Soil Stabilization Using Fly Ash

Soil Stabilization By Using Fly Ash
Chapter -1
Introduction
Soil stabilization is a technique aimed at increasing or maintaining the stability of soil mass
and chemical alteration of soils to enhance their engineering properties. Stabilization can be
used to treat a wide range of sub-grade materials from expansive clays to granular materials.
This allows for the establishment of design criteria as well as the determination of the proper
chemical additive and admixture rate to be used in order to achieve the desired engineering
properties. Benefits of the stabilization process can include higher resistance values, reduction
in plasticity, lower permeability, reduction of pavement thickness, elimination of excavation
material hauling or handling. Stabilization of expansive soils with admixtures controls the
potential of soils for a change in volume, and improves the strength of soils. In the field of
geotechnical engineering, it has long been known that swelling of expansive soils caused by
moisture change result in significant distresses and hence in severe damage to overly structures.
Expansive soil are known as shrink swell or swelling soils. Different clays have different
susceptibility to swelling. Such soils expand when they are wetted and shrink when dried. This
movement exerts pressure to crack sidewalks, basement floors, pipelines and foundations.
In developing country like India, due to industrial development there is an increase in a demand
for energy which has resulted in construction of considerable coal-burning power plants. This
development brought with the problem of safe disposal or beneficial utilization of large
quantities of by-product like fly ash every year and there is a signal requirement to be carried
out toward management of fly ash disposal and utilization. Fly ash is utilized in cement and
construction. However, the rate of production is greater than consumption. The unused fly ash
is disposed into holding ponds, lagoons, landfills and slag heaps. Coals contains significant
quantities of various trace elements, and during combustion of coal as a result of carbon loss
as carbon-di-oxide and the trace elements are associated with the surface of the fly ash particles
due to evaporation and contamination. The disposal of fly ash is considered a potential source
of contamination due to enrichment and surface association of trace sediments in the ash
particles. The toxic elements can contaminate ground water and surface water therefore,
effective water management plants are required for fly ash disposal.
B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 1

Chapter - 2
Literature Review
Louisiana standard specification (2006): Various states established their own criteria for
modification and stabilization. The LADOTD recommends the criteria for the selection of the
stabilizer based on the soil characteristic. Furthermore, the Texas DOT has a wide range of
selection of stabilizers for sub-grade and sub-base soils, which describes the selection of
various stabilizers based on the properties of the sub-grade soils. Fly ashes produced by power
plants in the United States occasionally contain significant amounts of unburned carbon due to
common use of low nitrogen-oxide and sulphur-oxide burners in recent years. This ash cannot
be reused in concrete production due to its reactivity with air entrainment admixtures and is
being land filled at large percentages. A study was conducted to stabilize low stiffness road
surface material with high carbon fly ash. The non-cementitious fly ash was activated with
another recycled material, lime kiln dust (LKD). California bearing ratio (CBR) and resilient
modulus tests were conducted to determine the strength and stiffness, respectively, of the
stabilized materials. Addition of LKD and curing of specimens generally increased CBR and
summary resilient modulus (SMR), and lowered plastic strains, CBR increased with increasing
CaO content as well as with CaO/SiO2 and CaO/(SiO2 +Al2O3) ratio of the mixtures;
however, these parameters could not be correlated with the SMR. The unpaved road materials
stabilized with LKD and fly ash are expected to lose 31–67% of their initial moduli after 12
cycles of freezing and thawing. Lower base thicknesses and reduction in construction costs can
be expected by stabilizing road surface materials with high carbon fly ash.
S. Kolias (2004): The effectiveness of using high calcium fly ash in stabilising fine-grained
clayey soils (CL,CH) was investigated in the laboratory. Strength tests in uni-axial
compression, in indirect (splitting) tension and flexure were carried out on samples to which
various percentages of fly ash and cement had been added. Modulus of elasticity was
determined at 90 days with different types of load application and 90-day soaked CBR values
are also reported. Pavement structures incorporating sub-grades improved by in situ
stabilisation with fly ash and cement were analyzed for construction traffic and for operating
traffic. These pavements are compared with conventional flexible pavements without improved
subgrades and the results clearly show the technical benefits of stabilising clayey soils with fly
ash and cement. In addition TG–SDTA and XRD tests were carried out on certain samples in
order to study the hydraulic compounds, which were formed. This work shows that the
potential benefit of stabilising clayey soils with high calcium fly ash but this depends on the
type of soil, the amount of stabilising agent and the age. The study of the formation of the
hydraulic products during the curing of clay containing as a stabilising agent high calcium fly
ash shows that a significant amount of tobermorite is formed leading to a denser and more
stable structure of the samples. A further addition of cement provides better setting and
hardening and the combination of these two binders can increase the early as well the final
strength of the stabilised material. The free CaO of fly ash reacts with the clay constituents
(SiO2 and the other aluminium silicates) leading to the formation of tobermorites and calcium
aluminium silicate hydrates as well.

Cetin Bora et. al. (2010):

Roadways are one of the largest construction fields, and reuse of suitable waste materials
Maryland. The effects of lime kiln dust (LKD) and fly ash addition, and curing time on strength
and stiffness of highway bases were studied. The effects of winter conditions on stiffness were
examined by performing resilient modulus tests on the specimens after a series of freeze–thaw
cycles. The base thicknesses were calculated for all mixture designs by using their CBR and
summary resilient moduli (SMR) values.
Misra Anil (2004): Fly ashes are being increasingly used for soil stabilization of road bases
and in other civil constructions. Because of their self- cementing capability in the presence of
water, they can be used for clay sub-grade improvement as cement surrogates, or as road sub-
grade material. However, for efficient and economic utilization of self-cementing class C fly
ash, the physico-mechanical characteristics of these ashes must be determined extensively. This
paper focuses upon the laboratory evaluation of the (1) stabilization characteristics of clay soils
blended with self-cementing class C fly ash, and (2) residual self-cementation capabilities of
ponded class C fly ash. Testing carried out by the authors and other researchers have indicated
that curing time, curing condition, clay mineralogy, amount of fly ash and swelling potential
in the soil-fly ash mix are the important variables that control stabilization characteristics. In
this paper, the stabilization characteristics were evaluated in terms of the gain in the uni-axial
compressive strength and stiffness, and swelling potential. To examine these effects, 12 set of
mixtures of ideal clay soils with known percentages of kaolinite and montmorillonite, self-
cementing class C fly ash and appropriate amount of water were compacted and cured. In the
mixed samples, amount of montmorillonite varied from 0, 2, 4 and 6%, and the amount of self-
cementing class C fly ash varied from 5, 10 and 20%. To investigate the effect of curing
condition, three curing environments were used. For swelling test, the cured samples were
inundated and allowed to swell at the seating pressure of about 2 KPa applied by the weight of
the top porous stone and load plate using the one dimensional odometer apparatus. In addition
to the stabilization characteristics of clay soils-fly ash blend, the residual self- cementation
capabilities of ponded class C fly ash were also investigated in terms of unconfined
compression and CBR tests performed at 7 and 14 days of curing. Results obtained from these
test were encouraging and compared favourably with the typical sub-grade materials.
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 untrained
shear strength of the expansive soil blended with Fly Ash increases with the increase in the ash
content.

Chapter-3
Some basic concepts
Several tests has been conducted to observed geotechnical properties of black soil like, sieve
analysis, specific gravity test, Atterberg limit tests. In case of flexible pavement construction
bottom most layer is soil sub-grade. It is desire that soil sub-grade should carry loads without
large deformations which finally results in failure of pavements. For economic design, locally
available soil should use as soil sub-grade. It is tedious job for civil engineer to provided
flexible pavement on black soil due to swelling shrinkage nature of soil. As for soil Sub-grade
normally locally available soil are used, soil improvement will be required. Now a days various
techniques are available to stabilized soil. So, as part of soil stabilization fly ash is used in
varying percent as 15,20,25%, and effect of fly ash on water content density relationship &
CBR value will be observed. So, in connection with the Attterberg limits test first we have to
go through some basic knowledge about liquid limit, plastic limit, & shrinkage limit.
Sieve analysis: This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain sizes
contained within a soil. The mechanical or sieve analysis is performed to determine the
distribution of the coarser, larger-sized particles, and the hydrometer method is used to
determine the distribution of the finer particles. The distribution of different grain sizes affects
the engineering properties of soil. Grain size analysis provides the grain size distribution, and
it is required in classifying the soil. This method covers the quantitative determination of the
distribution of particle sizes in soils. The distribution of particle sizes larger than 75 mm is
determined by sieving, while the distribution of particle sizes smaller than 75 mm is determined
by a sedimentation process, using a hydrometer to secure the necessary data. A typical grain
size distribution curve is shown here showing cohesive soil and non-cohesive soil.
Nnn
Fig.3.1: Grain size distribution curve

Specific gravity: This lab is performed to determine the specific gravity of soil by using a
pycnometer. Specific gravity is the ratio of the mass of unit volume of soil at a stated
temperature to the mass of the same volume of gas-free distilled water at a stated temperature.
The specific gravity of a soil is used in the phase relationship of air, water, and solids in a given
volume of the soil.

Liquid limit: The liquid limit is defined as the moisture content at which soil begins to behave
as a liquid material and begins to flow. The liquid limit is determined in the lab as the moisture
content at which the two sides of a groove formed in soil come together and touch for a distance
of 2 inch after 25 blows.
Plastic limit: The water content at which the soil begins to crumble when rolled into threads
of specified size i.e. 3mm. The Plastic Limit, also known as the lower plastic limit, is the water
content at which a soil changes from the plastic state to a semisolid state.
Fig.3.2: Atterberg consistency limit

Shrinkage limit: The maximum water content at which the reduction in water content will not
cause decrease in total volume of soil but the increase in moisture content will cause an increase
in moisture content.
Table.3.1: Atterberg Limit values for the clay minerals

Significance Atterberg limits test:

The Swedish soil scientist Albert Atterberg originally defined seven “limits of consistency” to
classify fine-grained soils, but in current engineering practice only two of the limits, the liquid
and plastic limits, are commonly used. (A third limit, called the shrinkage limit, is used
occasionally.) The Atterberg limits are based on the moisture content of the soil. The plastic
limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil changes from a semi-solid to a plastic
(flexible) state. The liquid limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil changes from
a plastic to a viscous fluid state. The shrinkage limit is the moisture content that defines where
the soil volume will not reduce further if the moisture content is reduced. A wide variety of
soil engineering properties have been correlated to the liquid and plastic limits, and these
Atterberg limits are also used to classify a fine-grained soil according to the Unified Soil
Classification system or AASHTO system.
Fig.3.3:Water content continuum showing the various states of a soil as well as the
generalized stress-strain response
Compaction & its objective: Many types of earth construction, such as dams, retaining walls,
highways, and airport, require man-placed soil, or fill. To compact a soil, that is, to place it in
a dense state. The dense state is achieved through the reduction of the air voids in the soil, with
little or no reduction in the water content. This process must not be confused with
consolidation, in which water is squeezed out under the action of a continuous static load.
Objectives:
(1) Decrease future settlements
(2) Increase shear strength
(3) Decrease permeability
Significance: Mechanical compaction is one of the most common and cost effective means of
stabilizing soils. An extremely important task of geotechnical engineers is the performance and
analysis of field control tests to assure that compacted fills are meeting the prescribed design
specifications.

Design specifications usually state the required density (as a percentage of the “maximum”
density measured in a standard laboratory test), and the water content. In general, most
engineering properties, such as the strength, stiffness, resistance to shrinkage and
imperviousness of the soil, will improve by increasing the soil density. Now in the later part of
the project the tests that were done are standard proctor test & CBR test. But before
understanding the concept of standard proctor test we have to learn to most important term i.e.
optimum moisture content and dry density.
Optimum moisture content: The achieved after a given compaction effort. A max dry unit
weight would be when zero voids are in the soil. Optimum Water Content of soil is the water
content at which a maximum dry unit weight can be attained.
Maximum dry density: The maximum density of a material for a specific compactive effort
is the highest density obtainable when the compaction is carried out on the material at varied
moisture contents.
Fig.3.4: Moisture content Vs Dry density curve

For a given compactive effort and dry density, the soil tends to be more flocculated (random)
for compaction on the dry side as compared on the wet side. For a given molding water content,
increasing the compactive effort tends to disperse (parallel, oriented) the soil, especially on the
dry side.
Proctor Compaction Test: Proctor Compaction Test determines the optimum water content
and maximum dry density of for a soil. The test equipment consist of
i) Cylindrical mould , having an internal diameter of 4inches (10.5 cm), an internal
effective height of 4.6 inches (11.7 cm) and a capacity of 1/30 cu.ft. (0.945 litre)
ii) Detachable base plate,
iii) Collar 2 inches (5 cm) in effective height and
iv) Rammer 5.5 lb (2.5 kg) in mass falling through a height of 12 inches (30.5 cm).

Fig.3.5: Effect of compaction on soil structure
The test consist in compacting soil at various water content in the mould , in three equal layers
each layer being given 25 blows of the hammer . The dry density obtained in each test is
determined by knowing the mass of the compacted soil and its water content. This water content
will help to plot the water content vs dry density graph from which optimum moisture content
and maximum dry density can be find out.
The test consist in compacting soil at various water content in the mould , in three
equal layers , each layer being given 25 blows of the hammer . the dry density obtained in each
test is determined by knowing the mass of the compacted soil and its water content. This water
content will help to plot the water content vs dry density graph from which optimum moisture
content and maximum dry density can be find out.
Unconfined compression test: The primary purpose of this test is to determine the unconfined
compressive strength, which is then used to calculate the unconsolidated undrained shear
strength of the clay under unconfined conditions. According to the ASTM standard, the
unconfined compressive strength (qu) is defined as the compressive stress at
which an unconfined cylindrical specimen of soil will fail in a simple compression test. In
addition, in this test method, the unconfined compressive strength is taken as the maximum
load attained per unit area, or the load per unit area at 15% axial strain, whichever occurs first
during the performance of a test.
Significance: For soils, the undrained shear strength (Su) is necessary for the
determination of the bearing capacity of foundations, dams, etc. The undrained shear strength
(Su) of clays is commonly determined from an unconfined compression test. The undrained
shear strength (Su) of a cohesive soil is equal to one-half the unconfined compressive strength
(qu) when the soil is under the f = 0 condition (f = the angle of internal friction). The most
critical condition for the soil usually occurs immediately after construction, which represents
undrained conditions, when the undrained shear strength is basically equal to the cohesion (c).
This is expressed as: Su = c = qu/2
Then, as time passes, the pore water in the soil slowly dissipates, and the intergranular stress
increases, so that the drained shear strength (s), given by s = c + s`tan f , must be used. Where

s` = intergranular pressure acting perpendicular to the shear plane; and s` = (s - u), s = total
pressure, and u = pore water pressure; c` and j` are drained shear strength parameters.
CBR Test: The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test measures the resistance of the sub-grade
to deformation under the load from vehicle wheels i.e. puts a figure on the strength of the
ground upon which a road or airport will be built. This test allows the comparison of the
strengths of various sub-grade materials and the road pavement to be designed for a given
strength of sub-grade. The basic site test is performed by measuring the pressure required to
penetrate soil or aggregate with a plunger of standard area. The measured pressure is then
divided by the pressure required to achieve an equal penetration on a standard crushed rock
material. The CBR test is described in ASTM Standards D1883-05 (for laboratory-prepared
samples) and D4429 (for soils in place in field), and AASHTO T193. The CBR test is fully
described in BS 1377 : Soils for civil engineering purposes : Part 4, Compaction related tests,
and in Part 9: In-situ tests.
Determination of CBR: It is the ratio of force per unit area required to penetrate a soil mass
with standard circular piston at the rate of 1.25 mm/min. to that required for the
corresponding penetration of a standard material.
C.B.R. = Test load/Standard load X100
The CBR test carried out on a compacted soil in a CBR mould 150mm in diameter and 175
mm in height, provided with a detachable collar of 50mm in height and a detachable perforated
base plate. A displacer disc, 50mm in height and during the specimen preparation , enables a
specimen of 125mm deep to be obtained . The moulding water content and dry density should
be the same as would be maintained during field compaction. During penetration test, the
specimen is covered with equal surcharge weights to simulate the effect t of overlying
pavement or the particular underlying construction. Each surcharge slotted weight, 147mm in
diameter and weighing approximately 2.5 kg is considered equivalent to 6.5 cm of construction.
A minimum of two surcharge weights is placed on the specimen. Load is applied on the
penetration plunger so that the penetration is approximately 1.25 mm/min.
Table 3.2: Different standard loads corresponding to various penetration of plunger
The load readings are recorded at penetration, 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0,
12.5 mm. The load penetration curve is shown in the figure. The CBR values are usually
calculated for the penetration of 2.5 mm and 5 mm. Generally the CBR values at 2.5 mm
penetration will be greater than at 5 mm penetration and in such a case the former is to be taken
as the CBR value for design purpose.

If the CBR value corresponding to a penetration of 5 mm exceeds that for

2.5 mm, the test is repeated. If identical results follow, the bearing ratio corresponding to 5mm
penetration is taken for design.
Fig.3.6: Showing load vs penetration curve and corrections

Chapter - 4
Laboratory Test
4.1. DETERMINATIONOF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION BY SIEVING
Object and Scope:

The object of this experiment is to be determine grain-size distribution of coarse grained soil
by sieving. This test cover both coarse and fine sieve analysis.
Material and Equipment:

(i) Balances accurate to 1 g and 0.1 g,
(ii)Set of IS Sieves:100mm,75mm,22mm,10mm,4.75mm,2.36mm,1.18mm,600micron,
425micron, 300micron,212micron,150micron,75micron size.
(iii) Thermostatically controlled oven,
(iv) Two or more large metal or plastic water tight trays,
(v) Sieve brushes and wire brush,
(vi) Mortar with a rubber covered pestle,
(vii) Mechanical Sieve-shaker ,
(viii) Riffler.
Test Procedure:
1. Using a riffler, take a representative sample of soil received from the field and dry it in the
oven.
2. Weight the required quantity of dried soil, keep it in a tray and soak it with water. Depending
on the maximum size of material present in substantial quantities in the soil, the mass of soil
sample taken for analysis may be follows [IS : 2720 (Part IV)-1985].
3. Wash the material passing through the 4.75 mm sieve through a 75-micron sieve so that silt
and clay particles are separated from the sand fraction. Collect the material passing through
75-micron sieve and the material retained on it in separate containers, and keep them in oven.
4. Material retained on 4.75mm sieve through the following set of sieves: 100mm, 19mm,
10mm and 4.75mm by hand sieving. The mass of material retained on each sieve should be
recorded.

Figure 4.1: Sieve Arrangement
Maximum size of material present in substantial Mass to be taken for test (kg)
quantities (mm)
75 60
40 25
25 13
19 6.5
12.5 3.5
10 1.5
6.5 0.75
4.75 0.40

5. Sieve dried material retained on 75-micron sieve through the following set of sieves: 2mm,
1mm, 600-micron, 425-micron, 300-microm, 212-micron, 150-micron, 75-micron size. The set
of sieves should be arranged one above the other and fitted to mechanical sieve shaker. A cover
should be placed on the top of the 2mm sieve, and a receiver should be placed below the 75-
micron sieve. A minimum of 10 minutes sieving should be used. The soil fraction retained on
each sieve should be carefully collected in containers and determine the mass of each fraction.
Tabulation of Observations:
The test observations and results are recorded in table below, the % of retained on each sieve
is calculated on the basis of total mass of soil sample taken and from these results the % passing
through each of sieve is calculated.
Data and Observation Sheet for Sieve analysis

Natural Soil
Mass of dry soil sample: 1000g
Mass retained on 4.75 mm sieve: 266g
Mass passing through 75-micron sieve: 8g
Table 4.1.1: Data and Observation Sheet for Sieve Analysis of Natural Soil only
SL. IS Sieve Particle size Mass % Cumulative Cumulative
NO. D (mm) retained retained % retained % finer (N)
(kg)
1. 100 mm 100 mm 0 0 0 100
2. 75 mm 75 mm 0 0 0 100
3. 20 mm 20 mm 0 0 0 100
4. 10 mm 10 mm 0.068 6.8 6.8 93.2
5. 4.75 mm 4.75 mm 0.198 19.8 26.6 73.4
6. 2.36 mm 2.360 mm 0.172 17.2 43.8 56.2
7. 1.18 mm 1.18 mm 0.120 12 55.8 44.2
8. 600 micron 0.6 mm 0.116 11.6 67.4 32.6
9. 425 micron 0.425 mm 0.102 10.2 77.6 22.4
10. 300 micron 0.300 mm 0.076 7.6 85.2 14.8
11. 150 micron 0.150 mm 0.130 13 98.2 1.8
12. 75 micron 0.075 mm 0.010 1 99.2 0.8
13. Pan - 0.008 0.8 100 0

Natural Soil +15%FlyAsh

Mass of dry soil sample: 1000 g
Mass retained on 4.75 mm sieve: 266 g
Mass passing through 75-micron sieve: 8 g
Table 4.1.2: Data and Observation Sheet for Sieve Analysis of Soil and 15%
Fly Ash
(kg)
1. 100 mm 100 mm 0 0 0 100
2. 75 mm 75 mm 0 0 0 100
3. 20 mm 20 mm 0 0 0 100
4. 10 mm 10 mm 0.068 6.8 6.8 93.2
5. 4.75 mm 4.75 mm 0.198 19.8 26.6 73.4
6. 2.36 mm 2.36 mm 0.172 17.2 43.8 56.2
7. 1.18 mm 1.18 mm 0.120 12 55.8 44.2
8. 600 micron 0.6 mm 0.116 11.6 67.4 32.6
9. 425 micron 0.425 mm 0.102 10.2 77.6 22.4
10. 300 micron 0.300 mm 0.076 7.6 85.2 14.8
11. 150 micron 0.150 mm 0.130 13 98.2 1.8
12. 75 micron 0.075 mm 0.010 1 99.2 0.8
13. Pan - 0.008 0.8 100 0
Natural Soil+20%FlyAsh

Mass passing through 75-micron sieve: Nil
Table 4.1.3: Data and Observation Sheet for Sieve Analysis of Soil and 20% Fly
Ash
(kg)
1. 100 mm 100 mm 0 0 0 100
2. 75 mm 75 mm 0 0 0 100
3. 20 mm 20 mm 0 0 0 100


(kg)
4. 10 mm 10 mm 0.132 13.2 13.2 86.8
5. 4.75 mm 4.75 mm 0.262 26.2 39.4 60.6
6. 2.36 mm 2.36 mm 0.142 14.2 53.6 46.4
7. 1.18 mm 1.18 mm 0.092 9.2 62.8 37.2
8. 600 micron 0.6 mm 0.058 5.8 68.6 31.4
9. 425 micron 0.425 mm 0.066 6.6 75.2 24.8
10. 300 micron 0.300 mm 0.050 5 80.2 19.8
11. 150 micron 0.150 mm 0.180 18 98.2 1.8
12. 75 micron 0.075 mm 0.018 1.8 100 0
13. Pan - 0 0 100 0
Natural Soil+25%FlyAsh
Mass passing through 75-micron sieve: 10 g
Table 4.1.4: Data and Observation Sheet for Sieve Analysis of Soil and 25%
Fly Ash

(kg)
1. 100 mm 100 mm 0 0 0 100
2. 75 mm 75 mm 0 0 0 100
3. 20 mm 20 mm 0 0 0 100
4. 10 mm 10 mm 0.114 11.4 11.4 88.6
5. 4.75 mm 4.75 mm 0.204 20.4 31.8 68.2
6. 2.36 mm 2.36 mm 0.156 15.6 46.4 52.6
7. 1.18 mm 1.18 mm 0.098 9.8 56.2 42.8
8. 600 micron 0.6 mm 0.074 7.4 63.6 35.4
9. 425 micron 0.425 mm 0.062 6.2 69.8 29.2
10. 300 micron 0.300 mm 0.050 5 74.8 24.2
11. 150 micron 0.150 mm 0.198 19.8 94.6 4.4
12. 75 micron 0.075 mm 0.034 3.4 98 1
13. Pan - 0.010 1 99 0

4.2. DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SOIL AND SOIL

MIX WITH FLYASH BY DENSITY BOTTLE
OBJECT AND SCOPE:-

The object of the test is to determine the specific gravity of soil fraction passing 4.75 mm sieve
and soil mix with 15% , 20% , 25% fly ash respectively by density bottle .
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT:-

i) Density bottle of 50 ml or 100 ml capacity, with stopper having capillary hole at its Centre,
ii) Constant temperature water bath having a constant temperature of 27˚C,
iii) Balance sensitive to 0.001g,
iv) Vacuum source,
v) Wash bottle filled with deaired distilled water,
vi) Alcohol,
viii) Ether.
TEST PROCEDURE:
1. To clean and dry the density bottle , wash it thoroughly with distilled water and allow it to
drain . Rinse the bottle with alcohol to remove the water and drain the alcohol. Then rinse
the bottle with ether to remove the alcohol and drain the ether . Turn the bottle upside down
for a few minutes to permit the ether vapor to come out.
2. Find the mass of the empty cleaned bottle (M1) accurate to 0.001g with its stopper.
3. Take about 10 to 20g of oven dried soil sample or soil with respective fly ash mix sample
cooled in the desiccator and transfer it carefully to the density bottle. Find the mass (M2) of
the bottle and the soil , with the stopper .
4. Put about 10 ml deaired distilled water in the bottle, so that the soil is fully soaked. Leave
it for a period of 2 to 10 hours.
5. Add more distilled water so that the bottle is about half full. Remove the entrapped air by
subjecting the contents to a partial vacuum (air pressure not exceeding 100 mm of mercury).
6. Fill in the bottle completely, put the stopper on and place the bottle on the stand fitted in
the constant temperature water bath. Keep it there for about one hour so that the temperature
of soil and water in the bottle also reaches 27˚C

Figure 4.2.1: Density bottle

7. Take out the bottle and wipe it clean and dry from outside. Fill the capillary of the stopper
with drops of distilled water , in case it is not full . Determine the mass of the bottle and its
contents (M3).
8. Empty the bottle and clean it thoroughly. Fill it with distilled water, put on the stopper and
wipe the bottle dry from outside . Find the mass (M4).
9. Repeat steps 3 to 8 and take two more determination.
CALCULATIONS:-
The specific gravity of soil (G) is calculated from:-
𝑀2−𝑀1
G = (𝑀2−𝑀1)−(𝑀3−𝑀4)

DATA AND OBSERVATION SHEET:-

Table 4.2.1: Data and Observation Sheet for Specific Gravity of Natural Soil
DETERMINATION 1
Density bottle No. A1
Mass of density bottle (M1) kg 0.028
Mass of bottle + Dry soil (M2) kg 0.042
Mass of bottle +Soil + Water (M3) kg 0.088
Mass of bottle + Water (M4) kg 0.082
Specific Gravity (G) 1.750
Table 4.2.2: Data and Observation Sheet for Specific Gravity of Soil and 20%
Fly Ash
DETERMINATION 1
Density bottle No. B1
Mass of density bottle (M1)kg 0.028
Mass of bottle + Dry soil (M2)kg 0.054
Mass of bottle +Soil + Water(M3)kg 0.096
Mass of bottle + Water (M4)kg 0.082
Fly Ash
DETERMINATION 1
Density bottle No. C1

Fly Ash
DETERMINATION 1
Density bottle No. D1

EFFECT ON SPECIFIC GRAVITY:-
2.5
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
1.5
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
PERCENTAGE OF FLY ASH
Figure 4.2.2: Effect on specific gravity by using various percentage (%) of fly
ash in soil sample

4.3. DETERMINATION OF LIQUID LIMIT (L. L.) BY CASAGRANDE

APPARATUS
STANDARD
IS: 2720 (Part 5) 1985
DEFINITION
Liquid Limit is defined as the water content at which the soil changes from liquid State to
plastic state.
APPARATUS
1. Casagrande apparatus confirming to IS: 9259-1979.
2. Grooving tool.
3. Balance of capacity 500 grams and sensitivity 0.01gram.
4. Thermostatically controlled oven with capacity up to 2500 C.
5. Porcelain evaporating dish about 12 to 15cm in diameter.
6. Spatula flexible with blade about 8cm long and 2cm wide.
7. Palette knives with the blade about 20cm long and 3cm wide.
8. Wash bottle or beaker containing distilled water.
9. Containers airtight and non- corrodible for determination of moisture content.
PROCEDURE:-
1. Take representative soil sample of approximately 120gms passing through 425 micron IS
sieve and mix thoroughly with distilled water in the evaporating dish to a uniform paste.
2. The paste shall have a consistency that will require 30 to 35 drops of the cup to cause the
required closure of the standard groove.
3. Leave the soil paste to stand for 24 hours to ensure uniform distribution of moisture
throughout the soil mass.
4. Remix the soil thoroughly before the test.
5. Place a portion of the paste in the cup above the spot where the cup rests on the base, squeeze
down and spread in to position with a few strokes of the spatula as possible and at the same
time trim to a depth of 1cm at the point of maximum thickness.
6. Make a clean, sharp groove by a grooving tool along the diameter through the centerline of
the cam follower.

7. Drop the cup from a height of 10 + 0.25 mm by turning the crank at the rate of two-
revolutions/ sec, until the two halves of the soil cake come in contact with the bottom of the
groove along the distance of about 12mm.
8. Record the number of drops required to cause the groove close for the length of12mm.
9 .Collect a representative slice of sample of soil approximately the width of spatula, extending
from about edge to edge of the soil cake at right angle to the groove into an air tight container
and keep in the oven for 24hrs, maintained at a temperature of 1050 to 1100C and express its
moisture content as the percentage of the oven dried weight.
10. Transfer the remaining soil in the cup to the evaporating dish and clean the cup and the
grooving tool thoroughly.
11. Repeat the operation specified above for at least three more additional trials (minimum of
four in all) with soil collected in evaporating dish to which sufficient water has been added to
bring the soil to more fluid condition.
12. In each case record the number of blows and determine the moisture content as before.
13. The specimens shall be of such consistency that the number of drops required to close the
groove shall not be less than 15 or more than 35.
Figure 4.3.1: Casagrande apparatus

PRECAUTIONS:-
1. This test should proceed from the drier (more drops) to the wetter (less drops) condition of
the soil.
2. This test may also be conducted from wetter to drier condition provided drying achieved by
kneading the wet soil and not by adding dry soil.

DETERMINATION:-
Soil Sample
Table 4.3.1:- Data and Observation Sheet for Liquid Limit of Natural Soil
Determination 1 2 3 4
No
Container No. S 3 1 8
No. of Blows 37 30 25 22
Wt. of Can + 34 36 32 60
Wet soil ,g
Wt. of Can + 33 34 30 56
Dry Soil,g
Wt. of water ,g 28.8 31.2 33.6 36
Wt. of Can ,g 28 30 22 50
Wt. of Dry Soil 1 2 2 4
,g
Water Content,% 16.67 33.33 20 40
45
40
35
Water Content(%),W
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
No Of Blows,N
Figure 4.3.2: Flow curve

From Graph, Soil Sample Liquid Limit= 32%, At 25 Blows

Soil Sample+ 15% Fly Ash

Table 4.3.2:- Data and Observation Sheet for Liquid Limit of Soil + 15%
FLYASH
No
Container No. 1C 2 5 13
No. of Blows 30 26 14 13
Wt. of Can + 22 22 22 23
Wet soil ,g
Wt. of Can + 20 20 20 20
Dry Soil ,g
Wt. of water ,g 28.8 31.20 33.60 36
Wt. of Can ,g 12 14 14 10
,g
Water Content,% 20 25 25 23.07
30
25
Water Content(%),W
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
No Of Blows,N
** From Graph, Soil Sample + 15% Fly Ash, Liquid Limit = 21.5%, At 25 Blows

Soil Sample + 20% Fly Ash

Table 4.3.3:- Data and Observation Sheet for Liquid Limit of Soil+ 20% FLY
ASH
No
Container No. 6 21 A-10 A
No. of Blows 39 34 30 25
Wt. of Can + 18 22 18 38
Wet soil ,g
Wt. of Can + 16 21 17 36
Dry Soil ,g
Wt. of water ,g 26.4 28.8 31.20 33.60
Wt. of Can ,g 10 16 12 28
,g
Water Content,% 25 16.67 16.67 20
25
20
Water Content(%),W
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
No Of Blows,N
** From Graph, Soil Sample+ 15% Fly Ash, Liquid Limit= 20%, At 25 Blows

Soil Sample+ 25% Fly Ash

Table 4.3.4:- Data and Observation Sheet for Liquid Limit of Soil+ 25%
FLYASH
Determination 1 2 3
No
Container No. 15 G-3 7
No of Blows 33 27 21
Wt. of Can + 24 20 18
Wet soil ,g
Wt. of Can + Dry 23 18 17
Soil ,g
Wt. of water ,g 26.4 28.8 31.20
Wt. of Can ,g 18 14 14
Wt. of Dry Soil ,g 5 4 3
Water Content,% 16.67 33.33 25
35
30
Water Content,%
25
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
No Of Blows,N
** From Graph, Soil Sample+ 25% Fly Ash, Liquid Limit= 26%, At 25 Blows

EFFECT ON LIQUID LIMIT: -
Percentage of Flyash vs Liquid Limit

35
32
30
26
25
21.5
20
Liquid Limit,%
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage of Flyash%
Figure 4.3.6: Effect on liquid limit by using various percentage (%)of fly ash in
soil sample

4.4 DETERMINATION OF PLASTIC LIMIT
OBJECT:-
This test is done to determine the plastic limit of soil as per IS: 2720 (Part 5) – 1985.The plastic
limit of fine-grained soil is the water content of the soil below which it ceases to be plastic. It
begins to crumble when rolled into threads of 3mm dia.
APPARATUS:
The apparatus used:

i) Porcelain evaporating dish about 120mm dia.
ii) Spatula
iii) Container to determine moisture content
iv) Balance, with an accuracy of 0.01g
v) Oven
vi) Ground glass plate – 20cm x 15cm
PREPARATION OF SAMPLE:-
Take out 30g of air-dried soil from a thoroughly mixed sample

of the soil passing through 425µm IS Sieve. Mix the soil with distilled water in an
evaporating dish and leave the soil mass for maturing. This period may be up to 24hrs.
Figure 4.4.1: Soil sample

PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE THE PLASTIC LIMIT OF SOIL:-
i) Take about 8g of the soil and roll it with fingers on a glass plate. The rate of rolling should
be between 80 to 90 strokes per minute to form a 3mm dia.
ii) If the dia. of the threads can be reduced to less than 3mm, without any cracks appearing, it
means that the water content is more than its plastic limit. Knead the soil to reduce the water
content and roll it into a thread again.
iii) Repeat the process of alternate rolling and kneading until the thread crumbles.
iv) Collect and keep the pieces of crumbled soil thread in the container used to determine the
moisture content.
v) Repeat the process at least twice more with fresh samples of plastic soil each time.
Figure 4.4.2: Oven dried sample
REPORTING OF RESULTS:
The plastic limit should be determined for at least three portions of the soil passing through
425µm IS Sieve. The average water content to the nearest whole number should be reported.

FOR SOIL
Table 4.4.1:- Data and Observation Sheet for Plastic Limit of Soil
CONTAINER EMPTY CONTAINER CONTAINER % OF PLASTIC

NO. WEIGHT, + WET SOIL, + DRY SOIL, WATER LIMIT
(g) (g) (g)
1 20 24 23 16 25
2 18 22 21 18 25
** AVG. PLASTIC LIMIT = 25%
FOR 15% FLY ASH
Table 4.4.2:- Data and Observation Sheet for Plastic Limit of Soil+ 15% FLY
ASH
NO. WEIGHT, + WET SOIL, + DRY SOIL, WATER LIMIT
(g) (g) (g)
1 8 12 11 18 25
2 8 12 11 20 25
**AVG. PLASTIC LIMIT = 25%
FOR 20% FLY ASH
ASH
CONTAINER EMPTY CONTAINER + CONTAINER + % OF PLASTIC
NO. WEIGHT, WET SOIL, (g) DRY SOIL, (g) WATER LIMIT
(g)
1 16 22 20 22 33.33
2 18 22 21 24 25
** AVG. PLASTIC LIMIT = 29%
FOR 25% FLY ASH
ASH

NO. WEIGHT,(g) + WET + DRY WATER LIMIT
SOIL,(g) SOIL,(g)
1 18 24 23 22 16.67
2 8 12 11 24 25
3 14 22 20 26 33
**AVG. PLASTIC LIMIT = 25%

EFFECT ON PLASTIC LIMIT:
29.5
29
29
28.5
28
27.5
Plastic Limit
27
26.5
26
25.5
25 25 25
25
24.5
24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage of Fly Ash
Figure 4.4.3: Effect on plastic limit by using various percentage (%) of fly ash
in soil sample

4.5 DETERMINATION OF SHRINKAGE LIMIT (S. L.)
OBJECTIVE:-
1. To determine the shrinkage limit of a soil.
2. To calculate shrinkage factors.
THEORY:-
Shrinkage limit is the maximum water content at which a reduction in water content does not
cause an appreciable decrease in volume of the soil mass. At shrinkage limit, on further
reduction in water, air starts to enter into the voids of the soil and keeps the volume of the void
constant.
Shrinkage ratio is the ratio of a given volume change expressed as a percentage of the dry
volume to the corresponding change in water content above the shrinkage limit.
Volumetric Shrinkage is the decrease in volume of a soil mass when the water content is
reduced from given percentage to the shrinkage limit and which is expressed as percentage of
dry volume of the soil mass.
APPLICATION:-
The value of shrinkage limit is used for understanding the swelling and shrinkage properties of
cohesive soils. It is used for calculating the shrinkage factors which helps in the design
problems of the structures made up of the soils or/and resting on soil. It gives an idea about the
suitability of the soil as a construction material in foundations, roads, embankments and dams.
It helps in knowing the state of the given soil,
APPARATUS:-
i) A evaporating porcelain dish,
ii) Shrinkage dish,
iii) One glass plate with three prongs,
iv) One glass cup,
iv) Mercury,
v) Spatula and a glass cylinder.
In general test requires,

vi) A extra porcelain dish (small size),
vii) Extra porcelain dish,
viii) Straightedge,
ix) Oven,
x) Desiccator,
xi) 425 micron sieve,
xii) Plain glass plate and a Weighing Balance.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE:
Step 1:
Mix about 30gm of soil passing through 425 micron sieve with distilled water. The water added
should be sufficient to make the soil pasty enough to be readily worked into the shrinkage dish
without inclusion of air bubbles.
Step 2:
Coat the inside of the shrinkage dish with a thin layer of Vaseline. Place the soil sample in the
dish, by giving gentle taps. Strike off the tops. Strike off the top surface with a straight edge.
Step3:
Weigh the shrinkage dish immediately full of wet soil. Dry the dish first in air and then in an
oven.
Step4:
Weight the shrinkage dish with dry soil paste.
Step5:
Clean and dry the shrinkage dish and determine its empty mass.
Step6:
Also weigh an extra empty porcelain dish (small size), which will be used for weighing
mercury. This dish will be known as mercury weighing dish.
Step7:
Keep the shrinkage dish in a large porcelain dish, fill it to overflowing with mercury and
remove the excess by pressing the plain glass plate firmly over the top of the dish. Transfer the
contents of the shrinkage dish to the mercury weighing dish and weight.
Step8:
Place the glass cup in large dish, fill it to overflowing with mercury, and remove the excess by
pressing the glass plate with three prongs firmly over the top of the cup.
Step9:
Wipe the outside of the glass cup to remove any adhering mercury, then place it in another
dish. Place the dry soil paste on the surface of the mercury and submerge it under the mercury
by pressing with glass plate with prongs.
Step10:
Transfer the mercury displaced by the dry soil paste to the mercury weighing dish and weigh.
Step11:
Repeat the test at least three times for each soil sample.

Fig 4.5.1: Details of shrinkage limit apparatus
OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS:-
Table 4.5.1:- Data and Observation Sheet for Shrinkage Limit of Soil
Weight of Empty Container 8gm

Container + Wet Soil 106gm
Container + Dry Soil 84gm
Weight of Wet Soil 98gm
Weight of Dry Soil 76gm
Mass of Water 22gm
Water Content of Soil 24
Volume of Wet Soil:-

Mass of Container with Mercury = 684gm
Mass of Mercury = 676gm
Volume of Wet Soil = 49.71cm3
Volume of Dry Soil:-

Mass of Mercury Displaced = 596gm
Volume of Dry Soil = 43.82 cm3

RESULT:-
Shrinkage Limit = [W-{(V-Vd)/Md}]*100%
= 21.25%
Shrinkage Ratio , Sr = Md / Vd
= 1.73
Volumetric Shrinkage = [(W-Ws)* Sr]
=13.40%
Table 4.5.2:- Data and Observation Sheet for Shrinkage Limit of Soil+15% Fly Ash

Mass of Water 08gm
Water Content of Soil 0.2gm

Volume of Wet Soil = 25cm3

RESULT:-
= 13.75%
Shrinkage Ratio, Sr = Md / Vd
= 1.78
=11%

Mass of Water 10gm
Water Content of Soil 27.8



RESULT:-
= 23.33%
= 1.62
=7.3%

Mass of Water 18gm
Water Content of Soil 24


RESULT:-
= 19.23%
= 1.64
= 7.8 %

EFFECT ON SHRINKAGE LIMIT:-
25
21.25
20
15 13.75
Shrinkage Limit
10
7.8
7.3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage of Fly Ash
Figure 4.5.2: Effect on shrinkage limit by using various percentage (%) of fly
ash in soil sample
PRECAUTIONS:-
1. The water content of the soil taken in shrinkage dish should be above liquid limit but within
10% from liquid limit.
2. To prevent the cake from adhering to the shrinkage dish and consequent cracking of the dry
soil paste, inside of the shrinkage dish should be greased with Vaseline.
3. During filling the shrinkage dish with soil paste, sufficient tapping should be remove the
entrapped air.
4. The dry soil paste should be weighed soon after it has been removed from a desiccator
otherwise it picks up moisture from the air.

4.6 DETERMINATION OF UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH OF SOIL
OBJECTIVE & SCOPE: -

The object of the experiment is to determine the unconfined compressive strength of clayey
soil using controlled strain. The purpose of the test is to obtain a quantitative value compressing
and shearing strength of soil in an undrained state. The test may be performed on both
undisturbed & remolded type of soil.
MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT: -

(i) Compression device of any suitable type
(ii) sample ejector
(iii) strain measuring dial gauge with 0.01 mm graduation
(iv) stop watch
(v) oven
(vi) balance
(vii) Miscellaneous equipment such as specimen trimming & curving tools, remoulding
apparatus, moisture cans etc.
(viii) Split moulds 3.5 cm diameter & 7 cm long.
TEST PROCEDURE:-
1. Undisturbed cylindrical specimen may be cut from the bigger undisturbed sample
obtained from the field. A wire saw may be used to trim the ends parallel to each other. A
lathe or trimmer may be used to trim the specimen to circular cross section. Alternatively,
field sample may be obtained directly in a thin sample tube having the same diameter as
the specimen to be used. The split mould may be oiled from inside & the sample is then
pushed out of the tube into the split mould. The split mould is opened carefully & sample
is taken out.
2. Remoulded sample may be prepared by compacting the soil with 15%, 20% & 25% fly
ash at the desired water content & dry density in a bigger mould & then cut by the sampling
tube. Alternatively remoulded sample may be prepared directly in the split mould
COMPRESSION TEST:-
1. Measure the initial length & diameter of the specimen
2. Put the specimen on the bottom plate of the loading device. Adjust the upper plate to
make contact with the specimen. Set the load dial gauge & strain dial gauge to zero.
3. Compress the specimen until cracks have definitely developed or the stress - strain
curve is well past its peak or until a vertical deformation of 20 percent is reached. Take
the load dial readings approximately at every 1 min deformation of the specimen.

Figure 4.6.1: Proving ring type unconfined compressive strength test apparatus

4. Sketch the failure pattern ; measure the angle between the cracks 7 the horizontal , if
possible , if the specimen s homogenous
Table 4.6.1 Data & Observation Sheet for Determination of Unconfined

Compressive Strength for Soil
Vertical Vertical Vertical Corrected area Proving Vertical Shear
dial displacement strain (AC=AO/1+E0) dial load(N) stress
gauge (mm) (E0=ΔL/L) reading (N/mm2)
(2.797N)
407 4.07 0.030 4404 155 433.525 0.098
902 9.02 0.065 4259 217 606.949 0.142
1472 14.72 0.107 4098 225 629.325 0.153
2057 20.57 0.149 3948 230 643.310 0.163
2107 21.07 0.191 3808 220 615.340 0.161
Shear Stress vs Strain

0.18
0.16
Shear Stress(N/mm2)
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Strain
Figure 4.6.2: Shear stress vs strain graph for natural soil

From Graph, C = qu / 2 = 81.5 KN/m2


Compressive Strength for Soil + 15% Fly Ash

dial displacement strain (AC=AO/1+E0) dial load(N) stress
gauge (mm) (E0=ΔL/L) reading (N/mm2)
(2.797N)
350 3.50 0.031 4404 7.1 100.692 0.0228
730 7.30 0.066 4255.16 13 181.805 0.0427
1088 10.88 0.098 4131.15 17 237.745 0.0575
1553 15.53 0.141 3975.46 34.4 486.678 0.1224
2035 20.35 0.185 3827.85 36.4 514.648 0.3144
2565 25.65 0.233 3678.83 30.4 430.738 0.1170

0.35
0.3
Shear Stress(N/mm2)
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Strain
Figure 4.6.3: Shear stress vs strain graph for soil + 15% flyash



dial displacement strain, (AC=AO/1+E) dial load(N) stress
gauge (mm) E0 reading (N/mm2)
=ΔL/L (2.797)
450 4.50 0.039 4366 29 81.113 0.0185
758 12.80 0.113 4075 66 184.62 0.0453
1120 23.28 0.207 3758 101 282.47 0.0752
1521 38.49 0.341 3383 118 330.05 0.0976
1598 54.47 0.482 3061 105 293.66 0.0950

0.12
0.1
Shear Stress(N/mm2)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Strain

Table 4.6.4Data & Observation Sheet for Determination of Unconfined

Vertica Vertical Vertical Corrected Provin Vertica Shear

l dial displacemen strain area g dial l stress(N/mm2
gauge t (mm) (E0=ΔL/L (AC=AO/1+E0 reading load(N) )
) ) (2.797)
287 2.87 0.025 4425 25 69.925 0.0148
740 7.40 0.064 4263 81 226.56 0.0531
1413 14.13 0.123 4039 129 360.81 0.0893
3
2311 23.11 0.201 3776 117 327.24 0.0866
9

0.1
0.09
0.08
Shear Stress(N/mm2)
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Strain

4.7 STANDARD PROCTOR TEST
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT’S:-

(i) Cylindrical metal mould of capacity 1000 cc. with an internal diameter of 100±0.1 mm and
an internal effective height of 127.3±0.1 mm or mould of capacity 2250 cc. with an internal
diameter 150±0.1 mm and internal effective height 127.3±0.1 mm. Each mould fitted with
detachable base and a removable extension (collar) approximately 60 mm high.
(ii)Metal rammer, 50mm diameter circular face, weighing 2.6 kg and having a drop of 310 mm.
(iii)Steel straight edge.
(iv) 20 mm and 4.75 mm IS sieve.
(v)Balances.10 kg capacity sensitive to 1g and 200 capacity sensitive to 0.01g.
(vi)Thermostatically controlled oven (105-110°c).
(vii) Water content containers.
(viii) Mixing equipment, such as mixing pan, spoon, trowel spatula etc.
(ix) Measuring cylinder of glass, 100 ml capacity.
(x)Sample extruder (optional).
TEST PROCEDURE:-
1. Take a representative sample weighing approximately 20kg of thoroughly mixed air dried
material passing 4.75 mm (or 20 mm) IS sieve. Add enough water to bring the water content
to about 7 percent (sandy soil) or 10 percent (clayey soils) less than the estimated optimum
moisture content. Keep the soil in an air tight container for about 20 hrs, for maturing.
2. Clean the mould and fix it to the base. Take the empty mass of the mould and the base nearest
to 1g.
3. Attach the collar to the mould. The inside of the mould should be greased thoroughly.
1
4. Mix the mature soil thoroughly. Take out about 22 kg of the soil and compact it in the mould
in three equal layers, each layer being given 25 blows from the rammer weighing 2.6 kg
dropping from a height of310 mm, if 1000 ml mould is used. If however, 2250ml mould is
used, about 5kg of soil should be taken and should be compacted in three equal layers.
Each layer being given 56 blows from a rammer weighing 2.6 kg dropping from a
height of 310mm .The blows should be uniformly distributed over the surface of each layer.
Each layer of compacted soil should be scored with spatula before putting the soil for the
succeeding layer. The amount of soil used should be just sufficient to fill the mould leaving
about 5mm to be struck off when collar is removed. Find the penetration resistance of
compacted soil using the Proctor’s needle.

Figure 4.7.1: Preparing sample for standard proctor test

5. Remove the collar and cut the excess soil with the help of straight edge. Clean the mould
from outside, and weigh it to the nearest gram. Eject out the soil from the mould, cut it in the
needle and keep a representative soil specimen for water content determination.
6. Repeat step 4 and 5 for about five to six times, using a fresh part of the soil specimen and
after adding a higher water content than the preceding specimen.
TABULATION OF OBSERVATION:-
Table 4.7.1 Data & Observation Sheet for Proctor’s Test on Soil Sample
Determination no. 1 2 3
Mass of mould + 5962 6136 6094
compacted soil(g)
Mass of mould (g) 4144 4144 4144
Mass of compacted 1818 1992 1950
soil
Bulk density(g/cc) 1.823 1.997 1.955
(M/V)
Dry density(g/cc) 1.64 1.86 1.646
(Md/V)
Container no. 1 2 3
Mass of container+ 28 48 58
wet soil(g)
Mass of container + 26 44 52
dry soil(g)
Mass of water(g) 2 4 6
Mass of container (g) 8 16 20
Mass of dry soil(g) 18 28 32
Water content(%) 11.11 14.28 18.75
(Ww/Ws)
WATER CONTENT vs DRY DENSITY GRAPH

1.9
1.85
Dry Density,gm/cc
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.65
1.6
0 5 10 15 20
Water Content,%
Figure 4.7.2: Water content vs. dry density graph for soil

Table 4.7.2 Data & Observation Sheet for Proctor’s Test on Soil + 15% Fly Ash
Mass of mould + 6058 6088 6068
compacted soil(g)
Mass of mould (g) 4144 4144 4144
Mass of compacted 1914 1944 1924
soil
Bulk density(g/cc) 1.919 1.949 1.929
(M/V)
Dry density(g/cc) 1.585 1.597 1.581
(Md/V)
Container no. 1 2 3
Mass of container+ 66 40 62
wet soil(g)
Mass of container + 56 36 52
dry soil(g)
Water content (%) 20.83 22.2 22.72
(Ww/Ws)

1.598
1.596
1.594
1.592
Dry Density,gm/cc
1.59
1.588
1.586
1.584
1.582
1.58
20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23
Water Content,%
Figure 4.7.3: Water content vs. dry density graph for soil with 15% fly ash

Table 4.7.3 Data & Observation Sheet for Proctor’s Test on Soil + 20% Fly Ash
Mass of mould+ compacted 6024 6082 6084

soil(g)
Mass of mould(g) 4144 4144 4144

Mass of compacted soil 1880 1938 1940
Bulk density(g/cc) (M/V) 1.880 1.938 1.940
Dry density(g/cc) (Md/V) 1.720 1.799 1.672
Container no. 1 2 3
Mass of container+ wet 46 86 108

soil(g)
Mass of container + dry 43 76 92

soil(g)
Water Content (%) (Ww/Ws) 5.56 16.67 20.51

1.82
1.8
1.78
1.76
Dry Density,gm/cc
1.74
1.72
1.7
1.68
1.66
0 5 10 15 20 25
Water Content,%
Figure 4.7.4: Water content vs. dry density graph for soil with 20% fly ash

Table 4.7.4 Data & Observation Sheet for Proctor’s Test on Soil + 25% Fly
Ash
Soil+25% Fly ash 13% 16% 19% 22%
Determination no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of mould+ compacted 5958 6074 6094 6010

soil(g)
Mass of mould(g) 4144 4144 4144 4144
Mass of compacted soil(g) 1814 1930 1944 1866
Bulk density(g/cc) (M/V) 1.814 1.930 1.944 1.866
Dry density(g/cc) (Md/V) 1.5601 1.621 1.612 1.493
Container no. 1 2 3 4
Mass of container+ wet 86 68 132 78

soil(g)
Mass of container + dry 78 60 118 64

soil(g)
Mass of water(g) 8 8 14 14
Mass of container (g) 18 18 50 8
Mass of dry soil(g) 60 42 68 56
Water Content(%) (Ww/Ws) 13.33 19.04 20.58 25

1.64
1.62
1.6
1.58
Dry Density,gm/cc
1.56
1.54
1.52
1.5
1.48
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water Content,%
Figure 7.5: Water content vs. dry density graph for soil with 25% fly ash

EFFECT ON OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (O.M.C.) BY USING

STANDARD PROCTOR TEST
EFFECT ON O.M.C.
25
22.2
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT(OMC)
20 19.04
16.67
14.28
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.7.6: Effect on optimum moisture content (OMC) by using various

percentage (%) of fly ash in soil sample

4.8 DETERMINATION OF CALIFORNIA BARING RATIO (C.B.R.)
OBJECT & SCOPE

The object of the experiment is to determine the California bearing ratio (C.B.R) of a
compacted soil sample in laboratory in unsoaked state. The method also covers the
determination of the CBR of undisturbed soil sample obtained from the field.
MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT

i) Cylindrical mould (C.B.R mould) with inside diameter 150mm & height 175mm provided
with a detachable extension collar 50mm height 7 a detachable perforated base plate 10mm
thick.
(ii) Spacer disc. 148 mm in diameter and 47.7 mm in height along with a handle for screwing into
the disc to facilitate its removal
(iii) Steel cutting collar which can fit flush with the mould both outside and inside.
(iv) Metal Rammers:-
(a)Weight 2.6 kg with a drop of 310 mm or (b) Weight 4.89 kg. With a drop of 450 mm.
(v) Annular slotted weight weighing 2.5 kg each 147 mm in diameter with a Centre hole 53 mm
in diameter,
(vi) Penetration piston, 50 mm diameter and minimum of 100 mm long.
(vii) Extension measuring apparatus consisting of: (a) Perforated plate 148 mm diameter. With a threaded
stem in the Centre. (b) Adjustable contact head to be screwed over the stem, (c) metal tripod,
(viii) Loading device. with a capacity of a. least 5000 kg and equipped with a movable head or base
that (uniform rate of 1.25 mm/min ; complete with load indicating device, (Lt) Two dial gauges
reading to 0.01 mm, (t) Sieve : 4.75 mm and 20 mm IS Sieves.
(xi) Miscellaneous apparatus, such as a mixing bowl. Straight edge. Scales. Soaking tank or pan.
Drying oven, water content determination tins, filter paper etc.
TEST PROCEDURE:-
(I) PREPARATION OF TEST SPECIMEN:-

Remoulded Specimen:-
Remoulded specimen may be prepared at Proctors maximum dry density and
optimum water content or at any other desired density and water content. The material used should pass
a 20 mm IS Sieve. Allowance for large material should be made by replacing it by an equal amount of
material which passes20 mm IS Sieve but is retained on 4.75 mm IS Sieve. The specimen may be
prepared either by dynamic compaction or by static compaction.

Figure 4.8.1: C.B.R. test apparatus

Dynamic Compaction:-
Take about 4.5 to 5.5 kg of soil & mix it with desired water. If the
sample: is to be compacted al optimum water content and the corresponding dry density determined
by compaction test weight compaction or heavy compaction) take exact weight of soil required
and necessary quantity of water so that the water content of the soil sample is equal to the
determined optimum water content. Fix the extension collar to the top of the mould and the base
plate to its bottom. Insert the spacer disc over the base (with the central hole of the disc at the lower
side). Put a disc of a coarse filter paper on the lop of the displace the disc. Compact the mixed soil
in the mould using either the light compaction or heavy compaction. For light compaction.
Compact the soil in 3 equal layers. Each layer being given 6 blows. Uniformly distributed, by the
2.6 kg rammer. For heavy compaction. Compact the soil in 5 layers. By giving 56 blows to each
layer by the 4.89 kg rammer. Remove the collar and trim off excess soil. Turn the mould upside
down and remove the base plate & the displacer disc. Weigh the mould with the compacted soil,
so that its bulk density & dry density may be determined. Put the filter paper on the top of the
compacted soil (collar side) clamp the perforated base plate on to it.
(II) PENETRATION TEST:-

1. Place the surcharge weights back on· the top of the soaked soil specimen and place
the mould assembly on the penetration test machine (loading machine).
2. Seat the penetration piston at the Centre of the specimen with the smallest possible
load but in no case excess of 4 kg so that full contact is established between the surface ·of
the specimen and the piston.
3. Set the stress and strain dial gauge to zero. Apply the load on the penetration piston
SO that the penetration rate is approximately 1.25 mm/min. Record the load reading at
penetrations of 0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 , 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10, 12.5 mm.
4. At the end of the penetration test, detach the mould from the loading equipment.
Take about 20g to 50g of soil from the top 3cm layer of the specimen 7 keep it for water
content determination.
OBSERVATION:-
Table 4.8.1:- Detail of the mould and the soil sample
Diameter of Height of mould Volume of Weight of Weight of
mould(cm) and sample(cm) mould(cm) mould and base mould and
plate(kg) sample(kg)
15 17.5 3037.95 13.69 17.646
PENETRATION TEST RECORD:-

Surcharge weight used - 10kg
Least count of dial gauge- 0.01 mm/div
Least count of proving ring - 5.08 Kg/div

CALCULATION:-
Table 4.8.2 Data & Observation Sheet for C.B.R. Determination of Soil Sample
Vertical dial Load proving Penetration(mm) Load(kg) CBR value
reading ring reading
0 0 0 0
50 4.5 0.5 22.86
100 10 1.0 50.8
150 12 1.5 60.96
200 16 2.0 81.28
250 18 2.5 91.4 6.671
300 20 3.0 101.6
350 22 3.5 111.76
400 24 4.0 121.92
450 25 4.5 127
500 26 5.0 132.08 6.42
550 28 5.5 142.24
600 30 6.0 152.4
650 31 6.5 157.48
700 32 7.0 162.56
750 33 7.5 167.31 6.374
Load vs Penetration Curve

180
160
140
120
Load ,kg
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration , mm
Figure 4.8.2 : Load penetration curves in CBR test for soil sample

with 15% Fly Ash
0 0 0 0
50 2 0.5 10.16
100 3.5 1.0 17.78
150 5 1.5 25.4
200 6.5 2.0 33.02
250 8 2.5 40.64 2.966
300 9 3.0 48.26
350 11 3.5 55.88
400 13 4.0 63.5
450 14.5 4.5 71.12
500 15 5.0 76.2 2.950
550 16 5.5 81.28
600 17 6.0 86.36
650 18 6.5 91.44
700 19 7.0 96.52
750 20.5 7.5 104.14

120
100
80
Load, kg
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration, mm
Figure 4.8.3: Load penetration curves in CBR test for soil with 15% fly ash

with 20% Fly Ash
0 0 0 0
50 4 0.5 20.32
100 5 1.0 25.4
150 6.5 1.5 33.02
200 8 2.0 40.64
250 9 2.5 45.72 3.33
300 11 3.0 55.88
350 12.5 3.5 63.5
400 14 4.0 71.12
450 15 4.5 76.2
500 15.5 5.0 78.74 3.08
550 17 5.5 86.36

100
90
80
70
Load, kg
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Penetration, mm

with 15% Fly Ash
Vertical dial Load proving Penetration(mm) Load(klg) CBR value
0 0 0 0
50 5 0.5 25.4
100 7 1.0 35.56
150 9 1.5 45.72
200 10 2.0 50.8
250 11 2.5 55.88 4.07
300 12 3.0 60.96
350 13 3.5 66.04
400 14.5 4.0 73.66
450 15.5 4.5 78.74
500 16.0 5.0 81.28 3.90
550 16.5 5.5 83.82

90
80
70
60
Load, kg
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Penetration, mm

EFFECT ON SHRINKAGE LIMIT:-
6
C.B.R. VALUE
4
2.5 mm penetration
3
5mm penetration
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.8.6: Effect on CBR value by using various percentage (%) of fly ash
in soil sample

Chapter -5
Conclusion
Based on the obtained results and discussion thereof following conclusions can be made. The
unconfined compressive strength soil is found to vary with concentration of chemical in the
activated fly ash and curing period. There is a strong dependency between the activator/ash
ratio and mechanical strength. Results showed that it is advantageous to reduce this ratio since
it has a positive effect on strength results, which has also a positive effect on final cost The
natural soil used for construction shall be dried with moisture content below 7%. by using
various percentage of fly ash specific gravity increased by about 30% , liquid limit decreased
by about 60%, plastic limit increases by about 16% , shrinkage limit decreases by about 55-
60%, If soil has more moisture it is difficult to mix with fly ash. Such soil shall be spread on
surface and allowed to dry before construction. It is observed that placing of two different
materials (local soil and fly ash) in three layers with fly ash layer sandwiched between soil
layers and mixing them with disc harrow is workable. Strict quality control shall be exercised
with regard to quality of borrow soil, its natural moisture content, density and moisture content
after compaction.
The strengths were not taken at the Ultimate failure in unconfined compressive
strength, but at the moment the specimen began to show deep cracks. Hence, the UCS’s were
not high enough to comply with the limitation of proposed method. Unconfined compressive
strength will increase by 15% of fly ash then it will decreases. Optimum moisture content
will decreases and CBR value also decreases.

Chapter -6
Reference
i) Punmia, B.C, soil mechanics & foundation engineering.
ii) Murthy, V N S , Geotechnical Engineering : Principles and Practices of Foundation

Engineering
iii) 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.
iv) Phanikumar B.R., & Radhey S.Sharma(2004) “Effect of fly ash on Engg properties
of Expansive Soil” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Vol. 130, no 7,July, pp. 764-767.
v) Prashanth J.P., (1998)"Evaluation of the Properties of Fly Ash for its Use in
Geotechnical
vi) Applications ".Ph.D Thesis, IISC. Bangalore.
vii) Raymond N.Yong and Benno P.Warkentin (1975)" Soil Properties and Behaviour
Elsevier Publications, U.S.A.
viii) Advance soil mechanics and foundation by Braja. M. Das. Page no 373, 3rd edition,
(2005) Published by Tylor & Francis.
ix) Basic and Applied Soil Mechanics, by Gopal Ranjan & A.S.R.RAO, Page no 296-
299,2nd edition(2008), New Age international publication.
x) E. Rojas , J. Horta, T. Lopez-Lara, J.B. Hernández , A probabilistic solid-porous

model to determine the shear strength of unsaturated soil, Science direct ,
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 26 (2011) 481–491s.

xi) Edy Tonnizam Mohammad, Badee Abdulqawi Alshameri , Khairul Anuar Kassim
,Shear Strength Behaviour for Older Alluvium Under Different Moisture Content
,EJGE , Vol. 16 [2011].
xii) Geotechnical Engineering, by C. Venkatramaiah , Page no 266-267, Revised third

edition , New age Publication
xiii) J. Bachmann ,K. Contreras ,K.H. Hartge , R. MacDonald , Comparison of soil

strength data obtained in situ with penetrometer and with vane shear test. Science
direct, Soil & Tillage Research 87 (2006) 112–118.
xiv) K.S. Wong, D. Masin, C.W.W. Ng. Modelling of shear stiffness of unsaturated fine
grained soils at very small strains. Science direct, Geo-technics 56, 28-39 (2013).
xv) Rohit Ghosh Effect of soil moisture in the analysis of undrained shear strength of
compacted clayey soil, Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology
Vol. 4(1), pp. 23-31, January 2013, DOI: 10.5897/JCECT12.070.
xvi) Soil mechanics and foundation by Punmia, Jain &Jain, page no 430-432, 16th
edition, laxmi Publication (p) ltd.
xvii) Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, by Dr A.R .Arora, Page no 306-307,
Seventh edition -2008, Standard Publisher distribution.
xviii) ZHAO Xiao-dong1, 2, ZHOU Guo-qing1, 2, TIAN Qiu-hong, Study on the shear
strength of deep reconstituted soils, Mining Science and Technology 19 (2009)
0405–0408.

Soil Stabilization Using Fly Ash

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Soil Stabilization Using Fly Ash

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Soil Stabilization By Using Fly Ash

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 1

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 2

Cetin Bora et. al. (2010):

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 3

Fig.3.1: Grain size distribution curve

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 4

Fig.3.2: Atterberg consistency limit

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 5

Significance Atterberg limits test:

(2) Increase shear strength

(3) Decrease permeability

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 6

Fig.3.4: Moisture content Vs Dry density curve

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 7

Fig.3.5: Effect of compaction on soil structure

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 8

Table 3.2: Different standard loads corresponding to various penetration of plunger

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 9

If the CBR value corresponding to a penetration of 5 mm exceeds that for

Fig.3.6: Showing load vs penetration curve and corrections

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 10

Object and Scope:

Material and Equipment:

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 11

Figure 4.1: Sieve Arrangement

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 12

Data and Observation Sheet for Sieve analysis

Mass retained on 4.75 mm sieve: 266g

Mass passing through 75-micron sieve: 8g

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 13

Natural Soil +15%FlyAsh

Mass retained on 4.75 mm sieve: 266 g

Mass passing through 75-micron sieve: 8 g

Mass retained on 4.75 mm sieve: 262 g

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 14

SL. IS Sieve Particle size Mass % Cumulative Cumulative

Mass retained on 4.75 mm sieve: 318 g

Mass passing through 75-micron sieve: 10 g

SL. IS Sieve Particle size Mass % Cumulative Cumulative

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 15

4.2. DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SOIL AND SOIL

OBJECT AND SCOPE:-

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT:-

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 16

Figure 4.2.1: Density bottle

9. Repeat steps 3 to 8 and take two more determination.

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 17

DATA AND OBSERVATION SHEET:-

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 18

Density bottle No. D1

EFFECT ON SPECIFIC GRAVITY:-

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 19

4.3. DETERMINATION OF LIQUID LIMIT (L. L.) BY CASAGRANDE

3. Balance of capacity 500 grams and sensitivity 0.01gram.

4. Thermostatically controlled oven with capacity up to 2500 C.

5. Porcelain evaporating dish about 12 to 15cm in diameter.

8. Wash bottle or beaker containing distilled water.

9. Containers airtight and non- corrodible for determination of moisture content.

4. Remix the soil thoroughly before the test.

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 20

Figure 4.3.1: Casagrande apparatus

B.I.E.T. Suri , Birbhum 21