See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321361228

POTENTIALS OF COMMON THATCHING GRASS ASH (CTGA) AND BARLEY

HUSK ASH (BHA) FOR SOIL STABILIZATION IN ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Article · May 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 85

3 authors, including:

Martin Aluga Nonde Lushinga

The Copperbelt University Harbin Institute of Technology
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ASPHALT SURFACE RUTTING INDEX: DESIGN OF RUT DEPTH MEASURING DEVICE (RDMD) View project

PARTIAL REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT WITH BARLEY STRAW ASH IN SOIL STABILIZATION FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Aluga on 29 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 POTENTIALS OF COMMON THATCHING GRASS ASH (CTGA) AND
BARLEY HUSK ASH (BHA) FOR SOIL STABILIZATION IN ROAD
CONSTRUCTION
Martin Aluga1, Nathan Chilukwa2 and Nonde Lushinga3

1,2Department of Civil Engineering and Construction, School of Engineering, Copperbelt University,

Kitwe, Zambia

3Department of Construction Economics and Management, School of Built Environment, Copperbelt

University, Kitwe, Zambia

Email addresses:

asige2012@gmail.com (M. Aluga),

chilukwa2008@yahoo.com (N. Chilukwa),

nonde.lushinga@gmail.com (N. Lushinga)

ABSTRACT
Cement and lime are widely used in soil stabilisation during road construction. However, the production,
transportation and the stabilisation process using these materials leads to the release of significant
amounts of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). The cost of production of
Portland cement, including the energy consumption, is also too high. It is for this reason that alternative
materials and processes that lead to lower global CO2 emissions are being investigated. Therefore, the
objective of this study was to valorise on local thatching grass and agricultural wastes as alternative
stabilisation materials. Common thatching grass and barley husks were collected and burnt in the open
air to produce Common Thatching Grass Ash (CTGA) and Barley Husk Ash (BHA) respectively, which
were used for soil stabilisation. A lateritic soil sample classified as A-2-7 was collected from a borrow
pit along Kitwe-Chingola road on the Copperbelt Province, Zambia. The soil was stabilized with varying
amounts (0 to 9%) of CTGA and BHA by weight of the dry soil. The performance of soil-CTGA and Soil-
BHA was investigated with respect to compaction characteristics, California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) tests. The results obtained, indicates a decrease in the
Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and increase in Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) with increase in both
ash contents. The CBR @ 100% MOD AASHTO values for CTGA increased from 40% to more than
200% at 9% CTGA content, while at the same (9%) content of BHA, the CBR increased from 39% to
just over 80%. The UCS increased linearly with increased CTGA content while BHA had no measurable
UCS at 7 day soak. It was concluded that CTGA has a significant effect on the strength of gravel soil
while BHA has no effect on the UCS of the soil, thus no stabilisation effect.
Keywords: Common Thatching Grass Ash(CTGA), Barley Husk Ash(BHA), laterites, Maximum Dry
Density (MDD), Optimum Moisture Content(OMC), California Bearing Ratio(CBR), Unconfined
Compressive Strength(UCS).
1. INTRODUCTION
The need to bring down the cost of waste disposal and the escalating cost of conventional soil stabilizers
has led to intense global research towards economic utilization of wastes and locally available materials
for engineering purposes in road construction. The safe disposal of industrial, agricultural and other
wastes demands urgent and cost effective solutions because of the debilitating effect of these materials
on the environment and to the health hazards that these wastes constitute (Agbede & Joel, 2011).

In order to make deficient soils useful and meet geotechnical engineering design requirements,
researchers have focused more on the use of potentially cost effective materials that are locally
available from industrial and agricultural waste in order to improve the properties of deficient soils (Utsev
& Taku, 2012).

Geotechnically, soil improvement can be by either modification or stabilization, or both. Soil modification
is the addition of a modifier (cement, lime, etc.) to a soil to change its index properties with little effect
on the strength, while soil stabilization is the treatment of soils to enable their strength and durability to
be improved such that they become suitable for construction beyond their original classification
(Andrzej, et al., 2010).

There exists traditional and non-traditional soil modifiers. The artificial traditional admixtures in order of
their usage are:
• Portland Cement (and Cement-Fly Ash)
• Lime (and Lime-Fly Ash)
• Fly Ash
• Fly Ash with Cement or Lime
• Bitumen and Tar
• Cement Kiln Dust (CKD)

In recent years an increasing number of non-traditional additives have been developed for soil
stabilization purposes. These stabilizers are becoming popular due to their relatively low cost, ease of
application, and short curing time. Since the chemical formulas of the products are modified, often
based on market tendency, it is rather difficult to evaluate the performance of a single product. Non-
traditional stabilizers are:

• Polymers Based Products

• Copolymer Based Products
• Fiber Reinforcement
• Calcium Chloride
• Sodium Chloride

2
Lateritic gravels and pisoliths, which are good for road construction, occur abundantly in most countries
of the world, including Zambia. However, there are instances where a laterite may contain a substantial
amount of clay minerals that its strength and stability cannot be guaranteed under load especially in the
presence of moisture. In most cases, sourcing for alternative soil material may prove uneconomical but
rather to improve the available soil to meet the desired requirements. Over the years, cement and lime
have been the two main materials used for stabilizing soils. These materials have rapidly increased in
price due to the sharp increase in the cost of energy since the 1970s (Aykut, Senol; Tuncer, B, Edil;
Md.Sazzad, Bin-Shafique; Hector, A, Acosta; Craig, H, Benson, 2006).

Pozzolanas are siliceous and aluminous materials, which in themselves possess little or no
cementitious value, but will, in finely divided form and in the presence of moisture, chemically react with
calcium hydroxide at ordinary temperature to form compounds possessing cementitious properties.
Clay minerals such as kaolinite, montmorillonite, mica and illite are pozzolanic in nature. Artificial
pozzolanas such as ashes are products obtained by heat treatment of natural materials containing
pozzolanas such as clays, shales and certain siliceous rocks. The ashes of burnt plants contain silica,
which is taken from soils as nutrients, contributing to the pozzolanic element. Rice husk ash, rice straw
and bagasse are rich in silica and make excellent pozzolanas. The silica is substantially contained in
amorphous form, which can react with the CaOH in the soil to form cementitious compounds (Musa,
2008). The long term result of pozzolanic reactions (Equation 1 and 2) is solidification of the soil. The
rate of the pozzolanic reactions depends on time and temperature.

Ca (OH ) 2 + SiO2 ® CaO - SiO2 - H 2O (1)

Ca (OH ) 2 + Al2O3 ® CaO - Al2O3 - H 2O (2)

Barley husks are an agricultural waste obtained from harvesting of barley. Common thatching grass
grows freely along the major highways and open fields in Zambia (Figure 1). Microscopy results show
that Common Thatching Grass Ash (CTGA) and Barley Husk Ash (BHA) contain silica in amorphous
form.

3
 Figure 1: Common Thatching Grass (CTG) abundance in Zambia.

The Road Agencies in Zambia spend substantial amounts of money for routine maintenance including
slashing of grass which can catch fire (Figure 2). Premature flexible pavement deterioration may result
from these fires getting close to the road and significantly increasing the temperature of the pavement.
Therefore, rather than slashing and disposing, they can be used to produce a binder.

Figure 2: Routine clearing of CTG along road reserves and powerlines.

The over dependence on the utilization of industrially manufactured soil improving additives (i.e.
cement, lime etc.), have kept the cost of construction of stabilized road high. This has contributed to the
inability of the underdeveloped and poor nations of the world from providing accessible roads to their
rural dwellers who constitute the higher percentage of their population and are mostly, agriculturally
dependent. Thus, the use of locally available and cheap materials will considerably reduce the cost of
construction in addition to reducing the environmental hazards they cause.

Portland cement, by the nature of its chemistry, produces large quantities of CO2 for every ton of its
final product. Therefore, replacing all or proportions of the Portland cement in soil stabilization with a

4
secondary cementitious material like CTGA and BHA will reduce the overall environmental impact of
this material.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Location of Study Area
The soil sample used for this study was collected from a borrow pit along Kitwe-Chingola road on the
Copperbelt Province of Zambia at a depth of between 1.0m to 3m using the method of disturbed
sampling.

2.2 Method of Testing

The laboratory tests carried out on the natural soil include; particle size distribution, Atterberg limits,
compaction, CBR and UCS. The geotechnical properties of the soil were determined in accordance
with Technical Methods for Highways (TMH1) and AASHTO while the stabilization tests were performed
in accordance with SANS 3001 - GR53:2010 and CML Test 1:21 ref TMH1-1986-A14. Specimens for
UCS and CBR tests were prepared at the optimum moisture contents (OMC) and maximum dry
densities (MDD) for soil – barley husk ash (BHA) and soil – common thatching grass ash (CTGA)
mixtures. The CBR tests were conducted as specified in TMH 1, A8 and AASHTO T 193-63, where the
compacted specimens were cured for 7 days and soaked for four hours before testing at a constant
loading rate. The CTGA and BHA were grounded and sieved through B.S. sieve No 200 (75μm) before
usage. Binder content for both materials was varied from 0-9%. Material characterisation was done on
both materials using an electron microscope.

Figure 3 shows the flow chart used in conducting the tests.

Figure 3: Testing approach flow chart.

5
3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Identification of Natural Soil
The geotechnical index properties of the laterite before addition of stabilizers are shown in Table 1. The
particle size distribution of the natural soil is shown in Figure 4. The overall geotechnical properties of
the soil, classified according to the AASHTO (1993) classification system as A-2-7, shows that it falls
below the standards recommended for most geotechnical construction works and would therefore
require stabilization. The compaction properties of soil are shown in Figure 5.

Table 1: Index properties of natural soil.

Test description Results
Soil sample collected from (Name and 6+800 Borrow Pit LHS with Copperhill Mall
coordinates): as 0+000 in Copperbelt, Zambia
Sieve analysis: Figure 1
Natural moisture content (%): 3.1
Percent passing B.S Sieve No 200: 21.5
Liquid Limit (%): 40.8
Plastic Limit (%): 22.95
Plasticity Index (%): 17.9
Shrinkage Index%: 9.3
Free Swell%: 0
Group Index: 1
AASHTO Classification: A-2-7
unified system of classification(USC) CH
Maximum Dry Density (Kg/m3): 2020
Optimum Moisture Content (%): 9.2
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa): 0.92
California Bearing Ratio (%)
Unsoaked: 83
Soaked: 38
Specific Gravity: 2.441
pH: 5.6
Colour: Brown

6
 Figure 4: Particle size distribution of the natural soil.

Figure 5: Compaction properties of the natural soil.

3.2 Identification of CTGA and BHA

The mineral composition of CTGA, obtained from Copperbelt University grounds and Sabina along
Kitwe – Chingola road, were tested using electron microscopy. The combined percent composition of
silica, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 for CTGA was more than 70% as shown in Table 2 and Figure 6. The
composition of BHA is shown in Table 3 and Figure 7. The composition of silica is more than 20% with
no CaO. This is an indication of poor pozzollanic properties. The oxides composition of BHA according
to (Liang, Wang; Geir, Skjevrak; Johan, E, Hustad; Morten, Grønlia; Øyvind, Skreiberg, 2012) is shown

7
in Table 4. The pH and specific gravity for the ashes is shown in Table 5. The ashes are alkaline and
CTGA is denser than BHA. High specific gravity for CTGA (2.612) compared to the soil makes it a good
replacement material compared with cement with about 3.2g/cm3.

Table 2: CTGA mineral composition.

Element Series Mass C [wt.%] Norm. C[wt.%] Atom C. [at. %] Error[3 sigma][wt.%]
O K Series 39.08 54.17 70.82 14.11
Mg K Series 1.22 1.69 1.45 0.30
Al K Series 1.02 1.41 1.09 0.24
Si K Series 12.81 17.76 13.23 1.79
P K Series 0.43 0.59 0.40 0.13
S K Series 0.97 1.34 0.88 0.19
CI K Series 1.05 1.46 0.86 0.19
K K Series 10.31 14.29 7.65 1.03
Ca K Series 4.46 6.18 3.23 0.47
Mn K Series 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.08
Fe K Series 0.52 0.73 0.27 0.12
Cu K Series 0.21 0.30 0.10 0.10
Total 72.15 100.00 100.00

Figure 6: CTGA mineral composition.

Table 3: BHA mineral composition.

Element Series Mass C [wt.%] Norm. C[wt.%] Atom C. [at. %] Error[3 sigma][wt.%]
N K Series 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Na K Series 0.15 0.75 1.11 0.12
Mg K Series 0.98 5.01 7.04 0.26

8
Element Series Mass C [wt.%] Norm. C[wt.%] Atom C. [at. %] Error[3 sigma][wt.%]
Al K Series 0.03 0.17 0.21 0.09
Si K Series 2.78 14.22 17.30 0.46
P K Series 3.60 18.43 20.33 0.52
S K Series 0.38 1.94 2.07 0.13
CI K Series 2.10 10.78 10.39 0.30
K K Series 8.83 45.24 39.53 0.90
Fe K Series 0.43 2.18 1.34 0.12
Cu K Series 0.25 1.27 0.68 0.11
Total 19.51 100.00 100.00

Figure 7: BHA Mineral composition.

Table 4: Oxides Composition of Barley Husk Ash (BHA) (Liang, Wang; Geir, Skjevrak; Johan, E,
Hustad; Morten, Grønlia; Øyvind, Skreiberg, 2012).

Oxide Chemical composition of the ash (wt %)

SiO2 31.77
K2 O 27.77
Al2O3 1.55
CaO 7.61
Na2O 0.01
MgO 0.05
Fe2O3 2.01
P2O5 23.21
SO3 1.76
Cl 2.26

9
 Table 5: Ash properties.

ASH pH Specific Gravity

CTGA 8.6 2.612

BHA 8.2 1.736

3.3 Effect of Stabilisation with CTGA

3.3.1 Compaction Characteristics
The variations of MDD and OMC with CTGA stabilizer content is shown in Figure 8. The MDD
decreased while the OMC increased with increase in the CTGA content.

CTGA Compaction Characteristics

2040 10.8
2030 10.6
2020 10.4
2010 10.2
10
MDD

OMC
2000
9.8
1990 9.6
1980 9.4
1970 9.2
1960 9
1950 8.8
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
% CTGA

MDD OMC

Figure 8: CTGA compaction characteristics.

The decrease in the MDD is probably due to coating of the soil by the CTGA resulting in larger particles
with larger voids and hence less density. It is also probable that the addition of CTGA resulted in
reduced amounts (by percentage) of Silt and Clay, thus reducing the cohesion between particles in the
samples.

The increase in OMC with additional amounts of CTGA can be attributed to the decreased quantity (by
percentage) of free silt and clay fraction, coarser materials being formed (these processes need water
to take place). This implies also that more water was needed in order to compact the soil-CTGA mixture.

3.3.2 California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

As an indicator of compacted soil strength and bearing capacity, CBR is widely used in the design of
base and sub-base material for pavement. It is also one of the common tests used to evaluate the
strength of stabilized soils. The variation of CBR with increase in CTGA from 0 to 9% is shown in Figure
9. For soaked samples, there is a significant increase in CBR of the material with the addition of 3%
CTGA, after which the increase (in CBR) up to 9% is more or less gradual. The increment in the CBR
after 3% CTGA can be attributed to the gradual formation of cementitious compounds between the
CTGA and CaOH contained in the soil. This trend shows that the presence of water (moisture) helps to

10
further the formation of the cementitious compounds between the soil’s CaOH and the pozzolanic
CTGA.

3.3.3 Unconfined Compressive Strength

Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) is the most common and adaptable method of evaluating the
strength of stabilized soil. It is the main test recommended for the determination of the required amount
of additive to be used in stabilization of soil. Variation of UCS with increase in CTGA from 0% to 9% at
and for 7 days curing period were investigated and the results are shown in Figure 10. There was a
sharp initial increase in the UCS with addition of CTGA to the natural soil and it kept rising linearly.

CTGA 100% Soaked CBR

250
CBR @100% MOD AASHTO

200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
% CTGA CONTENT

Figure 9: CTGA 100% MOD CBR.

The subsequent increase in the UCS is attributed to the formation of cementitious compounds between
the CaOH present in the soil and the pozzolans present in the CTGA. The UCS for CTGA between 6
and 9% was determined to be above 0.7MPa. This is within specifications for a C4 Material (UCS 0.75
- 1.5MPa) used as stabilized subbase.

11
 CTGA UCS
1.2
y = 0.1x + 0.1
1
7 DAY UCS (MPa) R² = 1
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
% CTGA CONTENT

Figure 10: CTGA 7 Day UCS.

3.4 Effect of Treatment with BHA

3.4.1 Compaction Characteristics
The variations of MDD and OMC with stabilizer contents are shown in Figure 11. It is shown that the
MDD decreased while the OMC increased with increase in the BHA content.

BHA Compaction Characteristics

2040 10.8
2030 10.6
2020 10.4
10.2
2010
10
2000
MDD

OMC

9.8
1990
9.6
1980
9.4
1970 9.2
1960 9
1950 8.8
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
% BHA

MDD OMC

Figure 11: BHA compaction characteristics.

The decrease in the MDD can be attributed to the replacement of soil by the BHA in the mix, which has
relatively lower specific gravity (1.736) compared to that of the soil (2.441). It may also be attributed to
coating of the soil by the BHA, resulting in larger particles with larger voids and hence less density. The
decrease in the MDD may also be explained by considering the BHA as filler (with lower specific gravity)
in the soil voids.

12
There was increase in OMC with increased BHA contents. This is probably because the addition of
BHA decreased the quantity (by percentage) of free silt and clay fraction and coarser materials were
formed (these processes need water to take place). This implies also that more water was needed in
order to compact the soil-BHA mixtures.

3.4.2 California Bearing Ratio

The variation of CBR with increase in BHA from 0 to 9% is shown in Figure 12. For soaked samples,
CBR values initially increased slightly with the addition of 3% BHA, after which there is a steady increase
up to more than 80% CBR at 9% BHA content. The initial slight increase in the CBR may be due to the
reduction (by percentage) in the silt and clay content of the soil, which reduces the cohesion of the
particles in the samples. The increment in the CBR after 3% BHA can be attributed to the gradual
formation of cementitious compounds between the BHA and CaOH contained in the soil.

BHA 100% MOD CBR

100
90
80
70
100% MOD CBR

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
% BHA CONTENT

Figure 12: BHA 100% MOD CBR.

3.4.3 Unconfined Compressive Strength

Variation of UCS with increase in BHA from 0% to 9% and for 7 days curing period and four hour soak
was investigated. The samples failed after four hours of soak before testing. This is attributed to low
percentage of SiO2 in the BHA.

4. Feasibility of CTGA and BHA with Cement

From the experimental work done, there is high potential for utilization of CTGA unlike BHA as a
supplementary cementitious material. However, how feasible is it to use CTGA? CTGA is obtained from
stuffy grass which can’t be used as forage. It grows mostly unabated in open fields, thus annual
production is quite high. It utilizes atmospheric CO2 during growth and the same gas is released during
burning to produce CTGA, hence no addition of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a major advantage
considering the rising climate change due to this kind of greenhouse gases. It is locally available hence,
transportation and production is cheaper. In addition, energy involved in its production is very low. In
developing countries e.g. Zambia, it can be a source of employment to the many unemployed youths

13
and women. For instance, in this study, the grass burns on its own and sieving done mechanically. The
sieving can be done easily by women, hence building capacity of women. The grass can be pelleted to
be used in kilns and the ash used for soil stabilization thus, a source of energy rather than burning in
open air. In terms of production quantities, 1m2 of fully grown grass produces approximately 0.5kg of
binder, hence 1 hectare of land can produce a 5000kg bag of binder! Table 6 compares the benefits of
using CTGA and BHA to cement.
Table 6: Comparison summary of CTGA, BHA with cement.
DESCRIPTION CTGA BHA CEMENT
Quantity of production Inputs:Outputs=~2:1 Inputs:Outputs=~2:1 Inputs:Outputs=~1:1
materials
Cost of production Low (grows freely and Low (obtained from High (mining of materials
doesn’t require plant) agricultural wastes) and production plant)
Energy consumption Low Low High (coal required)
CO2 Carbon capture Carbon capture Contributes to CO2
Sustainability Renewable binder Renewable binder Non-renewable binder
Pozzolanic properties for Very good low Excellent
soil stabilisation

5. CONCLUSION
From the results of this study, the following conclusions can be drowned:
1. The laterite was identified to be an A-2-7 soil on AASHTO (1993) classification system. It is
also clay of high plasticity (CH) according to unified system of classification (USC).
2. Treatment with both CTGA and BHA showed a general decrease in the MDD and increase in
OMC with increase in the CTGA and BHA contents.
3. There was a significant improvement in the soaked CBR of the soil stabilized with CTGA from
about 38% (natural soil) to more than 200% (stabilized).
4. There was a marked improvement in the soaked CBR of the soil stabilized with BHA from
about 38% (natural soil) to just over 80% (stabilized).
5. The results also showed that the UCS of the soil increased linearly with additional amounts
of CTGA.
6. BHA showed no Unconfined Compressive Strength. This is attributed to lack of CaO in the
ash mineral composition.

6. RECOMMENDATION
The results of the study shows high potentials for using CTGA for soil improvement. It is recommended
that CTGA can be employed as an alternative material for soil stabilization. The results also showed
that BHA has little to no effect on soil improvement; it is recommended that it can be employed to
complement cement or lime (partial replacement) thereby forming secondary cementitious compounds
with the CaOH produced from the hydration of cement or when in use with lime (CaOH).

14
The study only considered quantities of binder (CTGA and BHA) up to 9%. It is recommended higher
contents of binder be investigated especially for CTGA.

Pozzolanic reactions are sensitive to changes in temperature. In the field, temperatures vary
continuously throughout the day. Pozzolanic reactions between binders and soil particles will slow down
at low temperature and result into lower strengths of the stabilized mass. In cold regions, it may be
advisable to stabilize the soil during the warm season. However, it is recommended that effects of
temperature on stabilization with CTGA be investigated.

REFERENCES

[1]. Agbede, I. O. & Joel, M., 2011. Effect of rice husk ash (RHA) on the properties of Ibaji burnt
clay bricks. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, pp. 674-
677.

[2]. ALABADAN, B. A., M, A. O., M, S. A. & M, Z., 2005. Partial Replacement of Ordinary Portland
Cement (OPC) with Bambara Groundnut Shell Ash (BGSA) in Concrete. Leonardo Electronic
Journal of Practices and Technologies, Issue 6, pp. 43-48.

[3]. Alireza, N. G., Suraya, A. R., Farah, N. A. A. & Mohamad, A. M. S., 2010. Contribution of Rice
Husk Ash to the Properties of Mortar and Concrete: A Review. Journal of American Science,
6(3), pp. 157-165.

[4]. ANDREOLA, F, L; BARBIER, I; LANCELLOTTI; K, ANASTASIADOU; M, C, BIGNOZZI; M,

BONVICINI, n.d. AGRICULTURAL BIOMASS WASTE: PRELIMINARY STUDY ON
CHARACTERIZATION AND VALORISATION IN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, Italy:
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy.

[5]. Andrzej, K. B., Abdullah, A. M. & Jürgen, V., 2010. Barley husk and coconut shell reinforced
polypropylene composites: The effect of fibre physical, chemical and surface properties.
Composites Science and Technology, Volume 70, pp. 840-846.

[6]. Aykut, Senol; Tuncer, B, Edil; Md.Sazzad, Bin-Shafique; Hector, A, Acosta; Craig, H, Benson,
2006. Soft subgrades’ stabilization by using various fly ashes. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Volume 46, pp. 365-376.

[7]. Basha, E., R, H., H, B. M. & A, S. M., 2005. Stabilization of residual soil with rice husk ash and
cement. Construction and Building Materials, Volume 19, pp. 448-458.

[8]. Bora, C., Ahmet, H. A. & Yucel, G., 2010. Stabilization of recycled base materials with high
carbon fly ash. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 54, pp. 878-892.

[9]. Liang, Wang; Geir, Skjevrak; Johan, E, Hustad; Morten, Grønlia; Øyvind, Skreiberg, 2012.
Effects of additives on barley straw and husk ashes sintering characteristics. Energy Procedia,
Volume 20, p. 30.39.

[10]. Musa, A., 2008. Potentials of Rice Husk Ash for Soil Stabilization. AU J.T., 11(4), pp. 246-250.

[11]. Nasim, A. K., Shaliza, I. & Piarapakaran, S., 2004. Elimination of Heavy Metals from
Wastewater Using Agricultural Wastes as Adsorbents. Malaysian Journal of Science, Volume
23, pp. 43-51.

[12]. Oriola, F. & Moses, G., 2010. Groundnut Shell Ash Stabilization of Black Cotton Soil. EJGE,
Volume 15, pp. 415-428.

[13]. Oyetola, E. B. & M, A., 2006. The Use of Rice Husk Ash in Low - Cost Sandcrete Block
Production. Leonardo Electronic Journal of Practices and Technologies, Issue 8, pp. 58-70.

15
 [14]. Saandeepani, V. & N, R. m., 2013. Study On Addition Of The Natural Fibers Into Concrete.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, 2(11), pp. 213-
218.

[15]. Sazzad, B.-S., K, R., Mustafa, Y. & Ireen, A., 2010. The long-term performance of two fly ash
stabilized fine-grained soil subbases. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 54, pp.
666-672.

[16]. Serigos, P. A., 2013. Evaluation of Rut-Depth Accuracy and Precision Using Different 3
Automated Systems for Texas Conditions, Texas: Transportation Research Board(TRB).

[17]. Utsev, J. T. & Taku, J. K., 2012. Coconut Shell Ash As Partial Replacement of Ordinary Portland
Cement In Concrete Production. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC &
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, 1(8), pp. 86-89.

[18]. Yasuhiko, Y. & Shafi, M. L., 1982. Production and utilization of active rice husk ash as a
substitut for cement. Tsukuba, JSCE.

16

View publication stats