applied

sciences
Article
Optimization of Soil to Fly-Ash Mix Ratio for
Enhanced Engineering Properties of Clayey Sand for
Subgrade Use
M. A. Karim 1, * , Ahmed Sami Hassan 2 and Adam Kaplan 1
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 655 Arntson Drive, Marietta Campus,
Kennesaw State University, Marietta, GA 30060, USA; akaplan8@kennesaw.edu
2 USACE, Lake Isabella DSMP Engineering Section (CESPK-ED-G), 1325 J St, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA;
ahmedcomp4@gmail.com
* Correspondence: mkarim4@kennesaw.edu or makarim@juno.com; Tel.: +1-470-578-5078 or +1-804-986-3120




Received: 29 August 2020; Accepted: 8 October 2020; Published: 10 October 2020


Abstract: A laboratory investigation was carried out to determine the optimum soil to fly ash mix
ratio to enhance the engineering properties of clayey sand that can potentially be used as a road
subgrade. Grain size distribution and Atterberg limits tests were conducted to classify the soil and to
study the effects of the fly ash on the soil plasticity. The Proctor test was conducted to determine the
optimum moisture content and maximum dry density of soil-fly-ash mixtures with arbitrarily selected
0%, 40%, 50%, and 60% fly ash content. A higher percentage was selected to find the highest optimum
fly ash content to maximize the beneficial use. Unconfined compression and consolidation tests were
conducted with air-dry arbitrarily selected curing periods of 0, 2, 8, and 28 days to determine the
strength and to predict the settlement and the volume change behavior. It can be concluded from the
trend analysis that a fly ash content range of 32–50% appeared to be optimum that is expected to
perform better as subgrade materials for a curing period range of 16–19 days. However, experimental
data showed a fly ash content of 50% was the optimum for a curing period of 8 days. The settlement
and the volume change behavior improved at least 44% with increased fly ash content.

Keywords: fly ash; engineering properties of soil; soil stabilization; optimization of fly ash
content; optimum moisture content (OMC); maximum dry density (MDD); unconfined compression
strength (UCS)

1. Introduction
The industrial revolution and the significant technological developments of the last century have
allowed people to use more energy than previous generations. The electric energy in the United States
is generated using a variety of resources. The three most common resources are coal, natural gas,
and nuclear power. According to the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), nearly 38 million tons
of fly ash were generated in 2016 and about 22 million tons (57%) were reused in beneficial applications,
including concrete production, flowable fill, embankments, agriculture, mining applications, road
pavement, soil amendments, material recovery, and waste stabilization, while the rest of the production
was sent to disposal basins [1].
Fly ash has a broad range of applications within the construction industry [2]. The application
of fly ash as a partial replacement for Portland cement in concrete is widely used, with considerable
volumes. Fly ash utilization to stabilize soil or to enhance the engineering properties of soil, which is
the primary focus of this study, uses only 0.34% of the total fly ash produced in the USA, and 1% is
used for waste stabilization. In road base and sub-base material, the utilization was 1%, with structural
fills and embankments using over 5% [2].

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038; doi:10.3390/app10207038 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 2 of 13

Fly ash has been used as a soil stabilizer in the highway and transportation industry in different
layers and different methods. Fly ash has also been used to increase the stability of road embankments
by strengthening soft subgrade soil. However, utilizing higher percentages of fly ash in silty soil or
clayey sand stabilization has not been widely explored and there is a lack of research on this topic.
This uncommon issue is probably due to the chemical composition and mechanical properties of fly
ash that are generally not the same for the fly ashes that are produced from the same coal source in the
same plant in different time periods [3]. As a result, the behavior of a high percentage fly ash–soil
mixture has not been fully investigated and understood.
Yadav et al. [4] studied the stabilization of clayey soil with a several percentages of fly ash, with
a maximum of 12.5%. Their study found that a soil mixture with 7.5% fly ash provided the highest
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and unconfined compression strength (UCS). White et al. [5] studied
the short- and long-term behavior of soil treated with fly ash contents of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%.
The results of this study showed no significant difference between the Proctor results and a direct
correlation of fly ash content and the maximum dry density (MDD). The soil mixture with 20% fly ash
showed the highest maximum dry density for 80% of the soil samples tested.
Phanikumar and Sharma [6] found that the MDD increased and optimum moisture content (OMC)
decreased with increasing fly ash content for expansive and non-expansive clays that were treated with
Class F fly ash content of 5% to 20% based on the dry weight of the soil. The results indicated that the
addition of fly ash reduced the compressibility characteristics for both expansive and non-expansive
clays and the effect of fly ash was more pronounced in the compressibility behavior of expansive clays.
The stabilization of low-plasticity soil (CL according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS),
contains 34.1% sand and 65.9 fine aggregate, passes through sieve no. 200 with LL = 27%, PL = 19%,
and PI = 8%) with Class C fly ash was studied by Ozdemir [7]. Different fly ash contents, such as 3%,
5%, 7%, and 10%, were mixed with the soil based on the dry weight of the soil. This study performed
compaction tests according to Method A of ASTM D1557 and concluded that as the fly ash content
in the mixture increases the MDD decreases, and the theoretical analysis of the decrease in the MDD
indicated the fine particles and the light weight of Class C fly ash compared to the CL soil that was
used in the study.
The performance of fine sand treated with Class F fly ash was studied by Mahvash et al. [2]. In this
study, the sand was treated with three different proportions of fly ash (5%, 10%, and 15%) based on
the dry weight of soil and a constant cement content of 3% as an activator. The study concluded that
the OMC decreased after the addition of 5% of fly ash in the presence of 3% cement from 13.4% to
12.4% and then increased to 14.35% with the 15% fly ash content. An organic clay soil (organic content
of 36.9%) with a high liquid limit of 85.2%, low unit weight, and high water content of 87.12% was
mixed with Class C and Class F fly ash to investigate the effectiveness of fly ash in the stabilization
of organic soil [8]. In this study, fly ash contents of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% were used based on the
dry weight of the soil. The results showed a noticeable enhancement in MDD and OMC. This study
concluded that as the fly ash content increases the MDD increases and the OMC decreases. The effect
of fly ash on the properties of expansive soil were studied by Mahesh and Satish [9]. High-plasticity
expansive soil (CH according to USCS) was mixed with 0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 40% Class F
fly ash. The study concluded that as the fly ash portion in the mixture increases, the MDD increases
and the OMC decreases.
Based on the literature review, it appears that a typical percentage of fly ash used in the soil
stabilization/treatment studies for different usages is about 20%, except for one study where the
maximum percentage of fly ash used was 40%. This study explored the possibility of using a higher
percentage (up to 60%) of fly ash in soil to enhance the engineering properties that can be used
in subgrade construction and in other engineering applications. The use of fly ash to enhance the
engineering properties of clayey sand provides a beneficial use of wastes and reduces the cost of waste
management (landfilling) and environmental pollution.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 3 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  3 of 13 

2. Materials and Methods

2. Materials and Methods 
The fly ash sample was collected from a local Georgia power plant for this study. The plant is a
The fly ash sample was collected from a local Georgia power plant for this study. The plant is a 
one of the largest generating facilities in the nation and is continually rated among the top generating
one of the largest generating facilities in the nation and is continually rated among the top generating 
fossil-fueled sites in the nation. The plant usually burns 1100 tons of coal an hour, the equivalent of
fossil‐fueled sites in the nation. The plant usually burns 1100 tons of coal an hour, the equivalent of 
three 95-car trainloads a day [10]. The fly ash sample used in this study was Class F; it was dark gray
three 95‐car trainloads a day [10]. The fly ash sample used in this study was Class F; it was dark gray 
in color (Figure 1a). Although Class C fly ash was not used in this study, the physical appearance of
in color (Figure 1a). Although Class C fly ash was not used in this study, the physical appearance of 
both Class F and Class C fly ash are shown in Figure 1a,b.  
both Class F and Class C fly ash are shown in Figure 1a,b. 

     
(a)  (b)  (c) 
Figure 1. Appearance of typical (a) Class F fly ash and (b) Class C fly ash and (c) soil used in this study. 
Figure 1. Appearance of typical (a) Class F fly ash and (b) Class C fly ash and (c) soil used in this study.

The range of element oxides present in “Class F” and “Class C” fly ash as reported in various
The range of element oxides present in “Class F” and “Class C” fly ash as reported in various 
literature is discussed and consolidated by Hemalatha and Ramsawamy [11] and is listed in Table 1.
literature is discussed and consolidated by Hemalatha and Ramsawamy [11] and is listed in Table 1. 
The soil samples used in this study were collected from a local construction site in Cobb County in
The soil samples used in this study were collected from a local construction site in Cobb County in 
accordance with the ASTM specifications (ASTM D420-98). The visual classification of the soil sample
accordance with the ASTM specifications (ASTM D420‐98). The visual classification of the soil sample 
was reddish brown in color (Figure 1c) and well graded. The soil sample was prepared for testing by
was reddish brown in color (Figure 1c) and well graded. The soil sample was prepared for testing by 
air-drying for 24 h before any test was conducted.
air‐drying for 24 hours before any test was conducted.   

Table 1. Percent range of element oxides present in “Class C” and “Class F” fly ash.
Table 1. Percent range of element oxides present in “Class C” and “Class F” fly ash. 

Concentration (%)
Concentration (%) 
Element  Element Oxide
Oxide 
Class CClass C 
Class F Class F 
Calcium (Ca)  Calcium (Ca) CaO
CaO  15.1–54.8 0.50–14.0
15.1–54.8  0.50–14.0 
Silicon (Si) SiO2 11.8–46.4 37.0–62.1
Silicon (Si)  Aluminum (Al) SiO
Al22O 3 11.8–46.4 
2.6–20.5 16.6–35.6 37.0–62.1 
Aluminum (Al)  Iron (Fe) Fe O
Al2O3  3
2 1.4–15.62.6–20.5 
2.6–21.2 16.6–35.6 
Magnesium (Mg) MgO 0.1–6.7 0.3–5.2
Iron (Fe)  Potassium (K) Fe2KO2 O
3  0.3–9.31.4–15.6 
0.1–4.1 2.6–21.2 
Magnesium (Mg)  Sodium (Na) Na
MgO  2O 0.2–2.8 0.1–6.7 
0.1–3.6 0.3–5.2 
Sulfur (S) SO3 1.4–12.9 0.02–4.7
Potassium (K) Phosphorus (P) KP2O 
2 O5 0.2–0.4 0.3–9.3 
0.1–1.7 0.1–4.1 
Sodium (Na)  Carbon (C) TiO
Na2O 2 0.6–1.0 0.2–2.8 
0.5–2.6 0.1–3.6 
Manganese (Mn) MnO 0.03–0.2 0.03–0.1
Sulfur (S)  SO3  1.4–12.9  0.02–4.7 

Four setPhosphorus (P) 
of experiments (soil and soil-flyPash
2O5 
mix) were run0.2 0.4 
to –accomplish 0.1–1.7 of this
the objectives
Carbon (C) 
study. The flowchart in Figure 2 shows theTiO 2 
experimental 0.6–with
set up 1.0  other relevant 0.5 –2.6 
information.
The percentages of fly ash (0%, 40%, 50%, andMnO 
Manganese (Mn)  60%) in the soil-fly0.03
ash–mixtures
0.2  and the curing periods
0.03–0.1 
(0, 2, 8, and 28 days) were arbitrarily selected for the experiments. Higher percentages of fly ash were
selected to find the highest optimum fly ash content to maximize the beneficial use because most of the
Four set of experiments (soil and soil‐fly ash mix) were run to accomplish the objectives of this 
studies conducted used a fly ash content of 20% as the highest, except for one where the maximum fly
study. The flowchart in Figure 2 shows the experimental set up with other relevant information. The 
ash content used was 40%.
percentages of fly ash (0%, 40%, 50%, and 60%) in the soil‐fly ash mixtures and the curing periods (0, 
2, 8, and 28 days) were arbitrarily selected for the experiments. Higher percentages of fly ash were 
selected to find the highest optimum fly ash content to maximize the beneficial use because most of 
the studies conducted used a fly ash content of 20% as the highest, except for one where the maximum 
fly ash content used was 40%.   
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 4 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  4 of 13 
4 of 13 

  
Figure 2. Flowchart for the experimental program. 
Figure 2. Flowchart for the experimental program.
Figure 2. Flowchart for the experimental program. 

Two methods were used to experimentally determine the specific gravity of the soil. One was 
Two methods were used to experimentally determine the specific gravity of the soil. One was
Two methods were used to experimentally determine the specific gravity of the soil. One was 
performed 
performed
performed byby 
by aa  water 
a water pycnometer 
water pycnometer (ASTM 
pycnometer (ASTM D854) 
(ASTM D854) and 
D854) and the 
and the other 
the other by 
other by the 
by the gas 
the gas pycnometer 
gas pycnometer technique 
pycnometer technique
technique 
(ASTM D5550). Mechanical sieving was used for the coarse‐grained portion and hydrometer analysis 
(ASTM D5550). Mechanical sieving was used for the coarse-grained portion and hydrometer
(ASTM D5550). Mechanical sieving was used for the coarse‐grained portion and hydrometer analysis  analysis
was used for the fine‐grained portion of the material for grain size distribution, in accordance with 
was used for the fine-grained portion of the material for grain size distribution, in accordance
was used for the fine‐grained portion of the material for grain size distribution, in accordance with 
ASTM 
with
ASTM  D2487‐06, 
ASTM
D2487‐06,  ASTM 
D2487-06,
ASTM  D422, 
ASTM D1140 
D422,
D422,  and 
D1140
D1140  AASHTO 
and
and  AASHTO
AASHTO  T88 
T88and 
T88  andASTM 
and  ASTMD7928‐17. 
ASTM  D7928-17. The 
D7928‐17.  The grain 
The  size 
grain size
grain  size 
distribution curve for the soil used in this study is presented in Figure 3. 
distribution curve for the soil used in this study is presented in Figure 3.   
distribution curve for the soil used in this study is presented in Figure 3. 

D50
D50

  
Figure 3. Grain size distribution curve for the soil used in the study.
Figure 3. Grain size distribution curve for the soil used in the study. 
Figure 3. Grain size distribution curve for the soil used in the study. 

Atterberg
Atterberg  limit (liquid limit—LL, plastic limit—PL, and plasticity index—PI) tests were tests 
performed
Atterberg  limit 
limit  (liquid 
(liquid  limit—LL, 
limit—LL,  plastic 
plastic  limit—PL, 
limit—PL,  and and  plasticity 
plasticity  index—PI) 
index—PI)  tests  were 
were 
in accordance
performed  with ASTM D4318. In accordance with the ASTM D698 specification, Standard Test
performed  in 
in  accordance 
accordance  with 
with  ASTM 
ASTM  D4318. 
D4318.  In 
In  accordance 
accordance  with 
with  the 
the  ASTM 
ASTM  D698 
D698  specification, 
specification, 3
Methods
Standard  for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort, 12,400 ft-lbf/ft
Standard Test 
Test 
3
Methods 
Methods for  for Laboratory 
Laboratory Compaction 
Compaction Characteristics 
Characteristics of 
of Soil 
Soil Using 
Using Standard 
Standard Effort, 
Effort, 
(600 kN-m/m )3 3 was
12,400  conducted33) to evaluate the level of compaction, to estimate the MDD and to obtain
12,400 ft‐lbf/ft
ft‐lbf/ft (600 
(600 kN‐m/m
kN‐m/m ) was  was conducted 
conducted to to evaluate 
evaluate the 
the level 
level of 
of compaction, 
compaction, to to estimate 
estimate the 
the 
the OMC for the original soil and the soil–fly ash mixtures. In accordance with ASTM
MDD and to obtain the OMC for the original soil and the soil–fly ash mixtures. In accordance with  D2166, the UCS
MDD and to obtain the OMC for the original soil and the soil–fly ash mixtures. In accordance with 
test
ASTM was conducted. In accordance with ASTM D2435/D2435M, a consolidation test was conducted toa 
ASTM  D2166, 
D2166,  the the  UCS 
UCS  test 
test  was 
was  conducted. 
conducted.  In  In  accordance 
accordance  with 
with  ASTM 
ASTM  D2435/D2435M, 
D2435/D2435M,  a 
consolidation 
consolidation  test 
test  was 
was  conducted 
conducted  to 
to assess 
assess  the 
the  magnitude 
magnitude and and rate 
rate  of 
of  volume 
volume change 
change  of 
of  the 
the  soil 
soil 
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 5 of 13

assess the magnitude and rate of volume change of the soil sample and the soil–fly ash mixtures that
were restrained laterally and loaded and drained axially. Both the UCS and consolidation tests were
performed using the OMC obtained from the ASTM D698 experiments. The obtained data from the
consolidation test were used to determine the compression and swelling indices. Duplicate or triplicate
runs of the experiments, as needed, were performed and the averages of the values falling within 10%
of the individual values were reported. Detailed procedures and data can be found in Hassan [12].
A study conducted by Walubita et al. [13] suggested using the resilient modulus (MR ) to
characterize and quantify the mechanical behavior of soil materials for pavement design purposes.
The MR test procedures are often complex, lengthy, and prohibitively expensive for most routine daily
applications. That is why this procedure was avoided for this study and Atterberg limits and the
UCS were used to establish the properties for the soil and the mixture. The current study also did not
investigate the effects of seasonal moisture fluctuations in the lab setup, which ultimately affect both
the load bearing capacity and the overall performance of the pavement structures, which was studied
by Teshale et al. [14]. These are the obvious limitations of the current study that could be addressed in
future studies.
The compression index (Cc ) is one of the parameters that is used in settlement estimation. The Cc is
defined by the variation of the void ratio as a function of the change of effective stress in the logarithmic
scale (slope of the closest straight line fit of a curve defined by a plot of void ratio values versus
the logarithm of the load) of soil being tested in the inelastic range. The Cc is used to evaluate the
settlement due to the primary consolidation of clays. The consolidation settlement of a soil is directly
proportional to the Cc ; a high value of the Cc indicates a large settlement. The Cc can be determined
either graphically by finding the slope of the line obtained when the void ratio is plotted against the
effective vertical stress—in log scale—i.e., in the inelastic range of the curve and/or using empirical
equations. Some of the empirical equations to calculate the values of the Cc using statistical data
analysis to correlate between the dependent variable (Cc ) and independent variables such as LL, initial
void ratio, eo , specific gravity, and LL and eo together, are summarized in Hassan [12]. These empirical
equations give a quick prediction of the Cc ; however, these equations may not be applicable for all
types of soil and they may either overestimate or underestimate the value of the Cc because they
depend on soil type [15]. The swell index (Cs ) represents the slope of the rebound curve of the void
ratio versus the logarithm of effective pressure, the Cs is smaller in magnitude than the Cc [12].
From Figure 3, P200 < 50%, so the soil is coarse grained and LL = 45% and PI = 12% (Figure 10),
so the soil is classified as clayey sand (SC), in accordance with USCS. Since P200 = 38%, which is >35%,
the LL is 45%, which is >41%, and the plasticity index is PI < LL − 30 (12 < 45 − 30), so the study
concluded that the soil is in group A-7-5 in accordance with AASHTO soil classification.

3. Results and Discussion

The data obtained from the laboratory experiments are discussed in this section and presented
in the subsequent figures. The test data were analyzed, plotted, and explained to determine the
engineering properties of the soil–fly ash mixtures that could be used in a wide range of engineering
applications, including subgrade.

3.1. Specific Gravity

The specific gravity of the soil, fly ash, and the soil–fly ash mixtures varied from 2.48 to 2.74
(Figure 4) with a value of 2.48 for fly ash. The specific gravity of the clayey sand decreased as the
percentage of fly ash content in the mixture increased because the specific gravity of the fly ash was
lower than the specific gravity of the original soil.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 6 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  6 of 13 

2.74
2.5

2.67

2.58

2.53

2.48
Specific Gravity  2

1.5

0.5

0
0 40 50 60 100
Fly‐ash content (%)
 
Figure 4. Variations of specific gravity with fly ash content.
Figure 4. Variations of specific gravity with fly ash content. 
3.2. Optimum Moisture Content and Maximum Dry Density
3.2. Optimum Moisture Content and Maximum Dry Density 
The variations of OMC and MDD with fly ash content and soil are presented in Table 2. As seen
The variations of OMC and MDD with fly ash content and soil are presented in Table 2. As seen 
from this table, the OMC varied from 15 to 20.5% and the MDD varied from 1648 to 1823 kg/m3 .
from this table, the OMC varied from 15 to 20.5% and the MDD varied from 1648 to 1823 kg/m
The original soil had a higher OMC than that of other mixtures. However, the mixture with a 40%
3. The 
fly
original soil had a higher OMC than that of other mixtures. However, the mixture with a 40% fly ash 
ash content had the highest MDD compared to the original soil and the other mixtures. This could
content 
because had  the 
poorly highest 
graded soilMDD 
couldcompared 
have gapsto 
in the  original distribution
the particle soil  and  the 
andother  mixtures. 
fly ash particlesThis 
maycould 
have
because poorly graded soil could have gaps in the particle distribution and fly ash particles may have 
filled the gaps, establishing a better connection of soil particles due to an abundance of fly ash particles
filled  the  gaps, 
that increased theestablishing 
maximum dry a  better  connection 
density of  soil 
up to certain particles ofdue 
percentage to  an 
fly ash abundance 
content, of  process
and this fly  ash 
particles that increased the maximum dry density up to certain percentage of fly ash content, and this 
was called the “optimum fly ash–soil mixing ratio”. The theoretical analysis of the decrease in the
process was called the “optimum fly ash–soil mixing ratio”. The theoretical analysis of the decrease 
MDD for 50% and 60% fly ash content could be due the fine particles and the light weight of Class F
in the MDD for 50% and 60% fly ash content could be due the fine particles and the light weight of 
fly ash compared to the SC soil that was used in the study, which was also concluded in a study by
Class F fly ash compared to the SC soil that was used in the study, which was also concluded in a 
Ozdemir [7] for Class C fly ash and CL soil. The curing process could play a role here as well for the
study by Ozdemir [7] for Class C fly ash and CL soil. The curing process could play a role here as 
high MDD at 40% fly ash content, whereas it is supposed to be less than that for 50% and 60% fly ash
well for the high MDD at 40% fly ash content, whereas it is supposed to be less than that for 50% and 
contents to maintain the trends mentioned in several studies [2,6,8,16]. Beyond this fly ash content,
60% fly ash contents to maintain the trends mentioned in several studies [2],[6],[8],[16]. Beyond this 
there was a decrease in the maximum dry density, however, it was still higher than the maximum dry
fly ash content, there was a decrease in the maximum dry density, however, it was still higher than 
density of the original soil.
the maximum dry density of the original soil.   
Table 2. Variations of OMC and MDD with fly ash content.
Table 2. Variations of OMC and MDD with fly ash content. 
Properties 0% Fly Ash 40% Fly Ash 50% Fly Ash 60% Fly Ash
Properties  0% Fly Ash  40% Fly Ash  50% Fly Ash  60% Fly Ash 
OMC 11 (%) 20.5 15.5 16.5 15.0
OMC   (%)  20.5  15.5  16.5  15.0 
MDD 2 (kg/m3 ) 1648.3 1822.9 1770.0 1754.0
MDD 2 (kg/m
1
3)  1648.3  1822.9 
2
1770.0  1754.0 
OMC—Optimum Moisture Content; MDD—Maximum Dry Density.
1  OMC—Optimum Moisture Content; 2 MDD—Maximum Dry Density. 
3.3. Unconfined Compressive Strength and Curing Period
3.3. Unconfined Compressive Strength and Curing Period 
Figure 6 represents the variations of UCS for the original soil and the mixtures compacted at
Figure 6 represents the variations of UCS for the original soil and the mixtures compacted at 
different optimum moisture contents (Table 2) with curing periods of 0, 2, 8, and 28 days at room
different optimum moisture contents (Table 2) with curing periods of 0, 2, 8, and 28 days at room 
temperature (30 ± 3 ◦ C). No special treatment was done to the samples for curing other than just
temperature (30 ± 3 °C). No special treatment was done to the samples for curing other than just air‐
air-drying in the lab. This condition could be simulated in the field by covering the subgrade with
drying in the lab. This condition could be simulated in the field by covering the subgrade with a tarp 
a tarp and allowing it to air-dry for the desired curing period. Figure 5 shows a typical specimen
and allowing it to air‐dry for the desired curing period. Figure 5 shows a typical specimen appearance 
appearance before and after the UCS test.
before and after the UCS test. 
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 7 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  7 of 13 

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  7 of 13 

   
(a)  (b) 
Figure 5. Typical specimen appearance (a) before and (b) after the unconfined compression strength 
Figure 5. Typical specimen appearance (a) before and (b) after the unconfined compression strength
(UCS) test. 
(UCS) test. (a) (b) 
Figure 5. Typical specimen appearance (a) before and (b) after the unconfined compression strength
The results showed that the pozzolanic effects of fly ash on increasing the compressive strength 
The results showed that the pozzolanic effects of fly ash on increasing the compressive strength
(UCS) test.
of the soil were consistent throughout the curing period for up to 8 days. The compressive strength 
of the soil were consistent throughout the curing period for up to 8 days. The compressive strength
started to drop from day 8 to day 28. The mixture with 50% fly ash showed the highest values in all 
started toThe results showed
drop from day 8 that the pozzolanic
to day 28. The mixture withash on increasing the compressive strength
effects of fly 50% fly ash showed the highest values in
curing  periods,  followed  by  the  mixture  with  40%  fly  ash,  the  mixture  with  60%  fly  ash,  and  the 
of the soil were consistent throughout the curing period for up to 8 days. The compressive strength
all curing periods, followed by the mixture with 40% fly ash, the mixture with 60% fly ash, and the
original soil. However, the mixture with 60% fly ash content did not show any significant change in 
started to drop
original from day 8 to day 28. The
with 60%mixture with 50% fly ash showed the highest values in all
the soil. However,
compressive  the mixture
strength  in  comparison  fly ash
with  content
the  did
original  notThis 
soil.  show is any significant
because  fly  ash change
became  in the
curing
compressive periods, 
strength followed 
in by 
comparisonthe  mixture 
with thewith  40%  fly 
original ash, 
soil. Thisthe 
is mixture 
because with 
fly 60% became
ash fly  ash, predominant
and the 
predominant in the mixture and it started behaving like fly ash without any effect of the soil. 
original soil. However, the mixture with 60% fly ash content did not show any significant change in 
in the mixture and it started
The  increase  behaving
in  compressive  like flywith 
strength  ashthe 
without any
increase  in effect ofcontent 
fly  ash  the soil.could  be  due  to  the 
the  compressive  strength  in  comparison  with  the  original  soil.  This  is  because  fly  ash  became 
The increase in compressive strength with the increase in fly ash content could be due to the
increase in the bonding between the soil and fly ash particles and due to the contribution of the angular 
predominant in the mixture and it started behaving like fly ash without any effect of the soil.
glassy spheres of fly ash grains that increase the bonding between soil particles. It could also be because 
increase inThe 
theincrease 
bonding in between the soil
compressive  and fly
strength  with ash particles
the  increase and due
in  fly  tocontent 
ash  the contribution of the
could be  due  angular
to  the 
of the chemical reaction of the fly ash with the soil, represented by the deposition of some minerals, 
glassyincrease in the bonding between the soil and fly ash particles
spheres of fly ash grains that increase the bonding between soil particles. It could also be because
and due to the contribution of the angular 
such as calcium carbonate, inside the pores of soil–fly ash matrix, which resulted in plugging the pores 
of theglassy spheres of fly ash grains that increase the bonding between
chemical reaction of the fly ash with the soil, representedsoil byparticles.
the deposition of some minerals,
It could also be because 
in the mixture, resulting in reducing the soil permeability and increasing its strength.
such as calcium carbonate, inside the pores of soil–fly ash matrix, which resulted in plugging the pores
of the chemical reaction of the fly ash with the soil, represented by the deposition of some minerals, 
The decrease in the compressive strengths for all samples in the curing period of 28 days was 
in thesuch as calcium
mixture, carbonate,
resulting inside the pores of soil–fly ash
in reducing the soil permeabilitymatrix, which resulted in plugging the pores 
and increasing its strength.
probably due to the development of pozzolanic reactions and the insufficient content of CaO in the 
in the mixture, resulting
The decrease in the in reducing the soil
compressive permeability
strengths for all and increasing its
samples strength.
in the curing period of 28 days was
Class F fly ash that was needed to sustain the formation of significant cementitious products. The 
probably The decrease in the compressive strengths for all samples in the curing period of 28 days was 
due to the development of pozzolanic reactions and the insufficient content of CaO in the Class
decrease in the UCS could also be attributed to the changes in outside humidity, since the samples 
probably due to the development of pozzolanic reactions and the insufficient content of CaO in the 
F fly ash that was needed to sustain the formation of significant cementitious products. The decrease
were kept in the lab and the indoor temperature and humidity levels were related to those outdoors. 
Class F fly ash that was needed to sustain the formation of significant cementitious products. The
in theThe optimum curing period seemed to be 8 days because no increase in strength was observed and, 
UCS could also be attributed to the changes in outside humidity, since the samples were kept in
decrease in the UCS could also be attributed to the changes in outside humidity, since the samples
in some cases, a decrease in strength was observed after this period (Figure 6). Therefore, an optimum 
the lab and the indoor temperature and humidity and levels were related to those outdoors. The optimum
were kept in the lab and the indoor temperature humidity levels were related to those outdoors. 
curingcuring period of 8 days can be considered. 
period seemed to be 8 days because   increase in strength was observed and, in some cases,
no
The optimum curing period seemed to be 8 days because no increase in strength was observed and, 
a decrease in strength was observed after this period (Figure 6). Therefore, an optimum curing period
in some cases, a decrease in strength was observed after this period (Figure 6). Therefore, an optimum 
of 8 days
curing can be considered.
period of 8 days can be considered.   
0% fly‐ash 40% fly‐ash
50% fly‐ash 60% fly‐ash
2500
0% fly‐ash 40% fly‐ash
2000 50% fly‐ash 60% fly‐ash
2500
UCS (kPa)UCS (kPa)

1500
2000
1000
1500
500
1000
0
500 0 2 8 28
Curing Period (day)
0
. 
0 2 8 28
Curing Period (day)

Figure 6. Variation of UCS with curing period.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 8 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  8 of 13 

The limitation of the study was that the UCS tests were not performed for 14 and 21 days to
Figure 6. Variation of UCS with curing period. 
make sure that UCS did not peak in one of these curing periods. However, to avoid this limitation,
polynomial The limitation of the study was that the UCS tests were not performed for 14 and 21 days to 
trend lines were added to see any shift of max UCS, presented Figure 7. Identifying and
make sure that UCS did not peak in one of these curing periods. However, to avoid this limitation, 
using the right model for the data at hand require a combination of experience, knowledge about
polynomial trend lines were added to see any shift of max UCS, presented Figure 7. Identifying and 
the underlying process, and statistical interpretation of the fitting outcomes. While the former is a
using the right model for the data at hand require a combination of experience, knowledge about the 
somewhat individual
underlying  choice,
process,  and  there is a need
statistical  to quantify
interpretation  of the
the validity of a fit by some
fitting  outcomes.  While form of measure
the  former  is  a  that
discriminates a “good” from a “bad” fit. The most common measure is the coefficient
somewhat individual choice, there is a need to quantify the validity of a fit by some form of measure  of determination
(R2 ) used in linear regression
that  discriminates  a  “good” whenfrom conducting
a  “bad”  fit. calibration experiments
The  most  common  to quantify
measure  samples.of 
is  the  coefficient  In the
lineardetermination 
context, this (R measure is very
2) used  in  linear intuitive,
regression  aswhen 
values betweencalibration 
conducting  0 and 1 give a quick interpretation
experiments  to  quantify  of
samples. In the linear context, this measure is very intuitive, as values between 0 and 1 give a quick 
how much of the variance in the data is explained by the fit [17]. Although has been known for some
interpretation of how much of the variance in the data is explained by the fit [17]. Although has been 
2
time that R is an inadequate measure for nonlinear regression, many scientists, as well as reviewers,
insistknown for some time that R
2 is an inadequate measure for nonlinear regression, many scientists, as 
that it is supplied in papers dealing with nonlinear data analysis. It is observed that R2 is still
well  as  reviewers,  insist  that  it  is  supplied  in  papers  dealing  with  nonlinear  data  analysis.  It  is 
frequently being used in the context of the performance or validity of a model when fitting to nonlinear
observed that R2 is still frequently being used in the context of the performance or validity of a model 
data. Spiess and Neumeyer [17] pointed out the low performance of R2 and its inappropriateness for
when fitting to nonlinear data. Spiess and Neumeyer [17] pointed out the low performance of R2 and 
nonlinear data analysis by basing their analysis on an extensive Monte Carlo simulation
its inappropriateness for nonlinear data analysis by basing their analysis on an extensive Monte Carlo  approach.
Fromsimulation approach. From this point of view, some new figures of merit, such as the mean absolute 
this point of view, some new figures of merit, such as the mean absolute error (MAE) and root
meanerror 
square errorand 
(MAE)  (RMSE), weresquare 
root  mean  used inerror 
this (RMSE), 
study towere demonstrate andstudy 
used  in  this  supplement the performance
to  demonstrate  and 
of thesupplement the performance of the polynomial regression model. 
polynomial regression model.

0% fly‐ash 40% fly‐ash 50% fly‐ash 60% fly‐ash

Poly. (0% fly‐ash) Poly. (40% fly‐ash) Poly. (50% fly‐ash) Poly. (60% fly‐ash)
3000
50% fly‐ash: y = ‐7.315x2 + 245.02x + 762.75
R² = 0.6453
2500

2000
40% fly‐ash: y = ‐6.5191x2 + 214.6x + 563.32
R² = 0.8374
UCS (kPa)

1500

60% fly‐ash: y = ‐3.4468x2 + 120.67x + 413.46
1000
R² = 0.733

500
0% fly‐ash: y = ‐3.7216x2 + 124.33x + 345.88
R² = 0.6256
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Curing Period (day)
 
Figure 7. Variation of UCS with curing period with trend lines.
Figure 7. Variation of UCS with curing period with trend lines. 

The The 
maxima andand 
maxima  minima concepts
minima  concepts were
were  applied to estimate 
applied  to  estimatethe 
the maximum
maximum  UCS UCS
and  and
the  the
corresponding optimum curing period for soil and the soil–fly ash mixtures using the trend lines in
corresponding optimum curing period for soil and the soil–fly ash mixtures using the trend lines in 
Figure 7. The corresponding estimated data are presented in Table 3. 
Figure 7. The corresponding estimated data are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Estimated optimum curing period and maximum UCS from the trend lines. 
Table 3. Estimated optimum curing period and maximum UCS from the trend lines.
Fitted  x = 
Fitted y = Max 
MAE x = Optimum
Fly Ash  Polynomial  Optimum  y = Max
Fly Ash Polynomial dy/dx = 0  d2y/dx2  R2   RMSE  UCS 
Content  Equation (y =  dy/dx = 0 d2 y/dx2 R2 RMSE MAE Curing 
Curing UCS
(kPa) 
Content Equation
f(x))  Period (day) 
Period (day) (kPa)
(y = f(x))
As shown in  −7.4432x + 
0%  −7.4432  0.6256  712.33  627.80  19  1707 
AsFigure 7 
shown in +
142.33 = 0 
−7.4432x
0% −7.4432 0.6256 712.33 627.80 19 1707
As shown in 
Figure 7 =0
−13.0382x + 
142.33
40%  −13.0382  0.8374  1140.17  1037.47  16  2329 
Figure 7  214.6 = 0 
As shown in −13.0382x
40% As shown in  −14.630x +  −13.0382 0.8374 1140.17 1037.47 16 2329
50%  Figure 7 + 214.6 = 0 −14.6300  0.6453  1464.32  1310.12  17  2815 
Figure 7  245.02 = 0 
As shown in −14.630x +
50% −14.6300 0.6453 1464.32 1310.12 17 2815
Figure 7 245.02 = 0
As shown in −6.893x +
60% −6.8930 0.7330 776.89 705.90 18 1470
Figure 7 120.67 = 0
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  9 of 13 
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  9 of 13 

As shown in  −6.893x + 
60% 
Appl.60%  As shown in 
Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 −6.893x +  −6.8930  0.7330  776.89  705.90  18  1470 
9 of 13
Figure 7  120.67 = 0  −6.8930  0.7330  776.89  705.90  18  1470 
Figure 7  120.67 = 0 

From Figure 7 and Table 3, it was seen that the optimum curing period varied from 16 to 19 days 
From Figure 7 and Table 3, it was seen that the optimum curing period varied from 16 to 19 days 
From Figure 7 and Table 3, it was seen that the optimum curing period varied from 16 to 19 days
based on the fly ash content, which is a very narrow range. Since 50% fly ash content showed the 
based on the fly ash content, which is a very narrow range. Since 50% fly ash content showed the 
based on the fly ash content, which is a very narrow range. Since 50% fly ash content showed the
maximum  UCS  of  2815  kPa  for  a  curing  period  of  17  days,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  an 
maximum 
maximum UCS UCS ofof 2815
2815  kPa 
kPa forfor  a  curing 
a curing period 
period of 17of  17  days, 
days, it  is  reasonable 
it is reasonable to  conclude 
to conclude that  an 
that an optimum
optimum curing period could be 17 days.   
optimum curing period could be 17 days. 
curing period could be 17 days.  
The variations of UCS with fly ash content for different curing periods are shown in Figure 8. It 
The variations of UCS with fly ash content for different curing periods are shown in Figure 8. It 
The variations of UCS with fly ash content for different curing periods are shown in Figure 8. It is
is seen in Figure 8 that the UCS showed a peak for 50% fly ash content for all curing periods, except 
is seen in Figure 8 that the UCS showed a peak for 50% fly ash content for all curing periods, except 
seen in Figure 8 that the UCS showed a peak for 50% fly ash content for all curing periods, except
for day 0. It makes sense that no strength was gained right after mixing and that strength increased 
for day 0. It makes sense that no strength was gained right after mixing and that strength increased 
for day 0. It makes sense that no strength was gained right after mixing and that strength increased
with time. A soil mixture with 50% fly ash content appeared to be the optimum to provide maximum 
with time. A soil mixture with 50% fly ash content appeared to be the optimum to provide maximum 
with time. A soil mixture with 50% fly ash content appeared to be the optimum to provide maximum
strength. However, due to a narrow variation of UCS between 40% and 50% fly ash content, a soil 
strength. However, due to a narrow variation of UCS between 40% and 50% fly ash content, a soil 
strength. However, due to a narrow variation of UCS between 40% and 50% fly ash content, a soil
mixture with 40% fly ash content can also be considered as an alternative option. 
mixture with 40% fly ash content can also be considered as an alternative option. 
mixture with 40% fly ash content can also be considered as an alternative option.

0 day 2 days 8 days 28 days

0 day 2 days 8 days 28 days
2500
2500

2000
2000
UCS (kPa)
UCS (kPa)

1500
1500

1000
1000

500
500

0
0
0 40 50 60
0 40 50 60
Fly ash content (%)
Fly ash content (%)
  
Figure 8. Variation of UCS with fly ash content. 
Figure 8. Variation of UCS with fly ash content.
Figure 8. Variation of UCS with fly ash content. 

Like curing period versus UCS, it could be considered a limitation of the study that the UCS tests 
Like curing period versus UCS, it could be considered a limitation of the study that the UCS tests
Like curing period versus UCS, it could be considered a limitation of the study that the UCS tests 
were not performed for 30%, 45%, and 55% fly ash content to make sure that UCS did not peak for 
were not performed for 30%, 45%, and 55% fly ash content to make sure that UCS did not peak for
were not performed for 30%, 45%, and 55% fly ash content to make sure that UCS did not peak for 
one of these missing fly ash contents. However, to avoid this limitation, polynomial trend lines were 
one of these missing fly ash contents. However, to avoid this limitation, polynomial trend lines were
one of these missing fly ash contents. However, to avoid this limitation, polynomial trend lines were 
added to see any shift of max UCS, presented Figure 9. 
added to see any shift of max UCS, presented Figure 9.   
added to see any shift of max UCS, presented Figure 9. 

0 day 2 days 8 days 28 days

0 day 2 days 8 days 28 days
Poly. (0 day) Poly. (2 days) Poly. (8 days) Poly. (28 days)
Poly. (0 day) Poly. (2 days) Poly. (8 days) Poly. (28 days)
3000
3000

2500
2500
8 day: = ‐1.0485x22 + 66.802x + 971.63
8 day: = ‐1.0485x + 66.802x + 971.63
R² = 0.7682
2000 R² = 0.7682
2000
UCS (kPa)
UCS (kPa)

1500
1500 2 day: y = ‐0.6766x22 + 44.167x + 918.2
2 day: y = ‐0.6766x + 44.167x + 918.2
R² = 0.45
1000 R² = 0.45
1000 28 day: y = ‐0.7034x22 + 47.954x + 901.93
28 day: y = ‐0.7034x + 47.954x + 901.93
R² = 0.6415
R² = 0.6415 0 day: y = ‐0.1939x22 + 13.496x + 96.397
500 0 day: y = ‐0.1939x + 13.496x + 96.397
500 R² = 0.9995
R² = 0.9995

0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fly‐ash content (%)
  
Fly‐ash content (%)

Figure 9. Variation of UCS with fly ash content with trend lines.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 10 of 13

Like the optimum curing period, the maxima and minima concepts were also applied to estimate
the maximum UCS and the corresponding optimum fly ash content for all curing periods using the
trend lines (Figure 9). The corresponding estimated data are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Estimated optimum fly ash content and maximum UCS from the trend lines.

Fitted
x = Optimum y = Max
Curing Polynomial
dy/dx = 0 d2 y/dx2 R2 RMSE MAE Fly Ash UCS
Period Equation
Content (%) (kPa)
(y = f(x))
As shown in −0.3878x +
0 day −0.3878 0.9995 209.80 195.96 35 331
Figure 9 13.496 = 0
As shown in −1.3532x +
2 days −1.3532 0.4500 1262.18 1206.72 33 1639
Figure 9 44.167 = 0
As shown in −2.097x +
8 days −2.097 0.7682 1308.69 1246.79 32 2036
Figure 9 66.802 = 0
As shown in −1.4068x +
28 days −1.4068 0.6415 1201.19 1150.92 46 1623
Figure 9 47.954 = 0

From Figure 9 and Table 4, it was observed that the optimum fly ash content varied from 32% to
46%, which seemed to be a wide range. Since the 8-day curing period showed the maximum UCS
of 2036 kPa for a fly ash content of 32%, it is reasonable to conclude that an optimum fly ash content
could be 32% based on the trend analysis. However, the experimental data concluded that 50% fly ash
content is an optimum. If strength was not the primary consideration, 46% fly ash content could be
considered as an optimum based on the trend analysis for a curing period of 28 days, which seemed to
closely coincide with the optimum fly ash content based on the experimental data. Therefore, it is
difficult to select a single fly ash content to be used as an optimum rather than the range. In this case,
conducting additional experiments for soil–fly ash mixtures of 30%, 45%, and 55% fly ash contents to
select a single optimum fly ash content is recommended.

3.4. Atterberg Limits

The variations of PI with fly ash content are presented in Figure 10. As seen in this figure, the LL
of the original soil was the highest (45%) followed by the mixture with 40% fly ash (36%), the mixture
with 50% fly ash (35%), and the mixture with 60% fly ash (24%). The PL also followed a similar
pattern, except for the mixture with 50% fly ash. The explanation for the decrease in the PL could
be attributable to the fact that the multivalent cations (Ca2+ , Fe3+ , and Al3+ ) provided by the fly ash
work by displacing monovalent cations (Mg2+ > Ca2+ >Na+ > K+ ), so the abundance of multivalent
cations changes the soil particles’ electrical charge that makes the soil particles attracted to each other.
The electrical attraction of soil particles aids the flocculation and is attributed to the change in soil
nature (granular nature after flocculation and agglomeration) and results in reducing soil plasticity.
As seen in Figure 10, both the mixture with 40% fly ash content and the original soil showed the
highest PI (12%), followed by the mixture with 50% fly ash (10%) and the mixture with 60% fly ash
(5%). Das [18] pointed out that the swell potential of soil is related to soil activity. The higher the soil
activity value, the greater the soil swell potential. Similarly, the soil activity is also related to the PI
value. The higher the PI value, the greater the soil swell potential. As stated above, when part of the
clay in untreated soil was replaced by fly ash, the PI value of treated soil decreased. This decrease leads
to a reduction in volumetric swelling in treated soil, which coincided with Das’s finding. Furthermore,
Seed et al. [19] and Mitchell [20] proposed and used a relationship between percent swelling (S) and PI
value, S = 2.16 × 10−3 (PI )2.44 . Thus, volumetric swelling of the fly ash-treated soil would decrease
as the PI values decrease. The PI values of fly ash-treated soil in this study were smaller than that of
untreated soil (Figure 10) and PI values decreased with increased fly ash content, except for 40% fly
ash content, which lead to a more pronounced reduction in volumetric swelling.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  11 of 13 
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 11 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW  11 of 13 

50
50 LL PL PI

45 45
40 LL PL PI

Atterberg Limits ( %)
40

36 36
Atterberg Limits ( %)

35 35
30

33 33
30

25 25
24 24

24 24
20

19 19
20
10

12 12

12 12

10 10
10

5 5
0
0 0 40 50 60
0 Fly‐ash content (%)
40 50 60
 
Fly‐ash content (%)
 
Figure 10. Variation of Atterberg limits with fly ash content. 
Figure 10. Variation of Atterberg limits with fly ash content.
Figure 10. Variation of Atterberg limits with fly ash content. 
3.5. Compression Index and Swell Index 
3.5. Compression Index and Swell Index
3.5. Compression Index and Swell Index 
Figure 11 illustrates the compression index (Cc) and swell index (Cs) results of the untreated soil 
Figure 11 illustrates the compression index (Cc ) and swell index (Cs ) results of the untreated soil
Figure 11 illustrates the compression index (Cc) and swell index (Cs) results of the untreated soil 
and the fly ash‐treated soils. It was seen that the fly ash content reduced the consolidation swelling 
and the fly ash-treated soils. It was seen that the fly ash content reduced the consolidation swelling
and the fly ash‐treated soils. It was seen that the fly ash content reduced the consolidation swelling 
behavior of the soil. This reduction could be due to the pozzolanic action of fly ash. As the fly ash 
behavior of the soil. This reduction could be due to the pozzolanic action of fly ash. As the fly ash
behavior of the soil. This reduction could be due to the pozzolanic action of fly ash. As the fly ash 
content increased, the percentage of clay in the soil decreased and the percentage of silt‐sized particles 
content increased, the percentage of clay in the soil decreased and the percentage of silt-sized particles
content increased, the percentage of clay in the soil decreased and the percentage of silt‐sized particles 
increased; thus, the compression index decreased. As mentioned earlier, the C c indicates the amount 
increased; thus, the compression index decreased. As mentioned earlier, the Cc indicates the amount of
increased; thus, the compression index decreased. As mentioned earlier, the C
of  c indicates the amount 
settlement  that  the  soil  can  be  expected  to  undergo  due  to  primary  consolidation,  and  high  Cc 
settlement that the soil can be expected to undergo due to primary consolidation, and high Cc values
values  mean  large 
of  settlement  settlements 
that  the  and 
soil  can  be  vice  versa. 
expected  Both  40% 
to  undergo  due and  50%  fly consolidation, 
to  primary  ash  contents  and 
showed 
high the 
Cc 
mean large settlements and vice versa. Both 40% and 50% fly ash contents showed the minimum Cc
values  mean 
minimum C large s values (Figure 11). As a result, both 40% and 50% fly ash contents improved the 
c and C settlements  and  vice  versa.  Both  40%  and  50%  fly  ash  contents  showed  the 
and Cs values (Figure 11). As a result, both 40% and 50% fly ash contents improved the consolidation
minimum Cc and Cs values (Figure 11). As a result, both 40% and 50% fly ash contents improved the 
consolidation swelling behavior of the soil by 52% to 74% and could be considered as viable mixtures 
swelling behavior of the soil by 52% to 74% and could be considered as viable mixtures that could be
consolidation swelling behavior of the soil by 52% to 74% and could be considered as viable mixtures 
that could be used in engineering applications. The C c and Cs values (44% to 70%) for 60% fly ash 
used in engineering applications. The Cc and Cs values (44% to 70%) for 60% fly ash content were also
that could be used in engineering applications. The C
content were also well below the C c and Cs values (44% to 70%) for 60% fly ash 
c and Cs values for the original soil.   
well below the Cc and Cs values for the original soil.
content were also well below the Cc and Cs values for the original soil.   

0.2
0.2 Compression Index (Cc)
Compression and Swell Index

0.16 Compression Index (Cc)
Compression and Swell Index

Swell Index (Cs)
0.1057

0.16
Swell Index (Cs)
0.1057

0.12
0.12
0.08
0.050.05

0.040.04

0.032

0.08
0.015

0.0084
0.032
0.0054

0.0039

0.04
0.015

0.0084
0.0054

0.0039

0.04
0
0 0 40 50 60
0 Fly‐ash content (%)
40 50 60
 
Fly‐ash content (%)
 
Figure 11. Variation of compression and swell indices with fly ash content.
Figure 11. Variation of compression and swell indices with fly ash content. 
Figure 11. Variation of compression and swell indices with fly ash content. 
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 
The following are the specific conclusions and recommendations that can be drawn from this
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 
The following are the specific conclusions and recommendations that can be drawn from this 
study that are suggested for future studies to overcome the limitations:
The following are the specific conclusions and recommendations that can be drawn from this 
study that are suggested for future studies to overcome the limitations: 
study that are suggested for future studies to overcome the limitations: 
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 12 of 13

4.1. Conclusions
1. The specific gravity of the mixtures decreased as the percentage of fly ash content in the mixture
increased. This could be because the specific gravity of the fly ash was lower than the specific
gravity of the original soil. The specific gravity decreased as the fly ash content increased.
2. Based on the OMC and MDD values, the mixtures with 40% and 50% fly ash content both seemed
to be acceptable in terms of providing maximum compaction. Therefore, the addition of Class F
fly ash to clayey sand (A-7-5) improved the compaction properties of the soil.
3. Based on the UCS values, a mixture with 50% fly ash content seemed to be better in terms of
providing strength as subgrade material for a curing period of 8 days. However, based on the
trend analysis, the optimum fly ash content seemed to have a wide range of 32–46%, with an
optimum curing period range of 16–19 days.
4. In accordance with PI values, the mixture with 40% fly ash content seemed to be better in terms of
compactability. It can be concluded from the experimental data that a mixture of soil with 50% fly
ash content seemed to be an optimum and better option for subgrade material for a curing period
of 8 days, however, a mixture with 40% fly ash content could be used as a viable alternative for
the same curing period. This did not match with the findings from the trend analysis and might
change with the future recommended study experimental data. Until the new data are available,
this finding could be used.
5. The volumetric swelling potential decreased with increased fly ash contents. Potentially, 32–50%
fly ash can be used as a beneficial use that would otherwise go to landfill. Based on the Cc and Cs
values, the soil–fly ash mixtures with 40% and 50% fly ash content both experience less settlement
and volume change, ranging from 44% to 70%, compared to the original soil.

4.2. Recommendations for Future Studies

1. To narrow the range of optimum fly ash contents and to determine a single fly ash content, several
experiments can be conducted with 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, and 60% fly ash (both type F
and C) content for a curing period of 17 days or several other curing periods to confirm the results.
2. The decrease in the UCS seems to be due to the changes in outside humidity, since the samples
were kept in the lab and the indoor temperature and humidity are related to outdoor factors.
Future studies can be performed to simulate outdoor conditions to eliminate this limitation.
3. Future studies can use the resilient modulus (MR ) to characterize and quantify the mechanical
behavior of soil materials for pavement design purposes, as well as investigate the effects of
seasonal moisture fluctuations, which ultimately affect both the load bearing capacity and the
overall performance of the materials [14]. Future studies can also (a) formulate and develop an
enhanced hyperbolic constitutive model (eHCM) for the estimation of MR based on small-strain
modulus measurements from the free-free resonant column (FFRC) test, (b) estimate MR values
using the eHCM model along with FFRC test measurements, (c) calibrate and validate the
eHCM model using modulus measurements obtained through conventional MR testing, and (d)
establish statistical correlations between eHCM model parameters and routinely measured soil
properties [13].

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.K.; methodology, M.A.K., A.K., and A.S.H.; validation, A.K. and
A.S.H.; formal analysis, M.A.K. and A.S.H.; investigation, M.A.K.; resources, M.A.K. and A.K.; data curation,
A.K. and A.S.H.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.K.; writing—review and editing, M.A.K. and A.S.H.;
visualization, M.A.K. and A.S.H.; supervision, M.A.K.; project administration, M.A.K. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the stipend for a graduate student from the Graduate College of
Kennesaw State University in the form of Graduate Research Assistantship (GRA).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7038 13 of 13

References
1. ACAA—American Coal Ash Association. 2016 Production and Use Survey Results News Release. 2016. Available
online: https://www.acaa-usa.org/Publications/ProductionUseReports.aspx (accessed on 28 May 2018).
2. Mahvash, S.; López-Querol, S.; Bahadori-Jahromi, A. Effect of class F fly ash on fine sand compaction through
soil stabilization. Heliyon 2017, 3, e00274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Naik, T.R.; Singh, S.S.; Ramme, B. Effect of Source of Fly Ash on Abrasion Resistance of Concrete. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 2002, 14, 417–426. [CrossRef]
4. Yadav, A.K.; Gaurav, K.; Kishor, R.; Suman, S. Stabilization of alluvial soil for subgrade using rice husk ash,
sugarcane bagasse ash and cow dung ash for rural roads. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2017, 10, 254–261.
[CrossRef]
5. White, D.J.; Harrington, D.S.; Thomas, Z. Fly Ash Soil Stabilization for Non-Uniform Subgrade Soil. Volume I:
Engineering Properties and Construction Guidelines. 2005. Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/755950
(accessed on 9 October 2020).
6. Phanikumar, B.; Sharma, R.S. Volume Change Behavior of Fly Ash-Stabilized Clays. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007,
19, 67–74. [CrossRef]
7. Ozdemir, M.A. Improvement in Bearing Capacity of a Soft Soil by Addition of Fly Ash. Procedia Eng. 2016,
143, 498–505. [CrossRef]
8. Nath, B.D.; Molla, K.A.; Sarkar, G. Study on Strength Behavior of Organic Soil Stabilized with Fly Ash.
Int. Sch. Res. Not. 2017, 2017, 1–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Mahesh, K.G.; Satish, T.B. Effect of fly ash on Properties of Expansive soil. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2013, 4, 37–40.
10. Georgia Power’s Plant Bowen Environmental Management System. Available online: http://www.georgiapow
er.com/company/research-conservation-and-stewardship/management-closures/plant-list/plant-bowen.html
(accessed on 9 October 2020).
11. Hemalatha, T.; Ramaswamy, A. A review on fly ash characteristics—Towards promoting high volume
utilization in developing sustainable concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 546–559. [CrossRef]
12. Hassan, A.S. Unitization of High Percentage of Fly-ash in Silty Soil to Enhance the Engineering Properties
for Subgrade Use. Master’s Thesis, Kennesaw State University, Marietta, GA, USA, 30 April 2018.
13. Walubita, L.F.; Mercado, V.; Lee, S.I.; Fuentes, L.; Villegas, J.M. Exploration of a mechanistic model for the
quantification of the resilient modulus using free-free resonant column testing. Road Mater. Pavement Des.
2020, 1–15. [CrossRef]
14. Teshale, E.Z.; Shongtao, D.; Walubita, L.F. Evaluation of Unbound Aggregate Base Layers using Moisture
Monitoring Data. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2019, 2673, 399–409. [CrossRef]
15. Javed, S. Prediction of Compression and Recompression Indices of Texas Over Consolidated Clays.
Available online: http://www.foundationperformance.org/pastpresentations/javedpresentation-12oct05.pdf
(accessed on 28 May 2018).
16. Bhuvaneshwari, S.; Robinson, R.G.; Gandhi, S.R. Stabilization of Expansive Soils using Flyash. Available
online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265120272 (accessed on 9 October 2020).
17. Spiess, A.-N.; Neumeyer, N. An evaluation of R2 as an inadequate measure for nonlinear models in
pharmacological and biochemical research: A Monte Carlo approach. BMC Pharmacol. 2010, 10, 6. [CrossRef]
18. Das, B.M. Principle of Geotechnical Engineering, 5th ed.; Nelson: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002.
19. Seed, H.B.; Woodward, J.; Lundgren, R. Prediction of Swelling Potential for Compacted Clays. J. Soil Mech.
Found Div. 1962, 88, 53–87.
20. Mitchell, J.K. Fundamentals of Soil Behavior; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1993.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).