1.effect of Nanomaterial On Soil Properties

EFFECT OF NANOMATERIALS ON SOIL
PROPERTIES
A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by
HEMALATHA .D
100104122016
KANIMALAR .R
100104122019
in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

Of
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SNS COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY
ANNA UNIVERSITY : CHENNAI 600 025

APRIL 2014
ANNA UNIVERSITY : CHENNAI 600 025
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
Certified that this project report EFFECT OF NANOMATERIALS ON

SOIL PROPERTIES is the bonafide work of HEMALATHA .D
KANIMALAR .R who carried out the project work under my supervision.
SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE
DR.G.PRINCE ARULRAJ,
DR. G. PRINCE ARULRAJ
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
SUPERVISOR
Professor & Dean
Department of Civil Engineering,
Department of Civil Engineering
SNS College of Technology,
SNS College of Technology,
Coimbatore 35
Coimbatore - 35
CERTIFIED THAT THE CANDIDATES WAS EXAMINED BY US IN

VIVAVOCE EXAMINATION HELD ON AT SNS
COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, COIMBATORE-641035
Internal Examiner
External Examiner
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
To begin with we thank the Almighty for the blessings and perseverance he has
been bestowed upon us to complete the project
We thank our beloved principal Dr. S. Chenthur Pandian for his relentless and
motivation for this project.
We are highly indebted to our most respected HOD/DEAN Dr. G. Prince
Arulraj of Civil engineering department , who constantly conveyed the spirit of
encouragement and untiring support with his exemplary guidance and
monitoring. Without his guidance and persistant support this dissertion would
not have been possible.
We would also like to thank our faculty members, non teaching staffs and the
institution without whom the project would have a distant reality. We also
render our heartfelt thanks to our parents and brothers for their love, prayers and
constant support during this project
ABSTRACT
An experimental investigation on addition of nanomaterials on the behavior of
soil has been carried out. A soil belonging to uniformly graded silt has been
considered for the investigation. The Nanomaterials considered were Nano
Metakaoline and Nano Flyash. A mixture of 50% of Nano Metakaoline and
Nano Flyash was also considered for the investigation. The soil properties such
as Specific Gravity, Coefficient of Uniformity, Coefficient of Curvature,
Shrinkage Limit, Liquid Limit, Angle of Internal Friction and Cohesion were
found for the original soil as well as for the soil containing Nanomaaterials in
various proportions. The proportions considered are 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% and 5%.
The studies indicates that addition of Nano Materials changed the values of the
soil properties. Changes indicates that there exist an optimal percentage addition
which yields maximum or minimum value for parameters. This study will be
helpful in determining the proportions of Nanomaterials required to modify the
original properties of soil.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO
Table 2.1
TITLE
PAGE NO
Values of k for Use in Equation for Computing Diameter
37
of Particle in Hydrometer Analysis

Table 2.2
Values of Effective Depth Based on Hydrometer and
38
Sedimentation Cylinder of Specific Sizes

Table 3.1
Sieve Analysis on Soil
51
Table 3.2
Sieve Analysis on soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
53
Table 3.3
Sieve Analysis on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash
Table 3.4
Liquid Limit on soil
60
Table 3.5
Liquid Limit for soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
61
Table 3.6
Liquid Limit on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash
62
Table 3.7
Direct Shear test on soil
63
Table 3.8
Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano metakaoline
64
Table 3.9
Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano Flyash
65
Table 4.1
Consolidated result
68
55
LIST OF FIGURES
FIG NO
TITLE
PAGE NO
Fig.1.1
Substitutions for phase calculations
Fig 1.2
Plasticity Chart
11
Fig 1.3
Landslide Hekseberg, Norway
14
Fig 1.4
Block on slope
Fig 1.5
Direct Shear test
16
Fig 1.6
Toppling Book row mechanism
17
Fig 1.7
Sliding on Horizontal plane
18
Fig 1.8
Conceptual diagram of single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT)
19
15
(A) and multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) (B)

Fig 1.9
Adsorption of chlorine by various media
24
Fig 2.1
Specific Gravity Apparatus
30
Fig 2.2
Sieve Analysis Apparatus
34
Fig 2.3
Hydrometer
36
Fig 2.4
Liquid limit Apparatus
41
Fig 2.5
Plastic limit and Liquid limit test
43
Fig 2.6
Plastic Limit
44
Fig 2.7
Shrinkage limit test
45
Fig 2.8
Direct shear test
48
Fig 3.1
Particle size distribution for soil
52
Fig 3.2
Particle size distribution for soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
54
Fig 3.3
Particle size Distribution for soil with 1% Nano Flyash
56
Fig 3.4
Liquid Limit for soil
60
Fig 3.5
Liquid limit for soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
61
Fig 3.6
Liquid Limit for 1% Nano Flyash
62
Fig 3.7
Direct shear test on soil
63
Fig 3.8
Direct shear test on Soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
64
Fig 3.9
66
Fig 4.1
Variation of specific gravity with addition of nanomaterials
70
Fig 4.2
Variation of Cu with the addition of Nanomaterials
71
Fig 4.3
Variation of Cc with addition of Nanomaterials
72
Fig 4.4
Variation of Liquid Limit with addition of Nanomaterials
Fig 4.5
Variation of shrinkage limit with addition of Nanomaterials
74
Fig 4.6
Variation of angle of internal friction with addition of Nanomaterials
75
Fig 4.7
Variation of cohesion with the addition of Nanomaterials
76
73
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Va -Volume of air in soil

Vw - Volume of water in soil
Vs -Volume of solids in soil
Ww -Weight of water
Ws -Weight of solids
w -water content
b -Bulk Density
d -Dry Density
sat -Saturated Density
sub. -Submerged Density
Gs -Specific gravity
e -Void ratio
n -Porosity
S -Degree of saturation
f - critical shear stress
c - cohesion
- the normal effective stress
- the angle of internal friction
A - area of the sample
N - the vertical force
-Poissons ratio
Nv - normal vertical force
sv - normal vertical stress
Fh- shear stress
H .- Displacement
Cu - Uniformity Coefficient
Cc - Coefficient of Curvature
Ac Corrected Area
Ao Area of shear box
D10 10% of the soil are finer than this size
D30 30% of soil are finer than this size
D60 60% of soil are finer than this size
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
TITLE
PAGE NO
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
ii
LIST OF TABLES
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
iv
LIST OF SYMBOLS
vi
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Historical background of soil

mechanics and geotechnical engineering
2
1.2.1 Geotechnical Engineering in Early Days
1.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Prior to

the 18th Century
1.2.3 Pre-classical Period of

Soil Mechanics (1700 1776)
1.2.4 Classical Soil Mechanics
3
3
1.2.5 Modern Soil Mechanics (1910 -1927)

3
1.2.6 Geotechnical Engineering after 1927
4
1.3 Preliminary definitions
1.3.1 Soil as three phase system:
1.3.2 Definitions
1.4 Classification of soil
1.5 Unified Soil Classification System
1.5.1 Coarse-Grained Soils
1.5.2 Fine-Grained Soils
12
1.5.3 Highly Organic Soils
13
1.6 Shear strength of soil

1.6.1 Coulomb
1.7 Shear test
1.7.1Direct shear test
13
14
15
15
1.8 Nanotechnology and civil engineering
18
1.9 Nanotechnology in construction
19
1.9.1 Nanotechnology and Concrete
20
1.9.2 Nanotechnogy and Steel
21
1.9.3 Nanotechnology and Coatings
22
1.9.4 Nanotechnology and Glass
23
1.9.5 Nanotechnology in Water Purification
23
1.9.6 Nanotechnology and Fire Protection

and Detection
24
1.9.7 Nanotechnology in Geotechnical engineering 25

2
1.10 Review of Literature
26
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
28
2.1 Specific gravity
29
2.1.1 Definition
29
2.1.2 Standard Reference
29
2.1.3 Significance
29
2.1.4 Equipment
29
2.1.5 Test Procedure
29
2.1.6 Data Analysis
30
2.2 Sieve analysis

2.2.1 Purpose
31
31
2.2.3 Significance
31
2.2.4 Equipment
31
31
2.2.6 Data Analysis
33
2.3 Atterbergs limits

2.3.1 Soil Consistency
2.4 Atterbergs limits test
38
40
2.4.1 Purpose
40
40
2.4.3 Significance
40
2.4.4 Equipment
40
41
2.4.6 Analysis
45
2.5 Direct shear test
38
46
2.5.1 Purpose
46
2.5.2 Significance
47
2.5.3 Equipment
47
48
2.5.5 Precautions
48
2.5.6 Analysis
49
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
50
3.1 Sieve Analysis on soil
51
3.2 Particle size Distribution Curve for Soil:
51
3.2.1 Results from the graph
52
3.2.2 Uniformity Coefficient
52
3.3.3 Coefficient of Curvature
52
3.3 Sieve Analysis on Soil with
53
1% Nano Metakaoline
3.4 Particle size Distribution Curve for Soil
53
53
with 1% Nano Metakaoline

54
54
54
3.5 Sieve Analysis on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash
55
3.6 Particle size Distribution Curve for Soil
55
with 1% Nano Flyash

56
56
56
3.7 Specific gravity of soil sample
57
3.8 Specific gravity of soil with
57
1% Nano Metakaoline
3.9 Specific gravity of soil with
58
1% Nano Flyash
3.10 Shrinkage limit of soil sample
58
3.11 Shrinkage limit of soil with
59
1% Nano Metakaoline
3.12 Shrinkage limit of soil with
59
1% Nano Flyash
3.13 Liquid limit for soil sample
3.13.1Results from the graph
3.14 Liquid limit for soil with 1% nano metakaoline
60
60
61

3.15 Liquid limit for soil with 1% nano flyash
62
3.15.1Results from the graph
62
3.16 Direct shear test on soil sample
63

3.17 Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano metakaoline
63
64
65
3.18 Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano Flyash

4
65
66
RESULTS AND DISSCUSSIONS
67
4.1 Consolidated results
68
4.2 Specific Gravity
70
4.3 Coefficient of Uniformity
71
4.4 Coefficient of Curvature
72
4.5 Liquid Limit
73
4.6 Shrinkage Limit
74
4.7 Angle of Internal Friction in degrees
75
4.8 Cohesion in kg/cm2
76
CONCLUSIONS
77
5.1 Conclusions for specific gravity
78
5.2 Conclusions for coefficient of uniformity
78
5.3 Conclusions for coefficient of curvature
78
5.4 Conclusions for liquid limit
78
5.5 Conclusions for shrinkage limit
78
5.6 Conclusions for angle of internal friction
79
5.7 Conclusions for cohesion
79
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction:
This project deals with the effect of nanomaterial on the engineering
properties of soil. In this project, tests for specific gravity , Atterbergs
limits , grain size distribution and Direct shear were conducted. Test
results are analysed for the assessment of effects of nanomaterials on
soil. This project report consists of five chapters. Introduction to
geotechnical engineering and nanotechnology in civil engineering are
discussed in the first chapter. In the second chapter the experimental
procedures for various tests on soil are discussed. Experimental results
and graphical results are shown in third chapter. In the fourth chapter the
overall
results are proposed and discussed. Finally, fifth chapter
comprises of conclusions and summary of the project.

1.2 Historical background of Soil
mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering:
Soil is used as a construction material in various civil engineering projects
and it supports structural foundations.Thus civil engineers must study the
properties of soil such as its origin, grain-size distribution, ability to drain
water, compressibility, shearstrength and load-bearing capacity.
"Soil Mechanics is the application of laws of mechanics and hydraulics to
engineering problems dealing with sediments and other unconsolidated
accumulations of solid particles produced by the mechanical and chemical
disintegration of rocks regardless of whether or not they contain an
admixture of organic constituent."
GeotechnicalEngineering is a broader term for Soil Mechanics. It is the

branch of Civil Engineering concerned with the engineering behavior of
earth materials.It includes the application of the principles of soil
mechanics and rock mechanics to the design of foundations ,retaining
structures and earth structures.
1.2.1Geotechnical Engineering in Early days:
The record of the first use of soil as a construction material by mankind is
lost in antiquity. In true engineering sense,there is noGeotechnical
Engineering prior to the 18th Century. For years, the art of geotechnical
engineering was based on only past experiences through a succession of
experimentation without any real scientific character. Based on those
experimentations, many structures were built some of which have
crumbled, while others are still standing.
1.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Prior to the 18th Century
One of the most famous examples of problems related to soil bearing
capacity and foundations in the construction of structures prior to18th
century is the Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy.The construction of the Tower
began in 1173 and last over 200 years. The tower has tilted in the past to
the east, north, west and, finally, to the south. Recent investigations
showed that a weak clay layer exists at a depth of about 11m below the
ground surface compression, which caused the tower to tilt.
1.2.3 Pre-classical Period of Soil Mechanics (1700 1776)
This period concentrated on studies relating to natural slope and unit
weights of various types of soils, as well as the semi-empirical earth
pressure theories. Henri Gautier (1660-1737) studied the natural slopes of
soils when tipped in a heap for formulating the design procedures of
retaining walls. Bernard Forest de Belidor (16711761) proposed at heory
for lateral earth pressure on retaining walls specified a soil classification
system. Francois Gadroy (17051759) observed the existence of slip
planes in the soil at failure.
1.2.4 Classical Soil Mechanics

Classical Soil Mechanics began in 1773 with Charles Coulombs (a
physicist,17361806) who introduced mechanics to soil problems. Using
the laws of friction and cohesion to determine the true sliding surface
behind retaining wall, Coulomb inadvertently defined failure criteria for
soil. By combining Coulomb's theory with Christian Otto Mohrs theory of a
2D stress state, the Mohr-Coulomb theory was developed. Henry Darcy
(18031858) defined the hydraulic conductivity. Joseph Boussinesq, a
mathematician and physicist (18421929), developed the theory of stress
distribution. William Rankines (18201872) simplified Coulomb's earth
pressure
theory.
Osborne
Reynolds
(18421912)
demonstrated
the
phenomenon of dilatency in sand.

1.2.5Modern Soil Mechanics (1910 -1927)
This period was marked by a series of important studies and publications
related to the mechanic behavior of clays: Albert Atterberg (1846-1916), a
Swedish chemist and soil scientist, explained the consistency of cohesive
soils by defining liquid, plastic, and shrinkage limits. Arthur Bell (1874
1956), a civil engineer from England, developed relationships for lateral
pressure and resistance in clay as well as bearing capacity of shallow
foundations in clay. Wolmar Fellenius (18761957), an engineer from
Sweden, developed the stability analysis of saturated clay slopes. Karl
Terzaghi (18831963), a civil engineer and geologist from Austria,
developed the theory of consolidation for clays as we know today.
1.2.6 Geotechnical Engineering after 1927
The development of modern Geotechnical Engineering as a branch of Civil
Engineering is absolutely impacted by one single professional individual
KarlTerzaghi. His contribution has spread to almost every topic in soil
mechanics and geotechnical engineering covered by the test book say,
Effective stress, Elastic stress distribution, Consolidation settlement, Shear
strength, insitu testing. Generally recognized as the father of modern soil
mechanics
and
geotechnical
engineering,
he
started
modern
soil
mechanics with his theories of consolidation, lateral earth pressures,

bearing capacity, and stability.
1.3 PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS
1.3.1 Soil as three phase system:
A soil mass is a three phase system consisting of:
(a) solid particles (grains)
(b) water
(c) air
The void space between soil particles is filled partly with water and partly with air, Fig 1.1
(a). In case of fully saturated soil, the voids are completely filled with water. The three soil
constituents are mixed together forming certain soil structure. For calculation purpose, it is
always more convenient to show these constituents in separate spaces, as shown in Fig. 1.1
(b). The total volume of soil (V) consists of :
(a)
(b)
Fig.1.1 Substitutions for Phase Calculations
(a) Volume of air (Va)

(b) Volume of water (Vw)
(c) Volume of solids (Vs)
The total volume of voids (Vv) is given by:

Vv = Va + Vw
The total weight of soil (W) consists of:
(a) Weight of water (Ww)
(b) Weight of solids (Ws).
1.3.2 Definitions
(a) water content: (w)
The water content (also called the moisture content) is defined as the ratio between the
weight of water (Ww) and the weight of solids (Ws) in a given soil mass, i.e:
w=
Ww
Ws
The water content is usually expressed in percentage:

w ()=
Ww
100
Ws
(b) Unit weight of solid mass: (Density of soil)

(i) Bulk Density: (b)
The bulk density of soil is defined as the total weight of soil mass (W) per unit of its
total volume (V), i.e:
b =
W
V
(ii) Dry Density: (d)
The dry density is defined as the weight of solids (Ws) per unit of its total volume
(V), i.e:
d =
Ws
V
(c)Saturated Density: (sat)

When the soil is fully saturated with water, its bulk density is called saturated density. Thus, it
is defined as the total weight of a saturated soil mass per unit of its total volume, i.e:
sat =
W sat W s+ V v w
=
V
V
(d) Submerged Density: (sub.)

When a soil mass is submerged under water its weight is reduced due to bouyancy. The
upward force is equal to the volume multiplied by the density of water (w):
=
W V w
= sat . w
V
For w = 1 gm / cm3 (or 1 t/m3)

sub. = sat. -1
The density of soil is generally expressed in gm/cm3 or t/m3 units. It is considered as bulk
density (also called unsaturated density) unless otherwise stated. Natural density is the bulk
density of natural soil. It is generally taken as bulk density unless the soil in the field is
saturated or dry.
(e) Specific gravity: (Gs)
The specific gravity of soil is defined as the ratio between unit weight of soil solids to that of
water, i.e:
Gs =
Ws 1
Vs w
The specific gravity is therefore a dimensionless value.

(f) Void ratio: (e)
The void ratio is defined as the ratio between volume of voids to volume of soil solids, i.e. :
e=
Vv
Vs
(g) Porosity: (n)

The porosity is defined as the ratio between volume of voids to total volume of soil, i.e. :
n=
Vv
V
The relationship between the porosity and void ratio is :

n=
e
1+e
Also:
e=
n
1-n
(h) Degree of saturation: (S)
The volume of voids in a soil mass is generally occupied by water and air. The ratio between
volume of water and volume of voids is called the degree of saturation, i.e. :
S=
Vw
Vv
The degree of saturation is also expressed as percentage, i.e. :

S(%)=
Vw
100
Vv
In a saturated soil where the voids are totally filled with water the degree of saturation S = 1
(or 100%). For dry soil S = 0.
1.4 Classification of soil
Early attempts to classify soils were based primarily on grain size. These are the textural
classification systems. In 1908, a system that recognized other factors was developed by
Atterberg in Sweden and primarily used for agricultural purposes. Somewhat later, a similar
system was developed and used by the Swedish Geotechnical Commission. In the United
States, the Bureau of Public Roads System was developed in the late twenties and was in
widespread use by highway agencies by the middle thirties. This system has been revised
over time and is widely used today. The Airfieid Classification System was developed by
Professor Arthur Casagrande of Harvard University during World War II. A modification of
this system, the USCS, was adopted by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation in January 1952. A number of other soil classification systems are in use
throughout the world, and the military engineer should be familiar with the most common
ones. The principal objective of any soil classification system is predicting the engineering
properties and behavior of a soil based on a few simple laboratory or field tests. Laboratory
and/or field test results are then used to identify the soil and put it into a group that has soils
with similar engineering characteristics. Probably no existing classification system
completely achieves the stated objective of classifying soils by engineering behavior because
of the number of variables involved in soil behavior and the variety of soil problems
encountered. Considerable progress has been made toward this goal, particularly in
relationship to soil problems encountered in highway and airport engineering. Soil
classification should not be regarded as an end in itself but as a tool to further your
knowledge of soil behavior.
1.5 Unified Soil Classification System
Soils seldom exist in nature separately as sand, gravel, or any other single component.
Usually they occur as mixtures with varying proportions of particles of different sizes. Each
component contributes its characteristics to the mixture. The USCS is based on the
characteristics of the soil that indicate how it will behave as a construction material. In the
USCS, all soils are placed into one ofthree major categories. They are
Coarse-grained.
Fine-grained.
Highly organic.
The USCS further divides soils that have been classified into the major soil categories by
letter symbols, such as
S for sand.
G for gravel.
M for silt.
C for clay.
A soil that meets the criteria for a sandy clay would be designated (SC). There are cases of
borderline soils that cannot be classified by a single dual symbol, such as GM for silty gravel.
These soils may require four letters to fully describe them. For example, (SM-SC) describes a
sand that contains appreciable amounts of silt and clay.
1.5.1 Coarse-Grained Soils
Coarse-grained soils are defined as those in which at least half the material is retained on a
Number 200 sieve. They are divided into two major divisions, which are
Gravels.
Sands.
A coarse-grained soil is classed as gravel if more than half the coarse fraction by weight is
retained on a Number 4 sieve. The symbol G is used to denote a gravel and the symbol S to
denote a sand. No clearcut boundary exists between gravelly and sandy soils; as far as soil
behavior is concerned, the exact point of division is relatively unimportant. Where a mixture
occurs, the primary name is the predominant fraction and the minor fraction is used as an
adjective. For example, a sandy gravel would be a mixture containing more gravel than sand
by weight. Additionally, gravels are further separated into either coarse gravel or fine gravel
with the 3/4-inch sieve as the dividing line and sands are either coarse, medium, or fine with
the Number 10 and Number 40 sieves, respectively. The coarse- grained soils may also be
further divided into three groups on the basis of the amount of fines (materials passing a
Number 200 sieve) they contain. These amounts are
Less than 5 percent.

More than 12 percent.
Between 5 and 12 percent.
Coarse-grained soils with less than 5 percent passing the Number 200 sieve may fall into the
following groups:
(GW is well-graded gravels and gravelsand mixtures with little or no fines. The presence of
the fines must not notably change the strength characteristics of the coarse-grained fraction
and must not interfere with its free draining characteristics. (SW) is well-graded sands and
gravelly sands with little or no fines. Definite laboratory classification criteria have been
established to judge if the soil is well-graded. For the (GW) group, the Cu must be greater
than 4; for the (SW) group, greater than 6. For both groups, the CC must be between 1 and 3.
(GP) is poorly graded gravels and sandy gravel mixtures with little or no fines. (SF) is poorly
graded sands and gravelly sands with little or no fines. These soils do not meet the gradation
requirements established for the (GW) and (SW) groups. Coarse-grained soils containing
more than 12 percent passing the Number 200 sieve fall into the following groups:
(GM) is silty gravel and poorly graded gravel/sand-silt mixtures.

(SM) is silty sands and poorly graded sand-silt mixtures.
Gradation of these materials is not considered significant. For both of these groups, the
Atterberg limits must plot below the A-line of the plasticity chart shown in Figure1.2. A dual
symbol system allows more precise classification of soils based on gradation and Atterberg
limits.
(GC) is clayey gravels and poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures.
(SC) is clayey sands and poorly graded sand-clay mixtures.
Fig 1.2 Plasticity Chart

Gradation of these materials is not considered significant. For both of these groups, the
Atterberg limits plot above the A-line. The use of the symbols M and C is based on the
plasticity characteristics of the material passing the Number 40 sieve. The LL and PI are used
in determining the plasticity of the fine materials. If the plasticity chart shown in Figure 5-1
is analyzed with the LL and PI, it is possible to determine if the fines are clayey or silty. The
symbol M is used to indicate that the material passing the Number 40 sieve is silty in
character. M usually designates a fine-grained soil of little or no plasticity. The symbol C is
used to indicate that the binder soil is clayey in character. A dual symbol system allows more
precise classification of soils based on gradation and Atterberg limits. For example, coarsegrained soils with between 5 and 12 percent of material passing the Number 200 sieve, and
which meet the criteria for well-graded soil, require a dual symbol, such as
(GW-GM)
(GP-GM)
(GW-GC)
(GP-GC)
(SW-SC}
(SW-SM)
(SP-SC)
(SP-SM)
Similarly, coarse-grained soils containing more than 12 percent of material passing the
Number 200 sieve, and for which the limits plot in the hatched portion of the plasticity chart
(see Figure 1.2), are borderline between silt and clay and are classified as (SM-SC) or (GMGC). In rare instances, a soil may fall into more than one borderline zone. If appropriate
symbols were used for each possible classification, the result would be a multiple designation
using three or more symbols. This approach is unnecessarily complicated. It is considered
best to use only a double symbol in these cases, selecting the two believed most
representative of probable soil behavior. If there is doubt, the symbols representing the poorer
of the possible groupings should be used. For example, a well-graded sandy soil with 8
percent passing the Number 200 sieve, with an LL of 28 and a PI of 9, would be designated
as (SW-SC). If the Atterberg limits of this soil were such as to plot in the hatched portion of
the plasticity chart (for example, an LL of 20 and a PI of 5), the soil could be designated
either (SW-SC) or (SW-SM), depending on the judgment of the soils technician.
1.5.2 Fine-Grained Soils
Fine-g-rained soils are those in which more than half the material passes a Number 200 sieve.
The fine-grained soils are not classified by grain size but according to plasticity and
compressibility. Laboratory classification criteria are based on the relationship between the
LL and the PI, determined from the plasticity chart shown in Figure 1.2. The chart indicates
two major groupings of fine-g-rained soils. These are
The L groups, which have LLs <50.

The H groups, which have LLs of 50.
The symbols L and H represent low and high compressibility, respectively. Finegrained soils
are further divided based on their position above or below the A-line of the plasticity chart.
Typical soils of the (ML) and (MH) groups are inorganic silts. Those of low plasticity are in
the (ML) group; others are in the (MH) group. Atterberg limits of these soils all plot below
the A-line. The (ML) group includes-
Very fine sands.
Rock flours.
Silty or clayey fine sands with slight plasticity.
Micaceous and diatomaceous soils generally fall into the (MH) group but may extend into the
(ML) group with LLs<50. The same statement is true of certain types of kaolin clays, which
have low plasticity. Plastic silts fall into the (MH) group. In (CL) and (CH) groups, the C
stands for clay, with L and H denoting low or high compressibility. These soils plot above the
A-line and are principally inorganic clays. The (CL) group includes gravelly clays, sandy
clays, silty clays, and lean clays. In the (CH) group are inorganic clays of high plasticity,
including fat clays, the gumbo clays of the southern United States, volcanic clays, and
bentonite. The glacial clays of the northern United States cover a wide band in the (CL) and
(CH) groups. Soils in the (OL) and (OH) groups are characterized by the presence of organic
matter, hence the symbol O. The Atterberg limits of these soils generally plot below the Aline. Organic silts and organic silt clays of low plasticity fall into the (OL) group, while
organic clays plot in the (OH) zone of the plasticity chart. Many organic silts, silt-clays, and
clays deposited by rivers along the lower reaches of the Atlantic seaboard have LLs between
40 and 100 and plot below the A-line. Peaty soils may have LLs of several hundred percent
and their Atterberg limits generally plot below the A-line. Fine-grained soils having limits
that plot in the shaded portion of the plasticity chart are given dual symbols (for example,
(CL-ML)). Several soil types exhibiting low plasticity plot in this general region on the chart
and no definite boundary between silty and clayey soils exists.
1.5.3 Highly Organic Soils
A special classification, (Pt), is reserved for the highly organic soils, such as peat, which have
many undesirable engineering characteristics. No laboratory criteria are established for these
soils, as they generally can be easily identified in the field by their distinctive color and odor,
spongy feel, and frequently fibrous texture. Particles of leaves, grass, branches, or other
fibrous vegetable matter are common components of these soils.
1.6 SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOIL
One of the main characteristics of soils is that the shear deformations increase progressively
when the shear stresses increase, and that for sufficiently large shear stresses the soil may
eventually fail. In nature, or in engineering practice, dams, dikes, or embankments for
railroads or highways may fail by part of the soil mass sliding over the soil below it. As an
example, Figure1.3 shows the failure of a gentle slope in Norway, in a clay soil. It appears
that the strength of the soil was not sufficient to carry the weight of the soil layers above it. In
many cases a very small cause, such as a small local excavation, may be the cause of a large
landslide. Other important effects may be the load on the structure, such as the water pressure
against a dam or a dike, or the groundwater level in the dam.
Fig 1.3 Landslide Hekseberg, Norway

1.6.1 Coulomb:
It seems reasonable to assume that a sliding failure of a soil will occur if on a certain plane
the shear stress is too large, compared to the normal stress. On other planes the shear stress is
sufficiently small compared to the normal stress to prevent sliding failure. It may be
illustrative to compare the analogous situation of a rigid block on a slope, see Figure 1.4.
Equilibrium of forces shows that the shear force in the plane of the slope is T = W sin and
that the normal force acting on the slope is N = W cos , where W is the weight of the block.
The ratio of shear force to normal force is T/N = tan . As long as this is smaller than a
certain critical value, the friction coefficient f, the block will remain in equilibrium. However,
if the slope angle becomes so large that tan = f, the block will slide down the slope. On
steeper slopes the block can never be in equilibrium. The analogy with a sliding block lead
Coulomb to the proposal that the critical shear stress f in a soil body is
f = c + tan .
Here is the normal (effective) stress on the plane considered. The quantity c is the
cohesion, and is the angle of internal friction or the friction angle. An elementary
interpretation is that if the shear stress on a certain plane is smaller than the critical value f ,
then the deformations will be limited, but if the shear stresses on any single plane reaches the
critical value, then the shear deformations are unlimited, indicating shear failure. The
cohesion c indicates that even when the normal stress is zero, a certain shear stress is
necessary to produce shear failure. In the case of two rough surfaces sliding over each other
(e.g. two blocks of wood), this may be due to small irregularities in the surface. In the case of
two very smooth surfaces molecular attractions may play a role. For soils the formula should
be expressed in terms of effective stresses, as the stresses acting from one soil particle on
another determine the eventual sliding. For this reason the soil properties are often denoted as
c and , in order to stress that these quantities refer to effective stresses.
Fig 1.4 Block on Slope

1.7 Shear test
The notion that failure of a soil occurs by sliding along a plane on which the shear stress
reaches a certain maximum value has lead to the development of shear tests. In such tests a
sample is loaded such that it is expected that one part of the sample slides over another part,
along a given sliding plane. It is often assumed that the sliding plane is fixed and given by the
geometry of the equipment used, but it will appear that the deformation mode may be more
complicated.
1.7.1 Direct shear test
The simplest apparatus is shown in Figure1.5. It consists of a box (the shear box) of which
the upper half can be moved with respect to the lower half, by means of a motor which
pushes the lower part away from the upper part, which is fixed in horizontal direction. The
cross section of the container usually is rectangular, but circular versions have also been
developed. The soil sample is loaded initially by a vertical force only, applied by the dead
weight of a loading plate and some additional weights on it, through the intermediary of a
small steel plate on top of the sample. Because of this plate the sample is free to deform in
vertical direction during the test. The actual consists of the lateral movement of the lower half
of the box with respect to the upper half, at a constant (small) speed, with a horizontal force
acting in the plane between the two halves. This force gradually increases, as the box moves,
and is measured by a pressure ring or a strain gauge. The horizontal force reaches a maximum
value after some time, and the force remains more or less constant afterwards, or it may
slowly increase or decrease. It seems logical to assume that the maximum value of the
horizontal force (Tf ) is related to the vertical force N by a relation of the form
Tf = cA + N tan
where A is the area of the sample, c is the cohesion of the material, and its friction angle.
For simplicity it is assumed that the soil is dry sand, with c = 0. This means that a single test
is sufficient to determine the friction angle .
Fig 1.5 Direct Shear Test

Many investigators have found that the test results of shear tests lead to values for the shear
strength that are considerably lower than the values obtained from triaxial tests. Furthermore,
it has sometimes been found that the reproducibility of the results of shear tests is not so
good. To explain the relatively large scatter in the results of shear tests it may be noted that in
a shear test the horizontal stress is not imposed, and may vary from test to test. This may
influence the test results, especially because it may be argued that it is not so certain that the
stresses on a horizontal plane are indeed the critical stresses, as is assumed in equation.It may
well be that there is some other plane on which the critical state of stress is reached earlier. A
likely candidate for this possibility is the vertical plane, on which the normal stress may well
be smaller than on a horizontal plane, whereas the shear stress on a vertical plane is equal to
the shear stress on a horizontal plane because of equilibrium of moments, xz = zx. In such a
case the soil may fail according to the mechanism of the toppling row of books suggested by
De Josselin de Jong, see Figure 1.6. It seems very likely that in a shear test the horizontal
normal stress xx is smaller than the vertical normal stress zz. If the sand has been poured into
the shear box, and the vertical load has been applied by gradually increasing the load, it
seems likely that the horizontal stress is smaller than the vertical stress. In an elastic material,
for instance, the ratio of horizontal to vertical stress would be xx/zz = /(1 ), where is
Poissons ratio, which must be smaller than 0.5. If the shear stress now is gradually increased,
the maximum possible shear stress on a vertical plane is smaller than the maximum possible
shear stress on a horizontal plane. Thus it can be expected that the maximum possible shear
stress is reached first on a vertical plane, so that failure may occur by sliding along a vertical
plane, combined with a certain rotation in order to satisfy the boundary condition on the
lower and upper horizontal boundaries. The stresses are indicated in the Mohr circle that is
also drawn in Figure 1.6. It should be noted that in this case the shear stresses xz and zx, in
the coordinate system assumed, will be negative. In the Mohr circle it has been assumed that
xx < zz. Because the point with coordinates xx and xz is located to the left of the point with
coordinates zz and zx, sliding will occur first along the planes on which the normal stress xx
is acting, i.e. the vertical planes. On the horizontal planes, i.e. the planes on which the normal
stress is zz, failure will not be reached, so that no sliding along these planes is to be expected.
With the shear stresses acting in the direction indicated in the figure this means that the soil to
the right of a vertical plane will slide in upwards direction with respect to the soil at the left
side of that plane. In Figure 1.6 it has been assumed that such sliding occurs along a great
number of vertical planes. In order to conform to the restrictions imposed by the deformation
of the walls of the shear box, an additional rotation must be superimposed onto the sliding
mechanism.
Fig 1.6 Toppling Book Row Mechanism
This can be done without change of stress, as a rigid body rotation can occur without any
deformation, and therefore requires no stresses. Thus the mechanism of a toppling book row
is produced, just as a row of books in a book case will topple if there is insufficient lateral
support. If it is desired that the mechanism of toppling of a row of books is prevented, a large
lateral stress must be applied, which may be generated by two heavy book ends, or by
clamping the books between the two sides of the book case. Using this analogy it may be
considered that the mechanism of Figure 1.6 can be prevented by applying a high horizontal
stress. If the horizontal normal stress is larger than the vertical normal stress, for instance
because the sand has been densified by strong vibration, the state of stress on a horizontal
plane will become critical before a vertical plane. The stresses zx and zz, acting on a
horizontal plane, will reach the critical ratio tan before the stresses xz and xx, acting on
Fig 1.7 Sliding on Horizontal Plane
a vertical plane. This means that sliding along horizontal planes can be expected if the
horizontal stress is larger than the vertical stress. The situation is shown in Figure 1.7. The
Mohr circle for this case is also shown in the figure.
1.8 Nanotechnology and Civil Engineering
Nanotechnology is the use of very small particles of material either by themselves or by their
manipulation to create new large scale materials. Nanotechnology is not a new science and it
is not a new technology. It is rather an extension of the sciences and technologies. The
emergence of nanotechnology in the 1980s was caused by the convergence of experimental
advances such as the invention of the scanning tunneling microscope in 1981 and the
discovery of fullerenes in 1985, with the elucidation and popularization of a conceptual
framework for the goals of nanotechnology beginning with the 1986 publication of the book
Engines of Creation. In brief, the technology enables us to develop materials with improved
properties or it can be used to produce a totally new material.
Nanotechnology deals with particle at nano-scale, i.e.,10-9 m. At nano scale the world is
different from macro scale, e.g., the gravity becomes unimportant, electrostatic forces take
over and quantum effects emerge. As particles become nano-sized, the proportion of atoms on
the surface increases relative to those inside leads to nano-effects, however, that ultimately
determine all the properties that we are familiar with at our macro-scale and this is where
the power of nanotechnology comes in. Following are the major application of
nanotechnology in the field of (i) nanomedicine, (ii) Environment, (iii) Energy, (iv)
nanobateries, (v) Information and communication, (vi) Heavy industry etc. In recent years
nanotechnology is also gaining popularity in the field of Civil Engineering and construction.
1.9 Nanotechnology in Construction
The use of nanotechnology in construction involves the development of new concept and
understanding of the hydration of cement particles and the use of nano-size ingredients such
as alumina and silica and other nanoparticles. With the help of nanotechnology, concrete is
stronger, more durable and more easily placed, steel is made tougher, glass is self cleaning
and paints are made more insulating and water repelling.
Fig 1.8 Conceptual diagram of single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT) (A) and
multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) (B) delivery systems showing typical
dimensions of length, width, and separation distance between graphene layers in
MWCNTs
Two nano-sized particles that stand out in their application to construction materials are
titanium dioxide (TiO2) and carbon nanotubes (CNTs). The former is being used for its
ability to break down dirt or pollution and then allow it to be washed off by rain water on
everything from concrete to glass and the latter is being used to strengthen and monitor
concrete. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are cylindrical in shape with diameter in nanometers and
length can be in several millimeters as shown in Fig. 1.8. When compared to steel, the
Youngs modulus of CNTs is 5 times, strength is 8 times while the densite is 1/6th times.
Along the tube axis the thermal conduction is also very high. Titanium dioxide is widely used
as white pigments. It can also oxidize oxygen or organic materials, therefore, it is added to
paints, cements, windows, tiles, or other products for sterilizing, deodorizing and anti-fouling
properties and when incorporated into outdoor building materials can substantially reduce
concentrations of airborne pollutants. Additionally, as TiO2 is exposed to UV light, it
becomes increasingly hydrophilic (attractive to water), thus it can be used for anti-fogging
coatings or selfcleaning windows.
1.9.1 Nanotechnology and Concrete
As much analysis of concrete is being done at the nano-level in order to understand its
structure using the various techniques developed for study at that scale such as Atomic Force
Microscopy (AFM), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Focused Ion Beam (FIB). The
understanding of the structure and behavior of concrete at the fundamental level is an
important and very appropriate use of nanotechnology. One of the advancements made by the
study of concrete at the nanoscale is that particle packing in concrete can be improved by
using nano-silica which leads to a densification of the micro and nanostructure resulting in
improved mechanical properties. Nano-silica addition to cement based materials can also
control the degradation of the fundamental C-S-H (calcium-silicatehydrate) reaction of
concrete caused by calcium leaching in water as well as block water penetration and therefore
lead to improvements in durability. Related to improved particle packing, high energy milling
of ordinary portland cement (OPC) clinker and standard sand, produces a greater particle size
diminution with respect to conventional OPC and, as a result, the compressive strength of the
refined material is also 3 to 6 times higher (at different ages). Another type of nanoparticle
added to concrete to improve its properties is titanium dioxide (TiO2). TiO2 is a white pigment
and can be used as an excellent reflective coating. Since TiO2 breaks down organic pollutants,
volatile organic compounds, and bacterial membranes through powerful catalytic reactions, it
can therefore reduce airborne pollutants when applied to outdoor surfaces. Additionally, it is
hydrophilic and therefore gives self cleaning properties to the applied surfaces. In this process
rain water is attracted to the surface and forms sheets which collect the pollutants and dirt
particles previously broken down and washes them off. The resulting concrete has a white
colour that retains its whiteness very effectively.
Research is being carried out to investigate the benefits of adding CNTs to concrete. The
addition of small amounts (1% wt) of CNTs can improve the mechanical properties of
samples consisting of the main portland cement phase and water. Oxidized multi-walled
nanotubes (MWNTs) show the best improvements both in compressive strength (+25
N/mm2) and flexural strength (+8 N/mm2) compared to the reference samples without the
reinforcement. However, two problems with the addition of carbon nanotubes to any material
are the clumping together of the tubes and the lack of cohesion between them and the matrix
bulk material.
Additional work is needed in order to establish the optimum values of carbon nanotubes and
dispersing agents in the mix design parameters. In addition, the cost of adding CNTs to
concrete may be prohibitive at the moment. A research stated that Self Compacting Concrete
(SCC) is one that does not need vibration in order to level off and achieve consolidation. This
represents a significant advance in the reduction of the energy needed to build concrete
structures and is therefore a sustainability issue. In addition SCC can offer benefits of up to
50% in labour costs, due to it being poured up to 80% faster and having reduced wear and
tear on formwork. The material behaves like a thick fluid and is made possible by the use of
polycarboxylates (a material similar to plastic developed using nanotechnology).
Fiber wrapping of concrete is quite common today for increasing the strength of pre existing
concrete structural elements. Advancement in the procedure involves the use of a fibre sheet
(matrix) containing nano-silica particles and hardeners. These nanoparticles penetrate and
close small cracks on the concrete surface and, in strengthening applications, the matrices
form a strong bond between the surface of the concrete and the fibre reinforcement.
1.9.2 Nanotechnogy and Steel
In steel, fatigue is a significant issue that can lead to the structural failure when steel is
subjected to cyclic loading, such as in bridges or in towers. This can happen at stresses
significantly lower than the yield stress of the material and lead to a significant shortening of
useful life of the structure. Stress risers are responsible for initiating cracks from which
fatigue failure results and research has shown that the addition of copper nanoparticles
reduces the surface unevenness of steel which then limits the number of stress risers and
hence fatigue cracking.
When the tensile strength of tempered martensite steel exceeds 1,200 MPa then even a very
small amount of hydrogen embrittles the grain boundaries and the steel material may fail
during use. This phenomenon, which is known as delayed fracture, has hindered the further
strengthening of steel bolts and their highest strength is limited to somewhere around 1,000 to
1,200 MPa. Research work on vanadium and molybdenum nanoparticles has shown that they
improve the delayed fracture problems associated with high strength bolts. This is the result
of the nanoparticles reducing the effects of hydrogen embrittlement and improving the steel
microstructure through reducing the effects of the inter-granular cementite phase. Instead of
CNTs two relatively new products that are available today are Sandvik Nanoflex (produced
by Sandvik Materials Technology) and MMFX2 steel (produced by MMFX Steel Corp). Both
are corrosion resistant, but have different mechanical properties and are the result of different
applications of nanotechnology.
1.9.3 Nanotechnology and Coatings
In coatings, much of the work involves Chemical Vapour Deposition (CVD), Dip, Meniscus,
Spray and Plasma Coating in order to produce a layer which is bound to the base material to
produce a surface of the desired protective or functional properties. Research is being carried
out through experiment and modelling of coatings and the one of the goals is the endowment
of self healing capabilities through a process of self-assembly.
Nanotechnology is being applied to paints and insulating properties, produced by the addition
of nano-sized cells, pores and particles, giving very limited paths for thermal conduction (R
values are double those for insulating foam), are currently available. This type of paint is
used, at present, for corrosion protection under insulation since it is hydrophobic and repels
water from the metal pipe and can also protect metal from salt water attack. The remarkable
properties of TiO2 nanoparticles are being put to use as a coating material on roadways in
tests around the world. The TiO2 coating captures and breaks down organic and inorganic air
pollutants by a photocatalytic process (a coating of 7000m 2 of road in Milan gave a 60%
reduction in nitrous oxides) which may help in putting roads to good environmental use.
1.9.4 Nanotechnology and Glass

Fire-protective glass is another application of nanotechnology. This is achieved by using a
clear intumescent layer sandwiched between glass panels (an interlayer) formed of fumed
silica (SiO2) nanoparticles which turns into a rigid and opaque fire shield when heated. Most
of glass in construction is, of course, on the exterior surface of buildings and the control of
light and heat entering through building glazing is a major sustainability issue. Research into
nanotechnological solutions to this centres around four different strategies to block light and
heat coming in through windows. Firstly, thin film coatings are being developed which are
spectrally sensitive surface applications for window glass. These have the potential to filter
out unwanted infrared frequencies of light (which heat up a room) and reduce the heat gain in
buildings; however, these are effectively a passive solution. As an active solution,
thermochromic technologies are being studied which react to temperature and provide
thermal insulation to give protection from heating whilst maintaining adequate lighting. A
third strategy, that produces a similar outcome by a different process, involves photochromic
technologies which are being studied that react to changes in light intensity by increasing
absorption. And finally, electrochromic coatings are being developed that react to changes in
applied voltage by using a tungsten oxide layer; thereby becoming more opaque.
1.9.5 Nanotechnologies: Water Purification
Water purification using nanotechnology exploits nanoscopic materials such as carbon
nanotubes and alumina fibers for nanofiltration. It also utilizes the existence of nanoscopic
pores in zeolite filtration membranes, as well as nanocatalysts and magnetic nanoparticles. As
indicated in Fig. 1.9, the adsorption of chlorine concentration is much higher by using
nanotechnology (GAC, 350 g/m2) as compared to conventional method of purification (PAC,
220 g/m2)
Fig 1.9 Adsorption of chlorine by various media

Nanosensors, such as those based on titanium oxide nanowires or palladium nanoparticles are
used for analytical detection of contaminants in water samples. It can be used for removal of
sediments, chemical effluents, charged particles, bacteria and other pathogens. The toxic trace
elements such as arsenic, and viscous liquid impurities such as oil can also be removed using
nanotechnology. It is believed that future generations of nanotechnology-based water
treatment devices will capitalize on the properties of new nanoscale materials.
1.9.6 Nanotechnology and Fire Protection and Detection
Fire resistance of steel structures is often provided by a coating produced by a spray-on
cementitious process. Current portland cement based coatings are not popular because they
need to be thick, tend to be brittle and polymer additions are needed to improve adhesion.
However, research into nano-cement (made of nano-sized particles) has the potential to create
a new paradigm in this area of application because the resulting material can be used as a
tough, durable, high temperature coating. This is achieved by the mixing of carbon nanotubes
(CNTs) with the cementious material to fabricate fibre composites that can inherit some of
the outstanding properties of the nanotubes such as strength. Polypropylene fibres are also
considered as a method of increasing fire resistance and this is a cheaper option than
conventional insulation. The use of processors in fire detection systems which are built into
each detector head is fairly well established today. These improve reliability allowing better
addressability and the ability to identify false alarms. The use of nanotechnology in the future
through the development of nano-electromechanical systems (NEMS) could see whole
buildings become networked detectors; as such devices are embedded either into elements or
surfaces.
1.9.7 Nanotechnology in Geotechnical engineering

NRC highlighted that soil scientists and engineers, with their interest in the study of clay-size
particles (< 0.002 mm), are among the earliest workers in the field of nanotechnology. Most
of the material types and properties change with scale. For example, soil particles change in
composition and shape from predominantly bulky quartz and feldspar to platy mica and clay
over the range of particle sizes from sand and gravel down to silt and clay. A central
challenge is that the material properties may get affected or engineered by using nanoscale
building blocks, controlling their size, size distribution, composition, shape, surface
chemistry, and manipulating their assembly.
Building nanoscale structures requires a fundamental understanding of nanoscale processes.
At nanoscale the inter-particle interaction gains relevance. Nanomaterials possess very high
specific surface activity (ratio of surface area to mass), and chemical activity which is
specific surface dependent. For example, the specific surface of a 1 nm cube is about 2400
m2/g. The maximum specific surface for bentonite clay (sodium montmorillonite) is about
800 m2/g, and about half of the constituent atoms are exposed at the surface and thus
available for chemical interactions.
High specific surface means high adsorption capacity and great sensitivity of nano-size
particles to specific adsorbed materials. Interactions between nanoparticles are determined by
interparticle electrical forces. The pH and ionic concentration of the aqueous pore fluid alter
the surface chemistry through dissolution, protonation, and adsorption. Therefore, pore fluid
characteristics affect the self-assembly of nanocomponents and their long-term stability.
Soil and rock are the worlds most abundant and lowest cost construction materials. In some
states (e.g., dense, dry, and cohesive) they are strong and durable. In others (e.g., loose, wet,
and soft) they are weak and unsuitable. Is it possible or even conceivable that new knowledge
and the development of processes at the nanoscale may someday transform these materials in
ways that can make them even more useful and economical? In particular, developments in
nanotechnology can aid in understanding the fundamental behavior of fine-grain soil at the
particle level and lead to the development of engineered fine-grain soils. Readily available
atomic force microscopes are now being used in mineral studies to explore local mineral
variations in clays, such as surface charge and local hydrophobicity on mineral surfaces.
Further developments will permit the use of nanomagnets to manipulate very small
diamagnetic clay minerals and to study mineral surface reactions using chemical force
microscopy.
Although most nanoscale phenomena have not been studied in the context of geomaterials,
the self-assembly of nanoparticles in aqueous solutions involves particle-level phenomena
similar to fabric formation by clay-size particles. Clay soil fabric formation is mineral and
pore fluid chemistry dependent. Although nanotechnology applications in geoengineering are
largely exploratory at present, other applications in geoengineering can be imagined that will
radically change practice. For example, imagine building clay liners, clay cores, and soil
bases using engineered high surface- area mineral particles consolidated from controlled self
assembled clay aggregates to obtain macro scale behavior resulting from exceptional
mechanical properties (e.g., very high ductility); external friction control to facilitate
compaction while increasing long-term strength, fluid sensitive porous membranes, as well as
special and unique chemical properties (e.g., specie-selective diffusion); engineered wetting
conditions such as in NanoTurf; altered phase equilibrium for fluids in small pores; and
specified electrical properties (e.g., exceptional magnetic and polar properties). Some of these
developments are already taking place, for example, in the engineering of kaolin and
precipitated carbonates for the paper coating and paint industries.
Nanoparticles might also be engineered to act as functional nanosensors and devices that can
be extensively mixed in the soil mass or used as smart tracers for in situ chemical analysis,
characterization of groundwater flow, and determination of fracture connectivity, among
other field applications.
1.10 Review of Literature:

The study of Negin et al.[1] is to evaluate the effect of nanoclay on permeability and swelling
of a compacted Kahrizak landfill clay liner. The results showed that 4% nanoclay
significantly reduced permeability (3*10-9 to 7.74*10-11 in neutral, 3.66*10-9 to 7.9*10-10
in acidic and 3.25*10-9 to 5.24*10-10 cm/s in alkaline condition). The results satisfied the
construction of clay barriers with nanoclay in order to prevent leachate penetration,
consequently reduces the operation cost. The study of Zaid et al.[2] aims to investigate the
effect of addition of different nanomaterials, including nano Cu, nano MgO, and nano clay,
on the geotechnical properties of soft soil samples from Penang State. Various amounts of
nanomaterials (0.05% to 1%) were added to the soil to study their effect on the soils
compaction characteristics, consistency limits, and compressive strength. Improvements in
these geotechnical properties depended on the type of nanomaterials added, and increasing
the percentage of each of the added nanomaterials increased the maximum dry density of the
soil. The linear shrinkage and plasticity index decreased with increasing nanomaterial
content. The unconfined compressive strength increased as the nanomaterial content
increased up to a certain percentage in the soil and then decreased afterwards. Taha et al.[2]
showed that the values of liquid limit and plastic limits were higher after nano-soil addition.
However, its plasticity index reduces which is advantageous in many geotechnical
constructions. Compressive strength of original soil-cement-1% nano-soil mixture showed
almost double its value without nano-soil. It demonstrated that a small amount of these
crushed particles or nano-soil can provide significant improvement in the geotechnical
properties of soil. Mostafa Mohammadi et al.[3] have used different percent of Nano-clay
Montmorillonite in order to check out created changes in soil characteristics with increasing
percent of Nano-clay. For gaining optimal water percent and maximum specific weight
compaction test have been done on soil and the direct shear test, unconfined compression
test ,CBR test and Atterberg limits have been implemented on soil at the given percent of
water. Test have been done in two ways, first by using Nano-clay for different percent and
second by not using Nano-particles soil. The consequences of implemented test of the study
show the improvement of soil properties by increasing low percent of Nano-clay; this
improvement are kept fixed after a definite amount.M. Arabani et al.[4] showed that the
microstructure of the soil cement mixture containing Nanoclay particles was denser and more
uniform than that of the conventional soil cement microstructure. When Nanoclay particles
are up 2% cement replacement could accelerate C S-H gel formation at the early ages of
hydration as a result of increased crystalline Ca(OH)2 amounts. The porous structure of CSH
is filled by the Nanoparticles and consequently more uniform structure of the hydrated
products is provided.
CHAPTER 2
EXPERIMENTAL
PROCEDURES
CHAPTER 2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

2.1 SPECIFIC GRAVITY:
2.1.1 Definition:
Specific gravity is the ratio of the mass of unit volume of soil at a stated temperature to the
mass of the same volume of gas-free distilled water at a stated temperature.
2.1.2 Standard Reference:
ASTM D 854-00 Standard Test for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer.
2.1.3 Significance:
The specific gravity of a soil is used in the phase relationship of air, water, and solids in a
given volume of the soil.
2.1.4 Equipment:
Pycnometer, Balance, Vacuum pump, Funnel, Spoon.
2.1.5 Test Procedure:
(1) Determine and record the weight of the empty clean and dry pycnometer, WP.
(2) Place 10g of a dry soil sample (passed through the sieve No. 10) in the
pycnometer. Determine and record the weight of the pycnometer containing the dry soil, WPS.
(3) Add distilled water to fill about half to three-fourth of the pycnometer. Soak the
sample for 10 minutes.
(4) Apply a partial vacuum to the contents for 10 minutes, to remove the entrapped
air.
(5) Stop the vacuum and carefully remove the vacuum line from pycnometer.
(6) Fill the pycnometer with distilled (water to the mark), clean the exterior surface of
the pycnometer with a clean, dry cloth. Determine the weight of the pycnometer and contents,
WB.
(7) Empty the pycnometer and clean it. Then fill it with distilled water only (to the
mark). Clean the exterior surface of the pycnometer with a clean, dry cloth. Determine the
weight of the pycnometer
and distilled water, WA.
(8) Empty the pycnometer and clean it.
The pyconometer set up is shown in Fig 2.1
Fig 2.1 Specific Gravity Apparatus

2.1.6 Data Analysis:
Calculate the specific gravity of the soil solids using the following
Formula:
specific gravity =
w0
w0 + ( w A - w B )
Where,
W0 = weight of sample of oven-dry soil, g = WPS WP
WA = weight of pycnometer filled with water
WB = weight of pycnometer filled with water and soil
2.2 SIEVE ANALYSIS:

2.2.1 Purpose:
This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain sizes contained within a
soil. The mechanical or sieve analysis is performed to determine the distribution of the
coarser, larger-sized particles, and the hydrometer method is used to determine the
distribution of the finer particles.
ASTM D 422 - Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
2.2.3 Significance:
The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of soil. Grain size
analysis provides the grain size distribution, and it is required in classifying the soil.
2.2.4 Equipment:
Balance, Set of sieves, Cleaning brush, Sieve shaker, Mixer (blender), 152H Hydrometer,
Sedimentation cylinder, Control cylinder, Thermometer, Beaker, Timing device.
(a) Sieve Analysis:
(1) Write down the weight of each sieve as well as the bottom pan to be used in the
analysis.
(2) Record the weight of the given dry soil sample.
(3) Make sure that all the sieves are clean, and assemble them in the ascending order
of sieve numbers (#4 sieve at top and #200 sieve at bottom). Place the pan below #200 sieve.
Carefully pour the soil sample into the top sieve and place the cap over it.
(4) Place the sieve stack in the mechanical shaker and shake for 10 minutes.
(5) Remove the stack from the shaker and carefully weigh and record the weight of
each sieve with its retained soil. In addition, remember to weigh and record the weight of the
bottom pan with its retained fine soil.
(b) Hydrometer Analysis:

(1) Take the fine soil from the bottom pan of the sieve set, place it into a beaker, and
add 125 mL of the dispersing agent (sodium hexametaphosphate (40 g/L)) solution. Stir the
mixture until the soil is thoroughly wet. Let the soil soak for at least ten minutes.
(2) While the soil is soaking, add 125mL of dispersing agent into the control cylinder
and fill it with distilled water to the mark. Take the reading at the top of the meniscus formed
by the hydrometer stem and the control solution. A reading less than zero is recorded as a
negative (-) correction and a reading between zero and sixty is recorded as a positive (+)
correction. This reading is called the zero correction. The meniscus correction is the
difference between the top of the meniscus and the level of the solution in the control jar
(Usually about +1). Shake the control cylinder in such a way that the contents are mixed
thoroughly. Insert the hydrometer and thermometer into the control cylinder and note the zero
correction and temperature respectively.
(3) Transfer the soil slurry into a mixer by adding more distilled water, if necessary,
until mixing cup is at least half full. Then mix the solution for a period of two minutes.
(4) Immediately transfer the soil slurry into the empty sedimentation cylinder. Add
distilled water up to the mark.
(5) Cover the open end of the cylinder with a stopper and secure it with the palm of
your hand. Then turn the cylinder upside down and back upright for a period of one minute.
(The cylinder should be inverted approximately 30 times during the minute.)
(6) Set the cylinder down and record the time. Remove the stopper from the cylinder.
After an elapsed time of one minute and forty seconds, very slowly and carefully insert the
hydrometer for the first reading. (Note: It should take about ten seconds to insert or remove
the hydrometer to minimize any disturbance, and the release of the hydrometer should be
made as close to the reading depth as possible to avoid excessive bobbing).
(7) The reading is taken by observing the top of the meniscus formed by the
suspension and the hydrometer stem. The hydrometer is removed slowly and placed back into
the control cylinder. Very gently spin it in control cylinder to remove any particles that may
have adhered.
(8) Take hydrometer readings after elapsed time of 2 and 5, 8, 15, 30, 60 minutes and
24 hours
2.2.6 Data Analysis:
(a) Sieve Analysis:
(1) Obtain the mass of soil retained on each sieve by subtracting the weight of the
empty sieve from the mass of the sieve + retained soil, and record this mass as the weight
retained on the data sheet. The sum of these retained masses should be approximately equals
the initial mass of the soil sample. A loss of more than two percent is unsatisfactory.
(2) Calculate the percent retained on each sieve by dividing the weight retained on
each sieve by the original sample mass.
(3) Calculate the percent passing (or percent finer) by starting with 100percent and
subtracting the percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.
The sieve analysis apparatus is shown in Fig 2.2
Fig 2.2 Sieve Analysis Apparatus

For example: Total mass = 500 g
Mass retained on No. 4 sieve = 9.7 g
Mass retained on No. 10 sieve = 39.5 g.
For the No.4 sieve:
Quantity passing = Total mass - Mass retained
= 500 - 9.7 = 490.3 g
The percent retained is calculated as;
% retained = Mass retained/Total mass
= (9.7/500) X 100 = 1.9 %
From this, the % passing = 100 - 1.9 = 98.1 %

For the No. 10 sieve:
Quantity passing = Mass arriving - Mass retained
= 490.3 - 39.5 = 450.8 g
% Retained = (39.5/500) X 100 = 7.9 %
% Passing = 100 - 1.9 - 7.9 = 90.2 %
(Alternatively, use % passing = % Arriving - % Retained
For No. 10 sieve = 98.1 - 7.9 = 90.2 %)
(4) Make a semilogarithmic plot of grain size vs. percent finer.
(5) Compute Cc and Cu for the soil.
(b) Hydrometer Analysis:
(1) Apply meniscus correction to the actual hydrometer reading.
(2) From Table 2.2, obtain the effective hydrometer depth L in cm (for meniscus
corrected reading)
(3) For known Gs of the soil (if not known, assume 2.65 for this lab purpose), obtain
the value of K from Table 2.1.
(4) Calculate the equivalent particle diameter by using the following formula
D=K
L
t
Where t is in minutes, and D is given in mm.

(5) Determine the temperature correction CT from Table 2.2.
(6) Determine correction factor a from Table 2.1 using Gs.
(7) Calculate corrected hydrometer reading as follows:
The hydrometer is shown in Fig 2.3
Fig 2.3 Hydrometer

Rc = RACTUAL - zero correction + CT
(8) Calculate percent finer as follows:
P=
Rc a
100
ws
Where WS is the weight of the soil sample in grams.

(9) Adjusted percent fines as follows:
F200 = % finer of #200 sieve as a percent
(10) Plot the grain size curve D versus the adjusted percent finer on the semilog sheet.
Table 2.1 Values of k for Use in Equation for Computing Diameter of Particle in
Hydrometer Analysis
Table 2.2 Values of Effective Depth Based on Hydrometer and Sedimentation
Cylinder of Specific Sizes
2.3 ATTERBERGS LIMITS

2.3.1 Soil Consistency
Consistency is a term used to indicate the degree of firmness of cohesive soils.The
consistency of natural cohesive soil deposits is expressed qualitatively by such terms as
verysoft, soft, stiff, verystiff and hard. The physical properties of clays greatly differ at
different water contents. A soil which is very soft at a higher percentage of water content
becomes very hard with a decrease in water content. However,it has been found that at the
same watercontent, two samples of clay of different origins may possess different
consistency.One clay may be relatively soft while the other may be hard. Further,a decrease
in water content may have little effect on one sample of clay but may transform the other
sample from almost a liquid to a very firm condition. Watercontent alone, therefore, is not an
adequate index of consistency for engineering and many other purposes.
Water content significantly affects properties of Silty and Clayey soils (unlike sand and
gravel).
1.Strength decreases as water content increases.
2.Soils swell-up when water content increases.
3.Fine-grained soils at very high water content possess properties similar to liquids.
4.As the water content is reduced, the volume of the soil decreases and the soils
become plastic.
5.If the water content is further reduced, the soil becomes semi-solid when the volume
does not change.
Atterberg, a Swedish scientist, considered the consistency of soils in 1911, and proposed a
series of tests for defining the properties of cohesive soils. Strength decreases as water
content increases. At a very low moisture content,soil behaves more like a solid. When the
moisture content is very high, the soil and water may flow like a liquid. Hence, on an
arbitrary basis, depending on the moisture content, the behavior of soil can be divided into 4
basic states:solid,semisolid,plastic,andliquid.
Atterberglimits are the limits of water content used to define soil behavior. The consistency
of soils according to Atterberg limits gives the following diagram.
LiquidLimit(LL)is defined as the moisturecontent at which soil begins to behave as a liquid
material and begins to flow.
PlasticLimit(PL)is defined as the moisture content at which soil begins to behave as a plastic
material.
ShrinkageLimit(SL) is defined as the moisture content at which no further volume change
occurs with further reduction in moisture content.
2.4 ATTERBERGS LIMITS TEST:

2.4.1 Purpose:
This lab is performed to determine the plastic and liquid limits of a finegrained soil. The
liquid limit (LL) is arbitrarily defined as the water content, in percent, at which a pat of soil in
a standard cup and cut by a groove of standard dimensions will flow together at the base of
the groove for a distance of 13 mm (1/2 in.) when subjected to 25 shocks from the cup being
dropped 10 mm in a standard liquid limit apparatus operated at a rate of two shocks per
second. The plastic limit (PL) is the water content, in percent, at which a soil can no longer be
deformed by rolling into 3.2 mm (1/8 in.) diameter threads without crumbling.
ASTM D 4318 - Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Shrinkage limit
(ASTM D-427) and Plasticity Index of Soils
2.4.3 Significance:
The Swedish soil scientist Albert Atterberg originally defined seven limits of consistency to
classify fine-grained soils, but in current engineering practice only two of the limits, the
liquid and plastic limits, are commonly used. (A third limit, called the shrinkage limit, is used
occasionally.) The Atterberg limits are based on the moisture content of the soil. The plastic
limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil changes from a semi-solid to a plastic
(flexible) state. The liquid limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil changes
from a plastic to a viscous fluid state. The shrinkage limit is the moisture content that defines
where the soil volume will not reduce further if the moisture content is reduced. A wide
variety of soil engineering properties have been correlated to the liquid and plastic limits, and
these Atterberg limits are also used to classify a fine-grained soil according to the Unified
Soil Classification system or AASHTO system.
2.4.4 Equipment:
Liquid limit device, Porcelain (evaporating) dish, Flat grooving tool with gage,
Eight moisture cans, Balance, Glass plate, Spatula, Wash bottle filled with distilled
water, Drying oven set at 105C.
The liquid limit apparatus is shown in Fig 2.4
Fig 2.4 Liquid Limit Apparatus

(a) Liquid Limit:
(1) Take roughly 3/4 of the soil and place it into the porcelain dish. Assume that the
soil was previously passed though a No. 40 sieve, air-dried, and then pulverized. Thoroughly
mix the soil with a small amount of distilled water until it appears as a smooth uniform paste.
Cover the dish with cellophane to prevent moisture from escaping.
(2) Weigh four of the empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the respective
weights and can numbers on the data sheet.
(3) Adjust the liquid limit apparatus by checking the height of drop of the cup. The
point on the cup that comes in contact with the base should rise to a height of 10 mm. The
block on the end of the grooving tool is 10 mm high and should be used as a gage. Practice
using the cup and determine the correct rate to rotate the crank so that the cup drops
approximately two times per second.
(4) Place a portion of the previously mixed soil into the cup of the liquid limit
apparatus at the point where the cup rests on the base. Squeeze the soil down to eliminate air
pockets and spread it into the cup to a depth of about 10 mm at its deepest point. The soil pat
should form an approximately horizontal surface (See Photo B).
(5) Use the grooving tool carefully cut a clean straight groove down the center of the
cup. The tool should remain perpendicular to the surface of the cup as groove is being made.
Use extreme care to prevent sliding the soil relative to the surface of the cup (See Photo C).
(6) Make sure that the base of the apparatus below the cup and the underside of the
cup is clean of soil. Turn the crank of the apparatus at a rate of approximately two drops per
second and count the number of drops, N, it takes to make the two halves of the soil pat come
into contact at the bottom of the groove along a distance of 13 mm (1/2 in.) (See Photo D). If
the number of drops exceeds 50, then go directly to step eight and do not record the number
of drops, otherwise, record the number of drops on the data sheet.
(7) Take a sample, using the spatula, from edge to edge of the soil pat. The sample
should include the soil on both sides of where the groove came into contact. Place the soil
into a moisture can cover it. Immediately weigh the moisture can containing the soil, record
its mass, remove the lid, and place the can into the oven. Leave the moisture can in the oven
for at least 16 hours. Place the soil remaining in the cup into the porcelain dish. Clean and dry
the cup on the apparatus and the grooving tool.
(8) Remix the entire soil specimen in the porcelain dish. Add a small amount of
distilled water to increase the water content so that the number of drops required to close the
groove decrease.
(9) Repeat steps six, seven, and eight for at least two additional trials producing
successively lower numbers of drops to close the groove. One of the trials shall be for a
closure requiring 25 to 35 drops, one for closure between 20 and 30 drops, and one trial for a
closure requiring 15 to 25 drops. Determine the water content from each trial by using the
same method used in the first laboratory. Remember to use thesame balance for all weighing.
Fig 2.5 Plastic limit and Liquid limit test
(b) Plastic Limit:

(1) Weigh the remaining empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the
respective weights and can numbers on the data sheet.
(2) Take the remaining 1/4 of the original soil sample and add distilled water until the
soil is at a consistency where it can be rolled without sticking to the hands.
(3) Form the soil into an ellipsoidal mass (See Photo F). Roll the mass between the
palm or the fingers and the glass plate (See Photo G). Use sufficient pressure to roll the mass
into a thread of uniform diameter by using about 90 strokes per minute. (A stroke is one
complete motion of the hand forward and back to the starting position.) The thread shall be
deformed so that its diameter reaches 3.2 mm (1/8 in.), taking no more than two minutes.
(4) When the diameter of the thread reaches the correct diameter, break the thread into
several pieces. Knead and reform the pieces into ellipsoidal masses and re-roll them.
Continue this alternate rolling, gathering together, kneading and re-rolling until the thread
crumbles under the pressure required for rolling and can no longer be rolled into a 3.2 mm
diameter thread (See Photo H).
Fig 2.6 Plastic Limit

(5) Gather the portions of the crumbled thread together and place the soil into a
moisture can, then cover it. If the can does not contain at least 6 grams of soil, add soil to the
can from the next trial (See Step 6). Immediately weigh the moisture can containing the soil,
record its mass, remove the lid, and place the can into the oven. Leave the moisture can in the
oven for at least 16 hours.
(6) Repeat steps three, four, and five at least two more times. Determine the water
content from each trial by using the same method used in the first laboratory. Remember to
use the same balance for allweighing.
(c) Shrinkage Limit:
(1) Shrinkage limit tests (ASTMD-427) are performed in the
laboratory with a porcelain dish about 44 mm in diameter and about
12.7mm high.
(2)The inside of the dish is coated with petroleum jelly and is then
filled completely with wet soil.
(3) Excess soil standing above the edge of the dish is struck off with
a straight edge.
(4) The mass of the wet soil inside the dish is recorded.
(5) The soil pat in the dish is then oven-dried.

The shrinkage limit apparatus is shown in Fig 2.7
Fig 2.7 Shrinkage Limit Test

(6) The volume of the oven-dried soil pat is determined by the
displacement of mercury.
(7) The wax-coated soil pat is then cooled. Its volume is determined
by submerging it in water.
2.4.6 Analysis:
(a) Liquid Limit:
(1) Calculate the water content of each of the liquid limit moisture cans after they
have been in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(2) Plot the number of drops, N, (on the log scale) versus the water content (w). Draw
the best-fit straight line through the plotted points and determine the liquid limit (LL) as the
water content at 25 drops.
(b) Plastic Limit:
(1) Calculate the water content of each of the plastic limit moisture cans after they
have been in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(2) Compute the average of the water contents to determine the plastic limit, PL.
Check to see if the difference between the water contents is greater than the acceptable range
of two results (2.6 %).
(3) Calculate the plasticity index, PI=LL-PL. Report the liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index to the nearest whole number, omitting the percent designation.
(c) Shrinkage limit:
(1) Shrinkage limit is determined by following formula,
SL=
M1 - M2
V -V
( 100 ) - ( i f )( w )(100)
M2
M2
Where,
Vi volume of soil before drying.
Vf volume of soil after drying.
M1 mass of soil before drying.
M2 mass of soil after drying.
w
- density of water.
2.5 Direct shear test:

2.5.1 Purpose:
This test is performed to determine the consolidated-drained shear strength of a sandy to silty
soil. The shear strength is one of the most important engineering properties of a soil, because
it is required whenever a structure is dependent on the soils shearing resistance. The shear
strength is needed for engineering situations such as determining the stability of slopes or
cuts, finding the bearing capacity for foundations, and calculating the pressure exerted by a
soil on a retaining wall.
2.5.2 Significance:
The direct shear test is one of the oldest strength tests for soils. In this laboratory, a direct
shear device will be used to determine the shear strength of a cohesionless soil (i.e. angle of
internal friction (f)). From the plot of the shear stress versus the horizontal displacement, the
maximum shear stress is obtained for a specific vertical confining stress. After the experiment
is run several times for various vertical-confining stresses, a plot of the maxi mum shear
stresses versus the vertical (normal) confining stresses for each of the tests is produced. From
the plot, a straight-line approximation of the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope curve can be
drawn, f may be determined, and, for cohesionless soils (c = 0), the shear strength can be
computed from the following equation:
s = s tanf
2.5.3 Equipment:
Direct shear device, Load and deformation dial gauges, Balance.
(1) Prepare a soil specimen of size 60 mm * 60mm* 25 mm either from undisturbed

soil sample or from compacted or remoulded sample. Soil specimen may also be directly
prepared in the box by compaction.
(2) Fix the upper part of the box to the lower box by fixing screws. Attach the base
plate to the lower part.
(3) Place the porous stone in the box.
(4) Transfer the soil specimen prepared into the box.
(5) Place the upper grid, porous stone, and loading pad in the order on soil specimen.
(6) Place the box inside the container and mount it on loading frame.
(7) Bring the upper half of the box in contact with the proving ring assembly. Contact
is observed by the slight movement of proving ring dial gauge needle.
(8) Mount the loading yoke on the ball placed on the loading pad.
(9) Put the weight on the loading yoke to apply a given value of normal stress
intensity. Add the weight of the yoke also in the estimation of normal stress intensity.
(10) Remove the fixing screws from the box and raise slightly the upper box with the
help of the spacing screws. Remove the spacing screws also.
(11) Adjust the entire dial gauge to read zero.
(12) Shear load is applied at constant rate of strain.
The direct shear apparatus is shown in Fig 2.8
Fig 2.8 Direct Shear Test

(13) Record the readings of proving ring and dial readings at a fixed interval.
(14) Continue the observations till the specimen fails.
(15) Repeat the test on the identical specimen under increasing normal stress and
record the corresponding reading.
2.5.5 Precautions:
(1) Before starting the test, the upper half of the box should be brought in proper
contact with the proving ring.
(2) Before subjecting the specimen to shear, the fixing screws should take out.
(3) Spacing screws should also be removed before shearing the specimen.
(4) No vibrations should be transmitted to the specimen during the test.
(5) Do not forget to add the self weight of the loading yoke in the vertical loads.
2.5.6 Analysis:
(1) Calculate the density of the soil sample from the mass of soil and volume of the
shear box.
(2) Convert the dial readings to the appropriate length and load units and enter the
values on the data sheet in the correct locations. Compute the sample area A, and the vertical
(Normal) stress .
sv =
Nv
A
Where:
Nv = normal vertical force, and sv = normal vertical stress
Fh
t=
(3) Calculate shear stress (t) using
A
Where:
Fh= shear stress (measured with shear load gage)
(4) Plot the horizontal shear stress (t) versus horizontal (lateral) displacement
(5) Calculate the maximum shear stress for each test.
(6) Plot the value of the maximum shear stress versus the corresponding vertical stress
for each test, and determine the angle of internal friction (f) from the slope of the
approximated Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope.
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL
INVESTIGATION
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
3.1 Sieve Analysis on soil

Table 3.1 shows the details of the sieve analysis on soil sample
Table 3.1 Sieve Analysis on Soil
Sieve No
Sieve
Wt of
Wt of
Wt of
Percent
Cumulativ
Percent
IS
opening
Sieve +
Sieve
Soil
Retained
e Percent
Finer
Designatio
in mm
Soil (g)
(g)
Retained
n
4.75mm
2.36mm
1.18mm
600Micron
4.75
2.36
1.18
0.6
407
402
551
809
406
324
397
369
(g)
1
78
154
440
0.1
7.8
15.4
44
0.1
7.9
23.3
67.3
99.9
92.1
76.7
32.7
s
300Micron
0.3
539
351
188
18.8
86.1
13.9
s
150Micron
0.15
454
346
108
10.8
96.9
3.1
s
75Microns
Pan
0.075
Pan
365
322
341
315
24
7
2.4
0.7
99.3
100
0.7
0
3.2 Particle size Distribution Curve for Soil:

Particle size Distribution Curve for Soil is shown in Fig 3.1
Retained
Particle size distribution for Soil

120
100
80
Percentage Finer
60
Particle size distribution

for Soil
40
20
0
0.01
0.1
10
Particle size
Fig 3.1 Particle Size Distribution for Soil
3.2.1 Results from the graph :

From graph it is seen that the soil is uniformly graded silt
D10 = 0.26 mm
D30 = 0.55 mm
D60 = 1.0 mm
3.2.2 Uniformity Coefficient :
D60
Cu = D10
= 3.846
3.3.3 Coefficient of Curvature:

2
D30
Cc = D D
60
10
= 1.163
3.3 Sieve Analysis on Soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline

Table 3.2 shows the Sieve Analysis on Soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
Table 3.2 Sieve Analysis on soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
Sieve No
Sieve
Wt of
Wt of
Wt of
Percent
Cumulativ
Percent
IS
opening
Sieve +
Sieve
Soil
Retained
e Percent
Finer
Designatio
in mm
Soil (g)
(g)
Retained
n
4.75mm
3mm
2.36mm
1.18mm
600Micron
4.75
3
2.36
1.18
0.6
406
324
391
435
538
406
323
386
326
363
(g)
0
1
5
109
175
0
0.198
0.99
21.58
34.65
0
0.198
1.188
22.76
57.42
100
99.802
98.812
77.24
42.58
s
300Micron
0.3
454
348
106
20.99
78.41
21.59
s
150Micron
0.15
423
346
77
15.25
93.66
6.34
s
75Microns
Pan
0.075
Pan
362
325
340
315
22
10
4.356
1.98
98.014
99.994
1.986
0.006
Retained
3.4 Particle size Distribution Curve for Soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
Fig 3.2 shows theParticle size Distribution Curve for Soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
Grain size distribution for soil with 1% nano Metakaoilne

120
100
80
Percent Finer
Grain size distribution for

soil with 1% nano
Metakaoilne
60
40
20
0
0.01
0.1
10
Particle Size
Fig 3.2 Particle Size Distribution for Soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
D10 = 0.19 mm
D30 = 0.39 mm
D60 = 0.89 mm
D60
Cu = D10
= 4.68

D230
Cc = D D
60
10
= 0.889
3.5 Sieve Analysis on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash

Table 3.3 shows the details of Sieve Analysis on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash
Table 3.3 Sieve Analysis on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash
Sieve No
Sieve
Wt of
Wt of
Wt of
Percent
Cumulativ
Percent
IS
opening
Sieve +
Sieve
Soil
Retained
e Percent
Finer
Designatio
in mm
Soil (g)
(g)
Retained
0
0
0.99
25.346
33.861
0
0
0.990
26.336
60.197
100
100
99.01
73.664
39.803
Retained
n
4.75mm
3mm
2.36mm
1.18mm
600Micron
4.75
3
2.36
1.18
0.6
406
324
390
454
541
406
324
385
326
370
(g)
0
0
5
128
171
s
300Micron
0.3
439
346
93
18.415
78.612
21.388
s
150Micron
0.15
417
346
71
14.059
92.671
7.329
97.027
99.799
2.973
0.201
s
75Microns
0.075
360
338
22
4.356
Pan
Pan
329
315
14
2.772
3.6 Particle size Distribution Curve for Soil with 1% Nano Flyash
Fig 3.3 shows the Particle size Distribution Curve for Soil with 1% Nano Flyash
Grain size distribution for soil with 1% Nano Flyash

120
100
80
Grain size distribution for

soil with 1% Nano
Flyash
60
Percent Finer
40
20
0
0.01
0.1
10
Particle size in mm
Fig 3.3 Particle size Distribution for Soil with 1% Nano Flyash
D10 = 0.17 mm
D30 = 0.39 mm
D60 = 0.99 mm
D60
Cu = D10
= 5.823

D 230
Cc = D D
60
10
= 0.903
3.7 Specific gravity of soil sample

1.Weight of Pyconometer w1 (g)
= 638 g
2. Weight of Pyconometer with dry soil w2 (g)
=888 g
3. Weight of Pyconometer with dry soil & water w3 (g)
=1663 g
4.Weight of Pyconometer with full of Water w4 (g)
= 1527 g
5.Weight of dry soil
=w2 w1 = 250 g
6.Weight of equivalent volume of water
= (w2 w1) (w3 w4)

=114 g
Specific gravity
w2 w1
= (w 2 w1 ) (w 3 w 4 )
Specific gravity of soil sample
= 2.19
3.8 Specific gravity of soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline

= 641 g
=944 g
=1691 g
=1532 g
=w2 w1 = 303 g
= (w2 w1) (w3 w4)

=144 g
Specific gravity
w2 w1
= (w 2 w1 ) (w 3 w 4 )
Specific gravity of soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
= 2.10
3.9 Specific gravity of soil with 1% Nano Flyash

= 661 g
=964 g
=1708 g
= 1549 g
=w2 w1 = 303 g
= (w2 w1) (w3 w4)

=144
Specific gravity
w2 w1
= (w 2 w1 ) (w 3 w 4 )
Specific gravity of soil with 1% Nano Flyash
= 2.10
3.10 Shrinkage limit of soil sample:

1.Weight of wet soil Ww
=179 g
2.Weight of dry soil Wd
=140 g
3.Volume of Shrinkage dish V1
=114.62 mm3
4.Volume of dry soil pat V2
=76.302 mm3
5.shrinkage limit
( W w - W d ) - w ( V1 - V2 )
= W
d
Shrinkage limit of soil sample
=25%
3.11 Shrinkage limit of soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline

=168
=121
=112.35 mm3
=80.97 mm3
( W w - W d ) - w ( V1 - V2 )
5.shrinkage limit
= W
d
Shrinkage limit of soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline =12.90 %
3.12 Shrinkage limit of soil with 1% Nano Flyash

=170 g
=132 g
=106.172 g
=80.62 g
5.shrinkage limit
( W w - W d ) - w ( V1 - V2 )
= W
d
Shrinkage limit of soil with 1% Nanoflyash = 9.43 %
3.13 Liquid limit for soil sample

Table 3.4 shows the details of liquid limit test on soil sample
Table 3.4 Liquid Limit on soil
Sl.no
Wet weight of
1
2
3
soil
28
23
30
Dried weight of
Moisture content
soil
25
42.8
21
33.3
27
50
Table 3.4 Liquid Limit on soil
No .of blows
10
30
8
Fig 3.4 shows the liquid limit chart for soil sample

60
50
40
Moisture Content (%)
30
20
10
0
1 10100
No of Blows
Fig 3.4 Liquid Limit for soil
3.13.1Results from the graph:

Liquid limit = moisture content corresponding to 25 blows
LL = 35 %
3.14 Liquid limit for soil with 1% Nano metakaoline

Table 3.5 shows the details of Liquid Limit for soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
Table 3.5 Liquid Limit for soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
Sl.no
Wet weight of
Dried weight of
Moisture content
No .of blows
1
2
3
soil
10
14
10
soil
6
9
7
66.66
55.55
42.86
25
67
80
Fig 3.5 shows Liquid limit chart for soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
Liquid Limit for 1% Nano Metakaoline
100
80
60
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit for 1%

Nano Metakaoline
40
20
0
10
100 1000
No of Blows
Fig 3.5 Liquid Limit for Soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline

LL = 66.66 %
3.15 Liquid limit for soil with 1% nano flyash

Table 3.6 shows the liquid limit for soil with 1% nano metakaoline
Table 3.6 Liquid Limit on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash
Sl.no
Wet weight of
Dried weight of
Moisture content
No .of blows
1
2
3
soil
12
34
33
soil
8
13
13
50
46.15
53.84
24
81
45
Fig 3.6 shows the Liquid Limit test for soil sample with 1% Nano Flyash
Liquid Limit for 1% Nano Flyash
70
60
50
40
Liquid Limit for 1%

Nano Flyash
Moisture Content 30
20
10
0
10
100
No of Blows
Fig 3.6 Liquid Limit for 1% Nano Flyash

LL = 50 %
3.16 Direct shear test on soil sample:

Table 3.7 shows the details of Direct Shear test on soil
Table 3.7 Direct Shear test on soil
Normal
Shearing
Corrected
Proving
Shearforce
Shear
stress in
displacemen
area
ring
(kg)
stress in
kg/cm2
t in cm
Ac=Ao(1-
reading
0.457 x (4) kg/cm2
(1)
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1.4
1.8
2
2.4
0.6398
0.8226
0.914
1.097
0.0179
0.0232
0.0259
0.0311
)
in
3
cm2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
(3)
35.64
35.40
35.28
35.22
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.065
Fig 3.7 shows the graph of Direct shear test on soil

Direct shear test on Soil
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
Direct shear test on

Soil
Shear Stress in kg/ m2 0.02

0.01
0.01
0
0
0.5
Normal Stress in kg/m2
Fig 3.7 Direct Shear Test on Soil

Cohesion = intercept on y-axis
Angle of internal friction = slope of the curve

Therefore ,
C= 0.014 kg/cm2
= 25.77
3.17 Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano metakaoline:
Table 3.8 Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano metakaoline
Table 3.8 Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano metakaoline
Normal
Shearing
Corrected
Proving
Shearforce
Shear
stress in
displacemen
area
ring
(kg)
stress in
kg/cm2
t in cm
Ac=Ao(1-
reading
0.457 x (4) kg/cm2
(1)
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
2.5
2.8
4
1.142
1.279
1.828
0.0324
0.036
0.053
)
in
3
cm2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.07
0.098
0.130
(3)
35.16
34.82
34.44
Fig 3.8 shows the graph of Direct shear test on Soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline
Shear stress in kg/cm2
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0

soil with 1% Nano
Metakaoline
0.2
0
0.4
Normal stress in kg/cm2
Fig 3.8 Direct Shear Test on Soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline

Therefore ,
C= 0.009 kg/cm2
= 36.86
3.18 Direct Shear Test on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash:

Table 3.9 shows the details of Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano Flyash
Table 3.9 Direct Shear Test on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash
Normal
Shearing
Corrected
Proving
Shearforce
Shear
stress in
displacemen
area
ring
(kg)
stress in
kg/cm2
t in cm
Ac=Ao(1-
reading
0.457 x (4) kg/cm2
(1)
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1.2
2.2
3.4
4
0.548
1.005
1.554
1.828
0.0153
0.0205
0.028
0.036
)
in
3
cm2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.03
0.05
0.1
0.13
(3)
35.64
35.4
34.8
34.49
Fig 3.9 shows the graph of Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano Flyash

0.06
0.05
0.04
Shear stress in kg/cm2

soil with 1% Nano
Flyash
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
0.5
Normal stress in kg/cm2
Fig 3.9 Direct Shear Test on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash

Therefore ,
C= 0.003 kg/cm2
= 30.96
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND
DISSCUSSIONS
CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS AND DISSCUSSIONS
4.1 Consolidated results:

Table 4.1 gives the results of all the experiments carried out
Table 4.1 Consolidated result
%
of
Nanomate
rial added
0
Nanomate
Cu
Cc
LL
SL
kg/cm2
rial used
Nanomate
2.19
3.84
1.16
35
25
25.7
0.01
r al is not
1
used
Nano
2.172
4.68
0.899
66.6
12.9
36.86
0.009
2.16
1.316
0.273
47.1
10.83
20
0.009
2.087
3.629
1.102
42
22.42
15.94
0.017
2.088
4.68
1.1
41.5
12.21
22.61
0.004
2.1
3.26
0.881
57.5
11.83
25.55
0.002
50
9.43
Metakaoli
2
ne
Nano
Metakaoli
ne
Nano
Metakaoli
ne
Nano
Metakaoli
ne
Nano
Metakaoli
ne
Nano
2.1
Flyash
Nano
2.08
5.44
0.51
49.5
6.043
31
0.006
Flyash
Nano
2.13
5.625
1.056
37
13.45
30.96
0.012
Flyash
Nano
2.13
6.055
37
7.312
40.6
0.012
Flyash
5.823
0.903
30.96
0.003
Nano
Flyash
Nano
2.157
2.148
5.25
3.88
1.143
1.63
39.5
41.5
7.956
13.5
31.61
25.56
0.012
0.018
Metakaoli
ne+ Nano
2
Flyash
Nano
2.17
5.263
1.6
52
6.63
28.07
0.018
2.19
4.583
1.456
50
6.113
15.71
0.017
2.14
5.56
0.296
50
8.963
27.64
0.004
2.16
5.294
0.943
44
15.192
26.56
0.01
Metakaoli
ne+ Nano
3
Flyash
Nano
Metakaoli
ne+ Nano
Flyash
Nano
Metakaoli
ne+ Nano
Flyash
Nano
Metakaoli
ne+ Nano
Flyash
4.2 Specific Gravity

Fig 4.1 shows the varaiation of specific gravity of soil sample with respect to various
percentage additions of Nano Metakaoline, Nano Flyash and a combination of Nano
Metakaoline and Nano Flyash
2.2
2.18
2.16
2.14
2.12
Specific gravity
Nano Metakaoline
Nano Flyash
Nano Metakaoline +
Nano Flyash
2.1
2.08
2.06
2.04
2.02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Percentage of nanomaterial added
Fig 4.1 Variation of specific gravity with respect to percentage addition of nanomaterials
Disscussions:
From the figure 4.1 it can be seen thay addition of NanoMetakaoline decreases the specific
Gravity. The specific gravity reaches a minimum value at a percentage around 3% and then
it slightly increases. Addition of Nanoflyash also reflects a similar behavior. The specific
gravity reaches a minimum value at a percentage of 2. The combined addition of Nano
Metakaoline and Nano Flyash did not indicate any siginificant pattern
4.3 Coefficient of Uniformity
Fig 4.2 shows the varaiation of Coefficient of uniformity of soil sample with respect to
various percentage additions of Nano Metakaoline, Nano Flyash and a combination of Nano
7
6
5
4
Nano Metakaoline
Nano Flyash
Nano Metakaoline +
Nano Flyash
coefficient of uniformity 3
2
1
0
0123456
Percentage of Nanomaterial added
Fig 4.2 Variation of Cu with respect to percentage addition of Nanomaterials
From Fig 4.2, it can be seen that the value of coefficient of uniformity is the least when 2% of
Nano metakaoline is added. Addition of Nano Flyash increases the value of coefficient of
uniformity. Similar behavior is noticed when a mixture of Nano Metakaoline and Nano
Flyash is added.
4.4 Coefficient of Curvature
Fig 4.3 shows the varaiation of Coefficient of Curvature of soil sample with respect to
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Nano Metakaoline
Nano Flyash
Nano
Metakaoline+Nano
Flyash
Coefficient of curvature 0.8

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0123456
Percentage Nanomaterials added
Fig 4.3 Variation of Cc with respect to percentage addition of Nanomaterials
From the Fig 4.3 it can be seen that addition of Nano Flyash increase the value of Coefficient
of Curvature. The Coefficient of Curvature is found to be maximum when the percentage
addition is 2%. Addition of Nano Flyash and the mixture of Nano Metakaoline and Nano
Flyash is found to decrease the value of Coefficient of Curvature. The Coefficient of
Curvature is found to be minimum when the percentage of addition is 2%
4.5 Liquid Limit
Fig 4.4 shows the variation of Liquid Limit of soil sample with respect to various percentage
additions of Nano Metakaoline, Nano Flyash and a combination of Nano Metakaoline and
Nano Flyash
70
60
50
40
Nano Metakaoline
Nano Flyash
Nano Metakaoline +
Nano Flyash
Liquid Limit 30
20
10
0
0
Fig 4.4 Variation of Liquid Limit with respect to percentage addition of Nanomaterials
From Fig 4.4 it can be seen that addition of Nano Metakaoline is found to increase the liquid
limit value upto 2% and then the Liquid Limit value is found to decrease. Addition of
Nanoflyash also exhibited similar behavior. Addition of mixture of Nano Flyash and Nana
Metakaoline increases the Liquid Limit from 35% to 52% and it remains almost constant.
4.6 Shrinkage Limit
Fig 4.5 shows the variation of Liquid Limit of soil sample with respect to various percentage
Nano Flyash
30
25
20
Shrinkage Limit
Nano Metakaoline
Nano Flyash
Nano Metakaoline +
Nano Flyash
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig
4.5 Variation of shrinkage limit with
respect to percentage addition of
Nanomaterials
From Fig 4.5 it can be seen that addition of NanoMetakaoline and Nano Flyash decreases the
shrinkage limit initially and the shrinkage limit increases afterwards, reached a maximum
value at 3% addition, then the shrinkage limit is decreased. Addition of mixture of
NanoMetakaoline and Nano Flyash reflected in the decrease of Shrinkage limit upto 3% then
it is increased
4.7 Angle of Internal Friction in degrees :
Fig 4.6 shows the variation of Angle of Internal Friction of soil sample with respect to
45
40
35
30
25
Angle of Internal friction in degrees 20

15
10
5
Nano Metakaoline
Nano Flyash
Nano Metakaoline +
Nano Flyash
Percentage of Nano Material added
Fig 4.6 Variation of angle of internal friction with respect to percentage addition of
Nanomaterials
From the Fig 4.6 it can be seen that addition of Nano Metakaoline reflected in increase in the
angle of internal friction value upto 1% addition. Further addition reflected in the decrease in
the value of angle of internal friction,. In case of Nano Flyash, the optimal addition
percentage is 4. In case of addition of mixture the internal friction decreased and reached a
minimum value of 15o at 3% addition.
4.8 Cohesion in kg/cm2
Fig 4.7 shows the variation of Cohesion C of soil sample with respect to various percentage
Nano Flyash
Cohesion in Kg/cm2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
Nano Metakaoline
Nano Flyash
Nano Metakaoline +
Nano Flyash
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig 4.7 Variation of cohesion with respect to percentage addition of Nanomaterials
From the Fig 4.7 it can be seen that addition of Nano Metakaoline initially reduced the value
of cohesion. Further addition of Nano Metakaoline reflects in increase in the value of
cohesion. The maximum value of cohesion is found to 0.017 when the addition percentage is
3. In case of Nano Flyash the Cohesion decreased, reached a minimum value at 1% addition.
In case of addition of mixture of Nano Metakaoline and Nano Flyash, the cohesion value
increased, reached a maximum of 0.018kg/cm2 when the percentage addition is 2.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
5.1 Conclusions for specific gravity:
It is found that the addition of NanoMetakaoline decreases the specific Gravity. The specific
gravity reaches a minimum value at a percentage of 3% and then it slightly increases.
Addition of Nanoflyash also reflects a similar behavior. The specific gravity reaches a
minimum value at a percentage of 2. The combined addition of Nano Metakaoline and Nano
Flyash did not indicate any siginificant pattern
5.2 Conclusions for coefficient of uniformity:
It is found that the value of coefficient of uniformity is the least when 2% of Nano
metakaoline is added. Addition of Nano Flyash increases
the value of coefficient of
uniformity. Similar behavior is noticed when a mixture of Nano Metakaoline and Nano
Flyash is added.
5.3 Conclusions for coefficient of curvature:
It is found that the addition of Nano Flyash increase the value of Coefficient of Curvature.
The Coefficient of Curvature is found to be maximum when the percentage addition is 2%.
Addition of Nano Flyash and the mixture of Nano Metakaoline and Nano Flyash is found to
decrease the value of Coefficient of Curvature. The Coefficient of Curvature is found to be
minimum when the percentage of addition is 2%
5.4 Conclusions for liquid limit:
It is found that the addition of Nano Metakaoline is found to increase the liquid limit value
upto 2% and then the Liquid Limit value is found to decrease. Addition of Nanoflyash also
exhibited similar behavior. Addition of mixture of Nano Flyash and Nana Metakaoline
increases the Liquid Limit from 35% to 52% and it remains almost constant.
5.5 Conclusions for shrinkage limit:
It is found that the addition of NanoMetakaoline and Nano Flyash decreases the shrinkage
limit initially and the shrinkage limit increases afterwards, reached a maximum value at 3%
addition, then the shrinkage limit decreased. Addition of mixture of NanoMetakaoline and
Nano Flyash resulted in the decrease of Shrinkage limit upto 3% then it is increased
5.6 Conclusions for angle of internal friction:
It is found that the addition of Nano Metakaoline resulted in increase in the angle of internal
friction value upto 1% addition. Further addition resulted in the decrease in the value of angle
of internal friction. In case of Nano Flyash, the optimal addition percentage is 4. In case of
addition of mixture, the internal friction decreased and reached a minimum value of 15 o at
3% addition.
5.7 Conclusions for cohesion:
It is found that the addition of Nano Metakaoline initially reduced the value of cohesion.
Further addition of Nano Metakaoline results in increase in the value of cohesion. The
maximum value of cohesion is found to 0.017 when the addition percentage is 3. In case of
Nano Flyash the Cohesion decreased, reached a minimum value at 1% addition. In case of
addition of mixture of Nano Metakaoline and Nano Flyash, the cohesion value increased,
reached a maximum of 0.018kg/cm2 when the percentage addition is 2.
REFERENCES:
[1]
Negin Kananizadeh, Taghi Ebadi and Seyed Ehsan Mousavi Rizi (2011) Behavior of
nanoclay as an addetive in order to reduce Kahrizak landfill clay Permeability
IPCBEE vol.6, pp.V1 55 V1 59
[2]
Zaid Hameed Majeed and Mohd Raihan Taha (2011) Effect of

Nanomaterial Treatment on Geotechnical Properties of a Penang Soft
Soil Journal of Asian Scientific Research 2(11):587-592
[3]
Mostafa Mohammadi and Mohammadreza Niazian. (2013)

Investigation of Nano clay effect on geotechnical properties of rasht
clay , International journal of advanced scientific and technical
research Issue 3 volume 3,pp. 37-46
[4]
Arabani. M, Haghi. A.K, Mohammadzade Sani. A and Kamboozia. N. (2012) Use of

Nanoclay for Improvement the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Soil
Stabilized by Cement Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Nanostructures (ICNS4), pp. 1552-1554

1.effect of Nanomaterial On Soil Properties

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.effect of Nanomaterial On Soil Properties

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF NANOMATERIALS ON SOIL

in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

ANNA UNIVERSITY : CHENNAI 600 025

ANNA UNIVERSITY : CHENNAI 600 025

Certified that this project report EFFECT OF NANOMATERIALS ON

DR. G. PRINCE ARULRAJ

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

Department of Civil Engineering,

Department of Civil Engineering

SNS College of Technology,

SNS College of Technology,

CERTIFIED THAT THE CANDIDATES WAS EXAMINED BY US IN

Values of k for Use in Equation for Computing Diameter

of Particle in Hydrometer Analysis

Values of Effective Depth Based on Hydrometer and

Sedimentation Cylinder of Specific Sizes

Sieve Analysis on Soil

Sieve Analysis on soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline

Sieve Analysis on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash

Liquid Limit on soil

Liquid Limit for soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline

Liquid Limit on Soil with 1% Nano Flyash

Direct Shear test on soil

Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano metakaoline

Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano Flyash

Substitutions for phase calculations

Landslide Hekseberg, Norway

Direct Shear test

Toppling Book row mechanism

Sliding on Horizontal plane

Conceptual diagram of single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT)

(A) and multiwalled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) (B)

Adsorption of chlorine by various media

Specific Gravity Apparatus

Sieve Analysis Apparatus

Liquid limit Apparatus

Plastic limit and Liquid limit test

Shrinkage limit test

Direct shear test

Particle size distribution for soil

Particle size distribution for soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline

Particle size Distribution for soil with 1% Nano Flyash

Liquid Limit for soil

Liquid limit for soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline

Liquid Limit for 1% Nano Flyash

Direct shear test on soil

Direct shear test on Soil with 1% Nano Metakaoline

Direct shear test on soil with 1% Nano Flyash

Variation of specific gravity with addition of nanomaterials

Variation of Cu with the addition of Nanomaterials

Variation of Cc with addition of Nanomaterials

Variation of Liquid Limit with addition of Nanomaterials

Variation of shrinkage limit with addition of Nanomaterials

Variation of angle of internal friction with addition of Nanomaterials

Variation of cohesion with the addition of Nanomaterials

Va -Volume of air in soil

1.2 Historical background of soil

1.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Prior to

1.2.3 Pre-classical Period of

1.2.5 Modern Soil Mechanics (1910 -1927)

1.3.1 Soil as three phase system:

1.4 Classification of soil

1.5 Unified Soil Classification System