Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract :
This research work insights on the evaluation of behaviour of red soil stabilised with fly ash and lime and their suitability for being
used in sub-grade layers. In order to achieve these, the following tests were carried out: Sieve analysis, Atterbergs limit tests, Compaction test,
unconfined compressive strength test and California Bearing Ratio test. The fly ash is utilized in the local construction industry in a way to
minimise the amount of waste to be disposed to the environment causing environmental pollution. The test result reveals that the optimum
content of admixture for achieving maximum strength is approximately 35% fly ash mixed with 4% lime by mass of the soil which is followed
by 20% fly ash and 4% lime and both can be considered for the designing of sub-base layer.
1. INTRODUCTION
Some waste materials such Fly Ash may be used to stabilize soil. Addition of such materials will increase the physical as well as chemical
properties of the soil. A soil mass consists of solid particles which form a porous structure. The quality and life of pavement is greatly affected
by the type of sub grade, sub base and base course materials. The most important of these are type and quality of sub grade soil. But in India
most of flexible pavements are used to be constructed over weak and problematic sub grade. The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of these sub
grade havevery low, it needs more thickness of pavement. So, we should do stabilize of soil. The OMC, CBR increased with an increase in Lime
percentage but liquid limit, Plastic limit, MDD of soil decreased with increase in Lime percentage. The liquid limit, plastic limit and MMD of
the soil decreased and the OMC, CBR increased with an increase on Fly Ash content.
Athanasopoulou (2014) has presented a paper on Addition of Lime and Fly Ash to Improve Highway Subgrade Soil. He has found out that the
addition of fly ash and lime reduces the plasticity index of the soil and reduces the MDD and increase the OMC. A remarkable improvement of
CBR is brought about by the admixture, lime.Dixit et.al (2016) has studied the effect of fly ash on geotechnical properties of soil and found out
that the addition of fly ash reduces the MDD and increases the OMC of the soil. They also concluded that the CBR of the soil also increases with
increasing fly ash content up to 30%.
Sahoo et.al (2010) also has studied the strength characteristics of fly ash mixed with lime stabilized soil and found out that the maximum
strength of the soil is attained when the soil is mixed with 15% of fly ash and 4% of lime, further increase in the admixtures results in the
decrease in the strength of the soil.
Kaur and Singh (2012), in their study of soil improvement with lime, concluded that lime alone decreases the MDD of the soil and increases the
OMC of the soil. The compressive strength of the soil also increased due to the activity of lime. But the presence of lime in excess results in
decreasing of the strength.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAME
2.1. Materials
The soil sample used for the laboratory experiments was collected from the RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY, Doimukh, and Arunachal.The soil
was being excavated with a spade at the time of collection in plastic bags and then manually transported to the laboratory. The soil is classified
as poorly graded sandy soil (SP)according to the IS soil classification. The fly ash used can be classified as class-F fly ash, collected from Iron
smelting industry located in Banderdewa, Assam. The lime used for the experimental program is from local shops, cheap and easily available.
Samples were made by replacing the soil sample with fly ash alone and then with the combination of fly ash and lime by percentages by mass
and then used for the laboratory experiments.
Red soil Fly ash Red soil + Fly ash Red soil + Fly ash + Lime
RS + 20%FA + 4%L
RS + 35%FA + 4%L
RS + 50%FA + 4%L
3. COMPACTION TEST
The standard proctor compaction test is carried out on different mixtures soil, fly ash and lime to determine their respective OMC and MDD.
The variations of optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) with different percentages of fly ash contents are shown
in figure1. The maximum dry unit weight decreases with increase in the Fly ash content; it is shown in the figure 2. While figure 3 indicates that
the optimum moisture content increases with increase in Fly Ash content.
On the addition of fly ash to the soil, there is a partial replacement of the soil by fly ash. As the fly ash has a lower specific gravity, it results in
lowering of the maximum dry unit weight of the mixture. This decrease in the unit weight can also be attributed to the fly ash particles filling the
voids between the particles of the soil. On mixing the soil with fly ash, the small fly ash particles act as a coating material of the soil and
increase the particle size, which in turn increases the size of the voids between the particles.
17
16
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)
15 RS
14 RS + 20%FA
13
RS + 35%FA
12
RS + 50%FA
11
0 10 20 30 40 FA
Water Content(%)
MDD vs FA Content
17
16
MDD (kN/m3)
15
14
13 MDD vs FA
12
11
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
FA ( % )
OMC vs FA Content
35
30
25
OMC(%)
omc vs fa
20
15
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
FA(%)
The addition of fly ash and lime to the soil causes considerable changes in the compaction characteristics of the soil. The magnitudes of change
in MDD and OMC of all the mixes are greater with 2% of lime addition than 4% lime addition. This is due to the reduced demand for lime for
short-term modification of the mixes.
16.2
MDD vs FA
16
15.8
15.6
MDD (kN/m3)
23
21 Without Lime
19 With 2%Lime
17 With 4%Lime
15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
FA(%)
Figure 5. Variation of OMC and Fly ash content with different lime contents
450
400
350
300 RS
UCS(kPa)
250 RS+20%FA
200 RS+35%FA
RS+50%FA
150
FA
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Curing Period (Days)
Figure 6. Variation of average UCS of RS-FA mixes with curing period.
The unconfined Compressive Strength Test was performed following the same procedure, adding 2% and 4% of lime by weight of the soil to
each of the mixes. The influence of lime in enhancing the strength of the soil is very much noticeable event at a very low percentage. The
following Figures-7, 8, 9 and 10 reflects the influence of the action of different percentage lime after 0 day, 7 days, 14 days and 28 days of
curing respectively. Due to the setting property of lime, it helps the fly ash contents to set completely and hence giving more strength and
durabily to the soil.
Figures 11 and 12 depicts that the UCS is proportional to the curing period for soil-fly ash-lime mixtures as in that of soil-fly ash mixtures. It can
be seen that addition of lime up to 4% substantially increased the strength of the soil. On the other hand, the addition of fly ash beyond 35%
results in the decrease of UCS. For all curing periods, the mixture of RS+35%FA+4%L remains the highest.
0 Day Curing
120
100
80
UCS(kPa)
60 0%L
40 2%L
4%L
20
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
FA content(%)
Figure 7. Variation of average UCS of RS-FA mixes with Lime content ( 0 day curing)
300
250
UCS(kPa)
200 0%L
150 2%L
4%L
100
50
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
FA content(%)
Figure 8. Variation of average UCS of RS-FA mixes with Lime content ( 7 days curing)
14 Days Curing
400
350
300
250
UCS(kPa)
200 0%L
150 2%L
100
50
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
FA content(%)
Figure 9. Variation of average UCS of RS-FA mixes with Lime content ( 14 days curing)
28 Days Curing
600
500
400
UCS(kPa)
300 0%L
2%L
200
4%L
100
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
FA content(%)
Figure 10. Variation of average UCS of RS-FA mixes with Lime content ( 28 days curing)
300
250
200 RS+20%FA+2%L
UCS(kPa)
150 RS+35%FA+2%L
100
RS+50%FA+2%L
50
0
0 10 20 30
Curing period ( Days)
Figure 11. Variation of average UCS of RS-FA- 2%L mixes with curing period
600
500
400 RS+20%FA+4%
UCS(kg/cm2)
300 RS+35%FA+4%L
200
RS+50%FA+4%L
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Curing period ( Days)
Figure 12. Variation of average UCS of RS-FA- 4%L mixes with curing period
Soaked CBR
50
40
30
CBR (%)
0% Lime
20 2% Lime
4% Lime
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
FA Content (%)
Figure 13. Soaked CBR values of all RS-fly ash-lime mixes
Unsoaked CBR
29
27
25
CBR (%)
23 0% Lime
21 2% Lime
19 4% Lime
17
15
10 20 30 40 50 60
FA Content (%)
Figure 14. Unsoaked CBR values of all RS-fly ash-lime mixes
Under soaked conditions the CBR value is highest for RS+35%FA+4%L, the CBR value increases from 12.26% at 0% lime to 45.64 at 4% lime.
A minimum CBR value of 6% and 20% are recommended for the use in the subgrade and sub-base layer of strong and durable road pavements.
When the lime is added to the red soil and FA mixes, the CBR value are much higher than 6%. So, the samples having CBR values more than
6% can effectively be used for the design of subgrade layer. Also, CBR value which is more than 20% like RS+35%+4%L can be used for the
design of sub base layer.
6. CONCLUSIONS
i. The MDD of the soil-fly ash mixes does not get significantly altered up to 20% replacement of soil with fly ash. With further addition
of fly ash, the MDD decreases. The MDD of the fly ash is 12.45 kN/m3, which is much lower than that of the soil (16.18 kN/m3). On
the other hand, The OMC of the soil-fly ash mixes without lime gradually increases with higher fly ash content.
ii. The MDD and OMC of the soil are significantly affected by the addition of lime and fly ash. For a given proportion of fly ash, the
OMC increases with the increase in the amount of lime.
iii. The unconfined compressive strength of the fly ash stabilised soil was found to increase with increase in curing period. And the same
was observed when it is stabilized with fly ash and lime. After 28 days of curing, red soil mixed with 35% of fly ash and 4% lime by
weight gives the highest compressive strength.
iv. When lime is added to the soil-fly ash mixture, there is significant improvement in its compression characteristics. The effect of fly
ash is not much considerable. However, lime aids the pozzolanic activity of fly ash.
v. The soaked CBR value is observed to have increased with lime and fly ash content. The addition of small percentage of lime gives
significant improvement in the soaked CBR value. The hydration products contribute to the development of strength. With 4% lime
added both the red soil fly ash mixes with 35% fly ash content can be considered for sub base layer.
REFERENCES
1. Athanasopoulou,, 2014. Addition of Lime and Fly Ash to Improve Highway Subgrade Soil. Journal of materials in civil engineering.
26(4): 773-775
2. Dixit, A., Nigam M., and Mishra R., 2016. Effect of fly ash on geotechnical properties of soil. International Journal of Engineering
Technologies and Management Research. 3(5), 7-14.
3. J.A. Ige and S.O. Ajamu, 2015. Unconfined compressive test of a fly ash stabilized sandy soil. International Journal of Latest Research
in Engineering and Technology (IJLRET), 1(3), 1-11.
4. Kaur, P. and G., Singh, 2012. Soil improvement with lime. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSRJMCE), ISSN :
2278-1684 Volume 1, 51-53.
5. Sahoo, J.P., Sahoo, S., Yadav and V., Kumar, 2010. Strength Characteristics of Fly Ash Mixed With Lime Stabilized Soil. Indian
Geotechnical Conference, GEOtrendz, December 1618, 2010, IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay.