Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Testing and Modeling the Short-Term Behavior of Lime and Fly Ash Treated Sulfate Contaminated CL Soil

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the effects of calcium sulfate contaminated soil treatment methods on the index properties, compacted soil properties, free swelling and compressive stress strain relationship of a CL soil obtained from the field was investigated. Calcium sulfate concentration in the soil was varied up to 4 % (40,000 ppm) and the soil samples were cured for seven days at 25 °C and 100 % humidity before testing. With 4 % sulfate contamination the liquid limit and plasticity index of the soil increased by 44 and 81 % respectively. The free swelling increased from 7 to 18 % and the compressive strength decreased by 65 % with 4 % of calcium sulfate, Also the study investigated the effects of fly ash (class C) and hydrated lime treatment on the behavior of treated sulfate soils. X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used to characterize the soil and the reaction products of lime and fly ash treated soils. Based on XRD analyses, major constituents of the CL soil were calcium silicate (CaSiO3), aluminum silicate (Al2SiO5), magnesium silicate (MgSiO3) and quartz (SiO2). Addition of calcium sulfate resulted in the formation of calcium silicate sulfate [Ternesite Ca5(SiO4)2SO4] and aluminum silicate sulfate [Al5(SiO4)2SO4]. Treatment with lime resulted in the formation of ettringite [Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12·26H2O]. Treating with fly ash resulted in the formation of calcium silicate hydrate (CaSiO3H2O) and magnesium silicate hydrate (Mg3SiO3H2O), cementing by products. Contaminated soil treatment with lime and fly ash reduced the index properties and free swelling and increased the short-term compressive strength of the soil. Behavior of the compacted sulfate soils, with and without treatment, has been quantified using a unique model that was used to represent both linear and nonlinear responses. Also the model predications were compared with other published data in the literature. Compressive stress–strain relationships of the sulfate soil, with and without lime and fly ash, have been quantified using a nonlinear constitutive model. The constitutive model parameters were sensitive to the calcium sulfate content and the type of treatment. Compared to the fly ash treatment, the lime treatment reduced the strain at peak stress making the lime treated soil more brittle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arabani M, Veis M (2007) Geomechanical properties of lime stabilized clayey sands. Arab J Sci Eng 32(1B):11–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Aravind P, Chittoori S, Puppala AJ (2011) Influence of mineralogy and plasticity index on the stabilization effectiveness of expansive clays. Transp Res Rec 91–99

  • Ata A, Vipulanandan C (1998) Cohesive and adhesive properties of silicate grout on grouted—sand behavior. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(1):38–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acosta HA, Edil TB, Benson, CH (2003) Soil stabilization and drying using fly ash. Geo Engineering Report No. 03-03, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison

  • Bell G (1996) Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils. Eng Geol 42:223–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkart B, Goss CG, Kern PJ (1999) The role of gypsum in production of sulfate-induced deformation of lime-stabilized soils. Environ Eng Geosci 5(2):173–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cokca E (2001) Use of class C fly ashes for the stabilization of an expansive soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(7):568–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demircan E, Harendra S, Vipulanandan C (2011) Artificial neural network and nonlinear models for gelling time and maximum curing temperature rise in polymer grouts. J Mater Civil Eng 23(4):372–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duchesne J, Reardon EJ (1999) Lime treatment of fly ash: characterization of leachate composition and solid/water reactions. Waste Manag 19(3):221–231

  • Edil T, Bin-Shafique M, Tanyu B, Kim W-H, Senol A (2002) Field evaluation of construction alternatives for roadway over soft subgrade. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp 36–48

  • Harris P, Tom S, Stephen S (2004) Hydrated lime stabilization of sulfate-bearing soils in Texas. Texas Department of Transportation, FHWA/TX-04/0-4240-2, pp 1–36

  • Hunter D (1988) Lime-induced heave in sulfate-bearing clay soils. J Geotech Eng 114(2):150–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins R, Snyder RL (1996) Introduction to X-ray powder diffractometry. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karim R, Zain M, Jamil M, Lai C, Islam N (2011) Strength development of mortar and concrete containing fly ash: a review. Int J Phys Sci 6(17):4137–4153

    Google Scholar 

  • Kota P, Hazlett D, Perri L (1996) Sulfate-bearing soils: problems with calcium based stabilizers. Transportation Research Record 1546, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp 62–69

  • Kumar A, Walia B, Bajaj A (2007) Influence of fly ash, lime, and polyester fibers on compaction and strength properties of expansive soil. J Mater Civil Eng ASCE 19(3):242–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little D, Syam N, Herbert B (2010) Addressing sulfate-induced heave in lime treated soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 110–118

  • McCallister LD, Tidwell L (1997) Double lime treatment to minimize sulfate-lime induced heave in expansive clays. US Army Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg

  • McCarthy M, Csetenyi L, Sachdev A, Jones M (2009) Role of fly ash in the mitigation of swelling in lime stabilized sulfate—bearing soils. World of coal ash (WOCA) conference, pp 1–18

  • Mebarkia S, Vipulanandan C (1992) Compressive behavior of glass-fiber-reinforced polymer concrete. J Mater Civil Eng 4(1):91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell JK (1986) Practical problems from surprising soil behavior. J Geotech Eng ASCE 112:259–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell K, Dermatas D (1992) Clay soil heave caused by lime-sulfate reactions. Innovations in uses for lime. ASTM STP 1135, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, PA, pp 41–64

  • Mohammed A, Vipulanandan C (2014) Compressive and tensile behavior of polymer treated sulfate contaminated CL soil. J Geotech Geol Eng 32(1):71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nalbantoglu Z (2004) Effectiveness of class C fly ash as an expansive soil stabilizer. Construct Build Mater 18:377–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrin L (1992) Expansion of lime-treated clays containing sulphates. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on expansive soils, ASCE Expansive Soils Research Council, New York, 1, pp 409–414

  • Petry M, Little D (1992) Update on sulfate-induced heaven treated clays; problematic sulfate levels. Transportation Research Record 1362, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp 51–55

  • Phani BR, Sharma RS (2004) Effect of fly ash on engineering properties of expansive soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(7):764–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puppala AJ, Kadam R, Madhyannapu R, Hoyos LR (2006) Small-strain shear moduli of chemically stabilized sulfate-bearing cohesive soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(3):322–336

  • Puppala AJ, Viyanant C, Kruzic. AP, Perrin L (2002) Evaluation of a modified sulfate determination method for cohesive soils. Geotech Test J 25(1):85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajasekaran G, Essaku S, Mathews PK (1994) Physico-chemical and mineralogical studies on Cochin marine clays. Ocean Eng 21(8):771–780

  • Rajendran D, Lytton R (1997) Reduction of sulfate swell in expansive clay subgrades in the Dallas district. Texas Transportation Institute, Rep. No. TX-98/3929-1, Bryan, TX, pp 1–159

  • Ramesh HN (2009) Effect of sulphate content in soils as a potential geohazard. IGC 2009, Guntur, pp 976–979

  • Rollings R, Burkes J, Rollings M (1999) Sulfate attack on cement-stabilized sand. Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(5):364–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivapullaiah P, Sridharan A, Ramesh HN (2000) Strength behavior of lime treated soils in the presence of sulphate. Can Geotech J 37:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sridhran A, Sivapullaiah PV, Ramesh HN (1995) Consolidation behavior of lime treated sulphatic soils. In: Proceedings international symposium compression consolidation clayey soils, Hiroshima, Japan, I, pp 183–188

  • Usluogullari O, Vipulanandan C (2011) Stress–strain behavior and California bearing ratio of artificially cemented sand. Test Eval ASTM 39(4):637–645

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT) with funding from various industries and Underground Construction Technology Association (UCTA). Sponsors are not responsible for any of the findings.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Innovative Grouting Material and Technology (CIGMAT), Texas Hurricane Center for Innovative Technology (THC-IT), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77204-4003, USA

    Ahmed Mohammed & Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan

Authors
  1. Ahmed Mohammed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohammed, A., Vipulanandan, C. Testing and Modeling the Short-Term Behavior of Lime and Fly Ash Treated Sulfate Contaminated CL Soil. Geotech Geol Eng 33, 1099–1114 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-015-9890-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-015-9890-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation