Laboratory Evaluation of Cement Stabilized Crushed Glass Sand Blends

Transcription

1 Laboratory Evaluation of Cement Stabilized Crushed Glass Sand Blends Mahyar Arabani Professor of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering, Guilan University, Iran Hasan Sharafi Assistant Professor of Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Department of Civil Engineering, Razi University, Iran Mohammad R. Habibi Assistant Professor of Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Islamic Azad University Branch of Kermanshah, Iran Ehsan Haghshenas * Msc in Geotechnical Engineering, Islamic Azad University Branch of Kermanshah, Iran Ehsan.haghshnas@gmail.com (corresponding author) ABSTRACT A comprehensive laboratory evaluation of stabilized by cement blending waste crushed glass (CG) with sandy soil material (SM) was conducted to evaluate their potential for beneficial use as fill materials, embankments and general for various applications. Blends were stabilized by cement with 5 and 7 weight percents of specimens. Tests were performed on 100 % S (USCS classification SP) specimens and 20/80, 40/60, 60/40 CG-S blends (dry weight percent CG content reported first). The addition of CG resulted in a reduction in ω opt while increasing the dry density for blends with 5 and 7 weight percents cement. Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) testing indicated the addition of CG can increase q u. Also Direct Shear and C.B.R. tests were performed on blends to obtain a wide range of engineering properties. The range of properties obtained by the stabilized CG-S blends offers a versatility that allows for the design of fills, embankments and base that can be potentially optimized to meet multiple design parameters (e.g. strength, settlements, or higher CG or SM content). KEYWORDS: Soil mixing, Crushed glass, Ground improvement. INTRODUCTION This paper reports on a laboratory evaluation for stabilized blending crushed glass (CG) and sandy soil material (SM) with cement as a kind of soil stabilization methods and the suitability of

2 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1778 the blended products as general, embankment, and structural fill materials for transportation, airport, building and land reclamation in urban areas. This study was motivated by the need for a pragmatic solution for two compelling long-term problems: improving the engineering properties of poor sands and land reclamation for construction and beneficial use options for curbsidecollected glass, which can be produced in coastal metropolitan cities at rates of millions and hundreds of thousands of tons per year, respectively. All of the engineers around the world have major challenges maintaining long-term constructing on sandy grounds in or near many metropolitan areas while conventional methods of soil stabilization is costly or impossible. In addition, state departments of the environment have emphasized on the curbside collection of glass without making comparable investments in beneficial use markets. This has resulted in a glut of glass (especially glass not suitable for bottling applications) at Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in states without bottle bills. With regard to sandy grounds, there are many sites for construction that are not appropriate because of their poor or bad engineering properties. However, there are different solutions for this problem such as strengthening the foundation and changing the location of the construction or improving of site characteristics. Considering constant changes of the location is not always possible and strengthening the foundation is too expensive; therefore, the most commonly used approach is to stabilize and improve the site properties. One of the most widely used and most effective stabilization methods is stabilizing with cement; however, it is the most expensive one. Therefore, state departments of transportation and the construction industry are looking for new methods of stabilization with cement that can decrease the expenses. With regard to CG, limited glass recycling opportunities exist and those related to colorstored (clear, amber, brown) opportunities such as bottling are both sporadic and dwindling from the increasing use of plastic containers. Yet in some cases (liquor, beer, certain foods), glass remains the container material of choice and it will thus remain in the recycling stream because its weight makes it the leading candidate for attaining community based recycling target objectives (% by weight basis). In addition mixed color broken glass continues to accumulate at MRFs and must be disposed of at costs up to $50/t (landfill) due to the lack of beneficial use markets in certain regions. One application is to crush curbside-collected glass for freely draining geotechnical fill applications; however, CG has received extremely limited use due to unfamiliarity, negative perception, and lack of approved specifications (Wartman et al., 2004). An interesting and potentially cost-effective solution to both recycling challenges is presented by blending CG with SM in stabilization with cement to improve the geotechnical and workability characteristics of both materials for the construction applications. Here, the term workability is used describe the ease of handling, transport, placement, and compaction of CG- SM blends. Accordingly, a comprehensive evaluation of stabilized SM with cement, and stabilized CG-SM blends with cement was undertaken to provide a basis for the geotechnical design and construction communities to utilize CG-SM blends in general, embankment, and structural fill applications. PREVIOUS STUDIES The main characteristics of the soft and loose soils such as loose sand, beach sand, soft clay, organic soil, or a combination of above are weak resistance and their dynamic instability. Accordingly, several investigators have studied Portland cement (PC) stabilization of SM or

3 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1779 similar materials as a most widely used and most effective stabilization method. For the first time in 1917, T.H. Amies patented the soil - cement mixture as an invention in Philadelphia, America; and in 1922 the Department of Highways in South Dakota and Iowa used this blend to stabilize the construction of roads and highways. Dupas and Pecker (1979) studied the static and mechanical properties of sand-cement in order to stabilize sand and avoid the risk of liquefaction. They found that adding 5 % PC increased the adhesion in sandy soil up to kpa. Kukko (2000) considered the use of different cementitious materials such as PC, blast furnace slag, and fly ash to enhance the strength of several different clays and concluded that the strength of the stabilized materials was highly depended on the "water-binder ratio," a parameter that effectively represented the cementitious material content. Mathew et al. (2009) conducted a study on engineering properties of stabilized seashore soil with cement, by doing Proctor Compaction, California Bearing Ratio, and Unconfined Compressive Strength tests. Wartman et al. (2004) conducted a laboratory study to evaluate the feasibility of using CG to improve the engineering characteristics of fine-grained, marginal materials such as kaolin and quarry fines (i.e., the fine from a concrete sand quarry). Wartman et al. (2004) found that frictional strength of the fine-grained soils was considerably increased by addition of CG and suggested that this concept could be used to improve the engineering properties of other marginal materials. In a similar vein, Grubb et al. (2006) found that the addition of CG to Dredged Material (DM) caused significant improvements in the physical properties of DM, including reduction in moisture content, organic content, and plasticity index as well as coarsening the grain size distribution. They found that the addition of CG to DM caused significant improvements in CPT results and using CG is more economical than other methods of DM stabilization such as using PC. LABORATORY STUDY MATERIALS Two kind of waste glass were the source of glass material for this study, conventional flat glass and safety glass. The glass was crushed by Los Angeles abrasion machine and sieved through a 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) sieve, a size that does not generally represent a physical handling hazard (i.e., no shards). Sand that used in this study was beach sand, collected off the coast of Bandar Anzali in Gilan province. Because the SM was classified as poorly graded sand (SP), it was decided to present the aggregation of CG in a way to improve aggregation of sand, so CG aggregation was proposed according Table 1. The grain size distributions of the CG, SM, and CG-SM blends were determined in accordance with ASTM D422 (mechanical sieving only) (ASTM, 2007). The grain size distribution curves are presented in Figure 1 and the percent gravel, sand and fines are summarized in Table 1. As expected, the grain size distribution of the SM grew progressively coarser with the addition of CG. The USCS and AASHTO soil classification for CG, SM, and their blends were also determined. In general, the CG was classified as well graded sand (SW) and the SM was classified as poorly graded sand (SP), also the CG-SM blends classified as SP. In terms of AASHTO soil classification, 100 CG was an A-1- a material while the 60/40, and 40/60 CG-SM blends were an A-1-b material. Remain blend and 100 % SM classified as A-3 material. With regard to SM aggregation, according to previous studies on soil stabilization with cement it was decided to use 5 and 7 percents of Portland cement (PC) type 2 for stabilization.

4 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1780 COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS Laboratory moisture-density relationships were developed for stabilized SM and CG-SM blends following the standard Proctor method, ASTM D698 (ASTM, 2000), using five or six moisture-density points. Table 2 summarized the maximum dry densities (γ d, max ) in SI (kn/m 3 ) unit and the optimum moisture content (ω opt ). Figures 2 and 3 show the compaction curves for 5 and 7 percents of PC efforts, respectively. It was observed that the dry density increased in all samples with increase in cement content. This was due to the basic fact that the soil-cement mix might have difference in specific gravity than the original one. Also, the addition of water causes the bulking phenomenon in the stabilized soil. During this time, the capillary forces resisted the rearrangement of particles against the external compaction energy. The fine cement particles influenced the compatibility of soil-cement material. This soil-cement interaction resulted in the cementitious products and its gained strength. The moisture-density curves for the 100 % SM exhibited the characteristic of convex shape typical of SP soils. With increased CG content, the ω opt decreased and the γ d, max increased, and the shape of the compaction curve trended toward those associated with conventional coarse solids and aggregates. The trends in the line of optimums for the CG-SM blends are summarized in Figure 4. The impact of CG on compaction characteristics of 100 % SM was clearly evident; the addition of 60 % CG resulted in a % reduction in ω opt while increasing the dry density by approximately % for blends with 5 and 7 % by weight cement, respectively. As shown in Figure 4, the values of γ d, max increased in a nearly linear fashion with CG increment, which showed that the CG-SM blends were denser than the individual material. Figure 1: Grain size distribution for CG, SM and CG-SM blends

5 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1781 Table 1: Classification of CG, SM and CG-SM blends Particle size D422 Media tested Gravel Sand Fines USCS AASHTO (%) (%) (%) D2487 D % crushed glass SW A-1-a (CG) 60/40 CG-SM SP A-1-b 40/60 CG-SM SP A-1-b 20/80 CG-SM SP A-3 100% sandy soil (SM) SP A-3 SAMPLE PREPARATION With regard to using 5 and 7 percents of PC, and using 20, 40, and 60 percents of CG there were 8 different possible combinations for specimens. For each testing three samples of blends were built and tested to achieve more accurate results. The specimens were compacted to a minimum of 95 % of their γd, max values and within ±2 % of ωopt based on ASTM D698 (ASTM, 2000). Immediately after compaction, all specimens were removed from the molds, marked, and weighted. The specimens were sealed in desiccators to prevent moisture loss during curing and placed on shallow metal trays to prevent the damage during handling; the procedure recommended in ASTM C593 (ASTM, 2011). With regard to using PC for stabilization, it was decided that specimens cured for 3, 7 and 28 days before testing in order to investigate the trend of its gained strength with curing time. Table 2: Compaction and Properties of Stabilized SM and CG-SM blends Media tested Standard compaction D698 Stabilized with 5% cement Stabilized with 7% cement γ d, max (kn/m 3 ) ω opt (%) γ d, max (kn/m 3 ) 60/40 CG-SM /60 CG-SM /80 CG-SM % sandy soil (SM) ω opt (%)

6 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1782 Dry Unit Weight γd (kn/m3) SM /80 CG-SM 19 40/60 CG-SM /40 CG-SM Moisture Content (%) Figure 2: Standard Proctor compaction for 5% cement stabilized SM and CG-SM blends Dry Unit Weight γd (kn/m3) Moisture Content (%) 100 SM 20/80 CG-SM 40/60 CG-SM 60/40 CG-SM Figure 3: Standard Proctor compaction for 7% cement stabilized SM and CG-SM blends DIRECT SHEAR STRENGTH TESTING Direct shear (DS) test was performed on stabilized SM and CG-SM blend samples in general accordance with ASTM D3080 (ASTM, 2004) standard. For the DS tests, specimens were cured for 3 and 7 days. The selected normal stresses and confining pressures corresponded to shallow to moderate depth overburdened the conditions. The DS test results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 for 3 and 7 days curing, respectively. Figures 5 and 6, shows the strength parameters curves for 3 and 7 days curing, respectively.

7 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1783 Table 3: C.B.R and Strength Parameters of Cured Stabilized SM and CG-SM blends for 3 days Direct shear D3080 C.B.R. D1883 Stabilized with 5% Stabilized with 7% cement Stabilized with 5% Stabilized with 7% Media tested cement cement cement c (kpa) ϕ ( 0 ) c (kpa) ϕ ( 0 ) C.B.R (%) C.B.R (%) 60/40 CG-SM /60 CG-SM /80 CG-SM % sandy soil (SM) γ d, max (kn/m 3 ) percentage Cement R² = R² = ω opt (%) Percentage Cement R² = R² = Figure 4: Line of optimums for cement stabilized SM and CG-SM blends

8 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1784 Tests were performed under partially unsaturated and strain-controlled conditions. Shear rates were selected as 0.1 mm/min. In most tested specimens, there was a strain hardening rather than a definitive peak stress. Therefore, failure was defined as the shear stress corresponding to the largest ratio of peak stress to normal stress. Figure 5 show the variations in friction angle and cohesion as a function of CG for each blend. As expected, the stress friction angle and cohesion of the blends generally increased with addition of CG. Wartman et al. (2004) suggested that the impacts of CG on the strength of fine-grained soils may be delayed until the CG particles cease floating in the fine-grained matrix and develop particle-to-particle interactions which subsequently dominate strength behavior. Table 4: C.B.R and Strength Parameters of Cured Stabilized SM and CG-SM blends for 7 days Direct shear D3080 C.B.R. D1883 Media tested Stabilized with 5% cement Stabilized with 7% cement Stabilized with 5% cement Stabilized with 7% cement c (kpa) ϕ ( 0 ) c (kpa) ϕ ( 0 ) C.B.R (%) C.B.R (%) 60/40 CG-SM /60 CG-SM /80 CG-SM % sandy soil (SM)

9 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1785 ϕ ( 0 ) Percentage Cement R² = 1 R² = C ohesion (kpa) R² = 1 R² = Percentage Cement Figure 5: Strength Parameters (ϕ, c) for stabilized SM and CG-SM blends, Cured for 3 days

10 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1786 ϕ ( 0 ) Percentage Cement R² = 1 R² = Choesion (kpa) R² = 1 R² = Percentage Cement Figure 6: Strength Parameters (ϕ, c) for stabilized SM and CG-SM blends, Cured for 7 days CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TESTING Since appropriate roadbed is necessary in constructing a road, California Bearing Ratio (C.B.R.) tests were performed on stabilized SM and CG-SM blend specimens in general accordance with ASTM D1883 (ASTM, 2004). The specimens were prepared in cylindrical mould and kept in isolated situation and cured for 3 and 7 days. After curing time for penetration test two surcharge disks, each weighing 2.5 kg, were placed over the Sample and a plunger, 50 mm in diameter, was used to penetrate the Sample at a rate of 1 mm/min. The load-penetration curves for stabilized SM by 5 and 7 percents by weight of PC with varying percentage of CG for 3 and 7 days curing time were drawn. The curves generally conformed to the standard shape but the initial portion of curves was concave upwards. Then the curves were corrected by shifting the origin to the point of intersection of a tangent drawn to the

11 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1787 curves at the point of the greatest slope with the penetration axis. The corrected loads were read from the corrected curves. The effect of CG on C.B.R. of the stabilized SM are depicted in Tables 3 and 4, and represented in Figure 7. This result illustrated that C.B.R. values increased by addition of CG, and in higher percentages of CG this increase was significant. The cementitious reaction between cement and blends took place as a primary process. Hydration of the cement was regarded as the primary reaction and formed the normal hydration products that bound particles together; therefore, the increase in C.B.R. value might be due to shear transfer mechanism between SM and CG aggregates. Also, this strength improvement might be due to the pozzolanic action in CGcement materials. 400 C.B.R. (%) Percentage Cement R² = R² = Specimens cured for 3 days Percentage Cement R² = C.B.R. (%) R² = Specimens cured for 7 days Figure 7: C.B.R. parameter for compacted cement stabilized SM, and CG-SM blends UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTING Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests have been conducted on the stabilized SM and CG-SM blend specimens after curing at duration of 7 and 28 days to evaluate their uniaxial

12 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1788 compressive strength (q u ). UCS tests performed on SM and CG-SM blend specimens in general accordance with ASTM D2166 (ASTM, 2006). Sample size used for the experiments was 49 mm diameter and 98 mm length. In order to distribute the load on the samples, up and down sides of specimens were covered with a small amount of Kaolin to apply the load on the surface of samples evenly. The specimens loaded at a rate of 1mm/min. The stress-strain curves generally conformed to the standard shape but with regard to using Kaolin, Curves at the beginning of the tests showed some errors. Then the curves were corrected by shifting the origin to the point of intersection of a tangent drawn to the curves at the point of the greatest slope with the strain axis. The UCS test results are summarized in Table 5 and represented in Figure 8. The results showed significant increscent in q u values as the percentages of CG increased. Table 5: Unconfined Compressive Strength Parameter of Stabilized SM and CG-SM blends Unconfined Compressive Strength D2166 Cured for 7 days Cured for 28 days Stabilized Stabilized Stabilized Stabilized with 5% with 7% with 5% with 7% Media tested cement cement cement cement q u (kg/cm 2 ) q u (kg/cm 2 ) q u (kg/cm 2 ) q u (kg/cm 2 ) 60/40 CG-SM /60 CG-SM /80 CG-SM % sandy soil (SM) DISCUSSION First, it should be noted that all results obtained from the laboratory testing program were almost the same for both stabilizations with 5 and 7 percents of PC. Also, observed improvement for stabilization with 7 percent of PC was obviously effective than 5 percent of PC, and engineering properties of CG-SM blends were better as the percentage of the cement increased. The results of the laboratory testing program indicated that the workability and compaction characteristics of SM can be improved by addition of CG beginning with as little as 20 % CG. The addition of CG caused improvement in the physical properties of SM, including reduction in moisture content as well as coarsening the grain size distribution. There were increases in γ d, max and corresponding decreases in ω opt for all cement stabilized CG-SM blends. There were two reasons for this improvements, CG specific gravity was larger than sand based on the previous studies and CG had better aggregation compared with SM.

13 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L Percentage Cement q u (Kg/cm 2 ) Specimens cured for 7 days R² = R² = q u (Kg/cm 2 ) Percentage Cement Specimens cured for 28 days R² = R² = Figure 8: Unconfined Compressive Strength for stabilized SM and CG-SM blends As expected, the friction angle (ϕ) of the stabilized SM increased significantly as the percentage of CG increased, (see Figs. 5 and 6). Considering that CG aggregates have sharp corners, by addition of CG fastening between aggregates grew up and the adhesion between the aggregates may also increase the shear resistance. For the stabilized blend with 7 % PC by addition of 60 % CG the strength parameters increased so that the sample was not fractured. Also, the cohesion (c) of stabilized SM increased significantly as the percentage of CG increased which can be due to pozzolanic reaction between the cement and fine particles of glass, (see Figures 5 and 6). Glass powder (finer than mm) can act like a pozzolanic material adjacent cement (Shayan et al., 2004). But as seen in Figures 5 and 6, maximum increscent in c occurred by adding 40 % CG, for the higher percentages of CG cohesion will be decreased. However, the results of the obtained friction angle and cohesion were somewhat unusual. There are some

14 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1790 logical reasons that can explain this phenomenon; first, direct shear test results are always larger and more unrealistic than triaxial strength test. Also, with regard to the used cement, results are not completely realistic, but the important fact is comparison between the results of different percentages of CG. The values of the C.B.R. for the cement stabilized blends were obtained from the C.B.R. curves from the C.B.R. tests. The C.B.R. of stabilized SM increased significantly as the percentage of CG increased and in the higher percentages of PC this increase was much more significant which can be caused by increasing the contact area and adhesion between the aggregates. By adding the CG to the stabilized SM the space between the sand aggregates were filled with glass aggregates and a dense network of interconnected particles with cement occurred. The extent of this increase for mixtures with more than 30 percent of CG was higher. For example, the addition of 60 % CG to 7 % cement stabilized SM produced a significant increase in C.B.R. of 264 points (310 %) for 7 days curing. The addition of CG caused a significant increase in the Unconfined Compressive strength values (q u ) of stabilized SM. The CG treated specimens exhibited notably higher strength than natural soil specimens. It was also observed that by increasing the percentage of CG, blends achieved a higher strength at lower strain compared with the natural specimens. There are several design considerations that can be evaluated or balanced for construction such as the ratio of available CG-SM. This may drive many choices but it appears the major changes in SM behavior begin at 40 % CG. CONCLUSIONS The results of this laboratory evaluation of blending crushed glass and sandy soil indicated that blending CG with cement stabilized SM can significantly improve the properties of the stabilized SM by adding CG as little as 20%. The significant findings are summarized below: The addition of CG resulted in a reduction in ω opt and increased the dry density of cement stabilized SM for standard levels of compaction. Adding 40 % CG resulted in an almost 27 and 24 point increscent in c for 5 % and 7 % PC, for 3 days curing respectively. The results indicated that the cohesion of CG-SM blends be reduced for blends with more than about 50 % CG. A peak effective cohesion of 52 kpa occurred for the 60/40 CG-SM 7 % cement stabilized blend cured for 7 days. Also, it increased the friction angle of stabilized SM approximately 22 degrees for both 5 % and 7 % PC. The incensement in strength parameters (c andϕ) sensitivity at 40 % CG significantly improved the bearing capacity of SM. California bearing ratio testing indicated the significant increase in C.B.R. for all percentages of PC and curing times. Adding 60 % CG resulted in 258 and 264 point increscent in C.B.R. for 7 % cement stabilized SM for 3 and 7 days curing, respectively. The addition of 60 % CG increased the q u of 7 % cement stabilized SM by approximately 20 kg/cm 2 for 7 and 28 days curing.

15 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1791 In conclusion, the range of properties obtained by cement stabilized CG-SM blends offer the designer a versatility to utilize different properties of CG and SM to potentially optimize on several design parameters such as percentages of CG or PC, CG grain size, etc. or even in different fill areas of the same site. This versatility can increase the beneficial use of CG and SM as fill materials, roadbed, embankments and general for engineering applications. REFERENCES 1. American Concrete Institute (2009) Report on soil-cement, ACI 230.1R American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort. ASTM D (2000), West Conshohocken, PA. 3. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions. ASTM D (2004), West Conshohocken, PA. 4. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory Compacted Soils. ASTM D (2004), West Conshohocken, Pa. 5. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil. ASTM D (2006), West Conshohocken, PA. 6. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard test method for particle size analysis of soils. ASTM D (2007), West Conshohocken, PA. 7. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Other Pozzolans for Use With Lime for Soil Stabilization. ASTM D (2011), West Conshohocken, PA. 8. Chesner, W. & Petrarca R. (1987) Report on Glass Aggregate Pavement for the Browning Ferris Industries. Merrick Transfer Station Located in Hempstead, New York. 9. Chesner, W. H. (1992) Waste Glass and Sewage Sludge Frit Use in Asphalt Pavements. Utilization of Waste Material in Civil Engineering Construction, ASCE, New York, Dupas, J., Pecker, A. (1979) Static and dynamic properties of sand-cement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 105(3), Grubb, D. G., Davis, A., Sands, S. C., Carnivale, M., III, Wartman, J. & Gallagher, P. M. (2006) Field evaluation of crushed glass-dredged material blends. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132_5_, Grubb, D. G., Davis, A., Sands, S. C., Carnivale, M., III, Wartman, J., Gallagher P. M. & Yigang Liu (2006) Laboratory Evaluation of Crushed Glass Dredged Material Blends. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132:5_562_576.

16 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L Grubb, D. G., Wartman, J. & Malasavage, N. E. (2008) Aging of Crushed Glass-Dredged Material Blend Embankments. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 134_11_, Grubb, D. G., Cadden, A. W. & Miller, D. (2008) Crushed Glass-Dredged Material (CG- DM) Blends: Role of Organic Matter Content and DM Variability on Field Compaction. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 134_11_, Kukko, H. (2000) Stabilization of clay with inorganic by-products. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 12_4_, Ladd, R. S. (1974) Specimen preparation and liquefaction of sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 100_10_, Mathew S., Selvi P. & Velliangiri K.B. (2009) A Study on Engineering Properties of Cement Stabilized Seashore Soil. journal of NBM&CW India s premier publication for construction sector, January Wartman, J., Grubb, D. G. & Nasim, A. S. M. (2004) Select engineering characteristics of crushed glass. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 16_6_, Wartman, J., Grubb, D. G. & Strenk, P. (2004) Engineering properties of crushed glasssoil blends. Geotechnical engineering for transportation projects, M. K. Yegian and E. Kavazanjian, eds., ASCE, New York, U.S Army Corps of Engineers (1999) Use of Waste Material in Pavement Construction. September, EJGE 2012