COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF

FLY ASH AND POND ASH

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Technology

In

Civil Engineering

(Geotechnical Engineering)

Ratnesh Kumar

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

MAY 2017
 COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF
FLY ASH AND POND ASH

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Technology
In
Civil Engineering
(Geotechnical Engineering)

Under the guidance and supervision of

Prof. Chittaranjan Patra

Submitted by

Ratnesh Kumar
(ROLL NO. 215CE1264)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA
MAY 2017
 Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology Rourkela
Rourkela – 769008, India www.nitrkl.ac.in

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project entitled “Compaction Characteristics of Fly Ash and

Pond Ash” submitted by Mr. Ratnesh Kumar (Roll No. 215CE1264) in partial

fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of Technology Degree in Civil

Engineering at NIT Rourkela is an authentic work carried out by him under my

supervision and guidance.

To the best of my knowledge, the matter embodied in this report has not been

submitted to any other university/institute for the award of any degree or diploma.

Place: Rourkela Prof. Chittaranjan Patra

Date: Department of Civil Engineering

National Institute of Technology Rourkela

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest thanks, great indebtedness and gratitude to my thesis

supervisor Prof. Dr. C. R. Patra, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of

Technology Rourkela, Odisha, India, for his kind supervision, valuable comments during

courses of my research work.

I express my sincere regards to Prof. S.K.Sahu, Professor and Head of

Department of Civil Engineering NIT, Rourkela, Prof. N. Roy, Prof. C. R. Patra, Prof.

S. P. Singh, Prof. S. K. Das and other professors of Civil Department for their kind

cooperation and valuable suggestions. I thank Prof. Animesh Biswas, Director of NIT,

Rourkela for giving me the needful resources in the department.

I would like to thank my parents, and family members. Without their love,

patience and support, I could not have completed this work. Finally, I wish to thank co-

workers of Geotechnical lab specially Narayan Mohanty and Dilip Das. I would like to

thank many friends especially, Vikrant Patel and Devansh Nema for giving me support

and encouragement during these difficult years.

I extend my special and heartily thanks and gratitude to my Institute, National

Institute of Technology Rourkela, Odisha, India, for giving me the opportunity to carry

out research.

(Ratnesh Kumar)

ii
 Abstract:
This study is based on compaction characteristics of Fly ash and pond ash. In thermal

power plants, there are three kinds of ash formed named as (a) pond ash, (b) fly ash, and

(c) bottom ash. Fly ash is one of the products of coal combustion, consisting of the fine

particles that are determined out of the boiler with the flue gasses. The ash falls to the

bottom of the boiler is called bottom ashes. In existing coal plants, generally,fly ash is

captured by electrostatic precipitators and other clarified particles equipment before

reaching the chimney. Pond ash is the by-product of thermoelectric power plants, which

is recognized by means of an unused material and disposal is an important environmental

issue and also needs a lot of removal regions. Several factors influence the dry density of

Fly ash and Pond ash such as specific gravity, moisture content, compaction energy, layer

thickness and mold area. The difference of the OMC and MDD of Fly Ash (collected

from NTPC kanhia, Odisha) according to the standard proctor compaction energy is 0.90

– 1.59 gm/cc and 18 - 27%, respectively. This difference of the OMC and MDD of Pond

ash as per standard proctor compaction energy at the level of 0.856 – 1.248 gm/cc and 33

- 46%, respectively. The study was that variation in these factors influencing the dry

density of fly ash and ash pond significantly and to determine the Geotechnical properties

of pond ash and fly ash.

KEYWORDS: Fly ash, Pond ash, MDD, OMC, Proctor test etc.

iii
 Contents
Certificate………………………………………………………………...……………....i
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………….ii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….iii
List of Figures...................................................................................................................vi
List of Table.....................................................................................................................viii
List of Notations…………………………………………………………………………ix
CHAPTER 1……………………………………………………………………………..1
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...2
CHAPTER 2……………………………………………………………………………..4
Review of Literature and Scope of the Present Study..…………………………………..5
2.1 General..........................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Different Studies on Pond Ash...……………………………………………….....5
2.1.2 Different Studies on Fly Ash………………….......................................................7
CHAPTER 3…………………………………………………………….…….................9
Materials and Methods…………..………………….………………………………….10
3.1 General.........................................................................................................................10
3.2 Materials…………………….………………………………………………………..10
3.2.1 Fly ash……………………………………………………………………………10
3.2.2 Pond ash.................................................................................................................11
3.3 Methods………………………….…………………………………………….……..12
3.3.1 Strength Properties of Fly Ash...............................................................................12
3.3.2 Strength Properties of Pond Ash………….………………………….…………..12
3.3.3 Uses of Fly Ash………….…………………...………….……………………….13
3.3.4 Uses of Pond Ash…………….……………………………….….………………13
3.3.5 Objectives………………………………………………………………………..13
3.4 Test procedures………………………………………………………………………14
3.4.1 Specific Gravity.....................................................................................................14
3.4.2 Grain Size Analysis………………………………………………………………14
3.4.3 Permeability…………….......................................................................................15
3.4.4 Compaction Test……………................................................................................15
3.4.5 Direct Shear Test....................................................................................................16

iv
CHAPTER 4………………………………………………………………………….…17
Results and discussion……………………………………………………………..……18
4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................18
4.2 Index properties……………………………………………………………………....18
4.2.1 Specific gravity...…………………………….……………………………….…18
4.3 Engineering Properties...…………………………………….…………………….….18
4.3.1 Compaction test..…………………………………………….………………….19
4.3.2 Relationship between compaction energy vs dry density……………………....22
4.3.3 Relationship between compaction energy vs moisture content………………...24
4.3.4 Relationship between dry density vs moisture content………………………....26
4.3.5 Grain Size Analysis……………………………………………………………..28
4.3.6 Permeability…………………………………………………………………......30
4.3.7 Direct Shear Test…………………………………………………………….…..32
CHAPTER 5…………………………………………………………………………..….44
5.1 Summary and Conclusion………………………..……………………………….…..45
5.2 Scope for Further Research……………………………………………………….…..46
References………………………………………………………..……………………….47
Objectives………………………………………………………..………………………..50

v
 List of figures
Figure 1: Variation in dry density with change in compaction energy (standard fly
ash)……………………………………………………………………………………….19
Figure 2: Variation in dry density with change in compaction energy (modified fly
ash)……………………………………………………………………………………….20
Figure 3: Variation in dry density with change in compaction energy (standard pond
ash)……………………………………………………………………………………….21
Figure 4: Variation in dry density with change in compaction energy (modified pond
ash)……………………………………………………………………………………….21
Figure 5: The relationship between compaction energy and dry density of standard fly
ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)………………………………………………………22
Figure 6: The relationship between compaction energy and dry density of modified fly
ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)……………………………………………………...22
Figure 7: The relationship between compaction energy and dry density of standard pond
ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)…..……………………………………… ………….23
Figure 8: The relationship between compaction energy and dry density of modified pond
ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)………………………………………………………23
Figure 9: The relationship between compaction energy vs moisture content of standard
fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)……………..…………………… ………………24
Figure 10: The relationship between compaction energy vs moisture content of modified
fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)…………………………………… ……………..24
Figure 11: The relationship between compaction energy vs moisture content of standard
pond ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)…….................................................................. 25
Figure 12: The relationship between compaction energy vs moisture content of modified
pond ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)……….…………….………………………….25
Figure 13: The relationship between dry density vs moisture content of standard fly ash
collected from (NTPC Kanhia)………………………..…………………………………26
Figure 14: The relationship between dry density vs moisture content of modified fly ash
collected from (NTPC Kanhia)……………….…………………………….……………26
Figure 15: The relationship between dry density vs moisture content of standard pond
ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)………………………………...…………………….27

vi
Figure 16: The relationship between dry density vs moisture content of modified pond
ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)………….…………………………….……………..27
Figure 17: Grain size distribution curve of fly ash……………………………………....28
Figure 18: Grain size distribution curve of pond ash……………….………….………..29
Figure 19: Strength parameters of fly ash for Compaction energy 3244.6 kN-m/m³……33
Figure 20: Strength parameters of fly ash for Compaction energy 2703.8 kN-m/m³……33
Figure 21: Strength parameters of fly ash for Compaction energy 1622.3 kN-m/m³……33
Figure 22: Strength parameters of fly ash for Compaction energy 1297.8 kN-m/m³..…..34
Figure 23: Strength parameters of fly ash for Compaction energy 711.6 kN-m/m³..……34
Figure 24: Strength parameters of fly ash for Compaction energy 593.0 kN-m/m³…..…34
Figure 25: Strength parameters of fly ash for Compaction energy 355.8 kN-m/m³..……35
Figure 26: Strength parameters of fly ash for Compaction energy 284.6 kN-m/m³..……35
Figure 27: Strength parameters of pond ash for Compaction energy 3244.6 kN-m/m….37
Figure 28: Strength parameters of pond ash for Compaction energy 2703.8 kN-m/m³…37
Figure 29: Strength parameters of pond ash for Compaction energy 1622.3 kN-m/m³…37
Figure 30: Strength parameters of pond ash for Compaction energy 1297.8 kN-m/m³…38
Figure 31: Strength parameters of pond ash for Compaction energy 711.6 kN-m/m³…..38
Figure 32: Strength parameters of pond ash for Compaction energy 593.0 kN-m/m³......38
Figure 33: Strength parameters of pond ash for Compaction energy 355.8 kN-m/m³…..39
Figure 34: Strength parameters of pond ash for Compaction energy 284.6 kN-m/m³......39
Figure 35(a): The relationship between compaction energy and cohesion of fly ash
collected from (NTPC Kanhia)…………………………………………….…………….40
Figure 35(b): The relationship between compaction energy and cohesion of fly ash
collected from (NTPC Kanhia)………………………………………….……………….40
Figure 36(a): The relationship between compaction energy and cohesion of pond ash
collected from (NTPC Kanhia)………………………..…………………………………41
Figure 36(b): The relationship between compaction energy and cohesion of pond ash
collected from (NTPC Kanhia)………………………………………………………..…41
Figure 37(a): The relationship between compaction energy vs Angle of internal friction
of fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)……………………………………......………42
Figure 37(b): The relationship between compaction energy vs Angle of internal friction
of fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)…………...…………………………...………42
Figure 38: The relationship between compaction energy vs Angle of internal friction of
pond ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)……………………………….…...………...…43

vii
 List of Table
Table 1: Physical properties of fly ash...............................................................................12
Table 2: Physical properties of pond ash………………………………………………...12
Table 3: Specific gravity of fly ash & pond ash collected from NTPC Kanhia, Odisha…18
Table 4: Maximum dry densities of samples subjected to different compacting
energies…………………………………………………………………………………..19
Table 5: Maximum dry densities of samples subjected to different compacting
energies……………………………………………………………..……………………20
Table 6: Uniformity coefficient and coefficient of gradation of fly ash….……….……...28
Table 7: Uniformity coefficient and coefficient of gradation of pond ash..……………...29
Table 8: Hydraulic conductivity of Fly ash………………………………………………30
Table 9: Hydraulic conductivity of pond ash……………………………………….........31
Table 10: Strength parameters of fly ash...........................................................................32
Table 11: Strength parameters of pond ash……………………………………………...36

viii
 List of Notations
NOTATION DESCRIPTION

E Compaction Energy, kJ/m3

OMC Optimum Moisture Content, %

MDD Maximum Dry Density, kN/m3

Cu Unit Cohesion, kN/m2

Φ Angle of Internal Friction, Degrees

M.C Moisture Content, %

C‟/C Normalized Cohesion

Cu Coefficient of Uniformity

Cc Coefficient of Curvature

G Specific Gravity

LL Liquid Limit

Dr Relative Density

CBR California bearing ratio

UCS unconfined compressive strengths

ix
 CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION

1
1. Introduction:
Fly ash in with the products of coal burning, consisting of good particles that are
excluded from the boiling with fumes. The ash falls bottommost of the boiler is named as
bottom ashes. Depending on the source and the composition of burnt coal, volatile ash
components vary significantly but all volatile ash contains significant quantities of silicon
dioxide (SiO2) (both uniformed and crystal-like), aluminum oxide (AL2O3) and calcium
oxides. Flying ash component solidifies while deferred in use gasses and is possessed by
electrostatic precipitators or refine baggage. Then fragments coagulate quickly though
deferred now dissipate gasses, fly ash particles are normally rounded and vary from 0.5 to
300 microns. The main concern is that few hardening of the mineral has the time to
crystallize and remain in the tempered amorphous glass. As a result, fly ash is a multifarious
component.
For resolving fly ash compaction parameters the most normally used methods are
Standard and Modified Proctor methods. One1of1the main compatibility tests,
on1waste1from1a1power1industry1lagoon,1was achieved by Raymond and Smith, who
indicated that1the1test1procedure1could influence compaction1parameters.1They observed,
for the period of compaction through the Standard1Proctor1method, a dissimilarity among fly
ash1compaction arch when1samples, saturated in the test, were1compacted regularly, or
when without exception limit on1the arch was1obtained applying “pure” sampling. It1was
next established by Leonards & Bailey, who verified (by Modified Proctor) a bottom1ash and
fly1ash mixture from the dry distribution place. They related to experimental consequence
through particle degradation.
There are two1classes1of fly ash are1defined1by ASTM C618: F Class fly ash and C-
Class fly ash. The1main1difference1between1these1classes is the amount1of calcium, silica,
alumina1and1iron contained in1the1ash. Coal is used as the chief fuel in thermal power plant
and in additional commerce. Good residues from the above-mentioned plants are assembled
in a field recognized as fly ash and is measured as an unused component. Fly ash is available
in a dry or varied form with liquid and fixed in places named pond ash. The quantity of
powerful fly ash formed is enormous and increasing day by day. Four countries, specifically
India, China, USA & Poland produce approximately 270 million tons of fly ash each year.
Pond Ash is the by-product of the thermoelectric power plants, which recognize an
unused material and demolition is an important environmental issue and also requires a
proportion of dumping areas. In fact, components are three kinds of ashes of the

2
thermoelectric power plants i.e (i) fly ash, (ii) pond ash, (iii) bottom ash. Fly Ash is possessed
by automatic or electrostatic fumes of central precipitators; the bottom ash is possessed from
the lowermost of the boiler. When the above-mentioned two types of ash, varied
simultaneously, are transferred in the form of sludge and reserved the gaps, the boiler is
named ash pond or bottom ash and ashes are mixed with water to form slurry pumped ash
zone. Ash is deposited in the ash and excess water is poured. This is called pond ash
deposited ash. Ash pond is the outgrowth of the thermoelectric influence plants, that is
studied an unused component and disposition is an important environmental issue and also
needs an enough of clearance areas. In fact, three kinds of ashes of power plants, namely: (i)
fly ash, (ii) bottom ash, and (iii) pond ash. Pond ash, which can be used to improve soil, has
gained enormous momentum over the last two decades. The initial questions of the pond ash,
become stable with lime, as a sub-grade of the road in the late 1950s and initial sixties
(Davidson & manageable, 1960; Snyder & Nelson, 1962). In the seventies, the variation of
fly ash functions expanded (Copp and Spencer 1970 Joshi et al 1975), and functions by
swallowing cement-stabilized fly ash was introduced.

3
CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE
REVIEW

4
2. 1 LITERATURE REVIEW:
2.1.1 Different studies on pond ash:

Bera et al. (2007) declared that1the properties of1changed compaction1controlling

parameters, i.e. mold area, layer width, moisture content, specific gravity, compaction energy
and tank size on the dry1density1of1pond ash are explained. The MDD and OMC of
pond1ash differ in reach the area of 0.856 – 1.248 gm/cc and 29–46%, correspondingly. The
strength of concentration at an OMC of1pond1ash1has1been creating to differ in reach the
area of1631–189%. An1empirical1model1has1been established to evaluation the dry density
of pond ash, applying numerous regression studies, in1terms1of specific1gravity,
moisture1content1and1compaction energy.

Jakka et al. (2010) declared that energy and alternative geotechnical features of1pond1ash
specimen, possessed from invasion and streaming facts of1two ponds ash1in1India,1are
related to1sandy1soils1in1many forms. Strength1characteristics1were examined by means of
undrained (CU) and consolidated drained (CD) triaxial tests through compacted1
specimens1 of1 pond1 ash1 samples1 under1 different1 confining1 pressures, pore water
pressure measurements and conducted on loose.

Ghosh (2010) declared that1Class1F1pond1ash only and become constant with changing %
of1lime1(4, 6, and 10%)1and1phosphogypsum (0.5 & 1.0), to1study1the1suitability1of
stabilized1pond1ash1for sub-base1and road base1construction. Modified &
standard1proctor1tests had been directed to disclose the1compaction1characteristics1of1the
balanced pond1ash. Equally the bearing1ratio1tests of soaked & unsoaked have1been
directed. The effect of PG1content, curing1period & lime on1the1bearing1ratio1of fixed
pond1ash. The1empirical1model1has1been established to1estimate1the1bearing1ratio1for1
the1stabilized1mixes1through1numerous1regression1study.

Singh and Sharan (2014) declared that the degree1of1saturation1on1strength1characteristics

of1compacted1pond1ash and properties of compaction energy. The MDD & OMC
consistently to different1compactive1energies1were resoluted by1conventional1compaction
tests.1The California bearing ratio (CBR), unconfined compressive strengths (UCS), shear
strength parameters, and specimen’s values of compressed to different moisture content and
dry densities were evaluated and described. The degree of saturation of shear strength
parameters and effects of compaction energy i.e. angle of internal friction (ϕ) values and unit
5
cohesion (cu) and similarly the unconfined compressive strengths values are calculated and
conferred.

N. S. Pandian (2004)1studies1carried1out1on1a1review1of1characterization1of1the1fly1ash
with1 reference1 to1 geotechnical1 applications.1 He1 summarized1 that1 fly1 ash1 with1
some1 modifications/1additives, (if1required)1can1be1effectively utilized in geotechnical1
applications.

Bera et al. (2007)1implemented1on1the1effective1utilization1of1pond1ash,1as1foundation

medium.1A1series1of1laboratory1model1tests1have1 been1 carried1 out1 using1 square,
rectangular1and1strip1footings1on1pond1ash.1The1effects1of1dry1 density,1the1 degree1 of
saturation1of1pond1ash,1size1and1shape1of1footing1on1the1ultimate1bearing1 capacity1 of
shallow1foundations1are1presented1in1this1paper.Local1shear1failure1of1a1square1 footing
on1pond1ash1at 37% moisture1content1(optimum1moisture1content)1is1observed1up to the
values1of1dry1density 11.20 kN/m3 and1general1shear1failure1takes1place1at1the1 values
of1dry1density 11.48 kN/m3 and 11.70 kN/m³. Effects1of1degree1of1saturation1on1ultimate
bearing1capacity1were1studied.1Experimental1 results1 show1 that1 degree1 of saturation
significantly1affects1the1ultimate1bearing1capacity1of1strip1footing.1The1effect of1footing
length1to1 width1 ratio1 (L/B), on1increase1in1ultimate1bearing1capacity1of1pond1ash,1is
insignificant1for L/B ≥ 10 in1the1case1of1rectangular1footings. The1effects1of1size1of
footing1 on1 the1 ultimate1 bearing1 capacity1 for1 all1 shapes1 of1 footings1viz., 1square,
Rectangular1and1strip1footings1are1highlighted.

R. S. Jakka, G. V. Ramana, M. Datta (2010)1gave1a1detailed1experimental1study1carried

on1the1strength1and1othe1geotechnical1characteristics1of1pond1 ash1 samples,1 collected1
from1 inflow1and1out1flow1points1of1two1ash1ponds.1 Strength1 characteristics1 were1
investigated1using1consolidated1drained1(CD)1and1undrained1(CU)1triaxial1tests1 with1
pore1 water1 pressure1measurements,1conducted1on1loose1and1compacted1specimens1 of1
pond1ash1samples1under1different1confining1pressures.

2.1.2 Different studies on fly ash:

Osman et al. (2008) considered a1number1of1compaction1test1results1on1fine-grained

(cohesive)1soil,1including1those1provided1by1Gurtug and Shridharan (2004). The following
correlation was established on the basis of this study:

6
d (max) (kN/m3) = L-M wopt

wopt (%) = (1.99 – 0.165lnE) (PI)

where,
E = compaction energy (kN-m/m3)
PI = Plasticity index (%)
M= -0.19 + 0.073ln E
L= 14.34 + 1.195ln E

Patra et al. (2010) directed modified and standard proctor1tests (ASTM1test1designation

D- 698 and D- 1557 appropriately) taking place 551sand specimen to evaluated minimum

and maximum1void1ratio (emin, emax)1and1the1void1ratios1at1the Optimum Moisture

Content on or after modified and standard Proctor compaction tests (es and em). The median
grain size (D50) of soils have been correlated with the1void1ratios1and1hence, the relative

1density1of1compaction (Dr).

Modified proctor test:

Dr =.8321D50 -.087

Standard proctor test:

Dr =.5864D50-.107

Patra et al. (2010), tests completed on1551clean1sand1samples1from modified (blows = 12,

E= 1300 kN-m/m3 approximately) and “reduced” standard (number of hammer blows per

layer = 15 with E= 360 kN-m/m3 approximately) proctor test and between Dr, D50 and the

compaction energy (E), correlation developed.

Dr =AD50 –B (Modified Proctor test)

Where,
A = 0.216ln E -0.850
And,
B = -0.03ln E +0.306

Lisa et al. (1998) defined a process for approximating optimum moisture content (wopt) and
maximum dry density (d max) of soils (clayey) on any compaction energy E. One process
was created on the compaction curve & liquid limit, while another created proceeding on

7
Liquid Limit merely. The Linear relationship among log E and d max & log E and Wopt,
equally are1a1function1of1the1liquid1limit1which used to generalize to1different
compaction1energies.
If1the1LL1and1compaction1curve1known,
Then,

d max, E =d max, k + (2.27 LL- 0.94) log (E/EK)

Wopt, E = wopt, k + (12.39 - 12.21LL) log (E/EK)
And,
If only LL is known then,

d max, E = (2.27 log LL- 0.94) log E- 0.16LL+17.02

Wopt, E= (12.39 - 12.21log LL) log E+0.67LL+9.21

Omar et al. (2003)1studied1modified1proctor1compaction1test1results1of 311 soil samples,

451were1gravelly1soils1and 364 were sandy1soils.The1compaction1test1was1done
according1to1ASTM 1557 method C (modified proctor test) to1avoid1oversize1correction.
Based1on1result1the1following1correlation1was1developed:
Pd (max) (kg/m3) = [4,804,574 Gs -195.55(LL)2+ 156,971(R#4) -9,527,830]5
Ln (wopt) = 1.195*10-4 (LL)2 – 1.94 Gs -6.617*10-5 (R#4) +7.651
Where,

pd (max) = maximum1dry1density & wopt = optimum1water1content (%)

GS = specific1gravity1of1soil1solids & R#4 = percent1retained1on No. 4 sieve

Objective:
1. To check the effect of compaction on1the geotechnical properties11of1 1fly1 ash1
and pond ash, such as permeability, shear strength, dry density with respect to
moisture content.
2. To check the change in chemical and mineralogical composition with time delay due
to compaction

8
 CHAPTER-3

MATERIAL

AND

METHODOLOGY

9
3.1 MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY:
This part defines the method and materials well-known reach the objectives. The important
resources in this survey are fly ash and pond ash; experiential procedure for the
characterization of these materials is discussed. The following section of this1chapter1is1a
brief1introduction to materials and methodology.

3.1.1 Material:
(a) Fly ash (collected from NTPC Kanhia, Odisha)
(b) Pond ash (collected from NTPC Kanhia, Odisha)
(c) The samples were desiccated in an oven of 105 to 110º and sifted with a 4.75 mm
Sieve.
(d) The compaction test, resistance and permeability parameters, and
(e) 2 mm IS sieve for per specific gravity.

Fly Ash

10
 Pond Ash

4.75 mm Sieve 2mm Sieve

11
 3.1.2 Physical Properties of Fly Ash and Pond ash:

Fly ash particles are very fine, lightweight (density 1.97-2.89 g/cc) and spherical (specific
surface area 4000-10,000 cm2/g; diameter, 1-150μ), refractory and have the pozzolanic
ability. Fly ash grey to blackish grey and is dependent on coal type and combustion process.
Fly ash has dielectric property (dielectric constant, 104) and can be used in the electronic
application.

Table 1: Physical1properties1of1fly1ash
1PARAMETERS1 1RANGE1
1Colour1 1Grey1
1Shape1 1Rounded1
1Optimum1Moisture1Content (%) 18 - 27%
1Maximum1Dry1Density (gm/cc) 0.90 – 1.59
Specific gravity 2.28
Plasticity Index, IP Non-plastic
Coefficient of curvature 1.29
Uniformity coefficient 5.58
Mean Diameter 0.05 mm

Table 2: Physical1properties1of1pond1ash
1PARAMETERS1 1RANGE1
1Colour1 Light1grey
1Shape1 Rounded1/ subrounded
Optimum1Moisture1Content (%) 33 - 46%
Maximum1Dry1Density1(gm/cc) 0.856 – 1.248
Specific gravity 2.18
Plasticity Index, IP Non-plastic
Coefficient of curvature 1.27
Uniformity coefficient 5.69
Mean Diameter 0.3 mm

12
3.1.4 USES OF FLY ASH:

1. Waste stabilization and solidification.

2. Embankments and structural fill.

3. Portland cement.

4. Stabilization of soft soils.

5. Mine reclamation.

6. Raw feed for cement clinkers.

3.1.5 USES OF POND ASH:

1. In Landfill and dyke rising.

2. Manufacture of Portland cement.

3. Manufacture1of1Bricks.

4. Part1replacement1in1mortar1and1concrete.

5. In Structural fill for reclaiming low areas.

6. Stowing materials for mines.

3.2 Test Procedures:

3.2.1 Specific gravity:

According to a unique load of fly ash and pond ash was expect as IS: 2720 (Part III,
Section 1) 1980, which was used a sample of 50 g fly ash and pond ash oven at 105-110
degrees, passing through a sieve of 2 mm and the weight nearest to 0.001 g. Three density
bottle (pyknometers) of 50 ml, a dryer, and boiler to heat the density bottle remove the air
foams and refined water.
For describing exact pressure, three frequency bottles has been taken and weighing near to
0.001 gram. Next 50-gram oven dry bottom ash were taken passes through 2 mm IS sieve,
weighing nearby to 0.001gram. At that moment sampling and pyknometers equally weighing
collectively, then the mass of pycnometers and distilled water were taking. By this method
presented in IS 2720 (Part-3, section-1)1980 specific gravity resolute.

13
To determine the specific weight, they were taken and the first three heavy bottles closer to
the density of 0.001 g. Then 50 g of fly ash and pond ash dried in the oven by passing
through a sieve of 2 mm, measured approximately of 0.001 g. Then the sampling and
pyknometer are measuring simultaneously, then the mass of the pycnometer and refined
water were taken. By this method presented in IS: 2720 (part 3, section-2), the specific
weight of 1980 was defined.

3.2.2 Grain size analysis:

Grain1size1analysis1was1performed1in keeping with IS code: 2720(part IV)-1985.1For
sieve1analysis, 500-gram oven-dried specimen were taken1and passing through1sieve1set
which1is: 75 μ, 150 μ, 212 μ, 300 μ, 425 μ, 600 μ, 1mm, 2mm, 4.75 mm. The mass of
retained specimen was taken after that chart has been shown between passing percentage and
width of the particle. Hydrometer analysis for the specimen which is passed through a sieve
of 75 μ. Chart between the finest % and the diameter of the specimens was plotted. Both the
chart was inserted and the ratio between the percentage passing and the width of the particle
bending coefficient (Cc) and the coefficient of uniformity (Cu) was determined.

3.2.3 Permeability:
The permeability was resoluted according to fly ash and pond ash IS 2720 (part XVII) -
1986. Permeability is an influence by which1water1can1flow1through1ash1or1soil1due1to
consistent gaps. It is essential to estimate1the amount of infiltration in different1hydraulic
conditions to investigate the stability analysis of ground and dam supporting structures that
have undergone leakage. Hydraulic conductivity can be determined by two methods which
are: Constant head test and Falling head test. According to current research, a constant1head
test1in1which the head1remained1constant1between the input and output of the control
device were defined by hydraulic conductivity.

3.2.4 Compaction test:

The compaction of fly ash and pond ash has been done according to IS: 2720 (part 7)-
1980 for light compaction and IS: 2720(part 8)-1983 for heavy compaction. Compaction is a
process if densification of a granular material by applying mechanical energy. This process
involves packing the granular material together with reducing the volume of air voids.
Densification of granular material controls other engineering properties such as permeability,
compression, and shear strength. The dry density of the compacted material is a measure of
the degree of compaction achieved. This is the function of the quantity and application

14
method of energy, the amount of water taken through compaction and the characteristics of
materials such as specific gravity, particle shape, plasticity, grain size distribution, &
gradation.
In1the1laboratory, the1standard1compaction1test1was performed using a molded diameter of
10 cm, 12.73 cm in height and 15 cm in diameter, 12.73 cm in height to give mold area
variation. A 2.6 kg mass of hammer was used with a 310-millimeter drop to compact the
ashes into the three-layer mold, each layer is subjected to 25 blows of the hammer drop mass
providing 25 blows/layer. Modified compaction test uses the same mold in 5 layers of 4.9 kg
of weight and a 450 mm drop mass providing 25 blows per layer.

3.2.4.1 Compaction test: Proctor mould

The impact of compaction controlling parameters testing on the dry1density1of
variation1of1these1Parameters is Compaction energy variation (up to eight energy levels),
specific gravity1variation, layer1thickness1variation,1compaction1area1variation.

3.2.5 Direct shear test:

Resistance parameters1C1&1Ф1are resoluted by the direct shear test according to IS:
2720 (part 13) 1986. Samples were collected by inserting a sample size of 0.06 m x 0.06 m x
0.025 m in the samples collected in the sampler. This test consists of a casing of dimensions
60 x 60 x 50 mm. A specimen obtained in MDD OMC and subsequently prepared
deformation trimming to maintain normal variable strain content. A graph has been drawn in
the middle of shear1stress1against1normal1stress and cohesion (c)1and internal friction angle
(Ф) shows the chart. C and Ф values were obtained with a light compacting energy and heavy
compacting energy.

15
CHAPTER – 4
RESULT
AND
DISCUSSION

16
4.1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
4.2 Index properties:

4.2.1 Specific gravity:

The specific gravity of coal ash mainly depends on its chemical composition. In specific
gravity the value of coal ashes having a low when compared with those of soils that have
specific gravity varying in a narrow range of 2.6-2.8.
In this study fly, ash and pond ash was collected and their specific gravity was found out as

per IS: 2720 (Part-III, section-1)1980.

Table 3: Specific gravity of fly ash & pond ash collected from NTPC Kanhia, Odisha
Sl no. Sample Specific Gravity
1 Fly ash (NTPC Kanhia) 2.28
2 Pond ash (NTPC Kanhia) 2.18

4.2.2 Compaction test:

Two different molds were done in Compaction test to give the variation in compaction

area as (a) Proctor mold, (b) CBR mold. Compaction energy variation has been given for

each compaction mold.

4.2.2.1Compaction in Proctor mold:

Compaction test has been done in Proctor mold with variation in compaction energy.
The Proctor mold which used has 10 cm width, and 12.7 cm length and which has a volume
of 997.45 cm3. The hammer weight for the standard was 2.6 kg and its fall height taken 31cm
& the hammer weight for modified was 4.9 kg and its fall height is taken 45cm.

17
For fly ash:

Table 4: Maximum dry densities of samples, subjected to different compacting

energies
Sl no. No of Compaction energy Maximum Dry Optimum moisture
blows/layer (kN-m/m³) Density (kN/m³) content (%)
1 30 3244.6 13.83 18.25
2 25 2703.8 13.63 18.68
3 15 1622.3 13.43 19.34
4 12 1297.8 13.04 20.63
5 30 711.6 12.94 22.71
6 25 593.0 12.65 23.34
7 15 355.8 12.45 24.33
8 12 284.6 12.26 24.48

Light Compaction
13.2
13.0
12.8
Dry density kN/m³

12.6
12.4 711.6 kN-m/m³
12.2 593.0 kN-m/m³
12.0 355.8 kN-m/m³
11.8 284.6 kN-m/m³
11.6
11.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Moisture content (%)

Figure 1: Variation in dry density with change in compaction energy (standard fly
ash)

18
 Heavy Compaction
14.0
13.8
13.6
Dry density kN/m³

13.4
13.2
3244.6 kN-m/m³
13.0
2703.8 kN-m/m³
12.8
12.6 1622.3 kN-m/m³
12.4 1297.8 kN-m/m³
12.2
12.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Moisture content (%)

Figure 2: Variation in dry density with change in compaction energy (modified fly
ash)

For pond ash:

Table 5: Maximum dry densities of samples subjected to different compacting

energies.
Sl no. No of Compaction energy Maximum Dry Optimum moisture
blows/layer (kN-m/m³) Density (kN-m³) content (%)
1 30 3244.6 10.59 34.24
2 25 2703.8 10.49 36.27
3 15 1622.3 10.30 37.90
4 12 1297.8 10.10 39.31
5 30 711.6 9.51 42.21
6 25 593.0 9.41 42.93
7 15 355.8 9.22 43.98
8 12 284.6 9.12 45.50

19
 Light Compaction
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
Dry density kN/m³

9.0
711.6 kN-m/m³
8.8
593.0 kN-m/m³
8.6
355.8 kN-m/m³
8.4
284.6 kN-m/m³
8.2
8.0
7.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Moisture content (%)

Figure 3: Variation in dry density with change in compaction energy (standard pond
ash)

Heavy Compaction
10.8
10.6
10.4
10.2
Dry density kN/m³

10.0
3244.6 kN-m/m³
9.8
2703.8 kN-m/m³
9.6
1622.3 kN-m/m³
9.4
1297.8 kN-m/m³
9.2
9.0
8.8
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture content (%)

Figure 4: Variation in dry density with change in compaction energy (modified pond
ash)

20
 4.2.3 The relationship between compaction energy vs dry density:

The effect of compaction energy on dry density has been shown in the figure, from the
curve of compaction energy vs dry density, it can be seen that as compaction energy
increases, dry density increases until a critical point reached of dry density. The relationship
between dry density and compaction energy is following:

For fly ash:

Light Compaction
13.0
12.9
Dry density kN/m³

12.8
12.7
12.6
12.5
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.1
12.0
284.6 355.8 593 711.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 5: The relationship between compaction energy and dry density of standard
fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

Heavy Compaction
14.0
13.8
Dry density kN/m³

13.6
13.4
13.2
13.0
12.8
12.6
1297.8 1622.3 2703.8 3244.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 6: The relationship between compaction energy and dry density of modified
fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

21
For pond ash:

Light Compaction
9.6

9.5

9.4
Dry density kN/m³

9.3

9.2

9.1

8.9
284.6 355.8 593 711.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 7: The relationship between compaction energy and dry density of standard
pond ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

Heavy Compaction
10.8

10.7

10.6
Dry density kN/m³

10.5

10.4

10.3

10.2

10.1

10

9.9
1297.8 1622.3 2703.8 3244.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 8: The relationship between compaction energy and dry density of modified
pond ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

22
 4.2.4 The relationship between compaction energy vs moisture content:

The curve has been plotted between compaction energy and moisture content. From the
graph, it can be seen that as compaction energy increases, moisture content decreases.

For fly ash:

Light Compaction
26
25.5
Moisture content (%)

25
24.5
24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21.5
21
284.6 355.8 593 711.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 9: The relationship between compaction energy vs moisture content of

standard fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

Heavy Compaction
21
20.5
Moisture content (%)

20
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
1297.8 1622.3 2703.8 3244.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 10: The relationship between compaction energy vs moisture content of

modified fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

23
For pond ash:

Light Compaction
46

45
Moisture content (%)

44

43

42

41

40
284.6 355.8 593 711.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 11: The relationship between compaction energy vs moisture content of

standard pond ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

Heavy Compaction
40

39

38
Moisture content (%)

37

36

35

34

33

32

31
1297.8 1622.3 2703.8 3244.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 12: The relationship between compaction energy vs moisture content of

modified pond ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

24
 4.2.5 The relationship between dry density vs moisture content:

For fly ash:

Light Compaction
13
12.9
12.8
12.7
Dry density kN/m³

12.6
12.5
12.4 NTPC Kanhia
12.3
12.2
12.1
12
22.71 23.34 24.33 25.48
Moisture content (%)

Figure 13: The relationship between dry density vs moisture content of standard fly
ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

Heavy Compaction
14

13.8

13.6
Dry density kN/m³

13.4

13.2
NTPC Kanhia
13

12.8

12.6
18.25 18.68 19.34 20.63
Moisture content (%)

Figure 14: The relationship between dry density vs moisture content of modified
fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

25
For pond ash:

Light Compaction
9.6

9.5

9.4
Dry density kN/m³

9.3

9.2 NTPC Kanhia

9.1

8.9
42.21 42.93 43.98 45.5
Moisture content (%)

Figure 15: The relationship between dry density vs moisture content of standard pond
ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

Heavy Compaction
10.8

10.7

10.6
Dry density kN/m³

10.5

10.4

10.3
NTPC Kanhia
10.2

10.1

10

9.9
34.24 36.27 37.9 39.31
Moisture content (%)

Figure 16: The relationship between dry density vs moisture content of modified pond
ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

26
 4.2.6 Grain size analysis:

For fly ash:

Grain size distribution for Fly ash

120

100
Percentage finer (%)

80

60
NTPC Kanhia
40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Particle size (mm)

Figure 17: Grain size distribution curve of fly ash

Table 6: Uniformity coefficient and coefficient of gradation of fly ash

Parameters Value

D10 0.0038

D30 0.0109

D60 0.0212

Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 5.58

Coefficient of curvature, Cc 1.25

27
For pond ash:

Grain size distribution of Pond ash

120

100
Percentage finer (%)

80

60
NTPC Kanhia
40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Particle size (mm)

Figure 18: Grain size distribution curve of pond ash

Table 7: Uniformity coefficient and coefficient of gradation of pond ash

Parameters Value

D10 0.0039

D30 0.0114

D60 0.0261

Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 5.69

Coefficient of curvature, Cc 1.27

28
 4.2.7 Permeability Test (Variable Head Method):

For fly ash:

Table 8: Hydraulic conductivity of Fly Ash

Sl no. Compaction energy Sample

(kN-m/m3) (Fly ash)

1 Increased modified 30 blows/layer 2.9310-5

(3244.6 kN-m/m3)

2 Modified 25 blows/layer 3.2310-5

(2703.8 kN-m/m3)

3 Reduced modified 15 blows/layer 3.7110-5

(1622.3 kN-m/m3)

4 Reduced modified 12 blows/layer 3.9810-5

(1297.8 kN-m/m3)

5 Increased standard 30 blows/layer 4.5710-5

(711.6 kN-m/m3)

6 Standard 25 blows/layer 3.8210-5

(593.0 kN-m/m3)

7 Reduced standard 15 blows/layer 2.7410-5

(355.8 kN-m/m3)

8 Reduced standard 12 blows/layer 2.5310-5

(284.6 kN-m/m3)

29
For pond ash:

Table 9: Hydraulic conductivity of pond Ash

Sl no. Compaction energy Sample

(kN-m/m3) (Pond ash)

1 Increased modified 30 blows/layer 4.3710-4

(3244.6 kN-m/m3)

2 Modified 25 blows/layer 4.7010-4

(2703.8 kN-m/m3)

3 Reduced modified 15 blows/layer 5.1110-4

(1622.3 kN-m/m3)

4 Reduced modified 12 blows/layer 5.4310-4

(1297.8 kN-m/m3)

5 Increased standard 30 blows/layer 5.6110-4

(711.6 kN-m/m3)

6 Standard 25 blows/layer 5.8310-4

(593.0 kN-m/m3)

7 Reduced standard 15 blows/layer 6.0810-4

(355.8 kN-m/m3)

8 Reduced standard 12 blows/layer 6.3910-4

(284.6 kN-m/m3)

30
 4.2.8 Direct shear test:

For fly ash:

Table 10: Strength parameters of fly ash

Sl no. Compaction energy Sample

(kN-m/m3) Fly ash

(NTPC Kanhia)

Cohesion Angle of internal

(Kpa) friction ()

1 Increased modified 30 blows/layer 11.83 38.55

(3244.6 kN-m/m3)

2 Modified 25 blows/layer 11.23 37.91

(2703.8 kN-m/m3)

3 Reduced modified 15 blows/layer 11.22 36.09

(1622.3 kN-m/m3)

4 Reduced modified 12 blows/layer 10.16 35.33

(1297.8 kN-m/m3)

5 Increased standard 30 blows/layer 10.02 35.22

(711.6 kN-m/m3)

6 Standard 25 blows/layer 9.49 34.64

(593.0 kN-m/m3)

7 Reduced standard 15 blows/layer 9.03 33.22

(355.8 kN-m/m3)

8 Reduced standard 12 blows/layer 8.71 32.94

(284.6 kN-m/m3)

31
 1.4
Shear stress, kg/cm² 1.2
1
0.8
0.6
NTPC Kanhia
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 19: Compaction energy 3244.6 kN-m/m3

1.4
1.2
Shear stress, kg/cm²

1
0.8
0.6
NTPC Kanhia
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 20: Compaction energy 2703.8 kN-m/m3

1.4
1.2
Shear stress, kg/cm²

1
0.8
0.6
NTPC Kanhia
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 21: Compaction energy 1622.3 kN-m/m3

32
 1.4
1.2
Shear stress, kg/cm²

1
0.8
0.6
NTPC Kanhia
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 22: Compaction energy 1297.8 kN-m/m3

1.4
1.2
Shear stress, kg/cm²

1
0.8
0.6
NTPC Kanhia
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 23: Compaction energy 711.6 kN-m/m3

1.2

1
Shear stress, kg/cm²

0.8

0.6

0.4 NTPC Kanhia

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 24: Compaction energy 593.0 kN-m/m3

33
 1.2

0.8
Shear stress, kg/cm²

0.6
NTPC Kanhia

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 25: Compaction energy 355.8 kN-m/m3

1.2

0.8
Shear stress, kg/cm²

0.6
NTPC Kanhia

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 26: Compaction energy 284.6 kN-m/m3

34
For pond ash:

Table 11: Strength parameters of pond ash

Sl no. Compaction energy Sample

(kN-m/m3) Pond ash

(NTPC Kanhia)

Cohesion Angle of internal

(kpa) friction ()

1 Increased modified 30 blows/layer 10.95 35.97

(3244.6 kN-m/m3)

2 Modified 25 blows/layer 10.82 35.49

(2703.8 kN-m/m³)

3 Reduced modified 15 blows/layer 10.28 33.86

(1622.3 kN-m/m³)

4 Reduced modified 12 blows/layer 10.11 33.36

(1297.8 kN-m/m³)

5 Increased standard 30 blows/layer 9.6 32.24

(711.6 kN-m/m³)

6 Standard 25 blows/layer 9.49 31.99

(593.0 kN-m/m³)

7 Reduced standard 15 blows/layer 8.80 31.72

(355.8 kN-m/m³)

8 Reduced standard 12 blows/layer 8.59 31.63

(284.6 kN-m/m³)

35
 1.4
1.2
Shear stress, kg/cm2

1
0.8
0.6
NTPC Kanhia
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 27: Compaction energy 3244.6 kN-m/m3

1.4
1.2
Shear stress, kg/cm²

1
0.8
0.6
NTPC Kanhia
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 28: Compaction energy 2703.8 kN-m/m3

1.2

1
Shear stress, kg/cm²

0.8

0.6
NTPC Kanhia
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 29: Compaction energy 1622.3 kN-m/m3

36
 1.2

1
Shear stress, kg/cm²

0.8

0.6

0.4 NTPC Kanhia

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 30: Compaction energy 1297.8 kN-m/m3

1.2

1
Shear stress, kg/cm²

0.8

0.6
NTPC Kanhia
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 31: Compaction energy 711.6 kN-m/m3

1.2

1
Shear stress, kg/cm²

0.8

0.6

0.4 NTPC Kanhia

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 32: Compaction energy 593.0 kN-m/m3

37
 1.2

0.8
Shear stress, kg/cm²

0.6
NTPC Kanhia

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 33: Compaction energy 355.8 kN-m/m3

1.2

0.8
Shear stress, kg/cm²

0.6
NTPC Kanhia

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Normal stress, kg/cm²

Figure 34: Compaction energy 284.6 kN-m/m3

38
The relationship between compaction energy vs Cohesion:

For fly ash:

0.12

0.115

0.11
Cohesion, kpa

0.105
NTPC Kanhia
0.1

0.095

0.09
1297.8 1622.3 2703.8 3244.6
Compaction energy, kN-m/m³

Figure 35(a): The relationship between compaction energy and cohesion of fly ash
collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

0.105

0.1
Cohesion, kpa

0.095

0.09 NTPC Kanhia

0.085

0.08
284 355 593 711
Compaction energy, kN-m/m³

Figure 35(b): The relationship between compaction energy and cohesion of fly ash
collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

39
For pond ash:

0.112

0.11

0.108
Cohesion, kpa

0.106

0.104
NTPC Kanhia
0.102

0.1

0.098

0.096
1297.8 1622.3 2703.8 3244.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 36(a): The relationship between compaction energy and cohesion of pond ash
collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

0.098

0.096

0.094

0.092
Cohesion, kpa

0.09

0.088
NTPC Kanhia
0.086

0.084

0.082

0.08
284 355 593 711
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 36(b): The relationship between compaction energy and cohesion of pond ash
collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

40
The relationship between compaction energy vs Angle of internal friction
():

For fly ash:

39

38
Angle of internal friction ()

37

36
NTPC Kanhia
35

34

33
1297.8 1622.3 2703.8 3244.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 37(a): The relationship between compaction energy vs Angle of internal

friction of fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

35.5

35
Angle of internal friction ()

34.5

34

33.5
NTPC Kanhia
33

32.5

32

31.5
284 355 593 711
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 37(b): The relationship between compaction energy vs Angle of internal

friction of fly ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

41
For pond ash:

36.5

36

35.5
Angle of internal friction ()

35

34.5

34
NTPC Kanhia
33.5

33

32.5

32
1297.8 1622.3 2703.8 3244.6
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 38(a): The relationship between compaction energy vs Angle of internal

friction of pond ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

32.3

32.2

32.1
Angle of internal friction ()

32

31.9

31.8

31.7 NTPC Kanhia

31.6

31.5

31.4

31.3
284 355 593 711
Compaction energy kN-m/m³

Figure 38(b): The relationship between compaction energy vs Angle of internal

friction of pond ash collected from (NTPC Kanhia)

42
 CHAPTER-5
CONCLUSION

43
5.1 Conclusion:
1. The variation in compaction energy significantly affects the dry density. With the
increase in compaction energy from 284.65 to 3244.66 kN-m/m³, maximum dry
density (MDD) increases at the same time optimum moisture content (OMC)
decreases.

2. The variation in the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of Fly Ash
(collected from NTPC Kanhia, Odisha) as per Standard Proctor compaction energy is
0.90 – 1.59 gm/cc and 18 - 27%, respectively.

3. The variation in the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of Pond ash
(collected from NTPC Kanhia, Odisha) as per Standard Proctor compaction energy is
0.856 – 1.248 gm/cc and 33 - 46%, respectively.

4. In hydrometer analysis the particle which is passed through 75  size sieve and graph
was plotted among percentage finer and diameter of particles. Through hydrometer
analysis, the coefficient of curvature and coefficient of uniformity were found to be
1.26 and 5.66 respectively.

44
Future Scope:
1. To determine the Geotechnical properties of pond ash and fly ash.
2. To determine the effect of energy change of Maximum Dry Density and Optimum
Moisture Content.
3. To determine the effect of energy change of Permeability.
4. To determine the effect of energy change of Direct Shear Test.
5. To determine the effect of energy change of unconfined compressive strength.

45
References:
 Bera, A. K., Ghosh, A., and Ghosh, Amalendu (2007). “Compaction characteristics of
pond ash”. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:349-357.
 Gray, D. H., and Lin, Y. K. (1972). “Engineering properties of compacted fly ash.” J.
Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 98(4), 361–380.
 Gurtug, Y., and shridharan, A. (2004). “Compaction behavior and prediction of its
characteristics of fine grained soils with particular reference to compaction energy,”
Soils and Foundation, 44(5), 27-36.
 Omar, M., Abdallah, S., Basma, A., and Barakat, S. (2003). “Compaction
characteristics of granular soil in the United Arab Emirates.” Geotechnical and
Geological engineering, 21(3), 283-295.
 Osman, S., Togrol, E., And Kayadelen, C. (2008). “Estimating compaction behavior
of fine-grained soils based on compaction energy,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
4(6), 877-887.
 Patra, C. R., Sivakugan, N., and Das, B M. and Rout, S. K. (2010). “Relative density
and median grain-size correlation from laboratory compaction tests on granular soil”.
International journal of geotechnical engineering 10.3328/IJGE.2010.04.02.
 Patra, C. R., Sivakugan, N., and Das, B M. (2010). “Relative density and median
grain-size correlation from laboratory compaction tests on granular soil". International
journal of geotechnical engineering 10.3328/IJGE.2010.04.01.
 Singh S. P., Sharan A. (2013), Strength characteristics of compacted pond ash,
Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal, Vol 9, No. 1, 9 – 17.
 Das, S. K., Yudhbir. (2005). “Geotechnical characterization of some Indian fly
ashes.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 17(5), 544-552.
 Gray D. H.and Lin Y. K. (1972). “Engineering properties of compacted fly ash.”
J.Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, ASCE, 98, 361–380.
 McLaren R.J. and Digioia A.M. (1987). “ The typical engineering properties of fly
ash.” Proc., Conf on Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal, ASCE, New York,
pp:683-697
 N.S Pandian, C. Rajasekhar and A. Sridharan (1998), “Studies on the specific gravity
of some Indian coal coal ashes”, J.Testing Evaluation, ASTM, 26, pp:177-186

46
 Pandian, N.S. (2004). “Fly ash characterization with reference to geotechnical
applications.” J.Indian Inst. Sci., 84, pp:189-216
 Sridharan, A., Pandian, N.S. and Srinivasa Rao, P. (1998),”Shear strength
characteristics of some Indian fly ashes”, Ground Improvement, Vol. 2, No. 3,
pp:141-146
 Sridharan, A., Prakash, K., (2007), “Geotechnical Engineering characterization of
coal Ashes. CBS publishers Ltd.
 IS: 2720 (Part-3, section-1)1980 “Determination of specific gravity Section 1 fine
grained soils”.
 IS 2720: (1980-Part-III/sec 2) Method of test for soil, Determination specific gravity.
 IS: 2720 (part 8)-1983 “Determination of Water Content-Dry Density Relation Using
Heavy Compaction”.
 IS: 2720 (part 7)-1980 “Determination of Water Content-Dry Density Relation Using
Light Compaction”.
 IS code: 2720(part 4)-1985 “Grain size analysis”.
 IS 2720(part 13) 1986 “Direct shear test”.
 IS: 2720(part 17)-1986 “Laboratory Determination of Permeability”.

47