Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Soil and clay stabilization with calcium- and non-calcium-based additives: A T

state-of-the-art review of challenges, approaches and techniques
Ali Behnood
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051, USA

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

Keywords: Soil stabilization is a technique to improve the engineering and geotechnical properties of soils such as me-
Clay chanical strength, permeability, compressibility, durability and plasticity. Much has been learned about soil
Soil stabilization techniques and additives over the past century. The state of the practice in stabilization techniques
Stabilization and challenges is presented with a discussion. Moreover, available studies regarding the effects of various types
Calcium-based materials
of stabilizing agents on the engineering and geotechnical properties of stabilized soils are reviewed here. These
Non-calcium-based materials
stabilizing agents include both calcium-based and non-calcium-based additives. Eco-friendly additives as al-
ternative materials to conventional stabilizing agents are also discussed in this paper. In addition, the problems
associated with the presence of disruptive salts and sulfate as well as the techniques to overcome these problems
in soil stabilization projects are reviewed.

Introduction
In civil engineering, soil stabilization is a technique to refine and
improve the engineering properties of soils such as mechanical
strength, permeability, compressibility, durability and plasticity. The
properties of soil may be improved physically or mechanically, how-
ever, the term “stabilization” mainly refers to chemical improvements
in the soil properties by adding chemical admixtures. Soil stabilization
is widely used in many civil engineering applications such as sub-base
and sub-grade construction, rail and road construction, foundation
construction and embankments, backfill for bridge abutments and re-
taining walls, etc.
Soil stabilization with chemical admixtures is beneficial in many
aspects [1,2] such as (a) enhancing strength properties (including
shearing strength and compressive strength), (b) mitigating and redu-
cing volume instability and swelling potential and controlling
shrinkage, (c) reducing the plasticity index (PI), (d) reducing perme-
ability, (e) reducing soil compressibility, deformation, and settlement,
(f) reducing clay/silt-sized particle, (g) improving resilient modulus,
and (h) improving durability to resist unfavorable environmental con-
ditions such as freeze-thaw (FT) or wet-dry (WD) cycles, erosion, and
weathering.
Soil stabilization agents include a wide array of materials such as
lime, Portland cement, industrial by-products (e.g., fly ash, slag, etc.),
polymers, fibers, chemical reagents, waste/recycled materials (e.g.,
shredded tire, crushed glass, etc.), asphalt emulsion, tar, bitumen and
so on. Among many stabilization materials, soil stabilization with lime
or cement is the most widely used technique. However, these stabili-
zation agents have their own deficiencies such as environmental im-
pacts in terms of CO2 emission, energy consumption and cost. In ad-
dition, although the application of lime or cement improves the
engineering properties of soils to some extent, they could also adversely
affect some other properties of the soils. For instance, these additives
could cause problematic expansion in the presence of sulfate.
Properties of the stabilized soils with cementitious materials such as
Portland cement or lime depend on the characteristics of both soil and
stabilization agent. Soil properties that affect the effectiveness of the
stabilization include the type and the quantity of cementitious materials
as well as the characteristics of the soil such as particle size distribution
(PSD) (or gradation), chemical composition and minerology, plasticity
characteristics, organic matter content, salt (mainly sulfate) content,
cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH, specific surface area and so on.
Moreover, the type and the length of curing condition as well as the
method and quality of construction (e.g., compaction effort) can affect
the gained properties of stabilized soils.
This paper presents a comprehensive review on the following sub-
jects: (a) influence of various calcium-based and non-calcium-based
additives on the engineering and geotechnical properties of commonly
used soils in civil engineering applications; (b) various techniques and
approaches used for soil stabilization; (c) recent studies focusing on the
use of more environmentally friendly and non-conventional soil stabi-
lization additives and techniques; and (d) effects of various soil

E-mail address: abehnood@purdue.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.08.002
Received 2 May 2018; Received in revised form 16 July 2018; Accepted 20 August 2018
Available online 22 August 2018
2214-3912/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Behnood Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32

Nomenclature LL Liquid limit

MDI Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
BA Biomass ash MgO Magnesium oxide
BCS Black cotton soil MK Metakaolin
BFS Blast furnace slag MWCNT Multiwall carbon nanotubes
BOF Basic oxygen furnace OMC Optimum moisture content
BOFS Basic oxygen furnace slag OPC Ordinary Portland cement
CAH Calcium aluminate hydrates PE Polyethylene
CASH Calcium alumino-silicate hydrates PET Polyester
CCR Calcium carbide residue PI Plasticity index
CE Cation exchange PL Plastic limit
CEC Cation exchange capacity PP Polypropylene
CH Calcium hydroxide PSD Particle size distribution
CKD Cement kiln dust PVA Polyvinyl alcohol
CNT Carbon nanotube PVC Polyvinyl chloride
CS Carbide slag RHA Rice husk ash
CSH Calcium silicate hydrates SEM Scanning electron microscopy
EAF Electric arc furnace SF Silica fume
FA Fly ash SS Steel slag
FT Freeze-thaw STS Splitting tensile strength
IOT Iron ore tailing SWCNT Single-wall carbon nanotubes
GBFS Granulated blast furnace slag TEM Transmission electron microscopy
GBOFS Ground basic oxygen furnace slag UCS Unconfined compressive strength
GGBFS Ground granulated blast furnace slag WD Wet-dry
LAA Liquid alkaline activator XRD X-ray Diffraction
LF Ladle furnace

stabilization agents on the engineering properties of soils in the pre-
sence of salts.
Calcium-based stabilizers
Calcium-based stabilizers such as Portland cement or those having
pozzolanic properties involve five processes to improve the properties
of clay soils [3–6]: (a) hydration, (b) cation exchange (CE),1 (c) floc-
culation and agglomeration, (d) pozzolonaic reaction, and (e) potential
carbonation. Cation exchange process due to the mixing of stabilizers
with soil causes flocculation and agglomeration of soil particles, which
in turn produces a soil with coarser particle size distribution, higher
permeability and lower plasticity. This process starts immediately upon
mixing the stabilizing agent with soil and lasts for just a few hours.
Hydration process lasts longer as up to one month after mixing. In
addition, the presence of OH− increases the pH values, which develops
the pozzolanic reaction. Due to the pozzolanic reaction, Ca2+ supplied
from the stabilization agent reacts with Si and Al, and produces ce-
mentitious compounds such as calcium silicate hydrates (CSH), calcium
aluminate hydrates (CAH) and calcium alumino-silicate hydrates
(CASH) [7–9]. These compounds improve the soil properties such as
compressive strength, shear strength, tensile strength, resilient modulus
and modulus of elasticity. Pozzolanic reaction lasts even longer and it
may take place over months or years. Supplying the adequate amount
of calcium plays an important role in the ability of calcium-based sta-
bilizers to provide timely improved properties of soils. In other words,
the effectiveness of calcium-based stabilizers highly depends on their
free lime content.
A wide range of calcium-based stabilizers have been used to im-
prove the engineering properties of soils, which will be discussed in the
remaining of this section.
1
Higher cation exchange capacity (CEC) of soil is unfavorable since it re-
duces the calcium hydroxide (CH) saturation [281]. Under the condition of
unsaturated CH in the pore solution, further cation exchange may consume
Ca2+ and OH− ions, which can adversely affect the production of CSH and
consequently the strength properties [281].
Portland cement
Portland cement and lime have been widely used as soil stabiliza-
tion agents for various types of soils including expansive soils.2 Gen-
erally, stabilization of a soil with cement performs better than its sta-
bilization with lime (or other calcium-based stabilizers) when the same
level of stabilizing agent is added. The use of Portland cement is more
favorable than the use of lime (or other stabilization agents) because of
its faster and higher strength enhancements [10–14]. However, some
challenges are associated with the use of cement including the higher
energy consumption and cost compared to other additives and the ad-
verse environmental impacts in terms of CO2 emission (cement industry
contributes to 5–7% of global CO2 emission [15–17]). In addition, the
presence of heavy metals such as lead in the cement can be very toxic at
high concentrations.
Horpibulsuk et al. investigated the strength development of cement-
stabilized silty clay as a function of cement content using both standard
and modified proctor energy [18]. They observed three zones for the
strength development of cement-stabilized silty clay as shown in Fig. 1.
In the first zone (i.e., cement content less than 11%), which was named
as “active zone”, an increase in the cement content is associated with a
significant increase in the values of unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) due to the rapid development of hydration products. In the
second zone (i.e., cement content between 11% and 30%), although the
UCS shows an increasing trend as the cement content increases, its rate
is slow. In this zone, which was called as “inert zone”, the development
of cementitious products due to the hydration reaction is relatively si-
milar for different cement contents. This behavior is similar to that of a
concrete with high free lime content. Beyond inert zone (i.e., cement
2
The so called “expansive soils” experience great volume changes (i.e.,
swelling and shrinking) as their water content varies. Although these soils are
widely distributed throughout the world, they are usually abundant in arid or
semi-arid regions, where smectite group clays (e.g., montmorillonite) or some
types of illites can be formed due to the presence of suitable conditions. Having
a very small particle size and consequently a large specific surface area as well
as having a high CEC are of the specific characteristics of these clays.

15
A. Behnood Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32

content more than 30%), which was named as deterioration zone, the
Unconfined compressive strength (kPa)

7 days of curing UCS shows a decreasing trend as the cement content increases. The
decreasing trend in the strength is because of the insufficient amount of
Acti ve zone
water in the deterioration zone to provide the complete hydration of
cement particles. The active zone provides the most effective cement
content for clay stabilization. In addition, the maximum strength of the
cement-stabilized clay in the active zone can be obtained by using a
water content which is 1.2 times the optimum water content [18]. It
Inert zone Deterioration zone can be seen that in the active zone, for a given water content, the UCS
increases approximately linearly with the increase in the cement con-
tent. This observation is in line with the findings of other studies for
cement-treated sands [19,20]. It should be noted that the extension of
Modified Proctor energy, w = 20% the active zone (as a function of cement content) depends on several
Standard Proctor energy, w = 26% factors such as the chemical composition of the soil and its impurities.
The engineering properties (e.g., UCS) of cement-treated soils are
also dependent on the compaction energy, the water content and the
Cement content (%) porosity. Compaction breaks down larger clay clusters into smaller
ones, which, in turn, increases the surface area. Therefore, it could be
Fig. 1. Unconfined strength development of a cement-stabilized soil after
expected that Portland cement become more effective in more com-
7 days of curing [18].
pacted cement-soil mixtures [19]. For a given dry density, the UCS
increases with the increase in the moisture content up to a maximum
value (i.e., where all cement particles are completely hydrated), and
then it decreases. In addition to the hydration products, moisture

Unconfined compressive strength fcu (MPa)

C OPC=15%, Curing time=28 d Active Zone Ine rt Zone
Axial stress (MPa)

COPC = 12%, T=7d

CMK = 0% COPC = 12%, T=28d
CMK = 1% COPC = 15%, T=7d
C MK = 3% COPC = 15%, T=28d
C MK = 5%

(b)
(a) Axial strain (%)

COPC = 12% (7d)

COPC = 12% (28d)
COPC = 15% (7d)
COPC = 15% (28d)
E50 (MPa)

(c) C MK (%)

Fig. 2. The effects of metakaolin on (a) axial stress – axial strain behavior and (b) unconfined compressive strength, and (c) secant modulus of cement-stabilized clay
[22].

16
A. Behnood
content affects the porosity. Although there is not any established re-
lationship between the moisture content and the UCS, the UCS in-
creases exponentially as the porosity decreases [19].
Soil-water/cement ratio is one of the important factors affecting the
properties of cement-stabilized soils. Horpibulsuk et al. [21] reported
that at the optimum moisture content (OMC) and the wet side of OMC,
the strength development in cement-stabilized soils depends only upon
the soil-water/cement ratio.
Previous studies have shown that the use of some other cementi-
tious materials as partial replacements for cement or in combination
with cement can lead to further improvements in the properties of ce-
ment-stabilized soils. For example, metakaolin (MK) is one of the ad-
ditives that has been used in combination with Portland cement to
stabilize various types of soils [22–24]. MK is an amorphous alumino-
silicate compound produced from the calcination of pure kaolinite at a
temperature range between 500 °C and 900 °C. The addition of MK to
the cemented soils significantly increases the UCS, the splitting tensile
strength (STS) and the secant modulus, decreases the hydraulic con-
ductivity, and improves the compactability of the soils [22–24].
Fig. 2(a) shows that the addition of more than 3% MK is associated with
2–3 times higher compressive strength compared to clay stabilized only
with cement. In addition, Fig. 2(a) shows that cemented soils experi-
ence less brittle failure in the presence of 3% MK. Fig. 2(a) and (b)
depict that the compressive strength of cement-stabilized soil does not
have a linear relationship with the MK content. The rate of strength
development decreases after the addition of 3% MK. The ratio of MK to
cement ranging from 1/3 to 1/2 was reported as the maximum
threshold to obtain the beneficial effects of MK [23]. Up to this
threshold, the addition of MK increases the strength of the cemented
soil, while it decreases thereafter [23]. MK also increases the secant
modulus of the cemented soil as shown in Fig. 2(c) [22].
Lime
Lime is obtained by burning limestone and can be used in a variety
of forms to stabilize soils. As a soil stabilizing agent, it can be used as
ground quicklime (calcium oxide), hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide)
and milk-of-lime suspension.3 Cement is not typically used for stabili-
zation of the soils with high PI (i.e., higher than 30). To bypass this
issue, lime can be added prior to mixing with cement to keep the soils
more workable.
The geotechnical properties of the soils change immediately after
the treatment with lime. Clayey soils treated with lime lose their co-
hesive properties and behave as granular materials. Lime-clay reactions
(mainly a pozzolanic reaction) are responsible for the changes in the
geotechnical properties. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) has
shown that lime-treated clays have a more compact structure, and
thicker but less large particles with interconnected pores than untreated
clays [6]. Analysis with the transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
and the X-ray diffraction (XRD) have revealed three different stages of
lime-clay reaction [6,25,26]: (a) the flocculation of the particles, (b) the
formation of calcite crystals (CaCO3) due to the reaction between lime,
Ca(OH)2 and carbon dioxide (existing in the air), and (c) the formation
of cementitious reaction products such as CSH, CAH and CASH (CASH
is usually observed only with high amount of lime).
Bell [27] studied the lime stabilization of three of the major oc-
curring minerals in clay soils, namely, kaolinite, montmorillonite and
quartz. Montmorillonitic clays experience the highest reduction in
plastic limits whilst kaolinitic clays experience it to a lesser extent. With
3
The use of Mg-rich lime as a soil stabilization agent is not recommended
since it could contribute in the neoformation of Mg-rich smectites at an early
stage of the lime treatment and the decomposition of CASH phases over time,
which could lead to the increased swelling capacity and decrease the me-
chanical strength [282].
17
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
regard to quartz, lime does not have significant effect on the plastic
limits. The addition of lime slightly increases the liquid limit of kaoli-
nite and quartz while decreases that of montmorillonite. The addition
of lime also reduces the plasticity of montmorillonite clay. This differ-
ence in the behavior of various types of clays regarding plasticity could
be attributed to their difference in CEC. Expandable clay soils such as
montmorillonite tend to react readily with lime and loose plasticity
immediately due to their high CEC. The early-age strength development
of lime-treated montmorillonite is faster than that of kaolinite. How-
ever, at later ages, the strength development of the former is not as high
as that of the latter.
The effects of lime on the engineering properties of highly ex-
pansive4 and troublesome clay minerals such as black cotton soil (BCS)
has also been found to be promising [28]. Due the presence of high
amount of plastic clay in BCSs, they are very poor materials to employ
in road or construction foundations. High swelling potential, low
bearing capacity, high compressibility and low permeability of these
soils have made researchers to use more than one additive to enhance
their engineering properties [29,30].
In an attempt to investigate the effects of binary blends of lime and
other additives on the properties of expansive soils, lime has been
blended with other materials such as gypsum, magnesium oxide, alu-
minate filler, rice husk ash (RHA), ground granulated blast furnace slag
(GGBFS) and fly ash (FA) [31–33]. It has been reported that the binary
blends of lime are more effective than lime-only in reducing the swel-
ling potential and increasing the strength properties. The combinations
of hydrated lime and coal waste or coal waste powder (ash) were also
evaluated as soil stabilization agents [34]. Compared to hydrated lime,
both binary blended additives considerably increased the compressive
strength of the soil. This is due to more effective reaction between the
soil and additives and the formation of CSH gel, which results in higher
compressive strength and CBR value [34]. Moreover, combination of
hydrated lime with coal waste ash was found to be more effective than
its combination with coal waste [34].
Soil stabilization with lime in the regions with frequent WD5 cycles
is not an effective approach to improve its engineering properties
(especially when low lime content is used) since the beneficial effect of
lime stabilization in mitigating the swelling potential of lime-stabilized
soil is partially lost under this condition [35–39]. However, lime sta-
bilization of expansive soils could be an effective approach to reduce
the swelling potential of these soils even in the regions with frequent
WD cycles [40]. The WD cycles has been reported to have a larger
deterioration effects on the geotechnical properties of loess soils than
the FT cycles [41]. In the regions with frequent FT cycles, increased
curing time of lime-stabilized soil will result in decreased volume
changes and increased resilient modulus [42,43]. Increased curing
periods could also be an effective approach in reducing the swelling
potential of lime-treated expansive soils [44].
Fly ash (FA)
The environmental and economic issues associated with the use of
4
Dayioglu et al. [283] showed that the swelling pressure of a stabilized ex-
pansive clay was decreased consistently as the content of CaO and the ratios of
CaO/SiO2, CaO/Al2O3, CaO/(Al2O3 + SiO2) were decreased. In line with this
observation, they reported that lime decreased the swelling pressure of soils
more than Class C fly ash and Class F fly ash. Class C fly ash was also reported to
provide more reduction in swelling pressure than Class F fly ash.
5
Exposure to severe weathering processes such as WD or FT cycles decreases
the bonding strength between particles, destroys the chemical stabilization and
increases the void ratio and permeability of the soil due to the formation of
polygonal shrinkage cracks and/or the reduction of the volume of fines in the
pores of the coarse fraction [35,36,41,284–286]. Increase permeability due to
the weathering processes has been observed to be larger for the soils with
higher plasticity [284].
A. Behnood Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32

cement and lime have motivated researchers and material scientists to
utilize new cementitious materials that are more environmentally sus-
tainable and cost effective. The engineering performance of these ma-
terials should be comparable or superior to that of cement or lime.
Geopolymers have been widely used as innovative and ecofriendly al-
ternatives for cement and lime. Geopolymers, synthetic alkali alumino-
silicates, are the reaction productions of a solid alumino-silicate with a
highly concentrated aqueous alkali hydroxide or silicate solution [45].
Depending on the properties of raw materials and processing condi-
tions, geopolymers can provide a wide variety of properties such as
high compressive strength, low shrinkage, low thermal conductivity,
fast or slow setting, reduced collapsibility, fire resistance and acid re-
sistance [45–47].
Industrial by-products such as ground granulated blast furnace slag
(GGBFS) and fly ash (FA) are among the most commonly alumino-si-
licate based materials used as soil stabilizing agents. Steel slag (SS), a
by-product of a basic oxygen furnace (BOF) or and electric arc furnace
(EAF), has also been used as a soil stabilizing agent. In addition to the
industrial by-products, ashes produced from the combustion of some
organic materials such as rice or wood have been also used as ce-
mentitious materials to improve the engineering properties of soils
[11,48,49].
Fly ash is a mineral by-product produced from coal combustion at
electric power generating plants. Fly ash has been used in a wide
variety of engineering applications such as an additive in cement and
concrete products, an embankment or structural fill material, a grouting
material, a road subbase/subgrade soil stabilizer, and so on. Depending
upon the source and makeup of the coal being burned, the components
and properties of fly ash vary considerably from plant to plant and even
from batch to batch within a single plant. However, all fly ash contains
substantial amounts of silicon dioxide (SiO2) – both amorphous and
crystalline, aluminum dioxide (Al2O3) and calcium oxide (CaO).
Two classes of fly ash are defined by ASTM C618: Class C fly ash and
Class F fly ash. The primary difference between these two classes of fly
involved in the reaction process, however, it provides an appropriate
environment for the reaction. For example, it is reported that the use of
sodium hydroxide, sodium sulfate and potassium sulfate can break the
SieO and AleO bonds and, respectively, accelerate the dissolution of Si
and Al ions [55].
Sukmak et al. [56] studied the role of a mixture of sodium silicate
solution (Na2SiO3) and sodium hydroxide solution (NaOH) as a liquid
alkaline activator (LAA) on the strength development of clay-Class F FA
geopolymer. Three influential factors were investigated in their study:
(a) Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio, (b) LAA/FA ratio, and (c) heat conditions. The
optimum Na2SiO3/NaOH and LAA/FA ratios were reported as 0.7 and
0.6, respectively. Due to the high cation absorption ability of clay, clay-
Class F FA geopolymer requires less Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio than Class F
FA geopolymer [56]. Excessive amount of LAA, very high curing tem-
perature and excess heat curing duration can cause micro-cracks on the
specimen structure [56]. In line with these results are the findings of
Cristelo and Glendinning [57] and Phummiphan et al. [58] in which
they used a combination of Na2SiO3 and NaOH as an alkaline activator
for fly ash to improve the properties of a soft soil. Phummiphan et al.
[58] reported that the optimum Na2SiO3:NaOH providing the highest
strength for a lateritic soil stabilized with FA geopolymer was between
100:0 and 50:50. The use of granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS) as a
partial replacement of lateritic soil in FA geopolymer stabilization has
been reported to further improve the UCS of the soil [59].
Horpibulsuk et al. [60] investigated the feasibility of the use of
calcium carbide residue (CCR) in combination with FA in strength de-
velopment of problematic silty clay. In their study, varying contents of
CCR-FA binder with varying CCR/FA ratios were investigated. They
1800
a
1700
1600 SOIL I
SATURATIO N LINE
Dry de nsity (kg/m3 )

ash is in the chemical composition. Fly ash produced from the com-
bustion of lignite or sub-bituminous coal, known as Class C fly ash, is 1500
rich in calcium (CaO) and possesses pozzolanic properties as well as SOIL I+5% F.A. I

self-cementing characteristics. Therefore, it can harden and gain 1400 SOIL I+10% F.A. I
strength in the presence of water. The burning of anthracite or bitu-
minous coal produce-a low calcium (CaO) fly ash known as Class F fly 1300 SOIL I+20% F.A. I
ash. Unlike Class C fly ash, Class F fly ash should be used in combina-
tion with other cementitious materials to initiate pozzolanic reaction 1200
and provide the required engineering properties. Therefore, for soil
stabilization purpose, the Class C fly ash is preferred over the class F fly 1100
ash due to its higher reactivity [2,50]. Horpibulsuk et al. reported that 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

for a Class F fly ash blended cement admixed clay, the effect of fly ash in Initial moisture content (%)
strength development is because of its dispersing role and the effect of
the pozzolanic reaction is negligible due to low Ca(OH)2 liberated from 1800

the hydration of cement [51–53]. In class F fly ash-cement blends, fly b

1700
ash disperses large clay-cement clusters to smaller ones, which in-
creases the reactive surface, and hence further develops the strength.
Dry de nsity (kg/m3 )

1600 SOIL I SATURATIO N LINE

In the presence of a high calcium FA, the free lime in the FA che-
mically reacts with the water added to the clay-FA blend [54]. The
1500
chemical combination of the FA with water can also be verified using
SOIL I+5% F.A. I
the results of compactions tests by comparing the amount of initial
1400
added water and the final measured moisture as shown in Fig. 3. It can
SOIL I+10% F.A. I
be seen that the moisture content of the compacted samples (Fig. 3(b))
1300
is less than (∼2%) the water added to the samples (Fig. 3(a)), which is SOIL I+20% F.A. I
attributed to the chemical reaction of the FA with water. In addition to
1200
the strength development attributed to the presence of free lime in high
calcium FA, the hydraulic and pozzolanic reactions improve the
1100
strength properties [54]. 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Measured moisture content (%)
Activation of FA
The performance of fly ash can be enhanced with the addition of Fig. 3. Standard compaction test results for clayey soil: (a) initial added
activators. It should be noted that an activator is not necessarily moisture content and (b) measured moisture content after compaction [54].

18
A. Behnood
observed three zones for the strength development of CCR-FA-treated
silty clay: (a) active, (b) inert, (c) deterioration. It was reported that the
strength was significantly increased for all CCR/FA ratios in the active
zone. To determine the active zone, CCR fixation point obtained from
the index test was used. Beyond this zone, the addition of FA was ef-
fective only when there was enough Ca(OH)2 (leached from CCR) for
pozzolanic reaction.
The mechanical properties of the FA-based geopolymers and overall
all geopolymers are affected by several factors including the char-
acteristics of the source materials (type, PSD, and amorphous content),
curing condition (time, temperature, humidity, and pressure), the
chemical composition of precursor (the ratios of Si/Al and Na/Al) and
water content [61–63].
Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS)
Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) or slag cement is a
granular by-product material produced from iron blast furnaces of the
iron making industry. Blast furnace slag (BFS) is formed when a lime-
stone or dolomite flux, iron ore or iron pallets, and coke are melted
together. BFS consists of silicates and alumino-silicates of lime and
other bases, which are responsible for its potential cementitious re-
activity. Molten BFS has a temperature of 1300–1600 °C and can be
cooled in several ways to form any of several types of BFS products.
Quenching molten BFS in water or steam is one of the common ways to
cool this by-product. Granular and glassy material that is obtained after
rapidly cooling procedure is called granulated blast furnace slag
(GBFS). GBFS is then ground into powder to make GGBFS. BFS can also
undergo pelletization process where it is cooled with water and sub-
sequently projected into the air. The end product, which is called pel-
letized or expanded slag, is not as active as GBFS because of its crys-
talline nature. BFS can also be cooled slowly with ambient air. This
material can be processed through a crushing and screening plant to
produce larger particles that are suitable as construction aggregates.
GGBFS has been widely used in a variety of civil engineering and
construction applications, e.g., as cementitious materials in cement and
concrete industries as well as soil stabilization projects. Goodarzi and
Salimi studied the effectiveness of GGBFS as a stabilizing agent for a
dispersive clayey soil [64]. GGBFS was found to improve the soil
strength properties, decrease the PI and mitigate the dispersion problem
[64]. The performance of GGBFS was also compared with that of
ground basic oxygen furnace slag (GBOFS). At a short curing age, both
additives showed ion exchange phenomenon; however, GBOFS showed
better performance than GGBFS [14,64]. In addition, due to the lower
activity of GGBFS as compared to GBOFS, higher amounts of GGBFS is
required to obtain relatively similar levels of improvements. Goodarzi
and Salimi [64] reported that the addition of 10% GBOFS would be
enough to eliminate the soil dispersion while a higher percentage (i.e.,
20–25%) of GGBFS would be required to obtain the similar impact on
soil dispersion. However, it should be noted that a high percentage
(15–20%) of GBOFS and a longer curing time are needed to achieve
significant improvements in engineering properties [14].
Activation of GGBFS
GGBFS as a stabilizer is a latent hydraulic material and can form
strength-enhancing products. Due to the slow reaction rate of GGBFS, it
is required to be activated in order to accelerate the hydration reaction.
Chemically activating of GGBFS is the most common approach to ac-
tivate it. For this purpose, an alkaline medium and/or an activator is
added to GGBFS. The most common activators used to activate GGBFS
are calcium hydroxide, calcium sulfate, ordinary portland cement
(OPC), cement kiln dust (CKD), CCR, lime, alkalis, sodium hydroxide,
sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate and sodium silicate [65–71]. Sodium
silicate has been widely reported as the most effective alkali activator
for most pozzolana including GGBFS and FA [72–75]. Hydration of
OPC, when it is used as an activator, produces calcium hydroxide and
19
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
CSH gel. Some alkalis are also released in the hydration of OPC-GGBFS
system. However, calcium hydroxide plays the main role in the acti-
vation of GGBFS.
Blending GGBFS with reactive magnesia (MgO) can lead to higher
strength properties than those of corresponding blends of GGBFS with
cement or lime [12,76–80]. The optimized strength properties of the
stabilized soil depend on the optimized GGBFS:MnO ratio. Yi et al.
reported that a range of 19:1–4:1 can yield the highest UCS of stabilized
soils, which varies with binder content and curing age [76]. It should be
noted that MgO is different from dead burn magnesia present in Port-
land cement since it is produced at much lower temperature
(∼700–1000 °C). The MgO produced at these temperatures is more
reactive since it has higher surface area and low crystallinity.
Yi et al. [79] compared the performance of carbide slag (CS) with
that of MgO as activators for GGBFS to stabilize a natural soil. They
found that the hydration products in the presence of CS were CSH, CAH,
and ettringite while CSH was the only hydration product in the pre-
sence of MgO [79]. The 90-day UCS of MgO-GGBFS and CS-GGBFS was
found to be, respectively, 3.0–3.2 and 2.4–3.2 times that of Portland
cement-stabilized soil. Although MgO and CS show relatively similar
effects on the strength properties of GGBFS stabilized soil, the use of CS
might be recommended due to its economic and environmental benefits
[79].
Cement kiln dust (CKD)
Cement kiln dust (CKD) is a by-product of cement manufacturing
process and contains some reactive calcium oxide (CaO) and alkali-
bearing compounds. This material is removed from the cement kiln
exhaust gases by an air pollution control system. Due to its high calcium
oxide content, high alkali content and high fineness, CKD has been
found as an effective soil stabilizing agent [81–84]. However, it should
be noted that the chemical and physical properties of CKD significantly
vary from plant to plant depending on the type of the cement kiln, the
properties of the raw materials used in the production of the cement,
and the type of dust collection system [85–88].
The free lime content present in the CKD plays a significant role in
its strength-development behavior [88]. When hydrated, CKDs with
high free lime contents produce calcium hydroxide, syngenite and et-
tringite which are either not produced or only produced in small
quantities when CKDs with low free lime contents are used [87,89].
Thus, CKDs with high free lime contents provide higher strength than
CKDs with low free lime contents [87,88,90]. CKDs with low free lime
and high alkali contents may even adversely affect the strength prop-
erties [91]. The strength development of CKD-treated soils follows a
rapid increase for the first few days (i.e., 7–14 days) after compaction,
then it follows a relatively slower increasing trend [82,88]. The
strength development of low PI soils treated with CKD is higher than
that of high PI soils treated with the same amount of CKD [82]. In
addition to the effects of hydration products, the enhanced properties
can be partially attributed to the disaggregation of preexisting flaks of
clay [81]. CKD-treated clay has been reported to develop significantly
higher strength than lime-treated clay containing the same level of lime
[81,86]. In order to achieve an effective stabilization of coastal soils
using CKD, Al-Homidy et al. [92] recommended the addition of a small
amount of Portland cement (-about 2%) to the CKD-soil system. The
addition of a small amount (about 1%) of Portland cement to the CKD-
soil system to achieve further improved properties was also re-
commended by Sreekrishnavilasam et al. [90]. Yoobanpot et al. [93]
reported that a 13% CKD mixture with a partial replacement of CKD by
20% FA, when used to stabilize a CH-type soil, showed similar strength
properties with 10% Portland cement in the long term curing period.
Lime kiln dust (LKD)
LKD is a by-product material, which is obtained from the
A. Behnood
manufacturing process of quick lime and contains high amounts of
calcium. Although being physically similar to CKD, LKD is chemically
quite different than CKD. The chemical composition of LKD may vary
from plant to plant since it is influenced by the type of lime stones, kiln,
fuel used and the kiln operating parameters. However, LKD generally
contains relatively high percentage of CaO that in reality deems it to be
suitable for utilization in stabilization activities. Based on the relative
reactivity, which is dependent on the free lime and free magnesium
contents, LKD can be divided into two categories: high reactivity and
low reactivity [94]. LKD with high free lime content is highly reactive,
which makes it potentially a good soil stabilization agent [94]. Unlike
CKD that can be used as the sole stabilizing agent, LKD is mainly
combined with FA.
Because of its fine, dry, powdery nature and caustic characteristics,
LKD can be difficult to handle and make dusting problems during
transport. To mitigate these problems, water is usually added to LKD.
However, the disadvantage of this approach is reduced cementitious
potential of LKD as a result of premature hydration of the free lime or
magnesia.
Previous studies have shown that LKD can be successfully used as a
soil stabilization agent to reduce the plasticity and swelling potential,
and improve the strength properties and resistance to WD/FT cycles
[95–97]. Additional mellowing before compaction has been re-
commended for samples with higher rates of LKD to obtain greater
swelling reduction [96].
Calcium carbide residue (CCR)
Calcium carbide residue (CCR), also known as carbide lime, is a by-
product of hydrolysis reaction of calcium carbide in the industries that
produce acetylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyvinyl alcohol
(PVA). CCR is produced as an aqueous slurry and its main component is
calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). It also contains small amounts of car-
bonate (CaCO3), silicates and unreacted carbon. Similar chemical
composition and XRD pattern have been reported for CCR and hydrated
lime; the only exception is the presence of carbon in CCR [98,99].
It has been reported that CCR in the presence of pozzolanic mate-
rials such as FA, GGBFS, RHA, biomass ash (BA), bottom ash and ba-
gasse ash provides cementing property [98,100–107]. Fig. 4 shows the
XRD pattern of alkali (a mixture of Na2SiO3 and NaOH)-activated FA
pastes with CCR at 28 days. As shown in Fig. 4(a), the control sample
containing 100% of FA consists of amorphous phase at the bump
around 25–35° 2theta and crystalline phases of quartz, ferric oxide and
CSH. As the amount of CCR increases in the mixtures, the patterns
exhibit broad hump peak, quartz, ferric oxide, CSH and calcium car-
bonate (Fig. 4(b)–(d)). As mentioned earlier, this additional CSH is
essential for increasing strength development.
It should be noted that CCR-blended binders have longer initial and
final setting times than Portland cement binder, which could be a
barrier to its adaptation in some applications [100,103]. Fig. 5 shows
the strength development (as a function of binder content and curing
time) in a clay stabilized with CCR and biomass ash (BA). It is evident
that longer curing time is required to achieve desirable level of
strength. Similar to the effects of cement on the strength development
of cement-stabilized clay, three zones (i.e., active, inert and declining/
deterioration) can be seen in the strength development of a stabilized
clay with CCR and a pozzolanic material such as BA [98,103]. In the
active zone (i.e., binder content less than ∼15%), there is sufficient
amount of SiO2 from BA and clay to react with the Ca(OH)2 from CCR.
Beyond this point, in the inert zone, the excess amount of Ca(OH)2 from
CCR has insignificant effect on the strength development. The higher
contents of CCR have deteriorating mechanism as can be seen in the
declining zone. The addition of pozzolanic material(s) in the inert and
declining/deterioration zones can further improve the strength prop-
erties of soils due to the abundance of Ca(OH)2 from CCR. Higher
curing temperatures (e.g., 40 °C) can also lead to higher strength than
20
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
room temperature [105].
Depending on the amount of pozzolanic material and the presence
of other additives such as an alkaline activator, the strength develop-
ment of a stabilized clay with CCR and a pozzolanic material can also be
divided into three zones of inactive, active, and quasi-inert. In a study
conducted by Phetchuay et al. [104], a soft marine clay stabilized with
FA and CCR based geopolymer showed this behavior (Fig. 6). In their
study, a liquid alkaline activator (a mixture of Na2SiO3 and NaOH) with
a Na2SiO3:NaOH ratio of 70:30 and a high FA content (i.e., 35%) were
used. The concentration of NaOH and the LAA/FA ratio were selected
as 12 M and 1.0, respectively. Active zone in their research was iden-
tified as the CCR contents between 7% and 12%.
In addition to the CCR-pozzolan binders, CCR has also been used as
the sole additive in stabilizing clayey soils to improve the strength
properties and decrease the plasticity index and swelling potential
[98,108–110]. However, it should be noted that the addition of poz-
zolanic materials such as FA significantly improves the strength prop-
erties of the soil [111]. The active zone of CCR-stabilized soil ends at
lower CCR content (i.e., ∼7%) than those containing both CCR and
pozzolanic materials [109]. A clayey soil stabilized with CCR yields
higher CBR, higher resilient modulus and lower resilient deflection than
quicklime/hydrated lime-stabilized one because of containing more
pozzolanic materials [98,112]. Although the CCR stabilization of clay
significantly improves its strength, its durability against WD cycles is
categorized as low following the recommendation by the American
Concrete Institute and the US Army corps of Engineers [106].
Other calcium-based stabilizers
Several other calcium-based stabilizers can also be used to improve
the geotechnical properties of soils. For example, RHA, which is derived
by burning of rice husk [113], can be utilized in combination with
cement or lime for soil stabilization [114]. RHA is rich in silica and as a
pozzolanic reactive material can increase the CBR and UCS of cemented
soil [114]. Recycled bassanite (CaSO4·1/2H2O), produced from gypsum
waste,6 has been recently used as a highly effective soil stabilization
material to improve the geotechnical properties of clays [115–123].
The addition of recycled bassanite increases the UCS, STS, CBR, and
γdmax, decreases the OMC, and improves the FT and WD durability of
cement-stabilized soils [115–123]. Under FT cycles, cemented-soil
samples treated with recycled bassanite retain 55–65% strength com-
pared to corresponding unconditioned samples, whereas the strength is
about 50% for cement-stabilized soil samples [123].
Recently, various types of non-traditional calcium-based stabilizers
(e.g., biomass silica), which are commercially available under different
product names have also been utilized as soil stabilization agents
[124,125]. Similar to the traditional calcium-based stabilizers, the
formation of cementitious compounds such as CSH and CAH is the main
contributing mechanism to the strength development of stabilized soils.
Fig. 4. XRD pattern of alkali activated FA pastes with CCR [107].
A. Behnood
Fig. 5. Effects of binder content and curing time on the strength development of
a clay stabilized with CCR and BA [98].
Fig. 6. Strength development of a clay stabilized with CCR and FA as a function
of CCR content and curing time [104].
Table 1 provides a summary of research performed on different
types of calcium-based stabilizers and their effects on the properties of
the soils. It should be noted that the properties of the stabilized soil
depend on the type and the amount of the stabilizer agent as well as the
base soil properties.
Non-calcium-based stabilizers
In addition to calcium-based stabilizers, several non-calcium-based
stabilizers have been utilized in the past to improve the properties of
soils. This section provides a summary of the non-calcium-based sta-
bilizers used to improve the engineering properties of soils.
Polymers
Liquid polymers/liquid additives including various polymer pre-
cursors, biopolymers, resins, and emulsions have been used as soil
stabilization agents to increase strength, mitigate soil liquefication,
reduce permeability/hydraulic conductivity and improve resistance to
weathering action [159–173]. The improved properties can be obtained
6 Traditional soil stabilizers (e.g., cement, lime, fly ash, and gypsum)
The soils used as construction materials may contain gypsum components
naturally. These soils refer to as gypseous, gypsiferous, or sulfate-bearing soils.
Although the addition of gypsum or recycled gypsum to non-gypsiferous soils
improves their geotechnical and engineering properties, naturally occurring
gypsiferous soils may show some problems when these soils are subjected to
long term soaking and leaching as well as WD cycles [287–289].
21
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
through both polymerization and polycondensation reactions.
In an early work by Moustafa et al. [160] to use the polymeric
materials as soil modifying agents, the feasibility of the use of three
types of polymers, namely, urea formaldehyde, phenol formaldehyde,
and sodium silicate were investigated to stabilize five different types of
soils (i.e., sandy, silty, clayey, loamy, and sandy-loamy). For the pre-
viously mentioned polymers, ammonium chloride, hexamethylene tet-
ramine, and sodium fluorosilicate were used as catalysts, respectively.
It was observed that the UCS of all stabilized soils increased as the
amounts of polymers and catalysts increased.
Al-Khanbashi and El-Gamal [162] studied the effectiveness of a
water-borne polymer emulsion (i.e., styrene acrylic copolymer) con-
taining varying amounts of solid polymer as a modifier for sandy soils
using two different preparation methods (i.e., mixing and spraying).
Irrespective of the preparation method, the polymer treatment was
found to increase the UCS and modulus elasticity and decrease the
hydraulic conductivity of the soil. Regarding the enhanced mechanical
stability, “mixing” method was found to be more effective than
“spraying” method while in terms of improved hydraulic conductivity,
“spraying” method was found to be better than the “mixing” technique.
Similar observations regarding the mechanical properties and hydraulic
conductivity were reported by Al-Khanbashi and Abdalla [164] for
three different water-borne polymer emulsion systems (i.e., a styrene-
acrylic copolymer and two vinyl-acrylic copolymers). In their research,
the SEM micrographs revealed three structural changes as the me-
chanisms for improved properties: (a) covering of the sand particles
with a thin layer of polymer, (b) developing adhesion between neigh-
boring sand particles that are in contact, and (c) formation of inter-
connecting polymer ties between sand particles that are not in contact.
Rezaeimalek et al. [159] studied the effects of a moisture-activated
liquid polymer (i.e., Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (MDI)) as a
stabilizer to improve the properties of a poorly graded (SP) sand. Three
different curing conditions (i.e., ambient air, heated air, and water)
were also investigated in their research. Their results indicated that for
a fixed polymer-water ratio, the strength of the stabilized soil increased
as the amount of the added polymer increased. In addition, the se-
quential curing of the specimens in air and water for 8 days (i.e., 4 days
each) led to the highest strength improvement. More importantly, a
polymer-water ratio of 2:1 was found as the optimal ratio to obtain the
highest value of the UCS.
In another research conducted by Azzam [174], the effects of using
polypropylene (PP) in a liquid state on the microstructure and geo-
technical properties of a clayey soil were investigated. Polypropylene
was reported to create nanocomposites (Fig. 7) with clay fabrics, which,
in turn, reduced the inter-assembling voids, increased the clay stiffness,
and decreased the compression index. The developed nanocomposites
were also effective in absorbing the excess water and thus modifying
the clay plasticity. Moreover, swelling potential of the clay was miti-
gated due to the hydrophobic phenomenon of the developed nano-
fillers.
Mousavi and Karamvand [175] investigated the feasibility of the use
of a nano polymer, namely CBR PLUS, in combination with silica sand
for stabilizing a soft clay. It was found that the addition of CBR PLUS
and silica sand decreased the coefficient of permeability and increased
the modulus of elasticity, UCS and CBR. The optimum additive contents
were reported as 1% (by weight of the optimum water content) CBR
PLUS and 9% (by dry weight of the natural soil sample) silica sand. It
should be noted that Mousavi and Karamand did not investigate the
effects of higher percentages of CBR PLUS (higher than 1%) in their
study.
exhibit excessive brittle failure that could affect the stability of struc-
tures. Polymers are good replacements for these additives where brittle
behavior is unfavorable. For example, lignosulfonate, which is a lignin-
based polymer compound and a by-product of wood processing in-
dustries (such as paper making), has been widely reported as a
 Table 1
Summary of research performed on calcium-based soil stabilization agents (↑ means increase, ↓ means decrease).
A. Behnood

Stabilization method/agent Soil type Effects Recommended Remarks References

stabilizer amount (%)

Cement Residual granite soil [49], marl [7,126],
clay [127], laterite soil CH
[18,126,128], CL [1267,126], SM [21],
SC [19]
Lime Marl [126], CH [25,28,131–133],
laterite soil [134,135]
GGBFS
Residual dolomite lime Clay [4], Marl [4],
Class C fly ash CH [54,143,144], CL [54,144]
Liquid limit ↓, plastic limit ↓, PI ↓, OMC ↑,
γdmax ↓, hydraulic conductivity ↑, shear
strength ↑, permeability ↑, pH ↑, CBR ↑,
UCS ↑, modulus of elasticity ↑
pH ↑, PI ↓, OMC ↑, γdmax ↓, UCS ↑, CBR ↑,
Linear shrinkage ↓, modulus of elasticity ↑,
hydraulic conductivity ↑, cohesion ↑, FT
resistance ↑, swelling ↓
Particle size distribution, pH ↑, carbonate
content ↑
OMC ↑, γdmax ↓, PI ↓, UCS ↑, swelling ↓,
hydraulic conductivity ↑, splitting tensile
strength ↑, flexural strength ↑, CBR ↑, CEC
↓ mixing it with cement. The practical problems of
Up to 10% Addition of 6–8% cement is recommended as [7,11,18,49,126,127,129,130]
optimized amounts considering economy, plasticity,
compaction and strength characteristics
Up to 10% Curing temperature has a significant effect on the [7,11,25,27,28,126,131–133,137–142]
strength development of lime-treated clays. The
addition of natural pozzolana, GGBFS, RHA, MgO,
bagasse fibers and iron ore tailing (IOT) can further
improve the properties of clayey soils
[25,28,131,132]. IOT was found to decrease the
OMC and increase the maximum dry density [28].
Fiber reinforcement of lime-stabilized soil is also
effective to obtain further improved mechanical
properties (e.g., UCS) [136]
Blast furnace slag activated with cement/lime [33,127]
provides higher strength properties compared to
cement/lime alone at relatively long hardening
periods [33,127]
[4]
Up to 20% - usually Mixing cement (or lime) with FA could be [143–146]
more than 10% beneficial. However, the use of high percentages of
FA, in certain cases, might be more effective than

22
mixing and spreading of the FA-soil mix and the
increased water demand need to be addressed
Class F fly ash CH [51] Class F fly ash tends to be used in combination with [51,52,56]
other cementitious materials to initiate pozzolanic
reaction and provide the required engineering
properties
CKD SM [92] UCS ↑, PI ↓, OMC ↑, γdmax ↓, pH ↑, CBR ↑, 8–30% CKD is not recommended for the stabilization of [81–83,88,90,147]
swelling ↓, moisture susceptibility ↓ sulfate-rich soils due to its high alkaline content
LKD UCS ↑, CBR ↑, swelling ↓ Up to 10% LKD is recommended to be used in combination [95–97]
with FA
RHA Residual granite soil [49], CH [11], CL PI ↓, OMC ↑, γdmax ↓, hydraulic Up to 20% Addition of 10–15% RHA is recommended as [11,49,114,148–150]
[11], laterite soil conductivity ↓, CBR ↑, shear strength ↑, optimized amounts considering economy, plasticity,
permeability ↑, UCS ↑, modulus of compaction and strength characteristics. Due to the
elasticity ↑ shortage of calcium in RHA, combinations of RHA
with cement or lime would be recommended to
obtain further improved properties
Silica fume (SF) PI ↓, OMC ↑, γdmax ↓, pH ↑, CEC ↓, swelling Up to 30% In cement-treated soils, partial replacement of [151,152]
↓ cement with SF can decrease the curing time and
reduce the required amount of binder
Steel slag (SS) fines (from Clay [4], Marl [4] Coarser particle size distribution, pH ↑, ∼5% Due to its low reactivity, SS is recommended to be [4,14,153,154]
basic oxygen furnace, UCS ↑, carbonate content ↑, UCS ↑, PI ↓, used in combination with other cementitious
electric arc furnace or CBR ↑, swelling ↓ material/activator to produce higher strengths. The
ladle furnace) addition of higher amounts of SS can lead to
swelling problems
Sewage sludge ash (SSA) CL [155] UCS ↑, swelling ↓, CBR ↑, c ↑, φ ↓, shear [155]
strength ↑
(continued on next page)
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
 Table 1 (continued)
Stabilization method/agent
SSA/hydrated lime or SSA/
cement
Palm oil fuel ash (POFA) or
POFA/cement
Fuel oil fly ash (FOFA)
BA
CCR
Groundnut shell ash (GSA)
23
Soil type Effects Recommended Remarks References
A. Behnood
stabilizer amount (%)
CL [5,8] PI ↓, pH ↑, UCS ↑, OMC ↔, γdmax ↔ shear The ratio of 4:1 for SSA:hydrated or SSA:cement [5,8]
strength parameter ↑ lime was used in order to increase the replacement
ration of the pozzolanic material with SSA and
maintain or increase the strength of the soil [5]. The
optimum amount of SSA/hydrated lime was
reported as 8% [5]
CL [156] PI ↓, UCS ↑, φ ↑, shear strength parameter POFA is not as effective as cement in increasing the [156,157]
↑, γdmax ↑, swelling potential ↓ strength properties and it just slightly increases the
UCS. However, POFA and cement combinations
significantly increase the UCS [156]. POFA is not as
effective as cement in increasing the strength
properties and it just slightly increases the UCS.
However, POFA and cement combinations
significantly increase the UCS [156]
Marl [158] γdmax ↓, CBR ↑, UCS ↑ 5% FOFA is not an effective additive to improve the [158158]
engineering properties of sand. The addition of 5%
Portland cement to a marl stabilized with 5% FOFA
further improves the engineering properties
Clay [4], Marl [4] BA increases the reactive surface of the cement [51]
grains in cemented soil mixtures
CL [112], CH [102,104,105] UCS ↑, γdmax ↓, CBR ↑, Mr ↑, PI ↓, OMC ↑ Up to 15% [60,98,102,108,109,112]
CH [48] PI ↓, OMC ↑, γdmax ↓, modulus of elasticity Up to 8% The addition of 2% GSA shows the maximum [48]
↑ increase in UCS, then it shows a decreasing trend
[48]
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
A. Behnood Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32

Inter assembling voids

a b

Aggregations and clay matrix

Fig. 7. SEM images of a clayey soil: (a) before modifying with polypropylene, and (b) after modifying with 10% of polypropylene [174].

promising stabilizer to reduce the brittle behavior and swelling poten-
tial of cohesive and non-cohesive soils while improving the UCS, secant
modulus, resistance to WD cycles, resistance to erosion, and so on
[176–180]. The stabilizing mechanism by lignosulfonate has been ex-
amined using XRD, fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and
SEM [181]. The XRD examination of clay soil treated with lig-
nosulfonate showed that organic molecules wedged into the structural
sheets of the expansive clay mineral, displaced water molecules from
the soil body and caused an initial increase in d-spacing [181]. The
FTIR analysis of lignosulfonate-treated soil indicated that the inter-
calated admixture is then absorbed through hydrogen bonding and/or
bonded directly with the dehydrated cations [176,181]. Cation ex-
change between Ca2+ in the admixture and soil cations (Na+, Ti+,
Mg2+), which contributed to particle flocculation, was confirmed by
SEM micrographs [176,181].
Fibers
The use of calcium-based stabilizers such as cement or lime usually
results in more brittle behavior. Incorporating reinforcement elements
within cemented soils is an effective way to change the behavior of the
soils from brittle to more ductile [150,182–184]. The inclusion of fiber
reinforcement within cemented or uncemented soil has also been
proven as a reliable technique to increase the UCS, CBR, and shear
strength and decrease the loss of post-peak strain, stiffness, shrinkage
strain and cracking potential [150,182,185]. However, it should be
noted that in some cases, the inclusion of fiber reinforcement can
adversely affect the engineering properties (e.g., compressive strength)
of soils [150,182,185–188].
A wide variety of materials have been used as fibers for soil re-
inforcement, which can be grouped into two main categories: (a) syn-
thetic fibers and (b) natural fibers. Some examples of synthetic fibers
are [184]: polypropylene (PP) fibers [182,189–193], polyester (PET)
fibers [185], polyethylene (PE) fibers [194], steel fibers [195,196],
basalt fibers [197], glass fibers [197], nylon fibers [198], and PVA fi-
bers [199–201]. Some examples of natural fibers are [184]: arecaunt
(coir) fibers [183,202,203], sisal fibers [204], palm fibers [205,206],
jute fibers [195,203], flax fibers [207], barely straw fibers [187], waste
rubber fiber [208], Pinus Roxburghii fibers [209], Grewia Optivia fibers
[209], bamboo fibers, and cane or sugarcane fibers [210]. Both the
fiber content and the fiber size (i.e., length, width and thickness of the
fiber) significantly affect the strength properties, ductility and swelling
potential of the fiber-reinforced soils [185,188,211–213].
Although most of the synthetic fibers are polymeric materials, their
mechanism in improving the properties of soils is different than the
liquid polymers. Ayeldeen and Kitazume [214] studied the effects of PP
polymer in two different forms (i.e., fiber and liquid) on the strength
properties of cemented soft clay. The addition of PP in fiber form
showed an increasing trend for the UCS till a peak point (fiber content
of 0.5%), then it started to decrease. With regard to the effects of PP in
liquid form, the UCS showed an increasing trend with increasing liquid
content. Similar observations and trends were reported for the modulus
of deformation [214].
The combined effects of fiber inclusion and cement stabilization on

a b
Unconfined compressive strength, UCS (kPa)

Axi al s train peak strength (%)

Fig. 8. Effects of the inclusion of PVA fiber on (a) the UCS and (b) the axial strain at pick strength of a cemented sand [200].

24
A. Behnood
the geotechnical properties of fly ash-soil mixtures were studied by
Kaniraj and Havanagi [188]. It was found that depending on the curing
time and the type of fly ash-soil mixture, the increase in the strength of
fly ash-soil mixture caused due the combined effects of fiber and cement
was more than or nearly equal to the sum of the increase caused by
them individually.
Anggraini et al. [215] studied the effects of lime-treated coconut
fiber on the engineering properties of cemented/uncemented marine
soil used in road constructions. It was found that the inclusion of lime-
treated coconut fiber increased the flexural strength, toughness index
and elastic modulus of the specimens. It was also reported that the
inclusion of fiber played more important role in cemented specimens
than it did in uncemented specimens.
Park [200] investigated the effects of randomly distributed PVA
fiber in a cemented sand by evaluating the UCS and secant elastic
modulus. The results, as shown in Fig. 8, indicated that the inclusion of
PVA fiber significantly increased both the UCS and the axial strain at
peak strength.
Nanoparticles
Nano-materials can be used as soil stabilization agents to improve
the geotechnical properties of soils. Due to their high specific surface
area and CEC, they interact very actively with other particles [216]. It
should be noted that some of the nano-materials can be categorized as
calcium-based stabilizers. The addition of nano-soil particles to soft
soils increases the values of compressive strength and effective shear
strength and decreases plasticity values [217,218]. Various types of
Fig. 9. SEM images of the cemented soil cured for 90 days: (a) without nano-silica, (b) with 4% nano-silica, (c) with 8% nano-silica, (d) with 12% nano-silica [230].
25
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
nano-materials such as nano-SiO2, nano-TiO2, nano-Al2O3, and carbon
nanotubes have been commonly used in cementitious composites
[219,220]. Taha and Taha [221] investigated the effects of three dif-
ferent types of nano-materials (i.e., nano-clay, nano-alumina, and nano-
copper) on the expansive and shrinkage behavior of compacted residual
soils. It was found that at the optimum nano-material content, both
swell and shrinkage strains were reduced.
The feasibility of the use of nanoparticles together with Portland
cement as a soil-stabilizer has also been investigated by several re-
searchers [222–225]. Bahmani et al. [220] investigated the effects of
nano-silica (nano-SiO2) on the compaction, consistency, hydraulic
conductivity, and compressive strength of cement-stabilized soils. The
experimental results indicated that the addition of nano-silica to ce-
mented soils enhanced their geotechnical properties. In addition, nano-
silica, because of its high amount of amorphous silica [226], has been
found to exhibit high pozzolanic reaction [227]. Due to its high surface
energy, nano-silica also accelerates the hydration of cement particles
[228–231]. Moreover, physical effects such as nucleation and im-
provement in the packing density can be expected in the presence of
nano-silica [228–230,232]. The impact of nano-silica content on the
mechanical and morphological properties of a cemented sand was in-
vestigated by Choobbasti and Kutanaei [230]. As shown in Fig. 9, the
cemented sand modified with 4% and 8% nano-silica has denser mi-
crostructure than the sand stabilized only with cement. Further addi-
tion of the nano-silica does not improve the microstructure as it is
evident by the presence of unstable clumps (Fig. 9(d)). Similarly, the
optimized mechanical properties were observed in the mixture with 8%
of nano-silica [230].
A. Behnood Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32

Meng et al. [225] investigated the effects of nano-CaCO3 on the

[159–173,233]
properties of cemented soils in the marine environment. Irrespective of

References

[222–224]

[203,213]
the curing condition (i.e., either standard or marine environment), the

[234]
addition of nano-CaCO3 improved the compressive strength, enhanced
corrosion resistance, and promoted generation of hydration products.
The addition of multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) to the ce-

The carbonation reaction of Mg-rich soils can produce stable magnesium carbonate
cement) reduce the interparticles’ spacing and improve the mechanical properties
mentitious agent has also been reported to improve the particle size

Carbon nanotubes together with the cementitious materials (mainly Portland

distribution and the UCS of the soils by reducing the interparticles’
spacing and stiffening the soil skeleton matrix [224]. The use of

Better modifier for the soils with less amount of fine and clay content
MWCNT is preferable over the use of single-wall carbon nanotube
(SWCNT) because its cost is significantly lower than that of SWCNT.
The natural tendency of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) to aggregate is the
greatest challenge in their application. Therefore, the use of a surfactant
could be helpful in dispersion of the nanotubes [223,224]. Different
types of surfactants such as Amber 4001 (an amphoteric surfactant),
Glycerox (a nonionic surfactant) and Viscocrete 3008 (a poly-
carboxylate-based polymer) have been successfully used to disperse the
carbon nanotubes [223,224].
Table 2 shows a summary of research performed on non-calcium-
based stabilizers and their effects on the properties of the soils.

Other methods for soil stabilization

Double application of lime is one of the earliest methods to re-

mediate the undesirable expansion in sulfate-bearing soils [235–238].
In the first application, part of the optimum lime content is added to the
Remarks
soil prior to compacting, which allows it to react with the soil and form
the minerals (ettringite). The rest of the lime is then added in the
second application and the mixture is compacted, which allows the
mixture to gain the desirable strength properties. However, this
Summary of research performed on non-calcium-based soil stabilization agents (↑ means increase, ↓ means decrease).

method, especially in high sulfate-bearing soils, may require a long

Recommended stabilizer

curing period that could adversely affect the cost and schedule of the
project. Therefore, the application of this method might be only re- Usually less than 1%
commended for low sulfate-bearing soils. Harris et al. [236] reported
amount (%)

that a single application in the presence of high-sulfate-bearing soils

Up to 5%

showed less heaving than double application.

Mellowing is another approach that allows the formation of un-
favorable minerals before compaction [236,239,240]. Adequate mel-
UCS ↑, swelling potential ↓, shear strength

lowing period (i.e., usually more than 24 h and less than 7 days) is re-
UCS ↑, Coarser particle size distribution

quired to obtain the desirable performance. However, mellowing is

permeability ↓, abrasion resistance ↑

usually not an effective approach to stabilize the sulfate-bearing clay

UCS ↑, hydraulic conductivity ↓,

soils [239,241]. Elevated moisture contents above the optimum

moisture content (i.e., 3–5%) could also be helpful since it allows the
dissolution of soil sulfates and formation of ettringite in the initial
↑, Infiltration rate ↑

stages. This approach could be helpful to prevent the formation of hot

spots or concentrated ettringite growth nuclei. In the later stages, the
ettringite formation is inhibited due to the lack of sulfates.
Carbonation of the magnesium-rich soils is another promising pro-
Effects

cess to stabilize the soils. In this process, the dissolution of high Mg-
content sand in the carbonated water produces a stable magnesium
Contains olivine sand [234]

carbonate which in turn can make networks of massive crystals with

Laterite, SP-SM [233], SC

high binding ability [234,242,243]. In another approach of carbo-

nating, reactive magnesia (MgO) can be used to modify the soils
[233], CL [233]

[242,244]. Reactive magnesia in the presence of water hydrates and

produces brucite (Mg(OH)2) which has limited binding capacity.
CH [213]
Soil type

However, brucite can absorb CO2 under appropriate conditions and

produce one or more types of the hydrated magnesium carbonates.
Silt

Effects of salts
Stabilization method/

The presence of disruptive salts (especially sulfates) in the soils can

Carbon nanotubes

have negative effects on the geotechnical properties and mechanical

Carbonation

performance of the stabilized soils. Fig. 10 indicates that as the amounts

Polymers

of Mg2+, Cl−, and SO42− increase in the cement-treated soil, the peak
Table 2

Fibers
agent

value of stress in the stress-strain curves decreases suggesting a re-

duction in the strength properties of cement-treated soil [245]. The

26
A. Behnood
Fig. 10. The effects of (a) Mg2+, (b) Cl−, and (c) SO42− on the stress-strain
behavior of cement-treated soil [245].
effects of salts on the strength of soils can be attributed to various
mechanisms. However, the negative effects of salts could be mainly
because of their influence on the formation of CSH and CAH [245]. As
mentioned in the previous section, Ca2+ and Al3+ are two of the most
important ions responsible for the strength development of soils
through the formation of CSH and CAH. However, when Mg2+ is pre-
sent in the soil, it replaces Ca2+ and produces MgSH which restrains the
production of CSH [245]. In the presence of salts such as NaCl, Cl− ion
reacts with Ca2+ and Al3+ and forms Ca2Al(OH)6Cl(H2O)2 (with no
coherent property) which decreases inter-particle attraction of the clay
and the cementitious bond strength [53,245]. It also prevents clay
mineral from being combined with CH [245]. Moreover, Cl− ion causes
27
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
the compression of diffuse double layer in kaolinite particles, which in
turn reduces the liquid limit of Cl−-rich soils [53]. Al-Rawas [246]
reported that higher percentages of sodium ions and lower percentages
of calcium ions promoted swelling.
Rica et al. [247] investigated the deleterious effects of various salts
interaction on the volumetric swelling and indirect tensile strength of a
silty soil. The deleterious effects of sulfates, chlorides, phosphates and
nitrates salts were initially investigated separately and then by combi-
nation of two salts. It was reported that the presence of other salts could
alter the deleterious effects of sulfates as they caused more deleterious
effects with the same concentration of ions. These observations are in
line with the findings of other studies [235].
The presence of salts in soils could also accelerate the pavements’
failure due to the swelling and deteriorating of the stabilized matrix.
The deleterious effects of salts such as sulfates (SO42− ion) could be
attributed to the formation of ettringite (Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12·26H2O)
and/or thaumasite (Ca3Si(OH)6(CO3)(SO4)·12H2O), especially when
calcium-based stabilizers such as cement or lime are used
[7,91,248–253]. The formation of ettringite requires the presence of (a)
high pH environment, (b) soluble alumina ions, (c) calcium ions sup-
plied from the stabilization agent and (d) sulfate in the soil pore fluid
while the formation of thaumasite requires the presence of soluble silica
ions instead of alumina ions [250]. It should be noted that soils with
low contents of sulfate do not provide a favorable condition for pre-
cipitation of ettringite/thaumasite [91,236,252]. Marly soils (marls)
are examples of the soils that provide a favorable condition for the
formation of ettringite. The presence of palygorskite and sepiolite in
marl soils provides it with an unique expansive nature, particularly
when they are stabilized with lime or cement [7,254]. Palygorskite
contains high alumina content and sepiolite contains high silica con-
tent. Marls also have a high pore fluid holding capacity, which can
accommodate sulfate in the zeolitic water of palygorskite/sepiolite
[251].
Harris et al. reported that soils containing sulfate concentration up
to 3000 ppm could be safely treated by lime [236]. In another research
conducted by Celik et al., a soil sample containing sulfate concentration
of 2000 ppm did not show significantly deleterious effects [252].
However, it should be noted that considering the inherent properties
and the chemical composition of the soils, the limitation on the
minimum sulfate concertation to have a safe treatment might be dif-
ferent for different soils. Slight increases in the activity of calcium, an
increase in the activity of aluminum or sulfate, or a rise in pH also favor
the formation of ettringite in sulfate-rich clays.
Use of calcium-based additives
To mitigate the deleterious effects of salts, lime or cement stabili-
zation techniques should be carefully used for sulfate-rich clays. In the
stabilization of these soils, the use of low-calcium based stabilizers is
favorable over the use of high-calcium based stabilizers since the
former form less ettringite than the latter. Due to the higher amount of
calcium in lime compared to cement or fly ash, the formation of higher
amount of ettringite could be expected in lime-treated soils. Class F fly
ash has been reported as a potential replacement (partial or full) for
lime and cement in mitigating the swelling behavior of sulfate-bearing
soils [255–261]. Cement kiln dust (CKD), due to its higher alkaline
content, is also expected to cause more swelling in sulfate-rich soils
compared to cement or fly ash. Parsons et al. [91] reported that CKD,
when it is used for stabilizing sulfate-rich clay, resulted in higher
amount of expansion compared to lime, cement and fly ash.
Several other approaches have been also proposed to mitigate the
swelling potential in sulfate-rich soils. The use of GGBFS as a partial
replacement for lime has been widely reported as an efficient approach
to stabilize the high sulfate content soils [33,69,252,262–264]. The
maximum level of substitution is different for various soils and condi-
tions. It is also a function of the amount of sulfate in the soil. GGBFS has
A. Behnood
also been used as a partial replacement for Portland cement [265]. The
combination of GGBFS and a magnesium-based binder yields better
swelling resistant and higher strength properties than the combination
of GGBFS and lime [264]. The addition of fibers to the soils stabilized
with Portland cement, lime and fly ash is also an effective approach to
overcome or mitigate the swelling problems associated with the ex-
pansive soils [213].
Sulfate resistant cement stabilizers such as Type V cement
[266–268] or a composition of Type V cement and fly ash [269] have
also been utilized to reduce the swelling of sulfate rich soils. Type V
cement has been reported to reduce the plasticity index values and
swelling and increase the stiffness properties of the sulfate-rich soils
[266]. The use of fly ash and biomass as partial replacement for cement
has also been reported as an effective approach to mitigate the salt-
induced problems [53].
Use of non-calcium-based additives
Replacing the soluble sulfates with non-soluble sulfates can reduce
the availibility of calcium sulfate that can form ettringite. For this
purpose, pre-treatment with barium compounds such as barium
chloride, barium hydroxide, and barium carbonate has been reported in
the previous studies [146,270–273]. However, the application of
barium compounds is limited due to their negative effects on enrino-
ment and the associated economic concerns.
The effects of unconventional substitutes (such as polymers, acids,
enzyms, foams, petrolium emulsions, tree resins and lignosulfonate) on
the mechanical and swelling potential of different types of sulfate-rich
soils have also been investigated [274–279]. However, further reaserch
is required in order to evalute the effectiveness of these materials on
improving the soil properties since disputable effects have been re-
ported in the previous studies. Rauch et al. [274] observed inconsistent
and insignificant changes in the properties of different clay soils treated
with polymer, enzym and ionic type stabilizers. In addition, the use of
liquid stabilizers even showed negative impacts on the soil properties in
some instances [274]. In another study conducted by Mohammed and
Vipulanandan [277], liquid polymer was found to improve the prop-
erties of low plasticity clay (CL), which had much lower swelling po-
tential compared to CH soils.
Calcium-free metakaolin-based geopolymer was also successfully
used to improve the strength properties and mitigate the expansion of
sulfate-bearing soils. SEM micrographs of a sulfate-bearing CL soil
stabilized with 8% or 13% metakaolin-based geo polymer did not show
the presence of ettringite [280].
Summary and conclusions
This paper presents a state-of-the-art review on the wide range of
subgrade soil stabilization agents and techniques. The main conclusions
can be summarized in the following:
1. A wide array of additives can be successfully used to stabilize dif-
ferent types of soils and improve their geotechnical and engineering
properties. Properties of the stabilized soils with these additives
depend upon the characteristics of both soil and stabilization agent.
2. Improving the engineering and geotechnical properties of soils using
calcium-based stabilizers involve five different processes: (a) hy-
dration, (b) cation exchange, (c) flocculation and agglomeration, (d)
pozzolonaic reaction, and (e) potential carbonation.
3. Portland cement, due to its fast hydration reaction, provides better
strength properties and requires shorter curing time than lime and
other soil stabilization agents. However, the higher energy con-
sumption and cost as well as the environmental concerns such as
CO2 footprint are the main challenges associated with the use of this
additive.
4. The addition of calcium-based stabilizers such as cement and lime
28
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
usually result in more brittle behavior in the modified soil system.
Use of liquid polymers or fibers as full or partial replacement for
these materials could be an effective approach to change the beha-
vior of soils from brittle to more ductile.
5. Nanoparticles, due to their high specific surface area and cation
exchange capacity, interact actively with other particles. These
materials can be used to increase the strength properties and im-
prove the microstructure of the soils.
6. The presence of disruptive salts in the soils can negatively affect the
engineering properties of soils. For the stabilization of these soils,
the use of low-calcium based stabilization agents is recommended.
The use of ground granulated blast furnace slag or fly ash as partial
replacements for lime/cement is an effective approach to mitigate
the adverse effects of salts. Liquid polymer, fiber, Type V cement,
and calcium-free metakaolin-based geopolymer are among the other
additives that can be successfully used for the stabilization of salt-
rich or sulfate-rich soils.
7. Much has been done to evaluate various types of stabilizing agents
and their effects on the properties of soils. However, further research
is required to effectively modify the soils with these agents. In ad-
dition, more research is needed to evaluate and design new mate-
rials that are more environmentally friendly including biomaterials,
waste materials and by-product materials.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.08.002.
References
[1] Nicholson PG. Chapter 11 - admixture soil Improvement BT - soil improvement and
ground modification methods. In: Soil Improv. Gr. Modif. Methods, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Boston; 2015. p. 231–88.
[2] Little DN, Petry TM. Review of stabilization of clays and expansive soils in pave-
ments and lightly loaded structures—history, practice, and future. J Mater Civ Eng
2002;14(6):446–60.
[3] Prusinski J, Bhattacharja RS. Effectiveness of Portland cement and lime stabilizing
clay soils. Transp Res Rec, Transportation Res Board 1999:215–27.
[4] Sol-Sánchez M, Castro J, Ureña CG, Azañón JM. Stabilisation of clayey and marly
soils using industrial wastes: pH and laser granulometry indicators. Eng Geol
2016;200:10–7.
[5] Lin D-F, Lin K-L, Hung M-J, Luo H-L. Sludge ash/hydrated lime on the geotechnical
properties of soft soil. J Hazard Mater 2007;145(1–2):58–64.
[6] Al-Mukhtar M, Khattab S, Alcover J-F. Microstructure and geotechnical properties
of lime-treated expansive clayey soil. Eng Geol 2012;139–140:17–27.
[7] Yong RN, Ouhadi VR. Experimental study on instability of bases on natural and
lime/cement-stabilized clayey soils. Appl Clay Sci 2007;35(3–4):238–49.
[8] Chen L, Lin D-F. Stabilization treatment of soft subgrade soil by sewage sludge ash
and cement. J Hazard Mater 2009;162(1):321–7.
[9] Phoo-ngernkham T, Hanjitsuwan S, Li L, Damrongwiriyanupap N, Chindaprasirt P.
Adhesion characterisation of Portland cement concrete and alkali-activated bin-
ders. Forthcoming in Adv Cem Res 2018:1–11.
[10] Rogers CDF, Glendinning S, Holt CC. Slope stabilization using lime piles - a case
study. Gr Improv 2000;4(4):165–76.
[11] Hossain KMA. Development of stabilised soils for construction applications. Proc
Inst Civ Eng - Gr Improv 2010;163(3):173–85.
[12] Jegandan S, Liska M, Osman AA-M, Al-Tabbaa A. Sustainable binders for soil
stabilisation. Proc Inst Civ Eng Gr Improv 2010;163(1):53–61.
[13] Xiao H. Evaluating the stiffness of chemically stabilized marine clay. Mar
Georesour Geotechnol 2016:1–12.
[14] Poh HY, Ghataora GS, Ghazireh N. Soil stabilization using basic oxygen steel slag
fines. J Mater Civ Eng 2006;18(2):229–40.
[15] Verian KP, Behnood A. Effects of deicers on the performance of concrete pave-
ments containing air-cooled blast furnace slag and supplementary cementitious
materials. Cem Concr Compos 2018;90:27–41.
[16] Meyer C. The greening of the concrete industry. Cem Concr Compos
2009;31(8):601–5.
[17] Imbabi MS, Carrigan C, McKenna S. Trends and developments in green cement and
concrete technology. Int J Sustain Built Environ 2012;1(2):194–216.
[18] Horpibulsuk S, Rachan R, Chinkulkijniwat A, Raksachon Y, Suddeepong A.
Analysis of strength development in cement-stabilized silty clay from micro-
structural considerations. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(10):2011–21.
[19] Consoli NC, Festugato L, Heineck KS, Foppa D. Key parameters for strength control
of artificially cemented soils. J Mater Civ Eng 2007;133(2):197–205.
[20] Schnaid F, Prietto PDM, Consoli NC. Characterization of cemented sand in triaxial
A. Behnood
compression. J Mater Civ Eng 2001;127(10):857–68.
[21] Horpibulsuk S, Katkan W, Sirilerdwattana W, Rachan R. Strength development in
cement stabilized low plasticity and coarse grained soils: Laboratory and field
study. Soils Found 2006;46(3):351–66.
[22] Zhang T, Yue X, Deng Y, Zhang D, Liu S. Mechanical behaviour and micro-struc-
ture of cement-stabilised marine clay with a metakaolin agent. Constr Build Mater
2014;73:51–7.
[23] Wu Z, Deng Y, Liu S, Liu Q, Chen Y, Zha F. Strength and micro-structure evolution
of compacted soils modified by admixtures of cement and metakaolin. Appl Clay
Sci 2016;127–128:44–51.
[24] Deng Y, Yue X, Liu S, Chen Y, Zhang D. Hydraulic conductivity of cement-stabi-
lized marine clay with metakaolin and its correlation with pore size distribution.
Eng Geol 2015;193:146–52.
[25] Al-Swaidani A, Hammoud I, Meziab A. Effect of adding natural pozzolana on
geotechnical properties of lime-stabilized clayey soil. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng
2016;8(5):714–25.
[26] Al-Mukhtar M, Lasledj A, Alcover J-F. Behaviour and mineralogy changes in lime-
treated expansive soil at 50°C. Appl Clay Sci 2010;50(2):199–203.
[27] Bell FG. Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils. Eng Geol 1996;42(4):223–37.
[28] Etim RK, Eberemu AO, Osinubi KJ. Stabilization of black cotton soil with lime and
iron ore tailings admixture. Transp Geotech 2017;10:85–95.
[29] Amadi AA, Osu AS. Effect of curing time on strength development in black cotton
soil – Quarry fines composite stabilized with cement kiln dust (CKD). J King Saud
Univ - Eng Sci 2016.
[30] Osinubi KJ, Ijimdiya TS, Nmadu I. Lime stabilization of black cotton soil using
bagasse ash as admixture. Adv Mater Res 2009;62–64:3–10.
[31] Seco A, Ramírez F, Miqueleiz L, García B. Stabilization of expansive soils for use in
construction. Appl Clay Sci 2011;51(3):348–52.
[32] Seco A, Ramírez F, Miqueleiz L, García B, Prieto E. The use of non-conventional
additives in Marls stabilization. Appl Clay Sci 2011;51(4):419–23.
[33] Wild S, Kinuthia JM, Jones GI, Higgins DD. Effects of partial substitution of lime
with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) on the strength properties of
lime-stabilised sulphate-bearing clay soils. Eng Geol 1998;51(1):37–53.
[34] Modarres A, Nosoudy YM. Clay stabilization using coal waste and lime —
Technical and environmental impacts. Appl Clay Sci 2015;116–117:281–8.
[35] Guney Y, Sari D, Cetin M, Tuncan M. Impact of cyclic wetting–drying on swelling
behavior of lime-stabilized soil. Build Environ 2007;42(2):681–8.
[36] Stoltz G, Cuisinier O, Masrouri F. Weathering of a lime-treated clayey soil by
drying and wetting cycles. Eng Geol 2014;181:281–9.
[37] Rosone M, Ferrari A, Celauro C. On the hydro-mechanical behaviour of a lime-
treated embankment during wetting and drying cycles. Geomech Energy Environ
2018;14:48–60.
[38] Aldaood A, Bouasker M, Al-Mukhtar M. Impact of wetting–drying cycles on the
microstructure and mechanical properties of lime-stabilized gypseous soils. Eng
Geol 2014;174:11–21.
[39] Aldaood A, Bouasker M, Al-Mukhtar M. Free swell potential of lime-treated
gypseous soil. Appl Clay Sci 2014;102:93–103.
[40] Al-Taie A, Disfani MM, Evans R, Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S. Swell-shrink cycles of
lime stabilized expansive subgrade. Procedia Eng 2016;143:615–22.
[41] Li G, Wang F, Ma W, Fortier R, Mu Y, Mao Y, et al. Variations in strength and
deformation of compacted loess exposed to wetting-drying and freeze-thaw cycles.
Cold Reg Sci Technol 2018;151:159–67.
[42] Hotineanu A, Bouasker M, Aldaood A, Al-Mukhtar M. Effect of freeze–thaw cycling
on the mechanical properties of lime-stabilized expansive clays. Cold Reg Sci
Technol 2015;119:151–7.
[43] Bozbey I, Kelesoglu MK, Demir B, Komut M, Comez S, Ozturk T, et al. Effects of soil
pulverization level on resilient modulus and freeze and thaw resistance of a lime
stabilized clay. Cold Reg Sci Technol 2018;151:323–34.
[44] Jha AK, Sivapullaiah PV. Volume change behavior of lime treated gypseous soil —
influence of mineralogy and microstructure. Appl Clay Sci 2016;119:202–12.
[45] Duxson P, Fernández-Jiménez A, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Palomo A, van Deventer
JSJ. Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. J Mater Sci
2007;42(9):2917–33.
[46] Weil M, Dombrowski K, Buchwald A. Life-cycle analysis of geopolymers BT –
geopolymers. In: Woodhead Publ. Ser. Civ. Struct. Eng., Woodhead Publishing;
2009. p. 194–210.
[47] Alsafi S, Farzadnia N, Asadi A, Huat BK. Collapsibility potential of gypseous soil
stabilized with fly ash geopolymer; characterization and assessment. Constr Build
Mater 2017;137:390–409.
[48] Sujatha ER, Dharini K, Bharathi V. Influence of groundnut shell ash on strength
and durability properties of clay. Geomech Geoeng 2016;11(1):20–7.
[49] Basha EA, Hashim R, Mahmud HB, Muntohar AS. Stabilization of residual soil with
rice husk ash and cement. Constr Build Mater 2005;19(6):448–53.
[50] McCarthy GJ, Swanson KD, Keller LP, Blatter WC. Mineralogy of western fly ash.
Cem Concr Res 1984;14(4):471–8.
[51] Horpibulsuk S, Rachan R, Suddeepong A. Assessment of strength development in
blended cement admixed Bangkok clay. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(4):1521–31.
[52] Horpibulsuk S, Rachan R, Raksachon Y. Role of fly ash on strength and micro-
structure development in blended cement stabilized silty clay. Soils Found
2009;49(1):85–98.
[53] Horpibulsuk S, Phojan W, Suddeepong A, Chinkulkijniwat A, Liu MD. Strength
development in blended cement admixed saline clay. Appl Clay Sci
2012;55:44–52.
[54] Kolias S, Kasselouri-Rigopoulou V, Karahalios A. Stabilisation of clayey soils with
high calcium fly ash and cement. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27(2):301–13.
[55] Wu X, Jiang W, Roy DM. Early activation and properties of slag cement. Cem
29
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
Concr Res 1990;20(6):961–74.
[56] Sukmak P, Horpibulsuk S, Shen S-L. Strength development in clay–fly ash geo-
polymer. Constr Build Mater 2013;40:566–74.
[57] Cristelo N, Glendinning S, Pinto AT. Deep soft soil improvement by alkaline ac-
tivation. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Gr Improv 2011;164(2):73–82.
[58] Phummiphan I, Horpibulsuk S, Sukmak P, Chinkulkijniwat A, Arulrajah A, Shen S-
L. Stabilisation of marginal lateritic soil using high calcium fly ash-based geopo-
lymer. Road Mater Pavement Des 2016;17(4):877–91.
[59] Phummiphan I, Horpibulsuk S, Rachan R, Arulrajah A, Shen S-L, Chindaprasirt P.
High calcium fly ash geopolymer stabilized lateritic soil and granulated blast
furnace slag blends as a pavement base material. J Hazard Mater
2018;341(Supplement C):257–67.
[60] Horpibulsuk S, Phetchuay C, Chinkulkijniwat A. Soil stabilization by calcium
carbide residue and fly ash. J Mater Civ Eng 2012;24(2):184–93.
[61] Zhang M, Guo H, El-Korchi T, Zhang G, Tao M. Experimental feasibility study of
geopolymer as the next-generation soil stabilizer. Constr Build Mater
2013;47:1468–78.
[62] Somna K, Jaturapitakkul C, Kajitvichyanukul P, Chindaprasirt P. NaOH-activated
ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature. Fuel
2011;90(6):2118–24.
[63] Diaz EI, Allouche EN, Eklund S. Factors affecting the suitability of fly ash as source
material for geopolymers. Fuel 2010;89(5):992–6.
[64] Goodarzi AR, Salimi M. Stabilization treatment of a dispersive clayey soil using
granulated blast furnace slag and basic oxygen furnace slag. Appl Clay Sci
2015;108:61–9.
[65] Gupta S, Seehra SS. Studies on lime granulated blast furnace slag as an alternative
binder to cement. Highw Res Bull (New Delhi) 1989;38:81–97.
[66] Gjorv OE. Alkali activation of a Norwegian granulated blast-furnace slag. In: Proc.
3rd Int. Conf., Trondheim, Norway; 1989. p. 1501–17.
[67] Rabbani P, Daghigh Y, Atrechian MR, Karimi M, Tolooiyan A. The potential of lime
and grand granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) mixture for stabilisation of desert
silty sands. J Civ Eng Res 2012;2(6):108–19.
[68] Häkkinen T. The influence of slag content on the microstructure, permeability and
mechanical properties of concrete Part 1 Microstructural studies and basic me-
chanical properties. Cem Concr Res 1993;23(2):407–21.
[69] Tasong WA, Wild S, Tilley RJD. Mechanisms by which ground granulated blas-
tfurnace slag prevents sulphate attack of lime-stabilised kaolinite. Cem Concr Res
1999;29(7):975–82.
[70] Chaunsali P, Peethamparan S. Evolution of strength, microstructure and miner-
alogical composition of a CKD–GGBFS binder. Cem Concr Res
2011;41(2):197–208.
[71] Jiang N-J, Du Y-J, Liu K. Durability of lightweight alkali-activated ground
granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) stabilized clayey soils subjected to sulfate
attack. Appl Clay Sci 2018;161:70–5.
[72] Bakharev T, Sanjayan JG, Cheng Y-B. Effect of elevated temperature curing on
properties of alkali-activated slag concrete. Cem Concr Res 1999;29(10):1619–25.
[73] Hilbig H, Buchwald A. The effect of activator concentration on reaction degree and
structure formation of alkali-activated ground granulated blast furnace slag. J
Mater Sci 2006;41(19):6488–91.
[74] Brough AR, Atkinson A. Sodium silicate-based, alkali-activated slag mortars: Part I.
Strength, hydration and microstructure. Cem Concr Res 2002;32(6):865–79.
[75] Chen W, Brouwers HJH. The hydration of slag, part 1: reaction models for alkali-
activated slag. J Mater Sci 2007;42(2):428–43.
[76] Yi Y, Liska M, Al-Tabbaa A. Properties of two model soils stabilized with different
blends and contents of GGBS, MgO, lime, and PC. J Mater Civ Eng
2013;26(2):267–74.
[77] Gu K, Jin F, Al-Tabbaa A, Shi B, Liu C, Gao L. Incorporation of reactive magnesia
and quicklime in sustainable binders for soil stabilisation. Eng Geol
2015;195:53–62.
[78] Yi Y, Liska M, Al-Tabbaa A. Initial investigation into the use of GGBS-MgO in soil
stabilisation. In: Grouting deep mix. 2012, American Society of Civil Engineers;
2012. p. 444–53.
[79] Yi Y, Zheng X, Liu S, Al-Tabbaa A. Comparison of reactive magnesia- and carbide
slag-activated ground granulated blastfurnace slag and Portland cement for sta-
bilisation of a natural soil. Appl Clay Sci 2015;111:21–6.
[80] Wang F, Wang H, Jin F, Al-Tabbaa A. The performance of blended conventional
and novel binders in the in-situ stabilisation/solidification of a contaminated site
soil. J Hazard Mater 2015;285:46–52.
[81] Peethamparan S, Olek J, Diamond S. Physicochemical behavior of cement kiln
dust-treated kaolinite clay. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2008;2059:80–8.
[82] Miller GA, Azad S. Influence of soil type on stabilization with cement kiln dust.
Constr Build Mater 2000;14(2):89–97.
[83] Baghdadi ZA, Rahman MA. The potential of cement kiln dust for the stabilization
of dune sand in highway construction. Build Environ 1990;25(4):285–9.
[84] Baghdadi ZA, Fatani MN, Sabban NA. Soil modification by cement kiln dust. J
Mater Civ Eng 1995;7(4):218–22.
[85] Si Z, Herrera C. Laboratory and field evaluation of base stabilization using cement
kiln dust. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1989;2007:42–9.
[86] Miller G, Zaman M. Field and laboratory evaluation of cement kiln dust as a soil
stabilizer. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2000;1714:25–32.
[87] Peethamparan S, Olek J, Lovell J. Influence of chemical and physical character-
istics of cement kiln dusts (CKDs) on their hydration behavior and potential suit-
ability for soil stabilization. Cem Concr Res 2008;38(6):803–15.
[88] Peethamparan S, Olek J. Study of the effectiveness of cement kiln dusts in stabi-
lizing Na-montmorillonite clay. J Mater Civ Eng 2008;20(2):137–46.
[89] Peethamparan S, Olek J, Diamond S. Mechanism of stabilization of Na-
A. Behnood
montmorillonite clay with cement kiln dust. Cem Concr Res 2009;39(7):580–9.
[90] Sreekrishnavilasam A, Rahardja S, Kmetz R, Santagata M. Soil treatment using
fresh and landfilled cement kiln dust. Constr Build Mater 2007;21(2):318–27.
[91] Parsons RL, Kneebone E, Milburn JP. Use of cement kiln dust for subgrade stabi-
lization. Report No.KS-04-3, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka,
Kansas; 2004.
[92] Al-Homidy AA, Dahim MH, Abd El Aal AK. Improvement of geotechnical prop-
erties of sabkha soil utilizing cement kiln dust. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng
2017;9(4):749–60.
[93] Yoobanpot N, Jamsawang P, Horpibulsuk S. Strength behavior and microstructural
characteristics of soft clay stabilized with cement kiln dust and fly ash residue.
Appl Clay Sci 2017;141:146–56.
[94] Chesner WH, Collins RJ, MacKay MH, User guidelines for waste and by-product
materials in pavement construction. Report No. FHWA-RD-97-148, federal
highway administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC; 1998.
[95] Renpeng C, D.V.P., Krishna DR. Short-term electrical conductivity and strength
development of lime kiln dust modified soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2009;135(4):590–4.
[96] Kakrasul J, Parsons RL, Han J. Lime kiln dust for treated subgrades. Kansas
Department of Transportation 2017.
[97] Chulmin J, Antonio B, Zia SN, Daehyeon K. Postconstruction evaluation of sub-
grades chemically treated with lime kiln dust. J Mater Civ Eng 2011;23(7):931–40.
[98] Vichan S, Rachan R. Chemical stabilization of soft Bangkok clay using the blend of
calcium carbide residue and biomass ash. Soils Found 2013;53(2):272–81.
[99] Cardoso FA, Fernandes HC, Pileggi RG, Cincotto MA, John VM. Carbide lime and
industrial hydrated lime characterization. Powder Technol 2009;195(2):143–9.
[100] Roongreung B, Jaturapitakkul C. Cementing material from calcium carbide re-
sidue-rice husk ash. J Mater Civ Eng 2003;15(5):470–5.
[101] Makaratat N, Laosamathikul T, Jaturapitakkul C. Effects of calcium carbide re-
sidue–fly ash binder on mechanical properties of concrete. J Mater Civ Eng
2010;22(11):1164–70.
[102] Horpibulsuk S, Phetchuay C, Chinkulkijniwat A, Cholaphatsorn A. Strength de-
velopment in silty clay stabilized with calcium carbide residue and fly ash. Soils
Found 2013;53(4):477–86.
[103] Hanjitsuwan S, Phoo-ngernkham T, Damrongwiriyanupap N. Comparative study
using Portland cement and calcium carbide residue as a promoter in bottom ash
geopolymer mortar. Constr Build Mater 2017;133:128–34.
[104] Phetchuay C, Horpibulsuk S, Arulrajah A, Suksiripattanapong C, Udomchai A.
Strength development in soft marine clay stabilized by fly ash and calcium carbide
residue based geopolymer. Appl Clay Sci 2016;127–128:134–42.
[105] Phetchuay C, Horpibulsuk S, Suksiripattanapong C, Chinkulkijniwat A, Arulrajah
A, Disfani MM. Calcium carbide residue: Alkaline activator for clay–fly ash geo-
polymer. Constr Build Mater 2014;69:285–94.
[106] Kampala A, Horpibulsuk S, Prongmanee N, Chinkulkijniwat A. Influence of wet-
dry cycles on compressive strength of calcium carbide residue–fly ash stabilized
clay. J Mater Civ Eng 2014;26(4):633–43.
[107] Hanjitsuwan S, Phoo-ngernkham T, Li L, Damrongwiriyanupap N, Chindaprasirt P.
Strength development and durability of alkali-activated fly ash mortar with cal-
cium carbide residue as additive. Constr Build Mater 2018;162:714–23.
[108] Kampala A, Horpibulsuk S, Chinkullijniwat A, Shen S-L. Engineering properties of
recycled calcium carbide residue stabilized clay as fill and pavement materials.
Constr Build Mater 2013;46:203–10.
[109] Horpibulsuk S, Kampala A. Engineering properties of silty clay stabilized with
calcium carbide residue. J Mater Civ Eng 2013;25:632–44.
[110] Hatmoko JT, Suryadharma H. Shear behavior of calcium carbide residue - bagasse
ash stabilized expansive soil. Procedia Eng 2017;171:476–83.
[111] Consoli NC, Prietto PDM, Carraro JAH, Heineck KS. Behavior of compacted soil-fly
ash-carbide lime mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(9):774–82.
[112] Du Y-J, Jiang N-J, Liu S-Y, Horpibulsuk S, Arulrajah A. Field evaluation of soft
highway subgrade soil stabilized with calcium carbide residue. Soils Found
2016;56(2):301–14.
[113] Behnood A, Modiri Gharehveran M, Gozali Asl F, Ameri M. Effects of copper slag
and recycled concrete aggregate on the properties of CIR mixes with bitumen
emulsion, rice husk ash, Portland cement and fly ash. Constr Build Mater
2015;96:172–80.
[114] Ali Rahgozar M, Saberian M, Li J. Soil stabilization with non-conventional eco-
friendly agricultural waste materials: An experimental study. Transp Geotech
2017.
[115] Ahmed A, Ugai K, Kamei T. Durability of fine grained soil stabilized with gypsum
waste plasterboard. In: Proc. 6th Int. Congr. Environ. Geotechincs 2010, New
Delhi, India, 8-12th November, vol. 2; 2010. p. 1469–77.
[116] Ahmed A, Ugai K, Kamei T. Laboratory and field evaluations of recycled gypsum as
a stabilizer agent in embankment construction. Soils Found 2011;51(6):975–90.
[117] Kamei T, Ahmed A, Ugai K. Durability of soft clay soil stabilized with recycled
Bassanite and furnace cement mixtures. Soils Found 2013;53(1):155–65.
[118] Ahmed A. Compressive strength and microstructure of soft clay soil stabilized with
recycled bassanite. Appl Clay Sci 2015;104:27–35.
[119] Ahmed A, Ugai K, Kamei T. Investigation of recycled gypsum in conjunction with
waste plastic trays for ground improvement. Constr Build Mater
2011;25(1):208–17.
[120] Ahmed A. Recycled bassanite for enhancing the stability of poor subgrades clay
soil in road construction projects. Constr Build Mater 2013;48:151–9.
[121] Kamei T, Ahmed A, Shibi T. Effect of freeze–thaw cycles on durability and strength
of very soft clay soil stabilised with recycled Bassanite. Cold Reg Sci Technol
2012;82:124–9.
[122] Kamei T, Ahmed A, Shibi T. The use of recycled bassanite and coal ash to enhance
30
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
the strength of very soft clay in dry and wet environmental conditions. Constr
Build Mater 2013;38:224–35.
[123] Shibi T, Kamei T. Effect of freeze–thaw cycles on the strength and physical
properties of cement-stabilised soil containing recycled bassanite and coal ash.
Cold Reg Sci Technol 2014;106–107:36–45.
[124] Latifi N, Eisazadeh A, Marto A, Meehan CL. Tropical residual soil stabilization: A
powder form material for increasing soil strength. Constr Build Mater
2017;147:827–36.
[125] Latifi N, Meehan CL, Majid MZA, Horpibulsuk S. Strengthening montmorillonitic
and kaolinitic clays using a calcium-based non-traditional additive: A micro-level
study. Appl Clay Sci 2016;132–133:182–93.
[126] Al-Amoudi OSB, Khan K, Al-Kahtani NS. Stabilization of a Saudi calcareous marl
soil. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(10):1848–54.
[127] Kukko H. Stabilization of clay with inorganic by-products. J Mater Civ Eng
2000;12(4):307–9.
[128] Rashid ASA, Zainudin Z, Noor NM, Yaacob H. Effect of stabilized laterite on
California bearing ratio (CBR) and unconfined compressive strength (UCS).
Electron J Geotech Eng 2013;18:5655–60.
[129] Moon DH, Grubb DG, Reilly TL. Stabilization/solidification of selenium-impacted
soils using Portland cement and cement kiln dust. J Hazard Mater
2009;168(2–3):944–51.
[130] Miura N, Horpibbulsuk S, Nagaraj TS. Engineering behavior of cement stabilized
clay at high water content. Soils Found 2001;41(5):33–45.
[131] Dang LC, Fatahi B, Khabbaz H. Behaviour of expansive soils stabilized with hy-
drated lime and bagasse fibres. Procedia Eng 2016;143:658–65.
[132] Keramatikerman M, Chegenizadeh A, Nikraz H. Effect of GGBFS and lime binders
on the engineering properties of clay. Appl Clay Sci 2016;132–133:722–30.
[133] Sezer A, İnan G, Yılmaz HR, Ramyar K. Utilization of a very high lime fly ash for
improvement of Izmir clay. Build. Environ 2006;41(2):150–5.
[134] Saeed KA, Eisazadeh A, Kassim KA. Lime stabilized Malaysian lateritic clay con-
taminated by heavy metals. Electron J Geotech Eng 2012;17:1807–16.
[135] Eisazadeh A, Kassim KA, Nur H. Characterization of phosphoric acid- and lime-
stabilized tropical lateritic clay. Environ Earth Sci 2011;63(5):1057–66.
[136] Jafari M, Esna-ashari M. Effect of waste tire cord reinforcement on unconfined
compressive strength of lime stabilized clayey soil under freeze–thaw condition.
Cold Reg Sci Technol 2012;82:21–9.
[137] Al-Rawas AA, Hago AW, Al-Sarmi H. Effect of lime, cement and Sarooj (artificial
pozzolan) on the swelling potential of an expansive soil from Oman. Build Environ
2005;40(5):681–7.
[138] Narasimha Rao S, Rajasekaran G. Reaction products formed in lime-stabilized
marine clays. J Geotech Eng 1996;122(5):329–36.
[139] Cuisinier O, Auriol J-C, Le Borgne T, Deneele D. Microstructure and hydraulic
conductivity of a compacted lime-treated soil. Eng Geol 2011;123(3):187–93.
[140] Pekcan O, Tutumluer E, Thompson MR. Quantifying effects of lime stabilized
subgrade on conventional flexible pavement responses. In: Adv transp geotech -
proc 1st int conf transp geotech; 2008. p. 529–34.
[141] Pekcan O, Tutumluer E, Thompson MR. Artificial neural network based back-
calculation of conventional flexible pavements on lime stabilized soils. In: 12th Int
conf comput methods adv geomech 2008; 2008. p. 1647–54.
[142] Pekcan O, Tutumluer E, Thompson MR. Analyzing pavements on lime-stabilized
soils with artificial neural networks. In: Adv characterisation pavement soil eng
mater - proc int conf adv characterisation pavement soil eng mater, 2007. p.
587–96.
[143] Kumar BRP, Sharma RS. Effect of fly ash on engineering properties of expansive
soils. Geotech Geol Eng 2004;130(7):764–7.
[144] Ardah A, Chen Q, Abu-Farsakh M. Evaluating the performance of very weak
subgrade soils treated/stabilized with cementitious materials for sustainable pa-
vements. Transp Geotech 2017;11:107–19.
[145] Misra A. Stabilization characteristics of clays using class C fly ash. Transp Res Rec
J Transp Res Board 1998;1611:46–54.
[146] Dermatas D, Meng X. Utilization of fly ash for stabilization/solidification of heavy
metal contaminated soils. Eng Geol 2003;70(3–4):377–94.
[147] Amadi AA. Enhancing durability of quarry fines modified black cotton soil sub-
grade with cement kiln dust stabilization. Transp Geotech 2014;1(1):55–61.
[148] Kumar SB, Preethi TV. Behavior of clayey soil stabilized with rice husk Ash & lime.
Int J Eng Trends Technol 2014;11(1):44–8.
[149] Kumar Yadav A, Gaurav K, Kishor R, Suman SK. Stabilization of alluvial soil for
subgrade using rice husk ash, sugarcane bagasse ash and cow dung ash for rural
roads. Int J Pavement Res Technol 2017;10(3):254–61.
[150] Kumar A, Gupta D. Behavior of cement-stabilized fiber-reinforced pond ash, rice
husk ash–soil mixtures. Geotext Geomembr 2016;44(3):466–74.
[151] Kalkan E. Impact of wetting–drying cycles on swelling behavior of clayey soils
modified by silica fume. Appl Clay Sci 2011;52(4):345–52.
[152] Goodarzi AR, Akbari HR, Salimi M. Enhanced stabilization of highly expansive
clays by mixing cement and silica fume. Appl Clay Sci 2016;132–133:675–84.
[153] Manso JM, Ortega-López V, Polanco JA, Setién J. The use of ladle furnace slag in
soil stabilization. Constr Build Mater 2013;40:126–34.
[154] Ortega-López V, Manso JM, Cuesta II, González JJ. The long-term accelerated
expansion of various ladle-furnace basic slags and their soil-stabilization appli-
cations. Constr Build Mater 2014;68:455–64.
[155] Lin D-F, Luo H-L, Hsiao D-H, Yang C-C. The effects of sludge ash on the strength of
soft subgrade soil. J Chin Inst Environ Eng 2005;15(1):1–10.
[156] Pourakbar S, Asadi A, Huat BBK, Fasihnikoutalab MH. Stabilization of clayey soil
using ultrafine palm oil fuel ash (POFA) and cement. Transp Geotech
2015;3:24–35.
[157] Mujah D, Rahman ME, Zain NHM. Performance evaluation of the soft soil
A. Behnood
reinforced ground palm oil fuel ash layer composite. J Clean Prod
2015;95:89–100.
[158] Al-Malack MH, Abdullah GM, Al-Amoudi OSB, Bukhari AA. Stabilization of in-
digenous Saudi Arabian soils using fuel oil flyash. J King Saud Univ - Eng Sci
2016;28(2):165–73.
[159] Rezaeimalek S, Huang J, Bin-Shafique S. Evaluation of curing method and mix
design of a moisture activated polymer for sand stabilization. Constr Build Mater
2017;146:210–20.
[160] Moustafa AB, Bazaraa AR, Nour El Din AR. Soil stabilization by polymeric mate-
rials. Die Angew Makromol Chemie 1981;97(1):1–12.
[161] Jones E, Ajayi-Majebi A, Grissom W, Smith L, Jones E. Epoxy-resin-based chemical
stabilization of a fine, poorly graded soil system. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res
Board 1991;1295:95–108.
[162] Al-Khanbashi A, El-Gamal M. Modification of sandy soil using water-borne
polymer. J Appl Polym Sci 2003;88(10):2484–91.
[163] Anagnostopoulos C, Hadjispyrou S. Laboratory study of an epoxy resin grouted
sand. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Gr Improv 2004;8(1):39–45.
[164] Al-Khanbashi A, Abdalla SW. Evaluation of three waterborne polymers as stabi-
lizers for sandy soil. Geotech Geol Eng 2006;24(6):1603–25.
[165] Zandieh AR, Yasrobi SS. Study of factors affecting the compressive strength of
sandy soil stabilized with polymer. Geotech Geol Eng 2010;28(2):139–45.
[166] Ajalloeian R, Matinmanesh H, Abtahi SM, Rowshanzamir M. Effect of polyvinyl
acetate grout injection on geotechnical properties of fine sand. Geomech Geoeng
2013;8(2):86–96.
[167] Anagnostopoulos CA, Papaliangas TT. Experimental investigation of epoxy resin
and sand mixes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2012;138(7):841–9.
[168] Naeini SA, Naderinia B, Izadi E. Unconfined compressive strength of clayey soils
stabilized with waterborne polymer. KSCE J Civ Eng 2012;16(6):943–9.
[169] Mirzababaei M, Arulrajah A, Ouston M. Polymers for stabilization of soft clay soils.
Procedia Eng 2017;189:25–32.
[170] Latifi N, Rashid ASA, Siddiqua S, Majid MZA. Strength measurement and textural
characteristics of tropical residual soil stabilised with liquid polymer.
Measurement 2016;91:46–54.
[171] Latifi N, Vahedifard F, Ghazanfari E, Horpibulsuk S, Marto A, Williams J.
Sustainable improvement of clays using low-carbon nontraditional additive. Int J
Geomech 2018;18(3):4017162.
[172] Rashid ASA, Latifi N, Meehan CL, Manahiloh KN. Sustainable improvement of
tropical residual soil using an environmentally friendly additive. Geotech Geol Eng
2017;35(6):2613–23.
[173] Latifi N, Horpibulsuk S, Christopher LM, Zaimi AMM, Mahmood MT, Tonnizam
ME. Improvement of problematic soils with biopolymer—An environmentally
friendly soil stabilizer. J Mater Civ Eng 2017;29(2):4016204.
[174] Azzam WR. Utilization of polymer stabilization for improvement of clay micro-
structures. Appl Clay Sci 2014;93–94:94–101.
[175] Mousavi SE, Karamvand A. Assessment of strength development in stabilized soil
with CBR PLUS and silica sand. J Traffic Transp Eng (English Ed
2017;4(4):412–21.
[176] Ta’negonbadi B, Noorzad R. Stabilization of clayey soil using lignosulfonate.
Transp Geotech 2017;12:45–55.
[177] Chen Q, Indraratna B, Carter J, Rujikiatkamjorn C. A theoretical and experimental
study on the behaviour of lignosulfonate-treated sandy silt. Comput Geotech
2014;61:316–27.
[178] Tingle J, Santoni R. Stabilization of clay soils with nontraditional additives. Transp
Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1819;2003:72–84.
[179] Shulga G, Rekner F, Varslavan J. SW—soil and water: Lignin-based interpolymer
complexes as a novel adhesive for protection against erosion of sandy soil. J. Agric.
Eng. Res. 2001;78(3):309–16.
[180] Qingsheng C, Buddhima I. Deformation behavior of lignosulfonate-treated sandy
silt under cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2015;141(1):6014015.
[181] Alazigha DP, Indraratna B, Vinod JS, Heitor A. Mechanisms of stabilization of
expansive soil with lignosulfonate admixture. Transp Geotech 2018;14:81–92.
[182] Tang C, Shi B, Gao W, Chen F, Cai Y. Strength and mechanical behavior of short
polypropylene fiber reinforced and cement stabilized clayey soil. Geotext
Geomembr 2007;25(3):194–202.
[183] Lekha BM, Goutham S, Shankar AUR. Evaluation of lateritic soil stabilized with
Arecanut coir for low volume pavements. Transp Geotech 2015;2(Supplement
C):20–9.
[184] Hejazi SM, Sheikhzadeh M, Abtahi SM, Zadhoush A. A simple review of soil re-
inforcement by using natural and synthetic fibers. Constr Build Mater
2012;30(Supplement C):100–16.
[185] Chaduvula U, Viswanadham BVS, Kodikara J. A study on desiccation cracking
behavior of polyester fiber-reinforced expansive clay. Appl Clay Sci
2017;142(Supplement C):163–72.
[186] Kaniraj Shenbaga R, Havanagi Vasant G. Behavior of cement-stabilized fiber-re-
inforced fly ash-soil mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(7):574–84.
[187] Bouhicha M, Aouissi F, Kenai S. Performance of composite soil reinforced with
barley straw. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27(5):617–21.
[188] Yilmaz Y. Compaction and strength characteristics of fly ash and fiber amended
clayey soil. Eng Geol 2015;188(Supplement C):168–77.
[189] Yetimoglu T, Salbas O. A study on shear strength of sands reinforced with ran-
domly distributed discrete fibers. Geotext Geomembr 2003;21(2):103–10.
[190] Yetimoglu T, Inanir M, Esat Inanir O. A study on bearing capacity of randomly
distributed fiber-reinforced sand fills overlying soft clay. Geotext Geomembr
2005;23(2):174–83.
[191] Hamidi A, Hooresfand M. Effect of fiber reinforcement on triaxial shear behavior
of cement treated sand. Geotext Geomembr 2013;36(Supplement C):1–9.
31
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
[192] Praveen K, Pratap SS. Fiber-reinforced fly ash subbases in rural roads. J Transp
Eng 2008;134(4):171–80.
[193] Mirzababaei M, Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S, Soltani A, Khayat N. Stabilization of
soft clay using short fibers and poly vinyl alcohol. Geotext Geomembr
2018;46(5):646–55.
[194] Khaled S, Mehedy M. Tensile strength and toughness of soil–cement–fly-ash
composite reinforced with recycled high-density polyethylene strips. J Mater Civ
Eng 2002;14(2):177–84.
[195] Güllü H, Khudir A. Effect of freeze–thaw cycles on unconfined compressive
strength of fine-grained soil treated with jute fiber, steel fiber and lime. Cold Reg
Sci Technol 2014;106(Supplement C):55–65.
[196] Ghazavi M, Roustaie M. The influence of freeze–thaw cycles on the unconfined
compressive strength of fiber-reinforced clay. Cold Reg Sci Technol
2010;61(2):125–31.
[197] Elif Orakoglu M, Liu J, Niu F. Dynamic behavior of fiber-reinforced soil under
freeze-thaw cycles. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;101(Supplement C):269–84.
[198] Chauhan MS, Mittal S, Mohanty B. Performance evaluation of silty sand subgrade
reinforced with fly ash and fibre. Geotext Geomembr 2008;26(5):429–35.
[199] Park S-S. Effect of fiber reinforcement and distribution on unconfined compressive
strength of fiber-reinforced cemented sand. Geotext Geomembr 2009;27(2):162–6.
[200] Park S-S. Unconfined compressive strength and ductility of fiber-reinforced ce-
mented sand. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(2):1134–8.
[201] Choi S-G, Wang K, Chu J. Properties of biocemented, fiber reinforced sand. Constr
Build Mater 2016;120(Supplement C):623–9.
[202] Anggraini V, Asadi A, Huat BBK, Nahazanan H. Effects of coir fibers on tensile and
compressive strength of lime treated soft soil. Measurement 2015;59(Supplement
C):372–81.
[203] Bordoloi S, Hussain R, Garg A, Sreedeep S, Zhou W-H. Infiltration characteristics
of natural fiber reinforced soil. Transp Geotech 2017;12:37–44.
[204] Prabakar J, Sridhar RS. Effect of random inclusion of sisal fibre on strength be-
haviour of soil. Constr Build Mater 2002;16(2):123–31.
[205] Ahmad F, Bateni F, Azmi M. Performance evaluation of silty sand reinforced with
fibres. Geotext Geomembr 2010;28(1):93–9.
[206] Sarbaz H, Ghiassian H, Heshmati AA. CBR strength of reinforced soil with natural
fibres and considering environmental conditions. Int J Pavement Eng
2014;15(7):577–83.
[207] Segetin M, Jayaraman K, Xu X. Harakeke reinforcement of soil–cement building
materials: Manufacturability and properties. Build Environ 2007;42(8):3066–79.
[208] Yadav JS, Tiwari SK. Effect of waste rubber fibres on the geotechnical properties of
clay stabilized with cement. Appl Clay Sci 2017;149:97–110.
[209] Sharma V, Vinayak HK, Marwaha BM. Enhancing compressive strength of soil
using natural fibers. Constr Build Mater 2015;93(Supplement C):943–9.
[210] Alavéz-Ramírez R, Montes-García P, Martínez-Reyes J, Altamirano-Juárez DC,
Gochi-Ponce Y. The use of sugarcane bagasse ash and lime to improve the dur-
ability and mechanical properties of compacted soil blocks. Constr Build Mater
2012;34:296–305.
[211] Chen M, Shen S-L, Arulrajah A, Wu H-N, Hou D-W, Xu Y-S. Laboratory evaluation
on the effectiveness of polypropylene fibers on the strength of fiber-reinforced and
cement-stabilized Shanghai soft clay. Geotext Geomembr 2015;43(6):515–23.
[212] Phanikumar BR, Singla R. Swell-consolidation characteristics of fibre-reinforced
expansive soils. Soils Found 2016;56(1):138–43.
[213] Arvind K, Singh WB, Asheet B. Influence of fly ash, lime, and polyester fibers on
compaction and strength properties of expansive soil. J Mater Civ Eng
2007;19(3):242–8.
[214] Ayeldeen M, Kitazume M. Using fiber and liquid polymer to improve the beha-
viour of cement-stabilized soft clay. Geotext Geomembr 2017.
[215] Anggraini V, Asadi A, Syamsir A, Huat BBK. Three point bending flexural strength
of cement treated tropical marine soil reinforced by lime treated natural fiber.
Measurement 2017;111(Supplement C):158–66.
[216] Majeed ZH, Taha MR. A review of stabilization of soils by using nanomaterials.
Aust J Basic Appl Sci 2013;7(2):576–81.
[217] Taha MR. Geotechnical properties of soil-ball milled soil mixtures. Nanotechnol
Constr 3 Proc NICOM3. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2009. p.
377–82.
[218] Khalid N, Arshad MF, Mukri M, Mohamad K, Kamarudin F. Influence of nano-soil
particles in soft soil stabilization. Electron J Geotech Eng 2015;20(2):731–8.
[219] Senff L, Labrincha JA, Ferreira VM, Hotza D, Repette WL. Effect of nano-silica on
rheology and fresh properties of cement pastes and mortars. Constr Build Mater
2009;23(7):2487–91.
[220] Bahmani SH, Huat BBK, Asadi A, Farzadnia N. Stabilization of residual soil using
SiO2 nanoparticles and cement. Constr Build Mater 2014;64:350–9.
[221] Taha MR, Taha OME. Influence of nano-material on the expansive and shrinkage
soil behavior. J Nanoparticle Res 2012;14(10):1190.
[222] Correia AAS, Rasteiro MG. Nanotechnology applied to chemical soil stabilization.
Procedia Eng 2016;143:1252–9.
[223] Figueiredo DTR, Correia AAS, Hunkeler D, Rasteiro MGBV. Surfactants for dis-
persion of carbon nanotubes applied in soil stabilization. Colloids Surf A
Physicochem Eng Asp 2015;480:405–12.
[224] Correia AAS, Casaleiro PDF, Rasteiro MGBV. Applying multiwall carbon nano-
tubes for soil stabilization. Procedia Eng 2015;102:1766–75.
[225] Meng T, Qiang Y, Hu A, Xu C, Lin L. Effect of compound nano-CaCO3 addition on
strength development and microstructure of cement-stabilized soil in the marine
environment. Constr Build Mater 2017;151:775–81.
[226] Kawashima S, Hou P, Corr DJ, Shah SP. Modification of cement-based materials
with nanoparticles. Cem Concr Compos 2013;36:8–15.
[227] Sobolev K, Flores I, Hermosillo R, Torres-Martínez L, Nanomaterials and
A. Behnood
nanotechnology for high-performance cement composites. In: Proc. ACI Sess.
Nanotechnol. Concr. Recent Dev. Futur. Perspect., Denver, USA; 2006.
[228] Hou P, Wang K, Qian J, Kawashima S, Kong D, Shah SP. Effects of colloidal
nanoSiO2 on fly ash hydration. Cem Concr Compos 2012;34(10):1095–103.
[229] Lin KL, Chang WC, Lin DF, Luo HL, Tsai MC. Effects of nano-SiO2 and different ash
particle sizes on sludge ash–cement mortar. J Environ Manage
2008;88(4):708–14.
[230] Choobbasti AJ, Kutanaei SS. Microstructure characteristics of cement-stabilized
sandy soil using nanosilica. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 2017;9(5):981–8.
[231] Ghasabkolaei N, Janalizadeh A, Jahanshahi M, Roshan N, Ghasemi SE. Physical
and geotechnical properties of cement-treated clayey soil using silica nano-
particles: An experimental study. Eur Phys J Plus 2016;131(5):134.
[232] Gaitero JJ, Campillo I, Guerrero A. Reduction of the calcium leaching rate of ce-
ment paste by addition of silica nanoparticles. Cem Concr Res
2008;38(8–9):1112–8.
[233] Georgees RN, Hassan RA, Evans RP. A potential use of a hydrophilic polymeric
material to enhance durability properties of pavement materials. Constr Build
Mater 2017;148:686–95.
[234] Fasihnikoutalab MH, Asadi A, Kim Huat B, Westgate P, Ball RJ, Pourakbar S.
Laboratory-scale model of carbon dioxide deposition for soil stabilisation. J Rock
Mech Geotech Eng 2016;8(2):178–86.
[235] Kota P, Hazlett D, Perrin L. Sulfate-bearing soils: problems with calcium-based
stabilizers. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1996;1546:62–9.
[236] Harris J, Sebesta S, Scullion T. Hydrated lime stabilization of sulfate-bearing
vertisols in Texas. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1868;2004:31–9.
[237] Duran D. Case study: heave potential associated with Ettringite formation in lime
treated materials for an Aurora, Colorado, Roadway. In: GeoTrends, American
Society of Civil Engineers; 2010. p. 53–60.
[238] Gallage C, Cochrane M, Ramanujam J. Effects of lime content and amelioration
period in double lime application on the strength of lime treated expansive sub-
grade soils. In: Adv. Transp. Geotech. II - Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Transp. Geotech.
ICTG 2012; 2012. p. 99–104.
[239] Talluri N, Puppala AJ, Chittoori BCS, Gaily AH, Harris P. Stabilization of high-
sulfate soils by extended mellowing. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board
2013;2363:96–104.
[240] Jung S, Santagata MC. Mitigating the expansive behavior of chemically treated
soils. PURDUE University Press; 2009.
[241] Rahmat MN, Kinuthia JM. Effects of mellowing sulfate-bearing clay soil stabilized
with wastepaper sludge ash for road construction. Eng Geol 2011;117(3):170–9.
[242] Yi Y, Liska M, Unluer C, Al-Tabbaa A. Carbonating magnesia for soil stabilization.
Can Geotech J 2013;50(8):899–905.
[243] Yi Y, Lu K, Liu S, Al-Tabbaa A. Property changes of reactive magnesia–stabilized
soil subjected to forced carbonation. Can Geotech J 2015;53(2):314–25.
[244] Yi Y, Liska M, Akinyugha A, Unluer C, Al-Tabbaa A. Preliminary laboratory-scale
model auger installation and testing of carbonated soil-MgO columns. Geotech
Test J 2013;36(3):384–93.
[245] Xing H, Yang X, Xu C, Ye G. Strength characteristics and mechanisms of salt-rich
soil–cement. Eng Geol 2009;103(1–2):33–8.
[246] Al-Rawas AA. Microfabric and mineralogical studies on the stabilization of an
expansive soil using cement by-pass dust and some types of slags. Can Geotech J
2002;39(5):1150–67.
[247] Rica HC, Saussaye L, Boutouil M, Leleyter L, Baraud F. Stabilization of a silty soil:
Effects of disruptive salts. Eng Geol 2016;208:191–7.
[248] Sherwood PT. Effect of sulfates on cement- and lime-stabilized soils. Highw Res
Board Bull 1962;353:98–107.
[249] Rajasekaran G. Sulphate attack and ettringite formation in the lime and cement
stabilized marine clays. Ocean Eng 2005;32(8–9):1133–59.
[250] Hunter D. Lime-induced heave in sulfate-bearing clay soils. J Geotech Eng
1988;114(2):150–67.
[251] Ouhadi VR, Yong RN. The role of clay fractions of marly soils on their post sta-
bilization failure. Eng Geol 2003;70(3–4):365–75.
[252] Celik E, Nalbantoglu Z. Effects of ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS) on
the swelling properties of lime-stabilized sulfate-bearing soils. Eng Geol
2013;163:20–5.
[253] Cuisinier O, Le Borgne T, Deneele D, Masrouri F. Quantification of the effects of
nitrates, phosphates and chlorides on soil stabilization with lime and cement. Eng
Geol 2011;117(3–4):229–35.
[254] Mohamed AMO. The role of clay minerals in marly soils on its stability. Eng Geol
2000;57(3):193–203.
[255] Punthutaecha K, Puppala A, Vanapalli S, Inyang H. Volume change behaviors of
expansive soils stabilized with recycled ashes and fibers. J Mater Civ Eng
2006;18(2):295–306.
[256] Si Z. Forensic investigation of pavement premature failure due to soil sulfate-in-
duced heave. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2008;134(8):1201–4.
[257] McCarthy MJ, Csetenyi LJ, Sachdeva A, Dhir RK. Controlling swelling in lime-
stabilised sulfate-bearing soils using fly ash. Gr Eng 2011;44(1):29–31.
[258] Sukmak P, De Silva P, Horpibulsuk S, Chindaprasirt P. Sulfate resistance of clay-
32
Transportation Geotechnics 17 (2018) 14–32
portland cement and clay high-calcium fly ash geopolymer. J Mater Civ Eng
2014;27(5):4014158.
[259] McCarthy MJ, Csetenyi LJ, Sachdeva A, Dhir RK. Engineering and durability
properties of fly ash treated lime-stabilised sulphate-bearing soils. Eng Geol
2014;174:139–48.
[260] McCarthy MJ, Csetenyi LJ, Sachdeva A, Dhir RK. Identifying the role of fly ash
properties for minimizing sulfate-heave in lime-stabilized soils. Fuel
2012;92(1):27–36.
[261] Cheshomi A, Eshaghi A, Hassanpour J. Effect of lime and fly ash on swelling
percentage and Atterberg limits of sulfate-bearing clay. Appl Clay Sci
2017;135:190–8.
[262] Wild S, Tasong WA. Influence of ground granulated blastfurnace slag on the sul-
phate resistance of lime-stabilized kaolinite. Mag Concr Res 1999;51(4):247–54.
[263] Wild S, Kinuthia JM, Jones GI, Higgins DD. Suppression of swelling associated
with ettringite formation in lime stabilized sulphate bearing clay soils by partial
substitution of lime with ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS). Eng Geol
1999;51(4):257–77.
[264] Seco A, Miqueleiz L, Prieto E, Marcelino S, García B, Urmeneta P. Sulfate soils
stabilization with magnesium-based binders. Appl Clay Sci 2017;135:457–64.
[265] Wang L, Roy A, Seals R, Metcalf J. Stabilization of sulfate-containing soil by ce-
mentitious mixtures mechanical properties. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board
1837;2003:12–9.
[266] Puppala A, Griffin J, Hoyos L, Chomtid S. Studies on sulfate-resistant cement
stabilization methods to address sulfate-induced soil heave. J Geotech
Geoenvironm Eng 2004;130(4):391–402.
[267] Puppala A, Wattanasanticharoen E, Hoyos L. Ranking of four chemical and me-
chanical stabilization methods to treat low-volume road subgrades in Texas.
Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1819;2003:63–71.
[268] Mardani-Aghabaglou A, Kalıpcılar İ, İnan Sezer G, Sezer A, Altun S. Freeze–thaw
resistance and chloride-ion penetration of cement-stabilized clay exposed to sul-
fate attack. Appl Clay Sci 2015;115:179–88.
[269] Sarkar S, Little D. Stabilization of sulfate-contaminated crushed concrete base with
Type V cement and fly ash. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1998;1611:3–9.
[270] Ferris GA, Eades JL, Graves RE, McClellan GH. Improved charachteristics in sulfate
soils treated with barium compounds before lime stabilization. Transp Res Rec
1991;1295:45–51.
[271] Petry TM, Little DN. Update on sulfate-induced heave in treated clays; problematic
sulfate levels. Transp Res Rec 1992;1362:51–5.
[272] Dermatas D. Ettringite-induced swelling in soils: state-of-the-art. Appl Mech Rev
1995;48(10):659–73.
[273] Carmona-Quiroga PM, Blanco-Varela MT. Ettringite decomposition in the presence
of barium carbonate. Cem Concr Res 2013;52:140–8.
[274] Rauch A, Harmon J, Katz L, Liljestrand H. Measured effects of liquid soil stabilizers
on engineering properties of clay. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board
2002;1787:33–41.
[275] Santoni R, Tingle J, Webster S. Stabilization of silty sand with nontraditional
additives. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2002;1787:61–70.
[276] Harris P, Von Holdt J, Sebesta S, Scullion T. Recommendations for stabilization of
high-sulfate soils in Texas, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); 2006.
[277] Mohammed AS, Vipulanandan C. Compressive and tensile behavior of polymer
treated sulfate contaminated CL soil. Geotech Geol Eng 2014;32(1):71–83.
[278] Gilazghi ST, Huang J, Rezaeimalek S, Bin-Shafique S. Stabilizing sulfate-rich high
plasticity clay with moisture activated polymerization. Eng Geol 2016;211:171–8.
[279] Rezaeimalek S, Nasouri A, Huang J, Bin-Shafique S, Gilazghi ST. Comparison of
short-term and long-term performances for polymer-stabilized sand and clay. J
Traffic Transp Eng (English Ed) 2017;4(2):145–55.
[280] Zhang M, Zhao M, Zhang G, Nowak P, Coen A, Tao M. Calcium-free geopolymer as
a stabilizer for sulfate-rich soils. Appl Clay Sci 2015;108:199–207.
[281] Yu H, Huang X, Ning J, Zhu B, Cheng Y. Effect of cation exchange capacity of soil
on stabilized soil strength. Soils Found 2014;54(6):1236–40.
[282] Elert K, Azañón JM, Nieto F. Smectite formation upon lime stabilization of ex-
pansive marls. Appl Clay Sci 2018;158:29–36.
[283] Dayioglu M, Cetin B, Nam S. Stabilization of expansive Belle Fourche shale clay
with different chemical additives. Appl Clay Sci 2017;146:56–69.
[284] Chamberlain EJ, Gow AJ. Effect of freezing and thawing on the permeability and
structure of soils. Eng Geol 1979;13(1):73–92.
[285] Wang G, Wei X. Modeling swelling–shrinkage behavior of compacted expansive
soils during wetting–drying cycles. Can Geotech J 2014;52(6):783–94.
[286] Rao SM, Reddy BVV, Muttharam M. The impact of cyclic wetting and drying on
the swelling behaviour of stabilized expansive soils. Eng Geol 2001;60(1):223–33.
[287] Razouki SS, Salem BM. Soaking–drying frequency effect on gypsum-rich roadbed
sand. Int J Pavement Eng 2014;15(10):933–9.
[288] Aldaood A, Bouasker M, Al-Mukhtar M. Effect of long-term soaking and leaching
on the behaviour of lime-stabilised gypseous soil. Int J Pavement Eng
2015;16(1):11–26.
[289] Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transp
Geotech 2015;4:28–37.