Peb802 capstone design project assesment 2

1
PEB 802 Capstone Design Project
Assignment 2
Sustainable Soil Stabilization of Red Clay Using Coir Fiber, KOBM and
Geotextile Material
Submitted By
Vishwaleen Vishaal Ram - 2016133741
Under Supervision of
Supervisor(s) Mr. Sateesh Kumar Pisini
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Bachelor of Engineering (Honours)
(Bachelor of Civil engineering),
to
SCHOOL OF BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING,
FIJI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, FIJI ISLAND
13th
September

2
1. Detailed Interpretation of the outcomes of the PEB 802
Capstone Design Project, Data Presentation & Error Analysis,
Evaluation of Experiment and Courtesy &Safety
The outcome of this project is to minimizing the cost of stabilizing soil of foundations of
structures like building, roads, and etc. It will be achieved by doing soil experimentation on
fiber-soil mixture with the addition of geotextile and KOBM. There are different types of soil
test that will be performed on the soil-fiber mixture such as CBR test, compaction test,
Atterberg’s limit test and many more. The outcome of the project will achieve before the final
submission since the convectional design and optimum methods.

3
Sieve Analysis
Description of soil: Red Clay Soil Sample No.
Mass of oven dry specimen, W: 500 g
Location: FNU Civil Lab Date:
Description of soil: Sample No.
Location: Date:
Tested by:
2.360 0.424 424
1.180 0.397 0.3979 0.001 397
0.600 0.401 0.4028 0.002 401
0.425 0.382 0.3833 0.001 382
0.300 0.376 0.3793 0.003 376
0.150 0.363 0.3709 0.008 363
0.075 0.3615 0.3712 0.010 361.5
PAN 0.3425 0.3425 0.000 342.5
2.6
MASS OF SIEVE
339.5 Sampling pan
mass of retained
on each sieve,
Rn
Cumulative
percent retained
Percent Finer
Sieve
Size.
Sieve
Weight (kg)
mass of soil +
mass of sieve,
Wn (kg)
Mass loss during sieve analysis 99.47042 % (OK, if less
than 2%)

4
W1= Wet wt of soil
W2= Dry wt of soil
WaterContent
Water content, w =
Description of soil: Clay Sample No.
Location: Near MB hall Date: 11/08/2020
sample 1 sample 2 Average
200 0.075 678 785 107.0 53.5 10.7 10.7 89.3
Pan - 893.0
Cumulative
percent retained
Percent Finer
mass ofsoilretained oneachsieve, Wn (g)Sieve
No.
Sieve
Opening
(mm)
mass ofSieve,
W (g)
mass ofSieve +
drysoilretained,
W (g)
Percent of
mass retained
oneachsieve,
Rn
2.360 0.4240 0.4241 0.0001
1.180 0.3971 0.3976 0.0005 .
0.600 0.4014 0.4027 0.0003
0.425 0.3822 0.3829 0.0007
0.300 0.3765 0.3779 0.0014
0.150 0.3630 0.3669 0.0039
0.075 0.3614 0.3657 0.0043
PAN 0.3425 0.3426 0.0001
0.0113
Percent
Cumulative mass
retained
Sieve
Size.
Sieve
Weight (kg)
mass of soil +
mass of sieve,
Wn (kg)
mass of soil
retained on each
sieve, Rn
weight of soil
passing (kg)

5
Soil Density (Core Cutter Mtd)
Description of
soil: Red Clay Soil Sample No. 1
Location: Near MB hall Date: 31/072020
Tested by: Group members
time length = Friday(3:30pm to Monday (9.25am)
1 2 3
I10 M1 E9
17.57 17.42 17.44
69.01 67.56 65.69
50.19 49.12 48.04
18.82 18.44 17.65
32.62 31.7 30.6
Mass of can + wet soil, W2 (g)
Item
Can No.
Mass of can, W1 (g)
Test No. 1
Average moisture content, w(%) = 57.84825047
Mass of can + dry soil, W3 (g)
Mass of moisture, W2 -W3 (g)
Mass of dry soil, W3-W1 (g)
Moisture content
57.6946658 58.170347 57.6797386
1 2 3
D8 C4 K8
17.51 17.31 17.36
65.67 62.61 64.34
48.9 46.88 47.95
16.77 15.73 16.39
31.39 29.57 30.59
Item
Test No. 1
Can No.
Mass of can, W1 (g)
53.1958066 53.5796012
Moisture content
53.4246575

6
Soil sample volume
93.4366 cm^3
Wet density
1.595 g/cm^3
Description of
mm
mm
cm
g
g
g
cm
1 2 3
K8 C5 C4
17.4 18.5 17.7
34.83 32.2 36.14
27.43 26.38 28.26
7.4 5.82 7.88
10.03 7.88 10.56
ValueItem
Ht of Cylinder
Ht of Empty space in Cylinder
Ht of soil sample
wt of cylinder + soil sample
wt of empty cylinder
74.621
Moisture content
73.779 73.858
Item
84.06
8.406
310
161
149wt of soil sample
Test No. 2
Can No.
Mass of can, W1 (g)
Soil sample radius, r 1.881
V 𝜋𝑟 𝐻𝑠
V
𝛾
𝑚
𝑣
𝛾

7
Soil sample volume
95.6121 cm^3
Wet density
1.569 g/cm^3
Description of
mm
mm
mm
g
g
g
cm
1 2 3
F4 5E D5
18.1 17.12 17.6
33.67 34.51 33.92
27.11 27.11 26.95
6.56 7.4 6.97
9.01 9.99 9.35
Ht of soil sample 8.36
wt of cylinder + soil sample 308
Item Value
Ht of Cylinder 83.6
Item
Test No. 2
Can No.
Mass of can, W1 (g)
wt of empty cylinder 158
wt of soil sample 150
Moisture content
72.808 74.074 74.545
V 𝜋𝑟 𝐻𝑠
V
𝛾
𝑚
𝑣
𝛾

8
Soil sample volume
93.437 cm^3
Wet density
1.744 g/cm^3
Average moisture content of the three samples, w(%) = 72.468 %
w(%) = 0.725
Average wet density of the three samples, 1.636 g/cm^3
Experimental 0.95 g/cm^3
Actual 2.65 g/cm^3
Error (%) = 64.2045
mm
mm
cm
g
g
g
cm
1 2 3
B8 D8 H7
17.54 17.52 17.6
36.84 30.38 33.53
28.93 25.07 27.04
7.91 5.31 6.49
11.39 7.55 9.44
Ht of soil sample 8.406
wt of cylinder + soil sample 324
Item Value
Ht of Cylinder 84.06
Item
Test No. 2
Can No.
Mass of can, W1 (g)
wt of empty cylinder 161
wt of soil sample 163
Moisture content
69.447 70.331 68.750
V 𝜋𝑟 𝐻𝑠
V
𝛾
𝑚
𝑣
𝛾
(𝛾 𝑎𝑣𝑔)
(𝛾 𝑑)
(𝛾 𝑑)

9
COMPACTION TEST TRIAL
Aggregate = 2.5 Kg
Weight of hammer = 2.4 Kg
Diameter of mould = 101.16mm
Height of mould = 116.05
Volume of mould = 932722.9599 mmˆ2 0.93272296
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7
Weightof Mould
(Kg)
3.633 3.633 3.633 3.633 3.633 3.633 3.633
Weight of Mould
+ base plate +
wet soil sample
5.013 5.0395 5.0838 5.128 5.139 5.142 5.155
Amountof Water 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Can labelling D9 B3 B9 G10 D6 G9 A4
Weightof Can
(g) W1
22.36 22.63 22.54 22.95 23.06 23.1 22.83
Weightof Can +
wetsoil sample
(g) W2
92.83 93.45 87.63 89.59 108.96 101.46 100.74
Weight of Can +
dry soil sample
(g) W3
70.47 70.82 65.09 66.64 85.9 78.36 77.91
Mass of Moisture
(g) W2 - W3
22.36 22.63 22.54 22.95 23.06 23.1 22.83
Mass of Dry soil
(g) W3 -
W1
48.11 48.19 42.55 43.69 62.84 55.26 55.08
Moisture
content
46.47682395 46.9599502 52.972973 52.52918288 36.6963717 41.8023887 41.44880174
Wet density 1.479539005 1.507950442 1.55544579 1.602833922 1.61462735 1.61784374 1.631781424
Dry density 1.010084029 1.026096185 1.01681085 1.050837546 1.18117791 1.14091431 1.153619829
( )

11
LIQUID LIMIT TEST 1
1 2 3 4
C1 E7 E3 A7
17.4 17.35 17.37 17.85
Mass of can + wet soil, W2 (g) 39.64 42.88 43.99 47.98
Mass of can + dry soil, W3 (g) 28.29 29.58 30.25 32.13
Mass of moisture, W2 -W3 (g) 11.35 13.3 13.74 15.85
Mass of dry soil, W3-W1 (g) 10.89 12.23 12.88 14.28
Can No.
Test No. 1
110.9943978
ITEM
Trial
107.66
104.22
Mass of can, W1 (g)
Average moisture content, w(%) =
106.6770186108.7489779
Moisture content
14 A7 110.9943978
19 E3 106.6770186
22 E7 108.7489779
26 C1 104.2240588
Actual no of blows Can # no. Moisture Content

12
LIQUID LIMIT TEST 2
BLOWS
NO# OF
ACTUAL
BLOWS
10 to 15 13 H7
15 to 20 18 B8
20 to 25 22 C5
25 to 30 26 K10
1 2 3 4
C5 H7 B8 K10
Mass of can, W1 (g) 18.46 17.61 17.53 17.37
Mass of moisture, W2 -W3 (g) 16.26 20.76 14.74 18.61
ITEM Test No. 1
Trial
Can No.
105.37913 110.8382274 103.29362 101.69399
Moisture content
105.3012428
13 H7 110.8382274
18 B8 103.293623
22 C5 105.3791316
26 K10 101.6939891
Actual no of blows Can # no. Moisture Content

13
(26 BLOWS)
97.54
150.4
123.83
31
150
20.66666667PERCENTAGE SHRINKAGE
LENGTH OF SHRINKAGE MOULD (mm)
SHRINKAGE LIMIT TEST
SRINKAGE MOULD +WET SOIL, W2 (g)
SRINKAGE MOULD +DRY SOIL, W3 (g)
LENGTH OF SHRINKAGE (mm)
SRINKAGE MOULD, W1 (g)

14
PLASTIC LIMIT
1 2 3 4
C10 J1 J8 K5
Mass of can, W1 (g) 17.17 17.94 17.5 17.53
Mass of moisture, W2 -W3 (g) 0.77 0.71 1 0.86
65.27
66.67
ITEM Test No. 1
Trial
63.64 68.27
62.5
Can No.
Moisture content
97.65
150.4
123.45
31
150
20.66666667
26.95
25.8
104.4573643
MOISTURE CONTENT
PERCENTAGE SHRINKAGE (%)
MASS OF MOISTURE, W2-W3 (g)
MASS OF DRY SOIL, W3-W1 (g)
SRINKAGE MOULD ,W1(g)
LENGTH OF MOULD (mm)
MASS OF SRINKAGE MOULD +WET SOIL , W2(g)
MASS OF SRINKAGE MOULD + DRY SOIL, W3(g)
LENGTH OF SHRINKAGE (mm)
SHRINKAGE LIMIT TEST(26 blows)

15
2. Detailed Investigations of the Complex Engineering Problems
Using Research-Based Knowledge in Implementation of PEB
802 Capstone Design Project
Software
MS Excel
In mathematics, using MS Excel solver to calculate the required variables from the experiment to
get to the results and create graphs. The problem of getting to results and creating graphs.
FLAC-3D
FLAC 3D, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3D, is numerical modeling software for
advanced geotechnical analysis of soil, rock, groundwater, and ground support.
C++
Simple and complex mathematical equation will be defined in the C++ programming which will
output the optimization of percentage fiber to be used in relation to the weight of soil.
Constraints
getting to the expected experimentation results are difficult due to the errors created during the
experiment and other conditions such as humidity difference in each day. Other constraints are
using new software’s, adding data in the FLAC 3D and trying to solve it for the first time may
give unexpected results.
Objective function
An objective function articulates the key goal of the model which is what's more to be
minimalized or exploited. In naivest designation it is a set of variables which governor the
importance of the objective function.
Designvariables
The design variables are recorded at the appendences this is formed from the convectional
technique which will be enhanced to yield the finest ideal design.

16
3. An Overview of Modern IT Tools, And Why You Decided to
Use in Your Capstone Design Project
Experimentation Optimization
In producing the optimal percent of fiber to be used with clay soil we need to do lab test and
find the best matching of fiber soil combination, such lab test includes Atterberg’s limit test
Consistency limits, Specific gravity. The Compaction tests. The Unconfined compression tests,
The California bearing ratio test. Also the addition of KOBM and geotextile in the soil fiber
mixture to enhance the stability. Using the manual calculated results from the soil test to get a
finest value of soil fiber and KOBM mixture.
Software Optimization
The use of software’s to get an optimal percentage of fiber and KOBM by analysis of required
data input into the software such as using FLAC 3D to analyze progressive geotechnical
exploration of soil, rock, groundwater, and ground provision. The use of MS Excel to compile
data and generate graphs from results to get an optimal value of fiber and soil and KOBM. Use
of C++ program to get an instant shortcut to get the amount of percentage fiber KOMB in the
required amount of soil.

17
4. Recommendations
The study deals the design of minimum cost for stabilizing soil for the use in the foundations of
structures. A mathematical approach of the problem based on a criterion of minimum cost design
and a set of constraints in accordance to the building code requirements for the structure and
commentary are formulated.

18
5. Recommendations for The Future Research
The trials and error are still in progress and the final design will be produced in the final
submission of this project, once the constraints are satisfied and is accepted in the software
(FLAC 3D & C++ Programming).

19
6. References
Amu,O. O.,Owokade,O.S.,& Shitan,O.I. (2011). Potentialsof coconutshell andhuskashonthe
geotechnical propertiesof lateriticsoil forroadworks. InternationalJournalof Engineering and
Technology,3(2),87–94.
Danso,H., & Manu, D. (2020). Influence of coconutfibresandlime onthe propertiesof soil-cement
mortar. CaseStudiesin Construction Materials,12, e00316.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00316
Devdatt,S.,K, R. S.S. A.,& Jha,A.K. (2015). 3 IXSeptember2015. September.
Fattah,M. Y., Al-Saidi,À.A.,&Jaber,M. M. (2015). Characteristicsof claysstabilizedwithlime-silica
fume mix. Italian Journalof Geosciences, 134(1), 104–113. https://doi.org/10.3301/IJG.2014.36
Ikeagwuani,C.C.,& Nwonu,D.C. (2019). Emergingtrendsinexpansivesoil stabilisation:A review.
Journalof RockMechanicsand Geotechnical Engineering,11(2), 423–440.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.08.013
Manikandan,A.T., Ibrahim,Y.,Thiyaneswaran,M.P.,Dheebikhaa,B.,&Raja,K. (2017). a Studyon Effect
of BottomAshand CoconutShell Powderonthe Propertiesof ClaySoil aStudyon Effectof Bottom
Ashand CoconutShell Powder. InternationalResearch Journalof Engineering and
Technology(IRJET),4(2),550–553. https://irjet.net/archives/V4/i2/IRJET-V4I2104.pdf
Mir, I. A.,& Bawa, A.(2018). Utilizationof waste coconutcoirfiberinsoil reinforcement. International
Journalof Civil Engineering and Technology,9(9),774–781.

20
7. Appendices
LIQUID LIMITTEST SHRINKAGE LIMIT TEST COMPACTION TEST
PREPARATION

Peb802 capstone design project assesment 2

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Peb802 capstone design project assesment 2

Similaire à Peb802 capstone design project assesment 2 (20)

Plus de vishwaleenram

Plus de vishwaleenram (11)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Peb802 capstone design project assesment 2