Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Experimental evaluation demonstrates eucalyptus ash improves bearing capacity in clay subgrades, suggesting sustainable use in construction.
In the Andean region, clay subgrades with low bearing capacity are common; in San Agustín (Huancayo, Peru), artisanal brick kilns generate eucalyptus ash that is currently discarded. This study evaluates eucalyptus ash from artisanal brick kilns (CEPLA) as a stabilizer for a local clay, quantifying its effects on physical properties, compaction, bearing capacity, and shear strength. Soil–ash mixtures were prepared at 0, 10, 20, and 30% by dry mass and tested for grain-size distribution (sieve analysis), Atterberg limits, modified Proctor—reporting maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC)—California Bearing Ratio (CBR) with 96 h soaking and expansion, and consolidated drained direct shear (DST, CD) to obtain cohesion (c′) and friction angle (φ′). The natural soil was classified as CL under the USCS, with CBR = 3.16% and expansion = 4.8% after soaking; CEPLA was granular with non-plastic fines. Adding ash decreased MDD and increased OMC without changing the USCS class. The 20% mix performed best, with CBR = 9.13% (≈3× the natural value) and expansion = 1.6%, alongside increases in c′ (0.100 → 0.169 kgf/cm²) and φ′ (25.97° → 29.90°). DST served as a mechanical characterization complementary to CBR. The findings provide experimental evidence to valorize a local waste as a soil stabilizer and suggest a preliminary dosage of 20% for low-plasticity clay subgrades in Andean settings. Limitations include the short-term laboratory scope, possible kiln-to-kiln compositional variability, and the lack of chemical characterization, wet–dry durability tests, and field-scale validation. Practically, the CBR gain and swelling reduction are compatible with low-volume roads using conventional compaction adjustments, while the use of CEPLA supports circular-economy objectives, reduces waste, and may lower costs relative to commercial binders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gómez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: