Review Article

Industrial Wastes as Auxiliary Additives to Cement/Lime Stabilization of Soils

Table 2

Comparison of improvements achieved by various auxiliary additives.

Author(s)Soil-optimum waste combinationMajor geotechnical properties testedEffect of stabilization with stabilizer onlyEffect of stabilization with stabilizer & additive

Ji-ru and Xing [22]Expansive soil + 4–6% of lime + 40–50% of FACBR26.5%–129.3%119.3–122.8%
Swelling capacity0–5.70%0.008–0.02%

Sharma et al. [26] Low plastic clay + 20% FA + 8.5% limeUCC strength63.38 kPa105.2 kPa
CBR4.03%5.7%

Mishra [27]Clayey soil + 3% lime + 30% FACBR22.3%55.8%

Mccarthy et al. [28] Sulphate bearing soil + 3% lime + 24% FAUCC strength~1.1 MPa2.2 MPa
Immediate bearing index~16%31%
Sulphate bearing soil + 3% lime + 9% GGBSUCC strength~1.1 MPa1.9 MPa
Immediate bearing index~16%36%

Kolay et al. [29]Peat soil + 6% quicklime + 15% FAUCC strength~70 kPa~90 kPa

Shah et al. [30]Contaminated soil + 10% lime + 5% cement + 5% FAUCC strength105.91 kPa138.28 kPa

Wang et al. [31] Marine sediments + 3% lime + 3% FAUCC strength~0.8 MPa~1.1 MPa
Marine sediments + 6% cement + 3% FAUCC strength~2.1 MPa~1.7 MPa

Bhuvaneshwari et al. [32] Dispersive clay + 2% lime + 15% FA% dispersion (free swell)400%~420%
% dispersion (double hydrometer)9.5%1%

Bagheri et al. [33] Silty sand + 10% cement-lime-RHA (25 : 50 : 25)UCC strength~550 kPa~600 kPa
Triaxial shear
(i) Cohesion99.7 kPa108.8 kPa
(ii) Friction30.66°34.22°

Basha et al. [34] Residual soil + 6–8% cement + 15–20% RHAUCC strength~0.32 MPa1.2 MPa
CBR6%~52%

James et al. [35] Black cotton soil + 12% RHA + 6% limeSwell-shrink
(i) Shrinkage limit~15%~23%
(ii) Free swell~60%~32%

Jha and Gill [36] Local soil + 5–7% lime + 12% RHAUCC strength0.8 MPa1.4 MPa
Soaked CBR~33%~35%

Choobbasti et al. [37] Soil + 4% lime + 5% RHADirect shear
(i) Cohesion~65 kPa~170 kPa
(ii) Friction angle45°49°
Soaked CBR31%49%

Muntohar et al. [38] Silty soil + 12% lime + 12% RHA + 0.4% fibresCompressive strength112 kPa228 kPa
Split tensile strength5.3 kPa35.3 kPa
Soaked CBR22%40%

Sharma et al. [39] Soil + 4% lime + 12% RHAUCC strength650 kPa1180 kPa
CBR6%23%
Soil + 1% calcium chloride + 12% RHAUCC strength415 kPa856 kPa
CBR4.6%9.25%

Roy [40] Soil + 6% cement + 10% RHAUCC strength70 kPa~135 kPa
CBR~1.4%~3%

Olgun [41] Expansive soil + ~6.5% lime + ~15% RHA + ~0.8% fibresUCC strength0.77 MPa0.91 MPa
Swell pressure4 kPa2 kPa

Wild et al. [43]Kimmeridge clay + 4% lime + 6% GGBSUCC strength~2000 kPa3500 kPa

Celik and Nalbantoglu [44]Highly plastic clay + 5% lime + 6% GGBSPercent swell~8%<1%

Obuzor et al. [45] Lower Oxford Clay + 4% lime + 12% GGBSUnsoaked UCC strength~1500–2000 kPa~3000–4800 kPa
Soaked UCC strength~500 kPa~2500–3400 kPa

Obuzor et al. [46] Lower Oxford Clay + 4% lime + 12% GGBSWater absorption4–12%2–6%
UCC strength<500 kPa~1500–2000 kPa

Kogbara and Al-Tabbaa [47] Contaminated soil + 20% lime-slagUCC strength800 kPa
PermeabilityData not reported~6 × 10−8 m/s
Contaminated soil + 20% cement-slagUCC strength560 kPa
Permeability~5 × 10−9 m/s

Vijayaraghavan et al. [48] Mud + 25% cement + 50% slagCompressive strength7.12 MPa8.3 MPa
Water absorption7.5%6.29%

Degirmenci et al. [49]Soil + 7.5% cement + 7.5% PGUCC strength~700 kPa~700 kPa

Kumar et al. [56] Bentonite + 8% lime + 8% PGUCC strength~600 kPa~850 kPa
CBR8.92%11.889%

Ghosh [57] Pond ash + 10% lime + 1% PGUnsoaked CBR161.67%221.78%
Soaked CBR145.7%216.65%

James and Pandian [58]Expansive soil + 7% lime + 1% PGUCC strength1881 kPa2251 kPa

Kumar and Dutta [59]Bentonite + 8% lime + 8% PG + 1% sisal fibresUCC strength~850 kPa~1150 kPa

Manikandan and Moganraj [64] Expansive soil + 2-3% lime + 2–6% BAUCC strength632 kPa990 kPa
Coefficient of consolidation7.62 × 10−3 cm2/min1.46 × 10−3 cm2/min

Alavéz-Ramírez et al. [65] Soil + 10% lime + 10% BACompressive strength16.5 MPa21.3 MPa
Flexural strength1.12 MPa1.4 MPa
Soaked compressive strength5.55 MPa7.72 MPa

Sadeeq et al. [66] Lateritic soil + 8% lime + 6% BAUCC strength600 kPa698 kPa
Unsoaked CBR28%43%
Soaked CBR15%22%

Muazu [68, 69] Lateritic soil + 4% cement + 8% BACohesion60 kPa30 kPa
Angle of friction27°34°
Plasticity9.5%1%

Onyelowe [67]Lateritic soil + 6% cement + 10% BACBR87.3%137.6%

Lima et al. [70] Sandy soil + 6% cement + 8% BACompressive strength0.70 MPa1.54 MPa
Water absorption12.41%11.86%
Sandy soil + 12% cement + 8% BACompressive strength3.13 MPa2.89 MPa
Water absorption11.94%12.11%

Moayed et al. [71] Saline silty sand + 2% lime + 1–3% micro silicaUCC strength526 kPa573 kPa
Soaked CBR92%114%

Kalkan [72] Clayey soil + 4% lime + 16% micro silicaCompressive strength1.2 kPa12.2 kPa
CBR103%253%

Oza and Gundaliya [73]Black cotton soil + 4.5% lime + 4.5% cement waste dustCompressive strength10.91 MPa14.41 MPa

Ahmad et al. [74]Peat soil + 20% cement + 10% palm oil fuel ashUCC strength~90 kPa~125 kPa

Seco et al. [75]Soil + 4% lime + 5% rice husk FAUCC strength0.399 MPa1.572 MPa

Seco et al. [76] Grey marl + 4% lime + 5% rice husk FAUCC strength~0.53 MPa~2 MPa
CBR40%135%

Chen and Lin [77] Soil + 16% sewage sludge ash – cement (4 : 1)UCC strength100 kPa225 kPa
CBR12–15%65–85%

Rahmat and Ismail [78] Lower Oxford Clay + 20% WSA-lime (90 : 10)UCC strength~800 kPa~2300 kPa
Lower Oxford Clay + 20% WSA-cement (90 : 10)UCC strength~500 kPa~2300 kPa

Lisbona et al. [79]Soil + 3% cement + 1% CPSUCC strength7.8 MPa9.8 MPa

James and Pandian [80] Expansive soil + 7% lime + 2% PMUCC strength~1500 kPa~2000 kPa
Expansive soil + 4% cement + 8% ceramic dustUCC strength2000 kPa4000 kPa

Okonkwo et al. [82] Lateritic soil + 8% cement + 10% egg shell ashUCC strength655 kPa988 kPa
CBR82%93%

Results comparison between optimized and nonoptimized values.
~ represents approximate values read from reported graphical illustrations.