Journal Pre-proof

Shear strength and durability against wetting and drying cycles of lime-stabilised
laterite soil as subgrade

Roslizayati Razali, Ahmad Safuan A Rashid, Diana Che Lat, Suksun Horpibulsuk,
Mohammad Jawed Roshan, Noor Shazreen A Rahman, Nurin Hannah Ahmad Rizal

PII: S1474-7065(23)00123-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2023.103479
Reference: JPCE 103479

To appear in: Physics and Chemistry of the Earth

Received Date: 11 April 2023

Revised Date: 8 June 2023
Accepted Date: 21 August 2023

Please cite this article as: Razali, R., A Rashid, A.S., Che Lat, D., Horpibulsuk, S., Roshan, M.J., A
Rahman, N.S., Ahmad Rizal, N.H., Shear strength and durability against wetting and drying cycles
of lime-stabilised laterite soil as subgrade, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (2023), doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2023.103479.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 1 SHEAR STRENGTH AND DURABILITY AGAINST WETTING AND DRYING

2 CYCLES OF LIME-STABILISED LATERITE SOIL AS SUBGRADE

4 AUTHORS:

5 Roslizayati Razali1,3, Ahmad Safuan A Rashid1,2,*, Diana Che Lat3, Suksun Horpibulsuk4,

6 Mohammad Jawed Roshan5, Noor Shazreen A Rahman3, Nurin Hannah Ahmad Rizal1

7 *corresponding author

f
oo
9 AFFILIATION:

r
1
10 Department of Geotechnics and Transportation, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti

11
-p
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310, Malaysia.
re
12 roslizayati@graduate.utm.my, ahmadsafuan@utm.my, nurinhannah@graduate.utm.my
lP

2
13 Centre of Tropical Geoengineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310,
na

14 Malaysia.
3
15 School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)
ur

16 Cawangan Johor, Kampus Pasir Gudang, Johor, Malaysia. dianacl@uitm.edu.my

Jo

17 noorshazreen@uitm.edu.my.
4
18 School of Civil Engineering and Center of Excellence in Innovation for Sustainable

19 Infrasturcture Development, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000,

20 Thailand; and Acdemy of Science, The Royal Society of Thailand, Bangkok 10300,

21 suksun@g.sut.ac.th
5
22 Department of Civil Engineering, ISISE, University of Minho, Campus de Azurim, 4800-058,

23 Guimaraes, Portugal. jroshan2020@gmail.com

24

25

1
26 Abstract

27 Laterite soil is commonly used as a fill or pavement material. However, it tends to lose its

28 natural bonding and experiences large deformation when subjected to cyclic rainy (wet) and

29 hot (dry) seasons. This leads to cracking and deflection of road pavement. It has long been

30 known that lime stabilisation can improve the engineering properties of laterite soils.

31 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) tests at different curing periods (0, 3, 7, 14, and 28

32 days) were conducted with various percentages of lime (3%, 5%, 7%, and 9%). The durability

33 of stabilised soil against wet and dry cycles was also evaluated. In addition, the variation of

f
oo
34 shear strength parameters during the Consolidated Undrained (CU) triaxial test under different

r
35 confining pressures has been presented. Microstructural analyses showed an increased soil

36
-p
strength due to the formation of calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrate
re
37 (CAH).
lP

38
na

39 Keywords: Laterite soil; lime; UCS; durability; CU triaxial test; microstructural analysis.

40
ur

41 1.0 Introduction
Jo

42 Laterite soil is found in tropical and subtropical countries, especially Southeast Asia. Malaysia

43 is located in a tropical region with mostly laterite soil. Laterite soil is normally reddish-brown,

44 depending on iron oxides (Lat et al., 2021; Ko, 2014). This soil is rich in iron oxide (Fe2O3)

45 and aluminium oxide (Al2O3), which are formed by geological processes through the tropical

46 chemical weathering of rock (Carvalho et al., 2015). According to Schaetzl & Anderson (2015),

47 laterite soil is classified based on the ratio of SiO2/Al2O3. The soil is considered true laterite

48 when the ratio is less than 1.33, laterite soil when the ratio is between 1.33 and 2, and non-

49 laterite when the ratio is greater than 2.

50

2
51 Laterite soil is considered a suitable material for road construction and is usually used as the

52 lowest part of the road level, known as subgrade (Rashid et al., 2014; Roshan et al., 2022b;

53 Ullah et al., 2022). In Malaysia, natural disasters such as flooding and heavy rainfall cause

54 damage to the road infrastructure, leading to a massive expenditure for rehabilitation work

55 (Abdul Ghani et al., 2016; Roshan et al., 2021). Owing to the deep groundwater level, the

56 laterite soil is usually unsaturated (Roshan et al., 2023). Given this issue, laterite soil swells

57 underneath the pavement structure during the rainy season while it shrinks and reduces its

58 volume during the dry season. The swelling and shrinkage conditions may lead to road

f
oo
59 pavement cracks (Khan et al., 2019). As such, it is imperative to improve the engineering

r
60 properties of subgrade to withstand the damages from a natural disaster.

61
-p
re
62 The length of the roads in Malaysia is approximately 216,837 kilometres, including state,
lP

63 highway, and federal roads. According to Rashid et al. (2020), state roads comprise the vast
na

64 majority of roads, with a total length percentage of more than 90%. Rural roads are also

65 included in the category of state roads. Rural roads are low-volume or low-traffic load roads
ur

66 with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of no more than 250 vehicles daily. The lime-
Jo

67 stabilised marginal laterite soil is commonly adopted as a subgrade for rural roads (Razali et

68 al., 2022; Tamassoki et al., 2022a, 2022b). According to Malaysia Public Works Department

69 (MPWD), an Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) must be at least 800 kPa to achieve the

70 standard requirement for stabilised subgrade soil.

71

72 Generally, soil stabilisers can be classified into two (2) types: traditional and non-traditional.

73 Traditional stabilisers include cement, lime, bituminous, and fly ash materials, whereas non-

74 traditional stabilisers include a wide range of mixtures such as acids, resins, liquid polymers,

75 silicates, ions, and enzymes (Azadi et al., 2008; Eisazadeh et al., 2011; Kassim et al., 2005;

3
 76 Latifi et al., 2017; Poltue et al., 2020; Rashid et al., 2017; Roshan et al., 2022a; Tamassoki et

77 al., 2022c). Cement and lime are the traditional stabiliser commonly used to improve laterite

78 soil characteristics. Past researchers (Akoto, 1986; Bell, 1996; Ola, 1977; Osula, 1991;

79 Tamassoki et al., 2022b; Wahab et al., 2021) have conducted a series of studies on lime and

80 cement stabilisation, and the results indicated that these were effective stabilisers. The

81 traditional stabilisers, which are cement and lime are also crucial cementing agents for other

82 soil improvement techniques, such as jet grouting and deep mixing, to decrease the settlement

83 and counteract the soil liquefaction phenomenon (Atangana Njock et al., 2021; Rashid et al.,

f
oo
84 2015a; 2015b; 2018; Shen et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2020). However, applying jet grouting

r
85 ground improvement is not straightforward and may cause lateral displacement problems

86
-p
(Atangana Njock et al., 2023). Therefore, estimating the lateral displacement caused by jet
re
87 grouting before application in the field is vital (Shen et al., 2017).
lP

88
na

89 Lime is often chosen as a cementing agent due to its favourable economic and engineering

90 characteristic. According to Al-Mukhtar et al. (2010), the lime is cost-effective and simply used
ur

91 for infrastructure construction compared to other cementing agents (Wilkinson et al., 2010),
Jo

92 making it the most appropriate agent for large construction projects where cost efficiency is a

93 priority. Another advantage of lime stabilisation is that it is more environmentally friendly due

94 to lower carbon dioxide emissions during production when compared to cement production.

95

96 Lime stabilisation has been one of the most prevalent treatments for several decades in

97 improving soil's geotechnical properties. Adding lime to fine-grained soils significantly affects

98 their engineering properties by reducing plasticity, improving workability, reducing swelling

99 and shrinkage potential, and increasing shear strength (Cherian and Arnepalli, 2015; Di Sante

100 et al., 2015; Qubain et al., 2000; Tamassoki et al., 2022c). Lime stabilisation is often used for

4
101 the construction of pavement layers and embankments. Quicklime and hydrated lime are the

102 most common soil stabilisers for stabilise fine-grained soil. However, quick lime is frequently

103 used because of its effectiveness and strength development (Bell, 1989). Chemical reactions

104 begin almost quickly when lime and water are added to laterite soil. Quicklime (CaO) releases

105 280 calories/gm of CaO as hydration immediately occurs (Diamond and Kinter, 1965). Four

106 reactions take place after the addition of lime, including cation exchange (ion exchange),

107 pozzolanic reaction (cementitious), carbonation, and flocculation/agglomeration (Bell, 1996;

108 Consoli et al., 2011; Kampala et al., 2013). According to Eades and Grim (1960), short-term

f
oo
109 and long-term stability will occur during the lime stabilisation process.

r
110

111
-p
In short-term stability, Calcium (Ca2+) released from the lime migrates to clay particles and
re
112 displaces monovalent ions in the clay layer, which is called cation exchange (Mallela et al.,
lP

113 2004). The cation exchange causes clay minerals to flocculate and agglomerate, rapidly
na

114 changing soil properties such as workability, plasticity, and particle size distribution (Cherian

115 & Arnepalli, 2015; Di Sante et al., 2015; Thompson, 1966). For long-term stability,
ur

116 cementation caused by pozzolanic reaction occurs slowly and significantly improves the long-
Jo

117 term performance of the stabilised soils. Apart from the cation exchange, the high pH

118 concentration promotes the release of the silicate and aluminate from clay minerals, facilitating

119 pozzolanic reactions (Vitale et al., 2017). Calcium silicate hydrate (CSH), calcium aluminate

120 hydrate (CAH), and calcium alumina silicate hydrate (CASH) gels are cementitious products

121 that are formed from a chemical reaction (Mitchell, 1986). CSH and CAH are cementitious

122 products similar to those produced from Portland cement. Due to the long-term period of the

123 pozzolanic reaction, CSH and CAH are formed, which tighten the soil particles, and hence

124 improve the soil's strength and stiffness over time (Dash & Hussain, 2012; Cherian &

125 Arnepalli, 2015; Oti, 2017; Eyo et al., 2020)

5
126 This research aims to evaluate the suitability and strength improvement of lime-stabilised

127 laterite soil for subgrade material of low-traffic volume roads, according to Malaysia Public

128 Works Department (MPWD). To address this objective, a series of Atterberg limit, Modified

129 Proctor, Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), Durability, California Bearing Ratio

130 (CBR), and Consolidated Undrained (CU) triaxial tests were executed to investigate the

131 effectiveness of lime stabilised laterite soil. In addition, microstructural analyses, including

132 Scanning of Electron Microscopy Analyses (FESEM), Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX), and

133 X-ray Diffraction analysis (XRD), were carried out to explore the microstructural changes of

f
oo
134 lime - stabilised laterite soil due to the effect of the chemical reaction.

r
135

136 2.0 Materials and Methods

-p
re
137 The laterite soil sample was collected at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor campus, at
lP

138 approximately 1 m depth below the ground surface. Laterite soil's physical properties were
na

139 tested according to BS 1377-2-1990 (BSI, 1990) and ASTM standards (ASTM, 1996). The air

140 drying of the natural laterite soil sample was initially carried out for two days to simulate the
ur

141 natural drying of soil and to prevent the soil structure damage that might be due to excessive
Jo

142 evaporation in the oven. After the air-drying stage, the soil oven-dried was conducted at a

143 temperature of 60ºC±5 for 24 hours. The soil was passed through a 2-mm sieve and was used

144 for sample preparation. Identification and classification tests through the sieve analysis were

145 performed on the samples to examine the particle size distribution. Table 1 summarises the

146 physical properties of laterite soil. The soil sample was dominantly comprised of fine particles

147 with 12.79% gravel, 17.54% sand, 61.26% silt, and 8.41% clay (Fig. 1). The water content and

148 specific gravity (S.G) of laterite soil were 53.19% and 2.79, respectively.

149

6
150 The quicklime was supplied by Lhoist Company (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd. The chemical

151 composition of quicklime is summarised in Table 2. It was kept in an airtight box at room

152 temperature in a laboratory to preserve carbonation when exposed to humidity. The laser

153 diffraction method using a machine model LA960V2 HORIBA, which is a precise technique

154 followed ISO:13320 (2009) (Ullah et al., 2022), was utilised for the PSD of lime as shown in

155 Fig. 1. The particle size of soil and quicklime was found to be smaller than 63 microns based

156 on the laser diffraction test. The studied lime contents were 3%, 5%, 7%, and 9% by dry weight.

157

f
oo
158 A modified proctor test determined the optimum water content (OMC) and maximum dry

r
159 density (MDD) of unstabilised laterite soil and lime-stabilised laterite soil. The strength of

160
-p
unstabilised and stabilised samples was measured via Unconfined Compression Strength
re
161 (UCS). The sample was made by thoroughly mixing soil and lime in the dry state, then distilled
lP

162 water was added to attain optimum water content. Based on the obtained compaction
na

163 parameters, the soil mixtures were compacted in a cylindrical specimen with 38 mm in diameter

164 and 76 mm high. Then, samples were extruded carefully, trimmed, and weighed before being
ur

165 wrapped and placed in a humidity chamber at 27 ± 2 º C to prevent the loss of moisture content.
Jo

166 After curing for 0, 3, 7, 14, and 28 days, the samples were then continued with the UCS test.

167

168 The long-term strength of lime-stabilised soil was evaluated via durability tests against the dry

169 and wet cycles. Samples were cured for seven (7) days before proceeding with durability

170 testing. The test procedure followed the ASTM D 559, which involves submerging the soil

171 sample in water for 5 hours and then placing it in an oven for 42 hours at 70 ± 2 °C to complete

172 one wetting and drying cycle. The water content changes of the sample were measured upon

173 completion of each cycle. In this study, seven cycles were tested, consisting of 1, 2, 4, 7, 12,

7
174 and 15 cycles. After the completion of each cycle, the UCS test was performed to determine

175 the compressive strength.

176

177 The suitability of the flexible road's subgrade, subbase, and base materials is evaluated using

178 California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The CBR test is commonly used to determine pavement

179 materials' bearing capacity and soil strength. This study performed the unsoaked and soaked

180 CBR tests on unstabilised and stabilised samples to simulate the worst condition in the field.

181 The samples were submerged in water for four days.

f
oo
182

r
183 A consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial test was performed on unstabilised and stabilised

184
-p
samples to determine total and effective shear strength parameters. Unstabilised and 5% lime-
re
185 stabilised samples were prepared and cured for 7 days before testing. The CU samples were
lP

186 prepared in the same manner as the UCS samples. The CU samples had a dimension of 38 mm
na

187 diameter and 76 mm height. The CU samples underwent three (3) stages: saturation,

188 consolidation, and shearing. All tested samples' saturation ratio (B) was maintained above 0.95.
ur

189 After completion of saturation, the samples were consolidated with three different initial
Jo

190 effective stresses of 50, 100, and 200 kPa until the end of primary consolidation. The samples

191 were finally sheared by applying axial stress at a constant strain rate of 0.5 mm/min until failure

192 or 20% axial strain, whichever came first. Few tests were repeated to ensure the result

193 consistency. The triaxial testing machine is shown in Fig. 2.

194

195 Microstructural development of lime - stabilised samples was examined using Field Emission

196 Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM), Energy Dispersive X-Ray (EDX), and X-ray

197 Diffraction (XRD) on 7 days cured samples. With the aid of these techniques, several

198 researchers have studied the microstructure of soils under different microstructural analyses

8
199 (Al-Mukhtar et al., 2012; Sekhar & Nayak, 2017; Choobbasti & Kutanaei, 2017; Saldanha et

200 al., 2018). The microstructural analysis was performed on the unstabilised and stabilised

201 samples to investigate the change in pore sizes, particle shape, and surface contact between

202 particles due to the lime stabilisation.

203

204 3.0 Results and Discussion

205 3.1 Effect of Lime on Soil Plasticity

206 Atterberg limit test was performed on the unstabilised and lime-stabilised laterite soil in

f
oo
207 accordance with British Standard (BS 1377:1990: Part 2)(BSI, 1990). Fig. 3 presents the results

r
208 of Atterberg limits indicating distinct responses in soil modification. Notably, increasing the

209
-p
lime content slightly reduces the liquid limit and plasticity index but increases the plastic limit
re
210 in agreement with previous studies (Amadi & Okeiyi, 2017; Consoli et al., 2016;
lP

211 Athanasopoulou, 2014). Lime has an immediate impact when mixed with clay particles,
na

212 leading to agglomeration and flocculation of soil particles, resulting in larger aggregates. This

213 condition tended to increase water content due to the higher water holding capacity within the
ur

214 flocculated soil structure, as shown by the 3% lime-treated soil. The liquid limit increases from
Jo

215 65% to 77% when 3% lime content is added. Nonetheless, additional lime content reduces the

216 liquid limit and plasticity index. This is due to Ca2+ cation from lime displacing other ions

217 usually present on the surface of clay minerals, which reduces diffuse double layer thickness.

218 This result was also observed by Bessaim et al. (2018), Etim et al. (2017), and Okeke et al.

219 (2021). Based on a study by Attoh-Okine (1995), the plastic limit of stabilised soil increases

220 after adding lime, generally reducing the plastic properties of the soil due to the modification

221 of water film surrounding clay particles. The calcium ion from lime binds the soil particles

222 closely and increases soil plasticity, resulting in a more open granular texture.

223

9
224 3.2 Compaction

225 Compaction test results of unstabilised and lime-stabilised soil are shown in Fig. 4. The

226 optimum moisture content (OMC) increases while the maximum dry density (MDD) shows a

227 decreasing pattern with increasing lime content. The findings obtained are in good agreement

228 with the past studies by Amadi & Okeiyi (2017) and Saeed et al. (2015). The compaction curves

229 for stabilised soil generally shifted to the right side of the unstabilised soil curve as the lime

230 content increased. On the other hand, a lower dry density is achieved for the samples stabilised

231 with higher lime content. The dry density reduction results from an immediate reaction between

f
oo
232 lime and soil due to agglomerated particles (Okeke et al., 2021). Furthermore, lime requires

r
233 more water for pozzolanic reactions, increasing OMC due to the lime addition. The decrease

234
-p
in the maximum dry density (MDD) can be due to the soil particle flocculation and
re
235 agglomeration caused by the rapid cation exchange during treatment. In general, the reliability
lP

236 of compaction curves can be perceived in Fig. 4, in which the zero air void lines (ZAV) do not
na

237 cross the compaction curves. Table 3 presents the relationship between MDD and OMC versus

238 lime content.

ur

239
Jo

240 3.3 Unconfined Compressive Strength

241 A UCS test was performed to determine soil's compressive strength for lime-stabilised and

242 unstabilised laterite soil. Prior to testing, samples were cured for 0, 3, 7, 14, and 28 days to

243 identify the impact of curing time on strength development. Fig. 5 illustrates the stress-strain

244 curve on different curing days. The lime content and the curing period significantly affect lime-

245 stabilised soil's behaviour. However, it is worth noting that adding lime up to 5% enhances the

246 UCS value, beyond which the UCS yielded a declining trend.

247

10
248 The pozzolanic products increase as the lime content increases, producing sufficient amounts

249 of cementitious compounds and noticeable strength gains (Dash and Hussain, 2012). Based on

250 UCS test results, two types of failure are observed: bulging shape and inclined shape, as seen

251 in Fig. 6 for 7-days cured specimens. The failure shape of unstabilised and 3% lime-stabilised

252 soil is bulging, while the failure of 5, 7, and 9% lime-stabilised soil is inclined. The failure

253 shape is determined by the stiffness of stabilised soil resulting from the different lime contents.

254 The produced cementitious bonds upon adding 3% lime are not enough, resulting in a bulging

255 shape failure like unstabilised soil. On the other hand, the cementitious bonds resulting from

f
oo
256 higher lime content (5, 7, 9 %) are stiffer, causing an inclined shape, as seen in Fig. 6. The

r
257 previous studies also yielded two failure shapes depending on the degree of stabilisation (D.

258 Wang et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019).

-p
re
259
lP

260 According to Liu et al. (2012), the lime - stabilised soil's strength increased with an increasing
na

261 curing period. As shown in Fig. 5a, the UCS value is 441 kPa for the unstabilised soil, while is

262 630.3 kPa, 584.7 kPa, 472.6 kPa, and 452.7 kPa for 3%, 5%, 7%, and 9% lime - stabilised soil,
ur

263 respectively. After seven days of curing, the UCS value exceeds 800 kPa for all lime contents.
Jo

264 As clearly seen for 3% lime content, the UCS value is 820.45 kPa, while the rest are

265 1014.45kPa, 882kPa and 838.09 kPa for 5%,7%, and 9% lime content, respectively. Overall

266 the UCS values increase steadily until 28 days of curing. When soil samples are cured for a

267 longer period, a significant increase in strength is observed based on the formation of

268 cementitious products in response to pozzolanic reactions over time (Saeed et al., 2015).

269 Additionally, Fig. 7 represents the UCS value of both unstabilised and stabilised soil. All lime-

270 stabilised laterite samples show a considerable increase in strength after seven (7) days. This

271 shows that the pozzolanic reaction between lime and laterite soil is time-dependent (Millogo

272 et al., 2012). The dotted line in Fig. 7 that horizontally crosses all bar charts represents the

11
273 minimum UCS requirement, which is 800 kPa based on MPWD standards. After a seven (7)

274 day curing period, all stabilised samples achieve the standard requirement for MPWD. Based

275 on the standard, the 5% lime is sufficient for stabilising the laterite soil after only 3 days of

276 curing. Hence, 5 % of lime content was chosen for microstructural studies.

277

278 After adding lime to laterite soil, two reactions occur: cation exchange and flocculation-

279 agglomeration. During this phase, the reaction between silica and alumina with calcium from

280 lime produced calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH). For

f
oo
281 maximum cementation, Bell (1996) suggested adding lime until the pH of 12.4 so that silicates

r
282 and aluminates can be dissolved rapidly, leading to calcium aluminate hydrates (CAH)

283 formation.
-p
re
284
lP

285 3.4 Strength Development Index For Lime-Stabilised Laterite Soil

na

286 Fig. 8 shows the strength development index (SDI) for stabilised and unstabilised laterite

287 samples based on curing days. The SDI is calculated according to Equation (1) (Wahab et al.,
ur

288 2021).
Jo

289

𝑈𝐶𝑆(𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑)−𝑈𝐶𝑆(𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑)
290 𝑆𝐷𝐼 = (1)
𝑈𝐶𝑆(𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑)

291 where:

292 UCS (stabilised) = UCS of lime-stabilised soil

293 UCS(unstabilised) = UCS of unstabilised soil

294

295 Considering the minimum 800kPa UCS according to Malaysian standards and the 441kPa UCS

296 of unstabilised soil in the current study, the target SDI value is 0.81. It was found that none of

12
297 the samples met the SDI target value immediately after stabilisation (0 day of curing). Only

298 5% of lime stabilisation achieves the target SDI value after three days of curing. Whereas after

299 7 days of curing, all samples achieve the targeted SDI. The highest SDI value is 2.40, followed

300 by 2.16 at 28 days of curing for 7% and 5% lime contents. The increased SDI with increasing

301 lime content and curing time is attributed to concentrated Ca2+ ions resulting from chemical

302 reactions (Jha and Sivapullaiah, 2020). Besides, adding lime into lateritic soil causes an

303 increase in stiffness. Fig. 9 shows the relationship between the secant shear modulus (E50) and

304 UCS. The R2 value (0.97) illustrates an acceptable relationship between E50 and UCS in Fig. 9.

f
oo
305

r
306 3.5 Durability

307
-p
Fig. 10 presents the relationship between UCS versus wetting and drying cycles for 5, 7, and
re
308 9% lime contents. In general, UCS increases up to the 4th cycle. Beyond the 4th cycle, the UCS
lP

309 of all samples reduces. The formation of cementitious compounds causes an increase in UCS
na

310 during the early stage of wetting and drying. Unstabilised and 3% lime-stabilised samples could

311 not resist the first wetting/drying cycle and collapsed at the end of the first cycle, as shown in
ur

312 Fig. 11. In other words, the unstabilised and 3% lime-stabilised soil is weak and unstable to
Jo

313 withstand the wetting and drying cycles. The results of this study are similar to the previous

314 studies on unstabilised clay soil by Muntohar et al. (2013) and Wahab et al. (2021).

315

316 At the initial state of the wetting-drying cycle, the micro-cracks develop, and the water can

317 penetrate into the sample. Consequently, the unreacted lime grains can react with the penetrated

318 water, leading to strength development during initial repetitive wet and dry cycles (Muntohar

319 et al., 2013; Hoy et al., 2017). Furthermore, Kamaruddin et al. (2020) stated that the increase

320 of strength at the beginning of wetting/drying is due to the soil particle starting to tighten

321 together and hence can withstand the environmental effect. The bonding and interlocking

13
322 between the soil particles get loose after the 4th wetting and drying cycle; thus, the soil strength

323 starts to deteriorate.

324

325 Even though the 5% lime sample experienced a tiny horizontal crack in the middle of the

326 sample after the 9th wetting–drying cycle, the UCS of the 5% lime - stabilised sample is still

327 above the criterion value of 800 kPa after the 15th cycle. This means that 5% lime - stabilised

328 soil can be utilised as a road subgrade material since it can bear 12 wetting-drying cycles and

329 the UCS value at the end of the 12th cycle is above the threshold value (Horpibulsuk et al.,

f
oo
330 2016). The 7% and 9% lime stabilised samples are also in good shape and condition until 15

r
331 cycles, even though the samples show a decrease in UCS.

332
-p
re
333 3.6 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
lP

334 CBR tests were carried out on unstabilised and 5% lime-stabilised samples under unsoaked and
na

335 soaked conditions. Only 7- day samples were tested for the unsoaked condition, whereas 5%

336 lime - stabilised samples were subjected to all curing days for the soaked condition. The CBR
ur

337 value for unstabilised laterite soil is 33.14%, but with 5% lime stabilisation at 7 days, it
Jo

338 increases to 85.25%. With the increased curing period, the CBR improvement of soaked lime-

339 stabilised samples is significant. Fig. 12 shows that the soaked CBR value for the unstabilised

340 sample is 7.14%, whereas the CBR for stabilised soil increases to 19.89%, 26.95%, 37.46%,

341 and 48.29% for 3, 7, 14, and 28 days of curing, respectively due to agglomeration of soil

342 particles.

343

344 3.7 Consolidated Undrained (CU) Triaxial Test

345 The effect of lime stabilisation on the mechanical behaviour of laterite soil is explored further

346 by comparing the shear strength characteristic between unstabilised and lime-stabilised

14
347 samples via consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial tests. Fig. 13 (a)(b) depicts the relationship

348 between the deviatoric stress (σ1 – σ3) and the axial strain (ε1) of unstabilised and 5% lime-

349 stabilised samples at confining pressures of 50 kPa, 100 kPa, and 200 kPa, respectively. The

350 unstabilised and stabilised samples exhibit the strain-hardening behaviour in deviatoric stress

351 and axial strain relationship for all confining pressures tested. As such, the samples do not

352 exhibit a peak deviatoric stress and continue to increase until the end of the test. However, the

353 excess pore pressure rises sharply until it reaches a peak, then falls to a negative value at the

354 end of the test.

f
oo
355

r
356 According to Mohd Yunus et al. (2017), the presence of lime that contributes to the pozzolanic

357
-p
reaction increases the soil strength. It is clear that the peak deviatoric stress of lime-stabilised
re
358 soil increases with increasing the confining pressure. For instance, the deviatoric stress
lP

359 increases from 151.90 kPa to 186 kPa and significantly increases to 244.92 kPa when the
na

360 confining pressure (σ3) is increased from 50 kPa, 100 kPa, and 200 kPa. As shown in Fig. 13

361 (c)(d), an increase in confining pressure results in an increase in pore water pressure (PWP) for
ur

362 both unstabilised and lime-stabilised samples.

Jo

363

364 The Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes derived from the results of the CU triaxial tests

365 performed under confining pressures of 50, 100, and 200kPa were used to determine the total

366 and effective strength parameters, as shown in Fig. 14. Notably, the total cohesion (c) increases

367 significantly from 45 kPa to 150.5 kPa upon adding lime content. At the same time, the total

368 friction angle (ϕ) increases from 14.5º to 28º. On the other hand, the effective cohesion (c’) and

369 effective internal friction (ϕ’) increase from 40 kPa to 146 kPa and 13.5º to 26º, respectively,

370 when stabilised with 5% lime content. It is evident that the increased cohesion and friction

371 angle result from the lime stabilisation and leads to enhanced soil strength. The results obtained

15
372 in the current study are similar to the previous studies (Makki-Szymkiewicz et al., 2015; Robin

373 et al., 2014).

374

375 The results show that adding lime can significantly improve the shear strength of lime-

376 stabilised soil, as evidenced by the increased cohesion and friction angle. The cohesion

377 significantly increases after the lime stabilisation, which is attributed to an increase in the

378 interparticle forces (Abdi et al., 2021; Ignat et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2021).

379

f
oo
380 The stress paths for both unstabilised and lime-stabilised show different behaviour, as

r
381 illustrated in Fig. 15. Unstabilised samples exhibited contractive behaviour at the initial stage

382
-p
and followed by dilative behaviour or exhibited hardening tendency near the end due to
re
383 negative pore water pressure generation (Fig. 13). The critical state line (CSL) slope is M =
lP

384 0.50 and M = 1.1 for unstabilised and lime stabilised lateritic soil, which corresponds to 13.5º
na

385 and 26º friction angles, respectively.

386
ur

387 3.8 Microstructural Analysis

Jo

388 FESEM was conducted on unstabilised and lime-stabilised samples for morphological analysis,

389 as shown in Fig. 16(a) and (b). The soil pores are relatively large and scattered before lime

390 stabilisation (Fig. 16(a)). On the contrary, the clay particles transform from platy to flocculated

391 structure, as shown in Fig. 16(b), which confirms the result of ionic exchange occurring

392 immediately after lime stabilisation (Jha and Sivapullaiah, 2020). Also, soil particle

393 aggregation is observed as a result of chemical bonding. After the lime stabilisation, the

394 aggregated soil particles with disintegrated surfaces and high rigidity improve soil cohesion

395 and interlocking, thus enhancing shear strength (Dhar and Hussain, 2021; Portelinha et al.,

396 2012). After curing, a crystalline cementitious compound such as CAH and CSH may appear

16
397 between lime and soil particles. This transformation changes the soil morphology and fills the

398 blank space in lime-stabilised soil, resulting in a continuous mass structure (Saldanha et al.,

399 2018).

400

401 EDX spectrum analysis was performed on 7 days of cured samples to understand chemical

402 composition development. Fig. 17 represents the EDX spectrums of the unstabilised and 5%

403 lime-stabilised samples. The laterite soil contains high intensities of oxide (O), Aluminium

404 (Al), Silicon (Si), and Iron (Fe) at 58.4%, 15.1%, 13.5%, and 13.1%, respectively. Also, due to

f
oo
405 the absence of calcium, the results indicate no cementitious products in the soil. For stabilised

r
406 laterite soil, the EDX analyses indicate the existence of Calcium (Ca) in the soil sample, which

407
-p
improves compressive strength (Wahab et al., 2021).
re
408
lP

409 The XRD test is used to determine the number of crystalline minerals in the unstabilised sample
na

410 and find newly formed compounds attributed to lime in the stabilised sample (Eisazadeh et al.,

411 2011). The XRD results of unstabilised and 5% lime-stabilised samples are depicted in Fig. 18.
ur

412 The main minerals in the unstabilised soil are nacrite (group of kaolinite), quartz, and
Jo

413 montmorillonite as indicated by the peaks at 12.30°, 21.22°, 24.71°, and 36.8°. The addition of

414 lime in laterite soil results in new peaks of cementation compounds such as calcium hydrates

415 (CSH and CAH) (Fig. 18(b)). The results obtained in this research are consistent with the

416 findings reported by previous research (Bouras et al., 2022; Ma and Chen, 2021; Sharma et al.,

417 2018). The appearance of cementitious products confirms that Ca2+ ions participate in the

418 pozzolanic reaction (Jha and Sivapullaiah, 2020). Calcium hydrates are formed through a

419 pozzolanic reaction between silica and alumina dissolved in calcium from lime. The

420 development of these new compounds in the lime-stabilised soil explains the improvement of

421 geotechnical properties contributed by pozzolanic reactions, resulting in the crystallisation of

17
422 cementitious products. Different amounts of lime mixed with lateritic soil influenced the degree

423 of alteration in the structure of clay minerals (Okeke et al., 2021), resulting in improved

424 strength due to produced cementitious compounds (Dhar and Hussain, 2021).

425

426 4.0 Conclusion

427 Conclusions were drawn based on the finding obtained from this study:

428 1. The maximum dry density (MDD) decreased while optimum moisture content (OMC)

429 increased with the increase of lime content for stabilised laterite soil due to flocculation

f
oo
430 and agglomeration between soil particles and lime.

r
431 2. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of lime-stabilised soil increased with

432
-p
increasing curing time, indicating that Ca2+ from lime reacted with silica and alumina
re
433 from lateritic soil to produce a cementitious compound resulting in strength gain.
lP

434 3. Durability test results show that unstabilised and 3% lime stabilised samples could not
na

435 resist the first wetting/drying, indicating the soil's inability to withstand the effect of

436 multiple wetting/drying while others sustained until the 15th wet and dry cycle. All
ur

437 remaining lime-stabilised soil showed decreasing strength after the 4th wetting and
Jo

438 drying cycles, but even at 15th wet and dry cycles, the UCS values were still above the

439 threshold value of 800 kPa.

440 4. Results from CU triaxial test indicated that the stress-strain curve for both unstabilised

441 and 5% lime-stabilised soil exhibited soil hardening behaviour. Shear strength

442 parameters (c and ϕ) in term of both total and effective stresses increased with the

443 addition of 5% lime content.

444 5. FESEM analysis of unstabilsed soil showed large pores, while lime-stabilised soil

445 showed the development of cementitious products on soil surfaces. On the other hand,

446 based on the EDX test, lime-stabilised soil produced a pozzolanic reaction between

18
447 alumina and silica from laterite soil and calcium ion in lime. Whilst the XRD analysis

448 confirmed that the formation of cementitious compounds (CSH and CAH) strengthened

449 the lime-stabilised soil, resulting in increased mechanical properties.

450

451 The results of this research highlighted the significance of lime stabilisation of lateritic soils as

452 a subgrade. Most previous studies considered the optimal lime content for subgrade

453 stabilisation based on UCS value. However, the findings of this study indicated that in addition

454 to UCS, the durability of lime-stabilised soil under wetting-drying cycles is also an essential

f
oo
455 factor that needs to be considered in selecting the optimal lime dosage. Although the present

r
456 study represents a possible way to understand the stabilisation mechanism of lime stabilised

457
-p
laterite soil, the study can be extended to other types of soil with various stabilisation methods
re
458 to better understand the mechanical properties improvement of lime-stabilised soils.
lP

459
na

460 Acknowledgements

461 The authors thank the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) for the SLAI scholarship
ur

462 Department of Engineering under the Faculty of Civil Engineering Universiti Teknologi Mara
Jo

463 (UiTM) for the financial support for this work. This research also was sponsored by the

464 Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) awarded by the Ministry of Higher Education

465 of Malaysia (Variation of matric suction on stiffness behavior of Lateritic Soil Treated with

466 Ordinary Portland Cement– FRGS/1/2022/TK06/UTM/02/14) and Evaluating and monitoring

467 the effects of climate changes on landslide hazard zonation using Artifical Neural Network and

468 real-time monitoring system - Q.J130000.2451.09G23)

469

470 References

471 Abd Rashid, M.H.S., Zakaria, R., Aminudin, E., Adzar, J.A., Shamsuddin, S.M., Munikanan,

19
472 V., Alias, N.E., Sooria, S.Z., Saha, K.M., 2020. Critical green road criteria for Malaysia

473 green rural road index, in: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.

474 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/849/1/012039

475 Abdi, M.R., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Shafiei Chafi, L., 2021. An investigation into the effects of

476 lime on compressive and shear strength characteristics of fiber-reinforced clays. J. Rock

477 Mech. Geotech. Eng. 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.11.008

478 Abdul Ghani, A.N., Roslan, N.I., Abdul Hamid, A.H., 2016. Road submergence during

479 flooding and its effect on subgrade strength. Int. J. GEOMATE 10, 1848–1853.

f
oo
480 https://doi.org/10.21660/2016.21.5151

r
481 Abdul Hussein Saeed, K., Kassim, K.A., Mohd Yunus, N.Z., Nur, H., 2015. Physico-

482
-p
chemical characterisation of lime stabilised tropical kaolin clay. J. Teknol. 72, 83–90.
re
483 https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v72.4021
lP

484 Akoto, B.K.A., 1986. The effect of repeated loading on the ultimate unconfined compressive
na

485 strength of a lime-stabilised laterite. Eng. Geol. 23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-

486 7952(86)90034-7
ur

487 Al-Mukhtar, M., Khattab, S., Alcover, J.-F., 2012. Microstructure and geotechnical properties
Jo

488 of lime-treated expansive clayey soil. Eng. Geol. 139–140, 17–27.

489 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.04.004

490 Al-Mukhtar, M., Lasledj, A., Alcover, J.F., 2010. Behaviour and mineralogy changes in lime-

491 treated expansive soil at 50°C. Appl. Clay Sci. 50, 199–203.

492 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2010.07.022

493 Amadi, A.A., Okeiyi, A., 2017. Use of quick and hydrated lime in stabilisation of lateritic

494 soil: comparative analysis of laboratory data. Int. J. Geo-Engineering 8, 3.

495 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40703-017-0041-3

496 ASTM, 1996. Standard test methods for wetting and drying compacted soil-cement mixtures,

20
497 ASTM-D559-03

498 Atangana Njock, P.G., Shen, S.-L., Zhou, A., Modoni, G., 2021. Artificial neural network

499 optimised by differential evolution for predicting diameters of jet grouted columns. J.

500 Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 13, 1500–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.05.009

501 Atangana Njock, P.G., Zhang, N., Zhou, A., Shen, S.-L., 2023. Evaluation of Lateral

502 Displacement Induced by Jet Grouting using Improved Random Forest. Geotech. Geol.

503 Eng. 41, 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-022-02270-y

504 Athanasopoulou, A., 2014. Addition of Lime and Fly Ash to Improve Highway Subgrade

f
oo
505 Soils. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000856

r
506 Attoh-Okine, N.O., 1995. Lime treatment of laterite soils and gravels - revisited. Constr.

507
-p
Build. Mater. 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-0618(95)00030-J
re
508 Azadi, H.M., Sidek, N., Noor, M.M.J., 2008. Effect of pozzolanic process on the strength of
lP

509 stabilised lime clay. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 13 K.

na

510 Bell, F.G., 1996. Lime stabilisation of clay minerals and soils. Eng. Geol. 42, 223–237.

511 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0392-8
ur

512 Bessaim, M.M., Bessaim, A., Missoum, H., Bendani, K., 2018. Effect of quick lime on
Jo

513 physicochemical properties of clay soil, in: MATEC Web of Conferences.

514 https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201714902065

515 Bouras, F., Al-Mukhtar, M., Tapsoba, N., Belayachi, N., Sabio, S., Beck, K., Martin, M.,

516 2022. Geotechnical Behavior and Physico-Chemical Changes of Lime-Treated and

517 Cement-Treated Silty Soil. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 40, 2033–2049.

518 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-021-02008-2

519 BSI, 1990. BS 1377-2: 1990: Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes

520 (classification tests)

521 C Sekhar, D., Nayak, S., 2019. SEM and XRD investigations on lithomargic clay stabilised

21
522 using granulated blast furnace slag and cement. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 13, 615–629.

523 https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1380355

524 Camapum de Carvalho, J., de Rezende, L.R., Cardoso, F.B. da F., Lucena, L.C. de F.L.,

525 Guimarães, R.C., Valencia, Y.G., 2015. Tropical soils for highway construction:

526 Peculiarities and considerations. Transp. Geotech. 5, 3–19.

527 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.10.004

528 Cherian, C., Arnepalli, D.N., 2015. A Critical Appraisal of the Role of Clay Mineralogy in

529 Lime Stabilization. Int. J. Geosynth. Gr. Eng. 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-015-

f
oo
530 0009-3

r
531 Choobbasti, A.J., Kutanaei, S.S., 2017. Microstructure characteristics of cement-stabilised

532
-p
sandy soil using nanosilica. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 9, 981–988.
re
533 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.03.015
lP

534 Consoli, N.C., Lopes, L. da S., Prietto, P.D.M., Festugato, L., Cruz, R.C., 2011. Variables
na

535 Controlling Stiffness and Strength of Lime-Stabilized Soils. J. Geotech.

536 Geoenvironmental Eng. 137. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000470

ur

537 Consoli, N.C., Samaniego, R.A.Q., Villalba, N.M.K., 2016. Durability, Strength, and
Jo

538 Stiffness of Dispersive Clay–Lime Blends. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28.

539 https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001632

540 Dash, S.K., Hussain, M., 2012. Lime Stabilization of Soils: Reappraisal. J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

541 24. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000431

542 Dhar, S., Hussain, M., 2021. The strength and microstructural behavior of lime stabilised

543 subgrade soil in road construction. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 15, 471–483.

544 https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1598623

545 Di Sante, M., Fratalocchi, E., Mazzieri, F., Brianzoni, V., 2015. Influence of delayed

546 compaction on the compressibility and hydraulic conductivity of soil-lime mixtures.

22
547 Eng. Geol. 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.12.005

548 Diamond, S., Kinter, E.B., 1965. Mechanisms of Soil-Lime Stabilization. Highw. Res. Rec.

549 6.

550 Eisazadeh, A., Kassim, K.A., Nur, H., 2011. Characterisation of phosphoric acid- and lime-

551 stabilised tropical lateritic clay. Environ. Earth Sci. 63, 1057–1066.

552 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0781-2

553 Etim, R.K., Eberemu, A.O., Osinubi, K.J., 2017. Stabilisation of black cotton soil with lime

554 and iron ore tailings admixture. Transp. Geotech. 10, 85–95.

f
oo
555 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2017.01.002

r
556 Eyo, E.U., Ng’ambi, S., Abbey, S.J., 2020. Performance of clay stabilised by cementitious

557
-p
materials and inclusion of zeolite/alkaline metals-based additive. Transp. Geotech. 23,
re
558 100330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100330
lP

559 Horpibulsuk, S., Suksiripattanapong, C., Samingthong, W., Rachan, R., Arulrajah, A., 2016.
na

560 Durability against Wetting–Drying Cycles of Water Treatment Sludge–Fly Ash

561 Geopolymer and Water Treatment Sludge–Cement and Silty Clay–Cement Systems. J.
ur

562 Mater. Civ. Eng. 28, 04015078-1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-

Jo

563 5533.0001351

564 Ignat, R., Baker, S., Holmén, M., Larsson, S., 2019. Triaxial extension and tension tests on

565 lime-cement-improved clay. Soils Found. 59.

566 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2019.06.004

567 Jha, A.K., Sivapullaiah, P. V., 2020. Lime Stabilization of Soil: A Physico-Chemical and

568 Micro-Mechanistic Perspective. Indian Geotech. J. 50, 339–347.

569 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-019-00371-9

570 Kamaruddin, F.A., Anggraini, V., Huat, B.K., Nahazanan, H., 2020. Wetting/drying behavior

571 of lime and alkaline activation stabilised marine clay reinforced with modified coir fiber.

23
572 Materials (Basel). 13, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13122753

573 Kassim, K.A., Hamir, R., Kok, K.C., 2005. Modification and stabilisation of Malaysian

574 cohesive soils with lime. Geotech. Eng. 36. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203739501-83

575 Khan, M.A., Wang, J.X., Patterson, W.B., 2019. A study of the swell-shrink behavior of

576 expansive Moreland clay. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 13, 205–217.

577 https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1351744

578 Ko, T.H., 2014. Nature and properties of lateritic soils derived from different parent materials

579 in Taiwan. Sci. World J. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/247194

f
oo
580 Lat, D.C., Jais, I.B.M., Ahmad, N.H., Abdullah, M., Razali, R., Noor, S.N.A.M., Rahman,

r
581 N.S.A., 2021. The shear strength and electron microscopy of laterite soil with the

582
-p
intrusion of polyurethane, in: AIP Conference Proceedings.
re
583 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0044225
lP

584 Latifi, N., Eisazadeh, A., Marto, A., Meehan, C.L., 2017. Tropical residual soil stabilisation:
na

585 A powder form material for increasing soil strength. Constr. Build. Mater. 147, 827–

586 836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.115

ur

587 Liu, M.D., Indraratna, B., Horpibulsuk, S., Suebsuk, J., 2012. Variations in strength of lime-
Jo

588 treated soft clays. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Gr. Improv. 165.

589 https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.11.00025

590 Ma, Y., Chen, W., 2021. Study on the Mechanism of Stabilising Loess with Lime: Analysis

591 of Mineral and Microstructure Evolution. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 1–11.

592 https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6641496

593 Makki-Szymkiewicz, L., Hibouche, A., Taibi, S., Herrier, G., Lesueur, D., Fleureau, J.-M.,

594 2015. Evolution of the properties of lime-treated silty soil in a small experimental

595 embankment. Eng. Geol. 191, 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.03.008

596 Mallela, J., Quintus, H. Von, Smith, K.L., 2004. Consideration of Lime-Stabilised Layers in

24
597 Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design, The National Lime Association.

598 Millogo, Y., Morel, J.C., Traoré, K., Ouedraogo, R., 2012. Microstructure, geotechnical and

599 mechanical characteristics of quicklime-lateritic gravels mixtures used in road

600 construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 26.

601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.069

602 Mitchell, J.K., 1986. The Twentieth Terzaghi lecture, Practical problems from surprising soil

603 behavior. J. Geotech. Eng. 112.

604 Muntohar, A.S., Widianti, A., Hartono, E., Diana, W., 2013. Engineering Properties of Silty

f
oo
605 Soil Stabilized with Lime and Rice Husk Ash and Reinforced with Waste Plastic Fiber.

r
606 J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25, 1260–1270. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000659

607
-p
Okeke, C., Abbey, S., Oti, J., Eyo, E., Johnson, A., Ngambi, S., Abam, T., Ujile, M., 2021.
re
608 Appropriate use of lime in the study of the physicochemical behaviour of stabilised
lP

609 lateritic soil under continuous water ingress. Sustain. 13, 1–26.
na

610 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010257

611 Ola, S.A., 1977. The potentials of lime stabilisation of lateritic soils. Eng. Geol. 11, 305–317.
ur

612 https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(77)90036-9
Jo

613 Osula, D.O.A., 1991. Lime modification of problem laterite. Eng. Geol. 30.

614 https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(91)90040-R

615 Oti, J., 2017. Lime stabilised glacial till clay incorporating wheat straw or waste tyre rubber

616 granules, in: Soil Stabilisation: Types, Methods and Applications.

617 Poltue T., Suddeepong A., Horpibulsuk S., Samingthong W., Arulrajah A., Rashid A.S.A.

618 2020. Strength development of recycled concrete aggregate stabilized with fly ash-rice

619 husk ash based geopolymer as pavement base material. Road Materials and Pavement

620 Design. 21(8): 2344 – 2355. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2019.1593884.

621 Portelinha, F.H.M., Lima, D.C., Fontes, M.P.F., Carvalho, C.A.B., 2012. Modification of a

25
622 Lateritic Soil with Lime and Cement: An Economical Alternative for Flexible Pavement

623 Layers. Soils and Rocks 35, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.28927/SR.351051

624 Qubain, B.S., Seksinsky, E.J., Li, J., 2000. Incorporating subgrade lime stabilisation into

625 pavement design. Transp. Res. Rec. https://doi.org/10.3141/1721-01.

626 Rashid, A. S. A., Black, J. A, Kueh, A. B. H., Md Noor, N., 2015a. Behaviour of weak

627 soils reinforced with soil cement columns formed by the deep mixing method: Rigid and

628 flexible footings. Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation.

629 68: 262 – 279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.02.039.

f
oo
630 Rashid, A.S.A., Black, J. A., Mohamad, H., Mohd Noor, N., 2015b. Behavior of Weak

r
631 Soils Reinforced with End-Bearing Soil-Cement Columns Formed by the Deep Mixing

632 Method. Marine Georesources

-p
and Geotechnology, 33(6): 473 – 486.
re
633 https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2014.954174.
lP

634 Rashid, A.S.A., Kalatehjari, R., Noor, N.M., Yaacob, H., Moayedi, H., Sing, L.K., 2014.
na

635 Relationship between liquidity index and stabilised strength of local subgrade materials

636 in a tropical area. Measurement 55, 231–237.

ur

637 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2014.05.018.
Jo

638 Rashid, A. S. A., Kueh, A. B. H., Mohamad H., 2018. Behaviour of soft soil improved by

639 floating soil-cement columns. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics,

640 18(2): 95 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.15.00041.

641 Rashid, A.S.A., Latifi, N., Meehan, C.L., Manahiloh, K.N., 2017. Sustainable Improvement

642 of Tropical Residual Soil Using an Environmentally Friendly Additive. Geotech. Geol.

643 Eng. 35, 2613–2623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0265-1

644 Razali, R., Rashid, A.S.A., Hezmi, M.A., Roshan, M.J., Zakaria, N.S.S., Lat, D.C., Rahman,

645 N.S.A., 2022. Experimental Study on Mechanical Behavior of Laterite Soil Treated with

646 Quicklime. J. Mech. Eng. 11, 109–122.

26
647 Robin, V., Cuisinier, O., Masrouri, F., Javadi, A.A., 2014. Chemo-mechanical modelling of

648 lime treated soils. Appl. Clay Sci. 95, 211–219.

649 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.04.015

650 Roshan, M.J., A Rashid, A.S., Abdul Wahab, N., Tamassoki, S., Jusoh, S.N., Hezmi, M.A.,

651 Nik Daud, N.N., Mohd Apandi, N., Azmi, M., 2022a. Improved methods to prevent

652 railway embankment failure and subgrade degradation: A review. Transp. Geotech. 37,

653 100834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2022.100834

654 Roshan, M.J., Rashid, A.S.A., Wahab, N.A., Hezmi, M.A., Jusoh, S.N., Azmi, M., 2021.

f
oo
655 Stability of Railway Embankment in Saturated and Unsaturated Conditions. IOP Conf.

r
656 Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1153, 012007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1153/1/012007

657
-p
Roshan, M.J., Rashid, A.S.A., Wahab, N.A., Hezmi, M.A., Jusoh, S.N., Daud, N.N.N.,
re
658 Tamassoki, S., Zurairahetty, N.Y.M., Razali, R., 2023. Effects of Ordinary Portland
lP

659 Cement on the Soil-Water Characteristics Curve of Lateritic Soil. Suranaree J. Sci.
na

660 Technol. 30.

661 Roshan, M.J., Rashid, A.S.B.A., Hezmi, M.A. Bin, Nejabi, M.N., Bt.Jusoh, S.N., Tamassoki,
ur

662 S., Razali, R., 2022b. Evaluation of cement stabilised residual soil on macro- and micro-
Jo

663 scale for road construction. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 69, 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-

664 022-00165-6

665 Saldanha, R.B., Scheuermann Filho, H.C., Mallmann, J.E.C., Consoli, N.C., Reddy, K.R.,

666 2018. Physical–Mineralogical–Chemical Characterization of Carbide Lime: An

667 Environment-Friendly Chemical Additive for Soil Stabilization. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30,

668 06018004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002283

669 Schaetzl, R.J. and, Anderson, S., 2015. Soils-Genesis and Geomorphology (Hardcover) ;

670 9780521812016 ; Soil science, sedimentology, Soils: Genesis, Carol F. Sawyer.

671 Sharma, L.K., Sirdesai, N.N., Sharma, K.M., Singh, T.N., 2018. Experimental study to

27
672 examine the independent roles of lime and cement on the stabilisation of a mountain

673 soil: A comparative study. Appl. Clay Sci. 152, 183–195.

674 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.11.012

675 Shen, S.-L., Wang, Z.-F., Yang, J., Ho, C.-E., 2013. Generalised Approach for Prediction of

676 Jet Grout Column Diameter. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 139, 2060–2069.

677 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000932

678 Shen, S.L., Wang, Z.F., Cheng, W.C., 2017. Estimation of lateral displacement induced by jet

679 grouting in clayey soils. Géotechnique 67, 621–630.

f
oo
680 https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.16.P.159

r
681 Shen, Y. shun, Tang, Y., Yin, J., Li, M. ping, Wen, T., 2021. An experimental investigation

682
-p
on strength characteristics of fiber-reinforced clayey soil treated with lime or cement.
re
683 Constr. Build. Mater. 294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123537
lP

684 Tamassoki, S., Daud, N.N.N., Jakarni, F.M., Kusin, F.M., Rashid, A.S.A., Roshan, M.J.,
na

685 2022a. Compressive and Shear Strengths of Coir Fibre Reinforced Activated Carbon

686 Stabilised Lateritic Soil. Sustainability 14, 9100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159100

ur

687 Tamassoki, S., Nik Daud, N.N., Jakarni, F.M., Mohd Kusin, F., Rashid, A.S.A., Roshan,
Jo

688 M.J., 2022b. Performance Evaluation of Lateritic Subgrade Soil Treated with Lime and

689 Coir Fibre-Activated Carbon. Appl. Sci. 12, 8279. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168279

690 Tamassoki, S., Nik Daud, N.N., Nejabi, M.N., Roshan, M.J., 2022c. Fibre-Reinforced Soil

691 Mixed Lime/Cement Additives: A Review. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 31, 217–235.

692 https://doi.org/10.47836/pjst.31.1.14

693 Thompson, M.R., 1966. Lime Reactivity of Illinois Soils. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 92.

694 https://doi.org/10.1061/jsfeaq.0000911

695 Ullah, R., Abdullah, R.A., Kassim, A., Yunus, N.Z.M., Ullah, A., Junaid, M., Roshan, M.J.,

696 2022. Effectiveness of Laser Diffraction Method for Particle Size Evaluation of Residual

28
697 Soil. Indian Geotech. J. 52, 1476–1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-022-00615-1

698 Vitale, E., Deneele, D., Paris, M., Russo, G., 2017. Multi-scale analysis and time evolution of

699 pozzolanic activity of lime treated clays. Appl. Clay Sci. 141.

700 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.02.013

701 Wahab, N A, Rashid, A.S.A., Roshan, M.J., Rizal, N.H.A., Yunus, N.Z.M., Hezmi, M.A.,

702 Tadza, M.Y.M., 2021. Effects of Cement on the Compaction Properties of Lateritic Soil.

703 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1153, 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-

704 899X/1153/1/012015

f
oo
705 Wahab, Norshakila Abdul, Roshan, M.J., Rashid, A.S.A., Hezmi, M.A., Jusoh, S.N., Nik

r
706 Norsyahariati, N.D., Tamassoki, S., 2021. Strength and Durability of Cement-Treated

707
-p
Lateritic Soil. Sustainability 13, 6430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116430
re
708 Wang, D., Zentar, R., Abriak, N.E., 2018. Durability and Swelling of Solidified/Stabilized
lP

709 Dredged Marine Soils with Class-F Fly Ash, Cement, and Lime. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30,
na

710 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002187

711 Wang, Y., Guo, P., Li, X., Lin, H., Liu, Y., Yuan, H., 2019. Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced
ur

712 and Lime-Stabilised Clayey Soil in Triaxial Tests. Appl. Sci. 9, 900.
Jo

713 https://doi.org/10.3390/app9050900

714 Wang, Z.-F., Shen, S.-L., Modoni, G., Zhou, A., 2020. Excess pore water pressure caused by

715 the installation of jet grouting columns in clay. Comput. Geotech. 125, 103667.

716 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103667

717 Wilkinson, A., Haque, A., Kodikara, J., Adamson, J., Christie, D., 2010. Improvement of

718 problematic soils by lime slurry pressure injection: case study. J. Geotech.

719 Geoenvironmental Eng. 136, 1459–1468. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-

720 5606.0000359

721

29
722 Table 1. Characteristic of unstabilised laterite soil.

Properties Values

Natural moisture content (%) 53.19

Specific gravity of laterite 2.79

Specific gravity of quicklime 3.25

Liquid limit, LL (%) 65

Plastic limit, PL (%) 46

Plasticity index, PI (%) 19

f
oo
Soil Classification MH (sandy SILT)

r
Gravel 12.79%

Sand
-p 17.54%
re
Silt 61.25%
lP

Clay 8.41%
na

Cu 8.98 (well-graded)

Cc 0.98 (well-graded)
ur

Maximum dry density (g/c𝑚3 ) 1.46

Jo

Optimum moisture content (%) 28

Unconfined compressive 441

strength (UCS) kPa

Undrained shear strength kPa 220.5

723

724

725

726

727

30
728 Table 2. Chemical composition of quicklime

Chemical compositions Percentages (%)

𝐴𝑙2 𝑂3 6.1
𝐶𝑎𝑂 93.48
𝑇𝑖𝑂2 0.021
𝑉2 𝑂5 0.007
𝑀𝑛𝑂 0.008
𝐹𝑒2 𝑂3 0.149
𝑆𝑟𝑂 0.034
𝑍𝑟𝑂2 0.003
𝑃𝑟2 𝑂3 0.027
𝐸𝑢2 𝑂3 0.00

f
𝑇𝑚2 𝑂3 0.189

oo
𝐿𝑢2 𝑂3 0.018
729

r
730
-p
re
731 Table 3. Maximum dry density and OMC of unstabilised and lime-stabilised laterite soil
lP

732 using the Modified Proctor test.

Soil ρd(g/cm3) OMC (%)

na

Unstabilised 1.46 28
ur

Laterite treated with 1.47 27

Jo

3% lime

Laterite treated with 1.43 28

5% lime

Laterite treated with 1.40 30

7% lime

Laterite treated with 1.38 31

9% lime

733

734

735

31
736

100
90
80
Passing Percentage (%)

70
60
50
Lateritic soil (Sieve
40 method)
Lateritic soil (Laser
30
diffraction)
20 Lime (Laser
diffraction)
10

f
0

oo
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
737 Particle Diameter (mm)

r
738 -p
Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of lateritic soil and lime.

739
re
740
lP
na
ur
Jo

741

742 Fig 2. Triaxial test machine

32
743

90 744
80
745
70
Atterberg Limit (%)

60 746
50
40 747
30
748
20
10 LL PL PI 749
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7509

f
Lime content (%)

oo
751

r
752 Fig. 3. Variation in Atterberg limit with lime content.
-p
re
1.90
Unstabilised
3% Lime
lP

1.80
5% Lime
1.70 7% Lime
9% Lime
na
Dry Density (g/cm3)

1.60 AV unstabilised
AV 3% Lime
1.50 AV 5% Lime
ur

AV 7% Lime
1.40 AV 9% Lime
Jo

1.30

1.20

1.10

1.00
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Moisture Content (%)

753

754 Fig. 4. Compaction curve of unstabilised laterite and lime – stabilised soil.

755

756

757

758

33
759 700 Unstabilised

Compressive strength, qu (kPa)

3% lime
760 600
5% lime
500 7% lime
761
400 9% lime

762 300

763 200

100
764
a
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
765 Strain (%)

766

f
oo
Unstabilised
767 3% lime
Compressive strength, qu (kPa)

900
800 5% lime

r
768 700 7% lime

769
600
500
-p 9% lime
re
400
770 300
lP

200
771 100 b
0
na

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

772 Strain (%)

773
ur

774 Unstabilised
Jo

3% lime
1200
Compressive strength, qu (kPa)

775 5% lime
1000
7% lime
776
800 9% lime

777 600

400
778
200
779 c
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
780 Strain (%)

781

34
782
Unstabilised
3% lime

Compressive strength, qu (kPa)

783 1400
1200 5% lime
784 1000 7% lime

800 9% lime
785 600
400
786
200
d
0
787 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Strain (%)
788

789

f
oo
1600
790 Unstabilised
Compressive strength, qu (kPa)

1400 3% lime

r
791 1200 5% lime

792
1000
800
-p 7% lime
9% lime
re
793 600
lP

400
794 200
e
na

0
795 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Strain (%)
796
ur

797 Fig. 5. UCS results for different curing time (a) 0 days, (b) 3 days, (c) 7 days, (d) 14 days, (e)
Jo

798 28 days.

35
 f
r oo
799 -p
re
800 Fig. 6. Failure mode of unstabilised laterite and lime - stabilised laterite sample at 7-days

801 curing (a) bulging shape (b) inclined shape

lP

802
na

803
ur

804
Jo

805

806

807

808

36
 1600

1400

1200

1000
qu(kPa)

800

600

400

200

0
0 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 28 days
curing days

f
Unstabilised 3% lime 5% lime 7% lime 9% lime Target value

oo
809

810

r
811
-p
Fig. 7. UCS value based on curing time.
re
812
lP

3.00
na

2.50

2.00
ur
SDI

1.50
Jo

1.00

0.50

0.00
0 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 28 days
curing time

3% lime 5% lime 7% lime 9% lime Target value

813

814 Fig.8. Strength development index (SDI) based on curing time.

815

37
 2,000
1,800 0%- 9% Lime
1,600
1,400
E50 (kPa)

1,200
E50 = 2.031qu
1,000
R² = 0.97
800
600
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800
qu (kPa)

f
oo
816

817 Fig. 9. Relationship between secant elastic modulus (E50) and UCS.

r
818 -p
re
1,600
5% lime 7% lime 9% lime
lP

1,400

1,200
na

1,000
UCS (kPa)

800
ur

600
Jo

400

200

0
1st cycle 2nd cycle 4th cycle 7th cycle 12th cycle 15th cycle
wetting drying cycles
819

820 Fig. 10. Unconfined compression strength for durability test with different wetting and drying

821 cycles.

822

38
823

f
824 Fig. 11. (a) samples are subjected to wetting, (b) unstabilised laterite and 3% lime samples

oo
825 break at the end of 1st cycle.

r
90

80
-p
re
70
lP

60

50
CBR (%)

na

40

30

20
ur

10
Jo

0
Unstabilised 5%L7D Unstabilised 5%L3D 5%L7D 5%L14D 5%L28D
(unsoaked) (unsoaked) (soaked) (soaked) (soaked) (soaked) (soaked)
curing days

Unstabilised (unsoaked) 5%L7D (unsoaked) Unstabilised (soaked) 5%L3D (soaked)

5%L7D (soaked) 5%L14D (soaked) 5%L28D (soaked)
826

827 Fig. 12. Variation of CBR value for all curing days.

828

829

830

39
 300
a (UN)
250
Deviator stress (kPa)

200

150

100 50 kPa
100 kpa
50 200 kPa

0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Axial strain (%)

f
oo
1000 b (5%)
900

r
800
Deviator stress (kPa)

700
600
-p
re
500
400 50 kPa
lP

300 100 kPa

200 200 kPa
100
na

0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Axial strain (%)
ur

60
c (UN)
Jo

40

20
PWP (kPa)

0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
-20 50 kPa
100 kPa
-40 200 kPa

-60
Axial strain (%)
831

832

833

834

40
835

140
d (5%)
120
100
80
60 50 kPa
PWP (kPa)

40 100 kPa
20 200 kPa
0
-20 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

-40
-60
-80

f
Axial strain (%)

oo
836

r
837 Fig. 13: (a)(b) Deviator stress versus axial strain (c)(d) pore water pressure (PWP) versus
-p
838 axial strain for unstabilised laterite and 5% of lime - stabilised
re
839
lP

300
a
na
Shear Stress, τ, (kKPa)

200
ur
Jo

100 c= 45 kPa

ϕ= 14.5º
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Total stress, σ (kPa)

300
b
Shear Stress, τ, (kKPa)

200

c'= 40 kPa
100
ϕ'= 13.5º

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Effectivel stress,σ'(kPa)

41
840

700
c
Shear Stress, τ, (kKPa)

600
500
400
c= 150.5 kPa
300
200 ϕ= 28º

100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Total stress,σ (kPa)
841

f
oo
700
d
600

r
Shear Stress, τ, (kKPa)

500
400
-p
re
300 c'= 146 kPa
lP

200 ϕ'= 26º

100
na

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Effective stress, σ' (kPa)
ur

842
Jo

843 Fig 14: Mohr coulomb circle envelope for total and effective stress for unstabilised laterite

844 and 5% of lime - stabilised [(a) and (b) for unstabilised, (c) and (d) for 5% lime stabilised]

845

846

42
 300
a
250
M = 0.50

200
(σ'1-σ'3) kPa

150
50 kPa
100 100 kPa
200 kPa
50

f
0

oo
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00
(σ'1+2σ'3)/3
847

r
700
-p
re
b
600
lP

M= 1.1
500
na
(σ'1-σ'3) kPa

400
ur

300 50 kPa
100 kPa
Jo

200 200 kPa

100

0
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00
(σ'1+2*σ'3)/3

848

849 Fig 15: Effective stress path relationship for (a) unstabilised laterite (b) 5% lime -

850 stabilised

851

852

43
853

854 Fig. 16. FESEM image of (a) unstabilised laterite (b) 5% lime - stabilised.

f
oo
855

r
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

856

857 Fig. 17. EDX result for (a) unstabilised laterite (b) 5% stabilised laterite.

858

44
 f
oo
859

r
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

860

861 Fig. 18. XRD results for (a) unstabilised laterite (b) 5% stabilised laterite.

862

45
The highlight of the paper

1. Study laterite-stabilised soil behaviour due to alternate wet and dry conditions.

2. 5% lime content treats the soil to gain the desired strength and soil durability.

3. Calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) formations contribute to increasing strength.

4. Calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH) development also helps in gaining durability.

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo