Available online at www.CivileJournal.

org

Civil Engineering Journal

Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

Evaluation of Softening of Clayey Soil Stabilized with Sewage

Sludge Ash and Lime
Kamyar Norouzian a, Nader Abbasi b*, Jahangir Abedi Koupai c
a
Department of Water Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.
b
Associate professor, Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Alborz, Iran.
c
Professor, Department of Water Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.

Received 14 January 2018; Accepted 30 March 2018

Abstract
Production of sewage sludge have raised increasing concerns due to negative environmental effect. Sewage Sludge Ash
(SSA) is used as a new type of additive for clay. Laboratory tests were performed on clay samples to study the mechanism
of sewage sludge ash (SSA) and Hydrated Lime (HL) soil stabilization. Different SSA contents (0, 5, 10, 15%) and hydrated
lime (0, 1, 3 and 5%) were added to the soil samples. 288 samples were prepared, and unconfined compressive strength
tests were carried out. The samples were tested under optimum water content and also saturated conditions with three
replications. The results of the coefficient of softening indicated that by adding SSA and hydrated lime to clay soil
simultaneously, the stabilized clay soils can be applied in the moist and saturated condition. According to the results, the
samples of SSA contents 0% with hydrated lime 5% and SSA contents 10% with hydrated lime 5% can be placed in the
vicinity of moisture.
Keywords: Soil Stabilization; Sewage Sludge Ash; Hydrated Lime; Unconfined Compressive Strength; Coefficient of Softening; Water
Absorption.

1. Introduction
Soft clay soil is one of the problematic soils covering considerable parts of the earth including many low-land and
coastal regions where many urban and industrial hubs are located and are frequently encountered in civil engineering
projects. Some of the major behavioral and strength problems associated with these types of soils are low strength,
excessive settlements, expansive, collapsible, liquefiable, soluble, dispersive, silty fine sands, highly organic weak soils,
high plasticity, swelling, dispersivity, erodibility, high compressibility and sensitivity to environmental conditions.
Generally, problematic soils such as soft clay soils were improved in order to improve their behavioral and strength
properties [1, 2]. The methods of stabilization can be divided into ground improvement techniques, chemical,
mechanical and biological techniques or a combination of them [3-5]. Chemical stabilization includes the addition of
different natural and synthetic additives such as lime, cement, fly ash and different modern technologies such as
nanoparticles to the soil [3, 5, 6]. One of the major techniques used to overcome the problems created by soft soils is the
mixing with a cementitious binder. Traditionally, these binders are cement and/or lime, which ‘glue’ the soil particles
together mainly through chemical and not physical reactions. Both binders share the fact that their reactions with water
depend largely on their specific surface. Moreover, although the type of reaction is different for lime and cement, the
final product is very much alike, based on calcium and silica compounds [7]. On the other hand, production of sewage
sludge have raised increasing concerns due to negative environmental effect. So the management of sludge produced in

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/cej-0309129
 This is an open access article under the CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
© Authors retain all copyrights.

743
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

wastewater treatment plants is necessary and inevitable. Sewage sludge ash (SSA) is also used as a new type of additive
for clay.
Lin et al. (2007) investigated the impact of sewage sludge ash (SSA) and hydrated lime at a constant ratio of 1:4 to
stabilize soft soils. The result showed that the unconfined compressive strength of specimens with the SSA/lime addition
was improved to about 3-7 times higher than that of the untreated soil [8]. Chen and Lin (2009) evaluated the effects of
sewage sludge ash and cement at a constant ratio of 1:4. The result showed that the unconfined compressive strength of
specimens with SSA/cement was about 3-7 times higher than that of the untreated soil [9]. Sakr et al. (2009) showed
that soft clay soil of high organic content of 14% can be stabilized satisfactorily with the addition of 7% lime [10].
Yilmaz and Civelekoglu (2009) showed that adding gypsum improves the unconfined compressive strength of bentonite
[11]. Pradhan and Sahoo (2010) showed that the maximum strength of soil is obtained when it is treated with 8%
hydrated lime with 14 days curing time [12]. Seco et al. (2011) studied the effects of various materials such as lime,
Magnesium oxide (PC-7), Rice Husk Fly Ash (RHFA), Coal Fly Ash (CFA), polymer (CS) and Aluminatum filler (AF)
on the mechanical behavior of swelling soils. They showed that adding 5% rice husk fly ash with 4% lime is most
effective in increasing the compressive strength of the soil [13]. Maaitah (2012) showed that the strength of soil mixed
with 4% hydrated lime and 2% sodium silicate was increased significantly [14]. Al Adili et al. (2012) showed that
papyrus fiber can be considered an appropriate material for reinforcement of soils [15].
Cristelo et al. (2013) studied the effects of sodium-based alkaline activators and class F fly ash on soil stabilisation.
The results showed a clear increase in strength with decreasing activator/ash ratio (up to a maximum of 43.4 MPa),
which is a positive result since the activator is the most expensive component in the mixture. Finally, UCS results of the
cement and AA samples, at 28 days curing, were very similar [2]. Tempest and Pando (2013) showed that the addition
of SSA as a soil stabilizing material, can improve the bearing capacity and stiffness of the soil in comparison with the
untreated soil [16]. Ahmed (2015) investigated the microstructure and mineralogical compositions of soft clay soil
stabilized with bassanite that is produced from gypsum waste materials. Test results showed that the addition of recycled
bassanite improves the strength of the tested soil [17]. Gao et al. (2015) tested the effects of nanometer magnesium oxide
(NM) on a clay soil. The results show that the unconfined compressive strength of the soil samples increases with NM
content and decreases with higher soil water content. They also showed that the addition of 6% NM to clay soil can
significantly improve the strength and stability of the soil [18]. Modarres and Mohammadi Nosoudy (2015) resulted that
the combination of coal waste materials with lime in considerably higher compressive strength and CBR especially in
saturated condition [19]. Mousavi (2016) investigates the possibility of the use of cement and/or lime for improvement
ground of shallow clay to support highway embankment. A novel approach to stabilize the clay is to use peat ash as a
supplementary material in the compacted and stabilized soil. Test results showed that partial replacement of cement with
12% peat ash in the optimal mix design resulted in maximum unconfined compressive strength [20].
Estabragh et al. (2016) studied the effects of a contaminated clay soil and its treatment through a program of
experimental tests. The contaminated soil samples were prepared with different percentages (3, 6, and 9%) of a glycerol
solution with 40% concentration. Both the strength and stiffness of the contaminated soil are reduced by increasing the
degree of contamination. The results of treated soil showed that adding cement to contaminated soil increases the
strength and the amount of increase in strength is dependent on the percent of cement, curing time and degree of
contamination [3]. Mousavi (2017) investigates the mechanical properties of compacted and stabilized clay with various
proportions of cement and silica fume. Test results showed that the 28 day UCS of the stabilized soil with 2% partial
substitution of cement with silica fume is almost 3.5 fold greater than that of the untreated [21]. Norouzian et al. (2017)
showed that by the addition of both SSA and lime to clayey soil, the optimum water content of the treated samples (ω
opt) is increased and their maximum dry density (γ d max) decreased considerably. So they concluded that the variation of
ω opt and γd max are significant for the samples having different amounts of SSA and lime. Also they showed that
simultaneously application of hydrated lime and sewage sludge ash could improve the compressive strength of the
treated soil more efficiently. They found that the maximum compressive strength occurs with a certain combination of
hydrated lime and SSA rather than their higher values. In this research the combination of 5% hydrated lime and 10%
sewage sludge ash were determined as the most efficient combination [22]. Hamidi and Marandi (2018) showed that
using epoxy resin increases strength parameters about 100 to 1000 times while UCS reaches to more than 50 MPa in
some samples based on the clay mineral types in the soils [1].
As mentioned different pozzolans, especially sewage sludge ash has been used for improvement engineering
properties of clayey soils. In this study, the interactive effects of hydrated lime and sewage sludge ash on the Softening
of soft cohesive subgrade soil were investigated

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soil Samples and Additives
The soil used in the study is originated from Glolabar region located in Zanjan province of Iran. The physical and
mechanical properties of the soil were determined based on the ASTM standard and are presented in Table 1 [23-26].

744
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

Figure 1 shows location of untreated clay soil in the plasticity chart. Also the particle distribution of untreated clay soil
was showed in Figure 2.
Table 1. Index Properties of the soil

Properties LL )%( PL (%) SL (%) EC (dS/m) GS Organic Material )%( Classification (USCS)

Content 46.7 26.1 20.4 1.2 2.72 0.06 CL

50
U
A

40
CH or OH

30
PI (%)

CL or OL

20 MH or OH

10
ML or OL
CL-ML

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

LL (%)

Figure 1. Location of untreated clay soil in the plasticity chart

100

90

80
Finer Percent (%)

70

60

50

40

30
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Grain size (mm)

Figure 2. Particle Size Distribution of untreated clay soil

Hydrated lime was passed through No.40 sieve (0.42 mm). Sewage sludge to produce ash was obtained from a
municipal wastewater treatment plant at Zanjan city. The method of water treatment in this plant includes sludge

745
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

stabilization and thickening systems. In this method, the liquid sewage sludge is turned into pulp by heating and then
dried in oven and finally the ash sludge is prepared by heating the sludge samples in a furnace at 800 °C for 1 hour and
grinding the resulting aggregate. The burning and incineration of sludge shrinks its volume by about 90-95%. Different
stages for preparation of SSA are presented in Figure 3. The sewage sludge ash was passed through No.200 sieve (0.075
mm) after grinding.

a b

c d

Figure 3. Different procedures of SSA production, a) Raw liquid sewage sludge; b) Plastic sewage sludge after predrying;
c) Drying of sewage sludge in oven, d. Sewage sludge ash (SSA)

The results of X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) tests on the soil, lime and sewage sludge ash are shown in
Table 2.
Table 2. XRF Characteristics of soil, lime and SSA

Compound concentration SiO 2 Al2 O 3 CaO Fe2 O 3 MgO K2O TiO 2 Na2 O P2 O 5 SO 3 LOI *

Soil (%W/W) 45.70 12.80 11.95 7.98 4.07 2.91 0.82 0.45 0.18 0.08 13.06

Lime (%W/W) 2.55 0.66 61.62 0.43 3.82 0.23 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.81 29.75

SSA (%W/W) 27.19 8.32 19.94 5.55 2.34 2.35 0.73 0.52 11.40 7.42 12.24
*
Loss of ignition (1000 C, 2 h)

2.2. Experimental Treatments

In order to study the effects of sewage sludge ash and hydrated lime on soil compressive strength and to determine
the appropriate composition of the mixture, different amounts of sewage sludge ash and hydrated lime were mixed as
experimental treatments. For this purpose, the clay soil was air-dried and then the desired mixtures were prepared with
predefined proportions of SSA and hydrated lime. The ratios of sewage sludge ash and hydrated lime in the mixtures
were defined as the ratio of dry weight of the additive to dry weight of the soil. Hence, four different SSA contents of
0, 5, 10, and 15% were considered and assigned the abbreviations S0, S5, S10 and S15 respectively. Also four hydrated
lime contents of 0, 1, 3 and 5% were considered with abbreviations L0, L1, L3 and L5. Therefore, 16 mixture types, or
in other words 16 experimental treatments, were prepared.
2.3. Preparation of Specimens
Harvard miniature compaction apparatus was used for preparation of experimental specimens. Harvard apparatus has

746
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

528 g hammer weight, drop height of 10.8 cm and mold volume of 61.09 cm 3. Figure 4 shows the Harvard apparatus
used in this research which made by a local manufacture according standard specification. For this purpose, certain
amount of additives were mixed and compacted in Harvard compaction cylindrical mold (length 71.52 mm with a 33.34
mm diameter) applying optimum water content and to reach maximum dry density according to Norouzian et al. (2017)
compaction test results [22]. In such a way, for different treatments, first the SSA and hydrated lime were mixed with
soil, and then water was added gradually to the mixture up to optimum moisture content and compacted by standard
compaction effort. To do this, the prepared mixtures were placed in five layers and each layer was compacted by
applying 15 strikes using a specified hammer and then the compacted specimen was extracted using special apparatus
from the mold (Figure 5a). Then prepared specimens was placed in plastic and stored in airtight polystyrene containers
under constant temperature until curing ages (Figures 5b and 5c). Thus, given the number 16 treatments, 3 curing ages
(7, 14, and 28) and 3 replications for each treatment, totally 288 specimens were prepared stored and tested for
compressive strength at the end of curing period.

Figure 4. Harvard compaction test apparatus and its accessories

a b

Figure 5. Specimens prepared by Harvard compaction apparatus. a. A cylindrical specimen, b. Labeled specimens, c. Stored
specimens in airtight polystyrene containers

747
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

2.4. Softening
This characteristic, which is specific to some water-sensitive building materials such as clay, gypsum mortar, lime
mortar, rock and similar materials, indicates a decrease in material resistance due to water absorption and saturation. To
express this sensitivity, a coefficient called the coefficient of softening, which is expressed by the following equation,
is used [27]:

𝑓𝑠𝑎𝑡 (1)
𝑘𝑠 =
𝑓𝑑

fsat = Unconfined compressive strength in saturated condition

fd = Unconfined compressive strength in unsaturated condition
ks = Coefficient of softening
To carry out compressive strength tests in saturated condition, after curing time, specimens were taken out of plastic
cover, weighed and placed in water for 2 days. Then, the unconfined compressive strength tests were performed in strain
control mode at a rate of 1.1 mm per minute on the specimens in saturated and unsaturated conditions. Tests were
performed according to the standard ASTM D 2166-00 using compression test apparatus shown in Figure 6. The
amounts of compressive stress were determined for different samples and then the stress-strain curves were plotted and
the compressive strength was determined.

Figure 6. Unconfined compressive strength test apparatus

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Water Absorption
In order to obtain the water absorption percentage according to ASTMD 4609-00, after curing the samples, their
weights were recorded and they were kept in water for two days. The samples were then taken out of water and their
surfaces were dried using a soft towel. Then, their weights were recorded again. Any increase in the weight due to water
absorption was reported as a percentage of dry sample’s weight. Water absorption percentages of all samples were
calculated after 7, 14 and 28 days and the results are shown in Table 3. The results are presented as the mean of water
absorption percentages of the three samples in each treatment.
Table 3. Water absorption in saturated condition

Water absorption (%)

Treatment
7 days 14 days 28 days

S0L0 6.32 6.9 6.71

S0L1 4.37 4.7 4.43

748
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

S0L3 2.39 2.43 2.27

S0L5 1.32 1.71 0.8

S5L0 4.45 4.84 3.98

S5L1 3.94 3.65 3.72

S5L3 3.24 2.8 2.8

S5L5 3.44 3.37 3.29
S10L0 4.48 5.39 3.85

S10L1 3.09 3.2 3.23

S10L3 4.79 4.24 3.69

S10L5 4.35 4.03 4.24

S15L0 3.99 4.23 3.75

S15L1 4.12 4.01 4.74

S15L3 4.57 4.1 3.72

S15L5 4.46 3.85 4.11

According to Table 3, by increasing of curing time, the water absorption percentage is slightly reduced in most
samples. By increasing of curing time, pozzolanic reactions will probably develop which will result in hardening of the
samples. Therefore, the water absorption percentage decreases. One of the reasons for the high water absorption
percentage of sample S0L0 compared to other samples is the negative charges on the clay particles and their high water
absorption capacity. By increasing the SSA content, the water absorption percentage of sample is reduced compared
with the untreated soil but it is increased in comparison with the samples containing lime. In soils with only lime, by an
increase in lime percentage, the water absorption percentage of samples decreases. The soil particles agglomerate and
become hardened because of cation exchange with lime particles and as a result the water absorption percentage
decreases.
3.2. Softening Results
Compressive strength tests were carried out on samples at curing times of 7, 14 and 28 days, in three replications in
saturated and unsaturated conditions. Coefficient of softening of all samples were calculated after 7, 14 and 28 days and
the results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 7 to 12. The results are presented as the mean of Coefficient of softening of
the three samples in each treatment.

Table 4. Coefficient of softening.

Coefficient of softening
Treatment
7 days 14 days 28 days

S0L0 0.10 0.07 0.09

S0L1 0.21 0.20 0.21
S0L3 0.57 0.73 0.59

S0L5 0.82 0.82 0.93

S5L0 0.20 0.25 0.28

S5L1 0.31 0.39 0.33

S5L3 0.52 0.65 0.52

S5L5 0.66 0.69 0.75

S10L0 0.28 0.30 0.39

S10L1 0.45 0.57 0.47

S10L3 0.39 0.54 0.53

S10L5 0.75 0.74 0.82

S15L0 0.36 0.45 0.39

S15L1 0.47 0.45 0.40

S15L3 0.37 0.52 0.51

S15L5 0.73 0.76 0.59

749
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

1.00

0.80

0.60
ks

S0
0.40 S5
S10
S15
0.20

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Lime content (%)

Figure 7. Effect of lime on the coefficient of softening of 7-day samples

1.00

0.80

0.60
ks

L0
0.40 L1
L3
L5
0.20

0.00
0 5 10 15
SSA content (%)

Figure 8. Effect of SSA on coefficient of softening of 7-day samples

1.00

0.80

0.60
S0
ks

S5
0.40
S10
S15
0.20

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5

Lime content (%)

Figure 9. Effect of lime on the coefficient of softening of 14-day samples

750
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

1.00

0.80

0.60
ks

L0
0.40 L1
L3
0.20 L5

0.00
0 5 10 15

SSA content (%)

Figure 10. Effect of SSA on coefficient of softening of 14- day samples

1.00

0.80

0.60
ks

S0
0.40 S5
S10
0.20 S15

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5

Lime content (%)

Figure 11. Effect of lime on the coefficient of softening of 28- day samples

1.00

0.80

0.60
ks

LO
0.40 L1
L3
L5
0.20

0.00
0 5 10 15

SSA content (%)

Figure 12. Effect of SSA on coefficient of softening of 28- day samples

751
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

The coefficient of softening is proportional to the sensitivity of the material to the water, and the amount of resistance
is reduced due to the absorption of water and the saturation between zero to one variable, and the more the material is
more sensitive, the coefficient becomes closer to zero. Some building materials such as glass and metals are not sensitive
to water, and this factor is about one, while some materials such as clay, gypsum mortar and some of the stones are
sensitized, and these factors are less than One. Based on existing criteria, if the material has a coefficient of softening
less than 0.8, the material should not be placed in the vicinity of moisture [27]. From Table 4 and Figure 7 to 12, the
results of the coefficient of softening showed that, in general, the addition of sewage sludge ash and lime to clay soil,
increases the coefficient of softening of the soil. However, the increase is more significant for the soil specimens treated
with HL. From Figure 7 to 12, it can be observed that curing time leads to an increase in coefficient of softening for
both SSA (except the sample stabilized by 15% SSA) and HL stabilization. The reason for increasing the coefficient of
softening can be related to the increasing of pozzolanic reactions. The pozzolanic interactions between a pozzolan’s
silica or aluminates silica components occurs in the presence of calcium hydroxide in water and exhibits the adhesion
and cementation properties. Calcium Hydroxide Products (CSH) and Calcium Hydro Aluminates (CAH), are generally
obtained after silica and alumina compounds in sewage sludge ash with calcium hydroxide in the lime. Using SSA and
lime simultaneously increased the coefficient of softening. Using lime and sewage sludge ash simultaneously, increased
the coefficient of softening of the natural soil 8 times. Based on the results, the most significant influence on the
coefficient of softening happened to be from a 28 day test specimen corresponding to the addition of 5% HL, 0% SSA
and 5% HL, 10% SSA. According to the results, the samples of S0L5 and S10L5 can be placed in the vicinity of moisture.
The stress–strain curve of S0L0, S0L5 and S10L5 samples for a 28- day curing time in saturation condition and
optimum moisture content condition are shown in Figure 13.

1600
S0L0 (optimum)
1400 S0L5 (optimum)
S10L5 (optimum)
1200
S0L0 (saturated)
1000
UCS (kPa)

S0L5 (Saturated)
800 S10L5 (Saturated)

600

400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strain (%)

Figure 13. The stress–strain curve of S0L0, S0L5 and S10L5 samples for a 28- day curing time in saturation condition and
optimum moisture content condition.
Figure 13 shows the stress-strain curves for the soil, S0L5 and S10L5. As shown in this figure, adding water to the
soil resulted in decreasing its strength. The strength of the soil sample in optimum moisture content condition before
failure was 416 kPa, but for the S0L5 and S10L5 the strength changed to 1404 and 1565 kPa, respectively. The strength
of the soil sample in saturation condition before failure was 38 kPa, but for the S0L5 and S10L5 the strength changed
to 1310 and 1277 kPa, respectively. The results show that although adding water caused a reduction in strength. As
shown in this Figure 12 the strain for S0L5 and S10L5 is less than the soil. Also saturation condition has a low failure
strain compared to optimum moisture content condition. The initial slope of the stress-strain curves was increased by
adding SSA and HL to the soil which shows increase in stiffness of the untreated soil. This is due to the brittle behavior
that develops in the soil by adding SSA and HL or increasing the curing time that causes the failure occur at small
strains.

4. Conclusion
Based on the results of the present study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
 The amount water absorption decreased with curing time, increased with SSA content and decreased with lime
content.
 The addition of sewage sludge ash and lime to clay soil, increases the coefficient of softening of the soil.

752
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

 Using SSA and lime simultaneously increased the coefficient of softening.

 Curing time leads to an increase in coefficient of softening for both SSA (except the sample stabilized by 15%
SSA) and HL stabilization. It can be concluded that pozzolanic reaction is a time-dependent process and with
increasing curing time, the greater amounts of lime and sewage sludge ash participate in the pozzolanic
reactions.
 The most significant influence on the coefficient of softening happened to be from a 28 day test specimen
corresponding to the addition of 5% HL, 0% SSA and 5% HL, 10% SSA.
 The samples of S0L5 and S10L5 can be placed in the vicinity of moisture.
 The results show that although adding water caused a reduction in strength.
 Saturation condition has a low failure strain compared to optimum moisture content condition.
 The initial slope of the stress-strain curves was increased by adding SSA and HL to the soil which shows
increase in stiffness of the untreated soil.

5. Acknowledgements
This research has been carried out in soil mechanics and construction materials laboratories of Iranian Agricultural
Engineering Research Institute, Tak Azmaye Zanjan Consulting Company, and Sanaye Mese Novin Company. Hereby,
the authors express their thanks to the staff and management of the mentioned companies and institute.

6. References
[1] Hamidi, S., and Marandi, S. M. “Clay concrete and effect of clay minerals types on stabilized soft clay soils by epoxy resin.”
Applied Clay Science (2018): 92- 101. DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2017.10.010.
[2] Abbasi, N., and Nazifi, M. H. “Assessment and Modification of Sherard Chemical Method for Evaluation of Dispersion Potential
of Soils.” Journal Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2013): 337-349. DOI: 10.1007/s10706-012-9573-7.
[3] Estabragh, N., Khatibi, M., and Javadi, A. A. “Effect of Cement on Treatment of a Clay Soil Contaminated with Glycerol.” Journal
of Materials in Civil Engineering (2016): 241- 247. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001443.
[4] Rahimi H., Abbasi N., and Shantia, H., “Application of geomembrane to control piping of sandy soil under concrete canal lining
(case study: Moghan irrigation project, Iran),” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage (2011): 330-337. DOI: 10.1002/ird.574
[5] Abbasi N., Bahramloo R., Movahedan N., “Strategic planning for remediation and optimization of irrigation and drainage
networks: a case study for Iran.” Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia (2015): 211–221. DOI: 10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.03.025.
[6] Abbasi, N., Farjad, A. and Sepehri, S., “The use of nanoclay particles for stabilization of dispersive clayey soils.” Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s10706-017-0330-9.
[7] Cristelo, A., Glendinning, S., Fernandes, L., and Teixeira Pinto, A. “Effects of alkaline-activated fly ash and Portland cement on
soft soil stabilisation.” Acta Geotechnica (2013): 395- 405. DOI: 10.1007/s11440-012-0200-9.
[8] Lin, D.F., Lin, K. L., Hung, M. J., and Luo, H. L. “Sludge Ash/Hydrated Lime on The Geotechnical Properties of Soft Soil.”
Journal of Hazardous Materials (2007): 58- 64. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.05.087.
[9] Chen, L., and Lin, D. F. “Stabilization Treatment of Soft Subgrade Soil by Sewage Sludge Ash and Cement.” Journal of Hazardous
Materials (2009): 321- 327. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.05.060.
[10] Sakr, M. A., Shahin, M. A., and Metwally, Y. M. “Utilization of Lime for Stabilizing Soft Clay Soil of High Organic Content.”
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2009): 105- 113. DOI:10.1007/s10706-008-9215-2.
[11] Yilmaz, I., and Civelekoglu, B “Gypsum: An Additive for Stabilization of Swelling Clay Soils.” Applied Clay Science (2009):
166-172. DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2009.01.020.
[12] Pradhan, P. K., and Sahoo, J. D. P. “Effect of Lime Stabilized Soil Cushion on Strength Behaviour of Expansive Soil.”
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2010): 889- 897. DOI:10.1007/s10706-010-9332-6.
[13] Seco, A., Ramírez, F., Miqueleiz, L., and García, B. “Stabilization of Expansive Soils for Use in Construction.” Applied Clay
Science (2011): 348-352. DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2010.12.027.
[14] Maaitah, O. N. “Soil Stabilization by Chemical Agent.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2012): 1345- 1356.
DOI:10.1007/s10706-012-9549-7.
[15] Al Adili, A., Azzam, R., Spagnoli, G., and Schrader, J. “Strength of Reinforced with Fiber Materials (Papyrus).” Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering (2012): 241- 247. DOI: 10.1007/s11204-012-9154-z.
[16] Tempest, Q. B., and Pando, M. A. “Characterization and Demonstration of Reuse Applications of Sewage Sludge Ash.”
International Journal of Geomate (2013): 552- 559. DOI: 10.21660/2013.8.1620.
[17] Ahmed, A. “Compressive strength and microstructure of soft clay soil stabilized with recycled basanite.” Applied Clay Science

753
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, April, 2018

(2015): 27- 35. DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2014.11.031.

[18] Gao, L., Ren, Zh., and Yu, X. “Experimental Study of Nanometer Magnesium Oxide-Modified Clay.” Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering (2015): 218- 224. DOI: 10.1007/s11204-015-9331-y.
[19] Modarres, A., and Mohammadi Nosoudy, Y. “Clay stabilization using coal waste and lime- Technical and environmental
impacts.” Applied Clay Science (2015): 281- 288. DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2015.03.026.
[20] Mousavi, S. E. “Stabilization of compacted clay with cement and/ or lime containing peat ash.” Road Materials and Pavement
Design (2016): 1304- 1321. DOI: 10.1080/14680629.2016.1212729.
[21] Mousavi, S. E.“Utilization of Silica Fume to Maximize the Filler and Pozzolanic Effects of Stabilized Soil with Cement.” Road
Materials and Pavement Design (2016): Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2017): 77- 87. DOI: 10.1007/s10706-017-0305-
x.
[22] Norouzian, K., Abbasi, N., and Abedi Koupai, J. “Use of Sewage Sludge Ash and Hydrated Lime to Improve the Engineering
Properties of Clayey Soils,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (2017). DOI:10.1007/s10706-017-0411-9.
[23] ASTM D 422-63. “Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils.” Annual book of ASTM standards, ASTM
international, Philadelphia (2007).
[24] ASTM D 854-10. “Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils.” Annual book of ASTM standards, ASTM international,
Philadelphia (2012).
[25] ASTM D 2487-11. “Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).”
Annual book of ASTM standards, ASTM international, Philadelphia. (2012).
[26] ASTM D 4318-10. “Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils.” Annual book of ASTM
standards, ASTM international, Philadelphia. (2012).
[27] Rahimi, H. “Building Materials”, University of Tehran Press, Tehran, Iran (2017).
[28] ASTM D 2166-00. “Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil.” Annual book of ASTM
standards, ASTM international, Philadelphia. (2012).
[29] ASTM D 4609-00. “Standard Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of Admixtures for Soil Stabilization.” Annual book of ASTM
standards, ASTM international, Philadelphia.

754