Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Cone penetration measurements in oil-contaminated sand

stabilized by lateritic soil and potential usage in concrete mix
Reda A. Abdelhalim a, b, Harris Ramli a, *, Mohamad R. Selamat a
a
School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300, Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Delta Higher Institute for Engineering and Technology, Mansoura, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Oil-contaminated soils are generally considered inadequate for structural concrete and highway
Lateritic soil construction. However, soils continue to be contaminated by oil and various methods of stabi­
Oil-contaminated sand lization have been attempted. This paper documents a series of experiments carried out using the
Stabilization
electronic cone penetration test (CPTu) to investigate the strength behaviour of a poorly graded
Cone penetration test (CPT)
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
sand (SP) when contaminated by oil and subsequently stabilized by a lateritic soil (LS). When
Concrete mix contaminated with oil, the sand lost some of its strengths as indicated by the decreased cone
resistance (qc) and sleeve friction (fs) values, which reduced further when the oil content (OC)
was increased. When subsequently stabilized with the LS, the lost strengths recovered and
continued to enhance with additional LS used. Based on the evaluation of results associated with
qc, for a contaminated sand with up to 8% OC, the stabilization that would return the original
uncontaminated sand’s strength was one with 20% LS content. Moreover, the stabilization was
more efficient for sand with lesser OC than with more OC. Similar results as those associated with
qc were found when the bases for evaluation were the internal friction angle (ϕ), standard
penetration number (SPTN), and Young’s modulus (Es), since these parameters were all derived
from qc. Based on the evaluation of results associated with fs, unlike in the case of qc, a blanket LS
content of 15% was capable of returning the original uncontaminated sands’ value even for a
sample with 10% OC. The morphologies of contaminated and stabilized sands have shown
revealing results of breakdown and rejuvenation through scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Moreover, based on compressive and flexure concrete tests it was observed that the oil-
contaminated sand, after stabilizing it with lateritic soil, should be useable as a fine aggregate
in rural infrastructures and low strength concrete applications such as Sandcrete block and
sidewalks, rather than being neglected.

1. Introduction

The leakage of oil from damaged petroleum wells, corroded pipelines, and events following a disaster or conflict contaminate an
enormous amount of surrounding soil. Patel [1] reported that approximately 25 % of U.S. crude oil production spills and contaminates
the surrounding soils. During the Gulf War of 1991, about 600–700 oil wells were destroyed causing tremendous ground contami­
nation while 290 million gallons of oil spilled into the Kuwaiti desert, the Arab Gulf and the Persian Gulf, resulting in contaminating

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: reda.a.abdelhalim@student.usm.my (R.A. Abdelhalim), cemhr@usm.my (H. Ramli), cemrs@usm.my (M.R. Selamat).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00580
Received 29 December 2020;
Available online 20 May 2021
2214-5095/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Nomenclature

LS lateritic soil
OC oil content
ϕ angle of internal friction
D10 grain size at 10 % passing
D50 grain size at 50 % passing
Cu uniformity coefficient
Cc curvature coefficient
CPT Cone Penetration Test
CPTu Cone Penetration Test with pore pressure measurement
N60 Standard penetration test number at 60 % hammer efficiency
Es Young’s modulus of soil
qc Tip resistance of cone
qt Corrected tip resistance of cone
fs Sleeve friction of cone
ft Corrected sleeve friction of cone
SBT Soil behaviour type
EFCS Extended field computer system
u2 pore pressure measurement at base of sleeve
u3 pore pressure measurement at top of sleeve
a Cone net area ratio
Asb cross section of sleeve at base
Ast cross section of sleeve at top
As Surface area of sleeve
Dcone Diameter of cone
Pa Atmospheric pressure (101.325 kPa)
σvo Effective stress of soil
IC Soil behaviour type index

700 km of Kuwait’s shoreline with Saudi Arabia [2,3].

Once the soil in contact with the contaminating oil, the soil’s mineral composition is affected by the effects of alien oil properties
such as viscosity, pour point, and unit weight thereby altering the soil’s mechanical and chemical properties [4]. Khosravi et al. [5]
have studied the effect of gas oil-contamination on a kaolinite soil through tests for evaluating direct shear, unconfined compression,
and consolidation parameters. The findings showed a reduction in both the angle of friction and compressibility and an increase in the
cohesion with increasing hydrocarbon percentage, in addition, the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis showed particles
coated with oil for the kaolinite and considerable change of the microstructure due to the contamination. Earlier, Shin et al. [6]
performed laboratory tests to investigate the bearing capacity of a strip foundation resting on oil-contaminated sandy soil. The findings
indicate that when oil content was increased from zero to 1.3 %, the angle of internal friction lowered by 25 %. Rahman et al. [7]
investigated the effect of oil on the Atterberg limits of soils derived from granitic and sedimentary rocks origin. The granitic soil had 64
% sand, 34 % silt and 2% clay while the metasedimentary soil consisted of 34 % gravel, 37 % sand, 27 % silt and 2% clay. Liquid and
plastic limits were found reduced with increasing oil content. Abdelhalim et al. [8] studied the effects of unused engine oil on the shear
strength of a SP specimen. The friction angle was found decreased by about 7.0, 12.2 and 15.4 % due to oil contents of 2, 4 and 6%
respectively, while cohesion increased by 51.4, 67.6, and 70.3 %, all relative to values when sand was uncontaminated. Cohesions
were low at 3.7, 5.6, 6.2, and 6.3 kPa when oil contents were 0, 2, 4, and 6% respectively.
Concerning the application of different materials to stabilize oil-contaminated sand, studies by Saberian and Khabiri [9] Akinwumi
et al. [10] Hassan et al. [11]Al-Rawas et al. [12] Shah et al. [13], and Tuncan et al. [14] have examined the positive effects of mixing
oil-contaminated sands with cement and other materials thus changed the perception of an oil-contaminated sand from simply waste
into something with economic potential.
Saberian and Khabiri [9] detected that the friction angle (ϕ) of a sandy soil obtained from Yazd, Iran was declined by 9.6 and 17.9 %
at oil contents (OCs) of 3 and 8%, respectively while the cohesion raised from 10.23 kPa at 3% OC to 26.68 kPa at 8% OC. In sta­
bilization of a certain OC, increasing cement content from 6 to 16 % resulted in increasing the ϕ and cohesion by 1.05 and 1.4 times,
respectively. From SEM images, the same authors also indicated that the stabilized samples were more compact and contained fewer
pores than the untreated. Akinwumi et al. [10] noticed that stabilizing of 10 % oil-contaminated sandy clay with 10 % cement had CBR
and UCS of the soil strengthened by 468 % and 8.2 % respectively as compared to the unstabilized; the production of hydrogel in the
forms of calcium silicate hydrates and calcium aluminate hydrates which intertwined and bound the soil particles together, resulting in
enhancing the soil properties.
Hassan et al. [11] reported the results of stabilizing an oil-contaminated poorly graded sand with cement for usage as road bases or
subbases and concluded that a 5% cement use could enhance the UCS to a beneficial level and the result would remain constant even

2
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

with increased cement percentage.

Al-Rawas et al. [12] presented the use of cement and cement by-pass in stabilizing poorly graded sand with 10–15 % OC, which
with increasing cement or cement by-pass dust percentage, the cohesion improved which was due to the hydration process, resulting in
cementing action, however, the permeability declined which was due to subsequent porosity reduction.
In addition, combined uses of the additives were also applied in stabilizing oil-contaminated sands. Tuncan et al. [14] reported the
use of fly ash in combination with the lime and cement and defined the stabilization process as a chemical, physical, and mechanical
enhancement all occurring at once where surprizing findings were achieved from using 20 % lime, 10 % fly ash, or 5% cement. The
study of Shah et al. [13] closed with a narrative of an effective combination even with lesser additive amounts of 10 % lime, 5% fly ash,
and 5% cement for the stabilizer where the SEM results indicated the formation of non-crystalline chemical structure that had the soil
particles coated and bridged, creating strong celluar and nodular aggregations.
The current study simply sought to extend the use of an everyday earthly material to turn an oil-contaminated sand into a more
useful material, which brought the lateritic soils into picture.
Martin and Doyne [15,16] and, Winterkorn and Chandrasekharan [17] used the formula of [SiO2 / (A12O3 + Fe2O3)] to group and
classify laterite soils. True laterites were classified as those with a ratio less than 1.33; lateritic soils were defined as those with a ratio
between 1.33 and 2.00; and non-lateritic tropically weathered soils were defined as those with a ratio greater than 2.00.
Lateritic soils (LS) are abundantly available throughout the world, however, mainly concentrated in hot and tropical regions. LS
occupies around 30 % of the Earth’s area [18]. Oyelami and Van Rooy [19] depicted LS as an excellent building material with favorable
properties such as low hydraulic conductivity and high shear and erosion strengths.
The efficiency of LS, when used as subbase and base materials in road construction, has been studied in various countries for
decades [20,21]. Many roads founded on LS remained excellent even after 30 years in service [22]. LS was the primary foundation
material for the construction of a road linking Lilongwe and Mchinji of Malawi; the latest evaluation found that the road was still in
superb condition [23]. LS was used as bases and subbases in the pavement layers of roads constructed in Botswana, Malawi, Kenya, and
Zimbabwe, among others and are still performing [24–26].
On the other hand, the most common direct push recording technique for geo-environmental examinations in soil is the Cone
Penetration Test (CPT). The CPT supplies a rapid, repeatable, accurate and cost effective technique, also, provides continuous profiling
with depth, and allows a variety of sensors to be incorporated with the penetrometer [27]. In contrast to basing the analysis on
conventional laboratory testing physical (textural) characteristics such as grain size and plasticity (e.g., Unified Soil Classification
System, USCS), the advantage of using CPT data for geo-environmental design is that there is reliance on fundamental behaviour
characteristics; and are often mentioned to as a soil behaviour type (SBT) classification (e.g., strength, stiffness, and compressibility);
that have an intense link to in-situ behaviour (P [28].). An update of soil behaviour type (SBT) based on CPT soil behaviour was
investigated by P. Robertson [29], this update is based on an endeavor to assemble, and summarize the previous experience to guide in
soils classification based on CPT interpretations. Gomez et al. [30] have been investigated the influence of bio-cementation on
geophysical characteristics of sand by using CPT measurements. These measurements have included cone penetration resistances (qc)
and sleeve friction (fs). Also, the findings revealed that measurements of cone penetrometer may recognize moderate levels of soil
cementation. De Mio et al. [31] have been studied the properties of a sedimentary soil and two different residual soils from Portugal
and Brazil by using CPTu measurements, to highlight the differences in the interpretation of these soil types. They have concluded the
findings that CPTu-based soil classification requires awareness about the soil origin and history of the geological formation to provide a
convenient interpretation. Moreover, CPT’s measurements identify soil behavior especially for residual soils as opposed to just classify
it based on the grain size distribution. The objective of this paper is to study effect of lateritic soil (LS) as a natural stabilizer on
geotechnical properties of unused motor oil-contaminated sand. Through SEM analysis, the significance of microstructure and how it
can affect CPT’s measurements also presented. Additional tests associated with a concrete mix to examine the effect of using
LS-stabilization oil-contaminated sand as a fine aggregate on the fresh and hardened concrete properties.

2. Research importance

The current study was done in a manner that satisfied two criteria: a) covers areas where laterite or lateritic soils are present, b)
covers areas with higher oil spills rate. Finally, many areas fulfill the above criteria, such as:
1- Niger Delta area, about 1.5 million tons of crude oil have leaked over several decades due to coastal erosions and pipelines
failure, resulting in polluting of the delta’s marine ecosystem [32]. Nearly 5700 oil-related incidents have resulted in 2.5 million
barrels of oil reaching the ground between 1976 and 1997 [33], while in the 5 decades prior to 2006 more than 1.6 million m3 of oil has
seeped away [34]. Moreover, Southwestern Nigeria is a tropical region with an average rainfall of >1200 mm/year and with a mean
daily temperature > 25 ◦ C making it a suitable region for laterite and lateritic soils formation [35].
2- India and Southeast Asia coastal areas, between the early 1970s and middle 2010, about 80 spill incidents occurred in Indian
waters [36]. The January 28th, 2017 the tankers collision off Chennai coast released 90000 L of high viscosity oil leaked into the Bay of
Bengal, resulting in contaminating a 50 km stretch of the adjacent shoreline [37]. In August 2006, the coastline of Guimaras Island in
the Philippines was exposed to a massive oil spill amounting to nearly 2100 m3 [38]. Kampa et al. [39] reported that more than 50000
L of oil have leaked in the Gulf of Thailand. While more than 100000 tons of crude oil were spilled in the Straits of Singapore and
Malacca between 1975 and 2010 [40].

3
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Uncontaminated sand’s properties

The sand utilized in the tests was sourced locally from a site near the Universiti Sains Malaysia in Nibong Tebal, Malaysia. The sand
was classified as a SP and A-1-b according to USCS and AASHTO, respectively. The distribution of grain size for the uncontaminated
sand is displayed in Fig. 1 while additional index properties are summarized in Table 1.

3.2. Lateritic soil’s properties

The lateritic soil (LS) was also obtained from a source nearby to the Universiti Sains Malaysia. The grain size distribution is pre­
sented in Fig. 1 while additional index properties are summarized in Table 1. The X-ray diffraction (XRD) results of LS show the
presence of gibbsite, quartz, kaolinite, magnetite, and muscovite minerals. The Energy Dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) findings
are given in Table 2 while the X-ray fluorescence (XRF) results are summarized in Table 3.

3.3. Oil’s properties

The oil used for contaminating the sands was the ‘Shell Helix HX3 20W-50, a high viscosity motor oil obtained from a local store.
The oil was the unused one, to create contaminations that have been executed in several incidents [2,8,41]. Table 4 summarized the
properties of the oil as collected from sources related to the manufacturer.

3.4. Contamination and stabilization of specimens

Contaminated sand samples were acquired by blending the uncontaminated sand with the oil contaminant at different oil contents
i.e. 3, 5, 8 and 10 %; measured relative to the dry sand by weight; to verify the similarity of oil percentages found at contaminated sites.
These percentages were selected based on inference from a literature review (L. [42]; L. C. [43]; L. C [44–46].), which observed that
contamination levels of more than 50 000 mg of crude oil per kg of soil are rare, although probable. Also, because of the lack of access
to contaminated areas, the same oil types and sample preparation method were used as Evgin and Das [41] Ghaly [47], and Nasr [48,
49]. In addition, the maximum contamination percentage used (10 %) was chosen in order to avoid oil draining out of the specimen
during compaction process [50]. Each blended specimen was kept in a closed container for 3 days to allow for any possible reaction
between the sand and the oil as well as to ensure uniformity of the mixture. Likewise, in the stabilization of a contaminated sample, the
LS was mixed with the oil-contaminated sand and allowed to cure in a large container for 3 days for equilibrium or any possible
reaction between the components to take place. The LS amounts utilized were 5, 10, 15, and 20 %, measured relative to the moist
weight of the oil-contaminated sand.

3.5. Experimental procedure and test program

Using a cylindrical steel container, 500 mm diameter and 400 mm high, samples of uncontaminated, contaminated, and LS-
stabilized sand were subjected to cone penetration by the CPTu system. The cone and machine used in the analysis were the in­
dustry standard as also used in Selamat et al. [51]. The major hydraulic penetration unit was the crawler mounted Hyson 100 kN with

Fig. 1. Grain size distributions of uncontaminated sand and lateritic soil.

4
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Table 1
Index properties of uncontaminated sand and lateritic soil (LS).
Property Uncontaminated Sand Lateritic Soil (LS)

Effective Diameter, D10 (mm) 0.17 0.0055

Average Diameter, D50 (mm) 0.67 0.425
Uniformity Coefficient, Cu 5.00 118.18
Curvature Coefficient, Cc 0.92 2.26
Gravel Percentage (> 2 mm) (%) 11.00 4.56
Sand Percentage (0.06 mm – 2 mm) (%) 89.00 68.29
Silt Percentage (0.002 mm–.06 mm) (%) ——— 22.10
Clay Percentage (< 0.002 mm) (%) ——— 5.05
Fine Sand Percentage (< 0.2 mm), (%) 14.00 42.0
Specific Gravity Gs 2.653 2.68
Classification (USCS) SP SM
Classification (AASHTO) A-1-b A-2− 6
Maximum void ratio 0.817 ———
Minimum void ratio 0.516 ———
Liquid Limit (%) ——— 39.78
Plastic Limit (%) ——— 28.23

Table 2
Elemental composition of Lateritic Soil (LS).
Element Weight percentage (%) Atomic percentage (%)

Oxygen (O) 43.86 58.37

Silicon (Si) 20.29 15.38
Aluminum (Al) 19.99 15.78
Sulfur (S) 3.60 2.39
Phosphorus (P) 3.20 2.20
Iron (Fe) 2.62 1.00
Calcium (Ca) 2.60 1.38
Sodium (Na) 2.57 2.38
Magnesium (Mg) 1.26 1.10

Table 3
Chemical composition of Lateritic Soil (LS).
Component Composition percentage (%)

SiO2 59.42
Al2O3 31.64
Fe2O3 4.32
CaO 1.25
TiO2 0.27
P2O5 0.09
MgO 0.07

Table 4
Properties of oil contaminant.
Property Reference Value
6
Kinematic Viscosity @ 100℃ ASTM D-445 17.87 (10− x m2/s)
6
Kinematic Viscosity @ 40℃ ASTM D-445 156.30 (10− x m2/s)
Viscosity Index, VI ASTM D-2270 126
Unit weight @ 15℃ ASTM D-4052 8.91 (kN/m3)
Specific Gravity ASTM D-5355 0.89
Flash Point ASTM D-92 256 (℃)
Pour Point ASTM D-97 − 33 (℃)

F1L 208/210D diesel engine, developed by Apvandenberg of Netherland. The data acquisition computer and software program were
the EFCS, which together with the CPTu cone were developed by Vertek-Hogentogler of USA. Signals were transmitted from the cone
to the computer via cable placed within the hollow sounding rods. The entire assembly is as shown in Fig. 2 which in normal cir­
cumstances operates outdoor in the field.
The distance from the cone to the cylinder wall was more than 6 times cone diameter, which was considered sufficient in addressing

5
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Fig. 2. CPTu system comprised of (a) crawler mounted hydraulic penetration unit (b) cable and sounding rods (c) CPTu cone (d) data acquisition
unit (e) steel container for placing specimen.

the boundary effect due to interference between the wall and the failure zone around the cone. Robinsky and Morrison [52] stated that
a failure zone around a cylindrical pile is 3.0–5.5 times the diameter and 3.0–4.5 times the diameter below the tip.
Tehrani et al. [53] concluded that the test with dense-over-dense sand, the sensing distance is ranged from 2.5 to 4.7 Dcone.
However, in this study, at the depth of 200− 250 mm, the vertical distance from the cone tip to the container’s floor (sensing distance)
is ranged from 4.2 to 5.6 Dcone.
The inner surface of the steel container was cleaned to reduce friction and marked to facilitate soil placement. The required amount
of soil by weight was compacted for every 100 mm thickness to produce successive beds with a maximum dry density as previously
determined by the compaction test. Pore water pressure was not measured, however, the excess pore water pressure occurring within
the specimen was deemed minimal owing mainly to the shallow penetration depth, low penetration velocity [54], and relatively small
cone size, combined. Consequently, the correction of qc measurements for pore water pressure was not carried out and for the purpose
of the tests, the corrected cone tip resistance (qt) values were assumed equal to the actual qc measurements. Otherwise, qt = (qc + u2(1
− a)), where u2 is the pore water pressure measured at the base of the sleeve while a is the cone net area ratio. Likewise, the corrected
sleeve friction (ft) values were assumed equal to the measured sleeve friction (fs). Otherwise, ft = fs – (u2Asb− u3Ast)/As, where u2, u3,

6
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

are pore pressure measurements at the base and top of the sleeve respectively, Asb, Ast are cross-sectional areas of sleeve at the base and
top respectively, and As is the sleeve’s surface area (P. K. [55]). Furthermore, Gui et al. [56] proposed that if the diameter ratio of
cone-to-average particle sizes (Dcone/D50) is greater than 20, the effect of scale can be ignored; in this study the said ratio was 54.

4. Results

4.1. Pre-stabilization measurements

Fig. 3 shows measurements of cone resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and standard penetration test number of 60 % hammer
efficiency (SPTN) vs depth in both uncontaminated and contaminated sands. The cone penetration was carried out for the sample in the
steel container to a maximum depth of 250 mm. Measurements were terminated at a depth shallower than the total sample thickness
inside the container not only to avoid hitting the floor physically but also to avoid the error due to the effect of the cone coming very
close to the floor which is at a depth of 400 mm. While qc, fs, and SPTN measurements increased with depth due to the overburden and
compaction process, at any specific depth, each of the parameters showed decreased reading with increasing oil content (OC) of the
contamination. At 250 mm depth, qc was 5.00, 3.40, 2.87, 2.63, and 2.15 MPa for OCs of 0, 3, 5, 8, and 10 %, respectively. Taking the
maximum readings achieved between 130 and 220 mm depths, fs values were 6.00, 4.90, 4.31, 3.50 and 1.80 kPa, while SPTN values
were 10, 7, 6, 5 and 4 at OCs of 0, 3, 5, 8 and 10 %, respectively.

4.2. Post-stabilization measurements

Measurements of qc, fs, and SPTN for the stabilized soils are given in Figs. 4–7, with various contamination OC and stabilization LS
content stated.

5. Discussions

5.1. Influence of LS-stabilization on tip resistance (qc)

Measurements of qc were recorded continuously at 1 cm intervals throughout the depth as given in Fig. 3(a) for the contaminated
and Figs. 4(a)–7 (a) for the stabilized. The maximum qc values were generally achieved at 250 mm deep and these are given in Table 5
in terms of value and in Table 6 in terms of percent increase relative to the respective qc when it was lowest due to contamination by the
given OC.
Table 5 indicates that qc for uncontaminated sand was 5.00 MPa; this value reduced to between 2 and 4 MPa when contaminated
with 3–10% oil content (OC). For sands that were already contaminated with 3, 5, and 8% OC, in order to recover the lost qc, i.e. to
bring it to at least 5.00 MPa, the LS amounts required in the stabilization were 10, 15, and 20 % respectively. For sands that were

Fig. 3. Pre-stabilization measurements of uncontaminated and oil-contaminated sand at different oil contents for (a) cone resistance (b) sleeve
friction (c) SPTN.

7
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Fig. 4. Post-stabilization measurements at OC = 3% for (a) cone resistance (b) sleeve friction (c) SPTN.

Fig. 5. Post-stabilization measurements at OC = 5% for (a) cone resistance (b) sleeve friction (c) SPTN.

contaminated with 10 % OC, even a 20 % LS content was not capable of returning the original qc of the uncontaminated sand. The
results indicate that for contaminated sand with up to 8% OC, the stabilization that would return the original uncontaminated sand’s
strength would require 20 % LS content.
Table 6 indicates that it was harder to stabilize the sand that was contaminated with more oil in terms of the amount of LS required
or in other words in such case the stabilization was relatively less efficient. For example, while a 20 % LS was capable of raising qc by
about 117 %, i.e. in the case of sand contaminated by 3% OC, the same amount of LS was only capable of achieving 96 % success when
the contamination was 10 % OC. The results indicate the relative difficulty in treating a contaminated sand with higher OC.
The above results are again presented in Fig. 8(a) to show how qc declined with increasing OC and Fig. 8(b) to shows how qc
recovered when stabilized with various LS contents. In Fig. 8(a), qc measurement is shown decreased with increasing contamination

8
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Fig. 6. Post-stabilization measurements at OC = 8% for (a) cone resistance (b) sleeve friction (c) SPTN.

Fig. 7. Post-stabilization measurements at OC = 10 % for (a) cone resistance (b) sleeve friction (c) SPTN.

with the steepest decline occurring between 0 and 3% OC. Therefore, qc reduced the fastest when oil was first introduced into the sand
which could be attributed to the thin oil coating each particle during this early contact, which quickly affected the interparticle
frictional strength. The contaminating oil became a lubricant, reducing frictional resistance among soil particles. The poorly graded
sand probably had the needed pore space to be filled with any increasing oil amount thereby resulted in the increased lubricating
effect. The decline in qc beyond the 3% mark was remarkably gentle which indicates that any increase in OC beyond a certain level
simply did not change much of the strength of the already weakened soil. Nevertheless, it has been shown that this excess OC led to the
increased stabilization effort required in bringing back the strength of sand that was lost due to the contamination.

9
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Table 5
Cone resistance (qc) in MPa due to oil-contamination and subsequent stabilization by LS.
LS (%) OC = % OC = 3% OC = 5% OC = 8% OC = 10 %

LS = 0% 5.00 3.40 2.87 2.63 2.15

LS = 5% ——— 4.35 3.30 2.80 2.60
LS = 10 % ——— 4.90 4.30 3.45 3.15
LS = 15 % ——— 6.20 5.70 4.40 3.75
LS = 20 % ——— 7.40 6.40 5.05 4.23

Table 6
Percent increase in qc due to stabilization by LS, relative to the unstabilized, in %.
LS (%) OC = % OC = 3% OC = 5% OC = 8% OC = 10 %

LS = 5% ——— 27.94 14.98 6.46 20.93

LS = 10 % ——— 44.11 49.82 31.17 46.51
LS = 15 % ——— 82.35 98.60 67.30 74.41
LS = 20 % ——— 117.64 123.00 92.00 96.74

Fig. 8. Effects of (a) OC and (b) LS on cone resistance (qc).

In Fig. 8(b), qc measurement is shown increased with increasing LS content which could be attributed to the LS absorbing the excess
oil and the fine grains filling the pores providing the interparticle adhesion. An aspect of strength was thus improved by the LS
presence. Moreover, the LS seemed to have interacted well with oil which enhances the consistency among soil particles and ability for
the sand to compact. Anyway, the lateritic soil is a material already known for its excellent shear strength, which among others can be
due to the cementation between the individual soil grains by the sesquioxides action which could have taken place during the sta­
bilization process [57,58]. Wallace [59] attributes the strengthening of lateritic soils to the crystallization effect resulted from the
deposition of iron and aluminum hydroxides where soil grains can be cemented together at their contacts forming a 3-D structural

Table 7
Sleeve friction (fs) in kPa due to oil-contamination and subsequent stabilization by LS.
LS (%) OC = % OC = 3% OC = 5% OC = 8% OC = 10 %

LS = 0% 6.00 4.90 4.30 3.50 1.80

LS = 5% ——— 6.73 5.03 4.50 3.80
LS = 10 % ——— 8.96 7.00 6.00 4.26
LS = 15 % ——— 10.08 9.86 8.98 6.54
LS = 20 % ——— 11.58 10.8 9.86 7.55

10
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

framework.

5.2. Influence of the LS-stabilization on sleeve friction (fs)

Measurements of fs were carried out throughout the depth but maximum values were obtained between 130 and 220 mm depths as
measured from the sample surface. As mentioned earlier, the sleeve is positioned at a distance away behind the cone on a probe, thus
the depth at where a datum is recorded is lagging behind by about 30 mm. These maximum fs values are tabulated in Table 7 in terms of
absolute value and in Table 8 in terms of percent increase relative to the respective fs before applying the stabilization.
Table 7 indicates that fs for uncontaminated sand was 6.0 kPa; this value reduced to between 1 and 5 kPa when contaminated with
3–10% oil content (OC). For sands that were already contaminated with 3, 5, 8, and 10 % OC, in order to recover the lost qc, i.e. to bring
it to at least 6.0 kPa, the LS amounts required in the stabilization were 5, 10, 10, and 15 % respectively. Thus, unlike in the case of qc, a
blanket LS content of 15 % was capable of returning the original uncontaminated sands’ fs that were lessened due to the
contaminations.
Table 8 indicates that for the higher amount of OC in a contamination, the efficiency of stabilization by any amount of LS was better
than when OC was lesser, which is unlike the situation when qc was considered. While a 20 % LS was only capable of raising fs by 136 %
while the sand was contaminated by 3% OC, the same amount of LS was capable of achieving 319 % feat when the sand was carrying
10 % OC.
The results from Tables 7 and 8 as compared to those of Tables 5 and 6 show the different outcomes when the evaluation was
carried out based on different set of references. Based on the performance of qc, it can be concluded that to retrieve the uncontaminated
sand’s value, the sand that was contaminated with 10 % OC could not be stabilized even by the 20 % LS, while based on the per­
formance of fs, a mere LS content of 15 % was capable of doing the job for all contamination categories. Moreover, based on the
performance of qc, the stabilization was more profitable when OC was less while based on the performance of fs, the more efficient
stabilization was of the one with higher OC.

5.3. Influence of the LS-stabilization on friction angle (ϕ)

The shear strength of uncemented, cohesionless soil is usually expressed in terms of the friction angle (ϕ). Numerous studies have
been published for determining ϕ based on CPT results in uncontaminated sands. Based on an evaluation involving a set of field data,
Kulhawy and Mayne [60] suggested the following Eq. (1) in estimating the friction angle (ϕ) for uncontaminated, rounded, unce­
mented quartz sands where qc is cone resistance in kPa, pa is atmospheric pressure which is 101.325 kPa, and σvo is the effective stress.
[ ]
qc − σvo
ϕ = 17.6o + 11o log √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (1)
σ vo × pa
In the CPTu system, ϕ is given as a dependent value, determined based on qc, as given in Selamat et al. [51] and Lunne et al. [27].
In order to verify the possibility of using the previous correlations for oil-contaminated soil, many shear box tests on the
contaminated and uncontaminated sands were carried out, and the results in terms of angle of friction (ϕ) were compared with ϕ based
on CPT results (Eq. (1)). The direct shear test results at normal stresses (s) of 14.3, 24.1, and 43.7 kPa are given in Fig. 9.
In tests carried out for the current study, ϕ for unstabilized sand of any particular OC was determined from readings at 250 mm
depth, i.e. following the readings of qc. Fig. 10 shows a comparison between the friction angle (ϕ) values obtained from direct shear
tests with those determined using Eq. (1) based on CPT readings.
As shown in Fig. 10, there is a good match between the direct shear and CPT results. The conclusion is that although the CPT’s
correlations were deduced for uncontaminated soils, this comparison shows that they are relatively still valid for oil-contaminated
soils. However, for geo-environmental site investigations where contaminants are possible, the remaining issues that would call for
further studies are related with distribution and composition of contaminants, among others. Thereby, The CPT and its enhanced
versions with additional sensors; to provide valuable qualitative information concerning the magnitude and location of contamination
in the ground; are required.
The curves show a trend of decreasing ϕ value with increasing OC, with the decreases more significant at a lower OC than higher,
much like the behaviour of qc with changing OC of Fig. 8(a), although the rate by which ϕ reduced with increasing OC was not as severe
as in the case of qc. The similar results were due to ϕ being simply a derived parameter of qc. The effect of using LS as a stabilization
material as measured by the change in ϕ is given in Fig. 11. For each OC, ϕ increased with increasing LS content however, the curves in
Fig. 11 are showing more linear increases. The relative position of the horizontal line showing ϕ for uncontaminated sand is similar to
Fig. 8(b) which is as expected.

Table 8
Percent increase in fs due to stabilization by LS, relative to the unstabilized, in %.
LS (%) OC = % OC = 3% OC = 5% OC = 8% OC = 10 %

LS = 5% ——— 37.34 16.97 28.57 111.11

LS = 10 % ——— 82.85 62.79 71.42 136.66
LS = 15 % ——— 105.71 129.30 156.57 263.33
LS = 20 % ——— 136.32 151.16 181.71 319.44

11
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Fig. 9. Results of direct shear tests on oil contaminated and uncontaminated sands.

Fig. 10. Effect of oil content (L. C. Osuji and Opiah) on the friction angle (ϕ) for unstabilized sand.

Fig. 11. Effects of LS content on ϕ at 250 mm depth.

5.4. Influence of the LS-stabilization on the Young’s modulus (Es)

CPT data can be used to estimate Es in the soil for subsequent use in elastic or semi-empirical settlement prediction in the design of
road pavement [61]. P. K. Robertson and Cabal [55] suggested a useful guide for estimating Young’s modulus (Es) for uncemented,
predominantly silica sands using the following Eq. (2):

12
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

[ ]
Es = 0.015 10(0.55IC +1.68) [qt − σvo ] (2)

where IC is a soil behaviour type index as calculated from the following Eq. (3).
( )
qt/p [ ]
IC
(3)
a
= 8.5 1 −
N60 4.6

where pa is atmospheric pressure which is 101.325 kPa and N60 is the standard penetration number at 60 % hammer efficiency, also
given as SPTN in this paper. qt is the corrected cone resistance, given in kPa while σvo is the effective stress. As earlier stated, for the
current study, qc can be assumed equal to qt. Es values for uncontaminated, oil-contaminated, and LS-stabilized contaminated sands are
given in Table 9.
For the unstabilized sands, the results show a considerable reduction in Es due to increasing OC, much like the figures in Table 5.
When the contaminated sand was treated with LS contents, Es value increased, as given. A 15–20% LS content was able to return Es of
sand contaminated with 3–5% OC to the value of uncontaminated sand. However, the same 15–20% LS content was only barely
capable of bringing the same feat for sand contaminated with 8–10% OC. Nevertheless, it is evident that a 15–20 % LS content may be
appropriate for treating oil-contaminated sand at OC content less than 10 %, a more stringent measure if compared to those given
earlier. The above results can also be displayed in Fig. 12.

5.5. SEM analysis

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) is a commonly used method to examine the structural arrangement of a soil. In this study, the
microstructures of 4 different samples namely uncontaminated sand, sand with 5% OC, lateritic soil (LS), and sand with 5% OC
stabilized with 15 % LS were discussed on the basis of SEM results.
The uncontaminated sand image indicates an agglomerated morphology with various gaps among particles as shown in Fig. 13(a).
The image of the contaminated sample of Fig. 13(b) displays the oil amounts significantly bound to the particles of sand, resulting in
filling the fabric’s pores with oil, a thin oil layer formed among the particle contacts, turning the morphology of oil-contaminated sand
into a microstructure featuring suspended blobs among the bits. On the other hand, the image of pure lateritic soil shows the presence
of big packets of fine soil particles as shown in Fig. 13(c). With the addition of LS to the oil-contaminated sand, the drops of oil got
absorbed and the result is a fine smooth blend of mixture with continuous surface and with most of the earlier pores removed as shown
in Fig. 13(d). Fig. 13(d) also shows a well-cemented soil matrix with lesser voids, and with surface covered with several oxides which
Malomo [62] characterizes as a semi-gelatinous blanket. The structure is showing a composite of large and fine grains which contribute
to the strength. The compactness contributed to the high Es and enhanced shear strength properties.
Besides, the significant proportion of aluminum and iron oxides found in the LS seemed to have cemented the particles together,
trapping the contaminant within the matrix, and preventing further penetrations of contaminant should the product be subjected to
more oil, resulting in a geotechnically improved and environmentally cleaner soil. Due to the short term stabilization processes, the
SEM microphotograph of Fig. 13(d) shows a compact structure characterized with very dense aggregates associated with cation ex­
change, agglomeration, and pozzolanic reactions, which are very different from the unstabilized samples of Fig. 13(a) and (b). Rosone
et al. [63] reported in their study that the short-term stabilization of clay by using lime could significantly enhance the microstructure
and strength characteristics of the stabilized soil even without providing a specific curing period. Furthermore, the microstructure of
LS-stabilized sample of Fig. 13(d) is characterized by aggregates that are intensely similar to what occurs in quartz and pumice sands
when subjected to high stresses [64,65].

5.6. Features of utilizing the LS stabilizer and possible interaction with oil-contaminated soil

In this investigation, both cone resistance (qc) and sleeve friction (fs) of oil-contaminated sands were shown to have improved as a
result of LS stabilization. The reasons for both increased strength and resistance to compression could be numerous possibilities.
Perhaps the most probable hypothesis is that the fine LS particles fill the sand’s pores, the resulting superb pores of the new structure
were now smaller in sizes, not forgetting that the stabilized soil’s volume might have also increased compared with the original sand
volume.
The SEM image of Fig. 13(d) indicates a relatively compact structure of the stabilized sample in comparison to that of Fig. 13(a) and
(b). This change in porosity in the stabilization of oil-contaminated sand using LS could be quite akin to the effects of adding lime in the
stabilization of clay given by Rosone et al. [63] where the once macro pores had become micro pores due to LS filling and as a result the
porosity was redistributed. Moreover, due to the reduction of water content during curing, matrix suction developed and aggregates
shrank. The pozzolanic reactions brought by the lime and silica rich clay were the same effects brought by the LS and oil-contaminated
sands; these either accelerated the porosity redistribution or get accelerated by it, or both. The subsequent bonding that occurred
during the stabilization of clay was affected by lime content and curing time; even for short-term treatment (0 day); however, in the
case of oil-contaminated sand and LS, the enhancement in mechanical behavior was detected to have occurred very early.
Based on the amount of LS utilized, the sand grains could now be even floating in between the LS particles of different sizes. In such
a state, the viscous oil that encapsulated the particles, grains, and contacts, supposed to act as a lubricant, has now been decreased to
traces between the microstructures and no longer dictate the intergranular friction in a significant way. Also, the effective proportions

13
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Table 9
Es values in MPa for uncontaminated, oil-contaminated, and LS-stabilized contaminated sands.
LS (%) OC = % OC = 3% OC = 5% OC = 8% OC = 10 %

LS = 0% 41.294 30.916 27.426 18.203 13.762

LS = 5% 40.208 33.049 28.953 20.628
LS = 10 % 43.300 41.267 29.890 21.956
LS = 15 % 45.754 41.633 39.171 24.317
LS = 20 % 50.391 42.196 40.321 28.756

Fig. 12. Effects of (a) OC, and (b) LS on the Young’s modulus (Es) values.

of aluminum and iron oxides found in the LS would tend to cement the soil particles together into large aggregates with a higher
shearing strength [66], reflecting an improvement in frictional strength particularly.
Alternatively, the strength improvement could also be due to that the chemical composition of LS, as presented in Table 3, indicates
that the 3 main compounds - SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3 - contribute to a combined amount of more than 90 %, therefore, the LS holds a
significant quantity of pozzolans that could encourage and promote the creation of secondary cementitious materials. Offiong and
Akpan [67] reported that a material with silica content of more than 25 % should be considered to have an effective cementitious
composition. George et al. [68] specified that a material with high silica content could improve the geotechnical characteristics of a
contaminated soil by means of cation exchange, agglomeration, and pozzolanic reactions.
Moreover, the strength improvement may also be due to the presence of Ca in the LS as provided in Table 2, and the presence of C in
the oil-contaminated sand, from which the interaction among the two elements with water would result in the production of calcite,
which would become a cementing material between the stabilized sand grains. This finding is in accordance with Umar et al. [69]
which reported that in the presence of water, the carbon dioxide could easily decompose into bicarbonate (HCO3-), and subsequently
interact with the hydroxyl ions, to produce the carbonate ions. In the presence of calcium ions, the carbonate ions would interact with
calcium ions, precipitating the calcite and cementing the soil particle which improves the soil characteristics as in the following
equations:

CO2 + H2 O → HCO−3 + H + (4)

HCO−3 + H + + 2OH − ↔ CO2−3 + 2H2 O (5)

Ca2+ + CO2−3 ↔ CaCO3 ↓ (6)

The deposition of calcite nanoparticles on the surface of sand grains might have increased the surface roughness and therefore have
changed the particle surface frictional properties, although, the authors of the current investigation did not expect such calcite pre­
cipitation to have taken place significantly because of the small percentage of Ca in the LS. Nevertheless, Pakbaz et al. [70] exhibited in
their investigation that the presence of calcite could increase τf of a sandy soil by 44–86%.

14
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Fig. 13. SEM images of (a) uncontaminated sand (b) sand contaminated with 5% OC (c) Lateritic soil and (d) sand contaminated with 5% OC and 15
% LS as stabilizer.

6. Practical applications

6.1. The selection of 15 % LS as a general recommendation for usage in stabilization

The general outcomes reported that the higher the LS amount utilized the better were the results for all applications covering OC of
3–10%. Nevertheless, the 15 % LS was selected as the fixed value in the upcoming practice because of the observation that in many
cases, the improvement in compressibility or strength was optimal in the increment prior this optimum mark. In Figs. 5(a), 6 (a), and 8
(b), the graphs which were steepest until the 15 % LS mark appeared to flatten afterwards while in Figs. 11 and 12(b), the curves of 15
% LS tended to reach those of the 20 % LS. Since the highest LS amount utilized in this investigation was 20 %, in the said instances,
utilizing 15 % LS was therefore as good as utilizing 20 %. The following investigation sought to assess the effects of utilizing oil-
contaminated sands stabilized with 15 % LS as the fine aggregate in concrete mixes.

6.2. Use of LS-stabilized oil-contaminated sand in concrete mix

Oil-contaminated sands have been utilized as fine aggregates in structural concrete and Hamad et al. [71], Hamad and Rteil [72],

15
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Ajagbe et al. [73], Ejeh and Uche [74], Chin et al. [75], Abousnina et al. [76] examined the facts that presence of oil in a concrete mix
decreases the concrete strengths. Also, according to the limitations of utilizing the oil-contaminated soil in concrete mixes, they went to
deduce that the most effective percentage of oil-contaminated soil used in concrete mixes was less than 15 %. Moreover, sands
containing more than 10 % crude oil will give a concrete with less than 50 % of the expected strength of uncontaminated concrete and
may not be used particularly where strength is needed. However, with less than 5% contamination attempts to enhance the strength
should be made or it could be utilized in structures with low strength requirements.
Meanwhile, Ambrose et al. [77],Gowda et al. [78],Shuaibu et al. [79],Ettu et al. [80], Osadebe and Nwakonobi [81], Osunade [82],
Lasisi and Osunade [83],Balogun and Adepegba [84] illustrated the viability of utilizing LS as fine aggregates instead of sand in a
concrete mix. In the current study, however, the LS was not applied directly to a mix but as an additive to the oil-contaminated sand
which was then used together as the fine aggregates of the concrete mixes.
Five mixes with various fine aggregates as the followings: uncontaminated sand; oil-contaminated sand with 5% OC; oil-
contaminated sand with 5% OC, stabilized with 15 % LS; oil-contaminated sand with 10 % OC; and oil-contaminated sand with 10
% OC, stabilized with 15 % LS; have been prepared. Each concrete mix, 1:1.5:3 for the cement, fine aggregate, and coarse aggregate
respectively, with water/cement ratio (w/c) of 0.5.
Out of each of the aforementioned mixes, a cube for the compression test and a beam for the ‘3-point bend’ flexural test was cast.
The (100 × 100 × 100 mm) cubes and (100 × 100 × 500 mm) beams were utilized to examine the properties of hardened concrete in
terms of compressive and flexural strengths; after casting, these were then cured for 28 days by submerging in water.
The concrete test results are listed in Table 10. The OC of the concrete mix, or rather, of the oil-contaminated sands, markedly
declined the resulting strengths; the extra the oil, the extra the reductions. These reductions in strength could be attributed to the oil
which prevents water from reaching all over the particles of binder and filler aggregates during mixing and thereafter during the curing
process, which negatively impacted the process of cement hydration. In other words, the oil-contamination of the fine aggregates,
which represents the essence of the concrete’s microstructure, would induce dilation of the various hydrogels produced during casting,
resulting in the weakening of the cohesive forces in the paste.
The reduction percentage in compressive strength due to varying the OC is presented in Fig. 14. Approximately 41 % of the
compressive strength were lost due to contaminating the sample with 5% OC and almost 58 % lost in the 10 % oil contamination case.
These reduction values are comparable to those of Ajagbe et al. [73] who observed reductions of nearly 40 and 55 % for fine aggregates
with 5 and 10 % OC that were utilized in the concrete mixes. Moreover, they went on to deduce that in the case of fine aggregates
having more than 15 % OC, the compressive strength would be 25 % or less as compared to that of the normal uncontaminated mix.
The results of compressive strengths were 42.25 and 60.95 % higher due to stabilization with 15 % LS for the 5 and 10 % OC
respectively, in comparison to those of the unstabilized oil-contaminated fine aggregates.
This is because of the high SiO2 content (59.42 %), which causes a higher hydration reaction and tends to react with Ca(OH)2 to
create further calcium silicate hydrate, resulting in improving the quality of the end product. In other words, the high content of SiO2 of
the fines allows effective bonding with the Ca(OH)2 thereby promoting the pozzolanic reaction [85].
The outcomes of flexural tests are presented in Fig. 15 and Table 10. The flexural strength of the uncontaminated mix was 6.69
MPa, and lowered by about 11 and 27 % at 5 and 10 % OC, respectively, with similar findings also reported by Chin et al. [75] and
Hamad and Rteil [72]. On the other hand, with the use of the 15 % LS-stabilized oil-contaminated sands, the flexural strengths were
enhanced, but the uncontaminated concrete’s value has never been obtained. Failures were all sudden and brittle for the
oil-contaminated and the stabilized, and the cracks for the oil-contaminated were similarly more linear and vertical, as displayed in
Fig. 16. Brittle cracks were also observed in the work of Osunade [82].

7. Conclusions

Stabilization of oil-contaminated soil using either polymers or cements might have been vastly implemented but the current
research has shown that a simple usage of LS also yielded competitive outcomes. The high content of fine particles and oxides in the
lateritic soil can serve as filler for the pores and absorbing the excess oil, resulting in enhancing the geotechnical properties of oil-
contaminated soil. The current study showed that sands can be severely weakened by oil contamination but the strengths can be
returned by treatment using lateritic soils. When the strengths are measured using the CPTu system as commonly performed at sites,
the improvements can be recognized through the increases in fc, fs, and SPTN.
Additionally, assessing the behaviour of LS-stabilized oil-contaminated sand, as a fine aggregate in concrete mix design, indicated

Table 10
Test results of concrete for uncontaminated, oil-contaminated, and LS-stabilized samples.
Hardened concrete properties after 28 days

Sample type Compression test Flexure test

Compressive strength MPa) Ultimate load (kN) Flexure strength (MPa)

uncontaminated (OC ¼ 0%) 50.95 14.88 6.69

5% OC 29.75 13.17 5.92
5% OC þ 15 % LS 42.32 13.90 6.25
10 % OC 21.23 10.86 4.89
10 % OC þ 15 % LS 34.17 12.48 5.61

16
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Fig. 14. Reduction in compressive strength versus oil content (L. C. Osuji and Opiah).

Fig. 15. Load-deflection curves for all tested samples.

an improvement in the concrete strengths. Hence, the oil-contaminated sand stabilized with LS can be utilized for structural concrete
mixes.
The conclusions that can be drawn from the study are:

(1) The highest friction angle (ϕ) due to stabilizing an oil-contaminated sand using LS was achieved at 3% OC. With the addition of
5, 10, 15, and 20 % LS, ϕ increased by 5.7, 8.3, 10.9, and 12.6 % respectively.
(2) Adding 15–20% LS in a treatment was determined to be convenient and economically sensible. The addition of 15 % LS to an oil-
contaminated sand increased tip resistance (qc) by 87.3, 98.6, 71.1, and 74.4 % at OC of 3, 5, 8, and 10 %, respectively.
Furthermore, the sleeve friction (fs) increased by 106.1, 180, 157.1 and 261 % at OC of 3, 5, 8, and 10 %, respectively.
(3) The sand used in the current study showed a marked reduction in Es when contaminated with oil, and Es reduced further with
increasing OC content. However, when treated with 20 % LS, Es returned to the value of uncontaminated sand, even for sands
contaminated with up to 8–10% OC. Es increased further with increasing LS content.
(4) Based on the SEM tests, the LS-stabilized contaminated soil was found to be more compact and contained fewer gaps and pores,
which were indications of a structurally improved soil matrix with improved soil strength.
(5) The reduction of concrete’s strengths, as a result of the replacement of fine aggregate by oil-contaminated sand, is a function of
the content of the oil in the sand. The higher the oil content, the higher the strength reduction. Sands that contain 5% and 10 %
OCs declined the compressive strength by more than 40 % and 55 % respectively.
(6) Usage of oil-contaminated sand stabilized by 15 % LS as a fine aggregate in the concrete mixes improves the strengths. At 5%
and 10 % OCs, the improvement in the compressive strength is about 42 % and 60 % respectively.
(7) The above points should indicate the superb stabilizing quality of the LS as an admixture. The sand was poorly graded thus there
was ample void requiring filling in order to for it to be stabilized.

17
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

Fig. 16. Flexural tests on beams with: (a) 0% OC, (b) 5% OC, (c) 10 % OC, (d) 10 % OC + 15 % LS.

8. Recommendations

Stabilization by 15 % LS should be a sensible recommendation when dealing with high viscosity oil-contaminated sands with
3–10% OC. Usage of LS can be promoted if the LS is available locally or other stabilizers are more costly. The remaining issue however
is if the product can be durable in the long term especially under submerged condition, either for a long period of time or in between
dry intervals. Durability for the LS alone is already widely discussed in the literature, even in the introductory part of this paper,
however when used as additive to oil-contaminated sands, a further study is called for.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express sincere appreciation for the support from Universiti Sains Malaysia in making this project a success.
The research was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia under the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme with grant
number FRGS/1/2018/TK01/USM/03/4.

References

[1] A. Patel, Study of geotechnical properties of black cotton soil contaminated by castor oil and stabilization of contaminated soil by sawdust, National Conference
on Recent Trends in Engineering & Technology (2011) 13–14.
[2] H.A. Al-Sanad, W.K. Eid, N.F. Ismael, Geotechnical properties of oil-contaminated Kuwaiti sand, J. Geotech. Eng. 121 (5) (1995) 407–412.
[3] D.B. Al-Duwaisan, A.A. Al-Naseem, Characterization of oil contaminated soil-Kuwait oil lakes, Proceedings of International Conference on Environmental
Science and Technology (ICEST 2011) (2011).
[4] P. Fine, E. Graber, B. Yaron, Soil interactions with petroleum hydrocarbons: abiotic processes, J. Soil Technol. 10 (2) (1997) 133–153.
[5] E. Khosravi, H. Ghasemzadeh, M.R. Sabour, H. Yazdani, Geotechnical properties of gas oil-contaminated kaolinite, J. Eng. Geol. 166 (2013) 11–16.

18
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

[6] E. Shin, J. Lee, B. Das, Bearing capacity of a model scale footing on crude oil-contaminated sand, J. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 17 (2) (1999) 123–132.
[7] Z.A. Rahman, U. Hamzah, M.R. Taha, N.S. Ithnain, N. Ahmad, Influence of oil contamination on geotechnical properties of basaltic residual soil, Am. J. Appl.
Sci. 7 (7) (2010) 954.
[8] R.A. Abdelhalim, M. El Sawwaf, A.M. Nasr, A. Farouk, Experimental and numerical studies of laterally loaded piles located near oil-contaminated sand slope,
Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2020.03.001.
[9] M. Saberian, M.M. Khabiri, Effect of oil pollution on function of sandy soils in protected deserts and investigation of their improvement guidelines (case study:
kalmand area, Iran), J. Environ. Geochem. Health 40 (1) (2018) 243–254.
[10] I.I. Akinwumi, C.A. Booth, D. Diwa, P. Mills, Cement stabilisation of crude-oil-contaminated soil, J. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Geotech. Eng. 169 (4) (2016) 336–345.
[11] H.F. Hassan, R. Taha, A. Al Rawas, B. Al Shandoudi, K. Al Gheithi, A.M. Al Barami, Potential uses of petroleum-contaminated soil in highway construction,
J. Construct. Build. Mater. 19 (8) (2005) 646–652.
[12] A. Al-Rawas, H.F. Hassan, R. Taha, A. Hago, B. Al-Shandoudi, Y. Al-Suleimani, Stabilization of oil-contaminated soils using cement and cement by-pass dust,
Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. (2005).
[13] S.J. Shah, A. Shroff, J.V. Patel, K. Tiwari, D. Ramakrishnan, Stabilization of fuel oil contaminated soil—a case study, J. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 21 (4) (2003)
415–427.
[14] A. Tuncan, M. Tuncan, H. Koyuncu, Use of petroleum-contaminated drilling wastes as sub-base material for road construction, J. Waste Manage. Res. 18 (5)
(2000) 489–505.
[15] F. Martin, H. Doyne, Laterite and lateritic soils in Sierra Leone, J. Agric. Sci. 17 (4) (1927) 530–547.
[16] F. Martin, H. Doyne, Laterite and lateritic soil in Sierra Leone, II, J. Agric. Sci. 20 (1) (1930) 135–143.
[17] H.F. Winterkorn, E. Chandrasekharan, Laterite Soils and Their Stabilization, Winterkorn Road Research Institute, 1951.
[18] Y. Tardy, Petrology of Laterites and Tropical Soils, AA Balkema, 1997.
[19] C. Oyelami, J.L. Van Rooy, Geotechnical characterisation of lateritic soils from south-western Nigeria as materials for cost-effective and energy-efficient building
bricks, Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (23) (2016) 1475.
[20] J. Qian, G. Liang, J. Ling, Q. Jia, F. Zeng, Laboratory characterization of cement–lateritic gravel for use in base construction, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (3) (2017),
D4015001.
[21] E. Mengue, H. Mroueh, L. Lancelot, R.M. Eko, Mechanical improvement of a fine-grained lateritic soil treated with cement for use in road construction, J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 29 (11) (2017), 04017206.
[22] A.A. Bandeira, R.M. Fortes, J.V. Merighi, A study of the Hot-Mix Asphalt layer thickness reduction when applied over lateritic soils cement base in airfield,
J Exacta 7 (1) (2009) 121–131.
[23] P. Paige-Green, M. Pinard, F. Netterberg, A review of specifications for lateritic materials for low volume roads, J Transportation Geotechnics 5 (2015) 86–98.
[24] H. Grace, Investigations in Kenya and Malawi using as-dug laterite as bases for bituminous surfaced roads, J. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 9 (3–4) (1991) 183–195.
[25] C. Gourley, P.A.K. Greening, Performance of Low Volume Sealed Roads: Results and Recommendations from Studies in Southern Africa, Transport Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK, 1999.
[26] J. Rolt, K. Mukura, F. Dangare, A. Otto, Back Analysis of Previous Constructed Low Volume Rural Roads in Mozambique, AFCAP, Wantage, 2013.
[27] T. Lunne, J.J. Powell, P.K. Robertson, Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, CRC Press, 2002.
[28] P. Robertson, Sediment classification using the cone penetration test, J. Can. Geotech. J (1990).
[29] P. Robertson, Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system—an update, Can. Geotech. J. 53 (12) (2016) 1910–1927.
[30] M.G. Gomez, J.T. DeJong, C.M. Anderson, Effect of bio-cementation on geophysical and cone penetration measurements in sands, Can. Geotech. J. 55 (11)
(2018) 1632–1646.
[31] G. De Mio, H. Giacheti, A. Viana da Fonseca, C. Ferreira, CPTu interpretation for stratigraphic logging: differences between sedimentary and residual soils, in:
CPTProceedings of the Second International Symposium of Cone Penetration Testing, Vol. 10, 2010.
[32] A.A. Kadafa, Oil exploration and spillage in the Niger Delta of Nigeria, J. Civil Environ. Res. 2 (3) (2012) 38–51.
[33] V. Imevbore, A. Imevbore, E. Gundlach, Niger Delta Environmental Survey 1997, Vol. 1, Environmental and Socio-Economic Characteristics, 1997.
[34] E. Obot, Q. Antonio, S. Braide, M. Dore, C. Wicks, R. Steiner, Niger Delta Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Project, J Report submitted to
the Federal Ministry of Environment, Abuja Nigeria Conservation Foundation, Lagos, 2006.
[35] B.S. Persons, Laterite: Genesis, Location, Use, Springer Science & Business Media, 1970.
[36] K.S. Sukhadane, E. Priya, S.M. Raut, T. Jayakumar, Status of oil pollution in Indian coastal waters, J. Fish. Chimes 33 (5) (2013) 53–54.
[37] Y. Han, I.M. Nambi, T.P. Clement, Environmental impacts of the Chennai oil spill accident–A case study, J. Sci. Total Environ. 626 (2018) 795–806.
[38] R. Balena, Priority responses to the 2006 Guimaras oil spill, Philippines: Will history repeat itself? J. Ocean Coastal Manage. 103 (2015) 42–55.
[39] A.L. Kampa, T. Casarotto, A. Maria, C.G. Woodard-Wallace, J.S. Whyte, Documentation and Analysis of the Rayong Oil Spill: Characterizing the Health,
Economic, and Social Impacts of the Incident and Response, 2014.
[40] M.H.M. Rusli, Navigational Hazards in International Maritime Chokepoints: a Study of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, 8(47), 2012, pp. 1–35.
[41] E. Evgin, B. Das, Mechanical Behavior of an Oil Contaminated Sand. Environmental Geotechnology, Usmen & Acar, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1992.
[42] L. Osuji, E. Egbuson, C. Ojinnaka, Chemical reclamation of crude-oil-inundated soils from Niger Delta, Nigeria, J. Chem. Ecol. 21 (1) (2005) 1–10.
[43] L.C. Osuji, C.M. Onojake, Field reconnaissance and estimation of petroleum hydrocarbon and heavy metal contents of soils affected by the Ebocha-8 oil spillage
in Niger Delta, Nigeria, J. Environ. Manage. 79 (2) (2006) 133–139.
[44] L.C. Osuji, U.C. Opiah, Hydrocarbon contamination of a terrestrial ecosystem: the case of Oshire-2 oil spill in Niger Delta, Nigeria, J. Environ. 27 (3) (2007)
337–340.
[45] I.J. Okop, S.C. Ekpo, Determination of total hydrocarbon content in soil after petroleum spillage, in: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, Vol. 3,
2012, pp. 2–6.
[46] F. Tanee, E. Albert, Reconnaissance assessment of long-term effects of crude oil spill on soil chemical properties and plant composition at Kwawa, Ogoni,
Nigeria, J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 8 (6) (2015) 320.
[47] A. Ghaly, Strength remediation of oil contaminated sands, The Seventeenth International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management, Philadelphia
(2001).
[48] A.M. Nasr, Experimental and theoretical studies for the behavior of strip footing on oil-contaminated sand, J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 135 (12) (2009)
1814–1822.
[49] A.M. Nasr, Uplift behavior of vertical piles embedded in oil-contaminated sand, J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 139 (1) (2013) 162–174.
[50] M. Khamehchiyan, A.H. Charkhabi, M. Tajik, Effects of crude oil contamination on geotechnical properties of clayey and sandy soils, Eng. Geol. 89 (3–4) (2007)
220–229.
[51] M.R. Selamat, D.Z. Abidin, M.Z. Yusoff, R.N. Rosli, M.H. Ramli, A.Q. Alkinani, et al., CPTU penetrations into the Marine clays and laterite soils of Northwest
peninsular Malaysia, in: AWAM International Conference on Civil Engineering, Springer, 2019, pp. 215–227.
[52] E. Robinsky, C. Morrison, Sand displacement and compaction around model friction piles, Can. Geotech. J. 1 (2) (1964) 81–93.
[53] F.S. Tehrani, M.I. Arshad, M. Prezzi, R. Salgado, Physical modeling of cone penetration in layered sand, J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 144 (1) (2018),
04017101.
[54] J.T. DeJong, M. Randolph, Influence of partial consolidation during cone penetration on estimated soil behavior type and pore pressure dissipation
measurements, J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 138 (7) (2012) 777–788.
[55] P.K. Robertson, K. Cabal, Guide to cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering, J. Gregg Drilling Testing (2010).
[56] M. Gui, M. Bolton, J. Garnier, J. Corte, G. Bagge, J. Laue, et al., Guidelines for cone penetration tests in sand, in: Centrifuge, Vol. 98, 1998, pp. 155–160.
[57] R.A. Lohnes, T. Demirel, E.R. Tuncer, Strength and Structure of Laterites and Lateritic Soils, IOWA STATE UNIV AMES ENGINEERING RESEARCH INST, 1976.
[58] G. Blight, E. Leong, Mechanics of Residual Soils, 2nd edition, Taylor & Francis, London, 2012.

19
R.A. Abdelhalim et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00580

[59] K. Wallace, Structural behaviour of residual soils of the continually wet Highlands of Papua New Guinea, J Geotechnique 23 (2) (1973) 203–218.
[60] F.H. Kulhawy, P.W. Mayne, Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design, Electric Power Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA (USA); Cornell Univ.,
Ithaca …, 1990.
[61] E.E. Putri, N. Rao, M. Mannan, Evaluation of modulus of elasticity and modulus of subgrade reaction of soils using CBR test, J. Civ. Eng. Res. 2 (1) (2012) 34–40.
[62] S. Malomo, Microstructural investigation on latérite soils, J. Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol.-Bull. de l’Association Internationale de Géologie de l’Ingénieur 39 (1)
(1989) 105–109.
[63] M. Rosone, C. Celauro, A. Ferrari, Microstructure and shear strength evolution of a lime-treated clay for use in road construction, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 21 (9)
(2020) 1147–1158.
[64] C. Valore, M. Ziccarelli, The evolution of grain-size distribution of sands under 1-D compression, in: IOS Under the Imprint Mill Press17 Iternational Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1, 2009, pp. 84–88.
[65] M. Ziccarelli, Evolution of grain-size distribution of pumice sands in 1-D compression, J. Procedia Eng. 158 (2016) 27–32.
[66] S. Ola, Geotechnical properties and behaviour of some stabilized Nigerian lateritic soils, Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 11 (2) (1978) 145–160.
[67] U.D. Offiong, G.E. Akpan, Assessment of physico-chemical properties of periwinkle shell ash as partial replacement for cement in concrete, Int. J. Sci. Eng. Sci. 1
(7) (2017) 33–36.
[68] S. George, E. Aswathy, B. Sabu, N. Krishnaprabha, M. George, Stabilization of diesel oil contaminated soil using fly ash, Int. J. Civil Struct. Eng. Res 2 (2) (2015).
[69] M. Umar, K.A. Kassim, K.T.P. Chiet, Biological process of soil improvement in civil engineering: a review, J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 8 (5) (2016) 767–774.
[70] M. Pakbaz, H. Behzadipour, G. Ghezelbash, Evaluation of shear strength parameters of sandy soils upon microbial treatment, Geomicrobiol. J. 35 (8) (2018)
721–726.
[71] B.S. Hamad, A.A. Rteil, M. El-Fadel, Effect of used engine oil on properties of fresh and hardened concrete, J. Construct. Build. Mater. 17 (5) (2003) 311–318.
[72] B.S. Hamad, A.A. Rteil, Effect of used engine oil on structural behavior of reinforced concrete elements, J. Construct. Build. Mater. 17 (3) (2003) 203–211.
[73] W.O. Ajagbe, O.S. Omokehinde, G.A. Alade, O.A. Agbede, Effect of crude oil impacted sand on compressive strength of concrete, J. Construct. Build. Mater. 26
(1) (2012) 9–12.
[74] S. Ejeh, O. Uche, Effect of crude oil spill on compressive strength of concrete materials, J. Appl. Sci. Res. 5 (10) (2009) 1756–1761.
[75] S. Chin, N. Shafiq, F. Nuruddin, Effects of used engine oil in reinforced concrete beams: the structural behaviour, Int. J. Civil Geol. Eng. 6 (2012) 83–90.
[76] R.M. Abousnina, A. Manalo, W. Lokuge, J. Shiau, Oil contaminated sand: an emerging and sustainable construction material, J. Procedia Eng. 118 (2015)
1119–1126.
[77] E. Ambrose, D. Ekpo, I. Umoren, U. Ekwere, Compressive strength and workability of laterized quarry sand concrete, Niger. J. Technol. 37 (3) (2018) 605–610.
[78] S.B. Gowda, C. Rajasekaran, S.C. Yaragal, Significance of processing laterite on strength characteristics of laterized concrete, in: IOP PublishingIOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 431, 2018, p. 082003. Vol. 8.
[79] R. Shuaibu, R. Mutuku, T. Nyomboi, A review of the properties of laterite concrete, Int. J. Civ. Struct. Eng. 5 (2) (2014) 130–143.
[80] L. Ettu, O. Ibearugbulem, J. Ezeh, U. Anya, The suitability of using laterite as sole fine aggregate in structural concrete, Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 4 (5) (2013)
502–507.
[81] N. Osadebe, T. Nwakonobi, Structural characteristics of laterized concrete at optimum mix proportion, Niger. J. Technol. 26 (1) (2007) 12–17.
[82] J. Osunade, Effect of replacement of lateritic soils with granite fines on the compressive and tensile strengths of laterized concrete, J. Build. Environ. 37 (5)
(2002) 491–496.
[83] F. Lasisi, J. Osunade, Effect of grain size on the strength of cubes made from lateritic soils, J Build. Environ. 19 (1) (1984) 55–58.
[84] L. Balogun, D. Adepegba, Effect of varying sand content in laterized concrete, Int. J. Cem. Compos. Lightweight Concr. 4 (4) (1982) 235–240.
[85] V. Sata, C. Jaturapitakkul, K. Kiattikomol, Utilization of palm oil fuel ash in high-strength concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 16 (6) (2004) 623–628.

20