International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, 3(11), pp. 0288-296, 2015
Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.com/ijsrk
ISSN: 2322-4541; ©2015; Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsrk-2015-p0288-0296
288
Full Length Research Paper
Potentials of Non-Cementitious Additives for Stabilization of Oye Local Government
Area Soil, Ekiti State, Nigeria
Adeyemi Ezekiel Adetoro, Olubunmi Sunday Faluyi
Department of Civil Engineering, the Federal Polytechnic, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria
*Corresponding Author: Phone No. - +234(0)8105586254; E-mail: [email protected]
Received 24 September 2015; Accepted 08 December 2015
Abstract. From time immemorial, Soil Stabilization has been in existence and is of different processes. Though its usage is
very usual in developed world. The use of Non – cementitous Stabilization in developing Countries such as Nigeria will help in
optimization of “Waste to Wealth Policy”. Thus improve foster proper watse disposal and management and raise of standard of
living. In this study, the study area soil samples A, B, C and D were treated with two non - cementitious additives (i.e. Sawdust
Ash and Palm Kernel Shell Ash) at 0%, 2%, 4%, 6% and 8% proportions (by the soil weight) for stabilization potentials
purpose. Laboratory tests such as Particle Size Analysis, Atterberg Limits and Compaction tests were conducted before and
after mixing (i.e. treated and untreated soils). The results showed that Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index and Maximum Dry
Density (except Sample B) values increased as the additives contents increased. The soil general rating for subgrade materials
remains the same as “excellent to good”, though the group classifications change from “A – 1 – b” (Samples C and D) and “A
– 2 – 4” (Samples A and B) to “A – 2 – 6” (which is inferior). The non – cementitious additives have negative effects on the
soil indices properties, thus make the soil less suitable for construction purpose after application.
Keywords: Atterberg Limits; Liquid Limit; Maximum Dry Density; Non-cementitious; Palm Kernel Shell Ash; Plasticity
Index; SawDust Ash
1. INTRODUCTION
Awkward difficulties always arise in Civil
Engineering works when the infrastructure foundation
is found to comprise of expansive or problematic soil.
These are soils with high clay mineral contents with
abilities to swell whenever there is presence of
moisture content in it. Most properties of these soils
could be improved through Soil Stabilization
processes. The cogent purpose of Soil Stabilization is
to have a suitable physical grading for the soil and / or
enhance some other physical properties of the soil e.g.
Strength, stability, water resistance etc (Abood, 2007;
Amu et al., 2008; Onyelowe, 2013).
Soil Stabilization is as old as time and not new in
the World of today. Soil Stabilization can be defined
as an approach whereby unusual soil, a bonding
material or other compound materials are added to
natural soil or an expertise use on a natural soil to
enhance one or more of its properties. Stabilization of
soil could be achieved mainly by mixing the natural
soil and the stabilizing agents/materials together or
through addition of the agents /materials to the soil,
thus allow it to penetrate the soil voids. Soil
Stabilization or Modification is also known as Soil
Reinforcement (Abood, 2007; Onyelowe, 2013).
According to Onyelowe (2013), there are many
Soil Stabilization methods that have been used over
years and the most frequently used ones are
Mechanical Soil Stabilization which comprises of
compaction, dewatering etc. Chemical Soil
Stabilization which comprises of use of lime, cement,
fly ash, bitumen, etc as stabilizing agents. They are
also called Cementitious additives and could enhance
moisture content, particle cohesion, cementing and
water proofing agents of the soil. Geosynthetic
Stabilization which comprises of using geotextiles,
geogrids, geonets, geomembranes, geopipes etc in
reinforcing the soil. And Non – Cementitious
Additives Soil Stabilization which comprises of using
Quarry dust, Egg-shell ash, Rice husk ash, Sugar cane
ash, Palm kernel ash, Saw dust ash etc. as stabilizing
agents. These additives have abilities of improving
the geophysical properties of soil at lower cost. They
are always used to improve the properties of less
desirable road soils (Abood, 2007; Amu et al., 2008;
Amin, 2012; Onyelowe, 2013).
Non-cementitious additives are usually derived
from waste materials especially agricultural ones.
Adetoro and Faluyi
Potentials of Non-Cementitious Additives for Stabilization of Oye Local Government Area Soil, Ekiti State, Nigeria
289
Practical and effective uses of these agricultural waste
materials in Soil Stabilization keep them from being
used for land or environmental degradation. Thereby
help in saving the already reduced land space. These
also help in proper disposal and management of the
agricultural waste products (Abood, 2007; Amu et al.,
2008; Amin, 2012; Onyelowe, 2013).
From the above explanation, there are reasons or
justification for using the cheaper additives (i.e. non –
cementitious additives) in altering or improving soil
properties. The past research works of Qasim et al,
2015; Orie and Omokhiboria, 2014; Vishwanath,
2014; Armin and Kalantari, 2013; Fauzi et al, 2013;
Ismaeil, 2013; Amin, 2012; Tastan et al, 2011; Amu et
al., 2008 among others investigated extensively into
the practical applications of the waste and recycled
materials as soil stabilizers in Civil Engineering
construction.
In this study, assessment of potentials of non -
cementitous available additives such as SawDust Ash
(SDA) and Palm Kernel Shell Ash (PKSA) on
Geotechnical properties of Ekiti State soil would be
carried out. These additives are in large quantities in
the study area and its environment. It will also help in
acquisition of technical information / data for Ekiti
State soil, which will help in establishing the
additives’ suitability for Soil Stabilization purpose (s).
Changes in the Geotechnical properties of Ekiti State
Soil especially the study area as a result of addition of
these additives were studied; conclusion and
recommendations on their construction application
were inferred.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Study Area
The study area is Oye Local Government Area (LGA)
situated around Lat. 7.86441ON and Long. 5.33679OE
as shown in Fig.1 and was created out of the defunct
Ekiti North LGA on 17th of May, 1989 to be one of
the sixteen LGAs in Ekiti state, South-western part of
Nigeria on its creation. Its Council Secretariat
Headquarter is within Oye town. The LGA is bounded
by Ilejemeje LGA to the North, Irepodun/Ifelodun
LGA to the South, Ikole LGA to the East and Ido/Osi
LGA to the West (EKSDICT, 2015).
According to Adetoro and Adam (2015), Ekiti
State, where the study area is situated, is on ancient
metamorphic rocks of the Precambrian basement
complex of Southwestern part of Nigeria. There are
large variations in grain size and mineral composition
of the basement complex rocks. The rocks consist of
quartz gneisses and schists essentially of quartz with
small amounts of white mizageous minerals, strongly
foliated and occur as outcrops. The rocks’ grain size
and structure vary from very coarse-grained pegmatite
to medium-grained gneisses. The weathering products
of the basement complex rock are soils in which
majority are well drained with medium to coarse
texture.
Fig. 1: Location of the Study area – Oye LGA (Source: Google, 2015)
International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, 3(11), pp. 0288-296, 2015
290
2.2. Sample preparation
PALM KERNEL SHELL ASH (PKSA) – This is a
secondary product from the burning of palm kernel
shells under a controlled temperature. Palm kernel
shell is an economic waste, highly available in
considerable amount in the southwestern part of
Nigeria. PKSA consists of very low ash and sulphur -
approximately 3% and 0.09% by weight contents
respectively. The PKSA used for the study was sieved
with 75μmm sieve cell (Adetoro and Adam, 2015).
SAWDUST ASH (SDA) – This is an economic
waste produced from the burning of clean sawmill
dust (produced during wood processing into different
shapes and sizes) under a controlled temperature.
SDA is pozzolanic in configuration especially the one
produced from clean sawdust (i.e. without a large
amount of bark). The SDA used for the study was
sieved with 75μmm sieve cell (Adetoro and Adam,
2015).
Soil samples were taken from trial pits at depth of
about 2m in the study area using disturbed method of
sampling. The location of the samples with their
respective chainages and coordinates were shown in
table 1. The soil samples taken were stored in
polythene bags to prevent loss of moisture contents
and then taken to the laboratory where the dangerous
and unusable materials were removed. The samples
were then air dried, pulverized with mortar and pestle
and sieved in other to remove large particles.
The non – cementitious additives (i.e. PKSA and
SDA) were mixed with the soil samples in the
proportion of 0% to 8% and some laboratory tests
were conducted on the treated / mixed samples in
accordance with BS 1377 (1990) standard methods.
The tests conducted on the soil samples were
Atterberg limits, Compaction and Particle size
analysis. The tests results were analyzed and
correlations were established among them. Then the
results were compared and grouped in accordance
with FMWH (1997) and AASHTO (1986) standard
specified values.
Table 1: Details of the location of the Soil Samples taken
Table 2: Summary of Particle Size distribution Test Results for the Untreated Soil Samples
Adetoro and Faluyi
Potentials of Non-Cementitious Additives for Stabilization of Oye Local Government Area Soil, Ekiti State, Nigeria
291
2.3. Laboratory determinations
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS - These tests are also
called Consistency tests and comprises of Liquid
Limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL) and Plasticity Index
(PI). They usually help in evaluation of soil samples
natural response to moisture (i.e. water) (Adetoro and
Adam, 2015; BS 1377, 1990).
COMPACTION - The importance of this test is to
establish facts about Optimum Moisture Content
(OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of the soil
samples. Standard Proctor type of Compaction test
was used in this study (Adetoro and Adam, 2015).
In this study, Atterberg Limits and Compaction
tests were conducted on the treated and untreated soil
samples.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS – The essence of
this test is to analyze and group the soil particles or
grain into various sizes - clay, gravel and sand
proportions. It also helps in ascertaining the relative
proportion by mass of the soil samples at untreated
state. The results of this test are usually used in
classifying soil samples in accordance with (Adetoro
and Adam, 2015; BS 1377, 1990).
Fig. 3: Graphs of the Particle Size Analysis Tests for the Untreated Soil Samples
Table 3: Properties of the Natural Soil before Stabilization
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Table 2 showed results of particle size distribution test
for the untreated soil samples. It showed that the
untreated soil samples have less percentages finer than
0.0075 fractions (i.e. <35%), which varied between
7.0% and 33.4%. The average percentages of sand and
gravel were 24.6% and 44.55% respectively. These
results implied that the soil has large content of
granular materials. From Table 2, graphs were plotted
for the Particle Size Distribution test results as shown
in Fig. 2. From the graph, it can be seen that soil
samples A and B values of fine sand (i.e. 0.075 -
0.475mm) were greater than the upper specified limit.
International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, 3(11), pp. 0288-296, 2015
292
This implied that soil samples A and B have more fine
sands than required. Soil samples C and D values of
coarse sand (i.e. 2.36mm) were lower than the lower
specified limit. This implied that soil samples C and D
have lesser coarse sands than required. Soil sample C
value(s) of gravel (i.e. 4.75 – 9.50mm) is greater than
the upper specified limit. This implied that soil sample
C has more gravel / boulders than required.
Table 3: Summary of the Tests Results for the Treated Soil Samples
Fig. 3: Graphs of the Liquid Limits Tests for the Treated Soil Samples
Table 3 showed Geotechnical Indices properties of
the untreated soil samples before its stabilization
using the non-cementitious additives (i.e. addition of
PKSA and SDA additives). In accordance with [16]
using the available data from Table 3, the untreated
soil samples could be generally classified as granular
soils. Soil samples A and B fell under group
classification of A - 2 – 4 while soil samples C and D
fell under group classification of A – 1 - b. The
general rating of all the soil samples as sub-grade
materials is excellent to good. Though that of C and D
(i.e. A – 1 – b) were better than that of A and B (A – 2
– 4). Soil samples A and B have significant
constituent materials of Silty or Clayey gravel and
sand while soil samples C and D have significant
constituent materials of Stone fragments, gravel and
sand. These soil samples met the required
specifications for subgrade (i.e. LL ≤ 80%, PI ≤ 55%),
subbase and base (i.e. LL ≤ 35% and PI ≤ 12%)
course materials in their liquid limits (LL) and
Adetoro and Faluyi
Potentials of Non-Cementitious Additives for Stabilization of Oye Local Government Area Soil, Ekiti State, Nigeria
293
plasticity indices (PI), but fail to meet up the
requirements for the maximum dry density (i.e. MDD
>1760Kg/m3 for Subgrade and MDD > 2000Kg/m3
for Subbase and Base) except soil sample C (Subgade
only).
It could also be observed from Table 3 that OMC
values varied between 11.59% and 18.00%. This
portrayed that the moisture content in the study area is
very high compared to specified values in accordance
with FMWH (1997) and AASHTO (1986). Table 4
showed results of Atterberg Limits and Compaction
tests for the treated soil samples (i.e. tests on variation
of soil samples with the non-cementitious additives
contents (PKSA and SDA contents).
From Table 4, graphs were plotted for LL values
against Non-cementitious additives contents (AC) for
all the treated soil samples as shown in Fig. 3. It can
be observed from the graphs that LL values increase
as the Non-cementitious additives contents increase.
Maximum LL value has increased from 15.42%
(untreated soil) to 35.07% (PKSA treated soil sample
D @ 6%) and 35.13% (SDA treated soil A @ 4%).
This showed that the percentages of finer particles
than 0.075mm of the soil samples have increased
which make the soil less better (or poor) as explained
by (Ugwu, 2014; Osula, 1999; Ola, 1975). From Table
4, graphs were plotted for PI values against Non-
cementitious additives contents (AC) for all the
treated soil samples as shown in Fig. 4. It can be
observed from the graphs that PI values increase as
the Non-cementitious additives contents increase.
Maximum PI value has increased from 5.72%
(untreated soil) to 24.57% (PKSA treated soil sample
D @ 6%) and 27.83% (SDA treated soil sample A @
4%). This showed that the cohesive qualities of the
binder resulting from the clay or fine contents have
increased as explained by (Ugwu, 2014; Osinubi and
Katte, 1997). It also portrayed the re-classification of
the soil samples in accordance with AASHTO (1986)
now fell under group classification ranges of A – 2
soils.
Fig. 4: Graphs of the Plasticity Index Tests for the Treated Soil Samples
Fig. 5: Graphs of the Maximum Dry Density Tests for the Treated Soil Samples
International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, 3(11), pp. 0288-296, 2015
294
Generally from Table 4, Figs. 3 and 4; it can be
observed that at maximum values of LL and PI for all
the treated soil samples, all the soil samples now fell
under group classification of A – 2 – 6. Though their
general rating as subgrade materials is still excellent
to poor, but all of them were no longer suitable for
subbase and base course materials as they failed to
meet up the required specifications for LL and PI
values (i.e. LL ≤ 35% and PI ≤ 12%).
From Table 4, graphs were plotted for MDD
values against Non-cementitious additives contents
(AC) for all the treated soil samples as shown in Fig.
5. It can be observed from the graph that MDD values
increase as the Non-cementitious additives contents
increase for soil samples A, C and D. This is due to
coating of the soil particles by the additives. While
MDD values decrease as the Non-cementitious
additives contents increase for soil samples B. This is
due to replacements of the soil sample fine particles
by the additives fine particles which are of lower
Specific Gravities (Ugwu, 2014; Osinubi and Katte,
1997).
4. CONCLUSION
Generally from the above results analyses and
discussion, it could be observed that the soil general
rating for subgrade materials remain the same as
“excellent to good”, though the group classifications
change from “A – 1 – b” (Samples C and D) and “A –
2 – 4” (Samples A and B) to “A – 2 – 4” (which is
inferior). The non – cementitious additives have
negative effects on the soil indices properties, thus
make the soil less suitable for construction purpose.
This is buttressed by increase in LL and PI which
portrayed increase in fine particles (i.e. clay content)
of the soil. Though it appeared some portion of the
soil (i.e. A, C and D) in the study area improves when
it comes to compaction. Though the soil moisture
content of the study area still remains high.
REFERENCES
Abood TT, Kasa AB, Chik ZB (2007). Stabilization of
Silty Clay Soil using Chloride Compounds.
Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology, 2(1): 102-110.
Adetoro EA, Adam JO (2015). Analysis of Influences
of Locally Available Additives on Geotechnical
Properties OF Ekiti State Soil, Southwestern,
Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative
Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology (IJIRSET), 4(8): 7093-7099.
American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1986).
Standard Specification for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing (14th ed.). USA: Washington DC,
AASHTO.
Amin ER (2012). A Review on the Soil Stabilization
using Low Cost Methods. Journal of Applied
Sciences Research, 8(4): 2193-2196.
Amu OO, Adeyeri JB, Haastrup AO, Eboru AA
(2008). Effects of Palm Kernel Shell in Lateritic
Soil for Asphalt Stabilization. Research Journal
of Environmental Science, 2(2): 132-138.
Armin R, Kalantari B (2013). Stabilization of Clayey
Soil with Lime and Waste Stone Powder.
International Journal of Scientific Research in
Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(12): 547-556.
British Standard 1377 (BS 1377) (1990). British
Standard Methods of Test for Soils for Civil
Engineering Purposes. UK: London, British
Standards Institution.
Ekiti State Directorate of ICT (EKSDICT) (2105).
The Official Website of the Government of
Ekiti State, Nigeria. Available:
https://ekitistate.gov.ng/administration/local-
govt/efon-lga/.
Europa Technologies (2015). Google Earth 2010.
Available: http://earth.google.com/.
Fauzi AA, Abdulrahman MN, Jauhari Z (2013).
Utilization Waste Material as Stabilizer on
Kuantan Clayey Soil Stabilization. Procedia
Engineering, 53: 42-47.
Federal Ministry of Works and Housing (FMWH)
(1997). General Specification (Roads and
Bridges) – Revised Edition (Volume II),
Nigeria. FCT, Abuja: Federal Ministry of
Works.
Ismaiel HAH (2013). Cement Kiln Dust Chemical
Stabilization of Expansive Soil at El-Kawther
Quarter, Sohag Region, Egypt. International
Journal of Geosciences, 4: 1416-1424.
Ola SA (1975). Stabilization of Nigeria Lateritic Soil
with cement, Bitumen and Lime, Proc. Sixth
Reg. Conf., Africa on soil Mechanic and
Foundation Engineering, Dueban, South Africa.
Onyelowe KC (2012). Soil Stabilization Techniques
and Procedures in the Developing Countries -
Nigeria. Global Journal of Engineering and
Technology, 5(1): 65-69.
Orie OU, Omokhiboria OJ (2014). Mechanical
Properties of Eggshell and Palm Oil Fuel Ashes
Cement Blended Concrete. Research Journal in
Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3(6): 401-
405.
Osinubi KJ, Katte VY (1997). Effect of Elapsed Time
after Mixing Gram Size and Plasticity
Characteristics, I: Solid- Line Mixes, NSE
Technical Transactions, 33, 4.
Adetoro and Faluyi
Potentials of Non-Cementitious Additives for Stabilization of Oye Local Government Area Soil, Ekiti State, Nigeria
295
Osula DOA (1999). Lime Modification of Problem
Laterite. Engineering Geology, 30: 142- 149.
Qasim MB, Tanvir AM, Anees MM (2015). Effects of
Rice Husk on Soil Stabilization. Bulletin of
Energy Economics, 3(1): 10-17.
Tastan EO, Edil TB, Benson CH, Aydilek AH (2011).
Stabilization of Organic Soils with Fly Ash.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental
Engineering, 137(9): 819-833.
Ugwu EI, Famuyibo DA (2014). Analysis of the
Effect of Blending Nigeria Pure Clay with Rice
Husk: A Case Study of Ekulu Clay in Enugu
State. American Journal of Materials
Engineering and Technology, 2(3): 34-37.
Vishwanath G, Pramod KR, Ramesh V (2014). Peat
Soil Stabilization with Rice Husk and Lime
Powder. International Journal of Innovation
and Scientific Research, 9(2): 225-227.
International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, 3(11), pp. 0288-296, 2015
296
Engr. Adetoro Adeyemi Ezekiel obtained his first degree from the Federal Polytechnic, Bida, Nigeria
in Civil Engineering in 1998 and Postgraduate Diploma in Civil Engineering fron the Federal
University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria in 2005. He later bagged Master degree in Civil
Engineering from University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands in 2011. Presently, Engr Adetoro is a
lecturer in Civil Engineering Department of the Federal Polytechnic, Ado – Ekiti, Nigeria and has
published many refereed articles in professional journals and conference proceedings. Engr. Adetoro
specializes in Environmental, Geo and Transportation Engineering.
Engr. Faluyi Olubunmi Sunday obtained his first degree from University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria in
Civil Engineering in 1986. He later bagged Master degree in Civil Engineering from the Federal
University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria in 2000. Presently, Engr Faluyi is a Chief lecturer and
former Head of Department in Civil Engineering Department of the Federal Polytechnic, Ado – Ekiti,
Nigeria and has published many refereed articles in professional journals and conference proceedings.
Engr. Faluyi specializes in Transportation Engineering.
Top Related