MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DESIGN ART AND TECHNOLOGY.

SCHOOL OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT.

B.SC. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT.

FINAL YEAR PROJECT.

PROJECT TITLE; EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF SOILS STABILIZED USING

VOLCANIC ASH AND LIME.

BY; NALUKENGE ETHEL DORCUS

REG.NO. 16/U/2091
STUDENT NUMBER; 216002113.

SUPERVISOR;
MS. ACHENG PAMELA

A project proposal submitted to the department of construction economics and management as a

partial requirement for award of a bachelor’s degree in construction management.
i
ii
Acknowledgement
Firstly, I want to thank the Almighty God for it is by his Grace that this research study was
accomplished successfully.
Secondly, I want to thank my supervisor for constantly advising me on what to do during the
entire project. Thank you.
Lastly, to the Center for Technology Design and Development (CTDD) for the funding this
project in its entirety.

Thank you.

iii
 LIST OF ACRONYMS.

AASHTO AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIAL
ASTM AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING MATERIAL
BS BRITISH STANDARD
CBR CARLOFORNIA BEARING RATIO
LL LIQUID LIMIT
PL PLASTIC LIMIT
PI PLASTICITY INDEX
MDD MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
OMC OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
USCS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
VA VOLCANIC ASH

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS. ............................................................................................................................ i
LIST OF TABLE ................................................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Problem statement ................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Main Objective .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Specific Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Significance................................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Justification .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.6 Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2; LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Volcanic Ash .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Properties of volcanic ash ....................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Classification of Volcanic Ash ................................................................................................. 5
2.2. Previous Studies .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Gaps in previous literature........................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 3; METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Source of materials .................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Material sampling ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Sample preparation.................................................................................................................... 11
3.5 Laboratory Tests ...................................................................................................................... 11
Laboratory tests that were carried out.............................................................................................. 11
3.5.2 Atterberg Limits Test ............................................................................................................ 12
3.5.3 Moisture-Density Relationships ............................................................................................. 13
3.5.4 Particle Size Distribution ......................................................................................................... 14
3.5.5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Tests ..................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 4; DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 16

i
 4.1 classification of the soil sample ............................................................................................. 16
4.1.1 Particle size distribution ................................................................................................. 16
4.1.2 Atterberg limits.................................................................................................................. 17
4.2 The other properties of the neat sample (MDD and CBR) .................................................. 17
4.2.1 The maximum dry density (MDD) ................................................................................. 17
4.2.2 The California bearing ratio (CBR) .................................................................................... 18
4.3 Soil stabilization results.......................................................................................................... 20
4.3.1 Atterberg limits .................................................................................................................. 20
4.3.2 The California Bearing Ratios for the stabilized soil samples ............................................ 21
4.3.3 The MDD and OMC of the stabilized soil samples ............................................................. 23
4.4 Observations .......................................................................................................................... 26
4.4.1 Plasticity of the soil ........................................................................................................ 26
4.4.2 Compaction characteristics ............................................................................................. 26
4.4.3 CBR characteristics ........................................................................................................ 26
CHAPTER 5; CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 28
5.1 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 28
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 28
5.3 PROBLEMS FACED DURING THE RESEARCH .......................................................................... 28
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix A. ................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................... 32

i
List of figures.
Figure 1volcanic ash from Kisoro ............................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 2 soaking the CBRs............................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 3GRAPH OF PENETRATION AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT ............................................................................. 17
Figure 4Graph of dry density against moisture content for the neat sample ......................................................... 18
figure 5GRAPH SHOWING THE CBR FOR THE NEAT SAMPLE .................................................................................... 19
figure 6A graph showing the moisture content of the stabilized samples against the cone penetration ................ 21
figure 7A graph of force on plunger against penetration to show CBR characteristics ............................................. 22
LIST OF TABLE

table 2.1 1The properties of volcanic ash ...................................................................................... 5

table 2.1 2Classification Volcanic Ash Based on Total Silica Content (Shoji et al, 1975) ....... 6
table 2.1 3 descriptive tests carried out on cider gravel............................................................... 7
table 2.1 4descriptive tests carried out on volcanic ash ............................................................... 8
table 2.1 5 Results obtained for the soaked and unsoaked CBR tests ........................................ 9
ABSTRACT
Long term performance of road structures is significantly impacted by the stability of the
underlying soils. In-situ subgrades often do not provide the support required to achieve the
acceptable performance under traffic loading and environmental demands. Although stabilization
is an effective alternative for improving the soil’s engineering properties, it is quite costly in
terms of the materials used during stabilization i.e. lime, cutback bitumen, etc. in this study, the
use of volcanic ash (varying from 5%-20%) as an enhancement to lime(2.5%-4%) has been
investigated. It had been found that the two materials can be used together to enhance the soil
properties of the soil sample. It was found that the strength of the stabilized sample increased
with an increase in the volcanic ash. Also using volcanic ash together with lime to achieve higher
strength is less costly as compared to using lime only.

1
CHAPTER 1.1 INTRODUCTION.

Abood, Kasa and Chik 2007 define soil stabilization as the process by which a special soil,
cementing material, chemical or non-chemical material is added to a weak natural soil in order to
improve on one or more of its engineering properties. Successful soil stabilization techniques are
necessary in order to obtain adequate subgrade strength and desired stability. (Starry, 20007)
There are many methods of stabilizing soil to gain the desired engineered properties. These can
be mechanical or chemical. The common practice has been to stabilize using lime cement
bitumen etc. Most of these methods however are relatively expensive and their impact on the
environment renders them economically and environmentally unattractive. Therefore the best
way to stabilize soil is to use locally available materials with relatively cheap costs. (Sarat and
Partha, 2013). One of the locally available and naturally occurring materials that could be
suitable for soil stabilization is volcanic ash. It possess pozzolanic properties that render it fit for
stabilization purposes. (Rifa and Yasafuku, 2014)
Volcanic ash is available in large quantities and it covers approximately 124 million hectares or
0.84% of the world’s land surface. 60% of this occurs in tropical countries. In Uganda volcanic
ash is found in areas of Kisoro, Kabarole, Bushenyi and Kabale. (Leamy, 1984)
In this study, the performance of soils stabilized with volcanic ash and those stabilized with
volcanic ash shall be evaluated.

1.2 Problem statement

The costs incurred during the modification of weak soils to meet the required engineering
properties is high. This is mainly due to the fact that the costs of materials and processes
involved during stabilization are costly. This therefore has an effect on the overall cost of
construction projects where there is need for stabilization of soils.
Furthermore, the commonly used stabilizers like lime and bitumen have a negative impact to the
environment i.e. when lime mixes into the water sources and causes contamination, when the
dilatants used in cutback bitumen evaporate into the atmosphere. These are dangerous
environmental and health hazards.

1
1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 Main Objective

To evaluate the performance of soils stabilized using volcanic ash and lime.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

i. To determine the physical and mechanical properties of the soil sample.
ii. To determine the strengths of gravel stabilized using volcanic ash and lime.
iii. To determine the optimum content of volcanic ash that can be used to achieve the
required strength.

1.4 Significance
Volcanic ash is a naturally occurring material and in large quantities. Its use as an alternative for
other stabilizers like lime, bitumen and cement will reduce on the costs incurred by contractors
during stabilization of weak soils. It will also reduce on the environmental pollution from the
manufacture and use of other stabilizers like lime and cement.

1.5 Justification
Use of volcanic ash as a stabilizing agent for improvement of strength properties of soil will lead
to a reduction in cost of modification of weak soils since volcanic ash is a naturally occurring
material. Furthermore, stabilization with volcanic ash for stabilization will lead to mitigation of
environmental related problems such as carbon dioxide gas from lime or cement manufacture,
dust from lime and water contamination.

1.6 Scope
Volcanic ash samples were obtained from Kanaba, Kisoro district in Uganda. Percentages of 5%,
10%, 15% and 20 % of volcanic ash by weight of soil and that of lime at percentages of 2.5%,
3.0%, 3.5% and 4% by weight of soil. These percentages are arrived at basing on previous
studies carried out by Rifa and Yasafuku, 2014.
This investigation is focused on the strength of the soil stabilized with volcanic ash. The
stabilized sample was subjected to compaction and compression tests. The study therefore

2
focused on investigating the suitability of volcanic ash as an additive to lime as a stabilizing
agent of lateritic soil for road sub bases.

3
CHAPTER 2; LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Volcanic Ash

Volcanic ash is a product of volcanic eruptions that happened years ago.
Volcanic ash is hard, does not dissolve in water, is extremely abrasive
and mildly corrosive. It conducts electricity when wet. Volcanic Ash is mainly composed of
silicon dioxide (SiO2) and aluminum oxide (Al2O3). It is widely being used for materials partial
replacement of cement in concrete, because it has properties that are pozzolanic. For this matter
also, it can be used as a stabilizing agent, because cementitious hydrated Calcium Silicate and
hydrated Calcium Aluminate can be formed when elements of volcanic ash (SiO2 and Al2O3)
react with water and lime. (Rifa and Yasafuku, 2014).

2.1.1Properties of volcanic ash.

The properties of volcanic ash have been summarized in the table.
Table 2.1 1 The properties of volcanic ash.
Characteristics Volcanic ash.
Specific gravity 1.98
Liquid Limit, L.L N.P
Plasticity Index, P.I N.P
Passing #200 Sieve 0.7%
Clay Content Non
Organic Matter Nil
Sulphate Content Nil
Unified Classification System GP
AASHTO Classification System A-1-a
Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu 10.6
Coefficient of Curvature, Cc 0.24
Wearing Percentage 56
(Source Subhia, 2014)

2.1.2 Classification of Volcanic Ash

The characterization and classification of volcanic ash has commonly been made on the basis of
the mineralogical composition. The properties of volcanic ash vary depending on where it has
been sourced and how much is needed for what purpose exactly. However, there may be
significant contradiction between the classification of volcanic ash based on mineralogical
4
properties as compared to chemical composition (Shoji et al., 1975; Yamada et al., 1975).
Because of the difficulty in classifying volcanic ash by mineralogy properties, Shoji et al. (1975)
proposed a classification into one of five rock types based on total silica content: rhyolite, dacite,
andesite, basaltic andesite, and basalt (Table2.2). The primary mineral composition of volcanic
ash is typically characterized by first dividing minerals into light (specific gravity [SG] < 2.8-
3.0) and heavy (SG > 2.8-3.0) mineral categories. Light minerals dominate in volcanic ash with
an abundance mostly ranging between 70 and 95% (Shoji, 1986; Yoshinaga, 1988). Within the
light mineral category, the relative abundance generally follows: non-colored volcanic glass >>
plagioclase feldspars >> silica minerals (quartz, cristobalite and tridymite) ≈ mica.
The type of minerals in volcanic ash deposit depends on the chemical content of magma. Some
minerals almost always contain Si, Al, K, Na, Ca, Mg and Fe. Yamada and Shoji (1983) divided
volcanic glass particles (100-200 μm size range) into four categories: sponge-like glass particles
are highly vesicular suggesting that these glasses were produced by violent explosions of highly
viscous magma; fibrous glass particles contain elongated vesicles; curved platy particles are
produced by the pulverization of glasses having relatively large vesicles; and berry-like glass
particles show angular blocky or sub-angular blocky forms with low vesicular and contain
crystallizes of plagioclase. Non-colored volcanic glass consists mainly of sponge-like particles,
which are siliceous and highly vesicular. In contrast, colored volcanic glass in basaltic
andesite and basaltic ashes contains only berry-like particles.
table 2.1 2Classification Volcanic Ash Based on Total Silica Content (Shoji et al, 1975)
Total
felsic Rhyolite 100-70
intermediate Andesite 70-62
Mavic Andesite 58-53.5
(Source; Ahmad Rifa’i)

5
2.2. Previous Studies
In the study by Zarai Hadare 2011, on the potential use of cider gravel as a base Course and
material when stabilized with volcanic ash and lime, he blended cinder gravels with volcanic ash
at various proportions of 10%, 14%, 18%, 20%, 22% and 26% by weight of the cinder gravel.
There was increase in CBR with increase in volcanic ash content. The optimum amount of
volcanic ash was 22% and of lime was 2%. Below are the results.

Grain Size Distribution of Cinder Gravel.

Figure 2.1 Grain size distribution of cinder before Figure 2.3 Grain size distribution of
compaction. after compaction.
Zarai Hadare 2011, carried out the following tests on the cinder gravels that he used for his study
and obtained the following results.
Table 2.1 3 descriptive tests carried out on cider gravel.
Type of test Desirable limits Test results.
Los Angeles Abrasion <45% 41%
Ten Percent Fines Value >50kN 23kN
Specific Gravity 2.5-3 2.3; materials <4.75mm
Water Absorption 1-2% 12.4%; materials <4.75mm
Proctor Test - OMC=8.3%
MDD=1.51
CBR >80% 72%
Grading Modulus >2 2.82

6
The descriptive test results in Table 2.3 shows that cinder gravel is a weak material in general to
be used as a base course material. But the fact that its CBR value is 72% which is not far away
from the minimum required value of 80% indicates a possibility of improvement through
stabilization.
The gradation curve has also shown that the cinder gravel is deficient in fines. However,
compaction was observed to improve its deficiency to a certain extent.
Zadai hadare further went on to carry out the following descriptive tests on volcanic ash and
obtained the following results.
table 2.1 4descriptive tests carried out on volcanic ash
Type of test Test result
Atterberg limit test Non plastic
Specific gravity 1.4
Water absorption 8%
Pozolanicity Test (Strength Activity Index,SAI) 76.6%

The test results showed that the volcanic ash used for the purpose of stabilization is a light
weight material with high water absorption. However, the pozolanicity test in which the strength
activity index of the ash is determined showed that it satisfies the physical requirement
as a pozolanic material.
California Bearing Ratio Test for Natural Cinder Gravels blended with Volcanic
Ash and Lime.
Two samples were prepared in a CBR mold in which one of them was for the soaked
condition while the other was for the unsoaked condition. The optimum moisture used for
compaction in the CBR mold was found to be 19.4% at the maximum dry density of 1.61g/cc
as determined according to AASHTO-T180, method D for the blending of cinder gravel with
20% by weight of volcanic ash and 2% by weight of lime.
In this case, penetration tests were carried out after durations of 0, 3,7,14 and
28 days during which the samples were kept inside CBR molds by wrapping with a polyethylene
sheet. For the soaked condition, penetration test took place upon the completion of the indicated
durations while for the soaked condition, additional 4 days of soaking were required. The results
are summarized in the table
7
table 2.1 5 Results obtained for the soaked and unsoaked CBR tests.

(Source Zarai 2011)

Gravel with volcanic ash (20% by weight) and lime (2% by weight) showed increment with the
duration of keeping the samples in CBR mold. Furthermore, the CBR values obtained in a
soaked condition have been found to be greater than those obtained in an unsoaked condition for
a given duration of keeping the samples in CBR mold.

2.3 Gaps in previous literature.

After critically studying the literature reviews of previous researchers, it was noted that there was
limited research on soil stabilization of gravel using volcanic ash together with lime.

8
CHAPTER 3; METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
The nature of the research was quantitative. This chapter discusses the methods and laboratory
procedures that were utilized in this project to characterize the soil sample and the volcanic ash-
lime-soil sample. The methods included physical characterization techniques and laboratory tests
techniques.
The methodology employed involved sample collection and laboratory tests. Each of the
following tests was conducted and the results analyzed.

3.2 Source of materials

The gravel for research project was collected from a borrow pit in Seeta-Namilyago in Mukono
district. Chemically pure hydrated road lime used in this investigation was obtained from local
market and the volcanic ash from Kanaba Sub County in Kisoro District.

Figure 1volcanic ash from Kisoro.

9
3.3 Material sampling
The soil samples were excavated using a hoe and a spade, placed in bags, and transported to the
laboratory for preparation and testing. The laboratory tests were carried out to classify the
type of soil, Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics and California Bearing Ratio.

3.4 Sample preparation

The gravel material was air dried on trays while turning it to ensure that the sample was fully
dry. In this study, volcanic ash was mixed with soil in varying percentages (5%, 10%, 15%, and
20%) by dry weight of soil and lime at percentages of 2.5%, 3.0%, 3.5% and 4%. These
percentages were arrived at basing on previous studies carried by Rifa and Yasafuku, 2014;
effect of volcanic ash utilization as a substitution or additive material for soil stabilization in
view point of geo- environment and McNally on Soil and rock construction materials.

3.5 Laboratory Tests

Laboratory testing formed a major part of this research since it comprised of acquiring the
test results of the soil behavior in order to carry out the performance evaluation. Soils
were tested in order to assess their variability in relation to changes in their composition
and in order to obtain parameters for particular correlations. This was done in accordance
with BS1377:1990 and AASHTO T180-97as shown in the Table 3.1.

Laboratory tests that were carried out.

TEST TEST METHOD PURPOSE OF THE TEST

Moisture content BS 1377: Part 2:1990 To determine amount of
water present in a sample

Atterberg limits BS 1377: Part 2:1990 To determine how water

content influences
properties of soil sample.
Grading/Sieve BS 1377: Part 2:1990
Analysis To classify a soil sample
(clay, silt, sand or

10
 gravel)

Compaction AASHTO T180 -97 To determine relationship

between compacted dry
density and moisture content
CBR BS 1377: Part 4:1990 To determine the strength of
soil sample

3.5.1 Natural Moisture Content

Disturbed soil samples were collected and stored in a polythene bag to prevent air from
entering, and direct contact with sunlight. In the laboratory, representative soil samples were
selected from the well mixed soil samples in the polythene bag and its moisture content
determined by oven drying method. The moisture content (w) of the soil was then calculated as a
percentage of the ratio of the mass of water to the mass of dry soil.

3.5.2 Atterberg Limits Test

Atterberg limits test was carried out to examine the behavior of soils in response to the
amount of water that is added to it. Plasticity of the soil rotates in the content of water in the
soil sample. This is determined by carrying out the liquid limit, plastic limit test hence
determining the plasticity index that dictates the behavior of fine grained portion of the
soils. These tests were conducted in accordance with test standards listed in Table 3.1 above.
Liquid Limit Test
Following the test procedures provided in the test standard, the determination of liquid limit
was carried out for the various samples that are prepared for testing. This was done using
the cone penetrometer method for the determination of the liquid limit of the soil sample.
Plastic Limit Test
This test is carried out independently or as a continuation of the liquid limit test, where a
portion of soil paste is put a side at a penetration of around the liquid limit i.e. at penetration

11
of 20mm. The soil paste is allowed to dry up to the point at which it can be rolled. This the
lowest moisture content of a solid at which the soil changes from plastic state to a semisolid
state. It’s also used concurrently with the liquid limit in the determination of the Plasticity index.
Plasticity Index
The plasticity index is the size of the range of water contents where the soil exhibits plastic
properties. This was determined following the test procedures specified from the test
standards as plasticity index is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit.
Linear Shrinkage
This is the moisture content equivalent to the liquid limit; is the decrease in one dimension
expressed as a percentage of the original dimension of the soil mass, when the moisture
content is reduced from the liquid limit to an oven dry state. This test was also carried out
according to the specified test standard.

3.5.3 Moisture-Density Relationships

The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the unstabilized and stabilized
soils were determined using the standard proctor compaction tests in accordance to
AASHTO T180-97. For compaction of soil and lime stabilized soil, the required amount
of volcanic ash and lime was mixed with the dry soil according to the specified
percentage before adding water. Standard proctor compaction tests were then conducted to
determine the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC).
Samples were prepared and tested according to their specification as stipulated below;
-A neat sample without any stabilization material was compacted and its dry density
and optimum moisture content determined.
-Four test samples stabilized using both lime and volcanic ash (5%,10% 15% and 20% VA,
2.5%, 3%, 3.5% and 4% lime) were compacted to determine their dry densities that were
compared to the neat sample.
After the determination of the dry densities and the optimum moisture contents, these
moisture contents were used in the testing for the California bearing ratio test at the
compaction stage for each respective test specimen at their percentages.

12
3.5.4 Particle Size Distribution
This was done in accordance with test standard BS 1377: Part2: 1990. A particle size
distribution analysis is a necessary classification test for soils, especially coarse soils, in that
it presents the relative portions of different sizes of particles which aids in identifying the
specific composition of material contained in the sample being dealt with. From this it is
possible to determine whether the soil consists of predominantly gravel, sand, silt or clay
sizes and, to a limited extent, which of these size ranges is likely to control the engineering
properties of the soil.

3.5.5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Tests

CBR tests for soaked samples was conducted in accordance with BS 1377: Part4: 1990 using
a compaction mold, of internal diameter 150- mm and height of 175mm with collar of 50mm
length. Compaction was defined as “the process whereby soil particles are constrained
to pack more closely together through a reduction in the air voids, generally by mechanical
means‟ (by Road Research Laboratory 1952).
Before conducting tests, the soil, volcanic ash and lime will be mixed in dry form for different
percentages (5, 10, 15 and 20) for volcanic ash and (2.5, 3,3.5,4) for lime, then obtained water at
optimum moisture content from the compaction test added. The samples were covered using
damp sacks during curing for a period of 3 days and then put in the soaking tank for 4 days. This
was a test aimed at testing the soil at points when the soil is saturated with water and tends to be
the weak point of the soil.
After soaking, the samples were removed from water, laid aside to ensure that all the dripping
water is eliminated and then subjected to compressive strength tests using a CBR machine.
This test procedure was carried out on all the samples of the ash and lime stabilized soil and the
neat sample as guided by the test standard.

13
Figure 2 soaking the CBRs

14
CHAPTER 4; DATA ANALYSIS
In this chapter, all results analysis, graphs and comparisons are clearly entailed. Clear
discussions of the findings and conclusions have been incorporated here in.

4.1 classification of the soil sample

4.1.1 Particle size distribution

The method used for carrying out this test was wet sieving since dry sieving is mostly applicable
in sands with very little contents of clays and silts. Results from the particle size distribution
show that the soil is well graded to a larger extent with a bit of fines.

15
4.1.2 Atterberg limits
The Atterberg limits tests were conducted on the sample that was used for carrying out
the research, the results and analysis are stipulated below;
Atterberg results for the neat sample

LL (%) 48.7
PL (%) 24
PI (%) 24
LS (%) 12

Figure 3GRAPH OF PENETRATION AGAINST MOISTURE CONTENT

4.2 The other properties of the neat sample (MDD and CBR)

4.2.1 The maximum dry density (MDD)

The MDD was carried out on the sample and a dry density of 2.11 g/cc at an optimum moisture
content of 10% can be seen from the graph below.

16
Figure 4Graph of dry density against moisture content for the neat sample.

4.2.2 The California bearing ratio (CBR)

CBR evaluation for the neat sample is represented in table below;
Table 1

PENETRATION TOP CBR BOTTOM CBR

(mm)
2.5mm 24 21
5.0mm 26 24 25%

17
figure 5GRAPH SHOWING THE CBR FOR THE NEAT SAMPLE.

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00 TOP
BOTTOM
3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

18
4.3 Soil stabilization results
The tests were carried out on the samples that were stabilized at various percentages for the
different materials and the following results were obtained after testing.

4.3.1 Atterberg limits

Table 2 summary of Atterberg limits results

Soil sample LL PL PI LS

5% volcanic 46 24 22 11
ash 2.5%
lime
10% 44 24 20 10
volcanic ash
3% lime

15% 43 25 18 9
volcanic ash
3.5% lime
20% 36 26 12 8
volcanic ash
4% lime

19
figure 6A graph showing the moisture content of the stabilized samples against the cone penetration

55

50
moisture content

45
5% VA and
2.5%lime
40 neat

10% VA and 3.0

35
lime
15%VA and 3.5
30 lime
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 20%VA and 4%
lime
cone penetration

The plasticity of the stabilized soil reduces with increase in both lime and volcanic ash as shown
in the graph above.

4.3.2 The California Bearing Ratios for the stabilized soil samples
The CBR values for the different stabilized samples are summarized in the table below.

CBR CBR
sample TOP BOTTOM AVERAGE
5% VA
2.5% lime 47 43 45
10% VA
3% lime 56 52 54
15% VA
3.5% lime 63 52 58
20% VA
4% line 64 62 63

20
Figure 7A graph of force on plunger against penetration to show CBR characteristics.

10% VA and 3% lime

15

10

top
5 bottom

0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

21
The CBR values were seen to increase with increase in the percentages of volcanic ash and lime.
This indicated that volcanic ash and lime were strong materials and their properties enhanced
when they were mixed together in one sample.

4.3.3 The MDD and OMC of the stabilized soil samples

The MDD tests carried out on the stabilized soil samples ranged from 2.11-1.84 Mg/m3 and the
optimum moisture contents ranged from 10%-16%.
Below is a summary of the results for the MDD and OMC.

Soil sample MDD OMC

5% VA 2.5% 2.06 11
lime
10% VA and 2.02 13
3% lime
15% VA and 1.92 14
3.5% lime
20% VA and 1.84 16
4% lime

22
23
24
4.4 Observations

4.4.1 Plasticity of the soil

There was an overall reduction in the plasticity of the soil after stabilization using the two
materials. The plasticity of the soil reduced from 24.1% of the neat sample to 21.9% where the
volcanic ash was 5% and ash 2.5%. It kept on reducing when the percentages of ah and lime
were increased. However according to previous studies where only lime was used, the
improvement in plasticity of soil stabilized using lime only was lower than that of volcanic ash.
This concludes that volcanic ash greatly affects the plasticity of the soil.

4.4.2 Compaction characteristics

MDD
From the compaction results, it was clearly seen that there was a reduction in the dry density of
the soil after stabilization using both volcanic ash and lime. The MDD reduced from 2.11 of the
neat sample to 2.06 at 5%volcanic ash and 2.5% lime, 2.02 at 10% volcanic ash and 3% lime,
1.92 at 15% volcanic ash and 3.5% lime and finally to 1.82% at 20% volcanic ash and 4%lime.
OMC
While the MDD was reducing, the OMC was increasing with increase in both volcanic ash and
lime. From 10% at the neat sample to 11% at 5% volcanic ash and 2.5% lime, 12.9% at 10%
volcanic ash and 3% lime, 14% at 15% volcanic ash and 3.5% lime and finally 16% at 20%
volcanic ash and 4% lime.
The MDD reduces but more water had to be added as the percentages increased in order to
achieve the MDD of the soil sample.

4.4.3 CBR characteristics

The CBR was seen to greatly increase when volcanic ash and lime were used to stabilize the soil
sample. The CBR rose from 25% at the neat sample, to 45% at 5% volcanic ash and 2.5% lime,
54% at 10% volcanic ash and 3% lime, 58% at 15% volcanic ash and 3,5% lime up to 63% for
20% volcanic ash and 4% lime. And to achieve a higher CBR, volcanic ash can be added to the
lime to reduce on the costs incurred to achieve the required CBR for a soil sample.

25
4.4.4 Cost Benefit Analysis
Consider a 0.5km stretch of the road, for 150mm thickness and a layer of road width 7meters.

Volume of material to be stabilized is 525m^3 of soil. Optimally, 5% volcanic ash and 2.5% lime
can be used to achieve desired strength for class S6. This was used in comparison of 6% lime
since the common amounts used are between 3% and 6% lime.

Cost comparisons for both stabilizers

The cost per kg of the material has been determined depending on the market prices as of

present conditions.

Densities Volcanic ash and lime Lime alone

(2070kg/m3) (2100kg/m3)
Mass of soil (kg) 857,400 1,102,500

Mass of 43,547 VA + 21,773 lime 70,372

stabilizer(kg)
Cost per kg 20 400
Total cost 9,580,410 28,148,800

From the cost benefit analysis above, it is cheaper to use both volcanic ash and lime rather than
using lime alone.

26
CHAPTER 5; CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS
As from the above observations on the soil test results, generally stabilization of the soil by
use of both stabilization materials leads to an increase in strength of the soil and its plasticity
reduces, the MDD reduces as the OMC increases.
The common practice has been to use lime only during stabilization and it would be increased
until the desired properties of the soil are achieved. However volcanic ash can be mixed with
lime to get the desired soil properties while maintaining the amount of lime used. Volcanic ash is
less costly and naturally occurring as compared to lime which is manufactured.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
From the above results it can be observed that the percentages of volcanic ash used were
increasing as the lime was also increasing giving an indication that the strength increases as the
amounts of ash and lime increase too. Further developments in the project would be to
investigate the soil properties when the quantities of both lime and ash are varied i.e. when lime
is increased and lime is reduced in the same soil sample. And also to investigate the use of
volcanic ash as an independent stabilizing agent in road sub bases.

5.3 PROBLEMS FACED DURING THE RESEARCH

The volcanic ash was hard to come by and large amounts of this existed in areas that were quite
inaccessible. I.e. the Kanaba gap.

27
REFERENCES

Åhnberg, H. and Holm, G. (1999). Stabilization of Some Swedish Organic Soils with Different
Types of Binders. Proceeding of Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization (pp. 101-108).
Stockholm: Balkema
Akbulut S.S. Arasan and E. Kalkan, 2007. Modification of clayey soils using scrap tire rubber
And synthetic fibers. Applied clay science, 38:23-32
Al-Tabbaa, A. and Evans, W.C. (2005). Stabilization-Solidification Treatment and
Remediation: Part I: Binders and Technologies-Basic Principal. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Stabilization/Solidification Treatment and Remediation (pp.
367-385). Cambridge, UK: Balkerma.
American Association Of State Highway And Transportation Official
ASTM D 418 (2000). “Standard test for liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of soils”
Annual book of ASTM standards. Reviews in Applied Sciences, 1(3): 209-217.
B.Thagesen, Tropical rocks and soils, In: Highway and traffic engineering in developing
Countries: B, Thagesen, ed. Chapman and Hall, London, 1996.
Barnes G.E. (1995), Soil Mechanics-Principles and Practice, 1st Edition published By -
Macmillan Press Limited, London.
Bernal a. C.w .lovell and r. Salgado , 1996. Laboratory study on the use of tire shreds and rubber
–Sand in Backfilled and Reinforced Soil Applications. Publication FHWA/IN/JHRP-96/12.
JOINT highway Research
Brooks, R.M., 2009. Soil stabilization with flayash and rice husk ash.
Brooks/Cole B. Makasa, Utilization and improvement of lateritic gravels in road bases,
BS.1924, Methods of testing for stabilized soils, British standards institute, London 1990.
BS1377-2:1990―Determination of Dry Density.
BS1377-2:1990―Determination of grain size.
BS1377-2:1990―Determination of Liquid &Plastic Limits.
BS1377-2:1990―Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength.
Cabera J.G. Hopkins C.J., Wooley G.R., Loe R.E., Shaw J., Plowman C. And F o x. H.
Girma Birhanu, 2009, Stabilizing Cinder Gravels for Heavily Trafficked Base Course, Journal of
28
EEA, Vol.26
Global Road Technology GRT, 2015, journal

29
Appendices

Appendix A.
Budget

No Item Unit Quantity Rate Amount

1 transport lump sum 1 300,000 300,000

2 lime bag 1 18,000 18,000

3 volcanic ash bag 1 50,000 50,000

4 lab tests lump sum 5 200,000 1,000,000

5 research assistants lump sum 2 200,000 400,000

total 1,768,000

30
Appendix B
Schedule of activities.

Year 2018 2019

month SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE
week 123 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1234 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 12 3 4
proposal
writing
proposal
presentation
literature
review
sourcing for
materials
sample
preparation
laboratory
tests
data
analysis
report
writing

final project
presentation

31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50