Muna Mohammed Seid- (MSc. Thesis Final, 2021)

DSpace Institution
DSpace Repository http://dspace.org

Geotechnical Engineering Thesis
2021-10
EVALUATION OF THE
IMPROVEMENT EFFECT OF LIME ON
EXPANSIVE SOIL USING
SOIL-WATER CHARACTERISTIC CURVE
Muna, Mohammed Seid
http://ir.bdu.edu.et/handle/123456789/13131
Downloaded from DSpace Repository, DSpace Institution's institutional repository
BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF RESEARCH AND POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERING
MSc. Thesis
On
EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVEMENT EFFECT OF LIME ON
EXPANSIVE SOIL USING SOIL-WATER CHARACTERISTIC
CURVE
BY
MUNA MOHAMMED SEID
October, 2021
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF RESEARCH AND POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERING
Evaluation of the Improvement Effect of Lime on Expansive Soil

using Soil-water Characteristic Curve
By
Muna Mohammed Seid
a thesis submitted
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Geotechnical Engineering
Dr. Tezera Firew Azmatch
October, 2021
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
©2021 Muna Mohammed Seid

© Copyright by Muna Mohammed Seid
October 28, 2021. All Rights Reserved
DECLARATION
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Evaluation of the Improvement Effect of Lime
on Expansive Soil using Soil-water Characteristic Curve”, submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geotechnical
Engineering under the Faculty of Civil and Water Resource Engineering, Bahir Dar
Institute of Technology, is a record of original work carried out by me and has never been
submitted to this or any other institution to get any other degree or certificates. The
assistance and help I received during the course of this investigation have been duly
acknowledged.
Name of the Candidate Signature Date
i
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to

MY MOTHER
BIRTUKAN DEBEBE
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, praises and thanks to God, the Almighty, for His showers of blessings
to complete this Thesis successfully. I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude
to my research supervisor, Dr. Tezera Firew Azmatch for giving me the opportunity to do
the research and providing guidance throughout this Thesis. I am extremely grateful for
what he has offered me. It is a great privilege and honor to work and study under his
guidance. Finally, I am thankful to my families. And my special thank goes to University
of Gondar, Institute of Technology for giving me an opportunity to learn this M.Sc.
program in Bahir Dar Institute of Technology.
iii
ABSTRACT
Expansive soils swell and shrink due to changes in water content. This causes damage to structures
founded in expansive soils. One common stabilization method for the improvement of expansive
soil behavior involves the addition of lime. The traditional approach of evaluating the
improvement effect of stabilization methods does not consider the fact that the expansive soils
exist at unsaturated state. The use of the soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC) as a tool to
evaluate the improvement effect of lime is examined in this study in order to establish the
relationship between unsaturated soil theory and engineering problems related to expansive soils
that exist in an unsaturated condition. Three different lime contents (3%, 6% and 9%) with 7 and
14 days of curing period were considered. The improvement effect of lime was then determined
by using both the traditional soil mechanics approach and the SWCC. The SWCCs were
determined by using pressure plate apparatus with a suction range of 33 to 1400 kPa. The
laboratory-measured data points were then curve-fitted by using the Fredlund and Xing (1994)
model. The shrinkage curve (SC) was also determined to evaluate the change in volume of the
different soil samples. The experimental results indicate that SWCC is affected by lime treatment
and there is a change in the SWCC parameters, and hence the shape of SWCC, as the percentage
of lime is changed. This indicates that there is a potential for the SWCC to be used as a tool for
evaluating the improvement effect of treatment methods. The change in volume, calculated from
the SWCC and SC, is found to be a very good indicator of the effectiveness of treatment methods,
indicating that the SWCC is a useful tool to check the effectiveness of treatment methods.
Compared to untreated natural soil, lime-treated soil samples revealed a small change in volume.
The analysis based on the traditional soil mechanics approach indicated that 9% lime and 14 days
of curing is required to change the expansive soil from a category of “very high degree of
expansion” to a category of “low degree of expansion”. However, the analysis based on SWCC
and SC indicates that only 6% lime and 7 days of curing is required to produce the same change.
This indicates that the traditional soil mechanics approach may be conservative and hence
uneconomical.
Keywords: Unsaturated soil, Lime stabilization, Pressure plate test, Shrinkage curve
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................. i
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... xiv
NOMENCLATURE ..........................................................................................................xv
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
1.1. Background of the Study ...................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................... 2
1.3. Objective of the Study .......................................................................................... 3
1.3.1. General Objective ......................................................................................... 3
1.3.2. Specific Objectives ....................................................................................... 3
1.4. Scope of the Study................................................................................................ 3
1.5. Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................5
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................5
2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Review on Expansive Soils .................................................................................. 5
2.2.1. General .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2. Origin of Expansive Soils ............................................................................. 5
2.2.3. Clay Mineralogical Structure ........................................................................ 6
2.2.4. Distribution of Expansive Soils in Ethiopia.................................................. 7
2.2.5. Damages from Expansive Soils .................................................................... 8
2.2.6. Identification and Classification of Expansive Soils .................................... 8
2.2.7. Classification of Expansive Soils................................................................ 10
2.2.8. Stabilization of Expansive soils .................................................................. 12
2.3. Unsaturated Soils................................................................................................ 23
v
2.3.1. General ........................................................................................................ 23
2.3.2. Role of Climate ........................................................................................... 24
2.3.3. Phases of Unsaturated Soils ........................................................................ 24
2.3.4. Unsaturated Soil in Engineering Practice ................................................... 25
2.3.5. Soil Water Characteristic Curves (SWCC) ................................................. 26
2.3.6. Suction Measuring Devices ........................................................................ 31
2.3.7. Significance of the SWCC .......................................................................... 34
2.3.8. Shrinkage Curve Determination ................................................................. 34
2.3.9. Previous Studies to Interpret Soil Behavior using SWCC .......................... 38
CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................................45
MATERIALS, METHODS AND PROCEDURES...........................................................45
3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 45
3.2. Materials ............................................................................................................. 45
3.2.1. Soil Sampling .............................................................................................. 46
3.2.2. Soil Sample Preparation .............................................................................. 47
3.2.3. Standard Laboratory Tests .......................................................................... 48
3.2.4. SWCC Determination ................................................................................. 51
3.2.5. Shrinkage Curve (SC) determination .......................................................... 54
3.2.6. Combined Test Results of SC and w-SWCC.............................................. 55
CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................................57
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION ...............................................57
4.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 57
4.2. Laboratory Test Results for the Untreated Natural Soil Sample........................ 57
4.2.1. Soil Index and Classification Test Results.................................................. 57
4.2.2. Soil Classification ....................................................................................... 58
4.3. Laboratory Test Results for the Lime-treated Soil Sample ................................ 59
4.4. SWCC and Shrinkage Curve Determination ...................................................... 67
4.4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 67
4.4.2. Pressure Plate Test Results and w-SWCC .................................................. 67
4.4.3. Shrinkage Curve (SC) Determination ......................................................... 80
4.4.4. Combined Test Results of SC and w-SWCC.............................................. 92
4.4.5. S-SWCC of Untreated Natural Soil Sample ............................................... 93
vi
4.4.6. S-SWCC of Lime-treated Soil Samples...................................................... 96
4.4.7. Void Ratio Characteristic Curve (e-CC) for Untreated Natural Soil Sample
……………………………………………………………………………107
4.4.8. Void Ratio Characteristic Curve (e-CC) of Lime-treated Soil Samples ... 110
4.4.9. Prediction of Swelling Pressure (Sp) ......................................................... 116
CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................123
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................123
5.1. Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 123
5.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................ 125
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................127
APPENDIX - A................................................................................................................138
APPENDIX - B ................................................................................................................148
APPENDIX - C ................................................................................................................152
APPENDIX - D................................................................................................................156
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2. 1 Techniques for identifying the mineralogy of the expansive soils……………. 9

Table 2. 2 Indirect Methods of Expansive Soil Identification…………………………... 10
Table 2. 3 Classification of Expansive soil based on Skempton Method……………….. 11
Table 2. 4 Classification of Expansive Soils based on USBR Method…………………. 11
Table 2. 5 Classification of Expansive soils…………………………………………......11
Table 2. 6 Shrinkage limits and Degree of Expansion…………………………………...11
Table 2. 7 Atterberg limit results and Degree of Expansion……………………………. 11
Table 2. 8 Prediction of the degree of expansion in fine-grained soils…………………. 12
Table 2. 9 Classification of Soils based on free swell ratio……………………….…….. 12
Table 2. 10 Chemical composition of hydrated lime…………………………………… 14
Table 2. 11 previous studies on stabilization of expansive soils using classical, saturated
soil mechanics concept of analysis……………………………………………………… 17
Table 2. 12 Summary of SWCC fitting equations from……………...…………………. 31
Table 2. 13 Summary of previous studies on evaluation of the stabilizer effect on
geotechnical properties of soil using SWCC……………………………………………. 40
Table 4. 1 Combined Sieve and Hydrometer test results of the expansive soils of the study
area……………………………………………………………………………………….58
Table 4. 2 Summary of different laboratory test results of untreated natural soil samples
........................................................................................................................................... 58
Table 4. 3 AASSHTO and USCS of expansive soil of a study area ................................. 59
Table 4. 4 pH Test results of untreated natural and soil-lime mixtures ............................ 60
Table 4. 5 Summary of laboratory test results for untreated natural and Lime treated soils
........................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 4. 6 summary of measured and predicted gravimetric water content for undisturbed
and compacted soil samples .............................................................................................. 69
Table 4. 7 Summaries of measured and predicted gravimetric water content for lime-
treated soil with 0-day curing period ................................................................................ 75
Table 4. 8 Summary of measured and predicted gravimetric water content for lime-
treated soil with 7-day curing period ................................................................................ 75
viii
Table 4. 9 Summary of measured and predicted gravimetric water content for lime-
treated soil with 14-day curing period .............................................................................. 76
Table 4. 10 Summary of AEV, fitting parameters of w-SWCC for natural soil and lime-
treated soil. ........................................................................................................................ 76
Table 4. 11 measured and predicted void ratios for SC determination for natural soil
sample (undisturbed and compacted)................................................................................ 83
Table 4. 12 measured and predicted void ratios for SC determination for lime-treated soil
sample (0-day curing) ....................................................................................................... 88
sample (7-day curing) ....................................................................................................... 89
sample (14-day curing) ..................................................................................................... 90
Table 4. 15 Summary of fitting parameters of SC for natural soil and lime-treated soil.. 90
Table 4. 16 Initial volume-mass properties and the fitting parameters to construct S-
SWCC ............................................................................................................................... 93
Table 4. 17 summary of the degree of saturation; calculated and predicted with
corresponding suction for undisturbed and compacted .................................................... 95
Table 4. 18 Summary of AEV and fitting parameters of w-SWCC and S-SWCC for
natural soil ......................................................................................................................... 95
Table 4. 19 Initial volume-mass properties and the fitting parameters to construct S-
SWCC ............................................................................................................................... 97
corresponding suction for lime-treated soil with 0-day curing period ............................ 101
corresponding suction for lime-treated soil with 7-day curing period ............................ 101
corresponding suction for lime-treated soil with 14-day curing period .......................... 102
Table 4. 23 Summary of fitting parameters of S-SWCC for natural soil and lime-treated
soil. .................................................................................................................................. 103
natural soil and lime-treated soil with 0-day curing period. ........................................... 103
ix
natural soil and lime-treated soil with 7-day curing period. ........................................... 103
natural soil and lime-treated soil with 14-day curing period. ......................................... 103
Table 4. 27 Measured and predicted void ratio for constructing e-CC for natural
(undisturbed and compacted) soil sample. ...................................................................... 109
Table 4. 28 Measured and predicted void ratio for constructing e-CC for lime-treated soil
with 0-day curing period ................................................................................................. 114
with 7 -day curing period ................................................................................................ 114
with 14 - day curing period ............................................................................................. 115
Table 4. 31 Predicted value of Swelling Pressure using Daniel’s empirical equations. . 117
Table 4. 32 Predicted value of Swelling Pressure using Rao’s empirical equations ...... 119
Table 4. 33 Predicted value of Swelling Pressure using Vanapalli’s empirical equations
......................................................................................................................................... 120
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2. 1 Diagrammatic sketch of a) Octahedral sheet; b) Tetrahedral sheet .................. 7

Figure 2. 2 Principal Clay minerals: a) Symbolic representation of the sheet structures; b)
Kaolinite; c) Illite and d) Montmorillonite ......................................................................... 7
Figure 2. 3 Rigorous and simplified phase diagrams for an unsaturated soil. (a) Rigorous
four phase unsaturated soil system; (b) simplified three phase diagrams………………..25
Figure 2. 4 a) Illustration of the hysteresis loops comprising the SWCC for a soil;b)
Desorption branch with definition of variables for a SWCC............................................ 27
Figure 2. 5 Soil Water Characteristic Curve for a Sandy Soil, Silty Soil and Clayey Soil
........................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 2. 6 Volumetric shrinkage curve. .......................................................................... 36
Figure 3. 1 Location map of the study area………………………………...……………47
Figure 3. 2 Laboratory setup for the pressure Plate apparatus using a regulated air system
........................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 4. 1 Particle size distribution curve for three expansive soils in the study area….58
Figure 4. 2 classification of soil according to USCS classification scheme ..................... 59
Figure 4. 3 pH test results for natural and soil-lime mixtures. ......................................... 60
Figure 4. 4 a) FS of untreated natural and lime-treated samples and b) FSR of untreated
natural and lime-treated samples. ..................................................................................... 61
Figure 4. 5 a) PI of natural and lime treated soil for 0, 7- and 14-day curing periods and b)
LS of natural and lime treated soil for 0, 7- and 14-day curing periods. .......................... 62
Figure 4. 6 Dry density Vs. Moisture content results for untreated natural and lime-treated
soil sample ........................................................................................................................ 62
Figure 4. 7 UCS results for a) undisturbed and compacted, b) 3%, 6% and 9% lime content
with 0-day c) 3%, 6% and 9% lime content with 7-day and d) 3%, 6% and 9% lime content
with 14-day curing period. .................................................................................................. 63
Figure 4. 8 w-SWCC for untreated natural soil (undisturbed and compacted soil samples)
........................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 4. 9 w-SWCC for untreated natural soil sample and lime- treated soil sample with
0-day of curing period. ...................................................................................................... 72
xi
Figure 4. 10 w-SWCC for untreated natural soil sample and lime-treated soil sample with
14-day of curing period. .................................................................................................... 73
Figure 4. 12 w-SWCC for 3% lime content with 0-, 7- and 14 days of curing period. .... 73
Figure 4. 15 SC for a) undisturbed and compacted soil sample, b) Shrinkage Limit (SL)
determination .................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 4. 16 SC for untreated natural soil sample and lime- treated soil sample with 0-day
of curing period. ................................................................................................................ 85
of curing period. ................................................................................................................ 85
Figure 4. 18 SC for untreated natural soil sample and lime- treated soil sample with 14-
day of curing period. ......................................................................................................... 86
Figure 4. 19 SC for 3% lime content with 0-, 7- and 14 days of curing period. ............... 86
Figure 4. 22 S-SWCC for undisturbed and compacted soil samples. ............................... 94
Figure 4. 23 S-SWCC for untreated natural soil sample and lime- treated soil sample with
14-day of curing period. .................................................................................................... 99
Figure 4. 26 S-SWCC for 3% lime content with 0-, 7- and 14 days of curing period. ..... 99
Figure 4. 27 S-SWCC for 6% lime content with 0-, 7- and 14 days of curing period. ... 100
Figure 4. 28 S-SWCC for 9% lime content with 0-, 7- and 14 days of curing period. ... 100
Figure 4. 29 a) e-CC of natural (undisturbed and compacted) soil samples b) volume
change determination for compacted soil sample ........................................................... 108
xii
Figure 4. 30 e-CC for untreated natural soil sample and lime- treated soil sample with 0-
day of curing period. ....................................................................................................... 110
Figure 4. 33 e-CC for 3% lime content with 0-, 7- and 14 days of curing period. ......... 112
Figure 4. 36 Volume change for natural and lime-treated soil sample with 0,7- and 14-day
curing period. .................................................................................................................. 113
Figure 4. 37 SP vs. Matric Suction a) 0- day, b)7-day c)14-day curing period............... 121
xiii
ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AEV Air Entry Value
e-CC Void ratio characteristics curve
EMPEDA Ethiopian Educational Materials Production and Distribution Enterprise
FS Free Swell
FSR Free Swell Ratio
LS Linear shrinkage
MDD Maximum Dry Density
NMC Natural Moisture Content
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
SC Shrinkage Curve
SWCC Soil-Water Characteristics Curve
S- SWCC Degree of saturation-based SWCC
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
USPF Unsaturated Soil Property Functions
w-SWCC Gravimetric water content based SWCC
xiv
NOMENCLATURE
LL Liquid limit
PL Plastic limit
PI Plasticity index
Gs Specific gravity
SP Swelling pressure
w Gravimetric water content
 Volumetric water content
S Degree of saturation
e Void ratio
ρd Dry density
ρ Total density
ua Pore air pressure
uw Pore water pressure
   Gravimetric water content at any soil suction, ψ
s Saturated gravimetric water content

ψr Residual suction
a Fitting parameter indicating the inflection point that bears a relationship to air-
entry value, and is equal or greater than the air-entry value
n Fitting parameter related to the rate of desaturation
m Fitting parameter related to the curvature near residual conditions
ash Minimum void ratio upon complete drying
bsh Variable related to the slope of the drying curve
csh Variable related to the sharpness of curvature as the soil desaturates
xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
Expansive soils are widely distributed throughout the world and often present considerable
damages to structures founded on them. In Ethiopia, over 13.8 million hectares of land,
which represents 12.5 % of the total land area, is covered by expansive soils (Negawo et
al., 2017). Ayer-Tena, located in the southeastern part of Bahir Dar, is one of the areas
where the most serious expansive soil problems have been reported. Expansive soils
experience large volumetric changes when subjected to change in moisture content.
Infrastructures, particularly light weight structures such as one- and two-story buildings,
warehouses, retaining walls, walkways, roadways, basement floors, pipelines, and
foundations, are severely damaged by these volumetric changes (Dagmawe, 2007 and
Tibebu, 2015). The country as a whole suffers economic losses as a result of the damage
caused by expansive soils.
The problem of expansive soils can be solved by removing the soil and replacing it with
non-expansive soil, employing a chemical soil stabilization, or building a foundation
treatment that resists expansive soil uplift (Hussein, 2010). Chemical stabilizers'
effectiveness is influenced by the soil's physical and chemical characteristics. Soil
plasticity, grain size distribution, and the mineralogy of fine-grained soil particles are
among these properties. Lime is one of the most commonly used chemicals to stabilize
expansive soil. The majority of highway construction in Ethiopia uses lime as a stabilizing
agent. Lime can effectively stabilize soils with high plasticity and a higher proportion of
fine-grained soil particles (Bell, 1996).
Many researchers have investigated the swell-shrink response of expansive soils using
index properties and other soil laboratory tests. These researchers looked into a variety of
properties of these soils, although various soils with the same Atterberg limits can behave
differently in terms of volume change and water retention (Thudi, 2006). However, because
compaction is used at various phases of construction and the ground water table is mostly
located deep below the ground, the foundations of the majority of infrastructures built in
1
Ethiopia are mostly located in this depth of unsaturated ground/profile. As a result, the
engineering behavior of compacted, and expansive soils that are typically in a state of
unsaturated condition can be better interpreted if the influence of matric suction is
considered (Fredlund, 2000).
In order to establish the relationship between unsaturated soil theory and engineering
problem related to expansive soils, which exist at unsaturated state, the use of soil-water
characteristic curve (SWCC) as a tool to evaluate the improvement effect of lime on
expansive soils is proposed in this study. The SWCC is broadly defined as the relationship
between the amount of water in a soil and soil suction (Fredlund and Xing, 1994). The
SWCC is relatively easy to measure and has become the key unsaturated soil information
for obtaining unsaturated soil property functions (USPF). The SWCC constitutes the
primary soil information required for the analysis of seepage, shear strength, volume
change, air flow, and heat flow problems involving unsaturated soils.
Hydrated lime is used as a stabilizing ingredient in this research, and the improvement
effect of the hydrated lime on the expansive soil is determined using the classical soil
mechanics approach (which uses Atterberg limit test, swell-shrink index and other index
test) and the unsaturated soil mechanics approach proposed in this study (which uses
SWCC).
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Light weight structures are severely damaged by expansive soils. Their expansive character
occurs largely near the ground surface, where the profile is susceptible to seasonal,
environmental changes, which expand on water absorption and shrink on water removal,
the pore-water pressure is initially negative, and the deposit is generally unsaturated. Lime-
treated expansive soils exist in compacted unsaturated state and hence their behavior is
influenced by suction. In traditional soil mechanics, the improvement effect of lime is
evaluated by using swell-shrink index, Atterberg limits and unconfined compressive
strength tests. This approach does not take into account the fact that the expansive soils
exist at unsaturated state. Therefore, an evaluation method that takes into account the effect
of suction, and hence considers the unsaturated state of lime-treated expansive soils, is
required to address the problem properly. In order to establish the relationship between
2
unsaturated soil theory and engineering problem related to expansive soils, which exist at
unsaturated state, the use of the soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC) as a tool to evaluate
the improvement effect of lime is determined in this study.
1.3. Objective of the Study
1.3.1. General Objective
The main objective of this study is to study the effects of lime treatment on the SWCC of
expansive soils and to examine the potential applicability of SWCC as a tool to evaluate
the effectiveness of expansive soil treatment methods.
1.3.2. Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of this study are:
 To determine the index properties and classify the selected expansive soils
accordingly.
 To evaluate the improvement effect of lime on the geotechnical properties of
expansive soil using the traditional soil mechanics approach that makes use of
Atterberg Limits, Free Swell, Linear Shrinkage, and UCS parameters.
 To determine the SWCC for both untreated natural and Lime-treated soil samples.
 To evaluate the improvement effect of lime on expansive soil using SWCC.
 To develop SC for both untreated natural and lime-treated soils and evaluate the
changes using different curve fitting parameters.
 To determine the S-SWCC of the untreated natural soil and lime-treated soils.
 To evaluate the volume change property of both untreated natural and lime-treated
soils using void ratio characteristics curve (e-CC).
 To compare the classical approaches of evaluating the performance of the stabilizer
with the proposed approach based on SWCC.
1.4. Scope of the Study
In order to address the aforementioned purposes, one soil sample is selected after samples
from three test pits are characterized. This study focuses on predicting the drying front
SWCC and SC for untreated natural and lime-treated soils. The suction measurements are
3
specified to the range that the Pressure Plate Test apparatus found in the Bahir Dar Institute
of Technology (BIT) soil laboratory can measure. And all curves are fitted and extended
over the full range of soil suctions using Fredlund and Xing (1994) curve fitting model.
Only the effect of lime on the geotechnical properties of a selected expansive soil with a
specific lime content and curing period is studied.
1.5. Significance of the Study
This study will provide a new tool or approach for evaluation of the improvement effect of
expansive soil stabilization methods. The approach, unlike the traditional soil mechanics
approach, will take into account the effect of suction and hence the fact that expansive soils
exist at unsaturated state.
The results of this study can also be used to provide information regarding the water
retention and volume change properties of untreated natural and lime-treated soils. As a
result of this research, the SWCC is established for both untreated natural and lime-treated
soils, which can be used along with saturated soil properties to estimate USPFs, such as
bearing capacity of shallow foundations, volume change, permeability, shear strength and
swelling pressure functions. This will then be utilized as a tool for the proper geotechnical
engineering designs that rests on the unsaturated soils.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This chapter reviews about the expansive soils and the unsaturated soil mechanics in
engineering practice. It begins with a brief description of expansive soils origin, their
distribution, identification and classification, damages and stabilization techniques. And
also, the previous researches done on the classical approach of assessing the stabilizer
effect is reviewed. It then describes about the nature and behavior of SWCC, different
models proposed for predicting SWCCs over the entire suction range followed by different
methods used in the laboratory to determine soil-water retention properties. And also
reviews about the SC determination techniques and SC fitting equation. The chapter
concludes with a discussion on previous studies conducted on SWCCs for stabilized soils.
2.2. Review on Expansive Soils
2.2.1. General
Expansive soils have a large volume change as the moisture content changes. When the
moisture content of expansive soils rises, it expands, and when the moisture content falls,
it shrinks. The black cotton soil, which is grey to black in color and gets its name from
India, where these soils are ideal for cultivating cotton, is the most well-known example of
expansive soils (Alemayehu and Mesfin, 1999). Changes in moisture promote subsequent
swelling and shrinkage of these soils, resulting in damage to civil engineering projects,
particularly light weight buildings and pavements (Jhon and Debora, 1992).
2.2.2. Origin of Expansive Soils

Expansive soils are formed by a combination of conditions and processes that result in the
creation of clay minerals with a specific chemical makeup that expand when they come
into contact with water. The composition of the parent material, as well as the degree of
physical and chemical weathering to which the components are subjected, are all factors
that influence clay mineralogy (Chen, 1988).
5
During early stages, the parent material's nature is far more essential than it is after long
years of intensive weathering. There are two types of parent materials that can be related
with expansive soils:
The first group includes basic igneous rocks such as basalt, dolerite sills and dykes,
gabbros, and minerals such as feldspar and pyroxene; decomposition of these minerals
produces an important mineral known as montmorillonite clay minerals, which are one of
the smectite group and are highly expansive and effective for swelling behavior, as well as
other secondary minerals (Chen, 1988). This type of soil can be found in many places
around the world, particularly in dry and semi-arid climates. Vertisols, clayey soils high in
smectite, cover over 2.4 million square kilometers (240 million hectares) around the world
(Buol et al., 2003). Australia (80 million hectares), India (73 million ha), Sudan (50 million
ha), the southern and western states of the United States (12.8 million ha), Egypt, Ethiopia,
Chad, Ghana, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Taiwan are all home to large expanses (Hussein,
2010). Shale, swelling bedrock that contains a unique type of mineral called clay stone that
is rich in magnesium and contains Montmorillonite, and breaks down physically to
generate expansive soils, make up the second group of sedimentary rocks (Chen, 1988).
2.2.3. Clay Mineralogical Structure
Clay can refer to both a mineral size and a mineral class. It refers to all elements of a soil
that are less than a specific size, which is commonly 0.002 mm in engineering
classifications. It refers to certain clay minerals with small particle size, a net electrical
charge, plastic when mixed with water, and strong weathering resistance as a mineral word
(Budhu, 2007).
The lattice structure of clay soils is made up of two main molecular configurations. The
alumina octahedron and the silica tetrahedron are these. Silicate sheets are thin layers of
silica tetrahedrons in which three oxygen ions are shared between adjacent tetrahedrons.
Alumina sheets are made up of alumina crystals, which have an aluminum ion surrounded
by six oxygen or hydroxyl atoms in an octahedral arrangement (Craig, 2004 and Murray,
2007).
6
Figure 2. 1 Diagrammatic sketch of a) Octahedral sheet; b) Tetrahedral sheet (Murray,
2007)
The tetrahedral sheet (also known as silica sheet) is electrically negative, while the
octahedral sheet (also known as gibbsite sheet) is electrically neutral. By connecting a silica
sheet with one or two gibbsite sheets, layer structures are formed. Montmorillonite is the
clay mineral particle that causes the greatest expanding damage, though Kaolinite and illite
are stacks of these layers with different types of bonding between them (Craig, 2004).
Figure 2. 2 Principal Clay minerals: a) Symbolic representation of the sheet structures; b)

Kaolinite; c) Illite and d) Montmorillonite (Craig, 2004)
2.2.4. Distribution of Expansive Soils in Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, over 13.8 million hectares of land, which represents 12.5 % of the total land
area, is covered by expansive soils (Negawo et al., 2017). The southern, south-east, and
south-west parts of Addis Ababa, as well as the center portion of Ethiopia, are covered with
expansive soils, which can be found along important trunk routes like as Addis-Ambo,
Addis-Woliso, Addis-Debre Berhan, Addis-Gohatsion, and Addis-Modjo. Parts of Mekele,
7
Gondar, Bahirdar, Debreberihan, and Gambela have also been recorded to be partially
covered by expanding soils (Zewdie, 2004).
2.2.5. Damages from Expansive Soils
If no safeguards are taken, expansive soils, which inflate when water is absorbed and shrink
when removed, inflict serious damage to structures such as buildings, tunnels, pavements,
and channels. As the position of the ground water table changes with the seasons,
foundations resting on expansive soils may shift unevenly in the vertical direction and show
signs of undesirable fractures. Both heave and settlement can occur in structures built on
expanding clays, according to observations of structural unit deformations. Upward heave
is the most common structural deformation seen in structures. According to published data,
heaving of the structure typically begins one year after construction. It should be
emphasized that cracks are more prone to form in lightly loaded structures than in heavily
loaded buildings, as the former is simpler to move vertically due to underlying expansion
soil pressure. (Hussein, 2010).
2.2.6. Identification and Classification of Expansive Soils
Expansive soils can be identified using a variety of techniques. The methodologies for
identifying and classifying expansive soils are classified into two categories: field
identification and laboratory identification.
2.2.6.1 Field Identification of Expansive Soils

Expansive soils can be found in the field during both dry and rainy seasons, primarily
during the reconnaissance and preliminary inquiry stages (Chen, 1988 and Murthy, 2003).
Following are some observations:
 They might be grey or black in color. Desiccated surfaces having open or closed
fissures, as well as ground heave due to seasonal moisture variations.
 These soils become extremely sticky and difficult to navigate during rainy seasons.
 During dry seasons, shrinkage cracks appear on the ground surface, with a
maximum width of 20 mm or more and extending deep into the ground.
8
 Cracks emerge in neighboring structures (mostly on building walls, foundations,
and grade beams, and longitudinal cracks appear at road shoulders and around high
way center lines). Minor drainage infrastructure, such as culverts, develop
transversal cracks.
2.2.6.2 Laboratory Identification
Mineralogical, direct, and indirect identification techniques are used in laboratories to

identify expansive soils.
I. Mineralogical Composition
Swelling potentials are influenced by the mineralogical composition of expansive soils.
The mineralogy of expansive soils can be identified using five methods (Chen, 1988),
which are listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2. 1 Techniques for identifying the mineralogy of the expansive soils
Techniques Properties and parameters determined

X-ray Diffraction the proportions of the various minerals present in a colloidal
clay.
Differential thermal the control of materials which undergo characteristics changes
analysis on heating. Measure Area and amplitude of reaction peaks on
thermos-grams
Dye absorption identified by characteristic colors formed by dyes that are
absorbed by the minerals of the soil sample.
Chemical analysis Determine the nature of isomorphism and to show the origin and
location of the charge on the lattice
Electron will show up distinct morphological characteristics’ incudes Size
microscope and shape of clay particles
Revolution
II. Indirect Methods

The indirect approaches, which include index properties, potential volume change (PVC)
methods, and activity methods, are the second method. These methods, as shown in Table
2.2, are important tools in evaluating the swelling potential of soils, according to Chen
(1998).
9
Table 2. 2 Indirect Methods of Expansive Soil Identification
Tests Properties investigated

Atterberg limit Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity index and Shrinkage limit
 V V 
Free Swell(FS)= F I *100 , VF  final volume in water and VI  Initial volume in water
 VI 
Potential volume
 V V 
change Free Swell Index(FSI)= w k *100 ,Vw  final volume in water and
(PVC)  Vk 
V
Free swell Ratio(FSR)= w *100 Vk  final volume in kerosene
Vk
Plasticity Index
Activity Method Activity( Ac) 
 % by weight finer than 0.002mm
III. Direct Method

This approach gives the real physical measurement of soil swelling as a function of
moisture content by direct measurement of expansive soils using a typical one-dimensional
consolidometer, and is sometimes referred to as swell or swell pressure tests (Senthen, et
al., 1975).
2.2.7. Classification of Expansive Soils
A number of different classification schemes have been created using the parameters
determined by expansive soil identification tests. General classification systems that have
evolved over time and are largely based on performance correlation. According to index
properties, soils are classified in two general schemes: The Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials Method (AASHTO). Soils with a USCS classification of CL or CH and an
AASHTO classification of A-6 or A-7 may be considered potentially expansive (Nelson
and Miller, 1992). Other classification schemes have been developed specifically for
expansive soil classification. These systems, which include classification based on
Altmeyer (1955), Chen (1988), Skempton, United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR),
Wiseman et al. (1985), IS 1498 (1970), Craig (1997) are based on indirect and direct
predictions of swell potential, as well as combinations, to arrive at a rating.
10
Table 2. 3 Classification of Expansive soil based on Skempton Method.
Degree of activity Activity

Inactive Clay <0.75
Normal clay 0.75-1.25
Active Clay >1.25
Table 2. 4 Classification of Expansive Soils based on USBR Method.
Probable expansion,
Colloid content < Plasticity Shrinkage Degree of
percent total volume
0.001mm index limit expansion
change
>28 >35 <11 >30 Very high
20-13 25-41 7-12 20-30 High
13-23 15-28 10-16 10-30 Medium
<15 <18 >15 <10 Low
Table 2. 5 Classification of Expansive soils according to Chen (1988).
The percentage Plasticity Swelling Swelling

Percentage Degree of
passing No.200 index Pressure, Pressure,
of swell expansion
sieve (%) (ksf) (kPa)
>95 >55 >10 >20 >1000 Very high
60-95 20-55 3-10 5-20 250-1000 High
30-60 10-35 1-5 3-5 150-250 Medium
<30 0-15 <1 1 50 Low
Table 2. 6 Shrinkage limits and Degree of Expansion according to Altmeyer (1955).
Shrinkage limit (%) Linear Shrinkage (%) Degree of Expansion

<10 >8 Critical
10-12 5-8 Marginal
> 12 0-5 Non-Critical
Table 2. 7 Atterberg limit results and Degree of Expansion according to Wiseman et al.
(1985).
Index tests Usually non-problematic Almost always problematic

Plasticity index <20 >32
Shrinkage limit >13 <10
Free swell <50 >100
11
Table 2. 8 Prediction of the degree of expansion in fine-grained soils based on IS 1498
(1970).
Free Swell (%) Degree of expansion

Less than 50 Low
50-100 Medium
100-200 High
Greater than 200 Very high
Table 2. 9 Classification of Soils based on free swell ratio based on Craig (1997).
Free Swell Ratio Expansion potential Clay Type

<1 Negligible Non-Swelling
Mixture of non-Swelling &
1.0-1.5 Low
Swelling
1.5-2.0 Moderate Swelling
2.0-4.0 High Swelling
>4 Very high Swelling
2.2.8. Stabilization of Expansive Soils
Expansive soils, according to Nelson and Miller (1992), Christopher (2005), Hussein
(2010), and Guyer (2011), pose a serious threat to civil engineering infrastructure around
the world, including roads, housing, and transit facilities. Laying foundations beyond the
depth of moisture fluctuation is one of the most prevalent means of addressing expansive
soil problems. However, it is frequently difficult to precisely determine the depth of
moisture fluctuation, and if this depth is discovered to be very deep, foundation placement
may become practically impossible.
The problem of expansive soils can be solved by removing the soil and replacing it with
non-expansive soil, applying a chemical stabilization to the soil, or building a foundation
treatment that resists expansive soil uplift. The goal of soil treatment is to reduce the soil's
swell potential (Hussein, 2010).
Chemical additives and mechanical stabilization techniques are commonly used to improve
the engineering properties of expansive soils. Chemical stabilizers are divided into three
categories by Little and Nair (2009): traditional stabilizers such as hydrated lime, Portland
12
cement, and Fly ash; non-traditional stabilizers such as sulfonated oils, ammonium
chloride, enzymes, polymers, and potassium compounds; and byproduct stabilizers such as
cement kiln dust, lime kiln dust, and so on. Chemical stabilizers' effectiveness is influenced
by the soil's physical and chemical characteristics. The mineralogy of fine-grained soil
particles, as well as soil plasticity and grain size distribution, are among these features.
Lime can be used to effectively stabilize soils that have a high plasticity and a large
proportion of fine-grained soil particles (Bell, 1996).
Mechanical stabilization is a process that improves the soil's stability and shear strength
without changing its chemical properties. Compaction, mixing or blending of two or more
gradations, applying geo-reinforcement, and mechanical remediation are the main methods
of mechanical stabilization (Little and Nair, 2009; Guyer, 2011 and Makusa, 2012).
2.2.8.1 Lime Stabilization

Lime, cement, and a combination of the two are commonly used as stabilizers in many
countries. Cement stabilization, on the other hand, is more expensive than lime stabilization
and more difficult to apply to fine-grained clays. In granular soils, cement is far more
effective (McKeen, 1976).
Lime is widely used additive to improve the properties of expansive soils. Clay soils can
be stabilized with lime in the form of quicklime (calcium oxide – CaO), hydrated lime
(calcium hydroxide – Ca [OH]2), or lime slurry. Quicklime is generated by chemically
converting calcium carbonate (limestone - CaCO3) into calcium oxide. Hydrated lime is
generated when quicklime chemically interacts with water. Lime stabilization results in
long-term changes in clay properties (LMA, 2004).
2.2.8.1.1 Availability of Lime in Ethiopia

Dejen lime factory, Dire Dawa Cement and Lime Factory, Ethio Lime Factory of Senkele,
Caustic Soda lime unit, and Wonji Shoa Sugar Estates are the current sources of lime for
the domestic market, with a small amount of imports supplementing the supply. The lime
factories at Caustic Soda and Showa Sugar Estates are mostly for their own use, while the
other two are primarily for sale. Dire Dawa Cement and Lime Factory focuses mostly on
cement manufacturing, with only a portion of its capacity dedicated to lime production.
Aside from that, the Ethiopian Educational Materials Production and Distribution
13
Enterprise (EMPEDA) produces a small amount of masonry lime for the market through
its chalk production unit. Because the primary function of this unit is the production of
chalk, only a small portion of its capacity is dedicated to the production of masonry lime
(little, 1995).
2.2.8.1.2 Role of Lime Stabilization

Lime-treated fine-grained soils, according to Little (1995) and Guyer (2011), have
decreased plasticity, improved workability, reduced volume change characteristics, and
increased soil strength. Because of pozzolanic reactivity, this strength gain is possible. Not
all soils, however, have improved strength. It's worth noting that the qualities of soil-lime
combinations are influenced by a variety of factors. The most essential factors are soil type,
lime type, proportion of lime, and curing conditions (time, temperature, and moisture).
2.2.8.1.3 Chemical Reactions in Lime Stabilized Soils

Chemical composition of hydrated lime studied by Solomon (2011) using X-Ray
Fluorescence analysis is presented in Table 2.10 below.
Table 2. 10 Chemical composition of hydrated lime (Solomon, 2011).
Constituent Percentage*(%)
SiO2 6.21
Al2O3 2.18
Fe2O3 3.57
CaO 59.47
MgO 3.91
Na2O 0.61
K2O 0.79
TiO2 0.33
P2O5 0.21
MnO 0.28
SO3 0.58
In soil-lime mixes, numerous chemical reactions occur, and some of them are addressed
below.
I. Cation Exchange
The first reaction is a Base Exchange reaction, which lowers the soil's plasticity index and
makes it appear loose and friable. Within few minutes of mixing, the clay reacts with the
14
stabilizer, resulting in a better-textured soil. In general, clay minerals contain sodium or
potassium (Na+ or K+) as well as water. These cations, however, can be replaced by higher
valence cations such as Al+3, Ca+2, Mg+2, and so on, in a process known as cation exchange
(Hayder, 2012).
II. Flocculation and Agglomeration

Flocculation and agglomeration are the process of clay particles changing their
organization from a flat, parallel structure to a more random edge-to-face orientation,
which is enabled by cation exchange (Herzog and Mitchell, 1966). The texture of the soil
transforms from a plastic, fine-grained material to a friable, granular soil when the soil
particles are restructured (Wubshet and Tadesse, 2014 and Dang et al., 2016).
According to Taye (2015), cation exchange reduces the size of the double layer, while
flocculation and agglomeration enhance internal friction of clay particles, resulting in a
reduction in plasticity, an increase in shear strength, and an improvement in texture. The
particle reformation process is similar to cation exchange in that it occurs quickly.
III. Lime Carbonation Reactions

Lime added to clayey soil reacts with carbon dioxide in the air to form carbonate that is
relatively insoluble (Eades and Grim, 1960). The reaction between lime and carbon dioxide
in the air causes the formation of CaCO3 and MgCO3. Due to the poor adhesion of calcium
carbonate and magnesium carbonate materials, it is necessary to prevent this interaction
from progressing too far (Fang, 1991).
IV. Pozzolanic Reactions
After a few weeks of combining soil, stabilizer, and water, the pozzolanic reaction results
in more stable calcium hydrates and aluminates (Eades and Grim, 1960). The system's pH
environment causes the silica and alumina to react with the clay particles, giving the
stabilized soils an extra boost of strength. The minimum pH of 12.4 is necessary in order
to maintain the pozzolanic reaction (Eades and Grim, 1966). Calcium silicate hydrate
(CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH) are generated by pozzolanic components,
and the calcium silicate gel covers and binds lumps of clay together (Dang et al., 2016).
15
The gel then crystallizes into an interlocking structure that strengthens the soil (Gourley
and Schreiner, 1993).
Ca2+ + 2(OH) - + SiO2 (Clay Silica) ---------------------------►CSH
Ca2+ + 2(OH) - + Al2O3 (Clay Alumina) ----------------------►CAH
2.2.8.1.4 The Soil-Lime Proportion Requirement for Soil Stabilization
The soil-lime percentage required for soil stabilization can be determined using a pH test
according to ASTM D 6276, which was first proposed by Eades and Grim (1966). This test
method is used to measure the percentage of lime that results in a pH of approximately 12.4
in the soil-lime solution. This method had been used by most researchers to determine lime
content. According to this test, the lime required for Solomon (2011), Negussie and Dinku
(2014), and Negawo et al. (2017), all of which were conducted in Ethiopia, was 3.5 %, 6
%, and 9 %, respectively. Al-Mukhtar et al. (2010a), Khattab and Aljobouri (2012), and
Ismaiel and Badry (2013) accounted for 4%, 4%, and 5%, respectively, from other study
areas. The approximate lime percentage for stabilizing the soil is the proportion of lime in
the soil that peaks at a pH of 12.4. However, the ideal lime level of the soil cannot be stated
and must be verified using free swell, Atterberg limit, and UCS experiments.
Table 2.11 presents a summary of previous studies on stabilization of expansive soils.
16
Table 2. 11 previous studies on stabilization of expansive soils using classical, saturated soil mechanics concept of analysis
Researcher Material Used Test Method Major Finding

Tesfaye (2001)  Lime  Atterberg limit test,  PI, FS and swelling pressure decreases as lime
 cement  moisture-density content increases.
relations,  little or no change on MDD upon addition of lime
 free swell and and OMC increase as lime content increases.
 swelling pressure tests  Swelling pressure of expansive soil decreases with
increasing lime, cement.
 4-6% of lime and 9-12% of cement yielded
significant improvement on plasticity and
Swelling properties of expansive soils.
Nebro (2002)  lime and  Atterberg limit test,  PI and MDD decreased; OMC, UCS and CBR
 liquid stabilizer  moisture-density increased as lime content increases.
called Con-Aid relation,  4% of lime by dry weight of the soil was optimum
 UCS, lime content to stabilize the soil even though
 CBR (California increased quantity of lime led to increased strength.
Bearing Ratio) and  Addition of lime reduces the swelling potential but
CBR swell no significant improvement in the engineering
properties of the soil was attained by addition of
Con-Aid.
Argu (2008)  SA-44/LS-40  Atterberg limit test,  8% lime yielded significant improvement on
chemical and  moisture-density plasticity, swelling and strength properties of
 lime relations, expansive soils.
 free swell and  The application of 0.30lit/m3 of SA-44/LS-40
chemical and 2% lime is an optimum proportion in
 swelling pressure tests
increasing the soaked CBR value and reducing the
swelling pressure of the light grey clay soil.
 The application of 0.08lit/m3 of SA-44/LS-40
chemical and 4% lime is an optimum proportion in
increasing the soaked CBR value of the red clay
soil.
17
Solomon (2011)  Hydrated lime  Atterberg limits,  The improvement of the sub-grade soil samples
 Anyway,  linear shrinkage, increased with increasing both dosages as well
Natural Soil  CBR and percent swell as curing periods.
Stabilizer of CBR  4% of either chemical has resulted in adequate
(ANSS) improvements of the subgrade soil.
 PI and swelling properties have decreased
and the CBR has increased with respective
increasing of the chemical dosages.
 Hydrated lime is better than that of ANSS
Ismaiel and Badry (2013)  hydrated lime  Atterberg Limit  optimum lime content to treat the studied clayey silt
 Compaction was 5% according to pH-test
parameters,  Addition of lime led to a decrease in MDD and to
 unconfined an increase in OMC.
compressive strength  A reduction of a liquid limit, plastic limit and
 CBR plasticity index.
 swelling percent using  UCS and CBR values increased
CBR-instrument  Swelling percent and Free swelling reduced
 free swelling
Bhuvaneshwari et al. (2013)  lime  PH  Based on the Eades and Grim pH test, it is observed
 Atterberg Limit that the pH of the lime soil solutions reaches a
 UCS value of 12.45 at 4 % lime.
 Addition of lime reduced the plasticity limit up to
6% for 14 days curing then it increased
 Observed the percentage increase in strength for
different curing periods and percentage of lime.
Khan (2014)  Lime  Atterberg Limit  After addition of lime from 0% to 4%, liquid limit,
plastic limit and PI decrease. Further increase of
lime it shows increasing tendency.
 4% lime as modifying agent to optimize plasticity
index value.
18
Negussie and Dinku (2014)  Sodium silicate  Atterberg limit test,  6% lime content was found to be an optimum lime
 Lime  Proctor test and content based on pH test.
 CBR  Increased reduction in PI associated with increased
amount of lime.
 reduction of PI decreased with increasing curing
durations due to carbonation reaction aggravated by
premature wetting of samples during soaking.
 Sodium silicate reduced PI values associated
with increased curing durations.
 Maximum reduction of PI occurred at 4% lime and
1% sodium silicate cured for 28 days
 MDD increased and OMC decreased with increased
lime content
 Neither sodium silicate nor applying sodium silicate
in combination with lime is a suitable means of
expansive (montmorillonitic) clay stabilization.
Musema (2014)  Hydrated lime  Atterberg limits  The overall improvement on geotechnical
 Shrinkage limits properties was achieved at 12% lime content.
 Linear shrinkage  The plastic limit has decreased, with the increase of
 Specific gravity plastic limit.
 Free swell  The linear shrinkage and Free Swell decreased as
 Moisture density lime content increased.
relation ships  The MDD decreased and OMC increased as lime
 Soaked CBR and CBR content increased.
Swell  The shrinkage limit, specific gravity, CBR and
 UCS (immediate and 7 Unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized
days cured) sample have increased with the addition of lime.
 Swelling percentage (CBR Swell) decreased with
increasing stabilizer percentage.
19
Wubshet and Tadesse (2014)  Bagasse ash  Atterberg Limit  Effect of 3% lime and 15% Bagasse ash with 0- and
 lime  compaction and 7-day curing periods on the engineering properties
 CBR of the soil were investigated.
 An increase in OMC and CBR value; and a
decrease in MDD and plasticity of the soil for all
additives.
 But there was also a tremendous improvement in
the CBR value when the soil is stabilized with a
combination of lime and bagasse ash.
Zumrawi (2014)  Lime  Index property,  Significant reduction in plasticity index can be
 Fly Ash  compaction, observed as the percent of lime and fly ash
 California Bearing increases.
Ratio (CBR),  High plastic clay became non-plastic with the
 Unconfined addition of 5% lime and 10% fly ash instate of 8%
Compression Strength lime.
(UCS),  optimum content of lime-fly ash
 free swell  Admixture at 8% lime with 20% fly ash will reduce
 swelling pressure tests the FSI from 195% to around 20%
 The MDD increases with increasing lime content
from 5 to 8%, while a reduction in the MDD was
observed when fly ash increases from 0 to 10%.
 Addition of fly ash led to decreased CBR and UCS.
Calik and Sadoglu (2014)  lime  compaction,  Addition of lime and perlite caused a decrease in
 perlite  Atterberg limits, MDD and increased OMC compared with only
 swelling, lime-soil mixture
 UCS  Decreased in plasticity index with increase lime and
perlite content
 All treated samples showed a reduction in the swell
percent and an improvement on swelling pressure
 usage of both perlite and lime caused almost 1-20
times increase in UCS depending on curing time
20
compared with usage of only perlite. 30% perlite
and 8% lime are the optimum solution
Brook (2015)  Lime  PH  As lime content increased Liquid limit decreases;
 Atterberg limits, Plastic limit increases; Plastic index decreases;
 Proctor test OMC increases; MDD decreases.
 UCS  6% is found to be the optimum lime content
 Improvement in compressive strength on the wet
side of optimum moisture content is found to be
dependent on the curing time.
Dang et al. (2016)  hydrated lime  linear shrinkage  Effect of 1.5% - 6.25% lime and 6% - 25% Bagasse
and  CBR ash individually or combined together with 3-, 7-
 bagasse ash and 28-day curing periods on the engineering
properties of the soil were investigated
 Additions of hydrated lime and bagasse ash
improved the strength and bearing capacity of
stabilized expansive soil remarkably.
 Reduced the linear shrinkage of treated expansive
soil.
Negawo et al. (2017)  Quick lime  PH  9% was the optimum lime content obtained from
 Atterberg Limit the PH test
 UCS  Addition of lime significantly reduces the plasticity
 CBR index and swelling potential of the soil.
 MDD decreased and OMC increased with increased
lime content
 UCS and the CBR show considerable
improvements
21
Mesfun et. al. (2019)  pumice  Atterberg limits  This experiment obtained 7% lime + 3% pumice as
 lime  Compaction an optimum mix ratio to stabilize expansive soils.
 CBR  Addition of lime reduced the PI
 MDD increased and OMC decreased with increased
lime content.
 The CBR increased with an increasing lime content
than increasing pumice content.
Kebede (2020)  Lime  Compaction  The effect of lime treatment on engineering
 Atterberg limit performance of natural subgrade soil 3%, 6% and
 CBR 9% of lime content and treated after 7, 14 and 28
 CBR swell curing days were evaluated.
 MDD decreases and the OMC increase with an
increasing percent of lime and curing period.
 Reduction in the plasticity of expansive soil
 A significantly increased in CBR and decrease in
swell in CBR
 Reduction in CBR swell as addition of lime and
pumice increased.
 The change in geotechnical properties of lime
treated expansive subgrade soils are directly
proportional to the percent of lime and the curing
period, while the percent of lime has a greater effect
than curing period.
22
2.3. Unsaturated Soils
2.3.1. General
Over the last decades, a theoretical framework for unsaturated soil mechanics has emerged.
Solids, water, and air are the three phases of an unsaturated soil, according to popular
definition. However, recognizing the existence of a fourth phase, the air-water interface or
contractile skin, may be more accurate. (Fredlund and Morgenstem, 1977). In geotechnical
engineering, the constitutive equations for volume change, shear strength, and flow for
unsaturated soil have been widely recognized (Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993a).
According to Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), many materials encountered in engineering

practice behave in ways that contradict the assumptions and concepts of classical, saturated
soil mechanics. In most cases, the existence of more than two phases results in a difficult-
to-work-with material in engineering practice.
Unsaturated soils are the most common type of material that does not behave according to
traditional, saturated soil mechanics. Residual fine soils, such as clays and silt-clays, built
on basaltic bedrock account for the majority of the soil in the Bahir Dar area. Their negative
pore-water pressures, which are considered unsaturated soils, are the key cause
contributing to their peculiar behavior. There are two types of soils: The first are red clay
soils, which have a reddish-brown appearance due to magnetic mineral reduction. These
soils can be found throughout the town, particularly in the northern part and along the
lakeshore in the central part. The dark and dark brown soil, which mainly covers the area
south and south west of the town, is the second type (NUPI, 1996).
When the influence of matric suction is taken into account, engineering behavior of
collapsible, residual, compacted, and expansive soils that are often unsaturated can be
better understood (Fredlund, 2000). The SWCC for a given soil and the properties of the
unsaturated soil have been linked in laboratory investigations (Fredlund and Rahardjo,
1993b). Bearing capacity, volume change, permeability, and shear-strength functions are
examples of these types of properties.
It is critical to gain a better understanding of how unsaturated soil behaves and works. The
water table divides the world of soil mechanics for the sake of simplicity. Effective stress
23
(σ - uw) governs soil behavior below the water table, whereas two separate stress factors,
net normal stress (σ - ua) and matric suction (ua – uw), influence soil behavior above the
water table (Jennings and Burland, 1962; Fredlund and Morgenstem, 1977). The soil is at
or near saturation condition and behaves as if it is saturated at low matric suctions, where
the suction is less than the air-entry value of the soil. The soil begins to desaturate at matric
suctions greater than the soil's air-entry value (Thamer et al., 2006).
2.3.2. Role of Climate

The climate has a big impact on whether a soil is saturated or not. Evaporation from the
ground surface or evapotranspiration from a vegetation cover remove water from the soil.
These processes cause water to flow upward from the earth. Rainfall and other forms of
precipitation, on the other hand, provide a downward flow into the soil. The pore-water
pressure conditions in the soil are mostly determined by the difference between these two
flux conditions on a local scale. A net upward flux causes the soil mass to gradually dry,
crack, and desiccate, whereas a net downward flux eventually saturates the soil mass. The
net surface flux, among other things, influences the depth of the water table. A hydrostatic
line drawn parallel to the groundwater table denotes a state of equilibrium in which no flux
exists at the ground surface. The pore-water pressures become more negative during dry
periods. During wet periods, the situation is the polar opposite (Fredlund and Rahardjo,
1993).
According to Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), arid and semi-arid areas have a deep
groundwater table. Pore-water pressures are negative in soils above the water table. Due to
excessive evaporation and evapotranspiration, the soils have become desaturated. Climatic
variations have a significant impact on the water content of the soil near the ground surface.
2.3.3. Phases of Unsaturated Soils
According to Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), an unsaturated soil consists of three phases:
1) solids, 2) water, and 3) air. However, recognizing the existence of a fourth phase, namely
the air-water interface or contractile skin, may be more effective. The contractile skin
interacts with the soil particles and influences the soil's mechanical behavior while the air
24
phase is continuous. The fluid becomes highly compressible when the air phase contains
occluded air bubbles.
Figure 2. 3 Rigorous and simplified phase diagrams for an unsaturated soil. (a) Rigorous
four phase unsaturated soil system; (b) simplified three phase diagrams (Fredlund and
Rahardjo, 1993).
2.3.4. Unsaturated Soil in Engineering Practice
For many years, unsaturated soils were either neglected in civil engineering design and
construction analyses, or they were handled incorrectly from a saturated soil mechanics
perspective. However, in the last 30 to 40 years, rapid advances in our understanding of
unsaturated soil behavior have prompted today's civil engineer to recognize that there is
now an opportunity to tackle problems involving unsaturated soil on a much more rational
basis. The growing body of information about the underlying principles of unsaturated soil
mechanics is progressively being applied to a wide range of real-world engineering issues
(Ning and William, 2004).
Stress-related and deformation-related issues are two common categories of engineering

challenges affecting primarily unsaturated soils. Slope stability and land sliding under
changing climatic conditions, lateral earth pressure and retaining structure stability,
excavation and borehole stability, bearing capacity for shallow foundations under moisture
loading, and stress wave propagation in unsaturated soil are among those stress related
problems. Swelling and shrinkage of expansive soil, desiccation cracking of clay,
25
collapsing soil, Soil compaction, and Consolidation and settlement of unsaturated soil were
among problems related to deformation (Ning and William, 2004).
Soil types such as saturated sands, Silts, Clays, and dry sands have been the focus of
traditional soil mechanics. Theories relating to these types of soils in either a completely
dry or completely saturated state were widely researched. It has recently been demonstrated
that soils that do not fit into these categories require special consideration. Unsaturated
soils account for the majority of these soils. Because of the complexities of their behavior,
engineering with unsaturated soils has always been empirical. The natural laws controlling
the behavior of an unsaturated soil are altered since it contains more than two phases. The
connection between water and air as the soil desaturates is crucial to the behavior of an
unsaturated soil. The SWCC describes this relationship. There is a link between the SWCC
and unsaturated soil properties qualities, according to laboratory experiments (Fredlund
and Rahardjo, 1993b).
2.3.5. Soil Water Characteristic Curves (SWCC)

2.3.5.1 General
SWCC is the relationship between matrix suction and water content and it reflects the
capacity of holding water under the matrix suction (Tan et al., 2005). The SWCC describes
the relationship between gravimetric water content, w, or volumetric water content, θ, or
degree of saturation, S, and soil suction (Fredlund and Xing, 1994). Matric suction is the
difference between pore air pressure and pore water pressure. For common geotechnical
engineering practice pore air pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure and is considered
as zero. For unsaturated soils pore water pressure is always negative (less then atmospheric
pressure). This negative pore water pressure is termed as suction (Fredlund and Xing,
1994). Much important information of soil body such as permeability, strength, volume
change, stress state and granular distribution are obtained from SWCC (Zhou, 2005).
SWCC of unsaturated soils is the main content of its constitutive relation (Chen, 2001;
Chen et al., 2003).
SWCC of unsaturated soil has great significance to explain and predict the engineering
characteristics of unsaturated soil including permeability, seepage flow, strength and
26
volume change (Zhou, 2005). Researching SWCC has important theoretical and
engineering value, and as result, researchers have begun to use SWCC to predict the
engineering properties of unsaturated soil.
2.3.5.2 Nature of SWCC
The SWCC is a hysterical relationship, not a single-valued, unique relationship. The non-
uniformity of pore-size distribution in the soil causes hysteresis in the SWCC. As a result,
a single stress state designation for a soil cannot be determined purely based on a water
content measurement. In other words, along what is known as a scanning curve (shown in
Figure 2.4(a) below), it is impossible to tell whether the soil is now on the drying curve
(desorption), the wetting curve (adsorption), or somewhere in between the two bounding
curves. It is clear that the adsorption curve's finishing point differs from the desorption
curve's beginning point; this is due to air trapped in the soil (Fredlund and Xing, 1994).
The effect of hysteresis is ignored due to its complexity, and only desorption SWCC is
employed to estimate soil suction (Fredlund et al., 2011).
a) b)
Figure 2. 4 a) Illustration of the hysteresis loops comprising the SWCC for a soil (Fredlund,
2000) b) Desorption branch with definition of variables for a SWCC (Fredlund et al., 2011)
There are two major variations in slope along the SWCC, as represented by the curve in
Figure 2.4 (b). As suction is increased, the first point is referred to as the soil's "air-entry
value," where the largest voids begin to desaturate. The second stage is known as "residual
conditions," and it refers to the point at which water removal from the soil becomes much
more difficult. (i.e., requires significantly more energy for water removal). The SWCC is
27
divided into three zones by variations in slope: the ‘‘boundary effect zone" in the lower
suction range, the ‘‘transition zone" between the air-entry and residual values, and the
‘‘residual zone" at high soil suctions up to 106 kPa (Fredlund et al, 2011). The water content
at zero matric suction is known as the saturated water content, and it represents the
complete ability of the soil pores to hold water (Fredlund and Xing, 1994). The soil storage
potential is represented by the ratio of change in soil matric suction to water content. To
put it another way, the steepness of the slope throughout a range of soil suctions represents
the soil storage potential (Leong and Rahardjo, 1997).
2.3.5.3 Behavior of SWCC
On a semilogarithmic scale, Figure 2.5 shows standard SWCCs for sandy, silty, and clayey
soils. The plasticity and percentage fines of the soil enhance the saturated water content
and the air-entry value. The rate of desaturation reduces as the fines of the soil rise. As a
result, a soil with a high plasticity can hold water even at higher matric suctions. The shape
of the SWCC is further influenced by the initial water content, density, stress history, soil
state and structure, and pore size distribution (Fredlund and Xing, 1994).
Figure 2. 5 Soil Water Characteristic Curve for a Sandy Soil, Silty Soil and Clayey Soil
(Fredlund and Xing, 1994)
28
2.3.5.4 SWCC Models
SWCC has been studied by a number of researchers around the world. Various SWCC
models have also been created. Brooks and Corey (1964), Van Genuchten (1980), and
Fredlund and Xing (1994) are among others who can be mentioned. The SWCC is
predicted using the Fredlund and Xing (1994) model in this study.
2.3.5.4.1 Brooks and Corey (1964) SWCC Fitting Model

At soil suctions greater than the air-entry value, the SWCC is supposed to be an
exponentially decreasing function of water content, whereas at suctions smaller than the
air-entry value, it remains constant. Furthermore, the model is ineffective when the degree
of saturation is smaller than the residual value (Brooks and Corey, 1964). According to the
findings, the model is more suited to coarse-grained soils than fine-grained soils (Fredlund
and Xing, 1994).
n
  r   
  when   a (2.1)
s  r  a 
  1 and   s when   a (2.2)
where
 : normalized water content; :soil suction; : volumetric water content;
r :residual volumetric water content;s : saturated volumetric water content;
a and n :equation parameters
Here ‘a’ is related to the air-entry value, which is the suction required to remove water
from the largest pores or matric suction for which air starts to enter largest pores in the soil.
The pore size distribution of the soil is related to ‘n'. The greater the value of ‘n,' the more
homogeneous the pore sizes in the soil are, and the SWCC within the desaturation zone is
steeper.
2.3.5.4.2 Van Genuchten (1980) SWCC Fitting Model

This model is commonly used for modeling and understanding the behavior of unsaturated
soils. The model is continuous, fitting the SWCC over the complete range of soil suction,
using fitting parameters a, n, and m. The SWCC of expansive soil found in Bahir Dar,
according to Amlak (2020), never reached zero water content at a maximum suction of 106
kPa by the Van Genuchten (1980) SWCC fitting model.
29
m
 
 
  r  1 
  n 
(2.3)
 s  r       
 1     
   a   
 : normalized water content; : soil suction; : volumetric water content;
 r :residual volumetric water content; s : saturated volumetric water content;
a ,n and m :equation parameters
Equation 2.3 and Equation 2.2 employ the same definitions for the above parameters, with
the exception of m, which is connected to the model's asymmetry.
2.3.5.4.3 Fredlund and Xing (1994) SWCC Fitting Model
In terms of three parameters identified as a, n, and m, the Fredlund and Xing (1994) model
formulation provides a continuous SWCC as a function of gravimetric water content over
the entire soil suction range of 0 – 106 kPa. The following is a representation of the model
equation: (Equation 2.4). The desorption curve is the focus of this paper. And Fredlund and
Xing (1994) model is used to fit the curves.
s
    c   (2.4)
 
m
ln  e   a  
n
 
Where:
   = gravimetric water content at any soil suction, ψ, e= irrational constant equal to
2.71828, s = saturated gravimetric water content, a = fitting parameter indicating the

inflection point that bears a relationship to, and is greater than the air-entry value, n= fitting
parameter related to the rate of desaturation, m = fitting parameter related to the curvature
near residual conditions and C   = correction factor directing the SWCC to 106 kPa at
zero water content, and given by:
30
ln 1   r 
C    1  (2.5)
ln 1  106  r  
r = is the suction corresponding to the residual water content, r
When utilizing the volumetric water content and degree of saturation to fit the curve, the
term    and s in Equation 2.4 will be substituted by    and s , S(ψ) and S0,
respectively.
Sillers et al. (2001) found that the Fredlund and Xing (1994) equation is well fitted for
experimental data for various soils over a wide range of suction and requires fewer
iterations to reach the best–fit parameters than Van Genutchen's equation (1980). Table
2.12 lists some of the most generally proposed soil-water characteristic curve formulae.
Sillers (1996) presents a more extensive set of equations that could be used.
Table 2. 12 Summary of SWCC fitting equations from Sillers (1996).
2.3.6. Suction Measuring Devices

Direct method for measuring matric suction and indirect method for measuring matric,
osmotic, and total suctions are the two basic types of suction measurements (Pan et al.,
2010). Axis translation technique, Tensiometer, and Suction Probe are examples of direct
approaches. Time domain reflectometry, Electrical conductivity sensors, Thermal
31
Name Equation Description Fitting parameters
Gardner (1958) ws a, n
w  
1  a n
Brooks and Corey (1964) w    ws for    ae a, n

n
 
w    ws   for    ae
a
Brutsaert (1966) ws a, n
w    n
 
1  
a
van Genuchten(1980) ws a, m, n
w    m
1   a n 
 
Van Genuchten-Mualem (1980) ws a, n

w    11/ n 
   
1  a  n
Genuchten-Burdine (1980) ws a, n
w    1 2/ n 
1   a n 
 
Tani Equation (1982)  a    a   a, n

w   ws 1   exp   
 an   an 
Boltzman Equation (1984) w    ws for    ae a, n
 a  
w    ws exp   for    ae
 n 
Fermi Equation (1987) ws a, n
w   
  a 
1  exp  
 n 
Fredlund and Xing (1994) s a, m, n

    c  
ln e   a  
mf
nf
f
32
conductivity sensors, and in-contact filter paper technology are all indirect methods of
detecting matric suction.
2.3.6.1 Axis Translation Technique

The air entrance value of the ceramic disk is the only constraint to the measurement of
matric suction using this technique. Ceramic disks having a maximum air-entry value of
1500 kPa are available on the market (Pan et al., 2010). The axis-translation technique is
used to operate the pressure plate device. This theory states that a matric suction can be
applied to soil by regulating pore gas pressure (ug) and pore water pressure (uw), so that the
difference between the two equals the desired matric suction, that is, ψ= ug - uw. The
approach is known as null-type axis-translation because the water pressure in the water
compartment is kept as near to zero as possible (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).
2.3.6.2 Tensiometer
A tensiometer is a device that measures the negative pore-water pressure of soil directly.
The essential premise is that the water pressure contained in a high air entry material will
equalize with the soil water pressure, allowing negative soil water pressures to be measured
(Pan et al., 2010). Only the value of the matric suction component in the soil with a suction
range of 0-1500 kPa is provided by this measurement.
2.3.6.3 Suction Probe

Ridley and Burland (1993) invented the suction probe for measuring suction. The
equilibrium between the pore-water pressure in the soil and the pore-water pressure in the
water compartment provides the basis for suction measurements. Water flows from the
water compartment into the soil, or vice versa, before equilibrium is reached. The pore-
water pressure is determined via the suction probe (uw). Since the applied air pressure (ua)
is known, and the matric suction is the difference between the pore-air and pore-water
pressures (ua– uw), the matric suction can be calculated (Pan et al., 2010).
2.3.6.4 Filter Paper Testing

Soil suction can be measured with filter paper, which is a simple and inexpensive approach.
This technique is used to measure total and matric suctions, and the test is carried out in
line with ASTM D 5298 – 94. Higher suctions, up to 106 kPa, can be measured with filter
paper. Filter paper is allowed to absorb moisture from a soil specimen, When the soil and
33
filter paper have reached equilibrium, the suction in the filter paper equals the suction in
the soil (Ridley and Wray, 1995).
2.3.7. Significance of the SWCC

As the soil suction changes, unsaturated soil properties such as volume change,
permeability, and shear-strength qualities change, and these changes can be linked to the
quantity of water present in the soil pores. However, the cost of directly determining
Unsaturated Soil Property Functions (USPF) is beyond of most clients' financial budget
(Fredlund, 2020). As a result, two laboratory tests measuring gravimetric water content vs
soil suction, referred to as the soil-water characteristic curve (w-SWCC), and (ii) void ratio
versus water content, referred to as the shrinkage curve (SC), as well as saturated soil
parameters, were used to forecast USPF (Fredlund, 2020). SWCC is being used by
researchers to forecast the engineering properties of unsaturated soil. Furthermore, the
curve fitting parameters were employed to evaluate the improvement effect of the stabilizer
on the expansive soils by determining SWCC and SC. In addition, after the establishment
of SWCC and SC functions, the stabilizer effect on swelling pressure and volume change
behavior of natural soil is identified (Zhang et al., 2017).
2.3.8. Shrinkage Curve Determination

2.3.8.1 Introduction
The shrinkage curve is another name for the soil shrinkage characteristics curve (SC). The
shrinkage curve test measures the relationship between volume change (in terms of void
ratio changes) and gravimetric water content as the soil suction is increased under
evaporative circumstances, from near-zero to fully dry (Leong and Wijaya ,2015).
Fredlund (2020) recommended that test specimens for the SC and w-SWCC tests be made
from the same soil sample. SC specimens were around 30 mm in diameter and 10 mm
thick, while w-SWCC specimens were about 70 mm in diameter and 30 mm thick.
Unfortunately, there are no dimensions given in the standards for both test specimens. On
undisturbed field samples, compacted soil specimens, and slurry specimens, the shrinkage
curve can be measured (Fredlund et al., 2012).
34
Several equations for fitting SCs have been suggested, as summarized by Leong and
Wijaya (2015). When w-SWCC is combined with the SC test, Fredlund's (2000) hyperbolic
equation (Equation 2.6) provides the best match for the curves (Fredlund, 2019).
1
   csh
 csh
e( )  ash     1
  bsh   (2.6)
 
where ash = minimum void ratio upon complete drying (i.e., ranging from 0.4 to 1.0)
bsh = variable related to the slope of the drying curve calculated as:
bsh = (ash × So)/Gs (2.7)
and csh = variable related to the sharpness of curvature as the soil desaturates, and So =
initial degree of saturation.
According to Fredlund (2019), the common range of fitting parameters for ash is 0.4 to 1.0,
the bsh variable is calculated from the ash variable, and soil csh values vary from 3 to 15.
Low compressibility soils have a csh value of 15, whereas soils with a csh value of 1.5 have
a far higher compressibility (or undergo considerable volume change) as soil suction is
increased.
2.3.8.2 Phases of a Drying Soil
When a soil dries, it goes through four phases (Bensallam et al., 2012). By creating the SC,
these phases can be obtained. Figure 2.6 depicts the volumetric SC stages.
35
Figure 2. 6 Volumetric shrinkage curve. (Bensallam et al., 2012.)
The four phases that exist on the soil up until it dries are depicted in Figure 2.6. Structural
shrinkage, normal shrinkage, residual shrinkage, and zero shrinkage are the four types. The
structural shrinkage stage is defined as when the reduction in soil volume is less than the
amount of water taken from the soil. The amount of free water collected from the soil
determines the volume reduction in this phase. Clayey soils, on the other hand, lack this
phase (Chertkov, 2003). The emptying of the huge inter-aggregate pores and biological
tubular pores of the soil happens exclusively in structured well-aggregated soils
(Amenuvor et al., 2020 In the normal shrinkage stage, a decrease in water volume causes
a proportional decrease in bulk soil volume. This stage is important in the SC because it
accounts for 30–80% of total water loss and 64–94% of total volume loss in many soils
(Peng and Horn, 2005). Tripathy et al. (2002) also reported that >80% of volume change
occurs in this zone. Air enters the intra-aggregate pores during residual shrinkage, and the
drop-in water volume upon drying surpasses the decrease in soil bulk volume (Amenuvor
et al., 2020). Finally, in the zero-shrinkage stage, the soil particles reach their densest
structure, and the volume of the aggregates remains unchanged while the water volume
drops (Bronswijk, 1991).
2.3.8.3 Methods for Determination of SC
Different researchers have proposed different ways for determining SC. Mercury, Toluene
wax-freezing, Cylindrical ring, Balloon, and Imaged-based technologies are among them.
36
I) Mercury Method
The volume of fluid displaced by the soil in mercury was measured in this method to
determine the bulk volume of the soil (ASTM, 1990). The mercury method, according to
Sibley and Williams (1989), is appropriate for stiff and regularly shaped specimens but
cannot specify the whole shrinkage behavior of the soil from the liquid limit to the dried
state. Because of its toxicity, using this procedure is no longer encouraged and can result
in health complications.
II) Toluene Wax-freezing Method

Pellissier (1991) proposed this approach, which involves measuring the amount of wet
saturated soil in toluene. The volume of the soil is estimated by displacement in water after
it has been coated with molten wax. The wax is subsequently removed by spraying a
freezing liquid onto the soil surface, which causes the wax to split and peel away. One
drawback of this method is that some soil may be lost during the wax removal process.
III) Cylindrical Ring Method
Berndt and Coughlan (1976) proposed this strategy, which Fredlund (2020) have recently
used. The bulk soil volume was calculated directly by measuring the diameter and height
of a core sample. SC is best defined using this method for undisturbed and compacted
samples. This method is utilized to define the SC in this study.
IV) Ballon Method
The balloon method of estimating the SC was proposed by Tariq and Durnford (1993). An
ordinary balloon contains a saturated, undisturbed soil sample. The balloon has an inlet and
outlet stopper, and low-pressure air is allowed to pass over the soil sample in the balloon
to dry it. After exerting low suction to tightly fit the balloon around the soil, the bulk soil
volume is measured at specific periods by displacement of the soil with the balloon in
water. In comparison to other ways, this method takes only 2–4 days to generate the
shrinkage curve, whereas other methods take weeks.
V) Imaged-based Method
Amenuvor et al. (2020) proposed using image processing to quickly measure the shrinkage
curve. In comparison to the existing methods for measuring the soil shrinkage curve, this
37
method is simple and quick. This approach involves filling a cylindrical dish with soil
slurry (i.e., soil paste with a water content slightly above the liquid limit) and placing it on
an electronic scale with a digital camera set above it to collect periodic photos while the
soil dries. The volume of the soil is calculated by multiplying its calculated surface area by
its varying thickness, which is calculated using the measured initial and final thicknesses
and the assumption that the change in thickness is proportional to the change in surface
area or radius at any given stage of drying.
2.3.9. Previous Studies to Interpret Soil Behavior using SWCC
Numerous researches have been undertaken in recent years to extend the unsaturated soil
mechanics principles into conventional engineering practice. The use of SWCC to predict
the unsaturated soil properties has practiced by different researchers. Among the number
of researches done so far, the studies of Bilsel and Oncu (2005), Puppala et al. (2006),
Thudi (2006), Khattab et al. (2006), Yang et al. (2011), Khattab and Aljobouri (2012). Lin
and Cerato (2012), Mavroulidou et al. (2013), Elkady et al. (2015), Zhang et al. (2017) are
reviewed and summarized in Table 2.13.
Using the pressure plate apparatus in the suction range of 0-1,000 kPa, Puppala et al. (2006)
measured the SWCC of two expansive soils from Texas in both natural and stabilized
circumstances. The SWCC results are used to interpret how stabilizer treatment affects
expansive soil behavior. Additionally, using multiple linear regression analysis,
connections were established between basic soil and stabilizer parameters such as water
content, dry density, liquid limit, plastic limit, and stabilizer doses and the model constants
of Fredlund and Xing's SWCC formulation. Using six separate soil parameters resulted in
better correlation coefficients, according to the study. For ash-treated expansive soils, the
differences between anticipated and measured volumetric water levels are within ±20%,
and for combined ash- and fiber-treated expansive soils, they are within ±15%.
SWCC can be utilized to evaluate the improvement impacts on expansive soil, according
to Yang et al. (2011). To conduct the free expansion ratio test, two modifiers, lime and fly
ash, were introduced to the Baise expansive soil in four different doses. Pressure plate
apparatus was used to conduct dewetting SWCC tests in the range of 5-1000 kPa. The
38
improved expansive soils' expansibility and soil-water characteristic curve are developed.
The SWCC fitted by Van Genuchten (VG) model for two modifiers with varied mixing
quantities is studied based on the idea of unsaturated soil.
The drying and wetting soil water retention curves (SWRCs) of statically compacted lime-
stabilized London Clay specimens were studied by Zhang et al. (2017). The contact filter
paper method, pressure plate apparatus, and a suction-controlled triaxial system containing
the axis translation approach were all used in a series of tests. Because of the more open
structure permitted by the flocculation and chemical bonding effects, the lime treatment
boosted volumetric stability but decreased water retention ability. The influence of the
curing period and procedure appears to be minor.
Most Ethiopian scholars have studied the unsaturated shear strength and swelling
properties of expansive soils. Hence, the classical soil mechanics paradigm was used to
analyze the majority of studies. Most soils in Ethiopia are in unsaturated state due to the
ground water table location, which is located deep from ground surface. Furthermore, the
engineering behavior of expansive soil and compacted soils with negative pore water
pressure should be explored in the unsaturated soil mechanics concept by constructing
SWCC.
In this research, the SWCC and SC of the natural and stabilized expansive soils are
developed using pressure plate apparatus and ring method. Then the results are combined
to obtain other volume-mass relations. Such as S-SWCC, e-CC and swelling pressure are
predicted using appropriate swelling pressure predictive models. Unfortunately, some of
the previous studies only looked at the improvement effect using w-SWCC. In addition,
only a few researchers looked into the combined effect of w-SWCC and SC.
Table 2.13 presents a summary of previous studies on evaluation of the effect of different
stabilizers on the SWCC.
39
Table 2. 13 Summary of previous studies on evaluation of the stabilizer effect on geotechnical properties of soil using SWCC
Suction measurement
Researcher Material Used Major Finding
technique
Bilsel and Oncu (2005)  Lime  Filter paper  Develop SWCC for both natural and lime-treated
soils; predict hydraulic conductivity function.
 Volumetric water content vs soil suction was plotted
using both VG and Fredlund and Xing (1994) curve
fitting models and analyzed the results.
 From SWCC fitted using VG, it was observed that:
The Air Entry Value (AEV) and volumetric water
content had decreased and “n” parameter had
increased in the treated soil.
 From SWCC fitted using Fredlund and Xing (1994),
it was observed that: The AEV and “n” had increased
for treated soil sample compared with the untreated
soil sample.
Puppala et al. (2006)  Fly ash  Pressure plate  The volumetric water contents of fly ash-treated soils
 Bottom ash decreased with an increase in the percentage of fly
 Polypropylene ash stabilizers.
 Nylon  Small changes in the SWCCs of bottom ash-treated
soils and control soils.
 The AEV for stabilized soils with higher percentage
of fines is typically larger than those with no fines.
 AEV was initially increasing and then starts
decreasing as the bottom ash stabilizer increases.
 As bottom ash increased the n values increased but
for fly ash indefinite pattern was observed.
 Decreased volumetric water contents of fly ash and
fiber-treated soils in comparison to control soils.
fibers have no significant influence on the
40
Suction measurement
technique
volumetric water contents of combined stabilized
soils.
 Fredlund and Xing (1994) fitting parameters are
correlated with basic soil properties such as water
content, dry density, liquid limit, plastic limit,
stabilizer type and dosage.
 Four parameter models were sufficient for
reasonable predictions of ash-treated soils and six
parameter models were sufficient for combined ash-
fiber-treated soils.
Thudi (2006)  Lime  Pressure Plate  cement with 2%, 5%, 10% dosages and hydrated
 Cement  Filter Paper lime with 2%, 5%, 10% dosages are used as
stabilizer.
 The volumetric water content decreases as the
percentage dosage of cement and lime increases.
 And with an increase in the percentage of dosage
for cement treated soils the AEV correspondingly
increases. AEVs of lime treated soils are relatively
lower when compared with those yielded by cement
treated soils, for the same amount of dosage.
 Correlations were developed between basic soil and
stabilizer properties, such as optimum moisture
content, dry density, liquid limit, plastic limit, and
stabilizer dosage and type, and Fredlund and Xing’s
model constants via multiple regression analysis.
Khattab and Al-Taie (2006)  Lime  Saturated salt suction  2%,4%and 6% of lime were used.
 Osmotic solution  The curves were fitted Fredlund and Xing (1994)
model.
 Only AEV and residual suction were used to
analyze the improvement effect of lime on
expansive soil. Author’s observed that AEV and
41
Suction measurement
technique
residual suction had increased with the percentage
of lime and curing period increased.
Yang et al. (2011)  Lime  Pressure Plate  3%,5% and 7% of lime and 5%,10% and 15% of fly
 Fly ash ash are used independently.
 The SWCC fitted by VG model up to 1000 kPa.
 Saturated and residual water content were decreased
as the percentage of both stabilizers increased. The
AEV had increased with an increasing stabilizers
content.
 The curves become flatter with the modifier
increasing, indicating that improved soil
dehydration speed was slow down and water
holding capacity was strengthened.
 Establish four indexes: the gravimetric saturated
water content, air entry value, residual water
content and the slope of curve to evaluate the
improvement effects of expansive soil.
Khattab and Aljobouri (2012)  Lime  Vapour equilibrium  2%,4%and 6% of lime and 6% and 18% of cement
 Cement  Osmotic solution were used in this study.
 The SWCC fitted by VG model.
 Permeability of natural soil was found to increase
with treatment of lime, cement and lime-cement.
 The air-entry value and residual suction were
increased with additives percentages.
Lin and Cerato (2012)  Fly ash  Pressure Plate  9% of fly by dry weight of soil is used.
 The curves were fitted Fredlund and Xing (1994)
model.
 Fly ash decreases the volumetric water contents
42
Suction measurement
technique
 Air entry values for fly-ash treated soils decreased
than natural soil samples for lower curing periods
and start increasing for higher curing period.
 The “n” parameter related to rate of desaturation,
has increased with the fly-ash content increased.
However, insignificant change was observed on m
parameter because of the addition of fly ash.
Mavroulidou et al. (2013)  Lime  Filter Paper  4.2 % lime by dry soil mass was used for all tests.
 The SWCC fitted by VG model.
 The lower water retention of the lime treated
specimen is consistent with the more open fabric of
the soil due to the formation of particle aggregates
upon the treatment with lime and is consistent with
the higher hydraulic conductivity.
 The “n” parameter increased with an increased
percentage of lime.
 Addition of lime reduced compressibility and
swelling potential.
Elkady et al. (2015)  Lime  Pressure plate  2%,4% and 6% lime content with 7 and 28 days of
 Filter paper curing period were used.
 The SWCCs were fitted using Pham and Fredlund
(2008).
 The examination indicated that AEV evaluated
from S-SWCC is consistently higher than that
deduced from w-SWCC.
 The percent difference between AEV(w) and
AEV(S) was observed to be maximum for
untreated expansive clay where samples experience
appreciable volume change. This difference
decreases with the addition of lime which inhibits
sample volume change during suction application.
43
Suction measurement
technique
 The net vertical stress had a significant effect on the
SWCCs of both untreated and lime-treated
expansive clay.
Zhang et al. (2017)  Lime  Filter paper  4 % lime by dry soil mass was used for all tests.
 Suction-control  The SWCCs were fitted up to 1000 kPa using VG
Triaxial Cell model.
 Pressure plate  It was shown that the effect of treatment on the
water retention of the soil was mostly observed in
terms of a reduced AEV.
 The lime-treated soil showed clearly lower
volumetric strains upon drying or wetting
throughout all range of suctions, compared with the
untreated London Clay.
 compaction water content was more influential than
density,
44
CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS, METHODS AND PROCEDURES
3.1. Introduction
Unsaturated soil mechanics requires the determination of unsaturated soil properties and
these properties along with the saturated soil properties can be used for the estimation of
unsaturated soil functions (i.e shear strength, swelling pressure and permeability
functions). The two unsaturated soil properties determined in this research are: (i)
Gravimetric water content versus soil suction, referred to as the soil-water characteristic
curve (w-SWCC) and (ii) void ratio versus water content, referred to as the shrinkage curve
(SC).
Expansive soils, in general, experience volume changes as a result of soaking and drying.
To account for the soil's volume change behavior, the SC must be utilized in conjunction
with the SWCC. Because of the water holding capacity in their pores, the swell-shrink
property of expansive soil causes instabilities in most light weight buildings, causing them
to swell in wet seasons and shrink in dry seasons.
The classical and the SWCC approach are employed in this work to assess the effect of
lime on the geotechnical properties of expansive soil. The SWCC of both untreated natural
soil and lime-treated soils are determined using a pressure plate test device in the suction
range of 33-1400 kPa, and the SCs are determined using the ring method. At the start of
each test, the volume-mass properties of the w-SWCC and SC test specimens were
measured independently. Other volume-mass soil-water characteristic curves are then
calculated using the combined results of the two tests. e.g., the S-SWCC (degree of
saturation soil-water characteristic curve) and the e-CC (void ratio characteristic curve)
(Fredlund, 2020).
3.2. Materials
Expansive soil and hydrated lime are the materials employed in the laboratory tests. Both
undisturbed and disturbed soil samples were collected from three different test pit location
of Ayer- Tena at depth of 1.5m, which found in southeastern part of Bahir Dar city; in
Amhara region, Ethiopia. The hydrated lime used in this research was purchased from local
45
market. To begin, three soil samples were characterized in order to select one with a high
free swell index and a high plasticity index (PI) value.
3.2.1. Soil Sampling
After conducting a literature review of the research area (Ayer- Tena), soil sampling was
carried out. In this area, expansive soils can be found in abundance. The test pit locations
were determined according to ASTM D 420 – 98. Following the identification of the three-
test pit (TP) locations, samples of undisturbed and disturbed soil were obtained at 1.5m
depth. Using the Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker software, the exact locations of
the test pits were tracked and recorded. The undisturbed samples were covered with a
plastic bag to avoid moisture loss for the assessment of natural moisture content,
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), SWCC, and SC. The samples were then ready
to be transported from the site to the laboratory for investigation in accordance with ASTM
D 4220 and ASTM D 5079. The tests were performed in Gondar and Bahir Dar Institute
of Technology soil laboratories.
Sample Curing
Applying impervious plastic bag to soak and/or cover the lime-treated soil samples
(covering with impermeable sheet) was the curing technique used in this study. Lime-
treated soil samples were compacted with their respective MDD and OMC values and
covered with impermeable plastic bag then cured for 7 and 14 days.
46
Figure 3. 1 Location map of the study area (source: GIS and Google Earth)
According to meteorological station data, June, July, August, and September receive a lot
of rain (rainy season). The months of January, February, March, and December are all dry.
On average, July is the wettest month, with 432.0 mm (17.01 inch) of rain. With only 1.0
mm (0.04 inch) of precipitation on average, January is the driest month of the year. The
average annual precipitation is 999.9 mm (39.37 inch).
3.2.2. Soil Sample Preparation
Soil samples were prepared according to ASTM D 421 – 85, before being treated and
tested. This Method involves exposing soil samples to the air to dry them at room
47
temperature, then breaking up the air-dried soil aggregates with a rubber-covered pestle in
the mortar. The dried soils are then sieved to separate them into several laboratory tests,
such as PH, Atterberg limits (LL, PL), Free swell (FS), Specific Gravity, Linear Shrinkage
(LS), and standard compaction test.
3.2.3. Standard Laboratory Tests
The laboratory tests were divided into two phases: Natural Moisture Content (NMC),
Atterberg Limit (LL, PL), Grain Size Analysis, Specific Gravity (Gs), Free Swell (FS),
Linear Shrinkage (LS), PH, standard compaction test, and Unconfined Compressive
Strength tests (UCS) for both natural and lime-treated expansive soils were investigated in
the first phase. The second phase includes determining SWCC and SC for both natural and
lime-treated soil samples using the Pressure Plate Apparatus and Ring method,
respectively.
3.2.3.1 Natural Moisture Content (NMC)

The laboratory procedure to measure the water content comprises of measuring the moist
soil sample as collected from the site and drying the moist soil in an oven at 105oC for 24
hours according to ASTM D 2216. The loss of mass due to drying is referred to as mass of
water. The mass of water divided by the mass of the dry specimen yields the water content.
3.2.3.2 Specific Gravity

Specific Gravity of a soil is defined as the ratio of the mass in air of a given volume of soil
solid to the mass in air of an equal volume of distilled water at stated temperature. This test
is determined based on ASTM D 854.
3.2.3.3 Grain Size Analysis

Grain size analysis of disturbed sample was performed using ASTM D 422-63. Grain size
analysis were performed in two stages: Sieve analysis is used for particles bigger than
0.075mm; it involves shaking the soil through a stack of wire screens with known-size
openings, and the percentage finer can be determined from the mass of sample retained on
the sieve, the mass of sieve, and the total mass of sample, while for particles smaller than
0.075mm, sedimentation analysis (Hydrometer Analysis) is used. The Stokes equation,
which relates the velocity of a free-falling spherical particle through a liquid to the diameter
48
of the particle, its specific gravity, and the viscosity of the liquid, is used in this test. A
combined analysis is necessary for soil samples that contain a quantifiable amount of their
grains that are both coarser and finer than 0.075mm in size.
3.2.3.4 Free Swell

One of the most common easy tests for estimating the swelling capacity of expansive clay
is Free Swell. This test was carried out in accordance with Indian standard 2720 Part XL
(ISI 1977). The technique is taking two oven dried soil samples, passing them through a
425 µm sieve, and placing 10cc of each into two 100ml graduated cylinder. One cylinder
was filled with distilled water, while the other was filled with kerosene up to the 100ml
mark. After that, the ultimate volume of soil is calculated after 24 hours to determine FS,
FSI, and Free Swell Ratio (FSR).
3.2.3.5 Atterberg Limits (LL and PL)

This test is carried out in accordance with ASTM D 4318. For the liquid and plastic limits,
a soil sample was air dried, and 200g of the material passing through a No. 40 sieve (425µm
aperture) was obtained and thoroughly combined with water on a flat glass plate to make a
homogeneous paste. The portion of soil water mixture was then poured into the Casagrande
apparatus cup, which was leveled off parallel to the base. The liquid limit (LL) is the water
content in percent at which a pat of soil in a standard cup cut by a groove of standard
dimensions will flow together at the base of the groove for a distance of 13 mm (1/2in.).
On a semi–logarithmic graph, the determined moisture content and the corresponding
number of blows are plotted, then LL is determined as the moisture content corresponding
to 25 number of blows from the graph. The plastic limit (PL) is the water content in percent
at which a soil can no longer be deformed without crumbling when rolled into 3.2 mm (1/8
in.) diameter threads. The PI is calculated as the difference between the LL and PL.
3.2.3.6 Linear Shrinkage (LS)

Linear shrinkage is a measurement of how much a sample shrinks in length after it has
dried completely, expressed as a percentage of its original length. The test was carried out
in accordance with IS 2718, an Indian standard.
49
3.2.3.7 Soil Classification
There are various classification schemes, each of which employs a distinct set of
fundamentals. The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and the American
Association of State Highway and Transport Official (AASHTO) both employ index
property to classify soils and are widely used.
3.2.3.8 PH Test
This test method can be used to estimate the soil-lime proportion required for soil
stabilization. According to ASTM D 6276, this test procedure is done on soil that passes
the 425m (No. 40) sieve. This test is based on Eades and Grim's (1966) work. pH
measurements are taken on the specimen slurries to assess the lime content of the soil-lime
mixture in order to achieve a pH of at least 12.4. However, it is possible that this is not the
optimum lime content for soil stabilization, and this must be confirmed by additional
testing.
3.2.3.9 Standard Compaction Test

According to ASTM D 698, this laboratory test is used to establish the relationship between
a soil's moisture content and dry density for a given compaction effort. The results of the
Grain Size Analysis in this study revealed that all three samples fell into Method A of the
standard proctor test technique. The sample is compacted in the Standard Proctor Test by
a 2.5 kg hammer falling 308mm into a soil-filled mold. The mold is filled with three equal
layers of Soil, each of which receives 25 drops of hammer. The dry density vs. moisture
content curve is then plotted to determine the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and Optimal
Moisture Content (OMC).
3.2.3.10 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test (UCS)

This test's primary goal is to determine the clay's UCS, which is then used to compute the
clay's unconsolidated undrained shear strength under unconfined conditions. According to
the ASTM D 2166 standard, the UCS is defined as the compressive stress at which an
unconfined cylindrical soil sample with a diameter of 38mm and a height of 76mm is
subjected to an axial compressive load until failure occurs without any confining pressure.
The maximum load attained per unit area in this test method is the UCS.
50
3.2.4. SWCC Determination
3.2.4.1 Pressure Plate Apparatus
The pressure plate apparatus is used to determine soil water retention capacity. It comprises
a pressure chamber enclosing a water-saturated porous plate, which allows water but not
air to flow through its pores (Figure 3.2). The porous plate (ceramic plate) is at atmospheric
pressure at the bottom, while the top surface is at the applied pressure of the chamber.
Ceramic Plates available in the market are 1 bar, 3 bar, 5 bar, 15 bar which can measure
soil matric suction in the range of 0 to 1 bar, 0 to 3 bar, 0 to 5 bar, 0 to 15 bar, respectively.
Soil samples are placed in retaining rings in contact with the porous plate and allowed to
saturate by immersion in water. The porous plate with saturated soil samples is then placed
in the chamber and a known air gas pressure is applied to force water out of the soil through
the plate. Water flows out of the soil until equilibrium between the force exerted by the air
pressure and the force by which soil water is being held by the soil (ψ) is attained.
Pressure manifolds are an essential component in pressure plate extraction systems. They
are required to control the air pressure, from a compressor or compressed air vessel, into
the extractor. The pressure required for the test is applied through air compressor. It is
connected to the test chamber through the connecting hose. The pressure manifold, shown
in Figure 3.2 consists of pressure gauge to measure the pressure in a compressed gas and
displays the air pressure level that is in the compressor tank, a pressure regulator which
regulates the air pressure, air filter which keeps small dirt particles out of the regulators
and several control valves.
51
Figure 3. 2 Laboratory setup for the pressure Plate apparatus using a regulated air system
(California Department of Pesticide Regulation Environmental Monitoring Branch ,2018)
The SWCCs are determined for untreated natural soil and lime-treated soil samples with
lime content of 3%, 6%, and 9% for 0-,7-, and 14-day curing periods following the drying
path as per ASTM D 6836 for suction range 33-1400 kPa, using pressure plate apparatus
with ring dimension of 1cm thick and 5cm in diameter. The pressure plate apparatus work
in the principle of axis-translation Technique. This principle stating that a matric suction
(ψ) can be applied to a soil by controlling the pore gas pressure (ug) and the pore water
pressure (uw), so that the difference between the pore gas pressure and pore water pressure
equals the desired matric suction, that is, ψ = ug - uw. The pore gas pressure was raised to
apply the suction via the axis translation principle using Method C in ASTM D 6836. This
test was carried out in the soil laboratory of Bahir Dar Institute of Technology.
52
3.2.4.2 Test Procedure
The undisturbed and compacted sample were placed on the bench, and retaining rings were
gently placed on the soil surface, according to ASTM D 6836. Soil that protruded beyond
the retaining ring's edge was cut with a trimming spatula so that the ring could slide over
the soil specimen with ease. The top of the specimen that flushed with the top of the
retaining ring was trimmed. The specimen's mass in the retaining ring was measured and
recorded to the nearest 0.01 g. Method D2216 and Equation 3.1 were used to calculate the
gravimetric water content and dry density of the remaining material.
Mm
d  (3.1)
V 1  wm 
Where: Mm and wm are the mass and gravimetric water content of the moist soil in the
retaining ring after the specimen has been prepared (trimmed or compacted in ring). V is
the volume of the retaining ring.
The ceramic plates were first soaked for 1 hour after the sample was placed in the retaining
ring, and then the soil specimens were placed in contact with a water saturated porous plate
or membrane and saturate for at least 48 hours. After the sample was saturated, the weight
of the specimen was measured, and the saturated water content was calculated using
Equation 3.2.
M sat 1  wm 
w sat  -1 (3.2)
Mm
Where Msat is the mass of soil in the retaining ring after saturation.
Before closing the chamber and starting the test, all surplus water on the plate (or
membrane) was removed. The matric suction was applied to a soil by controlling the pore
gas pressure. Water flows from the specimen when the matric suction was applied until the
equilibrium water content corresponding to the applied suction was reached. Then water
stopped flowing from the specimen, and equilibrium was established. Clamp the outflow
tube to prevent backflow when equilibrium was achieved, the pressure was drained, and
the pressure chamber was opened. Using a wide-blade spatula, the specimens and their
53
holding rings were swiftly removed off the porous plate (or membrane). The specimens
were immediately weighed. The specimens were placed back on the porous plate because
they had been used during the entire test.
This method was carried out again and again until all suctions had been determined. The
outflow was observed for 24 hours when the suction was less than 500 kPa. The outflow
volume was tracked until the outflow had stopped for 48 hours when suctions between 500
and 1000 kPa were established. Small amounts of water were ejected at high suctions
(>1000 kPa), particularly from lime-treated samples; these volumes were difficult to
assess; thus, the outflow should be monitored for 48-96 hours. After all equilibrium were
established, the soil specimens were immediately transferred to covered moisture cans in
order to avoid changes in the water content. The specimens were weighed and placed in a
drying oven for 24 hours. The dry specimens were removed from the oven and immediately
weighed. Gravimetric water contents of the soil specimens were calculated.
3.2.5. Shrinkage Curve (SC) determination

Cylindrical Ring method and Test Procedures for Determination of SC
SC of untreated natural soil (undisturbed and compacted) and lime-treated samples with
3%, 6%, and 9% for 0,7, and 14 days of curing were measured with a digital micrometer
based on the diameter and height of samples. The cylindrical rings found in the soil
laboratory at Bahir Dar Institute of Technology were 20 mm in height and 62 mm in
diameter.
SC specimens were prepared using the same process utilized for SWCC specimen
preparation. The undisturbed and compacted sample was placed on the bench, and retaining
rings were gently placed on the soil surface. Soil that protruded beyond the retaining ring's
edge was cut with a trimming spatula so that the ring could slide over the soil specimen
with ease. The top of the specimen that flushed with the top of the retaining ring was
trimmed. The specimen's mass in the retaining ring was measured and recorded to the
nearest 0.01 g. Then the gravimetric water content and dry density of the remaining
material is calculated.
54
After the specimens were placed in retaining rings, samples were saturated for at least 48
hours after being covered with light cotton cloth. After saturation, the specimens were
carefully withdrawn from the saturation dish and the fabric was removed. The specimen's
mass was weighted in the retaining ring to the nearest 0.01 g, and the specimen dimensions
were recorded with digital caliper. And then gravimetric water content, dry density and
void ratio of the sample was determined. Those measurements were taken as the initial
values to calculate the other volume mass relations and for determination of SC fitting
parameters. Up until the last oven dried specimen, 11 sequential measurements of the mass
and dimension of the specimen were made in this investigation. Then, using the data
collected in the laboratory, the gravimetric water content, the dry density, the void ratio,
and the degree of saturation were computed, and the SCs were fitted using Fredlund (2000)
equation (Equation 2.7).
3.2.6. Combined Test Results of SC and w-SWCC
The air-entry value (AEV) is a critical SWCC parameter that describes the minimum matric
suction at which air begins to enter the largest pores in the soil as it desaturates (Fredlund
and Rahardjo, 1993). For soils that do not experience considerable volume change when
soil suction increases, the AEV determined using w-SWCC and S-SWCC is the same.
However, for a soil that undergoes significant volume change as soil suction increases, the
AEV depends on the w-SWCC and SC test results. In such soils, the AEV is underestimated
by the w-SWCC test result. In such circumstances, SWCC paired with SC should be
employed to identify the true AEV. The void ratio and water content provided by the SC
can be used to calculate the degree of saturation, which can then be used to convert the w-
SWCC to the S-SWCC (Fredlund, 2020).
The SC and w-SWCC tests were performed separately in this investigation, and the data
were subsequently merged to account for the volume change as the soil suction increased.
e-CC and S-SWCC were developed based on the results of the two tests.
55
Volume-mass variables calculated:

Dry density,  d  (3.3)
1   
Gs  w
Void ratio,e  1 (3.4)
d
G s
Degree of saturation,S  (3.5)
e
Where: G s  Specific Gravity
  Gravimetric Water content
  Total density
 w  Density of Water
The S-SWCCs were constructed for both untreated natural and lime-treated soils using the
initial volume mass properties. The calculated degree of saturation was obtained using
Equation 3.6 as follows:
G s  ( )
S ( )  ………………………………………………………………. (3.6)
e (  ( ))
Where S ( ) is degree of saturation at any suction, Gs is specific gravity,  ( ) is measured
gravimetric water content determined using pressure plate test and e ( ( )) is calculated
void ratio using Equation 2.6. Here fitting parameters ash and csh were same as SC
determination only bsh will be revised with the corresponding initial degree of saturation
obtained from w-SWCC.
The degree of saturation over the entire suction was predicted using Fredlund and Xing
(1994) as follows:
So
S    c   ……………………………………………………(3.7)
 
m
ln  e   a  
n
 
Where So is the initial degree of saturation and other parameters are described in Equation
2.4.
56
CHAPTER 4
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION
4.1. Introduction
Different laboratory tests were carried out on the untreated natural soil sample and on
samples treated with different percentages of lime. The tests conducted include the basic
index and classification tests, FS test, LS test, SWCC tests and SC tests. This section
presents the results from the different laboratory tests, interpretation and analysis of the
test results, and discussion of the findings from the test results. A comparison of the
findings from this study with previous research findings is also provided in this section.
4.2. Laboratory Test Results for the Untreated Natural Soil Sample
4.2.1. Soil Index and Classification Test Results
Sieve analysis and hydrometer test were conducted to determine the particle size
distribution of the three soil samples. Figure 4.1 shows the particle size distribution curves
of the three soil samples. The percentage of sand, silt and clay in each soil sample is
presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.2 shows the results of untreated natural soil samples' tests for Natural Moisture
Content (NMC), Atterberg Limit (LL, PL), Specific Gravity (Gs), Free Swell (FS), and
Linear Shrinkage (LS).
57
Figure 4. 1 Particle size distribution curve for three expansive soils in the study area
Table 4. 1 Combined Sieve and Hydrometer test results of the expansive soils of the study
area
Grain Size Distribution

Test Pit Depth(m) color P200
Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)
1 1.5 Dark Grey 95.7 3.8 9.8 85.9
2 1.5 Black 93.9 5.3 15.9 78.0
3 1.5 Dark brown 77.3 21.8 32.4 44.8
Table 4. 2 Summary of different laboratory test results of untreated natural soil samples
Sample NMC Atterberg Limit Test LS

Gs FS (%)
No (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) (%)
TP-1 46.6 2.73 135 108.1 38.0 70.1 21.4
TP-2 43.3 2.69 115 95.5 31.2 64.3 18.9
TP-3 45.0 2.76 104 80.4 30.6 56.8 15.7
4.2.2. Soil Classification
The three soil samples are categorized according to AASHTO and USCS after the index
properties are determined. According to the ASSHTO classification system, the expansive
soil of the study area belongs to the region silt-clay materials because more than 35% of it
passes the No. 200 sieve, and it is classified as clayey soil in the A-7 group; sub-group A-
7-5 because PI < LL-30 and PL >30 %. The soil of the research area falls into the CH or
58
OH regions of the plasticity chart, according to the USCS classification system. Because
the specific gravities are larger than two, the soil was classified as CH (high plasticity clay),
indicating that it is potentially expansive, as illustrated in Figure 4.2 and Table 4.3.
Figure 4. 2 classification of soil according to USCS classification scheme

Table 4. 3 AASSHTO and USCS of expansive soil of a study area
Sample Atterberg Limit Tests Soil classification

NO LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) AASHTO USCS
TP-1 108.1 38.0 70.1 A-7-5 CH
TP-2 95.5 31.2 64.3 A-7-5 CH
TP-3 80.4 30.6 56.8 A-7-5 CH
After characterizing the samples from the 3 test pits, the sample from test pit 1 was selected
for further study since it has the highest values for FS, LL and PI when compared with the
samples from the other test pits.
4.3. Laboratory Test Results for the Lime-treated Soil Sample
According to Bell (1996), soils that show higher proportion of fine-grained soil particles
can be eﬀectively stabilized with lime. Moreover, lime is one of the most commonly used
stabilization methods in current practice. Hence, lime was selected as a stabilizer for the
59
soil used in this study. A series of tests for untreated natural and lime-treated soil samples
were conducted with 0, 7- and 14-days curing periods.
A pH test is used to estimate the soil-lime proportion for soil stabilization. The test was
conducted as per the procedure outlined in ASTM D6276 – 19 at Gondar Soil Testing and
Fertility Management Center. The approximate lime percentage for stabilizing the soil is
the proportion of lime in the soil that peaks at a pH of 12.4. The pH value increases as the
quantity of lime increases, but past 6 %, it is nearly constant. According to this test, the
lime percentage needed for soil stabilization is 6%, as illustrated in Figure 4.3. However,
it is possible that this is not the optimal lime level for soil stabilization, and this must be
confirmed through additional studies. The lime requirement determined by a pH test (6 %),
as well as two intervals of lime content below and above 6 % (i.e. 3 % and 9 %) are
employed in this study to evaluate the improvement effect of lime through SWCC. Table
4.4 and Figure 4.3 show the results of the pH test.
Table 4.5 presents a summary of the laboratory test results, summarizes the overall
findings, which are also represented in Figures 4.4 to 4.7.
Table 4. 4 pH Test results of untreated natural and soil-lime mixtures
Lime content (%) 0 3 6 9 12

pH 7.5 11.9 12.4 12.5 12.7
Figure 4. 3 pH test results for natural and soil-lime mixtures.

60
Table 4. 5 Summary of laboratory test results for untreated natural and Lime treated soils
Curing Natural Lime content (%)

Parameter
period(day) soil 3 6 9
pH - 7.5 11.9 12.4 12.5
Gs - 2.73 2.70 2.61 2.58
FS (%) - 135 67.5 56.5 41.5
FSR - 2.4 1.7 1.6 1.4
0 85.1 79.1 75.7
Atterberg Limit Tests
LL (%) 7 108.1 83.5 71.2 69.1

14 71.8 59.2 57.5
0 42.3 40.7 40.0
PL (%) 7 38.0 41.2 40.1 39.2
14 40.6 39.6 38.8
0 42.8 38.4 35.7
PI (%) 7 70.1 42.3 31.1 29.9
14 31.2 19.6 18.7
0 18.6 16.4 14.3
LS (%) 7 21.4 13.6 12.5 8.6
14 12.1 8.6 5.0
MDD (g/cm3) - 1.27 1.24 1.21 1.18
OMC (%) - 33.8 35.6 40.3 41.2
0 217.2 262.9 294.5
UCS (kPa) 7 168.0 324.7 505.0 645.2
14 474.6 732.8 866.6
150 3
120
2
FSR(%)
FS(%)
90
60
1
30
0 0
0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9
Lime Content(%) Lime Content(%)
a) b)
Figure 4. 4 a) FS of untreated natural and lime-treated samples and b) FSR of untreated
natural and lime-treated samples.
61
80 25
70
0-day
60 20
7-day
50 14-day
PI (%)
15
LS(%)
40
30 10
0 Day
20 7 Day
5 14 Day
10
0 0
0 5 10 0 5 10
Lime content (%) Lime Content(%)
a) b)
Figure 4. 5 a) PI of natural and lime treated soil for 0, 7- and 14-day curing periods and b)
LS of natural and lime treated soil for 0, 7- and 14-day curing periods.
1.30
Natural soil
1.25 3% Lime
6% Lime
Dry Density,d (g/cm3)
1.20 9% Lime
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Water Content,(%)
Figure 4. 6 Dry density Vs. Moisture content results for untreated natural and lime-treated
soil sample
62
180 350
undisturbed Natural Soil
160 soil sample 300 3% Lime
compacted 6% Lime
140 soil sample 250 9% Lime
Axial Stress (kPa)

Axial Stress (KPa)
120
200
100
80 150
60 100
40
50
20
0
0
0 2 4 6 8
0 2 4 6 8
Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%)
a) b)
Natural Natural
700 1000 Soil
Soil
3% Lime
3% Lime 900
600
6% Lime
6% Lime 800
500 700 9% Lime
Axial Stress (kPa)
Axial Stress (kPa)
9% Lime
400 600
500
300
400
200 300
200
100
100
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%)
c) d)
Figure 4. 7 UCS results for a) undisturbed and compacted, b) 3%, 6% and 9% lime content
with 0-day c) 3%, 6% and 9% lime content with 7-day and d) 3%, 6% and 9% lime content with
14-day curing period.
63
The laboratory test results for untreated natural and lime-treated soil sample with 0-, 7- and 14-
days curing period, which are presented in Table 4.3 and 4.5 and Figure 4.3 to Figure 4.7 are
discussed as follows:
 The laboratory test results indicate that the soil type used in this study is a highly
expansive dark gray inorganic fat clay.
 As the lime content increases, the specific gravity drops. The specific gravity of
untreated natural soil is 2.73, whereas the specific gravity of lime-treated soil
ranged from 2.58 to 2.70 at the percentage lime used in this study. This is due to
the fact that lime causes aggregation between soil particles, resulting in a porous
structure, which reduces the density of the specimen, lowering the specific gravity.
Subhi (2019) looked at 1%, 3% ,5% and 7% lime content, while Zhang et al. (2018)
looked at 1% ,3% ,5%, 7%, 9% and 15% lime content and found a similar pattern.
However, a study by Musema (2014) observed at 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% and 12%
lime content and found that when the quantity of lime increased, the specific gravity
increased.
 The FS value of the untreated natural soil sample is 135%. This FS value places the
untreated natural soil sample in the category of a soil with a high degree of
expansion, as defined by IS 1498 (1970), as shown in Table 2.8. The FS value
decreased to 67.5%, 56.5%, and 41.5% for lime contents of 3%, 6% and 9%,
respectively. This shows that FS value of 3% and 6% lime content falls in to
medium degree of expansion category, while the FS value for 9% lime content falls
into low degree of expansion category. Similar trend was observed by other studies,
such as Musema (2014), Zumrawi (2014), and Getnet and Alam (2019). In
addition, untreated natural soil showed a Free Swell Ratio (FSR) value of 2.4 which
again indicates that the soil sample falls into a soil of high degree of expansion
(Table 2.9). It can be observed from Figure 4.4 (b) that the FSR values decreases
as the percentage lime increases for the range of lime percentage considered in this
study. The FSR dropped from 2.4 to 1.44. The FSR for 3% and 6 % lime content
indicates that the soil is of medium degree of expansion, while the FSR for 9% lime
content indicates that the soil is of low degree of expansion.
64
 It is observed that the Plasticity Index (PI) and Linear Shrinkage (LS) decrease as
the lime content and curing period increases. From Table 4.5, the PI and LS value
of 70.1% and 21.4% for untreated natural soil, respectively. According to expansive
soil classification presented on Table 2.4 and 2.6, the expansive soil falls in to very
high degree of expansion and critical degree of expansion, respectively. The highest
reduction in PI was observed for 9% lime content cured for 14 days with 73.4%
reduction in PI compared to untreated natural soil. Similarly, 9% lime content cured
for 14 days yields the highest reduction in LS with 76.7% reduction compared to
untreated natural soil sample. Based on the expansive soil classification presented
in Table 2.4 and 2.6, the soil treated with 9% lime content cured for 14 days falls
under low and non-critical degree of expansion category, respectively. According
to Table 2.7, it is classified as non-problematic soil because it has a PI < 20. This
reduction is related to the fact that lime treatment changes the texture of the material
from plastic, fine-grained to friable, granular soil (Wubshet and Tadesse, 2014;
Dang et al., 2016 and Zhang et al., 2017). This occurs as a result of cation exchange,
as well as increased internal friction of clay particles due to flocculation and
agglomeration, resulting in a decrease in plasticity (Taye, 2015). Another
explanation could be that lime-treated soils with longer curing periods produce
cementitious material with higher alumina and silicon content, which reduces
plasticity. This reduction in plasticity as the lime content increases had been
observed by many researchers, such as Solomon (2011), Ismaiel and Badry (2013),
Hossain et al. (2013), Bhovaneshwari et al. (2013), Musema (2014), Zumrawi
(2014), Brook (2015), Negawo et al. (2017), Mesfun et al. (2019), Getnet and Alam
(2019), and Kebede (2020).
 Untreated natural and lime-treated soil samples yielded the typical bell-shaped
compaction curves as shown on Figure 4.6. The MDD decrease and OMC increase
as percentage of lime increases. MDD for an untreated natural soil is 1.26 g/cm3
and reduced to 1.24 g/cm3, 1.21 g/cm3 and 1.18 g/cm3 with the addition of 3%, 6%
and 9% lime, respectively. And OMC for an untreated natural soil is 33.8% and
increased to 35.6%, 40.3% and 41.2% with the addition of 3%, 6% and 9% lime,
respectively. This is due to the fact that hydrated lime is finer than soil, which
65
increases surface area, as well as flocculation and agglomeration, which cements
soil particles and creates greater pore structure (Zhang et al., 2017). Wetting the
fine lime's large surface area necessitates the addition of extra water. As a result,
the MDD is reduced while the OMC is raised (Wubshet, and Tadesse, 2014).
Similar pattetn was observed by Ismaiel and Badry (2013), Carlik and Sadoglu
(2014), Musema (2014), Wubshet and Tadesse (2014), Brook (2015), and Negawo
et al. (2017).
 The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the compacted soil sample
(compacted at OMC) is found to be greater than the UCS of the undisturbed soil
sample. This is because undisturbed soil samples have a lower density and larger
moisture content than compacted soil samples, which reduces soil strength. Figure
4.4 (b) to Figure 4.4 (d), show the change of UCS of expansive soil specimens
mixed with 3%, 6% and 9% lime contents with 0,7- and 14-day curing. With
increasing lime content and curing time, the UCS in all lime-treated expansive soil
specimens increases. The untreated natural soil sample has a UCS of 168.0 kPa,
while the lime-treated soil sample has a UCS ranging from 217.2 kPa to 866.6 kPa.
The most significant increase in UCS is noticed with a 9% lime content that was
cured for 14 days. This improvement in UCS would be attributed to cation
exchange between calcium ions in lime and metal ion (sodium or potassium) on
surfaces of clay particles. This leads to Flocculation and agglomeration, which is
made possible through cation exchange (Herzog and Mitchell, 1966), is the process
of clay particles altering their arrangement from a flat, parallel structure to a more
random edge-to-face orientation. These rearrangement of soil particles, according
to Wubshet and Tadesse (2014) and Dang et al. (2016), changes the texture of the
material from plastic and fine-grained to friable and granular soil, as well as the
increased internal friction of clay particles due to flocculation and agglomeration,
result in a reduction in plasticity, an increase in shear strength, and an improvement
in texture (Taye, 2015). Following is the pozzolanic reaction, which is a time-
dependent reaction that plays a significant role in soil stabilization by improving
various soil characteristics and producing more stable calcium hydrates and
aluminates. According to Dang et al. (2016), pozzolanic constituents produce
66
calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH), which coat
and bind clay lumps. The gel then crystalizes, forming an interlocking structure that
strengthens the soil (Gourley et al., 1993). Researchers, such as Ismaiel and Badry
(2013), Bhovaneshwari et al. (2013), Musema (2014), Brook (2015), Negawo et al.
(2017), Getnet and Alam (2019), have noticed this increase in UCS as the lime
concentration and curing period increases.
4.4. SWCC and Shrinkage Curve Determination

4.4.1. Introduction
The two unsaturated soil properties determined in this research are: (i) Gravimetric water
content versus soil suction, referred to as the soil-water characteristic curve (w-SWCC)
and (ii) void ratio versus water content, referred to as the shrinkage curve (SC). In this
research, SWCCs for both untreated natural and lime-treated soils were determined for
suction ranges 33-1400 kPa using pressure plate test apparatus and the SC was determined
using ring method.
The volume-mass properties of the w-SWCC and SC test specimens were independently
measured at the beginning of each of the tests. The results of the two tests were then
combined for the calculation of other volume-mass soil-water characteristic curves, such
as the volumetric water content soil-water characteristic curve (θ-SWCC), the dry density
(and total density) soil-water characteristic curves (ρd-SWCC and ρ-SWCC), degree of
saturation soil-water characteristic curve (S-SWCC) and Void ratio characteristic curve (e-
CC). Each of the volume-mass SWCC relationships plays an independent role in the
estimation of unsaturated soil property functions (USPFs).
4.4.2. Pressure Plate Test Results and w-SWCC
The laboratory test results for the determination of SWCC for both untreated natural soil
sample and lime-treated soil sample with lime content 3%, 6% and 9% for 0- , 7- and 14-
days curing period are evaluated. In this study, the SWCCs are plotted with matric suction
on the x-axis (log- scale) against gravimetric water content, or degree of saturation, or void
ratio on the y-axis for different lime content and curing period.
67
4.4.2.1 Pressure Plate Test Results and w-SWCC for untreated natural soil sample
The w-SWCC for untreated natural soil sample had been done for two specimens. One for
undisturbed soil sample directly taken from the site and the other for compacted soil
specimen. The w-SWCC for compacted specimen was done for comparing the results with
lime-treated compacted specimens. Three specimens were tested and the average was taken
for each sample. The measured data and Fredlund and Xing (1994) model-fit SWCC are
shown in Figure 4.8 and the respective measured data values (suction and corresponding
water content) are given in Table 4.6.
60
measured data-undisturbed
sample
50 FX fit-undisturbed sample
Gravimetric Water content , %
Measured Data-compacted
40 sample
FX fit-compacted sample
30
20 AEV = 65 kPa
10
ψr =1799.9 kPa
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Matric suction, kPa (Log-scale)
Figure 4. 8 w-SWCC for untreated natural soil (undisturbed and compacted soil samples)
Solid and dashed lines in Figure 4.8 represent the best-fit curves using Fredlund and Xing’s
(1994) equation. The fitting parameters are obtained using the EXCEL Solver function.
The data points represent measured experimental data points from the test for the SWCC.
According to Fredlund (2020), the true air entry value is determined from the S-SWCC,
which is constructed by combination of w-SWCC and SC. In this study, the Air Entry
Value (AEV) from w-SWCC and S-SWCC are determined and results are compared for
both untreated natural and lime-treated soil samples.
68
Table 4. 6 summary of measured and predicted gravimetric water content for undisturbed
and compacted soil samples
Undisturbed sample Compacted sample

Measured Predicted Measured Predicted
Suction (kPa) gravimetric gravimetric gravimetric gravimetric
water content water content water content water content
(%) (%) (%) (%)
33 52.89 52.64 44.95 44.81
200 44.98 45.10 38.69 38.85
400 39.43 39.33 34.36 34.04
800 34.50 34.40 29.18 29.54
1000 33.02 33.01 28.22 28.24
1200 31.87 31.92 27.35 27.23
1400 30.95 31.03 26.48 26.40
ωs (%) 53.16 45.36
parameters
a 120.24 133.75
Fitting
n 2.06 1.78
m 0.27 0.31
ψr (kPa) 1799.88 1799.83
R2 0.9997 0.9990
The pressure plate test results of untreated natural soil samples, which are presented in
Figures 4.8 and Table 4.6, are discussed as follows:
 The downward shift of w-SWCC of the compacted soil sample with respect to the
undisturbed soil sample is attributed to the high initial water content of the
undisturbed soil sample. During saturation, higher water uptake took place in the
undisturbed soil sample because of a comparatively looser state (e = 1.49).
 Likewise, the saturated water content for compacted soil sample are smaller
compared with undisturbed soil sample. This can be attributed to compacted soil
sample has less pore size than undisturbed soil sample due to compaction effect.
As a result, lesser water uptake took place during the saturation stage.
 The fitting parameter “a” is usually greater or equal to the AEV but doesn’t affect
the overall shape of the SWCC. The “a” value for undisturbed and compacted soil
samples are 120.2 and 133.7, respectively. As the “a” value of compacted soil
sample is larger, the curve shifts towards the higher suction value. AEV defines the
suction at which air begins to enter the soil voids. The AEVs for the undisturbed
and the compacted soil samples are 65 kPa and 75 kPa, respectively. According to
69
Zhang et al. (2017), a reduced AEV implies a lower water retention at low suctions.
As the AEV of compacted soil sample is larger, implying a high-water retention at
low suctions. This is also due to compaction effect; higher suction is required for
air to enter smaller pores (compacted state).
 The fitting parameter “n” is related to the rate of desaturation or the water retention
property of the soil. The “n” value of compacted soil sample is smaller compared
to the undisturbed soil sample, implying that compacted soil sample shows low rate
of desaturation (i.e. water is removed from the pores at a slower rate than the natural
state).
 The fitting parameter “m” is related to the curvature near residual conditions. The
“m” values are 0.27 and 0.31 for undisturbed and compacted soil samples,
respectively. According to Fredlund and Xing (1994), low values of “m” indicate
moderate slopes of the SWCC. This shows soil structure and compaction effect has
insignificant change in “m” value compared to the other fitting parameters, “a” and
“n”.
 The residual suction corresponds to the residual water content which is defined as
the water content beyond which significant increase in suction is accompanied by
small change in water content (Fredlund et al., 2011). The residual suctions are
1799.9 kPa and 1799.8 kPa for undisturbed and compacted soil samples,
respectively, as indicated in Table 4.6. Here, same residual suction value is
observed for both samples. The residual water content is 25.1% and 29.6% for
compacted and undisturbed soil samples, respectively. This difference in residual
water content is due to initial saturated water content difference between the two
soil samples.
70
4.4.2.2 Pressure Plate Test Results and w-SWCC for Lime-treated Soil Samples
The SWCC for Lime-treated soil samples are determined for 3%, 6% and 9% lime content
with 0- , 7- and 14-days curing period. Three specimens were tested and the average was
taken. The measured data value and Fredlund and Xing (1994) model fit are shown in
Figure 4.9 to Figure 4.14 and the respective data are presented in Table 4.7 to Table 4.9.
The drying portion of SWCCs of untreated and lime-treated soil samples are presented as
a relationship between gravimetric water content vs suction (w-SWCC) as shown in Figure
4.9 to Figure 4.14. The data points represent measured experimental data. Solid and dashed
lines represent the best-fit curves using Fredlund and Xing’s (1994) equation, the fitting
parameters are obtained using the EXCEL Solver function, as recommended by Fredlund
(2020). The effect of lime addition on natural soil for a specified curing duration is shown
in Figures 4.9 to 4.11. The effect of the curing duration for a given lime content is shown
in Figures 4.12 to 4.14.
71
50
45
40
35
30
Measured Data-0 % Lime
25
FX fit-0 % Lime
20 measured data-3% Lime,0-day
FX fit-3% Lime,0-day
15
Measured data-6% Lime,0-day
10 FX fit-6% Lime,0-day
Measured data-9% Lime ,0 -day
5
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Matric suction, kPa (Log-Scale)
Figure 4. 9 w-SWCC for untreated natural soil sample and lime- treated soil sample with
0-day of curing period.
50
45
40
35
30
25
FX fit-0 % Lime
20 measured data-3% Lime,7-day
15
Measured data-9% Lime , 7-day
5
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
72
50
45
40
35
30
25 FX fit-0 % Lime
measured data-3% Lime,14-day
20
15 Measured data-6% Lime,14-day
5
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Figure 4. 12 w-SWCC for 3% lime content with 0-, 7- and 14 days of curing period.
73
45
40
35
30
25
Measured Data-6 % Lime,0-day

20
15
Measure data-6% Lime,7-day
5
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
45
40
35
30
25
20
15 Measured data-9% Lime , 7-day

5
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Matric suction , kPa (Log-Scale)
74
Table 4. 7 Summaries of measured and predicted gravimetric water content for lime-treated
soil with 0-day curing period
Lime content (%) with o-day curing period
3 6 9
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
Measured
Measured
Measured
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Suction (kPa)
water
water
water
water
water
water
33 42.93 42.72 41.04 41.42 40.70 41.37
200 38.09 38.61 36.69 36.76 35.89 35.83
400 34.94 34.27 32.09 31.71 28.85 28.84
800 27.87 28.13 25.08 25.44 22.76 22.90
1000 25.70 25.95 23.26 23.47 21.35 21.41
1200 24.14 24.18 21.97 21.94 20.35 20.31
1400 22.97 22.71 21.01 20.72 19.58 19.45
ωs (%) 43.37 41.96 41.61
parameters
a 488.96 292.84 182.76

Fitting
n 1.22 1.46 2.45

m 0.89 0.65 0.40
ψr (kPa) 1690.25 1578.41 1400.52
R2 0.9973 0.9985 0.9988
Table 4. 8 Summary of measured and predicted gravimetric water content for lime-treated
Lime content (%) with 7-day curing period
3 6 9
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
Measured
Measured
Measured
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Suction (kPa)
water
water
water
water
water
water
33 41.62 41.87 40.11 40.62 39.64 40.18
200 37.32 37.47 35.97 35.94 30.89 30.70
400 32.94 32.54 30.75 30.57 24.04 24.31
800 25.99 26.32 24.22 24.51 19.83 19.95
1000 24.16 24.36 22.60 22.74 18.83 18.84
1200 22.85 22.83 21.45 21.40 18.09 18.00
1400 21.86 21.59 20.57 20.34 17.50 17.33
ωs (%) 42.36 41.02 40.56
parameters
a 295.88 235.37 115.98

Fitting
n 1.49 1.72 2.56

m 0.60 0.51 0.40
ψr (kPa) 1449.23 1449.33 1401.55
R2 0.9987 0.9987 0.9989
75
Table 4. 9 Summary of measured and predicted gravimetric water content for lime-treated

3 6 9
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
gravimetric
Measured
Measured
Measured
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Suction (kPa)
water
water
water
water
water
water
33 41.55 41.80 40.05 40.56 39.59 40.13
200 37.25 37.40 35.91 35.88 30.84 30.65
400 32.87 32.47 30.69 30.50 23.99 24.25
800 25.92 26.25 24.16 24.45 19.78 19.90
1000 24.09 24.29 22.54 22.68 18.78 18.79
1200 22.78 22.76 21.39 21.34 18.04 17.95
1400 21.79 21.53 20.51 20.28 17.45 17.29
ωs (%) 42.29 40.96 40.51
parameters
a 295.88 235.37 115.98

Fitting
n 1.49 1.72 2.56

m 0.60 0.51 0.40
ψr (kPa) 1449.23 1449.33 1401.55
R2 0.9987 0.9987 0.9989
Table 4. 10 Summary of AEV, fitting parameters of w-SWCC for natural soil and lime-
treated soil.
0-day curing period 7-day curing period 14-day curing period

Parameters Natural
3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 9%
ωs (%) 45.36 43.37 41.96 41.61 42.36 41.02 40.56 42.29 40.96 40.51
a 133.75 488.96 292.84 182.76 295.88 235.37 115.98 295.88 235.37 115.98
n 1.78 1.22 1.46 2.45 1.49 1.72 2.56 1.49 1.72 2.56
m 0.31 0.89 0.65 0.40 0.60 0.51 0.40 0.60 0.51 0.40
ψr (kPa) 1799.8 1690.25 1578.41 1400.51 1449.22 1449.31 1401.54 1449.22 1449.31 1401.54
R2 0.999 0.997 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999
AEV(kPa) 75 185 135 120 130 115 80 130 115 80
ωr (%) 25.08 20.96 19.80 19.45 21.32 20.11 17.33 21.25 20.05 17.28
The pressure plate test results of the lime-treated soil samples, which are presented in
Figure 4.9 to Figure 4.14 and Table 4.6 to Table 4.10, are discussed as follows:
 As can be seen in these Figures, the addition of lime changed the shape and position
of the w-SWCCs significantly. The shape of the w-SWCCs is unaffected by the
curing period, however the position of the w-SWCCs is affected. After constructing
76
SWCCs, both AEV and residual water content are obtained using manual sketch,
as shown in Figure 4.8. The w-SWCCs for lime-treated soils show definite AEVs
and residual water contents. The w-SWCC for untreated natural soil sample show
definite AEV but do not show definite residual water contents. w-SWCCs for lime-
treated soils show a sharp desaturation slope between the AEV and residual suction.
 The downward shift of the w-SWCC of the lime-treated soil sample as lime content
increases with respect to the untreated natural soil sample is attributed to the less
initial water content of the lime-treated sample. During saturation stage, higher
water uptake took place in the untreated natural soil sample because of a
comparatively looser state (e = 1.29). Here as the percentage of lime increase the
w-SWCC shifts downward with respect to the untreated natural soil sample. From
Figure 4.12 to Figure 4.14, there is a downward shift in the curing period from 0 to
7 days. However, with the prescribed percentage of lime, the shape and position of
w-SWCCs after 7 and 14 days of curing are nearly identical.
 Furthermore, when the percentage of lime and the curing period increase, the
saturated water content drops. This is due to the fact that lime-treated soils absorb
less water at saturation stage than untreated natural soils. Curing time has a minor
impact on saturated water content when compared to lime percentage.
 For both the untreated and lime-treated soil samples, the fitting parameter "a" is
larger than the AEV. The overall shape of the w-SWCC is unaffected by the “a”
value, however as the “a” value increases, the curve moves towards greater suction
ranges (to the right). When the lime content reaches 3%, the value of “a” increases
at first, but as the percentage of lime increases, the value of “a” decreases. Similarly,
when the lime percentage is 3%, the AEV increases at first, but then begins to
decrease as the proportion of lime increases. According to Zhang et al. (2017), a
reduced AEV implies a lower water retention at low suctions. This is due to the
flocculation and chemical bonding create an open structure (Zhang et al., 2017).
Significant difference in “a” and AEV values of 3% lime content with 0-day curing
compared to 7- and 14-day curing periods. The curing period has a minor impact
on the value of “a” and AEV for 6% and 9% lime content, respectively.
Furthermore, with the indicated percentage of lime, “a” and AEV for the 7- and 14-
77
day curing periods are the same. However, the w-SWCC results demonstrate that
the fitting parameter "a" and AEV exhibit an indeterminate pattern when comparing
the changes on untreated natural samples due to lime addition.
 The AEV determined from w-SWCC, or θ-SWCC, or S- SWCC is the same for
soils that do not undergo significant volume change as soil suction increases (Leong
and Wijaya ,2015). However, an expansive soil used in this study underwent
significant volume change as soil suction increases. Therefore, the AEV depends
on the SWCC and SC test results. For such soils, w-SWCC test result underestimate
the AEV. In such cases, to determine the true AEV, SWCC combined with SC
should be used. The SC and S-SWCC test results from this study are presented in
the next sections of this thesis.
 The untreated natural soil sample has “n” value of 1.77, while the lime-treated soil
samples have “n” values ranging from 1.22 to 2.56. The “n” value of a lime-treated
soil sample is first reduced at 3% lime content, but then begins to increase as the
percentage of lime content increases. The w-SWCC of the lime-treated soil samples
shows a higher rate of desaturation as the lime content increases, compared to the
untreated natural soil sample, implying that the water from the pores is easily
evacuated in lime-treated soils when suction increases, compared to the untreated
soil sample. The value of “n” increases as the curing periods increases from 0 to 7
days. However, the same “n” value is seen with the same percentage of lime for the
7- and 14-days curing period. Similar to “a” values, “n” values show indefinite
pattern when comparing the changes on untreated natural samples due to lime
addition. This demonstrates that “a’ and “n” values are interdependent, implying
that as "a" gets larger, "n" gets smaller, and vice versa. That is, the suction at which
air begins to enter the soil voids has an effect on the rate of desaturation.
 The “m” values for untreated natural soil samples is 0.31, while the “m” values for
lime-treated soil samples ranged from 0.40 to 0.89. The "m" value of a lime-treated
soil sample is first increased at 3% lime content, but then begins to decrease as the
proportion of lime content increases. The value of "m" increases as the curing
period increases from 0 to 7 days. However, with the same amount of lime, the
78
same "m" value is found after 7 and 14 days of curing. The effects of lime treatment
on the values of "m" are found to be insignificant.
 Untreated natural soil sample has “ψr” value of 1799.8 kPa, while lime-treated soil
samples have “ψr” values ranging from 1401.5 kPa to 1690.3 kPa. The “ψr” value
drops as the percentage of lime increases. The value of “ψr” decreases as the curing
period increases from 0 to 7 days for 3% and 6% lime content. However, the same
“ψr” value is seen with the same percentage of lime during the 7- and 14-day curing
periods. The curing period has no effect on the values of “ψr” when the lime content
is 9%. In contrast to the fitting parameters "a," "n," and "m," “ψr” exhibits a distinct
pattern when lime is added.
The following are comparison of the results obtained in this study with those obtained in
other studies that examined the improvement effect of treatment methods utilizing only w-
SWCC outcomes:
 In contrast to the findings of this study, Bilsel and Oncu (2005) found that in the
lime-treated soil, the increase in AEV. Also, saturated volumetric water content
decreased and the “n” parameter increased, which was similar to the findings of
this study.
 Similar to the findings of this study, Puppala et al. (2006) found that when the fly
and bottom ash stabilizers increased, the AEV increased at first, then began to
decline. With an increase in the percentage of fly ash stabilizers, the volumetric
water content of fly ash-treated soils dropped. The “n” values increased as the
amount of bottom ash increased, whereas the “n” and “m” values for fly ash- treated
soils showed indefinite pattern.
 Thudi (2006) investigated cement content of 2%, 5%, and 10%, as well as lime
content of 2%, 5%, and 10%. With increasing cement and lime dosages, the
volumetric water content decreased. And as the percentage of cement in cement-
treated soils increased, so did the AEV. For the same amount of dosage, the AEVs
produced by lime treated soils were lower than those produced by cement treated
soils. Similar to the findings of this investigation, the values of “n” increased as the
proportion of dosage increased for both treatment methods.
79
 Khattab and Al-Taie (2006) investigated at lime content of 2%, 4%, and 6%. To
investigate the effect of lime on expansive soil, only AEV and residual suction were
used. In contrast to the results of this investigation, the authors found that as the
proportion of lime and curing period increased, AEV and residual suction were
increased.
 Yang et al. (2011) looked at lime content of 3%, 5%, and 7%, as well as fly ash
content of 5%, 10%, and 15%. They found that when the amounts of both stabilizers
were increased, saturated and residual water content dropped, which is similar to
the findings of this investigation. The AEV, on the other hand, increased when the
stabilizer content increased. Furthermore, when the stabilizer content increased, the
curves became flatter, indicating that soil desaturation rate decreased and water
holding capacity increased.
 Khattab and Aljobouri (2012) investigated lime content of 2%, 4%, and 6%, as well
as the cement content of 6% and 18%. The use of lime, cement, and lime-cement
treatment was increased the permeability of the natural soil. The AEV and residual
suction also increased as the lime percentages increased. As a result, adding lime
increases the water retention capacity. This conclusion contradicts the previous
interpretation, which states that adding lime increases permeability. This indicates
that the addition of lime resulted in a more open structure. As a result, the water
holding capacity is reduced.
 Lin and Cerato (2012) looked at a fly ash content of 9% and found that when the
amount of fly ash increased, saturated water content and AEV decreased, similar to
the findings of this study. With the increase in fly-ash concentration, the “n”
parameter increased. However, the addition of fly ash resulted in a negligible
change in the “m” parameter.
4.4.3. Shrinkage Curve (SC) Determination

In this study, SCs of untreated natural soil sample and lime-treated soil sample with 3%,
6% and 9% for 0, 7 and 14- days of curing are developed.
80
4.4.3.1 SC Determination for Untreated Natural Soil Sample
The SC test provides data on the relationship between volume change (in terms of changes
in the void ratio) and gravimetric water content as the soil suction is increased under
evaporative conditions, from near-zero conditions to completely dry conditions (Leong and
Wijaya, 2015). To develop this curve, successive measurements of dimension for the
specimen was done using digital caliper up on drying and the gravimetric water content
was measured with reference to the oven dried specimen. The SC is plotted as void ratio in
the y-axis and gravimetric water content (%) in x-axis.
The SC for untreated natural soil sample is developed for two specimens. One for
undisturbed soil sample collected directly from the site, while the other is for compacted
soil specimen. The compacted specimen is used to compare the results to the results of the
lime-treated specimens.
The results are presented in Figure 4.15 and Table 4.11. The data points in Figure 4.15
represent laboratory measured values. The solid and dashed lines represent the best fit lines
fitted using Equation 2.6, and the fitting parameters (ash, bsh, and csh) are obtained using the
EXCEL Solver function.
81
1.6
1.4
1.2
Void Ratio, e
1
0.8
Measured data for undisturbed soil
0.6 Best fit for undisturbed soil
Measured data for compacted soil
0.4
Best fit for compacted soil
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Gravimetric water content , %
a)
b)
Figure 4. 15 SC for a) undisturbed and compacted soil sample, b) Shrinkage Limit (SL)
determination
82
Table 4. 11 measured and predicted void ratios for SC determination for natural soil
sample (undisturbed and compacted)
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
content (%)
content (%)
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
Predicted
Predicted
Measured
water
water
No.
1 56.39 1.56 1.63 49.99 1.38 1.42

2 50.55 1.48 1.48 38.79 1.15 1.13
3 41.66 1.27 1.26 32.15 0.97 0.96
4 37.41 1.18 1.15 20.99 0.71 0.70
5 33.53 1.09 1.06 19.68 0.67 0.68
6 25.46 0.88 0.88 14.88 0.61 0.59
7 18.88 0.73 0.75 12.96 0.57 0.56
8 13.40 0.66 0.66 11.30 0.53 0.54
9 8.29 0.61 0.60 10.61 0.52 0.53
10 7.43 0.57 0.59 9.68 0.52 0.52
11 0.00 0.57 0.56 0.00 0.50 0.48
ash 0.56 0.48
parameter
Fitting
bsh 0.20 0.17

Csh 2.17 2.56
R2 0.994 0.997
The following are discussions of the SCs of untreated natural soil samples shown in Figure
4.15 and Table 4.11.
 The compacted soil sample's SC has shifted down when compared to the
undisturbed soil sample. This change is due to a difference in initial water content
caused by compaction, which resulted in a lower void ration in the compacted
sample. The compacted soil sample demonstrated lower water uptake during the
saturation stage than the undisturbed soil sample. This suggests that compaction
has an influence on the position of the SC but not on its shape.
 The fitting parameter “ash" is related to the minimum void ratio upon complete
drying. The “ash” parameter can be determined while measuring the entire shrinkage
curve or by simply measuring the minimum void ratio corresponding to an oven-
83
dried soil specimen (Fredlund, 2019). The “ash” value is determined to be 0.56 and
0.48 for undisturbed and compacted soil samples, respectively.
 The fitting parameter “bsh", which depends on “ash” parameter, initial degree of
saturation (So) and specific gravity (Gs), related to the slope of the drying curve is
calculated using Equation 2.7. The “bsh” value is determined to be of 0.20 and 0.17
for the SCs of the undisturbed and compacted soil sample, respectively. The slope
the of drying curve of compacted soil sample is smaller compared to that of the
undisturbed soil sample. Because compaction leads in smaller void spaces, the rate
of desaturation is slower.
 The fitting parameter “csh” is related to the sharpness of curvature as the soil
desaturates when moving between the near saturated state and the completely dried
state. The “csh” values are 2.17 and 2.56 for the SCs of the undisturbed and
compacted soil samples, respectively. The “csh” of compacted soil sample is larger
compared to undisturbed one. According to Fredlund (2019), a csh value of 15 or
higher indicates low compressibility soils, which will essentially produce a
horizontal line from the dry void ratio to the initial void ratio; On the other hand,
a csh value of about 1.5 produces a gradual curve that immediately starts to curve
from the completely dry void ratio and gradually tends towards saturation line,
which would have much higher compressibility (or undergo considerable volume
change) as soil suction is increased. In this study, both soil samples fall on the lower
range value of csh, which would have much higher compressibility (or undergo
considerable volume change) as soil suction is increased.
4.4.3.2 SC Determination for Lime-treated Soil Samples
The SC test for lime-treated soil samples was carried out on samples treated with 3%, 6%
and 9% lime content with 0, 7 and 14-days curing period. The measured and Fredlund
(2000) model-fit curves are shown in Figure 4.16 to Figure 4.21 and the respective
laboratory measured data together with the curve fitting parameters are provided in Tables
4.12 to Table 4.14.
84
Figure 4.16 to Figure 4.18 depict the effect of lime addition on untreated natural soil over
a defined curing period. The effect of the curing period for a given lime content is shown
in Figure 4.19 to Figure 4.21.
1.6
Measured- natural soil
Best Fit-Natural Soil
1.4 Measured -3% Lime
Best Fit- 3% lime
Measured-6% Lime
Best Fit-6% Lime
Void ratio (e)
1.2
Measured-9% Lime
Best Fit-9% Lime
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50
of curing period.
1.6
1.4
1.2
Void ratio (e)
1
Measured -Natural soil
Best Fit-Natural soil
0.8 Measured - 3% Lime
Best fit -3% Lime
Measured-6% Lime
0.6 Best Fit-6% Lime
Measured-9% Lime
Best Fit -9%
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50
of curing period.
85
1.6
1.4
1.2
Void ratio (e)
1
Measured -Natural soil
Best Fit-Natural soil
0.8 Measured - 3% Lime
Best fit -3% Lime
Measured-6% Lime
0.6 Best Fit-6% Lime
Measured-9% Lime
Best Fit -9%
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50
Gravimetric Water content, %
Figure 4. 18 SC for untreated natural soil sample and lime- treated soil sample with 14-
day of curing period.
1.40
Measured-3% Lime, 0day curing
Best FIT-3% Lime ,0day curing
Measured- 3% Lime, 7day curing
1.20 Best Fit-3% Lime,7 day curing

Void ratio (e)

1.00
0.80
0 10 20 30 40
Gravimetric water content, %
Figure 4. 19 SC for 3% lime content with 0-, 7- and 14 days of curing period.
86
1.4
Best Fit-6% Lime,7 day curing
Void ratio (e) 1.2
0.8
0 10 20 30 40
Gravimetric water content, %
1.4
Best Fit-7% Lime,7 day curing
1.2
Void ratio (e)

0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Gravimetric water content , %
87
sample (0-day curing)
3% 6% 9%
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Measured
water
water
water
No.
1 42.57 1.20 1.23 40.99 1.15 1.18 40.58 1.13 1.16

2 38.90 1.14 1.14 38.20 1.10 1.11 38.20 1.09 1.11
3 35.00 1.06 1.06 32.93 1.02 1.01 33.18 1.03 1.01
4 30.35 0.99 0.98 29.55 0.97 0.96 30.30 0.99 0.98
5 29.40 0.97 0.97 27.61 0.94 0.94 28.03 0.97 0.96
6 22.73 0.93 0.91 20.35 0.93 0.91 20.97 0.95 0.94
7 20.25 0.92 0.90 17.18 0.92 0.91 17.19 0.94 0.94
8 16.07 0.90 0.89 13.35 0.91 0.91 13.24 0.93 0.94
9 14.07 0.89 0.89 11.28 0.89 0.91 10.81 0.93 0.94
10 12.01 0.88 0.89 9.91 0.89 0.91 9.46 0.93 0.94
11 0.00 0.86 0.89 0.00 0.89 0.91 0.00 0.92 0.94
ash 0.89 0.91 0.94
parameter
Fitting
bsh 0.31 0.32 0.34

Csh 5.90 7.38 8.21
R2 0.979 0.981 0.971
88
3% 6% 9%
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Measured
water
water
water
No.
1 40.86 1.18 1.20 40.17 1.13 1.14 39.43 1.10 1.11

2 39.56 1.16 1.17 38.85 1.10 1.11 38.78 1.08 1.09
3 35.28 1.09 1.07 35.07 1.04 1.03 34.80 1.02 1.01
4 30.93 0.99 1.00 31.09 0.99 0.98 31.70 0.98 0.98
5 28.56 0.97 0.97 29.02 0.98 0.97 29.51 0.98 0.97
6 22.09 0.96 0.94 21.99 0.96 0.95 22.31 0.97 0.96
7 19.05 0.95 0.93 18.02 0.96 0.95 17.98 0.96 0.96
8 15.38 0.94 0.93 14.17 0.96 0.95 13.75 0.96 0.96
9 12.58 0.92 0.93 11.84 0.95 0.95 11.37 0.96 0.96
10 9.95 0.92 0.93 10.02 0.94 0.95 9.44 0.96 0.96
11 0.00 0.91 0.93 0.00 0.94 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.96
ash 0.93 0.95 0.96
parameter
Fitting
bsh 0.32 0.34 0.34

Csh 8.04 10.74 14.69
R2 0.980 0.983 0.985
89
3% 6% 9%
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
content (%)
content (%)
content (%)
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
void ratio
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Measured
water
water
water
No.
1 40.72 1.18 1.20 40.06 1.12 1.14 39.34 1.10 1.11

2 39.43 1.16 1.17 38.74 1.10 1.11 38.69 1.09 1.09
3 35.15 1.09 1.07 34.96 1.04 1.03 34.71 1.02 1.02
4 30.81 0.99 1.00 30.99 0.99 0.98 31.62 0.98 0.98
5 28.44 0.98 0.97 28.91 0.98 0.97 29.42 0.98 0.97
6 21.97 0.96 0.94 21.89 0.97 0.96 22.23 0.97 0.96
7 18.94 0.95 0.94 17.92 0.96 0.96 17.90 0.97 0.96
8 15.28 0.94 0.93 14.08 0.96 0.96 13.68 0.97 0.96
9 12.47 0.93 0.93 11.75 0.95 0.96 11.30 0.96 0.96
10 9.85 0.93 0.93 9.93 0.95 0.96 9.36 0.96 0.96
11 0.00 0.91 0.93 0.05 0.94 0.96 0.00 0.95 0.96
ash 0.93 0.95 0.96
parameter
Fitting
bsh 0.32 0.34 0.34

Csh 7.88 10.51 14.25
R2 0.979 0.982 0.985
Table 4. 15 Summary of fitting parameters of SC for natural soil and lime-treated soil.
Parameters Natural
3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 9%
ωs (%) 49.99 43.13 40.99 40.18 41.63 40.17 39.43 40.72 40.06 39.34
ash 0.48 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.93 0.95 0.96
bsh 0.17 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.34
Csh 2.56 5.90 7.38 8.21 8.04 10.74 14.69 7.88 10.51 14.25
SL (%) 17.51 31.54 32.18 33.56 32.20 34.04 34.45 32.24 34.06 34.48
R2 0.997 0.979 0.981 0.971 0.980 0.983 0.985 0.979 0.982 0.985
90
The following are discussions of the SC results of lime-treated soil samples presented in
Figure 4.16 to Figure 4.21 and Table 4.13 to Table 4.15:
 When comparing the SCs of the lime-treated soil sample to the SCs of the untreated
natural soil sample, it is noted that the SCs of the lime-treated soil sample shift
upward. This is due to the addition of lime, which resulted in a larger void ratio in
the lime-treated soil sample. The void ratio of a lime-treated soil sample initially
decreases as the lime content increases, but it then began to increase and became
constant as the water content reduced as drying progressed. This is related to the
formation of more open structures as a result of flocculation and agglomeration
(Zhang et al., 2017). Beyond the residual shrinkage stage, the void ratio of a lime-
treated soil sample becomes asymptotic to a zero slope. The void ratio of an
untreated natural sample, on the other hand, decreases as the water content
decreases up-on drying. For a given proportion of lime, the curing period has an
impact on the shape and position of the SC.
 The “ash” value is determined to be 0.48 for untreated natural soil sample and it
ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 for lime-treated soil sample. The “ash" value is increased
as the percentage of lime increased. The “ash" value increased up to 7-day curing
period for all lime-treated soil samples at the percentage lime considered in this
study. The larger void ratio for lime-treated soil samples are attributed to the fact
that more open structures created because of the addition of lime due to flocculation
and agglomeration results cementing material to create bond between soil particles
(Wubshet and Tadesse, 2014; Dang et al., 2016 and Zhang et al., 2017). This
implies that the expansive soil changes its texture from fine and plastic nature to
granular and friable nature due to the addition of lime.
 The “bsh” value for an untreated natural soil sample is 0.17, while it ranged from
0.31 to 0.34 for a lime-treated soil sample. On the normal shrinkage phase, the slope
of the drying curve of lime-treated soil sample is greater than that of untreated
natural soil sample. This is due to a faster rate of desaturation, which is caused by
the addition of lime, which results in a more open structure. However, compared to
untreated natural soil sample, lime-treated soil sample demonstrates a constant void
91
ratio and nearly horizontal line after residual shrinkage stage (the normal and
residual shrinkage phases are indicated in Figure 2.6). On drying, an untreated
natural soil sample had a significant volume change. While desaturation occurs,
however, lime-treated soil has a minor or insignificant change in volume.
 The “csh” value is determined to be 2.56 for untreated natural soil sample and it
ranged from 5.90 to 14.69 for lime-treated soil sample. The “csh" value is increased
as the percentage of lime increased. The “csh" value increased up to 7-day curing
period for all lime-treated soil samples at the percentage lime considered in this
study. For lime-treated soil samples, “csh” value is higher and considered as low
compressible soils, which essentially produced a horizontal line from the initial
void ratio to completely dry void ratio. On the other hand, untreated natural soil
sample produced a gradual curve that immediately starts to curve from the
completely dry void ratio and gradually tends towards saturation line, which would
have much higher compressibility (or undergo considerable volume change) up-on
drying.
 The shrinkage limit (SL) is defined as the water content at which the soil changes
from semi-solid to solid state. At this moisture content the volume of the soil mass
ceases to change with further drying of soil sample. As shown in Figure 4.15 (b),
the SL for untreated soil sample is obtained by manual drawing of two tangent lines.
One starts from initial saturation line and the other starts from completely dry void
ratio. The water content corresponding to the intersection point of these two tangent
lines is called SL. Similar procedure is used for determining the SL of lime-treated
soil samples. The SL value of 17.5% for untreated natural soil sample and it ranged
from 31.54% to 34.48% for lime-treated soil sample. The SL of lime-treated soil
sample has increased as the percentage of lime content and curing period increased.
4.4.4. Combined Test Results of SC and w-SWCC
In this study, the SC and w-SWCC tests are determined independently and then the two
test results are merged to determine S-SWCC in order to account the volume change as the
soil suction increases.
92
4.4.5. S-SWCC of Untreated Natural Soil Sample
The initial volume-mass soil properties for SC test and the w-SWCC test were somewhat
different. For example, the initial gravimetric water content for the SC test of undisturbed
natural soil sample was 56.39%, while the initial water content was 53.16% for the w-
SWCC test. Fredlund (2020) recommends that the w-SWCC could be used as a reference.
In other words, the initial gravimetric water content is assumed to be 53.16%, the total
density is 1.68 g/cm3, the dry density is 1.10 g/cm3, the void ratio is 1.49, and the degree
of saturation is 97.64%. The fitting parameters for the w-SWCC remain as previously
shown. But for S-SWCC, of the three fitting parameters from the SC test, only the bsh
parameter needs to be recalculated using Equation 2.7. The ash and csh variables remain the
same; however, the bsh variable must be changed from 0.20436 to 0.20165 due the change
in the starting degree of saturation. As initial volume-mass soil properties obtained from
w-SWCC are less than from those determined from SC, for constructing S-SWCC of
untreated natural and lime-treated soil sample, w-SWCC was used as a reference. which is
a procedure followed by Fredlund (2020). The results are summarized and presented in
Table 4.16.
Table 4. 16 Initial volume-mass properties and the fitting parameters to construct S-SWCC
Bulk density
Void ratio, e
Gravimetric
Dry density
content (%)
Fitting parameter
Parameters
Degree of
saturation
(g/cm3)
(g/cm3)
water
(%)
ash bsh csh

Undistur
bed soil
sample
53.16 1.68 1.10 1.49 97.64 0.56 0.20 2.17

Compact
sample
ed soil
45.36 1.73 1.19 1.29 95.70 0.48 0.17 2.56
After determining the w-SWCC and SC independently, the two test results are combined
to construct S-SWCC for both undisturbed and compacted soil samples. The data points
represent the calculated data by substituting the measured gravimetric water content and
93
void ratio in to Equation 3.6. Solid and dashed lines in Figure 4.22, represent the best-fit
curves using Equation 3.7, the fitting parameters are obtained using the EXCEL Solver
function, as recommended by Fredlund (2020).
On expansive soils, moisture fluctuation causes volume changes. The data from the
pressure plate test should be paired with the SC results to address this volume change
behavior as the soil suction increases. Because w-SWCC test results underestimate the
AEV in such soils, the true AEV value is calculated using S-SWCC, as indicated in Table
4.17.
120
100
Degree of Saturation , %
80
60
Measured data-undisturbed sample

40
FX fit-undisturbed sample
20 Measured Data -compacted sample
FX fit-compacted sample
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Matric suction. kPa (Log-Scale)
Figure 4. 22 S-SWCC for undisturbed and compacted soil samples.
94
corresponding suction for undisturbed and compacted

Calculated Predicted Calculated Predicted
Suction (kPa)
degree of Degree so degree of Degree so
saturation (%) saturation (%) saturation (%) saturation (%)
33 92.57 92.66 92.74 92.83
200 90.67 90.37 91.47 91.26
400 88.68 88.79 90.13 90.03
800 86.21 86.41 87.65 88.04
1000 85.28 85.40 87.05 87.17
1200 84.49 84.47 86.44 86.35
1400 83.81 83.61 85.79 85.58
So (%) 97.64 95.70
parameters
a 1100.00 1200.00
Fitting
n 0.19 0.18
m 0.31 0.17
ψr (kPa) 3038.94 3358.23
R2 0.997 0.994
Table 4. 18 Summary of AEV and fitting parameters of w-SWCC and S-SWCC for natural
soil
undisturbed Compacted
parameters
w-SWCC S-SWCC w-SWCC S-SWCC
AEV(kPa) 65 1100 75 1200
a 120.24 1100.00 133.75 1200.00
n 2.06 0.19 1.77 0.18
m 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.17
ψr (kPa) 1799.88 3038.94 1799.82 3358.23
The following are discussions of the Combined SC and w-SWCC results of untreated
natural soil sample shown in Figure 4.22 and Table 4.17 to Table 4.18:
 Unlike the shape and position of w-SWCC functions, the shape and position of S-
SWCC functions of undisturbed and compacted soil samples did not change
significantly.
 For undisturbed and compacted soil samples, the “a” value is obtained to be 1100
kPa and 1200 kPa, respectively. When compared to undisturbed soil sample, the
95
“a” value of compacted soil sample is larger, causing the curve to shift towards
higher suction values (to the right).
 The AEV of compacted soil sample is slightly larger than the AEV of the
undisturbed soil sample, indicating that the compacted soil sample has a high-water
retention at low suction. This is also due to the compaction effect, which results in
a smaller void ratio in the sample, requiring more suction to allow air to enter the
larger pores. For undisturbed and compacted soil samples, the AEV obtained by S-
SWCC is 1100 kPa and 1200 kPa, respectively, while the AEV obtained from w-
SWCC is 65 kPa and 75 kPa, respectively. The AEV acquired with S-SWCC is
found to be higher than those obtained from w-SWCC. As suction is applied, such
soils with high plasticity results in a large volume reduction due to changes in water
content, which remains saturated to considerably higher suction values. As a result,
it delays the air entering to the voids until high suction levels have reached. Hence,
the AEV difference is larger for untreated expansive clay that experience significant
volume change.
 The “n” values obtained from the w-SWCC function are considerably steeper, at
2.06 and 1.77, respectively, than those obtained from the S-SWCC function, which
are 0.19 and 0.18 for undisturbed and compacted soil samples. The S-SWCC
function shows that both samples have low rate of desaturation. This implies, the
soil remains essentially saturated to considerably higher suction values than would
be indicated based on w-SWCC function.
 The “m” values for undisturbed and compacted soil samples are found to be 0.31
and 0.17, respectively. Lower values of "m" indicate moderate SWCC slopes,
according to Fredlund and Xing (1994).
 For undisturbed and compacted soil samples, the residual suction is 3038.9 kPa and
3358.2 kPa, respectively. In this case, the residual suction of compacted soil is
greater than that of undisturbed soil. For both samples, residual suction values on
S-SWCC function are higher than on w-SWCC function.
4.4.6. S-SWCC of Lime-treated Soil Samples
S-SWCCs of lime-treated soil samples are also constructed for curing periods of 0, 7, and
14 days, and the results are compared to untreated natural soil samples (compacted state)
96
to assess the improvement impact. The S-SWCCs are built using the initial volume mass
properties and fitting parameters listed in Table 4.19 for both untreated natural soil samples
and lime-treated soil samples. Equation 3.6 is used to calculate the degree of saturation,
and Equation 3.7 is used to fit the curve.
Table 4. 19 Initial volume-mass properties and the fitting parameters to construct S-SWCC
Curing period (day)
Compacte
sample
d soil
0 7 14
Parameters
Lime content (%) Lime content (%) Lime content (%)
3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9
Gravimetric
water content 45.36 43.37 41.96 41.61 42.36 41.02 40.56 42.29 40.96 40.51
(%)
Bulk 1.73 1.68 1.67 1.64 1.69 1.66 1.64 1.68 1.66 1.64
density(g/cm3)
Dry density 1.19 1.18 1.17 1.16 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.18 1.17 1.17
(g/cm3)
Void ratio, e 1.29 1.29 1.23 1.23 1.28 1.22 1.21 1.28 1.22 1.21
Degree of 89.96 88.39 87.11 89.19 87.67 86.63 89.04 87.54 86.52
95.70
saturation (%)
ash 0.48 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.93 0.95 0.96
parameter
Fitting
bsh 0.17 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.32
csh 2.56 5.90 7.38 8.21 8.04 10.74 14.69 7.88 10.51 14.25
The data points in Figure 4.23 to Figure 4.28 represent the calculated data by substituting
the measured gravimetric water content and void ratio in to Equation 3.6. Solid and dashed
lines in Figure 4.23 to Figure 4.28 represent the best-fit curves using Equation 3.7. The
fitting parameters are obtained using the EXCEL Solver function, as recommended by
Fredlund (2020). Figure 4.23 to Figure 4.25 depict the effect of lime addition on natural
soil during a specific curing period. The effect of the curing duration for a given lime
content is shown in Figure 4.26 to Figure 4.28.
97
100
90
80
70
Degree of saturation, %
60
50
0 % Lime
FX fit-0 % Lime
40 3% Lime,0-day
6% Lime,0-day
20
10 9% Lime ,0 -day
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
100
90
80
70
Degree of saturation , %
60
0 % Lime
50
FX fit-0 % Lime
40 3% Lime,7-day
30
6% Lime,7-day
10 9% Lime , 7-day
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
98
100
90
80
70
60
0 % Lime
50
FX fit-0 % Lime
40 3% Lime,14-day
30
6% Lime,14-day
10 9% Lime , 14-day
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
100
90
80
70
60
50 3% Lime,0-day
30 3% Lime,7-day
20
9% Lime , 14-day
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Figure 4. 26 S-SWCC for 3% lime content with 0-, 7- and 14 days of curing period.
99
100
90
80
70
60
50
6 % Lime,0-day
40
30 6% Lime,7-day
6% Lime , 14-day
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
100
90
80
70
Degree of saturation, %
60
50
9% Lime,0-day
30 9% Lime , 7-day
20
9% Lime,14-day
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
100
corresponding suction for lime-treated soil with 0-day curing period

3 6 9
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Degree so
Degree so
Degree so
saturation
saturation
saturation
saturation
saturation
saturation
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
degree of
degree of
degree of
Suction (kPa)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
33 89.18 89.68 87.59 88.04 86.38 86.73
200 87.63 88.24 86.05 86.22 84.38 84.18
400 85.85 85.78 82.45 82.40 76.00 76.09
800 77.69 77.61 70.36 70.40 62.23 62.12
1000 73.66 73.60 65.96 65.94 58.55 58.52
1200 70.29 70.29 62.64 62.63 55.89 55.92
1400 67.53 67.62 60.07 60.08 53.83 53.89
So (%) 89.90 88.39 87.11
parameters
a 618.33 494.49 336.94

Fitting
n 3.40 3.76 3.91

m 0.17 0.19 0.21
ψr (kPa) 1663.89 1248.56 1100.07
R2 0.999 0.999 0.999
3 6 9
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Degree so
Degree so
Degree so
saturation
saturation
saturation
saturation
saturation
saturation
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
degree of
degree of
degree of
Suction (kPa)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
33 88.25 88.91 86.97 87.31 86.35 86.25
200 87.07 87.38 85.63 85.42 80.54 80.54
400 84.25 84.17 80.36 80.40 64.45 64.47
800 73.20 73.24 66.00 66.00 53.19 53.14
1000 68.83 68.81 61.72 61.69 50.51 50.51
1200 65.48 65.46 58.63 58.63 48.52 48.54
1400 62.85 62.86 56.27 56.30 46.94 46.97
So (%) 89.19 87.66 86.63
parameters
a 524.85 430.22 213.59

Fitting
n 3.69 4.20 4.63

m 0.19 0.20 0.22
ψr (kPa) 1598.24 1212.95 1099.95
R2 0.999 0.999 0.999
101

3 6 9
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Degree so
Degree so
Degree so
saturation
saturation
saturation
saturation
saturation
saturation
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
degree of
degree of
degree of
Suction (kPa)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
33 88.03 88.74 86.78 87.19 86.20 86.14
200 86.80 87.14 85.37 85.26 80.20 80.20
400 83.91 83.82 80.02 80.04 64.17 64.18
800 72.82 72.88 65.70 65.71 52.96 52.91
1000 68.49 68.48 61.44 61.41 50.28 50.28
1200 65.15 65.14 58.37 58.35 48.30 48.31
1400 62.52 62.55 55.99 56.03 46.72 46.74
So (%) 89.04 87.54 86.50
parameters
a 521.92 425.06 211.14

Fitting
n 3.63 4.07 4.55

m 0.19 0.21 0.23
ψr (kPa) 1496.17 1212.78 1099.99
R2 0.999 0.999 0.999
102
Table 4. 23 Summary of fitting parameters of S-SWCC for natural soil and lime-treated
soil.
parameters Natural
3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 9%
So (%) 95.70 89.96 88.39 87.11 89.19 87.66 86.63 89.04 87.54 86.52
a 1200.00 618.33 494.49 336.94 524.85 430.22 213.59 521.92 425.06 211.14
n 0.18 3.40 3.76 3.91 3.69 4.20 4.63 3.63 4.07 4.55
m 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.22
ψr (kPa) 3358.23 1663.88 1248.54 1100.07 1598.23 1212.95 1099.95 1496.17 1212.78 1099.99
R2 0.994 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.9999 0.999 0.999 0.999
AEV(kPa) 1200 365 220 190 245 210 150 245 210 150
Sr (%) 79.61 64.80 61.95 57.12 60.80 58.46 49.46 61.50 58.18 49.23
natural soil and lime-treated soil with 0-day curing period.
0-day curing period
Natural
3% 6% 9%
parameters w- S- w- S- w- S- w- S-
SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC
AEV(kPa) 75 1200 185 365 135 220 120 190
a 133.75 1200.00 488.96 618.33 292.84 494.49 182.76 336.94
n 1.77 0.18 1.22 3.40 1.46 3.76 2.45 3.91
m 0.31 0.17 0.89 0.17 0.65 0.19 0.40 0.21
ψr (kPa) 1799.82 3358.23 1690.25 1663.88 1578.41 1248.54 1400.51 1100.07
soil and lime-treated soil with 7-day curing period.
7-day curing period
Natural
3% 6% 9%
parameters
w- S- w- S- w- S- w- S-
AEV(kPa) 75 1200 130 245 115 210 80 150
a 133.75 1200.00 295.88 524.85 235.37 430.22 115.98 213.59
n 1.77 0.18 1.49 3.69 1.72 4.20 2.56 4.63
m 0.31 0.17 0.60 0.19 0.51 0.20 0.40 0.22
ψr (kPa) 1799.82 3358.23 1449.22 1598.23 1449.31 1212.95 1401.54 1099.95
soil and lime-treated soil with 14-day curing period.
14-day curing period
Natural
3% 6% 9%
parameters
w- S- w- S- w- S- w- S-
AEV(kPa) 75 1200 130 245 115 210 80 150
a 133.75 1200.00 295.88 521.92 235.37 425.06 115.98 211.14
n 1.77 0.18 1.49 3.63 1.72 4.07 2.56 4.55
m 0.31 0.17 0.60 0.19 0.51 0.21 0.40 0.23
ψr (kPa) 1799.82 3358.23 1449.22 1496.17 1449.31 1212.78 1401.54 1099.99
103
The following are discussions of the S-SWCC results, which are presented in Figures 4.23
to 4.28 and Table 4.20 to Table 4.26:
 Because of the addition of lime, the shape and position of the S-SWCCs changed
significantly, as shown in these figures. The shape of the S-SWCCs is unaffected
by the curing period, however the position of the S-SWCCs is affected. When
compared to S-SWCCs for untreated natural soil, the S-SWCCs for lime-treated
soils reveal definite AEV and residual water content. Furthermore, the S-SWCC of
untreated natural soil has a smooth desaturation slope across the suction range,
whereas the S-SWCC of lime-treated soils exhibits a steep desaturation slope
between the AEV and residual suction.
 The lower initial degree of saturation of the lime-treated soil sample is responsible
for the downward shift of S-SWCC as lime content increases as compared to the
untreated natural soil sample. During saturation stage, higher water uptake took
place in the untreated natural soil sample because its comparatively looser state (e
= 1.29). The S-SWCC of lime-treated soil samples shift downward as the
percentage of lime increases when compared to untreated natural soil samples.
Figure 4.26 to Figure 4.28 show a downward shift in the curing duration from 0 to
7 days. For the specified percentage of lime, however, the shape and position of S-
SWCCs after 7 and 14 days of curing are nearly identical.
 As the percentage of lime and the curing period increase, the initial degree of
saturation decreases. This is due to the fact that lime-treated soils absorb less water
than untreated natural soils at saturation stage. However, as the suction rises, the
rate of desaturation rises, and water from the pores is evacuated due to more open
structures generated by the addition of lime due to flocculation and agglomeration,
which cements the material to form a bond between soil particles (Zhang et al.,
2017).
 The “a” value for an untreated natural soil sample is equal to the AEV, while the
“a” value for a lime-treated soil sample is greater than the AEV. The parameter "a"
has no effect on the overall shape of the S-SWCC for both untreated natural soil
samples and lime-treated soil samples, but when the "a" value increases, the curve
shifts towards greater suction ranges (to the right). The value of “a” decreases as
104
percentage of lime increases. Similarly, the AEV decreases as percentage of lime
increases. According to Zhang et al. (2017), a reduced AEV in lime-treated soil
samples related to a lower water retention at low suctions. This is due to the
flocculation and chemical bonding create an open structure, which results larger
void ratio (Zhang et al., 2017). There is a substantial difference in the value of “a”
and AEV of 3% lime content with a 0-day curing period compared to 7-days curing
period. The curing period has a minor impact on the value of “a” and AEV at 6%
and 9% lime content, respectively. Furthermore, with the indicated percentage of
lime, “a” and AEV for the 7- and 14-days curing periods are the same. In contrast
to w-SWCC, S-SWCC results show a clear pattern when comparing the fitting
parameter "a" and AEV of both untreated natural soil sample and lime-treated soil
samples.
 The AEV determined by w-SWCC for an untreated natural soil sample is less than
the AEV determined by S-SWCC. In other words, the soil remains essentially
saturated to much higher suction values than the w-SWCC function would indicate.
Because of its high plasticity and high-volume change behavior, the water retention
capacity at low suction is larger.
 When comparing untreated natural soil samples to lime-treated soil samples, the
differences in AEV derived by w-SWCC and S-SWCC are minimal. This is due to
the fact that lime has improved the expansive soils' volume change behavior. As
the lime content increase, the volume change reduces. According to S-SWCC
results, lime-treated soil has a lower water retention capacity at low suction value
than untreated natural soil.
 The “n” value for untreated natural soil samples is 0.17, while the “n” values for
lime-treated soil samples ranged from 3.40 to 4.63. The “n” value of a lime-treated
soil sample increases as the percentage of lime increases, meaning that the addition
of lime results in a more uniform pore size distribution (Puppala et al., 2006) and a
faster rate of desaturation than a natural soil sample that has not been treated (i.e.
for lime-treated soils, the water from the pores is removed easily as suction is
increases compared to the untreated natural soil sample). Despite the fact that the
lime-treated soil sample releases water from the pores at a faster rate, the change in
105
volume due to soil suction is small when compared to the untreated natural soil
sample. The void ratio against soil suction is discussed later in this chapter to
illustrate this improvement in volume change behavior.
 The value of “n” increase as the curing periods increases from 0 to 7 days. The “n”
value, like the “a” value, exhibits a distinct pattern. The addition of lime has a
substantial effect on the "n" values obtained from S-SWCC when compared to the
"n" values obtained from w-SWCC. The “n” value obtained from S-SWCC
function is substantially steeper which is varied from 3.40 to 4.63, as compared to
the “n” value obtained from w-SWCC function which is ranged from 1.22 to 2.56.
 The “m” value for untreated natural soil samples is 0.17, while the “m” values for
lime-treated soil samples ranged from 0.17 to 0.23. The value of "m" increases as
the curing period increases from 0 to 7 days. However, with the same amount of
lime, the same "m" value is found after 7 and 14 days of curing. The effects of lime
treatment on the values of “m” are found to be insignificant.
 Untreated soil sample has “ψr” value of 3358.2 kPa, while the “ψr” values for lime-
treated soil samples ranged from 1100.0 kPa to 1663.9 kPa. The “ψr” value drops
as the percentage of lime increases. The value of “ψr” decreases as the curing period
increases from 0 to 7 days. However, with 6% and 9% lime, the same “ψr” value is
observed after 7 and 14 days of curing. “ψr” decreases as the curing period increases
for 3% lime content. For untreated natural soil sample, significant difference in the
values of “ψr” that are obtained from S-SWCC and w-SWCC is observed compared
to the values of “ψr” of the lime-treated soil sample.
The following are comparison of the results obtained in this study with those obtained in
other studies that examined the improvement effect of treatment methods utilizing a
combination of SC and w-SWCC outcomes:
 Mavroulidou et al. (2013) looked at a lime content of 4.2%. For natural soil,
different AEV results were obtained from w-SWCC and S-SWCC. The addition of
lime reduced AEV and increased the “n” parameter. In other words, compared to
untreated soil, lime-treated soil exhibited a higher rate of desaturation. addition of
lime also lowered the compressibility and swelling potential of the untreated natural
106
soil. Mavroulidou et al. (2013) found results that are consistent to those found in
this investigation.
 Elkady et al. (2015) investigated lime content of 2%, 4%, and 6% with 7 and 28
days of curing period. The study found that AEV calculated using S-SWCC is
consistently higher than that calculated using w-SWCC. The difference between
AEV(w) and AEV(S) was observed to be greatest for untreated expansive clay
where samples experience significant volume change, similar to the findings of this
study. With the addition of lime, which inhibits sample volume change during
suction application, this difference decreases. unlike the results obtained in this
study, the AEVs of lime-treated soil samples are greater than the AEVs of untreated
soil. When compared to untreated natural soil, the SWCCs for lime- treated soils
reveal definite AEVs and residual water contents. Furthermore, the SWCC of
untreated natural soil had a smooth curve across the whole suction range examined,
whereas the SWCC of lime-treated soils had a steep desaturation slope between the
AEV and residual water content. Furthermore, under suction, untreated clay
samples showed a significant reduction in void ratio. The void ratio of lime-treated
clay samples, on the other hand, showed only minor changes. The effect of the
curing period on the w-SWCC and S-SWCC functions of lime-treated clay samples
was found to be insignificant.
 Zhang et al. (2017) looked at a lime content of 4%. The effect of treatment on the
soil's water retention was largely noticed in the form of a lower AEV in lime-treated
soil samples. In comparison to the untreated natural soil, the lime-treated soil
demonstrated much lower volumetric strains upon drying or wetting across the
whole range of suctions. In addition, lime-treated soils had higher “n” parameter
than untreated natural soil. Also, the curing period had a minor or insignificant
effect on the SWCCs of treated soil samples. Zhang et al. (2017) found results that
are consistent to those found in this investigation.
4.4.7. Void Ratio Characteristic Curve (e-CC) for Untreated Natural Soil Sample
The other volume-mass SWCC constructed by combining w-SWCC and SC is void ratio
characteristic curve (e-CC), which relates void ratio (e) to the matric suction. The void ratio
107
as a function of water content is calculated by substituting the gravimetric water content
obtained from w-SWCC in to Equation 2.6. Then void ratio plotted on y-axis and matric
suction in x-axis (log-scale) to construct e-CC for both untreated and lime-treated soil
samples. From this plot the improvement of lime on the expansive soil on volume change
behavior is analyzed.
The data points in Figure 4.29 represent the calculated void ratio obtained by substituting
the measured gravimetric water content from pressure plate test results into Equation 2.6;
and the solid and dashed line represent the best fit line obtained by substituting gravimetric
water content obtained from Fredlund and Xing (1994) model equation into Equation 2.6.
This curve is a tool for determining the volume change as the suction increases.
1.8
1.6
1.4
Void ratio,e
1.2
1.0
Measured-Compacted
0.8
Best fit- Compacted
0.6 Measured-Undisturbed
0.4 Best fit-Undisturbed

0.01 1 100 10000 1000000
Matric suction (kPa)
a) b)
Figure 4. 29 a) e-CC of natural (undisturbed and compacted) soil samples b) volume change
determination for compacted soil sample
108
Table 4. 27 Measured and predicted void ratio for constructing e-CC for natural
(undisturbed and compacted) soil sample.
Predicted Predicted
Suction (kPa) Measured Measured
void ratio (e) void ratio (e)
void ratio (e) void ratio (e)
33 1.56 1.55 1.32 1.32
200 1.35 1.36 1.15 1.12
400 1.21 1.21 1.04 1.00
800 1.09 1.09 0.91 0.91
1000 1.06 1.06 0.89 0.88
1200 1.03 1.03 0.86 0.86
1400 1.01 1.01 0.84 0.85
So
So (%) 97.64 95.70

ash 0.56 0.48
bsh 0.20 0.17
csh 2.1 2.56
R2 0.9997 0.999
The following are discussions of the e-CC results shown in Figure 4.29 and Table 4.27:
 The shape of both e-CC of undisturbed and compacted soil samples is similar yet
varied in position, as shown in Figure 4.29. The compacted soil sample has a
downward shift in e-CC when compared to the undisturbed soil sample. This is
because the compacted soil sample has a lower void ratio as a result of the
compaction effect, which closes the voids.
 The curve from Figure 4.29 (b) shows that there is no volume change up to a suction
value of about 45 kPa. Significant change of volume is observed past this suction
value of 45 kPa. The maximum overall volume change was about 83% for
compacted soil sample and 98% for undisturbed soil sample.
109
4.4.8. Void Ratio Characteristic Curve (e-CC) of Lime-treated Soil Samples
For 0, 7, and 14-day curing periods, the e-CCs of lime-treated soils are constructed. To
assess the effect of lime on volume change behavior, the results are compared to the e-CC
of an untreated natural soil sample. The results from this analysis are presented in Figures
4.30 to 4.36 and in Tables 4.28 to 4.30.
Figure 4.30 to Figure 4.32 depict the effect of lime addition on natural soil during a specific
curing period. Figure 4.33 to Figure 4.35 depict the influence of the curing period for a
given lime content.
1.4
1.2
1
Void ratio,e
Measured - natural
Best fit - natural
0.8
Measured- 3%
Best fit -3%
Measured-6%
0.6
Best fit -6%
Measured-9%
Best fit- 9 %
0.4
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
110
1.4
1.2
1
Void ratio,e
Measured - natural
0.8 Best fit-natural
Measured -3%
Best fit -3%
Measured -6%
0.6
Best fit -6%
Measured-9%
Best fit-9%
0.4
0.01 1 100 10000 1000000
1.4
1.2
Void ratio,e
Measured -natural
Best fit-natural
0.8 Measured -3%
Best fit -3%
Measured -6%
0.6 Best fit -6%
Measured-9%
Best fit - 9%
0.4
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
111
1.4
1.2
Void ratio,e
1 Measured - 0 day
Best fit- 0 day
Measured -7 day
0.8 Best fit-7 day
Measured -14 day
Best fit -14 day
0.6
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Matric Suction, kPa (Log-Scale)
Figure 4. 33 e-CC for 3% lime content with 0-, 7- and 14 days of curing period.
1.4
1.2
Void ratio,e
1 Measured - 0 day
Best fit- 0 day
Measured -7 day
0.8 Best fit-7 day
Measured -14 day
Best fit -14 day
0.6
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
112
1.4
1.2
Void ratio,e
Measured - 0 day
1
Best fit- 0 day
Measured -7 day
0.8 Best fit-7 day
Measured -14 day
Best fit -14 day

0.6
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Figure 4. 36 Volume change for natural and lime-treated soil sample with 0,7- and 14-day
curing period.
113
with 0-day curing period
3% 6% 9%
Measure Predict Measured Predicted Measured Predicted
Suction (kPa)
d void ed void void ratio void void ratio void
ratio (e) ratio (e) (e) ratio (e) (e) ratio (e)
33 1.30 1.29 1.22 1.23 1.22 1.23
200 1.17 1.19 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.10
400 1.10 1.08 1.01 1.01 0.98 0.98
800 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94
1000 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94
1200 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.94 0.94
1400 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.94
So (%) 89.96 88.39 87.11
ash 0.89 0.91 0.94
bsh 0.30 0.31 0.32
csh 5.90 7.38 8.21
R2 0.998 0.998 0.998
Volume change (%) 34 26 25
Degree of expansion high medium medium
with 7 -day curing period
3% 6% 9%
Measured Predict Measured Predicted Measured Predicted
Suction (kPa)
void ratio ed void void ratio void ratio void ratio void ratio
(e) ratio (e) (e) (e) (e) (e)
33 1.27 1.28 1.19 1.21 1.18 1.20
200 1.16 1.16 1.09 1.09 0.99 0.99
400 1.06 1.05 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.96
800 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
1000 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
1200 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96
1400 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96
So (%) 89.19 87.67 86.63
ash 0.93 0.95 0.96
bsh 0.31 0.32 0.32
csh 8.04 10.74 14.69
R2 0.998 0.998 0.998
Degree of
medium low low
expansion
114
with 14 - day curing period
3% 6% 9%
Measured Predicted Measured Predicted Measured Predicted
Suction (kPa)
void ratio void void ratio void void ratio void
(e) ratio (e) (e) ratio (e) (e) ratio (e)
33 1.27 1.28 1.20 1.22 1.18 1.23
1.20
200 1.16 1.16 1.10 1.10 0.99 0.99
400 1.06 1.05 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96
800 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
1000 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
1200 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
1400 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
So (%) 89.04 87.54 86.52
ash 0.93 0.96 0.96
bsh 0.31 0.32 0.32
csh 7.88 10.51 14.25
R2 0.998 0.998 0.998
Degree of expansion medium low low
The following section presents a discuss of the results of e-CC curves for the untreated
natural and lime-treated samples.
 Due to the addition of lime, the shape and position of e-CC have changed. The
downward shift of e-CC of lime-treated soil for smaller suction value and the
upward shift of e-CC of lime-treated soil sample as the suction increase. This is due
to the fact that flocculation and agglomeration provide a more open structure. At
suctions greater than the residual suction, the void ratio of a lime-treated soil sample
approaches a constant value. The void ratio of an untreated natural sample, on the
other hand, does not remain constant as the suction increases. For the range of lime
percentages considered in this study, the curing period has no effect on the shape
of the e-CC, but it has an effect on the position of the e-CC.
 The volume change is observed to decrease as the percentage of lime increases. The
volume change decreases up to 7 days of curing and then remains nearly constant
over the range of lime content considered in this study; that is, the volume change
115
observed for 7 days of curing is the same as the volume change recorded for 14
days of curing. A volume change of 83% for the untreated natural expansive soil
indicates that the natural expansive soil comes into the category of a soil with a
very high degree of expansion, according to the classification of expansive soils
based on the USBR Method presented in Table 2.4. The volume change of the lime-
treated soil varies between 13% and 34%. Lime-treated soil samples show a
considerable reduction in volume change when compared to untreated natural soil
samples. With a 0-day curing period, 3% lime has a high degree of expansion,
whereas 7- and 14-days curing periods have a medium degree of expansion. The
difference in volume change between 6% and 9% is minimal. In comparison to the
untreated natural soil sample, 6% and 9% lime content with 7- and 14-days curing
periods exhibit a considerable reduction in volume change and fall within the low
degree of expansion.
4.4.9. Prediction of Swelling Pressure (Sp)
For the design of geotechnical structures such as foundations, retaining walls and slopes in
expansive soils, determination of swelling pressure is required in addition to other
unsaturated soil properties.
Empirical methods, oedometer swelling test methods, and soil suction methods can all be
used to determine the Sp. The results of experiments such as the free swell (FS) test,
consolidation swell test under overburden surcharge, or constant volume swell (CVS) test
are required to determine the swelling pressure using the oedometer test (Vanapalli et al.,
2014). Oedometer tests are sensitive to sample disturbance, in addition to the time it takes
to conduct them. According to Vanapalli et al. (2014), the swelling pressure determined
using soil suction methods is the most reasonable and accurate because these specimens
are subjected to little or no disturbance. Suction-based solutions, on the other hand, are
time-consuming and expensive. Researchers have begun to suggest a model for predicting
Sp utilizing the SWCC as a method to address this issue. The most recent works on the
determination of soil swelling properties using SWCC as a tool are Rao et al. (2011),
Vanapalli et al. (2014), Tahasildar and Rao (2016), and Pedarla et al. (2019). Several
empirical formulae for connecting the Sp with Atterberg limits, dry density, and other
116
common tests were also created. Based on the availability of data, the recommended
empirical equations of Daniel (2003) is adopted for this study. In addition, equations
proposed by Rao et al. (2011) and Vanapalli et al. (2014) are selected from studies on
prediction of Sp using SWCC. The swelling pressure for untreated natural soil and lime-
treated soil samples is anticipated using the above-mentioned researchers' proposed
equations for 0, 7, and 14-day curing periods, and the results are explained as follows:
I. Swelling Pressure Prediction as Per the Empirical Equations Proposed by

Daniel (2003)
Daniel (2003) proposed two empirical formulae that are based on initial moisture content,
Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index, and Dry Density. Swelling pressure is predicted for both
natural and lime-treated soil samples with 0, 7, and 14-day curing periods using the two
equations.
Log Ps  5  0.0002064 * LL  0.003477 * PI  0.005827 *  d (4.1)

Log Ps  9.384  0.0274 * w  0.006307 * PI  0.008359 *  d (4.2)
Where: Ps  Swelling Pressure (kPa)
W = Moisture Content (%)
LL= Liquid Limit (%)
PI = Plastcity Index (%)
 d  Dry Density (kg/m 3 )
Table 4. 31 Predicted value of Swelling Pressure using Daniel (2003) empirical equations.
Curing Equation 4.1-Ps (kPa) Equation 4.2-Ps (kPa)

Period Natural Lime content (%) Natural Lime content (%)
(day) soil 3 6 9 soil 3 6 9
0 227.39 153.17 99.06 169.61 127.05 71.36
7 279.84 226.71 145.08 94.86 363.98 168.46 114.35 65.59
14 208.53 133.07 87.20 143.31 96.76 55.74
Results of Swelling pressure predicted using Equation 4.1 and 4.2 as shown in Table 4.31
can be analyzed as follows:
 The swelling pressures calculated using Equations 4.1 and 4.2 are different, as
shown in Table 4.31. The Swelling pressure of the untreated natural soil derived by
117
the two equations falls into a high degree of expansion, according to Chen (1988)'s
classification of expansive soil, as shown in Table 2.5.
 As the percentage of lime and the curing period rise, the swelling pressure
decreases. However, when compared to the effect of increasing the amount of lime
content, the effect of increasing the curing duration is minor.
 From Equation 4.1, it can be seen that 3% lime content for all curing periods falls
into the medium degree of expansion, 6% lime content for 0-day curing periods
falls into the medium degree of expansion, and 7- and 14-day curing periods fall
into the marginal values between the medium and low degree of expansion and for
the entire curing period, the lime content of 9% falls between the medium and low
degrees of expansion.
 From Equation 4.2, swelling pressure of 3% lime content for 0 and 7 day curing
period falls in to medium degree of expansion; for 14 day curing period falls in to
marginal values between the medium and low degree of expansion, 6% lime content
for all curing period falls in to marginal values between the medium and low degree
of expansion and 9% lime content for all curing period falls in to marginal values
between the medium and low degree of expansion.
II. Studies on the Determination of Swelling Properties of Soils from Suction
Measurements (Rao et al., 2011)
Rao et al. (2011), investigated the correlation of the fitting parameter “af “and AEV with
swelling pressure (SP) of soils. S-SWCCs are produced in this study for both natural and
lime-treated soil samples with curing periods of 0, 7, and 14 days. Both AEV and af
parameters from this function can be obtained, which are then substituted into Equations
4.3 and 4.4 to produce swelling pressure. The following are the results:
Log (AEV) = 1.06+0.81Log(S p ) (4.3)

a f  52.89S p0.51 (4.4)
where: AEV = Air Entry Value(kPa)
a f  fitting parameter in Fredlung and Xing, 1994 curve fitting model (kPa)
S p  Swelling pressure (kPa)
118
Table 4. 32 Predicted value of Swelling Pressure using Rao et al. (2011) empirical
equations
Equation 4.3
0 day 7 day 14 day
parameter natural
3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 9% 3% 9% 6%
AEV(kPa) 1200 365 220 190 245 210 150 245 150 210
Sp(kPa) 311.04 71.56 38.30 31.96 43.75 36.17
23.87 43.75 23.8736.17
Equation 4.4
af(kpa) 1200.00 618.33 494.49 336.94 524.85 430.22 219.26 521.92 425.06 211.14
Sp(kPa) 455.46 124.11 80.08 37.74 90.00 60.95 16.25 89.02 59.52 15.09
The following are observations from the results of the swelling pressures predicted using
Equations 4.3 and 4.4, which are presented in Table 4.32:
 The swelling pressures calculated using Rao et al. (2011) equations (Equations 4.3
and 4.4) are found to be different. The Swelling pressure of the untreated natural
soil derived by the two equations falls into a high degree of expansion, according
to Chen (1988)'s classification of expansive soil, as shown in Table 2.5. The
swelling pressures of the untreated soil determined by the equation of Rao et al.
(2011), Equation 4.3, has a small difference with the values determined by the
equation of Daniel (2003), Equation 4.1. However, the result obtained by the
equation of Rao et al. (2011), Equation 4.4, is greater than the results produced by
both equations of Daniel (2003).
 Swelling pressure reduces with increasing proportion of lime and curing period in
lime-treated soil. Except for 3% lime with a 0-day curing period, which falls into
the marginal values between the medium and low degree of expansion, all findings
of swelling pressure for lime-treated soil determined by the equation Rao et al.
(2011), Equation 4.3, fall into the low degree of expansion. With all curing periods,
3% and 6% fall into marginal values between the medium and low degree of
expansion, according to equation of Rao et al. (2011), Equation 4.4. And 9% of
lime, with all curing periods, falls into the low degree of expansion. Lower values
of swelling pressure for lime-treated soil samples are observed when compared to
Daniel (2003) equations.
119
III. Soil-water Characteristic Curve-based Methods for Predicting the Swelling
Pressure (Vanapalli et al., 2014).
Using the SWCC as a tool, Vanapalli et al. (2014) suggested a semi-empirical model
(Equation 4.5) to predict the variation of swelling pressure with suction. Using Equation
4.5 and assuming Constant Volume Swelling (CVS), the swelling pressure as a function of
suction was predicted in this study. The degree of saturation on the S-SWCC function is
calculated using Equation 3.7 for the given suction value. Following is a summary of the
results:
2
 S 
Psc  Pso   c * i *   (4.5)
 100 
5.306  d ,max
 c1  0.25e 10000
(for CVS test) (4.6)
c 2 
 0.011e 0.107 I p
 7.872  d ,max  13.706  (for FS test) (4.7)
2
where, Psc = swelling pressure of compacted expansive soil specimen, Ps0 = intercept on
the Ps axis at zero suction value, βc = model parameter for compacted expansive soil, S =
degree of saturation from S-SWCC obtained using Equation 3.7 and ψi = initial soil suction.
There are good comparisons between the measured swelling pressures and those estimated
using Ps0 = 50 kPa for soils with PI values greater than 30% and Ps0 = 0 kPa for soils with
PI values less than 30%.
Table 4. 33 Predicted value of Swelling Pressure using Vanapalli et al. (2014) empirical
equations
0 day 7 day 14 day

parameter natural
3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 9%
c1 0.02 0.018 0.016 0.013 0.018 0.016 0.013 0.018 0.016 0.013
Psc 310 120 95 82 59 40 25 58 39 25
120
a)
b)
c)
Figure 4. 37 SP vs. Matric Suction a) 0- day, b)7-day c)14-day curing period
121
The following are observations from the results of swelling pressure predicted using the
equations of Vanapalli et al. (2014):
 As the suction is increased beyond the AEV, the swelling pressure rises. For both
untreated natural and lime-treated soil samples, the swelling pressure remains
constant until air starts to enter the voids. Due to the addition of lime, the swelling
pressure reduces.
 The Swelling pressure of the untreated natural soil determined by the Vanapalli et
al. (2014) fits into the high degree of expansion according to Chen (1988)
classification as indicated in Table 2.5. The swelling pressures of the untreated soil
determined by the equation of Vanapalli et al. (2014) has a small difference with
that determined by the equation of Daniel (2003), Equation 4.1, and approximately
the same results are achieved when compared with the results from Equation 4.3 of
Rao et al. (2011). However, the results obtained by Equation 4.4 of Rao et al. (2011)
are larger than the results obtained by both equations of Daniel (2003), Equation
4.3 of Rao et al. (2011), and Vanapalli et al. (2014) equation.
 Swelling pressure reduces with increasing proportion of lime and curing period in
lime-treated soil. All swelling pressures for lime-treated soil with a 0-day curing
period fall within the medium and low degree of expansion range. With a 3% lime
content and a 7- or 14-day curing period, the degree of expansion falls between
medium and low. With 6% and 9% lime content and 7- and 14-days curing period,
the degree of expansion is low.
122
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusions
This study determined the water retention behavior and the corresponding volume change
as the suction increase for both untreated natural and lime-treated soil samples with
different curing period. The w-SWCCs and the SCs are fitted using Fredlund and Xing
(1994) and Fredlund (2000) curve fitting models, respectively. By combining the two
results, S-SWCC and e-CC functions are constructed. Based on the curves developed, the
effect of the lime on the geotechnical behavior of expansive soil are evaluated through
different curve fitting parameter, volume change behavior and swelling pressure. The
research also examined the applicability of SWCC as a tool to check the effectiveness of
expansive soil treatment methods. For comparing the results obtained using SWCC, the
improvement effect of lime on expansive soil was also evaluated through classical soil
mechanics approach which makes use of index properties to evaluate improvement effect
of treatment methods.
The following are the conclusions from this study:
 Lime treatment of high-plasticity expansive clay was observed to have a significant

influence on the SWCC of lime-treated soils.
 The experimental results indicate that there is a change in the SWCC parameters as
the percentage of lime is changed. This indicates that there is a potential for the
SWCC to be used as a tool for evaluating the effect of treatment methods on
expansive soils, which could replace the traditional approach of using index tests
to check the performance of treatment methods.
 Soil stabilization decreased parameter “a”, which is a parameter that indicates the
inflection point. This occurred because bonding from chemical reactions between
clay particles forms aggregates and increases pore sizes in the soil structure.
 The AEV and residual water content of lime-treated soil decreases with increase in
percentage of lime and the SWCC shifts towards the left side as the AEV decreases.
This is due to lime-treated soil samples has larger void ratio compared to untreated
123
natural soil. The differences in AEV obtained from w-SWCC and S-SWCC for the
lime-treated soil samples are small when compared to the untreated natural soil
sample.
 SWCC model constant “n” is an approximate indicator of the pore size distribution
and rate of desaturation. Their values appear to confirm that lime-treated soils
exhibit high rate of desaturation with more uniform pore size distributions than
untreated natural soil.
 SC model constant “ash", which corresponds to the void ratio of the oven dried
sample is increased as the percentage of lime increased.
 Soil stabilization increased parameter “bsh", which is a parameter related to the
slope of the drying curve. This is due to a more open structure in lime-treated soils,
which results in larger rate of desaturation.
 The fitting parameter “csh”, a parameter that indicates compressibility of a material,
of lime-treated soil sample is larger compared to untreated natural soil sample
which suggests that the lime-treated soil has lower compressibility than the
untreated soil.
 The change in volume which can be easily calculated from the SWCC and SC is
found to be a very good indicator of the effectiveness of treatment methods,
indicating that the SWCC is a useful tool to check the effectiveness of treatment
methods. Compared to untreated natural soil, lime-treated soil samples revealed a
small change in volume.
 Based on the results obtained in this research, S-SWCC function is recommended
for evaluating the improvement effect of stabilizers on expansive soils since it’s
very effective in showing volume change effect as compared to w-SWCC function.
It also has clear pattern of the fitting parameters and gives the true AEV as
compared to w-SWCC function.
 Similar to previous studies, it is observed that the Free Swell (FS), specific gravity
(Gs), Plasticity Index (PI), Linear Shrinkage (LS) and MDD decreases as lime-
content and curing period increases, whereas OMC and UCS increase.
 The analysis based on the traditional soil mechanics approach, which makes use of
index properties, indicated that 9% lime content and 14 days of curing is required
124
to change the expansive soil from a category of “very high degree of expansion” to
a category of “low degree of expansion”. However, the analysis based on SWCC
and SC indicates that only 6% lime and 7 days of curing is required to produce the
same change. This indicates that the traditional soil mechanics approach may be
conservative and hence uneconomical. This, of course, needs to be verified by
further studies.
 The SWCC which can be converted to swelling pressure curve is again shown to
be a good tool to evaluate improvement effect of stabilizers.
 The swelling pressures of lime-treated soils, calculated using the equations of
Daniel (2003), Rao et al. (2011), and Vanapalli et al. (2014) decreases as the
percentage of lime increases.
 Swelling pressures computed using equations that use SWCC as a tool (Rao et al.,
2011 and Vanapalli et al., 2014 equations) are lower than swelling pressures
computed using equation that use data of traditional tests (Daniel, 2003 equation).
According to Vanapalli et al. (2014) equation, the swelling pressure of both
untreated natural and lime-treated soil samples, remains constant until air starts to
enter the voids. But as the suction increased beyond the AEV, the swelling pressure
increased. Lime-treated soil samples showed lower swelling pressure compared to
untreated natural soil sample
5.2. Recommendations
This paper examined the drying portion of w-SWCC function using pressure plate
apparatus with suction range up to 1400 kPa. The results of w-SWCC along with SC results
used for the determination of other volume-mass SWCCs, such as S-SWCC and e-CC for
both untreated natural and lime-treated soil samples. Based on the results obtained in this
research, S-SWCC function is recommended for evaluating the improvement effect of the
stabilizer on expansive soils. In order to extend the results obtained in this research for
future work, some additional studies are recommended as follows:
 Developing regression models to correlate the three model constants of Fredlund

and Xing’s equation (i.e. “a”, “n” and “m”) with basic soil and stabilizer properties
125
such as optimum moisture content, dry density, liquid limit, plastic limit, stabilizer
type and dosage.
 The current study has used drying curves to study improvement effect. It is
recommended to make similar study using wetting curves.
 Evaluation of other factors influencing the SWCC function of treated soils such as
initial water content, initial dry density, compaction effort, suction measuring
methods, and hysteresis effects.
 Further development of SWCC function for other treatment method and expansive
soil of another study area.
 Developing regression models to predict USPFs, such as Bearing capacity of
shallow foundations, permeability, shear strength and swelling pressure functions.
 Check other traditional laboratory tests, such as CBR, for both untreated natural
and treated soil samples.
126
REFERENCES
Aksum Tesfaye (2001). Chemical treatment of “Black Cotton” soil to make it usable as a
foundation material, M.Sc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Technology Faculty,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Alemayehu T. and Mesfin L. (1999). Soil Mechanics, AAU Printing Press.
Altmeyer, W.T., 1955. Discussion of engineering properties of expansive clays. Pro.
ASCE, 81, SM 2.
Amenuvor, A. C., Li, G., Wu, J., Hou, Y. and Chen, W. (2020). An image-based method
for quick measurement of the soil shrinkage characteristics curve of soil slurry.
Geoderma, 363, 114165.
Al-Mukhtar, M., Lasledj, A., and Alcover, J.-F. (2010a). Behavior and mineralogy changes
in lime-treated expansive soil at 20 °C. Applied Clay Science, 50, 191–198.
Asres Getnet and Shamshad Alam (2019). Effect of Lime and Fly ash on Load Bearing
Capacity of Expansive Clay soil. ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8 Issue-11, Blue Eyes
Intelligence Engineering & Sciences Publication.
ASTM (2004). Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Civil Engineering
Purpose. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. - Philadelphia, PA: American Society
for Testing Materials.
ASTM - D6836 – 16 (2016). Standard Test Methods for Determination of the Soil Water
Characteristic Curve for Desorption Using Hanging Column, Pressure Extractor,
Chilled Mirror Hygrometer, or Centrifuge. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. -
Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing Materials.
ASTM - D6276 – 19 (2019). Standard Test Method for Using pH to Estimate the Soil-
Lime Proportion Requirement for Soil Stabilization Annual Book of ASTM
Standards. - Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing Materials.
Bell, F. G. (1996). Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils. Engineering
Geology,42,223–237, Elsevier science.
Bensallam, S., Bahi, L., Ejjaaouani, H., Shakhirev, V. (2012). Shrinkage curve:
experimental study and modelling. Int. J. Eng. 25, 203–210.
Berndt, R.D., Coughlan, K.J. (1976). The nature of changes in bulk density with water
127
content in a cracking clay. Aust. J. Soil Res. 15 (1), 27–37.
Bhuvaneshwari, S., Robinson, Retnamony and Gandhi, S. (2014). Behaviour of Lime
Treated Cured Expansive Soil Composites. Indian Geotechnical Journal. 44.
10.1007/s40098-013-0081-3.
Bilsel, Huriye & Tawfiq, S. & Çelik, Ece & Oncu, Saime (2005). Soil-water characteristics
and volume change behavior of an artificially cemented expansive clay. Boğaziçi
University, Istanbul, Turkey, 6th International Congress on Advances in Civil
Engineering.
Bronswijk, J. J. B. (1991). Relation between Vertical Soil Movements and Water-Content
Changes in Cracking Clays. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 55(5), 1220.
Brook D. (2015). Influence of molding water content on the engineering properties of lime
stabilized expansive soil. Master’s Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Brooks, R.H. and Corey, A.T. (1964). Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media. Hydrology
Papers 3, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 27 p.
Budhu, Muni. (2007). Soil Mechanics and Foundations second edition, Publisher: John
Wiley & Sons ISBN: 978-0-470-55684-9, the University of Arizona.
Buol, S. W., Southern, R.J., Graham, R.C., & McDaniel, P.A. (2003). Soil Genesis and
Classification. 5th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 494 pp.
Calik, Umit and Sadoglu, Erol. (2014). Engineering properties of expansive clayey soil
stabilized with lime and perlite. Geomechanics and Engineering. 6. 403-418.
10.12989/gae. 2014. 6.4.403.
Chen, F.H. (1988) Foundations on Expansive Soils. 2nd Edition, Elsevier Science
Publications, New York.
Chen Zheng-han (2001). Theory and practice of unsaturated soils. Mechanics in
Engineering, 23(5), 8-15.
Chen Zheng-han, Zhou Hai-qing, Sun Shu-guo, et al. (2003). Research on unsaturated soil
and Special soil for twenty Years. Development of Geotechnical Mechanics and
Engineering, Chongqing: Chongqing Publication, 29-41.
Chertkov, V. Y. (2003). Modelling the shrinkage curve of soil clay pastes. Geoderma,
112(1-2), 71–95.
128
Christopher, M.G. (2005). Stabilization of Soft Clay Subgrades in Virginia Phase I
Laboratory Study. MSc. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Craig, R.F. (1997). Soil Mechanics, 6th edition. London: Spon press.
Craig, R.F. (2004). Soil Mechanics, 7th edition. London: CRC Press.
Dagmawe N. (2007). In depth investigation of relationship between index property and
swelling characteristic of expansive soil in Bahir Dar. Msc Thesis, Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Dang, Liet & Hasan, Hayder & Fatahi, Behnam & Jones, R. & Khabbaz, Hadi. (2016).
Enhancing the engineering properties of expansive soil using bagasse ash and
hydrated lime. 11. 2447-2454.
Daniel Nebro (2002), Stabilization of Potentially Expansive Sub-Grade Soil using Lime
and Con-aid, M.Sc. Thesis, AAU, Technology Faculty, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Eades, J. L., and Grim, R. E. (1960). Reaction of Hydrated Lime with Pure Clay Minerals
in Soil Stabilization." HRB Bull. 262, 51-63.
Eades, J. L., and Grim, R. E. (1966). A quick test to determine lime requirements for lime
stabilization. Highway Research Record, 139, 61–72.
Elarabi, Hussein (2010). Damage mechanism of expansive soils Damage mechanism of
expansive soils. Conference: 2nd International Conference on Geotechnical
Engineering At: Hammamat – Tunis.
Elkady, Tamer & Al-Mahbashi, Ahmed (2013). Soil water characteristic curves of lime-
treated highly expansive soils. Advances in Unsaturated Soils Proceedings of the
1st Pan American Conference on Unsaturated Soils, PanAmUNSAT 2013.231-
235.10.1201/ b14393-31.
Elkady, T.Y., Al-Mahbashi, A.M. and Al-Refeai, T.O. (2015). Stress-dependent soil-water
characteristic curves of lime-treated expansive clay. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27,
4014127.
Ehitabezahu Negussie and Abebe Dinku (2014). Investigation on the effects of combining
lime and sodium Silicate for expansive subgrade stabilization. Journal of EEA, Vol.
31.
Fang, H.Y. (1991). Foundation Engineering Handbook, (2nd Edition), Kluwer Academic
129
Publisher Group,417 MA, USA.
Fredlund, D.G., and Morgenstern, N.R. (1977). Stress State Variables for Unsaturated
Soils. Journal of The Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No
GTS, Proc Paper 12919, PP,447-466.
Fredlund, D.G. and Rahardjo, H. (1993). Soil mechanics for unsaturated soil mechanics.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Fredlund, D.G. and Rahardjo, H. (1993a). Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Fredlund, D.G and Rahardjo, H. (1993b). An overview of Unsaturated Soil Behavior.
Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Series on Unsaturated Soil Properties, Dallas, TX,
October 24-28, PP 1-33.
Fredlund, D.G and Xing, A. (1994). Equations for the Soil-Water Characteristic Curve.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 31: 517-532.
Fredlund, D.G. (2000). The implementation of unsaturated soil mechanics into
geotechnical engineering. Can. Geotech. J., 37, 963–986.
Fredlund, M.D. (2000). The role of unsaturated soil property functions in the practice of
unsaturated soil mechanics, PhD, thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
SK., 292.
Fredlund, D. G. and Sheng, D. and Zhao, J. (2011). Estimation of soil suction from the
soil-water characteristic curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 48. 186-198.
10.1139/T10-060.
Fredlund, D.G., Rahardjo, H. Fredlund, M.D. (2012). Unsaturated Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Fredlund, D.G. (2019). Determination of unsaturated soil property functions for
engineering practice. Conference: 17th African Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering At: Cape Town South Africa
Fredlund, D. G., and Fredlund, M. D. (2020). Application of “Estimation Procedures” in
Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. Geosciences, 10(9), 364.
Gourley, C.S. and Schreiner, H.D. (1993), The Extent and Engineering Significance of
Expansive Soils, Overseas Development Administration, 94 Victoria Street,
London.
130
Guyer, J. P. (2011). Introduction to Soil Stabilization in Pavements. New York, Continuing
Education and Development, Inc. 22 Stonewall Court Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677.
Habtamu Solomon (2011). Chemical Stabilization of Expansive Sub-grade Soil
Performance Evaluation on Selected Road Section in Northern Addis Ababa. MSc.
Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Hayder, A. H. (2012). Effect of Fly Ash on Geotechnical Properties of Expansive Soil.
Journal of Engineering and Development. Vol.16, June 2012 ISSN 1813-7822.
Herzog, A., and Mitchell, J.K. (1966). Reactions Accompanying Stabilization of Clay with
Cement. Highway Research Record 36, Highway Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
IS 1498 (1970). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Soil Classification. 3rd Edition,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
ISI. (1977). Determination of free swell index of soils, 2720 Part XL. Indian Standards
Institution, Delhi, India.
Ismaiel, H.A. and Badry, M.M. (2013), "Lime chemical stabilization of expansive deposits
exposed at El-Kawther Quarter, Sohag Region, Egypt", Geosciences, 3(3), 89-98.
Jennings, J.E. and Burland, J.B. (1962). Limitations to the use of effective stresses in partly
saturated soils. Géotechnique, 12(2), 125–144.
John, D.N., and Debora J.M. (1992). Expansive Soils-Problems and practice in foundation
and pavement engineering. John Wiley & Sons. Inc., New York.
Khan, Asaduzzaman. (2014). Improvement of plasticity index value of swelling clay soil
by lime stabilization. Conference: International Conference on Mechanical
Engineering and Renewable Energy. At: Chittagong, Bangladesh.
Khattab, S.A.A. and Al-Taie, L. (2006). Soil Water Characteristic Curves (SWCC) for
Lime Treated expansive Soil from Mosul City. In: Fourth International Conference
on Unsaturated Soils. pp. 1671–1682.
Khattab, S.I., Aljobouri, M.M. (2012). Effect of combined stabilization by lime and cement
on hydraulic properties of clayey soil selected from mosul area. AlRafidain Eng.
20, 139–154
Kuma Kebede (2020). Lime Stabilization of Natural Subgrade Soil Along Bishoftu to Koka
131
Road Section Central Ethiopia. J Geol Geophys 9:469. 10.35248/2381-
8719.19.9.469.
Leong and H. Rahardjo. (1997). Review of Soil Water Characteristics Curve Equations.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, 123.
Leong, E. C., & Wijaya, M. (2015). Universal soil shrinkage curve equation. Geoderma,
237-238, 78–87.
Lin, B., Cerato, A.B. (2012). Investigation on soil-water characteristic curves of untreated
and stabilized highly clayey expansive soils. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 30, 803–812.
Little D.N. (1995). Stabilization of pavement subgrades and base courses with lime.
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Lowa.
Little, Dallas & Nair, Syam. (2009). Recommended Practice for Stabilization of Subgrade
Soils and Base Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
LMA (2004). Lime-treated Soil Construction Manual: Lime Stabilization & Lime
Modification.National Lime Association. Bulletin 326.
Makusa, G.P. (2012). Soil Stabilization Methods and Materials in Engineering Practice.
Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural resources engineering, Luleå
University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
Mavroulidou, M., Zhang, X., Gunn, M.J., Cabarkapa, Z. (2013). Water retention and
compressibility of a lime-treated, high plasticity clay. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 31,
1171–1185.
McKeen, R.G. (1976) Design and Construction of Airport Pavements on Expansive Soils,
U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Systems
Research and Development Service, Washington, D.C. 20590.
Murthy, V.N.S. (2003). Principles and practices of soil mechanics and foundation
engineering. New York.
Murray, H. H., 2007, Applied Clay Mineralogy, Occurrences, Processing and Application
of Kaolins,Bentonites, Palygorskite Sepiolite, and Common Clays, Department of
Geological Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, U.S.A.
Nelson, D., and Miller, J. (1992). Expansive Soils: Problems and Practices in Foundation
and Pavement Engineering. Colorado State University, Wiley, New York. 259 pp,
ISBN 0 471 51186 2.
132
Ning, Lu. and William, J.L. (2004). Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Hoboken, New Jersey.
NUPI (1996). National Urban Planning Institute, Report on Bahir Dar Master Plan.
Pan, Hu, Qing, Yang and Pei-yong, Li. (2010). Direct and Indirect Measurement of Soil
Suction in the Laboratory. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 15.
Pedarla, Aravind & Puppala, Anand & Patil, Ujwalkumar & Hoyos, Laureano &
Pino,Alejandro.(2019). A Semi-empirical Approach-Based Model for Swell
Characterization of Expansive Clays. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering.
37. 10.1007/s10706-019-00986-y.
Peng, X., and Horn, R. (2005). Modeling Soil Shrinkage Curve across a Wide Range of
Soil Types. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 69(3), 584.
Pellissier, J.P. (1991). The toluene and wax-freezing method of determining volumetric
free swell. Geotech. Test. J. 14 (3), 309–314.
Puppala, A.J., Punthutaecha, K. & Vanapalli, S.K. (2006). Soil-Water Characteristic
Curves of Stabilized Expansive Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo
environmental Engineering 132(6): 736–751.
Rao, Bh & Venkataramana, K. & Singh, Devendra. (2011). Studies on the determination
swelling properties of soils from suction measurements. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal. 48. 375-387. 10.1139/T10-076.
Rashi Musema (2014), Stabilization of expansive soils with lime (A Case Study on the
Adura- Burbey DS6 Road Segment). Msc Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ridley, A.M., Burland, J.B., 1993. A new instrument for the measurement of soil moisture
suction. Géotechnique 43 (2), 321–324.
Ridley, A., and Wray, W.K. (1996). Suction measurement: a review of current theory and
practices.
Robel Tewelde Mesfun, Emer Tucay Quezon, and Anteneh Geremew. (2019).
Experimental study of stabilized expansive soil using pumice mixed with lime for
Subgrade road construction. International Journal of Research - Granthaalayah,
7(7),118-124. 10.29121/ granthaalayah. v7. i7. 2019.736.
Senthen D.R., Towsend F.C., Johnson L.D., Patrick D.M., and Vedros P.J. (1975). A
133
Review ofEngineering Experience with Expansive Soils in Highway Subgrades.
Washington, D.C.20590.
Sibley, J., Williams, D., (1989). A procedure for determining volumetric shrinkage of an
unsaturated soil. Geotech. Test. J. 12 (3), 181–187
Sillers, W. S. (1996). Mathematical representation of the soil-water characteristic curve.
M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, Canada.
Sillers, W.S., Fredlund, D.G., and Zakerzadeh, N. (2001). Mathematical attributes of some
soil-water characteristic curve models. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
19: 243–283.
Sridharan, A., Rao, A.S. and Sivapullaiah, P.V. (1986). Swelling pressure of clays.
Geotech. Test. J. 9 (1), 24–33.
Subhi A. Ali (2019). Effect of Cement and Lime on the Index Properties of Nizwa Clayey
Soil. International Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology, Volume
14 Issue 3, ISSN: 2319-1058.
Tahasildar, J., Rao, B.H. (2016). Determination of Swelling Characteristics Using Soil
Water Characteristic Curve Parameter. Indian Geotech J 46, 319–326.
Tan Yun-zhi, Wang Shi-mei, and Chen Yong (2005). Soil-water characteristic curve study.
The second national symposium on unsaturated soil, Hangzhou: Zhejiang
University.
Tariq, A., Durnford, D.S. (1993). Soil volumetric shrinkage measurements: A simple
method. Soil Sci. 155 (5), 325–330.
Taye B. (2015). Stabilization of expansive clay soil with sugar Cane molasess and cement.
Msc Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Temesegen Amlak (2020). Soil Water Characteristics Curve of Unsaturated Expansive
Soils Appropriate for a Range of Index Properties Using Pressure Plate Apparatus.
MSc Thesis, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Thamer Ahmed Mohammed, Faisal Hj. Ali S.Hashim and Bujang B.K.Huat
(2006). Relationship between shear strength and soil water characteristics curve of
an unsaturated granite residual soil. American Journal of Environmental
Sciences2[4]:142- 145, ISSN1553345X. Zhejiang University.
134
Thudi, Harshavardhan Reddy (2006). Assessment of Soil-water Retention Properties of
Lime and Cement Treated Clays. MSc Thesis, University of Texas Arlington, USA.
Tibebu S. (2015). Assessment of damages caused by expansive soil on buildings
constructed in Bahir Dar. Msc Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Tripathy, S., Rao, K.S., Fredlund, D.G. (2002). Water content-void ratio swell-shrink paths
of compacted expansive soils. Can. Geotech. J. 39, 938–959.
Van Genuchten, M.T. (1980). A Closed Form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic
Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils,” Soil Science Society of America
Journal,44,892 898.
Vanapalli, sai , tu, hongyu and oh, won. (2014). Soil-water characteristic curve-based
methods for predicting the swelling pressure and ground heave in expansive soils.
10.13140/rg.2.1.3106.1844.
Worku Janka Negawo, Gemmina Di Emidio, Adam Bezuijen, R. Daniel Verastegui Flores
& Bertrand François (2017). Lime-stabilization of high plasticity swelling clay
from Ethiopia, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering.
Wubshet, M., & Tadesse, S. (2014). Stabilization of expansive soil using bagasse ash &
lime. Zede Journal, 32, 21-26.
Yang, H., He, C. and Zhan, W. (2011). Analysis of the improvement effect of expansive
soil water characteristic curve. In Geo Hunan International Conference II:
Emerging Technologies for Design, Construction, Rehabilitation, and Inspections
of Transportation Infrastructures, (GSP 222), Hunan, China: 272–278.
Yohannes Argu (2008). Stabilization of Light Gray and Red Clay Subgrade Using SA-
44/LS-40 Chemical and Lime. MSc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Zewdie, A. (2004). Investigation into shear strength characteristics of Expansive soil of
Ethiopia. Msc Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Zhang, X., Mavroulidou, M. & Gunn, M.J. (2017). A study of the water retention curve of
lime-treated Clay. Acta Geotech. 12, 23–45.
Zhang, F., Pei, X. & Yan, X. (2018). Physicochemical and Mechanical Properties of Lime-
Treated Loess. Geotech Geol Eng 36, 685–696.
135
Zhou Jian (2005). Research summary about main influence factors of unsaturated soil
water characteristic curve. The second national symposium on unsaturated soil,
Hangzhou.
Zumrawi, Magdi. (2014). Improving the Characteristics of Expansive Subgrade Soils
Using Lime and Fly Ash. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). 3.
1124-1129.
136
APPENDICES
137
APPENDIX - A
Common Laboratory Test Results of Untreated Natural Soil Sample
Natural Moisture Content (NMC) Test Result
 M CM S  M CDS 
Formula used:  (% )    *100
 M CDS  M C 
Table A.1 Determination of NMC
Determination No 1 2 3
Container No A-5 A-6 A-7

Mass of container (MC), g 16.19 19.76 16.88
Mass of container +Wet soil (MCMS), g 41.34 46.05 32.79

Mass of container + Dry soil (MCDS), g 33.20 37.88 27.72
Mass of dry soil (MS), g 17.01 18.12 10.84
Mass of water (MW), g 8.14 8.17 5.07

Water content (w), % 47.85 45.09 46.77
Average water content (Wavg), % 46.57
Specific Gravity (Gs) Test Result

 M 
Formula used: G s  K *  s

 ( M s  M 2  M1) 
Table A.2 Temperature correction factor for determination of Gs

Temperature °c 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Temperature
1.0007
1.0006
1.0004
1.0002
0.9998
0.9996
0.9993
0.9991
0.9988
0.9986
0.9983
0.9977
Correction 0.998
1
factor, k
Table A.3 Determination of Gs

Trial No 1 2 3
Pycnometer No 17 18 8
Mass of dry soil (Ms), g 25 25 25
Mass of Pycnometer + water + soil (M1), g 188.6 176.02 175.47
Test temperature, C 26 26 26
Mass of Pycnometer + water (M2), g 172.69 160.24 159.6
Specific gravity of soil at test temperature (GatT) 2.75 2.71 2.74
Correction factor, K 0.9986 0.9986 0.9986
Specific gravity of soil at 20C 2.75 2.71 2.73
Average specific gravity of soil at 20C 2.73
138
Free Swell (FS) Test Result
 B A B
Formula used: FS(%)    *100 , FSR 
 A  C
Table A.4 Determination of FS and FSR
Characteristics Observations
Mass of dry soil passing 425 μm sieve, g 10
Initial volume of dry soil passing 425 μm sieve (A), cc 10
Volume in water after 24 hrs. swell (B), cc 23.5
Volume in kerosene after 24 hrs. swell (C), cc 10
FS (%) 135
FSR 2.35
Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit (LL) and Plastic Limit (PL) Test Results
Table A.5 Determination of LL and PL
Characteristics Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Trial No 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Container No 3 G-3 W-3 1 K-11 K12 933
Mass of container, g 21.43 18.08 28.53 15.07 18.13 18.4 18.5
Mass of container + Wet
42.27 34.33 46.89 30.75 25.03 25.64 26.12
soil, g
Mass of container + Dry
31.23 25.83 37.43 22.83 23.14 23.65 24.01
soil, g
Mass of water, g 9.8 7.75 8.9 7.76 5.01 5.25 5.51
Mass of dry soil, g 11.04 8.5 9.46 7.92 1.89 1.99 2.11
Water content, % 112.65 109.68 106.29 102.06 37.72 37.90 38.29
No of blows 18 23 27 34 Avg = 37.97%
139
Linear Shrinkage (LS) Test Result
 LO  Ld 
Formula used: LS(%)    *100
 LO 
Table A.6 Determination of LS
Original length of the mold (Lo), cm 14
length of oven dry specimen (Ld), cm 11
LS (%) 21.43%
Grain Size Analysis Result

Sieve Analysis
Formula used:
Mass of soil retained on each sieve (g) = Mass of sieve and retained soil ( g )- Mass of sieve (g)
Mass of soil retained on each sieve (g)
Percentage retained on each sieve (%)= *100
Total mass of test sample (g)
Cumulative percentage retained on each sieve (%) = Sum of percentage retained on all coarser sieve
Percentage finer than any sieve (%)=100 - Cumulative percentage retained on each sieve (%)
Hydrometer Analysis
Formula used:
Corrected hydrometer reading (RC) = Actual hydrometer reading - composite correction
L   264.52 ( R)  280.82
140
Where: L =Effective depth in cm and R = Actual hydrometer reading
L
DK
T
Where: D = Diameter of particle in mm

K = Constant depending on the temperature of the suspension and the specific gravity of the
soil particles. Values of K for a range of temperatures and specific gravity are given in
Table A.7.
T = Elapsed time from the beginning of sedimentation to the taking of the hydrometer
 GS V 
P   Rc  G1  100
 (G S  G1 ) M S 
reading, min.
Where:
P = Percentage of soil remaining in suspension at the level at which the hydrometer
measures the density of the suspension.
RC = Corrected hydrometer reading
MS = Dry mass of soil used for hydrometer test.
GS = Specific gravity of the soil particle.
G1 = specific gravity of water.
V = Volume of suspension usually it is 1000cc.
W1
Combined Percentage Finer (Pc) = P*
W
Where:
W1 =Weight of soil finer than No 200 sieve
W = Total soil mass used in combined analysis
141
Table A.7 Values of K for use in Equation for computing diameter of particles in
hydrometer analysis (ASTM D 422).
Temp, Specific Gravity of soil Particles

o
c 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85
16 0.01510 0.01505 0.01481 0.01457 0.01435 0.01414 0.01394 0.01374 0.01356
17 0.01511 0.01486 0.01462 0.01439 0.01417 0.01396 0.01376 0.01356 0.01338
18 0.01492 0.01467 0.01443 0.01421 0.01399 0.01378 0.01359 0.01339 0.01321
19 0.01474 0.01449 0.01425 0.01403 0.01382 0.01361 0.01342 0.01323 0.01305
20 0.01456 0.01431 0.01408 0.01386 0.01365 0.01344 0.01325 0.01307 0.01289
21 0.01438 0.01414 0.01391 0.01369 0.01348 0.01328 0.01309 0.01291 0.01273
22 0.01421 0.01397 0.01374 0.01353 0.01332 0.01312 0.01294 0.01276 0.01258
23 0.01404 0.01381 0.01358 0.01337 0.01317 0.01297 0.01279 0.01261 0.01243
24 0.01388 0.01365 0.01342 0.01321 0.01301 0.01282 0.01264 0.01246 0.01229
25 0.01372 0.01349 0.01327 0.01306 0.01286 0.01267 0.01249 0.01232 0.01215
26 0.01357 0.01334 0.01312 0.01291 0.01272 0.01253 0.01235 0.01218 0.01201
27 0.01342 0.01319 0.01297 0.01277 0.01258 0.01239 0.01221 0.01204 0.01188
28 0.01327 0.01304 0.01283 0.01264 0.01244 0.01225 0.01208 0.01191 0.01175
29 0.01312 0.01290 0.01269 0.01249 0.01230 0.01212 0.01195 0.01178 0.01162
30 0.01298 0.01276 0.01256 0.01236 0.01217 0.01199 0.01182 0.01165 0.01146
Table A.8 Sieve Analysis

Mass of Cumulative
Sieve Sieve Mass of Percentage
Mass of sieve with Percentage Percent
opening retained Retained
No Sieve(g) retained Retained Finer (%)
(mm) soil(g) (%)
soil(g) (%)
4 4.75 406.01 408.68 2.67 0.18 0.18 99.82
10 2 391.11 396.34 5.23 0.35 0.53 99.47
16 1.18 351.7 358.14 6.44 0.43 0.96 99.04
30 0.6 314.64 320.58 5.94 0.40 1.36 98.64
40 0.425 294.25 304.98 10.73 0.72 2.08 97.92
50 0.3 288.23 295.9 7.67 0.51 2.59 97.41
100 0.15 283.02 298.26 15.24 1.02 3.61 96.39
200 0.075 267.24 277.93 10.69 0.71 4.32 95.68
pan ------ 247.22 1682.61 1435.39 95.69 ------- -------
Gs 2.73
W 1500g
W1 1435.20g
142
Table A.9 Hydrometer Analysis
Percent
Effective Test Coefficient Grain
Elapsed Actual Composite Corrected Percent Finer
Depth Temp. K size
time Hydrometer Correction Hydrometer Finer For
[cm] [°C] From [mm]
[min] Reading Reading combined
Table 2
analysis
0.75 1.0328 0.0025 1.0303 7.6237 21.4 0.01317 0.0420 95.63 91.50
1 1.0326 0.0025 1.0301 7.6766 21.0 0.01317 0.0365 95.00 90.89
2 1.0325 0.0025 1.03 7.7031 21.0 0.01317 0.0258 94.68 90.59
4 1.0323 0.0025 1.0298 7.7560 20.9 0.01317 0.0183 94.05 89.99
8 1.0321 0.0025 1.0296 7.8089 20.9 0.01317 0.0130 93.42 89.38
15 1.0311 0.0025 1.0286 8.0734 21.0 0.01317 0.0097 90.26 86.36
30 1.0309 0.0022 1.0287 8.1263 22.3 0.01301 0.0068 90.58 86.67
60 1.0306 0.0022 1.0284 8.2057 22.4 0.01301 0.0048 89.63 85.76
120 1.0282 0.0021 1.0261 8.8405 22.8 0.01299 0.0035 82.37 78.81
240 1.026 0.0017 1.0243 9.4225 24.2 0.01271 0.0025 76.69 73.38
480 1.0252 0.0016 1.0236 9.6341 25.1 0.01256 0.0018 74.48 71.27
1440 1.025 0.0016 1.0234 9.6870 25.8 0.01242 0.0010 73.85 70.66
Standard Compaction Test

Table A.10 Sample preparation for standard proctor test (ASTM D 698)
143
Water Content Determination
 M CM S  M CDS 
Formula used:  (% )    *100
Table A.11 Determination of Water Content
Water content - Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5

Moisture can number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mass of empty, clean can +
18.53 18.51 28.89 17.93 18.45 18.33 17.27 17.93 29.89 28.78
lid, MC (g)
Mass of can, lid, and moist
43.17 46.49 40.00 30.81 30.73 27.13 41.82 41.17 43.96 45.89
soil, MCMS (g)
Mass of can, lid, and dry
39.16 41.91 37.78 28.28 27.92 25.17 35.58 35.12 39.53 40.73
soil, MCDS (g)
Mass of soil solids, MS (g) 4.01 4.58 2.22 2.53 2.81 1.96 6.24 6.05 4.43 5.16
Mass of pore water, MW (g) 20.63 23.40 8.89 10.35 9.47 6.84 18.31 17.19 9.64 11.95
Water content, ω% 19.44 19.57 24.97 24.44 29.67 28.65 34.08 35.19 45.95 43.18
Average water content, ω% 19.51 24.71 29.16 34.64 44.57
Density Determination
Formula used:
Mm

V

d 
1   
Formula used to draw a curve of complete saturation or zero air void:
w
d 
  1 
  
 100 G s 
144
Table A.12 Determination of Density
Mass of Mold, (g) 3581.3
Characteristics
Volume of Mold, V(cm3) 944.0
Compacted Soil - Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5
Assumed water content, ω% 20 25 30 35 45
Actual average water content, ω% 19.51 24.71 29.16 34.64 44.57
Mass of compacted soil and mold, (g) 4889.6 4978.3 5069.2 5187.2 5178.4
Wet mass of soil in mold, Mm (g) 1308.3 1397.0 1487.9 1605.9 1597.1
Wet density, ρ, (g/cm3) 1.39 1.48 1.58 1.70 1.69
Dry density, ρd (g/cm3) 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.26 1.17
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1.30
MDD = 1.265 g/cm3
1.25
1.20
OMC = 33.8%
1.15
1.10
Measured dry density
and moisture content
1.05
Zero Air Void
1.00
145
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Test Result
Formula used:
Division of deformation = 0.01 mm/div
Division of load = 44.93 N/div
Lo = 76 mm
D = 38 mm
ΔL = Deformation dial reading(div) * 0.01 mm/div
strain (ε) = ΔL/ Lo, % strain = strain (ε) * 100
.
Ao ,
Load (P) = Load Dial Reading (div) * 44.93 N/div
Stress (τ) =
146
Table A.13 UCS test results for natural soil sample compacted with OMC
Deformation Load Sample strain (ε) % Corrected Load Stress
dial reading Dial Deformation strain Area (KN) (Kpa)
Reading (ΔL) mm (Ac)(m2)
0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
20 0.3 0.2 0.003 0.263 0.001 0.013 11.860
40 0.5 0.4 0.005 0.526 0.001 0.022 19.714
60 0.7 0.6 0.008 0.789 0.001 0.031 27.527
80 0.9 0.8 0.011 1.053 0.001 0.040 35.298
100 1.2 1 0.013 1.316 0.001 0.054 46.938
120 1.4 1.2 0.016 1.579 0.001 0.063 54.615
140 1.6 1.4 0.018 1.842 0.001 0.072 62.251
160 1.8 1.6 0.021 2.105 0.001 0.081 69.844
180 2 1.8 0.024 2.368 0.001 0.090 77.396
200 2.2 2 0.026 2.632 0.001 0.099 84.906
220 2.4 2.2 0.029 2.895 0.001 0.108 92.375
240 2.6 2.4 0.032 3.158 0.001 0.117 99.802
260 2.8 2.6 0.034 3.421 0.001 0.126 107.186
280 3 2.8 0.037 3.684 0.001 0.135 114.530
300 3.2 3 0.039 3.947 0.001 0.144 121.831
320 3.4 3.2 0.042 4.211 0.001 0.153 129.091
340 3.6 3.4 0.045 4.474 0.001 0.162 136.309
360 3.8 3.6 0.047 4.737 0.001 0.171 143.486
380 4 3.8 0.050 5.000 0.001 0.180 150.620
400 4.2 4 0.053 5.263 0.001 0.189 157.713
420 4.4 4.2 0.055 5.526 0.001 0.198 164.764
440 4.5 4.4 0.058 5.789 0.001 0.202 168.040
460 4.4 4.6 0.061 6.053 0.001 0.198 163.846
480 4.2 4.8 0.063 6.316 0.001 0.189 155.961
500 3.9 5 0.066 6.579 0.001 0.175 144.414
520 3.5 5.2 0.068 6.842 0.001 0.157 129.237
147
APPENDIX - B
Common Laboratory Test Results of Lime-treated Soil Sample
Specific Gravity (Gs) Test Result
Table B.1 Determination of Gs for 6% lime content soil sample
Specimen number 1 2 3
pycnometer number 11 16 9
Mass of sample of oven dry soil(Ms), g 26.5 26.5 26.5
Mass of pycnometer + dry soil + water (M1),g 167.59 155.99 154.81
Mass of pycnometer + water (M2),g 151.27 139.6 138.46
Test temprature 27 27 27
Specific gravity of soil at test temprature 2.60 2.62 2.61
correction factor,k 0.9983 0.9983 0.9983
specific gravity of soil at 20 °c 2.60 2.62 2.61
average specifis gravity 20 °c 2.61
Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit (LL) and Plastic Limit (PL) Test Results
Table B.2 Determination of LL and PL for 6% lime content with 7-day curing period
Characteristics Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Trial No 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Container No A-4 A-3 A-2 A-1 A-5 A-6 A-7
Mass of container, g 17.99 18.26 18.33 18.24 18.17 18.32 18.54
Mass of container + Wet
soil, g 31.3 31.41 31.89 31.41 24.91 25.36 26.17
Mass of container + Dry
soil, g 25.6 25.95 26.41 26.33 23.04 23.36 24.01
Mass of water, g 7.61 7.69 8.08 8.09 4.87 5.04 5.47
Mass of dry soil, g 5.7 5.46 5.48 5.08 1.87 2 2.16
Water content, % 74.90% 71.00% 67.82% 62.79% 38.40 39.68 39.49
No of blows 16 23 26 34 Avg = 39.19%
148
LL
76.00% Flow chart Linear (LL)
(Water Content) W%
74.00%
y = -0.0068x + 0.8605
72.00% R² = 0.991
70.00%
68.00%
66.00%
64.00%
62.00%
1 10 100
No Drop(N)
Linear Shrinkage (LS) Test Result

Table B.3 Determination of LS for 6% lime content with 7-day curing period
Original length of the mold (Lo), cm 14
length of oven dry specimen (Ld), cm 12.25
LS (%) 12.50%
Standard Compaction Test

Water Content Determination
Table B.4 Water Content Determination for 6% lime content
Water content - Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5

Moisture can number 1 2 3 4 5 6 C71 S8 S9 S10
Mass of empty, clean can +
18.53 18.51 28.89 17.93 18.45 18.33 27.27 23.93 30.20 32.13
lid, MC (g)
Mass of can, lid, and moist
39.17 42.64 40.10 30.81 30.61 27.12 42.82 40.92 45.86 47.00
soil, MCMS (g)
Mass of can, lid, and dry
35.89 38.91 37.88 28.21 27.90 25.14 38.36 36.03 40.93 42.45
soil, MCDS (g)
Mass of soil solids, MS (g) 3.28 3.73 2.22 2.60 2.71 1.98 4.46 4.89 4.93 4.55
Mass of pore water, MW (g) 17.36 20.40 8.99 10.28 9.45 6.81 11.09 12.10 10.73 10.32
Water content, ω% 18.89 18.28 24.69 25.29 28.68 29.07 40.22 40.41 45.95 44.09
Average water content, ω% 18.59 24.99 28.88 40.31 45.02
149
Density Determination
Table B.5 Density Determination for 6% lime content
Mass of Mold,(g) 3581.3

Characteristics
Volume of Mold, V(cm3) 944.0
Compacted Soil - Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5
Assumed water content, ω% 20 25 30 40 45
Actual average water content, ω% 18.62 25.00 28.92 40.27 45.02
Mass of compacted soil and mold (g) 4813.2 4946.5 5012.3 5185.0 5168.9
Wet mass of soil in mold (g) 1231.9 1365.2 1431.0 1603.7 1587.6
Wet density, ρ , (g/cm3 ) 1.30 1.45 1.52 1.70 1.68
Dry density, ρd , (g/cm3 ) 1.10 1.16 1.18 1.21 1.16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1.30
1.25
MDD = 1.213g/cm3
1.20
1.15 OMC = 40.27%
1.10
Measured dry density
1.05 and moisture content
Zero Air void
1.00
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) test result
150
Table B.6 UCS results for 6% lime content, 7-day curing period
Load Sample Corrected

Deformation strain % Load Stress
Dial Deformation Area
dial reading (ε) strain (KN) (Kpa)
Reading (ΔL) mm (Ac)(m2)
0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
20 0.6 0.2 0.003 0.263 0.001 0.027 23.720
40 1.4 0.4 0.005 0.526 0.001 0.063 55.200
60 2.4 0.6 0.008 0.789 0.001 0.108 94.378
80 3.5 0.8 0.011 1.053 0.001 0.157 137.269
100 4.6 1 0.013 1.316 0.001 0.207 179.931
120 5.4 1.2 0.016 1.579 0.001 0.243 210.660
140 6.4 1.4 0.018 1.842 0.001 0.288 249.003
160 7.2 1.6 0.021 2.105 0.001 0.323 279.377
180 8.4 1.8 0.024 2.368 0.001 0.377 325.064
200 9.4 2 0.026 2.632 0.001 0.422 362.782
220 10.4 2.2 0.029 2.895 0.001 0.467 400.291
240 11.4 2.4 0.032 3.158 0.001 0.512 437.591
260 12.5 2.6 0.034 3.421 0.001 0.562 478.511
280 13 2.8 0.037 3.684 0.001 0.584 496.296
300 13.2 3 0.039 3.947 0.001 0.593 502.554
320 13.3 3.2 0.042 4.211 0.001 0.598 504.974
340 13 3.4 0.045 4.474 0.001 0.584 492.228
360 12.6 3.6 0.047 4.737 0.001 0.566 475.768
380 12 3.8 0.050 5.000 0.001 0.539 451.861
400 11.4 4 0.053 5.263 0.001 0.512 428.078
420 10.8 4.2 0.055 5.526 0.001 0.485 404.421
151
APPENDIX - C
Pressure Plate Test Results and Shrinkage Curve Determination for Untreated
Natural Soil Sample
Pressure Plate Test Results
Determination of Saturated Water Content
M sat 1  wm 
Formula used: wsat  1
Mm
Table C.1 Determination of saturated water content
Ring no. 9 12 2
Mass of ring, g 10.65 10.95 11.13
Mass of ring +soil before saturation, g 40.65 41.29 41.63
Mass of soil before saturation (Mm), g 30.00 30.34 30.50
Mass of ring +soil after saturation 43.40 43.98 44.28
Mass of soil after saturation (Msat), g 32.75 33.03 33.15
Moisture content of before saturation (wm), % 33.75 33.25 33.42
Saturated water content (wsat), % 46.01 45.06 45.01
Average saturated water content, % 45.36
Determination of Initial Conditions for Constructing w-SWCC
Formula used:
 Gs * w

M sat
, d  , e 1 , S  G s * w sa t
V 1  wsat  d e
Table C.2 Determination of Initial conditions for constructing w-SWCC
Specific gravity 2.73

Ring No. 9 12 2
Mass of ring, g 10.65 10.95 11.13
Moisture content at saturation (%) 46.01 45.06 45.01
Volume of soil (V), cm3 19.07 19.06 19.06
Total density (ρ), g/cm3 1.72 1.73 1.74
Dry density (ρd), g/cm3 1.18 1.20 1.20
Void Ratio (e) 1.32 1.29 1.28
Degree of saturation (S), % 95.08 95.71 96.29
Average Degree of saturation, % 95.70
152
Determination of Mass of Oven Dry Soil Sample and Moisture Content after the
Last Equilibrium has Reached
 M CM S  M CDS  MD  MCDS  MC
Formula used:  (% )    *100 ,
Table C.3 Determination of mass of oven dry soil sample after the last equilibrium has
reached
Ring No. 9 12 2
Mass of ring, g 10.65 10.95 11.13
Can No. B Rc 563
Mass of can (Mc), g 35.69 37.54 36.02
Mass of can + wet soil (MCMS), g 63.56 65.7 64.4
Mass of can +dry soil (MCDS), g 58.12 60.31 58.88
Mass of dry soil (MD), g 22.43 22.77 22.86
Moisture content (ω), % 24.25 23.67 24.15
Determination of Gravimetric Water Content from Pressure Plate Apparatus with

the Respective Suction Values
  M rws  M r   M D 
Formula used:  (%)    *100
 MD 
Table C.4 Determination of gravimetric water content
Mass of
Average
Mass ring + soil Mass of Moisture
Suction Ring Moisture
of ring after Dry soil Content
(kPa) No. Content
(Mr), g equilibrium (MD), g (ω), %
(%)
(Mrws), g
9 10.65 43.40 22.43 46.01 44.95
33 12 10.95 43.87 22.77 44.58
2 11.13 44.11 22.86 44.27
9 10.65 42.89 22.43 38.98
38.69
200 12 10.95 42.45 22.77 38.33
2 11.13 42.85 22.86 38.75
9 10.65 41.09 22.43 35.69
34.32
400 12 10.95 41.42 22.77 33.80
2 11.13 41.64 22.86 33.48
800 9 10.65 39.52 22.43 28.71 29.18
12 10.95 40.36 22.77 29.16
153
2 11.13 40.78 22.86 29.68
9 10.65 39.21 22.43 27.33 28.22
1000 12 10.95 40.14 22.77 28.19
2 11.13 40.65 22.86 29.13
9 10.65 39.01 22.43 26.44 27.35
1200 12 10.95 39.92 22.77 27.23
2 11.13 40.48 22.86 28.39
9 10.65 38.52 22.43 25.77 26.48
1400 12 10.95 39.11 22.77 26.53
2 11.13 39.51 22.86 27.14
Shrinkage Curve (SC) Determination

Determination of Initial Volume-mass Properties to Initiate the SC Test
Formula used:
 M wcr  M Dcr   Gs * w
 i (%)    *100 ,  
M ws
, d  , e 1 , S  G s * w i
 M Dcr  M cr  V 1  wi  d e
Table C.5 Initial moisture content, dry density, void ratio and degree of saturation to
initiate the SC test
specific gravity 2.73

Mass of cylindrical ring (Mcr), g 40.79
Mass of wet soil +cylinder ring after saturation (Mwcr), g 151.74
Mass of dry soil +cylindrical ring (MDcr), g 114.76
Initial water content (ωi), % 49.99
Initial volume of sample (Vi), cm3 64.61
Total density of the soil after saturation (ρ), g/cm3 1.72
3
Dry density of the soil after saturation (ρd), g/cm 1.14
Initial void ratio of the soil after saturation (e) 1.38
Degree of saturation (S), % 98.58
154
Determination of Gravimetric Water Content and Void Ratio for Constructing SC
Formula used:
  * Davg
2
    Gs * w
V 
  * H avg ,  (% )   M scr  M Dcr  *100 , d  , e 1 , S  G s * w
 4   M D cr  M cr  1  w  d e
Table C.6 Determination of gravimetric water content and void ratio for constructing SC
cylindrical ring
content (ω), %
saturation (S),
Volume Determination
Mass of soil+
measurement
void ratio, e
Dry density
(ρd), g/cm3
Degree of
(Mscr), g
Moisture
No.
Volume
%
Height(cm) Diameter(cm)
(cm3)
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2.15 2.16 2.12 2.13 2.14 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 64.61 151.74 49.99 1.14 1.38 98.58
2 2.10 2.09 2.07 2.08 2.09 5.96 6.01 5.89 5.99 5.97 58.27 143.45 38.79 1.27 1.15 92.02
3 1.94 2.00 2.02 1.98 2.01 5.76 5.84 5.83 5.87 5.90 53.31 138.54 32.15 1.39 0.97 90.73
4 1.86 1.90 1.95 1.98 1.99 5.49 5.50 5.52 5.54 5.56 46.36 130.29 20.99 1.60 0.71 80.59
5 1.85 1.88 1.94 1.92 1.96 5.49 5.45 5.48 5.51 5.53 45.25 129.32 19.68 1.63 0.67 80.22
6 1.84 1.84 1.92 1.88 1.92 5.40 5.39 5.46 5.45 5.47 43.60 125.77 14.88 1.70 0.61 66.71
7 1.84 1.84 1.83 1.87 1.90 5.39 5.36 5.38 5.42 5.44 42.48 124.35 12.96 1.74 0.57 62.35
8 1.82 1.81 1.82 1.83 1.85 5.36 5.34 5.37 5.39 5.41 41.42 123.12 11.30 1.79 0.53 58.37
9 1.81 1.79 1.81 1.83 1.88 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.39 41.19 122.61 10.61 1.80 0.52 55.70
10 1.81 1.79 1.81 1.83 1.87 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 41.11 121.92 9.68 1.80 0.52 51.08
11 1.79 1.77 1.80 1.82 1.83 5.31 5.34 5.36 5.36 5.38 40.51 114.76 0.00 1.83 0.50 0.00
155
APPENDIX - D
Pressure Plate Test Results and Shrinkage Curve Determination for Lime-treated
Soil Sample
Pressure Plate Test Results
Determination of Saturated Water Content
Table D.1 Determination of saturated water content for 6% lime content with 7-day
curing period
Ring no. 10 2 7
Mass of ring, g 11.18 11.13 10.92
Mass of ring +soil before saturation, g 35.12 34.79 34.63
Mass of soil before saturation (Mm), g 23.94 23.66 23.71
Moisture content of before saturation (wm), % 40.08 39.27 39.50
Saturated water content (wsat), % 42.01 40.03 41.02
Average saturated water content, % 41.02
Determination of Initial Conditions for Constructing w-SWCC
Table D.2 Determination of Initial conditions for constructing w-SWCC

Specific gravity 2.61
Ring No. 10 2 7
Mass of ring, g 11.18 11.13 10.92
Moisture content at saturation (%) 42.01 40.03 41.02
Volume of soil (V), cm3 14.68 14.26 14.53
Total density (ρ), g/cm3 1.65 1.67 1.65
Dry density (ρd), g/cm3 1.16 1.19 1.17
Void Ratio (e) 1.24 1.19 1.23
Degree of saturation (S), % 88.29 87.75 86.97
Average Degree of saturation, % 87.67
156
Determination of Mass of Oven Dry Soil Sample and Moisture Content After the Last
Equilibrium has Reached
Table D.3 Determination of mass of oven dry soil sample after the last equilibrium has
reached
Ring No. 10 2 7
Mass of ring, g 11.18 11.13 10.92
Can No. T37 L2 T21
Mass of can (Mc), g 39.5 37.54 40.94
Mass of can + wet soil (MCMS), g 60.18 57.93 61.45
Mass of can +dry soil (MCDS), g 56.59 54.53 57.94
Mass of dry soil (MD), g 17.09 16.99 17.00
Moisture content (ω), % 21.01 20.02 20.67
Determination of Gravimetric Water Content from Pressure Plate Apparatus with
the Respective Suction Values
Table D.4 Determination of gravimetric water content
Mass of
Average
Mass of ring + soil Mass of Moisture
Suction Ring Moisture
ring after Dry soil Content
(kPa) No. Content
(Mr), g equilibrium (MD), g (ω), %
(%)
(Mrws), g
10 11.18 35.23 17.09 40.74
33 2 11.13 34.78 16.99 39.23 40.11
7 10.92 34.78 17.00 40.35
10 11.18 34.46 17.09 36.22
200 2 11.13 34.18 16.99 35.67 35.97
7 10.92 34.04 17.00 36.01
10 11.18 33.59 17.09 31.14
400 2 11.13 33.23 16.99 30.09 30.75
7 10.92 33.19 17.00 31.02
10 11.18 32.57 17.09 25.16
800 2 11.13 32.05 16.99 23.12 24.22
7 10.92 32.06 17.00 24.37
10 11.18 32.25 17.09 23.26
1000 2 11.13 31.78 16.99 21.56 22.60
7 10.92 31.82 17.00 22.97
10 11.18 32.04 17.09 22.06
1200 2 11.13 31.57 16.99 20.34 21.45
7 10.92 31.65 17.00 21.96
10 11.18 31.86 17.09 21.01
1400 2 11.13 31.52 16.99 20.02 20.57
7 10.92 31.43 17.00 20.67
157
Table D.5 Initial moisture content, dry density, void ratio and degree of saturation to initiate the SC test
specific gravity 2.61
Mass of cylindrical ring (Mcr), g 39.20
Mass of wet soil +cylinder ring after saturation (Mwcr), g 143.15
Mass of dry soil +cylindrical ring (MDcr), g 113.36
Initial water content (ωi), % 40.17
Initial volume of sample (Vi), cm3 60.38
Total density of the soil after saturation (ρ), g/cm3 1.72
Dry density of the soil after saturation (ρd), g/cm3 1.23
Initial void ratio of the soil after saturation (e) 1.13
Degree of saturation (S), % 93.19
Table D.6 Determination of gravimetric water content and void ratio for constructing SC
Moisture content
saturation (S), %
Dry density (ρd),
cylindrical ring
Volume Determination
Mass of soil+
Measurement
void ratio, e
Degree of
(Mscr), g
(ω), %
g/cm3
No.
Volume
Height(cm) Diameter(cm)
(cm3)
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 60.38 143.15 40.17 1.23 1.13 93.19
2 1.99 2.00 1.99 1.99 2.00 6.18 6.17 6.17 6.18 6.17 59.70 142.17 38.85 1.24 1.10 92.10
3 1.99 1.99 1.98 1.99 1.97 6.11 6.10 6.09 6.09 6.09 57.91 139.37 35.07 1.28 1.04 88.19
4 1.98 1.99 1.98 1.98 1.97 6.06 6.04 6.03 6.01 6.02 56.58 136.42 31.09 1.31 0.99 81.87
5 1.98 1.99 1.98 1.98 1.97 6.01 6.02 6.01 6.01 6.01 56.21 134.88 29.02 1.32 0.98 77.43
6 1.97 1.99 1.98 1.98 1.96 5.99 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 55.83 129.67 21.99 1.33 0.96 59.48
7 1.97 1.98 1.97 1.97 1.95 5.99 6.00 5.99 6.00 6.00 55.57 126.72 18.02 1.33 0.96 49.20
8 1.97 1.98 1.97 1.97 1.95 5.99 6.00 5.99 6.00 6.00 55.57 123.87 14.17 1.33 0.96 38.70
9 1.96 1.97 1.96 1.96 1.95 5.99 6.00 5.99 6.00 5.99 55.31 122.14 11.84 1.34 0.95 32.65
10 1.96 1.97 1.96 1.96 1.94 5.99 6.00 5.99 6.00 5.99 55.25 120.79 10.02 1.34 0.94 27.69
11 1.96 1.97 1.96 1.96 1.93 5.99 6.00 5.99 6.00 5.99 55.19 113.36 0.00 1.34 0.94 0.00
158
159

Muna Mohammed Seid- (MSc. Thesis Final, 2021)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Muna Mohammed Seid- (MSc. Thesis Final, 2021)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DSpace Institution

DSpace Repository http://dspace.org

Muna, Mohammed Seid

MUNA MOHAMMED SEID

Evaluation of the Improvement Effect of Lime on Expansive Soil

Muna Mohammed Seid

Dr. Tezera Firew Azmatch

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

©2021 Muna Mohammed Seid

Name of the Candidate Signature Date

This work is dedicated to

Table 2. 1 Techniques for identifying the mineralogy of the expansive soils……………. 9

Figure 2. 1 Diagrammatic sketch of a) Octahedral sheet; b) Tetrahedral sheet .................. 7

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ua Pore air pressure

uw Pore water pressure

   Gravimetric water content at any soil suction, ψ

s Saturated gravimetric water content

1.1. Background of the Study

1.2. Statement of the Problem

1.3. Objective of the Study

1.3.1. General Objective

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this study are:

1.4. Scope of the Study

1.5. Significance of the Study

2.2. Review on Expansive Soils

2.2.2. Origin of Expansive Soils

Figure 2. 2 Principal Clay minerals: a) Symbolic representation of the sheet structures; b)

2.2.4. Distribution of Expansive Soils in Ethiopia

2.2.5. Damages from Expansive Soils

2.2.6. Identification and Classification of Expansive Soils

2.2.6.1 Field Identification of Expansive Soils

2.2.6.2 Laboratory Identification

Mineralogical, direct, and indirect identification techniques are used in laboratories to

Table 2. 1 Techniques for identifying the mineralogy of the expansive soils

Techniques Properties and parameters determined

II. Indirect Methods

Tests Properties investigated

III. Direct Method

2.2.7. Classification of Expansive Soils

Degree of activity Activity

Table 2. 4 Classification of Expansive Soils based on USBR Method.

Table 2. 5 Classification of Expansive soils according to Chen (1988).

The percentage Plasticity Swelling Swelling

Table 2. 6 Shrinkage limits and Degree of Expansion according to Altmeyer (1955).

Shrinkage limit (%) Linear Shrinkage (%) Degree of Expansion

Index tests Usually non-problematic Almost always problematic

Free Swell (%) Degree of expansion

Free Swell Ratio Expansion potential Clay Type

2.2.8. Stabilization of Expansive Soils

2.2.8.1 Lime Stabilization

2.2.8.1.1 Availability of Lime in Ethiopia

2.2.8.1.2 Role of Lime Stabilization

2.2.8.1.3 Chemical Reactions in Lime Stabilized Soils

Table 2. 10 Chemical composition of hydrated lime (Solomon, 2011).

II. Flocculation and Agglomeration

III. Lime Carbonation Reactions

IV. Pozzolanic Reactions

2.2.8.1.4 The Soil-Lime Proportion Requirement for Soil Stabilization

Table 2.11 presents a summary of previous studies on stabilization of expansive soils.

Researcher Material Used Test Method Major Finding

According to Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), many materials encountered in engineering

2.3.2. Role of Climate