Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compressive and Tensile Behavior of Polymer Treated Sulfate Contaminated CL Soil

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the compressive and tensile behavior of polymer treated sulfate contaminated CL soil was investigated. Based on the information in the literature, a field soil was contaminated with up to 4 % (40,000 ppm) of calcium sulfate in this study. In addition to characterizing the behavior of sulfate contaminated CL soil, the effect of treating the soil with a polymer solution was investigated and the performance was compared to 6 % lime treated soil. In treating the soil, acrylamide polymer solution (15 g of polymer dissolved in 85 g of water) content was varied up to 15 % (by dry soil weight). Addition of 4 % calcium sulfate to the soil decreased the compressive and tensile strengths of the compacted soils by 22 and 33 % respectively with the formation of calcium silicate sulfate [ternesite Ca5(SiO4)2SO4)], magnesium silicate sulfate (Mg5(SiO4)2SO4) and calcium-magnesium silicate (merwinite Ca3Mg(SiO4)2). With the polymer treatment the strength properties of sulfate contaminated CL soil was substantially improved. Polymer treated sulfate soils had higher compressive and tensile strengths and enhanced compressive stress–strain relationships compared to the lime treated soils. Also polymer treated soils gained strength more rapidly than lime treated soil. With 10 % of polymer solution treatment, the maximum unconfined compressive and splitting tensile strengths for 4 % of calcium sulfate soil were 625 kPa (91 psi) and 131 kPa (19 psi) respectively in 1 day of curing. Similar improvement in the compressive modulus was observed with polymer treated sulfate contaminated CL soil. The variation of the compacted compressive strength and tensile strength with calcium sulfate concentrations for the treated soils were quantified and the parameters were related to calcium sulfate content in the soil and polymer content. Compressive stress–strain relationships of the sulfate soil, with and without lime and polymer treatment, have been quantified using two nonlinear constitutive models. The constitutive model parameters were sensitive to the calcium sulfate content and the type of treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arabani M, Karami M (2007) Geomechanical properties of lime stabilized clayey sands. Arabian J Sci Eng 32(1B):11–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell G (1996) Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils. Eng Geol 42:223–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bencardino F, Rizzuti L, Spadea G, Swamy R (2008) Stress–strain behavior of steel fiber-reinforced concrete in compression. J Mater Civ Eng 20(3):255–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreira DJ, Chu KM (1985) Stress–strain relationship for plain concrete in compression. ACI J 82(6):797–804

    Google Scholar 

  • Cernica PE (1995) Geotechnical engineering: soil mechanics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Consoli C, Cruz R, Floss M, Festugat L (2010) Parameters controlling tensile and compressive strength of artificially cemented sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(5):759–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Consoli C, Fonseca V, Silva R, Cruz C, Fonini A (2012) Parameters controlling stiffness and strength of artificially cemented soils. Geotechnique 62(2):177–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das B, Dass RN (1995) Lightly cemented sand in tension and compression. Geolog Eng 13:169–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezeldin AS, Balaguru PN (1992) Normal- and high-strength fiber reinforced concrete under compression. J Mater Civ Eng 4(4):415–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalea H, Vipulanandan C (2007) Behavior of a sodium silicate grouted sand. GSP 168 grouting for ground improvement, pp 1–10

  • Harris P, Holdt J, Sebesta S, Scullion T (2005) Recommendations for stabilization of high sulfate soils in Texas. TxDOT Report No. FHWA/TX-06/0-4240-3, pp 1–62

  • Hassibi M (1999) An overview of lime slaking and factors that affect the process. Paper presented at the 3rd international Sorbalit symposium, New Orleans, November 3–5, vol 19, pp 1–19

  • Holtz RD, Kovacs WD, Sheahan TC (2011) An introduction to geotechnical engineering. Prentice Hall, New York, p 733

  • Hunter D (1988) Lime-induced heave in sulfate-bearing clay soils. J Geotech Eng 114(2):150–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kota P, Hazlett D, Perri L (1996) Sulfate-bearing soils: problems with calcium based stabilizers. Transportation research record 1546, Transportation Research Board, Washington, pp 62–69

  • Kumar A, Walia B, Bajaj A (2007) Influence of fly ash, lime, and polyester fibers on compaction and strength properties of expansive soil. Mater Civ Eng 19(3):242–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malekzadeh M, Bilsel H (2012) Effect of polypropylene fiber on mechanical behavior of expansive soils. EJGE 17:55–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Mebarkia S, Vipulanandan C (1992) Compressive behavior of glass-fiber-reinforced polymer concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 4(1):91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell K (1986) Practical problems for surprising soil behavior. Geotech Eng ASCE 112(3):259–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell K, Dermatas D (1992) Clay soil heave caused by lime-sulfate reactions. innovations in uses for lime. ASTM STP 1135, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, pp 41–64

  • Petry M, Little D (1992) Update on sulfate-induced heaven treated clays; problematic sulfate levels. Transportation Research Record 1362, National Research Council, Washington, pp 51–55

  • Pillai A, Abraham B, Sridharan A (2007) Determination of sulphate content in marine clays. Res Appl (IJERA) 1(3):1012–1016

    Google Scholar 

  • Puppala AJ, Viyanant C, Kruzic, Perrin L (2002) Evaluation of a modified sulfate determination method for cohesive soils. Geotech Test J 25(1):85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puppala AJ, Kadam R, Madhyannapu RS, Hoyos LR (2006) Small-strain shear moduli of chemically stabilized sulfate-bearing cohesive soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 132(3):322–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajasekharan G, Rao S (2005) Sulphate attack in lime: treated marine clay, marine. Georesour Geotechnol 23:93–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollings R, Burkes J, Rollings M (1999) Sulfate attack on cement-stabilized sand. Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(5):364–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherwood PT (1962) The effect of sulphates on cement and lime stabilized soils. Roads Road Constr 40(470):34–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudhakar M, Shivananda P (2005) Impact of sulfate contamination on swelling behaviour of lime—stabilized clays. ASTM International 2(6):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Usluogullari O, Vipulanandan C (2011) Stress–strain behavior and California bearing ratio of artificially cemented sand. Test Eval ASTM 39(4):637–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Vipulanandan C, Ata A (2000) Cyclic and damping properties of silicate grouted sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 126(7):650–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vipulanandan C, Ozgurel HG (2009) Simplified relationships for particle-size distribution and permeation groutability limits for soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(9):1190–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vipulanandan C, Garas V (2008) Electrical resistivity, pulse velocity and compressive properties of carbon fiber reinforced cement mortar. J Mater Civ Eng 134(9):1272–1279

    Google Scholar 

  • Vipulanandan C, Paul E (1990) Performance of epoxy and polyester polymer concrete. ACI Mater J 87(3):241–251

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty in Civil Engineering, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Iraq

    Ahmed S. Mohammed

  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT) and Texas Hurricane Center for Innovative Technology (THC-IT), University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77204, USA

    Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan

Authors
  1. Ahmed S. Mohammed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cumaraswamy Vipulanandan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mohammed, A.S., Vipulanandan, C. Compressive and Tensile Behavior of Polymer Treated Sulfate Contaminated CL Soil. Geotech Geol Eng 32, 71–83 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-013-9692-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-013-9692-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation