IJBSTR RESEARCH PAPER VOL 1 [ISSUE 8] AUGUST 2013

ISSN 2320 6020

Stabilization/Solidification and Micro-Structural Analysis of Pond

Ash Using Lime
Barkha Tripathi and S. M. Ali Jawaid*
ABSTRACT: Recycling of waste material is one of the effective solutions of its disposal problem. Fly ash generated by coal-based
thermal power plant takes huge amount of land for disposal and creates environmental problem. From each power station, thousands
of tons of fly ash are pumped in to the ash ponds in the form of slurry. Solidification/stabilization of fly ash improves the geotechnical
properties and reduces the adverse effect to the environment. This paper shows the laboratory test results of Class C pond ash mixed
with small amount of lime, and local soil. In the present investigation, various tests were conducted on soil sample mixed with various
percentages of fly ash and lime. The result reveals that the optimum content of admixture for achieving maximum strength is
approximately 92% pond ash mixed with 3% lime. Scanning Electron Microscope imageries were also confirmed that change in
structure due to stabilization.
KEY WORDS: Solidification/stabilization, Scanning Electron Microscope, Lime, Recycling, Compaction, CBR, Pond ash
INTRODUCTION
In Indias power production programmed coal based thermal
power plants are major player. According to Central
Electricity Authority of India upto March 31, 1998 total 82
coals fired power plant existing in India. Fly ash produced by
thermal power plants creates environmental problem and
requires huge disposal area. There are generally three category
of coal ashes are available from thermal power stations such
as (1) Dry fly ash (2) Bottom ash (3) Pond ash (Bera et al.,
2007).
The fly ash produced from the burning of pulverized coal in a
coal-fired boiler is a finger grained powdery particulate
material that
is carried off in the flue gas and usually
collected from ESP (Electrostatic Precipitator) or mechanical
device. Ashes collected at the bottom of the boiler furnace are
called as bottom ash which possesses better geotechnical
properties. Fly ash and bottom ash are mixed together with
water in the form of slurry which is pump to ash pond area.
Previous researchers studied different uses of fly ash such as
bulk fill material (Raymond 1958; DiGioia and Nuzzo 1972;
Gray and Lin 1972; Joshi et al. 1975), soil stabilization (Chu
et al.1955; Goecker et al. 1956; Viskochil et al. 1957; Vasquez
and Alonso 1981), and land reclamation (Kim and Chun 1994)
Author: Barkha Tripathi currently Department of
civil
EngineeringMadan Mohan Malaviya
Engineering College Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh 273010, E-mail: me_barkhacs@rediffmail.com

Potential application of fly ash alone or soil stabilized with fly

ash or fly ash and admixtures for road construction has been
reported by a number of researchers (Ghosh et al. 1973;
Manjesh et al.2003; Satyanarayana Reddy and Rama Moorthy
2004; Ghosh and Subbarao 2006). Jute-geo textile reinforcing
fly ash was found to be a promising technique to improve the
bearing capacity of the foundation medium (Ghosh et al.
2005).
Actually, two classes of fly Ash are defined by ASTM C618:
Class F Fly Ash and Class C Fly Ash. The main difference
between these classes is the amount of calcium, silica,
alumina, and iron content in the ash. The chemical property of
the fly ash is highly influenced by the chemical content of the
coal burned. The free content of fly ash contributes to selfhardening, fraction of lime, present as free lime in the form of
calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide, controls self-hardening
characteristics of fly ash. In this paper, the strength of pond
ash and ash mixed with soil with lime and stabilized soils
have been investigated.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
SOIL
The investigations contained in this work have been carried
out using soil obtained from Madan Mohan Malaviya Engg
.College, Gorakhpur. The geo technical properties and OMCMDD curve of soil are given in Table1and Graph 1
respectively.

*Co-Author:
S.M.Ali Jawaid is currently
Associate Professorin Department of civil
engineeringMadan Mohan Malaviya Engineering
CollegeGorakhpur Uttar Pradesh -273010, Email: smaj@rediffmail.com

Table 1:

22

ijbstr.org

IJBSTR RESEARCH PAPER VOL 1 [ISSUE 8] AUGUST 2013

ISSN 2320 6020

The Soil was stabilized with either by Pond ash or Pond ash
mix with lime to compare its behavior with non-stabilized soil.
Firstly, Pond ash in different percentage (40%, 87%, 92%,
97%, 100%) mix with different percentage of soil (57%, 10%,
5 %.) with 3% Lime Content are shown in Table 4. The
Standard Proctor Compaction test was carried out to know the
optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density
(MDD) of various mixes. In order to prepare the sample for
CBR test in soaked condition, the different mixes thoroughly
mixed with water to obtain optimum moisture content of the
respective mix, and kept inside the soaking for periods 2-4
days in order to allow the moisture equilibrium to take place.

Graph 1: Proctors Compaction Test on Soil

Table 4: Designation of Various Mix Proportions of SoilPond Ash-Lime

Pond Ash
In this study, Pond Ash, which is Class C category, was taken
from Panki Thermal Power Station, Kanpur. The chemical
composition and physical properties of Pond ash and OMCMDD curve are given in Table 2, Table 3 and Graph 2
respectively.
Table 2: Chemical Composition of Fly ash

The test for Grain Size Distribution, Specific gravity,

Atterberg Limit, Compaction Parameters and California
bearing ratio (CBR) were conducted as per relevant I.S Codes.
The various mixes of soil- Pond ash-Lime (M2, M3, M4, M5)
were prepared and corresponding to maximum strength and
CBR value that is 92% Pond ash+5% Soil+3% Lime.

Table 3: Physical Properties of Pond ash

Graph 3: Compaction Test Result of Stabilized Soils

LIME

Graph 2: Proctor Test on Pond Ash

Lime used in this research is a commercial lime;it is a white,

caustic, and alkaline crystalline solid at room temperature. The
long term performance of any structure or construction
depends on the soundness of underlying soils, because
unstable soils creates significant problem for structural.

23

ijbstr.org

IJBSTR RESEARCH PAPER VOL 1 [ISSUE 8] AUGUST 2013

Scanning Electron microscope
The SEM analysis was carried out to study the morphology of
the samples. This test was carried out Birbal Sahani Institute
of Palaeobotny (BSIP), Lucknow. The gold coated samples
were place inside the SEM chamber for micrograph. The
micro images were taken different at magnifications (1000X,
3000X and 5000X) and analysis of the physiomorphological
changes that had occurred due to the stabilization.
3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Though, the pond ash is non plastic, it exhibits liquid limit due
to the fabric effect. Its specific gravity is also low as compared
to the virgin soil due to presence of cenospheres (Pandian, et.
al., 1998). Table 5 shows the results of compaction test and
California bearing ratio (CBR) tests for various mixes of
stabilized soil.

ISSN 2320 6020

STUDY OF SCANNING ELECTRON MICROGRAPH
IMAGERIES
Fig 5 shows the SEM view at 3000X of soil compaction on
OMC which is 14.9%. It is clearly seen from the picture that
there is large number of voids and loose packing of soil grains
which could be the reason for its permeability and less
strength in structure. Being less in strength makes it unfit for
use in many Geotechnical engineering works.
Scanning electron micrograph shows that the addition of lime
to pond ash produces a compact matrix on OMC 30.7%. The
arrangement of particles in the Fig 6 and Fig 7 is viewed at a
magnification of 3000X under the scanning electron
microscope. It is clearly seen from the picture that there is less
number of voids and tight packing of pond Ash, Soil and Lime
max. It could be the reason for less permeability and high
strength which shows the improvement of soil properties.

From Table 5,it is evident that the optimum moisture content

(OMC) of the soil increases from 20.8% to 30.7%, and the
maximum dry density gradually decreases from 1.50 g/cc to
1.182 g/cc, when the soil is stabilized with pond ash to pond
ash-lime mixes. So, from Table 5 it is also observed that with
increases in pond ash content the maximum dry density
decreases. Its due to the fact that pond ash has hollow
structure and thus has low density.
Table 5: Test Result for soil and various mixes

Table 5 and Fig 4 presents the results of CBR test, which are
clearly shows that the addition of pond ash and pond ash mix
with lime to the soil has influenced soaked CBR value. The
CBR value increases approx 8.5% than that of soil alone in
soaked conditions at 40% of pond ash and 3% of lime with
further increases in pond ash beyond 40%, the CBR value
decreases. Further increase of pond ash was resulted in
reduction of CBR value. Maximum dry density decreases and
CBR increases in all cases. The CBR value of pond ash
blended soil increases with increase in percentage of pond ash.
Any further increase in pond ash was leaded to no further
increase in CBR.

Fig. 5: SEM image of soil AT 3000X magnification

Fig. 4: Variation of CBR with Pond ash % content

Fig. 6: SEM of 92% Pond Ash+5% Soil+ 3% Lime

24

ijbstr.org

IJBSTR RESEARCH PAPER VOL 1 [ISSUE 8] AUGUST 2013

Fig. 7 SEM of 40%Pond ash +57% Soil+3% Lime

ISSN 2320 6020

4.

Kate, J.M. (2005). Strength and volume change

behavior of expansive soils treated with fly ash. Geo
Frontiers, ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication.

5.

Pandian, N.S., Rajasekhar, C., and Sridharan, A.

(1998).Studies on the specific gravity of some Indian
coal ashes. Journal of Testing and Evaluation,
ASTM, Vol. (26), 177-186.

6.

Pandian N.S. and Krishna K.C. (2001). CBR

behavior of fly Ash murmur mixes. Ground
Improvement, 5, 177-181.

7.

Singh, D. N. (1996). Influence of chemical

constituents on fly ash characteristics. Proceedings of
IGC, IIT Madras, 1, 227 230.

8.

Toth, P. S., Chan, H. T. & Cragg, C. B. (1988). Coal

ash as a structural fill with specific reference to
Ontario experience. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
25, 694704.

9.

Viskochil, R. K., Handy, R. L, & Davidson, D.T.

(1958).Effect of Density on Strength of Lime-Fly ash
Stabilized Soil. Highway Research Building Bulletin183.Washington, D.C, 5-15.

CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the experimental study of pond ash content using
lime, the following conclusions can be drawn:
a.

With an increase in pond ash and pond ash-lime

content, the optimum water content increases and the
maximum dry density decreases.

b.

Mixture of 92% Pond ash+5% Soil and 3% Lime

gives optimum strength of pond ash.

c.

At optimum content of pond ash mixed with soil,

lime, the CBR value of stabilized soil increases8.5
times than that of virgin soil alone in soaked
condition.

d.

10. Yudhbir&Honjo, Y. (1991). Application of

geotechnical engineering to environmental control.
Proceedings ofthe 9th Asian Regional Conference on
Soil
Mechanicsand
Foundation
Engineering,
Bangkok, 2, 431466
11. Dharavath, Kishan (2010). Strength, Durability and
Micro-structural Analysis of stabilized Fly Ash on
Indian Geotechnical Confrence-2010.

Due to SEM test, it is clearly seen that there is large

number of voids and loose packing of soil grains
which could be the reason for its high permeability
and less strength in structure. Being less in strength
makes it unfit for use in many Geotechnical
engineering works.

REFERANCES
1.

Bell F.G. (1996). Lime stabilization of clay minerals

and soils. Engineering Geology, 42, 223237.

2.

Gray D.H. & Lin Y.K. (1972). Engineering

Properties of Compacted Fly Ash. Jl. of SMFE, Proc.
ASCE, 98,361-380.

3.

Joshi R.C., Duncan D. M. &Mc Master H.M. (1975).

New and Conventional Engineering Uses of Fly Ash.
Jl. of Transportation Engg. Proc. ASCE, 101, 791806.

25

ijbstr.org