STABILISATION OF ORGANIC CLAY USING LIME-ADDED SALT

NOR ZURAIRAHETTY BINTI MOHD YUNUS

A project report submitted of the fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master of Engineering (Civil-Geotehcnic)

Faculty of Civil Engineering Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

NOVEMBER, 2007

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank to my thesis supervisor, Professor Dr. Khairul Annuar

Kassim , for his valuable suggestions and assistance during the preparation of this

thesis. Without his guidance and support, this thesis might not have presented

here.

Thanks are due to all the staff of Geotechnical Laboratory, Faculty of Civil

Engineering, UTM, especially for Mr. Zulkifli and Mr. Abd. Samad, who are

willing to provide assistance at various occasions. My sincere appreciation also

extends to all my family members especially my parents, my siblings and my

fiance 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 helping in supplying the relevant literatures and lastly I wish to

express my sincere appreciation to all the people participates through out the

preparation of this thesis

iv

ABSTRACT

The main objective of this research is to investigate effectiveness of salts

used as an additive in lime-stabilized organic clay. Lime is known to be an

effective stabilization method for clayey soil. However for organic clay it

becomes less effective due to low increase in strength. Therefore salts are used to

accelerate lime-organic clay reactions. Salts are introduced to remove the barrier

in order to accelerate as well as help lime to increase the strength of soil. Two

types of salts used are sodium chloride (NaCl) and calcium chloride (CaCl2). The

unconfined compressive test (UCT) is conducted on 108 remolded samples (38mm

x 80mm) for 0,7,14 and 28 days of curing period. The test results indicated that

when NaCl or CaCl2 is added to the lime-organic clay mixture, the strength of

mixture increases with increasing salt concentration. The strength of clay

stabilized with lime and sodium chloride is higher than clay stabilized with lime

and calcium chloride at a 10% salt concentration. The highest unconfined

compressive strength (UCS) achieved is 777kPa for clay stabilized with 10% lime

and 10% NaCl cured at 28 days.

Keyword: Lime Stabilization, Salt Additive, Organic Clay

v

ABSTRAK

Tujuan utama kajian ini dijalankan adalah untuk menentukan dan

mengenalpasti keberkesanan penggunaan garam sebagai salah satu bahan reagen

tambahan terhadap kapur dalam menstabilkan tanah liat berorganik. Umum

mengetahui bahawa penggunaan kapur dalam menstabilkan tanah merupakan satu

kaedah yang efektif. Walau bagaimanpun, bagi tanah liat berorganik, pendekatan

ini kurang efektif ekoran daripada kekuatan tanah yang rendah. Oleh itu, garam

digunakan untuk mempercepatkan tindak balas antara tanah liat dan kapur

sekaligus membantu meningkatkan kekuatan tanah tersebut. Dua jenis garam

yang digunakan adalah Sodium Klorida (NaCl) dan Kalsium Klorida (CaCl2).

Ujian Mampatan tak Terkurung dijalankan ke atas 108 sampel (38mm x 80mm)

untuk tempoh 0, 7, 14, dan 28 hari. Keputusan ujikaji menunjukkan bahawa

apabila NaCl atau CaCl2 ditambah ke atas campuran tanah liat dan kapur, kekuatan

campuran tersebut meningkat dengan pertambhan kandungan garam. Kekuatan

tanah liat yang distabilkan dengan kapur dan NaCl adalah lebih tinggi berbanding

tanah liat yang distabilkan dengan CaCl2 pada kepekatan garam 10%. Kekuatan

mampatan tak terkurung yang tertinggi dicapai ialah sebanyak 777kPa apabila

tanah liat distabilkan dengan 10% kapur dan 10% NaCl pada hari ke 28.

Katakunci: Penstabilan Kapur, Garam, Tanah Liat Berorganik

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

THESIS STATUS VALIDATION

TITLE i

DECLARATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

ABSTRACT iv

ABSTRAK v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES x

LIST OF APPENDICES xiii

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Study 1

1.2 Problem Statement 2

1.3 Objectives 3

1.4 Scope of Study 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Clay Behaviour 4

2.2 Ground / Soil Improvement 6

2.3 Lime Stabilisation 8

2.3.1 Lime Clay Reactions 11

vii

2.3.2 Mechanisms of Lime Stabilisation 11

2.3.3 Factors that Control Hardening

Characteristics of Lime Treated Clay 13

2.3.4 Effect of Sulphate in Soil-Lime

Reactions 14

2.4 Additive Chemical Stabilizer 16

2.5 Recommended Construction Procedure 18

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Laboratory Testing 23

3.2 Soil Testing 25

3.2.1 Specific Gravity 25

3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution 26

3.2.3 Atterberg Limit 28

3.2.3.1 Plastic Limit 29

3.2.3.2 Liquid Limit 29

3.2.3.3 Plasticity Index 30

3.2.4 Standard Proctor 31

3.2.5 Loss of Ignition 33

3.3 Lime Testing 34

3.3.1 Initial Consumption Lime 34

3.3.2 Lime Fixation Capacity 35

3.3.3 Available Lime Content 35

3.4 Lime-Additive Salt Stabilize Soil Testing 36

3.4.1 Unconfined Compression Test 36

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Soil Classification 38

4.1.1 Atteberg Limit 38

4.1.2 Specific Gravity 40

4.1.3 Particle Size Distribution 40

viii

4.2 Initial Lime Consumption (ICL) 42

4.3 Available Lime Content (ALC) 42

4.4 Loss of Ignition 43

4.5 Standard Proctor Compaction Test 43

4.6 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) 44

5 CONCLUSION 50

REFERENCES 52

APPENDIX A Result of Soil Classification Test 55

APPENDIX B Result of Loss on Ignition Test 61

APPENDIX C Result of Compaction Test 62

APPENDIX D Result of Unconfined Compressive Test 71

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Applicability of Ground Improvement 7

for Different Soil Types (After Kamon

and Bergado, 1991)

4.1 Summary of data for Specific Gravity Test 40

4.2 Compaction Test Result 44

4.3 Summary Result of Unconfined Compressive 45

Strength

x

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Schematic Diagram of the Clay Structure

(After Lambe,1953) 5

2.2 The Influence of Temperature on Unconfined

Compression Strength (After Bell, 1996) 9

2.3 Effect on Lime Addition on the Plasticity

(After Sherwood, 1967) 10

2.4 Reaction Mechanisms Involved in the Hardening

Effect of Improved Soil (After Rajasekaran, 2005) 15

2.5 Clay Stabilized with 10% Lime and Various

Contents of CaCl2 and NaCl at a 28 day Curing

Period (After Koslanant, Onitsuka & Negami,

2006) 16

2.6 Comparison of Strength of Clay Stabilized

with 10% lime and CaCl2 and NaCl

(After Koslanant, Onitsuka & Negami, 2006) 17

2.7 Clay Particles Before and after Adding

Salt (After Koslanant, Onitsuka & Negami, 2006) 18

xi

2.8 Spreader used to Distribute Lime

(After National Lime Association, 2004 ) 19

2.9 Bulk Air Tanker Used to Fill spreader

(After National Lime Association, 2004) 20

2.10 Wirtgen Recycler WR2500 Rotovator 20

2.11 Addition of Water through the Hood of a

Rotovator during mixing 21

2.12 Compaction of Lime Stabilized clay Using

a Smooth Wheeled Roller (After National Lime

Association, 2004) 22

3.1 Flow Chart for Laboratory Testing 24

3.2 Specific Gravity Vacuum 25

3.3 A set of Sieves 26

3.4 Mechanical Shaker 27

3.5 Hydrometer Reading 27

3.6 Parameters of Atterberg Limit 28

3.7 Plastic Limit Test 29

3.8 Liquid Limit Test 30

xii

3.9 Consistency States of Fine Grained Soils 31

3.10 Mould for Compaction 32

3.11 Typical Compaction Curves 33

3.12 Samples Preparation 37

3.13 Unconfined Compression Test Equipment 37

4.1 Cone Penetration vs Moisture Content 38

4.2 Plasticity Chart 39

4.3 Soil Particle Distribution Chart 41

4.4 UCS of clay and lime treated clay at different 46

curing period

4.5 UCS on clay stabilized with 10% lime and various 47

contents of NaCl and CaCl2.

4.6 Result of unconfined compressive strength on clay

stabilized with 10% lime and various of NaCl at

different curing period 47

4.6 Result of unconfined compressive strength on clay

stabilized with 10% lime and varius of CaCl2 at

different curing period 48

4.8 Rate of increase in strength 49

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A1 Atterberg Limit Test 55

A2 Specific Gravity Test 56

A3 Particle Size Distribution 57

B1 Loss on Ignition Test 61

C1 Compaction Test (Untreated Clay) 62

C2 Compaction Test (Clay + 5%lime) 63

C3 Compaction Test (Clay + 10%lime) 64

C4 Compaction Test (Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%CaCl2) 65

C5 Compaction Test (Clay + 10%lime + 5%CaCl2) 66

C6 Compaction Test (Clay + 10%lime + 10%CaCl2) 67

C7 Compaction Test (Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%NaCl) 68

C8 Compaction Test (Clay + 10%lime + 5%NaCl) 69

C9 Compaction Test (Clay + 10%lime + 10%NaCl) 70

D1 Unconfined Compressive Test (0 DAY) 71

D2 Unconfined Compressive Test (7 DAYS) 80

D3 Unconfined Compressive Test (14 DAYS) 89

D4 Unconfined Compressive Test (28 DAYS) 98

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Most of the problem encountered by geotechnical engineers at construction site

is the properties of material are unable to reach the required specification. These

problems normally face by soft soil such as organic clay. As we know, soil are complex

and has variable material and commonly soil is unsuited to the requirements of the

construction either wholly or partially (Ingles, 1972). Generally, clays exhibit low

strength and high compressibility. Many are sensitive, in the sense that their strength is

reduced by mechanical disturbance (T.S Nagaraj & Norihiko Miuro, 2001). Hence, the

construction over clay soil may experience bearing capacity failure induced by its low

shear strength. Therefore clay soil has to be improved before any engineering works can

commence.

The important of a basic decision must therefore to take into account whether to

use the original site material and design to standard sufficient by its existing quality or;

to replace the site material with the superior material or; create a new site material that

suite to the standard requirement by alter the properties of existing material which

known as soil stabilization (Ingles, 1972). Replacement of this poor soil by suitable

imported fill materials is one of the conventional solutions. However this method is

naturally very expensive especially when encountered with a thick layer. Stabilization

of soil with lime is the most economical method and has been widely used for centuries.

Lime act as the balancer which will give a significant change in the soil’s engineering

properties (Roger, Glendinning & Dixon, 1996). The stabilizing effect depends on the

reaction between lime and the soil minerals. The main effect of this reaction is an

increase in the shear strength and bearing capacity of the soil.

Although the use of lime stabilization of soil has been used extensively, but the

effect of lime alone is not the most effective stabilizer for clay soil due to low increase in

strength (Koslanant, Onitsuka & Negami, 2006). This is because, the organic matters

have tendency to coat the soil particles causing the obstruction when lime is used as well

as reducing the effectiveness of lime stabilization. Stabilization must therefore be

considered as having both of salt used as an additive in lime-stabilized organic soils.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The most critical problem of construction on organic clay is low undrained shear

strength and low bearing capacity. This result influenced by the appearances of some

organic matter which consist of humic acid more than 2%. Organic matter will act as

‘masking’ in which it will coat the primary source of organic clay minerals (silica and

alumina) thus will effect the pozzolanic reaction in stabilization process. Even though

many research done proves that lime can be used as a methods of ground improvement,

but the significant increase of soil strength is still lower due to a reduction in compacted

dry unit weight of clay soil (B.Dan Marks & T.Allen Haliburton, 1972). Indicates that

by using salts as an additive in lime, the strength of clay soils will increase much better

compared to the used of lime alone.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to:

i. Evaluate the effectiveness of salt-lime for clay soil in comparison with lime-clay

soil mixture.

ii. To determine the percentage of strength increment for clay soil obtained between

two salts mixture at different concentration.

1.4 SCOPE OF STUDY

This study focused on the strength characteristic of the clay soil by using unconfined

compression test. The soil samples from clay obtained at Masjid Tanah, Melaka. To

extend this finding in an application, various proportions of lime with addition of

various proportions sodium chloride (NaCl) and calcium chloride (CaCl2) were

examined for clay soil stabilization. Results given will be compared between the two

different mixture lime-salts and different concentration of lime-salts with its strength

gain. Hydrated lime will be used in this research since it is not too exothermic and

harmful to the skin compared to quicklime. The concentration of salts used are 2.5%,

5%, and 10% performed on the samples at curing periods of 7,14, and 28 days.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Clay Behaviour

In geotechnical field, an engineer will works with soil, which consist of the entire

thickness of the earth’s crust. From the geotechnical engineering viewpoint, clay is a

kind of cohesive soil, which is very weak, and its strength will decrease by influence of

climate or the water content in the soil. Slightly different from a clay soil; an organic

clay is defined if any clay soil containing a sufficient amount of organic matter to affect

its engineering properties. It is a matter of common experience that bearing capacity or

strength of any organic clay is low because of high organic matter. This is because

organic matter contains harmful materials such as humic acid and humates. Based on

the United Soil Classification system (USCS) organic soil can be categorized into peat,

silt and clay. The amount of organic contents is difference from each of them. Based on

the Institut Kerja Raya Malaysia (IKRAM) the amount of organic content in clay is

around 20-75%.

Silicates (feldspars), oxides (silica and iron), carbonates (calcium and

magnesium), and sulphates (calcium) are the common minerals of clay. The

mineralogical composition of clays range from kaolins (made up of individual particles

which cannot be readily divided, through illites to montmorillonites and other non-sheet-

clay minerals (T.S Nagaraj & Norihiko Miuro, 2001). Kaolins made up of individual

5

particles which cannot be readily divided. Illite is another important constituents of clay

soils which have a crystal structure similar to the mica minerals but with less potassium;

thus they are chemically much more active than other mica (Robert D. Holtz, 1981).

Monmorillonites composed of two silica sheets and one alumina sheet, thus it is

called a 2:1 mineral. As determined by the clay fraction and clay mineralogy

respectively, and its stress history, and the properties of a clay soil are largely controlled

by the amount and type of clay in the soil. Most of the researcher said that clay usually

encountered with a lot of problems due to their compressibility, shear strength and

permeability characteristics. Therefore it is necessary to determine those characteristics

for a rational approach to find a solution to geotechnical problems encountered in clay

soil.

(a) illite (b) kaolininite

(c) montmorillonite

Figure 2.1: Schematic diagram of the clay structure (after Lambe,1953)

6

2.2 Ground / Soil Improvement

There were a lot of soil improvement techniques for the purpose of to improve

those soil characteristics that achieve the desired results of project. Most of the

techniques contribute great opportunity in geotechnical engineering such as an increase

in shear strength, the reduction of soil compressibility, influencing permeability to

reduce and control ground water flow or to increase the arte of consolidation, or to

improve soil homogeneity (Kirch & Moseley, 2005). Therefore soil improvement is a

very important study in geotechnical engineering to avoid failure in construction.

Depends on the suitability of the soil characteristics, various methods have been

introduced and tested which may impact on their utilization to specific projects on soft

ground. Most probably the methods are not only limited on a specific techniques only,

but also include some other soil improvement methods. Therefore thorough

investigation should be carrying out in order to choose the most appropriate methods.

Most probably in the road construction, it is expensive to remove large volumes

of unsatisfactory soils and replace them with more suitable material, especially if it is

needs to be imported. Therefore, much concern upon finding methods of modifying the

properties of soils should take into consideration. Emphasizes on alter the soil

properties to meet specific engineering requirements, mostly known as soil stabilization.

Special stabilization methods may be classified into three groups, namely mechanical,

physical and chemical stabilizers. Commonly vibroflotation technique, vertical drain

and geotextile were three of mechanical method used to improve the soil by use of other

materials that do not affect any property of contingent soil itself (Ingles, 1972).

The physical stabilizers, which modify the soil properties by heat and electricity,

are such thermal stabilization and pressure stabilization. Based on study done by

Sokolovich (1988), application of chemical method to stabilize organic clay is

7

sufficiently reliable to modify the soil properties by means of some solid or liquid

additive and in many cases it is the only possible measure for strengthening weak soil.

Chemical soil stabilization favourably change soil-water interactions by surface

reactions in such manner to make the behaviour of soil modified to its intended used.

There are many types of chemical methods suggested for soils as well as organic clay

are such as cement, bitumen, calcium salts and lime. As mentioned before lime

stabilisation is one of the many processes available in which it will explain detailed in

this chapter.

Table 2.1: Applicability of Ground Improvement for Different Soil Types (After Kamon

and Bergado, 1991)

8

2.3 Lime Stabilisation

The use of lime in soil stabilization is referring to the chemical admixture which

has been widely used for centuries (Bergado, 2002). Kelly (1997) found that not only

did the process result in savings in construction cost due to save in import new materials,

but the roads and airfields performed well over 25-30 years period with minimal

maintenance. For the purpose of road construction, it is vital to improve sub-base and

subgrades, for railroad and airport construction, for embankments, as soil exchange in

unstable slopes, as backfill for bridge abutments and retaining wall, as canal linings for

improvement of soil beneath foundation slabs and lime piles (Bell, 1996).

Calcium oxide (quicklime or burnt lime) and calcium hydroxide (slaked or

hydrated lime) are types of lime commonly used in soil stabilization (Greaves, 1997).

Both of those lime can be used for soil stabilization depend on its suitability with the

local soil. Temperature of 1250°C needs to heat calcium carbonates in kilns to drive off

calcium dioxide in order to produce quicklime while for hydrated lime, hydration

process by adding water to quicklime (Ng Pui Ling, 2005).

Moreover stabilization of clay soils with hydrated lime is quite similar to cement

stabilization in terms of testing and procedure of construction technique employed

(Ingles, 1972). The differences of hydrated lime only in two important aspects; first it is

applicable to far heavier, clayey soils, and is less suitable for granular materials; and

secondly, it is used more widely as a construction practice to support construction

traffic. Even though quicklime may be effective in some cases but hydrated lime is most

widely used for stabilization. This is because quicklime will corrosively attack

equipment and there is a risk of severe skin burns to individual.

Most probably, the properties of lime-stabilized soils have a similar manner to

that found with cement-stabilized soils. However slightly difference lie mainly in the

effect of additive content, time and temperature (Ingles, 1972). Indicate that the more

9

rapid gain in strength with increasing temperature (Fig 2.2) may be one reason for the

widespread use of lime in warmer climates such as Malaysia. By using lime as stabilizer

also gives an instantaneous effect in most cases on the plasticity of clay (Fig.2.3).

The stabilizing effect depends on the reaction between lime and the clay

minerals. By using lime for soil stabilization, a number of benefits are obvious such as

an increase in the shear strength and bearing capacity of the soil, a reduction in the

susceptibility to swelling and shrinkage, an improvement in the resistant to bad weather

and reduce the moisture content in order to improve the workability and compaction

characteristics. Lime stabilization of soils can be used when greater soil strength and

stability is required, on sites easily affected by adverse weather conditions and if

materials are unacceptably wet or plastic (Greaves 1997).

Fig 2.2: The influence of temperature on unconfined compression strength (after Bell,

1996)

10

Fig 2.3: Effect on lime addition on the Plasticity (after Sherwood, 1967)

2.3.1 Lime Clay Reactions

Modification and stabilization are the process cause by the reaction between lime

and clay (Rogers & Glendinning, 1997). Modification is a short term reaction which

occurs rapidly within 24 to 72 hours after addition of lime and clay. During the process,

dehydration reaction takes place to remove water through the production of steam. In

addition, metal ions associated with the clay may exchange with calcium ions released

by the lime. This flocculation reaction will cause plasticity of clay decreased and

11

increased the strength of the soil under any given normal stress condition (Rogers &

Glendinning, 1997).

Soil stabilization occurs more slowly when sufficient lime is added to clay in

order to generate long term strength gain through a pozzolanic reaction (Ng Pui Ling,

2005). This pozzolanic reaction makes the clay soils chemically changed and produced

stable calcium silicate hydrates and calcium aluminates hydrates as the calcium from the

lime reacts with silicates and aluminates from the clay (Muhammad Sofian, 2006).

There are some predominant factors affect the lime-clay reaction such as type of lime,

lime content, curing time, curing temperature and clay minerals (Bergado, 2002). Three

primary factors of lime modification and stabilization that commonly measured are

material nature, change in plasticity, and increase in strength (Rogers & Glendinning,

1997).

2.3.2 Mechanisms of Lime Stabilisation

Three mainly reactions which give a major strength gain of lime treated clay are

dehydration of soil, ion exchange and flocculation, and pozzolanic reaction.

Mechanisms such as carbonation only cause minor strength increase of soil and can be

neglected. The use of lime as a natural stabilizing agent for clay will produce a binder

by slow chemical reactions mainly with silicates in the clay mineral (Broms, 1984).

Ca(OH)2 formed due to hydration process when lime (CaO) is added to soil (Koslanant,

Onitsuka & Negami, 2006). During the hydration process, larger amount of pore water

evaporates because of the heavy heat release induced by an increase of temperature

(Miura & Balasubramaniam, 2002).

CaO + H2O Ca(OH)2 + HEAT (280 Cal/gm of CaO)

12

Moreover, in order to make the ion exchange possible between calcium ions of

hydrated lime and the alkali ions of the clay minerals, water left after evaporation must

be sufficiently enough. Therefore, it is vital to know that water content of the base clay

enough. An exchange of ions between clay minerals and lime depends on cation

exchange capacities (i.e. concentration of calcium ions) which highly depend on the pH

of the soil water and the type of clay mineral. Based on Bergado (2002)

montmorillonites have the highest capacity compared to illite and kaolinite. Hence, lime

will caused clay to flocculate thus make the clay plasticity reduced and making it more

workable as well as increased its strength (Koslanant, Onitsuka & Negami, 2006). The

results in the flocculation of the clay particles is caused by dissociated bivalent calcium

ions in the pore water replacing univalent alkali ions that normally attracted to the

negatively charged clay particles.

New compounds such as calcium silicate hydrate and calcium alluminate

hydrates gels are formed as a result of pozzolanic reactions in which subsequently

crystallize to bind the structure together (Rogers & Glendinning, 1997). These reactions

take places as hydroxyl ions released from the lime which in turn dissolved silica and

alumina from the clay minerals.

Ca++ + Clay Ca++ exchanged with monovalent ions (K+, Na+ )

Ca++ + 2(OH)- + SiO2 CSH

Ca++ + 2(OH)- + Al2SiO3 CAH

13

2.3.3 Factors that Control Hardening Characteristics of Lime Treated Clay

i. Type of Lime:

As mentioned previously, quicklime is generally more effective than hydrated

lime. However it needs care in handling for soils with high moisture contents.

Therefore the used of hydrated lime become necessary because it poses much

less of storage problem as it is no longer so susceptible to humidity (O.G.Ingles,

1972). Furthermore, hydrated lime is recommended for organic soils in order to

gain the strength of that particular soil (Moseley & Kirsch, 2005). This is

because; the reaction of the organic material will reduce the pH and the

pozzolanic reactions.

ii. Optimum Lime Content:

Note, the strength of soil will increase as the lime content is increased. However,

until a certain level, the rate of increase then diminishes until no further strength

gain occurs. For a particular condition of curing time and soil type, there is a

corresponding optimum lime content which causes the maximum strength

increase (Balasubramaniam, 2002).

iii. Lime Fixation Point:

The lime fixation point or can also referred as the “lime retention point”. This is

explained by the point at which the percentage of lime is such that additional

increments of lime remain constant in the plastic limit. Even though at this

point, soil will generally contribute to the improvement in soil workability, but

strength of soil results no increases (Bergado, Anderson, Miura,

Balasubramaniam, 2002).

iv. Curing Time:

In almost all the other cases the length of time involved in curing generally rise

in strength with increasing length of curing time. Based on research done by

14

Bell (1996), the most notable increases in strength occur within the first 7 days

when pozzolanic reactions are more active.

v. Type of Soil:

For lime treatment to be successful, the shear strength of the clay soil is highly

dependent on pozzolanic reactions due to reactions of lime with the silicates and

aluminates in the soil.

vi. Soil pH:

Solubility of soil will increase with the increase of pH of the water content in soil

by addition of lime. Due to the increased solubility of the silicates and

aluminates, the pozzolanic reactions will accelerate thus give pH-value more

than 12 (Broms, 1984). Study done by Davidson (1965), has suggest that a

minimum pH of approximately 10.5 is necessary for pozzolanic reaction to take

place. The high alkaline environment promotes the dissolution of silica and

alumina from the clay particles.

vii. Curing Temperature:

The influence of curing temperature on the development of strength is favored by

a high temperature (George, Ponniah & little, 1992). The favorable effect of

high curing temperature is due to the increased solubility of the silicates and

aluminates in the clay (Bergado, Anderson, Miura, Balasubramaniam, 2002).

2.3.3 Effect of Sulphate in Soil-Lime Reactions

It is important to know that the presence of sulphates either in ground or mixing

water may affect the cation exchange and pozzolanic reactions of lime treated soil

systems (Rajasekaran, 2005). The atterberg limits and compaction characteristics of

lime treated clay will be influenced by the reaction of cation exchange. This is due to

15

the broken bonds of soil particle edges and unbalanced ionic substitution within the clay

mineral lattice result in increasing negative charges of soil system.

The sulhates, for example gypsum, react with lime and cause swelling which can

be danger to the material’s strength and cause deformation of any final surface (Perry,

Macneil & Wilson, 1996). Cations, concentration of sulphates and clay minerals

composition (available alumina and silica) are the several factors that influence the lime

treated soil properties.

Fig 2.4: Reaction mechanisms involved in the hardening effect of improved soil (after

Rajasekaran, 2005)

16

2.4 Additive “Chemical” Stabilizer

Chemical stabilizer mostly functions to modify the soil properties by means of

some solid or liquid additive (Ingles & Metcalf, 1972). The addition of salt, may act as

catalyzer to accelerate as well as help lime to increase the strength of soil. Two types of

salts commonly used were sodium chloride (NaCl) and calcium chloride (CaCl2). The

used of salts to accelerate lime- organic clay reactions is because lime has little effect in

highly organic soils (Ingles, 1972).

The presence of sodium ions will catalyzed soil silica dissolution process in

lime-clay reaction. Some adverse effect found in calcium chloride instead of their

similar effects as sodium chloride which is increase the permeability (Ingles & Metcalf,

1972). Besides, based on previous research, sodium chloride alters mineralogy of

treated clays and produces new mineral formation at both modification and stabilization

lime contents compared to calcium chloride (B.Dan Marks & T.Allen Haliburton, 1972).

Figure 2.5: Clay stabilized with 10% lime and various contents of CaCl2 and NaCl at

a 28 day curing period (After Koslanant, Onitsuka & Negami, 2006)

17

Figure 2.6: Comparison of strength of Clay stabilized with 10% lime and CaCl2 and

NaCl (After Koslanant, Onitsuka & Negami, 2006)

As showed in (Fig. 2.7) the cation of organic will coagulate with salt and let the clay

to expose to lime for pozzolanic reaction as described by Stevenson (1994). On the

other hand, salts also cause flocculation of the soil. Consequently by these two actions,

the lime-salt mixtures can yield a higher strength. It may conclude that salt may

contribute to coagulate with organic cation and reduce pore space between soil particles

(Koslanant, Onitsuka & Negami, 2006). However additive salt may be costly and will

be harmful to environment if utilizing with large quantity. Therefore additive salt in

lime stabilization shall be performed with caution based on the economical and

environmental aspects.

18

Figure 2.7: Clay particles before and after adding salt (After Koslanant, Onitsuka &

Negami, 2006)

2.5 Recommended Construction Procedure

There are some fundamental things to be considered in order to accomplish

stabilization which are either to add the stabilizing agent to the soil or material or to put

the stabilized material into the condition in which it fulfill its purpose. Depends upon

local condition and simply the availability of specialized equipment, many of the

machines and equipment can be used based on their features in selection and operation.

Mix-in-place technique was the most widely process of soil stabilization at the

surface for road pavement construction (Ingles, 1972). Generally, the same procedure

currently adopted for lime stabilized clay whether for bulkfill, capping or sub-base

applications (Smith, 1997). Each stages of this process are considered in detail below:

1) Prepare formation to level:

The formation should be trimmed and compacted to the level of final treated

layer. With allowance made for up to 10% bulking, due to the effect of lime,

19

normal formation tolerance is around +20-30mm. It is important to remember

that the accuracy of the mixing depth, final thickness and overall strength and

consistency of the layer are much dependent on the level and density of the soil

prior to treatment.

2) Lime spreading:

Lime will be spread to the prepared formation surface by spreader (either

motorized or towable) (Fig.2.8) and are filled from a bulk air tanker (Fig.2.9).

According to minimum dosage required after prior testing, the required weight of

lime is calculated on the dry density of the untreated soil.

Figure 2.8: Spreader used to distribute lime (After National Lime Association,

2004 )

20

Figure 2.9: Bulk air tanker used to fill spreader (After National Lime Association, 2004)

3) Initial mixing and pulverisation:

Mixing is carried out by a rotovator (Fig.2.10) once the lime has been spread on

the formation. Usually more than one pass of the rotovator is required to achieve

the consistent and homogenous mix necessary during the initial mixing stage

prior to maturing.

Figure 2.10: Wirtgen recycler WR2500 rotovator

21

4) Water addition:

It is necessary to add water through the hood of the rotovator from a browser

traveling during initial mixing and pulverization. This is because to make sure

that the lime will react with clay. Water is added to achieve the required

moisture content to satisfy compaction and strength criteria, typically an MCV of

8 to 12.

Figure 2.11: Addition of water through the hood of a rotovator during mixing

5) Trimming and light compaction:

Prior to a maturing period of between 24 to 72 hours, the material is given a final

trim and compaction when initial mixing and water addition is complete. Light

compaction is required to bring the lime into intimate contact with the clay,

minimizes evaporation loss, reduces possible damage from rain and reduces the

risk of lime carbonation.

22

Figure 2.12: Compaction of lime stabilized clay using a smooth wheeled roller (After

National Lime Association, 2004)

6) Maturing period:

In order to allow modification of the soil to occur, a maturing period of 24 to 72

hours is required. The reason of maturing period is to allow lime to slake,

provides time for the lime to migrate through the soil, and as a result of the

plasticity changes, makes mixing and breakdown of the clay to achieve the

required pulverization much easier.

7) Remix and add water. Add salts(at certain concentration):

Using the rotovator, re-mixing and final water adjustment will takes place to

finally achieve the required pulverization and MCV range.

8) Final compaction, checking density and air voids:

To ensure long-term strength and durability of the lime stabilized layer, an

adequate final compaction is really necessary. Surface irregularities can be

corrected during the final compaction stage by trimming using a grader.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 LABORATORY TEST

There are some test should be conducted for soil and lime in the laboratory to

ensure the soil is suitable for stabilization and adequate amount of lime to be used. To

examine the influence of soil stabilization through an addition of salts lime with NaCl

and CaCl2 were performed by different concentration ranges from 2.5%, 5%, and 10%.

The increase of strength then will determine through out the test. Different of salt

content will mix with lime at the optimum concentration of lime and some testing should

be conducted such as compaction test and unconfined compression test at curing period

7, 14, and 28 days. Emphasize here are the laboratory testing on lime and soil.

Geotechnical assessment of samples was undertaken by laboratory testing at

Geotechnical Laboratory, UTM, Skudai. Flow chart for laboratory testing is showing in

figure 3. The importance of each test and their functions are as follows:

24

Figure 3.1: Flow chart for laboratory testing

LAB TESTING

METHODOLOGY

SOIL LIME

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

STANDARD PROCTOR

ATTERBERG LIMIT

MIX ORGANIC CLAY + LIME + ADDITIVE SALT

LL HYDROMETER SIEVING PI PL

AVAILABLE LIME CONTENT (ALC)

INITIAL CONSUMPTION OF LIME (ICL)

CURING COMPACTION TEST

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE TEST (UCT)

LOSS OF IGNITION

25

3.2 Soil Testing:

Soil testing is carrying out to evaluate key soil characteristics as an initial

step to determine if it is suitable for lime stabilization. The detailed explanations

on each of the soil testing are as follows:

3.2.1 Specific Gravity

Based on BS1377:1990, the aim of this test is to define the average specific

gravity (Gs) that useful for determining the weight-volume relationship. It is the

ratio between the unit masses of soil particles and water. Determination of the

volume of a mass of dry soil particles is obtained by placing the soil particles in a

glass bottle filled completely with desired distilled water. The bottles and it

contents are shaken (for coarse-grained soils) or placed under vacuum (for finer-

grained soils) in order to remove all of the air trapped between the soil particles.

Figure 3.2: Specific gravity vacuum

26

3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution

The method to determined particle sizes distribution is defined in BS 1377:

Part 2: 1990 to check that there is an adequate content of material passing 63

microns. The mixture of different particle sizes and the distribution of these sizes

give very useful information about the engineering behaviors of the soil. The

particle size distribution is determined by separate the particles using two

processes which is sieving analysis or hydrometer analysis. Sieve analysis for

particle sizes larger than 0.075mm in diameter; and hydrometer analysis for

particle sizes smaller than 0.075mm in diameter are the method usually used to

find size distribution of soil.

1) Sieve Analysis:

The grain size distribution curve of soil samples is determined by passing

them through a stack of sieves of decreasing mesh-opening sizes and by measuring

the weight retained on each sieve. The analysis also can be performed either in

wet or dry conditions. Soil with negligible amount of plastic fines, such as gravel

and clean sand will analysed by dry sieving while wet sieving is applied to soils

with plastic fines.

Figure 3.3: A set of sieves

27

2) Hydrometer Analysis:

Hydrometer analysis is based on the principles expressed by Stokes’ law

which it is assumed that dispersed soil particles of various shapes and sizes fall in

water under their own weight as non-interacting spheres.

Figure 3.4: Mechanical Shaker

Figure 3.5: Hydrometer Reading

28

3.2.3 Atterberg Limit

It is important to carry out several simple tests to describe the plasticity of

clay to avoid shrinkage and cracking when fired. Atterberg limit described an

amount of water contents at certain limiting or critical stages in soil behavior. If

we know where the water content of our sample is relative to the atterberg limits,

then we already know a great deal about the engineering response of our sample.

This test was carried out in order to determine the stiffness of clay and parameters

measured are plastic limit (PL) and liquid limit (LL). The behavior of soil in term

of plasticity index (PI) is determined by using this formula;

Figure 3.6: Parameters of Atterberg Limit

PI = LL - PL

29

3.2.3.1 Plastic Limit

Plastic limit represent the moisture content at which soil changes from

plastic to brittle state. It is the upper strength limit of consistency. Casagrande

(1932) suggested that the simple method to do this test is by rolling a thread of soil

(on a glass plate) until it crumbles at a diameter of 3 mm. Sample will reflects as

wet side of the plastic limit if the thread can be rolled in diameter of below 3 mm,

and the dry side if the thread breaks up and crumbles before it reaches 3 mm

diameter.

Figure 3.7: Plastic limit test

3.2.3.2 Liquid Limit

Liquid limit is expressed in terms of water content as a percentage. It is

essentially a measure of a constant value of a lower strength limit of viscous

shearing resistance as the soil approaches the liquid state. As described in most

books on soil mechanics, cone penetrometer method (BS 1377:1990) is the most

reliable method for determining a liquid limit.

30

The equipment consists of a 30° cylindrical cone with a sharp point and a

smooth polished surface. The total mass of 80 g is allowed to fall freely will

penetrate a distance of 20 mm in 5 seconds from a position of point contact with

the soil surface. Several more tests will be conducted with further additions of

distilled water and a plot of cone penetration versus moisture content is obtained.

The liquid limit of the soil is taken as the moisture content at a penetration of

20mm.

Figure 3.8: Liquid limit test

3.2.3.3 Plasticity Index

Plasticity index (PI) is defined as a range of water content where the soil is

plastic. Therefore it is a numerically equal to the difference between the liquid

limit (LL) and the plastic limit (PL). Many engineering properties have been

found to empirically correlate with the PI, and it is also useful in engineering

classification of fine-grained soils.

31

Figure 3.9: Consistency states of fine grained soils

3.2.4 Standard Proctor

The procedure for conducting this test is described in BS 1377: Part 4:

1990. Test carried out to measure the degree of compaction in terms of its dry unit

weight. The optimum moisture content then will be determined. The principle of

compaction as explained in theory is completely removed the air fraction.

However in practice, compaction cannot completely eliminate the air fraction, but

only reduces it to a minimum.

Water will act as a softening agent when it is added to the soil particles.

This situation will makes the soil particles slip over each other and move into

densely packed position. After compaction, the dry unit weight is increase as the

moisture content increase. However, at certain level of moisture content, any

increase in the moisture content tends to reduce the dry unit weight of soil. This is

the results of water that takes up spaces that would have been occupied by the

32

solid particles. Optimum moisture content (OMC) then is referred to the moisture

content at which the maximum dry unit weight (MDD) is attained.

The soil is compacted in three layers with equal thickness into a metal of

105 mm diameter and of 1L or 1000 cm3 capacity as shown in figure 3.9. 2.5 kg

mass falling freely through each layer at a height of 300 mm, with 25 blows in the

one liter mould. In order to ensure the final compacted, the surface must lies just

above the top of the mould. The mould and soil are weighed after the soil surface

is trimmed with the top of the mould so that its volume can be taken as 1L. The

bulk density or unit weight of the soil can be determined by subtracting the weight

of the mould.

Figure 3.10: Mould for compaction

At least five density values are needed before the optimum moisture

content is obtained. The dry density of the soil is calculated and plotted versus

moisture. Instead of to know the OMC and MDD of soil, the determination of

OMC and MDD also necessary to get after lime has been added to the soil. This is

because adding lime will change the soil’s OMC and MDD.

33

Figure 3.11: Typical compaction curves

3.2.5 Loss of Ignition

Soils with organic content above 1-2% by weight maybe incapable of

achieving the desired unconfined compressive strength for lime stabilized soil.

The influence of organic matter has been known as one factors retarding the ability

of clay to react with lime, thus will decrease the soil stabilization effect.

Based on the method suggested by Clare and Sherwood (19556), the

organic matter can be extracted by using ignition loss method. The extraction

method is as follows:

1. Using a mechanical shaker, natural clay (500 g of dry clay) was

stirred with 1 liter of 0.5 mol sodium hydroxide (NaOH) for 24

hours.

2. The undissolved clay was removed by centrifuging and decantation.

3. Two portions of liquid were combined and the process was repeated

to find the humic acid later.

34

4. Distilled water is used to wash the treated clay, and the suspension

was bought to a pH of about 7.6 by adding hydrochloride acid

(HCI) to normal level for natural clay.

5. The clay was separated again by centrifuging and decantation.

3.3 Lime Testing

Similarly with soil, lime also need to be tested in order to check their

suitability when react with soil. The appropriate and adequate amount of lime

should be determined before stabilization process commence. There are two test

commonly performed on lime which is initial consumption lime (ICL) and

available lime content (ACL).

3.3.1 Initial Consumption Lime (ICL)

This test gives an indication of the initial amount of lime needed to achieve

sufficient lime should be added to a soil to ensure that a pH of 12.4. The purpose

of this test is to evaluate an initial step to determine if it is suitable for lime

stabilization. This value plays an important role in order to sustain the strength

producing lime-soil pozzolanic reactions. Detail procedure explained in BS1924:

Parrt2: Clause 5.4.

Generally soil with, soil with at least 25% passing a 75 micron screen and

having PI of 10 or greater are candidates for lime stabilization. Some soils with

lower PI can be successfully stabilized with lime, provided the pH and strength

criteria can be satisfied. The lowest percentage of lime in soil that produces a

35

laboratory pH 12.4 is the minimum lime percentage for stabilizing the soil.

Therefore the lime content must be greater than the ICL value.

3.3.2 Lime Fixation Capacity

This test gives an indication of the initial amount of lime needed to modify

the soil properties. The immediate change in soil properties obtained is an

increase in plastic limit value. Normally for hydrated lime, the typical value is

around 1-2%. Detail procedure explained in BS1924: Parrt2: Clause 5.4.

3.3.3 Available Lime Content (ACL)

The available lime content either quicklime or hydrated lime is determined

based on BS6463: Part 2: Test 20. The present of calcium oxide or calcium

hydroxide is made by shaking them with a solution of sucrose. The solution is

titrated against standard hydrochloride acid after the residue has been filtered off.

Phenolphthalein is used as indicator in the titration. The formulas for indicator to

be used are as follows:

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 mg)

36

3.4 Lime-Additive Salt Stabilize Soil Testing

Once after test for lime and soil have been done, clay that has been treated

will be stabilized with different of salt content at the optimum concentration of

lime. Besides, Unconfined Compression Test (UCT), compaction test also will be

carried out.

3.4.1 Unconfined Compression Test (UCT)

The aim for this test is to determine the strength of the soil treated by lime

as well as soil treated by lime-additive salts. It is a special type of unconsolidated

-undrained test that is commonly used for clay specimens. Based on the UCT

principle, the confining pressure (σ3) is equal to zero. Clay specimen will be tested

until failure when an axial load is applied rapidly to the specimens. At failure, the

total minor principal stress is zero while the total major principal stress is σ1. This

test will be conducted on samples with sizes (100mm height x 50mm diameter) at

curing period from 0, 7,14 to 28 day.

37

Figure 3.12: Samples preparation

Figure 3.13: Unconfined compression test equipment

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Soil Classification

4.1.1 Atterberg Limit

Atterberg limit described an amount of water contents at certain limiting or

critical stages in soil behavior. The results for atterberg limit tests are shown in

Appendix A1. Based on the figure 4.1, the liquid limit (LL) of the organic clay soil at

20mm cone penetration is 52.4%.

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

51 52 53 54 55 56

Moisture Content, %

Pene

trat

ion

of c

one,

mm

Figure 4.1: Cone Penetration vs Moisture Content

39

The result of plastic limit (PL) which represent the moisture content at which soil

changes from plastic to brittle state is 35% determined from oven-dried sample.

Plasticity index (PI) is defined as a range of water content where the soil is plastic.

Therefore it is a numerically equal to the difference between the liquid limit (LL) and

the plastic limit (PL). The plasticity index of the soil is evaluated as the calculation

below.

PI = LL – PL

= 52.4% - 35%

= 17.5%

Since the value of PI is higher than 10, therefore this soil meets the requirement to be

stabilized with lime. From the plasticity chart below, this soil can be classified as MH

(high silt).

Figure 4.2: Plasticity Chart

40

4.1.2 Specific Gravity

The aim of this test is to define the average specific gravity (Gs) that useful for

determining the weight-volume relationship. It is the ratio between the unit masses of

soil particles and water. Based on the table below, the average value of specific gravity

is 2.42.

Table 4.1: Summary of data for Specific Gravity Test

Pyknometer number 1866 1694 1785 1808Mass of bottle + soil + water (m3) 85.11 85.54 89.33 85.10Mass of bottle + soil (m2) 39.32 40.12 43.05 38.98Mass of bottle full of water (m4) 79.62 78.67 83.43 79.26Mass of bottle (m1) 30.02 28.65 33.01 28.80Mass of soil 9.30 11.47 10.04 10.18Mass of water in full bottol 49.61 50.02 50.42 50.46Mass of used 45.79 45.42 46.28 46.12Volume of soil particles 3.82 4.60 4.14 4.35Particle density 2.43 2.49 2.42 2.34Average value Gs 2.42

4.1.3 Particle Size Distribution

Based on the wet sieving and hydrometer analysis, the soil used in this research

consists of 5.71% sand and 78.29% of fines (57.51% of silt and 20.78% of clay).

Therefore, this soil is suitable to be stabilized with lime as it is categorized as fine-

grained soil. Furthermore, the percentage of clay is more than 10%, thus meet the

requirements for lime stabilization.

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Particle Diameter D (mm)

Percentage finer than D,K%

Figure 4.3: Soil Particle Distribution Chart

42

4.2 Initial Consumption of Lime (ICL)

Lime used in this test is Hydrated lime, Ca(OH)2

Calcium Hydroxide Lime used in test

pH of saturated solution 13.24 13.21

Temperature (oC ) 26.4 26.5

pH corrected to 25 oC 13.28 13.26

The test gives an indication of the initial amount of lime needed to achieve

sufficient lime should be added to a soil to ensure that a pH of 12.4. From the data

above, 5.0% of hydrated lime is the minimum percentage of lime needed for soil

stabilization. This value plays an important role in order to sustain the strength

producing lime-soil pozzolanic reactions.

4.3 Availabele Lime Content (ALC)

From the laboratory test:

The titration, V = 33.4 ml, and

The weight of sample used, m = 1.445 g

Lime content % 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pH value of suspension 1.91 4.02 5.86 8.29 10.08 11.45 11.94 12.7

Temperature oC 26.8 27 27.2 27.3 27.5 27.7 28.8 28.5 pH corrected to 25

oC 1.96 4.08 5.93 8.36 10.16 12.81 12.91 13.06

43

Percentage of available lime (as CaO) = 2.804V / m

= [2.804 (33.4)] / 1.445

= 64.8%

Percentage of available lime (as Ca(OH)2) = 3.705V / m

= [3.705 (33.4)] / 1.445

= 85.6%

The available lime content in terms of equivalent CaO is 64.8%, which is greater

than the minimum requirement of 60%. The available Ca(OH)2 content is 85.6% which

is greater than minimum requirement of 80%. Therefore, the hydrated lime that been

used in this research is suitable for lime stabilization.

4.4 Loss of Ignition

Based on the result given in Appendix B1, the amount of organic matters

presence in this soil is 14.41%. Even though the amount is still not high, but it can be

harmful and able to affect the engineering properties of the soil.

4.5 Standard Proctor Compaction Test

Table 4.2 shows a result of compaction test performed on clay soil, lime treated

clay soil, and lime treated clay with addition of salt at different concentration. The

calculation and compaction curves for all of the samples tested are enclosed in Appendix

C.

44

Table 4.2: Compaction Test Result

Sample Maximum Dry

Density (mg/m3)

Optimum Moisture

Content (%)

Untreated 1.454 27

Clay + 5%lime 1.393 32

Clay + 10%lime 1.270 37

Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%CaCl2 1.328 30.5

Clay + 10%lime + 5%CaCl2 1.367 33.3

Clay + 10%lime + 10%CaCl2 1.410 30.4

Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%NaCl 1.432 26.5

Clay + 10%lime + 5%NaCl 1.424 30

Clay + 10%lime + 10%NaCl 1.460 29

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. However, when salt

is added to the lime treated clay, the result was shown differently. Based on the results

given, we can see that the amount of lime and salt added did not cause significant

changes in the maximum dry density as well as optimum moisture content. However,

determination of the optimum moisture content is very important in order to ensure a

fully saturated condition for lime stabilization.

4.6 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UCS)

The calculations of the data from unconfined compressive test (UCT) and charts

of axial stress versus strain for each concentration at different curing period are shown in

the Appendix D. Table 4.3 shows the summary of the strength result obtained from all

of the samples at different curing period.

45

Table 4.3: Summary Result of Unconfined Compressive Strength

Sample UCS (kPa)

0 day

UCS (kPa)

7 days

UCS (kPa)

14 days

UCS (kPa)

28 days

Untreated 36 68 135 205

Clay + 5%lime 76 110 182 222

Clay + 10%lime 97 149 189 273

Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%CaCl2 102 131 185 261

Clay + 10%lime + 5%CaCl2 159 202 226 335

Clay + 10%lime + 10%CaCl2 181 233 290 757

Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%NaCl 101 183 243 294

Clay + 10%lime + 5%NaCl 118 243 265 345

Clay + 10%lime + 10%NaCl 119 273 309 777

Figure 4.4 shows the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of organic clay and

lime treated clay at 5% and 10% hydrated lime at different curing period. In general, the

strength increases with the time, indicating a continuous pozzolanic reaction. From the

figure, the strength of clay with 10% lime at curing period of 28 days was 273kPa,

which higher than the strength of clay with 5% lime. Thus, various contents of salts

were added with 10% of hydrated lime to stabilized organic clay.

46

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 7 14 21 28

Time (day)

UC

S (k

Pa)

soilsoil + 5%limesoil + 10%lime

Figure 4.4: UCS of clay and lime treated clay at different curing period

Prior to analysis, indicates that stiffness of organic clay stabilized with lime will

improved with addition of salts. Therefore, based on the study it proves that the strength

of lime treated clay will increase with addition salts. Figure 4.5 shows that the strength

of organic clay, one stabilized with 10% lime and 10% sodium chloride (NaCl), and the

other stabilized with 10% lime and 10% calcium chloride (CaCl2) for 0,7,14 and 28

days. Comparing between the two salts at 10% of salt content, clay stabilized with lime

and sodium chloride yields higher strength than clay stabilized with lime and calcium

chloride, even though at early stage calcium chloride gives higher value of strength. The

highest (UCS) achieved is 777kPa for clay stabilized with 10% lime and 10% NaCl

cured at 28 days.

47

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 7 14 21 28Time (day)

UC

S (k

Pa)

10 %lim e10 % ( lim e +C a C l)10 %(lim e +s o dium )

Figure 4.5: UCS on clay stabilized with 10% lime and various contents of NaCl and

CaCl2.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 7 14 21 28Time (day)

UC

S (k

Pa) 2 .5 %s o dium

5 %s o dium10 %s o dium

Figure 4.6: Result of unconfined compressive strength on clay stabilized with 10% lime

and varius of NaCl at different curing period

48

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 7 14 21 28

Time (day)

UC

S (k

Pa) 2.5%CaCl

5%CaCl10%CaCl

Figure 4.7: Result of unconfined compressive strength on clay stabilized with 10% lime

and varius of CaCl2 at different curing period

Figure 4.8 shows the rate increase in strength for clay treated with 10% lime and

clay treated lime with 10% NaCl and CaCl2. The graph shows a drastic increase after

day 14 when clay was stabilized with lime and additive salt. This is due to stabilization

process. Before day 14, the mixture is going through modification process where the

flocculation and rearrangement of soil particle provide instability of the mixture.

49

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 7 14 21 28Time (day)

Perc

enta

ge in

crea

se (%

)

10%lime10%(lime+CaCl)10%(lime+so d ium)

Stabilization processModification process

Figure 4.8: Rate of increase in strength

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

5.1 Conclusion

Based on the results of soil classification test, the soil is classified into fine-

grained soil that consists of 78.29% of fine materials (57.51% of silt and 20.78% of

clay). As the amount of clay content more than 10%, thus this soil is suitable to be

stabilized with lime. However, the presence of 14.41% organic material will cause the

obstruction when lime is used as well as reducing the effectiveness of lime stabilization.

Therefore stabilization is considered as having both of salt used as an additive in lime-

stabilized organic soils.

The results obtained from Standard Proctor Compaction Test showed that the

optimum moisture content increases and the maximum dry density decreases when lime

is added to the soil. It is because of ion exchange and flocculation of soil particle occurs

which make soil particle more friable for compaction. The determination of optimum

moisture content is vital during compaction work and prior to the preparation of sample

for strength test.

The test results from unconfined compressive test (UCT) indicated that when

NaCl or CaCl2 is added to the lime-organic clay mixture, the strength of mixture

increases with increasing salt concentration. The strength of clay stabilized with lime and

51

sodium chloride is higher than clay stabilized with lime and calcium chloride at a 10%

salt concentration.

The highest unconfined compressive strength (UCS) achieved is 777kPa for clay

stabilized with 10% lime and 10% NaCl cured at 28 days. Immediately increase in rate

of strength after 14 days of curing period is due to stabilization process. The rate of

increase in strength not stable during 7 to 14 days is because the soil is still in the

modification process where the soil particle involved flocculation and rearrangement.

The development of strength is highly depends on the curing time and percentage of lime

and salt added to the soil.

52

REFERENCES

1) Koslanant, Onitsuka, K. and Negami, T. (2006). Influence of Salt additive in

Lime Stabilisation on Organic Clay. Journal of the Southeast Asian Geotechnical

Society, pp. 95-101.

2) Mckinley, J.D., Thomas, H.R., Williams, K.P. and J.M.Reid. (2001). Chemical

Analysis of Contaminated Soil Strengthened by the Addition of Lime. Journal of

Engineering Geology, Vol.60, pp. 181-192.

3) Bell, F.G. (1996). Lime Stabilization of Clay Minerals and Soils. Journal of

Engineering Geology, Vol.42, pp. 223-237

4) Sokolovich, V.E. (1988). Chemical Soil Stabilization and the Environment.

Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering, Vol.24, No.1-6, pp. 223-

235.

5) Dan Marks, B. and Allen Haliburton, T. (1972). Acceleration of Lime-Clay

Reactions with Salt. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering,

Vol.98, No.4, pp. 327-339.

6) George, S.Z., Ponniah, D.A. and Little, J.A. (1992). Effect of Temperature on

Lime-Soil Stabilization. Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Vol.6,

Issue 4, pp. 247-252.

7) Rajasekaran, G. and Narashimha Rao, S. (2000). Compressibility Behaviour of

Lime-Treated Marine Clay. Journal of Ocean Engineering, Vol.29, pp. 545-559.

53

8) Rajasekaran, G. (2004). Sulphate Attack and Ettringite Formation in the Lime

and Cement Stabilized Marine Clays. Technical Note of Ocean Engineering, pp.

1133-1159.

9) CDF Rogers, Glendinning, S. and Dixon, N. (1996). Lime Stabilisation.

10) Nagaraj, T.S. and Norihiko Miura. (2001). Soft Clay Behaviour Analysis and

Assessment.

11) Moseley, M.P. and. Kirsch, K (2004). Ground Improvement. 2nd Edition.

12) Ingles, O.G. and Metcalf, J.B. (1972). Soil Stabilization Principles and Practice.

13) Robert Holtz, D. and William Kovacs, D. (1981). An Introduction to

Geotechnical Engineering.

14) Sudhakar M. R and Shivananda P, Compressibility Behaviour of Lime-Stabilized

Clay, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2005) 23: 309–319

15) Sudhakar M. R and Shivananda P, Role of Curing Temperature in Progress of

Lime Soil Reactions, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2005) 23: 79–

85

16) Kassim K.A and Kok K.C (2004), Lime Stabilized Malaysian Cohesive Soil,

Jurnal Kejuruteraan Awam 16 (1), pg 13-23

17) 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

54

18) 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

19) National Lime Association (2004), Lime Stabilization and Lime Modification,

National Lime Association, USA

20) 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

21) Attohokine N.O (1995), Lime Treatment of Laterite Soils and Gravel-Revisited,

Journal of Construction and Building Materials, v 9, n 5.

55

APPENDIX A1

ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST

Liquid Limit Test ( Cone Penetration Test )

LL (moisture content at 20mm cone penetration) = 52.4%

Plastic Limit Test Test no. 1 2 3 Container no. A B C Mass of wet soil + container g 11.677 11.246 11.616 Mass of dry soil + container g 11.116 10.838 11.158 Mass of container g 9.451 9.726 9.831 Mass of moisture g 2.226 1.520 1.785 Mass of dry soil g 1.665 1.112 1.327 Moisture Content % 33.69 36.69 34.51

PL (average) = 35%

LIQUIT LIMIT Test no. 1 2 3 4 Initial dial gauge reading mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final dial gauge reading mm 21.6 21.1 21.7 23.6 23.6 23.6 24.5 24.1 24.4 18.5 18.2 18.8Average penetration mm 21.47 23.60 24.33 18.50 Container no. A B C D Mass of wet soil + container g 22.233 28.249 40.579 16.44 Mass of dry soil + container g 18.01 24.829 36.075 13.154 Mass of container g 9.967 18.497 27.913 6.904 Mass of moisture g 4.22 3.42 4.50 3.29 Mass of dry soil g 8.04 6.33 8.16 6.25 Moisture Content % 52.51 54.01 55.18 52.58

56

APPENDIX A2

SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST

Location MASJID TANAH, MELAKA

Soil Decription ORGANIC Test method BS 1377 Part 2 : 1990 : 8.3 / 8.4 Method of preparation Small / large pyknometer* Specimen reference A1 Pyknometer number 1866 1694 1785 1808 Mass of bottle + soil + water (m3) 85.110 85.536 89.328 85.095 Mass of bottle + soil (m2) 39.322 40.120 43.047 38.976 Mass of bottle full of water (m4) 79.627 78.666 83.429 79.261 Mass of bottle (m1) 30.018 28.650 33.008 28.797 Mass of soil 9.304 11.47 10.039 10.179 Mass of water in full bottol 49.609 50.016 50.421 50.464 Mass of used 45.788 45.416 46.281 46.119 Volume of soil particles 3.821 4.6 4.14 4.35 Particle density 2.43 2.49 2.42 2.34 Average value Gs 2.42

57

APPENDIX A3

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

1) Hydrometer Sedimentation

CALIBRATION AND SAMPLE DATA Hydrometer no. 3328 Meniscus correction Cm 0.5 Reading in dispersant Ro' 0.5 Calibration equation Hr = 203.93-3.8345Rh Dry mass of soil m 50 G

Partilce density measured, ρs 2.42 Mg/m3

Viscosity of water at 25.0 oC h 2.42 mPa.s

PRETREATMENT Pretreated with Sodium Hexametaphospate & Sodium Carbonat Initial dry mass of sample mo 50.00 g Dry mass after pretreatment M 36.90 g Pretreatment loss mo – m 13.10 g 26.20 %

Calibration for Hydrometer No.3328

H HR Rh d0 9.5 90.43 30 d1 27.5 108.43 25 d2 46.0 126.93 20 d3 64.5 145.43 15 d4 83.5 164.43 10 d5 102.5 183.43 5 d6 121.5 202.43 0 d7 145.5 226.43 -5

Mass = 66.786 g N = 9.5 mm h = 180 mm Vh = 60 ml L = 272 mm H = N+d1, N+d2, ...N+d7

58

Calibration For Hydrometer No. 3328

y = -3.8345x + 203.93

0

50

100

150

200

250

-10 0 10 20 30 40Rh

HR

59

TEST DATA

Elapsed Hydrometer True Reading Effective Modified Particle Percentage

Date Time time Temp Reading Rh'+Cm depth Reading h Diameter finer than

D

9:05:00 AM t T 8C Rh' = Rh Hr mm Rh' - Ro' =

Rd D mm K% 23.7.2007 9:05:30 AM 0:00:30 26.0 22.50 23.0 115.7 22.0 0.8748 0.066 101.61 23.7.2008 9:06:00 AM 0:01:00 26.0 22.50 23.0 115.7 22.0 0.8748 0.047 101.61 23.7.2009 9:07:00 AM 0:02:00 26.0 22.00 22.5 117.7 21.5 0.8748 0.033 99.30 23.7.2010 9:09:00 AM 0:04:00 26.0 21.50 22.0 119.6 21.0 0.8748 0.024 96.99 23.7.2011 9:13:00 AM 0:08:00 26.0 21.00 21.5 121.5 20.5 0.8748 0.017 94.68 23.7.2012 9:20:00 AM 0:15:00 26.0 20.00 20.5 125.3 19.5 0.8748 0.013 90.06 23.7.2013 9:35:00 AM 0:30:00 25.5 18.00 18.5 133.0 17.5 0.884325 0.009 80.82 23.7.2014 10:05:00 AM 1:00:00 25.5 16.00 16.5 140.7 15.5 0.884325 0.007 71.59 23.7.2015 11:05:00 AM 2:00:00 25.0 10.50 11.0 161.8 10.0 0.8941 0.005 46.18 23.7.2016 1:05:00 PM 4:00:00 24.0 5.00 5.5 182.8 4.5 0.9144 0.004 20.78 23.7.2017 5:05:00 PM 8:00:00 22.5 5.00 5.5 182.8 4.5 0.946725 0.003 20.78 24.7.2007 9:05:00 AM 24:00:00 24.5 5.00 5.5 182.8 4.5 0.904125 0.002 20.78

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Particle Diameter D (mm)

Percentage finer than D,K%

sieve size (mm) mass retained (g) percentage retained (%) cumulative % passing 5.00 0 0.00 100 3.35 0 0.00 100 2.00 0.289 4.40 95.60 1.18 0.453 6.31 89.29 0.60 0.662 2.10 87.19 0.425 0.328 3.19 84.00 0.30 0.28 0.51 83.49 0.212 0.208 0.24 83.25 0.15 0.163 0.45 82.80 0.063 0.678 0.11 82.69

passing 0.063 0.145 4.40 78.29

sieve size (mm)

mass passing

(%) Classification 2.00 95.60

0.425 84.00 Gravel = 11.40 0.063 78.29 Sand = 5.71

0.002 20.78 Silt/Clay =

78.29 Silt = 57.51 Clay = 20.78

61

APPENDIX B1

Loss on Ignition Test

Crucible no. 1 2 3 Mass of crucible mc 31.09 35.45 31.08 Mass of crucible and dry soil m3 51.82 51.83 51.28 Mass of crucible and soil after ignition m4 48.97 49.54 48.14

Loss on ignition,LOI ,as percentage of soil finer thah 2 mm= (m3-m4) (m3-mc)*100

13.76 13.93 15.53

Average LOI (%) 14.41

62

APPENDIX C1

COMPACTION TEST

Soil description: Untreated Clay

Initial sample mass g Particle density 2.42 Retained on 20 mm/ 37.5mm sieve g Test Number 1 2 3 4 5 Mass of mould + base+compacted specimen (m2)

g 5.413 5.497 5.028 5.491 5.421 Mass of mould + base (m1) g 3.728 3.728 3.247 3.707 3.707 Mass of compacted specimen (m2-m1) g 1.685 1.769 1.781 1.784 1.714

Bulk Density ρ=m2-m1 / V Mg/m31.786 1.875 1.888 1.891 1.817

Moisture content container No. 49B B377 A2 43 70A Mass of moisture (w) % 24.10 25.09 35.63 35.38 40.95

Dry Density ρd= 100ρ / 100 + w Mg/m31.439 1.499 1.392 1.397 1.289

MDD= 1.454 mg/m3

OMC = 27%

1.20

1.25

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

1.55

1.60

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

moisture content, %

dry

dens

ity, M

g/m3

63

APPENDIX C2

Soil description: Clay + 5% lime

Initial sample mass g Particle density 2.42 Retained on 20 mm/ 37.5mm sieve g Test Number 1 2 3 4 5 Mass of mould + base+compacted specimen (m2)

g 5.027 5.358 5.499 5.477 5.389 Mass of mould + base (m1) g 3.437 3.728 3.728 3.707 3.707 Mass of compacted specimen (m2-m1) g 1.590 1.630 1.771 1.770 1.682

Bulk Density ρ=m2-m1 / V Mg/m31.686 1.728 1.877 1.876 1.783

Moisture content container No. 3 43 83 2 3 Mass of moisture (w) % 25.01 26.19 35.09 40.49 45.39

Dry Density ρd= 100ρ / 100 + w Mg/m31.348 1.369 1.390 1.336 1.226

1.20

1.25

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47

moisture content, %

dry

dens

ity, M

g/m3

MDD= 1.393 mg/m3

OMC = 32%

64

APPENDIX C3

Soil description: Clay +10% lime

Initial sample mass g Particle density 2.42 Retained on 20 mm/ 37.5mm sieve g Test Number 1 2 3 4 5 Mass of mould + base+compacted specimen (m2)

g 4.678 4.767 4.93 4.951 4.924 Mass of mould + base (m1) g 3.247 3.247 3.248 3.248 3.248 Mass of compacted specimen (m2-m1) g 1.431 1.520 1.682 1.703 1.676

Bulk Density ρ=m2-m1 / V Mg/m31.517 1.611 1.783 1.805 1.777

Moisture content container No. 55 G13 43 103 70A Mass of moisture (w) % 24.73 30.02 41.47 43.63 48.10

Dry Density ρd= 100ρ / 100 + w Mg/m31.216 1.239 1.260 1.257 1.200

1.20

1.21

1.22

1.23

1.24

1.25

1.26

1.27

1.28

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50

moisture content, %

dry

dens

ity, M

g/m3

MDD= 1.270 mg/m3

OMC = 37%

65

APPENDIX C4

Soil description: Clay +10% lime + 2.5% CaCl2

Initial sample mass g Particle density 2.42 Retained on 20 mm/ 37.5mm sieve g Test Number 1 2 3 4 Mass of mould + base+compacted specimen (m2)

g 5.239 5.31 5.444 5.435 Mass of mould + base (m1) g 3.707 3.707 3.732 3.732 Mass of compacted specimen (m2-m1) g 1.532 1.603 1.712 1.703

Bulk Density ρ=m2-m1 / V Mg/m31.624 1.699 1.815 1.805

Moisture content container No. 1 2 3 4 Mass of moisture (w) % 23.32 30.13 34.44 39.33

Dry Density ρd= 100ρ / 100 + w Mg/m31.317 1.306 1.350 1.296

1.28

1.29

1.30

1.31

1.32

1.33

1.34

1.35

1.36

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

moisture content, %

dry

dens

ity, M

g/m3

MDD= 1.328 mg/m3

OMC = 30.5%

66

APPENDIX C5 Soil description: Clay +10% lime + 5% CaCl2

Initial sample mass g Particle density 2.42 Retained on 20 mm/ 37.5mm sieve g Test Number 1 2 3 4 Mass of mould + base+compacted specimen (m2)

g 5.272 5.423 5.472 5.449 Mass of mould + base (m1) g 3.732 3.732 3.732 3.732 Mass of compacted specimen (m2-m1) g 1.540 1.691 1.740 1.717

Bulk Density ρ=m2-m1 / V Mg/m31.633 1.793 1.845 1.820

Moisture content container No. 1 2 3 4 Mass of moisture (w) % 26.11 31.60 35.39 40.76

Dry Density ρd= 100ρ / 100 + w Mg/m31.295 1.362 1.362 1.293

1.281.291.301.311.321.331.341.351.361.371.381.39

25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43

moisture content, %

dry

dens

ity, M

g/m3

MDD= 1.367 mg/m3

OMC = 33.3%

67

APPENDIX C6

Soil description: Clay +10% lime + 10% CaCl2

Initial sample mass g Particle density 2.42 Retained on 20 mm/ 37.5mm sieve g Test Number 1 2 3 4 Mass of mould + base+compacted specimen (m2)

g 5.364 5.418 5.495 5.426 Mass of mould + base (m1) g 3.707 3.707 3.707 3.707 Mass of compacted specimen (m2-m1) g 1.657 1.711 1.788 1.719

Bulk Density ρ=m2-m1 / V Mg/m31.757 1.814 1.895 1.822

Moisture content container No. 1 2 3 4 Mass of moisture (w) % 25.74 30.50 34.44 40.69

Dry Density ρd= 100ρ / 100 + w Mg/m31.397 1.390 1.410 1.295

1.29

1.31

1.33

1.35

1.37

1.39

1.41

1.43

17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43

moisture content, %

dry

dens

ity, M

g/m3

MDD= 1.410 mg/m3

OMC = 30.4%

68

APPENDIX C7

Soil description: Clay +10% lime + 2.5% NaCl

Initial sample mass g Particle density 2.42 Retained on 20 mm/ 37.5mm sieve g Test Number 1 2 3 4 Mass of mould + base+compacted specimen (m2)

g 4.863 4.963 4.979 4.946 Mass of mould + base (m1) g 3.247 3.247 3.247 3.247 Mass of compacted specimen (m2-m1) g 1.616 1.716 1.732 1.699

Bulk Density ρ=m2-m1 / V Mg/m31.713 1.819 1.836 1.801

Moisture content container No. 1 2 3 4 Mass of moisture (w) % 21.90 26.20 30.79 37.65

Dry Density ρd= 100ρ / 100 + w Mg/m31.405 1.442 1.404 1.309

1.25

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

moisture content, %

dry

dens

ity, M

g/m3

MDD= 1.432 mg/m3

OMC = 26.5%

69

APPENDIX C8

Soil description: Clay +10% lime + 5% NaCl

Initial sample mass g Particle density 2.42 Retained on 20 mm/ 37.5mm sieve g Test Number 1 2 3 4 Mass of mould + base+compacted specimen (m2)

g 4.997 5.01 5.076 4.987 Mass of mould + base (m1) g 3.284 3.284 3.284 3.284 Mass of compacted specimen (m2-m1) g 1.713 1.726 1.792 1.703

Bulk Density ρ=m2-m1 / V Mg/m31.816 1.830 1.900 1.805

Moisture content container No. 1 2 3 4 Mass of moisture (w) % 28.81 30.91 30.46 30.16

Dry Density ρd= 100ρ / 100 + w Mg/m31.410 1.398 1.456 1.387

1.20

1.25

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

24 26 28 30 32 34 36

moisture content, %

dry

dens

ity, M

g/m3

MDD= 1.424 mg/m3

OMC = 30%

70

APPENDIX C9

Soil description: Clay +10% lime + 10% NaCl

Initial sample mass g Particle density 2.42 Retained on 20 mm/ 37.5mm sieve g Test Number 1 2 3 4 Mass of mould + base+compacted specimen (m2)

g 4.895 5.059 5.114 5.07 Mass of mould + base (m1) g 3.304 3.304 3.304 3.304 Mass of compacted specimen (m2-m1) g 1.591 1.755 1.810 1.766

Bulk Density ρ=m2-m1 / V Mg/m31.687 1.860 1.919 1.872

Moisture content container No. 1 2 3 4 Mass of moisture (w) % 23.08 28.30 31.58 36.25

Dry Density ρd= 100ρ / 100 + w Mg/m31.370 1.450 1.458 1.374

1.301.321.341.361.381.401.421.441.461.481.50

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

moisture content, %

dry

dens

ity, M

g/m3

MDD= 1.460 mg/m3

OMC = 29%

71

APPENDIX D1

CURING PERIOD 0 DAY

Sample: Untreated Clay (0 DAY)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0103 0 0.01 1.134.E-03 00.1676 4.41 0.21 1.137.E-03 3.90.3261 11.76 0.41 1.139.E-03 10.30.4808 14.71 0.6 1.141.E-03 12.90.6445 17.65 0.81 1.143.E-03 15.41.0480 25.88 1.31 1.149.E-03 22.51.4540 32.35 1.82 1.155.E-03 281.8600 37.65 2.33 1.161.E-03 32.42.2622 41.18 2.83 1.167.E-03 35.32.6721 42.06 3.34 1.173.E-03 35.83.0781 42.06 3.85 1.180.E-03 35.73.4867 40.59 4.36 1.186.E-03 34.23.8928 37.65 4.87 1.192.E-03 31.64.2962 32.35 5.37 1.198.E-03 274.6984 27.94 5.87 1.205.E-03 23.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 36kPa

72

Sample: Clay + 5%lime (0 DAY)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (Kn * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1647 21.47 0.21 1.137.E-03 18.90.3218 41.18 0.4 1.139.E-03 36.20.4762 55.88 0.6 1.141.E-03 490.6371 67.65 0.8 1.143.E-03 59.21.0360 85.29 1.3 1.149.E-03 74.21.4453 88.24 1.81 1.155.E-03 76.41.8533 82.35 2.32 1.161.E-03 70.92.2587 71.47 2.82 1.167.E-03 61.22.6641 52.35 3.33 1.173.E-03 44.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

strain

Axia

l stre

ss

UCS = 76kPa

73

Sample : Clay + 10%lime (0 DAY)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0064 0 0.01 1.134.E-03 00.1712 33.24 0.21 1.137.E-03 29.20.3256 58.82 0.41 1.139.E-03 51.70.4801 79.41 0.6 1.141.E-03 69.60.6435 94.12 0.8 1.143.E-03 82.31.0489 111.76 1.31 1.149.E-03 97.31.4582 108.82 1.82 1.155.E-03 94.21.8571 95.00 2.32 1.161.E-03 81.82.2651 76.47 2.83 1.167.E-03 65.52.6744 55.88 3.34 1.173.E-03 47.63.0798 38.24 3.85 1.180.E-03 32.43.4916 26.47 4.36 1.186.E-03 22.33.8906 20.59 4.86 1.192.E-03 17.34.2896 17.06 5.36 1.198.E-03 14.24.6885 14.12 5.86 1.205.E-03 11.75.0901 11.76 6.36 1.211.E-03 9.75.4891 9.71 6.86 1.218.E-03 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8S t r a i n

UCS = 97kPa

74

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%CaCl2 (0 DAY)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0064 0 0.01 1.134.E-03 00.1647 35.29 0.21 1.137.E-03 31.10.3218 64.12 0.4 1.139.E-03 56.30.4826 87.65 0.6 1.141.E-03 76.80.6409 105.29 0.8 1.143.E-03 92.11.0399 117.65 1.3 1.149.E-03 102.41.4389 102.94 1.8 1.155.E-03 89.11.8378 73.53 2.3 1.161.E-03 63.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 102 kPa

75

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 5%CaCl2 (0 DAY)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1647 22.06 0.21 1.137.E-03 19.40.3192 64.12 0.4 1.139.E-03 56.30.4762 98.53 0.6 1.141.E-03 86.40.6306 126.47 0.79 1.143.E-03 110.61.0399 170.00 1.3 1.149.E-03 147.91.4453 183.82 1.81 1.155.E-03 159.21.8443 174.41 2.31 1.161.E-03 150.22.2523 160.29 2.82 1.167.E-03 137.42.6551 143.53 3.32 1.173.E-03 122.43.0605 130.88 3.83 1.179.E-03 111

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 159 kPa

76

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 10%CaCl2 (0 DAY)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain ε L = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0064 0.88 0.01 1.134.E-03 0.80.1740 30.29 0.22 1.137.E-03 26.70.3351 68.53 0.42 1.139.E-03 60.20.5001 98.53 0.63 1.141.E-03 86.30.6548 124.41 0.82 1.143.E-03 108.81.0570 171.47 1.32 1.149.E-03 149.21.4669 202.94 1.83 1.155.E-03 175.71.8691 210.29 2.34 1.161.E-03 181.12.2686 200.00 2.84 1.167.E-03 171.32.6747 171.47 3.34 1.173.E-03 146.13.0743 138.24 3.84 1.179.E-03 117.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 181 kPa

77

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%NaCl (0 DAY)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0 -1.47059 0 1.134.E-03 -1.3

0.184041 48.52947 0.23 1.137.E-03 42.70.344916 68.529494 0.43 1.139.E-03 60.2

0.50193 83.235394 0.63 1.141.E-03 72.90.660231 95.000114 0.83 1.144.E-03 83.11.059201 112.647194 1.32 1.149.E-03 981.464606 116.17661 1.83 1.155.E-03 100.61.872585 112.647194 2.34 1.161.E-03 972.271555 98.52953 2.84 1.167.E-03 84.42.674386 78.823624 3.34 1.173.E-03 67.2

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 101kPa

78

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 5%NaCl (0 DAY)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1712 85.29 0.21 1.137.E-03 750.3282 94.12 0.41 1.139.E-03 82.60.4826 103.82 0.6 1.141.E-03 910.6371 111.76 0.8 1.143.E-03 97.81.0360 120.59 1.3 1.149.E-03 1051.4414 126.47 1.8 1.155.E-03 109.51.8443 131.76 2.31 1.161.E-03 113.52.2561 135.29 2.82 1.167.E-03 115.92.6551 138.24 3.32 1.173.E-03 117.83.0605 139.12 3.83 1.179.E-03 1183.4685 137.65 4.34 1.186.E-03 116.13.8739 130.88 4.84 1.192.E-03 109.84.2728 120.59 5.34 1.198.E-03 100.64.6782 102.94 5.85 1.205.E-03 85.55.0875 86.18 6.36 1.211.E-03 71.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 118 kPa

79

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 10%NaCl (0 DAY)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0064 0.88 0.01 1.134.E-03 0.80.1673 56.76 0.21 1.137.E-03 49.90.3320 83.24 0.42 1.139.E-03 73.10.4865 105.29 0.61 1.141.E-03 92.30.6409 119.12 0.8 1.143.E-03 104.21.0399 136.18 1.3 1.149.E-03 118.51.4389 128.82 1.8 1.155.E-03 111.51.8378 111.18 2.3 1.161.E-03 95.82.2368 89.71 2.8 1.167.E-03 76.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 119kPa

80

APPENDIX D2

CURING PERIOD 7 DAYS

Sample: Untreated Clay (7 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0 -0.88 0 1.134.E-03 -0.8

0.1583 9.71 0.2 1.136.E-03 8.50.3218 39.12 0.4 1.139.E-03 34.40.4762 59.71 0.6 1.141.E-03 52.30.6306 77.35 0.79 1.143.E-03 67.71.0425 74.41 1.3 1.149.E-03 64.81.4414 53.82 1.8 1.155.E-03 46.61.8404 27.35 2.3 1.161.E-03 23.6

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 68 kPa

81

Sample: Clay + 5%lime (7 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1583 30.88 0.2 1.136.E-03 27.20.3153 67.65 0.39 1.139.E-03 59.40.4801 91.18 0.6 1.141.E-03 79.90.6409 108.82 0.8 1.143.E-03 95.21.0425 126.47 1.3 1.149.E-03 110.11.4543 99.41 1.82 1.155.E-03 86.11.8636 67.65 2.33 1.161.E-03 58.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 110 kPa

82

Sample: Clay + 10%lime (7 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0064 0 0.01 1.134.E-03 00.1609 8.82 0.2 1.136.E-03 7.80.3153 34.71 0.39 1.139.E-03 30.50.4736 61.76 0.59 1.141.E-03 54.10.6281 88.24 0.79 1.143.E-03 77.21.0270 138.24 1.28 1.149.E-03 120.31.4324 162.65 1.79 1.155.E-03 140.81.8378 172.94 2.3 1.161.E-03 1492.2394 167.65 2.8 1.167.E-03 143.72.6512 146.47 3.31 1.173.E-03 124.93.0566 97.06 3.82 1.179.E-03 82.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 149 kPa

83

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%CaCl2 (7 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) -0.006435 0 -0.01 1.134.E-03 0

0.15444 33.82357 0.19 1.136.E-03 29.80.312741 79.41186 0.39 1.139.E-03 69.7

0.47619 114.70602 0.6 1.141.E-03 100.50.637065 136.176634 0.8 1.143.E-03 119.11.036035 150.00018 1.3 1.149.E-03 130.51.435005 117.6472 1.79 1.155.E-03 101.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 131 kPa

84

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 5%CaCl2 (7 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0 -0.88 0 1.134.E-03 -0.8

0.1544 52.35 0.19 1.136.E-03 46.10.3192 94.12 0.4 1.139.E-03 82.70.4865 133.82 0.61 1.141.E-03 117.30.6409 169.12 0.8 1.143.E-03 147.91.0425 230.88 1.3 1.149.E-03 200.91.4479 233.82 1.81 1.155.E-03 202.41.8507 204.41 2.31 1.161.E-03 176.12.2497 169.12 2.81 1.167.E-03 144.9

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 202 kPa

85

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 10%CaCl2 (7 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0.88 0 1.134.E-03 0.80.1647 2.94 0.21 1.137.E-03 2.60.3218 55.88 0.4 1.139.E-03 49.10.4762 105.88 0.6 1.141.E-03 92.80.6345 142.06 0.79 1.143.E-03 124.31.0425 214.71 1.3 1.149.E-03 186.81.4414 268.53 1.8 1.155.E-03 232.51.8443 256.77 2.31 1.161.E-03 221.22.2497 176.47 2.81 1.167.E-03 151.2

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 233 kPa

86

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%NaCl (7 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1583 183.82 0.2 1.136.E-03 161.80.3153 189.12 0.39 1.139.E-03 166.10.4736 194.12 0.59 1.141.E-03 170.10.6306 199.41 0.79 1.143.E-03 174.41.0296 205.88 1.29 1.149.E-03 179.21.4389 211.18 1.8 1.155.E-03 182.91.8404 211.76 2.3 1.161.E-03 182.42.2497 211.18 2.81 1.167.E-03 1812.6577 202.94 3.32 1.173.E-03 1733.0566 182.35 3.82 1.179.E-03 154.63.4556 160.29 4.32 1.185.E-03 135.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 183 kPa

87

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 5%NaCl (7 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0064 0 0.01 1.134.E-03 00.1647 14.71 0.21 1.137.E-03 12.90.3282 71.47 0.41 1.139.E-03 62.80.4826 144.12 0.6 1.141.E-03 126.30.6435 205.29 0.8 1.143.E-03 179.61.0425 279.41 1.3 1.149.E-03 243.21.4517 270.59 1.81 1.155.E-03 234.31.8533 223.53 2.32 1.161.E-03 192.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 243 kPa

88

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 10%NaCl (7 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0 4.41 0 1.134.E-03 3.9

0.1544 27.94 0.19 1.136.E-03 24.60.3153 75.00 0.39 1.139.E-03 65.90.4736 157.35 0.59 1.141.E-03 137.90.6306 231.76 0.79 1.143.E-03 202.71.0399 313.24 1.3 1.149.E-03 272.61.4414 274.41 1.8 1.155.E-03 237.61.8507 177.94 2.31 1.161.E-03 153.3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS= 273 kPa

89

APPENDIX D3

CURING PERIOD 14 DAYS

Sample: Untreated Clay (14 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1673 41.18 0.21 1.137.E-03 36.20.3218 70.59 0.4 1.139.E-03 620.4762 94.12 0.6 1.141.E-03 82.50.6345 114.71 0.79 1.143.E-03 100.31.0360 147.06 1.3 1.149.E-03 1281.4414 155.88 1.8 1.155.E-03 1351.8404 142.65 2.3 1.161.E-03 122.92.2497 111.76 2.81 1.167.E-03 95.82.6512 79.41 3.31 1.173.E-03 67.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 135 kPa

90

Sample: Clay + 5%lime (14 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1583 20.59 0.2 1.136.E-03 18.10.3218 85.29 0.4 1.139.E-03 74.90.4762 131.76 0.6 1.141.E-03 115.50.6345 165.59 0.79 1.143.E-03 144.81.0399 208.82 1.3 1.149.E-03 181.71.4453 200.00 1.81 1.155.E-03 173.21.8533 153.82 2.32 1.161.E-03 132.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 182 kPa

91

Sample: Clay + 10%lime (14 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0.88 0 1.134.E-03 0.80.1673 59.71 0.21 1.137.E-03 52.50.3218 112.65 0.4 1.139.E-03 98.90.4762 153.82 0.6 1.141.E-03 134.80.6409 183.82 0.8 1.143.E-03 160.81.0463 217.65 1.31 1.149.E-03 189.41.4453 192.65 1.81 1.155.E-03 166.81.8468 133.24 2.31 1.161.E-03 114.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 189 kPa

92

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%CaCl2 (14 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0064 0 0.01 1.134.E-03 00.1647 8.82 0.21 1.137.E-03 7.80.3218 50.00 0.4 1.139.E-03 43.90.4762 87.65 0.6 1.141.E-03 76.80.6306 120.00 0.79 1.143.E-03 1051.0335 178.82 1.29 1.149.E-03 155.61.4414 211.18 1.8 1.155.E-03 182.81.8443 214.71 2.31 1.161.E-03 1852.2523 184.71 2.82 1.167.E-03 158.32.6512 137.65 3.31 1.173.E-03 117.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 185 kPa

93

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 5%CaCl2 (14 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.003861 1.47059 0 1.134.E-03 1.30.158301 16.17649 0.2 1.136.E-03 14.20.325611 45.000054 0.41 1.139.E-03 39.50.480051 80.294214 0.6 1.141.E-03 70.40.634491 116.17661 0.79 1.143.E-03 101.61.039896 187.647284 1.3 1.149.E-03 163.31.445301 230.88263 1.81 1.155.E-03 199.92.957526 251.47089 3.7 1.178.E-03 213.51.927926 248.52971 2.41 1.162.E-03 213.9

1.72458 251.47089 2.16 1.159.E-03 2172.127411 263.23561 2.66 1.165.E-03 225.92.526381 248.52971 3.16 1.171.E-03 212.22.925351 127.94133 3.66 1.177.E-03 108.73.324321 39.70593 4.16 1.183.E-03 33.6

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 226 kPa

94

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + .10%CaCl2 (14 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0 0 0 1.134.E-03 0

0.1544 0 0.19 1.136.E-03 00.3153 8.82 0.39 1.139.E-03 7.70.4736 49.41 0.59 1.141.E-03 43.30.6281 102.94 0.79 1.143.E-03 90.11.0270 249.41 1.28 1.149.E-03 217.11.4324 334.71 1.79 1.155.E-03 289.81.8378 326.47 2.3 1.161.E-03 281.32.2368 229.41 2.8 1.167.E-03 196.6

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 290 kPa

95

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + .2.5%NaCl2 (14 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0064 0 0.01 1.134.E-03 00.1647 14.71 0.21 1.137.E-03 12.90.3282 71.47 0.41 1.139.E-03 62.80.4826 144.12 0.6 1.141.E-03 126.30.6435 205.29 0.8 1.143.E-03 179.61.0425 279.41 1.3 1.149.E-03 243.21.4517 270.59 1.81 1.155.E-03 234.31.8533 223.53 2.32 1.161.E-03 192.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 423 kPa

96

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + .5%NaCl2 (14 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1673 31.76 0.21 1.137.E-03 27.90.3218 81.76 0.4 1.139.E-03 71.80.4865 161.76 0.61 1.141.E-03 141.80.6435 228.82 0.8 1.143.E-03 200.11.0425 304.41 1.3 1.149.E-03 264.91.4414 277.94 1.8 1.155.E-03 240.71.8404 208.24 2.3 1.161.E-03 179.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 265 kPa

97

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + .10%NaCl2 (14 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1712 85.29 0.21 1.137.E-03 750.3282 103.82 0.41 1.139.E-03 91.150.4826 133.45 0.6 1.141.E-03 116.960.6371 150.65 0.8 1.143.E-03 131.81.0360 199.78 1.3 1.149.E-03 173.871.4414 225.34 1.8 1.155.E-03 195.11.8443 287.98 2.31 1.161.E-03 248.042.2561 360.11 2.82 1.167.E-03 308.582.6551 312.89 3.32 1.173.E-03 266.743.0605 229.05 3.83 1.179.E-03 194.273.4685 134.89 4.34 1.186.E-03 116.13.8739 130.88 4.84 1.192.E-03 109.84.2728 120.59 5.34 1.198.E-03 100.64.6782 102.94 5.85 1.205.E-03 85.55.0875 86.18 6.36 1.211.E-03 71.2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 309 kPa

98

APPENDIX D4

CURING PERIOD 28 DAYS

Sample: Untreated Clay (28 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0 -0.88 0 1.134.E-03 -0.8

0.1544 43.53 0.19 1.136.E-03 38.30.3089 72.94 0.39 1.139.E-03 64.10.4736 101.47 0.59 1.141.E-03 88.90.6371 125.88 0.8 1.143.E-03 110.11.0399 172.94 1.3 1.149.E-03 150.51.4479 207.35 1.81 1.155.E-03 179.51.8533 230.29 2.32 1.161.E-03 198.42.2625 239.71 2.83 1.167.E-03 205.42.6615 234.71 3.33 1.173.E-03 200.13.0631 205.29 3.83 1.179.E-03 174.13.4620 102.35 4.33 1.185.E-03 86.3

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 205 kPa

99

Sample: Clay + 5%lime (28 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) -0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1519 12.65 0.19 1.136.E-03 11.10.3063 29.41 0.38 1.138.E-03 25.80.4607 73.53 0.58 1.141.E-03 64.50.6152 112.65 0.77 1.143.E-03 98.61.0142 182.35 1.27 1.149.E-03 158.81.4131 225.88 1.77 1.155.E-03 195.71.8185 250.00 2.27 1.160.E-03 215.42.2265 258.82 2.78 1.167.E-03 221.92.6358 250.00 3.29 1.173.E-03 213.23.0347 229.41 3.79 1.179.E-03 194.63.4337 197.06 4.29 1.185.E-03 166.3

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 222 kPa

100

Sample: Clay + 10%lime (28 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0 4.41 0 1.134.E-03 3.9

0.1544 27.94 0.19 1.136.E-03 24.60.3153 75.00 0.39 1.139.E-03 65.90.4736 157.35 0.59 1.141.E-03 137.90.6306 231.76 0.79 1.143.E-03 202.71.0399 313.24 1.3 1.149.E-03 272.61.4414 274.41 1.8 1.155.E-03 237.61.8507 177.94 2.31 1.161.E-03 153.3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 273 kPa

101

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 2.5%CaCl2 (28 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0 0 0 1.134.E-03 0

0.1609 67.65 0.2 1.136.E-03 59.50.3218 107.35 0.4 1.139.E-03 94.30.4801 139.71 0.6 1.141.E-03 122.40.6345 166.18 0.79 1.143.E-03 145.41.0335 225.00 1.29 1.149.E-03 195.81.4324 264.12 1.79 1.155.E-03 228.71.8314 288.24 2.29 1.161.E-03 248.32.2432 304.41 2.8 1.167.E-03 260.92.6422 300.88 3.3 1.173.E-03 256.53.0541 207.35 3.82 1.179.E-03 175.93.4620 42.65 4.33 1.185.E-03 36

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 261 kPa

102

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 5%CaCl2 (28 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0.88 0 1.134.E-03 0.80.1583 64.71 0.2 1.136.E-03 56.90.3127 181.76 0.39 1.139.E-03 159.60.4672 272.94 0.58 1.141.E-03 239.30.6216 328.82 0.78 1.143.E-03 287.71.0296 384.71 1.29 1.149.E-03 334.81.4324 305.29 1.79 1.155.E-03 264.41.8314 214.12 2.29 1.161.E-03 184.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 335 kPa

103

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + 10%CaCl2 (28 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0 0.88 0 1.134.E-03 0.8

0.1583 31.76 0.2 1.136.E-03 280.3153 86.76 0.39 1.139.E-03 76.20.4736 187.65 0.59 1.141.E-03 164.50.6306 314.12 0.79 1.143.E-03 274.81.0425 623.53 1.3 1.149.E-03 542.61.4414 805.30 1.8 1.155.E-03 697.31.8443 878.82 2.31 1.161.E-03 7572.2497 849.41 2.81 1.167.E-03 727.92.6512 717.65 3.31 1.173.E-03 611.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 757 kPa

104

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + .2.5%NaCl2 (28 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1673 102.94 0.21 1.137.E-03 90.60.3282 179.41 0.41 1.139.E-03 157.50.4865 238.24 0.61 1.141.E-03 208.80.6409 279.41 0.8 1.143.E-03 244.41.0425 338.24 1.3 1.149.E-03 294.41.4414 333.24 1.8 1.155.E-03 288.51.8404 276.47 2.3 1.161.E-03 238.22.2432 200.00 2.8 1.167.E-03 171.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 294 kPa

105

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + .5%NaCl2 (28 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0.0039 0 0 1.134.E-03 00.1673 110.89 0.21 1.137.E-03 97.530.3282 181.44 0.41 1.139.E-03 159.30.4865 268.09 0.61 1.141.E-03 234.960.6409 300.89 0.8 1.143.E-03 263.251.0425 395.87 1.3 1.149.E-03 344.531.4414 333.24 1.8 1.155.E-03 288.51.8404 276.47 2.3 1.161.E-03 238.22.2432 200.00 2.8 1.167.E-03 171.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 345 kPa

106

Sample: Clay + 10%lime + .10%NaCl2 (28 DAYS)

Displacement ΔL

(mm)

CompressiveLoad

P (kN * E-03)

Strain εL = ΔL

/L (*E-02)

Cross section

area Ac=Ao/1-ε

Axial Stress

σ = P/Ai

(kN/m2) 0 0.88 0 1.134.E-03 0.8

0.1583 32.76 0.2 1.136.E-03 28.830.3153 89.09 0.39 1.139.E-03 78.220.4736 207.65 0.59 1.141.E-03 181.990.6306 414.89 0.79 1.143.E-03 362.981.0425 690.53 1.3 1.149.E-03 600.981.4414 799.31 1.8 1.155.E-03 692.041.8443 902.03 2.31 1.161.E-03 776.942.2497 849.41 2.81 1.167.E-03 727.92.6512 717.65 3.31 1.173.E-03 611.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Strain

Axi

al S

tres

s

UCS = 777 kPa