Table 6 Use of C&D waste for forming SRS
Reference | Soil | Treatment | Treatment content | Tests | Effects of treatment | Primary mechanism | Remarksa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sharma and Sharma [58] | Clayey soil | RHA; C&D waste; lime | 0–16% (RHA); 0–28% (C&D waste); 0–5% (lime) | Differential free swell; Compaction; UCS; CBR; resilient modulus | Increases UCS, CBR, and resilient modulus and decreases differential free swell | Cementation of hydration products | A combination of both the wastes and lime is best suited for the enhancement in UCS |
Sharma and Hymavathi [63] | Clayey soil | FA; C&D waste; lime | 0–22% (FA); 0–36% (C&D waste); 3–6% (lime) | Differential free swell; pH; compaction; UCS; CBR | Increases pH, UCS, and CBR and decreases differential free swell and MDD | Cementation of hydration products | For the studied clayey soil, lime is the best stabilizer to be used as subgrade material; early gain of strength is the primary importance: C&D waste; long-term strength is the primary criteria: FA |
Hasan et al. [65] | Bentonite clay | GGBS; C&D waste | 2–5% (GGBS); 10–20% (C&D waste) | UCS; microanalysis | Increases UCS | Cementation of hydration products | The optimum additive ratio was combination of 5% GGBS and 20% C&D waste |
Sharma and Sharma [67] | Clayey soil | C&D waste | 4–28% | Differential free swell; Atterberg limits; compaction; UCS; CBR; permeability | Increases UCS, CBR, permeability, and secant modulus and decreases MDD and OMC | Cementation of hydration products; coarser particle of C&D waste and higher coefficient of permeability compared to the clayey soil | The optimum C&D waste content was 24% |
Sharma and Sharma [68] | Expansive clay | C&D waste | 0–32% | Atterberg limits; pH; CD triaxial compression | Improves stress–strain and volumetric behavior of expansive clay; increases angle of shearing resistance, strength ratio, and stiffness and decreases volumetric strain and cohesion | Not discussed | The optimum C&D waste content was 24% |