IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Utilization of lightweight brick waste as soils stabilizing agent

To cite this article: Y F Arifin and A S Kusworo 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 980 012071

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 36.75.10.212 on 08/02/2021 at 15:33

ICSTSI 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 980 (2020) 012071 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/980/1/012071

Utilization of lightweight brick waste as soils stabilizing agent

Y F Arifin1, 2*and A S Kusworo1

1
Civil Engineering Study Program, University of Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarbaru,
Indonesia
2
Wetland Based Material Study Center, University of Lambung Mangkurat,
Banjarbaru, Indonesia

Email: [email protected]

Abstract. The utilization of lightweight bricks as building walls, including houses, is getting
higher. Beside its many advantages, lightweight brick also has disadvantages. One of them is
that the remaining pieces cannot be used for its primary function and become waste. In the
field, this waste is used as a material to stabilize the soil. However, there are no tests that
examine its effectiveness as a stabilizing agent, the percentage of its composition, and what
soil can be stabilized. This research focuses on laboratory tests on the use of lightweight brick
waste for soil stabilization. The types of soil used in this study were lateritic, organic and
expansive soil. The soils and waste were mixed at percentages of 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10%
by weight. Some tests, such as the Atterberg limit, Standard Proctor compaction, and
unconfined compression tests were carried out to determine its effect on the soil. The results
showed that lightweight brick waste reduced the liquid limit, plasticity index, and increased
soils shear strength. Different types of soil produced different levels of influence. Moisture
content in the mixtures was also found to affect the results of soil stabilization.

1. Introduction
Lightweight brick has been widely used in the world since the 1980s, including Indonesia. Due to its
high demand, one lightweight brick manufacturing company in Indonesia can produce one million
cubic meters per year.
There are two types of lightweight bricks, namely Cellular Lightweight Concrete (CLC) and
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC). The type commonly used today is the AAC. Its main ingredients
are quartz sand, cement, lime, a little gypsum, water, and aluminum paste. The CLC type is rarely
used because it is made of a material containing fly ash, which is still considered hazardous waste.
Lightweight brick has advantages over other conventional bricks. Aside from being lightweight, it
attributes include low water absorption and high strength that qualifies it as a concrete brick walls [1].
However, the disadvantage of using lightweight bricks is that the remaining pieces cannot be used
anymore. This is because the installation requires a flat surface and a thin distance between bricks. A
survey in one real estate in Banjar District found that an average of 1m3 waste was produced from
every 20m3 of lightweight brick used.
In Dian Anugerah Regency's real estate in Banjar Regency, the lightweight brick waste was mixed
with soil embankment. A field dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) [2] test was carried out on the soil
with and without lightweight bricks. This resulted in the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 8.1% and
4.3%, respectively. The addition of the waste has succeeded in increasing the soil's bearing capacity
almost two times. However, there is no study about the optimal percentage of lightweight brick

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICSTSI 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 980 (2020) 012071 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/980/1/012071

addition to achieving maximum strength and soil water content suitable for the mixture. A research
should be carried out to examine the percentage of lightweight bricks in addition to soil.
Many methods have been carried out by researchers to increase the carrying capacity of the soil.
This is carried out by mixing it with other materials both with natural ingredients [3–7] and chemistry.
These materials include cement [8–10], lime, and fly ash [11,12], and mixtures both (i.e., cement and
palm Kernel shell ash)[13]. Some of these materials are residual or waste material from the industry.
Industrial wastes that have been examined as soil stabilization agents include rubber tires [14],
[15], tiles [16], and marble [17]. Waste tires and marble are only used as fillers and they require other
material agents as additives such as cement or lime. Tile waste can be used as a stabilizing material. It
is used as a filler and binder that react with the soil chemically [16]. No research has been carried out
on the use of lightweight brick waste as a soil stabilization agent. This research focuses on the use of
lightweight brick waste to increase soil shear strength.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Materials used
2.1.1 Soils. The three types of soil used in this study were lateritic, organic, and expansive soil.
Lateritic and organic soils were taken from Banjarmasin and Banjarbaru, respectively. The expansive
soil was a mixture of low plasticity clay and commercial bentonite sold as an industrial product. The
basic soil properties used were summarized in table 1. Before adding to the stabilization agent, the
chemical compound of the soil used was tested using X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer, and the
results are summarized in figure 1.

2.1.2 Light brick waste. Light brick waste used is an AAC type. In this research, the term lightweight
brick was abbreviated as LWB for simplification. The LWB had a dry volumetric weight of 650kg/m3.
The chemical composition of LWB was also shown in figure 1. The LWB was crushed and sieved
using sieves No. 4 for compaction test, No. 20 for unconfined compression test (UCT), and No. 40 for
Atterberg limits before it was used.

Table 1. Basic properties of soils used.

Soil
Properties
Lateritic Organic expansive
Specific Gravity 2.67 2.61 2.56
Water content % 20.89 53.26 7.00
Gravel (> 2 mm) % 7.96 0.31 2.50
Coarse sand (0.6-2.0 mm) % 9.06 4.90 1.01
Medium sand (0.2-0.6 mm) % 8.31 4.48 1.22
Fine sand (0.05-0.2 mm) % 12.47 3.73 4.20
Silt and Clay (0.002-0.05) % 25.01 35.28 41.64
Clay (<0.002mm) % 37.19 51.31 49.44
Liquid limit % 47.80 58.80 80.03
Plastic limit % 23.98 36.61 25.00
Plasticity Index % 23.82 22.19 55.03

2
ICSTSI 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 980 (2020) 012071 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/980/1/012071

60%
Lateritic
50% Organic
40% Expansive
Percentage

Lightweight brick
30%

20%

10%

0%
Al203 SiO2 SO3 K2O CaO TiO2 Cr2O3 Fe2O3 MoO3
Chemical compounds
Figure 1. Chemical compounds of material used in this study.

2.2. Methods and procedures

2.2.1 Samples preparation. Soils and LWB waste samples were mixed by percentages of 2%, 4%, 6%,
8%, and 10% LWB content based on the dry weight, after considering the moisture content of the soil.
The sample's initial density and moisture content were determined based on the results of the standard
Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698-07) [18]. The standard proctor compaction curves of lateritic
and organic clay were shown in figure 2. The maximum dry densities of lateritic and organic clay were
1.7t/m3 and 1.44t/m3 respectively. Furthermore, the optimum moisture content of lateritic and organic
clay were 20% and 30% respectively. Considering field application, the percentage of 0.95%
maximum dry density was used i.e., 1.6t/m3 and 1.37 t/m3 for lateritic soil and organic clay
respectively. The moisture content of the mixture was also determined by the compaction result (i.e.,
the moisture content of 15%, 20%, 25% for lateritic soils, and 25%, 30%, and 35% for organic clay).
The moisture content and density of expansive soil were assumed to be the same as lateritic soils
because of the limited available bentonite. The samples were statically compacted to achieve the
density mentioned above.

2.2.2 Physical properties and shear strength tests. The Atterberg limits test [19] was performed to
investigate the effect of stabilizing agents on the soil's basic properties. Shear strength compacted
samples were determined using the unconfined compression test (UCT) [20]. X-ray diffraction test
was also conducted to investigate the effect of the stabilizing agent on the mineralogy of samples.

1.8

1.6
Dry density (t/m3)

1.4

1.2
Lateritic soil
Organic soil
1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Water content (%)
Figure 2. Standard Proctor compaction curves of lateritic and organic soils.

3
 ICSTSI 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 980 (2020) 012071 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/980/1/012071

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 3 shows the Atterberg limits test results which include the liquid limit (LL) and plasticity index
(PI). Plastic limit (PL) was represented in a plasticity index (i.e., PI = LL-PL). Consistently, each soil's
data was represented by different colors, i.e., blue for lateritic, yellow for organic and green for
expansive soils. Moreover, the initial data of the soil was presented in black.
Figure 3(a) shows the effect of LWB addition to the soil liquid limit. As shown in the figure, the
initial LL samples were 80.03%, 58.80%, and 47.80% respectively. Expansive, organic, and lateritic
soils were reduced to 74.8%, 54.2%, and 43.1% at 10% LWB content. LL samples were reduced by an
average of 4%. It can be concluded that LL samples are affected by lightweight brick waste because its
value decreases by an increasing percentage of LWB.
Figure 3(b) shows a graph of the relationship between the percentage of lightweight brick waste
with PI. The initial PI of expansive, organic, and lateritic samples were 55.03%, 22.19%, and 23.82%,
respectively, decreased to 54.2%, 17.36%, and 16.36%. Although the LL reduction was little,
increasing the percentage of LWB also gave rise to PL, as shown by a significant decrease in PI.
Figure 3(c) shows the plasticity chart which was used to determine the soil classification by USCS
method (ASTM D2487)[21]. This curve also clarifies the type of soil used in this study, namely clay
with high plasticity (CH), organic soil with high plasticity (OH), and clay with low plasticity (CL),
respectively, for expansive, organic, and lateritic soils. The addition of LWB results in the movement
of data towards different soil types, are represented by arrows. This occurred in the lateritic sample
that was turned into silt soil with low plasticity (ML). Meanwhile, the other soils turned to silt soils
with high plasticity and organic with low plasticity, respectively, for expansive and organic soils.
Changes in clay type into silt soils with larger grain sizes indicate the aggregation of clay granules due
to the addition of LWB.

90 60 60
lateritic
organic
expansive
50 50
80

CH
40 40
70
Plasticity index (%)
Liquid limit (%)

Plasticity index (%)

30 30

60
20 20
CL
OH - MH
50
10 10
CL-ML
ML-OL
40 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Lightweight brick (%) Lightweight brick (%) Liquid limit (%)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Lightweight brick effects on Atterberg limit of soils.

Figure 4 shows typical UCT results obtained in this study. The figure shows the compressive
strength versus strain curves of the materials tested at different moisture contents and represented by
4% LWB. As shown in figures 4(a) and 4(b), the samples tested at the optimum moisture content (as
shown in figure 2 produced the highest maximum compressive strength (qu). Conversely, a sample
which was compacted at higher moisture content than the optimum moisture content produced the
lowest qu. These results show that the samples were still characterized as clay soils. The compaction at

4
ICSTSI 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 980 (2020) 012071 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/980/1/012071

optimum moisture content resulted to maximum density followed by other beneficial behaviors,
including maximum shear strength.
Figure 4(c) shows the curve of compressive strength versus strain relationships for samples of
expansive soil mixed with 4% LWB. The highest maximum compressive strength was found at the
highest moisture content, which was at w = 25%. This happened because the assumptions of the
moisture content used for this sample are smaller than its optimum moisture content. The optimum
moisture content for expansive soils was generally higher. The addition of bentonite increased soil
plasticity and optimum soil moisture content [22]. However, these results provided valuable
information where the addition of LWB to the soil was carried out. It was implemented at optimum
moisture content or smaller to obtain favorable effects. The result shown in figure 5 is the relationship
between moisture content and undrained cohesion (cu) of samples. Undrained cohesion is a parameter
of soil shear strength where cu = ½qu. As shown in figures 5(a) and 5(b), the peak of cu occurs in a

4.00 3.50 7.00

w=15% w=25% w=15%
3.50 w=20% 3.00 w=30% 6.00 w=20%

Compressive strength (kg/cm2)

Compressive strength (kg/cm2)

Compressive strength (kg/cm2)

w=25% w=35% w=25%

3.00
2.50 5.00
2.50
2.00 4.00
2.00
1.50 3.00
1.50
1.00 2.00
1.00
0.50 1.00
0.50

0.00 0.00 0.00

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8
Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4. Compressive strength sample versus strain of soils with 4% lightweight brick content (a)
lateritic soil, (b) organic soil, and (c) expansive soil.

3.0 3.0 5.0

2% 4% 2% 4% 2% 4%
6% 8% 6% 8% 4.5 6% 8%
2.5 10% 2.5 10% 10%
4.0
3.5
2.0 2.0
3.0
cu (kg/cm2)

cu (kg/cm2)

cu (kg/cm2)

1.5 1.5 2.5

2.0
1.0 1.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 0.5
0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30
Water content (%) Water content (%) Water content (%)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5. Cohesion undrained of compacted soils-LWB mixtures as a function of water content (a)
lateritic soil, (b) organic soil, and (c) expansive soil.

5
ICSTSI 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 980 (2020) 012071 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/980/1/012071

compacted sample at the optimum moisture content for lateritic and organic soils. Furthermore, for
expansive soils compacted at moisture content less than the optimum moisture content, the cu
increased by the rise of moisture content.
Figure 6 shows the undrained cohesion of the sample as a function of mild brick waste content.
Figure 6(a) shows the cu value of the sample compacted at the lowest moisture content (or at dry of
optimum for lateritic and organic soils). For lateritic soils, cu increased from 1.23 kg/cm2 to 2.26
kg/cm2 or increased 1.8 times at 10% LWB percentage. Similar results were also obtained in the
organic-LWB clay mixture where cu increased from 0.24kg/cm2to 1.76kg/cm2 or increased 7.5 times at
the addition of 10% LWB. cu increases by the rise in the percentage of lightweight brick waste. The
highest increment is seen in figure 6(b) for samples compacted at the optimum moisture content (i.e.,
lateritic and organic soils). As for expansive soils, the value of cu increased from 0.926kg/cm2 to
3.37kg/cm2 or 3.6 times at 10% LWB content.
Figure 6(c) shows the cu sample compacted at higher moisture content than the optimum moisture
content (also called the wet of optimum) for lateritic and organic samples. As shown in the figure, cu
lateritic samples 0.55kg/cm2 at 2% LWB increased to 0.88kg/cm2 or 1.6 times the initial cu. For organic
soils, cu increases from 0.12kg/cm2 to 0.21kg/cm2 or 1.7 times at 2% and 10% LWB content. These
values are smaller than cu samples without LWB compacted at the optimum moisture content (figure
6(b)). Different results were seen in expansive soils compacted at the dry of optimum. cu increased
significantly from 1.62kg/cm2 at 2% LWB to 3.72kg/cm2 at 10% LWB. This result confirmed the
previous results where the best result of LWB-soil mixtures was compacted at the optimum moisture
content or less.
5.0 5.0 5.0
Lateritic, w=15% Lateritic, w=20% Lateritic, w=25%
4.5 Organic, w=25% 4.5 Organic, w=30% 4.5 Organic, w=35%
Expansive, w=15% Expansive, w=20% Expansive, w=25%
4.0 4.0 4.0
3.5 3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
cu (kg/cm2)
cu (kg/cm2)
cu (kg/cm2)

2.5 2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Lightweight brick (%) Lightweight brick (%) Lightweight brick (%)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6. Cohesion undrained samples as a function of LWB content.

Figure 7 presents the results of X-ray diffraction analysis conducted on soil samples. This was
mixed with 2% and 10% LWB at optimum moisture content for lateritic soils organic clays. As shown
in figures 7(a) and 7(b), lateritic soils and organic clays contained dominant kaolinite and quartz.
Furthermore, LWB contained dominant quartz and calcite (CaCO3). The presence of calcite was
confirmed by comparing it with the XRD pattern reported by [23]. From figure 7(a), an increase in the
intensity of quartz is recognized at 2q between 30o-40o followed by the loss of the calcite peak at
intervals of 25o-30o. This behavior showed an increase in ionic bonds with Si producing SiO. Figure
7(a) also revealed the emergence of low-intensity calcite peaks in lateritic soils added by 10% LWB
due to the remaining non-bound calcites.

6
ICSTSI 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 980 (2020) 012071 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/980/1/012071

The XRD results of organic clay and LWB mixtures are shown in figure 7(b). There was little
change in the intensity and peaks in both samples with 2% and 10% LWB. Change only takes place in
an increase in quartz intensity. These results confirmed that the ionic bond was not stable. Therefore,
the excess water in the sample resulted in a slight increase in the sample's shear strength. This was
obtained for lateritic and organic samples compacted at the high moisture content (figure 6(c)).

Lateritic Organic
LWB LWB
Lateritic + 2% LWB Organic + 2% LWB
Lateritic + 10% LWB Organic + 10% LWB
10000 10000
quartz

quartz
kaolinite

quartz
carbonate

carbonate
quartz
9000 9000

kaolinite
quartz

quartz
8000 8000
7000 7000
6000 6000
Intensity

Intensity
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
2q 2q
(a) (b)
Gambar 7. X-ray diffraction result of lateritic and organic soils-LWB mixtures.

4. Conclusions
Stabilization of lateritic soils, organic clays, and expansive soils using lightweight brick waste has
been presented and discussed. LL and PI samples were affected by LWB because the values decreased
by an increase in the percentage of waste. The rise in the percentage of LWB waste also increased PL
shown by significantly reducing PI values. The tendency for soil to change occurred by an increase in
the LWB content. The data evolution in the plasticity chart indicated the result.
Increasing the LWB percentage also raised the shear strength of the soil, as designated by an
increase in undrained soil cohesion. Initial moisture content affected the shear strength of the LWB-
mixed soil sample. Compactions at optimum moisture content or smaller produced the best effect of
LWB. Conversely, compactions at higher moisture content than the optimum produced less shear
strength than the soil's strength without a stabilizing agent. The XRD results confirmed the presence of
ionic bonds by reducing the calcite peak and increasing the intensity of the quartz peak of soils-LWB
mixtures.

References
[1] SNI03-0349 1989 Bata beton untuk pasangan dinding Badan Stand. Nas.
[2] ASTM D6951 2018 Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in
Shallow Pavement Applications ASTM Int. West Conshohocken PA
[3] Ashour T and Wu W 2010 The influence of natural reinforcement fibers on erosion properties of
earth plaster materials for straw bale buildings J. Build. Apprais 5 329–40
[4] Anggraini V, Asadi A, Huat B B K and Nahazanan H 2015 Performance of Chemically Treated
Natural Fibres and Lime in Soft Soil for the Utilisation as Pile-Supported Earth Platform Int. J.
Geosynth. Gr. Eng. 1 1–14

7
ICSTSI 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 980 (2020) 012071 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/980/1/012071

[5] Brahmachary T K, Ahsan M K and Rokonuzzaman M 2019 Impact of rice husk ash (RHA) and
nylon fiber on the bearing capacity of organic soil SN Appl. Sci. 1 1–13
[6] Arifin Y F, Misnawati and Normelani E 2019 The use of natural fiber from oil palm empty fruit
bunches for soft soil stabilization IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 669 2–10
[7] Arifin Y F, Misnawati and Ridha M 2020 Laboratory Compaction Method of Soft Clay and
Natural Plant Fiber/Shell Mixtures IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 499
[8] Shooshpasha I and Shirvani R A 2015 Effect of cement stabilization on geotechnical properties of
sandy soils Geomech. Eng. 8 17–31
[9] Biswal D R and Sahoo U C 2018 Strength and Stiffness Studies of Cement Stabilized Granular
Lateritic Soil Soil Testing, Soil Stability and Ground Improvement 2 320–36
[10] Amadi A A and Osu A S 2016 Effect of curing time on strength development in black cotton soil
– Quarry fines composite stabilized with cement kiln dust (CKD) J. King Saud Univ. - Eng.
Sci., 30 305–12
[11] 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 Geotech. Geol. Eng. 30 1197–205
[12] Choobbasti A J, Ghodrat H, Vahdatirad M J, Firouzian S, Barari A, Torabi M and Bagherian A
2010 Influence of using rice husk ash in soil stabilization method with lime Front. Earth Sci.
China b 471–80
[13] Arifin Y F and Rahman G 2019 Stabilization of Soft Soil with Cement and Palm Kernel Shell
Ash Admixture MATEC Web Conf. 280 04011
[14] Nivedya M K and Veeraragavan A 2017 Sand–Tire Chip Mixtures for Sustainable
Geoengineering Applications Sustain. Issues Civ. Eng. ed G L Sivakumar Babu et al
(Springer) 35–50
[15] Mashiri M S, Vinod J S, Sheikh M N and Tsang H H 2015 Shear strength and dilatancy
behaviour of sand-tyre chip mixtures Soils Found. 55 517–28
[16] Al-Bared M A M, Marto A and Latifi N 2018 Utilization of Recycled Tiles and Tyres in
Stabilization of Soils and Production of Construction Materials – A State-of-the-Art Review
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 22 3860–74
[17] Bhavsar S N, Joshi H B, Shrof P K and Ankit P 2014 Impact of Marble Powder on Engineering
Properties of Black Cotton Soil Impact of Marble Powder on Engineering Properties of Black
Cotton Soil Int. J. Sci. Res. Dev. 2 136
[18] ASTM D698 2007 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil
Using Standard Effort ASTM Int 1-15
[19] ASTM D4318 2010 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index
of Soils ASTM Int 1–14
[20] ASTM D2166 2013 Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive
Soil ASTM Int. 1–7
[21] ASTM D2487 2006 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System) ASTM Int. West Conshohocken, PA 1–5
[22] Arifin Y F and Sambelum 2019 Bentonite Enhanced Soil as an Alternative Landfill Liner in
Rikut Jawu, South Barito IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 239
[23] Galván-Ruiz M, Hernández J, Baños L, Noriega-Montes J and Rodríguez-García M E 2009
Characterization of Calcium carbonate, calcium oxide, and calcium hydroxide as starting point
to the improvement of lime for their use in construction J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 21 694–98