A Study on Clay Soil Improvement With Bacillus Subtilis Bacteria as the Road Subbase Layer

Hasriana, Hasriana

doi:10.21660/2018.52.97143

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, biomaterials (bacteria and enzyme) [34] are utilized in bio-cementation techniques such as microbial-induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MICP) and enzyme-induced calcium carbonate precipitation (EICP) because of their "environmentally-friendly" features [35]. Microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) as a biomineralization method has been used for soil stabilization in previous studies [36][37][38][39]. A biochemical process occurs in the MICP method to improve soil properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strength and Durability of Cement-Treated Lateritic Soil

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transportation infrastructure, including low-volume roads in some regions, needs to be constructed on weak ground, implying the necessity of soil stabilization. Untreated and cement-treated lateritic soil for low-volume road suitability were studied based on Malaysian standards. A series of unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests was performed for four cement doses (3%, 6%, 9%, 12%) for different curing times. According to Malaysian standards, the study suggested 6% cement and 7 days curing time as the optimum cement dosage and curing time, respectively, based on their 0.8 MPa UCS values. The durability test indicated that the specimens treated with 3% cement collapsed directly upon soaking in water. Although the UCS of 6% cement-treated specimens decreased against wetting–drying (WD) cycles, the minimum threshold based on Malaysian standards was still maintained against 15 WD cycles. On the contrary, the durability of specimens treated with 9% and 12% cement represented a UCS increase against WD cycles. FESEM results indicated the formation of calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH), calcium silicate hydrate (CSH), and calcium aluminosilicate hydrate (CASH) as well as shrinking of pore size when untreated soil was mixed with cement. The formation of gels (CAH, CSH, CASH) and decreasing pore size could be clarified by EDX results in which the increase in cement content increased calcium.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strength and Durability of Cement-Treated Lateritic Soil

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The soil improvement techniques can be mechanical or chemical stabilization. Many kinds of materials are already practical as stabilizing agents in soil mixtures, such as cement [7], lime [8], zeolite [4], and bacteria [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strength Characteristic of Lightweight Modular Block (LMB) Element using Stabilized Dredged Soil-EPS

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For several decades, lightweight material applications have been extensively studied. Modifying various types of soil with EPS beads or lightweight geomaterials is an alternative construction material on site that can reduce excessive problems such as large deformation and lateral pressure. This study aims to examine the strength characteristics of lightweight geomaterials, namely lightweight modular block/LMB. LMB is composed of EPS beads, dredged soil, and cement. The cement amounts are 3%, 5%, 7%, and 9%, with EPS variations of 0.5% and 0.75% to the mixture weight. Laboratory tests were conducted to investigate the strength with unconfined compression and undrained direct shear tests. Before testing, the specimens were made using the one-layer static compaction method and were cured for 7, 14, and 28 days. This paper also presents explanations related to the specimens making and treatment by providing preliminary test results to compare the effectiveness of the three-layer and one-layer methods. Moreover, the curing treatments to avoid cracking were explained explicitly. The result shows linearity between both increasing the amount of cement and adding more curing time to the increase of the strength parameter. In contrast, adding more EPS decreased the strength, but adding cement helped increase the strength parameter with a remarkable value at C7% and C9%. Increasing the amount of EPS also reduced the density of the mixture by 18%–29%. Doi: 10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-03-014 Full Text: PDF

show abstract

“…Utilization of bacteria (i.e., Bacillus subtilis) as a lateritic soil stabilization agent showed a significant increase in compressive strength and CBR values. The bacteria can also improve the strength and CBR value of coal contaminated soil for ex-coal mining waste [10,11]. Moreover, in recent decades, alkaline zeolite materials have been widely used as soil stabilization additives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Subbase Layer with Geogrid Reinforcement and Zeolite-Waterglass Stabilization

Harianto

2022

Civ Eng J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some laterite soil is an inferior material for engineering applications such as road and highway pavement, dam construction and filling material. Laterite soil stabilization is required to increase its strength for field application purposes. The potential use of zeolite and waterglass as stabilizing agents is their pozzolanic properties. This study aims to analyze the strength and bearing capacity of laterite soil stabilized by waterglass-activated zeolite and reinforced with geogrid. The soil sample was prepared with a zeolite percentage of 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20%, and waterglass as much as 2, 4 and 6% with curing times of 0, 7, 14 and 28 days. Furthermore, the physical model test was carried out in the container with the optimum composition obtained from the compressive strength (UCS) and California bearing test (CBR) test. The stabilized subbase layer with geogrid reinforcement was placed on a subgrade layer with a substandard CBR value. The results showed that the compressive strength (UCS) of stabilized soil with a curing time of 7 days was found significantly increased. The CBR value also increased with the content of additive and curing time compared to the untreated soil. The physical model test results showed that the performance of stabilized laterite soil with additives and reinforced by geogrid (ZW-geogrid) as a subbase layer provides more optimal performance in carrying the load compared to the sand-gravel mixtures material. Doi: 10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-02-05 Full Text: PDF

show abstract

A Study on Clay Soil Improvement With Bacillus Subtilis Bacteria as the Road Subbase Layer

Cited by 12 publications

References 3 publications

Strength and Durability of Cement-Treated Lateritic Soil

Strength and Durability of Cement-Treated Lateritic Soil

Strength Characteristic of Lightweight Modular Block (LMB) Element using Stabilized Dredged Soil-EPS

Performance of Subbase Layer with Geogrid Reinforcement and Zeolite-Waterglass Stabilization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About