See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240434934

Comparing the conventional soil stabilization

methods to the consolid system used as an
alternative admixture matter in Isparta
Dardere material

Article in Construction and Building Materials July 2009

Impact Factor: 2.3 DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.01.002

CITATIONS READS

19 291

2 authors, including:

evki Eren
Ahi Evran niversitesi
3 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: evki Eren
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 17 July 2016
 Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 24732480

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Comparing the conventional soil stabilization methods to the consolid system

used as an alternative admixture matter in Isparta Dardere material
S . Eren *, M. Filiz
Sleyman Demirel University, Technical Education Faculty, Construction Education Department, 32260 Isparta, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, it was aimed to improve the existing poor local soil without excavating it using mixed sta-
Received 19 February 2007 bilization method for soil stabilization. For this purpose, lime and cement which are commonly used as
Received in revised form 6 January 2009 conventional stabilization additives were used along with Consolid444 + Solidry additives which are
Accepted 8 January 2009
studied as alternative soil stabilization additives, and the results from the tests were compared. In this
Available online 7 February 2009
study, material from Isparta Dardere being used by Isparta Public Waterworks Administration to achieve
water and liquid impermeability in dam constructions, lling works, etc. was used as poor soil material
Keywords:
for the purpose of improving its bearing capacity. All additives added to Isparta Dardere natural soil
Soil stabilization
Consolid444
material which is inappropriate to be used as a bearing in any road construction signicantly increased
Solidry the bearing capacity of this material and enabled it to be used as sub-foundation and foundation material
Road construction in a road construction.
Bearing capacity Crown Copyright 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Chemical stabilization
Wet CBR

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2474
2. The Consolid System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2475
3. Materials and test methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2475
3.1. Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2475
3.1.1. Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2475
3.1.2. Consolid444 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2475
3.1.3. Solidry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2476
3.1.4. Conservex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2476
3.2. Testing methods and testing program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2476
4. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2476
4.1. Determination of the engineering properties of the natural soil material from Isparta Dardere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2476
4.2. Chemical stabilisation of natural soil by consolid addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477
4.2.1. Effect of consolid system in natural soil on OMC and maximum dry density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477
4.2.2. Effect of consolid system in natural soil on wet CBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477
4.2.3. Effect of consolid system in natural soil on swelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477
4.2.4. Effect of consolid system in natural soil on consistency limit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477
4.2.5. Effect of consolid system in natural soil on specific gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477
4.3. Chemical stabilisation of natural soil by lime addition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477
4.3.1. Effect of lime in natural soil on OMC and maximum dry density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477
4.3.2. Effect of lime in natural soil on wet CBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2478
4.3.3. Effect of lime in natural soil on swelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2478
4.3.4. Effect of lime in natural soil on consistency limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2478
4.3.5. Effect of lime in natural soil on specific gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2478
4.4. Chemical stabilisation of natural soil by cement addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2478

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 544 6313469; fax: +90 246 211 14 16.
E-mail address: sevkierenn@hotmail.com (S
. Eren).

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.01.002
2474 S. Eren, M. Filiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 24732480

4.4.1. Effect of cement in natural soil on OMC and maximum dry density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2478
4.4.2. Effect of cement in natural soil on wet CBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2479
4.4.3. Effect of cement in natural soil on swelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2479
4.4.4. Effect of cement in natural soil on consistency limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2479
4.4.5. Effect of cement in natural soil on specific gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2479
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2480
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2480

1. Introduction Lime stabilization has been extensively used to decrease swell-

When the soils at a site are loose or highly compressible, or
when they have unsuitable consistency indices, too high perme-
ability, or any other undesirable property making them unsuitable
for use in a construction project, they may have to be stabilized [1].
There are various stabilization methods one of which is chemical
stabilization.
The stabilization, especially with lime, is a common applied
method among the others due its effective and economic usage.
The ndings from the previous studies show that when lime is
added to clay soils in the presence of water, reactions including
cation exchange, occulation and pozzolanic reaction take place.
It is stated that, occulation is primarily responsible for the modi-
cation of the engineering properties of clay soils when treated
with even a small amount of lime. The studies reported in the lit-
erature showed that the addition of lime increased the optimum
water content, shrinkage limit and strength, and reduced the
swelling potential, liquid limit, plasticity index and maximum
dry density of the soil [2].
Bell [3] found that the optimum addition of lime needed for the
stabilization of the soils is between 1% and 3%, while the other
researchers suggested the use of lime between 2% and 8% lime
by weight [3].
In most cases the effect of lime on the plasticity of clay soils is
more or less instantaneous. In other words, the plasticity is re-
duced (this is brought by an increase in the plastic limit and reduc-
tion in the liquid limit of the soil), as is the potential for volume
change [4].
Soil mixed with low lime content attains a maximum strength
in less time than that to which a higher content of lime has been
added. Strength does not increase linearly with lime content and
in fact excessive addition of lime reduces strength. This decrease
is because lime itself has neither appreciable friction nor cohesion.
The optimum lime content tends to range from 4.5% to 8%, the
higher values being required for soils with higher clay fractions.
Curing time is another factor inuencing strength of limestabi-
lized soil [4].
Every soil has an optimum lime percentage. The optimum lime
percentage of the soil is for a certain curing period. Different opti-
mum lime percentages may be determined in different conditions.
Such that: After seven days of moist curing the determined opti-
mum lime may be 5%. When the same soil is cured in open air
for 28 days, the optimum lime rate may be found as 8% [5].
ing potential and swelling pressures in clays [6].
The other expansive soil-stabilizing agent is the cement which
is composed of oxides of calcium, silica, alumina, and iron. Cement
stabilization is also similar to lime stabilization and produces sim-
ilar results. Addition of cement reduces the swelling potential,
plasticity index, and liquid limit. The stabilization is due to cemen-
titious links between the calcium silicate and aluminate hydration
products and the soil particles [2]. Cement stabilization increases
the tensile strength, exural strength, durability, and stiffness
properties such as modulus and CBR. The permeability of sands
and gravels is greatly decreased by the addition of cement whereas
silts, silty clays, and heavy clays show increased permeability [7].
The most common admixture is Portland cement. The objective of
other admixture materials is to provide articial cementation, thus
increasing strength and reducing both compressibility and hydraulic
conductivity. It also reduces the expansion potential in clays [8].
Soilcement mixtures can be made with almost any soil. The re-
sult is equivalent to a low grade concrete, and much less expensive.
Strengths obtained are often surprisingly high. Cement content
generally varies between 8 and 12 per cent by volume [9].
A clay sandy soil is usually used after being mixed with some
cement or lime in the forms, hydraulically compacted and then
cured. Hence, higher compressive and tensile strengths, better
cohesion and better water resistance are obtained thus improving
its natural stability [10].
Similar to lime, cement has the effect of decreasing plasticity
and increasing strength of the soil. The percentage of cement (by
volume) required for the stabilization of sandy soil is in the range
of 610, for clays and silts of low plasticity, it is 812 and for highly
plastic clays it is about 1014 [11].
Adequate compaction is essential for successful stabilization but
prolonged delays between mixing and compaction reduce the max-
imum density attainable. A length period of mixing brings about
partial hydration of the cement with a resultant loss of strength at
constant density. If compaction is delayed the cement begins to hy-
drate and therefore the soilcement begins to harden. As a result the
mixture becomes more difcult to compact. Compaction should be
completed within 2 h of mixing. The strength of soilcement grad-
ually increases as the time taken in curing increases. Also, the higher
the temperature, the more rapid is the gain of strength. Excessive
drying increases strength but tends to crack the soilcement [4].
CBR test is used to measure the sliding resistance of the soil with a
controllable water content and density. After the test a number indi-

Table 1
Soil classication and usage according to CBR.

CBR Denition of soil Usage Classication

USCS ASSHO
03 Very bad Subgrade OH,CH,MH,OL A5, A6, A7
37 Bad-middle Subgrade OH,CH,MH,OL A4, A5, A6, A7
720 Middle Subbase OL,CL,ML,SC,SM,SP A2, A4, A6, A7
2050 Well Base and subbase GM,GC,SW,SM,SP,GP A1b, A25, A3, A26
Bigger than 50 Very well Base GW,GM A1a, A24, A3
 S. Eren, M. Filiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 24732480
cating the bearing capacity rate (CBR) is obtained. CBR is not a con-
stant number and varies according to the water content and density
of the soil. After the determination of the CBR number of the soil to be
used as base or lower base in highway or airelds, the base, lower
base and even exible covering thickness can be determined by using
a graph belonging to one of the many existing road covering projects.
A projecting graph related with the descriptions and usages of the
soils according to CBR numbers are given in Table 1 [12].
2. The Consolid System
The producer of Consolid system is consolid AG company and
the competent of this company is Dr. A. Gnther Scherr. Consol-
id444, Solidry and Conservex products are commercial.
The consolid soil stabilisation/soil consolidation system was ex-
pressly developed for soil stabilisation. Every cohesive soil pos-
sesses the characteristic to petrify again. It requires a very long
time and high pressure. Through the addition of catalysts we can
speed up this process. The consolid soil stabilization system speeds
up the natural process of solidication of all kinds of cohesive soil.
It improves and consolidates the soil [14]. The consolid system is
changing the behaviour of any soil itself toward petrication and
does not act as a binder or chemical reactant. A soil, once treated
remains treated for permanent and will keep the advantages of
the upgrade without timely limitation [13].
A treatment of soils with additives products of the consolid sys-
tem allows to upgrade any kind of soil to riskfree construction
material. The improvement of the treated soil is substantial and al-
lows to incorporate up to 30% of clayey, silty nes material which
is usually classied as unacceptable for construction purposes in
road construction or road rehabilitation. The treatment improves
not only the stability and loading capacity; it enables also a tai-
lored realisation of full impermeability, which allows to use trea-
ted soil as lining in ponds or articial lakes, dams and other
water exposed constructions. Such treated impermeable soil mate-
rial is also excellent construction material for dams, railway
embankments and formations, but also of high value to form bot-
tom soil layers as well as covering soil material at disposal areas to
avoid seepage and the pollution of groundwater [13].
The consolid system for soil stabilization is always effected by
two products, which are used together. It is either consolid444
and solidry or consolid444 and conservex. consolid and conservex
are liquid components and solidry is a powder like component. The
two components are mixed with the soil. Afterwards the soil is
completely compacted. The consolid soil stabilisation system can
be used by almost every kind of soil [14].
The consolid soil stabilisation system is a total system, not only
compaction aid or something else. It allows to change the behav-
iour of the treated soil completely. Water is the most effective en-
emy of stability; consolid ghts against the capillary rise of water
and agglomerated the nes irreversible. Due to the fact that the
capillaries still exist, surface water could penetrate into the treated
layer and reduce mechanically the effectiveness of the, treatment
with consolid444; therefore to prevent this, it is added in the top
layer conservex (conservex) or solidry (solidry) to avoid this lling
up of the voids with seeping in water. Consolid is used alone only
in the deeper layers; in the top it is needed the combination of both
additives to get the full protection besides other effects due to the
complexity of the stabilization process [14].
A soil loses its bearing strength by taking up water. Therefore
any diminution of such water absorption will yield increased bear-
ing capacities. Is the CBR value (California Bearing Ratio) taken as
an indicator for the bearing capacity of a soil, a CBR value of 35
times that of an untreated soil can be expected by the consolid soil
stabilisation treatment [14].
2475
The use of consolid system in the eld has some economical
advantages on cost. Using local soil as much as possible instead
of bringing the material from outside, the digging of the local soil
and exchanging with the material brought from outside and avoid-
ing the cost of both transportations, one of the most important
advantages of the consolid system is the opportunity to use and
develop the local material that generally causes costs to increase,
when local material needs to be exchanged with the material that
is brought from outside, the opportunity to pre-mixing the mate-
rial and saving construction time [16].
As cement and lime are additives with hydraulic binding prop-
erties, they signicantly increase the CBR values of any soil they
are applied. However, consolid system does not have any binding
property. Although the natural soil sample used in this study is
not a type of soil on which consolid system has a maximum effect,
it is considered that good CBR values are obtained.
Since the consolid soil stabilisation products interact with the
ne particles that thanks to the treatment can be used as natural
binders, sand has to be mixed with cohesive soil prior to the treat-
ment with the consolid soil stabilisation additives in order to ob-
tain a content of nes of approximately 20%30%. The soil mix
prepared in this way can then be treated just as any other soil. In
principle all cohesive or semi-cohesive soils or soils with a certain
amount of silt (0.0020.1 mm) lead to a permanent soil stabilisa-
tion. The optimal soil mixture is 1/3 clay and silt (00.2 mm), 1/3
sand (0.22 mm), and gravel and stones (2200 mm). Missing frac-
tions are easily mixed in from nearby soils [14].
As the price of Solidry is higher than cement or lime, increasing
solidry addition is not economic. In eld applications, Solidry is ap-
plied to the soil in 1% or 2% of dry soil weight or 24 kg/m2 [14].
Analysis reported with relation to the consolid system [15] are
pointing out that under the use of the consolid-stabilisation of the
loess, the soil generally as well as the disposal ground and espe-
cially the base sealing, are experiencing a general improvement,
which is reecting also in the retarding, ad- and absorbing proper-
ties of the treated soil. All these facts are proving the good suitabil-
ity of the Cernavoda site for the deposition of low- and
intermediate level radioactive waste [15].
In this study, it was aimed to improve the existing poor local
soil without excavating it using mixed stabilization method for soil
stabilization, and the applicability of consolid system as an alterna-
tive to lime and cement which are used as conventional soil stabil-
ization additives was analyzed.
3. Materials and test methods
3.1. Material
3.1.1. Soil
In this study, a soil sample with low bearing capacity was chosen to be used in
mixed soil stabilization. Material from Isparta Dardere which is used in dam con-
struction, lling, etc. to achieve water and liquid impermeability has low perme-
ability and swelling rate with poor bearing capacity. Dardere is a district of
Isparta, a town located in Turkey. There is a clay mine in there. Isparta Public
Waterworks Administration uses the soil taken out of the clay mine as lling in
dam construction. However, no information could be gathered about the total re-
serve. It was decided to use this soil material in this study as it bears the required
soil characteristics.
3.1.2. Consolid444
Consolid444 consist of mixture of dissolved in water 20% Mono-molekler and
Poly-molekler CAS No 61791-550-7, dimetilamonyumklorit CAS No 61798-80-8,
izopropenol (IPA) CAS No 67-63-0, solvents, emulgators and catalysts. Its density
(at 20 C) is 0.980 g/cm3 and its pH value (at 1.0 g/l H2O) is 5.56.5 [16].
Consolid444 is a chemical substance, which breaks up the adhering water lm
and leads to an irreversible agglomeration of nes, reducing the capillary rise of
water substantially. The high effectiveness of Consolid444 protects the soil, espe-
cially against the soaking in of water. It allows better compaction of the treated soil
and increases desired density during the time and under trafc [14].
2476 S. Eren, M. Filiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 24732480
The additive consolid444 whose characteristics are presented above and which
was supplied from [16] was used.
3.1.3. Solidry
Portland cement (96.5%) and lime CAS CEM 266-043-4, 3.5% Solidry is mixture
of mono-molecular and poly-molecular interfacial active substances with a deter-
mined content of alcylamines and dimethyl ammonia chloride CAS NO 61789-80-
8, polyacrylates and reactants. Its density (at 20 C) is 2.83.2 g/cm3 and its pH va-
lue (at 1.0 g/l H2O) is 6.08.0 [16].
Solidry is a dry, chemical/organic substance, which preserves the treated soil
and increases the soil specic bonding characteristics. Solidry prevents the treated
soil from water soaking in by closing the capillary. The capacity of water absorption
is drastically reduced, which stops the swelling behaviour of the soil [14].
Solidry is applied in dry state and mixed into the soil. This is an advantage par-
ticularly on sites where due to an already high moisture content in the soil the addi-
tion of aqueous solutions might cause problems in terms of compaction [14].
If Solidry is used in addition with Consolid444, this product is applied in dry
state and mixed into the soil. This is an advantage particularly on sites where
due to an already high moisture content in the soil the addition of aqueous solu-
tions might cause problems in terms of compaction [14].
The additive solidry of the same property whose characteristics are presented
above [16] was used in this study.
3.1.4. Conservex
Conservex is a bituminous, water soluble solution. The colloid parts in Conser-
vex block the capillary. The water saturation of treated soil is no longer possible or
is drastically reduced. In addition to Consolid444, Conservex protects the top layers
of the treated soil exposed to surface water and from abrasion. It further reduces
the capillary rise of water [14].
Consolid444 and Conservex are liquid soil stabilisation products, which have to
be diluted with water to obtain the working solutions. This is done on the construc-
tion site, taking into account the actual moisture content of the soil [14].
3.2. Testing methods and testing program
The natural soil material supplied from Isparta Dardere clay mine was rst sub-
jected to sieve analysis and hydrometer tests in order to determine its grain distri-
bution. Then a test for consistency limits was performed on the natural soil sample,
and soil classication (in accordance with USCS) was made according to the resul-
tant values. It was decided as the method used in the standard proctor test (method
B) because after the sieve analysis the material left on the sieve of 4.75 mm was 6%
and the mould used in proctor test was with diameter of 15.24 cm (6 in.). The nat-
ural soil was mixed with water in a container before it was compacted according to
this method. The water was added slowly to the soil in order to prevent agglomer-
ation, and then the mixing container was covered with wet cloth and it was waited
for one hour to achieve uniform humid distribution. The soil was compacted
through standard proctor method and after the resultant sample was kept in water
for four days then wet CBR experiment was applied. After that the specic weight of
the soil was xed through picnometer test. As nal step decreasing level permeabil-
ity test was made on the natural soil sample from Isparta Dardere, and after the
sample was compacted into the mould, the mould was covered and the test was
started. The soil sample was kept for four days and after this period the decreasing
amount in the water level was measured and permeability coefcient was xed.
The material from Isparta Dardere was mixed with lime at the rates of 4%, 6%,
8%, and 10%, and cement at the rates of 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10%, consolid444 (0.8 l/
3
m ) + solidry additives at the rate of 1% and 2%, and all of the mixed samples that
were used were subjected to consistency limits (through cassagrande method),
standard proctor, wet CBR and picnometer tests and the results were compared.
All the tests carried out within the scope of this study were performed in accor-
dance with TS 1900 [17]. All the test were carried out in Geological Engineering
practical soil laboratories within the scope of Sleyman Demirel University project
support and Isparta Public Waterworks Administration.
At rst, powder component, solidry was added to the natural soil sample from
Isparta Dardere by taking the percentage according to the dry weight of the soil,
and after that the additive consolid444 was added to this mixture. Consolid444
was added to the soil by agitating after being added into water as 0.8 l/m3. First
of all, the optimum water content of the soil without additives (15%) and the max-
imum dry unit volume weight (1.85 t/m3) was determined. Then the added consol-
id444 additive amount was calculated in proportion to the dry weight of the soil
used in the test which was 6000 g
Table 2
Chemical and physical characteristics of lime used.
Materials Oxides (%)
SiO2 Fe2O3 Al2O3 Ca(OH)2 CaO
Lime 0.60 0.30 0.20 87.00
1:85 tons 1:850:000 g
6000  0:8  1:850:000 0:003 lt 3 mlt consolid444 is required:
After the required amount of consolid444 was found the amount of water was
calculated.
6000  15  100 900 g
A suspension was formed by adding consolid444 into the determined water of
900 g and agitating the same properly. Since we did not know the optimum mois-
ture content while compacting the soil mixed with consolid444 using the proctor
method, after we made the initial compaction on the basis of the amount of water
we determined for the suspension, we continued the compaction process by
increasing the water at certain percentages. Thus, the optimum moisture content
and dry unit volume weight of the soil mixed with consolid444 was xed. After
the soil was mixed, it was kept at rest for half an hour in order the moist to be fully
absorbed for the CBR test. After the soil was compacted with the values xed
through the standard proctor test, and it was kept in the moist room for six days
and four days inside water, and when no increase was observed in its swelling rate,
it was taken out of water and applied wet CBR test. The sample from the soil inside
the CBR mould was subjected to consistency limits and picnometer tests.
As studies made with consolid444 + Solidry and Cement and Lime are taking too
much time and actually as Conservex and Solidry are used as second component of
consolid system to prevent capillarity, Conservex is not used in these studies.
Within this study, in order to improve the properties of the material from Ispar-
ta Dardere, lime was added into the same material at the rates of 4%, 6%, 8%, and
10%. Chemical and physical characteristics of lime used are shown in Table 2.
The added amount of lime was determined by xing its percentage according to
the dry weight of soil, and then mixed with it. The prepared mixtures were kept
covered with a wet cloth for half an hour to fully absorb the moist before compac-
tion. The optimum moisture content and dry unit volume weight of the soil mixed
with consolid444 was xed through proctor test. After the soil sample mixed with
lime was compacted at the values xed through standard proctor test it was sub-
jected to curing in the moist room for seven days and three days under room con-
ditions, and after being left inside water for four days it was taken out and its
swelling rate was xed before applying wet CBR test. Then sample from the soil
mixed with lime inside the CBR mould was subjected to atterberg limits and pic-
nometer tests.
Within this study, in order to improve the bearing capacity of the material from
Isparta Dardere, cement of CEM I 42.5 R type was added into the same material at
the rates of 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10%. The added amount of cement was determined by
xing its percentage according to the dry weight of soil, and then mixed with it.
The optimum moisture content and dry unit volume weight of the soil mixed with
consolid444 was xed through proctor test. After the soil was mixed, it was kept at
rest for half an hour in order the moist to be fully absorbed for wet CBR test. After
the soil mixed with cement was compacted into the CBR mould with the values
xed through the standard proctor test, and it was kept in the moist room for
one day and four days inside water, and when its swelling rate was xed it was ta-
ken out of water and applied wet CBR test. Then sample from the soil mixed with
cement taken out of the CBR. Mould was subjected to consistency limits and pic-
nometer tests. The mixed oxide components of the cement are shown in Table 3.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Determination of the engineering properties of the natural soil
material from Isparta Dardere
As a result of the sieve analysis and hydrometer tests on the
natural soil material from the clay mine in Isparta Dardere it
was determined that the grains of the soil were distributed as 6%
gravel, 50% sand and 44% silt and clay. Then the consistency limits
test on the natural soil sample showed that the liquid limit was
32%, the plastic limit was 17% and the plasticity index was 15%.
According to these results the soil sample was classied in accor-
dance with USCS, and the soil class was determined as SC. The sam-
ple compacted through standard proctor method was found to
have an optimum moisture content of 15%, maximum unit volume
weight of 1.85 t/m3, swelling rate of 0.07%, wet CBR rate of 3.7%
MgO CO2 H2O CaCO3 MgCO3 S
0.60 0.80 10.20 0.20
 S. Eren, M. Filiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 24732480 2477

Table 3
Chemical and physical characteristics of cement used.

Materials SO3 (%) Specic gravity (kg/m3) Specic surface (cm2/g) Time of setting (min) Expansion (mm) Compressive strength (MPa)
2 day 7 day
Cement (CEM I 42.5 R) 2.67 3090 2910 164 1 25.6 38.3

and the soil description was determined to be very bad [12]. The
permeability coefcient was calculated as 6.54196  109 during
the decreasing level permeability test on the natural soil sample
from Isparta Dardere. The specic gravity of the soil was deter-
mined as 2.70 with the picnometer test. The engineering properties
of the natural sample from Isparta Dardere are shown in Table 4.
4.2. Chemical stabilisation of natural soil by consolid addition
4.2.4. Effect of consolid system in natural soil on consistency limit
The additive rates that were used increased the liquid limit and
plastic limit values while decreasing the plasticity index values.
The liquid limit of the soil mixed with consolid444 + 1% solidry
was found to be as 34%, plastic limit as 24% and plasticity index
as 10%. The liquid limit of the soil mixed with consolid444 + 2% sol-
idry was found to be as 34, plastic limit as 31 and plasticity index
as 3.

4.2.1. Effect of consolid system in natural soil on OMC and maximum
dry density
The Consolid444 + Solidry additives that were used caused the
maximum dry unit volume weights of the natural soil sample to
decrease. The maximum dry unit weight of the soil mixed with
consolid444 + 1% solidry was found to be as 1.81 t/m3 and the
maximum dry unit weight of the soil mixed with Consolid444 + 2%
solidry as 1.79 t/m3. The Consolid444 + solidry additives that were
used did not caused any change regarding the optimum moisture
content of the natural soil sample from Isparta Dardere. The max-
imum dry density and optimum moisture content of soil mixed
with Consolid444 + solidry are shown in Fig. 1.
4.2.2. Effect of consolid system in natural soil on wet CBR
As the amount of the consolid additives mixed with the natural
soil increased, the wet CBR percentages increased accordingly. As a
result of the wet CBR test, the wet CBR percentage of the soil mixed
with Consolid444 + 1% solidry was found to be as 33.3% and the
soil description was determined to be good. The wet CBR percent-
age of the soil mixed with consolid444 + 2% solidry was found to be
as 51.4% and the soil description was determined to be very good
[12].
4.2.3. Effect of consolid system in natural soil on swelling
The consolid444 + solidry additives caused the swelling per-
centage of the natural soil sample to decrease. The swelling per-
centage of the soil mixed with consolid444 + 1% solidry was
found to be as 0.05% and as 0.02% for the soil mixed with Consol-
id444 + 2% solidry.
4.2.5. Effect of consolid system in natural soil on specic gravity
The additive rates that were used caused the specic gravity of
the natural soil sample to decrease, and this value was found to be
as 2.6 for all of the samples mixed with consolid. The engineering
properties of the samples mixed with consolid444 + solidry were
shown in Table 5.
4.3. Chemical stabilisation of natural soil by lime addition
4.3.1. Effect of lime in natural soil on OMC and maximum dry density
As the lime amount mixed with the natural soil increased,
expectedly [2] the optimum moisture content also increased. The
optimum moisture content of the soil mixed with 4% lime was
found to be as 18%, the soil mixed with 6% lime as 18%, the soil
mixed with 8% lime as 19.2%, and the soil mixed with 10% lime
as 19.5%.
As the amount of the lime increased, expectedly [2] the maxi-
mum dry unit volume weight of the natural soil sample was de-
creased. The maximum dry unit volume weight of the sample
mixed with 4% lime was found to be as 1.69 t/m3, as 1.67 t/m3
for the sample mixed with 6% of lime, 1.65 t/m3 for the sample
mixed with 8% of lime and 1.65 t/m3 for the sample mixed with
10% of lime. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content of soil mixed with lime are shown in Fig. 2.
1.85
1.82

1.79
Table 4
Engineering properties of soil used in the study.
1.76
dry unit weight (t/m3 )

Soil properties Values

1.73
Specic gravity 2.7
Grain size analysis (%) 1.7
Gravel 6
Sand 50 1.67
Silt and clay 44
Consistency limit (%) 1.64
soil
Liquid limit 32
Plastic limit 17 1.61
1% solidry+consolid444
Plasticity index 15 2%solidry+consolid444
Texture of classication based on plasticity chart SC 1.58

Compaction study
Optimum moisture content (OMC) (%) 15 1.55

Maximum dry density (t/m3) 1.85 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

California bearing ratio (CBR) (%) 3.7 water content (%)
Percentage of swelling (%) 0.07
Permeability coefcient (cm/s) 6.54196  109 Fig. 1. Changes in water content and maximum dry unit volume weights of natural
soilconsolid additives.
2478 S. Eren, M. Filiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 24732480

Table 5
The overall view of the changes on the engineering properties of the natural soil caused by all of the additives.

Admixtures (%) Gs OMC (%) cd (t/m3) CBR (%) LL PL PI Swelling (%)

Soil 2.7 15 1.85 3.7 32 17 15 0.07
Soil + 4C 2.7 16 1.81 28.6 37 24 13 0.01
Soil + 6C 2.7 15.5 1.79 64.8 37 27 10 0.01
Soil + 8C 2.7 16 1.75 141.0 36 33 3 0.01
Soil + 10C 2.7 15 1.76 Could not read 36 35 1 0.01
Soil + 4L 2.7 18 1.69 16.2 31 23 8 0.00
Soil + 6L 2.7 18 1.67 85.7 33 29 4 0.00
Soil + 8L 2.7 19.2 1.65 121.4 33 31 2 0.00
Soil + 10L 2.7 19.5 1.65 112.4 33 32 1 0.00
C444 + 1S 2.6 15 1.81 33.3 34 24 10 0.05
C444 + 2S 2.6 15 1.79 51.4 34 31 3 0.02

Gs: specic gravity, CBR: California bearing ratio, 4C: 4% cement, C444: consolid444, 1S: 1% solidry, 4L: 4% lime, OMC: optimum moisture content, LL: liquid limit, PL: plastic
limit, PI: plasticity index.

4.3.2. Effect of lime in natural soil on wet CBR
As the lime rate mixed with the natural soil was increased, ini-
tially substantial increases were observed in the wet CBR percent-
ages, and this increase reached the maximum with the addition of
8% of lime, whereas the CBR percentage decreased, as expected,
when the lime amount was continued to be increased [4]. The
wet CBR percentage of the soil mixed with 4% of lime was found
to be as 16.2%, as 87.7% for the soil mixed with 6%, 121.4% for
the soil mixed with 8% of lime, and 112.4% for the soil mixed with
10% of lime. As seen, after the addition of 8% of lime, the CBR value
did not increase on the contrary it began to decrease.
was found to be as 33%, the plastic limit as 31% and the plasticity
index as 2%. The liquid limit of the soil mixed with 10% of lime
was found to be as 33%, the plastic limit as 32% and the plasticity
index as 1%.
4.3.5. Effect of lime in natural soil on specic gravity
The lime additives that were used did not cause any change
regarding the specic gravity of the natural soil sample. The results
from the tests on the lime-added samples are shown in Table 5.
4.4. Chemical stabilisation of natural soil by cement addition

4.3.3. Effect of lime in natural soil on swelling
According to the test results no swelling was seen in the soil
samples mixed with lime.
4.3.4. Effect of lime in natural soil on consistency limit
During the consistency tests it was seen that as the amount of
mixed lime increased, expectedly [2] the plastic limit values of
the soil also increased whereas the plasticity index values demon-
strated decrease. The liquid limit of the soil mixed with 4% of lime
was found to be as 31%, the plastic limit as 23% and the plasticity
index as 8%. The liquid limit of the soil mixed with 6% of lime
was found to be as 33%, the plastic limit as 29% and the plasticity
index as 4%. The liquid limit of the soil mixed with 8% of lime
4.4.1. Effect of cement in natural soil on OMC and maximum dry
density
As the amount of cement added to the natural soil increased
maximum dry unit volume weights were observed to decrease.
The maximum dry unit volume weight of the sample mixed with
4% of cement was found to be as 1.81 t/m3, as 1.79 t/m3 for the
sample mixed with 6% of cement, 1.75 t/m3 for the sample mixed
with 8% of cement and 1.76 t/m3 for the sample mixed with 10%
of cement. The optimum moisture content of the soil mixed with
4% cement was found to be as 16%, the soil mixed with 6% cement
as 15.5%, the soil mixed with 8% cement as 16%, and the soil mixed
with 10% cement as 15%. The maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content of soils mixed with cement are shown in Fig. 3.

1.85 1.85

1.82 1.82

1.79 1.79

1.76 1.76
dry unit weight (t/m3)
dry unit weight (t/m3)

1.73 1.73

1.7 1.7
soil
4% lime
1.67 6% lime 1.67
8% lime
soil
1.64 10% lime 1.64
4%cement
6%cement
1.61 1.61
8%cement
10%cement
1.58 1.58

1.55 1.55

5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
water content (%) water content (%)

Fig. 2. Changes in water content and maximum dry unit volume weights of natural Fig. 3. Changes in water content and maximum dry unit volume weights of natural
soillime additives. soilcement additives.
 S. Eren, M. Filiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 24732480 2479

20 160 154.3
lime 19.5
lime
cement 19.2 141
cement
solidry+consolid444 solidry+consolid444
optimum moisture content(%)

121.4
120
112.4
18 18
18

wet C.B.R (%)

85.7

80

64.8
16 16
16
51.4
15.5

40
15 15 15 15 33.3
28.6

16.2

14 3.7
1 3 5 7 9 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
1 3 5 7 9
admixture content (%) 0 2 4 6 8 10
admixture content (%)
Fig. 4. The changes in optimum moisture contents caused by the additive types
added to natural soil. Fig. 6. The changes in wet CBR caused by the additive types added to natural soil.

4.4.2. Effect of cement in natural soil on wet CBR

As the amount of the cement added to the natural soil in- ment was found to be as 37%, the plastic limit as 24% and the
creased, the wet CBR percentages also increased. The wet CBR per- plasticity index as 13%. The liquid limit of the soil mixed with 6%
centage of the soil mixed with 4% of cement was found to be as of cement was found to be as 37%, the plastic limit as 27% and
28.6%, as 64.8% for the soil mixed with 6% of cement, 141.0% for the plasticity index as 10%. The liquid limit of the soil mixed with
the soil mixed with 8%. The wet CBR percentage of the soil mixed 8% of cement was found to be as 36%, the plastic limit as 33% and
with 10% of cement could not be read as it was too solid. the plasticity index as 3%. The liquid limit of the soil mixed with
10% of cement was found to be as 36%, the plastic limit as 35%
4.4.3. Effect of cement in natural soil on swelling and the plasticity index as 1%.
As the cement amount added to the natural soil increased,
swelling percentages decreased and the swelling rates for all of 4.4.5. Effect of cement in natural soil on specic gravity
the soil samples mixed with cement was found to be as 0.01%. The cement additives that were used did not cause any change
regarding the specic gravity of the natural soil sample. The re-
4.4.4. Effect of cement in natural soil on consistency limit sults from the tests on the Cement-added samples are shown in
During the consistency tests it was seen that as the amount of Table 5, and the changes in optimum moisture content, maximum
mixed cement increased, expectedly [2] the plastic limit values dry unit volume weight, wet CBR and consistency limits caused by
of the soil also increased whereas the plasticity index values dem- the additives mixed with the natural soil sample are shown in
onstrated decrease. The liquid limit of the soil mixed with 4% of ce- Figs. 49.

37 37
1.88

lime
1.85 36 36
1.85 cement 36
1.84 solidry+consolid444

1.81 1.81
lime
dry unit weight (t/m3)

1.8
1.79 1.79 cement
34 34
solidry+consolid444
Liquid Limit

34

1.76
1.76 1.75
1.75 33 33 33

1.72
32
32
1.7
1.69

1.68 1.67 31

1.65 1.65
1.65
1.64 30
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
admixture content (%) admixture content (%)

Fig. 5. The changes in maximum dry unit volume weights caused by the additive Fig. 7. The changes in liquid limit values caused by the additive types added to
types added to natural soil. natural soil.
2480 S. Eren, M. Filiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 24732480

foundation material in a road construction. However, after the

36 lime evaluation of the entire results, the sample mixed with 6% lime
35
cement proved to demonstrate a higher bearing capacity when compared
solidry+consolid444 33 to sample mixed with 6% cement and the sample mixed with Con-
32
solid444 + 2%. Additionally, the most appropriate additive to be
31 31
31 used for this soil sample is considered to be 6% of lime as it is
29 cheaper than cement and consolid444 + solidry additives. How-
Plastic Limit

ever, as the bearing capacity values of the additives that were used
27
are to increase when their curing periods are extended, this crite-
26
rion should also be taken into consideration while evaluating.
24 24
The thickness of a clayey soil can be changed in a great variety
23
from a very thick structure to a viscous liquid by just increasing the
amount of water inside. Accordingly, important differences may
21
occur in engineering properties such as endurance, load deforma-
tion, and compression. Generally, as the plasticity of the soil in-
17 creases, compression and swelling potential also increases and
16
water permeability decreases [18].
While the plasticity value of the natural soil is 15% in this study,
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 used additives caused signicant decreases in plasticity values and
admixture content (%) as a result resistances increased but swelling values decreased. As
Fig. 8. The changes in plastic limit values caused by the additive types added to the lime and silt ratio of the soil is high and 50% of the remaining
natural soil. material is sand, the permeability of the soil is low. As this soil is a
material with low permeability and swelling value, it can be used
as a lling material in the construction of garbage storing areas,
16 dams, roads, etc. where materials with low permeability is
15 lime preferred.
cement
solidry+consolid444
13

References
12

[1] Bowles JE. Physical and geotechnical properties of soils. McGraw-Hill Book
10 10
Company; 1984.
Plasticity index

[2] Guney Y, Sari D, Cetin M, Tuncan M. Impact of cyclic wettingdrying on

swelling behavior of lime-stabilized soil. Build Environ 2007;42:6818.
8
8 [3] Bell FG. Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils. Eng Geol
1996;42:22337.
[4] Bell FG. Department of Geology and Applied Geology, University of Natal,
Durban; 1993.
[5] Atanur A. Lime stabilization and its application in road construction. Ege
4
University Library of the Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ankara; 1973.
4 [6] Dunn IS, Anderson LR, Kiefer FW. Geotechnical analysis. Utah State University,
3 3 3 Canada; 1980.
2 [7] Lee KI, White W, Ingles, OG. Geotechnical engineering. The University of New
South Woles, Australia; 1983.
1
[8] Coduto DP. Geotechnical engineering, principles and practices. California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona; 1999.
0
[9] Karol RH. Soils and soil engineering. New Jersey; 1960.
1 3 5 7 9
0 2 4 6 8 10 [10] Bahar R, Benazzoug M, Kenai S. Performance of compacted cement-stabilised
admixture content (%) soil. Cem Concr Compos 2004;26:81120.
[11] Raj PP. Geotechnical engineering. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
Fig. 9. The changes in plasticity index values caused by the additive types added to Company Limited; 1995.
[12] Aytekin M. Experimental soil mechanics. Ankara; 2004.
natural soil.
[13] Mokhtar S. Waste management a future challenge for the protection of
mineral sources. Cairo University, Egypt; 2000. p. 11823.
5. Conclusions [14] Publications of consolid AG. Switzerland, 2006, <www.consolid.co.uk/
introduction.asp>, <www.consolid.co.uk/faq.asp>.
[15] Giurgea, VI. Hydrogeological and geotechnical requirements for the
When the results that were found for the sample from Isparta construction of radioactive waste disposal sites with respect to the consolid
Dardere are evaluated in terms of bearing capacity, the following system. Thesis submitted to the University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe; 1999.
conclusions are reached. All additives added to Isparta Dardere [16] Erylmaz C. Consolid insaat yatirim danismanlik dis ticaret A.S
. Isparta; 2006.
<www.consolid.com.tr>.
natural soil material which is inappropriate to be used as a bearing [17] Turkish Standards Institution, TS 1900/April 1975. Soil tests in civil
in any road construction signicantly increased the bearing capac- engineering, Ankara.
ity of this material and enabled it to be used as sub-foundation and [18] zaydn K. Soil mechanics. Yldz niversity, Turkey; 1989.