Advertisement

The Effect of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer on the Strength of Problematic Subgrade Soil with High CaO Content

  • Nawfal Farooq KwadEmail author
  • Ahmed H. Abdulkareem
  • Taher M. Ahmed
Conference paper
  • 86 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 76)

Abstract

 The weak subgrade soil is one of the major challenges for civil engineering applications such as roads and foundations. This study aims to find out the influence of fly ash-based geopolymer on the strength of weak soil to fulfill the requirements of the subgrade layer in the pavement structure. Fly ash particles of class F was used as a raw material for geopolymer synthesis. The alkaline liquid consists of the Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) at 8 molars solution and Sodium silicate Na2Sio3 in liquid form and the ratio of NaOH:Na2Sio3 remained constant at 60:40 by weight. Low plasticity sandy silt was utilized in the study and stabilized using various proportions of fly ash (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30%). Laboratory investigation involves the compaction properties of soil-fly ash mixtures in addition to the mechanical properties including the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) test and the Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) test. The UCS test results revealed that the compressive strength of the soil greatly improved after adding the fly ash-based geopolymer and 20% of fly ash content achieved the highest UCS at 28 days of curing time. The ITS test results exhibited a progressive increase in the tensile strength of the soil with fly ash geopolymer, which corresponds to a great resistance for cracking in the soil. Geopolymer gel was observed in the stabilized soil, as confirmed by the SEM analysis.

Keywords

Subgrade soil Geopolymer Chemical stabilization Calcium Unconfined compressive strength 

References

  1. Adhikari S (2017) Mechanical properties of soil-RAP-geopolymer for the stabilization of road base/subbase. University of Louisiana at LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  2. Amulya S, Ravi Shankar AU, Praveen M (2018) Stabilisation of lithomargic clay using alkali activated fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag. Int J Pavement Eng 1–8Google Scholar
  3. Bagheri A et al (2017) Alkali activated materials vs geopolymers: role of boron as an eco-friendly replacement. Constr Build Mater 146:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burmister DM et al (1944) The theory of stress and displacements in layered systems and applications to the design of airport runways. In: Highway research board proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  5. Canfield GM et al (2014) The role of calcium in blended fly ash geopolymers. J Mater Sci 49(17):5922–5933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cristelo N et al (2012) Effect of calcium content on soil stabilisation with alkaline activation. Constr Build Mater 29:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cristelo N et al (2013) Effects of alkaline-activated fly ash and portland cement on soft soil stabilisation. Acta Geotech 8(4):395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cristelo N, Glendinning S, Teixeira Pinto A (2011) Deep soft soil improvement by alkaline activation. Proc Inst Civil Eng-Ground Improv 164(2):73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidovits J (2015) False values on CO2 emission for geopolymer cement/concrete published in scientific papers. Technical paper, no 24Google Scholar
  10. Davidovits J (2017) Geopolymers: ceramic-like inorganic polymers. J Ceram Sci Technol 8(3):335–350Google Scholar
  11. Dungca JR, II E (2018) Fly-ash-based geopolymer as stabilizer for silty sand embankment materials. Int J 14(46):143–149Google Scholar
  12. González A et al (2013) Laboratory fatigue life of cemented materials in Australia. Road Mater Pavement Des 14(3):518–536.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2013.779300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hardjito D, Rangan BV (2005) Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concreteGoogle Scholar
  14. Khater HM (2011) Effect of calcium on geopolymerization of aluminosilicate wastes. J Mater Civil Eng 24(1):92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Link RE et al (2001) California bearing ratio behavior of soil/fly ash mixtures. J Test Eval 29:220–226.  https://doi.org/10.1520/jte12249jCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muhaimeed AS et al (2014) Classification and distribution of Iraqi soils. Int J Agric Innov Res 2(6):997–1002Google Scholar
  17. Phani Kumar BR, Sharma RS (2004) Effect of fly ash on engineering properties of expansive soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(7):764–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rangan B (2009) Engineering properties of geopolymer concrete. In: Geopolymers: structures, processing, properties and industrial applications, pp 211–226.  https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845696382.2.211
  19. Santos F et al (2011) Geotechnical properties of fly ash and soil mixtures for use in highway embankments. In: Proceedings of the world of coal ash (WOCA) conference, Denver, USA, pp 125–136Google Scholar
  20. Slaty F et al (2015) Durability of alkali activated cement produced from kaolinitic clay. Appl Clay Sci 104:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Temuujin JV, Van Riessen A, Williams R (2009) Influence of calcium compounds on the mechanical properties of fly ash geopolymer pastes. J Hazard Mater 167(1–3):82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thompson MR (1966) Split-1”’ensile strength of lime-stabilized soilsGoogle Scholar
  23. Wijaya SW, Hardjito D (2016) Factors affecting the setting time of fly ash-based geopolymer. In: Materials science forum. Trans Tech Publications, pp 90–97Google Scholar
  24. Wright PJF (1955) Comments on an indirect tensile test on concrete cylinders. Mag Concr Res 7(20):87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yaghoubi M et al (2018) Effects of industrial by-product based geopolymers on the strength development of a soft soil. Soils Found 58(3):716–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yip CK, Van Deventer JSJ (2003) Microanalysis of calcium silicate hydrate gel formed within a geopolymeric binder. J Mater Sci 38(18):3851–3860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yip CK, Lukey GC, van Deventer JSJ (2005) The coexistence of geopolymeric gel and calcium silicate hydrate at the early stage of alkaline activation. Cement Concr Res 35(9):1688–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ASTM C618-12 (2012) Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org
  29. ASTM D4318-10 (2010) Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org
  30. ASTM D854-14 (2014) Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org
  31. ASTM D2487-11 (2011) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org
  32. ASTM D1557-12 (2012) Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using modified effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org
  33. ASTM D4219-08 (2008) Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength index of chemical- grouted soils (withdrawn 2017). ASTM International, West Conshohocken. www.astm.org

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nawfal Farooq Kwad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ahmed H. Abdulkareem
    • 1
  • Taher M. Ahmed
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Engineering, Civil Engineering DepartmentUniversity of AnbarRamadiIraq

Personalised recommendations