Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 309e318

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Life cycle assessment for soil stabilization dosages: A study for the
Paraguayan Chaco
Cecília Gravina da Rocha*, Ana Passuello, Nilo Cesar Consoli,
Rube
n Alejandro Quin~o

nez Samaniego, Ne
stor Masamune Kanazawa
Department of Civil Engineering (DECIV), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99 e 3 andar, Porto Alegre, RS, 90035-190,
Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Geotechnical engineering can account for a considerable portion of the environmental impact in infra-
Received 16 November 2015 structure and construction projects. As a result, sustainability is increasingly becoming a key research
Received in revised form topic in this area. This paper assesses the environmental impact of clay-lime blends for the Paraguayan
28 July 2016
Chaco region. More specifically, it compares distinct dosages to attain a target strength (unconfined
Accepted 31 July 2016
Available online 6 August 2016
compressive strength and splitting tensile strength) and stiffness (initial shear modulus) using life cycle
assessment (LCA). Seven impact categories were considered: acidification, eutrophication, photochemical
oxidation, depletion of abiotic resources, stratospheric ozone depletion, global warming, and embodied
Keywords:
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
energy. For all target values of strength and stiffness examined, low-binder/high-density dosages have a
Sustainability lower impact across all categories compared to high-binder/low-density dosages. More specifically,
Geotechnical engineering minimal impact across all categories is attained when the smallest binder content (required to attain a
Ground improvement target strength or stiffness) is used. Changes in binder content and density produce major increases in
three categories: energy consumption, global warming, and photochemical oxidation. Lime production
accounts for more than 75% of the total energy, greenhouse gases emission, and photochemical oxidation
for each of the blends examined. This supports previous research, which shows that materials accounts
for a considerable part of energy consumption in geotechnical works. As a result, minimizing binder
content and maximizing density are main strategies to create more sustainable dosages for soil
stabilization.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Sustainability is becoming a major concern for the construction
industry and its subsectors. This includes geotechnical engineering,
which focuses on the design of earthworks (embankments, dikes,
levees, channels, reservoirs), foundations, retaining walls, and
pavement subgrades required for major building and infrastructure
projects (e.g., Lambe and Whitman, 1979; Xanthakos et al., 1994;
Terzaghi et al., 1996). Geotechnical engineering involves extensive
changes in the earth surface and soil properties and, consequently,
accounts for a considerable portion of energy and materials
consumed in a project (Holt et al., 2010; Abreu et al., 2008). As a
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cecilia.rocha@ufrgs.br (C.G. da Rocha), anapassuello@gmail.
com (A. Passuello), consoli@ufrgs.br (N.C. Consoli), ale_quinonez@hotmail.com
~o
(R.A. Quin
nez Samaniego), nkanazawa@gmail.com (N.M. Kanazawa).
result, it is an important link in the construction chain that can also
contribute towards the sustainable agenda (Holt et al., 2010).
In spite of that, research on sustainability in geotechnical engi-
neering is still limited (Holt et al., 2010; Jefferis, 2008). This means
there is little information to support decision-making in geotech-
nical projects, and consequently opportunities to improve their
sustainability are missed (Holt et al., 2010). According to Jefferis
(2008), such a lack of information is surprising considering that
this subsector involves major changes in the earth surface that will
endure for decades and the use of large quantities of materials.
Studies assessing the sustainability (social, economic, and envi-
ronmental) of techniques used in geotechnical engineering are also
scarce.
This is the case for soil stabilization, a technique that involves
the use of blends of soil and binders (e.g. lime, cement, gypsum) to
improve properties such as strength and stiffness (e.g. Ingles and
Metcalf, 1972; Consoli et al., 2012a,b). One trend in existing
studies is to examine the suitability of wastes or by-products in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.219
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
310 C.G. da Rocha et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 309e318
ground improvement applications (e.g. Mujah et al., 2013; Ahmad
et al., 2012). Another trend is to analyze and compare ground
improvement techniques based on number of environmental
criteria (e.g. Jefferson et al., 2010; Egan and Slocombe, 2010;
Harbottle et al., 2007).
Jefferson et al. (2010) discusses the sustainability evaluation of
vibro stone columns, particularly the aggregates nature, and how
carbon dioxide emissions can be used as an environmental indi-
cator for this ground improvement technique. Egan and Slocombe
(2010) present the carbon dioxide emissions breakdown for two
ground improvement alternatives (vibro stone column and piling)
for an office development. Finally, Harbottle et al. (2007) apply life
cycle assessment to compare two land remediation techniques (soil
stabilization and landfilling) considering five impact categories.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has also been successfully applied to
evaluate the environmental performance of roads (Biswas, 2013;
Celauro et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2009). Between those, Celauro
et al. (2015) evaluated and compared different road construction
techniques to identify the best alternative in terms of environ-
mental sustainability. The authors found that the use of fine soils
stabilized with lime ‘‘in situ’’ in embankments is not only a good
technical solution for improving soil mechanical properties, but it
also produces a reduction of energy consumption and pollutant
emissions, compared to the typical solutions in which virgin ma-
terials transportation is involved. Yet, the environmental impact of
distinct dosages for soil stabilization still needs further research.
This paper advances in fulfilling this gap by assessing the
environmental impacts of a clayey soil stabilized with lime, which
can be used in the Paraguayan Chaco region for different purposes
(e.g. dams, embankments, subgrades of pavements, and landfill
bottom liners). More specifically, this research compares the impact
of distinct dosages to attain a target strength (unconfined
compressive strength and splitting tensile strength) and stiffness
(initial shear modulus) using life cycle assessment (LCA). The soil
examined here is dispersive and stabilization is required to convert
it into a non-dispersive soil (Consoli et al., 2016). As reported in
previous studies (e.g. Sherard et al., 1976; Ingles, 1985; Wan and
Fell, 2004; Bell and Maud, 1994; Richards and Reddy, 2007), the
non-treatment of dispersive soil for earth dams, hydraulic struc-
tures, roadway embankments and subgrades has led to problems
such as erosion, piping damage and even structural failure.
Previous studies (e.g. Consoli et al., 2009a, 2011a,b, 2012c, 2014)
have shown that several properties of stabilized soils, including
dispersive ones (Consoli et al., 2016), are governed by a ratio be-
tween porosity and binder content. Essentially, this ratio shows
that a target performance for a given property can be attained with
a dosage with low-binder content and high-density (or low
porosity). Alternatively, it can be attained with a high-binder con-
tent and low-density (or high porosity). Thus, the question that
arises and which is answered here can be summarized as follow:
which dosage has a lower impact from an environmental view-
point: a low-binder/high-density dosage or a high-binder/low-
density dosage?
Table 1
Materials characteristics.
Variables
Specific gravity of the soil grains
Specific gravity of the hydrated lime grains
Soil grain size distribution
Mean particle diameter (soil)
ASTM D 2487 soil classification (ASTM, 2006)
Soil pH
Optimum moisture content (soil only)
2. Strength and stiffness of clay-lime blends
2.1. Experimental program
The experimental program was carried out in two parts. First,
the properties of the clayey soil were characterized. Next, a number
of unconfined compression, splitting tensile, and ultrasonic pulse
velocity tests were carried out for clay-hydrated lime blends
considering distinct amounts of lime, dry unit weights and distinct
curing time periods. Additional details regarding this experimental
program can be found in Consoli et al. (2016).
2.1.1. Materials and methods
The clayey soil was obtained from the region of Paraguayan
Chaco (Western Region of Paraguay), specifically at the Department
of President Hayes. Disturbed samples were collected in sufficient
amount to complete all tests. Table 1 provides an overview of the
characteristics of the lime and soil studied. According to Mitchell
(1981), the minimum amount of lime to stabilize clayey soils is
about 3%. Besides, 5% and 7% of hydrated lime were chosen
considering international experience with soilelime blends
(Mitchell, 1981; Consoli et al., 2001, 2011a,b; Thome
et al., 2005).
The molding points for all tests carried out herein had a moisture
content of about 13% (optimum moisture content for modified
Proctor). They also had three different dry unit weights (19 kN/m3 e
the maximum dry unit weight for modified Proctor compaction
effort and other two values below it e 17.5 kN/m3 and 16 kN/m3, in
order to study a whole working range of field applications) and
three binder contents (3%, 5% and 7% of lime). Three curing time
periods were examined (7, 28 and 60 days) which are usual curing
periods for applications in the field. Binder content denotes the
percentage of binder (in mass) in relation to the specimen total dry
mass of solids. All combinations of binder content and densities
were studied, resulting in nine distinct dosages (three binder
contents multiplied by three dry unit weights).
2.1.1.1. Molding and curing of specimens. For the mechanical
strength and stiffness tests, cylindrical specimens 50 mm in diam-
eter and 100 mm high were used. A target dry unit weight (dry unit
weight will be simply refereed as density from here onwards) for a
given specimen was then established through the dry mass of clay-
lime divided by the total volume of the specimen. In order to keep
the density of the specimens constant with increasing lime content,
a small portion of the clay was replaced by lime. As the specific
gravity of the lime grains was 2.60, for the calculation of porosity, a
composite specific gravity based on the clay and lime and per-
centages in the specimens was used. After the clay, lime and water
were weighed, the clay and lime were mixed until the mixture ac-
quired a uniform consistency. The water was then added, continuing
the mixing process until a homogeneous paste was created. The
amount of lime for each mixture was calculated based on the mass
of dry clay. The specimen was then statically compacted in three
layers inside a cylindrical split mold, so that each layer reached the
Results
2.74
2.60
Fine grains (93%) and sand grains (7%)
0.005 mm
Lean clay (CL)
8.3
13%
 C.G. da Rocha et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 309e318
specified density. The samples were then placed inside plastic bags
to avoid significant variations of moisture content. They were cured
in a humid room at 21
±2
C and relative humidity above 95%.
2.1.2. Unconfined compression tests
Unconfined compression tests have been systematically used in
most experimental programs reported in the literature in order to
verify the effectiveness of the stabilization with binders or to access
the importance of influencing factors on the strength of cemented
materials. One of the reasons for this is the accumulated experience
with this kind of test for concrete. The tests followed standard
ASTM C39 (ASTM, 2012), being simple and fast, while reliable and
inexpensive. Before carrying out testing, the specimens were sub-
merged in a water tank for 24 h for saturation to minimize suction
(Consoli et al., 2011a,b). The water temperature was controlled and
maintained at 21
C ± 2
C. Immediately before the test, the spec-
imens were removed from the tank and dried superficially with an
absorbent cloth. Then, the unconfined compression test was carried
out and the maximum load recorded. Because of the typical scatter
of data for unconfined compression tests, for each point, three
specimens were tested.
2.1.3. Splitting tensile tests
Splitting tensile tests followed standard ASTM C496 (ASTM,
2011). An automatic loading machine with maximum capacity of
50 kN and a proving ring with capacity of 10 kN and resolution of
0.005 kN were used for the splitting tensile tests. After curing in the
humid room and before carrying out testing the specimens were
submerged in a water tank for 24 h for saturation to minimize
suction (Consoli et al., 2011a,b). The water temperature was
controlled and maintained at about 21
C ± 2
C. Immediately
before the test, the specimens were removed from the tank and
dried superficially with an absorbent cloth. Then, a cylindrical
specimen was placed horizontally between the platens of the
compression-testing machine. The specimen was compressed by
loading it along two opposite generatrices (two lines on the surface
of a cylinder contained in a unique plane which is perpendicular to
the cylinder base and which intersects the cylinder axis) leading to
failure in tension along the plane formed by these two generatrices
(the maximum load was recorded).
Fig. 1. Variation of (a) unconfined compressive strength (qu) and splitting tensile strength (qt), and (b) initial shear modulus (Go) with adjusted porosity-binder ratio.
311
2.1.3.1. Ultrasonic elastic constants and pulse velocity tests.
Elastic properties of artificially cemented soils might be determined
through the use of ultrasonic pulse velocity tests carried out ac-
cording to standard ASTM D2845 (ASTM, 2008). Transducers are
coupled to the top and bottom of the specimens through the use of
special coupler gel. The accuracy of the measurement depends
upon the ability of the operator to determine precisely the distance
between the transducers and of the equipment to measure pre-
cisely the pulse transit time. The waveform should have a decaying
sinusoidal shape. The analysis of the results allows establishing the
initial shear modulus (Go) for each specific porosity and cement
amount used in the blends.
2.2. Strength and stiffness results
Consoli et al. (2016) have shown that the strength and stiffness
of the clay-lime blends examined here can be expressed as math-
ematical equations involving the following adjusted porosity-
binder ratio: h/(Liv)0.16. Fig. 1(a) presents the unconfined
compressive strength (qu) and tensile strength (qt) as a function of
such ratio [expressed as porosity (h) divided by the volumetric lime
content (Liv), the latter expressed as a percentage of lime volume
regarding total volume (Consoli et al., 2009a,b)] for the three curing
period studied (7, 28 and 60 days). Good correlations (R2 ¼ 0.96 for
the three curing period studied) were observed between h/(Liv)0.16
and qu of the clay-lime blends studied. Good correlations
(R2 ¼ 0.98, 0.95 and 0.97) between h/(Liv)0.16 and qt were also ob-
tained for the three curing periods studied, respectively for 7, 28
days and 60 days of curing [Fig. 1(a)]. Finally, good correlations
(R2 ¼ 0.91, 0.91 and 0.99 respectively for 7, 28 and 60 days of curing)
were observed between h/(Liv)0.16 and initial shear modulus (Go)
[Fig. 1(b)]. In addition, for each equation, there is a one-to-one
correspondence between the adjusted porosity-binder ratio and
performance, i.e. for each curing period there is a single value of
strength or stiffness for every ratio value.
3. Life cycle assessment (LCA) method
This LCA study follows the ISO14040/44 methodology (ISO,
2006a,b) and involves four iterative phases: (i) goal and scope
312 C.G. da Rocha et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 309e318

definition, (ii) inventory analysis, (iii) impact assessment, and (iv) following main processes: (i) lime production, (ii) soil extraction,
results interpretation. Analyses were performed at Open LCA 1.4 (iii) lime transportation, (iv) soil transportation, and (v) blends
(Green Delta, 2014), considering an attributional approach. Open production (mixing, homogenization, and compaction) (Fig. 2). The
LCA 1.4 is a free LCA software with an open source code, allowing use, maintenance and disposal of the material was not considered
transparency in the analysis, since the code can be viewed and in the boundaries of the study, since these blends may be applied to
modified by anyone (OpenLCA, 2016). different purposes and the performance and service life may vary
Considering the one-to-one correspondence between the depending on the application. For the lime production process,
porosity-binder ratio and performance, five ratios were defined primary data was gathered from a lime production plant
(last column in Table 2). For each ratio three dosages were proposed (Samaniego, 2015; Villalba, 2015). Missing and incomplete data was
(low-binder/high-density dosage, medium binder/medium density completed with secondary data, from the Ecoinvent database,
dosage, and high-binder/low-density dosage) creating five groups version 2.2 (SCLCI, 2010). For the other processes, impacts were
(B, C, D, E and F). All dosages within a group provide the same value derived only from the diesel consumption of the equipment and the
for the adjusted porosity-binder ratio (h/L0.16
iv ) as shows in Table 2 water required for the blends mixing.
and thus the same performance. A mechanical shovel performs soil extraction whereas trans-
For example, h/L0.16iv ¼ 33.07 produces an unconfined compres- portation of lime and soil require a truck. Mixing and homogeni-
sive strength (qu) of approximately, 695 kPa (for 7 days of curing), of zation involves five equipments: (i) motor grader (construction
968 kPa (for 28 days of curing) and of 1227 kPa (for 60 days of machine with a long blade used to create a flat surface during the
curing), as can be observed in Fig. 1(a). Although increasing curing grading process), (ii) lime spreader (machine used for in situ pul-
time period needs to be considered in the construction schedule, it verising and moisture conditioning by mixing lime with soil), (iii)
provides a means to improve performance, which is mandatory for road cold recycler machine (construction machine in which the soil
dispersive soil such as the one examined here. Yet, most impor- is processed in a mixing chamber where lime is added), (iv) water
tantly, curing time period is a variable whose increase does not lead spreader truck (machine used for in situ dispersing water in the
to major rises in environmental impact such as increases in binder soil), and (v) tractor with steel blade disks (equipment to slice
content. The tensile strength (qt) and initial shear modulus (Go) loosen and lift the soil). Finally compaction requires two equip-
produced by h/L0.16
iv ¼ 33.07 can also be observed in Fig. 1(a) and (b). ments: (i) pad-foot roller (self-propelled unit, with drum fitted
with projecting club-shaped ‘feet’ e high contact stress, ‘kneading’
3.1. Goal and scope definition action and sometimes vibrating as well) and (ii) smooth-wheeled
steel drum roller (self-propelled steel rollers applying pressure
The study goal was to evaluate the potential environmental through the weight of the roller).
impacts of one cubic meter (1 m3) of clay-lime blends, to be applied
as a road embankment, considering the fifteen dosages options 3.2. Life cycle inventory
described in Table 2 and detailed in Table 3. This unit (1 m3) eases
the understanding of the impact values and their comparison with Hydrated lime production encompasses limestone extraction,
other studies of stabilized soils. The results are compared within transportation to the factory, calcination (producing quicklime),
each of the groups (B to F), to evaluate whether increasing lime and quicklime hydration. Primary data (Samaniego, 2015; Villalba,
content or density is more interesting from an environmental 2015) was collected at a lime production plant located in
viewpoint. Paraguay and refers to the year of 2014 (Tables 4 and 5). Missing
The scope of the study is from cradle to gate and involves the and incomplete data was extracted from Ecoinvent database v.2.2
(SCLCI, 2010). Limestone is the main input for hydrated lime pro-
duction. River water is applied for quicklime hydration. Limestone
Table 2
calcination takes place in two centre burned vertical kilns. The fuel
Dosage options for groups B, C, D, E and F.
used in the process is firewood. The amount of raw materials
Group Dosage option gd (kN/m3) h (%) L (%) Liv (%) h/L0.16
iv necessary to produce 1 kg of hydrated lime and 1 kg of quicklime
B B3 17.28 36.75 3 1.94 33.07 are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
B5 16.52 39.47 5 3.03 Paraguayan electricity mix (100% hydropower) was applied in
B7 16.00 41.32 7 4.03 the calculations of background and foreground processes. The im-
C C3 17.50 35.94 3 1.96 32.27
C5 16.75 38.61 5 3.07
pacts associated to soil extraction and lime and soil transportation
C7 16.24 40.42 7 4.09 are only due to the diesel consumption of the equipment required
D D3 18.20 33.37 3 2.04 29.78 for these processes. For soil transportation, average speed was
D5 17.50 35.88 5 3.21 considered 30 km/h and a waiting of 7 min between loading and
D7 17.02 37.58 7 4.28
unloading was estimated. The average distance for soil extraction
E E3 18.63 31.79 3 2.09 28.26
E5 17.96 34.19 5 3.29 was considered to be 1.5 km (distance usually considered for soil
E7 17.50 35.82 7 4.40 extraction and earthmoving works). For lime transportation, an
F F3 19.00 30.45 3 2.13 26.98 average speed of 40 km/h was considered and also a loading/
F5 18.35 32.76 5 3.36 unloading period of 40 min. Finally, a load of 20,000 kg of lime per
F7 17.91 34.33 7 4.51
trip was estimated. The site location was considered to be at 100 km

Table 3
Mass of soil, lime and water to produce one cubic meter of blend (Dosage matrix).

B3 B5 B7 C3 C5 C7 D3 D5 D7 E3 E5 E7 F3 F5 F7

Soil (kg/m3) 1677.52 1573.21 1495.33 1699.03 1595.63 1518.19 1767.11 1666.67 1677.52 1573.21 1495.33 1699.03 1595.63 1518.19 1767.11
Lime (kg/m3) 50.33 78.66 104.67 50.97 79.78 106.27 53.01 83.33 50.33 78.66 104.67 50.97 79.78 106.27 53.01
Water (kg/m3) 224.62 214.74 208.00 227.50 217.80 211.18 236.62 227.50 224.62 214.74 208.00 227.50 217.80 211.18 236.62
Blends (m3) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
 C.G. da Rocha et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 309e318 313

Fig. 2. System boundaries of soil stabilization.

Table 4
Inventory data for hydrated lime production.

Output Input flow Physic Measure Comment

flow amount unit

Hydrated Electricity mix (PY) 0.028 kWh Electricity in Paraguay (PY) is produced via hydropower plants (100%) (VMME, 2015). Hydropower production
lime data was taken from Ecoinvent (SCLCI, 2010).
Packing lime products 1.0 kg Process of packing per kg of lime. Data taken from Ecoinvent (SCLCI, 2010).
Quicklime, in pieces, 0.757 kg Data taken from Ecoinvent (SCLCI, 2010).
loose, at plant
Water, well, in ground 6.02E-4 m3 Data taken from Ecoinvent (SCLCI, 2010).

Table 5
Inventory data for quicklime production.

Output Input flow Physic Measure Comment

flow amount unit

Quicklime Limestone, 2.0 kg Data taken from Ecoinvent (SCLCI, 2010).

crushed, washed
Electricity mix (PY) 0.011 kWh Electricity in Paraguay (PY) is produced via hydropower plants (100%) (VMME, 2015). Hydropower production data
was taken from Ecoinvent (SCLCI, 2010).
Logs, mixed, at 9.14E-4 m 3
Given a wood density of 607 kg m3, lower heating value of 15.5 MJ kg1 and a consumption of 5.55E-01 kg wood per
forest kg of quicklime. Logs production data was taken from Ecoinvent (SCLCI, 2010).

from the lime factory/distribution centre and thus an average dis-
tance of 100 km was established for each trip.
The calculation of diesel consumption for soil extraction and
lime and soil transportation is depicted in Table 6. First, equipment
net power (HP) was identified and multiplied by an empirical factor
(F), obtained in the equipment guide, which provides the litres
consumption per hour of equipment use (L). This was multiplied by
the amount of time (in hours) required to process 1 ton of material
(H), providing the diesel consumption (litres) per mass (kilogram)
of material (G).
Similar calculations were performed for obtaining the diesel
consumption for blends production (mixing, homogenization, and
compaction). The impact of this process is the sum of the diesel
consumption of all equipment required for producing one cubic
meter of clay-lime blend. As shown in Table 7, this results in 1.03 L
of diesel per cubic meter of blend (for a density of 19.60 kN/m3). For
simplification purposes, such consumption was considered for any
density within the examined ranges (16e19 kN/m3). Yet, additional
studies are needed to define functions that discriminate the fuel
consumption (and consequently compaction energy) to attain
distinct densities.
3.3. Impact calculation
CML-IA method (Guine
e, 2001) was applied in the calculations,
as stated by UKs Building Research Establishment PCR of con-
struction products (BRE, 2013), considering the following impacts:
acidification potential (generic), climate change (GPW e 100 years),
eutrophication potential (generic), photochemical oxidation (low
NOx POCP) depletion of abiotic resources, and stratospheric ozone
314 C.G. da Rocha et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 309e318

Table 6 throughout the life cycle, including the energy consumed during
Diesel consumption for soil extraction and soil and lime transportation (lts/kg of soil the extraction, manufacturing and disposal of the raw and auxiliary
or lts/kg of lime) of blend.
materials, from cradle to gate (i.e., from raw materials extraction to
Equipment Net Empirical Lts/Hour Hours/ Lts/kg blends mixing and compaction).
power factor (F) (L ¼ F x HP) tn (H) (G ¼ L x H)
(HP)

Mechanical shovel 150 0.15 22.50 0.007 0.15E-03 4. Results

(soil extraction)
Dump truck (soil 220 0.05 11.00 0.023 0.25E-03
The matrix containing the total impact (per category) for each
transportation)
Dump truck (lime 360 0.05 18.00 0.344 6.21E-03 dosage can be obtained by multiplying two matrices. The first
transportation) matrix is a modified version of the impact matrix per unit process
(Table 8) in which the impacts of soil extraction and soil trans-
portation is added forming a single column (as they refer to soil
depletion (ODP steady state). Since energy consumption is a major mass) and the impact of lime production and lime transportation
concern in civil engineering, embodied energy was calculated are also combined in a single column (as they refer to lime mass),
through the cumulative energy demand method (Frischknecht resulting in a 7  4 matrix. The second matrix is the dosages matrix
et al., 2006). This considers the direct and indirect energy use (Table 3). Fig. 3 shows the total potential impacts for each dosage

Table 7
Diesel consumption for mixing, homogenization and compaction (lts/m3 of blend).

Power (HP) Factor (F) Lts/hours (L ¼ F x HP) Time Hours/m3 (H) Lts/m3 (L x H)

Motor grader 185 0.15 27.75 0.0075 0.21

Lime spreader 115 0.15 17.25 0.0042 0.07
Road cold recycler machine 430 0.15 64.50 0.0042 0.27
Water spreader truck 220 0.15 33.00 0.0039 0.13
Tractor with steel blade disks 150 0.15 22.50 0.0042 0.09
Pad-foot roller 115 0.15 17.25 0.0092 0.16
Smooth-wheeled steel drum roller 115 0.15 17.25 0.0058 0.10

Table 8
Impacts matrix per unit process.

Soil extraction Soil transportation Lime production (per Lime transportation Water (per kg Blends production (per cubic
(per kg of soil) (per kg of soil) kg of binder) (per kg of binder) of water) meter of clay-lime)

Acidification (kg of SO2-eq.) 4.95E-06 8.05E-06 6.19E-04 1.99E-04 6.82E-07 2.47E-02

Global warming (kg of CO2- 5.10E-04 8.30E-04 1.00Eþ00 2.05E-02 1.68E-04 2.55Eþ00
eq.)
Eutrophication (kg of PO4-eq.) 9.07E-07 1.48E-06 7.99E-05 3.65E-05 3.52E-07 4.53E-03
Photochemical oxidation (kg 8.98E-08 1.46E-07 1.54E-04 3.61E-06 3.34E-08 4.49E-04
of C2H4-eq.)
Depletion of abiotic resources 3.37E-06 5.48E-06 1.40E-04 1.35E-04 9.84E-07 1.68E-02
(kg of Sb-eq.)
Stratospheric ozone depletion 6.32E-11 1.03E-10 2.09E-09 2.54E-09 1.36E-11 3.16E-07
(kg of CFC-11-eq.)
Embodied energy (MJ) 7.66E-03 1.25E-02 7.82Eþ00 3.08E-01 5.96E-03 3.83Eþ01

Fig. 3. Total energy consumption (MJ) and GHGs emission (CO2-eq.) for each blend examined.
 C.G. da Rocha et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 309e318
for two categories: energy consumption and GHGs emission.
4.1. Which dosage is more sustainable?
Fig. 4(a), (b) and (c) show a comparison between the potential
impacts of dosages for groups B, D, and F respectively. In such
Fig. 4. Impacts comparison between dosages in Group B (a), Group D (b), and Group F (c).
315
figures, the lowest impact in each category was considered to be
one (1) and appropriate proportions were assigned to higher im-
pacts. Dosages with the highest binder content (and lowest den-
sity), namely, B7, D7 and F7 (Fig. 3), have the highest impact across
all categories. Conversely, low-binder/high-density dosages,
namely, B3, D3 and F3 have the lowest impact across all categories.
As expected, medium-binder/medium-density dosages (B5, D5,
and F5) have impacts in between these two dosages types (Fig. 3).
In terms of embodied energy, global warming, and photochemical
oxidation, high-binder dosages (B7, D7, and F7) have about twice
the impacts of low-binder dosages (B3, D3, and F3). These trends
are observed because lime production is an energy and carbon
intensive process (Table 8).
For instance, B7, D7, and F7 have embodied energy values 1.91,
1.93 and 1.95 times higher than B3, D3 and F3 respectively (Fig. 4),
mainly related to biomass consumption (logs) during quicklime
production. Similar trends are observed for global warming po-
tential, where high-binder dosages present CO2-eq. release be-
tween 1.98 and 2.02 times higher than low-binder dosages. For
photochemical oxidation, high-binder/low-density blends present
between 1.97 and 2.01 higher potential than low-binder/high-
density ones. Finally, the potential impacts increase by less than
60% for other categories (acidification, eutrophication, depletion of
natural resources, stratospheric ozone depletion) when comparing
B3, D3 and F3 to B7, D7, and F7, respectively. This indicates such
impacts are not related only to binder content, and depend also on
diesel consumption for transportation, digging and mixing.
Total energy consumption and CO2-eq. emissions rise as binder
content increases (Fig. 4). Nonetheless, they also rise as density
increases (Fig. 4). This is clear when comparing two dosages with
the same lime content but different densities. For instance, dosage
B3 has a binder content of 3% and a density of 17.28 kN/m3. It re-
leases 56.2 kg of CO2-eq. and consumes 482.3 MJ of energy during
its life cycle (Fig. 4). Conversely, that same binder content (3%) with
a higher density (19 kN/m3) as F3 requires 526.5 MJ and releases
61.6 kg of CO2-eq. (Fig. 4). It is worth noticing that such increase in
energy consumption and CO2-eq. emissions does not arise from the
compaction processes. As previously discussed, a single diesel
consumption value was established for the mixing, homogeniza-
tion, and compaction of one cubic meter of blend, regardless of the
density, and of the lime and soil proportions. Thus, the increases in
impacts are due to the fact that denser blends require more mass of
materials, including lime. For instance, F3 requires 55.34 kg of lime
for producing one cubic meter of blend whereas B3 requires only
50.33 kg (Table 3).
Finally, it would be reasonable to use a blend with a higher
strength than the one required in case it had a lower environmental
impact. For instance, dosages in group D (h/L0.16 iv ¼ 29.78) provides
qu of approximately 1383 kPa (for 28 days of curing). Yet, these
could be replaced by dosages with h/L0.16 iv < 29.78 such as the
dosages in groups E and F, as they provide a higher performance
(considering the same curing period). Yet, this would not be the
case as even the dosages with the lowest impact in groups E and F,
namely, E3 (517.1 MJ and 60.4 kg of CO2 -eq.) and F3 (526.5 MJ and
61.6 kg of CO2 -eq.) still have a higher impact than D3 (506 MJ and
59.1 kg of CO2 -eq.) which has the lowest impact in group D. This
finding has an important practical implication. It suggests the first
step in creating more sustainable dosages is to define the desired
performance (e.g. unconfined compressive strength or splitting
tensile strength) and only then apply the two guidelines proposed
here (minimize binder content and maximize density).
4.2. Understanding the impacts
The seven impact categories examined here can be organized in
316 C.G. da Rocha et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 309e318

two groups, exemplified by photochemical oxidation and depletion
of abiotic resources. In the first group, which comprises global
warming, embodied energy, and photochemical oxidation, a single
process (lime production) accounts for more than 75% of the total
impact for each dosage (Table 9). In the case of energy consump-
tion, this is because the process used for lime production (vertical
kiln) is energy intensive and based on biomass (wood required for
lime production). Also, compared to literature data, process effi-
ciency is low, needing 8.60 MJ of energy to produce 1 kg of quick-
lime (see Table 3), while Kellenberger et al. (2007) reports 3.74 MJ
per kg of quicklime (based on two heavy oil burned kilns). Most
GHGs emitted for lime production (97%) are released during lime
calcination (CaCO3 / CaO þ CO2) and fuel combustion, which is
required to produce quicklime. For photochemical oxidation, the
participation of lime production process is associated to CO2
emissions during quicklime production (94% of participation in
lime production).
In the second group, which comprises depletion of abiotic re-
sources, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification, and eutro-
phication, potential impacts are more evenly distributed across the
five processes as illustrated by Table 9. For these impacts, blends
production is the process with greatest contribution. The impacts of
blends production do not vary across dosages (as previously high-
lighted the impacts are associated to the mixing, homogenization
and compaction of cubic meter of blend regardless of the lime and
soil proportions and also the density). This suggests that for the
latter group of impacts, improvements are needed in the under-
standing of the impacts of blend production process itself rather
than minimizing binder consumption as in the case of the former
group. Complementary, this indicates that changes in binder con-
tents (within the studied ranges) produce less important changes in
terms of depletion of abiotic resources, stratospheric ozone
depletion, acidification, and eutrophication, when compared to the
first group of impacts.
5. Discussion
This paper analyses the potential environmental impacts
(acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, depletion
of natural resources, stratospheric ozone depletion, global warm-
ing, and embodied energy) for five dosage groups (B, C, D, E and F)
for a clay-lime blend. For the groups examined here, high-density/
low-binder content dosages have a lower impact across all cate-
gories and thus should be preferred to low-density/high-binder or
medium-density/medium-binder dosages. More specifically, the
highest binder content has approximately twice the energy con-
sumption, CO2-eq., and C2H4-eq. emissions associated in compari-
son to the lowest binder content (for a given h/L0.16
iv ). Thus from an
environmental viewpoint, increasing density should be preferred to
increasing binder content. Clearly, additional research is required to
discriminate the fuel consumption to attain distinct densities
considering different soil and binder proportions, thus advancing
from the initial assumption adopted here (a single consumption).
The study was performed based on a single lime production
plant, located in Paraguay, but the trends observed here shall apply
to other cases, because lime production process environmental
profile is not expected to change much according to plants location.
Also, since some LCI data applied in the study are adaptations of
European processes, the impacts presented may not be totally
representative of the Paraguayan practices, but they represent a fair
guidance of the expected impacts of the clay-lime blend examined.
In addition, although the findings and conclusions are based on a
single blend, the energy and CO2-eq. emissions involved in binders
production such as lime and cement, which are not by-products or
waste from other industries, is likely to account for a major part of
the total energy and CO2-eq. of a blend.
Thus, although additional studies are clearly needed to study
other blends and binders, the findings presented here and partic-
ularly the strategies proposed here (define the desired performance
and then devise a dosage with minimum binder content and
maximum density) are likely to apply. In this sense, experimental
programs should look at minimal binder content and maximum
density for new materials for construction and geotechnical ap-
plications. More specifically, they should assess the minimal binder
content, the maximum density, and the associated performance in
terms of property examined. In addition, studies should also assess
the performance attained by cemented and non-cemented soils (in
case the latter is possible) and their associated environmental im-
pacts. Finally, assessment of soils stabilized with binders that are
by-products or waste of other industries (e.g. carbide lime e a by-
product of the production of acetylene gas) should also be the focus
of future research. Life cycle assessment can be applied to deter-
mine whether reducing binder content and increasing density
would still be the preferred (similarly to the results presented
here). Alternatively, such studies might suggest the preferred
strategy to increase a property might vary depending on the
transportation distances involved.
The porosity-binder ratio provides an important parameter to
estimate the properties of a blend and also to devise distinct dos-
ages. From an environmental viewpoint, this ratio is key to assess
the environmental impact of distinct dosages. The results and
conclusions presented here are valid only for the blends and also
properties examined here. It is worth noticing that Consoli et al.
(2016) has shown that 3% of lime is not sufficient in terms of
durability and a lime content of at least 5% is required for ensuring
the endurance of the dispersive stabilized clay-lime blends studied
here. Nonetheless, this study provides an important starting point
and also example of how the rationale of minimizing binder con-
tent and maximizing density can be generally applied. Regarding
previous studies on life cycle assessment in geotechnical works,

Table 9
Contribution of each process (%) to the total impact for each dosage.

Impact category Dosage option Soil extraction Soil transportation Lime production Lime transportation Blends production

Photochemical oxidation B3 0.017 0.028 0.882 0.021 0.052

B5 0.011 0.017 0.916 0.022 0.035
B7 0.008 0.013 0.931 0.022 0.026
F3 0.017 0.028 0.886 0.021 0.048
F5 0.011 0.017 0.919 0.022 0.031
F7 0.008 0.013 0.934 0.022 0.024
Depletion of abiotic resources B3 0.123 0.201 0.154 0.149 0.373
B5 0.101 0.164 0.210 0.202 0.324
B7 0.085 0.139 0.248 0.240 0.288
F3 0.128 0.208 0.160 0.154 0.351
F5 0.104 0.169 0.217 0.209 0.301
F7 0.088 0.143 0.256 0.247 0.266
 C.G. da Rocha et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 309e318
this provides an important finding, since previous studies have
compared the impacts of different techniques/solution for a given
project (e.g. Duggan et al., 2015), while this study focuses on a
single technique (ground improvement) and on determining the
most appropriate dosage. Yet, further studies should also expand
the system boundaries to include other stages such as design,
maintenance, and in-life performance for ground improvement
works considering different purposes.
6. Conclusions
This paper estimates the environmental impact of fifteen dos-
ages for a clay-lime blend using life cycle assessment. These dos-
ages are organized five groups (B, C, D, E and F) designed to attain
distinct values for the adjusted porosity-binder ratio. This ratio has
a one-to-one correspondence with values of strength and stiffness
(for each curing period). As a result, comparing dosages for a given
adjusted porosity-binder ratio allows the most efficient dosage to
be identified. In all groups examined, low-binder/high-density
dosages have lower environmental impacts than high-binder/
low-density dosages. Also, minimal impact values across all cate-
gories studied here are obtained when minimal binder content
(required to attain a target strength or initial shear modulus) is
selected. Conversely, maximum impact values across all categories
are produced when maximum binder content is used. Although,
increasing binder content or density augments strength and stiff-
ness, minimizing binder content and maximizing density (through
compaction) should be the preferred from an environmental
viewpoint.
Major impact increases (when comparing dosages within a
group) are observed in three categories: photochemical oxidation
(kg of C2H4-eq), embodied energy (MJ) and global warming po-
tential (kg of CO2-eq). This corroborates the initial trend observed
in existing studies to use these categories as key indicators of
environmental impact for ground improvement works. In addition,
lime production accounts for more than 75% of the potential im-
pacts of global warming potential, photochemical oxidation, and
embodied energy. This is because this process is energy and carbon
intensive. Even though the efficiency of lime production plants can
vary, lime still is the major burden in terms of these environmental
impacts. The considerable impact of materials in ground improve-
ment work has been already recognized in previous studies. This
research further supports the guidelines to minimize materials
consumption. In this sense, increasing density provides an alter-
native with lower impact in terms of embodied energy and GHGs
emission that should be pursued.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the lime production plan for
~o
providing the data. Dr. Rocha, Professor Consoli, Mr. Quin
nez and
Mr. Kanazawa want to acknowledge the financial support of the
Brazilian Research Council (CNPq). Dr. Passuello acknowledges the
financial support provided by CAPES (Coordination for the
Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) and FAPERGS (Rio
Grande do Sul Research Council).
References
Abreu, D.G., Jefferson, I., Braithwaite, P.A., Chapman, D.N., 2008. Why is sustain-
ability important in Geotechnical Engineering? Geocongress 2008 Geo-
sustainability Geohazard Mitig. 821e828.
Ahmad, F., Mujah, D., Hazarika, H., Safari, A., 2012. Assessing the potential reuse of
recycled glass fibre in problematic soil applications. J. Clean. Prod. 35, 102e107.
ASTM, 2006. Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes. ASTM D
2487-06, West Conshohocken, Philadelphia.
317
ASTM, 2008. Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Pulse Velocities
and Ultrasonic Elastic Constants of Rock. ASTM D 2845-08, West Conshohocken,
Philadelphia.
ASTM, 2011. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens. ASTM C 496-11, West Conshohocken, Philadelphia.
ASTM, 2012. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of
Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 Ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 KN-m/m3)). ASTM D 1557-
12, West Conshohocken, Philadelphia.
Bell, F.G., Maud, R.R., 1994. Dispersive soils: a review from a South African
perspective. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeology 27, 195e210.
Biswas, W.K., 2013. Carbon footprint and embodied energy assessment of a civil
works program in a residential estate of Western Australia. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 19 (4), 732e744.
BRE, 2013. Product Category Rules for Type III Environmental Product Declaration of
Construction Products to EN 15804:2012 (Watford, UK).
Celauro, C., Corriere, F., Guerrieri, M., Lo Casto, B., 2015. Environmentally appraising
different pavement and construction scenarios: a comparative analysis for a
typical local road. Transp. Res. Part D. Transp. Environ. 34, 41e51.
Consoli, N.C., Prietto, P.D.M., Carraro, J.A.H., Heineck, K.S., 2001. Behavior of soil-fly
ash-carbide lime compacted mixtures. J. Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Eng.
127 (9), 774e782.
Consoli, N.C., Lopes Jr., L.S., Heineck, K.S., 2009a. Key parameters for the strength
control of lime stabilized soils. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 21 (5), 210e216.
Consoli, N.C., Lopes Jr., L.S., Foppa, D., Heineck, K.S., 2009b. Key parameters dictating
strength control of lime/cement-treated soils. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. e Geotech-
nical Eng. 162 (2), 111e118.
Consoli, N.C., Dalla Rosa, A., Saldanha, R.B., 2011a. Variables governing strength of
compacted soil-fly ash-lime mixtures. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23, 432e440.
Consoli, N.C., Lopes Junior, L.S., Prietto, P.D.M., Festugato, L., Cruz, R.C., 2011b. Var-
iables controlling stiffness and strength of lime-stabilized soils. J. Geotechnical
Geoenvironmental Eng. 137, 628e632.
Consoli, N.C., Viana da Fonseca, A., Silva, S.R., Cruz, R.C., Fonini, A., 2012a. Param-
eters controlling stiffness and strength of artificially cemented soils.
Ge
otechnique 62 (2), 177e183.
Consoli, N.C., Cruz, R.C., Viana da Fonseca, A., Coop, M.R., 2012b. Influence of
cement-voids ratio on stress-dilatancy behavior of artificially cemented sand.
J. Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Eng. 138 (1), 100e109.
Consoli, N.C., Johann, A.D.R., Gauer, E.A., Santos, V.R., Moretto, R.L., Corte, M.B.,
2012c. Key parameters for tensile and compressive strength of silt-lime mix-
tures. Ge
otechnique Lett. 2, 81e85.
Consoli, N.C., Lopes Jr., Consoli, B.S., Festugato, L., 2014. Mohr-Coulomb failure en-
velopes of lime-treated soils. Ge
otechnique 64 (2), 165e170.
Consoli, N.C., Quin ~o

nez Samaniego, R.A., Kanazawa Villalba, N.M., 2016. Durability,
strength and stiffness of dispersive clay-lime blends. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001632.
Duggan, A., McCabe, B.A., Goggins, J., Clifford, E., 2015. An embodied carbon and
embodied energy appraisal of a section of Irish motorway constructed in
peatlands. Constr. Build. Mater. 79, 402e419.
Egan, D., Slocombe, B.C., February 2010. Demonstrating environmental benefits of
ground improvement. Ground Improv. 163 (GI1), 63e69.
Frischknecht, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Rombouts, L.J.A., Hellweg, S., 2006. Is cumulative
fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of
Products . Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 2189e2196.
Guine
e, J.B., 2001. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Green, Delta, 2014. OpenLCA.Version 1.4. Available at: www.openlca.org.
Harbottle, M.J., Al-Tabbaa, A., Ewans, C.W., 2007. A comparison of the technical
sustainability of in situ stabilisation/solidification with disposal to landfill.
J. Hazard. Mater. 141, 430e440.
Holt, D.G.A., Jefferson, I., Braithwaite, P.A., Chapman, D.N., 2010. Sustainable
geotechnical design. GeoFlorida 2010 Adv. Analysis, Model. Des. 2925e2932.
Huang, Y., Bird, R., Heidrich, O., 2009. Development of a life cycle assessment tool
for construction and maintenance of asphalt pavements. J. Clean. Prod. 17,
283e296.
Ingles, O.G., 1985. Piping in earth dams of dispersive clay. Performance of earth and
earth supported structures. ASCE 111e117.
Ingles, O.G., Metcalf, J.B., 1972. Soil Stabilization: Principles and Practice. Butter-
worths, Sydney, p. 374.
International Organization for Standardization ISO, 2006a. Environmental Man-
agement - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Frameworks. ISO 14040.
International Organization for Standardization ISO, 2006b. Environmental Man-
agement e Life Cycle Assessment e Requirements and Guidelines. ISO 14044.
Jefferis, S.A., 2008. Moving towards sustainability in geotechnical engineering.
GeoCongress 2008 Geosustainability Geohazards Mitig. 844e851.
Jefferson, I., Gaterell, M., Thomas, A.M., Serridge, C.J., 2010. Emissions assessment
related to vibro stone columns. Proc. Institution Civ. Eng. - Ground Improv. 163
(GI1), 71e77.
Kellenberger, D., Althaus, H.-J., Jungbluth, N., Künniger, T., Lehmann, M.,
Thalmann, P., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Building Products. Final Report
Ecoinvent Data v.2.0 No. 7. Dübendorf.
Lambe, T.W., Whitman, R.V., 1979. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, p. 553.
Mitchell, J.K., 1981. Soil improvement e state-of-the-art report. In: Proceedings of
the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, 4. International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 509e565.
318 C.G. da Rocha et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 139 (2016) 309e318
Mujah, D., Ahmad, F., Hazarika, H., Safari, A., 2013. Evaluation of the mechanical
properties of recycled glass fibers-derived three-dimensional geomaterial for
ground improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 495e503.
OpenLCA. http://www.openlca.org/. Access on 27 July 2016.
Richards, K.S., Reddy, K.R., 2007. Critical appraisal of piping phenomena in earth
dams. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 66 (4), 381e402.
Samaniego, R.A.Q., 2015. Estabilizaça ~o de um solo dispersivo com adiça ~o de cal”
(Stabilization of a dispersive soil with lime), Master Dissertation (in Portu-
guese), Postgraduate Program in Civil Engineering. Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul, UFRGS.
SCLCI, Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, 2010. Ecoinvent Database v.2.2.
Available at: http://www.ecoinvent.org/home/.
Sherard, J.L., Steele, E.F., Decker, R.S., Dunnigan, L.P., 1976. Pinhole test for identi-
fying dispersive soils. J. Geotechnical Eng. Div. 102 (1), 69e85.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., Mesri, G., 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John
Wiley and Sons, p. 549.
Thome
, A., Donato, M., Consoli, N.C., Graham, J., 2005. Circular footings on a
cemented layer above weak foundation soil. Can. Geotechnical J. 42, 1569e1584.
Villalba, N.M., 2015. Durabilidade, Rigidez e Avaliaç~ ao do Ciclo de Vida de um Solo
Dispersivo Estabilizado com Cal” (Durability, Stiffness and Life Cycle Assess-
ment of a dispersive soil stabilized with lime), Master Dissertation (in Portu-
guese), Postgraduate Program in Civil Engineering. Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul, UFRGS.
VMME (Viceministerio de Minas y Energia), 2015. Balance Energe
tico Nacional
2014. Direccio
n de Recursos Energe
ticos (in Spanish).
Wan, C., Fell, R., 2004. Investigation of rate of erosion of soils in embankment dams.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (4), 373e380.
Xanthakos, P.P., Abramson, L.W., Bruce, D.A., 1994. Ground Control and Improve-
ment. John Wiley and Sons, p. 910.