Figure 1 – uploaded by Sanjay Dhakal

Figure 2.1: Guidelines for stabilization of soil (Texas DOT, 2005)  Table 2.1: Stabilizer selection criteria (Louisiana Standard Specification, 2006)

significant difference in optimum moisture content and maximum dry density with cement

Figure 2.4: Moisture density relation of soil with cement (Gautreau et al., 2009)

Figure 2.5: Moisture density relation of Suddha soil with lime (Umesha et al., 2009)

shown in Figure 2.6.  a soil having LL of 23% and PI of 10%. Furthermore, the effect of the porosity as well as

Figure 2.7: Dielectric value of soil at different water contents (Zhang and Tao, 2006)

Furthermore, they also observed considerable decrease in permanent deformation of the treated

Figure 2.9: Deformation of materials under repeated loading (Lekarp, 1997)  2001).  elastic response and plastic response is described by the shakedown limit (Werkmeister et al.,

However, other researchers (Lekarp, 1997; Wermeister et al., 2001) classified the

aie  Figure 2.11: Shakedown range of material behavior (Lekarp 1997)  limit for the service loads in the pavements.

2.13) after assigning initial value for kg and k7 as zero and one, respectively as recommended.

test in laboratory.  Despite being a main cause of failure of flexible pavements, sometimes the permanent

Figure 2.14: Typical permanent deformation curve under RLT test (Elliott et al., 1998)  increases as the ratio of the principal stresses increases (Figure 2.15)

Figure 2.15: Typical curve under multi-stage permanent deformation (Werkmeister, 2003°

‘igure 2.17: Repeated loading characteristic of soil at different stress ratio (Elliott et al., 1999)  higher stress than that performed under same higher stress throughout the test.

Figure 2.18: Matric suction on resilient modulus (Sawangsuriya et al., 2009)

Figure 2.19: Resilient modulus at different matric suction (Yang et al., 2008)  stress and decreases with the increase in deviator stress when suction increased from 50 and 150

Figure 3. 1: Soil used in this study  3.2 Classification of soils

Figure 3.2: Automatic compactor for standard proctor test  3.4 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests in the laboratory

Figure 3.5: Schemetic diagram showing the selection of the stabilizer  it is supposed to remove unevenness during preparation of the samples at both ends.  3.6.1 Resilient modulus test

Figure 3. 6: MTS 810 machine (left) with sketch (right) used for the RLT tests  AASHTO T-307.

Figure 3. 7:Haversine shaped loading during RLT test (NCHRP I-28A,2004)

Figure 3.8: Setting up of sample on base plate for test.  3.6.3 Multi-stage permanent deformation test

stresses but same stresses ratios as presented in Table 3.7.  ind 12 in each condition of confinement were applied, i.e. three under three different confinin:

factorials for Tube suction test is also presented on Table 3.4.

Figure 4.1: Compaction curves of untreated soils  compaction curves obtained for treated/stabilized soils are presented in Figures 4.2 through 4.6.

Figure 4.2: Compaction characteristics curve for stabilized soil 1 with cement

Figure 4. 4: Compaction characteristic curve for stabilized soil 3 with cement

Figure 4. 5: Compaction characteristic curve for stabilized soil 4 with cement+ lime (1:1)

Figure 4. 6: Compaction characteristic curve of stabilized soil 5 with cement

Figure 4.7: Variation of UCS of with moisture content (soil 1)

Figure 4.9: Variation of UCS with moisture content (soil 3)

Figure 4.11: Variation of UCS with moisture content (soil 5)

Figure 4.12: Variation of UCS with different water-cement combination (soil 1)  additive contents for the study were selected and are presented on Table 4.3 .

Figure 4.14: Variation of UCS with different cement-water combination (soil 3)

Figure 4.15: Variation of UCS with different cement-water combination (Soil 4)

Figure 4.16: variation of UCS with lime-water combination (soil 5:

Figure 4.17: Variation of UCS with cement+lime-water combination (soil 5)

Figure 4.21: Stress-strain relationship for soil 3 with lime (MC;)  Figure 4.20: Stress-strain relationship for soil 3 with cement (MC;

Figure 4.23: Stress-strain relationship of soil 5 with different cement + lime (MC)  4.3 Resilient modulus test

stress and 6 psi of deviatoric stress and are presented in Table 4.11.  all soils at different water/stabilizer combination were statistically compared at 2 psi of confining

using SAS are presented in Tables 4.12 through 4.18 for soil 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively

Figure 4.29: Measured versus predicted resilient modulus for soil 1 at MC3 (50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.30: Measured vs predicted resilient modulus for soil 1 at MC; (150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.31: Measured versus predicted resilient modulus for soil 2 at MC3 (50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.32: Measured vs predicted resilient modulus for soil 2 at MC; (150 psi)

Figure 4.33: Measured versus predicted resilient modulus for soil 3 at MC; (50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.34: Measured versus predicted resilient modulus for soil 3 at MC3 (150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.35: Measured versus predicted resilient modulus for soil 4 at MC3 (50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.36: Measured versus predicted resilient modulus for soil 4 at MC3 (150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.37: Measured versus predicted resilient modulus for soil 5 at MC3 (50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.38: Measured versus predicted resilient modulus for soil 2 at MC3 (150 psi UCS)

through 4.28.

Figure 4.42: Resilient modulus of soil 1 at different water/cement ratio (for both 50 psi and 150  double layer and increase the contact between the clay particles.

Figure 4.43: Resilient modulus of soil 2 at different water/cement ratio (for both 50 psi and 150

sure 4.44: Resilient modulus of soil 3 at different water/cement ratio (for both 50 psi and 150

Figure 4.45: Resilient modulus of soil 4 at different water/additive ratio (for 50 and 150 psi)  cement only.

Figure 4.46: Resilient modulus of soil 5 with different water/lime ratio (for 150 psi)

Figure 4.47: Resilient modulus of soil 5 at different water/additive ratio (for 50 psi)

Figure 4.49: Resilient modulus with curing period for Soil 5 (for 50 psi UCS)  Figure 4.48: Resilient modulus with curing period (Soil 2

Figure 4.50: Resilient modulus with curing period for soil 5 (150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.52: Variation of resilient modulus with PI of soil at MC,

Figure 4.53: Variation of resilient modulus with PI of soil MC;

Figure 4.54: Permanent strain of soil 1 with number of cycles (for 50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.55: Permanent strain of soil 1 with number of cycles (for 150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.56: Permanent strain of soil 2 with number of cycles (for 50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.57: Permanent strain of soil 2 with number of cycles (for 150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.58: Permanent strain of soil 3 with number of cycles (for 50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.59: Permanent strain of soil 3 with number of cycles (for 150 psi UCS}

Figure 4.60: Permanent strain of soil 4 with number of cycles (for 50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.61: Permanent strain of soil 4 with number of cycles (for 150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.62: Permanent strain of soil 5 with number of cycles (for 50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.63: Permanent strain of soil 5 with number of cycles (for 150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.64: Permanent strain of soil 1 versus water/cement ratio for 7 days curing period  permanent deformation behavior.

Figure 4.65: Permanent strain of soil 3 versus water/cement ratio for 7 days curing period.

Figure 4.66: Permanent strain for soil 4 versus water/additive ratio for 7 days curing period.

Figure 4.67: Permanent deformation of soil 2 versus water/cement ratio for different curing period.

Figure 4.68: Permanent strain of soil 5 versus water/lime ratio for different curing period

Figure 4.69: Permanent strain of soil 5 versus w/additive ratio for different curing period.

Figure 4.70: Multi-stage permanent deformation curves of soil 2 at MC, (for 50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.71: Multi-stage permanent deformation curves of soil 2 at MC;( for 150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.72: Multi-stage permanent deformation curves of soil 3 at MC,( for 50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.73:Multi-stage permanent deformation curves of soil 3 at MC;( 150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.74: Multi-stage permanent deformation curves of soil 5 at MC,( for 50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.75: Multi-stage permanent strain curves of soil 5 at MC,( for 150 psi UCS)

Figure 4.80: Multi-stage strain rate versus permanent strain with skakedown limits for soil 5 at MC, (for 50 psi UCS)

Figure 4.82: Dielectric values of soil 1 at different moisture contents (7 day curing period)  separates the good materials from the materials that are moisture susceptible.

Figure 4.83: Dielectric values of soil2 at different moisture contents (7 day curing period)

Figure 4.84: Dielectric values of soil 3 at different moisture contents (7 day curing period)

Figure 4.85: Dielectric values of soil 4 at different moisture contents (7 day curing period)

Figure 4.86: Dielectric values of soil-5 at different moisture contents (7 day curing period)

Figure 1: resilient modulus of soil 1 at 14% moisture content

Figure 2: resilient modulus of soil 1 at 17% moisture content

Figure 11: resilient modulus of soil 4 at 35% moisture content

Figure 12: resilient modulus of soil 4 at 39% moisture content

Figure 13: resilient modulus of soil 5 at 42% moisture content

Figure 14: resilient modulus of soil 5 at 46% moisture content

Figure 15: resilient modulus of soil 5 at 52% moisture content

Figure 16: Multi-stage permanent deformation of soil 2 at MC2

Figure 17: Multi-stage permanent deformation of soil 2 at MC3

Figure 18: Multi-stage permanent deformation of soil 3 at MC,

Figure 19: Multi-stage permanent deformation of soil 3 at MC3

Figure 20: Multi-stage permanent deformation of soil 5 at MC&gt;

Figure 21: Multi-stage permanent deformation of soil 5 at MC3

Figure 23: Shakedown charts of soil 2 at 2 psi confining stress

Figure 24: Shakedown charts for soil 3 at 4 psi confining stress