BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2006) 34(1), 55 – 65

Strength of compacted earth:

linking soil properties to stabilizers

Steve Burroughs

Steve Burroughs and Associates Pty. Ltd., 38 Blackman Crescent, Macquarie ACT 2614, Australia.
Email: sburroug@bigpond.net.au

The influence of stabilizers and soil properties on the strength of stabilized, compacted earth is investigated. This is
achieved by establishing relationships between natural soil properties (two measures each of gradation and plasticity
and one of shrinkage), stabilizer treatments (0–6% of lime and/or cement and/or asphalt), and stabilized unconfined
compressive strength (UCS). A total of 219 strength tests were performed on 104 different soils. The soils can
be categorized into two groups according to whether single soil properties or combinations of them are “favourable”
or “unfavourable” in their predisposition to stabilization. The mean UCS for favourable soils ranges from
2.98–3.25 MPa (90%  2 MPa) and for unfavourable soils from 2.32–2.48 MPa (60%  2 MPa), having controlled
for stabilizer treatment variation. Soil linear shrinkage is the best single discriminator of stabilization suitability based
on the categorization results. In linear modelling (analysis of covariance), the UCS of favourable soils is a function of
variation in soil properties but not of variation in the quantity of cement or lime used. Conversely, the UCS of
unfavourable soils is a positive function of the quantity of stabilizer used. The results of the study stress the
importance of selecting a soil whose characteristics are favourably predisposed to stabilization in order to attain
satisfactory strengths of compacted earth. Future research should be aimed at developing a system that uses key soil
properties to predict the likelihood of successful stabilization.

Keywords: compacted earth; stabilization; soil properties; cement; lime; compressive strength

L’auteur examine l’influence des stabilisateurs et des propriétés du sol sur la résistance de la terre stabilisée et compactée.
A cet effet, il définit les relations qui existent entre les propriétés naturelles du sol (deux mesures de gradation et de
plasticité et une mesure de retrait), les traitements au moyen de stabilisateurs (0–6% de chaux et (ou) de ciment et
(ou) d’asphalte), et la résistance à la compression non confinée (UCS). Au total, on a procédé à 219 essais de
résistance sur 104 sols différents. Les sols peuvent être divisés en deux groupes selon que les propriétés de sols
uniques ou en combinaisons sont ‘favorables’ ou ‘défavorables’ en ce qui concerne leur prédisposition à la
stabilization. L’UCS moyenne pour les sols favorables était comprise entre 2,98 et 3,25 MPa (90%  2 MPa) et
2,32–2,48 MPa (60%  2 MPa) pour les sols défavorables, après avoir contrôlé les variations de traitement des
stabilisateurs. Le retrait linéaire du sol est le meilleur discriminateur unique de la pertinence et de la stabilisation basé
sur les résultats de la répartition en catégories. En modélisation linéaire (analyse de covariance), l’UCS des sols
favorables est fonction de la variation des propriétés des sols mais non de la variation de la quantité utilisée de
ciment ou de chaux. Réciproquement, l’UCS des sols défavorables est une fonction positive de la quantité utilisée de
stabilisateur. Les résultats font ressortir l’importance du choix du sol dont les caractéristiques sont prédisposées
favorablement à la stabilisation afin d’obtenir des résistances satisfaisantes de la terre compactée. A l’avenir, la
recherche devra porter sur le développement d’un système utilisant les principales propriétés des sols afin de prévoir
la vraisemblance d’une bonne stabilisation.

Mots clés: ciment, terre compactée, résistance à la compression, chaux, propriétés du sol, stabilization

Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2006 Taylor & Francis
http: ⁄ ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613210500279612
Burroughs
Introduction and background
The effects of adding different chemical stabilizers
(lime, cement, and asphalt) to a range of soils is inves-
tigated, with a view to quantifying the effects of stabi-
lizer type, stabilizer amount, and soil properties on the
strength of compacted, stabilized earth. Compacted
(rammed) earth has been used for construction in
many countries, dating back many centuries in some
civilisations. However, its use in modern times has
been limited by its low strength and water absorption,
which can be addressed by the addition of stabilizers in
order to meet requirements such as those contained in
the Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997). A corollary
of this requirement is that the methods and materials
of soil stabilization must be specified and quantified
in order that compacted earth walls of sufficient
strength can be routinely constructed.
Effects of soils and stabilizers on stabilization
Stabilizing a soil by using a combination of compaction
and the addition of a chemical stabilizer improves its
mechanical characteristics (increases strength), mini-
mizes shrink and swell, and provides waterproofing
qualities (e.g. Winterkorn, 1975; UN, 1992; Akpokodje,
1985; Symons, 1999). The importance of soil type to
stabilization has been demonstrated by Winterkorn
(1975), Akpokodje (1985), CSIRO (1987), Bryan
(1988), UN (1992), and Walker (1995). From this
literature, texture and plasticity emerge as the primary
properties of soil that determine its response to
stabilization. Generally, the most suitable type of soil
for compacted earth construction is a well-graded
soil with a range of particle sizes (CSIRO, 1987;
UN, 1992). A survey of the relevant literature (e.g.
Fitzmaurice, 1958; Ransom, 1963; Spence, 1975;
VITA, 1975; Bryan, 1988; Walker, 1995; Symons,
1999; USACE, 2000) indicates a degree of concordance
for soil properties as indicators of stabilization suita-
bility. In particular, the average or modal values of
soil properties most suitable for stabilization as
recommended in the literature are 5 –25% clay,
,30 –35% clay/silt, ,30 –40% liquid limit, and
,15 –20% plasticity index. The recommended values
for the amount of sand show less concordance: VITA
(1975) suggested 33%, Bryan (1988) recommended
35 –80%, Walker (1995) recommended 70 –85%,
and Symons (1999) proposed .73%.
The most widely used chemical stabilizers for com-
pacted earth construction are lime, cement, and
asphalt. The most common lime products in the con-
struction industry are quicklime (CaO) and hydrated
lime (Ca(OH)2). The effects of lime are more highly
dependent on the nature of the soil(s) to be stabilized
than those of cement and, in particular, lime is generally
not likely to successfully stabilize soils with low or no
clay content (e.g. Wolfskill et al., 1963). Dumbleton
(1962) suggested that a minimum clay content of
56
approximately 10% and a plasticity index in excess
of 10% are desirable for lime stabilization.
Most soils can be stabilized with cement (e.g. CSIRO,
1987; UN, 1992), although the greatest compressive
strengths using cement are generally obtained with
gravels and sandy soils rather than with silts or clay
(Wolfskill et al., 1963; UN, 1992). Sandy soils may
require only 2 –2.5% of cement, whereas clay soils
may require as much as 10% (CSIRO, 1987). UN
(1992) recommended that soils with lower values of
linear shrinkage should be treated with lower values
of cement. UN (1992) also recommended that cement
is unsuitable for soils with liquid limits of higher than
30%, although clayey soils can be treated first with
lime.
Asphalt emulsion (containing around 55% asphalt)
is generally used as a waterproofer to protect the
compacted earth from wetting-drying cycles (CSIRO,
1987; Al-Homoud et al., 1996). Its effect on stabilized
strength is generally assumed to be neutral, although
Asphalt emulsion is suitable for sandy or sandy-
gravel soils, or fine-grained soils lacking in cohesion
(plasticity index ,6) (UN, 1992). Normally, 2 –3%
of asphalt by weight of soil is added (UN, 1992).
Effects of lime and cement quantity on
stabilized strength
Adding lime or cement to a soil increases its compres-
sive strength markedly, with the strength being depen-
dent on the quantity of stabilizer used (Metcalfe, 1963;
Croft, 1968; Akpokodje, 1985; Bryan, 1988a; Walker,
1995; Bell, 1996; Ngowi, 1997; Symons, 1999). For six
soils, Croft (1968) reported an average increase in
7-day compressive strength between 5% and 10%
lime of 0.28 MPa per% of stabilizer, and between
5% and 10% cement of 0.64 MPa per % of stabilizer
(Figures 4a and 6a of Croft, 1968, pp.404 and 407).
Akpokodje (1985) investigated arid zone soils and
found strength increments per % of stabilizer added
of 0.14 MPa for lime and 0.28 MPa for cement for
levels of stabilizer up to 6% (Figures 3 and 4 in
Akpokodje, 1985, p.175). Bryan (1988a) examined
cement stabilization of five soils, with the average differ-
ence in compressive strength between 5% and 7.5% of
stabilizer being 0.80 MPa, equivalent to a rate of
0.32 MPa per % of cement (Figure 4a in Bryan, 1988a
p.325). Walker (1995) determined that samples stabil-
ized with 6.7% cement were on average 0.41 MPa
stronger than samples containing 5% cement, equival-
ent to an effective increase of about 0.25 MPa per %
of cement (Figure 5 in Walker, 1995 p.307). Finally,
between stabilizer levels of 5% and 7.5%, Ngowi
(1997) found that the increase in compressive strength
was 0.29 MPa per % of lime and 0.47 MPa per % of
cement (Table 4 in Ngowi, 1997 p. 6).

Research problem and rationale
Studies that have made detailed examinations of stabil-
ization with respect to the type of stabilizer, the quan-
tity (percentage) of stabilizer, and soil type include
those of Croft (1968), Akpokodje (1985), Bryan
(1988a), Walker (1995), and Ngowi (1997). The
numbers of soils tested ranged from three to fourteen.
Of these investigations, Croft (1968), Ngowi (1997),
and Akpokodje (1985) examined all three effects
(stabilizer type, stabilizer quantity, and soil type) on
the strength of stabilized samples. Bryan (1988,
1988a) and Walker (1995) each studied different soils
types but used only cement as a stabilizer.
Previously therefore, the effects of soil type and of
stabilizer type/amount have been assessed by experi-
ments involving small numbers of different soils.
What has been lacking is a comprehensive investi-
gation of stabilization using a large number and wide
range of different soil types. This would provide a suf-
ficient number and spread of data to quantify relation-
ships between soil properties, stabilizer treatments, and
stabilized strength across the naturally-occurring spec-
trum of soil properties, and would also obviate the pro-
blems of inter-study comparisons (e.g. differences in
experimental aspects such as sample compaction,
curing time, and curing environment). There is a par-
ticular need to be able to assess the contributions of
stabilizer type/amount and soil properties in influen-
cing stabilized strength, and whether the importance
of stabilizer treatments on the one hand and of soil
properties on the other vary across the spectrum of
soil types.
The overall research project from which this paper is
drawn aims to establish improved guidelines for com-
pacted earth stabilization and construction. This par-
ticular paper focuses on defining the contributions of
stabilizers and soil properties to the strength of stabil-
ized soil. The research objective is to determine the
effects of soil properties (gradation, plasticity, and
shrinkage), stabilizer types (asphalt, cement, lime),
and stabilizer quantities (0–6% by weight of dry soil)
on the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of
stabilized soil. This objective is addressed through the
analysis of data derived from 219 stabilization experi-
ments on 104 different soils collected from compacted
earth construction sites in New South Wales, Australia.
Methodology and techniques
Sites and sampling
A total of 104 different soils were used in the stabiliz-
ation experiments, taken from 29 compacted earth
construction sites spread throughout the state of New
South Wales, Australia. No attempt was made at the
sites to assess the soils for their suitability for com-
pacted earth construction, or reject possibly unsuitable
soils, as the aim was to test as wide a variety of natural
Strength of compacted earth
soils as possible. At each construction site, soil was
sampled either by test pits or hand borings to a depth
of 1-3 metres. Forty kilograms of soil, as recommended
by SAA (1977), were collected at each pit or bore.
Locations of sample pits or bores at each construction
site were considered representative of the area sur-
rounding the site within a radius of 250 m, which rep-
resents a practical, economic distance within which soil
would be transported to a building site during construc-
tion. At each site, the surrounding area was surveyed
and the vegetation, topography, rock outcrops, drai-
nage, and soil colour were mapped. These landscape
indicators were assumed to represent a broad variation
in soil properties around the site. Sampling was per-
formed to cover the range in soil properties as indicated
by the mapping. Between 1 and 12 soil sample were
taken from each site, depending on the amount of vari-
ation in soil type as indicated during mapping.
Experimental design
Soil properties measured
Sample particle size distribution was determined
because numerous studies (e.g. Croft, 1968; Spence,
1975; Bryan, 1988; Walker 1995) have shown its
importance in determining the strength of stabilized
earth. The three textural variables measured were %
gravel (the proportion of soil retained on the
2.36 mm aperture sieve), % sand (0.075 –2.36 mm
aperture sieves), and % clay/silt (,0.075 mm aperture
sieve). The clay and silt fractions were combined so
that size distributions could be obtained by sieve analy-
sis alone and the applicability of the study thereby
widened.
The importance of liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL),
and plasticity index (PI) to stabilized strength has been
reported, amongst others, by Croft (1968), CSIRO
(1987), Bryan (1988), and Walker (1995). The
measures of plasticity used in this study were LL, PL,
and PI, all measured on the natural soil (i.e. on the
soil prior to adding stabilizer and compacting).
Linear shrinkage (LS) has been used as a variable in
several previous studies of stabilization, including
those of Croft (1968), Bryan (1988), and Walker
(1995), and in this study was determined for the
natural soil.
The percentage of gravel and PL were omitted from
subsequent statistical analyses as each is derived by
subtraction of other properties measured. Hence the
five soil property variables used for statistical analysis
were % clay/silt, % sand, LL, PI, and LS.
Optimum moisture content, maximum dry density,
and UCS
The optimum moisture content (OMC) is the moisture
content at which a material reaches maximum dry
57
Burroughs
density (MDD) under a given compactive effort. The
aim during actual rammed earth construction is to
compact the material under conditions of OMC and
MDD (CSIRO, 1987; UN, 1992). OMC was deter-
mined in order to identify the moisture content at
which each soil should be compacted and strength-
tested. It was not used as a predictor variable of UCS
because one of the aims of the research is to enable
suitable soils for stabilization to be identified on the
basis of easily-measured textural and plasticity data,
rather than on complex and time-consuming compac-
tion/strength tests. OMC and MDD determinations
were made on the sample after the addition of stabilizer
and compacting, but before curing.
Saturated unconfined compressive strength (UCS) was
used as the dependent variable because it is an
outcome of stabilization that can be compared both
with the results of previous studies (e.g. Akpokodje,
1985; Bryan, 1988; Walker, 1995; Bell, 1996), and
with construction-related standards and building regu-
lations (e.g. CSIRO, 1987; UBC, 1997). UCS was
measured for each sample after 28 days of curing in a
humidity cabinet at a temperature of 228C.
Stabilizer treatments
The term “stabilizer treatment” refers to the stabilizer
type(s) and quantity applied to a soil (e.g. 4% lime; 3%
lime and 3% cement). Lime, cement, and asphalt were
chosen as stabilizers because their use is widespread in
the rammed earth building industry. The levels of
stabilizer chosen were 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6% of lime
or cement by weight of dry soil, which compares to
similar ranges in other studies including those of Akpo-
kodje (1985), Bryan, (1988a), and Osula (1996). The
quantities of asphalt used were 0 and 3% (e.g. UN,
1992). The cement used for the stabilization exper-
iments was general purpose (“GP”), which is manufac-
tured from Portland cement clinker and gypsum and
which conformed to Australian Standard AS 3972.
The lime used for the stabilization tests was hydrated
lime Ca(OH)2 which met the requirements of the rel-
evant Australian Standard AS 1672. The asphalt used
in the stabilization experiments was an emulsion that
conformed to Australian Standard AS 1160, and con-
tained 60% asphalt with a one-hour setting time.
Study design details
The 104 soils were tested with different stabilizer treat-
ments (1 –4 different treatments per sample) yielding
219 stabilization experiments and tests of UCS.
The combinations of stabilizer used in various
quantities for the experiments were: lime only (29
determinations), cement only (72), lime-cement (65),
cement-asphalt (27), lime-asphalt (2), and lime-
cement-asphalt (24).
58
The textural, plasticity and shrinkage properties
measured defined the variables by which the soils
were characterized. These five soil property variables,
together with the stabilizer types and amounts, were
regarded as the predictor variables (e.g. Fitzmaurice,
1958; Spence, 1975; Bryan, 1988; Walker, 1995).
These variables were viewed as causing variation in
the dependent variable, being the UCS of the stabilized,
cured sample having been compacted under conditions
of OMC and MDD.
Experimental procedures
The tests on the natural soil included particle size dis-
tribution, Atterberg limits, and LS. The tests on the
soil-stabilizer mixture included OMC and MDD
(before curing), and UCS (after curing). The procedures
for the determination of soil particle size distribution,
LL, PL, PI, and LS followed those described in the
methods of testing soil for engineering purposes
AS1289.C6.1, AS1289.C1.1, AS1289.C2.1, AS1289.
C3.1, and AS1289.C4.1, respectively (SAA, 1977).
The procedure to measure the moisture content of
each sample followed that described in AS1289.B1.1
(SAA, 1977).
The modified Proctor test was used to determine the
moisture-density relationship under compaction (and
hence to obtain the OMC of the soil-stabilizer
mixture for each sample), and followed the specifica-
tions of Australian Standard 1289.E2.1 (SAA, 1977).
The modified Proctor test was preferred to the standard
Proctor as it is more acceptable to building pro-
fessionals, and the compactive effort applied
(2703 kNm2) provides the most appropriate simu-
lation of compaction using on-site ramming equipment
under construction conditions.
The method of determining the UCS of stabilized earth
samples followed the procedure specified in Test
Method T116 of the Department of Main Roading,
New South Wales (DMR, 1983). The density of each
sample was determined as described in AS1289.E2.1
(SAA, 1977). All UCS determinations generated in
this study are saturated, unconfined compressive
strength determinations adjusted for aspect ratio.
Data analysis techniques
Bivariate relationships between the soil properties and
UCS were examined for broad patterns. Two groups of
soils were then categorized based on whether values of
individual soil properties were regarded as relatively
favourable or unfavourable for stabilization according
to previously published values (obtained from a col-
lation of the following studies: Fitzmaurice, 1958;
Ransom, 1963; Spence, 1975; VITA, 1975; Bryan,
1988; Walker, 1995; Symons, 1999). For each soil
group, the mean UCS and the percentage of samples

with UCS 2 MPa (the value as specified in CSIRO,
1987 and UBC, 1997) were calculated as measures of
favourability for stabilization.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze
and isolate the influences of the five soil property vari-
ables (the covariates, measured on continuous scales)
and of the stabilizers (fixed levels of stabilizer quan-
tity). ANCOVA was used both for all 219 samples
and for the various groups of samples as categorized
using soil properties.
Results
The UCS of the 219 compacted, stabilized soil samples
ranges from 1.0 –5.4 MPa, with a mean of 2.66 MPa,
while density ranges from 1.44–2.21 t/m3 with a
mean of 1.88 t/m3. OMC ranges from 5.4 –28.0%.
The average gradation of the samples is 25% clay/
silt (range 5 –53%), 65% sand (range 30 –94%),
and 10% gravel (range 0 –62%). LL ranges from
18 –95%, PI from 0 –70%, and LS from 1.0 –19.8%.
Bivariate relationships between UCS and
soil properties
For clay/silt content, there is a range of values of UCS
for any given % value (Figure 1). For example, for a
clay/silt content of 16%, UCS varies from 1.2 MPa
to greater than 5 MPa. The highest values of UCS are
associated with clay/silt contents of 10 –35%,
although for clay/silt contents of 5 –20% the data
are almost bimodal with one group of data
,2.3 MPa and a second group .2.6 MPa. These two
groups of samples correspond primarily to differences
in plasticity index, with the weaker samples having
higher values of plasticity index. Sand content
(Figure 2) ranges from 30 –94%, and the relationship
with UCS appears rather complex. Samples containing
less than 48% sand exhibit high values with only a few
samples below a UCS of 2 MPa. However, this may
reflect the lower number of samples tested with sand
Figure 1 X-Y Scatterplot of compressive strength versus CLAY/
silt content (n ¼ 219).
Strength of compacted earth
Figure 2 X-Y Scatterplot of compressive strength versus sand
content (n ¼ 219).
contents in this particular range. Where the data are
more numerous, the most interesting feature is the
area between 64 –75% sand, where there is an
absence of samples with high values of UCS. For
sand values in excess of 75%, there are two groups
of samples differentiated by UCS. Most of these
samples correspond to the ,25% clay/silt samples,
separated into two groups by differences in plasticity
index, as described.
For values of LL below 50% (Figure 3), there is a very
wide range of values of UCS ranging between about 1.5
to 5 MPa. For values of liquid limit in excess of about
60%, all samples have a UCS below 2 MPa. For values
of PI between 0 and 35% (Figure 4), there is a wide
range of values of UCS for any one value of PI.
Above a PI value of 35%, no sample tested has a
UCS .2 MPa. The relationship between UCS and
linear shrinkage (Figure 5) differs from those of the
plasticity properties. Although for any one value of
linear shrinkage there exists a range of values of
UCS, there is a distinct negative slope to the data
with higher values of linear shrinkage generally being
associated with lower values of UCS. For values of
linear shrinkage up to 3.5%, no sample has a UCS
lower than 2 MPa. As linear shrinkage values increase,
the maximum UCS decreases and a greater proportion
of samples have a UCS below 2 MPa.
Figure 3 X-Y Scatterplot of compressive strength versus liquid
limit (n ¼ 219).
59
Burroughs

trends between cement and lime stabilizer cancelling

each other across the two groups of soils, with lime
being better suited than cement to strengthening
clayey soils and cement being better suited to sandy
soils.

The mean UCS in each categorization is significantly

Figure 4 X-Y Scatterplot of compressive strength versus
plasticity index (n ¼ 219).
Figure 5 X-Y Scatterplot of compressive strength versus linear
shrinkage (n ¼ 219).
higher for the groups possessing the “favourable”
property values than for those possessing the
“unfavourable” values, ranging from 2.90– 3.25 MPa
for the former and from 2.32–2.48 MPa for the
latter (Table 1). In addition, the percentage of
samples with UCS 2.0 MPa is markedly greater in
each categorization for the “favourable” group
(ranging between 86 –94%) than for the “unfavour-
able” group (ranging between 56 –63%). These differ-
entials cannot be explained by stabilizer differences
because the mean cement and lime quantities are very
similar between favourable and unfavourable soil
groups for each categorization, and in fact tend to be
slightly higher for the unfavourable soils. The differen-
tial in mean UCS is lowest for LL (0.42 MPa) and
highest for the PI/LS combination (0.86 MPa). The
differential in the percentage of samples passing the
UCS criterion value is lowest for LL (23%), and
highest for LS (37%). Overall, the results indicate
that clay/silt and LL are the worst discriminators of
stabilization suitability, and LS or PI/LS the best,
with % sand and PI being of intermediate utility.

Soil categorization and UCS statistics for soil groups
The mean UCS of the 219 samples is 2.66 MPa, and
73% of the samples equal or exceed the criterion
value of 2 MPa. The soils were categorized into two
groups using four of the five individual soil properties
(% sand, LL, PI, and LS) and one combination invol-
ving PI and LS (Table 1). Clay/silt was not used as a
categorizing variable as it shows no particular ability
in this data set to distinguish sample strength for two
different groups of soils of higher and lower clay/silt
contents (Figure 1). This may be due to competing
ANCOVA: Effects of soil properties and stabilizer
treatments on UCS
A linear ANCOVA model for the whole data set, with
UCS as the dependent variable and eight predictor vari-
ables (three stabilizers and five soil properties), is sig-
nificant at p , 0.000 (Table 2). Although the model
is statistically significant, it explains only 31.1% of
the variation in UCS. The tabled data show that there
are no statistically significant differences in UCS
between different percentages of stabilizer treatment
for any of the three stabilizers. Clay/silt, LS, and

Table 1 UCS variation according to soil groupings

Data group Categorization of Mean UCS of Number [percentage] of Mean cement

soils for stabilization samples samples UCS 2 MPa plus Lime (%)

All data (n ¼ 219) ^ 2.66 160/219 [73%] 5.96

Sand ,65% (n ¼ 111) Favourable 2.96 95/111 [86%] 5.95
Sand 65% (n ¼ 108) Unfavourable 2.35 65/108 [60%] 5.97
LL  30% (n ¼ 93) Favourable 2.90 80/93 [86%] 5.82
LL . 30% (n ¼ 126) Unfavourable 2.48 80/126 [63%] 6.05
PI , 15% (n ¼ 106) Favourable 2.93 96/106 [91%] 5.80
PI  15% (n ¼ 113) Unfavourable 2.41 64/113 [57%] 6.10
LS , 6.0% (n ¼ 100) Favourable 3.05 93/100 [93%] 5.81
LS  6.0% (n ¼ 119) Unfavourable 2.32 67/119 [56%] 6.07
PI , 15% and LS ,6.0% (n ¼ 96) Favourable 3.25 65/69 [94%] 5.80
PI  15% or LS 6.0% (n ¼ 123) Unfavourable 2.39 95/150 [63%] 6.03

60
 Strength of compacted earth

Table 2 Model signi¢cances and R-square values for selected Of particular interest is the pattern of significant vari-
ANCOVA analyses, with UCS as dependent variable and soil ables in the six soil group models (Table 3). No stabil-
properties and stabilizer types/amounts as independent
variables izer assumes significance in the three models for
“favourable” soil groups, whereas clay/silt content
ANCOVA data group Model R-square
and LS are significant variables in all three models,
signi¢cance adjusted for and sand content is significant in two models. In con-
(p-value) d.f. (%) trast, for the “unfavourable” soil groups, the amount
of both cement and lime are highly significant determi-
All data (n ¼ 219) 0.000 31.1 nants of UCS, with the only exception being lime when
Soil samples with LL  30 0.000 31.7 soils are categorized using LL. For the “unfavourable”
(n ¼ 93)
Soil samples with LL . 30 0.000 40.4 soil group models, sand content is the only significant
(n ¼ 126) variable, being so in each of the three models. Sand
Soil samples with LS , 6.0) 0.000 33.7 content is the most consistent significant variable
(n ¼ 100) across the six group models (Table 3).
Soil samples with L.S.  6.0) 0.000 30.4
(n ¼ 119)
Soil samples with PI , 15 0.000 31.5 The ANCOVA analysis for the unfavourable soil group
and LS , 6.0) (n ¼ 96) with LS 6.0 shows that there is a significant increase
Soil samples with PI  15 0.000 30.9 in stabilized strength with greater quantities of cement
or LS  6.0) (n ¼ 123) (Table 3 and Table 4). Using the mean values from
Table 4, there is a 0.48 MPa strength increase per %
cement added between the 2% and 6% stabilizer
levels. The data for lime also show that there is a
general increase in stabilized strength with increments
sand content are the soil properties that have signifi- of this stabilizer (Table 3 and Table 4), with a strength
cant effects on variation in UCS for the whole data increase of 0.28 MPa per % lime between the 2% and
set (Table 3). 6% stabilizer levels. Asphalt has no significant effect on
UCS variation when used with either lime and/or
The apparent lack of effect of the stabilizers for the cement, for any of the models (Table 3).
whole data set may be due to competing or different
trends in stabilization across the wide spectrum of
soil property values measured, thereby dampening
the effect in the pooled data set. Therefore, “favour- Discussion
able” and “unfavourable” soil groupings as categor- As in previous studies, this investigation has found that
ized in Table 1 for selected properties were used for soil properties and the type and amount of stabilizer
three additional sets of ANCOVA analyses. All six (lime and cement) all influence the strength of com-
resulting soil group models are highly statistically sig- pacted, stabilized earth. The large size of the dataset
nificant (Table 2). The R2 values for these models used, the wide range of variation in the properties
range between 30 and 40%, and lie mainly around of the soils studied, and the statistical treatments
the 30% value. For the six categorized groups the employed, have enabled new findings to be made
average R2 is 33%. regarding soil-stabilizer-strength relationships, which

Table 3 Signi¢cance of independent variables for selected ANCOVA analyses (UCS as dependent variable). FAV ¼ ‘‘Favourable’’ soil
group; Unfav ¼ ‘‘Unfavourable’’ soil group

Variable P-value P-value P-value P-value P-value P-value P-value

(all data) (LL  30) (LL . 30) (LS , 6.0) (LS  6.0) (PI , 15 and LS , 6.0) (PI  15 or LS  6.0)
(n ¼ 219) (n ¼ 93) (n ¼ 126) (n ¼ 100) (n ¼ 119) (n ¼ 96) (n ¼ 123)

Fav Unfav Fav Unfav Fav Unfav

Asphalt 0.597 0.820 0.273 0.652 0.479 0.787 0.330

Cement 0.354 0.897 0.026 0.534 0.000 0.740 0.001
Lime 0.679 0.517 0.343 0.311 0.012 0.506 0.029
Clay/silt 0.001 0.037 0.236 0.000 0.456 0.000 0.457
LL 0.586 0.406 0.281 0.083 0.317 0.585 0.617
LS 0.004 0.000 0.765 0.001 0.700 0.050 0.228
PI 0.746 0.054 0.077 0.752 0.734 0.449 0.833
Sand 0.000 0.896 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.004

61
Burroughs
Table 4 Mean UCS (and upper and lower 95% con¢dence
intervals) for different percentages of cement and lime, using
ANCOVA of UCS on soil properties and stabilizer treatments for
soil samples with linear shrinkage 6.0% (n ¼ 119)
Stabilizer type Mean UCS 95% Con¢dence
and quantity (MPa) interval (MPa)
Cement 2% 2.10 0.60
Cement 4% 2.69 0.71
Cement 6% 4.01 0.95
Lime 2% 1.92 0.66
Lime 4% 2.55 0.60
Lime 6% 3.03 0.71
have been found to vary according to the degree of pre-
disposition of the soil to stabilization.
Effect of soil properties on UCS
Soil properties were successfully able to discriminate
between two broad groups of soils, those favourably dis-
posed to stabilization and those unfavourably disposed,
using single threshold values of properties. Favourable
soils were able to be discriminated from unfavourable
ones using values of LL 30%, sand contents .65%,
plasticity index values of ,15%, or linear shrinkages
,6%. Unfavourable soils were those not having these
characteristics. Favourable soils, compared with
unfavourable soils, yielded stabilized samples with
greater compressive strengths (average 3.02 MPa versus
2.39 MPa) and a greater proportion of successful stabili-
zations of 2 MPa (average 90% passing 2 MPa versus
60% passing 2 MPa) having controlled for stabilizer
treatment variation.
The soil categorization results show that linear shrink-
age and plasticity index, rather than textural variables,
appear to be the key characterising properties that
define the broad predisposition of a soil to stabiliz-
ation. Traditionally, emphasis has been placed (deser-
vedly) on the role of textural variables in soil
stabilization with respect to explaining strength gains
in physically meaningful terms (e.g. Akpokodje,
1985; Bell, 1996; USACE, 2000). For example, the
cohesive properties of clay and chemical reactions
involving clay and lime are major contributors to the
strength of soil stabilized with lime, and sand particles
help not only to form the granular skeleton of the
stabilized material but also provide frictional strength.
However, in terms of empirically indicating favour-
able/unfavourable soils, linear shrinkage and plasticity
index are superior in performance to textural proper-
ties. This may be because shrinkage and plasticity
index measures carry “extra information,” as they
reflect not only the textural makeup of the soil but
also indicate more accurately how the soil responds
to moisture, both of which influence the mechanical
62
properties of the stabilized material. More advanced
schemes of categorization, using more complex com-
binations of soil properties and extending the simple
bi-fold classification of soils used here, may improve
the ability of soil property data to distinguish soil
suitability for stabilization.
Sand content is a consistent predictor of stabilized
strength in linear models, but measures of plasticity
do not appear to be important when controlled for
other variables. In addition to sand content, clay/silt
content and linear shrinkage are determinants of the
strength of favourable soils but not of unfavourable
soils. Soil properties therefore appear to play a more
important role in the strength variation of favourable
soils than of unfavourable soils. Given that the soil
properties are more closely geared to stabilized
strength when their values are favourable, and given
the significance of the textural variables, the difference
between the two groups of soils may be due to pack-
ing efficiency during compaction. The process of
mechanical densification is a major factor influencing
stabilized strength (e.g. Bryan, 1988), partly due to
its providing high frictional strength through intimate
particle contact (Winterkorn, 1975). The highest
maximum dry densities at OMC are attained by well-
graded soils with sand contents .65 – 70% (USACE,
2000), and smaller changes in texture are needed to
effect a given density increment for such favourable
soils compared with poorly-graded ones or soils with
low sand and high clay contents.
Effect of stabilizer type and quantity on UCS
Previous work (Croft, 1968; Akpokodje, 1985; Bryan,
1988a; Walker, 1995; and Ngowi, 1997) indicates that
UCS increases with increasing proportions of stabilizer
by between 0.25 and 0.64 MPa per % of cement
(average 0.40 MPa), and by between 0.14 and
0.29 MPa per % of lime (average 0.24 MPa)
(Table 5). The results here for soils with linear shrink-
age values 6.0 % (0.48 MPa per % of cement and
0.28 per % of lime) are in accordance with previous
studies. The fact that the stabilizer “signal” could be
identified and was similar in magnitude to small-
sample investigations is of significance given the wide
range of properties exhibited by the soils tested
(LS 6.0 –19.8%, clay/silt 5 –52%, LL 23 –95%, PI
1 –70%, and sand 30 –94%).
Some cautions should be applied to the comparison
with existing studies for cement and lime. The strength
data of Croft (1968) and Akpokodje (1985) are 7-day
values, compared with this study’s 28-day data. It
would be expected that any contrasts in strength
between different samples would be greater for
longer curing times, although the effect depends upon
the particular soil type (e.g. Akpokodje, 1985;
 Strength of compacted earth

Table 5 Summary of results of previous work concerning the effect of quantity of cement and lime on stabilized compressive strength

Author Number of different Soil types Cement quantity Lime quantity

soil samples (MPa per (MPa per
in analysis % added) % added)

Akpokodje (1985) 3 Soils ranging: sand 15^ 59%, silt 27^75%, and 0.28 0.14
clay 10^ 37%.
Croft (1968) 6 Soils ranging: LL 40^68%, PI 15^ 38%, and LS 0.64 0.28
4 ^14%.
Bryan (1988a) 5 Soils ranging: sand 30^78% and PI 6.4 ^ 26.2%. 0.32 ç
Ngowi (1997) 2 Soils ranging: sand 27-63%, clay/silt 27^73%, 0.47 0.29
LL 31^ 50%, and PI 12 ^ 26%.
Walker (1995) 10 Soils ranging: clay 15^100%, sand 0^85%, LL 0.25 ç
22 ^60%, PI 0^ 35%, and LS 1^17%.
This study 72 soils Soils with linear shrinkage 6.0%. 0.48 0.28
(119 UCS tests)

Symons, 1999). Therefore, the values in Table 5 per-
taining to the work of Croft (1968) and Akpokodje
(1985) are probably minimum values when compared
with the results of this study. In addition, the samples
tested here were compacted using the modified
Proctor test (compaction pressure of 2700 kN/m2),
whereas Croft (1968) and Akpokodje (1985)
compacted their samples using the standard Proctor
test (600 kN/m2), and Bryan (1988a), Walker
(1995), and Ngowi (1997) used intermediate compac-
tion pressures of 2000 kN/m2. Increased compaction
pressure generally increases the strength (and density)
of a sample and decreases the OMC (e.g., Bryan
1988a), although the effect diminishes with increasing
compaction pressure. If differences in strength between
samples did in fact increase under higher compaction
pressures, the values in Table 5 pertaining to Croft
(1968) and Akpokodje (1985) would be greater, and
the values pertaining to Bryan (1988a), Walker
(1995), and Ngowi (1997) would be slightly over-
estimated. Overall, however, Table 5 shows that
there is close similarity in the results between the
current investigation and other studies, even after
taking into account any reported differences in
experimental technique.
A major finding in this study concerns the increase
in compressive strength of “unfavourable” soils
with increments of cement or lime added, compared
with the non-effect for “favourable” soils. Soils with
unfavourable characteristics are evidently more depen-
dent on additives than on soil properties for their
stabilized strength; in other words, stabilizers are the
major influence on strength. Although this makes intui-
tive sense, it has not previously been shown using
empirical evidence. In contrast, soils with favourable
characteristics require only a small amount of stabilizer
(2– 3%) to achieve satisfactory strengths (3 MPa),
and soil properties (specifically linear shrinkage, clay/
silt content, and sand content) are the major influence
on stabilized strength variation.
Traditionally, much has been made of matching speci-
fied quantities of cement or lime to a soil dependent
upon its characteristics. In particular, stabilizer quan-
tities have been viewed in terms of requiring less stabil-
izer for “good” soils, and more stabilizer for “poor”
soils. As a general guide, for favourable soils, the rec-
ommendation from this study is to use a minimum
amount of stabilizer, in the region of 2 –3%.
Unfavourable soils will require 4 –6% as shown by
the data indicating much better stabilized strengths
for these quantities than for 2% (Table 4). The greatest
effectiveness of cement is with low clay content soils
such as sands, silty sands, and clay soils of low to
medium plasticity. These soils respond very well to
the addition of cement, and can require as little as 2 –
2.5% of cement to stabilize satisfactorily (CSIRO,
1987; UN, 1992).
Concerning asphalt as a stabilizer, the debate amongst
rammed earth practitioners has not been about the
additive’s waterproofing effect, but rather the potential
it may have to alter the strength of compacted earth.
The addition of asphalt to soil provides a membrane
that impedes the penetration of water, and on this
basis it has been suggested that asphalt stabilization
can improve compressive strength characteristics
(Winterkorn, 1975; Al-Homoud et al., 1996). Although
asphalt has been viewed as being better suited as a
stabilizer for soils with high clay contents (CSIRO,
1987; UN, 1992), the results of this study suggest
that asphalt can be used in combination with either
lime and/or cement on a wide range of soil types.
The use of 3% asphalt, as shown, has no overall influ-
ence on the compressive strength of the stabilized soil
when used in combination with lime and/or cement,
and no preferential effect for soils regarded as either
favourable or unfavourable on the basis of their
properties. Therefore, its use should be viewed as a
broad-spectrum waterproofing agent, rather than a
strength-imparting additive when used in combination
with either lime or cement.
63
Burroughs
Predicting values of UCS using soil property
and stabilizer data
The basic aim of predicting stabilized strength is to
minimize the chance of building an unsatisfactory com-
pacted earth wall and maximise the probability of
success. Two contrasting methods have been used in
this investigation that were able to predict the strength
of stabilized material. The first was categorizing two
groups of soils—“favourable” and “unfavourable”
for stabilization—based on values of soil properties,
and comparing these two groups in terms of mean
UCS and the percentage of samples passing a 2 MPa
UCS criterion value. The second was using ANCOVA
to quantify the amount of variation in UCS explained
by soil properties and stabilizer types/amounts.
There is an obvious efficiency with which threshold
values of soil properties (linear shrinkage and plasticity
index in particular) are able to discriminate between
favourable and unfavourable soils with respect to the
2 MPa UCS criterion value used. This is in contrast
to the rather poor results of predicting individual
UCS values on the basis of soil properties and stabilizer
quantities, with only one-third of the variation in com-
pressive strength able to be explained using linear stat-
istical models. It seems, therefore, that the way
forward with respect to predicting stabilized strength
is not to predict the exact strength of a sample, but
rather to predict whether a sample is likely to pass or
fail a criterion strength value. Being able to predict
stabilization success or failure with respect to a cri-
terion value also makes more practical sense in that
building and professional regulations are specified in
terms of such criterion values.
Summary and Conclusion
This study has examined the effect on the strength of
compacted earth of soil properties (gradation, plas-
ticity, and shrinkage), the type of stabilizer used
(lime, cement, asphalt), and the quantity of each stabil-
izer used (0–6%), based on 219 tests of unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) on 104 different soils. Dis-
tinguished on the basis of their soil properties, soils
favourably predisposed to stabilization (those with
sand contents .65%, or plasticity indexes ,15%, or
linear shrinkage values ,6.0%) can be differentiated
from unfavourable soils. Having controlled for stabil-
izer quantity, and depending on which particular soil
property or combination of properties is used to
categorize predisposition to stabilization, 86 –94% of
favourable soils attain UCS values 2.0 MPa (mean
UCS ¼ 3.02 MPa), whereas only 56 –63% of
unfavourable soils (mean UCS ¼ 2.39 MPa) pass this
criterion.
ANCOVA models show that the effect of stabilizer
quantity is dependent upon whether the soil of interest
64
is favourably or unfavourably inclined to stabilization.
The amount of lime or cement added to a soil increases
its strength if the soil is relatively unfavourable, but the
strength of a favourable soil when stabilized is uniform
within the range of lime or cement used (2– 6%). The
key set of variables relating to the compressive strength
of favourable soils concerns the properties of the soils,
in particular linear shrinkage, clay/silt content, and
sand content. In contrast, the only soil property that
is a determinant of UCS for unfavourable soils is
sand content.
The importance of soil properties in explaining vari-
ations in stabilized compressive strength suggests that
future research should be aimed at better quantifying
the relationship between key soil properties and UCS
in order to predict the strength of stabilized soil.
Linear models explained an average of only 33% of
the variation in UCS, whereas soil properties efficiently
discriminated soils passing or failing a 2 MPa strength
threshold. Therefore, a criterion approach to predict-
ing UCS is probably required rather than one that pre-
dicts point values using linear methods. Such an
approach would predict whether UCS should exceed
a threshold value on the basis of soil properties and
intended stabilizer treatment. The approach would
have the practical advantage of being matched to build-
ing code specifications which define stabilized strength
requirements in terms of threshold values.
References
Akpokodje, E.G. (1985) The stabilization of some arid zone soils
with cement and lime. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology London, 18, 173–180.
Al-Homoud, A.S., Khedaywi, T. and Al-Ajlouni, A.M. (1996)
Engineering and environmental aspects of cutback asphalt
(MC-70) stabilization of swelling and collapsible soils.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 33 (7), 317– 325.
Bell, F.G. (1996) Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils.
Engineering Geology, 42(4), 223 –237.
Bryan, A.J. (1988) Criteria for the suitability of soil for cement
stabilization. Building and Environment, 23(4), 309–319.
Bryan, A.J. (1988a) Soil/cement as a walling material – I.
Stress/strain properties. Building and Environment, 23(4),
321–330.
Croft, J.B. (1968) The problem in predicting the suitability of
soils for cementitious stabilization. Engineering Geology,
2(6), 397–424.
CSIRO (1987) Earth Wall Construction. Bulletin 5, Common-
wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(Division of Building Construction and Engineering),
Sydney, Australia.
DMR (1983) Determination of unconfined compressive strength
of remoulded road materials, Test Method T116. Depart-
ment of Main Roads, Sydney, New South Wales.
Dumbleton, M.J. (1962) Investigations to Assess the potentialities
of lime for soil stabilization in the United Kingdom. Technical
Paper, No. 64, Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne,
England.
Fitzmaurice, R. (1958) Manual on stabilized soil construction
for housing. UN Technical Assistance Programme, United
Nations, New York.

Metcalfe, J.B. (1963) A small scale trial of lime stabilization for
building sites. CSIRO Soil Mechanics Section Technical
Report, Series 3, Sydney, Australia.
Ngowi, A.B. (1997) Improving the traditional earth construction:
a case study of Botswana. Construction and Building
Materials, 11(1), 1 –7.
Osula, D.O.A. (1996) A comparative evaluation of cement
and lime modification of laterite. Engineering Geology, 42,
71–81.
Ransom, W.H. (1963) Tropical building studies No. 5. HMSO,
Building Research Station, London.
SAA (1977) Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes.
Standards Association of Australia, Australian Standard
1289, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Spence, R.J.S. (1975) Predicting the performance of soil-cement
as a building material in tropical countries. Building
Science, 10, 155– 159.
Symons, W.G. (1999) Properties of Australian soils stabilized
with cementitious binders. Structural Materials and Assem-
blies Group, University of South Australia, The Levels,
South Australia.
Strength of compacted earth
UBC (1997) Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. International
Conference of Building Officials. ICBO: Whittier, CA.
UN (1992) Earth Construction Technology. United Nations
Centre For Human Settlements, Nairobi.
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) (2000) Soil
engineering and stabilization. http://www.adtdl.army.mil/
cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/5 –410/TOC.htm (Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 9).
VITA (1975) Making building blocks with the CINVA-Ram
block press. Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Intermedi-
ate Technology Publications, London.
Walker, P.J. (1995) Strength, durability and shrinkage character-
istics of cement stabilized soil blocks. Cement and Concrete
Composites, 17, 301–310.
Winterkorn, H.F. (1975) Soil stabilization, in Winterkorn, H.F.
and Fang, H.-Y. (Eds): Foundation Engineering Handbook,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Wolfskill, L.A., Dunlap, W. and Gallaway, B.M. (1963) Hand-
book for Building Homes of Earth, Texas Transportation
Institute, Report for the Agency for International Develop-
ment, Bulletin 21, E 14-63, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas.
65