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

net/publication/283104130

Effects of limestone dust on geotechnical properties of an expansive soil

Article  in  International Journal of Applied Engineering Research · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

2 254

2 authors, including:

Akshaya Kumar Sabat

GIFT, Bhubaneswar,India
34 PUBLICATIONS   292 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Akshaya Kumar Sabat on 04 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 17 (2015) pp 37724-37730
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Effects of Limestone Dust on Geotechnical Properties of an Expansive Soil

Akshaya Kumar Sabat

Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Siksha ‘O’Anusandhan University, Khandagiri Square, Bhubaneswar, India
akshayasabat@soauniversity.ac.in, akshayasabat@yahoo.co.in

Prabina Kumar Muni

Post Graduate (Geotechnical Engineering) student
Department of Civil Engineering
Siksha ‘O’Anusandhan University, Khandagiri Square, Bhubaneswar, India
prabin.muni@gmail.com

Abstract produced by the processing of limestone [11]. In paper [12]

Effects of limestone dust (LSD) on Atterberg’s limits,
compaction properties, unconfined compressive
strength(UCS), soaked California bearing ratio(CBR), shear
strength parameters, hydraulic conductivity and swelling
pressure of an expansive soil have been discussed in this
paper. LSD has been added to an expansive soil up to 12% at
an increment of 3%. Analysis of test results reveals that there
was a continuous decrease in liquid limit, plasticity index,
maximum dry density, hydraulic conductivity, swelling
pressure and continuous increase in plastic limit, shrinkage
limit, and optimum moisture content up to 12% addition of
LSD. The UCS, soaked CBR, cohesion and angle of internal
friction however had maximum values when the percentage
addition of LSD was 9%. The optimum percentage of LSD for
stabilization of expansive soil was found to be 9%. At the
optimum percentage addition of LSD, substantial
improvements in geotechnical properties of the expansive soil
were found out.
the author had stabilized expansive soil by adding crushed
limestone dust from 2 to 10% at an increment of
2%.Reduction in plasticity index and significant decrease in
expansion were found out.
From the review of literature it is found that the study,
regarding the effects of limestone dust on geotechnical
properties of expansive soil is limited.
The objective of the present investigation is to study the
effects of LSD on Atterberg’s Limits, Optimum Moisture
Content(OMC), Maximum Dry Density(MDD), Unconfined
Compressive Strength(UCS), soaked California Bearing Ratio
(CBR),Cohesion, Angle of Internal Friction, Hydraulic
conductivity and Swelling Pressure of an expansive soil.
Materials and Methods
Material
The materials used in the experiment are mainly, Expansive
soil and LSD.

Keywords: Effects, Limestone Dust, Expansive Soil, Soaked Expansive Soil

California bearing ratio, Swelling Pressure. The expansive soil used in the experimental programme was
brought from a place 250 km away from Bhubaneswar. The
geotechnical properties of the expansive soil are given in
Introduction Table1.
In arid and semi-arid regions of the world expansive soils are
mostly found. Around 20% of total area of India is covered by TABLE 1.Geotechnical Properties of Expansive soil
this type of soil. Serious damages occur to lightly loaded
structures founded on this type of soil because of its cyclic Properties Values
swell-shrink behaviour. Some prominent construction 1)Grain Size Analysis
techniques normally adopted by civil engineers while dealing Sand size(%) 12
with construction in expansive soil are i) adoption of under Silt size(%) 24
reamed pile foundation ii) placement of, sand cushion/ Clay size(%) 64
cohesive non swelling soil (CNS) cushion/ stabilized solid 2) Atterberg’s Limit
waste cushion iii) construction of granular pile anchor iv) Liquid Limit(%) 60
provision of moisture barrier v) stabilization using Plastic Limit (%) 31
lime/cement/ chemicals and/or solid wastes etc. Expansive Shrinkage Limit (%) 11
soil has been successfully stabilized using different types of 3)Compaction Properties
mineral solid wastes. Some of them are, quarry dust OMC (%) 22
[1],[2],marble dust[3]-[5],baryte powder[6], pyroclastic dust MDD (kN/m3) 16.2
[7], granite dust[8],[9],mine tailings[10]. 4) UCS (kN/m2) 86
Limestone dust (LSD) is the dust produced during the 5) Soaked CBR(%) 1.62
processing of limestone, mostly consists of CaCO3 in its Swelling Pressure (kN/m2) 132
chemical composition. Approximately 20% of LSD wastes are

37724
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 17 (2015) pp 37724-37730
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Variation of Plastic Limit of the expansive soil with LSD(%)

Lime Stone Dust (LSD)
LSD (having CaO=5.4% and CaCO3 =82.51%) used in the
experimental programme was purchased from the local
market, it was crushed into powder form, those passing 425µ
IS sieve were used in the experimental programme.
has been shown Fig.1(b) The Plastic Limit goes on increasing
with increase in percentage of LSD. The Plastic Limit
increased to 36% from 31% when the LSD increased to 12%.
A Regression model has been developed to predict the Plastic
Limit of the expansive soil stabilized with different
percentages of LSD. The model is

Testing Procedure Y=- 0.001X4+0.034X3 -0.379X2 +1.861X+31, R2 =1, R=1

Different specimens of expansive soil-LSD were made by
addition of LSD from 0 to 12% at an increment of 3% by dry Where,
weight of soil. Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Shrinkage Limit Y= Plastic Limit (%) of the stabilized soil
Standard Proctor Compaction, UCS, soaked CBR, Triaxial X= LSD (%)
Compression, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Swelling Pressure
tests were conducted according to the relevant IS Codes. UCS,
37
Triaxial Compression, Hydraulic Conductivity and Swelling
Pressure tests were conducted after 7 days of curing, and
36
soaked CBR tests were conducted after 7 days of curing and 4
days of soaking under a surcharge of 5Kg. 35

Plastic Limit (%)

34
Analysis of Test Results and Discussion
33

62 4 3 2
32 y = -0.001x + 0.034x - 0.379x + 1.861x + 31
60 R² = 1

58 31
y = -1.4x + 58
56 R² = 0.942
30
54
Liquid limit (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
52 LSD (%)
50
Fig.1(b) Variation of Plastic Limit of Expansive Soil with
48
LSD(%)
46

44

42
30
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
25 3 2
LSD (%) y = -0.027x + 0.611x - 5.25x + 29
R² = 1
Plasticity Index(%)

Fig.1(a) Variation of Liquid Limit of Expansive Soil 20

with LSD(%)
15

Variation of Liquid Limit of the expansive soil with LSD(%)

10
has been shown in Fig.1(a).With increase in LSD percentage
the Liquid Limit goes on decreasing. The Liquid Limit
decreased to 42% from 60% when the LSD increased to 12%. 5

A linear Regression model has been developed to predict the

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
liquid limit of expansive soil stabilized with different
percentages of LSD. The model is, LSD (%)
Fig.1(c) Variation of Plasticity Index of Expansive Soil
Y=-1.4X+58, R2 =0.942,R=0.97 with LSD (%)

Where,
Y= Liquid Limit (%) of the stabilized soil Variation of Plasticity Index of the expansive soil with LSD
X= LSD (%) (%) has been shown Fig. 1(c). The Plasticity Index goes on
R= Coefficient of Correlation and R2= Coefficient of decreasing with increase in percentage of LSD. The Plasticity
Index decreased to 6% from 29 % when the LSD increased to
12%.

37725
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 17 (2015) pp 37724-37730
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

A model has been developed to predict the Plasticity Index of

the expansive soil stabilized with different percentages of
16.2
LSD. The model is,

Y=-0.027X3+0.611X 2 - 5.25X +29, R2 =1, R=1 16.0

y=-0.066x+16.1
2
R =1
Where,

MDD ( kN/m )
15.8
Y= Plasticity Index (%) of the stabilized soil

3
X= LSD (%)
15.6

22

15.4
20

y = 0.8x + 11.8
15.2
R² = 0.973
Shrinkage Limit (%)

18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
LSD (%)
16
Fig.2. Variation of MDD of Expansive Soil with LSD(%)
14

Variation of MDD of the expansive soil with LSD (%) has

12 been shown in Fig.2. The MDD of soil goes on decreasing
with increase in percentage of LSD. The MDD decreased to
10 15.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
kN /m3 from 16.1 kN /m3 when the LSD increased to 12%.
LSD (%) A linear regression model has been developed to predict the
MDD of the expansive soil stabilized with different
Fig.1(d) Variation of Shrinkage Limit of Expansive Soil
percentages of LSD. The model is,
with LSD(%)
Y=-0.066X+16.1, R2 =1, R=1
The variation of Shrinkage Limit of expansive soil with
Where,
LSD(%) has been shown Fig. 1(d). With increase in LSD
Y= MDD (kN /m3) of the stabilized soil
percentage the Shrinkage Limit of soil goes on increasing.
X= LSD (%)
The Shrinkage limit increased to 21% from 11% when the
LSD increased to 12%.
A linear regression model has been developed to predict the 30
Shrinkage Limit of the expansive soil stabilized with different
percentages of LSD. The model is, 28
y=0.666x+20
2
2 R =1
Y=-0.8X+11.8, R =0.973, R=0.986
26
Where,
OMC ( % )

Y= Shrinkage Limit (%) of the stabilized soil

24
X= LSD (%)

22

20

18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
LSD ( % )

Fig. 3. Variation of OMC of Expansive Soil with LSD(%)

Variation of OMC of the expansive soil with LSD(%) has

been shown in Fig.3.With increase in LSD percentage the
OMC of soil goes on increasing. The OMC increased to 28%
from 20% when the LSD increased to 12%.

37726
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 17 (2015) pp 37724-37730
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

A linear regression model has been developed to predict the R2=0.995 and R=0.997
OMC of the expansive soil stabilized with different
percentages of LSD. The model is, Where,
Y= soaked CBR(%) of the stabilized soil
Y=0.666X+20, R2 =1, R=1 X= LSD (%)

Where,
Y= OMC (%) of the stabilized soil
X= LSD (%) 5.5

5.0
260
4.5
240

Soaked CBR (%)

4.0
220
3.5
200
3.0
UCS (kN/m )

180
2

2.5
160

2.0 3 2
140 y=-0.003x +0.033x +0.390x+1.644
2
1.5
R =0.995
120 3 2
y=-0.172x +1.730x +15.46x+86.34
100 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
R =0.999
80
LSD (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fig.5. Variation of Soaked CBR of Expansive Soil with
LSD (%)
LSD(%)

Fig.4. Variation of UCS of Expansive Soil with LSD(%)

The variation of UCS of the expansive soil with LSD(%) has
been shown in Fig.4.With increase in percentage addition of
LSD, the UCS of soil goes on increasing. The UCS increased
to 241 kN/m2 from 86 kN/m2 when the percentage addition of
LSD is 9% thereafter it decreased. The maximum increase in
UCS is 180% as compared to the UCS of virgin expansive soil
when the percentage addition of LSD is 9%.
A Regression model has been developed to predict the UCS of
the expansive soil stabilized with different percentage of
LSD. The model is,
Y=-0.172X3+1.730X2+15.46X+86.34,
R2=0.999 and R=0.999
The variation of Cohesion of the expansive soil with LSD(%)
has been shown in Fig.6.With increase in percentage addition
of LSD, the Cohesion of soil goes on increasing. The
Cohesion increased to 25 kN/m2 from 18 kN/m2 when the
percentage addition of LSD is 9% thereafter it decreased. The
maximum increase in Cohesion is 38.8 % as compared to the
Cohesion of virgin expansive soil when the percentage
addition of LSD is 9%.
A Regression model has been developed to predict the
Cohesion of the expansive soil stabilized with different
percentage of LSD. The model is,
Y= -0.003X4+ 0.071X3 - 0.412X2+ 1.361X + 18
R2=1 and R=1

Where, Where,
Y=UCS (kN /m2) of the stabilized soil Y= Cohesion (kN /m2) of the stabilized soil
X=LSD (%) X=LSD(%)

Variation of soaked CBR of the expansive soil with LSD (%)

has been shown in Fig.5.With increase in percentage addition
of LSD the soaked CBR of soil goes on increasing. The
soaked CBR increased to 5.23% from 1.62 % when the
percentage addition of LSD is 9%, thereafter it decreased. The
maximum increase in percentage of soaked CBR is 222% as
compared to the soaked CBR of virgin expansive soil when
the percentage addition of LSD is 9 %.
A Regression model has been developed to predict the soaked
CBR of the expansive soil stabilized with different percentage
of LSD. The model is,

Y =-0.003X3+0.033X2+0.390X+1.644

37727
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 17 (2015) pp 37724-37730
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

X=LSD(%)
26

25
3.0
24

23 2.5
Cohesion( kN/m )
2

22
2.0

K(1X10 ) cm/Sec
21

20
1.5

-7
19 4 3 2
y = -0.003x + 0.071x - 0.412x + 1.361x + 18
R² = 1 1.0
18
y = -0.188x + 2.73
17 R² = 0.981
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.5
LSD (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fig.6. Variation of Cohesion of Expansive Soil with LSD (%)
LSD(%)
Fig.8. Variation of Hydraulic Conductivity of Expansive
Soil with LSD(%)
22
Angle of Internal Friction (Degrees)

20 The variation of Hydraulic Conductivity of the expansive soil

18
16
14
y = -0.003x + 0.064x - 0.300x + 1.083x + 12
12 R² = 1
0 2
Fig.7. Variation of Angle of Internal Friction of
Expansive Soil with LSD(%)
Fig.7 shows the variation of Angle of Internal Friction of the
expansive soil with LSD (%).With increase in percentage
addition of LSD, the Angle of Internal Friction of soil goes on
increasing. The Angle of Internal Friction increased to 21º
from 12º when the percentage addition of LSD is 9%
thereafter it decreased. The maximum increase in Angle of
Internal Friction is 75% as compared to the Angle of Internal
Friction of virgin expansive soil when the percentage addition
of LSD is 9%.
A Regression model has been developed to predict the Angle
of Internal Friction of the expansive soil stabilized with
different percentage of LSD. The model is,
Y= -0.003X4 + 0.064X3 - 0.300X2 + 1.083X + 12
R2=1 and R=1
with LSD(%) has been shown in Fig.8.With increase in
percentage addition of LSD the Hydraulic Conductivity of soil
goes on decreasing. The Hydraulic Conductivity decreased to
0.62x 10-7 cm/sec. from 2.78x 10 -7 cm/sec. when the
percentage of addition of LSD is 12%. There is 77.7%
decrease in Hydraulic Conductivity as compared to virgin
expansive soil.
A Regression model has been developed to predict the
4 3 2
Hydraulic Conductivity of the expansive soil stabilized with
different percentage of LSD. The model is,
Y= -0.188X+2.73
4 6 8 10 12
R2=0.981 and R=0.99
LSD (%) Where,
Y= Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/sec.) of the stabilized soil
X= LSD(%)
The variation of Swelling Pressure of the expansive soil with
LSD(%) has been shown in Fig.9. With increase in percentage
addition of LSD the swelling pressure of soil goes on
decreasing. The Swelling pressure decreased to 12 kN /m2
from 132 kN/m2 when the percentage of addition of LSD is
12%. There is 90.91% decrease in Swelling Pressure as
compared to the Swelling Pressure of virgin expansive soil.
A Regression model has been developed to predict the
Swelling Pressure of the expansive soil stabilized with
different percentage of LSD. The model is,
Y= -10.53X+130.8
R2=0.983 and R=0.991
Where,
Y= Swelling Pressure (kN /m2) of the stabilized soil
X= LSD (%)

Where,
Y= Angle of Internal Friction (Degree) of the stabilized soil

37728
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 17 (2015) pp 37724-37730
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
140
120 y = -10.53x + 130.8
2
R =0.983
Swelling Pressure (kN/m )
2
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
LSD(%)
Fig.9. Variation of Swelling Pressure of Expansive Soil
with LSD (%)
Conclusion
The following conclusions are drawn from this study.
The Liquid Limit goes on decreasing, the Plastic
Limit and Shrinkage Limit go on increasing,
Plasticity Index goes on decreasing with increase in
percentage addition of LSD .The Liquid Limit
decreased to 42 %, the Plastic Limit increased to
36%, Plasticity Index decreased to 6% and
Shrinkage Limit increased to 21% from 60 %, 31 %,
29% and 11% respectively when the percentage
addition of LSD is 12%.
The MDD of soil goes on decreasing with increase in
percentage addition of LSD. The MDD decreased to
15.3 kN/m3 from 16.1 kN/m3 when the percentage
addition of LSD is 12%.
The OMC of soil goes on increasing with increase in
percentage addition of LSD. The OMC increased to
28% from 20% when the percentage addition of LSD
is 12%.
The UCS of soil goes on increasing with increase in
percentage addition of LSD. The UCS increased to
241 kN/m2 from 86 kN/m2 when the percentage
addition of LSD is 9% thereafter it decreased. The
maximum increase in UCS is 180% as compared to
the UCS of virgin expansive soil when the
percentage addition of LSD is 9%.
The soaked CBR of soil goes on increasing with
increase in percentage addition of LSD. The soaked
CBR increased to 5.23% from 1.62%when the
percentage addition of LSD is 9% thereafter it
decreased. The maximum increase in percentage of
soaked CBR is 222 % as compared to the soaked
CBR of virgin expansive soil when the percentage
addition of LSD is 9 %.
The Cohesion of soil goes on increasing with
increase in percentage addition of LSD. The
Cohesion increased to 25 kN/m2 from 18 kN/m2
when the percentage addition of LSD is 9%
thereafter it decreased. The maximum increase in
Cohesion is 38.8% as compared to the Cohesion of
virgin expansive soil when the percentage addition of
LSD is 9 %.
The Angle of Internal Friction of soil goes on
increasing with increase in percentage addition of
LSD. The Angle of Internal Friction increased to 21º
from 12º when the percentage addition of LSD is
9% thereafter it decreased. The maximum increase in
Angle of Internal Friction is 75% as compared to
the Angle of Internal Friction of virgin expansive soil
when the percentage addition of LSD is 9%.
The Hydraulic Conductivity of soil goes on
decreasing with increase in percentage addition of
LSD. The Hydraulic Conductivity decreased to 0.62x
12 10-7 cm/sec. from 2.78x 10 -7 cm/sec. when the
percentage of addition of LSD is 12%. There is
77.7% decrease in Hydraulic Conductivity as
compared to the Hydraulic Conductivity of virgin
expansive soil
The Swelling Pressure of soil goes on decreasing
with increase in percentage addition of LSD. The
Swelling Pressure decreased to 12 kN/m2 from 132
kN/m2 when the percentage of addition of LSD is
12%. There is 90.91% decrease in Swelling Pressure
as compared to the Swelling Pressure of virgin
expansive soil
The optimum percentage of LSD for stabilization of
expansive soil is found to be 9%.
The models developed to predict Atterberg’s Limits,
Compaction properties, UCS, Soaked CBR, Shear
Strength Parameters, Hydraulic Conductivity and
Swelling Pressure of LSD stabilized expansive soil is
found to be very accurate judged based on coefficient
of correlation.
References
[1] Sabat, A.K. (2012) “Statistical Models for Prediction
of Swelling Pressure of a Stabilized Expansive Soil,”
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
17(G), 837-846.
[2] Sabat, A.K. and Bose, B. (2013) “Improvement in
Geotechnical Properties of an Expansive Soil using
Fly ash-Quarry Dust Mixes,” Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 18(Q), 3487-3500.
[3] Sabat, A.K. and Nanda, R.P. (2011) “Effect of
Marble Dust on Strength and Durability of Rice
Husk Ash Stabilised Expansive Soil,” International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 1(4),
939-948.
[4] Zhang, D., Sun, S., Xu, F., and Xue, N. (2013)
“Influence of Biomass Ash and Marble Dust on
Swelling and Strength Characteristics of Expansive
soil,” Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment,
11(3&4), 2362-2367.
[5] Gupta, C. and Sharma, R.K. (2014) “Influence of
Marble Dust, Fly Ash and Beach Sand on Sub-
Grade Characteristics of Expansive Soils,”
37729
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 10, Number 17 (2015) pp 37724-37730
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

International Conference on Advances in

Engineering and Technology -2014(ICAET-2014)
Spl. Publication of IOSR Journal of Mechanical and
Civil Engineering,13-18.
[6] Srinivasulu, G. and Rao, A.V.N. (1995) “Efficacy of
Baryte Powder as a Soil Stabiliser,” Journal of
Institution of Engineers (I), 76, 129-131
[7] Ene, E. and Okagbue, C.(2009)“Some Basic
Geotechnical Properties of Expansive Soil Modified
using Pyroclastic Dust,” Engineering Geology,107,
61-65
[8] Ogbonnaya, I. and Illoabachie, D.E. (2011) “The
Potential Effect of Granite Dust on the Geotechnical
Properties of Abakaliki Clays,” Continental Journal
of Earth Sciences, 6(1), 23-30.
[9] Mishra, J., Yadav, R.K. and Singhai, A.K. (2014)
“Effect of Granite Dust on Index Properties of Lime
Stabilized Black Cotton Soil,” International Journal
of Engineering Research and Science & Technology,
3 (1), 19-23.
[10] Ramesh, H.N., Krishnaiah, A.J. and Shilpa shet, S.
(2013) “Effect of Lime on the Index Properties of
Black Cotton Soil and Mine Tailings Mixtures,”
IOSR Journal of Engineering, 3 (4), Ver.3, 1-7
[11] Brooks, R., Udoeyo,F. ,and Takkalapelli,K.(2011)
“Geotechnical Properties of Problem Soils Stabilized
with Fly Ash and Limestone Dust in Philadelphia,”
J.Mater.Civ.Eng.23(5),711-716.
[12] AI-Azzo, S.I. (2009) “Treatment of Expansive
Clayey Soil in AL-Wahda District at Mosul City
with Crushed Lime Stone,” Iraqi Journal of Earth
Sciences, 9(2), 1-10.

37730

View publication stats