International Journal of Engineering Research ISSN:2319-6890(online),2347-5013(print)

Volume No.5, Issue Special 1 pp : 09-13 8 & 9 Jan 2016

Stabilization of Expansive Soil with Micro Silica, Lime and Fly Ash for
Pavement
S.W.Thakare, Priti Chauhan
Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Amravati,M.S, India-444604,
Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract— Geotechnical Engineering properties of soft because of the cheapness of material cost in comparison with
clayey soil deposits such as black cotton soil may need to be other materials.
improved by stabilization to make such soils suitable for The concept of soil reinforcement is not new.
construction of road pavements. Stabilization of such soils Various materials were used in reinforcement of both
has been traditionally relied on treatment with lime, cement pavement materials and sub-grade soils. The Geotextiles and
and waste materials such as fly ash. Micro silica is waste Geogrids are the most commonly used forms of soil
material obtained from electric arc furnaces. This paper reinforcement now-a-days. A geogrid is any synthetics planer
presents the results of stabilization of local black cotton soil structure formed by a regular network of tensile elements
with lime, fly ash and micro silica. Series of laboratory tests with apertures of sufficient size to allow interlocking with
have been conducted with varying percentage of these surrounding soil, rock, earth or any other geotechnical
stabilizers, added individually and in combinations, to material.
determine their optimum percentages. From the results, it is From literature review, it was observed that the lime,
observed that CBR value, for both soaked and unsoaked fly ash, micro silica and geogrid were separately mixed with
conditions, increases substantially by addition of 5% micro black cotton soil, improved the geotechnical properties
silica along with 3% fly ash and 3% lime. The pavement (Nadgouda et al. 2010, katti et al. 2011; Tuncer et al. 2006;
designed with these improved values of CBR indicated a M. Hussein et al 2007; Haeda et al. 2013; Kalkan et al 2004;
marked reduction in its thickness leading to economy in the A. Al-Azzawi et al. 2012; Negi et al 2013; Gupta et al. 2014
construction of road pavements on or using soft clayey soils. ).Also the combination effect of lime- fly ash and lime- micro
silica had been studied (athanasopoulou et al. 2014; Jafer et
Keywords— Micro silica, BC soil, Stabilization al. 2013; Singh et al. 2012).
This paper presents the results of experimental
investigations carried out to study the effect of micro silica,
1. Int roduction fly ash, lime and geogrid on geotechnical properties of black
cotton soil. Expansive soil used for experimental
Black cotton soil extends over the states of Maharashtra, investigations was a locally available soil known as black
Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu and cotton soil.
Uttar Pradesh. These soils are expansive in nature due to The tests were conducted on oven dried expansive
presence of Montmorillonite and Illite clay minerals. The soil soil with different mix proportions. Focus of research was on
surface is hard in nature in summer season but becomes slushy the influence of different stabilizers mixed with black cotton
& loses its strength substantially during rainy season. A soil in improving the following properties of soil,
difficult problem in civil engineering work exists when the  Unconfined compressive strength
subgrade is found to be clay. Frequently, these clayey soils  California bearing ratio(CBR)
cause the cracking and breaking up of pavements, railways,  Swelling pressure
highway embankments, roadways, foundations and channel or The effect of improved CBR value of stabilized soil on
reservoir linings. When civil engineers are faced such the design of pavement is also presented
problems, a need for improving the engineering properties of
the soil is justified using some sort of stabilization methods. 2. Material and Methodology
Stabilization of pavement subgrade soils has traditionally relied
on treatment with lime, cement, and special additives such as
2.1 Materials Used
pozzolanic materials. Pozzolanic materials, such as Fly Ash,
Micro silica (silica fume), etc., which are regarded as wastes
2.1.1 Black Cotton Soil
may be used for soil improvement.
The soil used in testing was locally available soil from
Lime stabilization enhances engineering properties
of soil, including improvement in strength, reduction swelling, Amravati District of State of Maharashtra. The properties of
and resistance to the damaging effect of moisture. However, black cotton soil used in this study are given in Table 1.
Industrials wastes attracted the attention of researchers recently

NCICE@2016 doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i1/003 Page 9

 International Journal of Engineering Research ISSN:2319-6890(online),2347-5013(print)
Volume No.5, Issue Special 1 pp : 09-13 8 & 9 Jan 2016

Table 1 Properties of Black Cotton soil water content corresponding to OMC. UCS tests were
Sr. then conducted and UCSs were determined. Similar
Properties of Clay Value
No. tests were conducted for varying percentages of
Atterberg’s Limits stabilizers. The optimum percentage of stabilizers was
Liquid Limit (%) 59.60 then determined based upon the results of UCS tests.
1 The quantity corresponding to the optimum percentage
Plastic Limit (%) 26.98
Plasticity Index (%) 32.62 of stabilizers were mixed to the oven dried sample of
IS-Classification (Clay of High soil and CBR (soaked & unsoaked) test were
2 CH conducted. Swelling pressure test were also conducted.
Compressibility)
Compaction Properties  Group B: Stabilization of soil with combination of
3 Optimum Moisture Content (%) 25 lime, fly ash and micro silica
Maximum Dry Density (kN/m3) 14.5 In this group of experiments, the soil was
4 Free Swell Index (%) 81 (Very high) mixed with combination of optimum percentages of
micro silica, fly ash and lime. The stabilizers were
thoroughly mixed with soil and Standard Proctor Test
2.1.2 Lime
was then conducted to determine OMC and MDD.
The soil samples were then prepared for UCS test
The lime used for stabilizing the soil was locally
using water content corresponding to OMC. UCS tests
available hydraulic lime. The Lime was sieve through IS 75 µ
were then conducted and UCSs were determined. The
sieve so as to remove all the larger size particles.
CBR (soaked & unsoaked) tests were also conducted
on soil stabilized with the same combination of
2.1.3 Micro Silica
stabilizers. Swelling pressure tests were also
conducted.
The micro silica used in this study for stabilizing black
cotton soil was procured from IndiaMART, Indor. Table 2  Group C: Stabilization of soil with lime, fly ash, micro
shows the properties of fly ash. silica and reinforced with geogrid
Table 2 Properties of Micro silica In this group, the soil was mixed with optimum
percentages of micro silica, fly ash and lime as
Sr. No Properties of Micro silica Value determined from the results of group A. The samples
1 Specific gravity 2.20 - 2.23 were then prepared by placing the geogrid at various
2 Bulk density (kg/m3 ) 375 - 420 locations viz, h/2, h/3 and 2h/3 with different
3 Moisture content (%) < 1.0 combinations of geogrid position. The CBR tests were
conducted on stabilized soil. Swelling pressure tests
2.1.2 Fly ash were also conducted.

The fly ash used in experimental investigation for Table 4 Complete Programme for Experimental Investigation
stabilized black cotton soil was procured from the Sophia Group Stabilizer Tests Percentage of Stabilizer
Power Plant, near Nandgaon Peth, Amravati. Table 3 shows the Group Micro Proctor test, Micro silica (0, 2.5, 5,
properties of fly ash. A silica, Unconfined 7.5, 10, 15, 20)
Table 3 Properties of Fly ash Fly ash, Compression Fly ash (0, 3, 6, 9, 12,
Sr. No Properties of Fly ash Value Lime Strength (UCS) 15)
1 Specific gravity 2.05 test, Swelling Lime (0, 3, 6, 9)
2 Maximum Dry Density (kN/m ) 3
10.6 pressure test,
CBR test
3 Optimum Moisture Content (%) 26.2
Group Micro Proctor test, Optimum % of Micro
4 Cohesion (kN/m2) 1 B silica, Unconfined silica + Optimum % of
5 PHI 33 Fly ash, Compression Fly ash +
Lime Strength (UCS) Optimum % of Lime
2.2 Experimental Investigations test, Swelling
The experimental investigations were divided in the pressure test,
following groups. CBR test
Group Lime, Swelling Optimum % of Micro
 Group A: Stabilization of soil with lime, fly ash and C Fly ash, Pressure test, silica + Optimum % of
micro silica Micro CBR test Lime + Optimum % of
The experiments were conducted for each silica, Fly ash +
stabilizer separately as presented in Table 4. Standard Geogrid Geogrid (h/2, h/3, 2 h/3)
Proctor Tests were conducted on soil mixed with
stabilizers and OMC and MDD were determined. The
soil samples were then prepared for UCS test using
NCICE@2016 doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i1/003 Page 10
 International Journal of Engineering Research ISSN:2319-6890(online),2347-5013(print)
Volume No.5, Issue Special 1 pp : 09-13 8 & 9 Jan 2016

3. Results and Discussions

Table 6 UCS, soaked CBR and Unsoaked CBR for different
3.1 Group A: Soil stabilized with lime, fly ash and micro curing periods
silica Days CBR value (%)
Soil UCS
Laboratory tests were conducted on soil mixed with of
Mix (kN/m2) Soaked Unsoaked
lime, fly ash and micro silica separately. Table 5 shows the curing
UCS value of soil stabilized with stabilizers. Black
From the UCS test results, 5 % micro silica, 3 % lime cotton - 114 1.43 10.33
and 3 % fly ash were considered as optimum percentages. soil
Therefore, the UCS tests and CBR tests were conducted on soil 0 261.38 2.02 10.86
mixed with 5% micro silica for various curing periods. Table 6 Soil + 7 270.63 3.21 11.28
shows the UCS and CBR tests results. From Fig 1, it was 5%
observed that the UCS increased with increase in curing period. 14 309.3 3.63 12.92
Micro
The soaked CBR value increased from 1.44 % to 4 % and silica 21 347.98 3.84 14.11
unsoaked CBR value increased from 10.33 % to 15.39 %. 28 403.04 4 15.39
Table 5 Variation of UCS with different percentages stabilizers
Stabilizer UCS
Soil Mix Also, it was found that the unconfined compressive
(%) (kN/m2)
strength increased from 237.91 kN/m2 to 433.30 kN/m2 with
BC Soil 0 114.01
increase in curing period from 0 days to 28 days. The soaked
3 216.03 and unsoaked CBR test results are tabulated in Table 8. From
BC soil + lime 6 206.68 the test results, it was observed that the soaked CBR value
9 249.61 increased from 1.43 % to 8.96 % and Unsoaked CBR value
3 241.66 increased from 10.33% to 17.96 %, when curing period was
6 192.43 increased to 28 days, It was also found that the swelling
pressure reduced from 169.43 kN/m2 to 71.08 kN/m2.
BC soil + fly ash 9 233.28
12 160.72 Table 8 CBR and UCS of stabilized soil for different curing
15 168.66 period
2.5 234.19 Days of CBR Value (%)
Soil Mix
5 261.38 curing Soaked Unsoaked
BC soil + micro 7.5 277.53 Black cotton soil - 1.43 10.33
silica 10 276.5 0 6.3 11.54
15 257.23 7 7.79 11.93
Soil+ 5% micro
20 131.42 silica + 3% flyash 14 7.87 14.96
+ 3% lime 21 8.1 17.1
28 8.96 17.96

3.3 Group C: Soil Stabilized with lime, fly ash, micro silica
and reinforced with geogrid
In this group of test, the soil was mixed with optimum
percentages of micro silica, fly ash and lime and reinforced
with Geogrid. Three samples were prepared having position
of geogrid at (h/3), (h/3 + h/2) and (h/3 + h/2 + 2h/3)
respectively. Table 9 shows the soaked and unsoaked CBR
Figure 1 Variation of UCS of soil mixed with 5 % micro silica test results. From the test results it was found that, the soaked
for different curing period CBR value increased from 1.44 % to 9.44 % and unsoaked
CBR value increased from 10.33 % to 18.81 %. From the
3.2 Group B: Soil stabilized with combination of lime, fly swelling pressure test results, it was found that the swelling
ash and micro silica pressure reduced from 169.43 kN/m2 to 27.85 kN/m2. Fig 2
The soil was mixed with combination of optimum percentages shows the variation of swelling pressure with geogrid
of lime (3 %), optimum percentage of fly ash (3 %) and position.
optimum percentage of micro silica (5 %) and standard proctor
tests were conducted. Using the OMC obtained, UCS test was Table 9 Soaked and Unsoaked CBR value for Stabilized Soil
conducted and UCS was obtained as 237.91 kN/m2.
NCICE@2016 doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i1/003 Page 11
 International Journal of Engineering Research ISSN:2319-6890(online),2347-5013(print)
Volume No.5, Issue Special 1 pp : 09-13 8 & 9 Jan 2016

with Geogrid reinforcement Table 10 Pavement Thickness of Black cotton soil

Geogrid CBR value (%) Black CBR Total thickness
Soil Mix cotton soil value (mm)
Position soaked Unsoaked
50 msa 1.44 % 1205
BC soil - 1.44 10.33
100 msa 1.44 % 1220
BC soil + 5% h/3 9.02 18.16 150 msa 1.44 % 1275
micro silica +
h/3 + h/2 9.42 18.39
3 % fly ash + Table 11 Pavement Thickness of Stabilized Soil
3 % lime h/3 + h/2 + 2h/3 9.44 18.81
Soil CBR Total thickness %
mixed value (mm) Reduction
BC soil + 5 % micro silica
50 msa 1018 15.52
100 msa 4% 1048 14.1
150 msa 1058 17.02
BC soil + 3 % lime + 3 % fly ash + 5 % micro silica
50 msa 1021 15.27
100 msa 8.96% 1041 14.67
150 msa 1051 17.57

Table 12 Pavement Thickness Reduction of Stabilized

reinforced
Soil
Soil CBR Total thickness %
mixed value (mm) Reduction
Figure 2 Variation of Swelling Pressure for different position Geogrid (h/3) and Geogrid (h/3, h/2)
of 50 msa 981 18.58
Geogrid 100 msa 9% 991 18.77
150 msa 1001 21.49
3.4 Reduction in Flexible Pavement Thickness Geogrid (h/3, h/2, 2h/3)
Flexible pavement with black cotton soil was designed 50 msa 980 18.67
with 1.44 % soaked CBR value. Table 10 shows the pavement 100 msa 10% 990 18.85
layer thickness. Table 11 shows the reduction in pavement 150 msa 1000 21.56
thickness of stabilized soil and table 12 shows the reduction in
pavement thickness of stabilized reinforced soil. The stabilized
soil was designed with 4 % soaked CBR value. It was found
4. Conclusion
that there was 15.52 %, 14.10 % and 17.02 % reduction in the
layer thickness for 50 msa, 100 msa and 150 msa traffic 1) Stabilization of black cotton soil with lime, fly ash,
intensities compared to unstabilized soil as presented in Table lime and their combinations shows significant improvement
11. The stabilized soil was designed with 8.96 % soaked CBR in the unconfined compressive strength of soil to the extent of
value. It was found that there was 15.27 %, 14.67 % and 17.57 3.8 times that of unstabilized soil.
% reduction in the layer thickness for 50 msa, 100 msa and 150 2) Optimum percentages of micro silica, lime and fly
msa traffic intensities compared to unstabilized soil. ash for stabilizing black cotton soil are found to be 5%, 3%
The pavement thickness reduction of stabilized and 3% respectively.
reinforced soil is as given in Table 12. In case of geogrid at 3) Black cotton soil stabilized with lime, fly ash, micro
(h/3) and (h/3 + h/2), it was found that there was 18.58 %, silica and their combinations shows noticeable improvement
18.77 % and 21 % reduction in the layer thickness for 50 msa, in soaked CBR of soil up to extent of 6.5 times of
100 msa and 150 msa traffic intensities respectively, compared unstabilized soil.
to unstabilized soil. In case of geogrid at (h/3 + h/2 + 2h/3), it 4) Black cotton soil stabilized with lime, fly ash, micro
was found that there was 18.67 %, 18.85 % and 21.56 % silica and their combinations shows noticeable improvement
reduction in layer thickness for 50 msa, 100 msa and 150 msa in unsoaked CBR of soil up to extent of 1.8 times of
traffic intensities compared to unstabilized soil. unstabilized soil.
5) Stabilization of soil with lime, fly ash, micro silica
and their combination shows 57 % reduction in swelling
pressure of soil. Stabilized reinforced soil shows the 83 %
reduction in swelling pressure.
6) Stabilization of black cotton soil with lime, fly ash,
micro silica and their combinations shows 15 %, 14 % & 17

NCICE@2016 doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i1/003 Page 12

 International Journal of Engineering Research ISSN:2319-6890(online),2347-5013(print)
Volume No.5, Issue Special 1 pp : 09-13 8 & 9 Jan 2016

% reduction in pavement thickness for design traffic 50 msa, vii. Jafer H.M., Obaid H.A, Hadi A.H., (2013). Stabilization of Soft
Soil Subgrade Layers by Using Lime-Micro Silica Fume Mixture. Euphrates
100 msa & 150 msa respectively. Journal of Agriculture Science-5 (1): 44-53.
7) The thickness of flexible pavement may be reduced by viii. Katti R. K., Mittal S., (2013). An Improvement to Ground
18.6 %, 18. 8 % and 21.5 % in for stabilized reinforced BC soil Improvement Engineering. Medtech, edition 1.
for design traffic of 50 msa, 100 msa and 150 msa. ix. Kalkan E., Akbulut S., (2004). The positive effects of silica fume
on the permeability, swelling pressure and compressive strength of natural
clay liners. Engineering Geology 73.
References x. Mehta A., Parate K., Ruprai B. S., (2013). Stabilization of black
cotton soil by Fly Ash. International Journal of Application or Innovation in
Engineering & Management, RATMIG.
i. Adel A. A., Khalida A. D., and Muhammed A. A. (2012). Effect of xi. Mohammed H. A, (2007). Effect of Fly Ash on the Engineering
Silica Fume Addition on the Behavior of Silty -Clayey Soils. Journal of Properties of Swelling Soils. Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol.
Engineering and Development, Vol. 16, No.1. 11, No. 3.
ii. Athanasopoulou A. (2014). Addition of Lime and Fly ash to Improve xii. Negi C., Yadav R.K., Singhai A.K., (2013). Effect of Silica Fume
Highway Subgrade Soil. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 26, on Index Properties of Black Cotton Soil. International Journal of Scientific
NO 4. & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 8.
iii. Dhanoa N. S, (2013). Effect of Soil Stabilizers on the Structural xiii. Nadgouda K. A., Hegde R. A., (2010). The Effect of Lime
Design of Flexible Pavement. PATIALA. Stabilization on Properties of Black Cotton Soil. Indian Geotechnical
iv. Gupta C., Sharma R. K., (2014). Influence of Micro Silica Fume on Conference, IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay.
Sub Grade Characteristics of Expansive Soil. International Journal of Civil xiv. Singh P., Gill K.S., (2012). CBR Improvement of Clayey Soil with
Engineering Research, ISSN 2278-3652 Vol. 5, pp. 77-82. Geo-grid Reinforcement. International Journal of Emerging Technology and
v. Hardaha R. P., Agrawal M. L., Agrawal A., (2013). Use of fly ash Advance Engineering, Vol 2, Issue 6.
in black cotton soil for road construction. Recent Research in Science and xv. Tuncer B.E., Hector A.A., Craig H.B., (2006). Stabilizing Soft
Technology. Fine –Grained Soil with Fly Ash. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
vi. IRC: 37-2012. (2012). Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Vol. 18, No 2.
Pavements, Indian Road Congress.

NCICE@2016 doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i1/003 Page 13