Volume 109 International Scientific Journal

Issue 1 published monthly by the

May 2021 World Academy of Materials
Pages 17-28 and Manufacturing Engineering

DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0015.0511

Sustainable soil stabilization using

combination of geotextile, fly-ash
and saw dust for pavement subgrade
B. Sahak a, M. Singh b,*, A. Adhikari c, S. Hussain d
a School of Civil Engineering, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, 144411, India
b Department of Civil Engineering, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Punjab, 147004, India
c Department of Civil Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Sciences-Pilani,

Rajasthan, 333031, India

d Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal University Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303007, India

* Corresponding e-mail address: singhmanpreet4990@gmail.com

ORCID identifier: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4670-4455 (S.H.)

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This paper investigates the combined effect of fly ash, sawdust and geotextile in
stabilizing the soil.
Design/methodology/approach: A thorough geotechnical testing was carried out in
order to study the potent characteristics of soil and soil mixes. The present investigation
was set up in two stages. In the first stage, effects of fly ash (5, 10, 15 and 20%), sawdust
(2.5, 5 and 7.5%) and layers of geotextile placed at different depths were studied separately
to determine their effect on soil stabilization. In the second stage, fly ash, sawdust and
geotextile were mixed with soil sample in order to obtain the optimum dosage which can
be used for stabilization of soil i.e. their combined effect as stabilizer on soil stabilization.
Findings: It was observed that by introducing fly ash, sawdust and geotextile to the soil,
the CBR values increase and thickness of pavement layer decreases. It also decreases
the amount of stress on subgrade leading to enhancement of pavement stability with cost
effectiveness.
Research limitations/implications: Economical use of industrial waste has been
proposed in the present research which otherwise prove to be a malady to climatic change
and human health. From the study, an optimum dosage of fly ash (2.5%) and saw dust (5%)
and depth for geotextile (6 cm) has been proposed.
Originality/value: The article explores the possibility of a ternary blend, i.e., geotextile, fly-
ash and saw dust on effectively stabilizing pavement subgrade. Limited literature was available
to address the issue of utilizing the industrial wastes that otherwise pose disposal issues.
Keywords: Soil stabilization, Sawdust, Fly-ash, Geotextile, Unconfined compressive strength
Reference to this paper should be given in the following way:
B. Sahak, M. Singh, A. Adhikari, S. Hussain, Sustainable soil stabilization using combination
of geotextile, fly-ash and saw dust for pavement subgrade, Archives of Materials Science
and Engineering 109/1 (2021) 17-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.0511

PROPERTIES

© Copyright by International OCSCO World Press. All rights reserved. 2021 RESEARCH PAPER 17
 B. Sahak, M. Singh, A. Adhikari, S. Hussain

1. Introduction
1. Introduction and Çetin, (2016) [10] observed that 3% of saw dust addition
in soil gives optimum results in terms of bearing strength,
Stabilization of weak soil is the easiest way of altering plastic limit and liquid limit. Etim et al, 2017 [11] observed
its overall properties. Stabilizing a soil will not only improve the influence of saw dust (burnt and unburnt) in
the engineering properties but also improves the overall uncontaminated soil and observed that unburnt possesses
bearing strength. There are many stabilizing processes lower values as compared burnt saw dust in terms of its
adopted world-wide but some common are stabilizing with optimum moisture content, CBR value and bearing capacity.
cement, lime, bitumen etc. Many studies have been Geotextile is another similar stabilizer used in today’s day-
conducted on stabilization of soil using cement, lime, rice to-day construction process. Geotextiles are generally a
husk ash, saw dust and fly ash because of its availability and fabricated synthetic material which has higher tensile
low cost. Pandey and Rabbani (2017); Ibtehaj Taha Jawad et strength which allows soil to gain its strength under heavy
al. (2014); Boobathiraja et al. (2014) [1-3] observed the loadings. Many researches have been carried out to check its
feasibility of lime and cement, rice husk ash and pozzolanic feasibility as a stabilizer in soil stabilization process. Jadvani
material in soil stabilization process and found significant and Gandhi, (2013) [12] found that the use of geotextile in
improvement in terms of properties and strength. soil gives effective alternative to issues of drainage, stability
Improvement in these properties will not only improve the and durability in land slide control, stabilization of pavement
overall engineering properties but it will also increase the subgrade in roads and erosion control. Meshram et al. (2013)
overall bearing strength which ensures high life and [13] determined the application use of geotextile coir for
durability. Yadav et al. 2019 [4], assessed the load road construction and found that adding coir in subgrade and
deformation behavior of rubber fiber-reinforced cemented base course increased the bearing capacity. This increase in
clayey soil and observed that rubber fiber can be utilized up- strength is due to the interlocking of soil because of addition
to 7%. Moreover, with addition of stabilizing material like of geotextiles. Many investigations have been conducted on
rubber fiber, the initial stiffness of soil decreased with stabilization of soil using stabilizer in combined form in
increase in overall ductility of the soil. Assessment of appropriate proportions or adding them separately.
strength behavior of clay soil using pozzolanic material like However, studies on addition of fly ash, saw dust and
pond ash and cement with randomly distributed fibers was geotextiles together in soil as a stabilizer is done in rare
observed by Yadav et al. 2018 [5], where author observed quantity, which is attempted in this paper. The experimental
that addition of fiber and in partial replacement of pond ash, investigation is done in two stages. In first stage fly ash (5,
resulted in increase in strength of soil with decrease in 10, 15 and 20%), sawdust (2.5, 5 and 7.5%) and layers of
stiffness. Nath et al. (2017) [6] studied the strength behavior geotextile in different depths was placed and positioned to
of organic soil with fly ash and found that the plastic index determine Atterberg’s Limit Test (ALT), Unconfined
of soil got reduced. Moreover, adding fly ash as stabilizer in Compressive Strength (UCS), California Bearing Ratio
the soil increased the dry density and bearing strength while (CBR) and Standard Proctor Test (SPT) to check its effects
the optimum water content reduced. This increase in bearing on stabilization of soil. In second stage fly ash, sawdust and
strength of soil is because of the properties of the fly ash it geotextile was mixed with soil sample in order to obtain the
possesses such as low compressibility, insensitive to optimum dosage which can be used for stabilization of soil.
moisture variation, low unit weight, high shear strength and
pozzolanic content which react with soil forming a stiffer
base [7]. Tastan et al. (2011) [8] determined the unconfined 2. Material
Material and
2.  and methods
methods
compressive strength using fly ash as stabilizer and found
that strength and resilient modulus increased when Soil sample at 1.5 m depth was obtained from Gulbela village,
percentage of fly ash increased. Similar to fly ash, saw dust Metherlam, Laghman, Afghanistan. The sample was of A-4
is also a stabilizer that can be used in a ground improvement class (AASHTO-M415) having maximum dry unit weight
process. It is generally a waste result formed during 1.942 g/cm3 and optimum moisture content (OMC) 11.3%
carpentry works. Adding saw dust in soil as a stabilizer, used throughout the work. Table 1 represent the other
increases optimum moisture content (OMC) and California evaluated properties of soil according to ASTM and AASHTO
bearing ratio (CBR) resulting in increased bearing capacity standards. Figure 1 represents the particle size distribution
but it decreases maximum dry unit weight and plasticity graph of soil sample. Fly ash of F-class was taken from
index property of a soil [9]. This decrease in maximum dry Goindwal Sahib power plant, Tam Taran district, Punjab,
unit weight and plasticity index is due to the presence of India. Table 2 presents the chemical composition of fly ash.
porous grains that allows water to absorb. However, Jasim Figure 2 represent the particle size distribution of fly ash.

18 RESEARCH PAPER Archives of Materials Science and Engineering

Sustainable soil stabilization using combination of geotextile, fly-ash and saw dust for pavement subgrade

Table 1. Table 2.
Evaluated properties of soil Chemical composition of fly ash
S. No Tests conducted Results S. No Compound Percentage range
1 Classification A-4 class 1 LOI (%) 2.3
2 CBR 4.8 2 CaO (%) 3.5
3 Liquid Limit 21.80% 3 Al2O3 (%) 26.5
4 Plastic Limit 18.49% 4 SiO2 (%) 55
5 Plasticity Index 3.31% 5 Fe2O3 (%) 4.8
6 MgO (%) 2.5
Saw dust was obtained from carpenter shop at Mehterlam,
Laghman, Afghanistan. Geosynthetic having thickness of 150 g/m2 was obtained from Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
1.2 mm, tensile strength 7.5 KN/m and mass per unit area Table 3 represent the various other properties of geo-textiles.

Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of soil sample

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of fly ash

Volume 109 Issue 1 May 2021 19

 B. Sahak, M. Singh, A. Adhikari, S. Hussain

Table 3.
Properties of geo-textiles
Property Test Methods Value
CBR Puncture Strength CBR Puncture Strength CBR Puncture Strength
Trapezoidal Tear Strength ASTM D 4533 [14] 0.21 kN
Permittivity ASTM D 4491 [15] NA
Apparent Opening Size ASTM D 4751 [16] 0.15 mm
Elongation ASTM D 4595 [17] 50%

3. Experimental program
3. Experimental program was followed as similar to Bera et al. 2009 [18]. Table 6
represent the mix proportioning of geo-textile and soil
The collected soil sample was kept in large polythene sample. In second stage fly ash, sawdust and geotextile was
bags and dried for 7 days. The experimental program was mixed with soil sample to evaluate the combined effect of
carried out in 4 stages. In first stage fly ash (5, 10, 15 and the materials and abovementioned test were performed to
20%) was mixed with soil sample and Atterberg Limit Test obtain optimum doses. Table 7 represent the mix
(ALT), Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), proportioning of combined fly ash, saw dust, geo-textile and
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Standard Proctor Test soil sample. ALT was performed as per BS 1377-part-2,
(SPT) were performed to obtain optimum dosage. Table 4 1990 [19], UCS was performed as per ASTM-D2166 [20] ,
represent the mix proportioning of fly ash and soil sample. CBR was performed as per ASTM-D1883 [21] and SPT was
Sawdust (2.5, 5 and 7.5%) was mixed with soil sample. performed as per ASTM-D1557 [22].
Table 5 represent the mix proportioning of saw dust and soil
sample. The UCS of specimen was made using a metal Table 6.
mould with detachable collar, the dimension of mould were Mix proportioning of geo-textile and soil sample
38 mm diameter and 76 mm height. Reinforcements were S. No. Position of geotextile in soil
cut in circular shape with diameter of 37 mm and were 1 Top (3 cm depth of mould)
placed at depth of 19 mm in 4 intervals throughout the 2 Middle (6 cm depth of mould)
specimen length. 3 Bottom (9 cm depth of mould)
Two layers (top + middle) (3 cm+6 cm depth
4
Table 4. of mould)
Mix proportion of fly ash and soil sample Two layers (middle + bottom)(6 cm+9 cm
5
Samples Soil Fly Ash depth of mould)
1 100% 0%
2 95% 5% Table 7.
3 90% 10% Mix proportioning of combined fly ash, saw dust, geo-textile
4 85% 15% and soil sample
5 80% 20% Samples Soil Fly ash Sawdust Geotextile
1 92.5% 5% 2.5% 6 cm
Table 5. 2 85% 10% 5% 6 cm
Mix proportion of saw dust and soil sample
Samples Soil Sawdust 4. Result
Result and
4.  anddiscussion
discussion
1 100% 0%
2 97.5% 2.5% 4.1 Effect
4.1. 
Effectofof
flyfly
ash
ash
3 95% 5%
4 92.5 7.5% Index properties
Atterberg Limit is a very important property for the
The layers of geotextile were placed at the depth of H/4, characterization of soil within a broad category. Figure 3
where H (76 mm) is the height of specimen. Geotextiles shows the variations of liquid limit, plastic limit and
were placed and positioned at top, between top and middle, plasticity index with varying percentages of fly ash. The
between middle and bottom and bottom. Various trails were liquid limit of the virgin soil sample was found to be 21.8%.
performed to obtain the optimum layer, the test procedure Upon addition of fly ash at the dosages of 5, 10, 15 and 20%,

20 RESEARCH PAPER Archives of Materials Science and Engineering

Sustainable soil stabilization using combination of geotextile, fly-ash and saw dust for pavement subgrade

the liquid limit was found to be 23.20, 23.60, 23.70 and found to be 1.850, 1.820, 1.776 and 1.698 g/cm3 respectively
25.70%, respectively. The plastic limit of the virgin soil and the corresponding OMC found to be 12, 12.3, 12.5 and
sample was found to be 40%. The plastic limit of the soil 12.7% respectively. Fly ash decrease maximum dry unit
with addition of fly ash was found to be 40.6, 41.3, 43 and weight up to 14.4% but increase OMC up to 11%. Kaniraj
45% respectively for 5, 10, 15, and 20%. For 5, 10, 15 and and Havanagi, (2011) [23] made similar observations
20% of fly ash addition the plasticity index of the soil was regarding the trend in plot. The maximum dry unit weight
found to be 43, 44.8, 45.3 and 49.2%, respectively. Hence, had decreased due to the agglomeration and flocculation of
on addition of 0-20% fly ash the liquid limit ranges from clay particles because of the cation exchange reaction. This
21.80 to 25.70% and the plastic limit ranged from 17.67 to had led to reduction in weight-volume ratio. The cause of
19.85% as compared to liquid and plastic limit of soil decrement can also be due to the replacement of soil sample
sample. Fly ash increase the liquid limit up to 15.2%, plastic by fly ash which has relatively low specific gravity
limit up to 8.92% and plasticity index up to 14.63%. Tastan compared to that of soil sample. Further, the optimum
et al. (2011) [8] showed similar results and explained moisture content of soil sample increases with increase in
beneficial changes in engineering properties. These changes the fly ash content. This increase in the OMC is due to the
in liquid and plastic limit are mainly attributed to cationic extra water required for hydration.
exchange, flocculation of the clay, agglomeration, and
pozzolanic reactions. The increase in index property of soil California Bearing Ratio
upon addition of fly ash is mainly due to the pozzolanic Figure 5 shows the variation of CBR value with varying
reactivity between soil and fly ash. The pozzolanic reactivity fly ash content. The CBR value of soil sample was found to
of fly ash with soil influence the soil properties due to the be 4.8%. Due to the addition of fly ash at the dosages of 5,
formation of gelatinous pozzolanic reaction compounds. 10, 15 and 20%, the CBR values recorded were 7, 11.3, 12.3
The similar trend was observed by Sivapullaiah et al. 1996, and 18%, respectively. Fly ash increase CBR value up to
where author added fly ash in 1-3% of total weight of soil. 73.3%. The increase in CBR is mainly due to the cation
exchange in soil-fly ash mix in which sodium ions of soil are
Compaction characteristics replaced by calcium ions present in fly ash, thereby reducing
Figure 4 demonstrates the plot between maximum dry settlement and increasing CBR. The similar trend was
unit weight and Optimum Moisture Content with varying observed by Pal and Rajak (2015) and Satyanarayana
percentages of fly ash. The maximum dry unit weight and et al. (2013) [24,25], where author had added fly ash in
OMC of soil sample was found to be 1.942 g/cm3 and 11.3% varying percentage. Thus, with increasing percentage of fly
respectively The maximum dry unit weight of the soil with ash the CBR values increase significantly, which is highly
addition of 5, 10, 15 and 20% fly ash by weight of soil was desirable.

Plasticity index Plastic limit Liquid limit

60
LL, PL and PI (%)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Fly ash content (%)

Fig. 3. Variation of index properties with varying fly ash content

Volume 109 Issue 1 May 2021 21

 B. Sahak, M. Singh, A. Adhikari, S. Hussain

Soil 5% Fly ash 10% Fly ash

2
15% Fly ash 20% Fly ash

1,9

Dry Density (gr/cm3) 1,8

1,7

1,6

1,5
3 5 7 9 11 13
Moisture Content (%)

Fig. 4. Variation of OMC and maximum dry unit weight with varying fly ash content

20
California Bearing Ratio (%)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20
Fly ash content (%)

Fig. 5. Variation of CBR value with varying fly ash content

Unconfined Compressive Strength Undrained Shear Strength

5 2,5
Unconfined Compressive

Undrained Shear Strength

4,5
Strength (kg/cm2)

2
4
(kg/cm2)

1,5
3,5
1
3

2,5 0,5

2 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Fly Ash Content (%)

Fig. 6. Variation of UCS and un-drained shear strength with varying fly ash content

22 RESEARCH PAPER Archives of Materials Science and Engineering

Sustainable soil stabilization using combination of geotextile, fly-ash and saw dust for pavement subgrade

Unconfined Compressive Strength 23.03 and 26.07% respectively. Similarly, the plasticity
index was measured to be 5.7, 5.87, and 3.93% for dosages
Addition of fly ash to the soils resulted in a significant of 2.5, 5 and 7.5%, respectively. Sawdust increase the liquid
increase in 𝑞𝑞𝑢𝑢 relative to that of the un-stabilized soil. Figure limit up to 27.3%, plastic limit up to 29.1% and plasticity
6 shows that there is a rapid increase of UCS and un-drained index up to 15.8%. Thus, on addition of 2.5-7.5% sawdust
shear strength with the addition of fly ash content up to15%. the liquid limit ranges from 21.80-33%, and plastic limit
For 15% fly ash the UCS and undrained shear strength ranges from 18.49-26.07%. It is observed that both the liquid
increases up to 28.8% and if we add 20% fly ash the UCS limit and the plastic limit increases with the increase of
and undrained shear strength decreases up to 8.5%. Further, sawdust content.
the UCS and un-drained shear strength of the soil sample
was found to be 3.24 kg/cm2 and 1.62 kg/cm2 respectively. Compaction characteristics
The UCS of the soil with addition of 5, 10, 15 and 20% fly Figure 8 shows the effect of sawdust on the OMC and
ash by weight of soil was found to be 3.49, 4.1, 4.55 and 3.54 maximum dry unit weight of soil. It was observed that the
kg/cm2 respectively and the corresponding un-drained shear maximum dry unit weight decreases with the increasing
strength found to be 1.745, 2.05, 2.275 and 1.77 kg/cm2 amount of sawdust while the OMC increases gradually. The
respectively. The reason for the increment in UCS and un- maximum dry unit weight of the soil was found to be 1.784,
drained shear strength is due to the formation of cementing 1.654 and 1.587 g/cm3 for 2.5, 5 and 7.5% addition of saw
gels (hydrate) due to reaction between CaO of fly ash with dust and the corresponding OMC was found to be 12.7, 14.5
Al2O3 and SiO2 of soil sample. and 16.5%, respectively. Sawdust decreased maximum dry
unit weight up to 22.4% but increased OMC up to 31.5%.
4.2. Effect
Effectofofsaw
4.2.  sawdust
dust
California Bearing Ratio
Index properties Figure 9 shows the CBR value of varying saw dust
content. For 2.5, 5 and 7.5% addition of saw dust, the CBR
Figure 7 shows the variations of liquid limit, plastic limit value of the soil was measured to be 2.5, 5 and 7.5%,
and plasticity index with varying percentages of saw dust. respectively. Addition of 2.5% sawdust increases the CBR
With the addition of saw dust in dosages of 2.5, 5 and 7.5%, value up to 48.4% and if we use more sawdust (5%, 7.5%)
the liquid limit was measured to be 24.7, 28.90 and 30%, the CBR value will decrease up to 12.7%. This increase in
respectively. The plastic limit of the soil with addition of 2.5, CBR value is observed because saw dust is coarser than soil
5 and 7.5% sawdust by weight of soil was found to be 19, sample.

70 Plasticity index Plastic limit Liquid limit

60
LL. PL and PI (%)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2,5 5 7,5
Saw dust Content (%)

Fig. 7. Variation of index properties with varying saw dust content

Volume 109 Issue 1 May 2021 23

 B. Sahak, M. Singh, A. Adhikari, S. Hussain

2,25
soil 2.5% saw dust 5% saw dust 7.5% saw dust

2
Dry Density (gr/cm3)
1,75

1,5

1,25

1
3 5 7 9 11 13
Moisture Content (%)

Fig. 8. Variation of OMC and maximum dry unit weight with varying saw dust content

Unconfined Compressive Strength

10 5 2,5
Undrained Shear Strength
9

Undrained Shear Strength

8 4,5 2
7 4
CBR (%)

UCS (kg/cm2)

1,5

(kg/cm2)
6
3,5
5 1
4 3
3 2,5 0,5
2
2 0
1 0 2,5 5 7,5 10
0 Saw Dust Content (%)
0 2,5 5 7,5
Saw dust Content (%) Fig. 10. Variation of UCS value with varying saw dust
content
Fig. 9. Variation of CBR value with varying saw dust
content
4.3 Effect
4.3. 
Effectofof
geo-textile
geo-textile
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)
Figure 10 shows the variation of UCS and un-drained California Bearing Ratio
shear strength with varying saw dust content. The UCS of Figure 11 shows the CBR value of varying geo-textile
the soil with addition of 2.5, 5 and 7.5% sawdust by weight content. The CBR value of the soil by placing of geotextile
of soil was found to be 3.35, 3.77 and 2.86 kg/cm2 in varying depth of 3, 6, 9, (3+6) and (6+9) cm was found
respectively and the corresponding un-drained shear to be 4.9, 10.3, 9.8, 7.3 and 8.7% respectively. Placing of
strength was found to be 1.675, 1.885 and 1.43 kg/cm2
geotextile in middle position 6cm depth the CBR value will
respectively. For 5 % fly ash the UCS and undrained shear
increase up to 52.2% and if we place geotextile in 3, 6, 9,
strength increases up to 14.1% and if we add 7.5% fly ash
the UCS and undrained shear strength decreases up to (3+6) and (6+9 cm) the CBR value will decrease up to
13.3%.Addition of saw dust above 5% resulted in 43.7%. Thus, it has been observed that the geotextile used
decrement of UCS value. Table 15 shows the results and in middle (6 cm depth) of the sample is beneficial and
percentage variation of sawdust on UCS and undrained increases the CBR value more as compared to other
shear strength. position.

24 RESEARCH PAPER Archives of Materials Science and Engineering

Sustainable soil stabilization using combination of geotextile, fly-ash and saw dust for pavement subgrade

12

10

CBR (%) 6
10,3 9,8
4 8,7
7,3
2 4,9

0
3 6 9 (3+6) (6+9)
Geotextile Depth (cm)

Fig. 11. Variation of CBR value with varying geo-textile content

Undrained Shear Strength Unconfined Compressive Strength

5 2,5
Unconfined Compressive

Undarained Shear Strength

4,5
2
Strength (kg/cm2)

4
3,5 1,5

(kg/cm2)
3
2,5 1
2
0,5
1,5
1 0
2 4 6 2+4 4+6
Geotextile depth (cm)
Fig. 12. Variation of UCS and un-drained shear strength with varying geo-textile content. Optimum dose of combined fly ash
saw dust and geo-textile

Unconfined Compressive Strength + 2.5% sawdust + 5% fly ash and geotextile used in middle
Figure 12 shows the variation of UCS and un-drained (6 cm depth) was found to be 1.723 g/cm3 and 13.6%. The
shear strength with varying geo-textile content. The UCS maximum dry unit weight and OMC of soil sample + 5%
value of the soil by placing of geotextile in varying depth of sawdust + 10% fly ash and geotextile used in middle (6 cm
2, 4, 6, (2+4) and (4+6) cm was found to be 3.42, 4.1, 2.8, depth) was found to be 1.612 g/cm3 and 16.8%.
2.54 and 3.35 kg/cm2 respectively and the corresponding un-
drained shear strength is found to be 1.71, 2.05, 1.4, 1.27 and California Bearing Ratio
1.675 kg/cm2 respectively. Placing of geotextile in middle The CBR value of the soil sample mixed with
position 4cm depth the CBR value will increase up to 16.6% combination of sawdust, fly ash and geo-textile shows
and if we place geotextile in 2, 4, 6, (2+4) and (4+6 cm) the higher result as compared to fly ash, saw dust and geo-textile
CBR value will decrease up to 2.1%. Thus, addition of separately as shown in Figure 11. CBR value of sample
geotextile in middle layer of the sample gave good results as containing 2.5% sawdust is 9.3, 5% fly ash is 7 and for
compared to the top and bottom layers. geotextile layer introduce at 6cm depth is 10.3 whereas for
sample having combined 2.5% sawdust, 5% fly ash and
Compaction characteristics geotextile layer at 6cm depth was found to be 11.1. This
Figure 13 shows the combined effect of fly ash, sawdust indicates that mixing of soil with combined saw dust, fly ash
and geotextile on maximum dry unit weight and OMC of and geotextile improve the CBR values and is effective in
soil. The maximum dry unit weight and OMC of soil sample partially replacing the sawdust and fly ash.

Volume 109 Issue 1 May 2021 25

 B. Sahak, M. Singh, A. Adhikari, S. Hussain

2,4
soil
2,2 Soil + 2.5% saw dust + 5% fly ash + 6cm Geotextile

Dry Density (gr/cm3)

soil + 5% saw dust + 10% fly ash + 6cm Geotextile
2

1,8

1,6

1,4

1,2
2 4 6 8 10 12
Moisture Content (%)

Fig. 13. Variation of OMC and maximum dry unit weight with varying % of fly ash, saw dust and geo-textile

Table 18.
Combined effect of fly ash, saw dust and geotextile
Max. dry unit OMC, CBR, UCS,
S/No Sample    
weight, g/cm3 % % kg/cm2
Soil+2.5%sawdust+5%fly
1 1.723 0 13.6 0 11.1 0 5.55 0
ash+geotextile @ 6 cm
Soil+5%sawdust+10%fly
2 1.612 -6.9 16.8 19.0 9.9 -12.1 4.87 -14.0
ash+geotextile @ 6 cm

Unconfined compressive strength as compared to index properties of soil sample but shows
UCS and un-drained shear strength value of the soil slight decrement in the maximum dry unit weight value.
sample mixed with combination of sawdust, fly ash and Further, OMC, CBR value, UCS and un-drained shear
geotextile shows higher result as compared to fly ash, saw strength increases significantly with addition of fly ash.
dust and geo-textile separately as shown in Figure 12. UCS  With addition of saw dust Index properties viz. liquid
and un-drained shear strength values of sample containing and plastic limit, plasticity index increases significantly
2.5% sawdust is 3.35 and 1.675, 5% fly ash is 3.49 and 1.745 as compared to index properties of soil sample but shows
and for geotextile layer introduce at middle position is 4.1 slight decrement in the maximum dry unit weight value.
and 2.05 whereas for sample having combined 2.5% Further, OMC and CBR value increases significantly
sawdust, 5% fly ash and geotextile layer at middle position with addition of fly ash. The UCS and un-drained shear
was found to be 5.55 and 2.775. Table 18 shows the results strength show increment up-to 5% of saw dust addition
and percentage variation of combined fly ash saw dust and above it slight decrement in the strength was observed.
geo-textile on index properties, CBR, maximum dry unit  With addition of geo-textile it has been observed that the
weight, UCS and undrained shear strength. geotextile used in middle (6 cm depth) of the sample is
beneficial and increases the CBR value more as
compared to other position. UCS and un-drained shear
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions strength shows slight increment with addition of
geotextile in middle layer of the sample.
The present study describes the possible way to use fly  Addition of fly ash (5 and 10%), saw dust (2.5 and 5%)
ash, saw dust and geo-textile for stabilization of soil. Some and geo-textile (6 cm depth) shows slight decrement in
studies experimentally investigated from the present study the maximum dry unit weight value and slight increment
are as follows: in the OMC value. CBR value, UCS and un-drained
 With addition of fly ash the Index properties viz. liquid shear strength also increases with addition of combined
and plastic limit, plasticity index increases significantly fly ash, saw dust and geo-textile.

26 RESEARCH PAPER Archives of Materials Science and Engineering

Sustainable soil stabilization using combination of geotextile, fly-ash and saw dust for pavement subgrade

 From the present study it has been investigated that Waste Technology and Management 44/1 (2018) 78-
combination of 2.5% fly ash, 5% saw dust and geo- 85. DOI:
textile at 6 cm depth can be beneficial for stabilization of https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5276/JSWTM.2018.78
soil. [10] O. Jasim, D. Çetin, Effect of sawdust usage on the shear
strength behavior of clayey silt soil, Sigma Journal
Engineering and Natural Sciences 34/1 (2016) 31-41.
References
References [11] R.K. Etim, C.C. Ikeagwuani, E.E. Ambrose, I.C. Attah,
Influence of Sawdust Disposal on the Geotechnical
[1] A. Pandey, A. Rabbani, Soil stabilisation using cement, Properties of Soil, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Engineering 22 (2017) 4769-4780.
Technology 8/6 (2017) 316-322. [12] R.H. Jadvani, K.S. Gandhi, Geosynthetics, a versatile
[2] I. Jawad, M. Taha, Z. Majeed, T. Khan, Soil solution to challenges in geotechnical engineering,
stabilization using lime: Advantages, disadvantages International Journal of Research in Engineering and
and proposing a potential alternative, Research Journal Technology 2/8 (2013) 194-201.
of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 8/4 [13] K. Meshram, S.K. Mittal, P.K. Jain, P.K. Agarwal,
(2014) 510-520. Application of Coir Geotextile for Road Construction:
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.8.1000 Some Issues, Oriental International Journal of
[3] S. Boobathiraja, P. Balamurugan, M. Dhansheer, Innovative Engineering Research 1/1 (2013) 25-29.
A. Adhikari, Study on Strength of Peat Soil Stabilised [14] ASTM D4533/D4533M-15, Standard Test Method for
with Cement and Other Pozzolanic Materials, Trapezoid Tearing Strength of Geotextiles, ASTM
International Journal of Civil Engineering Research 5/4 International, West Conshohocken, 2015. DOI:
(2014) 431-438. https://doi.org/10.1520/D4533_D4533M-15
[4] J.S. Yadav, S. Hussain, S.K. Tiwari, A. Garg, [15] ASTM D4491/D4491M-17, Standard Test Methods for
Assessment of the Load–Deformation Behaviour of Water Permeability of Geotextiles by Permittivity,
Rubber Fibre–Reinforced Cemented Clayey Soil, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2017. DOI:
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology 6 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1520/D4491_D4491M-17
105-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-019- [16] ASTM D4751-16, Standard Test Methods for
00073-y Determining Apparent Opening Size of a Geotextile,
[5] J.S. Yadav, S.K. Tiwari, P. Shekhwat, Strength ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2016. DOI:
Behaviour of Clayey Soil Mixed with Pond Ash, https://doi.org/10.1520/D4751-16
Cement and Randomly Distributed Fibres, Trans- [17] ASTM D4595-17, Standard Test Method for Tensile
portation Infrastructure Geotechnology 5 (2018) 191- Properties of Geotextiles by the Wide-Width Strip
209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-018-0056-z Method, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
[6] B.D. Nath, K.A. Molla, G. Sarkar, Study on strength 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1520/D4595-17
behavior of organic soil stabilized with fly ash, [18] A.K. Bera, S.N. Chandra, A. Ghosh, A. Ghosh,
International Scholarly Research Notices 2017 Unconfined compressive strength of fly ash reinforced
(2017) 5786541. with jute geotextiles, Geotextiles and Geomembranes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5786541 27/5 (2009) 391-398. DOI:
[7] P.V Sivapullaiah, J.P. Prashanth, A. Sridharan, Effect https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.12.004
of fly ash on the index properties of black cotton soil, [19] BS1377: Part 2, Methods of test for soils for civil
Soils and Foundations 36/1 (1996) 97-103. DOI: engineering purposes, British Standards Institute,
https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.97 London, 1990.
[8] T.O. Erdem, T.B. Edil, C.H. Benson, A.H. Aydilek, [20] ASTMD2166/D2166M, Standard test method for
Stabilization of Organic Soils with Fly Ash, Journal of unconfined compressive strength of cohesive Soil,
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2016. DOI:
137/9 (2011) 819-833. https://doi.org/10.1520/D2166_D2166M-16
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943- [21] ASTMD1883-16, Standard test method for California
5606.0000502 Bearing Ratio (CBR) of laboratory-compacted Soils,
[9] S. Sun, B. Liu, T. Wang, Improvement of expansive ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2016. DOI:
soil properties using sawdust, The Journal of Solid https://doi.org/10.1520/D1883-16

Volume 109 Issue 1 May 2021 27

 B. Sahak, M. Singh, A. Adhikari, S. Hussain

[22] ASTMD1557-12e1, Standard Test Methods for [24] T.K. Rajak, S.K. Pal, CBR Values of Soil Mixed with
Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Fly Ash and Lime, International Journal of Engineering
Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3), Research and Technology 4/2 (2015) 763-768.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2012. DOI: [25] P.V.V. Satyanarayana, S. Hemanth Kumar, P. Praveen,
https://doi.org/10.1520/D1557-12E01 B.V. Suresh Kumar, A Study on Strength
[23] S.R. Kaniraj, V.G. Havanagi, Behavior of Cement- Characteristics of Expansive Soil-Flyash Mixes at
Stabilized Fiber-Reinforced Fly Ash-Soil Mixtures, Various Moulding Water Contents, International
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering 2/5
Engineering 127/7 (2001) 574-584. DOI: (2013) 145-149.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2001)127:7(574)

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee International OCSCO World Press, Gliwice, Poland. This paper is an
open access paper distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en).

28 RESEARCH PAPER READING DIRECT: www.archivesmse.org