Compliance to Review Comments

Manuscript ID: 197407748

Title: The Strength and Microstructural behavior of lime stabilized subgrade soil in road
construction

AUTHORS: Subhradeep Dhar and Monowar Hussain

Respected Sir,

The authors have summarized the replies to the Reviewer comments in the following format.
A revised manuscript is submitted addressing all the comments to the International Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering for possible publication.

Compliance to Reviewer:

1] Comment: The manuscript should have better edits for grammar, readability, and even
punctuations.

Compliance: The manuscript is thoroughly checked and has been modified as per the best of our
knowledge.

[2] Comment: Why authors incorporated Split-tensile strength test in this research effort?!! As
the sole criterion for the design of the subgrade layer in pavement structure is compressive
behavior of subgrade soils, which can be reflected by the CBR and UCS test results.
Compliance: Soil tensile strength is an important engineering property that must be known and
should be improved, as soils are weak in tension. Tensile stresses are generally established
during vehicular movement, seasonal temperature variation, and soil shrinkage. Burmister (1943)
pointed out that in a layered elastic materials system; the tensile stresses are developed at the
interfaces between the layered materials when the overlying layers have higher moduli of
elasticity than underlying layers. This layered system analysis is also applicable to road
pavements where the upper layers are built with stiffer materials than that of the subgrade. Once
the tensile cracks formed in the subgrade layers due to the development of tensile stresses then it
subsequently propagates upward up to the surface level, hence severely affects the stability of
pavement structure. Therefore, during the design of pavement, the tensile strength of subgrade
soil must be taken into consideration.

The correction is incorporated in the revised manuscript in section Details of Testing

Methodology.

Reference:
Burmister, D. M. 1943. “The Theory of Stresses and Displacements in Layered Systems and
Applications to the Design of Airport Runways.” Highway Research Board Proc. 23:126-148.

[3] Comment: Explain physical and chemical characteristics of lime employed in this study.

Compliance: Quick lime (CaO) of molecular weight 56.08 and purity 95% is used as a
stabilizing agent in the present research. The purity of lime satisfied the criteria of IS: 1514
(1990), where it is not less than 70%. Table 2 presents some physical properties of lime. The
XRD analysis (Fig. 2) revealed the purity of quick lime by showing all major peaks corresponds
to calcium oxide (CaO).

Table 2. physical properties of lime employed in this study

Properties Values
Specific Gravity 3.1
Melting point 2570oC
Boiling point 2850oC
pH 12.5

1000
1 1=CaO
900
800 1
700
Intensity (cps)

600
500
400
1 1
300 1
200 1
100 1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2θ (degree)

Fig. 2. XRD pattern of lime

The suggested corrections are made and it is incorporated in the revised manuscript.

[4]Comment: Page 2, in line 53, Formation of rutting and shoving in flexible pavements … are
due to the poor subgrade conditions. Poor compaction quality of subgrade is one of the reasons
for the occurrence of rutting; there are other reasons to trigger ruttings such as unsatisfactory
pavement thickness, and weak asphalt mixtures; The authors should enumerate those reasons and
avoid generalization through the text.
Compliance: Weak subgrade subjected to swelling while contact with water and shows
shrinkage cracks in dry condition. (Zumrawi, 2015). Unpaved low volume roads such as rural
roads, access roads, and haul roads when constructed on weaker subgrade soils suffer problems
like excessive rutting and mud pumping (Latha et al. 2010). Longitudinal ruts, waves, and
undulation formed along the wheel path in flexible pavements are primarily due to the stresses
from the heavy vehicles that are repeatedly transferred to the poor subgrade (Khanna and Justo,
2015). These problems are also intensified by poor compaction quality of subgrade,
unsatisfactory pavement thickness, and weak asphalt mixtures (Li, 2012). Road structures built
on soft subgrade also possess the low bearing capacity, slope instability, excessive lateral
movement and settlement problem under imposed traffic load (Du et al. 2016; Zhang et al.
2017). These adverse effects of weak subgrade together with poor compaction quality make the
road unusable for the traffic and if paved roads are built over it then higher pavement thickness is
required.
Reference:

Dua, Y.J., Jiang, N.J., Liu, S.Y., Horpibulsuk, S., and Arulrajah, A. 2016. “Field evaluation
of soft highway subgrade soil stabilized with calcium carbide residue.” Soils & Foundation
56(2):301–314. [Link]

Khanna, S.K., and Justo, C.E.G. 2015. Highway Engineering, Roorkee, Nemchand &
Brothers publications. India.

Latha, G.M., Nair, A.M., and Hemalatha, M.S. 2010. “Performance of geosynthetics in
unpaved roads.” International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 4: 337-349.
[Link]

Li, F. 2012. “a methodology for characterizing pavement Rutting condition using emerging
3d line laser Imaging technology.” Georgia Institute of Technology.

Zhang, T., Cai, G., and Liu, S. 2017. “Application of lignin-based by-product stabilized silty
soil in highway Subgrade: A field investigation.” Journal of Cleaner Production 142: 4243-
4257. [Link]

Zumrawi, M.M.E. 2015. “Stabilization of pavement subgrade by using fly ash activated by
Cement”. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture. 3(6): 218–224.
[Link]

The above discussion is appended in the revised manuscript

[5] Comment: Page 6, in Line 57, the authors mentioned, “the specimens are tested for UCS at a
constant strain rate of 1.2 mm/min”. Please put a reference for the rate of controlling strain rate.
Recommend: Rashidi, M. and Ashtiani, S. R. (2018) Performance Evaluation of the Cement
Stabilized Reclaimed Materials for Use in Pavement Foundations.
Compliance: As per the reviewer suggestion the above recommended reference is cited in the
revised manuscript and is also incorporated in the reference list.

Reference
Rashidi, M. and Ashtiani, S. R. 2018. “Performance Evaluation of the Cement Stabilized
Reclaimed Materials for Use in Pavement Foundations.” International Conference on
Transportation and Development ASCE

[6] Comment: Please clarify your compaction method in this study for the CBR, STS, and UCS
tests (Thickness and number of layers, number and height of blows.

Compliance: For UCS and STS test, samples are prepared at MDD-OMC. First prescribed
quantity of lime is mixed with dry soil, and then water corresponding to OMC is added and
mixed thoroughly to achieve a homogeneous mixture. Some extra water of about 32% mass of
lime is also added to take into account for lime slacking and evaporation loss (Greaves 1996).
The resultant mixture is then placed in a split mold (i.e. 38 mm diameter, 76 mm height) and
tapping in three layers to achieve the target density ([Link]). The tops of the first and second
layers are slightly scratched to provide a good bond between the layers.

For CBR test, first uniform dry mixture of soil and lime are prepared by hand and then mixed
with OMC water. Resultant wet mixture is placed on CBR mold in three layers and each layer is
compacted 56 times by 2.6 kg hammer with a height of blows 310 mm

Reference
Greaves, H.M. 1996. An introduction to lime stabilization. Proceedings of Seminar on Lime
Stabilization (pp. 5–12). London: Loughborough University, Thomas Telford.

The suggested correction is incorporated in the revised paper.

[7] Comment: Page 9, in Line 52, The authors mentioned, “To be more specific, while
comparing the LSS of treated soil for each percentage of lime, S1 soil shows higher decrement of
LSS than S2 soil.” What the authors should clarify is to elaborate on why the LSS reduces at a
faster rate for CH material as compared to CL soil more specifically after 5% lime content.
Compliance: It is confirmed from Fig. 3 that lime treatment creates a positive effect on both the
soil by reducing the LSS. To be more specific, while comparing the LSS of treated soil for each
percentage of lime, S1 soil shows higher decrement of LSS than S2 soil. Shrinkage is very much
depended on the percentage of fine clay particles present on the soil (Yong and Warkentin 1975).
Since in S1 soil the percentage of clay fraction is 43% which is higher than S2 soil (i.e. 12%),
hence S1 soil shows greater cation-exchange capacity after lime treatment leading to a higher
order of aggregation/ flocculation. These aggregated products formed after lime treatment offer
better resistance against capillary suction (Dash and Hussain 2015) leading to the faster
decrement of LSS in S1 soil. Another possible reason may be due to the higher interparticle
friction resistance between the resultant aggregate clusters in soil S1 which plays a major role in
reducing LSS faster in S1 soil after lime stabilization.
But after 5% lime content the reduction of LSS is found marginal in both the soil. Besides at 9%
lime, a mild increase in LSS is observed in the two soils which are probably due to excessive
lime which causes osmosis phenomena thus the flocculated structure becomes dispersed. This
parallel oriented flaky grains shows greater shrinkage capacity (Keramatikerman et al. 2016)
thus LSS value mild increased at 9% lime.

18
Linear shrinkage strain, LSS (%)

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 3 5 7 9
Lime content (%)
Fig. 3. Variation of linear shrinkage strain with lime content
Reference
Dash, S.K., and Hussain, M. 2015. “Influence of Lime on Shrinkage Behavior of Soils.”
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 27(12): 04015041.

Yong, R.N., and Warkentin, B.P. 1975. “Introduction to soil behavior.” McMillan, New
York.

The suggested correction is incorporated in the revised paper.

[8] Comment: According to the authors’ findings, the optimum lime content is perceived to be
7% and 5% for CH and CL soils, respectively. However, the literature has shown different
dosages of the lime could result in a better strength performance (e.g., Haeri et al., 2015, Saride
et al., 2013; Sharma et al. 2012). It is suggested that such a comparison is included in the paper
and the possible reasons for it being explained.
Compliance: The optimum lime content obtained in the present research contradicts with the
results reported by other literature (i.e. saride et al. 2013; Sharma et al. 2012; Jha and
Sivapullaiah 2015 etc). This difference may be attributed to the fact that the optimum lime
perceived in the above-mentioned literature are based on pH test and the threshold value of lime
beyond which no further change in the pH of the soil-lime mixture is observed was reported as
optimum lime. But in the present study, optimum lime content is obtained from the UCS/STS
test and the percentage of lime that yields a maximum strength value is identified as optimum
lime.

The suggested comparisons are made and it is incorporated in the revised manuscript.
Reference
Jha, A.K., and Sivapullaiah, P.V. 2015. “Mechanism of improvement in the strength and volume
change behavior of lime stabilized soil.” Engineering Geology 198: 53–64.
Saride, S., Puppala, A.J., and Chikyala, S.R. 2013. “Swell-shrink and strength behaviors of lime
and cement stabilized expansive organic clays.” Applied Clay Science 85: 39–45.
Sharma, N.K., Swain, S. K., and Sahoo, U.C. 2012. “Stabilization of a Clayey Soil with Fly Ash
and Lime: A Micro Level Investigation.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 30:1197–
1205. DOI 10.1007/s10706-012-9532-3.

[9] Comment: According to the authors, the STS is about 0.12 of UCS; making a conclusion
between two types of tests only based on two soil samples can be wrong and biased. I
recommend the authors avoid comparing the two tests using a limited number of test samples;
therefore, the figure is suggested to be removed. Moreover, it is not that much common using
symbols such as heart for legends of a scientific paper!!
Compliance: Fig. 7. i.e. STS vs. UCS of lime stabilized subgrade soil is removed and the section
explaining the Correlation between STS and UCS of lime stabilized subgrade soil is also deleted
from the revised manuscript.

[10] Comment: Page 13, in Line 58, The authors mentioned “Maximum CBR … its large clay
fractions needs a relatively higher percentage of lime than S2 to alter the physicochemical
characteristics;” Provide more explanation on this matter!!
Compliance: Maximum CBR value obtained in the case of S1 soil is at 7% lime, whereas for S2
soil it is found at 5% lime. S1 soil with its large clay fractions needs a relatively higher
percentage of lime to alter the physicochemical characteristics; hence S1 soils are in need of
more lime to attain the maximum CBR value. In contrast, the S2 soils with low clay contents
require less lime to alter their plasticity characteristics. As a result, a relatively large proportion
of the lime added is available for pozzolanic reactions, leading to early strength gain.
The suggested correction is incorporated in the revised paper.

[11] Comment: The subsection entitled “Application of lime as subgrade soil stabilizer for
Indian rural roads” The authors have mentioned the thickness of the required pavement can be
reduced from 545 and 375 mm to 225 and 198 mm for S1 and S2, respectively. The authors
should explain in details how they came up with these numbers. Furthermore, 198 mm is a
bizarre amount of precision for design and construction. Moreover, the authors should take other
parameters such as cost of stabilizer, mixture, etc. into consideration in their cost analysis. This
section is not matured at al. The authors are recommended to revise this section profoundly.
Compliance: In rural roads, the commercial vehicles per day (CVPD) is not expected more than
450 (IRC-SP-20-2002), hence in the present design the traffic volume is considered as 150-450
(CVPD) and IRC-SP-20 (2002) design chart is used to calculate the road thickness. From Table 3
it is observed that for untreated S1 and S2 subgrade soil, the total thickness of pavement crust (i.e.
the sum of base and subbase course thickness) required over the subgrade soil is 545 and 375
mm respectively. However, after stabilizing both the soil with optimum lime the depth of
construction required for S1 soil is 225 mm and for S2 it is 200 mm. It is also noticed from Table
3 that the thickness of the sub-base course is considerably reduced after stabilizing the subgrade
soil with lime. Further, the construction cost of treated and untreated soil subgrade pavement per
km per lane for traffic volume of 150-450 (CVPD) has been calculated as per the schedule rates
for Rural roads under PWRD, Government of Assam, India-2016-2017. It is found that the total
cost of pavement built over untreated S1 and S2 subgrade soil is 60.67 and 42.70 lakh/km/lane
respectively. However, it reduced to 34.29 lakh/km/lane after stabilizing the S1 subgrade soil
with 7% lime and 32.13 lakh/km/lane after admixing 5% lime with S2 subgrade soil. The total
cost saving thus observed is 43.47% and 24.77% after stabilizing S1 and S2 subgrade soil with
optimum lime. Thus by saving the pavement crust thickness, the total cost of pavement
construction can be reduced significantly.
Table 3. Determination of pavement thickness using CBR value as per IRC-SP-20 (2002)

Soil type CBR (%) Thickness of pavement

above subgrade (mm)
S1 (untreated) 3.2 225

320

S1 (7% lime) 15.7 150

75

S2 (untreated) 6.1 150

225

S2 (5% lime) 18.1 150

50

Note: sub-base course; base course; surfacing

Reference

IRC-SP-20. 2002. Rural roads manual. Indian Road Congress.

Schedule of rates for Rural roads For all divisions under PWRD, Assam, 2016-2017. Public
Works Roads Department, Government of Assam.

As per Reviewer suggestion, the section explaining “Application of lime as subgrade soil
stabilizer for Indian rural roads” is revised and is incorporated in the manuscript.

Cost Analysis of Pavement Section (Untreated Soil):

3750 mm

115 mm WBM-Gr-3

115 mm WBM-Gr-2

320 mm Granular subbase

300 mm Subgrade 2.5

CBR=3.2%
1

Fig. 1. Pavement section showing the thickness of various layers for untreated S1 soil

Table 1. Total Construction costs of pavement per km per lane built on untreated S1 subgrade soil
for traffic volume of 150-450 (CVPD)

Sl. Pavement Top Bottom Height Volume Rater per Cost (Rs.) Total cost (Rs.)
No component width width (m) (m3) m3 (Rs.) (1+2+3+4+5+6
(m) (m) +7+8)
1 Subgrade 6.5 8 0.3 2175 211 458925
2 Granular 4.9 6.5 0.32 1824 1357 2475168
subbase
3 WBM-Gr-2 4.3 4.9 0.115 529 2168 1146872
4 WBM-Gr-3 3.75 4.3 0.115 462 2185 1011381
Bituminous Area Rate per 6067346
course (m2) m2 (Rs.)
5 Prime coat 3750 41 153750
6 Tack coat 3750 13 48750
7 Premix 3750 138 517500
carpeting
8 Seal coat 3750 68 255000
Note: Rates are based on schedule rates for Rural roads under PWRD, Assam, India-2016-2017; The
thickness of subgrade is taken as per IRC-SP-72-2007; The thickness of other pavement layers are
calculated from CBR value of subgrade using IRC-SP-20-2002; Side slope taken here 2.5:1 for clayey
soil as per IRC-SP-20-2002
 3750 mm

75 mm
WBM-Gr-3

75 mm WBM-Gr-2

225 mm Granular subbase

300 mm Subgrade 2.5

CBR= 6.1%
1

Fig. 2. Pavement section showing the thickness of various layers for untreated S2 soil

Table 2. Total Construction costs of pavement per km per lane built on untreated S1 subgrade soil
for traffic volume of 150-450 (CVPD)

Sl. Pavement Top Bottom Height Volume Rater per Cost Total cost (Rs.)
No component width width (m) (m3) m3 (Rs.) (1+2+3+4+5+6
(m) (m) +7+8)
1 Subgrade 5.63 7.13 0.3 1912 211 403537
2 Granular 4.5 5.63 0.225 1139 1357 1545623
subbase
3 WBM-Gr-2 4.13 4.5 0.075 324 2168 701348
4 WBM-Gr-3 3.75 4.13 0.075 295 2185 645252
Bituminous Area Rate per 4270760
course (m2) m2 (Rs.)
5 Prime coat 3750 41 153750
6 Tack coat 3750 13 48750
7 Premix 3750 138 517500
carpeting
8 Seal coat 3750 68 255000
Note: Rates are based on schedule rates for Rural roads under PWRD, Assam, India-2016-2017; The
thickness of subgrade is taken as per IRC-SP-72-2007; The thickness of other pavement layers are
calculated from CBR value of subgrade using IRC-SP-20-2002; Side slope taken here 2.5:1 for clayey
soil as per IRC-SP-20-2002
Cost Analysis of Pavement Section (lime treated Soil):

3750 mm

75 mm
WBM-Gr-3
75 mm
WBM-Gr-2

75 mm Granular subbase

Lime stabilized Subgrade 2.5

300 mm
CBR= 15.7%
1

Fig. 3. Pavement Section showing the thickness of various layers for 7% lime stabilized S1 soil

Table 3. Total Construction costs of pavement per km per lane built on S1 soil subgrade mixed
with 7% lime for traffic volume of 150-450 (CVPD)

Sl. Pavement Top Bottom Height Volume Rater per Cost Total cost (Rs.)
No component width width (m) (m3) m3 (Rs.) (1+2+3+4+5+6
(m) (m) +7+8)
1 Lime stabilized 4.88 6.38 0.3 1687 375 632625
Subgrade
2 Granular 4.5 4.88 0.075 351 1357 477070
subbase
3 WBM-Gr-2 4.13 4.5 0.075 323 2168 700264
4 WBM-Gr-3 3.75 4.13 0.075 295 2185 644575 3429534
Bituminous Area Rate per
course (m2) m2 (Rs.)
5 Prime coat 3750 41 153750
6 Tack coat 3750 13 48750
7 Premix 3750 138 517500
carpeting
8 Seal coat 3750 68 255000
Note: Rates are based on schedule rates for Rural roads under PWRD, Assam, India-2016-2017; The
thickness of subgrade is taken as per IRC-SP-72-2007; The thickness of other pavement layers are
calculated from CBR value of subgrade using IRC-SP-20-2002; Side slope taken here 2.5:1 for clayey
soil as per IRC-SP-20-2002
 3750 mm

75 mm
WBM-Gr-3
75 mm
WBM-Gr-2

50 mm
Granular subbase

300 mm
Lime stabilized Subgrade
CBR= 18.1% 2.5
1

Fig. 4. Pavement Section showing the thickness of various layers for 5% lime stabilized S2 soil

Table 4. Total Construction costs of pavement per km per lane built on S2 soil subgrade mixed
with 5% lime for traffic volume of 150-450 (CVPD)

Sl. Pavement Top Bottom Height Volume Rater per Cost Total cost (Rs.)
No component width width (m) (m3) m3 (Rs.) (1+2+3+4+5+6
(m) (m) +7+8)
1 Lime stabilized 4.75 6.25 0.3 1650 350 577500
Subgrade
2 Granular 4.5 4.75 0.05 232 1357 314145
subbase
3 WBM-Gr-2 4.13 4.5 0.075 323 2168 701131
4 WBM-Gr-3 3.75 4.13 0.075 295 2185 645252 3213028
Bituminous Area Rate per
course (m2) m2 (Rs.)
5 Prime coat 3750 41 153750
6 Tack coat 3750 13 48750
7 Premix 3750 138 517500
carpeting
8 Seal coat 3750 68 255000
Note: Rates are based on schedule rates for Rural roads under PWRD, Assam, India-2016-2017; The
thickness of subgrade is taken as per IRC-SP-72-2007; The thickness of other pavement layers are
calculated from CBR value of subgrade using IRC-SP-20-2002; Side slope taken here 2.5:1 for clayey
soil as per IRC-SP-20-2002

[12] Comment: Be consistent in the text regarding some of the frequent used terms such as:
subgrade is correct not sub-grade; subbase is correct not sub-base.
Compliance: The terms are rewritten in the standard format in the revised manuscript.
 Compliance to Editor
[1] Comment: When resubmitting, please provide a list of changes and, where appropriate,
respond to each point which has been raised. You should upload this response as a separate file
during the resubmission process.
Compliance: As per the reviewer's comments, manuscript (ID - 197407748) has been modified
and a separate file is prepared to address all the responses. Further, it is to be mentioned that the
new lines that are added in the revised manuscript as per the reviewer comments/suggestions are
marked with red colour.
[2] Comment: Manuscripts containing equations must be produced in Word 2007 compatibility
mode using Equation Editor 3.0 or in an earlier version of Word.
Compliance: Equations are prepared in Word 2007 compatibility mode using Equation Editor
3.0.
To,
Dr. Braja M. Das
Dean Emeritus, California State University, Sacramento, USA
brajamdas@[Link]

Respected Sir,

Subject: Submission of revised manuscript, " The Strength and Microstructural behavior of
lime stabilized subgrade soil in road construction” (Manuscript ID: 197407748)

Thank you for your email dated 27th February, 2019 enclosing reviewers’ comments. We are
grateful for your and the reviewers’ comments, and the positive evaluation of our work. We have
carefully gone through the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. A revised
manuscript is submitted addressing all the necessary comments to the International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering for publication. Our file for compliance to reviewer’s comments is
attached with the manuscript.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to
respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.

Once again, thanks and with best regards.

Sincerely Your’s

Dr. Monowar Hussain1 and Subhradeep Dhar2

1
Assistant Professor and 2PhD Scholar
Civil Engineering Department
National Institute of Technology, Silchar
Assan, India
[Link]