Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 1



## The Effect of Lime-Silica Fume Stab ilizer on Engineering Properties of Clayey Subgrade
By Dr. Magdy A. Abd El-Aziz Dr. Mostafa A. Abo-Hashema Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering Cairo University – Fayoum Branch Cairo University – Fayoum Branch Ph. +2010-527-3502, Fax. +208-433-4031
Dr. Mahmoud El-Shourbagy Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering Mansoura University



### ABSTRACT The engineering properties of cl ayey subgrade soils may need to be improved to make them suitable for construction using some sort of st abilization methods. Stab ilization of pavement subgrade soils has traditionally reli ed on treatment with lime, cement, or waste materials such as Silica Fume (SF). Most transportation agenci es, however, are hesitant to specify these nontraditional stabilizers without reliable data to support vendor claims of product effectiveness. The main objective of this study is to investig ate the effect of the e ngineering properties of clayey soils when blended with lime and SF. A series of laboratory experiments have been implemented for varieties of samples: 1%, 3% , 5%, 7%, 9% and 11% for lime and 5%, 10% and 15% for SF. The results from the Lime-Silica Fu me (LSF) blend confirmed that the blend would diminish swell behavior of clayey soils. Th eir Plasticity Index and swell potential would decrease from 40.25% to 0.98% and from 19.0% to 0.016%, respectively, when subjected to a LSF blend of 11-15%. Their California Bearing Ratio value would increase from 3.0% to 17.0% at a LSF blend of 5-15%. Their internal fric tion angle concerning shear strength parameters would enhance from 5.80 to 24.75. Soil cohe sion increased as well from 55.52 kN/m 2 to 157.54 kN/m 2 . At LSF 5-10%, consolidation settlement was lowered from 0.025 to 0.007. All of these results can be summarized to say that by blending Lime and Silica Fume together, the engineering properties of clay ey soils can be enhanced.



### KEYWORDS

Engineering Properties, Soil Stabilization, S ubgrade, Clayey Soils, Silica Fume, LimeAbd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 2



### INTRODUCTION

A difficult problem in civil engineering work exis ts when the subgrade is found to be clay. Clay soils having high clay content have a tendency to swell when their moisture content is allowed to increase [1]. This moisture may come from rains, floods, leaking sewer lines, or from the reduction of surface evaporation when an area is covered by a building or pavement. Frequently, these clayey soils cause the cracking and br eaking up of pavements, railways, highway embankments, roadways, foundations and channel or reservoir linings [2].
Most of the agricultural roads in the Egyptian road network were originally constructed as a canal or drain embankments. Thes e embankments are molded with high percent of clay and they generally have high swell poten tial and are not favorable when used for construction where construction damages are possible [3]. When civ il engineers are faced with possible construction damage, a need for improving the engineering propert ies of the soil is justified using some sort of stabilization methods. Stabil ization of pavement subgrade soils has traditionally relied on treatment with lime, cement, and special additi ves such as Pozzolanic materials. Pozzolanic materials, such as Fly Ash, Silica Fume, and Rice Husk Ash, which are regarded as wastes may be used for soil improvement as indicated in recen t research [4]. The Silica Fume is found to be 40% cheaper than that of Portland cement.
Most transportation agencies, however, are hesi tant to specify such these nontraditional stabilizers without reliable da ta to support vendor claims of product effectiveness. The main objective of this study is to investigate the e ffect of blending clayey soils with lime and SF together on their engineering properties. A series of labor atory experiments have been implemented on varieties of samples by blending both Lime and Silica Fume together. These samples were 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9% and 11% for lime and 5%, 10% and 15% for SF.



### SOIL STABILIZATION

Definition

Soil Stabilization in its broadest sense implies th e improvement of both durability and strength of soil. Soil may be improved by adding the deficien t particle sizes to gi ve a more satisfactory grading. A process known as mechanical stabili zation or in other instances cement, lime, bitumen, or special additives are used to bind or waterproof the particles of soil and so increase its strength and durability. Cement treatment is most applied to road stabilization especially when the moisture content of the subgrade is very high. Waste materials or nontraditional stabilizers, such as Silica Fume and Fly Ash, ar e also sometimes applied for stabilization. When the soil has been treated with any of the mixtur es mentioned above, thus is called stabilized soilAbd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 3

[5]. This study focuses on using Lime and Silica Fume together as a stabilizer material for clayey soils.



### Lime Stabilizer

Calcium hydroxide ( slaked lime ) is most widely used for stabilization. Calcium oxide ( quick lime ) may be more effective in some cases; however, the quick lime will corrosively attack equipment and may cause severe skin burns to personnel. Ingles (1972) recommended the criteria of lime mixture as show in Table 1 [6].



### Silica Fume Stabilizer Silica Fume (SF), also known as micro-silica, is a byproduct of the reduction of high-purity quartz with coal in electric furn aces in the production of silicon and ferrosilicon alloys. SF is also collected as a byproduct in the production of other silicon a lloys such as ferrochromium, ferromanganese, ferromagnesium, and calcium silicon [7]. Before the mid-1970s, SF was discharged into the atmosphere. After environm ental concerns necessitated the collection and landfilling of Silica Fume, it became economically justified to use Silica Fume in various applications.

SF consists of very fine vitreous partic les with a surface area on the order of 20,000 m 2 /kg (215,280 ft 2 /lb) when measured by nitrogen absorption techniques, with particles approximately 100 times smaller than the average cement par ticle. Because of its ex treme fineness and high silica content, Silica Fume is a highly effective po zzolanic material [7,8]. Silica Fume is used in concrete to improve its propert ies. It has been found that SF improves compressive strength, bond strength, and abrasion resistance; reduces permeability; and therefore helps in protecting reinforcing steel from corrosion.

SF is available in two conditi ons: dry and wet. Dry silica can be provided as produced or densified with or without dry admixtures and ca n be stored in silos a nd hoppers. Silica Fume slurry with low or high dosages of chemical ad mixtures are available. Slurried products are stored in tanks with capacities ranging fr om a few thousand to 400,000 gallons (1,510 m3) [9,10].

SF is a pozzolanic material that could be potentially used in Egypt, considering it is sufficiently produced and is widespread. When SF was allowe d to burn under controlled temperature, higher pozzolanic properties were observed. Silica is a main mineral of SF. When reacted with lime, it will form a bonded gel [Ca (SiO 3 )]. The composition of SF minerals is shown in Table 2 [11].Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 4



### REACTION MECHANISM OF POZZOLANIC MATERIALS

Lime reacts with any other fine pozzolanic comp onent (such as Silica Fume) to form calciumsilicate cement with soil particles. This reaction is also water insoluble. The cementing agents are exactly the same for ordinary Po rtland cement. The difference is that the calcium silicate gel is formed from the hydration of anhydrous calcium silicate (cement), whereas w ith the lime, the gel is formed only by the removal of silica from the clay minerals of the soil. The pozzolanic process may be written as:
Ca (OH) 2 + SiO 2 C-S-H (1) Ca (OH) 2 + Al 2 O 3 C-S-H (2) (Note: Calcium Silicate Hydrate, C-S-H, is cemented material).

The silicate gel proceeds immediatel y to coat and bind clay lumps in the soil and to block off the soil voids in the manner shown by Figure 1. In time, this gel gradually crystallizes into welldefined calcium silicate hydrates such as tobermorite and hillebrandite. The micro-crystals can also mechanically interlock. The reaction ceases on drying, and very dry soils will not react with lime or cement. The mechanism of the reaction can be represented as:

NAS 4 H + CH → NH + CAS 4 H → NS + degradation product * (3)  NH + C 2 SH **  (2CH) Where: S = SiO 2 , H = H 2 O, A = Al 2 O 3 , C = CaO, N = Na 2 O. * As silica is progressively removed, calcium aluminates and alumina are formed residually ** Or CSH



### MATERIALS TESTED

Stabilizer Product: Lime and Silica Fume

The stabilizer materials used in this study were Lime and Silica Fume (LSF). Lime material was taken from a quarry located in Beni-Suif, Egypt and Silica Fume products were brought from Ferrosilicon Alloys Company (Edfo-Komombo), Aswan, Egypt. Hydrated lime in powder form was used for the lime material. It is notewort hy that SF has a high degree of water absorption. When SF reacted with lime, it will form a bonded gel [Ca (SiO 3 )]. The composition of SF minerals is presented before in Table 2.Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 5



### Test Soils

The clayey soils involved in this research we re dug from an area in Fayoum, Egypt. The soil sample was disturbed. The physic al characterization of clay sample is presented inAbd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 6

Table 3. The soil is classified as Silty Clay (Gs = 2.625 with 90.25% fines) with expansive behavior. The chemical element of test ed materials is presented in Table 4.



### Specimen Preparation

Test samples were mixed from pulverized, air-dry soil and de-ionized water. Treated specimens were prepared following the nine-step protocol outlined here. Untreated control specimens were prepared in the same manner, but without th e addition of the stabilizer product (LSF).

1. Using the modified Proctor compaction test [12], the Optimum Mois ture Content (OMC) for compaction was determined for the untreated soil. These values are listed in (Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 7

Table 3). 2. Based on the product literature , the recommended percentage s of the stabilizer product were as follow: 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9% and 11% for lime and 5%, 10% and 15% for SF. 3. The test soil was pre-moistened to a natural moisture content = 70.65 (Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 8

Table 3). The soil was mixed dry of optimum at this point to allow for the water that would be added with the stabilizer in Step 6. 4. The pre-moistened soil was allowed to mellow fo r at least 16 hours in a sealed container. 5. The mass of stabilizer needed to achieve the recommended OMC in the treated sample was measured out. 6. The stabilizer was thoroughly mixed with th e soil sample, which was then allowed to stand for 1 hour in a covered container. If there were no evaporati on losses, the soil water content would now be equal to the OMC. 7. The treated soil was compacted using a modifi ed Proctor effort [12], extruded from the compaction mold, and sealed in a plastic bag. 8. The compacted soil was cured in a sealed pl astic bag at room temperature for 7 days. 9. The cured sample was trimmed to an appropria te size for testing. If the specimen water content was more than 3% above or below th e OMC, new specimens were prepared using adjusted initial water content. Almost all test specimens were within ± 2% of the target OMC.

A seven-day curing period was selected as a r easonable delay to allo w reactions between the stabilizer and the soil prior to conducting the evaluation tests. Laboratory assessments of soil stabilizers often include a 28- day cure following treatment; th e additional three weeks may, depending on the stabilizer, yield additional changes in the soil properties. However, it is expected that significant changes due to an e ffective soil treatment should be measurable at seven days.

It is noteworthy that all specimens, whether untr eated or treated, were compacted at the same optimum water content. In this study, however, th e same water content was used to prepare all specimens of a given soil, so that the effect of th e stabilizer on the measured soil properties could be distinguished from the effects of varying th e water content. For the same reason, the samples were maintained at constant wate r content during th e curing period.



### Laboratory Experiments

A series of laboratory experiments have been conducted for varietie s of samples. These experiments are to measure the engineer ing properties of the soil as follow:

• Physical Properties

o Specific Gravities

o Consistency Limits

o Swelling

• Grain Size Distribution

• Compaction Characterization

• California Bearing Ratio

• Triaxial TestAbd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 9

• Consolidation TestAbd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 10



### ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS

Physical Properties

Based on the laboratory experiments, the soil is classified as Silty Clay (Gs = 2.625 with 90.25% fines) with expansive behavior. Soil with PI > 35 % is classified to have very high swell potential [1], where LL and PI of the sample is resp ectively 72.45% and 40.25%. The effect of blended LSF on the physical properties of soil can be sh own as in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4.

Specific Gravities

Specific Gravities (G s ) for the untreated and treated soils we re determined and the results were plotted in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 2, by adding LSF the specific gravity of the soil decreases. This indicates that the soil is lighter than that of its natural conditions.

Consistency Limits

The Atterberg limits for the untreated and trea ted soils were determined following ASTM D 4318 [13]. The treated soil samples we re allowed to cure for seven days before testing but were not compacted. The results are plo tted in Figure 3 (a), (b ), and (c). Figure 3 shows the influence LSF has on consistency limits. Figure 3(c) shows that the PI of the soil decreases when lime content is increased.

Swelling Potential

To measure the potential expansiveness of the untr eated and treated soils, free swell tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 4546 [14] . To get better measurement precision, onedimensional swell tests were selected over unc onfined three-dimensional swell tests. The compacted and cured soil specimens were trimme d into 63-mm diameter oedometer rings to a thickness of 19 mm; the trimmed mo ntmorillonite specimens were 10 mm thick to allow for their much greater expansion. After applying a vertical seating pressure of about 2.4 kPa, the soil was inundated with water, which could seep into the sample through top and bottom porous stones. The swell results are presented in Figure 4, which indicates that sw ell potential decreases as well. The lowest value was attain ed by an 11-15% LSF blend.Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 11



### Grain Size Distribution

The effect of LSF on the Grain Sieve of clayey soil is presented in Figur e 5. Figure 5 (a) and (b) show that there is a decr ease of finer particles.



### Compaction Characterization

Moisture-unit weight curves for all the untreated test soils were determined using a modified proctor compaction effort [12]. This established OMC for preparing all of the compacted soil specimens for subsequent sw ell and triaxial testing.

In Figure 6, influence of LSF on Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and OMC of clayey soil is presented. Figure 6 represents that by increasi ng LSF content in soil, MDD tends to decrease, whereas OMC increases. Decreasing MDD indicates that compaction energy is less than the natural state. Increasing OMC tends to be prevalent when lime was added.

Compaction characterization of clay ey soil with Blended by LSF is plotted in Figure 7. Note that the water contents of many test specimens were a little dry of the target optimum, due to evaporation losses during mixing. However, co nsidering the normal variability obtained in preparing compacted soil samples, there appears to be no significant effect of the stabilizer treatments on the compacted soil unit weight or void ratio. Figure 7 shows that soil, which has been blended with lime, is best to be compacted in the wet optimum state. Therefore, blended LSF has a place in construction work where a soil's moisture content is very high.



### California Bearing Ratio and Consolidation Parameter

Results of California Bearing Ration (CBR Labora tory) and Consolidation Parameter of soil with blended by LSF are presented in Figure 8. Figure 8 (a) reveals a trend to enhance and attain the optimum CBR value at 5% lime content and a 5-15% maximum of SF. Figure 8 (b) shows the compressibility index (Cc) tends to be non-linear. This condition exhibits that when the rate of consolidation is rapid, the settlement of the soil will reduce.



### Shear Strength

To measure soil strength, uncons olidated-undrained triaxial compression tests were conducted following ASTM D 2850 [15]. The shear strength of highway materials is often characterized using unconfined compression tests, but testing in a triaxial cell yiel ds a more reliable measure of strength. This is especially true for fissured, compacted soils where the confining pressure keeps the specimen intact under load. The compacted a nd cured soil samples were trimmed into testAbd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 12

specimens measuring 38 mm in diameter by 95 mm high. During shearing, volumetric strains were measured from changes in the volume of cell fluid. The cross- sectional area of each specimen was corrected using the axial and volume strains and assuming a right-circular cylinder shape. Typical results, from UU triaxial tests, are plotted in Figure 9. St ress-Strain behavior of clayey soil under Triaxial Test is presented in Figure 10.

Figure 9 shows that the addition of lime increases the shear strength parameter, cohesion, and the internal angle of friction. Lime dominated th e cohesion properties of the soil, whereas SF interferes with the inte rnal angle of friction. Furthermore, th e soil strength is enhanced. Figure 9 (c) shows that the maximum ultimate strength is attained at a 9% SF content. Figure 10 shows brittle behavior of the soil when mixed with LSF.

Therefore, it can be concluded that lime and S ilica Fume can improve the engineering properties of clayey soils. Practically, the effective lime content and Silica Fume should be blended in the range of 5-9% and 10% respectively.



### CONCLUSIONS

Lime can be used as soil stabilizer to improve the engineering properties of clayey subgrade. In addition, waste materials such as Silica Fume (SF) can also be used as nontraditional stabilizer for clayey subgrade. SF is a byproduct of the reduc tion of high-purity quartz with coal in electric furnaces in the production of silicon and ferrosilic on alloys. This paper examines the effect of adding Lime and Silica Fume (LSF) together on the engineering properties of clayey soils. A series of laboratory experiments have been cond ucted for varieties of samples: 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9% and 11% for lime and 5%, 10% and 15% for S ilica Fume. It was found that the engineering properties of soil have been improved by adding Li me in the range of 5-9% combined with a 10% Silica Fume. Furthermore, the physical prop erties such as consistency limits and swell potential show improvements when mixed with the LSF blend. Economically, utilization of LSF for geotechnical appli cations is cheaper.



### REFERENCES

1. Chen, F.H., 1981. Foundation on Expansive Soil , Development in Geotechnical Engineering 12. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York, USA. 2. Cokça, E., 1999. Effect of Fly Ash on Swell Pressure of an Expansive Soil , Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Pape r 9904. Oklahoma State University, USA. 3. Abo-Hashema, M.A., Darrag, A.A. and El-M itiny, M.R., 1994. Instability of Rural Roads on Canal Embankments, Diagnosis and So lutions, The Arab Road Association, 2nd Edition, pp 18-34.Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 13

4. Muntohar, A.S., 1999a, Effect of Lime and Rice Husk Ash on the Behavior of Soft Clay, Regional Seminar at Islamic University of Indonesia Sept. 4 th 1999. Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 5. Yoder, E.J. and Witczak, M.W., 1975. Principles of Pavement Design, 2 nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA 6. Ingles, O.G., Metcalf, J.B., 1972. Soil Stabiliz ation, Principles and Practice, John Wiley & Son’s, Sydney, Australia. 7. ACI Committee 226. 1987b. Silica fume in conc rete: Preliminary report. ACI Materials Journal March-April: 158-66. 8. Luther, M. D. 1990. High-performance silica fume (microsilica)—Modified cementitious repair materials. 69th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, paper no. 890448 (January). 9. Admixtures and ground slag fo r concrete. 1990. Transportati on research circular no. 365 (December). Washington: Transportation Rese arch Board, National Research Council. 10. Holland, T. C. 1988. Practical Considerations fo r Using Silica Fume in Field Concrete. 67 th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Re search Board, paper no. 87-0067 (January). 11. Abd El Aziz, M, 2003. The Effect of Silica Fume Substitution on the Characteristics of Ordinery Portland Cement Past es and Mortars, Civil Engine ering Magazine, Vol. 24 No. 2, April 2002, p. 715-725, Egypt. 12. American Society for Testing and Material s. Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lb/ft3, 2,700 kNm/m3). ASTM D 1557-91, 1998 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, Pa. 13. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Met hod for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. ASTM D 4318-95a, 1998 Annual Book of ASTM Standards , West Conshohocken, Pa. 14. American Society for Testing and Materi als. Standard Test Methods for OneDimensional Swell or Settlement of Cohesive Soils. ASTM D 4546-96, 1998 Annual Book of ASTM Standards , West Conshohocken, Pa. 15. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for UnconsolidatedUndrained Triaxial Compression Test s on Cohesive Soil. ASTM D 2850-95, 1998 Annual Book of ASTM Standards , West Conshohocken, Pa.Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 14

Table 1: Suggested Lime Content Soil Type Content For Modification Content For Stabilization Fine crushed rock 2 – 4 percent Not recommended Well graded clay gravels 1 – 3 percent ~ 3 percent Sands Not recommended Not recommended Sandy clay Not recommended ~ 5 percent Silty clay 1 – 3 percent 2 – 4 percent Heavy clay 1 – 3 percent 3 – 8 percent Very heavy clay 1 – 3 percent 3 – 8 percent Organic soils Not recommended Not recommended

Table 2: Chemical Composition of Silica Fume Minerals Mineral Composition (%)

SiO 2 95 Al 2 O 3 0.6 Fe 2 O 3 0.8 CaO 0.2 MgO 0.5 SO 3 0.1 Na 2 O 0.2 K 2 O 0.3 F.L. 0.45 I.L. 1.2Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 15

Table 3: Physical Characterization of Clay Sample Physical properties Test result Natural moisture content, w N Moisture content (disturbed) Specific Gravity, Gs Atterberg Limits 1 : Liquid Limit, LL Plastic Limit, PL Shrinkage Limit, SL Plasticity Index, PI Maximum Dry Density, γ d Optimum Moisture Content Grain size distribution: - Coarse particles - Fine particles - Clay - Silt Activity 70.65 18.35 2.625

72.45 31.87 13.55 40.250 1.38 gr/cm 3 33

9.45 90.25 11.00 81.43 3.470

1 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Shrinkage Li mit, and Plasticity Index, ASTM D 4318 [13] 2 Optimum water content for compaction with a modified Proctor effo rt, ASTM D 1557 [12]

Table 4: Chemical Element of Tested Materials
Chemical Elements Clay (%) SF (%) Hydrated Lime (%)
SiO 2 50.78 95 0.00
Al 2 O 3 17.58 0.6 0.15
Fe 2 O 3 8.87 0.8 0.07
CaO 3.75 0.2 58.78 MgO 1.09 0.5 0.27
Na 2 O 1.84 0.2 0.06
K 2 O 0.41 0.3 0.03
MnO 0.27 0.0 0.005
TiO 2 0.94 0.00 0.00
P 2 O 5 0.16 0.0 0.00
H 2 O 4.19 1.33 0.04
HD 9.35 0.95 40.48Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 16

Figure 1: Reaction Mechanism of stabilization on Clay Soils [6]

2.44 2.48 2.52 2.56 2.60 2.64 2.68

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)Specific Gravity (Gs) SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

Figure 2: Effect of Blended LSF on the Specific Gravity of SoilAbd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 17

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)Liquid Limits (LL)

SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)Plastic Limits (PL)

SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)Plasticity Index (PI) SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

Figure 3: Influence of LSF on the Consistency Limits (a) Liquid Limits (LL), (b ) Plastic Limits (PL), and (c) Plasticity Index (PI)Abd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 18

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)Swell (%) SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

Figure 4 Influence of LSF on the Swelling Potential

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)Finer (%) SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)Coarse (%)

SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

Figure 5: Effect of LSF on the Grain Sieve of Clayey soil (a) Finer Particle of Soil and (b) Coarse Particle of SoilAbd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 19

1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)MDD (gm/cm3)

SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content ( % )OMC SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

Figure 6: Influence of LSF on MDD and OMC of Clayey Soil (a) Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and (b) Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)

0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1

. 60

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Water Content (%)γd(gr/cm3) LSF 0- 5%

LSF 0-10%

LSF 0-15% Expon. (Zero Void Line ) 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1

. 60

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Water Content (%)γd(gr/cm3) LSF 1-0%

LSF 3-0%

LSF 5-0%

LSF 7-0%
LSF 9-0%

LSF 11-0% Expon. (Zero Void Line)

Figure 7: Compaction Characterization of Clayey Soil with Blended by LSFAbd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 20

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)CBR

SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15% 0.0E+00 5.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.5E-02 2.0E-02 2.5E-02 3.0E-02 3.5E-02

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)Cc SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

Figure 8: California Bearing Ration (CBR Laboratory) and Consolidation Parameter of Soil with Blended by LSF (a) CBR Laboratory and (b) Compressibility Index (Cc)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)qu(kPa) SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)φ(o) SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lime Content (%)C (kPa) SF 0% SF 5% SF 10% SF 15%

Figure 9: Effect of LSF on the Shear Strength of Clayey Soil (a) Shear Strength of Soil (q ultimate ), (b) Internal Friction Angle ( ω ), and (c) CohesionAbd El-Aziz, Abo-Hashema, and El-Shourbagy 21

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0 5 10 15 Strain (%)Ds (kPa) LSF 0-5%

LSF 0-10

LSF 0-15%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0 5 10 15 Strain (%)Ds (kPa) LSF 7-0% LSF 9-0% LSF 11-0% LSF 9-10%

Figure 10: Stress-Strain Behavior of Clayey Soil under Triaxial Test