Experimental analysis of clay soil with nanosilicon dioxide

ABSTRACT

The behaviour of weak clay soil is demonstrated in this article. Nanosilicon dioxide (NSiO₂) is added to clay soil in a dry condition to enhance its technical qualities. Different concentrations of NSiO₂, such as 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2 percentages, are added. Laboratory tests such as the California bearing ratio test, the proctor compaction test, the compressive strength test, and the Atterbergs limit test are used to determine the cause of the behaviour change. According to these experiments, 1% NSiO₂ is the ideal dose needed to improve the soil, and at 0.8% NSiO₂ in soil, the ideal moisture level is 20%. For improved performance, the ideal dosage is taken into consideration because exceeding it results in a decline in engineering properties.

Keywords:
Nano silicondioxide; clay soil; compressive strength

1. INTRODUCTION

In this modern world, the waste vacant land with poor bearing capacity were utilized by adopting engineering techniques. Especially for improving the soil parameters from geo technical perspective soil stabilization technique is adopted. In high rise building construction, normal residential construction, to control seepage, to lay good subgrade for road construction etc soil stabilization techniques adopted. In this particular work weak subgrade is improved by adopting soil stabilization technique. Weak subgrades are among the most common problems encountered during road construction. If a brittle subgrade is covered by a permanent road or a temporary access road, the paved or unpaved surface may deteriorate due to significant subgrade deformation. Road planning and construction are challenging for engineers due to the subgrade’s weakness. Depending on how the soil is classified, engineers must consider the type of soil when designing and building [¹]. The selected subgrade soil is expansive in nature and Due to seasonal variations in moisture content, expansive soil has a significant potential for swelling and contraction, which can lead to damage to a variety of civil engineering infrastructure projects [²]. When the water table is high, expansive soils have a poor soil carrying capacity [³].

Soil stabilization is a multifaceted engineering technique, it entails enhancing the mechanical, chemical, or physical characteristics of soil to achieve the necessary strength, durability, and load-bearing capacity. The kind of soil, level of compaction, and curing type and its condition are the primary determinants of the degree of stabilization [⁴, ⁵]. There are two approaches to implement the soil stabilization procedure, 1) In situ stabilization 2) Ex - situ stabilization. Depending on which soil attributes need to be changed, the choice to use technology will change. The main characteristics of soil that engineers are interested in include durability, permeability, strength, compressibility, and volume stability [⁶]. Physical techniques (like dynamic compaction, moist compaction, and stone column methods) and chemical processes (like injecting and adding stabilizing ingredients to the soil) have been extensively employed to ameliorate the loess area’s subsurfaces [⁷]. The efficiency of soil stabilization is influenced by a number of variables, including the type and content of additives, the type and mineralogy of the soil, the curing temperature and duration, the delay in compaction, the pH of the soil matrix, and the amount of molding water [⁸].

Natural and eco-friendly materials have recently gained a lot of attention for stabilizing and reinforcing soil in road and geoenvironmental infrastructure projects [⁹]. For geotechnical engineers, improving weak and troublesome soils is always crucial. Portland cement soil stabilization is one of the unique techniques for improving soil quality. However, there are numerous environmental issues with cement production, thus engineers are always searching for better solutions. Green cement, sometimes referred to as geopolymer, can be a suitable substitute with many advantages over Portland cement, like wise lime stabilization also used commonly, However, the extraction of lime depletes natural resources and has detrimental effects on the environment [¹⁰, ¹¹]. Compared to more conventional additives like cement and lime, the use of waste products for soil stabilization is a relatively new practice [¹²]. Some materials like Glass fiber, Fly ash, gypsum, sewage sludge ash, sugarcane bagasse ash, Pulverised fuel ash (PFA), wood ash, egg shell, rice husk, road cem, GGBS etc are used in various experimental studies individually or combination of one or two [¹³,¹⁴,¹⁵,¹⁶,¹⁷,¹⁸,¹⁹,²⁰]. Numerous gaps were shown by chemical methods, including pozzolanic reactions, flocculation, hydration, and cation exchange. Additionally, a number of variables impact the performance of soil stabilization, including the type and quantity of additives, the type and mineralogy of the soil, the curing temperature and duration, the delay in compaction, the pH of the soil matrix, and the amount of molding water [²¹]. Richard Feynman first proposed the concept of nanotechnology in his 1959 presentation. By adding nano-additives, the theory of nanotechnologies in ground improvement is applied to change the characteristics of soil.

In the realm of civil engineering, nanotechnology application is still relatively young. Recent research has demonstrated the great potential of nanomaterials made from different soil and rock minerals for seepage management, soil stability, and other geotechnical problems [²²]. Nanoparticles have garnered significant scientific attention in recent years due to their numerous uses in civil engineering. SiO₂, TiO₂, Al2O₃, and carbon nanotubes are the most often utilized nanoparticle kinds in cementitious composites. The mechanical behavior and engineering qualities of soils can be greatly enhanced by nanomaterials, which have the advantages of large specific surface area and surface charges [²³]. While the nanomaterials are not cementitious, their addition to the soil strengthens the bond with the cementitious materials by decreasing the distance between x-particles. Using the nanomaterial in tender soils tends to increase the soil’s shear strength, which lowers the soil’s permeability [²⁴].

Globally, the development of nanotechnology creates an opportunity for the efficient remediation or restoration of contaminated soil. Nanotechnology has significant promise for improving the environment by reducing the toxicity of different metals and metalloids [²⁵]. In order to improve the mechanical qualities of soil, lessen its influence on the environment, and produce stronger, stiffer soil, nanotechnology is utilized in soil stabilization. Nano materials used for experimental purpose may be in powder or liquid form and sometimes they can be used in fibre form. Commonly used nano materials for civil engineering applications are Nanoclay, Nanolime, Nanosilica, Nanosized palm bunch ash, Carbon Nano tube, Nano aluminium oxide, Nano rice bran powder etc are used [²⁶,²⁷,²⁸,²⁹,³⁰,³¹,³²]. For ground improvement, researchers have introduced two types of additives, nano silicon dioxide and microsilica, which have the same elemental structure but different particle sizes from that the nano size material exhibit better performance [²⁸]. The main distinction between an ordinary additive and a nano additive is that the former is composed of particles at the nanoscale, which means that they are much smaller. This allows them to interact with surfaces on a much more intimate level, potentially leading to greater performance improvements in a variety of applications, such as lubrication, fuel efficiency, and material properties, than traditional, larger-sized additives. In other words, because of their high surface area-to-volume ratio, nano additives can accomplish more with a smaller amount.

NSiO₂ has been demonstrated to improve the strength and structure of loess, making it a viable prospect for soil stabilisation. Although these findings improve our understanding of soil stabiliser properties, further research is needed [³³]. So experimental study of subgrade soil stabilization is carried out by nano silicon dioxide. It can enhance the subgrade breakdown due to its high surface area, The values rose in tandem with the dosage increase. These chemicals improve the subgrade’s strength, load-bearing capacity, and durability so that the maximum load generated by traffic can be supported without the pavement failing. They also lengthen the road’s lifespan and reduce the thickness of the pavement, which lowers construction costs. and to analyse the effect of NSiO₂ test like Atterbergs limit, Standard Proctor compaction test, California Bearing Ratio test and Unconfined compressive strength test are done and their results were discussed.

2. MATERIALS USED

The initial step in the stabilization procedure is the selection of nanomaterials. The selection of nanomaterials for the experiment will be based on the performance that has been used.

3. SELECTED SOIL SAMPLE

It was taken from the Chunkankadai region of Tamil Nadu, India, using the disturbed sampling approach. Between one and two meters below the earth’s surface, the sample was taken. The site was selected for the research sample collection because, as Figure 1 illustrates, it contains road pavement in the center and is bordered by water on two sides. Water bodies surrounding the route, overweight transport vehicles and subgrade breakdowns frequently result in road issues. The sample collected area and soil images are in Figures 2 and 3. The sample is clay soil and it have its physical characteristics, including strength, durability, and erosion resistance, besides clay is inherently weak, highly plastic, and prone to large volume changes as a result of moisture fluctuations, it is not suitable for use in construction without treatment. Stabilization techniques increase the strength of clay, decrease its plasticity, and minimize its potential for swelling and shrinkage, making it a dependable foundation material for projects.

Figure 1
Road pavement in selected area.

Figure 2
Soil sample collected area.

Figure 3
Collected soil sample.

3.1. Nano-silicon dioxide

Silicon oxide nanoparticles are used in plastic, color rubber, paint and magnetic materials, among other items. Furthermore, there are numerous potential uses for nano-silica in a number of industries, such as steel, fiber, glass, paints, porcelain, adhesives, batteries, gypsum, ceramics (sugar), and cosmetics (Figure 4). The 99% purity level of the amorphous silica nanoparticles used in this study were produced by the US Nano Company. Nano silica was employed in a variety of concentrations, including 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8%, 1%, and 1.2%, in order to stabilize the soil, taking into consideration the economic costs of doing so as well as the results of the study. The mechanical and thermal properties of NSiO₂, along with its chemical compositions, are described in detail in Tables 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Figure 4
Nano silicondioxide.

Table 1
Characteristics of nano-silica.

SL. NO	SILICON OXIDE NANOPARTICLES (SIO2) CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
1	SiO2	>99%
2	Ti	< 120 ppm
3	Ca	< 70 ppm
4	Na	<50 ppm
5	Fe	<20 ppm
6	SSA (m2/gm)	180–600
7	Purity (%)	99
8	Size (nm)	20–30
9	Colour	White

Table 2
Chemical properties and chemical compositions NSiO₂.

TYPE	COMPOSITES
Chemical Symbol	SiO2
Group	Silicon 14 Oxygen 16
Electronic Configuration	Silicon [Ne] 3s2 .3p2 Oxygen [He] 2s2 .2p4
Silicon	46.83%
Oxygen	53.33%

Table 3
Mechanical and thermal properties NSiO₂.

PROPERTIES	METRIC
Density	2.4 gm/cm3
Molar Mass	56.96 gm/mol
Melting Point	1600 °C
Boiling Point	2230 °C

4. EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

NSiO₂ based soil stabilization experiments have been conducted in a range of percentages, including 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8%, 1%, and 1.2%. Parent soil, water (based on OMC), and stabilizer are uniformly mixed to create the specimen. Every experiment has a different preparation procedure, which is covered in more detail below.

4.1. Specific gravity

The number of times a substance is heavier than water is indicated by its specific gravity. It can be expressed simply as the mass of a certain amount of material divided by the volume of water that has the same mass. How many times the weight of a soil’s solids exceeds that of the same volume of water is known as its specific gravity. Using a pycnometer, the specific gravity test was conducted. Less than 2.6 is the specific gravity of the soil sample that contains the most organic matter. G is an acronym for it. To get the specific gravity, the following formula is used:

$$\text{Specific gravity (G)}=\frac{\text{Density of substance}}{\text{Density of water or air}}$$

4.2. Hydrometer analysis

Finding the capacity of the hydrometer bulb After adding roughly 800 ml of water to the 1000 ml measuring container, note the water level measurement as shown in Figure 5. Record the measurement after fully submerging the hydrometer. The discrepancy between the two measurements is computed using the hydrometer bulb’s capacity and the volume of the submerged portion of the stem. The error brought about by the addition of this stem volume may be ignored for pragmatic reasons. Weighing the hydrometer to the closest 0.1g is another option. This bulk in grams is equivalent to the hydrometer’s capacity in cc. This includes the bulb and stalk’s combined capacity. To estimate the particle size distribution of the portion of soil that can pass through a sieve with the number 200 (0.075 mm), a hydrometer experiment is required. To conduct the test, the collected sample is run through a 10-number (2 mm) sieve, which allows particles larger than 0.075 mm to drop to the bottom of the sieve. At last, it was possible to ascertain the soil sample’s size as well as the amount that was present in each size.

Figure 5
The hydrometer analysis of virgin soil.

4.3. Atterbergs limit

4.3.1. Liquid limit test (LL)

The LL is the volume of water (in percentage) that, in a standard LL apparatus (Casagrande’s apparatus) operating at a rate of two shocks per second, will cause a pat of soil placed in a standard cup and cut by a groove of standard dimensions to flow together at the base of the groove for a distance of 13 mm under 25 shocks from the cup being dropped 10 mm. The water concentration at which soil starts to behave like a liquid is known as the LL. In order to make a thick and uniform paste, 200 g of air-dried soil that could pass through an IS 425 sieve was mixed with water during this experiment. A range of nanoparticles mixed with soil mixes were subjected to the LL test.

4.3.2. Plastic limit test (PL)

The amount of water in the soil that prevents it from disintegrating when rolled into 3 mm-diameter threads is known as the PL. About 50 grams of the oven-dry sample from the material that passed the 425° temperature test were taken out and mixed with water until it was uniformly malleable and homogenous enough to shape into a ball. The sample was rolled to create threads on a glass plate, and those threads snapped at a diameter of about 3 mm. The PL Test was performed using soil mixes on a range of nanomaterials in accordance with IS 2720 (part 5).

4.3.3. Shrinkage limit test (SL)

Eventually, the material will reach a point in the drying process where any further drying will result in a lower overall moisture content but will not cause the volume to decrease. The SL is the point at which the percentage of moisture in the soil no longer causes a further reduction in the volume of the soil. This is because clayey soil that has been wet for a long time will gradually lose moisture, which leads to decrease the volume of soil mass.

For the SL determination, soil fractions up to 425 mm in size are used. Certain confirmatory tests are also conducted using sand fractions that are no larger than 2 mm. When the soils held almost the same quantity of water as their LL (ASTM designation D427-83 1989), they were worked into shrinkage dishes to determine their SL. When the LL values could not be obtained (for example, in non-cohesive soil mixtures), the amount of water injected was adequate to guarantee that neither liquefaction nor segregation occurred during sample processing. Following a 24-hour natural drying period, the moist soil pats were dried at 40°C and then again at 110°C for another 24-hour drying period.

4.3.4. Standard proctor compaction test

An air-dried soil sample weighing around 2.5 kg intended to be able to flow through a 4.75 mm screen. A small amount of water should be added to thoroughly mix this. The process started with the sample mixed with a suitable amount of nanopowder at a 0.2% concentration. Later on, this concentration was increased to 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8%, 1.0%, 1.2%, and so on.

The Proctor specimens measured 127.5 mm in height and 100 mm in circumference. Three layers of the sample were placed inside this mold, and each layer was compacted with 25 blows from a 2.6 kg hammer with a 310 mm drop. To ascertain the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) and Maximum Dry Denisity (MDD), a range of nanomaterials were subjected to soil mixtures using the conventional compaction test, in accordance with IS 2720.

4.3.5. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS)

In order to perform the UCS test, a cylindrical soil sample that was not confined laterally was used. The soil sample is subjected to increasing amounts of axial compressive force until it breaks (Figure 6). This leads to situations that are not drained since the load is given relatively quickly and there is no time for drainage. The soil specimen and a number of micropowders containing soil mixtures with the proper amounts of OMC were subjected to the UCS test (part 10). The UCS values were calculated for both samples that were prepared right away and samples that were let up to 180 days to cure. Once the stress and strain of the samples were determined, their connection was plotted, with the x axis representing the samples’ strain and the y axis representing their stress.

Figure 6
Stress-strain relation of virgin soil.

4.3.6. California bearing ratio (CBR)

It is basically a penetration method in which a cylindrical plunger with a 5 cm diameter is pushed into a pile of soil that is contained within a 175 cm high by 15 cm diameter compaction mold. A replaceable base plate with a perforated design, measuring 1 cm in thickness and 23.5 cm in diameter, is included with the CBR mold. CBR is the ratio of the force required to penetrate a standard material at the same rate as a cylindrical plunger with a diameter of 5 cm and a speed of 1.25 mm/min into a soil sample. CBR is 100%.

The material was divided into two layers before to being placed into the CBR mould. A 2.6 kg hammer was then used to strike each layer 55 times at a drop of 310 mm (SPC). In accordance with the specified protocol, the mould and the compacted soil were weighed independently prior to being put through the CBR testing device. Usually, both 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm penetration are used to calculate the CBR values. For design purposes, it is better to utilise the CBR value at a 2.5 mm incision whenever possible because it is usually higher compared to 5.0 mm penetration.

The strength level of the subgrade is established via a CBR test. It is calculated by dividing the entire area by the force applied. The fixed standard load that applies to each type of penetration is shown in Table 4.

$$\text{California Bearing Ratio Value}=\frac{\text{Test load}}{\text{Standard load}}\times 100$$

Table 4
Load for different penetration.

SL. NO	PENETRATION OF PLUNGER (mm)	STANDARD LOAD (kg)
1	2.5	1370
2	5.0	2055
3	7.5	2630
4	10.0	3180
5	12.5	3600

5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A fine powder of NSiO₂ is added to the untreated soil sample at various concentrations 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8%, 1%, and 1.2%, respectively—as part of the soil stabilization process. In order to obtain reliable results, the soil is evenly mixed with water and stabilizers during testing. The research findings are explained and provided below (Table 5).

Table 5
The specific properties of collected soil.

SL. NO	PROPERTIES	VALUES
1.	Specific gravity	2.66
2.	Atterbergs limit	LL (44%), PL (19.59%), SL (23.5%), FI (20.96), PI (27.41),SR (1.75)
3.	Optimum moisture content	12%
4.	Maximum dry density	1.99 g/cm3
5.	Unconfined compressive strength	14.2 KN/m2
6.	Unconfined cohesion value of soil sample	7.1 KN/m2
7.	California bearing ratio	3.4%

5.1. Atterbergs limit test

When NSiO₂ is added to soil particles, the LL, FI, PL, PI, and SR values drop. However, when NSiO₂ is introduced to the soil, the SL rises. The reason for this is that the LL is less than the shrinkage limit. The gradual decrease in value that has been seen is shown in Table 6. Figure 7 makes it evident that the PL is steadily declining. In contrast to low plasticity soil, which deforms readily and fails, high plasticity soil has a high PL and won’t deform easily, maintaining soil cohesiveness and preventing collapse. Changes between 1% and 1.2% NSiO₂ are minimal. At 1% and 1.2% nanomaterial inclusion, PL is lower than in parent soil.

Table 6
Results of AL of soil with NSiO₂.

SL. NO	SAMPLE	LL WL (%)	FI	PL	PI	SL	SR
1	0	44	20.96	19.59	24.41	23.5	1.75
2	0.2	43	19.83	19.22	24.01	24.25	1.70
3	0.4	42	19.02	18.71	23.69	25.67	1.68
4	0.6	40	18.33	17.99	22.84	26	1.64
5	0.8	39	17.86	17.01	22.14	27.432	1.54
6	1	36	16.19	16.52	21.46	28.61	1.41
7	1.2	35	15.45	15.98	20.93	30.33	1.20

Figure 7
PL of soil with NSiO₂.

Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the imbalance in different NSiO₂ percentages in SL and LL. Figure 10 illustrates the variance in soil FI and PI, which is used to determine the soil’s plasticity. When nanomaterial is added, the PL falls and the SL rises. This enhances the sample’s engineering qualities by confirming the nanomaterial’s reaction in the soil. When 1.2% NSiO₂ is applied, the sample reaches its maximum denser condition.

Figure 8
The SL of soil with NSiO₂.

Figure 9
The LL and various samples of soil with NSiO₂.

Figure 10
FI and PI of the soil with NSiO₂.

With soil, the lesser LL is 1.2% NSiO₂. The drop in LL with the addition of NSiO₂ is depicted in Figure 9. It increases from 38% to 39% LL at 0.6% and then again at 0.8%. Then, with a further 0.2% injected, it begins to decline in the LL. The PL and LL tests yield the PI and FI. In comparison to PI, the FI of parent soil and soil with varying percentages is lower. Their characteristics toward FI and PI progressively deteriorate in both situations.

5.2. Standard SPC test

The OMC result remained unchanged when the SPC test was conducted with the addition of NSiO₂. The OMC value started to rise over 0.8% as more NSiO₂ was applied, however Table 7 demonstrates that it gradually fell back down. The addition of 0.8% NSiO₂ (20%) produced the maximum OMC value that could be obtained. When soil reaches its maximum OMC, it is the most compacted and strongest because of the perfect balance of water content that enables soil particles to move past one another and efficiently fill the void spaces, forming a dense and stable structure. If water is added beyond OMC, however, the dry density will decrease because water begins to replace soil particles rather than fill voids. As more nanomaterial is introduced, the MDD value decreases until it reaches its maximum at 0.8%. The MDD value decreases once more when the nanomaterial content increases after reaching this peak value.

Table 7
OMC and MDD of soil with NSiO₂.

SL. NO	SAMPLE	NSiO2
		OMC (%)	MMD (g/cm3)
1	Soil	12	1.99
2	Soil + 0.2%	12	1.95
3	Soil + 0.4%	16	1.88
4	Soil + 0.6%	18	1.76
5	Soil + 0.8%	20	1.93
6	Soil + 1%	14	1.57
7	Soil + 1.2%	10	1.54

Figure 11 displays the OMC of soil containing NSiO₂, and it is evident that the OMC is low at 1.2%. Therefore, using more than 1% is not advised. This indicates that the OMC is lower than that of the parent soil, which will facilitate the sample’s failure. At 0.8%, the MDD is 1.93 g/cm³, whereas for parent soil, it is almost 2 g/cm³. MDD drops from 1.99 g/cm³ to 1.76 g/cm³ (0.6%) once stabilizers are added. After then, it rises to 1.93 g/cm³, and once more, it tends to fall in addition to the stabilizer. Moreover, adding causes the sample’s MDD characteristic to diminish. Stresses and variations in soil moisture content have a big influence on behavior.of sample, when maximum limit exceeds it becomes unfit for usage.

Figure 11
The OMC of soil with NSiO₂.

5.3. Unconfined compressive strength test

Here, the soil’s resistance to compression is assessed. For natural soil, the measured compressive strength was 31.5 KN/m². After adding nanomaterial, the compressive strength value increases and reaches its maximum at 1% NSiO₂ addition (187.04 KN/m²). The stress-strain relationship starts to deteriorate when this upper limit is surpassed. As seen in Figure 12, the value peaks at 1% stabilizer consumption and then falls from there. Similar calculations can be made to determine the soil’s cohesion value. Soil has a UCS of 31.5 KN/m². When stabilizers were added, the behavior changed gradually at initially, with no change at the 0.2% addition. Later, it increased from 35.96 KN/m² to 68.77 KN/m² (0.4%). Similarly, the sample’s compressive strength changes significantly and then drops off (1.2%) after reaching its maximum limit. When stabilizers are used at 1% in soil samples, the link between stress and strain is well preserved.

Figure 12
The UCS of soil with NSiO₂.

5.4. California bearing ratio test

To perform the CBR test, the NSiO₂ sample is used. When stabilizer is added at a rate of 0.2% to 0.8%, the CBR of the stabilized soil is lower than that of the parent soil. The soil reaches its maximum bearing capacity when the NSiO₂ content reaches 1%. It is likely that any additional addition will weaken the subgrade. Figure 13 shows how the relationship between penetration and load gradually increases as the figure advances. The soil becomes softer at this point because a 1.2% NSiO₂ dose compresses the soil’s properties and lowers the CBR value. One percent NSiO₂ is recommended for a successful subgrade, as indicated in Table 8. Thus, it is thought that a dose of 1% NSiO₂ is ideal. To increase the current subgrade material’s strength, stiffness, and bearing capacity, lime or cement can be added. The kind of soil and desired qualities determine which stabilizer is best.

Figure 13
Load Vs penetration of soil with NSiO₂.

Table 8
Results of UCS and UCC value.

Sl. No	Sample	NSiO2
		UCS (KN/m2)	UCC (KN/m2)
1	Soil	31.5	15.75
2	Soil + 0.2%	35.96	17.98
3	Soil + 0.4%	68.77	34.39
4	Soil + 0.6%	120.87	60.44
5	Soil + 0.8%	145.32	72.66
6	Soil + 1%	187.04	93.52
7	Soil + 1.2%	174.23	87.12

Understanding the link between soil penetration with NSiO₂ and load aids in determining bearing strength. The worst behavior of the soil occurs when 0.4% NSiO₂ is added to the sample. After a certain point (1%) it fails once more, although a further rise in additive enhances the bearing strength property. Because of their large surface area, nanomaterials bind to soil samples at low percentages; beyond that, they agglomerate, as this failure makes evident.

6. CONCLUSION

Experiment is carried out for different percentages (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2%) of NSiO₂ from that it is clearly known at 1% addition of nano material there is good performance in compressive strength and California bearing ratio. Further addition of nano materials decreases its performance. The atterbergs limit test shows gradual fall in plastic limit and gradual rise in shrinkage limit. By considering over all behaviour of soil towards NSiO₂ 1% is considered as optimum dosage beyond this limit cause agglomeration and became unfit for engineering application.Thus to avoid the negative impact of soil with NSiO₂ optimum dosage is preferred through out the project. The strength required for the subgrade to avoid failure is attained in optimum dose of NSiO₂.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

• ^[1] KUMAR, S., SINGH, S.K., “Subgrade soil stabilization using geosynthetics: a critical review”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2023. In press. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.04.266.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.04.266
• ^[2] MUNDA, J., PADHI, J., MOHANTY, S., “Investigation on performance of expansive soil stabilized with fly ash and nano-SiO₂”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 67, pp. 1268–1275, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.08.524.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.08.524
• ^[3] HARIANJA, T.S., AMALIA, D., MASE, L.Z., et al., “Comparative analysis of laboratory unsoaked CBR values between micromaterials and limestone nanomaterials in expansive soil stabilization”, Brazilian Journal of Development, v. 10, n. 4, e68636, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv10n4-010.
  » https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv10n4-010
• ^[4] SHINDE, B., SANGALE, A., PRANITA, M., et al., “Utilization of waste materials for soil stabilization: a comprehensive review”, Progress in Engineering Science, v. 1, n. 2–3, pp. 100009, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pes.2024.100009.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pes.2024.100009
• ^[5] ANBURUVEL, A., “The engineering behind soil stabilization with additives: a state-of-the-art review”, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, v. 42, n. 1, pp. 1–42, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-023-02554-x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-023-02554-x
• ^[6] AFRIN, H., “A review on different types soil stabilization techniques”, International Journal of Transportation Engineering and Technology, v. 3, n. 2, pp. 19–24, 2017. doi: http://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijtet.20170302.12.
  » https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijtet.20170302.12
• ^[7] KHODABANDEH, M.A., NAGY, G., TÖRÖK, A., “Stabilization of collapsible soils with nanomaterials, fibers, polymers, industrial waste, and microbes: current trends”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 368, pp. 130463, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130463.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130463
• ^[8] NIROUMAND, H., BALACHOWSKI, L., PARVIZ, R., “Nano soil improvement technique using cement”, Scientific Reports, v. 13, n. 1, pp. 10724, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-37918-z. PubMed PMID: 37400546.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-37918-z.
• ^[9] ARABANI, M., RAHIMABADI, M.M., SHALCHIAN, M.M., “Combined effects of barley fibers and nanoclay on clayey soil stabilization”, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, v. 42, n. 8, pp. 7553–7576, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-024-02939-6.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-024-02939-6
• ^[10] TOUFIGH, V., BAGHBAN SHOKATABAD, R., SHEIKHHOSSEINI LORI, I., et al., “Mechanical behavior’s enhancement of sandy soil by a natural pozzolan-based geopolymer and nanomaterial”, Indian Geotech Journal, v. 53, n. 2, pp. 394–408, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-022-00678-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-022-00678-0
• ^[11] DÍAZ-LÓPEZ, J.L., CABRERA, M., AGRELA, F., et al., “Geotechnical and engineering properties of expansive clayey soil stabilized with biomass ash and nanomaterials for its application in structural road layers”, Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment, v. 36, pp. 100496, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gete.2023.100496.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gete.2023.100496
• ^[12] KASSA, A., SEKINE, R., DORJI, T., et al., “Insights into water absorption characteristics of various waste-based inorganic additives and their application for soil stabilization”, Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 446, pp. 141470, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141470.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141470
• ^[13] XIE, J., ZHANG, J., CAO, Z., et al., “Feasibility of using building-related construction and demolition waste-derived geopolymer for subgrade soil stabilization”, Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 450, pp. 142001, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142001.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142001
• ^[14] KARKUSH, M.O., ALMURSHEDI, A.D., KARIM, H.H., “Investigation of the impacts of nanomaterials on the micromechanical properties of gypseous soils”, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, v. 48, n. 1, pp. 665–675, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-022-07058-z.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-022-07058-z
• ^[15] ADNAN, M., KUMAR, S., GARG, N., et al., “Soil stabilization using waste ‘Bagasse ash and lime’: a review”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2023. In press. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.05.018.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.05.018
• ^[16] SURESH, K., AFSAL, A., ARSHA FATHIMA, A.R., et al., “Wood ash as a stabilizer for pavement subgrade”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2023. In press. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.03.705.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.03.705
• ^[17] KULANTHAIVEL, P., SOUNDARA, B., VELMURUGAN, S., et al., “Experimental investigation on stabilization of clay soil using nano-materials and white cement”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 45, n. part 2, pp. 507–511, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.107.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.107
• ^[18] EYO, E.U., Ng’ambi, S., ABBEY, S.J., “Incorporation of a nanotechnology-based additive in cementitious products for clay stabilisation”, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, v. 12, n. 5, pp. 1056–1069, 2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.12.018.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.12.018
• ^[19] SELVAKUMAR, S., KULANTHAIVEL, P., SOUNDARA, B., “Influence of nano-silica and sodium silicate on the strength characteristics of clay soil”, Nanotechnology for Environmental Engineering, v. 6, n. 46, pp. 46, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s41204-021-00142-z.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s41204-021-00142-z
• ^[20] AZIZ, M., HAMZA, M., RASOOL, A.M., et al., “Use of graphene oxide nanomaterial to improve mechanical properties of cement-treated silty soil”, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, v. 48, n. 4, pp. 5603–5618, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-022-07530-w.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-022-07530-w
• ^[21] BAHMANI, S.H., HUAT, B.B.K., ASADI, A., et al., “Stabilization of residual soil using SiO₂ nanoparticles and cement”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 64, pp. 350–359, 2014. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.086.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.086
• ^[22] LIU, C., ZHANG, Q., ZHAO, C., et al., “Assessment of strength development of soil stabilized with cement and nano SiO₂”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 409, pp. 133889, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133889.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133889
• ^[23] GHAVAMI, S., NASERI, H., JAHANBAKHSH, H., et al., “The impacts of nano-SiO₂ and silica fume on cement kiln dust treated soil as a sustainable cement-free stabilizer”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 285, pp. 122918, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122918.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122918
• ^[24] KULANTHAIVEL, P., SOUNDARA, B., VELMURUGAN, S., et al., “Experimental investigation on stabilization of clay soil using nano-materials and white cement”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 45, n. part 2, pp. 507–511, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.107.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.107
• ^[25] RAJPUT, V.D., MINKINA, T., UPADHYAY, S.K., et al., “Nanotechnology in the restoration of polluted soil”, Nanomaterials, v. 12, n. 5, pp. 769, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/nano12050769. PubMed PMID: 35269257.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12050769.
• ^[26] SALIMI, M., PAYAN, M., HOSSEINPOUR, I., et al., “Impact of clay nano-material and glass fiber on the efficacy of traditional soil stabilization technique”, Materials Letters, v. 360, pp. 136046, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2024.136046.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2024.136046
• ^[27] SANNIYAH, S.S., SIHOMBING, A.V.R., MASE, L.Z., et al., “Experimental evaluation of nanomaterial and biopolymer additives on expansive subgrade soil for pavement applications”, Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology, v. 11, n. 6, pp. 3753–3782, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-024-00449-9.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-024-00449-9
• ^[28] AHMADI, H., SHAFIEE, O., “Experimental comparative study on the performance of nano-SiO₂ and microsilica in stabilization of clay”, The European Physical Journal Plus, v. 134, pp. 459, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2019-12918-1.
  » https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2019-12918-1
• ^[29] LIN, D.F., LUO, H.L., HSIAO, D.H., et al., “Enhancing soft subgrade soil with a sewage sludge ash/cement mixture and nano-silicon dioxide”, Environmental Earth Sciences, v. 75, pp. 619, 2016. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5432-9.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5432-9
• ^[30] ONYELOWE, K.C., “Nanosized palm bunch ash (NPBA) stabilization of lateritic soil for construction purposes”, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, v. 13, n. 1, pp. 83–91, 2017. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1322797.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1322797
• ^[31] ABISHA, M.R., PRAKASH ARUL JOSE, J., “Experimental investigation on soil stabilization technique by adding nano–aluminium oxide additive in clay soil”, Matéria, v. 28, n. 1, e20220272, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2022-0272.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2022-0272
• ^[32] ABISHA, M.R., PRAKASH ARUL JOSE, J., “Effect of nanoclay and nano rice bran powder in clay soil”, Journal of Ceramic Processing Research, v. 24, n. 2, pp. 242–249, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.36410/jcpr.2023.24.2.242.
  » https://doi.org/10.36410/jcpr.2023.24.2.242
• ^[33] JOSE, P.A., PROY, N., “Studies on cement – based soil stabilizer properties using nano SiO₂ with bentonite clay”, Matéria, v. 29, n. 4, e20240539, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0539.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0539

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  19 May 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  30 Nov 2024
• Accepted
  05 Feb 2025