KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2014) 18(4):1009-1017 Geotechnical Engineering

Copyright 2014 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-013-1014-5 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205

Effects of Chemical Stabilizers on an Expansive Clay

Honghua Zhao*, Louis Ge**, Thomas M. Petry***, and Yi-Zhen Sun****
Received January 6, 2013/Revised March 19, 2013/Accepted July 14, 2013/Published Online September 13, 2013

Abstract

Expansive clays exhibit a high potential for the volume change behavior when the soil moisture changes. The estimated annual
cost of the damage to the facilities built on expansive clay in the United States exceeds 9 billion dollars. Because of the physico-
chemical nature of the expansive clay, the use of chemical agents to improve their engineering properties is common. This research
investigated the effects of chemical agents on an expansive soil from Texas through a laboratory injection method. The agents used in
this study included lime, potassium based agents, and a group of ionic agents. Swelling tests, chemical tests, and soil suction tests
were used to evaluate the stabilizing effects of those chemical agents. The testing results indicated that potassium based stabilizer, is
an effective stabilizing agent to control the swelling potential of the expansive clay. It can also be injected in the field to build a
moisture barrier. The chemical tests on the injected Texas clay showed that the stabilizing mechanism of the ionic agents is possibly
through the cations exchange and the increase of the cations concentrations in the soil pore water.
Keywords: expansive soil, chemical stabilizers, cations exchange capacity, soil suction

1. Introduction Eisazadeh, 2010; Fattah, 2010; Fityus et al., 2011; Gueddouda,

Expansive soils have caused damage to the light structures
built upon it, such as pavements, residential buildings, and
underground utilities (e.g., Chen, 1975; Petry, 2002). Therefore,
various methods have been developed to tackle this problem
including mechanical compaction, surcharge loading, pre-wetting,
lime stabilization, cement stabilization, fly ash stabilization,
chemical stabilization, and organic compounds treatment (Nelson
and Miller, 1992). Lime stabilization is accomplished through
calcium fixation, ion crowding and erosion of clay particle
surface of expansive soils (due to the high pH value of the lime
slurry). Lime can be applied either in the powder form, slurry
form or through lime-slurry pressure injection. Bell (1996)
investigated lime stabilization on till and laminated clay. The
plasticity of the lime treated montmorillonite was reduced.
Liquid limit increased with addition of lime for kaolinite and
decreased for that of montmorillonite.
The injection of chemicals to stabilize clay subgrade below
foundations was first introduced by Blacklock et al. (1988).
After their pioneering work, a variety of chemical agents have
been applied through intimate mixing with the soil, injection into
the subgrade and surface treatment (Shondeep et al., 2000; Katz
et al., 2001; Petry, 2002; Zhang et al., 2003; Geng, 2009;
2011; Liu et al., 2011; Mutaz et al., 2011).
Shondeep et al. (2000) investigated the effects of the HIExC (a
hydrogen ion exchange chemical) solution on the expansive clay
after a two years treatment, using X-ray diffraction, zeta potential,
transmission electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-ray analysis
and environmental SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope). They
found that zeta potential is lowered by 32% for the HIExC
treated soil sample, where the HIExC treatment changes the
surface chemistry of clays through a complex precipitation-
dissolution process. It further reduced the swell-shrink potential
of the expansive clay. Katz et al. (2001) investigated the
stabilization mechanism using a liquid ionic stabilizer, sulfonated
limonene. They carried out a detailed physical-chemical study on
one class of montmorillonite by chromotography, spectroscopy,
X-Ray diffraction, electron microscopy, and standard titration
analyses. They found that this ionic stabilizer would alter the
clay lattice and result in a more highly weathered, less expansive
clay structure.
Liu et al. (2011) investigated the physicochemical behavior of
an ionic soil stabilizer on Nanyang expansive clay. Testing
results showed that water retaining ability of Nanyang expansive
clay decreased and swelling potential became weaker after the
treatment. No major mineral component changes occurred.

*Lecturer, Dept. of Engineering Mechanics, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 110624, China (E-mail: zhaoh@dlut.edu.cn)
**Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan (Corresponding Author, E-mail: lou-
isge@ntu.edu.tw)
***Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri
65409, USA (E-mail: petryt@mst.edu)
****Lecturer, Dept. of Engineering Mechanics, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 110624, China (E-mail: sunyz@dlut.edu.cn)

1009
 Honghua Zhao, Louis Ge, Thomas M. Petry, and Yi-Zhen Sun
The research presented herein investigated the effects of five
different stabilizing agents on the physical-chemical properties
of the selected Texas clay. Those investigated in this research
were the lime slurry, KIS (made from Pot Ash, Ammonium
Lignosulfonate and water), and three ionic sulfonated soil
agents, namely HBE, HBA, and E1 provided by Hayward
Baker Inc.
2. Experimental Program
The soil chosen for this research was weathered clay shale
from the Eagle Ford formation, in North Central Texas, which
has caused damage to the local pavement and the slope
embankment. Field taken soil was air dried and processed
through a US #4 sieve. The laboratory tests conducted on the
untreated soil included grain size analysis (ASTM D 422-63,
2007), Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318-10, 2010), linear shrinkage
(Tex-l07-E, 1999), standard Proctor compaction (ASTM D
698-07, 2007), free swell (ASTM D 2166-06, 2006), and total
soil suction measurements (Dewpoint potential method (Petry et
al., 2007)). The results of the sieve and hydrometer analyses
indicated that more than 50% of the natural Texas clay passed
the US #200 sieve, with a liquid limit of 68% and plasticity index
of 44%. This Texas clay also has an activity greater than 0.8 and
a linear shrinkage of 13.5%. This soil is classified as CH
according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The
maximum dry unit weight is 15.6 kN/m3 at its optimum water
content of 24%. The one-dimensional vertical swell is about
15% at a water content of 24.8%.
Each soil sample with different water contents was accomplished
by using a thick-walled PVC cylinder of either 101.6 mm or
152.4 mm in diameter, in which three 101.6-mm thick layers of
Fig. 1. Laboratory Injection Equipment and the PVC Cylinder
1010
Fig. 2. Cross Section of Treated Soil Cylinders
soil at different water contents were compacted and sealed. An
airless paint sprayer with a needle was used to simulate the
injection. Fig. 1 shows this injection device, including injection
probe, airless paint sprayer, and a burette used to measure the
amount of fluid injected. Fig. 2 illustrates a cross section of the
soil cylinder specimens.
The process started with the compaction of a 101.6-mm thick
layer into the middle of the cylinder at about the optimum water
content minus 4%. After the injection, the water content of the
soil approached to the optimum water content. When compacting
the middle soil layer, a steel column was put at the bottom of the
PVC cylinder to support the middle layer. To ensure the uniform
distribution of the injected chemical agents, injection was first
done at the top half of the middle soil layer. After the injected
chemical agents completely went into the soil, the cylinder was
turned upside down and chemical agents were injected at the
bottom half of the middle layer. After the middle layer had taken
on the injected fluid, the upper layer (dry layer), about 2% drier
than the middle layer, was compacted on one side. Then the
bottom layer (wet layer), about 8% wetter than the middle layer,
was compacted on the other side.
Table 1 provides a summary of the agents injection and
dilutions rates used in this study. The particular mixture used for
the Potash, Ammonium Lignosulfonate and water (KIS), as well
as the formulations of the ionic agents, is proprietary and cannot
be detailed at this time. In all cases, the application rate was
0.0669 m3 of fluid for 1.0 m3 of soil. It is expected that the
middle layer reached about the optimum water content after the
injection.
A total of 14 cylinders were prepared, 12 of them containing
the injected layers. Each agent to be tested was injected into at
least two cylinders of soil. Some agents were diluted at two
different rates, and two cylinders were prepared for them. All
cylinders were sealed and kept safely in the lab, which allowed
reaching moisture equilibrium for about 100 days (approximately
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Effects of Chemical Stabilizers on an Expansive Clay

Table 1. Specimens Prepared and Injected

Specimen Agent Agent Preparation Cyl. Diam. (mm)
E1 1:100-1 HBI E1 Dil. at 1E1:100 Water 152.4
E1 1:100-2 HBI E1 Dil. at 1E1:100 Water 101.6
E1 1:300 HBI E1 Dil. at 1E1:300 Water 101.6
HBA 1:100-1 HBI HBA Dil. at 1HBA:100 Water 152.4
HBA 1:100-2 HBI HBA Dil. at 1HBA:100 Water 101.6
HBA 1:300 HBI HBA Dil. at 1HBA:300 Water 101.6
HBE 1:100-1 HBI HBE Dil. at 1HBE:100 Water 152.4
HBE 1:100-2 HBI HBE Dil. at 1HBE:100 Water 101.6
HBE 1:300 HBI HBE Dil. at 1HBE:300 Water 101.6
KIS 1 HBI KIS Potash- Ammonium Lignosulfonate - Water 152.4
KIS 2 HBI KIS Potash- Ammonium Lignosulfonate - Water 152.4
Lime Lime Slurry 2.96-3.51 kN/m3 Hydrated Lime: Water 152.4

15 weeks).

3. Results and Discussions

3.1 Effects of the Chemical Agents on the Swelling of Texas

Clay
Swelling tests were performed on samples of the injected
layers as shown in Table 2. The testing specimens for the
injected layers were obtained directly from the treated middle-
layer soil in PVC cylinders (15 weeks after the treatment). The
swelling test results were also plotted in Fig. 3. All tests were
continued for seven days, but some specimens stopped swelling
before that time.
From Fig. 3, the vertical swell of Texas clay could reach 10%
after 7days at the similar water contents as those treated by Fig. 3. 7-day Free Vertical Swelling Data of Chemically Stabilized
chemical agents. When treated with KIS and HBA at the dilution Texas Clay
ratio of 1:100, the swell was reduced by about 75% of that for the
natural Texas clay. When treated with the lime slurry, the higher the number, the less swell per percent change in water
reduction in the swelling potential is still significant. However, content. It is apparent that the soil treated with KIS had the
the swelling reduction for HBE 1:300 treated specimen was not largest change in water content for percent swell, indicating
as effective as other treated specimens. resistance to swell. The treatment with HBA at the 1:100 dilution
In Table 2, the change in water content per percent swell shows rate and the lime were the next most successful in reducing swell
how well the soil resists water content to cause swelling. The potential per change in water content. The other treatments

Table 2. Swell of Injected Cylinder Samples

Vertical Swell (Chg. dry/Ini.
Specimen Initial WC Initial dry Final WC Final dry Chg WC/S
(%) dry X S) 100
% kN/m3 7 days % kN/m3 --- Per % S
KIS 1 19.5 13.78 2.25 34.0 13.47 6.44 1.00
KIS 2 21.8 13.84 2.58 32.9 13.48 4.30 1.01
E1 1:100 21.5 17.74 4.57 32.4 14.27 2.52 4.28
E1 1:300 20.8 17.60 4.48 30.4 14.47 2.13 3.97
HBA 1:100 21.8 14.67 .55 32.6 14.31 4.24 0.96
HBA 1:300 21.4 17.72 5.96 31.2 14.31 1.65 3.23
HBE 1:100 21.7 18.00 5.16 32.5 14.46 2.37 3.81
HBE 1:300 21.3 17.68 8.68 31.8 13.78 1.21 2.54
Lime 21.1 17.18 3.15 32.9 13.85 3.74 6.15

Vol. 18, No. 4 / May 2014 1011

 Honghua Zhao, Louis Ge, Thomas M. Petry, and Yi-Zhen Sun

applied were not as successful in reducing this property. The shrinkage increased above the untreated Texas clay by 0.6% to
change in dry unit weight, when compared to the initial dry unit 8.6%. The increase of the linear shrinkage might be due to the
weight and percent swell illustrates how swell changes dry unit water content increase from the chemical injection agents. The
weight. The lower the number, the more resistance to swell Texas clay treated by E1 1:100 shrunk the most, followed by
causing a change in the dry unit weight. The soil treated with HBE 1:100 and the lime slurry. The Texas clay treated by HBA
KIS and HBA using the 1:100 dilution ratio resulted in the least 1:100 shrunk the least. There is a different degree of increase
changes in the dry unit weight per percent swell, while other (0.6%~8.6%) in the linear shrinkage of all the chemically treated
treatments with the ionic agents were less. The soil treated with Texas clay. The plastic index of the lime slurry treated Texas clay
the lime slurry had the largest value of this property, and the does not decrease much, and its linear shrinkage increased. It is
swell was among the least. not clear why the plastic index of the lime slurry treated Texas
The swell testing results show that all treated Texas clay reduced clay does not decrease much. Generally speaking, the PI of the
its swelling potential compared to the untreated soil. KIS is the lime treated expansive clay tends to drop greatly even with a
most effective agent. HBA 1:100 and lime slurry are also effective small amount of lime addition. The increase of the linear
to reduce swelling of Texas clay. The higher dilution ratio of shrinkage for the lime slurry treated Texas clay is an uncommon
chemical agents led to decreased ability to control swelling. phenomena. The linear shrinkage of the lime treated expansive
clay usually tends to decrease. More research works need to be
3.2 Effects of the Chemical Agents on the Physical Properties conducted to find causes behind this.
of Texas Clay Testing results indicated that the chemical treatment did not
Liquid limit, plastic limit, plastic index and linear shrinkage change the plastic limit and liquid limit much for Texas clay.
were determined for the chemically injected Texas clay after Testing results also showed that all chemically treated Texas clay
the15 week curing time. The result is shown in Table 3 together have a certain degree of increase in the linear shrinkage.
with that for the untreated Texas clay.
The KIS treated Texas clays liquid limit drops 1.7%, plastic 3.3 Effects of the Chemical Agents on the Chemical
limit does not change. E1 1:100, HBA 1:100 and HBE 1:100 Properties of the Texas Clay
treated soil's liquid limit drop about 3%, E1 1:100 and HBE The clay particles surfaces are negatively charged, which
1:100 treated Texas clays plastic limit drops 1~1.2%; while attracted a great concentration of cations. Hence, they together
HBA 1:100 treated Texas clays plastic limit did not show much form the diffused double layer. When the clay is dry, the cations
change. The lime treated soils liquid limit dropped 4.5%, and its are held close to the clay crystal surfaces. When the sufficient
plastic limit increased about 0.5%. All treated soils linear water is present, the adsorbed cations tend to diffuse toward the
more diluted bulk solution until the electrostatic attraction forces
Table 3. Atterberg Limits of Chemically Treated Texas Clay are equal to the forces caused by the ion's concentration differences.
Liquid Plastic Plastic Linear The swelling potential of the expansive clay is related to the
Sample
limit (%) limit (%) Index Shrinkage (%) double layer thickness according to Gouy-Chapman theory.
KIS 66.02 24.07 41.95 14.82% Swelling potential increases as the thickness of the diffused
E1 1:100 64.37 22.91 41.46 22% double layer increases for a clay at a certain initial water content.
HBE 1:100 64.78 22.87 41.91 16% The thickness increases inversely with the valence of cations and
HBA 1:100 64.64 24.63 40.01 14% the square root of the concentration of cations in the soil pore
Lime Slurry 63.24 24.66 38.58 15.75% water and directly with the square root of the dielectric constant
Natural Texas Clay 67.71 24.09 43.62 13.40% and temperature of the soil water, other factors remaining constant

Table 4. Average Pore Water Chemistry Data of Treated Texas Clay

Cations Concentration (meq/l) Total Cations

+ + 2+ 2+ Concentration (meq/l)
Specimen Na K Mg Ca
KIS 1 Pore Water 5.11 21.56 3.93 15.21 45.81
KIS 2 Pore Water 5.16 10.73 3.29 10.84 30.02
E1 1:100 6 Pore Water 4.15 1.05 1.13 10.00 16.33
E1 1:300 4 Pore Water 5.13 0.77 1.25 11.25 18.4
HBA 1:100 6 Pore Water 3.67 1.12 1.25 11.25 17.29
HBA 1:300 4 Pore Water 2.79 1.13 0.99 9.23 14.14
HBE 1:100 6 Pore Water 4.73 1.38 1.43 12.16 19.7
HBE 1:300 4 Pore Water 3.84 1.16 1.13 10.12 16.25
Lime 6 Pore Water 3.69 0.90 0.11 10.38 15.08
Natural Texas Soil Pore Water 3.63 0.60 0.96 3.31 8.50

1012 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Effects of Chemical Stabilizers on an Expansive Clay

Table 5. Average Exchangeable Cations of Treated Texas Clay

Cations Concentration (meq/100g) Total Cations Concentration
Specimen Na+ K+ Mg2+ Ca2+ (meq/100 g)
KIS treated Texas clay 0.80 6.35 3.30 45.88 56.33
E1 1:100 6 treated Texas clay 0.76 1.31 4.67 65.56 72.3
E1 1:300 4 treated Texas clay 1.14 1.29 4.74 71.81 78.98
HBA 1:100 6 treated Texas clay 0.85 1.44 5.13 95.96 103.38
HBA 1:300 4 treated Texas clay 0.73 1.47 5.10 73.38 80.68
HBE 1:100 6 treated Texas clay 0.70 1.27 5.02 72.29 79.28
HBE 1:300 4treated Texas clay 0.76 1.20 4.87 71.00 77.83
Lime 6 treated Texas clay 0.74 1.34 3.46 78.42 83.96
Natural Texas clay 0.81 0.96 4.76 88.25 94.78

Fig. 4. (a) Na+, (b) K+, (c) Mg2+, (d) Ca2+ Concentration in the Soil Pore Water

(Mitchell, 1993). The change of the cations concentration in the
soil pore water will change the thickness of the double layer and
alter the swelling potential. In order to investigate the effects of
the ionic stabilizing agents on the Texas clay, four main types of
cations (Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+ and K+) concentration of the chemically
treated Texas clay were compared with the cations concentration
of the untreated Texas clay. All cations concentrations were
determined by the Atomic Adsorption Spectrometry (AAS)
technique. Atomic adsorption spectrometry is an analytical procedure
for the qualitative detection and quantitative determination of the
elements through the adsorption of optical radiation by free
atoms in the gas phase. The testing data were summarized in
Tables 4 and 5.
In the pore water of the natural Texas clay, the major component
of the cations are Na+, Ca2+ with the concentration of 3.63 meq/l
and 3.31 meq/l, respectively. The total cations concentration is
about 8.5 meq/l.
The Na+ concentration in the soil pore water of Texas clay
before and after the chemical treatment is illustrated in Fig. 4(a).
The obtained Na+ concentration in KIS, E1 1:300, E1 1:100
treated soil samples vary from 4.15 meq/L to 5.16 meq/L, which
is greater than that for the natural Texas clay. Na+ concentration
in HBA 1:100, Lime slurry, and HBE 1:300 treated Texas clay
did not change much. The decrease of Na+ concentration in the
soil pore water of HBA 1:300 treated Texas clay may be due to a
measurement error. The increase of the Na+ concentration in the
pore water of KIS treated soil sample is possibly due to the
exchange of the K+ cations of KIS with the Na+ cations of the
exchange complex of the Texas clay. This conclusion is based on
the typical cations replaceability: Na+<Li+<K+<Rb+<Cs+<Mg2+<

Vol. 18, No. 4 / May 2014 1013

 Honghua Zhao, Louis Ge, Thomas M. Petry, and Yi-Zhen Sun
Ca2+<Ba2+<Cu2+<Al3+<Fe3+<Th4+ (Mitchell, 2004). From the
increase of the Na+ concentration of the pore water, it was
possible to project that the Na+ smectite is one component of the
clay mineralogy of the Texas clay.
The K+ concentration in the soil pore water before and after the
chemical treatment is illustrated in Fig. 4(b). The K+ concentration
in KIS treated Texas clay is more than 20 times that of the
untreated Texas clay. Other chemical agents treated Texas clay
only shows a slight increase. The high concentration of the K+
cations in the pore water is coming from the pot ash (K2CO3)
component of the KIS. The high concentration of the K+ cations
in the pore water tends to depress the thickness of the double
layer, retain more water, and alter the swelling potential. This
might be able to explain why the KIS treated Texas clay can
reduce the swelling potential.
The Mg2+ concentration in the soil pore water before and after
the chemical treatment is illustrated in Fig. 4(c). The Mg2+
concentration in treated Texas clay increases significantly compared
to treated specimen before. The most significant increase of
Mg2+ concentration in the pore water happens in the KIS treated
Texas clay, followed by HBE 1:100, E1 1:300, HBA 1:100, E1
1:100, HBE 1:300, HBA 1:300 and Lime slurry. It appears that
some of the Mg2+ in the exchangeable complex of the clay goes
into the soil pore water, replaced by the cations from the
chemical agents.
The Ca2+ concentration in the soil pore water before and after
the chemical treatment is illustrated in Fig. 4(d). There is a
significant increase of Ca2+ in all the treated Texas clay. KIS
Fig. 5. (a) Na+, (b) K+, (c) Mg2+, (d) Ca2+ Concentration in the Exchangeable Complex of Chemically Treated and Untreated Texas Clay
1014
treated soil presents the largest increase in Ca2+ concentration of
the pore water, which is 11.2 meq/L. This can be explained by
the exchange of K+, NH4+ with the Ca2+ in the exchange complex
of Texas clay, followed by HBE 1:100, E11:300, Lime slurry,
HBE 1:300, E1 1:100 and HBA 1:300. From the high increase of
the Ca2+ concentration in the pore water, it is reasonable to
project that the Ca2+ smectite is also one major clay mineral in
the Texas clay.
Total cations concentration in the pore water of natural Texas
clay is 8.5 meq/l. While in the different chemical agents treated
Texas clay, there are a different degree of cations concentration
increase in the soil pore water. Total cations concentration in the
pore water of different chemical agents treated Texas clay
increased from about 2 to 5 times that of the natural Texas clay.
The increase of the cations concentration in the soil pore water
indicates that there is an ion crowding phenomena in the pore
water of the chemically treated Texas clay for all the agents. The
cation crowding phenomena was also found earlier by Bell
(1996).
Testing results indicated there is a significant increase of
cations concentration in the soil pore water for all the chemically
treated Texas clay. The increase of cations concentration in the
pore water will depress the double layer thickness, thereby to
reduce the swelling potential of clay. It is possible that the higher
cations concentration leads to high shrinkage value because of
loss of water previously hold by cations. The higher shrinkage
value of treated Texas clay indicated this point.
For the natural Texas clay, the major cation in the exchangeable
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Effects of Chemical Stabilizers on an Expansive Clay
complex of the Texas clay is Ca2+, about 93% of the total
exchangeable cations. This implies that the major component
clay mineral of the Texas clay is calcium smectite, which is
consistent with the above projected conclusion from the Ca2+
concentration in the pore water.
The Na+ concentration in the exchange complex of the Texas
clay before and after the chemical treatment is illustrated in Fig.
5(a). Na+ concentration increased in the exchangeable complex
of E1 1:300 treated Texas clay, and did not show significant
change in the other chemical agents treated soil samples. It is not
clear why there is an increase of Na+ concentration in the
exchange complex of E1 1:300 treated Texas clay. Theoretically,
Na+ is the least attracted cation to a negatively charged clay
particle surface. It can easily be exchanged by the other cations
such as K+, NH4+, Mg2+, and Ca2+. This test result also implies
that there are almost no exchange of cations between the
exchangeable complex and the chemical agents. This is
consistent with the data that the Na+ concentration in the natural
Texas clay is only 0.81 meq/100 g.
The K+ concentration in the exchange complex of the Texas
clay before and after the chemical treatment is illustrated in Fig.
5(b). K+ concentration in the natural Texas clay is 0.96 meq/100
g, but in the KIS treated Texas clay, this value increased to 6.35
meq/100 g. This proved that K+ in KIS goes into the exchange
complex of the Texas clay. K+ concentration in all the other
chemical agents treated Texas clay is increased up to about 1.5
times that of the originally untreated Texas clay.
The Mg2+ concentration in the exchange complex of the Texas
clay before and after the chemical treatment is illustrated in Fig.
5c. Mg2+ in the exchange complex of KIS treated soil decreased,
which is supported by its concentration increase in the pore water
of KIS treated Texas clay. However, Mg2+ concentration in the
exchange complex of the lime slurry treated soil decreased too,
which can not be explained by the very low Mg2+ concentration
in the soil pore water. Mg2+ concentration showed no significant
change in the exchange complex of HBE 1:100, HBA 1:100,
HBA 1:300, E1 1:100, HBE 1:300 and E1 1:300 treated Texas
clay.
The Ca2+concentration in the exchange complex of the Texas
clay before and after the chemical treatment is illustrated in Fig.
5(d). Ca2+ concentration is as high as 88.25 meq/100 g, which
indicates that the primary clay mineral of the Texas clay is
calcium smectite. This is consistent with the conclusions obtained
above. Ca2+ concentration decreased about half (45.88 meq/100
g) after KIS treatment. This can be reasonably explained that the
K+ and NH4+ of the KIS exchanged the Ca2+ from the exchange
complex of the Texas clay into the soil pore water. While in
HBA 1:100 treated Texas clay, the Ca2+concentration increased.
It is not clear why there is an increase of the Ca2+ concentration
of the HBA 1:100 treated Texas clay. There is not much change
in the other chemical agents treated Texas clay.
Combined testing results for cations in the soil pore water and
exchange complex concluded that K+ in KIS goes into the
exchange complex, Mg2+, Ca2+, and Na+ come out into the soil
Vol. 18, No. 4 / May 2014 1015
pore water. For the three kinds of sufonated oil stabilizers, their
stabilizing mechanism is similar to KIS, but not as effective as
that of KIS. Ca2+ in the lime slurry exchanged the Na+, K+, and
Mg2+ out of the clay's exchange complex, resulting in the
change of chemical properties of the soil pore water. For three
types of sulfonated oil at a high mass ratio 1:100 and 1:300,
there is no big difference in their effects on the stabilization of
Texas clay.
K+ of mass concentration in the pore water can exchange Na+,
Mg2+, and Ca2+ from the exchange complex of Texas clay. Since
K+ has a small radius (1.32), it has a small hydration radius; K+
also balanced the charge deficiency of the silicate structure of
Texas clay. This resulted in the reduced swelling potential of the
clay. For lime slurry, the stabilizing mechanism is primarily
based on the destruction of clay structure. The cation exchange is
playing a secondary role. Quantitative studies on the cations
exchange in the clay structure were rarely noticed. This study
shed a light on this subject.
3.4 Effects of the Chemical Agents on the Suction Char-
acteristics of the Texas Clay
Suction indicates the water holding ability of the soil, which is
the driven force for the water flow in unsaturated soil. Expansive
clay usually shows a high suction value. To investigate the
effects of the chemical stabilizing agents on the Texas clay, total
suction of Texas clay were tested. The total soil suction at
various water contents for the chemically treated Texas clay and
the untreated Texas clay (diamond-shaped symbols) were shown
in Fig. 6. The entire data set has a linear trend. Comparing with
untreated clay, it appears that E1 raises the total suction of Texas
clay after treatment. HBA, HBE appear to have little affects on
the suction of the soil. Lime slurry treated Texas clay shows a
total suction drop at the low water content and does not change
with the water content changes in the testing water content range.
Fig. 6. Soil Water Characteristics for the Natural Texas Clay and
Chemically Treated Texas Clay
 Honghua Zhao, Louis Ge, Thomas M. Petry, and Yi-Zhen Sun
At low water content, KIS appears to increase the total suction of
the soil, after that, its suction remains nearly the same as the soil
samples water content goes up. There is a slight drop of the total
soil suction for the HBA 1:300 treated Texas clay, but this might
be due to the measurement errors.
The cations concentration increase in the soil pore water of
different chemical agents treated Texas clay indicates an increased
electrical conductivity of the soil pore water. According to the
empirical relation that osmotic suction of the saturation extract
can be estimated from the equation: os = -36ECe (Richard,
1954), where ECe is the electrical conductivity of saturation
extracts. Since there is no electrical conductivity measurement
performed in this research project, it is only qualitatively to
predict that there is an increase of osmotic suction for the chemical
agents treated Texas clay. Further quantitative measurement of
the osmotic suction change in the chemically treated Texas clay
needs to be conducted. It is not clear how the matric suction will
change after the chemical treatment. However, for those total
suction values do not change after the chemical treatment, such
as HBA and HBE, the matric suction possibly decreased
considering the increase of the osmotic suction component. For
the lime slurry treated Texas clay, the matric suction is expected
to decrease considering the silt like behavior of the lime treated
Texas clay.
How the change of the osmotic suction of the chemically
treated Texas clay will affect the volume change behavior of the
swelling clay? From the double layer theory, the increase of the
osmotic suction indicates an increase of the ions concentration
in the clay. This increase of ions concentration will tend to
depress the thickness of the double layer. More tests are needed
to confirm that the concentration increase of cations will increase
the osmotic suction of the soil.
Total soil suction testing results indicated that there was no
consistent trend for the total suction change of different chemical
agents treated Texas clay. E1 raises soil suction. Lime slurry
treated Texas clay shows a total suction drop at the low water
content. Lime treatment on expansive clay usually destroy its
original structure, which leads to large change in matric suction.
Significant change in total suction of lime slurry treated soil
proved this. The total suction value of other chemical agents
treated soil does not change significantly, which indicated that
the effects of matric suction change and osmotic suction change
canceled each other.
4. Conclusions
The research investigated the effects of the five different
chemical stabilizing agents on Texas clay. The mechanisms of
chemical stabilization of expansive clays were also discussed
through the cations concentration analysis in the soil pore water
and in the exchange complex. The mechanism of the ionic
stabilizing agent to reduce the swelling potential of the expansive
clay is through the increase of the cations concentration in the
soil pore water to compress the thickness of the double layer and
1016
the exchange of the cations of the clay structure to form more
stable clay structures.
Total suction has been utilized in the research to characterize
the effects of the chemical stabilization on the expansive clay.
The increase of cations concentration in the pore water possibly
caused the increase of the osmotic suction. However, it is not
clear how the matric suction would change during the chemical
agents treatment. The change of the matric suction and osmotic
suction due to the chemical stabilization would impact on the
volume change behavior of the expansive clay. The testing
results and conclusions obtained are limited for the selected five
chemical agents and the treated Texas clay. For the other
expansive clay and other chemical agents, the conclusion herein
may not apply.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation for the
support provided by Hayward Baker, Inc. that made this research
possible.
References
ASTM D 2166-06 (2006). Standard test method for unconfined compressive
strength of cohesive soil, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA., USA.
ASTM D 422-63 (2007). Standard test method for particle-size analysis
of soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA., USA.
ASTM D 4318-10 (2010). Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic
limit, and plasticity index of soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA., USA.
ASTM D 698-07 (2007). Standard test methods for laboratory compaction
characteristics for soil using standard effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600
kN-m/m3)), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA., USA.
Bell, F. G. (1996). Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils.
Engineering Geology, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 223-237.
Blacklock, J. R. and Pengelly, A. D. (1988). Soil treatment for foundations
on expansive clays. Special Topics in Foundations, B. M. Das, ed.,
ASCE, New York, USA, pp. 73-92.
Chen, F. H. (1975). Foundations on expansive soils, Elsevier Scientific
Pub. Co., Amsterdam, New York, USA.
Eisazadeh, A., Kassim, K. A., and Nur, H. (2010) Physicochemical
characteristics of phosphoric acid stabilized Bentonite. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 15, Bund C, pp. 327-335.
Fattah, M. Y., Salman, F. A., and Nareeman, B. J. (2010). A treatment
of expansive soil using different additives. Acta Montanistica
Slovaca, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 290-297.
Fityus, S. G. and Buzzi, O. (2011). Large scale tests on the expansiveness
of resin-injected clay. Unsaturated Soils: Theory and Practice, pp.
521-526.
Geng, B.-Y. and Shang, Y.-D. (2009). Experimental study on performance
of expansive soil improved with HTAB. Chinese Journal of
Construction Technology, Vol. 38, No. 12, pp. 110-113.
Gueddouda, M. K., Goual, I., Lamara, M., Smaida, A., and Mekarta, B.
(2011). Chemical stabilization of expansive clays from Algeria.
Global Journal of Researches in Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 1-7.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Effects of Chemical Stabilizers on an Expansive Clay
Katz, L. E., Rauch, A. F., Liljestrand, H. M., Harmon, J. S., Shaw, K. S.,
and Albers, H. (2001). Mechanisms of soil stabilization with liquid
ionic stabilizer. Transportation Research Record (TRB), Issue
1757, Paper No. 01-3228, pp. 50-57.
Liu, Q.-B., Xiang, W., Cui, D.-S., and Cao, L.-J. (2011). Mechanism of
expansive soil improved by ionic soil stabilizer. Chinese Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 648-654.
Mitchell, J. K. and Soga, K. (2004). Fundamentals of soil behavior,
Wiley, New York.
Mutza, E., Shamrani, M. A., Puppala, A. J., and Dafalla, M. A. (2011).
Evaluation of chemical stabilization of a highly expansive clayey
soil. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, Vol. 2204, pp. 148-157.
Nelson, J. D. and Miller, D. J. (1992). Expansive soils: Problems and
practice in foundation and pavement engineering, Wiley, New York.
Petry, T. M. and Bryant, J. T. (2002). Evaluation and use of the decagon
WP4Dewpoint potentiameter. Proceedings of the Fall 2002 Meeting
of the Texas Section of ASCE, Waco, Texas, USA.
Petry, T. M. and Jiang, C.-P. (2007). Round-robin testing of a dewpoint
potentiameter versus filter papers to determine total suction.
Proceedings of GeoDenver 2007, Advances in measurement and
Vol. 18, No. 4 / May 2014 1017
modeling of soil behavior, GSP 173, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Petry, T. M. and Little, D. N. (2002). Review of stabilization of clays
and expansive soils in pavements and lightly loaded structures-history,
Practice and Future. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol.
14, No. 6, pp. 447-460.
Petry, T. M. and Zhao, H. (2006). A study of injection of chemical
agents in an expansive clay. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 147, pp. 1659-1670.
Richards, L. A., Ed. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and
alkali soils, United States Department of Agriculture Hand book No.
60.
Shondeep, L. S., Herbert, B. E., and Scharlin, R. J. (2000). Injection
stabilization of expansive clays using a hydrogen ion exchange
chemical. Advances in Unsaturated Geotechnics, pp. 487-516.
TEX-107-E (1999). Determining the bar linear shrinkage of soils,
Texas Department of Transportation.
Zhang, K.-Y. and Li, F. (2003). Grouting-test study on expansive soil of
Hefei area. Geotechnical Engineering Technique, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.
102-115.