See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/310386624

Effect of Calcium Sulphate on the Geotechnical Properties of Stabilized Clayey

Soils

Article  in  Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering · January 2016

DOI: 10.3311/PPci.9359

CITATIONS READS

8 186

3 authors:

Hamid Gadouri Khelifa Harichane

Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef, Algeria
18 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   238 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohamed Ghrici
Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef
73 PUBLICATIONS   750 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of new methodologies for improving NDT evaluation of concrete strength View project

the use of artificial neural networks for prediction of geotechnical properties View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamid Gadouri on 01 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PP Periodica Polytechnica Effect of Calcium Sulphate on the
Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Properties of Stabilized
Clayey Soils
61(2), pp. 256–271, 2017
[Link]
Creative Commons Attribution b Hamid Gadouri1*, Khelifa Harichane2, Mohamed Ghrici2

research article Received 20 April 2016; Accepted 25 May 2016

Abstract 1 Introduction
An experimental investigation was undertaken to study the Civil engineering projects located in areas with inappropri-
effect of calcium sulphate (CaSO4.2H2O) on the behaviour of ate soils is one of the most frequent problems in the world.
the grey clay (GS) and red clay (RS) soils stabilized with lime Soil stabilization technique has been practiced for several years
(L), natural pozzolana (NP) and their combination (L-NP). In with the main aim to render the soils capable of meeting the
this study, the geotechnical properties investigated are respec- requirements of the specific engineering projects [1]. Hydrau-
tively, the Atterberg limits on samples cured for 1 to 30 days lic binders (cement and L) were used as stabilizers in various
to assess the diffusion time effect of CaSO4.2H2O (DTC) in the civil engineering fields. Soils stabilization is a technique that
soil paste and the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) on requires the use of hydraulic binders alone or in combination
samples cured for 7 to 120 days. The results show that both with other mineral additives such as fly ash. Extensive studies
GS and RS samples can be successfully stabilized with L alone have been carried out to study the different effects produced
or with L-NP which substantially reduce their plasticity index by the use of cement alone or in combination with L [2–4],
(PI) and increase their UCS. On the other hand, a negligible rice husk ash, [5–7] and fly ash [8, 9] on physico-mechanical
effect was reported when the NP is used alone. However, when properties of soils.
combining a fraction of CaSO4.2H2O to samples containing L In the absence of sulphates, the reduction in the repulsion
or L-NP, a further decrease in the PI is observed. In addition, forces between the clay particles (due to the L addition) creates
higher UCS values are recorded. a bond between them and forms flocks. This change caused by
L reduces the plasticity index and the maximum dry density of
Keywords the stabilized soil but increases their optimum moisture con-
Clayey soil, lime (L), natural pozzolana (NP), calcium sul- tent [10]. At the later stage, the increase in the concentration
phate, plasticity index (PI), unconfined compressive strength of hydroxyl (OH-) from L raises the pH of the soil, and causes
(UCS) the dissolution of alumina and silica which interact with cal-
cium ions to form cementing products such as calcium silicate
hydrates (CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrates (CAH). The
formation of these compounds is responsible on the increase
in unconfined compressive strength (UCS) values of the stabi-
lized soil [11] and their shear strength values [12].
However, in the presence of sulphates, the sulphate ions
react with calcium, hydroxyl and aluminium compounds to
form expansive phases such as ettringite. Furthermore, the
1
Department of Matter Engineering magnitude of damage caused by the ettringite depends on the
Faculty of Sciences and Technology, soil nature, the type and the content of additives [3] and the
Medea University, Medea 26000, Algeria
concentration and the type of cation associated with the sul-
2
Department of Civil Engineering,
phate anion [13]. Indeed, the effects caused by the presence of
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Chlef University, Chlef 02000, Algeria different types of sulphates on the geotechnical properties of
BP 151 Hay Salem 02000, Algeria soils stabilized with additives have been investigated by sev-
*
Corresponding author, e-mail: hamid_gadouri2000@[Link] eral researchers [13–19].

256 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. H. Gadouri, K. Harichane, M. Ghrici

 The combination of volcanic materials with L produces a ben- The Physico-mechanical properties of both clayey soils are
eficial effect on the behaviour of the stabilized soil [9]. The NP presented in Table 1. The chemico-mineralogical properties of
is found in abundance in areas of Beni-Saf located in the west of both clayey soils are depicted in Table 2.
Algeria [20]. The NP was used in combination with L to improve
the engineering properties of both GS and RS such as the shear 2.2 Mineral additives
strength, the plasticity and the UCS [10, 11, 21, 22]. However, The NP used in this study was collected from Beni-Saf
there is no investigation of the influence of CaSO4.2H2O on the located in the Western of Algeria. It was ground to the specific
stabilization of these soils. This work is devoted mainly for study surface area of 420m2/kg (Fig. 1b). The L used in this study is
the effect of CaSO4.2H2O on the Atterberg limits and UCS of the commercially available L typically used for construction pur-
same soils (GS and RS) using L, NP and their combination. poses (Fig. 1c). The physico-chemical properties of L and NP
are presented in Table 3.
2 Materials Used and Identification
2.1 Soils Table 1 Physico-mechanical properties of both clayey soils (After [11])

In the present study, two soils were used, the first is a grey clay Physico-mechanical properties GS RS

soil (GS) which was obtained from an embankment project site, Depth (m) 4.00 5.00

and the second is a red clay soil (RS) which was obtained from Natural water content (%) 32.90 13.80

a highway project site, and both near Chelif town in the West Specific Gravity 2.71 2.84

of Algeria. The soil was excavated, placed in plastic bags and Passing 80 µm sieve (%) 85.00 97.50

transported to the laboratory for preparation and testing. Labora- Liquid Limit (LL, %) 82.80 46.50

tory tests were carried out to classify each type of soil (Fig. 1a). Plastic Limit (PL, %) 32.20 22.70
Plasticity Index (PI, %) 50.60 23.80
Classification System (USCS) CH CL
Optimum Moisture Content (WOPN, %) 28.30 15.30
Maximum Dry Density (γdmax, kN/m3) 13.80 16.90
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS, KPa) 100 510
Loss on ignition (%) 17.03 7.13

Table 2 Chemico-mineralogical properties of both clayey soils

Chemical or min- GS
Chemical formula RS (%)
eralogical name (%)
Calcium oxide CaO 14.43 2.23
Magnesium oxide MgO 1.99 2.14
Iron oxide Fe2O3 5.56 7.22
Alumina Al2O3 14.15 19.01
(a) (b)
Silica SiO2 43.67 57.02
Sulfite SO3 0.04 0.19
Sodium oxide Na2O 0.34 0.93
Potassium oxide K2O 1.96 3.17
Titan dioxide TiO2 0.65 0.83
Phosphorus P2O5 0.18 0.14
pH - 9.18 9.05
Calcite CaCO3 26.00 4.00
Albite NaAlSi3O8 - 8.00
Illite 2K2O.Al2O3.24SiO2.2H2O 16.00 24.00
Kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4 12.00 16.00
Montmorillonite Al2((Si4Al)O10)(OH)2.H2O 20.00 -
(c) (d) Chlorite Mg2Al4O18Si3 - 9.00
Ferruginous
Fig. 1 Materials used and their preparation; (a) clayey soils passed to 1mm - 6.00 7.00
minerals
sieve, (b) NP before and after preparation, (c) hydrated lime usually used for
construction purposes and (d) calcium sulphate Organic matter - 0.33 -

Effect of Calcium Sulphate on the Geotechnical Properties of Stabilized Clayey Soils 2017 61 2 257
2.3 Chemical compound 3.1 Atterberg Limits Test
The chemical element used in this study is the calcium sul- Atterberg limits were performed according to ASTM D4318
phate dihydrate (CaSO4.2H2O) produced by Biochem Chemop- [23]. The variations in the liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL)
harma which is a leading international Manufacturer and Sup- and plasticity index (PI) of two untreated clayey soils before
plier of Laboratory Reagents (Fig. 1d). The physico-chemical and after admixtures added were studied.
properties of this element are shown in Table 4.
Table 5 Combinations of both clayey soils studied
Table 3 Physico-chemical properties of lime Sample mixture (%)
and natural pozzolana (After [11]) Designation
Soil NP L Calcium sulphate
Physical or chemical P0L0C0 100 0 0 0
L (%) NP (%)
name
P0L4C0 96 0 4 0
Physical form Dry white powder Dry brown powder
P0L8C0 92 0 8 0
Specific Gravity 2.00 -
P10L0C0 90 10 0 0
Over 90 µm (%) < 10.00 -
P20L0C0 80 20 0 0
Over 630 µm (%) 0 -
P10L4C0 86 10 4 0
Insoluble material (%) < 1.00 - P20L4C0 76 20 4 0
Bulk density (g /L) 600 – 900 - P10L8C0 82 10 8 0
Loss on ignition - 5.34 P20L8C0 72 20 8 0
CaO > 83.30 9.90 P0L0C2 98 0 0 2
MgO < 0.50 2.42 P0L4C2 94 0 4 2
Fe2O3 < 2.00 9.69 P0L8C2 90 0 8 2
Al2O3 < 1.50 17.50 P10L0C2 88 10 0 2
SiO2 < 2.50 46.40 P20L0C2 78 20 0 2
SO3 < 0.50 0.83 P10L4C2 84 10 4 2
Na2O 0.40 - 0.50 3.30 P20L4C2 74 20 4 2
K2O - 1.51 P10L8C2 80 10 8 2

CO2 < 5.00 - P20L8C2 70 20 8 2

TiO2 - 2.10 P0L0C4 96 0 0 4

P2O3 - 0.80 P0L4C4 92 0 4 4

P0L8C4 88 0 8 4
CaCO3 < 10.00 -
P10L0C4 86 10 0 4
P20L0C4 76 20 0 4
Table 4 Physico-chemical properties of calcium sulphate
P10L4C4 82 10 4 4
Physico-chemical properties Calcium sulphate
P20L4C4 72 20 4 4
Color White
P10L8C4 78 10 8 4
Chemical formula CaSO4.2H2O P20L8C4 68 20 8 4
Molar weight (g/mol) 172.17 P0L0C6 94 0 0 6
Auuay (dried), (%) 99.0 P0L4C6 90 0 4 6
Insoluble matter (%) 0.025 P0L8C6 86 0 8 6
Chloride (Cl, %) 0.002 P10L0C6 84 10 0 6
Nitrate (NO3, %) 0.002 P20L0C6 74 20 0 6
Ammonium (NH4, %) 0.005 P10L4C6 80 10 4 6
Carbonate (CO3, %) 0.05 P20L4C6 70 20 4 6
Heavy metals (Pb, %) 0.001 P10L8C6 76 10 8 6
P20L8C6 66 20 8 6

3 Test Procedures
Laboratory tests on plasticity and UCS were conducted on 3.2 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
both selected clayey soils. Several combinations of NP and The UCS tests were performed according to ASTM D2166
L were used for their stabilization. These combinations were [24] and were conducted on untreated and treated soil samples.
mixed with or without CaSO4.2H2O. A total of 72 combinations The specimens were prepared with or without CaSO4.2H2O
based on GS and RS is shown in Table 5. by compaction at the maximum dry unit weight and optimum
moisture content deduced of compaction tests.

258 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. H. Gadouri, K. Harichane, M. Ghrici

3.3 Samples Preparation On the other hand, the calculated water was added to the soil
3.3.1 Soil–L, soil–NP and soil–L–NP mixtures mixture for the UCS test. The samples are preserved in the air-
For both Atterberg limits and UCS tests the air dried soils tight container for about 1 hour of curing prior to the preparation
were initially mixed with the predetermined quantity of NP (0, of specimens by static compaction using static press. Indeed, the
10 and 20%), L (0, 4 and 8%) or L-NP in a dry state. On the obtained specimens were prepared by compaction at the maxi-
one hand, the distilled water was added to the soil mixture for mum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content deduced of
the Atterberg limits test. To let the water invades and perme- compaction tests. The specimens were stored in plastic boxes to
ates through the soil mixture, the samples are preserved in the prevent possible loss of moisture which they were kept in the
airtight container for about 1, 15 and 30 days of curing prior laboratory at the temperature of 25°c and the relative humidity of
to testing. After curing, the paste obtained was remixed again 50% (Fig. 4). Furthermore, after 7 to 120 days of curing the spec-
with each stabilizer thoroughly for at least 15 min before per- imens are tested (Fig. 5). The tests of all samples were repeated
forming the first test (Fig. 2). on three identical specimens and the peak stress accepted was an
average of three tests carried out on each sample type.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 3 Determination of the PL after 1 and 30 days of curing, (a) the roll of the
soil was performed and the test must be stopped when the roll of the soil tested
was cracked at 3 mm in diameter, (b) sample collection and (c) determination
of the water content (PL) by desiccation at 105 °c during 1 day

(c)
3.3.2 Soil–L–sulphate, soil–NP–sulphate and soil–L–
Fig. 2 Determination of the LL after 1 and 30 days of curing; (a) the paste was
remixed with each stabilizer for at least 15 min before performing the first test, NP–sulphate mixtures
(b) practice the groove and start the test and (c) determination of the water For both Atterberg limits and UCS tests the samples were
content (LL) by desiccation at 105 °c during 1 day
mixed in the same way as presented above except that different
contents of CaSO4.2H2O powder (0-6% by weight of dry soil)
The PL tests were performed on material prepared for the were also added into the soil–L, soil–NP and soil–L–NP mix-
liquid limit (LL) test (Fig. 3). The plastic limit (PL) was deter- tures in a dry state. In addition, when the water (distilled water
mined as the average of the two water contents. Both LL and is necessary for Atterberg limits) was added to the mixtures the
PL tests were conducted at room temperature. The plastic index Atterberg limits and UCS tests were performed after the same
(PI) value is the difference between the LL and PL. curing periods in the same way as presented above.

Effect of Calcium Sulphate on the Geotechnical Properties of Stabilized Clayey Soils 2017 61 2 259
4 Results and Discussion respectively. The increases and decreases in Atterberg’s lim-
4.1 Atterberg Limits its depend on the mineralogical composition of soil where the
4.1.1 Variation of liquid limit in the absence of Table 3 shows that the RS and GS have 0 and 20% of mont-
CaSO4.2H2O morillonitic clay, respectively. Attoh-Okine [26] reported that
Tables 6 and 7 show that the LL of both GS and RS samples decreases in the LL are observed for soils with montmorillo-
decreases with increasing L content but increases with curing nitic clay but increases are observed for soils with kaolinitic
period whereby the LL of the GS appears to be still constant clay. In addition, Goswami and Singh [8] indicated that the
with time. e.g., Table 6 shows that the addition of 8%L to the particle arrangement and the presence of divalent cations pro-
GS the LL decreases from 82.8% to 62.1 and 61% after cur- mote flocculation and increase the LL of kaolinitic soils. Thus,
ing for 1 and 30 days, respectively. The decrease in LL can be the different complexes cation exchange in each of these soils
assigned to the cation exchange brought about in the soil by the (GS and RS) is reflected by the difference in their LL behavior.
divalent calcium ions from L [8]. Tables 6 and 7 show that the LL of both GS and RS samples
decreases with increasing NP content but appears to be still con-
stant with curing period whereby GS has the best results. e.g., the
addition of 20%L to the GS decreases the LL from 82.8% to 67.3
and 66.7% after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively. It should
be noted that the addition of NP to both GS and RS samples shows
a slight decrease in the LL compared with the addition of L alone.
This is probably due to the low free L content in the NP. However,
for the RS stabilized with 20%NP, the LL reduces from 46.5% to
39.3 and 41.2% after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively (Table
7). For the same class soil, Sivrikaya et al. [27] observed that the
LL decreases from 28% to 25% for the addition of 20% of ground
granulated blast-furnace slag-A. In contrast, for the same class
soil, the use of 20% rice husk ash, Basha et al. [6] and Rahman [5]
(a) (b) reported that the LL increases from 49.8% up to 54.3% and from
36.8% up to 47%, respectively.

(c)
(a) (b)
Fig. 4 Preparation of specimens by static compaction, (a) compaction of the
sample at the maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content de-
duced of compaction tests, (b) demolding of the sample and (c) preservation of
the compacted specimen in plastic boxes to prevent possible loss of moisture
during 7 and 120 days of curing

From Table 7, the addition of 8%L to the RS increases the

LL from 46.5% up to 54.9 and 59.6% after curing for 1 and 30
days, respectively. For the same class soil, Yong and Ouhadi
[25] observed that with 10%L as an additive the LL increases
from 49.6% up to 56.5 and 75% after curing for 1 and 30 days,
respectively. A similar observation was reported by Asgari et
(c) (d)
al. [4]. On the other hand, for a similar class soil, Afès and
Fig. 5 Procedure of the UCS test, (a) specimen for submit the UCS test, (b)
Didier [2] found that with 6%L as an additive the LL reduces installation of the specimen in the cell, (c) installation of the cell in the static
from 47.7% to 42.7 and 42.4% after curing for 7 and 30 days, press and start the UCS test and (d) specimen state after the test

260 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. H. Gadouri, K. Harichane, M. Ghrici

 Table 6 Effect of different content of CaSO4.2H2O on the LL and PL of stabilized GS at different curing period

Sample mixture (%)

AL* (%) Ca** (%) DTC (day)
P0L0 P0L4 P0L8 P10L0 P20L0 P10L4 P10L8 P20L4 P20L8
1 82.8 64.5 62.1 69.4 67.3 65.2 63.9 63.0 62.2
0 15 82.5 63.7 61.4 70.5 68.1 63.8 62.3 63.2 61.2
30 83.2 63.0 61.0 68.2 66.7 62.8 61.2 62.1 61.0
1 73.5 63.8 61.4 60.6 58.4 64.4 62.2 63.2 61.5
2 15 65.3 62.9 60.5 51.6 49.4 63.5 61.3 62.2 60.6
30 62.7 62.4 60.0 49.1 46.9 63.0 60.9 61.8 60.2
LL
1 70.4 62.6 60.3 58.2 56.1 63.3 61.2 62.0 60.4
4 15 63.2 61.7 59.4 49.2 47.1 62.4 60.7 61.1 59.7
30 60.6 61.2 58.4 46.7 44.7 61.9 59.8 60.6 59.0
1 68.1 61.3 59.5 57.9 54.7 62.2 60.1 60.9 59.6
6 15 60.8 60.4 58.5 48.2 46.2 61.2 59.1 60.0 58.6
30 57.8 59.9 58.1 45.0 43.7 60.8 58.7 59.5 58.2
1 32.2 45.5 45.7 25.5 24.2 46.0 49.2 48.0 49.8
0 15 32.1 44.5 45.8 26.5 25.0 46.2 49.3 50.0 49.7
30 33.1 44.8 47.1 25.0 24.3 46.5 49.5 50.1 50.1
1 32.7 46.0 46.3 25.8 24.5 46.6 48.6 49.9 50.4
2 15 36.0 46.5 46.7 28.1 26.7 47.0 49.1 50.4 50.9
30 38.3 46.9 47.2 29.3 28.0 47.5 49.6 50.9 51.4
PL
1 33.6 46.6 46.9 26.1 24.7 47.0 49.1 50.4 50.9
4 15 36.9 47.1 47.3 28.4 27.0 47.5 49.6 50.8 51.4
30 39.3 47.6 47.8 29.2 28.2 48.0 50.1 51.3 51.9
1 34.3 47.7 47.6 26.7 25.2 47.9 50.0 50.3 51.7
6 15 36.6 48.2 48.1 28.8 27.4 50.4 51.5 52.8 52.2
30 37.9 48.6 48.5 30,1 28.7 51.8 53.0 53.0 53.7
*
Atterberg Limits, CaSO4.2H2O
**

It should be noted that the stabilization of both clayey soils of 8%L to the GS on curing for 1 day, the LL decreases from
with a combination of L-NP shows the same decrease in LL 62.1% to 61.4, 60.3 and 59.5% respectively with 2, 4 and 6%
values compared to that of the L alone. With 10%NP+4%L CaSO4.2H2O (Table 6). For a similar class soil, Kinuthia et al.
as an additive the LL of the RS increases from 46.5% up to [13] reported that the LL decreases from 73% to 71, 69 and
56.4 and 61.8% after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively 67% respectively with 1, 2 and 3% CaSO4.2H2O for 6%L addi-
(Table 7). Whereas, for the same class soil, with a combination tion. On the other hand, for the same class soil, Sivapullaiah et
of 12%FA+3%L, Ansary et al. [28] found that the LL of the al. [15] observed that the LL increases from 68% up to 70, 73
soil-B decreases from 44% to 32.3%. and 76% respectively with 0.5, 1 and 3% CaSO4 for 6%L addi-
tion due to the chemical interaction between soil, L and CaSO4.
4.1.2 Variation of liquid limit in the presence of However, for the RS stabilized with 8%L on curing for 1 day,
CaSO4.2H2O the LL decreases from 54.9% to 54.2, 53.7 and 52% respec-
In all cases the LL, PL and PI of two stabilized clayey soils tively with 2, 4 and 6% CaSO4.2H2O (Table 7).
vary with the variation of the type and additive content, type Tables 6 and 7 show that with NP as an additive the LL of both
and sulphate content and DTC (Tables 6 and 7 and Figs. 6 GS and RS samples decreases considerably with increasing NP
and 7). Indeed, the workability of both untreated and treated content, CaSO4.2H2O content and DTC. Indeed, the highest val-
soil samples containing CaSO4.2H2O is improved due to the ues of LL are achieved when the CaSO4.2H2O content is greater
significant reduction of their PI. Yilmaz and Civelekoglu [29] than 2%. However, there is a negligible change in the LL values
reported that with gypsum as an additive the PI of the bentonite of NP-treated GS samples on curing with 2% CaSO4.2H2O as
soil decreases from 186.9% to 139.5 and 121.9% for the addi- compared with the samples without CaSO4.2H2O. In general,
tion of 2.5 and 7.5% of gypsum, respectively. for any content of CaSO4.2H2O and DTC the differences in LL
With L as an additive the LL of both GS and RS samples values between L and NP as additives are more pronounced with
containing CaSO4.2H2O decreases considerably with increas- the RS than with the GS. This is can be explained by the behav-
ing CaSO4.2H2O content, L content and DTC. e.g., the addition iour of the RS which has a low PI. This is can be explained by

Effect of Calcium Sulphate on the Geotechnical Properties of Stabilized Clayey Soils 2017 61 2 261
 Table 7 Effect of different content of CaSO4.2H2O on the LL and PL of stabilized RS at different curing period
Sample mixture (%)
AL*(%) Ca** (%) DTC (day)
P0L0 P0L4 P0L8 P10L0 P20L0 P10L4 P10L8 P20L4 P20L8
1 46.5 57.4 54.9 44.0 39.3 56.4 56.4 55.1 54.9
0 15 45.5 59.6 57.8 45.1 40.5 58.3 56.7 58.1 57.0
30 46.0 61.5 59.6 44.8 41.2 61.8 58.2 60.5 58.1
1 46.0 57.0 54.2 43.3 39.1 55.9 54.9 55.3 54.3
2 15 44.3 55.5 53.2 41.5 37.9 54.2 53.3 54.3 52.3
30 44.0 55.3 53.0 41.3 37.7 54.5 53.2 54.5 52.7
LL
1 44.8 55.8 53.7 42.0 38.5 54.9 54.0 54.8 53.7
4 15 42.1 53.6 51.7 40.4 37.0 53.4 52.1 52.8 51.9
30 41.7 53.7 51.5 40.1 36.7 53.0 51.8 52.6 51.4
1 39.9 54.0 52.0 37.4 35.8 53.3 52.0 52.9 51.7
6 15 36.3 51.2 49.2 32.7 30.3 50.4 48.6 49.0 48.0
30 35.9 50.8 48.8 31.4 29.7 49.0 48.2 48.6 47.8
1 22.7 34.8 35.3 20.5 20.4 36.2 39.7 38.3 40.6
0 15 21.5 38.5 39.5 21.8 21.5 39.5 40.5 43.0 44.3
30 23.0 41.5 42.7 21.5 22.8 44.2 44.2 46.7 47.0
1 23.0 35.0 35.3 20.7 20.7 36.8 38.6 40.2 40.8
2 15 23.6 35.7 36.2 21.0 21.1 37.5 39.4 41.2 42.0
30 24.7 36.6 36.3 21.4 21.3 38.6 40.7 42.3 43.2
PL
1 23.5 36.1 36.4 21.4 21.8 37.6 39.5 41.0 41.2
4 15 24.2 36.8 36.9 21.9 22.7 38.7 40.7 42.0 42.4
30 25.6 37.9 38.8 22.9 23.6 39.7 41.9 42.9 44.2
1 24.1 37.2 37.1 21.8 21.6 38.5 40.7 42.2 42.0
6 15 24.5 37.8 37.7 22.1 21.9 39.7 41.3 42.3 42.4
30 26.7 40.1 39.0 23.2 23.1 40.4 42.7 44.1 43.7
Atterberg Limits, **CaSO4.2H2O
*

the behaviour of the RS which has a low PI. However, the addition of 8%L to the RS increases the PL from
In general, the greatest decrease in LL values is achieved 22.7% up to 35.3 and 42.7% after curing for 1 and 30 days,
when the L and NP are combined. However, with a combina- respectively (Table 7). For a similar class soil, Afès and Didier
tion of L-NP as additives, both stabilized GS and RS samples [2] reported that the use of 6%L the PL increases from 24%
containing any content of CaSO4.2H2O show a slight decrease up to 32.4 and 34% after curing for 7 and 30 days, respec-
in LL values compared with samples without CaSO4.2H2O. tively. Similar observations for similar class soil were reported
e.g., with 20%NP+8%L as an additive the LL of the GS sam- by several researchers [4, 25, 26]. It is known that the use of
ples containing 6% CaSO4.2H2O decreases from 62.2 and 61% L leads to the flocculation of clay particles which causes an
to 59.6 and 58.2% after 1 and 30 days of curing, respectively immediate increase in PL.
(Table 6). For the same combination and the same content of In all cases there is a negligible decrease in the PL of NP-
CaSO4.2H2O, the PL of the RS decreases from 54.9 and 58.1% treated both GS and RS samples compared to L alone. With
to 51.7 and 47.8% after curing for 1 and 30 days, respec- 10%NP as an additive the PL of the GS decreases from 32.2%
tively (Table 7). The decrease in LL values with increasing to 25.5 and 25% after curing for 1 and 30 days, respec-
CaSO4.2H2O content and DTC is more pronounced in the RS tively (Table 6). However, The addition of 10%NP to the RS
than in the GS. decreases the PL from 22.7% to 20.5 and 21.5% after 1 and 30
days of curing, respectively (Table 7). Dissimilar behaviours
4.1.3 Variation of plastic limit in the absence of were observed by [5, 6]. It is suggested that the decrease in the
CaSO4.2H2O PL of both GS and RS samples is probably due to the replace-
For both stabilized GS and RS samples the PL increases ment of coarser soil particles by finer NP particles.
with increasing L content and curing period. e.g., with 8%L In all cases there is a considerable increase in the PL of both
as an additive the PL of the GS increases from 32.2% up to clayey soils with increasing L-NP content and curing period
43.8 and 44.8% after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively (Tables 6 and 7). In general, for the combination L-NP, the PL
(Table 6). A similar behaviour was observed by Rahman [5]. shows a highest increase as compared to L alone. The addition

262 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. H. Gadouri, K. Harichane, M. Ghrici

of 20%NP+8%L to the GS increases the PL from 32.2% up to 4.1.4 Variation of plastic limit in the presence of
49.8 and 50.1% after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively. CaSO4.2H2O
With 20%NP+8%L as an additive the PL of the RS increases In all cases the PL of L-treated both GS and RS samples
from 22.7% up to 40.6 and 47% after curing for 1 and 30 days, increases with increasing CaSO4.2H2O content, L content and
respectively. For the same class soil, with a combination of TDC. e.g., with 8%L as an additive the PL of the GS sample
18%FA+3%L, Ansary et al. [28] observed that the PL of the containing 6% CaSO4.2H2O increases from 45.7 and 47.1% up
soil-B increases from 25% up to 35.8%. to 47.6 and 48.5% after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively
(Table 6). However, for the RS sample stabilized with 8%L in
the presence of 6% CaSO4.2H2O the PL increases from 35.5%
up to 37.1% after 1 day of curing but decreases from 42.7% to
39% after curing for 30 days (Table 7).
With any content of NP as an additive the PL of the RS
increases slightly with increasing CaSO4.2H2O content and
DTC, whereas the PL of the GS increases with DTC but appears
to be still constant with increasing CaSO4.2H2O content. Gen-
erally, the effects produced by the CaSO4.2H2O on the PL of
NP-treated both GS and RS samples are negligible as compared
(a) with L alone or in combination with NP.
It is clear to see that the PL of L-NP-treated both GS and RS
samples increases with increasing L-NP content, CaSO4.2H2O
content and DTC (Tables 6 and 7). Indeed, the addition of L-NP
to the GS samples containing CaSO4.2H2O shows an increase
in the PL as compared with samples without CaSO4.2H2O.
Whereas, the PL values of the RS samples treated with L-NP
without CaSO4.2H2O are very higher as compared with sam-
ples containing CaSO4.2H2O.

4.1.5 Variation of the plasticity index in the absence

(b)
of CaSO4.2H2O
The changes in the PI of both GS and RS samples stabilized
with L, NP and L-NP without sulphates are depicted in Figs. 6a
and 7a. The addition of L to both GS and RS samples improves
their workability due to the significant reduction in their PI. The
PI of both GS and RS samples decreases with increasing L con-
tent and curing period whereby the decrease is more pronounced
in the GS than the in RS. It is apparent that an addition of 8%L is
sufficient to decrease the PI of the GS from 50.5 to 15.6 and 13.9%
after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively (Fig. 6a). Whereas, for
(c)
the RS stabilized with the same content of L the PI decreases from
23.7% to only 19.6 and 16.9% after curing for 1 and 30 days,
respectively (Fig. 7a). For the same class soil, Afès and Didier
[2] reported that with 6%L as an additive the PI decreases from
23.7% to 10.3 and 8.4% after curing for 7 and 30 days, respec-
tively. Similar observations were reported by [26, 28].
The addition of NP to both GS and RS samples reduces
slightly their PI compared with L alone. It is clear to observe
that with 20%NP the PI of the GS decreases from 50.5 to only
43.1 and 42.4% after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively
(Fig. 6a). However, with the same content of NP as an additive
(d) the PI of the RS decreases from 23.8% to only 18.9 and 18.4%
after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively. For the same class
Fig 6 Effect of different content of CaSO4.2H2O on the PI of the stabilized GS
soil, Yadu and Tripathi [30] and Sivrikaya et al. [27] reported

Effect of Calcium Sulphate on the Geotechnical Properties of Stabilized Clayey Soils 2017 61 2 263
that the PI decreases from 17 and 9% to 13 and 4% for the
addition of 12% and 20% of granulated blast furnace slag and
ground granulated blast furnace slag-A, respectively. Similar
trends were observed by Eberemu [31] and Rahman [5] where
they have used bagasse ash and rice husk ash respectively. In
contrast, Degirmenci et al. [32] were found that the PI increased
with increasing FA content due to its small size particles with
high surface area compared with that of the NP.
The better results of PI are achieved when the combination
L-NP is used. It is obvious to see that the combination L-NP
(a)
has a significant effect on the PI of the GS than of the RS. In
addition, there is a significant decrease in PI with increasing
L-NP content and curing period. e.g., for the GS stabilized with
a combination of 20%NP+8%L the PI decreases from 50.5%
to 12.5 and 10.9% after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively
(Fig. 2a and b). However, for the RS stabilized with the same
combination the PI decreases from 23.8% to 14.8 and 11.1%
after curing for 1 and 30 days, respectively (Fig. 7a). Ansary et
al. [28] reported that for a similar class soil, the PI decreases
from 19% to 2.3% for the addition of 6%FA+3%L. In all cases,
the high reduction in PI is observed for samples stabilized with (b)
a combination of L-NP compared with L or NP alone. This
behaviour can be explained by the complementary roles played
by the L and NP where the beneficial effects of one can com-
pensate for the disadvantages that could present another.

4.1.6 Variation of the plasticity index in the presence

of CaSO4.2H2O
Figs. 2b-d and 3b-d show the changes in the PI of both GS
and RS samples stabilized with NP, L and L-NP in the pres-
ence of varying contents of CaSO4.2H2O. The addition of L
alone to both GS and RS samples on curing with CaSO4.2H2O (c)
decreases considerably the PI particularly with increasing
CaSO4.2H2O content, L content and DTC. e.g., after 30 days
of DTC, the PI of the GS stabilized with the same content of
L decreases from 16.4% to 12.9, 10.6 and 9.6% respectively
with 2, 4 and 6% of CaSO4.2H2O (Fig. 6b, c and d). For the
same DTC, the PI of the RS stabilized with 8%L decreases
from 19.6% to 16.7, 12.7 and 9.8% in the presence of 2, 4 and
6% CaSO4.2H2O, respectively (Fig. 7b, c and d). Kinuthia et al.
[13] reported that the interaction between two particles of clay
soil is considerably affected by the cation exchange process
because the increase in cation concentration results an increase (d)
in the distance between these clay particles, this promotes the
Fig. 7 Effect of different content of CaSO4.2H2O on the PI of the stabilized RS
increase of the clay particles size and affects the pores distribu-
tion due to the particles arrangement which leads to the change
in the consistency limits of soils. Indeed, the modification in GS stabilized with 20%NP decreases from 50.5% to 33.9 and
the PI is the result of cation exchange processes which affect 29.5% respectively with 2 and 6% CaSO4.2H2O (Fig. 6b and
the viscosity of the clay-water mix. d). Whereas, for the same content of NP and the same DTC, the
The PI of two stabilized clayey soils decreases with increas- PI of the RS decreases from 23.8% to 18.4 and 14.2% respec-
ing NP content, DTC and CaSO4.2H2O content whereby RS tively with 2 and 6% CaSO4.2H2O (Fig. 7b and d). In addition,
has the best results. e.g., after 1 day of DTC, the PI of the with 20%NP as an additive and after 30 days of DTC, the PI

264 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. H. Gadouri, K. Harichane, M. Ghrici

of the GS decreases from 50.5% to 18.9 and 15.1% respec- 4.2 Unconfined Compressive Strength
tively with 2 and 6% CaSO4.2H2O (Fig. 6b and d). Whereas, 4.2.1 Variation of the unconfined compressive
for the same content of NP and the same DTC, the PI of the strength in the absence of sulphates
RS decreases from 23.8% to 16.5 and 6.5% respectively with 2 Figures 8-10 depict the results of the effect of L, NP and
and 6% CaSO4.2H2O (Fig. 7b and d). It should be noted that the their combinations on the UCS of both GS and RS samples
addition of NP to both GS and RS samples on curing with any stabilized with or without CaSO4.2H2O. According to Figs. 8a
content of CaSO4.2H2O shows a much better decrease in the and 9a, the addition of L alone to both GS and RS samples
PI as compared with untreated and treated soil samples with- binds their particles and produces a significant increase in the
out CaSO4.2H2O. According to Yilmaz and Civelekoglu [29], UCS which increases with increasing L content and curing
the PI of the bentonite stabilized with gypsum decreases from period. A similar behaviour was observed by McCarthy et al.
186.9% to 139.5 and 120.8% for the addition of 2.5 and 10% of [33]. In addition, Asgari et al. [4] reported that the UCS of the
gypsum, respectively. This is due to the replacement of mono- soil obtained from northwestern of Arak city increases curing
valent ions by calcium ions (from CaSO4.2H2O) which pro- period and L content up to 3% but decreases after this content.
vokes a reduction in diffuse double layer thickness and leads The increase in strength is due to the formation of cementing
to the decrease in LL, consequently, the decrease in the PI. For compounds binding the soil particles which is the result of
comparison, it is clear to see that after curing for 30 days the the L reaction with the clay particles [22]. However, there is a
RS samples containing 6% CaSO4.2H2O alone or mixed with negligible increase in UCS values of both GS and RS samples
20%NP produces high PI values as compared with samples sta- when the NP is used alone due to its low reactivity with the
bilized with 8%L alone or mixed with 6% CaSO4.2H2O. clay particles. Therefore, it is not possible to use the NP alone
Furthermore, the best results of PI are achieved for two for the stabilization of these clayey soils. The differences in the
clayey soil samples stabilized with a combination of L-NP on UCS between L and NP as additives are more pronounced with
curing with various content of CaSO4.2H2O. Moreover, there the RS than with the GS. This behaviour is probably due to the
is a significant decrease in the PI of both GS and RS samples mineralogical composition and high plasticity index value of
with increasing CaSO4.2H2O content and DTC (Figs. 6b-d and the GS as compared with that of the RS.
7b-d). e.g., for the GS stabilized with 10%NP+4%L on curing The results of the effect produced by the combination L-NP
for 1 day of DTC, the PI decreases from 19.2% to 17.9, 16.3 without CaSO4.2H2O on the UCS of both GS and RS samples
and 14.3% respectively with 2, 4 and 6% CaSO4.2H2O (Fig. 6b, are depicted in Fig. 10a. It can be seen that the better results
c and d). Whereas for the same soil and after 30 days of DTC, of the UCS are achieved when the combination L-NP is used.
the PI decreases from 16.3% to 15.5, 14 and 8.9% respectively However, the UCS of both stabilized clayey soils increases
with 2, 4 and 6% CaSO4.2H2O (Fig. 6b, c and d). In addition, considerably with curing period and L-NP content. E.g., the
the decrease in the PI of both GS and RS samples with increas- UCS of the GS stabilized with a combination of 20%NP+4%L
ing CaSO4.2H2O content and DTC is considerably important increases from 0.1 MPa up to 1.3 and 3 MPa after curing for 7
when the content of L-NP increases. e.g., for the GS stabilized and 120 days, respectively. For a similar class soil, McCarthy
with 20%NP+8%L on curing for 1 day of DTC, the PI decreases et al. [33] reported that the UCS of oxford clay treated with a
from 12.5% to 11.1, 9.5 and 7.9% respectively with 2, 4 and combination of 18%FA+3%L increases from 0.4 MPa up to 1
6% CaSO4.2H2O (Fig. 6b, c and d). Whereas for the same soil and 1.8 MPa after curing for 7 and 90 days, respectively. For
and after 30 days of DTC, the PI decreases from 10.9% to 8.8, the RS stabilized with a combination of 20%NP+4%L the UCS
7.2 and 4.5% respectively with 2, 4 and 6% CaSO4.2H2O (Fig. increases from 0.5 MPa up to 2.2 and 7 MPa after curing for 7
6b, c and d). In general, the PI values of L-NP-treated both GS and 120 days, respectively. For a similar class soil, McCarthy
and RS samples containing any content of CaSO4.2H2O are very et al. [33] reported that the UCS of Lias clay treated with a
higher compared with samples without CaSO4.2H2O. combination of 18%FA+3%L increases from 0.4 MPa up to 1.1
Generally, the improvment in the consistency limits of two and 2.1 MPa after curing for 7 and 90 days, respectively.
stabilized clayey soils depends on the type and the content of
additive added, the content of sulphate used, the DTC and the
mineralogical composition of stabilized soil.

Effect of Calcium Sulphate on the Geotechnical Properties of Stabilized Clayey Soils 2017 61 2 265
 (a)
(a)

(b) (b)

(c) (c)

(d) (d)

Fig. 8 Effect of different content of CaSO4.2H2O on the UCS Fig. 9 Effect of different content of CaSO4.2H2O on the UCS
of the GS stabilized with L and NP alone of the RS stabilized with L and NP alone

266 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. H. Gadouri, K. Harichane, M. Ghrici

 and S2 soils represented an increase of 21 and 10 times respec-
tively compared with both untreated soils. The dissolution of
alumina and silica from soil and/or NP depends strongly on the
L content which produces more cementitious products respon-
sible on the increase in the UCS of both GS and RS samples. In
all cases, high UCS values are observed for samples stabilized
with a combination of L-NP compared to those stabilized with
L or NP alone. The same behaviour is observed by Kolias et
al. [1]. Generally, the better increase produced by the L alone
(a)
or by a combination of L-NP on the UCS of both clayey soils
can be explained by the pozzolanic reactions which form new
cementing compounds and bind the soil particles together [21].

(b)

(c)
(a)

(d)

Fig. 10 Effect of different content of CaSO4.2H2O on the UCS

of two soils stabilized with L-NP

However, it is obvious to observe that the combination

L-NP has a much better effect on the UCS of the RS than of
the GS, particularly, at later stage. e.g., after curing for 120
days the UCS of both GS and RS stabilized with a combination
of 20%NP+8%L represented an increase of 47 and 16 times (b)
respectively compared with both untreated soils. Similar obser-
Fig. 11 SEM images show the intial microstructure of both untreated GS and
vations were reported by Hossain et al. [9] where they found RS samples without CaSO4.2H2O after 60 days of curing
that the combination of 10% volcanic ash and 4% L for both S1

Effect of Calcium Sulphate on the Geotechnical Properties of Stabilized Clayey Soils 2017 61 2 267
4.2.2 Variation of the unconfined compressive of the bentonite soil increases from 58.7KPa up to 73.1 and
strength in the presence of sulphates 79.6KPa for the addition of 2.5 and 7.5% of gypsum, respec-
The results of the effect of L, NP and their combination in tively. It is obvious to see that there is a much better increase in
the presence of CaSO4.2H2O on the UCS of both stabilized GS UCS values of NP-treated both GS and RS samples with increas-
and RS samples are depicted in Figs. 8b-d and 9b-d. In all cases ing CaSO4.2H2O content and curing period whereby RS has the
the UCS values of both GS and RS samples stabilized with L, greatest values. E.g., with 20%NP as an additive, after 7 days
NP and L-NP in the presence of CaSO4.2H2O are higher than of curing the UCS of the GS increases from 0.2 MPa up to 0.5
those of samples without CaSO4.2H2O. and 1.1 MPa respectively with 2 and 6% CaSO4.2H2O. But, for
the same content of NP and curing period the UCS of the RS
increases from 0.9 MPa up to 1.7 and 4 MPa respectively with 2
and 6% CaSO4.2H2O. However, with 20%NP as an additive, after
120 days of curing the UCS of the GS increases from 0.3 MPa up
to only 1.2 and 1.9 MPa respectively with 2 and 6% CaSO4.2H2O.

(a)

(a)

(b)
Fig. 12 SEM images show the evolution of the microstructure of NP-treated
both GS and RS samples without CaSO4.2H2O after 60 days of curing

Indeed, there is a significant increase in UCS of both untreated

GS and RS samples with increasing CaSO4.2H2O content and (b)

curing period whereby RS has the best results. Yilmaz and Civ- Fig. 13 SEM images show the evolution of the microstructure of both
untreated GS and RS samples in the presence of 6% CaSO4.2H2O
elekoglu [29] observed that with gypsum as an additive the UCS after 60 days of curing

268 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. H. Gadouri, K. Harichane, M. Ghrici

 Whereas, for the same content of NP and curing period the Further, Aldaood et al. [18] reported that the increase in
UCS of the RS increases from 1.2 MPa up to 4.8 and 8.6 MPa strength of L-treated gypseous soils due to the finer grained of
respectively with 2 and 6% CaSO4.2H2O. However, the scan- CaSO4.2H2O which increases the compactness of the matrix
ning electronic microscope (SEM) images show that the pres- and consequently the UCS of soil samples. Whereas, the slight
ence of 6% of CaSO4.2H2O improves significantly the com- UCS values obtained for the NP-treated both GS and RS sam-
pactness of both untreated and NP-treated both GS and RS ples without CaSO4.2H2O can be explained by the presence of
samples after curing for 60 days as compared with samples macropores in these samples which due to the high specific
without CaSO4.2H2O (Figs. 11-14). It is clear to see that there is surface area of NP (Fig. 12a and c).
a formation of macro-hydrates gel (CSH and/or CAH) in both However, the addition of L alone to both GS and RS samples
GS and RS samples responsible on the much better change in on curing with CaSO4.2H2O increases the UCS with curing
their microstructure and the gain of strength (Figs. 13 and 14). period. The increase in the UCS with time can be attributed to
the hydration rate due to the short time reactions between soil,
L and gypsum to form CSH and/or CAH and ettringite [19]. In
addition, Hunter [14] reported that the hydroxyl OH- retained
from L hydration combines with montmorillonite to form alu-
minum compounds and then reacts with sulphates to form
the ettringite mineral. However, at early stage there is a high
increase in UCS of L-treated both GS and RS samples with
increasing CaSO4.2H2O and L content compared with samples
cured without CaSO4.2H2O. In contrast, at later stage the UCS
of L-treated both GS and RS samples increases slightly with
increasing CaSO4.2H2O and L content. The same behaviour
was obtained by Segui et al. [16]. It is clear to see that with any
content of CaSO4.2H2O there is a high difference in UCS values
between the NP-treated GS samples and L-treated the same soil
samples. In contrast, with 2% of CaSO4.2H2O and for any cur-
ing periods, both untreated and NP-treated RS samples appear
to develop the same UCS values compared with the L-treated
the same soil with the same content of CaSO4.2H2O. In addi-
(a)
tion, after 30 days of curing with 4 and 6% of CaSO4.2H2O
the UCS values of both untreated and NP-treated RS samples
are very higher compared with those of L-treated the same soil
with the same contents of CaSO4.2H2O. e.g., on curing with 4
and 6% of CaSO4.2H2O the RS stabilized with 20%NP develop
respectively UCS values of 7.2 and 8.6 MPa after curing for
120 days. Whereas, for the same contents of CaSO4.2H2O the
RS stabilized with 8%L develop respectively UCS values of 5.4
and 5.7 MPa after the same curing period. The little increase in
the UCS of L-treated RS as compared with the NP-treated the
same soil is due to the fact that the CaSO4.2H2O has the capac-
ity to reduce the solubility of hydrated L (Shi and Day, 2000)
[34]. Furthermore, in all cases the increase in UCS values with
increasing CaSO4.2H2O content and curing period is more pro-
nounced in the RS than in the GS. This leading us to suggest
that the increase in UCS values could be due to the behaviour
of the RS with the CaSO4.2H2O interaction.
However, the UCS of both GS and RS samples stabilized
(b) with a combination of L-NP increases sharply with increasing
Fig. 14 SEM images show the evolution of the microstructure of NP-treated CaSO4.2H2O content, L-NP content and curing period whereby
both GS and RS samples in the presence of 6% CaSO4.2H2O after 60 days of
curing RS has the best results (Fig. 10). E.g., with 2% of CaSO4.2H2O
both GS and RS stabilized with the combination 10%NP+4%L
develop an UCS value of 3.8 and 7.4 MPa after curing for 120

Effect of Calcium Sulphate on the Geotechnical Properties of Stabilized Clayey Soils 2017 61 2 269
days, respectively. But with the same content of CaSO4.2H2O 8. Economically, the CaSO4.2H2O is cheaper and techni-
and curing period the UCS of both GS and RS stabilized with cally it can be used alone for clayey soil as a stabilizer
20%NP+8%L becomes 7.1 and 8.8 MPa, respectively. and accelerator for pozzolanic reactions. Moreover, their
However, on curing with 6% of CaSO4.2H2O both GS and effect becomes very high when it is mixed with NP alone.
RS stabilized with the combination 10%NP+4%L develop
an UCS of 5.8 and 8 MPa after curing for 120 days, respec- Acknowledgements
tively. Whereas, for the same content of CaSO4.2H2O and The authors acknowledge the Pr. Said Kenai, Pr. Khaled
curing period the UCS of two GS and RS stabilized with Grine and Dr. Othmane Boukendakdji for their providing lan-
20%NP+8%L becomes 8.7 and 9.9 MPa, respectively. Gener- guage help and for precious comments to improve the scientific
ally, the early increase in the UCS of both GS and RS sam- quality of this paper. We thank the director of the “Laboratoire
ples can be explained by the presence of CaSO4.2H2O which de l’Habitat et de la Construction Centre (LHCC)” (transla-
accelerates the chemical reaction between soil and L to form tion in English, Habitat Laboratory and Construction Center),
ettringite by the reaction of SO42- with the CSH and CAH from Rouiba and Oued Smar, Algeria” for providing excellent work-
pozzolanic reactions [18]. ing conditions and financial support. We also thank the techni-
cians of the LHCC for their help during the experimental work,
5 Conclusions without them this study would not have been possible. Further-
Soil stabilisation with L alone or in combination with NP more, our thanks are also addressed to the head of the Hydrau-
in the presence of CaSO4.2H2O is away to decrease the PI and lic Department and the technicians of the Hydraulic Laboratory
increase the UCS of both clayey soils. Based on the test results, of Chlef University.
the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The addition of L to both GS and RS samples produces References
a significant reduction in the PI which decreases with [1] Kolias, S., Kasselouri-Rigopoulou, V., Karahalios. A. “Stabilization of
clayey soils with high calcium fly ash and cement” Cement and Con-
increasing L content. The use of NP without CaSO4.2H2O
crete Composites. 27, pp. 301–313. 2005. DOI: 10.1016/[Link]-
reduces slightly the PI of both GS and RS samples. The
comp.2004.02.019
combination of L-NP without CaSO4.2H2O decreases sig- [2] Afès, M., Didier, G. “Stabilisation des sols gonflants: cas d’une argile en
nificantly the PI of both GS and RS samples more than the provenance de Mila (Algérie).” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
use of L alone. Environment. 59(1). pp. 75–83. 2000. DOI: 10.1007/s100649900022
2. The use of CaSO4.2H2O as an additive reduces consid- [3] Le Borgne, T. “Effects of potential deleterious chemical compounds on
soil stabilization.” Ph.D. dissertation, Nancy-University, French, 2010.
erably the PI of both GS and RS samples. The degree of
URL: [Link]
reduction depends largely on the mineralogical composi-
[4] Asgari, M. R., Dezfuli, A. B., Bayat, M. “Experimental study on stabiliza-
tion of the soil, the type and the amount of mineral addi- tion of a low plasticity clayey soil with cement/lime.” Arabian Journal
tives, the CaSO4.2H2O content and the curing period. of Geosciences. 8(3), pp. 1439–1452. 2015. DOI: 10.1007/s12517-013-
3. The stabilization with L alone without CaSO4.2H2O 1173-1
increases considerably the UCS of both GS and RS sam- [5] Rahman, M. D. A. “The potentials of some stabilizers for the use of lat-
eritic soil in construction.” Building and Environment. 21(1), pp. 57–61.
ples. This increase depends on the amount of L added and
1986. DOI: 10.1016/0360-1323(86)90008-9
the curing period. However, a negligible influence on the
[6] Basha, E. A., Hashim, R., Muntohar, A. S. “Effect of the cement-rice
UCS of both GS and RS samples containing CaSO4.2H2O husk ash on the plasticity and compaction of soil.” Electronic Journal of
is observes when the NP is used alone. Geotechnical Engineering. 8(1), pp. 1–8. 2003. URL: [Link]
4. The high early values of UCS developed by both GS com/2003/Ppr0304/[Link]
and RS samples with curing period can be attributed to [7] Choobbasti, A. J., Ghodrat, H., Vahdatirad, M. J., Firouzian, S., Barari,
A., Torabi, M., Bagherian, A. “Influence of using rice husk ash in soil
the acceleration of the pozzolanic reaction due to the
stabilization method with lime.” Frontiers of Earth Science. 4(4), pp.
CaSO4.2H2O added.
471–480. 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11707-010-0138-x
5. The CaSO4.2H2O has a marginal influence on the UCS of [8] Goswami, R. K., Singh, B. “Influence of Fly Ash and Lime on Plastic-
both GS and RS samples stabilized with lime alone. ity characteristics of Residual Lateritic Soil.” Proceedings of the Institu-
6. The mineralogical composition of the clayey soil plays an tion of Civil Engineers – Ground Improvement. 9(4), pp. 175–182. 2005.
important role in the chemical reaction with CaSO4.2H2O. DOI: 10.1680/grim.2005.9.4.175
[9] Hossain, K. M. A., Lachemi, M., Easa, S. “Stabilized soils for construc-
7. The progressive increase in the UCS of both GS and RS,
tion applications incorporating natural resources of Papua New Guinea.”
particularly the RS, can be explained by the formation
Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 51(4), pp. 711–731. 2007. DOI:
of ettringite due to the presence of CaSO4.2H2O in the 10.1016/[Link].2006.12.003
Soil-L-NP system. Indeed, the increase in UCS values is [10] Harichane, K., Ghrici, M., Kenai, S., Grine, K. “Use of natural pozzolana
particularly important when the amount of CaSO4.2H2O and lime for stabilization of cohesive soil.” Geotechnical and Geological
increases. Engineering, 29(5), pp. 759–769. 2011. DOI: 10.1007/s10706-011-9415-z

270 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. H. Gadouri, K. Harichane, M. Ghrici

[11] Harichane, K., Ghrici, M., Kenai, S. “Effect of curing period on shear [23] ASTM D4318 “Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit and
strength of cohesive soils stabilized with combination of lime and natural plasticity index of soils.” ASTM–American Society for Testing and Materi-
pozzolana.” International Journal of Civil Engineering, 9(2), pp. 90–96. als, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA, 2000. DOI: 10.1520/D4318
2011. URL: [Link] [24] ASTM D2166 “Standard test method for unconfined compres-
[12] Yunus, N. Z. M., Wanatowski, D., Hassan, N. A., Marto, A. “Shear sive strength of cohesive soil.” ASTM–American Society for Test-
strength and compressibility behaviour of lime-treated organic clay.” ing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA, 2000.
KSCE–Journal of Civil Engineering. 20(5), pp. 1721–1727. 2016. DOI: DOI: 10.1520/D2166_D2166M
10.1007/s12205-015-0438-5 [25] Yong, R. N., Ouhadi, V. R. “Experimental study on instability of bases
[13] Kinuthia, J. M., Wild, S., Jones, G. I. “Effects of monovalent and diva- on natural and lime/cement-stabilized clayey soils.” Applied Clay Sci-
lent metal sulphates on consistency and compaction of lime-stabilized ence. 35(3), pp. 238–249. 2007. DOI: 10.1016/[Link].2006.08.009
kaolinite.” Applied Clay Science. 14(1), pp. 27–45. 1999. [26] Attoh-Okine, N. O. “Lime treatment of laterite soils and gravels-revis-
[14] Hunter, D. “Lime-induced heave in sulphate-bearing clay soils.” ASCE ited.” Construction and Building Materials. 9(5), pp. 283–287. 1995.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 114(2), pp. 150–167. 1988. DOI: DOI: 10.1016/0950-0618(95)00030-J
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:2(150) [27] Sivrikaya, O., Yavascan, S., Cecen, E. “Effects of ground granulated
[15] Sivapullaiah, P. V., Sridharan, A., Ramesh, H. N. “Strength behaviour of blast furnace slag on the index and compaction parameters of clayey
lime-treated soils in the presence of sulphate.” Canadian Geotechnical soils.” Acta Geotechnica Slovenica. 11, pp. 19–27. 2014. URL: http://
Journal. 37(6), pp. 1358–1367. 2000. DOI: 10.1139/t00-052 [Link]/journal-ags/pdfs/AGS_2014-1_article_2.pdf
[16] Segui, P., Aubert, J. E., Husson, B., Measson, M. “Utilization of a natural [28] Ansary, M. A., Noor, M. A., Islam, M. “Effect of fly ash stabilization on
pozzolan as the main component of hydraulic road binder.” Construc- geotechnical properties of Chittagong coastal soil.” In: Soil stress-strain
tion and Building Materials. 40, pp. 217–223. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j. behavior: measurements, modeling and analysis. Geotechnical sympo-
conbuildmat.2012.09.085 sium in Roma, March 16-17, 2006, pp. 443-454. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-
[17] Puppala, A. J., Talluri, N., Chittoori, B. C. “Calcium-based stabiliser 4020-6146-2_26
treatment of sulfate-bearing soils.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civ- [29] Yilmaz, I., Civelekoglu, B. “Gypsum: an additive for stabilization of
il Engineers – Ground Improvement. 167(3), pp. 162–172. 2014. DOI: swelling clay soils.” Applied Clay Science. 44, pp. 166–172. 2009. DOI:
10.1680/grim.13.00008 10.1016/[Link].2009.01.020
[18] Aldaood, A., Bouasker, M., Al-Mukhtar, M. “Geotechnical properties of [30] Yadu, L., Tripathi, R. K. “Effect of granulated blast furnace slag in the
lime-treated gypseous soils.”  Applied Clay Science. 88-89, pp. 39–48. engineering behaviour of stabilized soft soil.” Procedia Engineering. 51,
2014. DOI: 10.1016/[Link].2013.12.015 pp. 125–131. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/[Link].2013.01.019
[19] Aldaood, A., Bouasker, M., Al-Mukhtar, M. “Impact of wetting–drying [31] Eberemu, A. O. “Evaluation of bagasse ash treated lateritic soil as a po-
cycles on the microstructure and mechanical properties of lime-stabi- tential barrier material in waste containment application.” Acta Geotech-
lized gypseous soils.” Engineering Geology. 174, pp. 11–21. 2014. DOI: nica. 8(4), pp. 407-421. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s11440-012-0204-5
10.1016/[Link].2014.03.002 [32] Degirmenci, N., Okucu, A., Turabi, A. “Application of Phosphogypsum
[20] Ghrici, M., Kenai, S., Said Mansour, M. “Mechanical properties and du- in Soil Stabilization.” Building and Environment. 42(9), pp. 3393–3398.
rability of mortar and concrete containing natural pozzolana and lime- 2007. DOI: 10.1016/[Link].2006.08.010
stone blended cements.” Cement and Concrete Composites. 29(7), pp. [33] McCarthy, M. J., Csetenyi, L. J., Sachdeva, A., Dhir, R. K. “Engineer-
542–549. 2007. DOI: 10.1016/[Link].2007.04.009 ing and durability properties of fly ash treated lime-stabilised sulphate-
[21] Harichane, K., Ghrici, M., Missoum, H. “Influence of natural pozzolana bearing soils.” Engineering Geology. 174, pp. 139-148. 2014. DOI:
and lime additives on the temporal variation of soil compaction and 10.1016/[Link].2014.03.001
shear strength.” Frontiers of Earth Science. 5(2), pp. 162–169. 2011. [34] Shi, C., Day, R. L. “Pozzolanic reaction in the presence of chemical acti-
DOI: 10.1007/s11707-011-0166-1 vators Part I. Reaction kinetics.” Cement and Concrete Research. 30(1),
[22] Harichane, K., Ghrici, M., Kenai, S. “Effect of the combination of lime pp. 51–58. 2000.
and natural pozzolana on the compaction and strength of soft clayey
soils: a preliminary study.” Environmental Earth Sciences. 66(8), pp.
2197–2205. 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-011-1441-x

Effect of Calcium Sulphate on the Geotechnical Properties of Stabilized Clayey Soils 2017 61 2 271

View publication stats