Performance Observation of chemically stabilized soil for base and sub-base

course in Maintenance of Flexible pavements

Manoj Kumar Shukla, V.K. Kanaujia, Pritam Bhowmik, Dr. Satish Chandra

ABSTRACT
An experimental study was carried out in which in-situ soil has been utilized as a full replacement of
aggregates for both base and sub base course. The scope of the study consisted of design treatment level of
chemical stabilizer (CS) for stabilizing the natural soil collected from project site, pavement design and
analysis of stabilized base and sub-base course in composite pavement.The chemical stabilizer used was a
Lime based stabilizer. A wide range of laboratory tests were carried out on the chemical stabilizer (CS) soil mix
at various stabilizer proportions of 2%, 4% and 6% to determine the engineering properties such as Maximum
dry density (MDD), Optimum moisture content (OMC), California bearing tests (CBR), Unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) and Durability. With the increase in proportion of CS in CS-Soil mix, MDD
decreases marginally with increase in OMC. CBR value has also increased with the increasing dosage and UCS
valueincreased by 3.2 times. The stabilized soil has also satisfied durability criteria with loss in between 7-10%
of CS-soil mix after alternate wetting and drying cycles. As per test results and codal provisions design treatment
dosage have been decided for base and sub-base course. Pavement design analysis were also carried out and
perceived that, stabilization of base and sub-base course has reduced the crust thickness to almost 27% compared
to conventional pavement.

Keywords:Chemical stabilizer (CS), California bearing ratio (CBR), Unconfined compressive

strength (UCS), Maximum Dry Density (MDD), Optimum Moisture Content (OMC), Stabilized Base,
Stabilized Sub-base.

1. INTRODUCTION
Driving sustainable growth is India’s base for advancement in its infrastructure. In India, most of the road
network is constructed in a conventional way with a little emphasis on sustainability. Conventional method of
road construction requires huge amount of bitumen, good aggregates, good soil etc. Generally to meet these
requirements riverbeds and hills are being destroyed for quarry [1]. Moreover, in hilly areas due to the
challenging terrain, as well as in remote areas, availability of aggregates and transportation of aggregates is a
major factor for hindrance to construction and aggravation of project cost. The locally available soil being
weak in its engineering properties cannot be used for road construction directly [2], to use the locally available
material beneficially, nowadays these kind of soils are stabilized with the help of cementitious stabilizers such
as lime, cement and chemical stabilizers. Stabilizing locally available soil reduces the cost of construction by
reducing the construction time through reducing the thickness of the pavement layers as compared to
conventional, cost of transportation and earth moving [3], [4]. Chemical stabilizers are mixed with the soil
either in powder form or in liquid form to improve its strength, stiffness by reducing the inter particle voids
and binding the soil particles together in a rigid mass. Chemical stabilizers basically improves the volume
stability of the soil mass.Tejinder Singh et al. [4] investigated the effects of chemical stabilizer on clayey soil
with high plasticity. It was observed that plasticity index (PI) of the soil decreased with increase in dosage of
CS, which depicts that volume change with the mix of CS is less. 4 days soaked CBR value has increased
from 2% (existing soil) to 28% with only 2% dosage of CS after 7 days of moist curing and at 8% dosage of
CS, CBR value increased to 135 %, which significantly depicts the increase in strength with the addition of
CS in CS-soil mix.Lekha B.M et al. [5] studied the improvement in the properties of black cotton soil on
addition of cementitious stabilizer. The author in her study identified that MDD decreases but only marginally
with the subsequent proportions of CS. UCS strength has also increased with the addition of stabilizer. The
increase in curing period has a primary effect on UCS value of the CS-soil mix, with the increase in curing
period i.e. 2 days to 28 days curing, UCS value increased by approximately 3 folds. The fatigue life at 1/3rd
UCS values, at 7 days and 28 days increased with the increase in stabilizer proportion, 6% stabilizer content
showed the best results. K R Anitha et al. [6] evaluated the effect of stabilizer on lateritic soil, red soil and
kaolinite soil. Use of chemical stabilizer showed significant improvement in engineering properties including
soaked and un-soaked CBR value. The optimum dosage of all the three soils was evaluated as 4%, 2% and 6%
respectively. B.M. Lekha et al. [7] observed the indirect tensile strength (IDT) behavior stabilizer-soil mix,
with the increase in stabilizer dosage IDT has also increased. In economy and strength point of view, 6%
dosage was considered as optimum. The author has also carried out the pavement design using KENPAVE
software package by varying axle configuration. Compressive and tensile strains at the bottom of the layers
were analyzed using KENPAVE and subsequent fatigue and rutting life was estimated. It was inferred that
with the inclusion of stabilizer, the thickness of the crust reduced by almost 12% as compared to
conventional.Selvi [8], in his study, improved CBR of the subgrade soils with lime and has carried out the
analysis using KENPAVE software for different traffic conditions. Use of these commercial chemical
stabilizers are environment friendly, reduces carbon footprint and the road can be opened after 24 hoursof
final compaction and makes the surface dust free [1]. In all the above studies, it can be inferred that chemical
stabilizer is applicable to entire spectrum of soil classification.In this research study, an attempt has been made
to improve the engineering properties, strength and durability of in-situ plastic clay by using CS. Pavement
design and analysis was also incorporated with the help of IITPAVE software to identify the percentage
reduction in thickness with respect to conventional.
2. NEED OF THE RESEARCH
India’s road infrastructure is in its peak state of development nowadays; therefore to cater the needs of
construction, huge amount of raw materials, primarily aggregates are required. To meet these demands hills
are being destroyed. So in terms of sustainability, CS can stabilize soil of wide range and there is no need to
replace the in-situ soil, which will reduce the quantity of aggregate required, thereby reduces the expenses for
construction to a notable extent. Perhaps, in hilly areas, transportation of raw materials is also a major issue,
so considering this; use of locally stabilized soil proves to be a good sustainable solution.

3. MATERIALS
3.1 Soil
Soil used in this study was collected from one of the National Highways project site in the state of Arunachal
Pradesh; India. Visually, this soil looks to be coarse gained with large amount of soft rocks. A photo of the soil
sample is shown in the Fig.2 (a). Oven dried soil samples were used to carry out all the tests to determine the
engineering properties of the in-situ soil like Grain size analysis (IS 2720-Part 4), Atterberg limits (IS 2720-
Part 5), Compaction (IS 2720-Part 8). For strength parameters CBR (IS 2720-Part 16) and UCS (IS 4332-Part
5) tests were performed. Wet sieve analysis was carried out to determine the percentage of Gravel, sand silt
and clay in the soil (Fig.1). The following Table 1 gives the summary of the properties.
Table 1 Properties of Soil used in the present study
Grain Size Analysis Atterberg Limits Compaction Soaked Unconfined Soil
Characteristics CBR Compressive Classification
Gravel Sand Silt Clay LL PL PI MDD OMC Value Strength
(%) (MPa)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (kN/m3) (%)

35 19 26 20 35 21 14 18.8 10.5 6 0.77 SC-CL

3.2 Chemical Stabilizer (CS)
A commercial chemical stabilizer was used to enhance the strength of the soil is a powder additive consisting
of fibers to improve the tensile properties. Due to the ion exchange between the additive and soil, it binds the
soil mass into a rigid form by reducing the inter particle voids [4]. Basically this is a hydration-activated
powder, which when comes in contact with soil in presence of water, due to the ionic exchange, forms hydrates
which binds the soil particles together in a crystalline matrix [7]. The properties of chemical stabilizer are
given in following Table 2 and Table 3.

Fig. 1. Grain Size distribution curve of soil sample

Table 2 Physical Properties of Chemical stabilizer

Property Description
Odour Odorless
Specific Gravity 2.5
Fiber 0.1%
Shelf Life 1 year (Dry Storage)
Bulk Density 700 kg/m3
Color Greyish Appearance

Table 3 Chemical Properties of stabilizer [2]

4. Sample Mix preparation
The chemical stabilizer was added to the soil by total weight of the mix in proportion of 2%, 4% and 6%. The
mix is firstly prepared through dry mixing of soil and stabilizer and then water is added at OMC and mixed
manually till uniformity is achieved. The mix is then casted as per various test requirements to determine the
design dosage as per strength, performance and economy.

a) Chemical Stabilizer b) Soil

Fig.2. Materials used for the study

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF TESTS PERFORMED ON STABILIZED

SOIL
5.1 Modified proctor Compaction Test
Modified Proctor compaction tests were performedas per standard procedure given by Bureau of Indian
Standards [10] on soil samples mix with chemical stabilizer and on virgin soil for comparison. The test results
of Modified Proctor test for stabilised soil are shown in Table 3. There is only a marginal variation in
Maximum Dry density (MDD) and Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) values with increase in stabiliser
content. The reason might be strong bond due to the attraction, MDD increase, though marginally and because
of the fineness of the stabilizer it possesslight increase in the water content [2].
Table 4. Modified Compaction test
results Compaction Soaked CBR
Description Characteristics Value
MDD OMC (%)
(kN/m3) (%)
Soil +2% stabilizer 18.76 11.8 22
Soil +4% stabilizer 18.94 12.0 35
Soil +6% stabilizer 19.20 12.5 63

5.2 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

To determine the gain in strength of stabilized soil in terms of CBR value, three specimens were prepared by
compacting the sample at MDD and corresponding OMC. After preparation, CBR specimens were cured under
moist conditions in wet sand for 7 days. After 7 days of moist curing, specimens were soaked for 4 days (i.e.
96 Hours) in potable water for saturation to simulate the conditions during rainy season. CBR specimens were
then taken out of tank, water was drained out from CBR specimens and penetration test was carried out at the
strain rate of 1.25 mm/min to determine CBR value. The average value of CBR is given in Table 4. The results
indicate that strength has improved notably with the increase in dosage of stabilizer that is the bearing capacity
has increased even in the worst condition.
5.3 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Test
To assess the gain in shear strength characteristics of soil, three cubical specimen of size 150 mm at each
dosage content of 2%, 4% and 6% were prepared with chemical at MDD and corresponding OMC (Fig.3).The
test specimens were cured under moist conditions in desiccators for 7 days and 28 days.After moist curing for
specified number of days, specimens were subjected to UCS tests (Fig. 4).The results of the same are
presented in Table 5. The failure pattern of UCS specimen is shown in Fig. 5. The results shows that with the
increase in curing period strength increases. Since this is a lime based stabilizer, 28 days strength is more
significant because in lime based stabilizers strength gain is a slow process [11]. At 6% dosage the stabilized
soil possess maximum 28 days strength of 2.56 MPa.
5.4 Durability
The dimensions and specimen preparation procedure for durability test, is similar to specimens prepared for
UCS tests. Durability test was carried out as per procedure outlined in IRC SP 89 [11, 12]. This code specifies
two methods and tests were carried out as per both the methods.
Method 1. It is applicable for moderate temperature and climatic conditions and as per IRC SP 89 (Part 2),
this method can be adopted for CS stabilised sub-base layer. Following procedure given for method 1, one set
of three specimens were cured for 7 days in humid atmosphere (by keeping samples in desiccators) and then,
these samples were immersed in water (Fig.6) for next seven days. Other set of three specimens were cured for
14 days in humid atmosphere by keeping

Fig.3. Cube specimen

Fig.4. Testing of Cube

 Fig.5. Failure Pattern of UCS samples
Table 5. UCS test results

Unconfined Compressive Strength UCS (MPa)

Mix Description
7 days Curing 28 days Curing
Soil +2% stabilizer 1.00 1.10
Soil +4% stabilizer 1.52 1.72
Soil +6% stabilizer 2.10 2.56

them in desiccators throughout. The compressive strength of both sets of specimens was determined after 14
days. The strength of the set immersed in water as a percentage of the strength of the set cured in the
desiccators were evaluated thereafter and results are presented in Table 6.
Method 2. This is applicable to areas having large variation in temperature and climatic conditions and as per
IRC: SP:89 (Part II) this method can be adopted for CS stabilised base course. Method 2 tests were carried out
as per IS 4332 (Part 4) "Wetting and Drying tests" [9] and it is similar to ASTM D-559. This test broadly
determines the weight loss due to brushing, after repeated wetting and drying of hardened stabilised soil
specimens. In this test specimens are subjected to 12 cycles of wetting and drying, consisting of immersion in
water (Fig. 7) for 5 hours followed by drying in oven maintained at 710C for 42 hours. After each such wetting
and drying cycle, the specimens are brushed in a standardised manner using a wire-scratch brush. The loss in
weight of brushed specimen, after each cycle is determined. After 12 cycles of test, all the specimens are dried
to constant weight at 1100C and weighed to determine the oven dry weight of the specimens. The oven dry
weight at the end of the test is used for determination of cumulative loss of stabilised soil due to brushing after
12 cycles. The percentage loss of stabilised soil samples was then calculated and compared with the
permissible loss as per IRC SP 89 [11, 12]. The results of wetting drying cycle of soil stabilised with CS are
presented in Table 6. It can be inferred from the results that after 12 cycles there is only 7.3 % loss in weight
at 6% dosage of chemical stabilizer, which is due to the strong interparticular bond, that mekes the loss of
material very less and the mix is durable even after 12 cycles of alternate wetting and drying.
Table 6. Durability Test Results of stabilized soil

UCS
Durability
(MPa)
Sample 7 Days UCS of Immersed
Weight loss Maximum
Curing + Sample / UCS of
After 14 after 12 Allowable
7days Moist Cured
days Curing cycles) Weight loss (after
Immersion Sample
(%) 12 cycles) (%)
in Water (%)
For Sub-base
Soil +4% stabilizer 1.65 1.40 85 10 course less than
30%
For Base course
Soil +6% stabilizer 2.43 2.14 88 7.3 less than 20%
 Fig.6. Cubes immersed in water for durability Fig.7. Specimens after 12th Cycle of alternate
wetting and drying.

6. DESIGN OF THE COMPOSITE PAVEMENT

As the base and sub-base course were stabilized using chemical stabilizer, therefore the pavement shall be
designed as a composite pavement. Generally flexible pavement has been modeled as an elastic multilayered
structure and stresses and strains at critical locations (Fig. 8) needs to be computed for safe design. The entire
pavement design analysis has been carried out using IRC 37-2012[14] and IITPAVE software. The elastic
modulus for the treated stabilized base and sub-base course has ben determined as per IRC: 37-2012 and IRC:
SP: 89-2018 (Part II) [14], [11]. Other input parameters considered for the design are shown in Table 7.

Fig.8. Critical location for strains in the pavement

Table 7. Design Input parameters
Design Life 15 Years
MSA 10
Temperature (oC) 35
Poisson's Ratio 0.35
CBR% 6
Tire Pressure (MPa) 0.56
Equivalent Axle Load (Kn) 80
VDF 3.50
Elastic Modulus (Bituminous
1700
Layer) (MPa)
Elastic Modulus Stabilized Base
960
(MPa)
Elastic Modulus Stabilized sub
400
base (MPa)
Because of the rigidity of the base and sub-base due to stabilization through CS, a stress relief layer needs to
be provided in the junction between granular base layers and bituminous layers [14], so that cracks generated
due to stresses in stabilized layer does not get reflected to the top layer. SAMI has been considered as a stress
relief layer in this analysis. The pavement crust composition for 10 MSA and CBR 6% for stabilized base and
stabilized sub-base using SAMI as stress absorbing layer at the interface of bituminous layer and stabilized
base as per plate-6 clause 10.1; IRC 37-2012, is shown in the Table 8.

Table 8. Pavement crust composition for 10 MSA

Pavement Crust Composition
(mm)
CBR MSA Treated Treated Sub
BC Total
Base base
6% 10 40 160 250 450

Pavement structural analysis for actual horizontal strain at the bottom of the bituminous layer, bottom of
stabilized layers and vertical compressive strain on top of sub grade for 10 MSA for stabilized base and
stabilized sub-base with CBR 6% as per IITPAVE is shown in following Table 9.

Table 9. Pavement Structural analysis for 10 MSA

Horizontal tensile strain
Tensile strain in Tensile strain in Vertical Compressive
in bottom bituminous
stabilized base layer stabilized sub base layer strain on sub grade
layer
Actual Allowable Actual Allowable Actual Allowable Actual Allowable
Strains strains Strains strains Strains strains Strains strains
(Micro) (Micro) (Micro) (Micro) (Micro) (Micro) (Micro) (Micro)
41.8 356 143.9 194 194.6 306 441.1 673

As per the above table since all the values of actual strains are less than allowable strains our design pavement
crust composition is safe. Therefore, the following Pavement composition of stabilized base and stabilized
sub-base is safe for 10 MSA. It can also be inferred from the above results that, due to the provision of
stabilized base and stabilized sub-base the strain generating at the bottom of the bitumen layer is very less even
for a thickness of 40 mm of BC.
6.1 Comparison in Thickness
Reduction in the crust thickness due to the adaptation of stabilized base and sub-base layers in pavement
composition is shown in the Table 10.
Table 10. Comparison of thickness between conventional and Composite Crust.

Conventional for 10 MSA Stabilized for 10 MSA

Layers
(mm) (mm)
BC 40 40
DBM 65 -
Base 250 160
Sub base 260 250
Total 615 450

It is evident from Table 10 that, with the stabilization of base and sub-base course using chemical stabilizer
and in situ soil there is almost 27% reduction in the thickness.
7. Performance observation of Trial section
Construction of trial length of 100 m was done on one of National Highway in the State of Arunachal
Pradesh, with this stabiliser on one lane of two lane road towards hill side.
 The Trial location was visited after one year of laying and two test pits were dug open and the
stabilized surface below the upper layer was checked at 2 locations & found dry & stable
 Riding quality of stabilized section found better than conventional section
 There was no distress observed in the trial stretch of 100 m whereas on conventional section the
distress in form of ravelling, settlement and few cracks were visible.

Photo 1 : Showing the comparison of Conventional Section and trial section of stabilised base

Photo 2 : Showing the comparison of Conventional Section and trial section of stabilised base
 Photo 3 View of Test pit on Stabilized Surface towards the edge of pavement

8. CONSLUSIONS
The conclusion that can be inferred from the results are as follows,
 From the CBR values, it is obvious that the in-situ soil treated with chemical stabilizer (CS) shows
great improvement in strength.
 Although with the increase in dosage MDD increases and OMC increases.
 Since the CS used is a lime based stablizer, therefore strength gain is a slow process and strength
progressively incresaes with the increase in curing period due to the continous hydraton reactions. The
strength gain is significant at 28 days which is apparent from the results of UCS.
 Due to strong bond between the soil particles, cubes casted for stabilized base and sub-base has
exhibited good durability characteristics.
 As compared to the conventional pavement, there is 27% reduction in thickness for composite
pavement with stabilized base and sub-base, which eventually proves to be economical.
 The trial section laid is also performing well.

References
1. A. Veeraragavan, ManjuRaina,MithraDewars: “Eco Friendly Road Technology: RBI Grade-81 Natural
Soil Stabilizer & Pavement Material.”
2. AlkaSreedhar, GirishMailar: “A study on Soil Stabilization using Rbi grade 81.” IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 72-79 (2016).
3. B.M. Lekha, S. Goutham, K.V. Aswathi, A.U.R Shankar: “ Effect of RBI-81 on Lateritic soil as a
pavement material.” 50th Indian Geotechnical Conference, Pune, India (2015).
 4. IS 2720-Part 8 “Methods of test for soils: Determination of water content- dry density relation using heavy
compaction”. Published by Bureau of Indian standard, New Delhi, India.
5. IS 4332-Part 3 “Methods of test for stabilized soils: Determination of water content- dry density relation
using heavy compaction of stabilized soils”. Published by Bureau of Indian standard, New Delhi, India.
6. IRC: SP: 89(Part-II) “Guidelines for the design of stabilized pavement". Published by Indian Road
Congress (2018).
7. IRC: SP: 89 “Guidelines for Soil and Granular material stabilization using Cement, Lime and Fly ash ".
Published by Indian Road Congress.
8. IS 4332-Part 5 “Methods of test for stabilized soils: Determination of unconfined Compressive Strength of
stabilised soils”. Published by Bureau of Indian standard, New Delhi, India.
9. IRC: 37. “Guidelines for the design of Flexible Pavements”. Published by Indian Road Congress (2012) .
10. IS 4332-Part 4 “Methods of test for stabilized soils: Wetting and drying, and freezing and thawing tests for
compacted soil cement mixtures”. Published by Bureau of Indian standard, New Delhi, India.
11. IS 2720-Part 4 “Methods of test for soils: Grain size analysis”. Published by Bureau of Indian standard,
New Delhi, India.
12. IS 2720-Part 5 “Methods of test for soils: Determination of Liquid and Plastic Limit”. Published by
Bureau of Indian standard, New Delhi, India.
13. IS 1498 “Classification and identification of soils for general engineering purposes”. Published by Bureau
of Indian standard, New Delhi, India.
14. IS 2720-Part 16 “Methods of test for soils: Laboratory determination of CBR”. Published by Bureau of
Indian standard, New Delhi, India.
15. IS 2720-Part 10 “Methods of test for soils: Determination of unconfined Compressive Strength”.
Published by Bureau of Indian standard, New Delhi, India.
16. K R Anitha, R Ashalatha, A.S Johnson: “Effects of RBI Grade 81 on Different Types of Subgrade Soil.”
Proc. 10th National Conference on Technological Trends (NCTT09), pp. 165-170, India (2009). 

17. Lekha B.M., A. U. Ravi Shankar: “Laboratory performance of stabilized soils for pavements”.
International Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 5(2), 105-110 (2014).
18. Raghuwanshi, Neelesh, and SuneetKaur. "A Review on Soil Stabilization using RBI Grade-
81." International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology 3.7 (2016): 213-217.
19. Selvi. P: “Fatigue and rutting strain analysis on lime stabilized subgrades to develop a pavement design
chart.” Transportation Geotechnics, 2, 86-98 (2014).
20. Tejinder Singh &NavjotRiar: “Strengthening of sub-grade by using RBI Grade-81, a case study”. IOSR
Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSRJMCE), 8(6), 101-106 (2013).