Laboratory Studies on Stabilization of an Expansive

Soil by Lime Precipitation Technique

T. Thyagaraj1; Sudhakar M. Rao2; P. Sai Suresh3; and U. Salini4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College Of Engineering on 08/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Lime stabilization prevails to be the most widely adopted in situ stabilization method for controlling the swell-shrink potentials
of expansive soils despite construction difficulties and its ineffectiveness in certain conditions. In addition to the in situ stabilization
methods presently practiced, it is theoretically possible to facilitate in situ precipitation of lime in soil by successive permeation of calcium
chloride (CaCl2 ) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solutions into the expansive soil. In this laboratory investigation, an attempt is made to study
the precipitation of lime in soil by successive mixing of CaCl2 and NaOH solutions with the expansive soil in two different sequences.
Experimental results indicated that in situ precipitation of lime in soil by sequential mixing of CaCl2 and NaOH solutions with expansive
soil developed strong lime-modification and soil-lime pozzolanic reactions. The lime-modification reactions together with the poorly de-
veloped cementation products controlled the swelling potential, reduced the plasticity index, and increased the unconfined compressive
strength of the expansive clay cured for 24 h. Comparatively, both lime-modification reactions and well-developed crystalline cementation
products (formed by lime-soil pozzolanic reactions) contributed to the marked increase in the unconfined compressive strength of the ex-
pansive soil that was cured for 7–21 days. Results also show that the sequential mixing of expansive soil with CaCl2 solution followed by
NaOH solution is more effective than mixing expansive soil with NaOH solution followed by CaCl2 solution. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT
.1943-5533.0000483. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Expansive soils; Soil stabilization; Compressive strength; Swelling (material); Shrinkage; Lime;
Laboratory tests.
Author keywords: Expansive soils; Soil stabilization; Compressive strength; Swelling; Shrinkage; Lime.

Introduction
Expansive soils occur in arid and semiarid regions of the world.
The high swelling and shrinkage potentials of these soils cause se-
vere damages to pavements, runways, and building foundations,
which are founded on these soils (Chen 1988; Nelson and Miller
1992). Chemical stabilization is one of the alternative solutions to
overcome the undesirable swell-shrink potentials of the expansive
soils. Among the chemical stabilization methods for expansive
soils, lime stabilization is most widely adopted method for control-
ling the swell-shrink potentials by chemically modifying the soil
characteristics.
Lime stabilization of expansive soils in the field is achieved
by shallow mixing of lime or by in situ deep stabilization methods
using lime columns, lime piles, and lime slurry injection methods
(Bell 1988b; Rao and Thyagaraj 2003). Physical mixing of lime
1 Rao and Venkataswamy (2002) found that lime pile treatment of
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India (corresponding author).
E-mail: ttraj@iitm.ac.in
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, and Chairman, Center for
Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012,
India.
3
Former Postgraduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National
Institute of Technology Warangal, Warangal 506 004, India.
4
Research Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 16, 2011; approved
on January 23, 2012; published online on January 25, 2012. Discussion
period open until January 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 8, August 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/
2012/8-1067–1075/$25.00.
and soil is the most efficient and cost-effective method of stabiliz-
ing expansive soils to shallow depths (Rao and Thyagaraj 2003).
In situ stabilization methods using lime have been pioneered in
Sweden, Japan, and the United States, and these methods are
mostly restricted to improve the engineering properties of soft clays
(Tsytovich et al. 1971; Broms and Boman 1975; Holm et al. 1981;
Bell 1988b; Wang 1989; Chew et al. 1993; Porbaha 1998; Rogers
et al. 2000).
In situ stabilization methods using lime can be divided into three
primary groups: lime columns, lime piles, and lime slurry injection
(Glendinning and Rogers 1996). Lime columns refer to deep ver-
tical columns of lime-stabilized material formed by in situ mixing
of lime and soft clays. Lime column stabilization is mostly re-
stricted to soft clays, because the construction of lime columns
in expansive soil deposits by in situ mixing of lime and expansive
soils is very difficult owing to the very stiff nature of these soils.
Lime piles refer to holes in the ground filled with lime. Recently,
expansive soils could not promote soil-lime pozzolanic reactions;
it only facilitated short-term lime-modification reactions. Lime pile
treatment of expansive soil could not raise the soil pH levels to ≥ 12
owing to the low solubility of lime and the impervious nature of
expansive soil, which inhibited the migration of lime.
Long-term soil-lime pozzolanic reactions occur at pH values
> 12 from the increase in the solubility of siliceous and aluminous
compounds in the clay minerals. These compounds react with cal-
cium to form calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) and calcium aluminate
hydrate (CAH) gels, which coat the soil particles and subsequently
crystallize to bond them (Eades and Grim 1960; Diamond et al.
1963; Rogers et al. 1997). Because of the imperviousness and very
stiff nature of the expansive soils, the lime column and lime pile
stabilization methods are either difficult to construct or ineffective

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012 / 1067

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2012, 24(8): 1067-1075

 in stabilizing these soils. Hence, a need exists for new treatment
methods and for improvement of stabilization methods, which
can effectively stabilize expansive soils.
In addition to migration of lime into the expansive soil from
a lime pile/column, it is theoretically possible to facilitate in situ
precipitation of lime in the expansive soil by successive permeation
of calcium chloride (CaCl2 ) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solu-
tions into the expansive soil. Successive permeation of CaCl2 and
NaOH solutions is expected to facilitate in situ precipitation of lime
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College Of Engineering on 08/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
according to the reaction
CaCl2 þ 2NaOH ⇒ CaðOHÞ2 þ 2NaCl ð1Þ
The precipitated lime is expected to modify the properties of
expansive soil by lime-modification and soil-lime pozzolanic
reactions.
In this laboratory investigation, an attempt is made to under-
stand and develop criteria for in situ stabilization of expansive soil
by sequential mixing of CaCl2 and NaOH solutions with expansive
soil in two different sequences. The effect of consecutive mixing
of CaCl2 solution and NaOH solution in two different sequences
on the physicochemical properties, index properties, swell poten-
tial, and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of compacted
expansive soil are evaluated.
Materials and Methods
Materials
Expansive soil from the National Institute of Technology Warangal,
Andhra Pradesh, India, was used in this investigation. The soil was
air dried and pulverized to pass through a 2-mm sieve. The soil-
passing 2-mm sieve was used for conducting standard Proctor
compaction, oedometer swell potential, and UCS tests. Index prop-
erties were determined on the soil fraction passing through a
425-μm sieve. Commercial-grade CaCl2 and NaOH were used
for preparing CaCl2 and NaOH solutions in this investigation.
Properties of Representative Expansive Soil
The pH of the representative soil was obtained by standard method.
Soil-water suspension with a solids-to-water ratio of 1∶2:5 was used
in the determinations. Initial consumption of lime (ICL) of the
expansive soil was determined according to BS 1924 (British
Standards Institution 1990). The ICL value of expansive soil cor-
responded to 2.5%. The specific gravity (Gs ) of the expansive soil
specimen was determined according to IS 2720 (Part 3) (Bureau of
Indian Standards 1980a). The grain size distribution of the expan-
sive soil specimen was determined according to IS 2720 (Part 4)
(Bureau of Indian Standards 1985a). Atterberg limits of the expan-
sive soil specimen was determined according to IS 2720 (Part 5;
Bureau of Indian Standards 1985b) and IS 2720 (Part 6; Bureau
of Indian Standards 1972). The standard Proctor compaction test
was performed according to IS 2720 (Part 7; Bureau of Indian
Standards 1980b). The expansive clay has a maximum dry density
(MDD) of 1:45 Mg∕m3 and optimum moisture content (OMC) of
25%. Table 1 shows the physicochemical properties, index proper-
ties, and engineering properties of the expansive soil used in this
investigation.
Procedure for Precipitation of Lime
As stated, it is theoretically possible to facilitate in situ precipitation
of lime in the soil by sequential permeation/mixing of CaCl2 and
1068 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2012, 24(8): 1067-1075
Table 1. Properties of Expansive Soil
Property Value
pH 8.0
Specific gravity (GS ) 2.70
Liquid limit (%) 75
Plastic limit (%) 25
Plasticity index (%) 50
Shrinkage limit (%) 13
Grain size distribution: (%)
Sand 16
Silt 28
Clay 56
Unified soil classification symbol CH
Compaction characteristics:
Maximum dry density (Mg∕m3 ) 1.45
Optimum moisture content (%) 25
Oedometer swell potential at 6.25 kPaa (%) 4.95
Unconfined compressive strengtha (kPa) 127
a
Specimen compacted at optimum moisture content to maximum dry
density.
NaOH solutions into the expansive soil. According to the reaction
in Eq. (1), 110 g of CaCl2 reacts with 80 g of NaOH to form 74 g of
calcium hydroxide [CaðOHÞ2 ]. In Eq. (1), the weights of CaCl2 and
NaOH combining to form CaðOHÞ2 are in the ratio of 1:375∶1
(110∕80 ¼ 1:375). Maintaining the same ratio, 10% CaCl2 solu-
tion and 7.3% NaOH solution were mixed sequentially with the
expansive soil to precipitate 2.5% lime in the soil. A 10% CaCl2
solution was prepared by dissolving 10 g of CaCl2 in 100 mL of
distilled water and 7.3% NaOH solution was prepared by dissolv-
ing 7.3 g of NaOH in 100 mL of distilled water. To increase the
amount of lime precipitation, the expansive soil was mixed with
higher concentrations of CaCl2 and NaOH solutions.
To bring out the significance of sequence of mixing CaCl2 and
NaOH solutions on the expansive soil properties, the expansive
soil was mixed with CaCl2 and NaOH in two different sequences.
In the first sequence, expansive soil was mixed with CaCl2 solution
before mixing with NaOH solution. This paper refers to experi-
ments performed with this sequence of mixing CaCl2 and NaOH
solutions with expansive soil as Series 1 experiments. In the second
sequence, NaOH solution was mixed before CaCl2 solution. This
paper refers to experiments performed with this sequence of mix-
ing NaOH and CaCl2 solutions with expansive soil as Series 2
experiments.
Index Properties
Because the liquid limit of untreated expansive soil was 75%, 120 g
of air-dried expansive soil passing 425 μm was mixed with 45 mL
of CaCl2 solution of desired concentration (10, 20, 35, 50 or 65%)
and placed in an air tight polythene bag for moisture equilibration
for 1 h. After this equilibration time, 45 mL of NaOH solution of
desired concentration (7.3, 14.6, 25.5, 36.4 or 47.3%) was mixed
with expansive soil and placed in desiccators for moisture equili-
bration for 24 h. Index properties were determined on the moisture-
equilibrated specimens to find the effect of sequential mixing of
CaCl2 and NaOH solutions on expansive soil. Index properties per-
formed with this sequence of mixing CaCl2 and NaOH solutions
with expansive soil are referred to as Series 1 experiments.
In Series 2 experiments, 45 mL of NaOH solution of desired
concentration (7.3, 14.6, 25.5, 36.4 or 47.3%) was mixed with ex-
pansive soil and placed in desiccators for moisture equilibration
 Table 2. Details of Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit Tests
Calculated percentage
Percentage of solution concentration Calculated amount of of lime precipitation by Liquid
Series designation on weight basis (%)a lime precipitation (g) dry weight of soil (%) limit (%)
Series 1: CaCl2 þ NaOH 10% CaCl2 ; 7.3% NaOH 3.03 2.5 60
20% CaCl2 ; 14.6% NaOH 6.05 5.0 58
35% CaCl2 ; 25.5% NaOH 10.59 8.8 55
50% CaCl2 ; 36.4% NaOH 15.14 12.6 43
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College Of Engineering on 08/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

65% CaCl2 ; 47.3% NaOH 19.68 16.4 43

Series 2: CaCl2 þ NaOH 7.3% NaOH; 10% CaCl2 3.03 2.5 55
14.6% NaOH; 20% CaCl2 6.05 5.0 50
25.5% NaOH; 35% CaCl2 10.59 8.8 52
36.4% NaOH; 50% CaCl2 15.14 12.6 48
47.3% NaOH; 65% CaCl2 19.68 16.4 50
a
Volume of solution mixed = 45 mL.

for 1 h. After 1-h equilibration time, 45 mL of CaCl2 solution of
desired concentration (10, 20, 35, 50 or 65%) was mixed with ex-
pansive soil and placed in desiccators for moisture equilibration
for 24 h. Index properties were determined on the moisture-
equilibrated specimens for finding the effect of sequential mixing
of NaOH and CaCl2 solutions on expansive soil. Table 2 shows
details of the CaCl2 and NaOH solution concentrations used and
the sequence of mixing CaCl2 and NaOH solutions with the expan-
sive soil.
Table 2 also shows the calculated amount of lime precipitation
in the soil and the percentage of lime precipitation by dry weight of
soil. The amount of lime precipitation in the soil is calculated on
the basis of Eq. (1). According to the Eq. (1), 110 g of CaCl2 reacts
with 80 g of NaOH to form 74 g of CaðOHÞ2 . When 45 mL of 10%
CaCl2 solution and 45 mL of 7.3% NaOH solution are mixed se-
quentially with the expansive soil, the amount of lime precipitation
in the soil may be calculated as
74 10
× × 45 ¼ 3:03 g
110 100
By knowing the dry weight of the soil, the percentage of lime
precipitated in the soil can be calculated.
Oedometer Swell Potential Tests
All of the specimens for oedometer swell tests were compacted
in oedometer rings of 60-mm diameter and 20-mm height, which
needed 57.4 g of expansive soil by dry weight (dry density ¼
1:45 Mg∕m3 ) for 14-mm thick specimens. A total of 57.4 g of ex-
pansive soil passing 2 mm was thoroughly hand-mixed with 7.2 mL
of desired concentration of CaCl2 solution (20 or 50%) and placed
in an air tight polythene bag for moisture equilibration for 1 h. After
this equilibration time, 7.2 mL of NaOH solution of desired con-
centration (14.6 or 36.4%) was mixed with expansive soil and
compacted to a dry density of 1:45 Mg∕m3 using a hand-operated
static press. Compacted specimens were placed in desiccators for
moisture equilibration for 24 h. After this equilibration time, the
compacted soil specimens (w ¼ 25%) were placed between two
oven-dried porous stones with oven-dried filter papers and were
set up in the fixed ring oedometer assembly. A nominal seating load
of 6.25 kPa was applied, and the specimens were inundated with
distilled water for swell potential determination. These oedometer
swell tests are designated as Tests 1 and 2, respectively (Table 3).
Similar oedometer swell potential tests were also conducted
with expansive soil specimens remolded with 7.2 mL of NaOH sol-
ution (14.6 or 36.4%) and placed in an air tight polythene bag
for moisture equilibration for 1 h. After this equilibration time,
7.2 mL of CaCl2 solution of desired concentration (20 or 50%)
was mixed with expansive soil and compacted to a dry density of
1:45 Mg∕m3 using a hand-operated static press. Compacted spec-
imens (w ¼ 25%) were placed in desiccators for moisture equili-
bration for 24 h. These specimens were inundated with distilled
water at a seating load of 6.25 kPa for swell potential determina-
ð2Þ
tion. These oedometer swell tests are designated as Tests 3 and 4,
respectively. Table 3 shows the details of swell potential tests.
Table 3 also shows the calculated amount of lime precipitation
in the soil and the percentage of lime precipitation by dry weight of
soil. The amount of lime precipitated when 7.2 mL of 20% CaCl2
solution and 7.2 mL of 14.6% NaOH solution are mixed sequen-
tially with the expansive soil may be calculated as
74
×
20
× 7:2 ¼ 0:97 g ð3Þ
110 100
Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests
All UCS test specimens were of 38-mm diameter and 76-mm
length, which needed 125 g of expansive soil by dry weight

Table 3. Details of Oedometer Tests with Test Designation

Calculated percentage Swell
Test Percentage of solution concentration Calculated amount of of lime precipitation by potential
Series designation designation on weight basisa (%) lime precipitation (g) dry weight of soil (%) (%)
Series 1: CaCl2 þ NaOH Test 1 20% CaCl2 , 14.6% NaOH 0.97 1.7 0.0
Test 2 50% CaCl2 , 36.4% NaOH 2.42 4.2 0.0
Series 2: NaOH þ CaCl2 Test 3 14.6% NaOH, 20% CaCl2 0.97 1.7 0.0
Test 4 36.4% NaOH, 50% CaCl2 2.42 4.2 0.0
a
Volume of solution mixed = 10.25 mL.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012 / 1069

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2012, 24(8): 1067-1075

 (dry density ¼ 1:45 Mg∕m3 ). A total of 125 g of expansive soil of 7 and 21 days curing period, the UCS was determined to bring
passing 2 mm was mixed with 15.6 mL of CaCl2 solution of desired out the effect of sequential mixing of CaCl2 and NaOH solutions in
concentration (10, 20, 35, 50 or 65%) and placed in an air tight two different sequences (Series 1 and 2).
polythene bag for moisture equilibration for 1 h. After this equili-
bration time, 15.6 mL of NaOH solution of desired concentration
(7.3, 14.6, 25.5, 36.4 or 47.3%) was mixed with expansive soil Results and Discussions
and placed in desiccators for moisture equilibration for 24 h. The
moisture-equilibrated specimens were statically compacted to a Index Properties
dry density of 1:45 Mg∕m3 using a hand-operated static press. The
Fig. 1 shows the variations in liquid limit and soil pH with the cal-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College Of Engineering on 08/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

UCS tests performed with this sequence of mixing CaCl2 and

NaOH solutions with expansive soil are referred to as Series 1
experiments.
In Series 2 experiments, 15.6 mL of NaOH solution of desired
concentration (7.3, 14.6, 25.5, 36.4 or 47.3%) was mixed with ex-
pansive soil and placed in a desiccator for moisture equilibration
for 1 h. After 1 h equilibration time, 15.6 mL of CaCl2 solution
of desired concentration (10, 20, 35, 50 or 65%) was mixed with
expansive soil and placed in a desiccator for moisture equilibration
for 24 h. The moisture-equilibrated specimens were statically com-
pacted to a dry density of 1:45 Mg∕m3 using a hand-operated static
press. The UCS tests performed with this sequence of mixing
NaOH and CaCl2 solutions with expansive soil are referred to as
Series 2 experiments. Both series of UCS tests were conducted at a
strain rate of 0:8%∕ min. Table 4 shows the details of the specimens
prepared by mixing expansive soil with CaCl2 and NaOH solutions
in two different sequences. Table 4 also shows the calculated
amount of lime precipitation in the soil and the percentage of lime
precipitation by dry weight of soil. Calculation of the amount of
lime precipitation in the soil and the percentage of lime precipita-
tion is discussed in the “Index Properties” section.
Few additional specimens were prepared to study the effect
of curing on the UCS of the expansive soil. The compacted spec-
imens were also cured for 7 and 21 days in a dessicator. At the end
culated percentage of lime precipitation on sequential mixing of
expansive soil with CaCl2 and NaOH solutions in two different se-
quences. The liquid limit decreased as the calculated percentage of
lime precipitation increased up to 12.6 and 5% in Series 1 and 2
specimens, respectively, and further lime precipitation did not alter
the liquid limit significantly (Fig. 1). At a lime precipitation per-
centage of 12.6 and 5% in Series 1 and 2 specimens, the liquid limit
notably reduced from 75% to 43 and 50%, respectively.
The variations in plasticity index and soil pH with the calculated
percentage of lime precipitation on sequential mixing of expansive
soil with CaCl2 and NaOH solutions in two different sequences
are shown in Fig. 2. The plasticity index of Series 1 and 2 spec-
imens at a lime precipitation percentage of 12.6 and 5% decreased
from 50% to 8 and 17%, respectively (Fig. 2). Figs. 1 and 2 also
show that the pH of expansive soil increased to 12 at an approx-
imately 5% calculated percentage of lime precipitation for both
Series 1 and 2 specimens, which is conducive for the pozzolanic
reactions to occur.
The Atterberg limits of the Series 1 and 2 specimens were de-
termined after a 24-h curing period. Although the pH of these soils
(12) is conducive for pozzolanic reactions to occur, the curing
period (24 h) is insufficient; earlier studies indicate that curing
periods > 7 days (at room temperature) facilitate a substantial

Table 4. Details of Unconfined Compressive Tests

Calculated percentage of Unconfined
Percentage of solution concentration Calculated amount of lime precipitation by dry compressive
Series on weight basisa (%) lime precipitation (g) weight of soil (%) strength (kPa)
Series 1: CaCl2 þ NaOH 10% CaCl2 , 7.3% NaOH 1.05 0.8 241
20% CaCl2 , 14.6% NaOH 2.10 1.7 505
35% CaCl2 , 25.5% NaOH 3.67 2.9 552
50% CaCl2 , 36.4% NaOH 5.25 4.2 841
65% CaCl2 , 47.3% NaOH 6.82 5.5 664
Series 2: NaOH þ CaCl2 7.3% NaOH, 10% CaCl2 1.05 0.8 166
14.6% NaOH, 20% CaCl2 2.10 1.7 169
25.5% NaOH, 35% CaCl2 3.67 2.9 272
36.4% NaOH, 50% CaCl2 5.25 4.2 164
47.3% NaOH, 65% CaCl2 6.82 5.5 494
a
Volume of solution mixed = 15.6 mL.

Table 5. pH and Pore Salinity Values of Series 1 and 2 Unconfined Compressive Test Specimens
pH Pore salinity (mg∕L)
Percentage of solution concentration
Series on weight basis (%) 1 day 7 days 14 days 21 days 1 day 7 days 14 days 21 days
Series 1: CaCl2 þ NaOH 20% CaCl2 , 14.6% NaOH 10.73 10.76 10.83 10.76 763 821 833 859
35% CaCl2 , 25.5% NaOH 11.47 — 11.46 11.42 1,224 — 1,244 1,686
50% CaCl2 , 36.4% NaOH 11.73 11.76 11.82 11.78 1,558 1,583 1,878 2,173
Series 2: NaOH þ CaCl2 14.6% NaOH, 20% CaCl2 11.00 10.99 11.00 10.74 788 1,051 1,058 1,096
25.5% NaOH, 35% CaCl2 11.57 11.60 11.65 11.37 1,109 1,795 1,865 1,897
36.4% NaOH, 50% CaCl2 11.63 11.62 11.65 11.63 1,301 1,795 1,865 2,071

1070 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2012, 24(8): 1067-1075

 80 14 6

13 Untreated
5
70 Test 1
Series 1:LL 12
Liquid limit (%)
4 Test 2
Series 2: LL

Swell (%)
Series 1: pH 11

pH
60 Series 2: pH 3
10

9 2
50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College Of Engineering on 08/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 1
40 7
0
0 5 10 15 20
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Lime precipitation (%)
Time (min)
Fig. 1. Variations of liquid limit and soil pH with calculated percentage
of lime precipitation on sequential mixing of expansive soil with Fig. 3. Time-swell plots of untreated, Test 1, and Test 2 specimens
calcium chloride (CaCl2 ) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solutions
in two different sequences (Series 1 and 2)

60 14 Untreated
5 Test 3
13 Test 4
4
Plasticity index (%)

Series 1: PI 12

Swell (%)
40 Series 2: PI 3
Series 1: pH 11
pH

Series 2: pH 2
10
20
9 1

0 7
0 5 10 15
Lime precipitation (%)
Fig. 2. Variations of plasticity index and soil pH with calculated
percentage of lime precipitation on sequential mixing of expansive
soil with calcium chloride (CaCl2 ) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
solutions in two different sequences (Series 1 and 2)
degree of pozzolanic reactions (Prakash et al. 1989; Bell 1988a).
The significant reduction in liquid limit and plasticity index of ex-
pansive soil on sequential mixing of CaCl2 and NaOH solutions
with expansive soil is primarily attributed to strong short-term
lime-modification reactions involving replacement of native mono-
valent exchangeable cations by divalent calcium ions (source of
calcium is added CaCl2 solution). The addition of CaCl2 and NaOH
solutions would also increase the pore water salinity, which in turn
would act to suppress the diffuse ion layer and liquid limit values
(Yong and Warkentin 1975; Mitchell 1993; Sridharan et al. 1986).
Oedometer Swell Potential
Fig. 3 compares the time-swell plots of Test 1 specimen and Test 2
specimen with untreated soil specimen. Fig. 4 compares the time-
swell plots of Test 3 specimen and Test 4 specimen with untreated
soil specimen. The Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, and Test 4 specimens do
not swell (swell potential ¼ 0%); in comparison, the untreated soil
exhibits swell potential of 4.95%. The oedometer swell potentials
of the Test 1 to Test 4 specimens were determined after 24 h of
curing period. The significant reduction in the oedometer swell po-
tential of expansive soil specimens on sequential mixing of CaCl2
8
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
20
Fig. 4. Time-swell plots of untreated, Test 3, and Test 4 specimens
and NaOH solutions is again primarily attributed to strong short-
term lime-modification reactions and an increase in pore water
salinity. As subsequently discussed, the reductions in plasticity in-
dex and odeometer swell potentials are also likely to be contributed
by poorly formed cementation products that appear during early
stages of curing.
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Fig. 5 shows the variation of UCS with the calculated percentage of
lime precipitation on sequential mixing of expansive soil with
CaCl2 and NaOH solutions in two different sequences. The UCS
increased as the calculated percentage of lime precipitation in-
creased up to 4.2%, and further lime precipitation slightly reduced
the UCS of Series 1 specimen. Interestingly, the compressive
strength of Series 2 specimen is nearly constant up to 4.2% lime
precipitation and thereafter increases to 494 kPa at 5.5% lime pre-
cipitation. Fig. 5 also shows that the pH of the Series 1 and 2 spec-
imens increases to 10.73–11.00 at 1.7% lime precipitation and
reaches a maximum (11.63–11.73) at 4.2% lime precipitation.
At these pH levels, alumina and silica dissolve from clay lattice
and combine with calcium ions to form CSH and CAH, which ce-
ment the clay particles together, leading to an increase in strength
(Eades and Grim 1960; Wang et al. 1963; Diamond et al. 1963;
Rajasekaran and Narasimha Rao 1998; Boardman et al. 2001).
The Series 1 and 2 specimens shown in Fig. 5 were cured for

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012 / 1071

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2012, 24(8): 1067-1075

 1000 12.0 600 11.1

Unconfined compressive strength (kPa)

Unconfined compressive strength (kPa)

11.5
800 11.0 500
10.9
10.5
400
600 Series 1: UCS 10.0 10.7
Series 2: UCS

pH

pH
Series 1: pH 9.5 300
400 Series 2: pH 9.0 10.5
8.5 200 Series 1: UCS
200 8.0 Series 2: UCS
10.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College Of Engineering on 08/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

100 Series 1: pH
7.5
Series 2: pH
0 7.0 0 10.1
0 2 4 6
Lime precipitation (%) 0 5 10 15 20 25
Curing period (days)
Fig. 5. Variations of unconfined compressive strength and soil pH with
Fig. 6. Variations of unconfined compressive strength and soil pH with
calculated percentage of lime precipitation on sequential mixing of
curing period for compacted expansive soil mixed with 20% calcium
expansive soil with calcium chloride (CaCl2 ) and sodium hydroxide
chloride (CaCl2 ) solution and 14.6% sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
(NaOH) solutions in two different sequences (Series 1 and 2)
solution in two different sequences (1.7% lime precipitation)

24 h. According to Bell (1988a), the compressive strength devel-

1400
oped at early stages of curing is contributed by poorly formed

Unconfined compressive strength (kPa)

11.8
cementation products. 1200
At any given lime precipitation content, Series 1 specimens
are characterized with higher UCS than Series 2 specimens. For 1000 11.6
example, at lime precipitation of 1.7%, the UCS of Series 1 speci-
800
men is 505 kPa, whereas the UCS of Series 2 specimen is 169 kPa.

The UCS test results also indicate that mixing CaCl2 and NaOH
solutions sequentially with expansive soils (Series 1 specimens)
is preferred over mixing NaOH and CaCl2 solutions (Series 2
specimens).
Effect of Curing Period on Unconfined Compressive
Strength
The effect of curing period on the UCS developed by the com-
pacted expansive soil specimens subjected to lime precipitation is
discussed in this section. As mentioned previously, theoretically,
1.7% of lime is precipitated by mixing expansive soil sequentially
with 20% CaCl2 and 14.6% NaOH solutions. Similarly, 4.2% of
lime is precipitated by mixing expansive soil sequentially with
50% CaCl2 and 36.4% NaOH solutions. Because the ICL for the
expansive soil is 2.5%, calculated lime precipitation contents of
1.7% (less than ICL) and 4.2% (greater than ICL) are chosen.
Fig. 6 shows the variation in UCS with curing period for com-
pacted expansive soil specimens subjected to 1.7% lime precipita-
tion. Fig. 7 shows the variation in UCS strength with curing period
for compacted expansive soil specimens subjected to 4.2% lime
precipitation. The 1.7% lime-precipitated Series 1 specimens
developed compressive strength of 430 and 509 kPa after 1 and
21 days of curing period, respectively (Fig. 6). Comparatively,
the 1.7% lime-precipitated Series 2 specimens developed com-
pressive strength of 169 and 268 kPa after 1 and 21 days of
curing period, respectively (Fig. 6). The data in Fig. 7 show that
4.2% lime-precipitated Series 1 specimens developed compressive
strength of 841 and 1,188 kPa, whereas Series 2 specimens devel-
oped compressive strength of 164 and 656 kPa after 1 and 21 days
of curing period, respectively. The trends of the results in Figs. 6
and 7 indicate that lime-precipitated specimens gain anywhere from
18–41 and 58–300% increase in compressive strength on increas-
ing the curing period from 1 to 21 days for Series 1 and 2 spec-
imens, respectively. The results bring out the role of crystallization
of cementation products in strength gain.
Figs. 6 and 7 also show the variation in soil pH with
curing period which increased to 10.73–11.00 on mixing
pH
11.4
600
Series 1: UCS
400
Series 2: UCS 11.2
Series 1: pH
200
Series 2: pH
0 11.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Curing period (days)
Fig. 7. Variations of unconfined compressive strength and soil pH with
curing period for compacted expansive soil mixed with 50% calcium
chloride (CaCl2 ) solution and 36.4% sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
solution in two different sequences (4.2% lime precipitation)
20% CaCl2 and 14:6% NaOH solutions and 11.62–11.82 on mix-
ing 50% CaCl2 and 36:4%NaOH solutions. It is known that long-
term pozzolanic reactions are favored at soil pH ≥ 12 (Eades and
Grim 1960; Diamond et al. 1963; Rogers et al. 1997). The soil pH
values of the sequentially mixed specimens are < 12 (Figs. 6 and 7;
Table 5). To examine the possible contribution of pozzolanic reac-
tions to soil strength, the compressive strengths of lime pile–treated
specimens (data from Thyagaraj 2001; Table 7) are compared with
this study (Figs. 6 and 7). Thyagaraj (2001) had observed that the
lime pile technique led to minor increase in pH (from 8 to 8.4) that
was not conducive for promotion of pozzolanic reactions and there-
fore did not alter the compressive strength. Sequential mixing of the
soil, however, led to 239–835 and 29–417% (1–21 days cured) in-
creases in compressive strengths for Series 1 and 2 specimens, re-
spectively. The much larger strengths developed by the sequentially
mixed specimens indicate that in addition to modification reactions,
pozzolanic reactions have also occurred. However, the inability of
the technique to mobilize pH values ≥ 12 could have restrained the
complete realization of the pozzolanic reactions that would have
led to even larger strengths. According to Boardman et al. (2001),
initiation of dissolution of silica and alumina in clay lattice occurs
at pH of approximately 9–10, which explains the occurrence

1072 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2012, 24(8): 1067-1075

 Table 6. Comparison of Index Properties of Expansive Soil Specimens Directly Mixed with Lime and Subjected to Lime Precipitation
Series 1: CaCl2 þ NaOH Series 2: NaOH þ CaCl2 Directly mixed with lime
Calculated percentage of Percentage of solution
lime precipitation (%) concentrationa (%) wL (%) wP (%) I P (%) wL (%) wP (%) I P (%) Lime (%) wL (%) wP (%) I P (%)
2.5 10% CaCl2 , 7.3% NaOH 60 32 28 55 33 22 2 63 36 27
5.0 20% CaCl2 , 14.6% NaOH 58 36 22 50 33 17 4 57 37 20
8.8 35% CaCl2 , 25.5% NaOH 55 35 20 52 34 18 6 52 37 15
12.6 50% CaCl2 , 36.4% NaOH 43 35 8 48 31 17 8 50 37 13
16.4 65% CaCl2 , 47.3% NaOH 43 32 11 50 32 18 10 48 37 11
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College Of Engineering on 08/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: wL = liquid limit; wP = plastic limit; I P = plasticity index.

a
Volume of solution mixed = 45 mL.

of pozzolanic reactions in the sequentially treated specimens.
Figs. 6 and 7 also show that UCS of Series 1 specimens is higher
in comparison with Series 2 specimens at all the curing periods.
Comparison of Lime Precipitation Technique with
Other Techniques
Table 6 shows a comparison of the index properties of expansive
soil specimens directly mixed with lime and subjected to lime
precipitation. Data in Table 6 show that both methods are equally
effective in reducing the liquid limit and plasticity index of the
expansive soil.
Table 7 shows a comparison of the properties of expansive soil
specimens treated with lime pile technique (Thyagaraj 2001) and
lime precipitation technique. Thyagaraj (2001) reported that the
lime pile treatment increased the soil pH and pore salinity to
8.40 and 517 mg∕L from untreated values of 8.00 and 244 mg∕L,
respectively (Table 7). The swell potential of lime pile–treated
specimen reduced to 0.4% from 2.1%, whereas the lime precipita-
tion technique reduced the swell potential to 0% from untreated
value of 4.95%. The pH of lime pile–treated soil (8.4) was not
conducive for the pozzolanic reactions to occur, and as a result,
the compressive strength of lime pile–treated specimens was unaf-
fected (Table 7). Comparatively, the lime precipitation technique
increased the soil pH to 11.62–11.76 (7 days, cured), which is pre-
sumably conducive for pozzolanic reactions to occur. Therefore,
the UCS of lime precipitation technique–treated specimens in-
creased to 619–895 kPa (7 days, cured) from an untreated value
of 127 kPa (Table 7). The greater efficiency of lime precipitation
technique in improving the compressive strength of the expansive
soil shows its superiority over the lime pile technique.
Table 7 also shows a comparison of the properties of expan-
sive soil specimens treated with lime slurry technique (Rao and
Thyagaraj 2003) and lime precipitation technique. Both techniques
could raise the pH of soil (11.62–11.95, Table 7) to levels that
are conducive for the pozzolanic reactions to occur (Boardman
et al. 2001). The swell potential of lime slurry–treated specimen
reduced to 0% from an untreated value of 1.4%, whereas the lime
precipitation technique reduced the swell potential to 0% from an
untreated value of 4.95%. The UCS of 10 days, cured lime slurry–
treated specimens increased to 113 from 77 kPa. Comparatively,
the lime precipitation technique increased the UCS of 7 days, cured
specimens to 619–895 from 127 kPa (untreated value). This shows
that both methods could promote the soil-lime pozzolanic reac-
tions. However, the higher strengths exhibited by the lime precipi-
tation technique–treated specimens are attributed to flocculation of
clay particles owing to lime precipitation in addition to pozzolanic
reactions.
Practical Significance
Sequential mixing of CaCl2 and NaOH solutions with expansive
soil resulted in precipitation of lime. The precipitated lime could
promote strong lime-modification reactions and strong soil-lime
pozzolanic reactions. The lime-modification reactions together
with the poorly developed cementation products controlled the

Table 7. Comparison of Properties of Expansive Soil Specimens Treated with Lime Pile, Lime Slurry, and Lime Precipitation Techniques
Unconfined
Percentage Radial Curing Swell compressive
of lime distance/ period Pore salinity potentiala strength
Source Treatment (%) series (days) pH (mg∕L) wL (%) wP (%) I P (%) (%) (kPa)a
Thyagaraj Lime pile 5.5 1.5d 10 8.40 (8.00) 517 (244) 93 (95) 26 (24) 67 (71) 0.4 (2.1) 68 (68)
(2001) treated
Rao and Lime slurry 6 1.5d 10 11.95 (8.00) 1,436 (244) 86 (95) 44 (24) 42 (71) 0.0 (1.4) 113 (77)
Thyagaraj treated
(2003)
This Untreated – – – 8.00 340 75b 25b 50b 4.95c 127
investigation Lime 4.2 Series 1: 1 11.73 1,558 58b 36b 22b 0.0c 841
precipitation CaCl2 þ NaOH 7 11.76 1,583 – – – – 895
treated Series 2: 1 11.63 1,301 50b 33b 17b 0.0c 164
NaOH þ CaCl2 7 11.62 1,795 – – – – 619
Note: Values in the parenthesis are of untreated specimen; d = diameter of hole for lime pile or lime slurry injection.
a
Swell potential and unconfined compressive strength of untreated specimens were determined at moisture content and dry densities similar to those of treated
specimens.
b
Atterberg limits were determined with 5% lime precipitation.
c
Swell potentials were determined with 3.4% lime precipitation.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012 / 1073

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2012, 24(8): 1067-1075

 swelling potential, reduced the plasticity index, and increased the
UCS of the expansive clay as the specimens were cured for 24 h.
Comparatively, both lime-modification and well-developed crystal-
line cementation products contributed to the marked increase in
the UCS strength of the expansive soil that was cured for periods
of 7–21 days. However, further investigation is needed for exam-
ining the efficacy of lime precipitation technique in stabilizing the
in situ expansive soils by sequential permeation of CaCl2 and
NaOH solutions into the in situ soil, either through ponding or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College Of Engineering on 08/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
boreholes.
The amount of lime precipitation in the soil should be greater
than the ICL value, because the amount of lime precipitation in
excess of the ICL value is used in the cementation process only.
The ICL values for most of the expansive soils range from 3–8%.
The amount of lime precipitation can be increased either by increas-
ing the concentration of CaCl2 and NaOH solutions used for per-
meation or by increasing the volume of CaCl2 and NaOH solutions.
This method of stabilization may prove to be advantageous over
the other techniques in the following conditions:
• Stabilization of expansive soils below the existing structures
on which lime piles construction is not possible because of
the existing structures. In such a situation, boreholes have to
be made along the periphery of existing structures with required
spacing. These boreholes have to be filled with coarse sand, and
CaCl2 and NaOH solutions are sequentially permeated for the in
situ precipitation of lime below the existing structures. This
method of stabilization will be far superior to the lime pile tech-
nique owing to the very high solubility and diffusion rates of
CaCl2 and NaOH solutions in water in contrast to the solubility
and diffusion rates of lime.
• In stiff to very stiff expansive soils, it is very difficult to form
lime columns in situ. In such a situation, in situ lime precipita-
tion through boreholes may prove to be the most effective and
viable method of stabilization.
• This technique will have an added advantage in a site contami-
nated with NaOH solution. In such a case, CaCl2 solution alone
needs to be permeated through the contaminated soils for in situ
precipitation of lime and, thus, stabilization of the contami-
nated soil.
Conclusions
The efficacy of lime precipitation technique in stabilizing an expan-
sive soil is examined through laboratory investigation. Precipitation
of lime is achieved by sequential mixing of expansive soil with
CaCl2 and NaOH solutions in two different sequences. The follow-
ing conclusions are drawn from this investigation:
1. Sequential mixing of CaCl2 þ NaOH or NaOH þ CaCl2 solu-
tions with expansive soil led to drastic reduction in the liquid
limit and plasticity index of expansive soil. The considerable
reduction in the liquid limit and plasticity index of the expan-
sive soil is primarily attributed to strong short-term lime-
modification reactions occurring between precipitated lime
and the soil.
2. The swell potential of the expansive soil specimens reduced
to 0% from untreated value of 4.95% as a consequence of the
strong lime-modification reactions and poorly developed ce-
mentation products formed during early stages of curing in
the treated soil.
3. The UCS increased as the percentage of lime precipitation in-
creased in both sequences of mixing expansive soil with CaCl2
and NaOH solutions. The lime-modification reactions together
with the poorly developed cementation products increased
1074 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2012, 24(8): 1067-1075
the UCS of the expansive soil specimens cured for 24 h.
The marked increase in UCS exhibited by 7–21 days’ cured
expansive soil specimens is apparently a consequence of lime-
modification reactions and well-developed crystalline cemen-
tation products formed in the treated specimens.
4. Atterberg limits and UCS results show that the sequential mix-
ing of expansive soil with CaCl2 solution followed by NaOH
solution is more effective than mixing expansive soil with
NaOH solution followed by CaCl2 solution.
References
Bell, F. G. (1988a). “Stabilisation and treatment of clay soils with lime.
Part 1: Basic principles.” Ground Eng., 21(1), 10–15.
Bell, F. G. (1988b). “Stabilisation and treatment of clay soils with lime.
Part 2: Some applications.” Ground Eng., 21(2), 22–30.
Boardman, D. I., Glendinning, S., and Rogers, C. D. F. (2001).
“Development of stabilisation and solidification in lime-clay mixes.”
Geotechnique, 50(6), 533–543.
British Standards Institution (BSI). (1990). “Method of test for stabilized
soils.” BS 1924, Milton Keynes, U.K.
Broms, B. B., and Boman, P. (1975). “Lime-stabilized columns.” Proc., 5th
Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 1, INSDOC Regional Centre, Bangalore, India, 227–234.
Bureau of Indian Standards. (1972). “Methods of test for soils: Determi-
nation of shrinkage factors (first revision).” IS 2720 (Part 6), New Delhi,
India.
Bureau of Indian Standards. (1980a). “Methods of test for soils: Determi-
nation of specific gravity. Section 1: Fine grained soils (First revision).”
IS 2720 (Part 3), New Delhi, India.
Bureau of Indian Standards. (1980b). “Methods of test for soils: Determi-
nation of water content-dry density relation using light compaction
(second revision).” IS 2720 (Part 7), New Delhi, India.
Bureau of Indian Standards. (1985a). “Methods of test for soils: Grain size
analysis (second revision).” IS 2720 (Part 4), New Delhi, India.
Bureau of Indian Standards. (1985b). “Methods of test for soils: Determi-
nation of liquid limit and plastic limit (second revision).” IS 2720,
(Part 5), New Delhi, India.
Chen, F. H. (1988). Foundations on expansive soils, Elsevier, New York.
Chew, H. H., Talkeda, T., Ichikawa, K., and Hosoi, T. (1993). “Chemico
lime pile soil improvement used for soft clay ground.” Proc., 11th
South East Asian Geotechnical Conf., Singapore, 319–324.
Diamond, S., White, J. L., and Dolch, W. L. (1963). “Transformation of
clay mineral by calcium hydroxide attack.” Proc., 12th National Conf.
on Clays and Clay Minerals, E. Ingerson and W. K. Brakely, eds.,
Clay Mineral Society, Chantilly, VA, 359–379.
Eades, J. L., and Grim, R. E. (1960). “The reaction of hydrated lime with
pure clay minerals in soil stabilization.” Highw. Res. Board, Bull., 262,
51–63.
Glendinning, S., and Rogers, C. P. F. (1996). “Deep stabilisation using
lime.” Proc., Seminar on Lime Stabilization, Loughborough Univ.,
Thomas Telford, London, 127–136.
Holm, G., Bredenberg, H., and Broms, B. B. (1981). “Lime columns as
foundation for light structures.” Proc. 10th Int. Conf., Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Eng., Vol. 3, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 687–694.
Mitchell, J. K. (1993). Fundamentals of soil behavior, 2nd Ed., Wiley,
New York.
Nelson, J. D., and Miller, D. J. (1992). Expansive soils: Problems and prac-
tice in foundation and pavement engineering, Wiley, New York.
Porbaha, A. (1998). “State-of-the-art in deep mixing technology: Part I.
Basic concepts and overview.” Ground Improv., 2(2), 81–92.
Prakash, K., Sridharan, A., and Rao, S. M. (1989). “Lime addition and cur-
ing effects on the index and compaction characteristics of a montmo-
rillonitic soil.” Geotech. Eng., 20(1), 39–47.
Rajasekaran, G., and Narasimha Rao, S. (1998). “X-ray diffraction and mi-
crostructural studies of lime-marine clay reaction products.” Geotech.
Eng., 29(1), 1–27.
Rao, S. M., and Thyagaraj, T. (2003). “Lime slurry stabilization of an
expansive soil.” Geotech. Eng., 156(3), 139–146.
 Rao, S. M., and Venkataswamy, B. (2002). “Lime pile treatment of black
cotton soils.” Ground Improv., 6(2), 85–93.
Rogers, C. D. F., Glendinning, S., and Holt, C. C. (2000). “Slope stabili-
zation using lime piles: A case study.” Ground Improv., 4(4), 165–176.
Rogers, C. D. F., Glendinning, S., and Roff, T. E. J. (1997). “Lime modi-
fication of clay soils for construction expediency.” Geotech. Eng.,
125(4), 242–249.
Sridharan, A., Rao, S. M., and Murthy, N. S. (1986). “Compressibility
behaviour of homoionised bentonites.” Geotechnique, 36(4), 551–564.
Thyagaraj, T. (2001). “Laboratory studies on in-situ chemical stabilization
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College Of Engineering on 08/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Tsytovich, N. A., Abelev, M. Yu., and Takhirov, I. G. (1971). “Compacting
saturated loess by means of lime piles.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest,
837–842.
Wang, W. T. (1989). “Experimentation of improving soft clay with lime
column.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Engineering Problems on Regional Soils,
International Academic Publishers, Beijing, 477–480.
Wang, J. W. H., Mateos, M., and Davidson, D. T. (1963). “Comparative
effects of hydraulic, calcitic and dolomitic limes and cement in soil
stabilization.” Highw. Res. Board, Bull., 59, 42–54.

of black cotton soil.” M.Sc. (Engg.) dissertation, Indian Institute of Yong, R. N., and Warkentin, B. P. (1975). Soil properties and behaviour,
Science, Bangalore, India. Elsevier, New York.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2012 / 1075

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2012, 24(8): 1067-1075