Stabilization of Pavement Subgrade Using Fly Ash and Lime

International Journal of Engineering Science Invention (IJESI) ISSN (Online): 9 674, ISSN (Print): 9 676 Volume 7 Issue February 08 PP. 66-74 Stabilization of Pavement Subgrade Using Fly Ash and Lime Mohd. Imran Khan,( Assistant Professor) Dr. Ahmad Ali Khan, (Professor) Civil Engineering Department, Technocrat Institute of Technology, Bhopal Pin Code, 460, Madhya Pradesh, India Civil Engineering Department, All saints College of Technology, Bhopal, Pin code 4606,Madhya Pradesh, India Corresponding Author: Mohd. Imran Khan ABSTRACT:The study investigates the various physical properties of black cotton soil and. The physical properties and engineering properties of BC Soil such as liquid limit, plastic limit, shrinkage limit, sieve analysis, specific gravity, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density and CBR. Liquid limit and plastic limit of BC soil mixed with varying percentage of and such as 5, 0, 5, 0 5and,,4 respectively. The proctor compaction test is to be conducted to determine the optimum moisture content and maximum dry density for plain BC soil and BC soil mixed with and in varying percentage. CBR Test is to be conducted on plain BC soil, BC soil mixed with varying percentages of and after 4 day soaking and without curing. Keywords: Fly ash,, black cotton soil, pavement, etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Date of Submission: 5-0-08 Date of acceptance: 7-0-08 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- I. Introduction Soil stabilization means the improvement of the stability or bearing capacity of the soil by the use of controlled compaction, proportioning and the addition of suitable admixture or stabilizers. It deals with the physical, physio chemical and chemical methods to make the stabilized soil its purpose as pavement component material []. Fly ash is a waste product available from coal or liquate bearing thermal plants. Flyash can be advantageously used not only in the pavement construction work, but also provides an economic and useful avenve for disposal of, which is now recognized by as a national environmental problem [] []. Stabilization is being used for a variety of engineering works, the most common application being in the construction of road and air field pavements. Methods of stabilization may be grouped under two main types.. Modification or improvement of a soil property of the existing soil without any admixture.. Modification of the properties with the help of admixtures. Objectives: To determine optimum percentage of and by conducting tests such as liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index by varying the percentage of and. To determine the optimum moisture content and maximum dry density by conducting the proctor compaction test. To determine the CBR value of BC soil mixed with different percentages of and. To study the effect of curing on CBR values of BC soil mixed with and. II. Methodology. To determine the physical properties of soil and.. Percentages of gravel, sand, clay and silt in the soil is determined.. The optimum content is determined by mixing percentage of such as 5, 0, 5, 0 and 5 with BC soil and conducting plastic and liquid limit tests. 4. The CBR value in determined for BC soil mixed with 5 5. The soaked CBR value is for BC soil mixed with 5 after accelerated curing for 9 hours at 55 C temperature. 6. The CBR value in determined for BC soil mixed with 5 as constant with varying percentage of such as, and 4 ( after 4 days soaking). 7. The soaked CBR value is for BC soil mixed with 5 as constant with varying percentages of such as, and 4 after accelerated curing for 9 hours at 55 C temperature. III. Experimental Investigations Physical tests : 66 Page

Table.:Determination of grain size distribution of the particle [4] Sieve size Correctio of soil n retaine (-ve) d gms Corrected weight gms retained Cumulati Cumula ve tive retained finer 4.75m 8 0.8 7.88.576.576 98.44 m.6m 0 0.48 9.85.970.546 96.454 m mm 8 0.67 7.7.546 7.09 9. 4 600 8 0.8 7.88.576 8.668 90.48 5 45 6 0088 5.9.84 9.85 88.964 6 00 6 0.088 5.9.84.06 88.94 7 4 0.059.94 0.788.874 88.76 8 50 0 0 0 0.874 88.76 9 75.6 0.08.59 0.58.4 87.658 0 Pan 0. 0.004 0.96 0.059.40 Result Percentage of gravel =.576 Percentage of sand = 0. 766 Percentage of silt and clay = 87.6. Table.: Specific gravity of soil [4]. Particulars Wt. in gm 0 Mass of pycnometer (M ) gm 65 of 0 Mass of pycnometer + soil 908 (M )gm 0 Mass of pycnometer + soil + 60 water (M )gm 04 Mass of pycnometer + water 470 (M 4 )gm 05 Specific gravity G.67 Table.: Specific gravity of [4]. Particulars Wt in gm 0 Mass of pycnometer (M ) gm 6 0 Mass of pycnometer + 8 (M )gm 0 Mass of pycnometer + + 76 kerosene (M )gm 04 Mass of pyconmeter + kerosene 68 (M 4 )gm 05 Specific gravity G 0.807 06 Specific gravity of.4 Table.4: Results of plastic limit for varying percentage of [4] Partic ulars Contai ner container + wet soil of containe r + dry soil empty container of water Weigh t dry soil Wate r conte nt () Plain Soil I Y 0.78 7.4 8.588.54 8.654 40.90 5 II H 5 0.86 7.7 9.975.4 7.747 70.9 III H 7 0.7 7.46 9.68.8 7.78 4.5 67 Page

Avg 40.86 Plain soil + I H 9 9.495 6.46 9.86.069 7.4 4.98 5 II H 9.76 6.4 9.4.5 6.89 45.9 III Y.00 7.7 9.9.6 8.8 44.6 Avg 44.8 Plain soil + I 4 8.7 7.6 9.0 0.57 8.57 6.09 0 II 8. 5.6 9.09 5.58 6.4 85.5 III M 7.95 5.59 9.80. 5.79 40. Avg 4.9 5 I H 0.89 7.9 9.49.96 8.5 46.55 II B 8.7 7.904 8.68 4.67 9.86 47.0 III B 9 087 7. 8.95.75 8.07 45.7 Avg 46.4 0 5 I 9.84 7.569 9.65 6.55 7944 78.7 II 46.69 7.67 9.56.7 8.44 44. III K.56 8.09 9.4.466 8.85.5 Avg 54.0 I.96 8. 9.7.8 8.994 5.7 II Y.567 8.06 9.96.504 8.867 50.79 III H 9.4 8.0 9.8.8 9.08 4.8 Avg 48.9 Table.6: Results of plastic limit for varying percentage of with of Weig S0il + of Container container contain ht of of dry of Particulars empty no + wet soil er + dry water soil + contain soil er 5 + conten t () I M 0.744 7.68 9.84.6 7.86 40.05 II H 0.9 6.98 9.. 7.86 40.8 III 40.5 7.78 9.076.55 8.704 8.54 Avg 9.80 0 + ` I H.57 7.555 9.9.60 8.46 4.74 II H 6 9.065 5.945 8.60. 7.5 4.59 III T.0 7.559 9.048.544 8.5 4.64 Avg 4. I A.7 7.680 9.4.657 8.48 46. 5flyas h + II Y 9.4 5.99 9.94.85 6.75 47.9 III 4 9.87 6.485 9.087.86 7.99 45.769 Avg 46.46 Table.7: Results of plastic limit for varying percentage of with Wat Weig er S0il + of Particula Containe container + container + emty ht of of dry cont + rs r no wet soil dry soil container water soil ent () 5. I 7.46 8.7 8.966 4.88 9.07 46. 68 Page

+ 57 II 5 6.57.0 9.787 5.7. 46. 6 III 40.85 8.49 9.07 4.406 9.46 47. 4 Avg 46. 77 0 I 6 5.465 0.04 9.06 5.6 0.998 47. + 8 II M 4.664 9.95 9.809 4.749 0.06 46. 99 III H 9 0.909 7.86 9.08.7 8.04 45. 94 Avg 46. 5 + 9 I M 6.5 0.88 9.807 5.47.07 49. 9 II H 4.70 9.694 9.8 5.06 0.556 47. 5 III B 8.56 7.97 8.68 4.55 9.45 48. 7 Avg 48. 54 Table.8: Results of plastic limit for varying percentage of with 4 S0il + of + 5. + 4 Part icul ars Contai ner no container + wet soil container + dry soil emty container Weig ht of water Weig ht of dry soil conte nt () I M.5 7.69 9.808.66 7.88 46.45 II 6 0.78 7.4 9.04.649 7.9 46.0 5 III H 7.04 8.7 9.080 4.7 9.65 45.8 Avg 46. 5 0 I H 7.567 7.55 9.080 4.06 8.47 47.4 +4 II M 7.4 4.9 9.808.4 5. 47.9 III 6.89 7.868 9.05 4.06 8.66 46.47 Avg 47.0 I 46.5 8.86 9.54 4.669 9.48 49.94 5 + 4 II 9 6.98.6 9.64 5.666.69 48.46 III P 5.95 0.48 9.77 5.47.0 48.8 5 Avg 49.07 Table.5: Results of liquid limit for varying percentage Weigh Conta of t of Particular of container container N of iner empty of water dry s blows + wet soil + dry soil content o no containe soil r Plain I 9 P.7 6.67 9.56 5.6 7.4 78.49 69 Page

soil II H 6 9.94 5.00 8.64 4.94 6.66 77.9 III 45 0 0.45 5.67 9.76 4.78 6.94 75.9 Avg 77.5 Plain + 5 Plain + 0 I B 8 5.5 788 8.64 7.65.9.6 79.5 II 6 B 9 4.05 7.4 8.94 6.644 8.47 78.4 III 8 K.77 6.6 9.46 5.444 7.08 76.84 Avg 77.5 I 4 9 4.45 8.6 9.64 6.89 8.997 75.79 II 8 46.464 7.464 9.58 5.95 7.9 75.056 III 9 H 0.75 7.668 9.4 6.046 8.5 7.45 Avg 74. S l N o of Plain soil+5 Soil +0 5 Table.6: Results of liquid limit for varying percentage of : Conta Particul of container + container of empty of dry iner of water conten ars blows wet soil + dry soil container soil no t I H.794 7.75 9. 6.079 8.584 70.8 II 9. 7.7 9.9 5.75 8.8 70.8 III 5 P 0.77 7.96 9.696 5.8 8.66 70.8 Avg 70.45 I 6 40.56 7.75 9.048 5.764 8.704 77.5 II 7 B 6.0 7.6 9.78 6.505 7.447 66. III 55 A.69 7.408 9.44 5.8 8.64 64.47 avg 69.4 I 4 4.00 6.65 9.088 5.86 7.57 7.5 II 8 5.75 8.69 9. 6.584 9.58 66.7 III 48 M.05 7.69 9.78 5.4 7.87 65.86 Avg 67.5 S l N o Table.: Results of liquid limit for varying percentage of with of Weigh Parti of of of Contai of empty t of of cular container container blows ner no container water soil s + wet + dry soil soil of Plain soil+5 Soil +0 + 5 + dry Wate r cont ent I 6 4.407 8.54 9.06 6.5 8.648 7. 0 II 5 5 4. 8.58 9.79 5.84 8.464 68.9 89 III 9 H 7 4.64 8.444 9.7 6.99 9.7 67.7 58 Avg 68.5 I 5 7.65 7.686 8.98 5.967 8.706 68.5 II 5 5 4.787 8.45 9.9 6.7 9.59 68.4 4 III 4 4.84 8.758 9.769 6.089 8.989 67.6 8 Avg 68. 0 I D 4.05 7.845 8.978 6.8 8.867 69.6 9 II 0 9 4.470 8.506 9.64 5.964 8.88 67. 4 III.75 7.94 9.7 5.77 8.805 65.5 6 Avg 66 70 Page

N o N o Table.: Results of liquid limit for varying percentage of with of Weigh of of t of Partic of Contai of empty of container container of water dry ulars blows ner no container + wet + dry soil Plain soil+5 + Soil +0 + 5 + of Plain soil+5 +4 Soil +0 +4 5 +4 Wate r conte nt soil soil I 7 0.5 5.880 8.979 4.455 6.90 64.5 55 II 0 6 0.75 5.997 9.9 4.78 6.778 6. III 6 M 0.60 6.484 9.80 4.6 6.674 6.9 7 IV 44 40 0.00 5.858 9.07 4.7 6.786 6.4 7 Avg 6. I 0 H.06 6.549 9.4 4.757 7.406 64. II 4 R 9.97 5.749 9.5 4. 6.596 64.0 III 8 H 7 0.8 6.09 9.96 4.69.7 6.4 0 IV 5 D 9.8 5.0 8.969.88 6. 6. 0 Avg 6.5 I 0 A. 7.675 9.55 5.455 8.4 64.7 8 II 7 40.04 7.484 9.069 5.5 8.45 6.7 III 4 H 6 9.4 5.8 8.66 4.4 6.545 6.8 IV 48.57 8.7 9.78 5.98 8.9.6. Avg 6. 8 Table.: Results of liquid limit for varying percentage of with 4 of of Particula of Contai container + of empty of container rs blows ner no wet soil container water + dry soil of dry soil content I 0 Y 6.69 7.7 9.0 5.00 8.5 65.5 II 4 H 6 0.0 5.58 8.68 4.49 6.95 6.89 III 0 K.70 6.64 9.49 4.79 7.9 6.77 IV H 0.667 7.56 9.4 5.04 8. 6.77 Avg 6.5 I 0 B 9.57 7.5 8.95 5. 8.0 64.08 II 5 H 5.9 6.690 9.485 4.59 7.05 6.859 III B 6.54 7.447 9.79 4.807 7.655 6.79 IV H 7.455 7.87 8.695 5.68 9. 6.806 Avg 6.4 I 6.49 7.8 9.5 5.0 7.99 65.069 II 7 P 0.54 6.776 9.76 4.578 7.06 64.84 III B 6.7 7.4 9.786 4.884 7.557 6.6 IV 9 B 9. 6.46 8.956 4.76 7.506 59.4 Avg 60.0 7 Page

International Journal of Engineering Science Invention (IJESI) ISSN (Online): 9 674, ISSN (Print): 9 676 Volume 7 Issue February 08 PP. 66-74 Variation of liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index with varying percentage of are shown in fig.. Optimum content = 0 80 70 60 50 40 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 Fig..: Liquid limit and plastic limit for plain soil with 5 5 Variation of liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index with varying percentage of and, and 4 contents are show in fig.,. &.4. 80 70 60 50 40 0 0 0 Flyash Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 Fig..: Liquid limit and plastic limit for plain soil with 5 5 with 80 70 60 50 40 0 0 0 Flyash + Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 Flyash + Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fig..: Liquid limit and plastic limit for plain soil with 5 5 with 7 Page

80 70 60 50 40 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 Flyash + 4 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fig..4: Liquid limit and plastic limit for plain soil with 5 5 with 4 Table.4: Result of liquid limit plastic limit and plasticity index Liquid limit Plastic limit Plasticity index Plain 77.5 40.86 6.64 5 67.5 48.9 9.58 5 + ( 66 46.6 9.7 + ) 5 + ( 6.8 48.54.74 + ) 5 + 4 ( + ) 0 49.07 0.9 Table.5: Result of Proctor Compaction test Particular Maximum dry content density Kg/cm³ Plain.4 6.6 5.4 6.4 5 + (.6 7.4 + ) 5 + (.8 5.9 + ) 5 + 4 ( + ).5 6.8 Table.5: Results for Accelerated CBR test Particulars CBR value 5.89 5 +.80 5 +.09 5 + 4.8 Table.: Results for CBR test Particulars CBR value Plain soil 0.86 5.0 7 Page

5 + 5 + 5 + 4.405.75.9 III. Conclusion It can be seen that addition of and can be consider as an suitable and stabilizing agent. Liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index for plain soil are 77.5, 40.8 and 6.7 respectively with addition of 5 of BC soil. The above values are 67.5 the above values are 67.5, 48.9 and 8.56 respectively. From this it reveals that by addition of plasticity index and liquid limit reduced by 49. and.9 respectively. Whereas plastic limit is increased by 9.9. this clearly indicates that the addition of reduces the plasticity characteristics of BC soil and makes the soil non plastic. It reveals that by addition of 5 with of the liquid limit and plasticity index reduced by 4.8 and 47. respectively whereas increase in plastic limit by 4.8. By addition of 5 with the liquid limit and plasticity index reduced by 9.6 and 6.56 where as increase in plastic limit by 8.97. By addition of 5 of with 4 the liquid limit and plasticity index reduced by.58 and 70. where as increase in plastic limit by 0.6. The proctor compaction test determine the OMC and MDD the increase in MDD is 6.9 when compared to plain soil. There is increase in CBR value with normal 4 days soaking is 55.44 more than the plain soil There is an increase in CBR value for accelerated curing at 55 0 c for 9hrs increase the value of CBR is 7.9 more than the plain soil. From above results we are conclude that the addition of with in BC soil which gives more strength to the subgrade. References: []. Khanna.S.K. and Justo, C.E.G, Highway Engineering 8 th Edition, Nem Chand and Bros, Roorkee, 00. []. I RC: 88 984 []. Journal of the Indian Road Congress, Volume 68-, April- June, 007 [4]. Dr. Punmia B.C, Jain Ashok Kumar, Jain Arun Kumar. Soil Mechanics and Foundations,6 th Edition Laxmi publication Pvt., New Delhi, 006. [5]. Astm - c 68 9, standard specification for fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use as a mineral admixture in portland cement concrete. american society for testing and materials, usa. [6]. Fly ash for strength and economy paper presented by john albinger at concrete international. volume 6, issue 04, april -984. [7]. Fly ash, slag, silica fume, and rice husk ash in concrete: a review paper presented by mr. m. malhotra at the concrete international. volume 5, issue 04 april -99. [8]. A designer s view of fly ash concrete paper presented by jose a. vargas at the concrete international. volume 9, issue 0, february, 007. [9]. Dr. r k. khitoliya etal, m.tech, thesis, p.g highway engineering department, punjab engineering college, chandighar. [0]. G.mohamad cement and concrete composite 9(007), pg 8-9. []. Mohammad, labeed ahmed, university putra malaysia, journal proceeding june 008. International Journal of Engineering Science Invention (IJESI) is UGC approved Journal with.. 8, Journal no. 40. Mohd. Imran Khan Stabilization of Pavement Subgrade Using Fly Ash and Lime International Journal of Engineering Science Invention (IJESI), vol. 07, no. 0, 08, pp. 66 74. 74 Page