Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28

SOIL STABILISATION USING FLYASH

2018-2019

A Dissertation Submitted to
GGSIPU
Towards Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
Specialization in
CIVIL ENGINEERING

Guided By: Submitted By:

Mr DUSHYANT PARASHER RAHUL JAIN (05415603415)


Mr. SUNIL SHARMA RAJAN KUMAR (05515603415)
(Department of civil engineering ) MOHD IRFAN (04315603415)
KANISH TIKOO (03515603415)

1
Department of Civil Engineering
AKILESH DAS GUPTA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
[Affiliated to GGSIPU]
DEC 2017

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


AKHILESH DAS GUPTA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Affiliated to GGSIPU

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project titled "Soil Stabilization by using Flyash", submitted
by Mr. RAHUL JAIN (Roll No. 05415603415), Mr. MOHD IRFAN (Roll. No.
04315603415), Mr. RAJAN KUMAR (Roll No. 05515603415) and Mr. KANISH
TIKKO (Roll No. 03515603415), to the Dr. Ahilesh Das Gupta Institute of Technology
and Management affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, for the
award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology, is a bonafide record of the project
work done by his/her under my supervision. The contents of this work, in full or in
parts, have not been submitted to any other Institute or University for the award of
any degree.

Internal Examiner External Examiner


Date: Date:

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I take this opportunity to express my intense gratitude and deep regards to HOD mam Mrs.
Maninder kaur and our project co-ordinator mr. Dushyant Parasher and Mr. Sunil sharma for
their exemplary guidance, monitoring and endless inspiration throughout the making of this
minor project report on "soil stabilization using flyash".their blessings and timely guidance
shall take me a long way in the journey of life.
I also express a deep sense of gratitude towards my parents,other family members and friends
for their cordial support.
Rahul Jain
Rajan Kumar
Mohd. Irfan
Kanish Tikoo

3
ABSTRACT:
Soil is the basic foundation for any civil engineering structures. It is
required to bear the loads without failure. In some places, soil may be weak which cannot
resist the oncoming loads. In such cases, soil stabilization is needed. Numerous methods are
available in the literature for soil stabilization. But sometimes, some of the methods like
chemical stabilization, fly ash stabilization etc. adversely affects the chemical composition of
the soil.
In this study, fly ash is mixed with clay soil to investigate the relative strength gain in terms
of unconfined compression, bearing capacity and compaction. The effect of fly ash on the
geotechnical characteristics of clay fly ash mixture was investigated by conducting standard
Proctor compaction tests, unconfined compression tests, CBR tests and permeability test. The
tests were performed as per Indian Standard specifications.
The following materials were used for preparing the samples:
 Sub grade soil
 Fly ash

The soft clay used for these experiments was brought from a site, near college campus
football ground. The physical properties of the soil were determined as per IS specifications.
Fly ash for the study was brought from market. It is finely divided residue resulting from the
combustion of ground or powdered coal from electric generating plants. It has high water
absorption capacity.
In this test program, without additives clay was tested to find the optimum moisture content,
CBR value, plasticity index, liquid limit index, specific gravity, sieve analysis. Fly ash were
added in varying percentages and that fraction for which maximum strength is obtained was
found out.

4
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page No.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 General 6-7
1.2 Objectives of the study 7
Chapter2: Review of literature 8-9
Chapter 3: Methodology 10-11
3.1 Study Area 10
3.2 Materials 10
3.3 Experiment to be conducted
3.1.1 Specific gravity 10
3.1.2 Liquid limit 11
3.1.3 Plastic limit 11
3.1.4 Particle size distribution 11
3.1.5 Proctor compaction Test 11
Chapter 4:Result and Discussion 12-24
Chapter 5:Conclusion 25
Chapter 6:Scope of Future Study 25
Chapter 7:Annexure 26-27
Chapter 8:Reference 28

5
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Subgrade soils in road construction is overriding faster in present performance. To sustain
load, the pavement should be designed and constructed with care. If stability of soil is not
adequate to sustain load the we need some methods to improve properties of soil and by using
method of soil stabilization we can improve soil properties. Improving an on-site soil’s
engineering properties is called soil stabilization. . The main objectives of the soil
stabilization is to increase the bearing capacity resistance to weathering process and soil
permeability. The long term performance of any construction project depends on the
soundness of the underlying soils. Unstable soils can create significant problems for
pavements or structures, therefore soil stabilization techniques are necessary to ensure the
good stability of soil so that it can successfully sustain the load of the superstructure
especially in case of soil which are highly active, also it saves a lot of time and large sum of
money when compared to the method of cutting out and replacing the unstable soil.
The materials which can be used for soil stabilization are Portland cement, lime and fly ash
etc. It is obtained by heating limestone at elevated temperature. Fly ash is waste material
from thermal power plants.
The fly ash generally produced by the combustion of coal of the thermal power plant. The
large numbers of power plant has been established across the world to full fill the demand of
power. Chemical stabilization introduced the use of technique to add a binder to the soil to
improve the geotechnical performance of land such as mechanical and chemical
characteristics of soil. Some studies are reported that, different additives such as cement,
lime, fly ash, silica fume, and rice husk ash have been used for chemical stabilization of soft
soils. Chemical stabilization is applied as a cost effective, environmental friendly and
efficient method for soil treatment. It is also well known that stabilizing soil with local
natural, industrial resources particularly lime and fly ash has a significant effect on improving
the soil properties. In soil stabilization with lime and fly ash, additives combined by specific
moisture content, then apply for improving the soil properties in engineering projects.
Investigator experiments on the physical and chemical reaction of stabilized soil revealed
that, lime, fly ash, and mixture of lime-fly ash have short-term and long-term effect on the
characteristic of soil.
Essentially consisting of alumina, silica and iron, fly ashes are micro-sized particles. Fly ash
particles are generally spherical in size, and this property makes it easy for them to blend and
flow, to make a suitable concoction. Both amorphous and crystalline nature of minerals are
the content of fly ash generated. Its content varies with the change in nature of the coal used
for the burning process, but it basically is a non-plastic silt. For waste liners, fly ash is a
potential material that can be employed; and in combination with certain minerals (lime and
bentonite), fly ash can be used as a barrier material. In present scenario, the generation of this
waste material in picture (fly ash) is far more than its current utilization. In other words, we
are producing more of fly ash than we can spend.
The utilization of fly ash can be largely grouped into following three classes:
The Low Value Utilizations, which includes back filling, structural fills, road construction,
soil stabilization, embankment & dam construction, ash dykes, etc.
The Medium Value Utilizations, which includes grouting, cellular cement, pozzolana cement,
bricks/blocks, soil amendment agents, prefabricated building blocks, fly ash concrete, weight
aggregate, etc.
The High Value Utilizations, which includes, fly ash paints, ceramic industry, extraction of
magnetite, distempers, metal recovery, acid refractory bricks, floor and wall tiles, etc.

6
In this project, fly ash was mixed with clay to investigate the relative strength in terms of
unconfined compression strength, bearing capacity and compaction, permeability ,plasticity,
shear analysis ,OMC (Proctor needle test).The project properties of the soil were determined
as per IS specification
Soils containing significant levels of silt or clay, have changing geotechnical characteristics:
they swell and become plastic in the presence of water, shrink when dry and expand when
exposed to frost. Site traffic is always a delicate and difficult issue when project are
carriedout on such soils. In other words, the re-use of these materials is often difficult, but not
impossible. Once they have been treated with lime, such soil can be used to create
embankments or subgrade of structures, thus avoiding expensive excavation works and
transport. Use of lime significantly changes the characteristics of a soil to produce long-term
permanent strength and stability, particularly with respect to the action of water and frost. The
mineralogical properties of the soils will determine their degree of reactivity with lime and
the ultimate strength that the stabilized layers will develop. In general, fine-grained clay
soils(with a minimum of 25 percent passing the #200 sieve (74mm)and a plasticity index
greater than 10) are considered to be good candidates for stabilization. Soils containing
significant amounts of organic materials (greater than 0.3 percent) may require additional
lime or special construction procedures. Since, fly ash is a waste material from thermal power
plants and shows pozzolanic characteristics, it is always encouraged to use fly ash for
stabilization where easily and economically available.

1.2 Objective of the study:


The objective of our project are :
 To study the effect of additive lime and flyash on OMC of soil.
 To fine the consistency limits of soils by the effect of additives such as lime and
flyash.
 To find the change in CBR of soil by addition of additives.

7
2. Review of literature
2.1. Tanveer acid zerdi et. al.(05may,2010) did soil stabilisation using by lime and brick dust.
They did numbers of experiment and soil to enhance the engineering property.
The result of experiment was satisfactory and given below:-
1. Atterberg’s limit
2. Modified protector test
From such result be concluded that impact of brick dust and lime on soil is positive
by replacing soil by 35% of brick and 5% of lime of its dry weight. Improve engineering
properties so use of brick dust and lime is preferable for establishing the soil because it
gave positive results as stabilizer and also it is waste utilization.

2.2. S. Bhuvanehwari et. al. did soil stabilisation using flyash and based on laboratory and
field tests, he made following conclusions:As the locally available borrow soil has generally
high plasticity(LL>50)it was difficult to use it directly for construction. The tests carried out
with different proportion of FA indicated that the workability is maximum with 25% FA.
Also the dry density observed is maximum for 25% FA.Presence of dry clay lumps in the
borrow soil increases the number of passes of disc harrow for mixing. It is therefore
necessary to eliminate such soil lumps in the construction.Strict quality control shall be
exercised with regard to quality of borrow soil, its natural moisture content, number of disc
harrow passes, density and moisture content after compaction,etc.
2.3. 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 Ashto 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 Ash-BC 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
2.4. 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 FLYASH 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.

8
The untrained shear strength of the expansive soil blended with Fly Ash increases with the
increase in the ash content.
2.5. Erdal Cokca (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 Fly Ash and Tuncbilek Fly 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 percent
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.

9
3. Methodology
3.1 Study Area
The soil used for these experiments was brought from a college ground after digging it to
reach level of subgrade.Flyash for the study was brought from Alpha Test House,Guru
Harkishan Nagar,Paschim Vihar. It is finely divided residue resulting from combustion of
coal from electric generating plants.
3.2 Materials
3.2.1 Soil
3.2.2 Flyash
3.3 Methods
EXPERIMENT TO BE CONDUCTED:
1. Atterberg Limits
2. Specific Gravity Test
3. Proctor Compaction Test
4. C.B.R Test
5. Sieve Analysis

These tests are conducted to find the different properties of soil and variation in their
properties addition of additives.
Compaction test is done to find optimum water content and dry density of soil.

Specific gravity test to find average value of all the solid particles present in the soil
mass. It is also an important parameters used for the determination of voids ratio and
particles size.
 Liquid limit is find by cassagrande's Apparatus
 plastic limit is find by noting minimum water content at which soil begins to
crumble or crack when rolled in 3mm diameter thread.
 proctor Compaction Test is find by compacting the specimen by using rammer
 specific gravity is find by using pycnometer
 C.B.R test is penetration test to find the subgrade strength.

3.3.1 specific gravity The specific gravity of soil is the ratio between the weight of the soil
solids and weight of equal volume of water. It is measured by the help of a volumetric flask
in a very simple experimental setup where the volume of the soil is found out and its weight
is divided by the weight of equal volume of water.
Specific Gravity G = W2−W1
(W4−W1)−( W3−W2 )
W1= Weight of empty pycnometer in gms
W2= Weight of empty pycnometer + Dry soil in gms
W3=Weight of empty pycnometer + Soil + Water
W4= Weight of empty pycnometer + Water

10
3.3.2Liquid limit The Casagrande tool cuts a groove of size 2mm wide at the bottom and 11
mm wide at the top and 8 mm high. The number of blows used for the two soil samples to
come in contact is noted down. Graph is plotted taking number of blows on a logarithmic
scale on the abscissa and water content on the ordinate. Liquid limit corresponds to 25 blows.

3.3.3Plastic limit This is determined by rolling out soil till its diameter reaches
approximately 3 mm and measuring water content for the soil which crumbles on reaching
this diameter.
Plasticity index (Ip) was also calculated with the help of liquid limit and plastic limit;
Ip = wL - wP
wL- Liquid limit
wP- Plastic limit

3.3.4Particle size distribution The results from sieve analysis of the soil when plotted on a
semi-log graph with particle diameter or the sieve size as the abscissa with logarithmic axis
and the percentage passing as the ordinate gives a clear idea about the particle size
distribution. From the help of this curve, D10 and D60 are determined. This D10 is the
diameter of the soil below which 10% of the soil particles lie. The ratio of, D10 and D60
gives the uniformity coefficient (Cu) which in turn is a measure of the particle size range.

3.3.5Proctor compaction test This experiment gives a clear relationship between the dry
density of the soil and the moisture content of the soil. The experimental setup consists of (i)
cylindrical metal mould (internal diameter- 10.15 cm and internal height-11.7 cm), (ii)
detachable base plate, (iii) collar (5 cm effective height), (iv) rammer (2.5 kg). Compaction
process helps in increasing the bulk density by driving out the air from the voids. The theory
used in the experiment is that for any compactive effort, the dry density depends upon the
moisture content in the soil. The maximum dry density (MDD) is achieved when the soil is
compacted at relatively high moisture content and almost all the air is driven out, this
moisture content is called optimum moisture content (OMC). After plotting the data from the
experiment with water content as the abscissa and dry density as the ordinate, we can obtain
the OMC and MDD. The equations used in this experiment are as follows:

Wet density = weight of wet soil in mould gms


volume of mould c

Moisture content % = weight of water gms x 100


weight of dry soil gms

Dry density γd (gm/cc) = wet density


1+ moisture content
100

11
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
1. For natural moisture content:
Table 1.1 Test for dry soil:

Determination number I
Wt. of empty container W1 14gm
Wt. container+ wet soil W2 27gm
Wt of container+Dry soil W3 26gm
Moisture content= x100 8.33%

2.Specific Gravity (Gs):

Table 2.1 Test for dry soil:

Determination number I
Wt. of empty pycnometer W1 gm 605
Wt. of pycnometer+ dry soil W2 gm 820
Wt. of pycnometer+dry soil +water W3 gm 1587
Wt. of pycnometer+water W4 gm 1450

Specific gravity Gs = 2.7

Table 2.2 Test for dry soil + 5%Fly ash:

Determination number I
Wt. of empty pycnometer W1 gm 596
Wt. of pycnometer+ dry soil W2 gm 807
Wt. of pycnometer+dry soil +water W3 gm 1553
Wt. of pycnometer+water W4 gm 1420

Specific gravity Gs = 2.705

12
Table2.3 Test for dry soil +10%Fly ash:

Determination number I
Wt. of empty pycnometer W1 gm 596
Wt. of pycnometer+ dry soil W2 gm 816
Wt. of pycnometer+dry soil +water W3 gm 1572
Wt. of pycnometer+water W4 gm 1444

Specific gravity Gs = 2.391

Table2.4 Test for dry soil +15%Fly ash:

Determination number I
Wt. of empty pycnometer W1 gm 596
Wt. of pycnometer+ dry soil W2 gm 826
Wt. of pycnometer+dry soil +water W3 gm 1509
Wt. of pycnometer+water W4 gm 1396

Specific gravity Gs = 1.949

3.Sieve analysis:

Table 3.1 Test for dry soil :


Soil taken=500gm
S. No. Sieve size Wt. of retained %age retained Cumulative %age % finer
1 4.75mm 28gm 506 5.6 94.4
2 2.36mm 52gm 10.4 16 84
3 1.18mm 52gm 10.4 26.4 73.6
4 600µm 75gm 15 41.4 58.6
5 300µm 65gm 13 54.4 45.6
6 150µm 76gm 15.2 69.6 30.4
7 75µm 138gm 27.6 97.2 2.8
8 PAN 14gm 2.8 100 0

500gm 100

13
Table 3.2 Test for dry soil +5% Fly ash:
Soil taken=500gm
Fly ash=25gm

S. No. Sieve size Wt. of retained %age retained Cumulative %age % finer
1 4.75mm 19gm 3.62 3.62 96.38
2 2.36mm 42gm 8 11.62 88.38
3 1.18mm 53gm 10 21.62 78.38
4 600µm 77gm 14.67 36.29 63.71
5 300µm 70gm 13.33 49.62 50.38
6 150µm 71gm 13.52 63.14 36.86
7 75µm 157gm 30 93.14 6.86
8 PAN 36gm 6.85 100 0

525gm 100

Table 3.3 Test for dry soil +10% Fly ash:


Soil taken=500gm
Fly ash=50gm

S. No. Sieve size Wt. of retained %age retained Cumulative %age % finer
1 4.75mm 48gm 8.76 8.76 91.24
2 2.36mm 43gm 7.81 16.57 83.43
3 1.18mm 53gm 9.63 26.2 73.8
4 600µm 56gm 10.18 36.38 63.62
5 300µm 57gm 10.36 46.74 53.26
6 150µm 54gm 9.81 56.55 43.45
7 75µm 127gm 23.09 79.64 20.36
8 PAN 112gm 20.36 100 0

550gm 100

14
Table 3.4 Test for dry soil +15% Fly ash:
Soil taken=500gm
Fly ash=75gm
S. No. Sieve size Wt. of retained %age retained Cumulative %age % finer
1 4.75mm 40gm 6.95 6.95 93.05
2 2.36mm 37gm 6.43 13.38 86.62
3 1.18mm 40gm 6.95 20.33 79.67
4 600µm 61gm 10.60 30.93 69.07
5 300µm 56gm 9.73 40.66 59.34
6 150µm 58gm 10.08 50.74 49.34
7 75µm 143gm 24.86 75.60 24.4
8 PAN 140gm 24.70 100 0

575gm 100

4. PLASTIC LIMIT TEST:


Table 4.1 Test for dry soil:
Dry soil taken=50gm

Determination number I
Wt. of empty container (W1) gm 14
Wt. of container+Wet soil (W2) gm 33
Wt. of c ontainer+Dry soil (W3) gm 31
Wt of dry soil(Wd) gm 17
Wt. of water (Ww) gm 2
% of moisture content= x100 11.764%

Table 4.2 Test for dry soil + 5% Fly ash:


Dry soil taken=50gm
Fly ash=2.5gm

Determination number I
Wt. of empty container (W1) gm 25
Wt. of container+Wet soil (W2) gm 34
Wt. of c ontainer+Dry soil (W3) gm 32
Wt of dry soil(Wd) gm 7
Wt. of water (Ww) gm 2
% of moisture content= x100 28.57%

15
Table 4.3 Test for dry soil + 10% Fly ash:
Dry soil taken=50gm
Fly ash=5gm

Determination number I
Wt. of empty container (W1) gm 27
Wt. of container+Wet soil (W2) gm 34
Wt. of c ontainer+Dry soil (W3) gm 33
Wt of dry soil(Wd) gm 6
Wt. of water (Ww) gm 1
% of moisture content= x100 33.33%

Table 4.4 Test for dry soil + 15% Fly ash:


Dry soil taken=50gm
Fly ash=7.5gm

Determination number I
Wt. of empty container (W1) gm 15
Wt. of container+Wet soil (W2) gm 21
Wt. of c ontainer+Dry soil (W3) gm 20
Wt of dry soil(Wd) gm 5
Wt. of water (Ww) gm 1
% of moisture content= x100 20%

16
5.LIQUID LIMIT TEST:

Table 5.1 Test for dry soil:


Dry soil taken=200gm

Determination number I
No. of stroke 24
Wt. of empty container (W1)gm 3
Wt. of container+Wet soil (W2)gm 51
Wt. of c ontainer+Dry soil (W3)gm 49
Wt of dry soil(Wd)=(W3-W1)gm 8
Wt. of water (Ww)=(W2-W3)gm 2
% of moisture content= x100 25%

Table 5.2 Test for dry soil + 5% of fly ash:


Dry soil taken=200gm
Fly ash=10gm

Determination number I
No. of stroke 26
Wt. of empty container (W1)gm 29
Wt. of container+Wet soil (W2)gm 40
Wt. of c ontainer+Dry soil (W3)gm 39
Wt of dry soil(Wd)=(W3-W1)gm 10
Wt. of water (Ww)=(W2-W3)gm 1
% of moisture content= x100 10%

17
Table 5.3 Test for dry soil + 10% of fly ash:
Dry soil taken=200gm
Fly ash=20gm

Determination number I
No. of stroke 28
Wt. of empty container (W1)gm 15
Wt. of container+Wet soil (W2)gm 25
Wt. of c ontainer+Dry soil (W3)gm 24
Wt of dry soil(Wd)=(W3-W1)gm 9
Wt. of water (Ww)=(W2-W3)gm 1
% of moisture content= x100 11.11%

Table 5.4 Test for dry soil + 15% of fly ash:


Dry soil taken=200gm
Fly ash=30gm

Determination number I
No. of stroke 26
Wt. of empty container (W1)gm 14
Wt. of container+Wet soil (W2)gm 24
Wt. of c ontainer+Dry soil (W3)gm 23
Wt of dry soil(Wd)=(W3-W1)gm 9
Wt. of water (Ww)=(W2-W3)gm 1
% of moisture content= x100 11.11%

18
6. Proctor compaction test:

Weight of mould + Base plate=W1


Weight of mould + Base plate + compacted soil=W2
Weight of soil=W3=W2-W1
Volume of mould (Vm) = 2120mm³
Bulk Density=γb=(W3/Vm)
Dry Density= γd= γb/(1+w)

Table 6.1 Test for OMC of dry soil:


Dry soil taken=5000gm

SAMPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6
W1 5.974 5.974 5.974 5.974 5.974 5.974
W2 9.068 9.124 9.141 9.171 9.194 9.191
W3 3.094 3.150 3.167 3.197 3.220 3.21
Vm 2120 2120 2120 2120 2120 2120
γb 1.4594 1.4858 1.4938 1.508 1.588 1.5141
γd 1.313 1.3342 1.3515 1.3024 1.2738 1.271
Moisture 11.11% 11.36% 10.526% 15.78% 19.23% 19.04%
content

Maximum dry density=1.3515


Optimum Moisture Content=10.526

For simple dry soil


1.36
1.34
1.32
Dry density

1.3
1.28 Series1
1.26
1.24
1.22
11.11 11.36 10.526 15.78 19.23
Moisture Content

19
Table 6.2 Test for OMC of dry soil + 5% Fly ash :
Dry soil taken=5000gm
Fly ash=250gm

SAMPLE 1 2 3 4 5
W1 5.974 5.974 5.974 5.974 5.974
W2 9.205 9.260 9.300 9.325 9.318
W3 3.231 3.286 3.326 3.351 3.344
Vm 2120 2120 2120 2120 2120
γb 1.5240 1.550 1.568 1.580 1.577
γd 1.3546 1.343 1.387 1.301 1.366
Moisture 12.5% 15.58% 13.04% 21.42% 15.38%
content

Maximum dry density=1.387


Optimum Moisture Content=13.04%

5% Flyash
1.4
1.38
1.36
Dry density

1.34
1.32
1.3 Series1
1.28
1.26
1.24
12.5 13.04 13.38 15.38 21.42
Moisture Content

20
Table 6.3 Test for OMC of dry soil + 10% Fly ash :
Dry soil taken=5000gm
Fly ash=500gm

SAMPLE 1 2 3 4
W1 5.974 5.974 5.974 5.974
W2 9.718 10.201 10.578 10.471
W3 3.744 4.227 4.604 4.497
Vm 2120 2120 2120 2120
γb 1.766 1.993 2.171 2.121
γd 1.5303 1.855 1.764 1.860
Moisture 15.38% 7.1428% 23.07% 14.28%
content

Maximum dry density=1.860


Optimum Moisture Content=14.28%

10% Flyash
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Dry density

1.2
1
0.8 Series1
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
7.1428 14.28 23.07 15.38
Moisture Content

21
Table 6.4 Test for OMC of dry soil + 15% Fly ash :
Dry soil taken=5000gm
Fly ash=750gm
SAMPLE 1 2 3 4
W1 5.974 5.974 5.974 5.974
W2 9.779 10.195 10.481 10.385
W3 3.805 4.221 4.507 4.411
Vm 2120 2120 2120 2120
γb 1.7948 1.991 2.125 2.0806
γd 1.725 1.825 1.8798 1.649
Moisture 4% 9.09% 13.043% 26.086
content

Maximum dry density=1.8798


Optimum Moisture Content=13.043%

15% Flyash
1.95
1.9
1.85
1.8
Dry density

1.75
1.7
Series1
1.65
1.6
1.55
1.5
4 9.09 13.043 26.086
Moisture Content

22
7.CBR Test:

Table 7.1 Test of dry soil :


Dry Soil = 7000gm
Water added = 10.156% of sample
Wt. of empty mould=8.490kg
Wt. of empty mould + soil=13.975kg

S.No. Penetration Load in Division Standard Load CBR Value


1 2.5mm 7 1370 0.713
2 5mm 14 2055 0.95

Table 7.2 Test of dry soil + 5% Fly ash :


Dry soil= 7000gm
Fly ash = 350gm
Water added = 13.04% of sample
Wt. of empty mould=8.490kg
Wt. of empty mould + soil=14.110kg

S.No. Penetration Load in Division Standard Load CBR Value


1 2.5mm 5 1370 1.069
2 5mm 11 2055 1.66

Table 7.3 Test of dry soil + 10% Fly ash


Dry Soil = 7000gm
Fly ash = 700gm
Water added = 14.280% of sample
Wt. of empty mould=8.490kg
Wt. of empty mould + soil=14.250kg

S.No. Penetration Load in Division Standard Load CBR Value


1 2.5mm 3 1370 1.426
2 5mm 7 2055 3.32

23
Table 7.4 Test of dry soil + 15% Fly ash :
Dry Soil = 7000gm
Fly ash = 1050gm
Water added = 13.043% of sample
Wt. of empty mould=8.490kg
Wt. of empty mould + soil=14.290kg

S.No. Penetration Load in Division Standard Load CBR Value


1 2.5mm 1 1370 2.495
2 5mm 23 2055 5.229

Table 7.5 Thickness of sub grade:

%age of fly ash Thickness of sub grade soil in cm


0 85.826
5 64.310
10 44.43
15 34.43

As, we increase the %age of fly ash in subgrade soil there is decrease in thickness of
subgrade which is optimum at 15% fly ash so addition of fly ash in soil is cost effective.

24
5. Conclusion:
From the results of the present study, it is concluded that, the soil stabilization using flyash is
a very effective process for the strengthing of soil. Flyash is low cost material and it obtains
high strength and makes the structure strong and durable. Max dry density of soil increases
with addition of flyash, with 0% flyash we have max dry density of 1.3515,with 10% flyash
we have max dry density of 1.860 and with addition of 15% flyash we have max dry density
of 1.8798. we also concluded that value of liquid limit decreases with increase in percentage
of flyash. Specific Gravity firstly increases then decreases with addition of 5%,10% and 15%
flyash. Subgrade soil is initially a medium plastic soil which become non plastic with
addition of flyash.

6. Scope of the study:


Fly ash along with another additive like lime, murrum, cement, and other such materials
can be used together, and may be varied in quantity to obtain the best possible stabilizing
mixture.

25
7. Annexure:

26
27
8. Reference:

1. N.Krithiga,D.Pujitha,T.Palayam,A.revathy(2017),"Soil Stabilization Using Lime And


Flyash",SSRG International Journal of civil engineering,ISSN:2348-8352.
2. Abhinav Rawat,Anupam Mital(2015),"Soil Stabilization Using Different Traditional
And Non-Traditional Additives",Ijrrest,Issn:2278-6643.
3. Gopal and Ranjan Rao,Soil Mechanics.
4. Erdal Cokca (2001) “Use Of Class C Fly Ashes for the Stabilization – of an
Expansive Soil” Journal of Geotechnical .
5. Karthik, Ashok kumar, Gowtham.P,” Soil Stabilization By Using Fly Ash”, IOSR
Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)

28