materials
Article
Evaluation of the Effects of Cement and Lime with Rice Husk
Ash as an Additive on Strength Behavior of Coastal Soil
Zahraalsadat Eliaslankaran






Citation: Eliaslankaran, Z.; Daud,
N.N.N.; Yusoff, Z.M.; Rostami, V.
Evaluation of the Effects of Cement
and Lime with Rice Husk Ash as an
Additive on Strength Behavior of
Coastal Soil. Materials 2021, 14, 1140.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051140
Academic Editor: Jakub Zdarta
Received: 31 January 2021
Accepted: 24 February 2021
Published: 28 February 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Materials 2021, 14, 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051140
, Nik Norsyahariati Nik Daud *, Zainuddin Md. Yusoff and Vahid Rostami
Civil Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Seri Kembangan 43300, Malaysia;
nina_5950@yahoo.com (Z.E.); zmy@upme.du.my (Z.M.Y.); vahid65r@gmail.com (V.R.)
* Correspondence: niknor@upm.edu.my
Abstract: Coastal accretion and erosion are unavoidable processes as some coastal sediments undergo
modification and stabilization. This study was conducted to investigate the geotechnical behavior
of soil collected from Bagan Lalang coast and treated with lime, cement, and rice husk ash (RHA)
to design a low-cost alternative mixture with environmentally friendly characteristics. Laboratory
tests were carried out to analyze the physical properties of the soil (Atterberg limits and compaction
properties), together with mechanical characteristics (direct shear and unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) tests) to determine the effect of different ratios of stabilizer/pozzolan on the coastal
soil and the optimum conditions for each mixture. Part of the purpose of this study was also to
analyze the shear behavior of the coastal soil and monitor the maximum axial compressive stress
that the treated specimens can bear under zero confining pressure. Compared to the natural soil,
the soil treated with lime and rice husk ash (LRHA) in the ratio of 1:2 (8% lime content) showed a
tremendous increase in shear stress under the normal stress of 200 kPa. The strength parameters such
as the cohesion (c) and internal friction angle (φ) values showed a significant increase. Cohesion
values increased considerably in samples cured for 90 days compared to specimens cured for 7 days
with additional LRHA in the ratio of 1:2 (28%).
Keywords: coastal soil; rice husk ash (RHA); physical properties; strength; pozzolan; stress
1. Introduction
In order to develop a country, it is necessary to improve its construction industry.
As demand for construction material with low-cost and environmentally friendly nature
rises, the innovation in designing new mixtures has grown. Contrarily, agricultural waste,
in particular rice husk ash (RHA), has raised environmental concerns as the ash causes
many health issues for local inhabitants. Another problem in today’s highly industrialized
world is protecting the atmosphere from harmful contaminants associated with waste
generation and disposal. Recently, various methods have been developed to turn hazardous
waste into non-toxic compounds or to reduce the possible release into the atmosphere
of toxic substances [1]. Silty sand soil is classified as a problematic soil in terms of its
shear and compressibility. This type of soil covers most coastal areas and can easily be
eroded and transferred to different locations. An investigation into the properties of the
respective coastal sediments is needed. These quaternary, soft, fluvial, and shallow marine
deposits can create geotechnical problems such as liquefaction, swelling, coastal erosion,
and adversely affect the adopted constructions and industries in this area.
Soil improvement and stabilization techniques are mainly based on the type of added
agents [2]. These are old techniques that have been in practice for a long time. The
application of lime for soil stabilization began in 1945 in the United States [3]. Xunli
Jiang [4] and Muntohar [5] had analyzed the strength development process on soil treated
with lime and RHA, using three types of soil (soft soil, RHA–lime soil, and lime-stabilized
soil). It has been discovered that RHA can effectively improve the shear resistance and
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
Materials 2021, 14, 1140 2 of 15

water resistance of stabilized soil. Other scientists also conducted research about the
improvement of various types of soil with lime [6,7]. This revealed that the compressive
strength of unstable soil increases with the addition of lime, but only up to a certain
quantity of lime, at which point it decreases as further increases in the amount of lime
lead to a reduction in the reaction between the soil and the lime. In 2017, Heidemann [6]
studied the stabilization of sedimentary silty-sand soil using cement and lime. The author
noted that there was a decrease in strength with the curing time. Moreover, the presence of
organic matter and the formation of sulfates can be responsible for the low strength and
decay of soil.
In humid areas, lime itself cannot be considered to be the right stabilizer. In addition,
the reaction between the lime and soil is prolonged. If the mixture is not balanced, it will
fail to perform optimally [8,9]. Therefore, to reduce the cost and amount of lime used for
stabilization purposes and expedite the chemical reaction between clay particles and lime,
researchers started using specific alternative agents such as rice husk ash (RHA) or micro
silica fume [10]. RHA is also composed of a high amount of silica, which can activate
the soil/lime reaction [11]. Alhassan [11,12] studied the effects of lime and rice husk ash
on clayey subgrades’ engineering properties. It was found that the addition of RHA as
an agent affects the plasticity index and dry density, thereby improving the soil strength.
Ye and Nguyen [13] studied the effects of changing the lime/RHA ratio and curing time.
Nguyen [13] found out that RHA is of high pozzolanic activities because of the presence of
amorphous silica, fineness, and high specific surface area. The effect of the curing period
on the Atterberg limits and compaction properties for the improvement of coastal soil was
also studied by other researchers such as Rahman [14]. The author indicated an increase in
compressive strength by increasing cement content and curing period during unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) tests. Rahman found that liquid limit and permeability were
also altered as curing periods were extended from three to seven days.
This study’s objectives were to find an alternative for cement to strengthen coastal
soil sediments and determine the effects of different lime ratios to rice husk ash (RHA)
on coastal soil mixtures and, therefore, changes to the strength behavior of coastal soil.
Considering that cement is not economically available, the use of RHA in cement products,
even in developing countries, decreases the cost of materials and reduces the environmental
risk associated with the existing open-field husk combustion in rice-producing countries.
RHA’s broad prospect of application combined with other agents instead of cement can be
expected due to the benefits of cost savings and environmental benefits associated with
waste material disposal and reduced damage to the environment [15]. The work detailed
within this technical paper is concerned with comparing the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) behavior of soil treated with various portions of lime and rice husk ash.
Cement and lime are traditional curing agents. These agents have previously been used
for stabilization purposes. Still, the high cost of cement and the negative impacts on the
environment [16,17] have resulted in searching for a cost-effective and environmentally
friendly solution as a replacement. Therefore, the lower cost of lime compared with cement,
which is associated with the use of environmentally friendly material [18], has led to
choosing lime and rice husk ash (LRHA) as pozzolanic waste for the stabilization and
improvement of coastal soil properties. There are only a few studies focused on the coastal
soil in terms of stabilization purposes. Since cement is considered the primary material
currently used as a stabilizer in the construction and railroad industry, this research looked
for a mixture of material that is similar but cheaper and greener. Lime is an economically
viable option with a similar composition to cement, but its effect on soil stability is not
comparable to cement. Hence, in this research, a mixture of industrial and agricultural
waste has been added to the soil to create a replacement for cement.

2. Materials and Methods

The coastal areas of Peninsular Malaysia are mainly composed of lowlands covered
by soft alluvial and unconsolidated to semi-consolidated deposits consist of sand, silt, and
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

Materials 2021, 14, 1140 3 of 15

2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
The coastal areas of Peninsular Malaysia are mainly composed of lowlands covered
Thealluvial
by soft coastaland areas of Peninsular to
unconsolidated Malaysia are mainly deposits
semi-consolidated composed of lowlands
consist of sand,covered
silt, and
clay.
by Most
soft of the
alluvial deposits
and are determined
unconsolidated to as Quaternary deposits
semi-consolidated (Pleistocene Epoch)
consist of and silt,
sand, occupy
and
clay. Most of the deposits are determined as Quaternary (Pleistocene Epoch) and occupy
more than 20% of mainly coastal lowlands of both east and west coasts of the peninsula
clay. Most of the deposits are determined as Quaternary (Pleistocene Epoch)
more than 20% of mainly coastal lowlands of both east and west coasts of the peninsula and occupy
(Figure 1). Soil from Bagan Lalang on the west coast of Malaysia was used for the study.
more than
(Figure 1). 20%
Soil of mainly
from Bagan coastal
Lalang lowlands of both
on the west east
coast of and west coasts
Malaysia of the
was used for peninsula
the study.
The coast is covered by tidal flats, mangroves, and deltas.
(Figure
The coast1). is
Soil from Bagan
covered by tidalLalang on the west and
flats, mangroves, coastdeltas.
of Malaysia was used for the study.
The coast is covered by tidal flats, mangroves, and deltas.

Figure 1. Bagan Lalang geological map, satellite image. The study area is bounded by the latitudes 2°, 28’-32.142”-2° 35.828’
Figure 1. Bagan Lalang geological map, satellite image. The study area is bounded by the latitudes 2◦ , 28’-32.142”-2◦ 35.828’
Figure
N and 1. Bagan Lalang
longitudes geological map,
101°41.557’-101° satellite image.
50’ 18.4374” E. The study area is bounded by the latitudes 2°, 28’-32.142”-2° 35.828’
N and longitudes 101◦ 41.557’-101◦ 50’ 18.4374” E.
N and longitudes 101°41.557’-101° 50’ 18.4374” E.
2.1. Soil Characteristics
2.1.
2.1. Soil
Soil Characteristics
TheCharacteristics
particle size distribution curve of the coastal soil according to ASTM D422 [18]
The particle size distribution curve of the
the coastal soil
soil according to
to ASTM
ASTM D422
D422 [18]
and The
ASTM particle
D7928size distribution
standard methodcurve
[19] of coastal
is shown in Figure according
2. [18]
and ASTM D7928 standard method [19] is shown in
and ASTM D7928 standard method [19] is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2.
Coarse Medium Fine
GRAVEL #4 SAND #10 SAND #40 SAND #200 SILT/CLAY
Coarse Medium Fine
100 GRAVEL #4 SAND #10 SAND #40 SAND #200 SILT/CLAY
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
% Passing

60
% Passing

60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
010.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
10.000 1.000Particle Diameter
0.100 (mm) 0.010 0.001
Particle Diameter (mm)
Figure 2. The particle size distribution of index soil sample collected from the Bagan Lalang beach site.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. The particle size distribution
distribution of
of index
index soil
soil sample
sample collected
collected from
from the
the Bagan
Bagan Lalang
Lalangbeach
beachsite.
site.

To measure the grain size distribution of soil samples taken from the west coast-Port
Dickson, they were dried in a drying oven (this speeds up the drying process) and the
 Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

Materials 2021, 14, 1140 4 of 15

To measure the grain size distribution of soil samples taken from the west coast-Port
Dickson, they were dried in a drying oven (this speeds up the drying process) and the
samples were sorted into different grain sizes. To determine the soil moisture content,
samples were sorted into different grain sizes. To determine the soil moisture content, wet
wet samples were weighed before and after the drying process to calculate the soil water
samples were weighed before and after the drying process to calculate the soil water con-
content. In this test, a set of sieves was used, which grade from coarse to very fine, as well
tent. In this test, a set of sieves was used, which grade from coarse to very fine, as well as
as a shaker table to do the labor. Samples were sieved for 5 min.
a shaker table to do the labor. Samples were sieved for 5 min.
When the sieving was finished, the fraction from each sieve was collected separately.
When the sieving was finished, the fraction from each sieve was collected separately.
Each sieve’s contents were weighed and recorded. In order to find the percentage of very
Each sieve’s contents were weighed and recorded. In order to find the percentage of very
fine sand, silt, and clay (spheres particles finer than Sieve #200), the hydrometer method
fine sand, silt, and clay (spheres particles finer than Sieve #200), the hydrometer method was
was used. This method is based on Stoke’s law, measuring the soil particles dropping
used. This method is based on Stoke’s law, measuring the soil particles dropping speed of soil
speed of soil particles inside the water.
particles inside the water.
The grain size analysis shows that the sediment on the west coast of Malaysia consists
of moreThe grain
than 90% size analysis
fine shows that
soil, including the sediment
65–70% sand and on30–35%
the west
siltcoast
andof Malaysia
clay consists
particles. The
of more than 90% fine soil, including 65–70% sand and 30–35% silt and clay
coefficient of uniformity, Cu, was 6.538, which is considered well-graded sand, and theparticles. The
coefficient of uniformity, Cu, was
coefficient of curvature (Cc) was 3.040. 6.538, which is considered well-graded sand, and the
coefficient of curvature
The principal (Cc)composition
mineral was 3.040. of the soil is marked on the X-ray diffraction
The principal mineral
pattern shown in Figure 3. composition of the soil is marked on the X-ray diffraction pat-
tern shown in Figure 3.

Figure3.3.X-ray
Figure X-raydiffraction
diffractionpattern
patternofofnatural
naturalsoil.
soil.

The
Thephysical
physicalproperties
propertiesofofthe
thecoastal
coastalsoil
soilwere
werealso
alsostudied
studied(Table
(Table1).
1).According
Accordingtoto
the
the unified soil classification system (USCS), the soil can mostly be classifiedasasML
unified soil classification system (USCS), the soil can mostly be classified ML(low
(low
ininsilt)
silt)totoOL
OL(low
(lowininorganic
organicmaterial,
material,fine
finesand/silt
sand/siltplus
plusorganic
organicsilt
siltand
andorganic
organicsilty
silty
clays). Other parameters, including moisture content, soil consistency, and
clays). Other parameters, including moisture content, soil consistency, and compaction, compaction,
were
wereobtained
obtainedthrough
throughlaboratory
laboratorytests
testsexplained
explainedininSection
Section2.3.
2.3.
Materials 2021, 14, 1140 5 of 15

Table 1. Physical properties of West Coast Malaysia coastal soil.

Properties Unit Value

Grain size analysis
- Sand % 65–70
- Silt and clay % 30–35
USCS classification - ML/OL
Specific gravity - 2.63
Moisture content % 16.3
Consistency limit
- Liquid limit % 47.5
- Plastic limit % 28
- Plasticity index % 19.5
Compaction study
MDD mg/m3 1.48
OMC % 16.2

2.2. Stabilizer Materials

2.2.1. Cement
Portland cement (PC) is the most commonly used cementing agent in the concrete
building industry and was first made in 1825. The cement used in this project was a Type
I ordinary Portland manufactured by YTL Sdn Bhd. (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), based
on Malaysia Standards MS 522. The basic components of PC are calcium, silicon dioxide,
aluminum oxide, and iron. It is a combination of limestone, gypsum, and shale or clay.
The primary and most important soil reactions with cement are the hydration reactions
with the soil’s water content. This reaction results in forming the cemented material
(calcium silicate and aluminate hydrates as in concrete).
Hydration of Portland cement [20] is as follows:

3CaO·Al2 O3 + 6H2 O → 3CaO·Al2 O3 ·6H2 O (1)

After the first day, the strength gain is due to the (3CaO SiO2 ) compound. The reaction
that takes place is as shown in Equation (2):

2 (3CaO·SiO2 ) + 6H2 O → 3CaO·2SiO2 ·3H2 O + 3 Ca(OH)2 (2)

The final product of cement hydration form is Tri-calcium disilicate hydrate and is the
principal binding material. When the 2CaO·SiO2 compound is hydrated, it contributes to
the long-term strength given by a cement binder, the compound hydrated according to the
following equation.

2(2CaO·SiO2 ) + 4H2 O → 3CO·2SiO2 ·3H2 O + Ca(OH)2 (3)

2.2.2. Lime
Lime is commonly used as a stabilizer for chemical reactions. Lime is considered a cost-
effective and environmentally friendly stabilizer to replace with Portland cement [16,18].
Lime is particularly beneficial for this study since it leads to cheaper construction, reduces
environmental damage, and preserves the most highly qualified materials for priority
uses. Hydrated lime for this study was purchased from MCB Sdn. Bhd. (Perak, Malaysia).
During the pozzolanic process, the pozzolan paste (C–S–H and C–A–H) formed in chemical
equilibrium, which leads to secondary reactions with any other reactive materials such as
clays, RHA, or pozzolans within the soil. The chemical reaction in lime is as follows:

Ca(OH)2 + SiO2 → CaO·SiO2 ·H2 O (C-S-H) (4)

Ca(OH)2 + Al2 O3 → CaO·Al2 O3 ·H2 O (C-A-H) (5)

Materials 2021, 14, 1140 6 of 15

In fact, during the soil stabilization process, pozzolanic reactions occur between
hydrated lime, silica, and alumina of the clay minerals to produce cementing material,
including calcium silicate-hydrates calcium alumina hydrates [21].
Table 2 shows the physical and chemical composition of cement, lime, and RHA used
in this study.

Table 2. Cement, lime, and RHA chemical composition.

Chemical Composition Unit Cement Lime RHA

CaO % 64.82 76.24 1.3
SiO2 % 6.72 0.21 93.67
Fe2 O3 % 17.58 19.32 0.47
K2 O % 0.82 1.03 1.82
MgO % 5.37 2.92 0.57
Al2 O3 % 3.27 0.25 1.45
Physical Properties
Grain specific gravity Mg/m3 3.15 2.37 2.11
pH Value 13 12.4 7.10

2.2.3. Rice Husk Ash (RHA)

RHA is an industrial pozzolan and waste of rice production, which is abundant in
countries like Malaysia. The RHA has been used in this research, supplied by Bernas Sdn.
Bhd., Tanjung Karang Malaysia. RHA, made from rice husk (RH)-controlled burning, has
an average silica content of about 90%. Rice husk has a fairly uniform chemical composition.
The rice husk burning process is expected to eliminate only the organic contents and remain
as silica in an amorphous shape. The balance is Al2 O3 , CaO, Fe2 O3 , MgO, and K2 O. The
amount of silica in rice husk depends on the variety of the rice, soil, and climate conditions,
prevailing temperature, and agriculture practices.
The rice hush has low bulk density and high porosity. The ash’s chemical activity,
particularly in combination with lime, is related to the form of silica in the ash and the
carbon content.
Rice husk ash with high silica content reacts with binder elements to produce an
optimum pozzolanic reaction. It happens by producing additional C–S–H (CaO·SiO2 ·H2 O),
called calcium silicate gel, in many of the voids around hydrated cement particles, such
that silica can affect the compressive and flexural strength.

2.3. Laboratory Tests

The experimental research included mixing various percentages of lime and rice husk
ash in the ratios of 1:1 and 1:2 to a mixture of oven-dried soil and water.
Before mixing the ingredients, lime and RHA material were sieved, passing through a
sieve with a mesh size of 200 µm, to separate the coarse particles. At this stage, the soil was
mixed with different percentages of lime:RHA (LRHA) and cement:RHA (CRHA) (4, 6, 8,
and 10%) at and ratios of 1:1 and 1:2, and the mixing process continued until the soil and
stabilizers showed a uniform color and texture. For each of the above mixtures, 4 samples
were prepared. Specimens were cast in 50 mm × 100 mm standard cylindrical molds and
were taken out after 1 h of casting. During the curing process, all the samples were kept
in water till the specified date of testing. Compressive strengths of treated samples were
determined at the ages of 7, 14, 28, and 90 days according to ASTM-D 1632 [22]. All the
treated samples were prepared for UCS tests at their optimum moisture content (OMC).

2.3.1. Atterberg Limits and Compaction Tests

The Atterberg limit test and compaction tests were conducted on both treated and
untreated soil samples according to ASTM D4318 [23] and ASTM 1557 [24]. Each soil
sample was prepared in a modified proctor 1 L mold. During the modified proctor test,
Materials 2021, 14, 1140 7 of 15

soil mixtures were mixed with different moisture contents and allowed to be homogenized
24 h before compaction. Each layer of the soil sample was compacted by a hammer (4.53 kg
weight), freely dropped from a height of 457 mm, blows were applied to the soil 25 times,
and then the mold was filled again by the soil and the compaction procedure was repeated.
During these tests, the plastic limit, liquid limit, and plasticity index for all the untreated
soil and treated samples were determined.
The first series of compaction tests’ main goal was to determine the compaction char-
acteristics of untreated soils. Secondly, the tests were conducted to determine the proctor’s
compaction properties following stabilization in various lime, RHA, and cement proportions.

2.3.2. Unconfined Compressive Strength

UCS test is one of the typical soil mechanical tests for soil stabilization applications,
and it is known as a method for evaluating improvements to treated soil. UCS test on the
treated samples was performed using ELE International, Unconfined Compression Tester
KA-25–3602, according to ASTM D2166 standard method [25].
The experimental work was focused on investigating the effect of different percentages
of lime and RHA (4,6, 8 and 10%, in portions of 1:2 and 2:2) on the shear strength of the soil
and comparing it in various amounts of LRHA to find a suitable replacement for cement.

2.3.3. Direct Shear Test

The direct shear test was carried out to determine the variation of shear strength,
cohesion, and friction angle and the effect of different amounts of LRHA and CRHA on
each parameter. The shear strength of the treated samples and untreated soil was tested
using ELE direct shear apparatus and according to ASTM 3080 standard [26]. The samples
were mixed with lime, RHA, and cement, poked, and compacted with the optimum amount
of moisture until they reached the γdmax using the modified proctor test. To obtain a
higher cohesion in the treated samples, different LRHA or cement amounts were mixed
with the soil and treated for 7, 14, 28, and 90 days.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effect of LRHA and CRHA on Plasticity and Compaction Parameters
The plasticity characteristics of soil are due mainly to the clay particles’ plate structure
and lubricate bonding effect of adsorbing water around the clay particles [27].
Figure 4 shows the modifying effects of stabilizers on the plasticity index of the
samples treated with RHA, cement, lime, LRHA, or CRHA, where the soil plasticity index
decreased by 45% in LRHA-treated soil. The plastic index of the untreated soil was 18%.
The immediate effect of adding 4% of stabilizers was to reduce this value considerably. The
plasticity index decrease was relatively faster in the soil/LRHA than in the 8soil/CRHA
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 16
mixture. Reduction in plasticity indicates an improvement (Figure 4).

30

25
Plasticity Index (%)

20

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Stabiliser Content (%)
RHA Content (%) lime Content (%) LRHA Content (%)
CementContent (%) Cement RHA Content (%)

Figure 4. Effect of stabilizer contents on treated soil plasticity index after 14 days.
Figure 4. Effect of stabilizer contents on treated soil plasticity index after 14 days.
The addition of 6% and 8% stabilizer content decreased the plasticity index to values
below those obtained with a 4% stabilizer. The plasticity index gradually reduced to 15%
in soil treated by 8% of CRHA and then remained unchanged. In contrast, the plasticity
index rate continued to drop to 9% for samples mixed with 8% of LRHA, and then it re-
 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Stabiliser Content (%)
RHA Content (%) lime Content (%) LRHA Content (%)
CementContent (%) Cement RHA Content (%)
Materials 2021, 14, 1140 8 of 15
Figure 4. Effect of stabilizer contents on treated soil plasticity index after 14 days.

The addition of 6% and 8% stabilizer content decreased the plasticity index to values
The addition
below those of 6%with
obtained and a8% 4%stabilizer content
stabilizer. decreased
The plasticity the plasticity
index graduallyindex
reducedto values
to 15%
below those obtained with a 4% stabilizer. The plasticity index gradually reduced
in soil treated by 8% of CRHA and then remained unchanged. In contrast, the plasticity to 15% in
soil treated
index rate by 8% of CRHA
continued to dropandtothen
9% remained
for samples unchanged.
mixed with In contrast, the plasticity
8% of LRHA, and then index
it re-
rate continued to drop to 9% for samples mixed with 8% of LRHA, and then
mained intact. In conclusion, it is obvious that the rate of plasticity index in the LRHA it remained
intact.
sampleIndropped
conclusion, it is obvious
throughout that the
the whole testsrate
andofwas
plasticity index
at a lower in than
level the LRHA
the CRHAsample
Fig-
dropped
ures. throughout the whole tests and was at a lower level than the CRHA Figures.
Figure
Figure55shows
showsthethemaximum
maximumdry drydensity
density(MDD)
(MDD)(γ(γdmax)
dmax)andandoptimum
optimummoisture
moisture
content (OMC) values based on the LRHA and CRHA content using a modified proctor
content (OMC) values based on the LRHA and CRHA content using a modified proctor
test. Xunli Jiang and Phanikumar observed a similar trend while using RHA mixed with
test. Xunli Jiang and Phanikumar observed a similar trend while using RHA mixed with
other agents. The reduction rate differs depending on the clay content and the stabilizer
other agents. The reduction rate differs depending on the clay content and the stabilizer
type [4,27].
type [4,27].

1.75
Maximum Dry Density (gr/cm3)

1.7

1.65

1.6
4% CRHA
1.55 8% CRHA

1.5 4% LRHA

1.45 8% LRHA

1.4

1.35
5 10 15 20 25 30
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 5. Maximum dry density (γdmax) based on stabilizer contents (1:2)

Figure 5. Maximum dry density (γdmax) based on stabilizer contents (1:2).

AsAsshown
shownininFigure
Figure5, 5,
thethe immediate
immediate effect
effect of adding
of adding CRHACRHA or LRHA
or LRHA stabilizers
stabilizers is tois
to increase the maximum dry density values sharply. However, after
increase the maximum dry density values sharply. However, after moisture contents reach moisture contents
reach
the the optimum
optimum level,
level, the MDD theapproaches
MDD approaches the original
the original values.
values. Based onBased on the compac-
the compaction test
tion test (modified proctor), the MDD was inversely proportional
(modified proctor), the MDD was inversely proportional to the OMC due to the size to the OMC duefactor
to the
sizethe
and factor and
effect of the effect of In
circulation. circulation. In all
all samples, thesamples,
maximum thedry
maximum
density dry density
of soil of soil
decreased
decreased
with with the
the addition ofaddition
RHA contentof RHA content
because ofbecause of the
the lower lowergravity
specific specificofgravity
RHA. On of RHA.
the
On the
other other
hand, thehand, the moisture
moisture content in content in RHA-treated
RHA-treated soil continuously
soil continuously increasedincreased due
due to the
to the pozzolanic reaction between RHA and soil, which needs more
pozzolanic reaction between RHA and soil, which needs more water. Treated soil with 4% water. Treated soil
with 4% CRHA showed the optimum moisture content of 16%,
CRHA showed the optimum moisture content of 16%, while when the CRHA content was while when the CRHA
content was
increased increased
to 8%, the OMC to 8%, therose
value OMC to value
17%. A rose to 17%.
similar A similar
pattern pattern in
was shown wastheshown
LRHAin
mixture. In fact, when the stabilizer content was increased from 4% to 8%, the moisture
content and MDD increased dramatically to a peak, demonstrating the optimum moisture
content [4].
The samples treated with 8% LRHA showed a 7.8% decrease in MDD (γ dmax) values
than the treated sample with 4% of LRHA. Similarly, the MDD showed a reduction of
approximately 2.3% when the CRHA content increased from 4% to 8%. This reduction in
MDD values could have been due to the pozzolanic reaction and water content.

3.2. Compression Strength Behavior

The effect of the stabilizer content and curing duration on the UCS test is shown in
Figures 6–8. These figures show the changes in the UCS values for different stabilizer mixes
in various curing periods of 7 to 90 days. A significant increase in compression strength
values recorded in samples treated with LRHA.

Materials 2021, 14, 1140
Figures 6–8. These figures show the changes in the UCS values for different stabilizer
mixes in various curing periods of 7 to 90 days. A significant increase in compression
strength values recorded in samples treated with LRHA.
Figure 6 shows apparent changes in the UCS values of soil/LRHA mixture (1:1) for
curing time of 7 days to 90 days. As for all graphs, the UCS grew consistently from9 of
0.038
15
to below 3.154 MN/m in 8% of LRHA content (1:1). The tendency increased and hit a peak
2

of 4.702 MN/m2 in 10% of LRHA content.

Strength Compression StrengthUnconfined Compression Strength

4

(MN/m2)
2
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

4 Lime/RHA Content (%) 1:1

7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 90 Days
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
Figure 36. Effect of lime and rice husk ash (LRHA) content (1:1) on unconfined compression
(MN/m2)

Figure 6. Effect of lime and rice husk ash (LRHA) content (1:1) on unconfined compression strength.
strength.
2
Figure
5 7 shows that the UCS increased sharply, while the LRHA content increased to
Unconfined CompressionUnconfined

8%. The1 maximum compression strength recorded was 4.875 MN/m2 in LRHA-treated soil
at a ratio
4 of 1:2 after 90 days of curing. The effect of additional LRHA on the UCS test
showed 0 a constant decrease in UCS values after stabilizer content exceeded 8%. In addi-
tion, the 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
3 curing time of 28 and 90 days is shown to have a sharp influence on the treated
(MN/m2)

LRHA Content (%) 1:2

soil’s strength behavior [1,15]. The maximum compression strength obtained from the
LRHA2 treated 7 Days 14 Days
samples is relatively 28 Dayswas found in
close to what 90similar
Days research recently
done by Liu [28] with a similar pattern and uprising trend.
Figure 7. Effect of LRHA content (1:2) on unconfined compression strength.
1
In contrast, according to Figure 8, the samples treated with CRHA showed a contin-
uous increase
0 in UCS values, while the cement content was increased to 10%, with the
UCS value rising 2gradually 4to 4.81 MN/m
0 6 8
2 (cured for 9010days). The12 second-highest
LRHA Content (%) 1:2
strength values were recorded from 8% CRHA samples at the ratio of 1:2, which was 4.4
MN/m2 after7 28 Daysdays of curing
14 Days
(Figure 7). As has 28 Days
been expected,90 in
Days
each of the UCS tests,
samples
Figure 7. Effect of LRHA content (1:2) on unconfined compression strength.values than samples
cured for 90 days showed higher compression strength
Figure 7. Effect of LRHA content (1:2) on unconfined compression strength.
cured for a shorter duration.
In contrast, according to Figure 8, the samples treated with CRHA showed a contin-
uous increase in UCS values, while the cement content was increased to 10%, with the
5
UCS value rising gradually to 4.81 MN/m2 (cured for 90 days). The second-highest
Strength Compression Strength

strength values were recorded from 8% CRHA samples at the ratio of 1:2, which was 4.4
MN/m24after 28 days of curing (Figure 7). As has been expected, in each of the UCS tests,
samples cured for 90 days showed higher compression strength values than samples
cured for3 a shorter duration.
(MN/m2)

2
5
Unconfined CompressionUnconfined

1
4

0
3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(MN/m2)

CRHA Content 1:2 (%)

2 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 90 Days

Figure 8. Effect of CRHA (1:2) content on unconfined compression strength.

Figure 8. Effect of CRHA (1:2) content on unconfined compression strength.
1
3.3. Figure
Shear Stress Behavior
6 shows apparent changes in the UCS values of soil/LRHA mixture (1:1) for
curingFigure
time
0 of97shows
days tothe
90 changes
days. Asin
forshear
all graphs,
stress the UCS grew
(τ) versus consistently
horizontal from
strain 0.038 soil
on pure to
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
and specimens treated with 4 and 8% LRHA and CRHA at the ratio of 1:2, under normal
CRHA Content 1:2 (%)
stress of 0.5 MPa for curing periods of 7 days and 14 days.
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 90 Days

Figure 8. Effect of CRHA (1:2) content on unconfined compression strength.

Materials 2021, 14, 1140 10 of 15

below 3.154 MN/m2 in 8% of LRHA content (1:1). The tendency increased and hit a peak
of 4.702 MN/m2 in 10% of LRHA content.
Figure 7 shows that the UCS increased sharply, while the LRHA content increased to
8%. The maximum compression strength recorded was 4.875 MN/m2 in LRHA-treated
soil at a ratio of 1:2 after 90 days of curing. The effect of additional LRHA on the UCS test
showed a constant decrease in UCS values after stabilizer content exceeded 8%. In addition,
the curing time of 28 and 90 days is shown to have a sharp influence on the treated soil’s
strength behavior [1,15]. The maximum compression strength obtained from the LRHA
treated samples is relatively close to what was found in similar research recently done by
Liu [28] with a similar pattern and uprising trend.
In contrast, according to Figure 8, the samples treated with CRHA showed a continu-
ous increase in UCS values, while the cement content was increased to 10%, with the UCS
value rising gradually to 4.81 MN/m2 (cured for 90 days). The second-highest strength
values were recorded from 8% CRHA samples at the ratio of 1:2, which was 4.4 MN/m2
after 28 days of curing (Figure 7). As has been expected, in each of the UCS tests, samples
cured for 90 days showed higher compression strength values than samples cured for a
shorter duration.

3.3. Shear Stress Behavior

Figure 9 shows the changes in shear stress (τ) versus horizontal strain on pure soil
and specimens
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW treated with 4 and 8% LRHA and CRHA at the ratio of 1:2, under normal
11 of 16
stress of 0.5 MPa for curing periods of 7 days and 14 days.

0.14

0.12
Shear Stress (MPa)

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Horizontal Strain (%)
7 days - 4% LRHA 7 days - 8% LRHA 7 days - 8% CRHA
14 days - 4% LRHA 14 days - 8% LRHA Soil

Figure9.9.Shear
Figure Shearstress
stresstotohorizontal
horizontal strains
strains diagram—LRHA
diagram—LRHA 1:21:2 (vertical
(vertical stress
stress 0.50.5 MPa).
MPa).

Thestrain
The straindata
dataaccumulated
accumulatedfrom fromsix sixtests,
tests,obtained
obtainedfrom
fromuntreated
untreated soil
soil andsamples
and samples
treated with LRHA in the lower level (4%) after 7 days curing, showed
treated with LRHA in the lower level (4%) after 7 days curing, showed lower shear stress lower shear stress
values than those treated
values than those treated with with higher levels
levels of LRHA and longer curing duration. sim-
of LRHA and longer curing duration. A A
ilar pattern
similar patternwaswas obtained
obtained bybyPhanikumar
Phanikumar [27][27]
butbut
in higher
in higherlevels of shear
levels strength.
of shear The
strength.
stabilizer
The material
stabilizer materialused was
used lime
was limesludge
sludge mixed
mixed with cement.
with cement.
According
According to to Figure
Figure 9, LRHA
9, LRHA treatment
treatment showedshowed a significant
a significant increase
increase in strength.
in strength. This
This immediate
immediate improvement
improvement in strength
in strength led toworkability.
led to better better workability. By increasing
By increasing the LRHA the
LRHAfrom
content content
4% from
to 8%,4% to 8%, with
together together with the
the curing curing
time, time, the
the shear shearincreased
strength strength increased
sharply,
while the horizontal
sharply, strain also strain
while the horizontal increased.also Meanwhile, when the LRHA
increased. Meanwhile, when content
the LRHA exceeded
content
8%, the samples
exceeded suddenly
8%, the samples became
suddenlyfragile at a strain
became of 6%.
fragile at aHowever,
strain of stress changes show
6%. However, stress
that with increasing
changes show that LRHA content from
with increasing LRHA 4 tocontent
8%, thefrom
shear stress
4 to 8%, increased dramatically.
the shear stress increased
dramatically.

3.4. Effect of LRHA and CRHA on Soil Cohesion and Internal Friction
Figures 10–12 demonstrate the changes in the cohesion of treated soil based on vari-
ous agents. According to Figure 10, the soil sample treated with 8% LRHA in the ratio of
 values than those treated with higher levels of LRHA and longer curing duration. A sim-
ilar pattern was obtained by Phanikumar [27] but in higher levels of shear strength. The
stabilizer material used was lime sludge mixed with cement.
According to Figure 9, LRHA treatment showed a significant increase in strength.
This immediate improvement in strength led to better workability. By increasing the
Materials 2021, 14, 1140 LRHA content from 4% to 8%, together with the curing time, the shear strength increased 11 of 15
sharply, while the horizontal strain also increased. Meanwhile, when the LRHA content
exceeded 8%, the samples suddenly became fragile at a strain of 6%. However, stress
changes show that with increasing LRHA content from 4 to 8%, the shear stress increased
dramatically.
3.4. Effect of LRHA and CRHA on Soil Cohesion and Internal Friction
3.4.Figures 10–12and
Effect of LRHA demonstrate
CRHA on Soil the changes
Cohesion andin the cohesion
Internal Friction of treated soil based on various
agents. According
Figures to Figure 10,
10–12 demonstrate the the soil in
changes sample treated
the cohesion with 8%
of treated soilLRHA
based on invari-
the ratio of 1:1
forous agents.ofAccording
7 days to Figure
curing shows 10, the soil sample
a significant treated
increase with 8% LRHA
in cohesion values in the ratio of
(440%) compared to
1:1 for 7 days
untreated of curing
samples andshows a significant
a sharp increase inincrease in cohesion
cohesion of 33%values (440%)tocompared
compared the samples treated
to untreated
with (8%) LRHA samples
at aand a sharp
ratio of 1:2increase
after 7 in cohesion
days curing of (Figure
33% compared
11). to the samples
treated with (8%) LRHA at a ratio of 1:2 after 7 days curing (Figure 11).

0.045
0.04
0.035
Cohesion (MN/m2)

0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Lime/RHA Content (%) 1:1
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 90 Days

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 10. Effect of lime/RHA 1:1 content on cohesion. 12 of 16
Figure 10. Effect of lime/RHA 1:1 content on cohesion.

0.05
0.045
0.04
Cohesion (MN/m2)

0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Lime/RHA Content (%) 1:2
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 90 Days

Figure
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11. Effect of lime/RHA 1:2 content on cohesion. 13 of 16
Figure 11. Effect of lime/RHA 1:2 content on cohesion.
When the curing time increased to 90 days, the cohesion dramatically increased for
all types
3 of mixtures. When the lime content increased by more than 6%, the cohesion rose
gradually with further addition of lime. A similar pattern was shown in research by Qiang
[29].2.5The cohesion values obtained were lower due to using only lime as a stabilizer. The
Cohesion (MN/m2)

maximum cohesion recorded by the author was obtained using 6% lime and a loading
rate 2of 8%/min. Similar to the findings of this research, Qiang showed that the cohesion
values increased almost linearly with the increase in lime content. After cohesion reached
1.5
its peak, with additional lime content, the values started dropping drastically.
1
As a result of mixing 4%, 8%, and 10% LRHA with soil in a ratio of 1:2 for 7, 14, 28,
and 90 days of curing (Figure 10), there was an increase in cohesion values compared to
the 0.5
LRHA-soil mixtures in a ratio of 1:1 (Figure 9). As the curing time was extended to 90
days, the maximum cohesion value increased by 720% and 780% for 8% LRHA with soil
in 1:10 and 1:2, respectively.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
The important point regarding the samples stabilized with LRHA (1:2) is that the
Cement/RHA Content (%) 1:2
cohesion slightly decreased with the addition of more than 8% lime (Figures 10 and 11).
At the same time, there 7 Days
was an upward 14 Days trend in 28 Days 90 Days
the cohesion with the addition of LRHA
(1:1). As seen, the cohesion of the
Figure 12. Effect of CRHA (1:2) on soil cohesion. soil sample treated with 8% lime/RHA at a ratio of 1:2
Figure
after 712. Effect
days of CRHA
of curing was(1:2) on soil cohesion.
approximately 620% more than that of the untreated soil (Table
2). As shown in Figures 13 and 14, the internal friction angle in samples stabilized with
8% lime/RHA
As shown in the ratio of 1:1
in Figures 10and
and1:2 11,forthe90increase
days, increased by 580%
in cohesion was and 770%, to
related respec-
increased lime
tively,
or LRHA compared to the
content. untreated
This increase soil.
could have been due to the strong bonding between the
The increase in the internal friction angle can be explained by the flocculation of the
binder elements and the aggregates. However, there was a dramatic increase in the cohe-
soil particles with the addition of lime, following which the particle size distribution of
sion at the later stages and in the samples cured and stabilized for a more extended period
Materials 2021, 14, 1140 12 of 15

When the curing time increased to 90 days, the cohesion dramatically increased for
all types of mixtures. When the lime content increased by more than 6%, the cohesion
rose gradually with further addition of lime. A similar pattern was shown in research by
Qiang [29]. The cohesion values obtained were lower due to using only lime as a stabilizer.
The maximum cohesion recorded by the author was obtained using 6% lime and a loading
rate of 8%/min. Similar to the findings of this research, Qiang showed that the cohesion
values increased almost linearly with the increase in lime content. After cohesion reached
its peak, with additional lime content, the values started dropping drastically.
As a result of mixing 4%, 8%, and 10% LRHA with soil in a ratio of 1:2 for 7, 14, 28,
and 90 days of curing (Figure 10), there was an increase in cohesion values compared to the
LRHA-soil mixtures in a ratio of 1:1 (Figure 9). As the curing time was extended to 90 days,
the maximum cohesion value increased by 720% and 780% for 8% LRHA with soil in 1:1
and 1:2, respectively.
The important point regarding the samples stabilized with LRHA (1:2) is that the
cohesion slightly decreased with the addition of more than 8% lime (Figures 10 and 11). At
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16
the same time, there was an upward trend in the cohesion with the addition of LRHA (1:1).
As seen, the cohesion of the soil sample treated with 8% lime/RHA at a ratio of 1:2 after
7 days of curing was approximately 620% more than that of the untreated soil (Table 2).
3
As shown in Figures 10 and 11, the increase in cohesion was related to increased
lime 2.5or LRHA content. This increase could have been due to the strong bonding between
Cohesion (MN/m2)

the binder elements and the aggregates. However, there was a dramatic increase in the
2
cohesion at the later stages and in the samples cured and stabilized for a more extended
period 1.5
(from 7 days to 90 days) with the combination of lime and rice husk ash (ratio of 1:2).
Furthermore, the combination of 8% lime + 16% RHA exhibited a high increase in cohesion
beyond 1 the curing period of 7, 14, 28, and 90 days. When the lime content exceeded 8%,
the cohesion became steady and, in some cases, showed a slow increase.
0.5
The direct shear box test result of the samples treated with CRHA shows a tremendous
increase 0 in cohesion due to the stabilizer material. The cohesion values show a consistent
0 2 4 6
trend with an increase in CRHA content. For 78 days and1014 days of 12
curing, the cohesion
Cement/RHA Content (%) 1:2
increased gradually with further increases in the cement. The same change occurred in
the lime-treated samples. 7 Days However,14 Days after 28 days, the90cohesion
28 Days Days improved rapidly from
0.9 MN/m 2 to 2.15 MN/m2 (cement content increased from 4% to 10%). A significant
Figure 12. Effect of CRHA (1:2) on soil cohesion.
change occurred when the curing duration was extended to 90 days. The cohesion increased
by 46% As shown in Figures
with the addition13 and
of 14,
6%the internalcontent
cement friction angle in samples
(Figure 12). stabilized with
8% lime/RHA in the ratio of 1:1 and 1:2 for 90 days, increased by 580% and 770%, respec-
As shown in Figures 13 and 14, the internal friction angle in samples stabilized with 8%
tively, compared to the untreated soil.
lime/RHA in the
The increase in ratio of 1:1friction
the internal and 1:2 forcan
angle 90 be
days, increased
explained by the by 580% and
flocculation 770%, respectively,
of the
compared
soil particlestowith
thetheuntreated
addition of soil.
lime, following which the particle size distribution of
the soil to a finer material and the pozzolanic reaction resulted in higher ϕ values.

40

35
Angle of Internal Friction (φ)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Lime/RHA Content (%)
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 90 Days

Figure 13. Internal friction angle in treated soil with LRHA 1:1.
Figure 13. Internal friction angle in treated soil with LRHA 1:1.
Materials
Materials2021, 14,14,
2021, 1140
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1314
ofof
1516

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16

50

(φ)Friction (φ)
45
40
35
50
30
45

of Internal
25
AngleFriction 40
20
35
15
30
Angle of Internal

10
25
205
150
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
10
Lime/RHA Content (%)
5
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 90 Days
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 14. Internal friction angle in treated soil with LRHA 1:2
Lime/RHA
Figure 14. Internal friction angle in treated soilContent (%) 1:2
with LRHA
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 90 Days
Increasing
The increasethe limeinternal
in the contentfriction
in the LRHA mixture
angle can (1:2) to 8%
be explained by led
the to a rise in the
flocculation ofinter-
the
nal
soil friction
particles to
with44°theafter 90
addition days
of of
lime,curing, which
following
Figure 14. Internal friction angle in treated soil with LRHA 1:2 is
which the
themaximum
particle internal
size friction
distribution ofangle
the
recorded during all the tests. With a further increase in
soil to a finer material and the pozzolanic reaction resulted in higher φ values.the lime content (more than 8%),
the Increasing
value of ϕthe
Increasing was
thelimerelatively
limecontent
contentconstant.
in in
thethe
LRHAWhen
LRHA the curing
mixture
mixture (1:2) time
to
(1:2) 8% for
to 8% the
ledled sample
to atorise treated
in the
a rise with
internal
in the inter-
friction
8% to
LRHA 44 ◦(1:1)
after 90 days
increased of curing,
from 7 which
days to is
28the maximum
days, the internal
angle of friction
internal angle
friction recorded
increased
nal friction to 44° after 90 days of curing, which is the maximum internal friction angle
during
by about
recordedall the
10°
duringtests.
(46%).allWith a further
the tests. Withincrease
a further in increase
the lime in content
the lime(more than (more
content 8%), the thanvalue
8%),
ofthe
φ was relatively
Although the constant.
friction When
angle the curing
increased time
sharply for
in the
LRHA sample
soil
value of ϕ was relatively constant. When the curing time for the sample treated with treated
samples, with
the 8% LRHA
highest in-
(1:1) increased
crease
8% was from
recorded 7 days
from to 28
soil days,
samples the angle
treated of
with internal
8% friction
CRHA
LRHA (1:1) increased from 7 days to 28 days, the angle of internal friction increased increased
after 28 days byof about
curing
◦ (46%).
10compared
by about 10° to(46%).
a similar specimen cured for 7 days (Figure 15). Qiang [29] showed the
Although
change curve thethe
of friction
cohesionangle
andincreased
the internal sharply
frictionin LRHA soil samples, the highest
Although the friction angle increased sharply in angle
LRHAunder the curing
soil samples, theperiod
highest ofin-
21
increase
days. It was recorded from
demonstrated that soilϕsamples
the values treated the
reached with 8% CRHA
maximum afterthe
when 28lime
dayscontent
of curing was
crease was recorded from soil samples treated with 8% CRHA after 28 days of curing
compared to a similardecreased.
6% and gradually specimen The curedchanges
for 7 days (Figure 15). Qiang [29] showed thearechange
compared to a similar specimen cured forin7 friction angle
days (Figure reported
15). Qiang by [29]
Qiangshowed in the
ac-
curve of thewith
cordance cohesion
the and the
current internal friction angle under the curing period of 21 days. It
findings.
change curve of the cohesion and the internal friction angle under the curing period of 21
demonstrated that the φ values reached the maximum when the lime content was 6% and
days. It demonstrated that the ϕ values reached the maximum when the lime content was
gradually decreased. The changes in friction angle reported by Qiang are in accordance
6% and50gradually decreased. The changes in friction angle reported by Qiang are in ac-
with the current findings.
cordance 45 with the current findings.
(φ)Friction (φ)

40
50
35
45
30
of Internal

40
25
AngleFriction

35
20
30
15
Angle of Internal

25
10
205

150

10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cement Content %
5
7- Days 14- Days 28-Days 90-Days
0
Figure 15.0Internal friction
2 angle in4 treated soil6 with CRHA8 1:2. 10 12
Cement Content %
7- Days 14- Days 28-Days 90-Days

Figure 15. Internal friction angle in treated soil with CRHA 1:2.
Figure 15. Internal friction angle in treated soil with CRHA 1:2.
Materials 2021, 14, 1140 14 of 15

4. Conclusions
The behavior of soil samples treated with lime/RHA and cement/RHA was investi-
gated in this research. The detailed conclusion is as follows:
1. With a curing time extended to 28 days and 90 days and a higher level of LRHA up
to 8% (1:2) mixture, there was a significant improvement in the optimum moisture
content values (OMC) of about 10%.
2. The results derived from the UCS and direct shear tests suggest that increasing
the LRHA content (8% lime and 16% RHA (ratio of 1:2 after seven days of curing)
enhanced the maximum shear strength (τmax) up to 46%. The adhesion and internal
friction (8% lime/RHA and 28 days of curing time) reduced up to 45% of the vertical
soil displacement.
3. There was a dramatic increase in the internal friction (ϕ) to 38.5◦ (770% increase) and
an increase of 58% in the shear stress (τ) of the samples treated with 8% Lime/RHA
in the mixing ratio of 1:2 compared to the untreated soil. The maximum increase in ϕ
and cohesion values were 44◦ and 0.44 MN/m2 , which were obtained from samples
treated with 8% LRHA in 1:2 ratio after 90 days of curing.
4. Cohesion values increased considerably by additional LRHA in the ratio of 1:2 for
7 days (33%) and 90 days (7%) compared to the samples treated with LRHA 1:1. In
addition, there was an increase in cohesion values of 46% compared to the samples
treated with (10%) LRHA in the ratio of 1:1 after 7 days of curing. The optimum
cohesion and ϕ values are quite comparable and similar to the sample treated with
cement/RHA.
5. The soil treated with LRHA in the ratio of 1:2 (8% lime content) showed a tremen-
dous increase in shear stress (936.63%) at normal stress of 200 kPa, compared to the
untreated soil after 90 days.
6. Overall, the soil mixture with 8% LRHA in the portion of 1:2 showed competitive and
quite similar strength properties, including shear strength and cohesion, compared to
samples treated with cement mixture. Hence, it is strongly recommended to replace
lime with cement in coastal soil treatment.

5. Future Scope
• Only a strength study and simulation have been used to evaluate the coastline and
coastal sediments. It is recommended to examine and simulate the model’s capability
for the Bagan Lalang roadside area and the peat zone.
• It is recommended to study the effect of monsoon and rainfall on sediment texture
and soil properties on the West Coast to study the sediments’ behavior during and
after treatment.
• For more sensitive results, 2D/3D Analysis and simulation is recommended, consider-
ing the third-dimensional confining effect.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.E.; methodology, Z.E.; formal analysis, Z.E.; investiga-
tion, Z.E.; resources, Z.E.; data curation, Z.E.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.E.; writing—
review and editing, Z.E., N.N.N.D., Z.M.Y., V.R.; visualization, Z.E., V.R.; supervision, N.N.N.D.,
Z.M.Y.; project administration, Z.E.; funding acquisition, Civil Engineering Department, Engineering
Faculty, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Z.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Universiti Putra Malaysia and Eliaslankaran, Z.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: This paper is a part of an extensive Doctoral research project and all
finding, materials and test methods is mentioned on the thesis. The PhD thesis will be sumbited to
Universiti Putra Malaysia’s Library before end of 2021.
Materials 2021, 14, 1140 15 of 15

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Yunus, N.Z.M. Strength of lime-cement stabilized tropical lateritic clay contaminated by heavy metals. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 19,
887–892. [CrossRef]
2. Neville, A.M. Properties of Concrete. In Pearson Education Asia Publ; Longman Malaysia: London, UK, 2000.
3. Mehta, P.K. Rice husk ash—A unique supplementary cementing material. Proc. Int. Symp. Adv. Concr. Technol. 1995, 154, 531–542.
4. Jiang, X.; Huang, Z.; Ma, F.; Luo, X. Analysis of Strength Development and Soil–Water Characteristics of Rice Husk Ash–Lime
Stabilized Soft Soil. Materials 2019, 12, 3873. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Muntohar, A.S.; Hantoro, G. Influence of rice husk ash and lime on engineering properties clayey subgrade. Electron. J. Geotech.
Eng. 2000, 5, 1–13.
6. Heidemann, M.; Neto, A.T.; Barra, B.; Perez, Y.G. Stabilization of a silty-sand soil with organic matter using lime and cement.
In Proceedings of the CGE—2nd International Conference “Challenges in Geotechnical Engineering”, Kiev, Ukraine, 20–23
November 2017.
7. Praveer, B.A.M. Replacement of Cement with Rice Husk Ash in Concrete. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharda
University, Greater Noida, India, 2015.
8. Van Tuan, N.; Guang, Y.; Dai, B.D. Study the Hydration Process of Cement Blended with Rice Husk Ash by Means of Isothermal
Calorimetry. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement, Madrid, Spain, 21–25 July 2011; pp.
1–7.
9. Kaur, P. Soil Improvement with Lime. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 2012, 1, 51–53. [CrossRef]
10. Saje, D.; Saje, F. Compressive Strength of Concrete Containing Silica Fume; University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic
Engineering: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2009.
11. Alhassan, M.; Mustapha, A. Effect of rice husk ash on cement stabilized laterite. Leonardo Electron. J. Pract. Technol. 2007, 11,
47–58.
12. Alhassan, M. Potentials of Rice Husk Ash for Soil Stabilization. AU J. Technol. 2008, 11, 246–250.
13. Ye, G.; Nguyen, V.T. Using rice husk ash to mitigate the autogenous shrinkage in ultra-high-performance concrete. In Proceedings
of the International Workshop on Sustainable and Science-Driven Engineering of Cement-Based Materials, Beijing, China, 18–19
July 2011; pp. 187–194.
14. Rahman, Z.A.; Ashari, H.H.; Sahibin, A.R.; Tukimat, L.; Razi, I.W.M. Effect of Rice Husk Ash Addition on Geotechnical
Characteristics of Treated Residual Soil. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2014, 14, 1368–1377.
15. Imbabi, M.S.; Carrigan, C.; McKenna, S. Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology. Int. J. Sustain. Built
Environ. 2012, 1, 194–216. [CrossRef]
16. Kurda, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J. Toxicity and environmental and economic performance of fly ash and recycled concrete
aggregates use in concrete: A review. Heliyon 2018, 4, e00611. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Holland, N.L.; Nichols, A.B.; Nichols, J.M. The Use of Hydrated Lime in Concrete as a Cement Replacement: Effect on
Compressive Strength. ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ. 2012, 1557, 106–112. [CrossRef]
18. ASTM D422-63(2007) e2. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Withdrawn 2016); ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007.
19. ASTM D7928-17. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation
(Hydrometer) Analysis; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
20. Ingles, O.G.; Metcalf, J.B. Soil Stabilization, Principle and Practice; Butterworth: Sydney, Australia, 1972.
21. Firoozi, A.A.; Guney Olgun, C.; Firoozi, A.A.; Baghini, M.S. Fundamentals of soil stabilization. Int. J. Geo-Eng. 2017, 8, 26.
[CrossRef]
22. ASTM D1632. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Soil-Cement Compression and Flexure Test Specimens in the Laboratory; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
23. ASTM D4318-10. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils; ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
24. ASTM D1557-12e1. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
25. ASTM D2166-06. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil; ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2006.
26. ASTM D3080/D3080M-11. Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions (Withdrawn
2020); ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
27. Phanikumar, B.R.; Raju, E.R. Compaction and strength characteristics of an expansive clay stabilized with lime sludge and cement.
Soils Found. 2020, 60, 129–138. [CrossRef]
28. Liu, Y. Stabilization of expansive soil using cementing material from rice husk ash and calcium carbide residue. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2019, 221, 1–11. [CrossRef]
29. Qiang, Y.; Chen, Y. Experimental Research on the Mechanical Behavior of Lime-Treated Soil under Different Loading Rates. Adv.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 2015. [CrossRef]