Soil Stabilisation Rice Husk Ash N GGBS

University of Wollongong
Research Online
University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections
1992
Soil stabilisation using some pozzolanic industrial

and agricultural products
Chassan Chmeisse
University of Wollongong
Recommended Citation
Chmeisse, Chassan, Soil stabilisation using some pozzolanic industrial and agricultural products, Doctor of Philosophy thesis,
Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Wollongong, 1992. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1268
Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the

University of Wollongong. For further information contact Manager
Repository Services: morgan@uow.edu.au.
SOIL STABILISATION USING SOME
POZZOLANIC INDUSTRIAL AND
AGRICULTURAL BY PRODUCT
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
from
THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
by
CHASSAN CHMEISSE, B.E.(Civil), M.Eng.Sc
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND

MINING ENGINEERING
January 1992
DECLARATION
This is to certify that the work presented in this

thesis was carried out by the author in the Department
of Civil and Mining Engineering, The University of
Wollongong and has not been submitted for a degree to
any other University or such Institution.
Ghassan Chmeisse
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Author wishes to express his gratitude to his

Supervisors, Associate Professors, R.N. Chowdhury and
D.G. Montgomery from the Department of Civil and Mining
Engineering, University of Wollongong, NSW, for their
guidance, encouragement and support throughout this
research and to all others who helped in the
preparation of this Thesis.
He also wishes to thank his Parents, Wife and children

for their support, patience and understanding during
the years of study.
i
CONTENTS:
Page
Abstract: xi
List of Notations: xiv
List of Figures: xv
List of Tables: xx
List of Appendicies: xxvii
Chapter I - Introduction, Aims and Scope
1.1 Basic concepts of Soil Stabilisation 1

1.2 Historical Background 2
1.3 Soil Stabilisation in Australia 5
1.4 Applications of Soil Stabilisation 6
1.5 Types of Soil Stabilisation 7
1.6 Pozzolans 9
1.7 Mechanism of Pozzolanic Activity 9
1.8 Types of Pozzolans and Pozzolanic by-products 10
1.9 Products Investigated as Stabilising Agents 12
during research work reported in this Thesis -
Rice Husk Ash and Granulated Blast Furnace
Slag
1.10 Aims and Scope of this Thesis 13
ii
Page
Chapter II - Review Of Relevant Previous Work
Concerning Rice Husk Ash and
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
2.1 Rice Husk - Description and Production 17

2.2 Disposal of Rice Husks 17
2.3 Properties of Rice Husk Ash 18
2.4 Engineering Applications of Rice Husk Ash 19
2.5 Applications of Rice Husk Ash to Soil 20
Stabilisation
2.5.1 Rice Husk Ash : Soil Stabilisation 20
2.5.2 Lime - Rice Husk Ash : Soil 21
Stabilisation
2.5.3 Cement - Lime-Rice Husk Ash : Soil 22
Stabilisation
2.6 Scope for further research 23
2.7 Blast Furnace Slag - Description and 25
Production
2.8 Types of Blast Furnace Slag 27
2.8.1 Air Cooled Slag 27
2.8.2 Foamed Expanded Slag 27
2.8.3 Granulated Blast Furnace Slag 28
2.9 Properties and Engineering Applications of 28
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GBFS)
2.9.1 Use of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag 29
in the manufacture of cement
2.9.2 Use of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag 30
in road construction
2.9.2a Use of Granulated Blast Furnace 30
Slag in road works Overseas
2.9.2b Use of Granulated Blast Furnace 33
Slag in road works in Australia
2.10 Scope for further research 35
iii
Page
Chapter III - Experimental Techniques and Methodology
3.1 Scope of chapter 38

3.2 Existing tests used in soil stabilisation 38
3.3 The validity of existing tests 39
3.4 Tests used in this investigation 40
3.4.1 Grading and compaction tests 41
3.4.2 Plasticity and volume changes 42
3.4.3 Compressive strength - Unconfined 44
compressive strength (UCS) and
undrained triaxial strength (UTS)
3.4.4 California Bearing Ratio test (CBR test) 45
3.4.5 Repeated dynamic load test 47
3.4.5a General 47
3.4.5b The loading system 48
3.4.5c Measurement of the permanent 49
deformation
3.4.6 Powder X-ray diffraction 50
3.4.7 Scanning Electron Microscopy 51
Chapter IV - Experimental Investigation using

Rice Husk Ash

4.2 Objectives of investigation 62
4.3 Materials used 63
4.3.1 Rice Husk Ash 63
4.3.2 Cement 64
4.3.3 Lime 64
4.3.4 Soils 64
iv
Page
4.4 Testing regime 65
4.5 Initial tests - optimum ratios of lime to 66
RHA and Cement to RHA
4.5.1 Preparation, curing and testing of 67
specimens
4.6 Treatment of soils with various additives 68
4.7 Testing of stabilised soils 68
4.7.1 Compaction characteristics 68
4.7.2 Unconfined compressive strength 69
4.7.3 Linear Shrinkage 69
4.7.4 Atterberg limits 70
4.7.5 Effect of delay in compaction on the 71
strength of stabilised soils
4.7.6 Effect of various additives on the 72
shear strength parameters of soils
4.7.7 Effect of various additives on the CBR 74
value of soils
4.7.10 Powder X-ray Diffraction Analysis 79
Chapter V - Discussion and Analysis of Results

concerning Rice Husk Ash
5.1 RHA as a single additive 137

5.1.1 Effect of RHA additive on compaction 137
characteristics of soils
5.1.2 Effect of RHA additive on the strength 139
properties of soils
5.1.2a Effect on UCS 139
5.1.2b Effect on CBR 140
V
Page
5.1.3 Effect of RHA on the Atterberg limits 140
and linear shrinkage of soils
5.1.4 Effect of RHA on the behaviour of soils 142
under the action of repeated dynamic load
Lime-RHA additives 143
5.2.1 Effect of lime-RHA additives on 143
compaction characteristics of soils
5.2.2 Effect of lime-RHA additives on the 144
strength properties of soils
strength of lime-RHA treated soils
5.2.5 Discussion of the results of the XRD 150
analysis of lime-RHA stabilised soils
5.2.6 Discussion of the results of the SEM 152
examination of lime-RHA stabilised
soils
Atterberg limits and linear shrinkage
of soils
5.2.8 Implications of lime savings 155
behaviour of soils under the action of
repeated dynamic load
Cement-RHA additives 159
5.3.1 Effect of various cement-RHA additives 159
on compaction characteristics of soils
5.3.2 Effect of cement-RHA additives on the 161
vi
Page
strength of cement-RHA treated soils
of soils
5.3.6 Implications of cement saving 167
5.3.7 Effect of cement - RHA additives on the 169
Chapter VT - Experimental Investigations using


6.2 Objectives of research 179
6.3 Materials 180
6.3.1 Blast furnace slag (GBFS) 180
6.3.2 Cement 181
6.3.3 Lime 181
6.3.4 Soils 181
6.4 Testing regime 181
6.5 Optimum ratios of lime or cement to GBFS 183
6.6 Treatment of soils with various additives 184
6.7 Testing of stabilised soils 184
6.7.1 Compaction characteristics 184
6.7.2 Unconfined compressive strength 185
6.7.3 Linear shrinkage 185
6.7.4 Atterberg limits 186
vii
6.7.5 Effect of delay in compaction on the

strength of stabilised soils
6.7.6 Effect of various additives on the 187
6.7.7 Effect of various additives on the CBR 189
value of soils
6.7.10 Powder X-ray Diffraction Analysis 192
Chapter VTI - Discussion and Analysis of Results

concerning GBFS
7.1 GBFS as a single additive to soils 239

7.1.1 Effect of GBFS additive on compaction 239
7.1.2 Effect of GBFS additive on the strength 240
properties of soils
7.1.3 Effect of GBFS additive on the Atterberg 241
limits and linear shrinkage of soils
7.1.4 Effect of GBFS additive on the behaviour 243
of soils under the action of repeated
dynamic load
7.2 Lime-GBFS additives 244
7.2.1 Effect of lime-GBFS additives on 244
7.2.2 Effect of lime-GBFS additives on the 246
viii
Page
strength of lime-GBFS treated soils
7.2.5 Discussion of the results of the XRD 251
analysis of lime-GBFS stabilised
soils
7.2.6 Discussion of the results of the SEM 252
examination of lime-GBFS stabilised
soils
of soils
7.2.8 Implications of lime savings 255
7.2.9 Effect of lime-GBFS additive on the 256
7.3 Cement-GBFS Additives 259
7.3.1 Effect of various cement-GBFS additives 259
on compaction characteristics
7.3.2 Effect of cement-GBFS additives on the 260
strength of cement-GBFS treated soils
Atterberg limits and linear shrinkage of
soils
7.3.6 Implications of cement saving 266
ix
Page
Chapter VIII - Discussion of Economic Feasibility of
the applications of RHA and GBFS to
soil stabilisation
8.1 Introduction 278

8.2 Availability of RHA 279
8.3 Economic feasibility of RHA as a single 281
additive to soils
8.4 Economic feasibility of lime-RHA additives 281
to soils
8.5 Economic feasibility of cement-RHA additives 282
to soils
Summary
8.
.6 283
.7
8.
Availability of GBFS 283
8.
.8
Economic feasibility of GBFS as a single 284
additives to soils
8.
.9
Economic feasibility of lime-GBFS additives 286
to soils
8.
,10
Economic feasibility of cement-GBFS 287
additives to soils
Chapter IX - Recommended Design Procedure
9.1 Introduction 289

9.2 Mix design procedures of lime-RHA soil 290
stabilisation
9.3 Mix design procedures of lime-GBFS, 293
cement-GBFS and cement-RHA soil
stabilisation
Chapter X - Conclusions, Recommendations and

Suggestions for Future Work
References 310
X
Appendices
Appendix A - Methods of operation of the
fatigue control panel used in
the repeated dynamic load test
Appendix B - Equivalent specific gravity and
calculated porosity of various
mixes
xi
ABSTRACT
Rice husk ash (RHA) and granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS
have been investigated as pozzolanic materials for soil
stabilisation. They contain siliceous and aluminous
materials, and react with lime or cement, having the
economic potential to replace some of the lime or cement
presently used as an additive in the stabilisation of soil.
Four (4) types of soils were treated with varying quantitie

of lime, cement, rice husk ash, granulated blast furnace
slag, combinations of rice husk ash with lime or cement and
combinations of granulated blast furnace slag with lime or
cement under laboratory conditions.
To determine the effectiveness of RHA and GBFS as

stabilisers, general geotechnical soil properties, including
unconfined compressive strength, undrained shear strength,
CBR, plasticity index and linear shrinkage, were measured.
X-ray diffraction analysis, scanning electron microscopy an
a repeated dynamic load test were also carried out in this
investigation.
It is revealed that rice husk ash alone is not suitable for

modifying soil properties, however, beneficial results are
obtained when it is used in combinations with lime or
cement. It is shown that lime-rice husk ash and cement
xii
rice-husk ash additives increase the unconfined compressive

strength, the CBR and the undrained shear strength of soils.
They also improve the behaviour of soils under the action of
repeated dynamic loads and improve the workability and
volume stability of soils.
It is revealed that granulated blast furnace slag alone is

suitable for modifying the volume stability of heavy clays
and the workability of gravel-sand soils. It increases the
unconfined compressive strength and the CBR of soils and
improves their behaviour under the action of repeated
dynamic loads.
The effects of lime-granulated blast furnace slag and

cement-granulated blast furnace slag additives on soils are
shown to be similar to those of lime-rice husk ash and
cement-rice husk ash additives.
The effectiveness of rice husk ash and granulated blast

furnace slag can be expressed in terms of ratios of rice
husk ash and granulated blast furnace slag required to lime
or cement saved. Information relevant to these ratios and
the current and projected future availability of granulated
blast furnace slag and rice husk ash in Australia is
presented.
xiii
A suggested mix design procedures for lime-rice husk ash,

cement-rice husk ash, lime-granulated blast furnace slag and
cement-granulated blast furnace slag soil stabilisation is
also presented.
xiv
LIST OF NOTATIONS
c Cohesion
Cc Compression index
CBR California bearing ratio
e Voids ratio
GBFS Granulated blast furnace slag
IP Plasticity index
L.L Liquid limit
L.S Linear shrinkage
MDD Maximum dry density
OMC Optimum moisture content
P.L Plastic limit
RHA Rice husk ash
SEM Scanning Electron Microscopy
UCS Unconfined compressive strength
UTS Unconsolidated triaxial shear strength
Wt Weight
XRD X-ray Diffraction
0 Angle of internal friction
CV Effective vertical stress
<r n Effective normal stress on the plane

of failure
T Shear stress
XV
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Description Page
3.1 Repeated dynamic load test - View of 56

test structure and pavement
3.2 Repeated dynamic load test - Principle 57
of longitudinal movement due to
rotation
3.3 Repeated dynamic load test - Initial 58
setup arrangement
3.4 Repeated dynamic load test - The 59
fatigue control panel during operation
3.5 Diagram showing grid of locations at 60
which deflection measurements were
taken in relation to the wheel and the
pavement boundaries
3.6 Repeated dynamic load test 61
- Illustrations of deflection beam
in use
4,1 UCS of lime-RHA pastes 113
4.2 UCS of cement-RHA pastes 114
4.3 UCS of lime, RHA and lime-RHA 115
stabilised soils
4.4 UCS of cement, RHA and cement-RHA 116
stabilised soils
4.5 Linear shrinkage of lime, RHA and 117
lime-RHA stabilised soils
4.6 Linear shrinkage of cement, RHA and 118
cement-RHA stabilised soils
4.7 Plasticity index of lime, RHA and 119
4.8 Plasticity index of cement, RHA of 120
cement-RHA stabilised soils
xv i
4.9 Effect of delay in compaction on the 121

UCS of cement and cement-RHA
stabilised Soil A
UCS of lime and lime-RHA stabilised
Soil A
4.11 CBR of cement, cement-RHA, lime, 123
lime-RHA and RHA stabilised Soil A
4.12 Effect of lime, cement, RHA and 124
lime-RHA additives on the CBR of
Soil B
4.13 Effect of lime, lime-RHA and RHA 125
additives on the CBR of Soil C
4.14 Permanent deformation of the 126
untreated pavement at row H
(row of max deformation) of the
grid after various number of load
cycles
4.15 Permanent deformation of the 2% 126
lime stabilised pavement at row H
(row of max deformation) of the
cycles
4.16 Permanent deformation of the 3% 1:1 126
lime-RHA stabilised pavement at row H
(row of max deformation) of the grid
after various number of load cycles
4.17 Permanent deformation of the 1.5% 127
cement stabilised pavement at row H
cement-RHA stabilised pavement at
row G (row of max deformation) of the
cycles
4.19 Permanent deformation of the 8% RHA 127
stabilised pavement at row G
xvii
4.20 Repeated dynamic load test - Removal 128

of trolley from beneath materials
containment bin
4.21 Scanning electron micrograph of the 129
fracture surface of the untreated
Soil A
fracture surface of the untreated
Soil C
fracture surface of Soil A stabilised
with 8% content of 1:1 lime-RHA
additive after 7 days accelerated
curing
fracture surface of Soil C stabilised
with 8% content of 1:1 lime-RHA
curing
4.25 X-ray diffraction pattern of 133
untreated Soil A
4.26 X-ray diffraction pattern of 134
untreated Soil C
4.27 X-ray diffraction pattern of Soil A 135
stabilised with 8% content of 1:1
lime-RHA additive after 7 days
accelerated curing
4.28 X-ray diffraction pattern of Soil C 136
lime-RHA additive after 7 days
accelerated curing
6.1 UCS of lime-GBFS specimens 221
6.2 UCS of cement-GBFS specimens 222
6.3 UCS of lime, GBFS and lime-GBFS 223
stabilised soils
6.4 UCS of cement, GBFS and cement-GBFS 224
stabilised soils
6.5 Linear shrinkage of lime, GBFS and 225
lime-GBFS stabilised soils
xviii
6.6 Linear shrinkage of cement, GBFS and 226

cement-GBFS stabilised soils
6.7 Plasticity index of lime, GBFS and 227
6.8 Plasticity index of cement, GBFS and 228
cement-GBFS stabilised soils
6.9 Effect of delay in compaction of the 229
UCS of cement and cement-GBFS
stabilised Soil A
UCS of lime and lime-GBFS stabilised
Soil C
6.11 Effect of lime, cement, GBFS, 231
lime-GBFS and cement-GBFS additives
on the CBR of Soil A
on the CBR of Soil B
on the CBR of Soil C
6.14 Permanent deformation of the 8% GBFS 234
stabilised pavement at row H (row of
max deformation) on the grid after
various number of load cycles
lime-GBFS stabilised pavement at row H
(row of max deformation) on the grid
cement-GBFS stabilised pavement at
row H (row of max deformation) on the
cycles
fracture surface of Soil A stabilised
with 8% content of 1:1 lime-GBFS
curing
xix

fracture surface of Soil C stabilised
with 8% content of 1:1 lime-GBFS
curing
6.19 X-ray diffraction pattern of Soil A 237
lime-GBFS additive after 7 days
accelerated curing
6.20 X-ray diffraction pattern of Soil C 238
lime-GBFS additive after 7 days
accelerated curing
9.1 Determination of the composition of the 294
preferred mix in a lime-RHA soil
stabilisation
XX
LIST OF TABLES
Table Description Page
2.1 Typical oxide composition of blast 37

furnace slag compared to Portland
cement, after Spence and Cook (2)
3.1 Tests used for evaluating stabilised 53
soils, after Shackel (44)
3.2 Suggested utilities for various 54
simulation tests, after Shackel (44)
3.3 Laboratory tests used in this study 55
4.1 Properties of soils used 81
4.2a Compaction characteristics of lime, 82
RHA and lime-RHA stabilised Soil A
4.2b Compaction characteristics of lime, 83
RHA and lime-RHA stabilised Soil B
4.2c Compaction characteristics of lime, 84
RHA and lime-RHA stabilised Soil C
4.3a Compaction characteristics of cement, 85
RHA and cement-RHA stabilised Soil A
4.3b Compaction characteristics of cement, 86
RHA and cement-RHA stabilised Soil B
4.3c Compaction characteristics of cement, 87
RHA and cement-RHA stabilised Soil C
4.4a UCS of lime, RHA and lime-RHA 88
stabilised Soil A
4.4b UCS of lime, RHA and lime-RHA 89
stabilised Soil B
4.4c UCS of lime, RHA and lime-RHA 90
stabilised Soil C
4.5a UCS of cement, RHA and cement-RHA 91
stabilised Soil A
xxi
4.5b UCS of cement, RHA and cement-RHA 92

stabilised Soil B
4.5c UCS of cement, RHA and cement-RHA 93
stabilised Soil C
4.6a Effect of lime, RHA and lime-RHA 94
additives on the Atterberg limits
and linear shrinkage of Soil A
4.6b Effect of lime, RHA and lime-RHA 95
and linear shrinkage of Soil B
4.6c Effect of lime, RHA and lime-RHA 96
and linear shrinkage of Soil C
4.7a Effect of cement, RHA and cement-RHA 97
additives on the Atterberg limits and
linear shrinkage of Soil A
4.7b Effect of cement, RHA and cement-RHA 98
linear shrinkage of Soil B
4.7c Effect of cement, RHA and cement-RHA 99
linear shrinkage of Soil C
UCS of lime and lime-RHA stabilised
Soil C
UCS of cement and cement-RHA stabilised
Soil A
4.10 Effect of lime and lime-RHA additives 102
on the shear strength parameters of
Soil C
4.11 Effect of cement and cement-RHA 103
additives on the shear strength
parameters of Soil B
4.12 Effect of various additives and curing 104
time the CBR of stabilised Soil A
time the CBR of stabilised Soil B
xxii

time the CBR of stabilised Soil C
4.15 Permanent deformations of untreated 107
pavement
4.16 Permanent deformations of 2% lime 108
treated pavement
4.17 Permanent deformations of 3% 1:1 109
lime:RHA treated pavement
4.18 Permanent deformations of 1.5% cement 110
treated pavement
4.19 Permanent deformations of 3% 1:1 111
cement:RHA treated pavement
4.20 Permanent deformations of 8% RHA 112
treated pavement
5.1 Effect of RHA additive on the grading 172
of soils
5.2a Deflection per load as number of load 173
applications increases at point eH of
3% 1:1 lime-RHA treated pavement
5.2b Deflection per load as number of load 173
2% lime treated pavement
5.2c Deflection per load as number of load 174
untreated pavement
5.2d Deflection per load as number of load 174
applications increases at point eH on
the grid of 8% RHA treated pavement
5.3 Ratio of RHA required to lime saved or 175
identical economic cost ratio of lime
to RHA
5.4 Ratios of strength at 7 days to strength 176
at 90 days of soils treated with 8%
content of various additives
5.5 Ratios of strength at 28 days to strength 176
at 90 days of soils treated with 8%
content of various additives
xxiii
5.6 Ratios of RHA required to cement saved 177

or identical economic cost ratios of
cement to RHA
the grid of untreated pavement
the grid of 1.5% cement treated pavement
applications increases at point dG on
the grid of the 3% content of 1:1
cement-RHA treated pavement
6.1a Compaction characteristics of lime, 193
GBFS and lime-GBFS stabilised Soil A
6.1b Compaction characteristics of lime, 194
GBFS and lime-GBFS stabilised Soil B
6.1c Compaction characteristics of lime, 195
GBFS and lime-GBFS stabilised Soil C
6.2a Compaction characteristics of cement, 196
GBFS and cement-GBFS stabilised Soil A
6.2b Compaction characteristics of cement, 197
GBFS and cement-GBFS stabilised Soil B
6.2c Compaction characteristics of cement, 198
GBFS and cement-GBFS stabilised Soil C
6.3a UCS of lime, GBFS and lime-GBFS 199
stabilised Soil A
6.3b UCS of lime, GBFS and lime-GBFS 200
stabilised Soil B
6.3c UCS of lime, GBFS and lime-GBFS 201
stabilised Soil C
6.4a UCS of cement, GBFS and cement-GBFS 202
stabilised Soil A
6.4b UCS of cement, GBFS and cement-GBFS 203
stabilised Soil B
xx iv
6.4c UCS of cement, GBFS and cement-GBFS 204

stabilised Soil C
6.5a Effect of lime, GBFS and lime-GBFS 205
linear shrinkage of Soil A
6.5b Effect of lime, GBFS and lime-GBFS 206
linear shrinkage of Soil B
6.5c Effect of lime, GBFS and lime-GBFS 207
linear shrinkage of Soil C
6.6a Effect of cement, GBFS and cement-GBFS 208
linear shrinkage Soil A
6.6b Effect of cement, GBFS and cement-GBFS 209
linear shrinkage Soil B
6.6c Effect of cement, GBFS and cement-GBFS 210
linear shrinkage Soil C
UCS of cement and cement-GBFS
stabilised Soil A
UCS of lime and lime-GBFS stabilised
Soil C
6.9a Effect of lime and lime-GBFS additives 213
Soil B
6.9b Effect of lime and lime-GBFS additives 213
Soil C
6.10 Effect of cement and cement-GBFS 214
additives on the shear strength
parameters of Soil B
time on the CBR of stabilised Soil A
XXV
Table Description
6.12 Effect of various additives and curing

time on the CBR of stabilised Soil B
time on the CBR of stabilised Soil C
6.14 Permanent deformations of 3% content of 218
1:1 cement:GBFS treated pavement
6.15 Permanent deformations of 3% content of 219
1:1 lime:GBFS treated pavement
6.16 Permanent deformations of 8% GBFS 220
treated pavement
7.1 Effect of GBFS additive on the grading 271
of Soils A,B and C
7.2 Deflection per load as number of load 272
increases at point of maximum deflection
on the grid (ie, point eH) of the 8%
GBFS treated pavement
7.3 Ratio of GBFS required to lime saved or 27 3
identical economic cost ratio of lime to
GBFS
3% 1:1 lime-GBFS treated pavement
2% lime treated pavement
untreated pavement
7.5 Ratio of UCS at 28 days to UCS at 90 275
days for soils treated with 8% content
of cement and cement-GBFS additives
7.6 Ratio of GBFS required to cement saved 276
or identical economic cost ratio of
cement to GBFS
the grid of the untreated pavement
xxv i
Table Description

the grid of the 1.5% cement treated
pavement
applications increases at point dH on
the grid of the 3% 1:1 cement-GBFS
treated pavements
xxvii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Description
Methods of operation of the

fatigue control panel used in
the repeated dynamic load test
B Equivalent specific gravity and

calculated porosity of various
mixes
1
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION. AIMS AND SCOPE
1.1 Basic Concepts of Soil Stabilisation
Soils are formed by the decomposition of rocks and through

the subsequent removal, transportation and weathering of the
products of decomposition. The concept of soil may also
include the accumulations of inorganic sediments, organic
peats, plant roots and various wastes and rubbles of an
industrial society. The soil in the general context can be
defined as "any loose surface material overlying solid
rocks" (1). It is usually the surface which is dealt with
in ordinary construction activities for buildings and
transport systems.
It is understandable that soil, which is one of the most

ancient construction materials, is still among the most
widely used materials because of its low cost of winning,
wide spread availability and easy workability.
Besides its use in dams and roads construction, soil has

been used for building in a great variety of ways. In
different traditions, it is used for walling, flooring and
roofing and in some instances, for all three (2).
2
Many soils, in their untreated state, lack strength and/or

dimensional stability which render them unsuitable, wholly
or partially, to the requirements of construction. The
Engineer then will have the choice of "accepting the
limitations imposed by the insitu soil properties, replacing
the available soil by another one which complies with the
specified requirements or improving the properties of the
existing soil by stabilisation so as to fulfil the design
criteria" (3).
1.2 Historical Background
In the area of building practice, soil stabilisation has a

history which reaches at least 5000 years into the past (4).
Compacted masses of clay and lime were used in the
construction of the pyramids of Shensi in Mexico. Ancient
buildings in India and China, in which lime-clay mixture
were used, are still standing (5). Even in ages and places
where engineering skill has been minimal, soil stabilisation
has often been used: for example, in the lime stabilised
floors of Saxon England, or the straw and blood stabilised
mud houses of West Africa (4).
In pre Roman times, there were many trafficable roads

throughout much of England (The Pilgrim's Way), Europe
(Denmark to Tuscany) and Asia (Afghanistan to Egypt, China
3
to Persia) (6). Periodically, however these roads were

transformed into masses of mud by rains, whereas in dry
seasons the carts created clouds of dust.
It is obvious for these reasons that the history of

stabilised roads began (7). Despite significant work by the
ancient Egyptians, Persians and Greeks, the Romans were the
great road builders of the ancient world. They built
80,000km of excellent roads with a base of heavy, hand
fitted stones. Above this was a course of smaller stones,
topped by a layer of broken tiles, brick or chalk, held
together with pozzolan mortar.
For many hundreds of years after the fall of the Roman

Empire in the fifth century, few new roads were built in
Europe and few Roman roads were regularly maintained.
The wheeled vehicle began to gain popularity again in the

seventeenth century and subsequently craftsmen developed the
stagecoach.
While these vehicles created some demand for better roads,

it was the Industrial Revolution, with its great need for
trade and transportation, which gave encouragement to the
development and improvement of the transport system in the
western world. John Loudon Macadam (1756 - 1836) developed
the thick, one size stone pavement, made up of 25mm broken
4
stones. In Europe the Macadam roads received no competition

for almost a whole century. The first highways of the
United States, too, were constructed using Macadam methods
(7).
The roads thus constructed did not meet the requirements of

the continuously increasing and accelerating traffic and
were ruined faster than they could be repaired. New
economic methods had to be developed, therefore, to enable
construction of durable roads. In the field of urban roads
and highways, this development has led to the introduction
of concrete and block paving, and in the case of secondary
roads, to the regular use of stabilised soil.
The first experiments in the USA were conducted with sand-

clay mixtures in 1906 (7). The favourable results motivated
subsequent construction projects using various mixtures.
Cement, bitumen and certain chemicals were employed for soil
stabilisation purposes and a number of different
stabilisation techniques were established.
In Europe, it was not until the 1930's, when the vast

increase in the motor vehicle traffic had begun and soil
mechanics approaches entered the field of road construction,
that the idea of stabilisation was accepted (7). During the
second world war 1939 - 1945, more than 140 military air
fields are known to have been constructed with cement
5
stabilised bases by the Germans and their allies, in places

as far north as Finland and as far south as Sicily, in
addition to an unknown number in Russia (26). After the war
many European countries continued soil stabilisation for
secondary road construction and as highway base courses.
1.3 Soil Stabilisation in Australia
In Australia, it was not until the 1940's that the idea of

stabilisation was accepted. This acceptance has grown
dramatically since then. A survey conducted by Ingles (8)
has shown that 56.5 million square yards (47.2 million
square metres) of pavement were stabilised in Australia
between 1963 and 1968.
The Cruickshank Survey (9) into the use of stabilisation by

local governments and road authorities has revealed that:-
a) The area of stabilised pavement constructed by 12 of

the 14 Main Roads Department districts covering
Queensland, between 1970 and 1975, was about two
million square metres.
b) Fifty percent of local government authorities in NSW

and Victoria had constructed four million square metres
during the same period.
6
The use of stabilisation is still increasing in Australia.

It is carried out virtually in every road construction,
rehabilitation and heavy patching maintenance throughout the
countryside areas.
The Author has had extensive experience of soil

stabilisation (more than 90,000 square metres of pavement)
while working with the Roads and Traffic Authority at Glen
Innes Works Office in NSW between 1986 - 1989 and has known
of tens of thousands of square metres of pavement stabilised
by South Grafton, Tenterfield, Moree and Armidale Works
Offices during the same period.
Ingles (8) has predicted that, in the next one hundred

years, there will be a rapidly improving technology for
stabilisation techniques, a marked increase in applied
research for stabilisation and an increased usage of soil
stabilisation in a wider range of applications.
1.4 Applications of Soil Stabilisation
Soil stabilisation is the treatment of soil in order to

rectify its deficiencies in engineering properties and
especially as a road construction material. Among the
important aims of soil stabilisation are the following:-
7
Increase in strength and stiffness of soils

Increase in durability
Enhancement of workability
Reduction of compressibility
Reduction of permeability
Reduction of volume instability
Control of dust and protection from erosion
1.5 Types of Soil Stabilisation
Soil stabilisation is often classified into two main types,

namely "shallow stabilisation" and "deep stabilisation"
(10).
The best known techniques of deep stabilisation are:-

preloading, surcharging, freezing, prewetting, grouting,
thermal treatment (heating), dynamic consolidation, vibro
compaction, blasting and the use of fabrics and meshes.
In conventional shallow soil stabilisation several methods

have been used, such as granular or mechanical soil
stabilisation, compaction and additive-use soil
stabilisation. Regarding the additives, the materials used
may be divided into a relatively few types, being, bitumen,
Portland cement, lime, lime-pozzolan, chlorides of salts and
chemical materials. In this classification, chemical
8
materials are not considered to involve cement and lime

although these are chemically effective agents.
Methods using additives form the basis for soil

stabilisation. Cruickshank (9) has shown that the
proportion, by type of stabilisation, for the work
undertaken by the local governments in Victoria and NSW
between 1970 and 1975 were:-
Mechanical stabilisation 34.75%

Lime stabilisation 38.00%
Cement stabilisation 22.00%
Bitumen stabilisation 3.75%
Other 1.50%
The survey has also shown that cement stabilisation

accounted for 45% of the total stabilisation conducted by
the Main Roads Department in Queensland between 1970 and
1975.
As the general knowledge on the conventional additive-use

method is common to soil engineers, attention is given in
this thesis to the practicality of utilizing pozzolanic by-
products in soil stabilisation because a large number of
these materials have not been used in practice although they
may have a significant role in the future of soil
stabilisation. The Author wishes to discuss the properties
9
of some of these materials and their potential contribution

to the soil stabilisation.
1.6 Pozzolans
Lea (11) has defined pozzolans as "materials which, though

not cementitous in themselves, contain constituents which
will combine with lime at ordinary temperature in the
presence of water to form insoluble compounds possessing
cementitous properties".
1.7 Mechanism of Pozzolanic Activity
Suwanvitaya (27) stated that in 1980 Takemoto and Uchikawa

have proposed the following mechanism for the paste
hydration of a lime-pozzolan reaction.
When mixed with water and lime the SiOH^- group on the
surface of the pozzolan dissociates to SiOH 4- and H + leaving
the grain negatively charged. This is followed by the
dissolution of alkalis leaving Si and Al~ rich layer which
dissolves and combines with Ca 2 + . The reaction products
form a layer around the pozzolan grain. Further dissolution
and reaction is achieved by breaks in the layer due to
osmotic pressure developed from the difference of
concentration of ions such as alkalis and SiO 4- and AlO 2-
between the outside and inside of the layer.
10
The concentration of Ca 2 + which enables Ca-Al hydrate to

precipitate is higher than that of CSH. The precipitation
of Ca-Al hydrate therefore occurs at locations apart from
the grain.
1.8 Types of Pozzolans and Pozzolanic By-Products
Traditionally pozzolans have been divided into two groups,

natural and artificial. In Europe the natural materials
which have been most exploited are the Italian pozzolans and
the German trass (2) whereas inorganic volcanic ash soils
are often utilised in Japan for soil-cement and soil-lime
stabilisation (12).
Pozzolanic by-products or artificially burnt inorganic

materials obtained as industrial or agricultural by-products
are similar to such volcanic soils from the view point of
good cementation with hydrative additives. Those by-
products are increasingly playing a part in road
construction, hence minimising the problem of resource
depletion, environmental degradation and energy consumption.
Of the artificial pozzolans probably fly ash, which is the

residue from the combustion of pulverised coal in power
stations, is the most commonly used globally. In 1976 it
was estimated that some 30,000,000 tonnes were used annually
and that the annual increase was about 10% (2).
11
With the discovery by Havelin and Khan (13) that lime and
fly ash impart particular properties to fine aggregates and
soils, attention was drawn to the use of fly ash in soil
stabilisation.
Much valuable work has since been carried out in this field
by Minnick and Miller (14) and Davidson and his associates
(15) at the engineering experimental station of Iowa State
College. In Great Britain the Central Electricity
Generating Board was active in the field of possible uses
for fly ash (16). In Australia valuable work was done by
Davidson and Mulling (5), Croft (18), Herzoc and Brock (19)
and others. This research has led to the utilisation of fly
ash in soil stabilisation in USA and Europe. In Australia
the use of this new technique was further encouraged by the
Department of Main Roads, NSW, issue of Circular M&R 115
(20).
The bottom ash, which is a residue collected from the bottom

of the furnace, is generally not as reactive as the fly ash
(2). However, reports from USA (21) have shown that bottom
ash has been used, either singly, in combination with fly
ash, or with other materials, in a variety of highway
applications in West Virginia and the surrounding states.
Apart from fly ash and bottom ash, there are a number of
other industrial wastes which have pozzolanic properties.
Mehta (22), (23) discussed them in detail. They include
12
blast furnace slag which is more reactive with cement than

with lime (2) and the kiln dust, collected during the
manufacture of cement. This material contains large amounts
of alkalies and free lime. Dave (24) has reported that in
India, cinder obtained from railway locomotives and certain
thermal power stations has pozzolanic activity but generally
less than that of fly ash. Shale, clay and bauxitic soil
can be converted into pozzolans by heat treatment. Hammond
(25) has shown that bauxitic waste is also suitable as
pozzolan after calcination and up to 40% of Portland cement
can be replaced with little effect on the characteristics of
cement.
Many plant ashes have a high silica content which, by

suitable treatment, can be made to be pozzolanic. In recent
years, attention has been drawn to the uses of rice husk ash
as a pozzolan although other agricultural residues such as
bagasse, bamboo leaves and some timber species are also of
interest.
1.9 Products Investigated as Stabilising Agents during

Research Work Reported in this Thesis - Rice Husk
Ash and Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
It is understandable that a fundamental investigation in

which all the pozzolans mentioned above could be assessed
as soil stabilisers, is beyond the reach of this research.
13
However, the emphasis in this thesis has been directed

towards two of these materials, rice husk ash and granulated
blast furnace slag because:-
i) There is an increasing need for research to find

solutions for the disposal problem of the
accumulating surplus of these by-products
worldwide.
ii) Employing the pozzolanic properties of these

wastes in soil stabilisation may reduce the cost
of roadmaking and help minimise the problem of
resource depletion and fuel consumption.
iii) The state of knowledge concerning this employment

has not been sufficient to permit an effective
application of these materials to soil
stabilisation.
1.10 Aims and Scope of this Thesis
The main aims of the work reported in this thesis are as

follows:-
a) To investigate the pozzolanic reactivity of rice husk

ash and granulated blast furnace slag, produced in NSW,
with lime and cement.
14
b) To study the influence of rice husk ash and granulated

blast furnace slag as lone additives on various
properties of a range of soils.
c) To examine the effects of lime-rice husk ash, cement-

rice husk ash, lime-granulated blast furnace slag and
cement-granulated blast furnace slag combined additives
on the properties of soils.
d) To discuss the economical feasibility of the use of

rice husk ash and granulated blast furnace slag in soil
stabilisation.
e) To develop a mix design procedure for soil

stabilisation with rice husk ash and granulated blast
furnace slag additives.
The two stabilising agents, rice husk ash and granulated

blast furnace slag are discussed in Chapter 2 with emphasis
on their production, characteristics and applications. In
this chapter the existing knowledge and practice are
reviewed and attention is given to the application of these
materials to soil stabilisation, some gaps in this knowledge
are highlighted and areas which require further
investigations are identified.
15
The experimental investigation reported in this thesis, has

been based on the conventional laboratory tests currently
used in the design of stabilised soil mixes.
Chapter 3 summarises the tests used, discusses their

suitability and gives a brief note on supplementary tests
conducted in this research, particularly those relevant to
the prediction of the in-service behaviour of stabilised
pavements.
Chapter 4 is devoted to providing details of the

experimental investigation carried out to evaluate the
pozzolanic reaction of RHA with lime and cement and to study
the influence of RHA mixes with lime and cement on the
geotechnical properties and behaviour of soils. Materials
used, tests conducted and results are all presented in
detail in this chapter whereas analysis and discussion of
these results are given in Chapter 5.
Details of the work carried out to determine the pozzolanic

reactivity of GBFS with lime and cement and to examine the
effect of GBFS various mixes with lime and cement on the
properties and behaviour of soils are given in Chapter 6.
Details of materials, soils and tests used are all presented
in this chapter together with the results derived. Analysis
and discussion of these results are reported in Chapter 7.
16
The economic feasibility of the application of RHA and GBFS

to soil stabilisation is discussed in Chapter 8 whereas
Chapter 9 contains a recommended design procedure for the
lime-RHA, cement-RHA, lime-GBFS and cement-GBFS soil mixes.
General conclusions and recommendations are reported in

Chapter 10.
17
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS WORK CONCERNING RICE HUSK

ASH AND GRANULATED BLAST FURNACE SLAG
2.1 Rice Husk - Description and Production
A constituent of the crop popularly known as paddy, rice

husks are the harsh woody outer covering of the rice grain,
consisting of two interlocking halves.
The husk content of paddy varies, depending on the

differences in season, temperature, geographic location and
cultivation practices. Most variations however, are
confined to a narrow range, (variation of 4-5%) and a husk
content of 20% of dried paddy is generally expected.
With the world's annual production of rice at about 400

million tonnes (17), the husk produced each year amounts to
approximately 80 million tonnes on the basis of these 1983
figures.
2.2 Disposal of Rice Husks
Due to seasonal variability, high transport cost, bulkiness,

high abrasiveness, slow biodegradation and poor nutritive
value, only a small percentage of the husks can be disposed
18
of in certain low value applications, such as animal feed,

fertilizer and fuel. The remainder serves no useful purpose
and simply poses disposal problems. The simple disposal
methods used are openfield burning and combustion in an
incinerator with a defined controlled temperature.
2.3 Properties of Rice Husk Ash
Incineration of rice husks produces ash with properties

which vary considerably dependent on the manner of
incineration. The parameters affecting these properties are
temperature, the time of incineration and the environment in
which the burning takes place. The weight percentage of
ash, for example, can vary from about 17% for complete
combustion to approximately 35% for cases where only the
volatiles are driven off the raw husk and the full content
of carbon is retained. Rapid burning at low temperature
produces ash with high carbon content, while prolonged
burning at high temperature results in predominantly
crystalline silica in the ash.
Rice husk ash (RHA) has generally been accepted as being

pozzolanic. Its use as a component in cementitous materials
is based on its reaction with lime to form cementing
materials. The lime may be present as a primary constituent
of the mix or as a result of the hydration of Portland
cement. The development of mechanical strength is
19
influenced by the nature of silica, the carbon content and

the fineness of the ash.
2.4 Engineering Applications of Rice Husk Ash
Hough and Bar (28) reported the use of rice husk ash (RHA)
in the manufacture of building blocks as early as 1923. A
large house had been constructed from these blocks and was
reported to be in excellent condition thirty years later.
They also reported a study on concrete using rice husk and

RHA with cement and concluded that although the mixture of
the three components gave a better insulator than normal
concrete, the low strength made it unsuitable for structural
use.
A potential application of the ash which has received

increasing interest in recent years has been in the cement
industry. Mehta and Pitt (23) described a furnace for
producing a predominantly amorphous silica ash. The concept
was adopted in a pilot plant near Sacramento, California and
a 7.5 tonne/hour plant began operation. Data on the ash
produced indicated that cement containing the ash was highly
resistant to dilute organic and mineral acids making it
extremely useful in the food and chemical industries.
Increasing attention has since been directed toward RHA
based cements, particularly in South East Asia. At least
20
three workshops have been organised since 1979, resulting in

the adaptation of the Indian standard (50) for masonary
cement based on RHA.
2.5 Applications of Rice Husk Ash to Soil

Stabilisation
2.5.1 Rice Husk Ash : Soil Stabilisation
The use of rice husk ash as a single additive for the

purpose of soil stabilisation has received very little
attention in the relevant literature. However, Rahman (29)
has made an attempt in this direction to find the effects of
rice husk ash on various geotechnical properties of
lateritic A-7-6 group soil obtained from the University of
Ife Campus, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. The researcher concluded that
well burnt rice husk ash has appreciable effects on the
geotechnical properties of the lateritic soil tested and
that "the liquid limit and plastic limit increase with the
increase of rice husk ash but, the plasticity index
decreases. The maximum dry density decreases with increase
in ash content, while the optimum moisture content
increases. The unconfined compressive strength and CBR
increases with increase in ash content. The undrained shear
strength parameters, cohesion as well as angle of internal
friction, also increase with increase in ash content". No
such work has been conducted or reported in Australia.
21
2.5.2 Lime-Rice Husk Ash : Soil Stabilisation
Lazaro and Moh (30) probably were the first who tried to
stabilise deltaic black clay soil by a mixture of lime and
rice husk ash.
Subrahmanyam et al (31) followed the steps of Lazaro and Moh

and conducted their experimental programme in the Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur to
study the effect of lime-rice husk ash mixtures on the
properties of an inorganic black clay soil taken from an
open pit near a house construction site at Klangtown.
They concluded that:-
i) Rice husk ash in combination with lime can be used

for the stabilisation of clays.
ii) The plasticity index of clay is significantly

reduced by the addition of lime and RHA admixture.
iii) The maximum dry density is decreased and the

optimum moisture content is increased when the
clay is treated with the admixture of lime and
RHA.
22
iv) The unconfined compressive strength of the clay is

increased when the clay is treated with admixture
of lime and RHA. The unconfined compressive
strength is maximum when the quantity of admixture
added to the soil is 10% of the total weight.
v) As the curing time is increased, the strength of

the treated clay is increased.
No such study has been conducted or reported in Australia.
2.5.3 Cement-Lime-Rice Husk Ash : Soil Stabilisation
Raj an et al (32) in the Karnataka Engineering Research

Station, Krishnarajasagara, India have studied the effect of
cement-lime-RHA admixtures on the consolidation and strength
properties of black cotton soil of Yelandur in Mysore
district, India. The study considered the undrained
triaxial shear strength and the compression index Cc (the
usual method of presenting compressibility data is to plot
the void ratio, e, against the log of the vertical effective
stress, v""V. Compression index is the slope of
compressibility curves which plot as straight lines on the
and has
e-log v"V presentation where Cc=e0-e log ZTTp)
revealed that:-
i) In the soaked condition, the soil stabilised with

RHA will have little strength.
23
ii) Rice husk ash, to a certain extent, contributes to

the development of strength when used as an
additive in conjunction with lime and cement which
indicates that RHA may be acting in a pozzolanic
role for the improvement of strength behaviour of
black cotton soil.
iii) In the presence of lime, rice husk ash

considerably decreases the compression index.
iv) For a given percentage the compression index value

decreases as the quantity of lime in each
proportion increases.
v) The compression index values of lime-rice husk ash

stabilised soil closely follow that of lime
stabilised soil.
No such study has been conducted or reported in Australia.
2.6 Scope for further research
It can be easily seen that there are still certain gaps in

the fundamental understanding of the applicability of RHA to
soil stabilisation. The following are identified:-
a) The results of Rajan et al (32) concerning the effect

of RHA as a lone additive on the properties of soils
24
are not consistent with those results of Rahman (29).

Further studies, therefore, are required to clarify
this ambiguity.
b) Rajan et al (32) have studied the influence of cement-

lime-RHA additives on the properties of clay. However,
cement-RHA additives have not been contemplated and it
is not known whether RHA in combination with cement
alone can be used for the stabilisation of soils.
c) Lazaro and Moh (30), Subrahmanyam et al (31) and Raj an

et al (32) have examined the effect of lime-RHA and
cement-lime-RHA on the properties of clays only.
Although the effect of these additives on the
properties of non cohesive soils may be of more
importance, this application has not been attempted.
The effect of these additives on the properties of
organic clays has also not been tested.
d) The effect of lime-RHA additives on some properties of

soils relevant to roads and road performance are still
to be defined. Such properties are the shear strength
parameters, the California Bearing Ratio (CBR),
shrinkage, swelling and in-service behaviour.
e) The proportions of lime to RHA in the lime-RHA and

cement-lime-RHA additives tested in the surveyed
literature were all arbitrary. No comprehensive study
25
was made to find the optimum proportions to be used.

Design procedures need to be developed to specify both
proportions and best application rates for these
additives to soils.
f) The resultant properties due to the use of lime-RHA and

cement-lime-RHA additives have not been compared with
those that may result from adding lime or cement to the
same soils. The economical feasibility of using RHA
singly or in combination with lime or cement to
stabilise soils is still to be determined.
A major aim of one part of this research work is to bridge

some of these gaps in the knowledge of the use of rice husk
ash in soil stabilisation.
2.7 Blast Furnace Slag - Description and Production
Blast furnace slag consists essentially of silicates and

alumino-silicates of lime and of other bases produced
simultaneously with iron in a blast furnace. An iron blast
furnace is a facility for converting iron ore into iron, to
the stage called 'pig iron'. The blast furnace derives its
name from the fact that the air to support combustion must
be forced into it under pressure because of the resistance
offered by the column of raw materials to the passage of the
combustion gases.
26
Iron ore is a mixture of oxides of iron, silica and alumina

and the chemical reactions within the blast furnace reduce
the iron oxides to iron; the silica and alumina compounds
combine with the calcium of the fluxing stone (limestone and
dolomite) to form the slag.
The chemical reactions occur at temperatures between 1300

and 1600°C produced by the burning of coke which is fed into
the furnace along with the ore, limestone and dolomite.
When preheated air is blown into the furnace the oxygen
combines with the carbon of the coke to produce heat and
carbon monoxide. The iron ore is reduced to iron, mainly
through the reaction of the carbon monoxide with the iron
oxide to yield carbon dioxide and metallic iron.
The fluxing stone is calcined by the heat and dissociates

into calcium and magnesium oxides and carbon dioxide. These
oxides of calcium and magnesium combine with the silica and
alumina of the iron ore to form slag. Thus, compounds of
lime-silica-alumina and magnesia are formed which collect in
molten strata at temperatures between 1300 and 1600°C and
which form a liquid layer that floats on top of the liquid
iron. The liquid iron is tapped and run along freshly made
sand channels either to the casting bed or, in the case of
the most modern fully integrated works, into large torpedo
cars for conveyance direct to the steel conversion works.
27
The slag is usually run into ladles having a capacity of

between five and twenty tonnes or more for conveyance to the
cooling pit. In some cases it is allowed to solidify in the
ladle.
2.8 Types of Blast Furnace Slag
2.8.1 Air Cooled Slag
When slag is allow to solidify either in the ladle or the

pit, it develops a crystalline structure similar to that of
a natural igneous rock. Crystals range from microscopic
sizes to as large as three metres. This slag is used as
road stone, concrete aggregate, filter media in sewage
purification plants and as a railway ballast.
2.8.2 Foamed or Expanded Slag
If water is introduced under controlled conditions into the

molten slag as it is tipped into a special pit or container,
the sudden generation of the occluded gases and steam
produces an expanded product. This is a strong lightweight
aggregate suitable for making lightweight concrete, either
as building blocks or as insitu structural element for
buildings, roof screed and for the decks of bridges.
28
2.8.3 Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
When the molten slag is cooled rapidly by means of high

pressure waterjets and excess of water is maintained,
crystals do not have time to form and it solidifies as a
glassy type material. This material is known as granulated
slag because it takes the form of small granules.
2.9 Properties and Engineering Applications of

The essential components of granulated blast furnace slag

are the same oxides produced in the manufacture of Portland
cement but as can be seen from Table 2.1, they are present
in different proportions.
Granulated blast furnace slag has marked hydraulic-setting

properties when ground to a powder and mixed with an
alkaline activating agent such as lime, portland cement or
gypsum.
Besides its use as sand, in the manufacture of concrete and

certain types of glass, granulated blast furnace slag has
been used in two other applications concerned with the
manufacture of cement and the construction and strengthening
for roads.
29
2.9.1 Use Of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag In The

Manufacture Of Cement
It has been said that the year 1862 marked the industrial
start to the production of well integrated mixture of slag
cement and clinker when Hangen in Germany confirmed what
Vicat foresaw of the hydraulic properties of slag (33).
Since then Germany, France, USA, Japan, South Africa and
many other countries have used slag in cement manufacture.
Although granulated slag itself can be used as raw material
in the production of cement (34), it is more common for the
slag to be blended with other raw materials thereby
utilisating the hydraulic-setting properties of granulated
slag. Three types of blended slag cements have been
produced. The first is low heat portland blast furnace
cement which is manufactured by intergrinding portland
cement clinker with the granulated slag. Various
specifications permit the cement to contain as much as 80%
granulated slag. The second, super sulphated cement, is
made from granulated blast furnace slag activated by calcium
sulphate (anhydrite). It is commonly made by intergrinding
a mixture of 80 to 85% granulated slag, 10 to 15% anhydrite
and about 5% of portland cement or lime. The third type of
slag cement, lime-slag cement is manufactured by mixing
about 30 to 40% hydrated lime with 60 to 70% of granulated
slag.
30
2.9.2 Use Of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag In Road

Construction
2.9.2a Use Of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag In Roadworks

Overseas
France was the first country to utilise granulated slag in

road construction. The Ponts et Chaussees Departement took
a special interest in this field and carried out research
and development in three of its laboratories, situated at
Autum in Burgundy, Vitri-le-Francois near Nancy and
Versailles. The soil stabilisation group at the Laboratoire
Central in Paris undertook the more fundamental aspects of
research and co-ordinated the work of the other
laboratories. This interest had arisen from the pioneer
work of Monsieur Prandi, formerly an engineer of the
Department, who showed that a slow setting concrete is
produced when 15 to 25% of granulated slag is mixed with a
coarse aggregate such as limestone, or crushed air-cooled
slag (35). The setting properties of this mix have made it
possible to manufacture slabs giving a compressive strength
of 50MPa (33). The development of this technique led the
French roadmakers into further research to try to master
this hardening effect with addition of lime while at the
time improving the size distribution of "sable-grave"
(gravel-sand mix).
31
The outcome of this research has permitted the adoption of

the "grave laitier" (gravel-slag) or "sable laitier" (sand-
slag) which became commercially available in 1960.
Similarly, in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) tests were carried out

on various gravels, plastic quartz and granitic sand using
10 and 20% of ground and unground GBFS (41). One percent
lime was added in all samples to act as a catalyst. Results
have shown that:-
a) In all cases there was an increase in compressive

strength.
b) Ground GBFS is a better material than unground GBFS

even when as little as 10% is used.
In Great Britain GBFS is not produced in sufficient

quantities to cater for a substantial use of this kind of
stabilisation (34). Any relevant research therefore, is
unlikely to be found.
In Japan little research concerning the application of steel

slag to concrete aggregate and soil stabilisation has been
established (36, 37). With an eye to the hydraulicity
stimulating effects of steel slag, Haga and his associates
conducted various experiments in co-operation with Hirohata
32
slab processing Co Ltd, on a mixture of crushed steel slag

and GBFS, called SBS and used as fills on poor road beds and
soft clay subgrades. This study (38) revealed the technical
feasibility of SBS as a shielding bed fill. (Fill usually
required to prevent poor road beds from entering the
subgrade and to provide a working platform for plant and
equipment).
Although an efficient proposition regarding a useful

application of GBFS to soil stabilisation in Japan is
unlikely to be found (39) Hasaba and his associates (40)
used X-ray diffraction analysis and scanning electron
microscopy to examine the reaction products and strength
characteristics of lime-gypsum-GBFS stabilised soil. Their
observations indicate that:-
a) The high compressive strength was mainly attributed to

the formation of ettringite (3CaO-AL203-3CaS04-31H20).
b) The reaction between lime and clay minerals is

restricted with high gypsum content.
c) A "reticulated network" type C-S-H gel and plate shaped

calcium aluminate hydrate co-exist with needle like
ettringite crystals in the stabilised soil containing
high granulated slag content.
33
2.9.2b Use of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag in Roadworks

in Australia
In Australia, slag has been used in pavements since the late

sixties (53) in areas from Wollongong to Newcastle. In
recent years, with changes in the iron making process, the
chemical composition of GBFS has altered and the crushing
strength has dropped (42). Under these conditions there was
concern that the slag could break down under traffic leading
to rutting and/or surfacing loss. Realistic testing
conditions were needed to resolve the doubt which had
significant environmental, industrial and political
implications. To generate data in the short term the
Department of Main Roads, NSW, in co-operation with the
Australian Road Research Board, arranged for an Accelerated
Loading Facility (ALF) testing at the Prospect test site, 30
kilometres west of Sydney and approximately one kilometre
west of the start of the Western Freeway (F4).
Five base materials consisting of a control of basalt

crushed rock and four other materials consisting either of
slag or slag mixtures were used in the trials. Over two
million load cycles were applied to 18 test sections before
the trials were concluded on 23 May 1988. The main findings
of these trials were:-
34
a) Unbound crushed slag had equivalent performance to high

quality crushed rock as a road base under heavy traffic
conditions.
b) The performance of crushed rock, stabilised with 20%

GBFS and 1% lime exceeded the design expectations.
These findings have resulted in the use of crushed slag

stabilised with cement-flyash additive as a base course at
Port Kembla Access Road and Appin Road in the Wollongong
regional area.
Crushed slag was also used as base course at several

locations on the F3 Freeway, the Pacific Highway (SH10) and
Lake Macquarie district in the Newcastle regional area.
Laboratory tests are currently being undertaken in the Roads

and Traffic Authority Divisional Office at Wollongong to
examine the performance of crushed rocks stabilised with 20%
GBFS and 1% lime. A base course constituted of crushed
rocks stabilised with 20% GBFS and 1% lime was also used in
the trial section at Tomago on the Pacific Highway near
Hexham in the Newcastle regional area in September 1989.
However, the pavement developed some shrinkage cracks
approximately six months after construction. This raised
the concern that some measures should be taken to waterproof
or slow the propagation of these cracks.
35
Although France has used GBFS to stabilise crushed rocks for

almost 30 years the transverse cracking as a result of
shrinkage of the hydraulic GBFS treated materials has not
been successfully controlled there to date (43). A range of
techniques have been used to waterproof these cracks or to
slow down their propagation. These include the placement of
200mm of bituminous mix over the stabilised layers. Other
techniques include bitumen impregnated geotextile
interlayers or a 25mm thick surfacing of gap graded
aggregate bound with polymer modified bitumen.
2.10 Scope for Further Research
The application of GBFS to soil stabilisation in France and

almost the entire relevant research in Australia and
overseas has been restricted to the addition of 15-25% of
GBFS with 1% lime to selectively graded crushed rocks or
slags. In this context GBFS is mainly acting as a
mechanical stabiliser with relatively little emphasis given
to its hydraulic cementing effect. In contrast an important
aim of the research reported here was to try and extend the
use of GBFS to the stabilisation of natural gravels,
sand-silt soils and clays. A totally different approach was
planned, namely the use of lime-GBFS and cement-GBFS in
different proportions and at low additive rate of not more
than eight percent of the total dry weight of treated soils
36
to avoid the occurrence of shrinkage cracking in pavements

with high percentages of GBFS.
The possible partial replacement of lime or cement with GBFS

and the economical feasibility of the application of
lime-GBFS and cement-GBFS for soil stabilisation are
examined in this Thesis.
37
Table 2.1 Typical oxide composition of blast furnace

slag compared to Portland cement, after Spence
and Cook (2)
OXIDE BLAST FURNACE SLAG PORTLAND CEMENT
CaO 35 63
Si02 35 22
A1 2 0 3 15 6
Fe 2 0 3 1.5 2.5
MgO 8 2.5
Na20 1.5 <1.0
K20 1.5 <1.0
so 3 <1.0 2.0
38
Chapter III
EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Scope of Chapter
This chapter is concerned with a broad examination of the

research programme and an evaluation of the various
laboratory and other tests which were used during the
research. It contains a summary of all the conventional
laboratory tests used in this investigation together with a
brief note on other unconventional tests used.
3.2 Existing Tests Used in Soil Stabilisation
A summary of the most common tests used, in Australia and

overseas, for soil stabilisation is given in Table 3.1.
This table shows that the physical, chemical and engineering
tests vary in number and type between different methods of
stabilisation. The widest range of tests comprise those
associated with bituminous stabilisation whereas only few
tests are specified for evaluating stabilisation by lime or
chemical additives.
The assessment made by Shackel (44) of the functions

fulfilled by each of the tests is included in Table 3.1. It
may be seen that the majority of tests serve either in the
39
selection of a soil for stabilisation or in the design of

the stabilised mix while few provide any indication of the
likely in-service performance of stabilised material.
3.3 The Validity of Existing Tests
Tests used to evaluate the suitability of soils for

stabilisation are generally based on physical or chemical
attributes and have been shown, by experience, to be
satisfactory (44). By comparison, tests used in the design
of stabilised mix are less satisfactory for providing a
reliable indication of pavement performance in relation to
mix design. The majority of engineering tests shown in
Table 3.1 are based solely on some direct or indirect
measurement of static strength. Moreover, even such
physical criteria as those based on grading are established
to promote maximum strength.
However, strength improvement is not the only reason for

soil stabilisation and attention should be paid to whether
the treated soil is adequate in playing its role in the
field application. In this regard, Shackel (45) has
established that simulation tests are capable of
contributing towards the evaluation of service performance
and the design of stabilised mixes. The various methods of
simulation testing have been described and evaluated by
Shackel (46). Table 3.2 shows the suggested utilities for
40
each type of simulation test and for the major categories of

stabilisation as presented by Shackel (44). These utilities
were intended to reflect the amount and usefulness of the
engineering information which the tests yield and do not
take into account either the cost or complexity of each
technique.
3.4 Tests Used in this Investigation
Lime-pozzolan and cement-pozzolan stabilised materials have

many of the behavioural characteristics of lime and cement
stabilised materials.
It is not uncommon therefore, that methods used for the

evaluation of lime-pozzolan and cement-pozzolan products are
similar to those required for cement and lime stabilisation
(47). Therefore, in the present investigation, all of the
tests associated with lime and cement stabilisation, listed
in Table 3.1, were used. These tests are those concerned
with grading, compaction, liquid limit, plasticity index,
compressive strength and CBR. However, additional tests
such as linear shrinkage, scanning electron microscopy and
X-ray diffraction analysis were carried out to determine
more comprehensively the physical and chemical attributes of
the components of the stabilised products.
In addition, a repeated dynamic load test, being the best

41
suggested technique (refer Table 3.2) to evaluate the

behaviour of the stabilised materials under simulated
traffic, was also used in this research work. This was also
performed in the laboratory. Most of the laboratory tests
used in this study were carried out in accordance with test
methods specified by the Department of Main Roads, NSW.
(Subsequently, Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW) (56).
The titles of the methods used are listed in Table 3.3.

Brief comments on these tests, together with brief notes on
other tests used, are provided in the following subsections.
3.4.1 Grading and Compaction Tests
Grading and compaction tests are still some of the most

valuable guides to the engineering behaviour of soils in the
context of road engineering. Ingles and Noble (1975) have
shown that, for base course materials, these tests have high
utility ( utility refers to the combined precision, cost
benefit and predictive values of tests).
Coarse particle and fine particle size distributions were

determined, in this study, in accordance with test methods
T106 and T107 (56), respectively, whereas test method T110
(56) (ie., Standard Compaction Test) was used to determine
the OMC (optimum moisture content) and the maximum density
to which various mixes can be compacted at this moisture
content.
42
Although these tests form a part of the procedures of other

tests used, they were performed primarily to determine
whether or not there was an increase in density upon the
addition of various additives to the soil. Improvement of
grading and/or compaction of soil to higher density results
in reduction in settlement, reduction in permeability and an
increase in shear strength.
3.4.2 Plasticity and Volume Changes
Plasticity refers to the ability of a material to deform

without cracking or crumbling and then to maintain that
deformed shape after the deforming force has been released.
This non-reversible, or plastic, deformation is probably the
sum of a large number of small slippages at grain-to-grain
contact points and minute local structure collapses
throughout the soil mass. Frequently, deformation occurs in
soil masses without any application or removal of external
loads. This may be the result of what is known as swell or
shrinkage by the action of moisture change within the soil
mass.
Plastic deformation and volume change can become large and

are important factors in highway and foundation engineering
work. In most highway engineering applications, soils with
high plasticity and volume change are avoided as far as
possible. Where their use cannot be avoided, stabilisation
43
measures often are taken to improve soil properties

(reduction of volume change and deformation). Laboratory
tests are available to help identify and determine the
volume change and plasticity of soils.
These tests do not give a precise measurement of a definite

soil property, but are merely arbitrary tests relying on a
strictly standardised procedure for their wide field of
application and reproducibility. It was in this general
context that it was decided to use Atterberg limits and
Linear Shrinkage tests as quick, convenient and standard
methods, familiar to all engineers, for determining the
differences in magnitude and nature of the effects of
various additives on soils.
Plasticity is assessed by the plasticity index which is the

numerical difference between the liquid limit and plastic
limit of a soil.
Liquid limit can be defined as the water content

corresponding to a shear strength of about 2.5 KPa (10).
Liquid limit is determined by test method T108 (56).
Plastic limit is the lower boundary of the range of water
contents within which soil exhibits plastic behaviour. This
is determined by test method T109 (56).
44
Linear shrinkage is a valuable test due to the lack of other

good tests for the determination of volume
stability of soils. It is expressed as the decrease in
length relative to the initial length when a sample is oven
dried from the liquid limit. This is determined by test
method T113 (56).
3.4.3 Compressive Strength - Unconfined Compressive

Strength (UCS) and Undrained Triaxial Strength
(UTS)
The effect of the various additives on the strength of

stabilised soil has little direct application to pavement
design. Compressive strength test has been used to
determine the relative response of materials to cement and
lime stabilisation (47) and to give an overall picture of
the quality of stabilised materials. It is generally
assumed that the higher the compressive strength the better
the quality of stabilised mixes (48). However, it is
interesting to note that the Department of Transportation ,
California USA, has recently reached the conclusion that:
"unconfined compressive strength is more appropriate for
evaluating the effects of adding lime to soils than is the
result which derives from CBR and the so called "R-Value"
test" (49).
45
In this study the unconfined compressive strength tests were

performed in accordance with test method T116 (56) to
determine the effect of adding various additives, of
different proportions and at various rates of application,
to different soils. Moreover, the undrained triaxial
compression test was also carried out on selected stabilised
mixes to determine whether or not the increase in UCS of the
stabilised mixes was influenced by an increase in cohesion,
angle of internal friction or both. This test was carried
out in accordance with Australian Standards test method
AS1289.F4.1.
3.4.4 California Bearing Ratio Test (CBR Test)
The CBR test is a penetration test which gives a measure of

the load spreading ability of the pavement. This is only
justified in the case of flexible pavements and modified
pavements (5) but not in the case of bound materials (47).
There are no established criteria for demarcation between
"modified" and "bound" although an arbitrary limit of 0.8MPa
UCS after seven days moist curing has been suggested
(modified < 0.8MPa, bound > 0.8MPa). However, there are
limitations to the use of CBR tests in modified materials.
Some studies suggest that it is applicable within the range

of UCS between 0.5MPa and 1.5MPa, depending on the nature of
46
the physical properties of the soil,the chemical reaction

with the stabiliser and on curing and preparation techniques
(49). Elsewhere, it was established that it is the most
suitable method to use where the stabilised strength is less
than three times that of the unstabilised soil (47). Larger
strength increases will usually result from extensive
cementation of particles, negating the assumption of
modified behaviour. This large increase in strength may
lead to large increase in measured CBR. For example, UCS of
1.76MPa would give CBR values ranging from 100 to 600
depending upon soil type (3). As the original CBR procedure
related all materials to a satisfactory, well graded, non-
cohesive crushed rock which was given the ratio 100, the
significance of any value in excess of this is in question.
For these reasons the application of the CBR test in this

study was limited to some selected mixes. Its main role was
to determine the general trend of the effect of various
additives on the CBR property of soils and to confirm
results derived from the UCS test.
The procedures specified in test method T117 (56) were

adhered to with the exception of using a split-mould,
instead of the standard mould, to facilitate specimen
extraction for the purpose of curing.
47
3.4.5 Repeated Dynamic Load Test
3.4.5a General
The procedure for such a test was developed some years

previously to utilise testing equipment already commissioned
at the University of Wollongong for testing pavements. The
test structure is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Due to the dimensions and restrictions of the test structure

the pavement section for testing was determined as 2. Om
square in area and 0.8m in depth.
The pavement was loaded in the central portion by the 1000mm

diameter pneumatic tyred wheel. Some longitudinal travel
of the loading was obtained by allowing the pavement to
oscillate up and down at one end of the pavement and having
the other end on a rotating support. The principle of the
operation is shown in Figure 3.2.
Springs of sufficient stiffness at one end and a rotating

joint at the other end were placed to allow the movement
illustrated in Figure 3.2.
The bin which enclosed the pavement structure was set up

outside the testing frame area to facilitate filling with
the pavement materials. A trolley was then used to move the
48
bin into the testing frame after the pavement structure had
been compacted. The trolley and initial arrangements are
illustrated in Figure 3.3.
3.4.5b The Loading System
Loads are applied by a pneumatic tyred wheel, 1000mm in

diameter and 200mm in width, with an inflation pressure of
0.7 MPa (approximately lOOpsi) . The maximum load which can
be applied by means of a double acting servo controlled
hydraulic jack is 100KN. The jack, which is connected to
the tyre, is controlled by a fatigue control panel, some 20
metres away. Figure 3.4 shows the fatigue control panel in
some detail.
The fatigue control panel has a display meter for indication

of loads and displacement. The meter may be used for the
indication of mean, upper or lower peak load and deflection
values. The panel has controls for selecting and applying
static or dynamic loads or deflections to the pavement and
an oscillator provides dynamic loads, with sine, triangular
or square wave cyclic wave forms and ramp functions. A
counter records the number of completed cycles. Appendix A
contains a list of the panel controls and the method used in
operating the panel for the test.
49
3.4.5c Measurement of the Permanent Deformation
A "deflection beam" was built to measure the permanent

deformation of points in a grid which covered the loaded
section of the pavement. The beam was made of an aluminium
channel section to which seven dial gauges were attached.
The dial gauges had a 20mm travel and were graduated to
0.01mm. The reference points at which deflections were
measured are illustrated in Figure 3.5. The grid was
located with reference to the wheel so that the centreline
of the wheel (longitudinally) and the wheel axle
(transversely) coincided with the centrelines of the grid.
The spacing between grid lines was chosen to be 150mm. Each
grid line was labelled by either an upper or lower case
letter depending on whether the grid line was in the
longitudinal or transerve direction. Hence any point in the
grid could be referenced. For example, the centre point of
the grid, directly below the wheel, was designated as point
Gd. The use of the deflection beam is illustrated in Figure
3.6.
Deflection readings were taken for the whole grid, following

the application of a certain number of loads, by positioning
the beam on the marked points on the two bin walls.
50
3.4.6 Powder X-Ray Diffraction
Powder X-ray diffraction is a method widely used in the

analysis of solid solution, crystallinity and, particularly,
with small angle scattering, the size and, to some extent,
the shape of small particles. The diffraction technique in
this study was used to identify the hydration products of
lime-RHA and lime-GBFS stabilised materials.
Theory of X-Ray Diffraction
When a beam of monochromatic X-rays is directed onto a

crystalline surface, diffraction occurs, the diffracted beam
being built up of rays scattered by the atoms in the crystal
lying in its path. The reinforcement of scattered rays
occurs when Bragg's law is satisfied.
n X = 2d sin 6
where X = wave length of the X-ray
d = crystal spacing characteristic of each
mineral component
0 = angle of incidence of the X-ray
n = integral number
By using X-rays of known wave length, and measuring the set

of 6 which produced diffracted beams, d spacings of the
51
various planes in a crystal can be calculated. In the

powder diffraction method, the sample is reduced to a very
fine powder and placed in the beam of X-rays. Each particle
is therefore a crystal oriented randomly with respect to the
beam. However, some particles must be oriented so that a
particular set of lattice planes makes the correct Bragg
angle for the beam diffraction. The presence of a large
number of particles having all possible orientations ensures
that the diffracted beams represent every set of lattice
planes in the crystal. The diffracted beams are detected
and their intensities and associated angles determined and
recorded by a movable counter.
The d spacings and their associated intensities form the

pattern which is characteristic of the substance.
Identification of a particular substance is made with the
aid of standard tables of crystal reflections and their
intensities.
3.4.7 Scanning Electron Microscopy
The SEM in this study was used to investigate the morphology

of the reaction products of the lime-RHA and lime-GBFS soil
stabilisation.
The basic operation of the microscope comprises the

following. Electrons emitted from the filament are
52
accelerated down the electron optical column. The electron

beam is focused by three magnetic lenses onto the specimen
surface as a fine probe. The probe is directed by scan
coils to scan the specimen surface in the form of square
rasters. The cathode ray tube screen is simultaneously
scanned in synchronisation with that of the probe. Its
brightness is modulated by secondary electrons leaving the
specimen which are collected and amplified. There is thus a
point-to-point correspondence between the CRT screen and the
rasters on the specimen. The image of the specimen is thus
progressively formed. The three magnetic lenses mentioned
are not image forming lenses as in optical microscopes.
They act as condenser lenses for the probe incident on the
specimen surface. The magnification of the image is a
function of geometrical effect, ie., the ratio of the size
of the scanned raster on the CRT screen to that on the
specimen.
The range of magnification that can be achieved is from

about 20 times to 10,000 times. The brightness of the image
is a function of the intensity of electron emission from the
irradiated surface while the contrast depends on the
characteristics of the sample surface, eg., topographic
features, back scatter coefficient, composition and crystal
orientation. Thus high points on the sample surface would
appear bright and low points dark. On smooth surfaces other
characteristics determine the contrast.
53
Table 3.1 Tests used for evaluating stabilised soils,

after Shackel (44).
Stabilisation Test
Technique Function
Mechanical Stabilisation
Chloride Stabilisation
Selection of Material
Thermal Stabilisation
Bitumen Stabilisation
Cement Stabilisation
Resin Stabilisation
Lime Stabilisation
Silicification
Performance
Mix Design
TEST
Liquid limit X X X X 0
Plasticity index X X X X O
Grading X X X X 0 0
Compaction X X X X 0
pH X X 0
Sulphate content X 0
Organic matter X O
Linear shrinkage X X O
Swell X o
Water absorption X 0
Permeability X X O |
Seepage intensity ^ X X 0
CBR X X X X 0
Florida bearing X 0 [
Cone penetration x o
Compressive strength X X X X o
Hveem stability X X o
Hveem cohesion X X o
Hubbard-Field stability x o
Triaxial tests x o
Freeze-thaw or wet or dry x o
X = Test commonly used

0 = Function fulfilled by test
54
Table 3.2 Suggested utilities for various simulation

tests, after Shackel (44).
i
Performance
Mix Design Evaluation
Soil-Bitumen
Soil-Bitumen
Soil-Cement
Soil-Cement
Soil-Lime
Soil-Lime
TEST
Repeated compression C B A C B B B B
Repeated tension D B B D D B B D
Repeated flexure D B B D D B B D
Repeated plate load D C C C B B B B
Rolling load or test track D C C C A A A A
A useful as primary test

B useful as secondary test
C useful supplement to conventional tests
D little or no useful application
55
c
id co
1 5 2 2 ««««««««
•H V
H u
id id
•H 1-1 "0
4-1 QQQ QQQQQQQQ 4-> c
id
•H m
3 4J
< to
I
W
0) •a* r-
9 r> t- r> r- 00 CO CO
to C r» r- r» r- rH
(T> CT* 00
o> <n a\ as
•n
H 0\
P
*H •A rt H •*
o rH i-H «* rH
r» CO
•W n
U P- ro >i >1
•H 1-1 1-1 Ol Ol
0 &; 0) 0J <H u ufl)CT>00 Vl H
rH 01 0) i2 t-i cr> id fl) •p
A ja •H
A A g ri 3 J
CD 8M 0 O >i 0) O 0 0) >i 5-1 O r> SH
•P +J <-t
3 M c 4O-> -P0 <D
3
o .H >i ja .P
3 id 0) o
r-
o> 0
Q 0 oo o
O s
*"3 h) o o Q *3 S fa O rH -P
3
<:
o
•H
4-1
. -a id 4-1
to idc
-^ •H
M id
•rl 0) u
to c
>i 0
4->
•o
•-H -rl
id 73
g 0) c
id 4-i 4->
C id Tl CO id
• id 4J •
0) id 0)
-—. 0) C «—1.
4-1 4-1 co
Cn Q) -a
r-< MH 3 TJ
s c
0 3 0 C O
•H c 5;
0) -H •-H O 0) .C
id
.* •r| X ) 0
id CO Cl)
•P
O
g
0)
s: g 4->
4-1 •H •rl
•p • r-{ ^- IQ
«
• id •
u • Ol
u) 3 0I) fl)
u en to C 1
X
ai
ft CO
S rH 1
_ c d
73 0) ft C SH •P
c rH
•A O T) O id O SH CO 0 3 CO
w 4-> 0
to •P c
•H O
» •r|
CO c O -rl J3
4J
J3 4J •rl to
4J (0 4-4 CO CO
id
•H cd
i i-H u c
<u
-u £4->
3 -H
XI -P id >1
-o ai
U 4J o> g 0) C0O) 0SH)
ai 0
o
•W 3 •rl 4-> id id aci • > -C ft
SH Q) H JQ 1H •H TJ g SH CO 73 •rl 4-> u ft c
4-1
O g 4->
^-* co SH
-H
4J
U
0) •H
73c
id
4J e U CO cn g SH
CO 0) id in c 0 0)
3
T3 (0 to TJ CO
•W 4-1 id 4J 4-> id
g 10 CO 0
g Tl 0) 0) 0 4i-d1
0) •rl c SH SH
o
0) 01 •rl id ~ >H >
•rl u
id ft 4-1 H 2
(D rH rH 0) TJ TJ r-{ 0) 4J g CO id s CO
N id ft >1 <rl to ft CO O
(fl a A g •-1 fl) 0 •P 0 (0 to *~. 0 0) X SH
fl) •r|
73
id g
id
id CO N
CO to CO •H to ai u -a •H 0) > id 0
!H Tl 4-1 MH •rl •rl ft 0
+J 0) CO MH c id C Oi OI 01 C 0 to U «
tH <u rH O 0) id g Tl fl) CO 4J 4-4
O 0)
0 O •rl 4-1 •O ,* 0 •-t 4-1 0 c
w rH 1
4J •rl 0 3 c SH0)
0 •rl
4J O •rl c O 0c •H ft -0)o 4J id
0)
4J I c
••H
c
0 U -H c
0 •rl 0 •r|
id -u •H
4J 4-1 Ol 1H 4J rH
id <d n> id
e
e >i-r<
•H
U g
!H 1H
rH •o si
to
Tl g 0 4J g
0) 0)
•c
rl
SH 0)
id O •c
SH •c
rl
0 i
rl c
fl)
d s
u fl)
X
>w
0
0 •p 1-1 1H 0) Qi 4-1 •a •H
id id CO •rl 4J
3
g
il
id
MH 4H 3 s 1 73
O 4-1 u C 3
SH
4J
•P •p ft SH 0) id 3 CO c •rl Q) c
0 to 0) H 3 CO C
id 0) a
id c 0 O1 id
X c 0 (X •r| 4-> •rl id
to a>
SH 1H O -H ai •-H rA Id -rl CQ O 0) O B fl) 0)
M U fa •a (J Ol Dc u s Q CO •rl e g
0 04 a. X rH
•p
V4
id
ft
0)
Q
S
•
fa Q
X)
ooioniorÔfli
a in in vo r^
O O H H H r K S O )
o o o o iHrHrHrHrHrHrHCN
H H H rH rH H H U H h f H H H
H M H H CO
•8 fl!
En
56
ELEVATION
PLAN
FIG.3.1 - Repeated dynamic load test - View of test

structure and pavement
57
WHEEL
BIN
FIXED
X* RELATIVE MOVEMENT OF BIN TO WHEEL
FIG.3.2 - Repeated dynamic load test - Principle of

longitudinal movement due to rotation
53
N
TEST • f
FRAME
WHEEL
STOCKPILE OF
MATERIALS • -w •
J^.- — J — REMOVABLE BEAM
BIN PUSHED IN
TROLLEY
SPRINGS "
L_S TONNE'SKATE' U OFF)
ELEVATION
FIG.3.3 - Repeated dynamic load test - Initial setup

arrangement
59
FIG.3.4 - Repeated dynamic load test - The fatigue

control panel during operation
60
FIG.3.5 - DIAGRAM SHOWING GRID OF LOCATIONS AT WHICH

DEFLECTION MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN IN RELATION
TO THE WHEEL AND THE PAVEMENT BOUNDARIES
TRANSVERSE DIRECTION
o
o
o
H E
En
U F
W
S H G
o XT
Q AXLE
o <: H
M
Q I
EH
H h f g
O
o rH W
o rH w
o IS
r-
BOUNDARY OF PAVEMENT
h 550 900mm 550
NOTES:
1. Dimensions of pavement 2000 x 2000mm
2. Scale is 1:20
61
FIG.3.6 - Repeated dynamic load test - Illustration of

deflection beam in use
62
Chapter IV
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION USING RICE HUSK ASH
This chapter is concerned with the experimental

investigation used to determine the behaviour of rice husk
ash in relation to its use in soil stabilisation. It sets
the objectives of this part of the investigation, describes
the materials used and details the programme and procedures
for testing. The results of all the various tests used are
presented.
4.2 Objectives of Investigation
The main aims of the investigation reported in this chapter

are as follows:
a) To study the influence of rice husk ash as a single

additive on various properties of a range of soils.
b) To examine the effects of lime-rice husk ash and

cement-rice husk ash additives on the properties of
soils.
63
4.3 Materials Used
4.3.1 Rice Husk Ash
The rice husk ash used was a light-weight, fine black ash
produced in Griffith, NSW, and brought in 200 litre drums to
the Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, University
of Wollongong.
The specific gravity of the sample was 1.79 and the grading
was:
% passing 2.36mm 100
% passing 425 pirn 60
% passing 75 pm 17
% passing 13.5 /jm 12.5
The chemical analysis of the sample was:
Si02 58.2%
A1203 0.10%
Fe203 1.09%
CaO 0.37%
MgO 0.21%
Na20 0.21%
K20 1.37%
Loss on ignition 34.2%
64
4.3.2 Cement
'Kandos' commercial grade, ordinary portland cement was

used, conforming to Australian standards (AS1315) as given
below:
Loss on ignition Max 3.1%

Insoluble residue Max 2.1%
Sulphuric anhydride (SO3) Max 3.1%
Magnesia Max 4.2%
Time for initial set •£ 1 hour
Time for final set $> 12 hours
4.3.3 Lime
'Blue Circle' commercial grade, hydrated lime was used,

conforming to Australian standards (AS1672) as given below:
Ca(OH)2 > 70%

MgO < 4.5%
C02 < 5%
Particles Fineness, passing 250/jm <$ 98%
4.3.4 Soils
Four soils were selected to be stablised and tested in this

investigation.
65
Soil A was a crushed rock conglomerate from a deposit known

as Yeoman's Pit in the Shire of Guyra, NSW.
Soil B was taken from a sandy silt pit at Stone Henge in the
Shire of Severn, NSW.
Soil C was an organic clay taken from a construction site in

the town of Glen Innes, NSW. Samples of these three soils
were taken in plastic bags and kept in the laboratory of
the Divisional Office of Road and Traffic Authority at Glen
Innes to be used as and when required.
Soil D was a marginal roadbase material consisting of

igneous dolerite crushed rock. This material was quarried
at Prospect in the western suburbs of Sydney, NSW. Four
cubic metres of this material was obtained from local
suppliers by the Department of Civil and Mining Engineering,
University of Wollongong and used in the repeated dynamic
load tests.
The properties of the four soils (A,B,C and D) are shown in

Table 4.1.
4.4 Testing Regime
RHA varies according to the environment in which the

combustion of the rice husks takes place. The variations
66
are reflected in the chemical composition of the RHA with

particular emphasis on carbon content. The pozzolanic
reaction between lime, either added directly or from the
hydration reaction of cement and RHA is governed largely by
the carbon content of the ash. It was considered that
initial testing be carried out to determine RHA reactivity
and the optimum ratio of lime or cement to RHA.
The second step in the programme was then to treat the three
soils A, B and C with lime-RHA and cement-RHA additives at
their optimum and practical ratios. Soils A, B and C were
also teated with cement, lime and RHA single additives.
The treated soils were then subjected to the various

laboratory tests described in Chapter 3.
The final stage in the programme was to treat soil D with

various additives in the light of best results, derived from
the second step in the programme and subject this treated
soil to the repeated dynamic load test described in
Chapter 3.
4.5 Initial tests - optimum ratios of lime to RHA and

cement to RHA
The use of an unconfined compressive strength test on

lime-RHA and cement-RHA paste specimens was selected as a
suitable indicator of the RHA reactivity.
67
4.5.1 Preparation, curing and testing of specimens
Dry mixtures of lime-RHA and cement-RHA were prepared, mixed

and proportioned by weight. The ratio of lime to RHA and
cement to RHA was in the range of 1:1 to 1:10. Two series
of compacted specimens were then prepared at optimum
moisture content using standard Proctor equipment.
All specimens were wrapped in paper, aluminium foil and

contained in plastic bags at constant room temperature
(22°C) during the curing periods. At the conclusion of the
various curing periods (28 days and 90 days) the specimens
were air dried for approximately 30 minutes and subjected to
the unconfined compressive strength test.
The results of the UCS tests on the lime-RHA paste specimens

are presented in Figure 4.1, whereas those of cement-RHA
paste specimens are presented in Figure 4.2.
The results presented in Figure 4.1 for both curing periods

(28 days and 90 days) indicate that the optimum ratio of
lime to RHA is the ratio 1:2.
Figure 4.2 shows that there is no optimum ratio of cement to

RHA. This is indicative that the strength of cement-RHA
pastes is dominated by the hydration reactions of cement
rather than by the pozzolanic reaction between the released
lime and the RHA.
68
4.6 Treatment of soils with various additives
Various additives, namely RHA, lime, lime-RHA, cement,

cement-RHA, were used individually to stabilise the soils
(A,B & C). The various quantities of additives were 2%, 4%,
6% and 8% of the total weight of the dry soil and additive.
The ratio of lime to RHA for each quantity of additive was
varied as 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4. Although the ratio 1:2 was
found to be the optimum ratio of lime to RHA (section 4.5),
the values 1:1, 1:3 and 1:4 were considered to be within the
practical range.
The initial testing indicated that no optimum ratio of

cement to RHA occurs (section 4.5). In the test series the
values 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4 were considered to be within
the practical range and were used for comparison.
4.7 Testing of stabilised soils
4.7.1 Compaction characteristics
The optimum moisture contents (OMC) and the maximum dry

densities (MDD) of soils stabilised with various additives
and various quantities (section 4.6) were determined by
carrying out the standard compaction test T110 (56). The
test results are presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
69
4.7.2 Unconfined compressive strength
Three series of specimens of soils stabilised with the

various additives and various quantities were prepared and
compacted to their maximum dry densities at their OMC using
the standard compaction test equipment. All specimens were
wrapped in paper, aluminium foil and contained in plastic
bags at constant room temperature (22°C) during the curing
periods.
At the conclusion of the various curing periods (7 days, 28

days, 90 days) the specimens were air dried for 30 minutes
and then subjected to unconfined compression. The results
are shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. The 90 days test results
for the treated soil A, B and C are also shown in Figures
4.3 and 4.4.
4.7.3 Linear shrinkage
The linear shrinkage of all mixes was determined using

materials collected from unconfined compressive strength
crushed specimens which had been previously cured for 7 and
28 days. The materials were ground using a porcelain mortar
and rubber pestle to produce samples passing a 2.36mm sieve.
The prepared samples were air dried and sufficient water was
then added to the samples to bring them to a consistancy
70
similar to the liquid limit. Shrinkage samples were

prepared using linear shrinkage moulds of 250mm length.
After air drying and subsequent oven drying, values of

linear shrinkage were determined. The results are presented
in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, results of the 28 days curing period
are shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6.
4.7.4 Atterberg limits
Plastic limit, liquid limit and plasticity index of all

mixes were determined using materials collected from
unconfined compressive strength crushed specimens which had
been previously cured for 7 and 28 days. Individual pieces
of each specimen were collected and ground to powder
fraction using a porcelain mortar and rubber pestle. All
prepared fractions were then air dried and subjected to
testing.
The Atterberg limits of the various treatments after the

curing periods of 7 days and 28 days are given in Tables 4.6
and 4.7. The results of the plasticity index of the 28 days
curing period also are given in Figures 4.7 and 4.8.
71
4.7.5 Effect of delay in compaction on the strength of

stabilised soils.
It was decided that limited testing of some of the soil

mixes would be sufficient for determining the general trend
of the effect of delay in compaction on the strength of the
stabilised soils. Samples of dry soil A were mixed with
cement and cement-RHA additives. The ratio of cement to RHA
was varied as 1:1 and 1:4, whereas the quantity of additives
used in each case was 8% of the total dry weight of the
treated soil.
Samples of dry soil C also were mixed with lime and lime-RHA
additives. The ratio of lime to RHA was varied as 1:1 and
1:3, whereas the quantity of additives used in each case was
8% of the total dry weight of the treated soil.
Water was added and every mix was put in a covered metal
container and maintained at its OMC during the delay
periods. At the conclusion of the various delay periods (2
hours, 4 hours, 6 hours and 24 hours) the various mixtures
were immediately compacted using the standard compaction
test equipment.
The compacted specimens were then wrapped in paper,

aluminium foil and contained in plastic bags at constant
72
room temperature (22°C) for 90 days. At the conclusion of

the 90 days curing period the specimens were subjected to
unconfined compression. The strength of these specimens is
given in Tables 4.8 and 4.9. The losses in strength due to
delays in compaction, expressed as percentage of strength of
undelayed compaction specimens, also are given in Tables 4.8
and 4.9 and shown in Figures 4.9 and 4.10.
4.7.6 Effect of various additives on the shear strength

parameters of soils
As discussed in section 3.4.3, the undrained triaxial

compression test was carried out on selected stabilised
mixes to determine whether or not the increase in UCS of
stabilised mixes was influenced by an increase in cohesion,
angle of internal friction or both.
Samples of dry soil B were mixed with cement and cement-RHA

additives. The ratio of cement to RHA was varied as 1:2 and
1:4. The quantities of additives in each case were 4% and
8% of total dry weight of the treated soil.
Samples of dry soil C also were mixed with lime and lime-RHA
additives. The ratio of lime to RHA was varied as 1:1 and
1:3. The quantities in each case were 4% and 8% of the
total dry weight of the treated soil.
73
Water was added and every mix was compacted at its OMC using
standard compaction test equipment. A thin walled steel
pipe was driven into the compacted mixes to collect two
cylindrical specimens, 50mm in diameter, from each compacted
mix. The specimens were extruded from the pipe by pushing
them with a manual jack extruder. The specimens were then
trimmed to size (50mm dia x 100mm) by cutting with a sharp
edge spatula.
All prepared specimens were wrapped in paper, aluminium foil

and put in pastic bags at constant room temperature (22°C)
during the curing periods. At the conclusion of the various
curing periods (7 and 28 days) the specimens were subjected
to the unconsolidated, undrained test in accordance with
Australian Standards test method AS1289.F4.1.
Data obtained from the tests were used to plot a Mohr's

stress circle using the cell pressure cr3 and the
corresponding major principal stress a\ at specimen failure.
By plotting two Mohr's circles using test data based on
different initial cell pressure a3 for each test and on two
identical specimens of every mix, an approximate tangent to
the circles was established. The slope of this tangent was
taken as angle of internal friction 0, of the mix, and the
intercept of the tangent on the Y axis was taken as the
cohesion C in Coulomb's equation ( T = C + crn tan 0) . The
values of 0 and C for the various mixes are given in Tables
4.10 and 4.11.
74
4.7.7 Effect of various additives on the CBR value of

soils
As discussed in section 3.4.4, there are limitations to the

use of CBR tests in the context of stabilised materials.
However, application of the CBR test in this study was
limited to some selected mixes. Its main role was to
determine the general trend of the effect of various
additives on the CBR property of soils and to confirm
results derived from the UCS test.
Dry samples of soil A, B and C were mixed with RHA, lime-RHA

and cement-RHA additives. The ratio of lime to RHA and
cement to RHA was varied as 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3. The
quantities of additives in each case were 4% and 8% of the
total dry weight of treated soil. Cement and lime, at the
rates of 2% and 4% of total dry weight of treated soil, also
were used for comparison.
Water was added and all mixes were compacted at their OMC in
accordance with the standard procedures of the CBR test with
the exception of using a special split CBR mould to
facilitate specimen extraction for the purpose of curing.
The split mould was opened and the specimens were taken out,
wrapped in paper, aluminium foil and put in plastic bags at
constant room temperature (22°C) during the curing periods.
75
At the conclusion of the various curing periods (28 days and

90 days) the specimens were put again in the split mould,
the surcharge weights were added and the specimens were
subjected to the standard piston penetration at a uniform
rate of 1.27mm per minute.
The CBR values of the various mixes for the various curing
times are presented in Tables 4.12 to 4.14, and the results
of the 90 days curing period are shown in Figures 4.11 to
4.13.
4.7.8 Repeated dynamic load test
This test was conducted on six pavements. Soil D stabilised

with various additives formed the base course of five
pavements, whereas the untreated soil D formed the control
base course of the sixth pavement. The various additives
used to stabilise soil D were cement, lime, RHA, cement-RHA
and lime-RHA mixtures. The ratio of cement to RHA and lime
to RHA used was 1:1, whereas the quantity of additives used
was 1.5%, 2%, 8%, 3% and 3% respectively and expressed as
percentage of the total dry weight of the treated soil.
The sub-base of all of the six pavements consisted of beach

sand from the Illawarra region. Particle size distribution
of sand was as follows:
76
% passing 1.18mm sieve 100

% passing 600 ym sieve 90
% passing 425 pm. sieve 74
% passing 300 pm sieve 49
The sand sub-base was placed, by shovel, in the bin in its

natural state (moisture content 3%) in six, approximately
100mm thick layers and compacted. A walk-behind vibratory
plate compactor was used to compact the layers. The
compaction was carried out until the layer showed no further
movement under the compacting equipment. The top of the
surface was then levelled and screeded with an appropriate
implement. A protective section of stiff rubber conveyor
belting (900mm x 600mm x 20mm thick) was put in the centre
of the sub-base surface. This material was selected because
it is compressible, elastic and maintains its properties in
all tests. Thus the results from the tests can be related
to the various stabilised pavement bases.
The various stabilised base materials were mixed and

prepared at their OMCs and then placed, by shovel, in two
layers of 100mm thickness. Compaction of the two layers was
carried out by using a walk-behind vibratory plate
compactor.
77
Once the material containment bin had been filled and the
pavement constructed, the next step was to assemble and
connect all the components to allow the test to proceed.
Prior to the bin being pushed into place under the wheel,
the springs were tied to the bin (see Figure 3.3). With the
aid of a block and tackle and some manpower the bin was
rolled into position by means of the 'skate' trolley. The
trolley was then removed by raising the bin clear of the
trolley. This was done as follows:
Two hydraulic hand operated jacks were placed at position A

and B beneath channels supporting the bin (see Figure 4.20).
They were then jacked up simultaneously causing the eastern
side of the bin to rise and to rotate about axis E of the
trolley. Continued lifting of the bin resulted in the semi-
circular bearer of the hinge joint (line C-D) resting on the
test frame. Further raising caused rotation about line C-D.
The raising continued until the tolley was completely free
and could be removed. The pressure on the jacks was then
released slowly allowing the springs on the eastern side to
be positioned over the bearing plates on the testing frame.
Once the springs were located, the jacks were completely
released.
After the pavement had been constructed and the test rig
assembled, zero readings were taken at the grid points at
78
which the deflections were to be measured. The pavement was

covered by a damp cloth and cured for 7 days. At the
conclusion of the curing period the pavement was subjected
to 50,000 42kN load applications during which deflection
readings were taken at intervals.
The basic criteria for the evaluation of the stabilised road

bases was the relationship between the load and deformation.
In total, 840 readings were taken of the deflections of
various pavements at various intervals during the tests and
at various positions on the pavements. The results of the
deflections are given in a tabular form in Tables 4.15 to
4.20. Figures 4.14. to 4.19 show the deflections of
pavements after the various intervals at the cross sections
of the maximum deflections.
It was decided that limited testing of some of the soil

mixes would be sufficient for determining the morphology of
the RHA pozzolanic reaction products in soil stabilisation.
Samples of untreated Soil A, untreated Soil C, lime-RHA
treated Soil A and lime-RHA treated Soil C were compacted at
their OMC using the standard compaction test equipment. The
ratio of lime to RHA was 1:1 and the quantity of lime-RHA
additive was 8% of the total dry weight of the treated soil.
79
Each sample of the treated soils was then wrapped in wet

newspaper, sealed with aluminium foil, put in an oven bag
and stored for 7 days in an oven at a maintained temperature
of 65°c. At the conclusion of this accelerated curing, all
samples were fractured and small specimens of the fractured
materials were taken for testing. The specimens were of the
order 8-12mm maximum dimensions and had a length to width
ratio in the general range of 1:1 to 2:1. The thickness was
in the range 4-6mm.
All specimens were oven dried at 110°c for 24 hours and then
glued to aluminium stubs with organic adhesive. The
specimens were coated with a thin layer of gold alloy to
provide an electrically conducting surface. The surface
from the gold layer to the stub was also painted with silver
to ensure a good electrical contact with the stub.
All specimens were then examined in a Hitachi S450 Scanning

Electron Microscope and micrographs were obtained. These
micrographs are shown in Figures 4.21 to 4.24.
4.7.10 Powder X-ray Diffraction Analysis.
X-ray diffraction patterns were determined for all soil

mixes used in the preceding scanning electron microscopy
examination.
80
Samples of the fractured material of the treated and

untreated Soils A and C were pulverised with a mortar and
pestle to produce a powdered material suitable for placing
in aluminium mounts ready for powder X-ray diffractometry
(Cukoc Source). Figures 4.25 to 4.28 show the X-ray
diffraction patterns determined for the untreated Soil A,
untreated Soil C, lime-RHA treated Soil A and lime-RHA
treated Soil C.
81
Table 4.1 Properties of Soils
Properties Soil A Soil B Soil C Soil D
1. Grading % passing
19mm 100 100 100 100
9 .5mm 73 100 100 88
4.75mm 36 100 100 69
2.36mm 22 85 100 43
425pm 15 43 85 16
75pm 8 24 71 4
13.5pm 4 17 53
2. Atterberg limits
L.L 33 32 100 22
P.L 24 24 45 16
P.I 9 8 55 6
3. Volume stability
Linear shrinkage % 3.5 2.75 17 -
4. Compaction
characteristics
OMC % 13 15 22 9.00
Max dry density g/cm3 1.83 1.82 1.32 2.01
5. Unconfined compressive
strength (MPa) .33 .26 .21 -
6. Unified soil
classification GMu SMu OH GW
7. Description Gravel/sand Sand Organic Well graded

silt mix silt mix clay gravel/sand
mix
8. Colour White Reddish Black Blue

brown
9. Specific gravity 2.93 2.86 2.83

82
T A B L E 4.2a Compaction characteristics of lime, R H A and Lime-RHA

stabilised soil A
ADDITIVE (%) OMC MDD

(%) gnn/cm3
LIME
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.50 1.82
4% 16.00 1.77
16.50 1.74
6%
17.00 1.73
8%
LIME:RHA 1:1
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 15.00 1.82
4% 16.00 1.77
16.50 1.74
6% 17.00 1.73
8%
LIME:RHA 1:2
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 15.00 1.82
4% 16.00 1.76
16.50 1.73
6% 17.00 1.73
8%
LIME.RHA 1:3
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 15.00 1.81
4% 16.00 1.76
16.50 1.73
6% 17.50 1.72
8%
LIME:RHA 1:4
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 15.00 1.81
16.00 1.75
4%
17.00 1.72
6% 18.50 1.69
8%
RHA
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 15.00 1.79
16.50 1.74
4% 1.70
17.50
6% 18.50 1.66
8%
83
T A B L E 4.2b Compaction characteristics of lime, R H A and lime-RHA

stabilised soil B

(%) gm/cm 3
LIME
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.00 1.81
4% 16.50 1.78
17.00 1.75
6%
18.00 1.73
8%
LIME:RHA 1:1
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.00 1.80
4% 16.00 1.77
17.00 1.73
6%
18.50 1.70
8%
LIME:RHA 1:2
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.00 1.79
4% 16.00 1.76
17.00 1.72
6%
19.00 1.66
8%
LIME:RHA 1:3
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.50 1.78
4% 16.50 1.76
17.50 1.70
6% 1.66
19.00
8%
LIME:RHA 1:4
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.50 1.78
4% 16.50 1.76
18.00 1.70
6% 19.00 1.65
8%
RHA
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.00 1.78
16.00 1.76
4%
17.00 1.70
6% 19.00 1.65
8%
84
T A B L E 4.2c Compaction characteristics of lime, R H A and lime-RHA

stabilised soil C

(%) gm/cm3
LIME
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 23.00 1.32
4% 24.00 1.31
6% 24.50 1.30
8% 25.00 1.29
LIME:RHA 1:1
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 23.00 1.30
4% 24.00 1.26
6% 25.00 1.24
8% 26.00 1.21
LIME:RHA 1:2
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 23.00 1.29
4% 24.50 1.27
6% 26.00 1.23
8% 26.50 1.23
LIME:RHA 1:3
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 24.00 1.26
4% 25.00 1.25
6% 26.00 1.23
8% 27.00 1.22
RHA
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 24.00 1.28
4% 25.00 1.24
6% 26.00 1.22
8% 26.00 1.21
85
T A B L E 4.3a Compaction characteristics of cement, R H A and cement-

R H A stabilised soil A

(%) gin/cm3
CEMENT
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.00 1.85
4% 14.50 1.85
15.50 1.85
6% 16.50 1.85
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:2
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.00 1.83
4% 14.50 1.81
15.50 1.75
6% 16.50 1.76
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:3
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.00 1.83
4% 14.50 1.80
16.00 1.78
6% 17.00 1.73
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:4
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.50 1.81
4% 15.00 1.78
16.00 1.76
6% 17.50 1.72
8%
RHA
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 15.00 1.79
16.50 1.74
4%
17.50 1.70
6% 18.50 1.66
8%
86
T A B L E 4.3b Compaction characteristics of cement, R H A and cement-

R H A stabilised soil B

(%) gm/cm3
CEMENT
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.82
4% 16.50 1.84
17.00 1.84
6% 17.50 1.84
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:2
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.00 1.82
4% 17.00 1.78
17.50 1.73
6% 18.00 1.70
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:3
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.00 1.82
4% 17.00 1.78
17.50 1.72
6% 18.50 1.68
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:4
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.00 1.82
4% 17.00 1.76
17.50 1.71
6% 18.50 1.67
8%
RHA
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.00 1.78
16.00 1.76
4%
17.00 1.70
6% 19.00 1.65
8%
87
T A B L E 4.3c Compaction characteristics of cement, R H A and cement-

R H A stabilised soil C.

(%) gm/cm 3
CEMENT
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 23.00 1.34
4% 24.50 1.35
25.00 1.39
6% 26.00 1.40
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:1
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 24.00 1.32
4% 25.00 1.30
26.00 1.28
6% 27.00 1.26
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:2
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 24.00 1.31
4% 25.00 1.29
26.00 1.26
6% 27.00 1.25
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:3
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 24.00 1.30
4% 25.00 1.28
26.00 1.26
6% 27.00 1.24
8%
RHA
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 24.00 1.28
25.00 1.24
4%
26.00 1.22
6% 26.00 1.21
8%
88
TABLE 4.4a U C S (MPa) of lime, R H A and lime-RHA stabilised soil A
ADDITIVE (%) C U R I N G (DAYS)

7 28 90
LIME
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.43 0.55 0.69
4% 0.46 0.76 1.00
0.43 0.73 0.95
6% 0.70 0.90
0.41
8%
LIME:RHA 1:1
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.36 0.50 0.55
4% 0.63 0.68 0.92
0.61 0.73 1.00
6% 0.71 0.97
0.58
8%
LIME:RHA 1:2
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.36 0.45 0.58
4% 0.60 0.68 0.85
0.58 0.70 0.92
6% 0.55 0.68 0.89
8%
LIME:RHA 1:3
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.35 0.45 0.50
4% 0.64 0.68 0.75
0.58 0.70 0.82
6% 0.52 0.65 0.81
8%
LIME: R H A 1:4
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33

2% 0.34 0.45 0.50
0.46 0.50 0.66
4%
0.44 0.48 0.67
6% 0.44 0.46 0.65
8%
RHA
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.33 0.34 0.34
0.34 0.34 0.34
4% 0.34
0.34 0.34
6% 0.34 0.34 0.34
8%
89
TABLE 4.4b U C S (MPa) of lime, RHA and lime-RHA stabilised soil B

7 28 90
LIME
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.32 0.40 0.50
4% 0.34 0.42 0.57
0.28 0.38 0.50
6% 0.27 0.36 0.45
8%
LIME:RHA 1:1
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.30 0.38 0.45
4% 0.40 0.46 0.54
0.34 0.41 0.53
6% 0.34 0.38 0.48
8%
LIME:RHA 1:2
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.27 0.31 0.41
4% 0.36 0.43 0.52
0.33 0.39 0.52
6% 0.32 0.36 0.45
8%
LIME:RHA 1:3
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.26 0.30 0.40
4% 0.28 0.32 0.45
0.28 0.32 0.46
6% 0.27 0.30 0.38
8%
LIME:RHA 1:4
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.26 0.31 0.36
0.26 0.32 0.42
4%
0.26 0.32 0.43
6% 0.26 0.29 0.35
8%
RHA
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.24 0.24 0.24
0.24 0.24 0.24
4%
0.24 0.24 0.24
6% 0.25 0.25 0.25
8%
90
TABLE 4.4c U C S (MPa) of lime, RHA and lime-RHA stabilised soil C

7 28 90
LIME
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.25 0.30 0.33
4% 0.34 0.41 0.44
0.43 0.51 0.56
6%
0.41 0.50 0.55
8%
LIME: R H A 1:1
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21

2% 0.24 0.27 0.31
4% 0.26 0.34 0.37
0.34 0.41 0.45
6%
0.34 0.39 0.44
8%
LIME:RHA 1:2
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.23 0.25 0.27
4% 0.25 0.30 0.32
0.29 0.34 0.39
6% 0.41
0.33 0.37
8%
LIME:RHA 1:3
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.24 0.24 0.25
4% 0.24 0.26 0.29
0.26 0.30 0.33
6% 0.29 0.32 0.35
8%
RHA
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.21 0.21 0.21
4% 0.22 0.22 0.22
0.23 0.23 0.23
6% 0.23 0.23 0.23
8%
91
TABLE 4.5a U C S (MPa) of cement, RHA and cement-RHA stabilised

soil A
ADDITIVE (%) CURING (DAYS)

7 28 90
CEMENT
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 1.26 1.95 2.00
4% 1.75 2.70 3.15
2.45 3.50 4.00
6%
3.00 4.30 4.60
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:2
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.68 0.98 1.35
4% 1.00 1.65 2.27
1.40 2.10 2.53
6%
1.75 2.30 3.10
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:3
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.62 0.80 1.08
4% 0.90 1.25 1.70
1.25 1.68 2.30
6% 2.00 2.70
1.50
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:4
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.52 0.55 0.70
4% 0.70 0.85 1.10
0.57 1.10 1.42
6% 1.00 1.40 1.80
8%
RHA
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.33 0.34 0.34
4% 0.34 0.34 0.34
0.34 0.34 0.34
6% 0.34 0.34 0.34
8%
92
TABLE 4.5b U C S (MPa) of cement, R H A and cement-RHA stabilised

soil B

7 28 90
CEMENT
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.43 0.67 0.74
4% 0.62 1.02 1.15
0.90 1.50 1.70
6% 1.40 2.30 2.57
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:2
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.28 0.42 0.57
4% 0.35 0.60 0.83
0.48 0.77 1.05
6% 0.90 1.25
0.55
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:3
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.28 0.37 0.55
4% 0.32 0.51 0.75
0.45 0.69 1.00
6% 0.48 0.82 1.18
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:4
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.26 0.32 0.40
4% 0.31 0.42 0.52
0.42 0.50 0.62
6% 0.45 0.61 0.77
8%
RHA
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.24 0.24 0.24
0.24 0.24 0.24
4%
0.24 0.24 0.24
6% 0.24 0.24 0.25
8%
93
TABLE 4.5c U C S (MPa) of cement, RHA and cement-RHA stabilised

soil C

7 28 90
CEMENT
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.25 0.32 0.35
4% 0.32 0.41 0.46
0.42 0.52 0.58
6% 0.48 0.60 0.70
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:1
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.23 0.26 0.28
4% 0.25 0.29 0.37
0.30 0.35 0.43
6% 0.39 0.41 0.48
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:2
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.22 0.25 0.27
4% 0.24 0.26 0.32
0.30 0.32 0.37
6% 0.32 0.37 0.41
8%
CEMENT:RHA 1:3
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.21 0.23 0.26
0.23 0.26 0.30
4%
0.28 0.30 0.34
6% 0.26 0.32 0.37
8%
RHA
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.21 0.21 0.21
0.22 0.22 0.22
4% 0.23
0.23 0.23
6% 0.23 0.24 0.24
8%
94
u
JS o m o m tn o o o m o o o o o m o m in m in O o o o m o in in m o
u in r« in CN CN m in in r- m m in in o r- in r- r- CN r- in o m m r- m CN r» CM o
rH co rH o o o ro CN rH o o PO CN rH rH O ("0 rH rH rH O ro ro CN rn o ro ro CN CN CN
z o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o o o o
a ^ o o o o o o o in o o o o o o o o o in o o O O O O O o o in in in
OS M en m «-H o o OS VO •<»• CN rH CM t~- VO rH ro at oo vo in ^* otcsMsm as as t-» vo m
Doe
1
00 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o
CN O O O O O
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
•dP •"** co O EU EU «* CN OS VO O 1" r-l CO VO 00 *oeoHin ** ai m oo CN ^* r~ rH m o
PH CN ro ro ^* m CN ro ro ^* ^* CN ro ro ^* ^* CN CN ro co ** CN CN ro ro TJ<
o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o in o o o o o o o o o m o o o o o o o o o in in in
•dp CO 00 r—1 00 cr> noocoH ro 00 •* O I-I mcoîooi ro r*- ro ^ p** ro vo oo rn m
ro ro .* **< «* ro ro ^t* ^* m ro ro TI" in in ro ro ^* ^* ^* ro ro ^* ^* ^* ro ro ro ^* ^*
u
Xi o o o in in o o o o in o in m o in o in m o o o in in in o o in in in o
m in m CN CN in o o o t^ m CN CN o r~ in CN CN in o in CN r» r- o in CN I^ CN o
ro i-H o o o ro ro CN H o ro ro CN >-i O rO ro CN rH rH ro ro CN rH rH ro ro CN CN CN
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
M o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o o in in in
o o o o o o o o o o
OK 0>«>(*100 as oo vo •* ro cn cn i^ in ^* as as co r» m as os oo t- in cn as r> vo m
HP
DAYS CURING
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
P.L
<t O P * * 00 *d« as t-» ro r- "S* Ol VO Ol CN •5»< VO CN C- rH <* r » H i n o

CM ro ro Z Z CN ro ro TJ* •*»• CN CN ro ^< **< CN CN ro ro **• CN CN ro ro ^ CN CN ro ro rf
r~
O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o in in m
•dP fHOOO** ro CO ro 00 rH ro CO **< CO iH ro oo *s< vo r- ro in o •>* vo ro VO CO rH m
ro ro ro ^* ^* ro ro i* Tf m m rn -a- ^r in ro ro ^* ^* ^* ro ro .3* ^* ^ ro ro ro ^* ^*
dp dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
O CM **• IO 03 O CN ^< VO 00 O CN ^J" VO 00 O CN T*< VO 00 O CN T»- vo 00
dP CN ro
•• •• •1
rH iH rH
W rH
63
> a 3
H •a .. ••
H ••
M w i
Q X H a
H X
Q H hi X H
< H
95
u
A m in m o in m o o m o tn in in o o in m o in in m o in o o in o m o o
cn r> CN r~ in CN M O O M t l r~ t~ CN o in t— r- in CN r» rÔMfiin r- in CN o o
•dP CN <H O O O CN rH rH O O CN rH rH rH O CN rH rH rH O CN CN rH rH rH CN CN CN CN CN
u
rH
CURING
UNIT
o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o
o o tn o in o o in o m o in m in o O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o
00 rO rH rH O 00 "tf CN CN rH 00 ^* CO CN CN oo m <-i c o co oo vo in "tf ^« oo r- vo in T»*
s
CO
CN
o o o o o
o o o o in
o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o
o o in o in o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
•dP .* rn ro m co Ttf Ol <-i "tf vo ^fOlH^VO "tf oo o CN in "** r~ o "tf co
PH CN ro ro ro co CN CN ro CO CO CN CN CO CO CO CN CN CO CO CO CN CN CN ro ro CN CN ro ro ro
rH
o o in o o o o o o o o in tn in o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
•dP CN «* "*• VO OS CN CO Tl" VO 00 CN CO rH VO CO CN co ri" in co CN ro «* in r» CM "tf VO Ol CN
rH CO CO CO CO CO co co co ro ro co co ro ro ro co ro ro co ro CO CO CO CO CO co ro co co ^*
rl
A m in in o in in o tn o o in o in o o
m m o o o in in o o o in o o o o
W r^ CN r~ in CN r- t-» in o in r» o r» in tn M f l N O O
•dP
r- o o in o
M CN rH o o o CN rH rH rH O CN rH rH rH O CN CN CN rH rH CN CN rH rH rH CN CN CN CN CN
hH
EH o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O o o o o o
M o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o
OJZ oo in CO CN CN oo "tf •<*• r o C N CO Tf Ttf CO CO co v o in «tf T** co r» in re «tf oo r~ vo "tf "tf
MP
DAYS CURING
P.L
"tf C- <-t -tf vo T* as o ro vo •>* as o ro m "tf VO 00 rH CO <tf "tf r- o cs tf r-- o Ti" r-

CN CN CO CO CO CN CN ro ro ro CN CN ro ro co CN CN CN CO C0 CN CN CN CO CO CN CN co ro ro
r~
o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
•dP CN CN ^" VO 00 CM CO •# VO 00 CM ro TT VO CD CN CN ro in r- CN rH CN "tf VO CN Ttf VO 00 rH
M co ro ro ro ro co ro ro ro co CO ro co co co ro co co co co co co co co ro CO CO CO CO ^*
dP dp dP dp <#> dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
O CN T*1 VO CO O CN "tf VO CO O N "9* VOCO O CN "tf VO CO © CN "tf VO 00 O CN "tf V© 00
dP >-H CN ro "tf
•a •a
i-H rH
W
Ed
>
H •a ••
EH
H H H H H H
Q M rH PS
Q
<
96
rl
A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o o o o O O O O O
o o o o o o o m o o o o in o o o in in o o o in o in in
•dP
r- C N • "tf "* M n n o o i r^ in CN H o r- co ro CN o r- vo in ro CN
u
rH rH rH CO rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH t-l f-i rH H H H H r t
O
o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O
z
M EH o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
PS H
in o P» o «tf inoôr- m TJ< r-CT>co iniftfflcio tn as rn as tn
PrQHZD
U in ro rH rH tn >tf ro C N H m "tf CO CN CN m Tt> ro ro CN mtf1tf"co ro
w
tH
cl
oo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o
CN o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
•dP in r~ co cn Tj« in r- oo as os m vo r- co C M m vo vo p- r- in r» os o o
PH ^* ^" "tf rH in tf* tf* tf* tf* tf "tf "tf TT "tf tf tf-tf-Tr in in
" " " " "
o o o O o
© o © © © o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o
•o o o o •o o o o •o o o o • o o o o •o o o o
rH o • • • • © . . . . o . . . . © . . . . o • • • •
•dP o r» in as in O O CN OS VO O O "tf f» CN O H ^ O l * o vo CN as m
rH <-H r~ vo in m rH Ol 00 VO VO rn as co r - 1 ~ H0103r»t> rH OS OS CO CO
r(
o o o o m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o in m
.C © © © © r~ o o m o o o o o in in o in in o o o in o r- p-
•dP
rxNosm"* M O H O m r- in co < H o r^ m ro C N < H p~ vo in co C N
J rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH
O O O O O o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
EH O O O O O o o o o o O O O O O o o m o o O O O O O
HH
in o oo o> in m ro "tf rH P» m T»* ai rn m in in oo C N r- in oi co oi m
HOZ
P tn ro rH in «tf ro C N "H m "* co ro CN in «tf co ro C N mtf*tf"ro ro
u
z
H
PS o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o O O O O O
p o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Ur3 in r» oo as as m vo vo r- co m vo vo r- r»
•dP W M B O N inr-»oo
03 PH •tftf<"tf m m tf "tf "tf Tl" "tf ** ** 'tf *tf "tf •tf tf" tf" tf* tf* "tftf""tf in in
p»
o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
•o o o o •o o o o • o o o o • o in o o • o o o o
rH o . . . . r*> . . . . o • • • • © • • • • © . . . .
•dP O M o m r " O O CN o VO o o in OD ro O H ^ S l f o vo CN as in
J rH r- vo m m rH os oo r- vo H as oo r» f> Hmcoi^r- I-H os as co co
dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
O CN "tf VO CO © CNtf*VO CO O CN "tf VO 00 O CN "tf VO CO O CN "tf VO CO
dP rH CN ro
*—. ••
•« •a
H H rH
03
>
H
SSPS gjOS 2j
EH •• aa o•Sa
H H H B H
Q X X X
Q H H a
H H SSPS
< rH J *A j
97
o o o in o o in o in m o in o in o o o © in o o in in in o
in o m CN o in r^ o p» r~ m CN in CN o in CN P~ CM o
Lr.Shr ro rH o o o CO rH rH O O CO CN rH rH rH CO CN CN rH rH ro ro CN CN CN
28 DAYS CURING
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
%
O O O O O o o o o o
o o o o o © © o o o O O O O O © o in in in o o m in in
as in rA o O OS vo in "tf m os co r» vo m as oo p~ vo m
o o o o o
% UNIT
o o o o o o o o © © © © © o o o o o
o o o o o © in in
Ip
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
•tf ro vo Z Z tf* CO 00 CO OO tf* o in os tf*tf* as in o <H tf* P» rH m o
CM ro tf* CN ro rotf*tf< CM ro co co «tf CN CN rotf*tf* CN CN ro ro tf"
P.L
o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o in o o o © in in in
L.L
%
ro oo p* co as ro os ro p* r-i co co CN in os ro co CN r» P» ro vo oo H m
ro rotf*tf*tf" ro rotf*tf"in ro rotf<"tf tf* CO CO ^"tf"tf* CO CO COtf"tf*
o o in © m o m o m m o in o in o © m in in © o in m in o
in in r» in CN in r» o r» P» in CN in CN o in r» P» r- in m CN t~ CN o
f) H O O O CO rH rH © o CO CN rH rH rH PO CN rH rH rH CO ro CN CN CN
Lr.Shr
o © o o o ooooo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
%
© o o o © O O O O O o o o o o o © in in in
ooooo
OS VO CN O O ch vo vo m TI< as oo oo p* P* os as oo p~ P * o> as r- vo in
7 DAYS CURING
ooooo o © o o o
% UNIT
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Ip
o o o © o o o o o o o o o o ooooo o o o o o
• • • • PH tf* ro P~ CN p> "tf O tf* O CN tf* astf*o o "*P-rlinO
CN ro rotf"tf" CN CN rotf*tf* CN CN ro ro tf*
tf* © in oo z CN ro rotf""tf
CN rotf*tf"
P.L
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © in in m
L.L
%
ro vo p- co os ro os ro P** rî ro 00 CN P- OS co co CM r~ r~ CO VO CO rH m
co co tf* tf* m ro rotf*tf*"tf CO CO "tf "tf "tf CO CO CO "tf tf*
ro rotf*tf<tf*
8%
2%
6%
0%
4%
4%
0%
6%
8%
8%
2%
6%
0%
dP dP dP dP dP
4%
2%
dP dp dp dp dP
O CN "tf VO 00 O CNtf*VO 00
CEMENT:RHA 1:4
CEMENT:RHA 1:3
CEMENT:RHA 1:2
dP
03
W
> H
H Z
EH
H w
Q u
Q
<
98
01
r|
is
03 in in in in o in © © in in in in in o in in © in o in m © in © ©
•dP i~ r~ CN CN © r» m © r» r- P» P» CN © P» r» o r- in CN M f l N O O
u CN o o o o CN H H © © CN H H H O CN CN H rH rH CN CN CN CN CN
u
IS u
z o o o o o
o o o o o
o © © o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
© © © © ©
H EH o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
V 00 CO CN rH © COtf"ro CN H co in "tf ro C N co vo mtf*tf* co r» vo m tf*
PS H
e 03
POZ
is UMp
to
JJ
•H © o © © o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
CN o © © o © © o © o © © o © © o o o o o o o o o o
. . . . tXi
•dP <tf oi C N vo ro tf< r- o in co tf" 00 Ol O rH "tf P^ O tf" 00
tf" H CO VO Z CN CN CN CO CO
CU CN CN ro ro ro CN CN ro ro ro CN CN co ro ro
U CN CO CO CO
JS
W
CV O O O O O © © © © © © © O O O o o o o o o o o © ©
•p © o © © o o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o
JJ •dP CN "tf in P» o CN ro m oo oi CN CN "tf ro o CNtf*•**tf*m CNtf*VO Ol CN
< rH CO CO CO CO tf* ro ro ro ro co ro ro ro ro TJ* ro co co co co ro ro ro ro tf*
JJ
c
0
05 rl
0) •fl m o o o o m o o in o in o m in o in m o in o in o in © o
03
.5 M
•dP p» o m in o
CN H © © ©
r» m m CM o
CN H rH rH rH
r- o r» P> o
CN CN H H rH
h N O M f l
CN CN CN «H H
M f l N O O
CN CN CN CN CN
JJ
•H M
IB
EH © © © o © o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O © © © © ©
I H o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O © © © © ©
JJ co mtf*CN o co in «a< co ro mtf*tf*CN ro vo in co CN
C oz H CO P- VOtf"tf*
HP
DAYS CURING
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O
is o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o
P.L
•tf r** a\ ro co tf* p> H m oo ««* p» oi ro p» tf* 00 Ol O rH tf* r» © tf* r-

CN CN CN CO CO CN CM CO CO ro CN CN CN CO CO CN CN CN C0 CO CN CN co ro ro
p»
3! o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
•dP CN CN ro m ve CN C N in 00 Ol CN CN CO p- as CNtf*tf"tf*m CNtf*VO CO rH
«w EQ co ro ro ro ro ro co co co co co ro co co co ro ro ro co co ro ro co co tf*
0
H
4J«H dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
U 0 O CN "tf VO CO O CNtf"VO CO O CNtf*VO 00 O CNtf"VO 00 © CN "tf VO CO
ai »}
HH MH CN CO tf*
M 0 •fl ••
dP H
H
03
r- U
• •fl •fl
> EH H
H Z Z z
H H z
H
w Ed w ,
u
I§ Q X
a
u u
u
99
u © © © in o o o o o o
O O O O O O O O O O o o o o o
A
03 © o m r- m o o © in o o © o © m o o © in in © m o in in
•dp
P» CN 00 vo vo p^ ro H Ol 00 p» in CN i-H Ol M f i n n o p» vo in ro CN
u
M r-{ rH H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH H rH rH rH 1-H rH r-{ rH rH
u
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O © O O O ©
z
H EH o o o o © o o o m m o o o o o o o in © © O O O O O
PS H
in o © co oi in m vo <N oi in CN CN Ol CO intf"tf<o P~ in oi ro oi in
PQZ
U HP m CO CN H m CO CN CM rH m tf* CO CN CN intf<ro ro C M intf*tf"ro ro
03
<c
Q
00 o o o o o © o o o © o o o o o © © © © © o o o o o
CN o o o o o o o © © in o o o o o o © in © o o o o o o
rH
•dP in P- oi © © in vo oo oo © in vo co co o in vo r- oo oo m P- oi © ©
CU tf*tf*tf*m m tf*tf*tf*tf*m «tftf*tf"tf*in „ • * „ „ „ tf*tf*tf*in in
o o o © o
• o o o © • o o in © • o o o © • o o o © • o o o ©
© . • • . C5 . . . . © • • • • ^3 • • • • © . • • .
J•dp © p- oi ro os O H "tf O © © 00 © P~ ro o o CN co in © vo C N oi in
J rH p» VO VO LO H ro p» p» p» HOOOP-r- H Ol 00 P» P* H Ol Ol CO CO
rl
J3 © © in o o o o o o © o o o © o o o o o © © © in in
03 o m o M i i o m o in © © © in in o o m in in © OITIOM^
•dP
P» CN • VO VO P» CO H Ol CO r- m CN H H p» in ro H H p- vo in ro CN
U
rH H H O l H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH
© o © © © o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
EH o o o o o o o o o o o in in o m o © © in o o o o o o
H
in ro CN ro oi in P » p» co © in rotf<oi r- in in P~ H oi in oi ro oi in
Hoz
P m CO CN H m CO CN CN CN intf"CO CN CN intf*ro ro CM intf"tf"ro ro
CS
z
H
PS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
p o o o o o o o o o o o © in © in o o o o o o o o o o
Or!
•dp in vo oi o o in vo oo oi © in vo r- oo ro m vo P- ro oo in r» oi © o
03 CU tf*tf*tf*in in tf<tf*"tftf*in ^•jp •^^ ^3^ ^*r ^"*v ^•j**1 ^LJ*1 *^r ^*HI ^*J^ ^<tf*tf*in in
>H
<<
Q
*>
o o © o o
o o o o o o o o o o © o o o © o o o o o o o o o o
• o o o © • o o o © •m o o o • © © in © •o © o o
© . . . . © . . . . r^ . . . . ?—i . . . . © . . . .
(J'dP O Ol iH ro Ol o co in CN o o oi CN r~ vo © H ttf oi r~ © vo C N oi in
hH H h M O i n rlCOP-hh rH 00 CO P- P- H Ol CO P~ P- H Ol Ol CO CO
dP dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
O CNtf*VO CO O CNtf*VO CO © CNtf"VO CO © CNtf*VO CO O CN "tf VO CO
H CN ro
•a a. aa
^^
dP H rH rH
03
Cd
£ *iOS £K
> os
••
•• • * •
H EH EH EH EH
EH Z Z Z Z
H pj Cd Cd
Q
§ X X H
X P
Cd Cd Cd Cd
§ U U U
u 2
100
T A B L E 4.8 Effect of delay in compaction on the U C S of lime and

lime-RHA stabilised soil C.
Additive % Time elapsed 90 days loss in

Since mixing U C S (MPa) strength
%
8 % LIME
0.00 hours 0.55 0.00
2.00 hours 0.52 5.45
4.00 hours 0.51 7.27
6.00 hours 0.51 7.27
24.00 hours 0.48 12.72
8 % LIME: R H A 1:1
0.00 hours 0.44 0.00
2.00 hours 0.42 4.50
4.00 hours 0.41 6.80
6.00 hours 0.40 9.09
24.00 hours 0.39 12.04
8%LIME:RHA1:3
0.00 hours 0.35 0.00
2.00 hours 0.33 5.70
4.00 hours 0.32 8.57
6.00 hours 0.32 8.57
24.00 hours 0.30 14.28
101
T A B L E 4.9 Effect of delay in compaction on the U C S of cement and

cement-RHA stabilised soil A.

Since mixing U.C.S. (MPa) strength
%
8% CEMENT
0.00 hours 4.60 0.00
2.00 hours 3.22 30.00
4.00 hours 2.34 49.00
6.00 hours 1.47 68.00
8% CEMENT:RHA 1:2
0.00 hours 3.10 0.00
2.00 hours 2.82 9.00
4.00 hours 2.60 16.00
6.00 hours 2.44 21.00
8% CEMENT: RHA 1:4

0.00 hours 1.80 0.00
2.00 hours 1.65 8.00
4.00 hours 1.55 14.00
6.00 hours 1.51 16.00
102
T A B L E 4.10 Effect of lime and lime-RHA additives on the shear

strength parameters of Soil C.
ADDITIVES 7 DAYS CURING 28 D A Y S C U R I N G
0 (degrees) C (MPa) 0 (degrees) C (MPa)
Lime 0% 7.0 0.08 7.0 0.08

4% 30.0 0.16 35.5 0.17
28.0 0.23 33.0 0.22
6%
Lime: RHA 1:1
0% 7.0 0.08 7.0 0.08
4% 20.0 0.12 21.0 0.13
34.5 0.15 38.0 0.17
8%
Lime: RHA 1:3
0% 7.0 0.08 7.0 0.08
4% 13.0 0.11 15.5 0.12
21.0 0.11 25.0 0.14
8%
103
T A B L E 4.11 Effect of cement and cement-RHA additives on the shear

strength parameters of Soil B.
ADDITIVES 7 DAYS CURING 28 DAYS CURING
0 (degrees) C(MPa) 0 (degrees) C(MPa)
Cement 0% 19.0 0.08 19.0 0.08

4% 36.5 0.11 40.0 0.19
8% 44.0 0.16 46.0 0.29
Cement: RHA 1:2

0% 19.0 0.08 19.0 0.08
4% 30.0 0.12 37.0 0.20
8% 31.0 0.16 38.0 0.24
Cement: RHA 1:4
0% 19.0 0.08 19.0 0.08
4% 21.5 0.09 22.0 0.15
8% 30.0 0.16 32.0 0.17
104
T A B L E 4.12 Effect of various additives and curing time on the C B R of

stabilised soil A.
ADDITIVES (%) CBR

28 Days 90 Days
LIME 0% 55 55
4% 75 81
8% 72 76
LIME:RHA1:1
0% 55 55
4% 70 74
8% 75 80
LIME:RHA1:3
0% 55 55
4% 60 60
8% 65 68
RHA
0% 55 55
4% 50 50
8% 45 45
CEMENT
0% 55 55
2% 100 105
4% 120 116
CEMENT:RHA1:2
0% 55 55
4% 60 61
8% 102 112
CEMENT:RHA1:3
0% 55 55
4% 56 60
8% 100 110
105

stabilised soil B.
ADDITIVES (%) CBR

28 Days 90 Days
LIME 0% 30 30
4% 40 43
8% 37 41
LIME:RHA1:1
0% 30 30
4% 37 41
8% 39 42
LIME:RHA 1:3
0% 30 30
4% 32 35
8% 35 37
RHA
0% 30 30
4% 25 25
8% 25 24
CEMENT
0% 30 30
2% 108 100
106

stabilised soil C.
ADDITIVES (%) CBR

28 Days 90 Days
LIME 0% 19 19
4% 31 32
8% 55 60
LIME:RHA1:1
0% 19 19
4% 25 27
8% 32 34
LIME:RHA1:3
0% 19 19
4% 22 23
8% 24 27
RHA
0% 19 19
4% 19 19
8% 20 19
CEMENT
0% 19 19
4% 32 35
8% 51 56
107
TABLE 4.15 Permanent deformations of untreated pavement (mm)
No. of Load Row/Column a b c d e f g

Applications
50 1.15 1.00 0.90 1.15 2.20 1.80 0.25

500 0.96 4.11 4.00 4.11 4.00 1.95 0.40
5000 E 1.95 3.00 4.30 4.89 4.95 2.72 0.75
50000 -0.11 3.15 5.00 5.42 5.50 3.72 -0.25
50 0.30 1.80 1.90 2.50 2.50 2.00 -0.04

500 0.60 2.36 3.60 3.60 3.57 3.11 0.05
5000 F 0.80 3.36 5.00 5.00 4.91 4.02 0.61
50000 -0.11 4.56 6.96 6.03 6.50 5.15 0.86
50 0.41 2.00 2.85 3.00 3.12 1.60 -0.04

500 0.61 2.50 3.75 4.11 3.95 3.08 0.25
5000 G 2.30 4.20 5.80 6.74 6.70 4.50 2.01
50000 2.40 5.72 7.88 7.95 8.02 5.34 2.18
50 0.05 2.11 3.00 3.15 3.12 1.51 0.62

500 0.30 2.33 3.80 4.12 4.25 1.71 0.95
5000 H 0.50 4.30 5.65 6.90 6.97 2.91 1.01
50000 -0.80 6.80 7.90 8.00 8.95 3.80 1.35
50 0.05 1.30 1.60 1.00 1.50 1.49 0.41

500 0.80 1.65 2.00 2.33 1.91 1.63 0.43
5000 I 0.71 1.85 2.52 4.11 4.30 0.80 0.00
50000 -0.50 2.00 2.98 4.98 5.10 0.40 -0.60
108
TABLE 4.16 Permanent deformation of 2 % lime treated pavement (mm)

Applications
50 0.30 0.57 1.57 1.70 3.80 1.76 0.50

500 0.60 0.75 2.40 2.17 4.15 2.20 0.98
5000 E 1.30 1.12 4.25 2.85 4.58 2.71 1.18
50000 1.70 1.19 4.45 2.90 4.78 2.46 1.01
50 0.20 1.29 3.28 2.39 2.34 1.45 0.40

500 0.40 1.79 4.44 3.68 3.69 2.29 0.67
5000 F 0.95 2.17 5.10 3.96 3.52 2.87 0.68
50000 1.55 2.86 5.90 4.41 4.84 3.65 1.68
50 0.95 1.58 4.26 3.12 3.93 1.94 0.47

500 1.10 1.73 5.01 4.42 4.68 2.55 0.52
5000 G 1.30 2.56 5.54 4.75 5.32 2.55 0.80
50000 1.43 2.66 6.64 4.69 6.53 3.15 1.49
50 0.20 1.63 4.14 5.50 5.95 2.16 -0.15

500 0.50 2.00 5.03 6.83 6.90 3.48 0.18
5000 H 0.96 2.40 6.50 5.94 7.12 3.63 0.10
50000 1.33 2.60 7.16 6.83 7.20 3.74 0.28
50 0.35 0.35 0.58 1.31 2.40 0.45 0.23

500 0.25 0.30 1.29 3.32 3.35 0.61 0.26
5000 I 0.25 0.67 1.88 4.15 3.75 1.30 0.30
50000 0.00 0.90 1.85 3.06 4.85 1.48 0.40
109
TABLE 4.17 Permanent deformations of 3 % 1:1 lime.RHA treated pavement

(mm)

Applications
50 0.40 1.36 1.85 1.60 2.00 1.60 0.32

500 0.50 0.76 2.90 1.97 2.80 1.80 0.79
5000 E 0.90 1.00 4.30 2.00 3.44 1.90 0.99
50000 1.30 1.15 4.90 2.10 4.00 1.90 0.00
50 0.30 1.40 2.30 2.20 2.20 1.70 0.50

500 0.40 1.60 3.30 3.20 3.00 2.08 0.70
5000 F 0.80 1.80 3.92 3.79 3.70 2.67 1.00
50000 1.00 2.46 4.40 4.40 4.50 3.24 1.15
50 0.90 1.60 3.95 3.00 3.15 2.10 0.55

500 1.00 1.80 4.99 4.00 3.75 2.56 0.90
5000 G 1.31 2.40 5.80 4.40 4.60 2.90 1.11
50000 1.40 2.60 6.00 4.50 5.50 2.95 1.32
50 0.30 1.50 4.05 4.50 5.85 2.16 0.49

500 0.70 2.15 4.86 5.16 6.75 3.20 0.60
5000 H 0.90 2.30 5.60 5.50 6.45 3.42 0.72
50000 1.10 2.40 6.00 6.10 7.00 3.70 0.80
50 0.30 0.30 1.00 1.30 1.90 0.90 0.30

500 0.35 0.40 4.00 2.11 2.96 1.25 0.32
5000 I 0.40 0.60 1.90 2.89 3.48 1.50 0.15
50000 0.20 0.65 2.00 3.00 4.50 1.50 0.22
110
TABLE 4.18 Permanent deformations of 1.5% cement treated pavement

(mm)

Applications
50 -0.71 -0.36 1.50 0.61 1.51 0.19 -1.12

500 -1.15 -1.05 0.43 1.86 1.34 -1.34 0.02
5000 E 0.12 0.28 1.75 0.28 1.41 -0.36 0.11
50000 1.11 -1.31 1.63 1.74 2.19 0.97 1.42
50 -1.70 -0.79 -1.65 3.04 2.43 4.29 1.43

500 -1.00 0.10 -0.37 3.40 3.18 2.80 1.84
5000 F 0.80 0.90 1.87 4.11 3.97 1.77 1.41
50000 -1.90 -0.16 2.39 4.04 4.13 3.07 1.85
50 -0.88 -0.49 -0.45 1.26 1.27 0.91 -0.29

500 -2.15 -0.82 -0.35 1.05 0.35 0.09 0.90
5000 G -1.90 -0.80 1.05 1.34 1.56 0.18 1.00
50000 -2.15 -0.65 1.25 2.62 2.32 0.90 0.11
50 -0.68 0.31 1.29 1.56 1.30 -0.33 -0.24

500 -0.14 0.25 1.79 1.96 2.23 1.22 -0.24
5000 H 0.06 0.02 2.43 1.56 2.53 1.22 -0.21
50000 -0.91 0.25 2.68 2.00 2.96 1.52 -0.12
50 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.84 -0.69 1.11 -0.29

500 0.87 0.35 0.77 1.58 2.06 1.55 0.78
5000 I 0.10 0.60 0.64 1.05 1.47 1.92 -0.69
50000 -0.23 -0.73 0.80 1.64 0.77 1.35 -0.07
Ill
TABLE 4.19 Permanent deformations of 3 % 1:1 cement.RHA treated

pavement (mm)

Applications
50 0.10 0.33 0.69 0.75 0.25 -1.86 1.08

500 2.20 0.08 0.19 1.57 0.80 -0.40 0.00
5000 E 2.34 0.57 0.45 2.43 1.14 0.37 0.15
50000 1.64 -0.20 -0.13 1.39 1.41 -0.44 -0.23
50 1.44 1.28 1.65 2.53 2.29 1.60 3.50

500 1.00 1.45 0.75 1.56 0.01 1.11 2.50
5000 F 0.27 2.43 1.78 2.57 3.69 2.22 2.33
50000 -0.32 2.11 1.76 2.40 4.22 1.55 2.92
50 0.00 0.82 1.37 2.04 1.61 1.18 0.76

500 0.04 1.17 1.41 2.55 1.75 1.27 0.81
5000 G 0.29 1.79 1.88 2.82 1.78 1.15 1.05
50000 1.35 2.90 2.63 2.91 2.41 2.87 2.53
50 0.00 0.67 0.64 0.05 0.60 0.60 0.00

500 1.78 1.13 1.14 1.46 1.05 0.53 0.02
5000 H 2.53 1.46 1.86 1.85 1.77 0.77 0.15
50000 1.90 1.87 2.23 2.01 1.96 1.62 0.30
50 1.27 0.13 1.05 0.42 2.40 1.18 0.19

500 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.42 -0.82 1.18 -0.42
5000 I 1.28 1.00 1.27 1.53 -1.22 0.68 -0.06
50000 1.52 1.03 1.30 1.80 -0.55 0.94 0.47
112
TABLE 4.20 Permanent deformations of 8 % R H A treated pavement (mm)

Applications
50 1.10 1.20 1.50 1.80 2.00 1.70 0.41

500 1.15 3.20 3.50 3.80 3.80 2.10 0.30
5000 E -0.30 3.80 4.16 4.70 4.80 2.80 0.70
50000 0.10 3.60 4.60 5.10 5.00 3.75 -0.40
50 1.30 1.65 1.92 2.40 2.25 1.95 0.05

500 1.46 2.23 3.13 3.43 3.75 3.00 0.20
5000 F 0.44 3.41 4.79 4.89 4.85 4.30 0.55
50000 0.00 4.50 6.00 6.25 6.50 4.75 0.91
50 1.50 2.00 3.00 3.20 3.36 1.70 0.26

500 1.75 2.50 3.68 4.00 4.23 3.10 0.41
5000 G 1.90 4.00 5.50 6.55 6.75 4.20 1.98
50000 2.00 5.80 8.13 8.00 8.16 6.03 2.28
50 1.50 2.20 3.20 3.32 3.40 1.60 0.70

500 1.60 2.51 3.61 4.00 4.25 2.21 0.95
5000 H 1.20 4.00 5.91 7.02 7.00 3.00 1.21
50000 1.20 6.30 8.00 8.00 8.20 3.60 1.41
50 0.25 1.60 2.00 2.00 2.40 1.40 0.70

500 0.30 1.91 2.44 2.50 2.50 1.69 0.99
5000 1 0.40 2.15 3.06 4.17 4.36 1.90 0.00
50000 0.00 2.70 4.90 5.20 5.30 2.00 -0.40
M.-V
113
CO
LU Q
CO O
0)
SI
LU
<
(13
Z
DC
D
O
CO
Li. $
Q
O CO
CM
a
CO
o o
z
D DC
D
CD O
LL
\\d
114
CO
CO <
< D
Q_ o
O)
< 1
LU
I 2
CC z
I rr
I- O
z
LU
LU i
Q
o co
CM
II
ix. UJ
]§
o h-
O
CO z
DC
o D
O
D
CM
o
LL
115
< O
-J
8 O
CO
Q
LU LU
CO CO
_J _J
CQ
m
CO
f o
CO CO
(0
co o
LL
p N
CO SS <
«*CO X
•£
i a. i$
j
a
g0 l 1
i-
J tt
D
LL »- f
)LL n LU r" •*•
CO o < <
£ DC
UI
IE
UI
V
H £ £
I
CO
H
Z
3
<
O
Li!
>
j -J
\1
»
<
X
a
H
o «
CO
R £ £
a
< -i -I
I1
116
o
-J
5 o
CO
CO
Q Q
LU
LU
CO
CO
_J
-J
m CQ
co i£
(V)
TJ- CO
«t o
LL IX.
* o
rv.t»iO"toc^'-o
o o o o o o o
06(f)
CQ
-J
QE<W%
o
ZLU 0 CO
Q
2 -» - LU
B
LUffi CO
OwE
-J
CQ
CO
co<S JD
•*
TfZQC
LL
117
O
-J
o
CO Q
o LU
LU 22
CO CQ
_J
CQ
10 o
LO
LL
g
LL
£2 CQ
JQ
3
~ SP
z
CQ CM
Q
g
-J
DC CO
I <
Q CQ
CO
CO X QC
cr
<
LU JQ
CC CL
LU UJi
o IO
z O
- J I J CC
IO °0 Q
LL
A
118
«
M
< 7
-<
£ X
tc
•- o It
X
•
r a • - z h-
: i •fc
UI
X <
-J " CO z
UI
O \ U>X
i i /// 7 £
IU <
T
CO /
I O tt.
\ \
o ;>
-J O
{
£
i
j o !i / •
o
LU
i
i 7 '• '
U.
a-
*
< <
I
«V
CO
Q l u.
< <
w
I
*
•
o X
a.
X
e LU O «X aX
CO i- ••
CO 1- r-
/ z z
UI 111 2
z
-J > £ £ -J
111 UI
£
/ £
CD ** H 8 S CQ / 3 8
%
Z j I z 1 1
CO <
w
<s £ < »
¥W\
(
CO o -«t o
rV
•
to X
•z
CO >
<
X
/ «2S 1- £ o •z
i- H
z UIz
g / UI
£ £
UI 111
(O 3 z Z
UI UI
2 £
LL o o O UIUI
CO if/ 1 \ g <
o o
r
•* IO ffl «"J <N
W W T^
i
It)
i ...i
tO
o
O
LL
a l: i
h-CO 5?
Z-J « V*
•
wo CQ <
I
e
H
2 CO 52 _J Z
y
UI
Q £ <
w_ O UI
O
X
•X
LU CD 00
CO
O i 1
I
CM O •* I-
^ "»
*a• -a
LU o •
<
*
/
to t I IT
t- H
j)
-J / 7 Z
cc x CQ
UI UI
£ £
XOC
cc CO
UI UI
u o
LU z 11
CO.' X) / <
cc z aa. CO /
a *
l">
? <
< LU */
LU X
£
> H
L U ^ S= g /
j
Q
Z
UI
»*•
z
-JOg LL /
1
Q £
UI
U
su
111
f- <
_i h 1\
ox •Jr
iff,
_i
N
.
v\
.i
IQ O
EL* o
y>
119
o
-J
O
CO o
CO
o Q
LU LU
CO CQ
CO
_J
CQ
co I
CO o
g K
LL g
LL
liJW
CD
-'coco -J
LL >•
o < Q O
CO
^ LU oo
Q
D CQ CM
LU a
z
>-co O in
Q co
< -j
g X cc CQ
h- LU
cc
CO
LUO
<
-J
ZJOL
CL
I
CL O .Q
*
gx g
LL
LL cc
120
o o
co CO
D
a LU
LU OD
<£ -J
_J CQ
CD i^
CO
CO
03
00 o
00
g
LL g
LL
H CO
z=!
2co CQ
_J
W * en
, LU >: <§ O
CO
X CQ oo Q
LU CM LU
O o 22
<
zX O CQ
>- CO
cc cc
g z LU XI
i- CL 00
Ui
O
3
CL W g
""O z LL
cc
<
D
g CC
X
LL o
121
tO
z
LU
5 <
LU
•7 LL
O -Jo
-o QCO
%co LU Q
HI 3 CO
Q -J O
LU CQ 0)
LL X
*~£ Q
CM
O
U- Z CO O
<
00O I DC
LU h- DC
CD
LL
LU
% z*-
a.LU *= O O O O O O O O O
T- CM CO *tf 10 IO N CO
O DC
CO 1 1 1 •
D -1OC0C0 - Z DOCO
1 1 1 1
#
otfQ
'VI
122
o6
LU
co
Q D C O Q
LL. LU o°
O UJ O
CO
LU O 9 Q
LL.
LL. Z CO DC
LU O LU
< CL
X
CEO
oo i Z Ococo Z DOCO ^
Eo
123
u. >" IN
Wjj.
Q •
_i <
X
2 is
z
o
1- UI
£
in
3
rz
< , * ui 1
<rQ
r CO
LU LU >Z
<
LJJ -J r
«
OfflO i- t-
z z
h^
-3» r"~ u £ i
Hi UI
gco o o
LU X =
ODCg
LL od a.
°<o
DC X Z
OQCCQC
T- «ej \J
xf Zi
2^
"•3
< LL
DC <
cc
Z CQ Q
LU O)
S5•
UjZO
=ico w
LL UJ Q-
o
t z
h-
O QO CCD
LU
LL << mQ
LL X
CM
LU cc
T—
I O
•
o
g LU co
LL
a:
125
o
<o
wo%
^ Q
-* 0= ~
ô°>
~
LL LU
D
X O
o
Z DC
I— o LU
w CL
o CD
tr
LU CO
LL LU
li- >
LU r-
km
LLX
cc
126
H
Z
LU
LU
1 s
z
LU
Q o o LU
LU
CO
-J
a 8
g s sis
CQ {t g LU
CO
< LL b:
X <
111
cc
V"
0)
111
oc
LU h- s
E
2 o o
1(9 a>
z
CO I
rx
0
u.
uu
LL Q
DC h-
oO LU Z
LU
DC zm LU
g
g DC
co
D
I
T— LU
Sc O g
LL
rf CO
DC LU DC
O Q cc CO
X LU LU CO E
LL E
h- LU
LU
I z
O
h-LL Q
Z o<
LL
i
<
2
>-aJ
CM
o
C
LU
*s
DC o O O u.
LU DC LU UI
0.X H O a
'n
127
m
CO
HI
^z 0)
UI
ui
-i
o o
x 2 o
s
o o DC LU 8 8
I \
10 n
-•s 55 i
a- «
OO DL
£2 LU
co LL <
0 S
H £
co CO -I
p u il
§ o o o
o 8 IO IO
ID »
I *
CL
UJ CO
LL LU
<
_J
o z z
Sc g g UJ DC •3
DC Q LULU
ft
oLU a.-i
<
& S:
H
ft X a o
I- °LL lO Q 8 8
T-- UJ \ \
oo LL it
U J DC
O s.«8
LL X LU CQ
< CQ
£o :> 5 CO Sd
iu
LL LL
£o
LU
o CO
o
o
z CO D
<
£ g
DC
LU
0.
O i cc
128
<¥> ©
IM ©® •
©
'
®© ®
PLAN
PA.CXERS
3) JACKS
ELEVATION
FIG.4.20 - Repeated dynamic load test - Removal of

trolley from beneath materials containment bin
129
FIG.4.21 - Scanning electron micrograph of the fracture

surface of the untreated Soil A
130
"Wfei?
X '
-7 V *? /^*-JfeP '
i*&i*r
y
• • . * %
A
fir
••K^^^^^^^^MaM^WiaMaW^^HEiSr
[•• ->>*'^^L.'''^S&uiatiK ^-
•w'^'^Wl K i p
H ^ ^ ^ B ( > ^ . ^**^^|3

surface of the untreated Soil C
131

surface of Soil A stabilised with 8% content
of 1:1 lime-RHA additive after 7 days
accelerated curing
132

surface of Soil C stabilised with 8% content
of 1:1 lime-RHA additive after 7 days
accelerated curing
133
5 j-.i
CD
«•«
a-»
.1 i n
rvi
a-tl
ill
Ji 9-11
~ji IS
MS
i • ris
-a'SS
9-SS
• a-vs
a-H
j-n
•a-is
• a-«s
Vs — o-l»
a-»
r *'VT
0-?»
!•»
•H
0
-1
i I 0i>
W
---/ L
«•!> T3
CU
+J
(Q
fit CU
U
> • m •P
-* s-^f
•3^;ui|0T>>J — = = ^
«-S
c
»•«
3
a-t« 0
o-rr
a-is
c
s-of u
o-i: CU
Q-JZ
4J
a
• o-«
*<??$ c
o-w o
o-sz •H
+J
U
a-.z
(T3
ôn a ,ui
p>j -.. • i-ol
5-1
VW
4-1
SI
•*H
a-Ll 73
j-)l >1
<0
•rsi
(-1
i
051 X
^.u.jot^ < o-n
•rn in
o JI CN
a-b
OS
o-:
«•? l-H
«s
134
9»
«-t>
«•«
«•«
0"»1
«-o
O-:J
O-I>
»•«»
, rlS
11S
• «-.s
« • «
OSS
9>S
T «-e
a-a
o-is
*o*s OTIS
!•»
9W
0-l>
I 4-1»
fS»
u
rtt
o-tv
o-tv
o
w
9-»v T3
rK CU
au •P
<H
ris CU
o-st
M
9-V£
P
• o-«
. 9-tt c
• OMC 4-1
• q-91 0
' Til eu
• O'R p
• <ra P
a
c
0
•H
P
o
(fl
J-l
4-4
4-1
•H
T3
>i
(0
SH
CN
I
X
H
fa
wv'v
135
9'K
0»
Q-JJ
'o?5 Ê:. o-a
o-?>
m?
iw
o-n
o-»
o-n
Vs -J.: «•«>
a-B
O-JS
9 a
9-is
a-SJ
• * % o-K
O-JS
a-S
8"S
• a-JS
_./•
• o'£>
• O-lt" SH
• a-»
-a
CU CU
•1-S» CO P
•H 4-1
ryr r-H to
75i" •H
.0 <u
(0 >
• a-if P •H
^J • rgv Cfl P
•q«
•H
rfjTJ
•a-tt X)
• a-tr rH (0
•H
•rn 0 <
•a-ss W T*
p-H
a-rt 4-4 P51
4-cc < b 0
!• a «*. CVj cu
- 0 Li
a-if
^
c •g
rH cn
U r4 c
y (• oaf CU •H
P rH SH
j-a-sr P •• 3
** (fl rH CJ
• a-i: ft
1 4-1 T3
• a-H 3 0 CU
- a SI 0 p
-o-W •H P rfl
*\ -«: P C SH
:
?\\~-<°2)1rs~\-*-
ÔOÔ r a- 3
U
«+JH
CU CU
y> -ru 5-1 c CU
r 4-1 0 u
r« 4-4 u 0
•H (0
ra-S« T3 <#>
!. a-3. 00 tn
'- a-it
- «•»*,
>i
rd A <d
•
- J-SI M4J-0
r :. O - M
' 0 fl
3 o-n 1
"ay.^V ^ 1o-n r-
rO'OI
CN
- at
J3
a-t
• a 1
6
H
•i i
fa
136
T3 SH
CU 0)
W P
•H 4-1
H (fl
•H
A CU
(0 >
s
cowo — = A a-tf
a-SC
P -H
cn P
a-iC •p
a-« U T3
• a-SE •o
nw\i < r )•«
'• a-JE
r-H (0
•H
4H I
CN
- O'ZE o 4
0 CU
? -a-it 3 g
J*
- a-af SH •H s
- «-w CU •H
ooô -a-tz p SH
-a-12 p 3
z (0
or$ -a-« O
- o-sz a
- a« 4-1 T3
-a-« 3 O CU
- o-z: 0 P
- liZ •H -P (Q
: P 3 SH
C^S -M
-rn rj CU 0)
^V-UI - asi fl+JHrQ
SH 3 <U
- a-ii
4-10 0
- O'll
4-1 u o
- a-si •H
- O'W oo ra
-'5-cl >i >
Âk\*) L™ rd ,3 (fl
H P 73
* \ - a-II
• ]-fji oo
I -H
X! 15 r>
CN
/
k*
•3-3
• U
• 3? H
I- J-S fa
J.
137
Chapter V
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

CONCERNING RICE HUSK ASH
5.1 RHA as a single additive
5.1.1 Effect of RHA additive on compaction

It has been observed that when RHA was added to the soils A,
B and C the maximum dry densities decrease and the optimum
moisture contents increased (see Tables 4.2a to 4.2c). The
increase in the OMC of all treated soils was related to the
additive quantities. As a general rule, it can be said that
the addition of a quantity of RHA to a soil may lead to an
increase corresponding to about 50%-75% of that quantity, in
the OMC of that soil.
The increase in the OMC was mainly due to the additional

water required for wetting the large surface area of the
fine RHA particles. However, as the RHA is not finer than
soil C it is believed that the increase in the OMC of this
treated soil and other soils could be influenced by the
morphology of the RHA particles' surface and their great
affinity for absorbing water, a characteristic which was
subjectively noticed during the testing programme.
138
The decrease in density of all treated soils was mainly due

to the partial replacement of comparatively heavy soils with
the light weight RHA (specific gravity 1.79). The decrease
in density could also be influenced by the increase in
porosity of all compacted soils due to addition of RHA. The
porosity was calculated in accordance with the following
simple equation:
P = Po(l-E)
where: P is the apparent density of a compacted specimen.
P0 is the equivalent specific gravity of a mix

taking into account the specific gravity of all
constituents.
E is the value of porosity.
Knowing the specific gravity of soils and RHA, it was found

that by adding 8% of RHA to the soils A, B and C, the
corresponding porosities were increased by 10%, 11% and 5%
respectively. The calculations of porosities are shown in
the Appendix B.
The treatment of a soil, therefore, by RHA single additive

increases the OMC of the soil. This can be utilised in
improving the workability of wet soils, particularly if the
139
increase in OMC of the soils due to addition of RHA was more

than that which occurred by adding lime or cement to the
soils (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3). However, this improvement
in workability could be offset by the increase in porosity
which may affect the strength properties of treated soils.
5.1.2 Effect of RHA additive on the strength properties

of soils
5.1.2a Effect on UCS
It can be observed, as shown in Tables 4.5 and Figure 4.3,

that RHA as a single additive has no positive effect on the
UCS of soils. This can be explained by:
a) The partial replacement of soils with RHA does not

significantly change the grading of the soils to
satisfy the requirement of the maximum density curve as
shown in Table 5.1.
b) The minor change in grading was accompanied by an

increase in porosity of the compacted specimens.
c) The RHA used can be chemically termed silica as it

contains 58% silica. Thus it does not chemically react
with soil.
140
5.1.2b Effect on CBR
It can be observed from Tables 4.12 and Figure 4.13 that the
CBR values of treated soil A and B decreased with the
increase in the quantity of RHA additive. This could be
attributed to the increase in compressibility caused by the
increase in porosity of these treated soils (see 5.1.1).
A reduction in CBR value was not observed in the case of

treated soil C. This is consistent with the fact that the
increase in porosity in that case was minimal (ie 5%) as
shown in section 5.1.1.
The CBR values of all of the treated soils did not vary with
the variation of curing time. This implies that no
reactions have taken place between RHA and the soil during
the various curing times.
5.1.3 Effect of RHA on the Atterberg limits and linear

shrinkage of soils
Liquid limit and plastic limit of RHA treated soils

increased with the increase in additive quantity, with the
notable exception of high liquid limit soil C, where the
liquid limit decreased with the increase in additive
quantity. In general, the plasticity of all soils is
decreased by the addition of RHA. This is clearly shown by
141
the fact that plasticity index and linear shrinkage of all

RHA treated soils decreased with increasing additive
quantity. These effects are due to the partial replacement
of plastic soil particles with RHA which is an abrasive
non-plastic material.
However, the effects on the plasticity and linear shrinkage

of soils treated with RHA are less than those which occur by
the addition of lime or cement to soils.
For example, the addition of 8% RHA to soils A and B did not

result in comparable linear shrinkage and plasticity index
to that achieved by the addition of 2% lime or 2% cement.
For soil C, which is very suitable for lime treatment, the
addition of 8% RHA resulted in lower values than were
achieved by 1% lime addition. From Figures 4.5 and 4.7, it
can also be deduced that 5 - 6% of RHA is required to
achieve the same results as 1% lime addition. The use of
RHA, to modify the plasticity and linear shrinkage of soils,
therefore is not efficient.
From Table 4.6 it can be observed that liquid limit, plastic

limit, plasticity index and linear shrinkage, after a curing
period of 28 days, are similar to those after a curing
period of 7 days. This implies that no reaction has taken
place between RHA and the soils during this period. This is
consistent with the finding for strength (section 5.1.2).
142
5.1.4 Effect of RHA on the behaviour of soils under the

action of repeated dynamic load
The various measurements of deflections for both pavements

(the untreated soil D and the 8% RHA treated soil D) shown
in Tables 4.15 and 4.20 reveal that:
i) For any point on the grid, where measurements were

taken, the deflection increased with the increase
in number of load applications.
ii) As the number of total load applications to the

pavements increased, the actual deflection per
single load applied decreased, indicating that
pavement stiffness had increased (see Tables 5.2c
and 5.2d).
iii) The maximum values of deflection for the various

number of load cycles occurred close to wheel
contact area and particularly under the wheel
edge.
iv) Deflection profiles for both pavements (Figures

4.14 and 4.19) appear to be similar. The maximum
values of deflection, for both pavements, after
50,000 load cycles were also similar (ie, 8.95mm
for untreated soil and 8.20mm for 8% RHA treated
soil).
143
All of these observations indicate that the behaviour of RHA

treated pavement under the action of repeated loads does not
vary from that of untreated pavement subjected to similar
loading. This implies that RHA does not affect favourably
the stiffness or compressibility of soils and this is
consistent with the finding of strength (section 5.1.2).
5.2 Lime-RHA Additives
5.2.1 Effect of lime-RHA additives on compaction

It has been observed that when lime-RHA additives are added

to the soils A, B and C the maximum dry densities decrease
and the optimum moisture contents increase (see Tables 4.2a
to 4.2c). These effects are more pronounced as the quantity
of RHA in the additives is increased.
The increase in OMC is due to the water required for the

hydration of lime as well as to assist flocculation of the
clay clods. Additional water also is required for wetting
the large surface area of the fine RHA particles or is
absorbed by the fine particles of the RHA as described in
section 5.1.1.
The decrease in density of all treated soils is mainly due

to the partial replacement of comparatively heavy soils with
144
the light weight lime-RHA additives (specific gravity of

lime = 2.35 : specific gravity of RHA = 1.79).
As indicated above, the decrease in density is more

pronounced as the quantity of the lighter constituent (ie
RHA) in the additives is increased. The decrease in density
could also be influenced by the increase in porosity due to
the addition of lime-RHA additives. The porosity was
calculated by the method described in section 5.1.1 and
calculations are listed in Appendix B. It can be seen that
the porosities of all compacted, treated soils were
increased by the increase of the quantity of RHA in the
additives.
The increase in OMC of a soil due to treatment by lime-RHA

additives can be utilised in improving the workability of
wet soils. Any adverse effect on strength due to increase
in porosity or reduction in density is unlikely to occur due
to the expected substantial gain in strength of treated
soils because of the cementing action of lime-RHA additives.
5.2.2 Effect of Lime-RHA additives on the strength

properties of soils
It can be seen from Table 4.4 that:

145
For a given quantity of additive, as lime in the

additive increases, the strength at all ages, for
all treated soils, increases. The highest
strengths for all treated soils have been achieved
by using 1:1 lime-RHA additive. This is not
consistent with the case for lime-RHA pastes
(section 4.5.3) and implies that lime reacts more
readily with soils than with ash. A sufficient
quantity of lime (ICL or initial consumption of
lime) is required to increase the pH of soils to
about 12.4 at which reaction takes place between
lime and clay minerals and other pozzolans to
produce cementitous hydrated calcium silicate and
aluminate gels (51).
As the curing time increases, strength increases

due to the pozzolanic reaction which takes place
over a long time.
By inspecting the long term strength (ie, the 90

days curing strength) shown in Figure 4.3, it can
be observed that:
For all additives, the strength of treated soil

increases with increasing quantity of additive, up
to a peak value, then decreases with the
continuous increase of the quantity of additive
similar to that in the case of lime stabilisation.
146
iv) The quantity of additive, at which a peak value of

strength occurs, tends to increase with increasing
amount of RHA in the additive. This conforms to
the previous finding that lime reacts more readily
with soils than with RHA.
v) For all soils tested, the lime-RHA additives were

not able to achieve the highest strength achieved
by lime additive. This is more pronounced in the
case of soil C which, as a heavy clay, is very
suitable to lime stabilisation. This indicates
that lime-RHA additives are more efficient in
modifying the strength of non-cohesive soils than
they are in modifying the strength of cohesive
soils.
It can also be deduced from Figure 4.3 that the UCS of soils
treated with 4% content of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 lime-RHA
additives are equal or greater than those of 2%, 1.3% and 1%
lime stabilisation. This indicates that RHA is acting as a
pozzolan and has a role in strength development of lime-RHA
soil stabilisation. The effectiveness of this role will be
examined further in section 5.2.7.
It can be seen from Tables 4.12 to 4.14 and Figures 4.11 to
4.13 that:
147
i) For a given quantity of additive, as lime in the

additive increases, the CBR of all treated soils
increases.
ii) As the curing time increases, the CBR increases.

This is due to the pozzolanic reaction which takes
place over a long period of time.
iii) For all additives, the CBR of treated soil

increases with increasing quantity of additive and
no peak value is observed.
iv) For all soils tested, the lime-RHA additives were

not able to achieve the highest CBR achieved by
lime additive. This is more pronounced in the
case of soil C which is very suitable to lime
stabilisation.
These observations conform to the findings of UCS in section

5.2.2a with the only exception of CBR not having a peak
value at an optimum quantity of lime-RHA additive.

lime-RHA treated soils
The results presented in Table 4.8 have shown that delay in

compaction of lime and lime-RHA treated soil decreases the
148
strength of these mixes. This is more pronounced as the

time elapsed since mixing is increased. This can be
explained by the fact that delay in compaction allows some
cementitous bonds to occur and resist the applied compactive
effort. The final density achieved will, therefore, be
lower and a loss in strength will occur.
The results presented in Table 4.8 have also revealed that,

in lime and lime-RHA stabilisation, the losses in strength
due to delay in compaction were not great and almost
similar. This implies that the rate of reaction in lime-RHA
stabilisation is relatively slow and somewhat similar to
lime stabilisation. Accordingly, the time constraints in
respect of compaction, including delays caused by plant
breakdown, etc and the effects of rain are not so critical.
5.2.4 Effect of lime-RHA additives on the shear strength

parameters of soils
A perusal of Table 4.10 reveals the general increase in the

shear strength parameters (cohesion and angle of internal
friction) of the soil both with respect to the proportion
and percentage of additives. With increase in lime content,
the parameters increase for a given percentage; also for a
given proportion, as the percentage of total additive
increases, an increase in the parameters is observed in
almost all cases. It can also be seen that the cohesion and
149
angle of internal friction of soil stabilised with 8%

content of 1:1 lime-RHA additive were higher than those with
4% lime additive. This confirms the belief that RHA has a
role in strength development of lime-RHA stabilisation.
The results presented in Table 4.10 also show that shear

strength parameters increase with increasing curing time.
As the shear strength of a soil is determined by its

parameters and effective normal stress (ie T= C + cfn tan 0),
it can easily be seen that the abovementioned observations
are applicable to the effect of lime-RHA additives on the
shear strength of soils. These observations conform to the
findings with respect to CBR and UCS (sections 5.2.2a and
5.2.2b) which are, more or less, measures of the combined
effects of cohesion and internal friction of a soil.
Accordingly, it can be stated that the increase in strength
(UCS, CBR and shear strength) due to lime-RHA stabilisation
is caused by the increase in both the angle of internal
friction and cohesion of the stabilised soil.
The increase in the angle of internal friction could be

attributed to the formation of bigger size particles (ie,
aggregation of clay particles) due to the cation exchange
reactions, whereas cohesion is increased mainly by the
formation of calcium silicate gel due to the reaction of
lime with pozzolanic components of soil and RHA. This gel
150
gradually crystalises into well defined calcium silicate

hydrate micro-crystals which can interlock mechanically and
cause the development of interparticle bonds.
5.2.5 Discussion of the results of the XRD analysis of

A computer analysis for the d spacings and intensities of

the peaks on each X-ray diffraction chart was used in
identifying the compounds that existed in the various
samples examined.
The XRD chart of the untreated Soil C, as shown in Figure

4.26, exhibits peaks at d spacings of 4.26, 3.343, 2.458,
2.282, 2.128 and 1.817 A° indicating the presence of Quartz
(Si02). Peaks exhibited at d spacings of 7.18, 4.48, 3.58,
2.565 and 2.386 A° indicate the presence of Kaolinite
(Aluminium Silicate Hydroxide). The analysis also shows low
peaks at d spacings of 9.95 and 4.97 A° indicating the
presence of Muscovite (Potassium Aluminium Silicate
Hydroxide).
Similarly the XRD chart of the untreated Soil A, as shown in

Figure 4.25, exhibits peaks at d spacings of 4.26, 3.343,
2.282 and 2.128 A° indicating the presence of Quartz. The
chart also shows peaks at d spacings of 7.18, 4.48, 3.58,
2.565 and 2.502 A° indicating the presence of Kaolinite.
151
The XRD chart of the lime-RHA treated Soil A, as shown in

Figure 4.27, exhibits peaks similar to that of the control
sample of the untreated Soil A indicating the presence of
Quartz and Kaolinite. This chart has proved inconclusive in
showing the nature of lime-RHA hydration product. Possible
existence of Calcium Silicate Hydrate compounds could be
hindered by the presence of Calcite (Calcium Carbonate) in
the sample. This presence could be attributed to the effect
of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the thin dispersion of fine
material. The Calcite can be identified by the intensities
and peaks shown at d spacings of 3.86, 3.035, 2.285, 2.095,
1.913 and 1.875 A°.
Figure 4.28 shows the XRD chart of the lime-RHA treated Soil
C. It can be clearly seen that the treated soil retained
some of the details of the original structure. Quartz can
be easily identified by the peaks at d spacings of 4.26,
3.343, 2.458, 2.282, 2.128 and 1.817 A°. Kaolinite and
Muscovite disappeared and were replaced by Illite (another
form of Potassium Aluminium Silicate Hydroxide). The Illite
was identified by the peaks shown at d spacings of 10.30,
4.49 and 2.583 A° whereas Calcite was identified by the
peaks at d spacings of 3.035 and 2.285 A°.
Again, the XRD analysis has proved inconclusive in

identifying the lime-RHA hydration products. No indication
of the presence of calcium silicate hydrate and calcium
aluminate hydrate appeared.
152
5.2.6 Discussion of the results of the SEM examination of

lime-RHA stabilised Soils
The scanning electron micrograph of the fracture surface of

the untreated Soil A, as shown in Figure 4.21, has clearly
indicated that upon fracturing of the specimen, several
areas of the matrix exhibited extensive cracking. Cracks
can be seen at the top and bottom of the centre of the
micrograph. It can also be seen that the matrix exhibited
poor bonding and considerable amount of microporosity. Such
porosity can be seen in the centre and at the bottom right
of the micrograph.
Figure 4.22 shows the fracture surface topography of the

untreated Soil C (Clay). It indicates a relatively smooth
textured surface although areas with some associated
microporosity appear in the centre and the right side of the
micrograph.
In comparison, the micrograph of the fracture surface of

lime-RHA treated Soil A, as shown in Figure 4.23, indicates
that the surface of the treated soil retained some details
of the original texture. Areas with associated
microporosity can clearly be seen at the top and the bottom
of the micrograph. However, patches of amorphous
components, which are presumably the non crystalline
lime-RHA reaction products, can be seen in the micrograph.
153
Figure 4.24 indicates that such amorphous components are

also shown to cover the fracture surface of lime-RHA treated
Soil C, particularly in areas shown at the lower left corner
of the micrograph. The rope-like fibres shown in the upper
portion of the micrograph are presumably some plant growth
contamination in the soil.
It has to be noted that comparison of micromorphological

results has an apparent limitation because of the small
number of micrographs usually published and the
correspondingly small area represented by these micrographs,
which might not be representative of the structure. The
description of the features given here are, somewhat,
subjective. Consequently, speculations on the origin of
strength and other properties, when based on these
observations have limited validity.
5.2.7 Effect of lime-RHA additives on the Atterberg

It can be observed from Table 4.6 that liquid limit and

plastic limit of lime-RHA treated soils increase with the
increase of additive quantity with one notable exception
where the very high liquid limit of soil C decreases with
the increase of additive quantity. However, the plasticity
154
index and linear shrinkage of all treated soils decrease

with the increase in additive quantity. These effects are
more pronounced as the amount of lime in the lime-RHA
additive is increased.
These effects could be attributed to the combined action of

the partial replacement of plastic soil particles with the
abrasive non-plastic particles of RHA, and the ionic
exchange between lime and the clay minerals of soils.
It can also be observed from Table 4.6 that liquid limit,

plastic limit, plasticity index and linear shrinkage of
treated soil after a curing period of 28 days are almost
equal to those after a curing period of 7 days. This can be
explained by the fact that the reactions responsible for
reducing plasticity and shrinkage (ie, cation exchange)
occur during a short period of time and mostly in the first
7 days of the curing time and the RHA does not react with
soils as was discussed in sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.
A perusal of Figures 4.5 and 4.7 reveals that lime-RHA

additives could not attain the results achieved by 4% lime
additive. Hence, their use to modify the plasticity and
shrinkage of soils could be restricted to a lower level of
achievement. However, their limited role in this context
(ie, to replace 2-3% lime additive in modifying plasticity
and shrinkage of soils) could be justified by the amount of
155
lime saving they can achieve. This will be discussed in the

following section.
5.2.8 Implications of lime savings
By examining Figure 4.30 it can be deduced that the UCS of

2% lime treated soil A can be achieved by 2.72% of 1:1
lime-RHA additive (ie 1.36% lime + 1.36% RHA). The lime
saving is therefore equal to 2 - 1.36 = 0.64% and the ratio
of RHA required to lime saved is 1.36/0.64 = 2.12.
Therefore 1:1 lime-RHA additive is not economically feasible
to replace the 2% lime stabilisation unless the cost of lime
is equal to or greater than 2.12 times the cost of RHA.
Table 5.3 has been derived in a similar manner utilising

Figures 4.3, 4.5 and 4.7 and applying the same calculations
for the various values of strength, shrinkage and plasticity
for each case of soil treatment.
From Table 5.3 it can be deduced that:
i) At a low level of achievement, RHA has a

significant role in the lime-RHA soil
stabilisation.
156
ii) 1:1 lime-RHA additive tends to be the most

economical mixture of all lime-RHA additives used.
iii) Lime-RHA additives are more efficient for strength

improvement of soils than for reduction of
plasticity and shrinkage.
iv) Lime-RHA additives are more efficient in

stabilising low cohesion soils than in stabilising
clays.
v) 1:1 lime-RHA additive cannot be recommended for

improvement of soil strength unless the cost of
lime is at least three times the cost of RHA.
However, for modifying the plasticity, the cost of
lime must be at least 5-6 times the cost of RHA.
5.2.9 Effect of lime-RHA additives on the behaviour of

soils under the action of repeated dynamic load
Soils (A, B and C) treated with 3% content of 1:1 lime-RHA

additives were found to have UCS equal to or greater than
those of 2% lime treated soils, (see Figure 4.3). To find
whether or not the behaviour of these treatments under the
action of repeated dynamic loads are consistent with
157
strength findings, it was decided to compare the pavements

having 2% lime treated soil D and 3% content of 1:1 lime-RHA
treated soil D with the control pavement of untreated soil
D.
The various measurements of deflections of the three

pavements, shown in Tables 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17, reveal that:

taken, the deflection of the three pavements
increased with the increase in number of loads
applied.

pavements increases, the actual deflection per
single load applied decreases, indicating the
pavement stiffness has increased (see Table 5.2).
iii) The maximum deflections for the various number of

load cycles occurred close to wheel contact area
and particularly under the wheel edge (ie point eH
on the grid) for all cases.
iv) For any number of load cycles the deflections, at

any point on the grid, of the lime and lime-RHA
treated pavements were less than the deflection of
the untreated pavement. This indicates that lime
158
and lime-RHA additives increase the stiffness and

reduce the compressibility of soils.
The deflection of the lime-RHA treated pavement

after any number of load applications was less
than the deflection of the lime treated pavement
at most points on the grid and all points within
the wheel contact area.
The maximum deflection of the lime-RHA treated

pavement after 50,000 load cycles was less than
the maximum deflection of the lime treated
pavement (7.2mm for 2% lime treated pavement and
7.0mm for 3% content of 1:1 lime-RHA treated
pavement). This signifies the positive role of
RHA as a pozzolan in lime-RHA additive, in
improving the stiffness of a soil and reducing its
compressibility. This is consistent with the
findings of strength in sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.4
and may imply that the lengthy and costly repeated
load test is less significant than the economical
and simple UCS test as a tool for the selection
and design of lime-RHA soil stabilisation.
A perusal of Tables 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17 reveals

that, for all pavements, there were downward
movements of all points on the grid where
159
measurements were taken and the permanent

deformations of the three pavements were caused by
the densification of the pavements rather than by
any shear failure of these pavements (see also
Figures 4.14, 4.15 and 4.16).
vii) A visual assessment of the surface of all

pavements showed that no fatigue cracks or
shrinkage cracks were developed and the pavements
were intact and sound at the conclusion of the
test.
In general, the observations derived from the results of the

repeated dynamic load test have demonstrated that 1:1
lime-RHA additive is effective and efficient in improving
the behaviour of soils under the action of repeated loads.
5.3 Cement-RHA Additives
5.3.1 Effect of various cement-RHA additives on

It has been observed that when cement-RHA additives are

added to the soils A, B and C, the maximum dry densities
decrease and the optimum moisture contents increase (see
Tables 4.3a to 4.3c). These effects are more pronounced as
the quantity of RHA in the additives is increased. The
160
increase in OMC is due to the water required for the

hydration of cement as well as to assist flocculation of the
clay clods. Additional water also is required for wetting
the large surface area of the fine RHA particles or is
absorbed by the fine particles of RHA as mentioned in
sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.1.
The decrease in densities of all treated soils was mainly

due to the partial replacement of soil with lighter
cement-RHA additives (specific gravities for 1:1, 1:2, 1:3
and 1:4 proportions are 2.465, 2.24, 2.127 and 2.06
respectively). As stated above, the decrease in density is
more pronounced as the quantity of the lighter constituent
(ie RHA) in the additives is increased. The decrease in
density could also be influenced by the increase in porosity
due to the addition of cement-RHA additives which in turn
could be attributed either to the rapid development of
bonds, between particles, which resist compaction effort or
to the morphology of RHA particles itself (see section
5.1.1). The porosity of values were calculated by a method
similar to that specified in sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 and
are presented in Appendix B.
The increase in OMC of a soil due to treatment by cement-RHA

additives can be utilised in improving the workability of
wet soils. Any adverse effect on strength due to increase
in porosity or reduction in density is unlikely to occur due
161
to the expected substantial gain in strength of treated soil

because of the cementing action of cement-RHA additives.
5.3.2 Effect of cement-RHA additives on the strength

properties of soils
It can be seen from Table 4.5 that:
i) For a given quantity of additive as cement content

in the additive increases the strength at all
ages, for all treated soil, increases. This is
consistent with the case of cement-RHA pastes
(section 4.5.3) and implies that the strength
development is dominated by the hydration
reactions of cement rather than by the pozzolanic
reaction between the released lime (from the
hydration of cement) and the RHA and clay
particles of the soils.
ii) For all additives and all curing periods there is

continuous increase in strength with increasing
quantity of additive. No peak value of strength
was observed. These are consistent with the
findings above.
162
iii) As curing time increases the strength of treated

soil increases. The rates of strength development
of soils treated with cement-RHA additives are
slower than those of cement treated soils. Rates
of strength development, as ratios of 7 days
strength to 90 days strength, and 28 days strength
to 90 days strength for various treated soils are
derived from Tables 4.5 and presented in Tables
5.4 and 5.5. From these Tables, it can be easily
seen that RHA is acting somewhat as a retarder and
hence may have some favourable effect on the
workability of cement-RHA soil stabilisation.
This effect will be further examined in the later
discussion on the effect of delay in compaction on
strength of treated soils (section 5.3.3).
From Figure 4.4, it can be seen that the UCS of soils

treated with 4% content of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 cement-RHA
additives are greater than those of 2%, 1.3% and 1% cement
treatment. This indicates that RHA is acting as a pozzolan
and has a role in strength development of cement-RHA soil
stabilisation. This is consistent with the findings of
section 5.2.2a. The effectiveness of this role is
investigated in section 5.3.7.
163
It can be seen from Tables 4.12 and 4.14 that:
i) CBR increases with increasing curing time or

decrease in the amount of RHA in the additive.
ii) There is a continuous increase in CBR due to

increase in the additive quantity in almost all
cases and no peak value for CBR is observed.
Implication of cement saving cannot be derived from the CBR

values as some of these values are greater than 100 and
considered meaningless in accordance with the discussion of
the appropriateness of the test in section 3.4.4.

cement-RHA treated soils
The results presented in Table 4.9 show that a loss in

strength occurs if the compaction of cement or cement-RHA
treated soil is delayed. The loss in strength is more
pronounced as the time elapsed since mixing is increased.
The delay in compaction of cement treated soil A was so
critical that 30% to 70% of strength was lost due to 2 - 6
hours delay in compaction. However, this loss in strength
was decreased by using cement-RHA additives. The decrease
164
in the loss of strength is more pronounced as the amount of

RHA in the additive is increased.
This could be attributed to the fact that the RHA acts as a

retarder in slowing the rate of strength development of
cement-RHA treated soils (see section 5.3.2a).
The loss in strength due to delay in compaction of

cement-RHA treated soil is significantly less than that of
cement treated soil. Accordingly, the time constraints in
breakdown, etc, and the effects of rain are not so critical.
5.3.4 Effect of cement-RHA additives on the shear

strength parameters of soils
A perusal of Table 4.11 reveals that:
i) For a given additive, shear strength parameters

increase with increase in additive quantity.
ii) For a given quantity of additive, the shear

strength parameters increase with decrease in RHA
content in the additive.
iii) Shear strength parameters increase with increase

in curing time in almost all cases.
165
As the shear strength of a soil is determined by its

parameters and normal stress (ie V = C + Cntan 0) , it can
easily be seen that the above mentioned observations are
applicable to the effect of cement-RHA additives on the
shear strength of soils. These observations conform to the
findings for CBR and UCS (sections 5.3 2a and 5.3.2b) which
are, more or less, measures of the combined effects of
cohesion and internal friction of a soil. Accordingly, it
can be stated that the increase in strength (UCS, shear
strength and CBR) of cement-RHA stabilised soil is
influenced by the increase in both its internal friction and
cohesion.
As discussed in section 5.2.4, the increase in the angle of

internal friction could be attributed to the formation of
bigger size particles (ie aggregation of clay particles) due
to the cation exchange reactions of the clay minerals of the
soil with the lime released from the hydration reactions of
cement in the additive. The cohesion is increased mainly by
the formation of cementitous material (calcium silicate and
aluminate hydrates as in concrete) due to the hydration
reactions of the cement with the water in the soil. These
reactions release hydrated lime (about 30% by mass of added
cement) which can cause secondary reactions with RHA and
clay particles within the soil. The secondary reactions
produce cementitous products similar to those of the
hydration reactions of the cement. These cementitous
166
products gradually crystalise and interlock mechanically to

increase the cohesion.
5.3.5 Effect of cement-RHA additives on the Atterberg

It can be seen from Table 4.7 that liquid limit and plastic
limit of cement-RHA treated soils increase with the increase
of additive quantity with one notable exception where the
very high liquid limit of soil C decreases with the increase
of additive quantity. However, the plasticity index and
linear shrinkage of all treated soils decrease with the
increase in additive quantity. These effects are more
pronounced as the amount of RHA in the cement-RHA additive
is decreased.
These effects could be attributed to the combined action of

abrasive non-plastic particles of RHA, and the cation
exchange reactions of clay minerals in the soil with the
released lime from the hydration reactions of cement.
It can also be seen from Table 4.7 that liquid limit,

plastic limit, plasticity index and linear shrinkage of
treated soils after a curing period of 28 days are almost
equal to those after a curing period of 7 days. This
implies that the reactions responsible for reducing
167
plasticity and shrinkage (cation exchange) occur during a

short period of time and mainly in the first 7 days and that
RHA does not react with soil. All of these observations are
consistent with those of lime-RHA additives as discussed in
section 5.2.6.
Figures 4.6 and 4.8 indicate that, for modifying the

plasticity and the shrinkage of soils, the replacement of
cement with cement-RHA additives should be restricted to an
upper limit of cement additive of 4%. However, this limited
role has to be justified by the amount of cement that can be
saved.
5.3.6 Implications of cement saving
By examining Figure 4.4a it can be deduced that the UCS of

2% cement treated soil A can be achieved by 3.3% content of
1:2 cement-RHA additive (ie 1.1% cement + 2.2% RHA). The
cement saving is therefore equal to 2 - 1.1 = 0.9% and the
ratio of RHA required to cement saved is 2.2/0.9 = 2.44.
Therefore 1:2 cement-RHA additive is not economically
feasible to replace the 2% of cement in stabilising soil A
unless the cost of cement is equal to or greater than 2.44
times the cost of RHA.
Table 5.6 has been derived in a similar manner, utilising

168
for the various values of strength, plasticity and shrinkage

for each case of soil treatment.
From Table 5.6, it can be deduced that:
i) At a low level of achievement, RHA has a

significant role in cement-RHA soil stabilisation.
ii) 1:1 cement-RHA additive tends to be the most

economical mixture of all cement-RHA additives
used. The additive tends to be less economical as
the RHA content in the additive increases.
iii) Cement-RHA additives are more efficient in

improving the properties of low cohesion soils
than in improving the properties of clays.
iv) Cement-RHA additives are not efficient in

achieving the plasticity and shrinkage of 4%
cement soil stabilisation.
v) 1:2 cement-RHA additives can be recommended for

replacing 2% cement in modifying the strength of
low cohesion soils provided that the cost of
cement is equal to or greater than, 2.4 times the
cost of RHA. For higher levels of achievement
169
(ie, strength of 4% cement stabilised soil) or to

achieve the plasticity and shrinkage achieved with
2% cement stabilised soil, the cement-RHA additive
is not economical unless the cost of cement is
equal to or greater than 4 times the cost of RHA.
vi) 1:3 and 1:4 cement-RHA additives are not efficient

and cannot be recommended to be used in soil
stabilisation.
5.3.7 Effect of cement-RHA additive on the behaviour of

In section 5.3.2a, it was found that RHA acted as a pozzolan

and has a role in strength development of cement-RHA
stabilisation. To inspect the effectiveness of this role in
improving the behaviour of soils under the action of
repeated dynamic loads, it was decided to compare the
pavements containing 1.5% cement treated soil D and 3%
content of 1:1 cement-RHA treated soil D with the control
pavement of untreated soil D.
The various measurements of surface deflection for the three

pavements, shown in Tables 4.15, 4.18 and 4.19 reveal that:

taken, the surface deflection in all three
170
pavements increased with the increase in number of

load applications.

pavements increases, the actual deflection per
single load applied decreases, indicating that the
pavement stiffness had increased (see Table 5.7).
iii) The maximum deflections for the various number of

load cycles occurred close to wheel contact area
(ie point Gd and eH on the grid).
iv) For any number of load cycles, the deflections, at

any point on the grid, of the cement and
cement-RHA treated pavements were less than the
deflection of the untreated pavement. This
indicates that cement and cement-RHA additives
increase the stiffness and reduce the
compressibility of soils.
v) The maximum deflection of the 3% content of 1:1

cement-RHA treated pavement after 50,000 load
cycles was equal to 2.91mm, which was slightly
less than the maximum deflection of the 1.5%
cement treated pavement which was equal to 2.96mm.
However, the role of RHA as a pozzolan in
cement-RHA additive for improving the stiffness of
171
a soil and reducing its compressibility could be

more significant had the curing period (7 days)
and the age of the pavement at time of test (7
days) been greater.
vi) For all pavements, most of the points where

measurements were taken, exhibited a downward
movement and the permanent deformations of the
pavements were caused by the densification of the
pavements rather than by any shear failure of
these pavements. The upward movements of the
points at the edges of the grid of the cement
treated pavement, as shown in Figure 4.17, are
probably caused by an incorrect initial
measurement reading at zero load cycle at these
points.
vii) A visual assessment of the surface of all

pavements showed that no fatigue cracks or
shrinkage cracks were developed and the pavements
were intact and sound at the conclusion of the
test.
In general, the observations derived from the results of the

repeated dynamic load test have demonstrated that 1:1
cement-RHA additive is effective, but not very efficient, in
repeated loads.
172
Table 5.1 Effect of RHA additive on the grading of soils.
Sieve Grading of Grading of Grading of Grading of

Soil size untreated RHA soil + Max. density
soil % passing 8% RHA curve
% passing % passing % passing
A 19mm 100 100 100 100

95mm 73 100 75 70
4.75mm 36 100 41 50
2.36mm 22 100 28 35
425pm 15 60 19 15
75pm 8 17 9 6
13.5pm 4 12.5 5 3
B 4.75mm 100 100 100 100

2.36mm 85 100 86.2 90
42 5pm 43 60 44 30
75pm 24 17 23 13
13.5pm 17 12.5 17 5
C 2.36mm 100 100 100 100

425pm 95 60 83 42
75pm 71 17 67 18
13.5pn 53 12.5 50 8
173
Table 5.2a Deflection per load as number of load

applications increases at point eH of 3% 1:1
lime-RHA treated pavement.
Progressive Deflection due Average deflection

total of No. of loads to loads due to one load
loads applied applied applied application
(mm) (mm)
50 50 5.85 0.117
500 450 6.75-5.85 0.0018
5,000 4,500 6.45-6.75 -6.6 x 10~ 5 *
50,000 45,000 7.00-6.75 5.55 x 10" 7
Error in reading
Table 5.2b Deflection per load as number of load

applications increases at point eH of 2% lime
treated pavement.

(mm) (mm)
50 50 5.95 0.119
500 450 6.90-5.95 0.002
5,000 4,500 7.12-6.90 4.88 x IO - 5
50,000 45,000 7.20-7.12 1.77 x IO" 6
174
Table 5.2c Deflection per load as number of load

applications increases at point eH of untreated
pavement.

(mm) (mm)
50 50 3.12 0.062
500 450 4.25-3.12 0.0025
5,000 4,500 6.97-4.25 0.0006
50,000 45,000 8.95-6.97 0.0004
Table 5.2d Deflection per load as number of load

applications increases at point eH on the grid
of 8% RHA treated pavement.

(mm) (mm)
50 50 3.40 0.068
500 450 4.25-3.40 1.88 x IO - 3
5,000 4,500 7.00-4.25 6.11 x 10~ 4
50,000 45,000 8.20-7.00 2.66 x 1 0 - 5
175
Table 5.3 Ratio of RHA required to lime saved or

identical economic cost ratio of lime to RHA.
Level of LimesRHA Lime:RHA Lime:RHA Lime:RHA

Achievements Soil 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4
UCS of 2% lime A 2.12 2.15 N/A N/A

treated soil B 3.44 3.24 N/A N/A
C 3.0 6 13
UCS of 4% lime A 3 N/A N/A N/A

treated soil B N/A N/A N/A N/A
C 3 N/A N/A
Plasticity index of A 5.66 22.9 9 16

2% lime treated soil B 5.66 10 9 N/A
C N/A N/A 36
Plasticity index of A N/A N/A N/A N/A

4% lime treated soil B 3 N/A N/A N/A
C N/A N/A N/A
Linear shrinkage of 2% A 3 2.63 3 4.88

lime treated soil B 3 4.04 9 N/A
C 7 7.30 10.33
Linear shrinkage of 4% A N/A N/A N/A N/A

lime treated soil B 4 N/A N/A N/A
C N/A N/A N/A
N/A No lime saving could occur.
Additive is not tested.

176
Table 5.4 Ratios of strength at 7 days to strength at 90

days of soils treated with 8% content of
various additives.
^^.Additives Cement:RHA Cement:RHA Cement:RHA Cement:RHA

Soils^v^ Cement 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4
A .65 - .56 .55 .55

B .54 - .44 .40 .58
C .68 .81 .78 .70 -
Table 5.5 Ratios of strength at 28 days to strength at 90

days of soils treated with 8% content of
various additives.
^•v. Additives Cement:RHA Cement:RHA Cement:RHA Cement:RHA

Soils^-^. Cement 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4
A .93 - .74 .74 .74

B .89 - .72 .70 .79
C .85 .85 .90 .86 -
177
Table 5.6 Ratio of RHA required to cement saved or

identical economic cost ratio of cement to RHA.
Level of Cement:RB7 . Cement:RHA Cement:RHA Cement:RHA

Achievements Soil 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4
UCS of 2% cement A 2.44 5 N/A

treated soil
B 2.29 2.71 N/A
C 5.66 10 45
UCS of 4% cement A 4.01 N/A N/A

treated soil
B 2.81 2.65 N/A
C 7 N/A N/A
Plasticity index of A 4.04 N/A N/A

2% cement treated soil
B 4.04 9 N/A
C 4 5.55 9
Plasticity index of A N/A N/A N/A

4% cement treated soil N/A N/A N/A
B
C 15 N/A N/A
Linear shrinkage of 2% A 4.04 N/A N/A

cement treated soil N/A N/A N/A
B
C 3 4.04 6.65
Linear shrinkage of 4% A N/A N/A N/A

cement treated soil B N/A N/A N/A
C 15 N/A N/A
N/A N O cement saving could occur.
Additive is not tested.

178
Table 5.7a Deflection per load as number of load

applications increases at point eH on the
grid of untreated pavement.
Progressive No. of loads Deflection due Deflection due

total of applied to loads to one load
loads applied applied application
(mm) (mm)
50 50 3.12 0.062
500 450 4.25-3.12 0.0025
5,000 4,500 6.97-4.25 0.0006
50,000 45,000 8.95-6.97 0.0004
Table 5.7b Deflection per load as number of load

applications increases at point eH on the
grid of 1.5% cement treated soil.
Progressive No. of loads Deflection due Deflection due

total of applied to loads to one load
(mm) (mm)
50 50 1.30 0.026
500 450 2.23-1.30 0.002
5,000 4,500 2.53-2.23 6.66 x 10~ 5
50,000 45,000 2.96-2.53 9.55 x IO" 6
Table 5.7c Deflection per load as number of load

applications increases at point dG on the
grid of the 3% content of 1:1 cement-RHA
treated soil.
Progressive No. of loads Deflection due Average deflection

total of applied to loads due to one load
(mm) (mm)
50 50 2.04 0.040
500 450 2.55-2.04 0.0011
5,000 4,500 2.82-2.55 6 x IO -5
50,000 45,000 8.95-6.97 2 x 10 -6
179
Chapter VI
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS USING

GRANULATED BLAST FURNACE SLAG (GBFS)
This chapter covers the experimental research used to

determine the behaviour of granulated blast furnace slag in
relation to its use in soil stabilisation. It sets the
objectives of this research, describes the materials used
and details the programme and procedures of testing. It
also gives the results of all the various tests used.
6.2 Objectives of Research
The main objectives of the research reported in this chapter

have been as follows:
a) To examine the influence of granulated blast

furnace slag, as a single additive to soils on
various properties of a range of soils.
b) To study the effects of lime-GBFS and cement-GBFS

additives on the properties of soils.
180
6.3 Materials
6.3.1 Blast Furnace Slag (GBFS)
The slag used was a sample of granulated blast furnace slag

produced in Port Kembla, NSW, and delivered in 200 litre
drums to the Department of Civil and Mining Engineering,
University of Wollongong.
The specific gravity of the sample was 2.86 and the grading
was as follows:
% passing 2.36mm 100

% passing 425pm 50
% passing 75pm 5
% passing 13.5pm 2
The chemical analysis of the sample was as follows:
Si02 31.7%
A1203 14.0%
Fe203 2.6%
CaO 40.5%
MgO 5.80%
Na20 0.18%
k20 0.42%
Loss on ignition 1.04%
181
6.3.2 Cement
'Kandos' commercial grade, ordinary portland cement was used

conforming to Australian Standards (AS1315) as specified in
section 4.3.2.
6.3.3 Lime
'Blue Circle' commercial grade, hydrated lime was used,

conforming to Australian Standards (AS1672) as specified in
section 4.3.3.
6.3.4 Soils
Four different soils were selected for stabilisation and

tested in this investigation. These soils are designated as
soils A, B, C and D. Description and properties of these
soils have been given in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.4 and Table
4.1) .
6.4 Testing regime
GBFS varies according to the iron content of the ore, the

proportions and constituents of fluxing stone and coke fed
into the furnace and the conditions of cooling and
solidification of the liquid slag. The variations are
182
reflected in the physical and chemical composition of GBFS

with particular emphasis on the ratio of lime to silica and
the sulphur content. The relative contents of these
materials affect the pozzolanic reaction of GBFS with lime
and cement. Consequently, it was decided that testing be
carried out, in a sequence similar to that in Chapter 4
(section 4.4), to determine the:
i) Reactivity of GBFS (ie, the optimum ratio of lime

or cement to GBFS).
ii) Effect of lime, GBFS and cement individual

additives on the engineering properties of soils
A,B and C.
iii) Effect of lime-GBFS and cement-GBFS additivies at

their optimum and practical ratios on the
properties of soils A,B and C.
iv) Behaviour of GBFS, lime, cement, lime-GBFS and

cement-GBFS stabilised soil D under the action of
repeated dynamic loads.
Testing was carried out in accordance with methods described

in Chapter 3.
183
6.5 Optimum ratios of lime or cement to GBFS
The unconfined compressive strength test was selected to

investigate the degree of reactivity of GBFS in lime-GBFS
and cement-GBFS compacted specimens and specifically to
determine the optimum ratios of lime and cement to GBFS.
Dry mixtures of lime-GBFS and cement-GBFS were prepared,

proportioned by weight and mixed. The ratio of lime to GBFS
and cement to GBFS was in the range of 1:1 and 1:10. Two
series of compacted specimens were then prepared at OMC
using standard compaction test equipment. All specimens
were cured and tested in a manner similar to that specified
in Chapter 4 (section 4.5).
The results of the UCS tests on the lime-GBFS specimens are

presented in Figure 6.1, whereas those of cement-GBFS
specimens are presented in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.1 indicates that for both curing periods (28 and 90
days), the optimum ratio of lime to GBFS is the ratio 1:2
whereas Figure 6.2 shows that there is no optimum ratio of
cement to GBFS. This result indicates that the strength of
cement-GBFS specimens is dominated by the hydration
reactions of cement rather than by the pozzolanic reaction
between the released lime and the GBFS.
184
6.6 Treatment of soils with various additives
Various additives, namely GBFS, lime, lime-GBFS, cement,

cement-GBFS were used individually to stabilise the soils
(A, B & C) . The various quantities of additives were 2%,
4%, 6% and 8% of the total weight of the dry soil and
additive. The ratio of lime to GBFS for each quantity of
additive was varied as 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4. Although the
ratio 1:2 was found to be the optimum ratio of lime to GBFS
(section 6.5), the values 1:1, 1:3 and 1:4 were also
considered to be within the practical range.
The initial testing indicated that no optimum ratio of

cement to GBFS occurs (section 6.5). In the test series the
values 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4 were considered to be within
the practical range and were also used for comparison.
6.7 Testing of stabilised soils
6.7.1 Compaction characteristics
The optimum moisture contents and the maximum dry densities

of soils stabilised with various additives and various
quantities (section 6.6) were determined in accordance with
standard compaction test T120. The test results are
presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.
185
6.7.2 Unconfined compressive strength
Three series of specimens of soils stabilised with the

various additions and various quantities (section 6.6) were
prepared and compacted to their maximum dry densities at
their OMC using the standard compaction test equipment. All
specimens were then cured and tested in a manner similar to
that described in Chapter 4 (section 4.7.2).
The results of specimens cured for 7, 28 and 90 days are

shown in Tables 6.3 and 6.4, whereas the 90 days test
results are shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.4.
6.7.3 Linear shrinkage
The linear shrinkage of all mixes was determined in

accordance with test method T113 using materials collected
from unconfined compressive strength crushed specimens which
had been previously cured for 7 and 28 days. Preparation,
moulding and testing techniques were identical to those
specified in Chapter 4 (section 4.7.3).
The results of the 7 and 28 days tests are presented in

Tables 6.5 and 6.6, whereas the results of the 28 days
curing period are shown in Figures 6.5 and 6.6.
186
6.7.4 Atterberg Limits
Plastic limit, liquid limit and plasticity index of all

mixes were determined in accordance with test methods T108
and T109 using materials collected from unconfined
compressive strength crushed specimens which had been
previously cured for 7 and 28 days. Preparation, curing and
testing procedures were identical to those shown in Chapter
4 (section 4.7.4).
Liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of the

various treatments after the curing periods of 7 and 28 days
are given in Tables 6.5 and 6.6 where as the results of the
plasticity index for the 28 days curing period are given in
Figures 6.7 and 6.8.

stabilised soils
This part of the investigation was limited to some selected

mixes. Its main role was to determine the general trend of
the effect of delay in compaction on the strength of
stabilised soils. Samples of dry soil A were mixed with
cement and cement-GBFS additives. The ratio of cement to
GBFS was varied as 1:2 and 1:4, whereas the quantity of
additives used in each case was 8% of the total dry weight
of the treated soil.
187
Samples of dry soil C also were mixed with lime and

lime-GBFS additives. The ratio of lime to GBFS was varied
as 1:1 and 1:3, whereas the quantity of additives used in
each case was 8% of the total dry weight of the treated
soil.
Water was added and every mix was put in a covered metal
container and maintained at its OMC during the delay
periods. At the conclusion of the various delay periods (2
hours, 4 hours, 6 hours and 24 hours) the various mixtures
were immediately compacted using the standard compaction
test equipment. The speciemns were cured and tested in a
way similar to that described in Chapter 4 (section 4.7.5).
At the conclusion of the 90 days curing period the specimens
were subjected to unconfined compression. The strength of
these specimens is given in Tables 6.7 and 6.8. The losses
in strength due to delays in compaction, expressed as
percentage of strength of undelayed compaction specimens,
also are given in Tables 6.7 and 6.8 and shown in Figures
6.9 and 6.10.
6.7.6 Effect of various additives on the shear strength

parameters of soils
The undrained triaxial compression test was carried out on

selected stabilised mixes to determine whether or not the
188
increase in UCS of stabilised mixes was associated with an

increase in cohesion, angle of internal friction or both.
The tests were carried out in accordance with Australian
Standards Test Method AS1289.F4.1.
Samples of dry soil B were mixed with cement and cement-GBFS

additives. The ratio of cement to GBFS was varied as 1:2
and 1:3. The quantities of additives in each case were 4%
and 8% of total dry weight of the treated soil.
Samples of dry soil C were mixed with lime and lime-GBFS

additives. The ratio of lime to GBFS was varied as 1:1 and
1:3. The quantities of additives in each case were 4% and
8% of the total dry weight of the treated soil.
Water was added and every mix was compacted at its OMC using
standard compaction test equipment. Preparation, curing and
testing of samples were identical to those described in
Chapter 4 (section 4.7.6).
Values of cohesion (C) and angle of internal friction (0) of

the various mixes are given in Tables 6.9 and 6.10.
189
6.7.7 Effect of various additives on the CBR value of

soils
The CBR test in this part of the investigation was limited

to some selected mixes. Its main role was to determine the
general trend of the effect of various additives on the CBR
property of soils and to confirm results derived from the
UCS test.
Dry samples of soil A and B were mixed with GBFS, lime and
lime-GBFS additives. The ratio of lime to GBFS and cement
to GBFS was varied as 1:2 and 1:3. The quantities of
additives in each case were 4% and 8% of the total dry
weight of treated soil. Cement at the rate of 2% of total
dry weight of treated soil, also was used for comparison.
Further, dry samples of soil C were prepared and mixed with

GBFS, lime, lime-GBFS and cement-GBFS additives. The ratio
of lime to GBFS and cement to GBFS, in this case, was varied
as 1:1 and 1:2 whereas the quantities of additives in each
case were 4% and 8% of total dry weight of treated soil.
Cement at the rates of 4% and 8% of total dry weight of
treated soil, also was used for comparison.
Water was added and all mixes were compacted at their OMC in
accordance with the standard procedures of the CBR test with
the exception of using a special split CBR mould to
190
facilitate specimen extraction for the purpose of curing.

All specimens were cured and tested in a manner similar to
that described in Chapter 4 (section 4.7.7).
The CBR values of the various mixes for the various curing
times are presented in Tables 6.11 to 6.13, and the results
of the 90 days curing period are shown in Figures 6.11 to
6.13.
6.7.8 Repeated dynamic load test
The test in this part of the investigation was conducted on

three pavements. Soil D stabilised with GBFS, lime-GBFS and
cement-GBFS additives formed the base course of these
pavements. The ratio of lime to GBFS and cement to GBFS
used was 1:1, whereas the quantity of additives used was
8%, 3% and 3% respectively and expressed as percentage of
the total dry weight of the treated soil.
The sub-base of all pavements consisted of beach sand from

the Illawarra region. Particle size distribution of sand
was as given in section 4.7.8a.
Placement of pavement materials, compaction of sub-base and

base courses and assembling of test rig were carried out in
a manner similar to that described in section 4.7.8a.
191
After the pavements had been constructed and the test rig
assembled, zero readings were taken at the grid points at
which deflections were to be measured. The pavements were
covered by a damp cloth and cured for 7 days. At the
conclusion of the curing period the GBFS and the lime-GBFS
treated pavements were each subjected to 50,000 cycles of
42kN load applications, at a uniform rate of one load cycle
per second. The cement-GBFS treated pavement was intended
to be subjected to one million 42kN load applications, but
because of a major breakdown in the test facility the test
was concluded at 250,000 load applications.
Deflection readings were taken at intervals during the load

application for the three pavements. In total, 385 readings
were taken of the deflections of the three pavements at
various intervals during the tests and at various positions
on the pavements. The results of the deflections are given
in a tabular form in Tables 6.14 to 6.16. Figures 6.14 to
6.16 show the deflections of pavements after the various
intervals at the cross sections of the maximum deflections.
It was considered that limited testing of some of the soil

mixes would be sufficient for determining the morphology of
the GBFS pozzolanic reaction products in soil stabilisation.
192
Samples of lime-GBFS treated Soil A and lime-GBFS treated

Soil C were made available for examination in a Hitachi S450
Scanning Electron Microscope.
The ratio of lime to GBFS in each case was 1:1 whereas the
quantity of lime-GBFS additive was 8% of the total dry
weight of the treated soil. Preparation, curing and
examining of samples were identical to those described in
Scanning electron micrographs of the lime-GBFS stabilised

Soil A and lime-GBFS stabilised Soil C are shown in Figures
6.17 and 6.18.
6.7.10 Powder X-ray Diffraction Analysis
X-ray diffraction patterns were determined for the soil

mixes used in the preceding Scanning Electron Microscopy
examination. Preparation, curing and testing of specimens
were carried out in a way similar to that specified in
The X-ray diffraction patterns determined for the lime-GBFS

treated soils A and C are shown in Figures 6.19 and 6.20.
193
T A B L E 6.1a Compaction characteristics of lime, G B F S and Lime-

G B F S stabilised soil A

(%) gm/cm 3
LIME
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.50 1.82
4% 16.00 1.77
16.50 1.74
6% 17.00 1.73
8%
LIME.GBFS 1:1
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.50 1.82
4% 15.50 1.79
16.00 1.77
6% 16.50 1.77
8%
LIME.GBFS 1:2
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.50 1.82
4% 15.00 1.81
15.75 1.79
6% 16.00 1.79
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:3
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.50 1.82
14.90 1.82
4%
15.50 1.80
6% 15.00 1.80
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:4
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.50 1.82
14.50 1.82
4% 1.82
14.70
6% 14.70 1.83
8%
GBFS
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.00 1.84
14.50 1.84
4% 1.85
14.70
6% 14.70 1.85
8%
194
T A B L E 6.1b Compaction characteristics of lime, G B F S and lime-GBFS

stabilised soil B

(%) gm/cm 3
LIME
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.00 1.81
4% 16.50 1.78
17.00 1.75
6% 18.00 1.73
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:1
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.82
4% 16.00 1.81
16.50 1.78
6% 17.50 1.77
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:2
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.83
16.00 1.82
4%
16.00 1.82
6% 17.00 1.82
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:3
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 16.00 1.82
16.00 1.83
4% 1.83
16.00
6% 16.00 1.84
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:4
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.82
16.00 1.83
4% 1.84
16.00
6% 16.00 1.84
8%
GBFS
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.83
15.50 1.84
4% 1.84
15.70
6% 15.70 1.85
8%
195
T A B L E 6.1c Compaction characteristics of lime, G B F S and lime-GBFS

stabilised soil C

(%) gm/cm 3
LIME
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 23.00 1.32
4% 24.00 1.31
6% 24.50 1.30
8% 25.00 1.29
LIME:GBFS 1:1
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 22.50 1.32
4% 23.00 1.32
6% 23.00 1.31
8% 23.00 1.31
LIME:GBFS 1:2
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 22.00 1.32
4% 22.50 1.32
6% 22.50 1.32
8% 23.50 1.32
LIME:GBFS 1:3
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 22.00 1.32
4% 22.00 1.32
6% 21.50 1.32
8% 20.00 1.33
GBFS
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 22.00 1.32
4% 21.00 1.32
6% 20.50 1.32
8% 20.00 1.33
196
T A B L E 6.2a Compaction characteristics of cement, G B F S and

cement-GBFS stabilised soil A

(%) gm/cm 3
CEMENT
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.00 1.85
4% 14.50 1.85
6% 15.50 1.85
16.50 1.85
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:1
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.00 1.83
4% 14.50 1.84
6% 15.00 1.85
15.70 1.85
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:2
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.00 1.83
4% 14.50 1.84
6% 14.50 1.84
14.70 1.84
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:3
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.00 1.83
4% 14.50 1.84
6% 14.50 1.85
14.70 1.85
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:4
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.30 1.83
4% 14.70 1.83
14.70 1.84
6%
14.90 1.84
8%
GBFS
0% 13.00 1.83
2% 14.00 1.84
4% 14.50 1.84
14.70 1.85
6% 1.85
14.70
8%
197
TABLE 6.2b Compaction characteristics of cement, GBFS and

cement-GBFS stabilised soil B

(%) gm/cm 3
CEMENT
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.82
4% 16.50 1.84
17.00 1.84
6% 17.50 1.84
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:1
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.83
4% 16.00 1.84
16.50 1.84
6% 17.00 1.84
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:2
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.83
4% 16.00 1.84
16.00 1.84
6% 16.50 1.85
8%
CEMENT.GBFS 1:3
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.83
16.00 1.84
4% 1.84
15.70
6% 15.70 1.85
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:4
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.83
16.50 1.84
4% 1.85
15.70
6% 15.70 1.85
8%
GBFS
0% 15.00 1.82
2% 15.50 1.84
15.50 1.85
4% 1.85
15.70
6% 15.70 1.85
8%
198
T A B L E 6.2c Compaction characteristics of cement, G B F S and

cement-GBFS stabilised soil C

(%) gm/cm 3
CEMENT
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 23.00 1.34
4% 24.50 1.35
6% 25.00 1.39
26.00 1.40
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:1
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 22.00 1.33
4% 23.00 1.34
6% 24.00 1.37
25.00 1.37
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:2
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 22.00 1.33
4% 22.50 1.34
6% 23.00 1.36
23.50 1.36
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:3
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 22.00 1.33
4% 22.00 1.33
6% 22.50 1.34
23.00 1.34
8%
GBFS
0% 22.00 1.32
2% 22.00 1.32
4% 21.00 1.32
20.50 1.32
6%
20.00 1.33
8%
199
TABLE 6.3a U C S (MPa) of lime, GBFS and lime-GBFS stabilised soil

A.

7 28 90
LIME
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.43 0.55 0.69
4% 0.46 0.76 1.00
0.43 0.73 0.95
6% 0.41 0.70 0.90
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:1
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.41 0.44 0.54
4% 0.46 0.72 0.86
0.48 0.79 0.95
6% 0.40 0.79 0.90
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:2
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.39 0.43 0.46
4% 0.50 0.57 0.75
0.67 0.85 0.92
6% 0.57 0.85 0.94
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:3
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.39 0.40 0.44
4% 0.39 0.47 0.51
0.39 0.56 0.61
6% 0.57 0.80 0.70
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:4
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.36 0.38 0.40
0.39 0.39 0.51
4% 0.58
0.39 0.50
6% 0.35 0.51 0.67
8%
GBFS
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.34 0.36 0.36
0.36 0.37 0.36
4% 0.39
0.38 0.38
6% 0.40 0.41 0.40
8%
200
TABLE 6.3b U C S (MPa) of lime, GBFS and lime-GBFS stabilised soil

B.

7 28 90
LIME
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.32 0.40 0.50
4% 0.34 0.42 0.57
0.28 0.38 0.50
6% 0.27 0.36 0.45
8%
LIME-.GBFS 1:1
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26

2% 0.30 0.37 0.44
4% 0.32 0.39 0.55
0.32 0.35 0.53
6% 0.30 0.36 0.44
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:2
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.28 0.30 0.34
4% 0.30 0.32 0.40
0.31 0.35 0.50
6% 0.31 0.36 0.51
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:3
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.27 0.30 0.32
4% 0.28 0.30 0.32
0.29 0.29 0.36
6% 0.29 0.33 0.38
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:4
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.26 0.26 0.29
0.26 0.26 0.28
4%
0.26 0.28 0.30
6% 0.31 0.32 0.35
8%
GBFS
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.26 0.26 0.26
0.26 0.26 0.26
4% 0.27 0.27
0.27
6% 0.28 0.28 0.29
8%
201
TABLE 6.3c U C S (MPa) of lime, GBFS and lime-GBFS stabilised soil

C.

7 28 90
LIME
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.25 0.30 0.33
4% 0.34 0.41 0.44
0.43 0.51 0.56
6% 0.41 0.50 0.55
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:1
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.22 0.25 0.28
4% 0.25 0.30 0.35
0.30 0.36 0.42
6% 0.30 0.37 0.43
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:2
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.22 0.26 0.28
4% 0.24 0.29 0.32
0.27 0.34 0.37
6% 0.27 0.34 0.38
8%
LIME:GBFS 1:3
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.22 0.24 0.25
0.24 0.27 0.29
4%
0.26 0.30 0.33
6% 0.28 0.32 0.35
8%
GBFS
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.21 0.21 0.21
0.23 0.23 0.23
4% 0.25
0.23 0.24
6% 0.24 0.25 0.25
8%
202
TABLE 6.4a U C S (MPa) of cement, GBFS and cement-GBFS

stabilised soil A

7 28 90
CEMENT
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 1.26 1.95 2.00
4% 1.75 2.70 3.15
6% 2.45 3.50 4.00
3.00 4.30 4.60
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:1
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.60 0.80 1.00
4% 1.41 1.69 2.15
1.41 1.95 2.35
6%
1.58 1.96 2.50
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:2
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.45 0.50 0.59
4% 0.85 1.10 1.43
0.92 1.25 1.50
6%
1.00 1.37 1.64
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:3
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.42 0.45 0.45
4% 0.75 0.90 0.90
0.90 1.20 1.30
6% 0.99 1.35 1.62
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:4
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.39 0.40 0.40
4% 0.47 0.49 0.71
0.75 0.75 1.10
6% 0.85 0.95 1.32
8%
GBFS
0% 0.33 0.33 0.33
2% 0.34 0.36 0.36
4% 0.36 0.37 0.36
0.38 0.38 0.38
6% 0.41 0.40
0.40
8%
203
TABLE 6.4b U C S (MPa) cement, G B F S and cement-GBFS stabilised

soil B.

7 28 90
CEMENT
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.43 0.67 0.74
4% 0.62 1.02 1.15
0.90 1.50 1.70
6% 1.40 2.30 2.57
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:1
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.30 0.42 0.50
0.52 0.73 0.85
4%
0.62 0.82 1.00
6% 0.75 1.02 1.20
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:2
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.33 0.38 0.42
0.40 0.50 0.54
4%
0.60 0.65 0.75
6% 0.61 0.75 0.95
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:3
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.33 0.33 0.33
0.41 0.41 0.42
4% 0.60
0.50 0.51
6% 0.51 0.55 0.65
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:4
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.27 0.30 0.30
0.28 0.35 0.37
4% 0.47 0.47
0.29
6% 0.40 0.50 0.55
8%
GBFS
0% 0.26 0.26 0.26
2% 0.26 0.26 0.26
0.26 0.26 0.26
4% 0.27 0.27
0.27
6% 0.28 0.28 0.28
8%
204
TABLE 6.4c U C S (MPa) of cement, GBFS and cement-GBFS

stabilised soil C.

7 28 90
CEMENT
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.25 0.32 0.35
4% 0.32 0.41 0.46
0.42 0.52 0.58
6% 0.48 0.60 0.70
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:1
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.23 0.25 0.29
4% 0.29 0.33 0.40
0.39 0.43 0.54
6% 0.42 0.44 0.60
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:2
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.23 0.27 0.27
4% 0.27 0.33 0.36
0.34 0.38 0.44
6% 0.38 0.38 0.42
8%
CEMENT:GBFS 1:3
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.22 0.26 0.28
0.26 0.32 0.34
4%
0.32 0.35 0.40
6% 0.32 0.35 0.38
8%
GBFS
0% 0.21 0.21 0.21
2% 0.21 0.21 0.21
0.23 0.27 0.29
4% 0.31
0.23 0.29
6% 0.27 0.30 0.33
8%
1C<
205
MH
0 JS
o> o in o in in o o o o in o o o in o o in o o o o o m in in o in o o in
•dp
(8 m in © o r~ in m o r» o m p» in o m m o r- r- CM in r- o o CN
u PO <-H © © o ro PO CM t-H o PO PO PO rH rH ro ro ro C N iH PO ^« PO CM CN PO PO Tf Tf Tf
rH
DAYS CURING
U
ooooo o o o o o
UNIT
a
O O O O O ooooo o o o o o o o o o o
ooooo o o m m o o o o m o o m m o o o o in o m o o m o in
c OS US rH O O a\ vo ^* P O ro as vo in TJ- TT as r- vo vo vo os oo r» r-- vo os cs oo co r-
•H
TJ
C
IB
a CO ooo ooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O
CN o o o in o o o in o o
•P rH ooo ooooo o in o o o o o o o o
•H •dP Tf o ro in as "•f C* CN PO CO "tlOHlfllO f vo as ro Tf ^< in in in in
PH f PO o eu cu CN ro P O ro ro CN CN P O ro ro CN CM ro ro ro CM CN CM CM CM
CM CM CM ro ro
ooooo o o o o o ooooo ooooo o o o o o O O O O O

0) © © m m © o o in o m O O O O O
+J rH ooooo ooooo o o m o o
•dP ro co rH os as ro vo r» co CN PO in P » co CM PO Tf f- rH CM ro T»* vo o o PO ^* ^* PO PO
rH ro PO ^* Tf ^* PO PO PO PO ^* ro PO PO P O ^* PO PO PO ^* ^* ro ro ro ^* ^* PO P O P O P O ro
c U
0 A o o o in m o o o o o o o o o in o o m o in O o m O O o in in o o
to W m in in CN CN in o o o in in in m m r- m in CM in CM in t»- r» © ©
in o r-« o m
8 U
'dP ro <-t o o o PO PO CN rH o rocONHO PO PO PO <-< rH ro ^* ro ro rH ro ro ro ^* ^*
•H rH
•U
•H
fl o o o o o ooooo o o o o o ooooo O O O O O O O O O O
W M O O O O O O O O O O
o o o o o ooooo o o o o o o o m o o
fc. OB mionoo os vo in f CN os vo vo in n* oi co vo in P O CM CO vo vo ro Os OS OS OD CO
PS H3
u
DAYS CURING
I
H11 H
o o o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo O O O O O
o o o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo o o o o o
P.L
a rt* o PO in o ••j* as CN PO vo Tf VO Ol Tf CO TT VO CO O VO ^* m m m in
CN ro ro PO ^* CN CM PO PO PO CN CM CM PO PO CN CM CN ro ro CM CM CM CM CM
w
fc.
ea r»
u o o o o o ooooo ooooo o o o o o ooooo O O O O O
o o o o o o o in o o O O O O O
ooooo ooooo ooooo
PO VO CO O «f PO vo co as CN PO If) CO CO o n**inoiH PO Tf Tf VO OS ro •«• Tf ro ro
•3 PO PO PO ^* ^* PO ro ro P O ^* fO PO PO PO Tf ro ro P O P O PO ro P O ro ro P O
ro P O ro ro ^*
o
flJH dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
© CN ^< VO 00 O CM IS" VO CO O CN "«f VO CO O CM Tf vo 00 O CN Tf VO 00 O CN f vo 03
M-l -H
w 0
fc. w rH CM ro "3*
dP aa aa
rH rH rH rH
W w fc, fc. fc,

• u fc. CQ CQ CQ
> ra U
0) H H ••
o •a
65 W
fc]
o Ed •• fc,
EH S a
I H H
fc. & fc]
H
CQ
a S H a J
H H
a
<
206
•M
0 n
0) CO in in in © in m © o m © m © © © © o m © © m m m o m m m © o © o
ei •dP r» CM r~ m CN r» © in CM o r» m o m © m r» m o CM r~ r- m CM t- r» m m m m
fl VJ
( N H O O O N N H H H CM CM CN rH rH ro CM CM CM rH CM CM CM CM <-H CM CM CM CM CN
•a
•H
n
M z © O O O O © © o © © © © o © ©
fl OS H
O O O O O o o o o © O O O O ©
© o m © m o o o o o © © o © © o o o o o o o © m o O O O O ©
•H O O P O H H O co vo T T P O ro co P~ vo m Tf co oo r» vo m co co r- vo vo 00 CO 00 CO 00
H cn
"g
fl
tn
CO © O O O O o © o o o o o o © o o o o o o © © © © © o o o o o
CM o o o o m
JJ rH
o o o o © o o o o o o o o o o © © © m o o © o © o
•H •dP Tf .H ro m oo «f vo os © ro Tf m vo r» co TT Tf m vo r- Tf Tf m m vo Tf m m m m
CU CN ro ro ro PO CN CM CM PO PO CM CM CM CM CM CN CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CN CM CN CM CM CM CM
&
M
JS O © O O O O O O O O O O O O ©
© © © © ©
o o o © o O O O O O O O O O O
M © o m o © O O O © o © © © © © o o o o o o o o o o
0) •dP CM tf Tf vo a> CN CM CN PO VO CN CN CM CN CM CM CN CN CM CN CN CN CN CN CM CN ro ro ro ro
PO PO PO ro PO PO P O PO PO ro ro ro ro PO ro PO PO PO PO PO
JJ ro ro PO PO PO ro ro ro ro ro
0)
JJ
G
0 JS
CO m m m o m m © © o © m © m m © m m o © o m m o m m m m m m m
tfl
•dP r- CM r-» m CM r» m m © m r»- m r» r- m r» r» in in in r» r~ m r» r> [» CM CM CM CM
U CM I-H © o o CM CM rH © o
I rl
N P f i H H O CM CM CN i-H rH CM CN CM rH rH CN CM CM CN CM
JJ
•H © © © © o
EH © O O O © © o o o © © © © © © O O O O O O O O O ©
TJ M O O O O O o m o o in O O O O O © m m © © O O O O © © © © © o
TJ
MD oo m ro CM CM oo m m TT ro co vo vo m Tf oo vo m m m CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 00 00
fl
cn
DAYS CURING
fc.
m
o o o o o © © © © © O O O O O © © o © © © © © © o © © © © ©
u
TJ o o o o o © in o o m o o o o o © m m © © o o o o o o o o o ©
P.L
cI Tf r> rH Tf VO WIOCOOIH rr vo vo r» co Tf m r-» co oo f m m vo vo

0>
fl CM CM ro ro ro CM CM CM CM CO CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CN CM CM CM CM CN CN CM CM
w
fc.
r~
CQ
o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O o o o o ©
u o o o o © o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © © © o © © © o o o
rl
CN CN CO TT Tf CN CM CM CN CN
i •dP CN CN Tf VO CO CN CM ro ro m CN CM CN CN CM CM CN CM PO PO
rH P O ro ro P O ro PO PO PO ro ro PO PO PO ro PO ro ro PO ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
0
•P CQ
0 dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dP dp dp dP dP dP dP dP dp dP dP dp dP dP dP dP dP dp e*> dP dP dP dp
»H © CM Tf VO CO O CM ^* VO CO O CM Tf VO CO © CM Tf VO CO © CN Tf VO CO © CN -f VO CO
«H 0
fcJ CO
rH CM ro
dp aa a. a.
rH rH rH rH
w cn cn cn
fc. fc, fc, fc.
oa CQ CQ CQ CQ
> u ••
H fcl u Ed cn
EH •• Ed fc,
X •• a
I w
a
M
Cd
a
H
Ed
a
a
H
H
EQ
o
a H
<
207
VJ
A © © © © © © © o o O O O O O O O O O © o o o o o
Oi cn o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © © © © O © o o o o ©
A •dP P- CN • Tf Tf t- Tf rH as 03 r-» m CN © os M f l * N O p» r» vo m f
VJ rH rH 09 rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH
•a l-H
•H
CQ
DAYS CURING
M © © o o o O O O O O © © © O O © © O O O O O O O O
UNIT
fl o o o o o O O O O O © O O O O © © © © © O © © © ©
0) m o r^ © Tf m r» r» ro co m o © m CM m CM Tf as vo m o m CM co
c m n H H in ro CM CN rH m Tf ro CM CM m Tf ro CM CM m m -«f *f ro
•H
TJ
C
fl © © © o © O O O O O © © © © ©
CQ
09 o o o o o © © © © ©
CN © o o o o O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
JJ
•H a m r» co as rH
Tf Tf Tf Tf m
m P~ oo co co
^ * ^ * ^ * T f ,ef
m [•«• co r» r»
Tf Tf Tf ^* ^*
m VO VO VO VO
^* Tf Tf Tf Tf
m vo vo r- oo
Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf
•dP
CU
01
U
o O o o o
JS o o © o o o © © © o o o o o © © © © © © o o o o ©
VJ J • o o o © •© © © © • o o o © • o o o o • o o o o
0) •dP © . . . . © co © in CM © VO rH as vo
JJ •H
o . . . . I-H co r» r- vo
o Tf m IH vo rH CO co r- t-» IH as as co co
0) © r» m as m
HMOKllfl H co r» M O
J:
JJ
c VJ
JS © © © © m o o o o o o o o o © © © © © © © © © © ©
0 cn © © © © r» o m © © © © o m © © o o in in in © © m m ©
CD •dP r-» CM oo m Tf r- ro rH os oo r» Tf .H © co M n d H O l [-»r» vo m m
QJ VJ t-H rH i-H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH
> •H
•H
JJ
•H
TJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
EH O O O O O o o o o © © O O O © o o o o o o o o o o
TJ M
fl m © co as m m vo vo ro co m © os vo CM m CM TfCT>VO m --H co m CN
en oz innn m CO CN CM rH m Tf CM CM CM m Tf ro CM CM m m Tf Tf Tf
MS
fc,
DAYS CURING
ea
u © © © © o © o o o o o o o o © o o o o © o o o o ©
TJi o o o o © © © m © o o o o o © © © © o © o © © © ©
P.L
C m r» co © CM m vo r» os as m m vo vo vo in vo vo vo vo m vo vo r» t-»
fl **«*nm ^* ^* ••f **f ^* ^* ^* ^* ^* ^* ^* ^* ^* *rf* ^*
cn
fc,
ea *>
o o o o o
u o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © o o o o o o o o o o
rH •© o © © •o m o o • o o o o • o o o © • o o © o
•dp r—i . . . . f—s . . . .
o P» vo as P- <"» . . . . o m m CM co © p» f CM as
•4 © co © m CM
0 H ^. vo m m © CM ro *-H r» rH 00 p» r> vo
rH oo co r-> r» rH as as os as
rH 00 C» P- vo
JJ u
0 dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
OJH O CN Tf vo CO O CN Tf vo 00 © CM Tf VO CO © CM Tf VO CO O CN Tf VO CO
D-l -H
U 0 rH CM ro
cd cn dP a.
rH rH rH
u W cn cn cn
fc, fc, rH
m > CQ CQ CQ
• M
EH U U Ed cn
vo Ed
M •• Ed fc,
0) a Ed a a CQ
H
a M H
a a H
a M
rH
EH < rH
208
cu
Oi VJ
fl A o o o m © o m © © o o m m o © © © o © m o m m © o o m © © m
—: cn m © m CM © m r- o o m m P» CM m © m m © o CM m p- CN m m m p» © © CM
•dP PO <H o o o f l H H H O PO CM CM i-H rH
VJ
PO PO PO CM rH ro ro ro CM rH ro ro Tf Tf Tf
VJ
fl
0)
e z o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O © © © o o o o o o o o o o o o
as n o o o o o © © m o o o o o o o © o © o in o o o o o o © m © m
•H
TJ o^ m rH o o OS VO Tf CO rH cn c^ vo Tf CN O"! CO P- •* CN os co p» vo ro
e soz OS OS CO 00 P*
cn
A >H
n
JJ 2 o o o
00 © © © © © o o o o o O O O O O o o o o o © o o o ©
CN o o ©
rH
© © m o o o o o o o © © © © m o o o o o © © m © m
Oi •dP Tf ro vo z Z Tf rH Tf CO © *t as rH in os Tf P» © Tf CO Tf m as rn m •f m m m m
M CM CM ro Tf CM PO PO PO Tf CM CM PO PO PO CM CM PO PO PO CM C M C M ro ro CM CM CM CM CM
&
VJ
JJ
% o o o o o © o o o o o o © © o o o o o © o o o o o o o o o o
0 •4
o o o © o © © o o o © o o o o © © © © o o o o o o © © © o ©
A •dP ro oo r-* oo cr* PO P» Ol rH rH ro vo p> os rH PO m P» co IH PO PO VO P» CO ro ^* ^ ro ro
r4 ro ro "3* Tf Tf PO PO PO Tf Tf ro ro P O P O Tf PO PO PO PO Tf ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro PO PO
JJ
C
0
IS
VJ
0) © © m o m o m © m o o m m o m o m © m o o in m o in o m m o o
cn
.5 •dp
VJ
in in r» in CM
PO rH o © ©
m c- © r- m
f l H H O O
in CM CN © P»
C 1 H H H O
m CM © p» o
PO CN CM rH rH
m CM r- © r-
ro ro CM CN ©
m r- P» o ©
PO PO PO Tf Tf
JJ rl
•H
TJ
TJ
fl © © o © © © © © © © © O O O O o o o o © O O O O O o o o o o
cn EH
H
o © o © o o o o o m o o o o o o © o o o o o o o © o © © o ©
fc, as vo CM o o 01lOlflfl*H Ol P> p» m rH as oo co vo P O as 03 oo P» Tf OS OS 0\ CO 00
BQ az
CJ
I
JJ
TJ
z
e M
DAYS CUR
o © o o © O O O O © o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © o o o o
a0) o o o o o © © © © m o o o o © o o o o o o o o © o © © © © ©
P.L
A »f o m m m •* o PO vo co ^* OS © PO p- >»f p» as CM m Tf m co © Tf «*f in in in in
en CM ro Tf Tf Tf CM PO PO PO PO CM C Nro ro ro CM CM CM PO PO CM CN CN ro ro CM CM CM CN CM
fc,
a r-
u
JJ O O O O © © O O O O o o o o o o o o o © © o © o © O O O O O
O O O O O o o o o o o o o o © © © o o © o o o o o o o o o ©
c •dP ro vo p- co oi PO VO CO o © ro vo p» oo oo PO m P* co co ro ro vo p* oo PO Tf Tf ro ro
1) <
<« rH PO PO Tf Tf Tf PO PO PO ^* ^* PO PO PO PO PO ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
0
H
JJ •H
0 0
tv en dP dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dp dP dP dp dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
•W O CN Tf VO 00 O CN Tf VO 00 © CM Tf VO CO O CM Tf VO 00 O CM Tf VO CO O CN Tf VO CO
1-1 «w
fc]0 rH CM ro Tf
aa a. •a a.
rH rH rH rH
dP
cn cn cn cn
Eh fc, fc.
fl cn fc,
CQ CQ CQ
vo Ed CQ
> U•• U
I O• • ••
M EH EH EH EH &J
IO
Z Z Z
H z Ed
Z
Ed Ed Ed cn
a Ed
a a a Eh
I Q
<
a
Ed
Ed
U
a
Ed Ed
U
Ed
U
CQ
o
U
u
209
J3 in in in m © m m m o o m m o o o m o m o m m m m m © m © © © ©
cn P- P» CM CM O p- p> CM © ©
r- P» m m m p» m CM © r- p- P» p» CM © p» m m m m
•d CM © o o © CM CM CN CM ~J CN CN CN CN CM «N CM CM CM CM
VJ
rl
z o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © o o o o o © © © © © © © © ©
H EH o o o o © o o o o © o o m © m © m o m © © o m o o o
OS M 00 PO CM *H © 00 Tl* PO CM tH co r~ VO VO in C0P«P»VOVO CO CO p» p» p» 0 0o
0 3o
0 0o
0 0o
00
DOB
UHD
cn
CO o o o © o o © o o o o o o o
CN
© © © o o o o o o o © © © © ©
rl o o o o o © o o o o o m o m o o o o o o o o o o o © o o o
•dP Tf rH PO VO Tf OS rH PO vo Tf m vo 09 as Tf m vo vo 03 ^* Tf m vo P» >* in in in in
CU CM PO PO PO CM CN PO PO PO CM CM CN CM CN CM CM CM CN CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CN
o o o o © o o o o © O O O O O O O O O O © © o o © O O O O O
o o o o o © o o o o O O O O © © m © m © o o o o © ooooo
CM Tf m r^ o CM PO Tf m r- CM CN PO Tf m CM CN ro ro Tf CN CM ro ro Tf CM ro ro ro ro
PO PO PO ro ^* PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO ro ro PO PO PO ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
VJ
m o o o o in © © in in m © o o © m m © o m m o m m m m m m m m
cn p> m © P» P» p» m m m ©
•d p» o m m o p» p» m m CM p» m CM P» CM P» CM CM CM CM
CM rH O O © N H H O O CN rH rH rH rH CNCMCNrHtH CMCMCMCMCM
M
rl
O O O O O O O O O O © © o o © O O O O O o o o o o o o o o o
O O O O © O O © © O o o o o o o © © © o o o o o o o o o o o
oz oomTfCNO coininTfCM co vo vo in TT oo P- vo m Tf CO p- VD VO VO CO CO CO CO GO
Z
M © © © o o o o o o © © o o © © o o o o o © © © © o o o o o ©
OS o o o © © © © © © © © © © © o o o o o o ooooo o o o o o
D ^* P» OS PO 03 •a* P» oo rH *r Tf VO P- O CM Tt* m P» as © Tf m P» oo co
UJ CM CM CM PO PO CN CM CN PO PO CM CM CN PO PO CN CM CM CM PO CM CN CM CM CN CM CM CM CN CN
•o
cncu
I ooooo ooooo © o o o o
o o o o ©
O O O O O
o o o o o
O O O O O
© © © © ©
O O O O O
ooooo
•dP o
CM o
CM o oo
PO m VO
oo
CN CM o oo
PO m vo CM CM ro m vo CN CM ro Tf Tf CN CN PO Tf Tf CM CM PO CN CN
PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO P0 PO PO PO PO P0 PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO P0
dP dP dP dP dP dP dp dP dP dP dP oP tiP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
O CN ^" VO 00 O CM Tf VO 03 O CM Tf VO 00 © CN Tf VO 03 O CN Tf vo 00 © CM Tf vo 00
P0
cn cn cn cn
Eh Eh Eh Eh
cn
Ed CQ CQ CQ CQ
> U U O
H H EH
•• •• o
EH
EH Z Z EH Z
H Ed Ed EH Z Ed cn
Q
Q ad
E a Z Ed
a Eh
CQ
< U Ed a
Ed Ed U
U a Ed U
Ed U
U
210
0)
en VJ
S JS o o o m o o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
•a cn o o m P» m o o o o © o m m m o o o o o © o o o o o
•dP p- CM CO VO VO p» Tf © oo p» MneiHOl r- VO Tf CM rH p> r» vo m Tf
JVJ rH rH rH rH rH I-H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH
9
O
1
•p
H z
H SH
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O © O O ©
O O O O O
o o o o o
o o © © ©
o o o o o
o o o o ©
© o o o o
OS M
"Ei2 DH
U OED
m o o PO CT>
m PO CM rH
m co m r» Tf
m CO CM rH rH
Ifl^lflOH
in Tf ro CN CM
tn VO VO CM P»
m Tf ro ro CN
m o m CM co
m in Tf Tf ro
fl
CO cn
•VJ <
•p Q
.aJ
Oi
00
CM
J
o o o o o
o o o o o
m P» os o o
© o o o o
o o o o o
inifiiopos
o o o o o
o o o o o
m vo p> p» P-
o o o © o
o o o o o
m VO VO VO VO
o o o o o
© © © ©
m vo vo p» oo
©
M CU•dP Tf Tf •* m m Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf -3* ^, ^* ^* Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf* Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf
il
VJ
J0)
J o o o o o
JJ
< o o o o o o o o o o o o o © o o o o o o © © © o ©
• o o o © • o o o o • o. o. o. o.
r*i
• o o o © • o o o ©
$ J © © . . . . CD • • • • © . . . .
X. •dP o P- o> PO as © ro rH Tf iH o © CN m co O CM CM 00 ro © VO t-H OS VO
JJ J H M O I O W rn co r- vo vo HfflCOPIfl i-H OS CO P» P» rH OS OS 00 CO
e
0
CO
0) VJ
> A o © © m © o o o o © O O O O O o o o o o o o o o ©
cn o m o P» m o © o o o o o o o © o o o o o © © m m ©
JJ 'dP r- C M c*i vo vo r>*oosr> p- m ro .H oi C- VO Tf CN rH p» p- vo in in
TJ JVJ tH rH iH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH
"8
en
fa O O © O O o o o o © O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
CJ5
CQ &J O O O O © o o m o o o o o o © o o o © o o © © o o
1 H m PO CM PO os m oo m p» TT m ro ro VO rH mr-PHto m rH oo m CM
JJ HQJZ
5 m PO CM rH m rO CM rH rH m Tf ro CM CM in f ro ro CM m m "•** Tf Tf
a
1
u
TJ
O
Z
B H
OS O O O O O © o o o o © o o o o © o o o o o o © o o
fl D O O O O O o o m o © © o o o o o o o o o © © © © o
en UJ in vo vo o © in in in P » P - m m vo vo vo m m m vo vo m vo vo P> P>
fa Tt* •* Tf in m Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf •rf ^* Tf Tf TJ* Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf Tf
cno,•dP
m Sx
u* <<
Q
JJ
c *>
0) o o © o ©
o o o o o o o o o o © © © © © o o o o o O O O O ©
§0 j
• o o o o
©
• o o o ©
. . . . o
• O O O O
.... ©
• o o o ©
• • • • ©
• o o o o
• . . .
•dP O OS rH rO Ol O PO rH Tf rH O CO Cl CN P- O CM CM P- CM o P- »f CN Q".
VJ u J rH P» p- vo m rH 00 P» VO VO iH oo r» P » vo I-H os co r» r» rH as as as co
0
0 H0 dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
dP dP dp dp dP dP dP dp dP dp dP dP dP dP dP
wai en
W <M
O CM "f VO 00 O CM Tf VO 00 © CN ^" VO CO O CM Tf VO CO O CM Tf vo CO
fa 0 rH CN ro
•a .a
.-» rH rH rH
dP
cn cn en
Eh Eh Eh
0 cn CQ CO Cfl
IO Cd C•ffl U•• O
a > »•
VO M EH H EH &J
&J Z Z Z z
0) H Cd Ed Ed Ed cn
H Q Eh
J3 Q a
Ed a
Cd a
Ed a
Ed CQ
(3 < U U U U O
&J
211
T A B L E 6.7 Effect of delay in compaction on the U C S of cement and

cement-GBFS stabilised soil A.

Since mixing U C S (MPa) strength
%
8% CEMENT
0.00 hours 4.60 0.00
2.00 hours 3.22 30.00
4.00 hours 2.34 49.00
6.00 hours 1.47 68.00
8%CEMENT:SUVG1:2
0.00 hours 1.64 0.00
2.00 hours 1.24 24.00
4.00 hours 1.05 36.00
6.00 hours 0.67 59.00
8%CEMENT:SLAG1:4
0.00 hours 1.32 0.00
2.00 hours 1.05 20.00
4.00 hours 0.84 34.00
6.00 hours 0.56 57.50
212
T A B L E 6.8 Effect of delay in compaction on the U C S of lime and

lime-GBFS stabilised soil C
Time elapsed 90 days loss in

Additive % since mixing U C S (MPa) strength
%
8 % LIME
0.00 hours 0.55 0.00
2.00 hours 0.52 5.45
4.00 hours 0.51 7.27
6.00 hours 0.51 7.27
24.00 hours 0.48 12.72
8%LIME:SLAG1:1
0.00 hours 0.43 0.00
2.00 hours 0.41 4.65
4.00 hours 0.39 9.30
6.00 hours 0.37 13.95
24.00 hours 0.36 16.27
8%LIME:SLAG1:3
0.00 hours 0.35 0.00
2.00 hours 0.32 8.57
4.00 hours 0.30 14.28
6.00 hours 0.30 14.28
24.00 hours 0.30 14.28
213
T A B L E 6.9a Effect of lime and lime-GBFS additives on the shear

strength parameters of Soil B.
Lime 0% 19.00 0.08 19.00 0.08

4% 29.00 0.10 32.00 0.13
8% 32.00 0.16 37.00 0.21
Lime: GBFS 1:1

0% 19.00 0.08 7.00 0.08
4% 25.00 0.10 25.00 0.10
8% 31.00 0.10 34.00 0.12
Lime: GBFS 1:3
0% 19.00 0.08 19.00 0.08
4% 22.00 0.08 24.00 0.10
8% 26.00 0.10 27.00 0.10
T A B L E 6.9b Effect of lime and lime-GBFS additives on the shear

strength parameters of Soil C.
ADDITIVES 7 DAYS CURING 28 DAYS CURING
Lime 0% 7.00 0.08 7.00 0.08

4% 30.00 0.16 35.00 0.17
6% 28.00 0.23 33.00 0.22
Lime-.GBFS 1:1
0% 7.00 0.08 7.00 0.08
4% 20.00 0.11 22.50 0.12
8% 28.00 0.14 33.00 0.18
Lime:GBFS 1:3
0% 7.00 0.08 7.00 0.08
4% 12.00 0.10 14.00 0.11
8% 20.00 0.11 22.00 0.13
214
T A B L E 6.10 Effect of cement and cement-GBFS additives on the

shear strength parameters of soil B.
Cement 0% 19.00 0.08 19.00 0.08

4% 36.50 0.11 47.00 0.19
6% 44.00 0.16 50.00 0.29
CementGBFS 1:2
0% 19.00 0.08 19.00 0.08
4% 28.00 0.13 47.00 0.23
8% 29.00 0.14 48.50 0.25
CementGBFS 1:3
0% 19.00 0.08 19.00 0.08
4% 24.00 0.10 38.00 0.18
8% 26.00 0.12 46.50 0.23
215

stabilised soil A.
ADDITIVES (%) CBR

28 Days 90 Days
LIME 0% 55 55
4% 75 81
8% 72 76
LIME:GBFS1:2
0% 55 55
4% 69 71
8% 80 84
LIME.GBFS 1:3
0% 55 55
4% 65 67
8% 70 79
GBFS
0% 55 55
4% 60 62
8% 65 66
CEMENT 0% 55 55
2% 102 110
CEMENT:GBFS1:2
0% 55 55
4% 80 80
8% 99 105
CEMENT:GBFS1:3
0% 55 55
4% 70 70
8% 101 98
216

stabilised soil B.
ADDITIVES (%) CBR

28 Days 90 Days
LIME 0% 30 30
4% 40 43
8% 37 41
LIME.GBFS 1:2
0% 30 30
4% 38 41
8% 45 50
LIME:GBFS1:3
0% 30 30
4% 36 36
8% 42 43
GBFS
0% 30 30
4% 35 36
8% 40 42
CEMENT 0% 30 30
2% 99 100
CEMENT:GBFS1:2
0% 30 30
4% 56 60
8% 100 105
CEMENT:GBFS1:3
0% 30 30
4% 49 60
8% 100 102
217

stabilised soil C.
ADDITIVES (%) CBR

28 Days 90 Days
LIME 0% 19 19
4% 31 32
8% 55 60
LIME:GBFS1:1
0% 19 19
4% 27 30
8% 32 35
LIME:GBFS1:2
0% 19 19
4% 25 27
8% 32 35
GBFS
0% 19 19
4% 23 24
8% 28 30
CEMENT 0% 19 19
2% 32 35
8% 51 56
CEMENT:GBFS1:1
0% 19 19
4% 20 22
8% 36 46
CEMENT:GBFS1:2
0% 19 19
4% 20 22
8% 30 36
218
TABLE 6.14 Permanent deformations of 3 % content of 1:1 Cement:GBFS

treated pavement (mm)

Applications
5000 1.80 -0.70 0.78 1.15 1.50 -0.20 0.02

50000 E 0.10 -1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 -0.25 0.57
250000 1.35 0.80 2.20 2.75 2.00 0.00 0.27
5000 1.72 0.70 1.42 1.28 1.55 0.21 0.17

50000 F 1.76 1.28 2.10 2.15 2.05 1.31 1.30
250000 2.17 1.57 2.80 2.22 2.50 1.51 1.42
5000 1.37 0.51 0.89 1.00 0.99 1.25 -0.52

50000 G 1.87 1.16 1.66 1.09 1.80 1.75 0.35
250000 1.87 1.24 2.60 2.07 2.04 0.50 0.72
5000 1.31 1.07 2.42 1.70 1.32 -0.57 5.15

50000 H 1.16 0.95 2.32 1.87 1.55 0.73 5.01
250000 0.50 1.70 2.72 2.30 2.15 0.03 5.81
5000 0.40 -1.10 -1.20 3.98 2.75 -0.40 0,83

50000 I 0.38 0.30 0.45 1.26 1.85 0.18 0.00
250000 0.12 0.38 0.45 1.36 1.83 -1.52 0.18
219
TABLE 6.15 Permanent deformations of 3 % content of 1:1 lime:GBFS

treated pavement (mm)

Applications
50 0.30 0.39 1.51 1.50 3.00 1.15 0.30

500 -0.70 0.60 2.23 2.02 3.22 1.35 0.34
5000 E -0.70 0.65 3.25 2.36 3.80 1.51 0.80
50000 -0.85 0.70 3.83 2.53 4.29 1.65 -0.32
50 0.40 0.50 2.89 2.09 2.29 1.30 0.50

500 1.30 0.68 3.43 3.43 3.48 2.75 0.91
5000 F 0.00 1.02 4.00 3.66 3.11 2.99 0.95
50000 -0.50 1.55 4.30 3.77 4.52 3.27 -1.05
50 0.41 0.58 4.00 2.89 3.50 1.00 0.36

500 0.54 1.11 5.18 3.63 4.70 1.28 0.60
5000 G 0.90 1.51 5.38 4.00 5.12 1.90 1.00
50000 -1.16 1.71 5.55 4.30 5.65 2.33 -0.55
50 0.60 0.80 3.36 3.11 3.89 1.40 0.60

500 1.00 0.96 4.00 4.15 4.53 1.65 0.73
5000 H 0.30 1.00 5.09 4.26 4.99 2.65 0.80
50000 -0.50 1.44 5.55 4.72 6.00 3.05 0.00
50 0.20 0.20 0.70 1.30 2.30 0.66 0.20

500 0.75 0.28 0.80 2.80 3.18 0.90 0.28
5000 I 0.00 0.00 1.10 2.80 3.40 1.00 0.25
50000 -0.40 -0.80 1.35 3.17 3.62 1.10 -0.47
220
TABLE 6.16 Permanent deformations of 8 % G B F S treated pavement (mm)

Applications
50 1.10 -0.44 0.83 1.99 2.36 1.75 -0.18

500 0.80 0.15 1.88 2.13 4.02 0.85 0.32
5000 E 1.65 -0.40 2.58 3.24 4.96 2.65 0.32
50000 0.00 0.40 3.08 5.39 6.76 3.45 0.51
50 0.30 -0.30 1.70 2.25 3.63 1.45 -0.04

500 0.48 1.33 3.10 1.18 3.83 2.94 0.06
5000 F 0.60 2.43 4.15 4.38 4.63 3.45 0.56
50000 -0.22 2.69 5.08 4.88 6.63 3.35 0.66
50 0.35 0.95 1.87 2.41 3.44 1.10 -0.08

500 0.45 1.67 2.82 3.58 4.26 2.45 -0.05
5000 G 2.10 1.74 4.97 5.11 5.26 3.80 0.38
50000 2.20 2.75 5.42 5.21 6.26 3.70 0.40
50 -0.05 -0.05 2.85 3.30 4.35 1.20 0.00

500 0.25 1.09 5.10 5.40 5.70 1.20 0.00
5000 H 0.20 2.13 5.38 6.00 6.20 2.80 0.10
50000 -0.45 3.05 5.55 6.40 6.70 3.30 0.25
50 0.50 0.44 0.74 0.53 0.50 1.45 0.12

500 1.20 1.53 1.72 2.03 1.50 0.40 1.32
5000 I 1.10 1.22 2.10 3.90 2.60 0.20 0.67
50000 0.60 1.38 2.42 3.38 3.41 0.30 0.92
W>
221
CO
z co
LU Q
o O
•
LU
LU
H
Q.
o
CO
z
CO DC
D
LL O
CQ
O CO
•5
i Q
CO
IU
L_ CM
u
o UJ
I-
O
CO z
o cc
ID
D o
CO
O
LL
•vat
222
CO
CO
>-
<
Q
O
o CO
0)
B
UJ
LU LL s
h-
CO
CL z
a DC
co o
h-
M M
a
h-
CO Z
UJ
(DO 2
UJ CO
g |i o
LL
£Q
CO
L_ Z o CM
H
LU g
b
UJ
2
LU < H
cr o
O z
DC
3
LL O
o
CO
o
rs ,. •
223
o
-J
o
CO o
Q CO
UJ Q
CO UJ
-J CO
-J
I
CO
CQ
g
o
co CO
(£>
55
g
LL
LL
o«5 CO CQ
-j
CQCOg O
CO
LULU g Q
SCO ^ UJ
JJ " CO
oi<y -J
CQ
co^g l<
CO
Ocoo- 00
3 U- tn CD
C0Oi=
O 2
^lil§
EL-J LL
:
CJ2 o
iq
O
Tt; q cvj T-;
O O O O
o
111
224
O
_J
o 8
CO Q
Q UJ
UJ CO
CO CQ
_J
i<
m CO
CO o
CQ
-<* <D"
CD
g
LL LL
IO -* » <N T- O ddo'dcicJod
<*C0
CQ
CQ CO •J
h- LU
O
Z CO O)
1
H
o
CO
Q
JfjOQ LU
S CO
£8 -J
CQ
co&a.
£
CO
^zec «t
CD
(D^g LL
OUJ
ELO
225
O
_J
o
CO
D
-J CO
-J
m CQ
g CO
o
IO
to
LO CD
CO
LL
g
LL
ui 3
3s CD
UJ $Q
O =J oo
gmcM
I §
Q
UJ
CO
z j5 »
CC CQ
co a
coQ CO
cc CQ LU
< -O
yjujo
OflL IO
CO
-Jjoc
io «tf Q UL
<oco
U. o
r%&
226
M
r.
h- •»»
IL
< 5 a
K
o
a
z
>- IU 0>
cr
Q o
_l
s
iu 8:
O ©
a
o
CO £ { i CO
a o-
1 .. »•
u. «0
UL
CO
IL
a
ui o a a -j
.# i-: is
co •.J.I
2 2
UI UI
CQ
> 2 X
h- DJ UI
3 a —
H u o CO
Z \ \
m D
< m
o
O & CO
I UJ
>
h-
Q
O
i- o
z z
«•
S UI
UI£
ea cd
LL
(0 < UIIU
CD
(D ) J
W W ' -
g
LL
H -co
So CQ
UiQ CO
OUJ
LL 22
o -j
Q 8
CQ 00 Q
UJ CM
p" UJ
a CO D CO
< -J
X Q CQ
CO I CC CO
JQ
cc z UJ
CO
< UJ CL
CO
UJ UJ a £!
oz
<D *S UL
co</) cc
LL CD
D
a
^^"7
227
O O
CO CO
Q
LU a
CO LU
-J co
-j
CO
<
ID
8
CO
g o
LL h-.
CO
g
U.
>co
UJ -J
_JCO
Oui -
w ~ SP
1 -J
O
CO
D
Q CQ CM
•fc- |*>
>COQ
M
m
CO
h- CO Q -J
ofeoc CQ
<UlO £
CO
""13 DC r^
CO -* <d
CO <2
rfcn LL
228 "IV
<
O
-J
O
CO
8
o a
LU UJ
to co
CQ
_j
CQ
CO
to
o
co CO
CD CO
<2 <2
LL LL
j— -J
i— ™
ZO
LUCO CQ
2
u
CQ ~
Q
Bte. UJ
92
ZCOO _J
"~lL O CQ
to
H Z (TJ JO
couj*y oo
CO
-Jm cc
LL
S*
Eg
229 llf
w
2< CO
UJ , LL
ca
z UJ O o
~OC0 •«.
h-
<LLQ Z
UJ
UJ
_j O ui
o
CO ~j co
LL Q d
O3CQ
hUjF
OlCO CO
LUOg u.
m
GJ
"Is H H
Z Z
UJ
2
UJ
2
O oS UJ
00 UJ
CO
o o
o I +
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i - N ( f J - * K ) ( D N 0 O
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
230
UJ
--J-J
<Oco
UJ CO Q
QOUJ
U. CO
=j
O UJ CQ
O I
LU CO
LL O
UL LL
UJ CQ
o £O
T—
QLL
0 9=
O otf
O
o 10 o
T— r- CSJ
1 1 1
Ill
231
s
o
o
(0
u-
00
•3
iii
S
to
Z Q u.
m
o
UJ 9 iii
2
iu
2
Uj CD
2(5 <3
H =d O
O w CO
H UJ u_
OO
UJ OD
LL oe$
Li-
iu CO
LL
o£
T
"
00 Q.
r-»UJ 0
CO 1
1
o
UJ
05 Z 3
LL -J
OO
232 U1
£co
C5-
LU 9
Pr^ co
2(5CQ<
LLZOS
to
II H
u.
D3
h- UJ LL.
OO O o DC
a m
V
LU CC g _j
2
o
0
<?
LL od cn cr
LU a> H
.
UI
2
o CL U_ j
LL O +
Vurf-
wco LU O >-
H*
W
«
40
CO LL IZ
l h-
*t-
Z
<
D
%
•3
iii
2
LU
CM ca a
-j
CD Z D N
UJ
>
H
{
LL III
oo O
a
<
2
-i
1
233
CO
LU t
O Q
co~Q
LL <
CQ „
CD CO
HLL CO
UJ CQ >-
ICDO<H
f
-J .LL to
|— O«J Q
H LU
LL 06 DC O
LL
O O CO £
LU CO
cr
LU m
UJ LL O CL o
iii
LU
co cn X CD
CO
CD z 0»
&
CD_
UJ cc o
iii
2
U 1 O O
LU
2
234
•
•
i
o
**
o
o
o
10
¥>
X
i LL
CO UJ
5 CQ UJ
LL
CQ 2 .g 3
O ill
3
> z 1o
o "^.
00
o co
x> fc
o
z
•a
f
»
UJ
I
UJ O
CL
^ LU
CL
CO CO
(0 CO
-J , 3
03 o
a -J a E
OCQ °o V LO CQ
a
tf {
T- e
LLf* > CO
CO 8 z
o
s
g o
o LL
I 5
tr
O
u.
ui
a
x
fcfc
§2g
QCOcQ
&<3
cc
g O CO
D
LL
LU
O
ccQ cc
O I cc
LL LU
UI X
Q < j-co
ULUJ
UJ LL
Z < -J
<
O cc a
CC
UJ
a.
Ia
a
CC L U <
IO
h- -J
235

surface of Soil A stabilised with 8% content
of 1:1 lime-GBFS additive after 7 days
accelerated curing
236

surface of Soil C stabilised with 8% content
of 1:1 lime-GBFS additive after 7 days
accelerated curing
237
f !• ra
>\™
/. <-»
- <JSJ
t
<n>
J
a-«
a-n
O-«J
. g-bs
9-U
VS
• » • *
0-3
i O'K
% fl'SS
0-3
a-is
z
ars lr <rv
s r\>
ri>
«..-.-\>3—\ m*
T3
- rtf
03
6-Slr (0
• D-»
•H
iH
t-C"^" — = ^ . o-o •H CD
• 0-3r rQ >
• o-iy
(0 •rH
•P +•>
a-o> cn•H
o-K 73
< TJ
Q-1C
rH
ra
us
•rH
0-JE
OSJ
0 w
CM cn
OD CO c
o-ve O •H
4-1 1 rH
o-tr
0-5
0 CD 3
•rH
g 0
(TIE
rot
c
U -H TJ
0) 0)
f^P)) •CT°0 ra
rn
+J rH 4->
+J .« (fl
o-iz (0 rH rH
^ l ^ ^ O ^ m> a 0} 4H rH
«•-? c 0 <D
0 U
•H +J O
+J c rd
o-n u 0
o-i: (fl •P (fl
SH
4-1 c ra
>1
t^yxmo) *Q?S u«
1-H M-l o U T3
SMI
•H
T3 <#> r-
J'll 00
I'll > rH
(0 rC a)
0 5i rH +J +J
1 •H MH
o-fi X ,5 ra
/ >o> o-n
31^\0 \
rn
(Tl
( 501
g.
oi
«i
0 7
6
•) S H
238
o-s>
rrt
1
r«
a-a
•OMJ
• a-*.?
*0?S »•«
r vis
"y
<
O-iS
J |-0-K
•• a-ts
- ra
a-as
i
. .* Tl
o-vt CU
-»_
rl* tn
m
. art •H (13
f ot* rQ >
<r2> ra -H
• <riv P P
tn -H
•a
• V.t
VJ>
0?S J O-lf
r«
o-ss
o-»c
•H
•H UJ c
ta
0 CM •rH
Di
W CQ rH
•ott
O 3
rlt
4H I O
VIS
0 Q)
CIS
Oil
g
'00^ «'« C -H
rH r H TJ
r OUZ
CK 0) d)
ws <
•) -52
CH
P •• ra
ra »H Ou
•H
Pd. a) ra
0"lZ
UH iH
m Cu O 03
>1
>c. ra
•9-1! W0 O T )
4H O
Oil •H P
o-ti TJ <c#> r-
I'll 00
O 03
0'5I >i n
ra -P co
0 51 ra .C 03
C "
o-vt SH P P
0
• 0'tl
I -H <4H
7- - J:I x 5 <a
1^\y\\oro>\ . <rn o
o-oi
0". SO
ol
^ 01
u
*
H
• III CM
„X l'*i
Chapter VII
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS CONCERNING GBFS
7.1 GBFS as a single additive to soils
7.1.1 Effect of GBFS additive on compaction

characteristics of soil
It can be observed from Table 6.1 that when GBFS is added to

soils A, B and C, the maximum dry density of these soils is
increased. This can be explained by the fact that the
addition of GBFS to soils A, B and C has significantly
improved the grading of these soils (see Table 7.1) and
reduced the porosity of their compacted specimens (as shown
in Appendix B).
The effect of addition of GBFS to soils A, B and C on their

OMC is related to the comparative fineness of GBFS and the
soils. As shown in Table 6.1 when GBFS is added to the
soils A, B and C the OMC of soil C decreases whereas the OMC
of soil A and soil B increases. This is due to the fact
that GBFS is coarser than soil C and hence it decreases the
particle surface area of this soil and subsequently
decreases the water demand in compaction. Conversely, GBFS
is finer that soil A and soil B and hence it increases the
240
particle surface area of these soils and subsequently

increases the water demand in compaction. The increase in
OMC is more pronounced in the case of coarser soil (soil A)
where the increase in fineness due to the addition of GBFS
is more significant.
GBFS as a single additive to soils, therefore, can be

utilised in improving the workability of wet soils (ie,
gravel, sand soils). it can also be used in improving the
grading and increasing the density of soils and subsequently
favourably affecting the strength properties of treated
soils.
7.1.2 Effect of GBFS additive on the strength properties

of soils
It has been observed from Table 6.3 and Figure 6.3 that GBFS
as a single additive to soils A, B and C increases the UCS
of these soils. This can be attributed to reduction in
porosity and increase in density of the compacted specimens
of these treated soils. It can also be observed from Tables
6.3 that the UCS of GBFS treated soils A and B may not
result in strength changes with the variation of curing
time. This implies that strength development reactions had
not taken place between these soils and any constituent of
241
GBFS during the various curing times. However, the slight

increase in UCS of GBFS treated soil C with the increase in
curing time may indicate a reaction between this heavy clay
soil and the free lime in the GBFS.
Tables 6.11 to 6.13 and Figures 6.11 to 6.13 show that the
CBR values of treated soils A, B and C increase with the
increase in the quantity of GBFS additive. This could be
attributed to the decrease in compressibility caused by the
increase in density and the decrease in porosity of these
treated soils (see section 7.1.1).
Unlike the UCS test results, the CBR values of all treated
soils exhibited a slight increase with increase in curing
time. However, this may not be meaningful in an engineering
context in the light of precision, accuracy and
repeatability of the test.
7.1.3 Effect of GBFS additive on the Atterberg limits

and linear shrinkage of soils.
Atterberg limits and linear shrinkage tests have exhibited

some scattered results as shown in Table 6.5. Liquid limit
and plastic limit of GBFS treated soil A show a very slight
increase with the increase of GBFS quantity whereas liquid
242
limit and plastic limit of GBFS treated soil B do not vary

from those of untreated soil. Tables 6.5a and 6.5b indicate
that GBFS has no significant effect on the plasticity and
linear shrinkage of low cohesion soils (ie soil A & soil B)
whereas Table 6.5c shows that GBFS as a single additive to
soils has a remarkable effect on the plasticity and linear
shrinkage of cohesive soils (ie soil C) . Table 6.5c shows
that plastic limit of GBFS treated soil C increases with the
increase of GBFS quantity whereas liquid limit, plasticity
index and linear shrinkage decrease with the increase in
GBFS quantity.
These effects are due to the partial replacement of high

plastic particles of soil C with the low plasticity GBFS
particles. The effects could also be attributed to the
action of free lime in the GBFS on the clay particles which
may explain the slight reduction in plasticity index of GBFS
treated soil occuring with curing time. This is consistent
with the findings for UCS tests in section 7.1.2a.
Although the effects of GBFS on the plasticity and linear

shrinkage of cohesive soils are remarkable, they are
inferior to those which occur by the addition of lime or
cement to these soils.
For example, the linear shrinkage of 8% GBFS treated Soil C

is almost comparable to the linear shrinkage achieved by the
243
addition of 1% lime or 1% cement to this soil (see Figures

6.5c and 6.6c). From Figures 6.7c and 6.8c, it can also be
deduced that the addition of 6-7% GBFS to soil C is required
to achieve the plasticity index achieved by the addition of
1% cement or 1% lime to the soil.
The use of GBFS as a single additive to soils to modify

their plasticity and shrinkage properties is, therefore, not
efficient.
7.1.4 Effect of GBFS additive on the behaviour of soils

under the action of repeated dynamic load.
The various measurements of deflections for both pavements

(the untreated soil D and the 8% GBFS treated soil D) shown
in Tables 4.15 and 6.16 reveal that:

taken, the deflection increased with the increase in
number of load applications.

pavements increased, the actual deflection per single
load applied decreased, indicating that pavement
stiffness had increased (see Table 7.2).
244
iii) The maximum values of deflection for the various number

of load cycles occurred close to the wheel contact area
and particularly under the wheel edge.
iv) For any number of load cycles the deflections at almost

all measuring points on the grid for the GBFS treated
pavement were less than the corresponding deflection
for the untreated pavement. The maximum value of
deflection for the GBFS treated pavement after 50,000
load cycles was less than the maximum value of
deflection for the untreated pavement (6.7mm for 8%
GBFS treated pavement and 8.95mm for untreated
pavement). This signifies the positive role of GBFS in
improving the stiffness of a soil and reducing its
compressibility by increasing the density and reducing
porosity as was indicated in section 7.1.1.
7.2 Lime-GBFS Additives
7.2.1 Effect of lime-GBFS additives on compaction

It can be observed from Table 6.1 that when 1:1 lime-GBFS

additive is added to the soils A, B and C, the maximum dry
density of these soils is decreased. This is due to the
dominant effect of the light weight of lime (specific
gravity = 2.35). As the quantity of GBFS in the additive
245
increases, the maximum dry density of the treated soils

increases. This is due to the fact that GBFS is heavier
than lime (specific gravity = 2.86) and GBFS tends to
improve the particle size distribution of the treated soils
and reduce the porosity of the compacted specimens (see
Table 7.1 and Appendix B) . Table 6.1 also shows that when
lime-GBFS additives are added to soil A and soil B, the OMC
of these soils increases. This is more pronounced as the
quantity of GBFS in the additive is decreased. This implies
that the increase in OMC is dominated by the hydration
effect of lime rather than by the quantity of water required
to wet the increased surface area of the soil particles.
Table 6. lc shows that the OMC of treated soil C increases

due to the addition of 1:1 lime-GBFS. This can be
attributed to the dominant effect of lime hydration.
However, as the quantity of GBFS in the additive increases,
the effect of GBFS, again, becomes more dominant than the
effect of lime and tends to decrease the OMC of treated soil
C due to the fact that GBFS is coarser than this soil (see
Table 7.1) and hence it decreases its particle surface area.
Lime-GBFS additives, therefore, can be utilised for

improving the workability of wet soils (gravel, sand etc.).
They also can be used as mechanical stabilisers for
improving the grading and increasing the density of soils,
246
which may favourably affect the strength properties of

treated soils.
7.2.2 Effect of lime-GBFS additives on the strength

properties of soils
A perusal of Table 6.3 shows that:
i) For a given quantity of additive, as GBFS in the

additive decreases, the strength at all ages for all
treated soils increases. The highest strength for all
treated soils was achieved by using 1:1 lime-GBFS
additive. This is not consistent with the case of
lime-GBFS specimens (section 6.5.3) and implies that
lime reacts more readily with soils than with GBFS. A
sufficient quantity of lime (initial consumption of
lime, ICL) may be consumed in increasing the pH value
of soils to a stage (pH = 12.4) at which reactions take
place between the lime and the clay minerals and other
pozzolans to produce hydrated calcium silicate and
calcium aluminate gels.
ii) As the curing time increases, the strengths of treated

soils increase which implies that pozzolanic reactions
take place over a long time.
247
For all additives, the strength of treated soil

increases with increasing quantity of additive, up to a
peak value,then decreases with the continuous increase
in the quantity of additive, similar to that in the
case of lime stabilisation. The quantity of additive,
at which a peak value of strength occurs, tends to
increase with decreasing amount of lime in the
additive. This conforms to the previous finding that
lime reacts more readily with soil than with GBFS.
For all soils tested, the lime-GBFS additives were not

able to achieve the highest strength achieved by lime
additive. This is more pronounced in the case of soil
C which, as a heavy clay, is very suitable to lime
stabilisation. This denotes that lime-GBFS additives
are more efficient in modifying the strength of non
cohesive soils than they are in modifying the strength
of cohesive soils.
Figure 6.3 shows that the UCS of soils treated with 4%

content of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 lime-GBFS additives are
greater than those of 2%, 1.3% and 1% lime
stabilisation. This signifies the role of GBFS, as a
pozzolan, in the strength development of lime-GBFS
stabilised soils. The effectiveness of this role will
be examined further in section 7.2.7.
248
From Tables 6.11 to 6.13 and Figures 6.11 to 6.13, it can be

observed that:
i) For all additives, the CBR of all treated soils

increases with increasing quantity of additive and/or
curing time.
ii) For a given quantity of additive, as the amount of GBFS

in the additive decreases, the CBR value of all treated
soil increases.
iii) In the case of soil C, which as a heavy clay is very

suitable to lime stabilisation, the lime-GBFS additives
were not able to achieve the highest CBR value achieved
by lime additive. This, also, is consistent with the
findings for UCS in section 7.2.2a. However, the 1:2
lime to GBFS additive, at an additive quantity of 8%,
was able to achieve higher CBR values than those
achieved by 2.6% lime in the case of soil A and soil B.
This implies once more that:
a) lime-GBFS additives are more suitable for modifying

the strength of non cohesive soils than they are
for modifying the strength of cohesive soils.
249
b) GBFS is a pozzolan and has a role in the strength

development of lime-GBFS soil stabilisation.
The observations described in (i) and (ii) are

consistent with the findings for UCS in section 7.2.2a.

lime-GBFS treated soils
It can be seen from Table 6.8 that delay in compaction of

lime and lime-GBFS treated soils decreases the strength of
these mixes. This is more pronounced as the time elapsed
since mixing is increased.
The results presented in Table 6.8 have also shown that in

lime and lime-GBFS stabilisation, the losses in strength due
to delay in compaction were not great and almost equal.
This implies that the rate of reaction in lime-GBFS
stabilisation is relatively slow and somewhat similar to
lime stabilisation. Accordingly, the time constraints in
breakdown, etc, and the effect of rain are not so critical.
These observations are consistent with the findings for

lime-RHA additives which are explained in Chapter 5 (section
5.2.3) .
250
7.2.4 Effect of lime-GBFS additives on the shear

strength parameters of soils
It has been observed, as shown in Table 6.9, that in almost

all cases, the shear strength parameters (cohesion and angle
of internal friction) of the soil increase with increasing
quantity of additive and/or decreasing amount of GBFS in the
additive.
For a given proportion of lime to GBFS, as the quantity of

additive increases, an increase in the parameters is
observed in all cases. It can also be seen that the
cohesion and angle of internal friction of soil B stabilised
with 8% content of 1:1 lime-GBFS were higher than those with
4% lime additive. In the case of soil C, the cohesion and
angle of internal friction achieved by 8% content of 1:1
lime-GBFS additive were somewhat similar to those achieved
by 4% lime additive. These observations are consistent with
the findings for UCS and CBR in section 7.2.2a and 7.2.2b.
Table 6.9 also shows that shear strength parameters increase

with increasing curing time. This confirms the belief that
GBFS is a pozzolan and its reaction with lime takes place
over a long time.
As shear strength of a soil is determined by its parameters

and effective normal stress (ie r = C +rntan 0), it can
251
easily be seen that the above mentioned observations are

applicable to the effect of lime-GBFS additives on the shear
strength of soils. As previously stated, these observations
conform to the findings for CBR and UCS which are, more or
less, measures of the combined effects of cohesion and
internal friction of a soil. Accordingly, it can be stated
that the increase in strength {UCS, CBR and shear strength)
due to lime-GBFS stabilisation is caused by the increase in
both the angle of internal friction and cohesion of the
stabilised soil. The reasons behind this increase were
discussed in Chapter 5 (section 5.2.4).
7.2.5 Discussion of the results of the XRD analysis of

A comparison of the XRD chart of lime-GBFS treated Soil A,

as shown in Figure 6.19, with the XRD chart of the untreated
soil (Figure 4.25) reveals that the peaks pattern in both
cases are almost similar with the exception of the presence
of Calcite (CaC03) in the treated sample. This was
identified by the existence of several peaks at d spacings
of 2.285, 2.095, 1.913 and 1.875 A°.
The XRD chart of lime-GBFS treated Soil C, as shown in

Figure 6.20, has also indicated the presence of Calcite in
the treated soil. This can be identified by the peaks shown
at d spacings of 3.035, 2.285, 2.095, 1.913 and 1.875 A°.
252
It was also shown that the treated soil retained some

details of the original structure of the untreated soil
(ie, Quartz) whereas some other details such as Kaolinite
disappeared.
The XRD charts of lime-GBFS treated Soils A and C have not

indicated the existence of any form of calcium silicate
hydrate or calcium aluminate hydrate. Possible existence of
such compounds could be hindered by the presence of Calcite
in the samples. The presence of Calcite could be attributed
to the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the thin
dispersion of the fine material. The XRD analysis has
proved inconclusive in providing information on the nature
of the hydration products of the lime-GBFS soil
stabilisation.
7.2.6 Discussion of the results of the SEM examination

of lime-GBFS stabilised soils
The scanning electron micrograph of the fracture surface of

the lime-GBFS treated Soil A as shown in Figure 6.17 reveals
a rough texture with few cracks and microporosities. This
indicates that the surface of the treated soil retained some
details of the surface of the untreated soil (see Figure
4.21). However, these cracks and microporosities are
smaller in number and size than those shown for untreated
soil in Figure 4.21.
253
Figure 6.17 also reveals a considerable crystalline reaction

product, presumably calcium silicate hydrate, which can be
seen at the bottom left of the micrograph. Few other
patches of amorphous reaction products can be seen covering
some areas and filling some of the microporosities in the
fracture surface.
The micrograph of the lime-GBFS treated Soil C as shown in

Figure 6.18 reveals a massive and even distribution of
amorphous components which are presumably the non
crystalline reaction products.
The description of the features of both micrographs given in

this section are some what subjective. Consequently,
speculations on the origin of strength and other properties
when based on this observation have limited validity.
Hence, the SEM proved inconclusive in comparing and
identifying the hydration products of lime-GBFS soil
stabilisation.
7.2.7 Effect of lime-GBFS additives on the Atterberg

A perusal of Table 6.5 reveals that:
Liquid limit and plastic limit of lime-GBFS treated soils

increase with the increase of additive quantity with one
254
notable exception where the very high liquid limit of soil C

decreases with the increase in additive quantity. However,
the plasticity index and linear shrinkage of all treated
soils decrease with the increase in additive quantity.
These effects are more pronounced as the amount of GBFS in
the lime-GBFS is decreased.
These effects could be referred to the combined action of

GBFS particles of, relatively, low plasticity and ion
exchange between the lime and the clay minerals of soils.
Table 6.5 also shows that liquid limit, plastic limit,
plasticity index and linear shrinkage of treated soils after
a curing period of 28 days are almost equal to those after a
curing period of 7 days. This can be explained by the fact
that the reactions responsible for reducing plasticity and
shrinkage (ie cation exchange) occur during a short period
of time and mostly in the first 7 days of the curing time,
and that GBFS does not react with soils as was discussed in
section 7.1.2.
A perusal of Figures 6.5 and 6.7 reveals that lime-GBFS

additives could not attain the results achieved by 4% lime
additive. Hence, their use to modify the plasticity and
shrinkage of soils could be restricted to a lower level of
achievement. However, their limited role in this context
255
(ie to replace 2-3% lime additive in modifying plasticity

and shrinkage of soils) could be justified by the amount of
lime saving they can achieve.
The observations presented in this section are almost

identical to the findings for lime-RHA additives as
discussed in Chapter 5 (section 5.2.7).
7.2.8 Implications of lime savings
Figure 6.3a indicates that the UCS of 2% lime treated soil A

can be achieved by 3.6% content of 1:2 lime-GBFS additive
(ie, 1.2% lime + 2.4% GBFS). The lime saving is therefore
equal to 2-1.2 = 0 . 8 % and the ratio of GBFS required to lime
saved is 2.4/0.8 = 3. Therefore 1:2 lime-GBFS additive is
not economically feasible to replace the 2% lime
stabilisation unless the cost of lime is equal to or greater
than 3 times the cost of GBFS.
Table 7.3 has been derived in a similar manner utilising

for the various values of UCS, shrinkage and plasticity for
each case of soil treatment.

256
i) 1:1 lime-GBFS additive tends to be the most economical

additive of all lime-GBFS additives tested. These
additives tend to be less economical as the quantity of
GBFS in the additive increases.
ii) Lime-GBFS additives are more efficient in stabilising

non cohesive soils (soil A and soil B) than in
stabilising clays.
iii) All of the tested lime-GBFS additives are not

recommended for replacing 4% lime in stabilising soils.
iv) 1:1 lime-GBFS can not be recommended for replacing 2%

lime in modifying strength, plasticity and shrinkage of
clays (soil C) unless the cost of lime is 6-7 times the
cost of GBFS. However, this economic cost ratio tends
to decrease as the treated soil tends to be coarser
(identical cost ratios for increasing the strength of
soil A and soil B are 2.25 and 4.68 respectively).
7.2.9 Effect of lime-GBFS additive on the behaviour of

The results of the laboratory tests used in this research

indicate that lime-GBFS additives, particularly that of
proportion 1:1, can be used in soil stabilisation to modify
workability, strength, plasticity and shrinkage of soils.
257
To find whether or not the behaviour of these treatments

under the action of repeated dynamic loads is consistent
with the finding for the various laboratory tests, it was
decided to compare the pavements having 2% lime treated soil
D and 3% content of 1:1 lime-GBFS treated soil D with the
control pavement of untreated soil D. The various
measurements of surface deflections of the three pavements,
shown in Tables 4.15, 4.16 and 6.15, reveal that:

taken, the surface deflection of the three pavements
increased with the increase in number of load
applications.

pavements increases, the actual deflection per single
load applied decreases, indicating that the pavement
stiffness has increased ( see Table 7.4.).
iii) The maximum deflections for the various number of load

cycles occur close to wheel contact area and
particularly under the wheel edge (ie, point eH on the
grid) for all cases.
iv) For any number of load cycles the deflection, at any

point on the grid, of the lime-GBFS treated pavement
258
was less than the deflection of the untreated pavement.

This indicates that lime-GBFS additive increases the
stiffness and reduces the compressibility of soils.
The deflection of the lime-GBFS treated pavement after

any number of load applications was less than the
deflection of the lime treated pavement at all points
on the grid. The maximum value of deflection of
lime-GBFS treated pavement after 50,000 load cycles was
less than the maximum value of deflection of the lime
treated pavement (7.2mm for 2% lime treated pavement
and 6.0mm for 3% content of 1:1 lime-GBFS treated
pavement). This signifies the positive role of GBFS,
as a pozzolan in lime-GBFS additive, for improving the
stiffness of a soil and reducing its compressibility
and is consistent with the findings for strength in
sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.4.
Perusal of Figures 4.14, 4.15 and 6.15 reveals that,

for all pavements, there were downward movements of all
points on the grid where measurements were taken, and
the permanent deformations of the three pavements were
caused by the densification of the pavements rather
than by any shear failure of these pavements (see also
Figures 4.20, 4.21 and 6.18).
259
vii) A visual assessment of the surface of all pavements

showed that no fatigue cracks or shrinkage cracks were
developed and the pavements were intact and sound at
the conclusion of the test.
In general the observations derived from the results of

the repeated dynamic load test have demonstrated that
1:1 lime-GBFS additive is effective and efficient in
repeated loads.
The observations desribed in (i) to (vii) are almost

identical to the findings for lime-RHA additives as
shown in Chapter 5 (section 5.2.9).
7.3 Cement-GBFS Additives
7.3.1 Effect of various cement-GBFS additives on

compaction characteristics
A perusal of Table 6.2 reveals that when cement-GBFS

additives are added to soils A, B and C, the maximum dry
density and the optimum moisture content of these soils
increase. The increase in OMC of the treated soils is more
pronounced as the quantity of GBFS in the additive is
decreased. This implies that the increase in OMC is
dominated by the hydration reactions of cement. In the case
260
of soils A and B, additional water is required for wetting

the increased surface area of the soil particles due to the
addition of GBFS (GBFS is finer than both soils, as shown in
Table 7.1).
The increase in maximum dry densities of all treated soils

was mainly due to the partial replacement of soil with
heavier cement-GBFS additives (specific gravity for 1:1 to
1:4 proportions are 3.0, 2.95, 2.93 and 2.916 respectively.
The increase in dry densities could also be influenced by
the improvement in grading and the reduction in porosity of
all treated soils due to the additon of cement-GBFS
additives. The porosity values were calculated by a method
similar to that specified in section 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 and are
presented in Appendix B.
Cement GBFS additives, therefore, can be used to enhance the

workability of wet soils. They can also be used for
improving the grading, reducing porosity and increasing the
density of soils which may affect favourably the strength
properties of these soils.
7.3.2 Effect of cement GBFS additives on the strength

properties of soils
It has been observed, as shown from Table 6.4, that:

261
For a given quantity of additive, as cement content in

the additive increases the strength, of treated soils,
increases consistent with the case of cement-GBFS
specimens (section 6.5.3). This implies that the
strength development is dominated by the hydration
reactions of cement rather than by the pozzolanic
V
reactions of the GBFS.
For all additives there is continuous increase in

strength of treated soils, with increasing quantity of
additive. No peak value of strength was observed.
This is consistent with the findings stated above.
As curing time increases the strength of treated soils

increases. The rates of strength development of soils
(A and B) treated with cement-GBFS additives are
slightly slower than those of cement treated soils.
Rates of strength development, as ratios of 28 days
strength to 90 days strength, for various treated soils
are derived from Table 6.4 and presented in Table 7.5.
From this Table, it can be seen that GBFS is acting

somewhat as a weak retarder and hence may not have a
significant effect on the workability of cement-GBFS
soil stabilisation. This effect will be further
examined in the later discussion on the effect of delay
in compaction on strength of treated soils (section
7.3.3) .
262
iv) From Figure 6.4c, for example, it can be seen that the
UCS of soil C treated with 4% content of 1:1, 1:2 and
El:3 cement-GBFS additives are greater than those of 2%
content of 1:3 and 1% cement treatment of soil C. This
indicates that GBFS has a role in strength development
of cement-GBFS soil stabilisation. The effectiveness
of this role is investigated in section 7.3.7.
The results presented in Table 6.11 to 6.13 and Figures 6.11

to 6.13 show that:
i) For a given quantity of additive, as the amount of GBFS

in the additive decreases, the CBR value of all treated
soil increases.
ii) For all additives, the CBR of treated soils increases

with increasing quantity of additive and no peak value
is observed.
iii) As the curing time increases, the CBR of all treated

soil increases.
iv) In the case of soil C, which as an organic clay is not

suitable for cement stabilisation, the 1:1 cement-GBFS
additive, at an additive quantity of 8%, was able to
263
achieve a higher CBR value than that achieved by 4%

cement treatment (see Figure 6.13). This clearly
indicates that cement can be partially replaced by GBFS
and that GBFS has a role in the strength development of
cement-GBFS stabilisation of organic clays. The
effectiveness of this role in the stabilisaton of soil
A and soil B and the implication of cement saving in
these cases cannot be derived from the CBR values as
some of these values are greater than 100 and
considered meaningless in accordance with the
discussion of the appropriateness of the test in
section 3.4.4.
The observations described in (i) to (iii) are

consistent with the findings for UCS in section 7.3.2a.

cement-GBFS treated soils
The results presented in Table 6.7 show that a loss in

strength occurs if the compaction of cement or cement-GBFS
treated soil is delayed. The loss in strength is more
The delay in compaction of cement treated soil A was
critical, resulting in 30% to 70% loss of strength due to
2-6 hours delay in compaction. However, this loss in
264
strength was reduced slightly by using cement-GBFS

additives. The decrease in the loss of strength is more
pronounced as the amount of GBFS in the additive is
increased. This could be attributed to the fact that GBFS
acts as a weak retarder in slowing the rate of strength
development of cement-GBFS treated soils (see section
7.3.2a). The loss in strength due to delay in compaction of
cement-GBFS treated soil is 16% - 30% less than that of
cement treated soil. Accordingly, the time constraints in
breakdown, etc, and the effects of rain are less critical.
These observations are consistent with the findings for

lime-RHA, cement-RHA and lime-GBFS additives as described in
sections 5.2.3, 5.3.3 and 7.2.3.
7.3.4 Effect of cement-GBFS on the shear strength

parameters of soils
It has been observed, as shown in Table 6.10, that the shear

strength parameters (cohesion and angle of internal
friction) of the treated soil increase with increasing
quantity of additive, curing time and/or increasing the
amount of cement in the additive. Accordingly, it can be
stated that the increase in strength of cement-GBFS
stabilised soil is influenced by the increase in both its
cohesion and angle of internal friction.
265
This is consistent with the findings for lime-RHA,

cement-RHA and lime-GBFS additives as discussed in Chapter 5
and 7 (sections 5.2.4, 5.3.4 and 7.2.4).
7.3.5 Effect of cement-GBFS additives on the Atterberg

It can be observed, as shown from Table 6.6, that:
i) Liquid limit and plastic limit of cement GBFS treated

soils increase with the increase of additive quantity
with one notable exception where the very high liquid
limit of soil C decreases with increase of additive
quantity.
ii) The plasticity index and linear shrinkage of all

treated soils decrease with the increase in additive
quantity. These effects are more pronounced as the
amount of GBFS in the cement-GBFS additive is
decreased.
iii) It can also be seen from Table 6.6 that liquid limit,
plastic limit and plasticity index of treated soils (A,
B and C) after a curing period of 28 days vary slightly
from those after a curing period of 7 days.
266
iv) The linear shrinkage of treated soils A and B tends to

increase slightly with the increase in curing time due
to the prolonged hydraulic reactions of GBFS stimulated
by the effect of cement. An inspection of Figures 6.6
and 6.8 reveals that, with respect to linear shrinkage
and plasticity index, cement-GBFS cannot attain the
results achieved by 4% cement additive (except for the
linear shrinkage of treated soil C) . Hence their use
to modify the plasticity and shrinkage of soils could
be restricted to this level of cement replacement.
However, their limited role has to be justified by the
amont of cement saving they can achieve.
The observations described in (i, ii and iii) are consistent

with the findings for lime-GBFS additives as discussed in
section 7.2.6.
7.3.6 Implications of cement saving
Figure 6.4c indicates that the UCS of 2% cement treated soil

C can be achieved by 3.1% content of 1:1 cement-GBFS
additive (ie, 1.55% cement + 1.55% GBFS). The cement saving
is therefore, equal to 2-1.55 = 0.45% and the ratio of GBFS
required to cement saved is 1.55/0.45 = 3.44. Therefore 1:1
cement-GBFS additive is not economically feasible to replace
the 2% cement additive in stabilising soil C unless the
total cost of cement is equal to or greater than 3.44 times
267
the total cost of GBFS (ie, material, mixing and separate

storage costs).
Table 7.6 has been derived in a similar manner, utilising

for the various values of strength, plasticity index and
linear shrinkage for each case of soil treatment.
i) 1:1 cement-GBFS is the most economical additive of all

cement-GBFS additives used. These additive tend to be
less economical as the quantity of GBFS in the additive
increases.
ii) 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4 cement-GBFS additives are not

efficient and can not be recommended to be used in soil
stabilisation.
iii) 1:1 cement-GBFS additive is not efficient in modifying

plasticity and shrinkage properties of low cohesion
soils nor is it efficient in modifying the strength of
crushed rocks (gravel-sand-silt, soils).
iv) 1:1 cement-GBFS additive can be recommended for

replacing 2-4% cement additive in modifying the
strength, plasticity and shrinkage of clays provided
268
that the cost of cement is equal to, or greater than,

2-4 times the cost of GBFS.
v) 1:1 cement-GBFS additive also can be recommended for

replacing 2% cement additive in modifying the strength
of sand-silt soils provided that the cost of cement is
equal to or greater than five times the cost of GBFS.
7.3.7 Effect of cement-GBFS on the behaviour of soils

under the action of repeated dynamic load
In section 7.3.2a and 7.3.2b it was found that GBFS acted as

a pozzolan and has a role in strength development of
cement-GBFS soil stabilisation. To inspect the
effectiveness of this role in improving the behaviour of
soils under the action of repeated dynamic loads, it was
decided to compare the pavements containing 1.5% cement
treated soil D and 3% content of 1:1 cement-GBFS treated
soil D with the control pavement of untreated soil D.
The various measurements of surface deflection for the three

pavements, shown in Tables 4.15, 4.18 and 6.14 reveal that:

taken, the surface deflection in all three pavements
increased with the increase in number of load
applications.
269

pavements decreased, the actual deflection per single
load applied decreased, indicating that the stiffness
had increased (see Table 7.7).
iii) The maximum deflection for the various number of load

cycles occurred close to wheel contact area (ie, point
eH and dH on the grid).
iv) For any number of load cycles, the values of

deflection, at any point on the grid, of the
cement-GBFS treated pavement were less than the values
of deflection of the untreated pavement. This
indicates that cement-GBFS additive increases the
stiffness and reduces the compressibility of soils.
v) The maximum deflection of the 3% cement-GBFS treated

pavement after 250,000 load cycles was equal to 2.3mm.
This was less than the maximum deflection of the 1.5%
cement treated pavement after 50000 load cycles, which
was equal to 2.96mm. This signifies the role of GBFS
in cement-GBFS additive in increasing the density and
stiffness and reducing the compressibility of soils.
vi) Figure 6.16 reveals that most of the points on the 3%

1:1 cement-GBFS treated pavement, where measurements
were taken, exhibited a downward movement and the
270
deflection was caused by the densification of the

pavement rather than by any shear failure. This is
consistent with the findings for all treated and
untreated pavements as discussed in sections 5.2.9 and
7.2.9.
vii) A visual assessment of the surface of the 3% content of

1:1 cement-GBFS treated pavement showed that no fatigue
cracks or shrinkage cracks were developed and the
pavement was intact and sound at the conclusion of the
test.
In general, the observations derived from the results

of the repeated dynamic load test have demonstrated
that 1:1 cement-GBFS additive is an effective and
efficient stabiliser in improving the behaviour of soil
under the action of repeated dynamic loads.
The observations described in this section are almost

similar to the findings of lime-GBFS additives as described
in section 7.2.9.
271
Table 7.1 Effect of G B F S additive on the grading of soils
soil sieve size Grading of Grading of Grading of Grading of

soil GBFS soil + 8% max density
% passing % passing GBFS curve
% passing % passing
19mm 100 100 100 100
9.5mm 73 100 75 70
4.75mm 36 100 41 50
A 2.36mm 22 100 28 35
425pm 15 50 17 15
75pm 8 5 7.5 6
13.5pm 4 2 3.5 3
4.75mm 100 100 100 100

2.36mm 85 100 86 90
B 425pm 43 50 43.5 30
75pm 24 5 22.5 13
13.5^m 17 2 15.5 5
2.36mm 100 100 100 100

425pm 95 50 91 42
C 75pm 71 5 66 18
13.5pm 53 2 49 8
272
Table 7.2 Deflection per load as number of load increases at point of maximum
deflection on the grid (ie point eH) of the 8 % G B F S treated pavement
Progressive total N o of loads Deflection due Average deflection

of loads applied applied loads applied (mm) due to one load
application (mm)
50 50 4.35 .087
500 450 5.70-4.35 0.003
5,000 4,500 6.20-5.70 1.11 x10-4
50,000 45,000 6.70-6.20 1.11 X10-5
273
Table 7.3 Ratio of G B F S required to lime saved or identical economic cost ratio of
lime to G B F S
Level of achievement Soil lime.GBFS lime.GBFS lime:GBFS lime:GBFS
1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4
U C S of 2 % lime treated A 2.25 3 NA NA

soil B 4.68 NA NA NA
C 6.6 6.6 13.69
U C S of 4 % lime treated A NA NA NA NA
soil B NA NA NA NA
C NA NA NA
Plasticity index of 2 % A NA 4.0 NA NA

lime treated soil B NA NA NA NA
C 6.7 50 7.55
Plasticity index of 4 % A NA NA NA NA
C NA NA NA
Linear shrinkage of 2% A NA NA 30 NA
C 5.69 6.86 9.0
Linear shrinkage of 4 % A NA NA NA NA
C NA NA NA
—- Additive is not tested

NA N o lime could be saved
274
Table 7.4a Deflection per load as number of load applications increases at point eH
on the grid of the pavement containing 3 % lime-GBFS treated soil D
Progressive total No. of load Deflection due to Average deflection
of load applications applications load applications due to one load
(mm) application (mm)
50 50 3.89 .0778
500 450 4.53 - 3.89 .0014
5,000 4,500 4.99 - 4.53 .0001
50,000 45,000 6.00 - 4.99 2.24x10-5
Table 7.4b Deflection per load as number of load applications increases at point eH
on the grid of the pavement containing 2 % lime treated soil D
50 50 5.95 0.119
500 450 6.90 - 5.95 .002
5,000 4,500 7.12-6.90 4.88x10-5
50,000 45,000 7.20-7.12 1.77x10-6
Table 7.4c Deflection per load as number of load applications increases at point eH
on the grid of the untreated pavement
50 50 3.12 .062
500 450 4.15-3.12 .0025
5,000 4,500 6.97 - 4.25 .0006
50,000 45,000 8.95 - 6.97 .0004
275
Table 7.5 Ratio of U C S at 28 days to U C S at 90 days for soils treated with 8 %

content of cement and cement-GBFS additives
Additives Cement CementGBFS CementGBFS CementGBFS

1:1 1:2 1:3
Soils
A .93 .85 .835 .83

B .89 .784 .68 .84
C .857 .73 .90 .92
276
Table 7.6 Ratio of G B F S required to cement saved or identical economic cost ratio
of cement to G B F S
Level of achievement Soil Cement.GBFS Cement.GBFS Cement:GBFS Cement.GBFS
1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4
U C S of 2 % cement A 19 NA NA NA
treated soil B 4.64 NA NA NA
C 3.44 3.42 1.41
U C S of 4 % cement A NA NA NA NA
treated soil B NA NA NA NA
C 1.58 NA NA
Plasticity index of 2 % A 5.20 9.79 6.07 7.92

cement treated soil B NA NA NA NA
C 4.12 21.58 21.95
Plasticity index of 4 % A NA NA NA NA
C 1.98 NA NA
Linear shrinkage of 2 % A NA NA 30 NA
C 3.15 20.27 9.0
Linear shrinkage of 4 % A NA NA NA NA
C 2.27 NA NA
NA N o cement saving could occur

— Additive is not tested
277
Table 7.7a Deflection per load as number of load applications increases at point
eH on the grid of the untreated pavement
(mm) application ( m m )
50 50 3.12 .062
500 450 4.25-3.12 .0025
5,000 4,500 6.97 - 4.25 .0006
50,000 45,000 8.95 - 6.97 .0004
Table 7.7b Deflection per load as number of load applications increases at point
eH on the grid of the pavement containing 1.5% cement treated soil D
(mm) application ( m m )
50 50 1.30 0.26
500 450 2.23 -1.30 .002
5,000 4,500 2.53 - 2.23 6.66x10-5
50,000 45,000 2.96 - 2.53 9.55x10-6
Table 7.7c Deflection per load as number of load applications increases at point
d H on the grid of the pavement containing 3 % content of 1:1 cement-
G B F S treated soil D
5,000 5,000 1.70 3.4x10-4

50,000 45,000 1.87-1.7 3.77x10-6
250,000 200,000 2.3 -1.87 2.15x10-6
278
Chapter VIII
DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF THE APPLICATIONS OF

RHA AND GBFS TO SOIL STABILISATION
8.1 Introduction
Chapters 4 to 7 report the studies of a number of additives,

involving RHA and GBFS, for soil stabilisation. Technical
performance details have been specified where possible, and
indications of the type of situation in which these
additives might or might not be appropriate are presented.
However, it must be emphasized that an Engineer's choice
between alternative additives cannot be made solely on the
basis of technical considerations. RHA and GBFS additives
may suffer unreasonably in competition with lime and cement
additives because consumers are usually geared to the
preferred use of primary materials. This preference for
primary supplies is not due to the inferiority of
by-products (ie, RHA and GBFS) but could result from the
prejudice, habit and the maintenance of status of industry
ingrained in our materials use practice.
The use of RHA and GBFS additives in soil stabilisation,

therefore, may not be justified unless RHA and GBFS are
available in large quantities at a particular location at
low competitive cost. This cost may constitute the major
279
factor in deciding which of the technically and socially

acceptable alternatives should be used. Section 8.2 to
8.10 present the comparative costs of RHA, GBFS, lime and
cement used in this research and investigate the economic
feasibility of using RHA and GBFS additives in soil
stabilisation in NSW.
8.2 Availability Of RHA
The major rice growing area is primarily centred in the

Riverina area, where the Ricegrowers Co-Operative Limited
produces an annual crop of close to one million tonnes of
paddy rice, resulting in 160,000 tonnes of rice hulls.
Smaller quantities of rice hulls, of the order of 6,000
tonnes/year and 1,000 tonnes/year, are produced in the
Burdekin delta, Queensland and the Northern Territory,
respectively.
Currently, approximately 20,000 tonnes/year of rice hulls

from the Riverina area are burnt in controlled combustion
furnaces at Griffith producing around 1,000 tonnes/annum of
low carbon (grey ash) and 3,000 tonnes/annum of high carbon
(black ash) rice hull ash (no controlled burning of the
Queensland and Northern Territory rice hulls is currently in
operation). The ashes are produced under strict quality
control to comply with exacting requirements of the steel
280
and refractory industries which comprise the major market.

As a result of this strict quality control, the ashes
currently attract high revenue.
At present 60% of the rice hulls from the Riverina are

disposed of by field burning. It is planned (52) to install
incineration or power generation facilities at all mills
(Echuca, Deniliquin, Coleambally, Leeton, Yenda and
Griffith) within five years, which should ensure that,
progressively, up to 30,000 tonnes/annum of low carbon ash
will become available. This ash, which would normally be
used as landfill, as a soil ameliorant for sandy soils or as
a substitute for lime in soils, should become available
locally at low cost.
Currently, the grey ash is sold at $250/tonne whereas the

black ash which was used in this research is sold at
$380/tonne F.O.T. Ex Biocon, Griffith.
The price of black ash, therefore, is approximately equal

2.5 times the price of lime or cement at any place in NSW,
particularly at Finley RTA Works Office, NSW (the closest
RTA Works Office to Griffith) where lime and cement are
currently delivered in bags and bulk at $130-150/tonne.
281
8.3 Economic feasibility of RHA as a single additive

to Soils
It was stated in section 5.1.2a and 5.1.2b that RHA,

technically, is not suitable to impart significant strength
to soils. However, it was also stated in section 5.1.3 that
RHA cannot be recommended to be used in modifying the
plasticity and shrinkage properties of soils unless the cost
of lime or cement is 5-6 times the cost of RHA. This
condition could not be met as shown in the previous section
which indicates beyond any question that RHA used in this
research cannot, currently, be recommended to be used in
replacement of lime or cement in soil stabilisation in NSW.
8.4 Economic feasibility of Lime-RHA additives to

Soils
It has been shown in Section 5.2.8 that 1:1 lime-RHA

additive tends to be the most economical additive of all
lime-RHA additives tested in this research and that 1:1
lime-RHA additive is not recommended to be used in improving
the strength of soils unless the price of lime is at least 3
times the price of RHA. It was also shown in section 5.2.7
that 1:1 lime-RHA additive can be recommended to be used in
modifying the plasticity and shrinkage properties of soils
provided that the cost of lime is at least 5-6 times the
cost of RHA.
282
Section 8.2 clearly shows that both conditions, which enable

1:1 lime-RHA to be economically implemented in increasing
the strength and modifying the plasticity and volume
stability of soils, are not met. Consequently, it can be
determined that 1:1 lime-RHA additive and subsequently all
other lime-RHA additives are not, at present, economically
feasible to be used in soil stabilisation in NSW.
8.5 Economic feasibility of Cement-RHA additives to

Soil
Section 5.3.7 has indicated that 1:1 cement-RHA additive

tends to be the most economical additive of all cement-RHA
additives tested in this research and that cement-RHA
additives can be recommended for replacing 2% cement
additive for increasing the strength of low cohesion soils
provided that the cost of cement is equal to, or greater
than, 2.4 times the cost of RHA. It was also shown in
section 5.3.7 that the cost of cement should equal at least
4 times the cost of RHA to enable cement-RHA additive to be
implemented, economically, in modifying the plasticity and
shrinkage properties of soils or achieving a strength
comparable to that achieved with 4% cement additive.
The fact that the cost of cement is not 4 times the cost of
RHA but rather 2.5 times less than the cost of RHA dictates
283
that cement-RHA additives cannot, at present, be recommended

to be used in soil stabilisation in NSW.
8.6 Summary
The current high cost of RHA in NSW has rendered this

material unsuitable to be used as a single additive to soils
or in combination with lime or cement in the soil
stabilisation. However, Biocon is currently investigating
larger furnaces that will produce grey ash at rate of up to
3 tonnes per hour or 15000 tonnes per annum. It is assumed
that the cost of this grey ash will be as low as $50/tonne
bulk ex. rice mill. This assumption suggests a role for
grey ash in soil stabilisation particularly if it proved,
after testing, to be a better soil stabiliser than black
ash.
8.7 Availability of GBFS
Iron and steel making has been a part of Australia's history

and development since the first blast furnace was
established at Mittagong, NSW in 1848. The scope and thrust
of the slag industry has been significantly changed in the
late 1980's with the construction of new granulation
facilities at No. 2 and 5 Furnaces, Port Kembla and No.3
Furnace, Newcastle. These new facilities have taken the
284
process from the basic form which is still currently in use

at No.4 Furnace, Port Kembla, which has minimal controls on
flow rates, pressure, temperature, automatic dewatering and
automatic sampling (55).
The three steel production centres at Port Kembla, Newcastle

and Whyalla generated more than 3.2 million tonnes of total
iron and steel making slag in 1989 (54) of which Port Kembla
works, as the largest steel making centre in Australia (4.0
million tonnes per annum) produced more than 420,000 tonnes
of GBFS.
This GBFS is currently marketed by Australian Steel Mill

Services Pty Ltd, Port Kembla, NSW, and sold at $6.00 to
$10.00 per tonne depending on the quantity of material
ordered. This price is F.O.T. Ex Port Kembla and is
approximately /14 times the cost of lime or cement ($130 -
$140 per tonne) at any place within a distance of 300km from
Port Kembla.
8.8 Economic feasibility of GBFS as single additive to

Soils
Section 7.1.2a and section 7.1.3 indicate that GBFS as a

single additive to soils has a remarkable effect on
strength, plasticity and shrinkage properties of cohesive
285
soils. However, these sections also show that the effects

of GBFS on the properties of soils are inferior to those
occurring due to the addition of lime or cement additives to
soils and that GBFS as a single additive to soils is not an
efficient stabiliser unless the cost of lime or cement is
between 6-9 times the cost of GBFS.
This condition is met as is clearly shown in section 8.7.

Hence GBFS as single additive to soils can be recommended
for use in modifying strength, plasticity and shrinkage
properties of cohesive soils in locations where the cost of
GBFS does not exceed 140/6 = $23.33 (ie where haulage rate
does not exceed 23.33 - 10.00 = $13.33 (per tonne). If x km
is the haulage distance in excess of 40kms, then the haulage
rate can be calculated by using the equation provided by RTA
NSW: Haulage rate = 9.32 + 0.2612 x and therefore the
haulage distance in excess of 40kms will equal to 15.35km.
This indicates that GBFS as a single additive to soils can
be recommended to be used in modifying strength, plasticity
and shrinkage properties of cohesive soils in locations
within a distance of 55kms from Port Kembla or similar GBFS
production plant.
286
8.9 Economic feasibility of Lime-GBFS additives to

Soils
It has been shown in section 7.2.8 that 1:1 lime-GBFS

additive tends to be the most economical additive of all
lime-GBFS additives investigated in this research. It has
also been shown that 1:1 lime-GBFS additive can be
recommended for replacing 2% lime additive in modifying
strength, plasticity and shrinkage of clays (soils) provided
that the cost of lime is 6-7 times the cost of GBFS.
This condition is satisfied at the place of production in

Port Kembla and can also be met in any location within a
distance of 55km from Port Kembla or similar production
plant as was shown in section 8.8.
Section 7.2.8 has also indicated that 1:1 lime-GBFS additive

can be used for replacing 2% lime additive in increasing the
strength of low cohesion soils provided that the cost of
lime is 4.68 and 2.25 times the cost of GBFS depending on
the nature of stabilised soils (4.68 times for sand-silt
soils and 2.25 times for gravel-sand soils).
In a way similar to that specified in section 8.8, it can be

proved that these requirements can be satisfied in locations
where hauling distance from Port Kembla or any other similar
287
GBFS production plant does not exceed 80-200km depending on

nature of soils (80km for sand-silt soils and 200km for
gravel-sand soils).
8.10 Economic feasibility of Cement-GBFS additives to

Soils
It has been shown in section 7.3.7 that 1:1 cement-GBFS

additive is the most economical additive of all cement-GBFS
additives used in this investigation. It has also been
shown that 1:1 cement-GBFS additive can be recommended for
replacing 2-4% cement additive in modifying strength,
plasticity and shrinkage properties of clays provided that
the cost of cement is equal to or greater than 2-4 times the
cost of GBFS. It was also shown in section 7.3.7 that 1:1
cement-GBFS additives can be recommended for replacing 2%
cement additive in modifying the strength of sand-silt soils
provided that the cost of cement is equal to or greater than
4.65 times that the cost of GBFS.
In a way similar to that specified in section 8.8, it can be

proved that the economic requirements for the above stated
applications can be satisfied and 1:1 cement-GBFS additive
is economically feasible to be used in some soil
stabilisation applications where hauling distance, of GBFS,
does not exceed 80-230km depending on nature of soils and
288
purpose of stabilisation (230km for increasing strength and

modifying plasticity and shrinkage of clays and 80km for
increasing strength of sand-silt soils).
289
Chapter IX
RECOMMENDED DESIGN PROCEDURES
9.1 Introduction
The design of lime-pozzolan and cement-pozzolan additive

stabilisation, as with other types of soil stabilisation, is
largely a matter of selecting and proportioning materials to
obtain the desired properties in the finished construction.
The overall objective for the additive soil stabilisation is
to determine an economical blend of soil and additive that
yeilds a mix having sufficient workability, strength,
durability and volume stability.
When stabilising with cement or lime, the amount of lime or

cement required obviously depends on the objectives of
stabilisation and properties required. Decisions as to
whether it would be advantageous to use RHA and GBFS, as
single additives or in combination with lime or cement, must
be taken with economy in mind. Since a given objective,
such as a specified plasticity index, can be achieved by a
variety of additives, the composition of the preferred mix
may be chosen because of its economy.
290
Chapters 4 to 8 examined, technically and economically, the

best ratios of lime or cement to RHA and GBFS produced in
NSW. They also determined the amount of additives required
to be added to four selected soils to obtain certain desired
properties.
Soil properties vary from point to point. The properties of

RHA and GBFS also vary according to many factors as
indicated in section 4.4 and 6.4. These variations imply
that proportions and amounts of additives used in this
investigation may not be appropriate to be implemented in
every soil stabilisation work. This dictates that each
individual problem must be analysed on its own merits before
the design can be accomplished. The problem of choosing the
proper additive may cause an inexperienced individual to
become confused by the many alternatives available for use.
For this reason, the following design procedures are
suggested to be carried out before an attempt is made to
choose an additive.
9.2 Mix design procedures of Lime-RHA Soil

stabilisation
The essential elements of the mix design procedures of

lime-RHA soil stabilisation are listed below:
291
i) Define the objective of treatment and determine a

specific value of the desired property (ie, CBR,
UCS, Ip, etc.) using job specifications, pavement
design or structural analysis.
ii) Determine the minimum quantity of lime which

achieves the desired specific value of soil
property. A plot of lime content versus strength
or any other desired property for three to four
lime contents should be sufficient to enable a
reasonable deduction of this minimum quantity of
lime (see Figure 9.1a).
iii) Plot this minimum quantity of lime as point M on

the abscissa of Figure 9.1b. If there is any
additional cost in involving RHA in the process of
soil stabilisation (ie, additional equipment, men,
etc.) this cost should be converted to an
equivalent lime quantity, deduction from point M
giving point N on the abscissa.
iv) From point N draw a straight line of actual cost

ratio, the slope of which corresponds to the ratio
of cost of lime to the cost of RHA delivered to
the site.
292
v) Determine the optimum ratio of lime to RHA by

testing the UCS of lime-RHA pastes with at least
three different proportions. The ratios of lime
to RHA of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 are usually sufficient
to enable an optimum ratio to be determined.
vi) Consider the optimum ratio also to be the best

economic ratio if RHA is needed to, significantly,
improve the particle size distribution of the
soil. Otherwise, the mix of best economic ratio
can be considered as that mix which has a slightly
higher lime content than that of the mix of
optimum ratio.
vii) From point 0 draw two straight lines representing

the optimum ratio and the best economic ratio of
lime to RHA.
viii) Points above the line of actual cost ratio

indicate the uneconomical additives. Hence the
feasible quantities of RHA (as single additive to
soils) are limited to the range indicated on the
ordinate below point D, from which selection may
be made by testing the specified property. The
feasible lime-RHA mixtures are also limited to a
fairly narrow range (ie, the triangular area
293
bounded by the lines of optimum ratio, best

economic ratio and the actual cost ratio) from
which selection may be made by testing directly
the specified property.
9.3 Mix design procedures for Lime-GBFS, Cement-GBFS

and Cement-RHA Soil stabilisation
The design procedures for lime-GBFS, cement-GBFS and

cement-RHA soil stabilisation are similar to those of
lime-RHA specified in section 9.2. However, it must be
emphasised that no optimum ratio of cement to GBFS and RHA
can be determined. The ratio of 1:1 can be reasonably
considered as the best economic ratio of these mixes.
294
FIG.9.1 - DETERMINATION OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE PREFERRED

MIX IN A LIME-RHA SOIL STABILISATION
>i
+J
Specific value of desired
u property of soil
CU
o
u
a.
o
cn FIG.9.la
TS
CU
U
•rH
CO
CU c
Q •H
99- 4% 6% 8%
Lime additive (% of total dry weight)
•rH
CU
>1
TJ
(0
o FIG.9.lb
-p
o
dP
CU
>
•H
+J
•H
TJ
TJ
rtJ
<
nc
os
2% 4% 6% 8%
Lime additive (% total dry weight)
295
Chapter X
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the preceeding experimental and economical

investigations, the following conclusions have been drawn:
10.1 Conclusions concerning RHA as a single additive to

Soils
RHA improves the workability of wet soils. It increases the

optimum moisture content and decreases the maximum dry
density of these soils.
RHA does not react chemically with soils or affect

favourably their unconfined compressive strength and
behaviour under the action of repeated dynamic loads.
However, RHA tends to decrease the CBR of soils.
RHA increases the liquid limit and plastic limit of soils.

However, the very high liquid limit of heavy clays decreases
due to the addition of RHA to these clays. RHA improves the
volume stability of soils by decreasing their plasticity
index and linear shrinkage. However, these decreases in
plasticity and shrinkage are not comparable to those which
occur by the addition of lime or cement to soils.
296
RHA can be recommended for replacing lime or cement in

modifying the plasticity and shrinkage properties of soils
provided that the cost of lime or cement is at least 5-6
times the cost of RHA. The cost of RHA produced in NSW is
currently 2.5 times the cost of lime or cement and
therefore, RHA cannot be recommended for replacing lime or
cement in soil stabilisation in NSW unless significant
decrease in cost of RHA can be achieved.
10.2 Conclusions concerning Lime-RHA additives
Lime-RHA additives improve the workability of wet soils.

They increase the optimum moisture content and decrease the
maximum dry density of soils. These effects are more
pronounced as the quantity of RHA in the additive is
increased.
1:2 lime-RHA ratio is the optimum ratio associated with the

highest strength of lime-RHA pastes. However, lime reacts
more readily with soils than with RHA and hence the highest
strength of all lime-RHA treated soils has been achieved by
1:1 lime-RHA additive.
Lime-RHA additives increase the CBR, unconfined compressive

strength and shear strength of soils. This is more
297
pronounced as either the curing time, the quantity of lime

in the additive or the quantity of additive is increased.
However, the unconfined compressive strength of treated
soils increases with increasing quantity of additive, up to
a peak value, then decreases with the continuous increase of
the quantity of additive. The quantity of additive at which
a peak value of unconfined compressive strength occurs,
tends to increase with increasing amount of RHA in the
additive. The increase in unconfined compressive strength,
CBR and shear strength of lime-RHA soil stabilisation is
caused by the increase in both the internal friction and
cohesion of the stabilised soils.
RHA acts as a pozzolan and has a role in strength

development of lime-RHA soil stabilisation. However, the
optimum increase in strength (CBR and unconfined compressive
strength) achieved by lime-RHA additives is not comparable
to the maximum increase in strength which occurs by the
addition of lime to soils.
Delay in compaction of lime and lime-RHA stabilised soils

decreases the strength of these mixes. This is more
The rate of reaction in lime-RHA soil stabilisation is
relatively slow and somewhat similar to lime stabilisation.
The losses in strength of lime and lime-RHA stabilised soils
298
due to delay in compaction are, consequently, low and almost

similar. Accordingly, the time constraints in respect of
compaction are not so critical.
Lime-RHA additives improve the volume stability of soils.

They decrease the plasticity index and linear shrinkage and
increase plastic limit and liquid limit of these soils.
These effects are more pronounced as the quantity of
additive and/or the amount of lime in the additive are
increased. However, the very high liquid limit of heavy
clays decreases with the increase in additive quantity
and/or the amount of lime in the additive.
Lime-RHA additives are more efficient for stabilising low

cohesion soils than for stabilising clays. They are also
more efficient for increasing the strength than for
modifying the plasticity and shrinkage properties of soils.
1:1 lime-RHA additive tends to be the most economical

additive of all lime-RHA additives used. It is an effective
and efficient additive for improving the behaviour of soils
under the action of repeated dynamic loads. 1:1 lime-RHA
additive can be recommended for increasing the strength as
well as for modifying the plasticity and shrinkage of soils,
provided that the cost of lime is 3 times (for increasing
the strength) and 5-6 times (for modifying the plasticity
299
and shrinkage) the cost of RHA respectively. These

conditions, currently, are not met in NSW and lime-RHA
additives are not economically feasible at this time for
soil stabilisation in NSW.
10.3 Conclusions concerning Cement-RHA additives
Cement-RHA additives improve the workability of wet soils.

They increase the optimum moisture content and decrease the
maximum dry density of soils. These effects are more
pronounced as the quantity of RHA in the additive is
increased.
There is no optimum ratio of cement to RHA in cement-RHA

pastes. The strength of these pastes increases with the
increase of quantity of cement in the mix.
Cement-RHA additives increase the CBR, Unconfined

compressive strength and shear strength of soils. This is
more pronounced as either the curing time, the quantity of
cement in the additive or the quantity of additive is
increased. The increase in unconfined compressive strength,
CBR and shear strength of cement-RHA soil stabilisation is
300
RHA as a pozzolan has a role in strength development of

cement-RHA soil stabilisation. However, it acts as a
retarder in slowing down the strength development and
favourably affects the workability of these mixes.
Delay in compaction of cement and cement-RHA stabilised

soils decreases the strength of these mixes. The loss in
strength is more pronounced as the time elapsed since mixing
is increased. The loss in strength, due to delay in
compaction, of cement-RHA stabilised soils is significantly
less than that of cement stabilised soils. This is more
pronounced as the amount of RHA in the additive is
increased. Accordingly, the time constraints in respect of
compaction of cement-RHA stabilised soils are not highly
critical.
Cement-RHA additives improve the volume stability of soils.

increase the plastic limit and liquid limit of these soils.
additive and/or the amount of cement in the additive are
and/or the amount of cement in the additive.
301
Cement-RHA additives are more efficient for stabilising low

cohesion soils than for stabilising clays. They are also
more efficient for increasing the strength than for
modifying the plasticity and shrinkage properties of soils.
1:1 cement-RHA additive tends to be the most economical

mixture of all cement-RHA additives used. These additives
tend to be less economical as the amount of RHA in the
additive increases.
1:1 cement-RHA additive is an effective but not very

efficient additive for improving the behaviour of soils
under the action of repeated dynamic loads. It is also not
efficient for replacing 4% cement additive in modifying the
plasticity and shrinkage properties of soils.
1:1 cement-RHA additive can be recommended for replacing 2%

cement additive in increasing the strength of low cohesion
soils and modifying the plasticity and shrinkage properties
of soils provided that the cost of cement is 2.4 times (for
increasing the strength of low cohesion soils) and 4 times
(for modifying the plasticity and shrinkage properties of
soils) the cost of RHA. 1:1 cement-RHA additive can also be
recommended for replacing 4% cement additive in increasing
the strength of soils provided that the cost of cement is 4
times the cost of RHA. All of these cost requirements are
302
not, currently, met in NSW. Accordingly, 1:1 cement-RHA

additive and consequently all other cement-RHA additives
investigated in this research cannot be recommended for
replacing cement in soil stabilisation in NSW unless
significant decrease in cost of RHA can be achieved.
10.4 Conclusions concerning GBFS as a single additive to

Soils
GBFS improves the workability of wet gravel-sand soils. It

increases the optimum moisture content of these soils
whereas it decreases the optimum moisture content of silts
and clays.
GBFS has no significant chemical reactions with soils.

However, its mechanical stabilising effect reduces the
porosity, increases the maximum dry density and affects
favourably the stiffness and compressibility of soils. GBFS
reduces the permanent deformation and improves the behaviour
of soils under the action of repeated dynamic loads. It
also increases the CBR and unconfined compressive strength
of soils. The increase in unconfined compressive strength
of cohesive soils is remarkable but inferior to those which
occur by the addition of lime or cement to these soils.
303
GBFS has no significant effect on the liquid limit, plastic

limit, plasticity index and linear shrinkage of low cohesion
soils. Its effect on volume stability of heavy clays is
remarkable. It increases the plastic limit and decreases
the very high liquid limit, the plasticity index and the
linear shrinkage of these heavy clays. However, these
effects on plasticity and shrinkage properties are inferior
to those which occur by the addition of lime or cement to
these soils.
GBFS, as a single additive to soils, can be recommended for

modifying strength, plasticity and shrinkage properties of
cohesive soils provided that the cost of lime or cement is
6-9 times the cost of GBFS. This condition can currently be
met in NSW within a distance of 55km from Port Kembla or
similar GBFS production plant.
10.5 Conclusions concerning Lime-GBFS additives
1:1 lime-GBFS additive improves the workability of wet

soils. It increases the optimum moisture content and
decreases the maximum dry density of soils. However, as the
quantity of GBFS in the additive increases, the effect of
GBFS gradually becomes more dominant than the effect of lime
and tends to increase the maximum dry density and decrease
304
the optimum moisture content of treated soils, particularly

clays.
1:2 lime:GBFS ratio is the optimum ratio associated with the

highest strength of lime-GBFS pastes. However, lime reacts
more readily with soil than with GBFS and hence the highest
strength of all lime-GBFS treated soils has been achieved by
1:1 lime-GBFS additive.
Lime-GBFS additives increase the CBR, unconfined compressive

strength and the shear strength of soils. This is more
pronounced as either the curing time, the quantity of lime
in the additive or the quantity of additive is increased.
However, the unconfined compressive strength of treated
soils increases with increasing quantity of additive, up to
a peak value, then decreases with the continuous increase in
the quantity of additive. The quantity of additive at which
a peak value of strength occurs tends to increase with
increasing amount of GBFS in the additive. The increase in
CBR, unconfined compressive strength and shear strength is
cohesion of stabilised soils.
GBFS, as a hydraulic cement or as a pozzolan, has a role in

strength development of lime-GBFS soil stabilisation.
However, the highest strength achieved by lime-GBFS
305
additives is not comparable to the maximum increase in

strength which occurs by the addition of lime to soils.
Delay in compaction of lime and lime-GBFS stabilised soils

decreases the strength of these mixes. This is more
The rate of reaction in lime-GBFS soil stabilisation is
relatively slow and somewhat similar to lime stabilisation.
The losses in strength of lime and lime-GBFS stabilised
soils due to delay in compaction are, consequently, low and
almost similar. Accordingly, the time constraints in
respect of compaction are not so critical.
Lime-GBFS additives improve the volume stability of soils.

increase plastic limit and liquid limit of these soils.
additive and/or the amount of lime in the additive are
and/or the amount of lime in the additive.
Lime-GBFS additives are more efficient for stabilising low

cohesion soils than for stabilising clays.
306
Lime-GBFS additives tend to be less economical as the amount

of GBFS in the additive increases. Hence, 1:1 lime-GBFS is
the most economical additive of all lime-GBFS additives
used. It is an effective and efficient additive for
reducing the permanent deformation and improving the
behaviour of soils under the action of repeated dynamic
loads. However, all lime-GBFS additives used are not
efficient for replacing 4% lime additive in stabilising
soils.
1:1 lime-GBFS additive can be recommended for replacing 2%

lime additive in stabilising clays provided that the cost of
lime is 6.7 times the cost of GBFS. It can also be
recommended for replacing 2% lime in increasing the strength
of low cohesion soils provided that the cost of lime is
2.25-4.68 times the cost of GBFS.
These cost requirements are now satisfied in NSW in

locations where hauling distance from Port Kembla or any
other similar GBFS production plant does not exceed 55-200km
depending on the nature of soils and purpose of soil
stabilisation (55km for stabilising gravel-sand soils and
200km for stabilising sand-silt soils).
307
10.6 Conclusions concerning Cement-GBFS additives
Cement-GBFS additives improve the workability of wet soils.

They increase the optimum moisture content and maximum dry
density of soils. The increase in optimum moisture content
is more pronounced as the amount of cement in the additive
is increased.
There is no optimum ratio of cement to GBFS in cement-GBFS

pastes. The strength of these pastes increases with the
increase of amount of cement in the mix.
Cement-GBFS additives increase the CBR, unconfined

compressive strength and shear strength of soils. This is
more pronounced as either the curing time, the quantity of
cement in the additive or the quantity of additive is
increased. The increase in unconfined compressive strength,
CBR and shear strength of cement-GBFS soil stabilisation is
GBFS, as a hydraulic cement or as a pozzolan, has a role in

strength development of cement-GBFS soil stabilisation.
However the rates of strength development of cement-GBFS
stabilised soils are slightly slower than those of cement
stabilised soils. GBFS, therefore, acts as a weak retarder
308
and has no significant effect on the compaction working time

of cement-GBFS stabilised soils.
Delay in compaction of cement and cement-GBFS stabilised

soils decreases the strength of these mixes. This is more
The loss in strength, due to delay in compaction, of cement,

GBFS stabilised soils is slightly less than that of cement
stabilised soils. This is more pronounced as the amount of
GBFS in the additive is increased.
Cement-GBFS additives improve the volume stability of soils.

increase the plastic limit and liquid limit of these soils.
These effects are more pronounced as the quality of additive
and/or the amount of cement in the additives are increased.
However, the very high liquid limit of heavy clays decreases
with the increase in additive quantity and/or the amount of
cement in the additive.
Cement-GBFS additives are not efficient for modifying the

plasticity and shrinkage properties of low cohesion soils.
1:1 cement-GBFS additive is efficient for increasing the
strength of soils and modifying the plasticity and shrinkage
properties of clays. It is also an effective and efficient
309
additive in reducing the permanent deformation and improving

the behaviour of soils under the action of repeated dynamic
loads.
1:1 cement-GBFS additive can be recommended for replacing 2-

4% cement additive in modifying strength, plasticity and
shrinkage properties of clays provided that the cost of
cement is equal to or greater than 2-4 times the cost of
GBFS. 1:1 cement-GBFS additive can also be recommended for
replacing 2% cement additive in modifying the strength of
sand-silt soils provided that the cost of cement is equal to
or greater than 4.65 times the cost of GBFS. These cost
requirements can be met in NSW and 1:1 cement-GBFS additive
can be recommended for the above stated applications in
locations where hauling distance from Port Kembla or any
similar GBFS production plant, does not exceed 80-230km
depending on the nature of soil and purpose of stabilisation
(230km for increasing the strengh and modifying the
plasticity and shrinkage of clays and 80km for increasing
the strength of sand-silt soils).
310
REFERENCES
1) Hawkes, H.E. and Webb, J.S. ,(1962) Geochemistry in

Mineral Exploration, Harper and Row, New York.
2) Spense, R.J.S and Cook, D.J. (1983) Building

Materials in Developing Countries, John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
3) Ingles, O.G. and Metcalf, J.B. (1972) Soil

Stabilisation Principles and Practices,
Butterworths Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane.
4) Ingles, O.G. (1978) "Soil Stabilisation The Next

One Hundred Years", Symposium on Soil Reinforcing
and Stabilising Techniques, Sydney, Australia,
pp. 365-383.
5) Davidson, W.H. and Mullin, E.F. (1962) "Use of Fly

Ash in Road Construction in New South Wales",
Proc. Australian Road Research Board, 1:2,
pp. 1085-1100.
6) National Association of Australian State Road

Authorities (1979). The History and Challenge of
Road Transport, Brickfield Hill, NSW, Australia.
Kezdi, A. (1979) Stabilised Earth Roads, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam-Oxford-
New York.
Ingles, O.G. (1968) "Report on Survey of Use of

Soil Stabilisation in Australia", Australian Road
Research, J., 3. pp. 58-63.
Cruickshank, J.W. (1977) "Stabilisation of Road

Pavements - A Preliminary Survey", Australian
Road Research, J., 7. pp. 41-42.
Lee, I.K., Ingles, O.G. and White, W. (1983)

Geotechnical Engineering, Pitman Publishing Inc,
Marshfield, Massachusetts, USA.
Lea, F.M. (1970) The Chemistry of Cement and

Concrete, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, London.
Yamanouchi, T. (1978) "Problems of the Development

of Soil Stabilisation", Symposium on Soil
Reinforcing and Stabilising Techniques, Sydney,
Australia.
Havelin, J.E. and Khan, F. (1951) "Hydrated Lime-

Flyash-Fine Aggregate", US Paten No. 2:554, 690.
14) Minnick, L.J. and Miller, R.H. (1952) "Lime-Flyash
Compositions in Highways", Proc Highway Research
Board, pp. 511-528.
15) Davidson, D.T., Sheeler, J.B. and Delbridge, N.G.

(1958) "Reactivity of Four Types of Flyash with
Lime", Highway Research Board, Bulletin No. 193,
pp. 24-31.
16) Central Electricity Generation Board (1958)

Pulverised Fuel Ash Information, Bulletins No.
4,5,6 and 7, London.
17) Bureau of Agricultural Economics (1983) "Situation

and outlook, 1983, Rice, Australia", Government
Publishing Service, Canberra, pp. 1-10.
18) Croft, J.B. (1964) "The Pozzolanic Reactivities of

some New South Wales Flyashes and their
Application to Soil Stabilisation", Australian
Road Research Board, Proc. V2 (2), pp. 1144-1167.
19) Herzog, A. and Brock, R. (1964) "Some Factors

Influencing the Strength of Soil-Lime-Flyash
Mixtures", Australian Road Research Board, Proc
V2(2), pp. 1226-1233.

Department of Main Roads, NSW, (1978)
"Stabilisation with Lime-flyash Mixture", Circular
No. M&R 115, Sydney, Australia.
Moulton, D., Seals, K., and Anderson, D. (1973)

"Utilisation of Ash from Coal Burning Power Plants
in Highway Construction", Highway Research Record,
No. 430, pp. 26-39.
Mehta, P.K. (1979) "Energy Resources and the

Environment - A Review of the US Cement Industry",
World Cement Technology, 9(5), pp. 144-160.
Mehta, P.K. (1976) "Energy and Industrial

Materials from Crop Residues", Resource Recovery
and Conservation, pp. 223-238.
Dave, N.G. (1981) "Pozzolanic Wastes and their

Activation to Produce Improved Lime Pozzolana
Mixtures", Second Australian Conference on
Engineering Materials, University of New South
Wales, Sydney, pp. 623-638.
Hammond, A.A. (1976) "Evaluation of Bauxite-Waste

for Cement Production in New Horizons in
Construction Materials", Envo Publishing Co Inc,
Vol 1, pp. 1159-163.

26) Lilley, A. (December 1979) "Cement Stabilised
Materials", Civil Engineering, pp. 25-29.
27) Suwanvitaya, P. (1984) Properties and Behaviour of

Rice Husk Ash-Lime Cement, Thesis (PH.D.)
University of New South Wales.
28) Hough, J.H. and Bar, H.T. (1956) "Possible Uses

for Waste Rice Hulls", Louisiana State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 507.
29) Rahman, M.A. (1986) "Effects of Rice Husk Ash on

Geotechnical Properties of Lateric Soil", West
Indian Journal of Engineering, Volume 11 No. 2,
pp. 18-22.
30) Lazaro, R.C. and Moh, Z.C. (1976) "Stabilisation

of Deltaic Clays with Lime-Rice Husk Ash
Admixtures", Proceedings of Second South East
Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore,
pp. 215-223.
31) Subrahmanyam, M.S., Cheran, Lee Lih and Cheran,Lee

So (December 1981) "Use of Rice Husk Ash for Soil
Stabilisation", Gological Society Malaysia,
Bulletin 14, pp. 143-151.
Rajan, B.H., Subrahmanyam, H. and Sampath Kumar,
T.S.(1982) "Research on Rice Husk Ash for
Stabilising Black Cotton Soil", Highway Research
Bulletin 17, pp. 61-75.
Dussart, Jacques. (February 1979), "Blast Furnace

and Steel Slags in France", The Australian I.M.M.
Illawarra Branch, Utilisation of Steel Plant Slags
Symposium, pp.25-34.
Lee, A.R. (1974) "Blast Furnace and Steel Slag

Production, Properties and Uses", Edward Arnold.
Prandi, E. (1965) "Traitment au Laitier Granule

des Materiaux Routieres", Ponts et Chaussees,
Bull.Liais.Labs. Routieres,.
Cohchi, M., Shiina, K. and Ohta, F., (1979)

"Effective Prevention for Weathering Expansion
Crack of Arc-Furnace Slag Concrete", The Cement
Association of Japan, Volume 33, pp. 184-188.
Sakai, M. and Miyamoto, M. (1979) "Experimental

Study on the Properties of LD Converter Slag
Concrete", Proc. of Japan Concrete Institute 1st
Conference, pp. 185-188,
38) Hagga, Nobutake., Ohkawa, Yuichi., Michiokonno,
Kawamoto, Takayuki., Mizoguchi, Ikuo., (June 1981)
"Utilisation of Blast Furnace and Steel Slags in
Road Construction", Nippon Steel Technical Report
No. 17, pp. 73-89.
39) Kawamura, Mitsunori., Hasaba, Shigemasa, and

Torri, Kazuyuki, "Effective Utilisation of Ld
Converter Slag as a Soil Stabiliser", pp.285-296.
40) Hasaba, Shigemasa., Kawamura, Mitsunori. and

Torri, Kazuyuki, (March 1982) "Reaction Products
and Strength Charactaristics in the Stabilised
Soil using Desulfurization By-Products and Blast
Furnace Slag", Transactions of Japan Society of
Civil Engineer, Volume 14, pp.251-253.
41) Bate, I.e. (November 1972) "Slag as a Road-Base

and Stabiliser in Rhodesia", The Rhodesian
Engineer, pp. 54-58.
42) Department of Main Roads, NSW, (December 1988),

Accelerated Loading Facility Prospect Trial.
Seminar on Results and Findings.
43) Hudson, Ken., (February 1989) "Stabilisation of

Road Pavements France Autoroutes", New Zealand
Concrete Construction, pp. 3-10.
Shackel, B. (1975) "A Critical Assessment of
Current Test Methods and Design Criteria for
Stabilised Pavement Materials", Conference on
stabilisation and compaction, University of New
South Wales, Kensington, Australia.
Shackel, B. (1975) "The Behaviour of Stabilised

Soils under Simulated Traffic Loads", Proc. 7th
Conference Australian Road Research Board,
Vermont, Victoria, Volume 7, Part 7, pp. 18-37.
Shackel, B. (1975) "Types of Repeated Loading

Tests and Their Application to the
Characterisation of Soils and Road Making
Materials", Symposium On Repeated Loading of Soils
With Particular Reference To Road, School Of
Highway Engineering, Kensington, New South Wales,
Australia.
National Association of Australian State Road

Authorities (1986) Guide to Stabilisation in
Roadworks, Sydney, Australia.
Natt, G. and Joshi, R. (1984) "Properties of

Cement and Lime-flyash Stabilised Aggregate",
Testing and Modeling Soils and Soil Stabilisers,
Transportation Research Record 998, Washington,
DC, pp. 32-40.
49) Rowe, G.H. (1985) "Laboratory Testing for
Stabilisation", RRU Technical Recommendations TR7,
Road Research Unit, National Roads Board,
Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 5-11.
50) Indian Standard for Masonary Cement (IS4098).
51) South Africa National Institute for Transport and

Research (1986) Cementitious Stabilisers in Road
Constructions, Technical Recommendations for
Highways Draft TRH13, Pretoria, South Africa, pp.
1-64.
52) Klatt, P. (1991) Private Communication.
53) Jones, D.E. (1990) "Industrial slag construction

materials for the 1990's and beyond", Proc. 21st
Engineering Conference on Materials for the
Nineties, the Illawara Group, Institution of
Engineers, Australia, University of Wollongong,
NSW, Australia.
54) Jones, D.E. (1990) "In the beginning-slag",

Seminar on slag products in the construction
industry, Australasian Slag Association, pp. 1-12.
Hanley, P.J. (1990) "Slag-towards 2000, Australian
trend", Concrete for the Nineties, International
Conference on the use of Flyash, Slag, Silica Fume
and other silceous materials in concrete, Leura,
Australia, pp. 1-11.
Department of Main Roads, NSW (now known as the

Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW) (July 1989).
Materials Testing Manual, Volume 1, Sydney
Australia.
Appendix A
METHOD OF OPERATION OF THE FATIGUE CONTROL

PANEL USED IN THE REPEATED DYNAMIC LOAD TEST
Fatigue Control Panel
The panel is illustrated in Figure A.1 with each item numbered. Each item
is then explained briefly*
1. Supply On/Off Switch A small toggle switch in the bottom lefthand

corner of the control panel switches the mains supply to the fatigue
control panel on and off. A red light indicates the supply is on.
2. Indicator A digital indicator displays the force applied to the jack

load cell or the jack piston stroke* or an external feedback signal* It may
Indicate either the peak values or the mean or static value*
3* Meter Selection Switch A three position toggle switch selects the meter
to display load, external feedback or stroke*
6* Peak/Mean Selection Switch A three position toggle switch sets the

meter display either positive or negative peaks, or the mean value*
Note when reading static DC values the frequence switch. (7) should be
switched to DC*
7* Meter Frequency Range Switch This control adjusts the tine constant of
the meter and is used when the piston is measuring peak or mean oscillating
values* It affects the rate of response of the meter* It should be
switched to DC for reading static values*
84 Peak Reset Controls The peak indication may be reset manually or

automatically* When the rotary switch is fully anti-clockwise the peak
reading circuits are reset manually with the push button* As the switch
is rotated clockwise the peak circuits are reset automatically at
increasing frequency*
9, Monitor Sockets These 2mm terminals provide DC output signal of the

value selected for indication of the meter* Full range of the transducer
gives lOv DC. Minimum impedance of subsequent circuit 100k ohm*
10* Zero Controls Two calibrated multi-turn lockable potentiometers adjust

the zero of the stroke and load indication and DC output signal*
11. DC Output Sockets Three sockets provide DC output signals of load and
stroke., together with a signal earth connection. lOv equivalent to full
scale of the transducer. Minimum impedance of subsequent circuit 100k ohm*
12. Control Selection Buttons Three push buttons set the jack to control
either load or stroke or some other variable fed to the external feedback
socket. Care must be exercised when changing from one control mode to
another as a step may be applied to the specimen.
13, External Feedback Socket A co-axial socket beneath the external "contr
selection button1* accepts the external feedback signal* This should be -
i
lOv may?mtim and any signal conditioning circuits must have flat frequency
i
response to 200Hz. Input impedance is 22k ohm and the feedback signal
source should have a low impedance or errors will result.
I
!
14. Mean Level Potentiometer The digital readout potentiometer controls
i
static or mean values. It can be switched so that 100% on the potentio-
meter is either full transducer range or 10Z of transducer range* The
push buttons give tension (+va) or compression (-ve) sign*
15. Mean Level Potentiometer Range Switch This small toggle switch sets
the mean level command potentiometer to 10S or 100Z full range.
i
i
16. Limit Load This switch is associated with control of stroke. When
switched to limit the load applied by the machine to the load cell is
limited to 0.5X (approximately) of full range* The limit operates in
tension and compression. There will be some overshoot with very stiff
specimens* If the specimen will be damaged with a 57, load it will be better
use load control*
17. Valve Signal Indication A small edge meter gives an indication of

signal on the servo valve* It may be used for observing performance or
adjusting valve bias signal.
18. Valve Bias Adjustment A screw driver operated potentiometer adjusts

valve bias signal. It may be used to set the system so that a particular
command signal gives it the exact required valve. It is normally preset
at the factory and does not require adjustment.
19. Gain Adjustment A screw driver operated control adjusts the control
loop gain under load control and external feedback. Adjustment may be
required as the gain of the system will vary with the specimen stiffness.
The control loop gain for stroke control is adjusted on the jack electronic
unit.
20. External Command Input A co-axial socket is provided for feeding

external programme signals to the jack. The scaling of these signals is -
10 volts DC for - full range. The input signal may be attenuated by the
external programme attenuator control. Command signals may also be fed to
a socket at the rear of the panel.
21. External Programme Attenuator A digital readout potentiometer may be

used to attenuate the incoming externally generated programme. The
i
potentiometer reading gives percentages signal fed to the jack, i.e. 50Z on
the potentiometer (50.0) means that half the incoming voltage is applied to
the jack. 10 volts gives full transducer range*
22. Internal/External Command Selection A small toggle switch is used to

select either the internal cyclic programme from the built-in function
generator or as an alternative some external programme fed to the system
through the co-axial input socket.
!
! - A
23. Oscillator Waveform Selection A rotary switch selects eitherjsine "
triangular or square waveform, or ramp operation*
24* Stop/Run Switch When the switch is moved to "run" the oscillator outpu
starts to go positive from zero*
a;
c
«
c
o
u
Ai
c
o
o
fl)
3
6C
«¥«
«
>J
O-
M0
-l
fa
-U
c
o
a
to
to
c
-H
JJ
©
(0
o
a
i
&4
25. Preset Switch When set to the preset position this toggle switch
causes oscillator to stop when a preset count selected on the cycle counter
is reached.
26. Frequency/Rate Oscillator frequency is set on a digital readout pot-

entiometer and a decade selection switch. This selection switch gives the
potentiometer the frequency ranges of 0 to 1 Hz, 0 to 10 Hz, or 0 to 100 Hz.
The dial is also calibrated in rate .Z Range/Millisecond for use with the
ramp facility.
27* Ramp hold Switch Enables the oscillator to produce ramp functions
positive or negative going from zero.
28, Monitor Socket A 2mm socket marked monitor enables the output waveform
of the oscillator to be displayed on an oscilloscope or similar device.
Output - lOv DC.
29. Cycle Counter A six digit preset counter records either the number of
completed cycles or the elapsed time. Counting occurs at 0 volts positive
going. A preset number may be set on the counter by depressing the black
button raising the red perspex cover and setting the finger wheels. When
this preset number is reached the counter will stop the oscillator if the
preset switch (25) is set to preset. Oscillator output will go to aero,
but any mean value applied (14) will remain.
30. Counter Range Switch This switch gives counter scaling factors of 1
divided by 100 and also permits the selection of timing function which
gives 1 count per second. An off opsition switches the counter off.
Maximum counting rate on the xl range is 25 Hz and in excess of 100 Hz on
the other two ranges. In normal use a maximum counter rate of about 5 Hz
is recommended*
31. Reset Button This push button resets the counter and the divider
circuits to zero and also.resets the trip circuits.
32. Stopped Light An amber light illuminates when the counter has stopped.
33, Tripped Light An amber light illuminates when the external trip
circuits have operated.
34. External Trip Contacts When these 2mm terminals are shorted the
command attenuator signal is set to zero. This trip is reset by the reset
push button.
A pair of contacts are brought to the rear panel and may be connected to
hydraulic control circuit to stop the pump when the trip operates* Contacts
are closed when tripped.
35. Oscillator/Pump Switch This toggle switch arranges that the trip
circuit may either stop the oscillator or stop the oscillator and trip the
pump.
Procedure for Operation
The following procedure is used to operate the loading panel. Figure A.2
shows the complete panel including supplies, and switches,
1* Start the cooling pumps in the Pump "House for the oil supply motors.
2* Switch the Dartec oil pumps on in the Pump House.
3* Switch the oil supply on in the Pump House.
4. Switch the electrical supply on to the fatigue panel.
5* Start the supply of oil to the low pressure pumps,
6* After approximately 20 seconds there will be an abrupt sound which
indicates that the jack is now ready to operate. After sound switch
on jack no. 1.
7. Switch on high pressure.
8. Take out any packing or obstructions between the wheel and frame and
wheel and pavement.
9. The test is now ready to begin*
Eor Static Loading (Refer to Figure A.1)
1. Switch supply on (1)

2. Switch (3) to load
3. Switch (7) to DC
4. Switch (8) to desired position. The position depends on how quickly
a re reading is required.
,/yi, ... • -, . . _,,, j , *HVj/.ifimmw_,Vj, ,.,, -• ,. 1 TTPiy
jEigure A . 2 - The complece operations panel for loading.

I
j 5. Switch (6) to mean
• 6*. Calculate mean value required. For example if Che range of loading
was from 10 kn Co 40 kn then mean value would be (10 + 40)/2 » 25
• 7*- Push load control button, (12)
8. Calculate command input required.
9. Switch (22) to internal.
10» Select command input required (21)
11. Switch (15) to 100Z, switch (14) to (-) for compression.
12. Select mean value required (14) As the mean value is increased the
indicator display (2) will increase. The mean value (14) is increased
until the static load required appears on the display (2). Once the
load has been applied for the required duration, the load is released
by returning (14) to zero.
For Cyclic Loading
1* Switch supply on (1)

2* Switch (3) to load
3* Switch (7) to value desired to obtain peak or mean values.
4. Set (8) as for static loading.
5. Set (6) to mean initially. At a later stage during the running of
the test + peak and - peak values may be desirable. All that is
required is to set (6) to either + peak or • peak and depending on (8)
the value is read.
6. Calculate mean value and command input required.
7. Select load control (12)
8. Switch (22) to internal.
9. Select (23) to wave form required. Sine wave used for test.
10. Select (24) to stop/zero.
11. Select Frequency required and set (26) accordingly.
12. Switch (15) to 100Z.
13. Switch (21) to required command input.
14. Switch (14) to (-) for compression, then turn dial to required mean
value. This applies to the first load.
15. Switch (24) to run position and cyclic loading will commence. The
counter (29) will count the number of cycles applied*
16. To unload, switch (24) to stop/zero and then return dial (14) to zero.
Appendix B
EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND CALCULATED

POROSITY OF VARIOUS MIXES
Equivalent specific gravity of the various additives used
Proportion
- 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4
Additives
Cement 3.14
Lime 2.35
RHA 1.79
GBFS 2.86
Lime/GBFS 2.605 2.69 2.732 2.758
Cement/GBFS 3.00 2.953 2.93 2.916
Lime/RHA 2.07 1.976 1.93 1.902
Cement/RHA 2.465 2.24 2.127 2.06

Equivalent specific gravity and calculated porosity of
RHA and Lime/RHA stabilised Soil A
Additive Specific Gravity Porosity Of Compacted

Specimen (%)
Lime/RHA 1:1 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.895 38.86
8% 2.861 39.53
Lime/RHA 1:2 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.892 39.14
8% 2.853 39.36
Lime/RHA 1:3 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.89 39.10
8% 2.85 39.65
Lime/RHA 1:4 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.888 39.40
8% 2.847 40.63
RHA 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.88 39.58
8% 2.838 41.50
RHA and Lime/RHA stabilised Soil B

Specimen (%)
Lime/RHA 1:1 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.828 37.40
8% 2.7966 39.20
Lime/RHA 1:2 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.8246 37.69
8% 2.789 40.48
Lime/RHA 1:3 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.822 37.63
8% 2.785 40.39
Lime/RHA 1:4 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.82 37.59
8% 2.783 40.71
RHA 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.817 37.52
8% 2.774 40.52
RHA and Lime/RHA stabilised Soil C

Specimen (%)
Lime/RHA 1:1 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.80 55.00
8% 2.769 56.30
Lime/RHA 1:2 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.795 54.56
8% 2.761 55.45
Lime/RHA 1:3 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.794 55.26
8% 2.758 55.76
Lime/RHA 1:4 0% 2.83 53.30

4% - -
8%
RHA 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.788 55.52
8% 2.747 55.95
RHA and Cement/RHA stabilised Soil A

Specimen (%)
Cement/RHA 1:1 0% 2.93 37.50

4% - -
—
8% ~
Cement/RHA 1:2 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.90 37.58
8% 2.875 38.78
Cement/RHA 1:3 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.898 37.88
8% 2.865 39.61
Cement/RHA 1:4 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.895 38.51
8% 2.86 39.86
RHA 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.88 39.58
8% 2.838 41.50
RHA and Cement/RHA stabilised Soil B

Specimen (%)
Cement/RHA 1:1 0% 2.86 36.30

4% - —
8% —
"
Cement/RHA 1:2 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.835 37.21
8% 2.810 39.50
Cement/RHA 1:3 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.83 37.10
8% 2.80 40.00
Cement/RHA 1:4 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.828 37.76
8% 2.796 40.27
RHA 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.817 37.52
8% 2.77 40.52
RHA and Cement/RHA stabilised Soil C

Specimen (%)
Cement/RHA 1:1 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.815 53.80
8% 2.80 55.00
Cement/RHA 1:2 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.80 53.93
8% 2.783 55.08
Cement/RHA 1:3 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.80 54.28
8% 2.774 55.29
Cement/RHA 1:4 0% 2.83 53.30

4% - -
8%
RHA 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.788 55.52
8% 2.747 55.95
GBFS and Cement/GBFS stabilised Soil A

Specimen (%)
Cement/GBFS 1:1 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.933 37.26
8% 2.935 36.96
Cement/GBFS 1:2 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.931 37.20
8% 2.932 37.20
Cement/GBFS 1:3 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.93 37.20
8% 2.93 36.80
Cement/GBFS 1:4 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.929 37.50
8% 2.928 37.10
GBFS 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.927 37.10
8% 2.924 36.70
GBFS and Cement/GBFS stabilised Soil B

Specimen (%)
Cement/GBFS 1:1 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.865 35.77
8% 2.871 35.91
Cement/GBFS 1:2 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.864 35.70
8% 2.867 35.40
Cement/GBFS 1:3 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.863 35.70
8% 2.865 35.40
Cement/GBFS 1:4 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.862 35.70
8% 2.864 35.40
GBFS 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.86 35.60
8% 2.86 35.30
GBFS and Cement/GBFS stabilised Soil C

Specimen (%)
Cement/GBFS 1:1 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.837 52.70
8% 2.844 51.80
Cement/GBFS 1:2 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.835 52.70
8% 2.839 52.10
Cement/GBFS 1:3 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.834 53.00
8% 2.838 52.70
Cement/GBFS 1:4 0% 2.83 53.30

4% - -
8%
GBFS 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.8312 53.30
8% 2.8324 53.00
GBFS and Lime/GBFS stabilised Soil A

Specimen (%)
Lime/GBFS 1:1 0% 2.93 37.50

4% - _
8% ™ —
Lime/GBFS 1:2 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.92 38.00
8% 2.91 38.40
Lime/GBFS 1:3 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.922 37.70
8% 2.914 38.20
Lime/GBFS 1:4 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.923 37.70
8% 2.916 37.20
GBFS 0% 2.93 37.50

4% 2.927 37.10
8% ,2.924 36.70
GBFS and Lime/GBFS stabilised Soil B

Specimen (%)
Lime/GBFS 1:1 0% 2.86 36.30

4%
8%
Lime/GBFS 1:2 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.853 36.20
8% 2.846 36.00
Lime/GBFS 1:3 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.855 35.90
8% 2.849 35.40
Lime/GBFS 1:4 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.856 35.90
8% 2.852 35.40
GBFS 0% 2.86 36.30

4% 2.86 35.60
8% 2.86 35.30
GBFS and Lime/GBFS stabilised Soil C

Specimen (%)
Lime/GBFS 1:1 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.821 53.20
8% 2.812 53.40
Lime/GBFS 1:2 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.824 53.20
8% 2.818 53.10
Lime/GBFS 1:3 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.826 53.20
8% 2.822 52.80
Lime/GBFS 1:4 0% 2.83 53.30

4%
8%
GBFS 0% 2.83 53.30

4% 2.8312 53.30
8% 2.8324 53.00

Soil Stabilisation Rice Husk Ash N GGBS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Stabilisation Rice Husk Ash N GGBS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Stabilisation Rice Husk Ash N GGBS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Wollongong

Soil stabilisation using some pozzolanic industrial

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG

CHASSAN CHMEISSE, B.E.(Civil), M.Eng.Sc

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND

This is to certify that the work presented in this

The Author wishes to express his gratitude to his

He also wishes to thank his Parents, Wife and children

List of Notations: xiv

List of Appendicies: xxvii

Chapter I - Introduction, Aims and Scope

1.1 Basic concepts of Soil Stabilisation 1

2.1 Rice Husk - Description and Production 17

3.1 Scope of chapter 38

Chapter IV - Experimental Investigation using

4.1 Scope of chapter 62

Chapter V - Discussion and Analysis of Results

5.1 RHA as a single additive 137

Chapter VT - Experimental Investigations using

6.1 Scope of chapter 179

6.7.5 Effect of delay in compaction on the

Chapter VTI - Discussion and Analysis of Results

7.1 GBFS as a single additive to soils 239

8.1 Introduction 278

Chapter IX - Recommended Design Procedure

9.1 Introduction 289

Chapter X - Conclusions, Recommendations and

Four (4) types of soils were treated with varying quantitie

To determine the effectiveness of RHA and GBFS as

It is revealed that rice husk ash alone is not suitable for

rice-husk ash additives increase the unconfined compressive

It is revealed that granulated blast furnace slag alone is

The effects of lime-granulated blast furnace slag and

The effectiveness of rice husk ash and granulated blast

A suggested mix design procedures for lime-rice husk ash,

CBR California bearing ratio

GBFS Granulated blast furnace slag

L.L Liquid limit

L.S Linear shrinkage

MDD Maximum dry density

OMC Optimum moisture content

P.L Plastic limit

RHA Rice husk ash

SEM Scanning Electron Microscopy

UCS Unconfined compressive strength

UTS Unconsolidated triaxial shear strength

XRD X-ray Diffraction

0 Angle of internal friction

CV Effective vertical stress

<r n Effective normal stress on the plane

Figures Description Page

3.1 Repeated dynamic load test - View of 56

Figures Description Page

4.9 Effect of delay in compaction on the 121

Figures Description Page

4.20 Repeated dynamic load test - Removal 128

Figures Description Page