review article industrial wastes as auxiliary...

Review ArticleIndustrial Wastes as Auxiliary Additives toCementLime Stabilization of Soils

Jijo James and P Kasinatha Pandian

Tagore Engineering College Rathinamangalam Melakottaiyur Chennai 600127 India

Correspondence should be addressed to Jijo James jijothegreatgmailcom

Received 13 November 2015 Accepted 10 January 2016

Academic Editor Hossein Moayedi

Copyright copy 2016 J James and P K Pandian This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

Chemical stabilization involves the use of chemical agents for initiating reactions within the soil for modification of its geotechnicalproperties Cement and lime stabilization have been the most common stabilization methods adopted for soil treatment Cementstabilization results in good compressive strengths and is preferred for cohesionless to moderately cohesive soil but loseseffectiveness when the soil is highly plastic Lime stabilization is the most preferred method for plastic clays however it provesto be ineffective in sulphate rich clays and performs poorly under extreme conditions With such drawbacks lots of researcheshave been undertaken to address the issues faced with each stabilization method in particular the use of solid wastes for soilstabilization Solid waste reuse has gained high momentum for achieving sustainable waste management in recent times Researchhas shown that the use of solid wastes as additives with and replacement for conventional stabilizers has resulted in better resultsthan the performance of either individually This review provides insight into some of the works done by earlier researchers onlimecement stabilization with industrial wastes as additives and helps to form a sound platform for further research on industrialwastes as additives to conventional stabilizers

1 Introduction

Industrial revolution was a major milestone in the historyof human civilization Since the dawn of machines andindustrialization of various manufacturing processes therehas been a rapid boom in development and urbanizationsurrounding industrial centers The standard of living of thesociety started to rise but the standard of the living environ-ment started to decline It was not noticed until it startedaffecting humans directly Today industrial waste manage-ment is an area of concern with tons of waste being generatedeach day To cite an example according to central electricityauthority of India the fly ash (FA) production in the year2014-2015 was 18414 million tons [1] But with mountingwaste management problems there have been a lot of effortsto convert this area of concern into an area of opportunity byreutilizing the industrial wastes for various purposes Citingthe same example the utilization of FA in various avenuesdue to conscious efforts by various agencies including thegovernment of India resulted in reuse of 10254million tons of

FA in the year 2014-2015 [1] Though the utilization of 10254million tons of FA in 2014-2015 is only 5569 of the totalgeneration it is higher than the utilization of 10037 milliontons of FA (against a generation of 16356 million tons) inthe year 2012-2013 [2] The various modes of utilization ofFA shown in Figure 1 reveal that FA utilization in roads andflyover and reclamation of low lying areas account for about14 in total reutilization

The reutilization of FA in the area of soil modificationincluding reclamation roads and embankment works isdepicted in Figure 2 and it can be understood that theutilization of the waste has steadily increased over the yearsespecially in the construction of roads and embankmentsThus it can be observed that reutilization of solid wastes inthe modification of soil characteristics is a potential avenuefor sustainable management of solid wastes generated Theexample cited deals only with FA whereas there are severalother industrial solid wastes being generated in India Themajor solid wastes generated in India are tabulated in Table 1From Table 1 it can be concluded that FA is one of the single

Hindawi Publishing CorporationAdvances in Civil EngineeringVolume 2016 Article ID 1267391 17 pageshttpdxdoiorg10115520161267391

2 Advances in Civil Engineering

Agriculture193 Mine filling 13

Reclamation of low lying areas

1077

Ash dyke raising 956

Hydropower sector 001

Concrete 074Roads and

flyovers 332Cement 4226

Bricks and tiles 1172

Others 670

Figure 1 Modes of utilization of FA in the year 2014-15 [1]

Total utilizationUtilization in roads and flyoversUtilization in reclamation of low lying areasCombined utilization in both

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fly

ash

utili

zatio

n (m

illio

n to

n)

1998-99

1999-2000

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

Figure 2 Utilization of FA in areas of soil engineering [1ndash5]

largest industrial solid wastes produced in India followed bysteel slag phosphogypsum (PG) and blast furnace slag Thefigure for mine rejects is the combined waste produced fromvarious sources and types of mines

Thus industrial wastes reuse in soil stabilization is a rel-atively new avenue for effective utilization and managementof solid wastes Along with soil stabilization use of industrialsolid wastes in geotechnical fill applications can be aneffective avenue for waste management purposes Howeverutilization of solid wastes in geotechnical fill applicationsis a different aspect of soil engineering which is not goingto be dealt with in this paper A few earlier authors havereviewed the use of solid wastes in soil improvement [6ndash8]However these treat application of solid wastes as a whole inall combinations and have not differentiated between solidwastes as a standalone stabilizer and as auxiliary additivesto primary stabilizers In this paper only the utilization ofsolid wastes as auxiliary additives has been dealt with Thereason for this approach is the difference in stabilization

Table 1 Major industrial solid wastes generated in India

Name of the solid waste Annual production (million tons)FA 18414 [1]Blast furnace slags 10 [9]Steel slag 12 [10]Red mud 471 [11]Lime sludge 45 [12]Lead-zinc slag 05 [12]Phosphorus furnace slag 05 [12]PG 11 [13]Jarosite 06 [12]Kimberlite 06 [12]Mine rejects 750 [12]

performance achieved by solid wastes as stabilizers and solidwastes as additives to primary stabilizers

2 Industrial Wastes as Additives toLimeCement in Soil Stabilization

Chemical stabilization is a major category of soil stabilizationinvolving the use of chemical agents for initiating reactionswithin the soil for modification of its geotechnical propertiesCement and lime stabilization have been the most commonstabilization methods adopted for soil treatment Cementstabilization results in good compressive strength and ispreferred for cohesionless to moderately cohesive soil butloses effectiveness in the case of highly plastic soil Limestabilization is the preferred method of treatment for plasticclays however it is ineffective in sulphate-rich clays andperforms poorly under extreme conditions In the light ofsuch drawbacks a lot of research has been undertaken toaddress the issues faced with each stabilization methodparticularly the use of solid wastes Reuse of solid wasteshas gained a lot of priority for achieving sustainable wastemanagement and hence they have been adopted in soilstabilization as standalone stabilizers as well as additives toaugment the performance of conventional stabilizers like limeand cement Sabat and Pati [6] classified solid wastes into fourmajor categories based on their source of generation as (i)industrial (ii) agricultural (iii) domestic and (iv) mineralsolid wastes In the present review however the authors havenot tried to classify based on source but have tried to discussmost frequently adopted and researched solid wastematerialsin soil stabilization

21 LimeCement Stabilization Reactions Before going intothe effect of additives on lime and cement stabilizationan understanding of the chemical reactions resulting uponaddition of additives to the soil is inevitable The addition oflime to soil initiates several reactions Lime soil reactions canbe broadly classified into short term and long term reactionsThe short term reactions include ion exchange floccula-tion [14] and carbonation [15] The long term pozzolanic

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

reactions include formation of reaction products whichaffects the strength and compressibility of clays [16]

Lime treatment of soil results in immediate ion exchangeinwhich divalent calcium ions ionized from lime (1) normallyreplace univalent cations (M+) on the clay surface (2) andions in high concentration will replace those in a lowerconcentration [17]

Ca(OH)2997888rarr Ca2+ + 2(OH)minus (1)

Ca2+ + Clay Mineral-M+

997888rarr Clay Mineral-Ca2+ +M+(2)

The short term reactions improve soil plasticity making iteasier to work with and improve uncured strength and load-deformation properties

Long term pozzolanic reactions involve reactionsbetween lime water soil silica and soil alumina Highalkaline soil pH during lime treatment stimulates dissolutionof siliceous and aluminous compounds from the clay mineralstructure These dissolved compounds react with calciumions in pore water to form calcium silicate hydrate (CSH)and calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH) gels which coverthe soil particles and later crystallize to link them [18] Thebasic form of the pozzolanic equations is given as follows[17 19 20]

Ca2+ +OHminus + SiO2(soluble clay silica) 997888rarr CSH (3)

Ca2+ +OHminus + Al2O3(soluble clay alumina)

997888rarr CAH(4)

The long term pozzolanic reactions are time dependent andcuring is essential for developing strength and durability

Portland cement is composed of calcium silicates andcalcium aluminates that when combined with water hydrateto form the cementing compounds of CSH and CAH as wellas excess calcium hydroxide Pozzolanic reaction betweencalcium hydroxide released during hydration and silica andalumina of soil occurs in fine-grained clay soils and is animportant aspect of stabilization of these soils [21] Thus itcan be noted that cement-soil reactions are similar to that ofpozzolanic reactions of lime with soil

22 FA FA is a waste that is obtained as a result of powergeneration from coallignite based thermal power plants Fora country like India such thermal power plants form thebackbone of capacity addition [1 2 4] Indian coal is oflow grade and has an ash content of 30ndash45 Thus hugequantities of FA are produced resulting in pollution of airand water The utilization of FA in soil modification canprove to be a useful avenue to augment the areas of FA wastemanagement

Ji-ru and Xing [22] studied the effects of stabilizingexpansive soils with lime and FA Expansive soils are thesoils which swell significantly when they come in contactwith water and shrink when the water squeezes out [23ndash25] Lime and FA were added to an expansive soil in therange of 4ndash6 and 40ndash60 by dry weight of soil respectively

The stabilized soil specimens were then tested for theirchemical composition grain size distribution consistencylimits compaction California Bearing Ratio (CBR) freeswell and swell capacity The authors concluded that theaddition of lime resulted in increase in plastic limit whereasaddition of FA resulted in decrease in liquid limit therebyreducing the plasticity index of the expansive soil sampleThe CBR values of FA-lime stabilized soil were higher thanboth only lime stabilized and only FA stabilized soils Thecombination also resulted in the least plasticity index of thesoil It was concluded that 4ndash6 of lime and 40ndash50 of FAwere optimal for stabilization of the expansive soil

Sharma et al [26] carried out a micro level investigationof stabilization of clayey soil with lime and FAThe optimumdosage of FA was found out by conducting unconfinedcompression (UCC) strength tests CBR free swell index andAtterberg limits The minimum lime content was found outusing the Eades and Grim pH test Micro level investigationwas performed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis thermogravimetric analysis(TGA) energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) and zetapotential The optimum FA content was identified as 20and minimum lime content was found as 85 It was foundthat 20 FA was not enough for improving the strength ofthe soil to be used as a good foundation material hencethe soil was stabilized with the combination of 20 FA and85 lime which produced better strength XRD and SEManalysis confirmed the formation of new reaction productscalcium silicate hydrate and calciumaluminate hydrate in thestabilized soil due to the progression of pozzolanic reactions

Mishra [27] attempted to improve the strength of clayeysoil by means of adopting locally available FA as additive tolime in soil stabilization The soil was stabilized using FA inincrements of 10 up to a maximum of 30 with 2 and 3lime combinations It was found that the CBR of soil-FA-limecombinations of 70 30 3 was as high as 55 against the CBRof virgin soil at 23 The author recommended the use ofthis combination for stabilization of subgrades as it involvedthe maximum utilization of FA while producing significantlyhigh CBR value

Mccarthy et al [28] studied the engineering and durabil-ity properties of FA treated lime stabilized sulphate bearingsoils Two clay soils were stabilized with lime two types ofFA and Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) forstudying the control of swell associatedwith lime stabilizationof sulphate bearing soilsThe stabilized soil consisted of quicklime up to 3 FA up to 24 and GGBS up to 9 by weightThe stabilized soils were tested for immediate bearing indexUCC strength indirect tensile strength frost heave andwaterpermeability The study concluded that addition of FA andGGBS to lime stabilized clayey soils increased its immediatebearing index UCC strength and indirect tensile strengthand GGBS to lime stabilized soils improved the performanceof the stabilized soils based on the optimal dosage of theindustrial wastes

Kolay et al [29] investigated the effect of addition ofquick lime cement and FA on the stabilization of peatsoil from Sarawak region of Indonesia Soil samples werecollected from six different locations of Sarawak and were


stabilized using the aforementioned stabilizers in the rangeof 5ndash20 except for FA which was adopted in the range of2ndash8 The authors also studied the combination of FA andquicklime to investigate the combined effect of the stabilizersSEM was used to perform a microstructural analysis tounderstand the changes in stabilized soil structure Thesamples were cured for periods of 7 14 and 28 days Thestudy concluded that the combination of quick lime andFA produced higher strengths of stabilized peat soil whencompared to stabilization with either quick lime or FA asstandalone stabilizer It was observed that cement producedthe best results in stabilization of peat soil but 80 of thestrength produced by 20 Portland cement was achievedby a combination of 15 FA and 6 quick lime therebyindicating the effectiveness of combining industrial wasteswith conventional stabilizers Microstructural analysis usingSEM clearly indicated structural changes in the stabilized soilsamples The stabilized soil samples exhibited a denser soilstructure

Shah et al [30] examined the adverse effects of fuel oilcontamination on the geotechnical properties of soil andits stabilization with lime cement and FA and also theircombinations Contaminated soil samples were collectedfrom 16 different locations in a petrochemical industrial areain Vadodara district of Gujarat India The contaminationlevels of fuel oil were found to be in the range of 7 to10 Additional contaminated soils were developed in thelaboratory by adding 10 fuel oil to uncontaminated soil andmixing it thoroughly using a mixer and curing it in a closedcontainer at ambient temperature for a period of 7 daysThe naturally contaminated soils as well as the artificiallygenerated contaminated soils were tested for their Atterberglimits and compaction characteristics and classifiedThe con-taminated soils were then stabilized with lime cement andFA in proportions of 5 10 and 20 as well as combinationsof the three with the maximum binder content not exceeding20 It was observed that addition of lime produced the beststabilization among individual stabilizers with a strength gainof 315 over virgin soil However the blends of 10 limeand 10 FA and 10 lime 5 FA and 5 cement producedstrength gains of 328 and 371 respectively The lattercombination also produced the best reduction in plasticityindex of the contaminated soils It was concluded that thecombinations of lime FA and cement result in the dispersionof fuel oil cation exchange and pozzolanic reactions betweenthe three results in strength gain

Wang et al [31] explored the strength and deformationbehavior of Dunkirk marine sediments with cement limeand FA The study mainly emphasized on the deformationcharacteristics ofmarine sediments A series of UCC strengthtests were performed after curing periods of 14 28 60 and90 days to study the effect of binder content The binderswere mixed with wet soil and mechanically mixed with anagitator for a minimum period of 3 minutes The blendedsoil samples were cast into cylindrical specimens moulded attheir optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum drydensity (MDD) for various combinations of binders by staticcompaction The dimensions of the samples were 50mmtimes 100mm which were demoulded The samples were then

immediately stored in sealed plastic containers for curing toavoid moisture changes The microstructural changes wereanalyzed using SEM It was noticed that addition of bindersresulted in increase in strength of the stabilized sedimentsThe addition of FA to lime stabilization further enhanced itsstrength however for the present soil sediment addition ofFA to cement stabilization resulted in a drop in the strength ofthe sedimentThemicrostructure analysis was used to explainthe behavior in lime and cement stabilization of sedimentsadmixed with FA In the case of lime stabilization withFA the destruction of the structure of FA was observed inSEM resulting in its effective participation in the pozzolanicreactions whereas in cement stabilization no evidence of thedestruction of FA structure could be witnessed Thus it wasconcluded that only small amount of FA participates in thestabilization reaction resulting in strength reduction

Bhuvaneshwari et al [32] investigated the capability oflime and combinations of lime and FA in improving the prop-erties of a dispersive clay Soils that are dislodged easily andrapidly in flowing water of low salt concentration are calleddispersive soilsThe experimental investigations involved freeswell tests double hydrometer tests pinhole tests crumbtests and chemical tests A microstructural analysis was alsocarried out using SEM for investigating changes taking placeat themicro level It was seen that the addition of 5 lime andcombination of 2 lime and 15 FA was capable of reducingthe free swell from 1000 for virgin soil to 400 Additionof 5 lime and 2 lime with 15 FA reduced the dispersionfrom 71 to 95 and 1 respectively Addition of lime andFA resulted in the change in classification of the dispersiveclay Microstructural investigation clearly revealed a changein the fabric of the clay

23 Rice Husk Ash (RHA) RHA is generated due to theburningincineration of rice husk generated in paddy farmsas a waste material RHA contains very high amounts of silicaand can be used as a pozzolan in lime and cement mixtures[33] Thus utilization of RHA in combination with lime andcement is a foregone conclusionThis section describes someworks related to utilization of RHA in soil stabilization

Bagheri et al [33] studied the strength and mechanicalbehavior of soil stabilized with cement lime and RHA Con-solidated undrained triaxial and UCC tests were performedto estimate the potential of mixtures of cement-lime andcement-lime-RHA The study investigates the influence ofthe combined amount of stabilizer main effective stress andcuring days on soil strength deformation postpeak behaviorand brittleness The combined stabilizer dosage was variedfrom 25 to 125 by dry weight of soil and cured for periodsof 3 7 28 and 60 days It was noticed that the additionof the stabilizer combination resulted in an increase in thepeak strength and postpeak strength of the stabilized soilThe results showed that RHA increased the strength of thestabilized soil significantly and reduced the environmentalimpact of cement and lime additives

Basha et al [34] explored the utilization of RHA alongwith cement for stabilization of a residual soil The exper-imental programme involved the determination of consis-tency limits compaction characteristics UCC strength and


CBRvaluesMicrostructural changeswere studied using SEMand XRD analysis The results of the investigation revealedthat theUCC strength of cement stabilized soil increasedwithaddition of RHA There was also an increased resistance toimmersion of the stabilized soil with RHA additionThe CBRvalue of the stabilized soil multiplied with the addition ofRHA It was concluded that a combination of 6ndash8 cementand 15ndash20 RHA was sufficient for optimal improvement insoil properties

James et al [35] investigated the effect of addition of limeon the index properties of RHA stabilized soil Soil stabilizedwith 3 different RHA contents was admixed with increasinglime content and Atterberg limits and free swell of the soilwere tested It was found that the addition of lime to RHAresulted in improvement of soil properties when comparedto pure RHA stabilization It was concluded that 12 RHAwith 6 lime gave the best results in improving the indexproperties of the soil

Jha and Gill [36] delved into the effect of RHA onlime stabilization of soil The soil sample was crushed usingmallet and sieved through IS 236mm sieve and dried inthe oven at a temperature of 105∘C RHA was also preparedin a similar manner The soil RHA and lime slurry in therequired quantities were mixed together in a mechanicalmixer thoroughly The test specimens were all prepared asper Indian Standards for various tests The stabilized soilsamples were tested for their compaction characteristicsstrength CBR and durability characteristics The test resultsconcluded that the addition of RHA to lime stabilizationenhanced the development of UCC strength of the soil Thestrength development depended on the curing period andtemperature of curing Addition of RHA also enhanced thedurability of lime stabilized soil in addition to increasedsoaked as well as unsoaked CBR of the soil

Choobbasti et al [37] investigated the effect of addition ofRHA to lime stabilization of soil An extensive experimentalprogramme was conducted to determine various propertiesof lime stabilized soil including Atterberg limits compactioncharacteristics CBR and direct shear strength They con-cluded that addition of RHA to lime stabilization of soilresulted in a reduction in plasticity of the soil and increasein the shear strength and CBR of the soil

Muntohar et al [38] researched the stabilization of siltyclay with lime and RHA reinforced with waste plastic fibresThe soil was mixed with lime and RHA along with 50 ofOMC to obtain a uniformlymixed hydrated soil sample in thefirst stage In the second stage waste plastic fibres were addedand mixed carefully so that the fibres did not get lumped upin order to ensure uniform distribution of fibres throughoutthe stabilized soil UCC strength specimens were preparedin a constant volume mould of 50mm times 100mm whereastriaxial test specimens were prepared in a mould of 76mmtimes 38mm at their OMC and MDD CBR and durability testswere also performed on the stabilized soil specimens Theresults of the investigation revealed that addition of lime andRHA to soil increased its compressive and tensile strength by4 and 5 times respectivelyTheCBRvalue of the soil increased36 times due to addition of lime and RHA The addition ofplastic fibres to this mixture further improved the strength

and durability of the stabilized soil samples with CBR valuesincreasing by 87 times

Sharma et al [39] explored the behavior of remouldedclays blended with lime calcium chloride and RHA Theeffect of addition of RHA on lime and calcium chloridestabilization of clayey soil was studied throughUCC andCBRtests The samples were prepared at a water content of 24after thoroughly mixing the soil with the requisite quantitiesof lime and RHAcalcium chloride and RHA combinationsand curing the blend for a period of 28 days in an incubatorAfter curing the stabilized samples were compacted in aHarvard mould of dimensions of 40mm times 80mm in fourlayers of 20mm each It was found that the addition of RHAto lime stabilized soil increased the UCC strength of thestabilized soil by 127 and the CBR increased by 191 when12 RHA was added to 4 lime stabilization which wasfound to be the optimal blend In the case of calcium chloridestabilization an addition of 12 RHA to 1 calcium chloridestabilized soil resulted in an increase in the UCC strength by56 and CBR by 23

Roy [40] tested the effect of combining RHA and cementin stabilization of clay of high plasticity The investigationinvolved studying the effect of RHA on 6 cement stabilizedsoil The MDD OMC CBR and UCC strength of the stabi-lized soil were determined The results of the investigationrevealed an increase in MDD and reduction in OMC withincrease in RHA content The results of the UCC test andCBR test revealed that 10 RHA was optimal to increase thestrength and CBR of the soil

Olgun [41] investigated the performance of soil stabilizedwith lime and RHA reinforced with fibres subject to freeze-thaw conditions The lime content was varied between 2and 8 RHA content between 0 and 15 and fibre contentbetween 0 and 08 The samples were cured for a period of28 days and subjected to 7 freeze-thaw cycles At the end ofthe curing period the samples were subject to UCC strengthtests and swelling tests It was inferred that lime was themost influential parameter in determining the strength ofnon-freeze-thaw subjected samples whereas RHA was themost influential parameter in the case of samples subjectedto freeze-thaw Lime and fibre content both were effective onthe axial strain In the case of swelling test lime was effectivefor non-freeze-thaw samples whereas RHA was effective inthe case of samples subjected to freeze-thaw From the studyit was concluded that for samples subjected to freeze-thawthe optimal lime content reduced whereas the optimal RHAcontent increased

24 Blast Furnace Slag Blast furnace slag is nonmetallic by-product of iron ore smelting It is formed when iron orecoke and flux are melted together in a blast furnace Atthe completion of the metallurgical smelting process thelime in the flux chemically combines with the silicates andaluminates in the ore and coke ash to form slag Duringthe period of cooling and hardening depending on thecooling method blast furnace slag can form several productsincluding granulated slag air-cooled slag expanded slag air-cooled blast furnace slag air-cooled blast furnace slag rip rapand slag cement [42]


Wild et al [43] tried to extend the beneficial applicationsof GGBS namely enhanced durability chloride penetrationresistance sulphate attack resistance and protection againstalkali silica reaction to pavement and other foundation soilapplications by partial replacement of lime in soil stabi-lization with GGBS Samples were prepared at mean MDDand OMC by thoroughly mixing soil lime and GGBS in amixer and compacting them in constant volume mould ofdimensions of 50mm times 100mm and cured in plastic bagsplaced in chambers maintained at 30∘C and 100 relativehumidityThe samples were cured for periods of 7 days and 28days and were tested for their UCC strength A few selectedsamples were used for mineralogical study through XRDanalysis It was deduced that partial substitution of lime withGGBS resulted in enhanced strength at 7 days as well as 28days of curing The development of strength was observedin both high lime low slag with gypsum and low lime highslag without gypsum trials In the former gypsum played arole in acceleration of strength development due to formationof crystalline ettringite whereas in the latter the strengthdevelopment was due to lime activated hydration of slag

Celik andNalbantoglu [44] studied the effect of GGBS onthe control of swell associated with lime stabilized sulphatebearing soils In order to study the effect of swelling associatedwith lime stabilization of sulphate-rich soils three differentconcentrations of sulphate were chosen namely 2000 5000and 10000 ppm The compaction characteristics Atterberglimits linear shrinkage and swell potential of sulphate dosed5 lime stabilized soil were then investigated The same testswere repeated on the combinations but with 6 GGBS as anadditiveThe test results revealed that the presence of sulphatein soil resulted in abnormal plasticity and swell potentialof the soil At 10000 ppm sulphate concentration the swellpotential of the lime stabilized soil was three times higherthan the natural soil However on addition of 6 GGBSthe swell potential of lime stabilized soil drops to 1 from8 for 10000 ppm sulphate concentration In contrast therewas no swelling at all for 5000 ppm sulphate concentrationHence this suggested that addition of GGBS to lime results ineffective control of swell associated with ettringite formationin sulphate bearing soils

Obuzor et al [45] evaluated the performance of lime acti-vated GGBS in stabilizing road pavements and embankmentsconstructed in flood plains that are prone to submergedconditions due to flooding Laboratory simulated floodingconditions were used to gauge the performance of stabilizedsoil specimens of size of 50mm times 100mmThe samples wereimmersed in water for periods of 4 and 10 days after periodsof 7 14 28 56 and 90 days of curing The specimens weresubjected to durability index and UCC strength tests Thesamples were prepared with a maximum stabilizer dosage of16 and five different combinations of lime and GGBS wereadopted with GGBS replacing lime in increments of 4 ineach successive combination The samples were moulded atthree different moisture contents at their MDD to study theeffect of placement water content The investigation revealedthat 4 lime with 12 GGBS produced the highest strengthand durability out of all the combinationsThe strength of thestabilized soil increased with decrease in lime content and

increase in GGBS content in the mix thereby giving a clearindication of better performance of lime-industrial wastecombinations when compared to pure lime or pure industrialwaste stabilization It is evident that strength of lime-claysystems was hugely dependent on the GGBS componentwhich increases the density and permeability of the systemby forming cementitious gels

Obuzor et al [46] investigated the durability of floodedlow capacity soil by treating it with lime andGGBSThe inves-tigation involved preparation of test specimens of 50mmdiameter and 100mm height statically compacted to theirMDD and OMC followed by moist curing and simulatedflooding of the samples Water absorption during floodingwas measured followed by testing of UCC strength of thesamples It was found that higher lime content resulted ingreater water absorption The addition of GGBS howeverresulted in a reduction in moisture absorption and increasein the strength of the flooded samples It was determined thatthe addition of GGBS resulted in the reduction in resourceconsumption and improved robustness of the roads

Kogbara and Al-Tabbaa [47] investigated the poten-tial of cement and lime activated GGBS in solidifica-tioncontainment of leaching of heavy chemicals The inves-tigation involved preparation of an artificial heavy metalsspiked soil and treating it with combinations of 1 4 limeto GGBS and 1 9 cement to GGBS Three binder dosagesof 5 10 and 15 were adopted and stabilized samples werecompacted to their maximum dry densities The assessmentof the stabilization process was done by conducting UCCstrength permeability and acid neutralization capacity testsLeachability test for determining contaminants at differentacid concentrations was also performedThe study suggestedthat the combinations of cement-GGBS and lime-GGBSwerecapable of not only increasing the strength of the stabilizedsoil but also reducing the permeability and leachabilityto within prescribed standards It was seen that cement-GGBS performed better than lime-GGBS combination incontrolling leaching of contaminants

Vijayaraghavan et al [48] investigated the performanceof alternate bricks made of cement stabilized mud with slagas additive The investigation consisted of determination ofcompressive strength water absorption and efflorescenceIt was found that addition of optimal dosage of cement tomud inmanufacture of bricks producedhigher strengthwhencompared to conventional burnt brick The water absorptionof optimal cement stabilized brick was also lesser than thatof burnt clay brick However it was observed that addition ofslag to the composition of cement stabilized brick producedeven better compressive strength and lesser water absorptionAll combinations of cement as well as cement-slag stabilizedmud bricks showed no signs of efflorescence Thus at endof the study the authors recommended the use of alternatebricks as a cost-effective material for low cost housing

25 PG PG is a waste by-product from the processing ofphosphate rock by the wet acid method of fertilizer pro-duction that currently accounts for over 90 of phosphoricacid production [49 50] The worldwide production of PGis estimated to be in the range of 100ndash280 million tons per


year [50 51] based on the general rule that 45ndash5 tons ofPG is generated for every ton of phosphoric acid produced[13 50 52] However the utilization of PG in constructionmaterials is lowbecause of the presence of naturally occurringradioactive materials including Ra-226 [49 50 53 54]Shweikani et al [55] found that radiation dose due to additionof PG in cement was within the prescribed internationalstandards for construction materials

Degirmenci et al [49] studied the use of PG with FA andPG with cement in stabilization of two different types of soilThe investigation involved the determination of effect of PGwith cement and PG with FA on the plasticity compactioncharacteristics and strength of the stabilized soil The resultsof the investigation showed that addition of PG and cementto soil resulted in a reduction in the plasticity of the stabilizedsoil The addition of PG and cement to one soil type resultedin an increase in the MDD and reduction in the OMCwhereas a reverse trend was seen for the other soil type Thestabilization of the soils with cement and PG resulted in anincrease in UCC strength of the soils The strength of soilsstabilized with PG and cement was higher than the strengthachieved by stabilization with PG and FA

Kumar et al [56] studied the stabilization of bentoniteclay with a combination of lime and PG The content of limeand PG was varied from 0 to 10 The stabilized soil wastested for its consistency limits compaction characteristicsfree swell index percent swell UCC strength and CBRvalue The tests were performed in accordance with relevantIndian Standard codes The authors found that 8 lime wasthe optimal lime content for stabilization of bentonite Onaddition of PG to lime stabilized soil the strength of the soilincreasedwith increase in PG content up to 8beyondwhichthere was a reduction in strength of the soil The addition of8PGalso increased theCBRmodulus of subgrade reactionand the secant modulus of the stabilized soil The addition ofPG also resulted in reduced swelling It was concluded thatthe addition of PG to lime would be a boost to pavementconstruction on such poor soils

Ghosh [57] investigated the stabilization of pond ashusing combination of lime and PG The investigation aimedat improving the geotechnical properties of class F pond ashfor construction of road base and subbase construction byusing lime and PG in proportions of 4 6 and 10 and 05and 1 respectively The compaction characteristics of pondash were determined using standard and modified proctorcompaction tests The stabilized soil samples were used toprepare bearing test samples in moulds of 152mm diameterand 178mmheight at their OMC andmaximumdry densitiesfor different combinations The samples were covered withclean wrap and cured for periods of 7 28 and 45 days in ahumidity chamber The results of the bearing test revealedthat addition of small quantities of PG to lime stabilizedpond ash resulted in increase in bearing ratios across allcombinations tested It was also observed that addition ofPG to lime produced higher bearing for soaked samples thanfor unsoaked samples The effect of PG addition was moreprominent at lower lime content than higher lime contentsIt was opined that lime stabilized pond ash admixed with PGmay find potential applications in road construction

James and Pandian [58] had investigated the effect ofPG on the strength of lime stabilized soil Three differentlime contents namely initial consumption of lime (ICL)optimum lime content (OLC) and one trial dose belowICL were adopted for stabilization of an expansive soil Thestrength of lime stabilized soil was determined by preparingUCC tests samples in a split mould of diameter 38mm andheight 76mm and cured for periods of 2 hours and 3 7 14and 28 days The results of the investigation revealed that theaddition of PG to lime resulted in an increase in the earlyas well as delayed strength of lime stabilized soil It was alsofound that optimal PG dosage for achieving strength gainincreased with increase in lime content which was indicativeof better utilization of PG in the pozzolanic reactions whensufficient lime was available

Kumar and Dutta [59] investigated the potential of sisalfibres in enhancing the UCC strength of PG admixed limestabilized bentonite The sisal fibre content was varied from05 to 2 The addition of PG resulted in an increase inthe dry density and OMC of the lime-bentonite mix whereasan opposite trend was noticed on addition of sisal fibresThe results indicated that the addition of PG and sisal fibresto lime stabilized bentonite resulted in an increase in thestrength It was also observed that 8 lime with 8 PGand 1 sisal fibres produced the highest UCC strength Theaddition of sisal fibres also enhanced the residual strength ofthe mix The authors concluded that the addition of PG andsisal fibres will enhance the performance of temporary roadsconstructed on problematic soils

26 Bagasse Ash (BA) India is one of the largest growersof sugarcane with an annual production of 34256 milliontons in the year 2011-12 [60] The sugar manufacturingprocess generates solid wastes which include sugarcane trashbagasse bagasse FA press mud and spent wash [61ndash63]The wastes that are of economic importance are bagassemolasses and filter press mud [63] Bagasse is the fibrousresidue remaining after the extraction of cane juice fromsugarcane Sugarcane bagasse consists of approximately 50of cellulose 25 of hemicellulose and 25 of lignin [64] Inmost of the sugarcane industries bagasse is used as a fuelresulting in its combustion and production of ash as the endproduct This waste is typically disposed of into pits and alsoapplied on land as soil amendment in some areas [61] BAhas applications in the manufacture of low cost adsorbentsand ceramic membrane filters and as additives to cement andconcrete [61]

Manikandan andMoganraj [64] evaluated the consolida-tion and rebound properties of lime stabilized soil admixedwith BA Expansive soil from Kanchipuram district of TamilNadu was stabilized with 1 2 and 3 lime with 2 4 and 6BA resulting in 9 combinations which were tested for theirindex properties compaction characteristics UCC strengthcation exchange capacity and consolidation characteristicsThe results of the investigation revealed that addition of BAto lime resulted in better stabilization performance whencompared to pure lime or pure BA stabilizationThe strengthof the stabilized soil increased on increasing the BA contentThe maximum strength was achieved at a combination of 3


lime plus 4 BA at 14 days of curing The compressibilitycharacteristics also reduced greatly due to the addition ofBA to lime stabilization The coefficient of consolidationcompression index expansion index and recompressionindex reduced with addition of lime and BA The bestreduction was achieved at a combination of 3 lime and 6BA They concluded that the addition of BA to lime reducesthe settlement of the stabilized soil by increasing its strengthand reducing its compressible nature

Alavez-Ramırez et al [65] adopted sugarcane BA as anadditive to stabilized compressed blocks The investigationcomprised of lime and cement stabilized blocks and onecombination of lime stabilized blocks admixed with sug-arcane BA The compressed stabilized block consisted of10 stabilizer of lime and cement In the combination withBA an additional ash content of 10 was used to study itseffect on lime stabilized blocks The blocks were preparedby stabilizing sandy soil by sieving through 45mm meshand the components were mixed thoroughly in a rotatingmixer for a period of 10 minutes making sure that theaggregates did not clump together This was followed by anaddition of calculated quantity of water and mixing for afurther period of 5 minutes The resulting mix was placedin a motorized hydraulic press and compacted by a 24-ton load to dimensions of 300mm times 150mm times 120mmAll blocks were cured in a curing room with 90 relativehumidity until testing The cast blocks were tested for theircompressive strength both soaked and unsoaked as well asfor their flexural strength It was seen that cement stabilizedblocks produced the maximum strength of all combinationsHowever it was also noticed that lime stabilized blocks withBA performed better than plain lime stabilized blocks in bothsoaked and unsoaked conditions SEM and XRD analyseswere performed to determine mineralogical and microstruc-tural changes in the blocks and to detect deformities at themicro level It was concluded that addition of 10 BA to 10lime stabilized block significantly improved its mechanicaland durability properties

Sadeeq et al [66] probed the effect of BA on limestabilization of lateritic soil Lateritic soils are soil types richin iron and aluminum formed in wet and hot tropical areasMostly red in color because of iron oxides they are formedby intensive and lasting weathering of underlying parentrocks [67] The stabilized soil was tested for its plasticitycompaction characteristics UCC strength and CBR Addi-tion of BA to lime resulted in a reduction in its MDD andincrease in OMC Addition of BA to lime stabilized lateriticsoil increased itsUCC strength andCBR 8 limewith 6BAwas found to be the optimal dosage for stabilizing the lateriticsoil under investigation The authors concluded that thoughthe stabilized soil met the requirements for subbase course itcould not meet the requirements for adequate stabilization asrecommended by Transport and Road Research Laboratory

Muazu [68] studied the effect of up to 8 BA on thecompaction characteristics of lateritic soil stabilized with upto 4 cement It was found that addition of BA resulted inan increase in OMC and reduction in MDD of the stabilizedsoil The addition of BA resulted in a decrease in cohesionand an increase in friction angle of the stabilized soil In

a related study Muazu [69] evaluated the effect of similarcombinations of BA and cement on the plasticity and particlesize distribution of the stabilized soil It was concludedthat addition of BA to cement stabilized lateritic reducedliquid limit increased plastic limit and consequently reducedplasticity of the stabilized soil The addition of cement andBA resulted in a reduction in fines content of the soil due toaggregation of particles as a result of stabilizationThe authorsrecommended a dosage of 4ndash6 of BA for stabilization

Onyelowe [67] studied the effect of BA on cement stabi-lization of lateritic soilThe study involved cement contents of4 and 6 whereas BA content varied from 0 to 10 by dryweight of the soilThe compaction characteristics and CBR ofthe stabilized soil were determined to study the performanceof stabilized soil It was evident that the two cement contentsgave contrasting results with respect toMDDof the stabilizedsoil MDD increased with increase in BA content for 6cement stabilized soil whereas an opposite trend was noticedfor 4 cement stabilized soil There was a general increase inOMC of the stabilized soil The increasing addition of BA tocement stabilized soil increased the CBR of the stabilized soilirrespective of the cement content

Lima et al [70] adopted sugarcane BA as an additiveto cement in the manufacture of compressed stabilized soilblocks Two different cement contents of 6 and 12 wereadopted which were amended with three different BA con-tents of 2 4 and 8The stabilized blocks were tested fortheir compressive strengths as well as water absorption Addi-tionally masonry prisms made from BA admixed cementstabilized blocks were also prepared and tested It was foundthat addition of BA to the lower cement content increasedthe compressive strength whereas at higher cement contentit resulted in a slight reduction in compressive strength ofthe blocks It was seen that the performance of BA admixedsoil block prisms performed well in both axial and diagonalcompressive strength tests The water absorption test resultsproduced similar but varying results for the combinationsevaluated It was concluded that BA can be incorporated inthe manufacture of compressed stabilized soil blocks withoutaffecting its mechanical performance

27 Other Waste Materials Moayed et al [71] investigatedthe stabilization of saline silty sand using lime and microsilica The primary objective of their investigation was toimprove the load bearing capacity of pavements constructedon Taleghan saline soils using lime and micro silica Thesoils were collected and stabilized with combinations of limeand micro silica ranging from 0 to 6 The improvement tothe soil was evaluated using CBR and UCC strength testsThe lime required for soil modification was then determinedfrom plasticity indexmethod At 6 addition of lime the soilbecame nonplastic and hence up to 6 lime was adopted forstabilizationThe addition of micro silica to lime stabilizationresulted in an increase in the CBR value of the stabilizedsoil The soaked CBR of 2 lime stabilized saline silty sandincreased from 92 to close to 125 on addition of 3micro silica The UCC strength of lime and micro silicastabilized soil also showed similar trends in strength withthe strength increasing with increasing micro silica until 3


beyond which it started to reduce Thus 2 lime with 3micro silica was found to be the optimal dosage for improvingthe strength and deformation characteristics of the soil

Kalkan [72] experimented on the stabilization of granularsoils with combinations of lime and silica fume and lime andFA Both combinations were adopted in the ratio of 1 4 withone part as lime and 4 parts as industrial waste materialThe stabilizer mixture was added to the crushed granularsoil in increments of 5 up to a maximum of 20 of totalweight The stabilized soil samples were tested for their UCCstrength and CBR It was seen that combinations of lime andFA produced good compressive strengths and significantlyhigh values of CBR when compared to lime-silica fumecombination However both combinations performed betterwhen compared to soil stabilization with industrial wastesalone

Oza and Gundaliya [73] studied the influence of cementwaste dust on the lime stabilization of black cotton soil Acomparison of cement waste dust cement waste dust andlime and lime stabilization of black cotton soil was performedby conducting Atterberg limits and UCC strength test Basedon the consistency limits lime stabilization gave the leastplasticity characteristics of the stabilized soil whereas cementwaste dust produced the highest strength of the stabilizedsoil The combination of lime and cement waste dust resultedin optimal performance with respect to both plasticity char-acteristics and UCC strength tests The performance of theblend was better than the performance of lime stabilizationof black cotton soil

Ahmad et al [74] conducted an investigation on thestabilization of peat soil using cement and palm oil fuelash as a replacement for cement The palm oil fuel ashwas sieved through 445-micron sieve to obtain fine qualityash Four combinations of 30 ordinary Portland cement20 cement with 10 palm oil fuel ash 15 of each and10 cement with 20 of palm oil fuel ash combinationswere adopted in stabilization Liquid limit specific gravityparticle size distribution compaction characteristics organiccontent and moisture content tests were performed Thestrength of the stabilized soil was determined by conductingUCC strength tests on samples of 38mmdiameter and 76mmheight cured for three different periods of 0 7 and 14 daysThe results of the study shed light on the fact that palm oil fuelash was capable of replacing cement in stabilization of peatsoilThe combination of 20 cementwith 10of palmoil fuelash was found to produce higher strengths when comparedto even 30 cement stabilization of peat soil after 14 daysof curing However the authors recommended a detailedstudy with higher curing periods of up to 180 days and othercombinations of cement and additives not restricted to 30

Seco et al [75] investigated the treatment of expansivesoils for use in construction They adopted a variety ofadditives like lime magnesium oxide natural gypsum ricehusk FA coal bottom ash steel FA and aluminate filler Theinvestigation concentrated on improving the swelling natureand mechanical strength of the soil The experimental pro-gramme adopted different combinations of waste materialswith soil for expansive treatment and formechanical strengthenhancement One of the combinations used in improving

mechanical strength of the stabilized soil was 4 lime with5 rice husk FA Out of all other combinations adoptedfor strength improvement the mentioned combination pro-duced the highest strength with curing over a period of 28days Unlike other research works in soil stabilization thiswork did not have stabilizationwith pure lime to act as controlfor determining the effectiveness of various combinationsThis was due to the fact that strengths of all combinations oftreated soil were compared with that of virgin soil Despitethis fact the combination of lime and rice husk FA producingthe highest strength is a testimony of the effectiveness of thecombination of the industrial waste with lime

In a similar study Seco et al [76] investigated the effectof lime magnesium oxide rice husk FA coal FA and alu-minate filler onMarl-rich soil The experimental programmeinvolved determination of OLC fromCBR andUCC strengthtests following which the additives were used in combinationwith OLC which was fixed based on preliminary tests Anonconventional additive called consolid system was alsoinvestigated and its performance was compared with additivebased system The additive-lime combinations were thensubject to UCC strength and CBR tests The results revealedthat combination of 4 lime with 5 rice husk FA producedthe best strength and bearing results at all curing periodsIt was also observed that consolid system was capable ofproducing high strengths from7 days of curing at lowdosagesof less than 1

Chen and Lin [77] investigated the performance of softsubgrade stabilized with sewage sludge ash and cementThe soft soil was stabilized with a combination of sewagesludge ash and cement in a fixed ratio of 4 1 in increasingdosages of 2 4 8 and 16 addition of the combinationThe stabilized soil samples were tested for their Atterberglimits compaction characteristics UCC strength CBR tri-axial compressive strength and swelling potential It wasconcluded that addition of sewage sludge ash and cementcombinations to soil results in a reduction in their plasticitycharacteristics and improvement in their strength and CBRvalues resulting in the soft subgrade changing to subgradewith excellent soil The mineralogical analysis revealed theformation of crystalline ettringite andmonosulphoaluminatehydrates after the treatment with sewage sludge ash andcement

Rahmat and Ismail [78] investigated the potential of wastepaper sludge ash (WSA) as a possiblematerial for stabilizationof Lower Oxford Clay in order to conserve natural resourcesThey adopted WSA in combination with lime cement andGGBS Quicklime stabilization of the clay with varyingpercentage of the stabilizer was taken as control specimento determine the performance of blended stabilizers Theblends were added in proportions of 10 15 and 20 byweight The ratios of WSA-lime and WSA-cement adoptedwere 80 20 and 90 10 The ratios of the third combinationof WSA-GGBS were 70 30 and 50 50 The tests performedincluded Atterberg limits compaction characteristics linearexpansion andUCC strengthThe investigation revealed thatcombinations of WSA-lime performed better than that ofcontrol samples of quicklime stabilized clay in reducing theplasticity index of the soil It was noticed that in sulphate


bearing clays like Lower Oxford Clay even 365 days ofcuring did not result in significant gain in the strength ofthe soil as observed from UCC tests However the blendsof WSA-lime and WSA-cement and WSA-GGBS producedexcellent improvement in strength of the soil after 365 daysof curing with the last combination producing the higheststrength The linear expansion of the blended stabilizerstreated soil was lesser in comparison with plain quicklimetreated samples It was concluded that blending of WSA withlime cement andGGBS provided a technological economicand environmental advantage in stabilizing poor soils such asLower Oxford Clay

Lisbona et al [79] researched the performance of calcinedpaper sludge (CPS)with cement in stabilization of soil with anexperimental programme in the laboratory as well as a fieldinvestigation to study the in situ behavior of the stabilizationprocess The investigation involved stabilization of soil withcement and blend of cement and CPS in the ratios of 50 50and 75 25 with the total binder content ranging between3 and 6 The soil was blended well with the stabilizersto ensure uniform mixing and was compacted at its OMCand MDD without any mellowing period into specimens of1525mmdiameter and 127mmheight and cured for a periodof 7 days before performing the UCC tests on the samplesprepared The field investigation involved stabilizing a 30 cmdeep subgrade layer using the blends that were carefullyblended at plants and taken to site in tanks and applied tothe soil by dry mix methods at site The field compaction wasmonitored using in situ density measurement using nuclearmethods and falling weight deflectometer was used to studythe performance of the stabilized subgrade The test resultsindicated that the blend of cement withCPS performed betterthan cement or CPS individually in stabilizing the soil Itwas deduced that 25 75 CPS to cement blend produced thehighest UCC strength

James and Pandian [80] in their study probed the effectof waste materials press mud from sugar industry as anadditive to lime and ceramic dust from demolition waste asan additive to cement in the development of early strengthof the stabilized soil The work involved the preparation ofUCC strength specimens of dimensions of 38mm times 76mmwith mixtures of soil with lime and press mud and soil withcement and ceramic dustThe samples were prepared atOMCand MDD and cured for periods of 2 hours 3 and 7 daysto study the development of early strength of the stabilizedsoil The study concluded that addition of press mud to limeand ceramic dust to cement resulted in quick developmentof strength thereby increasing the early strength of thestabilized soil when compared to pure lime stabilized andcement stabilized soil In a minor modified investigation ofan earlier study James and Pandian [81] studied the effectof ceramic dust on the plasticity and swell-shrink of limestabilized soil Two lime contentswere adopted to stabilize thesoil which was admixed with four different doses of ceramicdust It was evident that the addition of ceramic dust to limestabilized soil resulted in the reduction in plasticity and swell-shrink nature of the soil but the effect of ceramic dust wasprominent at lower lime content than higher lime content

Okonkwo et al [82] investigated the performance ofcement stabilized lateritic soil admixed with eggshell ashobtained from incineration of fowl egg shells The soil wasstabilized with 6 and 8 cement dosage with egg shell ashadmixture in the range of 0 to 10 in increments of 2All percentages of cement and egg shell ash were workedout by weight of dry soil The stabilized soil was testedfor its compaction characteristics UCC strength CBR anddurability characteristics It was seen that addition of egg shellash to cement stabilized lateritic resulted in an increase instrength of the stabilized soil by up to 35 The admixing ofegg shell ash also resulted in the stabilized soil satisfying thedurability characteristics with loss in strength on immersionnot exceeding 20 in any of the cases

28 An Evaluative Discussion In order to make a compar-ative evaluation of the performance of various stabilizer-additive combinations the results from the literature dis-cussed in this paper have been summarized in Table 2 Thetable cites the optimal combination and major geotechnicalproperties tested and differentiates the effect of additive onstabilization performance of the primary stabilizer Manyof these investigations involved a detailed test programmethat investigated several properties but only few importantparameters have been listed for ease of compilation and quickunderstanding on comparison However certain importantfactors need to be borne inmind while perusing the details ofthe compilation for comparative evaluationTheperformanceof the wastes as additives depends a lot on the type ofsoil the type of primary stabilizer used in combination thequantum of primary stabilizer the quantum of additive andthe methodology of the investigation Since variations inone or many of the said factors are inevitable a one-on-one comparison of two investigative works proves to be verydifficult This can only lead to a broad comparison of theperformance of the combination of the additives and stabi-lizers rather than the individual stabilizer or additive Thusthe reliability of any comparative evaluation that concludeson the effectiveness of individual additives from the results ofcombination stabilization can be only approximate

A wide variety of soils have been stabilized using com-binations of limecement and FA and in almost all of themFA has produced positive results Amajority of investigationsinvolving combinations of FA with limecement have con-centrated on the strength and bearing of the stabilized soilRHA with cementlime combination has been investigatedto determine strength and bearing as well as swell potentialof the stabilized soil Both FA and RHA produce very goodstrengths in combination with limecement Stabilizationusing GGBS with limecement has been the most commoncombination adopted with highly plastic expansive clays Insuch cases GGBS produces good strength as well as swellcontrol PG with cement is a more common combinationwhen compared to PG with lime In the case of PG thestrength of the stabilized soil has been concentrated onHowever the strengths achieved by PG in general seem tobe comparatively lower than FA and RHA In the case of BAas well combination with cement is more frequent comparedto lime Various other lesser known wastes have also been

Advances in Civil Engineering 11Ta

ble2Com

paris

onof

improvem

entsachieved

byvario

usauxiliary

additiv

es

Author(s)

Soil-op

timum

wastecombinatio

nMajor

geotechn

icalprop

ertie

stested

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

only

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

ampadditiv

e

Ji-ru

andXing

[22]

Expansives

oil+

4ndash6

oflim

e+40

ndash50

ofFA

CBR

265ndash1293

1193ndash1228

Swellin

gcapacity

0ndash570

0008ndash

002

Sharmae

tal[26]

Lowplastic

clay+20

FA+85

lime

UCC

strength

6338k

Pa1052k

PaCB

R403

57

Mish

ra[27]

Clayey

soil+3

lime+

30

FACB

R223

558

Mccarthyetal[28]

Sulphatebearingsoil+3

lime+

24

FAUCC

strength

sim11

MPa

22M

PaIm

mediatebearingindex

sim16

31


lime+

9GGBS

UCC

strength

sim11

MPa

19MPa

Immediatebearingindex

sim16

36

Kolayetal[29]

Peatsoil+6

quicklim

e+15

FAUCC

strength

sim70

kPa

sim90

kPa

Shah

etal[30]

Con

taminated

soil+10

lime+

5cement+

5FA

UCC

strength

10591kP

a13828

kPa

Wangetal[31]

Marines

edim

ents+3

lime+

3FA

UCC

strength

sim08M

Pasim11

MPa

Marines

edim

ents+6

cement+

3FA

UCC

strength

sim21M

Pasim17

MPa

Bhuvaneshw

arietal[32]

Disp

ersiv

eclay+2

lime+

15

FA

dispersio

n(fr

eesw

ell)

400

sim420

dispersio

n(dou

bleh

ydrometer)

95

1

Bagh

erietal[33]

Silty

sand

+10

cement-lim

e-RH

A(25

5025)

UCC

strength

sim550k

Pasim60

0kPa

Triaxialshear

(i)Coh

esion

997kP

a1088k

Pa(ii)F

rictio

n3066∘

3422∘

Bashae

tal[34]

Resid

ualsoil+

6ndash8

cement+

15ndash20

RHA

UCC

strength

sim032

MPa

12MPa

CBR

6sim52

James

etal[35]

Blackcotto

nsoil+12

RHA+6

lime

Swell-shrink

(i)Sh

rinkage

limit

sim15

sim23

(ii)F

rees

well

sim60

sim32

Jhaa

ndGill

[36]

Localsoil+

5ndash7

lime+

12

RHA

UCC

strength

08M

Pa14

MPa

Soaked

CBR

sim33

sim35

Choo

bbastietal[37]

Soil+4

lime+

5RH

A

Dire

ctshear

(i)Coh

esion

sim65

kPa

sim170k

Pa(ii)F

rictio

nangle

45∘

49∘

Soaked

CBR

31

49

Mun

tohare

tal[38]

Silty

soil+12

lime+

12

RHA+04

fibres

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

112k

Pa228k

PaSplit

tensile

strength

53k

Pa353kP

aSo

aked

CBR

22

40

Sharmae

tal[39]

Soil+4

lime+

12

RHA

UCC

strength

650k

Pa1180

kPa

CBR

623

Soil+1

calcium

chlorid

e+12

RHA

UCC

strength

415k

Pa856k

PaCB

R46

925

Roy[40]

Soil+6

cement+

10

RHA

UCC

strength

70kP

asim135k

PaCB

Rsim14

sim3

Olgunlowast

[41]

Expansives

oil+sim65

lime+sim15

RHA+sim08

fibres

UCC

strength

077

MPa

091MPa

Swellpressure

4kPa

2kPa

Wild

etal[43]

Kimmeridge

clay+4

lime+

6GGBS

UCC

strength

sim2000

kPa

3500

kPa

CelikandNalbantoglu

[44]

Highlyplastic

clay+5

lime+

6GGBS

Percentswell

sim8

lt1

Obu

zore

tal[45]

Lower

OxfordClay

+4

lime+

12

GGBS

UnsoakedUCC

strength

sim1500ndash200

0kPa

sim3000ndash4

800k

PaSo

aked

UCC

strength

sim500k

Pasim2500ndash340

0kPa

Obu

zore

tal[46]

Lower

OxfordClay

+4

lime+

12

GGBS

Water

absorptio

n4ndash

12

2ndash6

UCC

strength

lt500k

Pasim1500ndash200

0kPa

Kogbaraa

ndAl-T

abbaa[

47]

Con

taminated

soil+20

lime-sla

gUCC

strength

800k

PaPerm

eability

Datan

otrepo

rted

sim6times10minus8

ms

Con

taminated

soil+20

cement-s

lag

UCC

strength

560k

PaPerm

eability

sim5times10minus9

ms


Table2Con

tinued

Author(s)

Soil-op

timum

wastecombinatio

nMajor

geotechn

icalprop

ertie

stested

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

only

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

ampadditiv

e

Vijayaragh

avan

etallowast[48]

Mud

+25

cement+

50

slag

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

712M

Pa83M

PaWater

absorptio

n75

629

Degirm

encietal[49]

Soil+75

cement+

75

PGUCC

strength

sim700k

Pasim700k

Pa

Kumar

etallowast[56]

Benton

ite+8

lime+

8PG

UCC

strength

sim60

0kPa

sim850k

PaCB

R892

11889

Gho

sh[57]

Pond

ash+10

lime+

1PG

UnsoakedCB

R1616

72217

8So

aked

CBR

1457

21665

James

andPand

ian[58]

Expansives

oil+

7lim

e+1

PGUCC

strength

1881kP

a2251kP

aKu

mar

andDutta[59]

Benton

ite+8

lime+

8PG

+1

sisalfib

res

UCC

strength

sim850k

Pasim1150

kPa

ManikandanandMoganrajlowast

[64]

Expansives

oil+

2-3

lime+

2ndash6

BAUCC

strength

632k

Pa990k

PaCoefficiento

fcon

solid

ation

762times10minus3

cm2

min

146times10minus3

cm2

min

Alavez-Ra

mıre

zetal[65]

Soil+10

lime+

10

BACom

pressiv

estre

ngth

165MPa

213MPa

Flexuralstr

ength

112M

Pa14

MPa

Soaked

compressiv

estre

ngth

555

MPa

772M

Pa

Sadeeq

etal[66

]Lateriticsoil+8

lime+

6BA

UCC

strength

600k

Pa698k

PaUnsoakedCB

R28

43

Soaked

CBR

15

22

Muazu

[6869]

Lateriticsoil+4

cement+

8BA

Coh

esion

60kP

a30

kPa

Ang

leof

frictio

n27∘

34∘

Plastic

ity95

1

Onyelo

we[67]

Lateriticsoil+6

cement+

10

BACB

R873

1376

Limae

tal[70]

Sand

ysoil+6

cement+

8BA

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

070

MPa

154M

PaWater

absorptio

n1241

1186

Sand

ysoil+12

cement+

8BA

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

313MPa

289

MPa

Water

absorptio

n1194

1211

Moayedetal[71]

Salin

esiltysand

+2

lime+

1ndash3

micro

silica

UCC

strength

526k

Pa573k

PaSo

aked

CBR

92

114

Kalkan

[72]

Clayey

soil+4

lime+

16

micro

silica

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

12kP

a122kP

aCB

R103

253

Oza

andGun

daliya[

73]

Blackcotto

nsoil+45

lime+

45

cementw

astedu

stCom

pressiv

estre

ngth

1091M

Pa1441M

PaAhm

adetal[74]

Peatsoil+20

cement+

10

palm

oilfuelash

UCC

strength

sim90

kPa

sim125k

PaSeco

etal[75]

Soil+4

lime+

5ric

ehuskFA

UCC

strength

0399M

Pa15

72MPa

Seco

etal[76]

Greymarl+

4lim

e+5

riceh

uskFA

UCC

strength

sim053

MPa

sim2M

PaCB

R40

135

Chen

andLinlowast

[77]

Soil+16

sewages

ludgea

shndashcement(4

1)UCC

strength

100k

Pa225k

PaCB

R12ndash15

65ndash85

Rahm

atandIsmaillowast

[78]

Lower

OxfordClay

+20

WSA

-lime(90

10)

UCC

strength

sim800k

Pasim2300

kPa

Lower

OxfordClay

+20

WSA

-cem

ent(90

10)

UCC

strength

sim500k

Pasim2300

kPa

Lisbon

aetal[79]

Soil+3

cement+

1CP

SUCC

strength

78MPa

98MPa

James

andPand

ian[80]

Expansives

oil+

7lim

e+2

PMUCC

strength

sim1500

kPa

sim2000

kPa

Expansives

oil+

4cement+

8ceramicdu

stUCC

strength

2000

kPa

4000

kPa

Okonk

woetal[82]

Lateriticsoil+8

cement+

10

eggshellash

UCC

strength

655k

Pa988k

PaCB

R82

93

lowastRe

sults

comparis

onbetweenop

timized

andno

noptim

ized

values

simrepresentsapproxim

atev

aluesreadfro

mrepo

rted

graphicalillu

strations


adopted in strength investigations with limecement out ofwhich WSA proves to be a promising waste additive

The overall comparison shows that FA has the advantageof being an universally and frequently adopted additive withlimecement supported by proven results It is also producedin huge quantities thereby leading to ready availabilityHowever there is a possibility of reduced performance whenFA is combined with cement as in the case ofWang et al [31]RHA on the other hand has shown consistency in producinggood strength results and also produces fairly good swellcontrol effect when combined with limecement GGBS hasthe advantage of good swell control when admixed with limeespecially in sulphate-rich soils PG produces fair strengthresults but is known to have small quantities of radioactivematerials Moreover there is possibility of PG producingadverse effects with lime stabilization of soil due to presenceof sulphate in PG BA produces high strength and bearingwith cement in stabilization of lateritic soils It also producesgood compressive strengths in stabilized soil blocks withcementlime

3 Conclusions and Recommendations

To summarize generation of industrial wastes on a large scalebegan with industrial revolution leading to increasing stan-dards of living but degrading environment Alarming propor-tions of waste generated required a long time to be realizedleading to waste management as a discipline of concern Butit soon generated enough involvement founded upon theconcern for environment resulting in active research in thefield Soil stabilization has recently grown into an area ofeffective waste management However utilization of wastesin soil stabilization can be either as stabilizers themselves oras auxiliary additives to conventional primary stabilizers likelimecement This paper reviews the various works carriedout using different industrial wastes like FA RHA PG BAand GGBS and a few other lesser knownadopted wastesin soil stabilization as additives to limecement Based onthe review of literature on utilization of solid wastes asadditives to limecement stabilization of soils the followingconclusions can be drawn and suitable recommendations areput forward

31 Conclusions At the outset the first inference obtainedfrom comparison of individual results of stabilization is thataddition of waste materials to limecement in soil stabiliza-tion produced better results than pure limecement stabiliza-tion with only a few exemptions which produced results onthe contrary The extent of improvement varies from meagreto enormous depending upon the combinations Most of theresearchers have concentrated on stabilization of fine-grainedexpansive soilsclayey soils whichmay be predominantly dueto the effectiveness of chemical stabilizationwith fine-grainedsoils Works involving stabilization of silts and silty sandsare minimal in literature Effectiveness of other methods ofground improvement like grouting may be the reason forless concentration of literature in the area of stabilizationof coarse grained soils Dispersive clays have been dealtwith in a number of investigations but combinations of

lime and industrial wastes in their treatment are meagre Inthe available literature combinations of cementlime havebeen with pozzolans from natural sources for dispersive clayimprovement

Index properties like Atterberg limits compaction char-acteristics particle size distribution and so forth have beenpredominantly dealt with bymost of the researchersMajorityof the researchers have adopted UCC strength test as thepreferred mode of evaluation of strength of the stabilized soildue to quickness and ease of use of the test Other modesof strength evaluation like direct shear and triaxial shear arevery limited Permeability and compressibility seem to beleast concentrated upon among the engineering propertiesin stabilization Several investigators have started to adoptadvanced investigations like X-ray fluorescence XRD EDSSEM transmission electron microscopy TGA and mercuryintrusion porosimetry to analyze various properties likechemical compositionmineralogical composition elementalcomposition microstructure thermal stability propertiespore structure composition and so forth However the use ofXRF XRD and SEMhas becomemore common for chemicalmineralogical and microstructural investigations of soil andstabilized soil specimens as an effective tool for explaining thechemical changes taking place and resulting microstructuralmodifications due to stabilization Since a lot of stabilizationresearch is concentrated on mitigation of volume changebehavior of expansive soils swelling investigations have beengiven profound importance to carry out inclusive researchThey include calculation of total swell percentage swell swellpressure and free swell Nevertheless the complimentarycharacter of shrinkage has not been accorded the same degreeof detail A few authors though have evaluated the shrinkagelimit and linear shrinkage of stabilized soils

Literature indicates that lime stabilization loses effec-tiveness under extreme conditions like alternate cycles ofwetting and drying Thus there have been research worksto study combinations of industrial wastes with limecementunder extreme conditions like alternate wetting and dryingfreeze-thaw cycles pH variations presence of compoundssuch as sulphates and salts and cyclic loading Howeverinvestigations in these areas have been limited with a fewindustrial wastes as additives to lime in enhancing its resis-tance to loss of strength due to wetting-drying and freeze-thaw cycles Investigations of cementlime stabilization insulphate-rich soils are also moderate But here again onlythe potential of a few industrial wastes in mitigating thedisastrous effects of sulphate compounds in soil has beendealt with Investigations pertaining to the effect of loadingrate and cyclic loading on combinations of limecementwith industrial wastes are also very finite The potentialof industrial wastes in combination with limecement inmitigating contaminated soil degradation improvement ofits geotechnical properties and containment of contaminantmigration has been touched upon by researchers Availableliterature indicates that such wastes can play an efficientrole in containment of migration of contaminants and alsoimprove geotechnical properties of the contaminated soil Butthe geoenvironmental side of soil stabilization in pollutantcontrol still remains unexplored to its full potential


Curing plays an important role in the development ofstrength of lime as well as cement stabilized soils Howeverthere has been no comparative effort on the effect of differentmethods of curing for stabilized soils Also the effect ofthese curing conditions on combination stabilization oflimecement and industrial wastes is limited When usingindustrial wastes as additives the reactive nature of theadditive plays an important role in the progress of thechemical reaction and hence the stabilization achieved Thereactive nature of industrial wastes can be improved byactivating themby either thermal or alkaline activationThesemodes of achieving enhanced chemical reactions of additivesby activation in soil stabilization with limecement are alsovery finite A lot of lesser known industrial wastes can beeffective additives to lime or cement by activationWastes likered mud lead-zinc slag phosphorus furnace slag jarositekimberlite silica fumes sewage sludge ash paper sludge andits ash press mud and egg shell ash can be researched furtherand activation technique can be used effectively to reveal theirpotential in soil stabilization with limecement

32 Recommendations for Future Work Lime stabilizationhas been and still is one of the preferred methods of soilstabilization for expansive soilsThe concepts of ICL andOLChave been well established through detailed investigativeworks However in works of combinations of lime withpozzolans very few researchers have adopted the scientifi-cally established concepts of ICL and OLC for stabilizationA lot of researchers still adopt trial and error method foridentifying lime contents for use in soil stabilization withpozzolans It is also noticed that investigators adopted eitherICL or OLC while investigating lime stabilization of soilswith pozzolans Very limited research has been carried outwherein a comparison of the effects of these two scientificallyestablished lime contents has been dealt with Consideringthe case of lime-pozzolan stabilization work details arefurther limited Thus lime-pozzolan stabilization comparingthe performance at ICL and OLC can be taken up in futureinvestigations Combinations of lime and waste materialsas pozzolans have been dealt with in detail however thepozzolan contents adopted in earlier works have generallybeen high Effect of low pozzolan content can be taken upfor further research Combinations of lime cement andindustrial wastes can also be investigated in detail

Swell control potential of FA can be probed in order tofurther reinforce it as a universal pozzolanic additive in soilstabilization Permeability and compressibility performanceof limecement stabilized soils with FA RHA and GGBScan be taken up to complement existing literature BA hasbeen very effectively used in cement concrete as replacementfor binder It has also been used in stabilized soil blocks incombination with cement as well as in soil stabilization bothindividually and as an additive to cementlime Howeverearlier investigations of BA with lime have been limited withconclusions terming the combination insufficient In orderto thoroughly scrutinize the combination more detailedinvestigations with different soils must be carried out Lastlyother lesser adopted promising additives like ceramic dustconventionally adopted as pozzolan in mortars and concrete

pressmud andWSA can be researched for revealing their fullpotential in limecement stabilization of soils

Notations Used

FA Fly ashPG PhosphogypsumCa(OH)

2 Calcium hydroxide

Ca2+ Divalent calcium ionOHminus Hydroxyl ionCSH Calcium silicate hydrateCAH Calcium aluminate hydrateSiO2 Silica

Al2O3 Alumina

mm MillimetreCBR California Bearing RatioSEM Scanning electron microscopyXRD X-ray diffractionGGBS Ground Granulated Blast furnace SlagUCC Unconfined compressionOMC Optimummoisture contentMDD Maximum dry densityRHA Rice husk ashBA Bagasse ashWSA Waste paper sludge ashCPS Calcined paper sludgeICL Initial consumption of limeOLC Optimum lime content

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgment

The authors are indebted to Dr S Vidhya Lakshmi AssociateProfessor and Head Civil Engineering SA EngineeringCollege Chennai India for spending her valuable time inproofreading this paper

References

[1] Central Electricity Authority Report on Fly Ash Generation atCoalLignite BasedThermal Power Stations and Its Utilization inthe Country for the Year 2014-15 Central Electricity AuthorityNew Delhi India 2015

[2] Central Electricity Authority Report on Fly Ash Generation atCoalLignite BasedThermal Power Stations and Its Utilization inthe Country for the Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 Central ElectricityAuthority New Delhi India 2014


[4] Central Electricity Authority Report on Fly Ash Generation atCoalLignite BasedThermal Power Stations and its Utilization inthe Country for the Year 2010-11 2011


[5] Central Electricity Authority Annual Report 2010-11 CentralElectricity Authority New Delhi India 2011

[6] A K Sabat and S Pati ldquoA review of literature on stabilizationof expansive soil using solid wastesrdquo Electronic Journal ofGeotechnical Engineering vol 19 pp 6251ndash6267 2014

[7] P P Dahale P B Nagarnaik and A R Gajbhiye ldquoUtilization ofsolid waste for soil stabilization a reviewrdquo Electronic Journal ofGeotechnical Engineering vol 17 pp 2443ndash2461 2012

[8] M Singh and A Mittal ldquoReview on the soil stabilization withwaste materialsrdquo International Journal of Engineering Researchand Applications no 2 pp 11ndash16 2014

[9] Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Report of theWorking Group onCement Industry for XII Five Year Plan (2012ndash2017) Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion NewDelhi India 2011

[10] FICCI ldquoUsing Steel slag in infrastructure developmentrdquo FICCIBlog 2014 httpblogficcicomsteel-slag5291

[11] U V Parlikar P K Saha and S A Khadilkar ldquoTechnologicaloptions for effective utilization of bauxite residue (red mud)mdasha review generation of red mud in Indiardquo in Proceedings of theInternational Seminar on Bauxite Residue (Red Mud) pp 1ndash18ACC Limited Goa India October 2011

[12] Central Pollution Control Board Assessment of Utilisation ofIndustrial Solid Wastes in Cement Manufacturing New DelhiIndia 2006

[13] Central Pollution Control Board Guidelines for Managementand Handling of Phosphogypsum Generated from PhosphoricAcid Plants (Final Draft) New Delhi India 2012

[14] S Bhuvaneswari T Thyagaraj R G Robinson and S RGandhi ldquoAlternative technique to induce faster lime stabiliza-tion reaction in deeper expansive stratardquo in Proceedings of theIndian Geotechnical Conference (GEOtrendz rsquo10) pp 609ndash612Mumbai India December 2010

[15] ZMetelkova J Bohac R Prikryl and I Sedlarova ldquoMaturationof loess treated with variable lime admixture pore spacetextural evolution and related phase changesrdquo Applied ClayScience vol 61 pp 37ndash43 2012

[16] G Rajasekaran ldquoSulphate attack and ettringite formation in thelime and cement stabilized marine claysrdquo Ocean Engineeringvol 32 no 8-9 pp 1133ndash1159 2005

[17] D N Little Handbook for Stabilization of Pavement Subgradesand Base Courses with Lime Kendall Hunt Publishing Com-pany Austin Tex USA 1995

[18] S M Rao and P Shivananda ldquoRole of curing temperature inprogress of lime-soil reactionsrdquo Geotechnical amp Geological Eng-ineering vol 23 no 1 pp 79ndash85 2005

[19] JMallelaHVQuintus andK L SmithConsideration of Lime-Stabilized Layers in Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement DesignNational Lime Association Champaign Ill USA 2004

[20] Department of Transport and Main Roads Lime Treatmentof Clay Subgrades Department of Transport and Main RoadsQueensland Australia 2000

[21] DN Little EHMales J R Prusinski andB Stewart ldquoCemen-titious stabilizationrdquo Transportation Research Board pp1ndash7 2000 httppubsindextrborgviewaspxid=639997

[22] Z Ji-ru and C Xing ldquoStabilization of expansive soil by lime andfly ashrdquo Journal of Wuhan University of TechnologymdashMaterialsScience Edition vol 17 no 4 pp 73ndash77 2002

[23] A K Sabat ldquoStabilization of expansive soil using waste ceramicdustrdquo Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering vol 17 pp3915ndash3926 2012

[24] S Bhuvaneshwari R G Robinson and S R GandhildquoBehaviour of lime treated cured expansive soil compositesrdquoIndian Geotechnical Journal vol 44 no 3 pp 278ndash293 2014

[25] A Sridharan and K Prakash ldquoClassification procedures forexpansive soilsrdquo Geotechnical Engineering vol 143 no 4 pp235ndash240 2000

[26] N K Sharma S K Swain and U C Sahoo ldquoStabilization ofa clayey soil with fly ash and lime a micro level investigationrdquoGeotechnical and Geological Engineering vol 30 no 5 pp 1197ndash1205 2012

[27] E N K Mishra ldquoStrength characteristics of clayey sub-gradesoil stabilized with fly ash and lime for road worksrdquo IndianGeotechnical Journal vol 42 no 3 pp 206ndash211 2012

[28] M J Mccarthy L J Csetenyi A Sachdeva and R K DhirldquoEngineering and durability properties of fly ash treated lime-stabilised sulphate-bearing soilsrdquo Engineering Geology vol 174pp 139ndash148 2014

[29] P K Kolay M R Aminur S N L Taib andM I S Mohd ZainldquoStabilization of tropical peat soil from Sarawak with differentstabilizing agentsrdquoGeotechnical and Geological Engineering vol29 no 6 pp 1135ndash1141 2011

[30] S J Shah A V Shroff J V Patel K C Tiwari and D Ramakr-ishnan ldquoStabilization of fuel oil contaminated soilmdasha casestudyrdquo Geotechnical and Geological Engineering vol 21 no 4pp 415ndash427 2003

[31] D Wang N E Abriak and R Zentar ldquoStrength and deforma-tion properties of Dunkirk marine sediments solidified withcement lime and fly ashrdquo Engineering Geology vol 166 pp 90ndash99 2013

[32] S Bhuvaneshwari B Soundra R G Robinson and S RGandhi ldquoStabilization and microstructural modification of dis-persive clayey soilsrdquo in Proceedings of the 1st International Con-ference on Soil andRock Engineering pp 1ndash7 SrilankanGeotech-nical Society Colombo Sri Lanka August 2007

[33] Y Bagheri F Ahmad and M A M Ismail ldquoStrength andmechanical behavior of soil-cement-lime-rice husk ash (soil-CLR) mixturerdquoMaterials and Structures vol 47 no 1-2 pp 55ndash66 2014

[34] E A Basha R Hashim H B Mahmud and A S MuntoharldquoStabilization of residual soil with rice husk ash and cementrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 19 no 6 pp 448ndash4532005

[35] J James S V Lakshmi P K Pandian and S Aravindan ldquoEffectof lime on the index properties of rice husk ash stabilized soilrdquoInternational Journal of Applied Engineering Research vol 9 no18 pp 4263ndash4272 2014

[36] J N Jha and K S Gill ldquoEffect of rice husk ash on limestabilizationrdquo Journal of the Institution of Engineers vol 87 pp33ndash39 2006

[37] A J Choobbasti H Ghodrat M J Vahdatirad et al ldquoInfluenceof using rice husk ash in soil stabilization method with limerdquoFrontiers of Earth Science in China vol 4 no 4 pp 471ndash4802010

[38] A S Muntohar A Widianti E Hartono and W DianaldquoEngineering properties of silty soil stabilized with lime andrice husk ash and reinforced with waste plastic fiberrdquo Journal ofMaterials in Civil Engineering vol 25 no 9 pp 1260ndash1270 2013

[39] R S Sharma B R Phanikumar and B V Rao ldquoEngineeringbehavior of a remolded expansive clay blended with limecalcium chloride and rice-husk ashrdquo Journal of Materials inCivil Engineering vol 20 no 8 pp 509ndash515 2008


[40] A Roy ldquoSoil stabilization using rice husk ash and cementrdquo Inter-national Journal of Civil Engineering Research vol 5 no 1 pp49ndash54 2014

[41] M Olgun ldquoThe effects and optimization of additives for expan-sive clays under freeze-thaw conditionsrdquo Cold Regions Sci-ence and Technology vol 93 pp 36ndash46 2013

[42] National Slag Association ldquoBlast Furnace Slagrdquo 2013 httpwwwnationalslagorgblast-furnace-slag

[43] S Wild J M Kinuthia G I Jones and D D Higgins ldquoEffectsof partial substitution of lime with ground granulated blast fur-nace slag (GGBS) on the strength properties of lime-stabilisedsulphate-bearing clay soilsrdquo Engineering Geology vol 51no 1 pp 37ndash53 1998

[44] E Celik and Z Nalbantoglu ldquoEffects of ground granulatedblastfurnace slag (GGBS) on the swelling properties of lime-stabilized sulfate-bearing soilsrdquo Engineering Geology vol 163pp 20ndash25 2013

[45] G N Obuzor J M Kinuthia and R B Robinson ldquoSoil sta-bilisation with lime-activated-GGBSmdasha mitigation to floodingeffects on road structural layersembankments constructed onfloodplainsrdquo Engineering Geology vol 151 pp 112ndash119 2012

[46] G N Obuzor J M Kinuthia and R B Robinson ldquoEnhancingthe durability of flooded low-capacity soils by utilizing lime-activated ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS)rdquo Engi-neering Geology vol 123 no 3 pp 179ndash186 2011

[47] R B Kogbara and A Al-Tabbaa ldquoMechanical and leachingbehaviour of slag-cement and lime-activated slag stabilisedsolidified contaminated soilrdquo Science of the Total Environmentvol 409 no 11 pp 2325ndash2335 2011

[48] CVijayaraghavan J James and SMarithangam ldquoCost effectivebricks in construction a performance studyrdquo International Jour-nal of Applied Engineering Research vol 4 no 3 pp 227ndash3342009

[49] N Degirmenci A Okucu and A Turabi ldquoApplication of phos-phogypsum in soil stabilizationrdquoBuilding and Environment vol42 no 9 pp 3393ndash3398 2007

[50] H Tayibi M Choura F A Lopez F J Alguacil and A Lopez-Delgado ldquoEnvironmental impact and management of phos-phogypsumrdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 90no 8 pp 2377ndash2386 2009

[51] L A Reijnders ldquoCleaner phosphogypsum coal combustionashes and waste incineration ashes for application in buildingmaterials a reviewrdquoBuilding and Environment vol 42 no 2 pp1036ndash1042 2007

[52] K A Rusch T Guo and R K Seals ldquoStabilization of phos-phogypsum using class C fly ash and lime assessment of thepotential for marine applicationsrdquo Journal of Hazardous Mate-rials vol 93 no 2 pp 167ndash186 2002

[53] N Degirmenci ldquoThe using of waste phosphogypsum and nat-ural gypsum in adobe stabilizationrdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 22 no 6 pp 1220ndash1224 2008

[54] N Degirmenci ldquoUtilization of phosphogypsum as raw andcalcined material in manufacturing of building productsrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 22 no 8 pp 1857ndash18622008

[55] R Shweikani M Kousa and F Mizban ldquoThe use of phosph-ogypsum in Syrian cement industry radiation dose to publicrdquoAnnals of Nuclear Energy vol 54 pp 197ndash201 2013

[56] S Kumar R K Dutta and BMohanty ldquoEngineering propertiesof bentonite stabilized with lime and phosphogypsumrdquo SlovakJournal of Civil Engineering vol 22 no 4 pp 35ndash44 2014

[57] A Ghosh ldquoCompaction characteristics and bearing ratio ofpond ash stabilized with lime and phosphogypsumrdquo Journal ofMaterials in Civil Engineering vol 22 no 4 pp 343ndash351 2010

[58] J James and P K Pandian ldquoEffect of phosphogypsum onstrength of lime stabilized expansive soilrdquo Gradevinar vol 66no 12 pp 1109ndash1116 2014

[59] S Kumar and R K Dutta ldquoUnconfined compressive strength ofbentonite-lime-phosphogypsum mixture reinforced with sisalfibersrdquo Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering vol 8 no 3 pp 239ndash250 2014

[60] RNaik S J K Annamalai NVNair andNR Prasad ldquoStudieson mechanisation of planting of sugarcane bud chip settlingsraised in protraysrdquo Sugar Tech vol 15 no 1 pp 27ndash35 2013

[61] M Balakrishnan and V S Batra ldquoValorization of solid wastein sugar factories with possible applications in India a reviewrdquoJournal of Environmental Management vol 92 no 11 pp 2886ndash2891 2011

[62] N Partha andV Sivasubramanian ldquoRecovery of chemicals frompressmudmdasha sugar industry wasterdquo Indian Chemical Engineervol 48 no 3 pp 160ndash163 2006

[63] R L Yadav and S Solomon ldquoPotential of developing sugarcaneby-product based industries in Indiardquo Sugar Tech vol 8 no 2-3pp 104ndash111 2006

[64] A T Manikandan and M Moganraj ldquoConsolidation andrebound characteristics of expansive soil by using lime andbagasse ashrdquo International Journal of Research in Engineeringand Technology vol 3 no 4 pp 403ndash411 2014

[65] R Alavez-Ramırez P Montes-Garcıa J Martınez-Reyes D CAltamirano-Juarez and Y Gochi-Ponce ldquoThe use of sugarcanebagasse ash and lime to improve the durability and mechanicalproperties of compacted soil blocksrdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 34 pp 296ndash305 2012

[66] J A Sadeeq J Ochepo A B Salahuddin and S T TijjanildquoEffect of bagasse ash on lime stabilized lateritic soilrdquo JordanJournal of Civil Engineering vol 9 no 2 pp 203ndash213 2015

[67] K C Onyelowe ldquoCement stabilized akwuete lateritic soil andthe use of bagasse ash as admixturerdquo International Journal ofScience and Engineering Investigations vol 1 no 2 pp 16ndash202012

[68] M A Muazu ldquoInfluence of compactive effort on bagasse ashwith cement treated lateritic soilrdquo Leonardo Electronic Journalof Practices and Technologies vol 10 no 1 pp 79ndash92 2007

[69] M A Muazu ldquoEvaluation of plasticity and particle size distri-bution characteristics of bagasse ash on cement treated lateriticsoilrdquoLeonardo Journal of Sciences vol 10 no 1 pp 137ndash152 2007

[70] S A Lima H Varum A Sales and V F Neto ldquoAnalysis ofthe mechanical properties of compressed earth block masonryusing the sugarcane bagasse ashrdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 35 pp 829ndash837 2012

[71] R Z Moayed E Izadi and S Heidari ldquoStabilization of salinesilty sand using lime and micro silicardquo Journal of Central SouthUniversity vol 19 no 10 pp 3006ndash3011 2012

[72] E Kalkan ldquoEffects of waste material-lime additive mixtures onmechanical properties of granular soilsrdquo Bulletin of EngineeringGeology and the Environment vol 71 no 1 pp 99ndash103 2012

[73] J B Oza and P J Gundaliya ldquoStudy of black cotton soilcharacteristics with cement waste dust and limerdquo ProcediaEngineering vol 51 pp 110ndash118 2013

[74] J Ahmad A S Abdul Rahman M R Mohd Ali and K F AbdRahman ldquoPeat soil treatment using POFArdquo in Proceedings ofthe IEEE Colloquium on Humanities Science and Engineering


(CHUSER rsquo11) pp 66ndash70 IEEE Penang Malaysia December2011

[75] A Seco F Ramırez L Miqueleiz and B Garcıa ldquoStabilizationof expansive soils for use in constructionrdquo Applied Clay Sciencevol 51 no 3 pp 348ndash352 2011

[76] A Seco F Ramırez L Miqueleiz B Garcıa and E PrietoldquoThe use of non-conventional additives in Marls stabilizationrdquoApplied Clay Science vol 51 no 4 pp 419ndash423 2011

[77] L Chen and D-F Lin ldquoStabilization treatment of soft subgradesoil by sewage sludge ash and cementrdquo Journal of HazardousMaterials vol 162 no 1 pp 321ndash327 2009

[78] M N Rahmat and N Ismail ldquoSustainable stabilisation of theLower Oxford Clay by non-traditional binderrdquo Applied ClayScience vol 52 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2011

[79] A Lisbona I Vegas J Ainchil and C Rıos ldquoSoil stabilizationwith calcined paper sludge laboratory and field testsrdquo Journal ofMaterials in Civil Engineering vol 24 no 6 pp 666ndash673 2012

[80] J James andPK Pandian ldquoA study on the earlyUCC strength ofstabilized soil admixedwith industrial wastematerialsrdquo Interna-tional Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering vol 7 no 3 pp1055ndash1063 2014

[81] J James and P K Pandian ldquoEffect of micro ceramic dust onthe plasticity and swell index of lime stabilized expansive soilrdquoInternational Journal of Applied Engineering Research vol 10no 42 pp 30647ndash30650 2015

[82] U N Okonkwo I C Odiong and E E Akpabio ldquoThe effectsof eggshell ash on the strength properties of cement stabilizedlateriticrdquo International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engi-neering Technology vol 3 no 1 pp 18ndash25 2012

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of



RotatingMachinery


Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration


Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in



Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics


Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of


Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation




Navigation and Observation



DistributedSensor Networks



Agriculture193 Mine filling 13

Reclamation of low lying areas

1077

Ash dyke raising 956

Hydropower sector 001

Concrete 074Roads and

flyovers 332Cement 4226

Bricks and tiles 1172

Others 670

Figure 1 Modes of utilization of FA in the year 2014-15 [1]

Total utilizationUtilization in roads and flyoversUtilization in reclamation of low lying areasCombined utilization in both

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fly

ash

utili

zatio

n (m

illio

n to

n)

1998-99

1999-2000

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

Figure 2 Utilization of FA in areas of soil engineering [1ndash5]

largest industrial solid wastes produced in India followed bysteel slag phosphogypsum (PG) and blast furnace slag Thefigure for mine rejects is the combined waste produced fromvarious sources and types of mines

Thus industrial wastes reuse in soil stabilization is a rel-atively new avenue for effective utilization and managementof solid wastes Along with soil stabilization use of industrialsolid wastes in geotechnical fill applications can be aneffective avenue for waste management purposes Howeverutilization of solid wastes in geotechnical fill applicationsis a different aspect of soil engineering which is not goingto be dealt with in this paper A few earlier authors havereviewed the use of solid wastes in soil improvement [6ndash8]However these treat application of solid wastes as a whole inall combinations and have not differentiated between solidwastes as a standalone stabilizer and as auxiliary additivesto primary stabilizers In this paper only the utilization ofsolid wastes as auxiliary additives has been dealt with Thereason for this approach is the difference in stabilization

Table 1 Major industrial solid wastes generated in India

Name of the solid waste Annual production (million tons)FA 18414 [1]Blast furnace slags 10 [9]Steel slag 12 [10]Red mud 471 [11]Lime sludge 45 [12]Lead-zinc slag 05 [12]Phosphorus furnace slag 05 [12]PG 11 [13]Jarosite 06 [12]Kimberlite 06 [12]Mine rejects 750 [12]

performance achieved by solid wastes as stabilizers and solidwastes as additives to primary stabilizers

2 Industrial Wastes as Additives toLimeCement in Soil Stabilization

Chemical stabilization is a major category of soil stabilizationinvolving the use of chemical agents for initiating reactionswithin the soil for modification of its geotechnical propertiesCement and lime stabilization have been the most commonstabilization methods adopted for soil treatment Cementstabilization results in good compressive strength and ispreferred for cohesionless to moderately cohesive soil butloses effectiveness in the case of highly plastic soil Limestabilization is the preferred method of treatment for plasticclays however it is ineffective in sulphate-rich clays andperforms poorly under extreme conditions In the light ofsuch drawbacks a lot of research has been undertaken toaddress the issues faced with each stabilization methodparticularly the use of solid wastes Reuse of solid wasteshas gained a lot of priority for achieving sustainable wastemanagement and hence they have been adopted in soilstabilization as standalone stabilizers as well as additives toaugment the performance of conventional stabilizers like limeand cement Sabat and Pati [6] classified solid wastes into fourmajor categories based on their source of generation as (i)industrial (ii) agricultural (iii) domestic and (iv) mineralsolid wastes In the present review however the authors havenot tried to classify based on source but have tried to discussmost frequently adopted and researched solid wastematerialsin soil stabilization

21 LimeCement Stabilization Reactions Before going intothe effect of additives on lime and cement stabilizationan understanding of the chemical reactions resulting uponaddition of additives to the soil is inevitable The addition oflime to soil initiates several reactions Lime soil reactions canbe broadly classified into short term and long term reactionsThe short term reactions include ion exchange floccula-tion [14] and carbonation [15] The long term pozzolanic











997888rarr CAH(4)











































































ble2Com

paris

onof

improvem

entsachieved

byvario

usauxiliary

additiv

es

Author(s)

Soil-op

timum

wastecombinatio

nMajor

geotechn

icalprop

ertie

stested

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

only

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

ampadditiv

e

Ji-ru

andXing

[22]

Expansives

oil+

4ndash6

oflim

e+40

ndash50

ofFA

CBR

265ndash1293

1193ndash1228

Swellin

gcapacity

0ndash570

0008ndash

002

Sharmae

tal[26]

Lowplastic

clay+20

FA+85

lime

UCC

strength

6338k

Pa1052k

PaCB

R403

57

Mish

ra[27]

Clayey

soil+3

lime+

30

FACB

R223

558

Mccarthyetal[28]


lime+

24

FAUCC

strength

sim11

MPa

22M

PaIm

mediatebearingindex

sim16

31


lime+

9GGBS

UCC

strength

sim11

MPa

19MPa


sim16

36

Kolayetal[29]

Peatsoil+6

quicklim

e+15

FAUCC

strength

sim70

kPa

sim90

kPa

Shah

etal[30]

Con

taminated

soil+10

lime+

5cement+

5FA

UCC

strength

10591kP

a13828

kPa

Wangetal[31]

Marines

edim

ents+3

lime+

3FA

UCC

strength

sim08M

Pasim11

MPa

Marines

edim

ents+6

cement+

3FA

UCC

strength

sim21M

Pasim17

MPa

Bhuvaneshw

arietal[32]

Disp

ersiv

eclay+2

lime+

15

FA

dispersio

n(fr

eesw

ell)

400

sim420

dispersio

n(dou

bleh

ydrometer)

95

1

Bagh

erietal[33]

Silty

sand

+10

cement-lim

e-RH

A(25

5025)

UCC

strength

sim550k

Pasim60

0kPa

Triaxialshear

(i)Coh

esion

997kP

a1088k

Pa(ii)F

rictio

n3066∘

3422∘

Bashae

tal[34]

Resid

ualsoil+

6ndash8

cement+

15ndash20

RHA

UCC

strength

sim032

MPa

12MPa

CBR

6sim52

James

etal[35]

Blackcotto

nsoil+12

RHA+6

lime

Swell-shrink

(i)Sh

rinkage

limit

sim15

sim23

(ii)F

rees

well

sim60

sim32

Jhaa

ndGill

[36]

Localsoil+

5ndash7

lime+

12

RHA

UCC

strength

08M

Pa14

MPa

Soaked

CBR

sim33

sim35

Choo

bbastietal[37]

Soil+4

lime+

5RH

A

Dire

ctshear

(i)Coh

esion

sim65

kPa

sim170k

Pa(ii)F

rictio

nangle

45∘

49∘

Soaked

CBR

31

49

Mun

tohare

tal[38]

Silty

soil+12

lime+

12

RHA+04

fibres

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

112k

Pa228k

PaSplit

tensile

strength

53k

Pa353kP

aSo

aked

CBR

22

40

Sharmae

tal[39]

Soil+4

lime+

12

RHA

UCC

strength

650k

Pa1180

kPa

CBR

623

Soil+1

calcium

chlorid

e+12

RHA

UCC

strength

415k

Pa856k

PaCB

R46

925

Roy[40]

Soil+6

cement+

10

RHA

UCC

strength

70kP

asim135k

PaCB

Rsim14

sim3

Olgunlowast

[41]

Expansives

oil+sim65

lime+sim15

RHA+sim08

fibres

UCC

strength

077

MPa

091MPa

Swellpressure

4kPa

2kPa

Wild

etal[43]

Kimmeridge

clay+4

lime+

6GGBS

UCC

strength

sim2000

kPa

3500

kPa

CelikandNalbantoglu

[44]

Highlyplastic

clay+5

lime+

6GGBS

Percentswell

sim8

lt1

Obu

zore

tal[45]

Lower

OxfordClay

+4

lime+

12

GGBS

UnsoakedUCC

strength

sim1500ndash200

0kPa

sim3000ndash4

800k

PaSo

aked

UCC

strength

sim500k

Pasim2500ndash340

0kPa

Obu

zore

tal[46]

Lower

OxfordClay

+4

lime+

12

GGBS

Water

absorptio

n4ndash

12

2ndash6

UCC

strength

lt500k

Pasim1500ndash200

0kPa

Kogbaraa

ndAl-T

abbaa[

47]

Con

taminated

soil+20

lime-sla

gUCC

strength

800k

PaPerm

eability

Datan

otrepo

rted

sim6times10minus8

ms

Con

taminated

soil+20

cement-s

lag

UCC

strength

560k

PaPerm

eability

sim5times10minus9

ms


Table2Con

tinued

Author(s)

Soil-op

timum

wastecombinatio

nMajor

geotechn

icalprop

ertie

stested

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

only

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

ampadditiv

e

Vijayaragh

avan

etallowast[48]

Mud

+25

cement+

50

slag

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

712M

Pa83M

PaWater

absorptio

n75

629

Degirm

encietal[49]

Soil+75

cement+

75

PGUCC

strength

sim700k

Pasim700k

Pa

Kumar

etallowast[56]

Benton

ite+8

lime+

8PG

UCC

strength

sim60

0kPa

sim850k

PaCB

R892

11889

Gho

sh[57]

Pond

ash+10

lime+

1PG

UnsoakedCB

R1616

72217

8So

aked

CBR

1457

21665

James

andPand

ian[58]

Expansives

oil+

7lim

e+1

PGUCC

strength

1881kP

a2251kP

aKu

mar

andDutta[59]

Benton

ite+8

lime+

8PG

+1

sisalfib

res

UCC

strength

sim850k

Pasim1150

kPa


[64]

Expansives

oil+

2-3

lime+

2ndash6

BAUCC

strength

632k

Pa990k

PaCoefficiento

fcon

solid

ation

762times10minus3

cm2

min

146times10minus3

cm2

min

Alavez-Ra

mıre

zetal[65]

Soil+10

lime+

10

BACom

pressiv

estre

ngth

165MPa

213MPa

Flexuralstr

ength

112M

Pa14

MPa

Soaked

compressiv

estre

ngth

555

MPa

772M

Pa

Sadeeq

etal[66

]Lateriticsoil+8

lime+

6BA

UCC

strength

600k

Pa698k

PaUnsoakedCB

R28

43

Soaked

CBR

15

22

Muazu

[6869]

Lateriticsoil+4

cement+

8BA

Coh

esion

60kP

a30

kPa

Ang

leof

frictio

n27∘

34∘

Plastic

ity95

1

Onyelo

we[67]

Lateriticsoil+6

cement+

10

BACB

R873

1376

Limae

tal[70]

Sand

ysoil+6

cement+

8BA

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

070

MPa

154M

PaWater

absorptio

n1241

1186

Sand

ysoil+12

cement+

8BA

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

313MPa

289

MPa

Water

absorptio

n1194

1211

Moayedetal[71]

Salin

esiltysand

+2

lime+

1ndash3

micro

silica

UCC

strength

526k

Pa573k

PaSo

aked

CBR

92

114

Kalkan

[72]

Clayey

soil+4

lime+

16

micro

silica

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

12kP

a122kP

aCB

R103

253

Oza

andGun

daliya[

73]

Blackcotto

nsoil+45

lime+

45

cementw

astedu

stCom

pressiv

estre

ngth

1091M

Pa1441M

PaAhm

adetal[74]

Peatsoil+20

cement+

10

palm

oilfuelash

UCC

strength

sim90

kPa

sim125k

PaSeco

etal[75]

Soil+4

lime+

5ric

ehuskFA

UCC

strength

0399M

Pa15

72MPa

Seco

etal[76]

Greymarl+

4lim

e+5

riceh

uskFA

UCC

strength

sim053

MPa

sim2M

PaCB

R40

135

Chen

andLinlowast

[77]

Soil+16

sewages

ludgea

shndashcement(4

1)UCC

strength

100k

Pa225k

PaCB

R12ndash15

65ndash85

Rahm

atandIsmaillowast

[78]

Lower

OxfordClay

+20

WSA

-lime(90

10)

UCC

strength

sim800k

Pasim2300

kPa

Lower

OxfordClay

+20

WSA

-cem

ent(90

10)

UCC

strength

sim500k

Pasim2300

kPa

Lisbon

aetal[79]

Soil+3

cement+

1CP

SUCC

strength

78MPa

98MPa

James

andPand

ian[80]

Expansives

oil+

7lim

e+2

PMUCC

strength

sim1500

kPa

sim2000

kPa

Expansives

oil+

4cement+

8ceramicdu

stUCC

strength

2000

kPa

4000

kPa

Okonk

woetal[82]

Lateriticsoil+8

cement+

10

eggshellash

UCC

strength

655k

Pa988k

PaCB

R82

93

lowastRe

sults

comparis

onbetweenop

timized

andno

noptim

ized

values


atev

aluesreadfro

mrepo

rted

graphicalillu

strations















Notations Used


2 Calcium hydroxide


Al2O3 Alumina




Acknowledgment


References

























































































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation



















997888rarr CAH(4)











































































ble2Com

paris

onof

improvem

entsachieved

byvario

usauxiliary

additiv

es

Author(s)

Soil-op

timum

wastecombinatio

nMajor

geotechn

icalprop

ertie

stested

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

only

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

ampadditiv

e

Ji-ru

andXing

[22]

Expansives

oil+

4ndash6

oflim

e+40

ndash50

ofFA

CBR

265ndash1293

1193ndash1228

Swellin

gcapacity

0ndash570

0008ndash

002

Sharmae

tal[26]

Lowplastic

clay+20

FA+85

lime

UCC

strength

6338k

Pa1052k

PaCB

R403

57

Mish

ra[27]

Clayey

soil+3

lime+

30

FACB

R223

558

Mccarthyetal[28]


lime+

24

FAUCC

strength

sim11

MPa

22M

PaIm

mediatebearingindex

sim16

31


lime+

9GGBS

UCC

strength

sim11

MPa

19MPa


sim16

36

Kolayetal[29]

Peatsoil+6

quicklim

e+15

FAUCC

strength

sim70

kPa

sim90

kPa

Shah

etal[30]

Con

taminated

soil+10

lime+

5cement+

5FA

UCC

strength

10591kP

a13828

kPa

Wangetal[31]

Marines

edim

ents+3

lime+

3FA

UCC

strength

sim08M

Pasim11

MPa

Marines

edim

ents+6

cement+

3FA

UCC

strength

sim21M

Pasim17

MPa

Bhuvaneshw

arietal[32]

Disp

ersiv

eclay+2

lime+

15

FA

dispersio

n(fr

eesw

ell)

400

sim420

dispersio

n(dou

bleh

ydrometer)

95

1

Bagh

erietal[33]

Silty

sand

+10

cement-lim

e-RH

A(25

5025)

UCC

strength

sim550k

Pasim60

0kPa

Triaxialshear

(i)Coh

esion

997kP

a1088k

Pa(ii)F

rictio

n3066∘

3422∘

Bashae

tal[34]

Resid

ualsoil+

6ndash8

cement+

15ndash20

RHA

UCC

strength

sim032

MPa

12MPa

CBR

6sim52

James

etal[35]

Blackcotto

nsoil+12

RHA+6

lime

Swell-shrink

(i)Sh

rinkage

limit

sim15

sim23

(ii)F

rees

well

sim60

sim32

Jhaa

ndGill

[36]

Localsoil+

5ndash7

lime+

12

RHA

UCC

strength

08M

Pa14

MPa

Soaked

CBR

sim33

sim35

Choo

bbastietal[37]

Soil+4

lime+

5RH

A

Dire

ctshear

(i)Coh

esion

sim65

kPa

sim170k

Pa(ii)F

rictio

nangle

45∘

49∘

Soaked

CBR

31

49

Mun

tohare

tal[38]

Silty

soil+12

lime+

12

RHA+04

fibres

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

112k

Pa228k

PaSplit

tensile

strength

53k

Pa353kP

aSo

aked

CBR

22

40

Sharmae

tal[39]

Soil+4

lime+

12

RHA

UCC

strength

650k

Pa1180

kPa

CBR

623

Soil+1

calcium

chlorid

e+12

RHA

UCC

strength

415k

Pa856k

PaCB

R46

925

Roy[40]

Soil+6

cement+

10

RHA

UCC

strength

70kP

asim135k

PaCB

Rsim14

sim3

Olgunlowast

[41]

Expansives

oil+sim65

lime+sim15

RHA+sim08

fibres

UCC

strength

077

MPa

091MPa

Swellpressure

4kPa

2kPa

Wild

etal[43]

Kimmeridge

clay+4

lime+

6GGBS

UCC

strength

sim2000

kPa

3500

kPa

CelikandNalbantoglu

[44]

Highlyplastic

clay+5

lime+

6GGBS

Percentswell

sim8

lt1

Obu

zore

tal[45]

Lower

OxfordClay

+4

lime+

12

GGBS

UnsoakedUCC

strength

sim1500ndash200

0kPa

sim3000ndash4

800k

PaSo

aked

UCC

strength

sim500k

Pasim2500ndash340

0kPa

Obu

zore

tal[46]

Lower

OxfordClay

+4

lime+

12

GGBS

Water

absorptio

n4ndash

12

2ndash6

UCC

strength

lt500k

Pasim1500ndash200

0kPa

Kogbaraa

ndAl-T

abbaa[

47]

Con

taminated

soil+20

lime-sla

gUCC

strength

800k

PaPerm

eability

Datan

otrepo

rted

sim6times10minus8

ms

Con

taminated

soil+20

cement-s

lag

UCC

strength

560k

PaPerm

eability

sim5times10minus9

ms


Table2Con

tinued

Author(s)

Soil-op

timum

wastecombinatio

nMajor

geotechn

icalprop

ertie

stested

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

only

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

ampadditiv

e

Vijayaragh

avan

etallowast[48]

Mud

+25

cement+

50

slag

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

712M

Pa83M

PaWater

absorptio

n75

629

Degirm

encietal[49]

Soil+75

cement+

75

PGUCC

strength

sim700k

Pasim700k

Pa

Kumar

etallowast[56]

Benton

ite+8

lime+

8PG

UCC

strength

sim60

0kPa

sim850k

PaCB

R892

11889

Gho

sh[57]

Pond

ash+10

lime+

1PG

UnsoakedCB

R1616

72217

8So

aked

CBR

1457

21665

James

andPand

ian[58]

Expansives

oil+

7lim

e+1

PGUCC

strength

1881kP

a2251kP

aKu

mar

andDutta[59]

Benton

ite+8

lime+

8PG

+1

sisalfib

res

UCC

strength

sim850k

Pasim1150

kPa


[64]

Expansives

oil+

2-3

lime+

2ndash6

BAUCC

strength

632k

Pa990k

PaCoefficiento

fcon

solid

ation

762times10minus3

cm2

min

146times10minus3

cm2

min

Alavez-Ra

mıre

zetal[65]

Soil+10

lime+

10

BACom

pressiv

estre

ngth

165MPa

213MPa

Flexuralstr

ength

112M

Pa14

MPa

Soaked

compressiv

estre

ngth

555

MPa

772M

Pa

Sadeeq

etal[66

]Lateriticsoil+8

lime+

6BA

UCC

strength

600k

Pa698k

PaUnsoakedCB

R28

43

Soaked

CBR

15

22

Muazu

[6869]

Lateriticsoil+4

cement+

8BA

Coh

esion

60kP

a30

kPa

Ang

leof

frictio

n27∘

34∘

Plastic

ity95

1

Onyelo

we[67]

Lateriticsoil+6

cement+

10

BACB

R873

1376

Limae

tal[70]

Sand

ysoil+6

cement+

8BA

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

070

MPa

154M

PaWater

absorptio

n1241

1186

Sand

ysoil+12

cement+

8BA

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

313MPa

289

MPa

Water

absorptio

n1194

1211

Moayedetal[71]

Salin

esiltysand

+2

lime+

1ndash3

micro

silica

UCC

strength

526k

Pa573k

PaSo

aked

CBR

92

114

Kalkan

[72]

Clayey

soil+4

lime+

16

micro

silica

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

12kP

a122kP

aCB

R103

253

Oza

andGun

daliya[

73]

Blackcotto

nsoil+45

lime+

45

cementw

astedu

stCom

pressiv

estre

ngth

1091M

Pa1441M

PaAhm

adetal[74]

Peatsoil+20

cement+

10

palm

oilfuelash

UCC

strength

sim90

kPa

sim125k

PaSeco

etal[75]

Soil+4

lime+

5ric

ehuskFA

UCC

strength

0399M

Pa15

72MPa

Seco

etal[76]

Greymarl+

4lim

e+5

riceh

uskFA

UCC

strength

sim053

MPa

sim2M

PaCB

R40

135

Chen

andLinlowast

[77]

Soil+16

sewages

ludgea

shndashcement(4

1)UCC

strength

100k

Pa225k

PaCB

R12ndash15

65ndash85

Rahm

atandIsmaillowast

[78]

Lower

OxfordClay

+20

WSA

-lime(90

10)

UCC

strength

sim800k

Pasim2300

kPa

Lower

OxfordClay

+20

WSA

-cem

ent(90

10)

UCC

strength

sim500k

Pasim2300

kPa

Lisbon

aetal[79]

Soil+3

cement+

1CP

SUCC

strength

78MPa

98MPa

James

andPand

ian[80]

Expansives

oil+

7lim

e+2

PMUCC

strength

sim1500

kPa

sim2000

kPa

Expansives

oil+

4cement+

8ceramicdu

stUCC

strength

2000

kPa

4000

kPa

Okonk

woetal[82]

Lateriticsoil+8

cement+

10

eggshellash

UCC

strength

655k

Pa988k

PaCB

R82

93

lowastRe

sults

comparis

onbetweenop

timized

andno

noptim

ized

values


atev

aluesreadfro

mrepo

rted

graphicalillu

strations















Notations Used


2 Calcium hydroxide


Al2O3 Alumina




Acknowledgment


References

























































































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










































































ble2Com

paris

onof

improvem

entsachieved

byvario

usauxiliary

additiv

es

Author(s)

Soil-op

timum

wastecombinatio

nMajor

geotechn

icalprop

ertie

stested

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

only

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

ampadditiv

e

Ji-ru

andXing

[22]

Expansives

oil+

4ndash6

oflim

e+40

ndash50

ofFA

CBR

265ndash1293

1193ndash1228

Swellin

gcapacity

0ndash570

0008ndash

002

Sharmae

tal[26]

Lowplastic

clay+20

FA+85

lime

UCC

strength

6338k

Pa1052k

PaCB

R403

57

Mish

ra[27]

Clayey

soil+3

lime+

30

FACB

R223

558

Mccarthyetal[28]


lime+

24

FAUCC

strength

sim11

MPa

22M

PaIm

mediatebearingindex

sim16

31


lime+

9GGBS

UCC

strength

sim11

MPa

19MPa


sim16

36

Kolayetal[29]

Peatsoil+6

quicklim

e+15

FAUCC

strength

sim70

kPa

sim90

kPa

Shah

etal[30]

Con

taminated

soil+10

lime+

5cement+

5FA

UCC

strength

10591kP

a13828

kPa

Wangetal[31]

Marines

edim

ents+3

lime+

3FA

UCC

strength

sim08M

Pasim11

MPa

Marines

edim

ents+6

cement+

3FA

UCC

strength

sim21M

Pasim17

MPa

Bhuvaneshw

arietal[32]

Disp

ersiv

eclay+2

lime+

15

FA

dispersio

n(fr

eesw

ell)

400

sim420

dispersio

n(dou

bleh

ydrometer)

95

1

Bagh

erietal[33]

Silty

sand

+10

cement-lim

e-RH

A(25

5025)

UCC

strength

sim550k

Pasim60

0kPa

Triaxialshear

(i)Coh

esion

997kP

a1088k

Pa(ii)F

rictio

n3066∘

3422∘

Bashae

tal[34]

Resid

ualsoil+

6ndash8

cement+

15ndash20

RHA

UCC

strength

sim032

MPa

12MPa

CBR

6sim52

James

etal[35]

Blackcotto

nsoil+12

RHA+6

lime

Swell-shrink

(i)Sh

rinkage

limit

sim15

sim23

(ii)F

rees

well

sim60

sim32

Jhaa

ndGill

[36]

Localsoil+

5ndash7

lime+

12

RHA

UCC

strength

08M

Pa14

MPa

Soaked

CBR

sim33

sim35

Choo

bbastietal[37]

Soil+4

lime+

5RH

A

Dire

ctshear

(i)Coh

esion

sim65

kPa

sim170k

Pa(ii)F

rictio

nangle

45∘

49∘

Soaked

CBR

31

49

Mun

tohare

tal[38]

Silty

soil+12

lime+

12

RHA+04

fibres

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

112k

Pa228k

PaSplit

tensile

strength

53k

Pa353kP

aSo

aked

CBR

22

40

Sharmae

tal[39]

Soil+4

lime+

12

RHA

UCC

strength

650k

Pa1180

kPa

CBR

623

Soil+1

calcium

chlorid

e+12

RHA

UCC

strength

415k

Pa856k

PaCB

R46

925

Roy[40]

Soil+6

cement+

10

RHA

UCC

strength

70kP

asim135k

PaCB

Rsim14

sim3

Olgunlowast

[41]

Expansives

oil+sim65

lime+sim15

RHA+sim08

fibres

UCC

strength

077

MPa

091MPa

Swellpressure

4kPa

2kPa

Wild

etal[43]

Kimmeridge

clay+4

lime+

6GGBS

UCC

strength

sim2000

kPa

3500

kPa

CelikandNalbantoglu

[44]

Highlyplastic

clay+5

lime+

6GGBS

Percentswell

sim8

lt1

Obu

zore

tal[45]

Lower

OxfordClay

+4

lime+

12

GGBS

UnsoakedUCC

strength

sim1500ndash200

0kPa

sim3000ndash4

800k

PaSo

aked

UCC

strength

sim500k

Pasim2500ndash340

0kPa

Obu

zore

tal[46]

Lower

OxfordClay

+4

lime+

12

GGBS

Water

absorptio

n4ndash

12

2ndash6

UCC

strength

lt500k

Pasim1500ndash200

0kPa

Kogbaraa

ndAl-T

abbaa[

47]

Con

taminated

soil+20

lime-sla

gUCC

strength

800k

PaPerm

eability

Datan

otrepo

rted

sim6times10minus8

ms

Con

taminated

soil+20

cement-s

lag

UCC

strength

560k

PaPerm

eability

sim5times10minus9

ms


Table2Con

tinued

Author(s)

Soil-op

timum

wastecombinatio

nMajor

geotechn

icalprop

ertie

stested

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

only

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

ampadditiv

e

Vijayaragh

avan

etallowast[48]

Mud

+25

cement+

50

slag

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

712M

Pa83M

PaWater

absorptio

n75

629

Degirm

encietal[49]

Soil+75

cement+

75

PGUCC

strength

sim700k

Pasim700k

Pa

Kumar

etallowast[56]

Benton

ite+8

lime+

8PG

UCC

strength

sim60

0kPa

sim850k

PaCB

R892

11889

Gho

sh[57]

Pond

ash+10

lime+

1PG

UnsoakedCB

R1616

72217

8So

aked

CBR

1457

21665

James

andPand

ian[58]

Expansives

oil+

7lim

e+1

PGUCC

strength

1881kP

a2251kP

aKu

mar

andDutta[59]

Benton

ite+8

lime+

8PG

+1

sisalfib

res

UCC

strength

sim850k

Pasim1150

kPa


[64]

Expansives

oil+

2-3

lime+

2ndash6

BAUCC

strength

632k

Pa990k

PaCoefficiento

fcon

solid

ation

762times10minus3

cm2

min

146times10minus3

cm2

min

Alavez-Ra

mıre

zetal[65]

Soil+10

lime+

10

BACom

pressiv

estre

ngth

165MPa

213MPa

Flexuralstr

ength

112M

Pa14

MPa

Soaked

compressiv

estre

ngth

555

MPa

772M

Pa

Sadeeq

etal[66

]Lateriticsoil+8

lime+

6BA

UCC

strength

600k

Pa698k

PaUnsoakedCB

R28

43

Soaked

CBR

15

22

Muazu

[6869]

Lateriticsoil+4

cement+

8BA

Coh

esion

60kP

a30

kPa

Ang

leof

frictio

n27∘

34∘

Plastic

ity95

1

Onyelo

we[67]

Lateriticsoil+6

cement+

10

BACB

R873

1376

Limae

tal[70]

Sand

ysoil+6

cement+

8BA

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

070

MPa

154M

PaWater

absorptio

n1241

1186

Sand

ysoil+12

cement+

8BA

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

313MPa

289

MPa

Water

absorptio

n1194

1211

Moayedetal[71]

Salin

esiltysand

+2

lime+

1ndash3

micro

silica

UCC

strength

526k

Pa573k

PaSo

aked

CBR

92

114

Kalkan

[72]

Clayey

soil+4

lime+

16

micro

silica

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

12kP

a122kP

aCB

R103

253

Oza

andGun

daliya[

73]

Blackcotto

nsoil+45

lime+

45

cementw

astedu

stCom

pressiv

estre

ngth

1091M

Pa1441M

PaAhm

adetal[74]

Peatsoil+20

cement+

10

palm

oilfuelash

UCC

strength

sim90

kPa

sim125k

PaSeco

etal[75]

Soil+4

lime+

5ric

ehuskFA

UCC

strength

0399M

Pa15

72MPa

Seco

etal[76]

Greymarl+

4lim

e+5

riceh

uskFA

UCC

strength

sim053

MPa

sim2M

PaCB

R40

135

Chen

andLinlowast

[77]

Soil+16

sewages

ludgea

shndashcement(4

1)UCC

strength

100k

Pa225k

PaCB

R12ndash15

65ndash85

Rahm

atandIsmaillowast

[78]

Lower

OxfordClay

+20

WSA

-lime(90

10)

UCC

strength

sim800k

Pasim2300

kPa

Lower

OxfordClay

+20

WSA

-cem

ent(90

10)

UCC

strength

sim500k

Pasim2300

kPa

Lisbon

aetal[79]

Soil+3

cement+

1CP

SUCC

strength

78MPa

98MPa

James

andPand

ian[80]

Expansives

oil+

7lim

e+2

PMUCC

strength

sim1500

kPa

sim2000

kPa

Expansives

oil+

4cement+

8ceramicdu

stUCC

strength

2000

kPa

4000

kPa

Okonk

woetal[82]

Lateriticsoil+8

cement+

10

eggshellash

UCC

strength

655k

Pa988k

PaCB

R82

93

lowastRe

sults

comparis

onbetweenop

timized

andno

noptim

ized

values


atev

aluesreadfro

mrepo

rted

graphicalillu

strations















Notations Used


2 Calcium hydroxide


Al2O3 Alumina




Acknowledgment


References

























































































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation










Table2Con

tinued

Author(s)

Soil-op

timum

wastecombinatio

nMajor

geotechn

icalprop

ertie

stested

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

only

Effecto

fstabilizationwith

stabilizer

ampadditiv

e

Vijayaragh

avan

etallowast[48]

Mud

+25

cement+

50

slag

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

712M

Pa83M

PaWater

absorptio

n75

629

Degirm

encietal[49]

Soil+75

cement+

75

PGUCC

strength

sim700k

Pasim700k

Pa

Kumar

etallowast[56]

Benton

ite+8

lime+

8PG

UCC

strength

sim60

0kPa

sim850k

PaCB

R892

11889

Gho

sh[57]

Pond

ash+10

lime+

1PG

UnsoakedCB

R1616

72217

8So

aked

CBR

1457

21665

James

andPand

ian[58]

Expansives

oil+

7lim

e+1

PGUCC

strength

1881kP

a2251kP

aKu

mar

andDutta[59]

Benton

ite+8

lime+

8PG

+1

sisalfib

res

UCC

strength

sim850k

Pasim1150

kPa


[64]

Expansives

oil+

2-3

lime+

2ndash6

BAUCC

strength

632k

Pa990k

PaCoefficiento

fcon

solid

ation

762times10minus3

cm2

min

146times10minus3

cm2

min

Alavez-Ra

mıre

zetal[65]

Soil+10

lime+

10

BACom

pressiv

estre

ngth

165MPa

213MPa

Flexuralstr

ength

112M

Pa14

MPa

Soaked

compressiv

estre

ngth

555

MPa

772M

Pa

Sadeeq

etal[66

]Lateriticsoil+8

lime+

6BA

UCC

strength

600k

Pa698k

PaUnsoakedCB

R28

43

Soaked

CBR

15

22

Muazu

[6869]

Lateriticsoil+4

cement+

8BA

Coh

esion

60kP

a30

kPa

Ang

leof

frictio

n27∘

34∘

Plastic

ity95

1

Onyelo

we[67]

Lateriticsoil+6

cement+

10

BACB

R873

1376

Limae

tal[70]

Sand

ysoil+6

cement+

8BA

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

070

MPa

154M

PaWater

absorptio

n1241

1186

Sand

ysoil+12

cement+

8BA

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

313MPa

289

MPa

Water

absorptio

n1194

1211

Moayedetal[71]

Salin

esiltysand

+2

lime+

1ndash3

micro

silica

UCC

strength

526k

Pa573k

PaSo

aked

CBR

92

114

Kalkan

[72]

Clayey

soil+4

lime+

16

micro

silica

Com

pressiv

estre

ngth

12kP

a122kP

aCB

R103

253

Oza

andGun

daliya[

73]

Blackcotto

nsoil+45

lime+

45

cementw

astedu

stCom

pressiv

estre

ngth

1091M

Pa1441M

PaAhm

adetal[74]

Peatsoil+20

cement+

10

palm

oilfuelash

UCC

strength

sim90

kPa

sim125k

PaSeco

etal[75]

Soil+4

lime+

5ric

ehuskFA

UCC

strength

0399M

Pa15

72MPa

Seco

etal[76]

Greymarl+

4lim

e+5

riceh

uskFA

UCC

strength

sim053

MPa

sim2M

PaCB

R40

135

Chen

andLinlowast

[77]

Soil+16

sewages

ludgea

shndashcement(4

1)UCC

strength

100k

Pa225k

PaCB

R12ndash15

65ndash85

Rahm

atandIsmaillowast

[78]

Lower

OxfordClay

+20

WSA

-lime(90

10)

UCC

strength

sim800k

Pasim2300

kPa

Lower

OxfordClay

+20

WSA

-cem

ent(90

10)

UCC

strength

sim500k

Pasim2300

kPa

Lisbon

aetal[79]

Soil+3

cement+

1CP

SUCC

strength

78MPa

98MPa

James

andPand

ian[80]

Expansives

oil+

7lim

e+2

PMUCC

strength

sim1500

kPa

sim2000

kPa

Expansives

oil+

4cement+

8ceramicdu

stUCC

strength

2000

kPa

4000

kPa

Okonk

woetal[82]

Lateriticsoil+8

cement+

10

eggshellash

UCC

strength

655k

Pa988k

PaCB

R82

93

lowastRe

sults

comparis

onbetweenop

timized

andno

noptim

ized

values


atev

aluesreadfro

mrepo

rted

graphicalillu

strations















Notations Used


2 Calcium hydroxide


Al2O3 Alumina




Acknowledgment


References

























































































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation























Notations Used


2 Calcium hydroxide


Al2O3 Alumina




Acknowledgment


References

























































































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation





























































































RoboticsJournal of





Journal of



RotatingMachinery





VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration







Journal of



Volume 2014


SensorsJournal of





Propagation









review article industrial wastes as auxiliary...

Documents