Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13 (2021) 212e220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.jrmge.cn

Full Length Article

Optimizing micaceous soil stabilization using response surface method

J. Zhang, A. Deng*, M. Jaksa
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Micaceous soil is a problematic soil due to its low strength and poor ductility. In this context, the per-
Received 28 November 2019 formances of micaceous soils were improved by applying a combination of granulated blast furnace slag,
Received in revised form fiber and polymer additive. The dosages examined included 0%e30% mica, 3%e15% slag and 0.25%e1.25%
27 April 2020
fiber by weight, and 0.1e0.5 g/L polymer additive. Most of the combinations were found to increase the
Accepted 13 May 2020
Available online 21 August 2020
material strength and ductility, yet to be optimized. To refine the dosage, response surface method was
used to conduct experimental design and develop predictive models for material strength. The devel-
oped models formulate the material strength as a nonlinear function of dosages and, by interrogating it,
Keywords:
Fiber
can optimize additive contents in terms of target requirements. The models were verified through trials
Polymer and can be used to determine dosages to upscale micaceous soils to field conditions.
Central composite design Ó 2021 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Unconfined compression strength (UCS) Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
Mica licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction unavoidable in some instances, expensive alternative foundation

Mica minerals are widely distributed around the world and
naturally occur in igneous, sedimentary and certain metamorphic
rocks (Galán and Ferrell, 2013). Due to weathering processes, mica
minerals break down to finer particles and are presented at varied
levels in natural soils which form micaceous soils. In the presence
of mica, micaceous soils suffer from deformation issue and
adversely influence serviceability of infrastructure systems that are
founded on them (Frempong, 1995). One instant problem is an
invalid, or at least less effective, soil compaction. Compactive effort
is offset completely or partially by mica rebound nature in
load
unload actions (Weinert, 1980). The compressible underlying
stratum undermines the stability and serviceability of infrastruc-
ture systems of concern. In addition, mica particles are platy and
crushable at micro-scale and, during compression or shearing, tend
to rotate and orient them in a somewhat parallel fashion, yielding
low shear resistance (Harris et al., 1984; Seethalakshmi and Sachan,
2018). As per Sachan et al. (2019), soils with more than 10% mica is
generally not recommended for pavements. Due to these prob-
lematic natures, micaceous soils less likely meet construction
quality requirements in general field applications, and are usually
avoided or replaced (Frempong, 1995; Zhang et al., 2019a). If
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: an.deng@adelaide.edu.au (A. Deng).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
solutions including piles are installed which sometimes are not
financially or logistically viable. Instead, the unsatisfactory perfor-
mance of micaceous soils can be ameliorated through soil
stabilization.
Soil stabilization incorporates a volume of additives, e.g. cement,
lime, fly ash and slag, in soils. In contact with water, the additives
trigger a series of short-to long-term main pozzolanic reactions in
soils and improve stiffness and strength of the soil. The improve-
ment has been verified on a variety of problematic soils, e.g.
expansive soil (Al-Rawas, 2002), residual soil (Basha et al., 2005),
kaolinite (Ge et al., 2018), lithomargic clay (Amulya et al., 2020), and
high-plasticity soil (Hossain and Mol, 2011). Of the varieties of soils,
consistently better performance on strength, compaction,
compressibility and/or microstructure (i.e. fabrics) are obtained.
The levels of enhancement are varied depending mainly on dosage
used, soil types examined, curing time and tests conducted. For
example, Prabakar and Sridhar (2002) examined the effects of fly
ash added to three types of soils. They found that addition of fly ash
increased the shear strength for all three soils. The value of cohe-
sion can be increased by addition of fly ash, but at varied levels
(0.39 kg/cm2 for loamy soils and 0.66 kg/cm2 for clayey soil). Similar
strength variation was obtained on cemented kaolinite by Ge et al.
(2018). In their study, it was suggested that the unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) increased with the cement content
when the water content and the weight of soil were fixed.
In addition to the conventional pozzolanic additives, choices of
additive have expanded to non-pozzolanic, low-cost, low-emission

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.05.005
1674-7755 Ó 2021 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13 (2021) 212e220
green materials. The materials are sourced from either natural or
synthetic polymeric agents, resin or organic matters, or industry or
municipal by-products that are disposed of from the factories or
facilities. The examples include rice husk ash (Basha et al., 2005),
fly ash, bottom ash, blast furnace slag, phosphogymsum and red
mud (Al-Rawas, 2002), kiln dust and volcanic ash (Al-Rawas, 2002;
Hossain and Mol, 2011; Bahadori et al., 2019), calcium carbide
residue (Latifi et al., 2018), bacteria-induced calcite precipitation
(Saffari et al., 2017; Latifi et al., 2018), and polymer and resin
(Soltani et al., 2019a, b). These emerging additives can trigger
pozzolanic or non-pozzolanic reactions, or a combination, if
blended with soils, and develop soil strength. Usually, the ob-
tained strength is comparable to those obtained from the pozzo-
lanic additives depending on the dosage used and is equally
qualified for suitable field applications. In applications, non-
pozzolanic additives can use standard or readily modified equip-
ment as for pozzolanic additives, thus offering an approachable
solution.
Aside from the chemical stabilization, physically reinforced soils
with natural or synthetic fibers provide alternative solutions to soil
stabilization. The collection of fiber usually is distributed in a
random and discrete fashion, which offers an excellent coverage of
soils and inhibits development of potential slips or planes in the
soils (Wang et al., 2017). Fibers have been successfully used to
reinforce a range of problematic soils. The fibers are varied mainly
in four factors: material, length, aspect ratio and dosage. As per a
number of studies (e.g. Sarbaz et al., 2014; Danso et al., 2015;
Sharma et al., 2015), the four factors of fiber collectively govern the
strength development and ductility of stabilized soils. To this end,
these factors can be optimized to stabilize the soil. For example,
Danso et al. (2015) recommended fiber content of 0.5% by weight
for high-plasticity soil, Prabakar and Sridhar (2002) recommended
0.75% for construction soils, and Kumar et al. (2006) attempted a
combination of 2% of 3 mm plain fibers or 0.5% of 6 mm plain fibers
to attain the optimal improvement. Although the recommended
dosages are varied, many studies agree on the following fiber-
induced outcomes: (i) reduced maximum dry unit weight, (ii)
improved ductility, and (iii) moderate strength gain. The reduction
of dry unit weight does not necessarily mean loose packing of
materials, but occurrence of well-compacted lightweight fabrics.
The lightweight nature arises from fiber offering much lower
density than soils do. One concern is that the strength and ductility
of fiber-reinforced soils are likely to turn down if the fiber contents
are excessive or exceed the optimized dosage. This concern, how-
ever, can be overcome by applying a combined stabilization
solution.
The combinations of fibers and pozzolanic additives are able to
enhance both the strength and ductility. Recent studies (Estabragh
et al., 2017; Shahbazi et al., 2017; Yadav and Tiwari, 2017) indicated
that if used in combination, the additives and the fiber complement
each other and therefore optimize the stabilization. Tang et al.
(2007) used the scanning electron microscopy to examine com-
plementary interactions between pozzolanic additives and fibers.
They found that the bond strength and friction at the interface
govern the reinforcement results. The results depend on the addi-
tives used, normal stress acted on fibers, effective contact area of
the interface, fiber strength and its surface roughness. On the factor
affecting the fiber strength, Wei et al. (2018) examined lime sta-
bilization mixed with different fibers and found that polypropylene
fibers outperform jute, rick straw and wheat straw in improving
soil strength.
Stabilization has been attempted on micaceous soils. Frempong
(1995) examined lime and sand additions to micaceous soils. The
additions enhanced a range of material performances including
consistency, compaction, strength, and volume stability against
213
wetting. He suggested the dosage of 6%e8% lime and 30% sand,
depending on the soil conditions and target applications. As earlier
studies, Frempong (1995) suggested a range of optimal dosages
which, however, are subjected to variation depending on the in-
gredients used and the soils to be stabilized. Sobhani and Wong
(2015) used mica power as a partial replacement of cement to
stabilize clays. In their study, mica was found to reduce the opti-
mum water content and increase the maximum dry density.
Meanwhile, many of the previous studies adopted the matrix-based
sample design and, based on the design test, developed
performance-based optimal dosage. This is suitable for sample
design involving a couple of ingredients or variables. If the number
increases, the test pool grows dramatically and challenges the
feasibility. Reducing the variable number is sometimes unaccept-
able as the insufficient test results may underrepresent material
performance and therefore bias the optimal dosages.
Given the research outcomes and limitations that are identified
from the past studies, this study examines the stabilization of
micaceous soils using pozzolanic, non-pozzolanic and fiber in-
clusions, alone and in combination. The chosen additives were slag,
polymer and polyether fibers. We used an advanced experimental
design toolbox and a predictive modeling approach to scope dos-
ages of individual ingredients, and to identify their contributions to
performances of soils. The goal is to optimize the dosage and
enhance the soil performance.
2. Materials and methods
The materials include artificial soils comprised of kaolinite and
bentonite, and stabilizers which are ground mica, ground-
granulated blast-furnace slag (GBFS), polypropylene fiber and
polymetric agent. Each of the materials is outlined as follows.
2.1. Soils
The soil used in the experimental program was a mixture of two
commercially available clays: kaolinite and sodium-activated
bentonite. They were blended at 85% and 15% by weight, respec-
tively. The physico-mechanical properties of the soil, as well as the
test methods, are summarized in Fig. 1 and Table 1. The liquid limit
and plasticity index were respectively measured as 44% and 22%,
from which the soil was characterized as clay of low plasticity (CL),
in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
Furthermore, the standard Proctor compaction test, carried out as
per ASTM D698-12 (2012), suggested that the optimal water con-
tent was 25.2%, corresponding to a maximum dry unit weight of
14.6 kN/m3.
100
Percent finer (%)
80
60
40
20
0
0.001 0.1 10 1000
Particle size (mm)
Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of the soil used.
214 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13 (2021) 212e220

Table 1 as a polyacrylamide (PAM) (CH2CHCONH2), which is a water-

Physico-mechanical properties of the soil samples. soluble, anionic synthetic polymer formed from acrylamide
Property Value Test method subunits, as shown in Fig. 3. The polymer has been successfully
Specific gravity of solids, GSs 2.71 ASTM D854-14 (2014)
implemented in several Australian roadway construction projects
Clay (<2 mm) (%) 53 ASTM D422-63(2007)e2 (2007) with a variety of soils (Georgees et al., 2015). The polymer pre-
Silt (2e75 mm) (%) 46 ASTM D422-63(2007)e2 (2007) sents in a granular form and, as per the manufacturer’s specifi-
Fine sand (0.075e0.425 mm) (%) 1 ASTM D422-63(2007)e2 (2007) cation, is suggested to dilute at 200 g to 1 kg water ratio. Other
Liquid limit, wL (%) 44 AS 1289.3.9.1:2015 (2015)
properties include a specific gravity (at 25  C) of 0.8 and a pH
Plastic limit, wP (%) 22 AS 1289.3.2.1-2009 (2009)
Plasticity index, IP (%) 31 AS 1289.3.3.1-2009 (2009) value (at 25  C) of 6.9.
USCS classification CL ASTM D2487-11 (2011)
Optimal water content, wopt (%) 25.2 ASTM D698-12 (2012)
Maximum dry unit weight, 14.6 ASTM D698-12 (2012) 2.6. Modeling method
gdmax (kN/m3)
Response surface methodology (RSM) is an empirical statistical
and mathematical tool used to explore the response models (i.e.
2.2. Ground mica relationships) between several explanatory variables (e.g. ingre-
dient dosages) and one or more response variables (e.g. material
Commercially available ground mica, sourced from a local sup- strength) (Myers et al., 2016). The relationships are provided in a
plier, was used to artificially prepare the micaceous clay soils. The list of descending order of desirability which represents the
physical properties and chemical composition of the ground mica, closeness of a response to its ideal value. The desirability is
as provided by the supplier, are summarized in Table 2. The product dimensionless and lies between 0 and 1. The greater a desirability
appeared as white powder with the particle size being silt-to-clay value is, the more a response falls within the ideal intervals. In
(<75 mm). The specific gravity of the ground mica, GM s ; was found science field, modeling with desirability of more than 0.7 is
to be 2.8. The chemical composition of the ground mica, provided acceptable. RSM uses a sequence of designed experiments to
by the supplier, was found to be dominated by silicon dioxide (SiO2) determine an optimal set of variables in order to obtain the
and aluminum trioxide (Al2O3) with mass fractions of 49.5% and desired response. The effect of an individual variable can be
29.2%, respectively. In terms of acidity, the pH value of the ground assessed while the other variables are varied (Singh et al., 2011),
mica slurry was 7.8 which is alkalescent. which takes advantage over the usual observatory comparison
analysis. The RSM has been widely applied in chemical engi-
2.3. GBFS neering and more recently in civil engineering (Shahbazi et al.,
2017).
The GBFS was sourced from a local manufacturer and was used RSM usually uses two approaches to explore the response
as the cementitious additive. The physical properties and chemical models. They are central composite design (CCD) and Box-Behnken
composition, provided by the manufacturer, are provided in Table 3. design (BBD). CCD provides relatively better modeling results in the
The GBFS particles consist of fines of 96% by weight. The specific aspects of nonlinear modeling, provision of high-order modeling
gravity and pH value of GBFS were 2.87 and 9.6, respectively. The coefficients and processing of experimental data (Myers et al.,
chemical compositions are mainly dominated by CaO and SiO2 with 2016), and was used in the present study. In addition, CCD uses
the contents of 44.7% and 27.1%, respectively. an optimal number of experiments to derive the relationships be-
tween the variables (Sahu et al., 2009).
Generally, a CCD design consists of 2n factorial runs, 2n axial
2.4. Fiber
runs, and nc center runs, where n is the number of variables in the
experiment and can range between 3 and 10 (Myers et al., 2016).
Polypropylene fiber was used to reinforce the soils. This type of
Center runs replicate a center point experiment and can be set
fiber has been widely used in previous studies (e.g. Yetimoglu et al.,
between 2 and 6. The CCD processes the experiment results and
2005; Olgun, 2013; Estabragh et al., 2017). The diameter of the fi-
yields a response model in the form as
bers was in the range of 20e30 mm, and fibers were cut into seg-
ments of approximately 10 mm in length, as shown in Fig. 2. Y ¼ f ðX1 ; X2 ; X3 ; ::::; Xn Þ  e (1)
Polypropylene fiber offers advantages, such as hydrophobicity, and
resistance to alkalis, chemicals and chlorides. The physical and where Y is the response of the experiment, Xi is the variable, and e
engineering properties, provided by the manufacturer, are pro- is the experimental error. The function f is unknown and it may be
vided in Table 4. complex, based on the relationship between the variables and the
response. Therefore, RSM aims at identifying a suitable polynomial
2.5. Polymer agent relationship between the variables and the response surface (i.e.
the best-of-fit surface) (Gunaraj and Murugan, 1999). In some cases,
A commercially manufactured polymer agent was used as the a higher-order polynomial, such as a quadratic model, may be
chemical binder in this study. This type of polymer is referred to applied and Eq. (1) can be expressed as

Table 2
The physical properties and chemical composition of ground mica.

Specific gravity Particle Appearance Hardness Oil absorption Water pH Chemical Composition (%)
of mica, GM
s diameter, (Mohs) (mL/(100 g)) content, value formulation
Al2O3 CaO Fe2O3 K2O MgO Na2O SiO2 TiO2
D90 (mm) w (%)

2.8 53.6 Fine (<75 mm) 2.5 36 0.41 7.8 K(Al2(AlSi3O10) 29.17 0.38 4.62 8.85 0.67 0.45 49.53 0.83
white powder (OH)2)
 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13 (2021) 212e220 215

Table 3
The physical properties and chemical composition of GBFS.

Specific gravity, Fine fraction Coarse fraction Specific Water pH Loss on ignition Composition (%)
GGBFS
s (<75 mm) (%) (0.074e4.75 mm) surface content, value (at 1000  C) (%)
CaO SiO2 Al2O3 MgO Fe2O3 TiO2 K2O Na2O
area (m2/g) w (%)

2.87 96 4 0.7 <1 9.6 <3 44.7 27.1 13.6 5.1 3.5 1.7 0.7 0.2

Fig. 3. Samples of polymer agent.

Fig. 2. Samples of polypropylene fibers.
Xn Xn
Y ¼ b0 þ ðb X Þ þ
i¼1 i i
ðb X 2 Þ
i¼1 ii 1
Xn Xn
þ i¼1
ðb X X X Þ þ e
j¼1 ij ij i j
where b0 is a constant, bi is the linear coefficient, bii is the
quadratic coefficient, and bij is the interaction coefficient. From
the obtained mathematical form, we can scope variables (i.e.
combinations of ingredients) where optimal stabilization is
obtained.
2.7. Experimental design
We designed two combinations of additives: slagefiber and
slagepolymer, to stabilize micaceous soils. In each of the two
combinations, we specified the value ranges for the ingredients
that we had chosen. The ranges were 3%e15% of slag, 0.25%e1.25%
of fiber, and 0.1e0.5 g/L of polymer. The percentages are all by
weight. Micaceous soils were formed by adding a volume of ground
mica to soils. To explore the range of mica content, the contents that
were examined are 15% and 30%. A control sample that contains no
mica is used for comparison. The sets of ranges were determined in
terms of the past studies and adjusted so that we can provide a
suitable coverage for the ingredients, and comparison between the
two combination scenarios. The ranges were used as the input
values for the CCD processing, and the outputs in the form of
sample dosages are provided in Tables 5 and 6. A total of 20 sam-
ples, including 6 center point runs (i.e. nc ¼ 6), were designed for
each sample stream. In each stream, the dosages were varied and
arranged into a fashion by the CCD. Each ingredient was assigned a
variable, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2, to be used for the response surface
modeling.
We prepared the samples using the optimum water content and
maximum dry unit weight that are provided in Table 1. After the
(2) required volume of water was added to the samples, the samples
were mixed manually and thoroughly for about 5 min to ensure
that the mixtures were homogenous. The prepared samples were
then cast into cylinder molds (f50 mm  100 mm) and compacted
to the maximum dry unit weight. The fresh samples were sealed
using plastic membrane and placed into a fog room for curing. All
samples were cured for 28 d before the test. UCS tests were con-
ducted in accordance with ASTM D2166/D2166M-16 (2016). The
samples were axially compressed at a rate of 1 mm/min (i.e. 1% per
minute), as adopted in Ang and Loehr (2003) and Soltani et al.
(2019b). The load with respect to time was recorded continuously
until the sample failed. The peak strength was recorded as the UCS
for the samples tested.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. UCS and CCD modeling
The UCS results obtained for the samples tested are presented
in Tables 7 and 8. The strength values were varied depending on
the dosages examined. The values varied from 80.54 kPa to
560.87 kPa for slagefiber stabilized samples and from 76.35 kPa to
486.11 kPa for slagepolymer stabilized samples, which reflected
usual strength results of natural and compacted soils. The ranges
of strength values verified the capacity of CCD in experiment
design.
The modeling approach was applied to the strength results,
enabling prediction of UCS as a function of ingredient dosages:

Table 4
The physical and engineering properties of polypropylene fiber.

Fiber type Specific Length, Diameter, Aspect ratio, Young’s Tensile strength Tensile elongation
gravity, GsF FL (mm) FD (mm) FAR ¼ FL/FD modulus (GPa) (MPa) at rupture (%)

Single fiber 0.94 10 20e30 375e500 2e3 320e400 25

216 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13 (2021) 212e220

Table 5 Table 6
Experimental design of the slagefiber stabilized micaceous soils. Experimental design of the slagepolymer stabilized micaceous soils.

Sample Mica (A1) (%) Slag (B1) (%) Fiber (C1) (%) Sample Mica (A2) (%) Slag (B2) (%) Polymer (C2) (g/L)

1 0 3 0.25 1 0 3 0.1
2 0 3 1.25 2 0 3 0.5
3 0 9 0.75 3 0 9 0.3
4 0 15 0.25 4 0 15 0.1
5 0 15 1.25 5 0 15 0.5
6 15 3 0.75 6 15 3 0.3
7 15 9 0.25 7 15 9 0.1
8 15 9 0.75 8 15 9 0.3
9 15 9 0.75 9 15 9 0.3
10 15 9 0.75 10 15 9 0.3
11 15 9 0.75 11 15 9 0.3
12 15 9 0.75 12 15 9 0.3
13 15 9 0.75 13 15 9 0.3
14 15 9 1.25 14 15 9 0.5
15 15 15 0.75 15 15 15 0.3
16 30 3 0.25 16 30 3 0.1
17 30 3 1.25 17 30 3 0.5
18 30 9 0.75 18 30 9 0.3
19 30 15 0.25 19 30 15 0.1
20 30 15 1.25 20 30 15 0.5

Table 7
The UCS results of the slagefiber stabilized micaceous soil samples.
UCSSF ¼ 301:77
50:4A1 þ 139:5B1 þ 43:64C1
25:98A1 B1
Sample UCS (kPa)

16:04A1 C1 þ 15:23B1 C1
28:61A21 þ 10:53B21
19:23C12
1 115.2
(3) 2 185.83
3 325.69
4 395.35
5 560.87
UCSSP ¼ 312:67
35:3A2 þ 137B2 þ 31:5C2
15:75A2 B2 6 170.01
7 240.26

2:5A2 C2 þ 19:5B2 C2
20:68A22 þ 32:82B22
84:68C22 8 299.12
(4) 9 299.12
10 299.12
11 299.12
where UCSSF and UCSSP are the UCSs of slag
fiber and 12 299.12
slag
polymer stabilized soil samples, respectively. It is note- 13 299.12
worthy that the intercepts and term coefficients are determined 14 332.74
at varied levels of significance (i.e. p-value) depending on the 15 462.51
16 80.54
data used to develop the model. This means that the predicted
17 120.98
strength is indicative if a p-value is marginally significant or 18 228.55
insignificant. As provided in Eq. (1), CCD modeling uses a 19 290.74
quadratic polynomial function to model the strength results and, 20 358.09
as shown in Eqs. (3) and (4), quadratic functions are developed
for the tested samples.
We plotted the model and test results on the same graph, as Table 8
presented in Fig. 4. Excellent agreement between the two sets of The UCS results of the slagepolymer stabilized micaceous soil samples.
results is obtained. We also conducted a reliability test
analysis
Sample UCS (kPa)
of variance (ANOVA) which tests the fitness and significance of the
model. The test provided R2 ¼ 0.9966 for the slag
fiber stabilized 1 107.93
2 136.64
samples and 0.9989 for the slag
polymer stabilized samples. The
3 336.74
R2 values are close to 1 and thus suggest the excellent agreement 4 370.75
between the model and test results. Therefore, the quadratic 5 480.3
fitting models are considered as the optimal model to formulate 6 204.83
the strength in terms of the dosages for the two stabilization 7 199.47
8 313.42
scenarios. 9 313.42
In addition to the R2-value check, we further verified the ob- 10 313.42
tained dosage models by conducting checkup tests. Two samples A 11 313.42
and B that used dosages different from those in Tables 5 and 6 were 12 313.42
13 313.42
prepared. The dosages, as provided in Table 9, were randomly
14 256.67
designed in order to warrant their validity. The same dosages were 15 486.11
applied to the obtained models to predict the UCS. The predicted 16 76.35
and tested UCS results are provided in Table 9. Excellent agreement 17 98.13
between the two sets of strength results was obtained, with an 18 247.44
19 279.12
acceptable deviation of 4.1% for the slag
fiber sample and 6.03% for 20 376.75
the slag
polymer sample.
 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13 (2021) 212e220
Fig. 4. Predicted UCSs versus actual measurements for (a) slag
fiber and (b)
slag
polymer stabilized micaceous soil samples.
3.2. Effects of mica, slag and fiber on UCS
The effects of ingredients on the UCS were analyzed by plotting
three-dimensional (3D) response surface graphs. In the plots, the
response (i.e. the UCS) is presented into a continuous curvy surface,
in 3D space as a function of the ingredients of interest. Two in-
gredients are included in the plot, while the dosage of the third
ingredient remains unchanged. The plots visualize the response
and the interactions between the two chosen ingredients. As an
example, the response plots are presented in Fig. 5. The ingredient
that we kept unchanged was 0.75% fiber (Fig. 5a), 9% slag (Fig. 5b),
and 15% mica (Fig. 5c), respectively.
In Fig. 5a, the UCS is inversely proportional to the mica content,
while the slag and fiber contents remain unchanged. The higher the
mica content is, the lower the UCS will be, as indicated by path OA.
To the opposite, slag contributes to the strength development, as
indicated by path OB. The strength is varied if both contents of mica
and slag are increased. Assuming the contents of mica and slag are
increased over path OC, the material still gains some strength, but
Table 9
Two samples used to validate the dosage models.
Sample Additive UCS (kPa)
Mica (%) Slag (%) Fiber (%) Polymer (g/L) Test
A 10 11.96 1.25 0 446.1
B 10 12.71 0 0.35 455.91
217
at a moderate rate. The path-dependent strength model suggests
that interaction is present between slag and mica, while the fiber
content does not change.
Similar interactive effects arise from fiber and mica, as pre-
sented in Fig. 5b. It is shown that the fiber content improves the
UCS, while the improvement rate is less significant when compared
with that obtained by using the slag. The presence of mica again
shows an adverse effect on the UCS of the soil. The UCS increases
with the fiber content. The increase is marginal when 0.9% or
higher fiber content is used as suggested by path ODE.
If the mica content remains unchanged, the UCS increases with
both slag and fiber contents, at least within the tested ranges, as
presented in Fig. 5c. It is seen that the slag is more effective (indi-
cated by path OF) than the fiber (indicated by path OGH) in
increasing the UCS. In addition, when the fiber content is 1.25% (i.e.
the maximum dosage tested), the effectiveness of the slag on
improving the UCS is most significant. It is noted that UCS
slag
relationship (e.g. path OF) is pronounced, and hence it is worth to
examine its full pathway. This, however, is less significant given the
strength required to satisfy the backfill requirements has been
obtained from the dosages examined.
The above UCS variations mainly arise from physical or chemical
nature of ingredients. The reason for the slag effectively improving
the strength is the initiation of chemical reactions in the soil
water
medium. The chemical reactions consist of cation exchange and
flocculation
agglomeration, and occur in the fine-grained soils,
while the reactions are often negligible when paired with
neutrally
charged soil particles, such as silts, gravels, and sands
(Sharma and Sivapullaiah, 2016). The reason is that the fine-grained
soils, like clays, contain a notable amount of negative charges.
During the short-term reactions, higher-valence cations substitute
lower-valence ones, and cations of larger ionic radius replace
smaller cations of the same valence. The order of substitution fol-
lows the Hofmeister series, i.e. Naþ < Kþ < Mg2þ < Ca2þ. The slag
contains additional calcium cations (Ca2þ), which immediately
substitute lower-valence ones (e.g. Naþ), and/or the same valence
cations of smaller ionic radius (e.g. Mg2þ) in the vicinity of the clay
particles (Zhang et al., 2019b). Due to the development of the strong
van der Waals bonds between adjacent clay particles in the matrix,
these cation exchanges lead to a decrease in the thickness of the
diffused double layers, resulting in the aggregation and flocculation
of the clay particles (Firoozi et al., 2017). Another reaction, referred
to as pozzolanic activity, depends greatly on the time of curing.
During pozzolanic reactions, ionized calcium (Ca2þ) and hydroxide
(OH
) units are released from the waterebinder complex. These
ions gradually react with silicate (SiO2) and aluminate (Al2O3) units
in the soil, thereby forming strong cementation gels, namely cal-
cium
silicate
hydrates (CSH), calcium
aluminate
hydrates
(CAH) and calcium
aluminate
silicate
hydrates (CASH). These
products promote further solidification and flocculation of the
particles, which lead to the development of a dense uniform matrix,
thus improving soil strength (Sharma and Sivapullaiah, 2016;
Firoozi et al., 2017). On the other hand, fiber also promotes strength
to some degree. The contribution originates from two phenomena:
(i) the frictional resistance generated at the soil
fiber interface due
to the roughness of the fiber surface, and (ii) the mechanical
interlocking of the soil particles and fibers (Tang et al., 2007; Wang
et al., 2017; Mirzababaei et al., 2018). The internal frictional resis-
tance between the soil and the fibers is a function of the soil
fiber
contact area. Therefore, a greater number of fibers in the soil will
lead to the larger contact levels between the soil particles and the
fibers, thus resulting in higher frictional resistance. The mechanical
Model
interlocking of soils and fibers is achieved during the sample
427.83 preparation phase (e.g. soil compaction), and this process induces
428.41
adhesion of the mixtures by immobilizing the soil particles
218 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13 (2021) 212e220
Fig. 5. 3D response surface plots of UCS for slag
fiber stabilized micaceous soil
samples with constant ingredient of: (a) 0.75% fiber, (b) 9% slag, and (c) 15% mica.
undergoing loading. It should be noted that, in preparation of the
fiber
soil mixture, care needs to be taken to prevent the formation
of fiber clusters (Prabakar and Sridhar, 2002; Estabragh et al., 2017;
Yadav and Tiwari, 2017). The addition of fibers into slag-stabilized
soils further enhances the strength of such soils. The presence of
slag improves soil grading characteristics, reduces pores in the soils,
and thus promotes particle contact. The improved contact benefits
the interaction between the fibers and soil particles and thus
contributes to strength development (Cai et al., 2006).
3.3. Effects of mica, slag and polymer on UCS
Fig 6a shows the interactive effects of slag and mica on the UCS
of micaceous soil samples at a polymer dosage of 0.3 g/L. Similarly,
the slag additive contributes to the strength, while mica does
oppositely. The improvement gained by the slag, however, is less
noticeable than that obtained by the slag
fiber scenarios if the rest
conditions remain the same. The plot for the polymer
mica com-
bined effect at 9% slag content is presented in Fig. 6b. It is shown
that the UCS increases with the polymer concentration of up to
0.3 g/L. Beyond this concentration, additional polymer exhibits a
slightly adverse effect on strength. The combined effect of slag and
polymer on micaceous clays is provided in Fig. 6c. Both slag and
polymer have a positive effect on strength improvement. Consid-
ering 0.3 g/L of polymer to be a threshold for strength increase, the
maximum UCS is obtained at 15% slag.
From the above results, polymer, as the chemical additive, has a
positive effect on material strength. The improvement mechanism
is varied depending on polymer additives used. Positively charged
polymers are electrostatically attracted to the negatively charged
soil particle surface, and non-ionic polymers achieve the adsorp-
tion through van der Waals forces and/or hydrogen bonding
(Theng, 1982; Wallace et al., 1986). Polymer is anionic which, in the
presence of cations of double layers, enables polymer
soil
adsorption. The degree of the adsorption is dependent on the
amount and type of exchangeable cations, clay content, pH value
and size of the polymer molecules (Theng, 1982; Lu et al., 2002).
The role of polymer in promoting strength can be attributed to its
ability to form ionic bonds, thereby holding soil particles together
through the cationic bridging mechanism. This will develop a
flocculated soil structure, which further improves the strength.
Moreover, polymer also acts as a bridging agent, which enhances
the interlocking of the slag
soil flocculation, thus promoting a
more significant improvement in the UCS of the micaceous soils.
The strength promotion, however, is additive concentration
dependent, as shown by the turn of strength at 0.3 g/L polymer
level. One of the main reasons is related to polymer
soil interac-
tion and its dependence on the contact surface area (Latifi et al.,
2016). If the polymer
soil contacts have well evolved into steric
stabilization, additional polymer supplies prevent soil particles
from approaching each other or aggregating, and thus an adverse
effect on strength. This explanation is subjected to characterization
of particle contacts using microscale studies.
3.4. Dosage optimization
We further optimized the ingredient dosage in terms of UCS and
material ductility intended. ASTM D4609-08 (2008) specifies “if the
UCS value reaches 345 kPa in any soil, the stabilization procedure has
been effective”. Therefore, we chose the value of 345 kPa as the
baseline for micaceous soils. Aside from the UCS, we also consid-
ered material ductility. In terms of the past studies (Olgun, 2013;
Yadav and Tiwari, 2017), fiber inclusions contribute to material
ductility and we set it “maximization” in this optimization. In
contrast, the optimization aims to minimize slag content so that the
pozzolanic reaction is sufficient simply to meet the strength
requirement. Similar “minimization” setting is applied to polymer in
a hope of cost reduction. We designed four example soils with
varying mica contents, i.e. M ¼ 0%, 10%, 20% and 30%, by weight. The
purpose is to replicate a range of micaceous soils. For each of the
example soils, we applied the above intended conditions to the
RSM model and then ran the model to obtain the optimal dosages.
The dosages of the highest desirability obtained for each of the
example soils are provided in Table 10. It is noteworthy that the
fiber contents in slag
fiber samples remain at 1.25%. This agrees
with the setting for fiber, i.e. “maximization”, to argument material
ductility. Where the intended conditions are varied, the model al-
lows for updating ingredient setting, and an optimal dosage can be
obtained.
 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13 (2021) 212e220 219

two combinations: (i) slag and fiber, and (ii) slag and polymer.
Based on the findings and results, the following conclusions are
drawn:

(1) The two combinations of additives were able to stabilize the

micaceous soils. The additives exhibited varied effects on the
stabilization. Slag exhibited a noticeable synergistic effect
and, in the presence of fiber or polymer, greatly contributed
to the stabilization of micaceous soils.
(2) RSM modeling, together with the CCD experimental design,
provides a toolbox of modeling UCS of materials and enabling
optimization of the additive dosage for soil stabilization.
(3) Models were developed as a tool to predict the UCS of the
micaceous soils stabilized by the two combinations of addi-
tives. Excellent agreement was obtained between the model
predictions and actual test results for the samples tested in
this study. The performance of the model was verified by a
separate set of tests.
(4) The RSM-based optimization was successful in determining
the additive dosages in terms of the target UCS and, based on
the developed models, identifying the most efficient dosage
to meet the UCS requirements.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of

interest associated with this publication, and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
enced its outcome.

References

Al-Rawas, A.A., 2002. Microfabric and mineralogical studies on the stabilization of

an expansive soil using cement by-pass dust and some types of slags. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 39 (5), 1150e1167.
Amulya, S., Ravi Shankar, A.U., Praveen, M., 2020. Stabilisation of lithomargic clay
using alkali activated fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag. Inter-
national Journal of Pavement Engineering 21 (9), 1114e1121.
Ang, E., Loehr, J., 2003. Specimen size effects for fiber reinforced silty clay in un-
confined compression. Geotechnical Testing Journal 26 (2), 191e200.
AS 1289.3.2.1-2009, 2009a. Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes,
Method 3.2.1: soil classification tests e determination of the plastic limit of a
soil e standard method. Standards Australia.
AS 1289.3.3.1-2009, 2009b. Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes e soil
classification tests e calculation of the plasticity index of a soil. Standards
Australia.
AS 1289.3.9.1-2015, 2015. Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes,
Method 3.9.1: soil classification tests e determination of the cone liquid limit of
Fig. 6. 3D response surface plots of UCS for slag
polymer stabilized micaceous soil a soil. Standards Australia.
samples with constant ingredient of: (a) 0.3 g/L polymer, (b) 9% slag, and (c) 15% mica. ASTM D2166/D2166M-16, 2016. Standard test method for unconfined compressive
strength of cohesive soil. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA.
ASTM D2487-11, 2011. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering
Table 10
purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM International, West Con-
Model-derived optimal dosage for micaceous soils to target UCS of 345 kPa.
shohocken, USA.
Mica content (%) Optimal dosage Desirability ASTM D422-63(2007)e2, 2007. Standard test method for particle-size analysis of
soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA.
Slag (%) Fiber (%) Polymer (g/L) ASTM D4609-08, 2008. Standard guide for evaluating effectiveness of admixtures
for soil stabilization. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA.
0 8.4 1.25 N/A 0.95
ASTM D698-12, 2012. Standard test methods for laboratory compaction charac-
10 9 1.25 N/A 0.94 teristics of soil using standard effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). ASTM
20 10.8 1.25 N/A 0.91 International, West Conshohocken, USA.
30 13 1.25 N/A 0.81 ASTM D854-14, 2014. Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by
0 12.4 N/A 0.15 0.87 water pycnometer. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA.
10 12.5 N/A 0.16 0.86 Bahadori, H., Hasheminezhad, A., Taghizadeh, F., 2019. Experimental study on marl
20 12.9 N/A 0.19 0.84 soil stabilization using natural pozzolans. Journal of Materials in Civil Engi-
30 13.2 N/A 0.20 0.79 neering 31 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533. 0002577.
Basha, E.A., Hashim, R., Mahmud, H.B., Muntohar, A.S., 2005. Stabilization of re-
Note: N/A represents “not applied” for the ingredient of interest. sidual soil with rice husk ash and cement. Construction and Building Materials
19 (6), 448e453.
Cai, Y., Shi, B., Ng, C.W.W., Tang, C.S., 2006. Effect of polypropylene fibre and lime
4. Conclusions admixture on engineering properties of clayey soil. Engineering Geology 87 (3e
4), 230e240.
Danso, H., Martinson, D.B., Ali, M., Williams, J.B., 2015. Physical, mechanical and
RSM modeling was used to model UCS of micaceous soils as a durability properties of soil building blocks reinforced with natural fibres.
function of the dosage of various additives. The additives included Construction and Building Materials 101, 797e809.
220 J. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13 (2021) 212e220
Estabragh, A.R., Ranjbari, S., Javadi, A.A., 2017. Properties of clay soil and soil
cement reinforced with polypropylene fibers. Materials Journal 114 (2), 195e
205.
Firoozi, A.A., Guney Olgun, C., Firoozi, A.A., Baghini, M.S., 2017. Fundamentals of soil
stabilization. International Journal of Geo-Engineering 8 (1). http://dx.doi.org/
10.1186/s40703-017-0064-9.
Frempong, E.M., 1995. A comparative assessment of sand and lime stabilization of
residual micaceous compressible soils for road construction. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering 13, 181e198.
Galán, E., Ferrell, R.E., 2013. Chapter 3 e genesis of clay minerals. In: Bergaya, F.,
Lagaly, G. (Eds.), Developments in clay science. Elsevier, pp. 83e126.
Ge, L., Wang, C.C., Hung, C.W., Liao, W.C., Zhao, H., 2018. Assessment of strength
development of slag cement stabilized kaolinite. Construction and Building
Materials 184, 492e501.
Georgees, R.N., Hassan, R.A., Evans, R.P., Jegatheesan, P., 2015. Effect of the use of a
polymeric stabilizing additive on unconfined compressive strength of soils.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
2473 (1), 200e208.
Gunaraj, V., Murugan, N., 1999. Application of response surface methodology for
predicting weld bead quality in submerged are welding of pipes. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 88 (1e3), 266e275.
Harris, W.G., Parker, J.C., Zelazny, L.W., 1984. Effects of mica content on engineering
properties of sand. Soil Science Society of America Journal 48 (3), 501e505.
Hossain, K.M.A., Mol, L., 2011. Some engineering properties of stabilized clayey soils
incorporating natural pozzolans and industrial wastes. Construction and
Building Materials 25 (8), 3495e3501.
Kumar, A., Walia, B.S., Mohan, J., 2006. Compressive strength of fiber reinforced
highly compressible clay. Construction and Building Materials 20 (10), 1063e
1068.
Latifi, N., Rashid, A.S.R., Siddiqua, S., Majid, M.Z.A., 2016. Strength measurement and
textural characteristics of tropical residual soil stabilised with liquid polymer.
Measurement 91, 46e54.
Latifi, N., Vahedifard, F., Ghazanfari, E., Rashid, A.S.A., 2018. Sustainable usage of
calcium carbide residue for stabilization of clays. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering 30 (6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533. 0002313.
Lu, J.H., Wu, L., Letey, J., 2002. Effects of soil and water properties on anionic
polyacrylamide sorption. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66 (2), 578e
584.
Mirzababaei, M., Arulrajah, A., Haque, A., Nimbalkar, S., Mohajerani, A., 2018. Effect
of fiber reinforcement on shear strength and void ratio of soft clay. Geo-
synthetics International 25 (4), 471e480.
Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C., Anserson-Cook, C.M., 2016. Response surface
methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments,
4th ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, USA.
Olgun, M., 2013. Effects of polypropylene fiber inclusion on the strength and vol-
ume change characteristics of cement-fly ash stabilized clay soil. Geosynthetics
International 20 (4), 263e275.
Prabakar, J., Sridhar, R.S., 2002. Effect of random inclusion of sisal fibre on strength
behaviour of soil. Construction and Building Materials 16 (2), 123e131.
Sachan, A., Seethalakshmi, P., Mishra, M.C., 2019. Effect of Crushing on stressestrain
and pore pressure behavior of micaceous Kutch soil under monotonic
compression and repeated loadingeunloading conditions. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering 37, 5269e5283.
Saffari, R., Habibagahi, G., Nikooee, E., Niazi, A., 2017. Biological stabilization of a
swelling fine-grained soil: the role of microstructural changes in the shear
behavior. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil En-
gineering 41, 405e414.
Sahu, J.N., Acharya, J., Meikap, B.C., 2009. Response surface modeling and optimiza-
tion of chromium(VI) removal from aqueous solution using Tamarind wood
activated carbon in batch process. Journal of Hazardous Materials 172 (2e3), 818e
825.
Sarbaz, H., Ghiassian, H., Heshmati, A.A., 2014. CBR strength of reinforced soil with
natural fibres and considering environmental conditions. International Journal
of Pavement Engineering 15 (7), 577e583.
Seethalakshmi, P., Sachan, A., 2018. Effect of successive impact loading on com-
pactability, microstructure, and compressibility behavior of micaceous sand.
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology 5, 114e128.
Shahbazi, M., Rowshanzamir, M., Abtahi, S.M., Hejazi, S.M., 2017. Optimization of
carpet waste fibers and steel slag particles to reinforce expansive soil using
response surface methodology. Applied Clay Science 142, 185e192.
Sharma, A.K., Sivapullaiah, P.V., 2016. Ground granulated blast furnace slag amen-
ded fly ash as an expansive soil stabilizer. Soils and Foundations 56 (2), 205e
212.
Sharma, V., Vinayak, H.K., Marwaha, B.M., 2015. Enhancing compressive strength of
soil using natural fibers. Construction and Building Materials 93, 943e949.
Singh, K.P., Gupta, S., Singh, A.K., Sinha, S., 2011. Optimizing adsorption of crystal
violet dye from water by magnetic nanocomposite using response surface
modeling approach. Journal of Hazardous Materials 186 (2e3), 1462e1473.
Sobhani, S., Wong, L.S., 2015. Compaction performance of clay stabilized with cement,
silica sand and mica powder. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 20,
13543e13548.
Soltani, A., Deng, A., Taheri, A., Mirzababaei, M., 2019a. A sulphonated oil for sta-
bilisation of expansive soils. International Journal of Pavement Engineering 20
(11), 1285e1298.
Soltani, A., Deng, A., Taheri, A., Sridharan, A., 2019b. Swelleshrinkeconsolidation
behavior of rubberereinforced expansive soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal 42 (3),
761e788.
Tang, C., Shi, B., Gao, W., Chen, F., Cai, Y., 2007. Strength and mechanical behavior of
short polypropylene fiber reinforced and cement stabilized clayey soil. Geo-
textiles and Geomembranes 25 (3), 194e202.
Theng, B.K.G., 1982. Clay-polymer interactions: summary and perspectives. Clays
and Clay Minerals 30, 1e10.
Wallace, A., Wallace, G.A., Cha, J.W., 1986. Mechanisms involved in soil conditioning
by polymers. Soil Science 141, 381e386.
Wang, Y.X., Guo, P.P., Ren, W.X., Yuan, B.X., Yuan, H.P., Zhao, Y.L., Shan, S.B., Cao, P.,
2017. Laboratory investigation on strength characteristics of expansive soil
treated with jute fiber reinforcement. International Journal of Geomechanics 17
(11). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000998.
Wei, L., Chai, S.X., Zhang, H.Y., Shi, Q., 2018. Mechanical properties of soil reinforced with
both lime and four kinds of fiber. Construction and Building Materials 172, 300e308.
Weinert, H.H., 1980. The natural road construction materials of Southern Africa.
Academica, Cape Town, South Africa.
Yadav, J.S., Tiwari, S.K., 2017. Effect of waste rubber fibres on the geotechnical
properties of clay stabilized with cement. Applied Clay Science 149, 97e110.
Yetimoglu, T., Inanir, M., Inanir, O.E., 2005. A study on bearing capacity of randomly
distributed fiber-reinforced sand fills overlying soft clay. Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes 23 (2), 174e183.
Zhang, J., Soltani, A., Deng, A., Jaksa, M.B., 2019a. Mechanical behavior of micaceous
clays. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (5), 1044e
1054.
Zhang, J., Soltani, A., Deng, A., Jaksa, M.B., 2019b. Mechanical performance of jute
fiber-reinforced micaceous clay composites treated with ground-granulated
blast-furnace slag. Materials 12 (4), 576. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
ma12040576.