Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Stabilization of clayey soil using lignosulfonate

Bahram Tanegonbadi, Reza Noorzad
Department of Civil Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

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

Article history: Many customary soil additives (e.g., cement, lime, fly ash and gypsum) are generally used to improve the
Received 22 December 2016 mechanical properties of the soils. The applicability of most of these traditional stabilizers of soil is lim-
Revised 17 March 2017 ited to particular soils. Moreover, traditionally stabilized soils in some cases exhibit high brittle behavior,
Accepted 7 August 2017
which is oftentimes inappropriate for projects such as airport runways and embankments of railroads.
Available online 19 August 2017
This article presents the results of a research study in which an alternative stabilizer -Lignosulfonate
(LS)- is investigated. Several basic properties of high plasticity clay, such as Atterberg limits, proctor
Keywords:
compaction, unconfined compressive strength (UCS), effect of cyclic wetting/drying on the strength
Lignosulfonate
Clay stabilization
properties, stress-strain behavior and secant modulus of elasticity (E50 ) are assessed. To clarify
Unconfined compressive strength the strength development due to the LS-treatment, scanning electron microscopy is performed on
Compaction properties LS-treated and untreated clay. The LS contents were 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3 and 4% by weight of the dry soil
and specimens were cured for 0, 4, 7, 14, and 28 days. Results show that the LS-treatment leads to a
considerable reduction in plasticity index (PI) of the soil. Also, stabilization with LS has slightly increased
the optimum water content and slightly decreased the maximum dry unit weight of the soil. This
stabilization has increased the stiffness and UCS of the soil without leading to a considerable brittle
behavior. The increase in strength properties is ascribed to the electrostatic reaction that occurs between
the mixture of LS-water and soil particles.
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
When the geotechnical engineering projects have to be built on
soft and low shear strength weak soils, problems related to bearing
capacity and settlement arise. Stabilization of soils is an economi-
cal and lasting method to achieve the desired geotechnical proper-
ties. Chemical stabilization of the soil is a popular and effective
technique that enhance the workability and shear strength of soil.
Cement, lime, gypsum, slag, alum and fly ash are examples of
chemical additives that have been used effectively to improve
the compressibility and strength characteristics of soil. In litera-
ture, numerous researches have been conducted on the mechanical
properties of treated soil with traditional admixtures [25,24,
11,10,28,20,33,21,27]. However, the use of this chemical stabilizers
may cause damage to the environment, limits the growth of plants
and alters groundwater quality [15,2]. In addition, soil stabilization
with traditional stabilizers could cause a very brittle behavior in
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bahram.gonbadi@gmail.com (B. Tanegonbadi), rn0864@
gmail.com (R. Noorzad).
the soil and this affect the seismic stability of geotechnical projects
[15]. To show the effect of traditional admixtures on the brittleness
of the soils, the results of some studies that have been conducted to
investigate the effects of chemical stabilization (gypsum and
cement) on the mechanical properties of the soil including
peak/residual strength, stiffness and brittleness are summarized
in Table 1 [19,26,35,17,1]. As can be seen from Table 1, most of
the soils have become highly brittle after being stabilized with
traditional admixtures.
Nowadays, an industrial by-product (Lignosulfonate) as a
preferable soil stabilizer increasingly used [15,16,2,32,37,
23,22,13,14]. This lignin-based chemical, lignosulfonate (LS) lead
to increase strength and durability of the soil. Additionally, its
use does not harm the environment [15]. Annually more than 50
million tons of this agent is produced over the world [39]. Since
LSs are byproducts of other processes, they are relatively cheap
and can compete on a cost basis with any other stabilizers.
Moreover, in comparison with usual chemical admixtures, LS is
non-toxic, and soil stabilization with this agent does not increase
brittleness of the host soil [23]. Vinod et al. [38] conducted a series
of micro-chemical analysis on the LS-treated soil. Their results
revealed that the betterment of performance showed by the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2017.08.004
2214-3912/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
46 B. Tanegonbadi, R. Noorzad / Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555

Table 1
Summary of the effect of cement and gypsum stabilization on the behavior of soils reported in recent literature.

Stabilizer Test condition With increase the amount of stabilizer Reference

Peak strength Stiffness Residual Brittleness
strength
Gypsum Consolidated, drained, at dry condition Increases Increases Higher for Increases Haeri et al. [19]
treated soil
Gypsum Saturated, consolidated, drained triaxial Increases at higher level of Not affected Higher for higher Lee et al. [26]
tests cementation cementation level
Cement At MDDa and OMCb, 7 days cured, Saturated, Increases Increases Not affected Increases (become Schnaid et al.
drained triaxial tests highly brittle) [35]
Cement At MDD and OMC, 7 days cured, Saturated, Dramatically increased Dramatically Not affected Strongly brittle Consoli et al.
drained triaxial tests increased [17]
Cement Compacted, dry triaxial tests Increases Increases - Increases (become Abdulla and
highly brittle) Kiousis [1]
a
MDD: Maximum dry density.
b
OMC: Optimum moisture content.

LS-stabilized soil could be ascribed to the decline of the double
layer thickness by the neutralization of surface charges of the soil
particles and the following facilitation of a steady grain cluster.
Alazigha et al. [2] to investigate the possible impressiveness of LS
in treating a remoulded expansive clay carried out a series of swel-
ling and durability tests. They found that the optimum LS content
for making more appropriate improvement on the swelling percent
is 2% of the soil dry weight.
Most of the past studies conducted on the LS treated soil, have
mainly focused on the sandy silt, silty clay, low plasticity clay (CL)
[15,16,32,37,13,14]. Few studies have been performed on high
plasticity clay [2]. Moreover, no study has been carried out to
investigate the shear strength behavior of LS-stabilized high plas-
ticity clays (CH). The main purpose of this research, was to evaluate
the influence of various dosages of LS on the compaction properties
and unconfined compression strength (UCS) of the high plasticity
clay. Also, the effect of moisture content, aging and wetting and
drying cycles on the strength properties of LS-treated and
untreated high plasticity clay was investigated. In addition, find-
ings of this study were complemented with the microstructural
analysis of the host soil before and after stabilization using scan-
ning electron microscope (SEM).
Experimental investigation
Materials
Clay (CH)
The clay samples were collected from the suburbs of the Amol
city, Iran. Fig. 1 shows the grain size distribution of the studied clay
that was determined using sieve analysis and hydrometer test
according to ASTM D 422 [5].
Based on the Atterberg limits tests results that were conducted
using ASTM D 4318 [6] test method, the liquid and plastic limits
were approximately 55% and 26%, respectively. This soil was
marked as high plasticity clay (CH) according to ASTM D 2487
[4]. The result of compaction test that was performed in accor-
dance with ASTM D 698 [7] revealed that the optimum water con-
tent and the maximum dry unit weight of the soil were equal to
21.25% and 16.3 kN/m3, respectively. Also the specific gravity
was 2.70 that was determined with the aid of ASTM D 854 [8].
Lignosulfonate (LS)
Lignosulfonates are made from the waste liquor byproducts of
the wood processing industries (such as paper mills). LS is a

Fig. 1. Gradation of studied clay.

 B. Tanegonbadi, R. Noorzad / Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555
Fig. 2. Lignosulfonate used in this study.
polymer compound with lignin-base that includes many
hydrophilic groups consisting phenylic hydroxyl as well as alco-
holic hydroxyl, sulfonate, and hydrophobic groups consisting the
carbon chain [15]. In this research, the LS that has been used, as
shown in Fig. 2, is a light-brown powder that was solvable in
water.
Laboratory test
Collection of laboratory tests includes compaction, Atterberg
Limits and UCS was performed with different percentages of LS.
In order to clarify the results, SEM analysis was applied to trace
the microstructural changes.
Stabilized soil samples for this experimental research were pre-
pared using six percentages (0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3 and 4%) of LS by soil
dry weight.
Atterberg limits tests
These tests were performed for various mix percentages using
ASTM D4318 [6]. For treated specimens, soil and mixture of LS-
water were accurately blended and then this mixture was cured
in a room with controlled temperature for almost an hour before
conducting the test.
Standard proctor compaction test
Moisture-unit weight relationship of the soil-additive mix-
tures was obtained using standard proctor compaction test
according to ASTM D 698 [7]. Actually, these tests were con-
ducted to determine the maximum dry unit weight and the opti-
mum moisture content of stabilized and unstabilized soil. At the
beginning, compaction of the untreated soil was determined.
Secondly, the tests to measure the compaction of treated soil,
with addition of predetermined amount of stabilizer to the host
soil were repeated.
The predetermined amount of additive was first mixed with
the amount of water necessary to attain the desired water con-
tent and then this mixture was added to the soil. Since any
delay leads to the formation of stable grain clusters in the com-
pleted samples, which reduces the dry unit weight, immediately
47
after addition of LS-water mixture to the soil, compaction was
conducted.
Unconfined compression test
The effect of additive on the shear strength increase of treated
soil was investigated using unconfined compression test in accor-
dance with ASTM D 2166 [3].
To prepare treated specimen, at first, different dosages of LS (0,
0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, and 4%) by soil dry mass were blended with water
and then this mixture was added to the soil with predetermined
weight. The water needed to achieve the desired water content
(optimum or optimum 2%) and 95% of maximum dry unit weight
was determined using the compaction test. The advised rate of
embankment compaction for majority of construction projects is
95100% maximum dry unit weight (MDUW). So, 95% MDUW
was elected as the demanded dry unit weight of the samples used
in these tests.
Immediately after preparation of a homogenous blend from
the soil and water-LS mixture, the resulting mixture was com-
pacted in five layers using static compaction to prepare the uni-
form samples (50 mm diameter by 100 mm height). After
compaction of any layer its surface was scarified about 3 mm to
reach the maximum uniformity. To check the uniformity of the
sample, some samples were made and each of them was cut to
68 parts with a narrow wire saw. Then weight and volume of
the each part were recorded. At the end, the unit weight and den-
sity of each part were calculated and results of them showed that
the difference in density of different parts of sample from the tar-
get density is negligible. Therefore, the prepared samples can be
considered as uniform samples. Then, the compacted specimens
were sealed in a double layered plastic wrap and kept in a room
with controlled temperature under various curing times. (0, 4, 7,
14 and 28 days).
Durability tests
To understand the impacts of wetting-drying cycles on the
LS-treated and untreated specimens, an additional series of UCS
tests was conducted. LS-treated specimens were prepared at opti-
mum LS content (this value was determined in Effect on the
unconfined compression strength) and the optimum moisture
content. Samples were prepared in similar manner with that
explained in Unconfined compression test and then sealed in a
double layered plastic wrap and cured at room temperature for
28 days (further explains about the selection of this curing time
is depicted in Effect on the unconfined compression strength).
After completion of curing time, samples were placed in a stiff
PVC chamber during the cycles of wetting and drying. Fig. 3 shows
this PVC chamber. At the top and bottom of the chamber, porous
stones with filter papers were used to facilitate the wetting pro-
cess. The inside diameter of the PVC cylinder was 50 mm and the
height was 130 mm; the specimens were thereby confined radially
but were allowed to expand freely in the vertical direction. Speci-
mens were subjected to one, two, three and four cycles of wetting
and drying. Each cycle consisted of a 24-h wetting period and
almost a 24-h drying period. The trend used for cycles of wetting
and drying and preparation of the chamber is similar to the work
done by Rogers and Wright [34]. To comparison, untreated soils
were also tested at the same cycles.
Analysis of microstructure
The SEM analysis was performed on the LS-treated and
untreated soils. On the basis of SEM analysis, the stabilization
mechanisms of treated specimens discussed and the observations
from the tests were explained.
48 B. Tanegonbadi, R. Noorzad / Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555

Fig. 3. Picture of PVC chamber: (a) assembled chamber, (b) different parts of chamber.

Table 2 Table 3
Atterberg limits results of treated clayey soil. Standard compaction test results of treated clay soil.

Sample name Liquid limit (LL) Plastic limit (PL) Plasticity index (PI) Stabilizer Stabilizer Optimum moisture Maximum dry density
(%) (%) (%) dosage (%) content (%) (kN/m3)
Untreated clay 55 26 29 None 21.25 16.3
0.75% LS 39 25 14 LS 0.5 21.43 16.2
2% LS 41 26 15 LS 0.75 21.51 16.2
3% LS 43 26 17 LS 1 21.61 16.1
4% LS 44 26 18 LS 2 21.91 16.1
LS 3 22.15 16
LS 4 22.31 15.9

For instance, at 4% usage rate, the LL reduced to 44%, with an asso-

ciated reduce in PI to 18%. This irregular behavior has been
ascribed to reciprocal repulsive forces between the charged parts
of the admixture [2].

Effect on the compaction

Properties and curves of the compaction for untreated and

Fig. 4. Effect of LS content on the Atterberg limits of Amol clay.
Results and discussion
Atterberg limits tests
The Atterberg limits tests performed on the clay mixed with LS
are showed in Table 2. As can be seen from Table 2, addition of LS
to the clay decreases the plasticity index (PI) of this soil. Similar
results was reported by Alazigha et al. [2]. Table 2 and Fig. 4 show
that by LS addition, plastic limit (PL) of soil almost remains
unchanged whereas liquid limit (LL) of soil decreases significantly
(from 55 to 39%). Consequently, this leads to a considerable 15%
reduction in PI of the soil (from 29 to 14%) at 0.75% addition. PI
changes could be ascribed to the alteration of the lattices of soil
minerals and flocculation of them that affect on soil plasticity.
Actually, the decrease in PI of the clay is primarily attributed to
the flocculation [36]. This is supported by the SEM images that pre-
sented in Effect on microstructure. However, by increasing per-
centage of LS beyond the 0.75, soil properties change in adverse.
LS-treated soils have been showed in Table 3 and Fig. 5, respec-
tively. They show that the maximum dry unit weight of clay trea-
ted with LS decreases slightly and the optimum moisture content
increases slightly. Similar results were reported by other research-
ers [32,30]. This decrease in maximum dry unit weight can be
attributed to the lower specific gravity of LS and the aggregation
of the clay ingredients induced by cation exchange due to the high
amount of positively charged LS in clayLS mixture. The greater
and stiffer aggregations as a result of the flocculation make greater
pore spaces and therefore decreases the maximum dry unit weight.
The process of flocculation of the clay particles further explained in
Effect on microstructure. Moreover, during the mixing of clay-
LS-water mixture observed that the temperature of mixture
slightly increase than the untreated samples probably due to the
reactions occur between LS and clay particles. This temperature
increase in clay-LS mixture can be responsible for the increase in
the optimum moisture content of the clay-LS mixtures.
Effect on the unconfined compression strength (UCS)
Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate the results of LS-treated high plasticity
clay. When LS added to the soil, due to the decrease in crystalline
size (double-layer thickness) of clay minerals and the formation of
stable aggregations, stabilized soil strength increases.
Fig. 6 shows that the maximum axial stress significantly
increased with increasing the LS percentages from 0 to 0.75, but
this value reduced when the LS percentages exceeded 0.75. Hence
 B. Tanegonbadi, R. Noorzad / Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555 49

Fig. 5. Compaction curves for LS-treated soils.

Fig. 6. UCS test results of treated soil with different percentage of LS for 28 days curing.

it can be concluded that the optimum LS percentage needed for
this clay was almost 0.75. This irregular behavior that the maxi-
mum axial stress decreases when the LS percentage exceeded
0.75, can be attributed to this factor that by increasing the LS con-
tent the formed lignosulfonate polymer chains may be more than
to need to bind clay particles and these extra polymer chains create
reciprocal repulsive forces between the charged parts of the
admixture [2]. Moreover, visual observations indicated that, at
constant moisture content, by increasing the LS content, the mix-
ture becomes less compressible, which confirms the existence of
mutual repulsive forces that responsible for the reduction in the
peak axial stress. Similar results were reported for sandy silt by
Chen and Indraratna [15].
Fig. 7 shows that at early ages (0 day and 4 days), the UCS of
almost all LS-treated soils was less than that of the untreated soil
when less formation of clusters was expected. However, at
the higher curing times (7, 14, and 28 days), the UCS of the
LS-treated soils in different LS percentages was higher than that
at early ages when the neutralization of the negative charges on
the clay mineral surfaces and reduction in crystalline size of clay
minerals that causes formation of stable aggregations have fully
started. It is clear from Fig. 7 that the increase of curing time have
a positive effect on the UCS of LS-treated soils. In other words, the
strength dependency on the curing time means that the stabiliza-
tion processes of sorption, coating and latter aggregation of ingre-
dients by stabilizer agent under laboratory conditions are
dependent on time. So among these considered curing times,
28 days curing, is selected as optimum curing time for LS-treated
specimens to perform the durability tests.
Fig. 8 shows that the residual axial stress of treated clay
remains without considerable change. Muttuvel [30] investigated
the erosion rate of LS-stabilized silty sand and dispersive clay. Also
he conducted a series of UCS tests on these samples in his study
with LS dosages of 0 to 0.6 %. Based on the results that he has
reported, it was found that residual strength of slity sand was
increased with increase of the LS dosage. On the other hand, for
50 B. Tanegonbadi, R. Noorzad / Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555

Fig. 7. Influence of LS content and age on unconfined compression strength.

IB qp  qr =qp 1

where qp and qr respectively are the peak and residual undrained

shear strengths that obtained from the unconfined compression
test. A comparison was made between the untreated and treated
clay samples. Brittleness indexes of these samples were calculated
and summarized in Table 4. It was observed that as a result of the
LS treatment, brittleness index doesnt change significantly.
Generally, unconfined compressive test showed that with
increasing the LS-percentage from 0 to 0.75, the peak axial stress
gained increase from 276 kPa to 397 kPa (i.e., the related maxi-
mum increment was up to 44%). This confirms the impressiveness
of LS stabilization of clayey soil.
Further explains about the stabilization mechanism and chem-
ical reactions that occur in the mixture are depicted in Effect on
microstructure.

Effect of moisture content on the UCS

Fig. 8. Stress-strain curves of LS-treated clay for 28 days curing. In practice, in construction of clay embankments if more
strength is needed, the embankment should be compacted with
humidity lower than the optimum moisture content. Moreover,
dispersive clay, similar to the clay in this research, the residual for more flexibility the embankment compacted with humidity
strength was not significantly changed. higher than the optimum moisture content. For this reason, in this
Also, as shown in Fig. 8, the peak of the UCS of stabilized clay research the effect of moisture content on the UCS of the treated
occurs at strain slightly lower in all specimens compared to the and untreated soil is investigated. As the previous section it was
untreated clay. So, it can be concluded that this treatment found that the optimum percentage of LS needed for this clay is
increases the stiffness and UCS of the soil without leading to a con- approximately 0.75. Therefore to investigate the effects of mois-
siderable brittle behavior. ture content, stabilized samples was prepared by this amount of
Difference between the peak and residual undrained shear LS. Considered moisture contents for the preparation of specimens
strengths normalized by the peak undrained strength used as the were optimum moisture content and optimum moisture content
brittleness index definition. Also, this index represents the soil plus/minus two percent. Beckett and Ciancio [9] reported their
contractiveness and intensity of strain softening [12]: studies in which the strengths of crushed limestone specimens,
stabilized with 5% Portland cement were related to their com-
Table 4 paction moisture content. In those researches, the selected water
Parameters of UCS tests and brittleness indexes. contents for the preparation of the specimens are similar to this
work. Their results showed that the lower compaction moisture
Sample name qp (kPa) qr (kPa) Brittleness index (IB )
contents produce higher specimen strengths. Also, specimens with
Untreated clay 276.11 69.49 0.75 this water content reached to the significantly higher values of
0.5% LS 381.12 65.14 0.83
0.75% LS 397.74 66.54 0.83
UCS, in spite of being constructed to the lowest value of density
1% LS 347.89 60.58 0.83 in comparison to the same samples compacted at or above the
2% LS 339.93 82.04 0.76 optimum moisture content, for all curing times of tests.
3% LS 318.70 54.81 0.83 Based on the experiments it was found that similar to the
4% LS 297.22 48.69 0.84
untreated soil, the strength of stabilized soil also decreased with
 B. Tanegonbadi, R. Noorzad / Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555
Fig. 9. Influence of moisture content on the unconfined compression strength of
treated and untreated soil.
increasing moisture content (Fig. 9). The strength of specimen on
the dry side of the dry unit weight-moisture content curve is
higher than wet side of the curve. For the untreated soil, the reason
is that in the compacted soil on the dry side of the dry unit weight-
moisture content curve, the amount of moisture content that exists
around the ingredients is lesser than the compacted soil on wet
side of the curve, so the particles are more strongly drawn towards
each other and this leads to increase the strength of this soil [18].
Also, in past studies it was reported that the specimens with mois-
ture content below the optimum, have isolated particles and large
interaggregate pores. With increasing moisture content, fine parti-
cle matrix is formed surrounding the larger particles. As a result,
the number and volume of the large interaggregate pores is
reduced. Reduction of the UCS of the specimens with increasing
compaction moisture content can be attributed to the formation
of this fine particle matrix that leads to a reducing effect on the soil
bonding [9]. This is also true in the case of stabilized soil. With this
difference that in the stabilized soil, on the dry side of the curve,
due to the lesser moisture content on the surface of soil ingredi-
ents, polymer lignosulfonate chains spend lesser force to overcome
the repulsion between the particles and ingredients are more
drawn towards each other to form the stronger grain clusters,
and this leads to increase the strength of this soil. Moreover, with
increasing the water content, due to the formation of the fine par-
ticle matrix, lignosulfonate polymer chain bridges and interaggre-
gate pores was reduced, and this leads to the reduction of the UCS
of specimens.
Fig. 10. Deformation modulus (E50 ) of clay treated by varying contents of
lignosulfonate.
51
Secant modulus of deformation
The secant modulus of deformation (E50) was calculated from
one half of the peak UCS. Fig. 10 shows that the deformation mod-
ulus increased significantly as the content of LS increased from 0%
to 0.75%, but the E50 decreased slightly when the LS content
exceeded 0.75%. Despite this decrease, E50 of the treated sample
is still higher than the same amount of untreated sample. Due to
the stabilization, E50 increased from 209 kPa to 552 kPa (i.e., the
related maximum increment was up to 164%). This increase can
be explained by the fact that with adding mixture of
lignosulfonate-water to the soil, by neutralizing surface charges
of clay minerals, ingredients are drown towards each other to form
the stable aggregations that this leads to a stiffer soil. The decrease
of E50 when the LS content exceeds 0.75%, can be attributed to the
same reason that was mentioned for the unconfined compressive
strength. Actually, this decreasing behavior has been ascribed to
the mutual repulsive forces between the charged parts of the
admixture. Chen and Indraratna [16] carried out unconfined com-
pression tests to investigate the behavior of LS-stabilized sandy
silt. They found that the addition of LS to the soil in the range of
02% leads to a significantly increase in E50 (up to 84%), but when
the LS content exceeded 2% the E50 decreased slightly. As can be
seen, this result is in agreement with the results of other
researchers.
Effect of wetting/drying on compressive strength
Table 5 presents the UCS of the LS-treated and untreated sam-
ples after wetting and drying cycles. The UCS changed with the
wetting and drying cycles. The variation of UCS after the cycles
of wetting and drying can be represented as the decreased strength
index, D, which is the ratio of the UCS after the cycles of wetting
and drying, quwet=dry , to the UCS of before the cycle, qu0 :
quwet=dry
D 2
qu0
Fig. 11 shows the relation of the decreased strength index with
the wetting and drying cycles number for the LS-treated and
untreated soil. As can be seen from Fig. 11, the unconfined com-
pressive strength decreased by increasing the number of cycles.
The reduction of the UCS is very significant for the untreated soil
sample. The decreased strength index of the untreated samples
after four cycles of wetting/drying reduces to 0.43. This strength
loss indicates that the durability of the untreated soil to the wet-
ting and drying cycles is very weak. The strength loss of untreated
sample during the wetting and drying cycles can be attributed to
this fact that due to the reduction of soil particle interlocking,
expansion may occur and change the soil structure; afterwards,
the UCS decreases [29]. Also, during the performing tests, it was
observed that with increasing the cycles of wetting and drying,
cracks progressively developed on the specimen surface. This con-
firms the reduction of soil particle interlocking and could be
another reason for the strength loss during wetting/drying cycles.
Table 5
Unconfined compressive strength after wetting and drying.
Number of cycles UCS (kPa) for specimens
Untreated soil 0.75% LS-treated soil
0 276.21 397.74
1 246.84 329.13
2 200.17 311.30
3 183.62 293.10
4 118.53 214.81
52 B. Tanegonbadi, R. Noorzad / Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555
Fig. 11. Effect of wetting and drying cycles on the compressive strength of the
treated and untreated clay.
The LS-treated sample shows more resistance to wetting and dry-
ing than the untreated soil specimen. The decreased strength index
of the LS-treated sample after four cycles of wetting and drying
reduces to 0.54, but still the strength of LS-treated soil is 1.8 times
greater than the strength of untreated soil after 4 cycles of wetting
and drying. During the process of wetting, the bonding materials
such as Lignosulfonate polymer chains could be washed out or lea-
ched away, and this resulted in a weak bonding process and there-
fore the strength of the LS-treated soil decreases. Due to the
existence of bonding materials and gradual deterioration of them
during cycles of wetting and drying, finer cracks or in other words,
micro cracks appeared on the LS-treated specimen surface. For this
Fig. 12. Microscopic image of untreated clay with 4000 magnification.
reason, the strength decrease of LS-treated sample was less than
the untreated one during the wetting/drying cycles. Similar behav-
ior was found by Park [31] for stabilized soil with cement after
three wetting and drying cycles.
Effect on microstructure
The SEM micrographs was used to better understand the effect
of the LS, and to recognize the untreated and LS-treated soils
microstructure. Fig. 12 exhibits the SEM image of the untreated
clay at 4000 magnification level. As can be seen from this image,
the clay structure is discontinuous and flaky. Moreover, because
of the lack of the hybrid band products, more voids are visible.
From the SEM image of the LS that was shown in Fig. 13, its clear
that the LS particles are laminated and sharped-edge with great
size.
Fig. 14 shows the SEM micrograph of a treated soil with 0.75%
LS content after curing of 28 days. The structure of the soil changed
because of the development of electrostatic reaction between the
soil and water-LS mixture. Comparison of Figs. 12 and 14 illus-
trates great change in the soil structure. It is obvious that the struc-
ture of the untreated soil has changed from a grain based form in
Fig. 12 to a more aggregated mixture in Fig. 14 due to the electro-
static reaction and produced grain clusters.
The SEM results are in line with the stabilization mechanism
that Vinod et al. [38] have proposed for LS stabilized dispersive
clay. Based on their micro-chemical analysis, when mixture of
water and LS is added to the clay, water decomposes into Hydroxyl
ions (OH ) and Hydrogen (H ). Then LS is protonated by H and
releases water that this resulted in a compound with positive
charges. These newly created LS compounds with positive charges
neutralizes the negative charges on the surface of clay minerals.
 B. Tanegonbadi, R. Noorzad / Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555 53

Fig. 13. Microscopic image of lignosulfonate particles with 3000 magnification.

Fig. 14. Microscopic image of clay with 0.75% LS after 28 days curing with 4000 magnification.
54 B. Tanegonbadi, R. Noorzad / Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555
This neutralization makes a reduction in clay mineral crystalline
sizes (thickness of double-layer) and attract them towards each
other to form the stable clusters. In fact, by these processes, the soil
transforms from particle base to a more aggregated structure, and
this leads to an increase in strength properties of the soil. To under-
stand the differences between the stabilization mechanism of this
kind of soil with granular soils, the stabilization mechanism pro-
posed by Muttuvel [30] for silty sand is pointed out here. Based
on his experimental and SEM analysis, the strength increase in
LS-treated silty sand samples with addition of LS, was attributed
to the enhancement of cohesion by cementation. Since untreated
soil was non-cohesive and all treated soils were compacted to
the same dry density and kept under same curing conditions, it
was concluded that the LS act as cementing agents to bind the par-
ticles together to form a stronger surface. Based on the two stabi-
lization mechanisms described above, it can be understood that the
difference between these mechanisms is the cation exchange that
take place in stabilization mechanism of clayey soil.
Conclusion
In this research, lignosulfonate effect on the stabilization of high
plasticity clay was investigated. The most important results of the
tests can be summarized as following cases:
1. Treatment of the high plasticity clay with the LS, results in an
increase in the optimum water content and a decrease in max-
imum dry unit weight.
2. From the unconfined compressive test results was observed
that with increasing the LS-percentage from 0 to 0.75, the peak
axial stress gained increase from 276 kPa to 397 kPa (i.e., the
related maximum increment was up to 44%). However, this
value reduced when the LS percentages exceeded the optimum
content of 0.75. The major contribution to this increase in UCS is
attributed to the formation of grain clusters in the soil samples
due to LS-treatment.
3. Similar trends were also observed in the case of secant modulus
(E50) values measured from stress-strain curves of UCS tests.
The related maximum increment for E50 being up to 343 kPa
(i.e., 164.0%).
4. The LS-treated soil shows more resistance to wetting and drying
than the untreated soil sample. The decreased strength index of
the LS-treated specimens after four cycles of wetting and drying
decreases to 0.54, but still this strength of LS-treated soil is 1.8
times greater than the strength of untreated soil after 4 cycles
of wetting and drying.
5. Based on the stress-strain curves of UCS tests, it is observed that
this treatment increases the stiffness and UCS of the soil with-
out leading to a considerable brittle behavior.
6. The SEM image of the unstabilized clay showed that the clay
structure is discontinuous and flaky. Moreover, because of the
lack of the hybrid band products, more voids are visible. The
SEM micrograph of treated clay showed that the structure of
the untreated soil has changed from a grain based form to a
more aggregated mixture due to the electrostatic reaction and
produced grain clusters.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
The authors confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
associated with this publication.
References
[1] Abdulla AA, Kiousis PD. Behavior of cemented sandsI. Testing. Int J Numer
Anal Meth Geomech 1997;21(8):53347.
[2] Alazigha DP, Indraratna B, Vinod JS, Ezeajugh LE. The swelling behaviour of
lignosulfonate-treated expansive soil. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Ground Improve
2016;27:112.
[3] ASTM D 2166. Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of
cohesive soil. Annual Book of ASTM Standards: USA; 2013.
[4] ASTM D 2487. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering
purposes (unified soil classification system). Annual Book of ASTM Standards:
USA; 2011.
[5] ASTM D 422. Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils. Annual
Book of ASTM Standards: USA; 2007.
[6] ASTM D 4318. Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of
Soils. Annual Book of ASTM Standards: USA; 2003.
[7] ASTM D 698. Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics
of soil using standard effort. Annual Book of ASTM Standards: USA; 2012.
[8] ASTM D 854. Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water
pycnometer. Annual Book of ASTM Standards: USA; 2014.
[9] Beckett C, Ciancio D. Effect of compaction water content on the strength of
cement-stabilized rammed earth materials. Can Geotech J 2014;51(5):58390.
[10] Bell FG. Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils. Eng Geol 1996;42
(4):22337.
[11] Bergado DT, Anderson LR, Miura N, Balasubramaniam AS. Soft ground
improvement in lowland and other environments. ASCE; 1996.
[12] Bishop AW. Shear strength parameters for undisturbed and remoulded soil
specimens. In: Proceedings of the Roscoe Memorial Symposium. Cambridge
University: Cambridge; Mass; 1971. pp. 2931.
[13] Chen Q, Indraratna B, Carter J, Rujikiatkamjorn C. A theoretical and
experimental study on the behaviour of lignosulfonate-treated sandy silt.
Comput Geotech 2014;61:31627.
[14] Chen Q, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C. Behaviour of lignosulfonate-treated
soil under cyclic loading. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Ground Improve 2015;169
(2):10919.
[15] Chen Q, Indraratna B. Deformation behavior of lignosulfonate-treated sandy
silt under cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2014;141(1):06014015.
[16] Chen Q, Indraratna B. Shear behaviour of sandy silt treated with
lignosulfonate. Can Geotech J 2014;52(8):11805.
[17] Consoli NC, Prietto PD, Ulbrich LA. Influence of fiber and cement addition on
behavior of sandy soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(12):12114.
[18] Das BM. Advanced soil mechanics. 3rd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2008.
[19] Haeri SM, Hamidi A, Hosseini SM, Asghari E, Toll DG. Effect of cement type on
the mechanical behavior of a gravely sand. Geotech Geol Eng 2006;24(2):335.
[20] Horpibulsuk S, Miura N, Bergado DT. Undrained shear behavior of cement
admixed clay at high water content. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 2004;130
(10):1096105.
[21] Horpibulsuk S, Rachan R, Chinkulkijniwat A, Raksachon Y, Suddeepong A.
Analysis of strength development in cement-stabilized silty clay from
microstructural considerations. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(10):201121.
[22] Indraratna B, Athukorala R, Vinod J. Estimating the rate of erosion of a silty
sand treated with lignosulfonate. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2012;139
(5):70114.
[23] Indraratna B, Muttuvel T, Khabbaz H, Armstrong R. Predicting the erosion rate
of chemically treated soil using a process simulation apparatus for internal
crack erosion. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2008;134(6):83744.
[24] Indraratna B. Utilization of lime, slag and fly ash for improvement of a colluvial
soil in New South Wales, Australia. Geotech Geol Eng 1996;14(3):16991.
[25] Lade PV, Overton DD. Cementation effects in frictional materials. J Geotech Eng
1989;115(10):137387.
[26] Lee MJ, Choi SK, Lee W. Shear strength of artificially cemented sands. Mar
Georesour Geotechnol 2009;27(3):20116.
[27] Marri A, Wanatowski D, Yu HS. Drained behaviour of cemented sand in high
pressure triaxial compression tests. Geomech Geoeng 2012;7(3):15974.
[28] Miura N, Horpibulsuk S, Nagaraj TS. Engineering behavior of cement stabilized
clay at high moisture content. Soils Found 2001;41(5):3345.
[29] Muntohar AS, Widianti A, Hartono E, Diana W. Engineering properties of silty
soil stabilized with lime and rice husk ash and reinforced with waste plastic
fiber. J Mater Civ Eng 2012;25(9):126070.
[30] Muttuvel T. Erosion rate of chemically stabilised soils incorporating tensile
stress-deformation behavior [dissertation]. Wollongong: University of
Wollongong; 2008.
[31] Park SS. Effect of wetting on unconfined compressive strength of cemented
sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2010;136(12):171320.
 B. Tanegonbadi, R. Noorzad / Transportation Geotechnics 12 (2017) 4555 55

[32] Puppala AJ, Hanchanloet S. Evaluation of a new chemical treatment method on Reza Noorzad was born in Amol, Iran in 1964. He
strength and resilient properties of a cohesive soil. Transportation Research received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degree in Civil engineering
Board; 1999: Paper No. 990389. and Geotechnical engineering from the Tehran Univer-
[33] Rao SM, Shivananda P. Compressibility behaviour of lime-stabilized clay. sity, Tehran, Iran, in 1990 and 1994 respectively, and
Geotech Geol Eng 2005;23(3):30919. the Ph.D. degree in Geotechnical engineering from the
[34] Rogers LE, Wright SG. The effects of wetting and drying on the long-term shear Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 2000.
strength parameters for compacted Beaumont Clay. Transportation Planning He is currently an Associate Professor in the Department
Division: Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation; of Civil Engineering at the Babol Noshirvani University
1986. of Technology. From 2004 to 2007 he was the Head of
[35] Schnaid F, Prietto PD, Consoli NC. Characterization of cemented sand in triaxial
Central Library and Documentation Center of the
compression. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(10):85768.
Mazandaran University. His research interests include
[36] Thompson MR. Lime-reactivity of Illinois soils. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE
1966;92(5):6792. Soil improvement, Reinforced soil, Earth dams, Marine
[37] Tingle J, Santoni R. Stabilization of clay soils with nontraditional additives. Geotechnics, and Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering.
Transport Res Rec: J Transport Res Board 2003;1819:7284.
[38] Vinod JS, Indraratna B, Al Mahamud MA. Stabilization of an erodible soil using
a chemical admixture. Proc the ICE Ground Improve 2010;163(1):4351.
[39] Xiao B, Sun XF, Sun R. The chemical modification of lignins with succinic
anhydride in aqueous systems. Polym Degrad Stab 2001;71(2):22331.

Bahram Tanegonbadi was born in Gonbad, Iran in

1989. He received the B.Sc. degree in Civil engineering
from Ferdowsi University of Mashhad in 2011, M.Sc.
degree in Geotechnical engineering from Sharif
University of Technology in 2013. He is currently a Ph.D.
Student in Geotechnical engineering at the Babol
Noshirvani University of Technology. His main areas of
research interest are soil improvement, underground
spaces (tunnels) under dynamic loadings, soil-structure
interaction, earth dams, geotechnical earthquake
engineering.