Accepted Manuscript

Assessment of strength development in stabilized soil with CBR PLUS and silica sand

Seyed Esmaeil Mousavi, Aliakbar Karamvand

PII: S2095-7564(16)30070-8
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtte.2017.02.002
Reference: JTTE 142

To appear in: Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English

Edition)

Received Date: 5 April 2016

Revised Date: 21 February 2017
Accepted Date: 22 February 2017

Please cite this article as: Mousavi, S.E., Karamvand, A., Assessment of strength development in
stabilized soil with CBR PLUS and silica sand, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English
Edition) (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jtte.2017.02.002.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Original Research Paper

Assessment of strength development in stabilized

soil with CBR PLUS and silica sand

PT
a, b
Seyed Esmaeil Mousavi *, Aliakbar Karamvand

RI
a
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan Branch,

SC
Zanjan, Iran
b
College of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Central Branch, Tehran, Iran

U
AN
Highlights

Addition of CBR PLUS to soil sample causes an abrupt increase in the dry density.
M

The soil specimen formulated at optimal mix design indicates the maximum CBR value.

CBR PLUS which mixes with the soil sample creates a more workable and less sensitive soil.
D

Abstract
TE

This paper investigates the potential use of a nano polymer stabilizer, namely CBR PLUS for

stabilization of soft clay and formulation of an optimal mix design of stabilized soil with CBR PLUS and
EP

silica sand. The highway settlements induced by the soft clay are problematic due to serious damages

in the form of cracks and deformation. With respect to this, soil compaction and stabilization is
C

regarded as a viable method to treat shallow soft clayey ground for supporting highway embankment.
AC

The objectives of this paper are: i) to stabilize the compacted soil with CBR PLUS and silica sand in

the laboratory; and ii) to evaluate the permeability, strength and California bearing ratio (CBR) of the

untreated and stabilized soil specimens. The suitability of stabilized soil was examined on the basis of

standard Proctor compaction, CBR, unconfined compression, direct shear, and falling head

permeability tests. Furthermore, the chemical composition of the materials was determined using X-

ray Fluorescence (XRF) test. It was found that the optimal mix design of the stabilized soil is 90% clay,

1% CBR PLUS, 9% silica sand. It is further revealed that, stabilization increases the CBR and

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
unconfined compressive strength of the combinations by almost 6-fold and 1.8-fold respectively. In

summary, a notable discovery is that the optimum mix design can be sustainably applied to stabilize

the shallow clay without failure.

Keywords: CBR PLUS; Clay; Silica sand; Permeability; Strength.

PT
Corresponding author. Tel: +98 919 650 6440.
Email address: mousavi.utn@gmail.com (S. E. Mousavi).

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction

Soil stabilization has often been the main concern of researchers in geotechnical sciences, and civil

engineers have always looked for solutions to stabilize and sustain the soil, besides having an

economical design (Laufer, 1967). A land-based structure of any type is only as strong as its

foundation. This implies that, soil is an essential and critical element influencing the success of a

construction project. Soil is either part of the foundation or one of the raw materials used in the

PT
construction process. Therefore, understanding the engineering properties of soil is crucial to obtain

strength and economic permanence. Soil stabilization is the process of maximizing the suitability of

RI
soil for a given construction purpose (Jihwan et al. 2015; Beeghly, 2003; Sharma et al. 2012; Bell,

SC
1995; Cai et al. 2006; Chen and Lin, 2009; Cabalar et al. 2016a; Saltan and Findik, 2008; Kosińska et

al. 2016). A novel approach to stabilize the clay is to use the CBR PLUS as a liquid soil stabilizer in

the compacted and stabilized soil. CBR PLUS chemically is known as sulphonic acid derivatives.

U
Sulphonic Acid, any of a class of organic acids containing sulfur and having the general formula
AN
RSO3H, in which R is an organic combining group (Musavi et al. 2014). It is worth noting that research

works on the application of CBR PLUS in soft clay stabilization are relatively scarce. According to
M

Taherkhani et al. 2012, CBR PLUS is an ionic synthetic organic thio compound, with surface active

properties. It transforms the hydrophilic nature (water adsorption) of the clay material into a
D

hydrophobic nature (water repellent) due to the formation of oily layers on the surface of soil and clay
TE

particles. CBR PLUS can be used to stabilize various types of soils with plasticity index (PI) > 11 and

clay content at least 15% (Abadjieva, 2001). It is obtained from beetroots and specially manufactured
EP

for the purpose of treating natural soils by improving the permeability, density and strength of

stabilized soils. CBR PLUS is a soluble adsorbed water displacing ionic additive which can make a
C

poor quality in-situ soil resist the effects of rain, so as to enable the road to be used at all times by light
AC

traffic without the need to hauling in and placing of a gravel layer. CBR PLUS is designed to increase

the osmotic and matric suction of typical clay based soils, while reducing the moisture susceptibility. It

is this behavior that increases the strength and stiffness of typical clay based soils, while also locking

in the gravel to minimize gravel loss. This treatment is long term and reduces both maintenance and

dust by up to 80% (CBR PLUS North American Inc., 2016a). Aside from engineering properties of

CBR PLUS, it is non-toxic, non-hazardous and non-flammable (Bagombeka, 2000; Ziaie Moayed and

Allahyari, 2012; CBR PLUS North American Inc., 2016b; CON-AID., 1998). Ziaie Moayed and

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Allahyari (2012) have recently documented that CBR PLUS is able to stabilize the various types of

soils containing some clay particles. Radgohar et al. (2010) further stipulated that stabilization of clay

with polymer could improve the unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized soil. The use of

micro and nanoscale additives such as CBR PLUS now becomes a matter, which deserves serious

considerations (Naeini and Ziaie Moayed, 2009; Naderinia, 2010; Naderinia and Naeini, 2009). As

demonstrated above, utilization of CBR PLUS to stabilize a wide spectrum of soils ranging from silty

PT
sands to gravel containing some clay particles (i.e. soil with cohesive properties) has been proven to

be efficient in providing additional bearing capacity and strength. This paper focuses on finding the

RI
most viable mix design of relevant materials that can effectively stabilize the shallow clay. In relation to

SC
this, the approach of mixing the soft clay with the materials is relevant in geotechnical industry.

Considering the fact that it is economical and sustainable to apply the selected mixtures of the

materials to improve the soil. The materials that are investigated in this research for the soil

U
improvement are CBR PLUS and silica sand. CBR PLUS is chosen for the study because it is
AN
regarded as a nano polymer stabilizer which can contribute to the enhancement of the soil strength

and bearing capacity. On the other hand, CBR PLUS is an environmentally-friendly material which
M

could reduce dust on unpaved roads. Previous studies have proven that CBR PLUS can be used to

stabilize clayey soils with ion exchange solution (Ziaie Moayed and Allahyari, 2012). Besides,
D

stabilization of soft clays with sand could improve swelling potential of the stabilized soil (Louafi and
TE

Bahar, 2012). Cabalar et al. (2016b) have found that engineering properties of clay could be improved

due to mixing the soil with waste ceramic tiles. Based on the findings by Cabalar et al. (2016b), the
EP

clay sample mixed with construction and demolition waste materials such as crushed brick, crushed

concrete and dragged asphalt has shown higher CBR and unconfined compressive strength than that
C

of untreated clay. It is also revealed that there has been an abrupt decrease in swelling percentage of
AC

the clay stabilized with crushed brick, crushed concrete and dragged asphalt. Cabalar and Karabash

(2015) recently have shown that addition of tire buffing and cement could drastically increase the CBR

of the soil sample. An alternative soil stabilization method using tire buffing and lime, used for

improvement of clay performance was suggested by Cabalar et al. (2014). It is notable that the main

focus of the research is to stabilize the compacted clay with CBR PLUS and silica sand in the

laboratory and to optimize the additives for the clay improvement. To this end, the CBR PLUS /

optimum water mixture (CBR PLUS in low amount) was mechanically mixed with soil in a soil mixer.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
With regard to this, the standard Proctor compaction test could be reliably carried out to gauge the dry

density of the stabilized soil. The results of standard Proctor compaction tests were used in

preparation of permeability falling head, unconfined compression, direct shear and CBR test

specimens. The objective of this study is to evaluate the strength and CBR of the untreated and

stabilized soil specimens.

2. Laboratory investigation

PT
2.1 Soil sample

For the purpose of the present study, 10 soil samples were taken from a depth of 2 m below the

RI
ground surface in the Taman Wetlands area in the state of Putrajaya. The samples were quite

SC
representative of the whole region. The experimental program was initiated by transporting the soil

samples to the Soil Mechanics Laboratory at UNITEN. Based on Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS), the soil was classified as silty sandy clay. The natural soil sample has the following

U
geotechnical properties: specific gravity is 2.46, liquid limit is 56%, plastic limit is 24%, plasticity index
AN
3
is 32%, pH is 7.1, optimum moisture content is 16.32%, and the maximum dry density is 1782 kg/m

(Mousavi and Wong, 2015). Particle size distribution curve of the soil sample is illustrated in Fig. 1.
M

Based on Fig. 1, the natural soil sample is composed of 62% clay, 38% silt and sand. A 62% clay

makes the soil sample suitable for stabilizing with CBR PLUS. The X-ray diffraction (XRD) technique
D

was used to determine the natural soil mineralogical composition. It is revealed that Taman Wetlands
TE

soil consists mainly of quartz and subordinate kaolinite. Also, its clay fraction is composed of a

significant amount of illite. The location of the soil sample in the plasticity chart is illustrated in Fig. 2.
EP

Besides, for the purpose of particle grading modifier, silica sand was collected from Civil Engineering

Laboratory of UNITEN. The silica sand used in this study has the following properties: D60 is the
C

maximum size of the smallest 60% of the particles and its value is 0.18 mm; specific gravity is 2.71;
AC

3
maximum dry density is 1580 kg/m . The particle size distribution curve of the silica sand is also

plotted in Fig. 1. Furthermore, the chemical compositions of the oven dried soil and silica sand by

percentage weight of the total chemical composition from X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) tests are

specified in Table 1. Based on Table 1, a chemical composition of 89.0111% SiO2 affirms that quartz

is the major constituent of the silica sand. By inspecting Table 1, it can be observed that in the oven

dried clay the sum of AL2O3 and SiO2 is 76.6873%. This is attributed to a very high amount of clay

minerals in the soil sample.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Fig. 1 Particle size distribution curves of the natural soil sample and silica sand (Mousavi and Wong,

2015).

SC
Table 1 XRF results of the natural soil sample and silica sand.

Oxide compound

U Mass percentage (%)

AN
Silica sand Oven dried soil

Al2O3 5.18 21.42

M

SiO2 89.01 55.26

SO3 0.14 -
D

K2O 1.46 6.86

TE

CaO 0.34 1.63

TiO2 1.40 2.47

EP

Fe2O3 1.03 12.22

Others 1.44 0.14

C
AC

Fig. 2 Location of the natural soil sample in the plasticity chart.

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2.2 CBR PLUS

CBR PLUS was prepared from Iran Polymer Company. CBR PLUS as soil stabilizer and dust

suppressant product is intended for use in diluted form, primarily as a soil compaction aid and

stabilizer in the construction and maintenance of unpaved roads and construction sites (Filice and

Gavin, 2012). The mechanism of CBR PLUS which functions as oily layers on the surface of clay

particles and removes adsorbed water is indicated in Fig. 3.

PT
RI
SC
Fig. 3 Mechanism of the CBR PLUS (Ziaie Moayed and Allahyari, 2012).

The physico-chemical properties of the CBR PLUS are tabulated in Table 2. According to CBR

PLUS North American Inc. (2016a), CBR PLUS is a highly concentrated liquid, of which 100 L treats
2

U
about 4000 to 20000 m of soil to a depth of 15 cm when diluted with water. CBR PLUS is available in
AN
the form of chocolate-brown viscous fluid with very complicated cells. Each cell includes a tail and

head. Basically, the head of a cell is hydrophilic and the tail of it is hydrophobic (Fig. 4). Since CBR
M

PLUS is a strongly concentrated liquid, the rate of reduction in adsorbed water from the soil particles is

of interest to practice.
D

Table 2 Physico-chemical properties of CBR PLUS.

TE

Appearance Chocolate brown viscous fluid

General formula R-SO3H

EP

Odour Sulphurous odour

Physical state Viscous fluid

C

Freezing point (℃) < -10

AC

Boiling point (℃) 100

pH 0.9

Specific gravity (Gs) 0.94

Coefficient water/oil 100% water soluble

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 4 A CBR PLUS cell (Taherkhani et al., 2012).

2.3 Mix design

PT
The proportions of the soil sample, CBR PLUS, and silica sand used in the mixed design for the

fabrication of test specimens are specified in Table 3. In order to stabilize the soil sample, 5 mixes with

RI
various amounts of CBR PLUS and silica sand were prepared. CBR PLUS ranged from 0 to 1%, by

weight of the optimum water content. It is noticeable that 0 to 1% CBR PLUS for the soil stabilization

SC
purpose is commonly used by Taherkhani et al. (2012) and Ziaie Moayed and Allahyari (2012). Silica

sand was designed between 0 to 10% by dry weight of the natural soil sample, meanwhile CBR PLUS

U
varied from 0 to 1%. The natural soil sample without CBR PLUS and silica sand was also investigated.
AN
The trial mix designs of the soil sample and additives are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Trial mix designs of the soil sample and additives under study.
M

Test specimen Mix designation CBR PLUS in 1 L water (cc)

Natural soil sample Untreated soil 0.0

D

Stabilized soil 0 CBR PLUS, 10.00% silica sand 0.0

TE

0.25% CBR PLUS, 9.75% silica sand 1.5

0.50% CBR PLUS, 9.50% silica sand 3.0
0.75% CBR PLUS, 9.25% silica sand 4.5
EP

1.00% CBR PLUS, 9.00% silica sand 6.0

2.4 Specimen preparation

C

The soil sample was oven dried at the temperature of 105 ℃ ± 5 ℃, then cooled at room temperature
AC

and sieved (passing a 2 mm sieve size) to remove the clumps, and finally homogenized. In order to

stabilize the soil sample with CBR PLUS and silica sand, CBR PLUS was slowly diluted with optimum

water content in a mixer. Later, solution was added to the soil sample containing silica sand and

further mixing durations were applied on the mixture so as to ensure a satisfactory homogeneity. The

soil admixture was transferred to the relevant mould and test specimen was prepared. Then, the test

specimens were thereafter sealed in plastic bags for 28 days as recommended by Taherkhani et al.

(2012). The test specimens were then left at ambient laboratory temperature (25 ℃ ± 1 ℃). During the

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
time, the density of the test specimens was monitored by measuring the volume of the specimens

using a caliper (± 0.001 mm). Moreover, the moisture content of the soil specimens was monitored by

weighing (± 0.001 g). It should be noted that, little variation in moisture content and density were

observed. Over time, a pronounced impact of optimum moisture content and CBR PLUS amount was

observed; in a way that CBR PLUS removes the adsorbed water from soil particles and leads to the

flocculation of the particles thus stabilizes the soil specimen. Generally, the prolonged duration (28

PT
days) helped to a continuous formation of stabilization that strengthened the soil specimens.

2.5. Methodology

RI
For the purpose of standard Proctor compaction test, the supplied soil admixture was tamped in a

SC
compaction mould in three equal layers (ASTM D698). Each soil layer was compacted for 25 blows

similar to that of conducted by Mousavi and Wong (2015). To prevent moisture loss, compacted soil

specimens were sealed in plastic bags. The unconfined compression test specimens were trimmed

U
from the circular compaction test specimens. The height of the specimen is corrected to 100 mm and
AN
unconfined compression (UC) tests were carried out as described in ASTM D2166-06. It should be

noted that the UC test specimens were designed with a height to diameter ratio of 2. The UC tests
M

were carried out at a constant vertical displacement rate of 1 mm/min. Other than Proctor and UC

tests, permeability falling head, direct shear, and CBR tests were also carried out. The falling head
D

test was applied to determine the coefficient of permeability of both untreated and stabilized soil
TE

specimens. The test was conducted at room temperature in accordance with ASTM D5084-03. Direct

shear tests were applied on soil specimens as stated in ASTM D3080-04. For this purpose, the square
EP

soil specimen with dimension of 60 mm and height of 30 mm was trimmed from the circular compacted

soil specimen. The rate of shearing was adjusted on 0.5 mm/min. The test specimen was sheared
C

under the application of 10.90 kPa, 21.80 kPa, 43.60 kPa, and 87.20 kPa normal stresses. To
AC

evaluate bearing capacity of the soil specimens, CBR tests were performed as described in ASTM

D1883-14. Note that, all laboratory tests were conducted according to the ASTM standard and all the

test specimens were tested at optimum water content and maximum dry density.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Plasticity behavior

The relationship between plasticity index and CBR PLUS amount is established in Fig. 5. From Fig. 5,

an improvement of index properties of the stabilized soil for up to 1% CBR PLUS addition with a

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
decrease in plasticity index (PI) from 31% to 14% can be seen. Hence, CBR PLUS affects the

plasticity index by improving the sensitivity of the soil sample to moisture. This is due to cation

exchange capacity that occurs when the soil sample is stabilized with the CBR PLUS (Ziaie Moayed

and Allahyari, 2012). Therefore, the reduction in the plasticity index is due to decrease in the amount

of ions in the soil sample and thereby, decrease the amount of ion-exchange solution required for the

soil stabilization.

PT
RI
U SC
Fig. 5 Effect of CBR PLUS on plasticity index of the stabilized soil specimens.
AN
Influence of stabilization with CBR PLUS and silica sand on the soil sample is indicated in Fig. 6.

Based on Fig. 6 the swelling potential of the soft clay is significantly improved due to addition of silica
M

sand and a nano polymer stabilizer in the form of CBR PLUS. It is observable from Fig. 6 that

stabilization of the soft clay with 1% CBR PLUS and 9% silica sand improves the swelling potential of
D

the stabilized soil specimen by almost 8-fold. These positive results imply that the amount of ion
TE

exchange decreased in the test specimen due to the addition of CBR PLUS to the soil sample.

Meanwhile, by removing the adsorbed water from the clay particles it becomes more hydrophobic and
EP

less sensitive to moisture, thus the swelling of the soil specimen is reduced. Ziaie Moayed and

Allahyari (2012) also stipulated that ion exchange solution could permanently stabilize clayey soils.
C
AC

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 6 Effect of stabilization with CBR PLUS and silica sand on swelling potential of the stabilized soil

specimens.

3.2 pH

Effect of stabilization with CBR PLUS and silica sand on pH of stabilized soil specimens are illustrated

in Fig. 7. The pH value of stabilized soil admixture corresponding to 1.00% CBR PLUS amount was

found to be 7.3. Based on Fig. 7, there is a trend of progressive decrease in the pH values of

PT
stabilized soil admixtures with increasing CBR PLUS content. From Fig. 7 it can be seen that all the

stabilized soil specimens exceeded the minimal required pH of 7 as mentioned by Wong et al. (2013).

RI
Therefore, the stabilized soil specimens are in alkaline condition.

U SC
AN
M

Fig. 7 Effect of stabilization with CBR PLUS and silica sand on pH of stabilized soil specimens.

3.3 Standard Proctor compaction

D

The effect of stabilization with CBR PLUS and silica sand on compact ability of the untreated and
TE

stabilized soil specimens are illustrated in Fig. 8. Based on Fig. 8, maximum dry density of the soil

specimens increased with the increase of CBR PLUS amount. It is shown in Fig. 8 that the highest
EP

3
value of maximum dry density is 1.993 t/m , which is corresponding to the stabilized soil with 1.00%

CBR PLUS and 9.00% silica sand. This positive result implies that CBR PLUS functions as an oily
C

layer on the surface of soil particles eliminating the adsorption of water which is chemically bound with

the soil particles, and this facilitates the compaction, thus increasing the interlocking of soil particles as
AC

well as maximum dry density (Ziaie Moayed and Allahyari, 2012). Meanwhile, the steady decrease in

the optimum moisture content with increasing CBR PLUS content is attributable to the ability of the

CBR PLUS to induce less water sorptivity in the test specimen at its maximum dry density. After

judging the trend of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the test specimens, it was

decided to further evaluate the effect of CBR PLUS on the untreated and stabilized soil specimen with

1.00% CBR PLUS and 9.00% silica sand under laboratory direct shear, unconfined compression, and

CBR tests.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Fig. 8 Dry density-moisture content relationships of 28-day untreated and stabilized soils.

SC
3.4 Coefficient of permeability

The permeability falling head test was applied on 100 mm diameter and 121 mm height of the

U
untreated and stabilized soil specimens. Results of falling head tests are indicated in Figs. 9 and 10.
AN
From Fig. 9, it can be observed that the permeability of the soil specimen without CBR PLUS (i.e.,

9.00% silica sand) was drastically increased. This implies that the addition of more silica sand imposes
M

more porous and higher permeability. The kv values of stabilized soil specimens with 0, 0.25%, 0.50%,

0.75%, and 1.00% CBR PLUS were found to range from 0.00700 to 0.00001 cm/d. Such range of
D

permeability rates is relatively vast, which implies that addition of CBR PLUS significantly alter the

hydraulic conductivity of the soil sample. Similarly, a study conducted by Taherkhani et al. (2012) on
TE

stabilization of local soil with CBR PLUS supports the present results. Taherkhani et al. (2012), have

found that the kv value at 20 ℃ of local soil is 0.00800 cm/d. It is documented by Taherkhani et al.
EP

(2012) that the permeability rate of stabilized soil with 0.25%, 0.50%, and 0.75% CBR PLUS is almost

zero. Thus, such rate of permeability is very close to that investigated in this work.
C
AC

Fig. 9 Variation of coefficient of permeability of stabilized soil specimens.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
Fig. 10 Effect of stabilization on coefficient of permeability.
AN
3.5 Direct shear

In order to evaluate shear strength parameters, the untreated and stabilized soil with 1.00% CBR
M

PLUS and 9.00% silica sand were sheared under four normal stresses of 10.90 kPa, 21.80 kPa, 43.60

kPa, 87.20 kPa. The corresponding shear stress–horizontal strain curves for the test specimens were
D

plotted as shown in Fig. 11 (a) and (b). It is observable in Fig. 11 (a) and (b) that there was an obvious
TE

trend of shear stress increase with horizontal strain before failure. Indeed, the increase of the peak

shear stress was very much dependent on the increase of its normal stress. Besides, Fig. 11 (c) and
EP

(d) indicates strength envelope, which was obtained from the direct shear tests. The respective

cohesion and internal friction angle of the stabilized soil were found to be 103 kPa and 26°. Comparing

the results of stabilized soil with those of untreated soil, it could be concluded that the test specimen
C

with a mix design of 1.00% CBR PLUS and 9.00% Silica sand increased its shear strength by almost
AC

1.9-fold. This is partially attributed to the CBR PLUS that adsorbed the soil particles by forming oily

layers on the surface, thus strongly increased cohesion of the stabilized soil.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(a) (b)

PT
RI
SC
(c) (d)

U
AN
M
D

Fig. 11 Shear stress figures. (a) Shear stress-horizontal strain relationships of untreated soil. (b)
TE

Shear stress-horizontal strain relationships of stabilized soil. (c) Strength envelope line of untreated

soil. (d) Strength envelope line of stabilized soil.

EP

3.6 Unconfined compression

C

The relationships between unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and vertical strain of the untreated
AC

and stabilized soil specimen with 1.00% CBR PLUS and 9.00% silica sand are established in Fig. 12.

The unconfined compressive strength of untreated and stabilized soil was found to be 228 kPa and

421 kPa respectively. This provides an indication that the stabilized soil specimen had tremendous

improvement in term of unconfined compressive strength. The binder composition of the stabilized soil

specimen with 1.00% CBR PLUS and 9.00% silica sand enhanced the unconfined compressive

strength by almost 1.8-fold in comparison to that of the untreated soil. It is observable that CBR PLUS

plays a significant role in the enhancement of flocculation and soil particle stability. This leads to

increase in the electrostatic attraction among the soil particles due to the adhesivity of CBR PLUS.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Thus, the strong bond between the soil particles could be formed which increases the strength of the

stabilized soil. The vertical strains corresponding to the untreated and stabilized soil specimens with

the binder composition of 1.00% CBR PLUS and 9.00% silica sand were 17% and 15% respectively.

Therefore, untreated and stabilized soil specimens both exhibited a ductile behavior at failure under

unconfined compression due to the plasticity of the clay and CBR PLUS addition. It is noticeable from

Fig. 12 that the pattern of increase in unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized soil over axial

PT
strain can be linked to its continuous development of modulus of elasticity (Fig. 13). This provides an

indication that the higher the unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized soil with a binder

RI
composition of 1.00% CBR PLUS and 9.00% silica sand the higher its modulus of elasticity, which

SC
implies a greater stiffness.

U
AN
M
D

Fig. 12 Unconfined compressive stress-vertical strain relationships of untreated and stabilized soils.
TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 13 Implication of modulus of elasticity of stabilized soil specimens with CBR PLUS.

Effect of stabilization with various CBR PLUS and silica sand content on unconfined

compressive strength of soil specimens over time is illustrated in Fig. 14. Based on Fig. 14 the

variation of unconfined compressive strength of stabilized soil specimens during the time is shown. As

seen, an increase in CBR PLUS amount from 0.25% to 1.00% induced a drastic improvement in

unconfined compressive strength for soil specimens. It should be noted that during the time, CBR

PLUS acts on the soil particle, eliminates the adsorbed water from the particles, reduces ion mobility,

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and simultaneously makes the material hydrophobic. This can be observed in Fig. 14 in which

unconfined compressive strength of the soil specimens gradually increased from 24 h (1-day) to 672 h

(28-day).

PT
RI
SC
Fig. 14 Effect of stabilization with CBR PLUS and silica sand on unconfined compressive strength of
soil specimens over time.

U
3.7 CBR

The graphical relationships between load and penetration of the test specimens are illustrated in Fig.
AN
15. From Fig. 15 it can be seen that the stabilized test specimen with a binder composition of 1.00%

CBR PLUS and 9.00% silica sand positively increased the soil bearing capacity. This points that the
M

surface contact areas of soil particles exposed to an extremely thin layer of CBR PLUS and allowed

water to be driven out of the soil matrix. Therefore, the stabilized soil can be compacted to a higher
D

density. This strengthened the stabilized soil and thus the amount of load for penetration decreased,
TE

which resulted in the CBR increase. Besides, the CBR value of the soil specimens decreased with the

increase of plasticity index (PI) of the soil sample. It can be stated that, as the PI of the soil increases,
EP

the optimum water content also increases, hence the maximum dry density and bearing capacity of

the soil decline. The mean CBR values corresponding to the untreated and stabilized soils were 4.5%
C

and 28% respectively. On the basis of additive amount, the quantity of additive must be sufficient to
AC

achieve a threshold effect for the soil stabilization to be effective (Wong et al. 2013). Based on the

correlation between unconfined compressive strength and CBR reported by Purwana and Nikraz

(2013) and Khalid et al. (2014), the minimal required CBR of the soil specimens should be about 25%.

A CBR value that exceeded the minimal required CBR of 25% was achieved by the stabilized soil with

1.00% CBR PLUS and 9.00% silica sand (Fig. 16). A comparison can be carried out between the

results of the present work and those of reported by Taherkhani et al. (2012). The difference between

the results is related to the nature of the soil types, their properties, and different additive amounts.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Fig. 15 Load-penetration relationships of the untreated soil and stabilized soil specimen with 1.00%

CBR PLUS, 9.00% silica sand.

RI
U SC
AN
Fig. 16 Effect of CBR PLUS amount on CBR of the stabilized soil.
M

4. Conclusions
D

CBR PLUS affects the index properties by improving the workability of the soil sample and its
TE

sensitivity to moisture. From the results of this study, the following conclusions are drawn.

(1) The compacted soil was successfully stabilized with CBR PLUS and silica sand in the
EP

laboratory. The optimal mix design of the stabilized soil was found to be 1.00% CBR PLUS and 9.00%

silica sand.
C

(2) The stabilized soil with 1.00% CBR PLUS and 9.00% silica sand compacted to a better
AC

particle-interlock state under standard Proctor compaction. The compacted soil stabilized at the
3
optimal mix design has the highest maximum dry density of 1.993 t/m .

(3) An abrupt decrease was observed for the coefficient of permeability with increased CBR PLUS
-6
amount. The coefficient of permeability of the optimal mix design was determined 1×10 cm/d.

(4) There is a significant improvement in term of strength of the soil stabilized at the optimal mix

design. The shear strength of the stabilized soil is 1.9 times greater than that of untreated soil.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(5) The unconfined compressive strength and CBR of the stabilized soil increased by about 1.8-

fold and 6-fold respectively as compared to that of untreated soil.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Islamic Azad University for providing suitable facilities to

conduct the laboratory investigation. We would also like to thank all the parties involved in this work.

PT
RI
References

SC
Abadjieva, T., 2001. Chemical stabilisation for low cost roads in Botswana. In: First Road

Transportation Technology Transfer Conference in Africa, Tanzania, 2001.

Bagombeka, B., 2000. Why CON-AID is Becoming Increasingly Popular, Construction Review.

U
College Publishers SK (Pty) Ltd, Johannesburg.
AN
Beeghly, J.H., 2003. Recent experiences with lime-fly ash stabilization of pavement subgrade soils,

base, and recycled asphalt. In: International Ash Utilization Sumposium, Lexington, 2003.
M

Bell, F.G., 1995. Cement stabilization and clay soils, with examples. Environmental and Engineering

Geoscience 1(2), 139–151.

D

Cabalar, A.F., Abdulnafaa, M.D., Karabash, Z., 2016b. Influences of various construction and
TE

demolition materials on the behavior of a clay. Environmental Earth Sciences 75(5), 841-856.

Cabalar, A.F., Hassan, D.I., Abdulnafaa, M.D., 2016a. Use of waste ceramic tiles for road pavement
EP

subgrade. Road Materials and Pavement Design 18(4), 882-896.

Cabalar, A.F., Karabash, Z., 2015. California bearing ratio of a sub-base material modified with waste
C

tire buffings and cement addition. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 43(6), 1279-1287.
AC

Cabalar, A.F., Karabash, Z., Mustafa W. S., 2014. Stabilising a clay using tyre buffings and lime. Road

Materials and Pavement Design 15(4), 872–891.

Cai, Y., Shi, B., Ng, C.W.W., et al., 2006. Effect of polypropylene fibre and lime admixture on

engineering properties of clayey soil. Engineering Geology 87(3-4), 230–240.

Chen, L., Lin, D., 2009. Stabilization treatment of soft subgrade soil by sewage sludge ash and

cement. Journal of Hazardous Materials 162(1), 321–327.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CBR PLUS North American Inc., 2016a. Technical Information on Soil Stabilization Using Liquid

Chemical Soil Stabilizers. CBR PLUS North American Inc., Surrey B.C.

CBR PLUS North American Inc., 2016b. Report on the Various Toxicity Tests and Shemical Analysis

of the CBR PLUS Anionic Synthetic Thio Compound. CBR PLUS North American Inc., Surrey

B.C.

CON-AID., 1998. Consumer Guidelines for the CON-AID Super, CBR PLUS and CBR Classis for the

PT
Construction of Roads. CON-AID, Florida.

Filice, J., Gavin, J., 2012. Review of CBR Plus Soil Stabilizer and Dust Suppressant. Government of

RI
Alberta Transportation, Edmonton.

SC
Jihwan, K., Chongku, Y., Goangseup, Z., 2015. Waste glass sludge as a partial cement replacement

in mortar. Construction and Building Materials 75(30), 242-246.

Khalid, N., Arshad, M.F., Mukri, M., et al., 2014. The California bearing ratio (CBR) value for banting

U
soft soil subgrade stabilized using lime-pofa mixtures. Electronic Journal of Geofechnical
AN
Engineering 19, 155-163.

Kosińska, J., Boczkaj, G., Gałęzowska, G., et al., 2016. Determination of modifier contents in polymer-
M

modified bitumens and in samples collected from the roads using high-performance gel

permeation/size-exclusion chromatography. Road Materials and Pavement Design 17(3), 547-

D

562.
TE

Laufer, B., 1967. Chinese Clay Figures, Part 1: Prolegomena on the History of Defensive Armor.

Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish.

EP

Louafi, B., Bahar, R., 2012. Sand: an additive for stabilization of swelling clay soils. International

Journal of Geoscience 13(4), 719-725.

C

Mousavi, S.E., Wong, L.S., 2015. Performance of compacted and stabilized clay with cement, peat
AC

ash and silica sand. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering 9(1), 20-32.

Musavi, F., Abdi, E., Estabragh, A.R., et al., 2014. Assesing the capability of polymer stabilizer in

forest road stabilization (case study: Kheyrud forest). Iranian Journal of Forest 6(1), 1-10.

Naeini, S.A., Ziaie Moayed, R., 2009. Effect of plasticity index and reinforcement on the CBR value of

soft clay. International Journal of Civil Engineerng 7(2), 61-69.

Naderinia, B., 2010. Effects of Polymer and Plasticity Index on Strength Properties Clayey Soils (M.Sc.

thesis). International University of Imam Khomeini, Qazvin.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Naderinia, B., Naeini, S.A., 2009. The influence of polymer inclusion and plasticity index on the

unconfined compression strength of clays. In: 2nd International Conference on New

Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Lefkoşa, 2009.

Purwana, Y.M., Nikraz, H., 2013. The correlation between the CBR and shear strength in unsaturated

soil conditions. International Journal of Transportation Engineering 1(3), 79-87.

Radgohar, E., Sahraeian, R., Hashemi, S.A., et al., 2010. Soil stabilization using nano-polymers. In:

PT
The First National Conference on Engineering and Infrastructure Management, Tehran, 2010.

Saltan, M., Findik, F.S., 2008. Stabilization of subbase layer materials with waste pumice in flexible

RI
pavement. Building and Environment 43(4), 415-421.

SC
Sharma, N.K., Swain, S.K., Sahoo, U.C., 2012. Stabilization of a clayey soil with fly-ash and lime: a

micro level investigation. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 30(5), 1197-1205.

Taherkhani, H., Hashemi, A., Sharifi, V., 2012. Evaluating the use of CBR PLUS for constructing the

U
pavement layers from stabilized soils. Journal of Transportation Engineering 3(12), 339-344.
AN
Wong, L.S., Hashim, R., Ali, F., 2013. Improved strength and reduced permeability of stabilized peat:

Focus on application of kaolin as a pozzolanic additive. Construction and Building Materials 40,
M

783-792.

Ziaie Moayed, R., Allahyari, F., 2012. Determination of required ion exchange solution for stabilizing
D

clayey soils with various PI. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 6(1), 940-
TE

944.
C EP
AC

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Through more than 18 years working experiences, Dr. Seyed Esmaeil Mousavi gained experiences in

PT
project management, managing site investigation work (in-situ tests), lab work testing, soil and rock

investigation, managing project (admin, technical work, project cost), slope risk project, highway and

RI
drainage project, slope stability analysis, soil and rock characteristic and remedial work design. He

SC
found him interested in both structural and geotechnical engineering during his career, therefore he

continued his education to achieve PhD in civil engineering at Universiti Tenaga Nasional in Malaysia.

Currently he is a lecturer of civil engineering at Islamic Azad University.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

21