Scholarlink

<p>Large quantities of soil were required for the construction of civil engineering infrastructure. Problematic soils like expansive clays undergo volumetric changes due to moisture variations, causing severe damage to the lightly loaded structures. To control the problems triggered by the expansive clays, various techniques have been devised. Chemical stabilisation and cohesive non swelling (<i>CNS</i>) soil cushion were well-established techniques among the available methods. In light of environmental concerns, the use of industrial wastes like fly ash (<i>FA</i>) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (<i>GGBS</i>) in pavements is extremely important. This research compares the strength behaviour of <i>FA</i>-stabilised lateritic soil cushion and <i>GGBS</i>-stabilised lateritic soil cushion on the untreated and treated expansive soil subgrades. To know the strength characteristics, unconfined compressive strength (<i>UCS</i>) tests and California bearing ratio (<i>CBR</i>) tests were performed in the laboratory. <i>UCS</i> tests were performed on both the expansive clay-additive blends and lateritic soil-additive blends at different curing periods; <i>CBR</i> (soaked) tests were performed on the untreated and treated expansive clay beds cushioned with <i>FA</i>-stabilised lateritic soil and <i>GGBS</i>-stabilised lateritic soil. The lateritic soil cushion thickness was considered based on the thickness ratio (<i>t</i><sub><i>lsc</i></sub><i>/t</i><sub><i>ec</i></sub>). From the laboratory results, a substantial improvement in <i>UCS</i> and <i>CBR</i> values were observed, indicating appropriateness for the pavement subgrades. The <i>CBR</i> increased significantly as the cushion thickness increased. <i>GGBS</i>-stabilised lateritic soil cushion has a higher impact than <i>FA</i>-stabilised lateritic soil cushion on the expansive soil subgrade.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A Comparative Analysis of Fly Ash and GGBS Stabilised Lateritic Soil Cushion for Enhancing Expansive Soil Subgrade Performance

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月1日

查看全文
  • E. Ramanjaneya Raju,
  • B. R. Phanikumar,
  • G. L. V. Krishnam Raju,
  • B. Sudhir Kumar

摘要

Large quantities of soil were required for the construction of civil engineering infrastructure. Problematic soils like expansive clays undergo volumetric changes due to moisture variations, causing severe damage to the lightly loaded structures. To control the problems triggered by the expansive clays, various techniques have been devised. Chemical stabilisation and cohesive non swelling (CNS) soil cushion were well-established techniques among the available methods. In light of environmental concerns, the use of industrial wastes like fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) in pavements is extremely important. This research compares the strength behaviour of FA-stabilised lateritic soil cushion and GGBS-stabilised lateritic soil cushion on the untreated and treated expansive soil subgrades. To know the strength characteristics, unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests and California bearing ratio (CBR) tests were performed in the laboratory. UCS tests were performed on both the expansive clay-additive blends and lateritic soil-additive blends at different curing periods; CBR (soaked) tests were performed on the untreated and treated expansive clay beds cushioned with FA-stabilised lateritic soil and GGBS-stabilised lateritic soil. The lateritic soil cushion thickness was considered based on the thickness ratio (tlsc/tec). From the laboratory results, a substantial improvement in UCS and CBR values were observed, indicating appropriateness for the pavement subgrades. The CBR increased significantly as the cushion thickness increased. GGBS-stabilised lateritic soil cushion has a higher impact than FA-stabilised lateritic soil cushion on the expansive soil subgrade.