Soil Stabilisation

Using Rice Husk Ash

D.G. MONTGOMERY
B.Sc.(Eng.), Ph.D., F.I.E.Aust.

G. CHMEISSE
B.C.E., M.Eng.Sc.

ABSTRACT
Rice husk ash (RHA) has been investigated as a pozzolanic material for soil stabilisation. It contains
siliceous and aluminous materials, and reacts with lime or cement, thus having the economic potential
to replace some of the lime orcement presently used as an additive in the stabilisation of soil. Three types
of soil were treated with varying quantities of lime, cement, RHA and combinations of RHA with lime or
cement, under laboratory conditions. To determine the effectiveness of RHA as a stabiliser, unconfined
compressive strength (UCS), plasticity index and linear shrinkage were measured for the treated soils
— using standard Road Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA NSW) tests. RHA alone was shown
to be unsuitable for modifying soil properties. However, when combined with lime or cement, beneficial
results were obtained. The effectiveness of the RHA was expressed in terms of the ratio of the RHA
required to either lime or cement saved. RHA is produced by the burning of rice husks (also known as
rice hulls), which currently are a little-used by-product of the rice industry, presenting disposal problem s
worldwide. Information on present and likely future availability of RHA in Australia is included in this
paper.

INTRODUCTION material. Though not cementitious in itself,

Soil stabilisation isthe process of improving
the soil properties in order to meet specific
engineering requirements; such as road-
building. The most familiar method of soil
stabilisation is the use of special additives
such as bitumen, cement, lime, and
lime:pozzolan mixtures. Lime is an effective
additive which attacks clay minerals under
a condition of high alkalinity (pH > 11) to
reduce moisture susceptibility and improve
both workability and strength of soils. The
strength improvement, or increase in
unconfined compressive strength, is due to
the long-term pozzolanic reaction between
lime and certain clay minerals in the soil.
However, some soils lack sufficient
pozzolanic activity to achieve, in the
presence of lime, the strength needed for
engineering purposes. The addition of an
artificial pozzolan usually results in
substantial increases in soil strength over
long periods.
Rice husk ash, like fly ash — elsewhere
investigated as a soil stabiliser in road-
building (Manz and Manz 1984), has
generally been accepted as a pozzolanic
RHA contains a considerable amount of
siliceous and aluminous products which, at
ordinary temperatures in the presence of
water, will combine with lime to form
insoluble compounds with cementitious
properties.
RHA has found some uses in civil
engineering applications, although few of
these have been developed on a
commercial scale. RHA was used in the
manufacture of building blocks as early as
1923 and has also been used in the
manufacture of high quality cement tiles
and blocks (Korisa 1958). Cements
containing the ash have been reported to
be highly resistant to dilute organic and
mineral acids. Increasing attention has since
been directed towards RHA-based
cements, particularly in South East Asia.
The use of RHA in the stabilisation of clays
has been investigated by Lazaro and Moh
(1976), Subrahmanyam (1981) and
Rahman (1986). They concluded that
lime:RHA and cement:lime:RHA additives
reduce plasticity and increase the
unconfined compressive strength of the
treated clays.

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991 27

SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

This paper describes an investigation into
the reactivity of RHA produced in NSW, and
the feasibility of using it as an individual
additive, or in combination with lime or
ordinary Portland cement, in the stabilisation
of low cohesion soils and organic heavy
clays.
cement conformed to AS1315. The rice
husk ash was a black ash produced in
Leeton, NSW. Chemical composition and
other properties of the ash are shown in
Table II.
Methodology

All of the geotechnical properties of the

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Materials Used
Three types of soils (hereinafter referred to
as A, B and C) were selected to be treated
with the different additives. Soil A was a
crushed rock conglomerate from a deposit
known as Yeoman's pit in the Shire of
Guyra, NSW. Soil B was taken from a sandy
silt pit at Stone Henge in the Shire of Severn,
NSW. Soil C was an organic clay taken from
a construction site in the town of Glen lnnes,
NSW. The properties of the three soils are
shown in Table I.
The lime used was commercial hydrated
lime, conforming to the Australian Standard
(AS1672); commercial ordinary Portland
soils were determined according to the
methods of testing specified by the Roads
and Traffic Authority (formerly Department
of Main Roads) of NSW (DMR 1980). The
tests included:
• Standard Proctor (RTA test no. T.110);
• Liquid limit (T.108);
• Plastic limit (T.109);
• Linear shrinkage (T.113);
• Unconfined compressive strength
(T.116);
• Coarse particle size distribution by sieve
analysis (T.106); and
• Fine particle size distribution by
sedimentation and decantation (T.107).

Table I

Properties of Soils

Property Soil
A B C

Grading — `)/0 Passing:

19mm 100 100 100
9.5 mm 73 100 100
4.75 mm 36 100 100
2.36 mm 22 85 100
425 pm 15 43 85
75 pm 8 24 71
13.5 pm 4 17 53

Atterberg limits:
L.L. 33 32 100
P.L. 24 24 45
P.I. 9 8 55

Volume Stability:
Linear shrinkage (%) 3.5 2.75 17

Compaction characteristics:
O.M.C. (%) 13 15 22
Max. dry density (g/cm3) 1.83 1.82 1.32

UCS (MPa) 0.33 0.26 0.21

Unified soil classification GMu SMu OH

Description Gravel-sand Sand-silt Organic

silt mix mix clays

Colour White Reddish- Black

brown

28 Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991


Table II
Properties of RHA
Chemical content (% by weight):
SiO2 (silica) 58.2
A1203 (alumina) 0.10
Fe2O3 1.09
CaO 0.37
MgO 0.21
Na2O 0.12
K2O 1.37
Loss on ignition 34.2
Grading— % Passing:
2.36 mm 100
425 pm 60
75 Pm 17
13.5 Pm 12.5
Specific gravity 1.79
Proportion of Lime or Cement to RHA
The compositition of RHAvaries, depending
on the conditions under which the
combustion of the rice husks has taken
place. The variations are reflected in the
chemical composition of the RHA, with
particular emphasis on carbon content. It is
generally acknowledged that the degree of
reactivity of a pozzolan is, in part, influenced
by its chemical composition, particularly its
carbon content. Therefore, it is suggested
that the pozzolanic reaction between lime,
either added directly or from the hydration
reaction of cement, and RHA will be
governed largely by the carbon content of
the ash. It was considered that initial testing
be carried out to determine RHA reactivity
and the optimum ratio of lime or cement to
RHA. The use of an unconfined compressive
strength test on Iime:RHA and cement:RHA
paste specimens was selected as a suitable
indicator of the RHA reactivity.
Preparation of Specimens
Mixtures of Iime:RHA and cement:RHA were
prepared, mixed and proportioned by weight.
The ratio of Iime:RHA or cement:RHA was
in the range of 1:1 to 1:10. Two series of
compacted specimens were prepared at
optimum moisture content using standard
Proctor equipment (DMR T.110).
Curing
All specimens were wrapped in paper,
aluminium foil and contained in plastic bags
Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991
SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH
at constant room temperature (22°C) during
the curing periods. At the conclusion of the
various curing periods (28 and 90 days), the
specimens were air dried for approximately
30 minutes and subjected to the unconfined
compressive strength test.
Test Results
The results presented in Fig. 1 indicate that
the optimum ratio of lime to RHA is 1:2.
From Fig. 2 it can be seen that there is no
optimum ratio of cement to RHA. This is
indicative that the strength of cement:RHA
pastes is dominated by the hydration
reactions of cement rather than by the
pozzolanic reaction between the released
lime and the RHA.
Various Additives
Various additives, i.e. RHA, lime, lime:RHA,
cement, or cement:RHA, were used
individually to stabilise the soil samples A, B
and C. The various quantities of additives
were 2, 4, 6 and 8 per cent of the total weight
of the dry soil and additive. The ratio of lime
to RHA and cement to RHAfor each quantity
of additive was varied as 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and
1:4 —these values, although arbitrary, being
considered within the practical range.
Testing of Stabilised Soils
Compaction Characteristics
The optimum moisture contents and the
maximum dry densities of the treated soils
were determined by carrying out the
standard Proctor tests. The test results are
presented in Tables Ill to VIII inclusive.
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Preparation. Three series of specimens of
soils stabilised with the various additives
and various quantities were prepared using
the standard Proctor equipment, with the
elapsed time from initial mixing to final
compaction being less than 30 minutes.
Curing. Ali specimens were wrapped in
paper, aluminium foil, and contained in
sealed plastic bags at constant room
temperature (22°C) during the curing
periods.
Testing. At the conclusion of the various
curing periods (7, 28 and 90 days) the
specimens were air dried for 30 minutes
and then subjected to unconfined
compression. The results are shown in
Tables ///to VIII inclusive. The 90 days test
results for the treated soils A, B and C are
shown in Fig.3.
29
 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH
U.C.S. (MPa)
2.5
2
1.5
0.5
1:0 1:2 1:4 1:6 1:8
Ratio of cement to RHA
Age at test
—a— 90 days t 28 days
Fig. 1 — Unconfined compressive strength of lime:
RHA pastes
Atterberg Limits and Linear Shrinkage
Plastic limit, liquid limit and linearshrinkage
of all mixes were determined using materials
collected from unconfined compressive
strength crushed specimens. Individual
pieces of each specimen were collected
and ground to powder fraction using a
porcelain mortar and rubber pestle. Oven
drying was avoided and all prepared
fractions were air dried to reduce the
possibility of elevated temperature effects
on the pozzolanic material and to simulate
field conditions as closely as possible. The
tests were carried out on specimens cured
for 7 and 28 days. The results are presented
in Tables Illto VIII. The results for plasticity
index and linearshrinkage at 28 days curing
are shown in Figs 4 and 5 respectively.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Effect of Various Additives on
Compaction Characteristics
It has been observed that when RHA,
lime:RHA and cement:RHA additives are
added to the soils, the maximum dry
densities decrease and the optimum
moisture contents increase. These effects
are more pronounced as the quantity of
RHA in the additives is increased. The
reduction in maximum dry density is due to
the low density of RHA (specific gravity =
1.61). The increase in optimum moisture
content is probably due to the additional
30
U.C.S. (MPa
1.5
0.5
1 : 10 1:0 1:2 1:4 1:6 1:8 1 : 10
Ratio of lime to RHA
Age at test
90 days 28 days
Fig. 2— Unconfined compressive strength of cement:
RHA pastes
water required for wetting the large surface
area of the fine RHA particles. In addition,
some of the water is absorbed by the fine
particles of the RHA and is required for
flocculation of the clay clods.
Effect of Various Additives on the
Unconfined Compressive Strength of the
Soils
Effect of RHA Alone
It has been observed, as shown in Table III
and Fig. 3, that RHA as a sole additive has
little effect on the unconfined compressive
strength of soils. This can be explained as
follows. The RHA used can be chemically
termed silica as it contains 58 per cent
silica. Thus it does not react with soil
chemically. In addition, the partial
replacement of the soils with RHA does not
impart a significant improvement to the
grading of the soils, as shown in Fig. 6.
Effect of Lime:RHA Additive
For a given quantity of additive, as the
proportion by weight of the lime in the additive
increases, the strength of the treated soil
increases. The highest strengths have been
achieved by using 1:1 (by weight) lime:RHA
additive. This is not consistent with the case
of lime:RHA pastes (see earlier).
For all additives, the strength of treated
soils A and B increases with increasing
quantity of additive, up to a peak value, then
Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991
 D
C
w
D.)
.7).
7
DJ
0
W
DJ Table III
w
m
m
Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and
ry Linear Shrinkage for Untreated and Lime, RHA and Lime:RHA Treated Soil A (Crushed Rock Conglomerate)
-_t-i-
-0 Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear
CD
0 (MPa) Shrinkage (%)
3 days 7 days 28 days
co O.M.C. Max 7d 7 28 90 L.L P.L P.I L.L P.L P.1 7 days 28 days
(JD

Untreated soil 13 1.83 0.33 0.33 0.33 33 24 9 33 24 9 3.5 3.5

2% 14.5 1.82 0.43 0.55 0.69 36 30 6 38 33 5 1.5 1.75
Lime 4% 16 1.77 0.46 0.76 1.0 38 35 3 41 40 1 0.5 0.5
6% 16.5 1.74 0.43 0.73 0.95 40 N.P. 0 48 N.P. 0 0.25 0.25
8% 17 1.73 0.41 0.70 0.90 40 N.P. 0 49 N.P. 0 0.25 0.25
RHA 2% 15 1.79 0.33 0.34 0.34 36 27 9 36 27 9 3.25 3.25
4% 16.5 1.74 0.34 0.34 0.34 38.5 31 7.5 38.5 31 7.5 2.75 2.75
6% 17.5 1.70 0.34 0.34 0.34 41.5 35 6.5 41.5 35 6.5 2.25 2.25
8% 18.5 1.66 0.34 0.34 0.34 45.5 40 5.5 45.5 40 5.5 2.0 2.0
Lime:RHA 2% 15 1.82 0.36 0.50 0.55 38 30 8 38 32 6 3.0 2.5
1:1 4% 16 1.77 0.63 0.68 0.92 43 37 6 43.5 39 4.5 2.0 1.5
6% 16.5 1.74 0.61 0.73 1.0 48 44 4

SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

48 46 2 1.0 0.75
8% 17 1.73 0.58 0.71 0.97 51 48 3 51 50 1 0.75 0.5
Lime:RHA 2% 15 1.82 0.36 0.45 0.50 38 29 9 38 31 7 3.25 2.5
1:2 4% 16 1.76 0.60 0.68 0.85 44 37 7 44 38 6 2.25 1.5
6% 16.5 1.73 0.58 0.70 0.92 48 43 5 50 46 4 1.0 1.0
8% 17 1.73 0.55 0.68 0.89 51 47 4 51 48 3 0.75 0.75
Lime:RHA 2% 15 1.81 0.35 0.45 0.50 38 29 9 38 30 8 3.25 3.0
1:3 4% 16 1.76 0.64 0.68 0.75 44 36 8 44.5 38 6.5 2.25 1.75
6% 16.5 1.73 0.58 0.70 0.82 46 39 7 46 41 5 1.50 1.25
8% 17.5 1.72 0.52 0.65 0.81 47 42 5 49 45 4 1.10 0.75
Lime:RHA 2% 15 1.81 0.34 0.45 0.5 35 26 9 37 29 8 3.25 3.0
1:4 4% 16 1.75 0.46 0.50 0.66 40 32 8 43 35 8 2.75 2.5
6% 17 1.72 0.44 0.48 0.67 44 37 7 44 38 6 1.75 1.5
8% 18.5 1.69 0.44 0.46 0.68 46 41 5 47 42 5 1.0 0.75
N.) Cl)
0
r-
(I)
Table IV H
oJ
F
Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and &-)
>
Linear Shrinkage for Untreated and Lime, RHA and Lime:RHA Treated Soil B (Sandy Silt) --i
o
z
Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear w
c
(MPa) Shrinkage (%) z
0
days 7 days 28 days a]
O.M.C. Max Yd 7 28 90 P.I L.L P.L P.I 7 days 28 days 6
L.L P.L m
i
c
U)
Untreated soil 24 8 2.75 2.75 x
15 1.82 0.26 0.26 0.26 32 24 8 32 >
(i)
I
2% 16 1.81 0.32 0.40 0.50 32 27 5 34 31 3 1.25 1.25
Lime 4% 16.5 1.78 0.34 0.42 0.57 34 31 3 34.5 33 1.5 0.75 0.75
6% 17 1.75 0.28 0.38 0.50 36 34 2 36 35 1 0.50 0.50
8% 18 1.73 0.27 0.36 0.45 38 36 2 39 38.5 0.5 0.25 0.25

2% 16 1.78 0.24 0.24 0.24 34 27 7 34 27 7 2.5 2.5

RHA 4% 16 1.76 0.24 0.24 0.24 36 30 6 36 30 6 2.25 2.25
6% 17 1.70 0.24 0.24 0.24 38 34 4 39 34 5 2.0 2.0
8% 19 1.65 0.25 0.25 0.25 41 37 4 42 38 4 2.0 2.0

2% 16 1.8 0.30 0.38 0.45 33 29 4 33 29 4 1.75 1.5

Lime:RHA 4% 16 1.77 0.40 0.46 0.54 34 30 4 34 31.5 2.5 1.5 1.0
1:1 6% 17 1.73 0.34 0.41 0.53 36 33 3 36 34 2 1.0 0.75
8% 18.5 1.70 0.34 0.38 0.48 38 36 2 38 36.5 1.5 0.5 0.5

2% 16 1.79 0.27 0.31 0.41 33 29 4 33.5 29 4.5 1.75 1.75

Lime:RHA 4% 16 1.76 0.36 0.43 0.52 34 30 4 34.5 31 3.5 1.5 1.25
1:2 6% 17 1.72 0.33 0.39 0.52 36 33 3 36.5 34 2.5 1.0 1.0
8% 19 1.66 0.32 0.36 0.45 38 35 3 38 36 2 0.5 0.5

2% 16.5 1.78 0.26 0.30 0.40 32 26 6 33 28 5 2.0 1.75

Lime:RHA 4% 16.5 1.76 0.28 0.32 0.45 33 28 5 34 30 4 2.0 1.5
1:3 6% 17.5 1.70 0.28 0.32 0.46 35 31 4 35 32 3 1.5 1.25
8% 19 1.66 0.27 0.30 0.38 37 33 4 38 35 3 1.0 0.75
1661Jag W809a'(17

2% 16.5 1.78 0.26 0.31 0.38 31 24 7 33 27 6 2.0 2.0

Lime:RHA 4% 16.5 1.76 0.26 0.32 0.42 32 27 5 34 29 5 1.75 1.75
1:4 6% 18 1.70 0.26 0.32 0.43 34 30 4 35 31 4 1.5 1.5
8% 19 1.65 0.26 0.29 0.35 36 32 4 37 33 4 1.5 1.5
7
Table V
0
0_
CD
Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and Linear
V)
CD
fa) Shrinkage for Untreated and Lime, RHA and Lime:RHA Treated Soil C (Organic Clay)
Cs)
Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear
(MPa) Shrinkage (%)
days 7 days 28 days
0
O. M. C. Max 'Id 7 28 90 L.L P.L P.1 L.L P.L P.I 7 days 28 days
CD
3

Untreated soil 22 1.32 0.21 0.21 0.21 100 45 55 100 45 55 17 17

(C)

2% 23 1.32 0.25 0.30 0.33 77 47 30 77 47 30 12 12

Lime 4% 24 1.31 0.34 0.41 0.44 66 48 18 65 48 17 8 8
6% 24.5 1.30 0.43 0.51 0.56 59 50 9 59 49 10 5 4
8% 25 1.29 0.41 0.50 0.55 57 52 5 55 51 4 4.75 4

2% 24 1.28 0.21 0.21 0.21 96 47 49 96 47 49 16.5 16.5

RHA 4% 25 1.24 0.22 0.22 0.22 92 49 43 92 49 43 15 15
6% 26 1.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 89 50 39 89 50 39 13.75 13.5
8% 26 1.21 0.23 0.23 0.23 85 50 35 85 50 35 12.75 12.5

2% 23 1.30 0.24 0.27 0.31 90 47 43 90 47 43 15 15

Lime:RHA 4% 24 1.26 0.26 0.34 0.37 82 48 34 82 48 34 11.5 11.5
1:1 6% 25 1.24 0.34 0.41 0.45 70 49 21 69 49 20 10 10 w
26 1.21 0.34 0.39 0.44 66 49 17 66 49 0
8% 17 9 9 -
1-
cn
23 1.29 0.23 0.25 0.27 90 46 44 90 46 -I
2% 44 15 15 >
Lime:RHA 4% 24.5 1.27 0.25 0.30 0.32 85 46 39 84 47 37 13 12.5 co
1:2 6% 26 1.23 0.29 0.34 0.39 78 47 31 77 48 29 11.5 11 . cn
8% 26.5 1.23 0.33 0.37 0.41 73 48 25 72 49 23 10.5 10 >
--4
5
2% 24 1.26 0.24 0.24 0.25 91 46 45 91 46 45 15.5 15.5 Z
Lime:RHA 4% 25 1.25 0.24 0.26 0.29 84.5 46 38.5 84 46 38 13.5 13.5 w
1:3 6% 26 1.23 0.26 0.30 0.33 79 47 32 79 47 32 12 12 2
8% 27 1.22 0.29 0.32 0.35 74 47 27 74 47 27 11 0
10 i
0
m
I
c
cn
>
cn
I
 0)
0
0)
-I
>
a)
Table VI r"
(15
>
Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and -
---1
o
Linear Shrinkage for Untreated and Cement, RHA and Cement:RHA treated soil A (Crushed Rock Conglomerate) z
c
w
Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear <0
(MPa) Shrinkage (%) i
5
days 7 days 28 days m
0. M.C. Max 7c1 7 28 90 L. L P. L P. I L. L P. L P. I 7 days 28 days i
c
0)

3.5 (i)
Untreated soil 13 1.83 0.33 0.33 0.33 33 24 9 33 24 9 3.5

2% 14 1.85 1.26 1.95 2.00 36 30 6 38 33 5 1.5 1.0

Cement 4% 14.5 1.85 1.75 2.70 3.15 47 45 2 17 16 1 0.75 0.5
6% 15.5 1.85 2.45 3.50 4.00 48 48 0 48 N.P. 0 0.5 0,25
8% 16.5 1.85 3.00 4.30 4.60 49 N.P. 0 49 N.P. 0 0.25 0.00

2% 15 1.79 0.33 0.34 0.34 36 27 9 36 27 9 3.25 3.25

RHA 4% 16.5 1.74 0.34 0.34 0.34 38.5 31 7.5 38 31 7.5 2.75 2.75
6% 17.5 1.70 0.34 0.34 0.34 41.5 35 6.5 41.5 35 6.5 2.25 2.25
8% 18.5 1.66 0.34 0.34 0.34 45.5 40 5.5 45.5 40 5.5 2.0 2.0

2% 14 1.83 0.68 0.98 1.35 39 33 6 39 33 6 1.75 1.75

Australian Road Research,

Cement:RHA 4% 14.5 1.81 1.00 i .65 2.27 43 37 6 43 38 5 1.0 1.0

1:2 6% 15.5 1.75 1.40 2.10 2.53 47 42 5 47 43 4 0.75 0.75
8% 16.5 1.76 1.75 2.30 3.10 51 47 4 51 48 3 0.75 0.75

2% 14 1.83 0.62 0.80 1.08 38 30 8' 38 30 8 2.25 2.25

Cement:RHA 4% 14.5 1.80 0.90 1.25 1.70 42 34 8 42 35 7 1.5 1.5
1:3 6% 16 1.78 1.25 1.68 2.30 47 40 7 45 39 6 1.25 1.25
8% 17 1.73 1.50 2.00 2.70 49 42 7 49 44 5 1.0 1.0

2% 14.5 1.81 0.52 0.55 0.70 38 29 9 38 29 9 2.75 2.5

21(4), December 199 1

Cement:RHA 4% 15 1.78 0.70 0.85 1.10 42 34 ' 8 42.5 35 7.5 1.75 2.0
1:4 6% 16 1.76 0.57 1.10 1.42 47 40 7 47 40.5 6.5 1.75 1.75
8% 17.5 1.72 1.00 1.40 1.80 47 40 7 47 41.5 5.5 1.5 1.5
c
CO
Table VII

w Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and

D>
CD
Linear Shrinkage for Untreated and Cement, RHA and Cement:RHA Treated Soil B (Sandy Silt)
0
CD
ID
, Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear
0
7"
-N (MPa) Shrinkage (%)
days 7 days 28 days
3
b 0.M.C. Max Yd 7 28 90 L. L P. L P. I L. L P. L P. I 7 days 28 days
CD
0
CA)
Untreated soil 15 1.82 0.26 0.26 0.26 32 24 8 32 24 8 2.75 2.75
ST
2% 15.5 1.82 0.43 0.67 0.74 32 27 5 34 31 3 1.0 0.75
Cement 4% 16.5 1.84 0.62 1.02 1.15 33 29 4 35 33 2 0.5 0.25
6% 17 1.84 0.90 1.50 1.70 35 33 2 37 36 1 0.5 0.25
8% 17.5 1.84 1.40 2.30 2.57 36 38 0 40 N.P. 0 0.0 0.0

2% 16 1.78 0.24 0.24 0.24 34 27 7 34 27 7 2.5 2.5

RHA 4% 16 1.76 0.24 0.24 0.24 36 30 6 36 30 6 2.25 2.25
6% 17 1.70 0.24 0.24 0.24 38 34 4 39 34 5 2.0 2.0
8% 19 1.65 0.25 0.25 0.25 41 37 4 42 38 4 2.0 2.0

2% 16 1.82 0.28 0.42 0.57 32 27 5 33 29 4 1.5 1.5

Cement:RHA 4% 17 1.78 0.35 0.60 0.83 35 31 4 35 32 3 1.5 1.0
1:2 6% 17.5 1.73 0.48 0.77 1.05 38 35 3 38 36 2 1.25 0.75
8% 18 1.70 0.55 0.90 1.25 39 38 1 39 38 1 1.0 0.75
cn
0
2°/0 16 1.82 0.28 0.37 0.55 32 27 5 32 27 5 2.0 1.75 F
Cement:RHA 4% 17 1.78 0.32 0.51 0.75 33 29 4 34 30 4 1.75 1.25 u)
35
. --i
1:3 6% 17.5 1.72 0.45 0.69 1.00 37 33 4 38 3 1.75 1.0 >
37 2 40 co
8% 18.5 1.68 0.48 0.82 1.18 39 38 2 1.0 0.75 F
cn
1.82 0.26 0.32 0.40 34 28 6 34 28 6 2.25 2.0 >
2% 16
Cement:RHA 4% 17 1.76 0.31 0.42 0.52 34 29 5 34 29 5 2.0 1.75 a
1.71 0.42 0.50 0.62 34 30 4 34 30 4 1.75 z
1:4 6% 17.5 1.5
c
8% 18.5 1.67 0.45 0.61 0.77 35 31 4 35 31 4 1.5 1.25 w
2
0
I
5
m
I
E
CI)

2).
Cf)
I
 Table VIII

Compaction Characteristics, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Atterberg Limits and

Linear Shrinkage for Untreated and Cement, RHA and Cement:RHA Treated Soil C (Organic Clay)

isnH 20IEION
Compaction U.C.S. Atterberg Limits Linear
(MPa) Shrinkage (%)
days 7 days 28 days
O.M.C. Max id 7 28 90 L.L P.L P.I L.L P.L P.I 7 days 28 days

HSV›
Untreated soil 22 1.32 0.21 0.21 0.21 100 45 55 100 45 55 17 17

2% 23 1.34 0.25 0.32 0.35 79 46 33 77 47 30 12.5 12

Cement 4% 24.5 1.35 0.32 0.41 0.46 71 49 22 69 49 20 9 8.5
6% 25 1.39 0.42 0.52 0.58 63 50 13 63 50 13 6.75 6.75
8% 26 1.40 0.48 0.60 0.70 59 50 9 59 50 9 6.5 6.5

2% 24 1.28 0.21 0.21 0.21 96 47 49 96 47 49 16.5 16.5

RHA 4% 25 1.24 0.22 0.22 0.22 92 49 43 92 49 43 15 15
6% 26 1.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 89 50 39 89 50 39 13.75 13.5
.8% 26 1.21 0.23 0.23 0.23 85 50 35 85 50 35 12.75 12.5

2% 24 1.32 0.23 0.26 0.28 83 46 37 81 46 35 13.5 13

Australian Road.

Cement:RHA 4% 25 1.30 0.25 0.29 0.37 75 48 27 74 48 26 11 11

1:1 6% 26 1.28 0.30 0.35 0.43 72 49 23 70.5 48 22.5 9.5 9.5
8% 27 1.26 0.39 0.41 0.48 70 50 20 70 50.5 19.5 8 8

2% 24 1.31 0.22 0.25 0.27 89.5 46 43.5 88 46 42 15 15

Cement:RHA 4% 25 1.29 0.24 0.26 0.32 82 47.5 34.5 80 48 32 12.5 12
1:2 6% 26 0.37 77 48 29 77 48 29 11.5 11
Research, 2 1(4) , December1991

1.26 0.30 0.32

8% 27 1.25 0.32 0.37 0.41 76 48:5 27.5 73 50 23 11 9.5

2% 24 1.30 0.21 0.23 0.26 91 46 45 90 46 44 15.5 15

Cement:RHA 4% 25 1.28 0.23 0.26 0.30 84 47 37 82 47.5 34.5 13.5 13
1:3 6% 26 1.26 0.26 0.30 0.34 79.5 48 31.5 78 48 30 11.5 11.5
8% 27 1.24 0.28 0.32 0.37 77 48 29 75 48 27 11 10.5
 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Soil A -Lime Soil A -Cement

U.C.S. (MPa) U.C.S. (MPa)
1,2. 5

1 .......... •
4

0.8 i-
3

0.6
I 2
0.4 L
' A.-

0.21-

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil B -Lime Soil B -Cement

U.C.S. (MPa) U.C.S. (MPa)
0.6 3

• - -G.
0.5 2.5
/ •
/.
0.4 2

1.5
0. 3 I- •
........ o

0.2 1

-le
0.1 0.5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as cio dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil C -Lime Soil C -Cement

U.C.S. (MPa) U.C.S. (MPa)
0.6 0.8

0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5

0.3 0.4

L. ...... 0 ......... c 0.3

0 . 2 le
0.2
0.1
0.1

o 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Additive Additive

RHA Lime L:RHA 1:1 -0 " RHA Cccocut C:RHA 1:1

L:RHA 1:2 L:RHA 1:3 —""-- L:RHA 1:4 C:RHA 1:2 C:RHA 1:3 C:RHA 1:4

Fig. 3 — Unconfined compressive strength (at age of 90 days) of soils treated with
combinations of RHA, lime and cement

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991 37

SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Soil A -Lime Soil A -Cement

Plasticity Index Plasticity Index
to

4
I

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as '70 dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil B -Lime Soil B -Cement

Plasticity Index Plasticity Index
10. io

8s

6- c

4-

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil C -Lime Soil C -Cement

Plasticity Index Plasticity Index
60 7

50- • 50 `• •
I '
r • -0..
40 ; 40
-0
30 ; 30 [.
N,

20I 20

10 10

0 0
2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Add I tl vc
Additive

Lime L:RHA 1:1 .0 RHA Cctocot C:RHA 1:1

'c:' RHA
C:RHA 1:2 C:R}IA 1:3 "—"— C:RHA 1:4
L:RHA 1:2 L:RHA 1:3 L:RHA 1:4

Fig. 4 — Plasticity index (at age of 28 days) of soils treated with combinations of
RHA, lime and cement

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Soil A -Lime Soil A - Cement

Linear Shrinkage (%) Linear Shrinkage (%)
4
4

3.5 c• 3.5
L.
3 :- 3

2.5 - 2.5

2
•
1.5 1.5
\
17 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil B -Lime Soil B - Cement

Linear Shrinkage (%) Linear Shrinkage (%)
3 3
.
2.5 1-\ N

. • c

1.5

11

0.5 L 0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 8 106
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Soil C -Lime Soil C - Cement

Linear Shrinkage (%) Linear Shrinkage (%)
20 20

s z•• - - 15

10 h 10

ti

0 0
0 2 4 8 6 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil) Additive content (as % dry wt. of soil)

Additive AdditiNt

RHA Lime L:RHA 1:1 RHA Ccrocut C:RHA 1:1

L:RHA 1:2 L:RHA 1:3 L:RHA 1:4 —"G" C:RHA 1:2 C:RHA 1:3 --- C:RHA 1:4

Fig. 5 — Linear shrinkage (at age of 28 days) of soils treated with combinations of
RHA, lime and cement

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991 39

SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Soil A
Percent passing
100

Soil typc
80 Soil A Soil A + 8% RHA

60

40

20-

Soil B
Percent passing
100

1 Soil type ,
80 - z— Soil B
I —c —G-- Soil B + 8% RHA

60

.
40
---'''''''.

20

Soil C
Percent passing
1 00

80

60

40

20 Soil typc
Soil C Soil C 8% RHA

0 I
0.0135 0.075 0.425 2.36 4.75 9.5 19

Sieve size (mm)

Fig. 6 — Grading of untreated soils and soils treated with 8% RHA

40 Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH
:::::•::•::•••••••••••••

decreases with the continuous increase of of cement treated soils. Rates of strength
the quantity of additive. However, this peak development, as a ratio of 28 days strength
value of strength does not generally occur to 90 days strength, for various soils, are
for treated soil C. shown in Table X.

The quantity of additive, at which a peak

value of strength occurs, tends to increase Effect of Various Additives on the
with increasing amount of RHA in the Atterberg Limits and Linear Shrinkage
additive. of Soils

As the curing time increases, strength Effect of RHA Alone

increases due to the pozzolanic reactions,
which take place over a long time. Rates of
strength development as a ratio of 28 days
strength to 90 days strength, for various
soils, are shown in Table IX.
For all soils tested, the lime:RHA additives
were not able to achieve the highest strength
achieved by lime additive. The highest
strength was achieved by 4 per cent lime
addition.
Effect of Cement:RHA Additive
For a given quantity of additive, as cement
content increases, the strength of the treated
soil increases, consistent with the case of
cement:RHA pastes.
For all additives (8 per cent upper limit
tested) there is continuous increase in
strength with increasing quantity of additive.
No peak value of strength was observed.
As curing time increases, the strength of the
treated soils increases. The rates of strength
development of soils treated with
cement:RHA additives are slowerthan those
From Tables ///to Vand Figs 4 and 5, it can
be observed that liquid limits and plastic
limits of RHA treated soil increase with the
increase of additive quantity, with the notable
exception of organic heavy clays where the
liquid limit decreases with the increase of
additive quantity.
Plasticity index and linearshrinkage of RHA-
treated soil decrease with increasing additive
quantity.
Liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index and
linear shrinkage after a curing period of 28
days are similar to those after a curing
period of 7days. This implies that no reaction
has taken place between RHA and the soils
during this period. We notice that this is
consistent with the finding for strength.
RHA as a sole additive cannot attain the
linear shrinkage and the plasticity index
achieved by 2 per cent lime additive. For
soils A and B it can also be deduced that 5-
6 percent of RHA is required to achieve the
same results as 1 per cent lime additive. In
the case of soil C, RHA additive cannot

Table IX

Rates of Strength Development (as Ratio of Strength at 28 Days

to Strength at 90 Days) for Lime Treated Soils

Type Amount Additive

of of Lime:RHA
Soil Additive Lime 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4

A 0.80 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90

2)/0 0.80 0.84 0.76 0.75 0.82
C 0.91 0.87 0.93 0.96

B 0.76 0.74 0.80 0.91 0.76

LI°/0 0.74 0.85 0.83 0.71 0.76
C 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.90

B 0.77 0.73 0.76 0.85 0.72

6% 0.76 0.77 0.75 0.70 0.74
C 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.91

B 0.78 0.73 0.76 0.80 0.68

B 80/0 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.79 0.83
C 0.91 0.89 0.90 0.91

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

41
 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Table X

Rates of Strength Development (as Ratio of Strength at 28 Days to

Strength at 90 Days) for Cement Treated Soils

Type Amount Additive

of of Cement:RHA
Soil Additive Cement 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4

A 0.98 0.73 0.74 0.79

20/0 0.91 0.74 0.67 0.80
C 0.91 0.93 0.930.88

B 0.86 0.73 0.74 0.77

4°/0 0.89 0.72 0.68 0.81
C 0.89 0.78 0.81 0.87

B 0.88 0.83 0.73 0.77

B 6`'/0 0.88 0.73 0.69 0.81
C 0.90 0.81 0.86 0.88

0.93 0.74 0.74 0.78

B 8°/0 0.89 0.72 0.69 0.79
C 0.86 0.85 0.90 0.86

attain the results achieved by 1 per cent
lime additive. Therefore, the use of RHA to
modify the plasticity and linearshrinkage of
soils is not efficient.
Effect of Lime:RHA and Cement:RHA
Additives
additive (i.e. 1.36 per cent lime + 1.36 per
cent RHA). The lime saving is therefore
equal to:
2 - 1.36 = 0.64 per cent; and
the ratio of RHA required to lime saved

Tables HI to Vand Figs 4 and 5indicate that = 1.36 ÷ 0.64

the plastic limit of all treated soils increases
with the increase of the additive quantity. = 2.12.

Liquid limits of A and Btreated soils increase
with the increase of lime or cement content
in the additive orwith the increase of additive
quantity.
Liquid limit of organic heavy clay (C treated
soil) decreases with the increase of lime or
cement content in the additive or with the
increase of the additive quantity.
Plasticity index and linear shrinkage of
lime:RHA and cement:RHA treated soils
after a curing period of 28 days are slightly
lower than those that result after a curing
period of 7 days. This implies that the
reactions responsible for reducing plasticity
and shrinkage (i.e. cation exchange) occur
during a short period of time and mostly in
the first 7 days of the curing time.
Implications of Lime Savings
Therefore, 1:1 lime:RHA additive is not
economically feasible to replace the 2 per
cent lime stabilisation unless the cost of the
lime is equal to or greater than 2.12 times
the cost of RHA.
Table Xl has been derived in a similar
manner utilising Figs3, 4and 5and applying
the same calculations forthe various values
of strength, plasticity and shrinkage foreach
case of soil treatment.
From Table Xl it can be deduced that:
• 1:1 lime:RHA additive tends to give the
lowest ratios of RHA required to lime
saved for all of the lime:RHA additives
tested;
• Lime:RHA additives are more efficient
for strength improvement of soils than
for reduction of plasticity and shrinkage;

From Fig. 3 it can be seen that the strength • Lime:RHA additives are more efficient
of 2 per cent lime-treated soil A can be in stabilising low cohesion soils than in
achieved by 2.72 per cent of 1:1 lime:RHA stabilising clays; and

42 Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991

 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Table XI

Ratio of RHA Required to Lime Saved

(Desired Economic Cost Ratio of Lime to RHA)

Level of Soil Lime:R HA

Achievement Type 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4

U.C.S.* of 2% lime A 2.12 2.15 NA NA

treated soil 3.44 3.24 NA NA
C 3 6 13

U.C.S.* of 4% lime B 3 NA NA NA
treated soil NA NA NA NA
C 3 NA NA

Plasticity' of 2% lime B 5.66 22.9 9 16

treated soil 5.66 10 9 NA
C NA NA 36

Plasticity *of 4% lime B NA NA NA NA

treated soil 3 NA NA NA
C NA NA NA

Linear shrinkage+ of 2% B 3 2.63 3 4.88

lime treated soil 3 4.04 9 NA
C 7 7.30 10.33

Linear shrinkage- of 4% B NA NA NA NA
lime treated soil B 4 NA NA NA
C NA NA NA

Notes: NA No lime saving is possible

Additive not tested
90 days curing
28 days curing

• 1:1 lime:RHA additive generally cannot
be recommended for improvement of
unconfined compressive soil strength
unless the cost of lime is at least three
times the cost of RHA. However, for
modifying the plasticity, the cost of lime
must be at least 5.6 times the cost of
RHA.
Implications of Cement Savings
From Fig. 3, it can be seen that the strength
of 2 per cent cement treated soil A can be
achieved by 3.3 percent of 1:2 cement:RHA
additive (i.e. 1.1 per cent cement + 2.2 per
cent RHA). The cement saving is therefore
equal to:
2 — 1.1 = 0.9 per cent; and
unless the cost of cement is equal to or
greater than 2.44 times the cost of RHA.
Table XII has been derived in a similar
manner utilising Figs3, 4and Sand applying
the same calculations forthe various values
of strength, plasticity and shrinkage foreach
case of soil treatme nt. From Table XII it can
be deduced that:
• 1:1 cement:RHA additive tends give the
lowest ratios of RHA required to cement
savedfor all of the cement:RHA additives
used;
• Cement:RHA additives are more
efficient in improving the properties of
low cohesion soils than in improving the
properties of clays; and

the ratio of RHA required to cement saved
= 2.2 ÷ 0.9
= 2.44.
1:2 cement:RHA additive is not economically
feasible to replace the 2 percent of cement
• 1:2 cement:RHA additive can be
recommended to replace 2 per cent
cement in modifying the strength of low
cohesion soils or the plasticity and
shrinkage of low cohesion soils and
clays, provided that the cost of cement
is equal to or greater than 4 times the
cost of RHA.

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991 43

SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

Table XII

Ratio of RHA Required to Cement Saved

(Desired Economic Cost Ratio of Cement to RHA)

Level of Cement:RHA
Achievement Soil 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4

U .0 .S.* of 2% A 2.44 5 NA
cement treated soil 2.29 2.71 NA
C 5.66 10 45

U.C.S.* of 4% B 4.01 NA NA
cement treated soil 2.81 2.65 NA
C 7 NA NA

Plasticity of 2% B 4.04 NA NA
cement treated soil 4.04 9 NA
C 4 5.55 9

Plasticity of 4% B NA NA NA
cement treated soil NA NA NA
C 15 NA NA

Linear shrinkage- of 2% B 4.04 NA NA

cement treated soil NA NA NA
C 3 4.04 6.65

Linear shrinkage. of 4% B NA NA NA
cement treated soil B NA NA NA
C 15 NA NA

Notes: NA No cement saving is possible

— Additive not tested
* 90 days curing
+ 28 days curing

AVAILABILITY OF RHA strict quality control to comply with exacting

RHA is produced by the burning of the
harsh woody outer covering of the rice
grain. It is estimated that approximately 12
million tonnes of RHA are available
worldwide each year, and are posing a
disposal problem (Spence and Cook 1983).
In Australia, the major rice-growing area is
centred on the Riverina area of New South
Wales, where the Riceg rowers Co-operative
Limited produces an annual crop of close to
one million tonnes of paddy rice, resulting in
160,000 tonnes of rice husks. Smaller
quantities of rice husks, of the order of 6000
and 1000 tonnes each year, are produced
in the Burdekin delta, Queensland and the
Northern Territory, respectively.
Currently, approximately 20,000 tonnes
each year of rice husks from the Riverina
area are burnt in controlled combustion
furnaces at Griffith producing around 1000
tonnes each year of low-carbon and 3000
tonnes each year of high-carbon rice husk
ash (no controlled burning of the Queensland
and Northern Territory rice husks currently
occurs). The ashes are produced under
requirements of the steel and refractory
industries that comprise the major market.
As a result of this strict quality control, the
ashes are relatively expensive at the
moment.
At present 60 percent of the rice husksfrom
the Riverina are disposed of byfield burning.
It is planned to install incineration or power
generation facilities at all mills (Echuca,
Deniliquin, Coleambally, Leeton, Yenda and
Griffith) within five years (Klatt 1991), which
should ensure that, progressively, up to
30,000 tonnes each year of low-carbon ash
will become available. This ash, which would
normally be used as landfill, as a soil
ameliorant forsandy soils, oras a substitute
for lime in soils, should become available
locally at low cost.
CONCLUSIONS
(a) RHAas a sole additive cannot improve
the strength of a soil unless it can
improve its grading;
(b) RHA alone is not efficient in modifying
the plasticity and shrinkage properties
of a soil;

Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991


(c) Forthe soils tested, the maximum dry
density decreases and the optimum
moisture content increases if a soil is
treated with RHA, lime:RHA or
cement:RHA additives. These effects
are more pronounced as either the
quantity of the additive is increased
or as the proportion of RHA in the
additive is increased;
(d) The lime:RHA ratio giving the highest
strength in the lime:RHA pastes does
not represent the optimum ratio for
stabilising the soils;
(e) The unconfined compressive strength
of the soil is increased when the soil
is treated with lime:RHA additives.
This is more pronounced when a
longer curing time is allowed, or the
amount of lime or cement in the
additive is increased;
(f) Soils treated with cement:RHA
additives exhibit a slower rate of
strength development than those
treated with cement as a sole additive;
The plasticity index and linear
(g)
shrinkage of soil decrease on the
addition of lime:RHA or cement:RHA
additives. These decreases are more
pronounced as the amount of lime or
cement in the additive is increased;
(h) A very slight improvement generally
occurs with respect to the plasticity
and shrinkage properties of the
lime:RHA treated soils when cured
for longer periods (28 days compared
with 7 days);
(i) Lime:RHA additives are more efficient
for the strength improvement of soils
than forthe reduction of plasticity and
shrinkage;
(1) 1:1 lime:RHA and cement:RHA
additives generally exhibit the lowest
ratios of RHA required to lime/cement
savedforall of the examined lime:RHA
and cement:RHA additives;
(k) 1:1 lime:RHA additive is not
recommended for increasing the
strength of soils unless the cost of
lime is 3 times that of RHA;
(I) 1:1 lime:RHA additive is not
recommended for modifying the
plasticity and volume stability of soils
unless the cost of lime is 5-6 times
that of RHA;
Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991
SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH
(m) Cement:RHA additives are more
efficient in improving the properties of
low cohesion soils than in improving
the properties of clays; and
(n) 1:2 cement:RHA additive cannot be
recommended as equivalent to 2 per
cent cement for modifying the strength
of low cohesion soils and the plasticity
and shrinkage of clays and low
cohesion soils unless the cost of
cement is equal to, or greater than, 4
times the cost of RHA.
REFERENCES
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS (now
ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF
NSW (1980). Materials Testing Manual,
Vols 1, 2 and 3.
KLATT, P. (1991). Private communication,
19 June.
KORISA, J. (1958). Rice and its By-products.
2nd edn. (Edward Arnold: London.)
LAZARO, R.C. and MOH, Z.C. (1976).
Stabilization of deltaic soil with lime and rice
husk ash as admixtures. Second South
East Asia Conference on Soil Engineering,
Singapore, pp 215-23.
MANZ, O.E. and MANZ, B.A. (1984).
Utilization of fly ash in road bed stabilization:
some examples of western US experience.
Materials Research Society Symposium on
Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products:
Characterization, Utilization and Disposal I,
Boston, USA, November, pp. 129-40.
RAHMAN, M.A. (1986). Effects of rice husk
ash on geotechnical properties of lateritic
soil. West Indian Journal of Engineering,
Vol. II, No. 2, July, pp. 18-22.
SPENCE, R.J.S. and COOK, D.J. (1983).
Building Materials in Developing Countries.
(John Wiley: Chichester.)
SUBRAHMANYAM, M.S., CHERAN, L.L.
and CHERAN, L.S. (1981). Use of rice husk
ash fo r soil stabilization. Geological Society,
Malaysia, Bulletin 14, December, pp 143-
51.
 SOIL STABILISATION USING RICE HUSK ASH

D.G. MONTGOMERY

Denis Montgomery is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Civil and Mining Engineering,
University of Wollongong. He has a B.Sc. (Eng.) and Ph.D. from Queen's University, Belfast.
He is involved in a number of research projects concerned with engineering materials and
his main research interests are in concrete technology and engineering utilisation of
industrial by-products.

G. CHMEISSE

Ghassan Chmeisse is Project Engineer in the Traffic Unit at Yennora Works Centre of the
RTA Sydney Western Region. He obtained a B.C.E. from Cairo University and a M. Eng. Sc.
from the Universityof NewSouth Wales. He is currently studying fora Ph.D. at the University
of Wollongong. He has worked as a construction engineer, associated with buildings and
roads, in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Australia.

46 Australian Road Research, 21(4), December 1991