STABILIZATION OF SOIL WITH FLY-ASH

A Project Report
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
Degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
(CIVIL ENGINEERING)

Submitted to

M.Chandu 18751A0115
V.Geetha 18751A0120
V.Lokeswari 18751A0121
K.Bhuvana Chandra 18751A0107

Under the guidance of

Mr.p.Chandrahas
Assistant Professor

SREENIVASA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

STUDIES
(2018-2022)
 SREENIVASA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND
MANAGEMENT STUDIES

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled " STABILIZATION OF

SOIl WITH FLY-ASH “submittedby

M.CHANDU(18751A0115),V.GEETHA (18751A0120),V.LOKESWARI

(18751A0121),K.BHUVANA CHANDRA (18751AP107) in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the award of theDegree Bachelor of

Technology in “Civil Engineering” is a Bonafede record of thework

carried out under my guidance and supervisionatNewton’s Institute of

Science& Technology, Macherla during the academic year 2021-2022.

Date:

Head of department Internal Examiner

Principal External Examiner

 DECLARATION

“STABILIZATION OF SOIL WITH FLY-ASH”, which is submitted by us in

partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of degree Bachelor of Technology in

Civil Engineering at SREENIVASA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND

MANAGEMENT STUDIES In chittoor. comprises only our original work and due

acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used.

We also declare that this thesis work is the result of our sincere efforts and that it

has not been submitted to any other university for the award of the degree or any diploma.

M.CHANDU. 18751A0115

V.GEETHA. 18751A0120

V.LOKESWARI 18751A121

K.BHUVANA CHANDRA. 18751A0107

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The successful completion of any task would be incomplete without greeting those
who made it possible and whose guidance and encouragement made the effort taken a
success.
We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the Almighty for giving us strength in
proceeding with this thesis titled “STABILIZATION OF SOIL WITH FLY-
ASH” We wish to take this opportunity to express our deep gratitude to all the
people who
have extended their cooperation in various ways during our project work. It is our
pleasure and responsibility to acknowledge the help of all those individuals.
We express our deepest gratitude to The Management,,sreenivasa institute of
technology and management studies,for their support and encouragement in completing
our project work and providing us necessary facilities.
We express our deepest gratitude to Dr. P.RAMESH KUMAR., Principal,
Sreenivasa institute of technology and management studies,chittoora for his valuable
suggestions during preparation of draft this document.
We are grateful to Sri A.ANIL ANAND KUMARAssociate Professor & Head,
Department of Civil Engineering for his assistance and encouragement in all respects in
carrying throughout our project work.
We are thankful to P. Chandrahas Asst pro, Department of Civil Engineering for
his/her assistance and encouragement in all respects in carrying throughout our project
work.
Finally, we thank one and all who directly or indirectly helped us for successful
completion of our project work.
With Sincerely,
M.Chandu -
18751A0115
V.Geetha -
18751A0120
V.Lokeswari. -
18751A0121
K.Bhuvana Chandra -
18751A0107
 LIST OF CONTENT

Contents Page No
Chapter-1
1.1.
1.2. Abstract 1
Chapter-2 Introduction 2
2.1.
Chapter-3 Literature 4
3.1. review
3.2. 7
3.3. Experimental Investigations 7
3.4. Specific Gravity 7
3.4.1. Grain Size Analysis 9
3.4.2. Liquid limit 9
3.5. Plastic Limit 9
3.6. Proctor 10
3.7. Compaction Test 10
3.8. California Bearing Ratio Value (CBR) Test 12
Chapter-4 Un Confined Compressive test 36
Test Results 37
Conclusion
Reference
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Table Description Page No.

Table-1 Specific gravity of soil sample-1 12

Table-2 Specific gravity of soil sample-2 12
Table-3 Grain size analysis of soil sample-1 13
Table-4 Grain size analysis of soil sample- 14
Table-5 2 Liquid limit of soil sample 15
Table-6 Plastic limit of soil sample 16
Table-7 Standard proctor test results of soil sample-1 17
Table-8 Standard proctor test results of soil sample-2 19
Table-9 21
Table-10 CBR test results of fly ash by 0% replacement 22
Table- CBR test results of fly ash by 5% replacement 23
11 CBR test results of fly ash by 10% replacement 24
Table-12 CBR test results of fly ash by 15% replacement 25
Table-
13 CBR test results of fly ash by 20%
replacement
Abstract:

Generally Soil is a peculiar material. The Fly Ash use to make the soil to be stable. It
can increase the physical and chemical properties of the soil. Some expecting properties
to be improved are liquidity index, plasticity index, unconfined compressive strength
,cbr and specific gravity etc. For any type of structure, the foundation is very important
and it has to be strong to support the entire structure. In order for the strong foundation
the soil around it plays a very critical role. To work on soils, we need to have proper
knowledge about their properties and factors which affect their behavior. these
problems are manifested through swelling, shrinkage and unequal settlement. In The
stabilized soil materials have a higher strength, lower permeability and lower
compressibility. The Test were conducted on the soils–Fly Ash mixtures prepared at
optimum water content at 9%.A study is carried out to check the improvements in the
properties of expansive soil with fly ash in varying percentages. The increase of dry
density compromises higher strength. Several methods have been suggested to control
this problem. The most commonly used method is addition of stabilizing agents, such
as fly ash to the expansive soil. One of the most effective and economical method is
addition of stabilizing agents such as lime or fly ash to expansive soil. Expansive soil
was stabilized with various proportion of fly ash i.e. 0%,5%,10%,15%,20% Addition
of fly ash to clay

1
 CHAPTER-01

1.0 INTRADUCTION

Soil is one of the most important and primary media for any construction work. The
strength and durability of any structure depends on the strength properties of soil. The
soil is collected from the newtons engineering college at macherla, India. The red soil
are collected from the newton’s Ground. Improving an onsite soil’s engineering
properties is called soil stabilization. The chemical stabilization of the disturbances
soils in geotechnical engineering applications such as pavement structures, roadways,
building foundations, channel and reservoir linings, irrigation systems, water lines, and
sewer lines to avoid the damage due to the settlement of the soft soil or to the swelling
action of the expansive soils. Geo technical properties of problematic soils such as
expansive soils are improved by various methods. The problematic soil is removed and
replaced by a good quality material or treated using mechanical and/or chemical
stabilization. To reduce the pavement thickness as well as cost. The following
geotechnical design criteria have to be considered during site selection. Design load
and function of the structure. The Type of foundation to be used. Bearing capacity of
subsoil. Stabilization can be used to treat a wide range of sub-grade materials from
expansive clays to granular materials. Expansive soils are known as shrink swell or
swelling soils. Different clays have different susceptibility to swelling. Such soils
expand when they are wetted and shrink when dried. Soil stabilization improves the
engineering properties of soil such as strength, volume stability and durability. The
shear strength and bearing capacity of this soil are very low, while the compressibility
is very high. Expansive soils are highly problematic because of the susceptibility of
these soils to undergo large changes in volume due to fluctuations in the moisture
content. The term expansive soil applies to soils that have the tendency to swell when
their moisture content is increased. Chemical stabilization of soft soils involves
blending a binder into the soil to increase its strength and stiffness through chemical
reactions. Expansive soils are clays that have the tendency to swell and soften when
their moisture content is increased, or shrink and dry-cracked when their moisture
content is decreased. The swelling and shrinkage characteristic of expansive soil
depend upon the percentage of moisture content in it. So the expansive soil undergoes
volumetric changes due to the variation of water content in it. The expansive soil
losses

2
its chemical strength during the expansion condition. In the Chemical stabilization it
has a economy, environmental friendly and efficient method for mainly soil treatment.
In soil stabilization with fly ash, additives combined by specific moisture content, then
apply for improving the soil properties in engineering projects. In case utilized various
methods to improve soil strength etc. The process of soil stabilization helps to achieve
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue 2186 the required
properties in a soil needed for the pavement construction work. Strength can be
increased by adding additive materials to the sub grade in different proportions.

3
 CHAPTER-02

2.0 LETARATURE REVIEW

Fly Ash by itself has little cementitious value but in the presence of moisture it reacts
chemically and forms cementitious compounds and attributes to the improvement of
strength and compressibility characteristics of soils. It has a long history of use as an
engineering material and has been successfully employed in geotechnical applications.

Erdal Cokca (2001): Effect of Fly Ash on expansive soil was studied by Erdal
Cokca,FLY ASH consists of often hollow spheres of silicon, aluminium and iron
oxides and unoxidized carbon. There 1 Research Scholar,eshwari_28@yahoo.co.in 2
Assistant Professor, robinson@iitm.ac.in 3. Professor, srgandhi@iitm.ac.in Indian
Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-36 .Fly Ash India 2005, New Delhi Fly Ash
Utilization Programme (FAUP), TIFAC, DST, New Delhi – 110016 are two major
classes of Fly Ash, class C and class F. The former is produced from burning
anthracite or bituminous coal and the latter is produced from burning lignite and sub
bituminous coal. Both the classes of Fly Ash are puzzolans, which are defined as
siliceous and aluminous materials. Thus Fly Ash can provide an array of divalent and
trivalent cations (Ca2+,Al3+,Fe3+etc) under ionized conditions that can promote
flocculation of dispersed clay particles. Thus expansive soils can be potentially
stabilized effectively by cation exchange using Fly Ash. He carried out investigations
using Soma Fly Ash and Tuncbilek Fly Ash and added it to expansive soil at 0-25%.
Specimens with Fly Ash were cured for 7days and 28 days after which they were
subjected to Oedometer free swell tests. And his experimental findings confirmed that
the plasticity index, activity and swelling potential of the samples decreased with
increasing percent stabilizer and curing time and the optimum content of Fly Ash in
decreasing the swell potential was found to be 20%. The changes in the physical
properties and swelling potential is a result of additional silt size particles to some
extent and due to chemical reactions that cause immediate flocculation of clay
particles and the time dependent puzzolanic and self hardening properties of Fly Ash
and he concluded that both high – calcium and low calcium class C Fly Ashes can be
recommended as effective stabilizing agents for improvement for improvement of
expansive soils. Soil Stabilization By Using Fly Ash

4
S.Bhuvaneshwari and S.R. Gandhi: A study was carried out by S.Bhuvaneshwari
and
S.R. Gandhi on the effect of engineering properties of expansive soil through an
experimental programme. Infrastructure projects such as highways, railways, water
reservoirs, reclamation etc. requires earth material in very large quantity. In urban
areas, borrow earth is not easily available which has to be hauled from a long distance.
Quite often, large areas are covered with highly plastic and expansive soil, which
is not
suitable for such purpose. Extensive laboratory / field trials have been carried out by
various researchers and have shown promising results for application of such expansive
soil after stabilization with additives such as sand, silt, lime, Fly Ash, etc. As Fly
Ash is freely available, for projects in the vicinity of a Thermal Power Plants, it can be
used for stabilization of expansive soils for various uses. The present paper describes a
study carried out to check the improvements in the properties of expansive soil with
Fly Ash in varying percentages. Both laboratory trials and field tests have been carried
out and results are reported in this paper. One of the major difficulties in field
application is thorough mixing of the two materials (expansive soil and Fly Ash) in
required proportion to form a homogeneous mass. The paper describes a method
adopted for placing these materials in layers of required thickness and operating a
“Disc Harrow”. A trial embankment of 30m length by 6m width by 0.6m high was
successfully constructed and the in-situ tests carried out proved its suitability for
construction of embankment, ash dykes, filling low-laying areas, etc.

Pandian et.al. (2002). Studied the effect of two types of Fly Ashes Raichur Fly Ash
(Class F) and Neyveli Fly Ash (Class C) on the CBR characteristics of the black cotton
soil. The Fly Ash content was increased from 0 to 100%. Generally the CBR/strength
is contributed by its cohesion and friction. The CBR of BC soil, which consists of
predominantly of finer particles, is contributed by cohesion. The CBR of Fly Ash,
which consists predominantly of coarser particles, is contributed by its frictional
component. The low CBR of BC soil is attributed to the inherent low strength, which
is due to the dominance of clay fraction. The addition of Fly Ash to BC soil increases
the CBR of the mix up to the first optimum level due to the frictional resistance from
Fly Ash in addition to the cohesion from BC soil. Further addition of Fly Ash beyond
the optimum level causes a decrease up to 60% and then up to the second optimum
level there is an increase. Thus the variation of CBR of Fly Ash-BC soil mixes can be
attributed to the relative contribution of frictional or cohesive resistance from Fly Ash
5
or BC soil, respectively. In Neyveli Fly Ash also there is an increase of strength with
the increase in the Fly Ash content, here there will be additional puzzolonic reaction
forming cementitious compounds resulting in good binding between BC soil and Fly
Ash particles

Phanikumar and Sharma (2004): A similar study was carried out by Phani kumar
and Sharma and the effect of Fly Ash on engineering properties of expansive soil
through an experimental programme. The effect on parameters like free swell index
(FSI), swell potential, swelling pressure, plasticity, compaction, strength and hydraulic
conductivity of expansive soil was studied. The ash blended expansive soil with FLY
ASH contents of 0, 5, 10,15 and 20% on a dry weight basis and they inferred that
increase in FLY ASH content reduces plasticity characteristics and the FSI was reduced
by about 50% by the addition of 20% Fly Ash. The hydraulic conductivity of
expansive soils mixed with Fly Ash decreases with an increase in Fly Ash content, due
to the increase in maximum dry unit weight with an increase in Fly Ash content. When
the Fly Ash content increases there is a decrease in the optimum moisture content and
the maximum dry unit weight increases. The effect of Fly Ash is akin to the increased
compactive effort. Hence the expansive soil is rendered more stable. The untrained
shear strength of the expansive soil blended with Fly Ash increases with the increase
in the ash content.

6
 CHAPTER -03

3.0 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

The following laboratory tests were carried out as per IS: 2720.The test were carried
out on both normal soil and stabilized soil.

1. Specific gravity test

2. Grain size analysis

3. Atterbegs limits

4. Proctor compaction test

5. California Bearing Ratio value (CBR) test

6. Un Confined Compressive strength (UCC) test

7. Direct shear test

1. SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Soil is a three-phase material that consists of solid particles and voids which are filled

with water and air. The specific gravity (GS) of a soil refers to the ratio of the solid particles’ unit

weight to the unit weight of water. GS should not be confused with the soil density since it is a

dimensionless unit and expresses the ratio of two particular densities.

GS is a significant parameter of soil mechanics since it can be associated with the soil’s mineral

composition and weathering. It is also used to derive several important soil parameters
such as the porosity, the dry and saturated density and the degree of saturation.

2. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

The grain size analysis test is performed to determine the percentage of each size of
grain that is contained within a soil sample, and the results of the test can be used to
produce the grain size distribution curve. This information is used to classify the soil

7
and to predict its behavior. The two methods generally used to find the grain size
distribution are:

 Sieve analysis which is used for particle sizes larger than 0.075 mm in
diameter and
 Hydrometer analysis which is used for particle sizes smaller than 0.075 mm in
diameter

Sieve analysis is a method that is used to determine the grain size distribution of soils
that are greater than 0.075 mm in diameter. It is usually performed for sand and gravel
but cannot be used as the sole method for determining the grain size distribution of
finer soil.
Soil at anyplace consists of particles of a range of sizes and shapes, sizes starting from
a couple of microns to a couple of centimeters square measure gift generally within the
same soilsample. The distribution of particles of various sizes determines several
physical properties of the soil like its strength, porousness, density etc.
Particle size distribution is known by 2 ways, initial is sieve analysis that is completed
for coarse grained soils solely and therefore the alternative methodology is alluviation
analysis used for fine grained soil sample. each square measure followed by plotting
the results on a semi-log graph. the share finer N because the ordinate and therefore
the particle diameter i.e. sieve size because the cartesian coordinate on a scale. The
curve generated from the result offers U.S.A. a concept of the kind and gradation of
the soil. If the curve is in a higher place or is a lot of towards the left, it implies that
the soil has a lot of illustration from the finer particles; if it's towards the correct, we
are able to deduce that the soil has a lot of of the coarse grained particles.
The soil could also be of 2 types- well hierarchal or poorly hierarchal (uniformly
graded). Well hierarchal soils have particles from all the dimensions ranges during a
smart quantity. On the opposite hand, it's same to be poorly or uniformly hierarchal if
it's particles of some sizes in excess and deficiency of particles of alternative sizes.
generally the curve features a flat portion additionally which suggests there's Associate
in Nursing absence of particles of intermediate size, these soils also are called gap
hierarchal or skip hierarchal.

8
For analysis of the particle distribution, we have a tendency to generally use D10, D30,
and D60 etc. terms that represents a size in millimetre such ten, half-hour and hr of
particles severally square measure finer than that size. the dimensions of D10
additionally referred to as the effective size or diameter could be a terribly helpful
knowledge. there's a term referred to as uniformity constant conductor that comes from
the magnitude relation of D60 and D10, it offers a live of the vary of the particle size
of the soil sample.
3. ATTERBEGS LIMITS

1. LIQUID LIMIT

It is the water content of the soil between the liquid state and plastic state of the soil. It
are often outlined because the minimum water content at that the soil, although in
liquid state, shows little cutting strength against flowing. it's measured by the
Casagrande’s equipment and is denoted by wL.
.
2. PLASTIC LIMIT

This limit lies between the plastic and semi-solid state of the soil. it's determined by
rolling out a thread of the soil on a flat surface that is non-porous. it's the minimum
water content at that the soil simply begins to crumble whereas rolling into a thread of
roughly 3mm diameter. Plastic limit is denoted by wP.

3.4. PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST

Compaction is a type of mechanical stabilization where the soil mass is densified with
the application of mechanical energy also known as comp active effort. The mechanical
energy may be produced by the dynamic load, static load, vibration, or by tamping.
During compaction, the soil particles are relocated, and the air volume is reduced. It
may also involve a modification of the moisture content, and in the saturated coarse-
grained soil, moisture content may be pressed out during the process of compaction.
Compaction should not be confused with consolidation; where the density of saturated
soils is increased due to a reduction in the volume of voids brought about by the
expulsion of water under the application of static load. The fundamentals of
compaction were first time presented by RR. Proctor in 1933, in his honor; the
standard laboratory compaction test which is developed is commonly called the
Standard Proctor Test.
9
5. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO VALUE (CBR) TEST

n this method the combination of load penetration test performed in the laboratory or
in-situ along with empirical design charts are analysed to determine the thickness of
pavement and its constituent layers. For designing the flexible pavement this is one of
the most commonly used method. The thickness of the various elements comprising a
pavement is determined by CBR values. The CBR test is a small scale penetration test
in which a cylindrical plunger of 5 cm in diameter is used. Cross-section is penetrated
into sub-grade material, at the rate of 0.05 in per minute i.e 1.25 mm/min. Observations
are taken between the penetration resistance i.e. test load versus the penetration of
plunger. The penetration resistance of the plunger into a standard sample of crushed
stone for the corresponding penetration is called the standard load.

6. UN CONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UCC) TEST

This experiment is employed to work out the unconfined compressive strength of the
soil sample that successively is employed to calculate the loose, undrained shear
strength of unconfined soil. The unconfined compressive strength (qu) is that the
compressive stress at that the unconfined cylindrical soil sample fails beneath easy
compressive take a look at. The experimental setup constitutes of the compression
device and dial gauges for load and deformation. The load was taken for various
readings of strain dial gauge ranging from ε =0.005 and increasing by zero.005 at
every step. The corrected cross-sectional space was calculated by dividing {the space|
the world the realm} by (1- ε) and so the compressive stress for every step was
calculated by dividing the load with the corrected area
.
7. DIRECT SHEAR TEST

This take a look at is employed to search out out the cohesion (c) and therefore the
angle of internal friction (φ) of the soil, these square measure the soil shear strength
parameters. The shear strength is one amongst the foremost necessary soil properties
and it's needed whenever any structure depends on the soil cutting resistance. The take
a look at is conducted by golf stroke the soil at OMC and MDD within the shear box
that is formed of 2 freelance elements. a continuing traditional load (ς) is applied to get
one price of c and φ. Horizontal load (shearing load) is redoubled at a continuing rate

10
and is applied until the failure purpose is reached. This load once divided with the
world offers the shear strength ‘τ’ for that exact traditional load.

CHAPTER-04

11
1. EXPERIMENTAL TEST RESULTS

2.SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Soil sample- 1

sample number 1 2 3

Mass of empty bottle (W1) in gms. 128.41 118.67 122.16

Mass of bottle+ dry soil (W2) in gms. 178.41 168.67 172.16

Mass of bottle + dry soil + water (W3) gms 401.86 396.29 399.03

Mass of bottle + water (W4) in gms. 369.67 365.378 367.355

specific gravity 2.81 2.62 2.73

Avg. specific gravity 2.72

Table -4.1 specific gravity of Soil sample- 1

Soil sample- 2

sample number 1 2 3

Mass of empty bottle (W1) in gms. 128.41 118.67 122.16

Mass of bottle+ dry soil (W2) in gms. 178.41 168.67 172.16

Mass of bottle + dry soil + water (W3) gms 401.86 396.29 399.03

Mass of bottle + water (W4) in gms. 369.67 365.378 367.355

specific gravity 2.81 2.62 2.73

Avg. specific gravity 2.72

Table -4.2 specific gravity of Soil sample- 2

4.2. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

12
 Sieve Retained Retained Cumulative Cumulative
retained
size (g) (%) finer (%)
(%)
4.75 0 0 0 100
2.36 12.2 4.07 4.07 95.93
1.18 24.5 8.17 12.24 87.76
0.600 88.2 29.4 41.64 58.36
0.300 102.5 34.17 75.81 24.19
0.15 54.7 18.23 94.04 5.96
0.075 17.1 5.7 99.74 0.26
pan 0.8 0 0 0

Table -4.3 grain size analysis of Soil sample- 1

120

100
95.93
100
87.76
finer weight in %

80

58.36
60

40
24.19

20
5.96
0.26

4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 pan

sieve sizes in mm

graph -4.1 grain size analysis of Soil sample- 1

13
 Sieve Retained Retained Cumulative Cumulative
retained
size (g) (%) finer (%)
(%)
4.75 0 0 0 100
2.36 14.2 4.73 4.73 95.26
1.18 22.5 7.5 12.23 87.77
0.600 85.2 28.4 40.63 59.37
0.300 105.5 35.16 75.79 24.20
0.15 50.7 16.9 92.69 7.31
0.075 21 7 99.69 0.31
pan 0.9 0 0 0

Table -4.4 grain size analysis of Soil sample- 2

120

100
100 95.26
87.77
finer weight in %

80

59.37
60

40
24.4

20
7.31
0.31

4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 pan

sieve sizes in mm

graph -4.1 grain size analysis of Soil sample- 2

14
3. ATTERBEGS LIMITS

1. LIQUID LIMIT

Sample No. 1 2 3 4
No. Of blows 33 29 24 21

Mass of empty can(w1) 18.05 18.59 19.19 18.52

Mass of can + wet soil in gms.(w2) 40.76 39.92 43.52 40.31

Mass of can + dry soil in gms.(w3) 34.8 34.2 36.85 34.14

Mass of moisture(w4=(w2-w3)gm 5.96 5.72 6.67 6.17

Mass of dry soil (w5=(w3-w1)gm 16.75 15.61 17.66 15.62

moisture content (%) 35.58 36.64 37.77 39.50

Table -4.5 liquid limit of Soil sample

40 39.5

39

37.77
38
moisture content %

37 36.64

36 35.58

35

34

33
33 29 24 21
no of
blows

graph -4.1 liquid limit

15
4.3.2 PLASTIC LIMIT

Sample No. 1 2
No. Of blows

Mass of empty can(w1) 15.93 13.57

Mass of can + wet soil in gms.(w2) 22.2 20.16

Mass of can + dry soil in gms.(w3) 21.22 19.13

Mass of moisture(w4=(w2-w3)gm 0.98 1.03

Mass of dry soil (w5=(w3-w1)gm 5.29 5.56

moisture content (%) 18.53 18.53

Table -4.5 plastic limit of Soil sample

Plasticity index = liquid limit – plastic limit

37.37-18.53 = 18.84

16
4.4. PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST

Sample-2
Test No. 1 2 3 4
Weight of empty mould(Wm) gms 2062 2062 2062 2062

Internal diameter of mould (d) cm 10 10 10 10

Height of mould (h) cm 13 13 13 13
Volume of mould (V)=( π/4) d2h cc 1000 1000 1000 1000
Weight of Base plate (Wb) gms 2071 2071 2071 2071

Weight of empty mould + base plate (W') 4133 4133 4133 4133
gms
Weight of mould + compacted soil + Base
plate 6174 6261 6427 6347
(W1) gms

Weight of Compacted Soil (W1-W') gms 2041 2128 2294 2214

Container no. 19.47 21.15 21.12 20.15

Weight of Container (X1) gms 19.49 21.6 21.14 20.19

Weight of Container + Wet Soil (X2) gms 90.21 122.57 113.12 125.00

Weight of Container + dry soil (X3) gms 82.51 110.04 99.74 108.94

Weight of dry soil (X3-X1) gms 63.02 88.87 78.6 88.75

Weight of water (X2-X3) gms 7.7 12.53 13.38 16.06

Water content W%= X2-X3/X3-X1 12.18 14.4 17.02 18.1

Dry density ϒd= ϒt/(1 + (W/100)) gm/cc 1.79 1.86 1.96 1.875

Table -4.6 standard proctor test results soil sample-1

17
dry density 1.95

1.9

1.85

1.8

1.75

1.7
12.18 14.4 17.02 18.1
moisture content

graph -4.2 dry density and moisture content

Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) = 17.02%

Maximum Dry Density (MDD) = 1.96 g/cc

18
 Sample-2

Test No. 1 2 3 4

Weight of empty mould(Wm) gms 2059 2059 2059 2059

Internal diameter of mould (d) cm 10 10 10 10

Height of mould (h) cm 13 13 13 13

Volume of mould (V)=( π/4) d2h cc 1000 1000 1000 1000

Weight of Base plate (Wb) gms 2065 2065 2065 2065

Weight of empty mould + base plate (W') gms 4124 4124 4124 4124

Weight of mould + compacted soil + Base plate

(W1) gms 6089 6179 6271 6086

Weight of Compacted Soil (W1-W') gms 1965 2055 2147 2108

Container no. 20.15 21.15 19.47 21.49

Weight of Container (X1) gms 20.19 21.14 19.48 21.55

Weight of Container + Wet Soil (X2) gms 84.81 124.16 89.93 154

Weight of Container + dry soil (X3) gms 79.59 114.24 82.05 138.13

Weight of dry soil (X3-X1) gms 59.4 93.1 62.57 116.58

Weight of water (X2-X3) gms 5.22 9.92 7.88 15.87

Water content W%= X2-X3/X3-1 8.79 10.65 12.59 13.61

Dry density ϒd= Vt/1 + (W/100) gm/cc 1.81 1.86 1.91 1.85

Table -4.6 standard proctor test results soil sample-2

19
 1.92

1.9

1.88
dry density

1.86

1.84

1.82

1.8

1.78

1.76
8.79 10.65 12.59 13.61
moisture content

graph -4.2 dry density and moisture content

Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) = 11.41%

Maximum Dry Density (MDD) = 1.85 g/cc

20
4.5. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO VALUE (CBR) TEST

FLY ASH 0%

Penetration (mm) Proving ring Corrected load(kg)

readings
0.0 0 0
0.5 9 54.47
1.0 13 83.02
1.5 16 102.18
2.0 19 121.33
2.5 21 134.11
4.0 27 172.42
5.0 30 191.58
7.5 38 242.67
10.0 43 274.6
12.5 49 312.91

Table -4.6 Table -4.8 cbr results fly ash 0%

300

250

200
corrected load in kg's

150

100

50

0.5 1.5 2.5 7.5 10

penatration in
mm

graph -4.3 dry cbr 0%

CBR AT 2.5 MM - 9.79%

21
FLY ASH 5 %

Penetration (mm) Proving ring Corrected load(kg)

readings
0.0 0 0
0.5 9 51.47
1.0 13 78.02
1.5 16 104.18
2.0 19 126.33
2.5 21 130.08
4.0 27 162.42
5.0 30 185.58
7.5 38 251.67
10.0 43 264.6
12.5 49 302.91

Table -4.7 Table -4.8 cbr results fly ash 5%

300

250

200
corrected load in kg's

150

100

50

0.5 1.5 2.5 7.5 10

penatration in
mm

graph -4.4 dry cbr 5%

CBR AT 2.5 MM - 9.49%

22
FLY ASH 10 %

Penetration (mm) Proving ring Corrected load(kg)

readings
0.0 0 0
0.5 9 49.47
1.0 13 87.02
1.5 16 108.18
2.0 19 111.33
2.5 21 121.11
4.0 27 182.42
5.0 30 191.58
7.5 38 238.67
10.0 43 264.6
12.5 49 319.91

Table -4.8 cbr results fly ash 10%

300

250

200
corrected load in kg's

150

100

50

0.5 1.5 2.5 7.5 10

penatration in
mm

graph -4.5 dry cbr10 %

CBR AT 2.5 MM - 8.84%

23
FLY ASH 15%

Penetration (mm) Proving ring Corrected load(kg)

readings
0.0 0 0
0.5 9 48.47
1.0 13 73.02
1.5 16 98.18
2.0 19 101.33
2.5 21 104.11
4.0 27 142.42
5.0 30 161.58
7.5 38 202.67
10.0 43 214.6
12.5 49 286.91

Table -4.9 cbr results fly ash 15%

250

200
corrected load in kg's

150

100

50

0.5 1.5 2.5 7.5 10

penatration in
mm

graph -4.6 dry cbr 15%

CBR AT 2.5 MM - 7.59 %

24
 CHAPTER-5

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

1Supported relative density of a soil- With mixing of 15% fly ash relative density
Of the soil will increase by 0.4%. Strength of the soil is directly
Proportional to relative density, additional is that the specific gravity additional are
going to be the strength of soil.
2Supported liquid limit of a soil - Soil while not reinforcement and with
reinforcement have
Liquid limit distinction of nighteen.15%.

3Supported liquid limit of a soil - the worth of the shrinkage limit in bolstered soil is a
smaller amount than that of unreinforced soil. Thus with the use of fly ash shrinkage
reduces.
4The worth of shrinkage limit is employed for understanding the swelling and
shrinkage properties of cohesive soil. Lesser is that the shrinkage additional can the
suitableness of fabric for foundation, road and mound amore are going to be the
strength.

36
 CHAPTER -06
References: [1]. Chen, F. H. (1988), “Foundations on expansive soils”, Chen &
Associates, Elsevier Publications, U.S.A.
[2]. Erdal Cokca (2001) “Use Of Class C Fly Ashes for the Stabilization – of an
Expansive Soil” Journal of Geotechnical and Geo environmental Engineering Vol.
127, July, pp. 568-573.
[3]. Eldon J. Yoder(1957), “Principles of Soil Stabilization”,JHRPPublicationIndiana.
[4]. Pradip D. Jadhao and Nagarnaik, P.B (2008), Influence of Polypropylene Fibres
on Engineering Behavior of Soil – Fly Ash Mixtures for Road Construction,
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 13, Bund.C, pp. 1-11
. [5]. 1.American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C618 (2008)
Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolanic for Use as a
Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia, USA.

37