Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 22-24,2013, Roorkee

MODIFICATION IN GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL MIXED WITH

FLY ASH AND GYPSUM

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
power plants produces fly ash. The high
temperature of burning coal turns the clay minerals
present in the coal powder into fused fine particles
mainly comprising aluminium silicate. Fly ash
produced thus possesses both ceramic and
pozzolanic properties. When pulverized coal is
burnt to generate heat, the residue generally
contains 80% fly ash and 20% bottom ash. Fly ash
is one of the numerous substances that cause air,
water and soil pollution, disrupt ecological cycles
and set off environmental hazards. The problem
with fly ash lies in the fact that not only does its
disposal require large quantities of land, water and
energy, its fine particles, if not managed well, by
virtue of their weightlessness, can become
airborne. Currently, 90 million tonnes of fly ash is
being generated annually in India, with 65000
acres of land being occupied by ash ponds. Such a
huge quantity does pose challenging problems, in
the form of land usage, health hazards and
environmental dangers. Both in disposal as well as
in utilization, utmost care has to be taken, to
safeguard the interest of human life, wild life and
environment.
Researchers have tried since sixties to transform
fly ash from liability to asset. The solution of this
problem may be achieved through bulk utilization
of the fly ash as a construction material in different
civil engineering and infrastructural projects. In
spite of initiatives taken by the government, several
non-governmental and research and development
organizations for fly ash utilization, the level of fly
ash utilization in the country was estimated to be
less than 10%. Globally, less than 25% of the total
annual fly ash produced is utilized. Two methods
are in practice to dispose of the generated fly ash.
They are wet disposal and dry disposal methods
with ash ponds being the most common methods of
disposal in India.
A review of the literature revealed that various
laboratory investigations have been conducted on
fly ash/lime stabilization of soil. Studies of
Mitchell and Katti, 1981 [1]; Consoli et al., 2001
[2] and Edil et al., 2006 [3] indicated the
effectiveness of fly ashes for stabilization of fine
grained soils. Ghosh and Subbarao, 2007 [4], 2012
[5] studied the shear strength characteristics of a
class F fly ash modified with lime alone or in
combination with gypsum whereas Bera et al.,
2007 [6] have reported the compaction
characteristics of pond ash; Pandian, 2004 [7]
showed the characteristics of fly ash with reference
to geotechnical applications. Kolay and Pui, 2010
[8] studied the stabilization of soil with fly ash and
gypsum. Review of literature on geotechnical
properties of fly ash, stabilized with soil and a
binding material reveals a wide variation in its
behaviour and warrants further verification.

Page 1 of 4
 Ajit Kumar, Manjul Chandravanshi

MATERIALS USED order to examine modifications in geotechnical

The soil, a light brown silty sand used in this study properties of the soil. A third series of the tests was
was procured from the banks of Baini River at carried out on samples of soil mixed with four
Pantnagar University campus, Uttarakhand, different percentages of fly ash, each combination
excavated from a depth of 40cm. This soil was added with three different percentages ((i.e., 2, 4
taken as the first study material by sieving out the and 6%)) of gypsum.
particles other than the silt and sand sizes. The
second material, was a low calcium class F fly ash RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
obtained from Century Pulp and Paper situated at
Lalkuan, district Nainital. The fly ash had a dark (1). Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and
greyish colour with a carbon content of (6-8%). Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)
The physical properties of the two materials are The compaction characteristics of the soil and
presented in Table 1. The third material has been a mixes were studied by conducting 60 Standard
standard quality of calcium sulphate dihydrate Proctor Tests as per IS:2720 (Part VII)-1980,
(gypsum), CaSO4.2H2O (Sakarni brand) Average values of 3 similar mixes for OMC and
manufactured by M/S Jai Durga Plaster Industry, MDD are presented in Table 2. It is observed that
Shakur Basti, Pitampura, Delhi. the OMC of soil+fly ash+gypsum mixes increases
with increasing the percentage of fly ash and also
Table 1 Physical Properties of Soil and fly ash increasing the percentage of gypsum. The higher
Parameter Soil Fly Ash values of OMC associated with higher fly ash and
Specific gravity (G) 2.57 2.04
Bulk Density (), gypsum content follows from the need of hydration
kN/m3 15.89 1.20 reaction for cementitious materials and to release
Plasticity Index NP NP the capillary tension from the greater exposed
Max. dry density surface of the fines particles as ponted out by Kim
(dmax), kN/m3 15.60 0.89
(Standard Proctor et al., 2005 [9]. The maximum dry density (MDD)
Test) is observed to decrease with increase in the
Optimum moisture 11.0 28 percentage of fly ash. The decrease in MDD with
content, % increase in the percentage of fly ash is associated
Angle of internal 30.8 40
friction (), degree with the notion that fly ash is light material as
Cohesion (c), kN/m Negligible Negligible compared to soil. The results also indicate that
Grain size distribution MDD of the mixes increases with the addition of
Sand size fraction (%) 69.5 23.8 2% gypsum. However, an increase in the
Silt size fraction (%) 30.5 76.2
Soil type as per IS: percentage of gypsum to 4% and 6% resulted in a
1498-1970 SM ML corresponding decrease in MDD.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME AND (2). California bearing ratio (CBR)

METHODOLOGY
The experimental programme in this investigation
was conducted in three phases. In the first phase,
following tests were conducted on soil samples as
per the standard IS practices:
Standard Proctor test
CBR test
Direct shear test
Unconfined compression strength test
In the second phase, the above tests were repeated
on samples of soil mixed with different
percentages of fly ash (i.e., 10, 15, 20 and 25%) in
CBR is widely used in the design of base and sub-
base materials for pavement. The tests were
conducted in accordance with IS:2720 (Part XVI)-
1987, under soaked and unsoaked conditions and
the results are summerised in Table 3. CBR of the
mixes in soaked condition are found to be
significantly smaller as compared to the
corresponding values in unsoaked condition. The
possible reason may be attributed to the destruction
of capillary forces under soaked conditions. In
general, CBR values are found to increase with
the increase in fly ash percentage in soaked and

Page 2 of 4
 Modification in geotechnical properties of soil mixed with fly ash and gypsum

Table 2 OMC and MDD of soil+fly ash+gypsum mixes

OMC (%) Max. Dry Density (kN/m3)
Fly Ash 0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Gypsum 0% 11.0 14 16 17 19 15.60 15.40 15.30 14.91 14.13
2% --- 18 20 21 22 --- 15.99 15.70 15.30 14.62
4% --- 19 21 22 23 --- 15.99 15.40 15.11 14.52
6% --- 20 22 23 24 --- 15.79 15.30 15.01 14.32

Table 3 CBR of soil+fly ash+gypsum mixes

Soaked Unsoaked
Fly Ash 0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Gypsum 0% 4.92 4.98 5.99 6.46 6.45 13.07 13.34 14.89 15.56 16.64
2% --- 5.05 5.41 6.34 6.52 --- 13.81 16.30 16.50 17.78
4% --- 5.19 5.54 6.35 6.40 --- 20.61 20.82 20.95 21.29
6% --- 5.23 5.83 6.66 6.80 --- 22.77 23.31 24.92 25.81

Table 4 Cohesion and angle of internal2 friction of soil+fly ash+gypsum mixes

Cohesion, c (kN/m ) Angle of internal friction, (degree)
Fly Ash 0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Gypsum 0% 1.62 1.18 1.09 1.09 1.07 30.8 31.2 32.0 33.5 35.6
2% --- 4.21 8.53 10.68 11.76 --- 12.6 18.0 15.2 18.0
4% --- 9.33 9.60 12.84 11.76 --- 10.3 13.3 12.8 14.3
6% --- 10.68 10.68 13.25 12.17 --- 8.4 13.8 9.7 11.6

Table 5 Unconfined compressive strength (qu) of soil+fly2 ash+gypsum mixes

UCS, qu (kN/m )
Fly Ash 10% 15% 20% 25%
Gypsum 0% 57.7 70.0 92.0 84.0
2% 108.3 127.8 117.1 110.5
4% 142.8 160.6 171.4 155.9
6% 190.6 207.4 218.5 218.8

unsoaked conditions. However, the results either
show a marginal increase in CBR values with
increase in gypsum or do not permit conclusive
inference in soaked condition. On the other hand, a
definite increasing trend is observed in CBR values
with increase in gypsum percentage in unsoaked
condition.
(3). Cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction
()
Direct shear tests were conducted on soil, soil+fly
ash and soil+fly ash+gypsum samples at five
different normal stresses. Cohesion (c) and angle of
internal friction () were determined by plotting
shear stress vs normal stress curves and the results
so obtained are given in Table 4. No appreciable
change is observed in cohesion with increase in fly
ash content from 0% to 25%. However, angle of
internal friction is found to increase from 30.8 to
35.6 with increase in fly ash from 0% to 25%. The
addition of gypsum in soil+fly ash mixes resulted
in a drastic improvement in cohesion values and a
significant decrease in angle of internal friction.
The reason for modifications in c and with the
addition of fly ash and gypsum may be attributed
to the cohesionless property of fly ash and the
binding property of gypsum.
(4). Unconfined compressive strength (qu)
The qu values of different soil+fly ash+gypsum
mixes are presented in Table 5. The unconfined
compressive strength of the mixes is found to
increase with increase in fly ash content up to 20%
and thereafter it decreases as the fly ash content is
increased to 25%. The addition of 2% gypsum
improves qu significantly. The results on qu of soil
mixes are found in agreement with Bell, 1996 [10],
Kate, 2005 [11] and Sahoo et al., 2010 [12].
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn on the
basis of present study:
The OMC of mixes increases with increasing
the percentage of fly ash and also increasing

Page 3 of 4
 Ajit Kumar, Manjul Chandravanshi
the percentage of gypsum. The maximum dry
density (MDD) is observed to decrease with
increase in the percentage of fly ash. It is also
observed that MDD of the mixes increases with
the addition of 2% gypsum. However, an
increase in the percentage of gypsum to 4% and
6% resulted a corresponding decrease in MDD.
CBR values of the mixes are found to be
significantly smaller in soaked condition as
compared to the corresponding values in
unsoaked condition.
CBR are found to increase with the increase in
fly ash percentage in soaked and unsoaked
conditions. However, the results either show a
marginal increase in CBR values with increase
in gypsum or do not permit conclusive
inference in soaked condition. On the other
hand, a definite increasing trend is observed in
CBR values with increase in gypsum
percentage in unsoaked condition.
No appreciable change is observed in cohesion
with increase in fly ash content from 0% to
25%. However, angle of internal friction is
found to increase with increase in fly ash. The
addition of gypsum in the mixes resulted in a
drastic improvement in cohesion values and a
significant decrease in angle of internal
friction.
The unconfined compressive strength of the
mixes is found to increase with increase in fly
ash content up to 20% and thereafter it
decreases as the fly ash content is increased to
25%. The addition of 2% gypsum improves qu
significantly.
REFERENCES
1. Mitchell, J.K. and Katti, R.K. (1981), Soil
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
fly ash. Jl. of Materials in Civil Engineering,
18(2), 283-294.
4. Ghosh, A. and Subbarao, C. (2007), Strength
Characteristics of Class F Fly Ash Modified
with Lime and Gypsum. Jl. of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(7),
757-766.
5. Ghosh, A. and Subbarao, C. (2012),
Deformation modulus of fly ash modified with
lime and gypsum. Geotech. Geo. Engineering,
30, 299-311.
6. Bera, A.K. and Ghosh A. (2007), Compaction
Characteristics of Pond Ash. Jl. of Materials in
Civil Engineering, ASCE, 19(4), 349-357.
7. Pandian, N.S. (2004), Fly ash characterization
with reference to geotechnical applications. Jl.
of Indian Institution of Science, 84, 189-216.
8. Kolay, P.K. and Pui, M.P. (2010), Peat
stabilization using gypsum and fly ash. Jl. of
Civil Engineering, 1(2), 1-5.
9. Kim, B., Prezzi, M. and Salgado, R. (2005),
Geotechnical properties of Fly ash and bottom
ash mixtures for use in highway embankments.
Jl. of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental
Engineering, ASCE, 137(9), 914-924.
10. Bell F.G. (1996), Lime stabilization of clay
minerals and soils. Engineering Geology, 42,
223237.
11. Kate, J.M. (2005), Strength and volume change
behaviour of expansive soils treated with fly
ash. GeoFrontiers, ASCE, Geotechnical
Special Publication.
12. Sahoo, J.P., Sahoo, S. and Yadav, V.K. (2010),
Strength Characteristics of Fly Ash Mixed
With Lime Stabilized Soil, Proc. Indian
Geotechnical Conference2010, Mumbai, Dec.
16-18, 2010, 429-432.
Page 4 of 4