Bull Eng Geol Environ (2015) 74:651–665
DOI 10.1007/s10064-014-0667-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Soil stabilization using proprietary liquid chemical stabilizers:
sulphonated oil and a polymer
Site Onyejekwe • Gurmel S. Ghataora
Received: 21 March 2013 / Accepted: 5 August 2014 / Published online: 4 October 2014
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract A selected commercially available sulphonated
oil (SO) and a polymer were evaluated for use as soil
stabilizers in a laboratory-based investigation. Two natu-
rally occurring soils (Mercia mudstone [MM] and Oxford
clay [OC]) and limestone quarry fines (LQF) were treated
with the SO, a polymer, and a combination of the SO and
the polymer for assessment of changes in their engineering
properties. Untreated specimens also were tested to serve
as a control condition. Stabilizer performance was evalu-
ated based on the provisions of ASTM D4609-08 (2008).
The test results indicated that performance was dependent
on both the soil type and the stabilizer dosage. Generally,
treatment did not lead to substantial changes in index
properties or maximum dry density. However, the optimum
moisture content for LQF was substantially reduced
(17–35 %) together with improvements in both dry
strength (unconfined compressive strength [UCS]: 38 %
for MM, 26 % for OC, [500 % for LQF; static flexural
strength [SFS]: 60 % for MM and OC, [500 % for LQF)
and swell characteristics (20 % for OC, 21–61 % for MM).
Applied in the proper context, the stabilizers are suitable
for the treatment of soils for low-volume roads.
Keywords Soil stabilization  Polymers  Sulphonated
oils  Nontraditional stabilizers  Proprietary liquid
chemical stabilizers
S. Onyejekwe (&)
Road Sector Development Team, Federal Ministry of Works,
Abuja, Nigeria
e-mail: sonyejekwe@yahoo.com
G. S. Ghataora
School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
e-mail: g.s.ghataora@bham.ac.uk
Introduction
The ever-increasing demands for cost-effective, environ-
mentally friendly construction practices and, perhaps most
of all, the reduced availability of suitable materials has led
to a rise in the need to use out-of-specification and
‘‘waste’’ materials in the construction of roads. In many
cases the use of such materials requires that they undergo
some form of stabilization or improvement. The tradi-
tional chemical soil stabilization additives are cement,
lime, fly ash, and bitumen, but their use in the stabiliza-
tion of soils for road construction can be prohibitively
costly, particularly in less developed countries, in which
some of these binders may not be produced locally and
are expensive to import (Ghataora 2000; Petry and Little
2002; Cook et al. 2013).
Traditional stabilizers such as cement lime, fly ash, and
bitumen have been researched extensively, and their sta-
bilizing reactions with soils are reasonably well understood
(RRL/DSIR 1959; Meyers et al. 1976; NLA 1985; ICI
1986; Petry and Armstrong 1989; ACI 1990; Sherwood
1993; Little et al. 2000). However, other chemical stabi-
lizers, developed in the last 60 or so years, have not been so
extensively researched. The stabilizers concerned are
mainly proprietary products sold as concentrated solutions
that usually are diluted in water at the construction site,
then sprayed on the soil and mixed in before compaction.
They are marketed in the form of sulphonated oils (SOs),
polymers, enzymes, mineral pitches, salts, acids, lign-
osulphonates, and tree resins, among others (Ingles and
Metcalf 1972; Kezdi 1979; Petry 1997; Ghataora 2000;
Petry and Das 2001; Katz et al. 2001). They may be of a
cationic, anionic, or nonionic ionic state. All the products
are reported to be environmentally friendly and in diluted
form. They may not present a hazard, but some,
123
652 S. Onyejekwe, G. S. Ghataora

particularly sulphonated petroleum products, may require improvements in engineering properties of materials, all
care in storing and handling in their concentrated state. these products require consideration of the following
The discussion in this article is centered on the first two factors:
product groups (SOs and polymers), which with enzymes
are the major product groups on the market. These chem- (a) Identification of the soils most likely to benefit from
ical stabilizers offer the following attractions, all of which stabilization. Not all soils are suitable for treatment.
result in cost savings compared with other forms of ground/ (b) Determination of the application rates for the selected
soil improvement: smaller quantity of stabilizer, resulting soil types. The rates recommended by manufacturers
in lower transportation cost; reduced amount of earthworks often are not the most effective. Trials are required to
because soil is treated in situ, and easy application of sta- determine appropriate application rates.
bilizer to soil. (c) Treated soils must lose moisture in order to gain
When mixed into soil, the chemical stabilizers function strength, so the additives should be applied in dry
in a number of ways. They assist with alignment of the clay weather conditions. This makes stabilizers more
particles, which improves compactibility. Changes to the suitable for use in tropical and subtropical regions
polarity of clay particles’ surface charges results in an that have distinct wet and dry seasons.
increase in interparticle cohesive strength and modifies the (d) Suitable construction techniques that take into
structure of the clay lattice and coating ion exchange sites account the stabilization mechanisms of the stabi-
of clays. As a result, the sensitivity to water is reduced, and lizers should be adopted.
the binding action of the soil particles is improved, which
This study investigated the effects that applying repre-
reduces plasticity and increases strength.
sentative products of SO, a polymer, and a combination of
Notwithstanding the significant potential advantages
SO and a polymer have on the properties of two naturally
offered by these proprietary chemical stabilizers, most
occurring fine-grained soils (a low plasticity silty clay and
engineers are reluctant to recommend their use. Consequently
a medium to high plasticity clay) and quarry fines (a
they have not enjoyed widespread use and acceptance. This
granular material). To clarify the effect of the additives on
lack of acceptance can be traced mainly to a lack of inde-
the test soils, particularly the fine-grained soils, the effect
pendently published research on chemical stabilizers (Ingles
of changing stabilizer dosages, stabilizer combination
and Metcalf 1972; Ghataora 2000; Katz et al. 2001; Petry and
proportions, and curing conditions on the properties of the
Little 2002; Santoni et al. 2002; Rauch et al. 2002). Other
test soils also was investigated.
factors include a lack of standard laboratory test methods for
effective prediction of field performance and often inade-
quate information provided by the manufacturers of the sta-
Materials
bilization additives, together with sometimes poorly defined
or inconsistent application rates in the product literature. In
The primary materials used in this study were soils, sta-
addition, the active constituents in many cases are trade
bilization additives, fibers, and water. Two naturally
secrets that make it difficult to assess the stabilization
occurring soils, namely, Mercia mudstone (MM) (a low-
mechanisms independently and to forecast their potential
plasticity, silty clay) and Oxford clay (OC) (a medium- to
benefits. This is accompanied by a lack of engineering
high-plasticity clay), and limestone quarry fines (LQF) (a
expertise within the marketing companies coupled with fre-
nonplastic byproduct from the crushing of limestone for
quent changes in the names of suppliers and products, which
aggregates) were used in this study. The particle size dis-
makes it difficult to develop confidence based on long-term
tributions of these soils are shown in Fig. 1, and other
experience with a particular product.
properties are shown in Table 2.
Most of the written information on the use of these
The additives used for stabilization included represen-
stabilizers is published by their manufacturers/suppliers.
tative SOs and polymer products, which are referred to by
The majority of the published reports on granular materials
these generic names to avoid the endorsement of any par-
show that chemical stabilizers bring about a definite
ticular commercial product. Additive manufacturers state
improvement in their properties, whereas the treatment of
that these additives meet US Environmental Protection
the fine-grained materials give mixed results. Table 1
Agency (EPA) specifications for toxicity and heavy metals.
provides details of key published papers on both types of
Kimball (1997) evaluated the groundwater pollution sus-
soils. It is generally agreed, however, that these stabilizers,
ceptibility of Pennz-Suppress D, a SO similar to the one
if applied in the proper context, have the potential to
evaluated in this study, and found that it exceeded EPA
improve the engineering properties of materials used in
specifications for toxicity and heavy metals at manufac-
road construction, particularly materials used in construc-
turer-recommended dilution rates. Similar results also were
tion of low-volume roads. But for successful realization of

123
Soil stabilisation using proprietary liquid chemical stabilisers 653

Table 1 Details of key published papers on fine-grained and granular soils

Reference Stabiliser Dosage Rates Soil Type Parameters Measured

Research with sulphonated oils reporting substantial improvements in soil properties

Kassian (2001) Consolid 0.41, 0.81 ml/m3 3No. soils (two CL CBR, 1-D free swell
one CH)
Abadjieva (2001) CONAID 100, 200 ml/m3 Black cotton, calcrete CBR, 1-D free swell
a
Park et al. (2006) 3 Surfactants 1; 2; 23.7 g/l Kaolinite, and AL, M-D, UCS, permeability
kaolinite-sand
(30:70) mixture
Greening and 7 No. SOsb 0.01 – 0.09 l/m3 of soil Severalc AL, CBR, M-D, PSD, XRD,
Paige-Green (2003) CEC, EC %, pH, DTA,
TGA, field trials
Research with sulphonated oils reporting no substantial improvements in soil properties
Fohs (1975) RoadPacker DR 5 5/1000; 0.002 m3/464.52 – 557.42 Clay loam, clay, silt M-D, AL, CBR, UCS,
m2 of soil loam, silt loam triaxial, R-value and
expansion pressure.
Thomas (2002) Generic polymer 0.2 % : MRAR 3 No. natural clay Triaxial shear strength
soils
Greening and 7 No. SOsb 0.01, 0.02, 0.03 (MRD), 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, Severalc AL, CBR, M-D, PSD, XRD,
Paige-Green (2003) 0.07, 0.08, 0.09 l/m3 of soil CEC, EC %, pH, DTA,
TGA, field trials
Rauch et al. (2002, Generic polymer 0.02 and 0.2 % Severald AL, M-D, 1-D free swell,
2003) triaxial (undrained)
Harris et al. (2006) PennzSuppress; DR = 1:4, 2.5 %, 4.527 l/m2, 13.75 Texas soils with 1-D free swell
Roadbond EN-1; EcSS ml/kg of soil; DR = 1:300, 3 %; sulfate
3000 DR = 1:300, 1l/3453l of soil concentrations [
7000 ppm
Research with proprietary polymers on clayey soils reporting substantial improvements in soil properties
Tingle and Santoni Generic polymer 0.066–5 % Two natural clays: UCS
(2003) CL; CH
Ziaie-Moayed et al. Epoxy-resin 6, 7, 8 % Saline soil (ML; UCS, DS, durability
(2011) PI = 8)
Naeini et al. (2012) Acrylic polymer (AP225) 2, 3, 4, 5 % 1 natural clay (CL) UCS
and 2 blended clays
(CL, CH)
Research with proprietary polymers on silt/sand/gravel reporting substantial improvements in soil properties
Al-Khanbashi and Copolymers: styrene- 0.5-5 % by dry weight Sandy soils SEM, UCS
Abdalla (2006) acrylic, vinyl-acrylic
Onyejekwe (2006) Polymer 11.35 ml/kg (MRD) to 5 x MRD Quarry fines (QF) SEM, compaction, UCS,
SFS, durability
Iyenger et al. (2013) Acrylate-based: anionic, A: 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 %; B: 1.0, 2.0, 1.0 %; Gravel-sand-silt-clay SEM, XRD, UCS
A, cationic, B; anionic C: 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 % mixture
emulsion, C.
Yasrobi et al. (2007) Polyvinyl acetate, Polymer-soil ratios (by weight): Sandy soil (dune UCS, durability
and Zandieh and Polymethyl 0.004-0.037 sand)
Yasrobi (2010) methacrylate
Han et al. (2007) Polymer emulsions: DR = 1:5 and 1:10 Shifting dunes UCS, permeability, erosion
polyvinyl alcohol, resistance
polyvinyl acetate
Santoni et al. (2002) 3 No. Polymers, A, B, A: 0.1, 1.5, 2.5 %; B: 1.03, 2.5 %; Silty sand (SM) UCS, durability
and C C: 0.83, 2.5, and 5 %
Newman and Tingle 6 No. polymer 2.75 % weight of solids to weight of soil Silty sand (SM) UCS, durability
(2004) and
Newman et al.
(2005)
Geiman (2005) and Polymer 2-3 % by dry weight Virginia soil (SM) UCS, durability
Geiman et al.
(2005)
Bolander (1999) Marloc, Soil Sement 0.5 and 1.5 % residual Crushed aggregate STS, durability (freeze-thaw;
0.5, 1.5, 2.0, and 6.0 % residual wet-dry)

123
654 S. Onyejekwe, G. S. Ghataora

Table 1 continued
Reference Stabiliser Dosage Rates Soil Type Parameters Measured

Research with multi-part polymers (of known constituents) reporting substantial improvements in soil properties
Lahalih (1998) Composition: [SUMF, 1 % SUMF; 0.5 % SUMF? 0.25 % NaCl Dune sand, marl, and UCS, erosion resistance
NaCl, and UF]e gatch-type sandy
soil
Lahalih and Ahmed Composition: [SUMF 2 % (SUMF?UF) ? 0.25 % NaCl Dune sand UCS
(1998) and UF, NaCl]e
Liu et al. (2012) 3 No. polyurethanef (3 and 5 g/cm3) Sand:clay mixtures: UCS, DS, erosion resistance
weight ratios = 1:1,
1:3 and 1:5
Ajayi-Majebi et al. Two-part epoxy resing 0.25, 1, and 4 % by weight Blended: silt:clay CBR
(1991) ratios = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6
Research with proprietary polymers on clayey soils reporting no substantial improvements in soil properties
Rauch et al. (2002, Generic 0.1 and 1.0 % Severald AL, M-D, 1-D free swell,
2003) triaxial (undrained)
Thomas (2002) Generic 1.0 % : MRAR 3 No. natural clay Triaxial Shear Strength
soils
Tingle and Santoni 4 No. polymers 0.066-5 % Two natural clays: UCS, durability
(2003) CL; CH
Geiman (2005) and Polymer 2-3 % by dry weight Virginia soils (CL, UCS, durability
Geiman et al. CH)
(2005)
Harris et al. (2006) Environseal M10?50, 5l/m3, 5 %; 0.4l/m3, 0.25 %; DR = 1:3- Texas soils, sulfate 1-D free swell
LBS; TopSeal; Soil 10, 1:3 used; 0.053l/l of soil, 6 x MRD concentrations [
Sement 7000 ppm

CBR, California-bearing ratio; AL, Atterberg limits: M-D, moisture–density relationship; Triaxial, triaxial compressive strength; UCS, unconfined
compressive strength; PSD, particle size distribution; XRD, x-ray diffraction; SEM, scanning electron microscopy; SFS, static flexural strength; CEC,
cation exchange capacity, EC %, exchangeable cation percentage; DTA, differential thermal analysis; TGA, thermogravimetric analysis; DS, direct shear;
STS, splitting tensile strength; MRD, manufacturer’s recommended dosage; 1-D, one-dimensional; MRAR, manufacturer’s recommended application rate
a
Triton X-100, Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), biosurfactant (from used vegetable oil)
b
Supersol, Chem-road, CBR plus, Roadbond, Conaid Classic, Roadamine, ISS 2000
c
Highly Weathered Diabase, Black Clay, Ferruginous, Fine Sandy Gravel, Fine Gravelly Sand
d
Mixed Clay 1; Mixed Clay 2; Kaolinite; Illite; Na Montmorillonite
e
Polymer composition (main components: sulfonated ureamelamine–formaldehyde [SUMF]-polyanionic component, sodium chloride-bridging agent,
and urea–formaldehyde [UF]-aggregating and bonding agent)
f
3 No. polyurethane (synthesized from mixtures of toluene diisocyanate, polyethylene glycol, and polypropylene glycol)
g
Two-part epoxy resin: bisphenol A/epichlorohydrin resin and water-insoluble polyamide

reported by Steevens et al. (2007). A brief description of

Quarry Fines Oxford Clay Mercia Mudstone the stabilization additives is given in the following
Cumulative Percentage Passing

100 discussion.
90
Sulphonated oils, also known as sulphonated hydrocar-
80
70 bons, have the main active ingredient described in the title.
60 However, other ingredients typically are added, which
50 manufacturers claim aid the action of the compound in
40
30
some way. Essentially, SOs are surfactants whose main
20 agent is a two-part molecule. One part is adsorbed onto the
10 surface of the clay particles, reducing its ion exchange
0 capacity. This reduces the ability of the clay mineral to
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (mm) absorb water, thus changing it from hydrophilic to hydro-
phobic in character. The other component acts as a lubri-
Fig. 1 Particle size distributions for the soils used in the investigation cant that enables particles to move past each other with

123
Soil stabilisation using proprietary liquid chemical stabilisers 655

Table 2 Properties of the soils Soil propertya Soil/result

used in the tests
Mercia mudstone Oxford clay Limestone quarry fines

\0.002 mm (%) 15 46 1
\0.063 mm (%) 36.2 96.41 13.27
Particle density 2.7 2.58 2.64
Liquid limit (%) 29.89 56.53 N/A
Plastic limit (%) 21.18 30.19 N/A
Plasticity index (%) 8.71 26.34 N/A
Linear shrinkage (%) 7.43 10.64 N/A
N/D, no data available; MDD,
maximum dry density; OMC, MDD (mg/m3)b 1.964 1.627 2.206
optimum moisture content OMC (%)b 12.0 18.33 6.23
a
According to British pH 7.6 7.1 7.9
standards unless otherwise Loss at ignition (%) 7 15.8 43.4
stated
b
Classification CL CH Sandy gravel
British Standards (BS)
Activity 0.58 0.57 –
‘‘heavy’’ method
c D10 (mm) – – 0.025
Salversen brickworks,
Walsall, West Midlands for D30 (mm) – – 0.4
Mercia mudstone D60 (mm) – – 1.7
d
Hanson Brickworks, CU – – 68
Stewartby, Bedfordshire for Predominantly clay mineralsc Illite, kaolinite, and Kaolinite, illite, and N/D
Oxford clay mixed-layer minerale mixed-layer minerale
e
Containing chlorite, Predominantly nonclay Calcite, dolomite, Quartz, calcite, N/D
vermiculite, and mineralsd quartz, and feldspar and pyrite
montmorillonite

Table 3 Stabilizer dosages investigated

Soil type Notation Stabilizer dosage Description Dosages investigated
a b
% MDD ml/kg

Mercia mudstone (MM) None – – Control P1; P2; P3; S1; S2; S3; P1S1; P1S2; P1S3;
P1 0.119 1.02 MRD (polymer) P2S1; P2S2; P2S3; P3S1; P3S2; P3S3
S1 0.0318 0.255 MRD (SO)
Oxford clay (OC) None – – Control
P1 0.214 1.783 MRD (polymer)
S1 0.0229 0.183 MRD (SO)
Limestone quarry fines (LQFs) None – – Control P1; P2; P3; P4; P5
P1 0.265 2.27 MRD (polymer)
P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 MRD, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-times the MRD for polymer respectively
S1, S2, S3 MRD, 2-, and 3-times the MRD for SO respectively MDD, MRD, SO sulphonated oil MRD, manufacturer’s recommended dosage;
MDD, maximum dry density
a
Stabilizer dosage in terms of percent of dry density
b
Stabilizer dosage in terms of volume per unit mass

reduced effort. Thus, with SOs, greater dry density should
be achieved for a given compactive effort than with
untreated soil.
Polymer emulsions, or more correctly, polymer disper-
sions, are suspensions of synthetic polymers in which the
monomers are polymerized in a dominantly aqueous
medium. Synthetic polymer emulsions include acrylic or
acetate polymers or copolymers typically manufactured for
the adhesive or paint industry. Polymeric additives used in
soil stabilization are formulated as either compaction aids
or binders, and some are specially designed to combine
both the compaction aid and binder actions. The compac-
tion aid assists the attainment of high densities and hence
stability, whereas the binders encapsulate the soil particles,

123
656 S. Onyejekwe, G. S. Ghataora

Table 4 Tests conducted and procedures stabilizer dosages were evaluated for MM and OC: the
Test Procedure
manufacturer’s recommended dosage (MRD), two times
the manufacturer’s recommended dosage, three times the
Particle size distribution §9.2, BS 1377: part 2:1990; §9.5, manufacturer’s recommended dosage of each stabilizer,
BS 1377: part 2: 1990 (BSI
and a combination of these dosages for both additives. Six
1990a)
of the stabilizers’ dosages were applied independently.
Atterberg limits §4.3, §5.3, BS 1377: part 2: 1990
(BSI 1990a); §1.4, BS 1924: part Three dosages of each of the two additives were applied
2: 1990 (BSI 1990b) alone, and nine of the stabilizer dosages were applied in
Linear shrinkage §6.5, BS 1377: part 2: 1990 (BSI combination, with various dosages of both stabilizers
1990a) combined before application. Five stabilizer dosages were
Cation exchange capacity Paige-Green and Coetser (1996) evaluated for the specimens of the LQF, ranging from the
(methylene blue adsorption MRD up to and including five times the MRD of the
test)
polymer. To form an objective basis for comparison of the
Scanning electron microscopy Wet mode
test results, untreated specimens also were tested to serve
Moisture content–dry density §6.5.4, BS 1377: part 4: 1990 (BSI
relationship 1990a); §2.1.4, BS 1924: part 2;
as a control condition.
1990 (BSI 1990b) The quantity of the stabilizer required for the indepen-
Unconfined compressive §7.2, BS 1377: part 7: 1990 (BSI dent application or the stabilizers required for the com-
strength 1990a); §4.1, BS 1924: part 2: bined application were added to the mix water and
1990 (BSI 1990b) subsequently combined with the requisite amount of soil
Static flexural strength ASTM D 1632-07 (2007); ASTM using a paddle mixer until the mix was homogeneous.
D1635-06
Ordinary tap water was used for the dilution of the stabi-
Swell §7.3, BS 1377: part 4: 1990 (BSI
lizer. Due to the small quantities of the additives required,
1990a); §4.5.5, BS 1924: part2:
1990 (BSI 1990b) the stabilizer additives were dispensed using syringes of
Durability Immersion in water; §4.3, BS 1924: various capacities to an accuracy of 0.01 ml.
part 2: 1990 (BSI 1990b) The strength (UCS and SFS), durability, and swell test
Particle density §8.3, BS 1377: part 2: 1990 (BSI specimens were cured in the open laboratory environment
1990a) at an average temperature of 20 C and an average relative
Loss at ignition §4.3, BS 1377: part 3: 1990 (BSI humidity of 45 % for 28 days. Other investigators, for
1990a) example, Santoni et al. (2002) and Tingle and Santoni
(2003), used air-dried specimens. Both methods of curing
entail loss of moisture, which is required for the specimens
binding them to form a tough semirigid mass. However, to gain strength.
most binders have a compaction aid component, thus The laboratory tests conducted and the procedures
combining the advantages of the compaction aid and the adopted are shown in Table 4 and very briefly described in
ability to bind the soil mass. The resulting stabilized the following paragraphs:
product should be a better engineered soil with a greatly Particle size distribution Particle size distribution
reduced susceptibility to the effects of moisture. determinations were performed on the cured soils by wet
sieving and hydrometer sedimentation, specified respec-
tively as tests 9.2 and 9.5 of British Standards (BS) 1377:
Methods part 2:1990 (BSI 1990a), to characterize and evaluate the
effect of the stabilizer on the size of the soil particles.
The experimental work consisted of characterizing the soils Atterberg limits and linear shrinkage Both liquid and
(Table 2) presents the results and evaluating the effects that plastic limit determinations and linear shrinkage tests were
various quantities (or dosages) of the stabilizers have on performed on both the untreated and treated specimens
the following properties of soils: Atterberg limits, linear immediately after the soils were mixed with the stabilizer.
shrinkage, dry density–moisture content relationship, Cation exchange capacity The cation exchange capacity
unconfined compressive strength (UCS), static flexural of both the treated and untreated MM and OC specimens
strength (SFS), swell, and durability. The performance of was investigated using the methylene blue adsorption
the stabilizers was assessed based on the provisions of (MBA) test method, as described by Cokca and Birand
ASTM D4609-08 (2008), the standard guide for evaluating (1993), Paige-Green and Coetser (1996), Cokca (2002),
the effectiveness of chemicals for soil stabilization. and Greening and Paige-Green (2003). The treated speci-
The additive dosages investigated and the notations mens were prepared by grinding the cured sample to pass
adopted in this study are shown in Table 3. A total of 15 through a 0.425-mm sieve.

123
Soil stabilisation using proprietary liquid chemical stabilisers
Scanning electron microscopy Scanning electron
micrographs were obtained, using Oxford Instruments
Microanalysis Group FEI XL 30 ESM FEG, for the com-
parison of the effect that stabilizer dosages have on the
soils. Cured soil specimens were tested in wet mode at a
pressure of about 3.0 Torr and a beam of 10 kV.
Moisture content–dry density relationship The com-
paction characteristics of the soil tests were determined
using the BS ‘‘heavy’’ (BSI 1990a) or modified American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) (AASHTO T 180-10 2010) test. The test was
performed by compacting the mixed soil sample for the
first data point and then adding additional water to the
stabilzer and soil mixture for the remaining data points.
Unconfined compressive strength The UCS was deter-
mined on 38- and 50 mm diameters respectively by 76- and
100 mm high specimens of MM, OC, and LQF respec-
tively, prepared by static compaction at the respective
MDD and OMC values. The test value was the average
value of three tests, in which the specimens were tested
after 0, 7, 14, and 28 days of curing. The MM and OC also
were tested after curing for 56 and 90 days. The UCS test
has been used by other investigators (e.g., Fohs 1975;
Oldham et al. 1977; Santoni et al. 2002; Greening and
Page-Green 2003; Tingle and Santoni 2003; Al-Khanbashi
and Abdalla 2006; Naeini et al. 2012) working on alter-
native chemical stabilization additives to assess the per-
formance of these stabilization additives.
Static flexural strength The SFS test provided an indirect
measure for the tensile strength of the soil. The specimens
were 40 mm square by 160 mm long prisms prepared
following the provisions of ASTM D1632-07 (2007) in the
same manner as for the compression tests. The average of
three determinations performed according to the provisions
of ASTM D1635-06 (2006) on specimens that had been
cured for 0, 7, 14, and 28 days was adopted as the test
value.
Swell: The swell test was performed on treated and
untreated specimens prepared by dynamic compaction as
standard CBR specimens according to the provisions of BS
1924:1990 (BSI 1990b) and BS 1377:1990 (BSI 1990a).
The treated specimens, raised on CBR sleeves so that both
ends of the specimen had access to the environment, were
cured for 14 days under laboratory conditions. This curing
process was thought to simulate on-site curing conditions
for treated soil, and swell measurements were made during
a 7-day soaking period after curing.
Durability Durability tests were performed on both UCS
and SFS specimens using immersion tests by recording the
time taken for the specimen to disintegrate and using the
durability test of BS 1924:1990 (BSI 1990b), in which the
effect of immersion on both UCS and SFS was determined.
Using this method, two identical sets of specimens were
657
cured in the laboratory for 7 days, after which one set was
immersed in water and the other set was air cured, both for
a further 7 days. To evaluate the effect of longer-term
changes, the curing was extended to 21 days followed by
7 days of immersion. The retained strength or the per-
centage of resistance to loss in strength (Ri) was calculated
as follows:
Ri ¼ 100  Pi =Pc ð1Þ
where Pi is the compressive strength of the immersed
specimen (MPa) and Pc is the compressive strength of air-
cured specimen (MPa).
Results and discussion
The stabilizer dosages investigated did not have any readily
observable effect on the particle size distribution of the
materials (MM and OC) investigated. This could indicate
either that the stabilizers had no effect on the soils or that
the test procedure was not appropriate and hence not able
to show the effects of the additives. Treated specimens
were tested according to standard procedure. They were
treated with a dispersing agent and agitated for at least 5 to
10 min. Any improvements in the particle size distribution
of the specimens may have been lost during this process.
The results of the Atterberg limits tests for the MM and
OC specimens are presented in Fig. 2a–c on Casagrande
charts, with the latter showing enlarged plots respectively
for the MM and OC specimens. Thus, the application of the
stabilizers does not result in any appreciable improvement
in terms of a substantial reduction in the plasticity index
(PI) in either soil. Increases in PI ranging from 27 % to
83 % for MM and 0.2 % to 13 % for OC and reductions in
PI of 5 % for MM and ranging from 0.5 % to 6.3 % for OC
relative to the untreated specimens were recorded. Similar
findings have been reported by other investigators includ-
ing Coleman (1997), Fohs (1975), So (2002), Rauch et al.
(2002), and Oketola (2004). This lack of reduction in PI
may possibly be due to insufficient availability of cations in
the dosages investigated to satisfy the physicochemical
needs of the soils, insufficient time for the additives to act
on the soils, unsuitability of the additives for these soils,
and inability of the tests show the effect of treatment.
Findings of the linear shrinkage (LS) determinations for
both MM and OC are presented in Fig. 3. Again, the values
for both MM and OC were not substantially reduced.
Increases in LS ranging from 2 % to 31 % for MM and 1 %
to 27 % for OC and reductions in PI of 9 % for MM and
ranging from 2 % to 8 % for OC relative to the untreated
specimens were recorded. Other investigators, including So
(2002) and Oketola (2004), have reported similar findings.
These results are surprising considering that stabilizers
123
658
Fig. 2 a Atterberg limits of Mercia mudstone (MM) and Oxford clay
(OC) specimens. b Atterberg limits of MM specimens on an extract
of Casagrande chart. c Atterberg limits of Oxford clay (OC) spec-
imens on an extract of Casagrande chart
123
S. Onyejekwe, G. S. Ghataora
16
14 LS (MM) LS (OC)
12
10
LS (%)
8
6
4
2
0
None
P1
P2
P3
S1
S2
S3
P1S1
P1S2
P1S3
P2S1
P2S2
P2S3
P3S1
P3S2
P3S3
Stabiliser Dosage
Fig. 3 Linear shrinkage of Mercia mudstone and Oxford clay
specimens
reduced the cation exchange capacity (CEC) (reported
later) of the specimens. Because reduction occurred in
some cases, the increases in linear shrinkage cannot be
attributed solely to extra solids from the stabilizers. This
variable performance, in which no trend was observed, -
could have been the result of unknown reactions between
the additives and the soils.
The results of the CEC determinations for the MM and
OC specimens are presented in Fig. 4. Relative to the
untreated control specimens, the stabilizer dosages evalu-
ated reduced the CEC of MM and OC specimens 37 % to
58 %, corresponding respectively to P3 and P2S3, and 45
% to 88 %, corresponding respectively to P3 and P3S3.
The OC specimens, with their predominant clay mineral of
kaolinite, exhibited a greater reduction than the MM
specimens, in which the predominant clay mineral was
illite. Kaolinite has a lower CEC than illite. Polymer–SO
blends generally displayed synergistic behavior, resulting
in greater reductions in CEC than when either stabilizer
was applied alone. This reduction in CEC probably was -
due to an ion exchange between the stabilizers and the soils
(MM and OC), in which ions were supplied to the soil,
although the ionic state of the stabilizers was not known.
As surfactants, SOs are basically ionic exchange additives.
Polymers, on the other hand, are primarily binders but also
contain other constituents including surfactants. Thus, SOs
have two properties that make them useful in soil stabil-
ization: their ability to both fix, displace, or replace
exchange cations in clays and their ability to make the soil
materials hydrophobic by displacing adsorbed water and
water of hydration and by preventing readsorption of this
water. These substantial reductions in CEC were expected
to turn clays from hydrophilic to hydrophobic materials
and lead to improvements in the volume change properties
of the soils. Significant reduction in CEC is one of the
Soil stabilisation using proprietary liquid chemical stabilisers 659

25 more compact microstructure in the test soils than in the

MM OC untreated soils.
CEC (meq/100g Clay)

20
The effect that applying various dosages of the stabi-
15 lizers had on the moisture content–dry density relationship
for MM, OC, and LQF are presented in Fig. 6a, b, and c,
10 respectively. Compared with the untreated specimens, no
significant change in the MDD of the MM, OC, and LQF
5
specimens was observed for the range of stabilizer dosages
0
examined. Instead of a decrease in OMC, increases of up to
None

P1

P3

S1

S3

P1S1

P1S3

P2S1

P2S3

P3S1

P3S3
Stabiliser Dosage
Fig. 4 Cation exchange capacity of untreated and treated specimens
of Mercia mudstone and Oxford clay
properties listed by ASTM D4609-08 (2008) as indicative
of the likely effectiveness of an in-soil chemical stabil-
ization method. However, ASTM D4609-08 (2008) does
not specify any limits of acceptance for CEC.
The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) findings are
presented in Fig. 5. The micrographs (magnification
91,500) show that the application of the stabilizers led to a
18 % and 10 % were observed for the MM and OC spec-
imens, respectively. Conversely, a substantial reduction in
OMC in the range of about 17 % to 35 % was observed for
the LQF specimens. As recommended by ASTM D
4609-08 (2008), a chemical stabilizer may be considered
effective if it causes a moisture content reduction greater
than 15 % and a dry density increase greater than 80 kg/m3
(0.08 mg/m3). The addition of an SO (a surfactant) to a soil
should reduce the surface tension effects of the compaction
water on the soil and allow for more effective compaction.
The addition of polymers to a soil that reduces interparticle
friction should also have an effect similar to that of SOs
because they contain surfactants. However, this did not
occur in the MM and OC specimens, but a general decrease

Fig. 5 Scanning electron micrographs of untreated and treated samples

123
660 S. Onyejekwe, G. S. Ghataora

(a) 2.05 None

compaction tests in studying the effects of nonstandard
2 P1 stabilizers on the engineering properties of soils.
P2
The 28-day cured UCS is presented for the MM and OC
Dry Density (Mg/m3)

1.95 P3
S1
S2 specimens in Fig. 7a and for the LQF specimens in
1.9
S3 Fig. 7b. The MM and OC specimens displayed a mixed
P1S1
1.85
P1S2 performance for the stabilizer dosages evaluated, and
P1S3
1.8 whereas the performance of the independent dosages was
P2S1
P2S2
1.75
P2S3 poor for MM, it was far better for OC. These results were
P3S1 strongly correlated with the results of the CEC tests.
1.7
P3S2
1.65
P3S3 Because stabilizers are ionic exchangers (primarily for SO
4 7 10 13 16 19 22
and secondarily for a polymer), it is expected that they
Moisture Content (%)
would be more effective in materials for which CEC was
(b) 1.7 None
most improved. The SEM micrographs of the specimens
P1 after 28 days of curing also showed improvements in the
1.65 P2
microstructure that would result in improved strength. The
Dry Density (Mg/m3)

P3
S1
1.6 S2 LQF specimens exhibited an increase in strength with
S3 increased stabilizer dosage up to P4, whereas thereafter, an
P1S1
1.55
P1S2 increase in additive did not result in a significant change in
P1S3
1.5 P2S1 strength (Fig. 7b). The conjectured explanation for this is
P2S2
P2S3 that at 4 9 MRD, the polymer–LQF interaction is domi-
1.45 P3S1 nant and that a further increase may lead to the polymer
P3S2
1.4
P3S3 strength dominating the response of the mix to loading.
10 15 20 25 30 The greatest improvements in UCS were observed with
Moisture Content (%) LQF, followed by the MM and OC specimens. For a sta-
(c) None P1 P2
bilizer to be considered effective, ASTM D 4609-08 (2008)
2.25 P3 P4 P5 requires a minimum UCS increase of 345 kPa. The fol-
Dry Density (Mg/m3)

2.2 lowing stabilizer dosages met this requirement: MM (P3S1,

2.15
2.1
2.05
2
3 4 5 6 7 8
Moisture Content (%)
Fig. 6 Dry density. a Moisture content relationship for Mercia
mudstone. b Moisture content relationship for Oxford clay. c Moisture
content relationship for limestone quarry fines
was observed in MDD in LQF with increasing stabilizer
dosage, except for the P4, which showed a minimal
increase of 1.8 %. This minimal level of variation, con-
sidered to be within the margin of error for the test, is
expected in laboratory testing.
Considering the large specific surface areas of MM and
OC, it is possible that the stabilizer dosages investigated
were not sufficient to have the expected effect on the soils.
There was better performance with LQF, which has a
smaller specific surface area. Similar results were reported
by other investigators including Fohs (1975), Hoover and
Handy (1978), Scholen (1992, 1995), Bolander (1999), So
(2002), Rauch et al. (2002), Greening and Paige-Green
(2003), and Oketola (2004), who used standard laboratory
P3S2), OC (P1, P2, P3, S1, S2, S3, P1S1, P2S3, P3S3), and
LQF (P2, P3, P4, P5). This variable performance of sta-
bilizers on soils has been reported by other investigators
who worked with similar additives including Fohs (1975);
So (2002); Santoni et al. (2002); Tingle and Santoni
9 10 (2003), and Oketola (2004).
The 28-day SFS is presented for the MM and OC
specimens in Fig. 8a and for the LQF specimens in
Fig. 8b. As in the case of UCS, the MM and OC specimens
displayed a mixed performance for the stabilizer dosages
evaluated. However, in almost all cases, the treated MM
and OC specimens had greater SFS than the untreated
control specimens. The LQF specimens showed an increase
in SFS with an increase of the polymer dosage up to P4,
after which SFS decreased. It is envisaged that at the lower
dosages, the additive may have been insufficient to reduce
interparticle friction, whereas at the higher dosages, an
excess of additive resulted in filling of void spaces with
additive such that interparticle contact was reduced, and
hence, lower strengths were achieved. Increases in SFS
resulting from treatment of up to 0.2, 0.5, and 1.6 MPa
were obtained for MM, OC, and LQF specimens, respec-
tively. The greatest improvement occurred with LQF, fol-
lowed by OC and MM. For SFS, ASTM D4609-08 (2008)
has no requirement. The best-performing stabilizer dosages
determined with regard to degree of improvement were as

123
Soil stabilisation using proprietary liquid chemical stabilisers 661

(a) 8 (a) 1.6

MM OC MM OC
7 1.4
6 1.2

SFS (MPa)
UCS (MPa)

5 1
4 0.8
3 0.6

2 0.4

1 0.2

0 0

None
P1
P2
P3
S1
S2
S3
P1S1
P1S2
P1S3
P2S1
P2S2
P2S3
P3S1
P3S2
P3S3
None
P1
P2
P3
S1
S2
S3
P1S1
P1S2
P1S3
P2S1
P2S2
P2S3
P3S1
P3S2
P3S3
Stabiliser Dosage Stabiliser Dosage

(b) 3
(b) 1.8
1.6
2.5 1.4
1.2

SFS (kPa)
2
UCS (MPa)

1
1.5 0.8
0.6
1
0.4
0.5 0.2
0
0 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
Stabiliser Dosage
Stabiliser Dosage
Fig. 8 a The 28-day static flexural strength of Mercia mudstone and
Fig. 7 a The 28-day unconfined compressive strength of Mercia Oxford clay specimens. b The 28-day static flexural strength of
mudstone and Oxford clay specimens. b The 28-day unconfined Mercia mudstone of limestone quarry fines specimens
compressive strength of limestone quarry fines specimens

follows: MM (P1S1, P3S1), OC (P1 P1S1, P2S2, P3, 16

P2S3), and LQF (P4, P5). Soils with higher expansive clay 14 MM OC
content (OC in this case) typically have greater strength 12
Swell (%)

when they dry out, which was the case in this study for the 10
untreated specimens. However, after treatment, the MM 8
specimens had greater strengths, suggesting greater effec- 6
tiveness for this soil. This could have been the result of the 4
lower specific surface area of the MM specimens or other 2
reaction(s) with the stabilizers, the effects of which were 0
None
P1
P2
P3
S1
S2
S3
P1S1
P1S2
P1S3
P2S1
P2S2
P2S3
P3S1
P3S2

not easy to identify completely because they are proprie- P3S3

tary products. It should be noted that the best-performing

stabilizer dosages in this case also performed best in the Stabiliser Dosage
CEC test. Stabilized layers in pavements are subjected to Fig. 9 Results of swell tests on treated samples of Mercia mudstone
tensile (flexural) stresses. Hence an improvement in the and Oxford clay
flexural strength is expected to translate to improved per-
formance of stabilized soil pavements. specimen. The swells for some of the treated OC speci-
The results of the swell tests for MM and OC are pre- mens were greater than for the control specimen, with
sented in Fig. 9. The LQF specimens also were tested, but increases reaching 32 % and reductions reaching 20 %.
as expected, showed no swell due to the inert nature of the The P1S3, which had the second least reduction in CEC,
finer fraction. Generally, the stabilizers in the dosages and showed the greatest swell. The substantial reductions in
combinations investigated had varied effects on the speci- CEC recorded for the OC specimens did not result in
mens, with no discernible trends. Reductions in swell substantially reduced swell. This could possibly have been
ranging from 24 % to 61 % were observed for the MM due to the greater clay content (stabilizers reduced swell
specimens, compared with the maximum for the control more effectively in more granular MM) or to other

123
662
reactions that could not be determined with any degree of
certainty due to the proprietary nature of the stabilizers.
The first durability tests performed on the specimens
involved immersing the specimens in water and recording
the time required for them to disintegrate. The specimens at
various stages of testing are presented in Fig. 10. For both
the treated and untreated MM and OC specimens, disin-
tegration began immediately at immersion, turning the
water turbid. Within 1 h, the disintegration process was
complete, and the water became clear again after 6 to 8 h.
For the LQF specimens, whereas the untreated specimens
disintegrated immediately at immersion, the treated speci-
mens failed after various times. The P1 and P2 specimens
failed before 7 days, whereas the P3, P4, and P5 speci-
mens retained their integrity in water for more than
1 month. Although CEC was substantially reduced in some
cases, the results of the CEC tests on MM and OC indicated
that after treatment, the specimens still had unsatisfied
physicochemical needs. Consequently, it is possible that at
immersion in water, the specimens absorbed water to sat-
isfy this need and eventually disintegrated. This disinte-
gration also can indicate the nonpermanence of treatment at
the application rates investigated.
The effect of immersion on the UCS and SFS of the
specimens was evaluated for only the LQF specimens
because the MM and OC specimens disintegrated com-
pletely when immersed in water. The results of the tests are
presented in Fig. 11. The P1 and P2 dosages showed no
strength retention, but generally, strength was very sub-
stantially reduced as a result of immersion. The 28-day
retained strength ranged from 6 % to 17 % for UCS and
from 7 % to 22 % for SFS. Treatment P5 performed best,
and at higher dosages (P3, P4, P5), the polymer-LQF bond
was such that the specimens maintained their integrity
during the immersion period but lost substantial strength. It
should be noted that P5, which was the best performing
(a) MM (b) OC
(c) LQF (d) LQF
Fig. 10 Durability (immersion in water) tests on selected specimens
123
S. Onyejekwe, G. S. Ghataora
3
Pc (UCS) Pi (UCS) Pc (SFS) Pi (SFS)
2.5
UCS, SFS (MPa)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
P3 P4 P5
Stabiliser Dosage
Fig. 11 Effect of immersion in water on the unconfined compressive
strength and static flexural strength of the limestone quarry fines
dosage, did not perform best in the UCS and SFS tests.
This highlights the need to balance strength and durability
requirements.
Questions have been raised concerning the appropri-
ateness of the total immersion-type durability tests for
specimens treated with alternative chemical stabilizers
because this represents a severe case of deterioration such
as the ponding of water for 7 days on the stabilized
pavement. These tests were designed for soils treated with
hydraulic binders. A test procedure in which specimens
(102-mm diameter 9 152-mm height) are laid on their side
in a 25.4-mm deep pool of water for 15 min and then
allowed to dry for 5 min before testing also was used by
Santoni et al. (2002) and Tingle and Santoni (2003) for
specimens treated with alternative chemical stabilizers.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn on the bases of the
laboratory tests conducted. The conclusions are true for the
stabilizer dosages, soils, and curing conditions evaluated in
this study.
• No substantial change in the Atterberg limits, linear
shrinkage, or compaction properties of MM and OC
was observed. However, LQF treated with the polymer
showed a small increase in MDD accompanied by a
substantial reduction in OMC.
• Stabilizers led to reductions in CEC (substantial in
some cases), but these reductions did not translate to
improvements in Atterberg limits or swell potential.
• Stabilizers had variable effects on the strength proper-
ties of different soils, with the greatest improvements in
UCS and SFS for the fine-grained soils such as OC. The
UCS and SFS of LQF also were improved substantially
by the polymer stabilizer.
Soil stabilisation using proprietary liquid chemical stabilisers
• Improvements in UCS exceeding the 345 kPa required
by ASTM for a stabilizer to be considered effective was
obtained for the following stabilizer dosages:
• Mercia mudstone: mixtures of 3 9 MRD of poly-
mer plus up to 2 9 MRD of sulfonated oil.
• Oxford clay: up to 3 9 MRD of both polymer and
sulfonated oil and mixtures of up to 3 9 MRD of
polymer plus up to 3 9 MRD of sulfonated oil.
• Limestone quarry fines: 4 and 5 9 MRD of
polymer.
• A substantial improvement in SFS was obtained for the
following stabilizer dosages:
• MM (*250 kPa): MRD of polymer and mixtures of
MRD and 3 9 MRD of polymer with MRD of
sulfonated oil.
• Oxford clay (250–500 kPa): MRD of sulfonated oil,
3 9 MRD of polymer, and mixtures of up to
2 9 MRD of polymer plus up to 3 9 MRD of
sulfonated oil.
• Limestone quarry fines (1200–1600 kPa): 4 and
5 9 MRD of polymer.
• The polymer-treated LQF specimens had greater resis-
tance to the effects of moisture. The LQF UCS and SFS
specimens (P3, P4, and P5) retained 4 % to 17 % and 5
% to 22 % of their respective strengths after 28 days of
curing (21 days of air curing and 7 days of soaking).
The MM and OC specimens began disintegrating at
immersion in water.
Applied in the proper context, the stabilizers can be used
to treat soils for pavement applications, particularly
to treat low-volume roads in tropical and subtropical
regions that have favorable conditions for their application.
However, site-specific tests are required to determine the
most appropriate dosage. In addition, special drainage
considerations are required to prevent the deterioration that
results from the loss in strength that can occur due to
ponding of water.
Acknowledgments For this study, Salversen Brickworks, Walsall,
and West Midlands provided the MM samples; Hanson Brickworks,
Stewartby, and Bedfordshire supplied the OC samples; Tarmac Ltd
provided the limestone quarry fines; and M/S Sovereign CS Ltd,
Middlesex, and UK supplied the stabilizers. The authors are grateful
for the support provided. The authors thank the staff of the Centre for
Electron Microscopy, University of Birmingham, UK for help with
the SEM and with interpretation of the SEM images.
References
AASHTOT180-10 (2010) Standard method of test for moisture-
density relations of soils using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) rammer and a
663
457-mm (18-in.) drop. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Abadjieva T (2001) Chemical for low-cost roads in Botswana. In:
Proceedings of First Road Transportation Technology Transfer
Conference in Africa, Arusha, Tanzania, 23–25 May 2001.
Tanzania Ministry of Works, Dar es Salaam
Ajayi-Majebi A, Grissom WA, Smith LS, Jones EE (1991) Epoxy-
resin based chemical stabilization of a fine, poorly graded soil
system. Transportation research record 1295. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, pp 95–108
Al-Khanbashi A, Abdalla SW (2006) Evaluation of three waterborne
polymers as stabilizers for sandy soil. Geotech Geol Eng
24(6):1603–1625
American Concrete Institute (ACI)—Committee 230 (1990) State-of-
the-art report on soil-cement. Mater J 87(4):395–415
ASTM D1632-07 (2007) Standard practice for making and curing
soil-cement compression and flexure test specimens in the
laboratory. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
ASTM D1635-06 (2006) Standard test method for flexural strength of
soil-cement using simple beam with third-oint loading. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken
ASTM D4609-08 (2008) Standard method for evaluation of chemical
stabilisation additives. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
Bolander P (1999) Laboratory testing of nontraditional additives for
stabilizing roads and trail surfaces. Transportation research
record 1652. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
pp 24–31
BSI (1990a) BS 1377: methods of test for soils for engineering
purposes. The British Standard Institution, London
BSI (1990b) BS 1924: stabilized materials for civil engineering
purposes. The British Standards Institution, London
BSI (1999) BS 5930: code of practice for site investigations. The
British Standards Institution, London
Cokca E (2002) Relationship between methylene blue value, initial
soil suction,and swell percent of expansive soils. Turk J Eng
Environ Sci 26:521–529
Cokca E, Birand A (1993) Determination of cation exchange capacity
of clayey soils by methylene blue test. Geotech Test J
16(4):518–524
Coleman JE (1997) Chemical stabilization of expansive soils. In:
Proceedings of Texas section of ASCE fall 1997 conference.
Texas—ASCE, Austin, pp 158–165
Cook JR, Petts RC, Rolt J (2013) The international low volume road
pavement and surfacing guideline. In: Proceedings of 6th Africa
Transportation Technology Transfer Conference, 4–8 March,
Gaborone, Botswana, pp 102–113
Fohs DG (1975) Laboratory evaluation of two proprietary materials as
compaction aids and soil stabilisers. FHWA-RD-75-32. Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC
Geiman CM (2005) Stabilisation of soft clay subgrades in Virginia
phase I laboratory study. Master’s thesis. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg
Geiman CM, Filz GM, Brandon TL (2005) Stabilisation of soft clay
subgrades in Virginia: phase I laboratory study (VTRC
05-CR16). Virginia Transportation Research Council,
Charlottesville
Ghataora GS (2000) Appropriate and efficient maintenance for low-
cost rural roads. Report 5: review of stabilisation methods. DFID
Report R6852. DFID (Roughton International/University of
Birmingham/The University of Nottingham), London
Greening PAK, Paige-Green P (2003) Evaluation of sulphonated
petroleum products as soil stabilisers and compaction aids.
Transport Research Laboratory, Berkshire
Han ZT, Wang Z, Dong Y, Hu Y, Yao Z (2007) Chemical
stabilization of mobile dune fields along a highway in the
Taklimakan desert of China. J Arid Environ 68(2):260–270
123
664
Harris P, Von Holdt J, Sebesta S, Scullion T (2006) Recommenda-
tions for stabilization of high-sulfate soils in Texas. Report no.
FHWA/TX-06/0-4240-3. Texas Transportation Institute, The
Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas
Hoover JM, Handy RL (1978) Chemical compaction aids for fine-
grained soils. Final report, vols 1 and 2. FHWA-RD-79-63 and
FHWA-RD-79-64. Federal Highway Administration, Washing-
ton, DC
Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) (1986) Lime stabilisation manual.
ICI, Derbyshire
Ingles OG, Metcalf JB (1972) Soil stabilisation. Butterworths, Sydney
Iyengar SR, Masad E, Rodriguez AK, Bazzi HS, Little D, Hanley
HJM (2013) Pavement subgrade stabilization using polymers:
characterization and performance. J Mater Civ Eng
25(4):472–483
Kassian WNJ (2001) Typical field application of consolid in
Tanzania. In: Proceedings of First Road Transportation Tech-
nology Transfer Conference in Africa, Arusha, Tanzania, 23–25
May 2001. Tanzania Ministry of Works, Dar es Salaam
Katz LE, Rauch AF, Liljestrand HM, Harmon JS, Shaw KS, Albers H
(2001) Mechanisms of soil stabilisation with liquid ionic
stabiliser. Transportation Research Record 1757. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, pp 50–57
Kezdi A (1979) Stabilized earth roads. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Kimball CE (1997) Evaluating groundwater pollution susceptibility of
dust suppressants and roadbed stabilizers: case study of a
petroleum-based product. In: Transportation Research Record
158. Transportation Research Board/National Research Council,
Washington DC, pp 64–69
Lahalih SM (1998) Development and evaluation of new multipurpose
soil additives. Indust Eng Chem Res 37(2):420–426
Lahalih SM, Ahmed N (1998) Effect of new soil stabilizers on the
compressive strength of dune sand. Constr Build Mater 12:321–328
Little DN, Males EH, Prusinski JR, Stewart B (2000) Cementitious
Stabilization. Millenium Paper Series. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC
Liu J, Shi B, Gu K, Jiang H, Inyang HI (2012) Effect of polyurethane
on the stability of sand–clay mixtures. Bull Eng Geol Environ
71(3):537–544
Meyers JF, Pichumani R, Kapples BS (1976) Fly ash as a construction
material for highways: a manual. Report FHWA-IP-76-16.
Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transpor-
tation, Washington, DC
Naeini SA, Naderinia B, Izadi E (2012) Unconfined compressive
strength of clayey soils stabilized with waterborne polymer.
KSCE J Civil Eng 16(6):943–949
National Lime Association (NLA) (1985) Lime stabilisation con-
struction manual. National Lime Association, Arlington
Newman K, Tingle JS (2004) Emulsion polymers for soil stabiliza-
tion. FAA Worldwide Airport Technology Transfer Conference,
Atlantic City, New Jersey, April 2004
Newman JK, Tingle JS, Gill R, McCaffrey T (2005) Stabilization of
silty sands using polymer emulsion. Int J Pavements 4:1–12
Oketola OI (2004) Behaviour of stabilised soils subjected to cyclic
loading. MSc thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Univer-
sity of Birmingham, UK
Oldham JC, Eaves RC, White DW (1977) Materials evaluated as
potential soil stabilisers. Miscellaneous paper S-77-15. US Army
Corps of Engineer, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg
Onyejekwe S (2006) Soil stabilisation with a polymer, sulphonated
petroleum product and cement, and reinforcement with fibres.
MPhil thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Birmingham, UK
Paige-Green P, Coester K (1996) Towards successful SPP treatment
of local materials for road building. CSIR. Report no. RR93/286.
Department of Transport, Pretoria, South Africa
123
S. Onyejekwe, G. S. Ghataora
Park J, Vipulanandan C, Kim JW, Oh MH (2006) Effects of
surfactants and electrolyte solutions on the properties of soil.
Environ Geol 49(7):977–989
Petry TM (1997) Performance-based testing of chemical stabilisers.
In: Transportation Research Record 1589. Transportation
Research Board/National Research Council, Washington DC,
pp 42–49
Petry TM, Armstrong JC (1989) Stabilisation of expansive soils. In:
Transportation Research Record 1219. Transportation Research
Board/National Research Council, Washington DC, pp 103–112
Petry TM, Das B (2001) Evaluation of chemical modifiers and
stabilisers for chemically active soils–clays. In: Transportation
Research Record 1757. Transportation Research Board/National
Research Council, Washington DC, pp 43–49
Petry TM, Little DN (2002) Review of stabilisation of clays and
expansive soils in pavements and lightly loaded structures:
history, practice, and future. J Mater Civil Eng 14(6):47–460
Rauch AF, Harmon JS, Katz LE, Liljestrand, JE (2002) Measured
effects of liquid soil stabilisers on the engineering properties of
clay. In: Transportation Research Record 1787. Transportation
Research Board/National Research Council, Washington, DC,
pp 33–41
Rauch AF, Katz LE, Liljestrand HM (2003) An analysis of the
mechanisms and efficacy of three liquid chemical soil stabilizers.
Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at
Austin
Road Research Laboratory/Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research (RRL/DSIR) (1959) Soil mechanics for road engineers.
HMSO, London
Santoni RL, Tingle JS, Webster SL (2002) Stabilisation of silty sand
with nontraditional additives. In: Transportation Research
Record 1787. Transportation Research Board/National Research
Council, Washington DC, pp 61–70
Santoni RL, Tingle JS, Nieves M (2003) Accelerated strength
improvement of silty sand using nontraditional additives. In:
2003 TRB Annual Meeting CD-ROM
Scholen DE (1992) Nonstandard stabilisers. Report no. FHWA-FLP-
92-011. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC
Scholen DE (1995) Stabiliser mechanisms in nonstandard stabilisers.
In: Conference Proceedings 6: Low-Volume roads, vol 2.
Transportation Research Board/National Research Council,
Washington DC, pp 252–260
Sherwood PT (1993) Soil stabilisation with cement and lime. HMSO,
London
Siddiqi RA, Moore JC (1981) Polymer stabilisation of sandy soils for
erosion control. In: Transportation Research Record 827.
Transportation Research Board/National Research Council,
Washington, DC, pp 30–34
So WS (2002) Engineering properties of stabilised soils. MSc thesis.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, UK
Steevens J, Suedel B, Gibson A, Kennedy A, Blackburn W, Splichal
D, Pierce JT (2007) Environmental evaluation of dust stabilizer
products. Report no. ERDC/EL TR-07-13. Engineer Research
and Development Center, Vicksburg
Thomas JA (2002) Chemical soil stabilization: a laboratory compar-
ison of the effectiveness of three liquid products and lime. MS
thesis. University of Texas at Austin, Austin
Tingle JS, Santoni RL (2003) Stabilisation of clay soils with
nontraditional additives. In: Transportation Research Record
1819. Transportation Research Board/National Research Coun-
cil, Washington, DC, pp 72–84
Yasrobi SS, Zandieh AR, Mortezaiy M (2007) Effect of nontradi-
tional additives on the compressive strength of dune sand. In:
Proceedings of First Sri Lankan Geotechnical Society (SLGS)
International Conference on Soil and Rock Engineering, 5–11
August 2007, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Soil stabilisation using proprietary liquid chemical stabilisers 665

Zandieh AR, Yasrobi SS (2010) Study of factors affecting the Ziaie-Moayed R, Samimifar M, Kamalzare M (2011) Improvement of
compressive strength of sandy soil stabilized with polymer. shear strength characteristics of saline soil using cement and
Geotech Geol Eng 28:139–145 polymer. Int J Geotech Eng 5(3):307–314

123