RECENT STUDY IN CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR SOIL STABILIZATION WITH WOOD ASH:
AN ANALYSIS Rakesh Kumar Bairwa
Research Scholar, Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidalaya Bhopal (M.P.) Prof. Rajesh Joshi
Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidalaya Bhopal (M.P.)
Abstract - The quick expansion in urbanization, mechanical advancement in the development business and globalization of the economy requests different structural designing designs and office administrations in accessible regions. These days, the development exercises on hazardous soils are inescapable overall in view of shortage of accessible land with sound soil. Subsequently, in the greater part of the structural designing works, it was difficult to choose a reasonable region which can fulfill the plan needs with next to no correction in earth. Hence the measures of plan and developing the designs in regular delicate ground have expanded immensely and it needs appropriate consideration.
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Need for Study
Among different sorts of soils, the development over the hazardous or feeble soils were been a troublesome issue for Geotechnical engineers in executing projects. The locales with powerless soils comprising of the dirts will generally retain and hold the water, which makes the dirt to show bigger volume changes when there is a variety in dampness level.
The primary drivers of soil issues are connected with the sort and measures of earth minerals and the dirt circumstances. In this manner the adjustment of soil conduct makes harm building establishments and other daintily stacked structures and continuous fix works.
The clayey soil which shows greater liking towards the water and that are vulnerable to huge volume changes are known as far reaching dirts and its dirt design changes are displayed in Figure 1.1. In extensive soil, its volume changing nature is because of the presence of Montmorillonite earth mineral and it loses its solidarity considerably and furthermore brings about developments prompting hurling and results in critical bothers which make extreme issues overlying designs. In geotechnical designing fields, the particular issue has engaged with the bearing limit adjustment of clayey soils and the fulfillment of strength in volume changing way of behaving while it is showing more broad nature within the sight of water [1,2].
To change the dirt qualities great for development exercises, there are
significant procedures like mechanical and substance technique for medicines which is being polished in such manner which shows an impressive progress in modifying the idea of feeble soil to make it fit for development. Consequently, the adjustment of soil qualities to satisfy explicit designing needs founded on the dirt kinds can be appropriately altered by the strategy for soil adjustment.
The mechanical adjustment is one of the actual cycles, by modifying the idea of soil particles by changing the molecule connection that mostly relies upon degree, robustness, and other actual attributes. Substance adjustment is the technique for changing the properties of powerless soils to wanted degree of attributes by advancing the compound responses with the accessible minerals present in soil and providing the advancing specialists as stabilizer. The synthetic treatment is one of the noticeable soil change strategy to make the dirt with improved geotechnical properties and swell potential in a manner ideal for structural designing applications than mechanical and actual methods.
Figure 1.1 Behaviour of expansive clay
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 General
Normal soil is composite and complex naturally. Having different materialistic properties and different piece of materials, minerals and supplements is proportioned. Various kinds of soil have various properties and trademark highlights. Among the different sorts, the tricky soils are greater part of delicate dirt and peat stores which have high compressibility and volumetric changes.
Mud soil are significantly thought to be as folding or dangerous soils when they are exceptionally porous and feeble.
Hereafter, to use even such soils including powerless stores, adjustment methods can be utilized. Soil adjustment by admixture is one of the conventional and practical techniques fundamentally to work on the geotechnical properties of tricky soils. It is fundamental to work on the strength and sturdiness of soil by locally accessible or exorbitantly plentiful material to ad lib soil layer. A choice of reasonable adjustment procedure should be embraced for various destinations, since the way of behaving, nature and properties of soils accessible in various areas are fluctuating to a great extent .The dirt change or adjustment strategy changes primarily the strength, compressibility and pressure driven conductivity qualities of tricky soils.
3 MATERIALS
In this review, the materials utilized are two soil tests gathered at two unique area and two added substances. The subtleties of the material gathered, test led and the properties are talked about in the accompanying segments.
3.1 Soil
For this trial study, two soil tests were gathered in the wake of separating the top surface and free soil. Then, at that point, the first soils tests were gotten from surface under 60 cm from ground. Two soil tests, Soil test An and Soil test B were gathered from Perungudi, Chennai and close to Virudhachalam (Tholudur to Vadakarampoondi street), Tamil Nadu.
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 addresses the places where the two soil tests are gathered for this review that show high expanding and shrinkage which causes the issue in
development of designs and streets. The properties of two soil tests, which are gathered from the two, not set in stone subsequent to drying the samples[88].
The properties of soil like explicit gravity, Atterberg's cutoff points and compaction still up in the air. Furthermore, the UCS, Swell and CBR tests likewise directed on soils according to BIS technique. The system and the subtleties of the test led are given in the accompanying segments.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 General
Geotechnical engineers utilized the ground improvement strategies to work on the presentation of tricky soils and strength qualities. One of the ground improvement techniques is utilizing the synthetic substances, results or squanders as added substances in soil.
Utilization of the squanders or side-effect in soils can likewise solve4 its removal issues. In this review, the phosphogypsum and wood debris are utilized to balance out two risky soils.
Adequacy of the use of stabilizers on soil was assessed by leading the strength attributes test, free swell test, synthetic investigation, Microstructural examination pH worth, freeze and defrost test.
4.2 Standard Proctor Compaction Test Results of Untreated and Treated Soils Geotechnical engineers utilized the ground improvement strategies to work on the presentation of tricky soils and strength qualities. One of the ground improvement techniques is utilizing the synthetic substances, results or squanders as added substances in soil.
Utilization of the squanders or side-effect in soils can likewise solve4 its removal issues. In this review, the phosphogypsum and wood debris are utilized to balance out two risky soils.
Adequacy of the use of stabilizers on soil was assessed by leading the strength attributes test, free swell test, synthetic investigation, Micro structural examination pH worth, freeze and defrost test.
Table 4.1 OMC and MDD values of soils and PG treated soil samples PG
% Soil - A Soil - B OMC,
% MDD,
kN/m3 OMC,
% MDD, kN/m3
0 24.9 13.91 23 16.3
2 25.5 15.13 25.0 17.4 4 26.9 16.02 26.4 18.2 6 27.4 16.75 27.5 18.8 8 28.6 17.37 29.3 19.2
Table 4.2 OMC and MDD values of untreated and WA treated soil samples
WA
%
Soil - A Soil - B OMC,
% MDD,
kN/m3 OMC,
% MDD,
kN/m3 0 24.9 13.91 23 16.3 3 25.5 14.94 25.8 17.1 5 26.4 15.76 27.0 17.8 7 27 16.4 28.2 18.3 9 27.5 16.84 29.9 18.6 11 28.8 17.01 30.3 18.8
Figure 4.1 Variation of compaction characteristics of untreated and
treated soil A with PG
The MDD and OMC values are observed as increasing when the soil samples A and B were treated with phosphogypsum, since the fine grains fills the voids of the structure of clay particle.
Figure 4.2 Variation of compaction characteristics of untreated and
treated soil B with PG
Figure 4.3 Variation of compaction characteristics of untreated and
treated soil A with WA
Figure 4.4 Variation of compaction characteristics of treated and
untreated soil B with WA
Like the phosphogypsum treated soils, anincrease in the dry thickness of the wood debris treated soil with an expansion in the ideal dampness content was noticed. The expansion in its compaction conduct is fundamentally due to with the expansion of debris which can compacts the dirt grains by expanding the contact region among soil and fine debris particles. This conduct will in general allow the thickness of soils in treated condition. This nature of treated soils is seen because of the similarity of soil with the stabilizers and accordingly prompts the arrangement of cementation compounds because of the treatment.
4.3 Ucs Test Results of Untreated and Treated Soils
The UCS tests on soils are done in the research facility according to the BIS code strategy. The examples for UCS test having aspects 38 mm measurement and 76 mm level were ready by compacting the dirt examples with their compaction attributes. The test, right off the bat, were directed on untreated soils and further for the treated soils, phosphogypsum of rates (2%, 4%, 6% and 8%) and wood debris of fluctuated rates (3%, 5%, 7%, 9% and
11%) are blended in with the dirts. After the arrangement, the UCS soil examples were relieved for 3,7, 14, 28 and 60 days and toward the finish of each restoring period it was tested[115].
4.3.1 Stress - Strain Characteristics of Untreated and Treated Soil
Tests ready with the shifting rates of phosphogypsum on soil A and B are considered the relieving and UCS tests were led on the dirt examples. The pressure versus strain plot for the every one of the dirts A and B treated with the admixture for the different restoring periods were plotted. Fig. 4.5 to 4.7 shows the average pressure strain conduct of treated soils with 2%, 4%, 6% and 8% of phosphogypsum for various restoring times of 3, 14 and 60 days. Comparatively the pressure strain connections for the phosphogypsum treated soil test Bare displayed in Fig. 4.8 to 4.10.
Figure 4.5 Stress-Strain behaviour of soil A treated with PG at 3 days curing
period
Figure 4.6 Stress-Strain behaviour of soil A treated with PG at 14 days
curing period
Figure 4.7 Stress-Strain behaviour of soil A treated with PG at 60 days
curing period
From the outcomes got from the UCS tests, it very well may be seen that there is an expansion in pressure with the expansion of different rates of phosphogypsum for both the dirts An and B. This pattern was noticed for both the dirts for all the restoring time frame considered. From the Figures 4.5 to 4.7, it very well may be seen that the pressure expanded quickly and arrived at the top at a lesser strain for treated soil. For instance, for the untreated soil A, the pinnacle pressure is reached at 0.065%
strain with 8% phosphogypsum content, though for the treated soil test the greatest pressure was seen at lesser kind of 0.045% at the relieving times of 60 days. A similar way of behaving was noticed for soil B which was displayed in Figures 4.8 to 4.10.
Figure 4.8 Stress-Strain behaviour of soil B treated with PG at 3 days curing
period
The figures 4.11 and 4.12 portrays the pressure strain conduct of wood debris treated soils A and B at the restoring times of 60 days. It was likewise seen that the pressure expanded quickly for treated
soils and this conduct was noticed for treated soils An and B with phosphogypsum. The pressure upsides of the wood debris treated soil shows the better improvement while contrasted and the phosphogypsum treated soils.
Figure 4.9 Stress-Strain behaviour of soil B treated with PG at 14 days
curing period
Figure 4.10 Stress-Strain behaviour of soil B treated with PG at 60 days
curing period
Figure 4.11 Stress-Strain behaviour of soil A treated with WA at 60 days
curing periods
Figure 4.12 Stress-Strain behaviour of soil B treated with WA at 60 days
curing periods
4.4 California Bearing Ratio Test Results of Untreated and Treated Soils The CBR tests on treated soils are completed according to BIS methodology for the dirt examples blended in with PG of changing amounts (ie, 2%, 4%, 6% and 8%) and wood debris (3%, 5%, 7%, 9%
and 11%) alongside soil.CBR tests were at first compacted in the CBR molds to the relating compaction qualities and tried after wanted restoring of 3, 7, 14, 28 and 60 days has reached.
4.4.1 Load-Penetration Characteristics of Treated Soils
CBR tests ready with the differing rates of phosphogypsum on soil A and B are took into consideration the relieving according to the methodology of restoring the example examined before. After the restoring time frames, CBR tests were led on the dirt examples according to the BIS codal system. The heap entrance qualities for soils An and B treated with PG for the different restoring not entirely set in stone. Figures 4.21and 4.22 show the ordinary burden entrance conduct of treated soils with 2%, 4%, 6% and 8% of PG for the 14 days restoring period.
Figure 4.13 Load-Deformation graph for soil A treated with PG at 14 days
curing periods
Figure 4.14 Load-Deformation graph for soil B treated with PG at 14 days
curing periods
From the figures, it very well may be discernible that the CBR esteem increments as the level of phosphogypum increments to an ideal level, after which a decline in CBR esteem was noted. For the compactive endeavors, this CBR esteem arrived at the ideal with6% PG. Figures 4.15 and 4.16 show the average burden entrance conduct of treated soils with 0, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9% and 11% of WA for the 7 days relieving period.
Figure 4.15 Load Deformation graph for soil A treated with WA at 7 days curing
period
The load penetration study suggests that the CBR of the 9% wood ash and soil mixture may yield the maximum CBR and it will achieve the better soil modification in both the soils A and B [119, 120].
4.4.2 Effect of Varying Dosages of Additives on CBR Value of Treated Soil From the CBR test conducted, the study of effect of stabilizer on both the soils by varying the dosages of stabilizers are shown in the Table 4.7 and 4.8 after the curing periods of 3, 7, 14, 28 and 60 days.
Figure 4.16 Load-Deformation graph for soil B treated with WA at 7 days curing
period
Table 4.3 Variation of CBR values of untreated soil and treated soil with PG
Soil PG
% CBR Values (%) Curing periods (days) 0 3 7 14 28 60 A 0 3.6 - - - - -
2 - 3.8 5.2 6.3 7.4 8.1 4 - 4.9 5.8 6.9 7.9 8.8 6 - 6.6 7.1 7.9 9.5 9.9 8 - 5.7 6.2 7.1 8.8 9.3 B 0 2.7 - - - - -
2 - 3.6 4.9 5.7 6.5 7.6 4 - 5.2 5.7 6.5 7.6 8.6 6 - 6.3 6.8 7.6 8.8 9.5 8 - 5.1 5.6 6.4 8 8.9
From the Table 4.3, it was seen that CBR of soil increments to 9.9 % and 9.5 % from 3.6 % and 2.7 % when 6 % PG was added to soil tests An and B separately following 60 days relieving. Expansion in admixture content expands the CBR values for various relieving periods. The augmentation in CBR worth of treated soil might be a result of the steady development of hydration intensifies in the dirt because of the synthetic responses between the admixtures and the components present in the dirts. The CBR esteem expanded with expansion in stabilizer content for both the dirt examples An and B and it was affirmed with the direct relapse bends for the CBR upsides of 60 days relieving period was displayed in Figure 4.25 and 4.26.
Figure 4.17 Effect of phosphogypsum on CBR values of soil A cured at 60
days
From figures 4.17, it was seen that the pace of expansion in CBR values is by all accounts unmistakable for the expansion of 6 % of PG stabilizer satisfied with both the dirts, since the coefficient of assurance esteem R2 got as 0.8359 and 0.829 for soils An and B separately, which almost equivalent to solidarity.
4.5 Microstructural Analysis on Untreated and Treated Soils
The microstructural conduct was investigated by Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-Ray Diffraction tests on untreated and treated soil tests. The investigation of Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive X- beam was led to recognize the microstructural highlights and developments in the settled soil structure.
The better bits of soil examples arranged from tried UCS tests were dried and utilized for acquiring the SEM pictures and EDS results. XRD tests were completed to perceive the mineral sytheses and for this, UCS tests were powdered underneath the size of 75μm subsequent to drying was utilized.
4.5.1 SEM and EDS Analysis on Untreated and Treated Soils
The Scanning Electron Microscopy was utilized utilizing a FEI Quanta 200 FEG magnifying lens to distinguish and analysethe microstructural changes in the framework of the dirt, phosphogypsum, wood debris and treated soil examples with stabilizers. The photographs of the broke surfaces from arranged soil examples shows the dirt design and the idea of the items framed during treatment which are utilized for noticing the
microstructural advancements of the mud examples. The SEM micrographs private the proof of changes in soil structure when treatment of soils. Figure 4.18 shows the micrographs of the dirt and stabilizers. (ie., phosphogypsum and wood debris.
Figure 4.18 Micrographs of the soil and stabilizers
It tends to be seen from the accompanying figures that the examples concentrated through SEM have unobtrusively differing microstructures.
While considering the untreated examples, the pore spaces of dirt examples were higher when contrasted and the added substances. Figure 4.18 addresses the SEM pictures of treated soils An and B with the shifting doses of phosphogypsumat the relieving age of 60 days.
5 CONCLUSION
In this trial examination, both the dirt examples were settled with differing rates 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8% of phosphogypsum and 0, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11% to concentrate on the impact on strength qualities, free swell file and microstructural studies.
According to the examinations made, the following ends were drawn:
Both the dirt examples A and B were delegated Highly compressible Clay (CH) in light of the molecule size and Atterberg's cutoff.
In view of the UCS tests led, the rate increment of 67.29 and 54.21 was seen in soil tests An and B treated with 6% PG at 60days restoring period.
Comparatively with the expansion of 9%
WA in soil test A and B shows the rate
increment of 199.3 and 178.26 for a similar time of restoring.
For the treated soil tests, the pace of progress in UCS esteem diminishes with the expansion in relieving days. ie for test A, the increment from 3 days to 7days is 4.47%, 7 to 14 days is 10.75%, 14 to 28 days is 9.31% and 28 to 60 days is 3.57% with the expansion of phosphogypsum. This comparable pattern was seen in example B with phosphogypsumand likewise with wood debris treated soil.
CBR test consequences of 6% PG treated soil at 60days relieving period shows an increment of 9.9% and 9.5%
from 3.6% and 2.7% for test An and B.
Comparably with the 9% wood debris shows the improvement in CBR worth of 10.1% and 9.8% for similar restoring time of 60 days.
REFERENCES
1. Arya Assadi Langroudi and S. Shahaboddin Yasrobi (2009), A Micro- Mechanical Approach to Swelling Behavior of Unsaturated Expansive Clays under Controlled Drainage Conditions, Applied Clay Science, Vol. 45, pp: 8–19.
2. Zeynal Abiddin Erguler and Resat Ulusay (2003), A Simple Test and Predictive Models for Assessing Swell Potential of Ankara (Turkey) Clay, Engineering Geology, Vol. 67, pp: 331–
352.
3. Thomas M. Petry and Dallas N. Little (2002), Review of Stabilization of Clays and Expansive Soils in Pavements and Lightly Loaded Structures- History, Practice, and Future, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol.14, Issue No. 6, pp: 447-460.
4. Nilo Cesar Consoli, Diego Foppa, Lucas Festugatoand Karla Salvagni Heineck (2007), Key Parameters for Strength Control of Artificially Cemented Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 133, Issue No.2,pp: 197-205.
5. Suksun Horpibulsuk, Runglawan Rachan, Avirut Chinkulkijniwat, Yuttana Raksachon and Apichat Suddeepong (2010), Analysis of Strength Development in Cement-Stabilized Silty Clay from Microstructural Considerations, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 24, Issue No.10, pp: 2011- 2021.
6. B. R. Phani Kumar and Radhey S. Sharma (2004), Effect of Fly Ash on Engineering Properties of Expansive Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, Issue No. 7, pp: 764- 767.
7. Bumjoo Kim, Monica Prezzi and Rodrigo Salgado (2005), Geotechnical Properties of Fly and Bottom Ash Mixtures for Use in Highway Embankments, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.131, Issue No.7,pp: 914–924.
8. Erdal Cokca (1997), Frost Susceptibility Properties of Soma-B Fly Ash, Journal of Energy Engineering, Vol. 23, Issue No. 1, pp:
1–10.
9. R.C. Joshi, J.P.A. Hettiaratchiand Gopal Achari (1994), Properties of Modified Alberta Fly Ash in Relation to Utilization in Waste Management Applications, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 21, Issue No.3,pp:
419- 426.
10. Anil Kumar Sharma, P. V. Sivapullaiah Sharma, A. K and Sivapullaiah, P. V. (2016), Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Amended Fly Ash as an Expansive Soil Stabilizer, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 56, Issue No.2, pp: 205-212.
11. Sulapha Peethamparan, Jan Olek and Janet Lovell (2008), Influence of Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Cement Kiln Dusts (CKDs) on their Hydration Behavior and Potential Suitability for Soil Stabilization, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 38, Issue No.6, pp: 803–815.
12. Hazardous Waste Management Series (2014), Guidelines for Management, Handling, Utilization and Disposal of Phosphogypsum Generated from Phosphoric Acid Plants, Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi.
13. Sergejus Gaiducis, Romualdas Maciulaitis and Antanas Kaminskas (2009), Eco‐Balance Features and Significance of Hemihydrate Phosphogypsum Reprocessing into Gypsum Binding Materials, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol.15, Issue No.2, pp: 205- 213.
14. O.O. Amu, I. K.Adewumi, A L Ayodele, R A Mustapha and O. O. Ola (2005), Analysis of California Bearing Ratio Values of Lime and Wood Ash Stabilized Lateritic Soil, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 5, Issue No. 8, pp:
1479- 1483.
15. J. Ninov, I. Donchev, A. Lenchev and I.
Grancharov (2007), Chemical Stabilization of Sandy-SiltyIllite Clay, Journal of the University of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, Vol.
42, Issue No. 1, pp: 67-72.
16. Olaniyan O.S., Olaoye R.A., Okeyinka O.M.
and Olaniyan D.B (2011), Soil Stabilization Techniques using Sodium Hydroxide Additives, International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 11, Issue No.6, pp: 9- 22.
17. Pancar E. B. and Akpinar M. V. (2016), Comparison of Effects of Using Geosynthetics and Lime Stabilization to Increase Bearing Capacity of Unpaved Road Subgrade, Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, pp: 1-8.
18. Sujit Kumar Dash, N.R. Krishnaswamy and K.
Rajagopal (2001), Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings Supported on Geocell-Reinforced Sand, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 19, Issue No.4, pp: 235-256.
19. S. K. Dash, S. Sireesh and T. G. Sitharam (2003), Model Studies on Circular Footing Supported on Geocell Reinforced Sand Underlain by Soft Clay, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 21, no. 4, pp: 197–219.
20. S.N. Moghaddas Tafreshi and A.R. Dawson (2010), Comparison of Bearing Capacity of a Strip Footing on Sand with Geocell and with Planar Forms of Geotextile Reinforcement,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 28, Issue No.1, pp: 72-84.
21. Huabao Zhou and Xuejun Wen (2008), Model Studies on Geogrid- or Geocell-Reinforced Sand Cushion on Soft Soil, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 26, Issue No. 3, pp: 231- 238.
22. Hufenus R., Rueegger R., Banjac R., Mayor P., Springman S.M. and Bronnimann R (2006), Full-Scale Field Tests on Geosynthetic Reinforced Unpaved on Soft Subgrade, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 24, Issue No.1, pp: 21-37.
23. Wesseloo J., Visser A.T. and Rust E. (2009), The Stress-Strain Behavior of Multiple Geocell Packs, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.
27, Issue No.1, pp: 31-38.
24. Sudhakar M Rao and K. S. Subba Rao (1994), Ground heave from caustic soda solution spillage-A case study. Journal of Soils and Foundation, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.
34, Issue No.2, pp: 13-18.
25. Robin E. Graves, James L. Eades and Larry L.
Smith (1988), Strength Developed from Carbonate Cementation of Silica- Carbonate
Base Corse Materials, Transportation Research Record, No. 1190, pp: 24-30.
26. Delage P and Lefebvre G. (1984), Study of the Structure of a Sensitive Champlain Clay and of its Evolution During Consolidation, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 21, Issue No.1, pp:
21-35.
27. Nagaraj T.S, Pandian N. S and Narasimha Raju P. S. R. (1998), Compressibility Behavior of Soft Cemented Soils, Geotechnique, Vol. 48, Issue No. 2, pp: 281-287.
28. J. B. Croft (1967), The Influence of Soil Mineralogical on Cement Stabilization, Geotechnique, Vol. 17, Issue No. 2, pp: 119- 135.
29. Ramana, K. V. (1993), Expansive Soils:
Problems and Practice in Foundation and Pavement Engineering, Engineering Geology, Vol. 35, Issue No.1, pp: 136–138.
30. S. H. Chew, A. H. M. Kamruzzaman and F.H.
Lee (2004), Physicochemical and Engineering Behavior of Cement Treated Clays, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (ASCE), Vol. 130, Issue No.7, pp.
696- 706.
