Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Stabilization of highly expansive soils containing sulfate using metakaolin T

and fly ash based geopolymer modified with lime and gypsum
⁎
Suraj D. Khadkaa, , Priyantha W. Jayawickramaa, Sanjaya Senadheeraa, Branimir Segvicb
a
Department of Civil, Environmental and Construction Engineering, P.O. Box 41023, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-1023, United States
b
Department of Geosciences, 1200 Memorial Circle, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-1023, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: High sulfate expansive soils present special challenges during stabilization. Traditional stabilizers such as lime
Ettringite and cement which are rich in calcium are ineffective in controlling shrink/swell behavior of these soils due to
Aluminosilicate formation of the expansive mineral, ettringite. In this study, two geopolymers synthesized from aluminosilicate
Metakaolin sources, fly ash and metakaolin, were investigated to determine their effectiveness in stabilizing shrink-swell
Fly ash
behavior of high sulfate expansive soil. Geopolymers were modified with lime and gypsum to improve their
Lime
Gypsum
efficacy as stabilization agents for sulfate bearing soil. Modifier contents were optimized to achieve maximum
Calcium Silicate Hydrate reduction in swell potential and at the same time prevent ettringite formation. Microstructural analyses were
performed on lime and gypsum added geopolymer to determine the mechanism of modification. Swell tests were
conducted on high sulfate soil treated with modified geopolymer at different concentrations and optimum
concentration of modified geopolymer required to achieve minimum swell was established.

Introduction
Expansive clay soil with moderate to high swelling potential is
present across majority of states in the U.S. [1]. Due to their high af-
finity to water, expansive soils can undergo large changes in volume
with moisture variations. As these soils get wet, clay minerals absorb
moisture and expand; conversely, the clay minerals shrink as they dry
[2]. Alternating swelling and shrinking action of clay ultimately causes
major distresses in engineering structures such as pavements, buildings
and buried pipes, primarily due to differential movement, eventually
resulting in failure [3–5]. Different soil stabilization techniques are
often adopted to improve engineering properties and to minimize
moisture induced volumetric changes in expansive soils [6,7]. Tradi-
tionally, calcium-based stabilizers, such as lime and cement, have been
used successfully to reduce the swelling behavior of expansive clay
soils. These calcium-based stabilizers are effective in controlling the
volume changes as calcium saturated clay minerals have reduced affi-
nity for water and formation of cementation products that resist volu-
metric changes [8]. Simplified representation of these reactions is
summarized as follows [9]:
Ca(OH)2 → Ca2+ + 2 OH–
–
Ca 2+
+ 2OH + SiO2 → C-S-H
Ca2+ + 2OH– + Al2O3 → CAH (3)
where C = CaO, S = SiO2, A = Al2O3 and H = H2O. Silica (SiO2) and
Alumina (Al2O3) required for this reaction are obtained from clay.
Calcium Silicate Hydrate (C-S-H) and Calcium Aluminate Hydrate
(CAH) are hydration products which cause cementation of clay mi-
nerals.
Previous studies have reported that treatment of sulfate rich ex-
pansive soils with calcium-based stabilizers results in the formation of
an expansive mineral called ettringite. Gypsum and anhydrites are the
most common forms of sulfates which are widely distributed across
United States [10]. Ettringite undergoes significant heaving when hy-
drated, causing distresses in stabilized soil. Ettringite related heaving
problems have been most commonly reported in Texas, Colorado and
Oklahoma where lime and cement are frequently used to stabilize high
sulfate expansive soils [11–13]. Different case studies have also sug-
gested variation in time for the occurrence of heave. These variations
have been attributed to differences in sulfate concentrations and mi-
neralogical properties of the soil, as well as variations in temperature
and humidity [14]. When calcium-based stabilizers are used to stabilize
a sulfate rich soil, deleterious reactions occur which ultimately result in
(1)
the formation of ettringite. The reaction mechanism for formation of
(2) ettringite is summarized as follows [15]:

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: suraj.khadka@ttu.edu (S.D. Khadka), priyantha.jayawickrama@ttu.edu (P.W. Jayawickrama), sanjaya.senadheera@ttu.edu (S. Senadheera),
Branimir.Segvic@ttu.edu (B. Segvic).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100327
Received 12 November 2018; Received in revised form 28 November 2019; Accepted 26 January 2020
2214-3912/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.D. Khadka, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327

source of aluminosilicate for synthesis of low calcium geopolymer,

Ca(OH)2 → Ca2+ + 2(OH)- (4)
termed as metakaolin geopolymer (MKG). High calcium geopolymer
Al4Si4O10(OH)8 + 4(OH)- + 10H2O → 4Al(OH)4- + 4H4SiO4 (5) were prepared by using Class C FA as the aluminosilicate source,
termed as fly ash geopolymer (FAG). In previous investigations, it was
CaSO4·2H2O → Ca2+ + SO42- + 2H2O (6) observed that high calcium geopolymer synthesized using Class C FA
6Ca2+ + 2Al(OH)4- + 4(OH)- + 3(SO4)2- + 26H2O → was more effective in controlling the volumetric changes in expansive
soil when compared with low calcium geopolymer synthesized using
Ca6[Al(OH)6]2·(SO4)3·26H2O (Ettringite) (7) MK [30]. Geopolymers also react with additives to form different ce-
mentitious hydration products which results in improved mechanical
During this reaction, lime creates a basic environment with pH of
properties. In previous studies, calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2 has been
approximately 12.3 which subsequently releases a large amount of
used as an additive to influence the formation of hydration products, C-
calcium ions into the soil. Simultaneously, clay minerals break down
S-H and C-A-H, resulting in enhanced mechanical performance of
into aluminum hydroxide and silicic acid as pH of the soil exceeds 10.5.
geopolymers synthesized from both MK [32] and FA [33,34]. Similar
Dissolution of gypsum releases sulfate ions. Finally, as water becomes
improvement in mechanical performance was observed for MKG due to
available to the soil, SO42-
, Ca
2+
and anionic Al result in formation of
the formation of C-S-H when GGBFS was added [35,36]. Hydrothermal
ettringite.
reactions of FAG with calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO4·2H2O) in-
In the past, efforts have been made to investigate and develop new
dicated formation of C-S-H and well-behaved reaction kinetics at higher
technologies for stabilization of high sulfate soil. Low calcium stabili-
temperatures [37]. In this study, treatment of soil with MKG and FAG
zation techniques minimize ettringite formation in high sulfate ex-
treatment were examined to determine their effectiveness in controlling
pansive soils. In one study, swelling associated with ettringite formation
the volumetric changes in high sulfate soil. Modification in MKG and
was suppressed by partial substitution of lime with ground granulated
FAG was performed by adding Ca(OH)2 and CaSO4·2H2O at different
blast furnace slag (GGBFS). However, the recommended replacement of
proportions by weight. Modified MKG and FAG were then used to treat
lime with 60–80% GGBFS did not achieve significant reduction in et-
high sulfate soil.
tringite associated problems. Moreover, this stabilization technique
required at least 28 days of curing prior to water saturation, which
generally is not feasible in most construction projects [16]. In another
Experimental investigation
study, sulfate-resistant cement stabilization technique was adopted to
address sulfate induced heave. Reduction in ettringite related heaving
Preparation of high sulfate expansive soil
in these soils was primarily attributed to reduction in the formation and
hydration of ettringite and presence of ferric oxides which caused de-
Soil for the entire test series was obtained from Atlanta and Dallas
velopment of low heaving forms of ettringite in stabilized soil [17].
Districts in Texas and therefore, is referred to as Atlanta Clay and Dallas
Several other stabilization techniques such as pre-compaction mel-
Clay, respectively throughout this paper. Clay soils were obtained
lowing, double lime application, combined lime and cement treatment,
specifically from these locations due to their high plasticity indices.
geosynthetics, pretreatment with barium compounds, polymeric fibers,
Plasticity Index (PI) of a soil is closely correlated with its expansive
low calcium-based stabilizers and non-calcium-based stabilizers have
behavior [38]. Before any tests were conducted, the soil was processed
been studied in the past to evaluate their effectiveness in stabilizing
to remove any foreign particles and coarse aggregates, that may inter-
high sulfate soils [18,19]. Major limitation to any stabilization tech-
fere with the swell results. Initially, moisture was removed from the soil
nique is primarily variability in the stabilization mechanism of ex-
by drying it in an oven at 110 °C for 24 h. The dried soil was then
pansive soil depending on its mineralogy, availability of water, climatic
pulverized in a grinder followed by sieving through minus 425 µm
conditions – temperature and humidity- and irregular distribution of
fraction (or No. 40 sieve). Reagent grade calcium sulfate dihydrate was
sulfate in the soil.
then mixed with the sieved soil to prepare a high sulfate soil with
Geopolymers have drawn much attention in recent years as a sus-
sulfate concentration of 15,000 ppm.
tainable construction material. Geopolymers are inorganic cementitious
For the Atlanta Clay, liquid limit (LL) and PI of 82% and 53%, re-
material with three-dimensional network of aluminate tetrahedra
spectively were obtained for minus 425 µm fraction by ASTM standards
bridged with silica tetrahedra where Si4+ and Al3+ are in four-fold
test procedure, ASTM D4318. According to the Unified Soil
coordination with oxygen. Their framework is empirically approxi-
Classification System (USCS), the soil was classified as CH (high-plas-
mated as Mn{–(SiO2)z–AlO2–}n, where M represents alkali cation, n
ticity clay). Standard Proctor compaction test, ASTM D698 determined
represents degree of polycondensation and z represents Si:Al molar
the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) and Maximum Dry Unit Weight
ratio [20,21]. Geopolymer has previously been explored as a light-
(γdry) as 31% and 110.5 pcf, respectively.
weight inorganic polymeric building material and a substitute for
Similarly, for Dallas Clay, liquid limit (LL) and PI of 63% and 40%,
Portland Cement [22,23]. Superior mechanical properties [23,24], high
respectively were obtained for minus 425 µm fraction by ASTM stan-
resistance to thermal variations [25,26] and excellent chemical re-
dards test procedure, ASTM D4318. According to the Unified Soil
sistance [27,28] makes geopolymer an attractive construction material.
Classification System (USCS), the soil was classified as CH (high-plas-
Studies have been performed to investigate geopolymer as a potential
ticity clay). Standard Proctor compaction test, ASTM D698 determined
soil stabilizer to improve the mechanical properties in artificially pre-
the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) and Maximum Dry Unit Weight
pared soil [29]. Significant reduction in shrink/swell behavior of ex-
(γdry) as 18% and 122.3 pcf, respectively.
pansive soil with improved strength was observed for geopolymer
Chemical and mineralogical compositions of Atlanta and Dallas Clay
synthesized with fly ash (FA) as the aluminosilicate precursor [30].
identified using X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) are presented in Table 1(a)
Calcium-free geopolymer synthesized using metakaolin (MK) as an
and (b), respectively. Atlanta Clay consisted of smectite group mineral,
aluminosilicate precursor for stabilization of sulfate-rich soil demon-
montmorillonite as the predominant mineral phase which is known to
strated improved strength with no reduction in volumetric expansion in
be associated with high PI and expansive behavior that pose major
specimens cured for 7 days and minimal reduction in volumetric ex-
problems in engineering construction [39–41]. Dallas Clay primarily
pansion of specimens cured for 28 days [31].
constituted of vermiculite which has also been associated with swelling
In this study, both MK and FA based geopolymers were considered
behavior [42]. Two clay soils with different mineral component were
as alternatives for stabilization of high sulfate expansive soils.
selected to determine effectiveness of the proposed stabilizer in soil
Negligible amount of calcium oxide present in MK makes it an ideal
with different minerals and varying swelling behavior.

2
S.D. Khadka, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327

Table 1
(a) Chemical and Mineralogical Composition of Atlanta Clay and Dallas Clay

Chemical components (wt%) SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO K2O TiO2 P2O5 ZrO2 MnO S BaO

Atlanta Clay 64.28 16.39 9.03 3.92 1.78 1.72 1.38 0.79 0.11 0.15 – –
Dallas Clay 61.41 12.53 7.72 12.17 1.38 2.77 1.26 0.87 0.19 – 0.13 0.1

(b) Mineralogical composition of atlanta clay and dallas clay

Minerals (wt%) Quartz Montmorillonite Vermiculite Feldspar

Atlanta Clay 50.3 39.5 – 10.2

Dallas Clay 39.4 – 60.6 –

Note: wt% refers to the ratio of weight of the component to the total weight of the sample expressed as a percentage.

Particle Size Distribution

100
Class C Fly ash
Percentage Passing by weight

Metakaolin
80

60

40

20

0
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Grain Size in micrometers

Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of aluminosilicate precursor.

Geopolymer synthesis and soil stabilization
MK and Class C FA were selected as the aluminosilicate sources for
the synthesis of low calcium and high calcium geopolymers. Grain size
distribution of MK and Class C FA used for the synthesis of geopolymer
is presented in Fig. 1. The chemical compositions of MK and FA are
presented in Table 2. High concentration of SiO2 and Al2O3 with neg-
ligible amount of CaO in MK resulted in a relatively pure form of
geopolymer. In FAG, presence of oxides of Fe, Mg, Na and K with high
concentration of CaO in fly ash, resulted in variability during geopo-
lymerization.
Alkaline activator solution was synthesized by mixing Sodium
Hydroxide solution (NaOH = 50%, H2O = 50%, pH = 14,
Density = 95.5 pcf at 20 °C) with technical grade Sodium Silicate so-
lution (SiO2 = 26.5%, Na2O = 10.6%, H2O = 62.9%, pH = 11.3,
Density = 86.8 pcf at 20 °C) to obtain a concentration of 12 M. The
solution was continuously stirred using magnetic stirrer for 24 h to
allow sufficient reaction time to achieve equilibrium and complete
dissipation of heat of hydration. Prior to treatment of soil, the activator
solution was mixed with aluminosilicate precursor in a rotatory mixer
until a homogeneous geopolymer slurry was obtained. For modification
of geopolymer with additives, lime and gypsum were added at various
stages of geopolymer synthesis.
Soil stabilization was performed with geopolymer at concentrations
of 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 percent by weight. Prior to geopolymer treatment,
water was added to the soil to achieve OMC. Native soil without any
treatment and 6% lime treatment were used as two control groups to
observe variation in swell percentage of high sulfate expansive soil
treated with traditional stabilizer. Uniformity of geopolymer-wet soil
mixtures was verified by evaluating the moist density of test specimens.
Target moist densities of 110.5 pcf and 122.3 pcf were established for
Atlanta Clay and Dallas Clay respectively. Only samples with moist
densities that fit within an acceptable tolerance corresponding to a
coefficient of variation of 2.5% were used for further testing. These
results were used to assess the effectiveness of proposed stabilizer in
controlling volumetric changes.
Determination of swell potential
For the swell test, high sulfate soil with 15,000 ppm reagent grade

Table 2
Chemical composition of metakaolin and fly ash.
Chemical Components (wt%) SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO Na2O K2O SO4

Metakaolin 52 43 < 2.2 < 0.2 < 0.10 < 0.05 < 0.40 < 0.05
Class C Fly Ash 41.96 20.04 5.76 21.09 4.3 1.44 0.73 0.99

3
S.D. Khadka, et al.
CaSO4·2H2O was used. High sulfate soil was used as increased swell
behavior was observed when these soils were stabilized with calcium-
based stabilizers [15]. One-dimensional swell test was performed in
accordance to ASTM D4546. Initially, water was thoroughly mixed with
the dry soil to achieve OMC and the moist soil was placed in a sealed
container for at least 16 h prior to stabilization. Geopolymer treatment
was performed at different concentrations and the treated soil was
compacted in a 2.7-inch diameter and 4-inch height compaction mold.
A circular consolidation ring was used to extrude a disc shaped spe-
cimen (2.5-inch diameter and 0.575-inch height) for each swell test.
The height of the test specimen varied slightly at different locations
along the circumference due to the procedure used for sample trimming
with a wire saw. Four measurements of height were made on each test
specimen at 90° intervals. The sample heights at each location was
maintained at less than 2% coefficient of variability from the nominal
height of 0.575-inches. Specimens not meeting this requirement were
discarded. Height of the specimen was taken as the average of four
measurements. Each test was repeated with replicates to verify the re-
peatability of the test results. Prepared samples were sealed in an air-
tight bag for 7 days under ambient conditions (RH ~ 40%, temperature
~23 °C).
Dimension of each specimen was measured at the beginning and
end of 7-days curing period to account for volumetric expansion while
curing. At the end of the curing period, the specimen was placed inside
a consolidation cell where it was laterally confined by a circular ring.
Water was placed in between the inner wall of the consolidation cell
and circular ring and maintained at constant level throughout each test.
Moisture absorption occurred through the porous disk at the bottom of
the specimen. Metallic cap was placed at the top of the specimen.
Vertical swell was measured by Linear Variable Differential
Transformer (LVDT) placed on top of the metallic cap. The complete
setup for the test is presented in Fig. 2. Swell measurements were re-
corded every 20 min until there was no increase in vertical swell over
10 consecutive readings. Total volumetric increase was determined as a
summation of volumetric expansion during curing period and expan-
sion during the period of moisture absorption.
Analysis
Total change in volume of the specimen, through Eqs. (8)–(10).
Dfc2 Hfc − Dic2 Hic
ΔVc =
Dic2 Hic
where,
ΔVc = change in volume of the specimen during curing,
Fig. 2. Schematic of the test setup used for the one-dimensional swell.
Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327
Dic = diameter of the specimen before curing to the nearest 0.001
in,
Hic = average height of the specimen before curing to the nearest
0.001 in,
Dfc = average diameter of the specimen after 7-days curing to the
nearest 0.001 in,
Hfc = average height of the specimen after 7-days curing to the
nearest 0.001 in.
Hfs − Hfc
ΔVs =
Hfc (9)
where,
ΔVs = change in volume of the disc during swelling,
Hfc = average height of the specimen after curing prior to swell test
to the nearest 0.001 in,
Hfs = average height of the specimen after swelling to the nearest
0.001 in.
ΔVT = ΔVC + ΔVS (10)
where,
ΔVT = total change in volume of the disc during curing and swel-
ling,
ΔVc = change in volume of the disc during curing,
ΔVs = change in volume of the disc during swelling.
Mineralogical and microstructural characterization
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD)
were performed to ascertain the mineralogical and microstructural
changes in the additive modified MK and FA geopolymers and their
effect on high sulfate expansive soil after stabilization. In order to ex-
amine crystal morphology and aggregate shapes of soils, and texture
and phase chemistry of the nodules, SEM-EDS investigation by high-
magnification back-scattered electron (BSE) and secondary electron
(SE) imaging was performed using a Hitachi S-4300 E/N field emission
variable pressure scanning electron microscope. A variety of accelera-
tion voltages and beam size conditions were employed to ensure the
best imaging conditions. The ancillary analytical system EDAX Pegasus
4040 was used for EDS spectra acquisition and quantification in a
(8) standardless mode. Chemical data were used as atomic percentages and
were normalized to 100%. Specimens were sputter coated with gold
and double-sided sticky conductive tape was used to attach the speci-
mens to aluminum stub prior to analysis. Lime and gypsum modified
MKG and FAG were analyzed for formation of C-S-H and Ca/Si ratio
4
S.D. Khadka, et al.
was calculated based on EDS phase chemistry to determine the differ-
ence in hydration product in modified specimens [36]. Distinct mi-
crostructural differences in each geopolymer modified with lime and
gypsum were analyzed to establish their effectiveness in controlling the
volumetric changes in high sulfate expansive soil.
XRD was performed using a Rigaku Miniflex II with graphite
monochromator and scintillation detector producing Cu-Kα radiation
with a voltage of 30 kV and a current of 15 mA. Both untreated and
treated soil samples were gently crushed and powdered in an agate
mortar. The powder was then placed in a sample holder before XRD was
performed. Special care was taken to achieve an even, uniform surface
in all test specimens even though the soil moisture contents varied from
one specimen to the other. The data were collected using a step mode
(10 sec per 0.02 °2θ) from 3° to 80° 2θ. Presence of ettringite was
checked in order to test possible correlation between the formation of
ettringite and swell behavior of treated high sulfate expansive soils.
Two separate approaches were used to determine if ettringite was
formed during the treatment process. Firstly, the SEM images obtained
for untreated and treated specimens were examined carefully to de-
termine whether ettringite crystals appeared in the form of needle like
structures 20–30 µm in length. Secondly, XRD patterns obtained from
untreated and treated specimens were analyzed to determine whether
ettringite peaks were present.
Results and discussion
Geopolymer synthesis: proof-of-concept
Mechanical properties of geopolymer vary depending upon the re-
lative molar ratios of silica, alumina and sodium oxides. Among dif-
ferent molar ratios, relative concentration of SiO2/Al2O3 has the most
significant effect on the mechanical properties of synthesized geopo-
lymer [43,44]. Previously performed experimental studies have sug-
gested that high strength geopolymer can be synthesized with SiO2/
Al2O3 molar ratio maintained at 1–3 and Na2O/Al2O3 molar ratio
maintained at 1 [21]. However, it was uncertain if maximum reduction
in swelling would be observed in specimens treated with high strength
geopolymer. Theoretically, high strength geopolymer should result in
lower swelling due to higher interparticle bond strength. For the proof-
of-concept study, a series of swell test were performed on geopolymer
stabilized soil where the Na2O/Al2O3 molar ratio was maintained at
1.06 and SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio was varied between 1.5 and 2. Based
on a previous study, when SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio was lower than 1.5
or higher than 2, the geopolymer did not polymerize and developed low
strength [30]. Similar results were obtained during this study with
SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio lower than 1.5 or higher than 2. Henceforth,
these SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratios were not considered in this study. Per-
cent swell data for Atlanta Clay treated with 9% of MK and FA geo-
polymer at varying Al/Si/Na molar ratio are presented in Fig. 3.
Minimum swell was observed for both MK and FA geopolymer treated
specimens when Al/Si/Na molar ratio was maintained at 1:1.66:1.06.
Based on a previous study, maximum strength geopolymer was ob-
served when Al/Si/Na molar ratio was maintained at 1:1.66:1.06 [30].
This result verifies that maximum reduction in swell is observed when
high strength geopolymer is used to stabilize the soil. Therefore, all the
tests were performed with geopolymer synthesized with Al/Si/Na
molar ratio of 1:1.66:1.06.
Geopolymer modification with additives: stages of incorporation of additives
It was observed that additives had different effect on the final
geopolymer matrix based on the protocol used in the preparation of the
modified geopolymer, specifically the stage during which the additives
were introduced into the mixture. To investigate the significance of
modified geopolymer preparation protocol and to identify precise
synthesis process which yielded minimum swell, a series of swell tests
5
Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327
was performed during which equal quantity of additives was in-
corporated into the geopolymer at different stages of geopolymer
synthesis. The tests were performed on Atlanta Clay with FAG modified
separately using lime and gypsum as modifiers. Three different stages
were identified for incorporation of additives during the geopolymer
synthesis. Case 1: Additives were first completely mixed with FA and
the mixture then activated with alkaline activator solution, Case 2:
Additives were dissolved in the alkaline activator solution, then the FA
was added to the solution, Case 3: FA was activated with alkaline ac-
tivator solution for 5–10 min, then the additives were mixed into the
activated FA.
The results obtained for swell percentage of Atlanta Clay treated
with 9% FAG modified with lime and gypsum are presented in Fig. 4.
Both additives, lime and gypsum, were added at 9.5% by weight of the
geopolymer during this test series. The swell percent data presented in
Fig. 4 show that Case 3 was the most effective among the three pro-
tocols used in the preparation of the modified geopolymer. This was
evident in data obtained for both additives, lime and gypsum.
Case 1 and Case 2 protocols did not allow sufficient time for the
geopolymerization reactions to occur before the additives were in-
troduced into the mixture. These calcium rich compounds have high
rate of reactivity with the alkaline activator solution and cause for-
mation of crystalline or poorly crystalline C-S-H phases [32,34–37].
This, in turn, causes water deficiency, higher pH in the alkaline solution
and higher rate of polycondensation i.e. geopolymerization. The mod-
ified geopolymer produced under these conditions resulted in increased
swell behavior due to ettringite formation through reactions between C-
S-H phases and the sulfate present in the soil. Delay in the addition of
calcium rich additives to the mixture (as done in Case 3) controlled the
formation of C-S-H phases and thus minimized ettringite related swell
behavior.
The data obtained from this test series clearly demonstrated the
need to follow proper mixing protocol in the preparation of the mod-
ified geopolymer. Therefore, throughout the remainder of this test
program, lime and gypsum additives were introduced into the alumi-
nosilicate-alkaline activator solution mixture only after allowing suffi-
cient time for the geopolymerization reactions to occur.
Geopolymer modification: Determination of concentration of additives for
minimum swell
Calcium in geopolymer matrix behaves like a seeding or pre-
cipitating element catalyzing the formation of hydration products.
Several researchers have reported formation of C-S-H phases in the
geopolymer matrix when a significant amount of calcium is present [34
–37]. However, absence of C-S-H phases were reported when higher
calcium additive of 50% Ca(OH)2 was incorporated into the geopo-
lymer matrix [45]. At low calcium concentrations, insufficient Ca2+
ions in alkaline solution resulted in low concentration of [OH–] ions,
hence, no C-S-H phases were produced initially, and the prevailing
reaction was formation of geopolymer matrix [32]. Based on previous
studies, it was concluded that an optimum amount of additive is re-
quired for formation of C-S-H in the geopolymer matrix so that reduced
swelling in high sulfate expansive soil is achieved without adversely
affecting the swell behavior by ettringite formation. To verify this hy-
pothesis, a series of tests was performed on Atlanta Clay treated with
different concentration of FAG modified with varying concentrations of
gypsum. The tests were performed to determine the optimum amount of
gypsum incorporated into geopolymer matrix which will result in
minimum swell of high sulfate expansive soil. The results obtained from
these tests are presented in Fig. 5.
At different geopolymer concentration, minimum swell was ob-
served when the gypsum concentration was in the range of 6.0–9.5% of
the geopolymer. At each geopolymer concentration, higher swelling
was observed when gypsum concentration was either higher or lower
than the optimum. From Fig. 5, it is evident that presence of C-S-H
S.D. Khadka, et al.
Fig. 3. Swell percentages for Atlanta Clay treated with 9% MK and FA geopolymer at different Al/Si/Na molar ratios.
Fig. 4. Swell percentages of Atlanta clay treated with 9 wt% geopolymer modified by adding lime and gypsum at different stages of geopolymer synthesis.
phases in geopolymer aids in further reduction of swell behavior in
treated soil. Increase in swell at lower gypsum concentration is pri-
marily due to insufficient Ca2+ in the alkaline solution to produce C-S-
H phases [32]. Similarly, at higher gypsum concentrations, excess Ca2+
hindered C-S-H formation as well as geopolymerization reaction which
in turn resulted in higher swell. Hence, minimum swell was obtained
for each geopolymer concentration when the optimum concentration of
additive was incorporated into the geopolymer as summarized in
Table 3.
Finally, modification of geopolymer was performed by in-
corporating additives in concentration by weight of the geopolymer as
provided in Table 3 where additives were incorporated into the mixture
after the geopolymerization had been initiated followed by stabilization
of high sulfate soil.
The following acronyms, shown in Table 4 below, are used in this
paper to identify different procedures used in the modification of geo-
polymers.
6
Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327
SEM Microstructural study of geopolymer with different additives
Fig. 6(a) shows a representative scanning electron micrograph of
NM-MKG matrix without any additives. Microstructural features ob-
served in this micrograph represent a single phase of uniform homo-
geneity with Si/Al and Na/Al molar ratios at 4.21 and 0.74, respectively
with no traces of calcium present in the matrix. Semi-quantitative ele-
mental data obtained from EDS analysis performed on the geopolymer
matrix (see Table 5) confirmed absence of calcium with Ca/Si molar
ratio of 0.
In contrast to NM-MKG, two distinct phases were observed in mi-
crographs of LM-MKG and GM-MKG as shown in Fig. 6(b) and (c), re-
spectively. Presence of two phases can be attributed to the incorpora-
tion of additives during synthesis of the geopolymer. As shown in
Fig. 6(b) and (c), Phase M represents geopolymer matrix with Si/Al and
Na/Al molar ratios of 4.0 and 0.74, respectively in both matrices.
Alonso and Palomo made similar observation in MKG modified with
lime [46,47]. In another study, Yip reported that MKG modified with
GGBFS addition formed two distinct phases and the modified geopo-
lymer matrix still maintained same characteristics as that of MKG
S.D. Khadka, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327

Fig. 6. SEM-BSE imagery of (a) NM-MKG (b) LM-MKG (c) GM-MKG (d) NM-
FAG (e) LM-FAG (f) GM-FAG. Note: C represents cement, M represents geopo-
lymer matrix and T represents transition between cement and geopolymer
matrix.

Fig. 5. Swell percentage of geopolymer stabilized Atlanta Clay with different Table 5
percentages of gypsum modification (a) 6% Geopolymer (b) 9% Geopolymer (c) Si/Al, Na/Al and Ca/Si molar ratios of NM-MKG, LM-MKG, GM-MKG, NM-FAG,
12% Geopolymer (d) 15% Geopolymer (e) 18% Geopolymer. LM-FAG and GM-FAG.
Geopolymer Reference Modification Designation Si/Al Na/Al Ca/Si
Table 3
Concentration of additive by weight percentage of geopolymer to achieve op- Metakaolin Fig. 6 (a) Unmodified Matrix (M) 4.218 0.74 0
timum modification. Fig. 6 (b) Lime Cement (C) 5.91 2.06 1.54
Transition (T) 4.4 0.72 0.59
Geopolymer concentration 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% Matrix (M) 4 0.74 0.11
Fig. 6 (c) Gypsum Cement (C) 7.93 2.4 1.64
Additive (Lime or Gypsum) Concentration by 7% 9.5% 6% 9.5% 8% Transition (T) 4.02 2.56 0.08
weight of Geopolymer Matrix (M) 4 0.74 0.11
Fly ash Fig. 6 (d) Unmodified Matrix (M) 9.66 3.32 0.32
Cement (C) 6.46 1.26 1.02
Table 4 Fig. 6 (e) Lime Matrix (M) 7.92 2.85 0.34
Matrix for representation of different Geopolymer. Fig. 6 (f) Gypsum Matrix (M) 6.73 1.99 0.45

Aluminosilicate Modifier Designation Representation

incorporated into the matrix. A transition band was observed in be-
Metakaolin None Non-modified Metakaolin NM-MKG
Geopolymer tween these phases with an intermediate elemental composition as
Lime Lime Modified Metakaolin LM-MKG identified by EDS.
Geopolymer Phase C in Fig. 6 (b) and (c) has a Ca/Si ratio of 1.54 and 1.64,
Gypsum Gypsum Modified Metakaolin GM-MKG
respectively. Richardson indicated that the C-S-H phases in neat Port-
Geopolymer
Fly Ash None Non-modified Fly ash Geopolymer NM-FAG
land cement pastes generally contained a mean Ca/Si ratio of ~1.75
Gypsum Lime Modified Fly ash Geopolymer LM-FAG with local variability between 1.2 and 2.1 within the paste [48]. Phase
Lime Gypsum Modified Fly ash GM-FAG C present in LM-MKG and GM-MKG is comparable to the C-S-H ob-
Geopolymer tained by hydration of cement. However, in a study performed by Yip
on MKG modified with GGBFS observed C-S-H phase with Ca/Si ratio of
~1.1 [36]. The variation in Ca/Si ratio can be due to a difference in
without GGBFS addition [36]. Similar observation was made in this
modifying material which can cause the ratio to fluctuate [48]. Alu-
study where Si/Al and Na/Al molar ratios in Phase M of the LM-MKG
minum content decreased significantly in Phase C when compared with
and GM-MKG matrix was consistent with the NM-MKG. Hence, it was
Phase M as presented in Table 6. Small traces of aluminum present in
concluded that the addition of lime and gypsum in the MKG during
Phase C can be due to the substitution of silica [49]. Presence of higher
synthesis did not significantly alter the MKG matrix. Ca/Si molar ratio
sodium content also indicates that other minor constituents can be
of 0.11 was observed from EDS analysis. Lower Ca/Si ratio is an in-
present in Phase C and can also result in calcium being substituted by
dicative of small traces of calcium from lime and gypsum that were
sodium in the structure [36].

7
S.D. Khadka, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327

Table 6
Ca, Si, Al and Na weight percentages of NM-MKG, LM-MKG, GM-MKG, NM-FAG, LM-FAG and GM-FAG.
Geopolymer Reference Modification Designation Ca Si Al Na

Metakaolin Fig. 6 (a) Unmodified Matrix (M) 0 58.55 23.3 11.69

Fig. 6 (b) Lime Cement (C) 48.18 15.32 2.07 3.67
Transition (T) 19.49 45.5 18.07 9.48
Matrix (M) 7.8 50.45 23.43 13.94
Fig. 6 (c) Gypsum Cement (C) 42.84 17.65 4.17 7.83
Transition (T) 3.29 27.07 12.59 25.13
Matrix (M) 7.8 50.45 23.43 13.94
Fly ash Fig. 6 (d) Unmodified Matrix (M) 19.58 41.82 7.99 19.4
Cement (C) 34.69 29.92 14.02 1.85
Fig. 6 (e) Lime Matrix (M) 17.89 36.2 8.65 19.9
Fig. 6 (f) Gypsum Matrix (M) 20.06 29.69 8.01 11.58

C-S-H being an amorphous, nanoporous structure with large surface
area, can develop high affinity to water. Water can get adsorbed on the
surface nanoporous structure, causing deficit of water in the sur-
rounding matrix and resulting in formation of cracks [50]. This explains
the microcracks originating from C-S-H phases for both LM-MKG and
GM-MKG as seen in Fig. 6 (b) and (c).
For NM-FAG, distinct C-S-H phases were not observed. C-S-H phases
were highly reduced and sparsely distributed as shown in Fig. 6(d). In
LM-FAG and GM-FAG, C-S-H phases corresponding to cement hydration
were no longer present as observed in Fig. 6(e) and (f), respectively.
The geopolymer matrix contained higher Ca/Si ratio of 0.34 for LM-
FAG and 0.45 for GM-FAG as compared to 0.11 for LM-MKG and GM-
MKG. This is mainly due to higher concentration of calcium in the FAG
matrix as shown in Table 6. Si/Al and Na/Al ratios for both non-mod-
ified and modified FAG were significantly different from MKG matrix as
presented in Table 5. Morphologically, homogeneous microstructure
could be observed for LM-FAG and GM-FAG when compared to NM-
FAG where partially reacted fly ash spheres were visible. This suggests
that added calcium acts as a precipitating site and poorly ordered
crystalline C-S-H were formed by interaction of calcium compounds
with aluminosilicate and alkaline activator solution. Similar observa-
tion was made by Temuujin during SEM analysis performed on non-
calcium and 1% and 3% calcium added geopolymers [33].
Swell behavior of high sulfate soil treated with non-modified and modified
MKG and FAG
Atlanta Clay with high sulfate was initially treated with NM-MKG at
concentrations of 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18% of the dry soil. As shown in
Fig. 7, it was observed that at 6, 12 and 15%, NM-MKG treated Atlanta
Clay had swelling higher than untreated clay with slight reduction in
swell observed at 9 and 18%. However, reduction in swell percentages
were observed for both LM-MKG and GM-MKG while the lowest swell
percentages were observed for GM-MKG.
SEM analysis of NM-MKG, LM-MKG and GM-MKG treated Atlanta
clay as shown in Fig. 8(a), (b) and (c) revealed different morphological
features under different treatments. It was observed that clay surface
demonstrated smooth relief with nearly polished structure for NM-MKG
treated specimens, Fig. 8(a). For LM-MKG treated specimens, Fig. 8(b),
the surface was slightly rough and had somewhat uneven relief. GM-
MKG treated specimens, Fig. 8(c), demonstrated lumpy surface with
fissures. Morphological differences between these specimens can be
attributed to reduction in plasticity, change in morphological structures
and variation in optimum moisture of the soil with treatment. Highest
reduction in plasticity was observed for GM-MKG followed by LM-MKG
and NM-MKG consistent with the morphological features observed in
SEM imagery. Reduction in plasticity resulted in highly uneven surfaces
of GM-MKG, slightly uneven surface for LM-MKG and smooth surface in
NM-MKG treated specimens prepared for SEM analysis. Greater uneven
relief seen in SEM images Fig. 8(c) and (f) directly correlates with the
reduced swell behavior of GM-MKG as observed in Fig. 7.
Based on the results from Tables 7 and 8, it can be observed that
GM-MKG treated Atlanta clay had slightly lower Si/Al ratio when
compared with the specimens treated with LM-MKG. This could have
been a determining factor in decreasing the swell percentages of Atlanta
clay specimens treated with gypsum modified geopolymer.

Fig. 7. Atlanta Clay treated with Metakaolin Geopolymer.

8
S.D. Khadka, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327

geopolymer matrix. However, field applicability of such approach is not

viable as gypsum in soil is generally non-uniformly distributed which
would yield highly variable swell results over the stabilized area. For
uniformity in the behavior of treated soil, geopolymer needs to be
modified with lime or gypsum prior to treatment with Atlanta Clay.
SEM analysis shown in Fig. 8(d), (e) and (f) revealed significant
morphological differences between NM-FAG, LM-FAG and GM-FAG
treated specimens. Morphological structures with highly uneven relief
were observed for GM-FAG treated specimens as seen in Fig. 8(f). Si-
milarly, slightly rough surface with some traces of uneven relief was
also observed for LM-FAG treated specimens, Fig. 8(e). These mor-
phological features are similar to those observed for MKG treated clay.
However, higher degree uneven relief was observed for FAG treated
specimens for individual modification as compared to MKG treated
clay. It can be attributed to higher amount of calcium being in-
corporated into the GM-FAG and LM-FAG matrix when compared to
corresponding GM-MKG and LM-MKG as shown in Tables 5 and 6. As
higher amounts of calcium are incorporated into the GM-FAG and LM-
FAG matrix, either minimal or no calcium will be freely available in the
soil treated with these geopolymers. Absence of free calcium in these
samples therefore results in lower swell of high sulfate soil. This vali-
dates the lower swelling observed in lime and gypsum modified FAG
treated specimens in Fig. 9 when compared to MKG specimens for each
concentration as shown in Fig. 7. Si/Al ratio plays a critical role in
controlling the swell behavior. It was consistently observed in MKG and
FAG stabilized clay specimens as presented in Table 7 that with re-
duction in Si/Al ratio and increase in Na/Al ratio in the treated soil,
Fig. 8. SEM-BSE imagery of (a) NM-MKG (b) LM-MKG (c) GM-MKG (d) NM- reduction in swell behavior would be obtained.
FAG (e) LM-FAG (f) GM-FAG treated Atlanta Clay. Note: C represents cement, M Clay minerals are phyllosilicates of various structure that can ex-
represents geopolymer matrix and T represents transition between cement and
hibit contrasting swelling behavior based on sheet arrangements and
geopolymer matrix.
mechanism of hydration [51]. In order to demonstrate gypsum and lime
modified metakaolin and fly ash geopolymers as effective stabilizers,
Table 7 swell tests were performed on Dallas clay (vermiculitic soil). The results
Si/Al, Na/Al and Ca/Si molar ratios of unmodified, lime and gypsum modified are presented in Figs. 10 and 11.
metakaolin and fly ash geopolymer treated atlanta clay. Both lime and gypsum modified metakaolin and fly ash geopolymer
Geopolymer Reference Modification Ca/Si Si/Al Na/Al showed significant reduction in swell behavior for Dallas clay. These
trends are similar to those observed for Atlanta Clay. This verifies that
Metakolin Fig. 8 (a) Unmodified 0.05 5.79 0.00
the lime and gypsum modified metakaolin and fly ash geopolymers are
Fig. 8 (b) Lime 0.10 4.53 0.07
Fig. 8 (c) Gypsum 0.07 4.00 0.07
effective in controlling the swell behavior of expansive soils.
Fly ash Fig. 8 (d) Unmodified 9.66 3.32 0.32
Fig. 8 (e) Lime 7.92 2.85 0.34 XRD analysis of clay treated with geopolymer constituting different additives
Fig. 8 (f) Gypsum 6.73 1.99 0.45

The X-ray diffraction patterns for Atlanta Clay treated with NM-
MKG, LM-MKG, GM-MKG, NM-FAG, LM-FAG and GM-FAG are pre-
Table 8
sented in Fig. 12. Diffractograms did not reveal the presence of et-
Ca, Si, Al and Na weight percentages of unmodified, lime and gypsum modified
tringite in any of the specimens treated with geopolymers. This suggests
metakaolin and fly ash geopolymer treated atlanta clay.
that ettringite was not formed during the treatment of high sulfate soil,
Geopolymer Reference Modification Ca Si Al Na which confirms the initial hypothesis that optimum quantity of ad-
ditives incorporated into the geopolymer minimizes ettringite forma-
Metakolin Fig. 8 (a) Unmodified 4.98 70.37 22.69 0.06
Fig. 8 (b) Lime 8.43 55.41 21.2 1.11 tion, thus, resulting in the reduction of swell potential of high sulfate
Fig. 8 (c) Gypsum 6.21 61.07 25.23 1.19 expansive soils. High sulfate soils, when treated with calcium-based
Fly ash Fig. 8 (d) Unmodified 11.11 58 19.08 1.87 stabilizers, often result in rapid formation of ettringite within few days
Fig. 8 (e) Lime 19.33 56.83 17.15 2.03
of treatment. This was clearly evident in the data obtained in previous
Fig. 8 (f) Gypsum 10.95 60.08 18.99 1.82
phases of our study where ettringite was observed within 7-days
[30,52]. However, when equivalent quantity of lime was used to
Fig. 9 shows percent swell data for FAG treated Atlanta Clay with modify the geopolymer and the modified geopolymer was used to treat
sulfate. Significant reduction in swell was observed when Atlanta Clay high sulfate soil, ettringite was not observed within 7-days. Other re-
with sulfate was treated with NM-FAG. The swell results for NM-FAG searches have observed that ettringite can develop in treated soil after
treated specimens with sulfate are compared with NM-FAG treated extended periods [13,14]. To confirm that the ettringite did not develop
Atlanta clay without any sulfate in the soil [30]. In comparison to in the treated Atlanta Clay after extended period, X-ray diffraction tests
specimens without any sulfate, significant decrease in swell percentage were performed on LM-MKG, GM-MKG, LM-FAG and GM-FAG treated
of NM-FAG treated Atlanta clay was observed when sulfate was present specimens up to 120 days after treatment. X-ray diffraction patters of
in the soil. Therefore, it may be deduced that observed reduction in these specimens did not reveal presence of any ettringite indicating that
swell behavior resulted from the presence of sulfate (gypsum) in the soil no further changes occurred beyond the initial observation period of 7-
which reacted with the geopolymer causing modification of the days.
X-ray diffraction patterns of treated soil showed variation in

9
S.D. Khadka, et al.
Fig. 9. Atlanta Clay treated with Fly ash Geopolymer.
intensity of montmorillonite diagnostic reflexes depending on the type
of additive used in the modified geopolymer. Minimum peak intensities
of montmorillonitic smectite were reported for GM-FAG treated speci-
mens suggesting a reduced periodicity and comparative lower crystal-
linity of these samples. This further explains swell results observed for
GM-FAG treated specimens where minimum swell was observed com-
pared to lime modified and non-modified geopolymers.
Conclusions
In this study, two different aluminosilicates, metakaolin and fly ash,
were used to synthesize two different forms of geopolymer described as
metakaolin and fly ash geopolymers (MKG and FAG), respectively. Lime
and gypsum were added to these geopolymers at different concentra-
tions. The modified geopolymers were then analyzed to determine the
mechanisms of modification. Finally, different concentrations of mod-
ified geopolymers were used to stabilize Montmorillonitic and
Vermiculitic clays from Atlanta and Dallas, respectively. Following
conclusions were drawn from the above experimental study:
MKG and FAG can be optimized based on Al/Si/Na molar ratio to
Fig. 10. Dallas Clay treated with Metakaolin Geopolymer.
10
Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327
achieve minimum swell in an expansive clay. For this study, the
optimal Al/Si/Na molar ratio was determined to be 1:1.66:1.06.
Additives have definite influence on the final geopolymer matrix
and the composition of the final product varies based on the stage
during which the additive is incorporated. Findings from this study
confirm that geopolymer synthesized by incorporating additives
after mixing alkaline activator solution and aluminosilicate results
in minimum swell.
Concentration of additives incorporated into the geopolymer affects
the behavior of the synthesized geopolymer. In this study it was
observed that minimum swell is obtained when the concentration of
additives incorporated into the geopolymer was in the range of
6.0–9.5% by weight of the geopolymer.
MKG when modified by incorporating calcium-based additives re-
sulted in distinct C-S-H phases which were comparable to the C-S-H
phase obtained during cement hydration. Incorporation of additives
during the synthesis of MKG did not significantly alter the geopo-
lymer matrix as Si/Al and Na/Al molar ratios obtained in both
modified and non-modified MKG were similar.
Distinct C-S-H phases were no longer present in FAG modified with
calcium-based additives. Si/Al and Na/Al ratios for modified and
S.D. Khadka, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327

Fig. 11. Dallas Clay treated with Fly ash Geopolymer.

non-modified FAG matrix were significantly different from those with modified geopolymer. Absence of ettringite can be attributed to
corresponding to MKG. the optimum quantity of additives used for synthesis of the geopo-
Both lime and gypsum modified geopolymers were effective in lymer which minimized the amount of Ca2+ ions released into the
controlling the swell behavior of expansive clay. Gypsum modified treated soil.
geopolymer was found to be more effective in controlling swelling
when compared to lime modified geopolymer at each geopolymer
Recommendations for future research
concentration. In all cases, gypsum modified geopolymer was more
effective in reducing the swell compared to lime modified geopo-
This research study was primarily focused on the development of a
lymer for both MKG and FAG treated clay.
new protocol for stabilization of sulfate-rich, high PI clay soils and
Formation of ettringite did not occur in any of the specimens treated
optimizing the new treatment protocol to achieve maximum

Fig. 12. XRD pattern for NM-MKG, LM-MKG, GM-MKG, NM-FAG, LM-FAG and GM-FAG treated Atlanta Clay.

11
S.D. Khadka, et al.
effectiveness. In addition, SEM-EDS and X-ray diffraction studies were
undertaken to characterize the treatment media, the treated soil and to
identify chemical processes and mechanisms that contribute to im-
provement in soil behavior with respect to shrink-swell. The mechan-
isms proposed based on the findings from the above SEM-EDS and X-ray
diffraction studies should be considered preliminary. More in-depth
research should be undertaken so that the structure characteristics of
the geopolymers and the modified geopolymers can be defined more
completely. Future research should also examine possible formation of
gels of type N-A-S-H and C-A-S-H and any contribution they may make
in improving the swell behavior of stabilized soil besides C-S-H.
Suggested field application
In the field, majority of sulfates occur as gypsum which is a hy-
drated form of calcium sulfate. Gypsum is stable in different tempera-
ture, pressure and hydrogeological conditions but is highly soluble in
water. Therefore, large amounts of gypsum get dissolved and moved
around with groundwater. This causes sulfate to occur in pockets as
veins and nodules. So, even in high sulfate areas some sections can
contain large concentration of gypsum while other sections can be
completely devoid of sulfate. This study has demonstrated that both
modified MKG and modified FAG can be used to treat sulfate bearing
clay soils regardless of the natural soil sulfate content to achieve ef-
fective reduction in swell behavior. In other words, natural soil sulfate
content does not have significant impact on the effectiveness of mod-
ified geopolymer as a soil stabilizing agent.
Another concern with field application of geopolymer has to do with
achieving proper mixing of geopolymer slurry and soil. As clays with
high plasticity can occur in chunks, the soil must be scarified and
pulverized completely by using a grader-scarifier and/or disc harrow.
Geopolymer can then be discharged by distributor trucks with dispenser
bars followed by mixing with a rotary mixer. In situations where the
native soil is above optimum moisture content, dry mixing of the alu-
minosilicate precursor (metakaolin or fly ash) can be performed. The
dry mixing should not be performed under windy conditions due to
excessive dusting. Uniform spreading of the aluminosilicate precursor
can be achieved by a mechanical spreader. The soil can then be pul-
verized and mixed with the precursor using a rotary mixer. Finally,
alkaline solution and modifier can be added to the soil to achieve sta-
bilization.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge Texas Department of
Transportation for funding this research project. Technical support by
Dr. Bo Zhao for assisting with SEM-EDS (NSF MRI 04-551 College of
Arts and Sciences Microscopy, Texas Tech University) is greatly ap-
preciated.
References
[1] Olive WW, Chleborad AF, Frahme CW, Shlocker J, Schneider RR, Schuster RL.
Swelling clays map of the conterminous United States. IMAP 1940. https://doi.org/
10.3133/i1940.
[2] I. Barshad. Absorptive and swelling properties of clay-water system. Clay Clay Tech.
169 (1995) 70–77. http://pubs.geothermal-library.org/lib/grc/1021015.pdf.
[3] B. Kalantari. Foundations on Expansive Soils: A Review, J. of Appl. Sci. Eng. Tech., 4
(18) (2012) 3231–3237. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268061218_
Foundations_on_Expansive_Soils_A_Review.
[4] Nelson JD, Miller JD. Expansive soils: Problems and practice in foundation and
pavement engineering. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1992;23:1067–9. https://
doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(19990825)23:10<1067::AID-NAG994>3.0.
CO;2-E.
[5] F. H. Chen. Foundations on expansive soils, Elsevier, Second ed., New York, 1988.
[6] G. P. Makusa. Soil stabilization methods and materials. https://www.diva-portal.
org/smash/get/diva2:997144/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
[7] H Afrin. A Review on Different Types Soil Stabilization Techniques, Int. J. of Transp.
Eng. Tech., 3 (2) (2017) 19–24. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijtet.20170302.12.
[8] S. Diamond, E.B. Kinter. Mechanisms of Soil-Lime Stabilization: An Interpretive
12
Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327
Review, Presented at the Transportation Research Board 44th Annual Meeting.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/hrr/1965/92/92-006.pdf.
[9] J.K. Mitchell, D. Dermatas. Clay soil heave caused by lime-sulfate reactions, ASTM
Int., West Conshohocken, PA, (1992) 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP15529S.
[10] Kota PBVS, Hazlett D, Perrin L. Sulfate-bearing soils: problems with calcium-based
stabilizers. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 1996;1546:62–9. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0361198196154600107.
[11] P. Harris, T. Scullion, S. Sebesta. Hydrated lime stabilization of sulfate-bearing soils
in Texas, Report No. FHWA/TX-04/0-4240-2. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.
edu/documents/0-4240-2.pdf.
[12] D. N. Little, S. Nair. Sensitivity of selected Colorado soils to form ettringite/thau-
masite when treated with calciumbased stabilizers and when soluble sulfates are
available, Report No. CDOT-2007-14. < https://www.codot.gov/programs/
research/pdfs/2007/sulfatesoils.pdf/view > .
[13] A.B. Cerato, G.A. Miller, M. Elwood-Madden, A. Adams. M.C. Varnier. Calcium-
based stabilizer induced heave in oklahoma sulfate-bearing soils, Final Report –
FHWA-OK-11-03. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/23202/dot_23202_DS1.pdf?.
[14] Puppala AJ, Intharasombat N, Vempati RK. Experimental studies on ettringite-in-
duced heaving in soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005;131(3):325–37. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005) 131:3(325).
[15] D. Hunter. The geochemistry of lime-induced heave in sulfate bearing clay soils.
http://hdl.handle.net/11714/1385.
[16] Wild S, Kinuthia JM, Jones GI, Higgins DD. Suppression of swelling associated with
ettringite formation in lime stabilized sulphate bearing clay soils by partial sub-
stitution of lime with ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBFS). Eng Geol
1999;51:257–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(98)00069-6.
[17] Puppala AJ, Griffin JA, Hoyos LR, Chomtid S. Studies on sulfate-resistant cement
stabilization methods to address sulfate-induced soil heave. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 2004;130(4):391–402. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)
130:4(391).
[18] N. Talluri. Stabilization of high sulfate soils. https://rc.library.uta.edu/uta-ir/
bitstream/handle/10106/23923/Talluri_uta_2502D_12312.pdf?sequence=1.
[19] P. Harris, J. V. Holdt, S. Sebesta, T. Scullion. Recommendations for stabilization of
high sulfate soils in Texas, Report No. FHWA/TX-06/0-4240-3. https://static.tti.
tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4240-3.pdf.
[20] Davidovits J. Geopolymers and Geopolymeric materials. J Therm Anal
1994;35(2):429–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01904446.
[21] J. Davidovits. Geopolymer: Inorganic polymeric new materials. J. Therm. Anal., 37
(1991) 1633–1656. https://www.geopolymer.org/fichiers_pdf/J_THERMAL.pdf.
[22] Wu HC, Sun P. New building materials from fly ash-based lightweight inorganic
polymer. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:211–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2005.06.052.
[23] Bakri AMM, Kamarudin H, Bnhussain M, Nizar IK, Rafiza AR, Zarina Y. The pro-
cessing, characterization and properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Rev
Adv Mater Sci 2012;30:90–7.
[24] Fan F, Liu Z, Xu G, Peng H, Cai CS. Mechanical and thermal properties of fly ash
based geopolymers. Constr Build Mater 2018;160:66–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2017.11.023.
[25] Zhang HY, Kodur V, Wua B, Cao L, Wang F. Thermal behavior and mechanical
properties of geopolymer mortar after exposure to elevated temperatures. Constr
Build Mater 2016;109:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.043.
[26] Zhang HY, Kodur V, Wua B, Yan J, Yuan ZS. Effect of temperature on bond char-
acteristics of geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 2018;163:277–85. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.043.
[27] Albitar M, Ali MSM, Visintin P, Drechsler M. Durability evaluation of geopolymer
and conventional concretes. Constr Build Mater 2017;136:374–85. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.056.
[28] Mehta A, Siddique R. Sulfuric acid resistance of fly ash based geopolymer concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2017;146:136–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2017.04.077.
[29] Zhang M, Guo H, El-Korchi T, Zhang G, Tao M. Experimental feasibility study of
geopolymer as the next-generation soil stabilizer. Constr Build Mater
2013;47:1468–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.017.
[30] Khadka SD, Jayawickrama PW, Senadheera S. Strength and shrink/swell behavior
of high plastic clay treated with geopolymer. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board
2018:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118797214.
[31] Zhang M, Zhao M, Zhang G, Nowak P, Coen A, Tao M. Calcium-free geopolymer as a
stabilizer for sulfate-rich soils. Appl Clay Sci 2015;108:199–207. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.clay.2015.02.029.
[32] Granizo ML, Alonso S, Blanco-Varela MT, Palomo A. Alkaline activation of meta-
kaolin: effect of calcium hydroxide in the products of reaction. J Am Ceram Soc
2002;85(1):225–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.2002.tb00070.x.
[33] Temuujin J, Riessen AV, Williams R. Influence of calcium compounds on the me-
chanical properties of fly ash geopolymer pastes. J Hazard Mater 2009;167:82–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.12.121.
[34] Dombrowski K, Buchwald A, Weil M. The influence of calcium content on the
structure and thermal performance of fly ash based geopolymers. J Mater Sci
2007;42(9):3033–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0532-7.
[35] Yip CK, Deventer JSJV. Microanalysis of calcium silicate hydrate gel formed within
a geopolymeric binder. J Mater Sci 2003;38:3851–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1025904905176.
[36] Yip CK, Lukey GC, Deventer JSJV. The coexistence of geopolymeric gel and calcium
silicate hydrate at the early stage of alkaline activation. Cem Concr Res
2005;35:1688–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.10.042.
[37] Ma W, Brown PW. Hydrothermal reactions of fly ash with Ca(OH)2 and
CaSO4.2H2O. Cem Concr Res 1997;27(8):1237–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S.D. Khadka, et al.
S0008-8846(97)00116-6.
[38] Puppala AJ, Manosuthikij T, Chittoori BCS. Swell and shrinkage characterizations
of unsaturated expansive clays from Texas. Eng Geol 2013;164:187–94. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.07.001.
[39] Ureña C, Azañón JM, Corpas F, Nieto F, León C, Pérez L. Magnesium hydroxide,
seawater and olive mill wastewater to reduce swelling potential and plasticity of
bentonite soil. Constr Build Mater 2013;45:289–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2013.03.053.
[40] Mašin D, Khalili N. Swelling phenomena and effective stress in compacted ex-
pansive clays. Can Geotech J 2016;53(1):134–47. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-
2014-0479.
[41] Mooney RW, Keenan AG, Wood LA. Adsorption of water vapor by montmorillonite.
I. Heat of desorption and application of BET theory. J Am Chem Soc
1952;74:1367–71. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01126a001.
[42] Garrett WG, Walker GF. Swelling of some vermiculite-organic complexes in water.
Natl Conf Clays Clay Miner 1962;557–558(558a):559–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-1-4831-9842-2.50044-4.
[43] Steveson M, Sagoe-Crentsil K. Relationships between composition, structure and
strength of inorganic polymers. Part I Metakaolin-derived inorganic polymers. J
Mater Sci 2005;40:2023–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-005-1226-2.
[44] Steveson M, Sagoe-Crentsil K. Relationships between composition, structure and
strength of inorganic polymers. Part II Fly ash-derived inorganic polymers. J Mater
13
Transportation Geotechnics 23 (2020) 100327
Sci 2005;40:4247–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-005-2794-x.
[45] MacKenzie KJD, Smith ME, Wong A. A multinuclear MAS NMR study of calcium-
containing aluminosilicate inorganic polymers. J Mater Chem 2007;17:5090–6.
https://doi.org/10.1039/b712922j.
[46] Alonso S, Palomo A. Alkaline activation of metakaolin and calcium hydroxide
mixtures: influence of temperature, activator concentration and solids ratio. Mater
Lett 2001;47:55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-577X(00)00212-3.
[47] Alonso S, Palomo A. Calorimetric study of alkaline activation of calcium hydroxide
metakaolin solid mixtures. Cem Concr Res 2001;31:25–30. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0008-8846(00)00435-X.
[48] Richardson IG. The nature of C-S–H in hardened cements. Cem Concr Res
1999;29:1131–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00168-4.
[49] Richardson IG, Cabrera JG. The nature of C-S–H in model slag cements. Cem Concr
Compos 2000;22:259–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(00)00022-6.
[50] Taylor HFW. Nanostructure of C-S-H: Current Status. Adv Cem Based Mater
1993;1:38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/1065-7355(93)90006-A.
[51] Foster MD. The relation between composition and swelling in clays. Clays Clay
Miner 1954;3(1):205–20. https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1954.0030117.
[52] Mahrous MA, Šegvić B, Zanoni G, Khadka SD, Senadheera S, Jayawickrama PW.
The role of clay swelling and mineral neoformation in the stabilization of high
plasticity soils treated with fly ash- and metakaolin-based geopolymers. Miner
2018;8(4):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/min8040146.