBR Test Apparatus
STANDARD LOAD FOR PENETRATION IS TAKEN:
Table: 3.1 standard load penetration values
Penetration Standard Load
2.5 mm 1370
5.0 mm 2055
10.00 mm 3180
12.5 mm 3600
From the above calculation if the CBR percentage at load penetration 5.0
mm is greater than at 2.50 mm then sample resembles to be at failure condition and CBR test to
be performed on that soil sample.
CHAPTER-4

Page | 31
OBSERVATION AND CALCULATION
4.1 GENERAL
In order to estimate the engineering characteristics of Cement Kiln Dust, Black Cotton Soil
containing different percentages of Cement Kiln Dust, tests have been conducted on various
samples as specified in Chapter 3.
The Observations and Calculations related to all these tests are presented and analyzed in this
chapter.
4.2 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
To access the geotechnical properties of the Black Cotton Soil and Cement Kiln Dust
the wet sieve analysis is done on BCS and dry sieve analysis on CKD respectively.
4.2.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF BLACK COTTONSOIL
Wet sieve analysis of black cotton soil
Total weight of black cotton soil= 1000gm
Table 4.1: Wet Sieve Analysis of BCS
S.No. Sieve size Particle size
(mm)
Weight
retained on
sieve (gm)
% weight
retained
(gm)
Cumulative
weight
retained (%)
Percentage
passing
(100-
cummulative)
1. 4.75 mm 4.75 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
2. 2 mm 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
3. 1 mm 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
4. 600 micron 0.600 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
5. 425 micron 0.425 1.9 0.19 0.19 99.81
6. 300 micron 0.300 6.42 0.642 0.832 99.168
7. 212 micron 0.212 1.02 0.102 0.934 99.066
8. 150 micron 0.150 22.81 2.281 3.215 96.785
9. 75 micron 0.075 68.49 6.849 10.064 89.936
4.2.2 HYDROMETERANALYSIS OF BLACK COTTON SOIL

Page | 32
(A) CALIBRATION OF HYDROMETER
1. Cross sectional area of glass jar = π/4*d2= π/4*(6.5)2= 33.18 cm2
2. Volume of hydrometer found by immersion in water= v*h=90 cc
3. Length of hydrometer bulb (h=17 cm) = h/2 =8.5 cm
4. Gs = 2.65
Table 4.2: Calibration of hydrometer
S.No. Hydrometer
reading
(Rh)
H=distance of each
hydrometer reading
from the lowest reading
Effective depth He in cm
He=[H+ h/2-Vh/2A]
He=[H+8.5-90/2*33.18]
He=column3+7.14
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1. 27.0 2.45 9.59
2. 26.0 2.98 10.12
3. 25.50 3.91 11.05
4. 24.0 4.80 11.94
5. 21.0 5.21 12.35
6. 19.5 5.87 13.01
7. 18.0 6.02 13.16
8. 17.0 6.92 14.06
9. 14.5 7.12 14.26
10. 13.0 7.63 14.77
11. 12.0 8.50 15.64
(B) HYDROMETER TEST ON GIVEN SOIL
1. Mass of soil passing through 75 micron =50 gm.
2. Composite correction (c) = to be read at time of recording
3. Record all the readings.
Table 4.3: Observation and calculation table for hydrometer test on given soil

Page | 33
S.No. Time
in
minute
Observed
hydrometer
reading
(Rh)
Temp
of
solution
in (0C)
Composite
correction
(C)
Rh=
Rh’+Cm
(3)+0.5
R=
Rh’+C
=(3)+(5)
He (cm)
graph of
Rh of
col (6)
=H+7.14
Dmm
=0.106
√𝑯𝒆
𝒕
=0.106√(𝟖)/
(𝟐)
P% finer
than D
=3.2*col(7)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
1. 0.5 27.5 26 -1 28 26.5 9.25 0.0498934 84.8
2. 1.0 26.0 26 -1 26.5 25.0 10.79 0.03810383 80.0
3. 2.0 24 26 -1 24.5 23.0 11.54 0.02786415 78.4
4. 5.0 22 26 -1 22.5 21.0 12.18 0.01810492 72.0
5. 10.0 20 26 -1 20.5 19.0 12.62 0.01303129 65.6
6. 15.0 19.5 26 -1 20.0 18.5 12.76 0.010698864 59.2
7. 30.0 18.0 26 -1 18.5 17.0 13.12 0.007671217 54.4
8. 60.0 16.5 26 -1 17.0 15.5 14.06 0.005615327 49.6
9. 120.0 15.0 26 -1 15.5 14.0 14.10 0.00397628 44.8
10. 240.0 14.5 26 -1 15.0 13.5 14.15 0.002816635 43.2
11. 1440 14.0 26 -1 14.5 13 14.26 0.001154347 41.6
Figure: 4.1 Particle size distribution curve of BCS

Page | 34
4.2.3 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE OF CEMENT KILN DUST
Cement Kiln Dust obtained from cement industries area in extremely fine nature as it is in
the clinker last stage.
For the distribution curve Dry Sieve Analysis is done.
Total weight of Cement Kiln Dust= 1000 grams.
Table 4.4: Dry Sieve Analysis of CKD
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
finer%
particle size(mm)
particle size distribution graph of BCS

Page | 35
S.No. Sieve size Particle
size (mm)
Weight
retained on
sieve (gm)
% weight
retained
(gm)
Cumulative
%
Percentage
passing
%
1. 4.75 mm 4.75 0 0 0 100
2. 2 mm 2.00 0 0 0 100
3. 1 mm 1.00 0 0 0 100
4. 600 micron 0.600 0 0 0 100
5. 425 micron 0.425 0 0 0 100
6. 300 micron 0.300 0 0 0 100
7. 212 micron 0.212 1.5 1.5 0.15 99.85
8. 150 micron 0.150 18.21 1.821 1.971 98.029
9. 75 micron 0.075 38.42 3.842 5.813 94.187
Figure: 4.2 Particle size distribution curve of CKD
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
0.01 0.1 1 10
finer%
particle size (mm)
particle size distribution graph of CKD

Page | 36
4.3 LIQUID LIMIT
1.) SAMPLE 1. (BCS+ 0%CKD)
Table 4.5: liquid limit of BCS+ 0%CKD
No of
blows.
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan
+wet soil
(gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
soil (gm)
Water content
%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
39 5 10.19 21.90 17.60 58.30
33 9 9.62 23.30 18.30 57.60
28 8 9.91 23.50 18.22 63.53
From the graph below
LIQUID LIMIT=63.62%
No of
blows.
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan
+wet soil
(gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
soil (gm)
Water content
%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
37 6 9.03 20.00 15.99 57.61
24 14 9.59 21.43 17.00 60
20 7 8.87 20.42 16.00 62
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
1 10 100
W/C
BLOWS
LL:0 %CKD

Page | 37
LIQUID LIMT=60.36%
No of
blows.
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan
+wet soil
(gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
soil (gm)
Water content
%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
34 7 9.25 19.57 16.13 50
27 11 8.25 19.98 15.94 52.55
21 6 9.31 20.79 16.40 62
LIQUID LIMIT=56.98%
56
58
60
62
64
1 10 100
W/C
BLOWS
LL: 3%CKD
0
20
40
60
80
1 10 100
W/C
BLOWS
LL: 8%CKD

Page | 38
No of
blows.
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan
+wet soil
(gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
soil (gm)
Water content
%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
32 3 10.18 39.15 29.55 49.56
18 12 10.82 42.03 31.17 53.36
11 9 9.59 31.81 23.70 57.47
LIQUID LIMIT=51.78%
No of
blows.
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan
+wet soil
(gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
soil (gm)
Water content
%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
37 8 9.43 21.42 17.37 51
29 3 9.71 21.86 17.78 50.56
17 10 8.62 21.36 17.17 49
45
50
55
60
1 10 100
W/C
BLOWS
LL: 13%CKD

Page | 39
LIQUID LIMIT=49.47%
No of
blows.
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan
+wet soil
(gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
soil (gm)
Water content
%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
38 6 10.39 19.02 16.56 39.87
29 7 9.24 19.05 16.14 42.17
17 3 8.91 22.20 17.98 46.53
LIQUID LIMIT=43.82%
48
49
50
51
52
53
1 10 100
W/C
BLOWS
LL: 18%CKD
38
40
42
44
46
48
1 10 100
W/C
BLOWS
LL: 25%CKD

Page | 40
4.3 PLASTIC LIMIT
Table 4.11: plastic limit of BCS+ 0%CKD
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan
+wet thread
(gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
(gm)
Water
content%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
2 6.45 11.39 10.22 31.03
6 6.32 11.92 10.52 33.33
Average=32.18%
PLASTIC LIMIT=32.18%
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan
+wet thread
(gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
(gm)
Water
content%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
6 6.72 11.58 10.43 30.99
8 6.73 10.96 9.94 31.77
Average=31.38%
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan +wet
thread (gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
(gm)
Water
content%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
9 6.90 13.30 11.79 30.87
4 6.95 12.67 11.32 30.89
Average=30.88%

Page | 41
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan +wet
thread (gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
(gm)
Water
content%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
6 7.03 11.54 10.50 29.97
2 6.40 11.62 10.42 29.85
Average=29.91%
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan +wet
thread (gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
(gm)
Water
content%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
3 6.29 11.82 10.60 28.30
7 6.33 11.21 10.12 28.75
Average=28.52%
6.) SAMPLE 6. (BCS+25%CKD)
Pan no. (w1)
Wt of pan
(gm)
(w2)
Wt of pan +wet
thread (gm)
(w3)
Oven dried
(gm)
Water
content%=
𝑤2 − 𝑤3
𝑤3 − 𝑤1
𝑥100
8 6.61 11.12 10.12 28.49
6 6.62 9.8 9.12 27.20
Average=27.84%

Page | 42
4.5 PLASTICITY INDEX
Table 4.17: plasticity index of samples
Sample no. Liquid limit %
(L.L.)
Plastic limit %
(P.L.)
PLASTICITY INDEX %
P.I.=L.L.-P.L.
1.)BCS+ 0% CKD 63.62 32.18 31.44
2.)BCS+ 3% CKD 60.36 31.38 28.48
3.)BCS+ 8% CKD 56.98 30.88 26.10
4.)BCS+ 13% CKD 51.78 29.91 21.87
5.)BCS+ 18% CKD 49.47 28.52 20.95
6.)BCS+ 25% CKD 43.82 27.84 15.98
4.6 SHRINKAGE LIMIT
Is calculated by the relation:
Shrinkage limit (WS) % = { WC- (
𝑉−𝑉𝑑
𝑀𝑑
)X 100 }
Where , ( WS) = Shrinkage limit
Wc= moisture content of the soil
Md= weight of dry soil pat
V=volume of the wet pat
Vd= volume of the dry pat soil

Page | 43
Table 4.18: Shrinkage limit of the samples
Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Shrinkage dish no. I II III IV V VI
Wt of shrinkage dish
(gm)
17.48 21.18 28.01 27.81 28.63 28.32
+wet soil (gm)
91.61 92.16 93.61 95.98 96.19 100.64
+dry soil pat (gm)
59.66 77.14 79.38 81.81 83.46 72.62
Wt of dry soil pat
(gm)( Md)
43.78 55.96 53.90 54.0 54.83 46.30
Wt of water (gm) 31.05 15.02 14.23 14.17 12.73 28.52
Water content % (WC) 0.7094 0.2684 0.2640 0.2624 0.2321 0.6325
Wt of mercury filling
shrinkage dish (gm)
652.86 660.21 685.71 688.12 691.87 643.61
Volume of wet pat (V) 48.01 48.54 50.41 50.59 50.87 47.32
Wt of mercury
displaced by dry soil
pat
317.33 335.16 341.10 341.28 347.31 417.66
Volume of dry soil pat
(Vd)
23.33 24.64 25.08 25.09 25.53 30.70
Shrinkage limit% (Ws) 14.56 15.86 20.59 20.98 23.0 25.73
4.7 DIFFERENTIALFREE SWELLTEST
DFS=Vd-Vk/Vk x 100
Where, Vk =volume of soil specimen from kerosene test tube
Vd =volume of soil specimen from distilled water

Page | 44
Table 4.19: DFS sheet of samples
0% CKD 3% CKD 8% CKD 13% CKD 18% CKD 25% CKD
Water initial 10 10 10 10 10 10
Final (Vd) 13.1 12.8 12.5 12.1 11.5 10.5
Kerosene initial 10 10 10 10 10 10
Final (Vk) 10 10 10 10 10 10
DFS % 31 28 25 21 15 5
4.8 MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTIONTEST
The weight of the mould, base plate and compacted soil is taken. A representative
sample is taken for water content determination. The bulk density and dry density for the
compacted soil is calculated from relations:
ρ = M/V (gm/cc)
ρd = ρ / (1+w)(gm/cc)
Where,
ρ = bulk density of soil (gm/cc)
ρd = dry density of soil (gm/cc)
M =mass of the wet compacted specimen (gm)
V = volume of the mould

Page | 45
1.) SAMPLE 1: BCS +0% CKD
Mould weight= 5580 gm Volume in CC=2250 CC
Added
WC
%
wt of
mould
+wet
soil
(gm)
Wt
of
cont.
(gm)
Wt of
cont.
+wet
sample
(gm)
Wt of
cont. +
dry
sample
(gm)
Wt of
dry
soil
(gm)
Wt of
moisture
(gm)
Moisture
content
%
Wt of
wet
soil in
mould
(gm)
Bulk
density
Dry
density
OMC
%
MDD
(gm/cc)
10 10025 8.92 76.55 66.30 57.38 10.25 17.8 4445 1.97 1.67
20.04 1.7312 10265 9.88 92.30 78.40 68.60 13.82 20.04 4685 2.08 1.73
14 10075 8.62 87.46 73.80 65.16 13.68 20.99 4495 1.99 1.65
Added
WC
%
wt of
mould
+wet
soil
(gm)
Wt
of
cont.
(gm)
Wt of
cont.
+wet
sample
(gm)
Wt of
cont. +
dry
sample
(gm)
Wt of
dry
soil
(gm)
Wt of
moisture
(gm)
Moisture
content
%
Wt of
wet
soil in
mould
(gm)
Bulk
density
Dry
density
OMC
%
MDD
(gm/cc)
10 10180 8.60 106.92 95.12 86.52 11.80 13.63 4600 2.04 1.79
18.21 1.8313 10468 9.87 99.10 81.12 71.25 12.98 18.21 4885 2.17 1.83
15 10235 10.5 93.80 82.13 71.69 11.67 16.29 4655 2.06 1.78

Page | 46
Added
WC
%
wt of
mould
+wet
soil
(gm)
Wt of
cont.
(gm)
Wt of
cont.
+wet
sample
(gm)
Wt of
cont. +
dry
sample
(gm)
Wt of
dry
soil
(gm)
Wt of
moisture
(gm)
Moisture
content
%
Wt of
wet
soil in
mould
(gm)
Bulk
density
Dry
density
OMC
%
MDD
(gm/cc)
11 10315 10.42 70.78 63.22 52.8 7.56 14.32 4735 2.10 1.83
15.93 1.8413 10375 9.88 71.95 63.42 53.54 8.53 15.93 4795 2.13 1.84
15 10285 10.75 76.26 66.62 55.87 9.64 16.53 4705 2.09 1.79
Added
WC
%
wt of
mould
+wet
soil
(gm)
Wt of
cont.
(gm)
Wt of
cont.
+wet
sample
(gm)
Wt of
cont. +
dry
sample
(gm)
Wt of
dry
soil
(gm)
Wt of
moisture
(gm)
Moisture
content
%
Wt of
wet
soil in
mould
(gm)
Bulk
density
Dry
density
OMC
%
MDD
(gm/cc)
11 10225 9.15 83.19 75.74 66.59 7.45 11.18 4645 2.06 1.85
13.40 1.8713 10375 9.73 75.35 67.60 57.87 7.75 13.40 4795 2.13 1.87
15 10325 10.21 79.36 70.10 59.89 4.26 15.46 4745 2.10 1.82

Page | 47
Added
WC
%
wt of
mould
+wet
soil
(gm)
Wt of
cont.
(gm)
Wt of
cont.
+wet
sample
(gm)
Wt of
cont. +
dry
sample
(gm)
Wt of
dry
soil
(gm)
Wt of
moisture
(gm)
Moisture
content
%
Wt of
wet
soil in
mould
(gm)
Bulk
density
Dry
density
OMC
%
MDD
(gm/cc)
11 10185 9.64 83.75 76.18 66.54 7.57 11.3 4605 2.04 1.83
12.43 1.89
13 10385 10.22 81.94 74.01 63.79 7.93 12.43 4805 2.13 1.89
15 10245 10.15 80.54 72.90 62.75 7.64 12.17 4665 2.07 1.84
Added
WC
%
wt of
mould
+wet
soil
(gm)
Wt of
cont.
(gm)
Wt of
cont.
+wet
sample
(gm)
Wt of
cont. +
dry
sample
(gm)
Wt of
dry
soil
(gm)
Wt of
moisture
(gm)
Moisture
content
%
Wt of
wet
soil in
mould
(gm)
Bulk
density
Dry
density
OMC
%
MDD
(gm/cc)
13 10545 9.10 94.88 86.98 77.88 7.90 10.14 4965 2.20 2.00
10.94 2.03
15 10685 10.21 90.61 82.68 72.47 7.93 10.94 5105 2.26 2.03
16 10475 9.70 94.52 85.37 75.67 9.15 12.09 4895 2.175 1.94

Page | 48
4.9 PERMEABILITYTEST
1) Cross sectional of stand pipe, a=2.5 cm =
𝜋
4
*2.5*2.5=4.90 cm2
2) Length of soil specimen (L)= 6 cm
3) A= cross sectional area of soil specimen=
𝜋
4
*7.6*7.6=45.34 cm2
4) t= time interval for head to drop
5) H2= total head after the test
6) H1= total head before the test
Coefficient of permeability (K )= aL/At*log 𝑒 𝐻1/𝐻2
Table 4.20: Permeability coefficient K data sheet
Sample no. H1
(cm)
H2
(cm)
Time
(sec)
K
Permeability
coefficient
(cm/sec)
1. 162 132 120 4.80x10-4
2. 162 122 120 6.65x10-4
3. 162 110 120 9.08x10-4
4. 162 106 120 9.95x10-4
5. 162 93 120 1.30x10-3
6. 162 88 120 1.43x10-3

Page | 49
4.10 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHTEST
Mass of specimen =183.82 gm
Area=A0/1-ε, Changein length ε =∆L/L Ao=3.14x3.8x3.8/4=11.34cm2
Deformation Load (1) Load (2) Load (3)
30 2.4 3.8 3.6
60 5.4 4.6 4.8
90 8.6 8.2 11.2
120 11.4 11.4 13.4
150 13.6 11.8 14.2
180 15.0 13.2 15.6
210 16.2 15.4 16.4
240 16.8 16.8 17.8
270 17.4 17.8 17.2
300 17.0 17.2 16.8
Change inlength 7.1 6.9 6.9
L cm 7.6 7.6 7.6
∆𝑳 cm 0.5 0.7 0.7
Load (kg) Deformation
(mm) x0.01
Strain
ε=∆L/L
Corrected
area=A/1-ε
Stress kg/cm2
17.4 2.7 0.065 12.12 1.43
17.8 2.7 0.092 12.48 1.42
17.8 2.4 0.092 12.48 1.42
UCS= 1.42 kg/cm2
=142 KN/m2

Page | 50
30 3.2 3.8 3.8
60 5.4 5.2 6.0
90 11.2 12.0 11.4
120 13.6 12.8 12.2
150 14.2 13.8 13.8
180 15.8 15.2 15.0
210 16.6 16.0 15.8
240 17.8 17.8 16.8
270 18.2 17.4 18.0
300 17.6 17.0 17.6
L cm 7.6 7.6 7.6
∆𝑳 cm 0.5 0.3 0.4
(mm) x0.01
Strain
ε=∆L/L
Corrected
area=A/1-ε
Stress kg/cm2
18.2 2.70 0.065 12.12 1.5016
17.8 2.40 0.039 11.80 1.5084
18.0 2.70 0.052 11.96 1.5050
UCS= 1.50 kg/cm2
=150 KN/m2

Page | 51
3.) SAMPLE 3: BCS 8% CKD
30 4.2 4.8 4.2
60 8.6 8.2 8.4
90 10.8 10.6 10.2
120 12.4 12.6 12.8
150 13.6 13.8 14.0
180 14.8 14.6 14.8
210 15.6 15.8 16.0
240 16.8 17.0 17.8
270 18.4 18.6 18.4
300 17.6 18.0 17.6
L cm 7.6 7.6 7.6
∆𝑳 cm 0.4 0.3 0.3
(mm) x0.01
Strain
ε=∆L/L
Corrected
area=A/1-ε
Stress kg/cm2
18.4 2.70 0.052 11.96 1.53
18.6 2.70 0.039 11.800 1.57
18.4 2.70 0.039 11.800 1.55
UCS= 1.55 kg/cm2
=155 KN/m2

Page | 52
30 4.8 4.6 4.4
60 8.0 8.2 8.4
90 10.4 10.8 11.0
120 12.8 13.0 13.2
150 14.0 14.8 14.6
180 15.2 15.6 15.8
210 16.8 17.2 17.6
240 17.8 18.4 19.2
270 18.8 19.0 18.8
300 18.2 18.6 18.4
L cm 7.6 7.6 7.6
∆𝑳 cm 0.2 0.1 0.2
(mm) x0.01
Strain
ε=∆L/L
Corrected
area=A/1-ε
Stress kg/cm2
18.80 2.70 0.026 11.64 1.61
19.0 2.70 0.013 11.48 1.65
19.2 2.40 0.026 11.64 1.64
UCS= 1.63 kg/cm2
=163 KN/m2

Page | 53
30 4.8 5.0 4.8
60 9.2 9.4 9.6
90 11.8 12.0 12.0
120 13.6 13.8 14.0
150 14.8 15.0 15.2
180 16.0 16.6 16.8
210 17.8 18.4 18.8
240 19.0 19.8 19.6
270 19.8 19.4 19.6
300 19.4 18.8 19.4
L cm 7.6 7.6 7.6
∆𝑳 cm 0.1 0.1 0.2
(mm) x0.01
Strain
ε=∆L/L
Corrected
area=A/1-ε
Stress kg/cm2
19.8 2.70 0.013 11.48 1.72
19.8 2.40 0.013 11.48 1.72
19.6 2.70 0.026 11.64 1.68
UCS= 1.70 kg/cm2
=170 KN/m2

Page | 54
30 5.4 5.8 5.8
60 10.8 11.0 11.6
90 12.4 12.2 12.8
120 13.8 14.0 15.2
150 15.2 15.4 16.4
180 16.6 16.8 17.8
210 17.6 18.0 18.8
240 18.8 19.6 19.8
270 20.2 20.6 20.8
300 19.6 19.8 20.4
L cm 7.6 7.6 7.6
∆𝑳 cm 0.1 0.1 0.1
(mm) x0.01
Strain
ε=∆L/L
Corrected
area=A/1-ε
Stress kg/cm2
20.2 2.70 0.013 11.48 1.75
20.6 2.70 0.013 11.48 1.79
20.8 2.70 0.013 11.48 1.81
UCS= 1.78 kg/cm2
=178 KN/m2
4.11 CALIFORNIABEARING RATIO TEST
Sample taken= 5 kg,
Wt. of mould =11.800 kg,
Division = 0.002 mm=2.73 kg
Proving ring least count =0.002 mm

Page | 55
Deformation dial gauge =0.01 mm.
CBR at 2.5mm penetration =Load for 2.5mm penetration/standard load X 100
CBR at 5.0mm penetration =Load for 5.0mm penetration/standard load X100
Table 4.21: CBR observation data sheet
SAMPLES- 0%CK
D
3%CK
D
8%CK
D
13%CKD 18%CKD 25%CKD
S.No
.
Penetration
(mm)
Deformation Load
kg
Load
kg
Load
kg
Load
kg
Load
kg
Load
kg
1 0.5 50 3.2 5.2 6.6 9.2 5.8 6.2
2 1.0 100 5.0 7.6 8.0 9.6 8.2 8.0
3 1.5 150 6.2 8.0 8.4 9.8 10.6 12.8
4 2.0 200 7.0 8.4 8.8 10.0 13.0 15.4
5 2.5 250 7.6 8.8 9.2 10.2 14.2 17.8
6 3.0 300 8.2 9.2 9.6 10.8 15.0 19.8
7 3.5 350 8.8 9.6 10.0 11.2 15.8 21.4
8 4.0 400 9.2 9.8 10.4 11.4 16.2 23.2
9 4.5 450 9.6 10.0 10.8 11.8 16.6 24.6
10 5.0 500 9.8 10.6 11.0 12.0 16.8 26.0
11 5.5 550 10.2 11.0 11.6 12.4 17.2 27.6
12 6.0 600 10.6 11.4 11.8 12.8 17.8 29
CBR% for 2.5mm 1.5 1.75 1.83 2.03 2.82 3.54
CBR% for 5.0mm 1.3 1.4 1.46 1.59 2.2 3.45
Final CBR % 1.5 1.75 1.83 2.03 2.82 3.54

Page | 56
CHAPTER-5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 GENERAL
The various tests were conducted on black cotton soil mixed with Cement Kiln
Dust in different proportions as per relevant IS codes of practice. The test results
obtained from various laboratory investigations are summarized in Table 5.1
Table 5.1: Summaries of Results
S.No. Parameters
Result
0% CKD 3% CKD 8% CKD 13% CKD 18% CKD 25% CKD
1. Liquid limit % 63.62 60.36 56.98 51.78 49.47 43.82
2. Plastic limit % 32.18 31.38 30.88 29.91 28.52 27.84
3. Shrinkage limit % 14.56 15.86 20.59 20.98 23.00 25.73
4. Plasticity index % 31.44 28.48 26.10 21.87 20.95 15.98
5. DFS % 31 28 25 21 15 5
6. OMC % 20.04 18.21 15.93 13.40 12.43 10.94
7. MDD (gm/cc) 1.73 1.83 1.84 1.87 1.89 2.03
8. Permeability(cm/sec) 4.80*10-
4
6.65*10-
4
9.08*10-
4
9.95*10-
3
1.30 *10-
3
1.43*10-
3
9. UCS(KN/m2) 142 150 155 163 170 178
10. CBR % 1.51 1.75 1.83 2.03 2.82 3.54
Black cotton soil with 0%CKD posses Soil classification as CH (high plasticity clay),
Specific gravity as 2.65and Grain size distribution of sand (4%), silt+ clay (96%).

Page | 57
5.2 DISCUSSION
Based on the results obtained from the various tests conducted on black cotton soil and
cement kiln dust. Variations in various geotechnical properties are discussed below.
Note: Sample 1=BCS+0%CKD, Sample 2=BCS+3%CKD, Sample 3=BCS+8%CKD, Sample
4=BCS+13%CKD, Sample 5=BCS+18%CKD, Sample 6=BCS+25%CKD.
5.3 INDEX PROPERTIES
The variation of liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, shrinkage limit and DFS are
shown in figures below. The liquid limit decreased from 63.62% to 43.82%, plastic limit
decreased from32.18% to 27.84%, plasticity index decreased from 31.44% to 15.98%, shrinkage
limit increased from 14.56% to 25.73% and DFS decreased from 31% to 5% with the addition of
CKD from 0% to 25%.
Figure 5.1: liquid limit variation graph
63.62
60.36
56.985
51.785
49.47
43.82
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LIQUIDLIMIT%
SAMPLE NO.
LIQUID LIMIT%

Page | 58
Figure 5.2: plastic limit variation graph
Figure 5.3: plasticity index variation graph
32.18
31.38
30.88
29.91
28.52
27.84
27.5
28
28.5
29
29.5
30
30.5
31
31.5
32
32.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PLASTICLIMIT%
SAMPLE NO.
PLASTIC LIMIT%
31.44
28.485
26.105
21.875 20.95
15.98
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PLASTICITYINDEX%
SAMPLE NO.
PLASTICITY INDEX%

Page | 59
Figure 5.4: shrinkage limit variation graph
Figure 5.5: DFS variation graph
14.56
15.86
20.59 20.98
23
25.73
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SHRINKAGELIMIT%
SAMPLE NO.
SHRINKAGE LIMIT%
31
28
25
21
15
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DFS%
SAMPLE NO.
DFS %

Page | 60
5.4 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
The variations in engineering properties of samples are shown below. The OMC decreased from
20.4% to10.94%, MDD increased from 1.73gm/cc to 2.03gm/cc, permeability increased from
4.80*10-4cm/sec to 1.43*10-3cm/sec, UCS increased from 142KN/m2 to178 KN/m2 and CBR
increased from 1.51% to3.54%, with the addition of CKD from 0% to 25%.
There is a great variation of engineering properties from CKD addition percentage from 0% to
25%, it will more helpful for any type of stabilization.
Note: Sample 1=BCS+0%CKD, Sample 2=BCS+3%CKD, Sample 3=BCS+8%CKD, Sample
4=BCS+13%CKD, Sample 5=BCS+18%CKD, Sample 6=BCS+25%CKD.
Figure 5.6: OMC variation graph
20.04
18.21
15.93
13.4
12.43
10.94
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
OMC%
SAMPLE NO.
OMC %

Page | 61
Figure 5.7: MDD variation graph
Figure 5.8: permeability variation graph
1.73
1.83 1.84
1.87
1.89
2.03
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MDD(gm/cc)
SAMPLE NO.
MDD (gm/cc)
4.80*10^-4
6.65*10^-4
9.08*10^-4
9.95*10^-4
1.30*10^-3
1.43*10^-3
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
permeability(cm/s)
SAMPLE NO.
PERMEABILITY (cm/s)

Page | 62
Figure 5.9: UCS variation graph
Figure 5.10: CBR variation graph
142
150 155
163
170
178
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ucs(KN/m^2)
SAMPLE NO.
UCS (KN/m2)
1.514
1.75 1.83
2.03
2.82
3.54
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CBR%
SAMPLE NO.
CBR %

Page | 63
CHAPTER-6
CONCLUSION
6.1 CONCLUSION
This research is related to access the suitability of cement kiln dust for improving the
geotechnical properties of black cotton soil. Cement kiln dust is a waste material generated from
cement industries. An experimental work are carried out to study the improvement in index
properties , swelling and shrinkage behaviour, proctor compaction parameters, CBR,
permeability and UCS of black cotton soil on addition of cement kiln dust into it, in certain
percentages.
From the above experimental study it is clear that the engineering properties of black cotton soil
are modified to a great extent with the addition of cement kiln dust into it.
Based on the laboratory test conducted on black cotton soil mixed with different proportions of
cement kiln, following outcomes can be summarized:
(1) The Liquid limit and plastic limit values of the samples are decreasing with the increase in
the amount of cement kiln dust.
(2) Shrinkage limit is increasing with the increase in the percent of cement kiln dust.
(3) The Plasticity Index is gradually decreased with the increasing percentage of cement kiln
dust.
(4) The CBR of the soil increases with the increasing percent of CKD.With the improvement in
the CBR of the soil samples the bearing capacity and strength of the soil is improved.
(5) Swelling and permeability of the Black cotton soil is completely checked on addition of
cement kiln dust.
(6) Maximum Dry Density of samples is increasing with the increase in percentage of Cement
kiln dust.

Page | 64
(7) Optimum Moisture Content is decreasing with the increase in percentage of Cement kiln dust
in the soil samples.
(8) The study presents an effective method for improvement of problematic black cotton soil, by
utilizing an industrial waste as cement kiln dust.
(9) It is an ecofriendly and cost effective method for those areas where the weak soil exists and
CKD is available in huge quantity as industrial waste.
The significant improvement in stability and strength characteristics of Black Cotton soil could
be achieved by addition of CEMENT KILN DUST about 20% of dry weight of the Black Cotton
soil.
6.2 SCOPE OF FUTURE STUDY
From the above research it is clear that the geotechnical properties of black cotton soil are
modified to great extent with the addition of cement kiln dust.
The further studies could be done on –
1) The consolidation characteristics of Black Cotton Soil may be determined on increasing
percentage of CKD.
2) The shear strength characteristics of BC soil with various percentage of cement kiln dust can
be determined.
3) The comparative study for effective utilization of various industrial waste materials in
improving Black Cotton Soil.
4) The leach ate analysis could be done for estimation of the effect of CKD on drinking water.
5) Similar experimental analysis can be done on other soils like silts, clay-silt mixtures.

Page | 65
REFERNCES
1.) ‘Kiln dust for stabilization of pavement base and sub grade materials’ by Joe W. Button,
P.E. Senior Research Fellow Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University System
in June 2003.
2.) Utilization of industrial by-products for the production of controlled low strength materials
(CLSM) by Amnon Katz, Konstantin Kovler, Department of civil engineering, National
building research institute- Israel institute of technology Haifa,32000.
3.) ‘Stabilization of clayey soil using cement kiln dust ‘by Y.KEEERTHI, P.DIVYA KANTHI,
N.TEJASWI, K.SHYAM CHAMBERLIN, B.SATYANARAYANA, department of civil
engineering, KL University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
4.) ‘Literature review on cement kiln dust usage in soil and waste stabilization and
experimental investigation’ by M.K. Rahman, S.Rehman& O.S.B. Al Amoudi, center for
Engineering research institute, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi
Arabia.
5.) F.O.P Oriola and G.Moses; ‘Compacted black cotton soil treated with cement kiln dust as
hydraulic barrier method’ AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL
RESEARCH, 2011, Science.
6.) Azad, S. (200). Influence of soil type on stabilization with cement kiln dust, Construction
and Building Materials, Vol. 3.
7.) Bhatty, J.I., Bhattacharya, S. and Todres, H.A. (1996). Use of Cement Kiln Dust in
Stabilizing Clay Soils. Portland cement Association, PCA Serial No. 2035.
8.) MacKay, M. and J.J. Emery, “Stabilization and Solidification of Contaminated Soils and
Sludge’s Using Cementitious Systems: Selected Case Histories,” Transportation Research
Record 1458, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
DC, 1994, pp.19-27.
9.) Klemm, W. A. (1980). Kiln Dust Utilization, Martin Marietta Laboratories Report MML
TR 80-12, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
10.) Heckle, G., “Alternative Materials for Sub grade Modification,” Report No. IL-PRR-
138, Bureau of Materials and Physical Research, Illinois Department of Transportation,
Springfield, Illinois, 2001.

Page | 66
11.) Freer-Hewish, G.S. Ghataora, and Y. Niazi, “Stabilization of Desert Sand with Cement
Kiln Dust plus Chemical additives in Desert Road Construction,” Proceedings, Institution
of Civil Engineers: Transport, Thomas Telford, Ltd., London, UK, 1999, pp. 29-36.
12.) SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING,(Geotechnical Engineering)
in SI units by Dr. K.R. Arora.
13.) Lakes and Seaway ‘Sub grade Stabilization using Cement Kiln Dust’ OTEC LAFARGE
October 28-29, 2008.
14.) Chesner, R.J. Collins, and M.H. MacKay, “User Guidelines for Waste and By-Product
Materials in Pavement Construction,” Report No. FHWA-RD-97-148, Federal Highway
Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1998.
15.) White, D.J. and K.L. Bergeson, “Long-Term Strength and Durability of Hydrated Fly-Ash
Road Bases,” Transportation Research Record 1755, Transportation Research Board, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 2001, pp. 151-159.
16.) Miller, G.A and S. Azad, “Influence of Soil Type on Stabilization with Cement Kiln
Dust,” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 14, No. 2, Elsevier Science, Ltd, Oxford, UK,
2000, pp. 89-97.
RESEARCH PAPER PUBLISHED:
RESEARCH PAPER 1.) ”EFFECT OF CEMENT KILN DUST ON INDEX PROPERTIES OF
BLACK COTTON SOIL.”
RESEARCH PAPER 2.)”EFFECT OF CEMENT KILN DUST ON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF
BLACK COTTON SOIL.”

Me thesis effect of cement kiln dust on geotechnical properties of black cotton soil exam nov 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Me thesis effect of cement kiln dust on geotechnical properties of black cotton soil exam nov 2015

Similar to Me thesis effect of cement kiln dust on geotechnical properties of black cotton soil exam nov 2015 (20)

More from RAJESH JAIN

More from RAJESH JAIN (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Me thesis effect of cement kiln dust on geotechnical properties of black cotton soil exam nov 2015