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

net/publication/338465635

Mechanical Behaviour of Lateritic Soil Stabilized with Bone Ash and Hydrated
Lime for Sustainable Building Applications

Article  in  Case Studies in Construction Materials · January 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00331

CITATIONS READS

0 77

3 authors, including:

Ifeyinwa Obianyo Peter Azikiwe Onwualu

African University of Science and Technology African University of Science and Technology
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    36 PUBLICATIONS   218 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Water Resources and Environmental Engineering View project

Characterization and Stabilization of laterite for Sustainable Building Applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ifeyinwa Obianyo on 14 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Mechanical behaviour of lateritic soil stabilized with bone ash

and hydrated lime for sustainable building applications
Ifeyinwa Ijeoma Obianyoa,* , Azikiwe Peter Onwualua , Alfred B.O. Soboyejob
a
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, African University of Science and Technology, Abuja, Nigeria
b
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This research is aimed at achieving effective utilization of lateritic soil as a sustainable
Received 8 October 2019 building material by improving its strength using lime and bone ash. Different percentages
Received in revised form 18 December 2019 of hydrated lime (3%, 9% and 15%) and bone ash (5%, 10%, 15% and 20%) were used. Room-
Accepted 6 January 2020
drying, sun-drying and oven-drying methods of curing were explored to cure the lateritic
brick samples. The bricks were crushed using the universal testing machine to obtain the
Keywords: compressive strengths. Samples cured using the room-drying method gave the highest
Compressive strength
compressive strength. The optimum composition of 9% hydrated lime and 5% bone ash
Lateritic soil
Hydrated lime
respectively increased the compressive strength of soil significantly, after 28 days. The
Bone ash microstructural analysis gave a morphology with reduced porosity for the stabilized soil
Stabilization samples. Bone ash can be used in place of lime for stabilization of lateritic soil for making of
Bricks bricks.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

The choice of building materials in society has been influenced by availability and cost [1]. As a result of the high cost of
conventional construction materials in most developing countries, owning a house is relatively difficult for the large
proportion of low-income citizens. As indicated by the Managing Director of Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN),
the housing shortfall is evaluated to be between 17–20 million housing units, growing yearly by 900 000 units, with a
possible expense of N6 trillion, that is, US$16 billion [2]. In order to solve this problem, it is necessary to explore new ways of
producing building materials from locally available materials at low cost. Over the years, the construction industry has
moved from using local building materials to conventional building materials. However, issues of cost and availability have
necessitated interest in earth-based materials in recent times. Lateritic soils are environmentally friendly materials [3,4].
Buildings constructed of earth-based materials are the most affordable since earth materials are available and are cheaper.
Nigeria is blessed with these and other natural materials for construction [5]. Lateritic soil is used as a building material for
the moulding of bricks and plastering in Nigeria [6]. It is a group of highly weathered soils formed by the concentration of
hydrated oxides of iron and aluminium [7]. Lateritic soil as a locally available material looks promising as a better alternative
to conventional building materials except for a few problems. It contains high plastic clay [8]. The high plasticity may result
in cracks in construction projects [9]. In order to address this, there is a need for stabilization of lateritic soil. According to the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the reasons of soil stabilization include: increasing the strength of
existing soil to enhance its load-bearing capacity, permeability improvement and enhancement of soil resistance to the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: iobianyo@aust.edu.ng (I.I. Obianyo), aonwualu@aust.edu.ng (A.P. Onwualu), soboyejo.2@osu.edu (A.B.O. Soboyejo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00331
2214-5095/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
2 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331

process of weathering and traffic usage among others [10]. Stabilization of lateritic soil prevents future problems like
swelling and damping which could lead to failure of the structure built with untreated lateritic soil [11]. It also aids the long-
lasting of roads and buildings built with lateritic soil thereby saving the cost of maintenance [4]. It is therefore important, to
understand the mechanical behaviour of lateritic soil and thus figure out the techniques of its stabilization.
Research by Azeko [12] on recycling of waste polyethene (PE) and using it as reinforcement in lateritic bricks for
sustainable building materials indicates that the composite containing 20 vol. % of PE had the best combination of flexural/
compressive strength and fracture toughness. The result also indicates that beyond 20 vol. % of PE, the compressive/flexural
strengths as well as the fracture toughness values decrease. Due to the potential of geopolymer to fill spaces that exist
between soil particles, Aziz and Mukri [13] worked on how to determine the best percentage of geopolymer that is suitable
to improve the compaction parameter of lateritic soil and found that the lateritic soil mix with 15% of geopolymer gave the
best value of dry density and moisture content of soil with the heavy and standard compaction effort. Mustapha [14] worked
on natural fibre (straw) reinforced lateritic soil and the result indicated improved mechanical properties such as compressive
strength, flexural strength, and fracture toughness. A new liquid polymer soil stabilizer, which was developed for use as a
means of stabilization treatment of soil known as SS299, was examined by Marto, et al. [15] and the results indicated that
SS299 soil stabilizer was able to significantly increase the unconfined compressive strength and shear strength of lateritic
soil. The influence of bone ash on the shear strength of soil was investigated by Ayininuola and Shogunro [16] and the results
showed that bone ash played a fascinating role in increasing the shear strength of the soil. The geotechnical properties of
lateritic soil stabilized with liquid soil stabilizers, canlite (SS 299) was analyzed by Mohd Yunus et al. [9] and it was observed
that the SS 299 soil stabilizer was able to improve the geotechnical properties of the lateritic soil such that the unconfined
compression strength increased with the curing period, the variation mainly occurring in the first 28 days. Achampong et al.
[17] worked on the chemical stabilization of lateritic soils for road construction by looking at a case study of the lateritic soil
and the result showed that only 6% lime addition was the most suitable for stabilizing the soil. Previous works done on the
use of bone ash for stabilization of lateritic soils were focused on shear strength and consolidation [16]. There is, therefore,
the need to focus on the morphology and compressive strength of stabilized lateritic soil. The specific objectives of the
present study were to: characterize both the lateritic soil samples and the bone ash; determine appropriate mix proportions
of stabilized lateritic soil using hydrated lime and bone ash as stabilization agents; determine the effects of hydrated lime
and bone ash on the compressive strength of stabilized lateritic bricks; determine the effects of hydrated lime and bone ash
on the morphology of stabilized lateritic bricks and determine the effect of different methods of curing on the compressive
strength of stabilized lateritic bricks.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sampling and sample preparation

The study location is Abuja, Nigeria (with GPS coordinates of 9
40 20.15040 ' N and 7
290 28.68720 ' E and an elevation of
491 m). The bone ash was produced from the cattle bones obtained at no cost from the meat vendor shop in Gosa, Abuja. The

Fig. 1. (a) Raw Lateritic Soil (b) Hydrated Lime (c) Cattle bone ash after calcination and grinding.
 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331 3

Fig. 2. Lateritic brick samples.

raw lateritic soil sample, hydrated lime, and cattle bone ash are shown in Figs. 1(a), (b) and (c) respectively. Nigerian lateritic
soil samples were chosen for this research because they are abundantly available and are used in many geotechnical
engineering works in Nigeria. Lateritic soil was obtained from a depth of 1–2 m below the ground surface. The two samples
were obtained from Gosa (LSS1) and Sauka (LSS2), Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria. The lateritic materials were collected,
room-dried and ground to fine particles (<2.36 mm) using mortar. The choice of the particle size is based on previous work
[18]. Commercially available hydrated lime, as well as bone ash obtained from calcined cattle bones, were used to stabilize
the lateritic materials respectively.

2.2. Research design

Different percentages of hydrated lime (3%, 9% and 15%) and bone ash (5%, 10%, 15% and 20%) were used in the stabilization
of lateritic soil. Different curing methods (room-dried, sun-dried and oven-dried) and different levels of stabilizers were
chosen based on previous works [6,16]. The cattle bones were washed and dried for two weeks before calcination at 900
C in
an electric furnace. The calcined bones were crushed with a grinder and passed through No. 200 sieve (75 mm) before usage.
The choice of the particle size for the bone ash was based on previous work [19]. The hydrated lime was also passed through
No. 200 sieve before usage. The lateritic bricks samples of different material matrices and compositions were produced
(Fig. 2). The effect of bone ash treated lateritic soil sample 2 (BAT2), lime treated lateritic soil sample 1 (LT1) and lime
treated lateritic soil sample 2 (LT2) on the compressive strength of the soil were compared to that of untreated lateritic soil
sample 1 (UL1) and untreated lateritic soil sample 2 (UL2) respectively.

2.3. Characterization of the samples

Various tests were used to determine the compositions of the samples used and to ascertain the effectiveness of the
hydrated lime and bone ash stabilizers on lateritic soil samples. The mineralogical compositions of the lateritic soil
samples used for this research were analysed using X-ray Diffraction (XRD) test. The XRD test was carried out by using the
Rigaku Miniflex 600 XRD machine with range 10–70 at a rate of 2 degrees/min and Cu K radiation. The chemical
compositions of lateritic soil and bone ash were obtained using Thermo Scientific X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) Epsilon
Spectrometer. XRF analysis was done using the standard method with Montana soil SRM 2710 as a Thermo Fisher Scientific
standard reference material. Thermo Scientific Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) Nicolet is5 Spectrometer
was used in the characterization of the bone ash. The morphology and chemical composition of the samples was obtained
using the Evo/LS10 ZEISS Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Tests were conducted on the natural lateritic soil samples
in order to obtain their Engineering properties. These tests included Sieve analysis (particle size distribution) and
Atterberg limits tests. The particle size distribution and classification for the two lateritic soil samples were determined
using British Standards (BS). The Atterberg limits and classification for the two lateritic soil samples were determined
using BS 1377-2 [20].
4 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331

Fig. 3. Experimental Set-up for Compressive Strength Test.

2.4. Compressive strength tests

Compressive strength of each of the samples was determined using the TIRA test model 2810, Thuringia, Germany of the
Universal Mechanical Testing Machine (Fig. 3) after 28days of curing. The compressive strengths and dimensions of the
lateritic bricks were determined in accordance with BS 3921 [21]. A pair of Vernier callipers were used to measure the actual
dimensions of the specimens before testing with the Universal machine. The compressive strength tests were done under
displacement control at a displacement rate of 0.02 mm/s. The specimens were deformed monotonically to failure at a
loading rate of 24 kN/s. Load measurements were taken at the point of failure of the lateritic brick samples. The Eq. (1) was
used to calculate the maximum compressive stress in the lateritic bricks at failure:
s = P/ A (1)
Where:
s = calculated normal stress (MPa)
P = measured applied load (N)
A = net area of the surface on which the load is applied (m2).
The effect of the different percentages of the hydrated lime and bone ash stabilizers on compressive strengths were
determined.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Physical chemical and mineralogical composition

The chemical composition of the hydrated lime and bone ash used for the study are shown in Tables 1 and 2
respectively while Tables 3 and 4 give the chemical composition and physical properties of the natural lateritic soil
samples used respectively. The major constituent of both the hydrated lime and bone ash is calcium. The chemical
composition of the different lateritic soil samples indicates that lateritic soil contains silicon and aluminium
predominantly as shown in Table 3.
The lateritic soil’s richness in silicon and aluminium was confirmed by the EDS microanalysis as shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b).
The result of EDS analysis on the bone ash in Fig. 4(c) shows that calcium is the major constituent, which explains
the improved compressive strength obtained as a result of the pozzolanic reactions that took place when bone ash
was mixed with lateritic soil and water. The calcium oxide present in bone ash reacts with water to form calcium hydroxide:
{CaO (s) + H2O (l) → Ca (OH)2 (s)}. The lateritic soils used for the study contain mainly siliceous and aluminous materials and
 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331 5

Table 1
Chemical composition of hydrated lime used for the study.

Constituents (%) Percentages

Calcium Oxide [Ca (OH)2] 95.0%
Chloride (Cl) 0.04%
Sulfate (SO4) 0.4%
Iron (Fe) 0.1%
Heavy metals (as Pb) 0.005%
Substances not precipitated by Ammonium oxalate (as Sulfate) 2.5%
Loss on ignition 1.955%

Table 2
Chemical composition of bone ash used for the
study.

Chemical compositions (%) Percentages

Calcium Oxide (CaO) 52.2020
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 2.0770
Aluminium Oxide (Al2O3) 0.6130
Phosphorus Oxide (P2O5) 48.0770
Sodium Oxide (Na2O) 1.3290
Potassium Oxide (K2O) 0.0907
Strontium Oxide (SrO) 0.8670
Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 0.0303
Zinc Oxide (ZnO) 0.0069
Sulphur(S) 0.2124
Chloride (Cl) 0.3400
Chromium Oxide (Cr2O3) 0.0011
Nickel Oxide (Ni2O) 0.0003
Manganese Oxide (MnO) 0.0002

Table 3
Chemical composition of natural lateritic soil samples used for the
study.

Chemical compositions Weight (%) of LSS1 Weight (%) of LSS2

Silicon Oxide (SiO2) 68.1210 49.3740
Aluminium Oxide (Al2O3) 19.5280 27.0870
Phosphorus Oxide (P2O5) 0.3837 0.2384
Barium Oxide (BaO) 0.1014 0.0894
Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 5.8743 10.8140
Sodium Oxide (Na2O) 0.3680 0.2570
Strontium Oxide (SrO) 0.1254 -
Zirconium Oxide (ZrO2) 0.2545 0.0758
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 1.2590 0.6640
Copper Oxide (CuO) 0.0013 0.0043
Potassium Oxide (K2O) 1.8219 1.0928
Nickel Oxide (Ni2O) 0.0014 0.0028
Calcium Oxide (CaO) 0.1109 0.0305
Titanium Oxide (TiO2) 1.1620 0.9968
Zinc Oxide (ZnO) 0.0045 0.0032
Chromium Oxide (Cr2O3) 0.0041 0.0158
Vanadium Oxide (V2O5) 0. 0243 0.0296
Cerium Oxide (CeO2) 0.0240 0.0291
Tantalum Oxide (Ta2O5) 0.0042 0.0084
Manganese Oxide (MnO) 0. 0906 0.0601
Rubidium Oxide (Rb2O) 0.0072 0.0038
Yttrium Oxide (Y2O3) 0.0027 0.0034
Lead Oxide (PbO) 0.0046 0.0075
Nobium Oxide (Nb2O5) 0.0002 0.0020
Gallium Oxide (Ga2O3) 0.0018 0.0032
Thorium Oxide (ThO2) 0.0012 0.0033
Chloride (Cl) - 0.0310
Sulphur (S) 0. 1134 0.0949
6 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331

Table 4
Physical properties of natural lateritic soil samples.

Engineering properties LSS1 LSS2

Liquid limit (%) 43.90 31.00
Plastic limit (%) 24.39 21.41
Plasticity index (%) 19.50 9.59
Plasticity Chart Classification Silt with high plasticity Silt
with medium plasticity
Linear Shrinkage (%) 8.91 6.40
Moisture content (%) 24.39 21.41

Fig. 4. (a)EDS microanalysis of lateritic soil sample 1 (LSS1); (b) EDS microanalysis of lateritic soil sample 2; (LSS2) (c) EDS microanalysis of bone ash.

can be referred to as pozzolans [22]. Also, the results show that the soil sample possesses no cementitious value due to the
absence of calcium. The soil being a pozzolan contains mainly siliceous and aluminous materials which in finely divided form
chemically reacted with calcium hydroxide in the presence of water to form cementitious compounds resulting in the
improved compressive strength.
 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331 7

Fig. 5. (a) XRD pattern for lateritic soil sample 1(b) XRD pattern for lateritic soil sample 2.

3.2. Characterization of lateritic soils

The phase composition of the two lateritic soil samples presented by mineralogical analysis diffractograms are shown in
Fig. 5(a) and (b). From the XRD patterns, quartz is the predominant mineral present in the two lateritic soil samples. Quartz is
a chemical compound made up of one part silicon and two parts oxygen. It is silicon dioxide (SiO2) having a Mohr's hardness
of 7. It is highly resistant to both mechanical and chemical weathering resulting in its durability. This further depicts lateritic
soil as a promising material for construction because quartz is durable.

3.3. Characterization of bone ash

The FTIR results (Fig. 6) identified the mineral as a poorly crystalline, CO32containing apatite, presenting
bands typically described in hydroxyapatite. The chemical groups found in the spectra of bone ash used for the study are
PO43–, CO32–, OH– and –NCS. The n3PO43– (1200900 cm–1) appeared as broadbands with a discrete shoulder having a
strong peak at 1200 cm–1. The n1PO43– (980-940 cm–1) band was generally overlapped with the n3PO43– whereas, the
n4PO43– (650500 cm–1) was partially resolved into two broad peaks. These shapes of the PO43– bands depict the low
crystallinity of the minerals. The presence of CO32– was as a result of the clear bands of the n3CO32– (16001350 cm–1). Peaks
of the n1OH– (3572 cm–1) and n2OH– (3572 cm–1) were observed to overlap each other as shown in Fig. 6. The OH– and
CO32– functional groups are important for the pozzolanic reaction between the lateritic soil and bone ash which resulted in
improved compressive strength of stabilized lateritic soil due to the formation of C-S-H (Calcium Silicate Hydrate). A peak of
nLOH– (630 cm–1) was not seen in the FTIR spectra. The presence of Isothiocyanate (2000 cm1) was also observed.

Fig. 6. FTIR Spectra of Bone Ash used for the Study.

8 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331

Fig. 7. (a) Effect of Different % of Lime-Stabilized LSS1 (b) Effect of Different % of Lime-Stabilized LSS2 (c) Influence of Bone Ash on Compressive Strength of
LSS2.

3.4. Mechanical behavior

Mechanical properties [Figs. 7(a) and (b)] were influenced by different methods of curing and this agrees with the study
by Kubba et al. [23]. The samples cured using room-dried method gave the highest increase in their compressive strengths
followed by those cured using the sun-dried method and this is line with the findings of [24]. Those cured using the oven-
dried method gave the lowest compressive strengths. The lower strengths observed for the samples cured using the oven-
dried method could be because of the quick setting caused by the high temperature of the oven that resulted in visible
cracks. The higher compressive strength recorded for the sample cured using the room-dried method might be because of
the presence of oxygen, which controlled the early hardening period and hence prevented the quick setting of the
stabilized bricks. Fig. 7(a) and (b) indicate that the compressive strengths of the samples cured using the room-dried
method increased optimally at 9% hydrated lime stabilization after which there was a decline in compressive strength. This
agrees with the earlier work of Achampong et al. [17]. Interestingly, all the bricks produced from a mixture of
lateritic soil and lime as well as mixture of lateritic soil and bone ash met the minimum compressive strength requirement
of 1.65 N/mm2 (1.65 MPa) specified by the Nigerian Building and Road Research Institute (NBRRI) for building construction
as reported in Raheem et al. [25].
The compressive strength of lateritic soils stabilized with lime and bone ash indicated a significant improvement when
compared to the compressive strength of the raw lateritic soil. The compressive strength results showed that the addition of
 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331 9

Fig. 8. (a) Morphology of LSS1; (b) Morphology of LSS2; (c) Morphology of Bone Ash.

9% of hydrated lime gave the highest compressive strength for the stabilized lateritic bricks after 28 days. The improved
compressive strength of the stabilized bricks likely occurred as a result of the reaction between calcium from the bone ash
and silica from the lateritic soil in the presence of water to form materials similar to those found in Portland cement. Thus,
the chemical reaction between the siliceous and alumina components in the lateritic soil samples, calcium hydroxide and
water accounted for the improved strength due to the formation of denser and cementitious materials as shown in Fig. 7(a)
10 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331

Fig. 9. Morphology of: (a) LSS2 containing 9% Hydrated Lime (b) LSS2 containing 5% Bone Ash (c) LSS2 stabilized containing 10% Bone Ash; EDS
microanalysis of: (d) LSS2 containing 9% Hydrated Lime (e) LSS2 containing 5% BA (f) LSS2 containing 10% BA.

and (b). There was a significant increase in the compressive strength of BAT2 (bone ash treated lateritic soil sample 2) as
compared to the compressive strength of the UL2 (Untreated Lateritic soil sample 2) as shown in Fig. 7(c). This can be
attributed to the reaction between Calcium Oxide (CaO) from the bone ash and the water of mixture resulting in the
formation of lime [Ca (OH) 2]. It was also observed that the compressive strength of the stabilized samples increased with an
increase in the amount of calcium and vice versa. The optimum composition that gave the highest experimental compressive
strength for the bone ash treated LSS2 was the 5% BAT2. It is noted from the results obtained that only a small percentage (5%)
 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331 11

of bone ash was required to improve the mechanical properties of LSS2. This agrees with the earlier works done on the effect
of bone ash on the shear strength of soil by Ayininuola and Shogunro [16] and the one done by Ayininuola and Akinniyi [26]
on the influence of bone ash on soil consolidation. Hence, bone ash could serve as a better and sustainable alternative to lime
for stabilization of soils.

3.5. The microstructure of the samples

Morphology of LSS1, LSS2 and bone ash are shown in Fig. 8(a), (b) and (c) respectively. The presence of pores was observed
in the morphology of LSS1 and LSS2 as represented in Fig. 8(a) and (b) respectively. Fig. 8(b) indicates the presence of a shiny
silicate mineral called mica which could improve the thermal properties of bricks [27] produced with LSS2.

3.6. Effects of hydrated lime and bone ash soil stabilizers on lateritic soil

The microstructural analysis using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) indicates denser materials which resulted in
reduced porosity for the stabilized lateritic soil samples as shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b). The particles of these denser materials
have closer contact and stronger bonding due to the pozzolanic reactions between the soil stabilizers and the soil which will
ultimately result in reduced porosity. Increase in the density, as well as a decrease in the porosity, increased the compressive
strength of the stabilized lateritic soil [28]. The SEM image of lateritic soil stabilized with 10% bone ash shown indicates the
presence of fibrous materials and this accounts for the reduced compressive strength [29] observed in Fig. 7(c). The
microanalysis presented in Fig. 9(d), (e) and (f) indicates the presence of silicon, aluminium, calcium and oxygen which
means that there is the possibility of pozzolanic reaction occurring in the presence of water. This gave a possible explanation
for an improvement in the strength of stabilized lateritic soil samples. It was also observed that the strength of the stabilized
samples increases with increase in the content of calcium present in hydrated lime and bone ash (BA) as shown in Fig. 9(d),
(e) and (f). This resulted in the variation that was observed in the SEM results in Fig. 9(a), (b), and (c) where smaller amount of
calcium resulted in a less dense material shown in Fig. 9(c) compared to Fig. 9(b) where the larger amount calcium resulted
in a denser material.

4. Conclusions

The conclusions from this study are:

 Lateritic bricks cured using room-drying method gave the highest compressive strength compared to the bricks cured
using the oven-drying and sun-drying method;
 The optimum composition that had the highest experimental compressive strength for the bone ash treated LSS2 was the
5%BAT2;
 The use of 9% by weight of the hydrated lime additive and 5% by weight of bone ash additive was found to be the optimum
amounts for the stabilization of the soil;
 The morphology of the stabilized samples indicates denser materials which resulted in reduced porosity that gave rise to
improved compressive strength;
 Further work is in progress to develop statistical and stochastic models for predicting the compressive strength of
stabilized soils.

Funders information

This work was funded by the Pan African Materials Institute (PAMI), a regional Center of Excellence in Materials
Science and Engineering in West Africa established under the World Bank (WB) African Centers of Excellence (ACE)
program, and hosted by African University of Science and Technology, Abuja, Nigeria. The grant number is AUST/PAMI/
2015/5415-NG.

Public interest statement

Sustainability of building materials depends on what is obtainable locally. The capacity to recycle and reuse the material
are the prerequisites for a material to be sustainable. Lateritic soil as a locally available material looks promising as a better
alternative to conventional building materials except for a few problems. Lateritic soil consists of high plastic clay; the
plasticity of lateritic soil may result in cracks and damage on building foundations, pavement, highway or any other
construction projects. Stabilization of lateritic material makes it performs better as a sustainable building material. The main
purpose of soil stabilization includes increasing the strength of existing soil to enhance its load-bearing capacity and
durability. This paper is aimed at achieving effective utilization of lateritic soil as a sustainable building material by
improving its strength using lime and bone ash respectively.
12 I.I. Obianyo et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 12 (2020) e00331

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

My immense gratitude goes to my family for all their contributions during the entire period of this research work. I
acknowledge Engr. Miiraj M. Abdulmunin, Engr. (Mrs.) Emeso Ojo, Mr Sylvanus and Mr Wisdom who are members of staff at
the Nigeria Building and Road Research Institute (NBRRI), Jabi, FCT, Abuja for all their support in my Thesis research.
Academic guidance by Dr Bello Abdulhazeem is appreciated. Financial support of this work by the Pan African Materials
Institute (PAMI) is greatly appreciated.

References

[1] P. Oluwole Akadiri, Investigating factors influencing building materials selection in nigerian construction industry, Am. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 6 (4) (2018)
154–157, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/ajcea-6-4-4.
[2] Centre for Affordable Housing Finance in Africa, Housing finance in Nigeria, Africa Hous. Financ. Yearb 2018 (2018) 213–216.
[3] P.N. Lemougna, U.F.C. Melo, E. Kamseu, A.B. Tchamba, Laterite based stabilized products for sustainable building applications in tropical countries:
review and prospects for the case of Cameroon, Sustainability 3 (1) (2011) 293–305, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su3010293.
[4] A.K. Kasthurba, K.R. Reddy, D. Venkat Reddy, Use of laterite as a sustainable building material in developing countries, Int. J. Earth Sci. Eng. 7 (4) (2014)
1251–1258.
[5] A.P. Onwualu, E. Obasi, I.C. Olife, A. Inyang, Unlocking the Potential of Nigeria’s Non-Oil Sector, Pitmak Publ. Ltd, Abuja, 2013 ISBN 978-978- 52367-2-9.
[6] K.C. Onyelowe, Kaolin stabilization of olokoro lateritic soil using bone ash as admixture, Int. J. Constr. Res. Civ. Eng. 2 (1) (2016) 1–9, doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.20431/2454-8693.0201001.
[7] Z. Saing, L. Samang, T. Haryanto, J. Patanduk, Microstructural and mechanical characteristic of potential ferro laterite soil as sub-base material, Int. J.
Innov. Res. Adv. Eng. 02 (3) (2016) 2349–2763.
[8] B.T. Kamtchueng, V.L. Onana, W.Y. Fantong, A. Ueda, R.F.D. Ntouala, M.H.D. Wongolo, G.B. Ndongo, A. Ngo, V.K.B. Kamgang, J.M. Ondoa, Geotechnical,
Chemical and Mineralogical Evaluation of Lateritic Soils in Humid Tropical Area (Mfou, Central-Cameroon): Implications for Road Construction, (2015),
pp. 1–21, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40703-014-0001-0.
[9] N.Z. Mohd Yunus, Y.C. Yung, N.T. Wei, N. Abdullah, N. Mashros, M.A. Abdul Kadir, Shear strength behaviour of canlite-treated laterite soil, J. Teknol. 72
(3) (2015) 91–97, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.11113/jt.v72.4019.
[10] ASTM, ASTM Standards on Soil Stabilization With Admixtures, 2nd ed., (2014) .
[11] S.B. Ikizler, M. Aytekin, M. Vekli, Reductions in swelling pressure of expansive soil stabilized using EPS geofoam and sand, Geosynth. Int. 16 (3) (2009)
216–221, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/gein.2009.16.3.216.
[12] S.T. Azeko, K. Mustapha, E. Annan, O.S. Odusanya, W.O. Soboyejo, Recycling of polyethylene into strong and tough earth-based composite building
materials, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (2) (2015), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) MT.1943-5533.0001385.
[13] N. Aziz, M. Mukri, The effect of geopolymer to the compaction parameter of laterite soil, Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 24 (5) (2016) 1588–1593, doi:http://dx.
doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2016.24.05.23474.
[14] K. Mustapha, E. Annan, S.T. Azeko, M.G. Zebaze Kana, W.O. Soboyejo, Strength and fracture toughness of earth-based natural fiber-reinforced
composites, J. Compos. Mater. 50 (9) (2016) 1145–1160, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021998315589769.
[15] A. Marto, N. Latifi, H. Sohaei, Stabilization of laterite soil using GKS soil stabilizer, Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 18 (C) (2013) 521–532.
[16] G.M. Ayininuola, A.O. Sogunro, Bone ash impact on soil shear strength, Int. J. Environ. Ecol. Eng. 7 (11) (2013) 772–776.
[17] F. Achampong, R.A. Anum, P.F. Boadu, N.B. Djangmah, L.P. Chegbele, Chemical stabilization of laterite soils for road construction, Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 4
(11) (2013) 2019–2041.
[18] O.A. Fadele, O. Ata, Water absorption properties of sawdust lignin stabilised compressed laterite bricks, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 9 (2018)e00187, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00187.
[19] O.E. Oluwatuyi, B.O. Adeola, E.A. Alhassan, E.S. Nnochiri, A.E. Modupe, O.O. Elemile, T. Obayanju, G. Akerele, Ameliorating effect of milled eggshell on
cement stabilized lateritic soil for highway construction, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 9 (2018)e00191, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00191.
[20] British Standards Institution, Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes - part 3, Br. Stand Part 2 (1) (1990) 40.
[21] BS 3921, Clay Bricks, British Standards Institution, London, 1985.
[22] V.H. Dodson, V.H. Dodson, Pozzolans and the pozzolanic reaction, Concr. Admixtures (2) (1990) 159–201, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-
4843-7_7.
[23] Z. Kubba, G. Fahim Huseien, A.R.M. Sam, K.W. Shah, M.A. Asaad, M. Ismail, M.M. Tahir, J. Mirza, Impact of curing temperatures and alkaline activators on
compressive strength and porosity of ternary blended geopolymer mortars, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 9 (2018)e00205, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cscm.2018.e00205.
[24] Umarany Mahalinga-Iyer, David J. Williams, Engineering properties of a lateritic soil profile, Eng. Geol. 31 (1991) 45–58.
[25] A.A. Raheem, A.K. Momoh, A.A. Soyingbe, Comparative analysis of sandcrete hollow blocks and laterite interlocking blocks As walling, Int. J. Sustain.
Constr. Eng. Technol. 3 (1) (2012) 79–88 (ISSN 2180-3242).
[26] G.M. Ayininuola, B.D. Akinniyi, Bone ash influence on soil consolidation, Malaysian J. Civ. Eng. 28 (3) (2016) 407–422.
[27] M. Mostaghelchi, R. Zahiri, S.H. Miremad, A.G. Ebadi, Use of Mica mineral powder in bricks industry to improve the performances, Asian J. Chem. 25 (16)
(2013) 9144–9148, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2013.15053C.
[28] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, Stabilised Soil Blocks for Structural Masonry in Earth Construction, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2012, doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1533/9780857096166.3.324.
[29] N.A. Vodounon, C. Kanali, J. Mwero, Compressive and flexural strengths of cement stabilized earth bricks reinforced with treated and untreated
pineapple leaves fibres, Open J. Compos. Mater. 08 (04) (2018) 145–160, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojcm.2018.84012.

View publication stats