Buildin9 and Environment, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 57~61, 1986 0360-1323/86 $3.00+ 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Journals Ltd.

The Potentials of Some Stabilizers for the

Use of Lateritic Soil in Construction

MD. ANISUR RAHMAN*

Lateritic soil was stabilized with various percentages of rice husk ash (RHA), lime and cement.
Atterberff limits, standard Proctor compaction, unconfined compression and California bearin9 ratio
tests were carried out on lateritic soil with various percentaoes of these stabilizers in order to examine
their influence. The required amounts of ash, lime and cement were determined for economical
stabilization. This paper presents the potentials of rice husk ash compared to lime and cement in
lateritic soil stabilization. For road construction, it recommends 7% cementfor base materials, 5% lime
for sub-base materials and 18% rice husk ash for sub-base materials.

INTRODUCTION from the Latin word 'later' meaning brick. Much research
work has been carried out on lateritic soils in many
LATERITIC soils have been one of the maj or highway and
different countries over the years and detailed reviews of
building materials in all the tropical and sub-tropical
available literature have already been presented by Bawa
countries of the world for a long time. Base and sub-base
[2], Maignien [3], Little [4], Lyon Associates [5] and
materials for most of the highways, and walls of a large
Gidigasu [6]. In the recent past, investigations have been
percentage of residential houses in rural areas have been
carried out with some Nigerian lateritic soils in order to
built and continue to be built with lateritic soils that use
determine their usefulness in the building industry and
different types of stabilizer. Many types of stabilizer have
highway construction and some encouraging results have
been used in different parts of the world in soil stabilization
been obtained. Ola [7] has reported that less than 50% of
for various civil engineering works. Some of these
the cement requirement for the temperate zone soils is
materials are not available in some parts and some are
required for effective stabilization of lateritic soils. It has
uneconomical to produce for local construction purposes.
also been reported by Ola [8] that Nigerian lateritic soils
This problem calls for urgent research in order to use local
could be potentially stabilized with lime. For use as
waste materials as substitutes. Two such materials are
masonry units in building construction, approximately
lateritic soils and rice husk ash which are abundant all over
10% of cement will be needed to stabilize lateritic soils to
the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world. Rice is
produce blocks of the same order of compressive strength
grown in more than 75 countries and each has the problem
as for sandcrete blocks. This fact was reported by Lasisi
of utilization or disposal of this low-value by-product.
[9]. Nigerian lateritic soils were stabilized with lime,
The main purpose of this research work is to investigate
cement and bitumen by Ola [10] and he pointed out
the influences of rice husk ash (RHA), lime and cement on
that these stabilized soils could be used for highway
Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics, unconfined
construction and low-cost housing. Mesida [11-1 has
compressive strength and California bearing ratio of
established that soils in Okitipupa areas of Ondo State
lateritic soils. This paper also compares the potentials of
need only 10-12% cement for stabilization to become
RHA with lime and cement in lateritic soil stabilization.
reliable for building purposes in that area.
This investigation will help in appropriate utilization
Korisa [12], and Lazaro and Moh [13] have given the
of lateritic soils in highway construction works. The
chemical composition of RHA shown in Table 1. It is to be
knowledge of practical usefulness of RHA as an alternative
to cement and lime in lateritic soil will not only benefit the
highway works but also other civil engineeringworks such
Table 1. Chemical composition of rice husk ash
as the construction of airfields, earthdams, rendering of
walls, low-cost housing, etc. Chemical composition Korisa [ 1 2 ] Lazaro and
(%) Sample 1 Sample2 Moh [13]

PREVIOUS WORKS Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 94.50 93.50 88.66

Calcium oxide (CaO) 0.25 2.28 0.75
The term 'lateritic' was first used by Buchanan [1] to Magnesium oxide (MgO) 0.23 -- 3.53
describe ferruginous, vesicular, unstratified and porous Sodium oxide (Na20) 0.78 -- --
material with yellow ochres caused by its high iron content, Potassium oxide (K20) 1.10 3.15 --
Ferric oxide (Fe2Os) traces 1.01 0.36
occurring abundantly in Malabar (India). It was locally
Phosphorus oxide (P2Os) 0.53 -- --
used as bricks for buildings, and hence the name 'laterite' Aluminium oxide (A12Os) traces traces 1.48
Manganese oxide (MnO2) traces traces --
Carbon dioxide (CO 2) -- -- 0.51
* Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Loss on ignition -- -- 3.80
Nigeria.

57
58 Md. A. Rahman
noted that silicon dioxide is somewhat more than 93% of
the fully burnt RHA. The properties of RHA depend
greatly on whether the husks had undergone complete
destructive distillation or had only been partially burnt.
This was reported by Houstin [14] who also classified
RHA into : (1) high-carbon char, (2) low-carbon (gray) ash
and (3) carbon-free (pink or white) ash.
Grist [15] reported that rice husks had been used in
building materials in India. These included light-weight
concrete briquettes made partly from husks. Insulating
bricks were also made with cement and RHA and these
resisted very high temperatures and were suitable for use in
furnaces. Korisa [12] remarked that treated husks act as
an inert and suitable aggregate which has been used in
pressed insulating boards, high quality cement tiles and
cement blocks. These blocks are rat proof and not
damaged by water nor subject to shrinkage or warping.
Lazaro and Moh [-13] studied lime-RHA mixtures as a
stabilizer with deltaic clays and found that considerable
improvement of the deltaic clays could be obtained by the
addition of RHA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used in this research work are lateritic soil,
RHA, lime and ordinary Portland cement.
Description of soil samples
The lateritic soil samples were collected from the
Universityoflfe campus, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, at a depth of 1.5 m
below the ground surface in order to avoid vegetable
matter. The general properties of the original lateritic soil
were determined by various laboratory tests and are
shown in Table 2. These laboratory tests were performed in
accordance with British Standards. This lateritic soil was
classified into A-7-6 group in accordance with the AASHO
[16] method of classification.
Preparation of rice husk ash
Rice husks were collected from Ekpoma, Bendel State,
Nigeria, Their natural moisture content was 6~o. Rice
husks were burnt with the help of a simple combustion
chamber shown in Fig. 1. This chamber was designed by
Williams and Sompong [17] and consisted of a drum, a
circular pipe and a gauze. The size of drum was 0.6 m in
diameter and 0.8 m in height. Compressed air was fed into a
circular pipe (with 3-mm-diameter holes) which was fixed
in the lower part of the drum. The rice husk was placed on
Table 2. Properties of original lateritic soil
Tests Results
Natural moisture content (%) 8.02
Liquid limit (~) 49.80
Plastic limit (~) 22.60
Plasticity index (~) 27.20
Specific gravity 2.64
passing No. 200 BS sieve 45.30
Unconfined compressive strength (kPa) 211.20
California bearing ratio (~) 7.73
Cohesion (kPa) 123.00
Angle of internal friction (degrees) 12.80
Group index 7.73
- - R i c e husk ash
gouze 3.0ram
1
Air
Fig. 1. Combustion chamber for preparation of rice husk ash.
the gauze which was fixed 50 mm above the circular pipe.
The rice husk was ignited by a match and compressed air
was supplied until the combustion was finished. The
percentage of whitish gray ash was about 19.3. Ignition of
the ash at 800C showed that the remaining organic
content was less than 3%. Specific gravity of the ash was
determined as 2.35.
Experimental procedures
A series of laboratory tests were carried out on A-7-6
group lateritic soil with various percentages of RHA, lime
and cement. The percentages of RHA were 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20
and 24. The percentages of both lime and cement were 0, 2,
4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. The tests were Atterberg limits, grain size
analysis, specific gravity, standard Proctor compaction,
unconfined compression and California bearing ratio. All
tests were performed in accordance with British Standard
Specifications [18].
It is to be noted that the wet sieving method and the
hydrometer method were carried out on the soil for the
grain size analysis. The wet sieving method was used in
order to avoid false larger size of soil grains and obtain an
accurate grain size analysis.
Each stabilizer was thoroughly mixed with soil in a large
tray. Mixing was carried out by hand. All soil-stabilizer
samples used in unconfined compression and California
bearing ratio tests were compacted at optimum moisture
content. Different optimum moisture contents for different
percentages of stabilizers were determined by the standard
Proctor compaction test.
Larger specimens for the unconfined compression test
were moulded with the same compactive effort and mould
used in the compaction test. Smaller cylindrical specimens
were prepared from the moulded sample with the help of a
wire saw and soil lathe. A length~tiameter ratio of 2.0 was
utilized for all test specimens in compression tests. The
dimensions of every specimen were 78 mm in length and
39 mm in diameter. Specimens were air-cured at room
temperature for one day and seven days before being
loaded in compression. The room temperature was
low and humidity was very high. Samples were sheared
under strain-controlled test and the rate of strain was
1.14 mm m i n - 1.
The specimens for the California bearing ratio test were
moulded in the CBR mould with the same compactive
 Stabilizers for the Use of Lateritic Soil in Construction 59

Table 3. Effects of stabilizers on Atterberg limits of lateritic soil 60 i I I , I I I I I I I r.

RHA
(%)

0
LL
(%)

49.8
PL
(%)

22.6
PI
(%)

27.2
Lime
(%)

0
LL
(%)

50.2
PL
(%)

24.9
PI
(%)

25.3
0~o
50

: 30
~ I - = _ ~=L.LRL" ~, ~L.L.

P.L
osh
.

4 51.4 26.1 25.3 2 50.9 29.9 21.0

8 52.2 29.5 22.7 4 51.7 33.8 17.9
1c
12
16
20
52.6
53.4
54.3
31.9
35.2
38.6
20.7
18.2
15.7
6
8
10
52.3
53.3
54.0
38.3
42.9
47.7
14.0
10.4
6.3
i0 /, 8 12 16 20 2/,
Stobilizer Contents (%)
24 -- -- -- 12 54.1 51.3 2.8 1ol

LL: liquid limit ; PL : plastic limit; PI : plasticity index.

m---.1.62 e: Rice husk osh
I v " 8: Lime
energy per volume as in the standard Proctor compaction ~1-~
test. Penetration testing was carried out in the California
c~ 1..50
bearing ratio test with the help of a plunger of cross-
sectional area of 19.35 cm 2. The rate of penetration was
1.27 m m min-1. The CBR value was calculated corre- ._~ 1-t,2
sponding to 2.54 m m penetration, since this was always ~-138 l I I I I I I

higher than the value obtained at a penetration of 5.08 mm. t~ 8 12 16 20 2/,

Stobilizer Contents (%1
(b}
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 26 i , , i , i , I , , 1..

Atterberg limits test ~2s

The results of Atterberg limits tests on A-7-6 group
lateritic soil with various percentages of R H A and lime are
shown in Table 3. The trend of changes of liquid limits, ~23 e : Rice husk osh
8: lime
plastic limits and plasticity indices with various per- ~" 22 : Cement
centages of R H A and lime are also presented in Fig. E
$21
2(a). Atterberg limits change linearly with increase in I I I / I I I [ I I I
stabilizer contents for both R H A and lime. Liquid and /* 8 12 16 20 2t,
plastic limits increase directly with increase in stabilizer Stobilizer Contents 1%)
Ic|
contents. But, the plasticity index decreases linearly as the
Fig. 2. Variation of Atterberg limits, maximum dry density and
percentage of R H A and lime increases. It is the opinion of
optimum moisture content with stabilizer contents.
the author that when R H A and lime are mixed with fine-
grained cohesive soils, these cause flocculation of the soil
which decreases the plasticity index. tested. In the case of RHA-stabilized lateritic soil, the
maximum dry density decreases steeply up to 16% R H A
Standard Proctor compaction test and then remains almost constant. It is to be noted that
A summary of results of compaction tests on lateritic soil these compaction characteristics occur as a result of both
stabilized with various percentages of RHA, lime and the grain size distribution and specific gravities of the soil
cement are shown in Table 4. The changes of maximum dry and stabilizer. The stabilizers initially coat the soils to form
density and optimum moisture content with increase in large aggregates which consequently occupy larger spaces.
stabilizer contents are presented in Figs 2(b) and (c), Therefore, the tendency is for the fine-grained soils to
respectively. initially decrease in dry density until the stabilizer which
M a x i m u m dry density of cement-stabilized lateritic soil tends to increase the dry density compensates for the larger
decreases very slightly up to 4%/0cement and then begins to spaces. Only cement with high specific gravity is able to
increase. M a x i m u m dry density of lime-stabilized soil produce this effect (the specific gravities of cement, lime
decreases at a reducing rate over the range of contents and R H A are 3.15, 2.2 and 2.35, respectively).

Table 4. Effects of stabilizers on compaction characteristics of lateritic soil

RHA Yd(max) OMC Lime Yd(max) OMC Cement Yd(max) OMC

(%) (mg m - 3) (%) (%) (mg m - 3) (%) (%) (mg m - 3) (%)

0 1.563 22.00 0 1.560 21.75 0 1.567 21.40

4 1.490 25.20 2 1.540 22.30 2 1.550 22.10
8 1.440 25.60 4 1.520 23.04 4 1.545 22.50
12 1.410 25.67 6 1.505 23.50 6 1.547 22.50
16 1.390 25.70 8 1.490 24.02 8 1.585 22.40
20 1.385 25.70 10 1.480 24.40 10 1.615 22.40
24 1.386 25.60 12 1.475 24.80 12 -- --

OMC : optimum moisture content; Yd(max) : maximum dry density.

60 Md. A. Rahman

Table 5. Effects of stabilizers on unconfined compressive strength of lateritic soil

UC strength UC strength UC strength

(kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
RHA 1 day Lime 1 day 7 day Cement 1 day 7 day
(~) cured (~) cured cured (~) cured cured

0 211.2 0 210.7 -- 0 212.0 --

4 217.0 2 314.1 513.5 2 339.0 622.0
8 250.2 4 601.2 749.0 4 507.0 893.0
12 303.2 6 578.8 742.6 6 870.0 1190.0
16 371.6 8 563.6 727.0 8 1051.0 1703.0
20 416.0 10 567.2 716.0 10 1515.0 2001.0
24 348.5 12 577.6 732.3 12 --

UC strength : unconfined compressive strength.

The optimum moisture content increases with addition cement are shown in Table 5. The trend of changes of
of RHA. This increase in moisture content becomes unconfined compressive strength with stabilizer content
constant after reaching 12% RHA. Addition of lime to the are also presented in Fig. 3 (a). The unconfined compressive
soil raises the optimum moisture content linearly. The strength increases almost linearly with increase in RHA.
pozzolanic reaction of R H A and lime with the soil M a x i m u m compressive strength is 416 kPa at 2 0 ~ R H A
constituents tends to increase the optimum moisture after which it starts to decrease. Addition of lime also
content. The optimum moisture content also increases increases unconfined compressive strength in specimens
with the addition of cement. This increase is due to extra air-cured for both one day and seven days. M a x i m u m
water required for hydration of cement. It becomes compressive strengths are 601.2 and 749 kPa for one-day
constant after addition of 4% cement. and seven-day air-cured specimens, respectively. These
increases in compressive strength become constant after
Unconfined compressive strenoth test addition of 4% lime. In the case of cement, the increase in
The summary of results of unconfined compression tests unconfined compressive strength is higher and more linear
on lateritic soil with various percentages of RHA, lime and compared to lime and RHA. Compressive strengths are as
high as 1515 and 2001 kPa corresponding to one-day and
seven-day air-cured samples.
These increases in unconfined compressive strength
20
. . . . p ' :' Ric; hu~oshildoy) with increase in stabilizer contents indicate that the
/ : Lime (ldoy)
~1' I1: Cenk~nt(1day) cohesion of the lateritic soil increases due to the addition
/ ,"-: Lime(Tdoys) of RHA, lime and cement. The compressive strength of
o: Cement(Tdoys) RHA- and lime-stabilized soils is low. The fact that the
unconfined compression test is not suitable for soils having

i:!
g2 w
larger soil particles is why the compressive strengths are
underestimated here. Ola [10] also obtained relatively low
compressive strength values for lime stabilized A - l - a soil
as compared to the more cohesive A-2-4 and A-7-6 soils.

California bearin 9 ratio test

The results of California bearing ratio tests with the
/~ 8 12 16 20 2t*
SfobBizer Contents(%) addition of stabilizer contents are shown in Table 6. The
(o1 nature of changes of CBR value with various percentages
of RHA, lime and cement are also presented in Fig. 3(b).
lt)~ i I i i t I i ! i r

: Rice husk osh California bearing ratio increases almost linearly for 0 -
128

112
.~ 96 Table 6. Effects of stabilizers on California bearing ratio of later-
.o 80 itic soil

6t,. RHA CBR Lime CBR Cement CBR

t... (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(Z3

o 32 0 7.73 0 9.70 0 9.20

c 4 11.96 2 25.50 2 21.00
16 8 22.03 4 59.40 4 34.00
% ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '6' ' ' 12 44.82 6 59.40 6 66.70
t~ 8 12 1 20 2t~ 16 76.02 8 46.60 8 99.10
Stobilizer Contents (%1 20 77.68 10 35.90 10 141.20
Ibl 24 12 34.00 12
Fig. 3. Variation of unconfined compressive strength and
California bearing ratio of lateritic soil with stabilizer contents. CBR : California bearing ratio.
 Stabilizers f o r the Use o f Lateritic Soil in Construction 61

12% RHA contents and the maximum value is obtained at
18% RHA. After reaching 18% RHA, CBR values tends to
decrease. In the case of lime, the maximum California
bearing ratio is obtained at 5% lime and then starts
to decrease. The California bearing ratio for cement-
stabilized soil increases linearly and rapidly. Cement-
stabilized soil has much higher CBR values than lime and
RHA-stabilized soil. The results of California bearing ratio
tests indicate that the appreciable improvement of this
A-7-6 lateritic soil has taken place with all these three
stabilizers.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the results obtained from the tests on
these stabilized soils, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
(a) F r o m the point of view of unconfined compressive
strength and California bearing ratio, the A-7-6
lateritic soil can be stabilized with 7% of cement for
base materials for highway construction.
(b) Based upon California bearing ratio, this lateritic soil
can be stabilized with 5% of lime for sub-base
materials.
(c) O n the basis of California bearing ratio, the lateritic
soil A-7-6 can be stabilized with 18% RHA for sub-
base materials.
(d) The potentials of RHA in the lateritic soil
stabilization are considerable compared to lime and
cement.
(e) Since RHA and lateritic soils are in a b u n d a n t supply
all over the tropical and sub-tropical countries of
the world, RHA can be potentially utilized as a sub-
stitute for lime and cement in order to reduce the
construction cost, particularly in the rural areas oft'he
less-developed countries.
Acknowledgements--The author would like to thank Mr. S. A.
Raji, Mr. V. O. Okafor and Mr. O. M. Olatinwo for their
assistance in the laboratory work.

REFERENCES
1. F. Buchanan, A Journal from Madras Through the Countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar. The East
India Company, London (1807).
2. K.S. Bawa, Lateritic soils and their engineering characteristics. J. Soil Mech. Fdns Div., Am. Soc. cir.
Engrs 83, 1-15 (1957).
3. R. Maignien, Reviews of research on laterites, Natural Resources Research IV, UNESCO, Paris (1966).
4. A.L. Little, Definition, formation and classification, Proc. Special Session on Engineering Properties of
Lateritic Soils (Edited by Z. C. Moh), Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand (1969).
5. Lyon Associates, Laterites and lateritic soil and other problem soils of Africa, An EngineeringStudy for
Agency for International Development AID/csd-2164, Lyon Associates, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.
6. M.D. Gidigasu, Laterite soil engineering, pedogenesis and Engineering Principles. Developments in
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 9. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1976).
7. S.A. Ola, Need for estimated cement requirements for stabilizinglateritic soils, J. Transpn Div., Am. Soc.
civ. Engrs TE2, 379-388 (1974).
8. S.A. Ola, The potentials of lime stabilization oflateritic soils, J. Engng Geol. 11, 305-317 (1977).
9. F. Lasisi, Masonry units for low-income housing from cement stabilized lateritic soils, Proc. Int.
Conference on Low-income Housing Technology and Policy, Thailand, Vol. 2, pp. 1037-1046 (1977).
10. S.A. Ola, Geotechnical properties and behaviour of some stabilized Nigerian lateritic soils, Q. Jl Engng
Geol. 11, 145-160 (1978).
11. E.A. Mesida, Soil stabilizationfor housingin Okitipupa Area, Ondo State, Nigeria. Occasional Research
Papers, Department of Geology, University of Ire, Ile-Ife, Nigeria (1978).
12. J. Korisa, Rice and Its By-products, 2nd edn, pp. 426. Edward Arnold, London (1958).
13. R.C. Lazaro and Z. C. Moh, Stabilization of deltaic clays with lime--rice husk ash mixtures, Proc. 2nd
Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, pp. 215-223 (1970).
14. D.F. Houstin, Rice Chemistry and Technology, pp. 301-340. American Association of Cereal Chemists,
MN (1972).
15. D.H. Grist, Rice, 4th edn, pp. 548. Green, London (1965).
16. AASHO, Standard Specifications for Highway Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 10th edn.
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, DC (1970).
17. F.H.P. Williams and S. Sompong, Some properties of rice hull ash, Geotech. Engng, J. Southeast Asian
geotech. Soc. 2, 75-81 (1971).
18. British Standards, Methods for Testing Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, B.S. 1377, British Standards
Institution, London (1975).