You are on page 1of 90

BIO-ENZYME STABILIZED LATERITIC

AND SHEDI SOILS


Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY in
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
by
GANESHA CHATRADA
(07TS06F)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE -575 025
JULY, 2009
BIOENZYME STABILIZED LATERITIC AND
SHEDI SOILS

Thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY in
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
by
GANESHA CHATRADA
(07TS06F)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE-575 025
July, 2009
DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the report of the Post Graduate Project Work entitled

“BIOENZYME STABILIZED LATERITIC AND SHEDI SOILS” which is being

submitted to The National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of Master of Technology in

Transportation Systems Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering, is a

bonafide report of the work carried out by me. The material contained in this report has

not been submitted to any University or Institution for the award of any Degree.

07TS06F, GANESHA CHATRADA


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Civil Engineering

Place: NITK, SURATHKAL

Date: June 2009


CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the P.G. Project Work Report entitled “BIOENZYME

STABILIZED LATERITIC AND SHEDI SOILS” submitted by GANESHA

CHATRADA, (Registration Number: O7TS06F), as the record of the work carried out

by him, is accepted as the P.G. Project Work Report submission in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Technology in

Transportation Systems Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering.

Dr. A.U.Ravi Shankar


Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
NITK, Surathkal

Chairman- DPGC
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to my esteemed


guide Dr. A. U. Ravi Shankar, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, for his
guidance, valuable suggestions, continuous encouragement and the facilities extended
during the course of my thesis work.

I am extremely thankful to Dr. N. Bhavanishankar Rao, Professor and Mr. I.


Ramesh Mithanthaya Research Associate, Department of Civil Engineering for their
help, valuable suggestions and guidance throughout my thesis work.

I acknowledge my sincere gratitude to Dr. M.C. Narasimhan, Professor and Head


of the Department of Civil Engineering for his guidance, for his suggestions and
cooperation during my thesis work.

I express my thanks to geotechnical laboratory staff Sri. Sadanand Kadri for his co-
operation and providing the necessary assistance during the experimental investigation of
this project work.

I am thankful to all my friends and classmates for their help and support throughout
my stay in this college. I am greatly indebted to my parents who are responsible for
successful completion of my M.Tech course. At the end I thank one and all who have
supported me directly or indirectly.

GANESHA.CHATRADA
DEDICATED MY FAMILY AND
FRIENDS
ABSTRACT
Engineers are responsible for selecting or specifying the correct stabilizing method,
technique, and quantity of material required. Soils vary throughout the world and the
engineering properties of soils are equally variable. The key to success in soil
stabilization is soil testing. The method of soil stabilization selected should be verified in
the laboratory before construction and preferably before specifying or ordering materials.
Various techniques are being used for stabilization of soil. Stabilization of soil with Bio-
Enzyme is a very new method to improve the geotechnical properties of the soil. The
Bio-Enzyme when added to water and mixed with soil alters the engineering properties
depending upon the type of the soil and dosage of enzyme. These enzymes are liquid
additives, which act on the soil to reduce the voids between soil particles and minimize
absorbed water in the soil for maximum compaction. The enzymes react with the organic
matter (humid matter) in the soil to form cementatious material. This reaction
commences almost immediately and it is verified that under the right environmental
conditions about 90% of the reaction may be complete within the first 96 hours. Initial
reaction product is a formation of a gel, which crystallizes to form bonds, which hold
together particles. Loss of moisture by evaporation is essential for the crystallization of
gels. The reaction is at micron level and the presence of finely divided humid matter and
clay-sized particles is essential. Presence of clay is essential as the bonds formed bind
this size of particles. In this present study, the effectiveness of bio enzyme in stabilizing
the different types of soils of Udupi and South Kanara districts are investigated through
laboratory experiments as well as field study.

The locally available lateritic and shedi soils are procured from the field is used for the
investigation. Bio-Enzyme namely TerraZyme has been used as stabilizer. The
pavements in Udupi and Dakshina kannada districts are damaged due to improper
drainage system and Heavy rainfall (>3000 mm) added problems (about 6 month in a
year) and another reason is the failure of the sub base due to improper material usage.
The type of soils available in this region are Lateritic and shedi. The plasticity index is
much more due to the high percentage of silt and clay content in these types of soil. In
this study, lateritic and shedi soil samples were collected from various sites to investigate
the geotechnical properties. All the soil samples were tested for geotechnical properties
and treated with variable enzyme dosages. The strength parameter of the stabilized soil
has been evaluated after for a curing periods of 0, 1,2,3,4, and 8 weeks. The tests were
carried out to determine the consistency limits, unconfined compressive strength and
CBR.

Since the CBR tests results on Bio-Enzyme treated soil indicate insignificant results and
hence fatigue behavior of soil has been examined. These tests have been conducted with
different curing period and with different dosages of enzyme. The laboratory tests have
shown much improvement in its fatigue behavior. To verify the laboratory results, field
study has been done by construction a stretch of flexible pavement with enzyme
stabilized soil as sub base. Its long term effect on CBR strength is also evaluated by
conducting the field test at regular interval after the road is open to the traffic.

The field results have shown promising results in terms of strength of the stabilized soil.
The road stabilized with Bio-Enzyme after one year clearly indicates the effectiveness of
Bio-Enzyme as a stabilizing agent. Justify the use of enzyme as a stabilizer to stabilize
the sub base soil in the road construction, analysis has been done by KENPAVE
software.

Keywords: Fatigue, TerraZyme, Stress level and KENPAVE.


CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
CONTENTS i
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi

1 INTRODUCTION 1-5
1.0 GENERAL 1
1.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE AREA UNDER INVESTIGATION 2
1.2 USE OF ENZYME STABILISATION 2
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 4
1.4 SCOPE OF THE WORK 4
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS 4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6-24
2.0 SOIL STABILIZATION 6
2.1 APPLICATIONS OF SOIL STABILIZATION 6
2.2 STABILIZATION OF LATERITIC SOILS 6
2.3 TYPES OF STABILIZATION TECHNIQUES 7
2.4 BIO-ENZYMES AS SOIL STABILIZERS IN ROAD 7
CONSTRUCTION
2.5 T THE ENZYME’S CHEMICAL STRENGTHENING FUNCTION 9
2.6 MECHANISM OF SOIL STABILIZATION BY BIO-ENZYME 10
2.7 TERRAZYME, A BIO-ENZYMATIC SOIL STABILIZER 11
2.7.1 TerraZyme uses for construction 11
2.7.2 Features of TerraZyme 11

i
2.7.3 Environmental benefits of TerraZyme 12
2.8 TYPES OF SOIL AND TERRAZYME EFFECTS 12
2.9 COST SAVING FEATURE OF TERRAZYME 12
2.10 WORKING MECHANISM OF TERRAZYME 13
2.11 FAILURES IN SUBBASE 14
2.12 LITERATURE REVIEW ON USE OF BIO-ENZYMES IN SOIL 15
STABILIZATION
2.13 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF 18
TERRAZYME STABILIZED SOILS UNDER STATIC LOADING
2.14 BEHAVIOUR OF SOILS UNDER REPEATED LOADING 18
2.15 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FOR SOILS UNDER REPEATED 21
LOADING
2.16 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY 22
2.17 TERRAZYME ON INDIAN ROADS 24
3 METHODOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL 25-35
INVESTIGATIONS
3.0 GENERAL 25
3.1 DOSAGE OF ENZYME 25
3.2 TESTING PROGRAMME 25
3.2.1 Testing Programme for Basic Properties 25
3.2.2 Testing Programme for Fatigue Experiments 26
3.3 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TEST 29
3.4 ATTERBERG’S LIMIT 30
3.5 COMPACTION TEST 30
3.6 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST 31
3.7 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST 33
3.8 PERMEABILITY TEST 35

4 FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF LATERITC AND SHEDI 36-52


SOILS
4.0 INTRODUCTION 36

4.1 LABORATORY FATIGUE TESTING 36

ii
4.2 EFFECT OF ENZYME ON FATIGUE CHARACTERISTICS OF 38
STABILIZED SOILS
4.3 EFFECT OF ENZYME CONTENT ON FATIGUE LIFE 40
4.4 EFFECT OF CURING PERIOD ON FATIGUE LIFE 44
4.5 EFFECT OF LOADING AMPLITUDE (STRESS LEVEL) ON THE 47
FATIGUE LIFE
4.6 CORRELATION BETWEEN FATIGUE LIFE AND UNCONFINED 51
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
5 PAVEMENT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 53-58
5.0 GENERAL 53
5.1 KENPAVE - SOFTWARE 53
5.2 PAVEMENT DESIGN USING -IRC 37-2001 53

5.3 ANALYSIS OF PAVEMENT SECTION 54

6 ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS AND 59-63


DISCUSSIONS
6.0 GENERAL 59
6.0.1 Lateritic Soil 59
6.0.2 Shedi soil 59
6.1 TESTS ON ENZYME TREATED SOIL 60
6.1.1 Effect on Consistency Limits of Enzyme Treated Lateritic and Shedi 60
soils
6.1.1.1 Effect of Enzyme on Lateritic Soil 60
6.1.1.2 Effect of Enzyme on Shedi soil 60
6.1.2 Effect on Heavy Compaction of Enzyme Treated Lateritic and Shedi 61
soils
6.1.2.1 Effect of Enzyme on Lateritic Soil 61
6.1.2.2 Effect of Enzyme on Shedi soil 61
6.1.3 Effect on Unconfined compression test results of Enzyme Treated 61
Lateritic and Shedi soils
6.1.3.1 Effect of Enzyme on Lateritic Soil 61
6.1.3.2 Effect of Enzyme on Shedi soil 62

iii
6.1.4 Effect on CBR results of Enzyme Treated Lateritic and Shedi soils 62
6.1.4.1 Effect of Enzyme on Lateritic Soil 62
6.1.4.2 Effect of Enzyme on Shedi Soil 62
6.1.5 Effect on Permeability of Enzyme Treated Lateritic and Shedi soils 63
6.1.6 Effect on Fatigue life of Enzyme Treated Lateritic and Shedi soils 63

7 FIELD STUDY 64-67


7.0 GENERAL 64
7.1 DETAILS OF THE SITE 64
7.2 FIELD PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION 64
7.3 LONG TERM EFFECT OF ENZYME ON SOIL 66

8 CONCLUSIONS 68-69
8.0 CONCLUSIONS 68
8.1 FUTURE SCOPE 69
REFERENCES 70-72
PHOTOGRAPHS 73-75
BIO-DATA 76

iv
LIST OF TABLES

Table No Title Page No


3.1 Testing Programme for Basic Properties 26
3.2 Testing Programme for Fatigue Performance 26
3.3 Properties of terrazyme 27
3.4 Ge Geotechnical properties of Laterite and Shedi soil 28
3.5 Liquid limit, Plastic limit& Plasticity index 30
3.6 IS Light Compaction Results 31
3.7 IS Heavy Compaction Results 31
3.8 Unconfined Compression values for Lateritic Soil 32
3.9 Unconfined Compression values for Shedi soil 32
3.10 Unsoaked and Soaked CBR test results 34
3.11 Permeability Test Results 35
4.1 Fatigue life of untreated soil specimens at different stress levels 39
4.2 Correlation equations for Lateritic soil 51
4.3 Correlation equations for Shedi soil 52

5.1 Thickness of the layers for the initial stage in analysis (for subgrade 54
soil CBR 2%, dual-tandem)

5.2 Thickness of the layers for the final stage in analysis (for stabilized 55
Base, dual-tandem)
5.3 Stress Values at response points 1 and 13 for virgin base 56

5.4 Stress Values at response points 1 and 13 for stabilized base 57

7.1 Index properties of the soil at the site before the application of Enzyme 65

7.2 Results of Dynamic Cone Penetration Test conducted after enzyme 65


treatment
7.3 Field CBR Values 66

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Fig No. Contents Page No.

3.1 Grain size Analysis Graph for Lateritic and Shedi soil. 29

3.2 Variation of Unconfined Compression Test Results with Different 33


Enzyme Dosages & Different Curing Period for LS and SS
3.3 Variation of CBR Results with 4% Enzyme Dosages & for Different 34
Curing Period LS
3.4 Variation of CBR Results with 2% Enzyme Dosages & for Different 35
Curing Period SS
4.1 Schematic Diagram of Accelerated Fatigue Load Test Set-up 37

4.2 Effect of Enzyme content on Fatigue life of Enzyme treated Lateritic 41


soil specimen at different stress level and 2Hz Frequency
4.3 Effect of Enzyme content on Fatigue life of Enzyme treated Shedi 43
soil specimen at different stress level and 2Hz Frequency
4.4 Effect of Curing period on Fatigue life for different percentage of 45
Enzyme treated Lateritic soil
4.5 Effect of Curing period on Fatigue life for different percentage of 47
Enzyme treated Shedi soil
4.6 Effect of stress level on Fatigue life of for different percentage of 48
Enzyme treated Lateritic soil
4.7 Effect of stress level on Fatigue life of for different percentage of 50
Enzyme treated Shedi soil
4.8 Correlation between fatigue life and UCC for Lateritic soil 51
4.9 Correlation between fatigue life and UCC for Shedi soil 52
5.1 Plan of the dual-tandem indicating the response points 55
5.2 Plan and Cross-section of pavement for virgin base 56
5.3 Plan and cross section of pavement for stabilized base 57
5.4 Stress variation at response point 1 58
5.5 Stress variation at response point 13 58
7.1 Correlation between DCP readings to CBR values 67

vi
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.0 GENERAL

Engineers are often faced with the problem of constructing facilities on or with soils,
which do not possess sufficient strength to support the loads imposed upon them
either during construction or during the service life of the structure. Many areas of
India consist of soils with high silt contents, low strengths and minimal bearing
capacity. These negative soil performance characteristics are generally attributed to
the nature and quantity of the fines present in the material. For better performance of
structures built on such soils, the performance characteristics of such soils need to be
improved. The poor engineering performance of such soils has forced Engineers to
attempt to improve the engineering properties of poor quality soils. There are various
methods that could be used to improve the performance of poor quality soils. These
methods range from replacing with a good quality soil to methods that involve
complex chemical process. The choice of a particular method depends mainly on the
type of soil to be improved, its characteristics and the type and degree of
improvement desired in a particular application. Recently bio-enzymes have emerged
as a new chemical for soil stabilization. Bio-enzymes are chemical, organic, and
liquid concentrated substances which are used to improve the stability of soil sub-
grade for pavement structures. Bio-Enzyme is convenient to use, safe, effective and
dramatically improves road quality.

Stabilization of soils is an effective method for improving the properties of soil and
pavement system performance. The objectives of any stabilization technique used are
to increase the strength and stiffness of soil, improve workability and constructability
of the soil and reduce the Plasticity Index. For any given soil many stabilization
methods, using different stabilizing agents, may be effective to improve the soil
properties in-place rather than removing and replacing the material. Availability or
financial considerations may be the determining factor on which a stabilizing agent is
selected.

1
1.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE AREA UNDER INVESTIGATION

Dakshina Kannada is one of the districts of Karnataka, lying between the Arabian Sea
on the west and Western Ghats on the east (12° 27' -13° 58' north latitude and 74° 34'
- 74° 40' east longitude). The total area of the district is about 8,436 sq.km. The land
under cultivation is only about 2000 sq.km. Dakshina Kannada has a forest area of
about 4600 sq.km yielding a variety of timber. Annual rainfall ranges from 2000 to
4000 mm, mean temperature ranges from 850 F to 900 F with relative humidity of
about 85 to 90 percent.
Lateritic soils: Lateritic soils have been found in this region because of high rainfall,
high temperature and high humidity with alternate wet and dry period, which is an
ideal condition for laterisation. Nearly 40 percent of the soils are laterites. The colour
ranges from red to yellowish red. The depth of this soil varies from 30 cm to 150 cm.
The laterites have been mostly originated from igneous rocks and are well drained,
residual with the presence of excessive Fe and Al. These soils have defective grain
size distribution, with high plasticity index.
Shedi soils: Shedi soil is available at a depth of few meters from the ground surface.
Interestingly, above this poor layer, laterite soil, which is having comparatively high
strength, is present. Shedi soil is very problematic soil for engineering activity. Its
strength is high in dry condition, where as, significant reduction of strength takes
place when there is increase in moisture content. This type of soil can be found in
almost all parts of Dakshina Kannada district. Due to rapid industrialization many
industries, roads, railway lines and other structures are coming up. The ground profile
is highly undulating in Dakshina Kannada district. Hence roads or railway cuttings are
very common. The stability of slopes mainly depends on this shedi soil profile,
because laterite can withstand relatively steeper slopes. As filling material also shedi
soil poses problems.

1.2 USE OF ENZYME STABILIZATION

Extensive research has been conducted studying the application of traditional


stabilization additives such as lime, cement and fly ash (Santoni et al. 2001).
However, engineering research studying non-traditional stabilization additives such as
enzymes are less documented. The U. S. army conducted soil stabilization by use of
2
additives as early as the 1940’s (Fine and Remington 1972) in the construction of
airfields for heavy bombers. The US Army conducted extensive research on soil
stabilization for roads and airfields. Field Manual 5- 410 Chapter 9 (1997) is a
detailed chapter on the design, analysis and application of soil stabilization
techniques. Soil stabilization techniques for civilian uses are currently a common
practice with applications for roads and foundation performance improvement.
According to Andromalos et al. (2000) soil mixing was first developed in the United
States in the 1950’s (Liver et al. 1954). In the late 1960 and early 1970s the Swedish
used a mixed in place lime stabilization process (Ryan et al. 1989). In their paper
(Andromalos et. al. 2000) the authors presented the design, analysis and application
procedures of soil mixing in liquefaction mitigation and various other geotechnical
applications. Krizek, (1992) conducted a study to evaluate the benefits gained by
incorporating base course material with either fiber reinforced soil cement or
compactable recycled aggregate cement into pavement systems. In his paper the
author presented the cost benefits analysis of soil stabilization and presented a design
procedure for pavement base course improvements using his proposed techniques.
Santoni et. al., (2001) conducted a laboratory experiment to evaluate the stabilization
of silty-sand (SM) materials with traditional and nontraditional chemical or liquid
stabilizers. Their research focused on the load bearing capacity as the basis of
performance characterization. They tested four types of enzymes and found that none
of the enzymes tested improved the unconfined compressive strength of the soil under
the dry or wet conditions. Write-Fox and Macfarlane (1993) studied the stabilization
performance of two types of enzyme stabilizers in addition to the performance of an
asphalt emulsion and lime additive product. The stabilizers were tested on a highly
plastic fat clay material and were based on the unconfined compressive strength test.
Their results indicated that the undrained shear strengths of the enzyme products were
21% higher than the control specimens this suggested that the products in the
concentrations used, added a stabilizing quality to the relatively dry specimens. When
the specimens were immersed in distilled water, the enzyme products nearly or
completely disintegrated by slaking. This indicated that the products tested may not
offer waterproofing qualities, using the recommended dilutions.

3
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Based on the detailed literature review, the objectives of the present work are

(1) To evaluate the engineering properties and fatigue behavior of Bioenzyme


stabilized soil.
(2) Analysis the pavement by using these materials.
(3) Evaluation of field performance.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE WORK

To fulfill the above objectives, laboratory experiments are performed on Lateritic and
Shedi soils stabilized with enzyme. Laboratory Experiments are performed to evaluate
the effectiveness of enzyme in stabilizing the soils. Doing so the strength aspect is
considered. Various influencing parameters such as dosage of enzyme, Curing period
are given due consideration in evaluating the effectiveness. Once the effectiveness of
the enzyme in improving the strength characteristics are established, the optimum
dosage of enzyme for maximum strength improvement is arrived at

The performance of enzyme stabilized soils are tested for, repeated loading by
considering different stress levels and frequency.

The pavement analysis is carried out by using KENPAVE software. A pavement


stretch is constructed to observe the performance of pavement.

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

After the first introductory Chapter, detailed reviews of literature performed towards
understanding the enzyme stabilization is presented in Chapter 2.

Chapter 3 examines the performance of Bioenzyme stabilized soil under static


loading condition. Two different soils with wide range of plasticity index, is used for
the study. The properties such as Liquid limit, Plastic limit, Compaction
characteristics, unconfined Compression strengths and the California bearing ratio test
are determined for stabilized soil. The parameters such as dosage of enzyme, curing
periods are studied. The main focus in this chapter is to ascertain the effectiveness of

4
enzyme and their effect on different types of soils. The parameters such as dosage of
enzyme and curing period are selected for further study under fatigue loading
condition.

Chapter 4 deals with the studies made to understand the behavior of enzyme
stabilized soil under fatigue loading. The results of the experiments conducted under
monotonic loading conditions are used as a basis for these experiments under fatigue
loading. All the fatigue loading experiments are conducted in an automated fatigue
loading apparatus. An attempt has been made in this chapter to bring out the effect of
different parameters on fatigue life and the deformation.

Chapter 5 presents the design of pavement according to IRC-37 guidelines and it also
covers the analysis of the pavement structure using KENPAVE software.

Chapter 6 discusses the test results and analysis of the laboratory experiments carried
out in this investigation.

Chapter 7 to compare the results obtained in the laboratory and the field. Where 1.35
Km stretch of Bioenzyme stabilized soil is used.

Chapter 8 presents the general conclusions and future scope of the thesis.

5
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 SOIL STABILIZATION


Soil stabilization is the process of improving the engineering properties of the soil and
thus making it more stable. It is required when the soil available for construction is
not suitable for the intended purpose. In its broadest sense, stabilization includes
compaction, preconsolidation, drainage and many other such processes. However, the
term stabilization is generally restricted to the strength properties. A cementing
material or a chemical is added to a natural soil for the purpose of stabilization. The
decreasing availability and increasing cost of construction materials and uncertain
economic climates force engineers to consider more economical methods for building
roads. An obvious solution is to use locally available materials. However, all too
often, these materials fall outside of required specifications. This situation becomes
even more critical when an increasing demand for roads in underdeveloped rural areas
and informal settlements comes into play.
2.1APPLICATIONS OF SOIL STABILIZATION

The process of soil stabilization is useful in the following applications,

● Reducing the permeability of soils


● Increasing the bearing capacity of foundation soils
● Increasing the shear strength of soils
● Improving the durability under adverse moisture and stress conditions
● Improving the natural soils for the construction of highways and airfields
● Controlling the grading of soils and aggregates in the construction of bases
and Sub bases of the highway and airfields.

2.2 STABILIZATION OF LATERITIC SOILS

The main purpose of stabilization is to improve the soil strength, bearing capacity and
durability under adverse moisture and stress conditions. Soil stabilization has been
extensively used in the roads, airfields, earthen dams and embankments, in erosion

6
controls, etc. Likewise, there are increasing pressures on the mining, forestry and
agricultural industries to minimize the production costs of their roads while delivering
optimum performance and low maintenance costs. An economically feasible solution
for achieving these objectives is the use of enzyme soil stabilization.
Yoder (1959) has categorized the various types of stabilizers according to the
properties imparted to the soil. The types of admixtures include cementing agents,
modifiers, waterproofing, water retaining, and miscellaneous chemicals. The behavior
of each of these admixtures differs vastly from the others, each has its particular use,
and conversely, each has its own limitations.

2.3 TYPES OF STABILIZATION TECHNIQUES

Broadly, soil stabilization takes the following forms.

1. Mechanical stabilization, whereby the stability of the soil is increased by


blending the available soil with imported soil or aggregate, so as to obtain a
desired particle-size distribution, and by compacting the mixture to a desired
density. Compacting a soil at appropriate moisture content itself a form of
mechanical stabilization.

2. Mixing or injecting additives such as lime, Cement, sodium silicate, calcium


chloride, bituminous materials and resinous materials with or in the soil can
increase stability of the soil. Chemicals stabilization is the general term
implying the use of chemicals for bringing about stabilization.

2.4 BIO-ENZYMES AS SOIL STABILIZERS IN ROAD


CONSTRUCTION

Bio-Road products are a basic fermented and formulator of soil treatment products
that create enzyme stabilization of base and sub-base soils used in road construction.
We have found from our extensive worldwide experience that enzyme stabilization is
effective when the soil contains a sizable fine-grained component. Little if any
improvement is achieved in clean sands or gravels. In a study of the performance of
over 40 miles of road surfacing stabilized with enzymes, the US Federal Highway
Administration found that the best performance was obtained with well graded
aggregates mixed with higher clay contents (5% to 15% <0.002mm). Roads treated

7
with Bio-Road products experience a cation exchange effect, a clay-water effect and
an enzyme stabilization effect.
Bio-enzyme is a natural, non-toxic, non-flammable, non-corrosive liquid enzyme
formulation fermented from vegetable extracts that improves the engineering qualities
of soil, facilitates higher soil compaction densities, and increases stability. Enzymes
catalyze the reactions between the clay and the organic cat-ions and accelerate the cat-
ionic exchange process to reduce adsorbed layer thickness. For other types of
chemical stabilization, chemicals are mixed with soil, which is difficult to mix
thoroughly, but Bio-enzyme is easy to use as it can be mixed with water at optimum
moisture content and then it is sprayed over soil and compacted.

In Brazil, Bio-Enzymes are now being used for projects in private sectors as well as in
municipal, state and some federal projects. Based on laboratory experience and field
tests, programme standards for the selection of materials for road construction have
been developed, and construction materials are now specified using these standards.
Bio-enzyme from Australia is a natural, non-toxic bio-degradable liquid concentrate
that mixes easily in water for application with standard water spraying equipment.
Bio-Enzyme is a low cost additive with long lasting effects. By altering the physical
and chemical characteristics of soil, materials treated with Bio-Enzyme retain higher
performance levels and extended life span. Bio-Enzyme may be used to increase the
Maximum Dry Density (MOD) and Unconfirmed Compressive Strength (UCS)
values of a marginal material to achieve specified standards for a base course. Bio-
Enzyme manufactured in USA and Netherlands also increases the unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) and California Bearing Ratio of sub-grade soil. Among
the soil materials stabilized by the bio-enzymes in the trials are sandy clay, silty clay,
sandy silt, plastic and non-plastic clay, sandy loam, fine loam, and loam mixed with
clay. The dosage levels of the bio-enzymes vary from 1 to 5 litters for 5 m3 of soil
depending on the soil type, soil characteristics, and product concentration. The
amount of dilution water depends on soil dryness. In the field, measurements are
made to determine the difference between the actual field soil moisture content (%)
and the optimum moisture content (%) to add water to obtain OMC for maximum
compaction

8
In the countries that are using bio-enzyme stabilizers, the usage costs are much lower
than conventional chemical stabilizers. This is because their cost is lower, the
application is simpler and less expensive, and transport is cheaper. Even when modest
increments in the road stability occur, there is an increased cost-effectiveness and
improvement in performance and durability of the road.

2.5 THE ENZYME’S CHEMICAL STRENGTHENING FUNCTION

According to the literature, when mixed with water and applied, the enzyme solution
combines the inorganic and organic material in the soil through a catalytic bonding
process, producing a “cementation” action. Soil stabilization using enzymes is a
relatively new approach to soil improvement. Unlike cement, lime and cationic asphalt
emulsion, enzymes are considered non-traditional additives,

The Bio-Enzyme as a non-bacterial multi-enzymatic Compound and some of which


are the same enzymes found in typical Brewer’s Yeast. These greatly increase the
clinging, as well as the penetrating power of the compound, allowing its interaction
efficiency with the soil to be increased. The compound is manufactured through a
basic fermentation process and always exists as a solution. Its concentration however,
can be manually manipulated. The product is 100% biological and hence fully
biodegradable, thus posing no threat to human or plant life. As with all biological
catalysts, these enzymes possess an optimal functional range with respect to
temperature. The Bio-Enzyme directly affects the organic matter in the soil, as well as
biodegradable nutrients and minerals. Therefore, for the Bio-Enzyme to be effective,
the targeted soil must contain organic matter that has not been sterilized. It will follow
that the agent cannot work on soils of any type that have been extensively bleached or
sterilized. The Bio-Enzyme attaches to the microbes present in the soil and causes
them to come together, by forming tight covalent bonds with each other. Upon
bonding, these microbes lower the surface tension of the water, which promotes fast
and thorough penetration and dispersal of moisture. This action in turn promotes a
cementation process, whereby the small soil particles come together and fill voids
throughout the soil, thus forming a tight, dense stratum. It turns the small fines into
bigger aggregates. When this process is over, like all other enzymes, the product re-

9
generates itself. However, since it cannot be removed, it will remain in situ until it
degrades. The enzyme’s degradation time however, has not been fully established.

2.6 MECHANISM OF SOIL STABILIZATION BY BIO-ENZYME

In clay water mixture positively charged ions (cat-ions) are present around the clay
particles, creating a film of water around the clay particle that remains attached or
adsorbed on the clay surface. The adsorbed water or double layer gives clay particles
their plasticity. In some cases the clay can swell and the size of double layer
increases, but it can be reduced by drying. Therefore, to truly improve the soil
properties, it is necessary to permanently reduce the thickness of double layer. Cat-ion
exchange processes can accomplish this. By utilizing fermentation processes specific
micro-organisms can produce stabilizing enzyme in large quantity. These soil-
stabilizing enzymes catalyze the reactions between the clay and the organic cat-ions
and accelerate the cat-ionic exchange without becoming part of the end product.

TerraZyme replaces adsorbed water with organic cations, thus neutralizing the
negative charge on a clay particle.

The organic cations also reduce the thickness of the electrical double layer. This
allows TerraZyme treated soils to be compacted more tightly together.

TerraZyme resists being replaced by water, thus reducing the tendency of some clays
to swell.

10
TerraZyme promotes the development of cementitious compounds using the
following, general reaction:

H2o + clay TerraZyme calcium Silicate Hydrates

2.7 TERRAZYME, A BIO-ENZYMATIC SOIL STABILIZER


TerraZyme is a natural, non-toxic liquid, formulated using vegetable extracts. Apart
from being a concept accepted the world over as a sound and resourceful road
building practice, which completely replaces the conventional granular base and the
granular sub base, it emphasizes on strength, performance and higher resistance
towards deformation.

2.7.1 TerraZyme uses for construction


• Highways
• Rural Roads
• Townships Road
• Secondary Roads
• Airport Runways
• Road shoulders
• Recreation Paths
• Parking lots.

2.7.2 Features of TerraZyme


 The soils treated with TerraZyme renders improved density values by reducing
the void ratios to a large extent which results in an overall improvement in the
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) about 800 %.
 It facilitates higher soil compaction densities, and increases soil strength and
stability for lasting roads
 TerraZyme replaces Soling and WBM of conventional road structure
 TerraZyme also reduces the crust thickness of asphalt layers.
 TerraZyme also proves to increase the road quality and decreases the
maintenance Cost.

11
2.7.3 Environmental benefits of TerraZyme
 Minimizes material loss of surface gravel on soil roadways due to erosion or
abrasion by traffic.
 Reduces the ongoing cost and environmental impact of the purchase, transport
and spreading of replacement gravel
 Reduces health and cleanliness concerns by impeding the occurrence of dust
from loose fine material on road surfaces. Dust reductions of at least 75%
occurred in our Canadian program.
 Minimizes the harmful production and use of crushed rock and historical
mineral stabilizers in road construction and maintenance
 Reduces fuel usage associated with frequent, short interval road repairs
 Lessens the impact of open gravel mines and pits. TerraZyme allows
maximum leveraging of existing sources.
 Reduces potential for loss-of-control vehicle accidents due to loose gravel

2.8 TYPES OF SOIL AND TERRAZYME EFFECTS

TerraZyme can be used for various soil types ranging from black cotton soils to hard
murram. TerraZyme works with all types of soil, which has a minimum 10% of clay
particles. Soil after being treated with TerraZyme behaves like a semi rigid pavement
structure.

2.9 COST SAVING FEATURE OF TERRAZYME

The cost economics of implementing TerraZyme in road building is yet another


appealing characteristic of this technology. The overall cost reduction would be about
15to 40 % of the total cost of construction. The maintenance cost compared to the
conventional system would be reduced from 50 % to 75%. Given that there is an
achievement in superior strength parameters at the base level of the TerraZyme road,
further reduction in the bitumen layer is possible in low volume roads which would
provide an over all saving in surfacing costs.

12
2.10 WORKING MECHANISM OF TERRAZYME

TerraZyme is a surfactant (an ionic surface active agent), which changes the
hydrophilic nature of clay and lime materials to hydrophobic. Its application not only
assists in the expulsion of water from soils, but also aids the lubrication of soil
particles and increases the compatibility of many soils. The reaction of TerraZyme on
these materials is particularly effective because of the ion-exchange capacity of clay
minerals the property that clay minerals have of absorbing certain ions such as the
TerraZyme molecule, thereby changing its physical properties. Of special importance
is that TerraZyme changes the plastic characteristics of these materials due to a
reduction in its water absorbing capacity. Unlike most other soil stabilizers, the effect
of TerraZyme on these materials is permanent.

TerraZyme was developed to assist engineers with the removal of adsorbed water in
materials in order to achieve maximum density with less mechanical effort and to
prevent the absorption of water that results in permanently stabilized construction
materials.

Most materials are made up of stacks of silica and alumina sheets. The arrangements
of these result in different clay minerals such as Kaolinite, Smectite, Illite, etc. A
simplified explanation is that these clay minerals have a predominately positive
electrical or an ionic charge. This causes clay minerals to have a strong attraction for
any cations present. Cations, or negative molecules, are therefore attracted to the
positive clay minerals like iron filings to a magnet. In close proximity to the clay
molecule or particle, the electrostatic forces are larger and thereby the ions are held
very firmly. Nominal temperatures will not remove them. This layer of water is
known as the electrostatic diffused double layer. This water is known as the adsorbed
water. Moving further away from the clay particle, the water molecules are no longer
in an attracted or orientated state, and this water is known as random water and it is
also called absorbed water. Certain materials, like Smectite, have spaces between the
plates or layers that can adsorb water, causing them to expand. These are known as
expansive or swelling materials and are the cause of many failures in foundations or
road works. The solution therefore is to obviously expel or prevent the adsorption of
water. If some powerful positive molecules can be supplied, the negative charge of

13
the clay minerals can be satisfied and balanced out .At the same time, any weaker cat
ions such as water can be disassociated and replaced, and/or occupation of the vacant
ionic sites on the surface of the clay can take place. Large cat ions, such as sodium or
water, cannot easily fit into these sites and is disassociated or replaced. Small cat ions,
on the other hand, fit firmly into these vacated sites and cannot be removed. We
therefore have the situation that the clay's negative charge is in balance and positive
ions cannot be removed, thereby rendering the clay inert to water. The soil mass is
now a permanently stable, Water Repellent Road Surface similar to rigid pavement.

TerraZyme a cat ions-reactive synthetic compound that forms a protective coating, on


oily clay layers on the surfaces of soil and clay particles. It reduces ion mobility and
ion exchange and simultaneously makes the material hydrophobic by eliminating the
absorption of water. The result is a soil material that is much less sensitive to
moisture, more workable and it can be compacted to a better particle-interlock state
by equipment and traffic forces. Better particle interlock means higher internal
friction and improved bearing capacity. It also means greater density and less
penetration of water. The active reagent is permanently bonded to the material
particles and should any excess reagent be present, additional water will facilitate
deeper penetration into the soil horizon until the entire reagent has been adsorbed.
TerraZyme will maintain normal Traffic in wet weather.

2.11 FAILURES IN SUBBASE

The failure of sub-base E may be attributed to two basic reasons:


● Inadequate stability
● Excessive stress application.
Inadequate stability may be due to the inherent weakness of soil itself or excessive
moisture or improper compaction. Stability is the resistance to deformation under
stress. Excessive stress application is due to inadequate pavement thickness or load in
excess of design value. The deformation of soil subgrade and other pavement
materials are found to increase with increase in number of load repetitions. If the
applied stress on the subgrade or pavement is very low when compared to its bearing
capacity, the deformation due to load would be elastic or fully recovered when the
load is released. If the compaction of the layer is not adequate with reference to

14
subsequent loading, part of the deformation may be permanent due to compaction of
soil, this may be called consolidation deformation. But if the applied stress excessive
with respect to the stability and if plastic flow takes place as in the case of wet clayey
soil this deformation is called plastic deformation and is not even partly recoverable.

2.12 LITERATURE REVIEW ON USE OF BIO-ENZYMES IN SOIL


STABILIZATION
Lacuoture and Gonzalez (1995) conducted a comprehensive study of the TerraZyme
soil stabilizer product and its effectiveness on sub-base and sub-grade soils. The
reactions of the soils treated with the enzyme was observed and recorded and
compared to the untreated control samples. The variation in properties was observed
over a short period only and it was found that in cohesive soils there was no major
variation in properties during the early days but the soil showed improved
performance progressively.

Hitam and Yusof of Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia (1998) conducted
field studies on improvement on plantation roads. The road was a soil road that
becomes impassable and poor due to adverse weather conditions. TerraZyme was
treated to 27.2 km of the road, which was having serious problems during the
monsoon season or after heavy downpour. The sections were then monitored on the
surface erosion due to rainwater and wear due to usage. After two monsoon seasons
the road was found to be in very good condition in spite of large exposure to heavy
rainfall. No surface damage was observed, thus requiring no repair works to the road
section. The researchers have concluded that TerraZyme stabilization can convert the
road to an all weather road that has minimum destruction in hot and wet season.

Brazetti and Murphy (2000) conducted field experiments in Brazil to study the use
of TerraZyme as the bio-enzyme stabilizer for road construction. The selected soils
were sandy clay, silty clay, sandy silt, plastic and non-plastic clay, sandy loam, loam
mixed with clay, soil mixtures with pieces of recycled pavement. The field stretches
were periodically tested with DCP (Dynamic Cone Penetrometer) equipment. After
their evaluation they reached the conclusion that enzyme stabilization is a good
technique for the effective and economic solution for pavement construction.

15
Andrew R. Tolleson et al (2003) in their research on “ An Evaluation of Strength
Change on Subgrade Soils Stabilized with an Enzyme Catalyst Solution Using CBR
and SSG Comparisons”, a laboratory bench scale testing program was conducted to
evaluate the effectiveness of enzyme treatment on subgrade soil. Their objective was
to study the potential applicability of tested enzyme for unpaved road in-situ
stabilization. The effectiveness of enzyme treatment was evaluated on the basis of
statistical measurement of change in CBR strength, soil stiffness and soil modulus. It
was concluded that the CBR test appear to be a relatively poor indicator of direct soil
strength for testing conditions. Notwithstanding, the test results showed CBR
strength gain and to a lesser degree strength gain measured by the means of the SSG
equipment resulting from the application of the enzyme solution on most soils tested,
indicating a promising potential for subgrade stabilization using the enzyme solution.

Isaac K.P et al (2003) conducted a comprehensive study of the terrazyme soil


stabilizer product and its effectiveness on laterite soil and clay type soil collected
from Kerala. The reactions of the soils treated with the enzyme was observed and
recorded and compared to the untreated control samples for the period of 8 weeks. It
was found that in all soil types the CBR value has increased by addition of
Terrazyme, which proved its suitability as a stabilizing agent. The increase in CBR
was of the range of 136 to 1800 times that of the original value, finally they
concluded that use of Terrazyme is useful for clay soil and sand but is less significant
compared to silty soils, also clayey and sandy soil had increase in CBR by 700%.

Manoj Shukla et al (2003) conducted a study to assess the suitability of Bio enzyme
as soil stabilizer, and five types of soils are consider for the study with low clay
content to very high clay content. Laboratory tests were conducted to determine the
engineering properties of soil and strength characteristics of soil with and without
stabilization with Bio enzyme. They concluded that bio enzyme stabilization has
shown little to very high improvement in physical properties of soil. This little
improvement may be due to chemical constituent of the soil, which has low reactivity
with Bio enzyme. Therefore it is advisable to first examine the effect of Bio enzyme
on soil stabilization in the laboratory before actual field trail. In some cases the soil is

16
very week like highly clay moderate soil, like silty soil to sandy soil, the effect of
stabilization has improved the CBR and unconfined compression strength.

Roger Bergmann (2006) in his technical note on “Soil stabilizers on Universally


Accessible Trails” had used EMC squared named Enzyme for stabilization of trail
surface. Conclusions were drawn that Bio-Enzymes requires some clay content in the
aggregate material in order to create the reaction that will strengthen the material.
Also reports showed that successful stabilization with as little as 2% clay in the
aggregate material but best result seem to be achieved with 10 to 15% clay, upon
completion of construction the trail looked very good but like the other trail sections it
did not hold up over the first winter.

Sharma (2001) has conducted laboratory studies on use of bio-enzyme stabilization


of three types of soils namely clay of high plasticity (CH), clay of low plasticity (CL)
and silt of low plasticity (ML). It was found that the CH soil had a 260% increase in
CBR value with reduction in saturation moisture from 40 to 21% after 4 weeks of
stabilization. Also it was found that there was 100% increase in unconfined
compression strength, 10 times increase in direct tensile strength at room temperature
and 4 times increase in fatigue cycles of failure. There was no increase in CBR for
soil of CL type but reduction in saturation moisture was from 43 to 34%. ML type soil
had its CBR increased by 210% with reduction in saturation moisture from 13 to 10%
after 4 weeks of stabilization.

Effect of Bio-Enzyme use on soil stabilization was conducted at Soil Mechanics


Laboratory, Thailand (1996) to determine the effects on CBR indicated that after
one week, two week, three week, and 14 week periods CBR was found as 37, 62, 66
and 100+ respectively as compared to 28% of untreated soil, investigators also
reported reduction in gravel loss, road roughness, dust levels on the Terrazyme treated
road sections.

17
2.13 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF TERRAZYME
STABILIZED SOILS UNDER STATIC LOADING

TerraZyme content and water requirements depend upon the type of soil to be
stabilized. Laboratory tests using particular soil and TerraZyme are required to obtain
the optimal enzyme content and water requirement for a required application.

The Soil-TerraZyme blends typically have a different maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content. In addition these blends exhibit dependence of compaction
behavior upon the delay between blend preparation and compaction. Moreover, the
changes in compaction characteristics depend upon the soil type.

The unconfined compressive strength is often taken to be the parameter by which the
mechanical characteristics of a subgrade are judged. The unconfined compressive
strength shows a strong dependence on moisture content. The strength increases up to
a certain moisture content and then decreases, such that optimum moisture content,
corresponding to the maximum unconfined compressive strength for the soil-
TerraZyme blend, may be defined.

2.14 BEHAVIOUR OF SOILS UNDER REPEATED LOADING

The TerraZyme stabilization has demonstrated themselves to work satisfactorily when


they are subjected to the monotonic loads. Significant level of improvement in the
index and Engineering properties of TerraZyme stabilized soil has been observed and
reported by many of the researchers as presented in the previous section. But the
better performance of the TerraZyme stabilized soils when subjected to the static/
monotonic loads does not guarantee the same level of performance under repeated/
Fatigue loading condition. The repeated / Fatigue loading becomes important in many
situations such as highways, shallow foundations in seismic areas, etc, In this section
an attempt has been made to review the existing literature in this context.

Qiu et al (1999) reports an extensive research effort relating to permanent


deformation of subgrade soils. Repeated load test was conducted on a subgrade soil.
while most soil specimens were subjected to 1,000 to 100,000 load, repetitions, one
specimen was loaded to over 1 million application to verify the general trend of

18
deformation accumulating various factors including moisture content, density,
deviator stress, confining pressure, load frequency, freeze and age were investigated
to determine their individual contributions to deformation accumulation. Extensive
repeated load test have been conducted in this research.

The analyses of test results indicate that, strong log liner relationship exists between
accumulated permanent deformations of subgrade using data from lab tests of short
duration. Test results also suggests that main contributors to the accumulation of
permanent deformation of moisture content, deviator stress, first cycle, freeze thaw
and ageing period for thixotropic soils.

Le Quang et al (2004) carried a series of triaxial tests on prismatic dense sand and
gravel specimens to investigate the effect of large number of cyclic loading on their
deformation. Deformation was measured locally to avoid the effects of membrane
penetration at the side surface of the specimen and of bedding error at the top and
bottom ends of the specimen on the measured strains. It was observed that applying
10,000 cycles of vertical loading at certain amplitude, the overall stress- strain
relationship at larger stress amplitude changed largely. In addition, after enough pre-
straining by cyclic loading, dense granular materials showed almost non-linear elastic
behavior. The test results suggest the existence of high stress amplitude so that if a
large number of cyclic loading with this amplitude is applied, dense granular
materials would become stable. This amplitude would be linked with the other factors,
such as the density of the specimen and the number of cycles. On the other hand,
small strain Young’s moduli are affected only to limited extent by a large number of
cyclic loading.

Seed et al, (1960) studied the effects of repeated loading on the strength and
deformation of compacted clay. A silty clay (LL=37%, PL=23%) was used for
testing. After mixing, the soil specimens were cured for 24 hours before they were
compacted using the Triaxial kneading compactor compacted specimens were
trimmed for testing to a diameter of 35.6mm and a height of 71.2 mm. The degree of
saturation ranged from 92% to 97%. A dial indictor was used to measure the
deformation of specimens. Water was used to provide confining pressure of 100 kPa.
The deviator stress was provided by an air pot and ranged from 20 to 800 kPa. The

19
original plan was to create a 0.1second load duration which would represent the time
of loading for a moving vehicle at 88 km/h. However, the actual duration of deviator
stress was set to 1 second due to limitations of the self-designed test apparatus. The
load duration was reduced to 0.2-0.33 second in later work when equipment
modifications made that possible. Specimens were subjected to around 100,000 load
applications.

Lutfi Raad (2000) investigated an improved method of analysis for pavements with
stabilized layers. The method incorporates the bimodular properties (i.e., tensile
modulus different than compressive modulus) of the stabilized layers and the stress
dependent behavior of granular and subgrade soils. This method was used to predict
stresses, resilient strains, and deformations using a finite element representation of
pavement structures. The method also studied the behavior of cement and lime
stabilized layers under repeated loads. Results of limited number tension and flexure
tests conducted showed that an increase in bimodular ratio tends to increase the
tensile strain and decrease the tensile stresses on the underside of the stabilized layers.

This pioneering and comprehensive research produced some significant


conclusions:

 For soils without thixotropic properties, deformation under repeated loads was
observed to be independent of load frequency provided that the applied stress
is small enough not to change the structure and density, and the loading rate is
within the range of 3 to 20 applications per minute.

 Repeated loading produced a gain of strength. The number of applications


required to cause a strength increase was greater than 1,000, probably the
range of 10,000 to 100,000. This suggests that “a roadway grows with traffic”.

 High deviator stress could cause a specimen to fail without previous excessive
deformation.

 The resilient modulus increased as the stress increased, except when the
applied stress was near the failure stress.

20
2.15 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FOR SOILS UNDER REPEATED
LOADING

The following is a synopsis of the major findings of the various research reported in
this literature review.

 Most researchers found that permanent deformation and log of the number of
load applications have a linear relationship ep = ANb .This equation widely
accepted in practice, especially for cohesive subgrade soils
 The first-cycle of deformation dominates the magnitude of permanent
deformation. It is vitally important to identify and separate the deformation of
soils under the first cycle of load application when conducting repeated load
tests. Load duration of 0.1 sec. was usually used. The number of load
applications ranged from 10,000 to 100,000.
 Most researchers used 20 to 30 cycles per minute as the load frequency. At
least one researcher reported that the rest period did not affect the
development of permanent strain as long as the rest period was greater than
0.33 sec. Another researcher found that frequencies in the range of 1 to 20 Hz
did not affect the accumulation of specimen deformation provided that the soil
did not demonstrate thixotropic potential and the degree of saturation was not
high.
 There exists a threshold stress for soils. Loading above this stress will cause
failure after a small number of load applications. This suggests that an
“endurance limit” or dynamic strength” could be a good indicator for
evaluating permanent deformation behavior of subgrade soils.
 The compacted densities ranged from 90% to 100% moisture contents were
either close to Plastic Limit and/or the Wet side optimum moisture content. No
information about the effect of freeze- thaw on soils was found.
 Most of the researchers used cyclic, haversine and sinusoidal waveforms. Due
to limited data it is difficult to do the comparisons to know the effect of
waveforms on fatigue life.
 Loading period used by most of the researchers is in the range 0.06 to 0 10
sec.

21
 Loading frequency used by various researchers is in the range of 0.75 Hz. to
54 Hz. But most commonly use is around 1-2 Hz. Loading frequency and
duration have a significant effect on fatigue life. Increasing the frequency of
load pulse increases the fatigue life. Fatigue life is dependent upon the speed
of loading or frequency with the largest changes occurring below 3.67 Hz.

2.16 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY

The concept of bio-enzymatic soil stabilization is to improve the engineering


characteristics of local soils by uniformly introducing the quantity of water and
catalytic organic ions into a pre-selected soil such that they will promote efficient
compaction and catalyze improvements in the clay structure. It is clearly mentioned in
the literature provided by the producer NPI that successful stabilization of a soil
depends on three criteria.
Uniform distribution of the liquid formula over the area selected for treatment.
Uniform mixing of the formula throughout the depth of the soil.
Compaction of the uniformly treated soil at OMC.
Soil stabilization with TerraZyme is accomplished in four steps:
1. Loosen soil
Scarify road surface to the designed thickness (typically a depth of 15-20cm/6-8
inches) to break up the soil. Verify that the road bed is of proper thickness. A grader,
rototiller or disk harrow can be used to pulverize clods or coarser materials.

2. Humidify soil with TerraZyme solution


Application training will introduce calculations for providing the amount of
TerraZyme required for the length, width and depth of soil to be treated and the
quantity of water required to bring the soil to near Optimum Moisture Content. Mix
22
the correct volume of TerraZyme into the water. Uniformly distribute the solution
onto the road section with a water truck or wagon.

3. Mix treated soil uniformly


Mix the moist road material with a rototiller, disk harrow or grader to the full depth of
the treated layer.

4. Compact treated road surface

Compact the treated bed using an adequate smooth drum or rubber tired roller.
Compact from the edges towards the center of the road. Check the compaction
percentage to confirm that it meets design. The treated road may be used for light
traffic immediately after compaction. Protect the surface with a seal coat if the road
will be used as paved road.

23
2.17 TERRAZYME ON INDIAN ROADS

In Indian conditions, TerraZyme application has proven to be successful both in the


Government as well as in the private sector, to substantiate the fact is the rural road
constructed using TerraZyme between two rural communities in one of the outskirts
in Mumbai. The road extends between two villages Pargaum and Vagheveli having an
overall distance of 4 kilometers and has withstood two monsoon seasons in the
absence of asphalt surface. In Nasik one of the more prominent districts of
Maharashtra State, TerraZyme road was constructed at Tri Murthy Chowk, which is a
part of the State Highway. Two important characteristics of the project are the design
and the sub grade conditions.

The road was surfaced with Asphalt has last for three monsoons already and caters to
a very high traffic. In Sriperambadur near Chennai TerraZyme roads have been
constructed as a replacement of the conventional granular base and sub base having
concrete as the driving surface. On National Highway TerraZyme road was
constructed in association with the Highway research Station, and the highlight of the
project was the better performance of the unsurfaced TerraZyme roads in comparison
conventional WBM and asphalt surface. TerraZyme roads have been used as loading
base, parking areas and yard areas in various projects around the country.

24
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL


INVESTIGATIONS

3.0 GENERAL

This chapter details with concept of experimental investigation carried out for two
different types of soils namely lateritic and shedi soils. The costal belt of Udupi and
Dakshina Kannada mainly consist of lateritic soil with clay content varies from 10%
to 50%. In recent years due to the industrial growth in Mangalore the traffic
movement has increased to a greater extent. Since the roads are not properly designed
the premature failure of pavement are taking place very often. This is mainly because
of sub base failure in almost all the cases. An attempt is made in this study to improve
the strength the sub base by stabilizing the soil by Bio-enzyme. To assess the
suitability of Bio-Enzyme as soil stabilizer, laboratory tests were conducted to
determine the engineering properties and strength characteristics of lateritic soil and
Shedi soil without and with bio-enzyme.

3.1 DOSAGE OF ENZYME

Considering research studies done with bio enzyme the dosage depending upon types
of the soil and it is per/m3 of soil. Most of the research studies have been done based
on the dosage recommended by the suppliers. The test conducted by Dr. Sunil Bose
and Dr. P. K Sikdar at CRRI (Central road research institute) Delhi, used the optimum
dosage of enzyme based on optimum CBR value of treated soil which also depending
upon per/m3 of soil. In this experimental investigation 2%,4%,6% and 8% dosage is
consider to study the variation in geotechnical properties of the lateritic and shedi soil.

3.2 TESTING PROGRAMME


This section presents the detailed testing programme planned and performed in the
entire study.

3.2.1 Testing Programme for Basic Properties


Tests are conducted to determine the Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics and

25
the UCC strength of virgin and stabilized soils. The details of testing programme for
the basic properties of soil are tabulated in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Testing Programme for Basic Properties

Soil Type Enzyme Mix Curing Test Performed


Proportion Period
(Weeks)
Liquid Limit,
Lateritic Soil Plastic Limit ,
98:2 to 92:8 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6
TerraZyme Compaction
and 8
in steps of 2% Characteristics,
Shedi Soil
UCC and
Permeability

3.2.2 Testing Programme for Fatigue Experiments

All the fatigue load experiments are conducted on cylindrical specimens, cured for
predetermined period. For such tests the parameters varied are, enzyme dosage, curing
period and stress level. The stress level in the present study is taken as a fraction of
the UCC strength of their respective specimen at the same condition of enzyme
dosage and curing. The detailed experimental programme for fatigue studies on
stabilized soils are tabulated in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Testing Programme for Fatigue Performance

Mix Stress level of


Curing
Proportion Frequency
Soil Type Enzyme Period % UCC
of loading
Soil : Strength
( Weeks)
Enzyme

Lateritic Soil 98:2 to


92:8 0, 1, 2, 3,
TerraZyme 30%,40%,50%,
2
4, 6 and 8 60% and 80%
Shedi soil in steps of
2%

26
Table 3.3 Properties of Terrazyme

SECTION I - IDENTITY
Identity (As It Appears On Label): N-Zyme
SECTION II - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS IDENTITY INFORMATION
Hazardous Components
(Specific Chemical Identity, Common None
Names):SECTION III - PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Boiling Point: 212oF
Specific Gravity: 1.05
Melting Point: Liquid
Evaporation Rate: Same as water
Solubility in Water: Complete
Appearance/Odor: Brown liquid, Non-obnoxious
SECTION IV - FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA
Special Fire Fighting Procedures: None
Unusual Fire/Explosion Hazards: None
SECTION V - REACTIVITY DATA
Unstable or Stable: Stable
Conditions to Avoid: Temperature above 45oC (130oF); pH
below 3.5, above 9.5
Incompatibility (Materials to Avoid): Caustics, Strong bases
Hazardous Polymenzation: Will NOT occur
SECTION VI - HEALTH HAZARD
Inhalation: None
Route(s) of Entry: Skin: None
Ingestion: None
Health Hazards (Acute and Chronic): None
NTP: NA
Carcinogenicity: IAEC: Monographs: NA
OSHA Regulated: No
Signs and Symptoms of Exposure: None
SECTION VII - PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFE HANDLING AND USE
Steps To Be Taken If Material Is
Released or Spilled: Wash down with water
Waste Disposal Method: Flush into any sewage system
Procedures To Be Taken In Handling and Store at temperatures below 45oC
Storing: (130oF)
Other Precautions: None
SECTION VIII - CONTROL MEASURES
Respiratory Protection (Specific Type): Not required
Working/Hygienic Practice: Normal good practices

27
Table: 3.4 Geotechnical properties (Lateritic and Shedi Soils)

Sl No. Property Lateritic Soil Shedi Soil


1 Specific gravity 2.50 2.5
Grain size distribution
a) Gravel % 14.63 11.06
2 b) Sand % 46.42 28.81
c) Silt % 10.54 49.32
d) Clay % 28.90 6.37
Consistency limits
Liquid limit % 50.60 44.72
3
Plastic limit % 35.60 20.58
Plasticity index % 15.00 24.12
4 IS Soil Classification MI CL
Engineering Properties
I.S Light Compaction
a) Max dry density, γdmax
1.85 1.68
(gm/cc)
5 b) O.M.C % 14 16
I.S Heavy Compaction
a) Max dry density, γdmax
1.86 1.90
(gm/cc)
b) O.M.C % 13.2 12.0
CBR Value
I.S Light Compaction
39.0 24
a) OMC condition %
6.0 4
b) Soaked condition %
6
I.S Heavy Compaction
17.0 21.0
a) OMC condition %
14.0 6
b) Soaked condition %
Un confined compression test
178 145
7 I.S Light Compaction ( kN/m2)
210 191
I.S Heavy Compaction (kN/m2)
Co-efficient of permeability
I.S Light Compaction (mm/sec) 1.79x10-7 1.57x10-9
8
I.S Heavy Compaction 1.80x10-7 1.87x10-9
(mm/sec)

28
3.3 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TEST

Sieve analysis and sedimentation analysis tests are conducted for grain size
distribution. The sedimentation analysis was done by hydrometer method using
sodium hexametaphosphate as the dispersing agent. The test was conducted as per IS
2720 (part4) 1985.
The grain size analysis test results for the Lateritic and shedi soils are tabulated in
Table: 3.4 and graphically presented in Fig: 3.1

Figs: 3.1 Grain size Analysis of Lateritic and Shedi soil.

29
3.4 ATTERBERG’S LIMIT

The untreated soil samples consistency limits test results are tabulated in Table3.4 and
the enzyme treated soil samples consistency limits are tabulated in Table 3.5

Table: 3.5 Liquid limit, Plastic limit& Plasticity index

Dosage Lateritic soil Shedi Soil


(% of
Enzyme) LL PL PI LL PL PI
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0 50.6 35.22 15.38 44.70 20.58 24.12
2 47.5 31.54 15.96 43.00 21.54 21.46
4 42.0 31.67 10.33 41.00 23.96 17.04
6 41.0 33.22 7.78 37.00 25.78 11.22
8 40.5 34.21 6.29 32.00 24.36 8.64

3.5 COMPACTION TEST

Standard test equipment and procedure available for compaction test was used in the
present work for light (IS: 2720 (PART 7)-1980,”Determination of water content –
Dry density Relation using Light compaction”) and heavy compaction (IS: 2720 (part
8)-1983, “Determination of water content–Dry Density Relation using Heavy
Compaction”). Automotive compaction equipment is used in this study, for the
purpose of calculating OMC and MDD. Graph is plotted between water content (IS:
2720 (part 2)-1973, “Determination of water content”) and dry density, from the peak
of the graph OMC and MDD values are taken from the respective graphs. The IS
Light and Heavy compaction test results for untreated soil and enzyme treated soil
samples are tabulated in Table 3.6 and 3.7.

30
Table: 3.6 IS Light Compaction Results

Dosage Lateritic soil Shedi soil


(% of MDD OMC MDD OMC
Enzyme) (gm/cc) (%) (gm/cc) (%)
0 1.9 16.29 1.68 14.91
2 1.91 14.28 1.72 15.2
4 1.93 13.98 1.75 15.45
6 1.87 15.3 1.78 14.15
8 1.8 15.86 1.82 13.63

Table: 3.7 IS Heavy Compaction Results

Dosage Lateritic soil Shedi soil


(% of MDD OMC MDD OMC
Enzyme) (gm/cc) (%) (gm/cc) (%)
0 1.88 16.45 1.73 16.82
2 1.93 14.13 1.81 12.87
4 2.06 12.91 1.77 13.63
6 2.01 14.72 1.75 13.47
8 1.97 11.51 1.74 11.93

3.6 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

The UCC test was conducted to find the angle of internal friction and cohesion value.
Standard test equipment and procedure available for UCC test was used in the present
work (IS: 2720 (part 10)-1973, “Determination of Unconfined Compression
strength”). The Unconfined compression test results for virgin soil samples are
tabulated in Table 3.4. The unconfined test for the enzyme dosage of 2%, 4%, 6% and
8% for the curing period of zero, one, two, three, four, six and eight weeks are
tabulated in the Table 3.8, 3.9 and the variation of UCC values with different dosages
of enzyme and curing period are graphically presented in Fig 3.2

31
Table: 3.8 Unconfined Compression values for Lateritic Soil
2% Enzyme 4% Enzyme 6% Enzyme 8 % Enzyme
Curing (MDD=1.95 (MDD=2.06 (MDD=1.91 (MDD=2.05
Period gm/cc) gm/cc) gm/cc) gm/cc)
(week) (OMC=14.13%) (OMC=12.91%) (OMC=14.72%) (OMC=11.51%)
UCC(kN/m2)
0 237 264 242 246
1 343 432 378 365
2 461 592 474 464
3 523 675 648 636
4 652 776 730 720
6 702 837 775 733
8 794 892 802 796

Table: 3.9 Unconfined Compression values for Shedi Soil

2% Enzyme 4% Enzyme 6% Enzyme 8 % Enzyme


Curing (MDD=1.81 (MDD=1.84 (MDD=1.86 (MDD=1.87
Period gm/cc) gm/cc) gm/cc) gm/cc)
(week) (OMC=15.09%) (OMC=14.05%) (OMC=17.97%) (OMC=18.02%)
UCC(KN/m2)
0 255 243 227 203
1 412 398 367 367
2 498 489 423 374
3 545 512 489 424
4 621 589 555 534
6 673 632 582 521
8 771 732 698 610

32
Fig: 3.2 Variation of Unconfined Compression Test Results with Different
Enzyme Dosages & Different Curing Period for Lateritic and Shedi Soil

3.7 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST

Standard test equipment and procedure available for California Bearing Ratio test was
used in the present work (IS 2720 (part 16)-1979, “Laboratory Determination of
CBR”). The test was conducted at both OMC and soaked condition for light and
heavy compaction. Unsoaked and soaked CBR test results for the virgin soil samples
are tabulated in Table 3.4 and from the unconfined test result it is found that optimum
Enzyme dosage of 2% and 4% for Shedi and lateritic soils respectively. The CBR
tests are conducted at 2% and 4% of Enzyme dosage for the curing period of zero,
one, two, three, four, six and eight weeks. Unsoaked and soaked CBR test results are
tabulated in Table 3.10 and the variation of CBR results for different curing periods
are graphically presented in Fig 3.3 and 3.4.The CBR values obtained from the test
results indicates very unrealistic. Therefore, this test is not valid for stabilized soils.
The UCC test is more realistic and therefore these are conducted to observe the
change in strength as curing period and dosage increases.

33
Table: 3.10 Unsoaked and Soaked CBR test results

Lateritic soil Shedi soil


MDD = 2.06 gm/cc MDD = 1.81 gm/cc
Curing
OMC = 12.91 % OMC = 15.09 %
Period
Soaked Soaked
(week) Unsoaked Unsoaked
CBR CBR
CBR (%) CBR (%)
(%) (%)
0 17 16 34 5

1 55 24 47 6

2 69 46 62 7

3 111 60 78 9

4 165 102 92 10

6 171 125 113 12

8 180 135 120 13

Fig: 3.3 Variations of CBR Results with 4% Enzyme Dosages & Different
Curing Period for Lateritic soil

34
Fig: 3.4 Variations of CBR Results with 2% Enzyme Dosages & Different Curing
Period Shedi soil

3.8 PERMEABILITY TEST

The permeability tests are conducted as per standard procedure (IS: 2720 (part 17)-
1986, “Laboratory determination of permeability”) for treated and virgin soil samples
and the test results are tabulated in Table 3.11.

Table: 3.11 Permeability Test Results

Lateritic soil Shedi soil


Dosage Permeability in
Permeability in
(% of Enzyme) (cm/sec)
(cm/sec)
0 1.809 X 10-7 1.635 X 10-9
2 1.793 X 10-7 1.578 X 10-8
4 1.787 X 10-6 1.543 X 10-7
6 1.786 X 10-5 1.512 X 10-7
8 1.786 X 10-5 1.487 X 10-7

35
CHAPTER 4

FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF LATERITC AND SHEDI SOILS

4.0 INTRODUCTION
The results of the CBR experiments presented in earlier Chapter showed, the CBR
value is more than 100%. For semi rigid pavement CBR values are not recommended.
Hence fatigue tests have been conducted to determine its response for repeated
loading condition.

4.1 LABORATORY FATIGUE TESTING


To investigate on the performance of enzyme stabilized Soils, the enzyme stabilized
specimens were exposed to the repeated loading in the laboratory. For this purpose the
laboratory experiments are conducted in a fatigue testing apparatus and the specimens
are subjected to number of repeated loads. The number of loading cycles varied
depending curing Period and other excitation parameters such as stress, frequency of
loading and type of wave form etc. This section describes the methodology adopted
for this purpose.

a) Specimen Preparation and curing

The type of specimen tested for fatigue capacity of the enzyme stabilized specimen is
similar to the one tested for their unconfined compression test. A cylindrical specimen
of length to diameter ratio of 2 is used.

b) Testing Equipment

The Fatigue test equipment that is capable of applying the repeated loads at a
frequency 0 to 12 Hz is used in the present investigation. The equipment is procured
from SPANTROICS, Bangalore.

The main components of the test set-up are:


I. Loading system including loading frame and load sensing device
ii. Control system including function generator
iii. Data Acquisition system

36
Fig 4.1 Schematic Diagram of Accelerated Fatigue Load Test Set-up

c) Testing Procedure
All the fatigue loading tests are conducted on cylindrical specimens using a fatigue
testing equipment. For this propose the following testing procedure is adopted

 The Cylindrical specimen is mounted on the loading frame and the Deflection
sensing transducers (LVDT) are set to read the deformation of the specimen.
The load cell is brought in contact with the specimen surface.
 In the control unit through the dedicated software, the selected loading stress
level, frequency of loading and the type of wave form are fed in to the loading
device
 The loading system and the data acquisition system is switched on
simultaneously and the process of fatigue load application on the test
specimen is initiated
 The repeated loading, at the designated excitation level (i.e. at the selected
stress level and frequency) is continued till the failure of the test specimen.
 The data acquisition system continuously record the vertical deformation of
the test specimen with cycles of loading until the failure and the output file is
given noted as a Result file.
 The failure pattern of the test specimen is noted down manually.

37
4.2 EFFECT OF ENZYME ON FATIGUE CHARACTERISTICS

OF STABILIZED SOILS

To bring out the effect of enzyme on the performance of stabilized soils, when
subjected to repeated loads, experiments are conducted on all the two types of soils. A
comparative study between virgin and stabilized soils indicates that the enzyme
stabilization is effective in improving the strength. The enzyme treated specimens
experience a large number of loading cycles, before failure whereas their untreated
counterpart (shown in Table 4.1) failed within a few number of loading cycles. This
trend of results is observed for the two soils tested under different Curing period and
stress level. These experimental results clearly shows that the untreated soil
specimens which were not capable of taking any loading cycles develop itself into a
material, upon treatment with enzyme, that are capable of taking considerable number
of repetitive loading.

To bring out the influence of various parameters viz., the percentage of enzyme, stress
level and curing period, the maximum number of loading cycles a specimen capable
of taking before being failed as “Fatigue life” in this study.

38
Table 4.1: Fatigue life of untreated soil specimens at different stress levels

Curing Period Applied stress (% of Fatigue life (No. of cycles)


(Weeks) UCC strength) Lateritic soil Shedi soil
100 1 1
80 1 1
60 1 1
0
50 2 1
40 2 1
30 3 1
100 1 1
80 1 1
60 2 1
1
50 2 2
40 2 2
30 3 2
100 1 1
80 1 1
60 1 1
2
50 1 1
40 3 2
30 3 2
100 1 1
80 1 2
60 1 2
3
50 2 2
40 3 3
30 3 3
100 2 1
80 2 1
60 2 1
4
50 4 1
40 4 2
30 4 2
100 2 1
80 3 1
60 2 2
6
50 4 2
40 4 3
30 3 3
100 1 1
80 3 2
60 2 3
8
50 4 2
40 4 3
30 5 4

39
4.3 EFFECT OF ENZYME CONTENT ON FATIGUE LIFE

The fatigue tests are conducted at frequency of 2 Hz on stabilized soils at various


stress level. The soil samples on treated with bio-enzyme with different dosage viz
2%, 4%, 6% and 8%. The test results are presented in Fig 4.2 and 4.3
a) Lateritic soil

40
Fig: 4.2 Effect of Enzyme content on Fatigue life of Enzyme treated Lateritic soil
specimen at different stress level and 2Hz Frequency

41
Fig 4.2 presents the data for stabilized Lateritic soil subjected to repeated loads at
30,40,50,60 and 80% stress level and at frequency of 2 Hz. The figures include the
experimental results conducted with different curing periods also. The fatigue life of
the stabilized soil initially increases as the Enzyme content increase. The increase is
upto 4% Enzyme content and the further increase in Enzyme content, the fatigue life
of the stabilized soil reduces. This trend is observed for the entire specimen tested at
different stress level. It is also observed that for different curing periods the trend
remains same.

b) Shedi soil

42
Fig: 4.3 Effect of Enzyme content on Fatigue life of Enzyme treated Shedi soil
specimen at different stress level and 2 Hz Frequency

Fig 4.3 presents the data for stabilized Shedi soil subjected to repeated loads at
30,40,50,60 and 80% stress level and at frequency of 2 Hz. The fatigue life of the

43
stabilized soil initially increases as the Enzyme content increase. The increase is upto
2% Enzyme content and the further increase in Enzyme content, the fatigue life of the
stabilized soil reduces. This trend is observed for the entire specimen tested at
different stress level. It is also observed that for different curing periods the trend
remains same.

4.4 EFFECT OF CURING PERIOD ON FATIGUE LIFE


To bring out the effect of curing period on the fatigue life of Enzyme stabilized soil,
experiments are carried out on stabilized soil cured for different time periods. The
results of such experiments are plotted as curing period v/s fatigue life.
a) Lateritic soil

44
Fig: 4.4 Effect of Curing period on Fatigue life for different percentage of
Enzyme treated Lateritic soil

The experiments performed with 2, 4, 6 and 8% Enzyme stabilized Lateritic soil at


different stress levels are performed in Fig 4.4. It is observed from these figures that
the fatigue life of the stabilized soil increases upto a curing period of about 4 weeks,
with further increase in curing period there will be marginal change in the fatigue life.

45
b) Shedi soil

46
Fig: 4.5 Effect of Curing period on Fatigue life for different percentage of
Enzyme treated Shedi soil

Fig 4.5 presents the data of the experiments performed with 2, 4, 6 and 8% Enzyme
stabilized Shedi soil at different stress level. It is observed from these figures that the
fatigue life of the stabilized Shedi soil increases linearly with the curing periods. The
curing period was extended upto a period of 8 weeks and observed marginal change in
the fatigue life.

4.5 EFFECT OF LOADING AMPLITUDE (STRESS LEVEL) ON


THE FATIGUE LIFE
The Fig 4.6 and 4.7 presents the effect of stress level on fatigue life of enzyme
stabilized soil specimen.
a) Lateritic soil

47
Fig: 4.6 Effect of stress level on Fatigue life for different percentage of Enzyme
treated Lateritic soil
48
The stress level is started from 30% of UCC strength and extended up to an 80%,
beyond this the fatigue life of the stabilized specimen were negligibly small. It is
evident that at lower stress level of 30%, the specimen exhibits a high fatigue life.
With further increase in stress level, the fatigue life of stabilized specimen reduces
considerably in a exponential manner beyond about 80% stress level, the fatigue life
is small. Further, it is interesting to observe from these figures that, the fatigue life at
any stress level increases as the curing period advances. For example at a stress level
of 30% for 2% Enzyme stabilized specimen, the fatigue life increased from about
15,000 cycles after 0week curing to 70,000 cycles after 8 weeks of curing.

b) Shedi soil

49
Fig: 4.7 Effect of stress level on Fatigue life for different percentage of Enzyme
treated Shedi soil

The experiments conducted on shedi soil show the similar trends as lateritic soil with
respect to stress level v/s Log of fatigue life. At low stress level the fatigue life is
more in both shedi and lateritic soil, but in shedi soil the fatigue life is about 60%
lesser than that of lateritic soil. This may be due to less percentage of clay available in
shedi soil for the reaction with Terrazyme.

50
4.6 CORRELATION BETWEEN FATIGUE LIFE AND
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

The experimental investigation on fatigue life v/s unconfined compressive strength of


stabilized lateritic and shedi soil defines the relation between the unconfined
compressive strength and the corresponding fatigue life with respect to stress level.
The correlation has been established for optimum enzyme dosage, the difference
stress level and the corresponding fatigue life with respect to the curing period
(2,4,6,8 weeks). According to this correlation for a defined stress level the fatigue life
of the stabilized soil can be evaluated
a) Lateritic soil

Fig: 4.8 Correlation between fatigue life and UCC for Lateritic soil

Table: 4.2 Correlation equations for Lateritic soil


Stress level Correlation equation of Lateritic soil for 4% Enzyme R² value
30% Fatigue Life=272.2 UCC + 743.7 0.98
40% Fatigue Life =199.6 UCC - 1975 0.98
50% Fatigue Life =161.0 UCC - 5942 0.99
60% Fatigue Life =132.3 UCC - 7916 0.98
80% Fatigue Life =99.68 UCC - 10732 0.98

Considering the difference stress level and the corresponding fatigue life the
correlation between the fatigue life v/s UCC strength the equation has been generated
for lateritic soil upto 98% of accuracy. This equation has been generated for stress
levels 30 to 80% and it is found that the accuracy of fatigue life varies from 98% to
99%.

51
b) Shedi soil

Fig: 4.9 Correlation between fatigue life and UCC for Shedi soil

Table: 4.3 Correlation equations for Shedi soil


Stress level Correlation equations of Shedi soil for 2% Enzyme R² value
30% Fatigue Life =189.2 UCC + 5219 0.95
40% Fatigue Life =137.9 UCC + 3915 0.96
50% Fatigue Life =107.3 UCC + 1338 0.97
60% Fatigue Life =92.74 UCC - 3402 0.96
80% Fatigue Life =69 UCC - 7452 0.96

Considering the difference stress level and the corresponding fatigue life the
correlation between the fatigue life v/s UCC strength the equation has been generated
for Shedi soil upto 97% of accuracy. These equations have been generated for stress
levels 30 to 80% and it is found, that the accuracy of fatigue life varies from 95% to
97%.

52
CHAPTER 5
PAVEMENT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

5.0 GENERAL

Flexible pavement is a structure of multi layered system considering sub-grade of


infinite depth. Flexible pavement unlike rigid pavement is an elastic structure,
constructed over sub-grade. The strength of sub-grade varies from point to point.
Therefore, an effective and economical flexible pavement is quite necessary to make
it functional and long lasting. In this investigation, KENPAVE Software is used to
analysis and design a flexible pavement according to IRC-37, 2001.

5.1 KENPAVE - SOFTWARE

KENPAVE, an FEM package developed by Dr.Yang.H.Huang is specifically used for


the design of both rigid and flexible pavements. It is quite simple, easy to understand
and operate. Also, it offers extensive features that can be used to design the pavement
subjected to different conditions. It performs the analysis based on stiffness matrix
method.

This package can be used to analyze both rigid as well as flexible pavements
considering different types of loads and stresses likely to be induced over the
pavement. It is being widely used now-a-days, and it was found that the results
obtained from KENPAVE are well with those obtained from other conventional
method. The main drawback is that, the structure cannot be analyzed in 3D form
which would be better needed while designing flexible highway and runway
pavements, where the loads induced are massive in nature.

5.2 PAVEMENT DESIGN USING -IRC 37-2001


DESIGN PARAMETERS
1. CBR=2% (assumed)
2. Cumulative Standard axles to be catered for in the design= Ns=10msa (assumed)
3. Total pavement thickness for CBR 2% & 10 msa = 850 mm
(Source: fig 1, pg no 9, IRC-37)
53
4) Pavement Composition interpolated from plate 1, CBR 2%
(a) Bituminous Surfacing = 40 mm BC + 100 mm DBM
(b) Road base = 250 mm
(c) Sub base = 460 mm (Capping layer 100mm)
Total thickness = 850 mm

5.3 ANALYSIS OF PAVEMENT SECTION


The thickness of pavements has been designed according to IRC-37, 2001 Guidelines
and design details are discussed in above section. The analysis has been performed in
two stages, initial stage being the design of pavement for an virgin base soil and the
later stage being the analysis of same pavement for the stabilized Base soil. Initially a
five layered pavement system with specific thickness, subjected to Dual- Tandem axel
was analyzed and later, thickness stabilized layer was found by trial and error method
by keeping the stress and strain values within the limits.

INPUT PARAMATERS
1. Contact radius (CR) = 150 mm
2. Contact pressure (CP) = 560 kPa

Table 5.1 Thickness of the layers for the initial stage in analysis (for subgrade soil
CBR 2%, dual-tandem)

Layer Young’s Modulus ,kPa Poisson ratio Thickness , mm


Surface course 30e+5 0.5 140
Base course 18e+3 0.4 250
Sub-Base course 13e+3 0.4 360
Capping layer 10e+3 0.3 100
Sub-grade 5e+3 0.3 xxx

54
Table 5.2 Thickness of the layers for the final stage in analysis (for stabilized
Base, dual-tandem)

Layer Young’s Modulus ,kPa Poisson ratio Thickness , mm


Surface course 30e+5 0.5 50
Base course 25e+3 0.4 250
Sub-Base course 13e+3 0.4 360
Capping layer 10e+3 0.3 100
Sub-grade 5e+3 0.3 xxx

Fig 5.1 Plan of the dual-tandem indicating the response points

55
Table 5.3 Stress Values at response points 1 and 13 for virgin base

MAJOR MINOR INTERIM


POINT VERTICAL VERTICAL VERTICAL PRINCIPAL
PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL
NO. DISP STRESS STRESS
COORDINATE STRESS STRESS
z z 2
1 3
Response Point 1
1 0 0.805 560 2385.789 147.994 2355.394
1 140 0.559 9.044 9.583 -0.352 0.139
1 195 0.474 6.658 7.007 -0.362 -0.073
1 290 0.371 4.239 4.403 -0.284 -0.166
1 340 0.332 3.437 3.55 -0.241 -0.163
1 390 0.3 2.832 2.911 -0.202 -0.15
1 570 0.221 1.574 1.6 -0.11 -0.094
1 750 0.174 1.002 1.012 -0.068 -0.062
1 800 0.164 0.9 0.908 -0.062 -0.057
1 850 0.155 0.813 0.82 -0.057 -0.052
Response Point 13
13 0 0.805 560 2385.789 147.994 2355.394
13 140 0.559 9.044 9.583 -0.352 0.139
13 195 0.474 6.658 7.007 -0.362 -0.073
13 290 0.371 4.239 4.403 -0.284 -0.166
13 340 0.332 3.437 3.55 -0.241 -0.163
13 390 0.3 2.832 2.911 -0.202 -0.15
13 570 0.221 1.574 1.6 -0.11 -0.094
13 750 0.174 1.002 1.012 -0.068 -0.062
13 800 0.164 0.9 0.908 -0.062 -0.057
13 850 0.155 0.813 0.82 -0.057 -0.052

Fig 5.2 Plan and Cross-section of pavement for virgin base

56
Table 5.4: Stress Values at response points 1 and 13 for stabilized Base

INTERIM
MAJOR MINOR
POINT VERTICAL VERTICAL VERTICAL PRINCIPAL
PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL
NO. DISP STRESS STRESS
COORDINATE STRESS STRESS
z z 2
1 3
Response Point 1
1 0 1.121 560 7151.112 430.567 7128.752
1 50 0.87 37.117 38.447 -8.086 -6.691
1 200 0.489 7.287 7.713 -0.592 -0.208
1 250 0.424 5.553 5.831 -0.456 -0.228
1 300 0.374 4.361 4.544 -0.357 -0.217
1 480 0.259 2.15 2.199 -0.163 -0.131
1 660 0.197 1.267 1.284 -0.088 -0.077
1 760 0.174 0.998 1.008 -0.067 -0.061
Response Point 13
13 0 0.976 0 1065.694 39.081 844.896
13 50 0.853 12.154 12.154 -6.524 6.973
13 200 0.523 8.343 8.343 -0.653 -0.008
13 250 0.448 6.294 6.294 -0.499 -0.174
13 300 0.391 4.861 4.861 -0.389 -0.209
13 480 0.265 2.29 2.29 -0.187 -0.151
13 660 0.199 1.307 1.307 -0.107 -0.096
13 760 0.175 1.011 1.011 -0.083 -0.076

Fig 5.3 plan and cross section of pavement for stabilized base

57
Fig 5.4 Stress variation at response point 1

Fig 5.5 Stress variation at response point 13

The tyre pressure induced at node of response 13 is very low compared to the node at
1. This obviously due to the reason that node at this response point is away from the
area of tyre-pressure application. Also, the stresses induced at node under response
point 13 are low compared to the node under response point 1.

At most of the nodes, the stresses induced due to tyre pressure are found to be
decreasing as the base is changed from virgin base to stabilized base of node under
response point 1, where the stresses are found to increase. This may be due to the
reason that the thickness is reduced as the strength of base is increased and that the
nodes are exactly under point of application of tyre pressure.

58
CHAPTER 6

ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS


6.0 GENERAL

Analysis and discussion of the results have been presented in this chapter.

6.0.1 Lateritic Soil


The soil contains 14.26% Gravel, 46.02% Sand, 10.22% Silt and 28.90%. Clay.
Hence the soil is classified as MI.
For both light and heavy compaction the MDD and OMC values are 1.85gm/cc,
1.86gm/cc and 14.0 %, 13.2 % respectively.
The CBR values at unsoaked and soaked condition for light and heavy
compactions are 39.0%, 17.0 % and 16 %, 14.0 % respectively.
From both light and heavy compaction the unconfined compressive
strength is 245 kN/m2 and 396 kN/m2 respectively and the corresponding coefficient
of permeability is 1.79x10-7mm/sec and 1.80x10-7mm/sec.
.
6.0.2 Shedi soil
The soil contains 11.06% Gravel, 28.81% Sand, 49.32% Silt and 6.37%. Clay. Hence
the soil is classified as CL.
For both light and heavy compaction the MDD and OMC values are 1.68gm/cc,
1.90gm/cc and 16.0 %, 12.0 % respectively.
CBR values at unsoaked and soaked condition for light and heavy compactions
are 24.33%, 21.0 % and 3.66 %, 4.25 % respectively.
From both light and heavy compaction the unconfined compressive
strength is 145 kN/m2 and 187 kN/m2 respectively and the corresponding coefficient
of permeability is 1.57x10-9mm/sec and 1.87x10-9mm/sec.
From this investigation, it is found that properties of the locally available soil
have to be improved so that it can be effectively used as sub base material.

59
6.1 TESTS ON ENZYME TREATED SOIL

The four different enzyme dosages are used to stabilize the lateritic soil and shedi soil
(2%,4%,6% and 8%) with the different curing period of zero, one, two, three, four, six
and eight weeks. Effect of enzyme dosage on index properties, strength and
permeability properties of a lateritic and shedi soil during the curing period are
tabulated in Tables 3.5 to 3.11.

6.1.1 Effect on Consistency Limits of Enzyme Treated Lateritic and Shedi soils

The Atterberg limits tests are conducted for the zero week curing periods with
different enzyme dosage of 0% to 8% at an increment of 2%. After one week curing
period the test can not be performed, because the soil becomes very stiff.

6.1.1.1 Effect of Enzyme on Lateritic Soil

Effects of variable enzyme dosages on consistency limits are shown in Table 3.5. It is
found that liquid limit decreases from 50.6% to 40.5% with the increase of Enzyme
dosage from 0% to 8% at an increment of 2% and plastic limit marginally increases
from 31.54% o 34.21 % at the earlier stage and remains constant for higher enzyme
dosage.
There is marginal improvement in the consistency limits by treating soil with enzyme.
Enzyme dosage of 8% has shown higher improvement in liquid limit and plasticity
index compare to other smaller dosages. Liquid limit and plastic limit decreased by 10
% and 3 % respectively for the higher dosage of 8%.

6.1.1.2 Effect of Enzyme on Shedi soil

Effects of variable enzyme dosages on consistency limits are tabulated in Table 3.5. It
is found that liquid limit decreases from 44.70% to 32.00% with the increase of
Enzyme dosage from 0% to 8% at an increment of 2% and plastic limit marginally
increases from 20.58 % to 24.36 % at the earlier stage and remains constant for higher
enzyme dosage.
There is marginal improvement in the consistency limits by treating soil with enzyme.
Enzyme dosage of 8% has shown higher improvement in liquid limit and plasticity
60
index compare to other smaller dosages. Liquid limit and plastic limit decreased by 11
% and 6 % respectively for the higher dosage of 8%.

6.1.2 Effect on Heavy Compaction of Enzyme Treated Lateritic and Shedi soils
6.1.2.1 Effect of Enzyme on Lateritic Soil

These results are tabulated in Table 3.6. The MDD and OMC values for untreated
sample are 1.86 and 13.2 % respectively. Whereas for enzyme treated samples there is
an increase in MDD at 4 % dosage and further increase in dosage these values are
decreasing. From the test results it can be concluded that the optimum dosage to get
maximum MDD is 4 %.

6.1.2.2 Effect of Enzyme on Shedi soil

These results are tabulated in Table 3.7. The MDD and OMC values for untreated
sample are 1.90 and 12% respectively. Whereas for enzyme treated samples there is
an increase in MDD at 2 % dosage and further increase in dosage these values are
decreasing. From the test results it can be concluded that the optimum dosage to get
maximum MDD is 2 %.

6.1.3 Effect on Unconfined compression test results of Enzyme Treated Lateritic


and Shedi soils

6.1.3.1 Effect of Enzyme on Lateritic Soil

Unconfined compressive strength of the soil is evaluated for treated soil for zero, one,
two, three, four, six and eight weeks of curing with enzyme dosage of 2%, 4%, 6%
and 8%. Based on the test results which are tabulated in Table 3.8 it is found that the
unconfined compression strength increases with the curing period of zero to eight
week. Further it is found that unconfined compressive strength increases with 2% and
4% and gradually decreases with 8% of Enzyme for zero to eight weeks of curing
period which is presented in Fig 3.2. The Unconfined compressive strength increased
from 237.0 kN/m2 to 892.38 kN/m2 for curing period of zero to eight weeks. The
maximum unconfined compressive strength is 892.38 kN/m2 with 4% of Enzyme
dosage for a curing period of eight weeks.

61
6.1.3.2 Effect of Enzyme on Shedi soil

Unconfined compressive strength of the soil is evaluated for treated soil for zero, one,
two, three, four, six and eight weeks of curing with enzyme dosage of 2%, 4%, 6%
and 8%. Based on the test results which are tabulated in Table 3.9 it is found that the
unconfined compression strength increases with the curing period of zero to eight
week. Further it is found that unconfined compressive strength decreases from 2% to
8% for zero to eight weeks of curing period which is presented in Fig 3.2. The
Unconfined compressive strength increased from 203.47 kN/m2 to 771.89 kN/m2 for
curing period of zero to eight weeks. The maximum unconfined compressive strength
is 771.89 kN/m2 with 2% of Enzyme dosage for a curing period of eight weeks.

6.1.4 Effect on CBR results of Enzyme Treated Lateritic and Shedi soils

The CBR test is conducted with 2% and4% Enzyme dosage for Lateritic soil and
Shedi soil (based on UCC test results) for varying curing period of zero, one, two,
three and four weeks. The results are shown in the Table 3.10 and graphically
represented in Fig 3.3

6.1.4.1 Effect of Enzyme on Lateritic Soil

The CBR value of untreated soil is 14.0%. There is a considerable improvement in


CBR value with the increase in the curing period and after four weeks of curing the
soaked CBR value is found to be 110 %.

6.1.4.2 Effect of Enzyme on Shedi Soil

The CBR value of untreated soil is 4.25 %. There is a considerable improvement in


CBR value with the increase in the curing period and after eight weeks of curing the
soaked CBR value is found to be 13.0 %.

For stabilized soils the CBR test results obtained are not realistic. That’s
why this method is not suggested for any chemically treated soil.

62
6.1.5. Effect on Permeability of Enzyme Treated Lateritic and Shedi soils

Permeability tests were carried out on lateritic and shedi soils with different enzyme
dosages2%, 4%, 6% and 8% for zero curing periods. The test results are tabulated in
Table 3.11.
Based on the test results, as the dosage of Bioenzyme increases from 0 % to 8% there
is a considerable decrease in the co efficient of permeability. The test results also
indicate that there is not much variation in the co efficient of permeability beyond 4%
and 2% of enzyme dosage in Lateritic and Shedi soil respectively.

6.1.6 Effect on Fatigue life of Enzyme Treated Lateritic and Shedi soils

Experiments were conducted to study the effect of stress level on fatigue life of
enzyme stabilized soil specimens. The stress amplitude is started from 30% of UCC
strength and conducted up to a loading amplitude of 80% beyond which the fatigue
life of the stabilized specimens were negligibly small. It is observed that the fatigue
life of the soil samples tested are influenced by the dosage of enzyme used. At lower
stress level of 30% the specimens exhibit a high Fatigue life. With further increase in
stress level, the fatigue life of stabilized specimen reduces considerably. Further, it is
interesting to observe in figures that, the fatigue life at any stress level increases as the
curing period increases.

63
CHAPTER 7
FIELD STUDY

7.0 GENERAL

To compare the test results obtained in the laboratory the experiments were conducted
in the field by constructing a road with enzyme stabilized lateritic soil for a stretch of
1.35 kms.

7.1 DETAILS OF THE SITE


The road selected for the experimental investigation is at Nancharu-Kokkarne Road,
Udupi District. The construction of road segment for a length of 1.35 Km was done
under “Pradana Manthri Grameena Sadak Yojana” (PMGSY) scheme. The bio
enzyme used for the stabilization of sub base is TerraZyme supplied by an American
Company Nature Plus. In association with Panchayath Raj Engineering Division
Udupi, the road construction was carried out by: Manjushree Construction “ Ankada
Katte , Kundapura.

7.2 FIELD PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION


The site condition is studied thoroughly before the use of bio enzyme. The site is at
about 15 km from National Highway 4 (NH4) towards eastern side. The soil
investigation was carried out to know the geotechnical properties of the soil. The soil
is of lateritic in nature and having liquid limit is 35%, Plasticity index was 8% and
CBR 8%. From the wet sieve analysis it was found that silt and clay content was
about 35%.
Bases on the laboratory investigation enzyme dosage were fixed as 4 % and the sub
base soil is stabilized with enzyme treatment as per the instruction of the supplier.
Since the use of bio enzyme is first tried in this region, along with soil 10 mm size
aggregate also mixed during the stabilization process.

64
TEST ANALYSIS
Table 7.1 Index properties of the soil at the site before the application of Enzyme

Sl. No. Index Property Value


1. Specific Gravity 2.55
2. Atterberg’s Limits
Liquid Limit, % 38
Plastic Limit, % 25
Plasticity Index 13
3 Light Compaction Test
MDD, gm/cc 1.76
OMC, % 14.55
4 Heavy Compaction Test
MDD, gm/cc 1.86
OMC, % 12.5
5. CBR Test
For Light Compaction, % 10
For Heavy Compaction, % 12

Table 7.2 Results of Dynamic Cone Penetration Test conducted after enzyme
treatment
Site No 1 2 3 4 5
Sl. No.

No. of

Penetr

No. of

Penetr

No. of

Penetr

No. of

Penetr

No. of

Penetr
blows

blows

blows

blows

blows
in cm

in cm

in cm

in cm

in cm
ation

ation

ation

ation

ation
1 0 3.7 0 3.6 0 3.3 0 3.3 0 3.4
2 3 5.6 3 5.3 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5
3 6 6.5 6 5.8 6 5.0 6 5.0 6 5.0
4 9 6.5 9 6.1 9 5.3 9 5.5 9 5.4
5 12 7.4 12 6.1 12 5.7 12 5.9 12 5.7
6 15 7.4 15 6.1 15 6.0 15 6.1 15 5.8
7 18 7.4 18 6.3 18 6.2 18 6.2 18 6.0
8 21 7.5 21 6.6 21 6.5 21 6.4 21 6.1
9 24 7.5 24 6.7 24 6.7 24 6.4 24 6.3
10 27 7.7 27 6.8 27 7.0 27 6.4 27 6.5
Final 30 7.8 30 7.0 30 7.2 30 6.7 30 6.5
reading
DCP 1.37 1.14 1.3 1.14 1.13
mm mm mm mm Mm

65
Conclusion on DCP Test

1. The DCP test conducted at 5 points of enzyme treated soil shows that DCP
value is less than 3mm at all points and it clearly indicates that the CBR value
is more than 100%
2. It is evident from the that result that the surface soil treated with enzyme has
substantially improved CBR values as compared to untreated soil.

7.3 LONG TERM EFFECT OF ENZYME ON SOIL


To verify the long term effect of the enzyme on soil stability, the road constructed
with enzyme stabilized soil is kept with out any bituminous top layer for more than 8
months. After one week the road was open for traffic. Field CBR was conducted
during the month of Feb. 2009 after allowing the road for one rainy season. The
results indicate that the CBR values obtained in the field are more than 80%. It clearly
indicates that the long term durability of Bioenzyme treated soil.

Table 7.3 Field CBR Values

CBR Value
Trail No Penetration @ 2.5mm Penetration @ 5mm
(%) (%)
1 92 131
2 101 153
3 87 138

66
Fig 7.1 Co-relation between DCP readings and CBR values

67
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS

8.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the tests conducted in laboratory the following conclusions have been
drawn.

1. CONSISTENCY LIMITS
a) For the Laterite soil, as the percentage of Enzyme dosage increases from 0%
to 8% there is decrease in the liquid limit from 50.6% to 40.5% and slight
increase in the plastic limit from 31.5% to 34.2%.
b) Similarly for Shedi soil, the liquid limit decrees from 44.7% to 32.00% and
slight increase in the plastic limit from 20.6% to 24.4%.

2. COMPACTION
The MDD and OMC of lateritic soil after treating with optimal 4% Enzyme is found
to be 2.05 gm/cc and 13% respectively. Whereas for the Shedi soil it is 1.85gm/cc and
11.93% respectively.

3. UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST


From the test results it is observed that for Lateritic soil the Unconfined Compressive
Strength increases more than 300% when compared to virgin soil. The increase is
more than 100% and 150% for lateritic and Shedi soil respectively.

4. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST


The test results indicate that there is a continuous improvement in the CBR values
with the higher curing period. After eight weeks of curing the increase in CBR value
for the Lateritic soil is around 500% and for the Shedi soil is around 300%. Though
this test is not recommended for chemically treated soils, to observe the change in
strength these tests were conducted.

68
5. PERMEABILITY TEST

The experimental result shows that the Co-efficient of permeability decreases for a
dosage of 4 % Enzyme and more or less same trend is observed for higher dosages.
a) The properties of lateritic and Shedi soil have been improved by stabilizing
with enzyme dosage of 4% and 2% respectively.
b) Bio-Enzyme stabilization has shown medium improvement in physical
properties of lateritic and Shedi soil. This improvement may be due to
chemical constituent of the soil, which has low reactivity with Bio-Enzyme;
therefore it is always advisable to first examine the effect of Bio-Enzyme on
soil in the laboratory before trying in the field.

6. FATIGUE ANALYSIS
Fatigue life is defined as the number of loading cycle a soil specimen can withstand
before being failed at a predefined stress level.
a) The fatigue life increases for lateritic soil with a enzyme dosage of 4% and
shedi soil with 2%. Beyond this dosage the improvement in fatigue life is very
insignificant.
b) The fatigue life of the stabilized soil increases upto a curing period of 4 weeks
and beyond that there is a marginal increase.

7. FIELD EXPERIMENTAL DATA ANALYSIS

a) The DCP test conducted after stabilizing the sub base using enzyme indicates
that there is an increase in CBR (800%) value as compared to untreated soil.
b) The test conducted after one year of construction indicates a 94% CBR value
which is quite promising.

8.1 FUTURE SCOPE


 Fatigue behavior of other type of soils can be studied
 The effect of enzyme on soil for higher weeks of curing period
 The effect if other types of enzymes are to be investigated
 Nomographs are to be established to find out fatigue life from UCC values.

69
REFERENCES

1. Andrew, R.T., Fadi, M.S., Nicholos, E.H. and Elahe, M. (2003): “An
Evaluation of Strength change on Subgrade soils stabilized with an Enzyme
Catalyst solution using CBR and SSG comparisions”, Geomatrics, Inc.
Columbia, Sc 29210, USA, July 2003.
2. Andromalos, K.B., Hegazy,Y. A., Jasperse, B. H. (2000): “Stabilization of
Soils by Soil Mixing” Proceedings, International Conference on Soft Ground
Technology, ASCE, Noorwijkerhout, Netherlands, pp. 194-205.
3. Brazetti, R. and Murphy, S.R. (2000): “General usage of Bio-Enzyme
stabilizers in Road Construction in Brazil”, 32nd annual meeting on paving
Brazil, October 2000.
4. “Effect of Terrazyme usage on increase of CBR”, Technical report by Soil
Mechanics Laboratory, National Road Department, Thailand, 1996.
5. Fine, L., Remington J. (1972): The Corps of Engineers: Construction in the
United States. Airfields for Very Heavy Bombers.
6. Hitam, A. and Yusof, A. (1998): “Soil stabilizers for plantation road”,
National seminar on Mechanisation in Oil Palm Plantation, 30 June 1998,
Selangor, Malaysia.
7. IRC: 37-2001 “Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements”, The Indian
Roads Congress, New Delhi
8. IRC: SP: 20 -2002 “Rural roads Manual”, The Indian Roads Congress, New
Delhi
9. IS 2720 (Part III) (1980) “Determination of Specific gravity” Bureau of Indian
Standards, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi.
10. IS 2720 (Part IV) (1975) “Determination of Grain Size” Bureau of Indian
Standards, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi.
11. IS 2720 (Part V) (1985) “Determination of Liquid and Plastic limit” Bureau of
Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi.
12. IS 2720 (Part VII) (1980) “Determination of Moisture content and Dry
density” Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi.

70
13. IS 2720 (Part X) (1973) “Determination of Unconfined Compressive
Strength” Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi.
14. IS 2720 (Part XVI) (1979) “Determination of California Bearing Ratio”
Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi.
15. IS 2720 (Part XVII) (1986) “Determination of Permeability” Bureau of Indian
Standards, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi.
16. Isaac, K.P., Biju, P.B. and Veerararagavan, A. (2003): “Soil stabilization using
Bio-Enzyme for Rural Roads” presented at the IRC Seminar: integrated
Development of Rural an Arterial Road Networks for Socio- Economic
development, New Delhi, December 2003.
17. Krizek, R.J. (1992): “Use of Fiber-Reinforced Soil-Cement or Recycled
Aggregate for Pavement Base Course”. Northwestern University.
18. Lacuoture, A. and Gonzalez, H. (1995): “Usage of Organic Enzymes for the
stabilization of Natural base soils and sub bases in Bagota”, Pontificia
Universidad Jevariana, Faculty of Engineering.
19. Lequang, A. and Junichi, K. (2004): “Effects of Large Number of Cyclic
Loading on Deformation Characteristics of Dense Granular Materials,” Soils
and Foundations Vol.44, No.3, pp. 195-199.
20. Liver, N. L., Mardorf, E. C. and King, J. C. (1954): Development and
Applications of Intrusion Grout Mixed-in-Place Piles. Civil Engineering,
March 1954, pp.56-57.
21. Lufti, R. (2000): “Behavior of stabilized Layers under Repeated Loads”,
Transportation Research Record 1022. TRB, pp. 72-79.
22. Manoj Shukla, Sunil Bose and Sikdar, P.K. (2003): “Bio-Enzyme for
stabilization of soil in Road construction a cost effective approach”, Presented
at the IRC Seminar: Integrated Development of Rural and Arterial Road
Networks for Socio-Economic development, New Delhi, December 2003.
23. MOST (Roads Wing) (1998): “Specifications for Road and Bridge Works”,
Third revision, IRC, New Delhi.
24. Qiu, Dennis.N.D, and Elliott, K. (1997): “Deformation Characteristics of
Subgrade Soils Under Repeated Loading”. Geotechnical Engineering Journal,
Vol. 3, No. 2, Aug 1999, pp. 85-97.

71
25. Roger, B. (2006): “Soil stabilizers on universally accessible trails”, Technical
Report 0023-1202-SDTDC, San Dimas, Ca: U.S.Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, 10 p.
26. Ryan, C. R. and Jasperse, B. H. (1989): “Deep Soil Mixing at the Jackson
Lake Dam”. ASCE Geotechnical and Construction Divisions. Special
Conference, Evanston, II.
27. Santoni, R. L., Tingle, J. S. and Webster, S. L. (2001): “Nontraditional
Satbilization of Silty Sand”. U.S. Army Research and Development Center.
28. Seed, H.B., Chan, N. C. K., and Monismth, C.L. (1955): “Effects of Repeated
Loading on the Strength and Deformation of Compacted Clay”. HRB
Proceedings No. 34, Washington, D.C., pp. 541-558.
29. Sharma, A., “Laboratory Study to Use of TerraZyme for Soil Stabilisation”,
Research Report (unpublished) Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi
2001.
30. U.S. Army Field Maunual, FM 5-410. (1997): “Soil stabilization for Roads
and Airfields”. Chapter 9 of Military Soils Engineering.
31. Wright Fox, R. and Macfarlane, J. G. (1993): “Alternate Chemical Soil
Stabilizers”. Minor Research Report. Caltrans.
32. Yang, H. (2001): “Pavement analysis and design”, University of Kentucky,
Pearson Publications, Second edition.

72
PHOTOGRAPHS

SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION AT KERAVASE

UCC SAMPLES FOR DIFFERENT CURING PERIOD

73
FATIGUE SETUP

FIELD EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

CONDUCTING DCP TEST

74
FIELD CBR APPARATUS

CONDUCTING CBR TEST AT FIELD

75
BIO-DATA

Personal Profile

Name: GANESHA CHATRADA


Date of Birth: 18 JUNE 1986
Gender: Male
Nationality: Indian
Permanent Address: “Maduri” S.I.T Campus, S.I.T., Tumkur-572103
Contact Numbers: 9964280966, 0816-2284276
Email: ganeshchatrad@gmail.com

Educational Qualification

Degree: Bachelor of Engineering


Discipline: Civil Engineering
Year of passing: 2007
College: Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumkur
University: Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum.
Publications: Communicated for International journal of Pavement engineering

76

You might also like