SOIL STABILIZATION USING LIME AND CEMENT

SOIL STABILIZATION USING LIME AND CEMENT

University of Asia Pacific (UAP)

Contents• Introduction• Objective of this study• Literature Review• Test Program• Analysis of Experimental Results • Conclusions

IntroductionSoil Improvement • To increase bearing capacity and stability (avoid failure ) • To reduce post construction settlements • To reduce liquefaction risk (seismic areas)Before soil improvement:

• Check for suitability or feasibility of using different types of foundation (pile / raft)

• Soil replacement

• Expensive

• Different Methods:

• Soil stabilization

• Dynamic compaction and replacement

• Vertical drains

• Vibroflottation

• Stone columns

• Inclusions

Soil Improvement Techniques

Impact of Present Study in Bangladesh• Seismic zone• Filled zones are susceptible to liquefaction• Factor of safety against liquefaction is more, if filled

material contains fine materials• Soil stabilization would be a possible method for

minimizing the probability of liquefaction during earthquake loading.

Soil StabilizationBell (1993):

• Soil stabilization is the process of mixing additives with soil to improve

• volume stability

• strength

• permeability and

• durability

Objective of this study• To study the effect of additives (lime and cement) on

soil properties, in terms of the following parameters:• Atterberg limits• Maximum dry density• Optimum moisture content

Literature Review• Review the literature on soil stabilization using different additives• Lime Stabilization• Plasticity reduction

• Reduction in moisture-holding capacity (drying)• Swell reduction• Improved stability

• Cement Stabilization• It is widely available• Cost is relatively low• It is highly durable• Soil cement is quite weather resistant and strong.

• Flyash Stabilization • Strength - to increase the strength and bearing capacity.• Volume stability - to control the swell-shrink characteristics caused by

moisture changes.• Durability - to increase the resistance to erosion, weathering or traffic

loading. • To reduce the pavement thickness as well as cost.

• Blast Furnace Slug• strength - to increase the strength and bearing capacity.• volume stability - to control the swell-shrink characteristics caused by moisture changes.• durability - to increase the resistance to erosion, weathering or traffic loading.

Literature Review

Literature ReviewMethod of Soil Stabilization1. Soil Lime Stabilization

2. Cement Lime Stabilization

• Soil Type: Natural clay soil

• Location: Ekiti State, Nigeria

• It was collected at 1m depth below the ground level

• Additive: Hydrated high calcium lime, Ca(OH)2

Soil Stabilization: Lime as Additive Flaherty.C 2002

Effect of Lime on Atterburg Limits

• LL: relatively constant• PL: varies with % of lime

Fig 1: Atterberg Limits test results

Effect of Lime on OMC and MDD

Fig 2: Compaction test results

•MDD: varies between 1680 and 1780 kg/m3 • OMC: varies between 18% and 21.5%

• Soil Type: Reddish brown laterite soil

• Classified as A-2-7(0) using AASHTO soil classification system • Location: 22 km from Makurdi, Nigeria• Obtained from: River Benue in Makurdi• Additives: Ordinary Portland cement

Soil Stabilization: Cement as Additives Feng.T

2002

Property Quantity Cement content 0

Liquid Limit (%) 41

Plastic Limit (%) 24

Plasticity Index (%) 17

Linear Shrinkage (%) 14

Maximum Dry Density (WAS)Mg/m³ 1.88

Optimum Moisture Content (%) 12.0

Soil Cement Stabilization Table 1: Soil Cement Stabilization

Effect of Cement Content on MDDM

axim

um D

ry D

ensi

ty (M

g/m

3 )

• Cement Content: 0 – 9%• Sand: 0 – 60%•MDD: Increase relatively (0%-60 %) sand

Cement Content (%) Fig 3: Results of compaction test

Effect of Cement Content on OMCO

ptim

um M

oist

ure

Con

tent

(%)

• Cement Content: 0 – 9%• Sand: 0 – 60%•OMC: Increase for 3% cement content for 15 % of sand•OMC: Decrease for 6% cement with increasing different % of sand)

Cement Content (%) Fig 4: Results of compaction test

Effect of Cement Content on Unconfined Compressive Strength

• Cement Content: 0 – 9%• Sand: 0 – 60%•UCS: Increase relatively with increasing different % of cement and sand•UCS: Almost same (30-45) % of sand with increasing % of cement

Cement Content (%)Unc

onfin

ed C

ompr

essi

ve S

tren

gth

(KN

/M2 )

Fig 5: Unconfined Compressive Strength

Soil Stabilization: Cement as Additives Olabiran O. E., Asaolu O. E.,& Etuka R. C., 16-20, 1989

Figure 6. Variation of 28 day UCS with soil-sand-cement mixtures

• Cement Content: 0 – 9%• Sand: 0 – 60%•UCS: Increase relatively for 3% & 9% of cement with increasing % of sand•UCS: Decrease and same for 6% cement with increasing % of sand

Cement Content (%)

Unc

onfin

ed C

ompr

essi

ve S

tren

gth

(KN

/M2 )

Soil Stabilization: Fly ash Cokca, E. (2001)

• Red soil of tirupur district, India • Additives: Fly Ash (class C and class F)

Results of Atterburg limits graphically

Fig 7: Liquid limit distribution curve for Fly ash

Previous Study on Soil Fly ash stabilization ASTM C618 (2008)

• LL: varies with % of Fly ash

Fig 8: Plastic limit distribution curve for Fly ash

Results of Atterburg limits graphically

Previous Study on Soil Fly ash stabilization[ASTM C618 (2008)]

•PL: varies with % of Fly ash

Effect of Fly Ash on Gs, OMC and MDD ASTM C618 (2008)

Fig 9: Gs ,OMC & MDD for different percentages of fly ash

Previous Study on Soil Fly ash Stabilization

% Of Fly ash CBR(2.5mm)deflection CBR(5mm)deflection UCC (N/cm2)

0 2.08 3.1 3.881840

3 1.56 2.9 4.1ooooo

5 1.51 3.12 4.440923

6 3.75 4.82 8.881850

9 2.13 3.03 4.885015

Table 2 : Results of CBR values for (2.5mm & 5 mm) deflection & UCC

Previous Study on Soil Fly ash Stabilization ASTM C618 (2008)

Fig 10: Curve for CBR ( 2.5mm & 5mm) deflection & UCC for fly ash

Present Study

OUR WORKS

OUR WORKS

OUR WORKS

Present Study on Soil Stabilization Soil types: Two types of soil used in this study which are

Soil A[Dhaka Clay, Silty Clay] and Soil B[River Sand, Sandy Sand]

Location: Soil A is collected from Green Road Dhaka and Soil B is collected from Kanchpur RiverAdditives: • Portland Cement

•Hydrated Lime [Ca(OH)2]

Soil Test Series Additives % of Additives Tests

Soil-A: Dhaka Clay

I - - Atterberg Limits: LL & PL

II-A

Lime

4

Atterberg Limits: LL & PLStandard Proctor Test

II-B 8II-C 12II-D 16III-A

Cement

2III-B 4III-C 6III-D 8

Soil-B: River Sand

IV - - Standard Proctor TestV-A

Cement

2Atterberg Limits: LL Standard Proctor Test

V-B 4V-C 6V-D 8

Test ProgramTable 3: Details of Test Program

Liquid Limit Test

1 10 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

Liquid Limit Chart

No. of blows, N

Wat

er C

onte

nt, W

%

LL= 35%

Fig 11: Flow Curve of Soil A Series I (No Additives)

Liquid Limit of Soil A [Dhaka Clay]

1 10 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

Liquid Limit Chart

No. of blows, N

Wat

er C

onte

nt, W

%

LL = 39%

Fig 12: Flow Curve of Soil A Series II-A


10 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

Liquid Limit Chart

No. of blows, N

Wat

er c

onte

nt, W

%

LL= 40%

Fig 13: Flow Curve of Soil A Series II-B


1 10 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60Liquid Limit Chart

No. of blows, N

Wat

er C

onte

nt, W

%

LL= 40%

Fig 14: Flow Curve of Soil A Series II-C


10 1000

5

10

15

20

25

30

Liquid Limit Chart

No of Blows , N

Wat

er C

onte

nt, W

%

LL = 21%

Fig 15: Flow Curve of Soil A Series III-A


1 10 1000

5

10

15

20

25

30Liquid Limit Chart

No of Blows , N

Wat

er C

onte

nt, W

%

LL = 19%

Fig 16: Flow Curve of Soil A Series III-B


1 10 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Liquid Limit Chart

No of Blows, N

Wat

er C

onte

nt, W

%

LL = 9%

Fig 17: Flow Curve of Soil A Series III-C


10 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Liquid Limit Chart

No of Blows, N

Wat

er C

onte

nt, W

%

LL = 12%

Fig 18: Flow Curve of Soil-B Series V-A

Liquid Limit of Soil B[River Sand]

1 10 1000

5

10

15

20

25

Liquid Limit Chart

No of Blows, N

Wat

er C

onte

nt, W

%

LL = 7%

Fig 19: Flow Curve of Soil-B Series V-B


1 10 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Liquid Limit Chart

No of Blows, N

Wat

er C

onte

nt, W

%

LL = 6%

Fig 20: Flow Curve of Soil-B Series V-C


1 10 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Liquid Limit Chart

No of Blows, N

Wat

er C

onte

nt, W

%

LL = 9%

Fig 21: Flow Curve of Soil-B Series V-D


Effect of different types of Additives on Liquid Limit

Table 4: Effect of different types of additives on the LLSoil A: Dhaka Clay Soil B: River sand

Additive % LL Additive % LL Additive % LL

Lime

- 35

Cement

- 35

Cement

2 12

4 39 2 22 4 7

8 40 4 18 6 6

12 40 6 9 8 7

Plastic Limit Test

Soil A

Type % PL

Lime

4 26.52

8 32.66

12 36.33

Table 5: Effect of Lime on Plastic Limit

Effect of Lime for different percentage on Plastic Limit

Standard Proctor Test

8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.001500.00

1550.00

1600.00

1650.00

1700.00

1750.00

Water Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 22: Compaction Curve for Soil A Series-II-A

Compaction Curve for Soil A [Dhaka Clay]

5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.001540.00

1560.00

1580.00

1600.00

1620.00

1640.00

1660.00

1680.00

Water Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 23: Compaction Curve for Soil A Series-II-B


8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.001600.00

1610.00

1620.00

1630.00

1640.00

1650.00

1660.00

1670.00

1680.00

Water Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 24: Compaction Curve for Soil A Series-II-C


5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.001400.00

1450.00

1500.00

1550.00

1600.00

1650.00

1700.00

Water Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 25: Compaction Curve for Soil A [Series-II-D]


5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.001450.00

1500.00

1550.00

1600.00

1650.00

1700.00

Water Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 26: Compaction Curve for Soil A Series-III-A


10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.001400.00

1450.00

1500.00

1550.00

1600.00

1650.00

1700.00

1750.00

Water Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 27: Compaction Curve for Soil A Series-III-B


6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.001500.00

1550.00

1600.00

1650.00

1700.00

1750.00

1800.00

Water Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 28: Compaction Curve for Soil A [Series-III-C]


5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.001450.00

1500.00

1550.00

1600.00

1650.00

1700.00

1750.00

1800.00

1850.00

1900.00

Water Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 29: Compaction Curve for Soil A [Series-III-D]


Types ofAdditive Test ID Additives ( % )

Maximum DryDensity, (MDD)(kg/m3)

Optimum Moisture Content, OMC(%)

Lime

II-A 4 1711.00 15.50II-B 8 1675.0 16.00II-C 12 1670.0 18.50II-D 16 1661.0 21.0

Cement

III-A 2 1680.0 22.00III-B 4 1727.00 19.20III-C 6 1780.00 14.50III-D 8 1832.00 15.50

Table 6: Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content of Dhaka Clay with Different percentage of Additives

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.001430.001440.001450.001460.001470.001480.001490.001500.001510.001520.001530.001540.001550.001560.001570.001580.001590.001600.001610.001620.00

Water Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 30: Compaction Curve for Soil B [Series-IV]

Compaction Curve for Soil B [River Sand]

4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.001560.00

1570.00

1580.00

1590.00

1600.00

1610.00

1620.00

1630.00

1640.00

Water content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 31: Compaction Curve for Soil B [Series V-A]


0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.001500.00

1550.00

1600.00

1650.00

1700.00

1750.00

Water content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 32: Compaction Curve for Soil B [Series-VB]


4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.001550.00

1600.00

1650.00

1700.00

1750.00

Water content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 33: Compaction Curve for Soil B [Series V-C]


4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.001550.00

1600.00

1650.00

1700.00

1750.00

1800.00

Water Content (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

kg/

m3

Fig 34: Compaction Curve for Soil B [Series V-D]


Types of

AdditiveTest ID Additives ( % )

Maximum Dry

Density, (MDD)

(kg/m3)

Optimum Moisture

Content, OMC

(%)

- IV - 1604.0 17.5

Cement

V-A 2 1634.0 15.0

V-B 4 1698.0 14

V-C 6 1740.0 14.5

V-D 8 1758.0 14.8

Table 7: Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content of River Sand with Different percentage of Additives

Analysis of Experimental Results

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 181630

1640

1650

1660

1670

1680

1690

1700

1710

1720

f(x) = − 3.875 x + 1718R² = 0.831458729884063

Lime (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

, MD

D (k

g/m

3)

Fig 35: Effect of Lime on the Maximum Dry Density of Dhaka Clay

Effect of Additives on Maximum Dry Density

0 2 4 6 8 101600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

f(x) = 25.45 x + 1627.5R² = 0.999328846116758

Cement (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

, MD

D (k

g/m

3)

Fig 36: Effect of Cement on the Maximum Dry Density of Dhaka Clay


1 101550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

f(x) = 91.4288704141224 ln(x) + 1571.48486829467R² = 0.99605988040264

Cement (%)

Max

imum

Dry

Den

sity

, MD

D (k

g/m

3)

Fig 37: Effect of Cement on the Maximum Dry Density of River Sand


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

5

10

15

20

25

LimeCement

Additives (%)

Fig 38: Effect of Additives on the Optimum Moisture Content of Dhaka Clay

Effect of Additives on Optimum Moisture Content

It was found that Liquid limit also are same for lime content but plastic limit

varied with increasing % of lime content for Dhaka clay [Soil A] but the liquid

limit change with increasing % of cement both Dhaka clay [Soil A] and River

sand [Soil B].

It was found that Maximum Dry Density (MDD) decreased with the

increase in % of lime content for Dhaka Clay but MDD increased with

increasing % of cement content both Dhaka Clay and River Sand

Optimum Moisture Content decreased with increasing ( 0-6) % of cement

content but it increased for 8% of cement content

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION OMC increased linearly with increasing % of lime content

It was also found that liquid limit also same graphically between

previous study and our study for lime content but liquid limit(LL)

varied for cement content.

Maximum dry density (MDD) almost remained same between our

study and previous study

Optimum moisture content (OMC) vary previous study than our

study for both lime and cement content.

Engineering

SOIL STABILIZATION USING LIME AND CEMENT