Measurement 91 (2016) 4654

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Strength measurement and textural characteristics of tropical residual

soil stabilised with liquid polymer
Nima Latifi a,, Ahmad Safuan A. Rashid b, Sumi Siddiqua c, Muhd. Zaimi Abd Majid a
a
Institute for Smart Infrastructure and Innovative Construction (ISIIC), Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
b
Geotechnic & Transportation Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
c
School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, BC, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The stabilisation of soils with additives is a chemical process that can be used to improve soils that
Received 23 November 2014 contain weak engineering properties. The effects of non-traditional additives on the geotechnical proper-
Received in revised form 31 January 2016 ties of soils have been the focus of much investigation in recent years. It has been well established that
Accepted 10 May 2016
the plasticity index and also the size, shape, and arrangement of soil particles will affect the treatment
Available online 10 May 2016
process of natural soils with additives. In this study, a commercial liquid polymer (SS299) was used to
improve the strength of Malaysian residual soil. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS), field emission
Keywords:
scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), N2-BET surface area, and particle size analysis tests were used
Laterite soil
Liquid polymer
to investigate the influence of SS299 and the plasticity index on the time-dependent compressive
N2-BET surface area strength and textural characteristics of tropical residual soil. The UCS results showed that the addition
Texture of 6% (as the optimum amount) of the selected additive increased the compressive strength of laterite soil
UCS noticeably, after 7 days of curing period. In addition, the increased compressive strength of the treated
Plasticity index samples with the curing time was evident. Based on the FESEM results, it was found that the stabilisation
process modified the porous network of the laterite soil. Furthermore, new white layers of reaction prod-
ucts were formed on the surface of clay particles.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction disclosed due to the proprietary nature of commercial stabilisation

Soil improvement is the process of improving the physical and
engineering properties of soil to obtain some predetermined
values. It can be done in various ways such as mechanical, biolog-
ical, physical, chemical and electrical [14]. Nowadays, using
chemical additives for soil stabilisation is becoming more popular.
The aims of soil treatment using chemical stabilisers are to
improve stressstrain and strength properties, control of volume
stability, hydraulic durability and conductivity [512].
A stabiliser is a chemical compound that immediately or grad-
ually enhances the soils engineering properties through a number
of mechanisms. There are two general groups that exist as soil sta-
bilisers: traditional stabilisers and non-traditional additives [13].
Traditional stabilisers include cement, lime, fly ash, and bitumi-
nous materials; non-traditional additives consist of various combi-
nations such as enzymes, liquid polymers, resins, acids, silicates,
ions, and lignin derivatives [1419]. It should be noted that the
exact chemical compositions of non-traditional additives are not
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: En_Latifi@yahoo.com (N. Latifi).
additives. In addition, it is well established that the majority of
these products contain secondary additives such as catalysts, sur-
factants and ultraviolet inhibitors. There is generally a dominant
or primary stabilisation mechanism supported by secondary mech-
anisms due to the insertion of complementary additives [2022].
Currently, non-calcium-based liquid soil additives are actively
marketed by a number of companies. Besides being cheaper to
transport compared to traditional bulk stabiliser materials, these
products are a potentially attractive alternative for soil treatment.
They are mostly sold as concentrated liquids, which are diluted
with water at the site. Some are directly applied to the soil before
compaction while others are pressure injected into deeper layers. It
should be stressed that the results of previous studies have indi-
cated that non-traditional liquid additives can help to increase soil
strength with curing time [2330].
On the other hand, each type of chemical additive has different
mechanisms and influences on soil properties. For instance, there
have been noticeable important dissimilarities in the stabilisation
mechanism of tropical soils from the moderate climates. Rock
weathering in tropical areas is very rigorous and is characterised
by the speedy disintegration of feldspars and ferromagnesian, the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.05.029
0263-2241/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N. Latifi et al. / Measurement 91 (2016) 4654 47

displacement of silica and bases (Na2O, K2O, MgO), and the absorp- Table 1
tion of iron and aluminium oxides [31]. This process is referred to Characteristics of the natural laterite soil.

as laterisation and includes leakage of SiO2 and deposition of Fe2O3 Engineering and physical properties Values
and Al2O3 [30]. Generally, laterite soils are highly weathered pH (L/S = 2.5) 5.35
reddish tropical soils that have concentrated oxides of iron and Specific gravity 2.69
aluminium with kaolinite, the predominant clay mineral [18]. External surface area (m2 g 1) 41.96
Laterite soil can be found in six areas around the globe: Africa, Liquid limit, LL (%) 75
Plastic limit, PL (%) 41
India, Southeast Asia, Australia, Central America and South Amer- Plasticity index, PI (%) 34
ica. However, there is an emphasis that due to the movements of BS classification MH
climatic zones in the geological past, relevant regions of laterite Maximum dry density (mg m 3) 1.31
can be located in places that are not within the tropics [32,33]. This Optimum moisture content (%) 34
Unconfined compressive strength (kPa) 270
soil group usually exists at hillsides and offers brilliant borrow
areas for wide adoption in many different construction operations.
Optimum utilisation is determined by the quantity of issues
encountered in construction connected to their workability, field Table 2
Oxides and chemical composition of laterite soil.
compaction, and strength.
Studies have demonstrated that laterite soil forms a large part Chemical composition (oxides) Values (%)
of the soil in Malaysia, and it has been used in different areas SiO2 25.46
and projects as natural soil [34,35]. This study investigates the Al2O3 31.10
influence of a new non-traditional additive (SS299) a cationic and Fe2O3 35.53
CO2 7.91
alkaline polymer, the plasticity index, and curing time on the com-
pressive strength and textural properties of tropical residual soil.
Laboratory tests that were performed included sieve analysis,
Atterberg limits, standard compaction, and unconfined compres- 50, 62), goethite (2h = 21.5, 37, 41, 53), and gibbsite (2h = 18,
sion strength (UCS) tests. Paired micro-characterisation was also 19, 27, 39) [37]. Three different samples (referred to as soil A,
used to study the structure and fabric of the soil-additive matrix soil B, and soil C) with different plasticity indexes were used in this
using field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), experimental study. Soil A is the natural laterite soil, soil B is the
Brunauer, Emmett and Teller (BET) surface area and particle size same soil with the addition of 20% bentonite by weight, and Soil
analysis (PSA) tests. C is the same soil with the addition of 30% bentonite by weight.
According to their properties, the soils lie below the A-line in the
plasticity chart, thus classifying them as silty soils with different
2. Materials and methods plasticity according to the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS). Additionally, the physicochemical properties of used
2.1. Materials bentonite are given in Table 3.
A cationic and alkaline polymer of a locally manufactured
Residual laterite soil was chosen for this research as it is not non-traditional additive, known as SS299, had been selected for
only abundantly available but also used in many geotechnical engi- this study. The additive had been prepared, sampled and sent to
neering works in Malaysia. Laterite soil was obtained from a depth the laboratory by the manufacturer GKS PRO CHEM (M) Sdn.
of 23 m below the ground surface. The particle size distribution Bhd., a local company in the Johor state of Malaysia. The exact
and engineering properties of natural laterite soil are shown in chemical composition of this additive has not been released, since
Fig. 1 and Table 1, respectively. In addition, Table 2 presents the it is a commercially registered brand. Table 4 shows the important
chemical characteristics of the used laterite soil in this study, as physicochemical properties of this selected additive.
a result of the energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDAX) test.
With reference to Table 2, the ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 yields a value 2.2. Sample preparation
of 0.81. The latter confirmed that the soil used in this study was
residual laterite soil [36]. In addition, Fig. 2 illustrates the diffrac- The results of previous studies on laterite soils have revealed
togram resulted from the XRD analysis on the soil. The XRD result that the plasticity and compaction properties of this soil were
highlighted that the main minerals present in the soil were kaolin- changed significantly during the oven drying process [13].
ite (2h = 12.5, 20, 35, 38, 46, 55), quartz (2h = 26, 36.5, 42.5, Consequently, the present study has used the air-drying method

100
90
80
Percentage finer (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)

Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of laterite soil.

48 N. Latifi et al. / Measurement 91 (2016) 4654

Fig. 2. XRD pattern of the laterite soil.

were reached by compressing the samples in a steel cylindrical

Table 3
Characteristics of bentonite soil.
mould fitted with a collar that accommodated all the mixtures.
The required compaction was done by using a hydraulic jack with
Engineering and chemical properties Values persistent compaction based on clause 4.1.5 of BS 1924: Part 2:
pH (L/S = 2.5) 9.12 1990b. Finally, the cylindrical samples were extruded using a steel
Specific gravity 2.64 plunger, trimmed, cleaned of releasing oil, and placed in a plastic
External surface area (m2 g 1) 28.60
Liquid limit, LL (%) 302
bottle, which was then wrapped in several runs of cling film. These
Plastic limit, PL (%) 42 samples were cured for 3, 7, 14, and 28 days in a 27 2 C temper-
Plasticity index, PI (%) 260 ature controlled room [2].
BS classification CE
Maximum dry density (mg m 3) 1.29
Optimum moisture content (%) 38 2.3. Testing methods and devices
Unconfined compressive strength (kPa) 286
SiO2 (%) 64.50 The soil improvement index was determined by conducting a
Al2O3 (%) 20.72
Fe2O3 (%) 7.69
series of UCS tests (BS 1924: Part 2: 1990) on multiple specimens
MgO (%) 2.11 at different time intervals. A rate of axial strength equal to 1% per
Na2O (%) 3.18 minute was applied to the samples. The acquisition data unit
CO2 (%) 1.80 (ADU) was used to automatically record the applied load and axial
deformation. The failure of each specimen was defined by its peak
axial stress. The failed specimens were dried and weighted at the
Table 4 conclusion of each test to calculate their moisture content. A min-
Important physicochemical properties of SS299.
imum number of three specimens were tested for each specific
Physicochemical properties mixture by the UCS test to provide an index of soil improvement.
pH (L/S = 2.5) 11.5 It has been well established that the treatment done on soil
Phase Liquid using chemical additives has effect on the soils size, shape, and soil
Polymer type Cationic particle arrangement [4,6]. If the additives were added to improve
Solvability in Water Solution
the soils condition, its improvement relies on the quantity, quality,
Viscosity (cP) 260
Density(g/cm3) 1.3 and formation pattern of the new particles around the soil parti-
Colour Pink cles. In this study, a JSM-6701F JEOL field emission scanning elec-
tron microscope (FESEM) was used to scrutinise the soil samples
fabric and bonding concerning clay materials prior to and after
treatment. Through this technique, each sample was sputtered
to prepare all the mix designs of the laterite soil. The air-dried soil with platinum for 120 s at 30 mA under high vacuum until they
was broken into smaller particles and filtered through a 2 mm were completely covered and ready to be used for the microscopic
sieve to confirm the uniformity of the specimens [18]. Deionised analysis.
water was used in all features of the sample preparation, due to Particle surface area is an essential feature in understanding
the fact that it is generally recommended for chemical testing both the physical and chemical properties of the treated soil. This
practices. In order to prepare the various mix designs, a standard is because many chemical reactions in soils occur at the surface
protocol was used. The first step was conducted based on clause [29]. In this study, the Nitrogen-based BrunauerEmmettTeller
3.3.4.2 of BS 1377: Part 4: 1990a. This step included the determina- (N2-BET) surface area method has been used to determine the
tion of the optimum moisture content (OMC) for natural soil and changes that occurred on the surface area and the micro pores of
soils mixed with different amounts of bentonite soil. For the sec- treated samples with the selected additive. In this process, the sur-
ond step, the required amounts of polymer as a percentage of opti- face area was derived through the physical adsorption of nitrogen
mum water content were mixed and then added to the dry soils. gas by means of a micromeritics surface area analyser. It is also
The pure amounts of aqueous polymer were chosen as 3%, 6%, 9% microprocessor controlled and interacts with a XP-based PC which
and 12% by total weight of the amount of water needed to achieve allows for physisorption investigation. During this method, a small
the optimum water content. These amounts of polymer were then amount of the cured sample was placed in the sample container.
diluted in water and mixed with the soil samples. To get ready a Nitrogen gas was pumped in after degassing for 1 h at 130 C,
homogeneous mix, irregular hand mixing with palette knives and the outer area value was estimated through the adoption of
was done. Subsequently, target dry density and moisture content the single point BET technique.
 N. Latifi et al. / Measurement 91 (2016) 4654 49

Table 5 ranging from 0.04 to 2500 lm. The size distributions of the tested
Summary of samples tested in this study. specimens were determined based on the Fraunhofer diffraction
Type of soil % By weight Notations Curing Number theory by using the software Particle Expert V5.12. The entire tests
of treated time, D of tested were carried out with approximately 0.2 g of samples and other
SS299, T (days) samples test procedures were in accordance with BS ISO 13320:2009
Natural laterite soil- Untreated LC(A) 0 25 (Particle size analysis Laser diffraction methods).
without bentonite, LC (UNT) UNT 3
(A) 3% LC(A)T3% 7
6% LC(A)T6% 14
2.4. Testing programmes
9% LC(A)T9% 28
12% LC(A) In order to simplify the presentation of the results, a specimen
T12% designation scheme was employed. The first and second characters
Natural laterite soil- Untreated LC(B)UNT 0 25
indicated the soil name and type of treatment, respectively. The
mixed with 20% by (UNT) LC(B)T3% 3
weight of bentonite, 3% LC(B)T6% 7 other characters included LC for laterite soil, GB for bentonite soil,
LC(B) 6% LC(B)T9% 14 UNT for untreated, T for treated, and D for days. For example, the
9% LC(B) 28 notation of LC(A)T3% represents the sample that is natural laterite
12% T12% soil without mixed bentonite (LC(A)), with treated SS299 of 3% by
Natural laterite soil- Untreated LC(C)UNT 0 25
mixed with 30% by (UNT) LC(C)T3% 3
total dry weight of the amount of soil (T3%). Table 5 shows a sum-
weight of bentonite, 3% LC(C)T6% 7 mary of all the samples tested in this study.
LC(C) 6% LC(C)T9% 14
9% LC(C) 28
3. Results and discussion
12% T12%
Total 75
This experimental study was conducted to investigate the
effects of the SS299 non-traditional additive, the plasticity index,
and curing time on the unconfined compression strength and
Table 6 textural changes of tropical residual soil. The properties of the
Engineering properties of soil LC(A), soil LC(B), and soil LC(C). tested soils in terms of particle size analysis, Atterberg limits,
Property Soil LC(A) Soil LC(B) Soil LC(C) and compaction parameters are given in Table 6. The results of
Specific gravity 2.69 2.64 2.61 the UCS, FESEM, BET surface area, and particle size analysis (PSA)
Mixed GB percentage (%) 0 20 30 are discussed in the following sections.
Grain size
Gravel (275 mm), (%) 5 0 0 3.1. Effect of polymer content, curing time and plasticity index on the
Sand (0/0752 mm), (%) 35.3 29.3 24.5
Silt (275 lm), (%) 26.5 31.2 33.4
UCS
Clay (<2 lm), (%) 33.2 39.5 42.1
Atterberg limits
The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test was used as an
Liquid limits, (%) 75 96 114 index test to investigate the effectiveness of the selected additive
Plastic limits, (%) 41 51 56 on the compressive strength of natural laterite soil and soil mixed
Plasticity index, (%) 34 45 58 with different percentages of bentonite soil. Fig. 3 shows the
Compaction parameters results of the UCS tests of the laterite soil and the stabilised mix-
Optimum Moisture Content, (%) 34 36.5 38.4 tures of laterite soil with different amounts (3%, 6%, 9%, and 12%)
Maximum dry unit weight, (g/cm3) 1.31 1.21 1.17
of SS299 at different curing periods. Ostensibly, the SS299 treat-
ment significantly enhanced the strength characteristics of the
laterite soil. Based on the results, it can be said that generally the
Particle size distribution of soil can be important in understand- addition of SS299 increased the UCS of the laterite soil at all curing
ing its physical and chemical properties as it affects strength and periods. However, the addition of 6% SS299 showed the largest
load-bearing properties [6]. Particle size analyses were carried increment compared to the addition of 3% SS299. Besides that,
out using the CILAS Particle Size Analyser. The CILAS 1180 Particle the increase of UCS between 6% and 9% is smaller compared to
Size Analyser, which utilises the laser diffraction technique with a the increase of UCS between the addition of 3% and 6% of SS299.
laser light wavelength, k 635 nm, is able to measure particles Generally, it seems that the changes in compressive strength for

550
Compressive Strength (kPa)

500

450

400

350

300

250

200
0 3 7 14 28
Curing Time (days)
LC(A)UNT LC(A)T3% LC(A)T6% LC(A)T9% LC(A)T12%

Fig. 3. Strength gained for SS299 treated natural laterite soil-without bentonite, LC(A), with different additive content and curing time.
50 N. Latifi et al. / Measurement 91 (2016) 4654

Table 7
Unconfined compressive strength of granitic residual soils from various places in the Peninsular Malaysia mixed with different type of stabilisers.

Source Type of stabiliser Curing time (Day) Compressive strength (kPa)

Current study SS299 7 484
Saeed et al. [38] Lime 7 325
Eisazadeh et al. [39] Lime 30 500
Geliga and Awg Ismail [40] Fly Ash 7 260
Basha et al. [41] Rice Husk Ash 7 150
Basha et al. [41] Cement 7 320
Chern (2000) Lime 7 385

380
Compressive Strength (kPa)

330

280

230

180

130

80
0 3 7 14 28
Curing Time (days)
LC(B)UNT LC(B)T3% LC(B)T6% LC(B)T9% LC(B)T12%

Fig. 4. Strength gained for SS299 treated ntural laterite soil-mixed with 20% by weight of bentonite, LC(B), with different additive content and curing time.

380
Compressive Strength (kPa)

330

280

230

180

130

80
0 3 7 14 28
Curing Time (days)
LC(C)UNT LC(C)T3% LC(C)T6% LC(C)T9% LC(C)T12%

Fig. 5. Strength gained for SS299 treated natural laterite soil-mixed with 30% by weight of bentonite, LC(C), with different additive content and curing time.

Soil A
Soil B

Soil C

Fig. 6. Effect of plasticity index on UCS of stabilised soils after 7 days curing period.
 N. Latifi et al. / Measurement 91 (2016) 4654 51

Fig. 7. Micrograph of natural laterite soil.

the soil mixed with more than 6% SS299 were relatively small. As
already mentioned and shown in Fig. 3, the UCS also increased
with curing time. However, it can be seen that the majority of
increment of the strength occurred in the first seven days of curing.
As an example, the 6% SS299 treated samples with a seven days
curing time achieved a compressive strength of 484 kPa. This was
approximately two times greater than the strength of the
untreated soil. Moreover, the rate of strength development that
occurred in the first seven days was high compared to the times
thereafter. For 6% SS299 mixed with soil, 484 kPa UCS was
achieved at seven days curing period (214 kPa increment) and
reached a value of 498 kPa at 28 days curing period (14 kPa incre-
ment for 21 days). This indicated that the majority of the soil-
stabiliser reactions happened at the early stages of curing.
Table 7 indicates the compressive strength value gained by
other researchers for the residual soils from various places in
Peninsular Malaysia mixed with different type of stabilisers. As
can be seen from the table, compared to the traditional type of
stabilisers such as lime, which required a 1-month curing period
to achieve a 500 kPa compressive strength (as reported by other
researchers), the strength achieved by the selected additive was
much more rapid. This demonstrated that the majority of the
soil-stabiliser reactions happened at the early stage of curing, thus
signifying the selected additives suitability to be used for projects
with tight schedules.
On the other hand, it was clear that for the samples treated with
higher than 9% of the SS299 liquid additive; a lower compressive
strength was achieved. The latter was probably due to increase
in the positive surcharge and the subsequent repulsion of soil par-
ticles inside the mixture, as explained by [3,4244]. The degrada-
tion of strength could also have been caused by the amount of
alkaline additives which exceeded the requirement for chemical
reaction in the samples [29,44]. In addition, these results can be
attributed to the chemical stabiliser effect, whereby a small per-
centage started to fill the voids in the soil, subsequently working
Fig. 8. FESEM images of the treated soil with the 6% SS299 (soil A) after a: 3 days, b:
as a cementing bond. When all the voids have been filled by the 7 days, and c: 28 days of curing time.
chemical stabiliser, this triggered all over quantity work as there
was increase of the softening state of the mixture which led to a
decrease in strength. It can also be concluded that the clay miner- periods. As shown from the figures, the UCS decreased from the
als will be affected by the stabilisers percentage. The small SS299 natural laterite soil to the laterite soil mixed with 30% bentonite,
percentage is enough to coat clay platelets. However, increasing which was caused by the increasing plasticity index of the soils.
the stabilisers percentage in the soil body works as a lubricative An increase in the plasticity index caused a reduction in the UCS
material due to the slip of the particles of clay on each other and value. The latter was probably due to the fact that the polymer
this in effect, decreased the strength of the soil skeleton [45]. additive (SS299) tends to bond to the clay mineral phase
Hence, 6% SS299 has been considered as the optimum mix design (bentonite), whereby an increase in the bentonite content (plastic-
that was added to the laterite soil for micro-characterisation stud- ity index) results in a decrease in the availability of the polymer
ies in this paper. additive for the rest of the soil matrix. It should be stressed that
Figs. 46 shows the effect of the plasticity index of soils on UCS a similar trend has been observed for all other curing times. Fur-
for different amounts of bentonite soil and SS299, at various curing thermore, increases in the plasticity index led to decrease in dry
52
density and increase in optimum water content, which had influ-
ence on the UCS value of soil. Besides that, prior studies reported
that samples with higher plasticity indexes showed softer stress
strain behaviour, reduced stiffness and smaller peak strength
[21]. Therefore, a higher plasticity index could change the stress
strain behaviour of soil samples from a brittle to relatively ductile
manner.
3.2. FESEM
In order to study the texture of the stabilised soil, FESEM was
employed in the present study. Fig. 7 shows a micrograph of the
natural laterite soil. As was expected, the untreated sample
showed a dispersed and discontinuous structure, where the voids
and porosity were more visible because of the absence of hydration
products. FESEM images of the treated soils with the 6% SS299 (soil
A) are shown in Fig. 8((a)(c)) at 3, 7 and 28 days of curing inter-
vals, respectively. After 3 days of curing time, it was revealed that
there were new products in the form of white gel formed inside the
soil; from the 7 days curing period (Fig. 8(b)), it was clear that the
new products had filled the most porous parts of the soil structure.
However, the FESEM micrograph of 28 days curing time (Fig. 8(c))
shows noticeable changes in the micro-structure of the soil and the
new gel-like products had covered the surface of the soil particles
in the form of a layer. This formation is mainly responsible for the
strength gained regarding shear strength [2,29]. It should be noted
that the formation of the new gel-like products which were created
in the early stage of curing time, indicated the fast reaction
45
40
BET Surface Area (m2/g)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fig. 9. N2-BET results for untreated and 6% SS299 (soil A) treated samples at various curing time.
100
80
Cumulative Value (%)
60
40
20
0
0.01
Fig. 10. Particle size distribution of untreated and treated samples with SS299.
N. Latifi et al. / Measurement 91 (2016) 4654
between the laterite soil and SS299. Generally, from the FESEM
micrographs, it can be deduced that the soil texture has trans-
formed from a porous structure form into a more flocculated fabric
after treatment using the selected additive.
3.3. N2-BET surface area analysis
In this study, the Nitrogen-based BrunauerEmmettTeller (N2-
BET) surface area method has been used to determine the changes
that occurred on the surface area and micro pores of the treated
samples with the selected additive. The results of the untreated
laterite soil showed that the external surface area of natural soil
was 41.96 m2/g. The N2-BET results of 6% SS299 treated soil (soil
A) at 3, 7, and 28 days curing period together with the results of
untreated soils are presented in Fig. 9. Based on the results, a sig-
nificant reduction in the surface area of the treated samples was
evident at the early stage (3 days) of curing. In addition, for the
7 days cured samples, the time-dependent alteration in the sur-
face area was less significant and comparatively stable. Moreover,
after 28 days of curing, the results indicated a moderately small
decrease in the BET surface area of the treated samples. An analysis
of the surface area from the BET tests confirmed that the new gel-
like products filled the porous structure and micro pores of the
laterite soil. This illustrated the transformation of the untreated
soil structure into a completely flocculated new material. Hence,
it can be deduced that the new materials formed was the main rea-
son for the soils strength changes and improvement [46].
3 7 28
Curing Time (days)
LCUNT LCT6%
LCUNT
LCT6%-3D
LCT6%-7D
LCT6%-28D
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Diameter ( m)
 N. Latifi et al. / Measurement 91 (2016) 4654
3.4. Particle size analysis
Fig. 10 illustrated the particle size distribution graphs of the
untreated laterite soil and treated samples with the SS299 liquid
polymer additive at different curing periods. It should be noted
that during the sample preparation for this test, some degree of
bond breaking will occur. This will cause a large flocculated cluster
to break down into smaller clusters. Hence, this method is also
likely to underestimate the equivalent particle cluster size of the
treated soil. However, previous studies have indicated that the
underestimation of the particle size in MIP studies is probably
much more serious than this method [47]. In this study, for the
treated soils there was a shift to the right of the particle size and
their postulated subsequent cementation by the deposition of the
gel-like product, which is consistent with the aggregation and
cementation indicated by the FESEM micrographs. Based on the
results, the reaction products were formed like a cover around
the soil particles and led to an increase in their size. Also, it was
clear that the development of the particle size increased with cur-
ing time, however, this increment was rather small after 7 days.
The latter result was consistent with the other tests and could be
the reason for the increase in the compressive strength of the trea-
ted samples at the early stage of curing time [6].
4. Conclusion
This study attempted to further elucidate on the effects of the
SS299 liquid polymer type of additive and the plasticity index on
the engineering and micro-structural properties of tropical resid-
ual soil. Analysis of the unconfined compression strength data indi-
cated that the SS299 additive improved the compressive strength
of laterite soil significantly. In addition, the majority of soil-
additive reactions happened at the early stages of curing, demon-
strating the additives suitability to be used for projects with tight
schedules. The results also concluded that the use of 6% by weight
of the SS299 additive was the optimum amount for the stabilisa-
tion of laterite soil. Besides that, based on the UCS test results, it
can be determined that the plasticity index had a significant effect
on the unconfined compressive strength of laterite soil. An increase
in the plasticity index led to a reduction in the UCS. This was due to
a decrease in dry density and an increase in optimum water con-
tent. According to the FESEM results, the newly formed gel-like
bonding compounds filled the porous volumes inside the soil. This
phenomenon led to a better and stronger aggregate of soil particles
and finally created denser soil. Moreover, the results of the BET and
PSA analysis indicate that the stabilisation process reduced the
external surface area by filling the soil pores and increasing the
particle size of the soil. From an engineering point of view, SS299
can be used to improve the strength behaviour of natural laterite
soil in which all particles are normally smaller than 2 mm, and
can be potentially useful for time and cost savings because of its
low curing time. As an example, for roadways, adding 6% SS299
with a 7-day curing time would produce economical and reason-
able outcomes. However, the use of SS299 to improve natural later-
ite soil might significantly affect the environment, which will
subsequently be clarified in the next research.
Acknowledgments
The authors wished to acknowledge the financial supports
given by the Ministry of Education Malaysia under the Fundamen-
tal Research Grants (FRGS).R.J130000.7822.4F658, and (PDRU).Q.
J130000.21A2.02E82, and the supports from the Universiti Tekno-
logi Malaysia (UTM).
53
References
[1] S.M. Hejazi, M. Sheikhzadeh, S.M. Abtahi, A. Zadhoush, A simple review of soil
reinforcement by using natural and synthetic fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 30
(2012) 100116.
[2] N. Latifi, A. Marto, A. Eisazadeh, Physicochemical behavior of tropical laterite
soil stabilized with non-traditional additive, Acta Geotech. (2015) 111, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11440-015-0370-3.
[3] N. Latifi, A. Eisazadeh, A. Marto, Strength behavior and microstructural
characteristics of tropical laterite soil treated with sodium silicate-based
liquid stabilizer, Environ. Earth Sci. 72 (1) (2014) 9198.
[4] S. Horpibulsuk, R. Rachan, Y. Raksachon, Role of fly ash on strength and
microstructure development in blended cement stabilized silty clay, Soils
Found. 49 (1) (2009) 8598.
[5] E. Masumi, M. Abtahi, M. Sadeghi, M. Hejazi, Compressive Behavior of
Composite Soils Reinforced with Polypropylene Fiber and Polyvinyl Acetate
Resin, in: 5thSASTech, 1214 May, Mashhad, Iran, 2011.
[6] S. Horpibulsuk, R. Rachan, A. Chinkulkijniwat, Y. Raksachon, A. Suddeepong,
Analysis of strength development in cement-stabilized silty clay from
microstructural considerations, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (10) (2010) 2011
2021.
[7] A. Mohammadinia, A. Arulrajah, J. Sanjayan, M.M. Disfani, M.W. Bo,
Darmawan, Laboratory evaluation of the use of cement-treated construction
and demolition materials in pavement base/subbase applications, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 27 (6) (2015) 04014186 (112).
[8] M. Al-Mukhtar, A. Lasledj, J.F. Alcover, Behaviour and mineralogy changes in
lime-treated expansive soil at 20 C, Appl. Clay Sci. 50 (2) (2010) 191198.
[9] M. Raftari, A.S.A. Rashid, K.A. Kassim, H. Moayedi, Evaluation of kaolin slurry
properties treated with cement, Measurement 50 (2014) 222228.
[10] A.S.A. Rashid, R. Kalatehjari, N.M. Noor, H. Yaacob, H. Moayedi, L.K. Sing,
Relationship between liquidity index and stabilized strength of local subgrade
materials in a tropical area, Measurement 55 (2014) 231237.
[11] Moayedi, Hossein, Ramli Nazir, Khairul Anuar Kassim, Bujang Kim Huat,
Measurement of the electrokinetic properties of peats treated with chemical
solutions, Measurement 49 (2014) 289295.
[12] H. Moayedi, R. Nazir, S. Kazemian, B.K. Huat, Microstructure analysis of
electrokinetically stabilized peat, Measurement 48 (2014) 187194.
[13] A. Marto, N. Latifi, A. Eisazadeh, Effect of non-traditional additives on
engineering and microstructural characteristics of laterite soil, Arab. J. Sci.
Eng. 39 (10) (2014) 69496958.
[14] J.S. Tingle, J.K. Newman, S.L. Larson, Weiss, A. C, J.F. Rushing, Stabilization
mechanisms of nontraditional additives, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board
(1) (2007) 5967. 1989.
[15] M.A. Hafez, N. Sidek, M.J. Md. Noor, Effect of pozzolanic process on the
strength of stabilized lime clay, Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 13 (2008) 119.
[16] C. Suksiripattanapong, S. Horpibulsuk, P. Chanprasert, P. Sukmak, A. Arulrajah,
Compressive strength development in fly ash geopolymer masonry units
manufactured from water treatment sludge, Constr. Build. Mater. 82 (2015)
2030.
[17] S. Horpibulsuk, C. Suksiripattanapong, W. Samingthong, R. Rachan, A.
Arulrajah, Durability against wetting-drying cycles of water treatment
sludge-fly ash geopolymer, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. ASCE 04015078 (2015) 19.
[18] N. Latifi, A. Marto, A. Eisazadeh, Analysis of strength development in non-
traditional liquid additive-stabilized laterite soil from macro-and micro-
structural considerations, Environ. Earth Sci. 73 (3) (2015) 11331141.
[19] N. Latifi, A. Marto, A. Rashid, J. Yii, Strength and physico-chemical
characteristics of fly ash-bottom ash mixture, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 40 (9) (2015)
24472455.
[20] B. Indraratna, M.A.A. Mahamud, J.S. Vinod, Chemical and mineralogical
behaviour of lignosulfonate treated soils, in: GeoCongress State of the Art
and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 2012, pp. 11461155.
[21] S.A. Naeini, B. Naderinia, E. Izadi, Unconfined compressive strength of clayey
soils stabilized with waterborne polymer, KSCE J. Civil Eng. 16 (6) (2012) 943
949.
[22] N. Latifi, A. Marto, A. Eisazadeh, Structural characteristics of laterite soil
treated by SH-85 and TX-85 (non-traditional) stabilizers, EJGE 18 (2013)
17071718.
[23] G. Blanck, O. Cuisinier, F. Masrouri, Soil treatment with organic non-traditional
additives for the improvement of earthworks, Acta Geotech. (2013) 112.
[24] J.L. Daniels, H.L. Inyang, Contaminant barrier material textural response to
interaction with aqueous polymers, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 16 (3) (2004) 265275.
[25] A. Al-Khanbashi, S.H.W. Abdalla, Evaluation of three waterborne polymers as
stabilizer for sandy soil, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 24 (6) (2006) 16031625.
[26] Z.D. Zhu, S.Y. Liu, Utilization of a new soil stabilizer for silt subgrade, Eng. Geol.
97 (3) (2008) 192198.
[27] C.L. Fon, Stabilization of earth roadbed for road building using probase soil
stabilizer, Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 15 (2010) 17931814.
[28] J. Liu, B. Shi, H. Jiang, H. Huang, G. Wang, T. Kamai, Research on the
stabilization treatment of clay slope topsoil by organic polymer soil stabilizer,
Eng. Geol. 117 (1) (2011) 114120.
[29] N. Latifi, A. Rashid, S. Siddiqua, S. Horpibulsuk, Micro-structural analysis of
strength development in low- and high swelling clays stabilized with
magnesium chloride solution a green soil stabilizer, Appl. Clay Sci. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.10.001.
54 N. Latifi et al. / Measurement 91 (2016) 4654
[30] N. Latifi, A.S.A. Rashid, N. Ecemis, M.M. Tahir, A. Marto, Time-dependent
physicochemical characteristics of Malaysian residual soil stabilized with
magnesium chloride solution, Arab. J. Geosci. 9 (1) (2016) 112.
[31] M.D. Gidigasu, Mode of formation and geotechnical characteristics of laterite
materials of ghana in relation to soil forming factors, Eng. Geol. 6 (2) (1972)
79150.
[32] A. Zelalem, Basic Engineering Properties of Lateritic Soils Found in Nejo-Mendi
Road Construction Area M. Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Addis
Ababa University, Ethiopia, 2005.
[33] F.C. Townsend, Geotechnical characteristics of residual soils, J. Geotechn. Eng.
111 (1) (1985) 7794.
[34] A.G. Salih, Review on granitic residual soils geotechnical properties, Electron.
J. Geotech. Eng. (2012) 26452658.
[35] K.B. Ahmad, M.R. Taha, K.A. Kassim, Electrokinetic treatment on a tropical
residual soil, Proceedings of the ICE-Ground Improvement 164 (1) (2010) 313.
[36] J.K. Mitchell, Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, second ed., John wiley and sons,
New York, 1993.
[37] JCPDS, Index to the Powder Diffraction File, International Center for
Diffraction Data, Swarthmore, Pa, 1995.
[38] K.A. Saeed, A. Eisazadeh, K.A. Kassim, Lime stabilized Malaysian lateritic clay
contaminated by heavy metals, Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 17 (2012) 1807
1816.
[39] A. Eisazadeh, K.A. Kassim, H. Nur, Characterization of phosphoric acid-and
lime-stabilized tropical lateritic clay, Environ. Earth Sci. 63 (5) (2011) 1057
1066.
[40] E. Geliga, D.S. Awg Ismail, Geotechnical properties of fly ash and its application
on soft soil stabilization, UNIMAS E-J. Civ. Eng. 1 (2) (2010).
[41] E.A. Basha, R. Hashim, H.B. Mahmud, A.S. Muntohar, Stabilization of residual
soil with rice husk ash and cement, Constr. Build. Mater. 19 (6) (2005) 448
453.
[42] L.E. Katz, A.F. Rauch, H.M. Liljestrand, J.S. Harmon, K.S. Shaw, H. Albers,
Mechanisms of soil stabilization with liquid ionic stabilizer, Transp. Res. Rec.:
J. Transp. Res. Board 1757 (1) (2001) 5057.
[43] A.F. Rauch, J.S. Harmon, L.E. Katz, H.M. Liljestrand, Measured effects of liquid
soil stabilizers on engineering oroperties of clay, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp.
Res. Board 1787 (1) (2002) 3341.
[44] P. Sukmak, S. Horpibulsuk, S.L. Shen, P. Chindaprasirt, C. Suksiripattanapong,
Factors influencing strength development in clay-fly ash geopolymer, Constr.
Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 11251136.
[45] F. Ahmad, Y.K. Atemimi, M.A.M. Ismail, Evaluation the effects of styrene
butadiene rubber addition as a new soil stabilizer on geotechnical properties,
Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 18 (2013) 735748.
[46] A. Eisazadeh, H. Eisazadeh, N2-BET surface area and FESEM studies of lime-
stabilized montmorillonitic and kaolinitic soils, Environ. Earth Sci. 18 (2015).
[47] S.H. Chew, A.H.M. Kamruzzaman, F.H. Lee, Physicochemical and engineering
behavior of cement treated clays, J. Geotechn. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (7) (2004)
696706.