Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 1027–1033

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Liquefaction strength of fly ash reinforced with randomly

distributed fibers
A. Boominathan*, S. Hari
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India

Abstract
In this paper a study on the improvement of liquefaction strength of fly ash by reinforcing with randomly distributed geosynthetic
fiber/mesh elements is reported. A series of stress controlled cyclic triaxial tests were carried out on fly ash samples reinforced with randomly
distributed fiber and mesh elements. The liquefaction resistance of reinforced fly ash is defined in-terms of pore pressure ratio. The effects of
parameters such as fiber content, fiber aspect ratio, confining pressure, cyclic stress ratio, on liquefaction resistance of fly ash have been
studied. Test results indicate that the addition of fiber/mesh elements increases the liquefaction strength of fly ash significantly and arrests the
initiation of liquefaction even in samples of loose initial condition and consolidated with the low confining pressure.
q 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Fly ash; Liquefaction strength; Random fiber reinforcement; Geosynthetics; Pore pressure ratio; Cyclic stress ratio

1. Introduction liquefaction. Since fly ash predominantly consists of non-

The use of fly ash as alternative material to natural soils
for construction of fills and for filling low lying areas could
solve the problem of disposal of fly ash to a great extent.
Toth et al. [1] studied the use of fly ash as a structural fill and
found that the physical behavior of fly ash is similar to that
of silt and the structural fill made with fly ash could perform
better than the fill constructed with natural materials.
Leonards and Balley [2] successfully used the untreated
pulverized coal ash, with more cementing qualities as a
material for structural fill to support the foundation of a new
precipitator for a power generating station in Indianapolis,
USA. Sridharan et al. [3] investigated the geotechnical
characterization of various ash ponds in India and reported
that pond ashes, in general possess low unit weight, good
frictional properties, low compressibility and low per-
meability and they are well suited for their use as a structural
fill.
Liquefaction behavior of sands has been extensively
studied and is currently a phenomenon that can be
reasonably predictable. Perlea et al. [4] reported that many
silt and clay deposits with low plasticity index such as
tailing materials have also been found vulnerable to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 91-44-257-8294; fax: þ 91-44-257-
0545/257-0509.
E-mail address: boomi@civil.iitm.ernet.in (A. Boominathan).
0267-7261/02/$ - see front matter q 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0 2 6 7 - 7 2 6 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 2 7 - 6
plastic silt size particles of relatively low permeability than
sand, it is prone to liquefaction during earthquakes.
Therefore, it is essential to improve liquefaction strength
of fly ash by an appropriate ground improvement technique.
Gandhi and Dey [5] studied the improvement of fly ash by
blasting techniques and found that fly ash is densified to
great extent in deeper depths. However, for shallow depths,
the blasting technique may not be suitable.
Soil reinforcement technique with randomly distributed
fibers is used in a variety of applications like, retaining
structures, embankments, subgrade stabilization etc. Ran-
dom fiber reinforcement is a variant of admixture stabiliz-
ation in which, discrete fibers are added and mixed with the
soil in the same manner as cement, lime or other. Many
studies have been conducted relating to the behavior of soil
reinforced with randomly distributed fibers under static
loading conditions. Various types of randomly distributed
elements, such as polymeric mesh elements [6], metallic
fibers [7], synthetic fibers [8 –10] and discontinuous multi-
oriented polypropylene elements [11] had been used to
reinforce soils. It was shown that the addition of randomly
distributed elements to soils contributes to the increase in
strength and stiffness.
However, the studies on behavior of soils reinforced with
randomly distributed elements under cyclic loading are very
limited in the literature. Vercueil et al. [12] found the
liquefaction resistance of saturated sand reinforced with
1028 A. Boominathan, S. Hari / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 1027–1033
circular sheet geosynthetics and concluded that the
reinforcement increases the liquefaction resistance signifi-
cantly due to reduction in the interstitial pressure distri-
bution. In this paper, the study on effectiveness of randomly
distributed geosynthetic fiber and mesh elements in
improving liquefaction strength of fly ash is reported.
2. Materials used for testing
2.1. Fly ash
The fly ash collected from North Madras Thermal Power
Station, Chennai, India is used for testing. The fly ash
consists predominantly (about 82%) of silt size particles.
Laboratory experiments were carried out on the fly ash to
find out the index properties of fly ash and the resulting
properties of the fly ash are given in Table 1.
2.2. Reinforcement
Two forms of reinforcement namely; fiber and mesh
were used for reinforcing fly ash samples. The fiber and
mesh elements are made from commercially available non-
woven polypropylene geogrid sheets. The sheets were cut
into the specified length and width to get the required aspect
ratio (AR). The physical properties of geogrid used are
shown in Table 2. A typical view of fiber and mesh elements
used in the present study is shown in Fig. 1.
3. Experimental set up
Stress controlled one-way cyclic triaxial compression
tests were performed to determine the effect of fiber/mesh
reinforcement on liquefaction strength of fly ash using the
Infra Test triaxial testing apparatus, which is shown in Fig. 2.
This testing unit has a built-in loading frame and it
accommodates three triaxial cells. The compression
machine has a loading speed covering a range of 0.0001 –
10 mm/min, with which the rate of loading can be precisely
controlled. The above triaxial test apparatus was fitted with
the triaxial cells of Wyekeham Farrance type. The triaxial
cells were fitted with load cells of capacity 3 kN to measure
the applied cyclic axial load. A linear strain conversion
Table 1
Properties of fly ash
Property Value
Specific gravity, Gs 2.15
Max. dry unit weight, gdmax 10.8 kN/m3
Min. dry unit weight, gdmin 5.9 kN/m3
Plastic limit, wp NP
Water content at saturation 40%
Table 2
Physical properties of reinforcement
Wide width tensile strength 1 kN/m
Thickness 1.1 mm
Mass/area 105 gm/m2
Secant modulus at 5% strain 0.5 kN/m2
transducer (LSCT) was used for the measurement of axial
displacement. A diaphragm type pressure transducer of
capacity 500 kN/m2 was used for the pore water pressure
measurement. All these transducers were connected to data
acquisition system through multi-channel carrier frequency
amplifier.
4. Experimental procedure
4.1. Preparation of samples
In the present work, the sample preparation technique
suggested by Ladd [13] was adopted, and as per Mulilis et al.
[14] this technique would give conservative results.
A cylindrical rubber membrane was put inside a cylindrical
prefabricated mould and its both ends were secured. Suction
force was applied to the space between the membrane and
the mould. The mould was then placed over the Perspex
disc. Oven dried sample was divided into five parts and the
weight of each part was predetermined depending on the
desired relative density. Each of the five parts of the sample
was poured one by one inside the mould. Each part was then
compacted and top of each compacted layer was cleared off
slightly before placing the next layer to promote proper
bonding. After placing five layers of sample parts, a single
filter paper, a porous stone and over that Perspex disc with a
hole for top drainage and a groove for loading ram were
placed above the specimen. The ends of the rubber
membrane were slipped off to the membrane stretcher.
The final size of the cylindrical specimen is around 40 mm
diameter and 80 mm height.
4.2. Test procedure
Triaxial tests were carried out on fly ash samples at wide
range of cyclic stress level, relative density and confining
pressure. The relative density of fly ash adopted for testing
Fig. 1. Details of reinforcement used.
 A. Boominathan, S. Hari / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 1027–1033
Fig. 2. Cyclic triaxial set up.
are 50, 60, 70 and 85%. Since the field confining stresses
associated with fly ash deposits are low, the tests were
carried out at relatively low confining stress levels of 20, 40,
60, 80 and 100 kPa. The cyclic loading in triaxial
compression test is characterized by the term cyclic stress
ratio (CSR), i.e. the ratio of the maximum cyclic shear stress
tcyc, to the initial effective confining pressure s00 : In the
present study, cyclic tests were carried with CSR of 0.2, 0.3
and 0.4. The frequency of cyclic loading adopted was
0.1 Hz and isotropic consolidation states were considered.
The behavior of fly ash reinforced with randomly
distributed geosynthetic mesh/fiber elements was ascer-
tained by carrying out tests on reinforced fly ash samples
with 50% relative density at confining stress levels of 40, 60
and 80 kPa. The fiber and mesh content varied from 0.5 to
6% (as a percentage weight of dry fly ash) and AR (length to
diameter ratio for fibers and length to width ratio for
meshes) varied from 10 to 30.
5. Liquefaction strength of unreinforced fly ash
In general, from the laboratory cyclic tests, the liquefac-
tion state of the soil is identified either by considering the
point when the pore pressure ratio (u/s3) becomes unity, i.e.
when the pore pressure (u ) equals the confining pressure
(s3) or when the peak to peak value of dynamic axial strain
exceeds a certain limit, say 10% [15,16]. In the present
study, the liquefaction is defined as the state when pore
1029
pressure ratio becomes unity. The liquefaction resistance of
an element of reinforced fly ash depends on how close the
initial state of fly ash is to the state corresponding to
liquefaction failure and it is expressed in terms of pore
pressure ratio.
Typical variation of applied cyclic deviatric stress and
the corresponding variation of pore pressure ratio and
induced strain with number of stress cycles for
unreinforced fly ash with relative density of 70% are
shown in Fig. 3. It is observed that during first few
cycles, pore pressure increases rapidly and thereafter (i.e.
beyond stress cycles of about 25 numbers) the rate of
increase in pore pressure per stress cycle is appreciably
low until the state of liquefaction is reached. This
behavior is just opposite to the behavior of sand where a
gradual build-up of pore pressure is immediately
followed by a rapid increase, near the condition of
liquefaction [17]. It is mainly due to the uniform particle
size of fly ash, which permits rapid propagation of pore
water pressure through the sample. Fig. 3 also shows the
response of fly ash under post-cyclic monotonic loading.
It is noticed from Fig. 3 that decrease of pore pressure
with an increase of axial strain indicating dilative
response under post-cyclic monotonic loading as reported
by Vaid and Thomas [18] for water deposited Fraser
River sand. The typical plot of effect of relative density
on the pore pressure ratio variation with number of stress
cycles is shown in Fig. 4. It can be observed that the
pore pressure ratio causing liquefaction decreases with
1030 A. Boominathan, S. Hari / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 1027–1033

Fig. 4. Effect of relative density on liquefaction resistance of unreinforced

fly ash ðs3c ¼ 60 kN=m2 Þ:

on the liquefaction resistance at all states of densities of fly

ash, both in loose and dense states. It is also to be noted that
the resistance to liquefaction increases significantly with
increase in confining stress at all relative densities.

6. Liquefaction strength of reinforced fly ash

Fig. 7 shows the variation of pore water pressure ratio

(u/s3) with number of stress cycles for mesh reinforced
fly ash samples at confining pressure of 40 kPa and CSR
of 0.3. It can be noticed from Fig. 7, the occurrence of
liquefaction of unreinforced fly ash after 90 cycles, on
the other hand reinforced fly ash samples with low mesh

Fig. 3. Variation of (a) cyclic deviatric stress, (b) pore pressure ratio and (c),
axial strain with number of stress cycles.

the increase in the magnitude of relative density at a

particular confining pressure.
It is seen in Fig. 5 that at all the relative densities, the
resistance of fly ash to liquefaction increases with increase
in confining stress. However, resistance to liquefaction
appears to be nearly same for all confining stress levels
when fly ash is subjected to very low magnitudes of cyclic
load indicating that fly ash liquefies within a very close
range of stress cycles.
Fig. 6 shows the graph on the variation of CSR with
initial confining stress at fixed number of cycles to
liquefaction ðNl ¼ 10Þ at relative densities of 50, 60, 70
and 85%. It can be seen that confining stress has an influence Fig. 5. Variation of CSR with number of stress cycles for liquefaction.
 A. Boominathan, S. Hari / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 1027–1033
Fig. 6. Variation of CSR with initial confining stress.
content (0.5%) liquefies only after 180 cycles. Reinforced
fly ash samples with mesh content 2% and above are not
getting liquefied even at higher number of stress cycles.
However, the least value of pore pressure ratio, i.e.
higher liquefaction resistance is observed at mesh content
of 2%. Experiments carried out on fiber reinforced fly
ash samples reveal that higher liquefaction resistance is
attained at fiber content of 2%. At higher mesh/fiber
content, the homogeneity of the sample will not be same
because of the segregation between fly ash particles and
reinforcement. As a result, there will be local defor-
mations and, failure will happen due to rise of excess
Fig. 7. Effect of mesh content on liquefaction resistance of reinforced fly
ash (s3c ¼ 40 kN=m2 ; CSR ¼ 0:3; AR ¼ 10).
1031
Fig. 8. Effect of AR on liquefaction resistance of reinforced fly ash
(s3c ¼ 40 kN=m2 ; CSR ¼ 0:3; mesh content ¼ 2%).
pore water pressure leading to liquefaction or due to
excessive axial strain.
The effect of AR on liquefaction resistance of fly ash
reinforced with distributed mesh elements is shown in
Fig. 8. The fly ash samples reinforced by mesh elements
with AR of 10 and 20 are not getting liquefied. However,
mesh reinforced fly ash with AR of 10 resulted in lower
pore pressure ratio, i.e. higher liquefaction resistance than
for reinforced samples with AR 20. At higher AR the
mesh elements may not remain straight and thus the
effective length of mesh element available to mobilize
Fig. 9. Effect of confining pressure on liquefaction resistance of reinforced
fly ash (CSR ¼ 0:3; mesh content ¼ 2%, AR ¼ 10).
1032 A. Boominathan, S. Hari / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 1027–1033
Fig. 10. Effect of type of reinforcement on liquefaction resistance of
reinforced fly ash (s3c ¼ 40 kN=m2 ; CSR ¼ 0:3; fiber/mesh content ¼ 2%).
shear strength is getting reduced. This is similar to the
behavior, for fiber-reinforced sand under static conditions
reported by Gopal Ranjan et al. [10].
Fig. 9 compares the behavior of fly ash samples both
reinforced and unreinforced for different ranges of confining
pressure. From the figure, it is observed that unreinforced fly
ash at low confining pressures liquefies at less number of
stress cycles. But the number of stress cycles causing
liquefaction, NL increases with increasing in confining
pressure. Fig. 8 shows that higher rate of gain in liquefaction
resistance of fly ash is indicated at lower confining pressure.
Since fly ash is of low unit weight and the low effective
confining pressure of 40 kPa corresponds to 7 –8 m below
ground level in practice, it can be concluded that providing
mesh reinforcements can significantly increase liquefaction
resistance of fly ash.
The comparison of liquefaction behavior of mesh-
reinforced fly ash with fiber-reinforced fly ash at optimum
mesh/fiber content of 2% is shown in Fig. 10. In this case the
AR for mesh elements is 10 and for fiber elements is 20.
Fig. 10 clearly indicates the superiority of mesh elements
over fiber elements for improving liquefaction resistance of
fly ash. It is due to the fact that the mesh inclusions provide
better interlocking property of the fly ash material, and the
same time it also provides easy dissipation of pore pressure
along the sample length.
7. Conclusions
From the detailed experimental study carried out on
reinforced fly ash to investigate the liquefaction resistance,
the following conclusions are drawn.
There is sudden build up of pore pressure with cyclic
stress applications initially and this behavior is just opposite
to the behavior of sand. This behavior is due to the uniform
particle size of fly ash, which permits rapid propagation of
pore water pressure through the sample. There is sudden
increase in axial strain within the first ten stress cycles for
fly ash samples at all relative densities.
It is concluded that at low confining pressures,
randomly distributed geosynthetic fiber/mesh reinforce-
ment provides higher rate of gain in liquefaction
resistance of fly ash. Addition of randomly distributed
mesh and fiber elements increases significantly the
liquefaction resistance of fly ash at low relative densities.
The maximum value of pore pressure ratio is about 50%
less when compared to unreinforced samples. Randomly
distributed mesh elements better arrest liquefaction when
compared with randomly distributed fiber elements. It is
because the mesh elements provide better interlocking
property of the fly ash material and also provide easy
dissipation of pore pressure along the sample length.
Optimum percentage of fiber/mesh content is found to be
2% against liquefaction.
The gain in liquefaction resistance of fly ash due to
mesh/fiber reinforcements is more pronounced at lower
confining pressures and hence reinforcing fly ash with
mesh/fiber elements is a better choice among available
ground improvement techniques to improve liquefaction
resistance of fly ash.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr S. Narasimha
Rao, Professor, Ocean Engineering Department of Indian
Institute of Technology Madras for giving permission to use
the test facility and above all for his valuable comments and
suggestions.
References
[1] Toth PS, Chan HT, Cragg CB. Coal ash as structural fill, with
special reference to Ontario experience. Can Geotech J 1978;25:
694 –704.
[2] Leonards GA, Balley B. Pulvrerised coal ash as structural fill. ASCE J
Geotech Engng Div 1982;108(4):517 –31.
[3] Sridharan A, Pandian NS, Rajasekhar C. Geotechnical characteriz-
ation of pond ash. Proceedings of the Symposium on Fly ash
Utilization, IISc Bangalore; 1997, p. 43–58.
[4] Perlea VG, Koester J, Prakash S. How liquefiable are cohesive soils?
In: Seco e Pinto, editor. Earthquake geotechnical engineering.
Rotterdam: Balkema; 1999. p. 611 –8.
[5] Gandhi SR, Dey AK. Liquefaction analysis of pond ash. Proceedings
of the Fifteenth International Conference on Solid Waste Technology
and Management, Philadelphia, vol. 1; 1999, 4D.
[6] Andrews KZ, Mc Gown A, Hytiris N, Mercer FB, Swetland DB. The
use of mesh elements to alter the stress strain behavior of granular
 A. Boominathan, S. Hari / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 1027–1033
soils. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Geotextiles, Vienna; 1986, p. 839 –44.
[7] Fatani NM, Bauer GH, Al-Joulani N. Reinforcing soil with aligned
and randomly oriented metallic fibers. ASTM Geotech Testing J 1991;
14(1):78–87.
[8] Gray DH, Al Refeai T. Behavior of fabric versus fiber reinforced sand.
ASCE J Geotech Engng 1986;112:804–20.
[9] Maher MH, Gray DH. Static response of sands reinforced with
randomly distributed fibers. ASCE J Geotech Engng Div 1990;
116(11):1661– 77.
[10] Ranjan G, Vasan RM, Charan HD. Behavior of plastic
fiber—reinforced sand. J Geotext Geomembranes 1994;13(8):
555 –65.
[11] Lawton EC, Khire MV, Fox NS. Reinforcement of soils by multi-
oriented geosynthetic inclusions. ASCE J Geotech Engng Div 1993;
119(2):257–75.
1033
[12] Vercueil D, Billet P, Cordary D. Study of the liquefaction resistance of
saturated sand reinforced with geosynthetics. Soil Dyn Earthquake
Engng 1997;16:417– 25.
[13] Ladd RSm. Specimen preparation and liquefaction of sands. ASCE J
Geotech Engng Div 1974;100(10):1180–4.
[14] Mulilis JP, Seed HB, Chan CK, Mitchell JK, Arulanandan K. Effects
of sample preparation on sand liquefaction. ASCE J Geotech Engng
Div 1977;103(2):91 –108.
[15] Wang JGZQ, Tim Law K, Siting in earthquake zones, Rotterdam:
Balkema; 1994.
[16] Kramer SL. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall; 1996.
[17] Seed HB, Lee KL. Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic
loading. ASCE J Soil Mech Foundations Div 1966;92(6):105–34.
[18] Vaid YP, Thomas J. Liquefaction and post liquefaction behavior of
sand. ASCE J Geotech Engng Div 1995;121(2):163 –73.