Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering

Madhavi Latha GaliP. Raghuveer Rao   Editors

Problematic Soils and Geoenvironmental ConcernsProceedings of IGC 2018

Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering

Volume 88

Series Editors

Marco di Prisco, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy

Sheng-Hong Chen, School of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering,Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

Ioannis Vayas, Institute of Steel Structures, National Technical University ofAthens, Athens, Greece

Sanjay Kumar Shukla, School of Engineering, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup,WA, Australia

Anuj Sharma, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

Nagesh Kumar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of ScienceBangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Chien Ming Wang, School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland,Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering (LNCE) publishes the latest developments inCivil Engineering - quickly, informally and in top quality. Though original researchreported in proceedings and post-proceedings represents the core of LNCE, editedvolumes of exceptionally high quality and interest may also be considered forpublication. Volumes published in LNCE embrace all aspects and subfields of, aswell as new challenges in, Civil Engineering. Topics in the series include:

• Construction and Structural Mechanics• Building Materials• Concrete, Steel and Timber Structures• Geotechnical Engineering• Earthquake Engineering• Coastal Engineering• Ocean and Offshore Engineering; Ships and Floating Structures• Hydraulics, Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering• Environmental Engineering and Sustainability• Structural Health and Monitoring• Surveying and Geographical Information Systems• Indoor Environments• Transportation and Traffic• Risk Analysis• Safety and Security

To submit a proposal or request further information, please contact the appropriateSpringer Editor:

– Mr. Pierpaolo Riva at pierpaolo.riva@springer.com (Europe and Americas);– Ms. Swati Meherishi at swati.meherishi@springer.com (Asia - except China,

and Australia, New Zealand);– Dr. Mengchu Huang at mengchu.huang@springer.com (China).

All books in the series now indexed by Scopus and EI Compendex database!

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15087

Madhavi Latha Gali • P. Raghuveer RaoEditors

Problematic Soilsand GeoenvironmentalConcernsProceedings of IGC 2018

123

EditorsMadhavi Latha GaliDepartment of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBengaluru, Karnataka, India

P. Raghuveer RaoDepartment of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBengaluru, Karnataka, India

ISSN 2366-2557 ISSN 2366-2565 (electronic)Lecture Notes in Civil EngineeringISBN 978-981-15-6236-5 ISBN 978-981-15-6237-2 (eBook)https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6237-2

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or partof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmissionor information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodology now known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt fromthe relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in thisbook are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor theauthors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material containedherein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regardto jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,Singapore

Preface

Indian Geotechnical Conference (IGC 2018) was held at the National ScienceComplex of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, during 13–15 December2018. This is the annual conference of the Indian Geotechnical Society (IGS),which was established in the year 1948 with the aim to promote cooperation amongthe engineers, scientists and practitioners for the advancement and dissemination ofknowledge in the field of geotechnical engineering. IGC 2018 was a special eventsince it coincided with the 70 years celebrations of IGS.

The conference was a grand event with about 700 participants. The conferencewas inaugurated on 13 December in the presence of President of IGS Prof. G. L.Sivakumar Babu and the Chief Guest Prof. E. C. Shin, Vice-President, Asia,International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE).The conference had 14 keynote lectures and 12 theme lectures presented by eminentacademicians and practitioners from different parts of the world. Totally, 313technical papers under 12 different themes of the conference were presented duringthe conference in 19 oral presentation sessions and 10 digital display sessions. Allthe participants of the conference had a common vision of deliberating on currentgeotechnical engineering research and practice and to strengthen the relationshipbetween scientists, researchers and practising engineers within the fields ofgeotechnical engineering and to bring focus to problems that are relevant to soci-ety’s needs and develop solutions. The conference acted as a platform to aca-demicians and field engineers to interact, share knowledge and experiences andidentify potential collaborations. The conference also provided opportunity to manyyoung students, researchers and engineers and helped them to get connected topeople involved in geotechnical engineering research and practice and national andinternational groups and technical committees.

All papers submitted to IGC 2018 had undergone a peer-review process andsubsequently revised before being accepted. To publish conference proceedingsthrough Springer, selected papers from the conference were grouped into four dif-ferent volumes, namely Geotechnical Characterization and Modelling, Constructionin Geotechnical Engineering, Geohazards and Problematic Soils and GroundImprovement. This book on Problematic Soils and Geoenvironmental Concerns has

v

68 chapters, mainly discussing the challenges associated with certain types of soilsand possible remedies and solutions. This book encompasses vast subject areas ofgeoenvironmental engineering, expansive and collapsible soils, ground improve-ment and geosynthetics. While some of the chapters on geoenvironmental engi-neering deal with conventional soil stabilization methods using admixtures, it isquite heartening to see that many chapters discussed trending topics like biochar,erosion hotspots, electrical resistivity tomography and bio-enzymes. Several chap-ters discussed issues related to remediation of contaminated soils and landfills. Thechapters on ground improvement covered stone columns, prefabricated verticaldrains, electro-osmosis, soilcrete columns and geosynthetic inclusions to improvestrength or drainage properties of soils in different geotechnical applications. Someof the solutions discussed in this book pertain to live projects, providing realisticsolutions to deal with problematic soils through soil remediation or groundimprovement.

We sincerely thank the Indian Geotechnical Society, especially Prof. G. L.Sivakumar Babu, President, IGS, and Prof. J. T. Shahu, Honorary Secretary, IGS,for their great support in organizing the conference. We also thank the OrganizingCommittee of IGC 2018; Prof. P. V. Sivapullaiah, Conference Chair; Prof. H. N.Ramesh, Conference Vice-Chair; Dr. C. R. Parthasarathy, Prof. P. Anbazhagan andProf. K. V. Vijayendra, Organizing Secretaries; and Prof. K. Vijaya Bhaskar Raju,Treasurer, for all their hard work, long working hours spent and responsibilityshared in planning and executing various tasks of this outstanding event. Theunconditional support extended by the Conference Advisory Committee, TechnicalCommittee, sponsors of the conference, keynote speakers, theme speakers, sessionchairs, session coordinators, student volunteers, participants, presenters and authorsof the technical papers in making the conference a grand success is sincerelyappreciated. We thank the entire Springer Team, in particular Swati Meherishi, RiniChristy Xavier Rajasekaran, Muskan Jaiswal and Ashok Kumar, for their hard workand support in bringing out the proceedings of IGC 2018.

Bengaluru, India Madhavi Latha GaliP. Raghuveer Rao

(Editors)

vi Preface

Contents

Laboratory Investigations on Geotechnical Properties of ScreenedBottom Ash from Two MSW Incineration Plants in Delhi . . . . . . . . . . . 1Garima Gupta, Debanjana Gupta, Manoj Datta, G. V. Ramana,Shashank Bishnoi, and B. J. Alappat

Stabilization of Old MSW Landfills Using Reinforced Soil . . . . . . . . . . 11Debanjana Gupta, Manoj Datta, and Bappaditya Manna

Effect of Drying and Wetting of Shear Strength of Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Naresh Mali, Tarun Semwal, Khushboo Kadian,Manuj Sharma, and K. V. Uday

Influence of the Rate of Construction on the Response of PVDImproved Soft Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Priyanka Talukdar and Arindam Dey

Influence of Cement Clinker and GGBS on the Strengthof Dispersive Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Samaptika Mohanty, N. Roy, and S. P. Singh

Permeability Index of Mechanically Biologically Treated Wasteand Its Application in Bioreactor Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61P. Sughosh, M. R. Pandey, and G. L. Sivakumar Babu

Effect of Ethanol on Compressibility Swelling and PermeabilityCharacteristics of Bentonite–Sand Mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Tribenee Saikia, Binu Sharma, and Safi Kamal Rahman

Characterization of Heavy Metals from Coal Gangue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Mohammed Ashfaq, M. Heera Lal, and Arif Ali Baig Moghal

Critical Review for Utilization of Blast Furnace Slagin Geotechnical Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Bhavin G. Buddhdev and Ketan L. Timani

vii

Effect of Inorganic Salt Solutions on the Hydraulic Conductivityand Diffusion Characteristics of Compacted Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Partha Das and T. V. Bharat

Use of Kota Stone Powder to Improve Engineering Propertiesof Black Cotton Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Dayanand Tak, Jitendra Kumar Sharma, and K. S. Grover

Amelioration of Expansive Clay Using Recycled Bassanite . . . . . . . . . . 127E. Krishnaiah, D. Nishanth Kiran, and G. Kalyan Kumar

Influence of Biochar on Geotechnical Properties of Clayey Soil:From the Perspective of Landfill Caps and Bioengineered Slopes . . . . . 137P. V. Divya, Ankit Garg, and K. P. Ananthakrishnan

Remediation of Lead Contaminated Soil Using Olivine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147Linu Elizabeth Peter and M. K. Sayida

Release of Dark Colored Leachate from Mined Aged Municipal SolidWaste from Landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Mohit Somani, Manoj Datta, G. V. Ramana, and T. R. Sreekrishnan

Erosion Hotspots and the Drivers of Erosion Along the Partof West Bengal Coast, India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169Anindita Nath, Bappaditya Koley, Subhajit Saraswati,Kaushik Bandyopadhyay, and Bidhan Chandra Ray

Use of Electrical Resistivity Tomography in Predicting GroundwaterContamination Due to Non-engineered Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183Debaprakash Parida, Arindam Saha, and Ashim Kanti Dey

Effect of Filament Type and Biochemical Compositionof Lignocellulose Fiber in Vegetation Growth in Early PlantEstablishment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Rojimul Hussain, Sanandam Bordoloi, Vinay Kumar Gadi, Ankit Garg,K. Ravi, and S. Sreedeep

Suitability of Iron Oxide-Rich Industrial Waste Material in Clay Soilas a Landfill Liner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215Rosmy Cheriyan and S. Chandrakaran

Distribution and Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metal in SurfaceDust in Allahabad Municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229Pawan Kumar and V. P. Singh

Soil Amendment Using Marble Waste for Road Construction . . . . . . . . 245Ankush Kumar Jain, Mrinal Gupta, and Arvind Kumar Jha

Effect of Oil Contamination on Geotechnical Propertiesof Lateritic Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257M. V. Panchami, J. Bindu, and K. Kannan

viii Contents

A Detailed Geotechnical Investigation on Red Mud and ChemicalAnalysis of Its Leachate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267K. Sarath Chandra and S. Krishnaiah

Engineering Properties of Industrial By-Products-Based ControlledLow-Strength Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277Vinay Kumar Singh and Sarat Kumar Das

Influence of the Presence of Zinc on the Behaviour of Bentonite . . . . . . 295Saswati Ray, Bismoy Roy Chowdhury, Anil Kumar Mishra,and Ajay Kalamdhad

Theoretical Study on Equilibrium Volume of Clay Sediments in SaltSolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307Dhanesh Sing Das and Tadikonda Venkata Bharat

Influence of Randomly Distributed Waste Tire Fibres on SwellingBehaviour of Expansive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319Tejaswani Shukla, Mohit Mistry, Chandresh Solanki,Sanjay Kumar Shukla, and Shruti Shukla

Influence of Bacteria on Physical Properties of Black Cotton Soil . . . . . 333R. B. Wath and S. S. Pusadkar

Subgrade Stabilization Using Alkali Activated Binder Treated JuteGeotextile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343V. P. Komaravolu, Anasua GuhaRay, and S. K. Tulluri

Variation of Swelling Characteristics of Bentonite Clay Mixedwith Jarofix and Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355G. Santhosh and K. S. Beena

Influence of Fly Ash Mixed with Bentonite and with Lime on Plasticityand Compaction Characteristics Including XRD and SEMAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367Nabanita Datta and Sujit Kumar Pal

Load–Settlement Behavior of Soft Marine Clay Treatedwith Metakaolin and Calcium Chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385D. Venkateswarlu, M. Anjan Kumar, G. V. R. Prasada Raju,and R. Dayakar Babu

Stabilization of Clayey Soil Using Enzymatic Lime and Effect of pH onUnconfined Compressive Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395Dani Jose and S. Chandrakaran

Comparative Study on Stabilization of Marine Clay Using Nano-silicaand Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407M. R. Joju and S. Chandrakaran

Contents ix

Mechanical Behavior of Boulder Crusher Dust (BCD)-StabilizedDredged Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421B. A. Mir and Kh Mohammad Najmu Saquib Wani

Electro-osmosis: A Review from the Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433Amal Azad Sahib, I. Bushra, and G. Rejimon

Probabilistic Performance Analysis of Prefabricated Vertical Drainson Soft Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443T. G. Parameswaran, K. M. Nazeeh, and G. L. Sivakumar Babu

3-D Finite Element Study of Embankment Resting on Soft SoilReinforced with Encased Stone Column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451B. K. Pandey, S. Rajesh, and S. Chandra

Geotechnical and Physicochemical Properties of Untreatedand Treated Hazardous Bauxite Residue Red Mud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467Arvind Kumar Jha and Dhanraj Kumar

Durability of Cementitious Phases in Lime Stabilization:A Critical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483Dhanalakshmi Padmaraj and Dali Naidu Arnepalli

Effectiveness of Cow Dung for Rammed Earth Application . . . . . . . . . . 493H. C. Darshan, K. H. Mamatha, S. V. Dinesh, and B. M. Latha

Geopolymerization of Expansive Black Cotton Soilswith Alkali-Activated Binders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503Mazhar Syed, Anasua GuhaRay, G. S. S. Avinash, and Arkamitra Kar

Stabilization of Soil Using Rice Husk Ash and Fly Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517N. Srilatha and B. R. Praveen

Influence of TerraZyme on Compaction and Consolidation Propertiesof Expansive Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525Aswari Sultana Begum, G. V. R. Prasada Raju, D. S. V. Prasad,and M. Anjan Kumar

Predictive Models for Estimation of Swelling Characteristicsof Expansive Soils Based on the Index Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537S. Swapna Varma, Manish Gupta, and R. Chitra

Effect of Plastic Waste on Strength of Clayey Soil and Clay Mixedwith Fly Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549Mithun Mandal, Nagendra Roy, and Ramakrishna Bag

Optimization of Buffer Layer Thickness Over Black Cotton Soil . . . . . . 565M. Vinoth and P. S. Prasad

Soil Stabilization Using Combined Waste Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573Uma Kant Gautam, Kumar Venkatesh, and Vijay Kumar

x Contents

Characterization and Potential Usage of Stabilized Mine Tailings . . . . . 583Samir Kumar Sethi, Nagendra Roy, and G. Suneel Kumar

Influence of Processing Temperature on Strength and StructuralCharacteristics of Alkali-Activated Slag Lateritic Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599T. Vamsi Nagaraju, D. Neeraj Varma, and M. Venkata Rao

Stabilization of Expansive Soil Using Lime Sand Piles—ACase Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607K. Premalatha and K. Sabarishri

Application of Enzyme-Induced Carbonate Precipitation (EICP)to Improve the Shear Strength of Different Type of Soils . . . . . . . . . . . 617Alok Chandra and K. Ravi

Improving the Strength of Weak Marine Clays by Treatingwith POFA and DRWP Inclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633K. Ramu, R. Dayakar Babu, and K. Roja Latha

Plasticity and Strength Characteristics of Expansive Soil Treatedwith Xanthan Gum Biopolymer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649Suresh Prasad Singh, Ritesh Das, and Debatanu Seth

Strength Properties of Expansive Soil Treated with SodiumLignosulfonate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665Suresh Prasad Singh, Prasad S. Palsule, and Gaurav Anand

Behavior of Industrial Waste Bagasse Ash and Blast FurnaceSlag-Treated Expansive Clay for Pavement Subgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681Akhilesh Singh, K. S. Gandhi, and S. J. Shukla

Improvement of Soft Clay Bed Using Fibre-Reinforced Soil-CementColumns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697Lambture Mahesh, Rakesh J. Pillai, G. Sumanth Kumar,and V. Raman Murthy

Influence of Soil–Cement Columns on Load-Deformation Behaviorof Soft Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711G. Sumanth Kumar, V. Ramana Murty, Lambutre Mahesh,and J. Rakesh Pillai

Analysis of the Influence of Polymeric Fabric Waste on SoilSubgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723Deepak Chaudhary and R. P. Singh

Strength and Durability Characteristic of Lime Stabilized BlackCotton Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739Noolu Venkatesh, Danish Ali, Rakesh J. Pillai, and M. Heera Lal

Contents xi

Experimental Studies on Lateritic Soil Stabilized with Cement,Coir and Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751A. U. Ravi Shankar, B. A. Priyanka, and Avinash

Model Studies to Restrain Swelling of Expansive Soil by UsingGeostrip Reinforced Lime Fly Ash Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765Vikrant Jain and B. V. S. Viswanadham

Effect of Bio-enzyme—Chemical Stabilizer Mixture on Improvingthe Subgrade Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779C. M. Aswathy, Athira S. Raj, and M. K. Sayida

Strength Properties of Laterite Soil Stabilized with Rice Husk Ashand Geopolymer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789Sahana T. Swamy, K. H. Mamatha, S. V. Dinesh,and A. Chandrashekar

Bearing Capacity of Soft Clays Improved by Stone Columns:A Parametric Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801Suresh Prasad Singh, Indraneel Sengupta, and Mrinal Bhaumik

Comparative Assessment of Surface Soil Contamination AroundBellandur and Kengeri Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817M. T. Prathap Kumar, D. Jeevan Kumar, Ashutosh Kumar,Nikhil Jayaramulu Siregere, and T. V. Venu

Micro-level Exploration of KOH-Contaminated Kaolinitic ClaysUnder Different Experimental Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827P. Lakshmi Sruthi and P. Hari Prasad Reddy

Effect of Clay-Embedded Zeolite as Landfill Liner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837P. A. Amalu and Ajitha B. Bhaskar

xii Contents

About the Editors

Dr. Madhavi Latha Gali is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering,Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bangalore, India. She completed her Ph.D. fromIndian Institute of Technology Madras, and has previously worked as apost-doctoral fellow and assistant professor at IISc and IIT Guwahati respectively.Professor Latha is a member of various professional bodies including IGS,ISSMGE and ISRM, and is the Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Geotechnical Journal,and an Editorial board member in many reputed journals. Her research workfocuses on fundamental aspects of soil and ground reinforcement, and she hasauthored 70 journal articles, 4 book chapters and has developed a web-course onGeotechnical Earthquake Engineering on the NPTEL platform, sponsored by theMinistry of Human Resources Development, Government of India.

Dr. P. Raghuveer Rao is Principal Research Scientist at Department of CivilEngineering and involved in teaching, research and consultancy in the broad area ofgeotechnical engineering. He has been working with the department since 1989and has been teaching courses related to subsurface exploration and soil testing,Earth retaining structures, behavior and testing of unsaturated soils, and funda-mental of soil behavior for Masters and Doctoral students. His research interestsare geotechnical instrumentation, slope stability analysis, numerical modelling,mechanics of unsaturated soils, contaminant transport through soil and reinforcedearth structures. He has conducted several field and laboratory tests for design offoundations of different structures like buildings, turbo-generator and water tanks.He has analyzed stability of several embankments, tailing dams and stability of largesize surge shafts for a hydropower project through numerical modelling and trialwedge method. He has 21 publications in journals and conference proceedings.

xiii

Laboratory Investigationson Geotechnical Properties of ScreenedBottom Ash from Two MSW IncinerationPlants in Delhi

Garima Gupta, Debanjana Gupta, Manoj Datta, G. V. Ramana,Shashank Bishnoi, and B. J. Alappat

Abstract Municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration has recently started in Indiawith many new MSW waste-to-energy (WtE) plants underway. The process residueof MSW Incineration (MSWI) is primarily bottom ash (BA), which is being dumpedto MSW landfills. The present study is an attempt to investigate the geotechnicalproperties ofMSWIBA from two such plants inDelhiwith an objective to evaluate itspotential for reuse in bulk geotechnical applications. The results have been comparedwith coal BA (CBA) from a nearby thermal power plant and local sand. It was foundthat MSWI BA is comparatively coarser but strength properties are in the similarrange to that of CBA and local sand. Compaction densities and specific gravity werelower than local soil but much higher than CBA.With new plants emerging all acrossthe country, this study is a starting point for operators to plan the disposal of theseresidues effectively as well as save the limited land resources.

Keywords Bottom ash · Municipal solid waste · Incineration · Waste to energy ·Combustible fraction · Ballistic separators

1 Introduction

The trend followed by most of the European nations and some Asian countries likeJapan, China, Taiwan, etc. to incinerate MSW inWtE plants (An et al. 2014; Inkaewet al. 2014; Yu et al. 2013; Chang et al. 2009) is being increasingly adopted in India.Some of these WtE plants have become operational in last few years and manynew facilities are being planned under ‘Swachh Bharat Mission’ (MNRE 2017).However, no data is available from India on the engineering properties of the MSWIresidues which are presently being dumped back to the landfills. Bottom ash (BA),which forms the major proportion (70–80%) of these residues, has a potential for

G. Gupta (B) · D. Gupta · M. Datta · G. V. Ramana · S. Bishnoi · B. J. AlappatDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, Indiae-mail: gamma840@gmail.com

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021M. Latha Gali and R. R. P. (eds.), Problematic Soils and GeoenvironmentalConcerns, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 88,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6237-2_1

1

2 G. Gupta et al.

bulk reuse in earthworks and road construction, and if the same could be ascertainedfor the Indian conditions of MSW, the footprint of future landfills can be reducedsignificantly.

2 Objectives

The present study aims to evaluate reuse potential ofMSWIBA for bulk geotechnicalapplications by comparing its geotechnical properties with BA from a nearby coal-fired thermal power plant and the local soil. Only the fraction passing 4.75mmwhichconstituted 60–70% of the MSWI BA has been tested for the purpose. The oversizedfraction (above 4.75 mm) consisted of glass, ceramic, metal, unburnt organics suchas paper, textile, plastic, etc. and gravelly material such as stones, brick bats, sinteredmaterial and construction and demolition waste (Gupta et al. 2018).

3 Material and Methods

MSWI BA samples were collected from two MSW WtE plants in Delhi, P1 andP2. The operating temperature in both the plants was in the range of 850–1000 °C.Both the plants were segregating the waste before burning in the furnace. The segre-gation operations aimed to reduce the moisture content of the waste and separatecombustible fraction (e.g., paper, textiles, wood, etc.) from non-combustible frac-tion (e.g., stones, brick bats, etc.). P1 was using ballistic separators while P2 usedtrommels to perform segregation operations.

About a ton of BAwas sampledwintermonths, i.e., January and February 2018 for3–4 days in a two-week period from each plant. It was air-dried for 4–5 days and thensieved through 4.75mmsieve. The fraction passing 4.75mmwas collected and storedin sealed plastic containers. The reference materials for comparison, i.e., coal bottomash (CBA) and Yamuna sand (YS) were sampled locally. Grain-size distributioncurves, specific gravity, compaction behavior and shear strength properties werestudied. Compositional analysis and some physico-chemical properties of MSWIBA have been reported in Gupta et al. (2018).

4 Experimental Study

4.1 Grain-Size Distribution (GSD)

Atleast three set of tests were performed to estimate the GSD of each material asper Indian standards (IS) 2720 Part IV. Table 1 depicts percentage of coarse sand,

Laboratory Investigations on Geotechnical Properties of … 3

Table 1 Comparison of grain-size distribution ofMSWI bottom ashwith referencematerials (wt%)

Size (mm) Classification BA P1 BA P2 CBA YS

4.75–2.00 Coarse sand 11 8 1 0

2.00–0.425 Medium sand 38 33 15 2

0.425–0.075 Fine sand 37 39 67 90

0.075–0 Silt + clay 13 20 16 8

0.01 0.1 1 100

25

50

75

100

Perc

enta

ge fi

ner (

%)

Size (mm)

BA P1 BA P2 CBA YS

Fig. 1 Grain-size distribution curves of MSWI bottom ash, CBA and YS

medium sand, fine sand and silt plus clay in each of them. Figure 1 shows GSD curveof MSWI BA from WtE plants, P1 and P2, CBA and YS.

4.2 Specific Gravity

The specific gravity of all the material was evaluated using density bottle (IS 2720Part III/Sec 1) as well as Le Chatelier flask (IS 4031 Part XI). Kerosene was usedfor the experiment to prevent floating of lightweight particles on the surface as wellas prevent any reaction with the water. Table 2 shows the range of specific gravitiesobtained from the test.

4 G. Gupta et al.

Table 2 Comparison of specific gravity values of MSWI bottom ash with reference materials

Material Specific gravity

BA P1 2.61–2.63

BA P2 2.57–2.60

CBA 2.07–2.11

YS 2.65–2.66

4.3 Compaction Behavior

Compaction behavior was studied by both vibratory compaction (as per IS 2720 Part14) as well as standard Proctor compaction (as per IS 2720 Part 7) to evaluate themaximum dry density (γ dmax), minimum dry density (γ dmin) and optimum moisturecontent (OMC). Figure 2 shows OMC versus dry density plot obtained by standardProctor compaction. The values of γ dmax, γ dmin and OMC from both the tests havebeen reported in Table 3.

0 10 20 5040306

8

10

12

14

16

18 YS BA P1 BA P2 CBA

Dry

den

sity

(kN

/m3 )

Moisture content (%)

Fig. 2 OMC versus dry density plot

Table 3 Results from vibratory and standard Proctor compaction

Material Standard proctor Vibratory

OMC (%) γ dmax (g/cc) γ dmax (g/cc) γ dmin (g/cc)

BA P1 19.2 1.51 1.52 1.21

BA P2 23.4 1.43 1.41 1.06

CBA – 0.95 1.00 0.82

YS 16.4 1.62 1.67 1.37

Laboratory Investigations on Geotechnical Properties of … 5

4.4 Shear Strength Behavior

Consolidated drained (CD) triaxial tests were conducted to study shear strengthbehavior. The tests were conducted for dense specimens (relative densities of theorder of 70% and above) and confining pressures of 100, 200 and 300 kPa. Thestress–strain behavior and volumetric change behavior for all the samples are shownin Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Table 4 summarizes values of angle of shearing resistance, ϕ′.

Fig. 3 Stress–strain and volumetric change behavior of MSWI bottom ash from plant P1

6 G. Gupta et al.

Fig. 4 Stress–strain and volumetric change behavior of bottom ash from coal-fired thermal powerplant

5 Discussion

GSD as given in Fig. 1 and Table 1 reveals that MSWI BA from both the plants iscomparatively coarser and can be categorized as well-graded sand, whereas CBA ismedium-fine sand and YS is primarily fine sand. Percentage fines (passing 75 µm)are highest in MSWI BA from plant P2.

From Table 2, it is observed that specific gravity of MSWI BA is of the orderof 2.57–2.63 which falls close to that of Yamuna sand having specific gravity inthe range of 2.65–2.66. However, the specific gravity of coal bottom ash is muchlower and fall between 2.07–2.11 due to the presence of intra-particle voids. Thevalues obtained are consistent with the values reported in literature (Gupta et al.

Laboratory Investigations on Geotechnical Properties of … 7

Fig. 5 Stress–strain and volumetric change behavior of MSWI bottom ash from plant P2

2017; Zekkos et al. 2013; Jakka et al. 2010). Presence of unburnt organics (3–6%)in MSWI BA, reported in Gupta et al. (2018), can be the reason associated with itsspecific gravity values lower than the natural silicates.

Compaction behavior as observed from Fig. 2 suggests that MSWI BA from thetwo plants has compaction densities slightly lower than YS but much higher thanCBA. BA P2 has γ dmax value lower than that of BA P1. Lower compaction densitiescan be attributed to their lower-specific gravity values. Also, the OMC versus drydensity plots are flat for all the samples owing to their granular nature. A minor peakis observed forBAP1,BAP2 andYSunlikeCBAwhich showed no peak.OMCvalueis highest in BA P2 and lowest in YSwhich can be attributed to their percentage finesvalue. Higher the percentage fines,more is the tendency to exhibit higherOMC. FromTable 3, it is evident that γ dmax obtained from vibratory compaction is higher thanthat obtained from Proctor compaction for YS and CBA suggesting that vibratory

8 G. Gupta et al.

Fig. 6 Stress–strain and volumetric change behavior of Yamuna sand

Table 4 ϕ′ values from CDtests (c′ = 0)

Size (mm) ϕ′ (°)BA P1 42.2

BA P2 38.1

CBA 41.7

YS 41.9

compaction is more suited for these materials to obtain better compaction. However,the values are almost similar for BA P1 and BA P2 indicating the applicability ofboth the methods for MSWI BA.

The stress–strain behavior (Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6) and ϕ′ values (Table 4) for all thefour samples are comparable. ϕ′ is of the order of 38°–42°. As evident from slopes

Laboratory Investigations on Geotechnical Properties of … 9

of stress–strain graph in Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6, initial elastic modulus is highest in forYamuna sand and lowest for MSWI BA P1. All four samples initially compress andlater dilate as expected for dense soil specimens. However, in comparison to YS,all other samples, i.e., BA P1, BA P2 and CBA, underwent higher compression andlower dilation indicating the possibility of crushing. BA P2 underwent maximumcompression and least dilation. It also exhibited lowest ϕ′ value.

6 Conclusions

The results of the study indicate that MSWI BA from WtE plants can possibly bereused as a replacement of natural sand in bulk geotechnical applications such as inembankments, earthfills and road construction. However, more studies are requiredfor assessing leaching of soluble salts and heavy metals, to ascertain its implicationson environment before being put to reuse. With new plants emerging all across thecountry, this study is a starting point for operators to plan the disposal of theseresidues effectively as well as save the limited land resources.

References

An J, Kim J, Golestani B, Tasneem KM, Al Muhit BA, Nam BH, Behzadan AH (2014) Evaluatingthe use of waste-to-energy bottom ash as road constructionmaterials. State of Florida Departmentof Transportation, Contract No.: BDK78-977-20

Chang CY, Wang CF, Mui DT, Cheng MT, Chiang HL (2009) Characteristics of elements in wasteashes from a solid waste incinerator in Taiwan. J Hazard Mater 165(1–3):766–773

Gupta G, Datta M, Ramana GV, Alappat BJ (2017) Feasibility of using MSW incinerator ash ingeotechnical applications. In: Indian geotechnical conference, GeoNEst, IIT Guwahati, India

GuptaG,DattaM,RamanaGV,Alappat BJ, Bishnoi S (2018) Feasibility of reuse of bottom ash fromMSW waste-to-energy plants in India. In: Zhan L, Chen Y, Bouazza A (eds) The internationalcongress on environmental geotechnics, vol 1. ICEG 2018, Springer, Singapore, pp 344–350

Inkaew K, Saffarzadeh A, Shimaoka T (2014) Characterization of grate sifting deposition ash,unquenched bottom ash and water-quenched bottom ash from mass-burn moving grate waste toenergy plant.土木学会論文集G (環境) 70(7):III_469–III_475

Jakka RS, Ramana GV, Datta M (2010) Shear behaviour of loose and compacted pond ash. GeotechGeol Eng 28(6):763–778

MNRE (2017) Annual report 2016–17. Ministry of New and Renewable Resources, Governmentof India

Yu J, Sun L, Xiang J, Jin L, Hu S, Su S, Qiu J (2013) Physical and chemical characterization ofashes from a municipal solid waste incinerator in China. Waste Manage Res 31(7):663–673

Zekkos D, Kabalan M, Syal SM, Hambright M, Sahadewa A (2013) Geotechnical characterizationof amunicipal solidwaste incineration ash from aMichiganmonofill.WasteManage 33(6):1442–1450

Stabilization of Old MSW LandfillsUsing Reinforced Soil

Debanjana Gupta, Manoj Datta, and Bappaditya Manna

Abstract Old municipal solid waste (MSW) unengineered dumps, which havereached considerable height, have sloping sides with inadequate stability. The tradi-tional technique of flattening the slope has to overcome the twin challenges of highcost of moving an enormous volume of waste and availability of area for placing theexcavatedmaterial. In this study, an attempt has beenmade to strengthen the slopes ofold MSW landfills for heights of 40 m, resting on firm base, by stabilizing them withreinforced soil, placed along the length of the slope and its width restricted to 10 m.Slope stability computations, using limit equilibrium methods, have been made forthe original waste slope and that strengthened by the reinforced soil by varying soilstrength and geometric properties. The study reveals that the waste slope, stabilizedby the use of reinforced soil, can provide a feasible alternative to the removal of largequantity of excess waste.

Keywords Stabilization · Municipal solid waste · Landfill · Reinforced soil ·Slope stability · Limit equilibrium method · Berms

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

As the cities are growing at a rapid rate, the landfills which were once used to beat a considerable distance away from the receptors have now become a part of thecity itself. Urbanization has also led to the increase in the rate and quantity of wastegeneration. Unavailability of space to laterally expand the landfills or start the newones has put immense load on the existing landfill. Consequently, the old dumps aregrowing vertically with steeper slopes to accommodate more waste. The instabilityof these side slopes has now become a prime concern associated with old MSW

D. Gupta (B) · M. Datta · B. MannaDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, Indiae-mail: gupta.debanjana.06@gmail.com

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021M. Latha Gali and R. R. P. (eds.), Problematic Soils and GeoenvironmentalConcerns, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 88,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6237-2_2

11

12 D. Gupta et al.

Fig. 1 Old MSW landfill

Fig. 2 Traditional method of flattening of slope

landfills. One of the major factors contributing to this instability is the placementof the waste by the ‘tipping over’ method which leads to steep slopes. The problembecomes grave when the dump reaches greater height (Fig. 1).

1.2 Re-grading of Slope

The traditional solution adopted to mitigate this problem is to flatten the slope.However, this solution has certain constraints like (a) cost of excavation and move-ment of a large volume of the waste (b) availability of area for placing the excavatedmaterial (Fig. 2).

1.3 Stabilization with Berms

Whenever a small width is available beyond the toe of the landfill, the use of berms(reinforced or unreinforced) for the stabilization of the landfills has been studiedextensively. The berms can either be vertical or sloping. Qian and Koerner (2009)in their study credited the use of a reinforced berm as an attractive alternative forthe expansion of the landfill without increasing the footprint of the existing wastefilling boundaries. Basha et al. (2015) also analyzed the prospect of expansion of

Stabilization of Old MSW Landfills Using Reinforced Soil 13

Fig. 3 Provision of berms (unreinforced)

Fig. 4 Provision of berms (reinforced)

the existing landfills vertically by constructing reinforced soil berm and found it tobe an economic alternative to the construction of new landfills. In both the papers,translational failure was considered and the slope stability analysis was done usingthree-part wedge mechanism.

A single berm or multiple berms either continuous or uniquely spaced are alsoreported to reduce the overall associated risk and harm of a sudden failure of adumpsite (De Stefano et al. 2016). Koda and Osinski (2015) in a case study forRadiowo landfill, Warsaw reported the construction of berms filled with solid waste,debris and soil residues from a landfill to be the most appropriate slope stabilityimprovement method for the landfill.

In this study, an attempt has been made to strengthen the slope of the old MSWlandfills using reinforced soil berm inclined at an angle similar to that of the landfillslope so that they can run parallel along the length. This requires availability of somesmall space beyond the toe of the landfill. Such a situation is encountered when aninspection road exists at a site at the level of the toe (Figs. 3 and 4).

1.4 Problem Statement

A typical MSW landfill with height of 40 m having steep slopes has been taken upas the problem for analyzing and strengthening the slope stability. Slope angles of2H:1V and 1.5H:1V are used for the study. A firm base has been taken for analysis,

14 D. Gupta et al.

and the water table is considered at great depth. The geotechnical properties for thewaste have been taken after Ramaiah et al. (2017). The unit weight is reported as12 kN/m3, and the mobilized shear strength parameters at 25 mm displacement are:the angle of shearing resistance as 23° and apparent cohesion intercept as 13 kPa.

2 Objectives

The aforesaid MSW landfill has been analyzed with the following objectives:

(i) Slope stability computations for the original waste slope.(ii) Slope stability computations for the waste slope along with an unreinforced

soil berm by varying the angle of shearing resistance of the soil.(iii) Slope stability computations for the waste slope along with a reinforced soil

berm by varying the strength of geogrids used as reinforcing elements.

3 Methodology

3.1 Method of Analyses

Limit equilibrium method (LEM) has been adopted for the slope stability analysis.Among various methods of slices (MoS) used worldwide, the Morgenstern–Price(M-P) method has been used in this study. A half sine function has been consideredto establish a relationship between the interslice shear and normal forces.

Dry and static conditions are considered for the analysis. The acceptable factorof safety (FoS) under such conditions is 1.5, which is the target FoS to be achievedfor the problem under consideration.

The software used for the aforesaid analysis is SLOPE/W. A circular failuresurface has been assumed throughout the analysis (including part circular and straightline along base).

Stabilization of Old MSW Landfills Using Reinforced Soil 15

3.2 Sequence of the Analyses

4 Slope Stability Analysis

4.1 Slope Stability Analysis of the Existing MSW Landfill

The analysis of a 40 m high MSW landfill with steep slopes yields the followingresults (Fig. 5).

Although for the landfill having slope of 2H:1V, the FoS is 1.24, but it is less thanthe desirable FoS of 1.5. However, for the landfill having slope of 1.5H:1V, the FoSis less than even 1 implying that the slope is inherently unstable.

Hence, in order to provide stability and improving the FoS of the landfills, supportto the toe is provided in the form of an unreinforced berm.

16 D. Gupta et al.

a) Slope= 2H:1V b) Slope= 1.5H:1

Fig. 5 Failure surface with FoS for the MSW landfill

4.2 Slope Stability Analysis of MSW Landfillwith Unreinforced Berm

Analyses have been done for the MSW landfill with unreinforced berm made up ofcohesionless soil. The unit weight of the soil is taken as 18 kN/m3, and the angle ofshearing resistance (ϕ) has been varied from 34° to 46°.

The critical failure surfaces obtained in the analyses can be divided into threecategories: failure surface passing (a) through the waste mass only above the berm(b) through the waste mass beyond the berm (c) locally through the berm (Fig. 6).

4.2.1 Unreinforced Berm with Height = 10 m and Slope = 2H:1V

For ϕ ≥ 38°, the failure surface passes through the waste mass only above the berm.Since the properties of the waste remain unaltered, the FoS for all the cases comesout to be the same irrespective of the value of ϕ. The critical failure surface for ϕ =34° is local tangential and passes completely through the berm because of the lowvalue of ϕ (Table 1).

4.2.2 Unreinforced Berm with Height = 20 m and Slope = 2H:1V

The critical failure surface for ϕ = 34° is local tangential and passes completelythrough the berm because of the low value of ϕ. However, for ϕ = 38° and ϕ = 42°,the failure takes place through the waste mass beyond the unreinforced berm. For ϕ

= 46°, the failure surface passes through the waste mass only above the berm and

Stabilization of Old MSW Landfills Using Reinforced Soil 17

a) Through waste b) Through waste and berm

c) Through berm

Fig. 6 Typical failure surfaces

Table 1 Factors of safety of landfill with unreinforced berms with height = 10 m and slope =2H:1V

ϕ 34° 38° 42° 46°

FoS 1.37 1.38 1.38 1.38

Table 2 Factors of safety of landfill with unreinforced berms with height = 20 m and slope =2H:1V

ϕ 34° 38° 42° 46°

FoS 1.35 1.47 1.54 1.56

the FoS is greater than 1.5 implying the said case to be a possible solution to theproblem under consideration (Table 2).

4.2.3 Unreinforced Berm with Height = 10 m and Slope = 1.5H:1V

The failure surfaces obtained and their variation with the change of ϕ are similarto that observed in Sect. 4.2.1. However, the FoS obtained is much less than thedesirable value of 1.5 (Table 3).