Soil Stabilisation

Using Rice Husk Ash

D.G. MONTGOMERY
B.Sc.(Eng.), Ph.D., F.I.E.Aust.

G. CHMEISSE
B.C.E., M.Eng.Sc.

ABSTRACT
Rice husk ash (RHA) has been investigated as a pozzolanic material for soil stabilisation. It contains
siliceous and aluminous materials, and reacts with lime or cement, thus having the economic potential
to replace some of the lime orcement presently used as an additive in the stabilisation of soil. Three types
of soil were treated with varying quantities of lime, cement, RHA and combinations of RHA with lime or
cement, under laboratory conditions. To determine the effectiveness of RHA as a stabiliser, unconfined
compressive strength (UCS), plasticity index and linear shrinkage were measured for the treated soils
— using standard Road Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA NSW) tests. RHA alone was shown
to be unsuitable for modifying soil properties. However, when combined with lime or cement, beneficial
results were obtained. The effectiveness of the RHA was expressed in terms of the ratio of the RHA
required to either lime or cement saved. RHA is produced by the burning of rice husks (also known as
rice hulls), which currently are a little-used by-product of the rice industry, presenting disposal problem s
worldwide. Information on present and likely future availability of RHA in Australia is included in this
paper.

INTRODUCTION material. Though not cementitious in itself,

RHA contains a considerable amount of
Soil stabilisation isthe process of improving siliceous and aluminous products which, at
the soil properties in order to meet specific ordinary temperatures in the presence of
engineering requirements; such as road- water, will combine with lime to form
building. The most familiar method of soil insoluble compounds with cementitious
stabilisation is the use of special additives properties.
such as bitumen, cement, lime, and
lime:pozzolan mixtures. Lime is an effective RHA has found some uses in civil
additive which attacks clay minerals under engineering applications, although few of
a condition of high alkalinity (pH > 11) to these have been developed on a
reduce moisture susceptibility and improve commercial scale. RHA was used in the
both workability and strength of soils. The manufacture of building blocks as early as
strength improvement, or increase in 1923 and has also been used in the
unconfined compressive strength, is due to manufacture of high quality cement tiles
the long-term pozzolanic reaction between and blocks (Korisa 1958). Cements
lime and certain clay minerals in the soil. containing the ash have been reported to
However, some soils lack sufficient be highly resistant to dilute organic and
pozzolanic activity to achieve, in the mineral acids. Increasing attention has since
presence of lime, the strength needed for been directed towards RHA-based
engineering purposes. The addition of an cements, particularly in South East Asia.
artificial pozzolan usually results in The use of RHA in the stabilisation of clays
substantial increases in soil strength over has been investigated by Lazaro and Moh
long periods. (1976), Subrahmanyam (1981) and
Rahman (1986). They concluded that
Rice husk ash, like fly ash — elsewhere lime:RHA and cement:lime:RHA additives
investigated as a soil stabiliser in road- reduce plasticity and increase the
building (Manz and Manz 1984), has unconfined compressive strength of the
generally been accepted as a pozzolanic treated clays.

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991 27

SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

This paper describes an investigation into cement conformed to AS1315. The rice
the reactivity of RHA produced in NSW, and husk ash was a black ash produced in
the feasibility of using it as an individual Leeton, NSW. Chemical composition and
additive, or in combination with lime or other properties of the ash are shown in
ordinary Portland cement, in the stabilisation Table II.
of low cohesion soils and organic heavy
clays. Methodology

All of the geotechnical properties of the

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS soils were determined according to the
methods of testing specified by the Roads
Materials Used and Traffic Authority (formerly Department
of Main Roads) of NSW (DMR 1980). The
Three types of soils (hereinafter referred to tests included:
as A, B and C) were selected to be treated
with the different additives. Soil A was a • Standard Proctor (RTA test no. T.110);
crushed rock conglomerate from a deposit
known as Yeoman's pit in the Shire of • Liquid limit (T.108);
Guyra, NSW. Soil B was taken from a sandy • Plastic limit (T.109);
silt pit at Stone Henge in the Shire of Severn,
NSW. Soil C was an organic clay taken from • Linear shrinkage (T.113);
a construction site in the town of Glen lnnes, • Unconfined compressive strength
NSW. The properties of the three soils are (T.116);
shown in Table I.
• Coarse particle size distribution by sieve
analysis (T.106); and
The lime used was commercial hydrated
lime, conforming to the Australian Standard • Fine particle size distribution by
(AS1672); commercial ordinary Portland sedimentation and decantation (T.107).

Table I

Properties of Soils

Property Soil
A B C

Grading — `)/0 Passing:

19mm 100 100 100
9.5 mm 73 100 100
4.75 mm 36 100 100
2.36 mm 22 85 100
425 pm 15 43 85
75 pm 8 24 71
13.5 pm 4 17 53

Atterberg limits:
L.L. 33 32 100
P.L. 24 24 45
P.I. 9 8 55

Volume Stability:
Linear shrinkage (%) 3.5 2.75 17

Compaction characteristics:
O.M.C. (%) 13 15 22
Max. dry density (g/cm3) 1.83 1.82 1.32

UCS (MPa) 0.33 0.26 0.21

Unified soil classification GMu SMu OH

Description Gravel-sand Sand-silt Organic

silt mix mix clays

Colour White Reddish- Black

brown

28 Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Table II at constant room temperature (22°C) during

the curing periods. At the conclusion of the
various curing periods (28 and 90 days), the
Properties of RHA
specimens were air dried for approximately
30 minutes and subjected to the unconfined
Chemical content (% by weight):
compressive strength test.
SiO2 (silica) 58.2
A1203 (alumina) 0.10
Test Results
Fe2O3 1.09

The results presented in Fig. 1 indicate that

CaO 0.37
the optimum ratio of lime to RHA is 1:2.
MgO 0.21
From Fig. 2 it can be seen that there is no
Na2O 0.12
optimum ratio of cement to RHA. This is
K2O 1.37
indicative that the strength of cement:RHA
Loss on ignition 34.2
pastes is dominated by the hydration
reactions of cement rather than by the
Grading— % Passing:
pozzolanic reaction between the released
2.36 mm 100
lime and the RHA.
425 pm 60
75 Pm 17 Various Additives
13.5 Pm 12.5
Various additives, i.e. RHA, lime, lime:RHA,
Specific gravity 1.79 cement, or cement:RHA, were used
individually to stabilise the soil samples A, B
and C. The various quantities of additives
were 2, 4, 6 and 8 per cent of the total weight
of the dry soil and additive. The ratio of lime
Proportion of Lime or Cement to RHA to RHA and cement to RHAfor each quantity
of additive was varied as 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and
The compositition of RHAvaries, depending 1:4 —these values, although arbitrary, being
on the conditions under which the considered within the practical range.
combustion of the rice husks has taken
place. The variations are reflected in the
Testing of Stabilised Soils
chemical composition of the RHA, with
particular emphasis on carbon content. It is
Compaction Characteristics
generally acknowledged that the degree of
reactivity of a pozzolan is, in part, influenced
by its chemical composition, particularly its The optimum moisture contents and the
maximum dry densities of the treated soils
carbon content. Therefore, it is suggested
that the pozzolanic reaction between lime, were determined by carrying out the
either added directly or from the hydration standard Proctor tests. The test results are
presented in Tables Ill to VIII inclusive.
reaction of cement, and RHA will be
governed largely by the carbon content of
the ash. It was considered that initial testing Unconfined Compressive Strength
be carried out to determine RHA reactivity
and the optimum ratio of lime or cement to Preparation. Three series of specimens of
RHA. The use of an unconfined compressive soils stabilised with the various additives
strength test on Iime:RHA and cement:RHA and various quantities were prepared using
paste specimens was selected as a suitable the standard Proctor equipment, with the
indicator of the RHA reactivity. elapsed time from initial mixing to final
compaction being less than 30 minutes.
Preparation of Specimens Curing. Ali specimens were wrapped in
paper, aluminium foil, and contained in
Mixtures of Iime:RHA and cement:RHA were sealed plastic bags at constant room
prepared, mixed and proportioned by weight. temperature (22°C) during the curing
The ratio of Iime:RHA or cement:RHA was periods.
in the range of 1:1 to 1:10. Two series of
compacted specimens were prepared at Testing. At the conclusion of the various
optimum moisture content using standard curing periods (7, 28 and 90 days) the
Proctor equipment (DMR T.110). specimens were air dried for 30 minutes
and then subjected to unconfined
Curing compression. The results are shown in
Tables ///to VIII inclusive. The 90 days test
All specimens were wrapped in paper, results for the treated soils A, B and C are
aluminium foil and contained in plastic bags shown in Fig.3.

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991 29

 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

U.C.S. (MPa) U.C.S. (MPa

2.5

2
1.5

1.5

0.5
0.5

1:0 1:2 1:4 1:6 1:8 1 : 10 1:0 1:2 1:4 1:6 1:8 1 : 10

Ratio of cement to RHA Ratio of lime to RHA

Age at test Age at test

—a— 90 days t 28 days 90 days 28 days

Fig. 1 — Unconfined compressive strength of lime: Fig. 2— Unconfined compressive strength of cement:
RHA pastes RHA pastes

Atterberg Limits and Linear Shrinkage water required for wetting the large surface
area of the fine RHA particles. In addition,
Plastic limit, liquid limit and linearshrinkage some of the water is absorbed by the fine
of all mixes were determined using materials particles of the RHA and is required for
collected from unconfined compressive flocculation of the clay clods.
strength crushed specimens. Individual
pieces of each specimen were collected Effect of Various Additives on the
and ground to powder fraction using a Unconfined Compressive Strength of the
porcelain mortar and rubber pestle. Oven Soils
drying was avoided and all prepared
fractions were air dried to reduce the Effect of RHA Alone
possibility of elevated temperature effects
on the pozzolanic material and to simulate It has been observed, as shown in Table III
field conditions as closely as possible. The and Fig. 3, that RHA as a sole additive has
tests were carried out on specimens cured little effect on the unconfined compressive
for 7 and 28 days. The results are presented strength of soils. This can be explained as
in Tables Illto VIII. The results for plasticity follows. The RHA used can be chemically
index and linearshrinkage at 28 days curing termed silica as it contains 58 per cent
are shown in Figs 4 and 5 respectively. silica. Thus it does not react with soil
chemically. In addition, the partial
replacement of the soils with RHA does not
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION impart a significant improvement to the
grading of the soils, as shown in Fig. 6.
Effect of Various Additives on
Compaction Characteristics
Effect of Lime:RHA Additive
It has been observed that when RHA,
For a given quantity of additive, as the
lime:RHA and cement:RHA additives are
proportion by weight of the lime in the additive
added to the soils, the maximum dry
increases, the strength of the treated soil
densities decrease and the optimum
increases. The highest strengths have been
moisture contents increase. These effects
achieved by using 1:1 (by weight) lime:RHA
are more pronounced as the quantity of
additive. This is not consistent with the case
RHA in the additives is increased. The
of lime:RHA pastes (see earlier).
reduction in maximum dry density is due to
the low density of RHA (specific gravity = For all additives, the strength of treated
1.61). The increase in optimum moisture soils A and B increases with increasing
content is probably due to the additional quantity of additive, up to a peak value, then

30 Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

 D
C
w
D.)
.7).
7
DJ
0
W
DJ Table III
w
m
m
Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and
ry Linear Shrinkage for Untreated and Lime, RHA and Lime:RHA Treated Soil A (Crushed Rock Conglomerate)
-_t-i-
-0 Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear
CD
0 (MPa) Shrinkage (%)
3 days 7 days 28 days
co O.M.C. Max 7d 7 28 90 L.L P.L P.I L.L P.L P.1 7 days 28 days
(JD

Untreated soil 13 1.83 0.33 0.33 0.33 33 24 9 33 24 9 3.5 3.5

2% 14.5 1.82 0.43 0.55 0.69 36 30 6 38 33 5 1.5 1.75
Lime 4% 16 1.77 0.46 0.76 1.0 38 35 3 41 40 1 0.5 0.5
6% 16.5 1.74 0.43 0.73 0.95 40 N.P. 0 48 N.P. 0 0.25 0.25
8% 17 1.73 0.41 0.70 0.90 40 N.P. 0 49 N.P. 0 0.25 0.25
RHA 2% 15 1.79 0.33 0.34 0.34 36 27 9 36 27 9 3.25 3.25
4% 16.5 1.74 0.34 0.34 0.34 38.5 31 7.5 38.5 31 7.5 2.75 2.75
6% 17.5 1.70 0.34 0.34 0.34 41.5 35 6.5 41.5 35 6.5 2.25 2.25
8% 18.5 1.66 0.34 0.34 0.34 45.5 40 5.5 45.5 40 5.5 2.0 2.0
Lime:RHA 2% 15 1.82 0.36 0.50 0.55 38 30 8 38 32 6 3.0 2.5
1:1 4% 16 1.77 0.63 0.68 0.92 43 37 6 43.5 39 4.5 2.0 1.5
6% 16.5 1.74 0.61 0.73 1.0 48 44 4

SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

48 46 2 1.0 0.75
8% 17 1.73 0.58 0.71 0.97 51 48 3 51 50 1 0.75 0.5
Lime:RHA 2% 15 1.82 0.36 0.45 0.50 38 29 9 38 31 7 3.25 2.5
1:2 4% 16 1.76 0.60 0.68 0.85 44 37 7 44 38 6 2.25 1.5
6% 16.5 1.73 0.58 0.70 0.92 48 43 5 50 46 4 1.0 1.0
8% 17 1.73 0.55 0.68 0.89 51 47 4 51 48 3 0.75 0.75
Lime:RHA 2% 15 1.81 0.35 0.45 0.50 38 29 9 38 30 8 3.25 3.0
1:3 4% 16 1.76 0.64 0.68 0.75 44 36 8 44.5 38 6.5 2.25 1.75
6% 16.5 1.73 0.58 0.70 0.82 46 39 7 46 41 5 1.50 1.25
8% 17.5 1.72 0.52 0.65 0.81 47 42 5 49 45 4 1.10 0.75
Lime:RHA 2% 15 1.81 0.34 0.45 0.5 35 26 9 37 29 8 3.25 3.0
1:4 4% 16 1.75 0.46 0.50 0.66 40 32 8 43 35 8 2.75 2.5
6% 17 1.72 0.44 0.48 0.67 44 37 7 44 38 6 1.75 1.5
8% 18.5 1.69 0.44 0.46 0.68 46 41 5 47 42 5 1.0 0.75
N.) Cl)
0
r-
(I)
Table IV H
oJ
F
Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and &-)
>
Linear Shrinkage for Untreated and Lime, RHA and Lime:RHA Treated Soil B (Sandy Silt) --i
o
z
Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear w
c
(MPa) Shrinkage (%) z
0
days 7 days 28 days a]
O.M.C. Max Yd 7 28 90 P.I L.L P.L P.I 7 days 28 days 6
L.L P.L m
i
c
U)
Untreated soil 24 8 2.75 2.75 x
15 1.82 0.26 0.26 0.26 32 24 8 32 >
(i)
I
2% 16 1.81 0.32 0.40 0.50 32 27 5 34 31 3 1.25 1.25
Lime 4% 16.5 1.78 0.34 0.42 0.57 34 31 3 34.5 33 1.5 0.75 0.75
6% 17 1.75 0.28 0.38 0.50 36 34 2 36 35 1 0.50 0.50
8% 18 1.73 0.27 0.36 0.45 38 36 2 39 38.5 0.5 0.25 0.25

2% 16 1.78 0.24 0.24 0.24 34 27 7 34 27 7 2.5 2.5

RHA 4% 16 1.76 0.24 0.24 0.24 36 30 6 36 30 6 2.25 2.25
6% 17 1.70 0.24 0.24 0.24 38 34 4 39 34 5 2.0 2.0
8% 19 1.65 0.25 0.25 0.25 41 37 4 42 38 4 2.0 2.0

2% 16 1.8 0.30 0.38 0.45 33 29 4 33 29 4 1.75 1.5

Lime:RHA 4% 16 1.77 0.40 0.46 0.54 34 30 4 34 31.5 2.5 1.5 1.0
1:1 6% 17 1.73 0.34 0.41 0.53 36 33 3 36 34 2 1.0 0.75
8% 18.5 1.70 0.34 0.38 0.48 38 36 2 38 36.5 1.5 0.5 0.5

2% 16 1.79 0.27 0.31 0.41 33 29 4 33.5 29 4.5 1.75 1.75

Lime:RHA 4% 16 1.76 0.36 0.43 0.52 34 30 4 34.5 31 3.5 1.5 1.25
1:2 6% 17 1.72 0.33 0.39 0.52 36 33 3 36.5 34 2.5 1.0 1.0
8% 19 1.66 0.32 0.36 0.45 38 35 3 38 36 2 0.5 0.5

2% 16.5 1.78 0.26 0.30 0.40 32 26 6 33 28 5 2.0 1.75

Lime:RHA 4% 16.5 1.76 0.28 0.32 0.45 33 28 5 34 30 4 2.0 1.5
1:3 6% 17.5 1.70 0.28 0.32 0.46 35 31 4 35 32 3 1.5 1.25
8% 19 1.66 0.27 0.30 0.38 37 33 4 38 35 3 1.0 0.75
1661Jag W809a'(17

2% 16.5 1.78 0.26 0.31 0.38 31 24 7 33 27 6 2.0 2.0

Lime:RHA 4% 16.5 1.76 0.26 0.32 0.42 32 27 5 34 29 5 1.75 1.75
1:4 6% 18 1.70 0.26 0.32 0.43 34 30 4 35 31 4 1.5 1.5
8% 19 1.65 0.26 0.29 0.35 36 32 4 37 33 4 1.5 1.5
7
Table V
0
0_
CD
Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and Linear
V)
CD
fa) Shrinkage for Untreated and Lime, RHA and Lime:RHA Treated Soil C (Organic Clay)
Cs)
Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear
(MPa) Shrinkage (%)
days 7 days 28 days
0
O. M. C. Max 'Id 7 28 90 L.L P.L P.1 L.L P.L P.I 7 days 28 days
CD
3

Untreated soil 22 1.32 0.21 0.21 0.21 100 45 55 100 45 55 17 17

(C)

2% 23 1.32 0.25 0.30 0.33 77 47 30 77 47 30 12 12

Lime 4% 24 1.31 0.34 0.41 0.44 66 48 18 65 48 17 8 8
6% 24.5 1.30 0.43 0.51 0.56 59 50 9 59 49 10 5 4
8% 25 1.29 0.41 0.50 0.55 57 52 5 55 51 4 4.75 4

2% 24 1.28 0.21 0.21 0.21 96 47 49 96 47 49 16.5 16.5

RHA 4% 25 1.24 0.22 0.22 0.22 92 49 43 92 49 43 15 15
6% 26 1.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 89 50 39 89 50 39 13.75 13.5
8% 26 1.21 0.23 0.23 0.23 85 50 35 85 50 35 12.75 12.5

2% 23 1.30 0.24 0.27 0.31 90 47 43 90 47 43 15 15

Lime:RHA 4% 24 1.26 0.26 0.34 0.37 82 48 34 82 48 34 11.5 11.5
1:1 6% 25 1.24 0.34 0.41 0.45 70 49 21 69 49 20 10 10 w
26 1.21 0.34 0.39 0.44 66 49 17 66 49 0
8% 17 9 9 -
1-
cn
23 1.29 0.23 0.25 0.27 90 46 44 90 46 -I
2% 44 15 15 >
Lime:RHA 4% 24.5 1.27 0.25 0.30 0.32 85 46 39 84 47 37 13 12.5 co
1:2 6% 26 1.23 0.29 0.34 0.39 78 47 31 77 48 29 11.5 11 . cn
8% 26.5 1.23 0.33 0.37 0.41 73 48 25 72 49 23 10.5 10 >
--4
5
2% 24 1.26 0.24 0.24 0.25 91 46 45 91 46 45 15.5 15.5 Z
Lime:RHA 4% 25 1.25 0.24 0.26 0.29 84.5 46 38.5 84 46 38 13.5 13.5 w
1:3 6% 26 1.23 0.26 0.30 0.33 79 47 32 79 47 32 12 12 2
8% 27 1.22 0.29 0.32 0.35 74 47 27 74 47 27 11 0
10 i
0
m
I
c
cn
>
cn
I
 0)
0
0)
-I
>
a)
Table VI r"
(15
>
Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and -
---1
o
Linear Shrinkage for Untreated and Cement, RHA and Cement:RHA treated soil A (Crushed Rock Conglomerate) z
c
w
Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear <0
(MPa) Shrinkage (%) i
5
days 7 days 28 days m
0. M.C. Max 7c1 7 28 90 L. L P. L P. I L. L P. L P. I 7 days 28 days i
c
0)

3.5 (i)
Untreated soil 13 1.83 0.33 0.33 0.33 33 24 9 33 24 9 3.5

2% 14 1.85 1.26 1.95 2.00 36 30 6 38 33 5 1.5 1.0

Cement 4% 14.5 1.85 1.75 2.70 3.15 47 45 2 17 16 1 0.75 0.5
6% 15.5 1.85 2.45 3.50 4.00 48 48 0 48 N.P. 0 0.5 0,25
8% 16.5 1.85 3.00 4.30 4.60 49 N.P. 0 49 N.P. 0 0.25 0.00

2% 15 1.79 0.33 0.34 0.34 36 27 9 36 27 9 3.25 3.25

RHA 4% 16.5 1.74 0.34 0.34 0.34 38.5 31 7.5 38 31 7.5 2.75 2.75
6% 17.5 1.70 0.34 0.34 0.34 41.5 35 6.5 41.5 35 6.5 2.25 2.25
8% 18.5 1.66 0.34 0.34 0.34 45.5 40 5.5 45.5 40 5.5 2.0 2.0

2% 14 1.83 0.68 0.98 1.35 39 33 6 39 33 6 1.75 1.75

Australian Road Research,

Cement:RHA 4% 14.5 1.81 1.00 i .65 2.27 43 37 6 43 38 5 1.0 1.0

1:2 6% 15.5 1.75 1.40 2.10 2.53 47 42 5 47 43 4 0.75 0.75
8% 16.5 1.76 1.75 2.30 3.10 51 47 4 51 48 3 0.75 0.75

2% 14 1.83 0.62 0.80 1.08 38 30 8' 38 30 8 2.25 2.25

Cement:RHA 4% 14.5 1.80 0.90 1.25 1.70 42 34 8 42 35 7 1.5 1.5
1:3 6% 16 1.78 1.25 1.68 2.30 47 40 7 45 39 6 1.25 1.25
8% 17 1.73 1.50 2.00 2.70 49 42 7 49 44 5 1.0 1.0

2% 14.5 1.81 0.52 0.55 0.70 38 29 9 38 29 9 2.75 2.5

21(4), December 199 1

Cement:RHA 4% 15 1.78 0.70 0.85 1.10 42 34 ' 8 42.5 35 7.5 1.75 2.0
1:4 6% 16 1.76 0.57 1.10 1.42 47 40 7 47 40.5 6.5 1.75 1.75
8% 17.5 1.72 1.00 1.40 1.80 47 40 7 47 41.5 5.5 1.5 1.5
c
CO
Table VII

w Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and

D>
CD
Linear Shrinkage for Untreated and Cement, RHA and Cement:RHA Treated Soil B (Sandy Silt)
0
CD
ID
, Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear
0
7"
-N (MPa) Shrinkage (%)
days 7 days 28 days
3
b 0.M.C. Max Yd 7 28 90 L. L P. L P. I L. L P. L P. I 7 days 28 days
CD
0
CA)
Untreated soil 15 1.82 0.26 0.26 0.26 32 24 8 32 24 8 2.75 2.75
ST
2% 15.5 1.82 0.43 0.67 0.74 32 27 5 34 31 3 1.0 0.75
Cement 4% 16.5 1.84 0.62 1.02 1.15 33 29 4 35 33 2 0.5 0.25
6% 17 1.84 0.90 1.50 1.70 35 33 2 37 36 1 0.5 0.25
8% 17.5 1.84 1.40 2.30 2.57 36 38 0 40 N.P. 0 0.0 0.0

2% 16 1.78 0.24 0.24 0.24 34 27 7 34 27 7 2.5 2.5

RHA 4% 16 1.76 0.24 0.24 0.24 36 30 6 36 30 6 2.25 2.25
6% 17 1.70 0.24 0.24 0.24 38 34 4 39 34 5 2.0 2.0
8% 19 1.65 0.25 0.25 0.25 41 37 4 42 38 4 2.0 2.0

2% 16 1.82 0.28 0.42 0.57 32 27 5 33 29 4 1.5 1.5

Cement:RHA 4% 17 1.78 0.35 0.60 0.83 35 31 4 35 32 3 1.5 1.0
1:2 6% 17.5 1.73 0.48 0.77 1.05 38 35 3 38 36 2 1.25 0.75
8% 18 1.70 0.55 0.90 1.25 39 38 1 39 38 1 1.0 0.75
cn
0
2°/0 16 1.82 0.28 0.37 0.55 32 27 5 32 27 5 2.0 1.75 F
Cement:RHA 4% 17 1.78 0.32 0.51 0.75 33 29 4 34 30 4 1.75 1.25 u)
35
. --i
1:3 6% 17.5 1.72 0.45 0.69 1.00 37 33 4 38 3 1.75 1.0 >
37 2 40 co
8% 18.5 1.68 0.48 0.82 1.18 39 38 2 1.0 0.75 F
cn
1.82 0.26 0.32 0.40 34 28 6 34 28 6 2.25 2.0 >
2% 16
Cement:RHA 4% 17 1.76 0.31 0.42 0.52 34 29 5 34 29 5 2.0 1.75 a
1.71 0.42 0.50 0.62 34 30 4 34 30 4 1.75 z
1:4 6% 17.5 1.5
c
8% 18.5 1.67 0.45 0.61 0.77 35 31 4 35 31 4 1.5 1.25 w
2
0
I
5
m
I
E
CI)

2).
Cf)
I
 Table VIII

Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and

Linear Shrinkage for Untreated and Cement, RHA and Cement:RHA Treated Soil C (Organic Clay)

isnH 20IEION
Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear
(MPa) Shrinkage (%)
days 7 days 28 days
O.M.C. Max id 7 28 90 L.L P.L P.I L.L P.L P.I 7 days 28 days

HSV›
Untreated soil 22 1.32 0.21 0.21 0.21 100 45 55 100 45 55 17 17

2% 23 1.34 0.25 0.32 0.35 79 46 33 77 47 30 12.5 12

Cement 4% 24.5 1.35 0.32 0.41 0.46 71 49 22 69 49 20 9 8.5
6% 25 1.39 0.42 0.52 0.58 63 50 13 63 50 13 6.75 6.75
8% 26 1.40 0.48 0.60 0.70 59 50 9 59 50 9 6.5 6.5

2% 24 1.28 0.21 0.21 0.21 96 47 49 96 47 49 16.5 16.5

RHA 4% 25 1.24 0.22 0.22 0.22 92 49 43 92 49 43 15 15
6% 26 1.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 89 50 39 89 50 39 13.75 13.5
.8% 26 1.21 0.23 0.23 0.23 85 50 35 85 50 35 12.75 12.5

2% 24 1.32 0.23 0.26 0.28 83 46 37 81 46 35 13.5 13

Australian Road.

Cement:RHA 4% 25 1.30 0.25 0.29 0.37 75 48 27 74 48 26 11 11

1:1 6% 26 1.28 0.30 0.35 0.43 72 49 23 70.5 48 22.5 9.5 9.5
8% 27 1.26 0.39 0.41 0.48 70 50 20 70 50.5 19.5 8 8

2% 24 1.31 0.22 0.25 0.27 89.5 46 43.5 88 46 42 15 15

Cement:RHA 4% 25 1.29 0.24 0.26 0.32 82 47.5 34.5 80 48 32 12.5 12
1:2 6% 26 0.37 77 48 29 77 48 29 11.5 11
Research, 2 1(4) , December1991

1.26 0.30 0.32

8% 27 1.25 0.32 0.37 0.41 76 48:5 27.5 73 50 23 11 9.5

2% 24 1.30 0.21 0.23 0.26 91 46 45 90 46 44 15.5 15

Cement:RHA 4% 25 1.28 0.23 0.26 0.30 84 47 37 82 47.5 34.5 13.5 13
1:3 6% 26 1.26 0.26 0.30 0.34 79.5 48 31.5 78 48 30 11.5 11.5
8% 27 1.24 0.28 0.32 0.37 77 48 29 75 48 27 11 10.5
 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Soil A -Lime Soil A -Cement

U.C.S. (MPa) U.C.S. (MPa)
1,2. 5

1 .......... •
4

0.8 i-
3

0.6
I 2
0.4 L
' A.-

0.21-

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil B -Lime Soil B -Cement

U.C.S. (MPa) U.C.S. (MPa)
0.6 3

• - -G.
0.5 2.5
/ •
/.
0.4 2

1.5
0. 3 I- •
........ o

0.2 1

-le
0.1 0.5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as cio dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil C -Lime Soil C -Cement

U.C.S. (MPa) U.C.S. (MPa)
0.6 0.8

0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5

0.3 0.4

L. ...... 0 ......... c 0.3

0 . 2 le
0.2
0.1
0.1

o 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Additive Additive

RHA Lime L:RHA 1:1 -0 " RHA Cccocut C:RHA 1:1

L:RHA 1:2 L:RHA 1:3 —""-- L:RHA 1:4 C:RHA 1:2 C:RHA 1:3 C:RHA 1:4

Fig. 3 — Unconfined compressive strength (at age of 90 days) of soils treated with
combinations of RHA, lime and cement

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991 37

SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Soil A -Lime Soil A -Cement

Plasticity Index Plasticity Index
to

4
I

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as '70 dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil B -Lime Soil B -Cement

Plasticity Index Plasticity Index
10. io

8s

6- c

4-

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil C -Lime Soil C -Cement

Plasticity Index Plasticity Index
60 7

50- • 50 `• •
I '
r • -0..
40 ; 40
-0
30 ; 30 [.
N,

20I 20

10 10

0 0
2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Add I tl vc
Additive

Lime L:RHA 1:1 .0 RHA Cctocot C:RHA 1:1

'c:' RHA
C:RHA 1:2 C:R}IA 1:3 "—"— C:RHA 1:4
L:RHA 1:2 L:RHA 1:3 L:RHA 1:4

Fig. 4 — Plasticity index (at age of 28 days) of soils treated with combinations of
RHA, lime and cement

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Soil A -Lime Soil A - Cement

Linear Shrinkage (%) Linear Shrinkage (%)
4
4

3.5 c• 3.5
L.
3 :- 3

2.5 - 2.5

2
•
1.5 1.5
\
17 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil B -Lime Soil B - Cement

Linear Shrinkage (%) Linear Shrinkage (%)
3 3
.
2.5 1-\ N

. • c

1.5

11

0.5 L 0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 8 106
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil C -Lime Soil C - Cement

Linear Shrinkage (%) Linear Shrinkage (%)
20 20

s z•• - - 15

10 h 10

ti

0 0
0 2 4 8 6 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Additive AdditiNt

RHA Lime L:RHA 1:1 RHA Ccrocut C:RHA 1:1

L:RHA 1:2 L:RHA 1:3 L:RHA 1:4 —"G" C:RHA 1:2 C:RHA 1:3 --- C:RHA 1:4

Fig. 5 — Linear shrinkage (at age of 28 days) of soils treated with combinations of
RHA, lime and cement

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991 39

SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Soil A
Percent passing
100

Soil typc
80 Soil A Soil A + 8% RHA

60

40

20-

Soil B
Percent passing
100

1 Soil type ,
80 - z— Soil B
I —c —G-- Soil B + 8% RHA

60

.
40
---'''''''.

20

Soil C
Percent passing
1 00

80

60

40

20 Soil typc
Soil C Soil C 8% RHA

0 I
0.0135 0.075 0.425 2.36 4.75 9.5 19

Sieve size (mm)

Fig. 6 — Grading of untreated soils and soils treated with 8% RHA

40 Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH
:::::•::•::•••••••••••••

decreases with the continuous increase of of cement treated soils. Rates of strength
the quantity of additive. However, this peak development, as a ratio of 28 days strength
value of strength does not generally occur to 90 days strength, for various soils, are
for treated soil C. shown in Table X.

The quantity of additive, at which a peak

value of strength occurs, tends to increase Effect of Various Additives on the
with increasing amount of RHA in the Atterberg Limits and Linear Shrinkage
additive. of Soils

As the curing time increases, strength Effect of RHA Alone

increases due to the pozzolanic reactions,
which take place over a long time. Rates of From Tables ///to Vand Figs 4 and 5, it can
strength development as a ratio of 28 days be observed that liquid limits and plastic
strength to 90 days strength, for various limits of RHA treated soil increase with the
soils, are shown in Table IX. increase of additive quantity, with the notable
exception of organic heavy clays where the
For all soils tested, the lime:RHA additives liquid limit decreases with the increase of
were not able to achieve the highest strength additive quantity.
achieved by lime additive. The highest
strength was achieved by 4 per cent lime Plasticity index and linearshrinkage of RHA-
addition. treated soil decrease with increasing additive
quantity.
Effect of Cement:RHA Additive
Liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index and
For a given quantity of additive, as cement linear shrinkage after a curing period of 28
content increases, the strength of the treated days are similar to those after a curing
soil increases, consistent with the case of period of 7days. This implies that no reaction
cement:RHA pastes. has taken place between RHA and the soils
during this period. We notice that this is
For all additives (8 per cent upper limit consistent with the finding for strength.
tested) there is continuous increase in
strength with increasing quantity of additive. RHA as a sole additive cannot attain the
No peak value of strength was observed. linear shrinkage and the plasticity index
achieved by 2 per cent lime additive. For
As curing time increases, the strength of the soils A and B it can also be deduced that 5-
treated soils increases. The rates of strength 6 percent of RHA is required to achieve the
development of soils treated with same results as 1 per cent lime additive. In
cement:RHA additives are slowerthan those the case of soil C, RHA additive cannot

Table IX

Rates of Strength Development (as Ratio of Strength at 28 Days

to Strength at 90 Days) for Lime Treated Soils

Type Amount Additive

of of Lime:RHA
Soil Additive Lime 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4

A 0.80 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90

2)/0 0.80 0.84 0.76 0.75 0.82
C 0.91 0.87 0.93 0.96

B 0.76 0.74 0.80 0.91 0.76

LI°/0 0.74 0.85 0.83 0.71 0.76
C 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.90

B 0.77 0.73 0.76 0.85 0.72

6% 0.76 0.77 0.75 0.70 0.74
C 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.91

B 0.78 0.73 0.76 0.80 0.68

B 80/0 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.79 0.83
C 0.91 0.89 0.90 0.91

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

41
 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Table X

Rates of Strength Development (as Ratio of Strength at 28 Days to

Strength at 90 Days) for Cement Treated Soils

Type Amount Additive

of of Cement:RHA
Soil Additive Cement 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4

A 0.98 0.73 0.74 0.79

20/0 0.91 0.74 0.67 0.80
C 0.91 0.93 0.930.88

B 0.86 0.73 0.74 0.77

4°/0 0.89 0.72 0.68 0.81
C 0.89 0.78 0.81 0.87

B 0.88 0.83 0.73 0.77

B 6`'/0 0.88 0.73 0.69 0.81
C 0.90 0.81 0.86 0.88

0.93 0.74 0.74 0.78

B 8°/0 0.89 0.72 0.69 0.79
C 0.86 0.85 0.90 0.86

attain the results achieved by 1 per cent additive (i.e. 1.36 per cent lime + 1.36 per
lime additive. Therefore, the use of RHA to cent RHA). The lime saving is therefore
modify the plasticity and linearshrinkage of equal to:
soils is not efficient.
2 - 1.36 = 0.64 per cent; and
Effect of Lime:RHA and Cement:RHA
Additives the ratio of RHA required to lime saved

Tables HI to Vand Figs 4 and 5indicate that = 1.36 ÷ 0.64

the plastic limit of all treated soils increases
with the increase of the additive quantity. = 2.12.

Liquid limits of A and Btreated soils increase Therefore, 1:1 lime:RHA additive is not
with the increase of lime or cement content economically feasible to replace the 2 per
in the additive orwith the increase of additive cent lime stabilisation unless the cost of the
quantity. lime is equal to or greater than 2.12 times
the cost of RHA.
Liquid limit of organic heavy clay (C treated
soil) decreases with the increase of lime or Table Xl has been derived in a similar
cement content in the additive or with the manner utilising Figs3, 4and 5and applying
increase of the additive quantity. the same calculations forthe various values
of strength, plasticity and shrinkage foreach
Plasticity index and linear shrinkage of case of soil treatment.
lime:RHA and cement:RHA treated soils
after a curing period of 28 days are slightly From Table Xl it can be deduced that:
lower than those that result after a curing
period of 7 days. This implies that the • 1:1 lime:RHA additive tends to give the
reactions responsible for reducing plasticity lowest ratios of RHA required to lime
and shrinkage (i.e. cation exchange) occur saved for all of the lime:RHA additives
during a short period of time and mostly in tested;
the first 7 days of the curing time. • Lime:RHA additives are more efficient
for strength improvement of soils than
Implications of Lime Savings for reduction of plasticity and shrinkage;

From Fig. 3 it can be seen that the strength • Lime:RHA additives are more efficient
of 2 per cent lime-treated soil A can be in stabilising low cohesion soils than in
achieved by 2.72 per cent of 1:1 lime:RHA stabilising clays; and

42 Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Table XI

Ratio of RHA Required to Lime Saved

(Desired Economic Cost Ratio of Lime to RHA)

Level of Soil Lime:R HA

Achievement Type 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4

U.C.S.* of 2% lime A 2.12 2.15 NA NA

treated soil 3.44 3.24 NA NA
C 3 6 13

U.C.S.* of 4% lime B 3 NA NA NA
treated soil NA NA NA NA
C 3 NA NA

Plasticity' of 2% lime B 5.66 22.9 9 16

treated soil 5.66 10 9 NA
C NA NA 36

Plasticity *of 4% lime B NA NA NA NA

treated soil 3 NA NA NA
C NA NA NA

Linear shrinkage+ of 2% B 3 2.63 3 4.88

lime treated soil 3 4.04 9 NA
C 7 7.30 10.33

Linear shrinkage- of 4% B NA NA NA NA
lime treated soil B 4 NA NA NA
C NA NA NA

Notes: NA No lime saving is possible

Additive not tested
90 days curing
28 days curing

• 1:1 lime:RHA additive generally cannot unless the cost of cement is equal to or
be recommended for improvement of greater than 2.44 times the cost of RHA.
unconfined compressive soil strength
unless the cost of lime is at least three Table XII has been derived in a similar
times the cost of RHA. However, for manner utilising Figs3, 4and Sand applying
modifying the plasticity, the cost of lime the same calculations forthe various values
must be at least 5.6 times the cost of of strength, plasticity and shrinkage foreach
RHA. case of soil treatme nt. From Table XII it can
be deduced that:
Implications of Cement Savings
• 1:1 cement:RHA additive tends give the
From Fig. 3, it can be seen that the strength lowest ratios of RHA required to cement
of 2 per cent cement treated soil A can be savedfor all of the cement:RHA additives
achieved by 3.3 percent of 1:2 cement:RHA used;
additive (i.e. 1.1 per cent cement + 2.2 per
cent RHA). The cement saving is therefore • Cement:RHA additives are more
equal to: efficient in improving the properties of
low cohesion soils than in improving the
2 — 1.1 = 0.9 per cent; and properties of clays; and

the ratio of RHA required to cement saved • 1:2 cement:RHA additive can be
recommended to replace 2 per cent
= 2.2 ÷ 0.9 cement in modifying the strength of low
cohesion soils or the plasticity and
= 2.44. shrinkage of low cohesion soils and
clays, provided that the cost of cement
1:2 cement:RHA additive is not economically is equal to or greater than 4 times the
feasible to replace the 2 percent of cement cost of RHA.

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991 43

SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Table XII

Ratio of RHA Required to Cement Saved

(Desired Economic Cost Ratio of Cement to RHA)

Level of Cement:RHA
Achievement Soil 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4

U .0 .S.* of 2% A 2.44 5 NA
cement treated soil 2.29 2.71 NA
C 5.66 10 45

U.C.S.* of 4% B 4.01 NA NA
cement treated soil 2.81 2.65 NA
C 7 NA NA

Plasticity of 2% B 4.04 NA NA
cement treated soil 4.04 9 NA
C 4 5.55 9

Plasticity of 4% B NA NA NA
cement treated soil NA NA NA
C 15 NA NA

Linear shrinkage- of 2% B 4.04 NA NA

cement treated soil NA NA NA
C 3 4.04 6.65

Linear shrinkage. of 4% B NA NA NA
cement treated soil B NA NA NA
C 15 NA NA

Notes: NA No cement saving is possible

— Additive not tested
* 90 days curing
+ 28 days curing

AVAILABILITY OF RHA strict quality control to comply with exacting

requirements of the steel and refractory
RHA is produced by the burning of the industries that comprise the major market.
harsh woody outer covering of the rice As a result of this strict quality control, the
grain. It is estimated that approximately 12 ashes are relatively expensive at the
million tonnes of RHA are available moment.
worldwide each year, and are posing a
disposal problem (Spence and Cook 1983). At present 60 percent of the rice husksfrom
the Riverina are disposed of byfield burning.
In Australia, the major rice-growing area is It is planned to install incineration or power
generation facilities at all mills (Echuca,
centred on the Riverina area of New South
Deniliquin, Coleambally, Leeton, Yenda and
Wales, where the Riceg rowers Co-operative
Griffith) within five years (Klatt 1991), which
Limited produces an annual crop of close to
should ensure that, progressively, up to
one million tonnes of paddy rice, resulting in
30,000 tonnes each year of low-carbon ash
160,000 tonnes of rice husks. Smaller
will become available. This ash, which would
quantities of rice husks, of the order of 6000
normally be used as landfill, as a soil
and 1000 tonnes each year, are produced
ameliorant forsandy soils, oras a substitute
in the Burdekin delta, Queensland and the
for lime in soils, should become available
Northern Territory, respectively.
locally at low cost.
Currently, approximately 20,000 tonnes
CONCLUSIONS
each year of rice husks from the Riverina
area are burnt in controlled combustion
(a) RHAas a sole additive cannot improve
furnaces at Griffith producing around 1000
the strength of a soil unless it can
tonnes each year of low-carbon and 3000
improve its grading;
tonnes each year of high-carbon rice husk
ash (no controlled burning of the Queensland (b) RHA alone is not efficient in modifying
and Northern Territory rice husks currently the plasticity and shrinkage properties
occurs). The ashes are produced under of a soil;

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

(c) Forthe soils tested, the maximum dry (m) Cement:RHA additives are more
density decreases and the optimum efficient in improving the properties of
moisture content increases if a soil is low cohesion soils than in improving
treated with RHA, lime:RHA or the properties of clays; and
cement:RHA additives. These effects
(n) 1:2 cement:RHA additive cannot be
are more pronounced as either the
recommended as equivalent to 2 per
quantity of the additive is increased
cent cement for modifying the strength
or as the proportion of RHA in the
of low cohesion soils and the plasticity
additive is increased;
and shrinkage of clays and low
(d) The lime:RHA ratio giving the highest cohesion soils unless the cost of
strength in the lime:RHA pastes does cement is equal to, or greater than, 4
not represent the optimum ratio for times the cost of RHA.
stabilising the soils;
(e) The unconfined compressive strength
of the soil is increased when the soil
is treated with lime:RHA additives.
This is more pronounced when a
longer curing time is allowed, or the REFERENCES
amount of lime or cement in the
additive is increased; DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS (now
ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF
(f) Soils treated with cement:RHA NSW (1980). Materials Testing Manual,
additives exhibit a slower rate of Vols 1, 2 and 3.
strength development than those
treated with cement as a sole additive; KLATT, P. (1991). Private communication,
The plasticity index and linear 19 June.
(g)
shrinkage of soil decrease on the
addition of lime:RHA or cement:RHA KORISA, J. (1958). Rice and its By-products.
additives. These decreases are more 2nd edn. (Edward Arnold: London.)
pronounced as the amount of lime or
cement in the additive is increased; LAZARO, R.C. and MOH, Z.C. (1976).
Stabilization of deltaic soil with lime and rice
(h) A very slight improvement generally husk ash as admixtures. Second South
occurs with respect to the plasticity East Asia Conference on Soil Engineering,
and shrinkage properties of the Singapore, pp 215-23.
lime:RHA treated soils when cured
for longer periods (28 days compared MANZ, O.E. and MANZ, B.A. (1984).
with 7 days); Utilization of fly ash in road bed stabilization:
(i) Lime:RHA additives are more efficient some examples of western US experience.
for the strength improvement of soils Materials Research Society Symposium on
than forthe reduction of plasticity and Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products:
shrinkage; Characterization, Utilization and Disposal I,
Boston, USA, November, pp. 129-40.
(1) 1:1 lime:RHA and cement:RHA
additives generally exhibit the lowest RAHMAN, M.A. (1986). Effects of rice husk
ratios of RHA required to lime/cement ash on geotechnical properties of lateritic
savedforall of the examined lime:RHA soil. West Indian Journal of Engineering,
and cement:RHA additives; Vol. II, No. 2, July, pp. 18-22.
(k) 1:1 lime:RHA additive is not
recommended for increasing the SPENCE, R.J.S. and COOK, D.J. (1983).
strength of soils unless the cost of Building Materials in Developing Countries.
lime is 3 times that of RHA; (John Wiley: Chichester.)

(I) 1:1 lime:RHA additive is not SUBRAHMANYAM, M.S., CHERAN, L.L.

recommended for modifying the and CHERAN, L.S. (1981). Use of rice husk
plasticity and volume stability of soils ash fo r soil stabilization. Geological Society,
unless the cost of lime is 5-6 times Malaysia, Bulletin 14, December, pp 143-
that of RHA; 51.

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

D.G. MONTGOMERY

Denis Montgomery is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Civil and Mining Engineering,
University of Wollongong. He has a B.Sc. (Eng.) and Ph.D. from Queen's University, Belfast.
He is involved in a number of research projects concerned with engineering materials and
his main research interests are in concrete technology and engineering utilisation of
industrial by-products.

G. CHMEISSE

Ghassan Chmeisse is Project Engineer in the Traffic Unit at Yennora Works Centre of the
RTA Sydney Western Region. He obtained a B.C.E. from Cairo University and a M. Eng. Sc.
from the Universityof NewSouth Wales. He is currently studying fora Ph.D. at the University
of Wollongong. He has worked as a construction engineer, associated with buildings and
roads, in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Australia.

46 Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991