Waste Utilization in Geotechnical Practice E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 442

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

The book provides a comprehensive overview of how the innovative use of waste materials not only addresses environmental challenges but also provides sustainable, cost-effective solutions for construction, making it an essential resource for professionals in the field.

Waste pollutes ground resources and sub-surface water if disposed of without proper treatment, which requires large areas. This waste can be utilized as a sustainable alternative to conventional construction materials. Environmental scientists and geotechnical engineers are increasingly challenged to solve environmental problems related to waste disposal facilities and the cleanup of contaminated sites. This book explores how various types of waste materials can be effectively used in geotechnical construction projects related to soil and foundation.

The volume covers properties of different waste materials, methods for testing and characterizing them, potential environmental impacts of using waste materials in geotechnical projects, and the design considerations and techniques for incorporating those waste materials into geotechnical structures. The economic and regulatory aspects of waste utilization in geotechnical practice, including the potential cost savings and the protocols governing the use of waste materials in construction projects, are discussed. The book serves as an informative and practical guide to land-based waste disposal and its potential applications in soil improvement.

Audience

Researchers, civil engineers, students and policymakers working in geotechnical engineering, civil engineering, environmental science, and waste management.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Table of Contents

Series Page

Title Page

Copyright Page

Preface

1 Interaction of Landfill Leachate with Olivine-Treated BCS: Suitability for Bottom Liner Application

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Materials and Methodology

1.3 Results and Discussion

1.4 Conclusion

References

2 Strength and Microstructural Characterization of Industrial Waste Amended Dispersive Soil

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Materials and Methodology

2.3 Results and Discussion

2.4 Conclusion

References

3 Effect of Geotechnical-Properties of Soil by Varying the Proportions of Plastic Waste and Ceramic Tile Waste

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Background of the Study

3.3 Material

3.4 Methodology

3.5 Geotechnical Investigation

3.6 Results and Discussion

3.7 Conclusion

References

4 Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Bentonite on the Cyclic Resistance of Pond Ash

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Materials and Methodology

4.3 Experimental Outcomes and Discussion

4.4 Conclusions

References

5 Utilization of Pond Ash for Problematic Soil Remediation

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Materials and Experimental Methods

5.3 Results and Discussion

5.4 Conclusions

References

6 Utilization of Steel Slag in the Construction of Granular Sub-Base Layer

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Materials and Methodology

6.3 Results and Discussion

6.4 Conclusion

References

7 Multi Stabilizers Optimization for Expansive Soil Treatment Using Taguchi Approach

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Materials

7.3 Methodology

7.4 Results and Discussion

7.5 Conclusion

References

8 Comparative Study on Strength and Compaction Characteristics of Sand and Waste Materials Blended Expansive Soil

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Material and Methodology

8.3 Results and Discussion

8.4 Conclusion

References

9 Investigation of the Strength Parameters for Red Soil with Coir and Pet Fiber Reinforcement

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Background of the Study

9.3 Materials

9.4 Methodology

9.5 Experimental Program

9.6 Results and Discussion

9.7 Conclusion

References

10 Study on Geotechnical Properties of Red Soil by Stabilizing with LDPE Plastic

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Materials and Methodology

10.3 Results and Discussions

10.4 Conclusions

References

11 Effect of Marble Dust on the Properties of Black Cotton Soil

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Methodology

11.3 Result and Discussion

11.4 Conclusion

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 1

Table 1.1 Physical characteristics of BCS.

Table 1.2 Chemical properties BCS.

Table 1.3 Chemical characteristics of olivine.

Table 1.4 Physical characteristics of olivine.

Table 1.5 Chemical properties of leachate.

Table 1.6 Physical properties of leachate.

Table 1.7 Environmental quality of leachate.

Table 1.8 Codes recommended for various laboratory test.

Table 1.9 Plasticity index.

Table 1.10 Consistency limits of varying olivine percentages.

Table 1.11 Standard proctor test result of BCS with 10% olivine mix.

Table 1.12 Standard proctor test result of BCS with 20% olivine mix.

Table 1.13 Standard proctor test result of BCS with 30% olivine mix.

Table 1.14 Standard proctor test result of BCS with 35% olivine mix.

Table 1.15 Standard proctor test result of BCS with 40% olivine mix.

Table 1.16 Modified proctor test result of BCS with 10% olivine mix.

Table 1.17 Modified proctor test result of BCS with 20% olivine mix.

Table 1.18 Modified proctor test result of BCS with 30% olivine mix.

Table 1.19 Modified proctor test result of BCS with 35% olivine mix.

Table 1.20 Modified proctor test result of BCS with 40% olivine mix.

Table 1.21 UCS value according to varying olivine (%) with BCS.

Table 1.22 Coefficient of permeability with varying olivine (%) with BCS.

Chapter 2

Table 2.1 Percentage of dispersion from DHT (Volk 1938).

Table 2.2 Index and engineering characteristics of soil and industrial by-prod...

Table 2.3 Concentration of metals in leachate specimens of fly ash and GGBS.

Table 2.4 Mixture proportion of stabilized soil specimens.

Chapter 3

Table 3.1 Index properties of virgin earth.

Table 3.2 OMC and MDD of stabilized earth with ceramic tile dust.

Table 3.3 OMC and MDD of stabilized earth with optimum tile dust mixed with pl...

Table 3.4 CBR (unsoaked) results of tile dust stabilized earth.

Table 3.5 CBR (unsoaked) results of earth stabilized with tile dust and LDPE.

Table 3.6 CBR (soaked) results of tile dust stabilized earth.

Table 3.7 CBR (soaked) results of earth stabilized with tile dust and LDPE.

Table 3.8 UCS results of tile dust stabilized earth.

Table 3.9 UCS results of earth stabilized with tile dust and LDPE.

Table 3.10 Direct shear test results of tile dust stabilized earth.

Table 3.11 Direct shear test results of tile dust stabilized soil stabilized w...

Chapter 4

Table 4.1 Cohesion alteration with the bentonite percentages.

Chapter 5

Table 5.1 Sample designation for clay-pond ash mixes.

Table 5.2 Geotechnical properties of raw materials.

Table 5.3 Chemical composition of raw materials.

Chapter 6

Table 6.1 Soil properties.

Table 6.2 Chemical properties of dolochar.

Table 6.3 Physical properties of dolochar.

Table 6.4 Chemical properties of steel slag.

Table 6.5 Physical properties of steel slag.

Table 6.6 Physical properties of jute fiber.

Table 6.7 Chemical properties of Jute fiber.

Table 6.8 Properties of woven polypropylene geotextile.

Table 6.9 Los Angeles abrasion test of steel slag.

Table 6.10 Constant head permeability test of iron slag using jute.

Table 6.11 Constant head permeability test of iron slag using geotextile.

Table 6.12 Constant head permeability test of iron slag using both jute and ge...

Chapter 7

Table 7.1 Geotechnical characteristics of soil.

Table 7.2 Chemical components of silica fumes.

Table 7.3 Chemical parameters of GGBS (provided by Toshali Cement Pvt. ltd.).

Table 7.4 Parameter level.

Table 7.5 Taguchi design experiments.

Table 7.6 Orthogonal array layout coded and actual value of parameters.

Table 7.7 Experimental data of UCS, CBR, and DFS.

Table 7.8 Grey relation generation and quality loss for the responses.

Table 7.9 Deviation sequence, grey relational coefficients for the response.

Table 7.10 Efficiency for the response.

Table 7.11 Efficiency for the level parameter.

Table 7.12 Confirmatory test result.

Chapter 8

Table 8.1 Index and engineering properties of expansive soil.

Table 8.2 Physical characteristics of sand.

Table 8.3 Properties of fly ash.

Table 8.4 List of Chemical components of fly ash.

Table 8.5 Details of tile waste properties.

Table 8.6 Parametric variation.

Table 8.7 Development of composite material.

Chapter 9

Table 9.1 List of experiments conducted.

Table 9.2 Index and geotechnical properties of the soil sample.

Table 9.3 Illustration of MDD and OMC of stabilized soil sample.

Table 9.4 C and ɸ values for various admixtures at different percentage.

Table 9.5 Maximum values for various admixtures at different percentage.

Chapter 10

Table 10.1 Plastic waste consumption (

ICPE, 2007

).

Table 10.2 Typical thermoplastic and thermosetting, (IRC: SP:98-2013).

Table 10.3 Waste plastic and its source, (IRC: SP:98-2013).

Table 10.4 List of waste fibers used in soil stabilization.

Table 10.5 Index properties of virgin soil.

Table 10.6 Properties of LDPE plastic used.

Table 10.7 Detailed calculation of LDPE plastic strips.

Table 10.8 Comparison of properties of virgin soil and stabilized soil.

Chapter 11

Table 11.1 Virgin soil properties.

Table 11.2 Grain size analysis.

Table 11.3 Specific gravity.

Table 11.4 Liquid limits.

Table 11.5 Plastic limit.

Table 11.6 Shrinkage limit test.

Table 11.7 Standard proctor compaction test for 100% expansive soil.

Table 11.8 Standard proctor compaction test for varying percentage of marble d...

Table 11.9 Unsoaked CBR test for 100% expansive soil.

Table 11.10 Unsoaked CBR test for varying percentage of marble dust.

Table 11.11 Soaked CBR test for 100% expansive soil.

Table 11.12 Soaked CBR test for varying percentage of marble dust.

Table 11.13 Consolidation of 100% expansive soil.

Table 11.14 Consolidation test for varying percentage of marble dust.

Table 11.15 Permeability test for varying percentage of marble dust.

List of Illustrations

Chapter 1

Figure 1.1 The appearance of materials (a) BCS (b) Olivine and (c) Leachate.

Figure 1.2 Grain size distribution of BCS.

Figure 1.3 Distribution curve for grain size of olivine treated BCS.

Figure 1.4 BCS consistency limit with different olivine (%).

Figure 1.5 Dry density variation utilizing olivine-treated BCS for standard pr...

Figure 1.6 Modified proctor test for monitoring dry density change with olivin...

Figure 1.7 The behavior of treated BCS under stress and strain with different ...

Figure 1.8 Change of UCS value of BCS with varying olivine (%).

Figure 1.9 Variation of hydraulic conductivity of BCS with varying olivine (%)...

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1 Equipment used for determination DHT in laboratory.

Figure 2.2 Curves obtained from double hydrometer test.

Figure 2.3 Crumb test results of dispersive soil.

Figure 2.4 Cylindrical dispersion test of dispersive soil.

Figure 2.5 Result of XRD patterns for the dispersive soil.

Figure 2.6 SEM images of the dispersive soil.

Figure 2.7 XRD patterns of the fly ash.

Figure 2.8 SEM micrograph of the fly ash.

Figure 2.9 SEM micrograph of the cement clinker.

Figure 2.10 Results of XRD patterns forcemeat clinker.

Figure 2.11 Results of XRD patterns for GGBS.

Figure 2.12 SEM micrograph of the GGBS.

Figure 2.13 Particle size analysis curve of raw materials.

Figure 2.14 Variation of MDD with additive content.

Figure 2.15 OMC variation with additive content.

Figure 2.16 Compaction curves of various mix proportion.

Figure 2.17 Variation in UCS for soil-FA mix with curing periods.

Figure 2.18 Variation in UCS for soil-GGBS mix with curing periods.

Figure 2.19 Variation in UCS for soil-CC mix with curing periods.

Figure 2.20 UCS variation with different mix proportions and curing periods.

Figure 2.21 CBR value versus mix proportion.

Figure 2.22 CBR value in a soaked condition versus mix proportion.

Figure 2.23 XRD analysis of SS8515, S2M10 at 7 days curing (1 – Quartz (Q); 2 ...

Figure 2.24 XRD analysis of SF8020, SC7030 and S7M12 at 7 days curing (1 – Q; ...

Figure 2.25 XRD analysis of S3M10, S4M10, S5M10 and S6M10 at 7 days curing (1 ...

Figure 2.26 XRD analysis of SS8515 and S2M10 at 28 days curing (1 – Q; 2 – C; ...

Figure 2.27 XRD analysis of SC7030, SF8020 and S7M12 at 28 days curing (1 – Q;...

Figure 2.28 XRD analysis of S3M10, S4M10, S5M10 and S6M10 at 28 days curing (1...

Figure 2.29 XRD analysis of SS8515 and S2M10 at 90 days curing (1 – Q; 2 – C; ...

Figure 2.30 XRD analysis of SC7030, SF8020 and S7M12 at 90 days curing (1 – Q;...

Figure 2.31 XRD analysis of S3M10, S4M10, S5M10 and S6M10 at 90 days curing (1...

Figure 2.32 SEM images of stabilized soil at 7 days curing.

Figure 2.33 SEM images of stabilized soil at 28 days curing.

Figure 2.34 SEM images of stabilized soil at 90 days curing.

Chapter 3

Figure 3.1 Red earth (a) at the site, and (b) earth sample.

Figure 3.2 LDPE plastic (a) in pouch form, and (b) in strip form.

Figure 3.3 Ceramic tile (a) waste pieces, and (b) waste dust.

Figure 3.4 Flowchart of methodology.

Figure 3.5 Content of ceramic waste dust V/S (a) MDD, and (b) OMC.

Figure 3.6 Ceramic tile dust (25%) mixed with different percentages of plastic...

Figure 3.7 Ceramic tile dust stabilized earth V/S CBR value (un-soaked).

Figure 3.8 Plastic content and 25% tile dust stabilized soil V/S CBR value (un...

Figure 3.9 Ceramic tile dust stabilized earth V/S CBR value (soaked).

Figure 3.10 Plastic content and 25% tile dust stabilized soil V/S CBR value (s...

Figure 3.11 Ceramic tile dust content V/S UCS value.

Figure 3.12 Plastic content and 25% tile dust stabilized earth V/S UCS value.

Figure 3.13 Ceramic tile dust content V/S (a) angle of internal friction (Ø), ...

Figure 3.14 Plastic content and 25% tile dust stabilized soil V/S (a) angle of...

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 Variation of Atterberg limits of PA+B mixes with increase in benton...

Figure 4.2 Variation of DFS and LSI of PA+B mixes with increase in bentonite c...

Figure 4.3 Variation of MDD and OMC of PA+B mixes with increase in bentonite c...

Figure 4.4 Variation of UCS of PA+B mixes with increase in bentonite content f...

Figure 4.5 Variation of UCS of PA+B mixes with increase in bentonite content f...

Figure 4.6 Variation of hydraulic conductivity of PA+B mixes with bentonite co...

Figure 4.7 Variation of internal friction angle (

ɸ

) and cohesion (

c

) of...

Figure 4.8 Excess pore pressure ratio variation with bentonite content.

Figure 4.9 Excess pore pressure ratio variation with bentonite content.

Figure 4.10 Excess pore pressure ratio variation with bentonite content.

Figure 4.11 Number of cycles needed to initiate liquefaction with variation of...

Figure 4.12 Variation of 2.5% cyclic shear stress with number of cycles.

Figure 4.13 Changes in 2.5% cyclic stress ratio with cycles.

Figure 4.14 Changes in 5% cyclic shear stress with cycles.

Figure 4.15 Changes in 5% shear stress ratio with cycles.

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1 Scanning electron microscopic image of raw materials.

Figure 5.2 Variation in plastic properties of (a) low, (b) intermediate and (c...

Figure 5.3 Variation in (a) free swell value and (b) linear shrinkage value wi...

Figure 5.4 Compaction parameters for (a) low, (b) intermediate and (c) high pl...

Figure 5.5 Variation in UCS value with pond ash content for different plastic ...

Figure 5.6 Variation in CBR of (a) low, (b) intermediate and (c) high plastic ...

Figure 5.7 Hydraulic conductivity of clay-pond ash mixes.

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1 Grain size distribution curve for soil.

Figure 6.2 Liquid limit flow curve.

Figure 6.3 Compaction curve for soil.

Figure 6.4 Load-penetration curve of soil for (a) Unsoaked and (b) Soaked cond...

Figure 6.5 Load-penetration curve of slag for (a) Unsoaked and (b) Soaked cond...

Figure 6.6 Unsoaked CBR test graph for penetration vs load intensity (a) 10% s...

Figure 6.7 Soaked CBR test graph for penetration vs load intensity (a) 10% sla...

Figure 6.8 Soaked vs unsoaked CBR comparison.

Figure 6.9 Comparison of (a) Unsoaked and (b) Soaked CBR values (Plunger penet...

Figure 6.10 Constant head permeability variation with fiber at different layer...

Chapter 7

Figure 7.1 Soil sample.

Figure 7.2 Silica fumes material.

Figure 7.3 Saw dust material.

Figure 7.4 GGBS material.

Figure 7.5 Particle size vs. percentage finer graph.

Figure 7.6 Graph of water content vs. no. of blows.

Figure 7.7 Dry density versus water content curve.

Figure 7.8 Load vs penetration graph.

Figure 7.9 UCS test graph.

Figure 7.10 Parameters effect on efficiency of SF.

Figure 7.11 Parameters effect on efficiency of SD.

Figure 7.12 Parameters effect on efficiency of GGBS.

Chapter 8

Figure 8.1 Materials used: (a) Expansive soil (b) Sand.

Figure 8.2 Particle size distribution curve of different raw materials.

Figure 8.3 (a) SEM of fly ash (b) SEM of fly ash showing hollow structure.

Figure 8.4 EDS of fly ash sample.

Figure 8.5 Flowchart of methodology.

Figure 8.6 Compaction curve of different samples of clay–sand mix.

Figure 8.7 MDD of different samples of clay-sand mix.

Figure 8.8 OMC of different samples of clay-sand mix.

Figure 8.9 Compaction curve of different samples of clay, sand and fly ash mix...

Figure 8.10 Variation of MDD in the clay and sand mixture with varying fly ash...

Figure 8.11 Variation of OMC in the clay and sand mixture with varying fly ash...

Figure 8.12 Compaction characteristics of tile waste incorporated fly ash trea...

Figure 8.13 MDD of different samples of tile waste incorporated fly ash treate...

Figure 8.14 OMC of different samples of tile waste incorporated fly ash treate...

Figure 8.15 Comparison of soaked CBR of different sample mix.

Figure 8.16 Comparison of unsoaked CBR of different sample mix.

Figure 8.17 CBR for various optimum soil mixes (unsoaked and soaked).

Chapter 9

Figure 9.1 (a) Red soil sample at site and laboratory. (b) Coconut husk to coi...

Figure 9.2 (a) OMC and dry density with varying content of coir fibers. (b) OM...

Figure 9.3 Relation between MDD and OMC of virgin soil stabilized with coir fi...

Figure 9.4 Relation between OMC and MDD of soil stabilized with coir fibers (0...

Figure 9.5 Relation between angle of internal friction (ɸ) and cohesion (c) fo...

Figure 9.6 Relation between cohesion and ɸ for various percentages of PET and ...

Figure 9.7 Relation among normal and shear stress of coir fiber reinforced soi...

Figure 9.8 Relation among normal stress and shear stress of reinforced soil wi...

Figure 9.9 Load-Penetration relationship of soil stabilized with various (%) o...

Figure 9.10 Load-Penetration relationship of soil stabilized with various (%) ...

Figure 9.11 Load-Penetration relationship of soil stabilized with various perc...

Figure 9.12 Load-Penetration relationship of soil stabilized with different pe...

Chapter 10

Figure 10.1 Soil sample collected from a depth of 2mt.

Figure 10.2 Sieve analysis curve of virgin soil.

Figure 10.3 LDPE plastic & size of plastic strips.

Figure 10.4 Cutting and placing of LDPE plastic strips.

Figure 10.5 CBR test of soil sample.

Figure 10.6 Flow chart of detailed experimental program.

Figure 10.7 Comparison of compaction curve with different LDPE contents.

Figure 10.8 Comparison of unsoaked CBR with different LDPE contents.

Figure 10.9 Comparison of soaked CBR with different LDPE contents.

Chapter 11

Figure 11.1 Grain size analysis.

Figure 11.2 Comparison graph for various liquid limit of expansive soil with v...

Figure 11.3 Comparison graph for various compaction characteristics of expansi...

Figure 11.4 Variation in unsoaked CBR for Expansive soil with varying percenta...

Figure 11.5 Variation in soaked CBR for Expansive soil with varying percentage...

Figure 11.6 Graph of

e

vs log P

o

ˈ with varying percentages of marble dust.

Guide

Cover Page

Table of Contents

Series Page

Title Page

Copyright Page

Preface

Begin Reading

Index

Wiley End User License Agreement

Pages

ii

iii

iv

xv

xvi

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

Scrivener Publishing 100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J Beverly, MA 01915-6106

Publishers at Scrivener Martin Scrivener ([email protected]) Phillip Carmical ([email protected])

Waste Utilization in Geotechnical Practice

Edited by

Sandeep Samantaray

Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Subhashree Samantasinghar

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Odisha University of Technology and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

Soumendra K. Mohanty

SM Consultants, Bhubaneswar, India

Vivek

Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Srinagar, India

Abinash Sahoo

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Odisha University of Technology and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

and

Deba Prakash Satapathy

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Odisha University of Technology and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

This edition first published 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA and Scrivener Publishing LLC, 100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J, Beverly, MA 01915, USA © 2025 Scrivener Publishing LLC For more information about Scrivener publications please visit www.scrivenerpublishing.com.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Wiley Global Headquarters 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchant-ability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials, or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 9781394242184

Front cover images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons Cover design by Russell Richardson

Preface

The book explores how various waste materials can be effectively utilized in geotechnical construction projects related to soil and foundation improvement, presenting innovative research ideas along the way. Geotechnical engineering involves studying the behavior of earth materials—including soil, rock, and groundwater—and designing structures and systems that interact with them. In this context, waste materials such as construction and demolition debris, industrial byproducts, municipal solid waste, and other normally discarded materials are examined for their potential in applications like soil stabilization, land reclamation, and erosion control.

The book covers topics including the properties of various waste materials, methods for testing and characterizing them, potential environmental impacts, and the design considerations and techniques required to incorporate these materials into geotechnical structures. Additionally, it discusses the economic and regulatory aspects of waste utilization in geotechnical practice, highlighting cost-saving potentials and the protocols governing waste use in construction projects.

Geotechnical engineering is a vital field within civil engineering. The addition of various materials can enhance soil strength and durability, and using waste materials offers significant environmental and economic advantages. However, the large quantities of waste generated often lead to storage challenges. Waste Utilization in Geotechnical Practice serves as an informative and practical guide to land-based waste disposal and its potential applications in soil improvement.

This book offers technical guidance on ground improvement technologies that transform marginal soils into substrates capable of supporting all types of structures. Soil improvement involves altering one or more soil properties to enhance its engineering performance and is necessary when existing conditions are inadequate. Although poor soils might be managed by excavation and replacement or by employing deep foundations, it is often more cost-effective to improve the soil in situ through various treatments. With rapid urbanization and industrial growth, addressing poor soil conditions is critical to achieving durable structures at a competitive cost.

An essential guide for both novice and practicing engineers, this reference covers projects involving soil stabilization and admixtures. It examines the utilization of industrial waste and by-products, commercially available admixtures, conventional soil improvement techniques, and state-of-the-art testing methods. The book highlights studies on the potential use of waste materials in geotechnical ground improvement, identifies key elements of various waste utilization methods, and explains their role in enhancing engineering performance. It serves as a valuable resource for researchers in related fields.

The book will appeal to a broad readership, including professionals in geotechnical engineering, environmental scientists, waste management experts, and students in these fields. Finally, we extend our gratitude to Martin Scrivener and the team at Scrivener Publishing for their invaluable editorial support throughout the publication process.

The Editors

1Interaction of Landfill Leachate with Olivine-Treated BCS: Suitability for Bottom Liner Application

Deepak Kumar Padhi1, Udit Narayan Bhoi1, Biswajit Majhi2* and Siprarani Pradhan2

1M.Tech, Odisha University of Technology and Research, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

2Odisha University of Technology and Research, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Abstract

Leachate is defined as any contaminated liquid that is generated from water percolating through a solid waste disposal site, accumulating contaminants, and moving into subsurface areas. Landfill leachate is characterized by high organic and inorganic pollutant concentrations and is extremely toxic to the environment. Due to its high toxicity, landfill leachate is a major threat for surface water as well as ground water. Nowadays, due to the rapid growth of population and industries, disposal of solid or industrial waste is a major issue. In landfills, leachate is a liquid that enters the landfill from external sources such as rainfall, surface drainage, etc. The leachate infiltrates through the pores of the soil from surface to ground water and makes the water contaminated. Therefore, to prevent this scenario from occurring, it is necessary to modify subsurface soils as barrier materials in waste containment facilities in order to confine municipal and hazardous waste materials from the surrounding environments as well as to stop landfill leachate from seeping into the nearby hydro-geological system. In this present work, the potential of olivine-treated black cotton soil (BCS) as a bottom liner material in landfills is examined. The BCS is treated with varying olivine percentage of 10%, 20%, 30%, 35% and 40% of the soil mass. Some laboratory tests namely: Index properties, standard proctor test, Modified proctor test, unconfined compressive strength and hydraulic conductive are conducted to evaluate the geotechnical properties of BCS treated with olivine. The findings show that olivine having 35% of soil mass used for treatment of BCS give the maximum desirable results.

Keywords: Landfill, liner material, BCS, olivine geotechnical tests

1.1 Introduction

A significant soil type in India is a dark, grey color BCS (BCS). When wet, it experiences high swelling, and when dried, it experiences high shrinkage. As a result, this soil grows and becomes slick throughout the wet season and shrinks throughout the dry time of the year, resulting in serious soil fractures. The BCS contains a lot of clay. Chemically, BCSs consist of lime, iron, magnesium, alumina, and potash; however, they are free of nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic matter. It expands in volume by 20% to 30% of the original volume when pressure is applied. It is quite challenging to maintain the soil because of its swell and drying characteristics [1–4]. Any construction should undergo high stabilization because of its unique properties. BCS is a sedimentary type of soil that is present in its original location; it does not spread from that location. BCS is a result of the particular rock’s wear and tear. Black soil can only occur under mild climatic conditions and with igneous or basalt rock as the parent rock. Then, as a result of the igneous rock weathering or breaking and the lava cooling and solidifying, black soil is created. It is also referred to as lava soil because it is made of lava.

Clayey soils are widely used in waste containment facilities as barrier materials to stop the seepage of landfill leachate into the nearby geological and hydrological system as well as to keep hazardous and municipal waste products out of the environment. A barrier material must have low hydraulic conductivity, sufficient strength, and high compatibility with the percolating leachate to be effective. Clayey soils typically exhibit low permeability, but they can be impacted by temperature and moisture content changes, which can cause contraction and the subsequent development of fractures [5–8]. Due to varying settlements or loads that the liner material experiences, tensile cracks may also develop. Desiccation, differential settlements, swell-shrink, or pressures can all lead to the development of cracks, which can drastically alter the clay liners’ strength and increase leachate penetration via the liner structure. Based on these limitations, researchers and engineers are looking into practical methods to enhance the technical potential of naturally clayey soils that have strong features that expand and contract before being used as lining materials.

As a result, it is now widely accepted in the building of liner that natural clayey soils can be blended with various compounds to enhance their hydro-mechanical qualities, such as the byproducts, organic compounds, and synthetic substances and prevent/minimize cracking. Many studies [9–15] have looked into the usage of waste products and other byproducts to address the instability of soil liners. Several investigations have also enhanced the hydro-mechanical characteristics of soil liners through the application of various synthetic and natural materials.

To ensure that the barrier material performs as intended during field application, it is imperative to determine whether it is chemically compatible with the leachate or percolating fluid it will likely encounter. This is because the leachate’s interaction with the soil can change its hydro-mechanical characteristics. After a long period of leachate percolation, a substance is deemed suitable for the leachate if it retains structural reliability and minimal hydraulic conductivity. Therefore, utilizing tap or distilled water to assess the engineering features of soil barriers is far from realistic of real-world field situations.

To reduce leachate migration in constructed landfills, [16] one has to investigate an optimization technique to assess the marine clay combined with CO2-carbonated olivine and its hydraulic conductivity. The results demonstrate that, in order to reduce leachate migration in landfills that are intended for that purpose, hydraulic conductivity of marine clay combined with CO2-carbonated olivine is measured using an optimization technique.

The response surface methodology, which was utilized to plan the trials and analyze the data, was implemented to optimize the factors that reduced the hydraulic conductivity of the clay treated with CO2-carbonated olivine.

He [17] prepared a mixture of pond ash and a sample of BCS, mixing pond ash from various sources. To determine the strength of the mix specimen, for 7 and 28 days, he conditioned a specimen of black cotton blend. He found that when soil samples were treated with 25% class C fly ash (18.98 percent of CaO), swelling pressure dropped by 75% and 79%, respectively, after 7 and 28 days of curing. They [18] examined the impact of expansive soil on its hydraulic conductivity, plasticity, compaction, swelling pressure, FSI, and swell potential. Using fly ash values of 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20% on a dry weight basis, the FSI was reduced by about 50% by adding 20% Fly Ash to the ash-blended expansive soil. They concluded that the qualities of plasticity decrease as the fly ash content increases. Expanding soils coupled with fly ash have lower hydraulic conductivity as fly ash content rises because the maximum dry unit weight rises with fly ash level. Satyanarayana (2004) [19] investigated how adding lime and fly ash might affect expansive soil’s engineering characteristics. The researcher discovered that the ideal proportion combination of the elements for building roads and embankments was 70%, 26%, and 4%. He/She [20] used bentonite to create liners for water-retention and waste-containment systems, either on its own or after being altered with natural soils. The study demonstrates how the clay liner’s hydraulic conductivity is affected by the coarser fraction’s size. It is known that, in addition to clay concentration, the coarser fraction’s size affects the liner’s hydraulic conductivity at low bentonite values. The hydraulic conductivity rises with the size of the coarser fraction for a fixed percentage of clay. He [21] investigated the stabilization of expansive soils by 0–30% using fly ash from and desulpho gypsum. The mixture of expanding soil, desulpho gypsum, and fly ash had a variable quantity of lime added (0 to 8 percent). The samples were then allowed to cure for seven and twenty-eight days. It was found that as the percentage of stabilizer in the combination increased, swelling percentage decreased by roughly 23 percent and swell rate increased. With the 25% fly ash addition and 30% desulpho gypsum, the swelling percentage was further lowered throughout the curing phase. He [22] studied the effects of fly ash and rice husk ash on soil strengthening. He advised the use of 25% fly ash concentrations to reinforce the expansive subgrade soil and 15% to combine with RHA to create a layer that reduces swell. The byproduct of burning coal in thermal power plants is a sort of industrial waste known as fly ash. According to the test results, compaction and CBR characteristics have significantly improved. Furthermore, it has been discovered that flyash is a waste product ineffective for stabilizing expanding soil. They [23] studied the geotechnical characteristics of pond ash samples at the inflow and outflow points of two Indian ash pond sites. To determine the strength properties, samples of both compacted and loose pond ash were subjected to triaxial tests (consolidated drained, and consolidated undrained) with measurements of the pore water pressure under a range of confining pressures. In many ways, the behavior of the ash samples taken from the ash pond inflow point was comparable to that of sandy soils. Although their specific gravity and MDD were significantly lower than the sands, they outperformed Yamana sand in terms of strength. There were notable variations in the values of the ash samples taken from the ash pond area’s point of outflow. They [24] found that after doing multiple experiments on pond ash, the compaction energy changed from 357 to 3488 kJ/m3 and the OMC decreased from 38.82 to 28.09 percent. The compacted specimens exhibited a dry density ranging from 10.90 to 12.70 kN/m3. Additionally, it is found that decreasing the water content percentage of the OMC results in an increase in the unconfined compressive strength value for a sustained DOS of 13–14 percent before it declines for both standard and modified proctor densities because the ash particles lubricate the surface. The compaction energy and the unconfined compressive strength were found to be linearly correlated. Pond ash becomes more ductile when it is reinforced with fibers. He [25] looked at the crystal chemistry of olivine, as well as the use of particular trace elements as thermometers for garnet and spinel peridotites. They also attempted to infer the genesis of the cratonic lithosphere from olivine compositions. They discovered that the diamond inclusions had high levels of Cr. They [26] examined the Fe3+ replacement behavior using atomistic computer simulations and came to the conclusion that in the Si-O-Mg-Fe3+ system, bond substitution—in which ferrous iron replaces both Mg and Si is superior to vacancy substitution. They [27] investigated the use of olivine as a diagnostic tool for planetary settings because elements such as V, Cr, Fe, and Ti can occur in varying oxidation states, influencing its partitioning behavior. The partition coefficients across minerals and how they change with temperature and pressure have been the subject of the majority of research that describe trace elements in olivine, with a primary focus on spinel peridotites. The literature review show that more research has been required for the treatment of expansive soil like BCS to increase its strength and stability by adding different admixture and easily available earth mineral which is cost effective and has the ability to change soil behavior and prepare it for building purpose. To increase soil strength or use it as barrier material, various stabilizers are also used and mixed with BCS with proper proportion to make it suitable for liner material.

In this paper, the potential of olivine-treated BCS as a bottom layer material in landfills is investigated. BCS is treated with different percentages of olivine of 10%, 20%, 30%, 35%, and 40% of the soil mass. The geotechnical characteristics of olivine-treated BCS are assessed using a series of laboratory experiments, including index properties, hydraulic conductivity, unconfined compressive strength (UCS), and the standard and modified proctor tests.

1.2 Materials and Methodology

1.2.1 BCS

The texture of BCS is delicate. It is extremely malleable because of the high clay content. Compressing the earth is extremely easy. It frequently exhibits notable swelling and shrinkage. It expands in the presence of water, causing the soil layer to collapse. BCS is the second largest soil group in India. Lime, iron, and magnesium are present in significant concentrations, while phosphorus, nitrogen, and organic materials are generally present in trace amounts. The way the BCS appears is depicted in Figure 1.1(a). The grain size distribution of BCS is displayed in Figure 1.2. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 display the chemical and physical characteristics of BCS, respectively.

Figure 1.1 The appearance of materials (a) BCS (b) Olivine and (c) Leachate.

Figure 1.2 Grain size distribution of BCS.

Table 1.1 Physical characteristics of BCS.

Properties

Value

Liquid limit (%)

60.02

Plastic limit (%)

26.33

Plasticity index (%)

33.69

Specific gravity

2.66

Maximum dry density (gm/cm

3

)

1.36

Optimum water content (%)

31.00

Unconfined compressive strength (kPa)

191.5

Table 1.2 Chemical properties BCS.

Minerals

Value (%)

Al

2

O

3

10

Fe

2

O

3

10

CaO and MgCO

3

8

K

2

CO

3

< 0.5

Phosphate, Nitrogen, Humus

Low

1.2.2 Olivine

Olivine has high magnesium content. Before grinding was added, the olivine needed to have a large particle size in order to increase the reactivity with the BCS. With the chemical formula (Mg2+, Fe2+)2SiO4, olivine is a magnesium-iron silicate. It belongs to the non-silicate or orthosilicate category. Figure 1.1(b) depicts how olivine looks. The chemical and physical characteristics of olivine are shown in Tables 1.3 and 1.4, respectively.

Table 1.3 Chemical characteristics of olivine.

Minerals

Concentration (%)

SiO

2

43.64

Al

2

O

3

6.23

Fe

2

O

3

8.46

CaO

0.36

MgO

43.86

LOI

1.96

Table 1.4 Physical characteristics of olivine.

Properties

Value

D50 (mm)

0.026

Specific gravity

2.86

pH

9.23

Electrical conductivity (mS/cm)

0.17

Color

Light Green

1.2.3 Leachate

The leachate utilized in this investigation was collected from multiple places in the densely populated city of Bhubaneswar, where municipal solid waste (MSW) is collected. Assuming that the occupants of the trash create a highly varied composition, the leachate was created and transported directly to the laboratory for characterization. The operating temperature range for the refrigerator used to store the leachate was 7 to 10°C. The leachate was maintained in opaque plastic bottles. Figure 1.1 (c) shows the appearance of leachate. Table 1.5, Table 1.6 and Table 1.7 represents the chemical, physical properties and environmental quality of olivine respectively. The grain size distribution of BCS is illustrated in Figure 1.2.

Table 1.5 Chemical properties of leachate.

Parameters

Quantity (mg/L)

Cr

0.42

Cd

0.03

Ni

0.31

Cu

0.41

Pb

0.07

Fe

358

Zn

6.33

Mn

5.34

Table 1.6 Physical properties of leachate.

Parameters

Quantity

pH

3.48

Electrical conductivity (mS/cm)

13.03

Density (gm/ml)

1.26

TDS (mg/L)

9583

Hardness (mg/L)

1895

Table 1.7 Environmental quality of leachate.

Parameters

Quantity (mg/L)

BOD5

24068

CODCr

61253

BOD5/CODcr

0.36

TSS

12046

1.2.4 Sample Preparation

After being oven dried at 105°C for three days, BCS reaches a consistent weight. The dry BCS was ground up before the test. Prior to testing, the required amount of olivine dry soil mass was combined with crushed soil samples that had been through a 2 mm sieve in line with the experimental plan. The acquired olivine was first cleaned of unwanted contaminants by handpicking. Olivine was then separated based on particle size; batches weighing roughly 1.5 kg were sieved via a number of sieves. To create typical feed olivine samples, each weighing roughly 3000 g, the various masses that were gathered and ready for testing were divided.

1.2.5 Test Procedures

Important engineering characteristics of the soil were ascertained using a variety of laboratory tests that were approved and conducted on the chosen earth sample in accordance with the IS Codes, as shown in Table 1.8.

Table 1.8 Codes recommended for various laboratory test.

Sl. no.

Test

Referred IS code

1

Analysis of Grain Size Distribution

IS: 2720 (PART-4): 1985 [

28

]

2

Specific Gravity Test

IS: 2720 (PART-3): 1980 [

29

]

3

Liquid Limit Test

IS: 2720 (PART-5): 1985 [

30

]

4

Plastic Limit Test

IS: 2720 (PART-5): 1985 [

30

]

5

Standard Proctor Test

IS: 2720 (PART-7): 1980 [

31

]

6

Modified Proctor Test

IS: 2720 (PART-8): 1983 [

32

]

7

Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

IS: 2720 (PART-10): 1991 [

33

]

8

Hydraulic Conductivity

IS: 2720 (PART-17): 1986 [

34

]

1.2.5.1 Wet Sieving for Grain Size Distribution

Wet sieving was performed to determine the percentage of sand, silt, and clay; that is, the proportion of coarse to fine grains that remain on a 75-micron screen sieve after the sample has been washed. After being cleaned via a 75 mm sieve, the soil sample that remains is gathered in a container and oven dried for a whole day at a temperature between 105 and 110°C. The soil sample is taken and weighed on a weighing scale following oven drying. After utilizing a series of sieves placed from top to bottom for a sieve analysis, the material retained on each sieve is weighed. The following sieve sizes were utilized for weight sieving: 4.75mm, 2.0mm, 425 micron, and 75 micron.

1.2.5.2 Dry Sieving for Grain Size Distribution

The sieve analysis method is employed to ascertain the granular material’s grain size curve. In the sieve research, the grain size distribution is given as a percentage of the total dry weight. After going through a number of screens arranged from top to bottom, the material is weighed to assess its quality. A sieve analysis test, which determines the weight, particle size distribution, and amount of material suspended on each sieve as a percentage of the total weight, can be used to gradually reduce the size of the material. The test results may have an impact since they will represent the state and characteristics of the aggregate from which the sample was collected. Fine particles are absent from soil that passes through the 4.75mm IS sieve and is caught on the 75µ IS sieve. Take a sample of the undisturbed soil, either 1 kg or 1000 g. Apply mesh analysis as 4.75 mm-2.36 mm-1.18 mm–600 µ-300 µ-150 µ-75 µ-Pan. Ten minutes can be spent sieving by hand or with a motorized sieve. Determine how much material each sieve can hold. Based on the overall weight of the sample obtained, the percentage retained on each sieve is computed. The percentage that passes through each sieve is calculated using this result.

1.2.5.3 Liquid Limit Test

It is defined as the lowest water content at which shear resistance to flow is starting to appear and the soil is still liquid. The amount of water present determines the differential in soil moisture between the liquid and plastic states. It is measured by Cassa grand’s device, which has the WL designation. The water content, a soil sample placed in a standard 10 mm cup and grooved or separated using a standard tool will close after 25 blows over the typical procedure is known as the liquid limit.

1.2.5.4 Plastic Limit Test

It is the quantity of water required for the soil to roll into three-millimeter-diameter threads. For the soil to transition from its plastic condition to its semi-solid state, it must contain a certain amount of water. A soil has a higher shear strength at the plastic limit than at the liquid limit. A soil paste that can be formed into a ball between the palms of hands is created by adding some distilled water to a sample of soil that weighs about 30 g and passes through an IS sieve with a 425-micron mesh size. After that, a little portion of the ball is rolled onto a smooth surface to form a thread with a diameter of 3 mm, and the thread is checked for cracks.

1.2.5.5 Plasticity Index

The plasticity index is one of the key elements of the fine-grained soil index. The plastic and liquid limits—the other two characteristics—can be used to compute it. This is the distinction between a plastic limit and a liquid limit. This indicator represents the lowest water content at which the soil becomes plastic. The plasticity index table is displayed in Table 1.9.

Table 1.9 Plasticity index.

Plasticity index (%)

Soil type

Degree of plasticity

Degree of cohesiveness

0

Sand

Non-Plastic

Non-cohesive

<7

Silt

Low Plastic

Partly cohesive

7-17

Silt Clay

Medium Plastic

Cohesive

>17

Clay

High Plastic

Cohesive

(1.1)

(1.2)

1.2.5.6 Specific Gravity

It is the ratio of the weights of a given volume of soil solids and an equal volume of distilled water at 27 degrees Celsius, both weights obtained in air. Calculations of the porosity ratio, saturation level, different unit weights, etc. are made using the soil-specific gravity. The specific gravity of soil is calculated using a 50 ml/100 ml density bottle. We find the bottle, M1, it’s clean, dry substance. The bottle is filled with the required amount of the soil sample that has been oven dried. It is then chilled in a desiccator to determine the mass M2 of the soil-filled bottle. The soil within the bottle is then filled with distilled water, being careful to release all of the contained air. A bottle containing soil and water is found to have mass M3. After cleaning, the bottle’s contents are taken out, and it is then filled exclusively with distilled water. Once the exterior of the bottle has been thoroughly cleaned, the water-filled bulk of M4 is revealed. The following is the soil’s specific gravity:

(1.3)

1.2.5.7 Standard Proctor Test

The test employs the following instruments: (i) a collar with an effective height of 2", (ii) a ram weighing 2.5 kg with a drop height of 1', and (iii) a cylindrical metal mold with a removable base plate that has an internal diameter of 4", an internal height of 4.6", and an internal volume of 945 cm3. Compaction of the soil at different water contents and determination of the proper dry densities are the main steps in the procedure. At every water content, the base plate mold is filled with three layers, each of which is given 25 blows from a standard rammer. In the density graph per dry, the compaction curve shows the relationship between dry density and water content. This test also contributes to the improvement of the foundation’s bearing capacity, the structure’s shear strength, the management of undesired volume change, and the decrease of hydraulic conductivity.

1.2.5.8 Modified Proctor Test

The modified proctor test was created to offer a better compaction standard in response to the introduction of larger vehicles and the need for higher compaction. Due to its establishment by the American Association of State Highway Officials, the test is often referred to as the modified AASHO test. The test method is comparable to the standard proctor test, which makes use of a proctor mold with a capacity of 1/30 Cu. Ft., or 945 ml. However, a 4.54 kg rammer with an 18" (45.72 cm) drop height is used to compact the soil in five stages, giving each layer 25 hits. The optimal moisture content decreases when the compaction effort is increased, but the maximum dry matter density increases.

1.2.5.9 Unconfined Compression Test

When no lateral pressure or confining pressure is applied, the unconfined compression test can be thought of as a specific example of the triaxial compression test. The soil sample is cylinder-shaped, with a length that is around two to five times its diameter. Unconfined compression tests can be performed in the lab using equipment that compresses the specimen at a constant rate of strain while monitoring the axial deformation and corresponding axial compressive force. The maximum compressive stress a specimen can bear before failing is known as its unconfined compressive strength. qu denotes it, and the calculation is

(1.4)

Where F= axial compressive force at failure

Ac

The unconfined compression test is a quick test in which no drainage is allowed. The test is conducted on saturated clay and the volume change is assumed to be zero.

1.2.5.10 Hydraulic Conductivity

Permeability is a crucial consideration when choosing a waste containment liner or cover system since its performance is more closely related to it. In general, there is a connection between compaction and hydraulic conductivity (permeability). This might be accomplished by packing the material into the pores with fine material or compacting it to a higher dry unit weight. The coefficient of permeability value (k) of BCS is extremely low, measuring 0.000062 cm/s. This might be the case since more than 90% of the elements in BCS take the form of fine fraction (finer than 0.075mm). By filling up the pores, these tiny particles significantly reduce the hydraulic conductivity of BCS. The primary factor affecting permeability is the void ratio.

1.3 Results and Discussion

The effect of inclusion of various percentage of olivine in the geotechnical properties of BCS is examined. The different percentages of olivine inclusion in BCS are 10%, 20%, 30%, 35% and 40% of soil mass. The different geotechnical properties of treated BCS with olivine such as grain size distribution, consistency limit, dry density, UCS and hydraulic conductivity are investigated and explained.

1.3.1 Effect of Varying Olivine Percentages on Grain Size Distribution Curve on Olivine Treated BCS