Geotechnical Characteristics of Cement-

Stabilized Fiber-Reinforced Fly Ash-Soil

Blends
S.K. Tiwari
Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur-302017, Rajasthan, India
Hons. Secretary, Indian Geotechnical Society Jaipur Chapter
Mob: +919414279558
Tel: 0141-2721340 (Res)
e-mail: sktiwari.nitjaipur@gmail.com

Anil Ghiya
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering
Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur-302017, Rajasthan, India
e-mail: anilghiya@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Coal is the major source of power generation in India. About 62-70% of power is generated
through coal thermal power plants. Coal used in power plant in India is of poor quality having
ash contents of the order of 30-45% against 8-10% for coal used in many other countries.
Recently, many studies have been carried out to study the influence of randomly distributed
synthetic fibers on strength behaviour of soils. However, very few studies are available in
literature on characteristics of fiber-reinforced fly ash-soil blends. Experimental investigations
were undertaken to study the individual and mutual influence of arbitrarily distributed fiber
reinforcements and cement stabilization on the geotechnical properties of fly ash-soil
mixtures. Fly ashes obtained from Kota Thermal Power Station and Suratgarh Thermal Power
Station in Rajasthan, India were blended with silt and sand in different ratios. Unconfined
compression tests (UCS) were conducted on fly ash-soil specimens prepared with 4% cement
content alone and also with 4% and 8% cement and 1.5% fiber contents, after different period
of curing. The investigation shows that cement stabilization increases the strength of the raw
fly ash-soil specimens. The fibre reinforcement significantly changes the behaviour of mix in
terms of strength and ductility. There is noticeable improvement in the strength of raw fly-
ash-soil specimen and cement-stabilized specimen both. The mix becomes more ductile i.e.
brittle behaviour changes into ductile behaviour. The increase in strength due to combined
action of cement and fibre reinforcement is either more than or approximately equal to the
sum of the increase caused by them separately, depending on the type of fly ash-soil blend
and curing period.
KEYWORDS: Fiber-Reinforcement, fly ash-soil mix, cement stabilization,
unconfined compression test, brittle, ductile

INTRODUCTION
Mixing of fibers cause considerable improvement and modification in the engineering
characteristics of soils. Past research studies on fiber-reinforced soils have recently been carried
out by [Gray (1970), Waldron (1977), Wu et al. (1988)] reported that plant roots increase the

- 3129 -
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3130

shear strength of soil and the stability of earthen slopes. [Gray et al. (1983), Shewbridge et al.
(1989), and Bauer et al. (1991)] carried out laboratory test on certain fiber-reinforced sands and
silty sands. [Hoare (1979), Maher (1988), Gray et al. (1989), Hoover et al. (1982), Maher et al.
(1990), Maher et al. (1994), Ranjan et al. (1996), Michalowski et al. (1996), Nataraj et al. (1997),
Consoli et al. (1998), Santoni et al. (2001), Kumar and Tabor (2003), Gosavi et al. (2004), Gupta
(2004), Prabakar et al. (2004), Consoli et al. (2005), Casagrande et al. (2006), Ozkul et al.
(2007), Kumar et al. (2007), Sivakumar Babu et al. (2008), Salah Sadek et al. (2010), Consoli et
al. (2011), Mohanty et al. (2011), Chacko et al. (2013) and Trivedi et al. (2013)] carried out
triaxial compression tests on arbitrarily distributed fiber-reinforced soils. Chemical stabilization
using lime or cement is an established technique of improving the overall performance of soils.
Lima et al. (1996) reported a large increase in compressive strength with the addition of cement
and lime to fiber-reinforced soils. Fly ash is a silt-size non-cohesive material having specific
gravity relatively smaller than that of the normal soils. Fly ash is being used in many countries for
construction of embankments and in compressed fills. Fly ash is a Pozzolanic material and
therefore its engineering performance can be improved by addition of cement or lime. However,
information about the effect of fiber inclusions on the geotechnical characteristic of fly ashes is
inadequate. An experimental investigation was conducted to study (i) cement stabilization on the
geotechnical properties of fly ash-soil mixtures and (ii) the individual and mutual influence of
arbitrarily distributed fiber reinforcement with cement stabilized fly ash soil blends. Correlations
for unconfined compressive strength and secant modulus as functions of curing time, amount of
fly ash, and amount of cement have been established. Correlations for water content as functions
of curing time and amount of cement have also been established. In order to study the behaviour
of cement stabilized fiber-reinforced fly ash-soil mixtures, Suratgarh and Kota fly ashes were
blended with silt and sand in different ratios. The geotechnical properties of the fly ash-soil
specimens containing 1.5% arbitrarily distributed polyester fiber reinforcements were studied.
Unconfined compression tests (UCS) were conducted on fly ash-soil specimens prepared with 4%
and 8% cement content and also with 4% cement and 1.5% fiber contents, after different periods
of curing. The investigation shows that cement stabilization increase the strength of the
unreinforced fly ash-soil specimens. The fiber reinforcement significantly changes the behaviour
of mix in terms of strength and ductility. There is noticeable improvement in the strength of
unreinforced fly-ash-soil specimen and cement-stabilized specimen both. The mix becomes more
ductile i.e. brittle behaviour changes into ductile behaviour. The increase in strength due to
combined action of cement and fiber reinforcement is either more than or approximately equal to
the sum of the increase caused by them separately, depending on the type of fly ash-soil blend
and curing period. The combined influence of reinforcement and cement on the strength
properties was studied by carrying out unconfined compression tests (UCS) on cured fly ash-soil
specimens containing 4% cement content and 1.5% fiber content. The subsequent paragraph
presents the details and test results of the experimental investigation and conclusion withdrawn
from the research work.

MATERIALS USED
The fly ashes were collected from Kota Thermal Power Plant and Suratgarh Thermal Power
Plant in Rajasthan. The physical properties of the fly ashes have been shown in Table 1. The soils
used in the fly ash-soil blends were silt and fine sand found in abundance in the desert state of
Rajasthan, India. Ordinary Portland cement was used for cement stabilization purpose.
The chemical composition of the Suratgarh and Kota fly ashes are given in Table 2. They are
classified as class F fly ashes. The Suratgarh fly ash was mixed separately with Jaipur silt and
Sikar sand. Kota fly ash was mixed with locally available Jaipur sand. Table 1 and Table 3 give
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3131

the particle size distribution and physical properties of these ashes, sands and silts. The fly ash-
soil proportions used in the experiments were 25:75, 50:50, 75:25, and 100:0 by dry weight. An
additional proportion of 0:100 were also used in the Suratgarh fly ash-Jaipur silt mixture. The
amounts of cement used were 4% and 8%. Commercially available ordinary Portland cement
(OPC 43 grade) was used. Potable water was used in all specimen preparations. The synthetic
(polyester) fibers have been used as reinforcement. The characteristics of the polyester fibers used
as reinforcement are presented here for ready reference.
Table 4 presents the details of various fly ash-soil blends and the notation used is: SF for
Suratgarh Fly ash, KF for Kota Fly ash, J for locally available Jaipur sand, M for locally available
Jaipur silt. The fly ash and soil masses in fly ash-soil blend are indicated by numerals after their
symbols. The sum of two numbers is the numbers is the number of total components in the fly
ash-soil blend and the numbers after the fly ash and soil are their respective components by mass.
Thus SF3J1 represents a 75% of Suratgarh fly ash 25% Jaipur sand blend (i.e., total components
=3+1=4 of which SF is 3 parts and J is 1 part), and so on.

Table 1: Physical Characteristics of Kota and Suratgarh Fly Ash

Kota *Suratgarh
Properties
Fly Ash Fly Ash
Grain size
Sand Sizes (%) 3.4 2.9
Silt size (%) 95.1 95.5
Clay Size (%) 1.5 1.6
Coefficient of uniformity(Cu) 5.2 5.5
Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 0.78 0.80
Classification As per BIS: 1498-1970 ML ML
Maximum Dry Density, MDD (kN/m3) 13.3 11.2
Optimum Moisture Content, OMC (%) 20 31
Void ratios:
Void ratio at OMC 0.585 0.909
Specific gravity (G) 2.15 2.18

Table 2: Chemical Composition of Kota and Suratgarh Fly Ash

Kota Fly ash Suratgarh Fly
Components or Property
(%) ash (%)
Silica (SiO2) 58 57
Alumina (Al2O3) 29 30
Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 4.6 5.5
Lime (CaO) 1.9 1.1
Titania (TiO2) 2.10 2.60
Magnesia (MgO) 0.8 0.54
Sulphate (SO3) 0.15 0.09
Soda (Na2O) 0.28 0.24
Potash (K2O) 1.45 0.90
Loss on Ignition (%) 0.7 0.9
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3132

Table 3: Physical Characteristics of Jaipur Sand, Sikar Sand and Silt

Properties/ Characteristics Jaipur Sand Sikar Sand Jaipur Silt

Grain size distribution
(i) Sand size (%)
Coarse Sand Size (4.75 to 2 mm) - 3.0
Medium Sand Size (2- 0.475 mm) - 15.0
Fine Sand Size (0.475-0.075) 97.8 81.0 11.0
(ii) Silt size (%) 2.2 1.0 79.0
(iii) Clay size (%) Nil Nil 10.0
Coefficient of uniformity ( Cu) 1.95 - -
Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.08 - -
Plasticity Characteristics
Liquid limit (%) Non Plastic 49.7 Non Plastic
Plastic limit (%) Non Plastic 25.4 Non Plastic
Plasticity Index (%) Non Plastic 24.6 Non Plastic
BIS- classification SP CI ML
Specific Gravity (G) 2.66 2.66 2.65
Maximum Dry Density γd max (kN/m ) 3
16.4 15.3 13.6
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 12.5 11.6 22.3
Void Ratio
Minimum Void Ratio 0.591 - -
Maximum Void Ratio 0.837 - -

Table 4: Test Results of Standard Proctor Test for Fly Ash-Soil (Sand/Silt) Mixtures
Maximum Optimum
Mix
Fly ash-soil mixture dry density Moisture
designation 3
(kN/m ) content (%)
SF Suratgarh Fly ash 11.20 31.0
SF3M1 75 % SF + 25 % M 13.10 22.3
SF2M2 50 % SF + 50 % M 14.20 18.6
SF1M3 25 % SF + 75 % M 15.10 15.2
M Jaipur Silt 13.60 22.3
SF3J1 75 % SF + 25 % J 12.50 26.0
SF2J2 50 % SF + 50 % J 14.66 22.3
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3133

SF1J3 25 % SF + 75 % J 14.80 17.7

J Jaipur Sand 16.4 12.5
KF Kota Fly ash 13.3 20
KF3S1 75 % KF + 25 % S 15.06 15.2
KF2S2 50 % KF + 50 % S 16.93 12.4
KF1S3 25 % KF + 75 % S 17.64 10.8
S Sikar Sand 15.30 11.6

The fly ash and the soils were first dried. The general expression for the total dry mass M of a
fly ash-soil-cement-fiber blend is
        M= Mf + Ms + Mc + Mfb (1)
where Mf, Ms, Mc, Mfb are masses of fly ash, soil, cement and fibers, respectively. The ratios of
fly ash and soil with the cement and fiber content in fly ash-soil blend are defined as the ratio of
their respective dry mass to the combined dry mass of fly ash and soil.
        M = (Rf+ Rs + Cc +wf) (Mf +Ms) (2)
where Rf =ratio of fly ash=Mf / (Mf +Ms); Rs = ratio of soil = Ms / (Mf +Ms); Cc = cement content
= Mc / (Mc +Ms); and wf = fiber content = Mfb / (Mfb +Ms).
The different values taken in the investigation for Rf and Rs are 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1; for
Cc 0, 0.04 and 0.08; and for wf= 0.01 and 0.015. All the compressed specimens were prepared at
their respective maximum dry unit weight (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC)
obtained from standard proctor test. Therefore, mass of specimen is defined by its volume and
MDD (mass═ volume × density). For known values of M, Rf, Rs, Cc and wf the required amount
of various materials have been estimated by above both expressions. In the preparation of all type
of test specimens, first the required quantity of fly ash and soil were estimated and blended
together in the dry condition. If neither cement nor fiber was used, the dry fly ash-soil blend was
blended with the required quantity of water that depends on optimum moisture content (OMC) of
the fly ash-soil blend. If cement alone is taken for modification in properties then for stabilization
the dry fly ash-soil blend was first blended with cement and then the fly ash-soil-cement blend
was blended with water. It was observed during mixing process that fibers blended with fly ash –
soil blend more uniformly in the moist condition than in the dry condition. Thus if fiber inclusion
alone was used the dry fly ash-soil blend was blended with water and then moist fly ash-soil
blend blended with fiber reinforcement. If both cement and reinforcement were used for
modification, a moist fly ash –soil blend was obtained for mixing with cement alone and then the
moist blend mixed with polyester fiber. All mixing was prepared manually and proper care was
taken to maintain isotropic & homogenous blend at each stage of mixing.

CEMENT STABILIZED FLY ASH SOIL MIX

Standard Proctor compaction tests were conducted to determine the optimum moisture
content and maximum dry density of all fly ash-soil mixtures. The results of the compaction tests
are shown in Table 4. Cylindrical samples of the fly ash-soil mixtures were prepared at their
respective optimum moisture content and maximum dry density. For Suratgarh and Kota fly ash-
soil mixtures, 38-mm diameter and 76-mm long samples were prepared by static compaction. For
curing, the samples were closely wrapped in a polythene bag and placed above water in a
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3134

desiccators kept in a room where the temperature was maintained around 21oC. During curing,
the samples were placed above water in closed tubs. The humidity and temperature were
maintained by the water. Generally, the samples were cured for 7, 14, 28, and 56 days. After
curing, unconfined compressive strength test was conducted and the water content was also
determined.
The influence of cement content on the strength of fly ash soil blend was investigated by
carrying out unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test on specimens ready with 4% and 8%
cement content and cured for different periods for stabilization purpose.

Table 5(a): UCS of Cement-Stabilized Suratgarh Fly Ash-Soil Specimens in kPa

Cement Content=4% Cement Content=8%

Mix
designation Curing Periods in Days Curing Periods in Days
0 7 14 28 56 0 7 14 28 56
SF 65.8 138.5 186.8 271.8 285.6 65.8 483.6 691.5 918.7 1396.7
M 36.5 650.7 729.9 931.8 1174.9 36.5 1013.5 1327.1 1678.8 2324.5
SF3M1 61.8 219.8 252.5 251.5 379.8 61.9 589.8 794.5 893.8 1099.5
SF1M1 47.5 310.5 327.9 394.8 498.9 47.4 724.4 858.8 1127.9 1482.5
SF1M3 50.9 433.4 546.5 750.5 874.0 50.9 821.1 1089.2 1155.5 1855.3
SF3S1 44.0 123.9 194.5 211.0 296.13 44.0 259.8 467.5 728.9 1046
SF1S1 33.5 135.0 203.1 270.8 367.9 33.5 272.9 500.0 822.0 1389
SF1S3 20.6 115.7 181.5 341.0 623.9 20.9 291.5 435.5 753.0 1306

Table 5(b): UCS of Cement-Stabilized Kota Fly Ash-Soil Specimens in kPa

Cement Content=4% Cement Content=8%

Mix
designation Curing Periods in Days Curing Periods in Days
0 7 14 28 56 0 7 14 28 56
KF 67.4 139.9 189.0 274.1 290.0 67.4 487.3 695.7 923.4 1408.5
M 38.2 653.1 733.5 936.2 1180.7 38.0 1016.7 1332.3 1686.9 2332.3
KF3M1 63.6 224.0 257.7 259.7 390.0 63.3 594.1 799.4 900.2 1107.9
KF1M1 49.7 314.4 331.1 402.8 505.9 49.8 728.8 864.7 1135.0 1490.1
KF1M3 53.3 436.8 549.9 757.7 881.2 53.4 826.7 1095.9 1163.1 1865.2
KF3S1 46.4 126.0 199.0 217.3 303.8 45.7 263.1 473.2 736.0 1054.8
KF1S1 35.0 137.8 207.8 278.0 374.4 35.0 275.0 506.6 829.4 1399.1
KF1S3 22.1 118.2 186.0 348.5 633.6 22.2 294.1 439.9 759.5 1313.9
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3135

Table 6: Values of Constant for Cement-Stabilized Fly Ash-Soil Specimens

Constant Mix designation

KF1M1
SF1M1

KF1S1

KF1S1

KF1S3
SF1S3
s

KF
SF

M
0.003230

0.003234

0.001925

0.001928

0.000748

0.002029

0.002032

0.000308

0.000312
(m2/kN)
mc

0.000588

0.000590

0.000566

0.000569

0.000349

0.000259

0.000262

0.000324

0.000329
(m2/kN)
mc
cc(m2/kN)

0.066195

0.066198

0.019789

0.019792

0.008419

0.077149

0.077153
0.05595

0.05598
cc(m2/kN)

0.015229

0.015231

0.008305

0.008309

0.005809

0.026938

0.026942
0.02724

0.02727
Value of

0.965

0.968

0.979

0.983

0.986

0.994

0.997

0.659

0.664
(R2)
Value of

0.954

0.958

0.982

0.984

0.977

0.981

0.986

0.861

0.866
(R2)

The specimens were compressed in the same method as explained before. For curing each
specimen was closely wrapped in a polyethylene bag [Glogowski et al. (1992)] to prevent loss of
moisture and placed in desiccators. A small quantity of water was kept at the bottom of
desiccators to maintain constant humidity within the desiccators. The desiccators was closed at
top and kept in a room of laboratory the temperature of which was maintained at around 21º C,
the specimen wrapped in polyethylene begs in kept in desiccators for the required curing period.
Generally the specimens were cured for 7, 14, 28 and 56 days. After curing, an unconfined
compressive strength test (UCS) was carried out and the post test water content was estimated. A
minimum of three tests were carried out for each set of variables. A test was also conducted on
fly ash specimens prepared without cement but cured in the same method as the cement stabilized
specimens. There was no increase in strength of these specimens with time as the fly ash was of
class F category. Table 5 (a and b) shows the UCS of the cement stabilized fly-ash-soil specimen
for different periods of curing.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3136

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 (a, b) shows typical curves of result obtained for the different
fly-ash-soil-cement combinations in the form of variation of unconfined compressive strength
(Sct) with curing time for Suratgarh and Kota fly ashes. Without cement, the class F fly ash shows
very little self-hardening property. There is significant increase in strength even with a small
addition of cement and the gain depends on the amount of cement and curing time. Paya et al.
(1997) expressed the variation of compressive strength of fly ash-cement mortars with curing
time, t, as Eq. (3):
        Sc = a + blog10t     (3)
where ‘a’ and ‘b’ are constants. Moller et al. (1985) have given a similar expression for Sc for
self-hardening fly ashes. Eq. (3) was used to analyze the compressive strength of a few fly ash-
soil-cement combinations. The equation gave good coefficient of determination (R2). For
example, for Suratgarh fly ash mixed with 8% cement, the analysis gave

a= -410.3 kN/m2, b= 979.2 kN/m2, and R2= 0.95.

Eq. (3) does not seem to be appropriate. Reasons for the same may be explained as under.

(i) As, for 1 day curing, Sc = a. However, ‘a’ obtained by regression analysis may not be
equal to the actual compressive strength after one day curing. ‘a’ is also negative in some
cases as in the present example, which indicates a negative compressive strength that is
not true.

(ii) The validity of the correlation is not established only by R2. The other statistical tests
should also be acceptable.

For the example in question, the standard error = 101.7kN/m2, which is significant at low
curing time in comparison to the compressive strength at that time.

(iii) The fly ash-soil samples possess an initial compressive strength (t = 0) that cannot be
defined by Eq. (3).

(iv) According to Eq. 3, Sc increases indefinitely with time, which may not be true. If the
increase in strength with time is assumed to be hyperbolic, the UCS is expressed as Eq.
(4):
        Sc = Sco+ t/ (α t+ β) (4)

Sco is the measured initial unconfined compressive strength and α and β are constants obtained
from the regression analysis of data in [t, t/ (Sc – Sco)] coordinate system. Generally, it was found
that Eq. (4) satisfied all the statistical requirements and yielded better estimate in comparison to
Eq. (3). For the Suratgarh fly ash and 8% cement combination,

α = 0.000490 m2/kN, β = 0.01511 day-m2/kN, and R2 = 0.96. Figure 4 (a, b) shows the
comparison of the actual Sc values of the Suratgarh and Kota fly ashes and 8% cement
combination with those estimated by Eqs. (3) and (4). Eq. (4) provides better results for Sc than
Eq. (3). Eq. (4) gives the maximum value of Sc as expressed in Eq. (5):
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3137

        Scmax = Sco + 1/ α (5)

The constants α and β that govern the strength gain depend upon the fly ash and amount of
cements in any fly ash soil blend. Figure 5 (a, b) shows the compressive strain at failure of the
Suratgarh and Kota fly ash-silt samples treated with 8% cement. The failure strain itself is small,
varying from 0.95 to 2.7% and the failure is brittle failure. The failure strain generally tends to
decrease with curing time.
The elastic modulus or the modulus of deformation of the material is required in an analysis
based on elastic theory. The secant modulus (Y) has been taken as elastic modulus. It is defined
as the ratio of one-half of the compressive strength to the axial strain corresponding to this stress.
If the increase in Ys with time is assumed to be hyperbolic it can be expressed as Eq. (6):
        Ys = Yo + t / (α1t + β1) (6)

where, Yo is the initial secant modulus; α1 and β1 are constants obtained from the regression
analysis of data in [t, t/ (Ys - Yo)] coordinate system.

ARBITRARILY DISTRIBUTED FIBER-REINFORCED

AND CEMENT-STABILIZED FLY ASH SOIL BLEND
To investigate the mutual influence of fiber reinforcement and cement stabilization on the
strength of fly ash-soil blend unconfined compression test was conducted on fly ash-soil
specimens prepared with cement and fiber content of 4% and 1.5%respectively. The specimens
were prepared and cured in the same method as that of specimens in the test on cement stabilized
fly ash soil blend
Figure 6 shows the stress-strain plots of cement-stabilized nonreinforced and cement-
stabilized fiber-reinforced fly ash-silt (SF1M1) specimens for different periods of curing. The
average unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and the failure strain values of cement stabilized
fiber-reinforced fly ash-soil specimens are summarized in Table 7. The cement-stabilized
unreinforced specimens showed brittle behaviour and the failure strain was in the range of 1-2%.
The fiber inclusions changed the behaviour to ductile behaviour. The decrease in the post peak
axial stress was abrupt in cement stabilized samples, but was gradual when they also fiber
reinforced. The failure strain increased and ranged from 3.5% to 9%. Similar performance was
observed for other fly ash-soil specimens also. The reduction in the post peak axial stress was in
cement-stabilized samples, but was steady when they were also fiber reinforced. If the increase in
strength with time is assumed to be hyperbolic Scft is expressed as:

Scft = S0+ t/ (mcf t+ cvf)

where mcf and cvf are respectively, the slope and intercept of the straight line obtained from
regression analysis of data in the [t, t/ (Scft –Sf0)] coordinates system. The regression analysis is
indicating that the hyperbolic assumption for increase in strength with time was satisfactory for
fly ash-silt sample and not for fly ash-sand sample. Table 8 presents the results of the regression
analysis for fly ash-silt specimen. The variation of the measured Scft with time and the curve-fitted
trend using the mcf, cvf and Sf0 values is given in Figure 7. There is a match between the curve
fitted and the actual variations.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3138

The gain in the UCS of a fly ash of a fly ash-soil blend due to fiber alone is given by

∆Sf= Sf0-S0

The gain in the UCS of a fly ash-soil blend at time t due to cement stabilization alone is given by

∆Sct= Sct-S0

The gain in the UCS of a fly ash-soil blend at time t due to mutual influence of cement and fiber
is given by

∆Scft= Scft-S0

To quantify the increase in strength due to the mutual action relative to the sum of individual
action, parameter is define as

Icf = [∆Scft-(∆Sct+∆Sf)]/ (∆Sct+∆Sf)

Icf tends to zero when the gain in UCS due to the mutual action of cement and fiber is nearly
equal to the sum of increase in UCS due to their individual actions. Figure 8 shows the variation
of Icf with curing time for different fly ash-soil mixture. The effect of the mutual action of cement
and fibers is predominant in the fly ash–silt (SF1M1) mixture always and in the Suratgarh fly ash
(SF) as curing time increases. In silt (M) and fly ash-sand (SF1J1 and SF1J3) blends, ultimately
the mutual effect of cement and fiber on UCS is nearly equal to the sum of their own UCS
individual effects. The variation of Icf with Scft for the fly ash-soil blend is shown in Figure 9

Table 7: Test Results of Unconfined Compressive Strength on Cement-Stabilized Fiber –

Reinforced Fly Ash-Soil Specimens at Fiber Content of 1.5 %
UCS (kPa) /Failure Cement content=4%
Strain (%)
Mix Curing Period in Days
Symbol 0 7 14 28 56
SF UCS (kPa) 157.4 218.8 278.8 389.7 456.5
SF Failure Stain (%) >16 3.5 3.72 3.92 4.55
M UCS (kPa) 411.8 1220.5 1287.0 1350 1479.4
M Failure Stain (%) >16 7.8 8.2 6.8 6.4
SF1M1 UCS (kPa) 304.5 769.4 838.4 866.9 943.5
SF1M1 Failure Stain (%) >16 6.8 5.7 4.9 5.5
SF1J1 UCS (kPa) 436.7 482.8 510.1 680.9 724.8
SF1J1 Failure Stain (%) >16 6.9 6.4 7.5 5.8
SF1J3 UCS (kPa) 477.9 687.9 727.8 757.8 1060.4
SF1J3 Failure Stain (%) >16 8.2 5.5 6.4 7.5

Note: SF, J and M represents Suratgarh fly ash, Jaipur sand and Jaipur silt respectively.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3139

Table 8: Values of Constant for Cement-Stabilized Fiber-Reinforced Fly Ash-Silt Specimens

Mix designation mcf (m2/kN) Ccf (m2/kN) R2

SF 0.001539 0.094714 0.881

M 0.000883 0.003448 0.994

SF1M1 0.001472 0.005839 0.994

In the hyperbolic models for strength increase, the theoretical express for ∆Sct and ∆Scft
individual are given by second terms of the equations given above. The theoretical expression for
Icf is given as:

Icf = [(1/ (mcft + ccf) - 1/ (mcft + cc)] t / [Sf0 –S0 + (t/ mct + cc)]
Comparison between actual and pre-directed values of Icf for fly ash-silt specimens shows that
there is a good correlation between the predicted and actual values of Icf. The best fit regression
line restrained to pass through the origin is given by

Icf-actual = 0.971 Icf-predicted

The R2 value of correlation and standard error in estimate I are 0.98 and 3.9% respectively. Hence
the spread out of the data point is mostly within 5% of the value.

1200

1000
Sct (UCS),kPa

800

600

400

200

0
0 20 40 60
Curing Period (t), days

Figure 1: Comparison of Curve Fitted and Measured Value of UCS (Sct) of Cement Stabilized
Specimen at time ‘t’ with Curing Period for Suratgarh Fly Ash-Silt Specimens (with
Cement Content 4%)
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3140

1200

1000

800
Sct (UCS), kPa

600

400

200

0
0 20 40 60
Curing Period (t), days
Figure 2: Comparison of Curve Fitted and Measured Value of UCS (Sct) of Cement Stabilized
Specimen at time‘t’ with Curing Period for Suratgarh Fly ash-Sand Specimens (with
Cement Content 4%)

Figure 3 (a): Variation of unconfined compressive strength of Suratgarh

fly ash with time
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3141

Figure 3 (b): Variation of unconfined compressive strength of Kota fly ash with time

Figure 4 (a): Comparison between predicted and actual unconfined compressive strength for
Suratgarh fly ash
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3142

Figure 4 (b): Comparison between predicted and actual unconfined compressive strength for
Kota fly ash

Figure 5 (a): Failure strain of Suratgarh fly ash-silt samples stabilized with 8% cement
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3143

Figure 5 (b): Failure strain of Kota fly ash-silt samples stabilized with 8% cement

1200

1000

800
Scft , kPa

600

400

200

0
0 4 8 12 16
strain %

Figure 6: Stress-Strain Plots of Cement-Stabilized Unreinforced and Cement-Stabilized Fiber-

Reinforced Fly Ash –Silt in UCT (SF1M1)
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3144

1600

1200
Scft , kPa

800

400

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Curing Time(t), days

Figure 7: Measured and Curve Fitted Plots of Average UCS (Scft) of Cement Stabilized Fiber
Reinforced Fly Ash-Silt Specimen with Curing Time

60
50
40
30
Icf , %

20
10
0
-10
-20
0 20 40 60
Curing Time(t), days

Figure 8: Plots of Relative Increase in UCS due to combined action of Cement and Fibers over
Sum of Their Individual Actions (Icf) with Curing Time (t)
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3145

60
50
40
30
Icf , %

20
10
0
-10
-20
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Scft, kPa

Figure 9: Plots of Relative Increase in UCS (Icf) due to combined action of Cement
and Fibers over Sum of Their Individual Actions with Average UCS (Scft) of Cement
Stabilized Fiber Reinforced Fly Ash-Soil Specimen

CONCLUSIONS
From experimental investigations carried out to study the behaviour of cement-stabilized
fiber-reinforced fly ash-soil mix, it is concluded that the fly ash fiber composite can sustain large
axial strain exhibiting greater ductility in the composite and results in significant improvement in
stress-strain behavior, causing substantial increase in shear strength compared to that in
unreinforced specimen. The increase in unconfined compressive strength and secant modulus (Y)
of fly ash-soil mixtures with time can be assumed to be hyperbolic. The increase in strength and
secant modulus depends on the fly ash and amount of cement. The increase in strength and secant
modulus increase as amount of cement increases, but decrease as amount of fly ash increases. The
effect of amount of cement is more pronounced in comparison to the content of fly ash. The
moisture content of a fly ash-soil blend is dependent on the curing time and amount of cement.
The water content reduces as curing time and amount of cement increases. The moisture content
reduces as curing time and amount of cement increases. The cement content has a significantly
higher influence as compared to the time of curing.
By incorporating fibers in the fly ash, deviator stress at failure increases over unnreinforced
fly ash-soil specimens. However, the increase in deviator stress due to fiber reinforcement is not
as high as that in the unconfined compressive strength. The unconfined compressive strength of
fly ash-soil blends increases due to addition of cement and fibers. The gain in unconfined
compressive strength caused by the mutual action of cement and fibers is either more than or
nearly equal to sum of the increase caused by them individually, depending on the duration of
curing and type of the blend.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3146

REFERENCES
1. Babu, G.L.S. and Vasudevan, A. K. (2008). "Strength and Stiffness Response of Coir
Fiber-Reinforced Tropical Soil." J. Materials in Civil. Eng., 20(9), 571-577.
2. Bauer, G. E., and Fatani, M. N. (1991). ‘‘Strength characteristics of sand reinforced
with rigid and flexible elements.’’ Proc., 9th Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mech. and
Found. Engg. Vol. 1, 471–474.
3. Casagrande, M.D.T., Coop, M.R. and Consoli, N. C. (2006). "Behaviour of a Fiber-
Reinforced Bentonite at Large Shear Displacements." J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
132(11), 1505-1508.
4. Chacko, A., Tom, A. F., & Lovely, K. M. (2013) Effect of Fly Ash on the Strength
Characteristics of Soil. Ratio, International Journal of Engineering Research and
Development, Vol. 6(4), 61-64.
5. Consoli N.C. Prietto, P.D., and Ulbrich, L.A. (1998). “Influence of fiber and cement
addition and the Behaviour of sandy soil “Geotech and Geoenvironmental engg.
ASCE 124(2), 1200-1214
6. Consoli, N. C., Zortéa, F., de Souza, M., & Festugato, L. (2011). Studies on the
dosage of fiber-reinforced cemented soils. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
23(12), 1624-1632.
7. Glogowski, P. E., Kelly, J. M., McLaren, R. J., and Burns, D. L. (1992). ‘‘Fly ash
design manual for road and site applications.’’ Final Rep. Prepared for Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
8. Gosavi, M. P., Mittal, K.A. and Saran, S., (2004), “Improvement of properties of
black cotton soil sub-grade through synthetic reinforcement”. Journal, Institution of
Engineers (India), Vol. 84, pp.257-262.
9. Gray, D. H., and Ohashi, H. (1983). ‘‘Mechanics of fiber reinforcement in sand.’’ J.
Geotech. Engg. ASCE, 109(3), 335–353.
10. Gray, D.H. (1970) “Role of woody vegetation in reinforcing soil in stabilizing slope
“Proke Symp. On reinforcement and stabilizing techniques, 253-306.
11. Gupta, P.K., 2004, “Behavior of Fiber Reinforced Sand”, Indian Geotechnical
Journal.
12. Hoare, D.J. (1979) “Laboratory study of Granular soils reinforced with arbitrarily
selected descript fiber.” Proc. Int. Conf. on soil reinforcement vol. I 47-52
13. Hoover, J. M., Moeller, D. T., Pitt, J. M., Smith, S. G., and Wainaina, N. W. (1982).
‘‘Performance of randomly oriented fiber reinforced roadway soils.’’ DOT Project-
HR-211, Dept. of Transp., Highway Division, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
14. Kumar, A., Walia, B. S., & Bajaj, A. (2007). Influence of fly ash, lime, and polyester
fibers on compaction and strength properties of expansive soil. Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, 19(3), 242-248.
15. Kumar, S., & Tabor, E. (2003). Strength characteristics of silty clay reinforced with
randomly oriented nylon fibers. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
8(2).
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3147

16. Lima, D.C., Bueno, B.S. and Thomas, L. (1996) “The mechanical response of soil
lime blend reinforced with short synthetic fiber”. Proc. 3rd int. symp. On
Environment geo-technology vol. I 868-877.
17. Maher, M.H. (1988). “Static and dynamic response of sand reinforced with discrete
arbitrarily distributed fiber”. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann, Arbour,
Mich.
18. Maher, M.H. and Gray, D.H. (1990) “Static response of sand reinforced with
arbitrarily distributed fiber “. J. Geotech Engg. ASCE 116(11), 1661-1677
19. Maher. M.H., and Ho, Y.C., 1994.”Mechanical properties of Kaolinite fiber soil
composite” J. Geotech Engg. ASCE , 12-(8) 1381-1393
20. Michalowski, R.L. and Zhao, A. (1996). "Failure of fiber reinforced granular soils."
J. Geotech. Engg. ASCE, 122 (3), 226-234.
21. Mohanty, B., Chauhan, M. S., & Mittal, S. (2011). “Permanent Strain of Randomly
Oriented Fiber Reinforced Rural Road Subgrade Soil under Repetitive Triaxial
Loading.” ASCE.
22. Nataraj. M.S., and McManis, K.L. (1997). "Strength and deformation properties of
soils reinforced with fibrillated fibers." Geosynthetics International, 4 (1), 65-79.
23. Ozkul, Z. H., & Baykal, G. (2007). Shear behavior of compacted rubber fiber-clay
composite in drained and undrained loading. Journal of geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental engineering, 133(7), 767-781.
24. Paya, J., Monzo, J., Borrachero, M. V., Peris, E., & Gonzalez-Lopez, E. (1997).
Mechanical treatments of fly ashes. Part III: Studies on strength development of
ground fly ashes (GFA)—Cement mortars. Cement and Concrete Research, 27(9),
1365-1377.
25. Prabakar, J., Dendorkar, N., & Morchhale, R. K. (2004). Influence of fly ash on
strength behavior of typical soils. Construction and Building Materials, 18(4), 263-
267.
26. Ranjan, G., Vasan, R. M., and Charan H. D. (1996). ‘‘Probabilistic analysis of
randomly distributed fiber-reinforced soil.’’ J. Geotech. Engg. ASCE, 122(6), 419–
426.
27. Sadek. Najjar, S.S. and Freiha, F. (2010). "Shear Strength of Fiber-Reinforced
Sands." J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136(3), 490-499.
28. Santoni, R.L., and Webster, S.L. (2001). "Airfields and road construction using fiber
stabilization of sand." J. Transp. Eng. ASCE, 127 (2), 96-104.
29. Shewbridge, S. E., and Sitar, N. (1989). ‘‘Deformation characteristics of reinforced
sand in direct shear.’’ J. Geotech. Engg. ASCE, 115(8), 1134–1147.
30. Trivedi, J. S., Nair, S., & Iyyunni, C. (2013). Optimum Utilization of Fly Ash for
Stabilization of Sub-Grade Soil using Genetic Algorithm. Procedia Engineering, 51,
250-258.
31. Waldron, L. J. (1977). ‘‘Shear resistance of root-permeated homogeneous and
stratified soil.’’ Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 41, 843–849.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. O 3148

32. Wu, T. H., Erb, R. T., and Beal, P. E. (1988). ‘‘Study of soil-root interaction.’’ J.
Geotech. Engg. ASCE, 114(12), 1351–1375.

© 2013 EJGE