1 Non-pavemented roads improvement after different Chemical

2 Stabilization methods. A review of the applicability to andesite

3 formed soils Commented [R1]: REVISTAS
(WoS,Sco) Ground Improvement
(WoS) Geotechnical testing journal
4
(WoS) Road Materials and Pavement Design
5 R. Cabezas1*, C. Cataldo2 (Else) Journal pavement research and technology
6 (Else) Construction and building materials
(Else) Procedia Engineering
7 Abstract (Sco) Electronic Journal Geotechnical Engineering
8 Unpaved roads can be affected by conditions of high use or high demand. To improve performance and reduce (ISI) Journal emerging technology advanced engineering
9 maintenance costs, chemical stabilization techniques have been widely used. In this research different soil- (ISI) Journal of Engineering and advanced technology
10 stabilizer combinations were tested and analyzed, considering different types of soil of andesitic origin. (WoS)(Springer) Journal Geosynthetics and ground
engineering
11 The results showed dependence regarding the granulometric distribution, but also with respect to the IP and (Sci) Obras y Proyectos
12 the moisture content, and it is concluded that it is not enough to recommend the additive based on the (Sco-Sci) Ingeniería de Construcción
13 granulometry as in previous proposals. It is also possible to define a single parameter of the concentration of
14 additive per unit volume of wet soil (EMC), in order to obtain an optimum increase in resistance. It was possible (Else) Journal traffic transportation engineering
15 to obtain optimal EMC for asphalt or polymeric additives, but not for enzymatic type due to its dependence on
16 the chemical composition of the soil
17 Keywords
18 Soil stabilization, chemical, soil improvement, rural roads, bearing capacity
19
20 1. INTRODUCTION
21 Non-pavemented roads are widely used for temporary purposes like high capacity trucks in industry,
22 as well as permanent roads outside big cities areas. For example, in Chile, nearly 75% of total
23 constructed ways are defined in this road solution (Obras Publicas, 2018). When performance and
24 serviceability are important to the overall behavior of non-pavemented roads and in-situ soil is not
25 suitable to carry long-term loads, soil stabilization may play a major role to improve performance,
26 reduce maintenance costs, increasing shear strength parameters and bearing capacity or decreasing
27 permeability in case of moisture changes.
28 Soil improvement using chemical stabilization is defined as the method of improving soil properties
29 by blending with other materials, in this case, a water-additive mixing. Their application has been
30 studied during several years, including guidelines like US Army (Army, 1997) and several reviews
31 (Afrin, 2017; Sherwood, 1993) Most used approaches were using soil-cement for granular and
32 cohesive soils (Peter & Little, 2002), but recent applications have considered asphaltic, bituminous,
33 polymers, enzymatic and salts among others, and further applications are suitable to be studied in the
34 future (Tingle & Santori, 2003). Chemical stabilization applications in engineering projects like piles
35 in deep soils, embankments, and dams, has not been extensively applied, because of the lack of
36 knowledge and costs are usually more reliable in other materials or ground improvements techniques.
37 As chemical stabilization works in a micro-level interaction between moisture and fine content of
38 soils (Sharma, Swain, & Sahoo, 2012), behavior and mechanical effect depends on the mineralogic
39 composition of soils and plasticity index (Naeini & Ziaie, 2009). Then it is more proper to study
40 specific behavior for characteristic soils at every location (Parsons & Milburn, 2003). In case of

1
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Universidad San Sebastian, Santiago, Chile
* Corresponding Author: rodolfo.cabezas@uss.cl
2
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Universidad San Sebastian, Santiago, Chile

1
41 Andesite, it has an ash volcanic origin, with fine fraction typically behaves like MH or ML (Verdugo,
42 2008). In some cases, moisture changes in clay derived from andesite may present expansive or
43 collapsible failure.
44 In this research, experimental results of applying different chemical stabilizer to different soils based
45 in andesite rocks are presented, varying their behavior in terms of the fine content and the plasticity
46 index. Comparison to non-stabilized condition, the effect of moisture content and the validity of
47 applying usually recommended guidelines for choosing soil-additive combination are analyzed.
48
49 2. METHODOLOGY
50 For analyzing soil-additive behavior and mechanical strength, laboratory tests for stabilized and non-
51 stabilized soils were conducted. Laboratory tests for non-pavement roads were performed according
52 to is usual characterization using CBR test, and complemented with an Unconfined compression test,
53 Proctor and permeability test.
54 To describe soil behavior, three main characteristics need to be described as follows:
55 a) Initial soil characterization: granulometric curve to determine fine content, plasticity behavior
56 for moisture content with Atterberg limits; and permeability
57 b) Soil state: moisture content, dry unit weight and design unit weight for using additive with
58 Modified Proctor test.
59 c) Strength properties: shear stress failure condition for non-stabilized soil. Obtained with
60 California Bearing Ratio and Unconfined Compressive Strength test.
61 Test were applied in under ideal soils, in order to identify specific contribution in an in-situ real soil
62 mixing. Fig 1 shows the recommendation of soil diameter particle envelopes for road construction
63 according to Chilean standards. This distribution is useful for estimating relative percentages of
64 different soils and consequently to estimate an overall performance of the soil-additive sample.
100
90
80
Percentage Passing (%)

70
Northern Region, Max distribution
60
Southern Region, Max distribution
50
Northern Region, Min. distribution
40
30 Southern Region, Min. distribution

20
10
0
10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Diameter (mm)

65 Figure 1. Soil diameter particle envelopes as function of the location of the project according to Chilean standard.

66 In order to determine bearing capacity improvement, an estimation of individual reactions as a

67 function of the type of soil or fine content (FC) may be defined as:
⋅ [ ]
+ ⋅ [ ]
+ ⋅ [ ]
+ ⋅ [ ]
Δ [%] ≈ [ ] (1)

2
68 Where
69 ∗ : Soil strength improvement from any chemical stabilizer additive with a specific kind of soil.
70 For example, gravel interaction with bituminous additive
71 [∗]
: Soil mass percentage for a specific particle diameter, like gravel, sand or fine particles.
[ ]
72 : Soil strength without chemical stabilizer
73 Besides, a volumetric concentration of the additive can be defined in terms of an equivalent moisture
74 content (EMC), for taking into account the real quantity of additive in a specific volume of soil. The
75 formula is expressed as:

η = (2)
[%]
76 Where
77 : Water-additive Concentration to be applied for a certain sample i
78 : Moisture content of the sample i
79
80 2.1. Laboratory Dataset
81 An initial set of 6 different soils compositions were analyzed through 10 samples. First, soil
82 compacted condition without chemical stabilization was tested to characterize bearing capacity, using
83 CBR and Unconfined Compressive Strength tests, as presented in Figure 2. Results for non-stabilized
84 soils are summarized in Table 1.

(a) (b)

85 Figure 2. (a) Sample failed after tested using Unconfined Compression test. (b) Performing CBR test for same type of soil-
86 stabilizer combination

87
88
89

3
90
91
92
93
94 Table 1. Laboratory Results for soil without chemical stabilization
Type of soil \ FC PI Proctor UCS CBR
USCS AASHTO Geological characteristic
Laboratory Testing [%] [%] [Kg/m3] [Kgf/cm2] [%]
Conglomerate and sandstone, presence
GP A-1-a 4 1 2.37 - 45%
of metamorfic
GP-GC A-1-a 11 4 2.25 10,6 98%
GC A-1-a 8 0 2.02 7,2 116%
Stabilized Gravel
GC A-1-a 8 8 2.04 7.4 120%
Conglomerate and sandstone, presence
GP A-4 7 1 2.31 - 60%
of metamorfic
GM-GC A-2-4 15 7 2.28 5.1 68%
SP-SM A-3 2 0 1.91 0,43 9% Granite, granodiorite and tonalite
Sand
SP A-1-b 2 0 1.92 0.52 32% Metapelites with gness and ultramafic
Mud MH A-7-5 93 22 1.07 4,3 3%
CL A-6 71 19 1.74 12,8 3%
Clay Epiclastic and pyroclastic, basaltic
CL A-6 71 19 1.72 12.5 4%

95
96 Then, a total of 19 samples using 7 different soil-chemical stabilizers combinations were tested,
97 according to current ASTM and Chilean standards (Alarcón, 2015; Bozo & Cabezas, 2016; Leiva,
98 2015; Vega & Cabezas, 2017; Yasima, Gonzalez, & Cabezas, 2016). For testing purposes, several
99 different chemical stabilizers were used to improve bearing capacity mostly in soft soils. Stabilizers
100 for dust suppression is semi-desertic zones like Salts were not considered in this research because
101 their bearing capacity improvement is not reliable (Sanchez 2011). The generic used additives were:
102 a) Asphaltic: usually applied as bituminous product or emulsion, reducing permeability. It is
103 recommended for granular materials, soils with fine content lower than 20% and PI lower
104 than 10.
105 b) Enzymatic: organic blend like proteins, bio-degradable. It works clustering fine particles due
106 to ionic exchange. It requires longer binding time and a small content of organic component
107 within the soil volume. It is recommended for soils with PI between 15 to 20
108 c) Polymeric: it is feasible to apply in all kind of soils. It works also clustering soil particles,
109 sealing soil surface. Bearing capacity may increase for dry soils several times, especially in
110 dry weather. Commented [R2]: Saline: it works mainly as a dust
suppressor, but it is still being used for bearing capacity
111 The experimental dataset is presented in Table 2. Gravel concentrates the most quantity of essays improvement. Not studied in this research.
112 because of their practical implication in rural roads, but at least one additive-soil combination is
113 analyzed.
114 Table 2. Laboratory program for soil-additive combination cases
Type of soil \ Chemical Stabilization Asphaltic Enzymatic Polymeric
Stabilized Gravel 4 3 4
Sand 3 0 0
Mud 0 0 2
Clay 1 2 0

115
116 Several authors have already made experimental studies for validating chemically stabilized soil for
117 different additives, like concrete (Kumar, Gaurav, Kishor, & Suman, 2017), Asphaltic (Lim,
118 Wijeyesekera, Lim, & Bakar, 2014), Polymeric (Mirzababaei, Arulrajah, & Ouston, 2017; Musavi,
119 Abdi, & Estabragh, 2014), Enzymatic (Ivanov & Chu, 2008; Mousavi & Karamvand, 2017; Taha,

4
120 Khan, Jawad, Firoozi, & Firoozi, 2013; Venkarasubramanian & Dhinakaran, 2011) and Bituminous
121 emulsion (D’Angelo, Thom, & Lo Presti, 2016; Moaveni, Abuawad, Hasiba, Zhang, & Tutumluer,
122 2012). Summarizing some of their conclusions, they agree on the efficiency of some specific chemical
123 additives for soils or Plasticity Index of soils, but not necessarily an additive have an improvement
124 effect for all cases. Besides, volumetric concentration of additive had an effect of the behavior of
125 additive-soil reaction, making a bigger amount of additive volume decrease their bearing capacity
126 improvement, and consequently, it exists an optimal ratio for stabilization.
127 In order to compare results, a normalized variation index was defined for stress measurements

+ (3)
=

128 Where:
129 : Experimental strength improvement after adding stabilizer
130 : Nominal value for maximal strength at original condition
131 The analyzed soils were obtained from several locations along Chile, most of them of southern
132 locations, like Valdivia, Los Angeles, and Concepcion. Gravel samples were also obtained from
133 locations near to Santiago. All samples were rebuilt from disturbed condition according to Proctor
134 optimal moisture content procedure.
135
136 3. RESULTS
137 Experimental results for optimal moisture content are presented in Table 3 and Table 4, for granular
138 and cohesive soils respectively. To analyze the results, they were grouped in terms of CBR variation
139 and Unconfined Compressive Strength variation respect from the non-stabilized condition. Then, they
140 were divided to analyze dependency in terms of main soil, chemical stabilizer and some specific
141 property of soils, like Fines Content, Plasticity Index or Moisture content within the sample, as
142 follows:
143

5
144 Table 3. Obtained data for laboratory testing of stabilized soils. Granular soil case
Concentration FC PI Moisture CBR CBR Variation UC UC Variation
Additive Main Soil
[kg/m3 or L/m3] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [kg/cm2] [%]
Asphaltic G 20.00 7 1 5.5 71 18%

Asphaltic G 23.00 7 0 5.8 76 27%

Asphaltic G 25.00 7 0 5.9 75 25%

Polymeric G 20.82 4 1 3.0 47 4%

Polymeric G 30.56 4 4 7.0 104 131%

Polymeric G 9.38 4 4 4.0 54 20%

Asphaltic G 11.82 11 4 6.3 106 8% 15 38%

Asphaltic G 22.92 11 4 5.8 206 110% 18 71%

Asphaltic G 47.25 11 4 6.3 96 -2% 16 55%

Enzymatic G 0.03 8 0 4.1 115 -3% 10 35%

Enzymatic G 0.05 8 0 4.1 150 27% 14 99%

Enzymatic G 0.07 8 0 4.1 103 -13% 5 -25%

Enzymatic G 0.03 15 7 6.1 50 -25% 5 2%

Enzymatic G 0.05 15 7 6.1 74 10% 5 4%

Enzymatic G 0.07 15 7 6.1 56 -16% 6 12%

Polymeric G 5.00 8 8 6.1 104 -12% 7 1%

Polymeric G 10.00 8 8 6.1 108 -8% 14 100%

Polymeric G 20.00 8 8 6.1 102 -14% 5 -33%

Asphaltic S 20.00 2 0 9.3 36 13% 0.7 35%

Asphaltic S 30.00 2 0 9.7 36 13% 1.0 100%

Asphaltic S 40.00 2 0 9.8 43 34% 0.8 59%

Asphaltic S 20.00 2 0 9.3 9 6% 0.8 80%

Asphaltic S 30.00 2 0 9.7 13 47% 0.9 107%

Asphaltic S 40.00 2 0 9.8 12 32% 0.6 47%

6
145
146 Table 4. Obtained data for laboratory testing of stabilized soils. Fines soil case
Concentration FC PI Moisture CBR CBR Variation UC UC Variation
Additive Main Soil
[kg/m3 or L/m3] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [kg/cm2] [%]
Enzymatic C 0.03 71 19 12.6 3 18% 11 -10%

Enzymatic C 0.05 71 19 12.6 3 4% 12 -1%

Enzymatic C 0.07 71 19 12.6 3 -4% 12 -6%

Polymeric M 5.00 93 22 43.7 4 25% 5 14%

Polymeric M 10.00 93 22 44.9 4 21% 5 19%

Polymeric M 20.00 93 22 44.7 4 32% 5 16%

147

7
148 3.1. Fines Content
149 Figure 3 shows bearing capacity variation from the non-stabilized case as a function of the type of
150 soil, type additive and fines content according to laboratory dataset, for (a) CBR variation and (b)
151 Unconfined Compression Strength ratio respect from non-stabilized case. It can be seen that fines
152 content below 10% shows an increase in bearing capacity for all tested additives, especially as seen
153 for asphaltic case, which is seen also for fines contents lower than 20%.
154 If fines content is greater than 30%, the increase of mechanical strength is lower than expected for
155 granular material, but polymeric additive provides a major impact because of their effect in terms of
156 plastic material.

157
158 (a)

159
160 (b)
161 Figure 3. Bearing capacity as function of Fines Content (a) CBR testing (b) Unconfined Compressive tests variation

162

8
163 3.2. Plasticity Index
164 Figure 4 shows bearing capacity variation from the non-stabilized case as a function of the type of
165 soil, type additive and soil plasticity index according to laboratory dataset, for (a) CBR variation and
166 (b) Unconfined Compression Strength ratio. For low or null PI, which means a small amount of clay
167 of no plastic mud, all additives obtain an increase of bearing capacity, especially if using an asphaltic
168 sample, which improves from 30% to 60% from initial value.
169 In other case, it can be noticed that for higher PI in soils, their increasing is not relevant except for
170 polymeric additive, that shows nearly 40% of improvement. Polymers, in general, are products that
171 do not have binding properties, so they work favorably in soils with large amounts of clay, increasing
172 the load capacity from 4 to 6 times, preferably a minimum of 35% is desired. fine material that passes
173 through the N200 sieve.

174
175 (a)

176
177 (b)
178 Figure 4. Bearing capacity as function of Plasticity Index (a) CBR testing (b) Unconfined Compressive tests

179

9
180 3.3. Moisture Content
181 Figure 5 shows bearing capacity variation but applied to an optimal moisture content within the soil
182 sample. For all asphaltic cases, the optimal moisture content is near to 5%. In case of soils treated
183 with the enzymatic additive, moisture content is similarly low and do not extend over 15%. Finally,
184 for cases with polymeric additive, the soil needs more moisture content reaching up to 25% and
185 percentage below 10% seems to be not useful for bearing capacity improvement

186
187 (a)

188
189 (b)
190 Figure 5. Bearing capacity as function of Moisture Content (a) CBR testing (b) Unconfined Compressive tests

191
192
193

10
194 4. DISCUSSION
195 A comparison of the behavior for the different soil-stabilizer combinations is presented in Figure 6.
196 The original conventional approach suggests 2 main types of additives in terms of grain-size
197 distribution: asphaltic and concrete. New technologies in additives and applications for andesite soils
198 have shown that grain-size distributions are not the only criteria for choosing an optimal soil-additive
199 combination, but also the PI makes a great influence on the bearing capacity improvement. Enzymatic
200 and polymeric cases are also suitable for this type of soils depending on Fine Content and PI
201 percentage. Then, an optimal combination must take into account both variables at the same time.

202
203 Figure 6. Best results by the application of the additive to main soil distribution compared to initial proposal of US-Army
204 (US Army, 1997), where additive for granular material at left is asphaltic and for cohesive material is concrete

205
206 Finally, results for estimating the equivalent moisture content previously presented in Equation 2, are
207 shown in Figure 7. It can be seen that in asphaltic and polymeric cases it seems to exist a proper
208 equivalent moisture ratio that optimizes soil-additive performance. For asphaltic cases, it supposed
209 to be near to 3.0 (l/m3) and for the polymeric case it is about to 2.0 (l/m3). This relation is not proper
210 for enzymatic additive, because of the nature of the reaction. Instead, other parameters like PI or
211 Activity Index seems to make a higher influence in the sample.

11
 Moisture Ratio: Asphaltic
150%
Strength Variation

100%

50%
Optimal Cases

0% Other Cases

-50%
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Conc/Moisture (l/m3)
212
213 (a)

Moisture Ratio: Enzymatic

120%
100%
Strength Variation

80%
60%
40%
20% Optimal Cases
0% Other Cases
-20%
-40%
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Conc/Moisture (l/m3)
214
215 (b)

Moisture Ratio: Polymeric

150%
Strength Variation

100%

50%
Optimal Cases
0% Other Cases

-50%
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Conc/Moisture (l/m3)
216
217 (c)
218 Figure 7. Equivalent moisture content for Asphaltic, Enzymatic and Polymeric additive applied to studied andesite formed
219 soils

220
221

12
222 5. CONCLUSIONS
223 Non-pavemented roads may play a major in connectivity for temporary applications or rural
224 permanent roads. In non-improved soft soils, maintenance costs may increase severely and chemical
225 stabilization is a reliable way to improve bearing capacity, due to affecting strength properties of
226 soils. The soil behavior due to chemical stabilizers and their interaction depends on the soil
227 characteristics like grain-size distribution and plasticity.
228 A combination of 6 types of different soils was tested using different chemical stabilizers. Results
229 have shown that bearing capacity improvement for granular soils seems to be more reliable than their
230 effect in small diameter particles like clays. For all studied cases, asphaltic stabilizer has proven to
231 increase the bearing capacity for most cases, not depending on the fine content or plasticity index.
232 For the studied andesite based soils, results are slightly different to usually applied guidelines for
233 chemical stabilization like US-Army. This seems to be because soil response not only depends on
234 grain-size distribution, but also on the Plasticity Index. This effect is clear for an enzymatic additive
235 case.
236 Besides, moisture content plays an important role in overall stabilized soil performance. An
237 Equivalent Moisture Content parameter was defined and applied for all soil-additive combination. It
238 was shown that for asphaltic and Polymeric cases, it exists an optimal concentration of additive per
239 unit volume of soil, that optimize bearing capacity improvement. This relation is not suitable for
240 enzymatic cases.
241 For future research, a bigger amount of laboratory tests and further details on chemical grain-soil
242 composition is recommended. Besides, complementary advances in determine the specific effect of
243 a soil-additive combination, for example, in terms of particle diameter as presented in Equation 1.
244
245 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

246 The authors gratefully acknowledge the research agreement of Universidad San Sebastian and
247 VialCorp, alongside with their support and willingness to the study.
248
249 REFERENCES

250 Afrin, H. (2017). A Review on Different Types of Soil Stabilization Techniques. International Journal of Transportation
251 Engineering and Technology, 3(2), 19–24.
252 Alarcón, J. (2015). Análisis del Comportamiento Mecánico y Mineralógico de Suelo Procedente del Sector Angachilla
253 ubicado en Valdivia a partir de una Estabilización con Productos Químicos. Universidad Austral de Chile.
254 Army, U. S. (1997). FM 5-410: Military soils engineering. Washington DC, USA.
255 Bozo, N., & Cabezas, R. (2016). Caracterización del Comportamiento Mecánico de Suelos con una Emulsión Asfaltica.
256 Universidad San Sebastián.
257 D’Angelo, G., Thom, N. H., & Lo Presti, D. (2016). Potential of bituminous emulsion for ballast stabilization.
258 Construction Building Materials.
259 Ivanov, V., & Chu, J. (2008). Applications of microorganisms to geotechnical engineering for bioclogging and
260 biocementation of soil in-situ. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 7(2), 139–153.
261 Kumar, A., Gaurav, K., Kishor, R., & Suman, S. (2017). Stabilization of alluvial soil for subgrade using rice husk ash,
262 sugarcane bagasse ash and cow dung ash for rural roads. International Journal of Pavement Research and
263 Technology, 10, 254–261.

13
264 Leiva, A. (2015). Análisis del comportamiento del Estabilizador VC-Flex en la Estructura de Caminos Secundarios en la
265 Región de Los Ríos. Universidad Austral de Chile.
266 Lim, S., Wijeyesekera, D., Lim, A., & Bakar, I. (2014). Critical Review of Innovative Soil Road Stabilization Techniques.
267 International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 3(5).
268 Mirzababaei, M., Arulrajah, A., & Ouston, M. (2017). Polymers for stabilization of soft clay soils. Procedia Engineering,
269 189, 25–32.
270 Moaveni, M., Abuawad, I., Hasiba, K., Zhang, D., & Tutumluer, E. (2012). Characterization of Emulsion Bitumen
271 Stabilized Aggregate Base. In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Transportation Geotechnics.
272 Sapporo, Japan.
273 Mousavi, S., & Karamvand, A. (2017). Assessment of strength development in stabilized soil with CBR PLUS and Silica
274 sand. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, X, 1–10.
275 Musavi, F., Abdi, E., & Estabragh, A. R. (2014). Assessing the capability of polymer stabilizer in forest road stabilization.
276 Iranian Journal of Forest, 6(1), 1–10.
277 Naeini, S. A., & Ziaie, R. (2009). Effect of plasticity index and reinforcement on CBR value of soft clay. International
278 Journal of Civil Engineering, 7(2), 61–69.
279 Obras Publicas, M. de. (2018). Dirección de Vialidad. Retrieved February 1, 2018, from
280 http://www.vialidad.cl/Paginas/default.aspx
281 Parsons, R. L., & Milburn, J. P. (2003). Engineering behavior of stabilized soils. Journal of the Transportation Research
282 Board, 1837, 20–29.
283 Peter, T. M., & Little, D. N. (2002). Review of stabilization on clays and expansive soils in pavements and lightly loaded
284 structures history, practice and future. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 14, 447–460.
285 Sharma, N. K., Swain, S. K., & Sahoo, U. C. (2012). Stabilization of a clayey soil with fly-ash and lime: a micro level
286 investigation. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 30(5), 1197–1205.
287 Sherwood, P. (1993). Soil stabilization with cement and lime. State of art review. London, UK: Transport Research
288 Laboratory, HMSO.
289 Taha, M. R., Khan, T. A., Jawad, I. T., Firoozi, A. A., & Firoozi, A. A. (2013). Recent experimental studies in soil
290 stabilization with bio-enzymes - a review. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 18, 3881–3894.
291 Tingle, J. S., & Santori, R. L. (2003). Stabilization of clay soils with non traditional additives. Washington DC, USA.
292 Vega, C., & Cabezas, R. (2017). Análisis Experimental de Efectos de Estabilizado Químico en Suelos no Plasticos.
293 Universidad San Sebastián.
294 Venkarasubramanian, C., & Dhinakaran, G. (2011). Effect of bio-enzymatic soil stabilization on unconfined compressive
295 strength and California Bearing Ratio. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 5(295–298).
296 Verdugo, R. (2008). Singularities of Geotechnical Properties of Complex Soils in seismic regions. Journal of
297 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(7).
298 Yasima, N., Gonzalez, F., & Cabezas, R. (2016). Estabilización Química de Suelos con Aditivos Enzimáticos y
299 Polimérico. Universidad San Sebastián.

300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308

14
 Saline G 20.00 5 3 4.2 28 -42%

Saline G 30.00 5 3 4.7 76 58%

Saline G 40.00 5 3 5.0 37 -23%

309

15