Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

A study on utilization of landfill mined soil like fraction for sustainable

reduction in swelling and cracking potential for expansive and marine
soils
Mahi Patil, Ram Wanare, Parishi H. Dalal, Kannan K.R. Iyer ⇑, Trudeep N. Dave
Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Infrastructure Technology, Research and Management, Near Khokhra Circle, Maninagar (East), Ahmedabad 380 026, India

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

Article history: Landfill mined soil like fraction (LMSF) is derived from mining of legacy landfill waste after removal of
Available online xxxx larger fraction such as construction debris, clothes, plastics and other recyclables, and accounts for sig-
nificant proportion of the total legacy landfill waste. LMSF has found applications as landfill cover mate-
Keywords: rial; however, owing to its large quantity in many cities, there is a need to explore more applications for
Landfill mined soil like fraction its utilization. In this context the present study explores the role of LMSF (filler replacement) with/with-
Sustainable out ultrafine slag, US (primary admixture) and lime, L (activator) in controlling the shrinkage and crack-
Crack reduction
ing of marine and expansive soils during drying. The ratio of the area of crack and shrinkage to total area
Swelling reduction
Expansive soil
of specimen, defined as crack and shrinkage intensity factor (CSIF), has been utilized for quantification of
Marine soil the cracking and shrinkage characteristics of soils with/without stabilization. Further, the effect of soil
stabilization on the swelling potential (viz., free swell index and swelling pressure) has been evaluated
for the soils. In the present study, complete crack mitigation for expansive soil has been achieved for
the combination: 40%LMSF (<425 lm) + 50% expansive soil + 8%US + 2%L, while for the marine soil it
has been achieved for combination: 40% LMSF (<425 lm/<2 mm) + 50% marine soil + 8.5%US + 1.5%L.
The study findings are useful in the context of utilizing LMSF with sustainable admixtures for reducing
cracking and swelling potential of soils for various infrastructure applications such as natural and stabi-
lized slopes, embankment, canal bed and ponds.
Copyright Ó 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Advances in Construction Materials and Structures.

1. Introduction ductivity, compressibility, bearing capacity, erodibility), but also

The shrinkage and cracking of soil is mainly associated with the
change of energy, stress state and/or volume when soil is exposed
to different climatic/environmental conditions, viz. temperature,
humidity, wetting- and drying- cycles and salinity [1–3]. Different
soils have different susceptibility towards cracking, and clayey
soils due to their higher fines content and presence of aluminosil-
icate clay minerals have the potential for significant shrinkage and
swelling with changing moisture conditions resulting in crack for-
mation [1–4]. On field cracking of soil is problematic and poses
challenges in geotechnical, geo-environmental, and agricultural
domains. Cracks not only adversely affects soil/soil properties
(viz., crop water and nutrient stress, permeability/hydraulic con-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kannaniyer@iitram.ac.in (K.K.R. Iyer).
compromises the stability/integrity of the infrastructure (viz.,
foundations, earth structures, natural slopes, structure linings,
engineered/non engineered landfills, hazardous waste isolation
facilities, subgrades/pavements) constructed using soil/on soil.
Thus, reducing/mitigating crack formations is important to main-
tain the soil as well as structural integrity to ensure safety and
durability of geotechnical structures [1–3,5–9].
Conventional chemical additives have been utilized for reducing
cracking and swelling potential in clayey soils [10]. Cement is one
of the widely used calcium-based stabilizer. But considering the
challenges such as CO2 emissions, need for economical solution,
and brittle behaviour in some cases, researchers have suggested
the application of lime in addition with other pozzolans (viz.,
ash, GGBS, etc.) as a more beneficial option for stabilizing clayey
soils considering the aforementioned challenges [9–12]. Typical
crack mitigation/reduction methods generally requires high main-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.03.524
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Advances in Construction Materials and Structures.

Please cite this article as: M. Patil, R. Wanare, P.H. Dalal et al., A study on utilization of landfill mined soil like fraction for sustainable reduction in swelling
and cracking potential for expansive and marine soils, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.03.524
M. Patil, R. Wanare, P.H. Dalal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

tenance and labor costs along with the use of chemicals [13]. Add- environmental-friendly treatment alternative to mitigate/reduce
ing various non-conventional admixtures including natural materi- cracking and swelling in these soils.
als [4,8,14], synthetic materials [6,10,15–18], agricultural waste
[1,19,20], municipal waste [21,22], industrial waste/byproducts
2. Experimental details
[3,9,23–25], or their combination [14,26,27] in soil has also been
proven to be effective in terms of performance, reduced construc-
2.1. Soils and LMSF properties
tion and disposal costs, and reduced adverse environmental effects
[27]. However, other environmental-friendly biomaterials and
The properties of expansive and marine soil used in the present
waste/recycled waste materials are still under investigation and
study are summarised in Table 1. The expansive soil (ES) has been
are much needed for stabilizing clayey soil to attain and maintain
procured from location near Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, and the
sustainability [1,2,12]. Fig. 1 summaries the materials used in sta-
marine soil (MS) utilized in the study is procured from the coastal
bilization of clayey soils in previous studies, focusing on control-
region of Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India. LMSF used in this study has
ling the swelling, shrinkage, and cracking properties.
been procured from the landfill site in Gujarat, India. The proper-
There has been very limited use of municipal solid waste as a
ties of LMSF are summarized in Table 1 and it has been used in
stabilizing material for clayey soils. Thus, the present study
two different particle size fractions, viz., LMSF < 425 lm
explores the application of Landfill mined soil like fraction (LMSF)
and < 2 mm, as a filler replacement in expansive and marine soils.
with/without admixtures for reduction/mitigation of cracking and
swelling potential in expansive and marine soils. LMSF is derived
from mining of legacy landfill waste after removal of larger fraction 2.2. Admixtures
such as construction debris, clothes, plastics and other recyclables
by employing trommel screens, and accounts for significant pro- Ultrafine slag (US), commercially available as Alccofine 1203Ò
portion (40–80%) of the total legacy landfill waste [28–31]. LMSF has been considered as the primary admixture for this study, vary-
has found limited application, mainly as landfill cover material; ing from 8 to 10%, while lime as an activator has been used in the
and there is a need to explore more applications for its utilization, range of 1–2%. The combinations of expansive Soil (ES) and marine
as LMSF is available in large quantities in old landfills [28–34]. The soil (MS) with/without, landfill mined soil like fraction (LMSF),
study intends to utilize LMSF as a filler replacement in expansive ultrafine slag (US) and lime (L), along with the methodology fol-
and marine soils, with an aim to achieve a sustainable and lowed for the study is presented in Fig. 2.

Conventional Cement, lime

Olivine, sand, natural fibres

Natural (coir)

Biopolymers, EPU resin,

Synthetic HPUF, PU fibres, Geo-
synthetics
Stabilizing Agricultural Sugarcane pith/bagasse, Either used individually or
Materials uncharred RH & bagasse, in combination of two or
waste more materials/methods
RH ash, biochar

Municipal Waste tire textile fibres,

Can LMSF be used ?
Waste quarry dust

Industrial BA, ultrafine slag, CCR,

Waste/Byproducts FA, nanosized FA, GGBS,
coal gaunge

Bio-methods MICP (using indigenous

bacteria)

Fig. 1. Stabilizing materials used in clayey soils from previous studies.

Table 1
Properties of soils and LMSF used in present study.

Properties Expansive Soil Marine Soil LMSF Reference for the test method
Specific Gravity 2.70 2.71 2.36 [35]
Liquid Limit 67% 64% 31.42% [36]
Plastic Limit 31% 31% Non-plastic
Shrinkage Limit 13% 19% 24.4% [37]
Free Swell Index 60% 65.5% 0% [38]
Gravel – – 20% [39,40]
Sand 4.52% 36% 79% (fine sand: 40%, medium sand: 30%, coarse sand: 9%)
Silt 41.31% 27% 1%
Clay 54.17% 37%
Classification CH CH SW (with gravel) [41]

2
M. Patil, R. Wanare, P.H. Dalal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Summary of combinations studied and methodology for specimen preparation.

The soil/stabilized soil sample are prepared at water content 0.5

close to about 1.2 times liquid limit, and soaked for moisture equi-
libration for 24 h. Subsequently, the sample is mixed properly and
transferred to petri dish, tapped repeatedly for removal of any 0.4 LMSF
entrapped air. For soil + LMSF with/without ultrafine slag and lime, ES
the methodology of sample preparation is depicted in Fig. 2. The 50% LMSF+50% ES
20% LMSF+70% ES+10% US
prepared specimen have been subjected to desiccation test to 0.3 30% LMSF+60% ES+10% US
CSIF

understand the cracking and shrinkage phenomenon of soils 40% LMSF+50% ES+10% US
with/without admixtures under natural drying conditions (Tem- 20% LMSF+70% ES+9% US+1% L
perature, 27 °C ± 2 °C and humidity, 50% ± 5%). The reduction in 0.2 30% LMSF+60% ES+9% US+1% L
40% LMSF+50% ES+9% US+1% L
weight of specimen have been recorded to obtain the water con- 40% LMSF+50% ES+8.5% US+1.5% L
tent at different stages of drying. In addition, images at different 40% LMSF+50% ES+8% US+2% L
stages of drying have been obtained using high-resolution camera, 0.1
and Image J software has been utilized to obtain the area of crack
and shrinkage. Cracking and shrinkage occur simultaneously;
hence the combined response have been obtained by calculating 0.0
CSIF (crack and shrinkage intensity factor), defined as the ratio of 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 21000
area of crack and shrinkage during drying to the total area of spec- Time (mins)
imen [42]. Further, free swell index and swelling pressure (for
Fig. 3. Variation of CSIF with time for ES combinations with LMSF < 425 lm.
select combinations) have been evaluated for the soils with/with-
out admixtures [43,44], to assess the effect of admixtures on the
swelling potential of marine and expansive soils.
of varying amount of LMSF (20%, 30%, 40%), US (8%, 8.5%, 9%) and
3. Results and discussion lime (1%, 1.5%, 2%) with ES, yielded CSIF in the range of 0.046–
0.053 with about 89% reduction in crack and shrinkage area. More-
3.1. Variation of cracking and shrinkage characteristics for over, complete crack mitigation and near 100% crack mitigation
unstabilized/stabilized expansive soil (ES) was achieved for combinations, 50%ES + 40%LMSF (<425 lm) + 8
% US + 2%L and 50%ES + 40%LMSF (<2mm) + 8% US + 2%L, respec-
The variation of CSIF with time for expansive (ES) combinations tively; with CSIF values (attributed to shrinkage) noted as 0.051
with LMSF < 425 lm and <2 mm has been depicted in Figs. 3 and 4, and 0.049. The summary of CSIF values and percentage reduction
respectively. Overall, significant decrease in CSIF was observed in in CSIF for different combinations is summarized subsequently in
stabilized ES combinations than that for unstabilized ES. Addition Table 2.
of 50% LMSF reduced the CSIF values from 0.45 to 0.093–0.095 Further, Figs. 5 and 6, presents the variation of CSIF with water
resulting in 78–80% crack reduction in ES. Further, combinations content for expansive soil combinations with LMSF (<425 lm) and
with varying amount of LMSF (20%, 30%, 40%) and US (10%) showed LMSF (<2 mm), respectively. The CSIF values increase with reduc-
further decrease in CSIF values to around 0.077–0.060, yielding 82– tion in water content during drying. The CSIF values for stabilized
87% reduction in crack and shrinkage area. Furthermore, addition combinations reached early stable state at higher water content
3
M. Patil, R. Wanare, P.H. Dalal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

0.5 0.5
LMSF
ES
50% LMSF+50% ES
0.4 LMSF 0.4 20% LMSF+70% ES+10% US
ES 30% LMSF+60% ES+10% US
50% LMSF+50% ES 40% LMSF+50% ES+10% US
20% LMSF+70% ES+10% US 20% LMSF+70% ES+9% US+1% L
0.3 0.3 30% LMSF+60% ES+9% US+1% L

CSIF
30% LMSF+60% ES+10% US
CSIF

40% LMSF+50% ES+9% US+1% L

40% LMSF+50% ES+10% US
40% LMSF+50% ES+8.5% US+1.5% L
20% LMSF+70% ES+9% US+1% L
0.2 40% LMSF+50% ES+8% US+2% L
0.2 30% LMSF+60% ES+9% US+1% L
40% LMSF+50% ES+9% US+1% L
40% LMSF+50% ES+8.5% US+1.5% L
40% LMSF+50% ES+8% US+2% L
0.1 0.1

0.0
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 21000
Water Content (%)
Time (mins)
Fig. 6. CSIF vs. Water Content plot for ES combinations withLMSF < 2 mm.
Fig. 4. Variation of CSIF with time for ES combinations with LMSF < 2 mm.

(30–35%) than that of unstabilized soil (around 10%). Further, the

Table 2 early stabilization of cracks at higher water content for stabilized
Summary of average CSIF and percentage crack reduction for air-dried specimen soil combinations are influenced mainly by the addition of LMSF,
(Expansive soil combinations). which leads to reduced water holding capacity, lower initial water
Combinations Final Avg. % Crack content of soil slurry and higher evaporation rate due to the forma-
CSIF Reduction tion of macropores between the particles, and reduced soil suction
ES 0.45 – [8]. Expansive soil with LMSF < 2 mm exhibit constant values of
50%LMSF + 50%ES With LMSF 0.095 78.8 CSIF at around 35% water content as compared to combinations
20%LMSF + 70%ES + 10%US <425 lm 0.077 82.8 with LMSF < 425 lm, that exhibit constant CSIF values at relatively
30%LMSF + 60%ES + 10%US 0.075 83.3
lower water content. It can be noted that part of the water has
40%LMSF + 50%ES + 10%US 0.072 84.0
20%LMSF + 70%ES + 9%US + 1%L 0.053 88.2 been utilized in the hydration reactions and remains within the
30%LMSF + 60%ES + 9%US + 1%L 0.050 88.8 stabilized soil matrix, resulting in constant CSIF values at relatively
40%LMSF + 50%ES + 9%US + 1%L 0.048 89.3 higher water content as compared to unstabilized soil. Further, the
40%LMSF + 50%ES + 8.5%US + 1.5%L 0.049 89.1
reduction in LMSF content and presence of admixture content pro-
40%LMSF + 50%ES + 8%US + 2%L 0.051* 88.6
50%LMSF + 50%ES With LMSF 0.093 79.3
gressively, increasing the water content associated with constant
20%LMSF + 70%ES + 10%US <2 mm 0.067 85.1 CSIF in different combinations. The effect of particle size distribu-
30%LMSF + 60%ES + 10%US 0.064 85.7 tion of LMSF (<425 lm or < 2 mm) does not appear to be signifi-
40%LMSF + 50%ES + 10%US 0.060 86.6 cant; however the LMSF with < 425 lm size, is noted to have
20%LMSF + 70%ES + 9%US + 1%L 0.050 88.8
somewhat better beneficial effects on reducing the cracking and
30%LMSF + 60%ES + 9%US + 1%L 0.048 89.3
40%LMSF + 50%ES + 9%US + 1%L 0.046 89.7 shrinkage characteristics of expansive soil.
40%LMSF + 50%ES + 8.5%US + 1.5%L 0.046 89.7
40%LMSF + 50%ES + 8%US + 2%L 0.049* 89.1
3.2. Variation of cracking and shrinkage characteristics for
*
Complete crack mitigation is observed, so the CSIF can be attributed to unstabilized/stabilized marine soil (MS)
shrinkage only for these combinations.

The variation of CSIF with time for marine soil (MS) combina-
tions with LMSF < 425 lm and < 2 mm is presented in Figs. 7
0.6 and 8. For stabilized MS a significant decrease in CSIF was observed
LMSF
as compared to the un-stabilized MS. Addition of 50% LMSF to MS
ES
0.5 50% LMSF+50% ES reduced CSIF from 0.3 to 0.075–0.080 resulting in 73–75% reduc-
20% LMSF+70% ES+10% US tion in crack and shrinkage area. Combinations with varying
30% LMSF+60% ES+10% US amount of LMSF (20%, 30%, 40%) and US (10%) in MS showed CSIF
0.4 40% LMSF+50% ES+10% US
20% LMSF+70% ES+9% US+1% L
of around 0.075–0.1, yielding 67–75% reduction in crack and
30% LMSF+60% ES+9% US+1% L shrinkage area. Further, addition of MS with varying amount of
CSIF

0.3 40% LMSF+50% ES+9% US+1% L LMSF (20%, 30%, 40%), US (8%, 8.5%, 9%) and lime (1%, 1.5%, 2%), fur-
40% LMSF+50% ES+8.5% US+1.5% L
ther reduced CSIF to around 0.023–0.093 with 70–92% reduction in
40% LMSF+50% ES+8% US+2% L
crack and shrinkage area. Complete crack mitigation was achieved
0.2
for combinations 50%MS + 40%LMSF (<425 lm) + 8.5%US + 1.5%L
and 50%MS + 40%LMSF (<2mm) + 8.5%US + 1.5%L with CSIF values
0.1 (attributed to shrinkage of specimen) noted as 0.034 and 0.033,
respectively. Final CSIF values with% crack reduction for all the
combinations with MS have been summarized in Table 3. Figs. 9
0.0
and 10 shows the variation of CSIF with water content for unstabi-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Water Content (%) lized/stabilized MS combinations for LMSF < 425 lm and
LMSF < 2 mm, respectively. A similar trend has been noted in case
Fig. 5. CSIF vs. Water Content plot for ES combinations with LMSF < 425 lm. of both MS and ES (refer Figs. 5 and 6), wherein, it was observed
4
M. Patil, R. Wanare, P.H. Dalal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

0.30 0.30 LMSF

MS
LMSF 50% LMSF+50% MS
MS
0.25 0.25 20% LMSF+70% MS+10% US
50% LMSF+50% MS
30% LMSF+60% MS+10% US
20% LMSF+70% MS+10% US
30% LMSF+60% MS+10% US
40% LMSF+50% MS+10% US
0.20 40% LMSF+50% MS+10% US 0.20 20% LMSF+70% MS+9% US+1% L
30% LMSF+60% MS+9% US+1% L
CSIF

20% LMSF+70% MS+9% US+1% L

30% LMSF+60% MS+9% US+1% L 40% LMSF+50% MS+9% US+1% L
0.15

CSIF
0.15 40% LMSF+50% MS+9% US+1% L 40% LMSF+50% MS+8.5% US+1.5% L
40% LMSF+50% MS+8.5% US+1.5% L 40% LMSF+50% MS+8% US+2% L
40% LMSF+50% MS+8% US+2% L
0.10 0.10

0.05
0.05

0.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 21000
Water Content (%)
Time (mins)
Fig. 9. CSIF vs. Water Content plot for MS combinations with LMSF < 425 lm.
Fig. 7. Variation of CSIF with time for MS combinations with LMSF < 425 lm.

0.30 LMSF
MS
0.30 50% LMSF+50% MS
0.25 20% LMSF+70% MS+10% US
LMSF 30% LMSF+60% MS+10% US
0.25 MS
40% LMSF+50% MS+10% US
50% LMSF+50% MS
20% LMSF+70% MS+10% US 0.20 20% LMSF+70% MS+9% US+1% L
30% LMSF+60% MS+10% US 30% LMSF+60% MS+9% US+1% L
0.20 40% LMSF+50% MS+9% US+1% L
40% LMSF+50% MS+10% US
CSIF

0.15
CSIF

20% LMSF+70% MS+9% US+1% L 40% LMSF+50% MS+8.5% US+1.5% L

30% LMSF+60% MS+9% US+1% L 40% LMSF+50% MS+8% US+2% L
0.15 40% LMSF+50% MS+9% US+1% L
40% LMSF+50% MS+8.5% US+1.5% L 0.10
40% LMSF+50% MS+8% US+2% L
0.10
0.05

0.05
0.00

0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Water Content (%)
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 18000 21000
Time (minutes) Fig. 10. CSIF vs. Water Content plot for MS combinations with LMSF < 2 mm.

Fig. 8. Variation of CSIF with time for MS combinations with LMSF < 2 mm.

that the CSIF for stabilized combinations reached early stable state
at higher water content (30–35%) than that of unstabilized soil
(around 10%). In both the soils combinations with LMSF < 2 mm
showed early stabilization in CSIF at around 35% water content
Table 3
Summary of average CSIF and percentage crack reduction for air-dried specimen than that for combinations with LMSF < 425 lm.
(Marine soil combinations). Figs. 11 and 12 presents the typical variation of water content
with time for unstabilized and stabilized soil MS. The addition of
Combinations Final Avg. % Crack
CSIF Reduction LMSF reduces the initial test water content due to reduction in
overall liquid limit of the combination, however, most combina-
MS 0.30
50%LMSF + 50%MS With LMSF 0.080 73.3 tions converges at a narrow range of residual water content upon
20%LMSF + 70%MS + 10%US <425 lm 0.10 66.6 drying. Although the LMSF size (<425 lm and < 2 mm) does not
30%LMSF + 60%MS + 10%US 0.094 68.6 seem to have any significant effect, in general addition of coarser
40%LMSF + 50%MS + 10%US 0.077 74.3 LMSF fraction results in slightly faster water content reduction as
20%LMSF + 70%MS + 9%US + 1%L 0.093 69.0
expected as compared to finer LMSF fraction.
30%LMSF + 60%MS + 9%US + 1%L 0.078 74.0
40%LMSF + 50%MS + 9%US + 1%L 0.05 83.3 The typical images of unstabilized/stabilized specimen for ES
40%LMSF + 50%MS + 8.5%US + 1.5%L 0.034* 86.6 and MS at the end of air drying is presented in Figs. 13 and 14,
50%LMSF + 50%MS With LMSF 0.075 75.0 respectively. It can be clearly observed that with addition of LMSF,
20%LMSF + 70%MS + 10%US <2 mm 0.093 69.0
LMSF + US, and LMSF + US + L, the cracking and shrinkage area pro-
30%LMSF + 60%MS + 10%US 0.091 69.6
40%LMSF + 50%MS + 10%US 0.075 75.0 gressively reduces, finally achieving complete crack mitigation for
20%LMSF + 70%MS + 9%US + 1%L 0.077 74.3 50% ES + 50% LMSF + 8% US + 2% L and 50% MS + 50% LMSF + 8.5%
30%LMSF + 60%MS + 9%US + 1%L 0.063 79.0 US + 1.5% L, wherein the reduction in CSIF has been noted at 89.1%
40%LMSF + 50%MS + 9%US + 1%L 0.048 84.0 and 89% for ES and MS, respectively (as presented in Tables 2 and
40%LMSF + 50%MS + 8.5%US + 1.5%L 0.033* 89.0
3). These combinations are considered the optimum combinations
*
Complete crack mitigation is observed, so the CSIF can be attributed to for crack mitigation for expansive soil and marine soil,
shrinkage only for these combinations. respectively.
5
M. Patil, R. Wanare, P.H. Dalal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

80 macropores, would reduce the development of suction during dry-

LMSF
ing, resulting in lower tensile stress in specimen during drying.
70 MS
20% LMSF+70% MS+10% US This reduces the cracking potential for the combinations with
30% LMSF+60% MS+10% US LMSF. Moreover, comparison of the combinations with LMSF
60
40% LMSF+50% MS+10% US (<425 lm) and LMSF (<2 mm) suggests that the addition of admix-
Water Content (%)

20% LMSF+70% MS+9% US+1% L ture (US) and activator (lime), yields comparable CSIF values, with
50 30% LMSF+60% MS+9% US+1% L
slightly lower values for combinations with LMSF (<2 mm). Fur-
40% LMSF+50% MS+9% US+1% L
40 40% LMSF+50% MS+8.5% US+1.5% L ther, it has been also observed that the addition of admixtures
40% LMSF+50% MS+8% US+2% L and activator resulted in early stabilization of cracks and reduction
30 in crack and shrinkage area, mainly attributed the pozzolanic
action of US (with/without lime). Lime increases the heat of hydra-
20
tion and accelerates the reactivity of ultrafine slag (US), hence
10
improving the performance of the specimen in resisting cracking
and shrinkage [3,8]. Hence, the addition of US with lime results
0 in early evolution and stabilization of cracks. The CSIF of stabilized
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 combinations for both the soils reduced with increase in lime con-
Time (mins) tent from 1%, 1.5% to 2%. It may be noted that as lime is intended as
activator only in the present study, its proportion is restricted to 2%
Fig. 11. Water content vs. time plot for MS combinations (LMSF < 425 lm).
(viz., 20% of total admixture content).

3.3. Effect of LMSF, ultrafine slag and lime on swelling and

80
LMSF compressibility behaviour of stabilized/unstabilized combination
MS
70
20% LMSF+70% MS+10% US In order to compare the swelling behaviour of unstabilized and
30% LMSF+60% MS+10% US
60 stabilized expansive and marine soils, the free swell index (FSI)
40% LMSF+50% MS+10% US
Water Content (%)

20% LMSF+70% MS+9% US+1% L was determined [43] for the select stabilized/unstabilized combi-
50 30% LMSF+60% MS+9% US+1% L nations for both soils, ES and MS. The FSI (%) and% reduction in
40% LMSF+50% MS+9% US+1% L FSI has been tabulated in Table 4. It can be observed from the table
40 40% LMSF+50% MS+8.5% US+1.5% L that addition of 50% LMSF to soils ES and MS results in substantial
40% LMSF+50% MS+8% US+2% L
reduction in FSI. Further, the addition of ultrafine slag with/with-
30
out lime, results in 87–100% reduction in FSI. Further, swelling
20 pressure was determined using oedometer test [44], for the com-
pacted specimen of expansive soil, marine soil and combinations,
10 that yielded complete crack mitigation/near crack mitigation for
these soils (viz., 40%LMSF (<425 lm and < 2 mm) + 50%ES + 8%U
0 S + 2%L for stabilized expansive soil, and 40%LMSF (<425 lm &
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
<2 mm) + 50%MS + 8.5%US + 1.5%L for stabililized marine soil).
Time (mins)
The specimen of expansive soil and marine soil combinations were
Fig. 12. Water content vs. time plot for MS combinations (LMSF < 2 mm). compacted at respective maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content of expansive soil and marine soil (1.55 g/cc and
24.5% for expansive soil and 1.62 g/cc and 20.5% for marine soil).
Combinations comprising higher percentage of LMSF exhibited In case of ES, the swelling pressure reduced from 0.43 kg/cm2 for
better crack reduction as compared to the combinations with their unstabilized soil to 0.0 kg/cm2 for stabilized ES for combinations
lower percentages. This suggests the positive role of LMSF as filler mentioned above (i.e. 100% reduction in swelling pressure was
replacement of the soils, that affects its overall particle size distri- noted). For MS, the swelling pressure reduced from 0.25 kg/cm2
bution shifting it towards coarser fraction (as LMSF has particle (unstabilized MS) to 0.15 and 0.11 kg/cm2 for stabilized soil com-
size distribution similar to well graded sand), and hence the crack- binations stated above with LMSF < 425 lm and <2 mm, respec-
ing and shrinkage characteristics is reduced substantially. The tively (i.e. about 40 and 56% reduction in swelling pressure,
presence of coarser LMSF particles effectively increases the fric- respectively). The understanding of the reasons, for the partial
tional resistance, while reducing the contact area between the par- reduction in swelling pressure for marine soil, in comparison to
ticles. The reduced contact area and increase in the proportion of complete reduction in swelling pressure for expansive soil,

Combinations 100% ES 50%LMSF 20%LMSF 30%LMSF 40%LMSF 20%LMSF 30%LMSF 40%LMSF 40%LMSF 40%LMSF
+ 50% ES +70%ES +60%ES +50%ES +70%ES +60%ES +50%ES +50%ES +50%ES
+10%US +10%US +10%US +9%US +9%US +9%US +8.5%US +8%US
+1%L +1%L +1%L +1.5%L +2%L

LMSF
<425 μm

LMSF
<2mm

Fig. 13. Images of air-dried specimen of soil ES with/without LMSF, ultrafine slag and lime.

6
M. Patil, R. Wanare, P.H. Dalal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Combinations 100% MS 50%LMSF 20%LMSF 30%LMSF 40%LMSF 20%LMSF 30%LMSF 40%LMSF 40%LMSF
+ 50% MS +70%MS +60%MS +50%MS +70%MS +60%MS +50%MS +50%MS
+10%US +10%US +10%US +9%US +9%US +9%US +8.5%US
+1%L +1%L +1%L +1.5%L

LMSF
<425 μm

LMSF
<2mm

Fig. 14. Images of air-dried specimen of soil MS with/without LMSF, ultrafine slag and lime.

Table 4
FSI and% reduction in FSI in stabilized/unstabilized soil combinations.

Combinations ES MS
FSI (%) % Reduction in FSI FSI (%) % Reduction in FSI
100% Soil (S) 60 – 65.5 –
50%LMSF + 50%S With LMSF < 425 lm 15.38 74.4 22.2 65.6
40%LMSF + 50%S + 10%US 0 100 10 84.3
40%LMSF + 50%S + 9%US + 1%L 0 100 0 100
40%LMSF + 50%S + 8.5%US + 1.5%L 0 100 0 100
40%LMSF + 50%S + 8%US + 2%L 0 100 0 100
50%LMSF + 50%S With LMSF 6.66 88.9 25 61.8
40%LMSF + 50%S + 10%US <2 mm 0 100 12.5 80.9
40%LMSF + 50%S + 9%US + 1%L 0 100 0 100
40%LMSF + 50%S + 8.5%US + 1.5%L 0 100 0 100
40%LMSF + 50%S + 8%US + 2%L 0 100 0 100

requires further studies. The effective reduction in FSI and swelling 1.0
pressure in both the soils ES and MS is mainly attributed to addi-
tion of LMSF, which is highly non-plastic and non-expansive in nat-
0.9
ure, and ultrafine with lime that provides additional resistance to
swelling pressure within the soil matrix due to cementation/bind-
ing [27]. 0.8
Further, consolidation tests have been performed as per guide-
Void ratio

lines of IS 2720: Part 15 (1965) on expansive (ES) soil and marine 0.7
(MS) soil. Further, consolidation tests were also performed on
these soils with 40% LMSF (both < 425 mm and <2 mm sizes)
and 10% admixture. The compressibility is quantified in terms of 0.6
compression index (Cc), that is defined as the slope of pressure
(plotted on log scale) versus void ratio plot from consolidation test. 0.5 MS
It can be observed that soil ES exhibits higher compressibility as 40% LMSF(<425μm)+50% MS+8.5% US+1.5% L
compared to soil MS (refer Figs. 15 and 16 as well as Table 5), prob- LMSF(<2mm)+50% MS+8.5% US+1.5% L
0.4
1 10 100 1000
2
1.0 Pressure in kN/m (on log scale)

Fig. 16. Void ratio vs pressure (log scale) for soil MS from consolidation test.
0.9

Table 5
0.8
Compression index (Cc) values for soils unstabilized and stabilized soils ES and MS.
Void ratio

Combinations Avg. CC
0.7
ES 0.460
40%LMSF (<425 mm) + 50%ES + 8%US + 2%L 0.047
0.6 40%LMSF (<2mm) + 50%ES + 8%US + 2%L 0.040
MS 0.260
40%LMSF (<425 mm) + 50%MS + 8.5%US + 1.5%L 0.080
0.5 ES 40%LMSF (<2mm) + 50%MS + 8.5%US + 1.5%L 0.056
40% LMSF(<425μm)+50% ES+8% US+2% L
40% LMSF(<2mm)+50% ES+8% US+2% L
0.4
1 10 100 1000 ably due to higher clay content in the soil. Further, the reduction in
2
Pressure in kN/m (Log scale) compression index (Cc) for expansive soil due to addition of 40%
LMSF and 10% admixture is about 90%, whereas for soil MS, the
Fig. 15. Void ratio vs pressure (log scale) for soil ES from consolidation test. reduction in Cc for stabilized soil MS is in the range of 70–78%.
7
M. Patil, R. Wanare, P.H. Dalal et al.
4. Concluding remarks
The study explored the application of LMSF with/without
admixtures such as ultrafine slag and lime (activator) for reduc-
ing/mitigating crack and swelling potential in expansive and mar-
ine soil. The following conclusions can be obtained from the study:
 Addition of 50% LMSF (<425 lm & <2 mm) to expansive soil (ES)
and marine soil (MS) resulted in around 78–80% and 73–75%
reducing in cracking and shrinkage intensity factor (CSIF). The
role of LMSF as filler replacement to alter the microstructure
of the soils, results in lower tensile stresses (caused by differen-
tial shrinkage stresses during drying). This contributes to reduc-
tion in CSIF values.
 Addition of LMSF (20%, 30%, 40%; <425 lm & <2 mm) with ultra-
fine slag, US (10%) reduced the CSIF values by 82–87% and 66–
75% for expansive soil and marine soil, respectively. Further,
addition of LMSF (20%, 30%, 40%; <425 lm & <2 mm), US (9%)
and Lime, L (1%), resulted in about 88–89% and 70–84% reduc-
tion in CSIF values for expansive soil and marine soil,
respectively.
 Complete crack mitigation (100%) in expansive soil was
achieved for combination 40%LMSF (<425 lm) + 50%ES + 8%U
S + 2%L and for 40% LMSF (<425 lm & <2 mm) + 50%MS + 8.5
%US + 1.5%L in marine soil.
 The reduction in free swell index for expansive soil and marine
soil for above best combinations was 100%. The studies on com-
pacted specimen with above combinations resulted in 100%
reduction in swelling pressure for expansive soil, and 40–56%
reduction in swelling pressure for marine soil. Further, reduc-
tion in compression index for expansive soil and marine soil
in the range of 90% and 70–78% has been observed for stabilized
combinations stated above. This indicates the potential of LMSF
with ultrafine slag (primary admixture) and nominal amount of
lime (activator) for crack mitigation and minimizing/controlling
swelling pressure in soils. The study findings may be useful in
the context of stabilization of slopes, canals, ponds, and
embankments consisting of /constructed with expansive soil/-
marine soil.
 The study presents a new application of LMSF (an important
component of old landfill waste), and may be beneficial as a
sustainable material for stabilization of challenging soils. How-
ever, LMSF may contain some residual organic content and in
some cases heavy metals beyond permissible limits. Hence,
appropriate pre-treatment may be required prior to its utiliza-
tion for infrastructure applications.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
Sincere gratitude is extended to Gujarat State Biotechnology Mis-
sion (GSBTM), Department of Science and Technology, Government
of Gujarat, India, for funding an ongoing research project (Project
ID: L1Y5SU) on ‘‘Bio-stabilization and Reutilization of Non-
biodegradable Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste for Various Civil
Engineering Applications”. The present study derives motivation
from the learnings of the ongoing project. The authors also wish
8
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
to thank Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad for facil-
itating the procurement of landfill mined material for the study.
Authors’ contributions
Mahi Patil: Review of literature, experimental work, Formal
analysis, writing original draft. Ram Wanare: Support in method-
ology, experimental work and formal analysis, review of draft. Par-
ishi H. Dalal: Support in literature review and experimental work,
Formal analysis, Revising draft. Kannan K.R Iyer: Conceptualiza-
tion, Methodology, Visualization, Formal analysis, Supervision,
Review and editing of draft. Trudeep N. Dave: Support in formal
analysis, Review of draft.
References
[1] A.A. El-Halim, Image Processing Technique to Assess the Use of Sugarcane Pith
to Mitigate Clayey Soil Cracks: Laboratory Experiment, Soil Tillage Res. 169
(2017) 138–145.
[2] C. Tang, C. Zhu, Q. Cheng, H. Zeng, J. Xu, B. Tian, B. Shi, Desiccation Cracking of
Soils: A Review of Investigation Approaches, Underlying Mechanisms, and
Influencing Factors, Earth Sci. Rev. 216 (2021).
[3] R. Wanare, K.K.R. Iyer, A Study to Investigate the Effect of Different Proportion
of Ultrafine Slag and Calcium-Based Activator for Sustainable Crack Mitigation
of Marine Soil, Clean. Mater. 6 (2022).
[4] E. Emmanuel, V. Anggraini, Efects of Desiccation-Induced Cracking and
Leachate Infiltration on the Hydraulic Conductivity of Natural and Olivine-
Treated Marine Clay, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. (2019).
[5] H. Peron, T. Hueckel, L. Laloui, L.B. Hu, Fundamentals of Desiccation Cracking of
Fine-Grained Soils: Experimental Characterization and Mechanisms
Identification, Can. Geotech. J. 46 (2009) 1177–1201.
[6] R. Acharya, A. Pedarla, T.V. Bheemasetti, A.J. Puppala, Assessment of Guar Gum
Biopolymer Treatment Toward Mitigation of Desiccation Cracking on Slopes
Built with Expansive Soils, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2657 (2017)
78–88.
[7] S.R.M. Ferreira, A.G.D. Araújo, F.A.S. Barbosa, T.C.R. Silva, I.M.L. Bezerra,
Analysis of Changes in Volume and Propagation of Cracks in Expansive Soil
Due to Changes in Water Content, Rev Bras Cienc Solo 44 (2020).
[8] D. Li, S. Zhang, The Influences of Sand Content and Particle Size on the
Desiccation Cracks of Compacted Expansive Soil, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2021).
[9] R. Liu, M. Vail, B. Koohbor, C. Zhu, C. Tang, H. Xu, X. Shi, Desiccation Cracking in
Clay-Bottom Ash Mixtures: Insights from Crack Image Analysis and Digital
Image Correlation, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 81 (139) (2022).
[10] M.E. Al-Atroush, O. Shabbir, B. Almeshari, M. Waly, T.A. Sebaey, A Novel
Application of the Hydrophobic Polyurethane Foam: Expansive Soil
Stabilization, Polymers 13 (2021) 1335.
[11] B. Ta’negonbadi, R. Noorzad, Stabilization of Clayey Soil using Lignosulfonate,
Transp. Geotech. (2017).
[12] F. Jalal, Y. Xu, B. Jamhiri, S. Memon, On the Recent Trends in Expansive Soil
Stabilization Using Calcium-Based Stabilizer Materials (CSMs): A
Comprehensive Review, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2020).
[13] M. Vail, C. Zhu, C. Tang, N. Maute, M.T. Montalbo-Lomboy, Desiccation
Cracking Behavior of Clayey Soils Treated with Biocement and Bottom Ash
Admixture during Wetting-Drying Cycles, Transp. Res. Rec. 2674 (8) (2020)
441–454.
[14] N. Tiwari, N. Satyam, M. Sharma, Micro-Mechanical Performance Evaluation of
Expansive Soil Biotreated with Indigenous Bacteria Using MICP Method,
Nature Portfolio 11 (2021).
[15] Y. Cai, B. Shi, C.W.W. Ng, C. Tang, Effect of Polypropylene Fibre and Lime
Admixture on Engineering Properties of Clayey Soil, Eng. Geol. 87 (2006) 230–
240.
[16] O. Buzzi, S. Fityus, S.W. Sloan, Use of Expanding Polyurethane Resin to
Remediate Expansive Soil Foundations, Can. Geotech. J. 47 (2010) 623–634.
[17] Y. Kwon, I. Chang, M. Lee, G. Cho, Geotechnical Engineering Behavior of
Biopolymer-treated Soft Marine Soil, Geomech. Eng. 17 (5) (2019) 453–464.
[18] G.H. Roodi, J.G. Zornberg, Long-Term Field Evaluation of a Geosynthetic-
Stabilized Roadway Founded on Expansive Clays, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
146 (4) (2020).
[19] S.O. Malongweni, Y. Kihara, K. Sato, T. Tokunari, T. Sobuda, K. Mrubata, T.
Masunaga, Impact of Agricultural Waste on the Shrink-Swell Behavior and
Cracking Dynamics of Expansive Soils, Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 8 (2019)
339–349.
[20] H. Kumar, S. Huang, G. Mei, A. Garg, Influence of Feedstock Type and Particle
Size on Efficiency of Biochar in Improving Tensile Crack Resistance and Shear
Strength in Lean Clayey Soil, Int. J. Damage Mech. 30 (4) (2021) 646–661.
[21] A. Soltani, A. Taheri, A. Deng, H. Nikraz, Tyre Rubber and Expansive Soils: Two
Hazards, One Solution, Proc. Institut. Civil Engineers – Constr. Mater. (2018).
[22] S.K. Narani, M. Abbaspour, S.M.M.M. Hosseini, E. Aflaki, F.M. Nejad, Sustainable
Reuse of Waste Tire Textile Fibres (WTTFs) as Reinforcement Material for
Expansive Soils: With a Special Focus on Landfill Liners/Covers, J. Clean. Prod.
247 (2020).
M. Patil, R. Wanare, P.H. Dalal et al.
[23] B.M.N. Kiran, C. Shivanarayana, D.S.V. Prasad, Stabilization of Marine Clay
Using Ferric Chloride and Quarry Dust, Int. J. Eng. Res. Dev. 12 (3) (2016) 01–
09.
[24] A.F. Ikechukwu, M.M.H. Mostafa, Assessing the Coupling Effects of Nanosized
Fly Ash and Precompression Stress Towards Mitigating Subgrade Cracks
Mobilised by Traffic Loading, Nanotechnol. Environ. Eng. 6 (63) (2021).
[25] H. Zhu, Y. Zhang, Z. Li, X. Xue, Study on Crack Development and Micro-Pore
Mechanism of Expansive Soil Improved by Coal Gangue under Drying-Wetting
Cycles, Materials 14 (2021) 6546.
[26] D. Wang, R. Zentar, N.E. Abriak, Durability and Swelling of Solidified/Stabilized
Dredged Marine Soils with Class-F Fly Ash, Cement, and Lime, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 30 (3) (2018).
[27] Y. Liu, C. Chang, A. Namdar, Y. She, C. Lin, X. Yuan, Q. Yang, Stabilization of
Expansive Soil Using Cementing Material from Rice Husk Ash and Calcium
Carbide Residue, Constr. Build. Mater. 221 (2019) 1–11.
[28] W.A. Elshorbagy, A.M.O. Mohamed, Evaluation of Using Municipal Solid Waste
Compost in Landfill Closure Caps in Arid Areas, Waste Manag. 20 (2000) 499–
507.
[29] O. Vilar, M. Carvalho, Mechanical Properties of Municipal Solid Waste, J. Test.
Eval. 32 (6) (2004).
[30] B.J. Ramaiah, G.V. Ramana, M. Datta, Mechanical Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste from Two Waste Dumps at Delhi, India, Waste Manag. (2017).
[31] B.P. Naveen, Measurement of Static and Dynamic Properties of Municipal Solid
Waste at Mavallipura Landfill Site, India, Int. J. Geo-Eng. 9 (26) (2018).
[32] P. Jain, H. Kim, T. Townsend, Heavy Metal Content in Soil Reclaimed from a
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Waste Manag. 25 (2004) 25–35.
[33] P. Hyun, P. Borinara, K.D. Hong, Geotechnical Considerations for End-Use of
Old Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Int. J. Environ. Res. 5 (3) (2011) 573–584.
[34] S. Masi, D. Caniani, E. Grieco, D.S. Lioi, I.M. Mancini, Assessment of the Possible
Reuse of MSW Coming from Landfill Mining of Old Open Dumpsites, Waste
Manag. 34 (2014) 702–710.
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
[35] ASTM D854-14: Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by
Water Pycnometer, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA (2014).
[36] ASTM D4318-17: Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and
Plasticity Index of Soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA (2017).
[37] ASTM D427-04: Standard Test Method for Shrinkage Factors of Soils by the
Mercury Method, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA (2004).
[38] ASTM D5890-11: Standard Test Method for Swell Index of Clay Mineral
Component of Geosynthetic Clay Liners, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (2011).
[39] ASTM D7928-17: Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution
(Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer)
Analysis, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA (2017).
[40] ASTM D6913-04: Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution
(Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (2004).
[41] ASTM D2487-11: Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA (2011).
[42] R. Wanare, P. Jayanthi, K.K.R. Iyer, Experimental Study on Sustainable
Stabilization of Marine Soil with Ultrafine Slag and Activator for Controlling
its Cracking Characteristics, Constr. Build. Mater. 345 (2022).
[43] IS 2720-40, Methods of test for soils, Part 40: Determination of free swell
index of soils, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1977.
[44] IS 2720-41, Methods of test for soils, Part 41: Measurement of swelling
pressure of soils, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1977.