Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, we would like to express the deepest appreciation to our
supervisor Dr. Nguyen Thanh Sang for giving us the opportunity to work under this
project. He was a constant source of ideas, guidance and support throughout this
research study. We are also grateful for his careful readings and suggestions regarding
the writing of this report paper.
We also wish to express very special thanks other ATP’s research in International
Education Centre and University of Transport and Communications, for giving us their
valuable advice and providing environment and information to complete this study.
Finally, very special and heartfelt thanks to our beloved classmates for their
support, encouragement and sacrifice throughout the course of the study. However, this
investigation was conducted with the limit of time and constant idea resources, there
must be mistakes and lack of knowledge through this investigation, so we are happy to
gain the precious comment and useful advices from all of you, to extend and fulfill our
future research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURE ........................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS..................................................... v
INFORMATION FOR THE RESEARCH RESULT OF SUBJECT ..................... vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER I: FLY ASH REVIEW ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Back ground. ......................................................................................................... 3
2. Production of Fly Ash. .......................................................................................... 3
3. Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 4
4. Fly Ash in Vietnam. .............................................................................................. 6
4.1. Fly Ash statistics ............................................................................................. 6
4.2. Fly ash researching to reproduce and use in Vietnam. ................................... 6
CHAPTER II: MATERIAL AND METHOD ............................................................ 8
1. Materials and preparation. ..................................................................................... 8
1.1. Fly ash............................................................................................................. 8
Fly ash was taken from the Insecption Center For Building Materials .................... 8
1.2. Cement ............................................................................................................ 8
1.3. Soil .................................................................................................................. 9
2. Methods ............................................................................................................... 11
2.1. Physical and mechanical test for Soil. .......................................................... 11
2.2. Physical and mechanical test for Soil mixture Fly Ash and Cement ........... 36
CHAPTER III: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................. 51
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1:Sample oxide analyses of fly ash and portland cement...................................5
Table 1.2: Fly Ash from the thermal power plant from 2005 to 2020 ............................6
Table 2.1 :Fly Ash properties ..........................................................................................8
Table 2.2: Result of water content experiment .............................................................. 14
Table 2.3: Result of unit weight experiment .................................................................16
Table 2.4: Result of grain size experiment for soil .......................................................18
Table 2.5: Result of compaction experiment (1) ..........................................................23
Table 2.6: Result of compaction experiment (2) ...........................................................23
Table 2.7: Result of Liquid Limit experiment ............................................................... 28
Table 2.8: Result of Plastic Limit experiment ............................................................... 29
Table 2.9: Result of direct shear experiment .................................................................32
Table 2.10: Result of unconfined compression experiment with displacement calculate
by millimeter..................................................................................................................35
Table 2.11: Result of unconfined compression experiment with displacement calculate
by percentage .................................................................................................................35
Table 2.12: Water content of sample mixture: Soil+3% Cement+3% Fly Ash ...........37
Table 2.13: Density of sample mixture: Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash ..................37
Table 2.14: Water content of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash ............................... 38
Table 2.15: Density of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash .........................................39
Table 2.16: Result of direct shear test of Soil mixture 3% Cement and 3% Fly Ash ...40
Table 2.17: Result of direct shear test of Soil mixture 6% Fly Ash .............................. 41
Table 2.18:Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
with displacement calculate by millimeter ....................................................................42
Table 2.19. Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
with displacement calculate by percentage ...................................................................42
Table 2.20: Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 6% Fly Ash with
displacement calculate by millimeter ............................................................................43
Table 2.21: Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 6% Fly Ash with
displacement calculate by percentage ...........................................................................44
Table 2.22:Comparison about compaction properties of 3 samples ............................. 45
LIST OF FIGURE
Firgure 1.1:Fly Ash particles at 2,000x magnification. ...................................................4
Firgure 1.2: Typical ash colors. .......................................................................................5
Figure 2.1: Soil sample collection site ..........................................................................10
Figure 2.2:Equipment of water content experiment. .....................................................13
Figure 2.3: Equipment of unit weight experiment. .......................................................15
Figure 2.4: Equipment of grain size experiment. ..........................................................17
Figure 2.5: Aggregate curve of soil ...............................................................................19
Figure 2.6: Equipment of compaction test. ...................................................................20
Figure 2.7: Result of compaction experiment ............................................................... 24
Figure 2.8: Equipment of Atterberg’s Limits experiment. ............................................25
Figure 2.9: Result of Atterberg’s Limit experiment ......................................................29
Figure 2.10: Equipment of direct shear experiment. .....................................................31
Figure 2.11: Result of direct shear experiment ............................................................. 32
Figure 2.12: Equipment of unconfined compression experiment. ................................ 34
Figure 2.13:Result of unconfined compression experiment ..........................................36
Figure 2.14: Result of compaction test of sample mixture: Soil +3% Cement + 3% Fly
Ash. ................................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 2.15: Result of compaction test of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash............39
Figure 2.16: Result of direct shear test of soil mixture 3% Cement and 3% Fly Ash ..40
Figure 2.17: Result of direct shear test of soil mixture 6% Fly Ash ............................. 41
Figure 2.18: Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
.......................................................................................................................................43
Figure 2.19: Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 6% Fly Ash .................44
Figure 2.20: Comparison about unconfined compression of 3 samples. ......................49
1. General information:
-Name of subject: Soil Mechanics
-Students: Nguyen The Vinh
Nhu Minh Tuan
Nguyen Thai Phong
Pham Dao Duc An
- Class: Advanced Training Program - K55
- Department: International Education Center
- Number of years of training: 5 years
- Supervisor: Dr. Nguyen Thanh Sang
2. Aim of subject:
From the result of this research, fly ash is highly recommended to use as transport
construction material due to its advantages such as increase in the maximum dry
density and unconfined compression as well as reducing environmental pollution.
3. Innovation and Creativity:
+Innovation.:
New research on using fly ash and cement to improve soil properties in Vietnam,
giving new way to treat this material.
+Creativity:
Giving the most effective test procedure to apply this material.
4. Result of research:
The research was performed to assess the effects of fly ash and cement with soil.
5. Contributions for the social – economic, education and training, security,
national defense and the application of subject:
Result of this research will contribute on environment (reducing pollution) and
economic (using waste material to improvement soil).
6. Scientific Announcement of students from result of research study:
None
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
which results in an increase in strength and stiffness. Common binders include cement,
lime, fly ash, or mixtures thereof.
The use of fly ash as a binder is attractive because fly ash is an industrial by-product
that is relatively inexpensive, compared with cement and lime (Federal Highway
Administration 2003). Additionally, using fly ash for soil stabilization, particularly fly
ashes that otherwise would be land- filled, promotes sustainable construction through
reduction of energy use and reduction of greenhouse gases. Fly ash has been shown to
effectively stabilize soils (Ferguson 1993; Acosta et al. 2003; Prabakar et al. 2004; Bin-
Shafique et al. 2004; Trzebiatowski et al. 2005), but little is known regarding the
effectiveness of stabilizing soft organic soils with fly ash. Soils are known to be more
difficult to stabilize chemically than inorganic soils (Hampton and Edil 1998; Janz and
Johansson 2002).
Research methodology.
+ An intensive experimental works will be carried out in laboratory for natural soil
and treated soil (adding 3% fly ash, cement for each and 6% fly ash).
+ Compaction test, direct shear and unconfined compression test were conducted
concentrated to estimate the strength of soil before and after mixing with fly ash
and cement.
+ These tests were carried out in accordance with ASTM standard.
CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Back ground.
Fly ash is considered as a waste of burning coal in the thermal power plant,
however, it can be used and is already being used outside of the metal industry.
According to the first edition of Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers in 1986,
the use of fly ash in highway construction has increased and new applications
have been developed. This document also provides basic technical information
about the other various uses of fly ash in highway construction.
Fly ash has been used in roadways and interstate highways since the early
1950s. In 1974, the Federal Highway Administration encouraged the use of fly
ash in concrete pavement with Notice N 5080.4, which urged states to allow
partial substitution of fly ash for cement whenever feasible. In addition, in
January 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency published federal
comprehensive procurement guidelines for cement and concrete containing fly
ash to encourage the utilization of fly ash and establish compliance deadlines.
For environmental benefits, fly ash utilization, especially in concrete, has
significant environmental benefits including:
(1) increasing the life of concrete roads and structures by improving concrete
durability from temperature, hydraulics, mechanics,...
(2) net reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas and other adverse air
emissions when fly ash is used to replace or displace manufactured cement
(3) reduction in amount of coal combustion products that must be disposed
in landfills
(4) conservation of other natural resources and materials.
2. Production of Fly Ash.
Fly ash is produced from the combustion of coal in electric utility or
industrial boilers. There are four basic types of coal-fired boilers: pulverized coal
(PC), stoker-fired or traveling grate, cyclone, and fluidized-bed combustion
(FBC) boilers. The PC boiler is the most widely used, especially for large electric
3. Characteristics
Size and Shape:
Fly ash is typically finer than Portland cement and lime. Fly ash consists of
silt-sized particles which are generally spherical, typically ranging in size
between 10 and 100 micron (Figure 1-1). These small glass spheres improve the
fluidity and workability of fresh concrete. Fineness is one of the important
properties contributing to the pozzolanic reactivity of fly ash.
Class C ashes are generally derived from sub-bituminous coals and consist
primarily of calcium alumino-sulfate glass, as well as quartz, tricalcium
aluminate, and free lime (CaO). Class C ash is also referred to as high calcium
fly ash because it typically contains more than 20 percent CaO.
Class F ashes are typically derived from bituminous and anthracite coals and
consist primarily of an alumino-silicate glass, with quartz, mullite, and magnetite
also present. Class F, or low calcium fly ash has less than 10 percent CaO.
Table 1.1:Sample oxide analyses of fly ash and portland cement.
Compounds Fly Ash Class F Fly Ash Class C Portland Cement
SiO2 55 40 23
Al2O3 26 17 4
Fe2O3 7 6 2
CaO 9 24 64
MgO 2 5 2
SO3 1 3 2
Color. Fly ash can be tan to dark gray, depending on its chemical and mineral
constituents. Tan and light colors are typically associated with high lime content.
A brownish color is typically associated with the iron content. A dark gray to
black color is typically attributed to an elevated unburned carbon content. Fly ash
color is usually very consistent for each power plant and coal source.
Amount of coal
Amount of fly ash
Capacity consumption
No Year produced
(MW) (Million
(Million tons/year)
tons/year)
in Hoang Thach, Bim Son and Hai Phong factory. The proportion can not be
over 15% and the MKN content must be less than 11%.
From 1997, fly ash was applied in some canals, hydroelectricity plants, and
the other civil contructions: Bai Thuong dam (Thanh Hoa), Tan Giang dam
(Ninh Thuan), Long Song dam (Binh Thuan),... These constructions require the
fly ash with MKN content less than 6% and Wa less then 3%. At the same time,
Vietnam Academy of Material combine with Vietnam Acedemy of Science and
Technology to test the fly ash behavior for the transport construction. For some
objective reasons, this project did not carry out till now.
CHAPTER II
MATERIAL AND METHOD
This chapter discusses the methods and laboratory procedures utilized in this
research to characterize the slag material, the lateritic soil and the lateritic soil-slag mix.
The methods include physical characterization techniques and laboratory tests
techniques.
1. Materials and preparation.
1.1. Fly ash
Fly ash was taken from Vinh Tan’s thermal power plan, Binh Thuan provine.
Recommentation: Base on the statistics, the fly ash can be defined as Class F according
to ASTM C618 and ASTM C311.
1.2. Cement
SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG 8
ATP-55
Table 2.2: Cement use for this research is from the But Son PC40’s cement
Characteristics Test methods Results
Strength activity index percent of control (Mpa) :
TCVN
+ 7 days 23.7
6016: 2011
+ 28 days 43.5
Setting time (min) :
TCVN
+ Begin 52
6017: 1995
+ Finish 356
1.3. Sand
Undistured sample used in this research work was collected from the north
of Phan Thiet city , Binh Thuan provine.
Quartz – SiO2 89 – 91
Felspat – K0.5Na0.5AlSi3O8 ≤1
Illit – KAl2[AlSi3O10](OH)2 ≤1
2. Methods
Sand samples before and after mixing with the additive were conducted to determine
physical and machanical properties.
Table 2.3:
Experimen Standard referenes Purpose
Determine the percent of
ASTM D 422 different grain sizes containd
Physical test
Grain size
within soil.
Determine the water (moisture)
Water content ASTM D 2216
content of soil.
Determine the in-place density
Unit weight ASTM D 2937-00
of soil.
Determine the relationship
ASTM D 698 between the moisture content
Compaction and the dry density of soil and
the mixture of soil with cement
Mechanical test
This test is performed to determine the water (moisture) content of soils. The
water content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the mass of “pore” or
“free” water in a given mass of soil to the mass of the dry soil solids.
Standard Reference:
ASTM D 2216 - Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of
Water (Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures.
Significance:
For many soils, the water content may be an extremely important index used
for establishing the relationship between the way a soil behaves and its properties.
The consistency of a fine-grained soil largely depends on its water content. The
water content is also used in expressing the phase relationships of air, water, and
solids in a given volume of soil.
Equipment:
(1) Drying oven.
(2) Balance.
(3) Moisture can.
(4) Spatula
Data Analysis:
(1) Determine the mass of soil solids.
MS = MCDS – MSC (eq. 3.1)
This test is used to determine the in-place density of soils. This test can also be
used to determine density of compacted soils used in the construction of structural
fills, highway embankments, or earth dams. This method is not recommended for
organic or friable soils.
Equipment:
Straightedge, Balance, Moisture can, cylindrical container, Drying oven,
Vernier caliper.
Experiment data:
+ Length of the cylindrical container (L): 1,99cm
+ Diameter of the cylindrical container (D): 6,17mm
+Volume of the cylindrical container (V): 59.5 cm3
Table 2.5: Result of unit weight experiment
Container number 1 2 Mean
Moisture can and lid number 12 21
MC = Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 43.36 43.17
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 167.44 169.99
w = Water content, w% 23.8
Dry unit weight (g/cm3) 1.68 1.72 1.7
2.1.3. Grain size analysis
Purpose:
This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain sizes
contained within a soil. The sieve analysis is performed to determine the distribution
of the coarser, larger-sized particles.
Standard Reference:
ASTM D 422 - Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.
Significance:
The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of soil.
Grain size analysis provides the grain size distribution, and it is required in
classifying the soil.
Equipment:
Balance, set of sieves with diameters 10mm, 5mm, 2mm, 1mm, 0.5mm,
0.25mm, 0.1mm, 0.075mm; cleaning brush, porcelain mortar, tray, soil container,
sieve shaker machine.
Data analysis:
(1) Obtain the mass of soil retained on each sieve by subtracting the weight of the
container from the mass of the container + retained soil, and record this mass as the
weight retained on the data sheet. The sum of these retained masses should be
approximately equals the initial mass of the soil sample. A loss of more than two
percent is unsatisfactory.
(2) Calculate the percent retained on each sieve by dividing the weight retained on
each sieve by the original sample mass.
(3) Calculate the percent passing (or percent finer) by starting with 100 percent and
subtracting the percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.
(4) Make a figure plot of grain size vs. percent finer.
Experiment data:
Weight of Container: 222.60 grams
Wt. Container + Dry Soil: 722.60 grams
Wt. of Dry Sample: 500.00 grams
Table 2.6: Result of grain size experiment for soil
Mass of
Mass of
Sieve + Soil Percent Percent
Sieve Diameter empty
soil retained retained passing
number (mm) sieve
retained (g) (%) (%)
(g)
(g)
1 5 356 356 0 0.00 100.00
2 2.5 342 342 0 0.00 100.00
3 1.25 332.6 333.3 0.7 0.10 99.90
4 0.63 310 316.23 6.23 0.89 99.11
5 0.315 289 341.6 52.6 7.51 92.49
6 0.14 263 474.03 211.03 30.13 69.87
7 0.075 293.7 697.69 403.99 57.68 42.32
Pan ---- 497.5 523.34 25.84 3.69 0.00
Sum= 700.39 100.00
69.87
42.32
0.01 0.1 1 10
Diameter (mm)
Mechanical compaction is one of the most common and cost effective means of
stabilizing soils. An extremely important task of geotechnical engineers is the
performance and analysis of field control tests to assure that compacted fills are meeting
the prescribed design specifications. Design specifications usually state the required
density (as a percentage of the “maximum” density measured in a standard laboratory
test), and the water content. In general, most engineering properties, such as the strength,
stiffness, resistance to shrinkage, and imperviousness of the soil, will improve by
increasing the soil density. The optimum water content is the water content that results
in the greatest density for a specified compactive effort. Compacting at water contents
higher than (wet of ) the optimum water content results in a relatively dispersed soil
structure (parallel particle orientations) that is weaker, more ductile, less pervious,
softer, more susceptible to shrinking, and less susceptible to swelling than soil
compacted dry of optimum to the same density. The soil compacted lower than (dry of)
the optimum water content typically results in a flocculated soil structure (random
particle orientations) that has the opposite characteristics of the soil compacted wet of
the optimum water content to the same density.
Equipment:
Molds, Manual rammer, Extruder, Balance, Drying oven, Mixing pan, Trowel,
500mm-diameter sieve, Moisture cans, Graduated cylinder, Straight Edge.
Test procedure:
(1) Take a sufficient quantity of air-dried soil in large mixing pan.. Pulverize the soil
and run it through the 5mm-diameter sieve.
(2) Determine the weight of the soil sample as well as the weight of the compaction
mold with its base (without the collar) by using the balance and record the weights.
(3) Compute the amount of initial water to add by the following method:
(a) Assume water content for the first test to be 8 percent.
(b) Compute water to add from the following equation:
(𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠)8
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑑𝑑 (𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑙) = (eq. 3.7)
100
Where “water to add” and the “soil mass” are in grams. Remember that a gram of water
is equal to approximately one milliliter of water.
(4) Measure out the water, add it to the soil, and then mix it thoroughly into the soil
using the trowel until the soil gets a uniform color.
(5) Assemble the compaction mold to the base, place some soil in the mold and compact
the soil in the number of equal layers specified by the type of compaction method
employed. The number of drops of the rammer per layer is also dependent upon the type
of mold used (See Table 3.4). The drops should be applied at a uniform rate not
exceeding around 1.5 seconds per drop, and the rammer should provide uniform
coverage of the specimen surface. Try to avoid rebound of the rammer from the top of
the guide sleeve.
In this experiment, we set the number of drops of the rammer to 25 and use automatic
rammer.
(6) The soil should completely fill the cylinder and the last compacted layer must extend
slightly above the collar joint. If the soil is below the collar joint at the completion of
the drops, the test point must be repeated. (Note: For the last layer, watch carefully, and
add more soil after about 10 drops if it appears that the soil will be compacted below the
collar joint.
(7) Carefully remove the collar and trim off the compacted soil so that it is completely
even with the top of the mold using the trowel. Replace small bits of soil that may fall
out during the trimming process.
(8) Weigh the compacted soil while it’s in the mold and to the base, and record the
mass. Determine the wet mass of the soil by subtracting the weight of the mold and base.
(9) Remove the soil from the mold using a mechanical extruder and take soil moisture
content samples from the top and bottom of the specimen. Fill the moisture cans with
soil and determine the water content.
(10) Place the soil specimen in the large tray and break up the soil until it appears
visually as if it will pass through the 5mm-diameter sieve, add 2 percent more water
based on the original sample mass, and re-mix as in step 4. Repeat steps 5 through 9
until, based on wet mass, a peak value is reached followed by two slightly lesser
compacted soil masses.
Data analysis:
(1) Calculate the moisture content of each compacted soil specimen by using the average
of the two water contents.
(2) Compute the wet density in grams per cm3 of the compacted soil sample by dividing
the wet mass by the volume of the mold used.
(3) Compute the dry density using the wet density and the water content determined in
step 1. Use the following formula:
ρd=ρS/(1+w) (eq. 3.8)
where: w = moisture content in percent divided by 100, and ρ= wet density in grams per
cm3.
(4) Plot the dry density values on the y-axis and the moisture contents on the x-axis.
Draw a smooth curve connecting the plotted points.
Identify and report the optimum moisture content and the maximum dry density. Make
sure that sheet, you have recorded the method of compaction used (e.g., Standard
Proctor, Method A) on data.
Experiment data:
+ Test method: Standard Proctor
+ Sample: 100% soil, 3000grams.
Water Content Determination:
MC = Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 14.63 14.51 14.44 14.52 14.3
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 25.79 26.24 30.82 27.91 30.45
MCDS = Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 24.5 24.56 28.36 25.67 27.61
Density Determination:
Mold volume = 944 cm3
Table 2.8: Result of compaction experiment (2)
Compacted soil - Sample no 1 2 3 4 5
w = Assumed water content, % 10 13 16 18 20
Actual average water content, %
13.07 16.74 17.64 20.02 21.27
Mass of compacted soil and mold (g) 3566.09 3668.1 3670.22 3651.66 3628.61
7
Mass of mold (g) 1725.5 1725.5 1725.5 1725.5 1725.5
Wet mass of soil in mold (g) 1840.59 1942.6 1944.72 1926.16 1903.11
Wet density , , ( g / cm3 ) 1.95 2.05
7 2.06 2.04 2.016
1.810
Compaction test ( Soil )
1.80
1.790
Dry density (g/cm3)
1.780
1.770
1.760
1.750
1.740
1.730
1.720
1.710
12 14 16 18 20 22
Water content, w (%)
shrinkage limit, is used occasionally.) The Atterberg’s limits are based on the moisture
content of the soil. The plastic limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil
changes from a semi-solid to a plastic (flexible) state. The liquid limit is the moisture
content that defines where the soil changes from a plastic to a viscous fluid state. The
shrinkage limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil volume will not reduce
further if the moisture content is reduced. A wide variety of soil engineering properties
have been correlated to the liquid and plastic limits, and these Atterberg’s limits are also
used to classify a fine-grained soil according to the Unified Soil Classification system
or AASHTO system.
Equipment:
Liquid limit device, Porcelain (evaporating) dish, Flat grooving tool with gage,
Eight moisture cans, balance, Glass plate, Spatula, Wash bottle filled with distilled
water, Drying oven set at 105°C.
smooth uniform paste. Cover the dish with cellophane to prevent moisture from
escaping.
(2) Weigh four of the empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the respective
weights and can numbers on the data sheet.
(3) Adjust the liquid limit apparatus by checking the height of drop of the cup. The
point on the cup that comes in contact with the base should rise to a height of 10 mm.
The block on the end of the grooving tool is 10 mm high and should be used as a gage.
Practice using the cup and determine the correct rate to rotate the crank so that the cup
drops approximately two times per second.
(4) Place a portion of the previously mixed soil into the cup of the liquid limit apparatus
at the point where the cup rests on the base. Squeeze the soil down to eliminate air pocket
sand spread it into the cup to a depth of about 10 mm at its deepest point. The soil pat
should form an approximately horizontal surface
(5) Use the grooving tool carefully cut a clean straight groove down the center of the
cup. The tool should remain perpendicular to the surface of the cup as groove is being
made. Use extreme care to prevent sliding the soil relative to the surface of the cup.
(6) Make sure that the base of the apparatus below the cup and the underside of the cup
is clean of soil. Turn the crank of the apparatus at a rate of approximately two drops per
second and count the number of drops, N, it takes to make the two halves of the soil pat
come into contact at the bottom of the groove along a distance of 13 mm (1/2 in.). If the
number of drops exceeds 50, then go directly to step eight and do not record the number
of drops, otherwise, record the number of drops on the data sheet.
(7) Take a sample, using the spatula, from edge to edge of the soil pat. The sample
should include the soil on both sides of where the groove came into contact. Place the
soil into a moisture can cover it. Immediately weigh the moisture can containing the
soil, record it’s mass, remove the lid, and place the can into the oven. Leave the moisture
can in the oven for at least 16 hours. Place the soil remaining in the cup into the porcelain
dish. Clean and dry the cup on the apparatus and the grooving tool.
(8) Remix the entire soil specimen in the porcelain dish. Add a small amount of distilled
water to increase the water content so that the number of drops required to close the
groove decrease.
(9) Repeat steps six, seven, and eight for at least two additional trials producing
successively lower numbers of drops to close the groove. One of the trials shall be for a
closure requiring 25 to 35 drops, one for closure between 20 and 30 drops, and one
trial for a closure requiring 15 to 25 drops. Determine the water content from each trial
by using the same method used in the first laboratory. Remember to use the same balance
for all weighing.
Plastic Limit:
(1) Weigh the remaining empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the respective
weights and can numbers on the data sheet.
(2) Take the remaining 1/4 of the original soil sample and add distilled water until the
soil is at a consistency where it can be rolled without sticking to the hands.
(3) Form the soil into an ellipsoidal mass. Roll the mass between the palm or the fingers
and the glass plate. Use sufficient pressure to roll the mass into a thread of uniform
diameter by using about 90 strokes per minute. (A stroke is one complete motion of the
hand forward and back to the starting position.) The thread shall be deformed so that its
diameter reaches 3.2 mm (1/8 in.), taking no more than two minutes.
(4) When the diameter of the thread reaches the correct diameter, break the thread into
several pieces. Knead and reform the pieces into ellipsoidal masses and re-roll them.
Continue this alternate rolling, gathering together, kneading and re-rolling until the
thread crumbles under the pressure required for rolling and can no longer be rolled into
a 3.2 mm diameter thread.
(5) Gather the portions of the crumbled thread together and place the soil into a moisture
can, then cover it. If the can does not contain at least 6 grams of soil, add soil to the can
from the next trial (See Step 6). Immediately weigh the moisture can containing the soil,
record it’s mass, remove the lid, and place the can into the oven. Leave the moisture can
in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(6) Repeat steps three, four, and five at least two more times. Determine the water
content from each trial by using the same method used in the first laboratory. Remember
to use the same balance for all weighing
Data Analysis:
Liquid Limit:
(1) Calculate the water content of each of the liquid limit moisture cans after they have
been in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(2) Plot the number of drops, N, (on the log scale) versus the water content (w). Draw
the best-fit straight line through the plotted points and determine the liquid limit (LL) as
the water content at 25 drops.
Plastic Limit:
(1) Calculate the water content of each of the plastic limit moisture cans after they have
been in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(2) Compute the average of the water contents to determine the plastic limit, PL. Check
to see if the difference between the water contents is greater than the acceptable range
of two results.
(3) Calculate the plasticity index, PI=LL-PL. Report the liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index to the nearest whole number, omitting the percent designation.
Experiment data:
Liquid Limit Determination:
Table 2.9: Result of Liquid Limit experiment
Sample no. 1 2 3 Mean
Moisture can and lid number a b c
MC = Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 24.88 14.35 14.41
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 38.65 25.14 26
MCDS = Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 35.24 22.45 23.09
MS = Mass of soil solids (g) 10.36 8.1 8.68
MW = Mass of pore water (g) 3.41 2.69 2.9
MW = Mass of pore water (g) 32.91 33.2 33.52 33.21
No. of drops (N) 31 27 18 25.33
Liquid Limit (LL)= Average w % = 33,2 %
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 36.03 38.88
MCDS = Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 31.14 33.27
33.6
33.5
33.4
Water content ( %)
33.3
33.2
33.1
33
32.9
32.8
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
No. of drops (N)
(5) Set the vertical load (or pressure) to a predetermined value, and then close bleeder valve
and apply the load to the soil specimen by raising the toggle switch.
(6) Start the motor with selected speed so that the rate of shearing is at a selected constant rate,
and take the horizontal displacement gauge. Record the readings on the data sheet.
(7) Continue taking readings until the horizontal shear load peaks and then falls.
Experiment data:
Table 2.11: Result of direct shear experiment
Normal stress (kPa) R Co Shear stress τ (kPa)
50 38.5 1,812 69.76
100 62 1,812 112.34
150 89 1,812 161.27
180.00
100% Soil
160.00
140.00
120.00
Shear stress τ (kPa)
100.00
y = 0.9151x + 22.952
80.00
R² = 0.9984
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0 50 100 150 200
Normal stress (kPa)
Experiment data:
+ Diameter of Soil (D) = 100mm = 0.1m
+ Area of Soil (A) = 0.0314 m2
+ Length of Soil (L) = 130mm
Table 2.12: Result of unconfined compression experiment with displacement
calculate by millimeter
Displacement X Normal force Normal stress,𝝈
(mm) (point) (kN) (MPa)
0 0 0.05 1.57
0 1.57
0.2 27.66
0.5 48.04
0.7 66.79
1 82.28
1.2 84.72
1.5 failure
80.00
70.00
Normal stress,𝝈 (MPa)
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Axial strain (%)
2.2. Physical and mechanical test for Soil mixture Fly Ash and Cement
2.2.1. Compaction test of soil mixture Fly Ash and Cement.
Take the sample soil with the mass of 3000g, then calculate the mass of fly ash and
𝟑𝟎𝟎𝟎.𝒑
cement added by the equation: 𝒎 = (eq. 3.10)
𝟏𝟎𝟎
Where:
m = the mass of fly ash added to soil
p = the percent of fly ash will be added.
a) Sample mixture: Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
Water content determination:
Table 2.14: Water content of sample mixture: Soil+3% Cement+3% Fly Ash
MC = Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 14.52 14.35 14.38 14.47 14.43
Density determination:
Table 2.15: Density of sample mixture: Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
Compacted soil - Sample no 1 2 3 4 5
Wet mass of soil in mold (g) 1949.0 1995.0 2048.0 2063.0 2062.0
Compaction result
1.870
1.860
Dry density (g/cm3 )
1.850
1.840
1.830
1.820
1.810
1.800
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Water content (%)
Figure 2.14: Result of compaction test of sample mixture: Soil +3% Cement + 3%
Fly Ash.
+ Optimum Moisture Content = 15.9 %
+ Maximum Dry Density = 1.868 g/cm3
b) Sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash
Water content determination:
Table 2.16: Water content of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash
Moisture can and lid number 1 2 3 4 5
MC = Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 14.41 14.78 14.43 14.66 14.74
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 29.54 29.27 28.43 27.09 31.48
MCDS = Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 27.91 27.48 26.48 25.19 28.64
MS = Mass of soil solids (g) 13.5 12.7 12.05 10.53 13.9
MW = Mass of pore water (g) 1.63 1.79 1.95 1.9 2.84
w = Water content, w% 12.07 14.09 16.18 18.04 20.43
Density determination:
Table 2.17: Density of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash
Compacted soil - Sample no 1 2 3 4 5
w = Assumed water content, % 12 14 16 18 20
Actual average water content, % 12.07 14.09 16.18 18.04 20.43
Mass of compacted soil and mold
3661 3711 3760.5 3789.7 3808.7
(g)
Mass of mold (g) 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726
Wet mass of soil in mold (g) 1935 1985 2034.5 2063.7 2082.7
Wet density 2.050 2.103 2.155 2.186 2.206
Dry density 1.829 1.843 1.855 1.852 1.832
Compaction result:
1.860
1.850
Dry density (g/cm3)
1.840
1.830
1.820
1.810
1.800
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Water content (%)
Figure 2.15: Result of compaction test of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash.
+ Optimum Moisture Content = 16.8 %
+ Maximum Dry Density = 1.856 g/cm3
2.2.2. Experiment 2: Direct shear test of soil mixture Fly Ash and Cement.
a) Sample mixture: Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
Table 2.18: Result of direct shear test of Soil mixture 3% Cement and 3% Fly Ash
Normal stress
(kPa) R Co Shear stress τ (kPa)
50 70 1,812 126.84
100 101 1,812 183.012
150 129 1,812 233.748
250
Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly ash
200
Shear stress τ (kPa)
150
y = 1.069 x + 74.29
100
R² = 0.999
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal stress (kPa)
Figure 2.16: Result of direct shear test of soil mixture 3% Cement and 3% Fly Ash
From the above chart, we figure out:
+ c = 74.29 ( kPa)
+ f
Table 2.19: Result of direct shear test of Soil mixture 6% Fly Ash
Normal stress
(kPa) R Co Shear stress τ (kPa)
50 39 1,812 70.668
100 65 1,812 117.78
150 90 1,812 163.08
180
Soil + 6% Fly Ash
160
140
120
Shear stress τ (kPa)
100
80
60
y = 0.9241x + 24.764
R² = 0.9999
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal stress (kPa)
Figure 2.17: Result of direct shear test of soil mixture 6% Fly Ash
From the above chart, we figure out:
+ c = 24.76 ( kPa)
+ f
140
120
100
𝐸50
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Axial Strain,ε (%)
Table 2.23: Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 6% Fly Ash with
displacement calculate by percentage
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Axial train (%)
𝜎50 62
𝐸50 = = 0.65 = 95
𝜀
17.5
Optimum Moisture Content, %
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
Soil Soil + 6% Fly Ash Soil + 3% Fly Ash,3%
Cement
1.88
Dry Density, g/cm3
1.86
1.84
1.82
1.8
1.78
1.76
1.74
Soil Soil + 6% Fly Ash Soil + 3% Fly Ash,3%
Cement
The moisture-density relation from compaction test with soil mixture in different
percentages is present in the above table. According to these result, it can be observed
that with increasing coal fly ash contents, the optimum moisture contents decreased the
maximum dry unit weight of the soil increased. The dry unit weight of soil grew most
in the mixture of 3% fly ash and 3% cement. 6% fly ash also rose the unit weight of the
soil but it is less than the mixture of fly ash and cement.
3.2. The influence of fly ash and cement content on shear strength and
cohesion:
The results of direct shear test with soil and soil mixture are summarized in the
tables below:
80
70
100% Soil
40
30
20
10
0
Cohesion, c (kPa) Friction angle (degree)
Figure 2.23: Comparison about both Cohesion and Friction angle of 3 samples
According to the figure 2.22, the shear strength of the soil increased most in
3% Fly Ash + 3% Cement sample. In addition, the shear strength of non-
reinforced soil and the mixture of soil and fly ash are similar. Reinforced soil
samples usually have better ductility than non-reinforced soil. It turns out that the
outside coating destruction is not linear with the percentage of reinforcement
material is added.
In the figure 2.23, the combination of soil, 3% fly ash and 3% cement
reflexed a good cohesion when it is approximately three times bigger than the
values of two other samples. On the other hand, the friction angle of three samples
is quite the same.
3.3. The influence of fly ash and cement content on unconfined
compressive strength:
The result of the above experiments which are done with soil and soil
mixture are show in the figure below:
160.00
140.00
Normal stress,𝝈 (MPa)
120.00
Soil + 6% Fly ash
100.00
20.00
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
In the Emmanuel Akintunde Okunade’s research, the author added 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%,
10.0%, 12.5% and 15.0% fly ash class F to soil. It was observed that with increasing coal fly
ash contents, the optimum moisture contents decreased (from an average of about 15.8% to an
average of about 9.7% when comparing the values at 0% and 12.5% coal fly ash contents) while
the maximum dry densities increased (from an average of about 1920 kg/m3 to an average of
about 2180 kg/m3 when comparing the values at 0% and 12.5% coal fly ash contents). Beside,
after considering all the other stabilization factors, he assumed that an overall optimum coal fly
ash content by weight for the stabilization of lateritic soils is 12.5%. This is comparable to
values recommended by other investigators, though for different soil types.
In general, the combination of soil, cement and fly ash rise the physical and mechanical
behaviour of the soil in compaction, shear strength, unconfined compressive strength and some
other factors that this research had not mentioned yet.
3.4. Result explanation.
As can be seen from the results of the tests, fly ash and cement increased the compaction,
shear strength, unconfined compressive strength of soil. The reason for this raise is the
hydration reaction of cement inside the mixture or the chemical reaction of CaO.SiO2, C3A
and C3S with water born new materials which make the physical and mechanical of soil
increase. In addition, the class F fly ash shows very little self hardening property without the
presence of cement
CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
1. Conclusion.
The objective of this research was to define how fly ash and cement affect to
soil behaviors before and after the reinforcement. There are some conclusion can
be named as below. First of all, according to the compaction test result, the
sample of soil, cement and fly ash has the most increasing in the dry unit weight.
In addition, fly ash also can improve the dry unit weight of soil but it is less than
the mixture of cement and fly ash. Second, in the shear test, the different levels
of the reinforced samples and non-reinforced sample are huge and these different
can be clearly seen when compare the cohesion of fly ash and cement is three
times bigger than soil. Last but not least, the mixture of fly ash could take a largest
stress with the smallest amount of displacement. On the other hand, soil could
not carry a stress more than 90kPa and it was broken at around 1,25%
displacement. In brief, the combination of soil, fly ash and cement bring the best
results in all the tests. The mixture of soil and fly ash came second in general.
Therefore, it can be assume that the reinforced soil samples have better ductility
than non-reinforced soil in this situation.
2. Recommendation.
Base on the conclusion, the mixing of soil with cement and fly ash show a
good increasing in dry unit weight, shear strength and unconfined compressive
strength. For this reason, it is suitable to use this combination as an additive for
soil reinforcement. It also draw a new way to handle with the huge amount of
waste from the thermal power station which can solve a lot of environment
problems and save a lot of money for fly ash treatment.
Furthermore, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and X-ray Diffraction
(XRD) should be conducted to find out the necessary criteria for the application of the
mixture of soil, fly ash and cement. This combination also should be tested with
difference percentage to find the most effective amount to create the new mixture
material which has better physical and mechanical behaviors to satisfy the requirements
in construction.
REFERENCES
ASTM D 2937-00 – Standard Test for Density of Soil in Place by the Drive- Cylinder
Method.
ASTM D 422 - Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.
ASTM D 698 - Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction. Characteristics of
Soil Using Standard Effort (600 Kn-m/m3).
ASTM D 1557 - Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of
Soil Using Modified Effort (2,700 Kn-m/m3).
ASTM D 4318 - Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity
Index of Soils.
ASTM D 3080 -Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under
Consolidated Drained Conditions.
ASTM D 1883-05 - Standard Test Method for Laboratory-Prepared Samples
ASTM D 4429 Standard Test Method for Soils in Place in Field
Bin-Shafique, S., Edil,T., Benson, C., and Senol, A.(2004). “Incorporating a fly ash
stabilized layer into pavement design—Case study.”Proc. ICE Geotech. Eng.,
157(4), 239–249.
Federal Highway Administration (2003). “Fly ash facts for highway engineers.”
Technical Rep. FHWA-IF-03019, 4th Ed., Washington, DC.
Ferguson,G.(1993).“Use of self-cementing fly ash esasa soil stabilization agent.” Fly
ash for soil improvement (GSP 36), ASCE, New York.
Hampton, M. B., and Edil, T. B. (1998). “Strength gain of organic ground with
cement-type binders.” Soil improvement for big digs (GSP 81) ASCE, Reston, VA,
135–148.
Kaniraj, S. R., and Havanagi, V. G. (1999). “Compressive strength of cement
stabilized fly ash-soil mixtures.” Cem. Concr. Res., 29, 673–677.
Keshawarz,M. S., and Dutta, U. (1993). “Stabilization of south Texas soils with fly
ash.”Fly ash for soil improvement (GSP36), ASCE, NewYork, 30–42.
Ministry of Construction’s Resources (2010) - Reproduce and use fly ash and slag
from the thermal power plants in Vietnam. Available at:
http://www.xaydung.gov.vn/
Prabakar, J., Dendorkar, N., and Morchale, R. K. (2004). “Influence of fly ash on
strength behavior of typical soils.” Constr. Build. Mater., 18(4), 263–267.
Parsons, R. L., and Kneebone, E. (2005). “Field performance of fly ash stabilized
subgrades.” Ground Improv., 9(1), 33–38.
Trzebiatowski, B. D., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H. (2005). “Case study of subgrade
stabilization using fly ash: State Highway 32, Port Washington, Wisconsin.”
Recycled materials in geotechnics (GSP 127), ASCE, Reston, VA, 123–136.
TCNB 03: 2009 - Determination of Thiophanate Methyl content
TCVN 7131: 2002 - Clay - Method for Chemical Analysis
TCVN 6882: 2001 - Standard Mineral Admixture for Cement