Chapter Two

Literature Review

Introduction
Soil stabilization involves the use of stabilizing agents (binder materials) in weak soils to
improve its geotechnical properties such as compressibility, strength, permeability and
durability. The components of stabilization technology include soils and or soil minerals and
stabilizing agent or binders (cementitious materials). Soil stabilization is a very useful
technique for road, airfield construction and other major civil engineering works. To utilize
the full advantage of the technique, quality control must be adequate. Soil stabilization is the
alteration of one or more soil properties, by mechanical or chemical means, to create an
improved soil material possessing the desired engineering properties. Soils may be stabilized
to increase strength and durability or to prevent erosion and dust generation. Regardless of
the purpose for stabilization, the desired result is the creation of a soil material or soil system
that will remain in place under the design use conditions for the design life of the project.
Engineers are responsible for selecting or specifying the correct stabilizing method,
technique, and quantity of material required. Soil stabilization is the alteration of one or
more soil properties, by mechanical or chemical means, to create an improved soil material
possessing the desired engineering properties. Soils may be stabilized to increase strength and
durability or to prevent erosion and dust generation. Regardless of the purpose for
stabilization, the desired result is the creation of a soil material or soil system that will remain
in place under the design use conditions for the design life of the project. Engineers are
responsible for selecting or specifying the correct stabilizing method, technique, and quantity
of material required. The use of soil stabilization products for the stabilization of fine-grained
soils is quite widespread across the United States. The traditional methods of stabilization
include the use of cement, lime and coal fly ash, however as technology and the
understanding of the soil stabilization mechanisms improve; additional stabilization products
have been developed. These products, typically called non traditional stabilizers, are
compiled into five groups after Scholen (1992), which include electrolytes, enzymes, mineral
pitches, clay fillers and acrylic polymers. In 1996 the construction of Yttre Ringvägen, a ring
road around Malmö Sweden, was started. The soil in the area consists of clay till and silty till.
This type of soil is very sensitive to variation in water content Gulati, (1978). At an early
stage it was discovered that the bearing capacity of the embankments was too low to meet the
requirement of the road, which is the general technical construction specification for roads
from the Swedish National Road Administrations (SNRA) NLA (2004). To fulfill the
requirement of the road, either soil stabilization or soil replacement can be used. The United
States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) has performed multiple studies on the stabilization
of soils using non traditional stabilizers. According to Jean-Pierre (1997), the goal of many of
these stabilizer studies was to find a soil-stabilizer mixture that could cure within 1 to 7 days,
weigh approximately 50% less than traditional stabilization mixtures (i.e., Portland cement)
and provide strength improvements (a UCS value of 50 psi greater than the unstabilized soil)
to marginal soil for use in airstrips. The general conclusions drawn from the USACE studies
was that polymers provided the most consistent engineering property improvements for a
variety of soil types, especially sands, of the non traditional stabilizer groups. However, not
all polymers were successful at improving UCS strength over the control, stressing that the
stabilizers should be tested in the laboratory before being used in the field (Arora 2003).
(Newman and Tingle (004) performed a study on the use of emulsion polymers for soil
stabilization of airfields following the earlier USACE studies after determining that polymers
showed the most potential to stabilize the most soils. It was noted that polymer emulsions are
also very useful as they do not require a solvent carrier, are easily cleaned up using water and
detergent and often do not pose an environmental risk when used in bulk (Abood 2007). The
soil tested for this study was a silty-sand (SM) and 6 polymer emulsions (called P1-6
respectively) and 3 concentrations of Portland cement were tested as stabilizers. They found
that all of the polymers used increased the UCS over the unmodified soil after 28 days of cure
time for both the wet and dry testing. The P1 polymer modified soil produced significantly
higher toughness values after 28 days of cure compared to the other polymer modified soils.
The P1, P2 and P4 modified soils had significantly higher toughness values than the 9%
cement modified soil. All of the additives improved retained wet strength and toughness, and
the polymer additives had slightly higher wet retained toughness than the cement stabilized
soil after 28 days of cure. Interestingly enough, the polymer’s basic chemical makeup did not
produce any consistency in results (i.e., both P1 and P5 were both acrylic vinyl acetate
copolymers, but P1 significantly outperformed P5).
Soils
Most of stabilization has to be undertaken in soft soils (silty, clayey peat or organic soils) in
order to achieve desirable engineering properties. According to (Sherwood 1993) fine-
grained granular materials are the easiest to stabilize due to their large surface area in relation
to their particle diameter. A clay soil compared to others has a large surface area due to flat
and elongated particle shapes. On the other hand, silty materials can be sensitive to small
change in moisture and, therefore, may prove difficult during stabilization. Peat soils and
organic soils are rich in water content of up to about 2000%, high porosity and high organic
content. The consistency of peat soil can vary from muddy to fibrous, and in most cases, the
deposit is shallow, but in worst cases, it can extend to several meters below the surface
Organic soils have high exchange capacity; it can hinder the hydration process by retaining
the calcium ions liberated during the hydration of calcium silicate and calcium aluminate in
the cement to satisfy the exchange capacity. In such soils, successful stabilization has to
depend on the proper selection of binder and amount of binder added (Åhnberg 2003).

Stabilizing Agents
These are hydraulic (primary binders) or non-hydraulic (secondary binders) materials that
when in contact with water or in the presence of pozzolanic minerals reacts with water to
form cementitious composite materials. The commonly used binders are, cement, lime and
fly ash and blast furnace slag

Cement
Cement is the oldest binding agent since the invention of soil stabilization technology in
1960’s. It may be considered as primary stabilizing agent or hydraulic binder because it can
be used alone to bring about the stabilizing action required (EuroSoilStab, 2002). Cement
reaction is not dependent on soil minerals, and the key role is its reaction with water that may
be available in any soil (EuroSoilStab, 2002). This can be the reason why cement is used to
stabilize a wide range of soils. Numerous types of cement are available in the market; these
are ordinary Portland cement, blast furnace cement, sulfate resistant cement and high alumina
cement. Usually the choice of cement depends on type of soil to be treated and desired final
strength. Hydration process is a process under which cement reaction takes place. The
process starts when cement is mixed with water and other components for a desired
application resulting into hardening phenomena. The hardening (setting) of cement will
enclose soil as glue, but it will not change the structure of soil (EuroSoilStab, 2002). The
hydration reaction is slow proceeding from the surface of the cement grains and the centre of
the grains may remain unhydrated. Cement hydration is a complex process with a complex
series of unknown chemical reactions (White, 2003). However, this process can be affected
by the presence of foreign matters or impurities, water-cement ratio, the curing temperature,
the presence of additives, the specific surface of the mixture.
Depending on factor(s) involved, the ultimate effect on setting and gain in strength of cement
stabilized soil may vary. Therefore, this should be taken into account during mix design in
order to achieve the desired strength. Calcium silicates, C3S and C2S are the two main
cementitious properties of ordinary Portland cement responsible for strength development
(Al-Tabbaa and Perera, 2005). Calcium hydroxide is another hydration product of Portland
cement that further reacts with pozzolanic materials available in stabilized soil to produce
further cementitious material. Normally the amount of cement used is small but sufficient to
improve the engineering properties of the soil and further improved cation exchange of clay.
Cement stabilized soils have the following improved properties, decreased cohesiveness
(Plasticity), decreased volume expansion or compressibility and an increased strength (PCA-
IS 411, 2003). content according to the reaction equation, Quicklime when mixed with wet
soils, immediately takes up to 32% of its own weight of water from the surrounding soil to
form hydrated lime; the generated heat accompanied by this reaction will further cause loss of
water due to evaporation which in turn results into increased plastic limit of soil i.e. drying
out and absorption (EuroSoilStab 2002)

Addition of 2% lime will change the plastic limit to 40% so that the moisture content of the
soil will be 5% below plastic limit instead of 10% above plastic limit (Sherwood, 1993).
Sherwood (1993) investigated the decrease in plasticity as brought about in first instance by
cation exchange in which cations of sodium and hydrogen are replaced by calcium ions for
which the clay mineral has a greater water affinity. Even in soils (e.g. calcareous soils)
where, clay may be saturated with calcium ions, addition of lime will increase pH and hence
increase the exchange capacity. Like cement, lime when reacts with wet clay minerals result
into increased pH which favours solubility of siliceous and aluminous compounds. These
compounds react with calcium to form calcium silica and calcium alumina hydrates, a
cementitious product similar to those of cement paste., Natural pozzolanas materials
containing silica and alumina (e.g. clay minerals, pulverized fly ash, PFA, blast furnace slag)
have great potential to react with lime. Lime stabilizations technology is mostly widely used
in geotechnical and environmental applications. Some of applications include encapsulation
of contaminants, rendering of backfill (e.g. wet cohesive soil), highway capping, slope
stabilization and foundation improvement such as in use of lime pile or lime-stabilized soil
columns. However, presence of sulphur and organic materials may inhibit the lime
stabilization process. Sulphate (e.g. gypsum) will react with lime and swell, which may have
effect on soil strength
Fly–Ash
Fly ash is a bye product of coal fired electric power generation facilities; it has little
cementitious properties compared to lime and cement. Most of the fly ashes belong to
secondary binders; these binders cannot produce the desired effect on their own. However, in
the presence of a small amount of activator, it can react chemically to form cementitious
compound that contributes to improved strength of soft soil. Fly ashes are readily available,
cheaper and environmental friendly. There are two main classes of fly ashes; class C and
class F (Bhuvaneshwari 2005,). Class C fly ashes are produced from burning subbituminous
coal; it has high cementing properties because of high content of free CaO. Class C from
lignite has the highest CaO (above 30%) resulting in self-cementing characteristics (FM 5-
410). Class F fly ashes are produced by burning anthracite and bituminous coal; it has low
self-cementing properties due to limited

Pozzolanas
Pozzolanas are siliceous and aluminous materials, which in itself possess little or no
cementitious value, but will, in finely divided form and in the presence of moisture,
chemically react with calcium hydroxide at ordinary temperature to form compounds
possessing cementitious properties (ASTM 595). Clay minerals such as kaolinite,
montmorillonite, mica and illite are pozzolanic in nature. Artificial pozzolanas such as ashes
are products obtained by heat treatment of natural materials containing pozzolanas such as
clays, shales and certain silicious rocks. Plants when burnt, silica taken from soils as nutrients
remains behind in the ashes contributing to pozzolanic element. Rice husk ash and rice straw
and bagasse are rich in silica and make an excellent pozzolana (Sherwood, 1993).

Overview of Stabilization Mechanisms

There are numerous methods by which soils can be stabilized; however, all methods are
classified under two broad categories. They are mechanical stabilization, and chemical
admixture stabilization. Some stabilization techniques use a combination of these two
methods.
Mechanical stabilization relies on physical processes to stabilize the soil, either altering the
physical composition of the soil (soil blending) or placing a barrier in or on the soil to obtain
the desired effect (such as establishing a sod cover to prevent dust generation). Mechanical
stabilization produces by compaction an interlocking of soil-aggregate particles. The grading
of the soil-aggregate mixture must be such that a dense mass is produced when it is
compacted. Mechanical stabilization can be accomplished by uniformly mixing the material
and then compacting the mixture. As an alternative, additional fines or aggregates maybe
blended before compaction to form a uniform, well graded, dense soil-aggregate mixture after
compaction. The choice of methods should be based on the gradation of the material. In some
instances, geotextiles can be used to improve a soil’s engineering characteristics. The three
essentials for obtaining a properly stabilized soil mixture are proper gradation, a satisfactory
binder soil, proper control of the mixture content To obtain uniform bearing capacity,
uniform mixture and blending of all materials is essential. The mixture will normally be
compacted at or near OMC to obtain satisfactory densities. The best aggregates are those that
are made up of hard, durable, angular particles. The gradation of this portion of the mixture is
important, as the most suitable aggregates generally are well-graded from coarse to fine.
Well-graded mixtures are preferred because of their greater stability when compacted and
because they can be compacted more easily Smith and Smith, (1998). Satisfactory materials
for this use include, crushed stone, crushed and uncrushed gravel, sand, crushed slag Many
other locally available materials have been successfully used, including disintegrated granite,
talus rock, mine tailings, caliche, coral, limerick, tuff, shell, slinkers, cinders, and iron ore.
Mechanical stabilization through soil blending is the most economical and expedient method
of altering the existing material. Mechanical stabilization produces by compaction an
interlocking of soil-aggregate particles. The grading of the soil-aggregate mixture must be
such that a dense mass is produced when it is compacted. Mechanical stabilization can be
accomplished by uniformly mixing the material and then compacting the mixture. As an
alternative, additional fines or aggregates maybe blended before compaction to form a
uniform, well graded, dense soil-aggregate mixture after compaction. The choice of methods
should be based on the gradation of the material. In some instances, geotextiles can be used to
improve a soil’s engineering characteristics. Clay or dust from rock-crushing operations are
commonly used as binders. The nature and amount of this finer material must be carefully
controlled, since too much of it results in an unacceptable change in volume with change in
moisture content and other undesirable properties. The properties of the soil binder are
usually controlled by controlling the plasticity characteristics, as evidenced by the LL and PI.
These tests are performed on the portion of the material that passes a Number 40 sieve. The
amount of fines is controlled by limiting the amount of material that may pass a Number 200
sieve. When the stabilized soil is to be subjected to frost action, this factor must be kept in
mind when designing the soil mixture. Mechanical soil stabilization may be used in preparing
soils to function as sub grades. bases, surfaces. Several commonly encountered situations
may be visualized to indicate the usefulness of this method. One of these situations occurs
when the surface soil is a loose sand that is incapable of providing support for wheeled
vehicles, particularly in dry weather. If suitable binder soil is available in the area, it may be
brought in and mixed in the proper proportions with the existing sand to provide an expedient
all-weather surface for light traffic. This would be a sand-clay road. This also may be done in
some cases to provide a working platform during construction operations. A somewhat
similar situation may occur in areas where natural gravels suitable for the production of a
well-graded sand-aggregate material are not readily available. Crushed stone, slag, or other
materials may then be stabilized by the addition of suitable clay binder to produce a
satisfactory base or surface. A common method of mechanically stabilizing an existing clay
soil is to add gravel, sand, or other granular materials. The objective of mechanical
stabilization is to blend available soils so that, when properly compacted, they give the
desired stability. In certain areas, for example, the natural soil at a selected location may have
low load-bearing strength because of an excess of clay, silt, or fine sand. Within a reasonable
distance, suitable granular materials may occur that may be blended with the existing soils to
markedly improve the soil at a much lower cost in manpower and materials than is involved
in applying imported surfacing. The mechanical stabilization of soils in road and highway
construction is very important. The engineer needs to be aware of the possibilities of this type
of construction and to understand the principles of soil action previously presented. The
engineer must fully investigate the possibilities of using locally available materials.
The main objectives of the mechanical stabilization are to increase the drainability of the soil,
increase stability, reduce volume changes, control the undesirable effects associated with
clays.

However the mechanical stabilization method as its own limitations also, in mechanical
stabilization, without minimizing the importance of mechanical stabilization, the limitations
of this method should also be realized. The principles of mechanical stabilization have
frequently been misused, particularly in areas where frost action is a factor in the design. For
example, clay has been added to “stabilize” soils, when in reality all that was needed was
adequate compaction to provide a strong, easily drained base that would not be susceptible to
detrimental frost action. An understanding of the densification that can be achieved by
modern compaction equipment should prevent a mistake of this sort. Somewhat similarly,
poor trafficability of a soil during construction because of lack of fines should not necessarily
provide an excuse for mixing in clay binder. The problem may possibly be solved by
applying a thin surface treatment or using some other expedient method.
Factors affecting mechanical stability
The stability of mechanical stabilized soil mixes depends on the following factors, which
include, mechanical strength of aggregates, gradation, properties of soil, presence of salts,
mica etc and compaction.
Limitation of mechanical stabilization
The original soils contains fines, use of coarser fractions for blending may be expensive,
when clay has been added to Stabilize soils, it should be susceptible to frost action, the
creation of dust clouds results in nuisance to traffic, there is also a reduction of soil cohesion
(or) binding forces ultimately leads to material disintegration.

Chemical Admixture Stabilization

Chemical admixtures are often used to stabilize soils when mechanical methods of
stabilization are inadequate and replacing an undesirable soil with a desirable soil is not
possible or is too costly. Over 90 percent of all chemical admixture stabilization projects us,
cement, lime, fly ash, bituminous materials When selecting a stabilizer additive, the factors
that must be considered are the, type of soil to be stabilized, purpose for which the stabilized
layer will be used, type of soil quality improvement desired, required strength and durability
of the stabilized layer, cost and environmental conditions. Chemical stabilization relies on the
use of an admixture to alter the chemical properties of the soil to achieve the desired effect
(such as using lime to reduce a soil’s plasticity. If chemical admixture stabilization is being
considered, determine what chemical admixtures are available for use and any special
equipment or training required to successfully incorporate the admixture, the three essentials
for obtaining a properly stabilized soil mixture are proper gradation, a satisfactory binder soil,
proper control of the mixture content, to obtain uniform bearing capacity, uniform mixture
and blending of all materials is essential, the mixture will normally be compacted at or near
OMC to obtain satisfactory densities, the primary function of the portion of a mechanically
stabilized soil mixture that is retained on a Number 200 sieve is to contribute internal friction.
Practically all materials of a granular nature that do not soften when wet or pulverize under
traffic can be used however, the best aggregates are those that are made up of hard, durable,
angular particles. The gradation of this portion of the mixture is important, as the most
suitable aggregates generally are well-graded from coarse to fine. Well-graded mixtures are
preferred because of their greater stability when compacted and because they can be
compacted more easily. They also have greater increases in stability with corresponding
increases in density.

Limitation of chemical stabilization

In cement stabilization there is an increase in cement content causes increase in strength
and durability. Also surface chemical factors, organic matter and sulphate content alter the
properties and durability of soil-cement. The presence of Magnesium sulphate reacts with
hydrated cement and cause reduction in strength. Lime stabilization, creates dust (Hydrated
lime) and this is not suitable for thickly populated areas. Water is a critical component in
compaction. Less water results in adequate compaction and more water makes compaction
ineffective. Lime requires certain quantum of water for slacking process and it poses a
problem in compaction.
Cement
Cement can be used as an effective stabilizer for a wide range of materials. Soil-cement
mixtures should be scheduled for construction so that sufficient durability will be gained to
resist any freeze-thaw cycles expected. Portland cement can be used either to modify and
improve the quality of the soil or to transform the soil into a cemented mass, which
significantly increases its strength and durability. The amount of cement additive depends on
whether the soil is to be modified or stabilized. The only limitation to the amount of cement
to be used to stabilize or modify a soil pertains to the treatment of the base courses to be used
in flexible pavement systems. Cement can be used as an effective stabilizer for a wide range
of materials. In general, however, the soil should have a PI less than 30. For coarse-grained
soils, the percent passing the Number 4 sieve should be greater than 45 percent. If the soil
temperature is less than 40 degrees Fahrenheit and is not expected to increase for one month,
chemical reactions will not occur rapidly. The strength gain of the cement- soil mixture will
be minimal. If these environmental conditions are anticipated, the cement may be expected to
act as a soil modifier, and another stabilizer might be considered for use. Soil-cement
mixtures should be scheduled for construction so that sufficient durability will be gained to
resist any freeze-thaw cycles expected. Portland cement can be used either to modify and
improve the quality of the soil or to transform the soil into a cemented mass, which
significantly increases its strength and durability. The amount of cement additive depends on
whether the soil is to be modified or stabilized. The only limitation to the amount of cement
to be used to stabilize or modify a soil pertains to the treatment of the base courses to be used
in flexible pavement systems.

Modification
The amount of cement required to improve the quality of the soil through modification is
determined by the trial-and-error approach. To reduce the PI of the soil, successive samples
of soil-cement mixtures must be prepared at different treatment levels and the PI of each
mixture determined. The minimum cement content that yields the desired PI is selected.
Factors Affecting the Strength of Stabilized Soil
Presence of organic matters, sulphates, sulphides and carbon dioxide in the stabilized soils
may contribute to undesirable strength of stabilized materials.
Organic Matter
In many cases, the top layers of most soil constitute large amount of organic matters.
However, in well drained soils organic matter may extend to a depth of 1.5 m (Sherwood,
1993). Soil organic matters react with hydration product e.g. calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)
resulting into low pH value. The resulting low pH value may retard the hydration process and
affect the hardening of stabilized soils making it difficult or impossible to compact.

Sulphates
The use of calcium-based stabilizer in sulphate-rich soils causes the stabilized sulphate rich
soil in the presence of excess moisture to react and form calcium sulphoaluminate (ettringite)
and or thamausite, the product which occupy a greater volume than the combined volume of
reactants. However, excess water to one initially present during the time of mixing may be
required to dissolve sulphate in order to allow the reaction to proceed (Little and Nair, 2009).
Sulphides
In many of waste materials and industrial by-product, sulphides in form of iron pyrites (FeS2)
may be present. Oxidation of FeS2 will produce sulphuric acid, which in the presence of
calcium carbonate, may react to form gypsum (hydrated calcium sulphate) according to the
reactions (i) and (ii) below
i. 2FeS2 + 2H2O +7O2= 2FeSO4 + 2H2SO4
ii. CaCO3 + H2SO4 + H2O = CaSO4.2 H2O + CO2

The hydrated sulphate so formed, and in the presence of excess water may attack the
stabilized material in a similar way as sulphate (Sherwood, 1993). Even so, gypsum can also
be found in natural soil (Little and Nair, 2009).
Compaction
In practice, the effect of addition of binder to the density of soil is of significant importance.
Stabilized mixture has lower maximum dry density than that of unstabilized soil for a given
degree of compaction. The optimum moisture content increases with increasing binders
(Sherwood, 1993). In cement stabilized soils, hydration process takes place immediately after
cement comes into contact with water. This process involves hardening of soil mix which
means that it is necessary to compact the soil mix as soon as possible. Any delay in
compaction may result in hardening of stabilized soil mass and therefore extra compaction
effort may be required to bring the same effect. That may lead to serious bond breakage and
hence loss of strength. Stabilized clay soils are more likely to be affected than other soils due
to alteration of plasticity properties of clays (Sherwood, 1993). In contrary to cement, delay
in compaction for lime-stabilized soils may have some advantages. Lime stabilized soil
require mellowing period to allow lime to diffuse through the soil thus producing maximum
effects on plasticity. After this period, lime stabilized soil may be remixed and given its final
compaction resulting into remarkable strength than otherwise (Sherwood, 1993).

Moisture Content
In stabilized soils, enough moisture content is essential not only for hydration process to
proceed but also for efficient compaction. Fully hydrated cement takes up about 20% of its
own weight of water from the surrounding (Sherwood, 1993); on other hand, Quicklime
(CaO) takes up about 32% of its own weight of water from the surrounding. Insufficient
moisture content will cause binders to compete with soils in order to gain these amounts of
moisture. For soils with great soil-water affinity (such as clay, peat and organic soils), the
hydration process may be retarded due to insufficient moisture content, which will ultimately
affect the final strength.

Temperature
Pozzolanic reaction is sensitive to changes in temperature. In the field, temperature varies
continuously throughout the day. Pozzolanic reactions between binders and soil particles will
slow down at low temperature and result into lower strength of the stabilized mass. In cold
regions, it may be advisable to stabilize the soil during the warm season
Freeze-Thaw and Dry-Wet Effect
Stabilized soils cannot withstand freeze-thaw cycles. Therefore, in the field, it may be
necessary to protect the stabilized soils against frost damage (Maher et al, 2003).
Shrinkage forces in stabilized soil will depend on the chemical reactions of the binder.
Cement stabilized soil are susceptible to frequent dry-wet cycles due to diurnal changes in
temperature which may give rise to stresses within a stabilized soil and, therefore, should be
protected from such effects (Maher, 2003).

Overview of Stabilization Methods

In–Situ Stabilization
The method involves on site soil improvement by applying stabilizing agent without
removing the bulk soil. This technology offer benefit of improving soils for deep foundations,
shallow foundations and contaminated sites. Planning of the design mix involves the
selection and assessment of engineering properties of stabilized soil and improved ground.
The purpose is to determine the dimensions of improved ground on the basis of appropriate
stability and settlement analyses to satisfy the functional requirements of the supported
structure. The technology can be accomplished by injection into soils a cementitious material
such cement and lime in dry or wet forms. The choice to either use dry or wet deep mixing
methods depend among other things; the in-situ soil conditions, in situ moisture contents,
effectiveness of binders to be used, and the nature of construction to be founded. Depending
on the depth of treatment, the in situ stabilization may be regarded as either deep mixing
method or mass stabilization.

Deep Mixing Method

The deep mixing method involves the stabilization of soils at large depth. It is an in situ
ground modification technology in which a wet or dry binder is injected into the ground and
blended with in situ soft soils (clay, peat or organic soils) by mechanical or rotary mixing tool
(Porbaha et al, 2005; EuroSoilStab, 2002). Depending on applications, the following patterns
may be produced (Figure 4); single patterns, block patterns, panel pattern or stabilized grid
pattern (EuroSoilStab, 2002). Note that, the aim is to produce the stabilized soil mass which
may interact with natural soil and not, to produce too stiffly stabilized soil mass like a rigid
pile which may independently carry out the design load. The increased strength and stiffness
of stabilized soil should not, therefore, prevent an effective interaction and load distribution
between the stabilized soil and natural soil (EuroSoilStab, 2002). Thus the design load should
be distributed and carried out partly by natural soil and partly by stabilized soil mass
(column).

Wet Mixing
Applications of wet deep mixing involve binder turned into slurry form, which is then
injected into the soil through the nozzles located at the end of the soil auger (Massarsch and
Topolnicki, 2005). The mixing tool comprise of drilling rod, transverse beams and a drill end
with head. There are some modifications to suit the need and applications. For instance, the
Trench cutting Re-mixing deep method (TRD) developed by circa Japan, in 1993 provides an
effective tool for construction of continuous cutoff wall without the need for open trench. The
method uses a crawler-mounted, chainsaw-like mixing tool to blend in-situ soil with
cementitious binder to create the soil-cement wall. It further consists of a fixed post on which
cutting, scratching teeth ride on a rotating chain and injection ports deliver grout into
treatment zone. Wall depths up to 45 m having width between 0.5 m and 0.9 m are
achievable. The wall quality for groundwater barrier is high with permeability between 1 x
10-6 and 1 x 10-8 cm/s. Similar to TRD, in 1994, Germany developed the FMI (Misch-
Injektionsverfahren) machine. The FMI machine has a special cutting arm (trencher), along
which cutting blades are rotated by two chain system. The cutting arm can be inclined up to
80 degrees and is dragged through the soil behind the power unit (Stocker and Seidel, 2005).
Like TRD, the soil is not excavated, but mixed with binder which is supplied in slurry form
through injection pipes and outlets mounted along the cutting arm

Ex-Situ Stabilization
The technology involves dislodging of the soils and or sediments from the original position
and moves to other place for the purpose of amendment. These can be encountered in
dredging of river channel and Ports. The main objectives of dredging can be either for
amending the contaminated sediments to reduce toxicity and mobility or to maintain or
deepen navigation channels for the safe passage of ships and boats (US EPA, 2004). Offsite
treatment of the sediment can be done in confined disposal facilities (CDF) and then be used
or disposed at designated site. Method of removal, means of transportation, availability of
treatment location, disposal site or demand for reuse is key factors to consider when planning
for ex-situ stabilization (Miller and Miller, 2007; PIANC, 2009). Treatment of sediments in
CDF falls under ex-situ mass stabilization method, which can be accomplished in several
ways depending on natural of sediments and water contents

Lateralite-Soil Stabilization
Lateralite was invented by the third author and had been used to stabilize several samples of
fine-grained Coastal Plain Sands and black cotton soils. Lateralite is a chemical stabilizer
locally produced in Nigeria and it is a mineral compound selected in definite proportions and
pulverized to the fineness of cement to induce a pozzolanic effect on sesquioxides-rich
lateritic soils in general according to (Meshida 2011). Significant increase in strength and
resistivity to destabilizing impact of water is been observed, even when soaked for several
years. Some samples are still in water to date and none is yet to show any deteriorating signs.
This revealed that this stabilizing flux has good potential in the soil treatment for use in
waterlogged areas. In their studies, addition of 10% lateralite content to the weight of soil
were observed to be adequate to stabilize the soils; the plasticity of the soil was reduced
significantly, while the soaked CBR of the treated soil was increased to over 100% with zero
free swell value. Lateralite is a flux of different mineral compositions which were selected in
definite proportions and the pozzolanic reaction was effected by grinding the flux to the
fineness of cement. Considering Nigeria roads, the sub grade that form the highway
foundation, sub base and base course that are part of road pavement materials are majorly
laterite that is not always good for the purpose intended (Akiije, 2014). Also in most
locations, materials of high strength with good bearing capacity and of high durability are not
readily available for highway pavement sub base or base course for the purpose of highway
pavement design and construction. It is pertinent at this juncture to resort to the stabilization
of the available laterite soils at adjacent or not far distance locations.
In a study by (Mustapha 2014) reported on laterite as a soil group that is commonly found in
the leached soils of the humid tropics and is formed under weathering systems that cause the
process of laterization. In a study by (Achampong 2013) reported that laterite is a soil formed
by the concentration of hydrated oxides of iron and aluminium with the ratio of silica and
sesquioxides less than 1.33 whilst between 1.33 and 2.0 are indicative of laterite soils, and
those greater than 2.0 are indicative of non-lateritic soils.
In a study by (Osinubi and Eberemu 2006)which worked on the effect of bagasse ash on the
strength of stabilized lateritic soil in order to probe more into the potentials of laterite soils as
a reliable and durable construction material for being readily available in Nigeria. They
concluded that although clay impairs the strength of laterite-cement mortars but there are mix
proportions of same having strength comparable to that of standard sand-cement mortars.
Chemical and mechanical processes or combination of the two are due stabilization
methodologies of soils that form sub grade, sub base and base course in the design and
construction of highway pavements as opined by (Salahudeen and Akiije 2014). The reasons
for the stabilization of the materials that formed the sub grade, sub base and base course for
highway pavement include improvement of the soils in order to increase the strength,
durability, load bearing capacity and to reduce the swelling and the coefficient of
permeability. Whenever base course materials are not duly provided base upon AASHTO
specifications and where unstabilized laterite materials are used it could lead to highway
pavement surface premature failures due to excessive swelling, loss of strength and
deformations. These deformations could be in form of corrugations, wavy, shoving, grooves,
rutting different types of cracks, small or large deep crack arrangements.
Source: (Research gate 2015)
 References
Al-Tabbaa, A. and Evans, W.C. (2005). Stabilization-Solidification Treatment and
Remediation: Part I: Binders and Technologies-Basic Principal. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Stabilization/Solidification Treatment and Remediation (pp.
367-385). Cambridge, UK:

Balkerma. Beeghly, J. (2003). Recent Experiences with Lime- Fly Stabilization of Pavement
Subgrade Soils, Bas, and Recycled Asphalt. International Ash Utilization Symposium (p.
Paper No. 46). Kentucky: University of Kentucky.

Cortellazzo, G. and Cola, S. (1999). Geotechnical Characteristics of Two Italian Peats

Stabilized with Binders. Proceeding of Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization (pp. 93-
100). Stockholm: Balkerma.

EuroSoilStab. (2002). Development of Design and Construction Methods to Stabilize Soft

Organic Soils: Design Guide for soft soil stabilization. CT97-0351, European Commission,
Industrial and Materials Technologies Programme (Rite-EuRam III) Bryssel.

FM5-410,(2012). Soil Stabilization for Road and Airfield. www.itc.nl/~rossiter/Docs/FM5-

410.

Hebib, S. and Farrell, E.R. (1999). Some Experiences of Stabilizing Irish Organic Soils.
Proceeding of Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization (pp. 81-84). Stockholm:
Balkema.

Hicks, R. (2002). Alaska Soil Stabilization Design Guide.

Holm, G., Andréasson, B., Bengtsson, P., Bodare, A. and Eriksson, H. (2002). Mitigation of
Track and Ground Vibrations by High Speed Trains at Ledsgård, Sweden. Linköping:
Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre.

Hayward Baker Inc. (2012). Mass Stabilization Ground Improvement.

www.haywardbaker.com.
Keller Inc., (2011). Improvement of Weak Soils by the Deep Soil Mixing Method. Keller
Bronchure, 32-01E: http://keller-foundations.co.uk/technique/deep-dry-soil-mixing.

MacLaren, D.C and White, M.A. (2003). Cement: Its Chemistry and Properties. Journal of
Chemical Education, Vol.8(No.6), 623.

Akiije, I. (2014) “Strength and Permeability Characteristics of Selected Laterite Stabilized

Using Powermax Cement”, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,
Volume 5, Issue 12

Mustapha, A. M., Jibrin, R., Etsuworo, N. M. and Alhassan, M. (2014) “Stabilization of A-6
Lateritic Soil using Cold Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement”, International Journal of Engineering
and Technology, Volume 4, No. 1, pp 52-57
Achampong, F., Anum, R. A., Boadu, F. N., Djangmah, B. and Chegbele, L. P. (2013)
“Chemical Stabilization of Laterite Soils for Road construction, Case Study: The Laterite
Soils at Legon”, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue
11, pp 2019-2041

Osinubi, K. J. and Eberemu, A. O. (2006) “Effect of Bagasse Ash on the Strength of

Stabilized Lateritic Soil,” Proceedings of 5th Nigerian Material Congress, Abuja, 15-18, 214-
220.

Salahudeen, A. B. and Akiije, I. (2014) “Stabilization of Highway Expansive Soils with High
Loss on Ignition Content Kiln Dust”. Nigerian Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH), Vol. 33.
No. 2, pp. 141-148

Meshida, E. A. Alayaki, F. M. and Akanbi, E. O. (2011) “A Comparative Study of Portland

Cement, Hydrated Lime and Lateralite as Stabilizing Agents of Quaternary Coastal Plain
Sands North of Lagos Metropolis and as Road Construction Material”. Proceedings of the
Environmental Management Conference, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta,
Nigeria, pp 327-313

Garber, N. J. and Hoel L, A (2010): ‘Traffic and Highway Engineering’, 4th edition, Cengage
learning Stamford, USA
AASHTO T 88 (2013): Standard Method of Test for Particle Size Analysis of Soils,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AASHTO T 89 (2013): Standard Method of Test for Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AASHTO T 90 (2008): Standard Method of Test for Determining the Plastic Limit and
Plasticity Index of Soils, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials

AASHTO T 208 (2010): Standard Method of Test for Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Cohesive Soil, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AASHTO T 99 (2010): Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils,

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AASHTO T 193 (2007): Standard Method of Test for the California Bearing Ratio, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ASTM D7664 (2010): Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of
Unsaturated Soils,