Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: Unconfined compression tests, Brazilian tensile tests, and saturated drained triaxial compression
tests with local strain measurement were carried out to evaluate the stress-strain behavior of a sandy soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
improved through the addition of carbide lime and fly ash. The effects of initial and pozzolanic reactions were
investigated. The addition of carbide lime to the soil-fly ash mixture caused short-term changes due to initial
reactions, inducing increases in the friction angle, in the cohesive intercept, and in the average modulus. Such
improvement might be of fundamental importance to allow site workability and speeding construction purposes.
In addition, under the effect of initial reactions, the maximum triaxial stiffness occurred for specimens molded
on the dry side of the optimum moisture content, while the maximum strength occurred at the optimum moisture
content. After 28 days, pozzolanic reactions magnified brittleness and further increased triaxial peak strength
and stiffness; the maximum triaxial strength and stiffness occurred on the dry side of the optimum moisture
content.
fly ash is 67.1% SiO2, 21.3% Al2O3, 7.2% Fe2O3, 1.4% K2O, plasticity changes, following the ‘‘lime fixation point’’ prin-
0.8% CaO, and 0.1% SO3. Fly ash pH is 6.0 (slightly acidic), ciple originally proposed by Hilt and Davidson (1960) for
cation exchange capacity is 3.0 meq/100 g of material, carbon clayey soils. As can be observed in Fig. 2, carbide lime con-
content is <0.05%, and loss on ignition at 1,000⬚C is 0.5%. tents >4% did not cause major changes to the plastic limit.
The grain-size curves for the soil and the fly ash are shown This threshold value, which is supposed to chemically satisfy
in Fig. 1. the soil-fly ash demand for lime, has often been suggested as
The carbide lime, a by-product of the manufacture of acet- the starting content to adopt for construction expediency pur-
ylene gas, obtained from one source, was used throughout this poses [e.g., Rogers et al. (1997)]. Consequently, 4% was the
minimum carbide lime content selected, in addition to 7%
and 10%, which were expected to largely improve the me-
TABLE 1. Mixture Proportions, Compaction and Curing Conditions, and Test Summary
Mixture Proportions Triaxial Compression Tests
Peak Peak Secant Young’s Unconfined Brazilian
Fly Dry unit Moisture Curing cohesion friction modulus for compressive tensile
Soil Lime ash weight content Compaction period intercept angle εa = 0.1% strength strength
(%) (%) (%) (kN/m3) (%) conditiona (days) (kN/m2) (degrees) (MN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
100 0 0 17.4 15.8 OM — 10 35 14–53 — —
75 0 25 16.6 15.3 OM — 7 36 16–27 — —
96 4 0 17.2 16.3 OM 28 42 38 69–88 — —
180 — — — 2,036 210
71 4 25 16.0 17.0 OM 0 24 41 32–80 — —
7 — — — 410 17
28 122 46 304–391 1,000 57
90 — — — 1,793 200
180 — — — 6,975 1,051
15.6 14.8 DS 0 18 40 38–113 — —
28 129 49 453–591 1,123 —
15.6 18.5 WS 0 16 38 19–37 — —
28 57 45 65–108 822 —
68 7 25 15.7 17.7 OM 7 — — — 536 21
28 — — — 1,247 74
90 — — — 1,817 189
180 — — — 8,567 1,158
65 10 25 15.5 18.1 OM 7 — — — 634 25
28 — — — 1,243 91
90 — — — 1,924 191
180 — — — 9,373 1,059
a
OM: optimum moisture; DS: dry side; WS: wet side.
FIG. 3. Compaction Curves for All Mixtures FIG. 5. Effect of Curing Time on Tensile Strength
fly ash with the formation of a new cementitious phase. Also, both short- and long-term chemical reactions.
they showed that the delay period is strongly dependent on
the temperature of curing. For temperatures varying from 20 Triaxial Tests of Mixtures under Optimum
to 65⬚C, Jalali et al. (1997) reported induction periods from Compaction Conditions
75 days to 4.8 h. Yet, it is interesting to notice that the increase Fig. 7 compares typical deviatoric stress-axial strain-volu-
in strength shown in Figs. 4 and 5 was practically independent metric strain response for all compacted mixtures, for the con-
of the carbide lime content up to 90 days, indicating that the fining pressure of 20 kN/m2 and refers to specimens cured for
amount of lime exceeding the minimum content adopted had 28 days, when containing carbide lime, and molded at the
no practical effect during the induction period. Beyond that, optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit weight.
however, an increase in strength with increasing lime content It is readily observed in Fig. 7 that the overall soil behavior
was observed for the curing period of 180 days, as clearly was significantly influenced by the industrial by-products ad-
shown in Fig. 4 for the unconfined compressive strength. In dition. Peak strength, stiffness, and brittleness were changed
Fig. 5, the same trend can be observed for the tensile strength as a consequence of either the separate or the joined effects
of the specimens containing 4 and 7% of carbide lime. The of carbide lime and fly ash contents. When comparing curves
10% content specimens unexpectedly diverge from the general 0-0 and 0-25, denoting, respectively, the compacted soil and
pattern and probably were affected by some sort of experi- the soil plus 25% of fly ash, it can be seen that the partial
mental error. replacement of soil by fly ash did not affect the stress-strain
The relative mobilization of both tensile and compressive behavior to a large extent. Peak strength and initial stiffness
strengths can be easily assessed by plotting the ratio of Bra- remained quite similar, while axial strain at failure was slightly
zilian tensile strength to unconfined compressive strength changed. Although the soil and the fly ash grain-size curves
against curing time, as shown in Fig. 6. The average ratio are different, the replacement of soil by 25% of fly ash did
increased from 4% at 7 days to about 15% at 180 days. It is not cause a fundamental change in the characteristics of the
suggested from the behavior observed in Fig. 6 that the tensile new material. The effect of adding only carbide lime to the
strength is a function only of the amount of cementitious com- soil was more pronounced. Comparing curves 0-0 and 4-0, the
pounds formed, which increases with curing time. On the other latter corresponding to the soil plus 4% of carbide lime, a
hand, the unconfined compressive strength is a function of significant increase in peak strength, stiffness, and brittleness
both granular packing and amount of cementitious compounds,
the latter increasing with curing time and the former being
constant and preponderant in the initial stages. If the tensile
strength is expected to play a main role in a stabilization de-
sign, such as in pavement structures, and assuming that the
ratio of tensile to unconfined compressive strength is indepen-
dent of the lime content, the plots shown in Figs. 4 and 6 give
very helpful information concerning the lime content to adopt.
The importance of fly ash is clearly demonstrated by com-
paring the unconfined compressive strength values obtained at
180 days of curing for both the soil-carbide lime and the soil-
fly ash-carbide lime mixture, which were 2 and 7 MN/m2,
fly ash (4-25) largely increased the peak friction angle to 46⬚
and the cohesion to 122 kN/m2, clearly demonstrating the im-
portance of fly ash to enhance the amount of pozzolanic re-
actions. The increase in the cohesion intercept obviously re-
flects the increase in cementation, while the change in the
friction angle is probably linked to alterations in soil texture,
essentially caused by the flocculation-agglomeration mecha-
nism of lime stabilization.
Typical curves of secant deformation modulus versus axial
strains are presented in Fig. 9, on a logarithmic scale, for the
mixtures molded at the optimum moisture content and the con-
fining pressure of 20 kN/m2. Values of secant deformation
modulus are presented in Table 1 for 0.1% axial strain and
confining stresses ranging from 20 to 100 kN/m2. The moduli
of the compacted soil (0-0) and of the compacted soil plus fly
ash (0-25) are very similar, with an average value of about 25
MN/m2. As expected, the addition of carbide lime to the soil
(4-0) and to the soil plus fly ash (4-25) increased the moduli
to around 75 and 350 MN/m2, respectively.
The behavior described so far mainly reflects the changes
in the stress-strain response with the degree of cementation
and is qualitatively in agreement with triaxial test results re-
ported in the literature for naturally cemented and chemically
stabilized soils [e.g., Thompson (1966, 1969), Clough et al.
FIG. 8. Peak Strength Envelopes for All Mixtures Compacted at Op- (1981), Little et al. (1986), Leroueil and Vaughan (1990),
timum Moisture Content and Cured for 28 Days Coop and Atkinson (1993), Gens and Nova (1993), Cuccovillo
and Coop (1997, 1999), and Consoli et al. (1998)]. Table 2
summarizes typical strength and deformation parameters re-
ported in the literature, though triaxial test results for lime and
lime-fly ash stabilized soils are rather limited. The comparison
with the values presented in Table 1 shows that the unconfined
compressive strength and the cohesive intercept obtained for
the soil-fly ash-carbide lime mixtures fall somewhat below the
typical range. However, caution should be taken when com-
paring friction angles and cohesive intercepts, since strength
envelopes are not actually linear and the values will depend
on the considered confining stress range. Also, a comparison
of deformation moduli is quite restricted since their values are
strongly influenced by shear strain level. Nevertheless, the
shear strength and the stiffness observed for the soil treated
with carbide lime and fly ash are expected to be substantially
higher for curing times >28 days, as can be inferred from the
unconfined compressive strength and tensile strength shown in
Figs. 4–6.
FIG. 9. Secant Deformation Modulus versus Axial Strain for All The volumetric change curves in Fig. 7 show a similar be-
Mixtures Compacted at Optimum Moisture Content and Cured for 28 havior for all the investigated mixtures. The initial compres-
Days (Confining Pressure of 20 kN/m2) sive response is followed by an expansion that reaches the
TABLE 2. Typical Deformation and Strength Properties of Lime and Lime-Fly Ash Stabilized Soils
Typical range or
Property correlation Material Reference
Unconfined compressive strength qu (kN/m2) at 1,400–9,000 Lime-fly ash stabilized soils NCHRP (1976)
28 days, immersed
Peak cohesive intercept (kN/m2) 64 ⫹ 0.292 ⭈ qu (kN/m2) Lime stabilized soils Thompson (1966)
Peak friction angle 25⬚–35⬚ Lime stabilized fine-grained soils Brown (1996)
49⬚–53⬚ Lime-fly ash stabilized gravels Brown (1996)
Deformation modulus in compression (MN/m2) 70 ⫹ 0.124 ⭈ qu (kN/m2) Lime stabilized soils Thompson (1966)
at 100 kN/m2 confining pressure
the wet side. The peak cohesion intercept of the specimens specimens molded on the dry side were 40–60% higher than
compacted at the optimum moisture content was around 24 the values obtained at the optimum moisture content and 300–
kN/m2, decreasing to about 16–18 kN/m2 on the wet side and 350% higher than those observed for the specimens molded
on the dry side of the optimum moisture content. on the wet side.
Typical curves of secant deformation modulus versus axial From the overall stress-strain-strength behavior described in
strains, obtained for the soil-fly ash-carbide lime mixture, are the foregoing paragraphs, it can be understood that the soil-
presented in Fig. 13, on a logarithmic scale, for the confining fly ash carbide lime mixture is stronger—more resistant and
pressure of 20 kN/m2 and for all compaction and curing con- stiffer—when molded either on the dry side for 28 days of
ditions. Also, values of secant deformation modulus, obtained curing or at the optimum moisture content without curing. This
at an axial strain of 0.1% and for confining stresses ranging fact may be explained considering the coupled effect of the
two main contributing factors on the shear strength of the sta-
bilized soil: (1) the contribution of the structure imparted by
compaction, mainly density and packing, which predominates
before pozzolanic reactions have been started, and whose max-
imum is associated with optimum compaction conditions; and
(2) the contribution of the cementitious matrix, which predom-
inates after pozzolanic reactions have been developed. The ef-
ficiency of the matrix is supposed to be a function of the water-
to-binder (carbide lime plus fly ash) ratio, similar to concretes
and mortars [e.g., Mehta and Monteiro (1993) and Mitsui et
al. (1993)]. It is stated, therefore, that the higher strength ob-
served for the specimens compacted on the dry side of the
optimum, after 28 days of curing, results from the lower water-
to-binder ratio associated with the dry side compaction.
CONCLUSIONS
An extensive laboratory testing program was carried out to
investigate the effectiveness of using industrial by-products
such as carbide lime (a residue derived from the manufacturing
of acetylene gas) and thermal power plant fly ash (a residue
from coal burning) to improve the engineering behavior of a
weathered sandstone soil, prepared using a variety of curing
and compaction conditions. The observations and conclusions
can be summarized as follows:
FIG. 12. Peak Strength Envelopes for Soil ⫹ 25% Fly Ash ⫹ 4%
Carbide Lime (All Compaction and Curing Conditions) • The addition of carbide lime significantly improved
strength and stiffness properties of the soil, even consid-
ering the nonplastic characteristic of the silty sand uti-
lized. However, the presence of fly ash is fundamental to
further improve the material behavior, due essentially to
the occurrence of a larger amount of time-dependent poz-
zolanic reactions.
• Factors such as curing temperature, compressive and ten-
sile strength mobilization rate, and compaction param-
eters, which definitely affect the stress-strain-strength be-
havior of the soil-fly ash-carbide lime mixture with time,
have to be cautiously taken into account when designing
or executing ground works with such material.
• Unconfined compression and Brazilian tensile test results
showed that, for the temperature of curing selected
(22⬚C), a gain in strength largely occurs after 90 days,
probably due to an induction period for the pozzolanic
reactions between lime and fly ash. Undoubtedly, this
might be a drawback to the practical utilization of the
FIG. 13. Secant Deformation Modulus versus Axial Strain for All
stabilized soil. However, at a greater temperature of cur-
Compaction Conditions of Mixture of Soil ⫹ 25% Fly Ash ⫹ 4% Carbide ing, which is reasonable for most of the year in tropical
Lime, Cured for 28 Days and without Curing (Confining Pressure of 20 and subtropical regions, a reduction in the induction pe-
kN/m2) riod is expected to occur.
780 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 2001
model for bonded soils and weak rocks.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. on Geotech.
by compaction, mainly density and packing, which pre- Engrg. of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Nether-
dominates in the short-term, and the formation of a ce- lands, 485–494.
mentitious matrix, which predominates after pozzolanic Helmuth, R. (1987). Fly ash in cement and concrete, Portland Cement
reactions have been developed. Association, Skokie, Ill.
• The results indicate that, for the soil-fly ash-carbide lime Herrin, M., and Mitchell, J. K. (1961). ‘‘Lime-soil mixtures.’’ Hwy. Res.
Board Bull., Highway Research Board, 304, 99–121.
investigated, the compaction should be performed about
Hilt, G. H., and Davidson, D. T. (1960). ‘‘Lime fixation in clayey soils.’’
2% to the dry side of the optimum moisture content ob- Hwy. Res. Rec. 262, Highway Research Board, 20–32.
tained from a standard Proctor compaction test. On this Ingles, O. G., and Metcalf, J. B. (1972). Soil stabilization principles and
particular issue, further studies considering different types practice, Butterworth, Sydney, Australia.
of soil are necessary. Jalali, S., Abyaneh, M. Y., and Keedwell, M. J. (1997). ‘‘Differential
scanning calorimetry tests applied to lime-fly ash soil stabilization.’’
The present work has been envisaged as a contribution to the Testing soil mixed with waste or recycled materials, STP 1275, ASTM,
West Conshohocken, Pa., 181–191.
field of ground improvement and soil stabilization by discuss- Jardine, R. J., Fourie, A., Maswoswe, J., and Burland, J. B. (1985). ‘‘Field
ing some fundamental aspects of a soil-fly ash-carbide lime and laboratory measurements of soil stiffness.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf.
mixture behavior, such as the short-term changes due to initial on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., International Society of Soil Me-
reactions, which is of fundamental importance to allow site chanics and Foundations Engineering, London, 511–514.
workability, and the influence of compaction parameters on Kamon, M., and Nontananandh, S. (1991). ‘‘Combining industrial wastes
strength and stiffness properties. Experimental evidences, ob- with lime for soil stabilization.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(1), 1–
17.
tained from high quality triaxial tests, were useful in identi- Ladd, R. S. (1978). ‘‘Preparing test specimens using under-compaction.’’
fying patterns from which the stress-strain behavior of the sta- Geotech. Testing J., 1(1), 16–23.
bilized soil can be characterized. Finally, it is necessary to La Rochelle, P., Leroueil, S., Trak, B., Blais-Leroux, L., and Tavenas, F.
emphasize that the present study was constrained to the range (1988). ‘‘Observational approach to membrane and area corrections in
of low confining stresses, making it attractive to a great range triaxial tests.’’ Proc., Symp. on Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and
of problems such as shallow foundations assented on improved Rock, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa., 715–731.
layers and pavement structures. Leroueil, S., and Vaughan, P. R. (1990). ‘‘The general and congruent
effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks.’’ Géotechnique,
London, 40(3), 467–488.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Little, D. N., Thompson, M. R., Terrell, R. L., Epps, J. A., and Barenberg,
E. J. (1986). ‘‘Soil stabilization for roadways and airfields.’’ Rep. No.
The writers wish to express their gratitude to the Federal University
of Rio Grade do Sul, as well as to the British Council and Coordination ESL-TR-86-19, Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall Air
of Training of Higher Education Graduate (CAPES) (Project CAPES- Force Base, Fla.
British Council 088/99) for the financial support to the research group. Maher, M. H., Butziger, J. M., DiSalvo, D. L., and Oweis, I. S. (1993).
Particular thanks are also due to Dr. Andrew M. Ridley of the Imperial ‘‘Lime sludge amended fly ash for utilization as an engineering mate-
College of Science, Technology and Medicine—University of London rial.’’ Fly ash for soil improvement, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 36,
and Dr. Fernando Schnaid of Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul ASCE, New York, 73–88.
for their comments on the draft paper. Mateos, M. (1961). ‘‘Physical and mineralogical factors in stabilization
of Iowa soil with lime and fly ash.’’ PhD thesis, Iowa State University
of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
REFERENCES Mateos, M., and Davidson, D. T. (1963). ‘‘Compaction characteristics of
ASTM. (1998). ‘‘Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or cal- soil-fly ash-lime mixtures.’’ Hwy. Res. Rec. 29, Highway Research
cined natural pozzolan for use as a mineral admixture in concrete.’’ C Board, 27–41.
618, West Conshohocken, Pa. Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M. (1993). Concrete: Structure, prop-
Brown, R. W. (1996). Practical foundation engineering handbook, Mc- erties and materials. 2nd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Graw-Hill, New York. Minnick, L. J. (1967). ‘‘Reactions of hydrated lime with pulverized coal
Carraro, J. A. H. (1997). ‘‘Use of industrial residues in the stabilization fly ash.’’ Proc., Fly Ash Utilization Conf., American Public Power As-
of a residual soil.’’ MS thesis, Federal University of Rio Grande do sociation, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, 287–315.
Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (in Portuguese). Mitchell, J. K., and Katti, R. K. (1981). ‘‘Soil improvement. State-of-the-
Clayton, C. R. I., and Khatrush, S. A. (1986). ‘‘A new device for mea- art report.’’ Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg.,
suring local axial strain on triaxial specimens.’’ Géotechnique, London, International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering,
25(4), 657–670. London, 261–317.
Clayton, C. R. I., Khatrush, S. A., Bica, A. V. D., and Siddique, A. (1989). Mitsui, K., Li, Z., Lange, D. A., and Shah, S. P. (1993). ‘‘A study of
‘‘The use of Hall effect semiconductor in geotechnical instrumenta- properties of the paste-aggregate interface.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Inter-
tion.’’ Geotech. Testing J., 12(1), 69–76. faces in Cementitious Compos., RILEM, Cachan Cedex, France, 119–
Clough, G. W., Sitar, N., Bachus, R. C., and Rad, N. S. (1981). ‘‘Ce- 128.
mented sands under static loading.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). (1976).
107(6), 799–817. ‘‘Lime-fly ash stabilized bases and subbases.’’ Synthesis of Hwy. Pract.
Consoli, N. C., and Carraro, J. A. H. (1998). ‘‘The influence of compac- No. 37, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
tion conditions on the behavior of a sandy soil-fly ash-carbide lime Nontananandh, S., and Kamon, M. (1996). ‘‘Hydration mechanisms of
mixture.’’ Soils and Rocks, Sao Paulo, 21(3), 167–173 (in Portuguese). fly ash stabilized by lime.’’ Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Envir. Geotechnics,
Consoli, N. C., Carraro, J. A. H., Ferreira, F. C., and Fraga, J. (1997). Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 857–862.
‘‘Aspects of the utilization of industrial by-products for soil improve- Rogers, C. D. F., Glendinning, S., and Roff, T. E. J. (1997). ‘‘Lime mod-
ment.’’ Proc., Geoenvir. Engrg. Conf. on Contaminated Ground: Fate ification of clay soils for construction expediency.’’ Geotech. Engrg.,
of Pollutants and Remediation, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, London, 125(3), 242–249.
391–396. Smith, R. L. (1993). ‘‘Fly ash for use in the stabilization of industrial