Geotechnical properties of problematic expansive subgrade stabilized with xanthan gum biopolymer
Source abstract
Abstract
This article presents a comprehensive study on the efficacy of xanthan gum (XG) biopolymer as a green construction material in treating problematic expansive subgrade. The soil was treated with various concentrations of XG (0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 5.0%) considering long-term aging period (0, 4, 7, 14, 28, 60 and 365 days). The results showed a reduction in soil plasticity at a higher aging period with the increase in XG content. At 1.5% XG content the unconfined compressive strength, elastic modulus, resilient modulus, unsoaked and soaked CBR values of treated soil were notably increased by 5–10 orders of magnitude and regarded as optimum. Meanwhile, microstructural studies coupled with elemental analysis highlight the bridging of soil particles with stiff XG-hydrogel formation that contributes to strength development. Overall, XG-treatment exhibits an economical and sustainable solution for the treatment of problematic expansive subgrade.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization · Microbial Applications in Construction Materials · Grouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, People’s Republic of China
Department of Technology, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Interdisciplinary Research Center for Construction and Building Materials, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. ASTM D4318-17e1, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, www.astm.org
2. ASTM D698-12(2021), Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2021, www.astm.org
3. ASTM D1557-12e1, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org
4. ASTM D2166 / D2166M-16, Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, www.astm.org
5. ASTM D1883-16, Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laboratory Compacted Soils, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, www.astm.org
6. 10.1080/14680629.2018.143646510.1080/14680629.2018.1436465 ↗
7. Ali M. · Geomechanics and Engineering · 2020 · 22 · 227
8. 10.29333/ejosdr/856810.29333/ejosdr/8568 ↗
9. Aziz M. · Geomechanics and Engineering · 2020 · 22 · 165
10. 10.12989/gae.2015.8.2.17310.12989/gae.2015.8.2.173 ↗
11. 10.1007/s12205-021-2154-710.1007/s12205-021-2154-7 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.jics.2022.10050510.1016/j.jics.2022.100505 ↗
13. 10.3390/su803025110.3390/su8030251 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.10.02610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.10.026 ↗
15. Congress, I. R. (2015). Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements for low volume rural roads. IRC: SP, 72–2015.
16. 10.1080/14680629.2018.147328610.1080/14680629.2018.1473286 ↗
17. 10.1007/s10098-018-1625-010.1007/s10098-018-1625-0 ↗
18. 10.1007/s12517-022-09972-w10.1007/s12517-022-09972-w ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.11998510.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119985 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.11028510.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110285 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.13134510.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131345 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.10069710.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100697 ↗
23. 10.1080/14680629.2022.206490510.1080/14680629.2022.2064905 ↗
24. 10.1080/14680629.2018.147928910.1080/14680629.2018.1479289 ↗
25. Kwon Y.-M. · Geomechanics and Engineering · 2019 · 17 · 453
26. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000290910.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002909 ↗
27. 10.1007/s41062-021-00462-810.1007/s41062-021-00462-8 ↗
28. 10.1023/A:102101392191610.1023/A:1021013921916 ↗
29. 10.1680/jgele.17.0008110.1680/jgele.17.00081 ↗
30. 10.3141/2101-0510.3141/2101-05 ↗
31. Obrzud R. F. · Numerics in Geotechnics and Structures · 2010 · 16 · 1
32. 10.1002/app.4203510.1002/app.42035 ↗
33. RIOH. (2005). Chinese Test Methods of Aggregate for Highway Engineering (JTG E42-2005). In Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China. https://www.chinesestandard.net/PDF.aspx/JTGE40-2007
34. 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2005.10.01910.1016/j.enzmictec.2005.10.019 ↗
35. Schaefer V. R. · Iowa Highway Research Board (IHRB Project TR-525) · 2008 · 7 · 8
36. 10.1038/s41598-018-34986-410.1038/s41598-018-34986-4 ↗
37. 10.1080/17486025.2019.163249510.1080/17486025.2019.1632495 ↗
38. Specifications, G. (1998). National Highway Authority (NHA), NHA Headquarters, 27-Mauve Area. G-9/1, Islamabad, Pakistan.
39. 10.1016/j.sandf.2019.11.01210.1016/j.sandf.2019.11.012 ↗
40. 10.1080/14680629.2020.186906210.1080/14680629.2020.1869062 ↗
41. 10.1080/14680629.2020.171222410.1080/14680629.2020.1712224 ↗