Strategies for Developing More Sustainable Dosages for

Soil–Coal Fly Ash–Lime Blends

Nilo Cesar Consoli 1; Cecília Gravina da Rocha 2; and Samir Maghous 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 04/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Sustainability is becoming a major concern for geotechnical engineering as this industry consumes considerable amounts of
resources. Efforts have been made to reduce such impacts by incorporating industrial wastes in new materials and identifying materials
that have a low burden on the environment. Nonetheless, there is still limited guidance on how to develop resource-efficient dosages
for geotechnical materials. On the other hand, equations in which strength is formulated as a function of experimentally controlled variables
(e.g., lime content or dry unit weight) have been devised for such materials. This means that distinct combinations of values can be assigned to
these variables to attain a target strength. These equations allow the rate of gains in strength provided by each variable to be jointly assessed
with the resources required to produce such gains. This manuscript proposes a method to rank such variables when jointly considering
mechanical and environmental performances. This ranking allows a number of strategies to develop resource efficient dosages to be elicited.
The proposed method is used to devise guidelines for a lime-treated soil. Results show that the main strategy is to increase dry unit weight
rather than lime content as the former is more efficient when jointly considering gains in strength and resource consumption. The method
presented herein is an initial effort towards the formulation of a comprehensive framework for optimizing the dosages of geotechnical
materials, integrating environmental and mechanical considerations. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001648. © 2016 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Sustainability; Soil stabilization; Compaction; Lime; Coal fly ash; Strength; Energy.

Introduction durability (Kempala et al. 2014), unconfined compression and

The geotechnical engineering industry consumes considerable
amounts of resources and also produces large quantities of waste.
The industry has been challenged to improve the characteristics of
compacted soils resulting from residue utilization to provide
innovative, economic, and sustainable solutions for infrastructure
such as pavement structures, canal lining, and engineered fills as
a base layer to shallow foundations and to increase lateral load
resistance of short piles when the soil around the top of the pile
is improved (e.g., Consoli et al. 2008, 2009a; Marques et al.
2014; Faro et al. 2015).
Research on the development and application of more sustain-
able geomaterials can be broadly organized into two major groups.
The first group looks at wastes from different industries and how
these can be incorporated in new geomaterials. In these studies, one
or more properties (e.g., strength, stiffness, durability, or density)
are investigated to assess the suitability of these geomaterials for
geotechnical applications. For example, the mechanical behavior
of compacted soil–coal fly ash–lime blends was studied through
1 the energy content of cement. Studies in this group aim to contrib-
Professor of Civil Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Federal
Univ. of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99 – 3 andar, Porto
Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil (corresponding author). E-mail: consoli@
ufrgs.br
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Federal Univ. of Rio
Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99 – 3 andar, Porto Alegre, RS
90035-190, Brazil. E-mail: cecilia.rocha@ufrgs.br
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Federal Univ. of
Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99 – 3 andar, Porto Alegre,
RS 90035-190, Brazil. E-mail: samir.maghous@ufrgs.br
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 19, 2015; approved
on March 18, 2016; published online on June 6, 2016. Discussion period
open until November 6, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
splitting tensile (Consoli et al. 2011a, 2013, 2014a, 2015), initial
stiffness (Consoli et al. 2001), California bearing ratio
(Athanasopoulou 2014), and triaxial (Consoli et al. 2001, 2015)
tests. Besides, Ahmad et al. (2012) and Mujah et al. (2013)
proposed the application of recycled fiberglass for ground improve-
ment. They assessed cohesion and angle of shearing resistance for
materials containing three types of soil (clay, sand, and peat) and
recycled fiberglass derived from industrial glass wastes. The under-
lying logic of studies in this group is to reduce the environmental
impact by waste incorporation.
The second group deals with the analysis or comparison of
materials to quantify their burden over the environment. These
studies usually employ lifecycle analysis (LCA) and, thus, present
an appraisal of different alternatives for distinct impact categories.
Some studies focus on a specific material such as soil–industrial
byproducts and assess their environmental impact using one or
more indicators. For example, Reddy and Kumar (2010) investi-
gated the embodied energy of cement-stabilized rammed earth
walls and assessed the energy involved in compaction besides
ute towards materials that have a low burden on the environment.
Although these studies are clearly relevant for improving
sustainability in the geotechnical engineering industry, strategies
for developing resource-efficient lime-treated soil dosages remain
scarce. Recently, studies have shown that strength for lime-
stabilized soils can be formulated as mathematical equations. In
such equations, strength is a dependent variable that is function
of a number of experimentally controlled variables (e.g., lime
content, dry unit weight, or fly ash content). Several studies
(e.g., Consoli et al. 2009b, 2011a, b, 2014b) have shown that
strength equations can be devised for lime-stabilized soils.
Formulating strength equations allows gains in performance
(strength) yielded by increasing (or decreasing) a variable to be

© ASCE 04016130-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2016, 28(11): 04016130

 clearly defined. Yet, most importantly, it allows the environmental
impact of altering each variable to be jointly assessed with the gains
in strength. This manuscript builds upon this discussion. It presents
a method to rank variables regarding their efficiency when jointly
considering gains in strength and the consumption of resources
(energy) needed to produce such gains. Based on this ranking, a
strategy to develop more sustainable dosages for soil–coal fly
ash–lime blends can be devised. The method proposed herein is
an initial effort in formulating a comprehensive framework for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 04/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
dosage optimization, integrating environmental and mechanical
considerations.
Materials and Methods
The experimental program was carried out in two parts. First, the
properties of materials used were characterized. Then a number of
tests to assess the compressive strength of mixtures were carried out
as discussed in subsequent sections.
Materials
Three materials, as well as tap water, were used in the soil mixtures
assessed: soil, coal fly ash, and hydrated lime. The soil [named
Botucatu residual soil (BRS)] used in the present study, derived
from weathered Botucatu sandstone, was obtained from the
region of Porto Alegre in southern Brazil. The results of the soil
characterization tests are given in Table 1. The soil is classified
as low-plasticity silty sand and clayey sand (SM and SC) according
to the Unified Soil Classification System. X-ray diffraction showed
that the fine portion is predominantly kaolinite.
The fly ash (FA) selected [type F according to ASTM C618
(ASTM 1998)] was a residue of burning coal in a thermal power
station. The main characteristic of Class F fly ash is the amount of
calcium oxide (CaO) in the ash, which is typically less than 12% (in
the present case, CaO percentage is 0.8%). The results of the FA
characterization tests are presented in Table 1. The material is
nonplastic. The FA is classified sandy silt (ML) according to the
Unified Soil Classification System. X-ray diffraction showed that
amorphous minerals compose the material predominantly.
Dry hydrated lime ½CaðOHÞ2  was used as the cementitious
binder. Its slow gain of strength necessitated the adoption of five
curing time periods (28, 60, 90, 180, and 360 days). The specific
gravity of the lime grains is 2.49.
Methods
Table 2 summarizes the parameters and values used in this study.
For the unconfined compression tests, cylindrical specimens
50 mm in diameter and 100 mm high were used. The soil, coal
fly ash, lime, and water were weighed and then the soil and fly
ash were assembled into a mixture, considering the three
percentages defined. Lime was then added and mixed until the
mixture acquired a uniform consistency. Lastly, the water was
Table 1. Physical Properties of Soil and Coal Fly Ash Samples
Property BRS Coal fly ash
Specific gravity 2.64 2.28
Medium sand (0.2 mm < diameter < 0.6 mm) (%) 16.2 1.0
Fine sand (0.06 mm < diameter < 0.2 mm) (%) 45.4 13.6
Silt (0.002 mm < diameter < 0.06 mm) (%) 33.4 84.9
Clay (diameter < 0.002 mm) (%) 5.0 0.5
Mean particle diameter (D50 ) (mm) 0.12 0.018
© ASCE 04016130-2
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2016, 28(11): 04016130
Table 2. Parameters and Range of Values Studied
Parameter Values studied
Lime content (L) (%) 3, 5, 7, and 9
Fly ash content (FA) (%) 0, 12.5, and 25
Dry unit weight (γ d ) 14 kN=m3 (porosity of approximately 34%)
[and related porosity (η)] 15 kN=m3 (porosity of approximately 37%)
16 kN=m3 (porosity of approximately 41%)
17 kN=m3 (porosity of approximately 44%)
Molding moisture content (%) 14
Curing time (days) 28, 60, 90, 180, and 360
added continuing the mixture process until a homogeneous paste
was created. After mixing, each mixture was compacted in three
layers into a 50-mm-diameter cylindrical split-mold, to a target
dry unit weight and moisture content. The samples were then
placed within plastic bags to avoid significant variations of mois-
ture content. They were cured in a humid room at 23  2°C for up
to 359 days. The samples were considered suitable for testing if
they met the following tolerances: (1) dry unit weight within
1% of the target value; (2) moisture content within 0.5% of
the target value; (3) diameter within 0.5 mm; and (4) height
within 1 mm. An automatic loading machine, with maximum
capacity of 50 kN and proving rings with capacities of 10
and 50 kN and resolutions of 0.005 and 0.023 kN, was used for
the unconfined compression tests. The displacement rate adopted
was 1.14 mm per minute. After curing in a humid room for 27, 59,
89, 179, and 359 days, the specimens were submerged in a water
tank for 24 h for saturation and to minimize suction. Then, the un-
confined compression test was carried out and the maximum load
reached by the specimen recorded.
Standard Results
Similar to what has been shown in previous studies by Consoli et al.
(2011a), the effect of each of the parameters studied over the un-
confined compressive strength (qu ) were as follows: qu increases
with increasing lime content (in weight and in volume), increasing
FA content, decreasing porosity of the blend, and increasing curing
time. Consoli et al. (2011a) was successful in proposing the exist-
ence of an explicit relation linking qu and a ratio between porosity
(η) [Eq. (1)] and volumetric binder content (Liv ) [Eq. (2)], the latter
defined as the volume of lime over the total volume of the specimen

 
γd 100 − FA FA L
η ¼ 100 1 − þ þ ð1Þ
1 þ 100
L 100 γ s 100 γ FA 100 γ L
γd L
Liv ¼ 100 L 100 γ ð2Þ
1 þ 100 L
The relation qu versus η=Liv joins the distinct effects of both
parameters (η and Liv ) in a unique factor controlling qu . Using
the same relation in the present study, equations were obtained
for each curing periods: 28, 60, 90, 180, and 360 days [Eqs. (3)–
(7), respectively]. Fly ash (FA) is an independent variable, entered
in percentage, in these equations. Blends without fly ash were
found to disintegrate when submerged in water for 28 and 60 days
of curing. As a result, up to 60 days of curing [Eqs. (3) and (4)],
zero fly ash leads to a compressive strength equal to zero.
Differently, for the other curing periods, blends are able to attain
a compressive strength even without fly ash. It is worth highlight-
ing that Eqs. (3)–(7) are valid only for the range of values studied:
fly ash content from 0 to 25%, curing temperature of 23°C, dry unit
weight from 14 to 17 kN=m3 , and lime content from 3 to 9%
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 −4.6
η Table 3. Summary of the Proposed Method
qu ¼ 5.89 × 108 FA
ðLiv Þ0.12

 −4.6
8 η
qu ¼ 9.15 × 10 FA
ðLiv Þ0.12

 −4.6
8 η 8
qu ¼ ð14.1 × 10 FA þ 7.42 × 10 Þ
ðLiv Þ0.12
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 04/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

 −4.6
η F
qu ¼ ð15.3 × 108 FA þ 12.8 × 108 Þ
ðLiv Þ0.12

 −4.6
8 η
8
qu ¼ ð15.4 × 10 FA þ 31.42 × 10 Þ
ðLiv Þ0.12
Method to Rank Variables’ Efficiency
The starting point of the method proposed herein is the mathemati-
cal expressions of strength as a number of experimentally
controlled variables (termed here as experimental variables)
presented earlier [Eqs. (3)–(7)]. Step A involves the development
of an energy proxy for these variables. Computing partial deriva-
tives with the experimental variables allows only the mechanical
performance of such variables to be assessed (i.e., the rate of gains
in strength provided by increasing binder content, dry unit weight,
etc). Thus, in order to assess the environmental performance of
increasing or decreasing the experimental variables, these need
to be replaced by a proxy that measures the environmental impact.
As presented in environmental sustainability studies, particularly
lifecycle assessments (e.g., Dugan et al. 2015; Inui et al. 2011),
different impact categories such as CO2 emission and embodied
energy can be used. For the method presented, here a single proxy
(e.g., embodied energy) and unit (e.g., joules per gram of blend)
should be adopted. This is necessary for the impact of distinct
experimental variables to be comparable, thus allowing the
most-efficient and less-efficient variables from an environmental
viewpoint to be elicited.
Once each experimental variable is replaced by its environmen-
tal proxy (Step B), two sets of functions are created: one in which
strength is a function of experimental variables (e.g., dry unit
weight or binder content) and one in which it is a function of
environmental proxies. Steps C to F are then performed for both
sets of functions (Table 3). Step C requires the range of values
(for experimental variables and environmental proxies) to be
identified. For the experimental variables, this range is determined
by the upper and lower values studied in the experimental program.
In contrast, for the environmental proxies, these values are calcu-
lated by entering the upper and lower values for each experimental
variable into the respective environmental proxy function. Then,
partial derivatives of functions with respect to each of its variables
are determined (Step D) and the ratio between every two partial
derivatives is calculated (Step E). In the strength equations ana-
lyzed here [Eqs. (3)–(7)], it is observed that strength is a monoton-
ically increasing function with respect to each experimental
variable considered separately. It follows therefore that, when
the previous ratio is larger than one, it means that the variable
whose partial derivative is in the numerator produces gains in
strength at higher rates than the variable whose partial derivative
is in the denominator. For illustrative purpose, let qu ¼
qu ðx1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xn Þ denote a strength-controlling variable of a
material. Computing by ∂qu =∂xi and ∂qu =∂xj , the effect of a
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2016, 28(11): 04016130
ð3Þ
Step Tasks
A Devise an environmental proxy for
each experimental variable
ð4Þ
B Replace experimental variables
by environmental proxies
C Elicit range of values for experimental
variables and environmental proxies
ð5Þ
D Calculate partial derivatives
E Calculate ratio between every two partial
derivatives (for each set of functions)
Elicit ranking of variables and define guidelines
ð6Þ
variable alteration can be assessed by analyzing whether the ratios
ð7Þ ∂qu =∂xi and ∂qu =∂xj are larger or smaller than unity.
Based on the ratio between partial derivatives and the set of
values for which such a ratio is smaller, larger, or equal to one,
variables can be ranked. When strength is viewed as a function
of experimental variables (e.g., dry unit weight, lime content, or
fly ash content), such ranking indicates the efficiency of variables
in producing gains in strength (mechanical performance).
Differently, when strength is viewed as function of environmental
proxies, such ranking considers not only the efficiency of each
variable in producing gains in strength (as this variable changes)
but also the environmental impact to produce such change. Con-
sequently, it ranks the efficiency of experimental variables when
jointly considering mechanical and environmental performance.
Application of the Proposed Method
Environmental Proxies
In this section, functions that provide the energy proxy for each
experimental variable (dry unit weight, lime content, and fly ash
content) are presented. Joule per gram of blend (J=g) is the unit
used for the proxy. This category was selected because the impact
of increasing or decreasing the experimental variables examined
here could be easily express in terms of energy consumption.
Energy Proxy for Dry Unit Weight
Mechanical compaction produces increase in dry unit weight of the
material. In laboratory experiments, this process is classically
achieved by means of a pressure applied by a rigid piston acting
on a laterally constrained sample of the blended material. Thus,
it is suggested herein that the compaction energy for attaining dif-
ferent dry unit weights provides an environmental proxy for dry
unit weight. The latter energy proxy shall be referred to as Eγd
in the subsequent analysis. The same points used in the experimen-
tal programs (for lime content, fly ash content, and dry unit weight)
were used to determine the compaction energy function. Blends
with 5% of lime were studied containing 0, 12.5, and 25% of
fly ash (Fig. 1). Due to data scarcity, up to three specimens were
molded for each point. Initially, specimens were molded and com-
pacted with an initial dry unit weight of 13 kN=m3 . Then a force
was applied to reduce the volume of the specimen until attaining
14, 15, 16, and 17 kN=m3 . As the force required for compaction is
not constant, the force applied to move the piston was measured for
each millimeter. The compaction energy was calculated by sum-
ming the product of force per distance of application. All compac-
tion energy values were divided by the specimen mass so that a
function that provides the energy required per gram of blend could
be obtained (Fig. 1). All points were plotted in a single graph so that
the function that provides the compaction energy for the varying
04016130-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 04/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Energy proxy function for dry unit weight (Eγd )
contents of fly ash could be obtained. A good fit was found for the
functions that express the energy required to increase dry unit
weight [Eq. (8)]
Eγd ¼ 3 × 10−24 ð γ d Þ19.7 ðR2 ¼ 0.96Þ ð8Þ
Energy Proxy for Lime Content
The energy proxy for binder content (EL ) is based on the concept of
embodied energy (EE). This is a common and widely used proxy
for assessing the environmental impact of construction materials
and expresses the amount of energy to produce (from extraction
to the finished product) a given amount of a material (e.g., Dugan
et al. 2015; Inui et al. 2011; Biswas 2013). Since binder content (L)
is a percentage over the total material mass (soil and fly ash), the
energy associated to different lime contents can be expressed by the
following equation:
L for each region, one of the variables produces gains in strength at
EL ¼ EE ð9Þ
100
where: EL = energy consumed per blend in mass (J=g); L = binder
content (%); and EE = embodied energy of binder (J=g), where EE
is 5,300 J=g for lime (Hammond and Jones 2008).
Energy Proxy for Fly Ash Content
The coal fly ash (FA) used is a waste generated in coal combustion
for electricity generation, and thus does not have an embodied
energy value. Yet, a value [termed here as maximum energy
(ME)] had to be assigned to create an energy proxy function
and allow the impact of such experimental variable to be compa-
rable to the others. Assuming a linear dependence of the energy
proxy with respect to fly ash content, the energy proxy function
for FA (EFA ) can be expressed as follows:
FA
EFA ¼ ME ð10Þ
100
where EFA = energy consumed per blend in mass (J=g); FA = coal
fly ash content (%); and ME = maximum energy. The latter was
determined after the ratios between partial derivatives were calcu-
lated (Step E). The highest value (0.015 J=g) that still allows this
experimentally controlled variable to be more efficient than the
other variables was chosen. In other words, this is the maximum
amount of energy (per gram of fly ash) that can be assigned for
fly ash to be more efficient (when considering mechanical and
© ASCE 04016130-4
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2016, 28(11): 04016130
Table 4. Range of Values of Experimental Variables and Energy Proxies
Range L (%) EL (J=g) γ d ðkN=m3 Þ Eγ d (J/g) FA (%) EFA (J=g)
Lower bound 3 159 14 0.10 0 0
Upper bound 9 477 17 4.69 25 0.00375
environmental performance) than dry unit weight and lime content.
That is, the analysis and results presented here are valid considering
the energy required for shipping and using the fly ash for the blends
examined here does not exceed 0.015.
Range of Values for Experimental Variables and
Energy Proxies
Table 4 offers the range of values for the experimental variables and
energy proxies. The upper and lower of the energy proxies were
obtained by entering the upper and lower values of variables
(γ d , L, and FA) examined in the respective energy proxy function.
Eq. (8) was used to calculate the lower and upper energy values for
dry unit weight. Eq. (9) was used to calculate the energy associated
to upper and lower values of lime content for both materials.
Eq. (10) was used to calculate energy values for 0 and 25% of
fly ash.
Results of the Application of the Proposed Method
The strength-controlling functions analyzed here (whether
expressed in terms of experimental variables or energy proxies)
contain only three variables: L (EL ), γ d (Eγd ), and FA (EFA ).
As a result, it is possible to graphically display the equation in
which the ratio between two partial derivatives is equal to one,
as a surface. For the sake of clarity, the mathematical aspects of
the reasoning developed in sequel are given in the Appendix. This
surfaces outlines the set of values for which both variables provide
the same rate of change in strength. Differently, in the two regions
defined by this surface, this ratio is smaller or larger than one. Thus,
higher rates than the other. As a result, by plotting the previously
mentioned surfaces in a three-dimensional graph, the ranking of
variables that applies to the distinct regions (within the range of
values studied) can be displayed (Fig. 2). In this section, the effi-
ciency of experimental variables in producing gains in strength
(mechanical performance) is initially discussed. Then their effi-
ciency when jointly considering gains in strength (mechanical per-
formance) and energy consumption (environmental performance)
is analyzed.
Efficiency in Terms of Mechanical Performance
As shown in Fig. 2, two surfaces [ð∂qu =∂LÞ=ð∂qu =∂FAÞ ¼ 1 and
ð∂qu =∂FAÞ=ð∂qu =∂γ d Þ ¼ 1] intersect the range of values studied
for fly ash (between 0 and 25%), lime (3 to 9%), and dry unit
weight (14–17 kN=m3 ) defining three regions. In each of these
regions, a distinct ranking of variables applies. In Regions A
and B, dry unit weight provides greater gains on strength than
fly ash and lime [Fig. 2(a)]. Yet, in Region A, lime is the sec-
ond–most efficient variable, whereas in Region B, FA is the
second-–most-efficient variable B. Differently, in Region C, fly
ash is the most-efficient variable, followed by dry unit weight
[Fig. 2(a)]. Figs. 2(a and b) present the ranking of variables for
Eqs. (3) and (7) respectively. Similar results were obtained for
Eqs. (4)–(6); the main difference is related to the position of the
surfaces. For example, for Eq. (1) [Fig. 2(a)] the surface defined
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 04/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Strength-controlling functions with experimental variables: (a) Eq. (3); (b) Eq. (7)
by ð∂qu =∂FAÞ=ð∂qu =∂γ d Þ ¼ 1 intersects FA axis in 2.5%,
whereas for Eq. (5) [Fig. 2(b)] it intersects the FA axis in zero
(and thus Region C does not exist for the set of values studied).
Efficiency in Terms of Mechanical and Environmental
Performance
When converting fly ash, lime, and dry unit weight into energy
proxies (EFA , EL , and Eγ d , respectively), it was found that none
of the three surfaces [defined by ð∂qu =∂FAÞ=ð∂qu =∂γ d Þ ¼ 1,
ð∂qu =∂EL Þ=ð∂qu =∂EFA Þ ¼ 1, and ð∂qu =∂EL Þ=ð∂qu =∂γ d Þ ¼ 1]
intersects the ranges of values of the energy proxies. Consequently,
for EL between 159 J/g (energy required for 3% of lime) and
477 J=g (energy required for 9% of lime), EFA between zero
(energy required for zero FA) and 0.00375 J=g (energy required
for 25% of FA), and Eγd between 0.1 J=g (energy required for
14 kN=m3 ) and 4.69 J=g (energy required for 17 kN=m3 ), there
is only one region and thus one ranking of variables. This ranking
is defined as followed: fly ash is more efficient than dry unit weight,
which in turn is more efficient than lime.
Discussion
Contributions of the Proposed Method
This manuscript proposes a method to rank the efficiency of
variables when jointly considering mechanical and environmental
performance. This method builds upon strength-controlling func-
tions (devised based on experimental programs) and has a twofold
contribution. First, it outlines the rate of change of a function
(strength) as an experimentally controlled variable increases or
decreases. This allows variables to be ranked with regards to effi-
ciency in producing gains in strength (Table 5). One out of three
rankings of variables applies depending on the set of values of dry
unit weight, fly ash, and lime contents (first column of Table 5).
Second, this method suggests the use of environmental proxies
to account for the environmental impact of increasing experimental
variables. Such impact has been operationalized here as energy per
mass of material. Analyzing the strength controlling functions in
terms of energy proxies (rather than experimental variables) is par-
ticularly important because the efficiency of variables in terms of
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2016, 28(11): 04016130
Table 5. Ranking of Variables Efficiency
Mechanical performance Mechanical and environmental
(equations with experimental performances (equations with
Mixture variables) energy proxies)
Soil–coal γ d > L > FA (Region A) FA > γ d > L
fly γ d > FA > L (Region B)
ash–lime FA > γ d > L (Region C)
blends
gains in strength and energy consumption can be jointly assessed.
This allows optimal variables regarding mechanical and environ-
mental performance to be identified. In fact, results (Table 5)
show major differences in the ranking of variables and amount of
rankings when considering mechanical performance only and
mechanical and environmental performance.
Three rankings of variables were identified when considering
only mechanical performance (first column of Table 5). Differently,
a single ranking of variables emerged when jointly considering
mechanical and environmental performance (second column of
Table 5). FA content, which was the most-efficient variable to cre-
ate gains in strength for only a limited number of blends [Region C
in Fig. 2(a)], became the most-efficient variable for all values of FA,
L, and γ d when jointly considering mechanical and environmental
performances [Fig. 2(b)]. This result is not unexpected since the
maximum value of energy per gram of fly ash (that still allows
FA content to be the most-efficient variable) was chosen. This
threshold is particularly important since it provides the maximum
energy up to which it still more efficient to increase fly ash content
rather than dry unit weight.
Relationship to Existing Literature
As discussed previously, most studies seeking to reduce the envi-
ronmental impact of geomaterials focus on the incorporation of
waste or comparisons to define material(s) with minimal impact
over the environment. Yet, further understanding regarding the
influence of each variable is needed to ensure that resources are
efficiently used. Indeed, a wide number of methods and strategies
have been devised for developing more-sustainable products in
04016130-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 manufacturing (e.g., Byggeth et al. 2007; Bereketli and Genevois
2013). Yet, methods and guidelines for developing more-sustain-
able dosages for geotechnical materials are yet limited.
This manuscript seeks to advance in this discussion by propos-
ing a method to identify variables in strength equations that provide
optimal combinations between gains in strength and energy
consumption. The ranking of variables when jointly considering
mechanical and environmental performance is summarized in
the second column in Table 5. Such ranking allows a number of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 04/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
strategies to develop resource-efficient dosages for geomaterials
to be elicited. The first guideline in developing a dosage is to begin
with minimum dry unit weight [obtained through compaction
testing as per ASTM (2007)] and minimum lime content [obtained
through quick test (pH method) developed by Eades and Grim
(1966)] and start increasing fly ash content to attain the desired
strength. This guideline is based on the variables’ ranking (second
column Table 5), which shows that fly ash is the optimal variable
when considering gains in strength and energy consumption. The
second guideline is to increase dry unit weight. Again, this guide-
line is based on the ranking presented in Table 5, which shows that
dry unit weight is the second-most-efficient variable. Finally, the
third guideline is to increase lime content. Increasing lime content
should be only the last option for increasing compressive strength
since it is the less-efficient variable when considering gains in
strength as well as the energy required to produce such gains.
Clearly, the assessment of the environmental impact of dosages
examined here is limited to one indicator (i.e., energy) among
several others (e.g., carbon dioxide emissions or waste generation),
which are needed to provide a comprehensive assessment of such
impact. In addition, the energy assessed is limited to the one
required to produce the geomaterials. This means that the energy
involved in materials transportation is not considered. This is an
important part of energy consumption that should be incorporated
in further investigations. Examining the energy involved in trans-
portation can help to determine whether it is more efficient to use
fly ash (i.e., if transportation energy is up to 0.015 J per gram of fly
ash) or increase dry unit weight. Nonetheless, this manuscript dem-
onstrates how strength equations can be used to produce strategies
for developing resource-efficient dosages for geomaterials. Further
studies are needed to include other environmental proxies and per-
form a more-holistic assessment of variables’ performance from an
environmental viewpoint.
Conclusions
This manuscript proposes a method to rank the efficiency of
variables in strength equations, considering both mechanical and
environmental performances. This ranking allows a number of
strategies to develop resource-efficient dosages for geotechnical
materials. Clearly, the strategies presented here are applicable only
for the studied blends, within the range of values examined. Yet, the
method can be applied to other geomaterials as long as strength
equations are provided and the experimentally controlled variables
examined can be expressed as environmental proxies. Based on the
results presented herein, a number of conclusions can be drawn:
• Analyzing partial derivatives of strength-controlling functions
in terms of experimental variables and environmental proxies
provides distinct rankings of variables. This means there are
major changes in the efficiency of variables when considering
mechanical performance only and when considering mechanical
and environmental performances.
• The results highlight the need to use environmental proxies
(rather than experimental variables) to ensure that variables that
© ASCE 04016130-6
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2016, 28(11): 04016130
provide an optimal combination of mechanical and environmen-
tal performances are identified.
• When looking only at gains in strength (mechanical perfor-
mance), it was found that increasing dry unit weight is always
more efficient than increasing lime content. This result is also
maintained when considering the energy required to change
these two experimental variables. This suggests that increasing
dry unit weight should be preferred to increasing lime content
(Table 4).
• This is probably because lime content is more energy intensive
than the other experimental variables. Energy associated with
lime is at least one order of magnitude larger than the energy
associated with dry unit weight and fly ash. This indicates that
increasing these variables should be preferred to increasing
binder content.
Finally, even though the application of the proposed method was
demonstrated for a single property (i.e., strength), its implementa-
tion to other mechanical (e.g., elastic stiffness) or hydromechanical
(e.g., permeability) properties should be foreseen in the future
without major modifications in the reasoning. The encouraging re-
sults obtained are paving the way for promising developments, with
significant implications in the context of dosage optimization.
From a conceptual viewpoint, the method proposed here should
be viewed as a first contribution towards the formulation of a
comprehensive framework for optimizing the dosages of geomate-
rials, integrating mechanical and environmental considerations.
The basis of the reasoning embedded in the proposed method
can be summarized as follows:
• Based on laboratory tests and phenomenological considerations,
formulate mathematical expressions for the desired property
(e.g., strength or stiffness) as a function of experimentally
controlled variables (e.g., porosity).
• For mechanical optimization, evaluate the gradient of the
desired property with respect to its arguments (experimentally
controlled variables). Rank variables’ efficiency by comparing
partial derivatives of the desired property with respect to the
experimentally controlled variable.
• For environmental optimization, relate each experimentally
controlled variable to an energy proxy. Rank variables’ effi-
ciency by comparing partial derivatives of the desired property
with respect to energy proxies.
Appendix. Mathematical Expressions for Unconfined
Compressive Strength Derivatives
Steps D and E (Table 3) are fundamental issues of the reasoning
developed in the manuscript. The present appendix summarizes
the main lines to compute the derivatives of unconfined compres-
sive strength with respect to its arguments.
Taking into account relationships [given in Eqs. (1) and (2)], it is
first observed that expressions given in Eqs. (3) to (7) of qu can
always be conveniently written under the generic form

−α
γd
qu ¼ λ ða þ b FAÞ 1 − ðc1 þ c2 FA þ c3 Liv Þ
1 þ Liv
 
γ d Liv αβ
× ð11Þ
1 þ Liv
where
c ¼ 1 ; 1
c2 ¼ 29.8 1
− 26.4 ; 1
c3 ¼αβ
1 26.4 24.9
100 ð12Þ
α ¼ 4.6; β ¼ 0.12; λ ¼ 26.4 100−α
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 and coefficients (a and b) can be readily identified for each case Eγ d = energy proxy for dry unit weight;
from expressions given in Eqs. (3)–(7). For instance, a ¼ 0 and FA = coal fly ash content;
b ¼ 5.89 × 108 for the expression in Eq. (3). L = lime content;
The second step of the reasoning consists in taking advantage of Liv = volumetric lime content;
the properties of the correspondence qu → Qu ¼ ln qu , which is qu = unconfined compressive strength;
monotone increasing with respect to variable qu . It is therefore γd = dry unit weight; and
equivalent to compare partial derivatives of qu or partial derivatives η = porosity.
of qu or partial derivatives of Qu
∂qu ∂qu ∂Qu ∂Qu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 04/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

≥ ⇔ ≥ ð13Þ
∂xi ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj References

Ranking the effect of the experimental variables on strength qu Ahmad, F., Mujah, D., Hazarika, H., and Safari, A. (2012). “Assessing the
amounts thus to ranking the effect of these variables on Qu ¼ ln qu . potential reuse of recycled glass fibre in problematic soil applications.”
Computing the derivative of Qu results in the following J. Cleaner Prod., 35, 102–107.
expressions: ASTM. (1998). “Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined
natural pozzolan for use as a mineral admixture in concrete.” ASTM C
8
> ∂Qu αγ d c2 618, West Conshohocken, PA.
< ∂FA ¼ aþbFA þ 1þLiv −γ d ðc1 þc2 FAþc3 Liv Þ
b
> ASTM. (2007). “Standard test methods for laboratory compaction
∂Qu αβ c1 þc2 FAþc3 Liv
> ∂γ d ¼ γ d þ α 1þLiv −γ d ðc1 þc2 FAþc3 Liv Þ ð14Þ characteristics of soils using standard effort (600 kN-m=m3 ).” ASTM
>
: ∂Qu ¼ αβ þ αγ c3 −c2 FA−c1 D 698, West Conshohocken, PA.
∂Liv Liv ð1þLiv Þ d ð1þLiv Þ½1þLiv −γ d ðc1 þc2 FAþc3 Liv Þ
Athanasopoulou, A. (2014). “Addition of lime and fly ash to improve
highway subgrade soils.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT
Step (E) will consist in analyzing if the ratios ð∂Qu = .1943-5533.0000856, 773–775.
∂FAÞ=ð∂Qu =∂γ d Þ, ð∂Qu =∂FAÞ=ð∂Qu =∂Liv Þ, and ð∂Qu =∂Liv Þ= Bereketli, I., and Genevois, M. E. (2013). “An integrated QFDE approach
ð∂Qu =∂γ d Þ are larger or smaller than unity. for identifying improvement strategies in sustainable product develop-
Now the situation where the strength is viewed as a function of ment.” J. Cleaner Prod., 54, 188–198.
energy proxies, that is qu ¼ qu ðEFA ; Eγd ; EL Þ, will be discussed. Biswas, W. K. (2013). “Carbon footprint and embodied energy assessment
To compute the partial derivative, it is convenient to consider Qu ¼ of a civil works program in a residential estate of Western Australia.”
ln qu and to observe that Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 19(4), 732–744.
Byggeth, S., Broman, G., and Robèrt, K. H. (2007). “A method for sustain-
∂Qu ∂Qu ∂xi able product development based on a modular system of guiding
¼ ð15Þ questions.” J. Cleaner Prod., 15(1), 1–11.
∂Exi ∂xi ∂Exi
Consoli, N. C., Dalla Rosa, A., and Saldanha, R. B. (2011a).
“Variables governing strength of compacted soil-fly ash-lime mixtures.”
where xi ∈ fFA; γ d ; Liv g = an experimental variable; and Exi = the J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000186,
associated energy. Term ∂Qu =∂X i in Eq. (15) is directly given by 432–440.
Eq. (14), while term ∂xi =∂Exi is deduced from the expression of Consoli, N. C., Dalla Rosa, F., and Fonini, A. (2009a). “Plate load tests on
energy [Eqs. (8)–(10)]: cemented soil layers overlaying weaker soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:9(774), 774–782.
∂FA 100 ∂Liv 100
¼ ; ¼ ð16Þ Consoli, N. C., Festugato, L., Consoli, B. S., and Lopes Junior, L. S. (2015).
∂EFA ME ∂EL EE “Assessing failure envelopes of soil-fly ash-lime blends.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001134, 04014174.
The particular case of term ∂γ d =∂Eγ d requires some additional Consoli, N. C., Lopes, L. S., Jr., Consoli, B. S., and Festugato, L. (2014a).
manipulations that yield “Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes of lime treated soils.” Géotechnique,
  64(2), 165–170.
∂γ d 1 Eγd ðn−1Þ=n Consoli, N. C., Lopes, L. S., Jr., and Heineck, K. S. (2009b). “Key param-
¼ ð17Þ
∂Eγd χn χ eters for the strength control of lime stabilized soils.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:5(210), 210–216.
where ðχ; nÞ ¼ ð3x10−24 ; 19.7Þ according to Eq. (8). Consoli, N. C., Lopes, L. S., Jr., Prietto, P. D. M., Festugato, L., and Cruz,
R. C. (2011b). “Variables controlling stiffness and strength of lime-
stabilized soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT
.1943-5606.0000470, 628–632.
Acknowledgments Consoli, N. C., Lopes, L. S., Jr., Dalla Rosa, A., and Masuero, J. R. (2013).
“The strength of soil–industrial by-products–lime blends.” Proc. Inst.
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Brazilian MCT/CNPq Civ. Eng.-Geotech. Eng., 166(GE5), 431–440.
for its financial support to the research group. A special thanks is Consoli, N. C., Prietto, P. D. M., Carraro, J. A. H., and Heineck, K. S.
due to Professor Luiz Fernando Carvalho da Rocha, Federal Uni- (2001). “Behavior of compacted soil-fly ash-carbide lime-fly ash mix-
versity of Rio Grande do Sul, for fruitful discussions at the concep- tures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
tion of the research. (2001)127:9(774), 774–782.
Consoli, N. C., Rocha, C. G., and Silvani, C. (2014b). “Effect of curing
temperature on the strength of sand, coal fly ash, and lime blends.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001011, 06014015.
Notation Consoli, N. C., Thomé, A., Donato, M., and Graham, J. (2008). “Loading
tests on compacted soil–bottom ash–carbide lime layers.” Proc., Inst.
The following symbols are used in this paper: Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 161(1), 29–38.
BRS = Botucatu residual soil; Dugan, A., McCabe, B. A., Goggins, J., and Clifford, E. (2015). “An
D50 = mean particle diameter; embodied carbon and embodied energy appraisal of a section of
EFA = Energy proxy for fly ash content; Irish motorway constructed in peatlands.” Constr. Build. Mater., 79,
EL = energy proxy for lime content; 402–419.

© ASCE 04016130-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2016, 28(11): 04016130

 Eades, J. L., and Grim, R. E. (1966). “A quick test to determine lime
requirements for soil stabilization.” Highway Research Record 139,
Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.
Faro, V. P., Consoli, N. C., Schnaid, F., Thomé, A., and Lopes, L. S., Jr.
(2015). “Field tests on laterally loaded rigid piles in cement treated
soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0001296, 06015003.
Hammond, G., and Jones, C. (2008). “Inventory of carbon and energy
(ICE).” 〈www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/〉 (Apr. 12, 2013).
Inui, T., Chau, C. Y. K., Soga, K., Nicholson, D., and O’Riordan, N. (2011).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 04/04/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Kempala, A., Horpibulsuk, S., Prongmanee, N., and Chinkulkijniwat, A.
(2014). “Influence of wet-dry cycles on compressive strength calcium
carbide residue-fly ash stabilized clay.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000853, 633–643.
Marques, S. F. V., Consoli, N. C., and Almeida e Sousa, J. (2014). “Testing
cement improved residual soil layers.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000725, 544–550.
Mujah, D., Ahmad, F., Hazarika, H., and Safari, A. (2013). “Evaluation of
the mechanical properties of recycled glass fibers-derived three dimen-
sional geomaterial for ground improvement.” J. Cleaner Prod., 52,

“Embodied energy and gas emissions of retaining wall structures.” J. 495–503.

Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000507, Reddy, B. V. V., and Kumar, P. P. (2010). “Embodied energy in cement
958–967. stabilised rammed earth walls.” Energy Build., 42(3), 380–385.

© ASCE 04016130-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2016, 28(11): 04016130