Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 102–109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Case study

Expansion reduction of clayey soils through Surcharge application

T
and Lime Treatment
T. López-Laraa, J.B. Hernández-Zaragozaa, J. Horta-Rangela, E. Rojas-Gonzáleza,
⁎
S. López-Ayalab, V.M. Castañob,
a
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Cerro de las Campanas, Querétaro, Mexico
b
Centro de Física Aplicada y Tecnología Avanzada, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Juriquilla, Queretaro, Mexico

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Expansive clayey soils produce heaving and cracking of floor slabs and walls. Expansive soils owe
Clays their characteristics to the presence of swelling clay minerals. This soil expands and contracts due
Clayey soils to changes in the moisture content of the soil. In this study the surcharge required to counteract
Swelling soil expansion was measured in natural expansive soils (untreated soils) and lime treated soils
Expansive soils
starting at 19.61 kPa (2 Ton/m2) and continuing with increments of 19.61 kPa. Additionaly in
Surcharges
Ground improvement
lime treated soils the amount of lime was determined under different surcharges in order to
Improvement soil reduce the expansion. The test results indicated that the surcharges applied to untreated soils
were not proportional to the decrease of expansion which is probably due to the increase of soil
density. In fact, only the initial surcharge of 19.61 kPa significantly decreased the expansion.
According to the results, the soil expansion was considerably reduced (1.54%) with the surcharge
of 78.45 kPa, therefore this surcharge can be considered as the Swelling pressure. On the other
hand the soil tested (high compressibility clay) was stabilized with 6% of lime (without sur-
charges) which was determined with the lowest value of liquid limit and plastic index as well as
expansion test. After the application of surcharges and lime treatment to expansive soil, the
surcharges of 39.22 kPa and 58.84 kPa decreased expansion and increased their resistance. This
was concluded by similar low values of expansion (without settlements) under both surcharges of
each treated soil tested (2, 4 and 6% of lime). It can be concluded that the surcharge contributed
to the decrease of soil expansion due to the decrease of the amount of lime required (6%) without
surcharge. So, 4% of lime was enough for the surcharge of 19.61 kPa and 2% of lime required the
surcharge minimum of 39.22 kPa. This shows that the surcharge of a house on expansive soil
reduces soil expansion and therefore reduces costs of any method of soil improvement and special
foundation.

1. Introduction and background

1.1. Introduction

Expansive soils cause many problems when buildings are built on this kind of soils. Indeed, when there is an increase in moisture
content, soil swells and when it is decreased, terrain contracts causing fissures in the constructions in both cases [1]. Each year in the
United States, expansive soils cause $2.3 billion in damage to houses, other buildings, roads, pipelines and other structures. This is

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: vmcastano@unam.mx, meneses@unam.mx (V.M. Castaño).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.06.003
Received 30 August 2016; Received in revised form 22 May 2017; Accepted 20 June 2017
Available online 26 June 2017
2214-5095/ © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
T. López-Lara et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 102–109

more than twice the damage from floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes combined [2].
From the several existing alternatives for improving expansive soils, the lime treatment is a common method used to reduce the
soil swelling [3]. However, this method and the others are applied with doses ignoring the surcharge due to the construction being
placed. The objective of this study was to determine the decrease of expansion of natural clayey soils or untreated soils first under
surcharges and then under surcharges with lime treatment to observe the contribution of surcharges to expansion decrease. This will
surely reduce cost of foundations and stabilizing materials of improvement methods.

1.2. Background

Querétaro City (Qro, México) was settled on clayey soils where montmorillonite has a significant presence. This region is within a
semi desert climate. This implies that the soil is subjected to significant changes of moisture content; indeed dehydration in the dry
season and hydration in the rainy season [4]. Part of the problem of the bad behavior of the foundations built on expansive soils is the
lack of knowledge about soil nature, its behavior, the influence of the environment, and the human actions as well [5].
The amount and variation of precipitation and evapotranspiration strongly influence the availability and depth of moisture
content. Big stationary risings happen in semi-arid climates whose periods of moisture content are short and steeper [3].
In the USA, expansive clays are the cause of many damages to the buildings. These damages have been estimated as about seven
thousand millions US dollars per year. There is not an assessment of the cost of the annual damage caused by expansive soils in
Mexico, and there are no clear criteria for the analysis and design of foundations on different types of soils [4]. The influence of soil
expansion in collapsed constructions is determined by moisture changes and these by: (a) variations in the climate, (b) temperature,
(c) vegetation present, (d) topography, (e) type of buildings, (f) foundations, (g) current infrastructure in the area, (h) due to leaks in
water pipes and drainage, (i) sodium content and it is higher on low pressures. The amount and variation of rainfall and evapo-
transpiration strongly influence the availability and depth of humidity. A large seasonal rise occurs in semiarid climates with short
and very pronounced periods of humidity [3]. The decrease in the soil structural stability is due to the collapse of pores saturated with
air. The recuperation of such structural stability starts in summer and ends up in winter, when the soil is humidified. Such re-
cuperation is due from the swelling, when the smaller aggregates created by the collapse of dry soil are looped again in larger
structural units [6].
The expansive soil problem rises in the technical literature in the First International Congress of Soil Mechanics held at
Massachusetts on 1936. The swelling character of soils increases with sodium content, with the depth of the active layer and it is
greater for low building surcharges [7]. The more studied non-saturated soils have been expansive clays, due to the damage and
economic losses [2].
Evaluation of swelling characteristics of expansive soils, namely, swell potential and swelling pressure, is important for the design
of foundations. Many relationships have been suggested for prediction of swell potential and swelling pressure from several prop-
erties such as liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, shrinkage index, activity, clay content, free swell index, etc., and placement
conditions such as initial dry unit weight, initial moisture content and initial surcharge [8].
One of the common solutions to eliminate or reduce the expansion is to load the expansive soil with a surcharge large enough to
counteract the expected swelling pressure [3]. On the other hand there exist several techniques recommended to reduce the ex-
pansion of soils, such as the physicochemical modification, mechanical modification and preventive practice [9]. Among the phy-
sicochemical techniques, one used very often is soil modification by lime application.
Soil-lime reaction has been reported as effective and not reversible in time [10,11]. Moreover, this reaction is developed in two
stages. The first one happens quickly and immediately after mixing lime and clay. The clay minerals produce a physicochemical
reaction that transform the soil in a rough and less plastic material. The second one is very slow and takes a long time due to the
cement reaction that form cementing agents that increase strength and durability [12]. The modification process will be satisfactory
when the required qualities are improved and it must comply with the material being compatible with the soil, permanent, easy
handling, economic, and safe [13].
Commonly, most of materials suffer an increment of optimum moisture content and a reduction of their maximum dry density.
Significant increments in strength and Young’s modulus are shown in material treated with lime. The curing period and the tem-
perature have an important influence on the strength [14]. A cationic interchange induced by the lime is produced after adding it. As
a result, grains flocculation and porosity are increased [15].
Compactness results of treated soils with lime (6%) showed an increment of optimum moisture content and a reduction of their
maximum dry density. Regarding the Initial Time of Curing, it can be seen that the specific weights decrease as the time increases.
However, the 24 and 100 h Proctor curves have a similar behavior. It can also be seen simultaneously that compactness becomes
harder as time goes by because of agglomeration of treated soil. Thus, the time of curing could be recommended from one day [11].
During the stabilization process in aged treated soils using increase and decrease of temperature there is a calcite formation that
increases exponentially with age and then remains almost constant so that regardless of moisture content the reaction continues with
time [10].
The addition of lime or cement to the soils tested resulted in the formation of pozzolanic compounds, namely, calcium silicate
hydrate and calcium aluminate hydrate together with calcite (CaCO3). The pozzolanic compounds play a significant role in the
reduction of swelling and increasing the strength of the soil [16].
The city of Querétaro, in the state of Querétaro, Mexico, is predominantly built on clayey soil with a significant presence of
montmorillonite. The region’s climate is semi-arid, which causes the soil to be subject to significant moisture changes—dehydration
in times of drought and hydration in the rainy season. As other regions of Mexico, the Bajio, which is located in the central part of the

103
T. López-Lara et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 102–109

country, offers similar conditions [4].

Although one of the common solutions to eliminate or reduce the expansion is to load the expansive soil with a surcharge large
enough to counteract the expected swelling pressure [3] the value of surcharge has not been measured in previous work and has not
been determined in techniques of soil improvement and foundations. Therefore this research measured the value of surcharge re-
quired to counteract soil expansion in untreated clayey soils and lime treated clayey soils starting from surcharges of 19.61 kPa
(2 Ton/m2) and increasing by 19.61 kPa. Additionaly in treated clayey soils with lime determined the decrement of the amount of
lime under the surcharges in order to find – as far as possible – the optimal combination of both to reduce the expansion.

2. Experimental development

2.1. Materials

The soil used was classified as high compressibility, according to the Soil Classification Unified System and as expansive clay
according index properties [3]. The lime used was a commercial lime. Soil was extracted from Jurica, Queretaro, Mexico.

2.2. Methodology

Identification of the untreated soil and Determination of the amount of lime required for reduction of expansion using plasticity
properties. For untreated soil identification the plasticity properties were determined, i.e, Atterberg’s Limits (Liquid Limit, Plastic
Limit and Plasticity Index) [17], Specific gravity of soils [18].

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Identification of the untreated and determination of the amount of lime required for reduction of expansion using plasticity properties

The plasticity properties of untreated soil (Atterberg limits) were measured [17], Table 1. Gradation was made by the dry
mechanical method. It was determined using sieve analysis [19]. The results of soil were graves of 0%, sands of 1.38% and fines of
98.62%. The specific gravity of untreated soil was 2.6 [18] and Density of 1580 kg/m3. Untreated soil identification was determined
according to the Unified System for Soil Classification USSC. The untreated soil used was classified as clay of high compressibility
according USSC with high potential for swelling [3].
Regarding the determination of the amount of lime required for reduction of expansion the plasticity properties of treated soil
were measured [17], Table 1. The expansion of untreated soil was reduced adding lime (from 2% and increments of 2% of dry weight
until finding the optimum dosage). The optimum dosage of lime was the lowest value of Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index as Fig. 1
shows. For this study was 6% of lime (regarding to dry weight of soil). 8% of lime was not applied because there would be little
difference in the decrease.

3.2. Determination of compaction of untreated and treated soil

The Standard Proctor Compaction test [20] was used to determine the maximum dry density (1295 kg/m3) of untreated soil and
their corresponding optimum moisture content (33.2%). Such maximum dry density and maximum moisture content were re-
produced in treated soils. In the same way, the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for untreated soil+ 2% lime was
1284 kg/m3 and 35%, for untreated soil + 4% lime was 1280 kg/m3 and 37% and for untreated soil + 6% lime was 1248 kg/m3 and
40%, respectively. The Compaction values showed that an increase in lime produces an increase in moisture content while maximum
dry density decreases [14,11], Fig. 2.

3.3. Determination of the amount of lime which reduces swelling of untreated soil via expansion

Another method to define the amount of lime for stabilizing an expansive soil is via expansion tests [21]. The soil was treated with
2, 4, and 6% of lime (of dry weight of soil) and compacted to its dry density and moisture content before the expansion test. The
determination of one-dimensional swell using the consolidometer was explained in the Methodology section. The seating load
specified by the standard is 5 kPa or less [22]. Here was 1 kPa because the soil was superficially extracted (at 0.3m). Soil Density was

Table 1
Atterberg limits of untreated soil and treated soil.

Material Liquid Limit, % Plastic Limit, % Plasticity Index, %

untreated soil 72 32 40
untreated soil +2%lime 59 33 26
untreated soil +4%lime 53 35 18
untreated soil +6%lime 49 36 13

104
T. López-Lara et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 102–109

80

70

60

Liquid Limit (%) 50

40

30 untreated soil
untreated soil +2% lime
20
untreated soil +4% lime
10 untreated soil +6% lime

0
31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Plastic Limit (%)
Fig. 1. Determination of the optimum dosage of lime using Plasticity properties.

1320

1300

1280

1260
Dry Density (kg/m³)

1240

1220

1200

1180 Untreated Soil

1160
4% Lime
1140
6% Lime
1120

1100 2% Lime
1080
25% 27% 29% 31% 33% 35% 37% 39% 41% 43% 45% 47% 49%
Moisture content (%)
Fig. 2. Compaction of untreated soil and treated soil with lime.

1580 kg/m3 and the diameter of ring was 5 cm.

Fig. 3 showed the behavior of expansion deformation of each group (3 tests). This behavior is very similar. The average swelling
of untreated soil and treated soil with 2, 4, and 6% of lime are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 4. From Table 2 and Fig. 4, it can be observed
that 6% of lime was enough for stabilizing it. The above verifies the same result obtained from the lowest value of Limit Liquid and
Plasticity Index.

3.4. Determination of the surcharge which reduces swelling of untreated soil

Expansion tests [21] were carried out with untreated expansive soil in the consolidometer. The determination of one-dimensional
swell using the consolidometer was explained in the Methodology section. The seating load specified by the standard is 5 kPa or less
[22]. Here was 1 kPa because the soil was superficially extracted (at 0.3m). Soil Density was of 1580 kg/m3 and the diameter of ring
was 5 cm. The seating load was not considered as part of Building surcharge because in this case it is a very small value.
Expansion tests were applied with different surcharges starting from 19.61 kPa (2 Ton/m2) and increments of 19.61 kPa until find
the opposite pressure to reduce expansion namely the Swelling Pressure [23]. From the results, we can see that the surcharge applied
is not proportional to the decrease of expansion. An initial small surcharge value (19.61 kPa) considerably decreases the expansion.
The following values decreased less expansion. Results from these experiments are shown in Fig. 5. Table 3 and Fig. 6 show the values
of expansion under each Surcharge. The expansion has no linear relation with the applied surcharge (Fig. 5).
From practical point of view the tested surcharge of 78.45 kPa (8 Ton/m2) is not extremely high and can be resisted by the

105
T. López-Lara et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 102–109

2.5

2
Deformation (mm)

1.5

0.5

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)

Untreated Soil (Test 3) Untreated Soil (Test 2)

Untreated Soil (Test 1) Treated Soil - 2% Lime (Test 3)
Treated Soil - 2% Lime (Test 2) Treated Soil - 2% Lime (Test 1)
Treated Soil - 4% Lime (Test 3) Treated Soil - 4% Lime (Test 2)
Treated Soil - 4% Lime (Test 1) Treated Soil - 6% Lime (Test 3)
Treated Soil - 6% Lime (Test 2) Treated Soil - 6% Lime (Test 1)
Fig. 3. Expansion deformations of untreated soil and treated soil with 2, 4 and 6% of lime.

Table 2
Expansion of untreated soil and treated soil with Lime.

Material Average Expansion (%)

Untreated Soil 10.58

Untreated Soil +2%Lime 5.47
Untreated Soil +4%Lime 2.74
Untreated Soil +6%Lime 0.58

overburden pressure of the soil. Consequently, the term Surcharge should be defined as following:

Surcharge = Swelling Pressure − Overburden Pressure

When the samples are extracted from the surface, the Surcharge will be equal to swelling pressure.
In this study the samples were taken from the top surface. At 78.45 kPa (8 Ton/m2) the expansion was considerably reduced
(1.54%), therefore this surcharge is the Swelling pressure.

3.5. Determination of surcharge and amount of lime which reduce swelling of untreated soil

This stage was carried out by expansion test [21] of lime-stabilized soil (2, 4 and 6% of its dry weight) in the consolidometer. The
determination of one-dimensional swell using the consolidometer was explained in the Methodology section. This was done by

106
T. López-Lara et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 102–109

12

10

8 untreated soil
Expansion (%)
untreated soil +2% lime
6
untreated soil +4% lime

untreated soil +6% lime

4

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Lime content (%)
Fig. 4. Expansion of Untreated and Treated soil with Lime (%).

2.5

1.5
Deformation (mm)

0.5

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Time (min)
Untreated Soil (Test 2) Untreated Soil (Test 4) Untreated Soil (Test 3)
Untreated Soil (Test 1) 19.61 kPa (Test 3) 19.61 kPa (Test 2)
19.61 kPa (Test 1) 39.22 kPa (Test 3) 39.22 kPa (Test 2)
39.22 kPa (Test 1) 58.84 kPa (Test 3) 58.84 kPa (Test 2)
58.84 kPa (Test 1) 78.45 kPa (Test 3) 78.45 kPa (Test 2)
78.45 kPa (Test 1)

Fig. 5. Expansion deformations of untreated soil and untreated soil with surcharges.

applying to each lime dose several surcharges starting from 19.61 kPa (2 Ton/m2) with increments of 19.61 kPa, until the maximum
surcharge was found, to compensate soil swelling or the Swelling pressure [23]. This stage consisted of nine combinations of sur-
charge and lime applied to the soil, namely, 19.61, 39.22 and 58.84 kPa with 2, 4 and 6% of lime (respect to its dry weight) in each
surcharge.
First, 2% of lime was added to soil and surcharges of 19.61, 39.22 and 58.84 kPa. Values of the resultant expansion are shown in
Table 4 and Fig. 7. From those results, it can be considered that a surcharge of 39.22 kPa with 2% of lime eliminates the soil swelling.

107
T. López-Lara et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 102–109

Table 3
Expansion of untreated soil with Surcharge.

Material Average Expansion (%)

Only untreated Soil 10.58

Untreated Soil +19.61 kPa 5.81
Untreated Soil +39.22 kPa 4.10
Untreated Soil +58.84 kPa 3.6
Untreated Soil +78.45 kPa 1.54

16

14

12
Only untreated Soil
10 Untreated Soil +19.61 kPa
Expansion, %

Untreated Soil +39.22 kPa

8
Untreated Soil +58.84 kPa
6 Untreated Soil +78.45 kPa

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Surcharge, kPa
Fig. 6. Expansion of untreated soil and untreated soil with Surcharge.

Table 4
Expansion of an untreated soil with lime and surcharges.

Untreated soil with Expansion (%)

+0 kPa +19.61 kPa +39.22 kPa +58.84 kPa

0%lime 10.58 5.81 4.1 3.6

2%lime 5.47 2.71 0.48 0.35
4%lime 2.74 0.49 0.11 0.10
6%lime 0.58 0.46 0.16 0.08

Fig. 7. Expansion of an untreated soil with lime and surcharges.

Here, the removal of the expansion is more by surcharge than by lime.

Then, tests were untreated soil with 4% of lime and 19.61, 39.22 and 58.84 kPa. Values of the resultant soil expansion are shown
in Table 4 and Fig. 7. From that Table, it can be considered that a surcharge of 19.61 kPa with 4% of lime reduces the soil swelling
considerably. Here, the removal of the expansion is more by lime than by surcharge.
Finally, tests were untreated soils with 6% of lime and surcharges of 19.61, 39.22 and 58.84 kPa. The resulting expansion values
are shown in Table 4 and Fig. 7. From that Table, it can be seen that, practically, all these combinations of surcharge and lime
eliminated the soil swelling without settlements. Here, the removal of the expansion was only with lime (the value of 6% eliminated

108
T. López-Lara et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 7 (2017) 102–109

the expansion) and the surcharge is insignificant apparently. This shows that lime stabilizes expansive soils and increases their
resistance. The above is also observed with the treated soil (2 and 4% of lime) under surcharges of 39.22 and 58.84 kPa, in both cases
similar expansion was recorded without settlements. This aspect is clearly observed in the Treated soil (6% of lime) with the three
surcharges (19.61, 39.22 and 58.84 kPa).
The Table 4 and Fig. 7 also include the expansion of Treated Soil with lime without surcharges and the Untreated Soil with
surcharges.

4. Conclusions

The test results indicated that the surcharges applied to untreated soils were not proportional to the decrease of expansion which
is probably due to the increase of soil density. In fact, only the initial surcharge (19.61 kPa) significantly decreased the expansion
(4.77% from 10.58% of expansion of the untreated soil). According to the results, the expansion was considerably reduced (1.54%)
with the surcharge of 78.45 kPa (8 Ton/m2).
It is recommended to describe the depth below ground level where the soil samples were extracted in order to measure the
overburden pressure. Consequently, Surcharge = Swelling Pressure − Overburden Pressure. So when the samples are extracted from
the surface, the Surcharge is equal to Swelling Pressure. For this study the surcharge of 78.45 kPa can be considered as the Swelling
Pressure because the soils samples were taken from the top surface and because this surcharge reduced the soil expansion to near
zero.
The soil tested (high compressibility clay) was stabilized with 6% of lime (without surcharges) which was determined with the
lowest value of liquid limit and plastic index as well as expansion test.
After the application of surcharges and lime treatment to expansive soil, the surcharges of 39.22 kPa and 58.84 kPa decreased
expansion and increased their resistance. This was concluded by similar low values of expansion (without settlements) under both
surcharges of each treated soil tested (2, 4 and 6% of lime). This aspect is also clearly observed in the treated soil (6% of lime) with
the three surcharges (19.61, 39.22 and 58.84 kPa).
It can be concluded that the surcharge participated effectively in removal soil swelling due to the decrease of the amount of lime
required (6%) without surcharge. So, 4% of lime was enough for the surcharge of 19.61 kPa and 2% of lime required the surcharge
minimum of 39.22 kPa.
The above is very important because the surcharges of 19.61 kPa (2 Ton/m2) and 39.22 kPa are the most common pressures for
light buildings houses and therefore all improvement methods and foundation types for expansive soils should be designed for lower
expansion to reduce costs.

References

[1] X.O. Chen, Z.W. Lu, X.F. He, Moisture movement and deformation of expansive soils, San Francisco California, 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, 4 1985, pp. 2389–2392.
[2] D.G. Fredlund, H. Rahardjo, Soil Mechanics for Unsatured Soils, Wiley, New York, 1993.
[3] J.D. Nelson, D.J. Miller, Expansive soils, Problems and Practice in Foundation and Pavement Engineering, Wiley, New York, 1992.
[4] J.A. Zepeda-Garrido, Mecánica De Suelos No Saturados, Sociedad Mexicana de Mecánica de Suelos, México, 2004 (Ed.).
[5] J.E. Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th ed., Mc Graw Hill, 1988.
[6] A.A. Al-Rawas, M.F.A. Goosen, Expansive Soils: Recent Advances in Characterization and Treatment, Taylor & Francis, 2006.
[7] J.L. De Justo Alpañés, P. Durand Neyra, E. Justo Moscardó, Construction of substructures in expansive and collapsing soils, Revista Obras pñblicas 422 (2002)
39–49.
[8] A.S. Rao, B.R. Phanikumar, R.S. Sharma, Prediction of swelling characteristics of remoulded and compacted expansive soils using free swell index, J. Eng. Geol.
Hydrogeol. 37 (2004) 217–226.
[9] H. Hudyma, B. Burcin Avar, Changes in swell behavior of expansive clay soils from dilution with sand, Environ. Eng. Geosci. 12 (2) (2006) 137–145.
[10] T. López-Lara, J.B. Hernández-Zaragoza, M.L. Pérez-Rea, C. López-Cajún, V.M. Castaño, Reaction Kinetics of an expansive soil stabilized with Calcium Oxide,
Res. J. Chem. Environ 10 (1) (1996).
[11] T. Lopez-Lara, J.B. Hernández-Zaragoza, G.R. Serrano Gutiérrez, V.M. Castano, Study of curing time of stabilized soils, Electron. J. Geotechn. Eng. 10 (2005) (F).
[12] C. Di Maio, T. Hueckel, B. Loret, Chemo-Mechanical Coupling in Clays, Swets & Zeitlinger, Netherlands, 2002.
[13] H.R. Purus, Techniques Stabilization Soils, Laxmi publications, USA, 2000 (Ed.).
[14] F.G. Bell, Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils, J. Eng. Geol. 42 (4) (1996) 223–226.
[15] T. Schanz, Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics, Springer, 2000 (Ed.).
[16] E. Mutaz, M.A. Dafalla, Chemical analysis and X-ray diffraction assessment of stabilized expansive soils, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 73 (4) (2014) 1063–1072.
[17] ASTM Standard D 4318-10, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM Standard
D 4318-10, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
[18] ASTM Standard D 2854-10, Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM Standard D
2854-10, West Conshohocken, United States, 2010.
[19] ASTM D422-63(2007)e2, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Withdrawn 2016), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[20] ASTM D698-00, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12400ft-lbf/ft3(600kN-m/m3)), Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, ASTM D698-00, West Conshohocken, United States, 2000.
[21] ASTM D4546-03, Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM D4546-
03, West Conshohocken, United States, 2003.
[22] ASTM D 2435-96, Standard Test Method for One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM D 2435-96, West
Conshohocken, United States, 1996.
[23] C. Di Maio, Swelling pressure of clayey soils: the influence of stress state and pore liquid composition, Ital. Geotech. J. 35 (3) (2001) 22–34.

109