Page 1 of 19

Field and Laboratory Behaviour of Fine-Grained

Soil Stabilised with Lime

Nilo Cesar Consoli1; Eduardo José Bittar Marin2; Rubén Alejandro Quiñónez
Samaniego3; Hugo Carlos Scheuermann Filho4; and Nuno Miguel Cordeiro
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

Cristelo5

ABSTRACT: Fine-grained soils, due to their high plasticity, possess great shrinkage potential
and high compressibility, and are responsible for very significant maintenance costs during the
service life of the associated infrastructures. Stabilisation of such soils with lime is one of the
most effective procedures to mitigate these undesirable characteristics and, at the same time, to
enhance their mechanical properties. Current research seeks, through field and laboratory tests,
to quantify the influence of calcitic hydrated lime on the strength and deflection characteristics
Can. Geotech. J.

clayey soil from the Paraguayan region of Chaco. The influence of different dry unit weights,
lime amounts and curing periods on the strength and deflection of a Paraguayan clay stabilised
with lime was assessed. The present work shows, for the first time ever, that the porosity/lime
index is the proper parameter to be used in the field when dealing with the strength of clay-lime
bases of pavements. Hence, the results presented herein are a contribution to understanding the
conditions in which these soils can be stabilised in order to be used in infrastructural
applications.

Key words: Clay; lime stabilisation; strength; laboratory and field tests; porosity/lime index.

1 Professor of Civil Engineering, Graduate Programme in Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. E-mail: consoli@ufrgs.br
2 Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Australia. E-mail: bittar.edu@gmail.com (formerly M.Sc. student at
Universidade Federal of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil)
3 Ph.D. Candidate, Graduate Programme in Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. E-mail: ale457@gmail.com
4 Ph.D. Candidate, Graduate Programme in Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. E-mail: hugocsf@gmail.com
5 Lecturer, School of Engineering, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal. E-mail: ncristel@utad.pt
 Page 2 of 19

INTRODUCTION

Fine-grained soils tend to present high plasticity, great shrinkage and swelling potential, low
hydraulic conductivity and high compressibility (Mitchell 1981). Such features are related to
the amount and nature of the clay phase and may be disadvantageous for certain construction
purposes, such as dams and road embankments. However, clayey soils can have their
mechanical properties enhanced (i.e. soil stabilisation) through the addition of hydrated lime,
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

as previously shown by Umesha et al. (2009), Rajesh and Marimuthu (2015), Consoli et al.
(2016a) among others. Fundamentally, when hydrated lime is added to a fine-grained soil in the
presence of water the clay particles aggregate/flocculate in a short-term period which implies
the modification of the soil’ physical properties (e.g. grain size distribution). This is the
consequence owing to the cation exchange between the clay minerals and the calcium ions
(Ca2+) and the increase in the electrolyte content of the interstitial water (Herzog and Mitchell
1963; Transportation Research Board 1987). Besides, in a long-term period, the soil’ strength
and stiffness may be enhanced due to the precipitation of cementitious compounds resulting
from the pozzolanic reactions between the clay minerals and the calcium ions.
Can. Geotech. J.

Previous findings on fine-grained soils–lime mixtures (e.g., Consoli et al. 2016a; 2016b)
have shown that their behaviour is complex and affected by many factors. Among those, the
following stand out: grain size distribution of the soil, lime type and content, moulding moisture
content, porosity of the mixed material, curing temperature and time of curing. In this sense,
Consoli et al. (2009) were pioneers in the establishment of a single dosage methodology based
on rational criteria where the porosity/lime index (/Liv) is the key feature in the evaluation of
the target unconfined compressive strength. Moreover, the same approach was successfully
applied by Consoli et al. (2011) in the assessment of the initial shear modulus (G0) of soil-lime
blends. Recently, Consoli et al. (2019) established efficaciously the influence of the amount of
lime and the porosity on the accumulated loss of mass (ALM) of fine-grained material-carbide
lime blends. Nonetheless, there are important subjects that still have to be elucidated.
Studies regarding the efficiency of the porosity/lime index in controlling the strength
and stiffness of compacted clay-lime blends are still restricted to laboratory settings. A question
that arises is if clay-lime specimens mixed and compacted in the laboratory depict the main
trends of specimens mixed and compacted with standard field equipments regarding the
unconfined compressive strength. Hence, the aim of the present research is the evaluation of
these tendencies in specimens mixed, compacted and cured under field conditions and in those
 Page 3 of 19

mixed, compacted, cured and mixed under laboratory conditions. The positive results in the
present research, extrapolating field and laboratory strength results, considering specimens with
different percentages of lime and compacted specimens with different dry unit weights, enriches
the literature and open the scope for further exploration.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

Materials and Methods

The experimental program was divided in laboratory-based and field-based testing. The soil
and the lime were initially characterized in the laboratory. The minimum lime quantity needed
for the stabilisation of this soil was determined through the “initial consumption of lime” (ICL)
test, in accordance to the procedures stated by Rogers et al. (1997). Proctor tests on different
soil-lime blends followed, using standard compaction energy ASTM D698 (ASTM 2012), and
the results were then used to fabricate cylindrical specimens, with different lime contents, for
Can. Geotech. J.

unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests. The testing program was chosen in such a way
as to evaluate, separately, the influence of the lime content (L), the dry unit weight (d) and,
consequently, the porosity/lime index (/Liv).
The experimental field-testing was set up on the Paraguayan Chaco, a semi-arid region
located in the North-West of Paraguay. The local soil, which was collected and transported to
the laboratory for further tests was classified, according to ASTM D2487 (ASTM 2017) and
based on the characterization described in Table 1, as a lean clay (CL). The pH of the collected
soil was approximately 8.2. An X-ray diffraction test revealed the presence of the following
minerals: smectite, chlorite, kaolinite, illite and quartz. The soil’ specific gravity is 2.69.
Calcitic hydrated lime, with a specific gravity of 2.41, was used as the cementing agent
(ASTM 2011a). Stoichiometrically (based on a thermogravimetric analysis), the employed
calcitic hydrated lime has 81.0% of Ca(OH)2 and 9.40% of CaCO3. Distilled water was used
both for the characterization tests and for the fabrication of the mechanical tests’ specimens.

Preparation and Testing of Laboratory Specimens

The adapted ICL test used to establish the lime content (relative to the dry weight of soil) is
based on the pH variation of the soil-lime mixture as a function of the added lime. The pH value
of the mixture increases with increasing amounts of added lime, up until an asymptotic pH value
 Page 4 of 19

is reached. Thus, the ICL is the lime content required to attain that threshold pH. Theoretically,
lime in excess of the ICL is utilized in the cementation process, through pozzolanic reactions,
which are responsible for the most significant portion of the strength increase. The results
showed that 4% lime (weight percentage of lime, relatively to the total soil+lime combination)
corresponds to the ICL of this particular soil. Therefore, this value was chosen for the
experimental plan, as well as the values of 6% and 8%, which were chosen considering previous
experience with lime treated soils (e.g., Ingles and Metcalf 1972; Mitchell 1981; Consoli et al.
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

2019).
A standard Proctor compaction test, performed on a soil-lime mixture with a 6% lime
content, revealed maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content values of 17.4
kN/m3 and 15%, respectively. A target dry unit weight for a given specimen was then
established through the total dry mass (soil+lime) divided by the total volume of the specimen.
All the specimens were moulded with moisture content of 15%. Three different dry unit weights
(14.5 kN/m3, 15.5 kN/m3 and 16.8 kN/m3 – mimicking field compaction conditions obtained in
present research), three lime contents (4%, 6% and 8%) and four curing periods (7, 28, 60 and
90 days of curing) were used in the fabrication of the UCS specimens. Cylindrical specimens
Can. Geotech. J.

with 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in height were used for the UCS tests.
Porosity () is defined as the ration between the volume of voids and the total volume
of the specimen (V). As shown in Eq. (1) (Consoli et al. 2011), porosity () can be related to
dry unit weight (d), hydrated lime (L) and soil content (S). Each material (soil and lime) has a
dry unit weight (sS and sL), which also needs to be considered for calculating porosity.

(𝛾𝑑 ∙ 𝑉) (𝛾𝑑 ∙ 𝑉 ∙ 𝐿)

𝜂 = 100 ―
100 ∙
[( 𝛾𝑆𝑠 )(
(1 + 𝐿/100)
+
𝛾𝑆𝐿
(100 + 𝐿)
)] (1)

The preparation of the specimens started by weighing the dry materials (clay and lime).
Next, they were mixed until they acquired visual homogeneity. Water was then added in order
to reach the target moisture content of 15%, continuing the mixing process until homogeneity
was again obtained. The specimen was then statically compacted in three layers, inside a
cylindrical lubricated split mould, targeting the previously specified dry unit weight. After the
moulding process, the specimen was immediately extracted from the split mould and its weight,
diameter and height were measured with accuracies of 0.01g and 0.1mm, respectively. The
specimens were cured in a humid room at 21º±2ºC and relative humidity above 95%.
 Page 5 of 19

The UCS tests followed the recommendations stated by ASTM C39 (2010). Prior to the
tests, the samples were put underwater, for 24 hours, in order to increment the degree of
saturation and, hence, diminish possible suction effects (Consoli et al. 2011). The water
temperature was maintained at approximately 21ºC. The UCS tests were carried out under
strain-controlled conditions (axial displacement of 1.14 mm/min) and the maximum load was
recorded. Because of the typical data scatter usually associated with UCS tests, three specimens
were tested to determine the value in each mix design.
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

Construction of the experimental road pavement foundations

The first phase of the field experimental program was designed to evaluate the energy that could
be transmitted to each section by the compactor. Therefore, three preliminary 0.20 m thick
sections, with a surface area of 3.0 m x 3.0 m, were built using kneading compaction equipment
(Dynapac model CA25, with 95 kN working load and frequency of 33 Hz). Different lime
contents of 4%, 6% and 8% were assigned to each of these three sections. Due to possible lime
losses during field soil-lime blending, the lime content values in the field were increased by
10%, i.e. 4.4%, 6.6% and 8.8%. A levelled surface was previously prepared, and soil collected
Can. Geotech. J.

nearby was transported and deposited on site. After screening, its moisture content was
measured, and water was added until the 15% target was reached. The lime was then included
and mixed with the wet soil (Figure 1a) using a motor grader and a tractor equipped with a disc
harrow. Next, the surface was regularized and the mixture was compacted (Figure 1b) using a
sheepsfoot drum roller to the target dry unit weight. After each passing of the compactor
equipment, the dry unit weight of the foundation was measured using a non-nuclear soil density
gauge.
The second phase of the field-testing program was the construction of three additional
experimental sections (with 30 m in length, 3 m wide and a thickness of 0.15 m) following the
same procedures described above. Each section was divided in three 10 m long subsections,
with different dry unit weight and lime content values (Table 2). In order to obtain the target
dry unit weight values of the Sections 1, 2 and 3, compactor passes equal to, respectively, 4, 8
and 16 were needed.
Right after construction finished (day 1) and on the following 3, 4, 14 and 28 days the
peak deflections of each subsection were assessed using a lightweight deflectometer in
accordance to the procedures stated by ASTM E2583 (ASTM 2011b). This test method can be
seen as a plate-bearing test in which the load is a force pulse deriving from a properly adjusted
falling mass. The impact of such mass results in the deflection of the surface, which is measured
 Page 6 of 19

through suitable instrumentation. This peak deflection is related to the stiffness of the soil-lime
layer and, thus, is an indicative of the stabilisation performance along the curing period. That
is, a small deflection value suggests a higher stiffness than a great deflection value when layers
with the same height are compared. Additionally, cylindrical samples were retrieved from the
experimental sections after 182 days and were submitted to UCS tests. Those specimens
presented 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in height.
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

RESULTS

Properties of the Field Layers

Figure 2 shows the variation of the dry unit weight of each of the preliminary soil-lime layers
(first phase of the field program) as a function of the number of passes of the compactor. It can
be observed that approximately the same dry unit weight is reached with any given number of
passes, regardless of the lime content. This indicates that the addition of lime (regarding the
Can. Geotech. J.

quantities employed herein) has no influence on the density considering the compaction
technique used herein. Moreover, there is an asymptotic value for the dry unit weight, around
16.8 kN/m3, which is after 10 passes.
Results obtained with the lightweight deflectometer (LWD) are presented in Figure 3.
Three deflection measurements were performed nearly the center of each studied section for
every curing period. In general, a stiffness increase (smaller deflections) was observed for
greater curing periods. The 4% lime content was effective in every section for almost every
curing time. With the exception of Section 3, not much difference could be detected between
4%, 6% and 8% deflection values, in terms of effectiveness. Besides, extracted samples allowed
confirming that the experimental soil layers presented adequate homogeneity.

Unconfined Compressive Strength of Field and Laboratory Specimens

UCS tests were performed on samples extracted from the field layers, as well as on laboratory-
moulded specimens. The results, presented in Figure 4, show that an increase in lime content
does not have a major influence in the compressive strength of the laboratory specimens.
Likewise, the UCS results of the specimens collected from the field, after 182 days curing,
suggest that the variation in lime content has low influence on compressive strength, regardless
of the initial density. It is important to mention that the field samples were exposed to higher
 Page 7 of 19

temperatures than the specimens cured in the laboratory due to the region’ climate. This
probably explains why the former appear to yield higher UCS values than those predicted by
the models fitted to the laboratory-specimens results.
On the other hand, the influence of porosity on the UCS of all mixtures appears to be
substantial in both field and laboratory conditions. Figure 5 shows that, in this case, the
porosity/lime index (/Livexp) controls the behaviour of the compressive strength. Indeed, unique
relationships were found between the UCS and this index, with high correlation values (R2) of
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

0.92, 0.92, 0.97, 0.94 and 0.98, for 7, 28, 60, 90 and 182 days, respectively. Furthermore,
although different compositions and curing times were used, a single adjustment exponent (exp)
of 0.12 was fitted to every case (from specimens moulded and cured in the field and in the
laboratory). This adjustment exponent (0.12) reflects the small influence of the lime content in
comparison with the porosity of the tested mixtures, as its value is relatively small.
In this sense, the correlation of the adjusted porosity/lime index and the compressive
strength of soils treated with lime has been shown by Consoli et al. (2011), in which the authors
have shown that the application of a power law, with an exponent of 0.12 (value estimated for
fine-grained soils), is required to create compatibility between the porosity and lime content
Can. Geotech. J.

variations.

CONCLUSIONS

The present work was based on tests carried out on field and laboratory experimental specimens
of clay-lime mixtures. From the data presented in this technical note, the following conclusions
can be drawn:

 The dry unit weight of each of the preliminary soil-lime layers (first phase of the
field program) was a function of the number of passes of the compactor. It was
observed that approximately the same dry unit weight is reached for a given
number of passes preliminary soil-lime layers, regardless of the lime content, thus
indicating that the addition of more or less lime (in the studied range) has no
influence on the field compaction process. Moreover, there is an asymptotic value
for the dry unit weight, around 16.8 kN/m3, which is after 10 passes;

 Results obtained with the lightweight deflectometer (LWD) in all studied sections
have indicated that stiffness increase with time as the measured deflections
 Page 8 of 19

decreased. The 4% lime content was effective in every section for almost every
curing time. With the exception of Section 3, not much difference could be
detected between 4%, 6% and 8% deflection values, in terms of effectiveness;

 Unconfined compressive strength showed a high correlation with the adjusted

porosity/lime index (/Liv0.12). The present work also shows, for the first time ever,
that such parameter is the proper index to be used in the field when dealing with
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

pavement construction and field control of unconfined compressive strength.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to explicit their appreciation to FAPERGS/CNPq 12/2014 – PRONEX (grant
# 16/2551-0000469-2), MCT-CNPq (INCT, Universal & Produtividade em Pesquisa) and
MEC-CAPES (PROEX) for the support to the research group.
Can. Geotech. J.

REFERENCES

ASTM. 2006. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM standard D2487,
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Philadelphia.

ASTM. 2007. Standard test method for pore water extraction and determination of the soluble
salt content of soils by Refractometer. ASTM standard D4542, American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, Philadelphia.

ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens.
ASTM standard C39, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
Philadelphia.

ASTM. 2011a. Standard specification for quicklime, hydrated lime, and limestone for
environmental uses. ASTM standard C1529, American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, Philadelphia.
 Page 9 of 19

ASTM. 2011b. Standard test method for measuring deflections with a light weight
deflectometer (LWD). ASTM standard E2835, American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, Philadelphia.

ASTM. 2012. Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using
standard effort (600 kN-m/m3). ASTM standard D698, American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, Philadelphia.
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

Consoli, N.C., Lopes Junior, L.S., Foppa, D., and Heineck, K.S. 2009. Key parameters
dictating strength control of lime/cement-treated soils. Proceedings of the Institute of
Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering, 162(2): 111-118.

Consoli, N.C., Dalla Rosa, A., and Saldanha R.B. 2011. Variables governing strength of
compacted soil-fly ash-lime mixtures. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 23(4): 432–
440.

Consoli, N.C., Quiñónez Samaniego, R.A., and Kanazawa Villalba, N.M. 2016a. Durability,
strength, and stiffness of dispersive clay–lime blends. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 28(11): 04016124.
Can. Geotech. J.

Consoli, N.C., Quiñónez Samaniego, R.A., Marques, S.F.V., Venson, G.I., Pasche, E., and
González Velásquez, L.E. 2016b. Single model establishing strength of dispersive clay
treated with distinct binders. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53(12): 2072-2079.

Consoli, N.C., Saldanha, R.B., and Scheuermann Filho, H.C. 2019. Short and long-term effect
of sodium chloride on strength and durability of coal fly ash stabilized with lime. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. doi: 10.1139/cgj-2018-0696.

Herzog, A., and Mitchell, J.K. 1963. Reactions accompanying stabilization of clay with cement.
Highway Research Record, 36, 146-171.

Ingles, O.G., and Metcalf, J.B. 1972. Soil stabilization principles and practice. Butterworth-
Heinemann Ltd, Oxford, UK.

Mitchell, J.K. 1981. Soil improvement – State-of-the-art report. In Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm,
Sweden, International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 4, pp. 509–
565.

Rajesh, T., and Marimuthu, A. 2015. Geotechnical characterization of dispersive soil stabilized
with lime and palm oil fuel ash. Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental
 Page 10 of 19

10

Technology, 2(8): 713-716.

Rogers, C.D.F., Glendinning, S., and Roff, T.E.J. 1997. Lime modification of clays for
construction expediency. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical
Engineering, 125(4): 242-249.

Transportation Research Board. 1987. State of the Art Report 5. National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

Umesha, T.S., Dinesh, S.V., and Sivapullaiah, P.V. 2009. Control of dispersivity of soil using
lime and cement. International Journal of Geology, 1(3), 8-16.
Can. Geotech. J.
 Page 11 of 19

11

NOTATION

L lime content (expressed in relation to mass of dry soil)

Liv volumetric lime content (expressed in relation to the total specimen volume)
qu unconfined compressive strength
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

R2 coefficient of determination
t curing time
V total volume of specimen
η porosity
η/Liv porosity/lime index
d dry unit weight
SL unit weight of lime grains
Ss unit weight of soil grains
w moisture content
Can. Geotech. J.

LWD lightweight deflectometer

 Page 12 of 19

12
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

Table 1. Physical properties of the soil sample.

Parameter Value
Liquid limit (%) 33
Plastic limit (%) 17
Plastic index (%) 16
Unit weight of the soil grains (kN/m3) 26.9
Silt (0.002 mm < diameter < 0.075 mm) (%) 80
Clay (diameter < 0.002 mm) (%) 20
Mean particle diameter, D50 (mm) 0.0065
Can. Geotech. J.

Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) 14.1

Soil Specific Surface (m2/g) 26.2
USCS class (ASTM 2006) CL
 Page 13 of 19

13
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

Table 2. Values of dry unit weight and moisture content for each experimental section.
Section Parameter Subsection A Subsection B Subsection C Average
1 Lime content (%) 4 6 8 -
Dry unit weight (kN/m3) 14.54 14.51 14.39 14.5
Moisture content (%) 14.68 14.50 15.18 14.8
2 Lime content (%) 4 6 8 -
Dry unit weight (kN/m3) 16.85 16.77 16.78 16.8
Moisture content (%) 14.75 14.43 15.12 14.8
Can. Geotech. J.

3 Lime content (%) 4 6 8 -

Dry unit weight (kN/m3) 15.36 15.52 15.66 15.5
Moisture content (%) 14.38 14.33 15.23 14.6
 Page 14 of 19

14

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Construction of soil-lime layers: (a) mixing and (b) compaction.

Figure 2. Dry unit weight vs. number of compaction passes obtained during the first phase of
the field-testing.
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

Figure 3. Field measurements of deflections of the compacted layers, considering different dry
unit weight and lime content values.

Figure 4. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) evolution with curing time of laboratory (7,
28, 60 and 90 days) and field (182 days) specimens prepared with dry unit weights of (a) 14.5
kN/m3; (b) 15.5 kN/m3 and (c) 16.8 kN/m3.

Figure 5. Variation of unconfined compressive strength (UCS) with the adjusted porosity/lime
Can. Geotech. J.

index, for different curing periods (7d, 28d, 60d, 90d and 182d-field).
 Can. Geotech. J.
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only. Page 15 of 19

Figure 1: Construction of soil-lime layers: (a) mixing and (b) compaction.

Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only. Page 16 of 19
Can. Geotech. J.

Figure 2. Dry unit weight vs. number of compaction passes obtained during the first
phase of the field-testing.
 Page 17 of 19
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.

Figure 3. Field measurements of deflections of the compacted layers, considering

Can. Geotech. J.

different dry unit weight and lime content values.

Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only. Page 18 of 19
Can. Geotech. J.

Figure 4. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) evolution with curing time of

laboratory (7, 28, 60 and 90 days) and field (182 days) specimens prepared with dry unit
weights of (a) 14.5 kN/m3; (b) 15.5 kN/m3 and (c) 16.8 kN/m3.
 Page 19 of 19
Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 08/04/19. For personal use only.
Can. Geotech. J.

Figure 5. Variation of unconfined compressive strength (UCS) with the adjusted

porosity/lime index, for different curing periods (7d, 28d, 60d, 90d and 182d-field).