Postconstruction Evaluation of Subgrades

Chemically Treated with Lime Kiln Dust

Chulmin Jung1; Antonio Bobet, M.ASCE2; Nayyar Zia Siddiki3; and Daehyeon Kim4

Abstract: An extensive field investigation was carried out to determine the properties of subgrade soils treated with lime in pavements that
had been in service for at least five years. Six sites were selected for the field tests. At each site, standard penetration test (SPT), dynamic cone
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

penetration test (DCPT), and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) tests were performed to evaluate the in situ stiffness and/or strength proper-
ties of the lime-treated subgrade. In addition, laboratory tests on soil samples taken from the SPT spoon were done to obtain index properties.
The long-term performance of the subgrade was evaluated by comparing the soil indexes and stiffness and/or strength properties of the lime-
treated subgrade soil with those of the natural soil. In addition, pH, X-ray diffraction (XRD), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) tests
were conducted for both lime-treated and natural soils. The field and laboratory investigation showed that (1) the lime remains in the soil even
after 11 years of service of the road; (2) the addition of lime decreases the plasticity of the soil and increases its California bearing ration
(CBR); and (3) the construction quality determined from the field tests was highly variable. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000251.
© 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Subgrades; Lime; Field tests; Laboratory tests; Material properties.
Author keywords: Lime-treated subgrade; Long-term performance; LKD; Field tests; Laboratory tests; Lime content; Construction quality.

Introduction of strength and/or stiffness of the soil by pozzolanic and carbona-

The long-term performance of a pavement depends to a very large
extent on the properties of the subgrade soil. Unstable soils may
cause significant problems to the overlying pavement or other
engineering structures. There are typically two mechanisms to
improve the subgrade. One simply consists of the replacement
of the undesirable material and the other one relies on improvement
of the soil. Such improvement can be attained either by mechanical
means, e.g., compaction, or by chemical treatment. One such
chemical treatment is the addition of lime to the soil.
Lime has been used to treat soils, and different lime dosages
may be used, depending on the objectives to be accomplished.
A small amount of lime may be used to rapidly dehydrate and
modify fine-grained soils to produce a working platform for con-
struction or for temporary roads. The practical effects of the treat-
ment are (1) improvement of workability and compactability;
(2) reduction of swelling and shrinking potentials of the soil by
saturating the clay fraction with calcium ions; and (3) increase
1
Geotechnical Specialist, Civil & Architectural Dept. 1, Samsung
Engineering, 467-14, Samsung SEI Tower, Dogok-2 Dong, Gangnam-
Gu, Seoul, 135-856, Korea; formerly Post-doctoral Researcher, School
of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., 550 Stadium Mall Dr., West Lafayette,
IN 47907-1284 (corresponding author). E-mail: chulminj@gmail.com
2
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., 550 Stadium
Mall Dr., West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284.
3 are generally not included in pavement design. There are many rea-
Geotechnical Field Operation Supervisor, Office of Geotechnical
Engineering, Indiana Dept. of Transportation, 120 S. Shortridge Rd.,
Indianapolis, IN 46219-0389.
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Chosun Univ., 375
Seosuk-Dong, Dong-Gu, Gwangju, 501-759, Korea.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 17, 2009; approved on
December 17, 2010; published online on December 20, 2010. Discussion
period open until December 1, 2011; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 7, July 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-
1561/2011/7-931–940/$25.00.
tion cementation processes. Although soil modification is primarily
aimed at construction expediency, it has been known that lime treat-
ment can produce significant improvements to the stiffness and/or
strength of soil. The improvement is caused by short-term and long-
term reactions between the lime and the soil. Short-term reactions
occur within a few hours after mixing and primarily consist of the
transformation of calcium oxide into calcium hydroxide caused by
hydration, agglomeration, and flocculation of clay particles through
cation exchange. The result is a decrease of the water content and
plastic index (PI) of the soil, which becomes more workable and
compactable. It also produces an increase of the pH of the pore
water in the soil that facilitates dissolution of alumina and silica
from the clay minerals that react with the calcium from the added
lime, creating pozzolanic compounds such as calcium aluminate
hydrate (CAH) and calcium silicate hydrate (CSH). The pozzolanic
compounds have cementing effects as they bind the soil structure
together, and so the strength and/or stiffness of the soil increase.
Extensive laboratory work has identified and quantified the fac-
tors that, during construction, affect the most the engineering prop-
erties of lime-modified soil. They include (Bhattacharja et al. 2003;
Thompson 1969; Little et al. 1987; Kennedy et al. 1987; Doty et al.
1968) lime dosage, mineralogy of the natural soil, soil gradation,
pulverization and mixing, compaction, and curing period and con-
ditions. Although the results consistently show that the engineering
properties of lime-treated soils are improved, the beneficial effects
sons for this, but perhaps the most important one is the concern of
designers that repeated loading, weathering, change in water con-
tent, and possible lime migration with time reduce or even elimi-
nate any benefits observed during construction. This concern
emanates, in part, from the lack of reliable data on long-term
performance of lime-treated soils. There are still too few field tests
reported in the technical literature, with the exception of work
by Little (1996) and Yusuf et al. (2001). Little (1996) evalua-
ted the in situ stiffness and strength properties of lime-treated

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 931

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011.23:931-940.

 subgrades in pavements in Texas by using falling weight deflec-
tometer (FWD) and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests.
The lime-treated subgrades were 2 to 20 years old at the time of
the evaluation. From the test results, Little (1996) concluded that
lime-treated subgrades provided a level of stiffness and strength
that was similar to that of an unbounded aggregate base. Yusuf et al.
(2001) investigated the in situ stiffness and strength of lime-treated
subgrades constructed in Mississippi by using ground penetrating
radar (GPR), FWD, and DCP. They concluded that the lime-treated
subgrades were suitable to be used as structural layers. While the
observations are promising, still more data and analysis are needed.
The objectives of the paper are (1) provide additional data on
long-term durability and performance of lime-treated subgrade
soils in pavements that have been in service for several years;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(2) find whether the initially enhanced stiffness of lime-treated sub-

grade soils remains with time; and (3) determine lime content in the
subgrade several years after treatment.
The work concentrates on subgrade soils that had been treated
with lime kiln dust (LKD) in Indiana, which is increasingly being
used in the state because of its economic benefits (Kim et al. 2004).
The work expands and completes the information presented in a
previous publication (Jung et al. 2008) in which preliminary data
was presented.

Testing Sites
An extensive field investigation was carried out to determine the
properties of subgrade soils treated with lime in pavements that
had been in service for at least five years. Six sites, where the
chemical treatment was done to improve workability and compact-
ibility of subgrade soil (not intended to increase stiffness and/or
strength of soil), were selected for the field tests. The sites were
chosen based on the following considerations (Jung et al. 2008):
(1) location of the road project in the state of Indiana; (2) class
of the road; (3) year when lime treatment was done; (4) type of
lime used; (5) type of pavement; (6) availability of information nec-
essary for postconstruction evaluation; and (7) traffic and safety
control.
The sites were chosen such that they were representative of
existing roads in Indiana, and were well distributed over the state.
Interstate highway roads were excluded as testing sites because of
safety issues and traffic disruption consideration because of high
traffic volume. For similar reasons, county roads were not included
because of their smaller volume and density of traffic. The year
when lime treatment was done was a critical criterion for the site
Fig. 1. Test sites (data from Jung et al. 2008)
selection because pozzolanic reactions and carbonation cementa-
tion processes in lime-treated soils continue for years. In Indiana,
lime modification has been adopted as a special subgrade treatment
for portland cement concrete (PCC) and hot mixed asphalt (HMA)
pavements [Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) 2002].
Both roads with PCC pavement and roads with HMA pavement
were tested. Only road projects that had sufficient geotechnical in-
formation generated during design and construction were chosen to
compare soil properties before and after treatment with lime. Field
tests were performed on roads in service, so traffic and safety con-
trol was imperative.
The location of the six test sites selected is shown in Fig. 1. The
road projects chosen were: (1) U.S. 30 in Lake County; (2) S.R. 49
in Porter County; (3) S.R. 67 in Delaware County; (4) U.S. 231 in
Montgomery County; (5) S.R. 69 in Posey County; and (6) S.R. 67
in Knox County.
Table 1 shows details of each site. The table contains (1) county
where the test was conducted; (2) INDOT district that has

Table 1. Details of Testing Sites

Site (1) Site (2) Site (3) Site (4) Site (5) Site (6)
County Lake Porter Delaware Montgomery Posey Knox
INDOT district Laporte Laporte Greenfield Crawfordsville Vincennes Vincennes
Road name US 30 SR 49 SR 67 US 231 SR 69 SR 67
Type of pavement PCCP HMA HMA HMA PCCP HMA
Number of driving lanes 4 4 4 4 2 2
Type and content of lime 5% LKD 5% LKD 5% LKD 5% LKD 5% LKD 5% LKD
Design thickness of treated 40 40 40 40 40 40
subgrade (cm)
Location RP4 þ 0:550∼ RP30 þ 0:330∼ RP142 þ 0:489∼ RP41 þ 0:505∼ RP13 þ 0:55∼ RP4 þ 0:39∼
RP4 þ 0:970 RP35 þ 0:500 RP146 þ 0:600 RP45 þ 0:178 RP17 þ 0:05 RP10 þ 0:79
Length of treated section (km) 0.7 8.4 6.6 6.0 5.6 10.3
Year of lime treatment 1997 2002 1999 2002 1996 2002

932 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011.23:931-940.

 jurisdiction over the site; (3) road name; (4) type of pavement;
(5) total number of lanes; (6) type and content of lime; (7) design
thickness of treated subgrade; (8) location of the test site, denoted
in terms of reference post (RP) number; (9) length of treated sec-
tion; and (10) year when the treatment was done.
Sites (1) and (2) were located in northern Indiana, Sites (3) and
(4) in central Indiana, and Sites (5) and (6) in southern Indiana. The
sites were considered representative of the roads encountered
across the state. Lime treatment was done in all the sites before
2002. Sites (1) and (5) had PCC pavement, and Sites (2), (3),
(4), and (6) had HMA pavement. Sites (1) and (4) are on U.S. high-
ways, and Sites (2), (3), (5), and (6) are on Indiana state roads. At
each site, the design called for an improvement of the subgrade by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mixing the natural soil with 5% LKD over a depth of 40 cm. The
minimum percentage of LKD at each site was determined in the
laboratory following ASTM D 6276-99 (ASTM 2006). The ASTM
standard specifies a method for soil-lime proportion using pH. The
method is on the basis of Eades and Grim procedure by Eades et al.
(1963). The amount of lime necessary to achieve a pH of 12.4 was
considered to be the minimum. Design records show that 5% of
LKD satisfied the laboratory requirement at all sites.
Field and Laboratory Tests
In all six sites selected, SPT, DCPT, and FWD tests were performed
to evaluate the in situ stiffness and/or strength properties of the
lime-treated subgrade. Laboratory tests for soil samples taken from
the SPT spoon sampler were done to obtain index properties of the
lime-treated subgrade and the lime content that remained in the soil.
FWD tests were conducted at each site to obtain the in situ resil-
ient modulus M R of the lime-treated subgrade and of the original,
untreated soil. FWD tests were conducted at about 10-m intervals
on a 200-m-length segment at each site. A pulse force was
Fig. 2. Boring and subgrade soil sampling (photos by Chulmin Jung): (a) drilling of a PCC surface layer; (b) boring of a HMA layer; (c) installation of
a standard spoon sampler into a borehole; and (d) subgrade soil sampling
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 933
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011.23:931-940.
generated from a loading plate with the shape of a half-sine wave
and a peak force of approximately 3,600 kg.
DCP tests were performed to complement FWD tests and to
evaluate directly the stiffness of the lime-treated subgrade. The ob-
jective of SPT tests was mostly to obtain samples for laboratory
tests, and to a smaller extent to compare SPT results with DCP data.
Fig. 2 shows boring and subgrade soil sampling procedures. Ten
borings, spaced at approximately 20 m, were drilled at Sites (2)
to (6) to perform the DCP tests [Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)]. Another
10 borings were done near the DCP borings for SPT tests and
for collection of soil samples for laboratory tests [Figs. 2(c) and
2(d)]. The distance between a SPT borehole and the nearest DCPT
was approximately 2 m. At Site (1), only five SPT borings and four
DCPT borings were conducted because of safety issues associated
with the large traffic density of the road. All the field investigation
was carried out while the roads were in service. Care was taken to
ensure the safety of the vehicles circulating and the personnel in the
field conducting the tests.
FWD and DCP test results provide information on the stiffness
and strength of the lime-treated subgrade, but not on the type of
soil. The index properties of the lime-treated subgrade were evalu-
ated from laboratory tests using the soil samples collected in the
field. Tests were conducted were pH, X-ray diffraction (XRD),
and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) to investigate mineralogy
and chemical properties of the lime-treated subgrade and of the
natural soil underneath.
The natural water content was determined to investigate the uni-
formity of the subgrade soil. The water content was measured in
accordance with ASTM D2216-05 (ASTM 2006). Wet sieving tests
were conducted to assess the change in particle-size distribution of
the subgrade soils attributable to lime treatment from their original
(untreated) state and to classify the soils. The tests were conducted
following ASTM D422-63 (ASTM 2006). The plastic limit (PL)
and the liquid limit (LL) were used to determine the change in plas-
ticity of the subgrade soil from its original (untreated) state from
 lime treatment, and to classify the soil. This was done following
ASTM D4318 (ASTM 2006).
The pH of the soil was measured at each borehole to evaluate
whether there was any degradation or migration of lime with time.
The pH was measured in accordance with ASTM D4972-01
(ASTM 2006). XRD tests were performed to identify the minerals
present in a soil sample. The focus of the tests was on the identi-
fication of the minerals associated with the chemical reactions of
the soil with lime. The tests were conducted on the fraction of the
soil that passed through a No. 200 sieve. A Siemens D500 XRD
was used for this study. XRD test results were used to identify the
presence of calcium oxide, CaO, calcium hydroxide, CaðOHÞ2 , cal-
cium carbonate, CaCO3 , CAH, or CSH in the soil. In this test, the
minerals are identified, but the test cannot provide a quantitative
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Results and Discussion
The long-term performance of the lime-treated subgrade was evalu-
ated based on the results of the laboratory and field tests. The evalu-
ation was done by comparing the soil indexes and stiffness and/or
strength properties of the lime-treated subgrade soil with those of
the natural soil. In addition, the lime content of the subgrade and the
natural soil were measured to establish the remaining lime in the
treated subgrade and detect any leaching in the underlying soil.
Fig. 3 shows the material that remains on the No. 200 sieve after
wet sieving of the natural and the lime-treated soil samples that
were taken at Site (6). As one can see, the treated soil con-
tains a larger percentage of granular particles than the natural soil.
Fig. 4 plots the particle-size distribution obtained by using sieve

estimate of the mineral in the sample. TGA tests were performed analysis from both the lime-treated and the natural soil samples that
to determine the lime content in the soil. TGA tests were done with were taken at Site (6). The amount passing the No. 200 sieve
soil samples collected from three different borehole locations at (0.074 mm) was 35% for the lime-treated and 75% for the natural
each site, and conducted both on the lime-treated subgrade and soil. On the basis of the laboratory results, the lime-treated sub-
on the underlying untreated natural soil. A soil sample that was grade soil at Site (6) was classified as SM by following Unified
collected at approximately 10 cm below the top of a subgrade Soil Classification System (USCS), or A-4, in accordance with
was taken as representative of the lime-treated subgrade. A soil the AASHTO classification. The natural soil was classified as
sample collected at a location approximately 76 cm below the ML and A-6, respectively.
top of a subgrade was deemed representative of the untreated natu- Table 2 provides a summary of the most important engineering
ral soil. In addition, the lime content was measured in one borehole indexes of the soils investigated at each site. The table shows that
at each site by using the soil samples collected at five different
depths (0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 cm below the top of a lime-treated
subgrade) to investigate the presence of lime with depth. The lime
content of a lime-treated subgrade was determined by comparing
the TGA result of the lime-treated subgrade soil with that of the
underlying (untreated) soil. The results include the total lime
content of the soil, but cannot distinguish the reactive from the
nonreactive portion of the lime used in the original treatment.
A TGA-2050 (manufactured by TA Instruments) thermogravimet-
ric analyzer, was used for this study. Ten milligrams of soil were
placed in the furnace of the analyzer and then heated in a nitrogen
gas at a rate of 10°C/min from room temperature to 1,000°C. The
weight-loss curve of the soil with temperature was obtained from
the test. Different minerals decompose at well-defined tempera-
tures. At 550°C, calcium hydroxide, CaðOHÞ2 , a hydrated form
of lime, decomposes into calcium oxide, CaO, and water, H2 O.
At 650 to 800°C, calcium carbonate, CaðCOÞ3 , which may be cre-
ated by carbonation of CaðOHÞ2 in the lime-treated subgrade soil,
Fig. 4. Particle-size distribution; Site (6)
decomposes into calcium oxide, CaO, and carbon dioxide, CO2 .

Fig. 3. Comparison of granular particles that remain on #200 sieve after wet sieving of natural (left) and lime-treated (right) soil samples; Site (6)

934 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011.23:931-940.

 Table 2. Summary of Laboratory and Field Test Results at Each Site
Site (1) Site (2) Site (3) Site (4) Site (5) Site (6)
S.R. 67/ U.S. 231/
Location (road/county) U.S. 30/Lake S.R. 49/Porter Delaware Montgomery S.R. 69/Posey S.R. 67/Knox
Year of lime treatment 1997 2002 1999 2002 1996 2002
No. 200 passing (%) Natural soil 52 38 62 54 98 75
Lime-treated soil 20 18 25 22 65 35
Water content (%) Natural soil 15–21 10–19 17–25 10–19 18–22 19–23
Lime-treated soil 22–25 13–20 10–19 10–13 19–26 19–28
Liquid limit/plastic index Natural soil 48=31 20=5 47=29 13=3 33=11 33=12
Lime-treated soil Nonplastic Nonplastic Nonplastic Nonplastic Nonplastic Nonplastic
Soil type (USCS/AASHTO) Natural soil CL/A-7-5 SM/A-4 CL/A-7-6 ML/A-6, CL/A-6 ML/A-6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Lime-treated soil SM/A-1-b SM/A-2-4 SM/A-2-4 SM/A-1-b ML/A-4 SM/A-4

pH Natural soil 7.8–8.3 7.3–8.4 7.2–8.1 7.9–9.2 6.4–7.3 7.4–8.6
Lime-treated soil 9.4–10.9 9.4–11.2 8.6–10.9 9.8–11.9 9.1–10.6 9.8–11.3
Increase of M R (%) 200 530 100 400 190 320
Increase of CBR (%) Effective thickness 0–1,500 (750) 150–810 (410) 0–630 (130) 210–740 (400) 100–350 (230) 250–1,500 (780)
40 cm thickness 0–450 (130) 150–660 (290) 0–280 (60) 100–740 (290) 0–180 (50) 130–880 (430)
Content of CaCO3 (%) 5–16 14–20 14–23 16–23 3–5 3–5
Existence of spike in DCPI with depth No No No No Yes Yes

the fines content of the original soil was reduced in all cases. The
reduction ranged from 20% to 40%. The maximum reduction oc-
curred at Site (6) with 40% fewer fines, and the minimum at Site (2)
with a reduction of 20%. The LL of the natural soil ranged from 13
to 48 and the PI between 3 and 31. All the lime-treated soils were
found to be nonplastic. In general, the lime treatment changed the
original soil from a silty/clayey soil to a nonplastic silty sand, with
the exception of Site (5), where the 30% reduction from the initial
98% fines content did not bring the percentage of fines below the
50% threshold; however, the treated soil was nonplastic. The con-
clusion is that the lime treatment was successful for its intended
purpose of creating a stable soil platform during construction.
The treatment was not intended to increase the engineering proper-
ties of the subgrade, nor to reduce the thickness of the pavement.
Fig. 5 shows the natural water content and soil index properties
of the lime-treated subgrade and natural (untreated) soil at Site (5).
The figure and the results are representative of what was found at
the other sites. The water content of the lime-treated subgrade
ranged from 19% to 26%, whereas the natural soil below the
subgrade ranged from 18% to 22%. In essence, there is no signifi-
cant difference in water content between the treated and untreated
soils, or at least the differences are within the variations that one
might expect in the field. At all the sites, the water content was
fairly uniform, with no significant differences along the length in-
vestigated, which can be taken as an indication that there were no
significant changes in the nature of the soil from point to point.
In all cases, the water content of the natural soil was close to its
PL. As mentioned before, the treated soil was nonplastic.
Measurements of pH provide a qualitative measure of the pres-
ence of lime in the soil, as the addition of LKD increases pH. Fig. 6
shows the pH values of both the lime-treated subgrade and natural
soil at Site (5). The lime-treated subgrade soil had a pH ranging
from 9.1 to 10.6, whereas the untreated soil had a pH ranging from
6.4 to 7.3. As shown in Table 2, the treated subgrade always had a
pH larger than that of the untreated soil. The pH increase ranged
from 1 to 3.5, bringing the natural soil from an initial pH of (as an
average) 7.5 to 8 (slightly basic) to 8.5 to 11 (moderately to highly
basic). The fact that the pH is still high indicates that the lime

Fig. 5. Natural water content and soil index properties at Site (5) Fig. 6. pH at Site (5)

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 935

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011.23:931-940.

 remains in the subgrade after 5 to 11 years of service. However,
since lime dosage is based on pH, and given that the pH measured
in the field is below 12, it seems that the passage of time may have
decreased the original pH.
The stiffness of the soil was determined using two methods:
FWD test as an indirect method and DCP test as a direct method.
The M R of the natural soil and the lime-treated subgrade soil layers
was obtained from back-calculation of FWD deflection data. The
FWD back-calculation procedure requires an initial or seed stiff-
ness value for each layer of the pavement. The seed stiffness value
of an untreated, natural subgrade soil layer was determined by us-
ing DCP test result. The mean value of the M R of the lime-treated
subgrade at each site is summarized in Table 2. The table shows that
a substantial increase is found at each site with values ranging from
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
larger than that of the DCP test (2 inches). Thus the resolution of
DCP tests is much better and was the preferred test for the inter-
pretation of the properties of the subgrade.
Figs. 8–13 plot the longitudinal CBR distribution at each site. In
the figures (e.g., Fig. 8) there are two curves to describe the CBR
values of the treated soil in an attempt to quantify the uniform treat-
ment. The top curve is obtained by averaging the DCPI values over
an effective thickness of treatment at each location. The effective
thickness is defined as the actual thickness of the lime-treated sub-
grade soil layer. Over this thickness, the soil has approximately
constant DCPI values, of which on analysis of all the tests,
are approximately 0:5 cm=blow or less. For example, in Fig. 7,
the effective thickness of the lime-treated subgrade happens to
be 40 cm. In general, the effective thickness is smaller than the

100% increase at Site (3) to 530% at Site (2). The values can be theoretical 40 cm. The intermediate curve in Fig. 8 results from
considered as average over the length of the test and thus do not the average of the DCPI values over the theoretical 40 cm thickness
provide a good indication of variability over short distances or of treatment. The third curve plots the DCPI values of the natural
within depth of the treated subgrade. Such variability was assessed (untreated) soil.
through DCP tests. At Site (1), as shown in Fig. 8, the CBR of the effective thick-
Fig. 7 shows a typical example of dynamic cone penetration in-
ness (this is the depth over which the DCPI is small and uniform) at
dex (DCPI) (cm/blow) with depth. The depth of 0 cm corresponds
Sta. 0 m is very high, approximately 150, which represents a large
to the top of a subgrade. The DCPI is penetration depth per blow of
increase of CBR with respect to the natural soil, which is about 10
a DCP hammer. Fig. 7 shows results at Station (Sta.) 0 m at Site (4).
at the same location. The increase is 1,500%. The average of the
In the figure, there are two clear layers that show a considerable
CBR over the design depth of 40 cm at Sta. 0 m is only 50.
difference of DCPI: (1) an upper layer, where the DCPIs are to
some extent constant and have a small value; and (2) a lower layer,
where the DCPIs are considerably larger than those measured on
the upper layer. This is interpreted as an increase in strength and/or
stiffness of the upper layer attributable to lime treatment. In the
plot, the DCP value measured just at the top of subgrade is larger
than those immediately below. The difference is attributed to the
inevitable disturbance of the soil near the top of the subgrade during
the boring operations (Jung et al. 2008).
The CBR at each borehole location was determined on the basis
of a well-established correlation between DCPI and CBR, which is
given as (Webster et al. 1992)
logðCBRÞ ¼ 2:46
1:12 logðDCPIÞ ð1Þ

where DCPI has a unit of mm/blow. SPT tests were also conducted,
but mostly to retrieve soil samples and to smaller extent to compare
results with DCP tests. SPT tests showed significant scatter and did
not provide a clear trend. There may be two reasons for this: (1) the
variability of properties of the subgrade with depth; and (2) the Fig. 8. CBR of subgrade estimated from DCPT results; Site (1)
depth of soil (6 in.) involved in each blow count, which is much

Fig. 7. DCPT results with depth at Sta. 0 m at Site (4) Fig. 9. CBR of subgrade estimated from DCPT results; Site (2)

936 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011.23:931-940.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. CBR of subgrade estimated from DCPT results; Site (3)
Fig. 11. CBR of subgrade estimated from DCPT results; Site (4)
Compared with the value of the natural soil, this still represents a
large increase, about 500%. However, the difference between the
two CBR values indicates a large degree of nonuniform treatment
with depth. Inspection of the CBR of the effective and average
thickness of the treated subgrade along the length of Site (1) shows
a large scatter. For example, between Sta. 30 m and Sta. 50 m, the
treatment was not very successful in improving the CBR. However,
the treatment was successful as the soil was improved from a clayey
soil to a silty sand, and surely the treated soil provided an accept-
able working platform (Table 2).
Fig. 9 plots the longitudinal distribution of CBR of the lime-
treated and natural soil layers at Site (2). At Sta. 80 m, the average
DCPI value of the lime-treated subgrade layer calculated within the
effective thickness was the same as the average DCPI value over the
entire thickness of 40 cm. The result of having the same two aver-
age values of DCPI indicates that the lime treatment was uniform
over the 40-cm thickness. At Sta. 120 m, the CBR calculated within
the effective thickness was smaller than the CBR calculated within
the thickness of 40 cm. This indicates that the effective thickness of
the lime-treated subgrade was larger than 40 cm. Between Sta. 0 m
and Sta. 80 m, the estimated CBR calculated within the effective
thickness was larger than the estimated CBR calculated within
the thickness of 40 cm. This shows that the effective thickness
of the lime-treated subgrade was smaller than 40 cm, and the lime
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 937
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011.23:931-940.
Fig. 12. CBR of subgrade estimated from DCPT results; Site (5)
Fig. 13. CBR of subgrade estimated from DCPT results; Site (6)
treatment was not uniform over the theoretical 40 cm thickness.
From Fig. 9, it is also observed that (1) the CBR of the natural soil
layer ranges between 7 and 47; (2) the CBR of the lime-treated
subgrade soil layer, calculated within the effective thickness of
the layer, ranges between 26 and 137, which results in an increase
of the CBR by a factor of 150% to 810%; (3) the CBR of the lime-
treated subgrade soil layer, calculated within a thickness of 40 cm
below the top of the subgrade, ranges between 55 and 120, which
results in an increase of the CBR by a factor of 150% to 660%; and
(4) the distance between the two curves that represent the CBR of
the treated soil is a measure of the difference between design and
actual depth of treatment. Fig. 9 shows that there is an increase of
the stiffness of the soil with treatment, and that such an increase can
be very substantial. It also shows significant variability.
Fig. 10 plots the longitudinal distribution of CBR of the lime-
treated and natural soil layers at Site (3). At locations Sta. 0, 20, and
120 m, the CBR of the natural subgrade soil layer ranges from 6 to
14, whereas the CBR of the lime-treated subgrade soil, calculated
within the effective thickness of the layer, ranges between 38 and
45, which resulted in an increase of the CBR by a factor of 170% to
630%. Also the average CBR over the theoretical 40 cm thickness
of the subgrade ranges between 21 and 28, which resulted in an
increase of CBR of 50 to 280%. However, at all other locations,
from Sta. 40 to 100 and from 140 to 180, the treatment, if any,
was not successful.
 Figs. 11–13 contain the CBR values calculated from DCP tests
at Sites (4) to (6), respectively. Similar observation as those made
for Sites (1) to (3) can be made. Table 2 summarizes the increase of
CBR of the lime-treated subgrade at each site. In the table, the value
in parenthesis corresponds to the mean value of the CBR. From
Figs. 8–13 and Table 2, two key observations can be made:
(1) the addition of lime to natural soil has the potential to signifi-
cantly increase the CBR of the soil, by as much as 500% to 1500%;
and (2) lime treatment may result in a very large scatter along the
length of the road and also with depth.
XRD tests detected CaCO3 in the treated subgrade at all six
sites. The mineral was not found in any of the untreated natural
soil samples. This indicates that there was no leaching of lime from
the subgrade to the lower soil layer. It should be also noted that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Site (3) was 14 to 23%, which corresponds to an amount of added
LKD of more than 5%. However an increased stiffness was not
found, which may suggest that most of the added LKD was
not chemically reactive.
Figs. 15 and 16 show TGA results of lime-treated soil samples
that were taken at different depths (0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 cm) at Sta.
20 m at Site (2) and at Sta. 60 m at Site (3), respectively. Fig. 15
shows that the weight loss of the treated soil samples decreased
from 6% at the top of the subgrade, which corresponds to a
CaCO3 content of 15%, to 5% at 40 cm depth, with an estimated
CaCO3 content of 12%. Because a significant amount of CaCO3
was found even at a 40-cm depth, it appears that in this job, the
lime was well mixed with the natural soil. In contrast, Fig. 16 shows
that the weight loss decreased from 7% at the top of the subgrade to

XRD tests did not detect CaO or CaðOHÞ2 in any of the treated 0% at 40 cm depth. This is an indication that the lime was not well
subgrade soil samples, which implies that the added lime (CaO mixed with the soil at this site. It is also interesting to compare the
and CaðOHÞ2 ) exists now in the form of CaCO3 through carbona- CBR values at Sta. 20 m at Site (2) with those at Sta. 60 m at
tion. The tests also identified the presence of pozzolanic com- ty -35Site (3). At Site (2), the CBR of the lime-treated and the un-
pounds, such as CAH and CSH in the treated subrade at all six treated natural subgrade layer was 45 (calculated within the effec-
sites. These compounds are the result of long-term pozzolanic re- tive thickness) and 13 respectively, resulting in an increase of CBR
actions between soil and lime and bind soil particles, thus increas-
ing the strength of the treated soil.
Quantification of the lime content was done with TGA labora-
tory tests. Fig. 14 shows TGA results for lime-treated and natural
soil samples taken at Sta. 20 m at Site (2). The figure shows that the
weight of the natural soil decreases uniformly with increasing tem-
perature while the weight of the treated soil has a sharp decrease
within a range of temperatures between 650 and 750°C. This is
within the temperature range where CaCO3 decomposes into
CaO and CO2 , and so the weight loss represents the CaCO3 con-
tent. The figure also includes the derivative of the weight loss
(depicted as a dotted line in the figure) with respect to time and
shows a clear peak at about 700°C. LKD typically has a reactive
lime content of 30 to 60% in the form of CaO, MgO, and CaðOHÞ2 .
Considering that 5% LKD was used as the lime-treatment, the lime-
treated subgrade should have a reactive lime content of 1.5 to 3%
that corresponds to a CaCO3 content of 3% to 7%, considering that
all the added lime has been transformed into CaCO3 . Fig. 14 shows
that the weight loss of the lime-treated soil was 6%, which corre- Fig. 15. Weight loss obtained from TGA from lime-treated soil sam-
sponds to an amount of CaCO3 of 14%. Hence, the LKD used for ples collected at depths of 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 cm below top of sub-
the treatment inherently had CaCO3 in addition to CaO or grade, at Sta. 20 m at Site (2)
CaðOHÞ2 , which is typical and is the result of the manufacturing
process. TGA results for soil samples taken from other boring lo-
cations are summarized in Table 2. The amount of CaCO3 found at

Fig. 16. Weight loss obtained from TGA from lime-treated soil sam-
Fig. 14. Weight loss and weight loss rate obtained from TGA from ples collected at depths of 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 cm below top of sub-
lime-treated and natural soil samples collected at Sta. 20 m at Site (2) grade at Sta. 60 m at Site (3)

938 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011.23:931-940.

 by a factor of 270% (Fig. 8). In contrast, the CBR of the treated soil
at Site (3) was even smaller than that of the natural soil (Fig. 9),
showing no improvement of the treated subgrade.
The CaCO3 content at each site is given in Table 2, and ranges
from 3% to 23%, with typical values in the range of 10% to 15%.
The values were larger than expected because an addition of 5%
LKD would have resulted in lime quantities in the range of
1.5% to 3% for typical lime contents of LKD. The TGA test mea-
sures the total CaCO3 , but it does not provide an indication of the
source of the mineral. The source can be either from hydration of
the lime, CaO and CaðOHÞ2 , after mixing with the soil, from lime
hydrated before mixture (e.g., from storage), or from CaCO3 that
remained in the kiln. Hence, even though the tests give a value of
the total calcium carbonate, it is not possible to determine the per-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
centage of the mineral that was the result of the reaction of the lime
with the soil. An important result from the TGA tests, which is
confirmed with XRD tests, is that the lime is only present in the
treated subgrade and not in the natural soil. This provides a strong
indication, together with the pH measurements, that there was no
leaching of the lime out of the subgrade, and thus the treatment
remains after 5 to 11 years.
Attempts to correlate CBR with lime content both at depth and
along the road have shown no relation between lime and CBR val-
ues. Although the results show that the addition of lime does im-
prove the CBR, the fact that no clear relation is found is an
indication that other factors, beside lime content, have a significant
effect. These include percentage of CaO and CaðOHÞ2 (active lime)
in the LKD before treatment and construction quality. Support for
the first factor is given by the fact that large amounts of CaCO3
have been found at different sites, but there is no strong correlation
between the amount of lime found and improved properties; e.g.,
compare CaCO3 content between Sites (1), (6) and (4), (5); also
Site (3) has a very large percentage of CaCO3 with little or no
CBR improvement. Support for the second factor is given by
the large scatter of DCPI values with depth. Table 2 also includes
presence of a spike, a substantial increase of DCPI values at the
transition between the treated and untreated soil layers (Jung et al.
2008). At the transition between the two layers (treated and un-
treated), substantial increase of DCPI values was observed at Sites
(5) and (6). The spikes may indicate soil disturbance during con-
struction at the contact between the treated and untreated layers.
The disturbance might be caused by incomplete mixing of soil
and lime during construction and/or insufficient compaction of
the lime-treated subgrade.
Summary and Conclusions
An extensive field investigation was carried out to determine the
properties of subgrade soils treated with lime in pavements that
had been in service for at least five years. Six sites were selected
for the field tests. At each site, SPT, DCPT, and FWD tests were
performed to evaluate the in situ stiffness and/or strength properties
of the lime-treated subgrade. Laboratory tests from soil samples
taken from the SPT spoon sampler were done to obtain index prop-
erties of the lime-treated subgrade and the lime content that remains
in the soil. The long-term performance of the lime-treated subgrade
at each site was evaluated based on results of laboratory and field
tests. The evaluation was done by comparing the soil indexes and
stiffness and/or strength properties of the lime-treated subgrade soil
with those of the natural soil. In addition, the lime content of the
subgrade and the natural soil were measured to establish the
remaining lime in the treated subgrade and detect any leaching
in the underlying soil.
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011 / 939
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011.23:931-940.
The fines content of the original soil was reduced by the addi-
tion of lime. The reduction ranged from 20% to 40%. In general,
the lime treatment changed the original soil from a silty/clayey soil
to a nonplastic silty sand. The longitudinal distribution of CBR at
each site was obtained from DCPT results. It was found that (1) the
addition of lime to the natural soil had the potential to significantly
increase the CBR of the natural soil by as much as 500% to 1500%;
and (2) the results showed a very large scatter, both along the length
of the road and also with depth.
Quantification of the lime content in the subgrade was done with
TGA laboratory tests. The CaCO3 content that is related to the con-
tent of lime that remains in the subgrade ranged from 3% to 23%,
with typical values in the range of 10% to 15%. An important result
from the TGA tests, which was confirmed by XRD tests, is that the
lime was only present in the treated subgrade and not in the natural
soil. This provides a strong indication, together with pH measure-
ments, that there was no leaching of the lime out of the subgrade,
and thus the treatment remains after 5 to 11 years.
In conclusion, the study has shown the following: (1) treatment
with LKD decreases the plasticity of a soil and substantially
increases the stiffness of the subgrade; (2) the long-term improve-
ment of the stiffness of the subgrade is confirmed and the LKD
remains in the soil even after 11 years of service of the roads;
(3) the construction quality observed from the field tests is highly
variable; and (4) LKD is found to be a good and reliable ma-
terial, provided that a good quality control is maintained during
construction.
Acknowledgments
The work presented (SPR 3007) was supported by the Joint
Transportation Research Program administered by the Indiana
Department of Transportation and Purdue University. The contents
of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are respon-
sible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein,
and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the
Federal Highway Administration and the Indiana Department
of Transportation, nor do the contents constitute a standard, speci-
fication, or regulation. The authors are grateful to the Federal High-
way Administration/Indiana Department of Transportation/Joint
Transportation Research Project for supporting this research.
References
ASTM. (2006). “Standard test method for using pH to estimate the soil-
lime proportion requirement for soil stabilization.” Annual book of
ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bhattacharja, S., Bhatty, J. I., and Todres, H. A. (2003). “Stabilization of
clay soils by portland cement or lime—A critical review of literature.”
PCA R&D Serial No. 2066, Portland Cement Association, Stokie, IL.
Doty, R., and Alexander, M. L. (1968). “Determination of strength equiv-
alency for design of lime-stabilized roadways.” Rep. No. FHWA-CA-
TL-78-37.
Eades, J. E., Nichols, F. P., and Grim, R. E. (1963). “Formation of new
minerals with lime stabilization as proven by field experiments in
Virginia.” Highway Research Bulletin 335, 31–39.
Indiana Dept. of Transportation (INDOT). (2002). “Design procedures for
soil modification or stabilization.” Indiana Dept. of Transportation,
Indianapolis.
Jung, C., Bobet, A., Siddiki, N., and Kim, D. (2008). “Long-term perfor-
mance of chemically modified subgrade soils in Indiana.” Transporta-
tion Research Record 2059, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 63–71.
Kennedy, T. W., Smith, R., Holmgreeen, R. J., and Tahmoressi, M. (1987).
“An evaluation of lime and cement stabilization.” Transportation
 Research Record 1119, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, 11–25.
Kim, D., and Siddiki, N. Z. (2004). “Lime kiln dust-lime—A compara-
tive study in Indiana.” TRB 2004 Annual Meeting, Washington,
DC.
Little, D. N. (1996). “Assessment of in situ structural properties of lime-
stabilized clay subgrades.” Transportation Research Record 1546,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 13–23.
Little, D. N., Thompson, M. R., Terrel, R. L., Epps, J. A., and
Barenberg, E. J. (1987). “Soil stabilization for roadways and
airfields.” Rep. ESL-TR-86-19, Air Force Services and Engineering
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/18/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
940 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2011
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011.23:931-940.
Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL.
Thompson, M. R. (1969). “Engineering properties of lime-soil mixtures.”
J. Mater., 4(4).
Webster, S. L., Grau, R. H., and Williams, T. P. (1992). “Description and
application of dual mass dynamic cone penetrometer.” Final Rep.,
Dept. of Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Yusuf, F. A., Little, D. N., and Shondeep, L. S. (2001). “Evaluation of struc-
tural contribution of lime stabilization of subgrade soils in Mississippi.”
Transportation Research Record 1757, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 22–31.