Durability, Strength, and Stiffness

of Green Stabilized Sand

Nilo Cesar Consoli 1; Daniel Winter 2; Helena Batista Leon 3; and Hugo Carlos Scheuermann Filho 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Waste glass is a solid residue widely available in the urban centers, where it is discarded after being used in the most diverse
applications (container for distinct products, tableware, decorative objects, civil construction, and the automobile industry). Carbide lime is a
by-product from the manufacture of acetylene gas. This study evaluates the potential of combining these two wastes, finely ground waste
glass and carbide lime, as a possible hydraulic cement (substituting portland cement) to enhance soil behavior. Such blends, when compacted,
have potential application in earthworks such as beds of pipelines and spread footings, as well as base/subbase of pavements. Pozzolanic
reactions occur between silica in amorphous phases (in ground waste glass) and Caþþ (in carbide lime) in an alkaline environment. The
impact of the ground glass and the carbide lime content, as well as the dry unit weight, on the properties (strength, stiffness, and durability) of
compacted sandy soil–ground waste glass–carbide lime mixes is quantified, where two soils have been used, Osorio sand and a clayey sand,
Botucatu residual sandstone (BRS). A novel parameter, named the porosity/binder index (η=Biv ), allows normalizing the behavior of the
unconfined compressive strength (qu ), the shear modulus at small strains (G0 ), and the accumulated loss of mass (ALM) (after wetting-drying
cycles) of the sandy soil–ground waste glass–carbide lime mixes, considering ground glass plus carbide lime as binder. Results have shown
similar trends among qu , G0 , and ALM with η=Biv for the two studied sandy soils–ground glass–lime mixes, even though each was cured at
an ambient temperature (23  2°C), but considering different curing periods (7 days for the former and 180 days for the latter). DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001928. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Waste glass; Carbide lime; Ground glass; Sand; Durability; Shear modulus; Strength; Porosity/binder index;
Sustainability.

Introduction
Materials’ recycling is a strategy for minimizing waste, preserving
the natural resources from further depletion, and thereby contrib-
uting toward sustainable development. Brazil produces approxi-
mately 1 million tons of glass packing every year, which are used
for beverages, food products, medicines, perfumes, cosmetics, and
other items. Bottles and jars exceed half of Brazil’s glass produc-
tion. In Brazil, all products made from glass account for an average
of 3% of urban waste (Bicca Neto 2015), while in the United States,
glass corresponds to approximately 7% of all municipal waste gen-
erated (Basu and Puppala 2015). In the selective waste collection
programs, which exist in most Brazilian cities, glass accounts for
9% of the collected waste materials (Bicca Neto 2015). In 2011,
47% of the glass containers manufactured in Brazil were collected,
totaling 470,000 t=year. This means that significant amounts of
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul, Ave. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 3 andar, Porto Alegre 90035-190,
Brazil (corresponding author). Email: consoli@ufrgs.br
2
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul, Ave. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 3 andar, Porto Alegre
90035-190, Brazil. Email: danielwinter@gmail.com
3
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul, Ave. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 3 andar, Porto Alegre
90035-190, Brazil. Email: helenableon@gmail.com
4
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul, Ave. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 3 andar, Porto Alegre
90035-190, Brazil. Email: hugocsf@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 3, 2017; approved
on March 9, 2018; published online on June 25, 2018. Discussion period
open until November 25, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
waste glass are still disposed in landfills. In Germany, the recycling
rate in 2010 was 87%, corresponding to 2.6 million tons. In
Switzerland, the index was 95%, and in the United States 40%
(Bicca Neto 2015).
According to Basu and Puppala (2015), glass is the second larg-
est recycling material, second only to paper, throughout the world.
The glass cullet is very useful as a fine aggregate particularly for
regions in which traditional materials are expensive or unavailable.
The composition of the glass may vary according to its appli-
cation, but basically consists of silica (SiO2 ), calcium oxide (CaO),
and sodium oxide (Na2 O) (Mohajerani et al. 2017). Because of its
amorphous molecular structure, glass can be recycled endlessly
without losing any quality, and it can also be used as a source of
pozzolanic material. According to Rangaraju et al. (2016), ground
waste glass is an exceptional source of amorphous silica.
Amorphous silica reactivity in an alkaline environment
[e.g., CaðOHÞ2 , NaOH] creates pozzolanic reactions. Such reac-
tions might produce stable products with required binding assets
(Saldanha et al. 2016). The pozzolanic chemical reaction
(Massazza 1998) among silica (SiO2 ) of ground waste glass,
carbide lime [CaðOHÞ2 ], and water (H2 O) is presented in Eq. (1)
as follows:
SiO2 þ CaðOHÞ2 þ H2 O → CaO · SiO2 · H2 O ðknown as C-S-HÞ
ð1Þ
In order to assess the potential of using sand–ground waste
glass–lime blends, characterization of the ground glass from physi-
cal, chemical, and mineralogical viewpoints is necessary. Also,
strength tests are usually employed as a way to examine the influ-
ence of diverse variables (e.g., porosity of the blend, curing time).
A logical dosage procedure for soil–portland cement was created

© ASCE 04018057-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018057

 by Consoli et al. (2007), taking into consideration the porosity/
portland cement index (η=Civ , considering portland cement as
a binder) as a proper parameter to assess a unique relation with
strength of soil–portland cement mixes, while Consoli et al. (2009)
have shown that the porosity/lime index (η=Liv , considering lime
as a binder) is a proper parameter to establish a single relation
with the strength of soil–lime mixes. Consoli et al. (2011) have
extended previous studies showing that porosity/lime index
(η=Liv —considering lime as a binder) is also an appropriate param-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
optimal from economical and environmental viewpoints. Nassar and
Soroushian (2012) and Soroushian (2012) used ground glass for par-
tial replacement for cement: an environmentally sustainable material,
which is largely available at a low cost. Güllü et al. (2017) investi-
gated the use of cement-based grout combined with glass powder to
enhance the clay soil via a deep mixing technique. The authors found
that 3% replacement of glass powder increased strength.
Despite all the previous work on the use of waste glass in con-
crete and as a cement replacement material, specific research con-

eter to evaluate specific relations regarding strength for each distinct
amount of pozzolan for soil–coal fly ash (pozzolan)–lime mixtures.
Yet, so far, no study has examined the applicability of a new
parameter, the porosity/binder index (η=Biv ), for compacted soil-
pozzolan-lime mixes (considering pozzolan plus lime as a binder)
in terms of unconfined compressive strength (qu ), shear modulus at
small strains (G0 ), and durability (accumulated loss of mass after
wetting-drying cycles). This seeks to determine the relationship
among η=Biv , G0 , qu , and accumulated loss of mass (ALM) for
compacted sandy soil–ground waste glass–carbide lime mixes.
cerning compacted sandy soils–ground waste glass–carbide lime
blends has yet to be developed. The possibility of using an envi-
ronmentally sustainable geomaterial prepared with finely ground
waste glass and carbide lime blended with sandy soils and com-
pacted to be used as beds of pipelines and spread footings, base/
subbase of pavements, as well as for other possible earthworks,
might be of interest for geotechnical and geoenvironmental engi-
neers to developed sustainable geosolutions.
Experimental Program

The materials and methods used in the present research are

Background discussed below.
Wartman et al. (2004) found out that, when glass is fractioned in the
size of fine aggregates, it exhibits properties, similar to sandy Materials
material: high stability and frictional strength due to the angular Poorly graded sand with silt (named Osório sand) (ASTM 2006)
nature of the crushed glass. The use of waste glass, typically ob- obtained from the region of Porto Alegre, in southern Brazil,
tained from recycling of glass containers, in portland cement con- was used throughout this investigation. Mineralogical analysis
crete has been widely investigated, both as a crushed granular showed that sand particles are composed of approximately 99.5%
aggregate material and in a finely ground form as a cement replace- quartz. Fig. 1 shows the grain size distribution curve of the studied
ment material. sand. Physical properties are shown in Table 1. Ground waste glass
Kuruppu and Chandratilake (2012) studied the potential utiliza- microphotography is shown in Fig. 2. Ground glass grains prove to
tion of waste glass as a coarse aggregate for concrete. Ganiron be mainly angular with distinct shapes. The physical properties
(2013) found out that the use of crushed recycled glass bottles of ground waste glass are displayed in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The pulv-
(as an alternative for fine aggregate in concrete mix): (1) decreases erized glass utilized in the testing was originated from domestic
the water-cement ratio depending on the amount present in the mix- waste colorless glass bottles that were pulverized in a ball mill,
ture, (2) reduces the unit weight of concrete, and (3) decreases the being classified (ASTM 2006) as silt (ML). The ground waste glass
value for the modulus of elasticity. Srivastana et al. (2014) con-
cluded that waste glass could effectively be used as a coarse aggre-
gate replacement at levels up to 10%. Olofinnade et al. (2017)
efficaciously produced 20-MPa strength concrete with waste glass
crushed to coarse aggregate sizes and blended with natural coarse
aggregate, mixing up to 25% replacement.
Basu and Puppala (2015) suggested the use of crushed waste
glass as an additive in clay because the recycled glass has a lower
melting temperature than virgin glass and, therefore, lowers the
production costs for tiles and bricks. Moreover, crushed glass can
also be used as a substitute for granular soils, for roadway subbase,
and added as a course aggregate in hot-mix asphalt. The high fric-
tional angle (about 50°) of well-crushed glass contributes to good
lateral stability for pavement surfaces (Arulrajah et al. 2013).
Mohajerani et al. (2017) carried out a detailed review of uses of
crushed waste glass as a construction material. The authors con-
cluded that crushed waste glass has potential use as an aggregate
in construction materials.
Several common stabilizers (coal fly ash and bottom ash, blast
furnace slag, and cement kiln dust, among others) have been added
to cement (e.g., Schwarz and Neithalath 2008). Alternative to these
stabilizers, glass powder has increasingly been used in various ap-
plications. Rangaraju et al. (2016) studied the use of milled glass
fiber waste in partly substituting for portland cement and found supe-
rior mechanical and durability behavior of mortar and concrete mix-
Fig. 1. Grain size distribution of ground glass, Osorio sand, and BRS
tures compared to control mixtures. Islam et al. (2017) found that a
clayey sand.
20% replacement of cement with waste glass powder in concrete was

© ASCE 04018057-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018057

 Table 1. Physical properties of the ground glass, Osorio sand, and BRS clayey sand samples
Botucatu sandstone
Properties Osorio sand residual soil (BRS) Ground glass
Liquid limit (%) — 23 —
Plastic limit (%) — 13 —
Plasticity index (%) Nonplastic 10 Nonplastic
Unit weight of the grains (kN=m3 ) 26.3 26.4 24.4
Medium sand (0.425 mm < diameter < 2.0 mm) (%) 10.0 6.0 —
Fine sand (0.075 mm < diameter < 0.425 mm) (%) 82.0 53.0 0.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Silt (0.002 mm < diameter < 0.075 mm) (%) 6.5 36.0 93.4
Clay (diameter < 0.002 mm) (%) 1.5 5.0 6.2
Mean particle diameter, D50 (mm) 0.205 0.115 0.022
Preponderant minerals Quartz Quartz Amorphous
USCS class (ASTM 2006) SP-SM (poorly graded sand with silt) SC (clayey sand) ML (silt)

Fig. 3. X-ray diffractometry of studied ground waste glass.

Fig. 2. Microphotograph of ground waste glass.

127.3-mm length were utilized. The amounts of sandy soil (for both
studied soils) and ground glass were blended in the proportions
mineralogical characterization, using an X-ray diffractometer, de- 90=10, 80=20, and 70=30%, as indicated in previous experiences
tected the presence of a noncrystalline amorphous solid (Fig. 3). for distinct pozzolans (e.g., NCHRP 1976).
Chemical analysis has shown silicon dioxide (SiO2 ) as the main The results of Proctor compaction tests, for modified
constituent of ground glass. (2,700 kN · m=m3 ) compaction effort, are shown in Fig. 4, for
A second soil, a clayey sand (ASTM 2006) named Botucatu Osorio sand; the three amounts of ground glass (10, 20, and 30%);
residual soil (BRS) and derived from weathered Botucatu sand- and 7% of carbide lime. The compaction tests were carried out
stone, also found in southern Brazil, is also studied in the present immediately after mixing.
research. Fig. 1 shows the grain size distribution curve of this A target dry density for a particular specimen was then estab-
clayey sand, whose physical properties are shown in Table 1. lished, being the dry weight of the compacted soil–ground waste
Carbide lime was used throughout this investigation; such glass–carbide lime mix divided by the total volume of the specimen
lime is a by-product of the manufacture of acetylene gas in an (ASTM 2009). Following the undercompaction method proposed
industry located in the metropolitan region of Porto Alegre, which by Ladd (1978), the sandy soil–ground glass–carbide lime blends
produces approximately 2,160 t of lime per year. The physical- were statically compacted in three layers into cylindrical split
mineralogical-chemical characterization of the carbide lime used molds, to a target dry unit weight. As exhibited in Eq. (2) (Consoli
herein was detailed by Saldanha et al. (2018). The unit weight et al. 2011), porosity (η) is a function of dry unit weight (γ d ) of the
of carbide lime grains is 21.9 kN=m3 . sandy soil (S), ground waste glass (GG), and carbide lime (CL)
Distilled water was employed both for characterization tests and content. Each substance (sandy soil, ground waste glass and car-
molding specimens for the mechanical tests. bide lime) has a unit weight of solids (γsS , γsGG , and γsCL ), which
also must be considered for computing porosity, as follows:
Methods (" #" #)
γd S
100
GG
100
CL
100
Molding and Curing of Specimens η ¼ 100 − 100 þ þ ð2Þ
S
100 þ 100
GG
þ 100
CL γsS γsGG γsCL
For strength (unconfined compression) and stiffness (ultrasonic
pulse velocity) tests, cylindrical specimens with 50-mm diameter
and 100-mm length were employed. For durability (wetting and Furthermore, Eq. (3) (Consoli et al. 2009, 2011), which
drying) tests, cylindrical specimens with 100-mm diameter and considers the volumetric content of lime (Liv ), allows evaluating

© ASCE 04018057-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018057


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Compaction tests (modified effort) considering sand with three
distinct amounts of ground waste glass (10, 20, and 30%) and 7%
carbide lime.
separately the influence of the addition of different percentages of
pozzolanic material (ground glass in present study), as follows:
V CL mCL =γsCL
Liv ¼ ¼ ð3Þ
V V
Also, the new parameter proposed in this study, the porosity/
binder index (η=Biv ), calculated by the division of Eqs. (2) and (4),
allows unifying the influence of the content of pozzolanic material
(ground glass) and carbide lime as a composite cementing agent
(binder). Thus, all the adjacent curves can be unified in a single
relation as a function of the relation of the porosity of the specimen
and the binder, as follows:
V GG þ V CL mGG =γsGG þ mCL =γsCL
Biv ¼ ¼ ð4Þ
V V
Once the sandy soil, ground glass, and carbide lime were
weighed, they were blended until the mix attained visual uniform-
ity. A moisture content of 11% (the optimum moisture content for
modified Proctor compaction effort) was added to the Osorio sand
blends (10% for the BRS–ground glass–carbide lime mixtures),
and mixing was resumed until a paste, homogeneous in appearance,
was produced. Specimens were statically compacted in three strata
in the interior of a cylindrical mold, and the top of each layer was
slightly scarified. Subsequently to molding, specimens were re-
moved from the molds, and their weights, diameters, and heights
were measured with precisions of nearly 0.01 g and 0.1 mm, cor-
respondingly. The specimens were cured in a humid room at
23  2°C and relative moisture of about 95% (ASTM 2013). The
specimens were considered suitable for testing if they met the
following tolerances: maximum variation of 0.5 g=cm3 of
the dry unit weight (γ d ), and 1% of the dimensions (0.50=1.0 mm
in diameter and 1.0=1.27 mm in the height of the unconfined
compression and durability test specimens, respectively).
Unconfined Compression Tests
Compression tests followed the standard ASTM C39 (ASTM
2010). Before testing, specimens were placed underwater for
24 h in order to reduce suction (Consoli et al. 2011).
For Osorio sand–ground glass–carbide blends, specimens were
molded with 11% moisture content; dry densities of 18.5 kN=m3
(nearly the maximum dry unit weight for a modified Proctor compac-
tion effort for 30% ground glass); and the other two values below, 17.5
© ASCE 04018057-4
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018057
and 16.5 kN=m3 . Specimens of sand containing 20% ground glass
were molded with dry densities of 17.5 kN=m3 (approximately the
maximum dry unit weight for a modified Proctor compaction effort
for 20% ground glass), and the other two values below, 16.5 and
15.5 kN=m3 . Specimens of sand containing 10% ground glass were
molded with dry densities of 17.5 kN=m3 (close to the maximum dry
unit weight for a modified Proctor compaction effort for 10% ground
glass), and the other two values below, 16.5 and 15.5 kN=m3 . Carbide
lime contents of 3, 5, and 7% were determined following international
(Mitchell 1981) and Brazilian (Consoli et al. 2009) experiences. All 81
specimens, made in the triplicate system, in order to ensure uniformity
of properties, remained curing for 7 days.
For the BRS–ground glass–carbide blends, specimens were
molded with 10% moisture content; dry densities of 16.0, 17.0,
and 18.0 kN=m3 ; and 10, 20, and 30% of ground glass. Carbide
lime contents of 5, 8, and 11% were used. All specimens remained
curing for 180 days.
Pulse Velocity Tests and Ultrasonic Elastic Parameters
Elastic parameters of sand–ground glass–carbide lime blends at
tiny deformations may be acquired by carrying out ultrasonic pulse
velocity tests following standard ASTM D2845 (ASTM 2008).
Transducers are attached to the two extremes of the specimens us-
ing a coupler gel. Specimens were the same as those molded for
unconfined compression tests, since this is a nondestructive test.
Durability Tests
Durability tests (wetting-drying cycles) of the compacted sandy
soil–ground glass–carbide lime mixtures (with both Osorio sand
and BRS clayey sand) were completed according to standard
ASTM D559 (ASTM 2015). The test procedures determined mass
losses produced by recurrent (12) wet-dry series. Every cycle began
by oven drying through 42 h at 71  2°C. Then, specimens were
brushed 18–20 times using a force of approximately 15 N. Finally,
specimens were placed underwater for 5 h at 23  2°C. Specimens
were molded with the same amounts of ground glass, quantities
of carbide lime, and dry unit weights as for the unconfined compres-
sion and ultrasound tests. The Osorio sand blends were cured for
7 days, while the BRS mixtures were cured for 180 days.
X-Ray Diffractometry Tests
X-ray diffractometry tests of compacted ground glass–carbide
lime blends were carried out using an X-ray diffractometer
Siemens D-5000 (Siemens AG, Munich, Germany) (Θ-Θ)
equipped with a copper fixed anode tube, working with 40 kV
and 40 mA. The angular array analyzed ranged from
5 to 75° 2Θ with 0.05°=1-s steps. The compacted ground glass–
carbide lime specimen tested was molded with a dry density of
14 kN=m3 , 5% of carbide lime content, and moisture content of
about 11%, and it was cured for 7 days.
Results
Influence of the Porosity/Binder Index on q u
Fig. 5 shows the variation between unconfined compressive
strength (qu ) and the adjusted porosity/lime index η=ðLiv Þ0.12 con-
sidering Osorio sand containing 10, 20, and 30% of ground glass;
distinct dry unit weights; and lime contents aimed at 7 days of cur-
ing. Confirming the studies of Consoli et al. (2011), fair agreements
between qu and the η=ðLiv Þ0.12 were found using a power relation-
ship for Osorio sand–10, 20, and 30% GG–lime blends [Eq. (5)
for 10% GG (R2 ¼ 0.74), Eq. (6) for 20% GG (R2 ¼ 0.93),
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Variation of unconfined compressive strength (qu ) with adjusted porosity/lime index for compacted sand–ground glass–lime blends
considering 10, 20, and 30% of ground glass; distinct dry unit weights; and lime contents aimed at 7 days of curing.

 −3.70
and Eq. (7) for 30% GG (R2 ¼ 0.88), respectively]. As observed by η
qu ðkPaÞ ¼ 10.39 × 106 ð8Þ
Consoli et al. (2011), qu versus η=ðLiv Þ0.12 is obtained for each B0.28
iv
distinct amount of GG, leading to distinct and unique correlations
for each amount of ground glass, as follows: A fairly good correlation [R2 ¼ 0.84—see Eq. (9)] arises
  between η=ðBiv Þ0.28 and qu of the compacted BRS clayey sand–
η −2.00
qu ðkPaÞ ¼ 1.19 × 105 0.12 ð5Þ ground glass–carbide lime mixtures [Fig. 6(b)]. This demonstrates
Liv
that the porosity/binder index is effective in normalizing the
 −2.00 strength results for the BRS mixtures, keeping the same curve
η shape and exponents D ¼ 0.28 and E ¼ 3.70 as for the Osorio
qu ðkPaÞ ¼ 3.16 × 105 ð6Þ
L0.12
iv sand blends, only with a larger scalar A (A ¼ 55.53 × 106 for BRS
 −2.00 clayey sand–GG–CL against A ¼ 10.39 × 106 for Osorio sand–
η GG–CL), possibly echoing 180 days of curing, as follows:
qu ðkPaÞ ¼ 7.02 × 105 ð7Þ
L0.12
iv  −3.70
6 η
qu ðkPaÞ ¼ 55.53 × 10 ð9Þ
This study proposes a different approach, considering the B0.28
iv
porosity/binder index as a more consistent indicator of strength
(the binder being the ground glass plus carbide lime). Both materials The use of the porosity/binder index to normalize the strength of
need to be considered since lime alone is not a binder; it needs silica soils treated with portland cement (seen as the binder) has been
and/or alumina to form a cementitious (pozzolanic) reaction. A shown by Consoli et al. (2007, 2016). They showed that the rates
unique adjusted porosity/binder index η=ðBiv Þ0.28 for an unconfined of the change in strength with porosity (η) and the inverse of the
compressive strength (qu ) correlation for each sandy soil, ground volumetric binder content (1=Biv ) are not generally the same. Thus,
glass (pozzolan), and lime studied, but considering distinct pozzolan the application of a power (as a rule, 0.28; Consoli et al. 2007, 2016)
amounts, lime amounts, and porosities, can be determined. to Biv is required for the rates of η and 1=Biv to be compatible.
Fig. 6(a) portrays qu as a function of η=ðBiv Þ0.28 [porosity (η) According to Consoli et al. (2016), the unconfined compressive
divided by the volumetric binder content (Biv )], the latter being strength of soils treated with portland cement (seen as the binder) is
expressed in the present study as a percentage of cementitious given by equations such as
binder (ground glass plus carbide lime) volume to the total volume  −E
of the specimen for the curing period studied (7 days). Fig. 6(a) η
qu ¼ A ð10Þ
indicates that the porosity/binder index is helpful in normalizing ðBiv ÞD
the strength results for Osorio sand–ground glass–carbide lime
mixtures. An average correlation [R2 ¼ 0.89—see Eq. (8)] exists where A, D, and E are scalars.
between η=ðBiv Þ0.28 and qu of the Osorio sand–ground glass– Diambra et al. (2017) applied the principles of the critical
carbide lime mixtures studied, as follows: state soil mechanics and a mixture-modeling framework to

© ASCE 04018057-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018057

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Variation of unconfined compressive strength (qu ) with adjusted porosity/binder index for (a) compacted sand–ground glass–lime blends
aimed at 7 days of curing; and (b) compacted BRS clayey sand–ground glass–lime specimens at 180 days of curing time.
predict the compressive strength of soils treated with portland
cement (seen as the binder). These authors developed a theoretical
model that provides a direct connection between the individual
material [soil and portland cement (seen as the binder) grains]
properties and the empirical coefficients of Eq. (10), providing a
physical meaning to the data results. Diambra et al. (2017) show
the theoretical development that leads to yields in Eq. (11) as
follows:
 −a
η
qu ¼ K ð11Þ
ðBiv Þ1=a
where K and a = scalars. Additionally, K is a function of
parameters linked to the soil (e.g., the critical state strength
ratio—M for the soil) and the binder (e.g., unconfined compressive
strength of the binder phase, ratio between the unconfined com-
pressive and tensile strengths of the binder phase).
Comparing Eqs. (10) (empirical) and (11) (theoretical), it can be
observed that Etheoretical ¼ a and Dtheoretical ¼ 1=a are related, and
A is a scalar linked to both soil and binder characteristics.
Assuming D ¼ 0.28 [as seen in Eqs. (8) and (9)] and knowing
that D ¼ 1=a, then a is calculated as 3.57. The empirical a value
found in this research is 3.70, which is approximately the same as
that supposed by the Diambra et al. (2017) relationship.
Influence of the Porosity/Binder Index on Initial Shear
Modulus (G 0 )
An analysis, analogous to the one performed for compressive
strength, was also carried out for G0 [Fig. 7(a)]. Results showed that
η=ðBiv Þ0.28 correlates with G0 for compacted Osorio sand–ground
glass–carbide lime mixes [Fig. 7(a)]. A reasonable correlation
[R2 ¼ 0.72—see Eq. (12)] was found for η=ðBiv Þ0.28 and G0 of
the compacted sand–ground glass–carbide lime mixtures considered,
reflecting 7 days of curing (G0 for specimens containing 10% GG
could not be assessed), as follows:
 
η −3.70
G0 ðMPaÞ ¼ 2.24 × 108 0.28 ð12Þ
Biv
© ASCE 04018057-6
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018057
A reasonable correlation [R2 ¼ 0.78—see Eq. (13)] was ob-
tained for η=ðBiv Þ0.28 and G0 of the compacted BRS mixtures con-
sidered, for 180 days of curing [Fig. 7(b)]. As for strength, the
porosity/binder index is also effective at normalizing the G0 results
for the BRS mixtures, keeping equal curve shape and exponents
D ¼ 0.28 and E ¼ 3.70, as for the Osorio sand blends, only with
a larger scalar A for BRS blends (A ¼ 13.26 × 108 for BRS clayey
sand–GG–CL against A ¼ 2.24 × 108 for Osorio sand–GG–CL),
possibly reflecting a longer curing period. The equation is given as
 −3.70
η
G0 ðMPaÞ ¼ 13.26 × 108 0.28
ð13Þ
Biv
Relation G 0 :q u
Increasing the amounts of the ground glass and carbide lime
inclusions strengthen and stiffen the sandy soil matrix.
For the compacted Osorio sand–ground glass–carbide lime
blends, there is a straight line [Eq. (14) and Fig. 8 (a)] with a sound
coefficient of correlation (R2 ¼ 0.99) for the unconfined compres-
sive strength (qu ) versus initial shear modulus (G0 ) relation [(con-
sidering 20 and 30% of ground glass; 3, 5, and 7% of carbide lime;
and the dry unit weights of 15.5, 16.5, 17.5, and 18.5 kN=m3 (the
latter only for 30% ground glass)]. Such relation suggests that, for
the studied compacted sand–ground glass–carbide lime blends,
G0 =qu is a scalar and consequently independent of the porosity/
binder index, as given by
G0 ðMPaÞ ¼ 21.69 × 103 qu ðMPaÞ ð14Þ
For the compacted BRS clayey sand–ground glass–carbide lime
blends, the unconfined compressive strength (qu ) versus initial
shear modulus (G0 ) gives a straight line [Eq. (15) and Fig. 8(b)]
with a good coefficient of correlation (R2 ¼ 0.98) (considering
10, 20, and 30% of ground glass; 5, 8, and 11% of carbide lime;
and the dry unit weights of 16.0, 17.0, and 18.0 kN=m3 ). This re-
lationship suggests that, for the studied compacted BRS–ground
glass–carbide lime blends, G0 =qu is a scalar and consequently
independent of the porosity/binder index. The ratio G0 =qu for
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Initial shear modulus (G0 ) versus adjusted porosity/binder index for (a) compacted Osorio sand–ground glass–carbide lime blends considering
7 days of curing; and (b) compacted BRS clayey sand–ground glass–carbide lime blends considering 180 days of curing.

Fig. 8. qu versus G0 for (a) Osorio sand–ground glass–carbide lime compacted blends considering 10, 20, and 30% of ground glass; 3, 5 and 7% of
carbide lime; and the studied dry unit weights considering 7 days of curing; and (b) BRS clayey sand–ground glass–carbide lime compacted blends
considering 10, 20, and 30% of ground glass; 5, 8, and 11% of carbide lime; and the studied dry unit weights considering 180 days of curing.

BRS–ground glass–carbide lime blends is 30.69 × 103 , while for
Osorio sand–ground glass–carbide lime blends, it is 21.69 × 103 .
It appears that, for different sandy soils treated with ground glass–
carbide lime at different curing times, these values are affected by
the soil type and curing time period, as follows:
G0 ðMPaÞ ¼ 30.69 × 103 qu ðMPaÞ ð15Þ
Influence of the Porosity/Binder Index on Durability
(Wetting and Drying Cycles)
Fig. 9(a) shows the ALM of Osorio sand–ground glass–carbide lime
blends after 12 wetting-drying cycles. Such mixtures consider 10, 20,
and 30% of ground glass; distinct dry unit weights [15.5, 16.5, 17.5,
and 18.5 kN=m3 (the latter only for 30% ground glass)]; and lime
contents (3, 5, and 7%), after a 7-day curing period. A sound relation
of accumulated loss of mass versus porosity/binder index
[η=ðBiv Þ0.28 ] after 12 [Eq. (16) −R2 ¼ 0.88] wet-dry cycles (during
durability tests) can be observed in Fig. 9(a). This relationship is
shown for the first time in the literature for any artificially bonded
soil whose binder is ground glass plus carbide lime, as follows:
 5.00
η
ALMð%Þ ¼ 1.28 × 10−5 ð16Þ
ðBiv Þ0.28
According to the USACE (1994) durability requirements,
the maximum allowable weight loss after 12 wetting-drying cycles

© ASCE 04018057-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018057

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. ALM versus adjusted porosity/binder index for (a) Osorio sand–ground glass–carbide lime compacted blends considering 10, 20, and 30% of
ground glass; 3, 5 and 7% of carbide lime; and the studied dry unit weights considering 7 days of curing; and (b) BRS clayey sand–ground glass–lime
compacted blends considering 10, 20, and 30% of ground glass; 5, 8, and 11% of carbide lime; and dry unit weights of 16, 17, and 18 kN=m3 ,
considering 180 days of curing.

Fig. 10. Specimens of (a) Osorio sand with 30% ground glass, dry unit weight of 18.5 kN=m3 , and 7% carbide lime after finishing durability tests;
and (b) BRS clayey sand with 20% ground glass, dry unit weight of 18 kN=m3 , and 8% carbide lime after finishing durability tests. (Images by Nilo
Cesar Consoli.)

is 11% for granular material with a reduced plasticity index. 30% of ground glass, considering the three studied amounts
For this study, the wetting-drying durability requirements were (3, 5, and 7%) of carbide lime and dry unit weights of 16.5, 17.5,
accomplished only for a porosity/binder index [η=ðBiv Þ0.28 ] and 18.5 kN=m3 , and specimens containing 20 and 10% of ground
smaller than about 15, encompassing all specimens containing glass, considering the largest studied amounts (7%) of carbide lime

© ASCE 04018057-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018057


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. X-ray diffractometry of ground glass–carbide lime blends.
3
and the largest dry unit weights studied (17.5 kN=m ) [Fig. 9(a)].
Fig. 10(a) shows a specimen of Osorio sand with 30% ground glass,
dry unit weight of 18.5 kN=m3 , and 7% of carbide lime after fin-
ishing the 12 cycles of the durability test. The aforementioned
specimen portrayed the smaller accumulated loss of mass and is
the one that presented the better performance in terms of durability.
In Fig. 9(b), it is also possible to observe a reasonable relation
of ALM versus porosity/binder index ½η=ðBiv Þ0.28 [Eq. (17)
−R2 ¼ 0.79] after 12 wet-dry cycles. This relationship confirms
the porosity/binder index as an efficient parameter in normalizing
ALM results for BRS clayey sand–ground glass–carbide lime mix-
tures. Such mixtures maintain a similar curve since they have the
same exponents D ¼ 0.28 and E ¼ 5.00 as Osorio sand–ground
glass–carbide lime blends. The only difference between the curves
was the scalar A which was found to be smaller for BRS blends
(A ¼ 0.29 × 10−5 for BRS-GG-CL; A ¼ 1.28 × 10−5 for Osorio
sand–GG–CL). Fig. 10(b) illustrates a specimen of BRS clayey
sand with 20% ground glass, a dry unit weight of 18.0 kN=m3 ,
and 8% carbide lime after finishing the 12 cycles of the durability
test. The specimens of BRS-CL-GG (cured for 180 days) generally
had smaller ALM than similar specimens of Osorio sand–CL–GG
(cured for 7 days) probably due to the longer curing period, as
follows:
 5.00
η B = binder content (expressed as a percentage);
ALMð%Þ ¼ 0.29 × 10−5 ð17Þ
ðBiv Þ0.28
X-Ray Diffractometry of Ground Glass–Carbide Lime
Mixture
X-ray diffractometry of studied ground glass–lime compacted
blend is shown in Fig. 11. Tobermorite (Ca5 Si6 O18 ) was detected
as the main crystalline phase linked to formed bonds.
Concluding Remarks
Based on the findings presented here, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
• Finely ground waste glass–carbide lime blends can create hy-
draulic cement and can be used to bind distinct sandy soils
for geotechnical earthworks (e.g., base/subbase of pavements);
beds of pipelines; and spread footings.
• The porosity/binder index (η=Biv ) for compacted soil (sandy
soils in the present study)–pozzolan (ground glass in present
© ASCE 04018057-9
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018057
analysis)–lime (carbide lime in present case) mixes is a novel
and appropriate parameter to evaluate unique relationships in
terms of (1) unconfined compressive strength (qu ), (2) shear
modulus at small strains (G0 ), and (3) durability (ALM after
wetting-drying cycles). The ground glass plus carbide lime is
considered as a binder. Different amounts of ground glass,
different amounts of lime, and distinct dry unit weights were
considered. It was also found that the present findings can be
generalized for different sandy soil–ground glass–lime mixes at
different curing periods, having only distinct scalars, which re-
flects the effect of the different sandy soils and curing periods.
• The relationship porosity/binder (pozzolan plus lime) index
[η=ðBiv Þ0.28 ] and the exponent 0.28 are compatible with pre-
vious studies on other sandy soils mixed with portland cement
(e.g., Consoli et al. 2007; Diambra et al. 2017) in which the
porosity/portland cement index [η=ðCiv Þ0.28 ] is used. This sug-
gests that binders formed by finely ground waste glass and car-
bide lime have a similar behavioral trend as portland cement.
• Tobermorite was revealed to be the key crystalline phase formed
by the ground waste glass–carbide lime blends.
• The use of an environmentally sustainable geomaterial prepared
with finely ground waste glass and carbide lime (both residues)
blended with sand and compacted to be used as beds of pipe-
lines and spread footings, base/subbase of pavements, among
other earthworks, can be applied to sustainable geosolutions.
• Further studies have to be carried out in the future to check
if current findings can be applied to clays, to other sandy
soils, such as carbonate sands, and also to ground glass type
variations.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Edital 12/2014
FAPERGS/CNPq—PRONEX (Project No. 16/2551-0000469-2)
and CNPq (INCT-REAGEO and Produtividade em Pesquisa) for
funding the research group.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A, a, D, E, K = scalars;
Biv = volumetric binder content (expressed as a
percentage);
Civ = volumetric portland cement content (expressed as
a percentage);
CL = carbide lime;
G0 = shear modulus at small strains;
GG = ground glass;
L = lime content (expressed as a percentage);
Liv = volumetric lime content (expressed as a
percentage);
m = mass;
qu = unconfined compressive strength;
S = sandy soil;
V = volume;
γ d = dry unit weight;
γ s = unit weight of solids;
η = porosity;
η=Biv = porosity/binder index;
η=Civ = porosity/portland cement index;
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 η=Liv = porosity/lime index;
η=ðBiv Þ0.28 = adjusted porosity/binder index; and
η=ðLiv Þ0.12 = adjusted porosity/lime index.
References
Arulrajah, A., M. Ali, M. Disfani, J. Piratheepan, and M. Bo. 2013.
“Geotechnical performance of recycled glass-waste rock blends in foot-
path bases.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (5): 653–661. https://doi.org/10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000617.
ASTM. 2006. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes.
ASTM D2487. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2008. Standard test method for laboratory determination of pulse
velocities and ultrasonic elastic constants of rock. ASTM D2845. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2009. Standard test methods for laboratory determination of density
(unit weight) of soil specimens. ASTM D7263. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens. ASTM C39. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2013. Standard specification for mixing rooms, moist cabinets,
moist rooms, and water storage tanks used in the testing of hydraulic
cements and concretes. ASTM C511. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2015. Standard test method for wetting and drying compacted soil-
cement mixtures. ASTM D559. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Basu, D., and A. Puppala. 2015. “Principles of sustainability and their
applications in geotechnical engineering.” In Proc., Geotechnical
Synergy: Buenos Aires 2015, edited by A. O. Sfriso, D. Manzanal,
and R. J. Rocca, 162–183. Clifton, VA: IOS Press.
Bicca Neto, V. 2015. Commitment business for recycling: Review, 35.
[In Portuguese.] Brasilia, Brazil: CEMPRE.
Consoli, N. C., A. Dalla Rosa, and R. B. Saldanha. 2011. “Variables gov-
erning strength of compacted soil-fly ash-lime mixtures.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 23 (4): 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
.0000186.
Consoli, N. C., P. M. V. Ferreira, C.-S. Tang, S. F. V. Marques, L. Festugato,
and M. B. Corte. 2016. “A unique relationship determining strength
of silty/clayey soils: Portland cement mixes.” Soils Found. 56 (6):
1082–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.11.011.
Consoli, N. C., D. Foppa, L. Festugato, and K. S. Heineck. 2007. “Key
parameters for strength control of artificially cemented soils.” J. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (2): 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:2(197).
Consoli, N. C., L. S. Lopes, Jr., and K. S. Heineck. 2009. “Key parameters
for the strength control of lime stabilized soils.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
21 (5): 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)
21:5(210).
Diambra, A., E. Ibraim, A. Peccin, N. C. Consoli, and L. Festugato. 2017.
“Theoretical derivation of artificially cemented granular soil strength.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (5): 04017003. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001646.
Ganiron, T. U., Jr. 2013. “Use of recycled glass bottles as fine aggregates in
concrete mixture.” Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 61: 17–28. https://doi.org
/10.14257/ijast.2013.61.03.
Güllü, H., H. Canakci, and I. F. Al Zangana. 2017. “Use of cement based
grout with glass powder for deep mixing.” Constr. Build. Mater.
137 (Apr): 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.070.
Islam, G. M. S., M. H. Rahman, and N. Kazi. 2017. “Waste glass powder
as partial replacement of cement for sustainable concrete practice.”
© ASCE 04018057-10
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(9): 04018057
Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 6 (1): 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijsbe.2016.10.005.
Kuruppu, G., and R. Chandratilake. 2012. “Use of recycle glass as a coarse
aggregate in concrete.” In Proc., World Construction Conf. 2012:
Global Challenges in Construction Industry, 221–228. Moratuwa,
Sri Lanka: Univ. of Moratuwa.
Ladd, R. 1978. “Preparing test specimens using undercompaction.”
Geotech. Test. J. 1 (1): 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10364J.
Massazza, F. 1998. “Pozzolana and pozzolanic cements.” In Lea’s
chemistry of cement and concrete, edited by P. C. Hewlett, 4th ed.
London: Arnold.
Mitchell, J. K. 1981. “Soil improvement: State-of-the-art report.” In Proc.,
10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
509–565. Stockholm, Sweden: International Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering.
Mohajerani, A., J. Vajna, T. H. H. Cheung, H. Kurmus, A. Arulrajah, and S.
Horpibulsuk. 2017. “Practical recycling applications of crushed waste
glass in construction materials: A review.” Constr. Build. Mater.
156 (Dec): 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09
.005.
Nassar, R. U., and P. Soroushian. 2012. “Green and durable mortar
produced with milled waste glass.” Mag. Concr. Res. 64 (7): 605–615.
https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.11.00082.
NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program). 1976.
Lime-fly ash stabilized bases and subbases. Synthesis of Highway
Practice, No. 37. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Olofinnade, O. M., A. N. Ede, and J. M. Ndambuki. 2017. “Sustainable
green environment through utilization of waste soda-lime glass for
production of concrete.” J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 8 (4): 1139–1152.
Rangaraju, P. R., H. Rashidian-Dezfouli, G. Nameni, and G. Q. Amekuedi.
2016. “Properties and performance of ground glass fiber as a pozzolan
in portland cement concrete.” In Proc., 11th Int. Concrete Sustainability
Conf. Washington, DC: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
Saldanha, R. B., J. E. C. Mallmann, and N. C. Consoli. 2016. “Salts accel-
erating strength increase of coal fly ash-carbide lime compacted
blends.” Géotech. Lett. 6 (1): 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.15
.00111.
Saldanha, R. B., H. C. Scheuermann Filho, J. E. C. Mallmann, N. C. Consoli,
and K. R. Reddy. 2018. “Physical-mineralogical-chemical characteriza-
tion of carbide lime: An environment-friendly chemical additive for soil
stabilization.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (6): 06018004. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002283.
Schwarz, N., and N. Neithalath. 2008. “Influence of a fine glass powder on
cement hydration: comparison to fly ash and modeling the degree of
hydration.” Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (4): 429–436. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.cemconres.2007.12.001.
Soroushian, P. 2012. “Strength and durability of recycled aggregate con-
crete containing milled glass as partial replacement for cement.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 29 (Apr): 368–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2011.10.061.
Srivastana, V., S. P. Gautam, V. C. Agarwal, and P. K. Metha. 2014. “Glass
wastes as coarse aggregate in concrete.” J. Environ. Nanotechnol. 3 (1):
67–71.
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 1994. Flexible pavement design
for airfields. USACE Technical Manual No. TM5-822-13. Washington,
DC: USACE.
Wartman, J., D. G. Grubb, and A. S. M. Nasim. 2004. “Select engineering
characteristics of crushed glass.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 16 (6): 526–539.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:6(526).
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.