Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: 1468-0629 (Print) 2164-7402 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20

Stabilisation of soils with emulsified sulphur

asphalt for road applications

Gamil M.S. Abdullah & Hamad I. Al-Abdul Wahhab

To cite this article: Gamil M.S. Abdullah & Hamad I. Al-Abdul Wahhab (2018): Stabilisation of soils
with emulsified sulphur asphalt for road applications, Road Materials and Pavement Design, DOI:
10.1080/14680629.2018.1436465

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2018.1436465

Published online: 13 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20
Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2018.1436465

Stabilisation of soils with emulsified sulphur asphalt for road applications

Gamil M.S. Abdullaha∗ and Hamad I. Al-Abdul Wahhabb

a Department of Civil Engineering, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia; b Department of Civil
Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

(Received 13 March 2017; accepted 26 January 2018 )

This paper presents the study carried out to assess and compare the performance of marginal
soils, namely marl, sabkha and dune sand stabilised with emulsified sulphur asphalt (ESA)
with the mixtures of the same soils stabilised with conventional emulsified asphalt (EA) to be
used as a base layer for road layers. The mixtures of ESA and EA for the three marginal soils
were designed utilising 2% Portland cement and were optimised to meet dry and wet Mar-
shall stability requirements. Designed mixtures were assessed for dry indirect tensile strength
(ITS), static triaxial (shear strength) and dynamic resilient modulus at 22°C. Results indicate
that ESA decreased the stability and shear strength of the treated soils compared to the con-
ventional EA. On the other hand, there was an improvement in ITS, especially for marl and
sabkha soils, and an increase in the resilient modulus of soils–ESA mixtures compared with
standard soils–EA mixtures. ESA can be used successfully to construct base layers for roads
from available marginal soils since it fulfilled the specification requirements.
Keywords: emulsified sulphur asphalt; sulphur; marginal soils; mixtures; stabilised base

Background
Many parts of the world, where desert and semi-desert environment prevails, lack good quality
road construction materials. One of the typical examples of such environment is the Arabian
Gulf and coastal areas of the Red Sea. Due to the rapid growing population and expansion of
industrial facilities, huge industrial cities and associated network of roads and airports have been
constructed. The scarcity of good quality soils has led to the increased construction cost of road
projects which in turn increased the need to look for alternative methods to improve the quality
of the huge marginal soils available in these environments to be used in construction projects
through soil stabilisation. Several soil treatment stabilisers have been used including cement,
lime, asphalt, cement kiln dust, fly ash, acids, enzymes, polymers, ion-modifiers, etc. (Abdullah,
2009; Aiban, Al-Abdul Wahhab, & Al-Amoudi, 1999; Aiban, Al-Amoudi, Ahmed, & Al-Abdul
Wahhab, 1997; Al-Abdul Wahhab & Abduljauwad, 1989; Asi, Al-Abdul Wahhab, Al-Amoudi,
& Siddiqui, 2002; Asi, Siddiqui, Al-Abdul Wahhab, & Khan, 1999). Soil stabilisation is used to
improve the engineering properties of the soil in order to fulfil the project specifications for the
intended use.
Asphalt emulsion is a mixture of asphalt binder and water that includes a small amount of an
emulsifying agent to cause the asphalt to become mixed with or suspended in the water. Asphalt
emulsion may be either anionic with electronegatively charged asphalt globules or cationic

*Corresponding author. Email: gmabdullah@nu.edu.sa

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 G.M. Abdullah and H.I. Al-Abdul Wahhab

with electropositively charged asphalt globules, depending on the emulsion agent (Kowalski &
Starry, 2007).
The usage of asphalt emulsions started in the early part of the twentieth century. Nowadays, 5–
10% of paving-grade asphalt is used in emulsified form, but the degree of emulsion usage varies
widely between countries. The United States is the world’s largest producer of asphalt emulsion.
Asphalt emulsion has some advantages compared to hot asphalt and cut back binders, such as
low application temperature, compatibility with other water-based binders like rubber latex and
cement, and low solvent content (James, 2006).
Sulphur is a by-product of oil and gas production, and its rate of production is increasing
rapidly every year. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest producers of sulphur. Saudi Aramco pro-
duces sulphur at a rate of approximately 6000 ton/day, and it is expected to increase to 10,000
ton/day in a few years (Baig et al., 2009). Although sulphur is a vital raw material to manufacture
a myriad of products, its abundance reduced its price worldwide. Sulphur asphalt has proven its
advantage when used to build local roads and was used to reduce the required asphalt cement by
up to 30% (KFUPM, 2008) with no short-term or long-term environmental hazards as indicated
by the low emission of hazardous gases at road surface temperature as high as 76°C prevailing
in Saudi Arabia (Al-Abdul Wahhab & Baig, 2007). Similarly, sulphur can be used to reduce the
binder content of emulsified asphalt (EA).
Al-Abdul Wahhab and Asi (1995) investigated the use of slow-setting EA and medium-
curing cutback asphalt to stabilise marl and sand obtained from the Eastern Province of Saudi
Arabia. The addition of 2% and 4% lime and Portland cement was applied to the stabilised
soils to accelerate the curing process and to reduce stability loss due to water damage. The
results of this research indicated that the stabilising agent enhanced both strength and resis-
tance to water damage of the analysed soils. Cement additive was found to be more effective
than lime.
Baig et al. (2009) investigated the feasibility of using sulphur as an additive for local asphalt
concrete mixtures at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM). They also
studied many cases of using sulphur-modified asphalt in road constructions including the field
trial at Khursaniyah and the concerns related to air pollution due to sulphur-containing gases.
They concluded that there will be no constructability problem with the use of sulphur and
the use of asphalt with sulphur material at 30% replacement could be more economical as
compared to plain asphalt. Furthermore, the results of field tests indicated that there is no long-
term hazard for mixtures as showed by the acceptable values of emission of hazardous gases
such as H2 S and SO2 ( < 1 PPM at 76°C). However, precautions must be taken during prepa-
ration and laying of mixtures at 145°C. Stabilisation of marginal soils with foamed sulphur
asphalt was studied by Abdullah and Al-Abdul Wahhab (2015) and they reported that sulphur
enhanced the engineering properties of the marginal soils and increased the stability, indirect
tensile strength (ITS) and resilient modulus comparing to the standard foamed asphalt (without
sulphur).
Bunga, Pallu, Selintung, and Thaha (2011) have investigated the stabilisation of sandy loam
clay by using EA as a stabiliser material. The soil samples were collected from Manuju Village,
Gowa Regency, South Sulawesi province, Indonesia. They obtained EA type CSS-15 from PT.
Widya Sapta Colas. The EA concentrations were 1.5%, 3.0% and 4.5%. The results of the inves-
tigation showed that the physical, chemical and mechanical characteristics of sandy clay loam
improved due to using EA. Bunga and his team also noticed that chemical bindings occurred
among the soil minerals and EA. Finally, plasticity and shear strength of soil increased in a linear
relationship with the increase of EA concentration.
Verma (2015) improved the properties of the black soil by adding bitumen emulsion. An
attempt had been made to use emulsion for improving the strength of black soil expressed
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 3

in terms of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values. He concluded that there is a considerable
improvement in CBR of subgrade due to the use of bitumen emulsion.
In order to improve the early performance of cold mix asphalt (CMA), cement can be added
to the mixture: 1–3% of cement (by mass) significantly improves the early mechanical properties
(Thanaya, Zoorob, & Forth, 2009; Rutherford, Wang, Shu, Huang, & Clarke, 2014). Baghini,
Ismail, and Karim (2015) investigated the effects of adding a bitumen emulsion and Portland
cement on the long-term performance of the road base layer. Specimens were stabilised with
Portland cement (0–6%) and bitumen emulsion (0–6%). The results of research tests revealed
that the additives significantly improved the strength of the mixture and permanent deformation
resistance.
Diaz (2016) evaluated the resistance of CMA to accumulate permanent deformation under
cyclic loading and to present an alternative to assess stability potential from a portable device.
The rutting performance of CMA materials commonly used for pavement localised patch repairs
was analysed in the laboratory by means of the Modified Cyclic Creep Test and by their resistance
to penetration with a Light Cone Penetrometer.
In this study, laboratory tests were carried out to investigate the possibility of producing and
using 30/70 sulphur-modified EA for improving the mechanical properties of marginal soils,
namely, marl, sabkha and dune sand for local road applications. Sulphur was used to reduce the
binder content by up to 30% of EA. Emulsified sulphur asphalt (ESA) is a material that is a
part of patent given to the research team at the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Miner-
als [Al-Mehthel, Al-Abdul Wahhab, Hussein, & Al-Idi, 2017. Patent number: 11201604034Y
(Docket Number: SA5095-06)], and this study investigates using this material for marginal soils
stabilisation for road applications.

Experimental work
Material collection and characterisation
Marginal soils cover most areas of the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. In order to investigate
the possible treatment of these marginal soils and their use in the construction of road projects,
adequate quantities of dune sand, marl and sabkha were collected from the eastern province
of Saudi Arabia, and then subjected to basic characterisation. The basic engineering properties
of the soils were assessed by conducting preliminary characterisation tests. These preliminary
tests included mineralogical analysis, specific gravity, plasticity tests and grain size distribution.
In addition, the compaction and strength characteristics were investigated by using modified
Proctor compaction and CBR tests according to the ASTM standard.
Asphalt cement was collected from the Saudi Aramco Ras Tanura refinery, and subjected to
basic characterisation according to the ASTM standard. The grade of the utilised asphalt was
60/70 penetration, since this grade is the only virgin asphalt grade that is widely used in all
road projects in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Several ASTM tests were conducted on asphalt
cement to evaluate its basic physical properties such as viscosity, penetration, softening point,
flash point and ductility. To formulate EA, 30/70 sulphur asphalt was used. Due to its suitability
for soil stabilisation, cationic slow-setting EA was produced by using the EA plant available in
Highway Engineering Laboratory at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals.

Mix design procedure

Cold emulsion technology is based on a polar surface charge of asphalt emulsion and aggregate;
therefore, they have to be matched. Thus for soils which have a negatively charged surface, a
4 G.M. Abdullah and H.I. Al-Abdul Wahhab

cationic emulsion (positive charge) was used in which the positively charged droplets of emul-
sion asphalt are attracted to the negatively charged surface of the soils. In cold bituminous
emulsion mixtures, many design procedures among research organisations and road authori-
ties are based on the Asphalt Institute or AASHTO with some modifications. In general, the
determination of suitable aggregate gradations, optimum water content at compaction, and the
determination of optimum residual bitumen content should be covered by any design procedure
used. There is no universally accepted asphalt emulsion–aggregate mix design method for either
dense or open-graded cold mixtures. However, the Federal Highway Administration recently
attempted to develop and standardise two design methods for use with asphalt emulsion cold mix-
tures. One method is for the design of mixtures having a dense-graded aggregate and the second
is for mixtures having an open-graded aggregate (AEMA, 2004). In this study, the dense-graded
aggregate mix design method was adopted.

Aggregate and emulsion selection

In the dense-graded aggregate mix design, the gradation of the aggregate used (soils in this
study) should meet the requirements specified by the method. Furthermore, the types of asphalt
emulsion used for producing dense-graded emulsion cold mixtures are either anionic slow setting
or medium setting. The cationic slow-setting emulsion was used in this study due to its suitability
for soil stabilisation.

Determination of premixing and added water contents

Good distribution of the EA over the soil particles depends on mixing the sufficient amount of
water. The total water content of soil–emulsion mixtures was kept constant as determined from
the Proctor compaction tests. Premixing water contents required for marl, sabkha and sand soils
were found to be about 4%, 3% and 2%, respectively (Al-Abdul Wahhab, 1985; Al-Halhouli,
1986; Arabiyat, 1985). The amount of water present in the emulsion was considered in the mix-
tures design. Thus, the amount of water required to be added to keep the total water quantity
of the mix constant as predetermined from the compaction test was varied and depended on the
percentage of emulsion asphalt used.

Preparation of test specimens

A set of test specimens of height 63.5 ± 6 mm and diameter 101.6 mm were prepared over a
range of residual asphalt content (preselected ratios of emulsion were used i.e. 3%, 6%, 9%,
12% and 15%). Test mixtures were prepared in increments of residual asphalt contents, using
the previously determined premix water and optimum water content required for mixing and
compaction. Prepared mixtures were compacted in a Marshall mould with 75 blows for each
side. After that, the moulds containing the compacted specimen were placed on a perforated
shelf in a 60°C (140°F) forced draft oven for 48 h. In order to simulate the traffic action on the
specimens, the design procedure stated that samples after curing should be removed from the
oven, and while still at 60°C (140°F), a static load of 178 kN (40,000 lbs) should be applied on
the specimen by the double plunger method where a free-fitting plunger is positioned at both
the bottom and top of the specimen in the mild. Load was applied at a rate about 1.3 mm/min
(0.05 in/min) of compression and was maintained for 1 min and then was released. Finally, the
compacted specimen was let to cool in the mould for a minimum of 1 h prior to extraction for
testing. Details of specimen preparation and compaction are found in the basic asphalt emulsion
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 5

Figure 1. Test samples of stabilised soils with ESA.

manual (AEMA, 2004). Figure 1 shows some of the prepared test samples of stabilised soils
with ESA.

Evaluation testing
Designed ESA mixtures which include marl, sabkha and dune sand in addition to the mixtures
of these soils with conventional EA were subjected to Marshall stability (ASTM D 1559), ITS
(ASTM D 4867), dynamic resilient modulus (MR ) (AASHTO T-307), and static triaxial (ASTM
D 2850) tests to evaluate their engineering properties.

Results
Materials characterisation
Mineralogical analyses of soils
X-ray diffraction (XRD) technique was used to perform the mineralogical composition of
the marl, sabkha and sand soils used in this study. XRD analyses for these soils are shown
in Table 1.

Soils gradation and testing

The dry and wet grain size distribution curves for marl, sabkha and sand soils are shown in
Figure 2. Wet sieving of sabkha was done with sabkha brine rather than distilled water in order
to simulate the field conditions. The investigated soils were non-plastic based on Atterberg limit
tests. The specific gravity values of the marl, sabkha and sand soils were 2.69, 2.71 and 2.63,
respectively. Marl and sabkha soils are classified as SM and A-3 according to the Unified Soil

Table 1. Mineralogical composition of soils.

Marl Sabkha Sand

62% dolomite CaMg(CO3 )2 75% quartz (SiO2 ) 100% quartz (SiO2 )
30% quartz (SiO2 ) 15% gypsum (CaSO4 ·2H2 O)
8% calcite (CaCO3 ) 10% halite
6 G.M. Abdullah and H.I. Al-Abdul Wahhab

Figure 2. Grain size distribution of soils.

Classification System (USCS) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), respectively, based on both dry and wet sieving methods. However, dune
sand is classified as SP and A-3.
It is clear from dry and wet sieve analysis curves for marl and sabkha soils that the wet sieving
curve is always above the dry curve and this is ascribed to the fact that water tends to dissolve
the salts between particles of the soil; thus, the proportion of wet materials passing a particular
sieve is consistently more than that for dry sieving. This difference would be higher if sabkha
was sieved with distilled water instead of sabkha brine. However, in sand soil, it can be seen that
there is almost no variation between grain size distributions calculated by both the dry and wet
sieving methods. This is ascribed to the fact that sand is made up of quartz which is not affected
much by washing.
The relationships between moisture content and dry density for marl and sabkha soils are
shown in Figure 3. Compaction was conducted on plain soils using the modified Proctor com-
paction test in accordance with ASTM D 1557. It is clear from the figure that the maximum dry
density of the marl soil was 1.86 g/cm3 at an optimum moisture content of 13%, whereas for
the sabkha soil it was 1.75 g/cm3 at 12% optimum moisture content. Regarding the sand soil, it
was difficult to conduct the compaction test and get the moisture–density relationship curve; so
relative density experiment was done to get the minimum and maximum density and they were
1.63 and 1.84 g/cm3 , respectively.
The evaluation of soils to be used as a subgrade material in pavement structures was done by
conducting a CBR test. The curves of CBR test results for marl and sabkha soils were super-
imposed on the compaction test results (Figure 3). It is seen that the maximum CBR value for
the marl soil was 24.7% at a moisture content of 12%, whereas it was 25% for sabkha soil at
water content of 10%. The results indicated that the moisture content for maximum CBR is less
than the optimum moisture content obtained from the dry unit weight–moisture content relation-
ship. This is in agreement with the findings that have been reported in the literature (Al-Amoudi,
Aiban, & Al-Abdul Wahhab, 1997). The CBR value for the sabkha soil is almost equal to that
of the marl soil, and this is attributed to the submerging of sabkha soil samples in saline water
rather than distilled water which reduced the dissolved salts that are responsible for particles
bonding in sabkha soil. The CBR test of the sand soil was done on samples compacted to at least
95% of the maximum density achieved in relative density test and the value of CBR was found
to be 15%.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 7

Figure 3. Moisture–dry density–CBR relationship for marl and sabkha soils.

Table 2. Properties of asphalt cement.

Physical properties Utilised asphalt ASTM

Penetration at 25°C (dmm) (ASTM D 5) 67.6 60–70

Rotational viscosity at 135°C (centipoise) 571.75 –
Softening point (°C) (ASTM D 36) 52.3 49–54
Flash point, Cleveland Open Cup (°C) 340 223 min
Ductility at 25°C (cm) (ASTM D 113) 150 + –

Asphalt properties
Several ASTM tests were performed on asphalt cement 60/70 penetration to evaluate its
basic physical properties. The results of these tests are listed in Table 2, along with ASTM
specifications. The results indicated that the utilised asphalt has a penetration value of 67.6 dmm,
a softening point of 52.3°C and a flash point of 340°C, and they are in the range specified by
ASTM. In addition, results show that asphalt has a rational viscosity of 571.75 centipoise at
135°C and a ductility of 150 + at 25°C.

Marshall stability
The prepared specimens of size about 101 mm diameter by approximately 63.5 mm height for
the soils treated with the normal EA and ESA were subjected to dry and soaked Marshall sta-
bility test in accordance with the ASTM D 1559 and the results are shown in Figures 4–6. It is
seen from the figures that the optimum residual asphalt contents (OAC), based on the attained
maximum soaked stability, are 8.1%, 4% and 5.4% for the marl, sabkha, and sand treated with
EA, respectively, while the OAC are 7.2%, 3.6% and 5.4% for the same soils treated with ESA,
respectively. It can also be seen that the sulphur-modified emulsion decreases the stability of
the treated soils compared to the conventional emulsion asphalt which might be attributed to the
crystals of sulphur formed as a result of undissolved sulphur in the blend (Masegosa et al., 2012).
The OAC at which the maximum stabilities were attained for the ESA mixtures were less than
that for the EA mixtures, except sand mixtures. Based on the results of Marshall stability, it is
clear that the marl soil has the highest stability, followed by the sabkha soil and finally by the
sand soil. The stabilities for all stabilised soils mixed with EA and ESA satisfy the requirement
8 G.M. Abdullah and H.I. Al-Abdul Wahhab

Figure 4. Dry and soaked stability of marl soil.

Figure 5. Dry and soaked stability of sabkha soil.

(2.24 kN) which is considered satisfactory for most pavements with low to medium traffic vol-
ume (AEMA, 2004). Although sand–EA and sand–ESA mixtures have stability higher than that
required for light and medium traffic volume, these mixtures are very sensitive to water effects.

Durability
The durability of the treated soils with EA and ESA were assessed by soaking specimens under
50 mm Hg vacuum in water for 1 h and without vacuum for another hour and then tested for
soaked stability. Figure 7 shows the variation of retained stability with residual asphalt contents
of EA and ESA. From the figure, it is seen that ESA mixtures, except sand soil, have higher
retained stabilities than those of EA which indicated that the addition of ESA enhances the water
resistance of the mixtures.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 9

Figure 6. Dry and soaked stability of sand soil.

Figure 7. Retained stability variation versus residual asphalt of EA and ESA.

Indirect tensile strength

Figures 8–10 show the results of dry ITS for the marl, sabkha and sand soils mixed with various
percentages of EA and ESA, respectively. It is clear from the figures that the ITS results follow
the same trend of the Marshall stability results and the maximum ITS was attained at approxi-
mately the same optimum residual asphalt for the maximum Marshall stability. The results show
that marl and sabkha soils treated with ESA exhibit a little bit higher ITS values compared to
the same soils treated with EA, whereas the inverse is correct for the sand soil. This led to con-
clude that sulphur acts as a filler and not a binder in the emulsion blend. Recommendations from
experts in the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) are that the dry ITS should be at least
200 kPa and the soaked tensile strength be at least 100 kPa for the base course layer in the pave-
ment structure (SABITA and CSIR Transportek, 1998). For the treated materials to be used as
a base course layer in the pavement structure, where the water table is close to the surface, it is
believed that an ITS of more than 200 kPa together with more than 80% retained strength of ITS
10 G.M. Abdullah and H.I. Al-Abdul Wahhab

Figure 8. Dry ITS results of marl soil.

Figure 9. Dry ITS results of sabkha soil.

will perform adequately (SABITA and CSIR Transportek, 1998). The results show that all soil
mix combinations except sand soil passed the requirements at the dry condition.

Static triaxial (shear strength)

Specimens with 50 mm diameter and 100 mm height were prepared from the marl, sabkha and
sand soils at the optimum moisture, EA and ESA contents and compacted to the optimum density
using dynamic compactor. Two per cent cement was also added to the mixtures. In order to get the
same Marshall density, the required number of layers and blows were determined. The prepared
specimens were then cured for 48 h at 60°C. After curing, the specimens were subjected to the
static triaxial test in compliance with ASTM D 2850 to get the shear strength parameters C and
. To construct the Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope, tests were done at three different confining
pressures up to failure. Figure 11 shows the Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes for all mixtures,
and the angle of internal friction and cohesion were calculated and are listed in Table 3.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 11

Figure 10. Dry ITS results of sand soil.

Figure 11. Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope for soils–EA/ESA mixtures.

The results shown in Figure 11 and Table 3 indicate that the marl–EA mix has the highest
cohesion value and this value dropped for marl treated with ESA. Sabkha and sand soils have
shown very close strength parameters to each other, and again there is a reduction in the cohe-
sion when they were treated with ESA. The values of cohesion reveal that EA mixtures have
a better coating for soil particles, while ESA mixtures have a less effective coating. The less
effective coating of ESA mixtures could be attributed to the reasons reported by Masegosa et al.
(2012). They reported that 70% of the sulphur in the blend remained in an immiscible crystalline
form, with the remainder 30% being amorphous. The larger the amount of added sulphur to a
12 G.M. Abdullah and H.I. Al-Abdul Wahhab

Table 3. Cohesion and angle of internal friction for soils–EA/ESA mixtures.

Soil type Binder t C (kPa) φ (degree)

Marl EA 280.66 31
ESA 133.93 32
Sabkha EA 20 32
ESA 12.22 30
Sand EA 25.11 30
ESA 14.4 31

Figure 12. SEM for sabkha treated with ESA and 2% cement.

bitumen, the larger the amount of sulphur that ends up not in solution but hence existing in a
crystalline state. Figures 12 and 13 show the scanning electron microscope (SEM) results for the
sabkha and sand soils treated with ESA and 2% cement, respectively, as an example of micro-
characterisation tests done in this study. The colloids and the needle-like crystals of sulphur are
evident in the voids between the soil particles which enhanced the fact reported by Masegosa
et al. (2012). Moreover, characteristics of calcium hydroxide and calcium silicate are present
due to the presence of 2% cement. Figures also show more voids which might be behind the
weakness of the mixture.

Dynamic resilient modulus

The dynamic resilient modulus for the marl, sabkha and sand soils stabilised with EA and ESA
was measured according to the AASHTO T-307 procedure. The specimens with a size of 4 inch
diameter and 8 inch height were prepared at the optimum moisture, EA and ESA contents, and
compacted to the maximum density. Thereafter, they were tested under different combinations of
confined pressure 21–138 kPa (3–20 psi) and deviator stress 34–276 kPa (5–40 psi) to simulate
the traffic loading that the granular base and subbase materials are subjected to in the road struc-
tures. The variations of the resilient modulus with the deviator stress for all soils mixed with EA
and ESA at 22°C are shown in Figure 14.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 13

Figure 13. SEM of sand treated with ESA and 2% cement.

Figure 14. Variation of MR with deviator stress for soils mixtures at 22°C.

The results in Figure 14 clearly show that there is a significant effect of the variation in the devi-
ator stress on the resilient modulus. At each confining pressure, the resilient modulus increased
greatly with the increase in the deviator stress. Figure 14 also shows that the marl soil, treated
with EA or with ESA, has the highest resilient modulus, followed by the sabkha and lastly by
the dune sand soil treated with the same stabilisers. The difference, however, is insignificant.
In comparison between the resilient moduli for the EA and ESA mixtures, it is seen that the
moduli for the marl–ESA and sabkha–ESA are slightly higher than those for the marl–EA and
sabkha–EA mixtures, whereas the inverse is true for the sand soil.
14 G.M. Abdullah and H.I. Al-Abdul Wahhab

Conclusions
The goal of this study was to evaluate marl, sabkha and dune sand soils stabilised with ESA and
compare their behaviour to that of conventional EA mixtures. Based on the test results of this
study, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. ESA were found to reduce the stability compared with standard EA; however, they
satisfied the Asphalt Institute requirements.
2. ESA increased ITS for marl and sabkha soils, while the inverse is true for sand soil.
3. Results of ITS for EA and ESA mixtures, except dune sand mixtures, satisfied the
specifications assigned by SABITA and CSIR Transportek (1998).
4. ESA enhanced the durability of mixtures against water damage effects and the stability
loss was lower than the conventional EA mixtures.
5. ESA reduced the shear strength (particularly cohesion) of the soil mixtures.
6. The resilient moduli of ESA mixtures are slightly higher than conventional EA mixtures.
7. The resilient moduli for all mixtures were found to increase with the increase in deviator
stress.
8. ESA can be used successfully to construct base layers for roads from available marginal
soils since it fulfilled the specification requirements.
9. The OAC are 8.1%, 4% and 5.4% for the marl, sabkha and dune sand soils treated with
EA, and 7.2%, 3.6% and 5.4% for the same soils treated with ESA, respectively.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by King Fahd University of Petroleum and
Minerals (KFUPM) for the execution of this research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Abdullah, G. M. S. (2009). Stabilization of Eastern Saudi soils using heavy fuel oil fly ash and cement kiln
dust (MSc Thesis). King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah, G. M. S., & Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I. (2015). Evaluation of foamed sulfur asphalt stabilized soils
for road applications. Construction and Building Materials, 88, 149–158.
Aiban, S., Al-Abdul Wahhab, H., & Al-Amoudi, O. (1999, September). Identification, evaluation and
improvement of Eastern Saudi soils for constructional purposes. Final report submitted to KACST.
Aiban, S. A., Al-Amoudi, O. S. B., Ahmed, H. R., & Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I. (1997, September). Character-
ization and stabilization of Eastern Saudi calcareous soils. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (pp. 13–16), Hamburg.
Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I. (1985). Evaluation of emulsified asphalt for use in Saudi Arabia (PhD dissertation).
Oregon State University.
Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I., & Abduljauwad, S. N. (1989). Study of soil stabilization in the Eastern Province
of Saudi Arabia. Proceedings of the 11th IRF World Meeting (Vol. III, pp. 117–120), Seoul, Korea.
Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I., & Asi, I. M. (1995, November). Stabilization of Eastern Saudi marl and dune
sand for construction purposes (Vol. II, pp. 347–352). The Fourth Saudi Engineering Conference.
Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I., & Baig, M. G. (2007, December). Evaluation of Sulfur-Asphalt Technology for
Local Applications. Proceeding of 7th Saudi Engineering Conference, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Al-Amoudi, O. S. B., Aiban, S. A., & Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I. (1997). Variability and characteristics of
Eastern Saudi sabkha soils. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering (Vol. 1, pp. 17–20), Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 15

Al-Halhouli, A. A. (1986). Evaluation of emulsified asphalt treated sand for road bases (M.S. thesis).
University of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals.
Al-Mehthel, M., Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I., Hussein, I. A., & Al-Idi, S. H. (2017). Foamed sulfur asphalts for
pavement recycling and soil stabilization. Patent Number: 11201604034Y (Docket Number: SA5095-
06).
Arabiyat, T. S. (1985). Strength of asphalt emulsion treated marl for road bases (M.S. thesis). University
of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals.
Asi, I. M., Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I., Al-Amoudi, O. S. B., & Siddiqui, Z. U. (2002). Stabilization of dune
sand using foamed asphalt. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 25, 168–176.
Asi, I. M., Siddiqui, Z. U., Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I., & Khan, M. I. (1999, March). Stabilization of sabkha
soil for road bases using foamed asphalt technology. Fifth Saudi Engineering Conference.
Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers Association (AEMA). (2004). A basic asphalt emulsion manual. Manual
Series (MS) No. 19.
Baghini, M. S., Ismail, A., & Bin Karim, M. R. (2015). Evaluation of cement-treated mixtures with slow
setting bitumen emulsion as base course material for road pavements. Construction and Building
Materials, 94, 323–336.
Baig, M. G., Al-Abdul Wahhab, H. I., Isam, A. M., Al-Mehthel, M., Al-Idi, S. F., & Grosch, J. (2009).
Investigation of sulfur modified asphalt concrete mixtures for road construction in the Gulf. In I. L.
Al-Qadi, T. Sayed, N. Alnuaimi, & E. Masad (Eds.), Efficient transportation and pavement systems:
Characterization, Mechanisms, Simulation, and Modeling (pp. 663–671). London: Taylor & Francis
Group. ISBN 978-0-415-48979-9.
Bunga, E., Pallu, H. M. S., Selintung, M., & Thaha, M. A. (2011). Stabilization of sandy clay loam with
emulsified asphalt. International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering, 11(5), 52–58.
Diaz, L. G. (2016). Creep performance evaluation of cold mix asphalt patching mixtures. International
Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 9, 149–158.
James, A. (2006, November). Overview of asphalt emulsion. Transportation Research Circular E-C102:
Asphalt Emulsion Technology.
KFUPM. (2008). Evaluation of the potential of using sulfur asphalt in Saudi roads. Sixth Progress Report,
submitted to Saudi Aramco.
Kowalski, T. E., & Starry, D. W. (2007). Modern soil stabilization techniques. Paper presented at The 2007
Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Saskatoon.
Masegosa, R. M., Canamero, P., Cabezudo, M. S., Vinas, T., Salom, C., Prolongo, M. G., & Paez, M.
A. (2012). Thermal behaviour of bitumen modified by sulphur addition. 5th Eurasphalt Eurobitume
Congress, 13–15th June 2012, Istanbul.
Rutherford, T., Wang, Z., Shu, X., Huang, B., & Clarke, D. (2014). Laboratory investigation into mechanical
properties of cement emulsified asphalt mortar. Construction and Building Materials, 65, 76–83.
SABITA Ltd., & CSIR Transportek. (1998, February). Foamed asphalt mixtures: Mix design procedure.
Contract Report CR-98/Draft.
Thanaya, I. N. A., Zoorob, S. E., & Forth J. P. (2009). A laboratory study on cold-mix, cold-lay emulsion
mixtures. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Transport, 162(1), 47–55.
Verma, S. K. (2015). A laboratory study on use of bitumen emulsion in black soil. International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology, 2(6), 548–553.