See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335739519

COMPARISON OF SUCTION MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE FOR CLASS F FLY ASH

Conference Paper · September 2019

CITATION READS
1 73

4 authors, including:

Abhijit Deka Malaya Chetia

Central Institute of Technology Assam Engineering College
18 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   150 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sreedeep Sekharan
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
188 PUBLICATIONS   1,414 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable Geotechnics View project

Slope Stability of MLCS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abhijit Deka on 11 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference
December 13-15, 2012, Delhi (Paper No.G710)

COMPARISON OF SUCTION MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE FOR CLASS F FLY ASH

D. Abhijit, Research Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati , email: abhijitdeka@iitg.ernet.in

C. Malaya, Research Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, email: m.chetia@iitg.ernet.in
V. Srikanth, Research Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati , email: v.srikanth@iitg.ernet.in
S. Sreedeep, Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, email: srees@iitg.ernet.in

ABSTRACT: Measurement of the negative pore-water pressure, i.e. suction, that exists in the soil and admixtures like fly ash
is of prime importance in many of the geoenvironmental projects such as waste containment covers and liners, irrigation
scheduling in agriculture, water permeation through vadoze zone etc. In these projects, suction-water content relationship is
very important input information for conducting modeling studies. Two methods of suction measurement have been employed
in this study for establishing suction-water content relationship for a class F fly ash. Tensiometer which is one of the most
popular methods of matric suction measurement (< 100 kPa) has been used for low suction measurement and a relative
humidity sensor which measures total suction has been used for high range of suction measurement. The suction-water content
relationship obtained for class F fly ash has been critically analyzed and compared.

INTRODUCTION model (Eq.1) was obtained using the software ‘RETC’[16].

Again, the effect of contaminants of fly ash on the total
Fly ash is a waste product generated from the burning of coal suction was studied by measuring the E.C. of the fly ash after
in the thermal power plant. The huge production of this waste dilution. The study clearly indicates the difference on the
material all over the world is creating problems for its safe SWCC measured using the two methods.
disposal. A lot of studies have been carried out for
characterization of the fly ash for geotechnical application [1, θs − θr
2, 9, 11]. For utilizing the fly ash in many of the geotechnical θ ( h) = θ r + 1 (1)
(1− )
or geoenvironmental projects such as waste containment ⎡⎣1 + (α h) n ⎤⎦ n

covers and liners, irrigation scheduling in agriculture, water

Where, θ(h) is the volumetric water content at suction
permeation through vadoze zone etc., the study of suction is
pressure head h, θs is the saturated volumetric water content,
of prime importance.
θr is the residual water content, α and n are empirical fitting
parameters.
Suction is mainly composed of two components. Matric
suction and osmotic suction, which together known as total
suction. Matric suction is due to adsorptive or capillary forces
MATERIAL USED
existing in the soil matrix where as osmotic suction is due to
the presence of salts or contaminants presents in the pore The material used in this study was collected from a thermal
water [4]. The measured suction are plotted against the water power plant located in India. The fly ash was classified as
content (either volumetric (θ) or gravimetric (w)) to obtain class F fly ash, which has been characterized for its physical
the suction water content relationship, popularly known as and chemical properties as given in Table 1 & 2 respectively.
Soil Water Characteristics Curve (SWCC) or Soil Water
Retention Curve (SWR). Different methodologies have been Table 1 Physical properties and classification of fly ash
developed for measuring the matric suction or total suction, Property Fly ash
either directly or indirectly [[9]. Some of the frequently used Specific gravity (G) 2.07
methods for measuring suction are Tensiometer method, Particle size characteristics
Filter paper method, Relative humidity (RH) method, dew Sand (4.75-0.075 mm) -
point sensor technique, axis translation technique etc. [7,5, Coarse sand ( 4.75 – 2mm) 0
10, 13, 14]. Medium sand( 2 – 0.425mm 0.9
Fine sand (0.425 – 0.075mm 24.1
In this study, a class F fly ash obtained from a thermal power Silt size (0.075-0.002 mm) 74.4
plant, India was used to determine the SWCC using the Clay size (< 0.002 mm -
Tensiometer and RH methods. The SWCC obtained from Atterberg limits (%):
tensiometric measurement corresponding to matric suction, Liquid limit 26.7
Ψm (<100 kPa) and SWR obtained from RH measurement Plastic limit -
corresponding to total suction,Ψ (>1000kPa) were compared Plasticity index -
and the fitting parameters for the Van Genuchten (1980)[15] USCS Classification ML
D. Abhijit, C. Malaya, V. Srikant, & S. Sreedeep
SSA (m2/g) (dessicator) 6.71
SSA (m2/g) (EGME) 12.061 0.40
SWCC-Tensiometer
CEC (meq/100g) 1.23
0.35

Table 2 Chemical properties of fly ash 0.30

Compounds wt., %
SiO2 46.47 0.25

θ
Al2O3 27.49
Fe2O3 1.06 0.20
CaO 2.84
MgO 0.06 0.15
MnO 2.93
Na2O 0.56 0.10
-1 0 1 2 3
K2O 0.84 10 10 10 10 10
TiO2 6.58 ψ m(kPa)
P2O5 5.20
LOI 6.17

Fig. 1 Continuous drying SWCC obtained using tensiometer

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Two methods of suction measurement (Tensiometer and RH)
have been used for studying the suction characteristics of the
fly ash. For the tensiometric measurement, the fly ash was
mixed with the required amount of distilled water and was
compacted in to a perspex mold of 12 cm diameter and 15 cm
height, by giving different number of blows to achieve the
required dry unit weight. The prepared sample was then
saturated by ponding with distilled water and further
removing the excess solution from the top. This was done to
obtain Ψm=0 as the initial state for the drying continuous
SWCC. After the sample was saturated, the T5 tensiometer
and ECH2O-TE volumetric water content sensor (Decagon.
Inc..USA) were inserted in to the packed sample. The fly ash
sample was then allowed to air dry and Ψm and θ was
continuously recorded using the respective data loggers.
These data were then used to obtain the SWCC of the fly ash
sample corresponding to matric suction.
For the RH method, samples of required density and water
content were prepared and were kept in the RH chamber of
the instrument. The temperature and relative humidity was
measured after 24 hrs (equilibration time) and the suction (Ψ)
was determined using Kelvin’s equation [5]. After the
equilibration time was over, the samples were taken out and
were kept in the oven for determining the gravimetric water
content (W). The computed suction (Ψ) was then used to
obtain the SWR of the fly ash sample.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 1 gives the plot of continuous drying SWCC obtained
from tensiometer measurement for an arbitrary compaction
state. As obvious, the matric suction increases with the
decrease in water content (Ѳ) of the sample. The near
saturation portion (horizontal portion of WRCC) and
desaturation portion (decreasing portion) [6] is quite explicit
in the tensiometric measurement. Figure 2 shows the
comparison of the suction values obtained by using
Tensiometer and RH for the fly ash as a function of Ѳ. In
Figure 2, Ψm refers to matric and Ψ refers to total suction
depending upon the measuring methodologies used. It is clear
from the figure that the suction measured using the two
methodologies do not match with each other. The tensiometer
read the matric suction from 1to 80 kPa, whereas the RH read
the total suction from 1200 to 85000 kPa for the same fly ash.
It is seen in the figure that the RH sensor is giving higher
volumetric water content for the high suction. This may be
due to presence of contaminants in the fly ash which is
contributing the osmotic effect in the total suction
measurement by the RH. Since, Tensiometer measures only
the matric suction [10], so the osmotic effects due to the
contaminants are nullified in tensiometer.
 Comparison of suction measurement technique for class F fly ash
SWCC-Tensiometer CONCLUSIONS
SWR-RH
16 This study deals with an investigation of two methodologies
14 on the suction water content relationship of a class F fly ash.
12 The effect of measuring methologies, measurement range and
10 the influence of contaminants present on the fly ash has been
8 analyzed. The suction water content relationship obtained
6 from Tensiometer and RH measurement indicates that there
θ

4 is a distinct difference of both the methods in measurement of

2 the suction. It has been observed that the suction of the fly
0 ash measured by the RH get influenced by the contaminants
-2 present in the fly ash. The Electrical Conductivity (EC) of the
-4 fly ash was measured to check the presence of contaminants
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 on it.
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
ψm, ψ (kPa)
REFERENCES
Fig. 2 Comparisons of tensiometer and RH measurement 1. Das, S.K and Yundhbir. (2005), Geotechnical
characterization of some Indian fly ashes, Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE; 17, 544-552.
To understand the influence of contamination, the Electrical 2. Das, S.K and Yundhbir. (2006), Geotechnical
Conductivity (EC) test was carried out [12]. The fly ash was properties of low calcium and high calcium fly ash,
mixed with water to achieve a liquid to solid ratio (L/S) of 2 Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
and was mixed properly. The solution was then filtered and Springer; 24, 249-263.
the EC of the filtrate was determined. The process was 3. Decagon Devices, Operator’s Manual Version 2
repeated until the electrical conductivity (EC) of the filtrate ECH2O-TE/EC-TM, Water Content, EC and
reduced to a negligible value. The pH of the filtrate was also Temperature Sensor Manual 2006, Decagon
measured for each case to see any variation of it. The details Devices, WA99163.
of these values are shown in Table 3. 4. Fredlund, D.G and Rahardjo, H. (1993), Soil
Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York.
Table 3 EC and pH details of the fly ash 5. Likos, W.J and Lu. N. (2003), Automated humidity
No. of dilution E.C.(µs/cm) pH system for measuring total suction characteristics of
1 262 8.22 clay, Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM;26(2), 1-
2 192 8.22 12.
3 195.3 8.16 6. Malaya, C. and Sreedeep, S. (2011). “A study on the
4 196 8.29 water retention characteristics of an Indian fly ash”,
5 197.1 8.3 Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, In
Press.
Table 4 shows the SWCC fitting parameters of the VG model 7. Nam, S., Gutierrez, M., Diplas, P., Petrie, J and
using the ‘RETC’ for the suction values obtained by the two Wayllace, A (2009), Comparison of testing
methodologies. It can be noted that the SWCC parameters of techniques and models for establishing the SWCC of
the same fly ash obtained by the two methods do not match riverbank soils, Engineering Geology, Elsevier; 110,
well. This is mainly due to the different range of suction 1-10.
values obtained using the different methodologies. This 8. Pan, H., Qing, Y and Yong, L.P. (2010), Direct and
clearly indicates that the measured suction and the range of indirect measurement of soil suction in the
suction measurement of the instrument do influence the laboratory, EJGE; 15, Bund. A.
SWCC of the fly ash. 9. Pandian, N.S. (2004), Fly ash characterization with
reference to geotechnical applications, J. Indian Inst.
Table 4 Details of the SWCC fitting parameters of the fly ash Sci.; 84, 189-216.
Fitting Tensiometer RH 10. Ridley, A.M., Dineen, K., Burland, J.B and
parameter Vaughan, P.R. (2003), Soil matrix suction: some
SWCC Ѳs 0.33878 9.46227 examples of its measurement and application in
van α 0.00129 0.00006 geotechnical engineering, Geotechnique; 53(2), 241-
Genuchten n 3.79863 10.02060 253.
(1980) m 0.736747 0.900206 11. Shanthakumar, S., Singh, D.N and Phadke, R.C. (
2010), Methodology for determining particle-size
distribution characteristics of fly ashes, Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE; 22(5), 435-
 D. Abhijit, C. Malaya, V. Srikant, & S. Sreedeep
442.
12. Sreedeep, S and Singh, D.N. (2008), A critical
review of the methodologies employed for suction
measurement for developing the SWCC, The 12th
International Conference of International
Association for Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics (IACMAG), Goa, India; 1988-1993.
13. Sreedeep, S and Singh, D.N. (2006), Methodology
for determination of osmotic suction of soils,
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
Springer; 24, 1469-1479.
14. Thakur, V.K.S., Sreedeep, S and Singh, D.N.
(2006), Laboratory investigations on extremely high
suction measurements for fine-grained soils,
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
Springer; 24, 565-578.
15. van Genuchten, M.T. (1980), A closed form
equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Jl., Vol. 43,
892-898.
16. van Genuchten, F. J. Leij and Yates, S.R. (1991),
The RETC Code for quantifying the hydraulic
functions of unsaturated soils, U. S. Salinity
Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service,
Riverside, California.

View publication stats