Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 11, Issue 4 Ver. VI (Jul- Aug. 2014), PP 01-34
www.iosrjournals.org
I.
Introduction
A land-based structure of any type is only as strong as its Foundation. For that reason, soil is a critical
element influencing the success of a construction project. Soil is either part of the foundation or one of the raw
materials used in the construction process. Therefore, understanding the engineering properties of soil is crucial
to obtain strength and economic permanence. Soil stabilization is the process of maximizing the suitability of
soil for a given construction purpose
1.1 What Is Soil Stabilization?
Soil is one of natures most abundant construction materials. Almost all construction is built with or upon soil.
When unsuitable construction conditions are encountered, a contractor has four options:
(1) Find a new construction site
(2) Redesign the structure so it can be constructed on the poor soil
(3) Remove the poor soil and replace it with good soil
(4) Improve the engineering properties of the site soils
In general, Options 1 and 2 tend to be impractical today, while in the past, Option 3 has been the most
commonly used method. However, due to improvement in technology coupled with increased transportation
costs, Option 4 is being used more often today and is expected to dramatically increase in the future. Improving
an on-site (in situ) soils engineering properties is referred to as either soil modification or soil stabilization.
The term modification implies a minor change in the properties of a soil, while stabilization means that the
engineering properties of the soil have been changed enough to allow field construction to take place.
Nearly every road construction project will utilize one or both of these stabilization techniques. The most
common form of mechanical soil stabilization is compaction of the soil, while the addition of cement, lime,
bituminous, or other agents is referred to as a chemical or additive method of soil stabilization. There are
two basic types of additives used during chemical soil stabilization: mechanical additives and chemical
additives. Mechanical additives, such as soil cement, mechanically alter the soil by adding a quantity of a
material that has the engineering characteristics to upgrade the load-bearing capacity of the existing soil.
Chemical additives, such as lime, chemically alter the soil itself, thereby improving the load-bearing capacity of
the soil.
1.2 Why And When Is It Used?
Traditionally, stable sub-grades, sub-bases and/or bases have beenconstructed by using selected, wellgraded aggregates, making it fairly easy to predict the load-bearing capacity of the constructed layers. By using
select material, the engineer knows that the foundation will be able to support the design loading.
Gradation is an important soil characteristic to understand. A soil is considered either well-graded or
uniformly-graded (also referred to as poorly-graded). This is a reference to the sizes of the particles in the
www.iosrjournals.org
1 | Page
2 | Page
www.iosrjournals.org
3 | Page
4 | Page
5 | Page
www.iosrjournals.org
6 | Page
7 | Page
8 | Page
Literature Review
Fly ash by itself has little cementatious value but in the presence of moisture it reacts chemically and
forms cementatious compounds and attributes to the improvement of strength and compressibility characteristics
of soils. It has a long history of use as an engineering material and has been successfully employed in
geotechnical applications.
Erdalcokca (2001):
Effect of Fly ash on expansive soil was studied by Erdal,Cokca,Fly ash consists of often hollow
spheres of silicon, aluminium and iron oxides and unoxidized carbon. There are two major classes of fly ash,
class C and class F. The former is produced from burning anthracite or bituminous coal and the latter is
produced from burning lignite and sub bituminous coal. Both the classes of fly ash are puzzolans, which are
defined as siliceous and aluminous materials. Thus Fly ash can provide an array of divalent and trivalent cations
(Ca2+,Al3+,Fe3+etc) under ionized conditions that can promote flocculation of dispersed clay particles. Thus
expansive soils can be potentially stabilized effectively by cation exchange using fly ash. He carried out
investigations using Soma Flyash and Tuncbilekfly ash and added it to expansive soil at 0-25%. Specimens with
fly ash were cured for 7days and 28 days after which they were subjected to Oedometer free swell tests. And his
experimental findings confirmed that the plasticity index, activity and swelling potential of the samples
decreased with increasing per cent stabilizer and curing time and the optimum content of fly ash in decreasing
the swell potential was found to be 20%. The changes in the physical properties and swelling potential is a result
of additional silt size particles to some extent and due to chemical reactions that cause immediate flocculation of
clay particles and the time dependent puzzolanic and self-hardening properties of fly ash and he concluded that
both high calcium and low calcium class C fly ashes can be recommended as effective stabilizing agents for
improvement for improvement of expansive soils.
Pandian et.al. (2002):
Studied the effect of two types of fly ashes Raichur fly ash (Class F) and Neyveli fly ash (Class C) on
the CBR characteristics of the black cotton soil. The fly ash content was increased from 0 to 100%. Generally
the CBR/strength is contributed by its cohesion and friction. The CBR of BC soil, which consists of
predominantly of finer particles, is contributed by cohesion. The CBR of fly ash, which consists predominantly
of coarser particles, is contributed by its frictional component. The low CBR of BC soil is attributed to the
inherent low strength, which is due to the dominance of clay fraction. The addition of fly ash to BC soil
increases the CBR of the mix up to the first optimum level due to the frictional resistance from fly ash in
addition to the cohesion from BC soil. Further addition of fly ash beyond the optimum level causes a decrease
up to 60% and then up to the second optimum level there is an increase. Thus the variation of CBR of fly ashBC soil mixes can be attributed to the relative contribution of frictional or cohesive resistance from fly ash or
BC soil, respectively. In Neyveli fly ash also there is an increase of strength with the increase in the fly ash
content, here there will be additional puzzolonic reaction forming cementitious compounds resulting in good
binding between BC soil and fly ash particles
Phanikumar and Sharma (2004):
A similar study was carried out by Phanikumar and Sharma and the effect of fly ash on engineering
properties of expansive soil through an experimental programme. The effect on parameters like free swell index
(FSI), swell potential, swelling pressure, plasticity, compaction, strength and hydraulic conductivity of
expansive soil was studied. The ash blended expansive soil with fly ash contents of 0, 5, 10,15 and 20% on a dry
weight basis and they inferred that increase in fly ash content reduces plasticity characteristics and the FSI was
reduced by about 50% by the addition of 20% fly ash. The hydraulic conductivity of expansive soils mixed with
fly ash decreases with an increase in fly ash content, due to the increase in maximum dry unit weight with an
increase in fly ash content. When the fly ash content increases there is a decrease in the optimum moisture
content and the maximum dry unit weight increases. The effect of fly ash is akin to the increased compactive
effort. Hence the expansive soil is rendered more stable. The undrained shear strength of the expansive soil
blended with fly ash increases with the increase in the ash content.
The comprehensive review of literature shows that a considerable amount of work related to the
determination of deformation characteristics and strength characteristics of expansive soil is done
worldwide.From various contributions, the investigations on strength characteristics of expansive soil conducted
by S.Narasimharaoet.al (1987, 1996); Sridharan et.al (1989); Mathew et.al (1997); G.RajaSekaranet.al (2002);
Ali.M.A. Abd-Allah (2009) are worthy of note.
Improving the strength of soil by stabilization technique was performed by SupakjiNontananandh et.al
(2004) and Can BurakSisman and ErhanGezer (2011).
www.iosrjournals.org
9 | Page
III.
Materials
The materials that are used in this are mainly1) Black cotton soil
2) Fly ash
3.1 Black cotton soil:The soil used in our project is black cotton soil which is collected the from a field in sankarpalli village
nearer to patancheruvu, greater Hyderabad (dist.) The soil is fully exposed to the atmosphere and several crops
are grown in it throughout the year. Due to exposure to several atmospheric conditions there is frequent
expansion and contraction in the soil mass. By this uneven expansion and contraction alternative cracks are
formed in the soil mass which seriously affect the performance of pavement when used as subgrade.
Rich proportion of montmorillonite is found in Black cotton soil from mineralogical analysis. High
percentage of montomonillonite renders high degree of expansiveness. These property results cracks in soil
without any warning. These cracks may sometimes extent to severe limit like wide and 12 deep. So
building to be founded on this soil may suffer severe damage with the change of atmospheric conditions.
As plasticity index and linear shrinkage decreased with the increase of lime content, a mixture of both
lime and cement is necessary for adequate stabilization of road bases for heavy wheel loads on the black cotton
soils.
The black cotton soil is tested in our college laboratory to access various soil properties like plastic
limit of the clay, liquid limit, max dry density and optimum moisture content, grain size distribution, strength
etc. which will give the basic idea of the type of soil.
1) They are very fertile
2) They are black in colour
3) They are high in organic matter.
4) They often form in grasslands and wetlands.
5) Organic matter contains plant nutrients and it also improves the physical properties of the soil, enhancing it
for plant growth.
6) It is also known as regur soil.
10 | Page
11 | Page
12 | Page
www.iosrjournals.org
13 | Page
V.
Laboratory Tests
Following laboratory tests have been carried out as per IS: 2720. The tests were carried out both on
natural soil and stabilized soil with fly ash collected from Vijayawada Thermal Power Plant.
1) Grain Size Analysis
2) Atterberg Limit Test
3) Proctor Compaction Test
4) Unconfined Compression Test
5) Permeability Test
5.1 Grain size analysis:-
www.iosrjournals.org
14 | Page
Mass
of
retained(gm)
130
48
108
240
132
108
78
111
40
soil
% on each sieve
Cumulative % retained
% fines
13.06
4.82
10.85
24.12
13.26
10.85
7.85
11.15
4.02
13.06
17.88
28.73
52.85
66.11
76.96
84.81
95.96
100
86.94
82.12
71.27
47.15
33.89
23.04
15.19
4.04
15 | Page
9
35 g
49 g
43 g
75%
14
38g
58
51
53%
16 | Page
1
24
17
44.9
78.3
70
33.07
2
21
28
46
81.3
75.3
20.30
3
25
36
44.6
76.8
74.1
10.0
www.iosrjournals.org
17 | Page
10
2.209 kg
944 cc
1.862 kg
0.052
1.972
1.87
12
2.209 kg
944 cc
1.958 kg
0.047
2.074
1.98
14
2.209 kg
944 cc
2.019 kg
0.068
2.138
2.0
16
2.209 kg
944 cc
2.045 kg
0.067
2.166
2.02
18
2.209 kg
944 cc
2.018
0.090
2.137
1.96
www.iosrjournals.org
18 | Page
2
1.95
1.9
1.85
water content
1.8
1.75
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
water content
Fig 24: Chart representing OMC and MDD
The optimum moisture content and max dry density for black cotton soil is 16% and 2.02gm/cc.
5.4 California Bearing Ratio Test
Scope:
This test method covers the determination of the CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of pavement
subgrade, subbase, and base course materials from laboratory compacted specimens. The test method is
primarily intended for (but not limited to) evaluating the strength of materials having maximum
particle sizes less than 3 4 in. (19 mm).
When materials having maximum particle sizes greater than 3 4 in. (19 mm) are to be tested, this test
method provides for modifying the gradation of the material so that the material used for tests all
passes the 3 4-in. sieve while the total gravel (+No. 4 to 3 in.) fraction remains the same. While
traditionally this method of specimen preparation has been used to avoid the error inherent in testing
materials containing large particles in the CBR test apparatus, the modied material may have
signicantly different strength properties than the original material. However, a large experience base
has developed using this test method for materials for which the gradation has been modied, and
satisfactory design methods are in use based on the results of tests using this procedure.
Past practice has shown that CBR results for those materials having substantial percentages of particles
retained on the No. 4 sieve are more variable than for ner materials. Consequently, more trials may be
required for these materials to establish a reliable CBR.
This test method provides for the determination of the CBR of a material at optimum water content or
range of\ water content from a specied compaction test and a specied dry unit weight. The dry unit
www.iosrjournals.org
19 | Page
20 | Page
Fig 25: Load vs. penetration graph for normal soil sample
www.iosrjournals.org
21 | Page
Proving reading
0
4.5
9.5
10.5
14.0
15.0
15.5
17.0
17.5
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
Fig 27: Load vs. penetration graph for soil+ 5% fly ash
www.iosrjournals.org
22 | Page
Fig 28: load vs. penetration graph for soil + 10% fly ash
www.iosrjournals.org
23 | Page
0
2
4
7
10
12
13
14
15
15
16
18
19
20
Fig 30: load vs. penetration graph for soil + 20% fly ash
www.iosrjournals.org
24 | Page
25 | Page
www.iosrjournals.org
26 | Page
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
750
1000
1250
CBR value for soaked plain soil sample for 2.5 mm penetration =2.92%
CBR value for soaked plain soil sample for 5 mm penetration = 2.23 %
Qu (lb/ft2)
0-500
500-1000
1000-2000
2000-4000
4000-8000
27 | Page
www.iosrjournals.org
28 | Page
Strain(e)
A=
Ao/1e(cm2)
Proving
ring
reading(div.)
Axial load
(kg)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0.65
1.31
1.973
2.631
3.289
3.947
4.605
5.263
5.921
6.578
11.415
11.502
11.572
11.647
11.726
11.807
11.888
11.971
12.054
12.139
4
7
18
27
37
45
50
54
55.5
55.5
1.3356
2.337
6.010
9.0153
12.354
15.025
16.695
18.030
18.531
18.531
Compressive
stress(qu)
(kg/cm2)
0.117
0.203
0.519
0.774
1.05
1.272
1.404
1.506
1.537
1.526
Shear
stress(qu/2)
(kg/cm2)
0.052
0.1015
0.259
0.387
0.525
0.636
0.702
0.753
0.7685
0.760
dial
Strain(e)
0.65
1.31
1.973
2.631
3.289
3.147
4.605
5.263
5.921
A=
e(cm2)
11.415
11.502
11.572
11.647
11.726
11.807
11.888
11.971
12.054
Ao/1-
Proving
reading(div.)
4
10
21
30
39
59
55
55
50
ring
Axial load
(kg)
1.3356
3.339
7.0119
7.017
13.0221
17.028
18.36
18.36
16.695
Compressive
stress(qu) (kg/cm2)
0.117
0.290
0.605
0.860
1.11
1.442
1.544
1.533
1.385
Shear stress(qu/2)
(kg/cm2)
0.0585
0.145
0.3025
0.43
0.555
0.721
0.772
0.665
0.6925
29 | Page
dial
Strain(e)
A=
Ao/1-e
(cm2)
Proving
ring
reading(div.)
Axial
(kg)
0.65
1.31
1.973
2.631
3.289
3.947
4.605
5.263
5.921
11.415
11.502
11.572
11.647
11.726
11.807
11.888
11.971
12.054
4
7
19
26
29
31.5
33
33
32
1.3356
2.337
6.345
8.681
9.683
10.517
11.018
11.018
10.684
load
Compressive
stress(qu)
(kg/cm2)
0.116
0.203
0.548
0.754
0.825
0.890
0.926
0.920
0.914
Shear
stress(qu/2)
(kg/cm2)
0.58
0.1015
0.274
0.3725
0.4125
0.445
0.463
0.46
0.457
Table.12: Tabulation of UCC test values for soil + 10% fly ash
Unconfined compressive strength of the sample=0.46 kg/cm2
VI.
30 | Page
Fig 37: Figure showing all soil samples with various % of fly ash
When 10% of fly ash is added to the soil by its weight the stability of the soil decreased considerably
than the original soil.The CBR value of the soil is 6.597%.
When 20% of fly ash is added to the soil by its weight the stability of soil of the soil decreased
considerably than the original soil and the above consecutive percentages of fly ash mixed with soil.
When soaked CBR test is conducted on the soaked plain sample the CBR value is found to be 1.3
which indicates that the soil is medium soil.
When 5% fly ash is added to the soil sample and soaked CBR test is conducted the CBR value
increases to 2.7 % which shows that the soil is very good soil.
By the increase in the % of fly ash the stability f the soil decreases that the soaked CBR value
decreases.so the optimum percentage of fly ash that is to be added to the soil is 5% which gives more
strength to the sub grade.
Table.13
www.iosrjournals.org
31 | Page
Table.14
Graph:
www.iosrjournals.org
32 | Page
VII.
Conclusion
The stability of the pavement solely depends on the stability of the embankment.In case we encounter
an embankment consisting of the expansive soils; its tendency to imbibe water weakens the stability of
pavement. Hence, instead of replacing the soil we are in turn stabilizing the existing the existing strength of the
sub grade by which we are actually increasing the bearing capacity of the pavement.
With reference to all the laboratory tests that are performed on the soil, we conclude that the plain soil
stability i. e the CBR value initially was 5.5 which by adding 5%, 10% and 20% fly ash are 7.61, 6.59 and 6.09
respectively by which we came to know that the optimum composition of the fly ash that should be added to the
soil to increase its stability is 5% by its weight. Hence the compressive stress of the soil is found by adding 5%
fly ash to the soil using unconfined compressive test.
Ultimately, the main aim of the project is to increase the characteristic strength of the soil by reducing
the economy as much as possible. This purpose is achieved here by using the by-product from the thermal
industry (Fly ash), which does not cost too much. Hence this way the project becomes efficient as well as
economical.
Acknowledgment
We express our indebtness and gratitude to our guide Mr.Gajendra, assistant professor in
GokarajuRangarajucollege of engineering, for his guidance and extreme care taken by him in helping us to
complete the project work successfully. We are grateful to him for the extensive care rendered to us right from
the initiation of the project to the final editing of the manuscript. This project would not have been completed
without his help who has given enough exposure in the areas related to the work and as well as provided us with
his ever present help.
We express our sincere thanks to Dr. VenkataRamana., ph.d (civil), M.Tech (W.R.E), for his support
and guidance for doing this project. We are also thank full for all the working and non-working staff of Civil
Engineering Department.
We also thank our college GOKARAJU RANGARAJU ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY. For providing the required lab apparatus and equipment for doing this project.
We are also thankful to each and every one name by name who has been friendly and helped us directly
or indirectly in execution of this project.
References
[1].
[2].
[3].
[4].
[5].
[6].
Soil Stabilization for Pavements: EM 1110-3-137. Washington DC: US Army Corps of Engineers, 1984.
Huffman, John E.Base/Subgrade Stabilization.Salina, KS: The Asphalt Institute, Kansas State University at Salina, 1995
Chen, F. H. (1988), Foundations on expansive soils, Chen & Associates, Elsevier Publications, U.S.A.
ErdalCokca (2001) Use Of Class C Fly Ashes for the Stabilization of an Expansive Soil Journal of Geotechnical and Geo
environmental Engineering Vol. 127, July, pp. 568-573.
Pandian,N.S.,Krishna,K.C.&Leelavathamma B., (2002), Effect of Fly Ash on the CBR Behaviour of Soils , Indian Geotechnical
Conference , Allahabad , Vol.1,pp.183-186.
Phanikumar B.R., &RadheyS.Sharma(2004) Effect of fly ash on Engg properties of Expansive Soil Journal of Geotechnical and
Geo environmental Engineering Vol. 130, no 7,July, pp. 764-767.
www.iosrjournals.org
33 | Page
Prashanth J.P., (1998)"Evaluation of the Properties of Fly Ash for its Use in Geotechnical Applications ".Ph.D Thesis, IISC.
Bangalore.
Raymond N.Yong and BennoP.Warkentin (1975)" Soil Properties and Behaviour Elsevier Publications, U.S.A.
ASTM D698, 1992ASTMD698 Annual Book of ASTM StandardSASTM, Philadelphia (1992) Vol. 04.08
ASTM D1883, 2005, ASTMD1883, ASTM Standard Test Method for Bearing Ratio of Laboratory-Compacted Soils, ASTM,
Philadelphia (2005).
ASTM D2166, 2006, ASTMD2166, ASTM Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Soil, ASTM,
Philadelphia (2006).
Bera et al., 2007, A.K. Bera, A. Ghosh, A. Ghosh, Compaction characteristics of pond ash, J. Mater. Civil Eng. ASCE, 19 (4)
(2007), pp. 349357.
Chauhan et al., 2008, M.S. Chauhan, S. Mittal, B. Mohanty, Performance evaluation of silty sand subgrade reinforced with fly ash
and fibre, Chu et al., 1955, T.Y. Chu, D.T. Davidson, W.L. Goecker, Z.C. Moh, Soil stabilization with lime-flyash mixtures:
Preliminary studies with silty and clayey soils, Highway Res. Board Bull., 108 (1955), pp. 102112.
DiGioia and Nuzzo, 1972, A.M. DiGioia, W.L. Nuzzo, Fly ash as structural fill, J. Power Div. ASCE, 98 (1) (1972), pp. 7792.
Ghosh and Subbarao, 2007, A. Ghosh, C. Subbarao, Strength characteristics of class F fly ash modified with lime and gypsum, J.
Geotech. Geoenv. Eng. ASCE, 133 (7) (2007), pp. 757766.
Gray and Lin, 1972, D.H. Gray, Y.K. Lin, Engineering properties of compacted fly ash, J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. ASCE, 98 (4)
(1972), pp. 361380
ASTM-D 6951-3 (2003). Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications.
Brown, S.F. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Pavement Engineering. Geotechnique, 46 (3), 383-426.
Choudhary, A.K., Jha, J.N. & gill, K.S. (2010). Utilization of Plastic Waste for Improving the Subgrades in Flexible Pavements.
Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, 203, 320-326.
IS 2720 (Part V) (1985). Determination of Liquid & Plastic Limits.
IS 2720. Method of Test for Soil (Part VIII) (1980) Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content & Dry Density.
Scala, A.J. (1956). Simple Methods of Flexible Pavement Design Using Cone Penetrometer. N. Z. Eng., 11 (2).
Ali Jawaid S.M., Shukla. V.K., (1996) Stabilization of silty sand using RHA and Gypsum Indian Geotechnical Conference,
Madras. PP 419_421.
Gopal Ranjan, A.J.R. Rao, a text book on Fundamentals of soil mechanics.
IS: 2720 part- 5 (1970): Determination of Liquid limit and Plastic limit.
IS: 2720 part- 6 (1972): Determination of Shrinkage limit.
Koteswara Rao. D et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)
ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 11 November 2011 8084
IS: 2720 Part-10 (1973): Determination of Unconfined compressive strength.
IS: 2720 part- 6 (1974): Determination of Dry density and Optimum moisture content.
IS: 2720 part- 4 (1975): Grain size analysis.
IS: 2720 part-40 (1977): Determination of Free Swell Index.
IS: 2720 Part-16 (1979): Determination of California bearing ratio.
Manjit Singh (2005) Utilisation of phosphor gypsum- a broad review,
The Indian concrete journal pp 40-48
Mohammed Ali and Sreenivasulu.V. (2004) An experimental study on the influence of Rice husk ash and Lime on properties of
Bentonite, IGC, Warangal, PP 468-471.
Rajesh B. Thakare, O.P Bhatia and K.G. Hiraskar (2001) Phosphogypsum utilization in India: Literature survey The Indian
concrete journal PP 408-410.
Rama Rao. R and Satyanarayana P.V.V (2003) use of RHA, Lime and Gypsum in strengthening sub-grade and sub base in low
cost roads National conference on modern cement concrete and bituminous roads, Vizag PP 374-379.
Fidelis O. OKAFOR andUgochukwu. N. OKONKWO9 (2009) Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies.
GhassanAboodHabeeb and Hilmi Bin Mahmud (2011), Study on properties of rice husk ash and its use as cement replacement
material Can BurakSisman and ErhanGezer (2011), Effects of rice husk ash on characteristics of the briquette produced for masonry
units.
CHOI S.K LEE S. SONG Y.K Leaching characteristics of selected Korean fly ashes and its implications for the ground water
composition near the ash mound. Fuel. 81, 1080, 2002.
IYER R. The surface chemistry of leaching Coal fly ash. J.Hazard material.B93, 321, 2002.
Kezdi, J.E, 1992, engineering properties of soils and their measurements, MC Grawhill. Inc, New York.
Determination of liquid limit and plastic limit. Indian standard methods for testing of soils-IS2720 (a) Indian standard Institution,
New Delhi, India, part 5, pp 109-144,1985.
Sivapullaiah P.V Prashanth J. P Reactive silica and strength of fly ash, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Vol.16, 1998,
pp239-250.
ASTM, Standard test method for 24-h batch type measurement of Contaminant by soils and sediments, International American
Standard testing method D464687 (reapproved2001. USA, 2001.
Dmitris dermatasXiaoguangMeng. Utilization of fly ash for Stabilization/Solidification of heavy metal Contaminated soils, Engg
Geology., 70, 2003, PP377-394.
Arif Ali Baig, Sivapullaiah.P.V, Heavy metal leach ability of low lime fly ashes, in Indian Geotechnical Conference-2008,
Advances in geotechnical Engineering Vol II, 2008, PP470-473.
Fundamentals of Geotechnical analysis, I.S. Dunn, L.R. Anderson, F.W. Kiefer.
Effect on CBR values and other Geotechnical propertiesof Fly ash mixed with lime and nonwoven geofabrics, R. D. Gupta,
JavedAlam, Mohd. Farooqi.
Consideration of Lime- Stabilization layers in Pavement design, National lime association.
Soil mechanics and Foundation engineering, K. R. Arora.
Highway Engineering, Khanna and Justo.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
www.iosrjournals.org
34 | Page