Consoli, N. C. et al. Géotechnique [https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.P.

099]

Ground waste glass–carbide lime as a sustainable binder

stabilising three different silica sands
NILO CESAR CONSOLI
, MARIANA DA SILVA CARRETTA
, LUCAS FESTUGATO
,
HELENA BATISTA LEON
, LENNON FERREIRA TOMASI
and KARLA SALVAGNI HEINECK

Waste glass is a solid residue usually available near urban centres, where it is discarded after being
used as a container for one of several products. Carbide lime (CL) is a by-product of the
manufacture of acetylene gas. The present research evaluates the potential of combining these
two wastes as a possible hydraulic cement to enhance the behaviour of sands. Pozzolanic reactions occur
between silica in its amorphous phases (found in GG) and Ca++ (present in CL) in an alkaline
environment. The effect of the amount of GG, the CL content and the porosity of the blend on
the strength, stiffness and durability of compacted sand–GG–CL mixes is quantified for three
distinct sands. An original parameter, termed the porosity/binder index (η/Biv), can be used
to normalise the behaviour of the unconfined compressive strength (qu), the shear modulus at small
strains (G0) and the accumulated loss of mass (ALM) of the compacted mixes, considering GG + CL as
the binder. Results have shown unique normalised tendencies for qu, G0 and ALM with η/Biv for the
three studied compacted sand–GG–CL blends, even though each sand has a distinct grain size
distribution.

KEYWORDS: ground improvement; sands; shear strength; soil stabilisation; stiffness

INTRODUCTION are chemically composed of silicon dioxide (about 75%)

Material recycling is a waste minimisation strategy that is
useful for preserving natural resources from further deplet-
ion, and thus contributes towards sustainable development.
In Brazil, glass-made products account for about 3% of
urban waste by weight. Around 47% of all glass containers
in Brazil were recycled in 2011, for a total of 470 000 tons
(Bicca Neto, 2015). In the USA, products made from glass
correspond to approximately 7% of all municipal waste
(Basu & Puppala, 2015). In Germany, the glass-recycling
rate in 2010 was 87%, corresponding to 2·6 million tons.
In the USA, the index was only 40% (Bicca Neto, 2015).
This means that, in some countries (e.g. USA, Brazil),
significant amounts of waste glass are still dumped in
landfills.
The primary ingredient to produce glass is silica sand
(silicon dioxide (SiO2)), also called quartzitic sand; this is
the soil that the authors intend to bind in the present
study. Glass is produced from quartzitic sand without
additives taken to a temperature of 2300°C. Adding sodium
carbonate (commonly called soda) and calcium oxide (CaO)
reduces the temperature needed to make glass to 1500°C
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019). The latter is currently
the commercial way of producing it. The matter (glass)
produced through this process is an amorphous solid – that
is, its structure lacks the long-range order that typically
characterises crystalline materials (e.g. quartz). Typical
commercial glasses (as the one used in the present study)
Manuscript received 20 April 2018; revised manuscript accepted
16 March 2020.
Discussion on this paper is welcomed by the editor.

Professor of Civil Engineering, Graduate Program in Civil
Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto
Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
and calcium oxide (about 17·5%), among other constituents.
Thus, despite the similar chemical constitution, the glass
microstructure is quite different from those encountered
in quartzitic sands. The latter is a typical crystalline structure,
as quartz is basically a continuous framework of silicon–
oxygen tetrahedrons, with each oxygen being shared between
two tetrahedrons. Hence, in regular conditions of pressure
and temperature, such structures are quite stable and will
not be able to interact with Ca++ from lime. However, ground
glass (GG) particles can easily interact with calcium in a
hydrated alkaline environment because of their metastable
amorphous structure and relatively high surface area
(when ground into tiny particles). The Si–O bonds of glass
particles can be broken at pH levels above 12·4; such
pH levels can be reached through the dissociation of
hydrated lime. Because of this, ground glass can fixate lime,
yielding binder products such as calcium silicate hydrate
(CaO:SiO2 :H2 O) gel. Massazza (1998) has shown that
the product formed from the hydration of Portland cement
is also calcium silicate hydrate gel. So, the binder products
formed from GG–carbide lime (CL)–water blends and from
the hydration of Portland cement are the same. The use of
waste glass, typically obtained from recycling of glass
containers, in Portland cement concrete has been widely
investigated, both as a crushed granular aggregate material
and in a finely ground form as a cement replacement material.
Basu & 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 sub-bases, and can be added as a coarse
aggregate in hot-mix asphalt. Mohajerani et al. (2017)
carried out a detailed review of the uses of crushed waste
glass as a construction material. The authors concluded that
crushed waste glass has potential use as an aggregate in
construction materials.

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 2 CONSOLI, DA SILVA CARRETTA, FESTUGATO, LEON, TOMASI AND HEINECK
Several common stabilisers (coal fly ash and bottom ash,
blast furnace slag and cement kiln dust, among others)
have been studied as additives to cement (e.g. Schwarz &
Neithalath, 2008). Glass powder (particles smaller than
0·075 mm) has seen increasing use in various applications as
an alternative to these stabilisers. Rangaraju et al. (2016)
studied the use of milled glass fibre waste partly substituting
Portland cement and found superior mechanical and dur-
ability behaviour in mortar and concrete mixtures when
compared to control mixtures. Islam et al. (2017) found out
that 20% replacement of Portland cement with waste glass
powder in concrete was optimal from both economic and
environmental viewpoints. Nassar & Soroushian (2012) and
Soroushian (2012) used GG as a partial replacement for
cement, as they deemed it an environmentally sustainable
material, which is largely available at a low cost. Güllü et al.
(2017) investigated the use of cement-based grout combined
with glass powder to enhance clay soil by way of a deep
mixing technique. The authors found that a 3% replacement
of Portland cement by glass powder increased unconfined
compressive strength by 15%.
Despite all the previous work on the use of waste glass
in concrete and as a partial replacement for cement, a specific
research study concerning compacted sands–GG–CL
blends is yet to be developed. The possibility of using
an environmentally sustainable geomaterial prepared with
finely ground waste glass and CL blended with sands and
compacted as the beds of pipelines and spread footings,
bases/sub-bases of pavements and other possible earth-
works might be of interest for geotechnical and geoenviron-
mental engineers who wish to develop sustainable
geo-solutions.
In order to assess the potential of using sand–GG–CL
blends, characterisation of the GG from physical, chemical
and mineralogical viewpoints is necessary. Moreover,
strength tests are usually employed as a way to examine
the influence of variables such as the porosity of the blend
and the amount of GG and CL. A logical dosage procedure
for each distinct amount of pozzolan for soil–coal fly ash
(pozzolan)–lime mixtures was created by Consoli et al.
(2011a) when they took into consideration the porosity/lime
index (η/Liv – considering lime as a binder) as a proper para-
meter to assess specific relations regarding strength for each
distinct amount of pozzolan for soil–coal fly ash (pozzolan)–
lime mixtures. Nevertheless, no study has examined the
applicability of the porosity/binder index (η/Biv) for different
compacted sand–GG–CL mixes (considering GG plus CL
as the binder) in terms of unconfined compressive strength
(qu), shear modulus at small strains (G0) and durability
(accumulated loss of mass (ALM) after wetting–drying
cycles). This seeks to determine the relationship between
η/Biv and G0, qu, and ALM for three different compacted
silica sand–GG–CL mixes.
Glass bottles were not a usual waste until a few years ago,
because returnable bottles were reused and not discarded.
In recent years, with changes in consumers’ habits, bottling
companies have stopped reusing them. Since this change,
glass bottles have started to be discarded, exponentially
increasing the amount of glass as waste. Few research studies
have focused on the use of glass in Portland cement-
based concrete as a substitute for aggregates (in large
pieces) or even partial substitution of Portland cement
(ground). The present research will focus on answering
the following key issues about the potential employment
of GG–CL blends in poorly graded (uniform) silica sands
of different average grain sizes (D50). Is it possible to stabilise
sand with lime and GG? If so, which quantities of GG,
CL and compaction energy are ordinarily employed to
produce strength, stiffness and durability improvements in
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
short time periods? Are qu, G0 and ALM related to η/Biv in
compacted sand–GG–lime mixes? Is G0 related to qu in
compacted sand–GG–lime mixes? If so, is this relation
dependent on η/Biv? In poorly graded (uniform) silica
sands, does the average particle size (D50) have any effect
on strength, stiffness and loss of mass values and in their
relations with η/Biv?
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
The materials and methods used for this research are
discussed below.
Materials
Three poorly graded sands (SP) with mean particle
diameters (D50) of 0·16 mm, 0·25 mm and 0·35 mm were
used throughout this investigation, respectively Osório sand,
Rio Pardo (RP) sand and Porto Alegre (POA) sand. Fig. 1
shows the grain size distribution curve of the three sands
studied. Fig. 2 shows optical imaging of the three sands
studied and of the GG particles. Osório sand is an eolic sand
(see Fig. 2(a)), while RP and POA sands are fluvial sands
(see Figs 2(b) and 2(c)). Their physical properties are shown
in Table 1. All of the sands studied are basically quartzitic.
Particle forms vary from 1 : 1 to 1 : 2 from the shortest to
the longest axes; roundness varies from sub-rounded to
angular; and grain surface texture varies from polished
to small shaped markings.
Ground glass grains are shown to be mainly angular
with distinct shapes (see Fig. 2(d)). The physical properties
and grain size distribution curve of GG are displayed
in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The GG utilised in the testing origi-
nated from domestic waste colourless glass bottles
that were ground in a ball mill, being classified (ASTM,
2006) as silt (ML). By employing the degree of crystallinity
method (Kern et al., 2012), it was determined that the
amount of amorphous GG was more than 99%. Chemical
analysis has shown silicon dioxide to be the main constituent
of GG.
Carbide lime was used throughout this investigation. Such
lime is a by-product of the manufacture of acetylene
gas. Testing revealed that a #200 sieve retains 23·2% of
the CL used in this study, thus meeting the 25% requirement
of the ASTM C997 standard (ASTM, 2003). It possesses a
specific surface area of 22·6 m2/g and a volumetric surface
area of 49·5 m2/cm3. Stoichiometrically, it consists of 81·0%
100
90 Ground glass
Osório sand
80 RP sand
Percent finer by weight: %
70 POA sand
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0·0001 0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10
Grain size: mm
Fig. 1. Grain size distribution of Osório sand, RP sand, POA sand
and GG
 GROUND WASTE GLASS–CARBIDE LIME AS A SUSTAINABLE BINDER 3

500 µm 500 µm

(a) (b)

500 µm

(c) (d)

Fig. 2. Optical imaging of (a) Osório sand; (b) RP sand; (c) POA sand; and (d) scanning electron microscope image of GG grains

Table 1. Physical properties of the three soils studied and the GG

Properties Osório sand RP sand POA sand Ground glass

Plastic index: % Non-plastic Non-plastic Non-plastic Non-plastic

Unit weight of the grains: kN/m3 26·3 26·8 26·5 24·6
Medium sand 0·3 16·6 32·9 —
(0·425 mm , diameter , 2·0 mm): %
Fine sand 97·6 81·3 67·1 0·4
(0·075 mm , diameter , 0·425 mm): %
Silt (0·002 mm , diameter , 0·075 mm): % 1·6 2·1 — 93·4
Clay (diameter , 0·002 mm): % 0·5 — — 6·2
Mean particle diameter, D50: mm 0·16 0·25 0·35 0·022
BS 5930 (BSI, 2015) class Fine to medium Fine to medium Fine to medium Slightly clayey, slightly
sand sand sand sandy coarse silt
USCS class (ASTM, 2006) SP ( poorly SP ( poorly SP ( poorly ML (silt)
graded sand) graded sand) graded sand)

calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and 9·40% calcium carbonate METHODS

(CaCO3). Based on the wet chemical analysis as per ASTM
C25 (ASTM, 2011), the amount of calcium oxide in the CL
was found to be 96%, meeting the ASTM (2003) recommen-
dation of more than 90% calcium oxide in hydrated lime for
use in soil stabilisation. The unit weight of its grains is
21·9 kN/m3 (ABNT, 2000). Further details were presented by
Saldanha et al. (2018).
Distilled water was employed both for characterisation
tests and for moulding of the specimens that would be used in
the mechanical tests.
Moulding and curing of specimens. For strength (uncon-
fined compression) and stiffness (ultrasonic pulse velocity)
tests, cylindrical specimens of 50 mm dia. and 100 mm long
were employed. For durability (wetting and drying) tests,
cylindrical specimens of 100 mm dia. and 127·3 mm from
top to bottom were utilised (according to standard ASTM
D559 (ASTM, 2015)). Table 2 shows the variations of GG
and CL contents, as well as the range of dry unit weights
studied for each one of the studied sands in the strength, stiff-
ness and durability tests. GG percentages used in the present

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 4 CONSOLI, DA SILVA CARRETTA, FESTUGATO, LEON, TOMASI AND HEINECK
Table 2. Specimens’ target moulding characteristics for unconfined compression, initial stiffness and durability tests

Test Unconfined compression and initial stiffness Durability

Material Dry unit weight: GG CL Dry unit weight: GG CL

kN/m3 contents: % contents: % kN/m3 contents: % contents: %

Osório sand 18·5 30 3, 5, 7 18·5 30 3

18·5 20 3, 5, 7 30 7
17·5 30 3, 5, 7 17·5 30 5
17·5 20 3, 5, 7 20 3
16·5 30 3, 5, 7 20 7
16·5 20 3, 5, 7 16·5 30 7
15·5 30 3, 5, 7 15·5 20 3
15·5 20 3, 5, 7 20 5
20 7
RP and POA 18·2 30 5, 8, 11 18·2 30 5
sand 18·2 20 5, 8, 11 30 8
17·2 30 5, 8, 11 30 11
17·2 20 5, 8, 11 20 11
16·2 30 5, 8, 11 17·2 30 11
16·2 20 5, 8, 11 20 11
16·2 30 11

study varied between 20 and 30% and were chosen after
preliminary evaluation in which less than 20% of the GG was
ineffective and more than 30% was considered excessive
by the authors, due to possible high cost. CL contents varied
from 3 to 11%, following international (Mitchell, 1981)
experience. Modified compaction effort Proctor tests
(ASTM, 2012) were carried out for each one of the three
different silica sands (Osório, RP and POA sands), blended
with two distinct amounts of GG (20 and 30%); and 5%
of CL. Results for all studied sands have shown that
increasing the amount of GG increased the dry unit weight
of the compacted specimens. The maximum dry unit weights
of each sand, obtained with 30% GG, were 18·75 kN/m3
(Osório sand), 18·70 kN/m3 (RP sand) and 18·70 kN/m3
(POA sand) with optimum water contents (ωopt) of 11, 10·2
and 9·5%, respectively. All specimens were moulded with a
water content of about 11% and were moist cured for 7 days.
undercompaction levels were 3·5% for the first compacted
layers, 1·5% for the second compacted layers and 0·0% for
the third compacted layers. The sand–GG–CL blends were
statically compacted in three layers into cylindrical split
moulds, to a target dry unit weight. The static compaction
was performed using a hydraulic loading machine. Each layer
was compacted to a predetermined height. The specimens
typically failed over a defined shearing plane, which extended
through the three layers of the specimen, indicating satisfac-
tory uniformity. However, not every specimen’s uniformity
was checked and as such cannot be guaranteed due to the
inherent limitations of the method used.
As exhibited in equation (1) (Consoli et al., 2011a),
porosity (η) is a function of the dry unit weight (γd) of the
sand (S), GG and CL content. Each substance (specific sand,
GG and CL) has a unit weight of solids (γsS, γsGG, and γsCL),
which also must be considered for computing porosity.

  
γd S=100 GG=100 CL=100
η ð%Þ ¼ 100  100 þ þ ð1Þ
ðS=100Þ þ ðGG=100Þ þ ðCL=100Þ γsS γsGG γsCL

Consoli et al. (2011b) have shown that the effect of diverse
soil structures formed during compaction of soil–binder
blends at distinct water contents, together with porosities of
the specimens and the amounts of binder inserted in them
play a role in the strength of such materials. Studies by
Stracke et al. (2012) specifically on the influence of moulding
water content on compressive strength of early strength
Portland cement Osório sand have shown that a 2% decrease
in the water content (from 12 to 10%) ended up resulting in a
change of 4·1% in strength. So, the effect of the moulding
water content (11%) used for the three studied compacted
sand–binder blends is minor, but exists. A target dry unit
weight for a particular specimen was then established to be
the dry weight of the compacted sand–GG–CL mix divided
by the total volume of the specimen (ASTM, 2009).
Following the undercompaction method proposed by Ladd
(1978), the sand–GG–CL blends were statically compacted
in three layers into cylindrical split moulds, to the target
dry unit weight. Rotta et al. (2003) and Consoli et al. (2000,
2006, 2007, 2016, 2017) have systematically used the
undercompaction method proposed by Ladd (1978) for
preparation of stabilised specimens. On average, the
The volumetric binder content (Biv) allows the unification
of the pozzolan and CL contents into a single index that
represents the influence of the cementitious material’s
content created by the combination of these two components.
For the calculation of this parameter, the sum of the
volumetric contents of both materials is considered, as
presented in equation (2). In equation (2), VGG is the
volume of GG, VCL is the volume of CL, V is the total
volume, mGG is the weight of GG, mCL is the weight of CL,
γsGG is the GG unit weight of solids and γsCL is the CL unit
weight of solids.


VGG þ VCL
Biv ð%Þ ¼ 100
V
 
ðmGG =γsGG Þ þ ðmCL =γsCL Þ
¼ 100 ð2Þ
V
A dosage parameter, the porosity/binder index (η/Biv), that
is proposed in this study can be calculated by dividing
equation (1) by equation (2), and allows for unification of the
influence of the porosity and the binder content (pozzolanic
material (GG) and CL).

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 GROUND WASTE GLASS–CARBIDE LIME AS A SUSTAINABLE BINDER 5
Details of the theoretical and actual values of the specimens qu = 3·08 Biv0·28 (R2 = 0·99)
tested for strength and stiffness are presented in online qu = 2·52 Biv0·28 (R2 = 0·98)
supplementary Appendix 1, while specimens tested for loss 1600 qu = 2·02 Biv0·28 (R2 = 0·97)
of mass are presented in online supplementary Appendix 2. η = 31%

Unconfined compressive strength, qu: kPa

Once the sand, GG and CL had been weighed, they were η = 33%
blended until the mix attained visual uniformity. A water η = 35%
content of 11%, defined through modified effort Proctor 1200
compaction tests, was added to each of the sand blends, and
mixing was resumed until a homogeneous paste was produced.
Specimens were statically compacted in three strata in the 800
interior of a cylindrical mould, and the top of each layer was
slightly scarified. Subsequently, specimens were removed from
the moulds and their weights, diameters and heights were
measured with resolutions of 0·01 g and 0·1 mm, corres- 400
pondingly. The specimens were cured in a humid room at
23°C ± 2°C and relative moisture of about 95% (ASTM, 2013)
for 7 days. The specimens were considered suitable for testing
0
if they met the following tolerances: maximum variation
2·1 2·2 2·3 2·4 2·5 2·6
of ± 0·5 g/cm3 in dry unit weight (γd), and of 1% in its Biv0·28
dimensions (±0·50 mm/1·0 mm in the diameter and
(a)
±1·0 mm/1·27 mm in the height for specimens of unconfined
compression, pulse velocity and durability tests, respectively).
qu = 1·85 Biv0·28 (R2 = 0·95)
qu = 1·05 Biv0·28 (R2 = 0·95)
Unconfined compression tests. Compression tests followed qu = 0·78 Biv0·28 (R2 = 0·95)
standard ASTM C39 (ASTM, 2010). Before testing, speci- 600 η = 30%
mens were placed underwater for 24 h to reduce suction Unconfined compressive strength, qu: kPa η = 33%
(Consoli et al., 2011a). The values for GG and CL content, η = 36%
as well as the dry unit weights used for each one of the studied 500
sands are presented in Table 2. The specimens were made in
triplicate for Osório sand and in duplicate for RP and POA
sands; all of them were cured for 7 days. 400

Pulse velocity tests and ultrasonic elastic parameters. Elastic 300

parameters of sand–GG–CL blends at tiny deformations can
be acquired through ultrasonic pulse velocity tests following
standard ASTM D2845 (ASTM, 2008). Transducers are 200
attached to the two extremes of the specimens using an
extremely high-viscosity shear gel to provide coupling for
shear waves generated by normal incidence shear wave 100
transducers. The specimens used for this test were the same 2·1 2·2 2·3 2·4 2·5 2·6
as those used for unconfined compression tests since this is a Biv0·28
non-destructive test. (b)

qu = 1·04 Biv0·28 (R2 = 0·96)

Durability tests. Durability (wetting–drying cycles) tests of
400 qu = 0·61 Biv0·28 (R2 = 0·91)
the compacted sands (Osório sand, RP sand and POA sand)– qu = 0·22 Biv0·28 (R2 = 0·77)
GG–CL mixtures were performed according to standard
Unconfined compressive strength, qu: kPa

η = 30%
ASTM D559 (ASTM, 2015). Test procedures determine 350 η = 33%
mass losses produced by recurrent (12) wet–dry series. Every η = 36%
cycle begins by placing specimens under water for 5 h at
300
23° ± 2°C. Then, the samples are oven dried for 42 h at
71° ± 2°C. Finally, specimens are brushed 18 to 20 times
using a force of approximately 15 N. Some specimens, 250
representative of those moulded for unconfined compression
and ultrasound tests, were chosen to be moulded in order to 200
evaluate their durability. The chosen dosages maintained the
same amounts of GG, quantities of CL and dry unit weights
as for the strength and stiffness tests. The variations of GG 150
and CL contents, as well as the range of dry unit weights
studied for each one of the studied sands are presented in 100
Table 2. All blends were cured for 7 days. 2·1 2·2 2·3 2·4 2·5 2·6
Biv0·28
(c)
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Influence of porosity, binder content and porosity/binder Fig. 3. Variation of unconfined compressive strength (qu)
index on qu with adjusted volumetric binder content Biv0·28 considering
Figure 3 displays the variation of unconfined compressive distinct porosities (η) for (a) Osório sand; (b) RP sand and (c) POA
strength (qu) with adjusted volumetric binder content Biv0·28 sand

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 6 CONSOLI, DA SILVA CARRETTA, FESTUGATO, LEON, TOMASI AND HEINECK
(expressed in the present study as a percentage of cementi- qu = 257 751·62 η –3·60 (R2 = 0·87)
tious binder (GG plus CL) volume to the total volume of the qu = 212 851·81 η –3·60 (R2 = 0·95)
1600
specimen) for the compacted Osório sand–GG–CL qu = 119 546·67 η –3·60 (R2 = 0·71)
(Fig. 2(a)), compacted RP sand–GG–CL (Fig. 2(b)) and Biv0·28 = 2·49

Unconfined compressive strength, qu: kPa

compacted POA sand–GG–CL blends (Fig. 2(c)) that were Biv0·28 = 2·45
cured for 7 days. The exponent is used to make strength 1200 Biv0·28 = 2·22
variations compatible with porosity and binder content
changes. It was defined based on Consoli et al. (2016) and
Diambra et al. (2017) and is dependent on the particle size
distribution of the soil matrix and the binder characteristics. 800
Fig. 3 depicts, for fixed values of porosity (η), linear relation-
ships between qu and Biv0·28. The lower the porosity, the greater
the strength. A lower porosity indicates more particle contact
points and more effective bonding. Additionally, Fig. 4 shows 400
the variation of unconfined compressive strength against
porosity. For fixed values of binder content, there are power
correlations (with an exponent of 3·60) between qu and η.
0
The empirical equations developed present similar character-
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
istics and the same exponents. The qu and η values could η: %
alternatively be related through their logarithm. The power (a)
3·60 would again be derived.
Figure 5 shows the variation of unconfined compressive
600 qu = 104 318·88 η –3·60 (R2 = 0·96)
strength (qu) with an adjusted porosity/binder index
qu = 72 804·40 η –3·60 (R2 = 0·84)
η/Biv0·28 (porosity (η) divided by the adjusted volumetric qu = 41 465·28 η –3·60 (R2 = 0·73)

Unconfined compressive strength, qu: kPa

binder content (Biv)) for compacted Osório sand–GG–CL, Biv0·28 = 2·37
compacted RP sand–GG–CL and compacted POA sand– Biv0·28 = 2·30
GG–CL blends cured for 7 days. Fig. 5 indicates that the Biv0·28 = 2·23
400
porosity/binder index is helpful in normalising strength
results for all three sand–GG–CL mixtures. Good corre-
lations, described as power functions, exist between η/Biv and
qu of the sand–GG–CL mixtures studied (equation (3) and
Table 3). 200
!360
η
qu ðkPaÞ ¼ F ð3Þ
B028
iv
0
in which F is a scalar. 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
The difference between the correlation characteristics pre- η: %
sented in Table 3 is the reduction of the scalar (F) from (b)
8·30  106 to 3·31  106 and to 2·44  106 for Osório sand
400
(D50 = 0·16 mm), RP sand (D50 = 0·25 mm) and POA sand qu = 63 544·25 η –3·60 (R2 = 0·92)
(D50 = 0·35 mm), respectively. As the power of the three qu = 38 463·77 η –3·60 (R2 = 0·78)
equations is the same (3·60), so are their shapes on the qu
Unconfined compressive strength, qu: kPa

350 Biv0·28 = 2·36

against η/Biv plot. As the three sands studied are poorly graded, Biv0·28 = 2·28
it can be concluded that the smaller the mean particle
diameter, the larger the scalar. The number of touching neigh- 300
bours for each particle, known as the coordination number,
increases with densification (German, 2014). As such, the three
250
uniform soils with three different particle diameters each have
the same coordination number for each particle considering
their specimens have the same porosity. However, the total 200
number of particles existing in a given volume will increase with
the reduction of the average particle diameter. As each particle
will keep its coordination number, increasing the number of 150
particles will consequently increase the total particle contact
number (Wiacek & Molenda, 2014). Increasing qu causes D50
100
to decrease for specimens with the same porosity and the same
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
quantity of cementing agent because of the increasing number
η: %
of the soil particles, and the consequently higher number of (c)
contacts among particles. This results in a better redistribution
of stresses among particle contacts, which in turn increase not Fig. 4. Variation of unconfined compressive strength (qu) with
only the strength, but also the stiffness and possibly the porosity (η) considering distinct adjusted volumetric binder content
durability of the assembly. The beneficial effects of reducing Biv0·28 for (a) Osório sand; (b) RP sand and (c) POA sand
porosity have been explained by Chang & Woods (1992), who
showed through electron microscopy on cemented sands that
the existence of more interparticle contacts provided a greater occurred in the present study, the measured qu and G0 increase
possibility of promoting effective bonds between these con- with the decrease in the median particle size of sand, resulting
tacts. Yang & Salvati (2010) revealed that, similarly to what from a greater specific surface.

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 GROUND WASTE GLASS–CARBIDE LIME AS A SUSTAINABLE BINDER 7

Colour qu × η/Biv0·28
Osório sand: qu = 8·30 × 106 (η/Biv0·28) –3·60 R2 = 0·86
RP sand: qu = 3·31 × 106 (η/Biv0·28) –3·60 R2 = 0·64
POA sand: qu = 2·44 × 106 (η/Biv0·28) –3·60 R2 = 0·77
Empty 20% GG
1600 Filled 30% GG
Pattern
1400 03% CL
Unconfined compressive strength, qu: kPa

05% CL
07% CL
1200 08% CL
11% CL
1000 γd = 18·2 kN/m3
γd = 17·5 kN/m3
γd = 17·2 kN/m3
800
γd = 16·5 kN/m3
γd = 16·2 kN/m3
600
γd = 15·5 kN/m3

400

200

0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
η/Biv0·28

Fig. 5. Variation of unconfined compressive strength (qu) with adjusted porosity/binder index for compacted Osório sand–GG–CL, compacted RP
sand–GG–CL and compacted POA sand–GG–CL blends aimed at 7 days of curing. A full-colour version of this figure can be found on the ICE
Virtual Library (www.icevirtuallibrary.com)

Table 3. Correlation characteristics between qu and η/Biv (parameter F ), G0 and η/Biv (parameter T ), G0 and qu (parameter S) and ALM (after
12 wet–dry cycles) and η/Biv (parameter L) of the sand–GG–CL mixtures studied

Material F: kPa R 2: % T: MPa R 2: % S R 2: % L R 2: %

Osório sand 8·30  106 0·86 17·9  106 0·73 2169·5 0·94 6·42  106 0·97
Rio Pardo (RP) sand 3·31  106 0·64 5·99  106 0·41 1785·3 0·85 5·07  106 0·88
Porto Alegre (POA) sand 2·44  106 0·77 2·39  106 0·31 985·3 0·82 6·00  106 0·62

The use of the porosity/binder index to normalise the failure of both the cemented and soil matrix phases; and
strength of Portland cement (seen as the binder) treated soils strain compatibility between the composite and its two
has been shown by Consoli et al. (2007, 2016). They showed phases applies. Through a volumetric averaging approach
that rates of change of strength with porosity (η) and the (Diambra et al., 2011, 2013; Diambra & Ibraim, 2015), the
inverse of the volumetric binder content (1/Biv) are not stress state of the cemented composite is derived from the
generally the same. Thus, the application of a power (as a rule stresses of its constituents at failure. To account for the soil
0·28; Consoli et al. (2007, 2016)) to Biv is required for the matrix strength, the model requires the calibration of the
rates of η and 1/Biv to be compatible. parameter a, among others, which can be estimated through
According to Consoli et al. (2016), the unconfined com- the results of triaxial tests. The parameter a links the peak
pressive strength of Portland cement (seen as the binder) strength of the soil matrix (represented using the density-
treated soils follow equations such as equation (4). dependent deviatoric stress and mean stress ratio qm/pm) to a
" #E state parameter (defined as the ratio between the porosity at
η the critical state (ηcs) and the current porosity (η)), as shown
qu ¼ A ð4Þ in equation (5), where M represents the critical state strength.
ðBiv ÞD
a
qm η
in which A, D and E are scalars. ¼ M cs ð5Þ
pm η
Based on the concept of superposition of the failure
strength contributions of the soil and cement phases, The model developments yield equation (6), which
Diambra et al. (2017) provided a theoretical derivation for describes the unconfined compressive strength of cemented
the unconfined compression strength of artificially cemented granular soils.
granular soils. The theoretical model assumes that the com- " #a
posite cemented material is isotropic. The material granular η
qu ¼ K ð6Þ
matrix follows concepts of critical state soil mechanics ðBiv Þ1=a
and the strength of the cemented phase is described by
the Drucker–Prager failure criterion. The behaviour of the Diambra et al. (2017) also pointed out the similarity between
cemented soil at failure is determined by superposing equations (4) and (6) and suggested the exponents D and E
the strength contributions of the two phases; failure of the in equation (4) are dependent on the soil matrix related
composite cemented soil occurs as a result of a simultaneous parameter a: D = 1/a and E = a. The multiplying parameter

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 8 CONSOLI, DA SILVA CARRETTA, FESTUGATO, LEON, TOMASI AND HEINECK
A in equation (4) is the result of the combined properties evaluation of small-strain stiffness, as shown by equation (7).
of the sand matrix and the cement phase. According to According to the authors, this power relationship is a
the authors, the key governing parameters seem to be the simplification of the well-established Hardin’s type relation-
frictional strength of the matrix and the strength of the ship for the initial small-strain shear stiffness of cemented
cemented phase. The factor A is also affected by the exponent soils under unconfined loading conditions. Hardin’s type
a, which is controlled by the soil matrix properties. For the relationships usually present materials’ stiffness as a function
cemented soil matrixes studied, the observed value of E is of void ratio (or porosity), structure-related characteristic and
3·60 (Fig. 4), leading to an a of 0·28, which is in accordance mean effective stress. The power of the porosity (η) term in
with the values found by the authors mentioned. the empirical relationship accounts for the shape of the
normal compression line (NCL) of the uncemented soil in
the η–p′ plane, while the volumetric cement content (Civ)
Influence of the porosity/binder index on G0. Figure 6 term accounts for the shift of the NCL of the cemented soil
exhibits the distinction for initial shear modulus (G0) with with respect to its uncemented NCL state. Diambra et al.
an adjusted porosity/binder index η/Biv0·28 for compacted (2019) showed the exponential term depending on the η may
Osório sand–GG–CL, compacted RP sand–GG–CL and be seen as an approximation of the current Hvorslev pressure
compacted POA sand–GG–CL blends cured for 7 days. for uncemented soil and it is a term which accounts for the
Fig. 6 also denotes that the porosity/binder index is useful overconsolidation state or f (e) function of the material. The
in normalising initial shear stiffness results for the three exponential term linked to the Civ may represent the shift of
compacted sand–GG–CL mixtures. Reasonable correlations, the NCL for cemented soil and is a measure of the current
described as power functions, exist between G0 and η/Biv of state of cementation.
the three distinct silica sand–GG–CL mixtures studied
(equation (7) and Table 3).
!360
η Influence of the porosity/binder index on G0/qu. Increasing
G0 ðMPaÞ ¼ T ð7Þ the amounts of the GG and CL inclusions strengthens and
B028
iv stiffens the three sand matrixes. G0 plotted against qu is
in which T is a scalar. presented in Fig. 7 for: compacted Osório sand–GG–CL
Equation (7), relating G0 and η/Biv, was shown to be blends considering 20% and 30% of GG, 3%, 5% and 7% of
identical to equation (3), which relates qu and η/Biv. Once CL; compacted RP sand–GG–CL blends considering 20%
again, the scalar (T ) decreases when D50 increases (see and 30% of GG, 5%, 8% and 11% of CL; and compacted
Table 3). As previously explained, G0 increases when the D50 POA sand–GG–CL blends considering 20% and 30% of GG,
of the soil particles decreases because increasing the number 5%, 8% and 11% of CL – all considering 7 days of curing.
of the soil particles in a given volume, and consequently Good linear correlations between G0 and qu for the three
increasing the number of contacts among particles, results in different silica sand–GG–CL mixtures studied (equation (8)
a better redistribution of stresses among the particle contacts, and Table 3).
which in turn increases the stiffness of the assembly. G0
Diambra et al. (2019) provided a theoretical justification ¼S ð8Þ
qu
for the existence of empirical power relationships governed
by porosity/volumetric cement content index for the in which S is a scalar.

Colour G0 × η/Biv0·28
Osório sand: G0 = 1·79 × 107 (η/Biv0·28) –3·60 R2 = 0·73
RP sand: G0 = 5·99 × 106 (η/Biv0·28) –3·60 R2 = 0·41
POA sand: G0 = 2·39 × 106 (η/Biv0·28) –3·60 R2 = 0·31
4000 Empty 20% GG
Filled 30% GG
3500 Pattern
03% CL
05% CL
Initial shear modulus, G0: MPa

3000 07% CL
08% CL
2500 11% CL
γd = 18·2 kN/m3
γd = 17·5 kN/m3
2000
γd = 17·2 kN/m3
γd = 16·5 kN/m3
1500
γd = 16·2 kN/m3
γd = 15·5 kN/m3
1000

500

0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
η/Biv0·28

Fig. 6. Variation of initial shear modulus (G0) with adjusted porosity/binder index for compacted Osório sand–GG–CL, compacted RP sand–
GG–CL and compacted POA sand–GG–CL blends aimed at 7 days of curing. A full-colour version of this figure can be found on the ICE Virtual
Library (www.icevirtuallibrary.com)

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 GROUND WASTE GLASS–CARBIDE LIME AS A SUSTAINABLE BINDER 9
Colour G0 × qu
Osório sand: G0 = 2169·49qu R2 = 0·94
RP sand: G0 = 1785·34qu R2 = 0·85
4000 POA sand: G0 = 985·34qu R2 = 0·82
Empty 20% GG
Filled 30% GG
3500
Pattern
03% CL
Initial shear modulus, G0: MPa

3000 05% CL
07% CL
08% CL
2500
11% CL
γd = 18·2 kN/m3
2000 γd = 17·5 kN/m3
γd = 17·2 kN/m3
1500 γd = 16·5 kN/m3
γd = 16·2 kN/m3
1000 γd = 15·5 kN/m3

500

0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2 1·4 1·6
Unconfined compressive strength, qu: MPa

Fig. 7. qu plotted against G0 for: Osório sand–GG–CL compacted blends considering 20% and 30% of GG, 3%, 5% and 7% of CL; RP sand–
GG–CL compacted blends considering 20% and 30% of GG, 5%, 8% and 11% of CL; and POA sand–GG–CL compacted blends considering
20% and 30% of GG, 5%, 8% and 11% of CL, all considering 7 days of curing. A full-colour version of this figure can be found on the ICE Virtual
Library (www.icevirtuallibrary.com)

Such relations suggest that for the three compacted sand– Figures 9(a) and 9(b), 10(a) and 10(b) and 11(a) and 11(b)
GG–CL blends studied, G0/qu is a scalar (and consequently present the normalised variation of unconfined compressive
independent of the porosity/binder index); G0/qu is basically strength ½ðqu Þ=ðqu at η=Biv028 ¼14 Þ, the normalised variation of
affected by D50, the smaller D50 is, the larger is G0/qu. initial shear stiffness ½ðG0 Þ=ðG0 at η=Biv028 ¼14 Þ and the normal-
ised variation of ALM after 12 wet–dry cycles
½ðALMÞ=ðALMat η=Biv028 ¼14 Þ with adjusted porosity/binder
Influence of the porosity/binder index on durability (wetting index η/Biv0·28 for compacted Osório sand–GG–CL, com-
and drying cycles). The ALM in each cycle is more pacted RP sand–GG–CL and compacted POA sand–GG–
pronounced for specimens with higher porosities and lower CL blends considering a normal plot (Figs 9(a), 10(a) and 11
cement contents, as shown in Figs 8(a)–8(c). According to (a)) and a logarithm plot (Figs 9(b), 10(b) and 11(b)),
the durability requirements of USACE (1994), the maximum respectively. In the logarithm plot, considering each one of
allowable weight loss after 12 wetting–drying cycles is 11% the variables studied (qu, G0 and ALM), unique straight lines
for granular material with a reduced plasticity index. For this are shown. In total, 115, 101 and 23 specimens’ results were
study, the wetting–drying durability requirements were only used for assessing qu, G0 and ALM through equations (10),
reached for the three sand–GG–CL blends with an adjusted (11) and (12) in predicting the mechanical performance of
porosity/binder index (η/Biv0·28) of less than 16, which corres- three distinct granular soils stabilised with GG + CL, leading
ponds to 20 of the 23 mixtures studied. Therefore, most to a coefficient of determination (R 2) equal to 0·75 (qu), 0·70
specimens studied showed an ALM of less than 11%. The (G0) and 0·90 (ALM), established by the minimum mean
specific characteristics of each specimen analysed (dry unit square error. It is important to point out that equations (7)–
weight (γd) of the specimens, GG content and CL content) (9) consider three poorly graded sands with distinct mean
can be verified in Figs 8(a)–8(c), where one can see which of particle diameter (D50 = 0·16 mm for Osório sand–GG–CL
them meet the criteria. blends, D50 = 0·25 mm for RP sand–GG–CL mixes and
Results have shown similar power correlations of ALM D50 = 0·35 mm for POA–GG–CL mixtures).
after the 12 cycles and η/Biv for the three silica sand–GG–CL !360
mixtures studied (equation (9) and Table 3). qu η
" #525 ¼ 134  10 4
ð10Þ
qu ðfor ðη=B028 Þ¼14Þ B028
η iv iv
ALMð%Þ ¼ L 028 ð9Þ
Biv !360
G0 η
in which L is a scalar. ¼ 134  10 4
ð11Þ
G0 ðforðη=B028 Þ¼14Þ
iv
B028
iv

!525
Normalisation of strength, stiffness and ALM results. In ALM η
6
order to normalise the results obtained for the different ¼ 120  10 ð12Þ
ALMðforðη=B028 Þ¼14Þ B028
iv
sands, the method proposed by Consoli et al. (2017) was iv

used. This method functions by dividing the described power

equation by a particular value of strength, stiffness or An important point to be borne in mind is that almost all
ALM (corresponding to a given value of η/Biv0·28 within the of the data values are about one, three and two standard
studied ranges). deviations from the mean for qu, G0 and ALM, respectively.

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 10 CONSOLI, DA SILVA CARRETTA, FESTUGATO, LEON, TOMASI AND HEINECK
Colour ALM × η/Biv0·28
Osório sand: 12 cycles ALM = 6·42 × 10–6 (η/Biv0·28)5·25 R2 = 0·97
Filled 30% GG
30 Empty 20% GG
Pattern
Accumulated loss of mass, ALM: % 03% CL
05% CL
07% CL
08% CL
20 11% CL
γd = 18·5 kN/m3
γd = 18·2 kN/m3
γd = 17·5 kN/m3
γd = 17·2 kN/m3
γd = 16·5 kN/m3
10 γd = 16·2 kN/m3
γd = 15·5 kN/m3

0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
η/Biv0·28

(a)
Colour ALM × η/Biv0·28
RP sand: 12 cycles ALM = 5·07 × 10–6 (η/Biv0·28)5·25 R2 = 0·88
Filled 30% GG
10 Empty 20% GG
Pattern
03% CL
Accumulated loss of mass, ALM: %

8 05% CL
07% CL
08% CL
11% CL
γd = 18·5 kN/m3
6 γd = 18·2 kN/m3
γd = 17·5 kN/m3
γd = 17·2 kN/m3
4 γd = 16·5 kN/m3
γd = 16·2 kN/m3
γd = 15·5 kN/m3
2

0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
η/Biv0·28

(b)
Colour ALM × η/Biv0·28
POA sand: 12 cycles ALM = 6·00 × 10–6 (η/Biv0·28)5·25 R2 = 0·62
Filled 30% GG
Empty 20% GG
10
Pattern
03% CL
Accumulated loss of mass, ALM: %

05% CL
8 07% CL
08% CL
11% CL
γd = 18·5 kN/m3
6 γd = 18·2 kN/m3
γd = 17·5 kN/m3
γd = 17·2 kN/m3
γd = 16·5 kN/m3
4
γd = 16·2 kN/m3
γd = 15·5 kN/m3

0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
η/Biv0·28
(c)

Fig. 8. Variation of ALM after 12 cycles with porosity/binder index for (a) compacted Osório sand–GG–CL, (b) compacted RP sand–GG–CL
and (c) compacted POA sand–GG–CL blends aimed at 7 days of curing. A full-colour version of this figure can be found on the ICE Virtual
Library (www.icevirtuallibrary.com)

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 GROUND WASTE GLASS–CARBIDE LIME AS A SUSTAINABLE BINDER 11
10 G0 /G0 (at η/Biv = 14) × η/Biv0·28
qu/qu (at η/Biv = 14) × η/Biv0·28
7 Osório sand
9 Osório sand RP sand
RP sand POA sand
8 POA sand ± 1σ (standard deviation)
6
± 1σ (standard deviation) ± 2σ (standard deviation)
7 ± 2σ (standard deviation) ± 3σ (standard deviation)
qu/qu (at η/Biv0·28 = 14)

G0 /G0 (at η/Biv0·28 = 14)

6

4
5

4 3

3
2
2
1
1

0 0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
η/Biv0·28 η/Biv0·28
(a) (a)

qu/qu (at η/Biv = 14) × η/Biv0·28 G0 /G0 (at η/Biv = 14) × η/Biv0·28
10 Osório sand 8 Osório sand
8 RP sand
6 RP sand
6 POA sand
POA sand
± 1σ (standard deviation)
4 ± 1σ (standard deviation)
4 ± 2σ (standard deviation)
± 2σ (standard deviation)
± 3σ (standard deviation)
qu/qu (at η/Biv0·28 = 14)

G0 /G0 (at η/Biv0·28 = 14)

2 2

1·0 1·0
0·8 0·8
0·6 0·6
0·4
0·4

0·2
0·2

0·1
8 9 10 20 30 0·1
η/Biv0·28 8 9 10 20 30
η/Biv0·28
(b)
(b)
Fig. 9. Normalised variation of unconfined compressive strength
½ðqu Þ=ðqu at η=Biv028 ¼14 Þ with adjusted porosity/binder index for com- Fig. 10. Normalised variation of initial shear modulus
pacted Osório sand–GG–CL, compacted RP sand–GG–CL and ½ðG 0Þ =ðG 0 at η=Biv028 ¼14 Þ with adjusted porosity/binder index for com-
compacted POA sand–GG–CL blends aimed at 7 days of curing pacted Osório sand–GG–CL, compacted RP sand–GG–CL and
considering (a) normal plot and (b) logarithm plot compacted POA sand–GG–CL blends aimed at 7 days of curing
considering (a) normal plot and (b) logarithm plot

In the present study, any value of ðη=B028

iv Þ ¼ χ within the
studied ranges could have been used for the normalisation
process. Dividing the general power equation qu or G0 or Equation (13) can be converted to equation (14).
ALM ¼ scalarfðηÞ=½ðBiv Þ028 gE by any particular value of
qu G0 ALM
qu or G0 or ALM (corresponding to a given value of or or
ðη=B028 qu ðfor χÞ G0 ðfor χÞ ALMðfor χÞ
iv Þ ¼ χ within the studied ranges), termed here as
qu ðfor χÞ or G0 ðfor χÞ or ALMðfor χÞ, leads to equation (13), " #E
which allows the use of any value of ðη=B028 η
iv Þ ¼ χ to establish ¼ χE ð14Þ
the relations and not only ‘14’. ðBiv Þ028
qu G0 ALM Considering the three silica sand–GG–CL blends, as well as
or or
qu ðfor χÞ G 0 ðfor χÞ ALM ðfor χÞ distinct curing periods, an E value of 3·60 was found for qu
h iE h iE and G0, and an E value of 5·25 for ALM.
F or T or L η=ðBiv Þ028 η=ðBiv Þ028 The suitability of the regression model proposed by the
¼ ¼ ð13Þ equation can be verified by analysing the residuals, which
F or T or Lðχ ÞE ðχ ÞE represent the difference between the observed values and the

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 12 CONSOLI, DA SILVA CARRETTA, FESTUGATO, LEON, TOMASI AND HEINECK
10 ALM/ALM (at η/Biv = 14) × η/Biv0·28 3
Osório sand
9
RP sand
POA sand 2
8
± 1σ (standard deviation)
ALM/ALM (at η/Biv0·28 = 14)

7 ± 2σ (standard deviation)

Standardised residuals
1
6

5 0

3 –1

2
–2
1

0
–3
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5
η/Biv0·28 Fitted value (qu/qu (at η/Biv0·28 = 14))
(a) (a)

10 3
8
6
2
4

Standardised residuals
2 1
qu/qu (at η/Biv0·28 = 14)

1·0
0
0·8
0·6
ALM/ALM (at η/Biv = 14) × η/Biv0·28 –1
0·4
Osório sand
RP sand
0·2 POA sand
± 1σ (standard deviation) –2
± 2σ (standard deviation)
0·1
–3
8 9 10 20 30
η/Biv0·28 0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5
Fitted value (G0/G0 (at η/Biv0·28 = 14))
(b)
(b)
Fig. 11. Normalised variation of ALM after 12 cycles
½ðALMÞ=ðALMat η=Biv028 ¼14 Þ with adjusted porosity/binder index for 3
compacted Osório sand–GG–CL, compacted RP sand–GG–CL and
compacted POA sand–GG–CL blends aimed at 7 days of curing
considering (a) normal plot and (b) logarithm plot 2
Standardised residuals

values predicted by the equations. The standardised 1

residuals (waste value/standard deviation of the residues)
plotted against the fitted value for ðqu Þ=ðqu ðfor η=Biv028 ¼14Þ Þ,
0
ðG0 Þ=ðG0 ðfor η=Biv028 ¼14Þ Þ and ðALMÞ= ðALMðfor η=Biv028 ¼14Þ Þ are
presented in Figs. 12(a), 12(b) and 12(c), respectively.
Statistically, it can be considered that the values are atypical, –1
for 95% confidence, when they are higher than 1·96 (see
Figs 12(a)–12(c)). According to the results shown in Fig. 12,
it can be concluded that most of the data obtained by the –2
equations are values appropriate to the regression model.
–3
0 1 2 3 4
CONCLUDING REMARKS Fitted value (ALM/ALM (at η/Biv0·28 = 14))
From the studies described in this document, the following (c)
conclusions can be drawn.
Fig. 12. The standardised residuals (waste value/standard deviation
(a) An environmentally sustainable binder prepared with of the residues) plotted against the fitted values are presented
finely ground waste glass and CL (both residues) was for: (a) ðqu Þ=ðqu ðfor η=Biv028 ¼14Þ Þ; (b) ðG 0Þ =ðG 0 ð for η=Biv028 ¼14Þ Þ; and
developed and successfully tested to replace Portland (c) ðALMÞ=ðALMðfor η=Biv028 ¼14Þ Þ

Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 GROUND WASTE GLASS–CARBIDE LIME AS A SUSTAINABLE BINDER
cement as a binder of compacted sands. The GG
particles interact with calcium in a hydrated alkaline
environment, yielding binder products such as calcium
silicate hydrate gel, which is the same product formed
from the hydration of Portland cement. This represents
a major advance in the techniques of sustainable soil
improvement.
(b) It can be observed that the smaller the mean sand
particle diameter is, the greater the effect of the
stabilisation results with finely ground waste glass plus
CL by means of the observed gains in terms of strength,
stiffness and durability. The coordination number of
particles of uniform soils with different grain sizes is the
same. Considering a constant porosity value, the number
of particles in a given volume will increase with the
reduction of particle diameter. Increasing the number of
particles will consequently increase the total number of
contacts between particles. The increasing qu and G0 and
reducing ALM when D50 is reduced for specimens with
the same porosity and the same quantity of cementing
agent is explained by the fact that increasing the number
of soil particles, and consequently increasing the number
of contacts among particles, results in a better
redistribution of stresses among particle contacts, which
in turn increases not only the strength, but also the
stiffness and durability, of the assembly;
(c) The adjusted porosity/binder index (η/Biv0·28) for
compacted soil (three distinct sands in the present
study)–GG–CL mixes is an appropriate parameter to
evaluate unique relationships in terms of: (a)
unconfined compressive strength (qu); (b) shear
modulus at small strains (G0); and (c) durability
(ALM after wetting–drying cycles). The GG plus
CL are considered to be a binder. Different amounts of
GG, different amounts of CL and distinct dry unit
weights were considered.
(d ) It was also found that the strength, stiffness and ALM
after 12 wet–dry cycles were normalised for different
sand–GG–lime mixes, providing unique equations for
each mechanical property studied.
(e) The method proposed by Consoli et al. (2017) for
strength was adjusted and expanded upon for the blends
studied. This provided satisfactory results, which allowed
the determination of the curve that controls not only
strength, but also stiffness and ALM for an entire range
of porosities and binder contents for the three distinct
sands. This also contributes to minimising the number of
specimens that need to be moulded and tested, thus also
reducing project development cost and time.
(f ) Further studies will be carried out in the future to check
whether current findings can be applied to other sands
considering different gradations (e.g. well-graded
sand), mineralogy, and so on.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Edital
12/2014 FAPERGS/CNPq – PRONEX (project # 16/2551-
0000469-2) and CNPq (INCT, Produtividade em Pesquisa
and Universal) for funding the research group.
NOTATION
a, A, D, E and K scalars
B binder content (expressed as a percentage)
Biv volumetric binder content (expressed as a
percentage)
D50 mean particle diameter
G0 shear modulus at small strains
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
13
L lime content (expressed as a percentage)
Liv volumetric lime content (expressed as a
percentage)
m mass
qu unconfined compressive strength
R2 coefficient of determination
V volume of specimen
γd dry unit weight
γs unit weight of solids
η porosity
η/Biv porosity/binder index
η/Liv porosity/lime index
REFERENCES
ABNT (Brazilian Standards Association) (2000). NM 23: Portland
cement and other powdered materials: determination of
unit weight of the grains. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: ABNT
(in Portuguese).
ASTM (2003). C977: Standard specification for quicklime and
hydrated lime for soil stabilization. West Conshohocken, PA,
USA: ASTM International.
ASTM (2006). D2487: Standard classification of soils for
engineering purposes. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM
International.
ASTM (2008). D2845: Standard test method for laboratory
determination of pulse velocities and ultrasonic elastic constants
of rock. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International.
ASTM (2009). D7263: Standard test methods for laboratory
determination of density (unit weight) of soil specimens. West
Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International.
ASTM (2010). C39: Standard test method for compressive strength
of cylindrical concrete specimens. West Conshohocken, PA,
USA: ASTM International.
ASTM (2011). C25: Standard test methods for chemical analysis of
limestone, quicklime, and hydrated lime. West Conshohocken,
PA, USA: ASTM International.
ASTM (2012). D1557: Standard test methods for laboratory
compaction characteristics of soil using modified effort
(2700 kN-m/m3). West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM
International.
ASTM (2013). C511: Standard specification for mixing rooms,
moist cabinets, moist rooms, and water storage tanks used in the
testing of hydraulic cements and concretes. West Conshohocken,
PA, USA: ASTM International.
ASTM (2015). D559: Standard test method for wetting and drying
compacted soil–cement mixtures. West Conshohocken, PA,
USA: ASTM International.
Basu, D. & Puppala, A. (2015). Principles of sustainability and
their applications in geotechnical engineering. In Geotechnical
synergy in Buenos Aires 2015 (eds A. O. Sfriso, D. Manzanal and
R. J. Rocca), pp. 162–183. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS
Press.
Bicca Neto, V. (2015). Commitment business for recycling – review.
São Paulo, Brazil: CEMPRE Editor (in Portuguese).
BSI (2015). BS 5930: Code of practice for ground investigations.
London, UK: BSI.
Chang, T. S. & Woods, R. D. (1992). Effect of particle contact bond
on shear modulus. J. Geotech. Engng 118, No. 8, 1216–1233.
Consoli, N. C., Rotta, G. V. & Prietto, P. D. M. (2000). Influence of
curing under stress on the triaxial response of cemented soils.
Géotechnique 50, No. 1, 99–105, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.
2000.50.1.99.
Consoli, N. C., Rotta, G. V. & Prietto, P. D. M. (2006). Yielding–
compressibility–strength relationship for an artificially cemen-
ted soil cured under stress. Géotechnique 56, No. 1, 69–72,
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.56.1.69.
Consoli, N. C., Foppa, D., Festugato, L. & Heineck, K. S. (2007).
Key parameters for strength control of artificially cemented
soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 133, No. 2, 197–205.
Consoli, N. C., Dalla Rosa, A. & Saldanha, R. B. (2011a). Variables
governing strength of compacted soil–fly ash–lime mixtures. J.
Mater. Civ. Engng 23, No. 4, 432–440.
Consoli, N. C., Rosa, D. A., Cruz, R. C. & Dalla Rosa, A. (2011b).
Water content, porosity and cement content as parameters
 14 CONSOLI, DA SILVA CARRETTA, FESTUGATO, LEON, TOMASI AND HEINECK
controlling strength of artificially cemented silty soil. Engng
Geol. 122, No. 3–4, 328–333.
Consoli, N. C., Ferreira, P. M. V., Tang, C. S., Marques, S. F. V.,
Festugato, L. & Corte, M. B. (2016). A unique relationship
determining strength of silty/clayey soils – Portland cement
mixes. Soils Found. 56, No. 6, 1082–1088.
Consoli, N. C., Marques, S. F. V., Floss, M. F. & Festugato, L.
(2017). Broad-spectrum empirical correlation determining
tensile and compressive strength of cement-bonded clean
granular soils. J. Mater. Civ. Engng 29, No. 6, 06017004.
Diambra, A. & Ibraim, E. (2015). Fibre-reinforced sand: interaction
at the fibre and grain scale. Géotechnique 65, No. 4, 296–308,
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.14.P.206.
Diambra, A., Ibraim, E., Russell, A. R. & Muir Wood, D. (2011).
Modelling the undrained response of fibre reinforced sands.
Soils Found. 51, No. 4, 625–636.
Diambra, A., Ibraim, E., Russell, A. R. & Muir Wood, D. (2013).
Fibre reinforced sands: from experiments to modelling and
beyond. Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Methods Geomech. 37, No. 15,
2427–2455.
Diambra, A., Ibraim, E., Peccin, A., Consoli, N. C. & Festugato, L.
(2017). Theoretical derivation of artificially cemented granular
soil strength. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 143, No. 5, 04017003,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001646.
Diambra, A. Ibraim, E., Festugato, L. & Corte, M. B. (2019).
Stiffness of artificially cemented sands: insight on characteriz-
ation through empirical power relations. Road Mater. Pavement
Des., https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2019.1705379.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (2019). See https://www.britannica.
com/technology/glass (accessed 11/06/2019).
German, R. M. (2014). Coordination number changes during
powder densification. Powder Technol. 253, 368–376.
Güllü, H., Canakci, H. & Al Zangana, I. F. (2017). Use of cement
based grout with glass powder for deep mixing. Constr. Build.
Mater. 137, 12–20.
Islam, G. M. S., Rahman, M. H. & Kazi, N. (2017). Waste glass
powder as partial replacement of cement for sustainable
concrete practice. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 6, No. 1,
37–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.10.005.
Kern, A., Madsen, I. C. & Scarlett, N. V. Y. (2012). Quantifying
amorphous phases. New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Ladd, R. (1978). Preparing test specimens using undercompaction.
Geotech. Test. J. 1, No. 1, 16–23.
Massazza, F. (1998). Pozzolana and pozzolanic cements. In Lea’s
chemistry of cement and concrete, 4th edn (ed. P. C. Hewlett),
pp. 471–635. London, UK: Arnold.
Mitchell, J. K. (1981). Soil improvement – state-of-the-art report. In
Proceedings of the 10th international conference on soil
Downloaded by [ Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul] on [05/08/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
mechanics and foundation engineering, pp. 509–565.
Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema.
Mohajerani, A., Vajna, J., Cheung, T. H. H., Kurmus, H.,
Arulrajah, A. & Horpibulsuk, S. (2017). Practical recycling
applications of crushed waste glass in construction materials: a
review. Constr. Build. Mater. 156, 443–467.
Nassar, R. U. & Soroushian, P. (2012). Green and durable mortar
produced with milled waste glass. Mag. Concrete Res. 64, No. 7,
605–615, https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.11.00082.
Rangaraju, P. R., Rashidian-Dezfouli, H., Nameni, G. &
Amekuedi, G. Q. (2016). Properties and performance of
ground glass fiber as a pozzolan in Portland cement concrete.
In Proceedings of the 11th international concrete sustainability
conference. Silver Springs, MD, USA: National Ready Mixed
Concrete Association.
Rotta, G. V., Consoli, N. C., Prietto, P. D. M., Coop, M. R. &
Graham, J. (2003). Isotropic yielding in an artificially cemented
soil cured under stress. Géotechnique 53, No. 5, 493–501,
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.5.493.
Saldanha, R. B., Scheuermann Filho, H. C., Mallmann, J. E. C.,
Consoli, N. C. & Reddy, K. R. (2018). Physical-
mineralogical-chemical characterization of carbide lime: an
environment-friendly chemical additive for soil stabilization. J.
Mater. Civ. Engng 30, No. 6, 06018004.
Schwarz, N. & Neithalath, N. (2008). Influence of a fine glass
powder on cement hydration: comparison to fly ash and
modeling the degree of hydration. Cem. Concr. Res. 38, No. 4,
429–436.
Soroushian, P. (2012). Strength and durability of recycled aggregate
concrete containing milled glass as partial replacement for
cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 29, 368–377, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.061.
Stracke, F., Jung, J. G., Korf, E. P. & Consoli, N. C. (2012). The
influence of moisture content on tensile and compressive
strength of artificially cemented sand. Soils and Rocks 35,
No. 3, 303–308.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) (1994). Flexible pavement
design for airfields, Technical Manual No. TM5-822-13.
Washington, DC, USA: USACE.
Wiacek, J. & Molenda, M. (2014). Effect of particle size distrib-
ution on micro- and macromechanical response of granular
packings under compression. Int. J. Solids Structs 51,
No. 23–24, 4189–4195.
Yang, L. & Salvati, L. (2010). Small strain properties of
sands with different cement types. Proceedings of the 5th
international conference on recent advances in geotechnical
earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, San Diego, CA,
USA.