Advertisement

Influence of Admixtures on the CBR Value of Soil: A Review

  • Pritesh PatelEmail author
  • Arvind Kumar
  • Vaibhav Sharma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 31)

Abstract

Soil is one of the most important engineering materials. So to work with soils, there is a need to have proper knowledge about their properties and factors which affect their behavior. The geotechnical properties of a soil such as its plasticity, grain size distribution, compressibility, and shear strength can be evaluated by proper laboratory testing. Soils containing large quantity of clay and silt are the most burdensome to the engineer. These material exhibit marked changes in physical properties with a change in water contents. A hard, dry clay, for example, may be suitable as a foundation for heavy load so long as it remains dry but may become unstable when gets wet, whereas many of the fine soils shrink on drying and expand on wetting which may adversely affect structures founded/constructed upon them. The present review study encourages the utilization of fines as a good engineering material. In this regard, it is necessary to replace the soil with fine admixtures in a fixed proportion, to get an optimum percentage of fine admixture which gives the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and maximum California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value. This review study shows the results obtained from experimental results by various researchers on the effects of different types of fine admixtures on MDD and CBR values of soil. This review study concentrates on the performance of soil by replacing it with some percentage of fines. From the review, it has been observed that the optimum percentage replacement of fines in soil is around 30%.

Keywords

MDD CBR Fines Admixture 

References

  1. Baghini MS et al. (2016) Performance evaluation of road base stabilized with styrene–butadiene copolymer latex and Portland cement. Int J Pavement Res Technol 9:321–336Google Scholar
  2. Baghini MS et al (2015) Evaluation of cement-treated mixtures with slow setting bitumen emulsion as base course material for road pavements. Constr Build Mater 94(2015):323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basha EA et al (2005) Stabilization of residual soil with rice husk ash and cement. Constr Build Mater 19(2005):448–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Canakci H, Celik F, Bizne MOA, Bizne MOA (2016) Stabilization of clay with using waste beverage can. Procedia Eng 161:595–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen L, Lin DF (2009) Stabilization treatment of soft subgrade soil by sewage sludge ash and cement. J Hazard Mater 162:321–327Google Scholar
  6. Dahale PP et al (2017) Engineering behavior of remolded expansive soil with lime and flyash. Mater Today Proc 4:10581–10585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalal SP et al (2017) Effect on engineering properties of black cotton soil treated with agricultural and industrial waste. Mater Today Proc 4:9640–9644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dilip Kumar T (2014) A study of correlation between California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value with other properties of soil. IJETAE 4(1):559–562Google Scholar
  9. Etim RK et al (2017) Stabilization of black cotton soil with lime and iron ore tailings admixture. Transp Geotech 10(2017):85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lakshmi SM et al (2016) Evaluation of soaked and unsoaked CBR values of soil based on the compaction characteristics. Malaysian J Civil Eng 28(2):172–182MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Mosa AM et al. (2017) Improvement of poor subgrade soils using cement kiln dust. Case Stud Constr Mater 7:138–143Google Scholar
  12. Mousavi SE, Karamvand A (2017) Assessment of strength development in stabilized soil with CBR PLUS and silica sand. J Traffic Transp Eng 4(4):412–421Google Scholar
  13. Ojuri O et al (2017) Geotechnical and environmental evaluation of lime–cement stabilized soil–mine tailing mixtures for highway construction. Transp Geotech 10:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ramasubbarao GV, Siva Sankar G (2013) Predicting soaked CBR value of fine grained soils using index and compaction characteristics. Jordan J Civil Eng 7(3):354–360Google Scholar
  15. Sahu V et al (2017) Stabilization of fly ash and lime sludge composites: assessment of its performance as base course material. Arch Civil Mech Eng 17:475–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shalabi FI et al. (2016) Effect of by-product steel slag on the engineering properties of clay soils. J King Saud Univ Eng Sci (2016)Google Scholar
  17. Yadav AK et al (2017) Stabilization of alluvial soil for subgrade using rice husk ash, sugarcane bagasse ash and cow dung ash for rural roads. Int J Pavement Res Technol 10(2017):254–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, National Institute of Technology JalandharJalandharIndia

Personalised recommendations