Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Vol. 9, No. 5 (2014) 541 - 558

© School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

CLAY SOIL STABILISATION USING POWDERED GLASS

J. OLUFOWOBI, A. OGUNDOJU, B. MICHAEL, O. ADERINLEWO*

Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Technology Akure,

P.M.B. 704, Akure, Nigeria
*Corresponding Author: oluade2010@gmail.com

Abstract
This paper assesses the stabilizing effect of powdered glass on clay soil. Broken
waste glass was collected and ground into powder form suitable for addition to
the clay soil in varying proportions namely 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% and 15% along
with 15% cement (base) by weight of the soil sample throughout. Consequently,
the moisture content, specific gravity, particle size distribution and Atterberg
limits tests were carried out to classify the soil using the ASSHTO classification
system. Based on the results, the soil sample obtained corresponded to Group
A-6 soils identified as ‘fair to poor’ soil type in terms of use as drainage and
subgrade material. This justified stabilisation of the soil. Thereafter,
compaction, California bearing ratio (CBR) and direct shear tests were carried
out on the soil with and without the addition of the powdered glass. The results
showed improvement in the maximum dry density values on addition of the
powdered glass and with corresponding gradual increase up to 5% glass powder
content after which it started to decrease at 10% and 15% powdered glass content.
The highest CBR values of 14.90% and 112.91% were obtained at 5% glass
powder content and 5mm penetration for both the unsoaked and soaked treated
samples respectively. The maximum cohesion and angle of internal friction values
of 17.0 and 15.0 respectively were obtained at 10% glass powder content.
Keywords: Atterberg limits, Subgrade material, Stabilisation, Compaction,
California bearing ratio.

1. Introduction
Clay soils exhibit generally undesirable engineering properties. They tend to have
low shear strength which reduces further upon wetting or other physical
disturbances. They can be plastic and compressible; expand when wetted and
shrink when dried. Some types expand and shrink greatly upon wetting and
drying, thereby, exhibiting some very undesirable features. Cohesive soils can creep
541
542 J. Olufowobi et al.

Nomenclatures

Gs Specific gravity
M1 Mass of empty can, g
M2 Mass of can and wet sample, g
M3 Mass of can and dry sample, g
m1 Mass of specific gravity bottle, g
m2 Mass of specific gravity bottle with 50 g of soil sample, g
m3 Mass of specific gravity bottle with water and soil sample, g
m4 Mass of specific gravity bottle filled with water, g

Greek Symbols
γ Density, kN/m3
γ-max Maximum density, kN/m3

 Maximum shear at failure

Abbreviations
CBR California bearing ratio
LL Liquid limit
LS Linear shrinkage
MC Moisture content
MDD Maximum dry density
OMC Optimum moisture content
PI Plasticity index
PL Plastic limit
over time under constant load, especially when the shear stress is approaching its
shear strength, making them prone to sliding. They develop large lateral pressures
and tend to have low resilient modulus values. For these reasons, clays are
generally poor materials for foundations. Their properties may need to be
improved upon in some cases by soil stabilisation.
Stabilisation is the process of blending and mixing materials with a soil to
improve the properties of the soil. The process may include the blending of soils
to achieve a desired gradation or the mixing of commercially available additives
that may alter the gradation and improve the engineering properties of soil, thus
making it more stable. This study seeks to determine the geotechnical properties
of clay soil stabilised with broken glass through laboratory tests. The disposal of
wastes produced from different industries has become a great problem. These
materials pose a threat to the environment because they can result in pollution in
the nearby locality since they are majorly non-biodegradable.
In recent years, applications of industrial wastes have been considered in road
construction both in industrialised and developing countries. Utilization of such
materials is based on technical, economic and ecological criteria which are crucial
for a country like Nigeria which normally provides a good environment for both
the manufacture and importation of glass materials. However, Nigerian cities and
towns are currently facing serious environmental problems arising from poor
solid waste management. The rate of solid waste generation in Nigeria has
increased with rapid urbanization. Solid waste is generated at a rate which has
grown beyond what the capacity of the city authorities can handle. This has

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

 Clay Soil Stabilisation Using Powdered Glass 543

resulted in a poor solid-waste management system that portends serious

environmental crisis in most Nigeria towns and cities. The components of solid
waste in Nigeria consist mainly of polythene bags, pieces of clothes, foodstuffs,
plastic and paper materials. Others are metals, tins, bottles and glass materials.
Traditionally soil, stone aggregates, sand, bitumen, cement among others are
used for road construction. However, the cost of sourcing for and processing such
materials in adequate quantity and quality is on the increase. Hence, a lot of
research is on-going to identify and develop alternative materials for highway
construction and industrial waste products are one of such alternatives. If these
materials can be developed and suitably utilised in highway construction, the
attendant pollution and disposal problems may be greatly reduced.
Consequently, this study assesses the use of broken (waste) glass in powdered
form as stabiliser for clay soil. The underlying objectives are to identify the waste
glass materials to be used process the waste glass into suitable form for addition
to the soil, assess its performance as a stabiliser by measuring its effects on clay
soil (through a comparison of the properties of the soil with and without the
addition of the broken glass) and determine appropriate quantities of the broken
glass required for adequate stabilisation of the clay soil.

2. Background Literature
Soil stabilisation is the alteration of soils to enhance their physical properties. It
can increase the shear strength of a soil, control its shrink-swell properties and
improve its load bearing capacity. Soil stabilisation can be utilized on roadways,
parking areas, site development projects, airports and many other situations where
sub-soils are not suitable for construction. It can also be used to treat a wide range
of subgrade materials varying from expansive clays to granular soils as well as
improve other physical properties of soils such as increasing their resistance to
erosion, dust formation or frost heaving.
Historically, engineers have long been aware of the stabilizing effects of
various materials in earth works. The first and by far, the most extensive and
successful application of stabilisation was developed by the French engineer,
Henry Vidal, in the late 1950's. Vidal’s system was known as 'Reinforced Earth',
which consists of placing steel reinforcing strips at predetermined intervals within
the fill mass for the purpose of providing tensile or cohesive strength in a
relatively cohesionless material [1].
Vidal developed the idea for reinforced earth while visiting a sandy beach on
the Mediterranean. He toyed with the sand, arranging it in piles which quickly slid
down forming cones with an angle of repose that always remained the same. He
then placed rows of pines needles tending more towards the vertical. Essentially,
he reinforced the sand so that the internal friction between the sand and the pine
needles held the sand in place. This theory was verified in 1965 when he designed
and built the first reinforced earth embankment. In the reinforced earth concept,
the steel strip reinforcement resists the forces that develop in the soil mass by
means of transfer through friction between the soil grains and the reinforcement.
If reinforcement is properly designed and placed, it is possible to avoid share
failure so that the entire mass behaves like a cohesive solid capable of
withstanding both internal and external forces.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

544 J. Olufowobi et al.

2.1. Clay soil formations

Clay minerals are typically formed over long periods of time by the gradual
chemical weathering of rocks (usually silicate-bearing) by low concentrations of
carbonic acid and other diluted solvents. These solvents are usually acidic and
migrate through the weathering rock after leaching through upper weathered
layers. In addition to the weathering process, some clay minerals are formed by
hydrothermal activity.
Clay deposits may be formed in places such as residual deposits in soil but
thick deposits usually are formed as the result of a secondary sedimentary
deposition process after they have been eroded and transported from their original
location of formation. Generally, clay soils have poor drainage characteristics
which are largely dependent on the infiltration rate, which can be changed by
adding larger particles of organic matter or pea gravel to the soil.

2.2. Principles of soil stabilisation

Stabilisation is defined as the process of improving the soil aggregate properties
by blending in materials that increase the load bearing capacity, firmness and
resistance to weathering or displacement. It can be defined as the process of
altering the soil properties by mechanical or chemical means thereby improving
the desired engineering properties of such soils. There are three purposes for soil
stabilisation namely strength improvement, permeability control and enhancement
of soil durability and resistance to weathering.

2.2.1. Mechanical stabilisation

Mechanical stabilisation is achieved by compaction of interlocks of soil-aggregate
particles. The grading of the soil-aggregate mixture must be such that a dense
mass is produced when it is compacted. Uniformly mixing the material and
compacting the mixture can accomplish mechanical stabilisation. As an
alternative, additional aggregates may be blended before compaction to form a
uniform, well-graded, dense soil-aggregate mixture after compaction. The choice
of methods should be based on the gradation of the material.
Soil compaction is the process of increasing the density of soil by packing the
particles closer together causing a reduction in the volume of air. The volume of
water, initially, remains unchanged. Soil water acts as a lubricant increasing
compaction when a load is imposed on the soil. By packing primary soil particles
such as sand, silt, clay and soil aggregates closer together, the balance between
solids, air-filled and water-filled pore spaces is dramatically altered.
According to Bowles [2], compaction usually eliminates the largest soil pores.
A large portion of the initial soil air is forced out of the upper plant root zone, and
the channels of greatest continuity and least resistance to air movement, water
movement and root penetration are destroyed. Under comparable conditions, soils
with a range of soil particle sizes (such as fine sandy loam) are generally more
compactable than sandy soils of uniform particle size. The primary function of the
portion of a mechanically stabilised soil mixture that is retained on a no. 200 sieve
is to contribute internal friction. However, the best aggregates are those that are

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

 Clay Soil Stabilisation Using Powdered Glass 545

made up of hard, durable, angular particles with gradation that makes them more
easily compacted.

2.2.2. Chemical stabilisation

This method deals with improving the engineering properties of soil by adding
chemicals or other such materials and it is generally cost effective. These
additives react with the soil usually clay minerals, with subsequent precipitation
of new and insoluble minerals, which bind the soil together [3]. There are various
categories of these chemical admixtures namely cementing agents, modifiers,
water proofing agents, water retaining agents, water retarding agents and
miscellaneous chemicals. In addition, their characteristics are vastly different
from the others and each has its particular use as well as limitations.
Considering the cementing agents first, the materials often used are Portland
cement, lime, mixture of lime and fly ash, and sodium silicate. Portland cement
has been used extensively to improve existing gravel roads as well as stabilise the
natural subgrade soils. Other admixtures that have come into extensive use in
recent years are lime and fly ash admixtures. Fly ash is a by-product of blast
furnaces and is generally high in silica and alumina. However, the quantity of fly
ash required for adequate stabilisation is relatively high, making its use restricted
to areas with availability of large quantities of fly ash at relatively low cost.

The next category of stabilisation includes the water proofing materials. Foremost
among these are bituminous materials used for coating the soil grains so as to retard or
completely stop absorption of moisture. Bituminous stabilisation is best suited for
sandy soils or poor quality base course materials and its benefit is derived by driving
off the volatile constituents of the bitumen just prior to compaction.

2.3. Reinforced fiber stabilisation

Early civilisation witnessed the use of straws, plant roots, soil bricks and cob wall
to improve soil properties even though their mechanism may have not been fully
understood. However, modern geotechnical engineering has focused on the use
discrete fibers in reinforcing soils which is still a relatively new technique in
geotechnical projects. The concept of fiber-reinforcement in geotechnical projects
originally involved the use of plant roots as reinforcement. Most researchers
reported that plant roots increase the shear strength of the soil and, consequently,
the stability of natural slopes.
Al-Khafaji and Andersland performed triaxial tests on kaolinite clay
reinforced with cellulose pulp fibers [4]. The shear strength under various testing
conditions (undrained, consolidated drained and consolidated undrained)
increased with increasing fiber content and the mode of failure changed from
brittle to plastic. The ductility of the specimen was also found to increase with
increasing fiber content.
Al-Joulani evaluated the use of waste fiber materials such as scrap tire rubber,
polyethylene and polypropylene fiber for the modification of clayey soils under
unconfined compression, shear box and resonant frequency tests [5]. It was

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

546 J. Olufowobi et al.

discovered that waste fibers improve the strength properties and dynamic
behaviour of clayey soils.
Gray carried out series of laboratory unconfined compression, splitting-
tension, three-point-bending and hydraulic conductivity tests on kaolinite clay
reinforced with fiber, and reported that randomly distributed fibers increase the
peak unconfined compressive strength, ductility, splitting tensile strength and
flexural toughness of kaolinite clay [6]. The contribution of fiber-reinforcement
was found to be more significant for specimens with lower water contents. Some
researchers have studied the use of fibers to improve the ductility of cement-
stabilised soils.
Consoli et al. reported that fiber-reinforcement increases the peak and residual
shear strength of cement-treated soil and changes their brittle behaviour to ductile
behaviour [7]. Consoli et al. reported similar behaviour when using fibers with
soils stabilised with cement or fly ash [8]. The behaviour of fiber-reinforced
uncemented soil was different from that in fiber reinforced cemented soil.
Increasing fiber content was shown to increase the peak axial stress and decreases
the stiffness. In addition, the distribution of the fibers in all parts of the soil was
more effective than layer distribution.

2.4. Engineering properties of fiber reinforced soil

The addition of fiber reinforcement in the sand and clay specimens was reported
to cause a substantial increase in the peak friction angle and cohesion values. The
shear strength envelope for the clay specimens is described by a combination of
curvilinear and linear sections. The friction angle at low confining pressures was
found to be slightly larger than that at higher confining pressure. The
phenomenon was explained as an effect of dilatancy which increases the interface
shear strength between fiber and soil. This effect is more pronounced at low
confining stresses than at high confining stresses.
Previous research on the equivalent shear strength of fiber-reinforced soil has
focused on quantifying the effect of fiber content and aspect ratio. Several
predictive models have been proposed. These include a load transfer model that
requires parameters obtained with non-conventional testing of soil-fiber
composites, a strain energy approach that uses energy concepts and a statistical
model based on the regression analyses of previous test results. A recently
proposed discrete design methodology used concepts derived from limit
equilibrium, and requires independent characterization of soils and fibers [9].
However, additional experimental results are needed to validate the proposed
design models. The accuracy of the prediction of these models also relies on a
proper understanding of the mechanism of interface and interactions between the
fibers and soils.

2.5. Influence of fibers on soil compaction

Fletcher and Humphries reported results of compaction tests on silty clay soil
specimens reinforced with fibers [10]. It was concluded that the presence of fibers
decreases the ability of soil to densify. Unlike the case of sandy gravel reported
by Alobaidi and Hoare, the test results showed that increasing the fiber content

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

 Clay Soil Stabilisation Using Powdered Glass 547

caused a modest increase in the maximum dry unit weight [11]. The optimum
water content was found to decrease with increasing fiber content. Prabakar and
Sridhar reported similar results [12]. The results of compaction test on palm fiber
reinforced silty sand showed that the maximum dry density decreases and
optimum moisture content increases with increasing fiber content [13]. According
to Terrel et al. [14], the soil mixture in its untreated form shows a lower dry
density and higher optimum moisture content than the untreated soil for a given
compaction effort.
Maher and Ho studied the effect of fibers on the hydraulic conductivity of
a kaolinite-fiber composite and showed that its inclusion increased the
hydraulic conductivity of the composite which became more pronounced at
higher fiber contents (up to 4% by weight) [15]. Despite the increase, the
hydraulic conductivity of the composite was still low enough to be considered
for some landfill applications and acceptable to satisfy the requirements for
landfill cover design.

2.6. Powdered glass stabilisation

This involves the addition of broken glass powder to soil so as to improve its
engineering performance. Glass is totally inert and therefore non-biodegradable. It
degrades in a manner similar to natural rock. As an inert construction material, it
can increase the strength of various road building elements. Glass has been
experimented on as a substitute aggregate in asphalt concrete. Crushed glass has
also been used as an aggregate for sub-base.
Glass is an amorphous non crystalline material, which is typically brittle
and optically transparent. The familiar type of waste glass materials are
drinking vessels and windows, however, most of the readily available waste
glass material is soda-lime glass composed of about 75% silica (Si02), Na2 O,
CaO and several additives.

3. Methodology and Materials

The materials used in carrying out this project are powdered glass, cement, clay
soil and water. Glass is an amorphous non crystalline material which is typically
brittle and optically transparent. The familiar type of waste glass materials found
around are drinking vessel and windows, most of the readily available waste glass
materials are soda-lime glass, composed of about 75% silica (Si02) plus Na2O,
CaO, and several additives. This material is added to clay soil in its powdered
form for soil stabilisation.
Cement can be described as a material with adhesive and cohesive properties,
which make it capable of holding material fragment into a compacted aggregate.
It is manufactured from limestone and is added to an expansive soil to improve its
engineering properties. It may be formed in place as residual deposits in soil
while larger deposits usually are formed as the result of a secondary sedimentary
deposition process after they have been eroded and transported from their original
location of formation. Lastly, water is a universal solvent. The water used is
obtained from bore holes and is free from suspended particles like organic matter
and silt which might affect the hydration process of cement.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

548 J. Olufowobi et al.

3.1. Collection, processing and composition of materials

The glass bottles used for this study were obtained from Cocacola’s Bottling
depot, Oba-Ile, Akure, Ondo State. They were washed, dried, broken down
manually into smaller sizes with the use of hammer and passed through sieve
number 400 to produce the glass in powdery form. However, the clay soil was
collected from the bank of the stream located at Baydock also in Akure, after
removing the top soil and excavating to a depth of about 0.7 m, for both disturbed
and undisturbed samples. Figure 1 shows a sample of the glass powder obtained
from the process.

Fig. 1. Sample of Glass Powder Used.

The chemical composition of the glass material used is as follows; 76% of
Si02, 11.50% of Al203, 11.6% of Na20 while other constituents accumulate to
0.9%. In terms of physical properties, it has a specific gravity of 2.5-2.9, tensile
strength of 27- 62 MPa, softening point of 1500- 1750° C and hardness of 5 to7.

3.2. Laboratory tests and analysis

Various tests and analysis were carried out to examine the effects of the glass
powder on the clay soil namely particle size distribution analysis, specific gravity
test, Atterberg limits test, compaction test, California Bearing Ratio test and Direct
Shear test were carried to the investigate the effect of glass. Based on these tests, the
required quantity of glass for effective stabilisation of the clay soil was determined.

3.2.1. Particle size distribution analysis

The particle size distribution expresses the size of particles in terms of percentage
by weight of the soil passing each sieve. The procedure involves oven drying the
clay soil sample for 24 hours allowing it to cool, and soaking also for 24 hours.
The sieve 75 µm was then used to wash and sieve the soil which was then oven
dried and its resulting weight was recorded. The sieves were arranged according
to the aperture size and the reweighed sand was poured into the set of sieves and
shaken vigorously for 10minutes. The sieve was left for a while for the sample to

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

 Clay Soil Stabilisation Using Powdered Glass 549

settle, the sand retained on each sieves was weighed and recorded and the
corresponding percentage retained and passing were calculated. A graph of the
percentage passing was plotted against the sieve sizes.

3.2.2. Natural moisture content

This test was used to determine the amount of moisture content present in the soil
as a percentage of its dry mass. The empty can was weighed to the nearest 0.1 g
(and represented as M1) after which a considerable amount of wet sample was
placed therein and weighed (represented as M2). Thereafter, it was placed into the
oven to dry for 24 hours, removed and weighed (represented as M3). The moisture
content (MC) was calculated as a percentage of dry soil mass by using Eq. (1).
 

 =   × 100% (1)

 

3.2.3. Specific gravity test

The specific gravity of a soil sample can be defined as the weight in air of a given
volume of soil particles to the weight in air of an equal volume of distilled water
of about 40°C in temperature. The procedure for its determination involved
emptying, drying and weighing the specific gravity bottle (to give m1) into which
50 g of the soil sample was introduced and weighed (to give m2).
Water was then added to the sample in the glass jar to 1/3 of its real height and
stirred vigorously till the sample particles were in suspension. This was allowed
to stand for 30 minutes before water was added to 2/3 of the glass jar and kept for
24 hours after which it was filled to the glass jar brim and weighed as (m3).
Thereafter, the bottle content was poured out and cleaned. In addition, the jar was
filled with water to the brim and its resulting weight was determined as (m4). The
specific gravity (Gs) was calculated by using Eq. (2).
 
 =      (2)

3.2.4. Atterberg limits tests

The Atterberg limits are basic measures of the nature of fine-grained soil,
depending on the water content of the soil, it may appear in four states: solid,
semi-solid, plastic and liquid. In each state, the Consistency, Behaviour and
Engineering properties of a soil is different. Thus, the boundary between each
state can be defined based on a change in the soil's behaviour. The Atterberg
limits can be used to distinguish between silt and clay, and it can distinguish
between different types of silts and clays. The different Atterberg limits are liquid
limit, shrinkages limit and plastic limit test.
The procedure for determining the liquid limit (LL) involved measuring out
200 g of soil sample passing the 42 µm BS test sieve, pouring it on the metallic
trays, adding a little quantity of water to it and mixing thoroughly to obtain a
paste that was not too thick nor too watery. It was then placed in the Casagrande’s
device, levelled and divided with the grooving tool. The number of blows at
which the divided part became closed was recorded. A portion of this soil was put

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

550 J. Olufowobi et al.

in a can to determine its moisture content. The experiment was repeated while
gradually increasing the amount of distilled water added. Then, the relationship
between the moisture content and the corresponding number of blows was
plotted. The moisture content corresponding to 20 blows was considered as the
liquid limit of the soil.
The procedure for determining the plastic limit (PL) involved moulding and
rolling the already thoroughly mixed sample with the palms to a threadlike shaped
stick of about 3 mm diameter. The plastic limit was indicated by the moisture
content corresponding to the point at which the stick first crumbled.
Consequently, the plasticity index (PI) was calculated by using Eq. (3).
 =  −  (3)

Determination of the linear shrinkage (LS) involved obtaining the moisture

content below which no further volume changes of a mass occurs. The procedure
involved mixing thoroughly a portion of the clay sample passing the 425 µm BS
sieve with water and placing it in a cleaned and greased shrinkage mould. The
surface of the soil was levelled and the bowl was placed in an oven for 24 hours.
Thereafter, the corresponding reduction in the length of the sample was measured
and used in calculating the linear shrinkage based on Eq. (4).
 !"#$%$& '()'*+,)-
 = 1 − x100 (4)
. )")/00 !"#$%*+,)-

3.2.5. Compaction test

This test determines the maximum (practical) dry density (γ-max) and optimum
moisture content (W opt) of the soil with and without additives. The results are
subsequently used in the preparation of CBR specimens. Compaction tests
provide important information about the soil quality at a site which can be used to
determine the most favourable building sites, the maximum load the soil can
withstand and the appropriateness of the site for building. In order to investigate
the effect of powdered glass on clay soil with addition of (base) cement
throughout, the mix proportions of clay soil, cement and powdered glass as shown
in Table 1 were used in the tests.
Table 1. Mix Proportions Used for Tests.
Cement (%) Glass Powder (%)
S/N Clay soil (%)
by Mass of Soil by Mass of Soil
1 100 15 0
2 100 15 1
3 100 15 2
4 100 15 5
5 100 15 10
6 100 15 15

The test procedure involved pouring the oven dried clay soil on a tray and
breaking it down into smaller and fine particles. Then 3000 g of this broken
material was weighed and poured on a metallic tray. It was then mixed thoroughly
with 60 ml of distilled water, placed in the mould (in 3 layers, each 50 mm thick)
and subjected to 25 blows using the standard rammer (of 2.5 kg falling through

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

 Clay Soil Stabilisation Using Powdered Glass 551

30 cm). The top surface of the layer was scraped before placing the subsequent
layers of loose soil. After compacting the third layer, the level of the compacted
soil was slightly above the top of the mould. The collar was then removed and
followed by trimming of the soil with a straightedge and determination of its mass.
Two samples were taken, one from the top and the other from the bottom of
the mould, and their respective moisture contents were determined. This was
followed by extruding the sample from the mould and breaking it up into a loose
state. Another 60 ml of water was added and the same series of steps were
repeated until the mass of the compacted soil in the mould fell. Thereafter, a
graph of moisture content versus dry density was plotted and the maximum dry
density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) corresponding to standard
doctor compaction test were determined. The calculations under the compaction
test were carried out using Eqs. (5) and (6).
B)!#"$%*$)0) ,$-+/,")$ -$C0'
Wetdensity;; − <=>g/cc =  &$0C-$%-$C0'
(5)

K LMN
Drydensity;; − FGHI/JJ =  PQ (6)
O
RR

3.2.6. California bearing ratio test

The California Bearing Ratio Test (CBR Test) is a penetration test used for
evaluating the bearing capacity of subgrade soil for design of pavements. It is
carried out on natural or compacted soils under soaked or un-soaked conditions
and the results obtained are compared with the curves of standard tests to indicate
the soil strength. The test is performed by measuring the pressure required to
penetrate a soil sample with a plunger of standard area which is then divided by
the pressure required to achieve an equal amount of penetration on a standard
crushed rock material. The test is as described in [16, 17].
In order to carry out this test, the same mix proportions used under the
compaction test were used again in this test. 6 kg of dry soil was mixed
thoroughly with calculated quantity of water to obtain moist soil with the required
moisture percentage. The soil was compacted in three different CBR moulds, each
in 3 layers and subjected 25 blows each using the standard rammer (4.5 kg and
falling through 30 cm). The top surface was scraped and levelled after compacting
the third layer.
Sufficient surcharge mass was then placed on the soil surface to equal the
actual or estimated mass of construction. The loading was applied at the rate of
1.25 mm/min. Readings of the load were taken at the following penetrations for
both the top and bottom layers namely 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0,
5.5, 6.0, 6.5 and 7.0. Immediately, after the penetration test, filter paper was
placed on the compacted exposed surface (both at the top and bottom), closed
with metallic cover to prevent direct influence of water and placed in soaking tank
for 98 hours. Thereafter, it was removed and the corresponding soaked readings
were taken at the same penetrations used under the unsoaked condition for both
the top and bottom.
The readings of load intensity were plotted against the readings of penetration
and a smooth curve was drawn through the points. The values of the load at
penetration of 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm were expressed as percentages of standard loads

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

552 J. Olufowobi et al.

of 70 kg/cm and 150 kg/cm respectively. The higher value out of these two was
considered as the CBR. The CBR values were calculated by using Eqs. (7) and (8).
],"C/0$/') ^!/,-"/^ _`*$)0
CBRat2.5mmpenetration =  a"/ '/('$/'/".b--+ "(/")$ ) ^!/,-
(7)

],"C/0$/') ^!/,-"/^ _`*$)0

CBRat5.0mmpenetration =  a"/ '/('$/'/"b.c--+ "(/")$ ) ^!/,-
(8)

3.2.7. Direct shear test

The simplest and easiest of the plane shear test is the direct shear test wherein a
cubic sized soil sample either undisturbed or resounded is confined in a direct
shear box which has two detectable halves of the same size. The soil samples in
the shear mould were then loaded vertically under different vertical loads namely
5 kg, 10 kg and 15 kg in mass and then sheared off exactly halfway in between
the sample.
The test was repeated two or more times on the same type of specimens under
different vertical loading conditions, obtaining each time the maximum shear
strength developed at failure. A graph of shear strength (maximum) versus normal
loads was drawn. The y-axis represented the value of cohesion while the
inclination of the straight line with the x-axis indicated the angle of internal
friction. In order to carry out this test, the same mix proportions used in the
compaction test were used again in this test.
The test involved placing plates on the top and bottom of the specimen to secure
a good grip on it as well as placing the loading plate on the top of the box. The
normal loading lever was adjusted horizontally (lever ratio 1:5). The dial gauge to
measure both the vertical deformations and the horizontal displacements was
adjusted and the readings were recorded. The required normal load was imposed on
the specimen by loading the lever pan with the required mass. Also, the electric
motor was switched on before commencement of the test while the readings of all
dial gauges were taken at regular intervals till failure of the specimen. The test was
repeated with two or three more specimens at different normal loads. A graph of the
normal stress was plotted against the maximum shearing resistance from which the
angle of shearing resistance and apparent cohesion were obtained. Equation (9) was
used for calculating the maximum shear at failure.
i/j)-C-*#/((*)*"/ ,) ^!
Maximumshearatfailure
  =  (9)
](/$%"#*+,)- 

4. Analysis and Discussion of Results

The natural moisture content, particle size distribution, specific gravity tests and
the Atterberg limits tests were carried out to classify the clay soil while the
compaction, California bearing ratio and direct shear tests were carried out to
assess the effects of glass powder on the soil.

4.1. Natural moisture content

The natural moisture content (average) obtained for the clay soil sample was
21.70% as shown in Table 2.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

 Clay Soil Stabilisation Using Powdered Glass 553

Table 2. Moisture Content Test Results.

Test Mass of Mass of Mass of Can Moisture MC
Sample Empty Can Can + Dry (g) (g) (%)
(g) (M1) + Wet (g) (M3)
(M2)
1 44.30 90.90 82.60 8.30 21.67
2 47.50 102.40 92.80 9.60 21.19
3 48.40 109.40 98.30 11.10 22.24
Average MC (%) 21.70

4.2. Specific gravity

The specific gravity of the clay soil sample was determined as 2.64 as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Specific Gravity Test Results.
Masses (g) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Mass of density bottle + Water
604.5 588 593.1
(Full) = m4
Mass of density bottle + Soil +
635.6 618 623.3
Water = m3
Mass of density bottle + Soil = m2 358.9 304.5 315.7
Mass of density bottle = m1 308.9 256.5 266.7
Specific gravity 2.65 2.67 2.61
Average specific gravity (Gs) 2.64

4.3. Particle size distribution

Table 4 shows a breakdown of the particle size distribution analysis with the
corresponding percentages retained on and passing through each of the sieves. This
analysis showed that the natural soil sample comprised of 28% silt-size fraction and
72% sand fraction as indicated in Fig. 2. Based on the AASHTO Soil Classification
System (Highway Research Board Classification system), this soil corresponds to
group A-6 with ‘fair to poor’ drainage characteristic as well as a ‘fair to poor’
general rating as a subgrade material. Hence, the soil needs to be stabilised.

Table 4. Particle Size Distribution Analysis.

Sieve Diameter Mass % %
(mm) Retained (g) Retained Passing
4.75 0 0 100
2.36 0.3 0.23 99.77
1.700 0.4 0.30 99.47
1.18 1.3 0.98 98.49
0.600 4.3 3.24 95.25
0.500 6.5 4.90 90.35
0.425 1.1 0.83 89.53
0.212 53.7 40.47 49.06
0.150 35.1 26.45 22.61
0.075 27 20.35 2.26
pan 3 2.26 0.00

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

554 J. Olufowobi et al.

Fig. 2. Particle Size Distribution Chart.

4.4. Atterberg limits tests

The moisture content values obtained under the Atterberg limits test (comprising
of the liquid limit, plastic limit and shrinkage limit results) are as shown in Tables
5(a), 5(b) and 5(c). The liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of the
natural soil sample were obtained as 24.73, 9.40 and 15.33% respectively while
the shrinkage limit was obtained as 6.97%.
Table 5(a). Liquid Limit Results.
Liquid limit
Test Number Mass of wet Mass of dry Moisture MC
of blows sample (g) sample (g) (g) (%)
1 48 7.7 6.9 0.8 11.59
2 28 9.2 7.3 1.9 26.03
3 22 8 6.2 1.8 29.03
4 14 8.2 6.2 2 32.26
Average MC (%) 24.73

Table 5(b). Plastic Limit Results.

Plastic limit
Test Mass of wet sample Mass of dry Moisture MC
(g) sample (g) (g) (%)
1 1 0.9 0.1 11.11
2 1.4 1.3 0.1 7.69
Average MC (%) 9.40

Table 5(c). Shrinkage Limit Results.

Shrinkage limit
Test Initial length Final length Change in Shrinkage
(Lo) cm (L1) cm length (cm) limit (%)
1 14 13 1 7.14
2 14 13.2 0.95 6.79
Average shrinkage (%) 6.97

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

 Clay Soil Stabilisation Using Powdered Glass 555

4.5. Compaction test

Table 6 summarizes the compaction test results for the clay soil with and without
the powdered glass as well as cement base. These results when compared showed
that the addition of these additives at varying quantities has a positive effect on
the soil, as they all improve the dry density of this selective clay soil. However,
the best result was obtained at 5% glass powder with 15% cement (base) content.
Figure 3 shows that the MDD value increases from 25.37 kN/m3 for the control
sample up to 25.90 kN/m3 for the sample containing 5% glass powder with 15%
cement (base) and decreases afterwards.

Table 6. Summary of MDD and OMC

Values at Different Additives Proportions.
Control 1% 2% 5% 10% 15%
(15% glass glass glass glass glass
cement) + + + + +
15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
cement cement cement cement cement

MDD
25.37 25.79 25.87 25.90 25.67 25.32
(kN/m3)
OMC (%) 16.40 15.72 15.25 14.96 14.17 14.09

Fig. 3. Graph of Maximum Dry

Density against Percentage Glass Powder.

4.6. California bearing ratio test

Tables 7(a) and 7(b) give a summary of the unsoaked and soaked CBR values for
the control and treated samples at 2.5 mm and 5 mm penetrations. The soaked CBR
values were obtained after 98 hours. It can be observed that the powdered glass
treated samples have greater CBR values than the untreated (control) samples. In
addition, both the unsoaked and soaked CBR values increase with increasing
powdered glass content up to 5% by mass of the soil after which the values began to
drop. Consequently, the highest CBR values for both the unsoaked and soaked
treated sample of 14.90% and 112.91% respectively were obtained at 5% glass
powder content, 15% cement (base) content and at 5 mm penetration.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

556 J. Olufowobi et al.

Table 7(a). Summary of Unsoaked CBR

Values for the Clay Soil Samples (Treated and Untreated).
Penetration (mm) Control 1% glass + 2% glass +
(15% cement) 15% cement 15% cement
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

5.0 8.48 9.17 8.54 9.63 12.27 14.33

Penetration 5% glass + 10% glass + 15% glass +

(mm) 15% cement 15% cement 15% cement
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
5.0 14.90 10.32 14.04 14.90 10.32 14.04

Table 7(b). Summary of Soaked CBR Values

for the Clay Soil Sample (Treated and Untreated).
Penetration Control 1% glass + 2% glass +
(mm) (15% cement) 15% cement 15% cement
Top Bottom Top Top Bottom Top
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
5.0 89.98 88.26 94.00 89.98 88.26 94.00

Penetration 5% glass + 10% glass + 15% glass +

(mm) 15% cement 15% cement 15% cement
Top Bottom Top Top Bottom Top
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
5.0 109.01 112.91 63.70 109.01 112.91 63.70

4.7. Direct shear strength test

Table 8 shows the summary of cohesion and angle of internal friction values
obtained from the direct shear test. These values increased as the powdered glass
content was increased up to 10% by mass of the soil and decreased thereafter at
15%. The maximum values for both the cohesion and angle of internal friction of
15.0 and 17.0 respectively were obtained at 10% powdered glass content.

Table 8. Summary of Cohesion Values and

Angle of Internal Friction of the Treated Soil Sample.
Control 1% 2% 5% 10% 15%
(15% glass + glass + glass + glass + glass +
cement) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
cement cement cement cement cement
Cohesion value 11.6 12.6 13.0 14.0 15.0 14.5
Angle of 9.5 11.0 13.0 14.0 17.0 15.0
internal friction

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

 Clay Soil Stabilisation Using Powdered Glass 557

5. Conclusion
This study has shown that the improvements in the properties of the clay soil obtained
herein are more significant with the addition of the powdered glass. It seems that the
percentage quantity of the powdered glass required achieving the best results in terms
of the clay soil properties lies between 5% and 10% by mass of the soil. This is
because the corresponding maximum values from both the compaction and CBR tests
were obtained at 5% glass powder content while the maximum values from the shear
strength test were obtained at 10% glass powder content.
Furthermore, it can be concluded based on the results obtained that powdered
glass can be effectively used as a soil stabiliser since it was able to produce
considerable improvements in the properties. Such improvements included an
increase in the MDD value from 25.37 kN/m3 for the control sample up to 25.90
kN/m3 for the sample containing 5% powdered glass by mass of the soil, achievement
of the highest CBR values of 14.90% and 112.91% obtained at 5% powdered glass
content for both the unsoaked and soaked treated samples respectively as well as
achievement of the maximum values of cohesion and angle of internal friction of 15.0
and 17.0 respectively obtained at 10% powdered glass content.

6. Recommendation(s)
It is recommended that further research should be carried out to determine the
optimum amount of this additive for effective clay soil stabilisation, which
apparently seems to have a value between 5% and 10% of powdered glass
content. The effect of the powdered glass on other kinds of soils such as laterites
should also be investigated to determine whether similar results will be obtained
which will help to establish it as an all-round or general soil stabiliser.

References
1. Ling, H.I.; Leshchinsky, D.; and Tatsuoka, F. (2003). Reinforced Soil
Engineering: Advances in Research and Practice. Marcel Dekker
Incorporated, New York, 33.
2. Bowles, J.E. (1992). Engineering properties of soils and their measurement
(4th Ed.). London: McGraw- Hill Int., 78-89.
3. Ingles, O.G.; and Metcalf, J.B. (1992). Soil stabilisation principles and
practice. Boston: Butterworth Publishers.
4. Al-Khafaji, A.W.; and Andersland, O.B. (1992). Geotechnical engineering
and soil testing. New York: Sounder College Publishing.
5. Al-Joulani, N. (2000). Engineering properties of slurry waste from stone
cutting industry in the west bank. Proceedings of the First Palestine
Environmental Symposium, PPU, Hebron.
6. Gray, D.H. (2003). Optimizing soil compaction and other strategies. Erosion
Control, 9(6), 34-41.
7. Consoli, N.C.; Prietto, P.D.M.; and Ulbrich, L.A. (1998). Influence of fiber
and cement addition on behaviour of sandy soil. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 124(12), 1211-1214.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)

558 J. Olufowobi et al.

8. Consoli, N.C.; Montardo, J.P.; Prietto, P.D.M.; and Pasa, G.S. (2002).
Engineering behaviour of sand reinforced with plastic waste. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 128(6), 462-472.
9. Gray, D.H.; and Lin, Y.K. (1972). Engineering properties of compacted fly
ash. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisions, ASCE, 98(4),
361-380.
10. Fletcher, C.S.; and Humphires, W.K. (1991). California bearing ratio
improvement of remoulded soil by the addition of polypropylene fiber
reinforcement. Transport Research Record, No. 1295, TRB, Washington
D.C., 80-86.
11. Alobaidi, I.; and Hoare, D.J. (1998). The role of geotextile reinforcement in
the control of pumping at the subgrade subbase interface of highway
pavements. Geosynthetics International, 5(6), 619-636.
12. Prabakar, J.; and Sridhar, R.S. (2002). Effect of random inclusion of sisal
fiber on strength behaviour of soil. Construction and Building Materials, 16
(2), 123-131.
13. Marandi, S.M.; Bagheripour, M.H.; Rahgozar, R.; and Zare, H. (2008).
Strength and ductility of randomly distributed palm fibers reinforced silty-
sand soils. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(3), 209-220.
14. Terrel, R.L.; Lundy, J.R.; and Leahy, R.B. (1994). Evaluation of mixtures
containing waste materials. Asphalt Paving Technology, 63, 22-38.
15. Maher, M.H.; and Ho, Y.C. (1994). Mechanical properties of kaolinite fiber soil
composite. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 120(8), 1381-1393.
16. ASTM D1883-05 (2005). Standard test method for CBR of laboratory
compacted soils. American Standards for Testing and Materials.
17. ASTM D4429-09a (2009). Standard test method for CBR of soils in place.
American Standards for Testing and Materials.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology October 2014, Vol. 9(5)