IRJET- Soil Stabilization using Fly Ash and Rice Husk Ash

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Soil Stabilization using Fly Ash and Rice Husk Ash MR.A.VIJAY1, R.MAHALINGAM2, A.KAVIYAN3 Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Panimalar Engineering College, Poonamalle, Chennai-123 Under graduate student, civil engineering department, Panimalar Engineering College, Poonamalle, Chennai-123 ABSTRACT: Soil is a complex material. Recycled and waste materials like fly ash, bagasse ash, rice husk ash can be used to soil stabilization to improve physical and chemical properties of soil. In addition to that properties which can improved by soil stabilization are CBR, shear strength of soil, UCS and bearing capacity etc. The objective of this study to check the amount of fly ash at which sample of soil and fly ash gives optimum values of CBR and UCS and after that rice husk ash is added in different proportions in the sample of soil and optimum quantity of fly ash to achieve the optimum value of CBR. I. INTRODUCTION Due to rapid growth in highway construction there is need of good earth. Soil cannot be replaced with good soil everywhere as it is very costly and increase the project cost. This problem can be overcome with improvement in properties of soil which is to be used for infrastructure project. Many investigations had been carried out to use waste materials to improve the soil properties and to utilize the waste materials in view of better environment.

Objective of this study is to improve the properties of locally available clayey soil.For this research, soil sample was taken from Mohali district. Stabilization is done by adding different percentages of fly ash and rice husk ashes. Stabilization is done for following purposes1.

2.

3.

To evaluate the CBR by using optimum content of fly ash To evaluate the UCS by using optimum content of fly ash To evaluate the CBR by using optimum content of rice husk ash II. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

Fly ash is residual material remained after combustion of coal in thermal power plant. Fly ash contains fine particles of silicon dioxide (Sio2), aluminum oxide, iron oxide and calcium oxide. Fly ash has been used in many civil engineering projects successfully. Fly ash provides stability to sub grade, reduce earth pressure and also improves stability of slopes. Usually fly ash is mixed with clayey soils to improve properties as these soils cannot be used directly for construction due to their unfavorable properties.RHA is a carbon neutral green product. Lots of ways are being thought of for disposing them by making commercial use of this RHA. RHA is a good super- pozzolan.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Natural soil.

92 % Soil + 8% Fly ash 86 % Soil + 14% Fly ash 82 % Soil + 18% Fly ash 76 % Soil + 24 % Fly

Š 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 3328

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

2.1 INDEX PROPERTIES OF SOIL Plasticity Index Plasticity index of soil was 5 % which is numerical difference between liquid limit and plastic limit.

Type of soil The type of soil was checked from plasticity chart. It was seen that soil which is taken for this study is intermediate plasticity. As per IS 1498 soil is classified as CI. Engineering properties are indicated by index properties of in table 2.1.

Table2.1 GeotechnicalPropertiesofsoil

SR.NO

PROPERTIES

VALUE

CONFIRMINGTOIS CODE

1.

Specificgravity(G)

2.60

IS 2720 : Part 3 : Sec 1 :1980

2.

Maximum drydensity(MDD)

2.124 gm/cc

IS 2720 : Part VII: 1980

3.

Optimum moisture content(OMC) Naturalmoisture content

8.4 %

IS 2720 : Part VII: 1980

8.6 %

IS 2720 : Part 2 : 1973

5.

Liquid limit

24

IS 2720 : Part 5 : 1985

6.

Plastic limit

19

IS 2720 :Part 5 : 1985

4.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Maximum dry density (MDD) and Optimum moisture content (OMC) of soil at different fly ash contents given in table 3.1 Ash content (%) OMC (%)

0

8

14

18

24

8.5

9.3

9.7

10.7

11.0

MDD (gm/cc)

2.124

2.012

1.990

1.920

1.900

VARIATION OF OMC WITH VARIOUS %AGE OF FLY ASH

11

10

OMC (%)

9

8

7 0

© 2019, IRJET

|

2

4

6

Impact Factor value: 7.211

8

10

FLY ASH (%)

|

12

14

16

18

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 3329

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

VARIATION OF MDD WITH VARIOUS %AGE OF FLY ASH 2.5

2.4

2.3

MDD(gm/cc)

2.2

2.1 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Ash content (%)

2

FIG . 3.1 OMC AND MDD AT VARIOUS PERCENTAGES OF FLY ASH 1.9

1.8

3.1 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO OF VIRGIN SOIL (CBR TEST) CBR OF VIRGIN SOIL

1.7

6

LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2

1.6

5

1.5

4

3

2 0

2

4

6

8

NE NM PE TRATION I M

10

12

14

1 Figure 3.2 CBR of virgin Soil 0

© 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 3330

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE + 8 % FLY ASH CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE + 14 % FLY ASH

9

8

8

7

LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2

LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2

7 6 5 4 3

6 5 4 3

2

2

1

1

0

0 0

5

10

15

0

PENETRATION IN MM

Figure 3.4 CBR graph at 14 % fly ash

CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE + 24 % FLY ASH

CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE + 18 % FLY ASH

9

8

8

7 LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2

LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2

15

PENETRATION IN MM

Figure 3.3 CBR of soil sample with 8% fly ash

9

10

5

6 5 4 3 2

7 6 5 4 3 2

1

1

0

0 0

5

10

15

0

PENETRATION IN MM

Figure 3.5 CBR graph at 18 % fly ash

© 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

5

10

15

PENETRATION IN MM

Figure 3.6 CBR graph at 24 % fly ash

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 3331

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Table 3.2: Summary of CBR test with various percentages of fly ash

Sampl e No

Soaked CBR (%) Composition CBR

1

Soil

At 2.5 mm penetratio n 3.94

2

Soil with 8% fly ash

6.9

6.7

6.9

3

Soil with 14 % fly ash Soil with 18 % fly ash Soil with 24 % fly ash

6.8

6.3

6.8

6.6

6.2

6.6

6.4

6.3

6.4

4 5

At 5 mm penetratio n 3.86

3.94

Variation of UCS of uncured specimens at different %age of fly

Variation of CBR with different %age of fly ash

ash

6.9

7

6.8

6.6

600

6.4

6

500

5

400

456

390 3.94

4

300

3

UCS (kN/m2)

CBR value in %age

480

2

345 215

238

200 100

1 0

0 0

0 8

14

8

14

18

24

26

Ash content (%)

18

Various %age of PSA 24

Figure 3.8 Variation of CBR with different %age of fly ashFigure 3.9 unconfined compressive strength at different percentages of fly ash

© 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 3332

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

500 450 400

350 300

UCS (kN/m22)

250 200 150 0

5

10

100 0 % fly ash

15

14S%trfla y in ash(%)

8% fly ash

18 % fly ash

20 24 % fly ash

50 Fig 3.10 Variation of strain with different percentages of ash content 0 CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE WITH 8 % FLY ASH + 8 % RHA

9

10

8

9

7

LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2

LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2

CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE WITH 8 % FLY ASH + 4 % RHA

6 5 4 3

7 6 5 4

2 1

8

3 0

5

10

15 2

PENETRATION IN MM

0

0

5

10

15

PENETRATION IN MM

1 0

Figure 3.11 CBR graph at 8% fly ash and 4% RHA

© 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

Figure 3.12 CBR graph at 8% fly ash and 8 % RHA

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 3333

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE WITH 8 % FLY ASH + 16 % RHA

12

12

10

10 LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2

LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2

CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE WITH 8 % FLY ASH + 12 % RHA

8 6 4

8 6 4

2

2

0

0 0

5

10

PENETRATION IN MM

5

0

15

10

15

PENETRATION IN MM

Figure 3.13 CBR graph at 8% fly ash and 12% RHAFigure 3.14 CBR graph at 8% fly ash and 16% RHA

CBR OF SOIL SAMPLE WITH 8 % FLY ASH + 20 % RHA

Variation of CBR with 8 % Fly ash and different %age of RHA

10

8

8

7

7 CBR value in %age

LOAD ON PISTON IN KG/CM2

8.9

9

9

6 5 4

6.9

7.2

0

4

8.7

7.8

8.5

6 5 4 3

3 1 2 0

2 0

5

10

1

15

PENETRATION IN MM

0

8

12

Various %age of RHA 16

20

Figure 3.15 CBR graph at 8% fly ash and 20 % RHAFigure 3.15 CBR Summary of soil with 8% fly ash and different %age of RHA

© 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 3334

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net IV. CONCLUSIONS

The experimental work done on soil stabilization with fly ash and rice husk ash can be concluded as follows  Soil with varying percentage of fly ash gives maximum CBR value at 8% fly ash. It increases from 3.94 % to 6.8 %. With further addition of fly ash, it keeps decreasing.  Unconfined compressive strength of soil with 8% fly ash increased as compared to virgin soil from 2.154 kg/cm2 to 2.38 kg/cm2. It was maximum as 4.80kg/cm2 when 24 % Paper mill sludge ash was added. After there was decrement in UCS when 26 % paper mill sludge ash was added.  The soil with 8 % fly ash was further blended with variable percentage of rice husk ash (4%,8%, 12%,16%&20%). The major improvement in CBR occurred at 8% fly ash mixed with 12% rice husk ash and thereafter, further addition of rice husk ash is causing gradual change in CBR values. The peak soaked CBR value is 8.9 %.

REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Amo. O.O., Fajobi, A.B., &Afekhuai, S.O. (2005). “Stabilizing potential of cement and fly ash mixture on expansive clay soil”.

Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(9), 1669-1673.

Athanasopoulou, A. (2014). Addition of lime and fly ash to improve highway subgrade soils. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26(4), 773-775.

Bose B(2012)” Geo engineering properties of expansive soil stabilized with fly ash”, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 17, Bund. J, 2012, pp. 1339-1353.

Buhler, R.L., &Cerato, A.B. (2007). “: Stabilization of Oklahoma Expansive Soils Using Lime and Class C fly ash.” GSP 162 Problematic Soils and Rocks and In Situ Characterization.

Senol, A. (2012). “Effect of fly ash and polypropylene fibres content on the soft soils”. Bull EngGeol Environ,71, 379–387.

Senol, A., Edil, T.B., Shafique, Md.S.B., Acosta, H.A., & Benson, C.H. (2006). “Soft subgrades stabilization by using various fly ashes.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Sezer, A, Inan, G., Yılmaz, H.R., &Ramyar, K. (2006). “Utilization of a very high lime fly ash for improvement of clay.”

Building and Environment, 41, 150–155.

Sharma N.K., Swain,S.K., Sahoo, U.C. (2012).” Stabilization of a Clayey Soil with Fly Ash and Lime:A Micro Level Investigation”. GeotechGeolEng, 30, 1197–1205.

T.B. Edil, H.A. Acosta & C.H. Benson. (2006).” Stabilizing Soft Fine-Grained Soils with Fly Ash”. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 18(2), 283-294.

V .Babu Jaya Prakash, Surya. P.V.V, SatyanarayanaManikantha, MoinAbdul(2016)” Engineering Properties of Black cotton soil Modified with Fly ash and Cement.” International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 35 Number 10 - May 2016

© 2019, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 3317