Stabilization of Subgrade Soil Using

Polyacrylamide-Based Additive

Romel N. Georgees1,2(&) and Rayya A. Hassan1

1
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
rgeorgees@swin.edu.au,eldadoner@yahoo.com
2
Kirkuk University, Kirkuk, Iraq

Abstract. In Australia, polymers have been used as pavement material stabi-

lizer or dust suppressant for unsealed roads. However, the use of polymers, as
stabilizers of pavement materials, has not been fully accepted by Australian
Road Authorities as a standard practice since they do not have relevant design
processes. Therefore, this study has been carried out to better understand the
benefits of using a polyacrylamide-based additive (PAM) in stabilizing pave-
ment construction materials. In this study, a synthetic PAM was used to stabilize
three types of soil used in unsealed pavement construction. Unconfined Com-
pressive Strength, California Bearing Ratio and erosion tests were conducted to
evaluate the performance of soils treated with PAM. The results showed a
significant overall increase in strength for all soil types with varying degrees.
The results also showed improvements in bearing capacity of all the treated soils
and their erosion resistance.

Keywords: Pavement materials
Subbase
Unconfined compressive strength

California Bearing Ratio
Erosion resistance

1 Introduction

Australian State and Federal governments are under pressure to design, build and
maintain road infrastructure within the conservative funds available. Furthermore, the
public are constantly demanding higher performing roads that are environmentally
sustainable (via using more recycled materials or improved marginal quality materials).
This has created a focus on the development of innovative construction techniques that
allow low quality local materials to be used in road pavement construction. This is
particularly important in the urban environment where high quality aggregates are
scarce and associated transport costs are high.
The stabilization of pavement materials using cementitious additives has proven to
be a successful and reliable technique to increase the performance of pavement
materials and prolong the service life of a pavement structure. However, to be effective,
large quantities of such additives are required as well as relatively long curing times.
This will significantly increase the construction time and associated costs. The other
drawback of using a cementitious type additive is that it increases the risk of reflective
cracking in the asphaltic surface layer (Judy et al. 2005; Rodway 2001). Therefore, the
development of non-traditional stabilizers, such as polymers, have gained significant

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

H. Shehata and H. Poulos (Eds.): GeoMEast 2018, SUCI, pp. 101–111, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01917-4_8
102 R. N. Georgees and R. A. Hassan

attention recently as they have demonstrated effectiveness in the field with regards to
reducing permeability, increased durability, and being non-time dependent during
mixing and compaction, as well as being more environmentally sustainable (Camarena
2013; Wilmot 1994).
The principal function of most of these polymers is to provide a distinctive
hydrophobic characteristic to the treated layer to preserve an adequate dry strength for
moisture-susceptible materials, in addition to providing a bonding action between
particles (Wilmot and Rodway 2000). Polyacrylamide (PAM), which is a hydrophilic
polymer, has been used in the field of agriculture for nearly half a century due to its
ability to increase infiltration and decrease irrigation-induced erosion (Sojka et al.
2007). Yet, until recently its use to stabilize pavement materials has been very rare.
Deng et al. (2012) tested the effectiveness of a polyacrylamide-based additive on
changing the engineering behaviour of a highly plastic clay soil with the aim of
establishing the failure mode of the soil treated with PAM. It was concluded that the
addition of PAM showed an increase in failure strain of the plastic clay soil, which
increased its flexibility. Another extensive experimental test by Roa-Espinosa and
Mikel (2004) was carried out to assess the effect of PAM in reducing dust generation in
a sandy soil of helicopter lands at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center
(MCAGCC) in California, USA. Roa-Espinosa and Mikel (2004) concluded that PAM
was effective in reducing dust generation, when comparing treated plots with the
untreated ones.
The only available published Australian study to evaluate the effect of PAM on the
durability of pavement material was performed in the field (Andrews and Sharp 2010).
The study comprised of evaluating an unsealed road pavement after being stabilized
with PAM. The treated pavement section was 400 m long and 8 m wide and comprised
of silty sand soil. Performance of the PAM-stabilized pavement was monitored over 18
months. It was found that the untreated pavement sections deteriorated rapidly over the
first 12 months due to environmental and traffic conditions, whereas the treated sections
maintained their structural integrity throughout the entire 18 months monitoring period.
In particular, the surface of the untreated section developed into a rough and open
texture with many loose particles, while the treated section showed a tighter texture
with very few loose particles.
Due to the success of the abovementioned field trial, an extensive and systematic
laboratory investigation was performed to assess the potential durability improvements
of PAM-treated materials used for select fills or granular subbase materials. The
additive used in this study was an “off-the-shelf” product that is currently available in
Australia and has demonstrated positive results in the field.

2 Materials and Testing Methods

Three different types of soils from three different sites in Australia were selected and
referred to herein as soils A, B and C. These soils were retrieved form in-situ stabi-
lization projects. The samples typically comprised of up to 20 mm aggregate size.
The polymeric additive used in this study was a synthetic soluble anionic poly-
acrylamide (PAM), which is produced in granular form. The PAM has a moderate
 Stabilization of Subgrade Soil Using Polyacrylamide 103

charge density of about 18% and a high molecular weight of typically 12–15 Mg/mol.
The product is a non-toxic water-soluble material with a specific gravity of 0.8 and a
PH value of 6.9 at 25 °C.
Physical characterization tests of the soils, including plasticity limit, liquid limit and
plasticity index as well as particle size distribution were performed using Australian
Standards. Classification of the soils according to unified soil classification system
(USCS) were then determined (ASTM 2011). The geotechnical properties as well as
classifications of these soils according to the USCS, along with particle size propor-
tions and the above indices are tabulated in Table 1. The particle size distribution plots
of these soils are presented in Fig. 1.

Table 1. Properties of soil types A, B and C

Properties Soil A Soil B Soil C
% Gravel (4.75–19.0 mm) 33.2 29.6 13.2
% Sand (0.075–4.75 mm) 56.8 46.4 36.8
% Fines (˂0.075 mm) 10.0 24.0 50.0
% Clay (<2 µm) 0.85 2.75 13.5
Liquid limit (%) 22.2 23.8 31.4
Plastic limit (%) N/A 12.8 15.1
Plasticity index (%) N/A 11 16.3
Optimum moisture content (%) 5.6 8.5 12.5
Max dry density (g/m3) 2.35 2.01 1.96
Water absorption: average (%) 3.2 16.5 6.8
Soil classification, (USCS) (SP-SM) (SC) (CL)

Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of soils type A, B and C

104 R. N. Georgees and R. A. Hassan

Sieve analysis and hydrometer test results showed that the soils had a wide range of
gradations ranging from well to medium and poorly graded for soil types A, B and C,
respectively. According to the USCS classification system, soil type A is a coarse-
grained soil of sand and gravel with silt (poorly graded, non-plastic), soil type B is a
coarse-grained Clayey Sand with gravel (moderately plastic), and soil type C is a fine-
grained Sandy clay with gravel. Referring to Table 1, one can conclude that the reason
for the abnormal water absorption of soil type B (16.5%) is because of the highly
porosity nature of soil.
Subsequently after physical characterization tests, unconfined compressive strength
(UCS), California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and erosion resistance tests were undertaken in
order to determine the shear strength property and sealing capacity of PAM in terms of
reducing water erosion actions.

2.1 Sample Preparation

Laboratory test samples were prepared in accordance with relevant Australian stan-
dards. The required amount of PAM was determined according to the supplier’s rec-
ommendation, which was 0.002% by dry weight of the soil. After mixing the soil-water
mixture, samples were kept in sealed plastic bags and stored at room temperature for
24 h to allow even moisture distribution. The maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content of treated and untreated specimens were determined using the Aus-
tralian modified compaction test (AS 2003).

2.2 UCS Testing

For the UCS test, samples were compacted in Australian modified compaction moulds
in five layers. However, based on preliminary experimental results for the treated soils
with PAM, the optimum compaction efforts for the three soil types, were found to be 45
blows per layer (i.e. 4,961 kNm/m3) for soil type A, and 35 blows per layer (i.e.
3,868 kNm/m3) for soil types B and C. These compaction energies were then applied to
both treated and untreated samples. These compaction efforts represent the optimum for
each soil type. They were determined after a number of trials, including 25, 35 and 45
blows per layer, to ensure that the performance of laboratory prepared samples is
comparable with relevant observed field performance.
Specimens were removed from the split moulds after compaction and stored in a
curing room at a temperature of 25 ± 3 °C and relative humidity of 50 ± 0.5% until a
constant mass was reached. The specimens were then sprayed with water containing
dissolved PAM and left to dry back until a constant mass was reached. This procedure
was used to simulate the sealing capacity of the polymer when used in the field, in
which PAM is distributed evenly across the treated materials, but highly concentrated
on the surface of the lift. These dried specimens were then subjected to a wet condition
before being tested following the procedure outlined by Santoni et al. (2002). The only
difference was the duration of soaking, in which a specimen was placed on its side in a
 Stabilization of Subgrade Soil Using Polyacrylamide 105

25.4 mm of water for 30 min rather than 15 min. After soaking, the specimen was left
to drain for 5 min (to remove the excess water) before being tested via the UCS test.
The specimens were then loaded either to the point where the load reached a maximum
value and then decreased with increasing strain, or until 15% strain was reached
(ASTM 2008). Typical sample (wet condition) is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Wet sample (treated or untreated) during the UCS test.

2.3 CBR Testing

In this study the CBR testing was carried out to evaluate the potential improvement in
bearing capacity of the three types of soils after being stabilised with PAM. Three
specimens were prepared per sample (treated and untreated) in order to ensure reliable
results. Anomalous results were discarded and replaced by other prepared samples. The
test was conducted in accordance with Australian Standards AS 1289. 6.1.1 (AS 1998).
The soils were compacted in a mould with a diameter of 152 mm and a height of
117 mm. The specimens were prepared by compacting five layers with the same
optimal compactive energy as per the UCS specimens. The specimens were prepared
according to dry condition. This was carried out when the specimens were left to dry
back in air dry condition for 14 days. A surcharge of 4.5 kg loading was applied during
the curing period to simulate pavement material loading above the tested layer (Vic-
roads 1998). Since the CBR test was conducted on dry condition, treated samples were
not being sprayed with the dissolved PAM.
106 R. N. Georgees and R. A. Hassan

2.4 Erosion Testing

For the erosion resistance test, a method proposed by Jones and Ventura (2003) was
used. Samples were compacted in Australian modified compaction moulds following
the same optimum compaction efforts used for the preparation of UCS’s specimens for
the three soil types. The treated specimens were also sprayed with water containing
dissolved PAM (after drying back to a constant mass) and left to dry back in an oven
with 50 °C until a constant mass was reached. After drying back, specimens were then
positioned in the erosion apparatus and subjected to a constant head of one meter of
water flow to simulate the water flow on the road surface (Jones and Ventura 2003).
The specimens were subjected to a water flow for 5 min and then allowed to drain for
an extra 5 min. Three specimens were prepared per sample (treated and untreated).
Specimens were then dried in an oven with 50 °C to a constant mass and the mass loss
as a percentage to the original mass was recorded.

3 Results and Discussion

The effect of using PAM on the unconfined compressive strength for the three soil
types was assessed using the wet condition test. The UCS values of the treated and
untreated samples for the three soil types are presented in Table 2. It is worth noting
that the strength values (treated and untreated samples) presented in the table represent
an average UCS value based on at least three specimens.

Table 2. Wet UCS test results for the treated and untreated samples for soil types A, B and C.
Soil type Sample size Average UCS (MPa)
Untreated Treated
A 3 1.4 2.6
B 3 1.26 3.11
C 3 1.42 2.76

Table 2 illustrates moisture susceptibility of the samples when treated with PAM
and tested under wet conditions. Here, the retained strength (i.e. wet strength when
tested under wet conditions) of the treated samples is dramatically higher when com-
pared with the untreated samples. Soil types A and C show an increase in the retained
strength of 85.6 and 94.3% respectively compared to the untreated ones. Soil type B,
however, exhibits a 146.6% increase in strength when treated with PAM. This implies
that treating soil with PAM provides a significant resistance to moisture deterioration,
particularly for soils with higher porosity and water absorption (soil type B). It is
believed that the polymer better sealed the soil’s pores in a manner that prevented water
permeating into the inner pores. The mechanism of preventing water entering the pores
is related to increased viscosity of the water during contact between the polymer and
soil surface. Thus, impeding water ingress and preserving the dry strength of the
pavement material (Malik and Letey 1991).
 Stabilization of Subgrade Soil Using Polyacrylamide 107

The results of CBR tests of treated and untreated samples for the three soil types are
presented in Table 3. The values presented in this table are the average CBR values of
the three specimens per sample and their standard errors at 95% confidence level are
also presented. It is worth noting that a CBR value greater than 100 is meaningless for
pavement design, but such values are used herein for comparison purposes.

Table 3. CBR values for treated and untreated samples of soil types A, B and C
Soil type Parameters CBR, % Percent increase
Untreated Treated
A 35 BPL Av. 188.3 230.5 22.4
St. error 3.23 4.46
B 35 BPL Av. 467.6 499.1 6.8
St. error 3.22 2.85
C 35 BPL Av. 13.8 18.9 37.3
St. error 1.10 1.50

In Table 3, a regular increase in the CBR values can be observed for all three soils
treated with PAM when compared with the untreated ones. It also shows that the level
of improvement varies with soil type. For instance, moderate increases in penetration
resistance were observed in both treated soil types A and B at 3,868 kNm/m3 com-
pactive effort, while a remarkable increase in strength was recorded in the treated
samples of soil type C. Changes in the bearing capacity of soil type A show an increase
of 22.4% in favour of the treated samples. Whereas, treated samples of soil type B
exhibited only 6.8% increase in CBR value compared with their untreated counterparts.
The rate of change in CBR for soil B is considered relatively high when based on the
high CBR values of the samples. On the other hand, a significant increase in CBR value
was noted in the treated samples of soil C, with a maximum difference in CBR value of
37.3%. In fact, cohesion and frictional forces between contacted particles are the major
parameters in determining the shear strength of the soil matrix. Therefore, PAM was
considered as a major factor that enhanced the interlocking or adhering characteristics
of soil particles, which certainly increased soil shear strength under CBR test.
A higher compactive effort was also applied to additional soil A samples to
investigate the effect of increasing compactive effort on shear resistance property. The
compactive energy was increased from 3,868 kNm/m3 to 4,961 kNm/m3. The results
of change in the shear resistance is shown in Fig. 3. In fact, the test shows increased
bearing capacity of the treated samples of soil type A by 17.2% when the compactive
effort increased to 4,961 kNm/m3. However, untreated samples show a slight decrease
in CBR by approximately 3.6%. The difference between treated and untreated samples
is 45.7%.
108 R. N. Georgees and R. A. Hassan

Fig. 3. Change in CBR values when changing compactive energy for treated and untreated
samples of soil type A

The capacity of PAM to protect the compacted specimens from water flow is also
tested using an erosion test. Figure 4 shows the potential effect of PAM additive to
reduce the erosion action. In this figure, three specimens per sample (treated and
untreated) were tested and the average values of mass loss (grams) are presented.
Figure 4 shows that the differences in mass loss, due to the erosion action, between
the untreated and PAM treated samples for the three types of soils are evident. The
figure also shows that there is a decrease in mass loss as the fines content increases. The
greatest mass loss is recorded for soil type A and the least for soil type C. This is
supported by the amount of plastic fines present in soil types A, B and C by 1, 2.75 and
13.5% respectively. As expected, the polymer increased the erosion resistance of the
materials tested, which in turn increases the stability of the pavement layer after pro-
longed exposure to the rainfall during construction stages. A significant decrease in
mass loss was found in the treated samples of soil type C at 94.5% followed by soil
types A and B with 79.3 and 70.9%, respectively.
 Stabilization of Subgrade Soil Using Polyacrylamide 109

Fig. 4. Erosion resistance test for the treated and untreated samples of soil types A, B and C

4 Conclusion

From laboratory testing, the following has been concluded when using PAM as a
stabilizing additive to treat unbound pavement materials:
– An increase in the wet strength was noted for all soils treated with PAM. The
addition of PAM was found to improve soils’ resistance to moisture absorption. The
average increase in the retained strength of soil types A and C was 85.6 and 94.3%
respectively compared to the untreated ones. Soil type B, on the other hand
exhibited a 146.6% increase in strength when treated with PAM.
– Using PAM increased the unsoaked CBR for all the treated soils. The level of
improvement was found to vary by soil type. The levels of improvements ranged
from 6.8 to 37.3%. Soils with higher clay content revealed the greatest strength gain
and soils with less fines content exhibited the least, when treated with PAM.
– An increase in the resistance to erosion was measured between 70.9 to 94.5% for all
soil types treated with PAM. Here, the addition of PAM is more effective for the
soils with greater fines and clay content. This was a significant result.
Overall, these results indicate that PAM is a promising stabilizing additive for
sustainably improving the performance of pavement foundation materials with the
potential of reducing pavement thickness which is important when rehabilitating urban
pavements to match existing levels of other civil infrastructure such as the kerb and
channel of drainage system. The increased strength will provide higher toughness
structural layer, which mitigate the stresses imposed on the foundation by construction
110 R. N. Georgees and R. A. Hassan

traffic during construction. Further, the improved durability and resistance to erosion of
treated material helps to reduce loss of mass due to the erosion action of rainfall during
the construction of the foundation unbound layers, in addition to facilitate staged
construction to reduce traffic delay in urban environment.

Acknowledgement. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Earthco projects
Pty Ltd, particularly Mr. Mark Holding, for providing the stabilizer additive for this research.

References
Andrews, R., Sharp, K.: A protocol for conducting field trials for best value management of
unsealed roads. In: 24th ARRB Conference – Building on 50 Years of Road and Transport
Research, Melbourne, Australia, p. 14 (2010)
AS: Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes Method 6.1.1: soil strength and
consolidation tests-determination of the California bearing ratio of a soil-standard laboratory
method for a remoulded specimen, Sydney, Australia (1998)
AS: Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes Method 5.2.1: soil compaction and density
tests—Determination of the dry density/moisture content relation of a soil using modified
compactive effort, Sydney, Australia (2003)
ASTM: Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA (2008)
ASTM: Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil
classification system), West Conshohocken, PA, USA (2011)
Camarena, S.: Sustainable road maintenance and construction utilising new technologies. In:
International Public Works Conference, 2013, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia (2013)
Deng, Y.F., Liu, S.Y., Huang, J., Kan, L., Du, Y.J., Jing, F.: Strength and permeability of
cemented soil with PAM. In: Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012, pp. 1800–1807. ASCE (2012)
Jones, D., Ventura, D.: Development of fit-for-purpose certification testing for non-traditional
road additives-Phases I-III. Contract Report: CR–2003/34, Pretoria: Division of Roads and
Transport Technology, CSIR (2003)
Judy, F., Diliman, Q.C., Albert, C., O’Connell, M.J., Brs, E., John, R., House, C., Ride, N.M.:
Stabilized sub-bases for heavily trafficked roads in the Philippines. J. East. Asia Soc.
Transp. Stud. 6, 1274–1285 (2005)
Malik, M., Letey, J.: Adsorption of polyacrylamide and polysaccharide polymers on soil
materials. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55(2), 380–383 (1991)
Roa-Espinosa, A., Mikel, A.: PAM application for dust mitigation in helicopter operations.
Internal Rep. Marine Corps War Fighting Laboratory, Quantico, VA (2004)
Rodway, B.: Polymer stabilisation of clayey gravels. In: Proceedings for 20th ARRB
Conference, Melbourne, Australia (2001)
Santoni, R.L., Tingle, J.S., Webster, S.L.: Stabilization of silty sand with nontraditional additives.
Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1787, 61–70 (2002)
Sojka, R., Bjorneberg, D., Entry, J., Lentz, R., Orts, W.: Polyacrylamide in agriculture and
environmental land management. Adv. Agron. 92, 75–162 (2007)
Vicroads: Guide to general requirements for unbound pavement materials. Kew, VIC, Australia
(1998)
 Stabilization of Subgrade Soil Using Polyacrylamide 111

Wilmot, T., Rodway, B.: Stabilised pavements-selecting the additive: cementitious, polymer or
bitumen. Aust. Civ. Eng. Trans. 42, 27–33 (2000)
Wilmot, T.D.: Applications for stabilisation in pavement construction and rehabilitation. In:
Proceeding of the First Malaysian Road Conference: Roads-Towards Nation Building, p. 10
(1994)