Stabilization of Clay Using Woodash

Celestine O. Okagbue1

Abstract: The potential of woodash to stabilize clay soil was evaluated. The evaluation involved the determination of the geotechnical
properties of clay soil in its natural state as well as when mixed with varying proportions of woodash. The parameters tested included the
particle size distribution, specific gravity, Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics, California bearing ratio 共CBR兲 and the compressive
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 03/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strength. The CBR and strength tests were repeated after 28-day curing of the treated samples. Results showed that the geotechnical
parameters of clay soil are improved substantially by the addition of woodash; plasticity was reduced by 35% and CBR and strength
increased by 23–50% and 49–67%, respectively, depending on the compactive energy used. The highest CBR and strength values were
achieved at 10% woodash. Results also showed that curing improved the strength of the woodash-treated clay. However, the strength gain
was short lived as the strength quickly decreased after 7–14 days of curing. These results imply that although woodash provides some of
the beneficial effects of lime in soil stabilization, such as plasticity and swell reduction, improved workability, and strength increase, it is
unlikely to be a substitute for lime as strength gain is short lived.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0899-1561共2007兲19:1共14兲
CE Database subject headings: Soil stabilization; Clays; Evaluation.

Introduction ings have been confirmed by authors working in various parts of

Plants growing on a woodash dumpsite were observed to be
greener than their counterparts around. Laboratory testing of soil
samples from the two environments showed that whereas the soils
from the ordinary sites were acidic 共pH⫽6.0兲, the soils from the
dumpsite were alkaline 共pH⫽8.6兲. These results implied that
woodash behaves like lime which is used to reduce soil acidity.
Lime is also known to be used to improve the geotechnical
properties of clay soils. In developing countries, however, lime is
expensive, hence researchers in these countries continue to search
for possible alternatives. In this paper, the writer presents results
of geotechnical laboratory tests on clay soil–woodash mixtures
and assesses the potential of woodash to stabilize clay soils.
the world, including Brand and Schoenberg 共1959兲, Lund and
Ramsey 共1959兲, Hilt and Davidson 共1960兲, Dumbleton 共1962兲,
Peurifoy 共1970兲, Ingles 共1973兲, Anifowose 共1989兲, Bell 共1989,
1993兲, and Muntohar and Hantoro 共2000兲.
Lately, many workers have reported on additives that could
substitute lime as a soil modifier. Such materials include fly ash
共Cokca 1999; Indraratna et al. 1991, 1995兲, rice husk 共Muntohar
1999; Muntohar and Hantoro 2000兲, marble dust 共Okagbue and
Onyeobi 1999兲, and limestone ash 共Okagbue and Yakubu 2000兲.
In most of these works, the authors have reported a decrease in
dry density, a decrease in plasticity, and an increase in strength
and overall workability of the soils.

Materials and Experiments

Previous Work on Lime as Soil Modifier
Extensive literature is available on soil improvement by the ap-
plication of additives, notably cement and lime. The use of lime
has become very popular in recent times although its use started
as far back as 1924 when McCaustland reported on the use of
hydrated lime for soil stabilization in the United States. Lund and
Ramsey 共1959兲, carried out experiments on lime stabilization in
Nebraska and reported that the addition of lime to plastic soils
resulted in a reduction in the plasticity index with both the liquid
and plastic limits of the soil affected by the additive. These find-
1
Professor, Dept. of Geology, Univ. of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
E-mail: celokogbue@yahoo.com
Note. Associate Editor: Hilary I. Inyang.. Discussion open until June
1, 2007. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on February 11, 2005; approved on
July 29, 2005. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/
2007/1-14–18/$25.00.
Samples and Sample Preparation
Bulk samples of clay were obtained from a dug pit at Awgu south-
eastern Nigeria and taken to the laboratory where they were air
dried for 2 weeks. Woodash was obtained from Teatime Bread
Industry, Abakpa Nike Enugu, also in southeastern Nigeria. The
ash was sieved through a BS sieve of 63 ␮m to obtain the fraction
needed for ash–clay reaction.
Methodology
The following tests were carried out on the clay in its natural state
and when mixed with varying proportions 共5, 10, 15, and 20%兲 of
woodash; particle size distribution, Atterberg limits, compaction,
California bearing ratio 共CBR兲, and compressive strength.
The tests were generally performed in accordance with BS 1377
共British Standard Institute 1975兲. The mixing of woodash, soil,
and water was done manually in a sample tray with a bricklayer’s
trowel. Compaction tests were carried out using CBR molds in
order that CBR values could be determined at various moisture
contents and compactions. Strength values were obtained by un-

14 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:14-18.

 Table 1. Chemical Composition of Woodash Table 2. Grain Size Distribution of Clay at Varying Percentages of
Woodash
Element Range Ground
oxidea % Element 共%兲b limestone Ash Combined silt
共%兲 and clay Sand Gravel
CaO 34.34 Ca 2.50–33.00 31.00
K 2O 0.32 K 0.10–13.00 0.13 0 76 11 13
Al2O3 1.44 Al 0.50–32.00 0.25 5 74 13 13
MgO 1.10 Mg 0.10–2.50 5.10 10 67 21 21
Fe2O3 5.19 Fe 0.20–2.10 0.29 15 59 29 29
P 2O 5 0.02 P 0.10–1.40 0.06
Na2O 2.52 Na 0.00–0.54 0.07
SiO2 53.14 N/Ac N/Ac The addition of woodash to the clay supplied an excess of Ca2+ by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 03/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mn 0.00–1.30 0.05 dissociation of the product of CaO and H2O in the woodash
Ni 0.02–0.77 0.01 共Table 1兲. The resulting Ca2+ replaced the weaker metallic cations
CaCO3 eq. 33.00–92.00 100.00 共Na+, K+, and Mg++兲 from the exchange complex of the clay. The
pH 10.20 9.00–13.50 9.90 exchange caused a reduction in the size of the diffused water
a
This study. layer in the clay, thereby allowing clay particles to approach each
b other more closely, or flocculate. Flocculation and agglomeration
From literature 共Risse and Harris 2000兲.
c produce an apparent change in texture, with the clay particles
N/A⫽not available.
“clumping” together into larger-sized “aggregates” 共Terrel et al.
1979兲. These reactions ultimately changed the gradation of the
confined compression testing. Each of the woodash-treated soils clay.
was cured naturally for 28 days and strength and CBR measure-
ments taken at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days, respectively, to determine Atterberg Limits
the development of strength with time. The curing was carried out
by placing the prepared and wrapped 共in double cellophane兲 The variations of liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, and
sample into a water bath 共Thompson 1968兲. The woodash was linear shrinkage with varying percentages of woodash are shown
subjected to chemical analysis to determine its chemical compo- graphically in Fig. 1. The results show that both the liquid limit
sition. The analysis was done using ultraviolet 共UV兲 visible and plastic limit increase with increasing percentages of woodash,
spectrophotometer 共Pye Unicam SP500 Series 2兲 and atomic ab- whereas the plasticity index and linear shrinkage decrease with
sorption spectrophotometer 共Buck Scientific AAS-20A兲. The spe- increasing percentages of woodash. These trends are the same as
cific gravity as well as the pH of the woodash was also those produced when soils are treated with lime 共Thompson 1968;
determined. Ingles 1973; Bell 1989; 1993; Muntohar and Hantoro 2000;
National Lime Association 2001兲. These authors agree on a num-
ber of mechanisms, which may be responsible for these beneficial
changes in engineering properties of a soil when treated with
Results and Discussion
lime. These include cation exchange, flocculation of the clay, ag-
glomeration, and pozzolanic reactions. According to these au-
pH, Specific Gravity, and Chemical Composition of thors, the first two reactions take place rapidly and produce
Woodash immediate changes in the plasticity and swelling properties of the
The pH and specific gravity tests on the woodash yielded average treated soil. The calcium silicate gel produced as a result of the
values of 10.2 and 2.2, respectively. The chemical composition chemical reactions coats the clay clasts, binding them together
test results are given in Table 1. The results show that woodash is and filling the pores. In this way, water absorption is reduced and
alkaline and of low specific gravity when compared with natural hence swelling and shrinkage, leading to improved workability as
soil grains. There is presence of alkali and alkali earth metals the treated soil becomes more friable in character. In this study,
which inevitably yield a very alkaline solution. Calcium oxide is the woodash - treated clay became less plastic and more friable
a major constituent as in lime. than the untreated clay. Linear shrinkage also was reduced.

Particle Size Distribution

The clay soil used in the investigation comprised 13% gravel,
11% sand, and 76% fines 共silt and clay兲. The fines plotted in the
medium plasticity range of the Casagrande plasticity chart. When
woodash was mixed with the clay, there was a reduction in the
fines content and increase in the sand and gravel content as shown
in Table 2. Earlier workers on lime–soil mixtures 共Ola 1977,
1978; Akoto and Singh 1981; Osula 1991兲 have noted that lime
causes agglomeration of soil particles, such that the effective par-
ticle size distribution is changed. The agglomeration is known to
be caused by coagulation of the soil particles with consequent
reduction in the amount of fines. By analogy with lime–soil sys-
tems, it is believed that the reactions between woodash and clay Fig. 1. Variation of Atterberg limits and linear shrinkage with
are those of cation exchange, flocculation, and agglomeration. varying percentages of woodash

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007 / 15

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:14-18.

 Fig. 2. Variation of maximum dry density with varying percentages
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 03/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of woodash
Compaction
Figs. 2 and 3 show the graphic representation of the compaction
test results obtained using the British standard, West African stan-
dard, and Modified AASHTO standard compactive efforts. It can
be seen that while the dry density decreases with greater propor-
tions of woodash, the optimum moisture content increases in all
the compaction standards used. Again these results are consistent
with those of other workers using lime admixtures with fine-
grained soils. Two reasons may explain the decrease in maximum
dry density. One of them is that the flocculated and agglomerated
clay particles 共caused by the cation exchange reaction兲 now oc-
cupy larger spaces, thus increasing the volume of the voids and
consequently reducing the weight:volume ratio. The other is the
replacement of soil particles in a given volume by particles of
woodash of comparatively lower specific gravity 共2.2 compared
to 2.7 of the soil particles.兲
The increasing optimum moisture content with increasing
woodash content is thought to result from the increasing desire
for water 共as woodash content increases兲, as more water is re-
quired for the formation of the lime-like product, Ca共OH兲2, and
dissolution of this product into Ca2+ and OH− ions, in order to
supply more Ca2+ ions for the cation exchange reaction.
California Bearing Ratio
Fig. 4 shows graphically the results of the CBR for the compacted
soaked and unsoaked samples at zero curing. It can be seen that
the CBR value increases as the percentage of woodash increases
to an optimum level, after which a decrease in CBR is noted. For
the soaked and unsoaked samples compacted at the BS and modi-
fied AASHTO compactive efforts, this optimum is reached at
about 10% woodash.
Fig. 3. Variation of optimum moisture content with varying
percentages of woodash
16 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:14-18.
Fig. 4. Unsoaked and soaked CBR with varying percentages of
woodash at zero curing
Similar behavior has been noted by other authors on
some soil–additive mixtures. For example, Thompson 共1968兲,
Anifowose 共1989兲, and Osula 共1991兲 report a 3% optimum for
lime; Okagbue and Onyeobi 共1999兲 report an 8% optimum for
marble dust; and Okagbue and Yakubu 共2000兲 report a 6% opti-
mum for limestone ash. The present study thus suggests that triple
the amount of woodash may be required to achieve the same soil
modification as in lime.
Fig. 5 shows the effect of curing on the CBR of the 10%
woodash–clay mixture 共10% woodash yielded the maximum
CBR兲 compacted at both the BS and modified AASHTO compac-
tion levels and for both soaked and unsoaked conditions. As
shown in Fig. 5, an optimal CBR was recorded after 7 days of
curing for both soaked and unsoaked samples. Thereafter, the
CBR decreased with time.
Various explanations have been put forward for the improve-
ment of the CBR. Neubauer and Thompson 共1972兲 and Arora
共1997兲 attribute it to the immediate cation exchange, flocculation,
and agglomeration reactions while Diamond and Kinter 共1965兲,
Bell 共1989, 1993兲; Muntohar and Hantoro 共2000兲, Okagbue and
Yakubu 共2000兲, and Wartman and Reimer 共2002兲 postulated that
the mechanism responsible is the formation of bonds of tetracal-
cium alumina hydrates and silicate hydrates which link the clay
particles together. Van Ganse 共1974兲, Ola 共1977兲, and Osula
共1991兲 considered the improvement to be due to the formation of
“crumbs” of soils which retain their individuality when the lime–
soil mixture is kneaded and compacted.
Fig. 5. Variation of CBR at 10% woodash at varying days of curing

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 03/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Variation of soaked unconfined compressive strength with
varying percentages of woodash at zero curing
Strength
Unconfined compressive strength tests were conducted on treated
and untreated soaked samples compacted at maximum dry density
and optimum moisture at BS and modified AASHTO compactive
efforts. The results are given graphically in Fig. 6. Again opti-
mum strength was attained at 10% woodash content.
Fig. 7 shows the effect of curing on the strength of the 10%
woodash treated soil. As shown in the figure, an increase in
strength was recorded following curing. The highest strength de-
velopment was achieved at 7 days of curing for the BS compacted
samples and at about 14 days of curing for the modified AASHTO
compacted samples.
It is not quite clear why there is this variation in the time
period of maximum strength development. What is clear is that in
both cases, strength decreased after the peak development. Th-
ompson 共1968兲 recommended 28 days of curing for lime-treated
soils, whose maximum strength development is expected to be
reached at this curing period. Okagbue and Onyeobi 共1999兲 re-
ported that the unconfined compressive strength of marble dust-
treated soil peaked between 7 and 15 days of curing and remained
virtually constant throughout the 28 days of curing. Strength in-
crease during curing is explained in terms of the action of cement-
ing gel material 共hydrates兲 produced following pozzolanic
reactions, which take place over a period of time. Typical reac-
tions producing cementing gels 共hydrates兲 are given below
Ca共OH兲2 → Ca2+ + 2共OH兲
Ca2+ + OH− + SiO2 共soluble clay silica兲
→ calcium–silicate–hydrate 共CSH兲
Fig. 7. Variation of soaked unconfined compressive strength at 5 and
10% woodash at varying days
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007 / 17
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:14-18.
Ca2+ + OH− + Al2O3 共soluble clay alumina兲
→ calcium–aluminate–hydrate 共CAH兲
In woodash–clay mixtures, the clay minerals are the sources of
the silica and alumina, while the woodash is the source of
Ca共OH兲2 from its CaO content. The United States National Lime
Association 共2001兲 and Mallela et al. 共2004兲 reported that the full
term pozzolanic reaction could continue for a very long time,
even decades, as long as enough lime is present and the pH re-
mains high 共above 10兲. As a result, lime treatment can produce
high and long lasting strength gains. At this high pH, the solubili-
ties of silica and alumina are greatly increased. Thus as long as
enough residual calcium ion remains in the system and the pH
remains high enough to maintain solubility, the pozzolanic reac-
tion will continue. It is possible that in the case of woodash, the
“lime” produced is quickly used up within the first 2 weeks of
curing leaving very small or no lime at all to continue the poz-
zolanic reaction. In that situation the pH would drop below 10,
thus rendering the environment unfavorable for further pozzolanic
reaction. The pH of the tested soil at the woodash dumpsite was
8.6, which is below 10 and therefore unfavorable for pozzolanic
reaction and continued strength development. Perhaps the low
percentage of lime 共CaO兲 content in woodash 共34.34%, Table 1兲
accounts for the quick use up of the lime in woodash and subse-
quent drop in soil–lime reactions.
Remus and Davidson 共1961兲 reported that when compactive
energy was increased from standard to modified AASHTO, the
compressive strength of the soil–lime mixture increased by 50–
250% for both 7 and 28 days curing period. In this study, com-
pressive strength increased by only 44–70% when compactive
energy was increased from standard to modified AASHTO for 7
days curing period and 87–129% for 14 days curing period.
Implications of Research Findings
Naturally, clay is a poor construction material but when improved
by additives, it can be useful. Mateos 共1964兲 reported the success-
ful use of properly compacted lime-stabilized clayey soil for road
subsurface.
The United States National Lime Association 共2001兲 has listed
some of the benefits of lime stabilization to include: plasticity
reduction, reduction in moisture-holding capacity 共drying兲, swell
reduction, improved stability, very substantial improvements in
shear strength, 共by a factor 20 or more in some cases兲, continued
strength gain with time, even after periods of environmental or
load damage, and long-term durability over decades of service
even under severe environmental conditions.
Woodash certainly meets some of these conditions, such as
plasticity reduction, swell reduction, improved stability, and sub-
stantial strength gain but fails to meet the benefit of continued
strength gain with time. These results imply that although
woodash provides most of the beneficial effects of lime in soil
stabilization, it is unlikely to be a substitute for lime in soil sta-
bilization for engineering construction. It may, however, be very
useful in soil modification for agricultural purposes where sus-
tained strength is not a desired priority property but where
additional lime 共more than 10% of woodash兲 would likely in-
crease pH to any desired level.
Conclusion
This study has evaluated the extent to which lime contained in
woodash can improve the physical, as well as the mechanical
 properties of clay. The results have shown that woodash reduces
the plasticity and maximum dry density and increases the strength
of clay although the increase in strength is not sustained beyond
14 days. Highest strength of 22% increase is developed after 7–14
days of curing and at 10% woodash–clay mixture. It is believed
that the “lime” produced by the optimal 共10%兲 woodash content
is quickly used up within the first 2 weeks of curing leaving little
or no lime at all to continue the pozzolanic reaction usually re-
sponsible for strength gain in clay–lime mixtures.
The implication of these results is that woodash, although con-
taining lime as a chemical component, cannot be used as a soil
modifier for construction purposes.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Western Michigan University on 03/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The writer acknowledges the contributions of O. Ohanta, O. C.
Okoye, C. N. Akaelu, A. E. Iwuamadi, E. O. Ossai-Abeh, and I.
Alinta of the Department of Geology for assistance in data col-
lection, Engineer Ekwedike and his staff of the Soil Mechanics
Laboratory of the Enugu State Ministry of Works for their assis-
tance in carrying out the tests, and Okechukwu Ugwoke for typ-
ing the manuscript.
References
Akoto, B. K. A., and Singh, G. 共1981兲. “Some geotechnical properties of
lime-stabilized laterite containing a high proportion of aluminium
oxide.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 7, 185–199.
Anifowose, A. Y. B. 共1989兲. “The performance of some soils under sta-
bilization in Ondo state, Nigeria.” Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol., 40,
79–83.
Arora, K. R. 共1997兲. Soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Stan-
dard Publishers Distributors, Nai Sarak, Delhi, India.
Bell, F. G. 共1989兲. “Lime stabilisation of clay soils.” Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng.
Geol., 39, 67–74.
Bell, F. G. 共1993兲. Engineering treatment of soils, Chapman and Hall,
London.
Brand, W., and Schoenberg, W. 共1959兲. “Impact of stabilisation of loess
with quicklime on highway construction.” Highw. Res. Board. Bull.,
231, 18–23.
British Standard institute 共BSI兲. 共1975兲. “Methods of testing soils for civil
engineering purposes.” BS 1377.
Cokca, E. 共1999兲. “Effect of fly ash on swell pressure of expansive soil.”
Electronic J. Geotech. Eng., paper 9904. Oklahoma State Univ., Okla.
Diamond, S., and Kinter, E. B. 共1965兲. “Mechanisms of soil lime stabi-
lisation.” Highw. Res. Rec., 92, 83–102.
Dumbleton, M. J. 共1962兲. “Investigations to assess the potentialities of
lime for soil stabilisation in the United Kingdom.” Road Res. Lab.
Tech., paper. no. 64.
Hilt, G. H., and Davidson, D. T. 共1960兲. “Lime fixation in clayey soils.”
Highw. Res. Board Bull., 262, 20–32.
Indraratna, B., Balasubramanian, A. S., and Khan, M. J. 共1995兲. “Effect
of fly ash with lime and cement on the behaviour of a soft clay.” Q. J.
18 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:14-18.
Eng. Geol., 28, 131–132.
Indraratna, B., Nutalaya, P., and Kuganethira, N. 共1991兲. “Stabilization of
a dispersive soil by blending with fly ash.” Q. J. Eng. Geol., 24,
275–290.
Ingles, O. G. 共1973兲. Stabilization in soil mechanics. New horizons, I. K.
Lee, ed., Newness–Buttersworth, London.
Lund, O. L., and Ramsey, W. J. 共1959兲. “Experimental lime stabilization
in Nebraska.” Highw. Reservoir. Board, Bull., 23, 24–59.
Mallela, J., Von Quintus, H., and Smith, K. L. 共2004兲. “Consideration of
lime-stabilized layers in mechanistic-empirical pavement design.” The
National Lime Association, Arlington, Va., 具http://www.lime.org典.
Mateos, M. 共1964兲. “Soil lime research at Iowa State University.” J. Soil
Mech. and Found. Div., 90共2兲, 127–153.
McCaustland, E. J. 共1924兲. “Lime in dirt road.” Proc., Annual Convention
National Lime Association.
Muntohar, A. S. 共1999兲. “Behaviour of engineering properties of the clay
blended with LRHA 共lime rice husk ash兲.” Research Rep. from Grant,
Muhammadiyah Univ. of Yogya-Karta, Yogya-Karta, Indonesia.
Muntohar, A. S., and Hantoro, G. 共2000兲. “Influence of rice husk ash and
lime on engineering properties of clayey subgrade.” Electronic. J.
Geotech. Eng.
National Lime Association 共2001兲. “Using lime for soil stabilization and
modification: A proven solution!” 具http://www.Lime.org典.
Neubauer, C. H., and Thompson, M. R. 共1972兲. “Stability properties of
uncured lime-treated fine-grained soils.” Highw. Res. Rec., 381, 20–
26.
Okagbue, C. O., and Onyeobi, T. U. S. 共1999兲. “Potentials of marble dust
to stabilize red tropical soils for road construction.” Eng. Geol. (Am-
sterdam), 53, 371–380.
Okagbue, C. O., and Yakubu, J. A. 共2000兲. “Limestone ash waste as a
substitute for lime in soil improvement for engineering construction.”
Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ., 58共2兲, 107–113.
Ola, S. A. 共1977兲. “The potentials of lime stabilization of laterite soils.”
Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 11, 305–317.
Ola, S. A. 共1978兲. “Geotechnical properties and behaviour of some sta-
bilized Nigerian lateritic soils.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 11, 145–
160.
Osula, D. O. A. 共1991兲. “Lime modification of problem laterite.” Eng.
Geol. (Amsterdam), 30, 141–154.
Peurifoy, R. L. 共1970兲. Construction planning equipment and methods,
2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Remus, M. D., and Davidson, D. 共1961兲. “Relation of strength to com-
position and density of lime-treated clay soils.” Bull. Highw. Res.
Counc. Wash. D.C., 304, 65–75.
Risse, M., and Harris, G. 共2000兲. “Soil acidity and lime training sched-
ule.” 具www.hubscap.clemson.edu/blpit/best woodash.html典.
Terrel, R. L., Epps, J. A., Barenberg, E. J., Mitchell, J. K., and Thomp-
som, M. R. 共1979兲. Soil stabilization in pavement structures: A user’s
manual, Vols. I and II, FHwA, Washington, D.C.
Thompson, M. R. 共1968兲. “Lime-treated soils for pavement construction.”
J. Highw. Div. 94共2兲, 59–67.
Van Ganse, R. F. 共1974兲. “Immediate amelioration of wet cohesive soils
by quick lime.” Transportation Research Record. 501, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 42–53.
Wartman, J., and Reimer, M. F. 共2002兲. “The use of fly ash to alter the
geotechnical properties of artificial ‘model’ clay.” Proc., Physical
Modelling in Geotechnics, ICPMG 02, St. John’s, Canada.