Cited by 198Geotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationGeotechnical and construction materials studiesMaterials Engineering and Processing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Multi-scale laboratory evaluation of the physical, mechanical, and microstructural properties of soft highway subgrade soil stabilized with calcium carbide residue

Open access
Jiang, Ning-Jun, Du, Yan-Jun, Liu, Song-Yu, Wei, Ming-Li, Horpibulsuk, Suksun, Arulrajah, Arul·2016·Canadian Geotechnical Journal

Abstract

Calcium carbide residue (CCR) is an industrial by-product, stockpiles of which are rapidly accumulating worldwide. Highway embankment construction has been identified as an avenue to consume huge quantities of CCR as an economical, less energy intensive, and environmentally friendly chemical additive for soil stabilization. Previous studies have investigated the mechanical behavior of soils stabilized by CCR or blends of CCR with other additives; however, interpretation of the macroscale geomechanical behavior of CCR-stabilized soft soils from a systematically microstructural observation and analysis is relatively unknown. This paper presents a multi-scale laboratory investigation on the physical, mechanical, and microstructural properties of CCR-stabilized clayey soils with comparison to quicklime-stabilized soils. Several series of tests were conducted to examine the Atterberg limits, particle-size distribution, compaction characteristics, unconfined compressive strength, California Bearing Ratio, and resilient modulus of the CCR-stabilized clayey soils. The influences of binder content, curing time, and initial compaction state on the physical and mechanical properties of treated soils are interpreted with the aids of physicochemical and microstructural observations including soil pH, soil mineralogy obtained from X-ray diffraction and thermogravimetric analysis, and pore-size distribution obtained from mercury intrusion porosimetry. Soil particle flocculation and agglomeration at the early stage and pozzolanic reactions during the entire curing time, which originate from the finer particle size, greater specific surface area, and higher pH value of CCR, are the controlling mechanisms for the superior mechanical performance of CCR-stabilized soils. The outcomes of this research will contribute to the usage of CCR as a sustainable and alternative stabilizer to quicklime in highway embankment applications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/cgj-2015-0245

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 55 · Cited by 198

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. 10.1016/j.clay.2010.07.023 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.04.004 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.025 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/0013-7952(96)00028-2 · DOI
  5. 10.1139/cgj-2015-0053 · DOI
  6. 10.1139/t06-102 · DOI
  7. 10.1346/CCMN.1970.0180103 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/S0013-7952(98)00086-6 · DOI
  9. 10.1139/cgj-2013-0177 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.035 · DOI
  11. 10.1080/19648189.2015.1030088 · DOI
  12. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:5(382) · DOI
  13. 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000138 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.05.002 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.01.006 · DOI
  16. 10.3208/sandf.49.85 · DOI
  17. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000370 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1016/j.sandf.2013.06.001 · DOI
  19. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:2(150) · DOI
  20. 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2003)15:5(470) · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.07.027 · DOI
  22. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000618 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.04.037 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/S0169-1317(98)00046-5 · DOI
  25. 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2005)5:4(295) · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.04.014 · DOI
  27. 10.1139/T09-061 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.09.012 · DOI
  29. 10.1139/T08-110 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.04.014 · DOI
  31. 10.1139/t96-090-311 · DOI
  32. Mitchell, J.K., and Soga, K. 2005. Fundamentals of soil behavior. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, USA.
  33. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001148 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00250-1 · DOI
  35. 10.1139/t00-076 · DOI
  36. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1998)124:2(149) · DOI
  37. 10.1139/t99-121 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.018 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.clay.2013.09.008 · DOI
  40. Sharma, H.D., and Reddy, K.R. 2004. Geoenvironmental engineering: site remediation, waste containment, and emerging waste management technologies. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey.
  41. 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000932 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.clay.2012.04.001 · DOI
  43. 10.1680/adcr.1997.9.36.167 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.015 · DOI
  45. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.104 · DOI
  46. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001112 · DOI
  47. 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000502 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.07.001 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.sandf.2013.02.007 · DOI
  50. 10.1180/claymin.1993.028.4.07 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Jiang, N.-J., Du, Y.-J., Liu, S.-Y., Wei, M.-L., Horpibulsuk, S., & Arulrajah, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Southeast University (CN)
  • Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban Underground Engineering and Environmental Safety, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China.
  • Suranaree University of Technology (TH)
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
Venue
Canadian Geotechnical Journal
Published
2016-03
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
373-383
ISSN
  • 0008-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1208-6010
OpenAlex
W1822444910
Cited by
198
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11
FWCI
15.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Geotechnical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (acceptedVersion)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (51278100, 41472258, 41330641, RTA5680002)
  • Government of Jiangsu Province
  • Thailand Research Fund (41472258, 51278100, RTA5680002)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK2012022)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical and construction materials studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Materials Engineering and Processing
Keywords
calcium carbide residue, soil stabilization, clay soil, quicklime stabilization, pozzolanic reaction, flocculation, microstructure, unconfined compressive strength, California bearing ratio, resilient modulus, Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics, curing time, binder content, industrial by-product utilization, highway embankments

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review