DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

MADAN MOHAN MALAVIYA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

GORAKHPUR, U.P.-273010

Submitted to: Presented By:

Dr. SNEHA GUPTA •ASHISH PAL (2016011013)

•ASMITA ADDYA (2016011014)
•MANISH KUMAR (2016011028)
•RITIKA (2016011049)
•EKTA YADAV (2016011084)
 CONTENT
➢Introduction
➢Objectives
➢Materials Used
➢Experiments performed
➢Methodology
➢Results and Discussion
➢Conclusion
➢References
 INTRODUCTION

➢Stabilization is the process of increasing engineering properties

of soil and maintaining those properties at desired level to get a
durable structure constructed upon it.
➢The process of stabilization includes the blending of soils with
many materials such as lime, cement, fly ash and rice husk ash, to
achieve desired engineering properties.
➢ Blending of these materials alter chemical properties of soil and
imparts strength and durability to it.
 OBJECTIVES

➢To determine the properties of collected soil sample.

➢To determine the optimum content of fly ash for
stabilizing the collected soil sample.
➢To determine the optimum content of rice husk ash for
stabilizing the collected soil sample.
➢To compare the results obtained on different
compositions of soil ,rice husk ash and fly ash.
 MATERIALS USED

➢ Natural soil
➢ Fly ash (Grade C)
➢ Rice Husk Ash (RHA)
 MATERIAL COLLECTION
➢Soil sample was collected from Narahi Taal.
➢Fly ash used for project was collected from the
laboratory of concrete technology.
➢Rice husk was collected from rice mill in Gorakhpur.
 RICE HUSK ASH

➢It is obtained from burning protective outer cover of

paddy grain.
➢It consists of non- crystalline silicon dioxide(SiO2) with
high specific surface area and high pozzolanic reactivity.
➢ Its high silica content (upto 90%) makes it useful for
strengthening soil.
➢We have used rice husk ash with variation of 10% to
30% ( by weight).
 COMPOSITION OF RICE HUSK ASH

Ferric
Constituents of RHA Value Oxide(Fe2O
3)
Silica(SiO2)
Ferric Oxide(Fe2O3) 0.21
Calcium
Silica(SiO2) 90.23 oxide(CaO)
Calcium oxide(CaO) 1.58 Alumina(Al2
O3)
Alumina(Al2O3) 2.54
Magnesium
Magnesium oxide(MgO) 0.53 oxide(MgO)

Carbon 2.23 Carbon

K2O 0.39
 FLY ASH

➢It is waste material extracted from the gases emanating from

coal fired furnaces, generally of a thermal power plant by
burning pulverised coal.
➢It is consists of alumina, silica and iron and some other
materials with very less amount of carbon.
➢ We have used Class C fly ash which is resistant to expansion
from chemical attack.
➢We have used it with variation of 10% to 30% (by weight ).
 COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

Constituents of FA values
Silica(SiO2)

Silica(SiO2) 60
Alumina(Al
2O3)
Alumina(Al2O3) 25
Ferric
Ferric oxide(Fe2O3) 8.12 oxide(Fe2O
3)
Calcium oxide(CaO) 2.9 Calcium
oxide(CaO)
Magnesium oxide(MgO) 0.82
Magnesium
Titanium oxide(TiO2) 0.24 oxide(MgO)

Free lime content 0.75

 METHODOLOGY
Determining the various characteristics of soil sample

Unconfined compressive strength of stabilised soil

CBR value of the soil blended with rice husk & fly-ash

Comparative study

Result and discussion

Conclusion
 SAMPLING

SAMPLE WITH RICE HUSK SAMPLE WITH FLY ASH( %BY

ASH ( % BY WEIGHT) WEIGHT

➢ 90% soil+ 10% rice husk ➢ 90% soil + 10% fly ash

➢ 80% soil + 20% rice husk ➢ 80% soil + 20% fly ash

➢ 70% soil + 30% rice husk ➢ 70%soil + 30% fly ash

 EXPERIMENTS PERFORMED

➢Specific Gravity Test.

➢Sieve Analysis Test.
➢Moisture content test
➢Atterberg limits(Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit)
➢Standard Proctor Compaction Test
➢Unconfined Compressive Strength Test(UCS)
➢California Bearing Ratio Test(CBR)
 Specific Gravity Test

➢It is defined as the ratio of density of soil solids to

the density of water, which can be represented as

➢ G = W2-W1
(W2-W1)-(W3-W4)

W1=Mass of empty Pycnometer

W2=Mass of the Pycnometer with dry soil
W3=Mass of the Pycnometer, soil and water
W4=Mass of Pycnometer filled with water only

➢The specific gravity of the soil sample determined

by Pycnometer method is 2.37
 Sieve Analysis
➢The soil is sieved through a set of sieves. The material
retained on different sieves is determined.
Pn= Mn * 100
M
Pn= The percentage of material retained on any sieve ‘n’
Mn= Mass of soil retained on sieve ‘n’
➢Cn= P1+P2+P3+……………………..+Pn
Cn, the cumulative percentage of the material retained
P1,P2,………Pn are the percentages retained on sieve
1,2,……..n which are coarser than sieve ‘n’.
➢The percentage finer than the sieve ‘n’
Nn=100-Cn
➢ On the basis of sieve analysis we have found that our soil is
clayey in nature.
 Atterberg Limits

➢The water content at which the soils changes from one state to the
other are known as consistency limits or Atterberg limit.
➢Liquid limit is the moisture content at which the groove, formed by a
standard tool into the sample of soil taken in the standard cup, closes
for 10mm on being given 25 blows in a standard manner.
➢ Plastic limit is moisture content at which increase in moisture
content will cause semi-solid soil to become plastic.
➢Results obtained are presented as below:

1. The liquid limit of the soil is 42.61%

2. The plastic limit of soil sample is 19.77 %
 Proctor Compaction Test
➢To determine the optimum moisture content at which a
given soil will become most dense and achieve its maximum
dry density.
➢The standard Proctor test uses a 4-inch-diameter.compaction
in three separate layers of soil using 25 blows by a 5.5 lb
hammer falling 12 inches.
➢maximum dry density 1.77 gm/cc at 14.95% water
content.
➢Soil sample mixed with (10,20,30)% fly ash .maximum dry
density is (1.564,1.468,1.741) gm/cc at water content
(14.85,15.26,14.02) respectively
 Unconfined Compressive Strength

➢It is the maximum axial compressive stress that a material can

withstand under unconfined conditions- the confining stress is zero.
➢170 gm of sieved soil sample ( passed through 4.75mm IS sieve)
was taken.10% water was added to the soil and mixed properly.
➢The cylindrical specimens were tested in UCS machine and
readings were recorded.
➢The final diameter and length was measured.
➢Compresive strength of soil sample is 3.182Kg/cm2
➢Soil sample mixed with (10,20,30)% fly ash compressive strength
is (3.408,3.539,2.617) respectively
 California Bearing Ratio Test
➢It is a measure of resistance of a material to penetration of standard
plunger.
➢The test consists of cylindrical plunger of 50mm diameter to penetrate
the soil specimen at 1.25mm/min.
➢CBR value corresponding to 2.5mm penetration=(Load at 2.5mm
penetration/Standard Load)*100.
➢CBR value corresponding to 5.0mm penetration=(Load at 5mm
penetration/Standard Load)*100.
➢CBR value of soil sample is 7.85%
➢Soil sample mixed with (10,20,30)% fly ash .CBR value is (
14.69,16.75,12.34 ) % respectively
 Results and Discussion
Result of various tests performed on soil sample.

1. Natural water content of the soil sample is 19.60%.

2. The specific gravity of the soil sample as determined by Pycnometer method is 2.37

3. The liquid limit of the soil is 42.61 %

4. The plastic limit of soil sample is 19.77 %

5. Compaction Test: Standard proctor test performed on remoulded soil sample, gave

maximum dry density 1.77 gm/cc at 14.95% water content.

• Maximum dry density = 1.77 gm/cc

• Optimum moisture content = 14.95%

 Effect of fly ash on soil sample

➢ Effect on CBR value

18
16
14
CBR Values

12
10
8
6 CBR Value
4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40
Fly Ash content (% by weight )
➢ Effect on UCS value

3.5

2.5
UCS Value

1.5 UCS Value

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40
Fly Ash content (% by weight )
➢Effect on compaction properties

2
16 1.8
14 1.6
12 1.4
1.2
10

MDD
1
OMC

8
0.8
6 0.6 M…
OMC 0.4
4
2 0.2
0
0 0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40
Fly Ash content (% by weight ) Fly Ash content (% by weight )
 The effect of Rice Husk Ash on soil sample

➢ Effect on CBR value

CBR Value
3

2.5
CBR Value (%)

1.5
CBR Value
1

0.5

0
5 10 15
RHA Content ( % by weight)
➢Effect on compaction properties

1.8 30
1.6
25
1.4
1.2 20
MDD ( %)

OMC (%)
1
15
0.8
MDD
0.6 10 OMC
0.4
5
0.2
0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
RHA CONTENT (% by weight) RHA Content( % by weight)
 CONCLUSION
➢ For 10% and 20% (by weight) fly ash content, CBR value
increases whereas on further increasing fly ash content upto 30%
CBR value of soil decreases.

➢ Initially upto 20% value of fly ash content mixed in soil, UCS
value increases but on further increase of fly ash content upto 30%(
by weight), there is decrease in UCS value of soil.

➢ For 10% and 20% fly ash there is decrease in maximum dry
density (MDD), but on further increasing the fly ash content upto
30% it shows significant increase in MDD.
 We were unable to perform experiments on soil sample mixed with
rice husk ash due to prevailing situation. So based upon literature
review we have drawn following inferences
➢ CBR Value Increases up to 12% RHA and then decreases hence at
mixing 12 % RHA content ( % by weight ) strength is maximum.
➢ Maximum dry density of soil shows continuous decrease and
optimum moisture content shows continuous increase with increase
in proportion of rice husk ash content (RHA).
➢ The similar trend is observed for unconfined compressive strength
(UCS). The UCS value is at its peak at 10% RHA content by
weight.
 REFRENCES

❑Brooks R., vol. 1, Issue 3, 2009 “Soil Stabilization With Fly Ash and Rice Husk Ash” International
Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Sciences, vol. 1,Issue 3
❑Gopal Ranjan and A. S. R Rao “Basic and Applied Soil Mechanics”, edition-3
❑ Prakash J., Kumari K., Kumar V., 2003“Stabilization of Soil Using Rice Husk Ash”
❑Singh J. and Maan H., Vol 6 issue 7,2017 “Soil Stabilization using Fly Ash and Rice Husk Ash”
International Journal of Innovation Research in Science, Engineering and Technology.
❑IS CODES :
▪IS 460-1962:Sieve Analysis
▪IS 1498-1970
▪IS-2720-PART-3-1980
▪IS 2720-4(1985): Methods of tests for soil
▪IS 2720(PART 10):1991
▪IS 2720(PART 16):1987
THANK
YOU