Geotechnical Properties of Fly and Bottom Ash Mixtures

for Use in Highway Embankments

Bumjoo Kim1; Monica Prezzi2; and Rodrigo Salgado3

Abstract: Class F fly ash and bottom ash are the solid residue byproducts produced by coal-burning electric utilities. They are usually
disposed of together as a waste in utility disposal sites with a typical disposal rate of 80% fly ash and 20% bottom ash. Direct use of these
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

materials in construction projects consuming large volumes of materials, such as highway embankment construction, not only provides a
promising solution to the disposal problem, but also an economic alternative to the use of traditional materials. Representative samples of
class F fly and bottom ash were collected from two utility power plants in Indiana and tested for their mechanical properties 共compaction,
permeability, strength, stiffness, and compressibility兲. Three mixtures of fly and bottom ash with different mixture ratios 共i.e., 50, 75, and
100% fly ash content by weight兲 were prepared for testing. Test results indicated that ash mixtures compare favorably with conventional
granular materials.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2005兲131:7共914兲
CE Database subject headings: Fly ash; Bottom ash; Disposal; Mixtures; Highway construction; Embankments.

Introduction ana Department of Transportation 共INDOT兲 specifications for

In the United States 共U.S.兲, the coal ash produced annually by
coal-burning power plants amounts to more than 100 million tons
共Kalyoncu 1999; ACAA 2001兲. A large fraction of the coal ash
共about 70% of the total production兲 is typically disposed of as a
waste in utility disposal sites. Beneficial use of coal ash in con-
struction projects requiring large material volumes, such as high-
way embankment construction, offers an attractive alternative to
disposal because substantial economic savings can be attained by
the reduction of ash disposal costs and the conservation of natural
soils and lands. Well-documented, meaningful estimates of cur-
rent disposal costs are not available. In 1980, however, the esti-
mated disposal costs ranged from $5 to $10 per ton according to
ENR 共1980兲. The current typical costs of borrow materials vary
from about $4 to $10 per ton. Thus, considering that disposal
costs have certainly climbed in the past 24 years, use of coal ash
as a fill material seems to be economically advantageous.
In common disposal practice, fly ash and bottom ash, which
account for most coal ash production, are either ponded or land-
filled. According to the American Coal Ash Association 共ACAA
2001兲, both the production and disposal ratios of fly ash and bot-
tom ash are approximately 80: 20 by weight. Currently, the Indi-
1
Senior Researcher, Dam Safety Research Center, Korea Institute of
Water and Environment, 462-1, Jeonmin-Dong, Yusung-Gu, Daejon,
Korea 305-730. E-mail: bjkim@kowaco.or.kr
2
Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: mprezzi@ecn.purdue.edu
3
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: rodrigo@ecn.purdue.edu
Note. Discussion open until December 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on September 5, 2003; approved on August 24, 2004.
This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 7, July 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
2005/7-914–924/$25.00.
coal ash utilization in highway construction allow only mixtures
with fly ash content less than 40%, but there is a wish to make the
specifications more flexible.
The objective of this paper is to evaluate the suitability of
Class F fly/bottom ash mixtures with high fly ash contents as
construction materials for highway embankments. Although there
have been investigations into the properties of either fly ash or
bottom ash separately, studies of fly/bottom ash mixtures, espe-
cially with high fly ash contents, are very limited 共Selvig and
Gibson 1956; Abernethy et al. 1969; Seals et al. 1972; Usmen
1977; Majidzadeh et al. 1977; Diamond 1985; DiGioia et al.
1986; McLaren and DiGioia 1987; Huang 1990兲. Evaluations of
the environmental, physical, and chemical characteristics of Indi-
ana fly and bottom ash were completed by Diamond 共1985兲 and
Huang 共1990兲. Since the intended use of these materials is as
embankment construction materials, emphasis is given to the de-
termination of their mechanical characteristics, including compac-
tion, permeability, strength, stiffness, and compressibility.
Literature Review
Numerous studies have been completed in which the engineering
properties and the physical and chemical characteristics of fly ash
and bottom ash were determined in the laboratory. Selvig and
Gibson 共1956兲 and Abernethy et al. 共1969兲 investigated the com-
mon constituents of more than 600 ash samples from commercial
coals in the United States. They found that coal ash was com-
posed primarily of silica 共SiO2兲, ferric oxide 共Fe2O3兲, and alu-
mina 共Al2O3兲, with smaller quantities of calcium oxide 共CaO兲,
potassium oxide 共K2O兲, sodium oxide 共Na2O兲, magnesium oxide
共MgO兲, titanium oxide 共TiO2兲, phosphorous pentoxide 共P2O5兲,
and sulfur trioxide 共SO3兲. In bituminous coal, three major com-
ponents 共SiO2 , Fe2O3, and Al2O3兲 accounted for about 90% of the
total components, whereas lignite and subbituminous coal ashes
had relatively high percentages of CaO, MgO, and SO3. Diamond
共1985兲 examined the chemical and mineralogical characteristics

914 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.

 of Indiana fly ash. He found that Indiana fly ash, which was
mostly Class F fly ash derived from burning Illinois-basin bitu-
minous coal, has very consistent contents of SiO2 + Fe2O3
+ Al2O3 共typically 90% or more兲, low contents of CaO and SO3
共each no more than about 2%兲, and consistent alkali contents of
about 2% of K2O and 0.5% of Na2O, with both forms of alkali
essentially insoluble.
DiGioia et al. 共1986兲 provided typical standard Proctor com-
paction curves for Western Pennsylvania bituminous fly ash
共Class F fly ash兲 and Western U.S. lignite and subbituminous fly
ash 共Class C fly ash兲. They found that the maximum dry density
and the optimum water content for Western Pennsylvania Class F
fly ash typically ranged from 11.9 to 18.7 kN/ m3 and from 13 to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
32%, respectively. For Western U.S. Class C fly ash, the values of
the maximum dry density and the optimum water content varied
from 13.0 to 18.7 kN/ m3 and from 11 to 19%, respectively. They
concluded that, nationwide, the values of the optimum water con-
tent and maximum dry density spanned extremely wide ranges
and that the large variations in the values were mainly due to the
variation of the fly ash itself, which exhibited different chemical
and physical characteristics depending on factors such as the
source of coal and the condition of coal combustion.
McLaren and DiGioia 共1987兲 investigated the shear strength of
fly ash. They compiled a database of shear strength test results for
51 Class F fly ash samples. According to these authors, Class F
fly ash is a frictional material, deriving its shear strength mainly
from friction between particles, whereas Class C fly ash can ex-
hibit considerable true cohesive strength due to cementitious re-
actions.
Seals et al. 共1972兲 and Usmen 共1977兲 presented data obtained
from West Virginia bottom ash. The standard Proctor maximum
densities varied between 11.6 and 18.4 kN/ m3; the optimum
water contents ranged from 12 to 34%. Majidzadeh et al. 共1977兲
reported that the optimum water content of each ash actually oc-
curred within a range rather than exhibiting a clear optimum
value. Seals et al. 共1972兲 also performed a series of one-
dimensional compression tests on West Virginia bottom ash. They
showed that, at low stress levels, the compressibility of bottom
ash was comparable to natural granular soils placed at the same
relative density.
Huang 共1990兲 investigated the shear strength of Indiana bot-
tom ash and boiler slag compacted to different densities using
direct shear testing. The reported friction angles varied in a wide
range from 35 to 55°, depending on the density.
Testing Materials
Ash Sources and Sampling
Ash Sources
The ash samples used in this study were extracted from two
power plants in Indiana, United States: The Wabash River plant
and the A. B. Brown plant. Both power plants produce Class F fly
ash and bottom ash with a typical production ratio of 80% fly ash
and 20% bottom ash. At the Wabash River power plant, fly ash
and bottom ash are co-disposed, existing in the form of mixtures
at a disposal pond. At the A. B. Brown plant, fly and bottom ash
are conveyed through separate pipelines and discharged into sepa-
rate locations within a disposal pond. As a result, the disposal
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 915
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.
pond is for the most part split into a section of fly ash and a
section of bottom ash with little to no commingling of the two
ashes.
Ash Sampling
Fly ash samples from the Wabash River plant were directly ob-
tained from electrostatic precipitators, while bottom ash samples
were extracted near the discharge point of the disposal pond using
a backhoe. The coarse fraction of the ash tends to settle out im-
mediately after being discharged from the pipe, whereas the finer
ash particles drift further into the pond. As a result, the ash de-
posited near the end of the ash pond channel was mostly a very
fine material. Samples from the A. B. Brown plant were obtained
in a manner similar to that used for bottom ash samples from the
Wabash River plant. Since at the A. B. Brown plant fly and bot-
tom ash are discharged separately through separate pipelines, the
fly and bottom ash samples were extracted from near their respec-
tive discharge locations near the margins of the disposal pond.
Testing Methods
Ash Characterization
Grain Size Analysis
Grain size analysis was performed on fly ash, bottom ash, and
fly/bottom ash mixtures. The fly ash contents of the mixtures were
equal to 50 and 75%. The bottom ash samples obtained from the
Wabash plant contained a small percentage of fines. The bottom
ash samples were first sieved to exclude the fines portion in the
samples prior to testing and only the particles retained on the No.
200 sieve 共0.075 mm兲 were used as bottom ash. The gradations of
the samples, were determined using ASTM D422 共1963兲.
Microscopic Examination
Fly ash and bottom ash samples were examined using a scanning
electron microscope 共SEM兲 and a light microscope 共LM兲.
Specific Gravity
The specific gravity of fly and bottom ash was determined using
ASTM D854 共2000兲 共Method A兲. To prevent the removal of the
fly ash particles of lower specific gravity, de-airing was accom-
plished by very slow heating.
Mechanical Properties of Ash Mixtures
Standard compaction, hydraulic conductivity, one-dimensional
compression, and drained triaxial tests were performed on the
fly/bottom ash mixtures with fly ash contents of 50, 75, and
100%. The particles coarser than the No. 200 sieve 共0.075 mm兲
were used as bottom ash when preparing the mixtures.
Compaction
Standard compaction tests were performed following ASTM
D698 共2000兲. Premeasured quantities of fly ash and bottom ash
were mixed slowly by hand at first, and then water was sprayed
on gradually while the mixing was continued in a mortar mixer.
Samples were then compacted in a 4 in. diameter mold.
Hydraulic Conductivity
The hydraulic conductivity of the ash mixtures was measured by
falling head tests using a rigid-wall compaction-mold permeame-
 ter, as described by ASTM D5856 共1995兲. Each ash mixture was
compacted in the mold permeameter to 95% of the maximum
density obtained from the standard Proctor compaction test 共i.e.,
to a relative compaction R = 95%兲. The compaction moisture con-
tent was maintained at approximately optimum for the standard
effort.

One-Dimensional Compression
One-dimensional compression tests were performed on samples
prepared at their optimum water content, and compacted using a
standard manual rammer to R = 95% in a split mold with a diam-
eter of 72 mm 共2.8 in.兲 and a height of 55 mm 共2.2 in.兲. The tests
were conducted according to the normal consolidation test proce-
dure described in ASTM D2435 共1996兲. The compacted sample
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

was carefully trimmed and placed in a consolidation ring with a

diameter of 64 mm 共2.5 in.兲 and a height of 25 mm 共1.0 in.兲. The
specimen was soaked for 24 h before compression, and then
loaded incrementally to a maximum vertical stress of 1,600 kPa.

Consolidated Drained Triaxial Tests

Isotropically consolidated, drained triaxial tests were performed
on compacted ash mixture samples. In order to evaluate the ef-
fects of mixture ratios, compaction levels, and confining stresses
on the stress-strain and volumetric behavior of the ash mixtures,
two levels of relative compaction 共R = 90 and 95%兲 and three
levels of confining stress 共50, 100, and 200 kPa兲 were used. The
equipment used in these tests was a CKC automatic triaxial test-
ing system with a pneumatic pressure loading system.
Each sample was compacted in six layers in a split mold with
a collar using a standard manual sleeve compaction rammer. The
split mold had a diameter of 72 mm 共2.8 in.兲 and a height of 163
mm 共6.4 in.兲. The number of blows per layer required to achieve
a certain density was determined by several trials for each mix-
ture. Prior to back-pressure saturation, the specimens were perco-
lated with CO2 gas and de-aired water for about one hour each.
The back-pressure saturation continued until a B value greater Fig. 1. Particle size distributions of fly, bottom, and fly/bottom ash
than 0.95 was attained. The specimens were then isotropically mixtures from 共a兲 Wabash River plant; and 共b兲 A. B. Brown plant
consolidated to the desired effective confining stresses 共␴3⬘ = 50,
100, and 200 kPa兲. A period of time ranging from 180 min 共for Morphological Characteristics
the specimens at R = 95% and low ␴⬘3兲 to 360 min 共for the speci- Fig. 2 shows SEM photomicrographs of the fly ash particles from
mens at R = 90% and high ␴⬘3兲 was allowed. Triaxial compression the two ash sources. In general, fly ash particles were well
共shearing兲 was then performed on each saturated specimen rounded, spherical in shape, and their surfaces appeared to be
under strain-controlled conditions, which required approximately smooth. Some particles were very small 共less than 1 ␮m兲. Some
7 to 9 h to fail the specimen. particles were shaped as hollow spheres with thin walls. A distinct
morphological difference between the fly ashes from the two ash
sources was the extent of the agglomeration of particles, which
Test Results appeared to be more prevalent in the Brown plant fly ash.
Fig. 3 displays LM photomicrographs of bottom ash particles.
Gradation In terms of the shape and surface characteristics of the particles,
bottom ash was quite different from fly ash. Bottom ash particles
Fig. 1 shows the grain size distributions for each fly ash and were angular and irregular in shape and had rough, gritty surface
bottom ash used, as well as their respective mixtures. Generally, textures. The surfaces of the particles were observed to be essen-
the fly ash was well graded, ranging from mostly silt to fine sand tially free of dust, clean and shiny. Some large particles were both
sizes. A majority of the sizes occurred in a range between 0.001 internally and externally porous, making the particles more crush-
and 0.075 mm. Fig. 1 suggests that the Wabash plant fly ash had able. Some of the popcorn-like particles were crushed even under
more silt size particles than the Brown plant fly ash. Bottom ash applied finger pressure. Particle agglomerations were also ob-
gradations from the two ash sources were quite similar. Their served in bottom ash. These agglomerates ranged from lightly
sizes ranged from sand to small-size gravel. The shapes of the cemented to strongly bonded.
gradation curves indicated that the size distributions became bet-
ter graded with increasing bottom ash content in the ash mixtures.
Specific Gravity
The ash materials tested in the present research were classified
by the Unified Soil Classification System; these classifications, The values of specific gravity of fly and bottom ash are summa-
including basic grain size indices, are given in Table 1. rized in Table 2. These values ranged from 2.30 to 2.81, indicat-

916 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.

 Table 1. Basic Grain Size Indices and Unified Soil Classification System Framing of the Investigated Ash
Mixture Cu 共coefficient Cc 共coefficient
Ash source composition of uniformity兲 of curvature兲 Group symbol Group name
Wabash River plant F100 10.3 1.01 ML Silt with sand
F75 B25 13.8 1.02 ML Silt with sand
F50 B50 40.0 0.40 ML Sandy silt
B100 17.1 0.61 SP Poorly graded sand with gravel
A. B. Brown plant F100 36.5 2.98 ML Sandy silt
F75 B25 23.9 0.78 SM Silty sand
F50 B50 37.0 0.80 SM Silty sand
B100 17.4 1.09 SW-SM Well graded sand with silt and gravel
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing a large variation between ash sources. The wide range in
specific gravity can be attributed to two factors: 共1兲 Chemical
composition, and 共2兲 presence of hollow fly ash particles or par-
ticles of bottom ash with porous or vesicular textures. The low
specific gravities of Wabash plant fly and bottom ash are ex-
plained by their low iron oxide contents and, conversely, the high
specific gravities of Brown plant fly and bottom ash by their high
iron oxide contents. Different amounts of hollow particles present
in fly ash also cause a variation in apparent specific gravity. Ob-
viously, a fly ash containing a large percentage of hollow particles
would have a lower apparent specific gravity than one with
mostly solid particles. In fact, the two factors affecting the spe-
cific gravity of fly ash may be related. Guo et al. 共1996兲 examined
the chemical compositions of hollow and solid fly ash particles
separately, and the data revealed that hollow-particle fly ash had a
significantly lower iron content 共4.5%兲 than solid-particle fly ash
共25.1%兲.
The apparent specific gravity of bottom ash is also affected by

Fig. 2. Scanning electron microscopy photomicrographs of fly ash from 共a兲 and 共b兲 Wabash River plant; 共c兲 and 共d兲 A. B. Brown plant

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 917

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.

 Table 3. Chemical Composition of Fly and Bottom Ash
Ash source Chemical composition Fly ash Bottom ash
a
Wabash River plant % SiO2 51.1 39.6a
% Al2O3 22.9a 15.1a
% Fe2O3 12.2a 15.0a
% CaO 1.54a 2.04a
% Na2O 0.38a 0.27a
% K 2O 2.55a 1.79a
% SO3 0.07a 0.21a
% MgO 0.73a 0.79a
% P 2O 5 0.14a 0.13a
% TiO2 1.01a 0.70a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

% Total 92.6a 75.6a

A. B. Brown plant % SiO2 39.7b 43.3c
b
% Al2O3 27.3 13.0c
b
% Fe2O3 25.5 32.8c
b
% CaO 2.24 3.5c
b
% Na2O 0.43 0.3c
b
% K 2O 2.08 1.7c
b
% SO3 0.59 2.5c
b
% MgO 1.49 0.8c
b
% P 2O 5 0.25 —
% TiO2 1.34b —
% Total 100.9b 97.9c
Note: The values in the table may not be entirely representative of the
material tested, as, over time, the chemical content of the coal used by the
power plants may have changed.
a
CT&E Environmental Services Inc. 共unpublished, 2001兲.
b
Diamond 共1985兲.
c
Huang 共1990兲.

Compaction Behavior
Fig. 4 shows the compacted dry unit weight versus the water
content curves of the ash mixtures. The results show that, as the
fly ash content 共F兲 increased from 50 to 100%, the maximum dry
unit weight 共␥d,max兲 decreased, while the optimum water content
共wopt兲 increased. The studies of silty sands have revealed that, for
low nonplastic silt contents ranging from zero to about 25%, both
the ␥d, max and ␥d, min of a silty sand increase with increasing fines
content because the fines occupy the voids between sand par-
ticles, whereas further increases in the fines content, exceeding
about 25%, cause the fines to begin to separate adjacent sand
Fig. 3. Light microscope photomicrographs of bottom ash from 共a兲 particles, resulting in a decrease in ␥d, max and ␥d, min 共Kuerbis et
and 共b兲 Wabash River plant; 共c兲 A. B. Brown plant al. 1988; Lade and Yamamuro 1997; Salgado et al. 2000兲. Simi-
larly, in the ash mixtures with high fly ash content 共i.e., F
⬎ 50%兲, the bottom ash particles are not, on average, in contact.
the porosity of its particles. Comparing the specific gravities re- At a certain level of fly ash content, the bottom ash particles may
ported in Table 2 for fly ash and bottom ash from the Brown be completely separated, floating in a fly ash matrix. The behavior
plant, the bottom ash has a lower specific gravity than the fly ash, of a material with a floating fabric 共Salgado et al. 2000兲 may be
although Table 3 indicates that a slightly higher iron content may quite different from one in which the bottom ash particles are in
be present in the bottom ash. This may be due to the presence of contact.
highly porous popcorn-like bottom ash particles. From another perspective, the gradations of the ash mixtures
varying with different mixture ratios also explain the change in
dry unit weight. The addition of bottom ash to fly ash leads to
Table 2. Specific Gravity of Fly and Bottom Ash increasingly more well-graded size distributions, which allows
Ash source Fly ash Bottom ash the fly and bottom ash particles to pack more closely, resulting in
the increase in ␥d, max. The higher wopt associated with higher F
Wabash River plant 2.30 2.32
values follows from the need to release the capillary tension from
A. B. Brown plant 2.81 2.62
the greater exposed surface of the finer fly ash particles.

918 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Compaction curves of ash mixtures
Although the same trends were observed for wopt and ␥d, max
with respect to F, the values of ␥d, max of the ash mixtures were
very different between the two ash sources studied. The differ-
ences appeared to be primarily due to the large variations in the
specific gravities. The Brown plant ash mixtures, whose specific
gravities were much higher than those of the Wabash plant ash
mixtures, had higher ␥d, max values. It was also often observed,
especially in the Brown plant ash mixtures, that some weak large
bottom ash particles were broken down into finer particles by
compaction. Some bottom ash particle crushing during compac-
tion may have contributed to the increase in the ␥d, max of ash
mixtures.
Compared with the ␥d, max of compacted soils, the ␥d, max val-
ues of ash mixtures tended to be lower than those of soils, which
range typically from 17 to 20 kN/ m3 共U.S. Navy 1986兲.
Hydraulic Conductivity
Table 4 shows the values of hydraulic conductivity for compacted
ash mixtures with F = 50, 75, and 100%. The measured values
varied from 1 ⫻ 10−7 to 3 ⫻ 10−8 m / s, indicating a range similar
to those of fine sand/silt mixtures or silt. As F increased from 50
to 100%, the values of hydraulic conductivity decreased gradu-
ally, and the decreasing rate with increasing F was essentially the
same for both the Wabash plant and the Brown plant ash mix-
tures.
Table 4. Hydraulic Conductivity of Ash Mixtures
Hydraulic conductivity
Ash source Mixture composition 共m / s兲
Wabash River plant F100 3 ⫻ 10−8
F75 B25 6 ⫻ 10−8
F50 B50 1 ⫻ 10−7
A. B. Brown plant F100 6 ⫻ 10−8
F75 B25 9 ⫻ 10−8
F50 B50 1 ⫻ 10−7
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 919
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.
The larger specific surface of fly ash causes more resistance to
flow of water through the voids. Huang 共1990兲 performed a series
of hydraulic conductivity tests on Indiana bottom ashes. He ob-
served that the fines included in bottom ash had a predominant
effect on the permeability, and thus the hydraulic conductivity
decreased as the fine contents increased.
Compressibility
Fig. 5 shows the one-dimensional compression curves of the com-
pacted ash mixture samples with F = 50, 75, and 100% from the
two ash sources. Regardless of the ash source, a general observed
trend was that as F decreased from 100 to 50% 共i.e., as B
increased from zero to 50%兲, the ash samples became slightly
more compressible. Two possible mechanisms may explain the
increasing compressibility with decreasing F 共i.e., with increasing
B兲: 共1兲 angularity and porous surface texture of bottom ash par-
ticles, and 共2兲 particle crushing. Bottom ash particles are mostly
angular and irregular in shape. Granular materials with angular
particles are typically more compressible than those with well-
rounded particles because the sharp edges in the angular particles
tend to be overstressed during increases in confining stress 共and
shear stress as well兲, and thus may break during compression
共Roberts and DeSouza 1958; Schultze and Moussa 1961兲. Particu-
larly weak bottom ash particles, which in most cases have internal
pores, can break at relatively low stress levels, as discussed by
Huang 共1990兲. Furthermore, it is possible that fine fly ash par-
ticles adjacent to or filling the external pores of the bottom ash
particles may be squeezed out with increasing stress, resulting in
an increase in deformation.
The Brown plant ash mixture samples exhibited greater com-
pressibility than the Wabash plant ash mixture samples. The dif-
ference in the compressibility appears to be mainly due to differ-
ent compressibility of the fly ash rather than the bottom ash,
because the increasing rate in the compressibility with increasing
B was similar between the two ash sources. Relatively high com-
pressibility in the Brown plant fly ash may be attributed to the
breaking of particle agglomerations, which were more abundant

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. One-dimensional compression curves of ash mixtures from
共a兲 Wabash River plant; and 共b兲 A. B. Brown plant
Fig. 6. Tangent constrained moduli of ash mixtures and sands
920 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.
in the Brown plant fly ash than in the Wabash plant fly ash. The
fly ash agglomerates were observed to vary from weakly to
strongly bonded, as was true also of bottom ash agglomerates.
Relatively weak agglomerates can be subject to separation into
finer particles with increasing stress, which causes the deforma-
tion to increase. Hollow fly ash particles, especially those with
cracks or openings, might be expected to be more crushable than
solid fly ash particles. As reported by Dry 共1995兲 and Guo et al.
共1996兲, however, the compressive strength of hollow fly ash par-
ticles is typically high, around several megapascals 共MPa兲. Ac-
cordingly, it appears that crushing of individual hollow fly ash
particles is not a likely factor affecting the compressibility.
When ash mixtures are used as fill materials, the settlement of
the ash layer may be estimated using elasticity-based equations.
Moreover, the compression of ash in an embankment of large
lateral extent can be considered one dimensional. The constrained
modulus is a commonly used parameter to determine the settle-
ment of a material under one-dimensional compression. Fig. 6
presents the calculated tangent constrained moduli for all the ash
mixture samples tested for vertical stresses ranging from zero to
200 kPa, a range of stress levels typically expected in highway
embankments 共see Carrier 2000兲. The values for a typical sand
compacted at different densities were also plotted for comparison.
The constrained moduli of sand at 99 and 85% relative compac-
tion enveloped those of all ash mixtures, such that the values for
the ash mixtures lied near the lower end of the sand moduli range.
This suggests that, for the same compaction levels, ash mixtures
may be slightly more compressible than sand.
Shear Strength
Stress-Strain and Volumetric Behavior
Fig. 7 shows stress-strain and volume change behaviors of ash
mixture samples with F = 100 and 75%, compacted at two differ-
ent compaction levels 共i.e., R = 95 and 90%兲 and sheared in
triaxial compression at a confining stress of 100 kPa
共␴⬘3 = 100 kPa兲 under drained conditions. The behavior was simi-
lar for the two ash sources. For the specimens compacted to R
= 95%, the stress-strain and volumetric behavior typically re-
sembled those of a sandy soil in a dense state. Increases in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Stress-strain and volume change results from consolidated-drained triaxial tests completed on ash mixtures from 共a兲 and 共b兲 Wabash River
plant; and 共c兲 and 共d兲 A. B. Brown plant

deviatoric stress ␴⬘d were associated with a slight initial volumet-
ric contraction, followed by a gradually increasing rate of volume
expansion 共dilation兲. The peak strength occurred when the rate of
change of the volumetric strain with respect to the axial strain
d␧v / d␧a reached its maximum value. The postpeak reduction in
␴⬘d was associated with a decreased rate of dilation until the stress
state reached the critical state with constant stress and volume.
The specimens at R = 90% behaved similar to a sandy soil in a
loose state. The ␴d⬘ increased gradually up to a peak level and then
stayed practically unchanged with increasing ␧a. The volumetric
100 kPa confining stress. At ␴⬘3 = 200 kPa, the volumetric behav-
ior became predominantly 共for the Wabash River plant ash兲 and
entirely 共for the Brown plant ash兲 contractive.
Peak Friction Angle and Critical State Friction Angle
Ash materials are, in general, frictional materials. The peak fric-
tion angle 共␾⬘p兲 can be expressed in terms of the principal effec-
tive stresses at peak state based on the Mohr–Coulomb failure
criterion with zero-cohesion intercept as follows:

冢 冣
strains 共␧v兲 were contractive throughout shearing. When compar- ␴⬘1
−1
ing the response for F = 100% and F = 75%, at a compaction ratio ␴⬘3
R = 95%, as F decreased from 100 to 75%, the peak deviatoric sin ␾⬘p =
␴1⬘
⬘
stress ␴d共peak兲 increased slightly while both the maximum rate of +1
␴⬘3 peak
dilation and the maximum dilation decreased slightly. For R
= 90%, ␧v increased with decreasing F. where ␴1⬘ / ␴3⬘⫽effective principal stress ratio or stress obliquity.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of the confining stress ␴⬘3 共50 to 200 For dilative behavior, ␾⬘p is associated with the maximum rate of
kPa兲 on the volumetric response of the R = 95% , F = 75% ash dilation, which normally develops at relatively small strains. For
mixtures. Dilation decreased gradually as ␴⬘3 increased from 50 to ideal contractive behavior, ␾⬘p coincides with the critical state

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 921

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Volume change behavior from CID triaxial test performed at
different confining stresses on ash mixtures from 共a兲 Wabash River
plant; and 共b兲 A. B. Brown plant
friction angle ␾⬘c , occurring at large strains. Thus, ␾⬘p can be con-
sidered simply as the summation of two components: one due to
dilatancy effects, which varies with shear strain 共or axial strain in
a triaxial test兲, and another due to ␾⬘c .
The peak friction angle ␾⬘p of the ash mixtures was found to be
a function of the relative compaction 共R兲, the confining pressure
共␴⬘3兲 and the fly ash content 共F兲, in order of decreasing signifi-
cance 共see Fig. 9兲. The reduction of R from 95 to 90% led to a
significant drop in ␾⬘p. Also, ␾⬘p decreased as ␴⬘3 increased from 50
kPa to 200 kPa. The samples at R = 95% displayed notable reduc-
tions in ␾⬘p with increasing ␴3⬘. The reduction in ␾⬘p with decreas-
ing R and increasing ␴3⬘ is due to reduced dilatancy. As compared
to the effects of R and ␴3⬘, however, varying F did not appear to
change ␾⬘p significantly. The overall trend that is observed is that
␾⬘p decreased slightly as F increased from 50 to 75 and then
100%; this can be alternatively stated as ␾⬘p increasing with in-
creasing bottom ash content 共B兲. This increase in ␾⬘p with B is
primarily due to the angularity of bottom ash particles, which
provides higher resistance to particle rearrangement for sustained
shearing, hence higher values of critical-state friction angle
⬘ . Here, it should be noted that the magnitude of the increase
␾critical
in ␾⬘p as B increased from 0 to 50% differs for R = 95 and 90% for
922 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.
Fig. 9. Peak friction angle versus compaction level, confining stress,
and fly ash content: 共a兲 Wabash River plant; and 共b兲 A. B. Brown
plant
the 50–200 kPa ␴⬘3 range considered. For the samples at R
= 90% , ␾⬘p increased on average by about 3 to 4° while ␾⬘p in-
creased by about 1 to 2° for R = 95%. This suggests that the de-
gree of dilatancy decreased slightly with increasing B, as reflected
also by the volumetric behavior. This reduction in the dilatancy
can be attributed in part to particle contact crushing during shear-
ing, which is consistent with the fact that bottom ash particles are
relatively weak.
Fig. 10 shows the critical-state friction angle ␾⬘c of the ash
mixtures. For a granular material, ␾⬘c results from interparticle
friction and particle rearrangement only, and provides a measure
of the ultimate shearing strength that can be mobilized by the
material. For the ash mixtures, ␾⬘c decreased gradually as F in-
creased from 50 to 75 and 100% 共see Fig. 10兲. Accordingly, it is
apparent that the addition of bottom ash particles increased ␾⬘c
and, as a result, ␾⬘p also increased, as noted before. As shown in
Table 5, the values of ␾c⬘ of the ash mixtures ranged from 28° to
35°, which is also the range observed for typical silica sands.
It is known that the ␾⬘p of compacted sandy soils typically
ranges from 31 to 45° 共U.S. Navy 1986兲. The test results suggest
that, although the ␾⬘p of the ash mixtures varied in a wide range
共i.e., 28 to 48°兲, depending on the ash sources and conditions 共i.e.,
R , ␴3⬘ , F兲, ash mixtures generally exhibited fairly comparable
shear strength to that of typical compacted sandy soils.
Summary and Conclusions
A variety of tests were performed on fly ash composed of fine,
nearly spherical particles ranging in size from silt to fine sand,

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Critical state friction angle of ash mixtures
bottom ash composed of coarse angular particles ranging in size
from sand to small gravel, and mixtures of the two. Both fly and
bottom ash exhibit some special morphological characteristics
that are distinctly different from typical soils. The fly ash particles
in this study were mostly hollow spheres with thin walls. Some
bottom ash particles had complex pore structures. Also, some of
the fly ash or bottom ash particles were agglomerations of finer
particles. The morphological characteristics of fly and bottom ash
affected their specific gravity, particle strength, and consequently,
other mechanical properties to varying degrees.
Fly/bottom ash mixtures 共with mixture ratios ranging from
50% to 100% fly ash content兲 were found to exhibit relatively
well-defined moisture-density relationships, and the relationships
varied with the mixture ratio. Also, the values of ␥d, max for com-
pacted ash mixtures tended to vary greatly from power plant to
power plant, due to a relatively wide range of specific gravity
values from plant to plant. However, overall, the values of ␥d, max
of ash were found to be lower than those of typical compacted
soils.
The hydraulic conductivity of compacted ash mixtures were
found to decrease slightly with increasing fly ash content. This is
primarily due to the increasing specific surface with increasing
fines content, which generates more resistance to water flow
through voids between particles. The overall range of the values
was similar to that of a fine sand/silt mixture or silt.
From a mechanical point of view, the fly/bottom ash mixtures
compared favorably with conventional sandy soils. They may be
more compressible than typical compacted sands at the same
compaction levels, mainly due to the higher crushability of bot-
tom ash. At the low to moderate stress levels expected in typical
Table 5. Critical State Friction Angles of Ash Mixtures
Critical state
friction angle,
Mixture ⬘
␾critical
Ash source composition 共degrees兲
Wabash River plant F100 28
F75 B25 30
F50 B50 32
A.B. Brown plant F100 32
F75 B25 33
F50 B50 35
Note: Ottawa sand: 29° 共Salgado et al. 2000兲; Berlin sand: 33° 共Bolton
1986兲; Monterey No. 0 sand: 37° 共Bolton 1986兲.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005 / 923
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.
highway embankments, however, the compressibility of com-
pacted ash mixtures is similar to that of typical compacted sands.
Moreover, samples of compacted ash mixtures at a moderately
high compaction level 共e.g., 95% relative compaction兲 exhibited
comparable or even higher shear strength than that of compacted
sands at similar compaction levels.
In order of decreasing significance, the degree of relative com-
paction, the confining stress, and the mixture ratio all affect the
stress-strain and volumetric behavior of an ash mixture under
shearing, and therefore its peak shear strength. Ash mixtures at
95% relative compaction typically exhibited a behavior similar to
that of sandy soils in dense states 共i.e., dilatant behavior兲, whereas
those at 90% relative compaction resembled sand in loose states.
Increasing confining stress decreased dilatancy, and thus de-
creased peak friction angles. Increasing bottom ash content also
tended to decrease dilatancy, primarily due to crushing of bottom
ash particles during shearing. At 95% relative compaction, how-
ever, the effect of fly/bottom ash mixture ratio on the peak shear
strength was found to be relatively minimal. The values of critical
state friction angle of the ash mixtures were found to be in the
same range observed for typical sands.
Based on the results obtained in this study, it appears that high
volume fly ash mixtures are suitable for use in highway embank-
ments, if proper design and construction procedures are followed.
Prior to use, the materials must pass the appropriate environmen-
tal requirements set by state regulatory agencies. If the environ-
mental requirements are satisfied, the fly/bottom ash mixtures can
provide fill materials of comparable strength and compressibility
to most soils typically used as fill materials, while having the
advantage of smaller dry unit weights.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Joint Transportation Research
Program administered by the Indiana Department of Transporta-
tion and Purdue University, Cinergy Co., Vectren Co., and the
Indiana Department of Commerce. The assistance of Nayyar Zia
of INDOT and Howard Lewis of Cinergy with collection of
samples and other activities needed for completion of the research
is appreciated. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the
writers, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the
data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration
and the Indiana Department of Transportation, nor do the contents
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
B ⫽ bottom ash content;
F ⫽ fly ash content;
R ⫽ relative compaction;
wopt ⫽ optimum water content;
␥d, max ⫽ maximum dry unit weight;
␥d, min ⫽ minimum dry unit weight;
␧a ⫽ axial strain;
␧v ⫽ volumetric strain;
␴⬘3 ⫽ confining stress;
␴⬘d ⫽ deviatoric stress;
␾⬘c ⫽ critical state friction angle.
␾⬘p ⫽ peak friction angle; and
 References
Abernethy, R. F., Peterson, M. J., and Gibson, F. H. 共1969兲. “Major ash
constituents in U.S. coals.” Report of Investigation 7240, United
States Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
American Coal Ash Association 共ACAA兲. 共2001兲. CCP survey, retrieved
from 具http://www.acaa-usa.org/PDF/ACAA2001CCPSurvey.pdf典
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共1963兲. “Standard
test method for particle-size analysis of soils.” Designation D422-63,
Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共2000兲. “Standard
test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer.”
Designation D854-00, Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共2000兲. “Standard
test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
standard effort 关关12, 400 ft lbf/ ft3 共600 kN m / m3兲兴.” Designation
D698-00a, Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共1995兲. “Standard
test method for measurement of hydraulic conductivity of porous ma-
terial using a rigid-wall, compaction-mold permeameter.” Designation
D5856-95, Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共1996兲. “Standard
test method for one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils.”
Designation D2435-96, Philadelphia.
Bolton, M. D. 共1986兲. “The strength and dilatancy of sands.” Geotech-
nique, 36共1兲, 65–78.
Carrier, W. D., III. 共2000兲. “Compressibility of a compacted sand.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126共3兲, 273–275.
Diamond, S. 共1985兲. “Selection and use of fly ash for highway concrete.”
Report No. FHWA/IN/JHRP-85/8, Final Report, Purdue Univ., W.
Lafayette, Ind.
DiGioia, A. M., McLaren, R. J., Burns, D. L., and Miller, D. E. 共1986兲.
“Fly ash design manual for road and site application, Vol. 1: Dry or
conditioned placement.” Manual Prepared for EPRI, CS-4419, Re-
search Project 2422-2, Interim Report, Electric Power Research Insti-
tute, Palo Alto, Calif.
Dry, C. M. 共1995兲. “The potential use of waste 共ash兲 materials for EIFS
insulation and related components.” Development, Use, and Perfor-
mance of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems 共EIFS兲, ASTM STP
1187, Mark F. Williams and Richard G. Lampo, eds., ASTM, Phila-
delphia.
Engineering News Record 共ENR兲. 共1980兲. “Billions at stake in coal
fight.” Eng. News-Rec., 204, 2.
924 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:914-924.
Guo, R. Q., Rohatgi, P. K., and Nath, D. 共1996兲. “Compacting character-
istics of aluminium-fly ash power mixtures.” J. Mater. Sci. 31, 5513–
5519.
Huang, H. W. 共1990兲. “The use of bottom ash in highway embankments,
subgrade, and subbases.” Joint Highway Research Project, Final Re-
port, FHWA/IN/JHRP-90/4, Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette, Ind.
Kalyoncu, R. S. 共1999兲. “Coal combustion products.” Metals and miner-
als: U.S. Geological Survey minerals yearbook 1997, Vol. I, 19.1–
19.13.
Kuerbis, R., Negussey, D., and Vaid, Y. P. 共1988兲. “Effect of gradation
and fines content on the undrained response of sand.” Proc., Hydrau-
lic Fill Structures, Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 21, ASCE,
New York, 330–345.
Lade, P., and Yamamuro, J. 共1997兲. “Effects of non-plastic fines on static
liquefaction of sands.” Can. Geotech. J. 34共6兲, 918–928.
Majidzadeh, K., El-Mitiny, R. N., and Bokowski, G. 共1977兲. “Power
plant bottom ash in black base and bituminous surfacing.” Vol. 2,
User’s Manual, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-
RD-78-148, Washington, D. C.
McLaren, R. J., and DiGioia, A. M. 共1987兲. “The typical engineering
properties of fly ash.” Proc., Geotechnical Practice for Waste Dis-
posal ’87, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 13, E. Wood, ed.,
ASCE, New York, 683–697.
Roberts, J. E., and DeSouza, J. M. 共1958兲. “The compressibility of
sands.” Proc., American Society for Testing and Materials, 58, 1269–
1277.
Salgado, R., Bandini, P., and Karim, A. 共2000兲. “Shear strength and stiff-
ness of silty sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126共5兲, 451–462.
Schultze, E., and Moussa, A. 共1961兲. “Factors affecting the compressibil-
ity of sand.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Eng., Vol. 1, 335–340.
Seals, R. K., Moulton, L. K., and Ruth, B. E. 共1972兲. “Bottom ash: An
engineering material.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 98共4兲, 311–325.
Selvig, W. A., and Gibson, F. H. 共1956兲. “Analysis of ash from United
States coals.” Bulletin 567, Bureau of Mines.
U.S. Navy. 共1986兲. “Design manual—Soil mechanics, foundations, and
earth structures.” NAVFAC DM-7, Dept. of the Navy, Washington,
D.C.
Usmen, M. A. 共1977兲. “A critical review of the applicability of conven-
tional test methods and materials specifications to the use of coal-
associated wastes in pavement construction.” PhD dissertation, West
Virginia Univ., Morgantown, W.Va.