REVIEW ARTICLE

Classification, shear strength, and durability of expansiveclayey soil stabilized with lime and perlite

Umit Calik • Erol Sadoglu

Received: 30 January 2013 / Accepted: 5 November 2013 / Published online: 13 November 2013� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract An experimental study was performed to investigate the effect of perlite and per-

lite–lime admixtures on classification, shear strength, and durability properties of an expansive

soil containing smectite clay minerals. Two types of mixtures, namely soil–perlite and soil–

perlite–lime, were prepared with different percentages of perlite and compacted with standard

Proctor energy at their optimum water contents. Samples of 38 mm diameter and 76 mm height

for durability tests and square samples of 60 mm edge for shear box test were taken and

preserved until test time in a desiccator. Disturbed samples were also taken to determine liquid

and plastic limits. The expansive soil shows behavior of fine sand and silt due to pozzolanic

reactions in microstructure caused by addition of lime and perlite. Although apparent cohesion

of treated soil decreased with increasing amount of perlite for both types of samples, perlite–

lime-treated samples had higher apparent cohesion than only perlite-treated samples. Large

increments in angle of shearing resistance were obtained with increasing usage of perlite.

Samples stabilized with only perlite could not show enough durability at the durability tests

based on volumetric stability and unconfined compression strength. However, samples stabi-

lized with lime and more than 30 % perlite proved to have enough durability and shear strength.

Keywords Shear strength � Natural pozzolana � Perlite � Lime � Stabilization �Durability

1 Introduction

Expansive soils containing swelling clay minerals cause hazards to pavements and light

weight structures. The hazards can be classified as minor or aesthetic hazards that do not

U. CalikGeneral Directorate of Highways, 10th Reg. Dir., 61310 Akcaabat, Trabzon, Turkeye-mail: umitcalik@outlook.com

E. Sadoglu (&)Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080 Trabzon, Turkeye-mail: erolsadoglu@hotmail.com

123

Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303DOI 10.1007/s11069-013-0950-1

cause any safety and usability problem and major hazards that cause safety and usability

problems and need to be repaired. Puppala and Cerato (2009) reported that the annual cost

of damage to constructed facilities owing to expansive soils in the USA was approximately

$13 billion. The cost of the damage from expansive soils exceeds those of all earthquakes,

floods, tornados, and hurricanes combined.

Soil stabilization refers to the processes in which a problematic soil is generally mixed

with a special soil or cementing material to improve some of its properties. One of the most

common stabilization methods, called mechanical stabilization, is achieved by mixing

natural coarse aggregate with fine-grained soil usually together with compaction. Another

method of soil stabilization called as chemical stabilization relies on the use of cementing

materials (admixtures), such as Portland cement, asphalt cement, lime, and some chemicals

(e.g., silicates, polymers, and chrome-lignin), to alter chemical structure of soil to reach the

desired effect.

Pozzolanic materials (fly ash, gypsum, rice husk ash, etc.) have been investigated in

terms of being stabilization admixture in a variety of studies (Kumar and Sharma 2004;

Edil et al. 2006; Lin et al. 2007; Zha et al. 2008; Silitonga et al. 2009; Yilmaz and

Civelekoglu 2009; Brooks 2009; Okafor and Okonkwo 2009; Ene and Okagbue 2009; Rao

and Subbarao 2012). Furthermore, the admixtures are used with lime in stabilization of

expansive soils to achieve more successful results (Al-Rawas et al. 2002; Abd El-Aziz

et al. 2004; Jha and Gill 2006; Ansary et al. 2006; Sezer et al. 2006; Ghosh and Subbarao

2007; Buhler and Cerato 2007; Eisazadeh et al. 2012).

Perlite is a glassy volcanic rock that contains approximately 71–75 % SiO2, 12–18 %

Al2O3, and 0.1–1.5 % Fe2O3 and can be found abundantly in many parts of the world. Due

to its glassy amorphous structure and high SiO2–Al2O3 and Fe2O3 contents, perlite is a

natural pozzolana, obviously. Although its pozzolanic characteristics have been mentioned

in some limited numbers of technical papers (Urban 1987; Demirboga et al. 2003; Yu et al.

2003; Erdem et al. 2007), no investigation has so far been made on usage of natural perlite

in soil stabilization.

This study aims to present the results of the experimental work that is carried out to

investigate the effect of perlite and perlite–lime admixtures on shear strength and durability

properties of an expansive soil containing smectite clay minerals.

2 Materials and testing program

2.1 Expansive soil

Expansive soil samples were taken from Gurbulak Province of Trabzon City in Turkey

(Lat. 41�0001300 N and Long. 39�3600900�E). Trial pits were excavated to a depth of 1.5 m to

obtain disturbed samples. The samples were placed into plastic bags and transported to

Geotechnical and Transportation Laboratory of Karadeniz Technical University. Some

physical properties such as grain specific gravity, maximum dry density, optimum water

content, and Atterberg limits of the soil were determined according to ASTM D 854,

ASTM D 698, and ASTM D 4318, and the results are tabulated in Table 1 (ASTM 2004).

The soil had a high plasticity index of 58.3 % and an activity of 1.47. Degree of

expansion of the soil was estimated as ‘‘very high’’ according to Nelson and Miller (1992),

Dakshanamurthy and Raman (1973), and Van Der Merwe (1964). However, swelling

potential of the soil can be classified as ‘‘high’’ according to Seed et al. (1962). Thus, it

could be deduced that the soil is an expansive soil. Maximum dry density of the expansive

1290 Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303

123

soil is 1.46 mg/m3, which is close to natural expansive soil used in some studies (Kumar

and Sharma 2004; Prabakar et al. 2004; Sezer et al. 2006).

The soil is fine grained and classified as CH (sandy fat clay) according to the Unified

Soil Classification System (USCS) and A-7-6 (clayey soil) according to AASHTO Soil

Classification System. Particle size distribution of the soil is shown in Fig. 1.

The mineralogical composition of the soil was determined by X-ray diffraction (XRD)

analysis. Results of the analysis are shown in Fig. 2. The analysis indicated that the soil

contains dominantly montmorillonite (Na0.3(AlMg)2Si4O10OH2�6H2O) and nontronite

(Na0.3Fe2Si4O10OH2�4H2O), which is smectite type of clay minerals. The well-known

aspect of smectite group minerals is that when the minerals come into contact with water,

they swell considerable amount. This situation sometimes produces detrimental effects on

structures. Some amount of calcite is also observed.

2.2 Perlite

Perlite used in this study was obtained from a facility located in Erzincan, Turkey. Some

physical properties of the perlite, given in Table 2, were determined according to related

ASTM standards. The properties related to pozzolanic activity were taken from Erdem

et al. (2007).

SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3 contents are the important ingredients that affect the activity of

a natural pozzolana. The oxide composition of the perlite is given in Table 3. Chemical

composition of the perlite shows siliceous nature.

Erdem et al. (2007) carried out XRD analysis for the perlite, and the results are pre-

sented in Fig. 3. The chief mineralogical constituents of the perlite are quartz, muscovite,

and hauyne. XRD pattern of the non-crystalline solids demonstrates diffuse humps. A

hump shows a short-range structure due to the irregular and non-repetitive arrangement of

the atoms. Therefore, a hump in the XRD pattern indicates amorphous nature of the

material. Closeness of the two humps in the diffractogram of the perlite to the major peaks

of quartz (2h = 26.8 and 45.1) is an indication of the siliceous nature of the amorphous

phase of the perlite.

The grain size distribution of the perlite is shown in Fig. 4. Grain size analysis of perlite

reveals that perlite consists of mainly sand-sized particles (64.6 %) with some gravel-sized

particles (26.4 %) and silt-sized particles (9.0 %).

Table 1 Physical properties of the soil

Color Greenish yellow

Liquid limita (%) 87.2

Plastic limita (%) 28.9

Plasticity index (%) 58.3

Shrinkage limita (%) 14.4

Activity 1.47

Specific gravityb 2.59

pHc (soil/water = 1:2.5) 6.3

Standard Proctor testd

Optimum water content (%) 24.5

Maximum dry density, qdry,max (mg/m3) 1.46

a ASTM D4318, b ASTM D854, c ASTM D6276, d ASTM D698

Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303 1291

123

2.3 Lime

The hydrated lime (CaOH2) used in this study had a purity of 65 % and supplied by a

Turkish company Karsan. Chemical and physical properties of the lime are tabulated in

Table 4.

The initial quantity of lime necessary for soil stabilization based on initial consumption

of lime (ICL) was determined from the pH tests carried out on soil with lime solution

(lime/water = 1:2.5). The variation of pH due to lime addition is presented in Fig. 5. The

initial quantity of lime for soil stabilization is 7.3 % that results in a soil–lime pH of 12.4

(ASTM D 6276).

Optimum amount of lime for maximum modification, which affects swelling potential,

liquid limit, plasticity index, and maximum dry density of the soil, is seen as 6 % from

Fig. 5. Further increase in lime content does not bring notable changes in plasticity index.

Fig. 1 Particle size distribution of expansive soil

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 20 40 60 80

Two-Theta, Degree

Intensity, CPS

Fig. 2 X-ray diffractogram of expansive soil. (N nontronite, M montmorillonite, C calcite)

1292 Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303

123

Table 2 Physical properties of the perlite

Color Gray

Atterberg limits NP

Specific gravity, Gs 2.38

pH (soil/water = 1:2.5) 6.5

Classification

USCS SW-SM (well-graded sand with silt)

AASHTO A-1-b

Standard Proctor test

Optimum water content, wopt (%) 2.04

Maximum dry weight, qdry,max (mg/m3) 1.56

Fineness: amount retained on 45-lm sieve (%) 91

Blaine (m2/kg) (ASTM C 204) 413

Strength activity index

7 days (% of control) 78

28 days (% of control) 80

Loss on ignition (%) 3.27

Table 3 Oxide composition ofthe perlite (Erdem et al. 2007)

Oxide compounds Amount (%)

SiO2 70.96

Al2O3 13.40

Fe2O3 1.16

CaO 0.76

MgO 0.28

K2O 4.65

SO3 0.06

Na2O 3.20

Fig. 3 X-ray diffractogram of the perlite (Q quartz, M muscovite, H hauyne) (Erdem et al. 2007)

Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303 1293

123

On the other hand, if an improvement in soil stabilization in terms of strength is needed,

optimum amount of lime should exceed 6 % (Mathew and Rao 1997; Al-Rawas et al.

2002). The limit value of unconfined compression strength of base layer of highways is

3,450 kPa according to USACE (2003). Unconfined compression strength of the sample

added 8 % lime by dry weight is 3,561 kPa after 28 days of curing period. As a result,

optimum lime amount came out as 8 %.

2.4 Sample preparation and test scheme

The expansive soil was air-dried and pulverized with a plastic mallet to crush the lumps

formed due to plasticity of the soil. The soil, perlite, and lime contained certain amounts of

water determined as 10.54, 0.40, and 0.49 %, respectively, because of being air-dried. Two

types of test mixtures, namely soil–perlite (SP) and soil–perlite–lime (SPL), were prepared

by taking into account water contents of the materials. The mixtures and their proportions

by dry weight are shown in Table 5.

Fig. 4 Particle size distribution of perlite

Table 4 Chemical and physicalproperties of hydrated lime

Parameter Value

Ca(OH)2 (%) 85.80

Active CaO (%) 65.00

MgO (%) 1.40

SiO2 (%) 0.23

Al2O3 (%) 0.11

Fe2O3 (%) 0.40

Density (mg/m3) 0.48

Grain specific gravity (mg/m3) 2.37

pH value (ASTM E 70) 12.4

[75-lm (%) 3.8

1294 Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303

123

Optimum water content of each mixture was assessed, and then the mixtures were

blended. Close attention was given to homogeneity, and the mixtures were compacted into

Proctor compaction mold with standard Proctor energy at optimum water content. Thin-

walled samplers of 38 mm inner diameter and 78 mm height for durability tests and square

samplers of 60 mm inner edge for shear box test were inserted into the molds with the aid

of hydraulic jack. The samples were wrapped with thin plastic films and placed into

desiccators (at 22 ± 3 �C, 97 ± 2 % relative humidity) to maintain constant water content

until test time. Thus, the water contents were kept constant (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5 Effect of various lime content on pH value and plasticity index

Table 5 Test mixtures and soil, perlite, and lime percentages

Sample Soil (%) Perlite (%) Sample Soil (%) Perlite (%) Lime

SP0 100 0 SPL0 100 0 8 % lime by dry weightwas added to each sampleSP10 90 10 SPL10 90 10

SP20 80 20 SPL20 80 20

SP30 70 30 SPL30 70 30

SP40 60 40 SPL40 60 40

SP50 50 50 SPL50 50 50

Fig. 6 Preparation and preservation of samples

Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303 1295

123

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Consistency limits and classification

The plasticity behavior of clayey soil is due to the existence of clay minerals, since the

minerals are surrounded by absorbed water. Thus, the soils containing clay minerals can be

reshaped without crumbling in the presence of some water. The Atterberg limits are widely

used to define this plasticity behavior of clayey soils. Therefore, liquid limits (LLs) and

plastic limits of the SP mixtures were found according to ASTM D 4318 to observe the

effect of perlite content on plasticity behavior. The LL and plasticity indexes (PIs) of SP

mixtures on 28th day of curing period are marked on the plasticity chart of the USCS to

observe change of plasticity with perlite content (Fig. 7). Increasing perlite content

transformed high-plasticity clay into intermediate-plasticity clay.

The LL and PI of SPL mixtures determined on 28th day of curing period are shown in

Fig. 7. Considerable changes occurred in Atterberg limits with the addition of perlite and

lime admixtures. The lime admixture converted high-plasticity silt into intermediate-

plasticity silt as for SPL0 mixture. Furthermore, plasticity index of SPL mixtures almost

decreased with increasing perlite content, and SPL50 mixture is non-plastic.

SP0, SP20, SP40, SPL0, SPL20, and SPL40 mixtures were prepared from lime, perlite,

and soil passing sieve no. 200 (0.074 mm) and cured for 28 days. Particle size distributions

of the mixtures obtained from wet analysis are shown in Fig. 8.

Addition of perlite changed particle size distribution of SP mixtures. Addition of perlite

increased percentage of silt and decreased percentage clay. The curves of the mixtures

showed parallel behavior. The changes between the curves were caused by the difference

between particle size distribution of perlite and soil. Therefore, it can be said that any

chemical reaction did not occur between soil and perlite.

Particle size distribution curves of SPL mixtures are very different from SP mixtures

due to pozzolanic reaction between lime, perlite, and soil. Addition of lime to SPL mix-

tures led to loss of clay-sized particles. However, it was observed that increasing perlite

percentage in SPL mixtures caused a decrease in percentage of silt-sized particles,

inversely an increase in sand-sized particles. The reason for the situation can be explained

by the pozzolanic reactions between soil, lime, and perlite.

Fig. 7 SP and SPL mixtures shown on plasticity chart

1296 Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303

123

3.2 Shear strength

Failure occurs in soil when the stresses caused by applied loads exceed a certain limit value

as in all other materials. Shear strength of a soil can be described as the largest shear stress

that the soil can resist without rupture. Several hypotheses have been developed that takes

into account co-effect of the normal and shear stresses leading to rupture in soils. Mohr–

Coulomb failure criterion is the simplest and most widely used in these hypotheses.

Accordingly, shear strength of a soil is represented by a straight line called failure

envelope:

s ¼ c þ r tan u ð1Þ

where c and u are shear strength parameters called as apparent cohesion and angle of

shearing resistance, respectively.

Shear box test is one of the most widely used tests to measure shear strength parameters

of soils. The test was carried out in accordance with ASTM D 3080, and the shear force

was applied at a rate of 1 mm/min. Since the samples were compacted at optimum water

content, no excess pore water would be expected. The SP and SPL samples were tested to

determine shear strength parameters after 28-day curing period. Apparent cohesions of SP

and SPL samples decreased with increasing perlite content, and this decrease was bigger at

SPL samples compared to SP samples (Fig. 9). Apparent cohesion of SP samples reduced

from 37.1 to 9.7 kPa with increasing perlite content from 0 to 50 %. Accordingly, apparent

cohesion of SPL samples reduced from 143.7 to 15.5 kPa. Prabakar et al. (2004) specified

that apparent cohesion of high-plasticity soil decreases with increasing amount of fly ash.

On the other hand, Sezer et al. (2006) reported that addition of very high lime fly ash

increases apparent cohesion of an expansive clay in a similar stabilization study. As a

result, findings of this study are in good agreement with plasticity and particle size dis-

tribution. That is, increasing content of perlite transformed the plastic material into non-

plastic.

The effects of perlite content on the angles of shearing resistance of SP and SLP

samples are shown in Fig. 10. Perlite addition increases angles of shearing resistance of SP

samples. The angle for SP samples ranges from 20.5� to 43� with increasing perlite content

Fig. 8 Particle size distribution of SP0, SP20, SP40, SPL0, SPL20, and SPL40 mixtures

Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303 1297

123

from 0 to 50 %. Obviously, it can be seen from particle size distribution of perlite that

dominant particle size of perlite is sand. Therefore, angle of shearing resistance is

approximately equal to very dense sand. Similar results can be seen at the study carried out

by Prabakar et al. (2004). On the other hand, angles of shearing resistance of SPL samples

are considerably higher than that of SP samples. SPL0 sample has an angle of shearing

resistance of 58.7� compared with 20.5� of SP0 sample. This situation may be explained by

chemical reactions between soil and lime (Pozzolanic, cation exchange, etc.). The angles of

shearing resistance of SPL samples ranged from 58.7� to 74.6� depending on perlite

content.

SPL samples constitute a rigid structure, and this case results in SPL mixtures to have

very high elasticity modulus. Therefore, brittle fracture was also observed in SPL samples

Fig. 9 Apparent cohesion–perlite content relation for SP and SPL mixtures

Fig. 10 Angle of shearing resistance–perlite content relation for SP and SLP mixtures

1298 Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303

123

as distinct from SP samples. As a result, SPL mixtures are more advantageous than SP

mixtures in soil stabilization works due to high strength and low deformation.

3.3 Durability

Durability of stabilized soils to environmental conditions is investigated by two approa-

ches. The first one takes into account the volumetric stability, and the other one measures

loss in unconfined compression strength.

3.3.1 Wetting–drying cycling method

Both SP and SPL samples were prepared by compacting at optimum water content with

standard Proctor compaction energy. The samples that had a diameter of 38 mm and a

height of 76 mm were obtained by using thin-wall samplers. The samples were cured in a

desiccator (temperature 21 �C (± 3 �C) and relative humidity 98 % (±1 %)) for a period

of 28 days. After the curing process, the samples were subjected to wetting–drying 12

times in accordance with ASTM D 559 (Fig. 11). Briefly, a wetting–drying cycle consists

of submerging in water for 5 h and drying in an oven at 71 �C for 42 h.

SPL samples were able to show resistance against the wetting–drying cycles, while SP

samples could not maintain their volumetric integrity at the end of this process. Both SP

and SPL samples were shown in Fig. 12 after 12 wetting–drying cycles.

Durability criterion for lime–pozzolana stabilization of clays is suggested as maximum

weight loss of 14 % according to USACE (2003). SP samples were disintegrated due to

wetting–drying cycles. Weight loss curves of SPL samples are shown in Fig. 13. Only

SPL30, SPL40, and SPL50 samples satisfied the durability criterion, because weight losses

of SPL30, SPL40, and SPL50 samples are 4.95, 4.75, and 2.82 %, respectively.

3.3.2 Effect of immersion on unconfined compression strength

Both SPL and SP samples were cured in desiccator for 14 days and then immersed in water

for another 14 days due to the durability method based on unconfined compression

strength. Unconfined compression strengths of these samples were determined, and the

unconfined compression strengths were compared with the corresponding samples cured

for 28 days only in a dessicator. Thus, durability investigation was performed based on

unconfined compression strength.

SP samples disintegrated after immersing in water for 14 days so all of SP samples did

not succeed the durability criteria of the test. Fig. 14 shows failure manner of SPL samples

after the process of the durability test based on unconfined compression strength. It was

Fig. 11 Wetting–drying cycle of samples

Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303 1299

123

observed that the samples were failed with very little vertical deformation. Thus, the failure

type was brittle for all the SPL samples as shown in the figure.

Ola (1974) described the preceding procedure and suggested a limit value of 20 % for

maximum loss in unconfined compression strength. Figure 15 shows variation in the ratio

of unconfined compression strength of the cured and immersed SPL samples to unconfined

compression strength of the only cured SPL samples with perlite content. SPL30, SPL40,

and SPL50 samples satisfied the suggested criteria in this test too.

Pozzolanic reactions especially improve durability and strength properties of stabilized

mixtures. Perlite is a natural pozzolana, and SPL30, SPL40, and SPL50 samples show

remarkable benefit provided by pozzolanic activity between lime and perlite.

Fig. 12 Photographs of samples after 12 wetting–drying cycles

Fig. 13 Weight loss curves of SPL mixtures

1300 Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303

123

4 Conclusions

In this paper, classification, shear strength, and durability of the expansive clayey soil with

perlite and perlite–lime admixtures were investigated. The classification, shear strength,

and durability properties determined from appropriate tests were presented. The following

conclusions can be drawn from this experimental study.

Fig. 14 Unconfined compression tests on SPL samples

Fig. 15 Ratio of UCS of cured and immersed SPL samples to UCS of corresponding only cured SPLsamples

Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303 1301

123

1. Clay particles in SPL mixtures transformed into silt and sand particles as seen from

plasticity and particle size distribution curves. It is thought that high-plasticity soil

shows behavior of sand and silt due to pozzolanic reaction in microstructure caused by

addition of lime and perlite.

2. Addition of lime resulted in an increase in apparent cohesion. However, apparent

cohesion decreases with increasing amount of perlite for both SP and SPL samples,

and SLP samples have higher apparent cohesion value than SP samples. Increasing

perlite content causes an improvement in angle of shearing resistance.

3. Samples stabilized with only perlite could not show enough durability at the durability

tests. However, SPL30, SPL40, and SPL50 samples had enough durability based on

volumetric stability and unconfined compression strength. Usage of perlite attributes

durability of expansive soil stabilized with lime.

The results presented in this paper have confirmed that the addition of perlite to the

expansive soil effects plasticity, particle size distribution, strength, and durability prop-

erties. However, addition of lime and perlite has a much more significant effect on strength

and durability. Lime and more than 30 % perlite stabilized expansive soil can be used as an

appropriate material for construction works in terms of strength and durability.

References

Abd El-Aziz MA, Abo-Hashema MA, El-Shourbagy M (2004) The effect of lime-silica fume stabilizer onengineering properties of clayey subgrade. Engineering Conference of Mansoura University Faculty,Sharm, pp 96–104

Al-Rawas AA, Taha R, Nelson JD, Al-Shab TB, Al-Siyabi H (2002) A comparative evaluation of variousadditives used in the stabilization of expansive soils. Geotech Test J 25(2):199–209

Ansary MA, Noor MA, Islam M (2006) Effect of fly ash stabilization on geotechnical properties of Chit-tagong coastal soil. Geotechnical Symposium, Roma, pp 443–454

ASTM (2004) Annual book of ASTM standards, vol 04–08. American Society for Testing and Materials,Philadelphia

Brooks RM (2009) Soil stabilization with fly ash and rice husk ash. Int J Res Rev Appl Sci 1(3):209–217Buhler RL, Cerato AB (2007) Stabilization of Oklahoma expansive soils using lime and class C fly ash.

GeoDenver Congr: new Peaks Geotech, Geotechnical Special Publication, No: 162, pp 1–10Dakshanamurthy V, Raman V (1973) A simple method of identifying expansive soil. Soil Found 13:97–104Demirboga R, Orung I, Gul R (2003) Effects of expanded perlite aggregate and mineral admixtures on the

compressive strength of low-density concrete. Cem Concr Res 31(11):1627–1632Edil TB, Acosta HA, Benson CH (2006) Stabilizing soft fine grained soils with fly ash. J Mater Civ Eng

18(2):283–294Eisazadeh A, Kassim KA, Nur H (2012) Stabilization of tropical kaolin soil with phosphoric acid and lime.

Nat Hazards 61:931–942Ene E, Okagbue C (2009) Some basic geotechnical properties of expansive soil modified using pyroclastic

dust. Eng Geol 107:61–65Erdem TK, Meral C, Tokyay M, Erdogan TY (2007) Use of perlite as a pozzolanic addition in producing

blended cements. Cement Concr Compos 29(1):13–21Ghosh A, Subbarao C (2007) Strength characteristics of class F fly ash modified with lime and gypsum.

J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(7):757–766Jha JN, Gill KS (2006) Effect of rice hush ash on lime stabilization. J Inst Eng 87:33–39Kumar BRP, Sharma RS (2004) Effect of fly ash on engineering properties of expansive soils. J Geotech

Geoenviron Eng 130(7):764–767Lin DF, Lin KL, Luo HL (2007) A comparison between sludge ash and fly ash on the improvement in soft

soil. J Air Waste Manag As 57:59–64Mathew PK, Rao SN (1997) Effect of lime on cation exchange capacity of marine clay. J Geotech Geo-

environ Eng 123(2):183–185

1302 Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303

123

Nelson JD, Miller D (1992) Expansive soils problems and practice in foundation and pavement. Wiley, NewYork, pp 8–15, 40–57, 189–197

Okafor FO, Okonkwo UN (2009) Effects of rice husk on some geotechnical properties of lateritic soil.Leonardo Electron J Pract Technol 15:67–74

Ola SA (1974) Need for estimated cement requirements for stabilization of laterite soils. J Transp Eng100(2):379–388

Prabakar J, Dendorkar N, Morchhale RK (2004) Influence of fly ash on strength behavior of typical soils.Constr Build Mater 18:263–267

Puppala AJ, Cerato A (2009) Heave distress problems in chemically-treated sulfate-laden materials. Geo-Strata 10(2):28–30

Rao KM, Subbarao GVR (2012) Optimum fly ash for mechanical stabilization of expansive soils using 22factorial experimental design. Nat Hazards 60:703–713

Seed HB, Woodward RJ, Lungreen R (1962) Predicting of swelling potential of compacted clays. J SoilMech Found Div ASCE 88:53–87

Sezer A, Inan G, Yılmaz HR, Ramyar K (2006) Utilization of a very high lime fly ash for improvement ofIzmir clay. Build Environ 41(1):150–155

Silitonga E, Levacher D, Mezazigh S (2009) Effects of the use of fly ash as a binder on the mechanicalbehaviour of treated dredged sediments. Environ Technol 30(8):799–807

Urban S (1987) Alkali silica and pozzolanic reactions in concrete. Cem Concr Res 17(3):465–477USACE (2003) Guidelines on ground improvement for structures and facilities. Research No. 20314-1000,

Department of the Army, WashingtonVan Der Merwe DH (1964) The prediction of heave from the plasticity index and percentage clay friction of

soils. Civil Eng South Africa 6:103–107Yilmaz I, Civelekoglu B (2009) Gypsum: an additive for stabilization of swelling clay soils. Appl Clay Sci

44:166–172Yu LH, Ou H, Lee LL (2003) Investigation on pozzolanic effect of perlite powder in concrete. Cem Concr

Res 33(1):73–76Zha F, Liu S, Du Y, Cui K (2008) Behaviour of expansive soils stabilized with fly ash. Nat Hazards

47:509–523

Nat Hazards (2014) 71:1289–1303 1303

123