International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
Soil Stabilization using Fly Ash and Rice Husk Ash
MR.A.VIJAY1, R.MAHALINGAM2, A.KAVIYAN3
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Panimalar
Engineering College, Poonamalle, Chennai-123
Under graduate student, civil engineering department, Panimalar
Engineering College, Poonamalle, Chennai-123
ABSTRACT: Soil is a complex material. Recycled and waste materials like fly ash, bagasse ash, rice husk ash
can be used to soil stabilization to improve physical and chemical properties of soil. In addition to that
properties which can improved by soil stabilization are CBR, shear strength of soil, UCS and bearing capacity
etc. The objective of this study to check the amount of fly ash at which sample of soil and fly ash gives optimum
values of CBR and UCS and after that rice husk ash is added in different proportions in the sample of soil and
optimum quantity of fly ash to achieve the optimum value of CBR.
I. INTRODUCTION
Due to rapid growth in highway construction there is need of good earth. Soil cannot be replaced with
good soil everywhere as it is very costly and increase the project cost. This problem can be overcome with
improvement in properties of soil which is to be used for infrastructure project. Many investigations had been
carried out to use waste materials to improve the soil properties and to utilize the waste materials in view of
better environment.
Objective of this study is to improve the properties of locally available clayey soil.For this research, soil
sample was taken from Mohali district. Stabilization is done by adding different percentages of fly ash and rice
husk ashes. Stabilization is done for following purposes1.
2.
3.
To evaluate the CBR by using optimum content of fly ash
To evaluate the UCS by using optimum content of fly ash
To evaluate the CBR by using optimum content of rice husk ash
II. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
Fly ash is residual material remained after combustion of coal in thermal power plant. Fly ash contains
fine particles of silicon dioxide (Sio2), aluminum oxide, iron oxide and calcium oxide. Fly ash has been used in
many civil engineering projects successfully. Fly ash provides stability to sub grade, reduce earth pressure
and also improves stability of slopes. Usually fly ash is mixed with clayey soils to improve properties as these
soils cannot be used directly for construction due to their unfavorable properties.RHA is a carbon neutral
green product. Lots of ways are being thought of for disposing them by making commercial use of this RHA.
RHA is a good super- pozzolan.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Natural soil.
92 % Soil + 8% Fly ash
86 % Soil + 14% Fly ash
82 % Soil + 18% Fly ash
76 % Soil + 24 % Fly
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 3328
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
2.1 INDEX PROPERTIES OF SOIL Plasticity Index
Plasticity index of soil was 5 % which is numerical difference between liquid limit and plastic limit.
Type of soil
The type of soil was checked from plasticity chart. It was seen that soil which is taken for this study is
intermediate plasticity. As per IS 1498 soil is classified as CI.
Engineering properties are indicated by index properties of in table 2.1.
Table2.1 GeotechnicalPropertiesofsoil
SR.NO
PROPERTIES
VALUE
CONFIRMINGTOIS CODE
1.
Specificgravity(G)
2.60
IS 2720 : Part 3 : Sec 1 :1980
2.
Maximum drydensity(MDD)
2.124 gm/cc
IS 2720 : Part VII: 1980
3.
Optimum moisture
content(OMC)
Naturalmoisture content
8.4 %
IS 2720 : Part VII: 1980
8.6 %
IS 2720 : Part 2 : 1973
5.
Liquid limit
24
IS 2720 : Part 5 : 1985
6.
Plastic limit
19
IS 2720 :Part 5 : 1985
4.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Maximum dry density (MDD) and Optimum moisture content (OMC) of soil at different fly ash contents
given in table 3.1
Ash content
(%)
OMC (%)
0
8
14
18
24
8.5
9.3
9.7
10.7
11.0
MDD (gm/cc)
2.124
2.012
1.990
1.920
1.900
VARIATION OF OMC WITH VARIOUS %AGE OF FLY ASH
11
10
OMC (%)
9
8
7
0
© 2019, IRJET
|
2
4
6
Impact Factor value: 7.211
8
10
FLY ASH (%)
|
12
14
16
18
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 3329
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
VARIATION OF MDD WITH VARIOUS %AGE OF FLY ASH
2.5
2.4
2.3
MDD(gm/cc)
2.2
2.1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Ash content (%)
2
FIG . 3.1 OMC AND MDD AT VARIOUS PERCENTAGES OF FLY ASH
1.9
1.8
3.1 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO OF VIRGIN SOIL (CBR TEST)
CBR OF VIRGIN SOIL
1.7
6
LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2
1.6
5
1.5
4
3
2 0
2
4
6
8
NE
NM
PE TRATION I M
10
12
14
1
Figure 3.2 CBR of virgin Soil
0
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 3330
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE + 8 % FLY ASH
CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE + 14 % FLY ASH
9
8
8
7
LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2
LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2
7
6
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
5
10
15
0
PENETRATION IN MM
Figure 3.4 CBR graph at 14 % fly ash
CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE + 24 % FLY ASH
CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE + 18 % FLY ASH
9
8
8
7
LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2
LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2
15
PENETRATION IN MM
Figure 3.3 CBR of soil sample with 8% fly ash
9
10
5
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
5
10
15
0
PENETRATION IN MM
Figure 3.5 CBR graph at 18 % fly ash
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
5
10
15
PENETRATION IN MM
Figure 3.6 CBR graph at 24 % fly ash
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 3331
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
Table 3.2: Summary of CBR test with various percentages of fly ash
Sampl
e No
Soaked CBR (%)
Composition
CBR
1
Soil
At 2.5 mm
penetratio
n
3.94
2
Soil with 8% fly ash
6.9
6.7
6.9
3
Soil with 14 % fly
ash
Soil with 18 % fly
ash
Soil with 24 % fly
ash
6.8
6.3
6.8
6.6
6.2
6.6
6.4
6.3
6.4
4
5
At 5 mm
penetratio
n
3.86
3.94
Variation of UCS of uncured specimens at different %age of fly
Variation of CBR with different %age of fly ash
ash
6.9
7
6.8
6.6
600
6.4
6
500
5
400
456
390
3.94
4
300
3
UCS (kN/m2)
CBR value in %age
480
2
345
215
238
200
100
1
0
0
0
0
8
14
8
14
18
24
26
Ash content (%)
18
Various %age of PSA 24
Figure 3.8 Variation of CBR with different %age of fly ashFigure 3.9 unconfined compressive strength at
different percentages of fly ash
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 3332
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
500
450
400
350
300
UCS (kN/m22)
250
200
150
0
5
10
100
0 % fly ash
15
14S%trfla
y in
ash(%)
8% fly ash
18 % fly ash
20
24 % fly ash
50
Fig 3.10 Variation of strain with different percentages of ash content
0
CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE WITH 8 % FLY ASH + 8 % RHA
9
10
8
9
7
LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2
LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2
CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE WITH 8 % FLY ASH + 4 % RHA
6
5
4
3
7
6
5
4
2
1
8
3
0
5
10
15
2
PENETRATION IN MM
0
0
5
10
15
PENETRATION IN MM
1
0
Figure 3.11 CBR graph at 8% fly ash and 4% RHA
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
Figure 3.12 CBR graph at 8% fly ash and 8 % RHA
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 3333
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE WITH 8 % FLY ASH + 16 % RHA
12
12
10
10
LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2
LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2
CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE WITH 8 % FLY ASH + 12 % RHA
8
6
4
8
6
4
2
2
0
0
0
5
10
PENETRATION IN MM
5
0
15
10
15
PENETRATION IN MM
Figure 3.13 CBR graph at 8% fly ash and 12% RHAFigure 3.14 CBR graph at 8% fly ash and 16% RHA
CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE WITH 8 % FLY ASH + 20 % RHA
Variation of CBR with 8 % Fly ash and different %age of RHA
10
8
8
7
7
CBR value in %age
LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2
8.9
9
9
6
5
4
6.9
7.2
0
4
8.7
7.8
8.5
6
5
4
3
3
1
2
0
2
0
5
10
1
15
PENETRATION IN MM
0
8
12
Various %age of RHA 16
20
Figure 3.15 CBR graph at 8% fly ash and 20 % RHAFigure 3.15 CBR Summary of soil with 8% fly ash
and different %age of RHA
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 3334
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The experimental work done on soil stabilization with fly ash and rice husk ash can be concluded as follows  Soil with varying percentage of fly ash gives maximum CBR value at 8% fly ash. It increases from 3.94 % to 6.8
%. With further addition of fly ash, it keeps decreasing.
 Unconfined compressive strength of soil with 8% fly ash increased as compared to virgin soil from 2.154 kg/cm2 to
2.38 kg/cm2. It was maximum as 4.80kg/cm2 when 24 % Paper mill sludge ash was added. After there was
decrement in UCS when 26 % paper mill sludge ash was added.
 The soil with 8 % fly ash was further blended with variable percentage of rice husk ash (4%,8%,
12%,16%&20%). The major improvement in CBR occurred at 8% fly ash mixed with 12% rice husk ash and
thereafter, further addition of rice husk ash is causing gradual change in CBR values. The peak soaked CBR value
is 8.9 %.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Amo. O.O., Fajobi, A.B., &Afekhuai, S.O. (2005). “Stabilizing potential of cement and fly ash mixture on expansive clay soil”.
Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(9), 1669-1673.
Athanasopoulou, A. (2014). Addition of lime and fly ash to improve highway subgrade soils. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 26(4), 773-775.
Bose B(2012)” Geo engineering properties of expansive soil stabilized with fly ash”, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 17, Bund. J, 2012, pp. 1339-1353.
Buhler, R.L., &Cerato, A.B. (2007). “: Stabilization of Oklahoma Expansive Soils Using Lime and Class C fly ash.” GSP 162
Problematic Soils and Rocks and In Situ Characterization.
Senol, A. (2012). “Effect of fly ash and polypropylene fibres content on the soft soils”. Bull EngGeol Environ,71, 379–387.
Senol, A., Edil, T.B., Shafique, Md.S.B., Acosta, H.A., & Benson, C.H. (2006). “Soft subgrades stabilization by using various
fly ashes.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Sezer, A, Inan, G., Yılmaz, H.R., &Ramyar, K. (2006). “Utilization of a very high lime fly ash for improvement of clay.”
Building and Environment, 41, 150–155.
Sharma N.K., Swain,S.K., Sahoo, U.C. (2012).” Stabilization of a Clayey Soil with Fly Ash and Lime:A Micro Level
Investigation”. GeotechGeolEng, 30, 1197–1205.
T.B. Edil, H.A. Acosta & C.H. Benson. (2006).” Stabilizing Soft Fine-Grained Soils with Fly Ash”. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 18(2), 283-294.
V .Babu Jaya Prakash, Surya. P.V.V, SatyanarayanaManikantha, MoinAbdul(2016)” Engineering Properties of Black cotton
soil Modified with Fly ash and Cement.” International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 35
Number 10 - May 2016
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.211
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 3317