Advertisement

Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 155–165 | Cite as

Use of xanthan and guar gums in soil strengthening

  • Hasan Dehghan
  • Alireza TabarsaEmail author
  • Nima Latifi
  • Younes Bagheri
Original Paper
  • 107 Downloads

Abstract

Addition of appropriate additives is considered as one of the most widely used techniques in soil stabilization applications. This study explores the viability of two types of biopolymer, xanthan gum and guar gum, as environmentally friendly additives for collapsible soil stabilization. Compaction, consolidation, permeability, and unconsolidated-undrained triaxial tests were performed in this study to measure the engineering properties of treated soil with different percentages of biopolymer at various curing times. Additionally, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) test was employed to assess the changes on the morphological characteristics of the stabilized soil. The results reveal that biopolymers decrease maximum dry density and permeability of the collapsible soil. The findings also indicate that strain–stress curves are influenced by the amount of biopolymer and curing time. Also, the results of SEM test show the changes in soil morphological characteristics due to the interaction between the biopolymers strings and fine-grained particles of the soil. Generally, the results suggest that xanthan gum and guar gum stabilization play a major role in fine-grained collapsible soil mechanical properties improvement, resulting in an eco-friendly and sustainable substitute to traditional soil additives.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Soil stabilization Biopolymer Xanthan gum Guar gum Collapsible soils, fine-grained soils 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Golestan University in support of this research. The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance rendered by the staff of Geotechnical Laboratory at Golestan University.

References

  1. Al-Bared MAM, Marto A, Latifi N (2018) Utilization of recycled tiles and tyres in stabilization of soils and production of construction materials–a state-of-the-art review. KSCE J Civ Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-018-1532-2 Google Scholar
  2. Arulrajah A, Kua TA, Suksiripattanapong C, Horpibulsuk S (2017) Stiffness and strength properties of spent coffee grounds-recycled glass geopolymers. Road Mater Pavement Des.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1408483 Google Scholar
  3. Ayeldeen M, Negm A, El Sawwaf M (2016) Evaluating the physical characteristics of biopolymer/soil mixtures. Arab J Geosci 9:371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayeldeen M, Negm A, El Sawwaf M, Kitazume M (2017) Enhancing mechanical behaviors of collapsible soil using two biopolymers. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9(2):329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baiamonte G, Pasquale D, Marsala V, Cimo G, Alonzo G, Crescimanno G, Conte P (2015) Structure alteration of a sandy clay soil by biochar amendments. J Soils Sediments 15:816–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang I, Cho GC (2012) Strengthening of Korean residual soil with β-1,3/1,6-glucan biopolymer. Constr Build Mater 30:30–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang I, Im J, Prasidhi AK, Cho GC (2015) Effects of Xanthan gum biopolymer on soil strengthening. Constr Build Mater 74:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang I, Im J, Cho GC (2016) Introduction of microbial polymers in soil treatment for future environmentally—friendly and sustainable geotechnical engineering. Sustainability 8:251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen R, Lee I, Zhang L (2014) Biopolymer stabilization of mine tailings for dust control. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141Google Scholar
  10. Ding Y, Liu Y, Liu S, Li Z, Tan X, Huang X (2016) Biochar to improve soil fertility: a review. Agron Sustain, Dev, p 36Google Scholar
  11. Feiznia S, Ghauomian J, Khajeh M (2005) The study of the effect of physical, chemical and climate factors on surface erosion sediment yield of loess soils (case study in Golestan Province). Pajouhesh Sazandegi 66:14–24Google Scholar
  12. Gutiérrez AS, Eras JJC, Gaviria CA, Caneghem JV, Vandecasteele C (2017) Improved selection of the functional unit in environmental impact assessment of cement. J Clean Prod 168:463–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haeri SM, Garakani A, Khosravi CL, Meehan CL (2014) Assessing the hydro-mechanical behavior of collapsible soils using a modified triaxial test device. Geotech Test J ASTM 37(2):190–204Google Scholar
  14. Hassan WHW, Rashid ASA, Latifi N, Horpibulsuk S, Borhamdin S (2017) Strength and morphological characteristics of organic soil stabilized with magnesium chloride. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 50(4):454–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hataf N, Ghadir P, Ranjbar N (2018) Investigation of soil stabilization using chitosan biopolymer. J Clean Prod 170:1493–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hojati M (2017) Shrinkage and creep of alkali-activated binders. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. Hojati M, Radlińska A (2017) Shrinkage and strength development of alkali-activated fly ash-slag binary cements. Constr Build Mater 150:808–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hojati M, Rajabipour F, Radlińska A (2016) Drying shrinkage of alkali activated fly ash: effect of activator composition and ambient relative humidity. In: 4th international conference on sustainable construction materials and technologies (SCMT4) Las Vegas, NVGoogle Scholar
  19. Hojati M, Nazarian S, Duarte J (2018) Seamless architecture: design and development of functionally-graded green materials for building construction. In :4th residential building design and construction conference (RBDCC), State College, PAGoogle Scholar
  20. Howayek AE, Huang PT, Bisnett R, Santagata MC (2011) Identification and Behavior of Collapsible Soils. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2011/12. Joint Transportation Research ProgramGoogle Scholar
  21. Karlsson S, Albertsson A (1998) Biodegradable polymers and environmental interaction. Polym Eng Sci 38(8):1251–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Khatami HR, O’Kelly BC (2013) Improving mechanical properties of sand using biopolymers. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:1402–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim D, Lai HT, Chilingar GV, Yen TF (2006) Geopolymer formation and its unique properties. Environ Geol 51(1):103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latifi N, Rashid ASA, Siddiqua S, Majid MZA (2016a) Strength measurement and textural characteristics of tropical residual soil stabilised with liquid polymer. Measurement 91:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Latifi N, Horpibulsuk S, Meehan CL, Abd Majid MZ, Tahir MM, Mohamad ET (2016b) Improvement of problematic soils with biopolymer—an environmentally friendly soil stabilizer. J Mater Civ Eng 29(2):04016204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Latifi N, Vahedifard F, Ghazanfari E, Horpibulsuk S, Marto A, Williams J (2017a) Sustainable improvement of clays using low-carbon nontraditional additive. Int J Geomech 18(3):04017162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Latifi N, Eisazadeh A, Marto A, Meehan CL (2017b) Tropical residual soil stabilization: a powder form material for increasing soil strength. Constr Build Mater 147:827–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Latifi N, Vahedifard F, Ghazanfari E, Rashid ASA (2018) Sustainable usage of calcium carbide residue for stabilization of clays. J Mater Civ Eng 30(6):04018099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee S, Chang I, Chung MK, Kim Y, Kee J (2017) Geotechnical shear behavior of Xanthan gum biopolymer treated sand from direct shear testing. Geomech Eng 12:831–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lehmann J, Joseph S (2009) Biochar for environmental management science and technology. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Marousek J (2014) Significant breakthrough in biochar cost reduction. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16(8):1821–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marousek J, Vochozka M, Plachy J, Zak J (2017) Glory and misery of biochar. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19(2):311–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marto A, Latifi N, Eisazadeh A (2014) Effect of non-traditional additives on engineering and microstructural characteristics of laterite soil. Arab J Sci Eng 39(10):6949–6958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moradi R, Marto A, Rashid ASA, Moradi MM, Ganiyu AA, Horpibulsuk S (2018) Bearing capacity of soft soil model treated with end-bearing bottom ash columns. Environ Earth Sci 77(3):100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phummiphan I, Horpibulsuk S, Rachan R, Arulrajah A, Shen SL, Chindaprasirt P (2018) High calcium fly ash geopolymer stabilized lateritic soil and granulated blast furnace slag blends as a pavement base material. J Hazard Mater 341:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Qureshi MU, Chang I, Al-Sadarani K (2017) Strength and durability characteristics of biopolymer-treated desert sand. Geomech Eng 12:785–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rashid ASA, Latifi N, Meehan CL, Manahiloh KN (2017) Sustainable improvement of tropical residual soil using an environmentally friendly additive. Geotech Geol Eng 35(6):2613–2623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ren J, Shen Z, Yang J, Zhao J, Yin J (2014) Effects of temperature and dry density on hydraulic conductivity of silty clay Garcıa-Ochoa under infiltration of low-temperature water. Arab J Sci Eng 39:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Risica D, Dentini M, Crescenzi V (2005) Guar gum methyl ethers. Part I. Synthesis and macromolecular characterization. Polymer 46:12247–12255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Swain K., Mahamaya M., Alam S., Das SK (2018) Stabilization of dispersive soil using biopolymer. In: Contemporary issues in geoenvironmental engineering , pp 132–147Google Scholar
  41. Tabarsa AR, Rezaei H, Noorzad A, Mazandarani M, Kaveh F, Hoseini SJ (2016) Feasibility study of soil stabilization using nanotechnology and applications in swamp areas of Golestan. Research Report, Golestan Regional Water Co. Applied Research Plan, IranGoogle Scholar
  42. Tabarsa AR, Latifi N, Meehan CL, Manahiloh KN (2018) Laboratory investigation and field evaluation of loess improvement using nanoclay–A sustainable material for construction. Constr Build Mater 158:454–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tabatabaei S (2014) Design and analysis of high vacuum densification method for saturated and partially saturated soft soil improvement. The University of AkronGoogle Scholar
  44. Yaghoubi M, Arulrajah A, Disfani MM, Horpibulsuk S, Bo MW, Darmawan S (2018) Effects of industrial by-product based geopolymers on the strength development of a soft soil. Soils Found 58(3):716–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ziyaee A, Pashaei A, Khormali F, Roshani MR (2013) Some physico-chemical, clay mineralogical and micromorphological characteristics of loess-paleosols sequences indicators of climate change in south of Gorgan. J Water Soil Conserv 20(1):1–27Google Scholar
  46. Zohuriaan MJ, Shokrolahi F (2004) Thermal studies on natural and modified gums. Polym Test 23(5):575–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hasan Dehghan
    • 1
  • Alireza Tabarsa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nima Latifi
    • 2
  • Younes Bagheri
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringGolestan UniversityGorganIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringMississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil EngineeringMirdamad Institute of Higher EducationGorganIran

Personalised recommendations