Stabilization of Organic Soils with Fly Ash

Erdem O. Tastan1; Tuncer B. Edil, F.ASCE2; Craig H. Benson, F.ASCE3; and Ahmet H. Aydilek, M.ASCE4

Abstract: The effectiveness of fly ash use in the stabilization of organic soils and the factors that are likely to affect the degree of stabilization
were studied. Unconfined compression and resilient modulus tests were conducted on organic soil–fly ash mixtures and untreated soil spec-
imens. The unconfined compressive strength of organic soils can be increased using fly ash, but the amount of increase depends on the type of
soil and characteristics of the fly ash. Resilient moduli of the slightly organic and organic soils can also be significantly improved. The
increases in strength and stiffness are attributed primarily to cementing caused by pozzolanic reactions, although the reduction in water
content resulting from the addition of dry fly ash solid also contributes to strength gain. The pozzolonic effect appears to diminish as
the water content decreases. The significant characteristics of fly ash that affect the increase in unconfined compressive strength and resilient
modulus include CaO content and CaO=SiO2 ratio [or CaO=ðSiO2 þ Al2 O3 Þ ratio]. Soil organic content is a detrimental characteristic for
stabilization. Increase in organic content of soil indicates that strength of the soil–fly ash mixture decreases exponentially. For most of the
soil–fly ash mixtures tested, unconfined compressive strength and resilient modulus increased when fly ash percentage was increased. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000502. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Fly ash; Soil stabilization; Stiffness; Organic matter.
Author keywords: Organic soil; Fly ash; Stabilization; Strength; Stiffness; Stabilization.

Introduction materials is preferable. Thus, addition of a binder reduces both the

Construction of roadways on soft organic soils can be problematic
because organic soils typically have low shear strength and high
compressibility (Edil 1997). Current practice for construction of
roadways over organic soil subgrades mostly involve the removal
of the organic soil to a sufficient depth and replacement with
crushed rock (referred to as “cut and replace”) or preloading to
improve engineering properties. Chemical stabilization with
binders such as cement, lime, and fly ash can be undertaken rapidly
and often at low cost, and therefore chemical stabilization is
becoming an important alternative (Keshawarz and Dutta 1993;
Sridharan et al. 1997; Kaniraj and Havanagi 1999; Parsons and
Kneebone 2005).
Chemical stabilization of soft soils involves blending a binder
into the soil to increase its strength and stiffness through chemical
reactions. The binder is intended to cement the soil solids, thereby
increasing strength and stiffness. The binders are generally added
as dry solids. In practice, reducing the water content of high-water-
content soils to the optimum water content (OWC) is difficult and
time-consuming. Therefore, addition of dry solids and cementitious
1
Assistant Project Engineer, Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Monroe-
ville, PA 15146.
2
Professor, Geological Engineering Program, Dept. of Civil and Envir-
onmental Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. E-mail:
edil@engr.wisc.edu
3 Background
Wisconsin Distinguished Professor and Chairman, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
E-mail: benson@engr.wisc.edu
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Maryland, 1163 Glenn Martin Hall, College Park, MD 20742
(corresponding author). E-mail: aydilek@eng.umd.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 17, 2010; approved
on January 6, 2011; published online on January 8, 2011. Discussion period
open until February 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 9, September 1,
2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2011/9-819–833/$25.00.
water content and binds the soil particles, which results in an
increase in strength and stiffness. Common binders include cement,
lime, fly ash, or mixtures thereof. The use of fly ash as a binder is
attractive because fly ash is an industrial by-product that is
relatively inexpensive, compared with cement and lime (Federal
Highway Administration 2003). Additionally, using fly ash for soil
stabilization, particularly fly ashes that otherwise would be land-
filled, promotes sustainable construction through reduction of
energy use and reduction of greenhouse gases.
Fly ash has been shown to effectively stabilize soft inorganic
soils (Ferguson 1993; Acosta et al. 2003; Prabakar et al. 2004;
Bin-Shafique et al. 2004; Trzebiatowski et al. 2005), but little is
known regarding the effectiveness of stabilizing soft organic soils
with fly ash. Organic soils are known to be more difficult to sta-
bilize chemically than inorganic soils (Hampton and Edil 1998;
Janz and Johansson 2002). The objectives of this study were
(1) to determine if fly ashes can stabilize organic soils, and, if
so, (2) to quantify the improvement in the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS, qu ) and resilient modulus of the organic soil as
admixed with fly ash, and (3) to investigate potentially important
factors affecting the stabilization process, such as fly ash and
soil characteristics, fly ash percentage in the mixture, and water
content.
Chemical Stabilization
When binders such as lime, cement, and fly ash are blended with
soil in the presence of water, a set of reactions occur that result in
dissociation of lime (CaO) in the binders and the formation of ce-
mentitious and pozzolanic gels [calcium silicate hydrate gel (CSH)
and calcium aluminate silicate hydrate gel (CASH)]:
CaO þ H2 O ⇒ CaðOHÞ2 ð1Þ

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 819

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 CaðOHÞ2 ⇒ Ca2þ þ 2½OH

Ca2þ þ 2½OH
þ SiO2 ⇒ CSH
Ca2þ þ 2½OH
 þ Al2 O3 ⇒ CASH
These reactions are referred to as cementitious and/or pozzo-
lanic reactions that result in the formation of cementitious gels.
The increase in strength was found to be roughly related to the type
and quantity of possible reaction products (i.e., cement reaction
product, CSH for short-term strength and pozzolanic reaction prod-
uct, CASH for long-term strength gain).
The source for the pozzolans (a siliceous or aluminous material)
is either the soil or the binding agent. These reactions contribute to
stabilization of soils in two ways. First, plasticity of the soil is re-
duced by the exchange of calcium ions in the pore water with
monovalent cations on clay surfaces and by compression of the ad-
sorbed layer because of the elevated ionic strength of the pore water
(Rogers and Glendinning 2000). Second, the CSH or CASH gels
formed by cementitious and pozzolanic reactions bind the solid par-
ticles together, and this binding produces a stronger soil matrix
(Arman and Munfakh 1972). For organic soils, reactions are
expected to be inhibited or delayed by the existence of organic
compounds (Hampton and Edil 1998; Tremblay et al. 2002).
Mechanisms of organic matter interference with strength gain in
chemical stabilization are not fully understood, but the following
mechanisms are suggested (Hampton and Edil 1998; Axelsson et al.
2002; Janz and Johansson 2002): (1) organic matter can alter the
composition and structure of CSH gel, a cementing compound that
forms bonds between particles and also the type and amount of
other hydration products, e.g., ettringite; (2) organic materials often
contain materials such as humus or humic acid, which retard
strengthening reactions; (3) organic matter holds 10 or more times
its dry weight in water and may limit water available for hydration;
and (4) organic matter forms complexes with aluminosilicates and
with metal ions, and such complexes interfere with hydration.
Some fly ashes contain lime and pozzolans, such as Al2 O3 and
SiO2 , and therefore are self-cementing. The effectiveness of a given
fly ash is expected to depend on the relative abundance of CaO and
oxides providing pozzolans. For example, Class C fly ashes (i.e.,
fly ashes meeting the requirements in ASTM C618 (ASTM 2008)
for use in ready-mix concrete) have a CaO content > 20% (by
weight) and a Al2 O3 þ Fe2 O3 þ SiO2 content of 50–70%. In con-
trast, Class F fly ashes have < 10% CaO. Consequently, Class C
ashes generally are more effective at forming CSH and CASH gels
than Class F ashes (Sridharan et al. 1997).
Janz and Johansson (2002) indicate that the CaO=SiO2 ratio,
which stands for relative abundance of CaO and SiO2 , is an indi-
cator of the potential for pozzolanic reactions and that binders
with larger CaO=SiO2 ratios are likely to be more effective stabi-
lizers. For example, C3 S clinker, which is a strong binder, has
a CaO=SiO2 ratio = 3. Similarly, the ratio of CaO=ðSiO2 þ
Al2 O3 Þ can also be used as an indicator of the potential to form
CSH and CASH gels (Odadjima et al. 1995). However, binders
with a high CaO=SiO2 or CaO=ðSiO2 þ Al2 O3 Þ ratio can still
be ineffective if pozzolanic reactions are limited by the availability
of CaO pozzolans (e.g., too little CaO, SiO2 , and/or Al2 O3 )
Inhibition of Cementing Reactions by Organic Matter
Fly ash specifications for concrete applications usually include an
upper bound on the organic carbon content of the fly ash. This
upper bound is normally characterized by the loss on ignition
(LOI) measured with ASTM C311. Clare and Sherwood (1954)
indicated that the organic matter in organic soils adsorbs Ca2þ ions.
820 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
ð2Þ When cement, lime, or fly ash (any source of Ca2þ ions) is added to
organic soils, following the hydration of lime [Eqs. (1) and (2)],
ð3Þ released Ca2þ ions are likely to be exhausted by the organic matter,
which limits the availability of Ca2þ ions for pozzolanic reactions.
ð4Þ Thus, the amount of CaO in fly ash should be large enough to com-
pensate for the consumption of Ca2þ ions by the organic matter in
the soil. The possible interactions of organic compounds with poz-
zolanic minerals (Ca2þ or Alþ3 ) or CaðOHÞ2 are summarized as
follows (Young 1972): (1) calcium ions can be adsorbed by the
organic matter instead of reacting with pozzolanic minerals; (2) or-
ganic compounds react with CaðOHÞ2 and precipitate, which forms
insoluble compounds and limits the availability of Ca2þ ions for
pozzolanic reactions; (3) alumina can form stable complexes with
organic compounds, and calcium ions can also complex with or-
ganic compounds, but Young (1972) stated that complexes formed
by Ca2þ ions were not stable and would not affect the calcium ion
equilibria; and (4) organic compounds can adsorb on CaðOHÞ2
nuclei, which inhibit the growth of nuclei and formation of
CSH. Hampton and Edil (1998) indicated that the organic matter
in soils can also retain large amounts of water, which can reduce the
amount of available water for hydration reactions when a cementi-
tious additive is blended with soil.
Similarly, organic matter in soil is known to affect stabilization
using cements or fly ashes. For example, Tremblay et al. (2002)
evaluated how cement stabilization of an inorganic soil [a clay with
plasticity index (PI) = 26] was inhibited by organic content by add-
ing organic compounds to the soil, such as acetic acid, humic acid,
tannic acid, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and sucrose.
Tremblay et al. (2002) also suggested that pozzolanic reactions are
likely to be inhibited if the pH of the soil-cement mixture is less
than 9.
Materials and Methods
Soils
Three soft organic soils with different organic contents were used in
the study: Markey (silty, sandy peat), Lawson (low plasticity or-
ganic sandy clay), and Theresa (moderately plastic organic clay).
All soils were collected within 1 m of the ground surface and are
typical of organic soils encountered as a subgrade during roadway
construction in Wisconsin. Index properties of the soils (and com-
paction parameters) are summarized in Table 1. All three soils had
bell-shaped compaction curves, but the maximum dry unit weight
of these soils is less than the typical for soils from Wisconsin
with similar plasticity (Edil et al. 2006). An inorganic silt from
Boardman, Oregon (Boardman silt) was also used in the testing
program. Index properties of the silt are summarized in Table 1.
This silt, which has similar particle-size distribution as the fly ashes
in the study, was used as a nonreactive binder in some of the mix-
tures to separate the effects of cementing and reduction in water
content by adding dry solid.
Fly Ashes
Six fly ashes and Type I portland cement were used as binders in the
study. The fly ashes were obtained from electric power plants in the
upper Midwestern United States and were selected to provide a broad
range of carbon content (0.5–49%), CaO content (3.2–25.8%),
and CaO=SiO2 ratio (0.09–1.15). General properties of the fly ashes
are summarized in Table 2.
The Stanton and Columbia fly ashes classify as Class C ash
and the Coal Creek fly ash classifies as Class F ash, according
to ASTM C618 (ASTM 2008). The remainders are referred to
 Note: LL = liquid limit; PI = plasticity index; OC = organic content [ASTM D2974, (ASTM 2007b)]; Gs = specific gravity; wN = natural water content; γd = maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D698); wopt =
optimum water content [(ASTM D6698, (ASTM 2007c)]; USCS = unified soil classification system; AASHTO = AASHTO classification system (numbers in parentheses indicate the group index). Fines content
and grain size diameters (for C u calculations) are based on ASTM D422 (ASTM 2007d). Active clay content, specific gravity, and liquid and plasticity index were determined following the procedures in ASTM
wopt
47
21
28
17
as off-specification fly ashes because they do not meet the require-
ments for either Class C or Class F fly ashes in ASTM C618. In
addition, the fineness of the Dewey and Columbia ashes exceeds
γd (kN=m3 )
the maximum for Classes C and F, and the pozzolanic activity at

10.3
15.2
13.3
17.3
7 days of the Presque Isle ash does not meet the minimum for
Classes C and F. The Dewey, King, and Columbia fly ashes are
derived from subbituminous coals, the Presque Isle fly ash is
derived from bituminous coal, and the Coal Creek and Stanton
wN
57
20
28
11 fly ashes are derived from burning lignite. All of the fly ashes,
except for the Presque Isle fly ash, which was collected by fabric
ASTM D2976

filters, were collected by electrostatic precipitators and stored dry

in silos.
6.3
7.1
6.8
—

Among the six fly ashes, Dewey has the highest carbon content
(LOI ¼ 49%) and Coal Creek has the lowest carbon content
(LOI ¼ 0:5%). King has the highest CaO content (25.8%) and Pre-
pH

sque Isle has the lowest CaO content (3.2%). Dewey and King have
ASTM D4972

the highest CaO=SiO2 ratios (1.15 and 1.08), Stanton and Colum-
bia have midrange CaO=SiO2 ratios (0.5 and 0.7), and Presque Isle
5.9
7.6
6.9
—

and Coal Creek have the lowest CaO=SiO2 ratios (0.1 and 0.2). All
of the fly ashes have less CaO and a smaller CaO=SiO2 ratio than
the Type 1 portland cement (CaO content = 62%, CaO=SiO2 ratio =
2.9). The fly ashes generally are comprised of silt-size particles
A-7-5 (23)
AASHTO

A-2-4 (0)
A-8 (0)
A-4 (5)

(< 75 μm and > 2 μm), with a coarse fraction between 5% and

Classification

50% and a < 2  μm fraction between 10% and 67%. Dewey

and Columbia fly ashes have similar grain-size distributions and
are somewhat finer than King, Coal Creek, and Stanton, which have
OL-OH

similar grain-size distributions. Presque Isle fly ash has mostly

USCS

ML
OL
Pt

uniform size particles (∼0:03 mm).

pH
2.23
2.57
2.58
2.67
Gs

The pH of each soil was measured using both ASTM D4972

(ASTM 2007e, for inorganic soils) and ASTM D2976 (ASTM
(> 4:75 mm) (%)

2004b, for peats). These methods differ in the ratio of dry solid
Gravel content

to distilled water that is used (1∶1 for D4972, 1∶16 for D2976).
All three soils had near-neutral pH, and both test methods yielded
—
—
—
8

a similar pH.
The pH of each fly ash was measured using ASTM D5239
(ASTM 2004a) and the procedure described in Eades and Grim
(1966). ASTM D5239 uses a solid to distilled water ratio of 1∶4
OC (%)

and a 2-h lag between mixing and pH measurement. The Eades

27
6
5
1

and Grim method uses a solid to distilled water ratio of 1∶5, a

lag of 1 h, and requires the use of CO2 -free water. The pH of
C837, D854, and D4318, respectively (ASTM 2009a, 2010b, 2010a).

the each fly ash was also measured at 1, 2, 6, 24, 48, and 96 h after
Active clay content

mixing to assess the pH change over time; however, the pH did not
(< 2 μm) (%)

vary significantly with time. All pH results at 1 h after mixing are

Table 1. Index Properties and Classifications of Soils Tested

given in Table 2.
15
36
55
12

Unconfined Compression Testing

Unconfined compression tests were conducted on specimens pre-
pared from the soils and soil–fly ash mixtures following ASTM
content (%)

D5102 (ASTM 2009b). The strain rate was 0:21%= min, which
Fines

is the same rate used by Edil et al. (2006) for evaluating soil–
25
75
97
79

fly ash mixtures prepared with inorganic soils. Test specimens were
prepared by first mixing the dry soil and the dry fly ash at the speci-
fied fly ash content on dry weight basis. Subsequently, the amount
1
8
19
1
PI

of water required was added, and after a wait of 2 h (to simulate

field conditions), the mixture was compacted in a steel mold with a
LL

diameter of 33 mm and height of 71 mm. The compactive effort for

53
31
50
22

specimen preparation was adjusted in such a way that the same

impact energy per unit volume, as in the standard Proctor effort
Boardman silt
Markey peat

Lawson soil
Theresa soil

[ASTM D698 (ASTM 2007a)], was applied. After the compaction,

Soil name

the specimens were extruded with a hydraulic jack, sealed in

plastic, and cured for 7 days in a room maintained at 100% rela-
tive humidity and 25°C. Although the tests were performed on

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 821

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 2. Properties and Classifications of Fly Ashes Tested
Parameter Dewey King Presque Isle Coal Creek Columbia Stanton Typical Class C Typical Class F
SiO2 (%) 8.0 24.0 35.6 50.4 31.1 40.2 40.0 55.0
Al2 O3 (%) 7.0 15.0 18.0 16.4 18.3 14.7 17.0 26.0
Fe2 O3 (%) 2.6 6.0 3.5 7.2 6.1 8.7 6.0 7.0
CaO (%) 9.2 25.8 3.2 13.3 23.3 21.3 24.0 9.0
MgO (%) 2.4 5.3 1.0 4.3 3.7 6.6 5.0 2.0
CaO=SiO2 1.15 1.08 0.09 0.26 0.75 0.53 0.60 0.16
pH 9.9 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.8 11.7 — —
Specific gravity 2.00 2.66 2.11 2.59 2.63 2.63 — —
Fineness, max (%) 57 18 26 28 58 23 34 34
Strength activity at 7 days, min (%) 83 78 49 83 96 111 75 75
Loss on ignition, max (%) 49.0 12.0 34.0 0.5 0.7 0.8 6 6
Classification Off-spec Off-spec Off-spec Class F Class C Class C Class C Class F
Note: Off-spec = off-specification. Loss on ignition was measured per ASTM C311 (ASTM 2011) at 550°C.

Fig. 1. Unconfined compressive strength (qu ) of mixtures prepared with various fly ashes, Type I portland cement, and Boardman silt at very wet
water content: (a) Markey peat; (b) Lawson soil; (c) Theresa soil

822 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
specimens cured 7 days to simulate the early curing conditions dur-
ing construction, both inorganic and organic soils are expected to
have significant strength gains with increasing curing time for
calcium-based additives (Edil et al. 2006; Sakr et al. 2009).
Resilient Modulus Test
The resilient modulus is a widely used property in flexible pave-
ment design, as explained in the AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures (AASHTO 1993), and it indicates the stiffness
of a soil under a confining stress and a repeated axial load. Resilient
modulus, M r , is calculated based on the ratio of deviator stress and
the recoverable strain. Different confining and deviator stresses are
applied on the test specimens to cover the range of expected in situ
stresses.
Specimens for the resilient modulus test were prepared in a pol-
yvinyl chloride (PVC) mold with a diameter of 102 mm and a
height of 203 mm in the same manner as the unconfined compres-
sion test specimens were prepared. Compactive effort was adjusted
in such a way that the same compaction energy per unit volume as
the one specified in the standard Proctor compaction method
(ASTM D698) was applied (i.e., 600 kN=m3 ). Required compac-
tive effort was obtained when the number of blows with the stan-
dard Proctor hammer was 22 and the number of compacted layers
was 6. After compaction, specimens were cured for 7 days in a wet
room, maintained at 25°C and 100% humidity. Specimens were ex-
truded from the PVC molds after curing and tested according to
AASHTO T292 (AASHTO 1991). Side friction during extrusion
was minimized by applying a very thin grease layer between the

Fig. 2. Resilient moduli (M r ) of soil–fly ash mixtures prepared with various fly ashes and Boardman silt: (a) Markey peat; (b) Lawson soil; (c) Theresa
soil (FA = fly ash, wet = wet of optimum, opt = optimum water content)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 823

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
PVC mold and the soil. The loading sequence for cohesive soils fly ash). Soil-cement mixtures were prepared at the very wet
was followed, and the conditioning stress was applied as 21 kPa condition with 10% cement, and only unconfined compression tests
instead of 41 kPa because some specimens were too soft to with- were conducted on these mixtures. The cement dosage chosen
stand 41 kPa conditioning stress. Confining stress was 21 kPa for (10%) is greater than the typical dosage for inorganic soils because
all loading sequences, and the deviator stress was increased in steps of the organic content and also to provide a direct comparison with
of 21, 34, 48, 69, and 103 kPa and applied 50 repetitions at each 10% fly ash content.
step. The reported M r is the modulus obtained at the initial state of
stress, i.e., at 21 kPa confining and deviator stress because the General Effectiveness of Fly Ash Stabilization
stresses are relatively small in the subgrade level, and the modulus
of the stabilized material does not depend strongly on stress level. Unconfined compressive strengths (qu ) of the soil–fly ash mixtures
prepared at the very wet condition are shown as a function of fly ash
type in Fig. 1. The qu of mixtures prepared with organic soil and
Results and Analysis Boardman silt (nonreactive additive) or Type 1 portland cement
(a highly reactive binder) are also included in Fig. 1 for comparison.
Soil–fly ash mixtures were prepared with fly ash contents (based on Also shown in Fig. 1 are qu of each soil alone (without fly ash)
dry weight) of 10, 20, and 30%. Most of the tests were conducted when compacted at the very wet condition. Triplicate specimens
on specimens prepared at a very wet condition, corresponding to were tested for unconfined compressive strength as quality control,
6–14% wet of the OWC for the Lawson soil, 5–22% wet of the and the averages of these tests are reported as results. Addition of
OWC for the Theresa soil, and 5–18% wet of the OWC for the fly ash to the organic soils resulted in significant increase in qu
Markey peat. This very wet condition is intended to simulate relative to that of the unstabilized soil in the very wet condition.
the natural water contents of soft subgrades in the upper Midwest- Once stabilized with fly ash, both the Lawson and Theresa
ern United States (Edil et al. 2006). Additional tests were con- soils classify as at least stiff subgrade [qu between 100 and
ducted with the soil fraction at OWC per standard Proctor. 200 kPa (Bowles 1979)], instead of soft (25–50 kPa) or very soft
These tests were conducted as well-defined control conditions (0–25 kPa) in their unstabilized very wet conditions. qu exceeding
and to assess the effect of water content. For the specimens 100 kPa was not always obtained for the Markey peat in the very
prepared at OWC, fly ash contents were only 10% and 20% wet conditions, but adding fly ash to the Markey peat did increase
(the specimens were unrealistically dry for reactions with 30% the qu by a factor of up to 10. It is clear from Fig. 1 that the final qu

Lawson Soil, OWC+ (8-14)% Lawson Soil, OWC + (9-14)%

600
Dewey 140 Dewey
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

King King
500 P. Isle P.Isle
120 Coal Creek
Coal Creek
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

Columbia Columbia
400 Stanton 100 Stanton

(a) 80 (b)
300
60
200
40

100
20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Fly Ash Percentage Fly Ash Percentage

Theresa Soil, OWC+ (8-22)% Theresa Soil, OWC+ (5-11)%

600 120
Dewey Dewey
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

King King
500 P. Isle 100 P. Isle
Coal Creek Coal Creek
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

Columbia Columbia
400 Stanton 80 Stanton

300
(c) 60
(d)

200 40

100 20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Fly Ash Percentage Fly Ash Percentage

Fig. 3. Engineering properties of organic soil–fly ash mixtures as a function of fly ash percentage in the mixture: (a) qu of stabilized Lawson soil;
(b) M r of stabilized Lawson soil; (c) qu of stabilized Theresa soil; (d) M r of stabilized Theresa soil

824 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
achieved varies depending on the organic soil and the fly ash. This silt mixtures were too soft at very wet conditions to withstand
is in contrast to the findings reported for inorganic soils stabilized the conditioning stress, indicating that the addition of fly ash is
with different fly ashes by Edil et al. (2006), for which final more effective than the addition of silt at very wet conditions.
strengths were comparable, although strength factors varied. Lawson soil admixed with 20% Dewey or Columbia fly ashes at
Fig. 2 shows the resilient moduli of soil–fly ash mixtures as a very wet conditions was medium-stiff, i.e., M r ∼ 85 MPa (Asphalt
function of binder type and content. The M r for Markey peat and Institute 1999). When stabilized with 30% Dewey, King, Stanton,
Lawson and Theresa soils are reported at their OWCs because these or Columbia fly ash, Lawson soil had a resilient modulus as high
soils were too soft to be tested at very wet conditions, i.e., 13% wet as 110 MPa at very wet conditions. At OWC, the resilient modulus
of OWC for Markey peat and 10% wet of OWC for Lawson and of stabilized Lawson soil was always, even with 10% fly ash,
Theresa soils. The resilient modulus of Markey peat, even with higher than 50 MPa. Theresa soil admixed with 20% Dewey, King,
30% fly ash, never reached 35 MPa at very wet conditions, meaning Stanton, or Columbia fly ashes at very wet conditions had resilient
that Markey peat can be considered a very soft subgrade, i.e., moduli of 50–70 MPa. When the percentage of these fly ashes was
M r < 35 MPa (Asphalt Institute 1999). Markey peat–Boardman increased to 30% at very wet conditions, the resilient modulus

30% Fly ash

30% Fly ash
600 (b) Markey Peat, OWC+ (7-13)%
(a) Markey Peat, OWC+ (10-14)% 140
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

Lawson Soil, OWC+ (6-12)%

Lawson Soil, OWC+ (8-14)%
Theresa Soil, OWC+ (8-11)%
500 Theresa Soil, OWC+ (8-11)% 120

Resilient Modulus (MPa)

400 100

80
300
60
200
40 r= -0.03
t= -0.20
100
r= -0.20 20
t= -2.47
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
LOI (%) of Fly Ash LOI of Fly Ash (%)

600
140 (d)
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

(c)
500 120
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

400 100

80
300
60
200
40 r = -0.08
t = -0.64
100
20
r= 0.11
t= 1.33
0 0
9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13
pH of Fly Ash pH of Fly Ash

600 (f)
(e) 140
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

500 120
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

400 100

80
300
60
200
40 r = 0.1
t = 0.76
100
r= -0.12 20
t= -1.47
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fineness of Fly Ash (%) Fineness of Fly Ash (%)

Fig. 4. Engineering properties of soil–fly ash mixtures: (a) qu as a function of LOI of fly ash; (b) M r as a function of LOI of fly ash; (c) qu as a function
of pH of fly ash; (d) M r as a function of pH of fly ash; (e) qu as a function of fineness of fly ash; (f) M r as a function of fineness of fly ash

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 825

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
varied between 65 and 105 MPa, indicating that the stabilization Comparison of the qu or resilient moduli obtained with different
process produced significant improvement in resilient modulus fly ashes indicates that the criteria used to define fly ashes for con-
(i.e., medium-stiff subgrade consistency) considering that untreated crete applications (Class C) are not necessarily indicative of the
soil (no fly ash) was too soft to be tested. At OWC, the resilient effectiveness for soil stabilization. For example, in some cases
modulus of stabilized Theresa soil varied between 50 and 130 MPa, Dewey and King fly ashes (both are off-specification fly ashes)
depending upon the fly ash type and percentage used. Admixing resulted in comparable or greater strength and stiffness gain than
10% fly ash with any of the three soils at very wet conditions failed Columbia and Stanton fly ashes, which are Class C ashes and
to yield a resilient modulus greater than 50 MPa. qualify for use as concrete additives.

30% Fly ash

600 Markey Peat, OWC+ (10-14)%

30% Fly ash
Lawson Soil, OWC+ (8-14)%
Theresa Soil, OWC+ (8-11)% Dewey
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

140 (b) Markey Peat, OWC+ (7-13)%

Fly Ash Lawson Soil, OWC+ (6-12)%
500 (a)
Theresa Soil, OWC+ (8-11)%
120

Resilient Modulus (MPa)

400
Coal Creek
100
Fly Ash
300 80

60
200
40
100 r= 0.30
r= 0.38 20 t=2.33
t=4.84
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
CaO/SiO of Fly Ash CaO/SiO of Fly Ash
2 2

600
140 (d)
(c)
Unconfined Compresive Strength (kPa)

500 120
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

400 100

80
300
60
200
r= 0.31
40
t=2.45
100
20
r=0.43
0 t=5.60
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
CaO/(SiO +Al O ) CaO/(SiO +Al O )
2 2 3 2 2 3

600
140 (f)
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

(e)
500 120
Dewey
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

Fly Ash Dewey

400 100
FA

Coal Creek 80
300 Fly Ash
60
200 r= 0.22
40 t=1.69
Coal Creek
100
20 FA
r= 0.46
t= 6.10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CaO Content (%) of Fly Ash CaO Content of Fly Ash (%)

Fig. 5. Engineering properties of soil–fly ash mixtures, (a) qu as a function of CaO=SiO2 ratio of fly ash; (b) M r as a function of CaO=SiO2 ratio of fly
ash; (c) qu as a function of CaO=ðSiO2 þ Al2 O3 Þ ratio of fly ash; (d) M r as a function of CaO=ðSiO2 þ Al2 O3 Þ ratio of fly ash; (e) qu as a function of
CaO content of fly ash; (f) M r as a function of CaO content of fly ash

826 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 The effect of reactivity of the binder can be evaluated by com- and CaO content,) were prepared to identify characteristics of
paring the qu of the soil–fly ash mixtures to the qu obtained using the fly ashes that have an important role in improving the strength
cement or nonreactive Boardman silt as the additive in Fig. 1. qu and stiffness of the organic soils (Figs. 4 and 5). qu and resilient
obtained with 10% cement at the very wet conditions was always moduli of mixtures prepared at the very wet condition are shown
higher than those obtained with 10% fly ash at the same water con- because this condition is of practical interest for field situations
tent, and in many cases 10% cement resulted in higher qu than ob- (Edil et al. 2006). The resilient modulus data from both cells were
tained with 30% fly ash. In contrast, the mixtures prepared with compared using a paired t-test at significance level of 0.05, corre-
Boardman silt had lower qu and resilient moduli than comparable sponding to tcr ¼ 1:96 for unconfined compression test results and
soil–fly ash mixtures. Thus, the increase in strength or resilient tcr ¼ 2:01 for resilient modulus test results.
modulus obtained by fly ash stabilization generally is attributable Fig. 4 suggests that qu and resilient modulus are not affected by
to chemical reactions and the reduction in water content obtained LOI, pH, or fineness (percentage retained on 45 μm sieve) of the fly
by adding dry solids, but the significance of the reactions depends ash. This observation is consistent with the statistical analysis,
on the type of fly ash and the soil. which shows that qu and M r are not correlated with LOI, pH, or
The importance of reactivity is also illustrated through the effect fineness (t < 1:96 for qu and t < 2:01 for M r ). In contrast, qu
of fly ash content. For most of the mixtures, the qu and resilient and resilient modulus suggest a correlation with CaO=SiO2 and
modulus increased as the fly ash content increased (Fig. 3). The CaO=ðSiO2 þ Al2 O3 ), and the statistical analysis supports this ob-
exceptions are the mixtures prepared with the less reactive fly ashes servation (Fig. 5). Relatively strong relationships exist between qu
(Presque Isle and Coal Creek). Additionally, qu and resilient modu- or resilient modulus and these parameters for the Lawson and
lus do not increase linearly with fly ash content. In most cases, the Theresa soil, whereas weaker relationships exist for the Markey
increase in qu and resilient modulus obtained as the fly ash content peat, thus the Markey peat data are excluded for calculation of cor-
increased from 0–10% or 10–20% was larger than those obtained relation coefficient (r) and t. The relationships between qu and
when the fly ash content was increased from 20–30%. Thus, the CaO=SiO2 and CaO=ðSiO2 þ Al2 O3 Þ for the Lawson and Theresa
benefits accrued by adding more fly ash diminish as the fly ash soils are illustrated with second-order nonlinear regressions, shown
content increases. as solid lines in Figs. 5(a) and 5(c). Statistically, CaO content as-
sociated with qu but not with resilient modulus.
Effects of Fly Ash Characteristics
Fig. 5 suggests that both CaO and CaO=SiO2 or CaO and
Graphs relating qu and resilient modulus to properties of the fly ash CaO=ðSiO2 þ Al2 O3 Þ are important variables affecting the qu of
(LOI, pH, fineness, CaO=SiO2 ratio, CaO=ðSiO2 þ Al2 O3 ) ratio, the soil–fly ash mixtures prepared with the Lawson and Theresa

600 140
10% Dewey FA
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

10% King FA 120

500 10% Columbia FA
20% Dewey FA
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

20% King FA 100 (b)

400 20% Columbia FA

(a) 80
300
60
r= 0.02
200 t= 0.19
40 r= 0.17
t=1.32
100 20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
OC of Soil (%) OC of Soil (%)

600 140
(c)
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

120 (d)
500
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

100
400
80
300
60

200
40

100 20 r= -0.17
r= -0.02 t=-1.32
t= -0.19
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pl PI

Fig. 6. Engineering properties of soil–fly ash mixtures prepared at very wet conditions, (a) qu as a function of OC of soil; (b) M r as a function of OC
of soil; (c) qu as a function of PI soil; (d) M r as a function of PI soil

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 827

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
soils. The highest qu and resilient moduli were obtained when the qu and resilient moduli of mixtures prepared shown in Fig. 6
CaO content was at least 10, CaO=SiO2 ratio was between 0.5 and correspond to the very wet condition.
1.0, and CaO=ðSiO2 þ Al2 O3 Þ ratio was between 0.4 and 0.7. Data for soil–fly ash mixtures from the study conducted by Edil
A similar conclusion can be drawn for the Markey peat, although et al. (2006) were also included in the analysis to increase the gen-
the trends in qu and resilient modulus for the Markey Peat are erality of the findings. Edil et al. (2006) used Dewey, King, and
modest. As illustrated in Figs. 5(e) and 5(f), CaO content alone Columbia fly ashes that were obtained from the same source as
is not sufficient to evaluate whether fly ash will cause an increase the fly ashes used in this study. Edil et al. (2006) used a variety
in qu or resilient modulus. The circled data in Figs. 5(e) and 5(f) of soils with OCs ranging from 1–10% and PIs ranging from
correspond to mixtures prepared with the Lawson and Theresa soils 15–38, and they mixed these soils with the three fly ashes. qu data
and Coal Creek (CaO content = 13.3%) or Dewey fly ash (CaO were adopted from their study for different mixtures, each having one
content = 9.2%). Appreciably higher qu and resilient moduli are of the following soils: inorganic clay (OC = 2%, PI = 38), slightly
obtained with Dewey fly ash. This is attributed to its significantly organic clay (OC = 4%, PI = 35) and organic clay (OC = 10%
higher CaO=SiO2 ratio (1.15 versus 0.26 of Coal Creek) even and PI = 19).
though Coal Creek fly ash has greater CaO than that of Dewey As shown in Fig. 6(a), qu decreased significantly as the OC in-
fly ash. The results indicate that CaO of 10% by weight is needed creased to 10%, and then leveled off for higher OCs. A sharp de-
as a threshold value for strength gain, and CaO content and crease in resilient modulus in response to an increase in OC of soil
CaO=SiO2 ratio play a combined role on qu and resilient modulus was also observed in Fig. 6(b). This inverse relationship between
of soil–fly ash mixtures.
qu or resilient modulus and OC may reflect the inhibition of
Effects of Soil Type pozzolanic reactions by organic matter. Alternatively, the inverse
relationship between qu or resilient modulus and OC may
The influence of organic soil type was evaluated by graphing qu and reflect the weakness of organic solids relative to mineral solids.
resilient modulus against organic content (OC) and PI (Fig. 6). Soil
pH was not included in the analysis because the pH varied over a
narrow range (6.1–7.3). As in the analysis of fly ash properties, the
Markey, OWC+ (10-18)% Lawson, OWC± 5%
Markey, OWC± 5% Theresa, OWC+ (7-22)%
Lawson, OWC+ (8-14)% Theresa, OWC± 3
Markey & 10% FA 500
Markey & 20% FA
600 Lawson & 10% FA Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Lawson & 20 % FA Mixtures with Boardman Silt (kPa)
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

Theresa & 10% FA 400 (a)

500 Theresa & 20% FA

1:1 Line
400 (a) 300
at around OWC

300 200

200
100

100
0
0 0 100 200 300 400 500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa) Mixtures with Fly Ashes(kPa)
at Wet of OWC

140 Markey Soil, OWC± 5%

140 Lawson Soil, OWC+ (8-14)%
Lawson Soil, OWC± 5 %
120 Theresa Soil, OWC+ (8-22)%
120 Theresa Soil, OWC± 2%
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

Resilient Modulus of Samples

100 1:1 Line

with Boardman Silt (MPa)

(b)
100
at around OWC

80
80
60
60
40 (b)
40
Markey Peat
20
Lawson Soil 20
Theresa Soil
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0
Resilient Modulus (MPa) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
at Wet of OWC Resilient Modulus of Samples with Fly Ashes (MPa)

Fig. 7. Engineering properties soil–fly ash mixtures prepared at opti- Fig. 8. Comparison of engineering properties of mixtures prepared
mum and wet of optimum water contents with the same binder type and with Boardman silt and fly ashes at the same binder content and similar
percentages: (a) qu ; (b) M r water content: (a) qu ; (b) M r

828 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Regardless, the trend in Fig. 6(a) suggests that the effectiveness Effects of Water Content
of fly ash stabilization is significantly reduced when the OC
The effect of water content on the stabilization was investigated by
exceeds 10%. plotting the qu and resilient modulus of the soil–fly ash mixture
The effect of PI on qu and resilient modulus is shown in prepared at very wet of OWC condition against the qu and resilient
Figs. 6(c) and 6(d). Greater qu and resilient moduli are obtained modulus of the soil–fly ash mixture prepared at OWC (Fig. 7).
when the PI is eight or more. However, the apparent effect of The resilient moduli of soil–fly ash mixtures prepared at OWC
PI in Fig. 6(c) is probably spurious. The trend is more likely related were almost always higher than those of prepared at very wet of
to OC because the Markey peat had the highest OC and the lowest OWC. When the fly ash percentage was 10%, the soil–fly ash mix-
PI of the soils that were tested. A broader range of soils is needed to tures prepared at OWC usually had higher qu, as opposed to those
adequately assess the effect of PI. prepared at wet of OWC. On the other hand, as the fly ash percentage

500 140
10% FA, OWC+ (8-13)% Lawson Soil 10% FA, OWC+ (9-13)% Lawson Soil
20% FA, OWC+ (6-14)%
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

20% FA, OWC+ (8-12)% (b)

(a) 120 30% FA, OWC+ (6-12)%
30% FA, OWC+ (8-14)%
400

Resilient Modulus (MPa)

100

300 80

60
200

40
100
20

0 0
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
pH of the mixture pH of the mixture

500 140
10% FA, OWC+ (8-11)% Theresa Soil
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

Theresa Soil 20% FA, OWC+ (5-10)%

120 30% FA, OWC+ (8-14)%
(d)
(c)
400
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

100

300 80

60
200

40
100
10% FA, OWC+ (8-12)% 20
20% FA, OWC+ (7-22)%
30% FA, OWC+ (8-11)%
0 0
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
pH of the mixture pH of the mixture

150 30
Markey Peat Markey Peat
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

(e) (f)
25
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

100
20

15
50

10
10% FA, OWC+ (13-18)% 10%FA
20% FA, OWC+ (11-17)% 20%FA, OWC+ (5-8)%
30% FA, OWC+ (10-14)% 30%FA, OWC+ (7-13)%
0 5
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
pH of the mixture pH of the mixture

Fig. 9. Engineering properties of soil–fly ash mixtures prepared at very wet water content as a function of mixture pH after 1 h: (a) qu for stabilized
Lawson soil; (b) M r for stabilized Lawson soil; (c) qu of stabilized Theresa soil; (d) M r of stabilized Theresa soil; (e) qu for stabilized Markey peat;
(f) M r for stabilized Markey peat

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 829

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 300000
increased to 20%, soil–fly ash mixtures prepared at OWC usually
Markey Soil
had lower qu than mixtures prepared at very wet of OWC, unlike Lawson Soil
250000 Mr=570 q
the 10% fly ash case. The shear strength of a cohesive soil generally Theresa Soil u

is inversely related to water content (Seed and Chan 1959; Khoury

Resilient Modulus (kPa)

(a)
and Zaman 2004). On the other hand, observed increase in qu as 200000
water content increases can be attributed to the use of more water Mr=270 q
u
in hydration that can increase the amount of cementitious products. 150000 2
R =0.54
The qu values of mixtures prepared with Boardman silt (non-
reactive binder) are plotted against qu of mixtures prepared with 100000
the fly ashes in Fig. 8. In nearly all cases, the soil–fly ash mixtures
had higher qu and resilient moduli than the mixtures prepared with 50000 Mr=70 q
u
Boardman silt for the very wet condition. However, at OWC, the qu
tended to be more similar for the soil–fly ash mixtures and the 0
mixtures prepared with Boardman silt. That is, the reactivity effect 0 100 200 300 400 500
appears to diminish as the water content decreases. It appears that if Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)
initial water content is less than a critical amount needed for 140000
hydration reactions, strength gain may be limited. (b)
120000
Effects of pH of the Soil–Fly Ash Mixture

Resilient Modulus (kPa)

For soils stabilized with cement and blast furnace slag, if organic 100000 Mr=213q
u

content is below 15%, in general there is significant strength gain 2

only if humic acid is less than 0.9% or pH higher than 5 (Kitazume
2005). For organic soils, it is well known that humic acids consume
the calcium ions in the binder. When the acids are neutralized, the
remaining binder quantity contributes to strength gain. Tremblay
et al. (2002) mixed 14 different organic compounds with the
soil-cement mixture (the two soils were a clay and a silt, and
the two cements were ordinary portland Type 10 and sulfate-rich
geolite 20) and investigated the effect of organic compound on the
soil stabilization. They reported that if an organic compound
caused a pore solution pH of less than 9, no strength gain was
noted. However, they also mentioned that a pore solution pH of
more than 9 did not always indicate significantly high strengths.
pHs measurements conducted 1, 2, 24, 48, and 96 h after mixing
were not significantly different. When Lawson and Theresa soils
were mixed with a fly ash with CaO content higher than 10, the
pH of the mixture reached above 9, which indicates that cementi-
tious reactions are not likely to be inhibited (Tremblay et al. 2002).
The pH of the mixtures involving Markey peat were also above 9 as
the percentage of fly was increased to 30%. The effect of pH on the
qu and stiffness of the soil–fly ash mixtures is shown in Fig. 9.
There is no apparent relationship between qu or resilient modulus
and mixture pH. Fig. 9 seems to verify Tremblay et al.’s conclusion
that pH higher than 9 does not necessarily indicate higher qu.
Correlations between UCS and Resilient Modulus Test
Results
The relationships between unconfined compressive strengths and
resilient moduli at 21 kPa deviator stress for organic soil–fly
ash mixtures with the same fly ash type and percentage, prepared
at the same water content, and cured for the same length of time are
given in Fig. 10. Fig. 10 includes qu data from two different tests:
(1) tests on small-size specimens (33 mm in diameter and 72 mm in
height) that were not subjected to resilient modulus testing, and
(2) tests on large specimens (102 mm in diameter and 203 mm
in height) that were previously tested in a resilient modulus test.
However, only one set of resilient modulus test data was used
in correlation with both sets of unconfined compression test data
for a given soil–fly ash mixture. According to Fig. 10(a), which
includes qu for small-size specimens, the conversion factor for
qu (kPa) to obtain resilient modulus (kPa) varies from 70–570,
and the best fit is 270. In Fig. 10(b), in which qu testing is per-
formed on larger samples subjected to resilient modulus testing
prior to testing, there is much less dispersion of the data, and
R =0.84
80000
60000
40000
Markey Peat
20000
Lawson Soil
Theresa Soil
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Post-Mr Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)
Fig. 10. Relations between M r and qu of soil–fly ash mixtures: (a)
unconfined compression tests performed on 133-mm-diameter and
72-mm-high specimens and resilient modulus tests performed on
102-mm-diameter and 203-mm-high specimens; (b) 102-mm-diameter
and 203-mm-high specimens for both unconfined compression and
resilient modulus tests
the conversion factor from qu (kPa) to resilient modulus (kPa) is
213 and close to the best fit given in Fig. 10(a). The coefficients
corresponding to the slope of curve fit in Figs. 10(a) and 10(b)
are close.
The secant modulus at 50% (E50 ) was obtained by dividing half
of the peak strength (qu =2) with the strain observed at that stress
level in the unconfined compression test. Comparison of E50 with
resilient modulus is given in Fig. 11. Fig. 11(a) shows the compari-
son of E50 obtained from the unconfined compression tests per-
formed on small specimens and resilient moduli obtained from
the tests performed on large specimens. In Fig. 11(a), resilient
modulus varies between 1:6E 50 and 20E 50 . Fig. 11(b) depicts
the comparison of E50 and resilient moduli results that were ob-
tained by using the same specimens (larger specimens) in uncon-
fined compression and resilient modulus tests. In this case, resilient
modulus varies between 1:8E 50 and 12E50 . In both cases, resilient
modulus is higher than E 50 .
Model for Stabilization of Organic Soils with Fly Ashes
The important factors in stabilization of organic soils with fly ash
can be summarized as follows: (1) fly ash properties: CaO content
and CaO=SiO2 ratio; (2) soil properties: OC; and (3) mixture char-
acteristics: fly ash content and water content. Each of these vari-
ables was included in a nonlinear regression analysis to find an

830 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 M =20E

Predicted Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

r 50 600
140
1:1 Line
120 500

Resilient Modulus (MPa) 100 400

M =1.6E
r 50

80
300

60
200
(a)
40
Markey Peat 100
20 Lawson Soil
Theresa Soil
0
0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
E (MPa) Measured Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)
50

M =12E Fig. 12. Predicted versus measured unconfined compressive strength

r 50
140 of soil–fly ash mixtures

120
strength of soil (kPa) after 7 days of curing; qu-untreated = unconfined
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

100 M =1.8E
r 50
80
60
40
20
0 bilized strength of the soil; (2) increase in the fly ash percentage
0 20 40 60 80 100
E (MPa)
50
Fig. 11. Relations between secant modulus at (E50 ) and M r of soil–fly
ash mixtures: (a) unconfined compression tests performed on 133-mm-
diameter and 72-mm-high specimens and resilient modulus tests
performed on 102-mm-diameter and 203-mm-high specimens;
(b) 102-mm-diameter and 203-mm-high specimens for both uncon-
fined compression and resilient modulus tests
equation that can be used to predict the qu of organic soil–fly ash
mixtures. The equation was derived statistically as follows: (1) trials
of linear and quadratic curvilinear regression models between sig-
nificant characteristics and unconfined compressive strength were
preformed to see which model best described the relation based on
F-test; and (2) a multiple regression model including all significant
characteristics. Multiple regression models included second-order
or transformed functions of significant characteristics investigated.
Possible correlations between independent variables were also
checked, and highly correlated variables were dropped from the
model. Only data for the very wet condition were included because
this condition is of practical importance. The qu of the soil alone
was also included in the analysis. The following regression model
was developed:
qu-treated ¼ 320 þ 795ðCaO=SiO2 Þ  573ðCaO=SiO2 Þ2
 125;673ðeOC Þ þ 6ðFAperc Þ þ 25ðqu-untreated Þ
 33ðpHmixture Þ
where FAperc = fly ash percentage; pHmixture = pH of the soil–fly ash
mixture after 1 h; qu-treated = stabilized unconfined compressive
compressive strength of untreated soil (kPa); and OC = organic
content of soil (%). The developed model was intended to represent
the data obtained from a wide range of organic soils and fly ashes,
but it has not been validated on independently obtained data. A
comparison of the predicted versus measured unconfined compres-
(b) sive strength is shown in Fig. 12. According to Fig. 12, the regres-
sion model represents the qu data reasonably well, with R2 = 0.71.
Markey Peat
Lawson Soil According to Eq. (5), the following inferences can be made:
Theresa Soil (1) there is an optimum ðCaO=SiOÞ2 ratio that maximizes the sta-
120 140
increases the qu of the soil–fly ash mixture; and (3) higher organic
content of the soil indicates less qu of the soil–fly ash mixture. The
model does not include CaO because it is highly correlated with
other terms in the model. However, the physical effect of CaO
content is still reflected in the model by mixture pH term, which
is controlled by the ½OH
 ions liberated after disassociation of
CaðOHÞ2 (formed by hydration of CaO). The unconfined compres-
sive strength can be correlated to resilient modulus within a range
of uncertainty. Alternatively, resilient modulus tests can be per-
formed on promising mixtures.
Conclusions
The objective of this study was to determine if unconfined com-
pressive strength and resilient modulus of soft organic soils can
be increased by blending fly ash into the soil. Tests were conducted
with three organic soils and six fly ashes. Portland cement and an
inorganic silt were also used as a stabilizer for reference purposes.
Fly ashes were mixed with soils at three different percentages and
two different water contents (OWC and 9–15% wet of the OWC).
The following conclusions are advanced:
1. Unconfined compressive strength of organic soils can be in-
creased using fly ash, but the amount of increase depends
on the type of soil and characteristics of the fly ash. Large in-
creases in qu (from 30 kPa without fly ash to > 400 kPa with
fly ash) were obtained for two clayey soils with an OC less
than 10% when blended with some of the fly ashes. More mod-
est increases in qu (from 15 kPa without fly ash to > 100 kPa
ð5Þ with fly ash) were obtained for a highly organic sandy silty
peat with OC ¼ 27%. Resilient modulus tests could not be per-
formed on organic soils without fly ash stabilization at wet
conditions because the specimens were too soft. The addition

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 831

Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 of fly ash, at wet conditions, to the slightly organic soils,
Lawson and Theresa (OC = 5 and 6%, respectively) produced
M r varying from 10–100 MPa, depending on the type and per-
centage of the fly ash. At OWC, M r for these soils could be
improved up to 120 MPa with the addition of fly ash. However,
for Markey peat (OC ¼ 27%), stabilization with fly ash never
produced M r > 30 MPa no matter which fly ash type and per-
centage (up to 30%) was used.
2. The significant characteristics of fly ash affecting the increase
in qu and M r include CaO content and CaO=SiO2 ratio [or
CaO=ðSiO2 þ Al2 O3 Þ ratio]. The highest qu and M r were
obtained when the CaO content was greater than 10% and
the CaO=SiO2 ratio was 0.5–0.8. Comparable increases in
qu and M r were obtained with the Class C ashes, normally used
in concrete applications, and the off-specification fly ashes
meeting the aforementioned criteria for CaO content and
CaO=SiO2 ratio. However, much lower qu and M r were
obtained with one off-specification fly ash primarily because
of its low CaO content and CaO=SiO2 ratio. Carbon content of
the fly ash (i.e., loss on ignition) seemed to have no bearing on
the qu and M r of the soil–fly ash mixtures.
3. For most of the cases qu and M r increased when fly ash per-
centage was increased. Exceptions were mixtures with the less
reactive Presque Isle and Coal Creek fly ashes (CaO < 10%
and CaO=SiO2 < 0:5)
4. The reactivity effect appears to diminish as the water content
decreases, i.e, improvement in the qu of the soil due to the ad-
dition of fly ash or inorganic silt to the soil was approximately
the same for the mixtures prepared at OWC. When the fly ash
percentage in the mixture was 10%, the expected trend of high-
er qu when water content decreased was observed. On the other
hand, as the fly ash percentage increased to 20% (more reduc-
tion in water content compared to 10% fly ash case), soil–fly
ash mixtures prepared wet of OWC usually had greater qu than
the ones prepared at OWC. The trend of stronger mixtures at
wet conditions as opposed to the mixtures prepared at OWC is
attributable to the requirement for more water for hydration
reactions of the higher amount of fly ash.
5. Soil organic content is a detrimental characteristic for stabili-
zation. An increase in the organic content of soil indicates that
the strength of the soil–fly ash mixture will decrease exponen-
tially. No effect of soil pH and plasticity could be discerned on
resilient modulus of the soil stabilized with fly ash. However,
more research on the effect of these characteristics is required
because the variation in pH and plasticity of the soils in this
study was not sufficient.
6. Fly ash stabilization of soils at OWC always resulted in greater
resilient moduli than at wetter conditions. Resilient modulus
can be estimated from unconfined compressive strength using
a multiplication factor between 70 and 570. Estimation of re-
silient modulus based on static E50 obtained from the uncon-
fined compression test can be made using a multiplication
factor in the range of 1.6–20, which shows that the lower-strain
resilient modulus is always higher than the high-strain E 50 .
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this study was provided by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Federal Highway Admin-
istration Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC). Fly ashes
used in the study were provided by Alliant Energy, Xcel Energy,
We Energy, Great River Energy, and LaFarge North America. The
findings and opinions in this report are solely those of the authors.
832 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Endorsement by NSF, RMRC, or the fly ash suppliers is not
implied and should not be assumed.
References
AASHTO. (1993). Guide for design of pavement structures, Washington,
DC.
AASHTO. (1991). “Standard method of test for resilient modulus of sub-
grade soils and untreated base/subbase materials.” T292, Washington,
DC.
Acosta, H. A., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H. (2003). “Soil stabilization and
drying using fly ash.” Geo Engineering Rep. No. 03-03, Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Arman, A., and Munfakh, G. A. (1972). “Lime stabilization of organic
soils.” Highway Research Record 381, Highway Research Board,
Washington, DC, 37–45.
Asphalt Institute. (1999). “Thickness design—Asphalt pavements for
highways and streets.” Manual series No. 1, Lexington, KY.
ASTM. (2004a). “Standard practice for characterizing fly ash for use in soil
stabilization.” D5239, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2004b). “Standard test method for pH of peat materials.”
D2976-71, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007a). “Standard test methods for laboratory compaction char-
acteristics of soil using standard effort.” D698, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2007b). “Standard test method for moisture, ash, and organic
matter of peat and other organic soils.” D2974, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2007c). “Standard test method for on-line measurement of turbid-
ity below 5 NTU in water.” D6698, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007d). “Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils.”
D422-63, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007e). “Standard test method for pH of soils.” D4972-01, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008). “Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined
natural pozzolan for use in concrete.” C618, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2009a). “Standard test method for methylene blue index of clay.”
C837, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2009b). “Standard test method for unconfined compressive
strength of compacted soil-lime mixtures.” D5102, West Consho-
hocken, PA.
ASTM. (2010a). “Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index of soils.” D4318, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2010b). “Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids
by water pycnometer.” D854, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2011). “Standard test methods for sampling and testing fly ash or
natural pozzolans for use in portland-cement concrete.” C311, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Axelsson, K., Johansson, S. E., and Andersson, R. (2002). “Stabilization of
organic soils by cement and puzzolanic reactions—Feasibility study.”
Rep. 3, Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Center, Linköping,
Sweden.
Bin-Shafique, S., Edil, T., Benson, C., and Senol, A. (2004). “Incorporating
a fly ash stabilized layer into pavement design—Case study.” Proc. ICE
Geotech. Eng., 157(4), 239–249.
Bowles, J. E. (1979). Physical and geotechnical properties of soils,
McGraw-Hill, New Jersey.
Clare, K. E., and Sherwood, P. T. (1954). “Effect of organic matter on set-
ting of soil-cement mixtures.” J. Appl. Chem., 4(11), 625–630.
Eades, J. L., and Grim, R. E. (1966). “A quick test to determine lime
requirements for lime stabilization.” Highway Research Record 139,
Highway Research Board, Washington, DC, 61–72.
Edil, T. B. (1997). “Construction over peats and organic soils.” Proc.,
Conf on Recent Advances in Soft Soil Engineering, Vol. 1, Kuching,
Malaysia, 85–108.
Edil, T. B., Acosta, A. A., and Benson, C. H. (2006). “Stabilizing soft fine-
grained soils with fly ash.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 18(2), 283–294.
Federal Highway Administration (2003). “Fly ash facts for highway engi-
neers.” Technical Rep. FHWA-IF-03019, 4th Ed., Washington, DC.
Ferguson, G. (1993). “Use of self-cementing fly ashes as a soil stabilization
agent.” Fly ash for soil improvement (GSP 36), ASCE, New York.
Hampton, M. B., and Edil, T. B. (1998). “Strength gain of organic ground
with cement-type binders.” Soil improvement for big digs (GSP 81)
ASCE, Reston, VA, 135–148.
Janz, M., and Johansson, S. E. (2002). “The function of different binding
agents in deep stabilization.” Rep. 9, Swedish Deep Stabilization
Research Centre, Linköping, Sweden.
Kaniraj, S. R., and Havanagi, V. G. (1999). “Compressive strength of
cement stabilized fly ash-soil mixtures.” Cem. Concr. Res., 29,
673–677.
Keshawarz, M. S., and Dutta, U. (1993). “Stabilization of south Texas soils
with fly ash.” Fly ash for soil improvement (GSP 36), ASCE, New York,
30–42.
Khoury, N. N., and Zaman, M. M. (2004). “Correlation between resilient
modulus, moisture variation, and soil suction for subgrade soils.” Trans-
portation Research Record 1874, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 99–107.
Kitazume, M. (2005). “State of practice report—Field and laboratory in-
vestigations, properties of binders and stabilized soil.” Proc., Int. Conf.
on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances, Swedish Deep
Stabilization Research Centre, Linköping, Sweden
Odadjima, H., Noto, S., Nishikawa, J., and Yamazaki, T. (1995). “Cement
stabilization of peaty ground with consideration of organic matters.”
Proc., Int. Workshop on Engineering Characteristics and Behavior
of Peat, Sapporo, Japan.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2011 / 833
Downloaded 11 Jun 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Parsons, R. L., and Kneebone, E. (2005). “Field performance of fly ash
stabilized subgrades.” Ground Improv., 9(1), 33–38.
Prabakar, J., Dendorkar, N., and Morchale, R. K. (2004). “Influence of fly
ash on strength behavior of typical soils.” Constr. Build. Mater., 18(4),
263–267.
Rogers, C. D. F., and Glendinning, S. (2000). “Lime requirement for
stabilization.” Transportation Research Record 1721, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 9–18.
Sakr, M. A., Shahin, M. A., and Metwally, Y. M. (2009). “Utilization of
lime for stabilizing soft clay soil of high organic content.” Geotech.
Geol. Eng., 27(1), 105–113.
Seed, H. B., and Chan, C. K. (1959). “Structure and strength characteristics
of compacted clays.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 85(5), 83–108.
Sridharan, A., Prashanth, J. P., and Sivapullaiah, P. V. (1997). “Effect of fly
ash on the unconfined compressive strength of black cotton soil.” Proc.
ICE Ground Improve., 1(3), 169–175.
Tremblay, H., Duchesne, J., Locat, J., and Lerouil, S. (2002). “Influence of
the nature of organic compounds on fine soil stabilization with cement.”
Can. Geotech. J., 39(3), 535–546.
Trzebiatowski, B. D., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H. (2005). “Case study
of subgrade stabilization using fly ash: State Highway 32, Port
Washington, Wisconsin.” Recycled materials in geotechnics (GSP
127), ASCE, Reston, VA, 123–136.
Young, J. F. (1972). “A review of the mechanisms of set-retardation in
portland cement pastes containing organic admixtures.” Cem. Concr.
Res., 2, 415–433.