Determination of Optimum Concentration of Lime Slurry For Soil Stabilisation

DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM CONCENTRATION OF LIME SLURRY
FOR
SOIL STABILISATION
MUHAMMAD SOFIAN ABDULLAH
A project report submitted of the fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil- Geotechnic)
Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
APRIL, 2006
iii
To my beloved family, Rafidah and Muhammad Hussien

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my thesis supervisor, Associate

Professor Dr. Khairul Anuar Kassim, for encouragement guidance, critics and
friendship during preparing this thesis. Without his continued support and interest, this
thesis would not have presented here.
My sincere appreciation also extends to all the staff of Geotechnical Laboratory,

Faculty of Civil Engineering, UTM, especially for Mr. Abdul Samad, Mr. Zulkifli, who
provided assistance at various occasions. Their views and tips are useful indeed.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to list all of them in this limited space. I am also
grateful to all my family members especially my mother, my wife and my son for their
understanding and encourage me all the time to complete this thesis.
I am also indebted to the librarians at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for

their assistance in supplying the relevant literatures and lastly my sincere appreciation
extent to all the people direct or indirect participates to complete this thesis.
v
ABSTRACT
Lime has been used as active additive in soil stabilisation for the past 5000 years
ago. The Pyramids of Shersi in Tibet were built using compacted mixtures of clay and
lime. Lime powder is normally spread on the ground using mechanical means before
mixing with the soil. The problem arise from lime mixing is dusting. The introduction
of lime slurry method for soil stabilisation is intended to solve the problem. This
research is focused on determination of optimum concentration of the lime slurry for
soil stabilisation. Classification test on the natural soil was conducted to determine the
suitability of soil to be treated with lime. Suitability of lime test also conducted to
ensure the quality of lime used is acceptable. The compaction characteristic of soil
treated with lime slurry posses the same behaviour as demonstrated by soil treated with
dry lime where the optimum moisture content increases and the maximum dry density
decreases. Unconfined compressive test (UCT) was conducted on soil treated with
different range of lime concentration, ranging from 10 to 40 percent of weight of water
and cured for 7 to 28 days. Based on UCT, it was illustrated that the strength
development before 14 days is less significant. This could be due to the process of
modification. However, after 14 days the strength increases rapidly. This phenomenon
could be related to the process of stabilisation. The optimum concentration of lime
slurry to stabilise the soil is 20 percent of weight of water, which is equivalent to 3.63
percent of dry lime.
Keyword: Soil stabilisation, lime slurry, unconfined compressive test (UCT)

vi
ABSTRAK
Penggunaan kapur sebagai agen penstabilan tanah telah digunakan lebih 5000
tahun dahulu. Piramid Shersi di Tibet dibina menggunakan campuran kapur dan tanah
yang dimampatkan. Serbuk kapur biasanyan diserakkan di atas tanah menggunakan
alatan mekanikal sebelum kerja-kerja percampuran kapur dengan tanah. Masalah yang
timbul daripada percampuran ini ialah habuk. Pengenalan kepada kaedah larutan kapur
untuk kerja-kerja penstabilan tanah diperlukan untuk menyelesaikan masalah ini. Kajian
ini memfokuskan kepada penentuan kepekatan larutan kapur yang optima untuk
penstabilan tanah. Ujian pengkelasan dijalankan ke atas tanah asal untuk menentukan
kesesuaian tanah tersebut untuk di rawat dengan kapur. Ujian kesesuaian kapur juga
dijalankan untuk menentukan kualiti kapur yang digunakan. Ciri-ciri lengkung
pemadatan tanah yang dirawat menggunakan larutan kapur menunjukkan sifat yang
sama dengan tanah yang dirawat menggunakan kapur kering dimana kandungan
lembapan optima meningkat dan ketumpatan kering maksima menurun. Ujian
mampatan tak terkurung (UCT) dijalankan ke atas tanah yang di rawat menggunakan
larutan kapur yang berbeza dalam lingkungan 10 hingga 40 peratus daripada berat air
dan diawet selama 7 hingga 28 hari. Berdasarkan kepada ujian UCT, kekuatan tanah
yang diawet kurang daripada 14 hari tidak begitu signifikan. Ianya disebabkan oleh
proses modifikasi. Walaubagaimanapun, selepas 14 hari diawet berlaku peningkatan
kekuatan tanah secara mendadak. Situasi ini disebabkan oleh proses penstabilan tanah.
Kepekatan larutan kapur yang optima ialah 20 peratus daripada berat air dimana ianya
bersamaan dengan 3.63 peratus kapur kering.
Katakunci: Penstabilan tanah, Larutan kapur, Ujian Mampatan Tak Terkurung (UCT)
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
THESIS STATUS VALIDATION

TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF APPENDICES xv
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Study 1
1.2 Objectives 2
1.3 Scope of Study 2
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Clay Mineral 3
2.2 Soil Improvement 7
viii
2.3 Compaction 7
2.3.1 Surface Compaction 7
2.3.2 Deep Compaction 8
2.4 Stabilisation
2.4.1 Mechanical Method 9
2.4.1.1 Vibroflotation 9
2.4.2.2 Vertical Drain 10
2.4.2.3 Geotextile 10
2.4.2 Chemical Method 10
2.5 Lime 11
2.5.1 Lime Stabilisation 12
2.5.2 Mechanism of Lime Stabilisation 13
2.5.2.1 Hydration 13
2.5.2.2 Ion Exchange and Flocculation 14
2.5.2.3 Pozzolanic Reaction 14
2.5.2.4 Carbonation 15
2.5.3 Effect of Lime on The Physical Properties of 15
The Soil
2.5.4 Solubility of Hydrated Lime 19
2.5.5 Previous Study 20
2.6 Recommended Construction Procedure
2.6.1 Delivery 22
2.6.2 Lime Spreading 23
2.6.3 Preliminary Mixing and Watering 24
2.6.4 Mellowing Period 26
2.6.5 Final Mixing and Pulverization 26
2.6.6 Compaction 27
2.6.7 Final Curing 28
2.6.8 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different 29
Lime Applications
ix
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Laboratory Testing 31
3.2 Soil Testing 33
3.2.1 Specific Gravity Test 33
3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution (PSD) 34
3.2.2.1 Sieve Analysis 35
3.2.2.2 Hydrometer Analysis 35
3.2.3 Atterberg limit (Consistency of Soil) 37
3.2.3.1 Liquid Limit (LL) 38
3.2.3.2 Plastic Limit (PL) 39
3.2.3.3 Plasticity Index (PI) 40
3.2.4 Standard Proctor Test (Compaction Test) 40
3.3 Lime Testing 42
3.3.1 Initial Consumption of Lime (ICL) 42
3.3.2 Available Lime Content (ALC) 43
3.4 Lime Stabilise Soil Testing 44
3.4.1 Unconfined Compressive Test (UCT) 44
4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Soil Classification Test
4.1.1 Atterberg Limit
4.1.1.1 Liquid Limit 46
4.1.1.2 Plastic Limit 47
4.1.1.3 Plasticity Index 48
4.1.2 Specific Gravity Test 49
4.1.3 Particle Size Distribution (PSD) 50
4.2 Lime Suitability Test
4.2.1 Initial Consumption of Lime (ICL) 51
4.2.2 Available Lime Content (ALC) 52
4.3 Standard Proctor Compaction Test 52
4.4 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) 54
x
4.4.1 Lime Mixing 56
5 CONCLUSION 59
REFERENCES 60
APPENDIX A Result of Soil Classification Test 62

APPENDIX B Result of Compaction Test 65
APPENDIX C Result of Unconfined Compressive Test 71
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Solubility of lime at different temperature (After Ng Pui

Ling, 2005) 19
4.1 Summary of Data for Specific Gravity Test 49
4.2 Summary of data from ICL test 51
4.3 Compaction Test Result 53
4.4 Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) in

kPa 56
4.5 Equivalent Dry Lime for Different Concentration of Lime

Slurry 58
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Diffuse double layer (After Braja M.Das) 6
2.2 Attraction of dipolar molecule in diffuse double layer

(After Braja M.Das) 6
2.3 Reduction with time of the plasticity index due to the

calcium effect (After A.Kezdi) 17
2.4 The effect of lime addition on the volume change (After

A.Kezdi) 17
2.5 Figure 2.5: Typical compaction curve due to the lime

addition (After A.Kezdi) 18
2.6 Typical compression strength due to lime addition (After

A.Kezdi) 18
2.7 Typical compressive strength due to lime addition and

curing time (After A.Kezdi) 18
xiii
2.8 Portable lime slaker for preparing lime slurry on site

(After National Lime Association, 2004 22
2.9 Lime slurry application (After National Lime

24
Association, 2004)
2.10 Scarification after lime spreading (After National Lime

Association, 2004) 25
2.11 Steel wheel roller (After National Lime Association,

2004) 27
2.12 Prime coat emulsion for curing (After National Lime

Association, 2004) 28
3.1 Laboratory testing 32
3.2 Specific Gravity Vacuum 34
3.3 A set of sieves 35
3.4 Mechanical shaker 36
3.5 Hydrometer reading 36
3.6 Atterberg Limit 37
3.7 Details of cone for liquid limit test 38
3.8 Liquid limit test (cone penetration) 39
3.9 Plastic limit test 39

xiv
3.10 Mould for Compaction Test (1L Mould) 41
3.11 Dry density / Moisture content relationship curve 41
3.12 Samples preparation 45
3.13 Unconfined Compression Test Equipment 45
4.1 Cone Penetration vs Moisture Content 47
4.2 Plasticity Chart 48
4.3 Particle Size Distribution Curve 50
4.4 Standard Proctor Compaction Curve 53
4.5 Unconfined Compressive Strength at Different Curing

55
Time
4.6 Unconfined Compressive Strength at Various Lime

Slurry 55
4.7 Rate of increase in Strength 57
4.8 Percentage Increase in Strength at Various Lime Content 57
4.9 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) at 14 days with

various addition of lime. (After Khairul Anuar Kasim
58
and Kok Kai Chern,2004)
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A1 Liquid limit Test 62

A2 Particle Sizes Distribution 63
A3 Specific Gravity Test 64
B1 Compaction Test (Untreated Soil) 65
B2 Compaction Test (10% Lime Slurry) 66
B6 Compaction Curve For All Concentration 70
C1 Unconfined Compressive Test (Untreated – 0 day) 71
C2 Unconfined Compressive Test (Untreated – 7 days) 72
C5 Unconfined Compressive Test (10% Lime Slurry – 0 day) 75
C6 Unconfined Compressive Test (10% Lime Slurry – 7 days) 76
xvi

C21 Stress-Strain Curve (Untreated Soil) 91
C22 Stress-Strain Curve (Treated With 10% Lime Slurry) 92
C26 Unconfined Compressive Test VS Curing Time 96
C27 Unconfined Compressive Test VS Lime Slurry Content 97
C28 Rate of Increase in Strength 98
C29 Percentage Increase in Strength at Different Lime Content 99
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Study
Lime stabilisation is commonly resorted to in order to improve the strength and reduce
the compressibility of weak clay deposits. Malaysia is one of the countries around the
world that rich with limestone resources. Limestone formations are widespread in
Langkawi Island, Kinta Valley, Gua Musang and Kuala Lumpur area (Khairul Anuar
and Kok Kai Chern, 2004). The usage of lime as a stabilise agent is not new especially
for road construction. Many researchers have studied the suitability of lime to improve
soil properties such as strength and deformation behavior. Researchers have illustrated
that the impact of lime addition on strength of clay soils depends on several factors.
These include, soil type, curing time and method, moisture content and soil unit weight
and time elapsed between mixing and compaction (Sudhakar M. Rao and P.
Shivananda, 2004). In Malaysia, lime is not commonly use as a stabilise agent. It is
because the lack of local research and understanding about suitability of lime
stabilisation for Malaysian soil. The previous researcher found that by using 3% to 6%
of dry lime, it contributed the significant increase in UCT test, ranging from 2.5 to 11
2
times of untreated soil (Khairul Anuar and Kok Kai Chern, 2004). Although dry lime is
very useful in soil stabilisation, it always causes dusting problem and is corrosive to
human skin especially quick lime. To counter this problem, lime in slurry form is
suggested to stabilise the soil. 60 remolded samples with different concentration have
been prepared for this study and cure for 7, 14 and 28 days. Then, unconfined
compressive test is carried out on the cured samples to determine the highest shear
strength. As a result, the optimum concentration of lime slurry in this study is 20% of
weight of water where this percentage is equivalent to 3.63% of dry lime.
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this research are as below:-

x To determine the optimum concentration of lime slurry for soil stabilisation
x To determine the compaction characteristic of the lime-soil mixture
x To study on strength development of the lime-soil mixture
1.3 Scope of study
These studies only focus on determination of the optimum lime slurry to be used
in soil stabilisation in clayey soil. The clay will be used is kaolin clay from Tapah,
Perak. Only hydrated lime slurry is used to stabilise the clayey soil in this study. All the
testing for this study is conducted in laboratory by using British Standard as a reference.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Clay Mineral
Clay minerals are complex aluminum silicates composed of two basic units: (1)
silica tetrahedron and (2) alumina octahedron. Each tetrahedron unit consists of four
oxygen atoms surrounding a silicon atom. The combination of tetrahedral silica units
gives a silica sheet. Three oxygen atoms at the base of each tetrahedron are shared by
neighboring tetrahedra. The octahedral units consist of six hydroxyls surrounding an
aluminum atom, and the combination of the octahedral aluminum hydroxyl units gives
an octahedral sheet. (This is also called a gibbsite sheet). Sometimes magnesium
replaces the aluminum atoms in the octahedral units; in this case, the octahedral sheet is
called a brucite sheet.
In a silica sheet, each silicon atom with a positive charge of four is linked to four
oxygen atoms with a total negative charge of eight. But each oxygen atom at the base of
the tetrahedron is linked to two silicon atoms. This means that the top oxygen atom of
each tetrahedral unit has a negative charge of one to be counterbalanced. When the
4
silica sheet is stacked over the octahedral sheet, these oxygen atoms replace the
hydroxyls to balance their charges.
Of the three important clay minerals, kaolinite consists of repeating layers of

elemental silica-gibbsite sheets in a 1:1 lattice. Each layer is about 7.2 Å thick. The
layers are held together by hydrogen bonding. Kaolinite occurs as platelets, each with a
lateral dimension of 1000 to 20,000 Å and a thickness of 100 to 1000 Å. The surface
area of the kaolinite particles per unit mass is about 15 m2/g. The surface area per unit
mass is defined as specific surface.
Illite consists of a gibbsite sheet bonded to two silica sheets — one at the top
and another at the bottom. It is sometimes called clay mica. The illite layers are bonded
by potassium ions. The negative charge to balance the potassium ions comes from the
substitution of aluminum for some silicon in the tetrahedral sheets. Substitution of one
element for another with no change in the crystalline form is known as isomorphous
substitution. Illite particles generally have lateral dimensions ranging from 1000 to 5000
Å and thick nesses from 50 to 500 Å. The specific surface of the particles is about 80
m2/g.
Montmorillonite has a structure similar to that of illite — that is, one gibbsite
sheet sandwiched between two silica sheets. In montmorillonite, there is isomorphous
substitution of magnesium and iron for aluminum in the octahedral sheets. Potassium
ions are not present as in illite, and a large amount of water is attracted into the space
between the layers. Particles of montmorillonite have lateral dimensions of 1000 to
5000 Å and thick nesses of 10 to 50 Å. The specific surface is about 800 m2/g
Besides kaolinite, illite, and montmorillonite, other common clay minerals gen-
erally found are chlorite, halloysite, vermiculite, and attapulgite.
The clay particles carry a net negative charge on their surfaces. This is the result
both of isomorphous substitution and of a break in continuity of the structure at its
5
edges. Larger negative charges are derived from larger specific surfaces. Some
positively charged sites also occur at the edges of the particles.
In dry clay, the negative charge is balanced by exchangeable cations like Ca2+,
Mg2+, Na+ and K+ surrounding the particles being held by electrostatic attraction. When
water is added to clay, these cations and a few anions float around the clay particles.
This configuration is referred to as a diffuse double layer (Figure 2.1). The cation
concentration decreases with the distance from the surface of the particle.
Water molecules are polar. Hydrogen atoms are not axi-symmetric around an
oxygen atom: instead, they occur at a bonded angle of 105°. As a result, a water
molecule has a positive charge at one side and a negative charge at the other side. It is
known as a dipole.
Dipolar water is attracted both by the negatively charged surface of the clay
particles and by the cations in the double layer. The cations, in turn, are attracted the
soil particles. A third mechanism by which water is attracted to clay particles is
hydrogen bonding, where hydrogen atoms in the water molecules are shared with
oxygen atoms on the surface of the clay. Some partially hydrated cations in the pore
water are also attracted to the surface of clay particles. These cations attract dipolar
water molecules. All these possible mechanics of attraction of water to clay are shown
in Figure 2.2. The force of attraction between water and clay decreases with distance
from the surface of the particles. All the water held to clay particles by force of
attraction is known as double-layer water. The innermost layer of double-layer water,
which is held very strongly by clay, is known as adsorbed water. This water is more
viscous than free water is.
It needs to be well recognized that the presence of clay minerals in a soil aggre-
gate has a great influence on the engineering properties of the soil as a whole. When
moisture is present, the engineering behavior of a soil will change greatly as the per-
centage of clay mineral content increases. For all practical purposes, when the clay
6
content is about 50% or more, the sand and silt particles float in a clay matrix, and the
clay mineral primarily dictate the engineering properties of the soil.
Figure 2.1: Diffuse double layer (After Braja M.Das)
Figure 2.2: Attraction of dipolar molecule in diffuse double layer (After Braja
M.Das)
7
2.2 Soil Improvement
Soil improvement in geotechnical engineering means the increase on soil shear

strength, the reduction of soil compressibility, and the reduction of soil permeability.
The ground improvement techniques can be classified into two categories, namely; a)
those techniques involving the work on soil only such as dewatering and compaction
and b) those methods that require foreign materials such as the use of the chemical
admixtures and the utilization of various reinforcements. Various soil improvement
methods have been tested to provide soil strength improvement, mitigation of total and
differential settlements, shorter construction time, reduced construction costs, and other
characteristics, which may impact on their utilization to specific projects on soft ground.
2.3 Compaction
The most common method used to stabilise the soil is compaction method. This
method can be classified into two; surface compaction and deep compaction. These two
compaction methods are discussed below.
2.3.1 Surface Compaction
Surface compaction is the cheapest and the simplest method of ground

improvement. It is the process of increasing the soil unit weight by forcing the soil
8
particles into a tighter state and reducing air voids by the addition of either static or
dynamic forces. In the case of cohesionless soil, compaction leads to higher density and
higher internal friction angle. For cohesive soils, the compaction process leads to closer
particle arrangement and more cohesion. The reduction of voids also means less
potential for deformation and less changes in moisture content. Furthermore, the voids
reduction will directly reduce soil permeability mainly because of restricted channels of
flow, especially for cohesive-frictional soils. There are two basic compaction tests in the
laboratory namely; standard proctor compaction test and modified proctor compaction
test. The difference between these two tests is the amount of applied energy. There are
several factors influencing the compaction of soil such as dry density, moisture content,
amount of compaction, and soil type.
2.3.2 Deep Compaction
Deep compaction is the reduction of compressibility and increase of strength by

packing soil particles together with high energy vibrations as the probe is progressively
inserted to and withdrawn from thick soil deposits. Deep compaction is needed for poor
sites not previously considered for economic development. The site soil deposits can be
categorized as natural soil and fill materials. Natural soil could be cohesionless or
cohesive type of materials and fill materials could be ash, slag, demolition rubble,
quarry waste, and hydraulic landfill. Several factors affect the choice of deep ground
compaction such as ground conditions (type of soil, depth, groundwater level),
requirements (foundation, temporary or permanent additional strength), size of area,
required increase in bearing capacity, acceptable settlement, and availability of
contracting entities and construction equipments.
9
2.4 Stabilisation
2.4.1 Mechanical Method
Stabilisation by using the mechanical method is also usually used. There are
three mechanical method commonly use to stabilise the soil; Vibroflotation technique,
Vertical drain and Geotextile.
2.4.1.1 Vibroflotation
The Vibroflotation technique employs mechanical vibrations together with

simultaneous saturation with water to rearrange loose sand and gravel particles into a
denser state. Vibration in loose saturated deposits can cause liquefaction followed by
densification and settlement accompanying dissipation of pore water pressures. In this
technique, a cylindrical probe is lowered into the soil layer by a combination of
vibration and jetting high-pressure water through the orifices at the base of probe. When
the required depth is achieved, the water flow is reduced and diverted to a set of jets at
the top of the probe. The resulting upward flow of water maintains a channel around the
probe allowing coarse fill fed from the surface as the filling continued. When the
feeding channels collapse, the probe is raised and lowered until the system is restored.
Vibroflotation process can be done using either wet or dry process where the wet
method uses high-pressure water jets and the dry method utilized compressed air.
10
2.4.1.2 Vertical drain
The vertical drains (VD) are install in order to accelerate the consolidation
settlement and shorten consolidation time. This VD is normally installed together with
pre-loading. The principle of this method is easy. When the VD is installed, the pore
water squeezed out vertically during consolidation process. It can reduce the length of
drainage paths and thereby reducing the time to complete the consolidation process.
There are 3 general types of VD namely; sand drains, fabric encased sand drains and
prefabricated vertical drains.
2.4.1.3 Geotextile
Geotextile is also the popular method to stabilise the soil. The method is very
easy, lay the fabric into the soil layer and then put the soil on top of the fabric. The
function of the fabric is to strengthen the soil layer.
2.4.2 Chemical Method
The main objective of chemical soil stabilisation is to favourably change the

soil-water interactions. Chemical soil stabilisation is intended to modify the interaction
between water and soil by surface reactions in such manner as to make the behaviour of
the soil with respect to water effects most favourable for the given purpose. There are
11
many types of chemical soil stabilisation such as cement stabilisation, bitumen

stabilisation, sodium silicate stabilisation and calcium acrylate stabilisation.
2.5 Lime
Lime in the form of quicklime (calcium oxide – CaO), hydrated lime (calcium
hydroxide – Ca[OH]2, or lime slurry can be used to treat soils. Quicklime is
manufactured by chemically transforming calcium carbonate (limestone – CaCO3) into
calcium oxide. Hydrated lime is created when quicklime chemically reacts with water.
It is hydrated lime that reacts with clay particles and permanently transforms them into
a strong cementitious matrix. Most lime used for soil treatment is “high calcium” lime,
which contains no more than 5 percent magnesium oxide or hydroxide. On some
occasions, however, "dolomitic" lime is used. Dolomitic lime contains 35 to 46 percent
magnesium oxide or hydroxide. Dolomitic lime can perform well in soil stabilisation,
although the magnesium fraction reacts more slowly than the calcium fraction.
Sometimes the term “lime” is used to describe agricultural lime which is

generally finely ground limestone, a useful soil amendment but not chemically active
enough to lead to soil stabilization. “Lime” is also sometimes used to describe
byproducts of the lime manufacturing process (such as lime kiln dust), which, although
they contain some reactive lime, generally have only a fraction of the oxide or
hydroxide content of the manufactured product.
12
2.5.1 Lime Stabilisation
Soil stabilisation by lime means the admixture of this material in the form of
calcium oxide (CaO) or calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) to the soil, and the compaction of
the mixture at the optimum water content. Lime treatment is commonly resorted to in
order to improve the strength and stiffness properties of road foundations, reduce the
swell-shrink potential of expansive soils and improve soft clay properties by surface
mixing of lime and soil. Deep mixing techniques may also be used such as creation of
lime columns and lime piles or in situ stabilisation of soil by lime slurry injection. More
recently lime has also been used to treat chemically contaminated soils. Lime-clay
reactions occur via two distinct processes: (i) Rapid ion exchange reactions known as
soil improvement or modification and (ii) slower soil-lime pozzolanic reactions known
as stabilisation/solidification. Lime modification reactions occur from replacement of
exchangeable ions of the soil with calcium ions released by lime. The increased
exchangeable calcium ion concentration increases the flocculation of clay particles and
transforms the plastic soil to a granular and less plastic material. Lime stabilisation/
solidification occurs at lime additions in excess of the Lime Modification Optimum or
Initial Consumption of Lime value. According to BS 1924 (1990), the Initial
Consumption of Lime gives an indication of the minimum quantity of lime that must be
added to a material to achieve a significant change in properties. During lime
stabilisation/solidification reactions the highly alkaline soil pH (soil pH =12.4)
promotes dissolution of siliceous and aluminous compounds from the clay mineral
lattice. The compounds dissolved from the clay mineral lattice react with calcium ions
in pore water to form calcium silicate hydrate and calcium aluminates hydrate gels,
which coat the soil particles and subsequently crystallise to bond them.
13
2.5.2 Mechanism Of Lime Stabilisation
The major strength gain of lime treated clay is mainly derived from three
reactions; dehydration of soil, ion exchange and pozzolanic reaction. Short-term
reactions include hydration (for quicklime) and flocculation (ion exchange). Longer-
term reactions are cementation and carbonation.
2.5.2.1 Hydration
A large amount of heat is released when quicklime (CaO) is mixed with clay.
This is due to hydration of quicklime with the pore water of the soil. An immediate
reduction of water contents occurs when quicklime is mixed with cohesive soil, as water
is consumed in the hydration process. If a reduction of the natural water content in a
cohesive is desirable, quicklime instead of calcium hydroxide is used. It is important
that the water content of the base clay must be sufficient for the complete slackening of
the quicklime.
CaO + H2O Ca(OH)2 + HEAT (280 Cal/gm of CaO)
The calcium hydroxide from the hydration of quicklime or when using calcium
hydroxide as a stabiliser, dissociates in the water, increasing the electrolytic
concentration and the pH of the pore water, and dissolving the SiO2 and Al2O3 from the
clay particles. This process will result in ion exchange, flocculation, and pozzolanic
reactions
Ca(OH)2 Ca++ + 2(OH)-
14
2.5.2.2 Ion Exchange and Flocculation
When lime is mixed with clay, sodium and other cations adsorbed to the clay
mineral surfaces are exchanged with calcium. This change in cation complex affects the
structural components of the clay mineral. Within a period of a couple of minutes up to
some hours after mixing, the calcium hydroxide is transformed again due to the
presence of carbonic acid in the soil. The presence of carbonic acid in the soil is due to
the reaction of carbon dioxide of the air in the soil and the free water. The reaction
results in the dissociation of the lime into Ca++ (or Mg++) and (OH)- which modifies the
electrical surfaces forces of the clay minerals. A transformation of the soil structure
begins, i.e flocculation and coagulation of soil particles into larger sizes aggregates and
an associated increase in plastic limit. Lime causes the clay to coagulate, aggregate or
flocculate. These reactions tend to decrease the liquid limit, increase the plastic limit,
decrease the plasticity index, increase the shrinkage limit, increase the workability, and
improve the strength and deformation properties of a soil.
2.5.2.3 Pozzolanic Reaction
The shear strength of the stabilised soil gradually increases with time mainly due
to pozzolanic reactions. Calcium hydroxide in the soil water reacts with the silicates and
aluminates (pozzolans) in the clay to form cementing materials or binders, consisting of
calcium silicates and/or aluminates hydrates (principally dehydrates). The dissolved
dissociated Ca++ ions react with the dissolved SiO2 and Al2O3 from the clay particles
surface and form hydrated gels, resulting in the combination of the soil particles
Ca++ + 2(OH)- + SiO2 CSH

15
Ca++ + 2(OH)- + Al2O3 CSH
The gel of calcium silicate cements the soil particles in a manner similar to the
effect produced by the hydration of Portland cement, but the lime cementing is a much
slower reaction, which requires considerably longer time than the hydration of cement.
The solubility of the pozzolans and thus their inclination to react with lime is depends
on the pH of the soil water. The rate of reaction also increases with increased soil
temperature.
2.5.2.4 Carbonation
Lime reacts with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or in the soil to form
relatively weak cementing agent, such as calcium carbonate or magnesium carbonate.
The strength of calcium carbonate, which is formed by this process, can be discounted.
The carbonation is probably a deleterious rather than helpful phenomenon in the soil
stabilization.
2.5.3 Effect of Lime on The Physical Properties of The Soil
Considering the process described above, one can conclude that lime addition
affects all physical properties of the soil. Owing to the coagulation, the grain-size
distribution curve will obviously change and, a number of other characteristics will
16
undergo similar changes due mainly to this cause. Changes in the grain-size distribution
curve however, are rather difficult to determine, as the usual hydrometric method does
not render a true picture, so these changes should be expressed numerically on the basis
of another characteristic property. Figure 2.3 illustrates the time dependent process of
plasticity index (PI) reduction, which incidentally is also characteristic of the
development rate exhibited by the process described in the section above. Generally,
quick lime will bring about a faster reaction. The effect of calcium treatment on the
volume change of the various soils is similarly significant, as swelling will be almost
completely eliminated, and the volume change greatly reduced (Figure 2.4). This effect
clearly follows from the explanation of the hardening process. The typical compaction
characteristic is shown in figure 2.5 where the optimum moisture content in increasing
while the maximum dry density is being reduced. This phenomenon is mainly due to the
flocculation process. The water in the soil is consumed for calcium hydration, so it
cannot reduce the inter-granular friction. The no-coagulated particles can be readily
relocated by compaction, which is not the case for larger clods. In connection with
compaction, we should note that a waiting period would always have disadvantageous
effect in the case of stabilisation with lime. The most important calcium effect is the
increased in strength, through extent depends on several factors. Figure 2.6 show the
strength increase mainly due to calcium content (i.e lime content). Figure 2.7 illustrates
that the time involved has only a slight effect at small calcium contents, but if the latter
are increased, the times becomes important. Since consolidation is rather slow, a final
conclusion often cannot be reached at 7 or 28 days. Besides, it may be that in increase
calcium content would reduce strength. The lime addition technique is also important.
Quick lime is generally much more efficient than hydrated lime. However, the method
of admixture cannot be selected arbitrarily; if the soil to be stabilised has a greater
moisture content during construction than the optimum water content, the quicklime
should be added in powder form, since the water required for slaking will be absorbed
from the soil. However, when using quick lime, increased care should be used to avoid
danger. To a soil of water content approximately or less than optimum water content,
admixture of hydrated lime is preferred.
17
Figure 2.3: Reduction with time of the plasticity index due to the calcium effect
(After A.Kezdi)
Figure 2.4: The effect of lime addition on the volume change (After A.Kezdi)
18
Figure 2.5: Typical compaction curve due to the lime addition (After A.Kezdi)
Figure 2.6: Typical compression strength due to lime addition (After A.Kezdi)
Figure 2.7: Typical compressive strength due to lime addition and curing time
(After A.Kezdi)
19
2.5.4 Solubility of Hydrated Lime
Most of us are familiar, to some degree, with a basic concept of solubility. As a

general rule, we find that most compounds dissolve more quickly, and to a greater
extent, as the temperature of the solvent increases. Quicklime and hydrated lime, both
considered to be Lime products, are members of a relatively small group of compounds
that are an exception to this general rule.
Table 2.1 Solubility of lime at different temperature (After Ng Pui Ling, 2005)
Temperature Solubility of Ca(OH)2 (g/100g)

(°C)
0 0.185
10 0.176
20 0.165
30 0.153
40 0.140
50 0.128
60 0.116
70 0.104
80 0.092
90 0.081
100 0.071
From the Table 2.1, the increase of temperature decrease the solubility of
Ca(OH)2 . In soil stabilisation, high temperature needed for reaction between lime and
soil. Hence, the optimum temperature is estimated as 20 – 30 °C.
20
2.5.5 Previous Study
In the past year, many researchers have study about the characteristic and
behavior of lime-stabilise soil. For this chapter, only a few papers have been quote.
Sudhakar M. Rao and P. Shivananda, 2003, study about the effect of curing
temperature at semi-arid region of Karnataka, India for the progress of lime-soil
reactions. The in situ progress of lime treatment was monitored by the use of electrical
conductivity measurements, based on the suggestion of Boardman et al. (2001).
Additionally, variations in pH of lime-soil mixes were employed to monitor the
progress of lime-soil reactions. The lime-soil mixes were cured at 25oC, representative
of mean temperatures prevalent in semi-arid regions of Karnataka, India. Lime contents
greater than the Lime Modification Optimum were added to the expansive clay. They
found that, lime addition immediately (curing period 0.04 day or 1 hour) increases the
electrical conductivity (EC) of the expansive soil from 0.6 microsiemen/cm
(representative soil value) to 3.9–4.2 microsiemen/cm. The pH of the lime-soil mixes
also increased from 8.3 (pH of representative soil) to 12.46 on 4 and 7% lime additions.
As a conclusion, they indicate that ambient temperature affects the progress of lime-soil
reactions. A higher curing temperature accelerates the progress of lime-soil reactions at
lime additions above the Lime Modification Optimum value of the soil. Consequently
pozzolanic activity commences after 1 day of curing at 250C in comparison to 7 days
needed at 11.50C. These conclusions also imply that strength development from
pozzolanic activity will occur more quickly in hot semi-arid climatic zones than in cool
temperature climate zones at lime additions above the ICL value of the soil.
M.C. Tonoz, C. Gokceoglu, R. Ulusay (2002), investigate the performance of

the lime column technique for Ankara (Turkey) clay based on laboratory scaled models
to improve the physical, swelling, strength and consolidation characteristics of this clay.
The characteristics of the treated samples were determined in terms of distance to the
column and curing period. In order to assess the performance of the lime column
21
technique in the laboratory, five block samples were obtained from the selected and
specimens were extracted at different distances from the laboratory-scaled lime columns
to assess the effect of the columns on the engineering properties of the clay. The main
objective of this procedure was to determine the effective radius of the treated zone by
lime migration on hole diameter in small-scale laboratory models. In general, the results
suggested that the most effective zone for the lime migration developed at a distance
approximately twice the column diameter and a curing period of 28 days generally
seemed to be sufficient. Application of the technique provided a gain in strength
between 40 and 80% and resulted in an increase in pre -consolidation pressure and a
decrease in the compressibility characteristics of the treated soils, depending on the
distance to the lime column. Construction of the column caused a drastic reduction in
swell pressure, between 40 and 75%.
Tremblay H, Leroueil S, and Locat J (2001), summarizes the result of the

research project on the improvement of both organic and inorganic, high water content
remolded clayey soil from eastern Canada when treated with lime or cement. The
objectives were to establish a general compressibility model and developed a method to
predict the vertical yield stress. Seven soils were test (four organic and three inorganic).
They were treated with hydrated lime and Portland cement and prepared at different
water content corresponding to liquidity indices between 1 and 14. After a curing period
of 30 and 100 days, the different mixtures were subjected to one-dimensional
compression test and then their compressibility curve were compared. The liquid limits
for this tested soil vary from 22 to 86% and the plastic limits from 0 to 34%. The
specific gravity is varies from 2.65 to 2.78 and clay content range from 8 to 80%. The
organic matter content for inorganic specimen is less than or equal to 1% and range
from 6 to 8% for organic specimen. From this research, they conclude that; 1. The
relationships between initial void ratio, additive content, and vertical yield stress
provide an estimate of resistance to compression of specific soil treated with a specific
additive at a given percentage and for any initial void ratio. 2. The normalization
process allows elaboration of a simple approach to estimate the vertical yield stress of
inorganic soil treated with lime with any initial void ratio. 3. The normalization cannot
22
be used for organic soil because the effect of the additive is strongly influenced by the
organic matter content and by the nature of organic matter.
2.6 Recommended Construction Procedure
2.6.1 Delivery
Slurry lime can be produced from quicklime or hydrated lime. It can be

delivered from a central mix plant or produced on site. The project engineer should
approve slurry preparation facilities. Regardless of location, slurry created from
quicklime is hot because the chemical reaction between quicklime and water is
exothermic. Slurries created by mixing hydrated lime and water is not hot.
Slurry may be prepared in a mixing tank, with agitation for mixing lime and
water provided by integral paddles, compressed air, and/or recirculating pumps.
Portable jobsite slaker tanks typically handle 20 to 25 tons of quicklime at a time
(Figure 2.8).
Figure 2.8: Portable lime slaker for preparing lime slurry on site (After National Lime
Association, 2004)
23
A second method of slurry production, which eliminates batching tanks,

involves the use of a compact jet slurry-mixer. Water at 70 psi pressure and hydrated
lime are charged continuously in a 65:35 (weight) ratio into the jet mixing bowl, where
slurry is produced instantaneously. The slurry is pumped directly into trucks for
spreading on the construction site. The mixer and auxiliary equipment can be mounted
on a small trailer and transported to the job readily, giving great flexibility to the
operation. In the third type of slurry set-up, measured amounts of water and lime are
charged separately into the tank truck, with the slurry being mixed in the tank either by
compressed air or by a recirculating pump mounted at the rear. The water is metered
and the lime proportioned volumetrically or by means of weigh batchers. Lime slurries
have lime solids contents up to 42 percent. The percent of lime solids can be tested
using a simple specific gravity device (pycnometer) to insure that the correct quantity is
spread.
2.6.2 Lime Spreading
The soil is generally scarified and the slurry is applied by distributor trucks
(Figure 2.9). This is because lime in slurry form is much less concentrated than dry
lime, often two or more passes are required to provide the specified amount of lime
solids. To prevent runoff and consequent non-uniform lime distribution, the slurry is
mixed into the soil immediately after each spreading pass.
The actual proportion used depends upon the percent of lime specified for the
type of soil, and the percent of lime solids in the slurry. Solids in the slurry generally
range between 30 and 35 percent, although technology exists to increase the solids to
above 40 percent to reduce the number of passes made by the spreading trucks. The
solids contained in the slurry (and, consequently, the quantity of lime available) can be
24
easily measured in the mixing tanks or trucks using a specific gravity device. Once the
solids content of the slurry is known, loads can be spread over measured areas to ensure
the correct application rate.
Equipment for slurry application: Distributor trucks with recirculation
capabilities are recommended to keep slurry in suspension. If the transit time is short,
trucks without recirculating pumps can be employed. Spreading from the tank trucks is
conducted by gravity or by pressure spray bars. Pressure distributors are preferred
because they provide more uniform application.
Figure 2.9: Lime slurry application (After National Lime Association, 2004)
2.6.3 Preliminary Mixing and Watering
Preliminary mixing is required to distribute the lime throughout the soil and to
initially pulverize the soil to prepare for the addition of water to initiate the chemical
reaction for stabilization. This mixing can begin with scarification (Figure 2.10).
Scarification may not be necessary for some modern mixers, however. Rotary mixers
25
should be employed to ensure thorough mixing of the lime, soil, and water. With many
rotary mixers, water can be added to the mix drum during soil-lime processing.
Figure 2.10: Scarification after lime spreading (After National Lime

Association, 2004)
To ensure that the stabilized section is the correct depth, small holes can be dug
at random and the soil can be sprayed with a pH indicator such as phenolphthalein.
Phenolphthalein changes from clear to red between pH 8.3 and 10. The color change
indicates the location of the bottom of the mixing zone. Other pH indicators can
measure higher pH levels if there is reason to suspect that inadequate lime has been
mixed into the soil.
If the heavy clays are being stabilized, it is generally necessary to mix the lime-
clay layer in two stages, allowing for an intervening 24 to 48 hour mellowing period.
During this mellowing period the clay becomes friable so that pulverization can be
readily attained during final mixing.
After mixing is complete, the lime-treated layer should be shaped as close to the
final section as possible and lightly compacted with a roller in order to minimize
evaporation loss or excessive wetting from possible rains during mellowing.
26
Equipment: Rotary mixer, water truck, and light sheeps-foot or pneumatic roller.
2.6.4 Mellowing Period
The lime-soil mixture should mellow sufficiently to allow the chemical reaction
to change (break down) the material. The duration of this mellowing period should be
based on engineering judgment and is dependent on soil type. The mellowing period is
typically 1 to 7 days. After mellowing, the soil should be remixed before compaction.
For low Plasticity Index soils, or when drying or modification is the goal, mellowing is
often not necessary.
2.6.5 Final Mixing and Pulverization
To accomplish complete stabilization, adequate final pulverization of the clay

fraction and thorough distribution of the lime throughout the soil are essential. Mixing
and pulverization should continue until 100 percent of non-stone material passes the 1-
inch sieve and at least 60 percent of non-stone material passes the number 4 sieve.
If it is certain that the above pulverization requirement can be met during

preliminary mixing, then the mellowing and final mixing may be eliminated.
Equipment: Rotary mixer for pulverization.

27
2.6.6 Compaction
The lime-soil mixture should be compacted to the density required by

specification, typically at least 95 percent of the maximum density obtained in the
Standard Proctor test. The density value should be based on the Proctor curve from a
representative field sample of the lime-soil mixture – not the untreated (raw) soil.
Compaction should begin immediately after final mixing. If this is not possible,
delays of up to four days should not be a problem if the mixture is lightly rolled and
kept moist until compaction can be conducted. For longer delays, it may be necessary to
incorporate a small amount of additional lime into the soil.
Equipment: To ensure adequate compaction, the equipment should be matched

to the depth of the lift. Compaction can be accomplished in one lift using heavy
pneumatic or vibratory padfoot rollers or a combination of the sheepsfoot and light
pneumatic vibratory padfoot rollers or tamping foot rollers. Typically, the final surface
compaction is completed using a steel wheel roller (Figure 2.11).
Figure 2.11: Steel wheel roller (After National Lime Association, 2004)
28
2.6.7 Final Curing
Before placing the next layer of subbase (or base course), the compacted
subgrade (or subbase) should be allowed to harden until loaded dump trucks can operate
without rutting the surface. During this time, the surface of the lime treated soil should
be kept moist to aid in strength gain. This is called curing and can be done in two ways:
(a) moist curing, which consists of maintaining the surface in a moist condition by light
sprinkling and rolling when necessary, and (b) membrane curing, which involves
sealing the compacted layer with a bituminous prime coat emulsion, either in one or
multiple applications (Figure 2.12). A typical application rate is 0.10 to 0.25
gallons/square yard.
Figure 2.12: Prime coat emulsion for curing (After National Lime Association, 2004)
29
2.6.8 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Lime Applications
The type of lime stabilization technique used on a project should be based on

multiple considerations, such as contractor experience, equipment availability, location
of project (rural or urban), and availability of an adequate nearby water source.
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of different lime application methods

follow:
Dry hydrated lime:
Advantages: Can be applied more rapidly than slurry. Dry hydrated lime can be
used for drying clay, but it is not as effective as quicklime.
Disadvantages: Hydrated lime particles are fine. Thus, dust can be a problem
and renders this type of application generally unsuitable for populated areas.
Dry Quicklime:
Advantages: Economical because quicklime is a more concentrated form of lime

than hydrated lime, containing 20 to 24 percent more “available” lime oxide content.
Thus, about 3 percent quicklime is equivalent to 4 percent hydrated lime when
conditions allow full hydration of the quicklime with enough moisture. Greater bulk
density requires smaller storage facilities. The construction season may be extended
because the exothermic reaction caused with water and quicklime can warm the soil.
Dry quicklime is excellent for drying wet soils. Larger particle sizes can reduce dust
generation.
Disadvantages: Quicklime requires 32 percent of its weight in water to convert

to hydrated lime and there can be significant additional evaporation loss due to the heat
30
of hydration. Care must be taken with the use of quicklime to ensure adequate water
addition, mellowing, and mixing. These greater water requirements may pose a logistics
or cost problem in remote areas without a nearby water source. Quicklime may require
more mixing than dry hydrated lime or lime slurries because the larger quicklime
particles must first react with water to form hydrated lime and then be thoroughly mixed
with the soil.
Slurry Lime:
Advantages: Dust free application. Easier to achieve even distribution.

Spreading and sprinkling applications are combined. Less additional water is required
for final mixing.
Disadvantages: Slower application rates. Higher costs due to extra equipment

requirements. May not be practical in very wet soils. Not practical for drying
applications.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 LABORATORY TESTING
There are several test should be conducted for soil and lime in the laboratory to
make sure the soil is suitable for stabilisation and lime must be adequate in the
stabilisation. After the testing for both soil and lime, they were mix together at different
percentage of lime slurry and some testing should be conducted again such as
compaction test and unconfined compressive test (UCT). All the testing is shown in
figure 3.1
32
METHODOLOGY
LAB TESTING
SOIL LIME
SPECIFIC PARTICLE SIZE ATTERBERG STANDARD INITIAL AVAILABLE LIME

GRAVITY DISTRIBUTION LIMIT PROCTOR CONSUMPTION OF CONTENT (ALC)
LIME (ICL)
SIEVING HYDROMETER LL PL PI
MIX
SOIL + LIME
CURING COMPACTION
TEST
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
TEST (UCT)
Figure 3.1: Laboratory testing

33
3.2 SOIL TESTING
There are several test should be done to the soil to make sure the selected soil is
suitable for lime stabilisation. The tests are specific gravity test, particle size
distribution test, Atterberg limit test and standard proctor test (compaction test).
3.2.1 Specific Gravity Test
The aim of this test is to find the average specific gravity (Gs) for this soil. The
specific gravity of a soil is the ratio between the unit masses of soil particles and water.
The method to determine the specific gravity is defined in the BS 1377:1990. Gs is
useful for determining weight-volume relationships. The test requires the determination
of the volume of a mass of dry soil particles. This is obtained by placing the soil
particles in a glass bottle filled completely with deaired distilled water. The bottle and it
contents is placed under vacuum to remove all of the air trapped between the soil
particles (Figure 3.2). The volume of the soil particles is determined from differences in
mass, assuming the specific gravity of water to be unity so masses in grams or Mg are
equivalent to volumes in ccs or m3, respectively.
34
Figure 3.2: Specific Gravity Vacuum
3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution (PSD)
Particle sizes vary considerably from those measured in microns (clays) to those
measured in meters (boulders). Most natural soils are composite soils; a mixture of
different particle sizes and the distribution of these sizes give very useful information
about the engineering behaviors of the soil. This test is carried out to check that there is
an adequate content of material passing 63 microns (i.e fined grained soil). Two
methods are generally used to find the particles size distribution of soil:
(1) Sieve analysis for particle sizes larger than 0.075mm in diameter and;
(2) Hydrometer analysis for particle sizes smaller than .075mm in diameter.
The method to determined particle sizes distribution is defined in BS 1377: Part

2: 1990
35
3.2.2.1 Sieve Analysis
The sieve analysis determines the grain size distribution curve of soil samples by
passing them through a stack of sieves of decreasing mesh-opening sizes and by
measuring the weight retained on each sieve. Sieving can be performed in either wet or
dry conditions. Dry sieving is used only for soils with a negligible amount of plastic
fines, such as gravels and clean sands, whereas wet sieving is applied to soils with
plastic fines.
Figure 3.3: A set of sieves
3.2.2.2 Hydrometer Analysis
Hydrometer analysis is based on the principle of sedimentation of soil grains in

water. When a soil specimen is dispersed in water, the particles settle at different
velocities, depending on their shape, size, weight, and the viscosity of the water. It is
36
assumed that the soil particles are spheres and that the velocity of soil particles can be
expressed by Stoke’ Law. The test is conducted as described in BS 1377: Part 2: 1990
Figure 3.4: Mechanical shaker
Figure 3.5: Hydrometer reading

37
3.2.3 Atterberg limit (Consistency of Soil)
The behavior of soil can be divided into four basic states; solid, semisolid,
plastic, and liquid (Figure 3.6). The shrinkage limit is defined as the moisture content,
in percent, at transition from solid to semisolid. The moisture content at the point of
transition from semisolid to plastic state is the plastic limit, and from plastic to liquid
sate is the liquid limit. These parameters (i.e shrinkage limit, plastic limit and liquid
limit) also known as Atterberg Limit. The procedure to determine the Atterberg limit is
defined in BS 1377:Part 2: 1990. This test indicates the stiffness of cohesive soil and
carried out on the portion of a soil finer than 425 µm (from sieving test). Plasticity
index (PI) is determine by using this formula; PI = LL – PL.
Solid Semi-solid Plastic Liquid

Moisture
Shrinkage Plastic Liquid content
Limit, SL Limit, PL Limit, LL increasing
Stress-strain Stress Stress Stress

diagrams at
various states
Strain Strain Strain
Figure 3.6: Atterberg Limit

38
3.2.3.1 Liquid Limit (LL)
The most reliable method for the determination of the liquid limit is the
definitive cone penetrometer method (BS 1377: Part 2:1990). In this test the liquid limit
fined as the moisture content at which a standard cone of apex angle300 and weight of
0.78N will penetrate a distance d=20mm in 5 seconds when allowed to drop from a
position of point contact with the soil surface Four or more test conducted at various
moisture content to determine the fall cone penetration, d. The moisture content versus
penetration (d) then plotted to determine the liquid limit where the moisture content
corresponding to d=20mm is the liquid limit.
Figure 3.7: Details of cone for liquid limit test

39
Figure 3.8: Liquid limit test (cone penetration)
3.2.3.2 Plastic Limit (PL)
The plastic limit is defined as the moisture content in percent, at which the soil
crumbles, when rolled into threads of 3.2mm in diameter. The plastic limit is the lower
limit of the plastic stage of soil
Figure 3.9: Plastic limit test

40
3.2.3.3 Plasticity Index (PI)
The plasticity index is important in classifying fine-grained soils. The plasticity

index is defined as the differential between Liquid limit and Plastic limit (i.e PI = LL –
PL). The British Soil Classification System (BSCS) gives a plasticity chart (Figure 3.7)
to distinguish fine-grained soils on the basis of predominantly clays (C) or silts (M)
lying above or below the A-line and varying degrees of plasticity from low (LL < 35 %)
to extremely high (LL > 90%) with symbols for each type of soil.
3.2.4 Standard Proctor Test (compaction test)
Compaction, in general is the densification of soil by removal of air, which

requires mechanical energy. The degree of compaction is measured in terms of its dry
unit weight. When water is added to the soil during compaction, it acts as a softening
agent on the soil particles. The soil particles slip over each other and move into densely
packed position. The dry unit weight after compaction first increases as the moisture
content increase. Beyond certain moisture content, any increase in the moisture content
tends to reduce the dry unit weight. This phenomenon occurs because the water takes up
the spaces that would have been occupied by the solid particles. The moisture content at
which the maximum dry unit weight is attained is referred to as the optimum moisture
content. The procedure for conducting this test is described in BS 1377: Part 4: 1990.
41
Figure 3.10: Mould for Compaction Test (1L Mould)
Figure 3.11: Dry density / Moisture content relationship curve

42
3.3 LIME TESTING
There are two test should be conducted for lime, that is initial consumption of
lime (ICL) and available lime content (ALC).
3.3.1 Initial Consumption of Lime (ICL)
The aim of this test is to determine the initial percentage of lime should be used
to stabilise the soil. The advantage of the test for the initial consumption of lime
developed by Eades and Grim is that it is quick to perform (taking about one hour) and
it gives an indication of the minimum amount of lime that is needed to achieve a
significant improvement in the properties of the soil. For stabilization, the lime content
should be greater than the initial consumption of lime value. The basic concept is that
sufficient lime should be added to a soil to ensure that a pH of 12.4 is reached in order
to sustain the strength producing lime-soil pozzolanic reactions. Lime is a strong alkali
with a low solubility in water giving a maximum pH of 12.4. The test procedure is
detailed in BS1924: Part 2: Clause 5.4. This test does not dispense with the need to
carry out laboratory mix trials in order to determine the relationship between lime
content and strength.
43
3.3.2 Available Lime Content (ALC)
The available lime content of the quicklime or hydrated lime to be used is

determined according to BS6463: Part 2: Test 20. The available lime content of a
calcareous material is the calcium present as oxide or hydroxide. Shaking with a
solution of sucrose makes a solution of the calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide
present in the sample. After the residue has been filtered off, the solution is titrated
against standard hydrochloric acid and the volume used calculated in terms of calcium
oxide or calcium hydroxide. The indicator to be used in the titration is phenolphthalein.
The formulas for calculation are as below: -
Percentage available lime (as CaO) = 2.8045 V / m

Percentage available lime (as Ca (OH) 2) = 3.705 V / m
where
V is the titration (in mL);
m is the mass of sample (in g).
The minimum requirement of lime content to stabilise the soil in term of CaO is
60% and Ca(OH)2 is 80%. So, the available lime content in term of CaO and Ca(OH)2
should be more than requirement. Otherwise, the lime is cannot be used.
44
3.4 LIME STABILISE SOIL TESTING
After the requirement of soil and the lime is fulfill, the lime can be used to stabilise the
soil (i.e lime and soil mix together). After this mixing, several tests should be conducted
such as compaction test, and unconfined compressive test (UCT).
3.4.1 Unconfined Compressive Test (UCT)
The unconfined compressive test is a special type of unconsolidated-undrained

test that is commonly used for clay specimens. In this test, the confining pressure (V3) is
0. An axial load is rapidly applied to the specimen to cause failure. At failure, the total
minor principal stress is zero and the total major principal stress is V1.
UCT test is conducted on 60 remolded samples with sizes (100mm height x

50mm diameter) and curing at 0, 7, 14 and 28 days. The aim for this test is to determine
the maximum compressive value for each sample. The highest value indicates the
optimum concentration of lime slurry for lime stabilisation.
45
Figure 3.12: Samples preparation
Figure 3.13: Unconfined Compression Test Equipment

CHAPTER 4
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 SOIL CLASIFICATION TEST
4.1.1 Atterberg Limit
4.1.1.1 Liquid Limit
Liquid limit (LL) is the moisture content at 20mm cone penetration. From the
figure 4.1 below, liquid limit for this soil is 44.7%.
47
CONE PENETRATION vs MOISTURE CONTENT
30.0
25.0
CONE PENETRATION (mm)
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 49.00
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
Figure 4.1: Cone Penetration vs Moisture Content
4.1.1.2 Plastic Limit
The plastic limit (PL) determined from the oven - dried sample is 31.5%
48
4.1.1.3 Plasticity Index (PI)
Plasticity index is calculated from this formula;
PI = LL – PL
PI = 44.7 – 31.5
PI = 13.2
Since the Plasticity Index is higher than 10, this soil is suitable to stabilise with
lime.
Figure 4.2: Plasticity Chart
From the plasticity chart above, this soil can be classified as MI (Plasticity sub
division s as for CLAY)
49
4.1.2 Specific Gravity Test
Table 4.1: Summary of Data for Specific Gravity Test

BOTTLE NO. 1601 1465 1863 1695 1802 1597
MASS OF BOTTLE M1 31.29 25.97 30.67 32.35 30.41 30.76
MASS OF BOTTLE + SOIL M2 42.22 35.26 40.8 39.91 39.96 41.21
MASS OF BOTTLE + SOIL + WATER M3 87.187 83.603 87.525 86.564 85.975 85.263
MASS OF BOTTLE + FULL WATER M4 80.486 77.93 81.374 81.958 80.171 78.952
MASS OF SOIL (A) M2 - M1 10.93 9.29 10.13 7.56 9.55 10.45
MASS OF WATER IN FULL BOTTLE (B) M4 - M1 49.196 51.96 50.704 49.608 49.761 48.192
MASS OF WATER USED (C) M3 - M2 44.967 48.343 46.725 46.654 46.015 44.053
VOLUME OF SOIL PARTICLE (D) (B) - (C) 4.229 3.617 3.979 2.954 3.746 4.139
PARTICLE DENSITY (A)/(D) 2.585 2.568 2.546 2.559 2.549 2.525
AVERAGE PARTICLE DENSITY 2.555
From this table, the average specific gravity for this soil is 2.555.
50
4.1.3 Particle Size Distribution (PSD)
PARTICLES SIZES DISTRIBUTION

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SEIVE ANALYSIS
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
Percent Finer/Passing
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Diameter (mm)
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM

CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL
Figure 4.3: Particle Size Distribution Curve

51
From the wet sieving and hydrometer analysis, the kaolin sample that used in
this research consist of 0.4% GRAVEL, 12.15% SAND and 87.45% of fines (67.82% of
SILT and 19.63 % CLAY). Thus, the kaolin clay is classified as SILTY-Clay soil. Since
the clay content is more than 10%, this soil is suitable to stabilise with lime.
4.2 LIME SUITABILITY TEST
4.2.1 Initial Consumption of Lime (ICL)
Lime used in this test is Hydrated lime, Ca (OH)2
pH of saturated solution = 12.35

Temperature (°C) = 26.2
pH corrected to 25 °C = 12.4
Table 4.2 Summary of data from ICL test

Lime content (%) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
pH value of suspension 4.75 10.15 11.55 12.25 12.35 12.35 12.35
Temperature (0C) 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2
pH corrected to 25 0C 4.8 10.2 11.6 12.3 12.4 12.4 12.4
From the data above, 2.0% of hydrated lime is the minimum percentage of lime
needed for soil stabilization.
52
4.2.2 Available lime content (ALC)
From the laboratory test, the titration, V = 33.4 ml, and the weight of sample
used, m = 1.450 g
Percentage of available lime (as CaO) = 2.804V / m

= [2.804(33.4)] / 1.45
= 64.5 %
Percentage of available lime (as Ca(OH)2) = 3.705V / m

= [3.705(33.4)] / 1.45
= 85.4%
The available lime content in terms of equivalent CaO is 64.5%, which is greater
than the minimum requirement of 60%
The available Ca(OH)2 content is 85.4% which is greater than minimum

requirement of 80%. Hence, the hydrated lime that been used in this research is suitable
for lime stabilisation.
4.3 STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
Standard proctor compaction test result is summarizing in table 4.3 below. All
the calculation for this test is attached in appendix B. The compaction curves for all
concentration are plotted as in figure 4.4.
53
Table 4.3: Compaction Test Result

Concentration of Lime Slurry Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
(% of weight of water) Density (Kg/m3) Content (%)
Untreated 1500 20.0%
10% 1470 21.5%
20% 1440 22.2%
30% 1425 22.8%
40% 1420 23.5%
From figure 4.4 below, it shows the typical compaction curve for all
concentration of lime slurry (i.e 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%). From this result, further
addition of lime to the soil can decrease the dry density and at the same time increase
the moisture content of the mixture. It is because of ion exchange and flocculation of
soil particle occurs which make soil particle more friable for compaction. (Assarson et
al. 1974, Khairul Anuar and Kok Kai Chern, 2004). This curve pattern is typical curve
provide by previous researcher.
COMPACTION TEST
1.600
10%air
1.550
DRY DENSITY (Mg/m3
5%air
0%air
1.500 UNTREA TED
10% SLURRY
20% SLURRY
1.450 30% SLURRY
40% SLURRY
1.400
1.350
1.300
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 4.4: Standard Proctor Compaction Curve

54
4.4 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UCS)
Figure 4.5 shows the result of UCS with different curing period from 7 days to
28 days. There are significant increases in strength from 0 to 14 days curing period. It is
because of the modification process where rapid ion exchange occurs in the mix
(Sudhakar M. Rao and P. Shivananda, 2004). After 14 days, it shown the rapidly
increase in strength at a constant rate. This is because of the pozzolanic reactions
between lime and soil where the silicate or aluminate in the soil react with calcium in
lime to form the new compound known as calcium silica hydrates or calcium allumina
hydrates (Diamond and Kinter, 1965, H.M Greaves, 1996). At 28 days of curing, the
soil treated with 40 percent of lime (of weight of water), has developed in strength to
more than 400% higher than untreated soil. The reason for this strength development is,
kaolin clay has high available kaolinite (i.e silicate or alluminate), which is readily to
react with lime (Khairul Anuar and Kok Kai Chern, 2004).
Figure 4.6 shows the UCS at different lime content. Further addition of lime
slurry, can provide significant increase in strength. From the figure, it shows 10 to 20
percent of lime (of weight of water) is sufficient for modification process. More than 20
percent of lime (of weight of water) is needed to stabilise the soil. At 40 percent of lime
(of weight of water), the soil cured for 28 days developed in strength to more than
200% compared to non-curing soil (i.e 0 day). Summary of UCS at different
concentration and curing days is tabulated in table 4.4 below.
55
UCS vs CURING TIME
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENG

800
700
600
UNTREATED
500
(UCS), kPa
10% SLURRY
400 20% SLURRY
300 30% SLURRY

40% SLURRY
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CURING TIME
Figure 4.5: Unconfined Compressive Strength at Different Curing Time
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT VARIOUS LIME SLURRY

CONTENT
800
700
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (UCS), kPa
600
500 0 DAY
7 DAYS
400
14 DAYS
300 28 DAYS
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
LIME SLURRY (% OF WEIGHT OF WATER)
Figure 4.6: Unconfined Compressive Strength at Various Lime Slurry

56
Table 4.4: Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) in kPa

Lime Slurry (% of weight
0 day 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days
of water)
Untreated 79 90 120 140
10% 172 270 300 390
20% 172 260 290 540
30% 205 330 390 610
40% 270 510 525 755
4.4.1 Lime Mixing
Figure 4.7 shows the rate increase in strength and figure 4.8 shows the
percentage increase in strength at various limes content. From figure 4.7, it shows the
immediately increase in rate of strength after 7 days of curing and then fall down at 14
days of curing. After 14 days, the rates of strength increase at constant. From figure 4.8,
the rate of increase in strength is not stable for 7 and 14 days of curing. For 28 days of
curing, it shows rapidly increase in rate of strength until optimum and then the graph go
down at 30% and 40% of lime content. From both figures, it shows the typical
characteristic of lime mixing in soil. From 0 to 14 days, the soil still in modification
process where the flocculation and rearrangement of soil particle provide instability of
the mixture. From figure 4.8, the optimum lime slurry to stabilise the soil is about 20%
of weight of water and equivalent to 3.63% of dry lime.
Figure 4.9 shows the result of compressive strength at different dry lime content
(After Khairul Anuar and Kok Kai Chern, 2004). The optimum dry lime to stabilise the
kaolin clay is about 3.5%. By comparison between this figures (i.e figure 4.8 and 4.9),
57
the optimum concentration of lime use to stabilise the soil is not much difference. Table
4.5 below shows the equivalent dry lime to the lime slurry use in this study.
RATE OF INCREASE IN STRENGTH
500
450
RATE OF INCREASE IN STRENGTH (%)
440%
400
350
330%
300 10% SLURRY
290%
20% SLURRY
250
30% SLURRY
200 40% SLURRY
180%
150
100
50 MODIFICATION PROCESS STABILISATION PROCESS
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CURING TIME (DAYS)
Figure 4.7: Rate of increase in Strength
PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN STRENGTH AT VARIOUS LIME CONTENT
250
PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN STRENGTH
220%
200
150
7 DAYS
(%)
14 DAYS
28 DAYS
100
50
OPTIMUM LIME CONTENT

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
LIME CONTENT (% OF WEIGHT OF WATER)
Figure 4.8: Percentage Increase in Strength at Various Lime Content

58
Figure 4.9: Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) at 14 days with various addition
of lime. (After Khairul Anuar Kasim and Kok Kai Chern,2004)
Table 4.5: Equivalent Dry Lime for Different Concentration of Lime Slurry
Lime slurry Equivalent Dry Lime
(% of weight of water)
10% 1.77%
20% 3.63%
30% 5.45%
40% 7.61%
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
From the Standard Proctor Compaction Test, the compaction characteristic of

soil treated with lime slurry posses the same behaviour as demonstrated by soil treated
with dry lime where the optimum moisture content increases and the maximum dry
density decreases. So, it is important to determine the optimum moisture content before
the compaction work can be done in the construction site (i.e road work) where the
moisture content play an important role during compaction.
From the Unconfined Compression Test (UCT) test, it was illustrated that the
strength development before 14 days is less significant. This could be due to the process
of modification. However, after 14 days of curing the strength increases rapidly. This
phenomenon could be related to the process of stabilisation. At 28 days of curing, the
soil treated with 40 percent of lime (of weight of water), has developed in strength to
more than 400% higher than untreated soil The optimum concentration of lime slurry to
stabilise the kaolin clay soil is 20 percent of weight of water which is equivalent to 3.63
percent of dry lime. The development of strength for the treated soil is due to curing
time and percentage of lime added to the soil. So, the success of the treatment process is
highly dependent on available lime content and curing time.
60
REFERENCES
1. Arabi M and Wild S, Property Changes Induced in Clay Soils When Using Lime
Stabilization, Municipal Engineer (Institution of Civil Engineers), v 6, n 2, Apr,
1989, pg 85-99
2. Bell F.G and Coulthard J.M, Stabilization of Clay Soils With Lime, Municipal
Engineer (Institution of Civil Engineers), v 7, n 3, Jun, 1990, pg 125-140
3. Bell F.G, Lime Stabilization of Clay Minerals and Soils, Engineering Geology
42 (1996), pg 223-237
4. Bergado, D.T, Anderson, L.R, Miura, N, and Balasundram, A.S (1994), Soft
Ground Improvement in Lowland and Other Environments, ASCE Press, New
York, U.S
5. Boynton R.S, Blacklock, J.R, Bulletin 331,Lime Slurry Pressure Injection

Bulletin, National Lime Association, Arlington, A.S
6. British Standard Institution (1990), BS 1377, Methods of tests for Soils, British
Standard Institution, London, UK.
7. British Standard Institution (1990), BS 1924, Methods of tests for Stabilized

Soils, British Standard Institution, London, UK.
8. British Standard Institution (1990), BS 6463, Methods of tests for chemical

stabilizers, British Standard Institution, London, UK.
9. Das B.M, Principle of Geotechnical Engineering, Fifth Edition, Brook/Cole,

Thomson Learning, 2002, pg 21-39
10. Kassim K.A and Kok K.C (2004), Lime Stabilized Malaysian Cohesive Soil,
Jurnal Kejuruteraan Awam 16 (1), pg 13-23
11. Kezdi A (1979), Stabilized Earth Roads, Elsevier Scientific Publishing

Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands
61
12. Lawrence J S, Harry F (2000), Building a Pad From Lime Stabilized Soil,
ProQuest Science Journals, pg. 45
13. National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (1986), Guide to

Stabilisation in Roadworks, NAASRA, Sydney, Australia.
14. National Lime Association (2004), Lime Stabilization and Lime Modification,
National Lime Association, USA
15. Rogers C.D.F, Lime Requirement for Stabilization, Transportation Research

Record, n 1721, 2000, pg 9-18
16. Sudhakar M. R and Shivananda P, Role of Curing Temperature in Progress of

Lime Soil Reactions, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2005) 23: 79–
85
17. Sudhakar M. R and Shivananda P, Compressibility Behaviour of Lime-Stabilized

Clay, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2005) 23: 309–319
APPENDIX A1
LIQUID LIMIT TEST
1 2 3 4 5
INITIAL READING 0 0 0 0 0
FINAL READING 1 15.1 16.1 17.3 21.5 24.5
FINAL READING 2 15.9 15.3 17.1 21.2 24.6
FINAL READING 3 15.2 16.4 17.4 20.7 23.8
AVERAGE READING 15.4 15.9 17.3 21.1 24.3
CONTAINER NO. 19 1 4 3 5
MASS OF WET SOIL + CONTAINER M1 23.89 18.858 17.328 17.3 21.221
MASS OF DRY SOIL + CONTAINER M2 19.975 15.273 14.103 13.952 16.463
MASS OF CONTAINER M3 10.4 6.624 6.593 6.612 6.578
MASS OF MOISTURE (M1-M2) M4 3.915 3.585 3.225 3.348 4.758
MASS OF DRY SOIL (M2-M3) M5 9.575 8.649 7.51 7.34 9.885
MOISTURE (M4/M5) X 100 40.888 41.45 42.943 45.613 48.134
CONE PENETRATION vs MOISTURE CONTENT
30.0
25.0
CONE PENETRATION (mm)
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
LIQUID LIMIT 44.7

PLASTIC LIMIT 31.5
PLASTICITY INDEX 13.2
APPENDIX A2
SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST
SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST
BOTTLE NO. 1601 1465 1863 1695 1802 1597

MASS OF BOTTLE M1 31.29 25.97 30.67 32.35 30.41 30.76
MASS OF BOTTLE + SOIL M2 42.22 35.26 40.8 39.91 39.96 41.21
MASS OF BOTTLE + SOIL + WATER M3 87.187 83.603 87.525 86.564 85.975 85.263
MASS OF BOTTLE + FULL WATER M4 80.486 77.93 81.374 81.958 80.171 78.952
MASS OF SOIL (A)_ M2 - M1 10.93 9.29 10.13 7.56 9.55 10.45
MASS OF WATER IN FULL BOTTLE (B) M4 - M1 49.196 51.96 50.704 49.608 49.761 48.192
MASS OF WATER USED (C) M3 - M2 44.967 48.343 46.725 46.654 46.015 44.053
VOLUME OF SOIL PARTICLE (D) (B) - (C) 4.229 3.617 3.979 2.954 3.746 4.139
PARTICLE DENSITY (A)/(D) 2.585 2.568 2.546 2.559 2.549 2.525
AVERAGE PARTICLE DENSITY 2.555
APPENDIX A3 (PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION)
Elapsed Hydrometer True Reading Effective Modified Viscosity Particle Percentage
time Temp Reading Rh'+Cm depth Reading of water diameter finer than D
t 7& Rh' = Rh Hr mm Rh' - Ro' = Rd K D mm K%
0:00:30 27.2 25.00 25.5 92.5 26.0 0.850 0.056 85.08
0:01:00 27.2 23.00 23.5 100.0 24.0 0.850 0.041 78.54
0:02:00 27.2 21.00 21.5 107.5 22.0 0.850 0.030 71.99
0:04:00 27.2 19.00 19.5 115.0 20.0 0.850 0.022 65.45
0:08:00 27.2 16.00 16.5 126.3 17.0 0.850 0.016 55.63
0:30:00 27.2 12.00 12.5 141.3 13.0 0.850 0.009 42.54
2:00:00 27.4 7.50 8.0 158.3 8.5 0.846 0.005 27.81
6:00:00 27.4 5.00 5.5 167.6 6.0 0.846 0.003 19.63
24:00:00 27.2 0.90 1.4 183.1 1.9 0.850 0.001 6.22
Sieve sizes Mass Mass Cumulative PARTICLES SIZES DISTRIBUTION
(mm) retained (g) passing(g) % passing HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SEIVE ANALYSIS
1.18 0 150 100 100.00
0.600 0.45 149.55 99.7

90.00
0.425 0.15 149.4 99.6
80.00
0.300 0.37 149.03 99.4
0.212 2.18 146.85 97.9 70.00
0.150 2.25 144.6 96.4 60.00

0.075 13.43 131.17 87.4
50.00
pass 0.075 131.17 0
Total after 149.55 40.00
Percent Finer/Passing
Loss 0.45 g 30.00
20.00
Sieve % mass
10.00
size (mm) passing Classification
1.18 100 0.00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.425 99.6 0.4 GRAVEL Particle Diameter (mm)
0.075 87.45 12.15 SAND

FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM
0.002 19.63 87.45 SILT/CLAY
CLAY
67.82 SILT SILT SAND GRAVEL
19.63 CLAY
TEST METHOD BS 1377 : PART 4
APPENDIX B1
PROCEDURE 2.5 KG HAND RAMMER
3 LAYERS, 27 BLOWS PER LAYER
1 L MOULD
INITIAL SAMPLE MASS g 3000

3
VOLUME OF MOULD (V) cm 1000
3
PARTICLE DENSITY (Mg/m ) (Mg/m3) 2.55
TEST NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5
MASS OF MOULD + BASE PLATE, m1 g 3610 3610 3610 3610 3610
MASS OF MOULD + BASE + COMPACTED SPECIMEN, m2 g 5220 5400 5420 5390 5320
MASS OF COMPACTED SPECIMEN (m2 - m1) g 1610 1790 1810 1780 1710
BULK DENSITY = (m2 - m1) / V (Mg/m3) 1.61 1.79 1.81 1.78 1.71
MOISTURE CONTENT CONTAINER NO. 94B 69B 61B 111B 44B 80B 36B 101B 22B 48B 6B 66B 14B 71B 19B
MASS OF CONTAINER (m3) g 6.594 6.787 6.800 6.622 6.676 6.921 6.725 6.578 6.614 6.723 6.600 6.714 6.626 6.616 6.789
MASS OF CONTAINER + WET SOIL (m4) g 22.529 22.776 28.409 20.630 25.903 22.358 23.482 22.072 25.538 27.200 22.194 24.730 34.562 32.638 36.010
MASS OF CONTAINER + DRY SOIL (m5) g 20.749 20.948 25.930 18.373 22.754 19.852 20.282 19.110 22.675 22.955 18.977 20.968 27.881 26.410 28.973
MASS OF DRY SOIL (m5 - m3) g 14.155 14.161 19.13 11.751 16.078 12.931 13.557 12.532 16.061 16.232 12.377 14.254 21.255 19.794 22.184
MASS OF MOISTURE (m4 - m5) g 1.78 1.828 2.479 2.257 3.149 2.506 3.2 2.962 2.863 4.245 3.217 3.762 6.681 6.228 7.037
MOISTURE CONTENT; w = [(m4 - m5) / (m5 - m3)] x 100 % 12.575 12.909 12.959 19.207 19.586 19.380 23.604 23.635 17.826 26.152 25.992 26.393 31.433 31.464 31.721
AVERAGE MOISTURE CONTENT;w % 12.814 19.391 21.688 26.179 31.539
DRY DENSITY (100 x BULK DENSITY) / (100 + w) 1.427 1.499 1.487 1.411 1.300
DRY DENSITY CORRESPONDING TO AIR VOID 0 1.922 1.706 1.642 1.529 1.413
5 1.826 1.621 1.560 1.453 1.343
10 1.730 1.536 1.478 1.376 1.272

5 1.826 1.621 1.560 1.453 1.343
10 1.730 1.536 1.478 1.376 1.272
COMPACTION TEST
1.600
10% AIR
1.550
5% AIR
1.500
0% AIR
1.450
DRY DENSITY
1.400
1.350
1.300
5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000
APPENDIX B2
1 L MOULD
SINGLE SAMPLE

VOLUME OF MOULD (V) cm3 1000
PARTICLE DENSITY (Mg/m3) (Mg/m3) 2.55
5 1.789 1.652 1.554 1.473 1.416
10 1.694 1.565 1.472 1.396 1.342

5 1.789 1.652 1.554 1.473 1.416
10 1.694 1.565 1.472 1.396 1.342
COMPACTION TEST
1.600
10% AIR
1.550
5% AIR
0% AIR
1.500
1.450
DRY DENSITY
1.400
1.350
1.300
5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000
APPENDIX B3
1 L MOULD
SINGLE SAMPLE

3
MOISTURE CONTENT CONTAINER NO. 71B 101B 69B 92 400 99B 1 30B 20B 2 5B 92B 49B B1-1 3
5 1.755 1.628 1.540 1.488 1.403
10 1.662 1.543 1.459 1.410 1.329

5 1.755 1.628 1.540 1.488 1.403
10 1.662 1.543 1.459 1.410 1.329
COMPACTION TEST
1.600
10% AIR
1.550
5% AIR
0% AIR
1.500
1.450
DRY DENSITY
1.400
1.350
1.300
5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000
APPENDIX B4
1 L MOULD
SINGLE SAMPLE

3
5 1.764 1.664 1.562 1.497 1.407
10 1.671 1.577 1.480 1.418 1.333

5 1.764 1.664 1.562 1.497 1.407
10 1.671 1.577 1.480 1.418 1.333
COMPACTION TEST
COMPACTION TEST
1.600
1.600
1.550
10% AIR
1.550
5% AIR
1.500 0% AIR
1.500
1.450
1.450
DRY DENSITY
DRY DENSITY (Mg/m3)
1.400
1.400
1.350
1.350
1.300
1.3005.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000
5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 25.000 30.000 35.000
APPENDIX B5
1 L MOULD
SINGLE SAMPLE

3
5 1.722 1.614 1.511 1.450 1.398
10 1.631 1.529 1.432 1.374 1.325

5 1.722 1.614 1.511 1.450 1.398
10 1.631 1.529 1.432 1.374 1.325
COMPACTION TEST
1.600
10% AIR
1.550
5% AIR
0% AIR
1.500
(Mg/m3)
1.450
DENSITY
DENSITY
DRYDRY
1.400
1.350
1.300
5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000
APPENDIX B6
COMPACTION CURVE FOR ALL CONCENTRATION
COMPACTION TEST
1.600
10% air
1.550
5% air
0% air
1.500
UNTREATED
10% SLURRY
20% SLURRY
30% SLURRY
40% SLURRY
Series19
1.450
DRY DENSITY (Mg/m3)

1.400
1.350
1.300
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
APPENDIX C1
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE TEST (UNTREATED - 0 DAY)
ORIGINAL SOIL (KAOLIN)

CURING 0 DAY
DIAMETER OF THE SAMPLES, D (mm 50.81
HEIGHT OF THE SAMPLES, H (mm) 101.42
INITIAL AREA OF THE SAMPLES, A0 0.0020
VOLUME OF THE SAMPLE, V (m3) 0.00021
MASS OF THE SAMPLE, M (kg) 0.345
DENSITY OF THE SAMPLE, p (kg/m3) 1677.67
SAMPLE NO 1
Deformation Compression Force Corrected Axial Stress,

Axial Force, P Strain
Gauge of Specimen Gauge Area (A=A0/(1- V1=P(1-H)/A
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
Reading ('h) Reading H) (kN/m2)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00203 0.000
20 0.2 50 0.0368 0.0020 0.00203 18.072
40 0.4 75 0.0552 0.0039 0.00204 27.000
60 0.6 95 0.0699 0.0059 0.00204 34.065
80 0.8 110 0.0809 0.0079 0.00204 39.288
100 1.0 130 0.0956 0.0099 0.00205 46.246
120 1.2 145 0.1067 0.0118 0.00205 51.377
140 1.4 162 0.1192 0.0138 0.00206 57.172
160 1.6 175 0.1288 0.0158 0.00206 61.513
180 1.8 190 0.1398 0.0177 0.00206 66.518
200 2.0 200 0.1472 0.0197 0.00207 69.738
220 2.2 210 0.1545 0.0217 0.00207 72.931
240 2.4 215 0.1582 0.0237 0.00208 74.367
260 2.6 222 0.1633 0.0256 0.00208 76.478
280 2.8 224 0.1648 0.0276 0.00209 76.855
300 3.0 224 0.1648 0.0296 0.00209 76.544
320 3.2 224 0.1648 0.0316 0.00209 76.233
340 3.4 210 0.1545 0.0335 0.00210 71.178
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
90
80
UCS
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
70 78 kN/m2
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040
STRAIN
APPENDIX C2
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE TEST (UNTREATED - 7 DAYS)

CURING 7 DAYS
INITIAL AREA OF THE SAMPLES, A0 ( 0.0020
SAMPLE NO 1

Gauge of Specimen Gauge Area (A=A0/(1- V1=1000P/A
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 35 0.0258 0.0019 0.00200 12.847
40 0.4 60 0.0441 0.0039 0.00200 21.939
60 0.6 85 0.0625 0.0058 0.00201 30.959
80 0.8 105 0.0773 0.0077 0.00201 38.095
100 1 128 0.0942 0.0097 0.00202 46.258
120 1.2 148 0.1089 0.0116 0.00202 53.277
140 1.4 165 0.1214 0.0136 0.00202 59.164
160 1.6 180 0.1324 0.0155 0.00203 64.289
180 1.8 195 0.1435 0.0174 0.00203 69.373
200 2 210 0.1545 0.0194 0.00204 74.415
220 2.2 223 0.1641 0.0213 0.00204 78.710
240 2.4 235 0.1729 0.0232 0.00204 82.617
260 2.6 244 0.1795 0.0252 0.00205 85.441
280 2.8 248 0.1825 0.0271 0.00205 86.497
300 3 225 0.1655 0.0291 0.00206 78.163
320 3.2 190 0.1398 0.0310 0.00206 65.741
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
100
90
80
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
70
60
50 UCS
40 87 kN/m2
30
20
10
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
STRAIN
APPENDIX C3

CURING 14 DAYS
DIAMETER OF THE SAMPLES, D (mm) 50.5
INITIAL AREA OF THE SAMPLES, A0 (m 0.0020
SAMPLE NO 1
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 90 0.0662 0.00199 0.00201 32.928
40 0.4 130 0.0956 0.00399 0.00201 47.373
60 0.6 160 0.1177 0.00598 0.00202 58.072
80 0.8 190 0.1398 0.00798 0.00202 68.684
100 1.0 215 0.1582 0.00997 0.00202 77.409
120 1.2 240 0.1766 0.01196 0.00203 86.063
140 1.4 265 0.1950 0.01396 0.00203 94.644
160 1.6 285 0.2097 0.01595 0.00204 101.376
180 1.8 305 0.2244 0.01795 0.00204 108.051
200 2.0 320 0.2354 0.01994 0.00204 112.905
220 2.2 335 0.2465 0.02193 0.00205 117.717
240 2.4 345 0.2538 0.02393 0.00205 120.737
260 2.6 350 0.2575 0.02592 0.00206 121.987
280 2.8 350 0.2575 0.02792 0.00206 121.488
300 3.0 325 0.2391 0.02991 0.00206 112.348
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
140
UCS
120
124 kN/m2
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
STRAIN
APPENDIX C4

CURING 28DAYS
SAMPLE NO 1
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 110 0.0809 0.0020 0.00200 40.375
40 0.4 170 0.1251 0.0039 0.00200 62.151
60 0.6 225 0.1655 0.0059 0.00201 81.933
80 0.8 262 0.1928 0.0079 0.00201 95.027
100 1.0 290 0.2134 0.0099 0.00202 104.765
120 1.2 318 0.2340 0.0118 0.00202 114.422
140 1.4 342 0.2516 0.0138 0.00202 122.567
160 1.6 362 0.2663 0.0158 0.00203 129.216
180 1.8 377 0.2774 0.0178 0.00203 134.030
200 2.0 390 0.2869 0.0197 0.00204 138.095
220 2.2 394 0.2899 0.0217 0.00204 138.950
240 2.4 394 0.2899 0.0237 0.00205 138.390
260 2.6 380 0.2796 0.0257 0.00205 132.933
280 2.8 350 0.2575 0.0276 0.00205 121.943
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
160
140 UCS
120 140 kPa
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
STRAIN
APPENDIX C5
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE TEST (10% SLURRY - 0 DAY)
10% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 0 DAY
SAMPLE NO 3

(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 93 0.0684 0.0019 0.00201 34.030
40 0.4 145 0.1067 0.0038 0.00201 52.854
60 0.6 190 0.1398 0.0058 0.00201 68.989
80 0.8 225 0.1655 0.0077 0.00202 81.382
100 1 255 0.1876 0.0096 0.00202 91.875
120 1.2 288 0.2119 0.0115 0.00203 103.362
140 1.4 315 0.2318 0.0135 0.00203 112.612
160 1.6 345 0.2538 0.0154 0.00203 122.856
180 1.8 370 0.2722 0.0173 0.00204 131.244
200 2 395 0.2906 0.0192 0.00204 139.564
220 2.2 418 0.3075 0.0212 0.00205 147.111
240 2.4 440 0.3237 0.0231 0.00205 154.245
260 2.6 458 0.3370 0.0250 0.00205 159.923
280 2.8 470 0.3458 0.0269 0.00206 163.466
300 3 485 0.3568 0.0289 0.00206 168.016
320 3.2 492 0.3620 0.0308 0.00207 169.766
340 3.4 492 0.3620 0.0327 0.00207 169.092
360 3.6 410 0.3017 0.0346 0.00207 140.350
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
UCS
180
160 172 kN/m2
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040
STRAIN
APPENDIX C6
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE TEST (10% SLURRY - 7 DAYS)
10% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 7 DAYS
SAMPLE NO 1

(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00201 0.000
20 0.2 100 0.0736 0.0019 0.00201 36.447
40 0.4 170 0.1251 0.0039 0.00202 61.721
60 0.6 225 0.1655 0.0058 0.00202 81.374
80 0.8 270 0.1987 0.0077 0.00203 97.271
100 1.0 305 0.2244 0.0096 0.00203 109.454
120 1.2 343 0.2524 0.0116 0.00203 122.612
140 1.4 375 0.2759 0.0135 0.00204 133.529
160 1.6 408 0.3002 0.0154 0.00204 144.713
180 1.8 430 0.3164 0.0173 0.00205 151.919
200 2.0 458 0.3370 0.0193 0.00205 161.178
220 2.2 493 0.3627 0.0212 0.00205 172.814
240 2.4 528 0.3885 0.0231 0.00206 184.355
260 2.6 550 0.4047 0.0250 0.00206 191.279
280 2.8 576 0.4238 0.0270 0.00207 199.531
300 3.0 597 0.4392 0.0289 0.00207 205.987
320 3.2 606 0.4459 0.0308 0.00207 208.264
340 3.4 570 0.4194 0.0328 0.00208 195.113
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
250.0
UCS
210 kN/m2
200.0
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
STRAIN
APPENDIX C7
10% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 14 DAYS
SAMPLE NO 3
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00202 0.000
20 0.2 210 0.1545 0.0019 0.00202 76.236
40 0.4 340 0.2502 0.0039 0.00203 122.951
60 0.6 458 0.3370 0.0058 0.00203 164.978
80 0.8 565 0.4157 0.0077 0.00203 202.729
100 1.0 652 0.4797 0.0097 0.00204 233.033
120 1.2 723 0.5319 0.0116 0.00204 257.399
140 1.4 781 0.5746 0.0136 0.00205 276.960
160 1.6 823 0.6055 0.0155 0.00205 290.708
180 1.8 848 0.6239 0.0174 0.00205 298.362
200 2.0 854 0.6283 0.0194 0.00206 299.289
220 2.2 820 0.6033 0.0213 0.00206 286.239
240 2.4 750 0.5518 0.0232 0.00207 260.769
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
350
300 UCS
300 kPa
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
STRAIN
APPENDIX C8
10% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 28 DAYS
SAMPLE NO 3
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0020 0.000
20 0.2 370 0.2722 0.0019 0.0020 135.012
40 0.4 635 0.4672 0.0039 0.0020 230.813
60 0.6 735 0.5408 0.0058 0.0020 266.124
80 0.8 810 0.5960 0.0077 0.0020 292.139
100 1.0 870 0.6401 0.0097 0.0020 312.556
120 1.2 940 0.6916 0.0116 0.0020 336.385
140 1.4 990 0.7284 0.0135 0.0020 352.892
160 1.6 1030 0.7578 0.0155 0.0020 365.711
180 1.8 1060 0.7799 0.0174 0.0020 374.885
200 2.0 1085 0.7983 0.0194 0.0020 382.216
220 2.2 1105 0.8130 0.0213 0.0021 387.727
240 2.4 1080 0.7946 0.0232 0.0021 377.457
260 2.6 1000 0.7358 0.0252 0.0021 348.114
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
450.000
UCS
400.000 390 kPa
350.000
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
300.000
250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0.000
0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250 0.0300
STRAIN
APPENDIX C9
20% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 0 DAY
SAMPLE NO 1
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 110 0.0809 0.00194 0.00201 40.218
40 0.4 170 0.1251 0.00388 0.00201 61.914
60 0.6 220 0.1619 0.00582 0.00202 79.812
80 0.8 255 0.1876 0.00776 0.00202 92.148
100 1.0 295 0.2170 0.00970 0.00202 106.187
120 1.2 335 0.2465 0.01164 0.00203 120.113
140 1.4 373 0.2744 0.01358 0.00203 133.213
160 1.6 405 0.2980 0.01552 0.00204 144.073
180 1.8 435 0.3201 0.01746 0.00204 154.136
200 2.0 455 0.3348 0.01940 0.00204 160.587
220 2.2 470 0.3458 0.02134 0.00205 165.225
240 2.4 481 0.3539 0.02328 0.00205 168.423
260 2.6 420 0.3090 0.02522 0.00206 146.480
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
UCS
180.0 170 kN/m2
160.0
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
STRAIN
APPENDIX C10
20% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 7 DAYS
SAMPLE NO 1
Deformation Force Corrected Axial Stress,
Compression of Axial Force, P Strain
Gauge Gauge Area (A=A0/(1- V1=1000P/A
Specimen ('h) (kN) (H='h/Ho)
Reading Reading H) (kN/m2)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 130 0.0956 0.0019 0.00201 47.531
40 0.4 230 0.1692 0.0039 0.00201 83.770
60 0.6 315 0.2318 0.0058 0.00202 114.284
80 0.8 383 0.2818 0.0077 0.00202 138.417
100 1.0 455 0.3348 0.0096 0.00202 163.799
120 1.2 522 0.3841 0.0116 0.00203 187.188
140 1.4 585 0.4304 0.0135 0.00203 208.962
160 1.6 637 0.4687 0.0154 0.00204 226.648
180 1.8 678 0.4988 0.0174 0.00204 240.292
200 2.0 710 0.5224 0.0193 0.00204 250.647
220 2.2 735 0.5408 0.0212 0.00205 258.454
240 2.4 742 0.5459 0.0231 0.00205 259.888
260 2.6 680 0.5003 0.0251 0.00206 237.234
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
300
UCS
250 260 kPa
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
STRAIN
APPENDIX C11
20% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 14 DAYS
SAMPLE NO 1
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00202 0.000
20 0.2 430 0.3164 0.0019 0.00202 156.107
40 0.4 615 0.4525 0.0038 0.00203 222.410
60 0.6 695 0.5113 0.0058 0.00203 250.372
80 0.8 752 0.5533 0.0077 0.00203 269.860
100 1.0 798 0.5871 0.0096 0.00204 285.259
120 1.2 817 0.6011 0.0115 0.00204 290.919
140 1.4 790 0.5812 0.0135 0.00205 280.212
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
350
300
UCS
290 kPa
250
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016
STRAIN
APPENDIX C12
20% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 28 DAYS
SAMPLE NO 3

(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 700 0.5150 0.0019 0.00201 256.134
40 0.4 1235 0.9087 0.0039 0.00201 450.136
60 0.6 1425 1.0484 0.0058 0.00201 517.364
80 0.8 1493 1.0985 0.0078 0.00202 539.936
100 1.0 1435 1.0558 0.0097 0.00202 516.930
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
UCS
600.000
540 kPa
500.000
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
400.000
300.000
200.000
100.000
0.000
0.0000 0.0020 0.0040 0.0060 0.0080 0.0100 0.0120
STRAIN
APPENDIX C13
30% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 0 DAY
INITIAL AREA OF THE SAMPLES, A0 (m2) 0.0020
SAMPLE NO : 2

(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 70 0.0515 0.0019 0.00201 25.593
40 0.4 145 0.1067 0.0039 0.00201 52.809
60 0.6 230 0.1692 0.0058 0.00202 83.441
80 0.8 305 0.2244 0.0077 0.00202 110.220
100 1.0 360 0.2649 0.0097 0.00202 129.589
120 1.2 415 0.3053 0.0116 0.00203 148.803
140 1.4 465 0.3421 0.0136 0.00203 166.079
160 1.6 505 0.3716 0.0155 0.00204 179.658
180 1.8 545 0.4010 0.0174 0.00204 193.126
200 2.0 573 0.4216 0.0194 0.00204 202.249
220 2.2 583 0.4289 0.0213 0.00205 204.967
240 2.4 550 0.4047 0.0232 0.00205 192.601
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
250
200
UCS
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
150 205 kPa
100
50
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
STRAIN
APPENDIX C14
30% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 7 DAYS
SAMPLE NO : 2

Gauge of Specimen Gauge Area V1=1000P/A
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
Reading ('h) Reading (A=A0/(1-H) (kN/m2)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 260 0.1913 0.0019 0.00201 95.140
40 0.4 405 0.2980 0.0038 0.00201 147.629
60 0.6 505 0.3716 0.0058 0.00201 183.372
80 0.8 582 0.4282 0.0077 0.00202 210.517
100 1.0 655 0.4819 0.0096 0.00202 236.006
120 1.2 720 0.5297 0.0115 0.00203 258.422
140 1.4 783 0.5761 0.0134 0.00203 279.943
160 1.6 838 0.6166 0.0154 0.00203 298.443
180 1.8 885 0.6511 0.0173 0.00204 313.954
200 2.0 920 0.6769 0.0192 0.00204 325.096
220 2.2 942 0.6931 0.0211 0.00205 331.569
240 2.4 910 0.6695 0.0230 0.00205 319.050
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
350
UCS
300 330 kPa
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
STRAIN
APPENDIX C15
30% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 14 DAYS
SAMPLE NO 3

(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00201 0.000
20 0.2 225 0.1655 0.0019 0.00201 82.005
40 0.4 460 0.3384 0.0039 0.00202 167.007
60 0.6 695 0.5113 0.0058 0.00202 251.348
80 0.8 855 0.6291 0.0077 0.00203 308.012
100 1.0 978 0.7196 0.0097 0.00203 350.953
120 1.2 1070 0.7873 0.0116 0.00203 382.470
140 1.4 1085 0.7983 0.0135 0.00204 386.318
160 1.6 1010 0.7431 0.0155 0.00204 358.207
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
450
400
UCS
350 390 kPa
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
STRAIN
APPENDIX C16
30% SLURRY + SOIL

CURING 28 DAYS
SAMPLE NO 3
Deformation Force Corrected Axial Stress,

Compression of Axial Force, P Strain
Gauge Gauge Area (A=A 0 /(1- V1=1000P/A
Specimen ('h) (kN) (H='h/Ho)
Reading Reading H) (kN/m2)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00201 0.000
20 0.2 230 0.1692 0.0019 0.00201 83.959
40 0.4 625 0.4598 0.0039 0.00202 227.265
60 0.6 1175 0.8645 0.0058 0.00202 425.598
80 0.8 1545 1.1367 0.0078 0.00202 557.436
100 1.0 1690 1.2434 0.0097 0.00203 607.373
120 1.2 1650 1.2140 0.0116 0.00203 590.678
140 1.4 1565 1.1514 0.0136 0.00204 558.055
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
700 UCS
610 kPa
600
500
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
400
300
200
100
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016
STRAIN
APPENDIX C17
40 % SLURRY + SOIL
CURING 0 DAY
SAMPLE NO : 2

(N) (H='h/Ho)
0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 115 0.0846 0.00199 0.00201 42.075
40 0.4 190 0.1398 0.00399 0.00201 69.237
60 0.6 255 0.1876 0.00598 0.00202 92.552
80 0.8 315 0.2318 0.00798 0.00202 113.871
100 1.0 370 0.2722 0.00997 0.00202 133.216
120 1.2 412 0.3031 0.01196 0.00203 147.741
140 1.4 465 0.3421 0.01396 0.00203 166.074
160 1.6 510 0.3752 0.01595 0.00204 181.410
180 1.8 560 0.4120 0.01795 0.00204 198.388
200 2.0 605 0.4451 0.01994 0.00204 213.461
220 2.2 645 0.4746 0.02193 0.00205 226.649
240 2.4 685 0.5040 0.02393 0.00205 239.724
260 2.6 723 0.5319 0.02592 0.00206 251.990
280 2.8 755 0.5555 0.02792 0.00206 262.067
300 3.0 774 0.5695 0.02991 0.00206 267.561
320 3.2 778 0.5724 0.03190 0.00207 267.839
340 3.4 740 0.5445 0.03390 0.00207 253.709
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
300
UCS
270 kPa
250
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040
STRAIN
APPENDIX C18
40 % SLURRY + SOIL
CURING 7 DAYS
SAMPLE NO 1
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00201 0.000
20 0.2 310 0.2281 0.0019 0.00202 112.811
40 0.4 480 0.3532 0.0038 0.00202 174.007
60 0.6 620 0.4562 0.0057 0.00203 223.897
80 0.8 750 0.5518 0.0076 0.00203 269.802
100 1.0 865 0.6364 0.0096 0.00203 309.974
120 1.2 968 0.7122 0.0115 0.00204 345.546
140 1.4 1060 0.7799 0.0134 0.00204 376.925
160 1.6 1150 0.8461 0.0153 0.00205 407.345
180 1.8 1220 0.8976 0.0172 0.00205 430.463
200 2.0 1285 0.9454 0.0191 0.00205 451.635
220 2.2 1345 0.9896 0.0210 0.00206 470.882
240 2.4 1396 1.0271 0.0229 0.00206 486.829
260 2.6 1442 1.0610 0.0249 0.00207 500.905
280 2.8 1475 1.0852 0.0268 0.00207 510.361
300 3.0 1485 1.0926 0.0287 0.00207 511.804
320 3.2 1420 1.0448 0.0306 0.00208 487.477
340 3.4 1230 0.9050 0.0325 0.00208 420.587
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
600
UCS
500 510 kPa
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
400
300
200
100
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
STRAIN
AP
EN
P IXC
D 9
1
40 % SLURRY + SOIL
CURING 4A
1DYS
SAMPLE NO 3

Gauge of Specimen Gauge Area (A=A 0 /(1- V1=1000P/A
(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00200 0.000
20 0.2 400 0.2943 0.0019 0.00201 146.373
40 0.4 620 0.4562 0.0038 0.00201 226.011
60 0.6 795 0.5849 0.0057 0.00201 288.696
80 0.8 940 0.6916 0.0076 0.00202 340.044
100 1.0 1070 0.7873 0.0095 0.00202 385.585
120 1.2 1178 0.8667 0.0114 0.00203 422.871
140 1.4 1270 0.9344 0.0133 0.00203 454.139
160 1.6 1350 0.9933 0.0153 0.00203 480.882
180 1.8 1410 1.0374 0.0172 0.00204 500.311
200 2.0 1460 1.0742 0.0191 0.00204 516.044
220 2.2 1488 1.0948 0.0210 0.00205 523.898
240 2.4 1493 1.0985 0.0229 0.00205 523.613
260 2.6 1465 1.0779 0.0248 0.00205 511.789
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
600
UCS
500
2k
5a
P
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
400
300
200
100
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
STRAIN
APPENDIX C20
40 % SLURRY + SOIL
CURING 28 DAYS
SAMPLE NO : 2

(kN) (H='h/Ho)
0 0.0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00201 0.000
20 0.2 500 0.3679 0.0019 0.00201 182.236
40 0.4 1150 0.8461 0.0039 0.00202 417.525
60 0.6 1500 1.1036 0.0058 0.00202 542.493
80 0.8 1765 1.2986 0.0077 0.00203 635.861
100 1.0 1945 1.4310 0.0096 0.00203 697.989
120 1.2 2070 1.5230 0.0116 0.00203 739.959
140 1.4 2118 1.5583 0.0135 0.00204 754.168
160 1.6 2070 1.5230 0.0154 0.00204 734.200
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
800
700 UCS
760 kPa
600
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
STRAIN
APPENDIX C21
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE (UNTREATED)
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
160
140
120
100
0 DAY
7 DAYS
80
14 DAYS
28 DAYS
60
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)

40
20
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040
STRAIN
APPENDIX C22
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE (TREATED WITH 10% LIME SLURRY)
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
450
400
350
300
250 0 DAY
7 DAYS
14 DAYS
200 28 DAYS
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)

150
100
50
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040
STRAIN
APPENDIX C23
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
600
500
400
O DAY
7 DAYS
300
14 DAYS
28 DAYS
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)

200
100
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
STRAIN
APPENDIX C24
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
700.000
600.000
500.000
400.000 0 DAY
7 DAYS
14 DAYS
300.000 28 DAYS
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)

200.000
100.000
0.000
0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250
STRAIN
APPENDIX C25
STRESS-STRAIN CURVE
800
700
600
500
0 DAY
7 DAYS
400
14 DAYS
28 DAYS
300
AXIAL STRESS (kPa)

200
100
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040
STRAIN
APPENDIX C26
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT DIFFERENT CURING TIME
UCS vs CURING TIME
800
755 kPa
700
610 kPa
600
540 kPa
500
UNTREATED
390 kPa 10% SLURRY
400 20% SLURRY
30% SLURRY
40% SLURRY
300
200
140 kPa
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UCS)

100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CURING TIME
APPENDIX C27
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT VARIOUS LIME SLURRY CONTENT
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT VARIOUS LIME SLURRY CONTENT
800
755 kPa
700
600
525 kPa
500
510 kPa
0 DAY
7 DAYS
400
14 DAYS
28 DAYS
300
270 kPa
200
100
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UCS), kPa

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
LIME SLURRY (% OF WEIGHT OF WATER)
APPENDIX C28
500
450
440%
400
350
330%
300
290% 10% SLURRY
20% SLURRY
250
30% SLURRY
40% SLURRY
200
180%
150
RATE OF INCREASING IN STRENGTH (%)

100
50 MODIFICATION PROCESS STABILISATION PROCESS
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CURING TIME (DAYS)
APPENDIX C29
250
220%
200
180%
150
7 DAYS
14 DAYS
28 DAYS
100
90%
50
PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN STRENGTH (%)

OPTIMUM LIME CONTENT
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
LIME CONTENT (% OF WEIGHT OF WATER)

Determination of Optimum Concentration of Lime Slurry For Soil Stabilisation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determination of Optimum Concentration of Lime Slurry For Soil Stabilisation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determination of Optimum Concentration of Lime Slurry For Soil Stabilisation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM CONCENTRATION OF LIME SLURRY

MUHAMMAD SOFIAN ABDULLAH

A project report submitted of the fulfillment of the

Faculty of Civil Engineering

To my beloved family, Rafidah and Muhammad Hussien

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my thesis supervisor, Associate

My sincere appreciation also extends to all the staff of Geotechnical Laboratory,

I am also indebted to the librarians at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for

Keyword: Soil stabilisation, lime slurry, unconfined compressive test (UCT)

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

THESIS STATUS VALIDATION

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.4.1 Lime Mixing 56

APPENDIX A Result of Soil Classification Test 62

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Solubility of lime at different temperature (After Ng Pui

4.1 Summary of Data for Specific Gravity Test 49

4.2 Summary of data from ICL test 51

4.3 Compaction Test Result 53

4.4 Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) in

4.5 Equivalent Dry Lime for Different Concentration of Lime

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Diffuse double layer (After Braja M.Das) 6

2.2 Attraction of dipolar molecule in diffuse double layer

2.3 Reduction with time of the plasticity index due to the

2.4 The effect of lime addition on the volume change (After

2.5 Figure 2.5: Typical compaction curve due to the lime

2.6 Typical compression strength due to lime addition (After

2.7 Typical compressive strength due to lime addition and

2.8 Portable lime slaker for preparing lime slurry on site

2.9 Lime slurry application (After National Lime

2.10 Scarification after lime spreading (After National Lime

2.11 Steel wheel roller (After National Lime Association,

2.12 Prime coat emulsion for curing (After National Lime

3.1 Laboratory testing 32

3.2 Specific Gravity Vacuum 34

3.3 A set of sieves 35

3.4 Mechanical shaker 36

3.5 Hydrometer reading 36

3.6 Atterberg Limit 37

3.7 Details of cone for liquid limit test 38

3.8 Liquid limit test (cone penetration) 39

3.9 Plastic limit test 39

3.10 Mould for Compaction Test (1L Mould) 41

3.11 Dry density / Moisture content relationship curve 41

3.12 Samples preparation 45

3.13 Unconfined Compression Test Equipment 45

4.1 Cone Penetration vs Moisture Content 47

4.2 Plasticity Chart 48

4.3 Particle Size Distribution Curve 50

4.4 Standard Proctor Compaction Curve 53

4.5 Unconfined Compressive Strength at Different Curing

4.6 Unconfined Compressive Strength at Various Lime

4.7 Rate of increase in Strength 57

4.8 Percentage Increase in Strength at Various Lime Content 57

4.9 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) at 14 days with

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A1 Liquid limit Test 62

C11 Unconfined Compressive Test (20% Lime Slurry – 14 days) 81