ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Article
Revised

A comparative study of red brick powder and lime as soft soil stabilizer

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
PUBLISHED 20 Jul 2022
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research Synergy Foundation gateway.

Abstract

Background: The role of soil in building construction is to support the loads above it. Different types of soil with poor mechanical properties require more attention. Therefore, more effort is needed to stabilize the soil by improving its properties. These improvements are intended to modify soil properties to improve engineering performance, such as strength, decrease in compressibility and permeability. This study aimed to compare the potential of lime and brick powder as stabilizers based on the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values. Soil stabilization can be defined as modifying the soil properties by chemical or physical means to improve its engineering efficiency. The main objectives of stabilizing soil are increasing its bearing capacity, resistance to weathering processes, and permeability.
Methods: This work did laboratory tests with disturbed and undisturbed soil samples. The proportions of lime or red brick powder additives are 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of the soil sample. From the results of the laboratory tests, the soil type obtained is MH (low plasticity silt) as per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
Results: This study showed that soft soil could be improved by adding lime and red brick powder as a soil stabilizer. In both soaked and unsoaked CBR tests, there was an increase in the CBR value for each proportion of the mixed additives. However, the red brick powder addition (15%) has significantly increased the CBR value.
Conclusions: The soil sample mixed with 15% red brick powder had the highest Maximum Dry Density (MDD), about 5.5% over untreated soil. The increment of lime to 15% has increased the CBR soaked by 61% in relation to untreated soil. The increment of red brick powder to 15% has increased the CBR unsoaked by 73% in relation to untreated soil.

Keywords

Soft soil, lime, brick powder, CBR, hambalang

Revised Amendments from Version 1

1. The authors have been citing current literature dealing with similar investigations and highlighting the contribution of this work that differs from similar studies.
2. The authors state the sources and content of the additives used for soil stabilization.
3. Statements that are not directly related have been deleted.
4. All figures have been adjusted.
5. The conclusion has been rewritten based on the author's work.
6. The grammatical errors have been corrected.

To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table.

Introduction

Soil is considered to be a three-phase system consisting of soil particles, pores (air) between its particles, and liquid (water) which varying degrees, fills and flows through the pores.1 Based on the particle size of soil, there are several types of soil, namely gravel, sand, silt, clay.2 The large content of silt and clay in soil affects its geotechnical characteristics that can vary: shrink when dry, and expand when wet; in the presence of water, they swell and become plastic.3 Constructions such as buildings, highways, bridges, tunnels, dams, and towers are established on the ground that functions to support the loads above it.4 Engineers often have problems using soft soil, which has; weak mechanical properties. Soft soil is a cohesive soil consisting of very small grains, characterized by low shear strength and high compressibility, which does not possess sufficient strength to support loads. It is necessary to treat these soils to provide a stable subgrade and avoid excessive land subsidence. A soil is categorized as soft soil if its shear strength value is 12 – 25 kPa.5

For these reasons, soft soils need treatment before they can be used as a material subgrade by enhancing their engineering properties. Soil stabilization aims at improving soil properties and increases its resistance to softening by water. In principle, it means rearranging soil grains for them to be very tight and interlocked together.6,7 The stabilization process, which is mixing soil with additives, can change the texture or plasticity of soil, its gradation, or act as a binder for soil cementation.8

In recent years, a considerable number of field and laboratory experiments have been carried out using various additives, such as lime,911 silica fume,12 and fly ash.13,14 However, not much research has been done on soil stabilization using red brick powder as a soil stabilizer.15,16 Moreover, every red brick manufacturer knows its history, which does not always have the same characteristics. This could indicate differences in the test results at every location.17 Therefore, it is necessary to do more research on the effect of red brick powder on soil stability. Also, the stabilizing effect of lime and red brick powder are compared in this work. The influence of lime on the geotechnical qualities of soft soil was examined by conducting the CBR test. The CBR values for the soil mixture progressively increased.18,19 Similar outcomes were observed by Refs. 2022 when employing waste brick powder as a soil stabilizer.

The study aims to compare the potential of lime and brick powder in stabilizing soft soil. Soil stabilization parameters were measured based on their effect on the CBR values of soaked and unsoaked soil samples. This test is a penetration test which entails inserting an object into the test object. Through this way, the strength of the base or other materials used to make the pavement can be assessed. As soil is not always in a dry condition, it would not be enough to do the CBR test with unsoaked soil samples; it must be done also with soaked soil. Soaking simulates adverse moisture conditions such as those caused by possible rain or flooding, and it is used in most CBR test. The difference between the soaked and unsoaked CBR testing procedure is that in the soaked CBR, the soil sample that has been molded is first soaked for 4 days (96 hours) by placing a standard load of 10 lb above the mold and then penetration test is carried out afterward. The mixed proportions of lime or red brick powder are 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% by dry weight of the soft soil. In this study, the index and engineering properties of the soft soil and treated soil were tested. Index properties test includes testing moisture content, specific gravity, Atterberg limit, and grain size analysis. While testing the soil with a variation of the mixture of lime or red brick powder, the standard compaction test and CBR analysis are carried out.

Lime is commonly used as additional material for soil stabilization, especially for the construction of highways. Lime reacts with soil and changes its mineral properties. This is due to its reaction with calcium ions, which leads to the formation of cementitious holding capacity of soil (decreases moisture content), reduced swelling, and improved soil stability.23 Previous studies24,25 revealed that the stabilization of subgrades by lime could significantly improve their engineering properties. Using lime for soil stabilization gives long-term strength gain, developed through a long-term pozzolanic reaction.26

Alumina and silica are the main elements in brick obtained from the combination of clay and sand, which are the main ingredients for making bricks. After the mixture of clay, sand, and water becomes plastic and easy to form, the brick is burned at a high temperature until a reddish colour is obtained. It cannot be broken down when immersed in water. Red brick has refractory properties and can withstand compressive loads.27 There are scanty research works that have used red brick powder as a stabilizer because it is not commonly used. Each area has different red brick characteristics. Previous research has found that CBR results substantially improved the primary strength parameters of soil by using brick powder.28

Methods

Material and sampling

The type of soil used in this research is soft soil located in Hambalang, Bogor. The rock that makes up the area at the top is in the form of Quaternary volcanic breccia; it is less compacted, with its surface utterly weathered into sandy clay. Its colour is gray-brown, it is soft and 0.30-1.50 meters thick. In the breccia unit, the localities have lenses or inserts that are flaky, swollen, stiff, partially scraped, and soft when exposed to the surface. Their colour is gray to brownish-gray. Figure 1 shows a systematic geological map of Bogor, Indonesia.29 The green area is the sampling location used in this study, where the surficial deposits show clay shale.

cfc86362-5ee1-490b-8163-77beba712de1_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Systematic geological map of Hambalang, Bogor, Indonesia.29

It is reproduced with permission from the Head of the Geological Survey Institute of Indonesia.

Experimental technique

The method used in this research is a descriptive method, with tests conducted in the laboratory. Soil samples were taken in October during rainy season near the project site of the homestead of Athlete Hambalang, Bogor, Indonesia. Its geographical coordinates are 6°33′14.5″S and 106°53′22.1″E. Soil sampling was taken from a depth of 1 m to approximately 200 kilograms. Soil materials used for the test were disturbed and undisturbed soil samples. The undisturbed soil sample was used for dry density and engineering properties testing. The test was applied to identify the existing soil. Also, several stages of the laboratory tests were carried out with the disturbed samples. The laboratory test included (i) index properties of soil test, (ii) standard Proctor compaction test, and (iii) soaked and unsoaked CBR test. Index properties of soil test included specific gravity, sieve analysis, hydrometer test, and Atterberg limit used to determine the classification of soil. Before the compaction and CBR test was started, the soil sample was dried and filtered with sieve number 4 (smaller than 4.75 mm). Also, lime and brick powder were filtered with sieve number 40 (smaller than 0.475 mm). Lime were obtained from Klapanunggal District, Bogor, West Java and brick powder were obtained from the waste generated by brick industries in the Bogor area. The additives were mixed as a percentage of 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of soft soil ratio by weight. In the Standard Proctor test, each mixture of the additives required 6 samples with the composition of each sample being 2 kg of soil mixed with either lime or brick powder, based on the percentage determined by each sample. Each percentage of the mixture has 6 samples where the total sample is 48 for lime and brick powder. Furthermore, the Standard Proctor test was carried out to obtain optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) for each mixed sample of the various proportions of lime and brick powder. The CBR test compares the resistance to penetration of the test specimen to that of a standard sample of well-graded crushed stone material using a standard-sized piston in a simple empirical approach. CBR test is one of the ways used to measure the bearing capacity of subgrades.30 Based on the OMC obtained from the standard Proctor test, we could use the OMC for the next stage, that is, to conduct the soaked and unsoaked CBR test with various mixtures of the additives. Each mixture of the additives required 2 samples, with the composition of each sample being 5 kg of soil mixed with lime or brick powder, based on the percentage determined by each sample. So for each soaked and unsoaked CBR test, 8 samples are needed. CBR tests were carried to study the behavior and bearing capacity of the soil when mixed with the additives (lime and brick powder). After molding the soil shape, each soil samples used for the soaked CBR test was soaked in water for 4 days (96 hours), before the penetration test. While in the unsoaked CBR test, no soaking was carried out, but a direct penetration test. The sample was left in the mold to be used for penetration test. The piston was placed on the sample with the perforated plate and the necessary surcharge weights were place on the soil. Loading began at a rate of 0.05 in (12.7 mm) per minute. Test loads were recorded at eleven predefined depths of up to 0.500in as the piston entered the soil (13 mm). All these tests are also referred to as ASTM standards.3136 Manufacturers of the dial gauge equipment used Mitutoyo analog type.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis using 2nd order polynomial regression was done on the moisture content and dry density data. The software used was Microsoft Excel 2019. Polynomial relation regression results show quadratic regression function and coefficient of determination (R2). The coefficient of determination is a statistical measurement that shows how much ability the independent variable has in explaining the dependent variable. A value close to 1.0 indicates a regression function that explains a lot of the function variable. This makes it a very reliable model for forecasting the future. While a value close to 0.0 indicates that the calculation fails to simulate the data accurately.

Results and discussion

The physical and mechanical properties of the soil can be seen in Table 1.39 The soil samples contained more than 95% fine-grains, with size smaller than 0.075 mm. Based on the results, Hambalang soils can be classified as soft soils with high plasticity (symbol MH based on the Unified Soil Classification System) due to their undrained shear strength of >25 kPa. Also, in a previous report, the Department of Settlements and Regional Infrastructure classifies Hambalang soil as fat clay because it has a high swelling potential.

Table 1. Properties of soil.

ParametersUnitValue
A. Index properties
Moisture Content%33.6
Specific Gravity (Gs)%2.67
Liquid Limit%58.3
Plastic Limit%41.8
Plasticity Index%16.5
Dry densitykN/m31.58
B. Grain size distribution
% Gravel%0
% Sand%4.55
% Silt and Clay%95.45
C. Engineering properties
Triaxial UU
Ҩ-12.47
Undrained shear strengthkPa17.9
E. Classification
USCS-MH
F. Bearing capacity
CBR Soaked at (MDD)%3.5
CBR Unsoaked at (MDD)%15.7

Figures 2 and 3 show the relations between moisture content against the dry density for the various proportions of lime and brick powder obtained from the compaction test. The figures also show the influence of lime and brick powder on the OMC of the soil.

cfc86362-5ee1-490b-8163-77beba712de1_figure2.gif

Figure 2. Moisture content vs dry density stabilized with lime.

cfc86362-5ee1-490b-8163-77beba712de1_figure3.gif

Figure 3. Moisture content vs dry density stabilized with red brick powder.

Lime and brick powder have notable effect on the soil's MDD in all the mixed samples. The highest is observed in the samples with 15% additive, where the value increased from 1.58 for the soil not mixed to 1.7 for the soil mixed with 15% lime and 1.68 for the soil mixed with 15% brick powder. These were obtained at OMC of 21.12% for brick powder and 21.06% for lime. Optimum moisture in the compaction test was used as a mixture in the CBR test. The MDD of the soil samples increased because lime and brick powder have relatively higher specific gravities than soil. When the proportion of lime and brick powder increases, the MDD of the soil increases compared to the soil. The increase in water content at MDD conditions can be seen in Figures 2 and 3. This can occur because of the pozzolanic reaction, which causes the maximum density conditions to require a little more water.

As seen in Figure 4, the MDD of the mixture of lime and brick powder is at the 15% additive level. The increase in dry bulk density (γd) was due to additional material filling the cavities in the soil, decreasing the pore number. A decrease in the incidence of an increase in soil density leads to an increase in dry density.

cfc86362-5ee1-490b-8163-77beba712de1_figure4.gif

Figure 4. The dry density of the soil with different additive levels.

The CBR soaked and unsoaked tests were carried out with the soil from lime and red brick powder at predetermined levels (5%, 10%, and 15%) by observing any changes in the CBR value at the top and bottom. The relationship between the addition of lime and red brick powder to the soil on the CBR values of soaked and unsoaked is shown in Figure 5.

cfc86362-5ee1-490b-8163-77beba712de1_figure5.gif

Figure 5. CBR soaked and unsoaked values.

The results of the test data on the discovery of CBR values that were soaked and unsoaked increased with the addition of lime or red brick powder. This is because the soil grains and additives react with one another in a process known as pozzolanization reaction. In treated soil, the strength generated is determined by the strength of the grain and the friction between the grains. So, the increased strength of the soil is not only a pozzolanization reaction but also friction between grains. This finding agrees with another result, which explained the strength of mixed soils in different cases.37

The highest CBR value of lime and red brick powder is found in the 15% mixture. The CBR-soaked result for lime has a higher value (7.58%) than that of brick powder (4.55%). While the CBR unsoaked result of red brick powder has the highest CBR value (19.2%) compared to lime (16.91%).

The CBR soaked value is smaller than the CBR unsoaked value because, at the time of immersion, the water initially fills the pore cavities. Over time, the size of the soil grains expands to their maximum when the water is saturated. In these conditions, the bonds between the soil grains become weak so that the bearing capacity of the soil decreases. This result is similar to another finding which showed that the more saturated the soil is, the less its bearing capacity.38

The increase in CBR value is due to the cementation process, which makes the soil clump, thus increasing the binding power between the grains. This makes the pore cavity to be surrounded by a more rigid cementation material, which results in the grains becoming strong and not easily destroyed.24

Conclusions

This study examined lime and red brick powder in a few geotechnical engineering applications to improve the strength of soft soil. The soft soil samples have undertaken a thorough laboratory test, including Specific gravity, Sieve analysis, Hydrometer test, Atterberg limit, Proctor test, and CBR. The soft soil mixed with lime and red brick powder (0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% by dry weight of the soft soil). The MDD of the soil sample increases when mixed in various proportions of lime and red brick powder. The soil sample mixed with 15% of additives had the highest MDD. The increment of red brick powder into the soil progressively caused an increase in MDD by 5.5% when the red brick powder ratio was increased to 15%. The soaked and unsoaked CBR values increased with lime and red brick powder variation. The highest CBR soaked value is obtained from a lime mixture of 15%. The increase is 61% over that of the untreated soil. The highest CBR unsoaked value is obtained from a 15% addition of red brick powder. The increase is 73% over that of the untreated soil.

Data availability

Underlying data

Zenodo: A comparative study of red brick powder and lime as soft soil stabilizer (Dataset). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5028251.39

This project contains the following underlying data:

  • - CBR soaked and unsoaked 10(percent) Mixed with Lime.xlsx

  • - CBR soaked and unsoaked 15(percent) Mixed with Lime.xlsx

  • - CBR soaked and unsoaked 5(percent) Mixed with Lime.xlsx

  • - CBR soaked and unsoaked resume value mixed percentage.xlsx

  • - CBR soaked and unsoaked soil.xlsx

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Aug 2021
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Salimah A, Hazmi M, Fathur Rouf Hasan M et al. A comparative study of red brick powder and lime as soft soil stabilizer [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 10:777 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27835.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 20 Jul 2022
Revised
Views
7
Cite
Reviewer Report 22 May 2023
Chinchu Cherian, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 7
1. General comments:
  • The article titled "A comparative study of red brick powder and lime as soft soil stabilizer", authored by Salimah et al., presents a laboratory study conducted to understand the effects of lime or red
... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Cherian C. Reviewer Report For: A comparative study of red brick powder and lime as soft soil stabilizer [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 10:777 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136027.r171917)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
7
Cite
Reviewer Report 10 May 2023
Hamid Gadouri, Geomaterials Laboratory, Civil Engineering Department, Universite Hassiba Benbouali de Chlef, Chlef, Chlef Province, Algeria 
Brahim Meziani, Earth Sciences Department, Universite de Khemis Miliana, Khemis Miliana, Aïn Defla Province, Algeria 
Approved
VIEWS 7
1. General comments:

The article titled "A comparative study of red brick powder and lime as soft soil stabilizer", authored by Aisyah Salimah et al., presents a practical study aimed at understanding the laboratory tests with disturbed ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Gadouri H and Meziani B. Reviewer Report For: A comparative study of red brick powder and lime as soft soil stabilizer [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 10:777 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136027.r171916)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
14
Cite
Reviewer Report 08 Aug 2022
Reginald B. Kogbara, Mechanical Engineering Program, Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar;  Department of Environmental Engineering, İzmir Institute of Technology, İzmir, Turkey 
Approved
VIEWS 14
The article has ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Kogbara RB. Reviewer Report For: A comparative study of red brick powder and lime as soft soil stabilizer [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 10:777 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.136027.r144746)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 09 Aug 2021
Views
22
Cite
Reviewer Report 22 Jun 2022
Reginald B. Kogbara, Mechanical Engineering Program, Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar;  Department of Environmental Engineering, İzmir Institute of Technology, İzmir, Turkey 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 22
The paper concisely describes experiments aimed at investigating the effect of lime and red brick powder on soft soil stabilization. Specifically, its use of red brick powder for soil stabilization allows for beneficial reuse of what might otherwise be a ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Kogbara RB. Reviewer Report For: A comparative study of red brick powder and lime as soft soil stabilizer [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 10:777 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.30780.r138934)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
27
Cite
Reviewer Report 10 Nov 2021
A. U. Ravi Shankar, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Mangalore, Karnataka, India 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 27
The authors have conducted laboratory investigation to improve CBR of silty soil by using red brick powder and lime. The authors stabilized fine grain soil with and brick powder. The CBR values improved up 15 % addition of red brick ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Shankar AUR. Reviewer Report For: A comparative study of red brick powder and lime as soft soil stabilizer [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 10:777 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.30780.r91503)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Aug 2021
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.