Alexandria Engineering Journal (2023) 63, 475–485

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

Effect of clay mineral content on soil strength

parameters
Adil A.M. Elhassan a, Mohammed Mnzool a,*, Hichem Smaoui b, Abir Jendoubi c,
Bushra M.E. Elnaim d, Maged Faihan Alotaibi e

a
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
c
Faculte´ de Ge´nie, Universite´ de Sherbrooke, Que´bec J1K 2R1, Canada
d
Department of Computer Science College of Science and Humanities in Al-Sulail, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University,
Saudi Arabia
e
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia

Received 14 May 2022; revised 20 July 2022; accepted 9 August 2022

Available online 20 August 2022

KEYWORDS Abstract The impact of clay mineralogy on engineering properties relevant to road design, such as
Kaolinite; the strength and stiffness of road materials, has recently been the subject of intensive investigations,
Clay mineral; aiming at providing indirect measures of soil performance out of mineralogical data. This study
Soil strength; deals with the effects of clay minerals on soil strength, expressed in terms of California Bearing
Soil stiffness Ratio (CBR) and Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), and stiffness, represented by the con-
strained modulus, which are commonly used as engineering properties for pavement materials. The
study is performed on six clayey soils (S1-S6) of different geographic origins. Five of the six soils are
highly plastic, potentially swelling, and one is kaolinitic soil. The mineralogical characteristics of the
samples were analyzed through X-ray diffraction (XRD). The testing program included Atterberg
limits, sieve analysis, CBR, UCS, and consolidation tests. The measured properties of the samples
were compared in light of the mineralogical composition of the soils. The investigation showed that
the kaolinite mineral is significantly more effective than the montmorillonite in reducing the plas-
ticity of the clays. Higher strength indicators (CBR and UCS) were observed for samples with high
kaolinite content (S4, S5, and S6). Moreover, the kaolinitic soil samples are characterized by a lar-
ger constrained modulus (Ec) than the other samples.
Ó 2022 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M. Despite the considerable efforts devoted to the study of clay
Mnzool). minerals, research is still demanded on comprehensive under-
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria standing of the effect of these minerals on the mechanical
University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.08.012
1110-0168 Ó 2022 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
476 A.A.M. Elhassan et al.

Table 1 XRD test results for the soil samples.

Sample Mineralogical Composition
Designation Smectite % Kaolinie % Illite % Chlorite % Sme/Illi %
S1 61 29 10 0 0
S2 86 13 1 0 0
S3 90 10 0 0 0
S4 64 24 8.5 0 3.5
S5 0 89 0 11 0
S6 29 61 06 0 04

Table 2 Particle size analysis of soil specimens.

Sample Depth Atterberg Limits Particle Size % Class
Designation (m) LL PL PI Clay Silt Sand Gravel USCS
S1 1.5 73 32 41 54 34 11.5 0.5 CH
S2 1.5 79 29 50 23 63 12 2 CH
S3 0.5 66 29 37 24 65 9 2 CH
S4 0.5 64 33 31 48 37 15 – CH
S5 5 48 28 20 20 47 17 16 CL
S6 1.5 61 29 32 38 47.6 14.4 – CH

Table 3 CBR test results. properties of soils. In particular, the effect of clay mineralogy
on the engineering properties of soils about road design, such
Sample Socked CBR as the California Bearing Ratio, the Unconfined Compression
Designation CBR % Swell % strength, the compressibility, and the rigidity of soils, is still a
S1 1 0.11 subject of investigation. Relating these properties to the miner-
S2 1 0.96 alogical composition of the clayey soils is useful in that it pro-
S3 1 0.13 vides indirect measures of soil performance from the easily
S4 1 0.13 accessible mineralogical data. The effects of clay mineralogy
S5 18 0.09 on stiffness can be evaluated using the Resilient Modulus.
S6 2 0.11 The clay minerals are classified, according to [1,2], among
the main phyllosilicate group, which is divided into two types:
i/ silica–alumina–silica trios of the montmorillonite and illite
families, or ii/ silica layers and alumina or aluminum hydrox-
Table 4 Summary of undrained shear strength. ide layers. In the latter type (ii), the alumina or aluminum
Sample Designation UCS (kPa)
hydroxide layers bond together with the silica ones, to form
alumina-silica pairs that belong to the kaolinitic group. The
S1 237 mineralogy of soils significantly affects the strength of soils,
S2 218
whether measured directly in terms of the Unconfined Com-
S3 154
S4 357
pression Strength (UCS) or indirectly through the California
S5 283 Bearing Ratio (CBR), the two measures exhibiting different
S6 267 correlations depending on the kaolinitic or montmorillonitic
character of the soil [3].

Table 5 Test results for clay soil samples.

Cv
Constrained modulus Ec (kN/m2) (cm2/min)
Sample Designation (Pressure ranges (kN/m2)) Cc Cr
(0–280) (280–560) (560–1120) (1120–2240)
S1 138 149 164 175 0.325 0.065 1.9909
S2 59 64 70 68 0.429 0.076 2.1986
S3 39 42 55 49 0.406 0.075 2.0568
S4 121 129 136 145 0.434 0.078 2.1986
S5 121 156 179 234 0.205 0.019 1.8114
S6 145 172 193 212 0.272 0.069 2.1259
Effect of clay mineral content on soil strength parameters 477

Fig. 1 Plasticity index (PI), liquid limit (LL), and plastic limit (PL) functions of CBR.

Fig. 2 Clay, Silt, Sand, and Gravel fraction, as functions of CBR.

478 A.A.M. Elhassan et al.

2. Test materials and methods

The criteria for selection of the soil sample locations, for the
present investigation, are based on previous investigations on
clay soils [19–22]. A primary criterion is that samples should
be extracted from soils of different origins and different phys-
iochemical properties. Therefore, the selected soil samples rep-
resent a broad spectrum of clay soils.
A total of six clay soil samples were retained, exhibiting
diversity in the mineral composition (Montmorillonite/illite/k
aolinite), the location depth (between 0.5 and 1.5 m), the ori-
gin, and the physiochemical characteristics of the samples.
All the soil samples have been obtained as disturbed and all
the tests have been carried out in the same testing conditions.
The mineralogical characteristics of the soil samples are
described in Table 1.
The mineralogical characterization and quantitative com-
position of the samples were performed using an advanced
X-ray diffraction apparatus, and a Philips X’Pert Organizer,
respectively. Table 1, shows that the S1 sample is composed
of a mixture of montmorillonite (smectite), kaolinite, and illite,
with montmorillonite amounting to over 50 % of the clay min-
erals. The S2 sample comprises montmorillonite and a small
fraction of kaolinite, the S3 specimen is mostly (90 %) mont-
morillonitic, with only 10 % of kaolinite, while S4 is essentially
smectite.
The samples S1 and S4 contain an admixture of mont-
morillonite, kaolinite, and illite (mostly montmorillonite).
However, the S6 sample minerals are a mix of kaolinite
(over 50 %), smectite, and illite. The S5 soil sample is char-
acterized as a red kaolinitic clay soil, while the other five
soils sample are classified as montmorillonite clay soils
according to XRD.
According to the clay mineralogy of the samples, five of
the six soils (S1, S2, S3, S4, and S6) are categorized as swel-
Fig. 3 PI, LL, and PL as functions of UCS. ling soils, in contrast with S5, which is characterized as a red
lateritic soil. Standard Gs, Cc and Atterberg limit tests were
conducted on the six soil samples, and the results are dis-
The CBR of the base soil is used in road design to deter- played in Table 2. According to the USCS (Unified Soil Clas-
mine the appropriate thickness for the pavement. It can be esti- sification System), five (S1, S2, S3, S4, and S6) out of the six
mated by tests done on the site. These tests are usually time- soil samples were characterized as highly plastic clays (CH),
consuming. However, correlations can be used for soils with whereas one sample (S5) was classified as clay of low plastic-
related geological origins in the case of low CBR value. The ity (CL).
CBR can be evaluated from multiple samples originating from The CBR test was conducted according to the British Stan-
the same area. Some efforts have been made to improve corre- dards [23]. Table 3 summarizes the test results obtained for the
lation formulas to predict the CBR from simple index proper- six samples.
ties [4–14]. Nevertheless, no study known to the authors has The UCS test samples were passed through Sieve N° 4.
shown the impact of clay minerals of the soils on the CBR. Then the UCS was measured for the six soil samples according
Studies on the effect of clay minerals on the properties of to the British Standards [23]. The undrained shear strength
expansive soils showed that the kaolinite mineral reduces plas- results are given in Table 4.
ticity, the swelling potential, and pressure, while it increases The constrained modulus (Ec) expresses the rigidity of the
the UCS and the stiffness [15–18]. soil. It is determined, from the consolidation test data, as the
The unconfined compression test is very popular for shear ratio of the strain increment to the stress increment. The con-
testing, which is considered as a quite costless and fast shear solidation tests for the soil samples were conducted in line with
strength assessment for saturated soil. The coefficient of con- the British Standard BS 1377–1990 test procedures. Table 5
solidation (Cv) is a soil engineering parameter that is used to summarizes the consolidation test results for the six soil sam-
describe the rate of consolidation. The soil consolidation is ples, which include the compression index (Cc), the specific
used to regulate soil strength for applications such as founda- gravity (Gs), the coefficient of consolidation (Cv), and the swel-
tion and slope movement [15]. ling index (Cr).
Effect of clay mineral content on soil strength parameters 479

Fig. 4 Clay, Silt, Sand, and Gravel fraction functions of UCS.

0.42

0.41

0.4

0.39
Void Ratio

Pc = 175 kN/m2.
0.38 Cc = 0.325.
Cr = 0.065.

0.37

0.36

0.35

0.34
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Applied Pressure(kN/m2)

Fig. 5 a Consolidation curve of S1 sample Fig. 5b Consolidation curve of S2 sample Fig. 5c. Consolidation curve for S3 Sample Fig. 5d.
Consolidation curve for S4 Sample Fig. 5e. Consolidation curve for S5 Sample Fig. 5f. Consolidation curve for S6 Sample.
480 A.A.M. Elhassan et al.

1.1

0.9

Pc =70kN/m2.
Cc =0.429.
0.7 Cr =0.076
Void Ratio

0.5

0.3

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Applied Pressure(kN/m2)

Fig. 5 (continued)

0.78

0.74
Void Ratio

0.7
Pc = 55 kN/m .
2

Cc = 0.406.
Cr = 0.075.
0.66

0.62

0.58
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Applied Pressure(kN/m2)

Fig. 5 (continued)

0.54

0.5
Void Ratio

0.46

Pc = 145 kN/m .
2

0.42 Cc = 0.434.
Cr = 0.078.

0.38

0.34
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Applied Pressure(kN/m2 )

Fig. 5 (continued)
Effect of clay mineral content on soil strength parameters 481

0.9

0.8

0.7
Pc = 212.0 kN/m2
Void Ratio Cc = 0.272
0.6 Cr = 0.069

0.5

0.4

0.3
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Applied Pressure(kN/m2)

Fig. 5 (continued)

0.7500

0.7000

0.6500
Void Ratio

0.6000
Pc =234 .0 kN/m2
0.5500 Cc = 0.205
Cr = 0.019

0.5000

0.4500
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Applied Pressure(kN/m2)

Fig. 5 (continued)
482 A.A.M. Elhassan et al.

Fig. 6 Constrained modulus for all soil samples (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, and S6).

3. Results and discussion CBR ¼ 0:8919G  0:1511ðr ¼ 0:967Þ ð2Þ

is obtained for the kaolinitic sample S5, with a correlation
The plasticity index (PI), the liquid limit (LL), and the plastic coefficient r ¼ 0:967.
limit (PL) are plotted in Fig. 1 as functions of CBR for the five The UCS assessment was compared along with the Atter-
swelling soil samples. It can be observed that all the relations berg limits, to establish a relationship between the undrained
between CBR and plasticity properties are influenced by the strength and these limits.
presence of clay minerals [3]. The relationships between the UCS and the particle size dis-
The correlation coefficients indicate that the correlation tribution are illustrated in Fig. 4, with the best fit obtained in
with the CBR is better for the liquidity limit than it is for UCS, for the Sand fraction.
the plastic limit and the plasticity index. The relationship The constrained modulus was measured for the pressure
between CBR and liquidity limit for the soil sample clay min- ranges 0–280, 280–560, 560–1120, and 1120–2240 kN/m2.
erals is: The consolidation curves are presented, for the six soil sam-
CBR ¼ 1:254LL þ 70:184ðr ¼ 0:655Þ ð1Þ ples, in Fig. 5(a) -(f).
The soil rigidity is expressed in terms of the constrained
The relationships between CBR and particle size distribu- modulus Ec, calculated from the one-dimensional consolida-
tion are presented in Fig. 2. To assess the relationship between tion curves Fig. 6. Table 5 summarizes the computed Ec values
the strength and the index properties of the soils, the for the six soils and the four tested pressure ranges. It shows
undrained strength obtained from the UCS tests was corre- that the Ec values obtained for samples S1, S5, and S6, which
lated with the Atterberg limits PI, LL, and PL as illustrated contain high percentages of kaolinite mineral, are the highest
in Fig. 3. among the tested soils.
Effect of clay mineral content on soil strength parameters 483

To further assess the functional relationship between the

stiffness properties of the soils and the Atterberg limits, the
undrained stiffness, expressed by the constrained modulus,
was associated with the PI, LL, and PL, as described in
Fig. 7. The relationship between Ec and the particle size distri-
bution is illustrated in Fig, 8, with the best correlation
obtained for the Sand fraction (Fig. 8).

4. Conclusion

This article presents new test data pertaining to the effect of

the mineralogical composition of clays on the strength, stiff-
ness and workability of clayey soils. The investigation was con-
ducted on six clayey soil samples extracted from different
geographic locations. The samples can be categorized as fol-
lows: i/ a predominantly kaolinitic clayey soil, ii/ a predomi-
nantly montmorillonitic, swelling soil, and iii/ different
samples of swelling clays composed of mixed minerals (mont-
morillonite, kaolinite, and illite) in different proportions. The
investigation was based on sieve analysis, Atterberg limits,
California Bearing Ratio (CBR), Undrained Compressive
Strength (UCS), and constrained modulus Ec tests. The soil
strength was measured through the CBR test since the concern
here was sub-grade design. The main finding of the study is the
outstanding influence of the kaolinite mineral on the overall
performance of clayey soils. The test results showed that the
kaolinite mineral contributes significantly to the strength
(CBR and UCS) and the rigidity (Ec) of the soil, and this effect
of kaolinite is much higher than observed with the other tested
minerals. In addition, the kaolinite is found to be very efficient
in reducing the plasticity of clays and, consequently, in
improving their workability. Moreover, the plasticity is lower
in the kaolinitic than it is in the montmorillonitic clay.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge the support of the

Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia has funded this project,
under grant No. (FP-098-43).

Fig. 7 PI, LL, and PL, as a functions of Ec.

484 A.A.M. Elhassan et al.

Fig. 8 Clay, Silt, Sand, and Gravel fraction as functions of Ec.

References International Journal of Civil, Structural, Construction and

Architectural Engineering 9 (2) (2015) 136–141.
[1] Grim, R.E., Clay mineralogy 2nd ed. 1968: McGraw-Hill Book [11] Z.S. Janjua, J. Chand, Correlation of CBR with Index
Company. Properties of Soil, Int. J. Civil Eng. Technol. (IJCIET) 7 (5)
[2] Osman, M.A. and W.A. Charlie, Expansive soils in Sudan. 1983. (2016) 57–62.
[3] H.B. Nagaraj, M.R. Suresh, Influence of clay mineralogy on the [12] S. Yashas, S. Harish, Muralidhara: Effect of California bearing
relationship of CBR of fine-grained soils with their index and ratio on the properties of soil, Am. J. Eng. Res. (AJER) 5 (4)
engineering properties, Transport. Geotech. 15 (2018) 29–38. (2016) 28–37.
[4] W.P.M. Black, A method of estimating the California bearing [13] O.B. Bassey et al, Correlation between CBR values and index
ratio of cohesive soils from plasticity data, Geotechnique 12 (4) properties of soils: a case study of Ibiono, Oron and Onna in
(1962) 271–282. Akwa Ibom State, Resour. Environ. 7 (4) (2017) 94–102.
[5] J. de Graft-Johnson, H. Bhatia, D. Gidigasu, The engineering [14] Rehman, Z., et al., Prediction of CBR value from index properties
characteristics of the laterite gravels of Ghana, Soil Mech. Fdn of different soils. Technical journal university of engineering and
Eng Conf Proc/Mexico/. (1969). technology Taxila, Pakistan, 2017. 22.
[6] Chakraborty, S. and G. Bhattacharya, Proceedings of the [15] Duncan, J.M., S.G. Wright, and T.L. Brandon, Soil strength and
International Symposium on Engineering Under Uncertainty: slope stability. 2014: John Wiley & Sons.
Safety Assessment and Management (ISEUSAM-2012). 2013: [16] A.A. Al-Rawas, A.W. Hago, H. Al-Sarmi, Effect of lime,
Springer Science & Business Media. cement and Sarooj (artificial pozzolan) on the swelling potential
[7] Leliso, Y., Correlation of CBR value with soil index properties for of an expansive soil from Oman, Build. Environ. 40 (5) (2005)
Addis Ababa subgrade soils. Master degree project, Addis Ababa 681–687.
University, 2013. [17] A.A. Basma, E.R. Tuncer, Effect of lime on volume change and
[8] Zumrawi, M., Prediction of CBR from index properties of compressibility of expansive clays, Transport. Res. record 1295
cohesive soils. 2013. (1991).
[9] D.K. Talukdar, A study of correlation between California [18] Z. Nalbantoglu, E.R. Tuncer, Compressibility and hydraulic
Bearing Ratio (CBR) value with other properties of soil, Int. J. conductivity of a chemically treated expansive clay, Canadian
Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 4 (1) (2014) 559–562. Geotech. J. 38 (1) (2001) 154–160.
[10] B.T. Nguyen, A. Mohajerani, Prediction of California bearing [19] Osman, M.A. and Charlie,W.A., Expansive Soils in Sudan,
ratio from physical properties of fine-grained soils, World Building and Roads Research Institute (BRRI) – University of
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Khartoum. Current paper 1983. CP 3/83 p.p: p. 1-13.
Effect of clay mineral content on soil strength parameters 485

[20] Suhad, E.M. Ali, Intrinsic Swelling and Physiochemical [22] Rahmatalla, H.H, Shrinkage behavior of expansive soils from
Properties of Swelling Soils from the Sudan, M.Sc. Thesis, Sudan, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Khartoum, Sudan. 2005.
University of Khartoum, Sudan. 2003. [23] B.S.1377, British Standard Institution. Soils for Civil Engineering
[21] Mohamed, S.A, Lime stabilization of expansive soils in Sudan Purposes. London. 1990.
for a road pavement, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Khartoum,
Sudan. 1998.