See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289857774

Sun-Baked Stabilized soil blocks for Buildings

Thesis · January 2000

CITATIONS READS

0 112

1 author:

Yousif Mawlood
Salahaddin University - Erbil
11 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Soil and Municipal Solid Waste Leachate Characterization at Erbil Anaerobic Landfill Site View project

Expansive of clayey soils View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yousif Mawlood on 11 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SUN.BAKED STABTLIZED SOIL BLOCKS
FOR BUILDING

A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE, COLLEG OF ENGINEERING OF
TIIE L|NIVERSITY OF SALAHADDIN-ARBIL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

BY
YOTJSIF ISMAIL MOTJLUID
(8. Sc. C ivil Engineering)

APRIL - 2OOO
 I certify that this thesis was prepared under my supervision at the University
of Salahaddin as a parlial requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Civil
Engineering.

Signature.

Name: Tharwat M. S. Baban

Supervisor (Assistant Professor)
Date: -April-2000

In the view of the available recommendation I forward this thesis for debate
Examining Committee.

Signature

Name: Faisal Daham

(Head of the Civil Engineering Deparlment)

Date: - April-2000
 rl

We certify that we have read this thesis and as Examining Committee, examined

the student in its content and in what connected with it and that in our opinion it meets the
standard of a thesis for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering.

Signature Signature...

Name: Ismail Baker Muhammad Name: Dr. Kamal Ahmad Rashed

Member Member

Date: - -2000 Date: - -2000

Signature. Signature...

Name: Tharwat M. S. Baban Name: Jalal Ahmad Said

(AssistantProfessor) (Assistant Professor)
Member ((Supervisor) Chairman of the Committee

Date: - -2000 Date: - -2000

Approval of the College of Engineering:

Signature

Dr. F. H. Maroof
Dean of the College of Engineering
Date: - -2000
 In the Name of Allah
tlte Contpassionate the MerctfaI

'r-o A,'t\'=

PAREAIT-S
 IV

ACKNOWLEDGE}4ENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and thanks to my supervisor Mr.

THARWAT BABAN Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering, fbr his
greatly appreciated guidance and advice throughout the work.
Appreciation and thanks to Dr. F. H. Maroof Dean of the College of Engineering
and Mr. F. Daham Head of the Civil Engineering Department for their encouragement and
supporls.

Special thanks are extended to Mr. R. A. Hummadi and to other members of the

soil mechanics staff for their constructive participation in the author's knowledge. Special
thanks are also extended to Mr. A.Faiz staff member of the Civil Engineering Department
for his great help during the experimental work.
My thanks to the staff of the Computer Center for making all facilities available

and to Mr. Y. Najmadeen demonstrator of Mechanical Department for his assistance

throughout the experimental work.
My thanks to Habitat Organization for their encouragement. Also my sincere
thanks to Directorate of Arbil Construction Laboratory for performing the chemical
analysis of the soils and stabilizers.
Last but not least thanks are extended to my parents, brothers, family and Mr. .1.

Sadik and all my friends who helped me, directly or indirectly, during the different phases
of the research.
 ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to investigate the visibility of using lime and/or cement as
soil stabilizers in order to produce sun-baked (not kiln-burnt) soil blocks of adequate
strength and durability for low cost housing.
In this investigation two types of soil were selected, I - Light red clayey silt of low
degree of plasticity obtained from Degala area represented by soil-A, 2- Grayey light
brown, silty clay of medium plasticity obtained from Koritan village represented by soil-B

which is used by Arbil brick factories. Economical percentages; 3, 6, 9 and 12 %by weight
of dry soil, of lime (L), cement(C) and lime-plus-cement (1L: 2C) were mixed with each
soil type as stabilizer. Cubic blocks of (70.7-mm) in dimensions of stabilized soil were
fabricated using three different static compaction pressures; 4, 8 and 12 MN/m2 which are
equivalent to compactive efforts; 5.77 , 11.54 and 17 .31 kg/cm3 respectively (i.e.
compaction pressures divided by the height of the mould). Also blocks of raw (untreated)
soil were fabricated for comparison purposes.
After proper curing of the stabilized soil blocks, soaked and unsoaked unconfined

compressive strength and durability characteristics were tested.

Test results showed that both soils. when stabilized at or above 9Yo of lime or cement

alone, irrespective of their compaction pressure, gave strengths higher than the minimum
recommended strength value of 1.4 MN/m2. While these soils when stabilized at or above
6oh of lime in combination with cement, gave strengths higher than 1.4MN/m2.This
appears to be in the benefit of economical considerations.

Test results of strength and durability characteristics showed that, there were
appreciable increase in compressive strength and improvement in durability of soil blocks
by the addition of stabilizers, like lime and/or cement than the ordinary unstabilized soil

block which got eroded due to effects of rainfall and may need major repairs every year,
when used for building.

It was concluded that, stabilized soil blocks can be extremely useful building
materials for low-cost housing, largely in villages or where transport costs are high,
provided that an adequate program of testing is carried out for the raw materials.
 VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page

CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION I

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 3

2.1 ..............
Principles of Soil Stabilization. 3

2.2 Methods of Stabilization of Soil Block. 3

2.2.1 Mechanical Stabilization. .............. 4

2.2.2 Lime Stabilization................ 5

2.2.2.1 Types of Lime..... 6

2.2.2.2 Lime-Soil Reaction'.. g

2.2.3 Cement Stabilization. 10

2.2.3.1 General.. 10

2.2.3.2 Cement-Soil Reaction 10

2.3 Effect of Soil Properties on Lime and/or Cement Stabi1i2ation.................... 13

Soi1...........
2.3.1 Physical Properties of 13

2.3.2 Chemical Properties of Soil...'...'... 15

2.3.3 Mineralogical Composition of Soil. 17

2.4 Use of Lime as an Additive to Soil-Cement......'...... 17

2.5 Effect of Lime /Cement on Soil Properties. 17

2.5.1 Plasticity... 17

2.5.2 Density and OMC. 19

2.5.3 Swelling and Shrinkage............ 20

2.5.4 Strength. 2I
2.5.5 Durability. 26

CHAPTER THREE HISTORY OF EARTH STRUCTURE, DESIGN

CONSIDERATIONS AND BLOCK MAKING PRESSES 27

Architecture...............
3.1 History of Earth 21

3.2 General Design Principles 30

3.3 Block making presses...... 31

3.3.i General 31

3.3.2 Types of Block Making Presses...... 32

CHAPTER FOUR MATERIALS AND TESTS... 36

4.1 Materials............. 36
 vll

TABLE OF CONTENTS [continued]

Titte pase

4.1.1 Soi1s.......... -. 36

4.1,2 Lime. 39

4.1.3 Cement..... 40

4.1.4 Water. 4I
4.2 .............
Moisture-Density Relationship. 4l
4.3Fabrication of Block Specimens and Curing 4l
4.3.1 Fabrication. '..........'..'..'. 4l
4.3.2 Curing.............. 43

4.4 Strength and Durability Tests... 43

4.4.1 Strength Tests... 43

4.4.2Durability Tests.. 43

CHAPTER FIVE TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......... 45

5.1 General..... 45

5.2 Compaction Characteristics........ 45

5.3 Strength Characteristics............ 56

5.3.1 Genera1............. 56

5.3.2 Unsoaked (Dry) Strength.... 56

5.3.3 Soaked (Wet) Strength .. 57

5.4 Durability Characteristics............ 70

5.4.1 Genera1............. 70

5.4.2 Wetting and Drying Cycles....... 70

5.4.2.t Loss in Weight...... 70

5.4.2.2 Volume Change...... 78

5.4.2.3 Water Absorption 82

5.4.3 Spraying Test-Loss in Weight 85

5.6 Acceptable and Rejected Stabilized Soil Blocks 92

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......... 94

........
6.1 Conclusions 94

6.2 Recommendations................ 96
 vlll

LIST OF FIGURES
FiEures Fage
Fig. (2-1) Schematic Diagrams of Idealized Types of Particle Orientation 5

Fig. (2-2) Location of Limestone in Iraq, (17) .. . .. 7

Fig. (2-3) Sources of Strength in Soil-Lime Mixture (16)........... 9

Fig. Q-q Sources of Strength in Soil-Cement Mixture (16)........ II

Fig. (2-5) Suggested Stabilizing Agent for PI of Existing Soil, (16)... 14

Fig. (2-6) Effect of Soil pH value on the Unconfined Compressive Strength (at an age
of 7 days) of Soil-Cement Mixtures Containingl0 Percent of Ordinary

Portland Cement (16)............ 16

Fig. (2-7) Effect of Various Additives on the Atterberg Limits of a Gumbotil Soil (11). 18

Fig. (2-8) Effect of Cement Content on Liquid Limit of Three Soils (25).. l8
Fig. (2-9) Effect of Lime on Compaction Characteristics of Two Soils (f .... 19

Fig. (2- 10) Effect of Addition of different Amount and Kinds of Lime on the Strength of
a Montmorillonite Clay Soil (12) .......... 22

Fig. (2-11) Moisture-Density and Moisture-Strength Relationships of a Montmorillonite

Clay Soil With and Without Lime. Compacted at Modified Proctor Compactive
Effort (12)........... 23

Fig. (2-12) Effect of Cement Content on Strength for Various Soils Stabilized with
Ordinary Portland Cement and Cured for Seven Days at 25oC, Constant
Moisture Content (26). . 24

Fig. (2-13) Effect of Density on Strength of a Clay Stabilized with l0 percent

Cement (26) ......... 25

Fig. (2-1a) Effect of Delayed Compaction After Mixing on Compressive Strength (32) 25

Fig. (3-1) Traditional Methods of Soil Construction.... .....'..... .. 28

Fig. (3-2) Sri Lankan Village Houses Built from Blocks of Cement- Stabilized Soil.. 31
Fig. (3-3) CINVA-RAM Soil Block Press at Compression'.'.'...'...'... 32

Fig. (3-a) TEK-BLOK Soil Block Press in Use........... 33

Fig. (3-5) BALRAM Soil Block Press ........ 35

Fig. (a-l) Particle Size Distribution of Soils-A&8,....!..r.'......' 37

Fig. (a-2) Fabricated Soil Block Specimens at the Curing Stage..'...... 42

Fig. (a-3) Photo Taken at the End of Spraying Test on Stabilized Soil B1ocks............ 44
Fig. (5-1) Relationship of Dry Density - Moisture Content, Static Compaction
Effort : 5.77 kg/cm3, Soil -A..... 47
 ix

LIST OF FIGURES Icontinued]

Figures Page
Fig. (5-2) Relationship of Dry Density - Moisture Content, Static Compaction
Effort = 11.54 kg/cm3, Soil -A...... 48
Fig. (5-3) Relationship of Dry Density - Moisture Content, Static Compaction
Effort : 17.31 kg/crn3, Soil -A..... 49
Fig. (5-a) Relationship of Dry Density - Moisture Content, Static Compaction
Effort : 5.77 kg/cm3, Soil -B...... 50
Fig. (5-5) Relationship of Dry Density - Moisture Content, Static Compaction
Effort :11.54 kg/cm3, Soil -B...... 51

Fig. (5-6) Relationship of Dry Density - Moisture Content, Static Compaction

Effort : 17.31 kg/cm3, Soil *B...... 52

Fig. (5-7) Effect of Compaction Efforts on Maximum Dry Density, for various
Additive Contents, for Soils-A & B........... 54
Fig. (5-8) Effect of Compaction Efforts on Optimum Moisture Content, for Various
Additive Contents, for Soils-A & 8........... 55

Fig. (5-9) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Compression Strength for

Compaction Pressure = 4 MN/ m2, Soil-A 59
Fig. (5-10) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Compression Strength for
Compaction Pressure: 8 MN/ m2, Soil-A 60
Fig. (5-l l) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Compression Strength for
Compaction Pressure: 12 MN/ -2, Soil-A 61

Fig. (5-12) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Compression Strength for

Compaction Pressure:4 MNI m2, Soil-B. 62
Fig. (5-13) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfrned Compression Strength for
Compaction Pressure: 8 MN/ m2, Soil-B. 63

Fig. (5-la) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Compression Strength for

Compaction Pressure: 12 MN/ m2, Soil-B. 64
Fig. (5-15) Effect of Compaction Pressure on Unsoaked Unconfined Compressive
Strength for Various Additive Content, for Soils-A&B ........... 66
Fig. (5-16) Effect of Compaction Pressure on Soaked Unconfined Compressive
Strength for Various Additive Content, for Soils-A&B .......... 67
 [,IST 0F F'IGURES [continued]
Page

Fig. (5-17) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles of Wetting & Drying, for Compaction
Pressure : 4 MN/m2, Soil-A.... 11

Fig. (5-18) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles of Wetting & Drying, for Compaction
Pressure : 4 MN/m2. Soil-B....

Fig. (5-19) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles of Wetting & Drying, f,or Compaction
Pressure: 8 MNlm2, Soil-A.... IJ

Fig. (5-20) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles of Wetting & Drying, for Compaction
Pressure : 8 MN/m2, Soil-B.... 74

Fig. (5-21) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles of Wetting & Drying, for Compaction
Pressure: 12 MN/m', Soil-A.... 75

Fig. (5-22) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles of Wetting & Drying, for Compaction
Pressure :12 MN/m2, Soil-B.... 75

Fig. (5-23) Effect of Alternate Wetting and Drying on Volume Change of Stabilized
Block Specimens for Compaction Pressure = 4 MN/m2, Soils-A & B.'...... 79

Fig. (5-2a) Effect of Alternate Wetting and Drying on Volume Change of Stabilized
Block Specimens for Compaction Pressure: 8 MN/m2, Soils-A & B'.......
Fig. (5-25) Effect of Alternate Wetting and Drying on Volume Change of Stabilized
Block Specimens for Compaction Pressure:12 MN/m2, Soils-A & B........ 81

Fig. (5-26) Relationship of Spraying Loss in Weight and Additive Content, for
Compaction Pressure:4 MN/m2, Soil-A.......

Fie. 6-27) Relationship of Spraying Loss in Weight and Additive Content, for
Compaction Pressure: 8 MN/m', Soil-A 87

Fig. (5-28) Relationship of Spraying Loss in weight and Additive content, for
Compaction Pressure:tr2 MN/m2, Soil-A....... 88

Fig. (5-29) Relationship of Spraying Loss in Weight and Additive Content, for
Compaction Pressure : 4 MN/m', Soil-B 89

Fig. (5-30) Relationship of Spraying Loss in Weight and Additive Content, for
Compaction Pressure: 8 MN/m', Soil'B
Fig. (5-31) Relationship of Spraying Loss in Weight and Additive Content, for
Compaction Pressure: I 2 MN/m', Soil-B 91
 XI

LIST OF TABLES
pase
Tables
Table (2-l). Physical properties of Limestone (17)......- 8

Table (2-2). Chemical Analysis of Limestone (17).....'. 9

Table (2-3) Range of Particle Size Distribution, (4)........- 13

Table (2-4) Results of Shrinkage Test on Gumbotil Soil Treated with Various
Additives (12)....... 20

Table (4-1) Physical Properties of Soils-A&B 38

Table (4-2) Chemical Compositions of Soils-A&B'.............. 39

Table (4-3) Chemical Composition of the Hydrated Lime......... 39 '

Table (4-4) Chemical Composition of the Cement..... 40

Table (4-5) Mineralogical Composition of the Cement...'. 40

Table (5-1) Results of Compaction test, Using Three Compaction Efforts... 53

Table (5-2) Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results for Soils-A & B.....'......'.. 65

Table (5-3) Decision on Results of Soaked and Corresponding Unsoaked UCS Tests... 68

Table (5-4) Loss in Weight of Wetting and Drying Test.'....'.... 77

Table (5-5) Effect of Wetting and Drying Cycles on Water Absorption 83

Table (5-6) Decision on Stabilized Soil Blocks Which Passed Strength Test, Based on
Durabilitv........... .. 93
 xil

NOTATION

1L:2C Ratio of Lime to Cement equal to (l:2)

A Acceptable
C Cement
e Void ratio
L Lime
LL Liquid Limit
MDD Maximum Dry Density
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
PCA Portland Cement Association
PI Plasticity Index
PL Plastic Limit
R Rejected
soil-A Degala soil
soil-B Koritan soil
UCS UnconfinedCompressiveStrength
\r/a
vv
Average Moisture Content of Specimens During Wetting and Drying
Cvcles
W, Water Content Required to Saturate the Sample at the Time of Moulding
y,r Dry Moulding Unit Weight
ya. Corrected Oven Dry Unit Weight
ys Saturated Moulding Unit Weight
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
It is quite clear that there are thousands of villages in Iraqi Kurdistan region have been
subjected to destructive and ruinous activities. These villages need to be rebuilt again,

while, the region suffers from relatively bad economic conditions. It is well known that one
of the main cost items in building dwelling houses, schools, hospitals, mosques ...... etc. is
the cost of walls for these structures. The cost of walls, in the total costofhousing
construction is about 20o/o excluding cost of foundation (1). The most common types of
construction materials for walls are stone, brick masonry, and concrete block masoniy.
Walls made of these building units, usually are high in cost compared to cost of walls made
of sun-baked bricks of soil stabilized with small percentages of cement or lime.
Natural soil, in most developing countries, is considered an inexpensive material
whose use is confined to low-cost building, largely in villages. The availability of good
block-making machine is also helping to popularize its use (2).
Although, soil may be adequately strong for building construction, but it is not very
durable and has little environmental resistance. The effect of its poor weathering
performance can be observed in many developing countries where rural houses must be
maintained regularly or even completely rebuilt at intervals (especially in areas with
moderate rainfall) (3). The performance requirements of walls include structural and
functional requirements. Structurally, the walls should be able to withstand and transfer the
loads acting through the roof to the foundation. They should have sufficient strength and
stiffness against lateral loads acting on the building due to wind and earthquakes.
Functionally, the walls should provide necessary thermal comfort, fire safety, and adequate
ventilation. While these requirements might have been already well established for
traditional methods through convention. it is necessary to consider these requirements

while considering any new material or technology (l)

to improve the natural durability and strength of the soil commonly referred
Methods
to as soil stabilization. Researches in the field of earth construction are being
carried out at many places. Many countries have developed techniques for stabilizing the
soil and improving the quality of the soil. Even though the knowledge of soil as a building

material and its use is growing, engineering studies are still at a nascent level and much
more needs to be known before the behavior of different types of soils under various
conditions can be predicted accurately. (1, 4)
 It is well known that, some of the engineering properties of soils can be improved by

stabilization. Portland cement is one of the most common and successful soil stabilizers;
however, there are still many types of soils, which contain excessive amounts of clay, that
cannot be stabilized with cement alone at economic levels up to 15%, while lime has been
widely and successfully used as a stabilizing agent for fine grained plastic soils.
Berhane (5) in his study on production of low-cost building material reported that, it is
not only durability and strength that make stabilized soil blocks suitable for rural housing,
but the availability of the raw material almost every where. In addition, it does not require

highly skilled workers and can be produced with simple compressing machines such as the

CNVA-RAM. He observed that the only wayof improvingtheresistanceto weathering

(durability) of mud walls is stabilization.
Shabilla (6) in his study on compressive strength of some Arbil soil-cement mixtures

reported that the burnt clay bricks and concrete blocks are costly and most of peoples are
incapable to afford using such products to build with. He also expected that construction by
using soil-cement bricks, would have considerable applications in low cost rural houses,
and this type of construction makes use of the unskilled villagers in a self-help program, it
saves the cost of workers.

Moreover, it is clear that, our country has rich tradition in earlh construction, even

today earth is extensively used as a building material. Among other benefits of using earth

for construction are its thermal insulation, locally available, utilizes local skills, non
polluting and not endanger bio-reserves.
Hence, the main objectives of this study were to examine the effect of different levels
of lime and/or cement contents mixed with raw soil on strength and weathering
performance of soil blocks. Experimental conditions in the laboratory, regarding curing
and effect of rainfall, were designed to simulate the field conditions as much as possible.
 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Principles of Soil Stabilization.

Soil stabilization, in the broadest sense, is the alteration of any property of a soil to
improve its engineering performance. Although the original objective of stabilization was
as its name implies, to increase the strength or stability of soil.
Gradually, techniques of soil treatment have been developed until soil stabilization.is
now used to increase or decrease almost every engineering properlies of soil (7).
To choose the right mode of soil stabilization it is essential to determine the properties
of the soil. Therefore, it is necessary that decisions on a suitable type of stabilization
should be taken after necessary laboratory analysis of the soil (4).
Because of the clay fraction, wall built of unstabilized soil will swell on taking up
water and shrink on drying. This gives rise to severe cracking and often leads to difficulties
in getting renderings to adhere to the walls, as well as to their eventual disintegration (3).
The aim of a soil stabilizer is, therefore, to increase the soil's resistance to the
destructive properties of the weather. This can be achieved in one or more of the followins
ways (3):
I. By increasing the strength and cohesion of the soil (e.g. The strength of a soil can be
increased and maintained to reasonable extend when wet, by the addition of
cementitious materials of which the most widely used are Portland cement and lime)
II. By reducing the moisture movement of the soil (e.g. by providing a physical barrier to
protect it from effect of rainfall such as providing lintel and roof overhang)
III. By making the soil more waterproof (e.g. by providing a physical barrier to passage of
water, bitumen, asphalt and cerlain resins are the most common of these)

2.2 Methods of Stabilization of Soil Block.

The most common methods of stabilization suitable for fabrication of soil blocks are:
I. Mechanical stabilization.
III. Lime stabilization.
III. Cement stabilization.
 4

2.2.1 Mechanical Stabilization.

A- General.
The most widely used example of mechanical stabilization is Compaction, which is a
mechanical process by, which reduces air voids to make soil dense. It is one of the oldest
methods used to stabilize soils to improve their engineering properties (8).
Seed and Chan (9) have investigated the effect of method of compaction on strength of
compacted clays. They showed that the method of compaction has little effect on strength
of clayey samples compacted dry of optimum (dry side of OMC), or at optimum water
content, by kneading compaction yielding slightly higher strengths than impact
compaction. For samples compacted wet of optimum (wet side of OMC) the influence of
method of compaction was considerable at about 5 percent strain. Wet of optimum, the
strength of similar density and moisture content samples increased in the following order
of compaction methods: kneading, impact, vibratory and static (9,10).
Rashed (11)in his study on swelling characteristics of compacted soils reported that
the dry density of the sample compacted at a given moisture content by both static and
dynamic compaction was the same. Also he concluded that an increase in compactive
effort was found to drastically increase both swelling percentage and swelling pressure.

However, increase in the compactive effort has a relatively greater effect on the swelling
pressure, than it has on the amount of swelling.

AL-Rawi and Said (8) in his study on effect of compaction on strength of soil-lime
mixture concluded that static compaction produces higher strength for clayey soil.
Mateous (12) in his study on soil-lime mixture reported that, the compactive efforl has
been found to influence the strength greatly. When the compactive effort was increased
from standard ASTM-AASHTO to modified AASHTO, the compressive strength of the
soil -lime mixture increased by 50% to 250o/o for both 7 and 28 day curing periods. This

increase in strength was obtained when the increase in maximum dry density was about
100 .

B- PrincipJ.es of Compaction of Fine-Grained SoiJ-s.

Clayey soils compacted dry of optimum moisture content exhibit a low degree of clay
particle orientation due to the depression of the diffuse double layer which yields a low
interparticle repulsion, causing the particles to flocculate and arrange in an edge-to-face
position (contact) as shown in Fig.(2-1a). Such a structure is called a flocculated
structure, and has a low density (13).

When compaction takes place at optimum moisture content, the double layer expands
and the repulsion between the clay parlicles increases. The parlicles disperse in a more

orderly manner, thus a higher density is achieved.

Furlher increase of moisture content cause a greater increase in the dispersion of the
clay particles, the double layer develops fully and repulsion between the clay particles
increases, resulting in a decreased density. This structure is termed dispersed
structure where clay particles arrange themselves in face-to-face position (contact) as

shown in Fig. (2-lb) (13).

(c ) Flocculated-type structure I 6) Dispersed-type structure

( edge-tc-face contact ( face-to-face contact
) )

Fig. (2-1) Schematic Diagrams of Idealized Types of Particle Orientation.

Several advantages accrue from compaction including (14).

1. Reduction of subsidence (verlical movement within the mass) from the reduced void
ratio.
2. Increase in soil strength.

3. Reduction in shrinkage-decrease in volume resulting as the water content reduces from

the reference value during drying.

The principal disadvantages of compaction are that swell (due to increase in water
content from the reference value) and frost heave potential are often increased (14).

2.2.2 Lime Stabilization.

Romans used lime-clay mixtures in construction more than 5,000 years ago. They
produced concrete-like material for the construction of such structures as the Colosseum
and the Pantheom by mixing lime with volcanic ash obtained near Pozzuol|Italy, and
called pozzolan. The subbases of many Roman roads, including the Appian Way are
stabilized with lime. In the United States, lime stabilization appears to have been first used
about the year 1920. The Texas Highway department has pioneeredintheuseof lime
stabilization in 1945 (15).
Lime stabilization is a process, which could have a wide application particularly in
countries where suitable soils occur and lime, or limestone is easily avaiiable (16).

2.2.2.1Types of Lime.
Types of Lime

Dolomitic Monohydrate

The degree to which a lime is calcitic or dolomitic can be expressed by the calcium-

magnesium ratio. Although, generally the calcitic limes have less than 2%MgO and the

dolomitic limes between25oh and 45Yo, but there is no definite borderline (7,12).

Calcitic limestone are found in Iraq in three zones as shown in Fig. (2-1).
1. Zone I: west of Euphrates; from Syrian border to south of Samawa

2. ZoneII: East of Tigris; from Mosul in the north to south of Kafri.

3. ZoneIII: the mountainous region in Sulaimania and Arbil.
Some of the physical and chemical properties of limestone in these zones are listed in

Tables (2-1&2) respectively (17).

 S^uTrTlrlljri
( :-5URq HA N^R

v)

ft KRI r

3Ar;H0,40
A-BU.sFAY^

5Hrq411r^

c otwANtA

s4un
4p,
'{ p, BASRAH
-r4

Fig(2-2) Location of Limestone in lraq, &ftu, AL-Rawi N. M., I7).

Table (2-l) Physical Properties of Limestone (AL-Rawi, IV. M.,I7)

O ^
E bn
EN
tr
z :U
Specific
Gravity Bulk
E\c
ooq)
tr>
aa)
.= aD
2V
+' )<
(h ()
"i ro
ttApparenttt .]
Area Location l/w U

I Abu-Sfayyah-l 1.84 -- 1.93 2.75 43.9 0.0228 144 l0

z d Abu-Sfayyah-2 2.05 -- 2.12 2.r4 46.7 0.0214 t25 6

a
J Heel 2.07 -- 2.16 t.99 Asphaltic Mat 168 5

4 Kalat !lazloom-l t.76 -- 2.18 10.92 54.6 0.01 83 ll4 A

a

5 Kalat Mazloom-2 t.77 -- 2.08 8.27 82.0 0.0122 92 2

6
(€
Kalat N'Iazloom-3 1.65 -- 2.08 9.89 76.9 0.0130 t25 -)

li
7 Shathatha-l Disintegrated 97.1 0.0r 03 85 4

8 ihathatha-2 t.l5 -- 1.55 22.63 92.6 0.0108 86

a
J

9 ihathatha-J L55 -- 1.95 13.15 96.2 0.0104 85 J

l0 Jurcha na r-l 2.25 -- 2.40 2.81 16.4 0.0610 396 l0

-
- 2.17 --
af
1l Su rchanar-2 2.36 3.58 z). 1
I 0.0433 319 9
6
11 a 1n
t2 a Surchanar-3 ^z.tt-- z.Jl 3.60 26.9 0.0372 JJJ l0
l3 Badoosh-l 2.25 -- 2.37 2.25 38.0 0.0263 2r0 9

t4 Badoosh-2 2.00 -- 2.05 1.87 JJ. I 0.0302 209 8

15 Badoosh-3 r.95 -- 2.19 s.62 42.0 0.0238 190 10

a
16 z Hammam Alil-l 2.46 -- 2.58 0.47 43.3 0.0231 272 9

17 Hammam Alil-2 2.46 -- 2.54 1.29 24.8 0.0403 372 t2

2.34 --
a A1
18 Hammam Alil-3 2.44 1.73 32.1 0.0312 J+J 11
 9

Table (2-2) Chemical Analysis of Limestone (Building Research Center, I7).

g Loss on Chemical Analysis

o.
E Area Location
(!O Ignition SiOz Alzo:
oz RzOs Fe203 CaO Mgo Sor
I
I {bu-Sfavvah-l 42.29 0.80 1.41 0.28 1 .13 54.90 0.14 0.36
2 6 \bu-Sfayyah-2 42.00 0.78 1.48 0.48 0.10 55.07 0.15 0.30
G
a
J Heel 43.66 2.64 1.18 0.62 0.56 47.07 0.34 2.30
A
T KalatMazlooml 43.72 2.06 2.61 l.l0 1.56 47.55 t.27 0.58
5 Kalat Mazloom-2 42.14 1.48 1.03 0.03 0.78 54.1 0 0.89 0.34
6 Kalat Mazloom-3 40.65 0.69 0.86 0.02 0.70 52.52 2.32 0.s8
L
V Shathatha-l 42.02 0.66 1.t2 0.64 0.47 55.0 i 0.86 0.30
8 Shathatha-2 42.60 1.68 0.50 0.27 0.27 54.00 0.69 0.30
9 Shathatha-3 43.21 1.04 0.43 0.27 0.16 54.16 0.57 0.52
10 Surchanar-l 37.26 t2.02 1.84 0.83 0.96 47.76 0.54 0.4s
1l d iu rchanar-2 35.00 18.82 2.t8 1.04 t.t2 43.12 0.46 0.32
t2 - iu rchanar-3 33.64 n.02 111
z.tJ 0.99 I.t4 44,t8
U) 0.33 0.30
r3 Badoosh-l 42.70 1.63 1.t2 0.50 0.62 53.1 0 t.07 0.21
t4 Badoosh-2 39.50 8.06 4.53 2.18 2.25 47.04 0.46 0.28
15 Badoosh-J 39.90 6.45 3.14 t.49 r.68 49.43 0.72 0.30
U)

t6 Hammam Alil-l 40.00 4.33 't A1

L.-L r.l6 t.26 51.74 0.74 0.43
t7 flammam Alil-2 43.50 1.88 3.22 0.45 0.72 50.s8 1.93 u.3 |
l8 Hammam Alil-3 44.32 1.32 l'20 0.58 0.62 50.51 1.86 0.41

2.2.2.2 Lime-Soil Reaction.

The phenomena of soil stabilization with lime may be explained in two stages (8,18)
and is shown diagrammatically in Fig. (2-3).

L IME STA BILIZ A.IION

r-g{
-
Floccutqtion of ctoy
(.qpid rcdclio^ )

C€maotdiion by potzotonic qclion

(rtow rcoctrod I

Fig.(2-3) Sources of Strength in Soil-Lime Mixture (16).

 l0

i. Rapid Reaction.
It is a colloidal type of reaction involving any of the followings:
a) Cation Exchange: the common cations associated with soils replace each other in
the following order, Na*<K*<Ca**<Mg**, every cation at the right tends to replace the

cations to the left of it and multivalent cations replace monovalent cations. Addition of
lime to a soil supplies an excess of Ca** and cation exchange occurs with Ca**
replacing dissimilar cations of the soil.
b) A depression of the double layer of the soil colloids because of increase in cation
concentration in the pore water, and hence a reduction in the thickness of the adsorbed

water layer around the soil parlicles causing flocculation of clay particles.

ii. Slow Reaction.

a) Pozzolanic or Cementing Action. Pozzolanic reactions are time dependent and
strength development is gradual but continuous for a long period of time (several years
in some instances). Although not completely understood, it is thought to be a reaction
between calcium from lime with the available reactive alumina or silica from the soil.

b) Lime Carbonation. Lime reacts with COz from the air to form calcium CaCO: and

magnesium MgCO3 carbonates.

2.2.3 Cement Stabilization.

2.2.3.1 General.
ACI 1l6R Soil-cement: defines soil-cement as a mixture of soil and measured
amounts of Portland cement and water compacted to a high-density (19).
Portland cement is one of the most widely used and successful soil stabilizers. In 1917,
J. H. Amies (7) was issued a patent on soil and cement mixtures. The first controlled soil-
cement construction was a road built in 1935 near Johnsoville, South Carolina State, USA.
Soil cement has been used to a certain extent for building purposes including the

manufacture of buildins blocks and as foundations for houses (20).

2,2.3.2 Cement-Soil Reaction.

In the cementation that takes place in a soil-cement mixture, the minerals are not only
mechanically bonded to the cement but also react chemically with it. In a neat cement paste
the major hydration products are:
 tl

l. Basic calcium silicate hydrates, CzSH* or C3S2H* or both, (with C-to-S ratio of L5 to I

or higher).
2. Calcium aluminate hydrates, C:AH* and C+AH*.
3. Hydrated lime.
(The above notations for chemical compositions of cementing products are: C-CaO, S-
SiOz, A-AlzOs, H- (HzO) , and x-variable.).

The first two products constitute the major cementitious components, whereas the lime
is deposited as a separate crystalline solid phase, (21).
When cement grains come into contact with water they begin to dissolve and form
firstly a solution of calcium hydroxide in which hydrated calcium silicate and aluminate
begin to precipitate. This compound forms masses of minute fibers, which interlock very
strongly both with each other and with other bodies; it is these fibers which contribute the
early strength in concrete. The fibers can be identified with the aid of an electron
microscope (16).
The calcium hydroxide or hydrated lime solution is highly caustic, with a pH value

of the order of 13. This solution reacts with the soil particles, the attack being particularly
achieved when a larger surface areas is presented as it is the case with clay: the calcium
ion, being bi-valent, attracts the clay particles together tending to form aggregations. The

lime also reacts relatively slowly to form further cementitious products by pozzolanic
action (16).
There are thus three sources of strength in a soil-cement mixture. These are shown
diagrammatically in Fig. (2-4). (16).

CEH6NI STABTLIZATTON

,iF,f lot€rlocking I ibrcs

(quick rcoction l

<l!'
Gg{ Ftoccutotion ol ctoy
Irapid reoction)

Camenlotron by poz zolqnic ocrioo

(3low rGqctioo)

Fig. (2-a) Sources of Strength in Soil-Cement Mixture (16).

 12

Croft (22) concluded that, hydration of cement resulted in rapid formation of calcium
hydroxide and the elevation of the pH of the aqueous phase to approximately (12.2). The
of aging were largely gelatinous and amorphous.
products formed after short periods
However, with further curing poorly ordered varieties of CSHI and C+AH13 w€r€
crystallized.
One prerequisite for the formation of additional cementing materials in cement -clay
interaction is the solubilization of silica and alumina from the clay component. The degree
of crystallinity of the minerals and particle size distribution are some of the factors
infl uencing solubility.

Minerals having a three-layer structure (e.g. montmorillonite) are usually more soluble
than minerals having two-layer structure (e.g. kaolinite), because of the greater speciflc
surface of the three-layer minerals, and because these minerals are less resistant to
penetration of interlayer cations.

Soil components other than clay minerals, particularly finely divided amorphous (non-
crystalline) silica and alumina, are less resistant to chemical attack and represent a

potential source for cementitious matter. Such components may play a very significant role

in clay-cement stabilization (23).

However, what is more important is the fact that a sizeable fraction of the cementitious
material formed in soil cement is contributed by the soil itself. It is noted that in soil-
cement, virtually, all of the reactive calcium present initially in the cement is eventually
available for production of cementitious silicate gel;hence, the quantity of cementitious
material available for bonding in soil-cement is inherently greater than that in neat cement.
This, therefore, indicates that the contribution of soil to the cementation process may be of
greater importance than the detrimental effects that the buffering action of the soil may
have on the primary cement hydration process.

The clay cement reactions can be illustrated by the following equations (21).

C:S+HzoC:SzH*(hydratedgels)+Ca(oH)z------(l)

C:SzH' (at low pH)

These equations are for illustration only; therefore, they are not necessarily to be in

equilibrium.
 l3

2.3 Effect of Soil Properties on Lime and/or Cement Stabilization.

Soil. Any naturally occurring loose or soft deposit forming part of the earth's crust
and resulting from weathering or breakdown of rock formations or from the decay of
vegetation.
The most imporlant factor that affects the quality of a compressed earth block is the

composition of the soil mix of which the blocks are made. Therefore, we should
understand the basic nature of soil. The types of soil and their properties will vary from
place to place (4).

2.3.1Physical Properties of Soil.

The physical properties of soil, which have greater relevance in the manufactures of
compressed earth blocks, are:

A. Texture or particle size distribution.

It is the particle size distribution or grading of a soil, which determines how

effectively it can be compacted and stabilized. A well-graded soil will therefore contain the
correct proportions of different size of particles, with all voids between larger particles
being filled by smaller ones (3).
In general, most inorganic soils can be stabilized with Portland cement except heavy
clays (24). Typically, soils containing between 5 and 35 percent fines passing No.200 sieve

produce the most economical soil-cement mixture. However, some soils having higher

fines content and low-plasticity have been successfully and economically stabilized (19).
Lime has been widely and successfully used as stabilizing agent for fine grained
plastic soils (18). Sandy soils should not be stabilized with lime although they also show
some strength increase by the addition of lime (12).

Soils classified as clayey sand are excellent for making blocks. The optimum soil
composition for compressed soil blocks is shown in Table (2-3), (4).

Table (2-3) Typical Range of Particle Size Distribution.

particle type Size (mm) %by Weight
Fine gravel 2.00-400 7

Sand 0.02-2.00 53

sitt 0.002-0.02 20

Clay Below 0.002 20

 IA
It

B. Plasticity "

The plasticity of a soil has a marked influence on the properties of soil rnixtures, (25).
A high LL and PI indicates that a soil has a great affinity for water and will, therefore, be

more susceptible to moisture movement. Such a soil is likely to be difficult to stabilize

with cement and would require a larger amount of stabilizer than one with a low LL and
PI. On the other hand, soils with high value of LL and PI may be suitable for stabilization

with lime, because of its ability to alter the plastic properties of the soil as shown in Fig.
(2-5). Maximum value of 50 for LL and 30 for PI have been suggested for earth walls
rammed in place or made from pressed blocks (3).

Typ. ond omount of qdmixturc rhould

bc de termincd by loborotory terts

(X{.KX
rstcd limc
(co (oH) ) x
' x
x
x

t
7
I
Portlond cemrnt I
i\+
\\ !
A-2 A*7 )(

A-2 6 i:+ A-6

X

t.

A-2 - 5 I'e- s
A-2- 4 l:A-4
A-l-o i A-l-b
-}.-.ji Not
trt cxpcct'ed to nc€d
^ *i st'obillzinq
-T*-;*;"l=tTfi-tr-
NP
o #?*.-,
*-A-3-\d aitilnr:n -\tlli{rrh
Bitumcnt r i
.I, H])S-qEJ T-:-l- r
(Yc),
ro 20 30 40
Prrccntog. ot crirti toil po3lihg No.2OO sicvc
\Bituncn, Pottlond ccmrnt
or Silty c loy with Pl.ot I to l5
Fig. (2-5) Suggested Stabilizing Agent for PI of Existing Soil, (16).
 l5

C. Compactibility.
It is the ability of the soil to be compacted to a maximum density for a given
compaction energy. As the density of soil increases its porosity decreases, less water

penetrates through it and it can resist greater stress (4). Adequate compaction is essential

for successful stabilization, since the development of strength depends upon the reduction

of voids and the cementing of particles in close proximity into a unified whole (26).
D. Cohesion.
It is the capacity of the grains to remain together when tensile stress is imposed on the
soil. This depends on the adhesive or cementitious properties of coarse mortar, which binds
the inert grains (4). The gain of of soil-lime/cement mixtures, through the
strength
formation of cementitious compounds while being cured can be considered as a
cementation of the soil (12).

2.3.2 Chemical Properties of Soil.

The chemical soil properties which are of greatest concern to a soil engineer, include:

A. SuJ-phate content and soluble salts.

of various bases presented in soil are deleterious to soil-cement mixture.
Sulphate
Sodium sulphate (for example) reacts with calcium hydroxide to form calcium sulphate
and sodium hydroxide. When the sulphate is magnesium sulphate, the action is more
marked in that it can also attack the calcium silicate in the hydrated cement. Both reactions
are accompanied by large increases in volume of cement-treated soil mixtures and in

reduced strength (25).

The presence of soluble inorganic salts particularly sulphates may make the soil
unsuitable for stabilization with either cement or lime, This is because any increase in
moisture content can lead to chemical reactions, which result in expansion and disruption
of soll (7,24). The sulphate content of 2o/o represents the upper limit for successful
stabilization (4,20).

B. Organic Matter.
The soil must contain low organic matter for successful stabilization, since this
constituent tends to reduce the strength of soil-cement. The2Yo organic compoundsby

weight of soil is considered as the safe upper limit, but in some cases the presence of 0.5oh
organic has rendered some sandy soils unsuitable for the stabilization (20).
 t6

The surface layer of the soil usually contains organic material in the form of humus,
which may seriously impair the setting or harding of cement or affect the pozzolanic
reaction between lime and soil. In most cases removing the topsoil and using the soil
beneath will ensure that no organic matter is present (3).

C. Surface chemical factors.

Surface chemical factors include the nature and the amount of the cations on the ciay
particles and the pH of the soil (26).

The pH of soil is important, as it tells us about its acidic or basic nature, which can
affect the use of stabilizers (4). Sodium and hydrogen clays are harder to stabilize than
caicium clays (26).
Many of the soils with a pH value of 7 or less failed to satisfy the strength criterion,
while those with a pH of 7 or more were almost always suitable for stabilization, as shown

in Fig. (2-6), (16).

700
l

I a
I
600
I a O

o al
.c
t a a ar
.lt
I al lo
E
6c r00
t -rt a
t
D

l' I
oo
lt rlfi ..
oa Olroa
a
!
$U
ct 100 llr a
E a
uo -.o ,-.-f-l---- -.-
?00

r00
a | Ol.t-^ | ^
'l.i .i I
I
t
oO I ri
rt
ot .:d
I

ll
0
4-0 s.0 6.0 7.0 B.O 9'0
Sotl pH volur
Fig. (2-6) Effect of Soil pH value on the Unconfined Compressive
Strength (at an age of 7 days) of Soil-Cement Mixtures
Containing 10 Percent of Ordinary Portland Cement (16).
 t7

2.3.3 Mineralogical Composition of Soil.

The mineralogical composition has been found to affect the soil-cement reaction (22).
Mateous (12) reported that montmorillonitic and kaolinitic clay soils respond better to lime
stabilization than illitic and chloritic clay soils. Soils rich in halloysite clay attain lower
strength than other types. Clay minerals also influence the soil cement reactions. Croft. (22)
reported that, clays containing kaolinite and illite are more suitable for cement stabilization
than clays with montmorillonite.

2.4lJse of Lime as an Additive to Soil-Cement.

Lime causes the flocculation of clay particles and improves consistency and
workability of soil. For this reason, it has been used in small amounts (2-3)% in clayey
soil-cement mixture to facilitate pulverization and mixing (13).

Pinto et al (27) in their study on effect of lime on cement stabilization of

montmorillonitic soils found that, for each soil-cement mixture there is an optimum
amount of lime, which gives a maximum compressive strength. They also concluded that,
the optimum amount of lime is independent of the cement content of the mixture, and
increases with increase of clay content in the soil.

Bindra (28) reported that, in case of lime-soil and cement mixture, an optimum
quantity of lime is required along with cement to satisfy wetting and drying test and on

further increasing lime content the strength decreases.

Hummadi (29) has concluded that using lime additive in combination with cement can
cause considerable improvement in durability characteristics than using lime or cement
alone.

2.5 Effect of Lime /Cement on Soil Properties.

Stabilization of a soil implies modification of the properties of the soil to suit building
requirements. It enhances the compressive strength and water resistance of masonry blocks
(4). Lime/cement has the following effects on soil properlies:

2.5.1 Plasticity.
Lime, generally, increases the plasticity index of low-plasticity soils and decreases the

plasticity index of highly plastic soils, as illustrated in Fig. (2-7), (7,12).

 l8

Thompson's work (18) on lime-treated soils showed that beneficial plasticity and
workability are obtained regardless of the chemical and mineralogical properties of the
soils. Cement changes the plasticity by increasing the PL, and also changes the I-L to a
lesser degree.

Cement admixtures usually reduce slightly the liquid limits of mixtures made from
raw soils having liquid limits greater than 40 and increase the values for mixtures made

from soils having limits less than 40, this is Illustrated in Fig. (2-8), (25).

80
70
60
s
ut
F
50
=
40
o
x
LIJ 30
co
E.
LIJ
F
F
20
10

o 2 4 6 a 10 12 14
AMOUNT OF ADDITIVE, %

Fig. (2-7) Effect of Various Additives on the Atterberg Limits of a

Gumbotil Soil (12).

!
7
p
uJ
T

=
o
40
a

3=t =G co^rleNt-f=*.=,5t
"t .)8t"tE
Fig. (2-8) Effect of Cement Content on Liquid Limit of Three Soils (25l.
 t9

2.5.2 Density and OMC.

The addition of lime to most soils reduces the maximum dry density obtainable in a

compaction test, and increases the optimum molding water content, (1,16). Thesetwo
effects are illustrated in Fig. (2-9), (7).

140 Symbol pcrcent limo on

dry sollwlght
Massachusetts -
132 clayey silt
.t,
a --------6
-0
-2
--{
124

116
L
-o
108
j
.= 100
a
-q)
! 100
L
o 96

92

88

84

80
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Molded water content, percent dry solid weight

Fig. (2-9) Bffect of Lime on Compaction Characteristics of Two Soils

(Ladd, Moh and Lambe, 7).
Abdul-Kareem (30) in his study on engineering properties of lime stabilized soil,
reported that, the relationship between lime content and OMC is approximately linear in
the range of 3 to 12 percent lime content.

Cement-treated soil mixtures exhibit the same type of moisture-density relations, as

do untreated soils. Thus the moisture content at the time of compaction has strong
influence on the properties of cement-treated soil mixtures. The strength and durability of
soil-cement mixture are strongly influenced by density. The relationship between strength
and density approaches straight line for some soils and cement contents. A decrease of 5

percent in relative compaction may result in a greater strength reduction than a drop of 10
to 15 percent in cement content (25).
 20

2.5.3 Swelling and Shrinkage.

Lime highly reduces the swelling (i.e. increase in volume upon wetting) characteristics
of soil, which is of great importance in building and pavement construction. This is due to
the substitution of other cations by calcium (7 ,12).
The addition of lime to clayey soils increases the shrinkage limit of these soils. This
phenomena indicates that the reduction in volume of a soil upon drying is reduced, (25).
Table (2-4) indicates that for low amount of lime, high calcium hydrated lime, increases
the shrinkage limit in a much greater proportion than other hydrated limes (12).
Admixing cement to soils affects both swelling and shrinkage. It reduces shrinkage in
cohesive soils due to the cement matrix formed, which provides a binding effect that
creates a strong skeletal structure. This structure prevents the soil particles from movement
(2s).

George (3 1) in his study on shrinkage characteristics of soil-cement mixtures reported

that, shrinkage of soil-cement first decreases with proportion of cement attains a minimum,
and thereafter increases slightly with cement content.

Table (2-4) Results of Shrinkage Test on Gumbotil Soil Treated with

Various Additives (MATEOUS. M. 12).

Kind of Additive Amount of Additive. 7. Shrinkage Limit, o/o

None 0 7.7

2 25.4
High-Calcium hydrated lime
8 37.1

2 13.5
Dolomitic Monohydrated lime
8 41.8

2 I 3.s
Dolomitic Dehydrated lime
8 3 8.5

2 la a
I J.J
High-Calcium Hydraulic Hydrated lime
8 5). I
2 i 5.3
Type I Portland Cemenl
8 )a1 t.+i
 2l

2.5.4 Strength.
Strength is the widely used and keenly investigated property of soil-lime/cement
admixture. It serves as an indicator of the other properties of the product (25).
AL-Rawi et al (8) in their investigations on Iraqi soils stabilized with lime have shown
that for each soil there is an optimum lime content at which the strength is a maximum.

This is also substantiated by the work of other investigators.

The amount of change in strength varies with type of soil, amount and type of lime
used, moisture content, curing age and curing temperature (30), Fig. (2-10) and Fig. (2-11)
show the effect of some of these factors on a lime stabilized soil.
The compressive strength of soil cement increases with increase cement content. Fig.
(2-12), curing time and temperature, and dry density,Fig. (2-13). However, it decreases
with increasing delay after mixing prior to compaction,Fig.(2-14),duetodifficultyin
compaction after commencement of the hydration process. Compressive strength is

reduced by soaking, especially with clayey soils (13).

A soil wall must possess adequate strength to satisfy load-bearing requirement. In the
most climates such walls would be wet at various times, so it is important to determine the
wet compressive strength. This wet strength of a stabilized soil wall may be one third of its
dry strength. A minimum wet strength of about 1.4 MN/m'1t+.1 kg/cm2) has been
recommended by several building authorities throughout the world (3).
 22

d
d

f]' 100
a
r-
zrrl
a
a
frl

a
a 0
frl
46
CALCITIC HYDRATED LIME,%
a 500
r)
fr'1
a
400
2

200

468
DOLOM ITIC MONOHYDRATE LIME,%

Fig" (2-10) Effect of Addition of Different Amount and Kinds of Lime on

the Strength of a Montmorillonite Clay Soil (Mateous, M., l2)
 23

a.l
400

9% calcitic hydrated
=bo
c.)
L<
lime , 7 day
o (
C)

(/)
g
U)
onn
a
- zvv
O
Eo
a k
(.)
a-

120
0 4 B 12 1620242832
,7.

t
116 no liFe
O

--
r\ \
l-r
()
112
o
l-<

t-
C)
108
\

>. 9% calcitic hydrated lime--::

a
d.
104
(.)

Lr

100
4 B 12 16 20242832
Moisture Content, 7o

Fig. (2-11) Moisture-Density and Moisture-Strength Relationships ofa

Montmorillonite Clay Soil With and Without Lime. Compacted at
Modified Proctor Compactive Effort (Mateous, M., I2)
 z+
^A

)<t I
Fvv
o

bn
860
Fi
U)
c)

6
(h

140
C.)

O
o
6
t-.
t20
o

o 10
CEMENT CONTENT, PERCENT
Fig. (2-12) Effect of Cement Content on Strength for Various Soils
Stabilized with Ordinary Portland Cement and Cured for Seven Days at
25oC, Constant Moisture Content (Ingles & Mecalf, 26)
 25

o
*
N
E
()
j

I
F-
/n
z
IJJ
t
F
a
I,JJ

U)
U)
U
t

o
tJJ
z
tr
z
z
l
1.0
800 1200 1 600 200
DRY DENSITY, (kg/m')

Fig. (2-13) Effect of Density on Strength of a Clay Stabilized with 10

percent Cement (lnges & Metcalf, 26)

U)
E
-')
o4
r
uJ
E
-z
F
7
n-t
l' z-
tu
o

0
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH- PSI

Fig. (24q Effect of Delayed Compaction After Mixing on Compressive

Strength (Ara Armqn and Fayez Saifan, 32)
 26

2.5.5 Durability.
of the most important properties of stabilized soil is that the stabilityofthe
One
material is retained over years of exposure to the destructive forces of weather. Inthis
property lies the definition of minimum quality of the material, the reason for its
acceptance and widespread use and. pertinentto this discussion, the objectives of the mix
design of the material (33)
Lunt (3) in his study on stabilized soil blocks for building showed that improvement in
performance obtained by adding lime to the soils has to some extent been confirmed by

field trails carried out in Ghana in Collaboration with the building and Road Research

Institute at Kumasi. After three years exposure to the weather, walls made with CINVA-
RAM blocks, have shown less erosion from rain than similar walls made of unstabilized

soil.
Durability has generally been determined by freeze-and-thawing or wetting-and drying
tests in combination with a loss-of-weight test. Under field condition this situation is not
likely to occur. If deterioration occurs the damaged material generally remains in place and
possibly provide some insulation for the remaining sound material (8)
It has been felt by different research workers that the standard ASTM wetting and
drying durability test is too severe and time consuming. Beside it requires a large quantity

of stabilized soil material for preparing the necessary soil block samples. A number of

research workers have, therefore tried to evolve a simpler test (28)

Mateous (12) in his research on soil-lime mixtures, reported that wetting and drying
resistance depends on the amount and type of lime and kind of soil, although the resistance
increases with increase in the curing period.

Hummadi (29) in his study on strength and durability characteristics of Arbil soils
stabilized with additives concluded that, it is not sufficient to base the design of mixes of
stabilized soil with lime and/or cement on the unconfined compressive strength alone,

unless the acceptance criteria based on durability tests is satisfied.

Whitehurst and Yoder (34) in their study on durability tests on lime stabilized soils
had observed that, 5 percent or more by weight, greatly increased the durability of the
lime-soil mixture and the greater the lime content the greater the durability. It was also
concluded that 2 percent lime did not appreciably alter the durability characteristics of the
soil.
 27

CHAPTER THREE
HISTORY OF EARTH STRUCTURES. DESIGIN
CONSIDERATIONS AND BLOCK MAKING PRESSES

3.1 History of Earth Architecture.

Soil is one of mankind's oldest building materials. The traditional methods of soil
construction such as adobe. wattle and daub, rammed earth and cut blocks are still
commonly used in many regions of the world. Some details of these methods are shown in
the Fig. (3-l) (4)

a) Sun Dried Mud Bricks or Adobe.

Hand moulded bricks are used to make masonry walls. They are made by casting
puddle mud into a mould and drying in the sun. Mud bricks are easy to make and enable
proper bonding of wal1s.

b) Wattle and Daub.

A layer of mud mixed with ash; straw or cowdung is plastered over a panel of
woven bamboo or reed wattle which is held upright between a wooden or bamboo fiame.

Some times leaves of the date palm are tied together and plastered with mud to make a
wall.

c) Rammed Earth Walls.

Moist earth mixed with small stones and straw is poured into a formwork of
wooden planks and compacted to make layers of 60 to 90 cm height. This process is
repeated till walls of desired height are reached. Doors and windows are fixed as

construction pro gresses.

d) Cut Blocks.
In places where good lateritic soil is available, blocks are cut out of the earth and
used directly to make walls.
 28

Fig. (3-1) Traditional Methods of Soil Construction.

 29

In the river sites of the Mesopotamian, Nile, Chinese and the Indus Valley
civilizations, settlers used readily available alluvial soil to make the first mud brick
dwellings: Jericho history's earliest city, had houses built in raw earth. Harappa and
Mohenjo Daro saw the use adobe walls faced with oven baked bricks.
The Babylonians reinforced their earth structures with bamboo and reed. The
development of brick vaults and domes in the Middle East, along with the religious
architecture of North African Countries has promoted adobe and rammed earth
construction right up to modern times.
ln the Americas too, there are ancient examples of earth being used as a building
material. The pyramid at Teotihaucan has two million tones of rammed earth faced with
lava. The Mexican City of Tenochtitlan had structures built of earth walls faced with lime
rendering. Most American Indian tribes have always built homes with soil.
At times of the ancient Greeks and Romans, Vitruvius wrote of the use of sun baked
brick in Athens and Rome. The Medieval period [( 1 100- 500) A.D] saw a return to the
1

more primitive wattle and daub technique. Earlh block construction re-established itself
around 1700 A. D. and earth construction was widely practicedtilltheendofthe lgtr'
century, and it is sill in use.

With the industrial revolution, people had access to machines, easily available fossil
fuels and range of newly developed materials. New technologies spread and earth
construction skills were lost or relegated to the vernacular builder. Impetus was given to
earth architecture in the post World War-ll years due to economic and energy saving
concerns. However, as western nations worked their way to prosperity. the use of eafth was
eclipsed by a desire for "modernity". Developing countries followed suit.
Fuelled primarily by the environmental movement, people all over the world have
begun to look afresh at the potentialofearthconstruction,Afterall,overoneandahalf
billion people still live in houses built with raw earth: France, Germany, the Countries of
Norlh Africa, the South-western states of the U S A , Australia, West Asia and India
(approximately 55oh of all Indian homes still use raw earth for walls.) are important centers
of earth construction activity (4).
 30

3.2- General Design Principles

With good design, almost, all the problems of construction with compressed earth
blocks can be removed (4). Buildings made from stabilized blocks should, wherever
possible, be designed in general accordance with the relevant codes of practice for concrete

block work. Concentrated loads on the wall or on part of it should be minimized by using,
for example, lintels above door and window openings and by employing a wall plate to
distribute load. Wall layout should be simple with fewbreaks, slender sections of walling
between closely set windows and doors should be avoided.
Most stabilized soil buildings are of single story, although some may be of two stories

in height, and the thickness of their walls is often governed by design considerations other
than strength, notably by their impermeability to water and by thermal comfort
requirements. External walls are normally 30-cm thick, internal walls are 23-cm thick.
height of wall to its thickness should not be more than 16, e.g. for a 23-cm thick wall, the
height of each floor should not be more than 3.68-m. Area of openings should be at least
60-cm fiom any corner. Walls should be shielded as much as possible from the erosive
effects of rain. This is imporlant in areas where high rainfall is accompanied by strong
winds. It is advisable to provide generous lintel and roof overhangs of 1-m, especially in
the wet areas, Fig (3-2) (1, 4, 35).

FIG (3-2) Sri Lankan Village Houses, Built from Blocks of Cement-
Stabilized Soil (3).
 a1

Superstructures in compressed earth blocks should only have compressive stresses

running through them. This is why earth block roofs take their characteristic curved forms.
Reinforced concrete burnt brick or stone elements should be introduced where tensile or

shear stresses act upon the masonry (4).

Rain splashing back from the ground onto the base of the wall is also a frequent cause

of erosion. It is good practice to construct the base of the wall with concrete or stone up to
a height of at least 250-mm, before laying the lowest course of the soil block work.
Alternatively it may be worlhwhile to lay the soil wall from ground level but protect it to
the same height by a rendering (4). Plastering can be done on the exterior with cement-

lime-sand mix of 1:2:9 of l:3:12 proportion (1).

The corners of building are parlicularly at risk from wind and rain, and blocks in these
positions can erode much more quickly than those in the main body of the walls. In wet
regions applying a render should protect corner; or consideration can be given to the use of
more durable corner blocks.
If drying shrinkage is found to be high with the particular blocks to be used this must
be taken into account in the design of the building. The mortar to be used should not be

stronger than the blocks themselves, as a w'eak mortar accommodates movement and so
reduces the possibility of cracking of the blocks. The use of weak mortar is normal practice

for other materials of- relatively high shrinkage, such as certain classes of calcium silicate

bricks or concrete blocks. (3)

3.3 Block making presses.

3.3.1 General
Concrete block machines are normally unsuitable for making stabilized soil blocks.
This is because concrete mixes are designed to have the right amount of workability for

rapid compaction by tamping or vibration, whereas the correct amount of water needed for

optimum compaction of a soil would result in an unworkable mix. Therefore, a number of

simple presses developed specifically for making soil blocks, and some of the best known
presses which are being used for housing construction in the Third World are described in

article 3.3.2 below (3).

 a^
)/.

3.3.2 Types of Block Making Presses.

I. Cinva - Ram
One of the most widely known presses is the hand operated Cinva-Ram which was

originally designed by the Inter-American Housing and Planning Center (CINVA) in

Bogota, Colombia.
The machine, which weighs approximately 65-kg, consists of a metal mould in which
a measured quantity of the moist soil mix is compressed by an ascending a piston
connected via a toggle linkage to a 1.5 m long lever, Fig. (3-3). In order to make well-
compressed blocks enough mix must be loaded into the mould to require a hard pull on the
lever handle. The exact Volume of the loose soil should always be determined by
experiment and a gauge box mad to give just this amount. When operated by two men, the
machine is claimed to produce about 300 blocks daily, this figure could be increased with a
large number of people, some operating the machine, and others preparing the soil mix and
stacking the block.
Blocks with dimension 290 x 140 x 90 mm can be produced. They may be plain or if
required, frogged, by using a suitable wooden form (3).

Fig. (3-3) CINVA-RAM Soil Block Press at Compression (3).

 aa
JJ

II. Tek - Block.

The University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, Ghana has designed the hand-

operated Tek-Block press, which weighs about 90 kg. Fig. (3-a). In this case the lever arm
is made from timber instead of the three-piece metal arm used for the Cinva-Ram. It is
intended therefore that overfilling the mould will break the wooden lever before Jamming
the piston. The number of operations required to press and eject the blocks is less than with
Cinva-Ram because the top of the mould is fixed to the lever arm. After compaction of the
soil, movement of the lever from side of the mould to the other results in the top of the
mould being removed and the block being ejected in one single operation. The size of
block made by this press is 290 x 215 x 140 mm, with an output claimed at between 200 to
400 blocks per day depending on the number and skill of the workmen (3).

Fig. (3-a) TEK-BLOK Soil Block Press in Use (3).

III. Landcrete.
The South African made Landcrete press, which is hand, operated and can make
blocks of various sizes. However, all references to this press is to be found only in old
literature and the press may no longer be available (3).
 34

IV. Ellson.
Another South African firm, Ellson Pty, also manufactures a manually operated press,
which is claimed to give very dense blocks because of its high lever ratio of 500-1. One
significant feature of this press is the height of the mould from the ground (860mm

approximately) which helps to reduce backache from bending down to remove the ejected
blocks. One particular Ellson model - the Universal press - is claimed to produce about

1000 blocks daily at a compaction pressure of about 7 MN/m2, with two men operating the
levers (3).

V. Supertor
A range of hydraulically powered soil-cement brick presses is being marketed in

Brazil. One version has a four brick mould producing a brick size of either 230 x I 10 x50
mm or 200 x 100 x 50 mm. The Superlor is powered by a 5 HP electric motor; it weighs

1000 kg and is claimed to have an output of 20 000 bricks per 8 hour day (3).

VI. Latorex.
A Danish firm, Drostholm products, has developed a plant system for the high-speed

production of lime-stabilized laterite blocks. The electrically powered plant comprises a

soil drier and pulverizes mixer and presses. A normal size plant is planned for capacities of
about 12000 bricks per 8 hour day brick size230 x I l0 x 55 mm the brick presses operate
at high pressures and have been designed to deal withawide range of soils of different

grading and properties. The bricks can be steam cured and are claimed to have

compressive strength of between 15 and 40 MN/m2 13.1.

VII. Balram.
The BALRAM, Fig (3-5), is a manual soil block press. A toggle and crank mechanism
power the ramming action of the BALRAM. Soil is filled and manufactured blocks ejected
from the top of the mould while ramming takes place from the bottom. The lockable mould
is a twin chamber that produces two conventional sized bricks 230 x 108 x 76 mm in one

ramming cycle. The center plate in the BALRAM can be removed to make larger blocks.
Using the BALRAM compressed earth block press, five persons can maintain a high
production rate of over 150 cycles per hour 300 blocks. lncluding time spent on
preparation ofsoil and stacking ofblocks a team can produce an average of 1200-1500

blocks per day (4).

 35

Fig. (3-5) BALRAM Soil Block Press (4).

 36

CHAPTER FOUR

MATERIALS AND TESTS

4.1 Materials.
4.1.1Soils.
Four types of fine-grained soils were brought from different sites located at; Degala,
Shaklawa, Koritan and Karachinagha. Results of grain size distribution and plasticity tests
indicated that two types of these soils: Degala and Koritan soils can be selected to meet the
objectives of this investigation. The Degala and Koritan soils are designated as soil-A and
Soil-B respectively.
Soil-A is a light red inorganic clayey silt soil ofslightplasticitybroughtfromthe
Degala area about 50 km east of Arbil City, obtained from a slope site after removing the
top soil (1.0 to 1.5m).Thistypeof soil abundantlyexistsinnorthpartof Iraqparticularly
near the mountainous areas.

Soil-B is a grayey light brown inorganic silty clay soil of medium plasticity brought
from Koritan village 15 km south of Arbil City, which is used by Arbil brick factories.
This type of soil is one of the abundant clay deposits, which are found in most part of Iraq.

It contains excessive amounts of fine CaCO: (calcite). Results of a study (36) on its effect

on the properties of clay burnt-bricks indicated that presence of fine CaCO: in the soil did
not cause any lime blowing or strength deteriorates action to brick on exposure to natural
atmosphere.

These soils were pulverized and passed through No.l0 ASTM sieve. The particle size
distribution curves of the soils used are shown in Fig. (4-l), physical and chemical
properties are listed in Tables (4-1 & 2) respectively.
All the necessary tests required for determining the physical properties of the soils
were performed in laboratories of the College of Engineering, University of Salahaddin.

The other tests required for determining the chemical composition of the soils were carried
out in the Chemical Department of the Directorate of Arbil Construction Laboratory.
 31

. Soil-A r -----Soil-B
-
Sand sitt Clay

coarse medium fine coarse medium fine coarse medium fine

-l

q)

6
i!
c
c)
C)
o

10.0000 1 .0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001

Pafticie Size, (mm)
Fig. (a-1) Panticle Size Distribution of Soils-A&8, (According to ASTAtf
D422-63)
 38

Table (4-l) Physical Properties of Soils-A&B.

Location Degala Koritan
Designation Soil-A Soil-B
Atterburg limits
Liquid limit (%)* 26 4l
Plastic limit (%)** 18 L)

Plasticity index (oA)* * 8 18

Specific gravity *** 2.68 2.69

Dry density at compaction Effort Dry density (g/cmi) Dry density (g/cm')
(kg/cm3) of:

5.77 1.930 1.788

1 1.s4 2.005 |.827

17.31 2.010 1.900

OMC at compaction EfTort oMC (%) oMC (%)

(kg/cm3) of:

5.77 t3.6 17.0

11.54 tl.2 14.8

17.31 10.2 14.2

Unified Classification System CL-ML CL

AASHTO Classification System A-4 A-7-6
Soil Descrintion Light red, Clayey Silt Grayey light brown.
Silty Clay
Clay Content (%) T7 26
* According to ASTM D 423-66, (3'1)
{(* According to ASTM D 424-59, (.37)
*** According to ASTM D 854-58, (37)
 39

Table (4-2) Chemical Compositions of Soils-A&B.

Oxides Soil-A, '/" by weight Soil-B, "/" bV weight
si02 49.58 53.25

Alzo: 5.52 5.70

CaCO: 36.00 34.00

SO: 1.09 2.53

FezO: 1.28 t.44

cl- 0.03 0.02

T.S.S. 3.il )-zI

Orsanic Matter Content 0.40 0.67
pH at Saturation 7.74 7.89

4.1.2 Lime.
Hydrated lime was used (alone and in combination with cement as modifier) in the
investigation as a stabilizer for both types of the selected soils. Its chemical composition is
given in Table (4-3), which meets the AASHTO M216-84 requirements for use of lime as
a stabilizer.

Table (4-3) Chemical Composition of the Hydrated Lime. *

Oxides % by weight
Ca(OH)z 88.00

CaO 0.60

AlzOr 1.20

Fe:o: 0.20

RzO: 1.40

SO: 2.86

SiOz 4.60
* The tests were performed in the Chemical Depaftment of the Directorate of Arbil Construction Laboratory
 40

4.1.3 Cement.
The ordinary Portland cement used as a stabilizer for both types of the selected soils,
manufactured by Kufa cement factory. Its chemical composition is given in Table (4-4),
which meets AASHTO M 85-84 requirements for use of cement as a stabilizer. Also. its
mineralogical composition is given in Table (4-5).

Table (4-4) Chemical Composition of the Cement*.

Oxides '/'By Weight

SiOz 21.71

CaO 5 8.75

Mgo 3.20

Fe2O3 3.28

Aluo: 5.46

SO: 2.15

Insoluble Residue 1.53

Loss on Ignition 1.91

Table (4-5) Mineralogical Composition of the Cement*.

Constituents "h by weight
CrS 29.54

CzS 40.19

C:A 8.9

C+AF 9.98

Lime Coefficient 0.82

Alumina Coefficient t.66

Silica Coefficient 2.48

* The tests were performed in the Chemical Department of the Directorate of Arbil Construction Laboratory.
 4l

4.1.4 Water.
Through the investigation, ordinary drinking water was used in preparing and curing
the soil block specimens.

4.2 Moisture-Density Relationship.

The laboratory tests for determining moisture-density relationship of both treated and
raw (untreated) soils were carried out using cylindrical compaction moulds of 4-inch
(101.6-mm) diameter by 3-inch (76.2-mm) height.
uC)
Different amounts; 3, 6, 9 and l2o/o by weight of dry soil 1at 60 of each type of
stabilizer were added to soil-A&B and mixed for5 minutes. Themixerwasof l0liters
capacity, operating by a four speed gearbox and motor fixed to the mixing platform. An
amount of potable water, starting with four to six percentage points below the expected
optimum moisture content was added to dampen the mixture and mixed again for another 5

minutes. In case of the raw soil alone, the same procedure was followed too, except dry
mixing with stabilizers was eliminated. Using Universal Testing Machine, the prepared
mixture contained in the specified compaction mould was statically compacted in one layer
in order to simulate the field compaction method usually used in fabrication of soil blocks.
Different compaction efforts: , ll.54 &.17.31 kg/cm3 *ere used in preparing the
5.77

specimens. These compaction efforts were applied with a strain rate of 0.05 inch
(1.27-mm)/min., maintained for 20 sec and then released. Rest of the test procedure
followed the ASTM D 558-57.

4.3 Fabrication of Block Specimens and Curing.

4.3.1 Fabrication.
Following the same procedure used in preparing the compaction test specimens, a total
number of 936 blocks of treated and untreated soils, at their optimum moisture content,
were fabricated, for each percentage of stabilizer; 3, 6, 9 & 12o/o and three different
compaction pressure; 4, 8 & 12 MN/m2 (equivalent to 5.77, 11.54, 17.3I kglcms
respectively e.g. [4 MN/m2 : 400 N/cm2 : {(40019.806) kg/cm'} : 40.791 kglcm2 :
{40.7911(height of mould)}
: (40J91f.07-cm) : 5.77 kg/cm3l. A numberof 12 block

specimens were required for both strength and durability tests, resulting in 864 test
specimens of treated soil blocks. Also, a number of l2 block specimens at each compaction
 42

pressure (4,8 & l2 MN/m2) ofrawsoilwererequiredforthesametests,resultinginT2

test specimens of untreated soil blocks.
Size of all test block specimens were relatively small; cube blocks of 2.78 inch (70.7

mm) in dimensions, because the only available mould in the Laboratory, suitable for this
investigation. was of this size. For such type of investigation, using small-size test
specimen is usual, so as to economize rn materials (3). Fig. (4-2) shows a photo of
fabricated blocks at the curing stage; before testing.

.'" "i

ru l',
lirii::=ilil

Fig. (a-2) Fabricated soil Block specimens at the curing Stage.

 43

4.3.2 Curing.
Soon after fabrication and demoulding; the block specimens were labeled and taken to
a storage place (a large room) inside the laboratory for curing. One day after fabrication,
curing operation was started by regular spraying of the blocks with an ordinary atomizerto
keep them moist during the specified curing period of 28 days. Intentionally, all the block
specimens were cured at room temperature in order to simulate the actual field conditions
as much as possible.

4.4 Strength and Durability Tests.

4.4.1Strength Tests.
Soil blocks must possess adequate strength to satisfy loadbearing requirements. In

most climates, the walls built of these blocks will be wet at various times and so it is
important that the wet compressive strength should be determined. A minimum wet
strength of about 1.4 MN/m2 has been recommended by several building authorities
throughout the world (3).
After specified curing period, enough number of the block specimens were selected

for both dry and wet strength tests. Unconfined compressive dry and wet strength tests
were performed on the different test specimens.
The dry strength test was performed on the block specimens, which have been dried to
constant weight. The wet strength test was performed on the block specimens, which have
been soaked in potable water for 24 hours. Inallcasesanaverageofthreestrengthtest

results of identical specimens was considered as the strength value. The compressive

strength tests were carried out at constant strain rate of .O5-inch (1.27-mm)/min., according
to ASTM D1633-63 (35).

4.4.2 Durability Tests.

Durability tests are usually performed in order to assess the likely performance of
building materials; particularly soil blocks. Two types of tests were carried out on the
stabilized soil blocks. The first test was according to the standard AASHTO Tl35-76 (3 8),

which involves l2 cycles of wetting and drying. Each cycle comprised soaking of the

stabilized soil block specimens in water for 5 hours followed by drying in the oven for 42
hours at 7l 0C. At the end of each cycle the specimens were given a specified number of
strokes with a special wire brush and the loss in weight were recorded to the nearest 0.1-g
 44

The change in volume during the wetting and drying cycles were also recorded for
another set of identical specimens to the nearest 0.02-mm. At the end of the 12 cycle
period, the moisture content of each specimen was determined.

The second test (39) involves the spraying of water from a 100-mmshowerhead
against the face of a specimen 200-mm from and parallel to shower head, the number of
opening in the shower head was 163, and diameter of theopeningswereabout l-mm.
Spraying was continued for 2-hours at a pressure of 1.5 kg/cm2 and the specimens
examined visually for erosion and pitting, and the loss in weight was determined. Fig. (4-3)
shows a photo taken at the end of a spraying test.

, !;li I ilj,i
,i{il :t'['i,t
lo.ri,'
flir ilt,l ll
:iiii
i,:it
rt!

Fig. (a-3) Photo Taken at the End of Spraying Test on Stabilized Soil
Blocks.
 45

CHAPTER FIVE
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 General.
The laboratory tests data resulted from this investigation regarding compaction,
compressive strength and durability characteristics of both treated and untreated soils
together with a discussion thereon are presented in this chapter.

5.2 Compaction Characteristics.

As explained in chapter four, three compaction efforts: 5.77 , ll .54 & 17.3 I kg/cml
were used for the preparation; raw (untreated) and treated soil blocks using: 3,6,9 & 12

percentages of lime, cement and lime in combination with cement.

The results of all compaction tests are shown in Figures (5-l to 6), and the values of
maximum dry densities (MDD) and the optimum moisture content (OMC) are summarized
in Table (5-1).
It can be observed from these Figures and the Table that, in general, for soil-A, the
MDD of the treated soil decreases and the OMC increases with increasing amount of lime
compared to those of raw soils for all compaction efforts. These effects are relatively more
pronounced in case of lime as an additive when compared to the same amount of cement.
The same is true for soil-B except for the case of cement stabilization where both the MDD
and OMC increases slightly.

The decrease in MDD is due to increase in the aggregation size of the particles, which
results in a larger void ratio. In the case of soil-B stabilized with cement, the slight increase
in MDD is due to; the higher value of the cement specific gravity compared to that of the

soil and also due to the fact that the addition of cement decreases the plasticity index (PI)

of the soil, which increases the density in an indirect way (24,25). This was not the case
with soil-A because it had a lower PI compared to soil-B. The increase in OMC is due to a
relatively larger amount of water required for the flocculation and 1ubrication
of the treated soil parlicles during compaction process. The same findings reported by
other investigators (10, 29).
In general, trend of compaction curves, especially those for soil-A, reveals that change
in water content wet of OMC affects dry density more than dry of OMC.
 46

Table (5-i) and the related compaction curyes, i.e. F'igs. (5-7 &,8), indicated that,
irrespective of soil and additive types, the increase in compaction effort increases
MDD and decreases the OMC. However, for a certain compaction effort and a certain

percentage and type of stabilizer, soil-A which is classified as a clayey silt of low PI,
has always higher MDD and lower OMC in comparison with soil-B which is

classified as silty clay of medium plasticity, similar results obtained by Rashed (11).
This is mainly due to difference in texture, clay content and PI of the two soils.
It is interesting to note that under a certain compaction effort, irrespective of the
type of soil or stabilizer, the change in additive content, i.e. 3 to l2Yo, didn't change
the MDD by more than 5%o.
 cr
v

I
N
N N
N
o:o N .g b
J cJ
q'! N
O
a
E bt'l r)
c\,
N sss
o
sss :*: I
1i3 ao
f..- ;'3 f.-
!!i
G6F (o f-
;>< r \.'
lr)'^ l,a
r-
\r: .t3 tl
r=
L
.:g N:
N: Fr
r':
r:
?4, ^4,

o)
I
F.-
f.-

orootr)olf)ou) r\
o rf) ou)otf)o
qqq\f'- qqqqq\\q I
Nr-rrrr
; rrrrr
^i
a
(rtucTE)'f1rsuep,{-rq
q)

U
o
L
a
N N

ss
@ h
!, +
F- F- q)
=
3 t q)
E
t lr)..
J h
\i'
r: , vS
d3 = rH
;
N.= Ng
.2
:
at)

c)
fl

333ggpP
-:::::: 83838SR
l,n
N o0

-
(rtucTE;',(1rsuep,(rq
 oo
v
4\
I

.E
A

o:o
a
l LN
B;R !

F
N -6- i f.- F
o
sss :€:e
Si!t{
I

i
\.o!
CJ

::: to
*: *: |/
;!t $
'3'' la
-s
v
,:. r* s
S
F
\-r
-= .i tltl
N 3+.
=
:r
-
'.Y
9Fi
L-
Ov = r-l
;H
2 'E/
AA
._
-I
R
F- a
F
F
A
r\
v
ou)OrJ)O |r)OIO I
ooo)o.) qq\ otr)o!ootoolo
.:qqqqoqoq\ .E
NNN +r
R
NNN
:.
a
(rurcTa;'flrsuep frq --
x
q)
TJ
-
r\
v
v

Qr)
li
E
-
''-'
.-
U)

(\
=v Er
o :o.: Ora
rl
,j o .E b!r i
t- a:
ol
s ss ol
-@6io
N.- -
j :: ::: : !
F
v
A
'
o .f- ]!33
o666
l.(.)E
r;<
a. r+
-E coi-
Ntr -5lr
N='J
aA
.,-
-9
F=

a.2 -E'-
':-
z -.2Ah tr
=€
c)
Fr tv

t\I
r() ra
\/
qqqqqoq\:qqqqqqF- oo
NNrr-rC{NN-r

(rutc78) '.firsuep ,('rq

 A
s
I

o:o c{
F:N
.iv; 9:o
.!
1SJ
b l"i a
N
*ss
oo6
o
sss
::: (o
:!1
N I
|r) o0
666
'it !!;
d60
al v
rts tr)
F-
N:
tl
:
L
r': ;F
c
O)- -
N CJ
f.r
(o

:HR5EEE8 iHFTEPF: lo
U
cJ

O
(rtuc78; '{lrsuep ,irq
q)

q)
L
ra

P?R F-
.:9'; =1
I
o F.-
sss
:::
ooo
(o
O
!}'
EEE s rJ) q)
It
/.).t -
nr3 cos h
N5
=
-2
O; =

c)
tv.

?t)
I
Otr)OtoaTI)OOIl)OLOOtl)O l,n
.:qqqorcocoO-o)o)coccl
NNC!
oo

-
(rtuc78; ',(usuep frq
 tr)

|ra
I

o
N c!
O
c{ ct
$
c!
s
N I
O
c{
o b0
N
c\ c!
N c! F-
c! N F-
c! c{;
ln
o : tl
3
@E fr
f-- r..- z rt
(o<

t+
(,
N N

grooorooo ooo
aqoq\\(o@; o;6ilYu?o(o (o(oo
;.- I

O
(ruc7a; 'Klrsuep ,ftq
c)

q,)
L
v)
@
N N
9:o
.s;ir i N E Ei I
N -a
J FJ
ol
i
sN ie !
tit I
oi oi N
:e>q:q
;1ir;
!
I
cr)
N
sss
@@@;
i
N
lta- N !11- N 0
N oooo N
33i3
GOOO
333;
60GO
c)
N N
N--
O)=
Nc'
^ -.:
h
F.
tr
o f*
F-! Ir- 3
r 3 r=
(o .2
ra r':
lr)e ah

v lq

N N q)
N,
!+
I
aolooLr)oro
qoq\\(o(o() |Qa'oO()Olf)
qq\\(o(o()
l,O
rer---- r--r-;- bo
I

(rtuc78;',(lrsuep f;q
 AA
I
$ V-
N N.=
6v
P;I N PER,
.:9 ;! i..: a
N
N
- b- i Rl -)'
o
sss N
sss
NNN
i
I
N9
F
F
ooo
l:t 1a: -
60Q
N Nb0 v
]3' 3!33 o)-
OGG GG6d
^1+
@;<l,n
a I.a::
-;<
f-- -ttr f.- q Fi
.: t-l
ri vall
I tl

:.t u>!;3-
$: -A
s.2.Y
F.? 3)F
F-
cO .. r-l
-2 F
N I
.- A

9f
-
'A
O)F -
-
(.)
qqq\\qqqoqoq\\qq
r-rr-r .t
I
:- d

a 6
(rutcTE) ',Qrsuep ,irq +.
A I
q)
i-a
t
A
U
G)
L
-(n
.-
s
N
v-
r=r
g;R g;R cD2
.=:; N
N '-: i I
N - bF
o
Nh
sss
ooo sss r-
N'ii-
:::
ooo N
:::
ooo \\
q =r c)
333 O,A
';;
6GO 3
G
cos
l-J
al {::

f.-:A
--
r5-
-i <o;cH
rc '! 3A
tf)eA
L-
s: $;E
r'6rt
=.-
m F
ZL -
rZ
(\ v
.t
r*a
R

-d)
o o /1.
v) ln
I
co[n
rf)ora)oroo|r)
qqqq\\q c)tf)Otf)OTOOtf)O
(oqqqq\\qq
v

rr-rrr oo
-rr- f-
-
(ruc7E; 'K1rsuep,{rq
 c.l
ta)

AA
(\ I
N N

N
N o
N
N
o\c I
o!
^^q
w= :
f.- :. ea
f.- I f-
=
a

lr)
- tltl

lr) tr
$
$ )F

cf)
-
N
N
I

tr)olr)o|r)
roOrooK)OA
at-"Coq\\4. _
mF* \q Q
I

a
(rtuc78;',(lrsuep f,rq
c)

U
q)
L

N
vN q)
N (.)
o:o E;R I N -
.::;
F:N N J EJ
ol
i N
N I
N
sss
:e
biDio
:e:e i
! N h
3l+ ==== N U)
3''; o q)
''] F- a l<
\
s -
a
h
'^3
Se .2
si
o.2
(h
NE
N

q)
tv.
O)

\oI
oAa!ooq,ootl)olr)olr)a
5eA\\qEbdcocoNFcoto t,n
Gi :-;;;--;
bo
r-

(ruc73;',(1rsuep,,irq
 53

Table (5-1) Results of Compaction test, Using Three Compaction Efforts.

c) o Compaction Effort

-b0 E r) ^ 5.77 kglcm3 11.54 kg/cm3 17.31kg/cm3

(J o\
a qi >v
0)
() Max. Dry Max. Dry Max. Dry
>. OMC Density OMC Density OMC Density
a t1 (%\ (e/cm3) (%\ (g/cm3) (%) (s/cm3)
0 3.6 930 1.2 2.005 0.2 2.010
J 4.8 852 4.2 r.902 2.8 1.942
lime 6 6.8 803 4.0 l .881 3.8 1.923
9 7.2 790 5.4 r.866 5.0 1,894
t2 7.2 760 6.4 1.827 4.8 1.869
0 3.6 .930 r.2 2.005 0.2 2.0r0
a
J 3.0 912 1.8 2.000 1.8 2.006
..,
Soil-A cement 6 a.L
^ ,920 2.0 1.970 2.2 2.014
9 4.0 870 2.2 1.960 2.0 1.995
t2 4.2 880 2.2 t.972 1.8 L990
0 3,6 930 1.2 2.005 0.2 2.010
aa
J 4.6 .862 J.Z 947 2.6 t.996
a^
lL:2C 6 5.8 869 3.6 920 ).2 1.960
9 6.4 .840 3.8 915 3.8 1.910
t2 6.4 .83 8 3.6 .920 )./. 1.960
0 7.0 788 4.8 827 4.2 1.880
a
J 9.2 .694 7.6 .780 4.6 r.872
lime 6 20.0 670 7.6 752 6.6 |.8t2
9 20.6 .660 9.4 .728 6.6 r.794
t2 21.6 638 0.6 .710 7.6 1.780
0 7.0 788 4.8 827 4.2 1.880
3 8.2 776 6.0 .863 A')
a.L 1.900
Soil-B cement 6 8.4 757 5.6 872 4.6 1.965
9 7.8 757 5.0 828 4.8 1.905
I2 6.6 732 4.6 .864 4.4 r.943
4.8 Aa 1.880
0 7.0 788 827 +-L
J 8.8 .735 /.u ,824 4.4 t.877
lL:2C 6 9.2 .720 6.2 .822 5.4 1.860
9 9.6 .700 7.2 .797 5.4 t.872
T2 20.0 .686 7.0 |.797 6.6 1.836
 54
c?
It-
tq OOOR
q\q!q!J
lo JJJr FA
H
',0
::: >e
is XSb<N
lo €
l' TTTT 4\
,*i I

l: 1?T9 .-u)
so
qra
L
<O()OR .v
:ilflflJ
3*iJ: U)
*J
S;s;eSN a
()
+,

ilili F-
F-
v
v
r\
I

:'
oloorool.rrolrro|f)o ,,{a
':qqo?qoqoq\\qq
NNNr
.-
+.
Av
A
cDv
.\
N4
*,,E (r)
d){rJootr
:EEEo'
-
o(l)(l)oo
oo()o^ m
;e;e;s;sN
O(t(OOlr
F
\_ l_
9+0xo -' ,v
v
ilr h
-,.\
rE (a
ea+C

<(l)ootr
:EEE6
tu6 F

ooooo
oooo^ C l-l
ssssN .o
'r
OCO(Oor ()A t-
o
o_tr
1++++
*O
i-f \
L
tr
.=
tr)o|r)oroo ri- x
rOOO)O) qq\\c?q R
FI
c!Nc.i;; rrr-rr
EZ
l-
d)o
JOOOtr
OtsEE=
o
+.
L.
ssssN
Of)(OOrr d
qi
t+0x0 - F

-:
.-v
.l-.
c)
R
a
-.].oootr F
F
v
ssssN
Od)(OOr-
r\
v
q.r

*a
t++++ q.)
,a)
f'- (,4-r
F*
tr,
.- r-l
orr,oroc) roorooroo
oqoq\\qq
-cqo?q
NNNF rreFr
tr-
I
m
v
(rtuc7O) '{llsueg fu6 unulxeru rh
v
(t.
 55

c)
f--

U)
$€
,iq,
; -
r-9.4
()OR s
ls
Io
rlt:
O
r\
\J
s gd; $ c)
.-
.-
I
A
1++{ E
4
.\
tr0
tr)- .l

rh
.-o
(oGl
ee*C
: tr
fooootr .Y
+EEEi'
ooo(l)o -€
oooo^
^ ^ ^ ^x
;<;<;<;<N
OCO(OOlr ;, (-
-6)
rF.
--Lv
0+sx0 *). rf
::J \/
.\
X!rr --
v g
t-
vetC -=)
:,v-
')FA H.-
<o(uotr rY)
*EEEb
ooooo t+t
4()()()^ g2 =r
ssssN l_t
odr(oot-
xtr
.=
v
.1

-l
a-l )r
1t++{ F

*-
)-r
v*
I

f)
r..- v \J
f.-
,^: -

EE
t-!
r.-
rir
c0o
loorDtr
'; tr c c.: F

ssssR;
OO(OO)-
.-
:I
d
r+sx0 |.!
F
F
so
ro rl
-
aA

_aoootr
O E E E=
-v
ts€ *. 41
(J}
^^^_><
]<;<x;<i!
Of)(DOt- f,2 I

-.-
r-l A
rt\
-Y v/

l++++ AO fr
.A€
\/
f.-
f.-
d
umrfrldo r
e@(o-fc{
Nzr
.10
"o7o ']ue1iloJ eJnldiolnl I
 56

5.3 Strength Characteristics.

5.3.1 General.
As mentioned earlier in article 4.3.7, strength of treated and untreated soil blocks was

studied in soaked and unsoaked unconfined compression tests using test specimens of
cubic soil blocks of 2.78 inch (70.7 mm) in dimensions. Relation between the compressive
strength and additive contents for the three-compaction pressures: 4, 8 &.12 MN/m2, which
are equivalent to 5.77,11.54 & 17.31 kg/cml respectively. were obtained forthe two soils
at28-day curing periods. The results are shown in Figs. (5-11 to 18) and Table (5-2).
In general, soaked samples showed lower strength than that unsoaked samples did, buj
the destructive effect of soaking was decreased as the additive content increased. This is
due to effect of the water absorbed by the sample, which weakens the bonding/cementing
forces between soil particles to a certain extent depending on the type of soil, type and
amount of additives. This weakening of the cementing forces between soil particles in the
specimen with lower amount of additives of about 3% indeed caused disintegration and a
complete collapse of the soil blocks. Although, sulphates could be one of the reason that
caused reduction in strength during soaking; previous studies showed that the effect of
sulphates on strength becomes much more pronounced when the water content increased
above the optimum moisture content (25.26).

5,3.2Unsoaked (Dry) Strength .

A linear relationship was established between the cement content and unsoaked
unconfined compressive strength. For unsoaked condition, the unconfined compressive
strength of soil-cement blocks was found invariably higher than those of the corresponding
soil-lime and lime as an additive modifier to soil-cement.
For soil-lime blocks, irrespective of soil type and compaction pressure, unsoaked

unconfined compressive strength increases with increasing lime content up to a maximum

(or optimum) value and then declines. The excess of lime beyond the optimum doesn't

react or combine with soil, which cause gradual decline in the unconfined compressive
strength. However, for compaction pressures of 8 & 12 MN/m2 for soil-A, the strength was
approximately constant for all amounts of lime content, the same finding reported by Pinto
& Davidson(27\.
When lime was added to soil-cement mixture, the unsoaked unconfined compressive
strensth invariablv located between soil-cement and soil-lime strensth curves. This can
 57

best be explained that by the addition of lime to soil-cement mixes, density decreases due
to decrease in specific gravity compared to that of the cement, and consequently the

compressive strength decreases. Another reason for that may be due to the fact that the
cementation bond of lime with soil is weaker than that of cement with soil.
It can be seen from Fig (5-17) that the unsoaked unconfined compressive strength
increases with increasing compaction pressure, this may be due to increase in density,
which an indication of compressive strength.

5.3.3 Soaked (Wet) Strength.

A liner relationship was established between the cement content and soaked
unconfined compressive strength, i.e. soaked unconfined compressive strength increases
with increasing cement content; same finding reported by other investigators (24,25).
For blocks of soil-lime mixes, soaked unconfined compressive strength increases with

increasing lime content. When lime is present in larger amounts the second reaction (slow
reaction) produces a stronger cementation, but for low amounts this cementation is not
strong enough to withstand immersion in water, except for compaction pressure 8 MN/m2
for soil-B, that showed similar results as unsoaked samples did.
The soaked unconfined compressive strength, showed a marked increase when lime
was added to soil-cement mixture especially of soil-B. This is due to the formation of the
calcium silicate gels that were formed as a result of pozzolanic reaction, which took place
between the soil and lime. Other investigators ( 13, 29) reported similar results. The small

increase in the unconfined compressive strength observed with the addition of small
quantities of lime to soil-cement mixture, that can be attributed to the effect of lime in

pulverizing the soil-cement mixture, rendering the process of mixing and compaction
easier. Consequently, better packing of the clay particles is achieved. This may be due to
the fact that soil-B has a higher plasticity index, which is more receptive to lime
stabilization than soil-A.
The effects of compaction effort on the soaked unconfined compressive strength were
studied. Block specimens with different percentages of each type of additives were
compacted at three static compaction pressures andattheirOMC.Theresultsofsoaked
unconfined compressive strengths are shown in Fig. (5-18). It is clearthatforsoil-A,
higher soaked strength was obtained with the compaction pressure 8 MN/m2 for mixes of
soil-lime and soil-cement in combination with lime. while for soil-cement mixes hisher
 58

soaked strength was obtained with the compaction pressure l2 MN/m'. However, for soil-
B, higher soaked strength was obtained with the compaction pressure 4 MN/m2 for soil-
cement mixes while, for mixes of lime as an additive to soil-cement, higher soaked
strength was obtained with the compaction pressure 8 MN/m2 but for mixes of soil-lime it
is not pronounced. This is due to the harmful effect of compaction effort, as its increase
results in increasing swelling heave potential as described in article 2.2.1.

The strengths attained by the two soils when stabilized with additives showed that
both the soils can be successfully stabilized with lime, cement and lime as an additive to

soil-cement mixes, on an economical basis. According to the soaked strength values listed
in Table (5-3), the block specimens were classified to grades of very poor, poor, acceptable

and good. The very poor block specimens were disintegrated during soaking. The poor
specimens gave strength value up to 1.4 MN/m2, which is the minimum recommended
strength value (3). The acceptable block specimens are those which have strength values
higher than 1.4 MN/m2 up to 2.8 MN/m2 which is the minimum strength value specified for
precast concrete blocks according to BS 2028 requirements (40). The good block
specimens are those which have strength values higher than 2.8 MN/m2.

Table (5-3) indicates that both the soils, when stabilized at or above 9o/o of lime or
cement alone. irrespective of their compaction pressure, gave strength higher than
minimum recommended strength value 1.4 MN/m2. except the block specimen No. 24 &
35. While these soils when stabilrzed at or above 60/o of lime in combination with cement,
gave strength higher than 1.4 MN/m2, except the block specimen No. 26. This appears to
be in the benefit of economical considerations.
 59

_ unsoaked U.C.S
----- soaked lor 24 hr
lime
o cement
t 1L:2C

E
ci
a
o
o-
z8
.E
a.
O
l

-t
/a

69
Additive content,%

Fig. (5-9) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Compression

Strength for Compaction Pressure:4 MN/ mt, Soil-A
 60

_ unsoaked u.c.s
----- soaked for 24 hr
lime
o cement
) 1L:2C

E
c;
a12
c)
o_
z
.=
a8
q
l

69
Additive Content , o/o

Fig. (5-10) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Compression

Strength for Compaction Pressure:8 MN/ *t, Soil-A
 61

E
u
a
o
o-
z
.c
Ui
C)
j

69
Additive Content , o/o

Fig. (5-11) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Compression

Strength for Compaction Pressure : 12 MN / Soil-A
^',
 62

612
b
o-
z
.=
a.B
q
l

6 I
Additive Content % .

Fig. (5-12) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Cor-nPression

Strength for Compaction Pressure:4 MN/ -t, Soil-B
 63

E
u
a
o
o-
z
.c
a
q
f

Additive Content , %o
Fig. (5-13) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Compression
Strength for Compaction Pressure:8 MN/ -t, Soil-B
 64

_ unsoaked U.C.S
----- soaked for 24 hr
r, lime
. 1L:2C

E
u
a
q)
o-
z
.c
a
q
l

6 I
Additive Content % .

Fig. (5-14) Effect of Additive Content on Unconfined Compression

Strength for Compaction Pressure : 12 MN / Soil-B
^',
 65

Table (5-2) Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results for Soil-A & B.

Unconfined Compressive Strength (MN/mz)

q) C)e
.l <.,
>tr
5 9?- Compaction Pressure
t,) .30
E
EF
.>.
E,Q-
a
<e 4N. N/m" 8M N/m' 12 MN/m"
Soaked Unsoaked Soaked Unsoaked Soaked Unsoaked
0 0.000 5.483 0.000 6.064 0.000 7.213
a
J 0.379 4.947 0.896 6.657 0.798 7.043
Lime 6 0.974 6.379 1,272 6.729 I .190 7.151
9 1.481 6.650 1.694 6.513 1.488 6.546
t2 1.824 6.068 1.740 6.781 t.484 6.784
0 0.000 5.483 0.000 6.064 0.000 7.2r3
a
J 0.000 8.513 0.000 10.3t2 1.275 10.3 88
I
6 1.962 t0.796 0.000 12.869 1.913 r3.r l I
a Cement
9 3.263 t\.862 2.1 58 14.851 3.521 13.785
l2 4.532 13.079 4.1 00 16.551 4.888 17.126
0 0.000 5.483 0.000 6.064 0.000 7.213
a
J 0.000 7.958 0.000 8.272 0.000 9.822
6 2.586 9.122 2.590 11.320 2.305 l 1.065
1L:2C
9 3.044 I 1.136 3.969 13.749 3.955 13.071
t2 3.858 t2.065 4.37 | 13.965 3.080 lJ.Jl)
0 0.000 9.776 0.000 10.579 0.000 t2.268
1
J 0.000 6.304 0.000 9.01I 0.000 9.744
6 1.082 6.696 1.700 9.459 1.354 9.744
Lime
9 1.282 7.062 I .815 7.759 1.673 9.083
t2 1.903 7.298 1.609 6.824 1.848 7.690
0 0.000 9.776 0.000 t0.s79 0.000 12.268
J 0.000 10.044 0.000 I1.738 0.000 t6.787
I
6 0.000 13.425 0.000 t5.7 t7 0.000 18.533
a Cement
9 2.487 16.884 1.530 20.455 0.000 22.260
t2 3.312 r8.702 2.759 23.836 2.030 23.659
0 0.000 9.776 0.000 10.579 0.000 12.268
J 0.000 10.221 0.000 tl.679 0.000 15.203
1L.2C 6 1.491 l L758 1.864 t5.9t7 0.000 16.782
9 3.273 13.242 3.878 t7.s19 3.361 18.670
T2 4.447 t4.007 5.179 17.735 4.948 t7.905
 \o
\o

OOOR
NNN'i
| | l-
Y-rr\€ 0)
6sssKi
oe)(OOlr

l{ilt q)

OOOR
NNN'i li
_r _ - ^x
'o }<;<;< N
o(.)(oo)- L

oo
OOOOO q)
OOO tr
oco@ +oi oco@ $No
Nr rrr
N
oq)
EZEE
oootr
(a
-.
'-a
rt)
€)
c0
oooo
o o o\o
-f
'o ;<;sSRT 7a
o CO@O-
4=
gU
{+}+ 2e
0)x

- -E
-oootr FA
.Y(.)
-oooo
<i. o o o\o
o-
ES;RSil
o(o(OO)-
3p
Ar+
oq)
:00+x
U)

q o q co -
o ,rt
N
d
c.) N
q)
t-
oootr o) u) AA
ah t*i
d]
o ;;; ft*
ra)t
CO(OO)-
t
O0
{++t OO
GO
E.o
oo0)tro .x
v3
.;e;eSN
o(t(OO)r o6
a)tr
:+0+x .(, o

l,n
q q q
c! o (o
l.n
I

"s'J'n pa{uosuo
zrulNtr l oo
 N
\o
OOOR
q!|{lJ
r I l-
f:::s
'o;< ;<;< N
c)

iITTI
1
OOOR o
|!q!rJ
'os;<;<N L
o(!)(OO)r

:0s+x L

oo
u?qqcqc?qqqqu?qv? 0)
rotr).fltfo(tNNOO9
L
N aq,)
9,Pc

ah
-trco) U)
O o o\o
-oooo
Y d9
€sssRl
od)(OO)-
/-t
-SA E
t1+++ atQ
k

0) t!-
ee*C
oootr
EEEd so
o9
-oooo
<rt o o o\o
.O;YB<i<N q
(gl-
l,C)(OOr-

:qH+x

ou?qq<?ulqqqu?qqqu?
a
(Ou)rr)<.$cOCONC!rrOOg
q)
L
c!
q) AA
u) t+i
oootro rdt
Av
-i---ro
osssRl \
1l^

.-oa
I
o(f)(OO)r

eo
{-a

da
'-

t{+l+ EiA
L .t'
A-

oootr o Qd
C--
I
!,
ri :s 0)
'5s;<;<N
o(f)(OO)-
,etr
!:

.so
:+fi{x -w
FI
\o
I
o rf) () lr) o ro o tr) () tr) otr)otr) m
@trrrj.q'fc.rc)c\ic\i; ;ooo
zru/Nl l "s'J'n prlltT0s I
b!
 68

Table (5-3) Results of Soaked and Unsoaked UCS Tests.

Compaction Type Additive Unsoaked Soaked Condition
Soil
No. Pressure of Content UCS UCS of Soaked
Designation MN/rrr2 Additive " MN/m2 MN/m2 Samples
Soil-A 4 0 5.483 0.000
2 Soil-A 8 0 6.064 0.000
J So -A 12 0 7.2t3 0.000
4 So -B /1
a 0 9.716 0.000
5 So -B 8 0 10.579 0.000
6 So -B 12 0 12.268 0.000
7 So -A 4 Cement 3 8.5 13 0.000
8 So -A 4 1l:2C 3 1.958 0.000
9 So l-A 8 Cement 3 t0.312 0.000
0 So .A 8 Cernent 6 t2.869 0.000
I So -A 8 1l:2C J 8.272 0.000
L
2 So -A t2 I l:2C J 9.822 0,000
3 So -B 4 Lirne J 6.304 0.000
4 So -B A
+ Cement a
J 10.044 0.000 h
L
q)
So -B 4 Cement 6 t3.425 0.000
1
6 So -B 4 1l:2C J t0.221 0.000
a
7 So -B 8 Lime J 9.01I 0.000
a
8 So -B 8 Cement J I1.738 0.000
9 So -B 8 Cement 6 t5.717 0.000
a
20 So -B 8 ll:2C J t1.679 0.000
a
21 So -B t2 Lime J 9.'7 44 0.000
a
22 So -B t2 Cement J t6.181 0.000
23 So -B 12 Cement 6 18.533 0.000
1/1 So -B t2 Cement 9 22.260 0.000
25 Soil-B 12 1l:2C 3 ts.204 0.000
26 Soil-B 12 1l:2C 6 16.782 0.000
2',7 So -A + Lime J 4.947 0.379
28 So -A 12 Lime 3 7.043 0.798
29 So -A 8 Lirne J 6.65',7 0.896
30 So -A T^ Lime 6 6.379 0.974
al i L
JI Soil-B + Lime 6 6.696 082
)L So -A t2 Lime 6 7.151 .190
3J So -A 8 Lime 6 6.729 272
34 So -A 12 Cement J 10 388 .275
35 Soil-B 4 Lime 9 1.062 282
36 Soil-B t2 Lime 6 9.744 JJ4
q)
JI So -A 4 Lime 9 6.650 .481
38 So -A t2 Lime I2 6.784 484
39 So -A t2 Lime 9 6.546 488 c)
40 Soil-B + ll:2C 6 l 1.758 491 I
I
4l Soil-B 8 Cement 9 20.4s5 .s30
 69

able (5-3)- Continued

Compaction Type A,dd itive Unsoaked Soaked Condition
Soil
No. Pressure of Content UCS UCS of Soaked
Designation MN/rn2 Additive o/ Samples
/o MN/m2 MN/m2
42 Sc l-B 8 Lime T2 6.824 609
43 Sc t-B t2 Lime 9 9.083 673
44 Sc l-A 8 Lirne 9 6.5 13 694
45 S l-B 8 Lirne 6 9.459 700
46 Sc l-A 8 Lime t2 6.781 740
4l S l-B 8 Lirne 9 7.759 .815
48 Sc t-A 4 Lime t2 6.068 824
49 S t-B t2 Lime t2 7.690 .848 q,)

50 Soil-B 8 ll:2C 6 15.911 864

5l Soil-B /1
Lirne 12 7.298 903
q)
52 Soil-A t2 Cement 6 13.111 913 I
I
53 Soil-A -
A
Cemenl 6 10.196 962
Soil-B t2 Cement 12 23.659 2.030
55 Soil-A 8 Cement 9 14.851 2.1 58
56 Soil-A t2 1l:2C 6 l 1.065 2.305
51 Soil-B 4 Cement I 16.884 2.487
58 Soil-A +A I l:2C 6 9.122 2.586
59 Sc l-A 8 1l:2C 6 r 1.320 2.590
60 Sc t-B 8 Cement t2 23.836 2.759
61 Sc t-A 4 1l:2C 9 1.r36 3.044
62 Sc t-A 12 1l:2C t2 3.315 3.080
63 Sc l-A aA Cement 9 1.862 3.263
64 Soil-B A
1l:2C 9 3.735 3.213
65 Sc l-A 4 Cement 12 8.',|02 ).Jtz
66 Sc l-A I2 1l:2C 9 8.670 3.361
61 Sc l-A t2 Cement I 3.785 3.521
68 Soil-B 4 ll:2C 12 2.065 3.85 8
69 Soil-B 8 ll:2C 9 1.519 3.878
70 Soil-B t2 ll:2C 9 3.071 3.95 5
rh
7l Soil-A 8 ll:2C 9 3.749 3.969
72 Soil-A 8 Cement t2 6.551 4.1 00
13 Soil-A 8 ll:2C 12 3.965 4.37 |
14 Soil-A A
a 1l:2C l2 4.007 4.447
75 Soil-A 4 Cement t2 3.019 4.532
76 Soil-A 12 ement 12 7.126 4.888
7l S( il-B 12 ll:2C t2 7.905 4.948
78 S( it-B 8 1l:2C I2 '7.735 5.179
 70

5.4 Durability Characteristics.

5.4.1General.
The data on percent loss in weight for different soil block specimens, the volume
changes and water absorption of the alternate wet-dry cycles of durability tests, and also

loss in weight of the spraying test are presented and discussed below.

5.4.2 Wetting and Drying Cycles.

5.4.2.1Loss in Weight.
The test results for percent loss in weight are shown in Figures (5-17 to 22) and Table'

(5-4). As can be seen from these Figures and the Table, the general trend is that as the test

proceeds, and the percentage of the additive increases the magnitude of percent loss in

weight per cycle generally decreases. The effect of the amount of additive becomes more
pronounced after few cycles of the test. It may, therefore be inferred that soil blocks

stabilized with 3Yo additive disintegrated on soaking in water, and above this level the

percent loss in weight gradually decreases with increasing the amount of additive' The
same finding reported by Hummadi (29). These Figures also show that for soil-A, for a
given amount of additive, irrespective of compaction pressure, loss in weight is maximum
for soil-cement mixes, next in order is for the soil-lime mixes, and the lowest is for mixes

of soil-cement with lime additive. The same is true for soil-B compacted at 12 MN/m'' Fot
mixes of soil-B compacted at 4 & 8 MN/m2 loss in weight is minimum for soil-lime mixes,
next in order is for mixes of soil-cement with lime additive, while the maximum loss in
weight is for the soil-cement mixes.
Also, it can be observed from these Figures that, with an exception in some cases of

mixes of soil-lime and soil-cement in combination with lime; the percent loss in weight is
slightly higher in case of l2Yo cement plus lime for compaction pressure l2 MN/m2 of soil-
A and compaction pressure 8 MN/m2 of soil-B when compared to 9Yo, and in case of 12 &
9o/o of lime when compared to 6Yo with respect of soil-A & B at compaction pressure of l2
MN/m2. This can best be explained that due to a certain amount of uncombined (or

unreacted) lime left in the mixes (above the optimum) which is also responsibie for the

decrease in unconfined compressive strength beyond the optimum amount of lime.

It is noteworthy that, for the same amount of additive of soil-A, at the three

compaction pressures, the soil-cement plus lime gives the least percent weight loss, except
 7l

s60
*t
.9
o
=50
,;
o
o
J40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12

Number of Cycle

Fig. (5-17) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles ofWetting &

Drying, for Compaction Pressure:4 MN/m', Soil-A
 72

#6% Lime

4l-9% Lime
#12% Lime

-'f} - -9% Cement

--O--12%Cement

- A- 6'h1L:2C

- C- 9%1L:2C

- O- 12"/. 1L:2C

s60
+t
.C
ctf
'6

=50
.;
o
o
J40

lr
Ai
,. I

!;
.. ,I

67 10 11 12
Number of Cycle

Fig. (5-18) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles olWEtting &

Dryingo for Compaction Pressure:4 MN/m', Soil-B
 73

#6% Lime

Lime
-€I-9%
{-12% Lime

--O--12%Cement

- d- 6%1L:2C

- fl- 9%1L:2C

- O- 12%1L:2C

s60
{i
.9
o
3so
.;
o
o
J40

/-X: : 'o'- [F = = - - t. .1-S. :;

* = =-'o-'- f;F
- - -'o-'- -'o"
./-
,--rtr-.'..G" "
/
.+--e- g>--O---gr--c--G--O---
-t ,/

10 11 12

Fig. (5-19) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles of Wetting &

Drying, for Compaction Pressure:8 MN/mt, Soil-A
 74

s
.9
o
350
.=
o
o
o
J40

/ - -+-+--+--G--
/ *-+'-+-n ru_* -&-'
/
/ .r
/ tul^ ^-,_*.---8':--f-:--'o"'-
/--'V'-"*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I 10 11

Number of Cycle

Fig. (5-20) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles of Wetting &

Drying, for Compaction Pressure:8 MN/m2, Soil-B
 75

+3% Lime

+6% Lime

+l-9% Lime ts--&--

#12o/oLime
--f}--9%Cement
'- O - -l2ohCement /
- d- 6%1L:2C
- fl- 9'/"1L:2C
- O- 12%1L:2C

s
+t
.9
o

';
o
o
J

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12
Number of Cycle
Fig. (5-21) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles of Wetting &
Drying, for Compaction Pressure: l2 MN/m2, Soil-A
 76

Lime
--F6%
4F-9% Lime

*12% Lime

--o--12%
Cement
- {- 6%1L:2C

- fi- 9%1L:2C

- O- '12"/. 1L:2C

s60
{j
o)
o
350
.s
th
th
o
J40
,A

.x
.x

/K o----'V
a' .o-'--- --*-
:-+--+--+--o---+--

10 11

Number of Cycle

Fig. (5-22) Loss in Weight for 12 Cycles of Wetting &

Draing, for Compaction Pressure:12 MN/m2, Soil-B
 77

Table (5-4) Loss in Weight of Wetting and Drying Test

Compatior Typc \dditive Loss in Weight per Cycle,To Iotal Loss

t& Pressu rc 0f Contenl Cycle Number in Weight

! I\tN/m2 Additive (%') I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 t/"

6 2.9 3.5 7.4 3.8 16.6 2.7 4.4 J.Z 10.5 z.o 42.5 100
Lime 9 1.6 1,4 5.3 6.6 2.0 9.8 J.v 0.9 1.0 0.9 66.6 100
12 0.2 0.4 0.4 I _-J 3.0 5.4 ).) 6.0 1.9 0.5 o.l l.t 32
o 3 8.5 0.1 8.5 4.7 l.t 0.9 0.6 2.1 0.6 0.5 41.7 r00
4 Celnenl 9 2.5 4.7 2.5 1.0 5.1 19.2 t].l 5.6 1.0 0.9 33.8 100
12 0.7 2.7 1.6 15.4 1.0 1.9 14.6 13.3 r5.9 0.2 32.6 100
6 2.1 aA t.9 0.7 5.6 1.9 5.5 z.J 0.8 1.2 0.0 0.4 25
ll:2C 9 t2.9 0.1 4.8 9.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.8 2.9 66.0 r00
12 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 2
6 { tl 2t.7 2.1 6.t t.2 z.) 0.2 5.9 1.2 5.t U.J 5 1.0 r00
Lime o 0.0 6.1 4.9 0.'l 2.3 5.2 ).2 t.4 1.3 2.1 0.1 72.0 100
12 0.0 0.1 0.4 l.l 2.1 5.6 u.) 0.3 0.t 90.0 100
la l-
8 lemcnt lz 5,4 2.2 0.4 l.J 2.2 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.8 t.9 0.1 lt
a o 0.2 1.9 4.6 4.6 3.3 0.3 t.2 0.4 0.1 t.4 0.7 82.0 00
I l:2C o 0.1 2.0 4.3 7.5 0.4 2.2 0.5 83.0 00
a1
l2 0.1 0.t 4.4 J.l 0.0 0.t 0.0 0.t 0.3 92.0 00
a1
3 J.l 7.9 2.1 3.1 3.0 2.0 4.1 5.3 68.9 00
ta
o 2.5 4.1 1.5 t.0 l.J 3.6 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.0 3.3 l9
Limc
o 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 t.l 4.5 0.0 0.0 t).2 0.9 0.0 0.5 z)
t2 0.7 1.5 0.8 4.O 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.1 t.3 5.3 0.9 0.1 t6
12 9 0.0 0.'7 t2.1 0.t 0.0 0.0 r 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.t 0.2 28
t2 0.1 l.l 0.5 0.t 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.6 l.l 0.2 4.1 0.1
ta
IJ

6 0.1 t2.9 I U.J 10.4 9.0 10.0 10.3 9.0 9.0 l0. t 9.0 100
|.2C 9 0.0 t.9 0.8 0.1 +.J 0.0 0.1 0.1 U.J 0.1 92.0 100
la
l2 1.1 1.4 l.J 4.0 0.3 0.r t.7 0.2 1.2 1.8 0.0 tt \ T4
al
6 7.9 2t.l 5.1 1.2 J.l J.) t.2 3.0 t.1 46.1 100
.,,
Lime 9 1.6 t.2 9.7 2.1 J.l 0.6 2.2 1.0 0.4 0.9 1.3 0.4 A

t2 1.6 0.2 2.2 2.0 0.2 0.9 0.7 tr.) t.l 2.5 2.9 2.2 17
9 n.7 5.9 82.4 00
4 ,emenI
t2 0.1 I t.6 88.4 00
o 17.8 3.4 78.8 00
ll:2C 9 1.0 99.0 00
t2 0.2 0.1 99. I 00
6 1.4 I 1.4 r6.2 2.2 1.4 1.8 4.3 1.9 2.1 57 .s 00

I
Lime o 0.2 2.0 5.5 J.l I 1.6 1.9 t.7 5.2 0.4 l.l 0.9 t.5 35
t2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 t.0 0.1 0.2 5
ct) 8
lement t2 0.6 2.2 4.6 1.9 0.6 2.4 t.8 0.6 0.3 0.4 t.l l8
ta ta
a 0.3 4.5 z.) l.J 2.2 1,8 1.5 t.2 4 0.5 l.J 0.7 19
ll 2C
t2 0.3 1.9 4.3 Ll 8.',7 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.1 2l
6 2.7 2.7 0.8 0.5 2.0 0.8 t.5 0.2 2 0.1 4.7 0.1 t7
Lime o al
0.3 4.8 2.6 2.9 1.7 3.4 J.4 0.5 t4.1 0.1 J.l 0.t 37
1a
t2 0.3 0.8 1.4 t.t 8.2 l.J 0.3 0.2 4.9 0.2 7.7 0.4 21
12 -ement 3 6.2 4.7 1.2 J.l l.t 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.3 U.J 2l
6 9.0 4.3 6.0 3.9 4.0 3.6 1.9 61.3 100
ll:2C 9 3.6 t.9 6.2 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.1 1.0 t.2 0.7 0.5 0.1 19
t2 l.l 0.9 0.8 2.8 2.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.t 0.2 0.1 0.1 10
NO'fE. 'l'he rnissins values are due to collanse of samnles during
apse o1'samples durine the tes
 78

in the case of 60/o additive content for compaction pressure 12 MNlm'. This appears to be
in the benefit of both practical and economical considerations. This is due to the fact that
lime being more effective than cement in bringing down the plasticity index; rendering the
soil more workable, and the cement being more effective than lime in imparting stronger
bonding/cementing forces between soil particles.

5.4.2.2 Volume Changes.

The normal pattern of variation in volume changes through 12 cycles of the wetting

and drying test for undeteriorated stabilized soil blocks are shown in Figures (5-23 to 25);
It can be observed from these Figures that, the soil blocks are sensitive to change in
volume due to change in moisture content. After an initial increase in volume during the
wetting period of the first cycle, due to considerable moisture absorption, there is a

substantial amount of shrinkage occurs at the end of drying period. However, soil-B blocks
showed higher volume changes than blocks of soil-A because the degree of shrinkage on
drying depends on soil type and especially on silt and clay content (33).
As the wetting and drying cycles proceed, a gradual variation occurs in the pattern.
However, the maximum amount of volume change experienced by the block specimens

occurs during the initial four cycles. As the test proceeds, the increase in volume change at
the wetting period of the cycle as well as theamountof shrinkageattheendofdrying
period are reduced. In some block specimens in which cracks developed, there is a rise in
volume change pattern, as it was the case with the soil-B blocks of l2Yo cement and
compacted at 4 MN/m2 pressure. This may be due to the fact that the envelope of volume
change in the wetting period usually starts to rise first and showing successive reduction in
shrinkage on drying. The drying envelope also rises but to a lesser degree. As the crack
progresses during both the wetting and drying periods, the volume of the blocks exceeds
the original volume.
In general, irrespective of compaction pressure and type of additive, the Figures show
that the volume change of soil-B blocks was higher than that of soil-A blocks. Inasmuch as

drying shrinkage depends on the amount of fines, this mechanism is accepted as explaining
the direct relation of increasing wetting expansion with increasing silt-clay content (33).
In general, for soil-B, when compaction pressure increased from 4 MN/m2 to 8

MN/m2, the volume changes of soil blocks decreased, thereafter, with increase in
compaction pressure volume change increased. This may be due to increase in swelling
 79

i ^ -6% ,o --9o/0, --12%stabilizer, w-Wetting, d-Drying

1

-1

-2

-3
w d w d w d w d w d w d w d w d w d w d w d wd
2
1

0
-1

-2
-3
0
I

0
I
4
-l
0)
b!
-z
wd wdwd wdwdwdwdwdwdw dwdwd
U 4
0)
2
0
-z
-4
-o
10 11 12
4?
2
2
1

0
-1
w d w d w d w d w d w d wd w dw d w d w d w d
3
2
1
0
-l
-z
-3
-4
10 11 12
Cycles of Wetting-Drying

fig" 1S-23) Effect of Alternate Wetting and Drying on Volume Change of

Stabilized Block Specimens For Compaction Pressure : 4 MN/m2,Soil-A&B
 80

^ --6oh , o --9o/o, -- 12% stabilizer, w- Wetting, d-Drying

1

-1

-2

)
1

0
-1
Cement--Soil-A
-2

U \ ,/ o o .o o O o .g
o
"\/ " o o o o o
a) o
-1
1L:2C--Soil-A
c,
)
t

-2
za
Cement--Soil-B
1

-1

za
1 1L:2G--Soil-B

-1

I r'r't'l I

U 45678 9 1O 11
tt 12
Cr cle s trl'Wctting-) )rving

pig. (5-24) Effect of Alternate Wetting and Drying on Volume C-hange of

Stabilized Block Specimens for Compaction Pressure = 8 MN/m2, Soil-A&B
 81

+--3o/o,o--6o/o , o --9o/o, -- 12% stabilizer, w-Wetting, d-Drying

,1

A
-l

-2
z
4
I

n
4

-z

au
tr

-1
on
-2
a) 2

-2

-4
n
zf
1

-1
I
wd
I

0
4
-l

-z

10 11 12
Cr,cles of Wctting-Dr.ving

Fig. (5-25) Effect of Alternate Wetting and Drying on Volume.Change of

Stabilized Block Specimens for Compacfion Pressure =12 MN/m'oSoil-A&B
 82

potential which increase with increasing compaction pressure. While, for soil-A
irrespective of additive type, with increase in compaction pressure, relatively, volume
change decreased and increased the regularity of the envelope of expansion on wetting and
shrinkage on drying.
In general, results of volume change; irrespective of compaction pressure, type of soil
and additive. for all undeteriorated stabilized soil blocks show that both soils could be
successfully and economically stabilized according to PCA criteria for soil-cement as

indicated by wet-dry durability test, which recommends that volume change during
durability test should be less than2 percent of the initial volume (19).

5.4.2.3 Water Absorption.

Records of the weight of specimens during wetting and drying, listed in Table (5-5),
indicated that, for both soils irrespective of compaction pressure and additive type, the

general trend is that as the test proceeds and the percentage ofadditive increases, the
percent water absorption decreases. During the last few cycles, the decrease in amount of
water absorption is more pronounced. Also from the table it can be observed that, percent

of water absorption at any cycle and their average are lesser than percent of water required

for saturation at time of moulding, which is specified by PCA criteria for soil-cement as

indicated by wet-dry durability test (19), except in the case of soil-A, for 3o/o lime and 6%
lime and"/or cement at compaction pressure 12 MNlm2. This may be due to iower
bonding/cementing forces between soil particles than swelling heave potential which
increase with increasing compaction pressure, consequently causes to increase in void ratio
which takes higher amounts of water.
The possibility of rain penetration through single skin walls always exist in
practice, however, when a wall permits the passage of rainwater it is seldom through the
block or brick itself but rather through cracks in the joints. No matter how much the blocks
are impervious, still the greater is the riskofrainpenetrationthroughthernortarjoints.
Therefore, rain penetration of stabilized soil walls is not more of a problem than any other
wall rnaterial (3).
 crl
oo

a? \ q oq c\| o) cf) r c.l o) lo l- n @ O @ c.l \ rO c! n

d +
@ O) f- rO \
s
3is l- (o F- d @ CO r r +
O) O)O r.c) 1'- $ CO rri lr) r() (o f- cf) CO tt
cr)
N r r - r r r r r'ri r r r r
nl N n @ @ qr q oq N n O LO q O ol \ R ro r r $ co q \ N
$s ca
r
c.i s O N (o o.i
r r
oo s Nr or @ e.i r s r
s+dN r O N o r
r r r r
-
(\ cf)s @ o N |t-
o) N N $ (o (o @ It- tr) N N o)
cf)
O)
cf) rO N d t- o -i @ f.- (o O O) N c.) OJ f.- O) ;
lr) O) N s
f.- @ o, o lr) o) a (o N O (0 rf)
co N N co s @ l- tr) O) (o o N o co O) f.-

o q$ o, f.r
lr)
It*
s @
q
(o (o (o N
N \ @
o) N
c! @
/- - ; N
(o o)
@
lr) lr)
o)
(o q s f.- lr) tr) (o lr) v s t-
Cr) s $ @ s F.* lr) CO N cr) ; o N cO to c.) o O) o,
o f.- o N iif N (o s N (o (o cr) s cv) (o
o .; lt-
o |t-
lr) c.) N s (o s s N o o A
o @ c.) /n
s |t- @ r
o
o oI F N rO O) ca s o.l v N s t- @ c.) |r) lf)
s s
t- rf) O f.- sA tr)
o o
f.-

+t E' N O) @ + d o N (o lf) N N N (o (o c.) N

c \r (o tr) v s
o E @ rf) CO It- c.)
d d @ s @ c.)
s s N o o
tr o N tr) cf) cf)
- cr) N @
o
o = rO f.* N s N l'-
() rO N
tr) c O) N c! (o rf) It-

o o N N |t- o N o v () $ o o N N e.i co r() (o s O)

rO
o,
o N (o lr) N lr) F-
L
(h
I
.9 o t
N rf)
N
N
F- f-
O) N
rf v
N O)
LO Lr)
O)
tr) N
O)
O) s
cr)
s
oq
cr) lr)
N
s N e.i N o $
o q q (o s
c) (9 f.-o) N rf) N f.- @ F- lt- f--
= $ s o) (o |'-
rif s ce rf) s o s Lo lr) f.- +
L
c) lr) N F- rr) s f-- F- N o rO o lr) rf) (o @ q \ lr) q
(\l N N s l.- F- cr) c.) tr) N It* (o
(o N LO N N N N

N t* qlr) @ o (0
N cf) O s r.- s N $ O I o)
o O) N
@
f.- (o @ \r s $ (o N
s r.- o s (o (o c.) cO N rO v s
(a
o O @ N N N q v lif s v N N (o @ @ N @ N @ N
I (o It- |t- s s $ lr) (o @ s lr) (o N N N cr) rf) s N N CY) cr) cf)

() o
o N
s tr)
v N
f.-
s @ f.-
c! f.- v N s s It-
N N
tr)
bi a rr)
ol ry N c! c! c! ry
N N c.i N e.i N c.i N N N ni N N N N N N N ni e.i c.i N N N N N
h
lr l.- sN N $ f.- |r) (o lr) sN F* vN N N rif |r) rO
c! N N s @ tr) f.- f.- @
o |r) s v $ s @
n n rq s s a $ Y R v v s /r A
-i -i
rf)
N
N
@ $
N
cf)
v N tc
$
N N
co
It-
f'-
N s t- $
It-
N
N
N
N
b!
t- r.- \ oq oq oq oq \ CY)
co
- - -
N t- voc @
t-
N
N
f.- N N
N
\r N
s t- f.-
c) @ \ f.- @ @ @
- - - - c.i
-
>s N N (o o) N (o N
(o O) N (o O) N O) N (o O) N O) N (o O) cr) (o O) O)
EO- r
I
.q) q) c (-)
q
() o c
o O
(t o 0)

E
EF
.E E
o
N
J
E
o)
E
o
N .E
J
E
c)
:
= = O
tnI
tn 38;;9'. s @ N
q)
E p=
(Jo-

3 rorluuBrseq lrog V- OS
 D rl : tN 3r"j d It q sf n q lr)q r c\{
ds rf () o
N N -N N N N N N N
ri y) D
r
o O)
N r
c; ai o)
N N s r
o n q q @ (o O) cf) O) |tr)
(E
o s \n F N
r
ri r
ri o @
r
c.j l'- (o @ c.i c"j
r r
=N -
s |t- @ o oq o) lr)
ol N s rO O) O)
O)

N f.- O)
|t- l.- O) N co cf)
-i F- c.j N $ N (o

N rr) rO
o $ cr)
N @ s rr) co N o
tr)
O)

o
o)
rO tr)
cO N
lr)
s
T
(o
N |t-
F- lr)
@
s r() ; \
El o lr) q til c.) (o t* N
o '= @ sf t- ot tr) f.* v ro
o N lt-
N
o o t\ @ o lO o s
o. I
rI.) (f) 6 o f.- rf) s @
cD N N
c 'E (o $ s rO s c)
o (o
N
N lr) s
@
(o rf) s s
o cf) N rO

o q q s
o = lo
O) f.*
s
(o
s ()
c.) O)
@ @
N
@ @ tr) rO
o o co lt-
N
o v s n ('o
o n
()
f.* N LO rO It* O)

E $ (o f.*
cr) l'r |t- N lr) F- ('o
|t-
.9,
o s
o (v)
o
o,
O)
v
tr)
cf)
$
(o f.-
f.-
lt- (o
= K) c.)
N
(o N N q
(\ ntr) |t- l.* F-
tr) lr) N s N rO s c) (o @ O) t- (o
a
o
(o o cf) |t- lt- f.- o F* tr) O) (o
() tr) (o ;
|t-
N lr)
N
N o
N N
O)
N
(o (o s o)

o)
() N N (o v o (o q s @ '-
N
O
N N
@ (o O)
c! N
s t- (o @ f.- rO
=
o
s co s r.- ss N
c! s
@ s .9
o lr) co o
N N c.i c.i N oi N N N N 6i N c.i N c.i N 'c
s o
f.- t- rO @ $ It- N r.*
s s
q)
It- rC) N rO @
o f.- q ; n !
-i -i A -i (u
o
s s @ N N sf.- E
o $ N f.- N o
. -
co
q \ \ f.- \ oq \ a
- -
F-
N
ss N
It- N s N
F*
q)
f.- c.j
f.- f.* F- tr \ \ r.- f.- \ oq o
- - - - - o
(g
o^ N (o o) N N a
! E;e o t) N J) N ,n t) N t) N N O) q)
o
) a (J
- - r f
o
'F 0) q) O o c
o c) O)
c E E .E E :E
N
'6
o c) o)
N
o = .a
E
ro € 9*c o

E A'
E
I
s @ N
rO r F
q) E=
O(L ilr-
_o
(6
8- OS o
F
uollButstseo Ilos z
 85

5.4.3 Spraying Test-Loss in Weight.

In evaluating the durability of soil blocks, it has been found that the compressive
strength alone, as suggested by tsritish research workers, is not enough to approve the
blocks as a durable building material. On the other hand the ASTM wetting and drying test
is too severe and time consuming as 12 wetting and drying cycles are required for the test

and a lot of material is also required (28). In order to ascertain the feasibility of adopting a

simpler testing procedure for durability, the soil block specimens were tested for spraying
as mentioned in article 4.4.2.
All spraying test results for percent loss in weight are shown in Figures (5-26 to 3l)"
As can be seen from the Figures, as the percentage of the additive increases, irrespective of
compaction pressure, the magnitude of percent loss in weight gradually decreases. Also,

these Figures show that the stabilized soil blocks can withstand a 2 hours spray
satisfactorily. This indicates that improvements in weathering resistance can be achieved
with lime and/or cement stabilized soil blocks made by simple mixing, compacting and

curing techniques.
For soil-A, the Figures show that for a given amount of additive, the percent loss in

weight is maximum for soil-cement mixes, next in order is the soil-lime mixes while the
lowest amount of loss in weight is found to be in the case of lime plus cement as additive.
For soil-B, the percent loss in weight is also maximum for soil-cement mixes, then soil-
cement plus lime and lowest for soil-lime mixes. An explanation for this is that the soil-B
is more receptive to lime stabilization than soil-A because of its higher PI.
Stabilized soil blocks with lime or cement compacted at 4MN/mt pr.rrur., ,o-e
surface damage occurred after spraying them for 2 hours. While, soil blocks stabilized with
lime plus cement markedly showed greater resistance. When compaction pressure
increased to 8 MN/m2 for soil blocks stabilized with lime and lime plus cement at or above
9Yo additive content dramatic improvement achieved and the exposed surface retained the
same smooth appearance as before the test. The performance of all these blocks was in
complete contrast to that of the unstabilized blocks, which disintegrated very quickly (after
5 to 10 minutes), similar results obtained by Lunt (3).

For soil-B, as compaction pressure increased, soil blocks stabilized with lime or lime
plus cement, the improvement in weathering resistance increased, but for soil blocks
stabilized with cement showed reversal relationship. Similar results obtained for soaked
unconfined compressive strength.
 86

oo

tt
rh
I

Fig. (5-26) Relationship of Spraying Loss in Weight and

Additive Content o for Compaction Pressure:4 MN/m2,
Soil-A
 87

o0
q)

6
O
I

Fig. (5-27) Relationship of Sprying Loss in Weight and

Additive Content, for Compaction Pressure = 8 MN/m2,
Soil-A
 88

60

.a
oo
-a 50
,
U)
0
r40

Fig. (5-2S; Relationship of Spraying Loss in Weight and

Additive Content , for Compaction Pressure:12 MN/m2,
Soil-A
 89

00

90
trAdditive Content, o/o

SlLoss in Weight, %
80

'tn

60

-
0) 50

a
a
I
40

30

20

10
n
0 Cement Cement Cement ll:2C Il:2C Il:2C tl:2C
Lime Limc Lime Lime Cemetrl

0z6 3 6 9 12 6 9 t2 3 6 9 t2
Additive Cotrtent,
oo 57.5778 21.4928 12.4872 5.43049 100 2'.7.549 8.7623 5.3 8 68.5738 4.09714 5.1 1382 0.09859
Loss in Weielrt.

Fig. (5-29) Relationship of Sprying Loss in Weight and

Additive Content, for Compaction Pressure = 4 MN/m2,
Soil -B
 90

'6
BO
50

r40

pig. (5-30)It"lotionship of Spraying Loss in Wcight:rnd

Arttlitive Contcnt, for Compaction Pressure: 3114N/m2,
Soil -B
 9l

100

tr Additive Content, o/o

90
@Loss in Weight, %o

80

70

60

on
50

0
O
'l
40

30

20

ffi
10

Addilive Conterrt. 7o
Lime
3
Lirne
6
Lime
9
l.
Lirne
t2
Cernent Cement Cement Cernenl

9 t2
tf
ll:2C
3
ll:2C
6
ll:2C
9
ll:2C
t2
Loss in Weielrt. oo +0.970( 2.4318( 34494 18152 100 100 28.03 57'7 32.0532 \9.5222 \.7 4'73( 0.5296

Fig, (5-31)Relationship of Spraying Loss in Weight and

Additive Content, for Compaction Pressure=l2 MN/m2,
Soil-B
 92

5.5 Acceptable and Rejected Stabilized Soil Blocks.

The stabilized soil blocks which meet the requirements of both strength and durability

tests were classified as acceptable (A) for use, while, those which meet the requirement of
strength test only and faild to meet the requirements of durability tests were classified as
rejected (R). This classification is based on the following specification requirements:
a) The minimum wet strength is 1.4 MN/m2, (3)
b) The maximum volume change is2%o, (19,37)
c) The maximum water absorption is the amount of water required for saturation at
time of moulding, (19,37)
d) The maximum loss in weight in the wetting & drying cycles test is l0o/o for soil-A
(soil group A-4) and 7%o for soil-B (soil group A-7-6), (19,37)
e) The maximum loss in weight in the spraying test is 5%, (suggested)

The results of this classification are recorded in Table (5-6).

 93

Table (5-6) Classification of Acceptable and Rejected Stabilized Soil Blocks.

om pactior Type \dditive Soaked Volume l\{oistu rc Loss in Loss in Dccision
Soil
No. Pressure of Content TICS Change Absorptior Weight Weight Based on
Desisnation MN/m2 Additivr "h MN/m2 AS'I'M ASTNI ASl'M Snravinr ASTM Spravinp
I Soil-A 4 L me o A R R A
2 Soil-A t2 L mc l2 A R A R A
J Soil-A t2 L me o A A A A A A A
A
Soil-B A 2C 6 A R R R A R A
Soil-B 8 Cement o R A R A R A
6 Soil-B 8 L me t2 A A A A A A A
7 Soil-B t2 L me I A A A R A R A
8 Soil-A 8 t- me o A A R R A
9 Soil-B 8 L me 6 A R R R R R
0 Soil-A 8 L me t2 A A A A A A A
I Soil-B 8 L me 9 A A R A R A
) Soil-A aA L me l2 A A R A R A
J Soil-B t2 L n-te t2 A R A R A R A
4 Soil-B 8 l l:2C 6 A R R R R R
Soil-B 4 Lime ta A R R R
5 IL R R
6 So -A t2 Cement o A R R R R R
'7
So .A 4 Cement 6 A R R R R R R
8 Soil-B t2 Cement t2 A R A R R R R
9 Soil-A 8 Cement o A A R R R R
Soil-A t2 ll:2C o A A R R R A
2l Soi -B q Cement o A R R R R R R
22 So 4 ll:2C o A R A R A
23 So -A 8 ll:2C o A A A R A R
1A Soi -B 8 Ccnrent t2 R A R A
25 So -A + ll2C o A A R R A
26 So -A t2 I l:2C T2 A A A R A R A
27 Soil-B + Cement I A A A R A R A
28 Soil-B A I l:2C 9 A R R R R R R
29 So -A A Cemcnt t1 A R A R R R R
30 Soil-A t2 ll:2C a A A A R A R A
3l Soil-A t2 3ement o A A A R A R A
JL Soi -B 4 ll:2C I2 A R R R R R R
JJ Soi -B 8 I l:2C 9 R R R R R
34 Soi -B t2 I l:2C 9 A A R A R A
35 So -A 8 ll:2C 9 R A R A
36 So 8 lement 2 R R A
3',7 Soil-A 8 I I:2C 2 A A A A A A A
38 Soil-A 4 ll:2C 2 A A A A A A A
39 So -A 4 lement 2 A R R R R R
40 So t2 -'ement 2 A A R A R A
4l Soil-B t2 ll:2C 2 A R A R R R R
42 Soi -B 8 ll:2C 2 A A R A R A
 94

CT{APTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions.
Test results and discussions presented in chapter five lead to the following
conclusions. These conclusions are limited to the materials and tests conditions used in this
investigation.
l. Stabilized soil blocks can be extremely useful as a building material for low-cosr
housing, largely in villages or where transport costs are high, provided that an adequate
program of testing is carried out on the raw materials. Availability of suitable block-
making machines is also helping to popularize the use of such stabilized soil blocks.
2. The engineering characteristics of soils-A&B can be greatly improved upon addition
of lime and lime in combination with cement. Improvement of engineering
characteristics with addition of cement alone is higher for soil-A of low pl than soil-B
of medium PI. Therefore, cement alone is not recommended for stabilization of clayey
soils which usually requires large amount of cement, leading to uneconomical
stabilization, hence lime additive should be used instead.
3. There have been appreciable increase in compressive strength and improvement in
durability of soil blocks by the addition of stabilizers like lime and/or cement than the
ordinary unstabilized mud block which get eroded due to effects of rainfall and need
major repairs every year.
4. The addition of lime decreases the MDD of soil, which is generally accompanied by
an increase in the OMC, for the same compaction effort, while the addition of cement
changes the MDD and OMC slightly than that of raw soil.
5' The increase in compaction effort increases MDD and decrease OMC. However, for
a certain compaction effort and certain percentage and type of additive, soil-A had
always higher MDD and lower OMC than soil-B had.
6. There is an OMC, which gives MDD for each soil type. compaction effort, additive
type and additive content as variables. The OMC are in the range of tr}.2yo ta lT .2%a
for soil-A and 14.2%o to 2l.60lo for soil-B, i.e. OMC didn't change by more than about
7o/o for each soil type, and the MDD didn't change by more than 5oh during compaction
test due to change in the variables.
 95

7. Soaked samples showed lower strength than unsoaked samples did. Soil blocks
stabilized with 3% lime and/or cement disintegrated on soaking in water and above this
level the destructive effect of soakine decreased and the UCS increased as the additive
content increased.
8. Soaked UCS showed marked increase when lime was added to soil-cement mixture,
especially,for clayey soil it was more pronounced. While, unsoaked UCS of soil
blocks stabilized with cement was found invariably higher than those stabilized with
the corresponding percentages of lime and lime in combination with cement.
9. Both soils, when stabilized at or above 9% of lime or cement alone, irrespective of
their compaction pressure, gave strength higher than the minimum recommended
strength value 1.4 MN/m2, while these soils when stabilized at or above 6Yo of lime in
combination with cement, gave strength higher than 1.4 MN/m2. This appears to be in
the benefit of economical considerations.
10. The effect of compaction effort on the soaked UCS showed that for soii-A higher
UCS obtained at the compaction pressure 8 MN/m2 for blocks stabilized with lime and
lime plus cement, while for blocks stabilized with cement higher strength obtained at

the compaction pressure 72 MN/m2. However, for soil-B, higher strength obtained at
the compaction pressure 4 MN/m2 for blocks stabilized with cement, while for blocks
stabilized with lime plus cement higher strength obtained at compaction pressure 8

MN/m2, but for the lime additive it was not pronounced.

11. Results of wetting-drying and spraying tests indicated that for a given amount of
additive, irrespective of its compaction pressure for soil-A, loss in weight is maximum

for soil blocks with cement stabilizer. next in order with lime stabilizer and the lowest

is for stabilizer of lime in combination with cement. The same is true for soil-B at the

compaction pressure 12 MN/m2, while at a lower compaction pressure the minimum

loss in weight is for lime stabilizer.
12. As the cycles of wetting and drying proceeds the amount of volume change and

water absorption generally decreases and increases the regularity of the envelope of
expansion on wetting and shrinkage on drying.
13. Volume change due to shrinkage can be reduced by improving compaction and by

mixing proper amount of additive to the raw soil. However, volume change of soil-B
blocks was higher than that of soil-A blocks.
n4. Cycles of wetting, drying and brushing are too severe test and time consuming and

don't simulate actual climate experienced in practice. Showering test is recommended

 96

to be used instead of the ASTM wetting and drying cycles of durability test, which is

specified for road construction.

15. In general, the stabilized soil blocks which didn't pass the ASTM requirements of
volume change or water absorption, their loss in weight of spraying test were generally
more than of the original weights of the blocks. Therefore, 5oh or less of loss in
5%o

weight on spraying may be better to be suggested for specifying the durability

requirements.

16. The effect of additive content on soaked UCS and weathering resistance is more

significant than that of compaction pressure.

6.2 Recommendations.
To increase the knowledge about the use of stabilized soil block in our country for
building construction, the following recommendations are made:
1. Conducting field investigation on experimental walls built of different kinds of
stabilized soil blocks with respect to type of soil, type and content of additive and
compaction pressures. These walls should be exposed to the weather for two or three
years in order to assess the durability performance in a more realistic way. By doing so,
the results of the small-scale laboratory tests, as followed in this investigation, can be
interpreted and evaluated more properly.
2. Tests on other combinations of lime and cement, other type of soil, and other additive
like bitumen could be carried out in order to achieve sound bases for practical and
economical specification regarding stabilized soil blocks.
3. Investigations are needed to study cost ofstabilizedsoil blocksincomparisonwith
raw soil blocks and other building materials, considering functional requirements for any
building material such as thermal comfort, fire safety, and adequate ventilation.
4. Investigation of using soil stabilization in construction of columns, roofs, and
foundation for buildings.
5. Spraying test may be modified in spraying time, rate, and pressure, as in this way the
specimens would be subjected to an abrasive force similar to that caused by rainfall. The
procedure could be repeated for a number of cycles with total loss in weight being used as
a measure of durability to replace ASTM wetting and drying proionged and severe test.
6. It is recommended that simple and transportable pressing machine operating in the

range of 8 to 16 MN/m2 to be imported.

 91

REFERENCES

l. Madhava Pao, A. G. and Ramachandra Murthy D. S. "Appropriate

Technologies for Low-Cost Housing" chapter one & three, Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co. PVT. LTD, New Delhi, 1996,pp. (5-a\.
2. Fullerton R. L. "Soil and Soil Stabilization" Chapter seven, Building
Construction in Warm Climates, Volume Two, Second Edition, Oxford
University Press, 1983, pp. (175-184).

3. Lunt, M. G., "Stabilized Soil Blocks for Building" overseas building,

notes of Building Research Establishment, N184, February 1980, pp. (l-15 ).

4. Shelter Group, Development Alternatives, "Building With

Compressed Earth Blocks" booklet for Technology and Action Rural

Advancement, INDIA, 1994, pp. ( -24).

5. Berhane, Z. "Production of Low-Cost Building Material With

Emphasis on Portland Cement", Faculty of technology, Addis Ababa

University, Appropriate Building Materials for Low Cost Housing, Vol.2, CIB.
RILEM, 1983.
6. Shabill?, N. P. "A Study of Compressive Strength of Some Arbil
Soil-Cement Mixtures", M.Sc tl-resis submitted to College of Engineering,

University of Salahaddin, November 1994.

7. Leonards, G. A., "Foundation Engineering" chapter four, McGraw-Hill

Book Co.,1 962. pp. (35 1 -405).

8. AL-Rawi, N. M., and Said, N. K. "Effect of Compaction on

Strength of the Lime mixture" Bulletin of the College of Engineering,

University of Baghdad. January 1979.

9. Seed, H. B., and Chan, C. K. o'Structure and Strength

Characteristics of Compacted Clay", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Division. ASCE, vol. 85. SM5, proc. October 1959, pp. (87-128).

1O.AL-Rawi, N. M., and Haliburton, T. A. and Rober1,L. J. "Effect of

Compaction on Strength of Soil-Cement" Journal of the Soil
 98

Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE. SM6, November 1967'pp.

( 1 es-208).

I LRashed, K. A. "swelling Characteristics of Compacted Soils in

Mosul Area", M.Sc thesis submitted to Engineering College, University of
Mosul, June 1985.

12.Mateous, M. "Soil Lime Research at lowa State University" Journal

of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, SM2, March

1964, pp. (127-152).

l3.Stophan, S. B. "Effect of Lime on Engineering Properties of Iraqi

Cement Stabilized Soils" M.Sc. Thesis submitted to the College o1'
Engineering, University of Baghdad. August 1975.

14.Joseph, E. Bowles "Compaction and Soil Stabilization" chapter seven.

Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soil, second edition, McGraw-Hill

Book Co. 1985.

15.Krebs, R. D., and Walker, R. D. "Soil stabilization" chapter eight in

Highway materials, McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1971.

o'The Principles of Soil Stabilization" Part
16.Course on Tropical Roads

[O], Overseas Unit Transporl and Road Research Laboratory, University

of Surrey, April1974.
l7.AL-Rawi, N. M. "Correlation of Properties of lraqi Limestone"
submitted at the 52nd Annual Meeting of Highway Research Board,
Washington. D. C. January 1973.

lS.Marshall, R. Thompson. "Lime-Treated Soils for Pavement

Construction" Journal of the Highway Division Proceeding of the

American Society of Civil Engineers, HW2, November 1968.

I9.ACI Committee 230 "State-of-the-Art Report on Soil Cement",

ACA Manual of Concrete Practice, American Concrete Institute, P.O.
BOX 9094. Farmington Hills, MI 48333, 1996.
26.HMSO "stabilization of Soil With Cement" chapter twelve, Soil

Mechanics for Road Engineers, Tenth impression 1974.pp. (232-251).

 99

21.Moh, Za-Chief, "Soil Stabilization with Cement and Sodium

Additives" Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
ASCE, SM6, December 1962. pp. (87-97).

22.Croft, J.B. "The Influence of Soil Mineralogical Composition on

Cement Stabilization" iournal of Geotechnique, vol. XVII No.2, June 1967,

pp.(1 19-l3s).

23.Herzog, A.,, and Mitchell, J. K. "Reactions Accompanying

Stabilization of Clay with Cement" Highway Research Record,
NO.36, 1963, pp. (146-17l).

2a.Abdul-Kader S. A "Effect of Gypsum on the Strength of Cement

Treated Granular Soil and Untreated Soil" M.Sc. thesis subrnitted to

College of Engineering. lJniversity of Mosul. February 1986.

25.Woods, K. B. "Soil Stabilization" chapter twenty-one. Highway

Engineering Handbook, Mccraw-Hill Book Co., Newyork 1960.

26.Raztk,N. R. "Effect of Some Chemical Additives on Strength of

Iraqi Soil-Cement Mixtures" M.Sc thesis submitted to College of
Engineering, University of Baghdad, March 1985.

27.Pinto, C. S, Davidson, P. T., and Layuros, J. G. "Effect of Lime on

Cement Stabilization of Montmorillonitic Soils", Highway
Research Board, bulletin No.353, 1962. pp. (6a-85).
of Purity of Lime on Stabilization of
28.Bindra, S. R. "The Effect
Black Cotton Soil with Lime and Combination of Lime and
Cement", Indian Highways, September 1976,pp. (10-34).
29.Hummadi, R. A. "A study on Strength and Durability
Characteristics of Arbil Soils Stabilized with Additives". M.Sc thesis

submitted to College of Engineering, University of Salahaddin, October 1989.

30.Abdul-Kareem,A. J. "Engineering Properties of Lime Stabilized

Soil Related to curing Temperature" M.Sc thesis submitted to
Engineering College, University of Baghdad, March 1978.
 100

31.George, K. P. "Shrinkage Characteristics of Soil-Cement Mixture,,,

Highway Research Record, NO.255, 1968, pp. (42-59).

32.Arman, A. Saifan, F. "The Effect of Delayed compaction on

Stabilized Soil-Cement." Highway Research Board proc. Vol. r9g. 1967, pp.

(30-38).

33.Pacard, R. G. and Chapman, G. A. "Development in Durability

Testing of Soil-Cement Mixtures" Highway Research Record No. 36,
1963 pp. (97-117).

34.whitehurst, E. A., and Yoder, E. J. 'oDurability tests on Lime-

Stabilized Soils", Highway Research Board, proc. vol.3 1, 1952 pp. (529-
540).

35.Refer Annexure 3E, "How to Build" manuscript for costing of

Comparative Technique, New Delhi. India, December 1992.

36.Dr. Raid, M. Al-Kass, Hadi M. A., Khalil. N. I. And Al-Takarli, s. F.

"Effect of Fine Calcite Grains Present in the Soil on the Properties
of Clay Bricks" Journal of Building Research, vol. 3, No. 2, November
1984, pp. (1-16).

37.ASTM Book of "American Society for Testing and Materials,'

Standards part 19. 1982.

38.AASHTO "American Association of state Highway and

Transportation Officials" Standards part-l Specifications & part-Il Tests,
August 1986.

39."Ideas and Methods Exchange" Bulletin of the IJS Deparlment of

Housing and Urban Development. No. 22, washington DC. usA 1974.

4O.British Standards Institution "Precast Concrete Blocks',. BS 202g:

1968, Amendment AMD 411. Januarv [970.
 i,-yi

,l c":^*ltrl ;_rrJt JL^.r ...1

ir- i.-iJl^Jl i*t?yll s-ldl S-jJ i-UJl o j.o ,-.1--ri
ijJJ,-. {ri) ,.F.-iJl
..9 ;tl_r -r ; ;e:.Jl L.y.Jl otS3J., Ji J:S etjiy L.jll i:-,i. .rl3,.S b. iFj.:Yl

el 'i.'.1 i Jl^ri*XJ i-.,U. tel.:: L. i'itSJl i:-t*Jl i*l^-ljlJ LJt^i^Jl cr,'ll-.; rsJt-9 ("l:,ilt
.i5UJl
',o,t
crt; a-i
i-iLi. J,- dlJii ."+ ,'; Joll f-s:Jl .:.^ttl lir i i-,.jll d,. JL.i,J^':-i
,+J3.r

.(jJiLUl &Li" iil":") J:,.ri n+-,.r, .rf,.ll" L-Ji iiLi. J. r,i=l ti_*,-+t" ;Ult tClJ
,J--i +lJ-e J- J ijLJ! \Y clclcY *-+ i:.r^Jl JlCti i.;lt 6ra c,. t3,, JS Llr 1s
d,-:Jli J^. i,:lJlS .Llr a|; JSJ'a/tJ.r* t(. \YcAc[ (l"U 'r)l) u-Jl Li; Jl .- .l,i
.ijJtill ;|.-l &.:^Jl .rl_e,.JL l(Ll: ;9.r i-,r-,-,ul L.J^ll
u--iJl ,!>t,,. ...^ 4+t^-:Jl 3 L3ti^Jl et-.1-i "b:! f c+y!il1 eiJhJl 3.u rl>o .rl
,i ;_rrJt C,-r:siri a-:ulL 1ri ..i JL^.....1?: i..l^ll L.y'! ;i -.r*i cit-3.-iJl eiljj.{*-l+il
LiJ.,'a/;rr* t(* \,t u-t.iJlJ*,.Jt^Jl ;.rlt -ll .r,5J.1 r^: 'Llti..,ll'r;i!.-...t1
c.-. '.^... y J! ;.u. \ ii...ii
,L ,-.,^...llg ;Jsll d'. J]si ,i cuu 1 i.-.; Jt .-. ,.ti {:.LJl L.Jill
4JJS ..$i fuL;;t i..*,Jl ojr JL-:...I Jh- L^ r-+i ;.rXt ,-Jl .r.,rJ-i t^: ' sg, *Jrr^-.
J ' ijJLJl L..,;^ll ;,.- Ar.*,.o Jl ol5:J+Jl i.+.LJ., i-g6. ,i . ,*i; rl^--.lt cit . ,^a nrl-:.:
etS./+ll i+LJJ i-tLi. cr- {-:S. ,rJ.i ;rt
'-=Jl
cil iuJ +*s L.}tJl ji. +i'l;Jl oly,:'t:Jl

.L.rl*-..)l ir'.rLll

* lr+ f.r3" ;rS, i r..1^ll L.r*Jl d,-. ArJr.-^Jl oLSJ+Jl Jt -'t .! .li .111. e,Jl e5Ei
.GClJt^3! eJt"-i- 0 i.,-Li iiKJl A-itb isyi
't}.]!

View publication stats