Next Article in Journal
Effect of Sn and Mo on Microstructure and Electrochemical Property of TiZrTaNb High Entropy Alloys
Next Article in Special Issue
New Frontiers in Cementitious and Lime-Based Materials and Composites
Previous Article in Journal
Fermi Surface Structure and Isotropic Stability of Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov Phase in Layered Organic Superconductor β″-(BEDT-TTF)2SF5CH2CF2SO3
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mechanical Performance and Microscopic Mechanism of Coastal Cemented Soil Modified by Iron Tailings and Nano Silica
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Crystals
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/cryst11121526
crystals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A State-of-the-Art Review on Suitability of Granite Dust as a Sustainable Additive for Geotechnical Applications

by
Gudla Amulya
1,
Arif Ali Baig Moghal
1,* and
Abdullah Almajed
2,*
1
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Warangal, Warangal 506004, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Crystals 2021, 11(12), 1526; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryst11121526
Submission received: 8 November 2021 / Revised: 25 November 2021 / Accepted: 28 November 2021 / Published: 7 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Frontiers in Cementitious and Lime-Based Materials and Composites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The increase in infrastructure requirement drives people to use all types of soils, including poor soils. These poor soils, which are weak at construction, must be improved using different techniques. The extinction of natural resources and the increase in cost of available materials require us to think of alternate resources. The usage of industry by-products and related methods for improving the properties of different soils has been studied for several years. Granite dust is an industrial by-product originating from the primary crushing of aggregates. The production of huge quantities of granite dust in the industry causes severe problems from the handling to the disposal stage. Accordingly, in the civil engineering field, the massive utilization of granite dust has been proposed for various applications to resolve these issues. In this context, the present review provides precise and valuable content on granite dust characterization, its effect as a stabilizer on the behavior of different soils, and its interaction mechanisms. The efficacy of the granite dust in replacing sand in concrete is explored followed by its ability to improve the geotechnical characteristics of clays of varying plasticity are explored. The review is even extended to study the effect of binary stabilization on clays with granite dust in the presence of calcium-based binders. The practical limitations encountered and its efficiency over other stabilizers are also assessed. This review is further extended to analyze the effect of the granite dust dosage for various field applications.

1. Introduction

Soil stabilization is a technique used to improve the geotechnical properties of soil, either physically or chemically. Different types of stabilization methods exist, and each process varies with the type of additive used. Additives include lime, cement, bitumen geosynthetics, and some industrial by-products like flyash, slag, coal, and stone dust, chemicals, reagents, and recycled materials like rubber tire chips, waste plastics, and crushed glass that follows recent advanced bio-stabilization techniques like microbial-induced calcite precipitation and enzyme-induced calcite precipitation [1]. Among these stabilization methods, the most commonly adopted process is the addition of calcium-based materials like lime, cement, and flyash [2,3]. However, these additives have their own limitations in terms of carbon emissions [4,5]. Stabilization with lime and cement also causes a problematic expansion in the presence of sulphate [6]. In silica-rich soils, adding lime decreases the soil performance beyond its optimum level because the soil develops silica gel that withholds water and retains the soil plasticity [7]. Expansive semi-arid soils have been treated with lime and tested for their lime leachability. At 4% lime content, the lime leachability was minimized with increase in the curing period due to pozzolanic reactions [8]. The laterite soil when stabilized with lime caused a decrease in the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and California bearing ratio (CBR) with the increase in the delay of compaction in hours [9,10]. High-plastic clays stabilize with lime, and the UCS and the coefficient of permeability increase with the increase in the delay of compaction due to the formation of pozzolanic reactions [11]. The stabilization of sand with cement induces cohesion, but is not effective in developing interfacial friction [12]. Previous studies have shown that brittleness is associated with cement-stabilized sands [13]. Alkaline materials, such as cement, lime, and gypsum, make the treated soil brittle with concentration increase and alter the soil pH [14]. Polypropylene fibers and flyash–cement mixtures are used to improve the unconfined compressive strength of clay. The presence of composite cement turns the treated soil to brittle; however, due to the presence of fibers, the treated soil exhibits a plastic behavior upon load application [15]. In order curb the usage of cement and respective alkaline materials, researchers are working on disposal wastes that act as a sustainable supplementary cementitious material. Recently, biopolymer stabilization of plastic and non-plastic fines is gaining attention owing to its sustainable approach and associated low carbon footprint emissions [16]. Coal gangue is another sustainable generated from the coal production process. Coal gangue utilization can reduce ecological issues, but due care should be given to associated leaching of trace elements [4,5,17]. Enzyme-mediated calcite precipitation is a technique used to improve the compressive strength of sand. The substitution of magnesium sulphate in enzymes yields a better improvement compared to conventional calcite precipitation [18,19]. Many other additives like polypropylene fibers, cement kiln dust, ground-granulated blast-furnace slag, and slag play a major role in stabilizing specific soils [20]. In the previous works, every stabilizer has been limited to some aspects (e.g., carbon emission, production cost, groundwater chemistry, change in soil pH, UV radiation, reactivity, etc.) that drive sustainable stabilizers. This review explores the potential applications of granite dust, a waste by-product, as an efficient stabilizer for improving the geotechnical properties of problematic soils, including Atterberg’s limits, compaction properties, unconfined compressive strength, permeability, and California bearing ratio, among others. The mechanisms responsible are described based on the physicochemical characteristics of granite dust. The optimum dosage of granite dust in various soils for different applications is proposed to facilitate practical utilization.
Granite dust is an industrial by-product with an ever-increasing demand in the construction industry. It is deposited in huge amounts at quarry sites and crushing industries [21]. Granite dust is a non-plastic material that exhibits high shear strength with zero carbon emissions. The fine state of stone dust results in a large specific surface area. The physical properties, chemical composition, and mineralogy of stone dust vary with the type of parent rock, but is consistent with the quarry at site [22]. Granite dust is an industrial by-product originating from the primary crushing stage of aggregates [23]. These are fine aggregates produced with particle diameters less than 4 mm [24]. The quality of a stone dust depends on the rock type, origin, and processing method. The global production of stone dusts from different plants is approximately 1.48 billion tons and produced by 1430 companies. On an average, a typical rock produces roughly approximately 400–500,000 tons of aggregate every year [25]. Approximately, 20–25% of this goes as unused material [26]. In India, approximately 200 million tons of quarry by-products is produced annually [27]. Mined boulders and blasted rocks from quarry sites are hauled into a crusher bin and fed to crushers [25]. Crushing can be done in three to four stages (i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary). In the primary and secondary stages, two major crusher units are fed with quarried rock to produce aggregates of different sizes determined by demand [25]. An overview of production of quarry fines is described in the Figure 1. Screening is done in each crushing stage to obtain a usable end product.
Table 1 shows that granite dust is an industrial by-product that has high density and zero carbon emission and is abundant and chemically inert with water. The specific gravity of granite dust is greater than the specific gravity of soils [21], which ranges from 2.6 to 2.8.

2. Physical and Chemical Properties of Granite Dust

2.1. Morphology and Mineralogy of Granite Dust

The physical appearance of granite dust changes with topography. The X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of granite dust show mineralogy and morphological variations. Granite is an intrusive igneous rock formed from magma. It is predominantly white, pink, or gray in color. These rocks mainly comprise feldspar, quartz, mica, and amphibole minerals. Dust formed out of granite quarry and aggregate crushing plants varies in the physical appearance of granite dust relevant to location. Table 2 presents petrological details of different granite dusts sourced from different parts of the world.
Quartz, granite, limestone, dolomite, and sandstone are the major rock types used by the crushed stone industry. Granite dust is produced from aggregate crushing plants. Most parts of fines are passing the No. 200 sieve and defined as fine aggregate with a particle size less than 4 mm in diameter. The chemical composition of granite dust is an important material characteristic which plays a key role in stabilization. It differs with location, formation and the type of rock available.

2.2. Granite Dust and Composition

Table 3 provides the composition of a granite dust which give a rough estimate of various chemical elements in support of the content provided in Table 2.

3. Granite Dust as a Sustainable Material

Sand mining is the process of removing sand from the foreshore. Approximately 47 to 59 billion tons of material is mined globally. Sand utilization in construction leads to unjustifiable sand mining caused by the increment in development activities, which are unacceptable. The available sources of characteristic sand are draining. High-class sand can be moved from a significant distance, causing an economical constraint. Therefore, the structure quality relies on a partial or complete material replacement. Granite dust discarded in a huge amount creates a financial and ecological expense to the industry [40]. Granite dust can avoid detrimental effects on the environment, which are caused by the excessive mining of river sand [41]. Some granite dust applications are in geotechnical aspects like embankment, backfills, road-paving materials, underground cavity fillers, barrier wall materials and sub-base.

4. Effect of Granite Dust Addition on the Geotechnical Properties

4.1. Atterberg Limits

Granite dust is a non-plastic material that cannot be influenced by water. Hence, adding granite dust to plastic soils reduces the plasticity index by breaking the particle–water–particle bond and the liquid and plastic limits. Works have been performed on red earth, kaolinite, and sun-dried marine clay, where the Atterberg limits decreased with the dosage increase [21]. The sun-dried marine clay comparatively gave a better response with granite dust addition compared to the other two because the marine clay is a high-plastic soil with a poor gradation curve [21] (Table 4).
The high plasticity of soil decreased with the increase in the amount of added granite dust. The liquid limit decreased to 52%, with 60% granite dust addition. Similar works [42,43] have investigated the low-strength/weak soil and concluded that adding granite dust to plastic and high-plastic soils decreases the liquid and plastic limits. Work has also been performed on the granite dust–black cotton soil mixtures and observed the decreasing behavior of Atterberg limits with an increase in granite dust addition [44]. Table 5 lists the summary of the attempts made to improve the Atterberg’s limits of different soils with the addition of granite dust.
Decrease in Atterberg’s limits of the soil is due to the decrease in finer fraction of the heterogeneous mix. Change in the finer fraction affects the water absorbing capacity of the soil.

4.2. Compaction Attributes

Maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) are two significant parameters used to assess the field capacity of soil. Adding granite dust to soil increases the MDD and reduces the OMC due to the increase in coarser fraction and the specific gravity of soil–granite dust mixes [43]. Moreover, the increase in the MDD was due to the shift in the gradation curve from a poor to a well-graded mix. In a work on quarry reclamation, granite dust was mixed with silty soil. A decrease in the OMC and an increase in the MDD were observed with the increments in the presence of granite dust (Figure 2) [45]. Generally high-plastic silts show an improved MDD and a decreased OMC with the gradual increase in granite dust substitution [42]. Nwaiwu [43] observed an increase in the MDD of black cotton soil–granite dust mixes and a decrease in the OMC at higher granite dust contents. Irrespective of compaction energy adopted, the addition of granite dust improved OMC and MDD relatively for several soils. Similar observations [22,46] were identified in the case of clays and red earth soils, where an increase in the MDD of mixes were observed with a simultaneous reduction in the OMC values at higher percentages of granite dust dosages was noted. The compaction characteristics of residual soils improved with the addition of granite dust, which consequently led to an increase in the compaction energy [37].
The maximum dry density of mixed soils improves because of the substitution of dust particles in the clay voids and, to some extent, in silts. This will ensure that macro and micro-voids are minimized at higher compactive efforts. The MDD of marine clay increased by approximately 88%, which is higher compared to other soils as seen in Figure 3 (Adding granite dust to soils allows less water to absorb due to the increase in the coarser fraction compared to fines, which is particularly observed in clays, silts and clayey soils). These changes in the soil–granite mix help to improve the engineering properties of the soil.
The change in compaction characteristics is due to the change in particle size distribution of the granite dust mixed soil. Formation of a well graded mix offers greater density and presence of granite dust breaks the water film around the clay particles.

4.3. California Bearing Ratio

To obtain the CBR, a static penetration test is performed to obtain the susceptibility of soil against wheel load penetration. According to [42], the CBR value recommended by the RDA is 15% for subgrade in highway construction. In the case of kaolinite, red earth, and sun-dried marine clay, the CBR values increased with an increase in the percentage of granite dust [21]. However, the percentage increase in CBR for a particular dosage of granite dust is more for clay soil due to the change in grain size distribution (Table 6). Soils with high clay content showed a high improvement with granite dust addition.
This increase in the CBR value is also influenced by the shear strength of the particular soil. In spite of the presence of weak soil, stabilization with granite dust brings the CBR value to the field requirement that helps to reduce the pavement thickness. The increase in the CBR values with the increase in the percentage of granite dust was observed until 50% granite dust addition in the case of black cotton soil [44]. The CBR values of the residual soils increased with an increase in granite dust in soaked and unsoaked conditions [37]. Table 7 shows summary of earlier works related to improvement in CBR characteristics of different soils.

4.4. Shear Strength

Sun-dried marine clay highly responded to the granite dust addition compared to red earth. The presence of granite dust in clays filled the voids and developed friction among the mixed particles [22]. A significant improvement in the shear strength with the increase in internal friction and a corresponding decrease in the cohesive nature of high-plastic silt was observed up to 60% addition of granite dust as seen in Figure 4.

4.5. UCS and Permeability

The unconfined compressive strength of lithomargic clay is improved with addition of granite dust content up to 20% and decreased with a further increase in granite dust addition. The coefficient of permeability of lithomargic clay proportionally increased with the addition of granite dust [46].
The wealth of literature summarized reveals that, granite dust enhances the geotechnical properties of silts and clays. High-plastic clays and clayey soils hold poor gradation; thus, the granite dust addition turns the mix into a well-graded complex that yields a high confinement as seen from Figure 5.

5. Granite Dust as a Substitute for Sand

Kumar [47] worked on different sub-base materials like flyash, coarse sand, granite dust, and river bed material (RBM). Granite dust was found to have the least resistance to rutting compared to the other three materials used in this study. The RBM has the maximum resistance to rutting. The static and resilient moduli were both higher for the RBM, implying that it had a better performance than the other three materials in the field. The internal friction angle ranged from 26° to 39°, and the specific gravity was nearly close to the specific gravity of river sand, which is required for the fractional sand replacement [36]. From the chemical composition of granite dust, silica/quartz (SiO2) is the predominant mineral that helps give a high shear strength similar to sand. Therefore, practically, granite dust can be used as a substitute for sand. Some previous investigation(s) [31,35,48,49,50] proved that sand can be partially replaced with granite dust without changing the workability and durability of concrete. Furthermore, the shear strength of sandy soil increases with an increase in the percentage of the granite dust content in sand–granite dust mixes to a certain limit. This work concludes that granite dust is the best source of alternative to save sand availability.

6. Alternate Treatment Methods

Reinforced Granite Dust

Sand was earlier referred to as the best backfill material because of its shear strength and permeability characteristics. In view of sustainability, being a cohesion less inert material that can also be used as a backfill due to its bulk utilization, granite dust is also the best substitute for sand [33]. A backfill material should not possess any lateral displacement of facia walls and should be able to resist the settlement due to loading. Granite dust is limited in cohesion property and high density; hence, the concept of granite dust reinforcement has been explored by certain authors. Among several reinforced materials, geosynthetics are considered as the best reinforcing materials due to their workability. Rama Subbarao [51] stated that geo grid reinforcement reduces the shear deformations of granular materials. Reinforced granite dust exhibits a ductile behavior and improves apparent cohesion, but is insignificant in the case of friction. The deviatory stress is the governing factor of shear strength in the case of reinforced stone dust, especially in ductile reinforcements. The EPS geofoam was introduced in granite dust as the load-reduction key. Geofoam is more noticeable for gravelly and sandy fills. The interface shear strength of geofoam–granite dust is highly influenced by normal stress applied [52]. In addition, the presence of geofoam reduces the backfill weight. Reinforced granite dust could be used as a backfill material, even at a lower relative density that reduces facia displacement and vertical settlements [53]. The change in the dimensions of the reinforcement and its location also greatly influence the backfill behavior. Waste plastic strips serve as a reinforcing material for improving the penetration resistance of granite dust. Granite dust is highly influenced by the increase in the density of intruded plastic strips [54]. Earlier works have stated that approximately 1% of plastic strip addition with an aspect ratio of 3 increases the soil CBR. The CBR was improved by the particle interlocking in reinforced layers under the dry condition (unsoaked) and the sedimentation of fines, in which the coarser particles to the top led to a confinement in the wet condition(soaked) [51].
Backfills and soil walls are some of the bulk applications in geotechnical engineering. The reinforced granite dust material is the best substitute for sand. Being a high-density material, the reinforcement helps reduce the pressure on the facia walls, which consequently leads to the reduction of the horizontal displacement and the vertical settlement due to the interlocking phenomenon (Figure 6). The concept of reinforced granite dust also helps improve the penetration resistance due to the development of a confinement among particles.

7. Effect of Granite Dust and Stabilizer(s) on Geotechnical Behavior

Importance of the Stabilizer

Granite dust is a non-plastic cohesion less material with a specific gravity greater than that of soil. Adding granite dust to cohesive soil filled the voids in cohesive soil, which increases the density and the shear strength. However, in some cases, granite dust alone will not be sufficient to fulfil the requirements that may cause sudden drawdown or a slip as seen from Figure 7. The soil-granite mix requires a binding agent to bring an efficient product to work in the field that can withhold the heterogeneous mass.
When clay soil was stabilized with granite dust, the plastic nature of the soil decreased with the increase in the granite dust dosage, leading to failure. The presence of a binding material prevented failure and increased the cohesion which enhanced the engineering properties. Black cotton soil when amended with lime and granite dust exhibited better performance compared to untreated scenario [55]. The ettringite formation increased the strength of the soil–granite dust mix (Figure 8). Granite dust, along with calcium carbide residue (CCR) in equal amounts, showed a good influence on problematic silty clay in terms of the CBR (Figure 9) [26]. The presence of the CCR in silty clay led to pozzolanic reactions and increased the chemical bonding between particles.
Some works on foundation soil improvement were performed using granite dust and cement, where the soil was improved with the incremental addition of granite dust with 4% cement addition. Granite dust with 10% cement addition improved the shear strength and the hydraulic properties of lithomargic clay [46]. The presence of cement led to ettringite formation, which helps in developing additional strength and cohesion. The presence of cement also helped in decreasing the pore volume. Dutta and Sarda [54] used a waste plastic strip with granite dust/flyash to improve the kaolinite clay properties. The CBR variation in the mix was attributed to the strip intrusion and the strip length in granite dust. The high-plastic silt was added with cement and granite to improve the CBR [42]. Quarry wastes in the form of granite powder and muck could be used as a supplemental subgrade material when added with lime [56]. The effects of quick lime on compacted granite dust were also studied, and the bearing capacity was found to improve with quick lime addition. Table 8 provides the summary of various earlier works which necessitated the inclusion of binder to granite dust.

8. Practical Applications of Granite Dust

An embankment was constructed in Korea using locally available silty material and granite dust sourced from two different quarry sites (biotite granite quarry from Yangju, Gyeonggi province; granitic gneiss from Gongju, South Chung cheong province) [45]. The granite dust is added in multiples of 25% from 0 to 100 and its response to enhancement in targeted geotechnical properties was determined. This case study revealed the fact that, an embankment of silty material stabilized with granite dust should attain a gradient of 1:1.8 for 10 m height and 1:1.5 for 15 m height in order to satisfy the stability analysis as per Korean standards. Up on inclusion of granite dust, the specific gravity of the mix increased whereas the MDD and shear strength of the mix decreased as seen from Table 9.
In Jimma town of Ginjo kebele, Ethiopia, an expansive soil (clayey soil) at subgrade level was stabilized using granite dust [57]. The dosage of granite dust was limited to 50% (added in increments of 5%). CBR requirements for subgrade were met at 30% to 35% of granite dust addition as seen in Figure 10. The thickness of the subgrade was found to reduce by 20.6% compared to an untreated case. Their study concluded that clay-granite dust soil satisfies the requirements for subgrade layer [57].

9. Conclusions

The current review article dealt with the generation of granite dust and shed light on its influence on the engineering properties of soils exhibiting different mineralogy. The workability of granite dust amended soils in the presence of an additional stabilizer is critically reviewed. The performance of granite dust as a backfill and a pavement material is discussed. The mechanism behind the improvement of each soil engineering property with granite dust addition is explained. The major outcomes of this review article are:
  • This significant improvement in Atterberg limits and Compaction characteristics is attributed to the increase in the coarser fraction and specific gravity, followed by a decrease in the water absorption capacity of the soil.
  • The interfacial friction of cohesive soil increased and cohesion value decreased due to the presence of coarser particles that fills the voids in clays, thereby increasing the friction component between the soil particles.
  • Soaked CBR values are increased due to the improvement in corresponding Maximum dry density and Shear strength.
  • A small amount of additive (calcium-based stabilizers) (<10%) with granite dust enhances the engineering properties of cohesive soils by causing net reduction in the pore volume, assisting in the rapid formation of ettringite, and substantially enhancing the tensile strength.
  • Granite dust is a highly recommended material as a replacement of sand in concrete and geotechnical applications due to its chemical composition and interfacial friction angle.
Granite dust is a sustainable and remarkable material exhibiting relatively low embodied energy levels. For a given scenario, when granite dust is amended with native soil, the amount of CO2 released due to granite dust addition is compensated by the reduced use of locally available materials. Accordingly, granite dust addition results in reduced carbon footprint values, and this treatment strategy is close to carbon neutral.
Proposed Research Gaps
  • To explore the particle size effect of granite dust on the strength characteristics of the soil.
  • Dynamic studies on the granite dust stabilized soil can be explored for future rail and roadway applications.
  • The stability of embankments and long-term durability of highways constructed with granite dust amended soils may be carried out.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.A. and A.A.B.M.; methodology, G.A. and A.A.B.M.; formal analysis, G.A.; A.A.B.M. and A.A.; resources, A.A.B.M. and A.A.; data curation, G.A. and A.A.B.M.; writing—original draft preparation, G.A., A.A.B.M. and A.A.; writing—review and editing, A.A.B.M. and A.A.; visualization, G.A. and A.A.B.M.; supervision, A.A.B.M.; project administration, A.A.B.M. and A.A.; funding acquisition, A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

College of Engineering Research Center and Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Data Availability Statement

The content presented here is sourced from existing published literature. Hence, this clause doesn’t arise.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the College of Engineering Research Center and Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for their financial support for the research work reported in this article. The authors thank the reviewers for their constructive comments which helped the cause of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Almajed, A.; Lateef, M.A.; Moghal, A.A.B.; Lemboye, K.K. State-of-the-Art Review of the Applicability and Challenges of Microbial-Induced Calcite Precipitation (MICP) and Enzyme-Induced Calcite Precipitation (EICP) Techniques for Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Applications. Crystals 2021, 11, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Moghal, A.A.B. State-of-the-Art Review on the Role of Fly Ashes in Geotechnical and Geo environmental Applications. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017, 29, 04017072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Moghal, A.A.B. Geotechnical and physico-chemical characterization of low lime fly ashes. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2013, 2013, 1. Available online: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amse/2013/674306 (accessed on 1 July 2021). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Ashfaq, M.; Lal, M.H.; Moghal, A.A.B.; Murthy, V.R. Carbon Footprint Analysis of Coal Gangue in Geotechnical Engineering Applications. Indian Geotech. J. 2019, 50, 646–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ashfaq, M.; Heeralal, M.; Moghal, A.A.B. Characterization studies on coal gangue for sustainable geotechnics. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2020, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Behnood, A. Soil and clay stabilization with calcium- and non-calcium-based additives: A state-of-the-art review of challenges, approaches and techniques. Transp. Geotech. 2018, 17, 14–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dash, S.K.; Hussain, M. Lime stabilization of soils: Reappraisal. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012, 24, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moghal, A.A.B.; Kareem Obaid, A.A.; Al-Refeai, T.O.; Al-Shamrani, M.A. Compressibility and durability characteristics of lime treated expansive semiarid soils. J. Test. Eval. 2014, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Osinubi, K.J.; Nwaiwu, C.M. Compaction delay effects on properties of lime-treated soil. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006, 18, 250–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moghal, A.A.B.; Ashfaq, M.; Al-Al-Obaid, A.A.K.H.; Abbas, M.F.; Al-Mahbashi, A.M.; Shaker, A.A. Compaction delay and its effect on the geotechnical properties of lime treated semi-arid soils. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2020, 22, 2626–2640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ali, H.; Mohamed, M. The effects of compaction delay and environmental temperature on the mechanical and hydraulic properties of lime-stabilized extremely high plastic clays. Appl. Clay Sci. 2017, 150, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Al-Aghbari, M.Y.; Mohamedzein, Y.E.-A.; Taha, R. Stabilisation of desert sands using cement and cement dust. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. -Ground Improv. 2009, 162, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Consoli, N.C.; Montardo, J.P.; Prietto, P.D.M.; Pasa, G.S. Engineering behavior of a sand reinforced with plastic waste. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002, 128, 462–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, Q.; Indraratna, B.; Carter, J.; Rujikiatkamjorn, C. A theoretical and experimental study on the behaviour of lignosulfonate-treated sandy silt. Comput. Geotech. 2014, 61, 316–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cheng, Q.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, N.; Guo, Y.; Pan, S. Experimental study on unconfined compression strength of polypropylene fiber reinforced composite cemented clay. Crystals 2020, 10, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Moghal, A.A.B.; Vydehi, K.V. State-of-the-art Review on Efficacy of Xanthan Gum and Guar Gum Inclusion on the Engineering Behavior of Soils. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2021, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ashfaq, M.; Heera Lal, M.; Moghal, A.A.B. Static and Dynamic Leaching Studies on Coal Gangue. In Sustainable Environmental Geotechnics 2020; Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Reddy, K.R., Agnihotri, A.K., Yukselen-Aksoy, Y., Dubey, B.K., Bansal, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moghal, A.A.B.; Lateef, M.A.; Mohammed, S.A.S.; Ahmad, M.; Usman, A.R.A.; Almajed, A. Heavy Metal Immobilization Studies and Enhancement in Geotechnical Properties of Cohesive Soils by EICP Technique. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moghal, A.A.B.; Lateef, M.A.; Mohammed, S.A.S.; Lemboye, K.K.; Chittoori, B.C.S.; Abdullah Almajed, A. Efficacy of Enzymatically Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation in the Retention of Heavy Metal Ions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Putra, H.; Yasuhara, H.; Kinoshita, N.; Hirata, A. Optimization of enzyme-mediated calcite precipitation as a soil-improvement technique: The effect of aragonite and gypsum on the mechanical properties of treated sand. Crystals 2017, 7, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. David Suits, L.; Sheahan, T.; Soosan, T.; Sridharan, A.; Jose, B.; Abraham, B. Utilization of quarry dust to improve the geotechnical properties of soils in highway construction. Geotech. Test. J. 2005, 28, 11768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sridharan, A.; Soosan, T.G.; Jose, B.T.; Abraham, B.M. Shear strength studies on soil-quarry dust mixtures. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2006, 24, 1163–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Birch, W.; Datson, H. Reducing the Environmental Effects of Aggregate Quarrying: Dust, Noise & Vibration. 2008. Available online: https://miningandblasting.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/blast_dust_and_noise_control.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2021).
  24. Saghafi, B.; Al Nageim, H.; Atherton, W. Mechanical behavior of a new base material containing high volumes of limestone waste dust, PFA, and APC residues. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2013, 25, 450–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kumar, D.S.; Hudson, W.R. Use of Quarry Fines for Engineering and Environmental Applications. Natl. Stone Assoc. 1992. Available online: https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/digitized/iacreports/1992_specrsrch_natlstoneassoc.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  26. Kumrawat, N.; Ahirwar, S.K. Performance analysis of black cotton soil treated with calcium carbide residue and stone dust. Int. J. Eng. Res. Sci. Technol. 2014, 3. Available online: http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php (accessed on 15 July 2021).
  27. Antonov, G.I.; Nedosvitii, V.P.; Semenenko, O.M.; Kulik, A.S.; Gerashchuk, Y.D.; I’chenko, N.V.; Poltavets, L.K. Use of dolomite dust for manufacturing stabilized dolomite refractories. Refract. Ind. Ceram. 1997, 38, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brooks, R.; Udoeyo, F.F.; Takkalapelli, K.V. Geotechnical properties of problem soils stabilized with fly ash and limestone dust in Philadelphia. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011, 23, 711–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nweke, O.M.; Okogbue, C.O. The potential of cement stabilized shale quarry dust for possible use as road foundation material. Int. J. Geo-Eng. 2017, 8, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Haldar, M.K.; Das, S.K. Effect of substitution of sand stone dust for quartz and clay in triaxial porcelain composition. Bull. Mater. Sci. 2012, 35, 897–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cheah, C.B.; Lim, J.S.; Ramli, M.B. The mechanical strength and durability properties of ternary blended cementitious composites containing granite quarry dust (GQD) as natural sand replacement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jain, A.K.; Jha, A.K.; Shivanshi. Improvement in subgrade soils with marble dust for highway construction: A comparative study. Indian Geotech. J. 2020, 50, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kandolkar, S.S.; Mandal, J.N. Effect of reinforcement on stress–strain behavior of stone dust. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2014, 8, 383–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chetia, M.; Baruah, M.P.; Sridharan, A. Contemporary Issues in Geoenvironmental Engineering, Sustainable Civil Infrastructures. In Effect of Quarry Dust on Compaction Characteristics of Clay; Singh, D.N., Galaa, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 78–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zafar, M.S.; Javed, U.; Khushnood, R.A.; Nawaz, A.; Zafar, T. Sustainable incorporation of waste granite dust as partial replacement of sand in autoclave aerated concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 250, 118878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Natasha, K.; Chetia, M. Shear strength of Rock quarry dust and Sand mix. Emerg. Trends Civ. Eng. 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Oyediran, I.A.; Idowu, O.D. Performance Analysis of some Quarry dust treated soils. J. Min. Geol. 2017, 53, 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bahoria, B.; Parbat, D.K.; Nagarnaik, P.B.; Waghe, U.P. Effect of replacement of natural sand by quarry dust and waste plastic on compressive & split tensile strength of M20 concrete. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering (NUiCONE 2013), Ahmedabad, India, 28–30 November 2013; Available online: www.sciencedirect.com (accessed on 25 November 2021).
  39. Etim, R.K.; Ekpo, D.U.; Attah, I.C.; Onyelowe, K.C. Effect of micro sized quarry dust particle on the compaction and strength properties of cement stabilized lateritic soil. Clean. Mater. 2021, 2, 100023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bloodworth, A.J.; Scott, P.W.; McEvoy, F.M. Digging the backyard: Mining and quarrying in the UK and their impact on future land use. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, S317–S325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Sanjay, M.; Sindhi, P.R.; Vinay, C.; Ravindra, N.; Vinay, A. Crushed rock sand—An economical and ecological alternative to natural sand to optimize concrete mix. Eng. Mater. Sci. 2016, 8, 345–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Priyankara, N.H.; Wijesooriya, R.M.S.D.; Jayasinghe, S.N.; Wickramasinghe, W.R.M.B.E.; Yapa, S.T.A.J. Suitability of quarry dust in geotechnical applications to improve engineering properties. Eng. J. Inst. Eng. Sri Lanka 2009, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Nwaiwu, C.; Mshelia, S.; Durkwa, J. Compactive effort influence on properties of quarry dust-black cotton soil mixtures. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2012, 6, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chetia, M.; Sridharan, A. A Review on the Influence of Rock Quarry Dust on Geotechnical Properties of Soil. In Geo-Chicago 2016; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2016; pp. 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Song, Y.-S.; Kim, K.-S.; Woo, K.-S. Stability of embankments constructed from soil mixed with stone dust in quarry reclamation. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 67, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nayak, S.; Sarvade, P.G. Effect of cement and quarry dust on shear strength and hydraulic characteristics of Lithomargic clay. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2012, 30, 419–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kumar, P.; Chandra, S.; Vishal, R. Comparative study of different sub base materials. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006, 18, 576–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mohammed, S.; Raman, S.N.; Jain, M.F.M. Utilization of Quarry Waste Fine Aggregate in Concrete Mixes. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2007, 3, 202–208. [Google Scholar]
  49. Danish, A.; Mosaberpanah, M.A.; Salim, M.U.; Feduik, R.; Rashid, M.F.; Waqas, R.M. Reusing marble and granite dust as cement replacement in cementitious composites: A review on sustainability benefits and critical challenges. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Singh, S.; Nagar, R.; Agarwal, V.; Rana, A.; Tiwari, A. Sustainable Utilization of Granite cutting waste in high strength concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 116, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rama, S.R.G.V. Studies on Hexagonal Wire Mesh-Reinforced Crushed Stone Dust. Slovak J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 26, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Beju, Y.Z.; Mandal, J.N. Experimental Investigation of Shear strength behaviour of Stone dust-EPS geofoam Interface. J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 2018, 22, 04018033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kandolkar, S.S.; Mandal, J.N. Behavior of reinforced-stone dust walls with backfill at varying relative densities. J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 2016, 20, 04015010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dutta, R.K.; Sarda, V.K. CBR behaviour of waste plastic strip-reinforced stone dust/fly ash overlying saturated clay. Turk. J. Eng. Environ. Sci. 2007, 31, 171–182. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mudgal, A.; Raju, S.; Sahu, A.K. Effect of lime and stone dust in the geotechnical properties of black cotton soil. Int. J. Geomate 2014, 7, 1033–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Manandhar, S.; Suetsugu, D.; Hara, H.; Hayashi, H. Performance of Waste Quarry By-Products as A Supplementary Recycled Subgrade Material. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Lowland Technology (ISLT 2014), Saga, Japan, 29 September–1 October 2014; pp. 271–278. [Google Scholar]
  57. Jemal, A.; Agon, E.C.; Geremew, A. Utilization of crushed stone dust as A stabilizer for sub grade soil: A case study in Jimma town. Int. J. Eng. 2019, 17, 55–63. [Google Scholar]
Crystals 11 01526 g001 550
Figure 1. An overview of stages involved in the production of quarry fines.
Figure 1. An overview of stages involved in the production of quarry fines.
Crystals 11 01526 g001
Crystals 11 01526 g002 550
Figure 2. Influence of the granite dust dosage on the compaction characteristics S1: 75% soil + 25% granite dust; S2: 50% soil + 50% granite dust; and S3: 25% soil + 75% granite dust (Modified after [45]).
Figure 2. Influence of the granite dust dosage on the compaction characteristics S1: 75% soil + 25% granite dust; S2: 50% soil + 50% granite dust; and S3: 25% soil + 75% granite dust (Modified after [45]).
Crystals 11 01526 g002
Crystals 11 01526 g003 550
Figure 3. Variation of MDD of different soils with granite dust (Modified after [42,44]).
Figure 3. Variation of MDD of different soils with granite dust (Modified after [42,44]).
Crystals 11 01526 g003
Crystals 11 01526 g004 550
Figure 4. Variation of shear parameters of high-plastic silt with granite dust addition (Modified after [42]).
Figure 4. Variation of shear parameters of high-plastic silt with granite dust addition (Modified after [42]).
Crystals 11 01526 g004
Crystals 11 01526 g005 550
Figure 5. Change in the particle gradation of clay soil with granite dust addition.
Figure 5. Change in the particle gradation of clay soil with granite dust addition.
Crystals 11 01526 g005
Crystals 11 01526 g006 550
Figure 6. Mechanism of reinforced granite dust.
Figure 6. Mechanism of reinforced granite dust.
Crystals 11 01526 g006
Crystals 11 01526 g007 550
Figure 7. Significance of the secondary stabilizer.
Figure 7. Significance of the secondary stabilizer.
Crystals 11 01526 g007
Crystals 11 01526 g008 550
Figure 8. SEM images (a) of black cotton soil and (b) black cotton soil mixed with 9% lime and plugged with 25% granite dust (Sourced from [55]).
Figure 8. SEM images (a) of black cotton soil and (b) black cotton soil mixed with 9% lime and plugged with 25% granite dust (Sourced from [55]).
Crystals 11 01526 g008
Crystals 11 01526 g009 550
Figure 9. Response for the soaked CBR test after 14 days of curing. Case I-Soil + 5% granite dust + 5% CCR. Case II-Soil + 10% granite dust + 10% CCR (Modified after [26]).
Figure 9. Response for the soaked CBR test after 14 days of curing. Case I-Soil + 5% granite dust + 5% CCR. Case II-Soil + 10% granite dust + 10% CCR (Modified after [26]).
Crystals 11 01526 g009
Crystals 11 01526 g010 550
Figure 10. Improvement in the CBR of subgrade soil with addition of granite dust (Modified after [57]).
Figure 10. Improvement in the CBR of subgrade soil with addition of granite dust (Modified after [57]).
Crystals 11 01526 g010
Table
Table 1. Applications of different types of stone dust.
Table 1. Applications of different types of stone dust.
Name of Rock DustPredominant ConstituentSpecific GravityCivil Engineering ApplicationsReference
Dolomite, metamorphicCalcium magnesium carbonate2.84Aggregate, ballast, base material[27]
Limestone, sedimentaryCalcium carbonate2.7Road base and railroad ballast[28]
Shale, sedimentarySilica2.62Fills and embankment[29]
Sandstone, sedimentarySilica2.5Replacement of natural sand[30]
Granite, igneousSilica2.7Filler, subgrade, replacement of natural sand and sub-base[31]
Marble, metamorphicDolomite, quartz, and calcite2.71Filler in concrete production[32]
Table
Table 2. Petrological details of granite dust(s) from different regions of the world.
Table 2. Petrological details of granite dust(s) from different regions of the world.
LocationPetrographic DescriptionMineralogyReference
Thane,
Maharashtra, India		Irregular shaped angular particlesQuartz from XRD[33]
Local quarry in Kedah, MalaysiaGranular, irregular and angular
geometry		Quartz, Microcline, Calcium Aluminium Silicate, Kaolinite, Magnesium Sulphate Hydrate from XRD[31]
Quarry dust from local crushing plants,
Guwahati, Assam, India		Sub-angular to angularQuartz and feldspar[34]
Local marble crushing plants, PakistanAngular and flaky in shape and bearing rough textureQuartz, Crystobalite, Zeolite, Wollastonite from XRD[35]
Garchuk quarry,
Guwahati, Assam, India		Sub-angular to angularQuartz, Feldspar,
Biotite, Muscovite and others from petrographic analysis from XRD		[36]
Table
Table 3. Chemical composition of granite dust (Sourced from [36,37,38,39]).
Table 3. Chemical composition of granite dust (Sourced from [36,37,38,39]).
ElementComposition Range (%)
SiO245–75
Al2O315–19
CaO3–14
Fe2O36–17
K2O3–4.5
MgO1–3.6
Na2O0–3.7
P2O30–0.02
TiO20–2.65
Table
Table 4. Response of Atterberg limits with an increase in the dosage of granite dust (Modified after [21]).
Table 4. Response of Atterberg limits with an increase in the dosage of granite dust (Modified after [21]).
Soil Type% Granite DustSpecific GravityLiquid Limit (%)Plastic Limit (%)
Red earth02.704025
202.7235Non-plastic
402.7427-
602.7625-
802.7824-
Kaolinite02.65530
202.644719
402.6837Non-plastic
602.7230-
802.7626-
Sundried marine clay02.627336
202.665728
402.694421
602.7235Non-plastic
802.7627-
Table
Table 5. Summary of the attempts to improve the Atterberg’s limits of different soils with the addition of granite dust.
Table 5. Summary of the attempts to improve the Atterberg’s limits of different soils with the addition of granite dust.
Soil TypeOutcomeReference
Red earthDecreased gradually[21]
Lithomargic claySignificant decrease of liquid limit and plastic limit[43]
Black cotton soilLiquid limit is decreased by 42% at 40% addition of granite dust[44]
Table
Table 6. CBR characteristics of Granite dust amended soils (Modified after [21]).
Table 6. CBR characteristics of Granite dust amended soils (Modified after [21]).
Soil Type% Granite DustSoaked CBR (%)Unsoaked CBR (%)
Red earth08.89.9
209.810.5
4010.812.0
6013.014.3
8014.715.5
Kaolinite05.27.8
206.78.8
408.810.8
6018.720.8
8020.822.8
Sun-dried marine clay03.84.7
204.35.2
405.16.2
608.99.4
8011.211.8
Table
Table 7. Summary of works to improve the CBR of the soils with granite dust.
Table 7. Summary of works to improve the CBR of the soils with granite dust.
Soil TypeOutcomeReference
Marine clayGood improvement at less amount of granite dust[21]
Residual soilSoaked CBR value is comparatively higher than un soaked[37]
Black cotton soilSignificant increase at 50% addition of granite dust[44]
Table
Table 8. A Summary of works to improve the properties of soil mixed with granite dust and a binder.
Table 8. A Summary of works to improve the properties of soil mixed with granite dust and a binder.
Soil TypeOutcomeReference
Black cotton soil with lime and granite dustCohesion increased. Good improvement observed in engineering properties [55]
Silty clay with CCR and granite dustGood chemical bonding appeared. CBR increased[26]
Lithomargic clay with granite dust and cementStrength and cohesion increased. Pore volume decreased[46]
Kaolinite clay with granite dust/flyash with waste plasticCBR increased[54]
High plastic silt with cement and granite dustCBR improved[42]
Table
Table 9. Effect of granite dust on the shear parameters of a local silty soil (Modified after [45]).
Table 9. Effect of granite dust on the shear parameters of a local silty soil (Modified after [45]).
Granite Dust: Natural SoilYangju, Gyeonggi ProvinceGongju, South Chungcheong
C (t/m2)φC(t/m2)Φ
100:00.5230.20.4529.3
75:250.5130.80.5130.6
50:500.4832.10.4831.5
25:750.4433.40.434.2
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Amulya, G.; Moghal, A.A.B.; Almajed, A. A State-of-the-Art Review on Suitability of Granite Dust as a Sustainable Additive for Geotechnical Applications. Crystals 2021, 11, 1526. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryst11121526

AMA Style

Amulya G, Moghal AAB, Almajed A. A State-of-the-Art Review on Suitability of Granite Dust as a Sustainable Additive for Geotechnical Applications. Crystals. 2021; 11(12):1526. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryst11121526

Chicago/Turabian Style

Amulya, Gudla, Arif Ali Baig Moghal, and Abdullah Almajed. 2021. "A State-of-the-Art Review on Suitability of Granite Dust as a Sustainable Additive for Geotechnical Applications" Crystals 11, no. 12: 1526. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryst11121526

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop