Lime Stabilization of Expansive Soils

Joseph Desire Muhirwa Richard Benda Robert Sargent Aravind Pedarla Dr Anand Puppala
California Baptist University New Mexico Tech California Baptist University University Of Texas at Arlington University of Texas at Arlington
Civil Engineering Civil Engineering Civil Engineering PhD Student Faculty, Geotechnical Engineering

Project Objectives Methods and Procedure

Stress vs. Axial Strain
• To study, analyze, and classify expansive soils. TxDOT Flow chart for Subgrade Soil Stabilization The stabilization of Austin’s expansive soil 9000
Austin's soil with 0%
qu =8061lb/ft2
• To understand the problematic nature of expansive soils and involved several tests and took approximately 8000
qu = 7368lb/ft2
lime

four and a half weeks to finish. The following

Austin's soil with 2% • The
the damages resulting from it. 7000 lime
Unconfined

Stress, σ (lb/ft2)
• To learn about the different methods used in lime stabilization steps were followed to stabilize Austin’s clayey 6000
Austin's soil with 4%
lime Compressive
of expansive soils and how they work. soil: 5000
qu =4952 lb/ft2 Austin's soil with
6% Lime Strength
• To determine the most effective amount of lime to stabilize an 1. Obtain the soil sample from the field. 4000 increases
qu =3433 lb/ft2
expansive soil. 2. Determine Atterberg limits in accordance with 3000 with the
ASTM D4318 (Figure 4a) and Classify the soil increase of
Introduction using USCS method.
2000
lime
1000
percentage
Soils with high amounts of clay particles tend to hold a lot of 3. Determine the soluble sulfate content using the 0 (figure 5).
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
moisture, which causes them to swell when water is absorbed modified UTA method (Figure 6b).
Axial Strain, ԑ (%)
and shrink when they are dried. This swelling and shrinkage 4. Select lime percentages, mixing water, and
causes damage to road and building foundations, costing sample soils to be tested.
billions of dollars to repair every year. One indicator of how a 5. Prepare the sample and compact them after a Fig. 5: Strength estimate of treated and non-treated soils
soil will behave when moisture is added or removed is the 24-hour mellowing time.
plasticity index (PI). A soil sample from Austin, Texas, with a 6. Conduct the Unconfined Compressive Strength
high plasticity index was used to study the effects of lime test on compacted specimens (Figure 4b).
stabilization on expansive soils. The main goal was to
7. Conduct One-Dimensional Swell Test on control
increase the bearing capacity of the soil and reduce
soil and lime-treated soils.
volumetric fluctuations of it.
8. Evaluate the results and indicate the most
effective percentage of lime to be used on the
Background soil of interest.
General information (a) (b)
•Expansive soils are generally found in arid and semi arid areas. (a) (b)
•According to US Department of Housing and Urban Fig. 6: Test Specimens & Sulfate Content Test
Development, the repair of damage on infrastructures caused by
expansive soils costs about 9 billion dollars per year (figure 1). Conclusion
•Lime is the most effective and widely used chemical additive for •We gained an understanding of the concepts behind lime
expansive soils (Nelson and Miller, 1992). stabilization.
•The state of Texas has both swelling and shrinking problems
•6% lime provided the best results. However, 4% provided
because of moisture fluctuations throughout the year (Nelson
nearly similar results and could be more economical.
and Miller, 1992).
Fig. 4: Atterberg Limits and UCS Test •4% was determined to be the most effective additive for
stabilization of Austin’s expansive soil.
Results and Discussion •For future research, lime could be combined with other
additives (such as cement) for improved performance.
Time vs. Displacement  Austin’s soil was classified as a high plasticity
clay (Table 1).
0.08
0.075
Table 1. Properties of Austin’s soil 
References
0.07
0.065 Chen, F. H. (1988). Foundations of Expansive Soils. American
displacement (in)

0.06
0.055
0 percent Soil Property Results Elsevier Science Publ., New York.
0.05 2 percent Plasticity Index (PI) 30.84% Das, Braja M. (2002). Soil Mechanics Laboratory Manual, 7th ed.,
0.045
0.04
4 percent Liquid Limit (LL) 51.04% Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y..
0.035
0.03 Plastic Limit (PL) 19.76% Little, D., and Scullion, T. (2005). Guidelines for Modification and
6 percent
0.025 Stabilization of Soils and Base for Use in Pavement Structures.
0.02 Sulfate Content 261 ppm Texas Department of Transportation, Texas state.
0.015
0.01
% Passing #200 Sieve 95% Miller, D. J., Nelson, J. D. (1992). Expansive Soils: Problems and
0.005
0
USCS Classification CH Practice in Foundation and Pavement Engineering, John Wiley &
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Sons, Inc., Toronto, Canada.
Time (hr)
Lime-treated specimens exhibited a very low Acknowledgements
vertical strain or swelling ability whereas the control
specimen swelled considerably (Figure 2). We are very grateful to all the people who made this research
Fig. 1: Expansive Soil Damage Fig. 2: Swell Potential of Treated and Non-Treated Soils •The more lime used to stabilize an expansive soil possible, especially Dr. Anand Puppala, Dr. Nur Yazdani, Mr. Aravind
is, the lower the swell potential becomes (Figure 2). Pedarla, Mr. Justin Thomey, Mr. Minh Lee and Mr. Naga Talluritinnu.
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2011

www.PosterPresentations.com