Advances in Civil Engineering

Advances in Civil Engineering / 2019 / Article
Special Issue

Advancements in Design and Analysis of Protective Structures 2019

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 4257530 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4257530

Ali Ghorbani, Hadi Hasanzadehshooiili, Mostafa Mohammadi, Fariborz Sianati, Mahdi Salimi, Lukasz Sadowski, Jacek Szymanowski, "Effect of Selected Nanospheres on the Mechanical Strength of Lime-Stabilized High-Plasticity Clay Soils", Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2019, Article ID 4257530, 11 pages, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4257530

Effect of Selected Nanospheres on the Mechanical Strength of Lime-Stabilized High-Plasticity Clay Soils

Academic Editor: Chiara Bedon
Received20 Dec 2018
Revised26 Feb 2019
Accepted24 Mar 2019
Published30 Apr 2019

Abstract

The proper design of protective structures may start from improving the characteristics of soils. In order to obtain reasonable safety criteria, several research studies have recently been dedicated to enhancing complex civil engineering structural systems with the use of nanotechnology. Thus, the following paper investigates the effect of nanospheres, including nanosilica (nano-SiO2) and nano zinc oxide (nano-ZnO), on lime-stabilized high-plasticity clay soil. For this purpose, unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and California bearing ratio (CBR) tests were performed on samples. The results showed that the use of the selected nanospheres greatly increased the UCS of the samples compared to untreated soil. The UCS value of samples containing 6% lime and 1.5% nano-ZnO after 28 days of treatment increased by 5-fold compared to the UCS of untreated samples. In addition, the samples containing 6% lime and 2% nano-SiO2, with similar curing conditions, experienced a 5.3-fold increase in their UCS value compared to the untreated samples. These compounds were considered as the optimal amounts and showed the highest mechanical strength in both UCS and CBR tests. The same trend was achieved in the CBR test, in which the CBR value for the optimal mixtures containing nano-ZnO and nano-SiO2 was 14.8 and 16.6 times higher than that of high-plasticity clay soil, respectively. Finally, the results obtained from scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis revealed that the nanospheres caused a dense and compact matrix to form in the soil, which led to the enhancement of the mechanical strength of the treated samples.

1. Introduction

When designing protective structures, high-plasticity clay soils, which are widely scattered throughout the world, are very problematic. This is mainly due to the fact that they are highly sensitive after being exposed to moisture. The presence of these soils in construction projects should be specifically addressed and treated if necessary due to their undesirable behaviour such as swelling, shrinkage, dispersion, low mechanical strength, and high level of settlement [13]. To overcome such problems, several approaches are available to treat them, including the use of geosynthetics, piles, electroosmosis techniques, and stabilization [414]. These methods can lead to increased mechanical strength, reduced settlement, and controlled swelling or shrinking of soils, as well as providing a suitable site for the construction of structures. Among these methods, stabilization with the use of chemical additives, most notably lime and cement, is considered as one of the most effective techniques to improve the characteristics of soil [1518].

In the past few decades, many studies have been conducted on the chemical stabilization of soils using these traditional materials [1926]. The use of such stabilizers increases the soil pH up to about 12, which in turn provides long-term reactions. Khemissa and Mahamedi [27] determined the physicochemical and mechanical parameters of high-plasticity clay stabilized with a mixture of Portland cement and extinct lime. They found that the geotechnical parameters are consistent and confirmed the enhancement of the bearing capacity of high-plasticity clay soil, which is interpreted by a substantial increase in its mechanical strength and durability. A summary of recent studies on soil stabilization by other researchers is presented in Table 1. Despite ongoing research on soil stabilization with traditional materials, there is a need to find new and better performing materials to replace conventional additives.


ReferenceSoil typeStabilizer typeCuring time (days)Tests

Yi et al. [28]Soft high-plasticity clayLime, GGBS7, 28, 90UCS, MIP
Ghorbani et al. [22]Sulfate silty sandLime, micro-SiO27, 28UCS, CBR
Choobbasti et al. [29]Sandy soilCement, nano-SiO27UCS
Bahmani et al. [30]High-plasticity clay soilCement, nano-SiO27, 14, 28UCS
Ghasabkolaei et al. [31]High-plasticity clay soilCement, nano-SiO27, 14, 28UCS, CBR
Yoobanpot et al. [32]Soft high-plasticity clayCement, fly ash residue3, 7, 28, 90UCS
Alnahhal et al. [33]SandOPC, CKD, nano-CKD7, 28, 56UCS
García et al. [34]Soft high-plasticity clayNano-SiO2UCS
Sharma et al. [25]High-plasticity clayey sandLime, cement1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28UCS, shear strength
Abbasi et al. [35]Dispersive high-plasticity clayey soilsNano-high-plasticity clay1, 3, 7Pinhole
Choobbasti et al. [36]SandCement, nano-SiO27UCS, triaxial

In order to obtain reasonable safety criteria, several research studies have recently been dedicated to enhancing complex civil engineering structural systems using nanotechnology. Nanodimension stabilizers are highly effective in soil stabilization from both physical and chemical viewpoints. Nanospheres have a particularly high specific surface area and are therefore more involved in chemical reactions [31]. Moreover, the very fine particles of nanospheres may improve the characteristics of soil [37].

Nano-SiO2 and nano-ZnO are two types of additives that have very good properties in combination with soil. In recent years, these nanospheres have attracted great research interest because of their high pozzolanic activity in cement-based systems. According to Mostafa et al. [38], the addition of nano- and micro-SiO2 to lime-stabilized soil improved its mechanical strength values and its compressive strength increased with a lower nano-SiO2 content compared to silica fume. Saleh et al. [39] showed that the addition of nano-SiO2 and nano-ZnO improves soil behaviour. Similar results have been reported by other researchers when using these materials, as can be seen in Table 1. Despite the numerous studies on the use of these materials in soil stabilization, less attention has been paid to their combination with lime. In addition, it should be noted that the application of these effective additives on the mechanical properties of high-plasticity clay soils has not yet been investigated.

The high-plasticity clay soil in the present study does not have a sufficient mechanical strength and causes severe damage to a construction built on it due to the weak structure of soil particles. Therefore, finding a reliable and practical technique was the main goal of this research. In this study, the effect of nano-SiO2 and nano-ZnO on the mechanical strength parameters of high-plasticity clay soil stabilized with lime was investigated and their microstructural changes were carefully considered. For this purpose, unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and California bearing ratio (CBR) tests were performed on samples. In addition, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was applied to observe the microstructural properties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Properties of High-Plasticity Clay Soil

The high-plasticity clay soil that was used in this study was collected from a depth of 1 m at an excavation site within the University of Guilan (5th kilometer of the Rasht-Tehran road). Based on the UCS value obtained from the studied clay (174.55 kPa), it was stated that the soil of this region exhibits very low strength and consequently would not withstand the loads imposed upon it. Moreover, the poor particle-size distribution shown in Figure 1 indicates the lack of mechanical strength of the soil and the necessity of soil stabilization before any further operations. Due to the low mechanical strength and high compressibility of soil in this region, the soil is considered to be problematic. Since the soil in this area is subjected to heavy loads during the construction of high-rise buildings, it is important to improve its mechanical strength properties. Figure 1 shows the particle-size distribution of the studied high-plasticity clay soil according to ASTM D2487-11 [40]. Some of the properties of the studied soil, determined based on ASTM D4318 [41], are presented in Table 2. Moreover, the standard compaction test was carried out according to ASTM D698 [42]; and the maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) of the samples were 1470 kg/m3 and 23%, respectively. The results of the chemical analysis obtained from X-ray fluorescence analysis are presented in Table 3.


ParameterValue

Gs2.7
Liquid limit (LL) (%)62.5
Plastic limit (PL) (%)30.11
Plasticity index (PI) (%)32.39
Maximum dry density (MDD) (kg/m3)1470
Optimum moisture content (OMC) (%)23
Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) (kPa)174.55
Unsoaked California bearing ratio (CBR) (%)4.9


FormulaContent (%)

SiO253.9
Al2O316.4
CaO3.14
Fe2O38.8
MgO2.0
K2O5.2
Na2O0.57
P2O50.1
TiO20.79
Other particles0.2
L.O.I8.9

2.2. Properties of Hydrated Lime

The hydrated lime used in this study was obtained from Qom Limestone Factory and contained about 51% quick lime (CaO) with particles finer than sieve No. 60 (0.250 mm). Table 4 shows the chemical properties of the lime, which were provided by the manufacturer.


FormulaContent (%)

K2O4
SO30.8
MgO2.65
CaO51.64
Fe2O30.13
Al2O30.24
SiO21.36
L.O.I39.18

2.2.1. Properties of the Studied Nanospheres

In this study, lime was replaced by 1, 1.5, and 2% of nanospheres including nano-SiO2 and nano-ZnO with average sizes of 20–30 and 30–50 nm and surface areas of 220 m2/g and 50 m2/g, respectively. In this research, regardless of the specifications given by the nanomaterial manufacturer, the specific surface area of the nanospheres was measured by nitrogen adsorption at 77 K by using the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method. The nanospheres were obtained from the Iranian Pishgaman Nanomaterial Company. In this study, particle-size distribution was calculated for each nanosphere sample from the SEM images by using ImageJ software. Then, the number of pixels occupied by the number of particles was counted. It should be noted that ImageJ software has been used for postprocessing and particle analysis by many researchers. Figure 2 shows the SEM microstructure and the particle size of nano-SiO2 and nano-ZnO. The properties of both nanospheres are given in Table 5.


Name of the propertyNano-SiO2Nano-ZnO

ColorWhiteWhite
Average particle sizes (nm)20–3030–50
pH76
Specific surface area (SSA) (m2/kg)22000050000
Purity (%)98.3199.14

2.3. Description of Conducted Laboratory Tests
2.3.1. Sample Preparation Process

The results of previous studies have shown that the characteristics of soil improve to a certain extent, with the use of additives, and that higher amounts of them can have adverse effects on soil strength. In order to obtain the most favourable mixture of lime-nanospheres, the ratio of cementitious materials should be strongly considered due to the fact that the replacement of larger amounts of lime-nanospheres can lead to a poor mixture with lower strength. Therefore, the optimum amount of nanospheres as a substitute for lime can only be determined by trial and error. By and large, based on the results of previous studies, the optimum amount of lime in clay soil stabilization has been reported to be between 4 and 8 [23, 4345], which is consistent with the specified values in this study. Thus, the amounts of 3, 6, and 9% by weight of lime were added to the soil to determine the optimum amount of lime. Based on the results, 6% lime content had the highest mechanical strength and was considered as the optimum value. Then, the amounts of 1, 1.5, and 2% by weight of nano-SiO2 or nano-ZnO with the optimum amount of lime (6%) were added to the soil, as presented in Table 6. The dry soil and additives (lime and nanospheres) were stirred with about 50% of the total amount of water needed to obtain the optimum moisture content. After that, the soil and admixture were mixed manually and the remaining water was added to bring the sample to the desired moisture content. It should be noted that all the samples were prepared at maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. Finally, SEM analysis (model VEGA/TESCAN) was applied to the samples in order to observe changes in soil microstructure and to investigate the interaction between the soil and additives. For SEM observation, the samples were mounted on stubs with aluminum tape and then coated in a sputter coater with 20 nm of gold at an accelerating voltage of 10–15 kV.


Test no.Lime (%)Nano-SiO2 (%)Nano-ZnO (%)

1300
2600
3900
4610
561.50
6620
7601
8601.5
9602

Each test was performed three times.
2.3.2. Unconfined Compressive Strength

To carry out the unconfined compressive strength test according to ASTM D2166-91 [46], the soil, additives, and water were mixed with different proportions and then compacted into a mould in three layers with 25 blows/layer. The mould had a height and diameter of 9.8 and 4.9 cm, respectively. The samples were packed into airtight containers and stored at 25°C with respect to the curing time of 7, 14, and 28 days. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) loading was carried out with a fixed displacement rate of 1 mm/min and continued until the initial failure of the samples. Figure 3 shows the cylindrical mould, the prepared samples, and the sample under loading in the UCS test.

2.3.3. California Bearing Ratio Tests

To carry out the unsoaked California bearing ratio (CBR) test according to ASTM D1883-16 [47], the dry soil and additives were mixed for each sample individually and then water was added to them to achieve the optimum moisture content. After that, they were thoroughly mixed to obtain uniform samples. A cylindrical mould with a diameter of 6 inches and a height of 4.8 inches was used to perform the tests. The compounds were placed into the mould in 5 layers so that each layer was packed with 56 blows of a 4.5 kg hammer dropped from a height of 457 mm, according to ASTM D1557 [48]. Then, the mould containing the materials was placed in an airtight plastic bag to ensure that no moisture was lost. Finally, the mould was placed inside the CBR apparatus, and the test was conducted with a penetration rate of 1.27 mm/min after 7 days of treatment. According to Spanish legislation, the CBR index has been referred to as the only way of evaluating the bearing capacity of treated soil with chemical additives, and the minimum CBR index is considered to be higher than or equal to 20 after 7 days [49]. Therefore, a 7-day treatment was conducted in order to evaluate and compare the CBR results. Figure 4 shows the mould, the prepared samples after 7 days of curing, and the CBR apparatus used in the study.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effect of Nanospheres on Unconfined Compressive Strength

Figure 5 illustrates the effect of lime on the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of high-plasticity clay soil over curing time. As can be seen, the UCS increased and reached its maximum resistance with the addition of lime of up to 6%, whereas the UCS value was reduced for higher amounts of lime. The presence of lime in the samples increased the pH value of the soil and provided the conditions for long-term pozzolanic reactions. Moreover, the increase in curing time also resulted in an improved mechanical strength in all the samples, which was due to the completion of chemical reactions. The maximum strength was recorded as 876 kPa after 28 days of treatment for the sample containing 6% lime. Higher amounts of lime, however, reduce the UCS of the soil due to the lack of significant friction and low cohesion [50]. Moreover, the MDD and OMC values of untreated soil change as soon as additives are added to the soil. This may also affect the optimum lime content, and as a result, the UCS values reduce for a higher lime content. Finally, it can be concluded that the optimum amount of lime for pozzolanic reactions in the soil samples was determined to be 6%, and this amount was selected for subsequent experiments with nanospheres.

Figures 6 and 7 show the variations of soil UCS for various combinations of lime with nano-zinc and nano-SiO2 during different treatment periods, respectively. The UCS value increased in all the samples with the increase of curing time, and therefore, the sample containing 6% lime with 1% nano-ZnO had a strength equal to 867 and 500 kPa after 7 and 28 days of treatment, respectively. These values were equal to 881 and 598 kPa for the same samples of nano-SiO2, respectively. Based on Figure 6, the addition of 1.5% of nano-ZnO to the samples increased the UCS to a maximum value. By adding further amounts of nano-ZnO, the strength decreased slightly. Therefore, the optimum amount of nano-ZnO in combination with 6% lime was reported as 1.5%, which resulted in a 5-fold increase after 28 days of treatment compared to the untreated soil. Moreover, the UCS increased by adding up to 2% of nano-SiO2 to the optimum lime content (6%) so that it reached the highest level of 1000 kPa after 28 days of treatment, which is equivalent to an increase of about 5.3 times compared to that of untreated soil.

In general, the increase of UCS by adding different compounds can be attributed to short- and long-term reactions. Pozzolanic reactions lead to the formation of calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH) gels that fill the voids and thus increase the UCS of the samples [51, 52]. Based on the Figures 6 and 7, the optimum value of nano-ZnO and nano-SiO2 in combination with 6% lime was reported at 1.5 and 2%, respectively. Moreover, the results indicated a better performance of nano-SiO2 than nano-ZnO.

3.2. Effect of Additives on CBR

In this study, the CBR test was performed after 7 days of treatment in order to more accurately evaluate the mechanical strength behaviour in all the samples. Figure 8 shows the results of the CBR for the lime-stabilized samples, and it can be seen that adding the lime increased the CBR, which demonstrated a peak for the lime content of 6%. The CBR value for this optimum amount of lime was reported at about 56.9%. Afterwards, the CBR value was reduced by adding more lime, which was similar to the trend of UCS values. A CBR of about 50% was obtained for the sample containing 9% lime, which was about 10 times higher than that of untreated soil.

For samples containing nano-ZnO, the CBR value increased with an increasing amount of nanospheres, as shown in Figure 9. The sample containing 1.5% of nano-ZnO exhibited the highest CBR (about 72.6%), which was consistent with the UCS test. Increasing the nano-ZnO content by more than 1.5% resulted in a decrease in the CBR value to about 62.8%. However, in the samples containing up to 2% nano-SiO2 content, the amount of CBR continued to increase, reaching a peak of about 81.4%, as illustrated in Figure 10. This amount was reported to be about 74.3% and 77.9% for the content of 1% and 1.5% of nano-SiO2, respectively, which showed a significant increase compared to the untreated soil. Similar to what was observed for the UCS, the performance of nano-SiO2 was also slightly better than that of nano-ZnO.

3.3. Effect of Nanospheres on the Microstructure

In this study, the SEM technique was applied to monitor structural changes and to better understand the interactions between the soil and additives. For this purpose, in addition to the untreated soil sample, two samples treated with additives that provided the highest mechanical strength (6% lime + 1.5% nano-ZnO and 6% lime + 2% nano-SiO2) were analyzed. The SEM images of these three samples are shown in Figure 11 in such a way that the porosity is shown as red particles. As seen in Figure 11(a), the untreated soil texture is completely porous (about 9.03%), which leads to very poor results in UCS and CBR tests. Figure 11(b) shows that the increase of additive containing nano-ZnO to the untreated soil led to a decrease in porosity from 9.03% to 5.73%. This causes more friction between particles, resulting in much greater mechanical strength compared to the pure soil. Figure 11(c) shows the sample containing nano-SiO2, which had the highest strength and the minimum porosity of approximately 0.82%. In this sample, the soil particles form a dense and compact matrix and are easily detected in the cementitious gel that covers the particles. On the one hand, nano-SiO2 serves as a filler, and on the other hand, it acts as a very effective pozzolan with lime and improves the bond between particles [53, 54].

4. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of nanoscale materials, including nano-ZnO and nano-SiO2, on lime-stabilized high-plasticity clay soils. For this purpose, a series of UCS and CBR tests were performed on samples, and later, based on SEM images, soil microstructure changes before and after treatment were investigated. Nanospheres have a much higher surface area because of their very small size, and they therefore participate in the reactions and accelerate the formation of cementitious products. Moreover, these materials are placed between lime and soil particles and fill voids, which increases the mechanical strength of the samples. Based on the tests performed on various compounds, the following results were obtained:(i)The addition of nano-ZnO and lime to soil increased UCS in such a way that the optimum nano-ZnO value in a mixture with 6% lime was reported to be 1.5%, which led to a 5-fold increment after 28 days of curing compared to that of untreated soil.(ii)The addition of nano-SiO2 to lime-stabilized soil resulted in an increased mechanical strength, meaning that a UCS value of about 1000 kPa was measured in the sample containing 6% lime + 2% nano-SiO2 after 28 days of curing, which is equivalent to about 5.3 times that of the untreated soil.(iii)In all the samples, an increased curing time resulted in an increased UCS, which can be attributed to the completion of long-term pozzolanic reactions and the formation of calcium silicate hydrate and calcium hydrate aluminate gels.(iv)Based on the results obtained from the CBR test, it was found that the performance of nano-SiO2 was slightly better than that of nano-ZnO. The CBR value was reported to be about 81.1% for the sample containing nano-SiO2, while the highest CBR value for the nano-ZnO samples was about 72.6%. This increased performance was significant compared to untreated soil (4.9%).

Data Availability

No data were used to support this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. F. Darikandeh and B. V. S. Viswanadham, “Swell behavior of expansive soils with stabilized fly ash columns,” in Ground Improvement Techniques and Geosynthetics, pp. 399–406, Springer, Singapore, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  2. A. K. Jha and P. V. Sivapullaiah, “Mechanism of improvement in the strength and volume change behavior of lime stabilized soil,” Engineering Geology, vol. 198, pp. 53–64, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. A. Soltani, A. Taheri, M. Khatibi, and A. R. Estabragh, “Swelling potential of a stabilized expansive soil: a comparative experimental study,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1717–1744, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. A. Afrasiabian, M. Salimi, M. Movahedrad, and A. H. Vakili, “Assessing the impact of GBFS on mechanical behaviour and microstructure of soft clay,” International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1–11, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. A. R. Goodarzi and M. Salimi, “Stabilization treatment of a dispersive clayey soil using granulated blast furnace slag and basic oxygen furnace slag,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 108, pp. 61–69, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. A. R. Goodarzi and M. Salimi, “Effect of iron industry slags on the geotechnical properties and mineralogy characteristics of expansive clayey soils,” Modares Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 161–170, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  7. A. Ghorbani, M. Salimzadehshooiili, J. Medzvieckas, and R. Kliukas, “Strength characteristics of cement-rice husk ash stabilised sand-clay mixture reinforced with polypropylene fibers,” Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 447–474, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. A. Ghorbani and H. Hasanzadehshooiili, “Prediction of UCS and CBR of microsilica-lime stabilized sulfate silty sand using ANN and EPR models; application to the deep soil mixing,” Soils and Foundations, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 34–49, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. B. Ghosh, B. Fatahi, H. Khabbaz, and J.-H. Yin, “Analytical study for double-layer geosynthetic reinforced load transfer platform on column improved soft soil,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 508–536, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. E. B. Khoshbakht, A. H. Vakili, M. S. Farhadi, and M. Salimi, “Reducing the negative impact of freezing and thawing cycles on marl by means of the electrokinetical injection of calcium chloride,” Cold Regions Science and Technology, vol. 157, pp. 196–205, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. A. Soltani, A. Deng, A. Taheri, and M. Mirzababaei, “Rubber powder–polymer combined stabilization of South Australian expansive soils,” Geosynthetics International, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 304–321, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. A. H. Vakili, M. Kaedi, M. Mokhberi, M. R. b. Selamat, and M. Salimi, “Treatment of highly dispersive clay by lignosulfonate addition and electroosmosis application,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 152, pp. 1–8, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. A. H. Vakili, J. Ghasemi, M. R. bin Selamat, M. Salimi, and M. S. Farhadi, “Internal erosional behaviour of dispersive clay stabilized with lignosulfonate and reinforced with polypropylene fiber,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 193, pp. 405–415, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. M. M. Yamin, M. F. Attom, and R. Y. Liang, “Solutions for soil-pile-soil forces in pile stabilized slopes,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1859–1869, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. A. H. Vakili, M. R. B. Selamat, M. Salimi, and S. G. Gararei, “Evaluation of pozzolanic Portland cement as geotechnical stabilizer of a dispersive clay,” International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1–8, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. A. Behnood, “Soil and clay stabilization with calcium- and non-calcium-based additives: a state-of-the-art review of challenges, approaches and techniques,” Transportation Geotechnics, vol. 17, pp. 14–32, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. A. R. Goodarzi, H. R. Akbari, and M. Salimi, “Enhanced stabilization of highly expansive clays by mixing cement and silica fume,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 132-133, pp. 675–684, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. Ł. Sadowski, M. Nikoo, and M. Nikoo, “Hybrid metaheuristic-neural assessment of the adhesion in existing cement composites,” Coatings, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 49, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. M. Al-Mukhtar, A. Lasledj, and J.-F. Alcover, “Behaviour and mineralogy changes in lime-treated expansive soil at 20°C,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 191–198, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. H. Chen and Q. Wang, “The behaviour of organic matter in the process of soft soil stabilization using cement,” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 445–448, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. Cong, C. Longzhu, and C. Bing, “Analysis of strength development in soft clay stabilized with cement-based stabilizer,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 71, pp. 354–362, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. A. Ghorbani, H. Hadi, K. Masoud, D. Younes, and M. Jurgis, “Stabilization of problematic silty sands using microsilica and lime,” Baltic Journal of Road & Bridge Engineering, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 61–70, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. H. B. Nagaraj, M. V. Sravan, T. G. Arun, and K. S. Jagadish, “Role of lime with cement in long-term strength of compressed stabilized earth blocks,” International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 54–61, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. Salimi, M. Ilkhani, and A. H. Vakili, “Stabilization treatment of Na-montmorillonite with binary mixtures of lime and steelmaking slag,” International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1–7, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. L. K. Sharma, N. N. Sirdesai, K. M. Sharma, and T. N. Singh, “Experimental study to examine the independent roles of lime and cement on the stabilization of a mountain soil: a comparative study,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 152, pp. 183–195, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. R. N. Yong and V. R. Ouhadi, “Experimental study on instability of bases on natural and lime/cement-stabilized clayey soils,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 35, no. 3-4, pp. 238–249, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. M. Khemissa and A. Mahamedi, “Cement and lime mixture stabilization of an expansive overconsolidated clay,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 95, pp. 104–110, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. Y. Yi, L. Gu, and S. Liu, “Microstructural and mechanical properties of marine soft clay stabilized by lime-activated ground granulated blastfurnace slag,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 103, pp. 71–76, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. A. J. Choobbasti, A. Vafaei, and S. S. Kutanaei, “Mechanical properties of sandy soil improved with cement and nanosilica,” Open Engineering, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. S. H. Bahmani, N. Farzadnia, A. Asadi, and B. B. K. Huat, “The effect of size and replacement content of nanosilica on strength development of cement treated residual soil,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 118, pp. 294–306, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. N. Ghasabkolaei, A. Janalizadeh, M. Jahanshahi, N. Roshan, and S. E. Ghasemi, “Physical and geotechnical properties of cement-treated clayey soil using silica nanoparticles: an experimental study,” European Physical Journal Plus, vol. 131, no. 5, p. 134, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. N. Yoobanpot, P. Jamsawang, and S. Horpibulsuk, “Strength behavior and microstructural characteristics of soft clay stabilized with cement kiln dust and fly ash residue,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 141, pp. 146–156, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. W. Alnahhal, R. Taha, H. Al-Nasseri, and S. Nishad, “Effect of using Cement Kiln Dust as a nano-material on the strength of cement mortars,” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1361–1368, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. S. García, P. Trejo, O. Ramírez, J. López-Molina, and N. Hernández, “Influence of nanosilica on compressive strength of lacustrine soft clays,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 369–372, Seoul, Korea, September 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  35. N. Abbasi, A. Farjad, and S. Sepehri, “The use of nanoclay particles for stabilization of dispersive clayey soils,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 327–335, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. A. J. Choobbasti, A. Vafaei, and S. Soleimani Kutanaei, “Static and cyclic triaxial behavior of cemented sand with nanosilica,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 30, no. 10, Article ID 04018269, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. S. Bahri, H. B. Mahmud, and P. Shafigh, “Effect of utilizing unground and ground normal and black rice husk ash on the mechanical and durability properties of high-strength concrete,” Sādhanā, vol. 43, no. 2, p. 22, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. A. Mostafa, M. S. Ouf, and M. Elgendy, “Stabilization of subgrade pavement layer using silica fume and nano silica,” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, vol. 7, no. 3, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  39. H. M. Saleh, F. A. El-Saied, T. A. Salaheldin, and A. A. Hezo, “Macro-and nanomaterials for improvement of mechanical and physical properties of cement kiln dust-based composite materials,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 204, pp. 532–541, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. ASTM D2487-11, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
  41. ASTM D4318-10, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
  42. ASTM D698-12, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
  43. J. L. Eades and R. E. Grim, “Reaction of hydrated lime with pure clay minerals in soil stabilization,” Highway Research Board Bulletin, vol. 262, pp. 51–53, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  44. F. G. Bell, “Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils,” Engineering Geology, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 223–237, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. J. P. Sahoo and P. K. Pradhan, “Effect of lime stabilized soil cushion on strength behaviour of expansive soil,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 889–897, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. ASTM D2166-91, “Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil,” Designation D 2166-91: Annual book of ASTM Standards, vol. 4, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  47. ASTM D1883-16, Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laboratory-Compacted Soils, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
  48. ASTM D1557-12, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
  49. A. Seco, F. Ramírez, L. Miqueleiz, B. García, and E. Prieto, “The use of non-conventional additives in Marls stabilization,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 419–423, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. M. Mavroulidou, X. Zhang, M. J. Gunn, and Z. Cabarkapa, “Water retention and compressibility of a lime-treated, high plasticity clay,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1171–1185, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. A. P. Furlan, A. Razakamanantsoa, H. Ranaivomanana, D. Levacher, and T. Katsumi, “Shear strength performance of marine sediments stabilized using cement, lime and fly ash,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 184, pp. 454–463, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. B. T. Vu, V. Q. Tran, Q. D. Nguyen et al., “A geochemical model for analyzing the mechanism of stabilized soil incorporating natural pozzolan, cement and lime,” in Proceedings of the China-Europe Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 852–857, Springer, Vienna, Austria, August 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  53. A. J. Choobbasti and S. S. Kutanaei, “Microstructure characteristics of cement-stabilized sandy soil using nanosilica,” Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 981–988, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. H. Cui, Z. Jin, X. Bao, W. Tang, and B. Dong, “Effect of carbon fiber and nanosilica on shear properties of silty soil and the mechanisms,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 189, pp. 286–295, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Ali Ghorbani et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views1249
Downloads497
Citations

Related articles