{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/32499"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/32499","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Stabilization of Soft Clay Subgrades in Virginia Phase I Laboratory Study","abstract":"Many pavement subgrades in Virginia consist of wet, highly plastic clay or other troublesome soils. Such soils can be treated with traditional lime and cement stabilization methods. Alternatives, including lignosulfonates and polymers, are available, but their performance record is mixed and solid engineering data is lacking, which prevents reliable design. The goal of this research was to screen a suite of traditional and non-traditional stabilizers against three Virginia soils that have caused problems during construction or resulted in poor performance in service. The selected stabilizers were: quicklime, hydrated lime, pelletized lime, cement, lignosulfonate, synthetic polymer, magnesium chloride, and a proprietary cementitious stabilizer. A laboratory procedure was developed and applied to three Virginia soils obtained from Northern Virginia, Staunton, and Lynchburg. Key findings from the research include that (1) traditional lime and cement stabilizers were far more effective than liquid stabilizers (lignosulfonate, synthetic polymer, and magnesium chloride) in increasing strength, (2) the liquid stabilizers were ineffective on soils with high moisture content, (3) the proprietary cementitious stabilizer was more effective in increasing strength than lime for all cases tested, but not was not as effective as the cement stabilizer, (4) quicklime and hydrated lime increased workability of the soils although they did not produce strengths comparable to cement, (5) the strength of soils stabilized with cement and the proprietary cementitious stabilizer can be estimated based on the water-amendment ratio of the mixture, and (6) the strength of soils stabilized with lime can be estimated based on a combination of plasticity index and water-amendment ratio of the mixture.","abstract_html":"Many pavement subgrades in Virginia consist of wet, highly plastic clay or other troublesome soils. Such soils can be treated with traditional lime and cement stabilization methods. Alternatives, including lignosulfonates and polymers, are available, but their performance record is mixed and solid engineering data is lacking, which prevents reliable design. The goal of this research was to screen a suite of traditional and non-traditional stabilizers against three Virginia soils that have caused problems during construction or resulted in poor performance in service. The selected stabilizers were: quicklime, hydrated lime, pelletized lime, cement, lignosulfonate, synthetic polymer, magnesium chloride, and a proprietary cementitious stabilizer. A laboratory procedure was developed and applied to three Virginia soils obtained from Northern Virginia, Staunton, and Lynchburg. Key findings from the research include that (1) traditional lime and cement stabilizers were far more effective than liquid stabilizers (lignosulfonate, synthetic polymer, and magnesium chloride) in increasing strength, (2) the liquid stabilizers were ineffective on soils with high moisture content, (3) the proprietary cementitious stabilizer was more effective in increasing strength than lime for all cases tested, but not was not as effective as the cement stabilizer, (4) quicklime and hydrated lime increased workability of the soils although they did not produce strengths comparable to cement, (5) the strength of soils stabilized with cement and the proprietary cementitious stabilizer can be estimated based on the water-amendment ratio of the mixture, and (6) the strength of soils stabilized with lime can be estimated based on a combination of plasticity index and water-amendment ratio of the mixture.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Geiman, Christopher Matthew"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Civil Engineering","degree_department":"Civil Engineering","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Filz, George M."],"committee_members":["Brandon, Thomas L.","Plaut, Raymond H."],"year":2005,"date_issued":"2005-05-10","date_published":"2005-05-10","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:56:22Z","subjects":["lime","soil stabilization","polymers","cement"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-05102005-152711"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-05102005-152711","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/32499","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Filz, George M."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Brandon, Thomas L.","Plaut, Raymond H."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Civil Engineering"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Geiman, Christopher Matthew"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T20:36:02Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T20:36:02Z","2005-05-16"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2005-05-10"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Civil Engineering"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["lime","soil stabilization","polymers","cement"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-05102005-152711"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/32499"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Many pavement subgrades in Virginia consist of wet, highly plastic clay or other troublesome soils. Such soils can be treated with traditional lime and cement stabilization methods. Alternatives, including lignosulfonates and polymers, are available, but their performance record is mixed and solid engineering data is lacking, which prevents reliable design. The goal of this research was to screen a suite of traditional and non-traditional stabilizers against three Virginia soils that have caused problems during construction or resulted in poor performance in service. The selected stabilizers were: quicklime, hydrated lime, pelletized lime, cement, lignosulfonate, synthetic polymer, magnesium chloride, and a proprietary cementitious stabilizer. A laboratory procedure was developed and applied to three Virginia soils obtained from Northern Virginia, Staunton, and Lynchburg. Key findings from the research include that (1) traditional lime and cement stabilizers were far more effective than liquid stabilizers (lignosulfonate, synthetic polymer, and magnesium chloride) in increasing strength, (2) the liquid stabilizers were ineffective on soils with high moisture content, (3) the proprietary cementitious stabilizer was more effective in increasing strength than lime for all cases tested, but not was not as effective as the cement stabilizer, (4) quicklime and hydrated lime increased workability of the soils although they did not produce strengths comparable to cement, (5) the strength of soils stabilized with cement and the proprietary cementitious stabilizer can be estimated based on the water-amendment ratio of the mixture, and (6) the strength of soils stabilized with lime can be estimated based on a combination of plasticity index and water-amendment ratio of the mixture."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Stabilization of Soft Clay Subgrades in Virginia Phase I Laboratory Study"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Filz, George M."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Brandon, Thomas L.","Plaut, Raymond H."],"dc:contributor.department":["Civil Engineering"],"dc:creator":["Geiman, Christopher Matthew"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T20:36:02Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T20:36:02Z","2005-05-16"],"dc:date.issued":["2005-05-10"],"dc:description.abstract":["Many pavement subgrades in Virginia consist of wet, highly plastic clay or other troublesome soils. Such soils can be treated with traditional lime and cement stabilization methods. Alternatives, including lignosulfonates and polymers, are available, but their performance record is mixed and solid engineering data is lacking, which prevents reliable design. The goal of this research was to screen a suite of traditional and non-traditional stabilizers against three Virginia soils that have caused problems during construction or resulted in poor performance in service. The selected stabilizers were: quicklime, hydrated lime, pelletized lime, cement, lignosulfonate, synthetic polymer, magnesium chloride, and a proprietary cementitious stabilizer. A laboratory procedure was developed and applied to three Virginia soils obtained from Northern Virginia, Staunton, and Lynchburg. Key findings from the research include that (1) traditional lime and cement stabilizers were far more effective than liquid stabilizers (lignosulfonate, synthetic polymer, and magnesium chloride) in increasing strength, (2) the liquid stabilizers were ineffective on soils with high moisture content, (3) the proprietary cementitious stabilizer was more effective in increasing strength than lime for all cases tested, but not was not as effective as the cement stabilizer, (4) quicklime and hydrated lime increased workability of the soils although they did not produce strengths comparable to cement, (5) the strength of soils stabilized with cement and the proprietary cementitious stabilizer can be estimated based on the water-amendment ratio of the mixture, and (6) the strength of soils stabilized with lime can be estimated based on a combination of plasticity index and water-amendment ratio of the mixture."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-05102005-152711"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/32499"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["lime","soil stabilization","polymers","cement"],"dc:title":["Stabilization of Soft Clay Subgrades in Virginia Phase I Laboratory Study"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Civil Engineering"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:56:22Z"}