Ajit Kumar , Associate Professor, Deptt. of Civil Engg., GBPUAT, Pantnagar, e-mail: ajitkfce@yahoo.com
Manjul Chandravanshi , M.Tech. (Civil Engg.), GBPUAT, Pantnagar, e-mail: manjul1811@gmail.com
ABSTRACT: Fly ash is an industrial waste produced mostly from the burning of coal in thermal power stations,
which adds to environmental pollution. Some of the problems associated with fly ash are large area of land
required for its disposal and toxicity associated with heavy metal leached to groundwater. This investigation is
carried out on a silty sand soil, procured from the banks of Baini River, Pantnagar (Uttarakhand) in order to study
modifications in its geotechnical behaviour by adding different percentages of class F fly ash (10, 15, 20 and 25%)
and commercial gypsum (2, 4 and 6%) by weight. Laboratory results indicate increase in optimum moisture content
and decrease in maximum dry density with increase in the percentage of fly ash. The increasing percentages of
gypsum added for stabilization of soil-fly ash mixes resulted in gain in strength.
INTRODUCTION
The combustion of powdered coal in thermal spite of initiatives taken by the government, several
power plants produces fly ash. The high non-governmental and research and development
temperature of burning coal turns the clay minerals organizations for fly ash utilization, the level of fly
present in the coal powder into fused fine particles ash utilization in the country was estimated to be
mainly comprising aluminium silicate. Fly ash less than 10%. Globally, less than 25% of the total
produced thus possesses both ceramic and annual fly ash produced is utilized. Two methods
pozzolanic properties. When pulverized coal is are in practice to dispose of the generated fly ash.
burnt to generate heat, the residue generally They are wet disposal and dry disposal methods
contains 80% fly ash and 20% bottom ash. Fly ash with ash ponds being the most common methods of
is one of the numerous substances that cause air, disposal in India.
water and soil pollution, disrupt ecological cycles
and set off environmental hazards. The problem A review of the literature revealed that various
with fly ash lies in the fact that not only does its laboratory investigations have been conducted on
disposal require large quantities of land, water and fly ash/lime stabilization of soil. Studies of
energy, its fine particles, if not managed well, by Mitchell and Katti, 1981 [1]; Consoli et al., 2001
virtue of their weightlessness, can become [2] and Edil et al., 2006 [3] indicated the
airborne. Currently, 90 million tonnes of fly ash is effectiveness of fly ashes for stabilization of fine
being generated annually in India, with 65000 grained soils. Ghosh and Subbarao, 2007 [4], 2012
acres of land being occupied by ash ponds. Such a [5] studied the shear strength characteristics of a
huge quantity does pose challenging problems, in class F fly ash modified with lime alone or in
the form of land usage, health hazards and combination with gypsum whereas Bera et al.,
environmental dangers. Both in disposal as well as 2007 [6] have reported the compaction
in utilization, utmost care has to be taken, to characteristics of pond ash; Pandian, 2004 [7]
safeguard the interest of human life, wild life and showed the characteristics of fly ash with reference
environment. to geotechnical applications. Kolay and Pui, 2010
Researchers have tried since sixties to transform [8] studied the stabilization of soil with fly ash and
fly ash from liability to asset. The solution of this gypsum. Review of literature on geotechnical
problem may be achieved through bulk utilization properties of fly ash, stabilized with soil and a
of the fly ash as a construction material in different binding material reveals a wide variation in its
civil engineering and infrastructural projects. In behaviour and warrants further verification.
Page 1 of 4
Ajit Kumar, Manjul Chandravanshi
Page 2 of 4
Modification in geotechnical properties of soil mixed with fly ash and gypsum
unsoaked conditions. However, the results either significant decrease in angle of internal friction.
show a marginal increase in CBR values with The reason for modifications in c and with the
increase in gypsum or do not permit conclusive addition of fly ash and gypsum may be attributed
inference in soaked condition. On the other hand, a to the cohesionless property of fly ash and the
definite increasing trend is observed in CBR values binding property of gypsum.
with increase in gypsum percentage in unsoaked
condition. (4). Unconfined compressive strength (qu)
The qu values of different soil+fly ash+gypsum
(3). Cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction mixes are presented in Table 5. The unconfined
() compressive strength of the mixes is found to
Direct shear tests were conducted on soil, soil+fly increase with increase in fly ash content up to 20%
ash and soil+fly ash+gypsum samples at five and thereafter it decreases as the fly ash content is
different normal stresses. Cohesion (c) and angle of increased to 25%. The addition of 2% gypsum
internal friction () were determined by plotting improves qu significantly. The results on qu of soil
shear stress vs normal stress curves and the results mixes are found in agreement with Bell, 1996 [10],
so obtained are given in Table 4. No appreciable Kate, 2005 [11] and Sahoo et al., 2010 [12].
change is observed in cohesion with increase in fly
ash content from 0% to 25%. However, angle of CONCLUSIONS
internal friction is found to increase from 30.8 to The following conclusions may be drawn on the
35.6 with increase in fly ash from 0% to 25%. The basis of present study:
addition of gypsum in soil+fly ash mixes resulted The OMC of mixes increases with increasing
in a drastic improvement in cohesion values and a the percentage of fly ash and also increasing
Page 3 of 4
Ajit Kumar, Manjul Chandravanshi
the percentage of gypsum. The maximum dry fly ash. Jl. of Materials in Civil Engineering,
density (MDD) is observed to decrease with 18(2), 283-294.
increase in the percentage of fly ash. It is also 4. Ghosh, A. and Subbarao, C. (2007), Strength
observed that MDD of the mixes increases with Characteristics of Class F Fly Ash Modified
the addition of 2% gypsum. However, an with Lime and Gypsum. Jl. of Geotechnical
increase in the percentage of gypsum to 4% and and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(7),
6% resulted a corresponding decrease in MDD. 757-766.
CBR values of the mixes are found to be 5. Ghosh, A. and Subbarao, C. (2012),
significantly smaller in soaked condition as Deformation modulus of fly ash modified with
compared to the corresponding values in lime and gypsum. Geotech. Geo. Engineering,
unsoaked condition. 30, 299-311.
CBR are found to increase with the increase in 6. Bera, A.K. and Ghosh A. (2007), Compaction
fly ash percentage in soaked and unsoaked Characteristics of Pond Ash. Jl. of Materials in
conditions. However, the results either show a Civil Engineering, ASCE, 19(4), 349-357.
marginal increase in CBR values with increase 7. Pandian, N.S. (2004), Fly ash characterization
in gypsum or do not permit conclusive with reference to geotechnical applications. Jl.
inference in soaked condition. On the other of Indian Institution of Science, 84, 189-216.
hand, a definite increasing trend is observed in 8. Kolay, P.K. and Pui, M.P. (2010), Peat
CBR values with increase in gypsum stabilization using gypsum and fly ash. Jl. of
percentage in unsoaked condition. Civil Engineering, 1(2), 1-5.
No appreciable change is observed in cohesion 9. Kim, B., Prezzi, M. and Salgado, R. (2005),
with increase in fly ash content from 0% to Geotechnical properties of Fly ash and bottom
25%. However, angle of internal friction is ash mixtures for use in highway embankments.
found to increase with increase in fly ash. The Jl. of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental
addition of gypsum in the mixes resulted in a Engineering, ASCE, 137(9), 914-924.
drastic improvement in cohesion values and a 10. Bell F.G. (1996), Lime stabilization of clay
significant decrease in angle of internal minerals and soils. Engineering Geology, 42,
friction. 223237.
The unconfined compressive strength of the 11. Kate, J.M. (2005), Strength and volume change
mixes is found to increase with increase in fly behaviour of expansive soils treated with fly
ash content up to 20% and thereafter it ash. GeoFrontiers, ASCE, Geotechnical
decreases as the fly ash content is increased to Special Publication.
25%. The addition of 2% gypsum improves qu 12. Sahoo, J.P., Sahoo, S. and Yadav, V.K. (2010),
significantly. Strength Characteristics of Fly Ash Mixed
With Lime Stabilized Soil, Proc. Indian
REFERENCES Geotechnical Conference2010, Mumbai, Dec.
1. Mitchell, J.K. and Katti, R.K. (1981), Soil 16-18, 2010, 429-432.
improvement. State-of-the-art report. Proc. 10th
Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Int. Soc. Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, London, 261-317.
2. Consoli, N.C., Prietto, P.D.M., Carraro, J.A.H
and Heinech (2001), Behaviour of compacted
soil-fly ash-carbide lime mixtures. Jl. of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 127(9), 774-782.
3. Edil, T.B., Acosta, H.A. and Benson, C.H.
(2006), Stabilizing soft fine grained soils with
Page 4 of 4