IJET Stabilization of A-2-7(0) Laterite Soil and Strength...

International Journal of Engineering and Technology Volume 6 No.4, April, 2016

ISSN: 2049-3444 © 2016 – IJET Publications UK. All rights reserved. 125

Stabilization of A-2-7(0) Laterite Soil and Strength Characteristics Using

Three Selected Cements Individually

I. Akiije Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Lagos, Akoka, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the stabilization of A-2-7(0) laterite soil and strength characteristics using grades 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N

cements individually in such a manner as to improve the performance of the soil for highway pavement. In the process specimens

prepared from laterite soil sample from Ondo town environs borrow pit in Nigeria for highway construction were subjected to

laboratory tests. The values obtained from the laboratory tests for bulk density, dry density, specific gravity, wet sieve analysis, void

ratio, porosity, degree of saturation, liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of the laterite soil samples tested confirmed that it

is a granular material of clayey gravel and sand. This group classification result shows that it is A-2-7(0) laterite soil that is good

only as subgrade highway material. In order to improve and determine the performance of the soil at optimal level as a basecourse

highway pavement material, it was subjected to stabilization comparison by using readily available cements of grades 42.5N, 42.5R

and 32.5N. Stabilization of each cement type with A-2-7(0) laterite soil at cement content of 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 12% and 14% was

carried out in order to determine the variations of OMC, MDD, UCS and CBR at maximum. Significantly, graphical presentation of

the results of the A-2-7(0) laterite soil using the three selected cements separately shows that at maximum of 14% and optimal use of

8% cement content respectively of stabilization, it is the grade 32.5N cement of lower rating that has the highest values of UCS and

CBR correspondingly. Soaked CBR values resulted from using grades 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N cements separately of the stabilized

A-2-7(0) laterite soil are strongly related because the determination correlation R value = 0.9997 indicating that grade 42.5N cement

should only be used in the absence of grade 32.5N cement and before the use of grade 42.5R cement.

Keywords: Borrow Pit, Percentages, Graphical, Economical, Subbase, Basecourse, Correlation

1. INTRODUCTION

Laterite soil at a particular location for highway pavement is

usually not of the same strength at other locations along a given

road particularly for a lengthy one. Long haulage of laterite soil

may as well not be economical and so the nearby material may

be stabilized and economically used for subbase or basecourse.

Subgrade or highway foundation soil California Bearing Ratio

(CBR) value may not be up to 5% and in such situation it has to

be stabilized in place by making it suitable subbase before the

placement of basecourse material in the construction of a road.

Akinwumi (2014) reported that in the tropical regions, laterite

soils occupy about 23 percent of the land surface and selecting

them for use as highway materials can be economically viable.

He further reported that some of the lateritic soils are unsuitable

for use as road construction materials because their properties

do not comply with existing standard requirements. The

reasons given by him are that some of laterite soils exhibit high

plasticity, poor workability, low strength, high permeability,

tendency to retain moisture and high natural moisture content.

Mustapha (2005) claimed that there are instances where laterite

soil containing a large amount of clay minerals with weak

strength and instability to sustain traffic load especially in the

presence of moisture are common in many tropical regions and

sourcing for alternative soil may prove uneconomical and

hence it may be better to improve the available soil to meet the

desired strength. Ali (2012) claimed that soil stabilization is a

process to improve the physical and engineering properties of

soil to obtain some predetermined targets.

Kadyali and Lal (2008) and Akiije (2015) claimed that

stabilization of soils could be achieved using aggregate,

bitumen, cement, salt, lime, sodium silicate, calcium chloride

and resinous materials. The most economical stabilization

methodology challenge the engineer is facing at a particular

situation depends upon the choosing and using readily available

stabilizer at a particular time whilst strength developed for the

design and construction of the highway pavement (Osinubi and

Amadi, 2010); (Akinwumi, 2014) and (Salahudeen and Akiije,

2014). Soil stabilization using chemical compounds such as

cement and lime increases soil strength parameters, enhances

capacity and decreases soil settlement at low cost particularly in

the projects that require a high volume of soil improvement (Ou

et al., 2011) and (Marto et al.,2013). However, (Liu, et al.,

2011) claimed that analysis performed on traditional chemical

stabilizers such as lime and cement are more common when

compared with nontraditional researches that are done by

mechanical stabilization. Latifi et al (2013) claimed that

traditional stabilizers include cement, lime, fly ash, and

bituminous materials, while nontraditional stabilizers consist of

various combinations such as enzymes, liquid polymers, resins,

acids, silicates, ions, and lignin derivatives.

Akinwumi et al., (2012) claimed that the coarser the grain of a

soil is the less water it requires to reach the optimum moisture

content. Also, Wright and Dixon (2003) and (Garber and Hoel,

2010) claimed that as the compactive effort on soil increases so

is the maximum density and whilst the moist content also

decreases. Cement stabilization of soils usually involves the

International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET) – Volume 6 No. 4, April, 2016


addition of 5% to 14% Portland cement by volume of the

compacted mixture to the soil being stabilized which could be

naturally occurring soil or artificially created soils or soil-

aggregate mixtures Wright and Dixon (2003) and (Garber and

Hoel, 2010). Kadyali and Lal (2008) claimed that the most

popular design criterion for soil-cement is in terms of

unconfined compressive strength after 7 days moist curing

having the rage value of 1.7MN/m 2 to 2.76MN/m 2 using

cylindrical specimen of ratio 2:1 height to diameter. The

desirable range for CBR value for subbase layer is 20% to 30%

and desirable range for basecourse is 80% to 100% according

to Kadyali and Lal (2008).

According to BS EN 197-1 (2011) cement is a hydraulic

binder, i.e. a finely ground inorganic material which, when

mixed with water, forms a paste which sets and hardens by

means of hydration reactions and processes and which, after

hardening, retains its strength and stability even under water.

Cement grade 42.5N indicates standard normal early strength at

28days by a prism of cement. Cement grade 42.5R indicates

standard rapid higher early strength at 28days by a prism of

cement. Cement grade 32.5N indicates standard normal

strength at 28days by a prism of cement.

The aim of this study is to compare and contrast strength

characteristics of the stabilization of A-2-7(0) laterite soil using

three selected cements that are of grades 42.5N, 42.5R and

32.5N individually. Specifically the objectives are:

1. To carry out laboratory tests in order to define basic and

engineering properties of the laterite soil as well as when

stabilized with the three cements individually.

2. To identify the best stabilizer when each one of them is

used individually to stabilize A-2-7(0) laterite soil that will

yield long-lasting subbase or basecourse material for

highway pavement regarding strength.

3. To establish among the three stabilizers the one that will

provide a cheaper stabilized subbase/basecourse material

during the design and construction of the highway

pavement.

The main scope of work in this study therefore includes

obtaining laterite soil material from a borrow pit meant for the

preparation of stabilized subbase/basecourse of not far distance

road and subjecting it to physical and chemical laboratory tests.

The significance of this study is in ensuring the reliability that

the chosen cement among the three stabilizers is most

economical and will not quickly subject highway pavement

surface to premature failure.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

The laterite soil sample used in this study was obtained from a

borrow pit in use for highway pavement construction in Ondo

town and environs in Ondo State of Nigeria. Tests on the

collected laterite soil sample were carried out in the laboratory

of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Faculty of Engineering, University of Lagos, Nigeria. The tests

were carried out according to the American Association of

State and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2007).

The sample was air dried in the laboratory to take advantage of

the aggregating potentials of lateritic soils upon exposure to air

as claimed by Omotosho and Eze-Uzomaka (2008). Tests were

carried out and basic and engineering properties of the selected

laterite soil in the laboratory were carried out in order to

determine the values of bulk density, dry density, specific

gravity, wet sieve analysis, void ratio, porosity, saturation

degree, liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index.

Three types of cements of grades 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N were

purchased in 50 kg bag each from the market for use in the

laboratory for stabilization tests. Strength tests were carried out

on the air dried laterite soil stabilized with cements of grades

42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N at cement content of 4%, 6%, 8%,

10%, 12% and 14% separately. For the strength tests, optimum

moisture content (OMC) was first determined and then

followed by maximum dry density (MDD). Unsoaked and

soaked CBR tests were also carried out as well as uncured and

cured unconfined compressive strength tests. Relationships

among the soaked and unsoaked CBR values obtained from the

three types of cements separately used for the stabilization of

A-2-7(0) laterite soil were compared for determination

correlation R values.

3. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND

DISCUSSIONS

Figure 1 shows that 35% maximum of the total laterite soil

sample passing through sieve size 0.075 mm by the way of wet

sieve analysis employed indicated that it is a granular material.

Table 1 expresses the basic and engineering properties of the

laterite soil sample material tested in the laboratory based upon

the methodologies defined by AASHTO (2007) soil

classification system. The laboratory determination of the

particle-size distribution of the laterite soil sample shows that it

is a granular material and falls into group classification of A-2-

7(0). The group symbol A-2-7 shows that the laterite soil is of

clayey gravel and sand while the group index 0 shows that it is

a good material for subgrade. The values obtained from the

laboratory tests for bulk density, dry density, specific gravity,

void ratio, porosity, degree of saturation, liquid limit, plastic

limit and plasticity index of the laterite soil samples tested

confirmed that the material is clayey gravel and sand.



Figure 1: Grain size analysis of the A-6(10) natural laterite soil

sample

Table 2 shows the comparison of the strength characteristics of the A-

2-7(0) laterite soil when stabilized with cements of grades 42.5N,

42.5R and 32.5N at maximum cement content of 14% individually.

This Table shows that at maximum cement content of 14% laterite

soil-cement stabilization the use of grade 32.5N cement proffered the

lowest OMC value of 15.4% as well as the highest MDD of

1.9663/ mMg . In the facet, specimens stabilized with grade 32.5N

cement also have the highest CBR values of 166.25% and 122.25% for

both soaked and unsoaked samples respectively. A-2-7(0) laterite

specimens stabilized with grade 42.5N cement have slight higher CBR

values of 159.5% and 121% for both soaked and unsoaked lateritic soil

samples over that of grade 42.5R cement stabilization with values of

156% and 119.25% respectively. Also in Table 2, similar trends are

seen for both cured and uncured unconfined compressive strengths of

cements of grades 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N specimens of A-2-7(0)

soil-cement stabilization. For cured and uncured UCS, u

q values at

maximum of 14% A-2-7(0) laterite soil-32.5N cement specimen

stabilization has the highest values 296.443 2/ mkN and 217.391

2/ mkN respectively of the three cements used. Whilst A-2-7(0) soil-

cement stabilization using grade 42.5N cement cured and uncured

UCS u

q values are 272.277 2/ mkN and 207.921

2/ mkN correspondingly, stabilizing this soil sample with cement of

grade 42.5R resulted in 264.212 2/ mkN and 203.373

2/ mkN respectively. In this aspect, it is pertinent to note that A-2-

7(0) laterite soil with cured and uncured UCS values of

89.6412/ mkN and 59.880

2/ mkN respectively, with consistency of

medium stiff has been upgraded to very stiff consistency due to

stabilization process by having u

q values ranging from

203.3732/ mkN to 296.443

2/ mkN .

Table 1: Basic and Engineering Properties of the

selected laterite soil

Table 2: Results of A-2-7(0) laterite soil strength when

stabilized with grades 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N cements

at maximum of 14% separately

Figures 2 to 7 respectively show the variations and

comparisons of unconfined compressive strength and the

related strain when A-2-7(0) laterite soil samples were

stabilized with cement grades 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N at

maximum of 14% separately under uncured and cured



conditions in the laboratory. Figure 2 shows the variation of

uncured UCS with strain of the A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized

with cement grade 32.5N increasing at cement content of 0%,

4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 12%, and 14% with corresponding values of

uq as 59.880 2/ mkN , 74.405 2/ mkN , 139.165 2/ mkN ,

188.867 2/ mkN , 198.413 2/ mkN , 208.748 2/ mkN , and

217.391 2/ mkN . Figure 3 also shows the variation of uncured

UCS with strain of the A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with

cement grade 42.5N increasing at cement content of 0%, 4%,

6%, 8%, 10%, 12%, and 14% with corresponding values of u

q

as 59.880 2/ mkN , 69.8602/ mkN , 124.008 2/ mkN ,

178.218 2/ mkN , 188.492 2/ mkN , 198.413 2/ mkN , and

207.921 2/ mkN . Figure 4 similarly shows the variations of

uncured UCS with strain of the A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized

with cement grade 42.5R increasing at cement content of 0%,

4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 12%, and 14% with corresponding values of

uq as 59.880 2/ mkN , 64.870 2/ mkN , 105.210 2/ mkN ,

159.046 2/ mkN , 178.571 2/ mkN , 185.644 2/ mkN , and

203.373 2/ mkN . On the other hand, Figure 5 displays the

variations of cured UCS with strain of the A-2-7(0) laterite soil

stabilized with cement grade 32.5N increasing at cement

content of 0%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 12%, and 14% with

corresponding values of u

q as 89.641 2/ mkN ,

114.542 2/ mkN , 149.105 2/ mkN , 208.748 2/ mkN ,

223.658 2/ mkN , 257.937 2/ mkN , and 296.443 2/ mkN .

Likewise, Figure 6 displays the variations of cured UCS with

strain of the A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with cement grade

42.5N increasing at cement content of 0%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%,

12%, and 14% with corresponding values of u

q as

89.641 2/ mkN , 99.404 2/ mkN , 140.281 2/ mkN ,

199.601 2/ mkN , 213.718 2/ mkN , 248.509 2/ mkN , and

272.277 2/ mkN . Figure 7 as well displays the variations of

cured UCS with strain of the A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized

with cement grade 42.5R increasing at cement content 0%, 4%,

6%, 8%, 10%, 12%, and 14% with corresponding values of u

q

as 89.641 2/ mkN , 94.936 2/ mkN , 138.807 2/ mkN ,

188.680 2/ mkN , 210.779 2/ mkN , 238.509 2/ mkN , and

264.212 2/ mkN .

Figure 2: Variation of uncured UCS to strain of the

A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with grades 32.5N cement

at varying percentages

Figure 3: Variation of uncured UCS to strain of the A-2-7(0)

laterite soil stabilized with grades 42.5N cement at varying

percentages



Figure 4: Variation of uncured UCS to strain of the

A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with grades 42.5R cement


Figure 5: Variation of cured UCS to strain of the A-2-7(0) laterite

soil stabilized with grades 32.5N cement at varying percentages

Figure 6: Variation of cured UCS to strain of the

A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with grades 42.5N cement


Figure 7: Variation of cured UCS to strain of the

A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with grades 42.5R cement


Figure 8 shows the variation of uncured and cured unconfined

compressive strength with varying cement content of 0%, 4%,

6%, 8%, 10%, 12, and 14% for the A-2-7(0) laterite soil

stabilized with cement grades 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N

separately. The A-2-7(0) laterite soil at 0% of cement content

stabilization or natural state uncured and cured is of medium

stiff consistency for the values are 59.880 2/ mkN and

89.641 2/ mkN respectively. Cured UCS at 4% of A-2-7(0)

laterite soil-32.5N cement stabilization is 114.542 2/ mkN with

stiff consistency other cured and uncured specimens u

q values



are from 64.870 2/ mkN to 99.404 2/ mkN indicating that they

are of medium stiff consistency. Also, cured UCS at 6% of A-

2-7(0) laterite soil-32.5N cement stabilization is

149.105 2/ mkN with very stiff consistency, other cured and

uncured specimens u

q values are from 105.210 2/ mkN to

140.281 2/ mkN indicating that they are of stiff consistency. It

is pertinent to note that the values of cured UCS at 8%, 10%,

12% and 14% of A-2-7(0) laterite soil-32.5N cement

stabilization are 208.748 2/ mkN , 223.658 2/ mkN ,

257.937 2/ mkN and 296.443 2/ mkN indicating that they are of

very stiff consistency. Cured UCS at 10%, 12% and 14% only

of A-2-7(0) laterite soil-42.5N and 42.5R cement stabilization

are of very stiff consistency for having values ranging from

210.779 2/ mkN to 264.212 2/ mkN . Also, the values of

uncured UCS at 12% and 14% of A-2-7(0) laterite soil-32.5N

cement stabilization are 208.748 2/ mkN and

217.391 2/ mkN indicating that they are of very stiff

consistency, whereas uncured UCS at 14% only of A-2-7(0)

laterite soil-42.5N and 42.5R cement stabilization are of very

stiff consistency for having values of 207.921 2/ mkN and

203.373 2/ mkN .

Figure 8: Variation of UCS uncured and cured compressive

strength with varying cement content upon A-2-7(0)

laterite soil stabilization

Figure 9 displays the variation of unsoaked California Bearing

Ratio with varying amount of cement upon A-2-7(0) laterite

soil stabilization with cement grades 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N

separately. This figure indicates that the unsoaked California

Bearing Ratio at 0% of A-2-7(0) natural laterite soil is 23.5%.

The value obtained is higher than 11% CBR value which is the

standard recommendation for highway subgrade or foundation.

Also, at 4% of A-2-7(0) laterite soil-42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N

cements stabilization, the unsoaked CBR values are 34.75%,

32.75% and 40.75% respectively which are higher than 30%

standard recommendation for highway subbase. Figure 9 shows

the unsoaked CBR values at 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 12% and

14% cement content upon stabilization of A-2-7(0) laterite soil

of cement grade 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N. Also in the Figure 9,

cement grade 32.5N proffered the highest CBR values of

specimens as indicated by their respective values with 79.25%,

92.5%, 107.25%, 113% and 122.25% as compared to related

values while using cement grades 42.5N and 42.5R. Figure 10

displays the variation of soaked California Bearing Ratio of the

A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with grades 42.5N, 42.5R and

32.5N cements separately. This figure indicates that the soaked

California Bearing Ratio value at 0% of A-2-7(0) natural

laterite soil is 9.5% which is satisfactory because it is between

5% and 11% CBR standard range values recommended for

highway subgrade or foundation. Also at 4% of A-2-7(0)

laterite soil-42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N cement stabilization the

soaked CBR values are 59.5%, 59.75% and 61.5% respectively

which are of higher than 30% standard recommendation at

maximum for highway subbase. Furthermore, Figure 10

displays the soaked CBR values at 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 12%

and 14% cement content upon stabilization of A-2-7(0) laterite

soil of cement grade 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N. In the figure,

cement grade 32.5N proffered highest CBR values of stabilized

specimens as indicated by their respective values with 88%,

110.25%, 124%, 148.5% and 166.25% while comparing same

related values of cement grades 42.5N and 42.5R.

Figure 9: Variation of unsoaked California Bearing Ratio

with varying amount of cement content upon A-2-7(0)




Figure 10: Variation of soaked California Bearing Ratio

with varying amount of cement content upon A-2-7(0)


Figure 11 illustrates the relationship between unsoaked CBR of

A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with grade 32.5N and 42.5N

cements separately. This correlation graph follows a linear

pattern with coefficient of determination 9976.02 R and

correlation 9987.0R of Equation 1.

7854.20004.1 xy (1)

Also, Figure 12 demonstrates the relationship between

unsoaked CBR of A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with grades

32.5N and 42.5R cements individually. This correlation graph

follows a linear pattern with coefficient of determination

9868.02 R and correlation 9934.0R of Equation 2.

9818.29671.0 xy (2)

Likewise, Figure 13 validates the relationship between

unsoaked CBR of A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with grades

32.5N and 42.5N cements separately. Correlation graph

developed follows a linear model with coefficient of

determination 9995.02 R and correlation 9997.0R of

Equation 3.

3522.0964.0 xy (3)

Correspondingly, Figure 14 exhibits the relationship between

unsoaked CBR of A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilized with cement

grades 32.5N and 42.5R individually. Correlation diagram

developed follows a linear model with coefficient of

determination 998.02 R and correlation 999.0R of

Equation 4.

7854.20004.1 xy (4)

Figure 11: Relationship between unsoaked CBR values

resulted from using grades 42.5N and 32.5N cements

separately of the stabilized A-2-7(0) laterite soil

Figure 12: Relationship between unsoaked CBR values

resulted from using grades 42.5R and 32.5N cements

separately of the stabilized A-2-7(0)laterite soil

Figure 13: Relationship between soaked CBR values

resulted from using grades 42.5N and 32.5N cements




Figure 14: Relationship between soaked CBR values

resulted from using grades 42.5R and 32.5N cements


4. CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

A natural laterite soil sample from a road borrow pit in Ondo

town environs in Ondo State of Nigeria was tested in the

laboratory to determine its basic soil properties, Atterberg

limits, grain size analysis, compaction, unconfined compressive

strength and California Bearing Ratio. The soil sample was

further tested in the laboratory by chemical stabilization using

cements of grades 42.5N, 42.5R and 32.5N individually in

percentages of 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 12% and 14%. Based upon

the study, the following are the conclusions and able

recommendations.

1. The result of the grain size analysis and Atterberg limit

tests show that the laterite soil sample experimented is A-

2-7(0) laterite soil material and it is a granular clayey

gravel and sand that is good for subgrade.

2. The lower the optimum moisture content of the stabilized

soil specimen the higher the maximum dry density. At

maximum cement content of 14% of A-2-7(0) laterite soil

stabilization of the three types of cement individually,

grade 32.5N cement has the lowest value of OMC that is

15.4% and also has highest amount of MDD value which is

1.966 Mg/m³.

3. The higher the cement content of the stabilized soil

specimen the higher the CBR value for both unsoaked and

soaked specimens. At maximum cement content of 14% of

A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilization with the three types of

cement individually, grade 32.5N cement has the highest

values of unsoaked and soaked CBR of 122.25% and

166.50% respectively.

4. The higher the cement content of the stabilized soil

specimen the higher the UCS as well as the strain for both

uncured and cured specimens. At maximum cement

content of 14% of A-2-7(0) laterite soil stabilization with

the three types of cement individually, grade 32.5N cement

has the highest values of respective uncured and cured

UCS of 217.391 2/ mkN and 296.443 2/ mkN respectively

with each having the strain value of 3.

5. There is strong relationship between the stabilized A-2-

7(0) laterite soil specimens with cement grades 32.5N and

42.5 R for unsoaked and soaked CBR because their

correlation R values are 0.9934 and 0.999 respectively.

However, stronger relationship exists between the

stabilized A-2-7(0) laterite soil specimens with cement

grades 32.5N and 42.5N for unsoaked and soaked CBR

because their correlation R values are 0.9987 and 0.9997

respectively.

6. With the availability of the three cements of grades 32.5N,

42.5N and 42.5 R for the stabilization of A-2-7(0) laterite

soil, the cement grade 32.5N is most viable economical.

However, in its absence cement grade 42.5N is preferable

to cement grade 42.5R.

7. Cement grade 32.5N at 8% cement content stabilization of

A-2-7(0) laterite soil proffered optimal strength of

188.867 2/ mkN and 208.748 2/ mkN respectively for

uncured and cured UCS for highway pavement design

while comparing same with the other cement of grades

42.5N and 42.5R with the values 178.218 and

199.60 2/ mkN for the former before 159.046 and

188.680 2/ mkN for the later. Kadyali and Lal (2008)

declared basecourse strength value between 170.00 2/ mkN and 276.00 2/ mkN as design criterion for soil-

cement stabilization in terms of the unconfined

compressive strength after 7 days moist curing.

8. Also, cement grade 32.5N at 8% cement content

stabilization of A-2-7(0) laterite soil proffered optimal

strength of 92.5% and 110.25% respectively for unsoaked

and soaked CBR for highway pavement design while

comparing same with the other cement of grades 42.5N

and 42.5R with the values 91.1% and 107% for the former

before 89.25% and 102.5% for the later. Kadyali and Lal

(2008) declared basecourse strength value between 80%

and 100% as design criterion for soil-cement stabilization

in terms of soaked CBR test.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (2007): “Standard Specifications for Transportation

Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing”,

American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials, 27th ed., Washington D.C

Akiije, I. (2015): “Comparison Characterization of A-6(10)

Laterite Soil Stabilized With Powermax Cement and Hydrated

Lime Separately”, International Journal of Engineering and

Technology, Volume 5 No. 7, 392-401

Akinwumi, I. (2014): “Plasticity, Strength and Permeability of

Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement and Lateritic Soil Blends”,

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,

Volume 5, Issue 6, 631 - 636

Akinwumi, I. I.; Adeyeri, J.B. and Ejohwomu, O.A. (2012):

“Effects of Steel Slag Addition on the Plasticity, Strength and

Permeability of Lateritic Soil”, Proceedings of the Second



International Conference of Sustainable Design, Engineering

and Construction, Texas, 457-464

Ali, F. (2012): “Stabilization of Residual Soils Using Liquid

Chemical”. The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Science and Technology, 2(1), 102-110

BS EN 197-1 (2011): “Composition, Specifications and

Conformity Criteria for Common Cements”, British Standard

Institution

Garber, N. J. and Hoel L, A (2010): “Traffic and Highway

Engineering”, 4th edition, Cengage learning Stamford, USA

Kadyali, L. R. and Lal, N. B. (2008): “Principles and Practices

of Highway Engineering (Including Expressways and Airport

Engineering)”, Romesh Chander Khanna, 2-B, Nath Market,

Nai Sarak, Delhi, India

Latifi, N., Marto, A., and Eisazadeh, A. (2013): “Structural

Characteristics of Laterite Soil Treated by SH-85 and TX-85

(Non-traditional) Stabilizers”. The Electronic Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering 18 (Bund, C), 1707-1718

Liu, J., Shi, B., Jiang, H., Huang, H., Wang, G., & Kamai, T.

(2011): “Research on the Stabilization Treatment of Clay Slope

Topsoil by Organic Polymer Soil Stabilizer”, Engineering

Geology, 117(1), 114-120

Marto, A., Latifi, N. and Sohaei, H. (2013): “Stabilization of

Laterite Soil Using GKS Soil Stabilizer”. The Electronic

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 18 (Bund, C), 521-532

Mustapha, M.A. (2005): “Effect of Bagasse Ash on Cement

Stabilized Laterite”, Seminar Paper Presented at the

Department of Civil Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University,

Zaria, Nigeria

Omotosho, O. and Eze-Uzomaka, O .J. (2008): “Optimal

Stabilization of Deltaic Laterite”. Journal of the South

African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol. 50, No. 2, Pages

10–17, Paper 673

Osinubi, K. J. and Amadi, A. A. (2010): “Evaluation of

Strength of Compacted Lateritic Soil-Bentonite Mixture for

Use as Landfill Linear and Cover, Journal of Engineering

Research, JER-13, No. 3

Ou, O., Zhang, X. G., & Yi, N. P. (2011): “The Experimental

Study on Strength of Subgrade Soil Treated with Liquid

Stabilizer”, Advanced Materials Research, 194, 985-988

Salahudeen, A. B. and Akiije, I. (2014): “Stabilization of

Highway Expansive Soils with High Loss on Ignition Content

Kiln Dust”, Nigerian Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH), Vol.

33. No. 2, pp. 141-148

Wright, P. H. and Dixon, K.K. (2003): “Highway

Engineering”, 7th ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York

IJET Stabilization of A-2-7(0) Laterite Soil and Strength...

Documents

Transcript of IJET Stabilization of A-2-7(0) Laterite Soil and Strength...