
Figure 1.
Materials Used (a) Lime (b) PG (c) SS (d) FA
Table 1.

Figure 2.
Experimental Methodology
Table 2.
Proportions of Various Solid Wastes in the Total Blend (%)
| Notation | Lime | FA | SS | PG | Compressive Strength (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LFSP212 | 1.96 | 29.41 | 58.82 | 9.81 | 2.54 |
| LFSP412 | 3.85 | 28.85 | 57.69 | 9.61 | 2.12 |
| LFSP612 | 5.66 | 28.30 | 56.60 | 9.44 | 1.05 |
| LFSP211 | 1.96 | 44.12 | 44.12 | 9.80 | 0.84 |
| LFSP411 | 3.85 | 43.27 | 43.27 | 9.61 | 2.64 |
| LFSP611 | 5.66 | 42.45 | 42.45 | 9.44 | 2.18 |
| LFSP221 | 1.96 | 58.82 | 29.41 | 9.81 | 3.63 |
| LFSP421 | 3.85 | 57.69 | 28.85 | 9.61 | 3.94 |
| LFSP621 | 5.66 | 56.60 | 28.30 | 9.4 | 4.06 |
| LFSP212M | 0.49 | 7.35 | 14.71 | 2.45 | 0.37 |
| LFSP412M | 0.96 | 7.21 | 14.42 | 2.41 | 0.43 |
| LFSP612M | 1.42 | 7.08 | 14.15 | 2.35 | 0.57 |
| LFSP211M | 0.49 | 11.03 | 11.03 | 2.45 | 0.45 |
| LFSP411M | 0.96 | 10.82 | 10.82 | 2.40 | 1.05 |
| LFSP611M | 1.42 | 10.61 | 10.61 | 2.36 | 0.51 |
| LFSP221M | 0.49 | 14.71 | 7.35 | 2.45 | 0.49 |
| LFSP421M | 0.96 | 14.42 | 7.21 | 2.41 | 0.41 |
| LFSP621M | 1.42 | 14.15 | 7.08 | 2.35 | 1.18 |

Figure 3.
Strength of Lime Stabilized Solid Waste Blocks LFSPX12

Figure 4.
Strength of Lime Stabilized Solid Waste Blocks LFSPX11

Figure 5.
Strength of Lime Stabilized Solid Waste Blocks LFSPX21

Figure 6.
Strength of Optimal Lime Stabilized Solid Waste Blocks

Figure 7.
Variation of Strength with Lime Content for Different FA/SS Ratios
Table 3.
Proportions of Various Solid Wastes in the Present and Three Earlier Studies (%)

Figure 8.
Comparison of the Present Work With Earlier Studies (1Mashifana et al. [43], 2James et al. [25], 3Pai et al. [44])

Figure 9.
Strength of Lime-Stabilized Solid Waste Mortar Blocks