Karatai, T R; Kaluli, J W; Kabubo, C and Thiong'O, G (2017) Soil stabilization using rice husk ash and natural lime as an alternative to cutting and filling in road construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(5): 04016127, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Pavement construction tends to be relatively expensive in areas where expansive clay forms the bulk of the alignment soil. The common practice in Kenya is to remove the undesirable material and fill the space with more stable materials. The present study has developed a method for stabilizing expansive clay for Subgrade Class S2 pavement construction. A combination of 20% by weight of rice husk ash (RHA) and approximately 2% by weight of natural lime improved the California bearing ratio (CBR) of expansive clay soil by 800%, reduced the soil plasticity by approximately 90%, and decreased free swell by approximately 70%. It has been shown that use of RHA as a stabilizer is not only an affordable green technology, but also gives expansive clays the strength required for the Subgrade Class S2 pavement layer.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | California bearing ratio; construction materials and methods; expansive clay soils; free swell; natural lime; plasticity index; rice husk ash |
| Index terms: | soil stabilization, Kenya, lime, pavement construction, construction material, clay soils, road construction |
| Subjects: | Geography, building materials, infrastructure engineering, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Construction Materials, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 P |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here