CÜRUF, KİREÇ VE UÇUCU KÜLÜN DÜŞÜK PLASTİSİTELİ KİLİN DAYANIMINA ETKİSİ

Abstract

Killi zeminlerin mekanik özellikleri, üzerlerine inşa edilen dolgu, bina ve benzeri yapıların yüklerini karşılamak için yeterli olmayabilir. Bu gibi durumlarda, uçucu kül, kireç ve cüruf gibi geleneksel bağlayıcıların zeminle karıştırılması sonucu meydana gelen kimyasal reaksiyonlar sayesinde zemin özellikleri iyileştirilebilir. Bu çalışmada, Çatalağzı kili numunesinin indeks özellikleri; piknometre, Atterberg limitleri, hidrometre ve standart Proktor deneyleri yapılarak belirlenmiştir. Zemin karışımları, zemine kireç (%2.5, %5, %7.5 ve %10), uçucu kül (%5, %10, %15 ve %20) ve cüruf (%3, %6, %9 ve %12) ilave edilerek hazırlanmıştır. Hazırlanan karışımlar üzerinde serbest basınç dayanımı (UCS) ve Kaliforniya taşıma oranı (CBR) deneyleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Doğal zemin kür uygulanmadan (0 gün) test edilmiş, buna karşılık tüm stabilize edilmiş karışımlar 28 günlük kür süresinin ardından test edilmiştir. UCS sonuçlarına göre optimum bağlayıcı oranları; kireç için %5, uçucu kül için %15 ve cüruf için %9 olarak belirlenmiştir. Buna karşılık gelen dayanım artışları sırasıyla kireç için %91.92, uçucu kül için %23.22 ve cüruf için %37.97 olarak hesaplanmıştır. UCS deneylerine göre belirlenen optimum bağlayıcı oranlarında hazırlanan karışımların CBR deney sonuçları da UCS bulgularıyla uyumlu çıkmıştır. %5 kireç ilave, zeminin CBR değerini 35.7 katına, % 9 cüruf katkısı ise 12.32 katına çıkarmıştır. Uçucu kül için artış daha düşük olmakla birlikte, cüruf ve kireç katkısı ile zemin dayanımında önemli bir iyileşme gözlemlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Cüruf
• CBR
• Uçucu kül
• Kireç
• UCS

Ethical Statement

Yazarlar, bu çalışmanın bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiğine uygun olarak yürütüldüğünü beyan eder. Çalışma insan veya hayvan deneyi içermediğinden etik kurul onayı gerekmemektedir. Bu makale özgündür, daha önce yayımlanmamış olup başka bir yerde değerlendirme sürecinde değildir. Yazarlar herhangi bir çıkar çatışması olmadığını beyan eder.

SLAG, LIME AND FLY ASH EFFECT ON STRENGTH OF LOW PLASTICITY CLAY

Abstract

The mechanical properties of clayey soils may be insufficient to sustain the loads imposed by structures such as embankments, buildings, and similar constructions. In such cases, soil properties can be improved through chemical reactions that occur when traditional binders such as fly ash, lime, and slag are mixed with the soil. In this study, the index properties of the Çatalağzı clay sample were determined using pycnometer, Atterberg limits, hydrometer, and standard Proctor tests. Soil mixtures were prepared by adding lime (2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, and 10%), fly ash (5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%), and slag (3%, 6%, 9%, and 12%) to the soil. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were conducted on the prepared mixtures. The natural soil was tested uncured (0 days), whereas all stabilized mixtures were tested after 28 days of curing. According to the UCS results, the optimum binder contents were determined as 5% for lime, 15% for fly ash, and 9% for slag. The corresponding strength increases were calculated as 91.92% for lime, 23.22% for fly ash, and 37.97% for slag. The CBR test results of the mixtures prepared at these optimum binder contents were found to be consistent with the UCS findings. The addition of 5% lime increased the CBR value of the soil by 35.7 times, while 9% slag increased it by 12.32 times. Although the improvement achieved with fly ash was relatively lower, significant enhancement in soil strength was observed with the addition of lime and slag.

Keywords

• Blast furnace slag
• CBR
• Fly Ash
• Lime
• UCS

Ethical Statement

The authors declare that this study was conducted in accordance with scientific research and publication ethics. The study does not involve human or animal subjects; therefore, ethical approval is not required. The manuscript is original, has not been published before, and is not under consideration elsewhere. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. O. G. Ingles, J. B. Metcalf, Soil Stabilization: Principles and Practice. London: Butterworths, 1972.
2. M. R. Hausmann, Engineering Principles of Ground Modification. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.
3. J. K. Mitchell, K. Soga, Fundamentals of Soil Behavior (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
4. K. Kirsch, A. Bell, Ground Improvement. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2012.
5. S. Arora, A. H. Aydilek, Class F Fly-Ash-Amended Soils as Highway Base Materials. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 17(6), (2005). doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2005)17:6(640)
6. A. Misra, D. Biswas,S. Upadhyaya, Physico-Mechanical Behavior of Self-Cementing Class C Fly Ash-Clay Mixtures. Fuel. 84, (2005), 1410–1422, doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6701(06)80750-2
7. T. B. Edil, H. A. Acosta, C. H. Benson, Stabilizing Soft Fine-Grained Soils With Fly Ash. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 18 (2), (2006), 283–294, doi.org/10.1061/(Asce)0899-1561(2006)18:2(283).
8. B. R. P. Kumar, R. S. Sharma, Effect of Fly Ash on Engineering Properties of Expansive Soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (7), (2004), 764–767, doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:7(764).

9. F. Zha, S. Liu, Y. Du, K. Cui, Behavior of Expansive Soils Stabilized with Fly Ash. Nat. Hazards 47, (2008), 509–523, doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9236-4.
10. R. M. Brooks, Soil Stabilization with Fly Ash and Rice Husk Ash. Int. J. Res. Rev. Appl. Sci. 1 (3), (2009), 209–217.
11. S. Bin-Shafique, K. Rahman, M. Yaykiran, I. Azfar, The Long-Term Performance of Two Fly Ash Stabilized Fine-Grained Soil Subbases. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, (2010), 666–672, doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.11.007.
12. E. Dağlı, Ö. F. Çapar, Engineering Performance of Fly Ash Stabilized Çatalağzı Clay. Eur. J. Sci. Technol. 34, (2022), 267–272, doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1081214.
13. R. M. Jumaa, A. K. Saeed, L. A. Al-Jaberi, Effect of Fly Ash and Nano-Silica Fume on Soft Clay Atterberg Limits, MDD and OMC. Civ. Eng. J. 12 (2), (2026), doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2026-012-02-012.
14. S. Almuaythir, M. S. I. Zaini, M. Hasan, M. I. Hoque, Sustainable Soil Stabilization Using Industrial Waste Ash: Enhancing Expansive Clay Properties. Heliyon 10, (2024), e39124, doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39124.
15. P. Julphunthong, P. Joyklad, P. Manprom, T. Chompoorat, M.-T. Palou, T. Suriwong, Evaluation of Calcium Carbide Residue and Fly Ash as Sustainable Binders for Environmentally Friendly Loess Soil Stabilization. Sci. Rep. 14, (2024), 671, doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51326-x.
16. T. Yang, B. Huang, C. Zhan, C. Jiang, L. Zhang, X. Zhao, M. Zhao, Mechanical Properties and Mechanisms of Soda Residue and Fly Ash Stabilized Soil. Sci. Rep. 15, (2025), 1103, doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-84170-0.
17. S. Abu Yosef, M. Balkaya, A. Abu Arra. Sustainable Stabilization of Expansive Soil Using Fly Ash, Olive Cake Ash, and Zeolite: An Experimental and Numerical Study. Arab J Sci Eng, 51, (2026), 4833–4854 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-025-10462-w.
18. N. Ezekiel, J. Najjibyo, D. Krishnan, E. Izere. Experimental Evaluation of Fly Ash and Lime Stabilization on the Geotechnical Characteristics of Expansive Clay for Road Subbase Applications. Sci Rep, (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-56611-5.
19. E. Dağlı, Ö. F. Çapar, S. Sert. Lime–Fly Ash Binder Composition Controls Freeze–Thaw Durability of Stabilized Clays. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-026-52479-7.
20. F. G. Bell, Lime Stabilization of Clay Minerals and Soils. Eng. Geol. 42 (4), (1996), 223–237, doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(96)00028-2.
21. D. I. Boardman, S. Glendinning, C. D. F. Rogers, Development of Stabilization and Solidification in Lime-Clay Mixes. Geotechnique 51 (6), (2001), 533–544.
22. F. Zhu, Z. Li, W. Dong, Y. Ou, Geotechnical Properties and Microstructure of Lime-Stabilized Silt Clay. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 78, (2019), 2345–2354, doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1307-5.
23. T. Şengül, K. Yılmaz, A. Demir, M. Kaya, Effect of Freeze–Thaw Cycles on the Mechanical Behavior of Lime-Stabilized Soils. Polymers 17 (17), (2025), 2405, doi.org/10.3390/polym17172405.
24. L. Li, W. Liu, X. Fei, W. Li, Coconut Shell Fiber for Reinforcing Lime-Stabilized Soil. Can. Geotech. J. (2026), doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2025-0243.
25. A. Laveglia, L. Sambataro, N. Ukrainczyk, N. De Belie, E. Koenders, Hydrated Lime Life-Cycle Assessment: Current and Future Scenarios in Four EU Countries. J. Clean. Prod. 369, (2022), 133224, doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133224.
26. C. Shi, Steel Slag—Its Production, Processing, Characteristics, and Cementitious Properties. ChemInform 36 (22), (2005), doi.org/10.1002/chin.200522249.
27. G. Bilgen, A. Kavak, Ö. F. Çapar, Düşük Plastisiteli Bir Kilde Katkı Olarak Çelikhane Cürufunun Kullanılması ve Kireç ile Etkileşimi. Karaelmas Fen Müh. Derg. 2 (2), (2012), 30–38.
28. S. Gupta, S. S. Seehra, Studies on Lime-Granulated Blast Furnace Slag as an Alternative Binder to Cement. Highw. Res. Board Bull. 30, (1989), 81–97.
29. T. K. Wong, Use of Granulated Slag as a Stabilising Agent. Proc. Aust. Road Res. Board Conf. Part 2, (1992), 293–307.
30. L. Yadu, D. R. K. Tripathi, Effects of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag in the Engineering Behaviour of Stabilized Soft Soil. Procedia Eng. 51, (2013), 125–131, doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.01.019.
31. ASTM D854-23, Standard Test Methods For Specific Gravity Of Soil Solids By The Water Displacement Method. ASTM Standard, 2023.
32. ASTM D4318-17e1, Standard Test Methods For Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, And Plasticity Index Of Soils. ASTM Standard, 2017.
33. ASTM D7928-21e1, Standard Test Method For Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) Of Fine-Grained Soils Using The Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis. ASTM Standard, 2021.
34. ASTM D698-12, Standard Test Methods For Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 Ft-Lbf/Ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). ASTM Standard, 2021
35. ASTM D2487-17, Standard Practice For Classification Of Soils For Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM Standard, 2017.
36. ASTM C618-19, Standard Specification For Coal Fly Ash And Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, ASTM Standard, 2019
37. E. Dağlı, Effect of Fly Ash Stabilization on Strength and Durability Properties of Clayey Soils, Ph.D. dissertation, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, 2021.
38. ASTM D2166/D2166M-16, Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil, ASTM Standard, 2016.
39. ASTM D1883-16, Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laboratory-Compacted Soils, ASTM Standard, 2016.
40. M. R. Abdi, A. Ghalandarzadeh, L. Shafiei Chafi, An Investigation into the Effects of Lime on Compressive and Shear Strength Characteristics of Fiber-Reinforced Clays. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 13 (4), (2021), 885–898, doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.11.008.
41. P. Yohanna, A. Q. Babatunde, R. Juwonlosi, A. O. Eberemu, P. T. Adekile, R. K. Etim, I. Kazeem, Assessing the Unconfined Compressive Strength of Lime Stabilized Soil Blended with Iron Ore Tailings Using Probabilistic and Artificial Neural Networks Approach. Hybrid Adv. 11, (2025), 100563, doi.org/10.1016/j.hybadv.2025.100563.
42. J. E. Bowles, Engineering Properties of Soil and Their Measurements, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1992.