3.9 Article

Strength of Stabilised Waste Foundry Sand Material

Journal

INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL JOURNAL
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages 707-719

Publisher

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s40098-021-00586-9

Keywords

Unconfined compressive strength; Tensile strength; Stabilisation; Waste foundry sand

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the application of foundry sand waste materials in road construction and structural fill from ten different industries. Laboratory tests were conducted to assess the physical, chemical, and geotechnical properties. Stabilization with cement was done for two samples, and the effects of curing period and cement content on key parameters such as compressive and tensile strength were analyzed. It was found that finer samples were suitable for subbase layer construction while both samples could be used as structural fill, supporting sustainable construction practices.
Foundry sand waste materials (samples) were collected from ten different industries and studied for the application in the construction of road and as a structural fill. Physical, chemical and geotechnical characterization were carried out in the laboratory. Out of 10 samples, 2 samples (coarser and finer) were stabilized with cement in the range of 2-8% and cured for different periods (7-28 days). Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and indirect tensile strength (ITS) of both stabilized samples were determined. Different parameters were derived viz. stiffness modulus, cohesion and ratio of UCS/ITS of stabilized samples. The effect of curing period and cement content were analyzed on these parameters. UCS, ITS, cohesion and stiffness value increase with cement content and curing period similar to conventional material. It was inferred that finer sample may be used for the construction of subbase layer of pavement while both samples may be used as a structural fill which will lead to sustainable construction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available