Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01366-7 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

ORIGINAL PAPER

Utilization of Fly Ash and Waste Ceramic in Improving

Characteristics of Clayey Soil: A Laboratory Study
R. K. Sharma

Received: 28 May 2018 / Accepted: 16 May 2020 / Published online: 21 May 2020
Ó Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract Fly ash is a waste product obtained from
coal-based thermal power stations. In the absence of
proper utilization, large quantities of fly ash are
dumped in the landfills. Since traces of heavy metals
are present in coal, the dumping of fly ash in landfills is
not ecofriendly and leads to air pollution and ground-
water contamination. The ceramic tile waste is
obtained from construction and tile industries which
poses disposal problems and requires dumping areas
causing environmental concerns. The inherent prop-
erties of these waste materials can be exploited by
using in road pavement subgrade and thus solving the
disposal problems. This experimental study was
performed to assess the efficiency of using fly ash
and waste ceramic along with poor sand for clayey soil
stabilization by evaluating compaction, strength and
drainage properties to be used as road sub-grade
material. The addition of sand to clayey soil decreased
the optimum moisture content (OMC), increased the
maximum dry density (MDD) whereas the California
bearing ratio (CBR) improved. Further, adding fly ash
to clayey soil increased OMC value, decreased MDD
value but improved the CBR value. The results
indicate that adding ceramic tile waste reduced
MDD value and increased OMC value and the CBR
value. The drainage characteristics of composite
R. K. Sharma (&)
National Institute of Technology Hamirpur, Hamirpur,
H.P. 177005, India
e-mail: rksnithp61@gmail.com
material were better than those of clayey soil or fly
ash. The stabilization of sub-grade resulted in signif-
icant savings in terms of the material required for
subgrade of road pavement compared to those using
un-stabilized soil. The composite containing optimum
contents of clay, sand, fly ash and ceramic waste
possessed better sub-grade and drainage properties
and thus can be used successfully for construction of
pavement subgrade of low cost roads.
Keywords Clay
Sand
Fly ash
Waste ceramic

Compaction
CBR
Permeability
1 Introduction
Clayey soils generally possess unwanted engineering
properties like losing strength on drying and wetting.
These are compressible and plastic in nature and
shrink upon drying and swell on wetting (Nelson and
Miller 1992; Subba Rao 1999). Under the application
of constant loading, there may be creep in cohesive
soils over time, chiefly when the shear stress is
impending its shear strength, making them susceptible
to sliding. Due to these difficulties, clays are usually
considered as poor materials for subgrades, founda-
tions and slopes. There is an exorbitant worldwide
damage caused to engineering structures constructed
over expansive soils.

123
5328
The clayey soils containing coarse grained particles
like sand, gravel, etc. behave in a different manner
compared to pure clays. These soils possess a com-
posite structure comprising of a matrix of coarse and
fine particles. Hence, the behaviour of clayey soils can
be improved by adding sand which influences com-
paction, strength characteristics and permeability of
clay. The strength characteristics of sand–clay mix-
tures have been investigated by a lot of researchers.
Georgiannou et al. (1990) studied the stress–strain
behavior of sand–clay mixtures and established that
effective stress paths in triaxial tests were nearly
similar for samples having same inter-granular ratios.
Tan et al. (1994) established that on increasing the
sand content in sand–clay mixture, liquid limit
decreased linearly. Vallejo and Mawby (2000)
revealed that the shear strength characteristic of
sand–clay composites was governed by the sand
below 25% of fines content. Polito and Martin
(2001) revealed that transition fines content was less
than 20% for plastic fines and about 20–30% for non-
plastic fines for significant inter-fines contacts and
diminishing contacts between the coarse particles.
(Chu and Leong 2002; Jafari and Shafiee 2004)
studied the influence of fines on instability behaviour
of loose sand and revealed that shear strength grad-
ually increases with increasing aggregate content
while the pore pressure increases due to the formation
of heterogeneous matrix in composite clays. Prakasha
and Chandrasekaran (2005) established that Introduc-
ing sand grains to clay enhanced the pore pressure thus
reducing the undrained shear strength. Monkul and
Ozden (2007) tested sand–kaolinite mixtures and
observed that the transition fines content varied from
19 to 34% as the initial stress conditions changed.
Shafiee et al. (2008) revealed that undrained shear
strength of sand-clay composites increased with
increasing sand content. Cabalar (2011) established
that the compression behaviour of the sand-clay
mixtures was mainly influenced by the sand grains
up to transition fines content beyond which the finer
grains controlled the compression. Kyambadde and
Stone (2012) observed that the influence of coarse
fraction on undrained shear strength and index prop-
erties was significant for gravel fractions more than
50% and high gravel contents impart frictional con-
tribution to the behavior of clay-gravel mixture. The
compression behaviour of sand-clay mixtures having
different sizes and shapes containing different pore
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340
fluids was investigated by (Cabalar and Hasan 2013;
Khan et al. 2014) revealed that compacted sand-clay
mixtures showed brittle behaviour at moisture con-
tents lower than the optimum and ductile behaviour at
moisture contents higher than the optimum. On
decreasing the water content and increasing the
density, the compressive strength was observed to be
increased but decreased with increasing sand content.
Najjar et al. (2015) showed that on replacing 40% of
sand with clay, the drained friction angle decreased up
to nearly half whereas the drained cohesion increased.
Cabalar and Mustafa (2017) determined that the sand-
clay mixtures behavior was dependent upon the
relative contents of clay and sand. With increasing
sand content, dry unit weight increased and OMC
value decreased whereas UCS value decreased and the
California bearing ratio increased. Thus, it can be
established that the presence of sand in clay can
improve the compaction and strength behavior of the
composite. The geotechnical characteristics of the
clay-sand composites in terms of soil mixture and
compaction process used in construction works is
required to be understood.
The fly ash is a waste product obtained from
thermal power plants on combustion of coal which is
used as a fuel. The thermal power plants in India
generate more than 150 million tonnes of fly ash
yearly. Such large quantities of fly ash, if not properly
utilized, may pose serious threat to the environment
and ecology due to its haphazard disposal. Fly ash may
be used in various construction works which will
decrease the demand for natural material and shall thus
ensure economic and environmental benefits. The
utilization of fly ash in improving soil characteristics
has been attempted by a number of researchers.
Raymond (1961) showed that pulverized fly ash can be
utilized as fill material in the embankment. (DiGioia
and Nuzzo 1972; Leonard and Bailey 1982) estab-
lished the effectiveness of fly ash as structural fill.
Cokca (2001) demostrated the utilization of class C fly
ash in improving the expansive soil properties. Kumar
and Sharma (2004) established the efficacy of fly ash
in stabilization of expansive soils. Prabakar et al.
(2004) investigated the influence of addition of fly ash
on strength of soil. Kolias et al. (2005) studied the
influence of fly ash along with cement content in
clayey soils stabilization. Arora and Aydilek (2005)
revealed the application of soil-fly ash mixtures
stabilized with lime and cement in roads
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340
economically. Bhuvaneshwari et al. (2005) revealed
that 25% fly ash content in the soil attained MDD
value. Kim et al (2005) established the use of fly ash
and bottom ash mixtures in highway embankments by
studying their geotechnical properties. Edil et al.
(2006) revealed the efficacy of fly ashes in fine grained
soils stabilization. Eskioglou and Oikonomou (2008)
prposed that adding fly ash to soil increased OMC
value which further enriched the stabilization capacity
of soil. Rao (2008) revealed that the MDD value
increased and OMC value decreased up to optimum fly
ash content whereas the fashion overturned for fly ash
contents higher than the optimum. Phanikumar and
Sharma (2009) observed that the fly ash content of
20% caused substantial decrease in compression
index, swelling pressure, swell potential and sec-
ondary consolidation characteristics but improved
MDD value and shear strength. Rao and Subbarao
(2009) showed that the addition of fly ash caused
change in the dry unit weight of mechanically
stabilized expansive soils at any given moisture
content. Ahmaruzzaman (2010) reported the useful-
ness of using fly ash in refining soil properties. Tastan
et al. (2011) demostrated the stabilization of organic
soil using fly ash and showed that strength of soil-fly
ash mixture reduced exponentially with increasing
organic content. Bose (2012) reported that the fly ash
possessses potential for improving the Engineering-
properties of expansive soil. Khan (2012) revealed an
imrpovemnt in California bearing ratio of soil with fly
ash layers. Kang et al. (2015) determined that on
increasing fly ash content, the thermal conductivity of
fly ash-soil composite decreased with increasing
curing time. Pourakbar and Huat (2016) showed that
non-pozzolanic fly ashes do not possess any reactive
silica and hence are unable to initiate pozzolanic
reactions even in the presence of a cementitious
stabilizer. Puppala (2016) determined the stabilization
of expansive soils indicating the effectiveness of lime
and fly ash combination and it was shown that the
combination proved to be effective for stabilizing both
silty and sandy soils also increasing the stiffness of the
stabilized soil. Hence, pozzolanic fly ashes can be used
to improve the properties of soils and can thus solve
the environmental problems and economize the soil
stabilization costs. Therefore, fly ash can be used to
improve the characteristics of clayey soils which will
decrease the requirement of quarrying the natural
5329
materials and can be used as substitute to energy
intensive materials.
The demolition of obsolete and old structures
generate tremendous quantities of the construction
waste in India. Ceramic waste comprises of a major
portion of the construction waste and its disposal
requires large areas of land. Binici (2007) revealed
that the ceramic waste creates serious environmental
problems and nearly 30% of the production of ceramic
industry is wasted and not reused for any purpose.
Raval et al. (2013) revealed that, in India, the annual
production of ceramics is around 100 million tons with
an approximate production of 600 million square
meters out of which a large quantity is wasted. The use
of waste ceramic has been attempted to produce
concrete and some studies have been conducted on its
use in improving the characteristics of poor soils.
Some investigators have researched on the utilization
of waste ceramic in concrete and soil stabilization for
various construction works. Ay and Unal (2000)
studied chemical and mineralogical composition of
waste ceramics and established that these can be used
in raw cement mixtures. Koyuncu et al. (2004) showed
that ceramic tile waste up to 40%, decreased the
swelling potential and swelling pressure of Na-
bentonite substantially. Lopez et al. (2007) showed
that the compressive strength of concrete with
replacement of natural fine aggregate by fine ceramic
aggregates up to 50% increased its compressive
strength. Veera Reddy (2010) investigated the use of
ceramic waste as aggregate in concrete and showed
that its specific gravity was less than 2.55 with particle
sizes mainly of silt size. Medina et al. (2012) revealed
that replacement of natural coarse aggregates with
waste ceramic particles up to 25% in concrete
increased the compressive strength and the ceramic
particles were not influenced by the hydration of
cement. Sabat (2012) revealed that consistency limits,
plasticity index, OMC value and swelling pressure of
soil decreased while MDD, UCS, CBR values and
angle of Internationalernal friction increased with
increasing ceramic dust content. Ameta et al. (2013)
showed that the MDD, CBR values and angle of
Internationalernal friction of dune sand and ceramic
tiles waste composite increaeses with the increasing
tiles waste content thereby yielding a composite with
improved characteristics. Panwar and Ameta (2016)
revealed that stabilizing fine sand with admixture as
ceramic tile waste improved the strength
123
5330 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340

characteristics of fine sand rendering it suitable for the 1. Clayey soil and sand were mixed in varying
construction of embankment. James and Pandian percentages and optimized for maximum dry
(2016) compared the effect of phosphogypsum and density.
ceramic dust in the growth of early strength of lime 2. Fly ash content was varied from 5 to 20% to
stabilized expansive soil and showed that phospho- optimize its value on maximum dry density and
gypsum resulted in faster development of strength but California bearing ratio of suitable clay-sand
ceramic dust did not affect the early strength. Cabalar mixes.
et al. (2017) revealed that the addition of waste 3. The California bearing ratio of the most appro-
ceramic tile to clayey soil with low compressibility priate combination of the three materials were
increased the MDD and CBR values of the soil studied with varying percentage of waste ceramics
whereas the void ratio, OMC and UCs values at the optimum moisture content and the maxi-
decreased with the increasing waste ceramic tile mum dry density.
content. Thus, it can be established that waste ceramic 4. The optimum composition of the composite was
can be used to improve the characteristics of weak been obtained based upon compaction, strength
soils and make them more suitable as construction and drainage test results to be suitable as sub-
material. The use of ceramic waste in construction grade material in roads.
works decreases the potential harmful effect on the
environment in addition to causing significant
decrease in pavement thickness resulting in substantial
3 Experimental Study
savings in terms of material cost.
The review of literature indicates that sand, fly ash
3.1 Materials
and ceramic waste were used individually to improve
the geotechnical characteristics of weak soils but sand
3.1.1 Clayey Soil
and fly ash along with ceramic waste have not been
attempted yet in soil stabilization. Hence, the possi-
Clayey soil possessing low plasticity (CL) was used in
bility of using waste fly ash in combination with sand
present study. The specific gravity of soil was 2.58.
and ceramic tile waste was explored. The basic
The soil was obtained locally and its liquid and plastic
engineering properties of the composite material
limits were 35% and 21% respectively. The maximum
(soil-sand-fly ash-waste ceramics) and its compaction,
dry density of soil was 1.82 g/cm3 and its optimum
strength and drainage characteristics were studied.
moisture content was 14.8%. The soil possessed
The effects of using composite material in the sub-
cohesion of 12.5 kPa and internal friction angle of
grade construction for roads have been presented.
14.5°. Table 1 shows the various geotechnical prop-
erties of different materials used in the present
investigation. The spectral electron microscopic
2 Scope and Objectives
image of clayey soil shown in Fig. 1a indicates its
cohesive nature with the presence of some cohesion-
In the present study, an effort is made to identify how
less fines.
waste materials like fly ash and ceramics may be
effectually utilized in combination with the clayey soil
3.1.2 Sand
and sand to get an improved soil material which may
be used in various soil structures. Fly ash used in the
Beas river sand was acquired for present study and was
experimental work was obtained from Ropar thermal
poorly graded in nature classified as SP. The specific
power plant. Locally available clayey soil and Beas
gravity of sand was 2.63 and its uniformity coefficient
river sand have been used in this experimental
was 3.82 and curvature coefficient was 0.87. The
investigation. The ceramic tile waste was obtained
maximum dry density of sand was 1.92 g/cm3 and its
by crushing the tile waste to particle size less than
optimum moisture content was 11.6%.
4.75 mm. The objectives of the experimental study are
as follows:

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340 5331

Table 1 Geotechnical Characteristics Clayey soil Fly ash Sand Ceramic tile waste
properties of materials
Specific gravity (ASTM D854-10) 2.58 1.85 2.63 1.84
Soil classification (ASTM D2487-11) CL MI SP SP
Liquid limit (%) (ASTM D4318-10) 35 41 NP NP
Plastic limit (%) 21 NP NP NP
Maximum dry density (g/cm3) 1.82 1.22 1.92 1.48
Optimum moisture content, (%) 14.8 28.5 11.6 19.6

3.1.3 Fly Ash

The fly ash possessed specific gravity of 1.85 and its

liquid limit was 41%. The liquid limit of fly ash was
determined corresponding to K0 stress condition as
suggested by Sridharan et al. (2000). It is non-plastic
and can be categorized as poorly graded silt category.
The MDD value of fly ash was 1.22 g/cm3 and its
optimum moisture content was 28.5%. The chemical
composition of fly ash given in Table 2 indicates that it
is of class F type having very less content of calcium
oxide. The spectral electron microscopic image of fly
ash presented in Fig. 1b indicates rounded shape of
particles.

3.1.4 Ceramic Waste

The ceramic tile waste was obtained from local waste

landfill. The specific gravity of ceramic waste was
1.84 and its uniformity coefficient was 5.46 and
gradation coefficient was 0.73. The MDD value of
ceramic waste was 1.48 g/cm3 and its optimum
moisture content was 19.6%. The gradation curves
for soil, sand, fly ash and ceramic waste are shown in
Fig. 2 (ASTM D422-63 and ASTM D6913-04).

Table 2 Chemical properties of fly ash (ASTM D5239-2004)

Constituent Percentage (%)

Silica (SiO2) 59.45

Alumina (Al2O3) 27.15
Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 7.31
Fig. 1 a SEM of clayey soil. b SEM of fly ash Calcium oxide (CaO) 2.35
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 0.59
Sulphur tri oxide (SO3) 0.90
Loss of ignition 2.25

123
5332 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340

100
Clayey soil
4.3 Permeability
Fly ash
Waste ceramic The permeability of clay, sand, fly ash and ceramic
80 Sand
waste and the optimum combinations of the materials
Percentage finer (%)

were determined as per ASTM D5084-03 using the

60 falling head permeability test apparatus.

40
5 Results and Discussion

20 5.1 Compaction Characteristics

The maximum dry density and the optimum moisture

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 content of clayey soil, sand, fly ash, ceramic waste,
Particle size (mm) clay–sand composites, clay–sand–fly ash composites
and clay–sand–fly ash–ceramic waste composites
Fig. 2 Particle size distribution of clayey soil, sand, fly ash and were determined by standard Proctor tests.
waste ceramic

5.1.1 Soil–Sand Composite

4 Method of Testing
The effect of blending sand with clayey soil on MDD
The index properties, compaction behavior, California
and OMC values is shown in Fig. 3a, b. The addition
bearing ratio and permeability of the clay, sand, fly
of sand to clayey soil increased MDD value and
ash, ceramic waste and the optimum combinations of
decreased OMC value. This occurred due to the higher
the materials were determined as per the appropriate
specific gravity of sand particle as well as due to their
standards.
improved packing in the matrix. However, a substan-
tial increase in the MDD sand content up to 40% was
4.1 Compaction
noticed. Hence, the two appropriate composites of
clay-sand 60:40 and 70:30 were further admixed with
The compaction characteristics of clay, sand, fly ash,
fly ash for performing the compaction tests. Cabalar
ceramic waste and the combinations of clay–sand,
and Mustafa (2017) observed that the behavior of
clay–sand–fly ash and clay–sand–fly ash–ceramic
sand-clay mixtures depended upon their relative
waste were determined by conducting standard Proc-
contents with increase in MDD value and reduction
tor tests as per ASTM D-698 2000. The samples were
in OMC value upon increasing the sand content. Thus,
mixed and compacted uniformly by manual method.
it can be established that the presence of sand in clay
enhanced the compaction behavior of the composite.
4.2 California Bearing Ratio
The slope of dry density-water content curves at water
contents more than OMC value became flatter on
The soaked CBR tests were conducted on 125 mm
increasing sand content. Khan et al. (2014) demon-
high and 150 mm diameter samples which were
strated that the slope of dry density-water content
compacted to MDD at OMC in the standard mould
curves was larger on the dry side of optimum
as per ASTM D1883-16 and soaked in water for 96 h.
compared to that on wet side of the optimum
The load was applied using standard plunger and the
indicating brittle behaviour at moisture contents lower
California bearing ratio was determined correspond-
than the optimum and ductile behaviour at moisture
ing to standard penetration values.
contents higher than the optimum.

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340 5333

1.95 Clay:Sand::100:0 1.90 60C:40S:5FA

Clay:Sand::90:10 60C:40S:10FA
1.90 Clay:Sand::80:20
60C:40S:15FA
1.85 60C:40S:20FA
Clay:Sand::70:30
1.85 70C:30S:5FA
Clay:Sand::60:40
70C:30S:10FA
Clay:Sand::50:50 1.80
70C:30S:15FA
Dry density (g/cm3)

Dry density (g/cm3)

1.80
70C:30S:20FA

1.75
1.75

1.70 1.70

1.65
1.65

1.60

1.60
1.55 6 10 14 18 22 26 30
7 11 15 19 23 27
Water content (%)
Water content (%)
(a)
(a)
20 OMC 60C:40S:FA 2.1
20 2.0
OMC MDD OMC 70C:30S:FA
2.0
MDD 60C:40S:FA
18 1.9 18 MDD 70C:30S:FA
Optimum moisture content (%)

Maximum dry density (g/cm3)

1.9
Optimum moisture content (%)

1.8
Maximum dry density (g/cm 3)

16 1.8 16
1.7

14 1.7 1.6
14

1.5

12 1.6
12 1.4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Fly ash (%)
10 1.5
0 15 30 45 60 (b)
Percentage of sand (%)
Fig. 4 a Compaction characteristics of soil–sand (60:40 &
(b) 70:30) composite with fly ash. b Variation of MDD and OMC
for the soil-sand (60:40 and 70:30) composites with fly ash
Fig. 3 a Variation of dry density of soil with sand content.
b Maximum dry density of soil–sand composite
variation from 5 to 20% are presented in Fig. 4a. The
5.1.2 Soil–Sand–Fly Ash Composite addition of fly ash to clayey soil-sand mixture showed
reduction in MDD value. The fly ash possesses lesser
The compaction characteristics of clayey soil: sand specific gravity (as well as maximum dry density) in
(60:40 and 70:30) modified with fly ash content with comparison to clayey soil. Further, since fly ash is

123
5334
pozzolanic in nature (high silica content and low
calcium oxide content) the reaction between the
composite materials is pozzolanic yielding lower
maximum dry density of the composite.
The spectral electron microscopic image (Fig. 1b)
and the grain size analysis curve (Fig. 2) designate that
the particles of fly ash are rounded in shape and coarser
in nature compared to those of clayey soil which
influences the packing of the materials in the com-
posite. The fly ash has a higher optimum moisture
content compared to that of clayey soil which resulted
in an increase in OMC value of clayey soil–sand
composite with increasing fly ash content. The
decrease in MDD value of clayey soil–sand mixture
with increasing fly content occurred nearly linearly as
revealed in Fig. 4b which may be accredited to the
pozzolanic behaviour of fly ash. The OMC value of
clayey soil-sand mixture increases almost linearly on
increasing fly ash content which is attributed to the
higher OMC value of fly ash compared to that of the
composite. (Prabakar et al. 2004; Kolias et al. 2005;
Eskioglou and Oikonomou 2008; Rao and Subbarao
2009) showed similar results indicating reduction in
the MDD value and increase in OMC value on
increasing fly ash content. Eskioglou and Oikonomou
(2008) observed that adding fly ash to soil increased
OMC value which improved the stabilization capacity
of soil. Since MDD value was observed to decrease
with increasing fly ash, the clayey soil–sand mixtures
blended with 10% fly ash content were further
modified with addition of waste ceramic.
5.1.3 Soil–Sand–Fly Ash–Waste Ceramic Composites
The compaction characteristics of clayey soil–sand–
fly ash (60:40:10) blended with 0–8% ceramic waste
shown in Fig. 5a reveal that MDD value of the
composite decreases with increasing the ceramic
waste content. However, OMC value of soil–sand–
fly ash mixture increases with addition of ceramic
waste. Similar results indicating the reduction in MDD
and an upgrdation in OMC were obtained for the soil–
sand–fly ash (70:30:10) modified with ceramic waste
(Fig. 5b). The decrease in MDD value of clayey soil–
sand–fly ash mixture upon addition of ceramic waste
may be due to its lower specific gravity and coarser
particle size distribution which resulted in sparse
packing of the particles in the composite. Cabalar and
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340
Mustafa (2017) reported similar results on the com-
paction characteristics of clay–sand composite.
Again, the OMC value of the ceramic waste is more
than that of clayey soil and sand, hence, its addition to
clayey soil–sand–fly ash mixture causes increase in
the OMC value of the composite. The variation in
MDD value of clayey soil–sand–fly ash mixtures
blended with ceramic waste shown in Fig. 5c indicates
a linear variation with increase in ceramic waste
content which is attributed to the addition of poz-
zolanic material. The OMC value of clayey soil–sand–
fly ash mixture increases linearly with addition of
increasing ceramic waste content.
5.2 Strength Characteristics
5.2.1 Soil-Sand Composite
The California bearing ratio (CBR) values for differ-
ent soil-sand composites were attained by compacting
the specimens to MDD at OMC and soaked in water to
obtain their load bearing capacity. Figure 6a shows the
distinction of CBR of soil–sand composites with
increasing sand content. It is experimented that there is
almost a linear increase in CBR value on increasing
sand content up to 30%, thereafter, CBR values
increases at a lower rate. The increase in CBR value
can be explained on the basis that sand is a stronger
material than soil. Khan et al. (2014), Cabalar and
Mustafa (2017) showed similar results revealing the
increase in strength and CBR value with increase in
sand content.
5.2.2 Soil–Sand–Fly Ash Composite
Soaked CBR tests were conducted on soil:sand (70:30
and 60:40) composites with addition of fly ash varying
from 5 to 20% in increments of 5%. Figure 6b shows
the distinction of CBR of soil-sand composite with
increase in fly ash content. The composites consisting
of soil:sand (70:30 and 60:40) showed an enhance-
ment in CBR value on increasing percentage of fly ash.
Further, the observation is made that the CBR value
for the composites does not show appreciable increase
for more than 10% fly ash content. Kang et al. (2015)
also revealed strength enhancement of soil on adding
increased content of fly ash.
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340 5335

1.95 60C:40S:10F:0Cr
60C:40S:10F:2Cr 1.95 70C:30S:10F:0Cr
1.90 60C:40S:10F:4Cr 70C:30S:10F:2Cr
60C:40S:10F:6Cr 70C:30S:10F:4Cr
1.90
60C:40S:10F:8Cr 70C:30S:10F:6Cr
1.85
70C:30S:10F:8Cr
1.85
Dry density (g/cm3)

1.80

Dry density (g/cm3)

1.80
1.75

1.75
1.70

1.70
1.65

1.65
1.60

1.60
1.55 2 6 10 14 18 22
2 6 10 14 18 22
Water content (%)
Water content (%)
(a) (b)

18 OMC C:S:F::70:30:10 2.0

OMC C:S:F::60:40:10

17 MDD C:S:F::70:30:10
1.9
Optimum moisture content (%)

Maximum dry density (g/cm3)

MDD C:S:F::60:40:10

16

1.8

15

1.7
14

13 1.6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Ceramic content (%)

(c)
Fig. 5 a Compaction characteristics of soil-sand-fly ash (60:40:10) composite with ceramic. b Compaction characteristics of soil-sand-
fly ash (70:30:10) composite with ceramic. c Variation of maximum dry density and OMC of soil-sand-fly ash with ceramic waste

123
5336 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340

12

16
Soaked CBR (Clay:Sand::60:40)
10
Soaked CBR (Clay:Sand::70:30)
14
California bearing ratio (%)

California bearing ratio, CBR (%)

8

12
6

10
4

2 8

0 6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25

Sand content (%) Fly ash (%)

(a) (b)

16
Soaked CBR (C:S:FA::60:40:10)

Soaked CBR (C:S:FA::70:30:10)

15
California bearing ratio (%)

14

13

12

11

10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Waste ceramic (%)

(c)

Fig. 6 a Variation of California bearing ratio of soil-sand composites. b Variation of California bearing ratio of clay-sand-fly ash
composites. c Variation of California bearing ratio of clay-sand-fly ash-waste ceramic composites

5.2.3 Soil–Sand–Fly Ash–Waste Ceramic Composites soil–sand–fly ash composites on increasing waste
ceramic content. An increase in CBR value on
Soaked CBR tests were piloted on soil:sand:fly ash increasing percentage of waste ceramic in soil:sand:fly
(70:30:10 and 60:40:10) composites with addition of ash composites is noticed. It is experimented that CBR
waste ceramic varying from 2 to 8% at increments of value for the composites showed an increase for
2%. Figure 6c shows the deviation of CBR value of ceramic content of 2% and thereafter it reduced with

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340
the increase in ceramic content. The increase in CBR
value may be due to the interlocking between com-
posite material and due to the smaller percentage of
ceramic particles, which may not be suitable for higher
content of ceramic waste. The interlocking occurs due
to packing of the clay–sand–fly ash composite parti-
cles between the coarser waste cermic particles which
results in increased strength (Cabalar 2011). Hence,
the optimized composite containing clay, sand, fly ash
and ceramic waste (70:30:10:2) has superior strength
and may be successfully utilized for sub-grade con-
struction and embankments of low cost roads. (Sabat
2012; Cabalar and Mustafa 2017; Muller and Janani
2017) showed similar results revealing improvement
in CBR value of expansive soil on adding ceramic
dust.
5.3 Permeability Characteristics
The coefficient of permeability was determined by
compacting the composites to MDD value at OMC
corresponding to standard Proctor compaction. The
inclusion of sand to poor clayey soil increased the
value of permeability, whereas, a reduction in perme-
ability value was noticed on adding fly ash to soil as
shown in Table 3. Cabalar (2011) showed similar
results revealing an increase in permeability value on
adding sand to clay mixture. However, the permeabil-
ity is improved with addition of waste ceramic to the
composite. The escalation in the permeability coeffi-
cient is because of addition of sand may be attributed
to its coarser nature whereas on adding fly ash it
decreases because fly ash is a relatively finer material
consisting of particles of uniform size (Fig. 2).
However, addition of ceramic waste tends to improve
Table 3 Permeability of various composites
Composition Coefficent of permeability, cm/s
Clay 1.2 9 10–5
Sand 3.90 9 10–3
Fly ash 1.85 9 10–4
Ceramic waste 9.64 9 10–4
Clay:sand:: 70:30 2.28 9 10–4
Clay:sand:fly ash:: 70:30:10 2.02 9 10–4
5337
the permeability because of its relatively coarser
nature.
5.4 Economy of Stabilization
Flexible pavement design comprises several factors,
such as, traffic, terrain, wheel load, climate, and sub-
grade conditions. Based on the CBR value of sub-
grade, Indian roads congress (IRC: 37-2012) has
recommended specifications for flexible pavements
design for rural roads. The pavement designs are given
for design traffic ranging from 3 to 150 million
standard axles for an average annual pavement
temperature of 35 °C and sub-grade CBR values
ranging from 2 to 15%. The flexible pavement was
designed for cumulative traffic values of 2, 10, 20, 50,
100 and 150 million standard axles for CBR values of
both un-stabilized and stabilized clayey soil. The
soaked CBR value of clayey soil is 4% and that of
sand-fly ash-ceramic stabilized soil is 14.44%.
5.4.1 Pavement Thickness
Based upon the guidelines provided by IRC: 37-2012,
the pavement thickness for un-stabilized and stabi-
lized soil sub-grade was calculated for cumulative
traffic of 2, 10, 20, 50, 100 and 150 million standard
axles and is given in Table 4. For cumulative traffic
varying from 2 to 150 million standard axles, The
pavement thickness for un-stabilized and for stabilized
soil varies from 560 to 785 mm and from 400 to
600 mm respectively. This indicates 25–30% decrease
in pavement thickness thereby resulting in substantial
reduction in the material requirement for pavement
sub-grade. Thus, addition of construction waste and
industrial waste materials with poorly graded sand to
clayey soil enhanced its compaction, strength and
drainage characteristics and reduced the cost of
materials and construction considerably. Further, the
use of waste materials controlled the degradation
caused to the environment and minimized the detri-
mental effects.
6 Conclusions
Thermal power plants produce fly ash as a waste
product on burning of coal which has low specific
gravity and poor geotechnical properties. Clayey soils
123
5338 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340

Table 4 Pavement Composition Pavement thickness (mm) for cumulative traffic (msa)
thickness for unstabilized
and stabilized soil 2 10 20 50 100 150

Clay 560 700 730 750 770 785

Clay:sand:: 70:30 445 545 572.5 587.5 612.5 630
Clay:sand:fly ash:: 70:30:10 422.5 535 560 570 595 612.5
Clay:sand:fly ash:ceramic:: 70:30:10:2 400 530 550 555 580 600

generally possess poor strength and drainage charac-
teristics which are affected by water due to fine
grained soil structure and resulting development of
pore water pressure. Waste tile ceramics create
disposal problems due to scarcity of proper disposal
sites. The composite formed with addition of sand, fly
ash and ceramics to clayey soil, improved its charac-
teristics, and thus found its utility in road construction
leading to safe disposal of waste products. On the basis
of above laboratory study, the subsequent conclusions
can be drawn:
1. The gradation of clayey soil was gradually mod-
ified by adding sand to it which caused increase in
MDD value and decrease in OMC value. Further,
significant increase in California bearing ratio
(CBR) value was noticed on adding sand. Based
on MDD and CBR values, clay: sand (60:40 and
70:30) composites were chosen as base mixes for
further modification with the accumulation of fly
ash and waste ceramic.
2. The clay: sand (60:40 and 70:30) composites with
addition of fly ash showed reduction in MDD
value with an increment in OMC value but CBR
value was observed to be enhanced revealing more
stability of the structure. The decrease in MDD is
owing to the reason that the specific gravity of fly
ash is low as compared to that of the composite.
The CBR value for the composites containing
more than 10% fly ash content doesn’t show
appreciable improvement. The CBR value of
clay:sand:fly ash (70:30:10) composite was found
to be in the range considered to suitable for road
sub-grade.
3. The clay:sand:fly ash (70:30:10 and 60:40:10)
composites modified with addition of waste
ceramic revealed slight reduction in MDD value
with increment in OMC value; but CBR value
increased for ceramic content of 2% and thereafter
it decreased slightly. The reaso for increase in
CBR value is the inter- locking between compos-
ite material and the smaller percentage of ceramic
particles which may not be satisfactory for higher
ceramic waste content.
4. The permeability of the composite increased on
adding sand to the clayey soil. Further, addition of
fly ash to clay–sand composite resulted in
decrease in permeability whereas addition of
ceramic improved the permeability because of
its relatively coarser nature. The clay: sand: fly
ash: ceramic waste (70:30:10:2) composite pos-
sessed maximum dry density 1.84 g/cm3, CBR
value 14.44% and permeability 2.16 9 10–4 cm/s
and had better strength and drainage
characteristics.
5. The reduction in pavement thickness showed that
stabilization of sub-grade with waste materials
resulted in substantial savings in material require-
ment compared with that using the un-stabilized
soil. This combination may be used proficiently
for construction of sub-grade for rural roads and
low cost roads. The degradation caused to envi-
ronment due to haphazard disposal of industrial
and construction wastes can be minimized besides
reducing the demand for raw materials from
borrow pits.
Acknowledgements This research did not receive any grant
for any funding agency.
References
ASTM D422-63 Standard test methods for hydrometer analysis
of soils. American Society for Testing of Materials Penn-
sylvania PA, USA
ASTM D698-07e1 Standard test methods for laboratory com-
paction characteristics of soil using standard effort.
American Society for Testing of Materials Pennsylvania
PA, USA

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340
ASTM D854-10 Standard test methods for specific gravity of
soil. American Society for Testing of Materials Pennsyl-
vania PA, USA
ASTM D1883-05 Standard test methods for California bearing
ratio test for soils. American Society for Testing of Mate-
rials Pennsylvania PA, USA
ASTM D2487-11 Standard practice for classification of soils for
engineering purposes (unified soil classification system).
American Society for Testing of Materials Pennsylvania
PA, USA
ASTM D4318-10 Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic
limit, and plasticity index of soils. American Society for
Testing of Materials Pennsylvania PA, USA
ASTM D5084-03 Standard test methods for falling head per-
meability test of soils. American Society for Testing of
Materials Pennsylvania PA, USA
ASTM D5239-2004 Standard practice for characterizing fly ash
for use in soil stabilization. American Society for Testing
of Materials Pennsylvania PA, USA
ASTM D6913-04 Standard test methods for particle size dis-
tribution of soils. American Society for Testing of Mate-
rials Pennsylvania PA, USA
Ahmaruzzaman M (2010) A review on the utilization of fly ash.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 36(3):327–363
Ameta NK, Wayal AS, Puneet H (2013) Stabilization of dune
sand with ceramic tile waste as admixture. Am J Eng Res
2(9):133–139
Arora S, Aydilek AH (2005) Class F fly ash-amended soils as
highway base materials. ASCE J Mater 17(6):640–649
Ay N, Unal M (2000) The use of waste ceramic tile in cement
production. Cem Concr Res 30:497–499
Bhuvaneshwari S, Robinson RG, Gandhi SR (2005) Stabiliza-
tion of expansive soils using fly ash. Fly Ash India, Fly Ash
Utilization Programme (FAUP) TIFAC DST, New Delhi
Binici H (2007) Effect of crushed ceramic and basaltic pumice
as fine aggregates on concrete mortars properties. Const
Build Mate 21:1191–1197
Bose B (2012) Geo engineering properties of expansive soil
stabilized with fly ash. Electro J Geotech Eng
17:1339–1353
Cabalar AF (2011) The effect of fines on the behaviour of a sand
mixture. J Geotech Geol Eng 29(1):91–100
Cabalar AF, Hasan RA (2013) Compressional behaviour of
various size/shape sand–clay mixtures with different pore
fluids. Eng Geol 164:36–49
Cabalar AF, Mustafa WS (2017) Behaviour of sand-clay mix-
tures for road pavement subgrade. Int J Pave Eng
18(8):714–726
Cabalar AF, Hassan DI, Abdulnafaa MD (2017) Use of waste
ceramic tiles for road pavement subgrade. Road Mat Pave
Des 18(4):882–896
Chu J, Leong WK (2002) Effect of fines on instability behaviour
of loose sand. Géotechnique 52(10):751–755
Cokca E (2001) Uses of class C fly ash for the stabilization of an
expansive soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
127(7):568–573
DiGioia AM, Nuzzo WL (1972) Fly ash as structural fill.
J Power Div ASCE 98(1):77–92
Edil TB, Acosta HA, Benson CH (2006) Stabilizing soft fine
grained soils with fly ash. J Mater in Civ Eng ASCE
18(2):283–294
5339
Erdem OT, Tuncer BE, Craig HB, Ahmet HA (2011) Stabili-
sation of organic soil with fly ash. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng ASCE 137:819–833
Eskioglou P, Oikonomou N (2008) Protection of environment
by the use of fly ash in road construction. Global NEST J
10(1):108–113
Georgiannou VN, Burland JB, Hight DW (1990) The undrained
behaviour of clayey sands in triaxial compression and
extension. Géotechnique 40(3):431–449
IRC: 37-2012 Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements.
Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India
Jafari MK, Shafiee A (2004) Mechanical behavior of compacted
composite clays. Can Geotech J 41(6):1152–1167
James J, Pandian PK (2016) Role of phosphogypsum and
ceramic dust in amending the early strength development
of a lime stabilized expansive soil. IJSET 7(2):38–49
Kang X, Ge L, Kang GC, Mathews C (2015) Laboratory
investigation of the strength, stiffness and thermal con-
ductivity of fly ash and lime kiln dust stabilized clay sub-
grade materials. Road Mater Pave Des 16(4):928–945
Khan MA (2012) A CBR based study evaluating subgrade
strength of flexible pavements having soil fly ash inter-
faces. Int J Civ Eng 11:10–18
Khan FS, Azam S, Raghunandan ME, Clark R (2014) Com-
pressive strength of compacted clay–sand mixes. J Adv
Mat Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/921815
Kim B, Prezzi M, Salgado R (2005) Geotechnical properties of
fly and bottom ash mixtures for use in highway embank-
ments. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(7):914–924
Kolias S, Kasselouri-Rigopoulou V, Karahalios A (2005) Sta-
bilisation of clayey soils with high calcium fly ash and
cement. Cem Concr Compo 27:301–313
Koyuncu H, Guney Y, Yilmaz G, Koyuncu S, Bakis R (2004)
Utilization of Ceramic wastes in the construction sector.
Key Eng Mat 264–268:2509–2512
Kumar BRP, Sharma RS (2004) Effect of fly ash on engineering
properties of expansive soils. Geotech Geoenviron Eng,
ASCE 130(7):764–767
Kyambadde BS, Stone KJL (2012) Index and strength properties
of clay-gravel mixtures. Proc ICE Geotech Eng
165(1):13–21
Leonard’s GA, Bailey B (1982) Pulverized coal ash as structure
Fill. J Soil Mech Foundation Eng Div ASCE 108:517–531
Lopez V, Llamas B, Juan A, Morán JM, Guerra I (2007) Eco-
efficient concretes: impact of the use of white ceramic
powder on the mechanical properties of concrete. Biosys-
tems Eng 96:559–564
Medina C, Sanchez de Rojas MI, Frias M (2012) Reuse of
sanitary ceramic wastes as coarse aggregate in eco-efficient
concretes. Cem Concr Compos 34:48–54
Monkul MM, Ozden G (2007) Compressional behavior of
clayey sand and transition fines content. Eng Geol
89:195–205
Muller J, Janani V (2017) Influence of tile waste powder on the
strength and swell characteristics of expansive soil. Int J
Civ Eng Tech 8(4):1860–1868
Najjar SS, Yaghi K, Adwan M, Jaoude AARA (2015) Drained
shear strength of compacted sand with clayey fines. Int J
Geotech Eng 9(5):513–520
123
5340
Nelson DJ, Miller JD (1992) Expansive soils—problems and
practice in foundation and pavement engineering. Wiley,
New York
Panwar K, Ameta NK (2016) Stabilization of fine sand with
ceramic tiles waste as admixture for construction of
embankment. AJER 5(8):206–212
Phanikumar BR, Sharma RS (2009) Effect of fly ash on engi-
neering properties of expansive soil. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 130(7):764–767
Polito CP, Martin II JR (2001) Effects of nonplastic fines on the
liquefaction resistance of sands. J Geotech Geoenvironm
Eng 127(5):408–415
Pourakbar S, Huat BK (2016) A review of alternatives tradi-
tional cementitious binders for engineering improvement
of soils. Int J Geotech Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19386362.2016.1207042:1-11
Prabakar J, Dendorkar N, Morchhale RK (2004) Influence of fly
ash on strength behavior of typical soils. Const Build Mater
18:263–267
Prakasha KS, Chandrasekaran VS (2005) Behavior of marine
sand-clay mixtures under static and cyclic triaxial shear.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(2):213–222
Puppala AJ (2016) Advances in ground modification with
chemical additives: From theory to practice. Transp Geo-
tech 9:123–138
Rao KM (2008) Influence of fly ash on compaction character-
istics of expansive soil using 22 factorial experimentation.
Electro J Geotech Eng 13:01–19
Rao KM, Subbarao GVR (2009) Quantification of change in dry
unit weight of mechanically stabilized expansive soils
using fly ash. In: Geotide, pp 338–343
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:5327–5340
Raval AD, Patel DIN, Pitroda PJ (2013) Ceramic waste: effec-
tive replacement of cement for establishing sustainable
concrete. Int J Eng Trends Tech 4(6):2324–2329
Raymond S (1961) Pulverized fuel ash as embankment material.
Proc Inst Civ Eng 19:515–536
Sabat AK (2012) Stabilization of expansive soil using waste
ceramic dust. Electro J Geotech Eng 17:3915–3926
Shafiee A, Tavakoli HR, Jafari MK (2008) Undrained behavior
of compacted sand-clay mixtures under monotonic loading
paths. J Appl Sci 8(18):3108–3118
Sridharan A, Pandian NS, Prasad PS (2000) Liquid limit
determination of class F coal ash. J Test Evol
28(6):455–461
Subba Rao KS (1999) Swell–shrink behaviour of expansive
soils. Geotechn Chall Ind Geotech J 30(3):1–69
Tan T, Goh T, Karunaratne G, Lee S (1994) Shear strength of
very soft clay–sand mixtures. Geotech Test J 17(1):27–34
Tastan EO, Edil TB, Benson CH, Aydilek AH (2011) Stabi-
lization of organic soils with fly ash. J Geotech Geoenvi-
ronm Eng 137(9):819–833
Vallejo LE, Mawby R (2000) Porosity influence on the shear
strength of granular material–clay mixtures. Eng Geol
58:125–136
Veera Reddy M (2010) Investigations on stone dust and ceramic
scrap as aggregate. Int J Civ Str Eng 1(3):661–666
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.