See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327657743

Resilient modulus of clayey subgrade soils treated with calcium carbide

residue

Article  in  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · September 2018

DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2018.1512230

CITATIONS READS

4 324

3 authors:

Venkatesh Noolu Mudavath Heeralal

Sreenidhi Institute of Science & Technology National Institute of Technology, Warangal
13 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   100 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rakesh Pillai
National Institute of Technology, Warangal
23 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Coal Gangue Applications in Sustainable Geotechnics View project

A Study on the Influence of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Aggregates and Steel Fibers on the Performance of Concrete Pavements View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Venkatesh Noolu on 04 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Resilient modulus of clayey subgrade soils treated

with calcium carbide residue

Venkatesh Noolu, HeeraLal M & Rakesh J. Pillai

To cite this article: Venkatesh Noolu, HeeraLal M & Rakesh J. Pillai (2018): Resilient modulus of
clayey subgrade soils treated with calcium carbide residue, International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2018.1512230

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1512230

Published online: 14 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1512230

Resilient modulus of clayey subgrade soils treated with calcium carbide residue
Venkatesh Noolu, HeeraLal M and Rakesh J. Pillai
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Use of industrial by-products to improve subgrade soils in flexible pavements is gaining popularity as a Received 16 March 2018
sustainable construction practice. Calcium carbide residue (CCR) is a by-product of acetylene gas Accepted 30 July 2018
industry. In this paper, an attempt has been made to evaluate the influence of calcium carbide residue KEYWORDS
in improving the performance of clayey subgrade soils. The improvement in resilient modulus of two Resilient modulus; Subgrade
clayey soils (with low plasticity and high plasticity) with the addition of calcium carbide residue is soils; Repeated loading;
studied by carrying out repeated load triaxial tests. The influence of variation in moisture content on Regression models
the repeated loading behaviour of virgin soils and CCR stabilized soils is examined. Two regression
models (Universal and NCHRP model) reported in literature are found to exhibit very good fit with the
experimental data.

1. Introduction moisture content are known to be two key variables

considered for the determination of resilient modulus.
Just as the stiffness of any linear elastic material under gra-
Resilient modulus is found to increase with increase in
dual loading is quantified by Young’s modulus, the stiffness of
confining pressure and reduce with increase in cyclic
granular material subjected to repeating load as experienced
deviatoric stress levels. The resilient modulus is observed
in pavement layers is characterized by resilient modulus.
to decrease with increasing moisture content for unsatu-
Resilient modulus is defined as the ratio of applied cyclic
rated soils due to lubricant effect and pore pressure build
deviatoric stress to recoverable (resilient) strain developed in
up (Butalia et al. 2003; Heydinger, 2003; Han and
the material after a specified number of load cycles. The
Vanapalli 2016b). Several researchers have reported that
initial plastic response of the granular material is not consid-
the suction generated in partially saturated soils plays a
ered as the long-term performance of pavements is given
crucial role in their resilient behaviour, which in turn
primary importance. Resilient modulus of subgrade soil is
depends on the moisture content variations (Edris and
one of the most important material parameters used to char-
Lytton, 1976; Fredlund et al. 1978; Han and Vanapalli
acterize its nonlinear response under repeated loading in
2016a; Mamatha and Dinesh 2017). Resilient modulus of
Mechanistic-empirical design of flexible pavements (NCHRP
granular materials increases with increase in dry unit
2004; AASHTO 2008). Resilient modulus of subgrade soil is
weight, but its effect is less prominent when compared
generally obtained by conducting repeated triaxial test on soil
to moisture content and stress levels.
samples in the laboratory. Mechanistic-empirical pavement
Chemical stabilization is a ground improvement tech-
design has categorized resilient modulus into 3 levels based
nique which is widely adopted to improve the strength
on accuracy. Level 1 consists of resilient modulus values
and stiffness properties of subgrade soil. Lime, cement and
which are determined from repeated load triaxial tests. Level
some industrial by-products like fly ash are the commonly
2 comprises resilient modulus values obtained from empirical
used chemical stabilizers for subgrade materials.
correlations with other soil parameters such as California
Stabilization with industrial by-products not only
Bearing Ratio (CBR) and unconfined compressive strength
improves engineering properties but also helps in redu-
(UCS). In Level 3, the parameter is correlated to index prop-
cing the area of dumping yards and thus is a sustainable
erties of soil and has very low accuracy. Several researchers
option (Consoli et al. 2001; Sharma and Reddy 2004;
have studied the resilient behaviour of granular materials and
Phetchuay et al. 2014; Dang et al. 2016; Etim, Eberemu,
the factors affecting resilient modulus (Puppala et al. 1999;
and Osinubi 2017). Achampong et al. (1997) studied the
Mallela et al. 2004; Nazzal and Mohammad 2010; Rahman
resilient behaviour of lime-cement synthetic stabilized
et al. 2015; Nguyen et al. 2016; Venkatesh, Heeralal, and Pillai
clayey soil and observed that stabilization of low plasticity
2018).
clays (CL) yields better resilient modulus compared to
Some of the important factors which influence resilient
high plasticity clay (CH), due to the presence of kaolinite
modulus of granular materials are soil gradation, water
mineral in CL soils. Edil, Acosta, and Benson (2006) used
content, microstructure, dry density, stress state and
fly ash as a stabilizing material for enhancing the resilient
stress history (Rada and Witczak 1981; Li et al. 1994;
modulus of fine grained soils and concluded that fly ash
Zaman, Chen, and Laguros 1994). Stress levels and

CONTACT Rakesh J. Pillai rakeshpilla@gmail.com Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, India
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 V. NOOLU ET AL.

stabilization is more effective for low plasticity clayey soils

compared to organic soils. They also observed that stabi-
lization is more effective at higher water contents. Rout
et al. (2012) investigated the effect of lime and cement
stabilization on three subgrade soils and reported nearly
2.5–2.8 times increase in resilient modulus of the soils.
Kang et al. (2014) studied the stiffness behaviour of soft
clays stabilized with fly ash and lime kiln dust and
reported a significant increment in resilient modulus and
UCS. In addition, they proposed an empirical correlation
between resilient modulus and UCS of stabilized subgrade
soils. Ardah, Chen, and Abu-Farsakh (2017) investigated
the effect of cement-fly ash stabilization on resilient beha-
viour of four different subgrade soils at different moisture
Figure 1. Grain size distribution of CH soil, CI soil and CCR.
conditions and found that the effect of stabilization is
more in the case of soils moulded at higher water content.
One of the by-products of acetylene gas industries is Table 1. Index properties of CH soil and CI soil.
calcium carbide residue (CCR) which is formed as a result S.NO Properties CH soil CI soil
of the reaction between calcium carbide and water. CCR is 1 Specific gravity 2.65 2.59
usually dumped in the landfills leading to environmental 2 Grain size analysis
problems because of its alkalinity. This increasingly large Gravel (%) 0 4
Sand (%) 30 42
quantity of stockpiled CCR by-products has resulted in Silt (%) 41 30
serious environmental pollution (Du, Zhang, and Liu Clay (%) 29 24
2011). Re-use application for CCR in soil stabilization 3 Liquid Limit(LL) 59 42
4 Plastic Limit(PL) 18 22
has been identified as a low-carbon and low energy inten- 5 Plasticity Index(PI) 41 20
sive means to rapidly deplete the growing stockpiles of 6 IS Soil classification CH CI
and furthermore, eliminate negative environmental con-
notations associated with stockpiling this by-product
(Horpibulsuk, Phetchuay, and Chinkulkijniwat 2011). Du
Table 2. Chemical composition of CH soil, CI soil and CCR.
et al. (2016) studied the potential environmental impacts
Constituent CH soil CI soil CCR
resulting from the use of CCR for soil stabilization by
Silica (SiO2) 79.93% 38.2% 40.7%
measuring the total concentrations of major heavy metals Alumina (Al2O3) 10.59% 23.2% 10.17%
in natural soil and CCR stabilized soil and that the con- Ferrous (Fe2O3) 5.07% 26.9% 8.04%
centrations of heavy metals in CCR stabilized soils was Calcium (CaO) 1.05% 4.5% 40%
Titanium (TiO2) 0.54% 2.0 0.65%
lower than that of natural soils (Du et al. 2016). Du, Magnesia (MgO) 2.11% 4.6% 0.44%
Zhang, and Liu (2011) tested the effectiveness of clayey Sodium (Na) 0.6% 0.38% –
soil stabilized with CCR as a highway embankment filling Potassium (K) 1.11% 0.22 –
material and observed an increase in UCS, CBR and dur-
ability. Vichanand Rachan (2013) investigated the effect of
CCR stabilization on soft Bangkok clay and reported sig-
nificant increase in UCS strength due to the formation of 2. Materials and methods
ettringite mineral. 2.1. Materials used
Though some studies have been reported on stabilized
subgrade soils, the resilient behaviour of stabilized sub- Two locally available subgrade soils were procured from
grade soils and the factors affecting the behaviour are not Warangal, Telangana state, India. The soil samples brought
very well understood. Studies regarding the stabilization from the sites were air dried, crushed and sieved through
of clayey subgrade soils using CCR and its effect on 4.75 mm sieve. CCR is a by-product of acetylene gas industry
resilient modulus find scant mention in the literature. and was collected from acetylene factories near Warangal. The
The present study investigates the resilient response of grain size distributions of the two soils and CCR are shown in
CCR stabilized subgrade soils moulded at different moist- Figure 1. As per Indian standards (IS) classification, one soil is
ure contents under different stress states. Regression ana- classified as high plasticity clay (CH) and the other is classified as
lysis is carried out with the experimental data using intermediate plasticity clay (CI). The index properties of the two
universal model and NCHRP model and the correspond- soil samples are given in Table 1 and the chemical composition of
ing coefficients are obtained. the materials are given in Table 2.

Figure 2. Variation of Atterbergs limits of CH soil, CI soil with CCR.
The effect of addition of CCR on the Atterberg limits of
CH and CI soils are shown in Figure 2. It can be observed
that liquid limit (LL) and plasticity index (PI) of clayey soil
decrease whereas plastic limit (PL) increases with increase in
CCR content. The reasons for the above observation can be
attributed to the increase in coarser particle content and
flocculation of clay particles caused by the cation exchange
with Ca2+ ions from CCR (Horpibulsuk, Phetchuay, and
Chinkulkijniwat 2011). It can be noticed that with the addi-
tion of more than 8% of CCR to the CH soil and 4% of CCR
to the CI soil, there is only nominal reduction in PI, depend-
ing upon the maximum absorption capacity of Ca2+ ions.
Therefore, the percentage of CCR to be added was fixed as
8% for the CH soil and 4% for the CI soil. Modified Proctor
compaction test was performed on virgin soils as well as on
soils modified using CCR. Results of modified Proctor com-
paction tests carried out on soil samples with and without
modification with CCR are presented in Figure 3. The max-
imum dry density of both the soil samples is found to
decrease whereas the optimum moisture content increased
with the addition of CCR. The observed change in maximum
dry density can be directly attributed to the lower specific
gravity of the CCR, which lowers the overall weight of the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3
mixture as the additive content increases. The change in
optimum moisture content is associated to the particle
agglomeration and flocculation caused due to the cation
exchange resulting in higher water holding capacity during
the compaction process. Three repetitions were carried out
throughout the testing program. X-ray diffraction studies
were carried out on the soil samples using PAN analytical
X-pert powder diffractometer. As can be observed from
Figure 4, CH soil contains quartz, montmorillonite and
microcline as the major minerals whereas quartz, kaolinite
and hematite are found to be predominant in the CI soil.
All the repeated triaxial tests were carried out on
cylindrical samples of 75 mm diameter and 150 mm
height prepared by compacting at dry densities corre-
sponding to the required moisture contents. The required
amount of CCR was thoroughly mixed with the soil and
kept in the desiccator for 24 h. The samples were then
prepared by static compaction in cylindrical moulds
whose inner surface was lubricated to reduce side friction.
Reliability of the results was enhanced by employing a
single operator and the same apparatus throughout the
testing programme. Three specimens were tested to check
the repeatability of static and cyclic triaxial tests. The
4 V. NOOLU ET AL.

Figure 3. Compaction curves for CH soil, CI soil with and without addition of CCR.

Figure 4. X-ray diffraction patterns for CH soil, CI soil.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5

Table 3. Resilient modulus testing protocol based on AASHTO T-307. moisture content of subgrade soils will increase by about 20
Confining pressure (kPa) Deviator stress (kPa) Number of load cycles per cent above the optimum moisture content over a period
27.6 41.4 500 of two years after the completion of subgrade construction. In
41.4 13.8 100
27.6 100
order to consider the variation in moisture content, the soil
41.4 100 specimens were prepared at three different water contents
55.2 100 (OMC, OMC+2 and OMC+4).
68.9 100
27.6 13.8 100
The soil samples were subject to the required confining
27.6 100 pressure and 100 cycles of deviatoric stress under unconsoli-
41.4 100 dated undrained conditions after a preconditioning stage of
55.2 100
68.9 100
500 cycles. The deformations were measured by two linear
13.8 13.8 100 variable differential transducers (LVDTs) of high resolution
27.6 100 with a precision of 0.01 mm. A submersible load cell with
41.4 100
55.2 100
5 kN capacity was used to measure the load acting on speci-
68.9 100 men. A data acquisition system with a dedicated software was
used to save the data to a computer. Static trixial tests were
also performed on virgin and stabilized samples at varying
water contents in order to determine their undrained
samples were extracted from the moulds, wrapped with strength.
polyvinyl sheets and stored in desiccator for 28 days for
curing.
3. Results and discussions
2.2. Laboratory testing programme Average values of undrained compressive strength of stabi-
Repeated load triaxial tests were the most preferred method lized and virgin samples obtained from static tests is pre-
to determine the resilient modulus of unbound granular sented in Figure 5 and statistically differentiated at 4%. The
material (Lekarp 1999; Uthus 2007; Rahman and Erlingsson gain in strength of clayey soil with the addition of CCR is
2015).In the present investigation, one-way cyclic loading was evident from the graphs. For CCR stabilized soil, the increase
adopted to simulate the repeated loading on pavements as in UCS values can be attributed to the pozzolanic reaction
recommended by many researchers (Lekarp 1999; Mamatha between silica and alumina present in the clay and lime in
and Dinesh 2017). CCR leading to the formation of various cementing agents.
In the present study, an automated pneumatic cyclic triax- The SEM images shown in Figure 6 and the XRD results
ial apparatus with servo control and data acquisition system shown in Figure 7 confirm the formation of cementation
was used to determine the resilient characteristics of the soil. compounds when the CH soil is reacted with CCR. Similar
A pneumatic actuator connected to a compressor through reasoning is given by other researchers like Kinuthia, Wild,
regulators and servo controlled valves was used to apply the and Jones (1999) and Horpibulsuk et al. (2013), for the gain
required cyclic loading. Cyclic stresses were applied on the in strength and stiffness of soil on stabilization with CCR.
specimens in the form of haversine pulses with a frequency of Resilient modulus is calculated as the ratio of cyclic devia-
1 Hz. Cyclic triaxial test was performed on soil specimens at toric stress to the resilient strain, by taking the average of the
three confining pressures and seven different deviator stress last five load cycles for each combination of confining pres-
levels as recommended by AASHTO T-307. Table 3 shows sure and deviator stress. Figures 8(a,b) and 9(a,b) present the
the combination of confining pressures and stress levels used resilient modulus of virgin soil and CCR stabilized CH, CI
in the present study. According to Cong et al. (2011) the soils, respectively, prepared at optimum moisture content

Figure 5. Deviator loads at failure corresponding to water content for CH soil, CI soil with and without addition of CCR.
6 V. NOOLU ET AL.

Figure 6. SEM images of CH soil stabilized with CCR.

Figure 7. XRD images of CH soil stabilized with CCR.


(OMC). Each test repeated three times and variation with in
3%. The variation of resilient modulus with different devia-
toric stress levels (13.8–68.9 kPa) under three different con-
fining pressures of 13.8, 27.6 and 41.4 kPa is shown. It can be
observed from Figure 8(a,b) that there is nearly 2.5 to 2.8
times increment in resilient modulus values when the CH soil
is stabilized with CCR. From Figure 9(a,b), it can be found
that resilient modulus values of the CI soil exhibit an incre-
ment of 1.7–1.85 times on stabilization with CCR. The resi-
lient modulus values were found to decrease with deviatoric
stress levels and increase with confining pressure for all the
virgin samples and stabilized samples of both CH and CI
soils.
Figures 8(c,d) and 9(c,d) show the variation of resilient
modulus of stabilized and virgin soils prepared at a higher
moisture content of OMC +2% subjected to different deviatoric
stress levels and confining pressures. In this case, the resilient
modulus values of the CH soil exhibited 2.8–3 times increase on
stabilization with CCR whereas CI soil showed an increment of
only 1.8–2 times. Figures 8(e,f) and 9(e,f) represent the variation
of resilient modulus of treated and untreated soil specimens
prepared at a water content of OMC+ 4% tested under different
Figure 8. Variation of resilient modulus with stress levels of CH soil and CCR stabilized CH soil under different moistures.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 7
stress levels. In this case, of higher water content, for the CH soil
the resilient modulus values were found to be 2.8–3.5 times that
of the virgin soil whereas the increment was about 2.2 times in
the case of the CI soil. It can be inferred from the Figures 8 and 9
that the stabilization is more effective at higher water content.
The reduction in resilient modulus is noticed with increasing
water content for both stabilized and virgin soils. As has been
observed by previous researchers, the resilient modulus values
are found to increase with increase in confining pressure and
reduce with increase in cyclic deviatoric stress for the stabilized
soil samples also (Rout et al. 2012; Kang et al. 2014).
Several regression models have been reported in the litera-
ture for determining resilient modulus values with stress
invariants and moisture content as variables. One of the
models was developed by Uzan (1985) which is known as
the universal model. This model considers the effect of both
confining stress and deviator stress due to wheel load to
predict the resilient modulus of unbound granular material
using the expression given in Equation (1).

k2
k3
Mr ¼ K1 θ=pa σ d=
pa 1
8 V. NOOLU ET AL.
Figure 9. Variation of resilient modulus with stress levels of CI soil and CCR stabilized CI soil under different moistures.
Here, θ is the bulk stress (θ = σ1 + 2σ3) and σd = σ1−σ3 is the
deviator stress. σ1is the total vertical stress, σ3 is the confining
pressure and pa is the atmospheric pressure (101.4 kPa). k1,
k2 and k3 are the constants or parameters which can be
obtained from multiple regression analyses of the repeated
load triaxial test data. Tables 4 and 5 show the values of
constants k1, k2, k3 and the coefficient of multiple determina-
tion (R2) values obtained for the test data of the present study.
R2 values are found to be greater than 0.9 which provides
evidence of the model showing its good correlation fit.
Another model was developed by NCHRP (2004) in order
to envisage the resilient modulus. This model uses both bulk
stress and octahedral stress for the determination of resilient
modulus. According to this model, the resilient modulus is
determined using the following Equation (2).

K2
K
Mr ¼ K1 pa θ=pa τ oct= þ 1 3
pa
pffiffi
In Equation (2), τ oct ¼ 32 ðσ 1  σ 3 Þ, and θ is the bulk stress,
pa is the atmospheric pressure and k1, k2, and k3 are the
parameters. Tables 6 and 7 represent the values of constants
k1, k2, k3 and R2values obtained from the present test data for
NCHRP model.
4. Conclusions
The current work examined the effectiveness of CCR on
enchantment of resilient modulus of two clayey soils. The
results indicated that 4% CCR was found to be optimal for
soil with low plasticity whereas 8% CCR was required in the
case of high plasticity clay. The resilient modulus values of
samples exhibited 1.9–2.7 times increment with the addition
of CCR. The presence of calcium in CCR leads to flocculation
of clay particles there by improving subgrade characteristics
2 of clayey soils. The effect of confining pressure, deviatoric
stress levels and water content on the resilient modulus of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 9

Table 4. Regression coefficients for universal model (CH soil and CCR stabilized values of virgin samples markedly reduced in the presence
CH soil).
of high moisture content. The universal model and NCHRP
CH Soil CCR stabilized CH soil
model were found to fit the experimental data for stabilized
2
Water content Parameters R Parameters R2 soil samples very well, using multiple regression analysis with
OMC K1 = 62.34 0.944 K1 = 144.6 0.882 high coefficient of determination.
K2 = 4.25 K2 = 6.21
K3 = −4.44 K3 = −7.2
OMC+2% K1 = 45.89 0.902 K1 = 98.25 0.912
K2 = 4.02 K2 = 4.58 Disclosure statement
K3 = −4.87 K3 = −5.21
OMC+4% K1 = 24.14 0.97 K1 = 33.85 0.92 No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
K2 = 2.28 K2 = 3.88
K3 = −3.41 K3 = −4.01

References
Table 5. Regression coefficients for universal model (CI soil and CCR stabilized CI AASHTO. 2008. “Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide, Interim
soil). Edition.” In A Manual of Practice. Washington, DC: American
CI Soil CCR stabilized CI soil Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Water content Parameters R2 Parameters R2 Achampong, F., M. Usmen, and T. Kagawa. 1997. “Evaluation of
Resilient Modulus for Lime-And Cement-Stabilized Synthetic
OMC K1 = 69.451 0.945 K1 = 129.47 0.901
K2 = 4.656 K2 = 5.098 Cohesive Soils.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
K3 = −4.01 K3 = −5.02 Transportation Research Board 1589: 70–75. doi:10.3141/1589-12.
OMC+2% K1 = 47.25 0.922 K1 = 81.8 0.98 Ardah, A., Q. Chen, and M. Abu-Farsakh. 2017. “Evaluating the
K2 = 4.234 K2 = 4.28 Performance of Very Weak Subgrade Soils Treated/Stabilized with
K3 = −3.92 K3 = −4.26 Cementitious Materials for Sustainable Pavements.” Transportation
OMC+4% K1 = 18.25 0.895 K1 = 32.64 0.944 Geotechnics 11: 107–119. doi:10.1016/j.trgeo.2017.05.002.
K2 = 3.75 K2 = 4.01 Butalia, T. S., J. Huang, D. G. Kim, and F. Croft. 2003. “Effect of
K3 = −3.6 K3 = −3.8 Moisture Content and Pore Water Pressure Buildup on Resilient
Modulus of Cohesive Soils in Ohio.” In Resilient Modulus Testing
for Pavement Components. ASTM International.West conshohocken.
Cong, L., Z. Guo, Q. Gao, and H. Zhang. 2011. “Permanent Deformation
Table 6. Regression coefficients for NCHRP model (CH soil and CCR stabilized CH Characteristics and Prediction Model of Silty Subgrade Soils under
soil). Repeated Loading.” Journal of Highway and Transportation Research
CH Soil CCR stabilized CH soil andDevelopment 5 (2): 22–26.
Water content Parameters R2 Parameters R2 Consoli, N. C., P. D. M. Prietto, J. A. H. Carroro, and K. S. Heineck.
2001. “Behavior of Compacted Soil-Fly Ash-Carbide Lime Mixture.”
OMC K1 = 4889.85 0.954 K1 = 9245.65 0.975
K2 = 7.87 K2 = 11.16 Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (9):
K3 = −9.26 K3 = −14.01 774–782. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:9(774).
OMC+ 2% K1 = 2875.36 0.884 K1 = 6647.54 0.914 Dang, L. C., H. Hasan, B. Fatahi, R. Jones, and H. Khabbaz. 2016.
K2 = 6.59 K2 = 9.25 “Enhancing the Engineering Properties of Expansive Soil Using
K3 = −8.12 K3 = −11.92 Bagasse Ash and Hydrated Lime.” International Journal 11 (25):
OMC+ 4% K1 = 1445.51 0.98 K1 = 3412.47 0.95 2447–2454.
K2 = 4.8 K2 = 6.12 Du, Y. J., N. J. Jiang, S. Y. Liu, S. Horpibulsuk, and A. Arulrajah. 2016.
K3 = −7.02 K3 = −9.25 “Field Evaluation of Soft Highway Subgrade Soil Stabilized with
Calcium Carbide Residue.” Soils and Foundations 56 (2): 301–314.
doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2016.02.012.
Du, Y. J., Y. Y. Zhang, and S. Y. Liu. 2011. “Investigation of Strength and
California Bearing Ratio Properties of Natural Soils Treated by
Table 7. Regression coefficients for NCHRP model (CI soil and CCR stabilized CI Calcium Carbide Residue.” In Geo-Frontiers 2011: Advances in
soil).
Geotechnical Engineering, 1237–1244. ASCE
CI Soil CCR stabilized CI soil Edil, T. B., H. A. Acosta, and C. H. Benson. 2006. “Stabilizing Soft Fine-
2
Water content Parameters R Parameters R2 Grained Soils with Fly Ash.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
OMC K1 = 5750.44 0.921 K1 = 7374.008 0.933 18 (2): 283–294. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2006)18:2(283).
K2 = 8.15 K2 = 9.35 Edris, E. V., and R. L. Lytton. 1976. Dynamic Properties of Subgrade Soils,
K3 = −9.48 K3 = −12.82 Including Environmental Effects (No. TTI-2-18-74-164-3 Intrm Rpt.).
OMC+ 2% K1 = 3385.21 0.977 K1 = 4420.6 0.91 Texas A&M University.
K2 = 6.046 K2 = 8.68 Etim, R. K., A. O. Eberemu, and K. J. Osinubi. 2017. “Stabilization of
K3 = −8.45 K3 = −11.85 Black Cotton Soil with Lime and Iron Ore Tailings Admixture.”
OMC+ 4% K1 = 1852.35 0.982 K1 = 2258.45 0.925 Transportation Geotechnics 10: 85–95. doi:10.1016/j.
K2 = 4.89 K2 = 5.612
trgeo.2017.01.002.
K3 = −7.75 K3 = −9.14
Fredlund, D. G., N. R. Morgenstern, and R. A. Widger. 1978. “The Shear
Strength of Unsaturated Soils.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 15 (3):
313–321. doi:10.1139/t78-029.
virgin and stabilized clay samples was examined. The resilient Han, Z., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2016a. “State-Of-the-Art: Prediction of
modulus values were found to increase with increase in con- Resilient Modulus of Unsaturated Subgrade Soils.” International
fining pressure and reduce with increase in deviatoric stress Journal of Geomechanics 16 (4): 04015104. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0000631.
levels for both the virgin samples and samples treated with
Han, Z., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2016b. “Relationship between Resilient
CCR. The stabilization with CCR was observed to be more Modulus and Suction Forcompacted Subgrade Soils.” Engineering
effective at higher water contents as the resilient modulus Geology 211: 85–97. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.06.020.
10 V. NOOLU ET AL.
Heydinger, A. 2003. “Evaluation of Seasonal Effects on Subgrade Soils.”
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board (1821) 47–55.
Horpibulsuk, S., C. Phetchuay, and A. Chinkulkijniwat. 2011. “Soil
Stabilization by Calcium Carbide Residue and Fly Ash.” Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering 24 (2): 184–193. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0000370.
Horpibulsuk, S., C. Phetchuay, A. Chinkulkijniwat, and A.
Cholaphatsorn. 2013. “Strength Development in Silty Clay Stabilized
with Calcium Carbide Residue and Fly Ash.” Soils and Foundations.
53 (4): 477–486. doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2013.06.001.
Kang, X., G. C. Kang, K. T. Chang, and L. Ge. 2014. “Chemically
Stabilized Soft Clays for Road-Base Construction, Journal.” Of
Materials in Civil Engineering 27 (7): 04014199. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0001156.
Kinuthia, J. M., S. Wild, and G. I. Jones. 1999. “Effects of Monovalent
and Divalent Metal Sulphates on Consistency and Compaction of
Lime-Stabilised Kaolinite.” Applied Clay Science 14 (1–3): 27–45.
doi:10.1016/S0169-1317(98)00046-5.
Lekarp, F. 1999. Resilient and Permanent Deformation Behavior of
Unbound Aggregates under Repeated Loading. PhD diss., Royal
Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
Li, D., and E. T. Selig. 1994. “Resilient Modulus for Fine-Grained
Subgrade Soils.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 120 (6): 939–
957. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:6(939).
Mallela, J., H. V. Quintus, and K. L. Smith. 2004. Consideration of Lime-
Stabilized Layers in Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design, Report
Submitted to the National Lime Association. Champaign, IL.
Mamatha, K. H., and S. V. Dinesh. 2017. “Resilient Modulus of Black
Cotton Soil.” International Journal of Pavement Research and
Technology 10 (2): 171–184. doi:10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.008.
Nazzal, M. D., and L. N. Mohammad. 2010. ““Estimation of Resilient
Modulus of Subgrade Soils for Design of Pavement Structures.”
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 726–734. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000073.
NCHRP. 2004. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Final Rep. No. NCHRP 1-37A,
National Research Council, National Research Council,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Phetchuay, C., S. Horpibulsuk, C. Suksiripattanapong, A. Chinkulkijniwat, A.
Arulrajah, and M. Disfani. 2014. “Calcium Carbide Residue: Alkaline
Activator for Clay–Fly Ash Geopolymer.” Construction and Building
Materials 69 (2): 285–294. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.018.
Puppala, A., E. Wattanasanticharoen, and L. Hoyos. 2003. “Ranking of
Four Chemical and Mechanical Stabilization Methods to Treat Low-
Volume Road Subgrades in Texas.” Transportation Research Record:
View publication stats
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1819: 63–71.
doi:10.3141/1819b-09.
Puppala, A. J., L. N. Mohammad, and A. Allen. 1999. “Permanent
Deformation Characterization of Subgrade Soils from RLT Test.”
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 11 (4): 274–282.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1999)11:4(274).
Rada, G., and M. W. Witczak. 1981. Comprehensive Evaluation of
Laboratory Resilient Moduli Results for Granular Material (No. 810).
Transport Red Record.
Rahman, M. S, and S. Erlingsson. 2015. “Predicting Permanent
Deformation Behaviour Of Unbound Granular Materials.”
International Journal Of Pavement Engineering 16 (7): 587-601.
doi:10.1080/10298436.2014.943209.
Rahman, M. T., and R. A. Tarefder. 2015. “Assessment of Molding
Moisture and Suction on Resilient Modulus of Lime Stabilized
Clayey Subgrade Soils.” Geotechnical Testing Journal 38 (6): 840–
850. doi:10.1520/GTJ20140237.
Rout, R. K., P. Ruttanapormakul, S. Valluru, and A. J. Puppala. 2012.
“Resilient Moduli Behavior of Lime-Cement Treated Subgrade Soils.”
In GeoCongress 2012; State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical
Engineering, 1428–1437.
Sharma, H. D., and K. R. Reddy. 2004. Geo Environmental Engineering:
Site Remediation, Waste Containment, and Emerging Waste
Management Technologies. John Wiley & Sons.Hoboken,NJ.
Thach Nguyen, B., and A. Mohajerani. 2016. “Possible Simplified
Method for the Determination of the Resilient Modulus of
Unbound Granular Materials.” Road Materials and Pavement Design
17 (4): 841–858. doi:10.1080/14680629.2015.1130162.
Uthus, L. 2007. Deformation Properties of Unbound Granular
Aggregates. PhD Diss., Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim.
Uzan, J. 1985. “Characterization of Granular Material.” In
Transportation Research Record. 1022, TRB. Washington, DC:
National Research Council.
Venkatesh, N., M. Heeralal, and R. J. Pillai. 2018. “Resilient and
Permanent Deformation Behaviour of Clayey Subgrade Soil
Subjected to Repeated Load Triaxial Tests.” European Journal of
Environmental and Civil Engineering 1–16. doi:10.1080/
19648189.2018.1472041.
Vichan, S, and R. Rachan. 2013. “Chemical Stabilization Of Soft Bangkok
Clay Using The Blend Of Calcium Carbide Residue and Biomass
Ash.” Soils and Foundations 53 (2): 272-281. doi:10.1016/j.
sandf.2013.02.007.
Zaman, M., D. H. Chen, and J. Laguros. 1994. “Resilient Moduli of
Granular Materials.” Journal of Transportation Engineering 120 (6):
967–988. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1994)120:6(967).