Transportation Geotechnics xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo
Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior
Dina Kuttah a,⇑, Kenichi Sato b
a
b
Researcher at the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping, Sweden
Faculty of Engineering, Fukuoka University, Japan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 June 2014
Revised 18 June 2015
Accepted 19 June 2015
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Gypsum
Sulfate bearing soil
Subgrade soil
Problematic soil
Soil improvement and treatment
a b s t r a c t
Increasing the utilization of urban soil usage brings along very important problems to be
addressed at the international level regarding the use of sulfate bearing soils as construction materials.
After briefly exploring current research perspective, this paper captures the current state
of the art in the field of sulfate bearing soils used as construction materials through a
detailed discussion of different studies that pave the way to the possible treatment of such
soils to be used in road construction.
Additionally, the purpose of this paper is to acquaint geotechnical and pavement
engineers with the present state of the art of the physical and chemical properties of
gypsum and hence its effect on the subgrade soil performance. On the other hand, this
paper discussed an opposite action in which some researchers have mixed recycled waste
gypsum components with soil in order to stabilize it.
In other words, a number of open research issues are highlighted with the intension of
inspiring new conditions and developments in stabilizing problematic gypsiferous soil as
well as adding gypsum to stabilize non gypsiferous soils of weak performance.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Some physical and chemical characteristics of gypsum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Factors affecting gypsum solubility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Roads problems encountered in gypsiferous soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Effect of gypsum content on soil properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Effect of gypsum content on soil compaction characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Effect of gypsum content on soil permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Effect of gypsum content on soil swelling and heaving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Effect of gypsum content on soil strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Stabilization of gypsiferous and non-gypsiferous soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Stabilization of naturally occurring sulfate-bearing soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Physical stabilization of sulfate-bearing soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Chemical stabilization of sulfate-bearing soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Stabilization of non-gypsiferous soil by adding gypsum components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
⇑ Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003
2214-3912/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transport Geotech (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003
2
D. Kuttah, K. Sato / Transportation Geotechnics xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Notations
CP
collapse potential
CaO
calcium oxide
CaSO4
anhydrite
CaSO42H2O gypsum
CaSO4½H2O bassanite (hemihydrate)
CBR
California bearing ratio
Cc
compression index
FGD
Flue gas desulfurization
HCl
hydrochloric acid
Introduction
It is very common that the soil at a site to be developed
is not ideal from the viewpoint of geotechnical engineering. An attractive approach which is usually used to avoid
many of the settlement and stability problems associated
with soft foundation soils is soil improvement and
treatment.
In its broadest sense, soil improvement is the alteration
of any property of a soil to enhance its engineering performance (Sherard et al., 1963; Chen, 2000).
Since pavements are designed to distribute stresses
imposed by traffic to the subgrade, the subgrade
conditions have a significant influence on the choice and
thickness of pavement structure and the way it is designed.
Depending on the existing soils and project design, the
properties of the subgrade may need to be improved,
either mechanically, chemically, or both, to provide a
platform for the construction of subsequent layers and to
provide adequate support for the pavement over its design
life (Jones et al., 2010).
In most regions of the world, especially in the Middle
East, natural soils and aggregates contain varying quantities of soluble salts (Blight, 1976; Fookes, 1976, 1978;
Fookes and French, 1977; Tomlinson, 1978). Gypsum is
one of the soluble salts that can have a detrimental effect
on subgrade soils, buildings and earth structures if it is
presented in high quantities in the soil (Subhi, 1987;
Obika et al., 1989; Razouki et al., 1994; Razouki and
Kuttah, 2004, 2006).
According to Klein and Hurlbut (1985), gypsum
(CaSO42H2O) contains 32.6% calcium oxide (CaO), 46.5%
sulfur trioxide (SO3) and 20.9% combined water (H2O). As
a result of dehydration of gypsum, the first 1½ molecules
of (H2O) in gypsum are lost relatively continuously
between 0 °C and about 65 °C, perhaps with only slight
changes in the gypsum structure, leading to bassanite
(CaSO4½H2O). At about 70 °C, the remaining (½H2O)
molecule in bassanite (hemihydrate) is still retained relatively strongly but at about 95 °C it is lost and the structure
transforms to that of anhydrite (CaSO4).
Both, anhydrite and hemihydrate have several different
forms with different properties, but in general, if anhydrite
or hemihydrate are mixed with water, they will hydrate to
gypsum (Claisse and Ganjian, 2006).
HNO3
K
ML
Ø
OMC
SM
SO3
TxDOT
cdmax
nitric acid
dissolution rate constant
sandy silt low plasticity soil
the angle of internal friction
optimum moisture content
silty sand soil
sulfur trioxide
Texas Department of Transportation
the maximum dry unit weight
The presence of gypsum in subgrade soil could be naturally or artificially added gypsum as follows:
1. Naturally occurring gypsum, in which hydrate and
anhydrate gypsum are considered as part of the soil
components. Soil science has paid little attention to
gypsiferous soils, and this limited knowledge is reflected
in the direct loan of customary terms of soil science that
can lead to misconceptions on the composition and
behavior of soils with large proportions of gypsum.
Both geological and climatic reasons cause gypsumrich soils to occur in dry lands (Herrero and Porta,
2000). Such soil can be found in the Middle East
(especially in Iraq, Syria & Iran), Europe especially in
Spain, former USSR (Siberia, Georgia, Transcaucasia,
Azerbaidzhan), north Africa (Algeria, Tunisia), south east
of Somalia, southern central Australia and in former
inland lakes in western USA (Van Alphen and Romero,
1971). Soils containing gypsum in Cardiff area of
Wales in the United Kingdom were reported by
Hawkins and Pinches (1987). The presence of natural
occurring gypsum in subgrade soil usually found in high
quantities and therefore using such soils as subgrade
materials may lead to detrimental effects of roads structures as reported by many authors (Razouki et al., 2011,
2012a,b). The problems in using naturally occurring
gypsiferous soil as road construction materials are usually faced when these soils subjected to long term soaking and leaching (Razouki and Kuttah, 2006; Razouki
et al., 2011; Aldaood et al., 2014) as well as cyclic drying
and wetting as studied by Razouki and Salem (2014).
2. Artificially added gypsum, when gypsum and/or
bassanite (virgin or recycled) are added to
non-gypsiferous subgrade soil in control quantities to
improve the mechanical properties of the subgrade soil
(due to the cementation action of gypsum) and/or to
minimize the landfilling of waste products involve
gypsum, since the use of secondary (recycled) instead
of primary (virgin) materials in roads construction
helps easing landfill pressures and reducing demand
of extraction (Huang et al., 2007). During the three
stages of production, construction and demolition of
plasterboards, approximately 15 million tons of
gypsum waste plasterboard is generated annually in
the world (Ahmed et al., 2011). Production of Flue gas
Please cite this article in press as: Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transport Geotech (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003
D. Kuttah, K. Sato / Transportation Geotechnics xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
desulfurization (FGD) gypsum doubled from 12 to 25
million tons between 2004 an Jones et al., 2010, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, and it’s projected to
reach 40 million tons by 2020 (Fisher, 2011). Due to
these facts, recently, by product plasterboards gypsum
has been mixed with subgrade soil in order to reduce
the quantities of waste boards sent to land filling.
Many researchers have carried out investigations on
the effect of adding by-product gypsum content on
the properties of soil used as construction materials.
In practice, especially in Japan, new specifications
controlling the mixing percentage of gypsum with soil
has been modified (Kyokai, 2007) to accept as much
as possible higher mixing percentages of gypsum with
soil because the priority now in Japan is to reduce the
environmental effect of waste plasterboards (gypsum)
by mixing it with soil used as a construction materials
(Karami et al., 2007; Ganjian et al., 2008; Rao et al.,
2011; Sato et al., 2012; Kamei et al., 2013).
In summary, the soil used as a construction materials
may contain gypsum components naturally and refer to
as (gypseous, gypsiferous, or sulfate bearing soils) or the
gypsum may be added to the non gypsiferous soil in small
quantities either to improve its properties or to minimize
the landfilling of waste products involve gypsum.
Therefore, the presence of gypsum in soils used as
construction materials and its effect on the different soil
properties has been studied independently by many
researchers all over the world. Correspondingly, this paper
highlights the efforts done in this subject and discusses the
main findings obtain up to now in this research area.
Some physical and chemical characteristics of gypsum
The structure of gypsum consists of parallel layers of
(SO4) 2 groups strongly bonded to (Ca)+2. These layers
are separated by sheets of (H2O) molecules with weak
bonds existing between the H2O molecules in neighboring
sheets (Klein and Hurlbut, 1985).
Klein and Hurlbut (1985) pointed out that gypsum is
either colorless or it may be white, gray, red, brown or
having various shades of yellow resulting from impurities.
The hardness of gypsum is 2, so that it can easily be
scratched by the finger nail. It is also important to note that
the hot dilute (HCl) is capable to dissolve gypsum (Klein
and Hurlbut, 1985).
Following Kuznetsova and Lomovskii (1986), the initial
monoclinic structure of gypsum single crystals could be
changed into hexagonal and then into orthorhombic
during thermal decomposition (<200 °C) in a vacuum up
to 1.33 Pa pressure.
Regarding the specific gravity, Klein and Hurlbut
(1985); Horta (1989) reported that gypsum has a specific
gravity of 2.32.
Factors affecting gypsum solubility
Gypsum, whether in massive or particulate form, dissolves producing caverns and/or progressive settlements;
3
accelerating seepage flows and accompanying deteriorations of foundation unlikely if provision is made to keep
the initial seepage flow rates to low value (James and
Lupton, 1978).
Due to the fact that various factors can affect the
solubility of gypsum in water, which in turn may affect
the soil engineering properties, the influence of different
factors on the gypsum solubility have been studied and
reported by different authors as discussed below.
Van Alphen and Romero (1971) reported that the solubility of gypsum is 2.6 gm/l (although the solubility varies
somewhat with the concentration and the composition of
soil solution). They found out that 1:1 soil:water ratio
would dissolve only about 0.25% weight of gypsum in a soil
sample. The soil:water ratio should therefore be very dilute
when high gypsum percentages are involved, e.g. for 40%
gypsum, the ratio soil:water ratio should be at least
1:160 to dissolve the whole gypsum.
James and Lupton (1978) found out that the dissolution
rate constant (K) of gypsum increased 3.25 times when the
temperature increased from 5 °C to 23 °C.
Akili and Torrance (1981) pointed out that the chemical
composition of water can have a significant influence on
the dissolution of gypsum.
The pH value, the particle size distribution and the
applied pressure are all factors affecting the gypsum
solubility.
Subhi (1987) reported that the effect of pH is important
in that acids increase the solubility of most common substances. However, Shlash and Al-Rawi (1994) found out a
reduction in the percentage of many salts such as CaSO4
when a gypsiferous soil is treated with nitric acid (HNO3)
and hydrochloric acid (HCl) of different concentrations.
Khan (1994) reported that the solubility of gypsum is
conversely proportional to the particle size (i.e. its
solubility increases linearly with increasing mesh number).
Freyer and Voigt (2003) reported that the solubility of
all CaSO4 phases (i.e. gypsum, hemihydrate and anhydrite)
increases with increasing the applied pressure.
According to the Environment and Raw Material
Committee (2010), the solubility of gypsum and anhydrite
in water at 25 °C is 2.6 and 2.1 g/l respectively. Although
the solubility varies somewhat with the concentration
and the composition of soil solution).
Roads problems encountered in gypsiferous soils
Physical salt damage may occurs when soluble salts
contained in the aggregate of the base or in underlying
material are moved upwards by evaporation of water
through the surfacing and they crystallized out beneath
the surfacing layer to blister and crack the surface. Such
pavement damage was noticed in USA by Blight (1976)
and in Arabian Gulf by Fookes (1976).
According to Fookes and French (1977), the soluble salts
damage in the road occurs when the soluble salts, particularly sulfate, are found in the ground, ground water, and
road mineral aggregate. They added that the magnitude
of the damage is influenced by traffic load and pavement
thickness.
Please cite this article in press as: Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transport Geotech (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003
4
D. Kuttah, K. Sato / Transportation Geotechnics xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fookes and French (1977) reported that disintegration
of thin surface course due to salt attack in road crossing
a salina was noticed in Bahrain and reflective cracking in
surface course largely from disintegration and settlement
of sub-base attacked by salt was noticed in United Arab
Republic.
Sulfate-induced heave has been a recognized problem
in the United States since it was reported by Mitchell
(1986) and later by Hunter (1988).
Due to the fact that large amount of money is spent in
the construction of highways, the use of available materials becomes one of the essential requirements in minimizing their construction cost. Subhi (1987) reported that
salt-bearing soils have been used extensively in road construction both as general fill for embankments as well as
subbase materials. Accordingly, it is very important to
study the characteristics of gypsiferous soils and their
soluble mineral constituents in order to understand their
behavior under different field conditions.
Hunter (1988) reported sulfate-induced heaves in
Stewart Avenue and Owens Street in Las Vegas, and his
investigations found distress in areas where the soil had
as little as 10 percent clay fraction. Evidence of distress
appeared within 6 months of project completion and
resulted in severe damage to the pavement within 2 years.
Pavement heaves rose as high as 300 mm and were parallel
to the roadway. Large cracks 25–150 mm wide were
measured on the surface. Moreover, heaves were also
observed in areas where soluble sulfate concentrations
were as low as 700 ppm but located adjacent to a major
water source (Hunter, 1988).
Highly gypsiferous soils which are permeable or containing fissures suffer from the formation of cavities due
to leaching out of gypsum from regions surrounding the
waterways (Cooper, 1989). These cavities become large
and large until a sudden collapse of overlying strata takes
place. These cavities can be very dangerous if the soil is
used as a foundation for any type of structures.
During the construction of a runway in the Turks and
Caicos Island, British West Indies, damage to the pavement
surfacing from soluble salt occurred in the form of blistering & fluffing of the bituminous prime coat (Obika et al.,
1989).
Razouki et al. (1994) reported many of the problems
encountered in highly gypsiferous soils. Such problems
include non-homogeneity, great losses in strength upon
wetting, sudden increase in compressibility upon wetting,
continuation of deformation and collapse upon leaching
due to water movement, existence of cracks due to seasonal changes, existence of holes due to local dissolution
of gypsum.
Cooper and Saunders (2002) reported that gypsum
karst problems in the Permian and Triassic sequences of
England had caused difficult conditions for bridge and road
construction. In Northern England, the Ripon Bypass
crosses Permian strata affected by active gypsum karst
and severe subsidence problems (Cooper and Saunders,
2002).
Several roads, airfield pavements, and parking lots in
Texas and other states in the western United States have
suffered severe pavement damage due to expansive
minerals formed from the reactions of calcium based materials used to stabilize sulfate-bearing soils. Remediation
costs for projects that suffer sulfate-induced heave damage
are very high, because often the entire pavement may have
to be removed and reconstructed (Kota et al., 2007).
The need for constructing new highways in areas
having high gypsum content is faced with the problem of
soluble salts in the subgrade soil as well as in fill material
for the embankments. From economic point of view, it is
necessary to study in depth the possibility of using gypsiferous soils for subgrade and embankment purposes.
All of the aforementioned problems has been encountered due to the high presence or formation of gypsum in
soil used as a construction material. Therefore, it is very
important to shed light on the effect of gypsum content
on the different engineering soil properties as discussed
in the following paragraph.
Effect of gypsum content on soil properties
The presence of crystalline gypsum in the soil, possessing special physicochemical properties, which differ
sharply from the properties of other minerals of the soil,
complicates the determination of the water content, the
specific gravity of the particles, the grain – size distribution, and consequently other characteristics connected
with them (Arakelyan, 1986).
Depending on the existing soils and project design, the
properties of the subgrade need to be evaluated, to provide
a platform for the construction of subsequent layers and to
provide adequate support for the pavement over its design
life (Jones et al., 2010).
It is well known that gypsum affects the properties of
soils used as a construction materials. However, some
researchers used natural gypsum and other used recycled
gypsum to investigate the effect gypsum on soil performance. The authors illustrate and discuss the research
done to investigate the effect of natural gypsum as well
as recycled gypsum on different soil properties as shown
below.
Effect of gypsum content on soil compaction characteristics
Subhi (1987) studied the compaction characteristics of
the sandy silty clay soil. She found out that the addition
of gypsum <63 lm in size or gypsum particles between
250 and 355 lm tends to decrease the maximum dry density (cdmax) and to increase the optimum moisture content
(OMC) of the soil. In the case of the addition of gypsum in
the size fraction between 850 and 1000 lm a decrease in
both the maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content was obtained. This compaction behavior occurs
as a result of both the specific gravity and the grain size
of the gypsum. The decrease in the maximum dry density
may be attributed to the loss of some compactive energy
in breaking the cementatious bonds which may form
between clay and gypsum particles. Subhi (1987) pointed
out that the mixing of gypsum with the sandy silty clay
may involve cation exchange. It may also produce flocculation and agglomeration of the soil which will decrease the
Please cite this article in press as: Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transport Geotech (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003
D. Kuttah, K. Sato / Transportation Geotechnics xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
plasticity index and should therefore decrease the
optimum moisture content, because of the decrease in
the surface area due to the increase in edge to face contacts
of the particles.
Kamei et al. (2012) reported that the dry unit weight
increased, and moisture content decreased with the
increase of the recycled bassanite content (CaSO4½H2O)
in the very soft clay soil mixture. The increase in dry unit
weight when the amount of bassanite increases is attributed to the potential of bassanite for absorbing the water
from the test soil. Furthermore, the developed hardening
between soil particles prevents or reduces the penetration
of water inside the soil sample and then no more or little
water can be further absorbed by the sample (Kamei
et al., 2012).
Ahmed (2013) tested eight sand-gypsum mixtures
using standard Proctor effort to evaluate the effect of gypsum content on the compaction characteristics of sandy
soil. The mixtures had 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 65%,
and 80% gypsum content by weight. The tests results
showed that at low gypsum contents (i.e., gypsum content
ranging from zero to about 30% by weight) there was a
slight increase in the maximum dry density associated
with a slight decrease in the optimum water content when
gypsum content increased up to 15%. On the contrary,
when gypsum content increased more than 30%, the
maximum dry density started to decrease noticeably
associated with a clear increase in the optimum water
content. Ahmed (2013) attributed this behavior to two
influence factors. The first factor was the role of gypsum
particles as a filling material to the intergranular voids of
the soil matrix, while the second factor was the decrease
in the overall specific gravity of the soil mixture associated
with the increase in gypsum content, since the specific
gravity of the sandy soil used is 2.65 while it is 2.33 for
gypsum (Ahmed, 2013).
Effect of gypsum content on soil permeability
Keren et al. (1980) observed that gypsum only reduces
the hydraulic conductivity when it is very fine (<44 lm)
and close the macropores of fine textured soils. In soils
with coarser textures, by-pass flow is less important and
the fine-gypsum infillings have less influence on the saturated hydraulic conductivity. The presence of large gypsum
particles in macropores does not reduce the saturated
hydraulic conductivity because the resulting packing pores
are still not large enough to restrict flow (Keren et al.,
1980).
Subhi (1987) investigated the effect of addition of
gypsum to the sandy silty clay from Baghdad with 2.2%
initial gypsum content. Her tests indicated that the
permeability of soil compacted at the optimum moisture
content increased with the increasing amount of gypsum
of 850–1000 lm size fraction and decreased with the
addition of the less than 63 lm size fraction. She added
that many factors can affect the permeability of a compacted soil. These include non-uniform saturation, the
migration of fines during testing and variation of void ratio.
Al-Dabbagh et al. (1990) reported that the permeability
increased with increasing gypsum content of a compacted
5
clayey loam and sandy loam of Mosul city. This is attributed to the increase in void ratio with increasing gypsum
content and this occur due to the dissolution of gypsum
in the soil which leads to enlarging cavities between soil
particles and forming channels that ease water flow.
Effect of gypsum content on soil swelling and heaving
Lutenegger et al. (1979) reported that the estimated
expansion pressure from gypsum is generally less than
that from expanding montmorillonitic clay and is probably
greater than that from capillary frost heave.
Hawkins and Pinches (1987) reported that hydration of
CaSO4 could obviously cause some expansion resulting
from void filling by water, while the primary cause of the
expansion was the growth of gypsum. They added that
gypsum crystallization can occur in several forms. The
most easily recognizable are the prismatic crystals which
may also be clustered together in disc shaped rosettes, or
the growth may be as thin acicular crystal form that can
exert most force at its growing end, thus being primarily
responsible for heave due to gypsum growth.
On the other hand, Ameta et al. (2008) reported that the
problems associated with expansive soil are related to
bearing capacity and cracking, breaking up of pavements,
and various other building foundation problems. The effect
of gypsum on swelling pressure is studied and it is found
that swelling pressure decreases with addition of gypsum.
Adding of 6% gypsum to expansive soil in India, caused
more than 60% reduction in the swelling pressure of the
tested soil according to Ameta et al. (2008).
Yilmaz and Civelekoglu (2009) reported that gypsum
can be used as a stabilizing agent for expansive clay soils,
effectively. They found that the swell percent obtained
from carrying out free swell test on expansive clay that
the swell percent of the clay decreased from about 65%
for untreated clay to 20% for clay samples mixed with
10% gypsum by mass.
Frost heave property throughout capillary rise test were
investigated to determine the behavior of treated soil with
recycled gypsum (Ahmed et al., 2011). Ahmed et al. (2011)
reported that the increase of recycled gypsum content are
associated with reducing of capillary rise. Thus, the time
required for water to rise within the soil sample is
increased. It is followed by reducing the formation of ice
lenses and then the effect of frost heave will be minimized
(Ahmed et al., 2011).
Effect of gypsum content on soil strength
Salas et al. (1973) reported that the angle of internal
friction (Ø) of low plasticity gypseous clay increased with
increasing gypsum content.
Ramiah (1982) studied the effect of adding different
gypsum contents (0%, 3% and 10%) on shear strength of a
silty clay brought from a site in Baghdad city. The test
results showed that the unconfined compressive strength
increased as the gypsum content increased for unsoaked
specimens.
Petrukhin and Arakelyan (1985) examined the character of variation in the strength of the soils as a function
Please cite this article in press as: Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transport Geotech (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003
6
D. Kuttah, K. Sato / Transportation Geotechnics xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
of initial (natural) gypsum content. They found that in
clayey soils, the specific cohesion increased sharply with
increasing initial content of gypsum up to 15% due to the
formation of crystals in the pores of the soil, which reduces
the porosity and hence increases the cohesion. At 15%
gypsum content, the strength of the clayey soils attains a
critical value, after which the specific cohesion decreases
due to the failure of crystal bonds. The angle of internal
friction increased steadily with increasing the gypsum
content up to about 20% since the friction between the
gypsum particles is greater than that between the mineral
components of the soil. After 20% gypsum content, the
angle of internal friction decreases and no reason for this
phenomenon was reported.
For sandy loam, the angle of internal friction Ø
increased with increasing gypsum content up to 25% then
decreased. This is due to the fact that the mineral friction
increases with increasing gypsum content, then the
porosity increase causes a reduction in the angle of internal
friction Ø for more than 25% gypsum content (Petrukhin
and Arakelyan, 1985).
AL-Ani et al. (1991) studied the effect of adding gypsum
(0.6%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%) to an A-7-6 (24) silty clay subgrade soil on the soaked CBR for 4 days soaking period.
They reported a soaked CBR of (3.6%, 4.6%, 8.8% and 6.5%)
for (0.6%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%) gypsum added respectively. This mean that the soaked CBR value increased with
increasing gypsum content up to 15% and then decreased.
Ahmed and Ugai (2011) reported that the compressive
strength values for poorly graded sandy soil samples stabilized with recycled gypsum increased from 14.42 kPa to
25.43, 81.99 and 331.18 kPa due to adding 5%, 10% and
20% content of recycled gypsum, respectively. This can be
explained by the addition of recycled gypsum to the soil
causing cementation or hardening of soil particles; thus
cohesion strength between soil particles is developed
(Ahmed and Ugai, 2011).
Kamei et al. (2012) investigated the effect of recycled
bassanite content (of 0%, 5%, 10% and 20%) on the ultimate
compressive strength for different investigated clayey
samples mixed with 5% furnace slag cement and subjected
to five freeze–thaw cycles. They found that the presence
and increase in the recycled bassanite content in the soil
mixture has a significant effect on the improvement of
strength of samples subjected to freeze–thaw cycles.
Kamei et al. (2012) found that for the all five freeze–thaw
cycles, the maximum ultimate compressive strength
reached was for samples with 20% recycled bassanite.
They added that the role of bassanite in increasing the
strength of very soft clay soil is more significant in the case
of samples exposed to freeze–thaw cycles compared to
those not exposed to freeze–thaw cycles.
Kobayashi et al. (2013) studied the effect of different
percentages of recycled basanite content (namely 0%, 5%,
10% and 15%) on both compressive and splitting tensile
strengths of two types of cohesion-less soil. They found
that both compressive and splitting tensile strengths
enhanced with the additives of recycled bassanite. The
increase of bassanite content had a more significant effect
on the compressive strength compared with the effect on
tensile strength according to Kobayashi et al. (2013).
They added that the use of recycled bassanite to enhance
the strength of sandy soil had a more significant effect
compared with silty soil. For silty soil, increasing the
basanite content from 0% to 15% caused an increase of
2.5-fold and 6.5-fold in the splitting tensile and compressive strength respectively.
Stabilization of gypsiferous and non-gypsiferous soils
As discussed above, it is well known that gypsum has
different positive and negative impact on the engineering
properties of subgrade soil depending on the type of the
soil, the quantity of gypsum, and its degree of hydration,
added additives, environmental circumstances, and other
factors. At the same time, it is important to distinguish
between two issues highlighted in this paper, namely, stabilization of naturally occurring sulfate bearing soil (gypsiferous soil) and non-gypsiferous soil stabilized by adding
one of gypsum components. The following sections highlights these two different subjects separately. Section 6.1
discusses the recent methods used to improve gypsiferous
soils in which gypsum is presented naturally, while
Section 6.2 deals with stabilization of non-gypsiferous soil
to which gypsum is added as a stabilizing material.
Stabilization of naturally occurring sulfate-bearing soils
Gypsiferous soils are one of the most complex materials
that challenge the geotechnical engineers, but due to the
fact that many of gypsiferous soil regions are opened up
to industrial development, it has become essential to study
in depth the properties, behavior and the possible stabilization methodology of such soils under different conditions. As shown previously, the abundant amount of data
obtained from the lengthy research programs all over the
word revealed in some cases contradicting results due to
the complexity of the gypsiferous soils. However, in spite
of this contradiction, the scientists have agreed about the
importance of improving further the performance of sulfate bearing soils (e.g. gypsiferous soils) used as a construction materials and therefore rigid actions have been
considered to stabilize gypsiferous soils as discussed
below.
Physical stabilization of sulfate-bearing soils
The physical stabilization of soil means that the soil
properties are improved using mechanical methods, such
as compaction, soil reinforcement, pre-wetting, and others.
In practice, it is expected to deal with compaction of soil
in every civil engineering project. In connection with
gypsiferous soils, the importance of compaction increases
as the dissolution of gypsum depends on the permeability
of the soil and hence on the relative compaction of the soil.
For these reasons, the present subject is devoted to the
effect of relative compaction on the behavior of clayey
gypsiferous soil. Thus, the physical, chemical, mineralogical, microscopical and engineering properties of the clayey
gypsiferous soil are studied.
In an attempt to stabilize gypsiferous soil, Razouki and
Kuttah (2004) used physical stabilization method instead
Please cite this article in press as: Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transport Geotech (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003
D. Kuttah, K. Sato / Transportation Geotechnics xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
of adding chemicals to stabilize the gypsiferous soil. This
physical stabilization is achieved by compacting the
gypsiferous subgrade soil at high compaction efforts.
Razouki et al. (2005) reported that increasing the compaction effort from 12 to 56 blows/layer causes an increase
of 2.3-fold and 6.5-fold in the estimated ultimate bearing
capacity for the unsoaked and soaked CBR gypsiferous soil
samples for 120 days respectively, indicating that the
effect of compaction effort becomes more pronounced as
the soaking period increases for highly gypsiferous soil
(of about 33% gypsum content).
Razouki et al. (2012a), reported that for gypsiferous CBR
soil samples compacted at different compaction efforts and
soaked up to 120 days under controlled soaking conditions,
increasing the compaction effort 25% above the modified
Proctor compaction effort, caused 11% increase in soil
strength (in terms of CBR) for unsoaked samples. For gypsiferous CBR soil samples soaked for 4 days and 120 days,
increasing the compaction effort 25% above the modified
Proctor compaction effort, caused an increase of 10.5%
and 9% in the CBR value of subgrade soil tested
respectively.
Even though, compacting the subgrade soil above the
modified Proctor compaction is not common in practice,
but recent studies has showed that improving the
subgrade strength and swelling characteristics of
sulfate bearing soil by increase compaction has resulted
in simple, adequate and environmental friendly method
to stabilize even highly gypsiferous subgrade soil instead
of replacing it.
Moreover, Fattah et al. (2012) carried out laboratory
tests to study the geotechnical properties and the behavior
of three gypseous soils of different gypsum contents;
60.5%, 41.1% and 27%. The tests included compaction
characteristics, compressibility, and collapsibility tests for
samples tested before and after treatment by both
standard compaction tests and dynamic compaction process under different number of blows, falling weights and
heights of falling weights. Fattah et al. (2012) concluded
that the best improvement in compressibility is achieved
when the samples are subjected to 20 drops, this conclusion is based on the improvement of compression index
of soaked samples obtained after treatment. In addition,
as the height of drop increases from 35 to 65 cm, the
compression index Cc decreases. This effect increases with
the increase in the gypsum content. As the gypsum content
increases, the dynamic compaction has greater effect on
improvement of compressibility of the soil. In samples
subjected to dynamic compaction, the change in void ratio
upon soaking becomes smaller than that of untreated
samples which means that the collapse potential decreases
(Fattah et al., 2012).
On the other hand, Najah et al. (2013a) studded the
effect of replacing partly the highly gypseous soil by other
types of non-gypseous soils in order to reduce the negative
effect of high gypsum content and hence stabilize the
gypseous soils by a physical approach. Najah et al.
(2013a) presented the results of experimental studies on
the collapsibility and compressibility of gypseous soil and
showed the effect of mixing other soils with gypseous soil
on this property. Three types of soils: gypseous, (SM) and
7
(ML) soils are used in this study. Seven percentages of
(SM) and (ML) soils namely: (5%, 10%, 15%, 50%, 85%, 90%
and 95%) from dry weight of Gypseous soil were mixed.
A series of Oedometer tests under maximum dry density
and optimum moisture content were performed and the
collapse potential (CP) evaluated. Regarding the soil collapsibility, results of the study showed that the soils and
mixture from soils are classified as a slightly problematic
in term of collapsibility. The collapse potential (CP) of the
gypseous soil decrease when added (SM) soil but the high
value at 50%, while for (ML) soil the height value for (CP) at
10% (Najah et al., 2013a). In terms of soil compressibility,
the results of the study showed that the compression index
of the gypseous soil increases with added (SM) soil, after
that when the content of (SM) increases the (Cc) value
decreases. For (ML) soil, the value of compression index
has small value at 50% (Najah et al., 2013a).
In terms of soil dry unit weight, Najah et al. (2013b)
evaluated the compaction properties of highly gypseous
soil after mixing with non-gypseous soil (i.e. SM-silty sand
soil and ML-sandy silt low plasticity soil) at 5%, 10%, 15%,
50%, 85%, 90% and 95% by weight of the dry gypseous soil.
The results obtained showed that the maximum dry
density increased at 85% of (SM) mixing with gypseous soil
while for (ML) soil no significant changes had been noticed
(Najah et al., 2013b).
Chemical stabilization of sulfate-bearing soils
The chemical treatment means that the soil properties
are improved with some chemical additives, such as
lime, cement, bituminous, bentonite, dehydrate calcium
chloride, etc.
According to Harris et al. (2005), the Texas Department
of Transportation (TxDOT) has seen an increase in pavement failures during and immediately after construction
on roads designed to last 20 years or more. Harris et al.
(2005) contributed the cause of many of these failures is
sulfate-induced heave where an expansive mineral called
ettringite is formed from a calcium-based stabilizer (lime
or cement) reacting with clay and sulfate minerals (usually
gypsum) in the soil. According to Harris et al. (2005),
TxDOT has removed and replaced soils with more than
2000 ppm sulfates. Earlier in this research project, lime
was identified as a plausible stabilizer in soils bearing
sulfate concentrations up to 7000 ppm. As a result, Harris
et al. (2005) carried out research to investigate if anything
can be used to stabilize soils (reduce swell and increase
strength) with sulfate concentrations above 7000 ppm.
Three-dimensional swell was measured on laboratory prepared specimens with sulfate concentrations of 0, 10,000,
and 20,000 ppm. Twelve stabilizers were selected for the
3-D swell testing based upon positive results obtained by
other researchers. Stabilizers that significantly reduced
swell in the high-sulfate soils were then subjected to
unconfined compressive strength testing. According to
Harris et al. (2005), three stabilizers (Claystar 7, ground
granulated blast furnace slag + lime, and class F fly ash +
lime) provided significant swell reduction (10–12 percent)
over the untreated soil; two of the stabilizers were selected
for strength testing. The fly ash swell test results were
obtained too late to include in strength testing. The
Please cite this article in press as: Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transport Geotech (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003
8
D. Kuttah, K. Sato / Transportation Geotechnics xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Claystar7 showed an improvement of 41 lb/in2 (282 kPa)
over the untreated sample for retained strength in the
unconfined compressive strength after 10 days capillary
rise. The ground granulated blast furnace slag showed a
79 lb/in2 (544 kPa) retained strength. This project showed
that soils with sulfate concentrations up to 20,000 ppm
can be treated in a timely manner without having to
remove the high-sulfate soil and replace it with a select
material (Harris et al., 2005).
According to Little and Nair (2009), damage in
sulfate-bearing soils and aggregate systems stabilized with
additives containing lime, including lime and Portland
cement, has drawn considerable attention over the past
two decades. Researchers and practitioners have made
considerable contributions to the understanding of the
problem, including the mechanisms involved in the formation of the two minerals, ettringite and thaumasite, that
are most often associated with this damage.
Similarly, Nair and Little (2011) carried out a study
focused on identifying alternative, probable mechanisms
of swelling when sulfate laden soils are stabilized with
lime. The research addressed the hypothesis that swelling
in sulfate-bearing fine-grained soils is due to one or a combination of three separate mechanisms: (1) volumetric
expansion during ettringite formation, (2) water movement triggered by a high osmotic suction caused by sulfate
salts, and (3) the ability of the ettringite mineral to absorb
water and contribute to the swelling process.
On the other hand, Aziz and Ma (2011) investigate the
suitability of fuel oil in improving gypseous soil. A detailed
laboratory tests were carried-out on two soils (with 51.6%
and 26.55% gypsum content). The testing program
included tests on permeability and compressibility of the
soil and their collapse properties. The results showed that
fuel oil is a good material to modify the basic properties of
the gypseous soil of collapsibility and permeability, which
are the main problems of this soil. Aziz and Ma (2011)
added that the permeability were decreased due to
the effect of reducing void ratio of the treated soil by
increasing the lubrications between the soil particles and
maintain rearrangement and reducing the voids.
Moreover, treatment of the gypseous soil with fuel oil
decreased the collapsibility and compressibility. This
happened by the coating of the soil particles by the fuel
oil including the gypsum and leading to reduce the dissolution of gypsum and preventing the collapse. According
to Aziz and Ma (2011), using of 4% fuel oil for sandy soils
and 3% fuel oil for clayey soils is the suitable solution for
treatment the gypseous soil from the collapsibility.
Stabilization of non-gypsiferous soil by adding gypsum
components
In contrast of the research carried out to reduce the
negative impact of naturally available gypsum in the soil,
several researchers have used gypsum as a soil stabilizing
agent for weak or swelling non- gypsiferous soils.
Ganjian et al. (2008) reported that gypsum can be used
to stabilize subgrade soil by mixing it with other construction products. Ganjian et al. (2008) added that a mix of 15%
gypsum, 5% cement bypass dust and 80% basic oxygen slag
was the optimum combination of a novel cementitious
blend used successfully in site trials to stabilize subgrade
soil in Nottinghamshire.
According to Kamei et al. (2012), the presence and
increase in the bassanite content in the soil mixture has
a significant effect on the improvement of strength,
volume change and durability of samples subjected to
freeze–thaw. Kamei et al. (2012) added that the role of
bassanite in increasing the strength and durability of very
soft clay soil is more significant in the case of samples
exposed to freeze–thaw cycles compared to those not
exposed to freeze–thaw cycles.
Ahmed et al. (2012), investigates the use of recycled
gypsum, produced from gypsum wastes, as a stabilizer
material to enhance the strength of organic, very soft clay
soil taken in consideration environmental impacts.
According to Ahmed et al. (2012), recycled gypsum was
mixed with lime in different ratios and different contents
of this admixture were used to improve both mechanical
and environmental properties of the tested soil. Lime was
used as a solidification agent for gypsum-soil mixture
since gypsum is a soluble material. The test results
show that the use of this admixture improved the strength
and mechanical properties of tested soil. The strength
increased with increasing both content and ratio of
gypsum-lime admixture.
Sato et al. (2012) investigated the effect of adding 10%
and 15% recycled basanite on the strength improvement
of decomposed granite soil and dewatering cake generated
from construction sits in Japan. They found that the
unconfined compressive strength of the two tested soils
increased with increasing the recycled basanite content.
Discussion and conclusion
In spite of the variation in the research findings with
respect to the effect of gypsum content on different soil
properties, the main findings can be discussed point by
point as follows.
Most of the researchers accept the fact that there is an
optimal gypsum content in the soil which lead to the best
performance of that soil, but this percentage differ from
one soil to another depending on many factors such as
the type of the soil and its particle size distribution, the
type of gypsum component and its fineness, the presence
of other salts in the soil, the drying and soaking conditions,
. . .etc. These factors have played a large role in the agreement and the contradiction among the research findings
in this field. For example, with respect to the effect of gypsum content on compaction characteristics of soil, some
researchers have showed that adding gypsum to soil will
increase the maximum dry unit weight of the soil and
decrease the optimum moisture content as reported by
Kamei et al. (2012). Ahmed (2013) agreed completely with
Kamei et al. (2012), but only for gypsum content ranging
between 0% to 15%. For gypsum components content of
more than 15%, Ahmed (2013) observed a decrease in the
maximum dry unit weight of the soil and an increase in
the optimum moisture something which is in full agreement with Subhi (1987) findings for high gypsum content
Please cite this article in press as: Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transport Geotech (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003
D. Kuttah, K. Sato / Transportation Geotechnics xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
of particle size less than 63 lm and gypsum particles
between 250 and 355 lm. Therefore, based on the
available research it can be noticed that the size of added
gypsum particles with respect to the size of soil particles
play the major role in the influence of gypsum content
on the maximum dry unit weight and the optimum moisture content of the soil.
Similarly, with respect to the effect of gypsum content
on soil permeability, researches have also shown that the
soil permeability affected mainly by the amount and size
of gypsum particles with respect to the soil particles. In
other words, the soil permeability increases with increasing the gypsum content when the added gypsum consists
of particles larger than the soil particles due to the gypsum
solubility, and decreased when the gypsum particles are
smaller than the soil particles and hence gypsum block
the flow paths.
Concerning the effect of gypsum content on soil swelling and heaving, generally, the free swell pressure of clay
decreases with increasing the amount of gypsum added to
the soil. However, this observation does not include the
swell pressure resulting from natural crystallization and
formation of gypsum inside the soil due to chemical reactions caused by weathering and chemical reactions
between the soil components. With respect to frost heave,
most of the findings show that the frost heave decreases
with increasing the amount of gypsum added to the soil.
In conclusion, adding gypsum to the soil will influence
the swelling and heave characteristics of the soil based
on the presence of other minerals and chemicals in the soil.
In other words the soil chemical composition play the
major role in controlling the heave and swelling characteristics of the soil when gypsum is added while the size of
the added gypsum particles have a limited effect on this
soil property. In general, according to the authors’ point
of view based on the research presented in this topic,
adding of 6–10% gypsum to expansive clays will reduce
the swelling and heave problems of these soils.
Regarding the effect of gypsum content on soil strength,
it can be noticed that the role of gypsum in increasing the
strength of soil is clear and significant. Based on the
research findings illustrated in this overview, the authors
concluded that the best soil strength performance can be
achieved by adding 15% to 20% gypsum to sandy soils
and 20% to 25% gypsum or basanite to clayey soils. Note
that these percentages of added gypsum and/or bassanite
go well with those recommended to get maximum dry unit
weight and minimum optimum moisture content of the
stabilized soil by Ahmed (2013).
Here, it is important to mention that even though, the
authors have recommended percentages of added gypsum
or bassanite to optimizes some soil properties, it is advised
that geotechnical engineers must investigate each case
separately depending on the chemical composition of the
soil as well as the particle size distribution of the soil and
the added gypsum component and other influencing
factors.
As mentioned previously in this paper that gypsum may
be added to weak non-gypsiferous soil in recommended
quantities to improve its engineering performance, or on
the other hand, gypsum may present naturally in the soil
9
in high quantities and cause different structural problems.
These types of gypsiferous soils requires special stabilization techniques as mentioned previously in this paper. In
conclusion, the physical stabilization of gypsiferous soil
by increase compaction can be considered as a firm
solution to improve the performance of problematic
gypsiferous soils as it is cheaper than replacing fully or
partly the sulfate bearing soil with a sulfate free soil in
the site. In addition, the physical stabilization has no
negative environmental effects as that resulting from using
of fuel oil as a stabilizing agent. However, even if the
chemical agents used to stabilize gypsiferous soil have a
minor negative environmental effects, its reaction with
gypsum and hence the effect of this reaction on the behavior and performance of gypsiferous soils is still considered
as unknown factor. Therefore, it is advised that geotechnical engineers must investigate each case separately
depending on the type of structure, characteristics of site,
environmental conditions coupled with the engineering
judgment of the consultant taking into account the
research findings in this topic.
References
Ahmed KI. Effect of gypsum on the hydro-mechanical characteristics of
partially saturated sandy soil [Ph.D. thesis]. Geoenvironmental
Research Centre, Cardiff School of Engineering, UK: Cardiff
University; 2013.
Ahmed A, Ugai K. Environmental effects on durability of Soil stabilized
with recycled gypsum. Cold Reg Sci Technol 2011;66(2–3):84–92.
Ahmed A, Ugai K, Kamie T. Investigation of recycled gypsum in
conjunction with waste plastic trays for ground improvement.
Constr Build Mater 2011;25(1):208–17.
Ahmed A, Ugai K, Kamie T. Assessment of recycled gypsum for organic
soft clay soil improvement. In: Proceeding of geo congress. Sponsered
by Geo-Institute of ASCE; 2012.
Akili W, Torrance JK. The development and geotechnical problem of
sabkha, with preliminary experiments on the static penetration
resistance of cemented sands. Q J Eng Geol 1981;14(1):59–73.
London.
Al-Ani HM, Sherief JA, Mansour SL, Hasso HG. An investigation into the
effect of gypsum on the properties of highway materials. Eng Technol
Sci J 1991;10(4):51–67.
Al-Dabbagh T, Al-Diwaji H, Saed S, Hammo N. Effect of increasing gypsum
on the engineering properties of surface soils. Al-Muhandis J
1990;104:21–5 [in Arabic].
Aldaood A, Bouasker M, Al-Mukhtar M. Effect of long-term soaking and
leaching on the behaviour of lime-stabilised gypseous soil. Int J
Pavement Eng 2014;16(1):11–26.
Ameta NK, Parohit DG, Wayal AS. Characteristics, problems and remdies
of expansive soils of Rajashan, India. Electron J Geotech Eng 2008;13
(Bundle A).
Arakelyan EA. Characteristics of determination of the physical properties
of gypsum soils. Soil Mech Found Eng 1986;23(1):27–9.
Aziz H, Ma J. Gypseous soil improvement using fuel oil. Int Sci Index
World Acad Sci Eng Technol 2011;5(3):238–42.
Blight GE. Migration of subgrade salts damages thin pavements. ASCE
Trans Eng J 1976;102(TE4):779–91.
Chen FH. Soil engineering, testing, design, and remediation. USA: CRC
Press LLC; 2000.
Claisse PA, Ganjian E. Briefing: gypsum: prospects for recycling. Proc Inst
Civ Eng Constr Mater 2006;159(CM1):3–4.
Cooper AH. Airborne multispectral scanning of subsidence caused by
Permian gypsum dissolution of ripon, North Yorkshire. Q J Eng Geol
1989;22(3):219–29. London.
Cooper AH, Saunders JM. Road and bridge construction across gypsum
karst in England. Eng Geol 2002;65(2–3):217–23.
Environment and Raw Material Committee. Calcium sulphate and its
release into soil and groundwater, factsheet, Euro gypsum; 2010.
http://www.eurogypsum.org/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/
101214calciumsulphate.pdf.
Please cite this article in press as: Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transport Geotech (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003
10
D. Kuttah, K. Sato / Transportation Geotechnics xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fattah M, Al-Musawi H, Salman F. Treatment of collapsibility of gypseous
soils by dynamic compaction. Geotech Geol Eng 2012;30(6):
369–1387. Springer.
Fisher M. Amending soils with gypsum. In: Crops and soils
magazine. American Society of Agronomy; 2011.
Fookes PC. Road geotechnics in hot deserts. J Inst Highway Eng
1976;23(10):11–23.
Fookes PC. Middle East-inherent ground problems. Q J Eng Geol
1978;11(1):33–49. London.
Fookes PC, French WJ. Soluble salt damage to surfaced roads in the Middle
East. J Inst Highway Eng 1977;24(11):10–20.
Freyer D, Voigt W. Crystallization and phase stability of CaSO4 and CaSO4
– based salts. Monatsh Chem 2003;134:693–719. Springer.
Ganjian E, Sadeghi-Pouya H, Claisse P, Waddell M, Hemmings S,
Johansson S. Plasterboard and gypsum waste in a novel
cementitious binder for road construction. Concr Mag 2008:20–2.
Harris P, Von Holdt J, Sebesta S, Scullion T. Recommendations for
stabilization of high-sulfate soils in Texas. Report 0-4240-3, Texas
Transportation Institute, USA; 2005.
Hawkins AB, Pinches CM. Expansion due to gypsum growth. In: 6th
International conference on expansive soils. New Delhi, India; 1987.
p. 183–87.
Herrero J, Porta J. The terminology and the concepts of gypsum-rich soils’’.
Geoderma 2000;96(1–2):47–61.
Horta JC. Carbonate and gypsum soils properties and classification. In:
Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on soil mechanics
and foundation engineering. RiodeJaneiro; 1989, No. 1. p. 53–56.
Huang Y, Bird R, Heidrich O. A review of the use of recycled solid waste
materials in asphalt pavements. Resour Conserv Recycl 2007;52:
58–73.
Hunter D. Lime-induced heave in sulfate-bearing clay soils. J Geotech Eng
1988;114(2):150–67.
James AN, Lupton ARR. Gypsum and anhydrite in foundations of hydraulic
structures. Geotchnique 1978;28(3):249–72.
Jones D, Rahim A, Saadeh S, Harvey J. Guidelines for the stabilization of
subgrade soils in California. Institute of Transportation Studies.
University of California, Davis, Research Report – UCD-ITS-RR-1038; 2010.
Kamei T, Ahmed A, Shibi T. Effect of freeze–thaw cycles on durability and
strength of very soft clay soil stabilised with recycled bassanite. Cold
Reg Sci Technol 2012;82:124–9.
Kamei T, Ahmed A, Ugai K. Durability of soft clay soil stabilization with
recycled bassanite and furnace cement mixtures. Soils Found
2013;53(1):155–65.
Karami S, Greaves R, Claisse P, Ganjian E, Pouya HS. Use of waste gypsum
as construction low strength materials. In: Chun Y, Claisse P, Naik T,
Ganjian E, editors. Coventry UK 11-13, proc. int. conf. sustainable
construction materials and technologies. Taylor and Francis;
2007. p. 203–8.
Keren R, Kreit JF, Shainberg I. Influence of size of gypsum particles on the
hydraulic conductivity of soil. Soil Sci 1980;130:113–7.
Khan NA. Influence of dilution and particle size on gypsum solubility of
gypsiferous soils. Sarhad J Agric Pak 1994;10(2):203–7.
Klein C, Hurlbut Jr CS. Manual of minerology, after J.D. Dana. 20th ed. New
York: John Wiley and Sons; 1985.
Kobayashi M, Ahmed A, Ugai K. Improvement properties of cohesion-less
soil using recycled Bassanite. J Civ Eng Archit 2013;7(12):1566–73.
Kota PB, Hazlett D, Perrin L. Sulfate-bearing soils: problems with calciumbased stabilizers. Transp Res Rec 2007;1546:62–9.
Kuznetsova LF, Lomovskii OI. Thermal breakdown of gypsum crystals.
Inorg Mater 1986;21(10):1534–6.
Kyokai ND. Pavement investigation and testing methods handbook.
Hosou Chousa Shikenhou Binran. Japan Road Association; 2007, 3.
Little DN, Nair S. Water as the key to expansion of Ettringite in
cementitious materials. J Transp Res Board 2009(2104):55–63.
Transportation Research Record.
Lutenegger AJ, Wollenhaupt NC, Handy RL. Laboratory simulation of shale
expansion by induced gypsum growth. Can Geotech J 1979;16(2):
405–9.
Mitchell JK. Practical problems from surprising soil behavior. J Geotech
Eng 1986;112(3):259–89.
Nair S, Little DN. Mechanisms of distress associated with sulfate induced
heave in lime stabilized soils. J Transp Res Board 2011(2212):82–90.
Washington (D.C.).
Najah L, Ahmad F, Said M, Jayad A. Collapsibility and compressibility of
gypseous soils. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 2013a;7(7):196–9.
Najah L, Ahmed F, Said M, Jayad A. Effect of additive soils on some
geotechnical properties of gypseous soil. Int J Sci Eng Res
2013b;4(5):2282–6.
Obika B, Hewish RJ, Fookes PC. Soluble salt damage to thin bituminous
road and runway surfaces. Q J Eng Geol 1989;22(1):59–73. London.
Petrukhin VP, Arakelyan EA. Strength of gypsum-clay soils and its
variation during the leaching of salts. Soil Mech Found Eng
1985;21(6):23–5.
Ramiah BK. The effect of chemicals on compressibility and strength
of Baghdad silty clay. R.D. 70/82, Baghdad: Building Research
Center; 1982.
Rao KD, Pranav P, Anusha M. Stabilization of expansive soil with rice husk
ash, lime and gypsum – an experimental study. Int J Eng Sci Technol
2011;3(11):8076–85.
Razouki SS, Kuttah DK. Effect of soaking period and surcharge load on
resilient modulus and California bearing ratio of gypsiferous soils. Q J
Eng GeolHydrogeol 2004;37(2):155–64.
Razouki SS, Kuttah DK. Predicting long-term soaked CBR of gypsiferous
subgrade soils. Proc Inst Civ Eng Transport 2006;159(3):135–40.
Razouki SS, Salem B. Soaking–drying frequency effect on gypsum-rich
roadbed sand. Int J Pavement Eng 2014;15(10):933–9.
Razouki SS, Al-Omari RR, Nashat IH, Razouki HF, Khalid S. The problem of
gypsiferous soils in Iraq. In: Proceedings of the sumposium on
gypsiferous soils and their effect on structures. NCCL, Baghdad; 1994.
p. 7–33.
Razouki SS, Kuttah DK, Al-Damluji OA, Nashat IH. Strong correlation
between the bearing capacity and CBR of a gypsiferous subgrade soil
subjected to long-term soaking. In: Proceedings of the seventh
international conference on the bearing capacity of roads. Railways
and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway; 27–29; June 2005. p. 11–19.
Razouki SS, Kuttah DK, Abood M. Design of gypsiferous fill for hot
desert road pavements. Proc Inst Civ Eng Constr Mater 2011;164(1):
3–11.
Razouki SS, Kuttah DK, Al-Damluji OA, Nashat IH. Improving fine-grained
gypsiferous soil by increased compaction. Int J Pavement Eng
2012a;13(1):32–8.
Razouki SS, Kuttah DK, Jassim NW. Modelling the decrease of total soluble
salts of clayey soils during long-term soaking. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol
2012b;45(1):111–8. London.
Salas JAJ, Justo RM, Faraco C. The collapse of gypseous silty and clays of
low plasticity in arid and semiarid climates. In: Proceedings of the 8th
international conference on soil mechanics. Moscow; 1973, No. 22.
p. 193–99.
Sato K, Fujikawa T, Oshikata T. Soil improvement effects from recycled
bassanite derived from waste plaster boards. In: WASCON 2012
conference proceedings, 30 May–1 June 2012 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sherard JL, Woodward RJ, Gizienski SF, Clevenger WA. Earth-rock dams,
engineering problems of design and construction. New York: John
Wiley and Sons Inc; 1963.
Shlash K, Al-Rawi K. Effect of acids on the physical and engineering
properties of gypsiferous soil. Eng Technol J 1994;13(17):7–13.
Baghdad.
Subhi HM. The properties of salt contaminated soils and their influence
on the performance of roads in Iraq [Ph.D. thesis]. Queen Mary
College: University of London; 1987.
Tomlinson MJ. Middle East-highway and airfield pavements. Q J Eng Geol
1978;11(1):65–73. London.
Van Alphen JG, Romero FDR. Gypsiferous soils – notes on their
characteristics and management. Int. Inst. For Land Reclamation and
Improvement, Bulletin 12, Wageningen, Netherlands; 1971.
Yilmaz I, Civelekoglu B. Gypsum: an additive for stabilization of swelling
clay soils. Appl Clay Sci 2009;44(1–2):166–72. Elsevier.
Please cite this article in press as: Kuttah D, Sato K. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior. Transport Geotech (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.06.003