Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 107–120 | Cite as

Effect of Sodium Chloride and Fibre-Reinforcement on the Durability of Sand–Coal Fly Ash–Lime Mixes Subjected to Freeze–Thaw Cycles

  • Nilo Cesar ConsoliEmail author
  • Vinícius B. Godoy
  • Caroline M. C. Rosenbach
  • Anderson Peccin da Silva
Original Paper


The use of industrial residues such as coal fly ash in earthworks is of great interest for geotechnical engineers, since it reduces the consumption of natural resources. In that sense, the use of sand–coal fly ash-hydrated lime has been vastly reported in the last years. The potential for increasing mechanical properties of such blends seems promising. Therefore, the addition of small quantities of NaCl and polypropylene fibres to sand–coal fly ash-hydrated lime mixtures is assessed in the present research in terms of unconfined compressive strength and durability to freeze–thaw exposure. Unconfined compressive tests showed that addition of NaCl seems more effective in enhancing strength of sand–fly ash–lime blends in comparison to fibre inclusions. On the other hand, the inclusion of fibres to the same blends provided a greater gain in durability respect to those specimens with NaCl. Both fibres and NaCl added separately, though, provided increase in strength and durability respect to mixtures without any fibres or NaCl. The improvement in engineering properties of sand–coal fly ash–lime blends provided by NaCl was found to be related to the formation of the phase thomsonite [NaCa2Al5Si4O20(6H2O)] and to the NaCl action as a catalyser. The enhancement caused by fibre inclusions, in turn, can be attributed to the fact that fibres inhibit water from expanding under low temperatures, therefore preventing cementitious bonds breakage.


Freeze–thaw durability Coal fly ash Lime NaCl Polypropylene fibres Strength Porosity/lime index 

List of Symbols


Accumulated loss of mass


Coal fly ash


Differential thermal analysis


Mean particle diameter


Fly ash


Specific gravity of fly ash


Specific gravity of lime


Specific gravity of soil


Percentage of lime


Volumetric lime content (expressed in relation to the total specimen volume)


Loss of mass




Nonplastic silt with sand


Number of cycles


Sodium chloride


Number of freeze/thaw cycles


Percentage of polypropylene fibre


Unconfined compressive strength


Coefficient of determination


Percentage of sand


United States of America


Volume of solids


X-Ray Diffractometry


Fluorescence spectrometry




Porosity/lime index


Dry unit weight


Unit weight of solids


Moisture content



The authors wish to express their appreciation to Edital 12/2014 FAPERGS/CNPq—PRONEX (termo de outorga 16/2551-0000469-2) and CNPq (INCT-REAGEO and Produtividade em Pesquisa) for funding the research group.


  1. ABNT (2004) Solid waste—classification. NBR, 1004. Brazilian Standarts, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese) Google Scholar
  2. Ahmad F, Bateni F, Azmi M (2010) Performance evaluation of silty sand reinforced with fibres. Geotext Geomembr 28(1):93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Coal Ash Association (2013) Coal combustion product (CCP) production and use survey report. Farmington Hills: ACAA, Disponível em: Accessed January 2017
  4. ASTM (2006) Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM D2487, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM (2009) Standard test methods for laboratory determination of density (unit weight) of soil specimens. ASTM D 7263, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM (2010) Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM C 39/C 39M, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. ASTM (2015) Standard test methods for wetting and drying compacted soil-cement mixtures. ASTM D 559/D 559M, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  8. ASTM (2016) Standard test methods for freezing and thawing compacted soil-cement mixtures. ASTM D 560/D 560M, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  9. ASTM (2017) Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete. ASTM C618-17A, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  10. Athanasopoulou A, Kollaros G (2016) Improvement of soil engineering characteristics using lime and fly ash. Eur Sci J 132–141 Special Edition Google Scholar
  11. Balasubramaniam AS, Bergado DT, Buensuceso BR, Yang WC (1989) Strength and deformation characteristics of lime-treated soft clays. Geotech Eng 20(1):49–65Google Scholar
  12. Beeghly JH (2003) Recent experiences with lime–fly ash stabilization of pavement subgrade soils, base, and recycled asphalt. International ash utilization symposium, paper #46. Lexington, KY, USA: Center for Applied Energy Research, University of KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhange AN, Maske NA, Salodkar P (2014) Utilization of fly ash, lime and synthetic bag fiber for soil stabilization. Res J Eng Technol 5(4):195–203Google Scholar
  14. Consoli NC, Rosa AD, Saldanha RB (2011) Variables governing strength of compacted soil-fly ash–lime mixtures. J Mater Civ Eng 23(4):432–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Consoli NC, Rocha CG, Saldanha RB (2014) Coal fly ash–carbide lime bricks: an environment friendly building product. Constr Build Mater 69:301–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Consoli NC, Nierwinski HP, Peccin da Silva AP, Sosnoski J (2017a) Durability and strength of fiber-reinforced compacted gold tailings-cement blends. Geotext Geomembr 45:98–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Consoli NC, Pasche E, Specht LP, Tanski M (2017b) Key parameters controlling dynamic modulus of crushed reclaimed asphalt paving–powdered rock–Portland cement blends. Road Mater Pavement Des. Google Scholar
  18. Diambra A, Ibraim E (2014) Modelling of fibre-cohesive soil mixtures. Acta Geotech 9(6):1029–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diambra A, Ibraim E, Russel AR, Mir Wood D (2013) Fibre reinforced sands: from experiments to modelling and beyond. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 37:2427–2455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Drake JA, Halliburton TA (1972) Accelerated curing of salt-treated and lime-treated cohesive soils. Highway Res Rec 381:10–19Google Scholar
  21. European Coal Combustion Products Association (2010) Production. Essen, Germany. Access in 28 may 2015
  22. Festugato L, Menger E, Benezra F, Kipper EA, Consoli NC (2017) Fibre-reinforced cemented soils compressive and tensile strength assessment as a function of filament length. Geotext Geomembr 45:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ibraim E, Fourmont S (2006) Behaviour of sand reinforced with fibres. In: Ling HI, Callisto L, Leshchinsky D, Koseki J (eds) Soil stress–strain behavior: measurement, modelling and analysis, vol 146. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. INPE (2017) Brazilian Institute of Spatial Research. Brasília, Brazil. Accessed 25 Aug 2017
  25. Kavak A, Akyarli A (2007) A field application for lime stabilization. Environ Geol 51(6):987–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim B, Prezzi M, Salgado R (2005) Geotechnical properties of fly and bottom ash mixtures for use in highway embankments. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(7):914–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kumar A, Walia BS, Bajaj A (2007) Influence of fly ash, lime, and polyester fibers on compaction and strength properties of expansive soil. J Mater Civ Eng 19(3):242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michalowski RL, Cérmak J (2002) Strength anisotropy of fiber-reinforced sand. Comput Geotech 29:279–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Michalowski RL, Zhao A (1996) Failure of fiber-reinforced granular soils. J Geotech Eng 122(3):226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell JK (1981) Soil improvement—state-of-the-art report. In: Proceedings of 10th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, pp 509–565Google Scholar
  31. Nagrale PP, Patil AP, Bhaisare S (2016) Strength characteristics of subgrade stabilized with lime, fly ash and fibre. Int J Eng Res 5(1):74–79Google Scholar
  32. Prakbar J, Sridhar RS (2002) Effect of random inclusion of sisal fibre on strength behaviour of soil. Constr Build Mater 16(2):123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rohde GM, Zwonok O, Chies F, Silva NIW (2006) Coal ash fossil in Brazil–technical and environmental aspects. CIENTEC, Porto AlegreGoogle Scholar
  34. Rojas MF, Cabrera J (2002) The effect of temperature on the hydration rate and stability of the hydration phases of metakaolin-lime-water systems. Cem Concr Res 32:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saldanha RB, Consoli NC (2016) Accelerated mix design of lime stabilized materials. J Mater Civ Eng 28(3):06015012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saldanha RB, Mallmann JEC, Consoli NC (2016) Salts accelerating strength increase of coal fly ash-carbide lime compacted blends. Géotech Lett 6:23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schumann W (2008) Minerals of the world. Sterling Publishing Company Inc., New York, p 232Google Scholar
  38. Sharma RS, Phanikumar BR, Varaprasada Rao B (2008) Engineering behavior of a remolded expansive clay blended with lime, calcium chloride and rice-husk ash. J Mater Civ Eng 20(8):509–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh SP, Pani A (2014) Evaluation of lime stabilized fly ash as a highway material. Int J Environ Res Dev 4(4):281–286Google Scholar
  40. Sivapullaiah P, Prashanth J, Sridharan A (1995) Optimization of lime content for fly ash. J Test Eval 23(3):222–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomé A (1999) Behavior of spread footings bearing on lime stabilized coal fly ash layers. PhD thesis, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  42. Transportation Research Board (1987) Lime stabilization—reactions, properties, design, and construction. State of the art report number 5, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nilo Cesar Consoli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vinícius B. Godoy
    • 1
  • Caroline M. C. Rosenbach
    • 2
  • Anderson Peccin da Silva
    • 3
  1. 1.PPGECUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  3. 3.Queen’s School of EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations