Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cold Regions Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/coldregions

Strength and durability of flyash, GGBS and cement clinker stabilized

dispersive soil
Samaptika Mohanty a, *, Nagendra Roy a, Suresh Prasad Singh a, Parveen Sihag b
a
Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela 769008, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Shoolini university, Solan 173229, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Dispersive soils are highly susceptible to erosion due to higher sodium content, and it deflocculates in the
Dispersive soils presence of flowing water. Under saturated conditions, the attractive forces are less than the repulsive forces, and
Cement clinker this will help the particle to segregate and to move in suspension. In this investigation, an attempt has been made
Ground granulated blast furnace slag
to stabilize the dispersive soil with cement clinker, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and flyash.
Flyash
Unconfined compressive strength
Samples were prepared with the different predetermined proportions of dispersive soil, cement clinker, GGBS,
and fly ash to determine the strength and durability of the stabilized soils. Results of unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) are found to be increased significantly by mixing additives in different proportions. From the
results of the UCS tests, the optimum mix proportion was obtained with the mixing of 20% of flyash, 15% of
GGBS and 30% of cement clinker in dispersive soil. Outcomes of this study suggest that the combined mixture of
cement clinker, flyash, and GGBS are more effective to improve the strength than an alone mix. To evaluate the
effect of freeze-thaw cycles and water immersion aging on the strength properties of different mix proportion, 0,
1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 cycles freeze-thaw tests and 32 days water immersion tests were done on cylindrical samples at
7, 14, 28, 60 and 90 days curing periods. A coefficient of strength loss/gain was also defined to determine the
influence of freezing-thawing and water immersion aging on the durability of the mix proportion. The X-ray­
diffraction tests (XRD) divulge the formation of hydrated particles play a vital role to enhance the strength
because of the reaction between the soil and the additives.

1. Introduction
Dispersive soils are highly susceptible to erosion due to higher so­
dium content, and it deflocculates in the presence of flowing water.
Because of this, there is damage to roads, dams, and other civil engi­
neering projects. Dispersive soils are considered to be hazardous, hence
modification of such soils is essential to make stabilize it. To prevent
problems in dispersive soils, a simple solution is to substitute them with
suitable materials. However, there may be some economical constrains
on such solutions. In practice, soils with low bearing capacity, low sta­
bility, and high swell-shrink are expected to experience high settlement.
Such soil can be made suitable for construction by increasing their
strength and durability and decreasing compressibility and swell-shrink.
These types of problems associated around the world, including India,
USA, Thailand, Australia, Iran, South Africa, and Greece. If this type of
soils is not properly treated, it may lead to severe problems. On the other
hand, the treatment of this type of soil with waste products has recently
proved to be a useful option from economic and environmental per­
spectives. The dispersive soil stabilization with fly ash has decreased the
dispersiveness of soil (Indraratna et al., 1991). The identification of
dispersive soil in the field is based on the behavior of air-dried aggre­
gates in rainwater, and the above method is the simplification of the
crumb test (Emerson, 2002). The combined effect of lime and flyash on
the dispersion percentage is decreasing (Bhuvaneshwari et al., 2007).
After the addition of lime and cement to the clay particles, there is a
decrease in the dispersivity (Umesha et al., 2009). The dispersive soil
stabilized with the MgCl2 solution is useful for reducing the dispersivity
(Türköz et al., 2021). Granulated blast furnace slag and basic oxygen
furnace slag addition with dispersive soil there is a decrease in dis­
persivity and an increase in strength (Goodarzi and Salimi, 2015). UCS is
slightly increased after stabilization of clayey soil with palm oil fuel ash
(POFA) (Pourakbar et al., 2015).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: 513ce1027@nitrkl.ac.in, mohantysamaptika4@gmail.com (S. Mohanty), nroy@nitrkl.ac.in (N. Roy), spsingh@nitrkl.ac.in (S.P. Singh),
parveen12sihag@gmail.com (P. Sihag).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2021.103358
Received 2 May 2020; Received in revised form 1 July 2021; Accepted 20 July 2021
Available online 24 July 2021
0165-232X/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Mohanty et al.
Frost heave is one of the severe weather elements that can affect
bridges, roadways, foundation, and pavements. Particularly when
freeze-thaw cycles occur, freezing is one of the most damaging events
that may cause structural damage. Therefore, the effect of the freeze-
thaw cycle in the stabilizing materials is usually tested. This freeze-
thaw cycle indicates the dangerous influence on the engineering prop­
erties of soil. The effort of soil treatment under the freeze-thaw cycle can
provide a good impact in practice. Mechanical and durability properties
of marine sediments stabilized with flyash, and cement strength de­
creases after the freeze-thaw cycle (Zentar et al., 2012). After the freeze
and thaw cycle in lime-stabilized soils, resistance has decreased and that
they almost fully recover their resistance if the temperature reaches at
continuously 20 ◦ C (Tebaldi et al., 2016). In addition to hydrated lime in
the soil brown coal-flyash mixture, the strength increase (Premkumar
et al., 2017). After the 8% ZELIAC treated with the dispersive soil, the
UCS increased 7.3 times, which is cured for 90 days (Vakili et al., 2017).
Freeze-thaw damage effect on UCS results has been observed for the 14
days of the curing period. But, for 7 days of the curing period, the UCS is
increased for sand-sludge ash-polypropylene fiber mix. (Güllü and
Fedakar, 2017). In addition to cement to the cohesive soil, there is a
significant increase in strength along with higher freeze-thaw resistance
(Błaszczyński et al., 2017). The 5% of lime satisfying nondispersive,
stiffness, strength, and durability requirements altogether, ensuring the
endurance of the mixtures (Consoli et al., 2016). The hydration products
such as C-S-H, C-A-H, and ettringite have a different microstructure and
binding capacity, influence on the strength of stabilized soils (Yi et al.,
2015). The combined effect of flyash and GGBS to the expansive soil,
enhance the pozzolanic reaction and hydration products are formed
such as C-S-H and Ca (OH) 2, which contributed to improving the
strength of stabilized soil (Sharma and Sivapullaiah, 2016). The effec­
tive application of GEP modeling to the prediction of the rheological
characteristics (shear stress (τ), viscosity (η)) of cement-based grout
mixtures regarding various stabilizers (clay, sand, lime) for jet grouting
purposes. The study divulges that satisfactory GEP formulations in a
good accuracy (R ≥ 0.86) for predictions of τ and η regarding the sta­
bilizer additions (Güllü, 2015). The long-term performance of sediments
is significantly enhanced for a reason that of the hydration process of
lime or cement which produces cementitious gels such as C-S-H, Ca (OH)
2 and also flyash generates some cementitious gels (Wang et al., 2018).
With the inclusions of fly ash and geopolymer aggregate, bring about
minor changes in the rheological properties, the geopolymer grouts
mostly result in the magnitudes more pronounced (Güllü et al., 2019).
Increasing in curing periods proportionally increases UCS for both
Portland cement and the geopolymer (geopolymer made from: fly ash
(class F, class C), slag, glass powder, metakaolin, marble powder, bottom
ash, rice husk ash, silica fume). On the other hand, the effect of long-
term curing (90 and 365 days) on UCS of geopolymer samples results
in better performances than Portland cement. In the majority of treat­
ments, due to the geopolymer, UCS performances of long-term curing
(365-day), significantly increase compared to those of 7 and 28 days
curing periods (Canakci et al., 2019). Last few decades few studies were
carried out on stabilized and strength characteristics dispersive soil
(Sherard et al., 1976; Sihag et al., 2019; Türköz et al., 2021). As per best
authors best information no one use cement clinker alone and also
combined a mixture of all three (GGBS, FA, and CC) for dispersive soil
stabilization. The present investigation emphasizes the strength
behavior of dispersive soil stabilized with FA, GGBS, and CC. Firstly, a
double hydrometer test, cylindrical dispersion test, and turbidity tests
are done to identify the dispersive soil. Then the geotechnical properties
of the soil samples were investigated. The combined effect of industrial
by-products on the compaction characteristics, chemical properties,
mechanical properties, durability characteristics, and have also been
studied. To analyze the durability of stabilized dispersive soil done
freeze-thaw cycles and water immersion aging, which has not given due
attention in the last decades. To verify the formation of hydration
products in stabilized dispersive soil by XRD analysis.
2
Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358
2. Materials
For the present investigation, sodium bentonite is representing as the
dispersive soil, and cement clinker, flyash, and GGBS are used for sta­
bilizing agents. Dispersive soil is collected from Cuttack, Odisha. Flyash
and GGBS were collected from Rourkela steel plant, Rourkela, Odisha.
Cement clinker was collected from Shiva Cement Limited, Rourkela,
Odisha. The received cement clinker further processed out by crushing
with the use of a crushing machine and then fined in a ball mill.
3. Methodology
Dispersive soil cannot be identified with the experiments tests like
grain distribution, specific gravity, and Atterberg’s limits. For this pur­
pose, a double hydrometer test and cylindrical dispersion tests have
been done to determine dispersion soil. The double hydrometer test
(ASTM D4221–99, 2005) and a cylindrical dispersion test have been
done to identify the dispersiveness of soil. The XRD analysis of untreated
and treated soil was done by XRD instrument Rich-Siefert x-ray
diffractometer using Ni filter, copper target. The measurements were
made over the 2θ range of 5◦ -70◦ at scanning range of 5 degrees/min
with a step size of 0.05◦ . The cracked portions of specimens were
collected after 90 days of curing and saturated in anhydrous ethanol to
discontinue the hydration process and oven-dried at 110 ◦ C for 24 h
(Murmu and Singh 2014). Then the samples were ground in a mortar
pestle to a size less than 75 μm and then subjected to XRD tests. The
peaks that were achieved from the XRD were analyzed by Philips X’ Pert
HighScore, and the reaction products were identified. The surface
morphology and particle analysis were by using a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) JEOL-JSM-6480 LV model fitted with an electron
dispersive X-ray (EDX) microanalyzer of silver coating at 20Kv accel­
eration voltage and spot size of 60. The standard Proctor compaction test
was done on the untreated and treated specimens as per ASTM D698
(2007) code. Before compaction, the dispersive soil and additives were
oven-dried at 110 ◦ C after that they were thoroughly mixed and sealed
in a plastic bag for 24 h. This test was done on the treated and untreated
soil to measure the maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture
content (OMC). Secondly, the soil was mixed with stabilizing agents
until they get optimum value. For this study, the average of the three test
results is considered. pH test has been performed using a HACH HQ40D
pH meter on both untreated and treated specimens. CBR test was done
for both soaked and unsoaked conditions on the specimens as per ASTM
D2166 (2016) code. CBR testing is the primary factor, which determines
the thickness of each pavement layer in the design of the pavement. For
this, the specimens were prepared in CBR molds by statically com­
pressing the mixes to their corresponding OMC and MDD determined by
the standard proctor test. The unconfined compressive strength test was
done to observe the soil strength, according to the ASTM D2166 (2016)
code. Before UCS tests, the required amount of soil and additives were
first air-dried for 24 h. After mixing the cylindrical samples (height = 10
cm and diameter = 5 cm) were prepared at the MDD and OMC for all
mixtures determined from the compaction curves. Different amounts of
the FA, CC, and GGBS were mixed into the dispersive soil for preparing
the soil samples. To eliminate air pockets, a 45 mm diameter steel rod, to
improve the homogeneity of the samples, conducted compaction
manually. Then samples were wrapped in polyethylene film and cured
for 7, 28, and 90 days at normal room temperature to prevent moisture
loss. After completion of the curing period, the specimens were removed
from polyethylene wrap, and then the test was conducted. For each
composition, three specimens were tested. Moreover, the results were
averaged to avoid the influence of any possible errors. Moreover, to
evaluate the durability of stabilized soil subjected to weathering con­
ditions such as freeze-thaw test and water immersion test has done. For
this reason, the UCS was selected to evaluate the durability of dispersive
soil stabilized with industrial by-products. The freeze-thaw test has been
done as per code ASTM D560 (2016). For freezing, the samples were
S. Mohanty et al. Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358

Table 1 pores of the soil (Jones and Jones 1987). Four specimens were prepared
Physical and chemical characteristics of raw materials. for each combination, and then the cycle was continued to 12 cycles
Property S FA CC GGBS after 7, 28 and 90 days of curing periods, the specimens were performed
for UCS testing. After the end of the freeze-thaw cycle on the soil sam­
Physical Properties
Liquid limit (%) 428 31.5 33.02 32.8 ples, then the UCS test was done. A water immersion test was done to
Plastic limit (%) 62 Non- Non- Non- know the simulate attack of wet weather on the soil, where large
plastic plastic plastic amounts of water filter into the specimen. This durability test was
Plasticity index (%) 366 conducted on stabilized soil, as proposed by Zentar et al. (2012). Two
Specific gravity 2.74 2.45 3.24 2.84
Fineness (cm2/g) – – 3.680 –
cylindrical specimens were prepared (10 cm height and 5 cm in diam­
Optimum moisture content 34.12 37.8 14.36 14.17 eter) for each mix proportion. After completion of all curing periods at
(%) room temperature, the specimens were immersed in deionized water for
Maximum dry density (kN/ 13.98 11.48 18.01 16.60 32 days at room temperature; then specimens were subjected to an
m3 )
unconfined compressive strength test.
UCS, qu (kPa) 175.47 125.87 110.38 176.19

Chemical Properties 4. Results and discussion

SiO2 55.19 51.87 20.8 24.55
Al2O3 14.98 33.58 3.1 14.34
Fe2O3 8.45 4.08 4.55 0.5 The combined effect of FA, GGBS, and CC on stabilizing dispersive
CaO 1.16 4.29 65.72 44.41 soil is also studied. Physical and chemical characterization of raw ma­
MgO 1.28 0.9 0.89 9.17 terials is presented in Table 1.
K2O 1.14 0.79 1.14 1.03
Na2O 2.44 0.3 0.1 0.064
SO3 0.3 0.38 0.78 1.2
4.1. Basic material characterization

Based on the chemical composition of flyash, it is demonstrated that

the combined percentage of alumina, silica, and iron oxide is about
100
Cement clinker 89.53% with 4.29% of calcium oxide content. Therefore, according to
GGBS ASTM C618-08a (2008) specification, this flyash categorized as a low
Flyash
80 calcium flyash (Class-F). In dispersive soil, the CaO is 1.16%, which is
very low, and Na2O is 2.44%. Cement clinker is characterized by SiO2,
Al2O3, Fe2O3, and CaO at 20.8%, 3.1%, 4.55%, and 65.72% respectively.
Percentage finer (%)

60
40
20
0 to be 10.85, 13.18, and 9.68, respectively. Vakili et al. (2017) have
0.001
0.01 0.1
Particle size (mm)
Fig. 1. Grain size distribution of raw materials.
subjected to a freezing cabinet, which has maintained the temperature of
− 18 ◦ C for 24 h. And for thawing purpose sample was exposed to the
humidity chamber, which maintains the humidity of 98% and maintains
the temperature of 18 ◦ C for 24 h. All of these phases were considered as
1 cycle. The freeze-thaw tests in a closed system in a laboratory are
suitable to simulate complex field conditions, where no source of water
is available throughout freezing procedure except that initially in the
For GGBS, the major constituents are found SiO2, Al2O3, and CaO at
24.55%, 14.34%, and 44.41% respectively, as shown in Table 1. Fig. 1.
shows the grain size distribution curve of raw materials. Cement clinker
used in the present study is found to be coarse-grained and poorly
graded, and the Cu and Cc values are 2 and 1.12, respectively. Flyash is
fine-grained with 73% of the finer particles (below 75 μm). However,
GGBS is found as well graded, and the Cu and Cc values are 4.5 and 1.38,
respectively. The pH value of GGBS, cement clinker and flyash is found
1.0 10.0 100.0
found the pH value of dispersive soil as 9.12. The 8.4 pH value of GGBS
is found by Yadu and Tripathi (2013). Sharma and Sivapullaiah (2016)
have found the pH value of flyash and GGBS as 8.40 and 10.03,
respectively. In the first trial, the soil was blended with flyash, GGBS,
and cement clinker as a trial basis by dry weight to prepare the mixer, as
there was no guideline available regarding the proportion of these ma­
terials. Details of mix proportion and their chemical properties are
presented in Table 2.

Table 2
Details of mix proportion and chemical properties.
Specimen code S SC7030 S3M10 S4M10 S5M10 S6M10 S7M12

Dispersive soil (%) 100 70 50 55 50 55 50

Fly ash (%) 0 0 20 0 5 10 10
Cement clinker (%) 0 30 30 30 30 30 30
GGBS (%) 0 0 0 15 15 5 10

Chemical properties
SiO2 55.19 44.873 44.209 34.037 40.111 43.009 41.477
Al2O3 14.98 11.416 15.136 10.39 12.25 13.244 13.212
Fe2O3 8.45 7.28 6.406 4.7225 5.869 6.4455 6.048
CaO 1.16 20.528 21.154 7.2995 27.172 23.0035 25.166
MgO 1.28 1.163 1.087 2.0795 2.3275 1.5195 1.914
K2O 1.14 1.14 1.07 0.7815 1.106 1.0995 1.094
Na2O 2.44 1.738 1.31 1.3516 1.2746 1.4052 1.2864
SO3 0.3 0.444 0.46 0.345 0.583 0.497 0.542

3
S. Mohanty et al.
100
Without dispersing agent
90 With dispersing agent
80
70
60
(%) Finer
50
40
30
20
10
0 Turbidity is the cloudiness of a fluid due to the suspension of a large
0.001 0.01
Particle Size (mm)
Fig. 2. Double hydrometer test for dispersive soil.
Fig. 3. A typical setup of double hydrometer test.
4.2. Double hydrometer test
Volk established the double hydrometer testing method in 1937.
Fig. 2. shows that the soil is found to be highly dispersive (dispersion
percentage is 90.66 which is greater than 50) by conducting the double
hydrometer test, and this type of soil is needed to stabilize, to decrease
its dispersivity and increase the strength. The dispersion percentage is
the ratio of the dry mass (particle smaller than 0.005 mm diameter) in a
test without dispersing agent to the dry mass (particle smaller than
0.005 mm diameter) with a dispersing agent. Therefore, the soil samples
were exposed to treated with FA, GGBS, and CC. Fig. 3. shows the typical
set up for a double hydrometer test. The first jar indicating the soil with a
dispersing agent and the second one is without a dispersing agent.
4.3. Cylindrical dispersion Test
The cylindrical dispersion test, erosion resistance is presented by the
true cohesion and effect of pore water of dispersion characteristics of
materials on their erosion resistance can be evaluated. The cylindrical
dispersion test is considered to observe the characteristics of soil at zero
effective stress by immersing a saturated specimen in water (Atkinson
et al., 1990). In this test, the quality of water in which the specimens
were immersed will give a colloidal suspension from which specimens
Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358
can be classified as dispersive and non-dispersive. The cylindrical
specimens were prepared with the L/D ratio of two, the same as that
needed for the UCS test. The effect of stabilizers on the dispersion of the
specimen with 7 days curing period is shown in Fig. 4. It is observed that
the S specimen show puddle clay water surrounding the specimens and
sediment at the bottom of the beaker and thus, emphasizing substantial
dispersion behavior. This is due to the highly negative charge of soil
particles starts detaching from each other and remains suspended due to
the intra-particle repulsive force. On the other hand, SC7030 to S7M12
specimens, a notable reduction in the dispersion behavior the specimens
are under water and intact with no disintegration of soil particles and
water in the beaker became clear at 7 days of curing period.
4.4. Turbidity test
0.1 number of individual particles, which are usually invisible to the naked
eye. It can be used as one of the parameters for the identification of
dispersive soil. A turbidity meter is used to measure the turbidity of the
specimens. The turbidity is measured in NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity
Units). Turbidity at the various percentage of additives is plotted and
shown in Figs. 5–6. It has been shown that the dispersive soil the water
colored is muddy and turbidity is 967 NTU, but after treated with ad­
ditives, the turbidity range varies from 0.92 to 0.48 NTU. With the in­
crease in percentages of additive, the turbidity decreases. The reason for
this case is that with the application of additives, the soil was flocculated
and the erosion is significantly reduced. The turbidity of drinking water
should not exceed 5 NTU and ideally should be below 1 NTU (World
Health Organization). In this investigation, turbidity is considered to be
a useful tool to identify the dispersive nature of soils. It can be seen in
Fig. 6. the water with high turbidity is cloudier for the mixture of S.
However, the clear water has low turbidity for the mixture SC7030,
S3M10, S4M10, S5M10, S6M10 and S7M12.
4.5. pH test
The variation of pH value concerning the percentage of additive are
evaluated and plotted, as shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that the pH
value increased from 8.94 for untreated soil to 13.08 for treated soil. An
increase in pH value will increase the formation of cementitious com­
pounds, which increases the strength of the soil (Mwiti et al., 2018). An
increase in pH value is responsible for suitable conditions to dissolute
soil particles surface important to release of silica and alumina into the
mixture and stimulate the chemical reaction (Mahmoued, 2010;
Chaunsali and Peethamparan, 2011).
4.6. Compaction characteristics
To determine the compaction characteristics used in the preparation
of soil specimens with additives, the experiments were done at the
standard Proctor test are shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen that OMC de­
creases and ranges from 34.12% to 28.58% and MDD increases ranges
from 13.86 kN/m3 to 14.01 kN/m3, respectively. A reduction in OMC
because the flocculation of soil particles indicates that the mixtures can
be compacted at lower water content. Simultaneously, due to the
decrease in repulsion between soil particles, the particles come closers,
resulting in higher MDD even at lower water content. Due to the non-
plastic behavior of GGBS, cement clinker and fly ash particles, the
resistance is reduced for the same compactive effort when these are
added in the soil. Cement clinker particles are comparatively finer than
GGBS and flyash particles. These fine particles occupy the void space in
the compacted mixture. An increase in dry density for a given
compaction effort is required for use as a construction material because
it indicates an improvement in the soil. Furthermore, the addition of
percentages of stabilizing agents to the soil makes the mixture well
graded and increasing the MDD.
4
S. Mohanty et al. Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358

Fig. 4. Cylindrical dispersion test of untreated and treated soil specimens under 7 days curing period.

Variations of CBR with different mix proportions are shown in Fig. 9.

1.0 CBR values are found to vary from 2.7% to 89.3% with maximum value
for S7M12 and minimum for S. The combined mixture of CC, GGBS, and
FA to the soil the CBR value of soaked condition is higher than unsoaked
0.8 condition; however, in the case of untreated soil, the unsoaked CBR
value is higher than soaked value. This trend can be justified by the
increase of the strength of treated soil because of chemical bonding and
Turbidity (NTU)

hydration reaction of cement clinker with the soil, and increase the
0.6
doses of by-products the bond important to increase in strength and
subsequently increase in CBR values. The result is responsible for the
hydration process, which leads to the formation of the cementitious
0.4 compounds; it combines sediment particles and increases the bearing
capacity. Similar patterns were also observed by Chu and Kao (1993);
Senol et al. (2006). The improvement in soaked CBR value up to 90% is
very stable for subgrade material (Emesiobi, 2000). High CBR value
0.2
reduced the height of embankment, which will reduce the cost of road
construction. As per the guidelines of IRC: SP: 72–2007 (2007); a min­
imum soaked CBR of 20 has been recommended for the subbase layer of
0.0 low volume road pavements.
0

2
703

M1

M1
M1

M1

M1

4.8. Effect of Freeze-thaw cycle on the strength characteristics

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7
SC

Mix Proportion (%)
Fig. 5. Variation of mix proportion with turbidity.
4.7. California bearing ratio
To estimate the bearing capacity due to the water attack, CBR value
for both the soaked and unsoaked condition of the dispersive soil.
Fig. 10. shows the freeze-thaw test specimens after freezing and
thawing. Fig. 11. depicts the UCS with a mix proportion after 12 freeze-
thaw cycles (UCSFT). The optimal CC, GGBS, and FA content required for
adequate stabilization of soil are found to be 30%, 15%, and 20%
respectively. However, the addition of stabilizing agents more than the
optimum value to the soil gave a reduction in strength. Results show that
the UCS values increased, with increasing the curing periods and sta­
bilizing agents. For 7 days curing periods, UCS increases from 2.62 MPa

5
S. Mohanty et al. Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358

Fig. 6. Turbidity test images of untreated and treated soil.

14 36 16.0
13.08 OMC MDD
12.31 12.25 12.16 12.07 11.88 34
12 15.5
Optimum moisture content (%)

32

Dry unit weight (kN/m3)

10
8.94 15.0
30
8
28 14.5
pH

6
26
14.0
4 24
13.5
2 22

20 13.0
0 S SC7030 S3M10 S4M10 S5M10 S6M10 S7M12
0
S

Mix Proportion
703

M1

M1

M1
M1

M1
S3

S4

S5

S6

S7
SC

Mix Proportion (%)
Fig. 7. Variation of mix proportion with pH.
for SC7030 mix to 3.54 MPa for the S7M12 combination. A substantial
increase in strength at 7 days of curing period is mainly due to the
combined effect of FA, GGBS, and CC to the dispersive soil, because of
the hydration reaction and pozzolanic activity. For 28 days of curing
Fig. 8. Variation of OMC and MDD for treated and untreated soil.
periods, the UCS is increased from 4.23 MPa for the SC7030 mix to 5.45
MPa for the S7M12 mix. Similar results have found in Mohanty et al.
(2017, 2019). For 90 days curing period, optimal enhancement is
determined by achieving strength from 5.28 MPa for SC7030 combi­
nation to 6.71 MPa for the S7M12 mix. The combined effect of GGBS,
FA, and CC on the soil provides higher strength than the alone

6
S. Mohanty et al. Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358

100 35 ◦ C, humidity of air was 41% to 57%, which promotes moisture loss
Soaked from the specimens. The loss of moisture from the specimens renders in
Unsoaked an incomplete hydration reaction particularly in specimens with higher
80 additive contents. Therefore, the strength of normal room temperature
cured specimen gave lower strength as compared to humidity chamber
curing specimen as observed in test results. In the soil specimens, the
water turned into ice, and it moved to the soil particles and the sepa­
CBR Value (%)

60
ration of soil, interrupt the interlocking of soil and increasing the pore
volume. Hence due to, increased pore volume it does not completely
improve the soil properties as cohesion loss in the soil at the time of ice
40 melt.

20
UCS 7 days
7 UCSFT 7 days
UCS 28 days
0 UCSFT 28 days
UCS 90 days
6 UCSFT 90 days
S SC7030 S3M10 S4M10 S5M10 S6M10 S7M12

UCS (MPa)
Mix Proportion
5
Fig. 9. Variation of CBR value with the mix proportion.

combination of cement clinker to the soil because the process of

pozzolanic reaction is developed during the curing period. An increase 4
in compressive strength and decreasing in-compressibility, this is
because of a continuous hydration process. The influence of CC on soil
enhancement depends on numerous factors, among which the curing
3
period is important. In the above discussions, the flocculation encour­
aged in less time of treatment; a pozzolanic process mainly determines
that enhancement in the strength on the mechanical properties of soil
stabilized with CC, GGBS, and FA.
30

10

10

10

10

12
M

M
M

M
70

From the results, it can be shown that the strength increases signif­
S3

S4

S5

S6

S7
SC

icantly at 7 and 28 days of curing periods after exposed to freeze-thaw Mix Proportion
cycle than in normal UCS specimens (SC7030 to S7M12). However,
Fig. 11. Variation of UCS with mix proportion after freeze-thaw cycles.
the strength of the specimen slightly decreases at 90 days curing periods
than normal UCS specimens. A similar reduction in UCS of stabilized
soils with an increase in the freeze-thaw cycle and curing periods have Table 3
been observed by others as well (James et al., 2018; Güllü, 2015). The Influence of freezing-thawing on the strength of mix proportion after 12 cycles.
reduction in UCS values can be explained by the combined influence of
Strength loss/gain (%)
pore structure and the increase in moisture content throughout the
thawing part of the cycle (Ismeik and Shaqour 2020). In the freezing and Mix proportion 7 days 28 days 90 days

thawing process, the soil samples were exposed to the temperature of SC7030 +40 +22 − 15
− 18 ◦ C for 24 h to achieve a complete frost penetration. Then, they were S3M10 +44 +19 − 15
S4M10 13
allowed to thawing purposes at the temperature of 18 ◦ C for 24 h in the
+96 +24 −
S5M10 +92 +26 − 14
humidity chamber having the relative humidity of 98%. Hence there is S6M10 +82 +24 − 15
no possibilities of moisture evaporation. However, in the case of speci­ S7M12 +76 +25 − 13
mens cured under normal room temperature varying from 25 ◦ C to

Fig. 10. Freeze-thaw test specimen.

7
S. Mohanty et al. Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358

Fig. 12. After 32 days of immersion specimens in present work.

8 Table 4
UCS 7 days
Influence of water immersion aging on the strength of mix proportion.
UCSWIT 7 days
UCS 28 days Strength gain (%)
7 UCSWIT 28 days
UCS 90 days Mix proportion 7 days 28 days 90 days
UCSWIT 90 days
SC7030 17 15 10
6 S3M10 25 14 6
S4M10 47 17 7
UCS (MPa)

S5M10 61 18 6
S6M10 63 12 7
5
S7M12 60 17 9

4 4.9. Effect of water immersion aging on strength characteristics

Fig. 12. shows the specimens were taken out of the water and
3
exposed to air-drying for two hours before the unconfined compressive
strength test. For dispersive soil, during the immersion of water, the
2 sample is destroyed. So, it is impossible to evaluate the influence of
water immersion tests on the untreated soil. Fig. 13. shows the variation
10

10

10

10

12
30

of UCS and mix proportion after water immersion. It can be observed

M
M

M
70

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7
SC

that the stabilized specimens have undergone water immersion (UCS

Mix Proportion
Fig. 13. Variation of UCS and mix proportion after water immersion.
To measure loss/gain of strength of mix designed from the freeze-
thaw test, a coefficient of strength at different curing periods in per­
centage, which is defined as Eq. (1) has been introduced by Zentar et al.
(2012); Güllü and Fedakar (2017).
/ on the binding force of soil particles.
UCS − UCSFT
Strength loss gain (%) = (1)
UCS
where
UCS is the compressive strength before the freeze-thaw cycle, and
UCSFT is the compressive strength after the freeze-thaw cycle test.
Table 3. shows the strength loss/gain percentage of the stabilized soil
after 12 freeze-thaw cycles. After freeze-thaw cycles, the strength gains
from 40.03% for SC7030 mix to 75.58% for the S7M12 mix in 7 days.
For 28 days cured specimen the strength increases from 22.22% for
SC7030 mix to 25.24% for S7M12 mix. However, in the case of 90 days
cured specimen decrease in strength loss of 14.58% for SC7030 mix to
13.09% for the S7M12 mix. A higher quantity of cement clinker forms
more hydrated particles strengthening the strength performance of
stabilized soil. It is to be noted that it prevents strength loss after the
addition of stabilizing agents. There is an increase in strength because of
the weak curing in the moisture chamber, which favors the activation
procedure.
WIT) gain in strength of stabilized specimens (SC7030 – S7M12) for all
curing periods than normal UCS specimens. This behavior may be the
32 days immersion after curing periods causes a significant increase in
strength. From this result, it can be seen that a combined mixture is more
effective to improve strength than an alone mixture. The reason for the
increase in strength can be that by the formation of cementitious com­
pounds (as discussed later in XRD analysis), which has a positive effect
Table 4. shows the compressive strength after water immersion test
the strength loss/gain in percentage. The strength gain/loss can be
defined in Eq. (2) has been introduced by Zentar et al. (2012).
/
Strength loss gain (%) =
UCS − UCSWIT
(2)
UCS
where
UCS is the compressive strength before the water immersion test, and
UCSWIT is the compressive strength after the water immersion test.
After 32 days of water, immersion procedure causes there is a sig­
nificant increase in strength. As shown in the table for 7 days of curing
periods the strength gain varies from 17% to 63%, for 28 days curing
periods it ranges from 12% to 18% and from 6% to 10% for 90 days of
curing period. The addition of these by-products treated with soil
significantly improves the strength value after water immersion. This
occurrence is mainly attributed in the presence of an additive; the
pozzolanic and hydration process action can strengthen the capability to
resist when treated soil contact with water. The effect of water immer­
sion does not stop the pozzolanic reaction, but it slows down the
reaction.

8
­
S. Mohanty et al. Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358

1 S6M10 - FT 5
S7M12 - FT 5 1
4 8 25 4
5
73 41 7 4 2 8 9 5 4 1 1 41 2 5 8 5 4 5
4 3 7 6 7 2 8 1 2 1
S7M12 1 5 5
S6M10 1
1 5
7 21 4 5 8
4 4 5 8 4 2 5 4 5
6 7
73 51 5 4 7 1
3 7 2 8 1 2
7 4 2 8 9 2 4 2 1
S5M10 - FT 5
5 1 4
5 1 4 4 5 5
SC7030 - FT 2
1 5 3 61 7 5 8 2 1 1
4 4 1
3 5 4 5 2 2 5
1 S5M10 1
5
SC7030 5 1
71 7 5 4 4 5
2 4 4 5
7 4 5 4 2 1 7 61 7 2 5 8 2 1 2 1
3 5 2 2 4 2 1 3 4

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Angle (2θ)
Angle (2θ)
Fig. 16. XRD analysis of before and after the freeze-thaw cycle at 90 days
Fig. 14. XRD analysis of before and after freeze-thaw cycle at 90 days of curing curing periods. (1- Quartz; 2 – Calcite; 3 – Montmorillonite; 4 – Calcium silicate
periods (1 – Quartz; 2 – Calcite; 3 – Montmorillonite; 4 – Calcium silicate hy­ hydrate; 5 – Calcium aluminum silicate hydrate; 6 – Calcium silicate hydroxide
drate; 5 – Calcium aluminum silicate hydrate; 6 – Calcium aluminum hydrate; 7 hydrate; 7 – Ettringite; 8 - Calcium aluminum oxide chloride hydrate).
– Ettringite; 8 – Calcium silicate hydroxide hydrate 9 - Calcium aluminum oxide
chloride hydrate).

S5M10 - WIT
5
1 4
S4M10 - FT 5 4 2
1 7 73 61 4 5 5
5 7 7 5 8 2
2 8 1 4
73 41 5 8 5 1 2
5 4 2 1
1 1
S5M10 5
5 1
S4M10 1
7 4 4 5
5 61 4 5
73 41 5 2 7
5 1 8 5 7 7 2 5 8 1
8 2 1 3 2 4 2 1
4 1 2
1 5
S3M10 - FT 5 S4M10 - WIT 5 1 7 7
1 7 7 41 2 8
2 6 5 5 3 5 8 1 2 4
4 6 4 7 1 1 1 2
3 2 5 1
1 S4M10 5
S3M10 5 1 7 8
41 2 7
5 73 5 8 5 1 2 4
7 4 1 2 1
41 2 6 5 5
7 4 7
3 6 2 5 1 1
2
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Angle (2θ)
Angle (2θ) Fig. 17. XRD analysis of before and after water immersion at 90 days curing
periods (1 – Quartz; 2 – Calcite; 3 – Montmorillonite; 4 – Calcium silicate hy­
Fig. 15. XRD analysis of before and after the freeze-thaw cycle at 90 days
drate; 5 – Calcium aluminum silicate hydrate; 6 – Calcium silicate hydroxide
curing periods (1- Quartz; 2 – Calcite; 3 – Montmorillonite; 4 – Calcium silicate
hydrate; 7 – Ettringite).
hydrate; 5 – Calcium aluminum silicate hydrate; 6 – Calcium silicate hydroxide
hydrate; 7 – Ettringite; 8 - Calcium aluminum oxide chloride hydrate).
were detected. The stronger reflections from cementitious compounds,
ettringite, CASH, CSH, CSHH, and calcite peaks were seen in the SC7030
4.10. XRD patterns of stabilized soil
mix. For S7M12 mix, broader peaks of ettringite and cementitious
products including CSHH, CASH, CSH, CAOCH, and calcite have been
XRD diffraction analysis was conducted to confirm the formation of
produced. For the S3M10 mix, identified the formation of cementitious
new minerals which can play a significant role in the strength charac­
compounds Calcite, CASH, CSH, ettringite peaks. For S4M10 mix, few
teristics of stabilized dispersive soil gone through 12 freeze-thaw cycles
new peaks are observed among these; the major cementitious com­
after 90 days as shown in Figs. 14–16. The tests were performed for the
pounds are CASH, CSHH, CSH, CAOCH, ettringite, and calcite peaks. For
identification of the different cementitious compounds on the soil
the S5M10 mix, CASH, CSHH, CSH, and ettringite peaks were detected.
samples stabilized with 30% cement clinker, 20% flyash and 15% of
Hydration products as a result of pozzolanic reaction mainly formed by
GGBS; i.e., for the specimens which indicated higher strength. For all
the ettringite, CSH, CASH, CSHH, CAOCH, and calcite peaks for the
curing periods and mixtures, Quartz and Montmorillonite peaks were
S6M10 mix. Due to the stabilization, none of the untreated soil com­
commonly detected. An amorphous structure at 20–40, 2θ angle repre­
pounds peaks appear. After 12 freeze-thaw cycles, For SC7030-FT mix
senting silica- aluminum reaction products is seen in the figure. The
specimen ettringite, CSHH, calcite, and CSH are observed to disappear
cementitious compounds, CSH, CASH, CAH, CSHH, CAOCH, and calcite

9
S. Mohanty et al. Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358

1
S3M10 - WIT
5
1 7
4 2 6 5
73 6 5 4 7 5
2 1
5 2 1
1
S3M10
5 7
4 1 2 6 5
7 5
3 6 4 7
2 5 1 1
2
5
SC7030 - WIT 1
75 7
7 41 5 2 4
3 4 2 5
5 2 1 2 1
5 7
SC7030 1 2
75
73 41 2 4 5
5
4 5 2 4 1
2 2 1

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Angle (2θ)
Fig. 18. XRD analysis of before and after water immersion at 90 days of curing periods (1 - Quartz; 2 – Calcite; 3 – Montmorillonite; 4 – Calcium silicate hydrate; 5 –
Calcium aluminum silicate hydrate; 6 – Ettringite; 7 – Calcium silicate hydroxide hydrate; 8 - Calcium aluminum oxide chloride hydrate).

and calcite peaks are identified to disappeared between the 2θ value of

1 5 10◦ - 15◦ , and 55◦ respectively, however, for S4M10-FT mix specimens,
S7M12 - WIT 1 CSH and CASH peaks are observed to disappear at the 2θ value of 45◦ -
4
5 50◦ and 55◦ . For S5M10-FT mix specimens the ettringite, CSH and
1 2
7 3 4 5 8
5 7 calcite peaks are detected to disappear at the 2θ value of 10◦ - 15◦ , 45◦ –
4
7 6 8 42 4 50◦ and 55◦ respectively. For S6M10-FT mix specimens ettringite (2θ =
2 1
1 10◦ - 15◦ ) peak is disappeared. After the freeze-thaw cycles, there is a
S7M12 5
1
4
2
5
1
remarkable decrease in CSH, CASH and CAOCH compounds in soil
5 8
73 4 7 4 8 5 7 specimens.
6 42 4 2 1 Figs. 17–19 shows the XRD patterns for 90 days of cured specimens
5 before and after the water immersion test. For SC7030-WIT mix spec­
S6M10 - WIT 5
21 1 4 imen, calcite and CSH peaks are observed to disappear between the 2θ
2 5
73 4 8 5 value of 25◦ – 30◦ and 45◦ – 50◦ respectively. For S3M10-WIT and
7 6 5
7 2 1
2 1 S5M10-WIT, it can be seen that CASH (2θ = 25◦ – 30◦ ) and CSH (2θ =
S6M10 5 5 50◦ – 55◦ ) peaks appear respectively. It can be seen that the peaks of
1
7
21
4 CAOCH and CSH are detected to disappear between the 2θ value of 45◦ –
4 5 8
7
2 6 7 5
4
5 50◦ for S6M10-WIT. For S4M10-WIT, the peaks CASH and CSH are
3 2 1
8 2 1 detected to disappear at the 2θ value of 35◦ and 45◦ – 50◦ respectively.
For the S7M12-WIT mix specimen, there is no peak change.
There is a significant reduction of the montmorillonite peak; as a
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
result, the new major reaction products were formed. The major
Angle (2θ) cementitious compounds are calcite, ettringite, CASH, CSH, CAH, CSHH,
CAOH, and CAOCH. These compounds are seen in all the treated soil
Fig. 19. XRD analysis of before and after water immersion at 90 days of curing mixes, and hence, the enhancement in strength properties is achieved.
periods (1 –Quartz; 2 – Calcite; 3 – Montmorillonite; 4 – Calcium silicate hy­ Quartz and montmorillonite compounds are initially present in un­
drate; 5 – Calcium aluminum silicate hydrate; 6 – Calcium silicate hydroxide
treated soil. On the other hand, the formation of strong cementitious
hydrate; 7 – Ettringite; 8 - Calcium aluminum oxide chloride hydrate).
peaks is observed more with the addition of cement clinker. This may be
due to the source of calcium from cement clinker, GGBS, and flyash in
between the 2θ value of 10◦ - 15◦ , 25◦ – 30◦ and 45◦ - 55◦ and respec­ the presence of water form cementitious compounds which is respon­
tively. For S7M12-FT mix specimens ettringite, CAOCH, CSH, CASH, and sible for the gain in strength of the treated soil (Solanki and Zaman,
calcite peaks are observed to disappear at the 2θ value of 30◦ - 35◦ , 40◦ – 2012). The disappearance and appearance of cementitious compounds
45◦ and 50◦ – 55◦ respectively. For S3M10-FT mix specimens, ettringite peak in term of phase transformation from one to another phase is

10
S. Mohanty et al. Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358

Table 5
Mineral composition of the samples.
Sample Mineral composition
no
Quartz Calcite Montmorillonite Calcium Calcium Calcium silicate Ettringite Calcium silicate Calcium aluminum
(1) (2) (3) silicate aluminum silicate hydroxide hydrate (7) hydroxide hydrate oxide chloride
hydrate (4) hydrate (5) (6) (8) hydrate (9)

SC7030 1 2 3 4 5 – 7 8 9
S3M10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 – –
S4M10 1 2 3 4 5 – 7 8 –
S5M10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 –
S6M10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 –
S7M12 1 2 3 4 5 – 7 8 –

Fig. 20. Development of microstructure after 90 days curing period.

11
S. Mohanty et al.
Fig. 21. SEM micrograph of 90 days cured specimens after 12 freeze-thaw cycle.
occurring due to the effect of the durability and curing periods. Mineral
composition of the all the samples are listed in Table 5.
4.11. Microstructures analysis
The microstructural images of various mix proportions along with 12
freeze-thaw (FT) cycles and 32 days water immersion are obtained using
SEM and are shown in Figs. 20–22. The changes in microstructure in
stabilized specimens after 90 days curing is attributed to the formation
of cementitious compounds because of the pozzolanic and cementitious
property of stabilized dispersive soil. Ettringite is found wrapped with
12
Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358
other cementitious compounds for the SC7030 mix. However, the
combined mixture (S3M10, S4M10, S5M10, S6M10, and S7M12) show
gel-like mass, more amorphous and different shapes of ettringite crystals
(such as a needle and flower) covering all the composite particles
entirely and filling up the inter-particle spaces. With an increase in
cement clinker, GGBS and flyash contents lead to the formation of a
cementitious matrix by the binding particles with a cementitious gel.
Therefore, it is clear that the relative dominance of cemented com­
pounds and ettringite crystals with curing periods in treated soil, due to
which related changes occur in the microstructure. There is no indica­
tion of pore formation between cement clinker treated soil and suitable
S. Mohanty et al.
Fig. 22. SEM images of 90 days cured specimen after 32 days water immersion.
interaction of soil and cementitious compounds. Fig. 21. shows the
microstructure for stabilized soil specimens cured for 90 days after 12 FT
cycles. Freeze-thaw cycles increased the void volume creating new
cracks. SC7030 – S7M12 mix specimens formed fewer amounts of
cementitious compounds and ettringite as resulting small reduction in
soil strength. The freeze-thaw cycle had a great effect on soil dis­
integrated based on SEM images (Han et al., 2018). It can be seen that
particles were filled with cementitious gel, which was contributing a
denser soil matrix with the minimum void ratio. Ettringite needles are
observed when the specimens are subjected to freeze-thaw cycles;
however, shorten ettringite formation as compared with non-freeze
thaw cycles. Such shortening of the ettringite is responsible for a
reduction in strength. A dense and flocculated structure with less pore is
13
Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358
observed for SC7030 – S7M12 mix specimens. Moreover, 90 days of
cured specimens formed lesser amounts of cementitious compounds and
ettringite hence a small reduction after expose to 12 freeze-thaw cycles.
The reason for the decrease in strength under the freeze-thaw cycle is the
presence of moisture in the pores of the specimens. Fig. 22. Shows the
microstructural image of 90 days cured (SC7030 – S7M12) specimen
after 32 days of water immersion. At 90 days curing period, it is
observed that there are compacted and cemented structure, ettringite,
the formation of hydrated gel, the flocculated structure formed at this
stage. The changes in microstructure after curing is attributed to the
formation of cementitious compounds because of the pozzolanic and
cementitious property of dispersive soil treated with additives. It can be
seen that particles are filled with cementitious gel, contributing a denser
S. Mohanty et al.
soil matrix with the minimum void ratio. The addition of cement clinker
densified the matrix, which reflects the continuation of the hydration at
long-term curing periods. This type of microstructure shows denser gel-
like mass covering completely all the particles filling up the pore/void
space and results in high strength as compared to without water im­
mersion specimens that were cured in normal room temperature. When
the dispersive soil is stabilized with a calcium-based binder in the
presence of water, then calcium and alumina present in the system and
produce cementitious compounds. The stronger bonds formed
throughout the hydration process and for that reason provide better
mechanical, physical, and durability properties of treated soil. Binding
of aggregated particles with the formation of cementitious gel becomes
more pronounced, creating to the formation of the compacted matrix,
which is also one of the potential reasons for the improvement of UCS
and CBR after stabilization with the additives. Based on the micro­
structural observation, it can be concluded that the formation of this
hydration product is causing the stabilized soil to become stiffer and
denser than untreated soil, which consequences in the increase in
strength after treatment. With the continuous formation of the cemen­
titious compounds and ettringite crystals with an increase in the curing
periods. Strength behavior depends on the morphology and size of
ettringite crystals. Larger ettringite crystals indicate high strength
(Mehta, 1983). The fewer amount of ettringite crystals appearance
resulting in development in strength (Jha and Sivapullaiah, 2017). It has
been seen that the increase in curing periods has a significant impact on
soil microstructure with GGBS, cement clinker, and flyash. These results
are in good agreement with UCS tests and XRD analysis.
5. Conclusions
The present investigation shows the characteristics of dispersive soils
stabilized with flyash, GGBS, and cement clinker and their effect on
durability. Based on the experimental results obtained following con­
clusions can be drawn:
• Significant reduction in turbidity, pH of the dispersive soil appeared
after the stabilization with by-products, the cement clinker is found
to be the most effective additive.
• The CBR value of treated soil is found to be higher in soaked con­
ditions as compared to the unsoaked condition. However, there is an
opposite trend observed in untreated soil unsoaked condition is
higher than the soaked condition.
• The addition of cement clinker, GGBS, and flyash improve the freeze-
thaw and water immersion performance of dispersive soil specimens.
Although unconfined compressive strength values increased with an
increasing number of the freeze-thaw cycle at 7, 14, and 28 days of
curing periods. But, the strength slightly decreases at the curing
periods of 60 and 90 days. For water immersion test strength in­
creases for all curing periods.
• The addition of these industrial by-products can prevent the water
immersion aging but weaken their ability to resist the freezing-
thawing damage. Class F flyash and GGBS are unable to improve
freezing-thawing damage and water immersion aging. The combined
mixture of cement clinker, GGBS and flyash treated soil is better than
alone mix.
• XRD results confirm that the relative dominance to a disturbance in
the matrix with the change in the formation of some new peaks of
cementitious compounds and reduction in peak intensity of mont­
morillonite and quartz with the increase of curing periods. This is
due to the hydration of reactive minerals and the glassy phase and
formation of CAH, CASH, CSH, CSHH, and CAOCH. The individual
soil particles are binded and coated by these cementitious gels
consequential in a rigid structure and decrease the void spaces.
However, after exposed to freeze-thaw and water immersion aging,
there are disappearance and appearance of cementitious compounds
14
Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358
peak in terms of phase transformation from one phase to another due
to the increasing of curing periods.
• The SEM images reveal a better interface condition; in contrast, there
is no evidence of pore formation and reveal a reorganization of ori­
ented structure to a more flocculated structure in the treated soil
specimens. The formation of hydrated grains, compacted and
cemented matrix, dense structure and development of flocculated
structure is more evident in the soil-binder mixtures in the presence
of cement clinker. However, after durability characteristics indicate
that cement clinker alone and combined mix specimens reveal that
there is densification of the matrix due to the formation of cemen­
titious compounds and the hydration process, which are responsible
for enhancement the strength of stabilized soil specimens.
• In general, based on this study in cold climates where soils are
affected by freeze-thaw cycles cement clinker is preferable. This
preference is more supported due to environmental consideration
through suggesting an application for by-products on ground
improvement and therefore should encourage cement clinker
incorporation for earthwork applications in cold regions.
Authorship statement
All persons who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors, and all
authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the work to
take public responsibility for the content, including participation in the
concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the manuscript.
Furthermore, each author certifies that this material or similar material
has not been and will not be submitted to or published in any other
publication before its appearance in the Cold regions Science and
Technology.
Authorship contributions
Please indicate the specific contributions made by each author (list
the authors’ initials followed by their surnames, e.g., Y.L. Cheung). The
name of each author must appear at least once in each of the three
categories below.
Declaration of Competing Interest
There is no conflict of interest among authors.
Acknowledgements
All persons who have made substantial contributions to the work
reported in the manuscript (e.g., technical help, writing and editing
assistance, general support), but who do not meet the criteria for
authorship, are named in the Acknowledgements and have given us their
written permission to be named. If we have not included an Acknowl­
edgements, then that indicates that we have not received substantial
contributions from non-authors.
This statement is signed by all the authors (a photocopy of this form
may be used if there are more than 10 authors).
References
ASTM D2166, 2016. Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of
Laboratory Compacted Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D560, 2016. Standard Test Method for Freezing and Thawing Compacted Soil-
Cement Mixtures. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Standard D4221-99, 2005. Standard Test Methods for Determining Dispersive
Characteristics of Clay Soils by Double Hydrometer. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, vol. 04.08.
ASTM D698, 2007. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of
Soil Using Standard Effort. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Standard, C618-08a, 2008. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or
Calcined Natural Pozzolan for use in Concrete. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA. Retrieved August, 20.
S. Mohanty et al.
Atkinson, J.H., Charles, J.A., Mhach, H.K., 1990. Examination of erosion resistance of
clays in embankment dams. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 23 (2), 103–108. https://
doi.org/10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1990.023.02.01.
Bhuvaneshwari, S., Soundra, B., Robinson, R.G., Gandhi, S.R., 2007. Stabilization and
microstructural modification of dispersive clayey soils. In: 1st International
Conference on Soil and Rock Engineering, Srilankan Geotechnical Society, Columbo,
Srilanka, pp. 1–7.
Błaszczyński, T., Babiak, M., Kosno, J., Węgliński, S., 2017. Freeze-thaw Resistance and
increased Strength of Cohesive Soils Modified with a Cationic Surfactant. Proc. Eng.
172, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.032.
Canakci, H., Güllü, H., Alhashemy, A., 2019. Performances of using geopolymers made
with various stabilizers for deep mixing. Materials 12 (16), 2542. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ma12162542.
Chaunsali, P., Peethamparan, S., 2011. Evolution of strength, microstructure and
mineralogical composition of a CKD–GGBFS binder. Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (2),
197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.11.010.
Chu, S.C., Kao, H.S., 1993. A study of engineering properties of a clay modified by fly ash
and slag. Fly Ash for Soil Improvement. In: ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 36.
Consoli, N.C., Samaniego, R.A.Q., Villalba, N.M.K., 2016. Durability, strength, and
stiffness of dispersive clay–lime blends. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (11), 04016124.
https://doi.org/10.1061/%28ASCE%29MT.1943-5533.0001632.
Emerson, W.W., 2002. Emerson dispersion test. In: Soil Physical Measurement and
Interpretation for Land Evaluation, 5, p. 190.
Emesiobi, F.C., 2000. Testing and Quality Control of Materials in Civil and Highway
Engineering. The Blueprint Ltd., Nigeria.
Goodarzi, A.R., Salimi, M., 2015. Stabilization treatment of a dispersive clayey soil using
granulated blast furnace slag and basic oxygen furnace slag. Appl. Clay Sci. 108,
61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.02.024.
Güllü, H., 2015. Unconfined compressive strength and freeze-thaw resistance of fine-
grained soil stabilized with bottom ash, lime and superplasticizer. Road Mat. Pavem.
Design 3 16 (3). https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2015.1021369, 608–4.
Güllü, H., Fedakar, H.I., 2017. Unconfined compressive strength and freeze-thaw
resistance of sand modified with sludge ash and polypropylene fiber. Geomech. Eng.
13 (1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2017.13.1.025.
Güllü, H., Cevik, A., Al-Ezzi, K.M., Gülsan, M.E., 2019. On the rheology of using
geopolymer for grouting: a comparative study with cement-based grout included fly
ash and cold bonded fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 196, 594–610. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.140.
Han, Q.N., Qiu, W., He, Z., Su, Y., Ma, X., Shi, H.J., 2018. The effect of crystal orientation
on fretting fatigue crack formation in Ni-based single-crystal superalloys: In-situ SEM
observation and crystal plasticity finite element simulation. Tribol. Int. 125,
209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2018.01.011.
Indraratna, B., Nutalaya, P., Kuganenthira, N., 1991. Stabilization of a dispersive soil by
blending with fly ash. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 24 (3), 275–290. https://doi.org/
10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1991.024.03.03.
IRC: SP: 72–-2007, 2007. Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements for low volume
rural roads. In: The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.
Ismeik, M., Shaqour, F., 2020. Effectiveness of lime in stabilising subgrade soils subjected
to freeze–thaw cycles. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 21 (1), 42–60. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14680629.2018.1479289.
James, J., Karthickeyan, S., Chidambaram, S., Dayanandan, B., Karthick, K., 2018. Effect
of curing conditions and freeze-thaw cycles on the strength of an expansive soil
stabilized with a combination of lime, jaggery, and gallnut powder. Adv. Civil Eng.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1813563.
Jha, A.K., Sivapullaiah, P.V., 2017. Physical and strength development in lime treated
gypseous soil with fly ash—Micro-analyses. Appl. Clay Sci. 145, 17–27. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.05.016.
Jones, D.E., Jones, K.A., 1987. Treating expansive soils. Civil Engineering—ASCE 57 (8),
62–65.
Mahmoued, E.K., 2010. Cement kiln dust and coal filters treatment of textile industrial
effluents. Desalination 255 (1–3), 175–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2009.12.025.
15
Cold Regions Science and Technology 191 (2021) 103358
Mehta, P.K., 1983. Mechanism of sulfate attack on portland cement concrete—Another
look. Cem. Concr. Res. 13 (3), 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(83)
90040-6.
Mohanty, S., Roy, N., Singh, S.P., 2017. Strength characteristics of dispersive soil by
using industrial by-products. In: International Congress and Exhibition Sustainable
Civil Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology. Springer, Cham,
pp. 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61612-4_24.
Mohanty, S., Roy, N., Singh, S.P., Sihag, P., 2019. Estimating the strength of stabilized
dispersive soil with cement clinker and fly ash. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 37 (4),
2915–2926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-00808-1.
Murmu, M., Singh, S.P., 2014. Hydration products, morphology and microstructure of
activated slag cement. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 8 (1), 61–68.. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40069-013-0056-x.
Mwiti, M.J., Thiong’o, J.K., Muthengia, W.J., 2018. Properties of activated blended
cement containing high content of calcined clay. Heliyon 4 (8), e00742. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.heliyon. 2018.e00742.
Pourakbar, S., Asadi, A., Huat, B.B., Fasihnikoutalab, M.H., 2015. Stabilization of clayey
soil using ultrafine palm oil fuel ash (POFA) and cement. Transp. Geotech. 3, 24–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.01.002.
Premkumar, S., Piratheepan, J., Rajeev, P., 2017. Effect of brown coal fly ash on
dispersive clayey soils. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Ground
Improvement 170 (4), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgrim.17.00008.
Senol, A., Edil, T.B., Bin-Shafique, M.S., Acosta, H.A., Benson, C.H., 2006. Soft subgrades
stabilization by using various fly ashes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 46 (4), 365–376.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.08.005.
Sharma, A.K., Sivapullaiah, P.V., 2016. Ground granulated blast furnace slag amended
fly ash as an expansive soil stabilizer. Soils Found. 56 (2), 205–212. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sandf.2016.02.004.
Sherard, J.L., Dunnigan, L.P., Decker, R.S., 1976. Identification and nature of dispersive
soils. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 102 (4), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1061/
AJGEB6.0000256.
Sihag, P., Suthar, M., Mohanty, S., 2019. Estimation of UCS-FT of dispersive soil
stabilized with fly ash, cement clinker and GGBS by artificial intelligence. Iran. J.
Sci. Technol. Trans. Civil Eng. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-019-00329-0.
Solanki, P., Zaman, M., 2012. Microstructural and mineralogical characterization of clay
stabilized using calcium-based stabilizers. In: Scanning Electron Microscopy, 9. In
tech Open.
Tebaldi, G., Orazi, M., Orazi, U.S., 2016. Effect of freeze—thaw cycles on mechanical
behavior of lime-stabilized soil. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (6), 06016002. https://doi.
org/10.1061/%28ASCE%29MT.1943-5533.0001509.
Türköz, M., Umu, S.U., Öztürk, O., 2021. Effect of silica fume as a waste material for
sustainable environment on the stabilization and dynamic behavior of dispersive
soil. Sustainability 13 (8), 4321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084321.
Umesha, T.S., Dinesh, S.V., Sivapullaiah, P.V., 2009. Control of dispersivity of soil using
lime and cement. Int. J. Geol. 3 (1), 8–16.
Vakili, A.H., Bin Selamat, M.R., Aziz, H.B.A., Mojiri, A., Ahmad, Z., Safarzadeh, M., 2017.
Treatment of dispersive clay soil by ZELIAC. Geoderma 285, 270–279. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.10.009.
Wang, D., Zentar, R., Abriak, N.E., Di, S., 2018. Long-term mechanical performance of
marine sediments solidified with cement, lime, and fly ash. Mar. Georesour.
Geotechnol. 36 (1), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1320600.
Yadu, L., Tripathi, R.K., 2013. Stabilization of soft soil with granulated blast furnace slag
and fly ash. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2 (2), 115–119.
Yi, Y., Gu, L., Liu, S., 2015. Microstructural and mechanical properties of marine soft clay
stabilized by lime-activated ground granulated blastfurnace slag. Appl. Clay Sci. 103,
71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.11.005.
Zentar, R., Wang, D., Abriak, N.E., Benzerzour, M., Chen, W., 2012. Utilization of
siliceous–aluminous fly ash and cement for solidification of marine sediments.
Constr. Build. Mater. 35, 856–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2012.04.024.