This article was downloaded by: [Carnegie Mellon University]On: 25 October 2014, At: 23:28Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Chinese Institute of EngineersPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcie20

The engineering properties of rice‐hull‐ash as asoil stabilizerSiu‐Mun Woo a & Teh‐Ho Lee a

a Department of Civil Engineering , National Cheng Kung University , Tainan,Taiwan, R. O. C.Published online: 04 May 2011.

To cite this article: Siu‐Mun Woo & Teh‐Ho Lee (1978) The engineering properties of rice‐hull‐ash as a soil stabilizer,Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 1:1, 87-95, DOI: 10.1080/02533839.1978.9676603

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02533839.1978.9676603

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distributionin any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

w

THE ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF RICE-HULL-ASH AS A SOIL STABILIZER

Siu-Mun Woo, Teh-Ho Lee

Department of Civil EngineeringNational Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, R. O. C.

ABSTRACT

The study of an effective utilization of rice hull ash, which is pro-duced 100,000 tons per year in Taiwan, becomes necessary. This studyinvestigates the uses of rice hull ash with lime as a soil stabilizer admixture.The primary purposes were to study the compaction characteristics and thefactors affecting the strength development of the lime-ash stabilized sandyand clayey soils. Standard compaction test and undrained direct shear testwere carried out. Results showed that adding rice hull ash into a soil in-creased the effectiveness of lime. Lime-ash admixture caused the compacteddry density of a soil to decrease but the as-compacted strength to increase.The shear strength of a lime-ash stabilized soil increased with curing time,but reduced when soaked. The optimum lime-ash weight ratio of soils wasfound to be 1:2 or 1:3. To produce equivalent strength values, the percent-age of lime requirement could be reduced by adding rice hull ash.

m(Soil Stabili-

Lazaro fn Moh (1970)

(workability) °

essive strength)

mm rs

- 87 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

28 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

88

m

£g& (Thon Buri-Pak Tho Highway) » IP^WtKS. 6 96V.~Mt WMk (abutment) Mi l i !

(Cox ft Hengchaovanich, 1973) o §

s ts

m

hange) JSi(ion exc-

(flocculation) o

(double

(flocculated structure)

° Jit

(pozzolanic reaction)

m (calcium-silicate hydrates)(calcium aluminate hydrates) > jtfcflfl

(pozzolan) ^ - g o

Lazaro ft Moh

(SiO2)

Ca(OH)2 -> Ca+++2 OH"Ca+++2 OH"+SiO2 -> GSH

CaO, S ftg- SiO, S. Hffl CSH iP

(1)(2)

^ H2 O,

Jit

B

CCa (O

K(index properies) m

®?#Jn 1 # ' 3 JJJ. 5 96 Cffi

3 j

nt) S.Sweight)

(optimum moisture conte-(maximum dry unit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

28 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

89

(undrained direct shear test)

£ (wet shearM*fS 0.15 cm/

min

> td Williams and Sukpatrapirome(1970S. Cox and Hengchaovanich(1973)^^ftS

' (cellular structure) »

0.2t/m3

^ 0.5 3e 0.6t/m3

U S o ffl 1 iC/r^SK M ^ ° Williams and Sukpatrapirome (1971)Cox and Hengchaovanich (1973)

glft (angle ofshearing resis tances^ ° M 2 MMWtMUBM'&&BrmDmmWimtti$k-> m*mU (failure env-elope) nmKm$M$MWi3 (cohesion intercept)

ISfflfil (peak strength)

(Sfiifc 3:1)

M- 1 kg/cm2 R# .^ 1 kg/cm* Bf

' jtfc-Hi« » S C o x SiHengchaovanich (1973) - i 4 > * * I H I ^ i a S l ' S

pressure) g0.08 t/m2

X 1.45 t/m1 #JfflftIJfeJnffl«ffiJfc&S&(field CBRtest) . Ifim^CBRflfflRI o ffiff ffijSW-SffiJBffi

iiSS^iSaKKftHeiSftm 36°»^

(residual strength) °( 0 4 B) 1102

Williams Si Sukpatrapirome,1971) fg

(H 4)Kffi

f? m(gradation) *

iC (lfi±)

weight material) o(as compacted strength)

(as

cured strength) . J

a (dry side of opti-

mum) W($ij& (wet side of optimum) ° Fjf UMT

(optimum mo-isture content for strength) >

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

28 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

90

Composition

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2)

{b ^ Aluminium Oxide (AI2O3)

it m Iron Oxide CFe2O3)

I t S Sulphates CSOj)

ft £5 Calcium Oxide (CaO)

-fb ^ Magnesium Oxide (MgO)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Loss on Ignition

88.66

1.48

0.36

0.75

3.53

0.51

3.80

: LAZARO and MOH, C1970)

± is # &

Efc 2.0-0.074mm, %

#}± 0.074-0.005mm, %

fefc <0.005mm, %

<0.002mm, %

AASHO

s-»mm

m&mm ip, %

ib S

pH, •fjl

«*tefc*IM g/cm3

91

6

3

2

5£ ~f*.

A-2-4

SP-SM

-

-

2.67

7.5

15

1.58

±«B

58

33

9

7

A-4

SM

-

-

2.72

9.0

11.4

1.74

34

33

33

22

tt ±A-7-5C15)

CH

56.0

30.4

25.6

2.74

8.6

17

1.66

?S S M 96*

¥L X. >&

0

0

100

A

3

6

91

£

3

12

85

0

0

100

B

3

6

91

3

12

85

8 i

C

0

0

100

1

2

97

1

4

95

A

B

C

-

Suiting%

3

3

1

25

0,3,6,9,12

0,3,6,9,12

0,1,2,3,4

100

75

0,7

0,7,14,210,7,14,21,40

0,7

0,7

7

sa 7K

l

0

0

10

10

00

pH ffl

struction)

7d (max) Pf fg

Crate of con-

5^:mmKSfiJt*

1:0

1:1

1:2

1:3

1:4

± fi

7J(««n,g/cm]

1.65

1.57

1.54

1.51

1.47

1.58

1 A

m ts & ar,kg/cm»

0.145

0.147

0.134

0.142

0.147

0.102

7,I(««),?/cin'

1.76

1.67

1.63

1.56

1.48

1.74

n B

m ti & mr.kg/cm*

0.254

0.245

0.234

0.214

0.180

0.138

•y<*<».«),g/cm3

1.65

1.60

1.60

1.59

1.58

1.66

e c$ * & a

r,k(?/cm2

0.681

0.681

0.761

0.685

0.516

0.445

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

28 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

91

0.8

B60

O.G.

•H

0.5

- —

\o

•

1

J3

i

I

XT

I

A o

"*&

o —A —

D —1

o0 a

K+

9

20%ER

15%EK10% EK

1

L

-

15 20 25 30 35 40 45

ffl l )B8K;i2ia£Kift£BK#tt °

0.25

to

, 0 .15 -

0.05

r i

±«B r\\ R / \

•rw;

a—a

i* a

OMC142%1757.

ao%

OMC15.5 %l2OO5y17.0°/

V \ ±«A/ ^ X , +12%tB:aR

/ A\,1 1 1

10 15 20

0.3

hO

ffl7§±:

hi 12 3

M

7 P i f ^

(optimum lime-ash weight ratio) °

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

28 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

92

urn l ^

° Lazaro and Moh (1970

m 1 •.$

2.3

M 1:1l : o )

1.6 fgi .3 fs

^ pH ffif|13.1 o toAffi%tM2.&& » if pH ffi© o Cox fp Hengchovanich (1973) fl-

pH Sft±S A£ pH

nlig 150 % » gjtfc »

6.3cm » Cg 1.3cm) i

± W. B

±86 C

kg/cm2

0.134

0.234

0.761

kg/cm2

0.218

0.427

0.854

^HKfSt&tSSffirt; 1:3

K 5t #kg/cm2

0.142

0.214

0.685

kg/cm2

0.236

0.409

0.823

m.7. esRM

m. •& ^

fBism+9^;&£

S3ia^+6^5K

ISiSK+ 3 %SK

pH {S

13.4

13.0

12.2

12.0

12.0

10.8

Cox and HENGCHAOVANICH, (1973)

±

± £±«±«

• «

ft A

fc B

S C

JE±«

6.8^

6.0%

1.196

1:0

2.3%

1.996

0.596

n1

3

2

2

— i

:1

. 0 ^

. 5 %

1:2

4.0^

4.0%

2.3%

•it

1:3

3.9%

4.5%

2.8%

it

1:4

3.5%

4.6%

2.0%

pressure)

5SS (wet shear strength)±HA£lffig0.16kg/cm2 » ± f |B t ; t i J | 0.35 kg/cm2 .ERtSffi (±mAU0.14kg/cm2» ±0.23 kg/cm2) UK » SM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

28 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

93

0.35

0.3 H hD OA A0 O

ER%

3333

ma.ff.%

0369

KM It

1 = 0hi1 = 2

1:3 1:4

?2 £ ft! W # ifc

S K l ?o

£ $ c 3 &

TfC 2 %

£K3&+fS$K6^

5K3^

SK3?^

3ijKkg/cm»

0.236

0.145

0.170

0.196

0.227

0.427

0.307

0.374

0.410

0.712

0.854

0.739

0.783

0.841

0.886

(reactivity)kg/cm'

0.066

0.053

0-115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

28 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

94

t ±&A t

jfcg-S 3

^(reactivity)

(setting)

Sc

1. Cox, J. B. & D. Hengchaovanich, "Use of RiceHusk Ash as a Light Weight Fill in HighwayConstruction", Technical Report R -3 , Sub-mitted to the Dept. of Highways, Thailand,Leo-Geco Int., Bangkok, (1973).

2. Lazaro, R. C. & Z. C. Moh, Proc. Second Sou-thest Asian Conf. on Soil Engineering, Singappore, 215, (1970).

3. Peck, R. B. & H. O. Ireland, J. of Structural

m a&smm±

M Cbase andsubgrade of high-,way or runway)

Cox &Hengchaovanich (1973)Williams &Sukpatrapirome (1971)

fill)Cox &Hengchaovanich (1973)

ffi±mm (backfillof retaining wall)

Peck &Ireland (1957)

S1£tection)

(slope pro- S) (1976)

(backfill of conduit) Spangler (1962)

(fill material forwave screeningtrench) ?f ft (hysteresis)^;

Richart et al (1970)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

28 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

95

Div. ASCE., 83 (ST4), 1321-1, (1957).4. Richart, Jr., F. E., Jr. J. R. Hall & R. D.

Woods, "Vibrations of Soils and Foundations",Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. T., 244,(1970).

5. Spangler, M.G.,"Culverts and Conduits", Foun-dation Engineering, G.A. Leonards, ed., Mc-Graw-Hill, New York, 965, (1962).

6. Williams, F. H. P. & S. Sukpatrapirome,

"Some Properties of Rice Hull Ash", Geo-technical Engineering, J. of Southeast AsianSociety of Soil Engineering, 2 (1), 75, (1971).

7. » M ' (1976) . ggjSSItfcfcSi&KIWfife

Manuscript Received : September 8,1977;Accepted : December 2, 1977.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Car

negi

e M

ello

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

28 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014