Mechanical Stabilization of Subgrade Soil: A Cost Effective Approach

Sudhashru Mishra1, S.N. Sachdeva2, Rakesh Manocha3

1
M.Tech student, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology
Kurukshetra, Haryana-136119, India
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology,Kurukshetra,
Haryana-136119, India
3
Engineer-in-chief, PWD (B&R) Haryana, Chandigarh
1
Email:sudhashru@gmail.com, 2Email:snsachdeva@nitkkr.ac.in, 3Email:…………

Abstract
Pavement construction tends to be relatively expensive in areas where subgrade soil is poor.
Improvement in the soil properties by replacement of the poor subgrade soil may not always be
an economical solution. Keeping this into consideration, an experimental study was carried out
on the given soil type to demonstrate an economical solution by stabilization of the subgrade soil
with mechanical stabilizers such as coarse aggregate of 10 mm size and stone dust. The effect of
stabilization on Maximum Dry Density (MDD), Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) and
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) was investigated. The study revealed that on addition of
mechanical stabilizers with subgrade soil, the CBR value and MDD increased while OMC
decreased. IRC: 37-2012, the standard for the thickness design of flexible pavements in India,
specifies the use of select soil of minimum CBR 8.0% when traffic on the road is 450
commercial vehicles per day or higher. This desired value of CBR under soaked condition was
obtained by the addition of 30% stone dust, or 20% of 10 mm size coarse aggregate, or 10%
stone dust + 10% coarse aggregate of 10 mm size by dry weight of soil. It is found that the
stabilization with the addition of mechanical stabilizers is more economical as compared to total
replacement of sub grade soil with the borrowed soil.

Keywords: Mechanical stabilization, Maximum Dry Density, Optimum Moisture Content, CBR,
Cost Analysis.

1. Introduction
Due to rapid growth of population and industrialization there is tremendous increase in
construction activities including road pavements. Sometimes the existing soil may or may not be
sufficiently strong enough to withstand the load coming on it. Poor soils are
broadly disseminated around the world and have continuously been one of the causes of major
issue to structures built on them [1]. In order to overcome this problem ground improvement
techniques such as soil stabilization, soil reinforcement etc. can be used. Ground improvement
can be characterized as the method undertaken to increase parameters of shear strength and to
decrease compressibility of the soil [2]. Stabilization of soil is an important task to be done
before a construction is started because the damage caused by poor soil / expansive soil to
pavement structure is very severe. Mainly the methods used for soil stabilization are chemical
and mechanical to enhance the geotechnical properties of problematic soil. A
few mechanical strategies were proposed to enhance poor soil properties including imposing
surcharge, soil substitution, water content control, pre-wetting, stabilization by geosynthetics,
compaction control, thermal methods, and random soil treatment by artificial and natural fibers
[3-6]. Chemical techniques include adding materials such as lime [3,7,8], cement [9-11], fly ash
[12-14], waste products and/or industrial eco-friendly [15-18] to poor soils.
The improvement in the strength of mechanically stabilized soil has been studied by various
researchers on different soil types. Consistency limit, Standard compaction test and CBR test
were performed by adding 1% lime + 6% waste stone powder and it revealed that there was
positive effect on strength and CBR value [19]. A series of tests were performed and concluded
that addition of quarry dust increases shrinkage limit, maximum dry density, angle of internal
friction and decreases liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, optimum moisture content and
cohesion of poor soil [20]. Plasticity, compaction and strength tests were performed on gravel
soil with different percentages of stone dust and found that adding stone dust, reduced plasticity
characteristics and improved CBR of treated soil type. With inclusion of 25-35% of stone dust
makes the gravel soil meet the terms of MoRTH as sub-base material [21]. The impact of stone
dust on geotechnical properties of expansive soil were inspected and it has been concluded that
the CBR and MDD of expansive soils increases, Atterberg limits and optimum moisture content
decreases by adding stone dust, which in turn increases usefulness of soil as sub-grade material
for highways [22]. The effect of quarry dust was studied on compaction properties of clay. The
soil was replaced by quarry dust in the proportion of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40 and 50% by dry weight
of soil, based on this study they found that replacement of soil by 30% quarry dust is an optimum
mix and is recommended for use in construction [23]. In a laboratory based experimental study
by using coarse aggregates as a strengthening material mixed with untreated poor soil results in
the enhancement of CBR value. Since in areas where coarse aggregates are accessible in wealth
and getting of other strengthening material demonstrates to be uneconomical, the addition of
coarse aggregates will be an appropriate option [24]. Stamatopoulos and Christodoulias [25]
examined on the decrease of swell potential and increment in the strength of poor soils. Their
investigation based on laboratory soil stabilization, and the discoveries demonstrated that
swelling could be significantly decreased by basic mechanical stabilization. Al-RawasTaha [26]
conducted a comparative assessment of various additives widely used in the expansive soil
stabilization process. For example, the effectiveness of copper slag, cement bypass dust,
granulated blast furnace slag, and slag-cement were investigated in reducing expansive soil
plasticity and swelling potential. The soil was mixed with the stabilizers mentioned, ranging
from 3 to 9 % of the soil's dry weight. As a result, plasticity and swelling potential were reduced
at varying degrees by the stabilizers. It is worth noting that the copper slag could cause a
significant increase in the swelling potential of the samples treated. Seco et al. [27] examined
expansive soil stabilization utilizing both conventional and waste materials. That study presented
a poor soil stabilization laboratory investigation. It consists of both reducing swelling and
increasing soil strength after adding waste / by-product materials from industrial origin.
It is evident from the above literature review that various works have been performed relevant to
the stabilization of subgrade soil with various admixtures, including mechanical stabilizers. In
this paper, the results of a laboratory study conducted to understand the impact on Maximum Dry
Density (MDD), Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of
mechanical stabilizers of stone dust and coarse aggregate of nominal size 10 mm (separately and
collectively) along with their cost analysis in comparison to the replacement of subgrade soil by
borrowed soil have been presented.

2. Materials

2.1 Sub-grade soil

A road stretch of 23 km in Kurukshetra (Haryana) was selected for sampling of soil for the work
to be carried out. Soil samples from the existing ground along the road were collected where
widening of the existing road was proposed. The samples were collected from the shoulders of
the existing road after removing the top soil to about 600 mm depth which was equal to the
thickness of the existing pavement. It also ensured that the collected samples do not include any
roots of plants or other organic materials. Different soil sample tests were carried out in
accordance with relevant Indian standards [28,29,30]. The results of these tests are given in
Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1 Soil classification of selected soil samples

Soil Road Sieve Analysis L.L. P.I. Soil

Type Distance (%) (%) classi-
Desig- (Km.) Gravel Sand Clay/Silt fication
nation (40mm- (4.75mm- (<0.075mm)
4.75m) 0.075m)
(%) (%) (%)
1 1.400 1.2 10.5 88.3 25.2 4.1 CL-ML

2 9.000 0.0 42.6 57.4 29.6 10.4 CL

3 10.450 6.1 18.5 75.4 24.2 6.6 CL-ML

4 15.350 3.4 36.3 60.3 21.6 1.3 ML

5 16.550 0.0 12.4 87.6 28.7 6.1 ML

6 22.150 0.7 41.1 58.2 20.8 2.4 ML

From table 1 it is observed that soil samples selected for the study belong to clays of low
plasticity (CL), silts of low plasticity (ML) or CL-ML type. Fine grained soils (CL, type ML)
with their unpredictable performance in the presence of moisture are considered to be
problematic soil. A small change in the moisture content of this type of soil can lead to a
reduction in the shear strength associated with swelling, shrinking, settling, consolidation and
disruption due to vehicular traffic [31].
 Table 2 Strength Properties of untreated soil types

Soil Type Road MDD OMC CBR

Designation Distance Soaked
(K.m.) (g/cc) (%) (%)
1 1.400 1.94 13.3 4.3
2 9.000 1.93 14.1 3.8
3 10.450 1.95 12.4 5.9
4 15.350 1.88 12.9 7.4
5 16.550 1.94 13.5 4.8
6 22.150 1.94 12.2 3.9

Table 2 indicates that all the samples selected for the study have 4 days soaked CBR value less
than 8 % requiring their stabilization to increase their strenth so as to make the subgrade suitable
for high volume traffic road.

2.2 Stone Dust

Stone dust is a sort of material that is produced from stone crushing industry which is liberally
accessible. It is assessed that every crusher unit produce 15%-20% stone dust. The stone dust can
be used as a soil stabilizer to enhance the geotechnical properties of local soil by replacing the
soil with stone dust at various mix proportion [32]. Crusher dust has been identified as having
high shear strength and as a stabilizing material it is beneficial. In this study stone dust was taken
as 10%, 20% and 30% by dry mass of soil and mixed with the poor soil so as to examine the
impact of mixing on OMC, MDD and CBR value of the soil.

2.3 Coarse Aggregate

Coarse aggregates as stabilizer for untreated soil is very effective for improving the engineering
properties of soil in all aspects and reduces the settlement problem in poor grounded soil. It is
universally used to increase the bearing capacity, strength and tension of soils [33]. The coarse
aggregates used in the present study are crushed aggregates of 10 mm size. In the present study
untreated soil types have been mixed with coarse aggregates of 10 mm size in proportion of 10%
and 20% by dry weight of soil.

3. Experimental work

3.1 Sample preparation

For mechanical stabilization technique, the samples were prepared in such a way that the soil
sample and admixture was in dry state. They were kept in the oven at a temperature of 105 ° C
for 24 hours before mixing untreated soil and admixture. The quantity of additives used for
mixing was based on content requirements. In case of using stone dust as the stabilizer, it was
taken as 10%, 20% and 30% by mass of dry soil. In case of using coarse aggregate of 10 mm size
as stabilizer, the untreated soil was mixed with coarse aggregate in 10% and 20% by mass of dry
soil. Further, both the stabilizers were used collectively also in proportion of 10% stone dust +
10% coarse aggregate, and 10% stone dust + 20% coarse aggregate by mass of the dry soil.
3.2 Testing program
Preliminary tests of particle size analysis and Atterberg limits (i.e. liquid and plastic limits) were
performed on each of the six untreated soil types (Table 1). The following strength tests were
performed: compaction test to obtain maximum dry density and optimum soil moisture content,
soaked conditions California bearing ratio (CBR) test.

Compaction Tests
According to the current Ministry of Surface Transport [34], specification for road and bridge
works recommend that sub grade shall be compacted to 97% of dry density achieved with heavy
compaction. For Expressways, National Highways, Major District Roads and other heavily
trafficked roads, this density requirement is recommended. In other cases the sub grade should be
compacted to at least 97% of the standard density conforming to light compaction. In accordance
with this recommendation in the present study, Modified Proctor compaction tests were
conducted in accordance with this recommendation in the present study to study the influence of
compaction on unstable and stabilized soil. The MDD and OMC of untreated soil and all the
treated soil were obtained by Modified Proctor compaction tests [35].

California Bearing Ratio Test

The bearing ratio is one of the vital parameters used for both rigid and flexible pavement design
in soil subgrade evaluation. It is also an integral part of several methods of designing pavement
thickness. The CBR tests [36] were conducted in accordance with Indian Standard procedures.
Before testing, a 2.44 kpa surcharge plate was placed on the specimen. The load was applied
through the 50 mm diameter plunger into the specimen at a uniform rate of 1.25 mm / minute.
Up to a total penetration of 12.5 mm, the loads were carefully recorded. Load penetration curves
were drawn for each case and the standard procedure was used to apply corrections. CBR values
were determined from the load penetration curves. Since the CBR value at 2.5 mm penetration
was observed higher than that of 5.0 mm penetration for all cases (untreated and treated)
considered in this investigation, the CBR value reported in this investigation is that of 2.5 mm
penetration. Some of the tests have been repeated twice for results to be reproducible. Results
were discarded if the result variation exceeded 3-5 %.

4. Results and Discussions

This section presents the experimental results of compaction tests and bearing ratio tests.

4.1 Effects of Mechanical Stabilizer on Compaction characteristics

The effect of stone dust and coarse aggregate (mechanical stabilizer) on optimum water content
and maximum dry unit weight of soils was determined by conducting a series of modified
proctor tests at different soil samples in different mix proportions. Figure 1 to Figure 6 shows
variations in optimum water content and maximum dry unit weight of soil samples at different
mix ratios. It is observed that there is an increase in the maximum dry density on the addition of
mechanical stabilizers and a decrease in the optimum water content of the treated soil type.
 2.04
Untreated
2.02
10% Stone Dust

Dry Density (gm/cc)

2
20% Stone Dust
1.98
30% Stone Dust
1.96
10% Coarse Agg
1.94
20% Coarse Agg
1.92
10% SD+10% CA
1.9
1.88 10% SD+20% CA
1.86
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture content (%)

Figure 1 Compaction Curve for soil type 1

2.02
untreated
2
10% Stone Dust
Dry Density (gm/cc)

1.98 20% Stone Dust

1.96 30% stone dust
1.94 10% Coarse Agg.
1.92 20% Coarse Agg.
1.9 10%SD + 10%CA
1.88 10%SD + 20%CA
1.86
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 2 Compaction Curve for soil type 2

2.02 Untreated
2 10% Stone Dust
Dry Density (gm/cc)

1.98 20% Stone Dust

1.96 30% Stone Dust
1.94 10% Coarse Agg.
1.92 20% Coarse Agg.
1.9 10%SD+10%CA
10%SD+20%CA
1.88
1.86
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture Content(%)

Figure 3 Compaction Curve for soil type 3

 2.05 Untreated
2 10% Stone Dust

Dry Density(gm/cc)
20% Stone Dust
1.95 30% Stone Dust
1.9 10% Coarse Agg
20% Coarse Agg
1.85
10% SD+10%CA
1.8 10% SD+20%CA

1.75
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 4 Compaction Curve for soil type 4

2.02 Untreated
2 10% Stone Dust
Dry Density (gm/cc)

1.98 20% Stone Dust

1.96 30% Stone Dust
1.94 10% Coarse Agg.
1.92 20% Coarse Agg.
1.9 10%SD+10%CA
1.88 10%SD+20%CA
1.86
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 5 Compaction Curve for soil type 5

2.02
Untreated
2
10% Stone Dust
Dry Density(gm/cc)

1.98
20% Stone Dust
1.96 30% Stone Dust
1.94 10% Coarese Agg.
1.92 20% Coarse Agg.
1.9 10% SD+10% CA
1.88 10% SD+20% CA
1.86
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 6 Compaction Curve for soil type 6

4.2 Effects of Mechanical Stabilizer on Load Penetration characteristics
The load-penetration curves obtained from the CBR tests for different soil samples in untreated
and treated conditions with varying mix proportions are shown from Figure 7 to Figure 12. It is
observed from Table 3, that CBR value under soaked condition increases with addition of stone
dust (10%, 20%, and 30% by mass of dry soil) and coarse aggregate (10% and 20% by mass of
dry soil) and mix proportions (10% stone dust + 10% coarse aggregate and 10% stone dust +
20% coarse aggregate). The desired value of 8% CBR under soaked condition is obtained with
addition of 30% stone dust, or 20% coarse aggregate, 10% stone dust + 10% coarse aggregate,
and 10% stone dust + 20% coarse aggregate for all 6 soil type selected for the study.

300

250 untreated
10% SD
200
20% SD
Load (kg)

150 30% SD
10% CA
100
20% CA
50 10%SD+10%CA
10%SD+20%CA
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Penetration (mm)

Figure 7 Load Penetration Curve for soil type 1

300

250 untreated
10% Sd
200
20% SD
Load (kg)

150 30% SD
10% CA
100 20% CA
10%SD+10%CA
50 10%SD+20%CA
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Penetration (mm)

Figure 8 Load Penetration Curve for soil type 2

 300

250
untreated
Load (kg) 200 10% Sd
20% SD
150 30% SD
10% CA
100
20% CA
50 10%SD+10%CA
10%SD+20%CA
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Penetration (mm)

Figure 9 Load Penetration Curve for soil type 3

300

250 untreated
10% Sd
200
20% SD
Load (kg)

150 30% SD
10% CA
100 20% CA
10%SD+10%CA
50
10%SD+20%CA
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Penetration (mm)

Figure 10 Load Penetration Curve for soil type 4

300

250 untreated
10% Sd
200
Load (kg)

20% SD
150 30% SD
10% CA
100 20% CA
10%SD+10%CA
50
10%SD+20%CA
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Penetration (mm)

Figure 11 Load Penetration Curve for soil type 5

 300

250
untreated
Load (kg) 200 10% Sd
20% SD
150 30% SD
10% CA
100 20% CA
10%SD+10%CA
50
10%SD+20%CA
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Penetration (mm)

Figure 12 Load Penetration Curve for soil type 6

Table 3 Mechanical Stabilization

Soil Road CBR Value (%)

Sample Distance
Untreated Stone Dust 10 mm Coarse Stone Dust +10mm
Design- (km)
(% by weight of soil) Aggregate Coarse Aggregate
nation (% by weight of (% by weight of soil)
soil)
10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 10%SD+ 10%SD+
10%CA 20%CA

1 1.350 4.3 6.5 8.5 9.7 8.4 10.1 9.7 11.3

2 8.950 3.8 4.8 7.3 11.2 7.2 9.6 8.4 11.5

3 10.400 5.9 7.9 9.0 10.0 9.2 9.6 9.7 10.9

4 15.300 7.4 8.6 9.5 10.0 9.5 10.3 9.8 11.3

5 16.500 4.8 7.3 8.3 9.7 8.8 9.7 9.6 10.6

6 22.100 3.9 5.5 7.2 9.7 8.0 9.8 9.8 11.2

5. Cost Analysis

5.1 Rate of Material Used

For road widening and stabilization of sub grade, the prices shown below are based on
information obtained from local pavement contractors and cost estimated from the local market
of Kurukshetra (Haryana).
 Table 4 Rate of Material Used

S.No. Name of Material Unit Rate

(Rs.)
1 10 mm Coarse Aggregate cft 21
2 Stone Dust cft 25
3 Sandy Soil cft 10

Table 5 Cost of Material Used per km of Road Length for Various Options

S.No. Item Cost (Rs.)

(i) Replacement of Existing Sub grade of widening portion with
borrowed soil upto 500mm depth
Assuming the road is to be widened from existing 5.5 m to 7.0 m
involving 1.5 m widening, the area of the widening portion per km
of road length = 1.5x1000 = 1500 sq m.
For 500 mm Sub-grade replacement, volume of soil required =
1500x0.500 = 750 m3, or 26486 cft
Cost of Soil Replacement = 26486x10 : 2,64,860

(ii) Stabilization with 30% Stone Dust

Volume of 30% SD = 7946 cft
Cost = 7946x25 : 1,98,650

(iii) Stabilization with 20% Coarse Aggregate

Volume of 20 % CA = 5297 cft
Cost = 5297x21 : 1,11,237

(iii) Stabilization with 10%SD + 10% CA(10mm size)

Volume of 10% SD = 2648 cft, Cost = 2648x25 = 66200
Volume of 10% CA = 2648 cft, Cost = 2648x21 = 55608
Total Cost : 1,21,808

(iv) Stabilization with 10%SD + 20% CA(10mm size)

Volume of 10% SD = 2648 cft, Cost = 2648x25 = 66200
Volume of 20% CA = 5297 cft, Cost = 5297x21 = 111237
Total Cost : 1,77,437
 3

2.5

2
Cost (Lacs)
1.5

0.5

0
whole soil 30 % stone 20 % coarse 10%SD + 10%SD +
replacement dust agg. 10%CA 20%CA
Mix Proportion Type

Figure 13: Cost analysis by mechanical stabilizer at different mix proportion

6. Conclusions
The experiments conducted show favorable results as the inclusion of stone dust and coarse
aggregates enhances the soil CBR value. The following findings are drawn from this study:

i. With the addition of stone dust and coarse aggregate, the MDD value of the soil types
tested in the study is found to increase as OMC decreases.
ii. Mechanical stabilizers in the form of stone dust (10%, 20% and 30% by dry weight of
soil), coarse aggregates (10% and 20% by dry weight of soil) and in mix proportion
(10% stone dust + 10% coarse aggregates and 10% stone dust + 20% coarse
aggregates), increase the CBR value of the soil types considered in the study.
iii. The CBR value increases significantly and desired value of minimum CBR of 8%
under soaked condition is obtained by adding to the soil 30% of stone dust, or 20% of
10mm size coarse aggregates, or with mix proportion of 10% stone dust + 10% coarse
aggregates and 10% stone dust + 20% coarse aggregates.
iv. Using 20 % coarse aggregate by dry weight of soil is the most economical approach
for stabilization of this particular soil type.

References

1. Jahangir Khazaei, Hossein Moayedi: Soft Expansive Soil Improvement by Eco-Friendly Waste
and Quick Lime. Arab J Sci Eng, (2017)
2. Reza Alijani Shirvani, Issa Shooshpasha: Experimental Study on Load-Settlement Behaviour of
Cement Stabilised Footing with Different Dimensions on Sandy Soil. Arab J Sci Eng, 40,397–
406 (2015)
3. Thyagaraj, T.; Rao, S.M.; Suresh, P.S.; Salini, U.: Laboratory studies on stabilization of an
expansive soil by lime precipitation technique. J. Mater. Civil Eng. 24(8), 1067–1075 (2012)
4. Malekzadeh, M.; Bilsel, H.: Use of posidonia oceanica ash in stabilization of expansive soils.
Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 32(2), 179–186 (2014)
5. Thyagaraj, T.; Samuel, Z.; Kumar, K.S.R.: Relative efficiencies of electrolytes in stabilization of
an expansive soil. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 10(2), 107–113 (2016)
6. Latifi, N.; Horpibulsuk, S.; Meehan, C.L.; AbdMajid,M.Z.; Tahir, M.M.; Mohamad, E.T.:
Improvement of problematic soils with biopolymer—an environmentally friendly soil stabilizer.
J. Mater. Civil Eng.: 29(2), 04016204 (2016)
7. De Paiva, S.C.; Lima, M.A.D.; Ferreira, M.; Ferreira, S.R.D.: Geotechnical properties of a lime-
treated expansive soil. Materia-Rio De Janeiro 21(2), 437–449 (2016)
8. Leite, R.; Cardoso, R.; Cardoso, C.; Cavalcante, E.; de Freitas, O.: Lime stabilization of
expansive soil from Sergipe– Brazil. In: Delage, P., Cui,Y.J.,Ghabezloo, S., Pereira, J.M.Tang,
A.M. (eds.), In: 3rd European Conference on Unsaturated Soils–E-Unsat 2016 Editors. E D P
Sciences: Cedex A. (2016)
9. Al-Rawas, A.A.; Hago, A.W.; Al-Sarmi, H.: Effect of lime, cement and Sarooj (artificial
pozzolan) on the swelling potential of an expansive soil from Oman. Build. Environ. 40(5), 681–
687 (2005)
10. Kumar, J.S.; Janewoo, U.: Stabilization of expansive soil with cement kiln dust and RBI grade
81 at subgrade level. Geotech.Geol. Eng. 34(4), 1037–1046 (2016)
11. Latifi, N.; Meehan, C.L.; Abd Majid, M.Z.; Horpibulsuk, S.: Strengthening montmorillonitic and
kaolinitic clays using a calcium-based non-traditional additive: a micro-level study. Appl. Clay
Sci. 132, 182–193 (2016)
12. Zha, F.S.; Liu, S.Y.; Du, Y.J.; Cui, K.R.: Behavior of expansive soils stabilized with fly ash. Nat.
Hazards 47(3), 509–523 (2008)
13. Lin, B.T.; Cerato, A.B.; Madden, A.S.; Madden, M.E.E.: Effect of fly ash on the behavior of
expansive soils: microscopic analysis.Environ. Eng. Geosci. 19(1), 85–94 (2013)
14. Sharma, A.K.; Sivapullaiah, P.V.: Ground granulated blast furnace slag amended fly ash as an
expansive soil stabilizer. Soils Found.56(2), 205–212 (2016)
15. Goodarzi, A.R.; Goodarzi, S.; Akbari, H.R.: Assessing geomechanical and micro-structural
performance of modified expansive clayey soil by silica fume as industrial waste. Iran. J. Sci.
Technol.-Trans. Civil Eng. 39(C2), 333–350 (2015)
16. Sathyapriya, S.; Arumairaj, P.D.: Micro fabric and mineralogical studies on the stabilization of
expansive soil using cement industry wastes. Indian J. Geo-Mar. Sci. 45(6), 807-815 (2016)
17. Latifi, N.; Horpibulsuk, S.; Meehan, C.L.; Abd Majid, M.Z.; Rashid,A.S.A.: Xanthan gum
biopolymer: an eco-friendly additive for stabilization of tropical organic peat. Environ. Earth Sci.
75(9), 10 (2016)
18. Latifi, N.; Rashid, A.S.A.; Siddiqua, S.; Horpibulsuk, S.: Microstructural analysis of strength
development in low- and high swelling clays stabilized with magnesium chloride solution – A
green soil stabilizer. Appl. Clay Sci. 118, 195–206 (2015)
19. Roobhakhshan, A. and Kalantari, B: Stabilization of Clayey Soil with Lime and Waste Stone
Powder. Int. Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, vol. 1, issue 12, 547-556 (2013)
20. Sabat, A.K. A Study on Some Geotechnical Properties of Lime Stabilized Expansive soil-Quarry
Dust Mixes. Int. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Development, vol.1, issue 2, 42-
49 (2012)
21. Satyanarayana, P.V.V.; Raghu, P.; kumar, R.A. and Pradeep, N. Performance of Crusher Dust in
High Plastic Gravel soils as road construction material. IOSR Journal of mechanical and civil
engineering, vol.10, issue 3, 01-05 (2013)
22. Bshara, A.S.; Bind, Y.K. and Sinha, P.K. Efect of Stone Dust on Geotechnical properties of Poor
soil. Int. Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), vol. 5, issue 4, 37-47 (2014)
23. Orekanti Eshwara Reddy, E. Gopinath, K.S. Shrinivasan and C.A. Poornima, Effect of Quarry
Dust on Compaction Properties of Clay. Proceeding of National Conference on Corrective
Engineering Practices in Troublesome Soils, Kakinada (A.P.), 31-34 (2006).
24. Kesharwani R.S., Sahu A. K., Khan N.U. “CBR value of sandy subgrade blended with coarse
aggregate”. Int.J. of GEOMATE, April, 2016, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Sl. No. 20), 1743-1750 (2016)
25. Stamatopoulos, A.C.; Christodoulias, J.C.;Giannaros, H.C.: Treatment of expansive soils for
reducing swell potential and increasing strength. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 25(4), 301–312 (1992)
26. Al-Rawas, A.A.; Taha, R.; Nelson, J.D.; Al-Shab, T.B.; Al-Siyabi, H.: A comparative evaluation
of various additives used in the stabilization of expansive soils. Geotechn. Testing J. 25(2), 199–
209 (2002)
27. Seco, A.; Ramirez, F.; Miqueleiz, L.; Garcia, B.: Stabilization of expansive soils for use in
construction. Appl. Clay Sci. 51(3), 348–352 (2011)
28. IS 2720: Part 5 (1985) Methods of test for soil- Determination of Liquid limit and plastic limit,
BIS New Delhi.
29. IS 2720: Part 4 (1985) Methods of test for soil- Determination of particle size distribution,
BIS,New Delhi.
30. IS 1498-1970: Classification and identification of soils for general engineering purpose.
31. Binod Singhi, Aminul Islam Laskar, M. Ali Ahmed: Investigation on Soil–Geopolymer with
Slag, Fly Ash and Their Blending. Arab J Sci Eng 41:393–400 (2016)
32. Soosan, T.G.; Jose, B.T. and Abraham, B.M. Use of Crusher dust in embankment and highway
construction. Proc. Indian Geotechnical Conference, December, Indore, 274-277 (2001)
33. Rachit Sharma: Laboratory Study on Effect of Construction Wastes and Admixtures on
Compressive Strength of Concrete. Arab J Sci Eng 42, 3945–3962 (2017)
34. Ministry of Surface Transport (Road Wing). Specifications for road and bridge work, Indian
Road Congress, on behalf of the Government of India, New Delhi, India (2000)
35. IS 2720: Part 8 (1983) Methods of test for soils - Determination of water content-dry density
relation using Heavy compaction, BIS, New Delhi.
36. IS 2720: Part 16 (1987) Methods of test for soils- Laboratory determination of CBR, BIS, and
New Delhi.