Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PRODUCTION NOTE
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Library
Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007.
ABSTRACT
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Study Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Study Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Lime-Soil Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Cation Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Flocculation and Agglomeration . . . . . 2
E. Lime Carbonation . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
F. Pozzolanic Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . 3
G. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
III. MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Limes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
IV. LIME TREATMENT OF SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . .8
A. Plasticity Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
B. Strength Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
V. DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. Compressive Strength . . . . . . . . . . 11
VI. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. Plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B. Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 17
VIII. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FIGURES
3. Influence of pH on Lime-Reactivity
4. Properties of Limes
conditions where 2.5 per cent of CaCO 3 (by The relation between solubility and pH as
weight) formed due to the carbonation reaction. presented by Krauskopf is shown in Figure 1.
Although carbonation does produce weak Eades (13) hypothesized that,
cementing agents, it is an undesirable re- "The high pH causes silica to be
dissolved out of the structure of
action and steps should be taken to minimize
the clay minerals and it combines
carbonation during construction operations with the Ca++ to form calcium
silicates. This reaction will
and also following construction.
continue as long as Ca(OH) 2 exists
in the soil, and there is avail-
able silica."
F. POZZOLANIC REACTION
The pozzolanic reaction referenced in In later work, Diamond, et al. (19) postu-
lime-soil stabilization literature is a re- lated that the reaction processes in the
action between soil silica and/or alumina and highly alkaline lime-soil system involved a
lime to form various types of cementing agents. dissolution at the edges of the silicate
particles followed by the precipitation of the degree to which the lime-soil pozzolanic
the reaction products. reaction proceeded in terms of lime-reactivity
The products of lime-soil reactions were which was defined as the difference in the
studied by several investigators. The earliest unconfined compressive strengths of the
studies, those of Eades and Grim (11) estab- natural soil and the maximum strength develop-
lished that the reaction products were ed by a 3, 5, or 7 per cent lime-soil mixture
crystalline calcium silicate hydrates. Sub- after a 28-day curing period at 730 F. Some
sequent work by Eades (13) and Eades, et al. soils did not display significant reactivity
(12) substantiated the earlier work.
Glenn and others reacted to produce strength in-
and Handy
(20)
, and more recently, Diamond, creases ranging up to several hundred per
(19)
et al. also indicated that various forms cent. Pertinent findings of Thompson's work
of calcium silicate hydrates were formed as a are summarized below:
consequence of lime-soil reactions. (1) Soil organic matter retarded the
The work of Hilt and Davidson , Glenn pozzolanic reaction if it was present in
(20) (19)
and Handy , and Diamond, et al. large quantities. None of the A horizon soils
established that various calcium aluminate reacted with lime and some of the B horizons,
hydrates are also formed in lime-soil re- particularly Brunizems with organic carbon
actions. This seems quite feasible, as the contents greater than approximately 1 per cent,
severe attack and at least partial decomposi- also did not react. The retardation of the
tion and destruction of the clay minerals and reaction was attributed to a "masking effect"
other soil minerals by the highly alkaline of the organic matter on the clay surfaces
environment would liberate not only silica and/or an organic matter chelation reaction.
but also some alumina for reaction with the Figure 2 shows the relation established for
lime. In addition, alumina, like silica, is lime-reactivity and organic carbon content.
(16) 2
more soluble at high pH levels . Basic (2) Although < p clay contents ranged
reactions in lime-soil mixtures have not been from 7 to 65 per cent, it did not significant-
well established, and Diamond and Kinter (8) ly influence lime-reactivity. However, some
have prepared an interpretive review of the minimum quantity of clay is required to
somewhat conflicting data that has been re- provide adequate silica and/or alumina sources
ported in the literature. for the pozzolanic reaction.
Many factors influence the lime-soil (3) Clay mineralogy also effected lime-
pozzolanic reaction. Important factors in- reactivity; mixed layer and montmorillonitic
clude natural soil properties, lime type, clays were most reactive.
lime percentage, curing conditions, and (4) Soil chemical properties greatly
density. influenced lime-reactivity. Highly signifi-
cant correlations were obtained between
1. Natural Soil Properties natural soil pH and lime-reactivity. As
In an extensive study of typical Illinois illustrated in Figure 3, higher pH values
soils, Thompson (4) found that the ability of indicated a larger lime-reactivity. Soils
a soil to participate in the lime-soil with pH below approximately 7 had lime-
pozzolanic reaction was determined primarily reactivities less than 100 psi. Cation ex-
by natural soil properties. Thompson measured change capacity, exchangeable bases, per cent
base saturation, and Ca/Mg ratios were not influence of several soil properties may be
significantly correlated with lime-reactivity. operating simultaneously. Because of this
The better reactivities of the higher pH soils possibility, it is difficult to differentiate
were attributed to reduced weathering status or quantitatively evaluate the importance of
of the soil minerals. any one of the properties.
(5) Natural soil drainage was a good
established, but they probably encompass such With some mixtures, increasing the compactive
factors as chemical, physical, and mineralogi- effort from standard to modified AASHO eleva-
(25)
cal properties. The literature indicated ted the strength more than 100 psi
that optimum lime contents will vary depending
on soil type, lime type, curing period, curing
G. SUMMARY
temperature, and possibly other factors.
The literature indicated that four basic
reactions (cation exchange, flocculation and
4. Curing Conditions
agglomeration, lime carbonation, pozzo.lanic
Herrin and Mitchell indicated in
reactions) effected substantial changes in the
their literature survey that increased curing
engineering properties of lime-soil mixtures.
time and elevated temperatures produced sub-
Cation exchange, flocculation, and agglomera-
stantial strength increases in lime-soil
tion are primarily responsible for the
mixtures. Reports of other investigators
alterations of plasticity, shrinkage, and
published subsequent to their work further workability characteristics. Although lime
(26)
substantiates this fact. Thompson has
carbonation may contribute slightly to
presented data, see Figure 4, showing the
strength increases of the lime-soil mixtures,
influence of time and temperature on the
the pozzolanic reaction mechanism is regarded
strength of a typical Illinois soil.
as the prime contributor.
Lime-soil pozzolanic reactions are in-
5. Density
fluenced by many factors and a given lime-
Density of the compacted material also
soil mixture can display wide strength
influences the cured strength of a lime-soil
variation depending upon prevailing conditions.
mixture. As stated by Herrin and Mitchell ,
There are soils that do not display sub-
"The strength of a lime-soil mixture
stantial lime-reactivity regardless of lime
is increased materially when the
mixture is compacted to a higher type, curing period, compaction effort, etc.
III. MATERIALS
Hydrated calcitic lime (lime A) was the Shrinkage limit tests were conducted on
primary lime used in the investigation. The all soils treated with 3 and 5 per cent lime
monohydrated dolomitic (lime B) and the by- A. One per cent treatment levels of lime A
product calcitic (lime C) were used in the were used with soils that were noncohesive at
phase of the investigation concerning lime- the 3 per cent level, and in some cases 7 per
type effect. All of the soils were treated cent treatment levels were used to examine
with lime A, but only selected soils with the influence of higher treatment levels.
limes B and C. Treatment levels were based Three, 5 and in some instances 7 per cent
on per cent of dry soil weight. additions of limes B and C were used with
selected soils to evaluate the effect of lime
A. PLASTICITY TESTS type on the shrinkage limits of lime-soil
The liquid, plastic, and shrinkage mixtures. The test results are summarized
limits were determined according to AASHO in Table 6.
designations T89-60, T90-56, and T92-42,
respectively. The lime-soil mixtures were B. STRENGTH TESTS
prepared by thoroughly mixing the lime and Unconfined compressive strength was used
soil in the dry state and then adding water as a measure of the pozzolanic reaction that
under continuous mixing. The plasticity occurs to varying degrees with different
tests were conducted after the mixture had lime-soil mixtures. The compressive strength
been allowed to stand in a covered container of a lime-soil mixture is commonly used as an
for approximately one hour. indication of its quality, and Thompson(29,
30) has shown that many significant
All of the soils were treated with 3 engineer-
per cent lime A and the Atterberg limits of ing properties of lime-soil mixtures readily
the mixture determined. Treatment levels of correlate with unconfined compressive strength.
5 and 7 per cent lime were used only if the The specimens were compacted at their
lime-soil mixture at the lower treatment optimum moisture contents as determined by
level(s) were not nonplastic. Lime percen- moisture-density tests. The moisture-density
tages did not exceed 7 per cent in any case. relations of the natural soils were deter-
Selected representative soils were then sub- mined according to AASHO designation T99-57,
jected to similar treatment levels with limes Method A. The moisture-density relations for
B and C. Test results are presented in the lime treated soils were determined in a
Table 5 and results for the natural soils are manner similar to those described in AASHO
included for comparison. T99-57 except that 4-inch molds 2 inches in
diameter were used and the compactive effort specimens for 28 and 56 days. Moisture
was 20 blows of a 4-pound hammer having a content at the end of the curing period was
12-inch drop. This compactive effort produced approximately the same as compaction moisture
maximum dry densities and optimum moisture content.
contents similar to those obtained from AASHO At the end of the curing period the
T99-57, Method A. specimens were tested in unconfined com-
Specimens of the natural soils and lime- pression using a Riehle hydraulic testing
modified soils were prepared using 4-inch machine with a constant rate of deformation
molds 2 inches in diameter. Natural soils of .05 inches per minute. The maximum load
were thoroughly mixed with the required amount was recorded and moisture samples were taken
of water and then molded. The lime and soil from the specimens after testing. The
were thoroughly mixed in the dry state, and average of the eight specimens was recorded
mixing continued while the proper amount of as the unconfined compressive strength.
water was added. The lime-soil mixture was Three factors in addition to soil type
then covered and allowed to stand for approxi- were varied in the strength studies. The
mately one hour before specimens were factors considered were lime type, lime
compacted. percentage, and curing period.
Specimens were molded in three equal All of the soils were treated with 3, 5
layers with each layer receiving a compactive and 7 per cent lime A and cured for 28 days.
effort of 20 blow of a 4-pound hammer dropping Test results for the 28-day curing were
12 inches. Each layer was scarified to pro- evaluated and those lime contents that
vide bond between the adjacent layers. After appeared to produce the maximum strength were
proper trimming, the specimens were extruded. determined. Additional series of specimens
Specimens were made in series, each series were molded at those lime contents and cured
consisting of eight specimens molded from the for 56 days. Since the A horizon soils did
same mixture. Previous experience with lime- not display a significant reaction during the
soil mixtures at the University of Illinois 28-day curing period, additional specimens
indicated that a series of eight specimens were not prepared for 56-day curing.
provided an average with confidence limits of Selected soils, those that displayed a
+ 7 per cent (95 per cent probability level). substantial level of lime-reactivity with
The series of specimens were placed in lime A, were treated with 3, 5 and 7 per cent
one-gallon cans and the lids sealed with limes B and C and were cured for 28 and 56
Permatex to prevent the loss of moisture from days.
the specimens. The specimens were cured in a A complete summary of compressive
constant temperature room at 73°F. Natural strength test results for the natural and
soil specimens were cured for 7 days to allow lime-treated soils is presented in Tables 7
for thixotropic effects, and the lime-soil and 8. * * *
V. DATA ANALYSIS
The unconfined compressive strengths of ment combinations and the results of the
the natural soils included in the investiga- factorial analysis are presented in Table 13.
tion varied from 22 to 105 psi. Lime-soil Lime type, lime percentage, and curing period
mixture strengths varied widely, depending on were significant factors (cr = .05). Inter-
the soil, lime type, lime percentage, and action between lime type and lime percentage
curing period. The strength of a lime-soil was also significant, indicating that all
mixture is not a constant value, but varies lime types did not show the same response to
As indicated in the literature survey, Duncan's Multiple Range test was used to
not all soils react with lime to produce determine which averages were significantly
the most important factor influencing lime- (1) significant differences between the
soil reactions and if a soil is nonreactive, average strengths of all three lime types.
If lime-soil mixtures are to be effec- and 5 per cent, but no significant differences
tively utilized as a pavement material, it is between 5 and 7 per cent treatment levels.
tance and effects of such factors as lime and 56 days curing periods.
type, lime percentage, and curing period. In summary, the analysis indicated that
2. Lime Type, Lime Percentage, and Curing of B, C, A; 5 and 7 per cent treatments pro-
The effects of the above factors on there was no significant strength difference
lime-soil mixture compressive strengths were between 5 and 7 per ce t; and 56 day strengths
factorial design. Three lime types (A, B, C), It is emphasized that the analysis is
three lime percentages (3, 5, 7), and two based on the average response of the seven-
curing periods (28 and 56 days at 730F) were teen soils and data for any one particular
utilized. Seventeen lime-reactive soils, soil may deviate from the average.
design was chosen not only to explore the It has been noted by many investigators
influence of the major factors (lime type, that the lime percentage-strength curves for
lime percentage, and curing period) but also a given soil and curing conditions (time,
to evaluate the interaction between factors, temperature) peak out at some optimum lime
i.e., do all lime types show the same content, i.e., increased lime percentages do
response to change in lime content, etc. Only not necessarily produce increased strength.
lime-reactive soils were included in the Although Jambors work (32) has indicated that
analysis since strength is not a major excessive lime may increase the porosity and
reduce the strength of lime-pozzolan reaction the average values are approximately the same
products, little is currently known about the for the high calcium limes (A and C), but
factors influencing optimum lime content. the dolomitic lime average, lime B, is
Optimum lime content is primarily a slightly higher.
question relevant to those soils that display For a given lime type and curing period
good reactions with lime. Only with these it was possible to group the soils according
soils is an attempt normally made to develop to their optimum lime percentage. Using
maximum strength response. analysis of variance techniques, statistical
Two factors are of major concern with comparisons were made to determine if there
regard to the optimum lime content question. were significant differences (a = .05) in the
First, is optimum lime content different for natural soil properties for those soils with
various lime types, and secondly, does optimum different optimum lime contents. Of the soil
lime content change if the curing period (for properties considered (< 2 micron clay
a given temperature) is increased? content, liquid limit, plasticity-index,
Twenty-one lime-reactive soils were in- group index, organic carbon, pH, cation ex-
cluded in the optimum lime content study. All change capacity, exchangeable cations, total
soils were treated with 3, 5, and 7 per cent exchangeable bases, Ca/Mg ratio, base satura-
lime, three lime types (A, B, C), and 28 and tion, and clay mineralogy) the only consistent
56 day curing periods at 73 0 F were utilized. trend appeared to be correlated with natural
For each soil, the optimum lime percen- soil pH and per cent base saturation. High
tage was determined for each combination of pH and base saturation soils displayed lower
lime type and curing period."t" test (a = .05) optimum lime contents.
comparisons of the 3, 5, and 7 per cent
strengths indicated the optimum lime percen- 4. Strength Increases with Curing
tage above which further lime content in- When a lime-reactive soil is treated,
creases did not produce statistically differ- increased curing generally produces a stronger
ent strengths. Test results are summarized mixture. However, the magnitudes of the
in Table 14. strength increases obtained are quite variable.
In the analysis of the optimum lime Some soils show a large strength gain, 100
content data, it was difficult to employ psi or so, while others do not respond to any
statistical procedures since the incremental extent when subjected to extended curing.
increases of 2 per cent (3 to 5 to 7) did Data from this investigation were ana-
not permit a precise determination of the lyzed to determine the influence of lime type
true optimum lime content. and percentage on the 28 to 56 day strength
For most of the soils, the optimum lime increase and a correlation analysis was made
content remained the same or increased when to determine what soil properties effect the
the curing period was changed from 28 to 56 magnitude of this strength increase.
days. The average values, see Table 14, show Table 15 summarizes strength increase
a slight increase in optimum lime content for data for seventeen lime-reactive soils
limes A and C when the curing is lengthened, treated with various percentages of different
but the 28 day and 56 day averages are the lime types. Randomized complete block
same for lime B. For a given curing period, factorial analysis of the data is presented
in Table 16. The analysis indicates that The only soil properties significantly
l ime percentage, but not l ime type is a correlated (a = .05) were lime-reactivity
significant factor influencing strength and organic carbon content.
increase. Duncan's multiple range tests show Lime-reactivity, as defined by Thompson
that the average strength increase for 5 and (4)
, is a measure of the ability of a soil to
7 per cent treatments are significantly react with lime to achieve a strength in-
larger than for 3 per cent. crease after a 28-day curing period at 73°F.
The strength increases for the 5 and 7 Thus, if a soil provides a good initial re-
per cent treatments of limes A, B, and C were action, substantial strength increases can be
therefore, averaged for each soil to provide expected to develop during the 28- to 56-day
an average response to increased curing. curing interval. Increased organic carbon
Simple correlation coefficients between the contents tend to retard the lime-soil re-
average response and the properties of the action and, therefore, strength gain with
natural soils were determined, see Table 17. increased curing is not pronounced. *
VI. DISCUSSION
procedures, increased lime content does not Although lime type was a significant
always increase mixture strength. As indica- factor influencing strength, it is difficult
ted by the experimental data, a given soil has to assess the importance of the strength
an optimum lime content for the development differences observed. In conditions where
ot maximum strength when cured under fixed the lime-soil mixture is used as a structural
conditions of time and temperature. For the material, the differences may be of concern,
representative Illinois soils utilized, the but in those stabilization situations where
optimum lime contents (for the conditions the main objectives are plasticity reduction,
studied) were normally between 3 and 7 per drying action, and workability improvement,
cent. The optimum values did not appear to strength considerations may be secondary. It
be related to natural soil properties such as is emphasized that the influence of lime type
plasticity or clay content, but were influ- detected in this study might be different for
enced by soil pH and per cent base saturation. different soil types, parent materials, etc.
High pH and per cent base saturation, charac- Consequently, the results of this study cannot
teristic of relatively unweathered soils, be applied indiscriminately.
generally indicated a lower optimum lime The proper selection of a lime type is
percentage. However, this trend was not not a simple task, but should include an
evident for all combinations of lime types evaluation of economics and over-all stabili-
and curing periods. With the more weathered zation objectives. It is stressed that
soils (low pH, low per cent base saturation) improvements in soil plasticity and work-
a larger quantity of lime would be required ability properties are always obtained when
in the base exchange reaction initiated by fine-grained soils are treated with lime, but
the lime addition and, therefore, it may be marked strength increases are not always
hypothesized that additional lime (higher attained. It is important to note that these
optimum lime percentage) would be required to improvements are secured with all high quality
promote the lime-soil pozzolanic reaction. limes; lime type only slightly affects the
The fact that the more readily reactive soil stabilization benefits.
silica and/or alumina has been weathered from
the low pH soils may also be significant. 4. Strength Increases with Curing
Because of the interaction among these The concept of continuing strength in-
factors (optimum lime content - curing crease with time is important in the
temperature - curing time) the concept of an evaluation of a lime-soil mixture. Strength
I"optimum lime content'' is somewhat nebulous. increases help off-set repeated load effects
Since curing conditions influence lime- (fatigue) and also may be salient with
soil mixture strength as well as "optimum lime respect to "healing effects" that may occur
content," it is obvious that careful con- in a mixture after cyclic wetting and drying
sideration of the project's stabilization or freeze-thaw action.
For the soils in this investigation, tinuing strength gain for 3 per cent lime
higher lime contents, 5 and 7 per cent, treatment even after 75 days curing at 120°F.
favored strength increases with curing but The data did not reflect any leveling off
lime type did not prove to be a significant trend which would indicate that the reaction
factor. Soils that reacted well during was subsiding and the maximum compressive
initial curing (28 days at 73°F) normally strength at 75 days curing was 1,033 psi.
continued to gain strength as curing was Although Illinois does not have long time
extended. Eades (13) has emphasized that the strength records on field lime projects,
strength producing pozzolanic reaction should Dawson and McDowell (33) have reported in-
continue as long as lime and available silica stances where Texas lime projects continue to
are present in the lime-soil system. Thompson gain in strength after ten years in service.
(26) has presented data, see
Figure 4, for Other cases of field strength gain have been
the Ottawa AASHO Road Test subgrade soil (a recorded by many investigators, so similar
calcareous, Wisconsinan Till, see Table 3, gains under field conditions would be expect-
soil reference number 32) that shows a con- ed for representative Illinois soils. *
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Lime-soil mixture properties (plasticity fluenr, of lime type. The limes rankea
and strength) are influenced by many condi- B, C, A, in descending order.
tions: soil type, lime type, lime percentage, (b) Lime percentage produced
curing period, etc. significant effects. Treatments of
(1) For all of the fine-grained soils 5 and 7 per cent were superior to 3
studied, workability increased and plasticity per cent.
properties were substantially reduced by lime (c) Curing time (days at 73oF) was
treatment. Lime type did not greatly in- a significant factor. Fifty-six-day
fluence the results, but lime A (high calcium strengths were larger than 28-day
hydrated) was somewhat more effective. In- strengths.
creased lime percentages generally caused (d) Optimum line content (per cent
further reductions in plasticity index and lime for maximum strength) was influenced
small shrinkage limit increases. The experi- by curing period, lime type, and soil
mental results definitely show that all fine- properties. Longer curing, 28 to 56
grained soils can be successfully treated days at 73°F, increased optimum lime
with lime to achieve plasticity reductions, content. Optimum lime contents for lime
irrespective of the chemical and mineralogi- B, a dolomitic lime, were higher than
cal properties of the soil. for the calcitic limes, A and C. Soils
(2) Many factors influence the magni- with low pH and low per cent base
tude of the strength increases obtained with saturation appeared to require higher
lime treatment of soils. Soil type as re- optimum lime contents, but the trend
lated to chemical, mineralogical, and physi- was not evident for all lime types and
cal properties is the most important factor. curing periods.
If a soil is reactive, the lime-soil reaction (e) Strength increase with curing
(as evidenced by a strength increase) is (from 28 to 56 days at 73°F) .as in-
readily achieved with normal quantities (3 - fluenced by lime percentage but not
7 per cent) of any high quality lime. Only if lime type. Strength increases obtained
it is desirable to maximize strength do such with 5 and 7 per cent treatments were
factors as lime type, lime percentage, etc., significantly greater than those ob-
become highly significant. Based on this tained with 3 per cent treatment. Lime
study, the following factors are important type did not influence the magnitude of
in lime-soil reaction strength development: the strength increases achieved.
(a) There was a significant in- (f) If a soil displayed a good
initial reaction with lime (28-day factors as discussed throughout this report.
strength) subsequent strength increases The complexity of the reactions should not,
generally were attained with extended however, limit the practical field applica-
curing. Organic carbon in the soil tions of lime stabilization. Plasticity,
tended to retard strength development shrinkage, and workability properties of any
with time. fine-grained soil are substantially improved
by lime treatment and lime-soil mixtures of
PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY RESULTS high strength can readily be attained when
It is apparent that lime-soil reactions reactive soils are stabilized with quality
are complex and are influenced by many lime. * * *
VIII. REFERENCES
I. McAllister, R. W., "Report to the 9. Davidson, D. T., and Handy, R. L., "Lime
Mississippi Lime Company on Lime Stabil- and Lime-Pozzolan Stabilization," High-
ized Highway Construction," Arthur D. way Engineering Handbook. New York: The
Little, Inc., 1957. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960, pp. 21-98.
2. Thompson, M. R., and Hollon, G. W. A 10. Goldberg, I., and Klein, A., "Some Effects
Lime Stabilized Test Road in Randolph of Treating Expansive Clays with Calcium
County, Illinois. (Civil Engineering Hydroxide," Special Technical Publica-
Studies, Highway Engineering Series No. 10, tion No. 142, Symposium on Exchange
Illinois Cooperative Highway Research Phenomena in Soils. Philadelphia: ASTM,
Program Series No. 10). Urbana, Ill.: 1952.
Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Illinois, 1962. 11. Eades, J. L., and Grim, R. E. Reactions
of Hydrated Lime with Pure Clay Minerals
3. Thompson, M. R. The Significance of Soil in Soil Stabilization. (Highway Research
Properties in Lime-Soil Stabilization. Board Bulletin No. 262). Washington,
(Civil Engineering Studies, Highway D. C.: National Academy of Sciences/
Engineering Series No. 13, Illinois National Research Council, 1962.
Cooperative Highway Research Program
Series No. 23). Urbana, Ill.: Depart- 12. Eades, J. L., Nichols, F. P., Jr., and
ment of Civil Engineering, University of Grim, R. E. Formation of New Minerals
Illinois, 1964. with Lime Stabilization as Proven by
Field Experiments in Virginia. (Highway
4. Thompson, M. R., "Lime-Reactivity of Research Board Bulletin No. 335).
Illinois Soils," Journal of the Soil Washington, D. C.; National Academy of
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Sciences/National Research Council, 1962.
Vol. 92, No. SM5, September, 1966.
13. Eades, J. L. Reactions of Ca(OH) 2 with
5. Herrin, M., and Mitchell H. Lime-Soil Clay Minerals in Soil Stabilization.
Mixtures. (Highway Research Board Bulle- Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
tin No. 304). Washington, D. C.: University of Illinois, 1962.
National Academy of Sciences/National
Research Council, 1961. 14. Krauskopf, Konrad B., "The Geochemistry
of Silica in Sedimentary Environments,"
6. Grim, R. E. Clay Mineralogy. New York: Special Publication No. 7, Society of
The McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1953. Economic Paleontologists and Mineralo-
gists, 1959.
7. Herzog, A., and Mitchell, J. K. Reactions
Accompanying the Stabilization of Clay 15. Rankama, D., and Sahama, G. Geochemistry.
with Cement. (Highway Research Record Chicago: The University of Chicago
No. 36). Washington, D. C.: National Press, 1949.
Academy of Sciences/National Research
Council, 1963.
16. Keller, W. D. The Principles of Chemical
Weathering. Columbia, Mo.: Lucas
8. Diamond, S., and Kinter, E. F. Mecha-
Brothers Publishers, 1957.
nisms of Soil-Lime Stabilization, An
Interpretive Review. (Highway Research
Record No. 92). Washington, D. C.: 17. Correns, C. W., "The Experimental Chemical
National Academy of Sciences/National Weathering of Silicates," Clay Minerals
Research Council, 1965. Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 26 (1961).
18. ler, R. K. The Colloid Chemistry of Properties on Lime-Soil Reactions,"
Silica and Silicates. Ithaca, N. Y.: Public Works, Vol. 96, No. 8 (August,
Cornell University Press, 1955. 1965), pp. 120-123.
19. Diamond, S., White, J. L., and Dolch, 27. Frye, J. C., Willman, H. B., and Glass,
W. L., "Transformation of Clay Minerals H. D. Gumbotil, Accretion-Gley, and
by Calcium Hydroxide Attack," Proceed- the Weathering Profile. (Illinois
ings, 12th National Conference on Clays State Geological Survey, Circular 295).
and Clay Minerals. New York: Pergamon 1960.
Press, 1964.
28. Thompson, M. R. Lime-Reactivity of
20. Glenn, G. R., and Handy, R. L. Lime- Illinois Soils as it Relates to
Clay Mineral Reaction Products. (High- Compressive Strength. (Civil Engineer-
way Research Record No. 29). Washington, ing Studies, Illinois Cooperative High-
D. C.: National Academy of Sciences/ way Research Program, Series No. NP-4).
National Research Council, 1963. Urbana, Illinois. Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Illinois,
21. Hilt, G. H., and Davidson, D. T. Isola- 1964.
tion and Investigation of a Lime-
Montmorillonite Crystalline Reaction 29. Split-Tensile Strength of
Product. (Highway Research Board Lime-Stabilized Soils. (Highway Re-
Bulletin No. 304). Washington, D. C.: search Record No. 92). Washington,
National Academy of Sciences/National D. C.: National Academy of Sciences/
Research Council, 1961. National Research Council, 1965.
22. Laguros, J. G., et al., "Evaluation of 30. Shear Strength and Elastic
Lime for Stabilization of Loess," Properties of Lime-Soil Mixtures. (High-
Proceedings of ASTM, Vol. 56, 1956. way Research Record No. 139). Washing-
ton, D. C.: National Academy of
23. Lu, L. W., et al., "The Calcium-Magnesium Sciences/National Research Council,
Ratio in Soil-Lime Stabilization," 1966.
Proceedings, Highway Research Board,
Vol. 36. Washington, D. C.; National 31. Mateos, M., "Soil Lime Research at lowa
Academy of Sciences/National Research State University,'' Journal of the Soil
Council, 1957. Mechanics and Foundation Division,
Proceedings of ASCE, Vol. 90, No. SM2
24. Wang, J. W., et al. Comparison of (1964), pp. 127-153.
Various Commercial Limes for Soil
Stabilization. (Highway Research Board 32. Jambor, I. J., "Relation Between Phase
Bulletin No. 335). Washington, D. C.; Composition, Over-all Porosity and
National Academy of Sciences/National Strength of Hardened Lime-Pozzolana
Research Council, 1962. Pastes,"'' Magazine of Concrete Research,
Vol. 15, No. 45 (November, 1963).
25. Remus, M. D., and Davidson, D. T.
Relation of Strength to Compaction and 33. Dawson, R. F., and McDowell, C. A Study
Density of Lime-Treated Soils. (High- of an Old Lime-Stabilized Gravel Base.
way Research Board Bulletin No. 304). (Highway Research Board Bulletin No.
Washington, D. C.: National Academy of 304). Washington, D. C.; National
Sciences/National Research Council, 1961. Academy of Sciences/National Research
Council, 1961.
26. Thompson, M. R., "Influence of Soil * * *
*0
I
pH
200
S0
E
0
FIGUR
I0 2
0 1 2 3 4
200 0
0 T
0
0 0
400
0 2 4 8 10 I
Curing Period, months
Soil Series Parent Material Horizons Great Soil Group Sample Site Location
Calcareous Peorian
Loess Loess Schuyler Co.
Leached Peorian
Loess Loess Schuyler Co.
Piasa Loess A, B Solonetz Jersey Co.
Mineralogical Properties
Clay mineral determination (< 2pi) X-ray diffraction
Calcium carbonate equivalent (only for Sulfuric acid-
calcareous soils) gasometric procedure
Chemical Properties
pH Coleman pH meter; 1:1
soil-water mixture
Organic carbon Wet combustion method
Cation exchange capacity Ammonium acetate method
Total exchangeable bases Titration procedure
Exchangeable bases
Ca Titration procedure
Mg Titration procedure
Na Flame photometer procedure
K Flame photometer procedure
r
i 0 0
_______
~e A
0 04
c________
o
%
^ f % »inT0Iom
uol iS 0^ 0 0 o S 0 oa
'0 g 0 ^ ^ i
o
! i! oo fS
w4OTTTT0 C 0 O- 0 O 1 0 0 U00 0
Hzvb
0 OO
0 0 0 a 0 00 0 0 0 0 000000
0o0oo 0 0 0m0 0 0 0 a0 0 00 0 0 0
3-a d
O s mo
(g6 w oT
a d 10 w .At -1c - 0
.4 -
NUN000-C
3 - m -------- a,0--
sutS o b Ho LIS m .0 18 T- 0/
V/)
lkIýc;o, Cr j H H
LLj
.-
*
LLI
cL
C)
Q-
Lu
-1 _j
co
0•
I--c D'•
-r)
-- 'uo .zu_ .e m 8 8 8e3 8 .888
acr0 O O
-00, O 60C 0 NOO 0
_j .40o0aoT4o 0 0 0 00 0 C0 H 0 0 0
-a:X A-4TOTVWW 'CU 'm ' 0nO oO- o o w\ 0 wo o 8 I r
IIT ^ n
I- daW op
0 fl cC .0 m
4 u -I o m
(<a, rI^f n <\
N '- N^»
OX wL N O O4 1CL40
0 S0 .4 ID \~r
UNLAR.~ CO (UNCc4 N .4 U 4
X H CJO CO CO UN HC O N N N
C: 0' 0 o0 1-- 1s .0 o ý-
C- - C - C-. t- O C C'C C-d C-\ C- C- C-' C-C XC'.
<.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4 r 4- .4.41 .l4. 4.4.4
-^/-
*A -c m m m I.4 I m m u -C
4LL ITOSi
0.0.
*=mam ^
flO.C t sD
O.O.4 ,-CHH - ^- - 00 44'o
a
D. h . w.
g 10
.XoqC HN /lCO. Cw
UN'
C0
C-
w
C O.C
0 4
10 .4 t55 t -
(*O 00'
C~Baa
Cro l- 1 4 H54 H H1 iH
00 0 g00 0 0 0
% '.xaagi P-T
SO o0 000 0 a o 0O
t
00 ft 0 1 f 0 t
00
w '"Jra i> 0CY 0cu N enO
" I-
cu nOO
f 0t 00 0" eN 0f0
0 0 0 0 000 000 0 0 1 0 0 0
so a
0 0 w a to aoo D
0 o
0 Iot-0
ooo
a\0000 o
\o
0tO
.z F 9ý 8 09 1
%'»x»p2 o-
ON
wn w.
toý
0 w u~
oG
0 6, wO~s H o
Z* 0Goo t
cu , H 0 CYe~ N
H 0 H N 9 N1
0 H
r-4 90 COtV
1ý i4 C9 CT'
1ý iC. fn
0 I?l n r^
Ci4C 0ý l
H H N Hen N0U o OHN N H
N I Hm
Ho Go ON 0 1 m
a 8 88888
a w 8 8888 8§88gŽ
t- S
*uaoomq
0 oTu.sO
o o 00 0 0 H
- 000 d OH- en 0
C1 0 NI N ~
en. O -0 N ' I
*Bf
OO/«
a'elsjq«t»o ;
o& og % *"~
0 -C -t
-C
*aVaIf US
-c 4 A 9s.l4 -
t 1. t&i'&&s ^s
-O - a ' ^? § 4ý^^
k^^
IaPLamm
N/ D E-O CO f- 'O roi O i
H-iIC\Q
03o
410 0
Ojp i ^I p p1HH^= I S
WI S1 -I M Q ! 0 1 H -I m ^ 04
^Q mm____^
g l
I, 5| £S ., . ^ 3 ? 5
r-t w- w w P
ow P + '- -P^ m
TABLE 4.
PROPERTIES OF LIMES
Lime Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Passing
Des ignat ion Type Ca(OH)2 MgO Mg(OH) 2 No. 325 Sieve
High-calcium hydrated 96
Monohydrated dolomitic 58.8 33.3
By-product high-
calcium hydrated
(0 - - rNID (
I I - II I I I I I
i iC N I C I (D I 0
aO
0 . I I I I IN o Cn 1
i C I 0 ! CO i 0 z(0 I ) I I I I I f^- I
- a, cNo N U- CN
-
I-
I I
I
' -
I If - I I I I I I
10 I U 1 UI Z " I - II I I Z f I I l
- 0
a L r
N -c co
in
U') m 4c
C- m-
co o, -
'X. I I I ; I I
I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I Il i
a rm (D
-1 1- 00 C
CMl t lCI
..I
I C I I O- I I 0.. I .. 0.9 1 1 .1 1 - ,'.
I I I
"tJ O U) m
H H - -- -I 1 1 - HI l
C
OIl C
'1 lU I -- Z Z. CO I 1 I I I I I
-oo
N
I I LO I I I I I I l I I I I I I I
N
0C
--- I - - I I I I I I I
Ll)
_1 CO
LU
- - c) N- co) 0 C) co
C.. N Q- - - - Q-CL Q- C QL a. a.
r4 C)Z -ZNZ -CM It zz- ZZZ0 ozzzz
-J Z *
-i N^ - (0 N^ -
L 00 00 W. r-. Lo. (0 8. 04 C; 0; L. 0,4
ID (.1
Z** CD- 0 C CM CM * (* * '0 '0- C C)C) -
LA--L •m~
C Ot
) U N0-4'- - CD - U4 N)
NinO
O n T,c) in co M '1t L)oI- ;t 0 - ^- in M in M N -
U . ...
-) C - C
C >. >1 II
- '
-*<maCOCQ (O) a)
0) 0.0..
0 0<aO NNC
0 -
< o i.-
1
0
m c c c c
E
0
E L
o ) aj
- Q 0 0) .- - Q.
0 4 4J
00 0 (u w w w 0 M W ) E E 0 0 a) 4
< W0) 0
UU c> E E-EE
.- - ) ut- LEE E Z
>, >.. )I > 3 3 3 3 o 3 0 J - - >D>- >U 0 0 U) U 10
SL.-- 0
OOOOOOO --- D U U 00 O
m-
JSaqwn
N - - *- - - NNMC -
O!OS
o c" rC> Oo
C LCU) O)
S I I Il I I I I I I i I
-- I r ) Ill
I I I I I I I
-i
(N
00 ) T co
- - I I I I I I I I I
S . -- I I I I I I I I I
co z c Z 0 Z I I I I I I I I
-i cI
oI r.. --
0)
) 0") O-) C- Ni I Z I
-i oC )r U) (N
oO)
) 0 0)
,t m0 " "4-+
I I i I I iI I i i i i
r-
f O 0 ) I I I Z I I I I
- 0I L I CL
L) S I Z Z I Z I I Z I I I I I I I
-1 0 LO
N N Z 0" 0 I Z Z II-
m Cii - i Iio Ci i
S I- i ( 1iiY) 1 r i i i I - i i
-i cJ ýo 00 co co
C( c t cn m0 C)
0- -i0 C N 0
--- I
CL 1 I
1I 0- 0-0-
I I i i I 0 I -I-t----t-4
I I I i
(N
I I I I I I I I , I I i
CL. CL4-- CL- -- 0- .. O -- I
Z Z I Z t Z I 1 I 1 0 I I I I I I
-I
(N
0)(c C
0 0)> w^ ^
- COo)' 'O U) *-
0- M
- C- L CL CL CL a-- (L 0a- CL - CL a-
Lncoif -CD^zz Zco2 2! co z ^
)o 0)j
to ccj
- ( 0
- 0 - * 0
- I ) C - UO
CCE C c -c Ic-
0 O a fD C
c C -0) < 0
n *- _-_ *- 0 -- 0 - - < uo ac_ <:CO CQ
UOOD EO 0 E M o M <C
() c c c r c a- - - *- 3*- *- ro n} (L)
> >. i- - - cn-- c) E E E E E rD UU 0IC- 1 D
)D U- k4- C- C O CD -D D CD '- 0 ID 0- a -0 E
S U -
u - - o -
D- Co *- *- ID
Q'-o C)
S< - UJ - U -U)
-) -JLI.) 0 L) CO -J a- CL
Lo
1 - Non-cohesive
TABLE 7.
Natural Per Cent Lime A Per Cent Lime B Per Cent Lime C
Soil Reference Number Soil1
SoiNatural 3i
3 _55 7
7 33 _55 7
7 33 5
5 7
7
1 Bryce A 57 43 58 53 ---
2 Bryce B 81 201 212 193 142 162 153 127 143 131
3 Cisne B 93 107 190 189 94 197 281 107 153 164
4 Clay Till,
Livingston Co. 78 167 139 205 232 160
5 Cowden A 48 42 45 ---
6 Cowden B 142 112 73 153 93
7 Cowden C 51 198 122 121 166 132
8 Cowden B,
Montgomery Co. 76 81 119 110 88 139 193 83 135 145
9 Cowden C,
Montgomery Co. 157 240 299 208
10 Drummer A 32 ---
11 Drummer B 146 187 330 240
12 Elliott A 33 ---
13 Elliott B 110 ---
14 Fayette A 49 ---
15 Fayette B 113 ---
16 Fayette C 125 190 169 122
17 Accretion-Gley 1 285 294 499 441
18 Accretion-Gley 2 283 ---
19 Hosmer A 41 ---
20 Hosmer B2 95 ---
21 Hosmer B2 116 ---
22 Huey B 233 265 273 242
23 Huey D 197 224 275 192
24 Accretion-Gley 3 306 426 554 464
25 Illinoian Till,
Effingham Co. 43 126 126 136 261 219 283 179 254 181
26 Illinoian B,
Sangamon Co. 52 255 282 254 234 402 389 319 336 313
27 Illinoian Till,
Sangamon Co. 51 150 186 143 287 268 320 244 238 252
28 Loam Till,
Champaign Co. 174 ---
29 Miami A 45
30 Miami B 102
31 Miami C 0 116 ---
32 Ottawa A-6(l) 137 243 267 216
33 Calcareous
Peorian Loess 22 98 94 96 84 112 123 51 79 71
34 Leached
Peorian Loess 53 49 141 27
35 Piasa A 35 ---
36 Piasa B 119 ---
37 Sable B 185 238 208 305
38 Tama A 40 ---
39 Tama B 85 ---
1 - Wisconsinan calcareous silt loam till; used as embankment soil at the Ottawa AASHO
Road Test.
TABLE 8.
1 - Wisconsinan calcareous silt loam till; used as embankment soil at the Ottawa AASHO
Road Test.
TABLE 9.
u
aC
c
U-
-3
a)
CL C)
- (U
Critical F
>-
£3
A, , C Degrees Significance
E
0 of level,
-I
freedom Q = .05
A 3 4.7
B 3 6.9
C 3 6.3
TABLE 10.
Average lime
per cent 3.9 4.3 4.3
Number of mixes
still plastic 1 4 10
()
U
C:
Critical F
I-
Degrees Significance
0 U
of level,
Lu freedom a = .05
3 A 30.6
B 31.4
C 31.7
5 A 34.0
B 33.0
C 33.0
TABLE 12.
Q)
a) U
E C-:
_J
Critical F
<1)
41
L - Degrees Significance
1_
of level
freedom a = .05
3,
3, 5
5 155 18.4 8.4* 1, 31 4.16
3, 5 25.8 3.9 6.6* 1, 21 4.32
3, 5 17.2 2.7 6.4* 1, 21 4.32
F value is significant @ a = .(
3 A- 32.8
B 31.4
C 31.7
5 A 35.9
B 33.0
3-3.0
TABLE 13.
Source of Degrees
Variation of Freedom Variance Calculated F
Total 305
Soil type (replicates) 16 212,055 70. 1-
Lime type 2 137,979 45.6*
Lime percentage 2 44,695 14. 5-
Curing period 1 467,690 154.6*-
Interactions:
Lime type-lime percentage 4 16,180 5.35*
Lime type-curing period 2 1,827 0.6
Lime percentage-curing period 2 6,519 2.16
Lime type-lime percentage-
curing period 4 1,364 0.45
* Significant F, a = .05
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
16
17
22
23
24
25
26
27
31
32
33
34
37
Average
- C' N N U) a N U) N '
0)
C
U)O I - N N 0m - 0 * m I- OC 0 OD
m'
- - MN - c) c) U) a, N a, O
C) U ) -
CL
ca
U
00)
- Q-
E QU
N N N O m0 a,
w ' Co N
0 0a, On O
N N N 0 ) - N N
fL
c
1
) N O N N - m 0 ) 0 N N N I
L.
C,
0 4 10 L
to
) N )
L
ICI
or
0 a N - N
0-
-j)
C:
<u
0)
CC
0 0 - - w O - co N ')o o)
m N O 0 4 0(
- CM
M - U 4 - UN IC 4f N (C
C
C:
1)
aU
-J- o) 0 N Co
m C') C o -a N N
- Cm -
Cm a, O - - C) a, - C 4= NM N C)
u*)
a)
0 EO Qýa')
a (U
a-
in *- U
1U a)
C) a, C) - C') IC C') a, IC - N U) N - ~ C) N
- ~ N N N a, ~ 0) (IC) N N a, 0) C') ~(t
Q) - - - N ca 0
a)
C:
1)
CQ.
a- QU -aD
C fD
a) c __
a)
U '4- : 0 1
a)
a1) a0 r U) IC - C) C U) U) U) C) - C' C' N S L)
a) L co) '* LO C'
N
cli (C
^ -
- U)
mO- rN U) -0)ri ^IC -m
o ^C U)
n -- N
C
E a
Total 152
Soil type (replicates) 16 21,089 10.3*
Lime type 2 4,099 2.01
Lime percentage 2 10,168 4.98*
Interaction (Lime type-Lime
per cent) 4 2,443 1.20
Error 128 2,042
* Significant F, a = .05
75
55
60
TABLE 17.
Lime-reactivity .72*
pH .16
Mg -.16
Na .22
K -.33
Ca/Mg -. 11