Thesis (M. Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 2001.

Soil stabilization is a common technique to increase the strength and durability and also to reduce the swell-shrink behavior of foundation soil or subgrade soil in pavement. Nowadays, several nontraditional stabilizers (e.g., Polymer, Enzyme, Ionic stabilizer etc.) are available in market whose behavior is not fully understood for wide range of soil types. In the present study two types of soils i.e., Carbondale soil ‘clay with high plasticity (CH)’ and Galatia soil ‘silt with low plasticity (ML)’ has been used. A commercially available liquid polymer “Soiltac” was selected as a stabilizer and mixed with both the soils at various percentages i.e., 0.0%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 3.0% by dry weight of soil to study the effect of polymer on geotechnical properties of soil. Particle size distribution, liquid limit, plastic limit, specific gravity and standard Proctor tests were conducted to identify the basic index properties of the soil. Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) tests were conducted after 3 days, 7 days and 28 days of curing period for CH soil. For ML soil, UCS tests were carried out after 7 days and 28 days of curing period. In addition, California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were conducted for CH soil at unsoaked and soaked (soaked for 96 hours) conditions. With the addition of stabilizer, no significant changes in UCS values were obtained for ML soil. For CH soil, UCS values increases upto 1.5% stabilizer dose and then decreases with 3.0% of stabilizer. Also, for CH soil, UCS value increases with the increase in curing period. For CH soil, the unsoaked CBR value increases upto 1.5% stabilizer dose and then decreases with 3.0% of stabilizer but no significant improvement in soaked CBR values were found.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Many pavement subgrades in Virginia consist of wet, highly plastic clay or other troublesome soils. Such soils can be treated with traditional lime and cement stabilization methods. Alternatives, including lignosulfonates and polymers, are available, but their performance record is mixed and solid engineering data is lacking, which prevents reliable design. The goal of this research was to screen a suite of traditional and non-traditional stabilizers against three Virginia soils that have caused problems during construction or resulted in poor performance in service. The selected stabilizers were: quicklime, hydrated lime, pelletized lime, cement, lignosulfonate, synthetic polymer, magnesium chloride, and a proprietary cementitious stabilizer. A laboratory procedure was developed and applied to three Virginia soils obtained from Northern Virginia, Staunton, and Lynchburg. Key findings from the research include that (1) traditional lime and cement stabilizers were far more effective than liquid stabilizers (lignosulfonate, synthetic polymer, and magnesium chloride) in increasing strength, (2) the liquid stabilizers were ineffective on soils with high moisture content, (3) the proprietary cementitious stabilizer was more effective in increasing strength than lime for all cases tested, but not was not as effective as the cement stabilizer, (4) quicklime and hydrated lime increased workability of the soils although they did not produce strengths comparable to cement, (5) the strength of soils stabilized with cement and the proprietary cementitious stabilizer can be estimated based on the water-amendment ratio of the mixture, and (6) the strength of soils stabilized with lime can be estimated based on a combination of plasticity index and water-amendment ratio of the mixture. / Master of Science

No description available.

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1958 T43

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1959 E93