By
Josh Oliver and Fitsum Tesfa
Expansive soil

Soil obtain in Plano,
Texas
First Step

Oven dried for 24hrs
at 160 degree


The oven dried soil was
crushed
After soil was crushed it
was then pulverized
Classification of soil using
mechanical analysis


Sieve analysis was
performed on soil for
10 to 15 min
Depending on the
particle size ,we
concluded the ratio of
gravel, sand, and clay
and silt the soil
contained
Classification of Soil using
mechanical analysis


Hydrometer analysis,
performed using the
hydrometer bulb
The main idea of this
experiment was to
determine particulates
sizes that are smaller
than 0.075mm in
diameter
Treatment of Soil




Chemical additive
were lime and
cement
Two different ratios
were added to soil
3%lime, 3%cement
4% lime, 4%cement
Dynamic & static compression

These two types of
compression are used
in the preparation of
soil samples for testing
in the swell potential
and unconfined
compression test
test swelling
graph test
One Swelling
dimensional
% swell vs time
one
dimensional swelling test
time(min)
%1D SWELL
8
control
7
h=
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.1
-1
0.1
0.5
1
2
5
15
30
60
120
1440
100801
treated 3%lime treated 4%lime
control
3%cement
4%cement
0.983in
d=2.495in
w=139.05gm
0.097
0
0.102 0.508647
0.103 0.610376
0.106 0.915565
0.114 1.7294
0.125 2.848423
0.13 3.35707
0.135 3.865717
0.14 4.374364
0.163 6.71414
10 0.169 7.324517
100
1.008in
d=2.498in
w=138.24gm
1000
0.175
0
0.175
0
0.175
0
0.175
0
0.175
0
0.175
0
0.175
0
0.175
0
0.175
0
0.175
0
10000
100000
0.177 0.198413
Time (min)
treated
1.026in3%lime &
3%cement
d=2.500in
w=137.29gm
treated
0.299 4%lime
0 &
4%cement
0.299
0
0.299
0.299
0.299
0.299
0.299
0.299
0.299
0.299
0.299
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Shrinkage
testshrinkage
graph
Soil test
for linear
soil test for linear shrinkage
control
Linear deformation (%)
16
treated 3%lime
4% lime, 4% cement 3%cement
14
12
soil(gm)
200
8 length(mm)
initial
200
45%
45%
45%
12.8
12.8
12.8
10.8
12
12.6
2
0.8
0.2
15.63
6.25
1.563
control
6
final length(mm)
(mm)
linear shrinkage strain %
2
control
0
4%cement
200
3% lime, 3% cement
water
10
shrinks
4
treated 4%lime
treated
3%lime &
3%cement
treated
4%lime &
4%cement
Soil samples for Unconfined
Compression Test


Soil sample stayed in
moisture room at
100% humidity for
7days
UCT is than ran on
samples
Unconfined Compression Test
unconfined commpression test data
soil
strength(lb)
F=
220
450
588
pressure(psi) P=
35.35
72.1
93.81
control
treated 3%lime
soil
3%cement
treated 4%lime
PRESSURE=FORCE/AREA
4%cement
AREA=3.141 *
DIAMETER^2/4
diameter(in) D=
2.815
2.819
2.825
height(in)
H=
5.63
5.669
5.583
area(in)^2
A=
6.224
6.241
6.268
Unconfine Compression Test
Pressure endured before failure
pressure(psi)
100
80
60
40
20
0
control
treated
3%lime &
3%cement
treated
4%lime &
4%cement
Unconfined Compression Test
600
500
Soil Strength (lb)
400
4%lime, 4%cement
300
3%lime,3%cement
Control
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time (sec)
90
100
110
120
130
140
Conclusion





Soil treated or chemically altered with a 4% lime-4%
cement proved to be more stable as indicated by
the test performed.
The 3% lime-3% cement treatment increased
stability but not substantially compared to the 4%
ratios.
Both treatments proved stronger and more stable
than the control.
This research proved that lime and cement
additives improved the overall qualities and
performance of the soil.
Research in this field is proving invaluable to
stabilization there by improving long term viability of
structures.
Acknowledgments

I would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Puppala,
Aravind Pedarla, and Ranjan Rout for expertise and
assistance rendered that provided me with invaluable
experience also recognizing Dr. Yazdani, Dr. Daza, Dr.
Weatherton, Minh Le, the University of Texas at
Arlington Civil engineering Dept., University of Texas at
Arlington and the National Science Foundation.
Questions