DOCSLIB.ORG

Experimental Evaluation of the Engineering Behavior of Soil-Biochar Mixture As a Roadway Construction Material

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Experimental Evaluation of the Engineering Behavior of Soil-Biochar Mixture As a Roadway Construction Material CAIT-UTC 42 Experimental evaluation of the engineering behavior of soil-biochar mixture as a roadway construction material FINAL REPORT November 2018 Submitted by: Kalehiwot Nega Manahiloh (PI), PhD, PE Assistant Professor Civil and Environmental Enginering University of Delaware 301 DuPont Hall Newark, DE 19716 External Project Manager Jennifer Pinkerton Disclaimer Statement The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. 1 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. CAIT-UTC 42 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Experimental evaluation of the engineering behavior of soil-biochar November 2018 mixture as a roadway construction material 6. Performing Organization Code CAIT/Univ. of Delaware 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report Kalehiwot Nega Manahiloh, Ph.D., P.E. No. CAIT-UTC 42 Renee Lamprinakos, Graduate Research Assistant 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Delaware 301 DuPont Hall 11. Contract or Grant No. Newark, DE 19716 DTRT13-G-UTC28 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation Covered Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Final Report 100 Brett Road 09/01/2016 to 08/31/2018 Piscataway, NJ 08854 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes: U.S. DOT-OST-R, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 16. Abstract Past studies have investigated the influcendes of biochar addition on the nutrient removal and saturated conductivity properties of soils. Literature survey showed that there is a gap in the amount of work devoted to studying the effects of biochar addition on strength and volume change properties of soils. If biochar amended soils are to be used as geo-environmental construction materials, their mechanical behavior needs to be examined in depth. This project describes a laboratory-based experimental program that was conducted to study the mechanical properties of a mid-atlantic native intermediate silty sand that was amended with different biochar volume percentages. The effect of compactive effort is specially scrutinized on biochar amended soils. Results are interpreted and comparative discussions are made with respect to the limited studies found in the literature. Speculations are made on biochar’s potential as a viable ground improvement material for geo-environmental engineering applications. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Biochar, compaction, microstructure, X-ray computed tomography, triaxial, compressibility 19. Security Classification (of this 20. Security Classification (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price report) page) Unclassified Unclassified 46 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-69) 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The support of the Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation University Transportation Center (CAIT-UTC) for this research is greatly appreciated. Mrs. Jennifer Pinkerton served as external contact for this research project and added valuable comments during the research. We thank her for her support and advice. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 6 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 Background .......................................................................................................................... 8 proposed approach ............................................................................................................... 10 General ................................................................................................................................ 10 Laboratory experiments ....................................................................................................... 11 Materials ............................................................................................................................. 11 Specific Gravity of Solids ................................................................................................. 12 Liquid Limit ....................................................................................................................... 14 Plastic limit ......................................................................................................................... 16 Grain Size Distribution Analysis (GSD) ........................................................................ 17 Compacted behavior of Soil-biochar mixtures ............................................................. 21 Conclusions drawn from compaction testing ............................................................... 27 Compressibility ................................................................................................................. 28 Shear Strength Testing ...................................................................................................... 29 Shear strength test results and discussion ..................................................................... 34 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 40 Products .................................................................................................................................. 42 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 43 References ........................................................................................................................... 44 4 List of Figures Figure 1 Gradation curve for silty sand from sieve and hydrometer analysis ............ 11 Figure 2 Test setup and materials ....................................................................................... 12 Figure 3 Vacuum system in use .......................................................................................... 13 Figure 4 Casagrande liquid limit device ............................................................................ 15 Figure 5 Flow Curve ............................................................................................................. 16 Figure 6 (a) Sieve stack, (b) Mechanical sieve shaker ...................................................... 17 Figure 7 Sieves – grain sizes ................................................................................................ 18 Figure 8 Soil mixture in graduated cylinders.................................................................... 19 Figure 9 Grain-size distribution curve ............................................................................... 21 Figure 10 Moist soil-biochar mixture ................................................................................. 22 Figure 11 Standard Proctor hammer and mold ................................................................ 22 Figure 12 Standard Proctor compaction curves ................................................................ 25 Figure 13 Effect of increasing biochar on maximum dry unit weight ........................... 25 Figure 14 Effect of increasing biochar on the optimum water content ......................... 26 Figure 15 Silty sand specimen in split mold after tamping ............................................ 29 Figure 16 Triaxial device during a B-check ....................................................................... 31 Figure 17 Various sensors in a triaxial system .................................................................. 32 Figure 18 Failed specimen in loading frame ..................................................................... 33 Figure 19 Specimen after (left) and before (right) shearingfore (right) shearing ......... 33 Figure 20 Stress-strain curve, no biochar ........................................................................... 35 Figure 21 Excess pore-pressure Vs. Axial Strain, no biochar .......................................... 35 Figure 22 Stress-strain curve, 6% biochar .......................................................................... 36 Figure 23 Excess pore-pressure Vs. Axial Strain, 6% biochar ......................................... 36 Figure 24 Stress-strain curve, 10% biochar ........................................................................ 37 Figure 25 Excess pore-pressure Vs. Axial Strain, 10% biochar ....................................... 37 5 Figure 26 CU triaxial results for silty sand soil with no biochar .................................... 38 Figure 27 CU triaxial results for soil +6% biochar ............................................................ 38 Figure 28 CU triaxial results
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SHEAR Axial and Direct Shear Module for GEOSYSTEM® for Windows
    GEOSYSTEM® SHEAR Axial and Direct Shear Module for GEOSYSTEM® for Windows Copyright © 2004 Von Gunten Engineering Software, Inc. 363 West Drake #10 Fort Collins, CO 80526 www.geosystemsoftware.com Information in this document is subject to change without notice and does not represent a commitment on the part of Von Gunten Engineering Software, Inc. The software described in this document is furnished under a license agreement, and the software may be used or copied only in accordance with the terms of that agreement. The licensee may make copies of the software for backup purposes only. No part of this manual may be reproduced in any form for purposes other than the licensee’s personal use without the written consent of Von Gunten Engineering Software, Inc. Copyright © Von Gunten Engineering Software, Inc. 2004. All rights reserved. Published in the United States of America. GEOSYSTEM® is a registered trademark of VES, Inc. Windows® is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation Terms of License Agreement 1. The Licensee agrees not to sell or otherwise distribute the program or the program documentation. Each copy of the program is licensed only for use at a single address. 2. The Licensee agrees not to hold Von Gunten Engineering Software, Inc. (VES, Inc.) liable for any harm, damages claims, losses or expenses arising out of any act or occurrence related in any way to the use of the program. 3. The program is warranted to fully perform the tasks described in the program documentation. All results of the operation of the program are subject to the further engineering judgment, prudence, and study of the user.
    [Show full text]
  • Origins of Mechanical Compaction the Fresno Grader
    Part 1 ORIGINS OF MECHANICAL COMPACTION THE FRESNO GRADER Abajiah McCall invented the horse- drawn dirt bucket scrapper in Fresno County, California in 1885. It became known as the “Fresno Scrapper” and was widely employed as the prime earth moving device until the widespread advent of self- powered scrappers in the 1930s. Above left: 10-horse team pulling an elevating grader to load hopper dumping wagons during construction of the Central Reservoir for the People’s Water Co. in Oakland, California in 1909. Note old Buffalo- Springfield steam roller compacting the dam’s embankment, in left background Below Left: Marion shovel loading a hopper dumping wagon at the San Pablo Dam site of the East Bay Water Company in 1920, in Richmond, California. At 220 ft high with a volume of 2.2 million yds3 it was the highest and largest earth dam in the world when completed in 1922. “Load Compaction” of Trestle Fills In the early days large embankments were constructed by side-dumping rail cars or wagons from temporary wooden trestles, as shown at left. Engineers assumed that, after placement and infiltration by rain, the soil would ‘compact’ under its own dead load. The first sheepsfoot rollers The first sheepsfoot roller was built in Los Angeles in 1902, using a 3-ft diameter log studded with railroad spikes protruding 7 inches, distributed so the spikes were staggered in alternate rows. This layout was soon modified to increase weight and efficiency, initially by increasing its length to 8 ft. Note the leading wheels on the early models shown here, absent later.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Quality Assurance Final Report On
    CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE FINAL REPORT ON-SITE DISPOSAL FACILITY, PHASE I1 CELL 3 November 1999 Revision 0 United States Department of Energy Fernald Environmental Management Project Fernald, Ohio Prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants Fernald Field Office 7400 Willey Road, Mail Stop 3 8 Hamilton, Ohio 4.50 13 Under , Fluor Daniel Fernald Subcontract 95PS005028 GeoSyntec Consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 TERMSOF REFERENCE.................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 REPORTORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................... 3 2 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 4 3. CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ............ :............................................ 8 3.1 SCOPEOF SERVICES........................................................................................................................ .8 3.1.1 Overview...................................... ..................................................................... 8 3.1.2 Review of Documents ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned
    International Test and Evaluation Program for Humanitarian Demining Lessons Learned Test and Evaluation of Mechanical Demining Equipment according to the CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA 15044) Part 3: Measuring soil compaction and soil moisture content of areas for testing of mechanical demining equipment ITEP Working Group on Test and Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance Clearance Equipment (ITEP WGMAE) Last update: 3.12.2009 International Test and Evaluation Program for Humanitarian Demining Page 2 Table of Contents 1. Background............................................................................................................2 2. Definitions..............................................................................................................3 3. Measurement of soil bulk density and soil moisture content.................................5 3.1. Introduction....................................................................................................5 3.2. Determination of soil bulk density and soil moisture content of soil samples removed from the field...............................................................................................5 3.2.1. Removal of samples...............................................................................5 3.2.2. Calculation of soil bulk density and soil moisture content....................6 3.3. Determination of soil bulk density and soil moisture content in the field (in situ) 7 3.3.1. Nuclear densometer (soil density and moisture content).......................7 3.3.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 21 Soil Improvement
    CHAPTER 21 SOIL IMPROVEMENT 21.1 INTRODUCTION General practice is to use shallow foundations for the foundations of buildings and other such structures, if the soil close to the ground surface possesses sufficient bearing capacity. However, where the top soil is either loose or soft, the load from the superstructure has to be transferred to deeper firm strata. In such cases, pile or pier foundations are the obvious choice. There is also a third method which may in some cases prove more economical than deep foundations or where the alternate method may become inevitable due to certain site and other environmental conditions. This third method comes under the heading foundation soil improvement. In the case of earth dams, there is no other alternative than compacting the remolded soil in layers to the required density and moisture content. The soil for the dam will be excavated at the adjoining areas and transported to the site. There are many methods by which the soil at the site can be improved. Soil improvement is frequently termed soil stabilization, which in its broadest sense is alteration of any property of a soil to improve its engineering performance. Soil improvement 1. Increases shear strength 2. Reduces permeability, and 3. Reduces compressibility The methods of soil improvement considered in this chapter are 1. Mechanical compaction 2. Dynamic compaction 3. Vibroflotation 4. Preloading 5. Sand and stone columns 951 952 Chapter 21 6. Use of admixtures 7. Injection of suitable grouts 8. Use of geotextiles 21.2 MECHANICAL COMPACTION Mechanical compaction is the least expensive of the methods and is applicable in both cohesionless and cohesive soils.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Slenderness Ratios on Triaxial Shear Testing
    Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science Volume 73 Annual Issue Article 41 1966 The Influence of Slenderness Ratios on riaxialT Shear Testing Eugene R. Moores Sunray D-X Oil Company J. M. Hoover Iowa State University Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©1966 Iowa Academy of Science, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias Recommended Citation Moores, Eugene R. and Hoover, J. M. (1966) "The Influence of Slenderness Ratios on riaxialT Shear Testing," Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 73(1), 285-292. Available at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pias/vol73/iss1/41 This Research is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa Academy of Science at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science by an authorized editor of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Moores and Hoover: The Influence of Slenderness Ratios on Triaxial Shear Testing The Influence of Slende,rness Ratios on Triaxial Sihear Testing 1 EUGENE R. MooRES AND J. M. Hoovm2 Abstract. Determination of the effect of the slenderness ratio on the results of the triaxial test depends, theoretically, on the boundary conditions induced by ( a) shape of the test specimen, ( o) manner of the transmission of the external load, and · ( c) deformations. From a practical point of view enough length should be available to develop two complete cones of failure and the length of the specimen should equal the diameter times the 0 tangent of (45 + .p/2) • Most workers in the field of triaxial testing of soils accept a slenderness ratio of from 1.5 to 3.0.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Relative Compaction on the Shear Strength of Compacted Surface Sands
    International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 5, No. 1, February 2014 Influence of Relative Compaction on the Shear Strength of Compacted Surface Sands Nabil F. Ismael and Mariam Behbehani strength characteristics of the compacted fill. Abstract—Construction of structures always involves This paper aims to answer these questions and to learn excavation, and recompaction following foundation installation. more about the properties of compacted sand fills by means In some cases foundations are placed on compacted sandy soils. of a laboratory-testing program. Testing included basic The influence of relative compaction on the strength of sandy characteristics, compaction tests, and direct shear tests. In soils in Kuwait is examined herein by a comprehensive laboratory testing program on surface samples. The program view of recent work indicating significant soil improvement includes basic properties, compaction and, direct shear tests. with artificial cementation [6], the effect of using 1 % by Various soil parameters were determined including the weight ordinary Portland cement additive (Type I) on the compaction characteristics, the cohesion c, angle of friction φ. shear strength parameters of compacted surface sands is also The results indicate that as the relative compaction increases examined. towards 100%, the strength increases and the soil compressibility decreases. A comparison was made between the soil parameters for the samples compacted on the dry side, and on the wet side of optimum moisture content at several relative II. TESTING PROGRAM compaction ratios. The difference in the values obtained for the The testing program consisted of: two cases are explained. The effect of using 1% by weight 1) Collecting large bulk sample of surface sand from one cement additive is also examined.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Oil Contamination on the Liquefaction Behavior of Sandy Soils S
    World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Geological and Environmental Engineering Vol:8, No:5, 2014 Effect of Oil Contamination on the Liquefaction Behavior of Sandy Soils S. A. Naeini, M. M. Shojaedin viscosity of the contaminant oil. Khamehchiyan et al. (2007) Abstract—Oil leakage from the pipelines and the tanks carrying [4] carried out the laboratory testing, including Atterberg them, or during oil extraction, could lead to the changes in the limits, compaction, direct shear, uniaxial compression and characteristics and properties of the soil. In this paper, conducting a permeability tests, on clayey and sandy soils such as CL, SM series of experimental cyclic triaxial tests, the effects of oil and SP sampled from the coastal soils. The contaminated contamination on the liquefaction potential of sandy soils is investigated. The studied specimens are prepared by mixing the samples were prepared by mixing the soils with crude oil in Firoozkuh sand with crude oil in 4, 8 and 12 percent by soil dry the amount of 2%, 4%, 8%, 12%, and 16% by dry weight. weight. The results show that the oil contamination up to 8% causes This research noted to some limitations for addition of more an increase in the soil liquefaction resistance and then with increase crude oil to the soil samples. The results indicated a decrease in the contamination, the liquefaction resistance decreases. in strength, permeability, maximum dry density, optimum water content and Atterberg limits. The uncontaminated and Keywords—Cyclic triaxial test, Liquefaction resistance, Oil crude oil-contaminated clay were compared by Habib-ur- contamination, Sandy soil.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Laboratory Compaction on the Shear Behavior of a Highly Plastic Clay After Saturation and Consolidation
    SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING JOINT HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROJECT FHWA/IN/JHRP-79-7 THE EFFECT OF LABORATORY COMPACTION ON THE SHEAR BEHAVIOR OF A HIGHLY PLASTIC CLAY AFTER SATURATION AND CONSOLIDATION J. M. Johnson C. W. Lovell PURDUE UNIVERSITY INDIANA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation; Indiana Department of Transportation http://www.archive.org/details/effectoflaboratoOOjohn Interim Report THE EFFECT OF LABORATORY COMPACTION ON THE SHEAR BEHAVIOR OF A HIGHLY PLASTIC CLAY AFTER SATURATION AND CONSOLIDATION TO: H. L. Michael, Director July 11, 1979 Joint Highway Research Project Project: C-36-5M FROM: C. W. Lovell, Research Engineer Joint Highway Research Project File: 6-6-13 Attached is an Interim Report on the HPR Part II Study titled "Improving Embankment Design and Performance". This is Interim Report No. 6 and is titled "The Effect of Laboratory Compaction on the Shear Behavior of a Highly Plastic Clay After Saturation and Consolidation". It is authored by J. M. Johnson and C. W. Lovell of our staff. The report describes the experimental program on the effective stress strength behavior of laboratory compacted St. Croix clay. The effects of compaction water content and effort level were evaluated for the clay after it had been saturated and consolidated under confining pressures simulating various embankment positions. Prediction equations were developed for the effective stress parameters, for the pore pressure parameter at failure, and for the volumetric strain during saturation and consolidation. These equations are largely in terms of the compaction variables. Research on these relation- ships for field compacted soil continues.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of the Different Energy of Compaction on Subbse Course of Roads Sahar Abd Ali Al-Khafaji Asst
    DOI:10.21276/sjeat.2016.1.3.5 Saudi Journal of Engineering and Technology ISSN 2415-6272 (Print) Scholars Middle East Publishers ISSN 2415-6264 (Online) Dubai, United Arab Emirates Website: http://scholarsmepub.com/ Research Article Effect of the Different Energy of Compaction on Subbse Course of Roads Sahar Abd Ali Al-Khafaji Asst. Lecturer, Department of civil engineering, college of Engineering, Al Mustaqbal University collage, Babil, Iraq *Corresponding Author: Sahar Abd Ali Al-Khafaji Email: [email protected] Abstract: Compaction of subbase is often the main load-bearing layer of a pavement. It is designed to evenly spread the load of the paving, it compacted with heavy equipment until the material forms a dense layer of interlocking aggregate. To perform well, subbase aggregates must be strong and durable, and must meet very specific graduation requirements. The main aim of this study is finding the effect of changing energy of compaction on the subbase. the sample of subbase is under class B after testing it by sieve analyses test, the physical properties as (specific gravity, elastic limit, plastic limit &max dry density) have been tested, the sample tested under different energy of compaction (modified proctor test and standard proctor test ) and found the effect of energy on (dry density, void ratio, porosity). Keywords: pavement layer, Subbase, compaction energy, standard proctor test. modified procter test. INTRODUCTION scrapped off and after checking that the subbase is still Compaction is defined as the process of in good condition, a new layer can be applied. increasing the density of a material by mechanical Compaction objective increasing the shear strength, means.
    [Show full text]
  • CE2112: Laboratory Determination of Soil Properties and Soil Classification
    CE2112: Laboratory Determination of Soil Properties and Soil Classification Laboratory Report G1: Index and Consolidation Properties G2 Shear Strength Year 2013/2014 Semester 2 PENG LE A0115443N 1 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 4 2. Overview .................................................................................................................................. 5 3. Atterberg Limits Tests ........................................................................................................... 6 3.1. Principles ............................................................................................................................ 6 3.2. Plastic Limit (PL) ............................................................................................................... 7 3.3. Liquid Limit (LL) ............................................................................................................... 8 3.4. Classification of the Soil .................................................................................................... 9 3.5. Discussion......................................................................................................................... 10 4. One Dimension Consolidation Test .................................................................................... 11 4.1. Principles of One Dimension Consolidation Test ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shear Strength Examples.Pdf
    444 Chapter 12: Shear Strength of Soil Example 12.2 Following are the results of four drained direct shear tests on an overconsolidated clay: • Diameter of specimen ϭ 50 mm • Height of specimen ϭ 25 mm Normal Shear force at Residual shear Test force, N failure, Speak force, Sresidual no. (N) (N) (N) 1 150 157.5 44.2 2 250 199.9 56.6 3 350 257.6 102.9 4 550 363.4 144.5 © Cengage Learning 2014 t t Determine the relationships for peak shear strength ( f) and residual shear strength ( r). Solution 50 2 Area of the specimen 1A2 ϭ 1p/42 a b ϭ 0.0019634 m2. Now the following 1000 table can be prepared. Residual S shear peak S force, T ϭ residual ؍ Normal Normal Peak shearT S؅ f r Test force, N stress, force, Speak A Sresidual A no. (N) (kN/m2) (N) (kN/m2) (N) (kN/m2) 1 150 76.4 157.5 80.2 44.2 22.5 2 250 127.3 199.9 101.8 56.6 28.8 3 350 178.3 257.6 131.2 102.9 52.4 4 550 280.1 363.4 185.1 144.5 73.6 © Cengage Learning 2014 t t sЈ The variations of f and r with are plotted in Figure 12.19. From the plots, we find that t 2 ϭ ؉ S؅ Peak strength: f (kN/m ) 40 tan 27 t 2 ϭ S؅ Residual strength: r(kN/m ) tan 14.6 (Note: For all overconsolidated clays, the residual shear strength can be expressed as t ϭ sœ fœ r tan r fœ ϭ where r effective residual friction angle.) Copyright 2012 Cengage Learning.
    [Show full text]