SINGLE ELEMENT TEST PREDICTIONS FOR STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOR OF PANKI FLY-ASH

M. Waseem1, A. Prashant2, S. Chandra 3

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India-208016 1 Email: waseemjan21@rediffmail.com 2 Email: aprashan@iitk.ac.in 3 Email: sarv@iitk.ac.in Abstract: Fly-ash is a waste product produced by burning of coal at thermal power plants. It is often used as geo material for filling the low lying areas. Present study is conducted on F-class fly-ash from Panki Power plant Kanpur. A series of triaxial compression tests and Oedometer tests have been performed on fly-ash specimens. Test results were used to determine Modified Cam Clay (MCC) model parameters for Panki fly-ash. The MCC model is a mathematical framework widely used for making predictions for stress-strain behavior of soils. The present study is to investigate the suitability of modeling the stress-strain behavior of fly-ash material through MCC model. The experimental observations have been compared with the predicted response of fly-ash under single element test boundary conditions using the MCC model. This study shows significant disparity between the experimental and predicted response by MCC model for fly-ash. Fly-ash particles are hollow spherical in shape and also relatively more flexible than soils, which may affect the stress strain behavior of flyash in triaxial testing due to deformation of particles. The study suggests that the deformation characteristics of fly-ash particles may be playing a significant role in the observed mechanical response of fly-ash and it may be erroneous to model the fly-ash behavior simply as typical soil behavior. Keywords: Constitutive Model, Overconsolidation, Fly-ash. 1. Introduction Fly-ash is a fine powdery material, produced by burning of coal at thermal power plants. Fly-ash is stored in ash pond nearby the power plants, which hold significant area of useful land. There is always need to dispose fly-ash from these ponds. Fly-ash is often used as structural fill in order to dispose. Fly-ash is categorized as F class and C class Fly-ash, depending on the percentage of Calcium present in it. Present study concentrates on F class (Low Calcium content) fly-ash from Panki Thermal Power Plant, Kanpur. Panki fly-ash shows specific gravity Gs=2.09, which is much lower than the typical Gs values for soils (2.6 < Gs (soils) < 2.9). Although fly-ash is much lighter than soils, it is typically considered as a silty material. In terms of the particle sizes, Panki fly-ash particles were 66.12% silt, 1.34% clay and 32.31% sand (by weight). The grain size distribution curve for Panki fly-ash is shown in Fig. 1. The permeability of fly-ash ranges from 1.0x10-4 cm/sec to 5.0x10-4 cm/sec. The shear strength of fly-ash also depends on the time due to pozollanic hardening. In view of using fly-ash as a geo-material, the studies on geotechnical properties of fly-ash are in attention. The present study explores the possibility of modeling the fly-ash behavior as soils by using the Modified Cam Clay (MCC) model to predict the behavior of Panki fly-ash. Modified Cam-Clay (MCC) model [3, 4] was developed based on a considerable resource of experimental data obtained from single axis loading tests in laboratory. This model has been commonly used in practice to analyze various field problems. In the present study, experimental data for model parameters was determined by Oedometer test and a series of triaxial compression test and predictions were made from the model. Finally experimental and MCC predicted stress-strain behavior were compared.

120

100

Percentage Finer

80

60

40

20

0 0.001 0.01 0.1 Particle Size 1 10

Fig. 1. Grain Size Distribution Curve for Fly-ash.

CSL

Yield Surface
Mpo 2

M 1
po 2

po

Fig. 2. Yield Surface and CSL in q-p Plane 2. Modified Cam clay Model In critical state soil mechanics, it is proposed that an element of soil undergoing uniform shear deformation eventually reaches a critical state where it continues to undergo further deformation without any change in its state i.e. at constant mean effective stress( p ), deviatoric stress ( q ) and specific volume ( v = 1 + e , where e is void ratio). The critical state line (CSL) is defined as a smooth curve in the p - q - v space, and a straight line in p-q space, as shown in Fig. 2. In MCC model, it is assumed that the state of soil remains on a stable state boundary surface when the plastic deformation occurs in loading conditions, and the energy dissipated per unit volume of the soil, at any stage on the stable state boundary surface is given by

 W = p ( vp ) + M 2 ( qp )
2

(1)

p Where W is dissipated energy, vp is plastic volumetric strain, and q is plastic shear strain. The

parameter M is a soil constant, which is associated with the critical state of soil. Based on energy dissipation and the assumption of associative flow rule, the yield surface is described as p ) q2 M 2 (2) p ( po =0 Where po/ is effective pre-consolidation pressure, which is used as a state variable in the model. Using the yield surface and consolidation properties, the stable state boundary surface can be derived as

M 2 + 2 v v ln ( p ) ln (3) = 2 M Here is the ratio of q and p, ( = q p ). The parameters v, , and are obtained from the

isotropic consolidation properties of frictional materials, as shown in Fig. 3.

v v = v v= 1 Normal Consolidation Line Unload Reload Line Critical State Line

ln (p)

Fig. 3. Typical consolidation curve for frictional materials 3. Calibration of MCC Model Parameters Oedometer tests were conducted on fly-ash specimens of 19.5 mm height and 60 mm diameter. Specimens were made by the oven dry fly-ash, which was funneled in to the specimen ring making the specimen at loosest state. After these specimens were saturated, a seating pressure of 5 kPa was applied on to the specimen. Subsequently, loading and unloading of the specimen was done at 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400 and 800 kpa as shown by the data points in Fig 4. MCC model Parameters were determined for Panki fly-ash as, = 0.11, = 0.009, and v = 3.07. Another consolidation tests was performed which showed good repeatability of the experimental data. For determination of parameter M, an undrained triaxial compression test was performed on a cylindrical specimen of fly-ash using GDS Triaxial soil testing system. The specimen had 50 mm diameter and 100 mm height, and the test was performed at 200 kpa of effective confining pressure. The axial strain rate was chosen to be 0.005 %/min for the test. The test was repeated and the result showed agreeable coherence with the previous test. The cylindrical specimen was prepared by rain fall technique using a funnel. The critical state line was plotted in p-q space which had a slope of M = 1.97 (Fig. 5).

2.65 2.6 Specific volume 2.55 2.5 2.45 2.4 2.35 10 100 Pressure (Kg/sqcm) 1000

= 0.11 v= 3.07 = 0.009

Figure 4 Loading and unloading of fly-ash specimen in Oedometer test

300 250 Deviator stress 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Mean Effective Stress M=1.97

Fig. 5. Stress path of normally consolidated fly-ash 4. MCC Model Predictions Using the MCC model parameters mentioned earlier and the value of Poisson's ratio = 0.28, predictions were made for a series of undrained triaxial compression test at effective confining pressure 200, 240, 300 and 400 kpa on normally consolidated fly-ash specimens. Some of the tests were repeated in order to ensure quality of the experimental data. The tests showed satisfactory repeatability with the previous ones. Figure 6 shows comparison of experimental and predicted stress-strain response of fly-ash at the effective confining pressure of 200, 240, 300 and 400 kpa on normally consolidated fly-ash specimens. It was observed from the stress-strain response of fly-ash, the predicted stiffness of fly-ash at lower strain values was nearly the same as from the experimental data. Figure 6 shows that the predicted peak deviatoric stress values were significantly less than the corresponding experimental peak deviatoric stress. The predicted stress-strain curves show failure at much lower strains in comparison to the experimental stress-strain curves. As the effective confining stress increases experimental stress-strain response shows relatively sudden failure response. However, the model does not predict such observation with the increase in effective confining stress.

Fig. 6. Stress-Strain Behavior Experiments and Predicted from MCC model

Typical Experimental Total Stress Path

500 450 400 Deviator stress 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 200

Typical Experimental Stress Path

up Typical MCC Predicted Stress Path Typical Predicted Total Stress Path

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

Mean effective stress, Total stress

Fig. 7. Experimental and MCC predicted stress path for normally consolidated fly-ash. Figure 7 shows a comparison of the experimental total and effective stress paths and corresponding MCC model predictions for normally consolidated fly-ash at the effective confining pressure of 400 kPa as a typical case. The effective stress path is initially linear then a sudden change is observed in the mean effective stress and the effective stress path changes its linear profile to a smooth curve. In contrast to this stress path of normally consolidated fly-ash which is predicted by MCC model shows a smooth curve throughout shearing. In light of the elasto-plasticity theory, such linearity in the

experimental effective stress path could be interpreted as the fly-ash deformation might be linear elastic at small strains. The increase in p' during linear part of the effective stress path might be due to stress induced anisotropy of the fly-ash specimen and the axial direction being stiffer than the radial direction [1]. The fly-ash particles, being relatively flexible [2, 5], might deform elastically against each other at the contact points during deviatoric loading. It would lead to larger area and interlocking of contact between the particles and such contact distribution might cause the fly-ash to behave stiffer along the axial direction. After reaching a certain threshold shear stress value the specimen yielded and the particles could slide against each other overcoming the resistance provided by the increased area and interlocking of the particles contacts. Thus, the material experienced plastic deformation causing sudden change in the effective stress path. Due to the same reasons, the MCC model predicted much higher excess pore pressure (up) evolution relative to the experimental observation. The magnitude of excess pore pressure may be interpreted as the difference between total and effective mean stress path in Fig. 7. Although the particle size of fly-ash could be compared to a typical silty soil, the mechanical response of fly-ash was significantly different from the soils due to the fly-ash particles being relatively softer than the soil particles. In view of these observations, it might be desirable to state that the mechanical behavior of fly-ash should not be modeled simply as soils merely based on the impression of fly-ash particles being of the same size as silty soils. Particle stiffness and strength could be major factors influencing the behavior and need to be addressed before modeling such materials. 5. Conclusion The MCC model predictions for stress-strain behavior of fly-ash show substantial disparity with the experimental stress-strain behavior. The excess pore pressure predicted by the model was higher than the experimental excess pore pressure. The shapes of predicted and experimental stress paths were also different. It was observed that the fly-ash deformation could be linear elastic at small strains with certain amount of stress induced anisotropy, which changes to plastic deformation after a certain threshold value and finally material reaches the failure point. It was interpreted from the experimental data that the specimen was possibly stiffer in axial direction than the radial direction during triaxial shearing. The comparisons between MCC model predictions and experimental response suggested that fly-ash material might not behave as typical soils and some issues related to particle flexibility and crushability would need to be addressed before modeling such materials. References 1. J. Graham, G. T. Houlsby, 1983, Elastic Anisotropy of a Natural Clay, Gotechnique, 33, 2, 165180., ISSN 0016-8505; corrigendum: Gotechnique, 33, 3, 354. 2. P. K. Rohatgi, J. K. Kim, R.Q. Guo, D.P. Robertson, M. Gajadarziska-Josifovska, 2002, Age Hardening of Aluminum Alloy and Hollow Fly Ash Composites, Metallurgy and Material Transactions A, 33A, 1541-1547. 3. K. H. Roscoe, J. B. Burland, 1968, On the generalized stress strain behaviour of wet clay, Engineering plasticity (eds J. Heyman and F. A. Leckie), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 535609. 4. A. N. Schofield, C. P. Wroth, 1968, Critical State Soil Mechanics, Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill. 5. A. Trivedi, V. K. Sud, 2002, Grain Characteristics and Engineering Properties of Coal ash, Granular Matter, 93101