STABILIZATION OF LATERITIC SOILS USING AGAR

BIOPOLYMER

OBALOLUWA EMMANUEL AKOMOLAFE

(CVE/2017/032)

A THESIS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILMENT OF HE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF
A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (B.Sc.) DEGREE IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING, OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE-
IFE, NIGERIA

APRIL 2024
 CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this project proposal was prepared by AKOMOLAFE Obaloluwa

Emmanuel (CVE/2017/032) under my supervision in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the award of a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) degree in Civil Engineering, Obafemi Awolowo

University, Ile-Ife, Osun State.

………………………………… ………………………………

Dr. (Mrs.) A. L. Ayodele Dr. (Mrs.) A. L. Ayodele

Project Supervisor Head of Department

ii
 DEDICATION
This project proposal is dedicated to the Lord God Almighty, my all in all, and also to those who

have supported, encouraged, and inspired me throughout this journey.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to God Almighty for His guidance and

blessings throughout this project. My sincere appreciation extends to my parents for their

unwavering support and belief in my abilities.

I am also immensely thankful to my project supervisor, Dr. (Mrs.) A. L. Ayodele, for her

valuable guidance and mentorship. Thank you all for your contributions to the success of this

project.

iv
 Table of Contents
TITLE PAGE i

CERTIFICATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
ABBREVIATIONS ix
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Aim and Objective of This Study 4
1.3 Justification of This Study 5
CHAPTER TWO 6
LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Soil Stabilization 6
2.1.1 Overview of Traditional Stabilizers 7
2.1.2 Rationale for exploring eco-friendly alternatives 9
2.2 Overview of Biopolymers 10
2.2.1 Biopolymers used in Soil Stabilization 12
2.2.2 Advantages of using biopolymers as soil stabilizers 18
2.3 Agar Biopolymer 20
2.3.1 Structure of Agar Biopolymer 22
2.3.2 Extraction of Agar Biopolymer 23
2.3.3 Effect of Agar concentration on soil properties 24
2.4.4 Advantages and Limitations of using Agar Biopolymer 25
2.4 Background on Lateritic Soils 27
2.4.1 Geotechnical Properties of Lateritic Soils 29
2.5 Previous work on Biopolymer Stabilization 40
CHAPTER THREE 45
METHODOLOGY 45

v
 3.1 Site Selection 45
3.1.1 Sample Collection 45
3.2 Methods 45
3.2.1 Determination of the Index Properties of the lateritic Soil in its Natural State 46
3.2.2 Determination of the Strength Properties of the lateritic soil in its natural state 48
3.2.3 Preparation of agar biopolymer 49
3.2.4 Geotechnical Analysis of the lateritic soil in their stabilized state 49
3.2.5 Determination of effect of stabilizer 50
CHAPTER 4 51
STAGE REACHED AND EXPECTED RESULT 51
4.1 General Overview 51
4.2 Stage Reached 51
4.2.1 Collection of Soil Sample and procurement of stabilizer 51
4.2.2 Preliminary Analysis of soil sample in its natural state. 51
4.3Expected Result 53
4.4Expected Contribution to Knowledge 53
REFERENCE 56
APPENDIX 63

vi
 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC SEQUENCE IN OKIGWE AREA. 30
TABLE 2: LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS FOR LATERITES USED IN THE STUDY 32

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF LATERITIC SOILS DERIVED FROM VARIOUS

GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS IN OKIGWE AREA 33

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS 35

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF RESULTS ANALYSIS AS COMPARED WITH NIGERIA STANDARD OF SOIL

CLASSIFICATION FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES 36

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS 38

TABLE 7: NIGERIAN STANDARD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES 39

TABLE 8: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS RESULTS OF SOIL IN ITS NATURAL STATE 55

TABLE 9: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT RESULT 63

TABLE 10: DATA FROM COMPACTION TEST ON THE TEST IN ITS NATURAL STATE. 64

TABLE 11: SPECIFIC GRAVITY RESULT 66

TABLE 12: PLASTIC LIMIT RESULT 66

TABLE 13: LIQUID LIMIT RESULT 67

TABLE 14: PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TABLE 68

TABLE 15: UCS RESULT 70

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: THE STRUCTURE OF XANTHOMONAS CAMPESTRIS 14
FIGURE 2: XANTHAN GUM PRODUCTION PROCESS 15

FIGURE 3: THE REPEATING UNIT OF GELLAN GUM 15

FIGURE 4: THE STRUCTURE OF GUAR GUM 16

FIGURE 5: THE STRUCTURE UNIT OF POLYACRYLAMIDE (PAM) POLYMER 16

FIGURE 6: THE CHEMICAL STRUCTURE OF AGAR 18

FIGURE 7: AGAR EXTRACTION DIAGRAM 25

FIGURE 8: UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH WITH TIME FOR ( A) BIOPOLYMER-TREATED

CLAYEY SOIL AND (B ) BIOPOLYMER-TREATED SANDY SOIL DRIED IN AIR AT ROOM

TEMPERATURE (20 ± 2°C) 26

FIGURE 9: SEM IMAGE OF AGAR-TREATED CLAYEY SOIL 26

FIGURE 10: MDD VS OMC CURVE OF THE SOIL IN ITS NATURAL STATE 65

FIGURE 11: LIQUID LIMIT CURVE 68

FIGURE 12: PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE 69

FIGURE 13: UCS CURVE 69

viii
 ABBREVIATIONS
GG Guar Gum
XG Xanthan Gum
CHI Chitosan
BG Beta 1,3/1,6 Glucan
MICP Microbial Induced Calcite Precipitation
SEM Scanning Electron Micrographs
PAM Polyacrylamide
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
HPAM Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide
TSS Total Suspended Solids
BPST Biopolymer based Soil Treatment
LL Liquid Limit
PL Plastic Limit
PI Plasticity Index
CBR California Bearing Ratio
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Soil is one of the most essential and plentiful construction materials, its role cannot be

ignored and should be employed acceptably. To ensure the effective utilization of soil in

various engineering and geotechnical applications, such as sub-grade and subbase

construction, embankments, foundation construction, road and rail construction, and

backfill for retaining walls and bridge abutments, it is essential to enhance certain

properties of the soil to meet the specific requirements of these projects (Behnood, 2018)

Clayey soils are usually stiff when they are dry and give up their stiffness as

they become saturated. Soft clays are associated with low compressive strength and

excessive settlement. This reduction in strength due to moisture leads to severe damages

to buildings and foundations. The soil behavior can be a challenge to the designer to build

infrastructure plans on clay deposits. The damages associated with expansive soils are not

because of the lack of inadequate engineering solutions but to the failure to identify the

existence and magnitude of expansion of these soils in the early stage of project planning.

One of the methods for soil enhancement is that the problematic soil is replaced by

suitable soil. However, the high cost involved in this method has led researchers to

identify alternative methods, and soil stabilization with different additives is one of those

method. (Das, 2014)

1
The concept of stabilization is 5000 years old. (McDowell, 1959) indicated that stabilized

earth works were used in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia and. It is signified by

improving soil engineering properties and overcoming some of their flaws to avoid

replacing them with others that satisfy the required engineering standards for the purpose

it is used for. Particularly, the main engineering properties desired from the engineering

material are dependent on their functions, type of load which they will withstand, and the

environment which they will face.

The most central soil engineering properties is the soil mechanical strength (shear

strength and compressive strength) which is the most important property for soil

stabilization, on the other hand, soil density, permeability, durability, plasticity, and

compressibility are extremely significant properties. (Behnood, 2018)

Traditional stabilizers, such as lime and cement, have been commonly used for soil

stabilization. These stabilizers rely on two primary mechanisms: pozzolanic reactions and

cation exchange (Abu-Farsakh, Dhakal, & Chen, 2015). Pozzolanic reactions occur when

siliceous and aluminous materials react with calcium hydroxide at normal temperatures,

resulting in the formation of cementitious compounds. On the other hand, cation

exchange takes place when free cations in the soil swap places with those in the exchange

locations (Chittoori, 2008).

However, the use of these traditional calcium-based stabilizers has been questioned

due to their performance in expansive soils containing sulfates. When these stabilizers are

applied to sulfate-rich expansive soils, the calcium reacts with soil sulfates and alumina to

form an expansive mineral called ettringite (Puppala, 1999). This formation of ettringite

2
has led to heaving and premature pavement failures in treated subgrades, raising concerns

about the effectiveness of calcium-based stabilization in such conditions.

Bio-mediated soil improvement techniques have been introduced to reduce carbon

dioxide (CO2) emission during the process of cement production (Cole, 2012) The

possible environmentally friendly materials (e.g., biopolymers) (Jeong, 2019) methods

(e.g., microbial-induced calcite precipitation (MICP) (Suleiman, 2016) is an alternative to

conventional soil treatment and improvement techniques (i.e., mechanical improvement

and chemical treatment). Particularly, biopolymers as biodegradable polymers have been

investigated as a construction material for soil improvement (Chang, 2015)

Biopolymers, also known as polymeric biomolecules, are naturally occurring

substances originating from biological sources like alginate, chitosan, and carrageenan,

where their monomer units are covalently bonded (Hassan & Dou, 2019). These

biopolymers possess unique physical, chemical, biological, biomechanical, and

degradation properties (Lahaye & Rochas, 1991), making them popular for

immobilization techniques due to their cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Biopolymers

have a wide range of applications in industries like food, cosmetics, medicine,

automotive, electric propulsion, and fuel cells.

Research suggests that biopolymers such as Guar Gum (GG), Xanthan Gum (XG),

Chitosan (CHI), and Beta 1,3/1,6 Glucan (BG) significantly improve soil properties (Latifi et

al, 2016). Studies found that XG can increase compressive and shear strength, especially in

fine-grained soils and reduce collapsible soil settlement. GG is used for sand stabilization and

liquid shoring and decreases soil compressibility. BG improves soil compressibility,

plasticity index, and compressive strength (Chang & Cho, 2014). CHI

3
enhances soil strength but its effectiveness decreases as the soil dries. While Agar has

been extensively used in food processing industries, its potential in soil improvement

remains largely unexplored.

Agar is a stabilizing agent with a rigid texture when formed into gels, is derived from red

algae or seaweeds such as Gelidium, Gracilaria, and Gelidiella. These algae species can

be found in various regions, including Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Chile, Canada,

Indonesia, and India (Ale and Meyer, 2015).

Agar's hydrophobic nature allows for excellent solubility and gelling properties. With

a melting point of 85-95°C and a gelling point of 32-45°C, agar exhibits a gel strength of 70-

1000 g/cm³ at 20°C for a 1.5% concentration. Additionally, the viscosity of 1.5% agar at

60°C ranges from 10-100 centipoise, with an average molecular weight of 36-144 KDa.

These properties make agar useful in various applications, particularly as a stabilizer.

1.2 Aim and Objective of This Study

The aim of this project is to investigate and implement agar biopolymer as a soil

stabilizer in foundation or road construction.

The objective of this study is to:

i. determine the preliminary geotechnical properties of the soil sample

ii. evaluate the effect of agar biopolymer on lateritic soil

iii. determine the optimum concentration that has the highest effect (positive) on

the soil sample.

4
1.3 Justification of This Study

Expansive soils pose significant challenges in construction and civil engineering, leading

to issues such as swelling, shrinkage, and differential settlement. These challenges can

result in infrastructure damage, increased maintenance costs, and compromised safety.

The need for effective and sustainable soil stabilization methods is paramount, and this

project aims to address this concern by investigating the use of agar biopolymer as a

novel and eco-friendly solution.

5
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Soil Stabilization

Expansive soils experience volume changes depending on their water content, leading to

swelling when absorbing water and shrinking when losing water. While removing and

replacing these soils with non-expansive materials is an option, it can be impractical due

to the significant volumes involved in transport and environmental impacts of disposal.

Soil stabilization techniques are therefore essential as they improve the properties of local

expansive soils, allowing for their effective use in construction projects without the need

for importing non-expansive soils. This approach minimizes environmental impacts and

reduces the costs associated with large-scale soil transport.

Stabilizing expansive soils without digging them out is an economical procedure

for road construction. Although a variety of methods have been employed to improve the

strength (Petry and Little, 2002). Especially in the case of highways built on expansive

soils, methods of controlling this volume variation are very important to preserve the

pavement structure. Therefore, protection and maintenance of the expansive soils are

essential elements for the protection of the integrity of the roads and related paved

structures (Daniels, 2000).

Soils can be stabilized in a chemical, physical or mechanical way. In addition to the

remedial methods. According to the Transportation Research Record 1219 (Petry and

Armstrong, 1989), mechanical stabilization includes all improvements to either soil or soil

6
mass properties without the addition of stabilizing agents while chemical stabilization for

expansive soil consists of changing the physicochemical environment around and inside

clay particles, changing the nature of the water that moves into and out of the voids, and

effecting behavioral changes in the soil mass as a whole; and remedial treatments are

actually after-the-fact stabilizers of expansive clay soils and the facilities on which they

are built.

Then, the option for one or another stabilization method is influenced by a

number of factors, among which stand out: the economic factors, the purpose of the

work, the characteristics of the materials and the properties of the soil that must be

corrected.

2.1.1 Overview of Traditional Stabilizers

Traditional stabilizers are commonly used to strengthen weak soils. Cement was a

groundbreaking invention for construction materials, making it easier and faster to build

houses, skyscrapers, and other civil engineering projects. It was first used as a

stabilization agent in the 20th century (Azzam, 2014). Lime, however, is the oldest

stabilizing agent known worldwide (Qingquan, Qing, & Zhijing, 2004). Other binders,

such as fly ash, gypsum, slag, alum, bituminous materials, kiln dust, and stone dust, are

also used as stabilization agents (Naeini & Ghorbanalizadeh, 2010; Marto et al., 2014;

Mirzababaei et al., 2017; Borthakur & Singh, 2014). Among traditional stabilization

agents, lime, fly ash, and cement are the most popular and widely used (Al-Jabban et al,

2016; Yong & Ouhadi, 2007; Talib & Noriyuki, 2017). Research and development

involving them and other materials continue to grow.

7
 Traditional stabilizers offer numerous advantages for soft soil stabilization.

According to (Tingle and Santoni, 2003), cement and lime effectively stabilize low plasticity

clay under wet conditions. These traditional stabilizers can also neutralize acidity and

improve the strength of various soft soils (Huat et al., 2005). Cement-stabilized soils have

proven to be a reliable alternative for sustainable infrastructure requirements (Saadeldin &

Siddiqua, 2013). Traditional stabilizers can improve the properties of various problematic

soils, such as marine clay and peat soil (Al-Bared & Marto, 2017; Rahman et al., 2016;

Borthakur & Singh, 2014; Viswanath et al., 2014; Yong & Ouhadi, 2007). For example,

(Kazemian et al., 2015) found that using traditional stabilizers on fibrous peat decreased the

soil's void ratio and secondary compression. These advantages demonstrate that traditional

stabilizers can alter soil properties and strengthen weak soils. Also, traditional stabilizers are

readily available in the market (Rahman et al., 2016).

Despite the numerous advantages of traditional stabilizers in soil improvement,

there are environmental and occupational health concerns associated with their use. One

significant environmental concern is CO2 emissions. The production of cement releases

one ton of CO2, and the cement industry could contribute up to 8% of total CO2

emissions (Alyeldeen & Kitazumi, 2017; Andrew, 2017). Additionally, traditional

stabilizers often require lengthy curing times and large quantities of materials, which can

increase construction costs (Yang & Yang, 2009; Naeini & Ghorbanalizadeh, 2010). The

slow pozzolanic reaction in these stabilizers typically takes 28 days to complete (, Teja

Suresh, & Uday, 2015).

Moreover, traditional stabilizers can lead to soil brittleness, making it susceptible

to seismic activity and potentially causing unstable foundations and structure failures

8
(Chen & Tan, 2012). Another issue is the impact of traditional stabilizers on groundwater

and soil fertility, as they increase pH levels, reduce water retention, and impair nutrient

availability in the soil (Vinod, Indraratna, & Mahamud, 2010; Biggs & Mahony, 2004;

Indraratna et al., 2013; Nalbantoglu & Tuncer, 2001; Hamer, 2012). The continued use of

these stabilizers may contribute to groundwater depletion and decreased agricultural

productivity due to reduced soil fertility. Consequently, there is a need to explore

alternative, sustainable soil stabilization methods that address these environmental and

health concerns while maintaining or improving soil properties.

2.1.2 Rationale for exploring eco-friendly alternatives

Rapid population growth and urbanization often cause the need to build over soft and

unfavorable soil present in adverse surroundings. This further urges the need to improve

the originally non-favorable soil. As it was mentioned earlier, the most common chemical

stabilizing agents that are used for chemical soil stabilization are cement and lime.

However, their use raises many environmental concerns such as CO 2 emissions due to

cement production (Andrew, 2018), prevention of vegetation growth, groundwater

contamination, and heat island creation, to name a few. In fact, in 2002, the production of

cement contributed about six percent to the world’s CO 2 emission (Metz, Davidson, de

Coninck, 2005), and Andrew had pointed out the possible increase of that number in

more recent years. Therefore, the demand for sustainable and environmentally friendly

solutions for ground improvement is in high increase.

Biological approaches are emerging in the field of geotechnical engineering and

techniques like microbial induced carbonate precipitation (MICP) have shown to be an

effective means of effectively improving soil strength and the load-bearing capacity (Umar

9
et al., 2016). However, these biological approaches require the introduction of a large

microbial community and cementation reagents to the soil to create a highly specialized

growth environment for the bacteria which may result in the generation of effluent

ammonia. Furthermore, the MICP method is limited to the coarse-grained soils due to

microbe infiltration problems. This is because the pores of the fine-grained soils are too

small to provide an appropriate bacteria growth environment (Ashraf & Azahar, 2017).

Therefore, it is desirable to seek a non-microbe, but still bio-inspired and sustainable

ground improvement solution.

An attractive alternative to MICP is the soil improvement with biopolymers

because it does not require microorganism’s cultivation in the soil. Biopolymers are

organic polymers that are produced by different biological organisms. In nature,

biopolymers can be found in large amounts. They are biodegradable and have no negative

effects on the environment; therefore, they might be favorable soil-improvement material.

Also, unlike MICP, biopolymer treatment can be used for the improvement of fine-

grained soil (Aguilar, et al. (2016). An additional reason why biopolymers have an

advantage over MICP is the fact that they do not require any nutrient injection and can be

directly used for ground improvement.

2.2 Overview of Biopolymers

Biopolymers are the polymers that are developed from living organisms. The name

“Biopolymer” indicates that it is a bio-degradable polymer. Biopolymers have been present

on earth for billions of years and are older than synthetic polymers such as plastics. These

polymers play an essential role in nature. They are extremely useful in performing functions

like storage of energy, preservation and transmittance of genetic information and

10
cellular construction. Sugar based polymers, such as polyactides, naturally degenerate in

the human body without producing any harmful side effects so, they are used for medical

purposes. Starch based biopolymers can be used for creating conventional plastic by

extruding and injection molding method. Biopolymers of synthetic nature are used to

manufacture mats. Cellulose based biopolymers, such as cellophane, are used as a

packaging material. These chemical compounds can be used to make thin wrapping films,

food trays and pellets for sending fragile goods by shipping.

Biopolymers can be used vastly for tissue engineering, medical devices and the

pharmaceutical industry, drug delivery, and overall medical applications due to their

physio-mechanical properties. Furthermore, they have specific characteristics like wound

healing, catalysis of bio-activity, and non-toxicity. Compared to synthetic polymers,

many biopolymers are normally better with bodily integration as they also possess more

complex structures. Due to the biodegradable and biocompatible nature, biopolymers can

be used to enhance the activity of other biologically active molecules in a product and

also can be modified to fit with different potential applications such as bio-based food-

packaging applications, food coatings, encapsulation matrices for functional foods,

applications in water treatment, biosensor productions and manufacturing storage

elements (Gheorghita & Norocel, 2021).

Biopolymer, either natural or synthetic is one of the non-traditional stabilizer types of

increasing interest. Past studies have described the application of natural biopolymers to

stabilize road surfaces and synthetic polymer has also been used to increase the strength and

decrease the hydraulic conductivity of sand. However recent technology has increased the

number of traditional additives used for soil stabilization purposes. Biopolymer soil

11
stabilization refers to the addition of polymers to improve the physical properties of soil,

most often for geotechnical engineering. Polymers have been shown to reduce erosion,

increase soil strength and support the soil structure. (Dilipkumar & Srinivas Ganta, 2016).

2.2.1 Biopolymers used in Soil Stabilization

A. Xanthan Gum
Xanthan gum is an anionic polysaccharide that is formed by Xanthomonas campestris

bacterium (Chang and Cho, 2016). When xanthan gum is stirred by both cold and hot

water, xanthan gum solution will be highly viscous because of its viscous hydrogel

formation with water. Figure 1 shows the xanthan gum production process, and Figure 2

shows the xanthan gum production processes in detail. Xanthan gum is generally used as

a viscosity thickener because it absorbs water molecules through hydrogen bonding

(Garcı́a-Ochoa and Santos, 2000). The usage of Xanthan gum in geotechnical

engineering is to reduce the permeability of sandy soils by filling their pores and enhance

the soil erosion resistance by increasing water retention.

Chang et al. showed that a small amount of xanthan gum-treated Korean red-

yellow soil enhanced soil erosion resistance and improved the vegetation cultivation.

Xanthan gum-treated soil has strong water adsorption during precipitation season and

high soil moisture retention during the dry season. Another recent study has studied

possibilities for preventing liquefaction in sandy soils.

B. Gellan Gum

Gellan gum in the polysaccharide group is a high-molecular-weight polymer produced

by the bacterium Sphingomonas elodea (formerly known as Pseudomonas elodea). Also,

12
gellan gum is generated by four molecules: (1,3)-β-D-glucose, (1,4)-β-D-glucuronic acid,

(1,4)-β-D-glucose, and (1,4)-α-L-rhamnose as shown in Figure 3. Low acetyl gellan gum

(e.g., at low concentration: 0.05–0.25%) with thermal and acid stability can form gels,

and the network formation of biodegradable hydrogels crosslinked with gellan gum and

chitosan has thermal stability up to 250 degree Celsius.

Gellan gum with the pore filling effects has been investigated to decrease the

permeability and improve the strength of shallow soils. Another recent study has

investigated the interactions between gellan gum and soils. Chang and Cho

investigated the shear strength and cohesion of gellan gum-treated sand-clay mixtures

increase with increasing the overburden stress levels through direct shear tests.

C. Guar Gum
Guar gum is a polysaccharide and is obtained from the seeds of Cyamopsis tetragonoloba

(Smitha and Sachan, 2016). The general composition of guar gum is galactomannan (75–

85%), moisture (8–14%), protein, fiber, and ash. Guar gum has high molecular weight

and is a water-soluble polymer. Guar gum molecule consists of α-D-galactose and β-D-

mannopyranose backbone as shown in Figure 4.

The addition of guar gum (0.25–2% concentration) reduced the permeability of silt and

sand and increased the cohesion stress of sand. Moreover, Chudzikowski proved the pore

filling effect of guar gum (2% concentration after curing time of 5 weeks) between the

soil particles by scanning electron micrographs (SEM).

D. Polyacrylamide
Polyacrylamide (PAM) is a water-soluble polymer, and Figure 5 shows the structure unit of

PAM. PAM is widely used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), water treatment, and soil

13
amendment effects because it is more effective and relatively inexpensive (Flanagan and

Chaudhari, 2002). For EOR, partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) solution with

0.5 wt.% NaOH showed a better sweep efficiency than polymer flood. In wastewater

treatment, a low cationic polyacrylamide (4 mg/L PAM) to high-rate algal pond (HRAP)

treating wastewater in New Zealand achieved at least 50% improvement of total

suspended solid (TSS) removal.

In agricultural purposes, more flocculation efficacy and stable aggregates of PAM

solution (compared to water) reduce water erosion (Im and Tran, 2017).

Figure 1: The structure of Xanthomonas campestris

14
 Figure 2: Xanthan gum production process

Figure 3: The repeating unit of Gellan gum

15
 Figure 4: The structure of guar gum

Figure 5: The structure unit of polyacrylamide (PAM) polymer

E. Chitosan
Chitosan is a linear polysaccharide formed by the deacetylation of chitin contained in

insects, squid bones, and crustacean shells. The main components of chitosan are β-1,4-

D-glucosamine (C6H13NO5) and N-acetylglucosamine (C8H15NO6). As chitosan has a

similar molecular structure to human tissue, chitosan is compatible with the human cells

and does not raise concerns of immune reactions. Thus, chitosan has become a common

thickener, stabilizer, and manufacturing agent for food products and biomaterials. Due to

16
its biodegradable properties, chitosan is widely used in agriculture in environmentally

friendly biopesticides and fertilizers (Hirano and Kitaura 2000). In addition, chitosan has

been introduced as a feasible sustainable additive in earthen construction.

In terms of civil and environmental engineering, chitosan has been used as a

coagulant to remove contaminants such as Cu2+, P3-, Cd2+, Zn2+, and Pb2+ from waste

water and groundwater. Moreover, the injection of chitosan into organic waste

suspensions promotes coagulation, accelerating separation (settlement) of organic matter.

The cationic charges of chitosan show electrostatic interaction with the negative charges

of clay particles, forming coagulates in clay suspensions and rendering face-to-face

packing clay sediments (Chang, 2010). For soil stabilization, chitosan coats the surface of

sand particles and enhances the filtration of waste removal via pore clogging, which

significantly reduces the hydraulic conductivity of soils.

F. Agar

Agar is obtained from the red algae (e.g., Gelidium, Gracilaria, and Gelidiella) or red

seaweeds. Figure 6 shows the chemical structure of agar. Large quantities of Gelidium have

been harvested in Spain, Portugal, and Morocco. Some Gracilaria are found in the cold

waters of Chile and Canada, and some species live in warm, tropical climate water in

Indonesia. Gelidiella is mainly distributed in India, mostly in the tropical and subtropical

waters. When agar forms gels, it provides rigid textures and has been used as a stabilizer

17
(Chang and Prasidhi, 2015).

Figure 6: The chemical structure of agar

2.2.2 Advantages of using biopolymers as soil stabilizers

Biopolymer-based soil treatment BPST has been introduced in the fields of construction and

geotechnical engineering, with biopolymers serving as binders for soil treatment and ground

improvement. However, numerous studies have been conducted to verify its engineering and

economic feasibility. Biopolymers such as agar gum, guar gum, gellan gum, dextran, β-

glucan, xanthan gum, chitosan, starch, and casein have been commonly studied. Current

findings show the following geotechnical engineering responses of BPST:

i. Strength

BPST significantly enhances the strength of soils, mostly through the improvement of

interparticle cohesion rather than altering the friction angle of the soil. For instance,

BPST induces a significant UCS (200 kPa–12.6 MPa) and cohesion (40–235 kPa)

increase, while friction angle shows less variation depending on soil type, biopolymer

type, biopolymer content, and moisture condition. The dehydration of hydrogels renders

higher soil strength than in submerged or saturated conditions.

18
 ii. Consistency

BPST generally increases the liquid limit of soils due to the water adsorption and

enhanced pore-fluid viscosity via biopolymer hydrogel formation, resulting in an increase

of undrained shear strength.

iii. Erosion resistance

As BPST enhances the interparticle cohesion and undrained shear strength of soils,

biopolymer treatment shows sufficient reduction in severe surface erosion and land

degradation in arid, semi-arid, and highly degradable regions

iv. Ground water control

Most hydrophilic biopolymers show high water-holding capacity, resulting in the

improved water retention behavior of BPTSs. However, swelled biopolymer hydrogels

induce ore clogging, which significantly reduces the hydraulic conductivity of soils. For

instance, BPST reduces the hydraulic conductivity of sand by the order of 10–4

depending on biopolymer type and content.

v. Ground improvement

The strengthening and hydraulic conductivity control characteristics of BPST have

advantages in ground improvement. For instance, biopolymers can become a grouting

material, as numerous studies show biopolymer grout materials to be adequate in terms of

ground permeability control and site workability

vi. Sustainability

Most biopolymers are environmentally friendly because they are mostly microbial

hydrocarbons with low CO2 footprints compared to conventional soil binders. Moreover,

19
recent studies show that BPST promotes seed germination and the growth of vegetation

in soil, which becomes another benefit in terms of sustainability.

2.3 Agar Biopolymer

Agar, more correctly known as agar-agar, has been used in the East for several hundred

years and certainly since the seventeenth century. In Japan, agar is considered to have

been discovered by Minoya Tarozaemon in 1658 and a monument is that Shimizu-mura

commemorates the first time it was manufactured. Originally, and even in the present

times, it was made and sold as an extract in solution (hot) or in gel form (cold), to be used

promptly in areas near the factories.

A Japanese legend is told about the first preparation of agar:

"A Japanese Emperor and his Royal Party were lost in the mountains during a

snow storm and arriving at a small inn, they were ceremoniously treated by the innkeeper

who offered them a seaweed jelly dish with their dinner. Maybe the innkeeper prepared

too much jelly or the taste was not so palatable but some jelly was thrown away, freezing

during the night and crumbling afterwards by thawing and draining, leaving a cracked

substance of low density. The innkeeper took the residue and, to his surprise, found that

by boiling it up with more water the jelly could be remade".

Agar is useful in the food industry as a gelling and thickening agent with particularly

good properties in acidic dairy products where it is used as a stabilizer. Another key property

of agar is the large hysteresis between the melting and setting temperatures which is unusual

for a polysaccharide. One of the single biggest users of agar in the west

20
is in the baking industry where the very high melting points of the agar gels make them

particularly suitable to the baking process. Agar has good compatibility with sugar and

can be used in very high sugar environments that would precipitate most other gums.

Earlier agar was used as foods like desserts, seaweed soup, ice creams etc. Then

the beginning of 19th century agar was being used for solid medium for growing various

microbes. In 1882 agar was first used in microbiology by German microbiologist Walther

Hess.

Different seaweeds used as the raw material in agar production have given rise to

products with differences in their behaviour, although they can all be included in the

general definition of agar. For this reason, when agar is mentioned, it is customary to

indicate its original raw material as this can affect its applications. To describe the

product more accurately, it is usual to mention the origin of the seaweeds, since

Gracilaria agar from Chile has different properties from Gracilaria agar from Argentina

and Gelidium agar from Spain differs from Gelidium agar from Mexico.

Originally Gelidium agar constituted what we consider as a genuine agar, assigning

the term agaroids to the products extracted from other seaweeds. Although these agaroids do

not have the same properties as Gelidium agar, they can be used as substitutes under certain

conditions. After World War II, the Japanese industry was forced to use increasing quantities

of raw materials other than the traditional Gelidium pacificum or Gelidium amansii due to the

growing demand of the international food industry.

An increase in the agar gel strength was obtained through improvements in the

industrial process during the fifties, and the differences between the genuine Gelidium agar

21
and the agaroids then available became clearer. The gel strength increased from 400

2 2
g/cm (the maximum for natural agar produced by the cottage industry) to 750 g/cm or

more for the agar produced by industrial methods. The gel strength data refer to the

Nikan-Sui method which replaced the primitive Kobe method used in the past.

2.3.1 Structure of Agar Biopolymer

The original structure of agar was believed to be a simple sulphated poly galactose.

However, in 1937, research showed that agar consisted of at least two separate polymers

that could be fractionated. One is a combination of a linear polysaccharide called agarose

and the other a heterogeneous mixture of smaller molecules called agaropectin.

The gelling agent in this agar is agarose which is considered as the main component

in the agar mixture (Edward and Madras, 1857). Agarose is a linear and neutral polymer

which has the molar mass of about 120000. Agarose composed with agarobiose repeating

disaccharide units with alternating 1,3-linked-bD-galactopyranose and 1,4-linked-3,6-

anhydro a-Lgalactopyranose. It is usually extracted from some seaweed species.

Agaropectin (or better, the agaropectins) have a low gelling power in water. At

the present time, a specific structure has not been assigned to the agaropectins. It is

customary to say that they are formed by alternating the units of D-galactose and L-

galactose, and that they contain all the polar groups existing in agar. It has been verified

that L-galactose 6-sulfate and D-galactose 4-sulfate are the major sulfate residues in agar.

From small to moderate quantities of 3,6-anhydro-L-galactose have also been detected.

These small quantities vary depending on the origin of the seaweed, the harvesting

season, the treatment applied during the agar manufacturing process and the treatment

used during the agarose separation process.

22
 The presence of 4,6-0-(1-carboxyethylidene)-D-galactose has also been verified,

making the position of pyruvic acid in the structure perfectly clear. This unit is relatively

important in agaropectin but in agarose it appears in much lower levels, as mentioned

previously, probably because agarose has terminal units of 4,6-0-(1-carboxyethylidene)-

D-galactose. The quantity of pyruvic acid in agar and agarose varies widely depending on

the seaweeds used as raw material; we have verified quantities between 0.2-2.50% in

agar and 0.02-1.30% in agarose.

2.3.2 Extraction of Agar Biopolymer

Agar can be extracted in a variety of ways but the basic methodology revolves around

dissolving the agar from the seaweed with hot water, separating the agar from the cell

wall residues by filtration and then isolating the agar from the dilute solution. Various

methods have been developed to isolate the agar from solution; the traditional method

relies on cutting the gel into strips and allowing it to freeze overnight and thaw out the

next day in the sun. Due to the high level of syneresis produced in an agar gel the strips

loose water on each freezing and cooling cycle until a dry strip is formed. this strip is

known in Japanese as Kanten which literally translates as "Frozen sky"

Industrially Agar can be made in several ways. One method involves freezing agar

solutions in ice tanks. It is simply a scaled-up version of the traditional method. A newer

method, which only works for agar types that have significant syneresis such as gracillaria,

involves forming blocks of gel wrapped in clothes and literally pressing the water out of the

blocks. The pressing is usually done with large static concrete weights. The pressed agar is

then usually pressed again in hydraulic presses to reduce the water content even further prior

to drying. A variation of the gel pressing method involves pumping broken

23
agar gel into large filter presses and using the pressure from the feed pumps to force

water out of the matrix. This technology was pioneered by Hispanagar in the 1960's and

is now the dominant method of pressing agar. Another methodology involves roller

drying the extracted agar. This method has the advantage in that it can utilize a variety of

agar species including gelidium which cannot be pressed easily. (Jones and Peats, 1942)

Agar gel strength can be improved by removing some of the ester sulphates from

the agar chain by alkali treatment. Alkali treatment also increases syneresis and makes

pressing the agar easier. Traditional agar is sold in strip or block form. Commercial agar

is normally milled into a coarse powder.

2.3.3 Effect of Agar concentration on soil properties

Figure 8 shows the unconfined compressive strength of air-dried-biopolymer-treated

clayey soils (i.e., Korean residual soil) (Figure 8(a)) and sandy soils (Figure 8(b)) with

time (i.e., up to 28 days). As the duration of air drying of agar-treated soils increases, the

unconfined compressive strength of clayey/sandy soil with biopolymers (i.e., gellan gum

and agar) improves.

The higher concentration of agar improves the compressive strength values in

both clayey and sandy soils. SEM image of agar-clayey soil mixtures shows that agar

gels cover massive mixtures of the clayey soil and agar because of the indirect

interactions by long molecular structures of agar wrap clayey soil particles as shown in

Figure 9 (Chang and Prasidhi, 2015.)

24
 Figure 7: Agar Extraction Diagram

2.4.4 Advantages and Limitations of using Agar Biopolymer

Agar biopolymer has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional soil stabilizers due to

its environmentally friendly nature, swelling reduction properties, and ability to increase soil

strength. As a natural biodegradable polymer, it forms a hydrogel structure around soil

particles, improving soil stability and reducing swelling in expansive soils. However, there

25
are some limitations to using agar as a soil stabilizer, including the concentration

requirements and the need for more research on its effectiveness in different soil types.

Figure 8: Unconfined compressive strength with time for (a) biopolymer-

treated clayey soil and (b) biopolymer-treated sandy soil dried in air at room
temperature (20 ± 2°C)

Figure 9: SEM image of agar-treated clayey soil

26
2.4 Background on Lateritic Soils

The land is an inseparable part of the construction of civil buildings because all city

buildings are more on the ground. Land has different specifications and characteristics of

each type. It has the most important function such as supporting the foundation of

building constructions, roads, etc.

Lateritic soils are generally found in warm, humid, tropical areas of the world.

The geotechnical properties of these soils are quite different from those soils developed

in temperate or cold regions of the world. The properties of these soils are influenced by

climate, geology and the degree of weathering or laterization.

In this tropical part of the world, lateritic soils are used as a road making material

and they form the sub-grade of most tropical road. They are used as sub base and bases

for low-cost roads and thus carry low to medium traffic.

Since the discovery of lateritic soils by Francis Buchanan-Hamilton, (1807) in

Malabar, India laterite has been defined and described by a number of researchers in several

different ways. Ola, (1978) used local terminology in defining lateritic soils as all products of

tropical weathering with reddish, brown colour, with or without nodules or concretion, but

not exclusively found below hardened ferruginous crust of hardpan. Osula, (1984) defined

laterite as a highly weathered tropical soil rich in secondary oxides of combination of iron,

aluminium and manganese. Laterite (also known as “red soils”) is used to cover all weathered

soils that have been involved in the accumulation of oxides of iron, aluminium or silica.

(Alexander and Candy, 1962) explained that laterites are nearly devoid of bases and primary

silicate, but may contain large amount of quartz and kaolite. It is either hard

27
or capable of hardening on exposure to wetting and drying. With the progress in chemical

analysis, more and more samples were analyzed and this showed the typical increase of iron

and frequently of aluminium and decrease of silica in relation to the underlying parent rock.

Therefore, attempts were made to define laterites by the ratio Si: (Al + Fe) but a definite limit

was not applicable for laterites on different parent rocks (Gidigasu, 1976).

Nickel laterites occur in zones of the earth which experienced prolonged tropical

weathering of ultramafic rocks containing the ferro-magnesian minerals olivine,

pyroxene, and amphibole (Alao, 1983). Many existing laterites are clearly relics of

geologic antiquity. Van der Voort, (1950) expresses the opinion that true lateritic soils

only occur on old geological formations and were probably formed under paleo-climatic

conditions. Lacroix, (1913) in his studies on laterites from West Africa recognized

hydrargillite (considered to be identical with gibbsite), limonite, kaolinite, halloysite and

hydrated titanic acid as some important minerals in laterites.

The genesis of laterite, since not completely understood even today has given rise to

various theories and postulates. Lake, (1890) summarized the earliest ideas on laterite

formation and suggested three different hypotheses as follows;

i. Laterite is a residual alteration product

ii. Laterite is a detrital and sedimentary product

iii. Laterite is of volcanic origin

D’hoore (1954) grouped these theories into two:

i. Concentration of sesquioxide by removal of silica and bases i.e. relative

accumulation

28
 ii. Concentration of sesquioxide by accumulation either across the profile or between

profiles i.e. absolute accumulation.

There is no specific basis for assuming that laterization can occur due to a single

process, although certain fundamental conditions are pre-requisite to the chemical and

mineralogical alterations that occur, these may be satisfied by a variety of local

conditions of weathering reactions, water relationships and other factors.

2.4.1 Geotechnical Properties of Lateritic Soils

To get the geotechnical properties of lateritic soils in Nigeria, our case study will be

based on three main parts of the country which are South Eastern Nigeria, South Western

Nigeria, North Central Nigeria. This will give an insight into the general geotechnical

attributes of lateritic soils in the country.

A. Lateritic Properties of soils in South-Eastern Nigeria

The study area, Okigwe Area, lies between latitude 50451 - 50561.N and longitude

70151-70251E with an altitude of about 300m above sea level. The major towns in the

area are Okigwe Town, Ihube-Okigwe Nkoto-Okigwe, Umulolo, Anuro-Okigwe, Leru,

Lokpaukwu, Lekwesi and Ubaha towns.

The lateritic soil deposit in the study area were formed as residual soils by

chemical weathering of the geologic formations in the study area.

The geologic formations of Anambra Basin are Nkporo Formation, Mamu Formation,

Ajali Formation, Nsukka formation Imo Shale, Ameki Formation and Ogwashi Asaba

Formation (Reyment, 1964 and 1965; Offodile, 1975; Hoque, 1977; Ofoegbu, 1985;

Agumanu, 1986; Nwajide, 2005). Most of these formations outcrop in the study area.

29
 Table 1 is a generalized stratigraphic sequence of sedimentary rock in the study

area.

Table 1: Generalized stratigraphic sequence in Okigwe Area.

AGE FORMATION LITHOLOGICAL

CHARACTERISTICS

Paleocene Imo Formation (Imo Blue to dark grey shales and

(55-65 m.y.) Shale) subordinate sandstone member
(Umuna and Ebenebe sandstone)

Maastricitian Nsukka Formation Alternating sequence of sandstone and

(65-68 m.y.) shale with coal seams.

Maastricitian Ajali Formation Friable sandstone with cross bedding

(65-68 m.y.)

Campanian Mama Formation Alternating sequence of sandstone,

(68-78 m.y.) siltstone, shale and claystone with coal
seams

Campanian Nkporo Formation Shale and mudstone with sandstone

(68-78 m.y.) (Enugu Shale) lenses

Source: Modified from Reyment, 1965, Offodile 1975, Mode 2004 and Ofoegbu, 1985.

Tests and Results

The five (5) lateritic soil samples used in the study were collected from existing borrow

pits used by construction companies as sources of laterites in Okigwe Area. The locations

30
of the soil deposits were selected to represent lateritic soils derived from various geologic

formations in the area

Some geotechnical tests were carried out on samples in the laboratory. These include

Atterberg limits, linear shrinkage, particle – size analysis, compaction (Standard Proctor) and

California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The geotechnical test was performed in accordance with the

British Standard Institution, BS 1377 (1990), American Standard for Testing Materials

(ASTM 2008a, and ASTM 2008b) at FUTO Institute of Erosion Studies (IES) Laboratory

and Quality Control Laboratory of ARAB Contractors, Owerri, Nigeria

Conclusion

The geotechnical properties of five (5) lateritic soil deposits derived from 3 geologic

formation 1 sample from Nsukka Formation; 2 samples from Ajali Formation; and 2

samples from Mamu Formation were determined and the results evaluated in terms of the

influence of the parent rock/geologic formation on the quality of the lateritic soils as road

construction materials.

Comparison of the results with the standard specifications of Federal Ministry of

Works for sub-base and base course materials (pavement materials: LL <36, PL <12, LS

<8, % fines < 30, CBR (soaked) <30 % and CBR (unsoaked) <80 % show that only the

lateritic soils derived from Ajali Formation and located at Ihube – Okigwe and Nkoto-

Okigwe satisfy every aspect of the geotechnical properties except CBR values (test

results less than the standard).

Although they have the highest values compared with soils derived from Nsukka

Formation and Mamu Formation. Lateritic soils derived from Nsukka Formation and

31
located at Umulolo and lateritic soils derived from Mamu Formation and located at Leru and

Lokpukwu do not satisfy plasticity and strength properties requirements (values of LL

> 36 %, PI >12 %, % fines >30%, linear shrinkage >8 % and CBR soaked <30 % CBR

unsoaked <80 %). They are therefore likely to deteriorate faster than soils derived from

Ajali Formation when used as road pavement materials, for sub-base and base course.

Table 2: Location of Sampling Points for Laterites Used in the Study

LOCATION GEOLOGIC
FORMATION

Umulolo Nsukka
Formation

Ihube-Okigwe Ajali Formation

Nkoto-Okigwe Ajali Formation

Leru Mamu
Formation

Lokpukwu Mamu
Formation

32
 Table 3: Summary of Geotechnical Properties of Lateritic Soils Derived from Various

Geologic Formations in Okigwe Area

Parameter Geologic formation/location Federal

Ministry
of Works
Nsukka Ajali Formation Mamu Formation
Formation (Ajali Sandstone) Standard
(1970)

Umulolo Ihube – Nkoto – Average Leru Lokpukw Averag

(1) Okigwe Okigwe (4) u (5) e
(2)

Liquid limit 38.00 33.00 23.00 28.00 52.00 54.20 53.10 <36
(%)

Plastic Limit 27.70 22.70 13.60 18.15 31.60 36.60 34.10 -

(%)

Plasticity 14.30 10.30 9.40 9.85 20.40 18.10 19.25 <12

index (%)

Linear 8.30 5.00 4.60 4.80 8.90 9.10 9.00 <8

Shrinkage(S)

% Fines 36.10 19.90 19.70 19.70 43.00 36.70 39.83 <30

(<0.075mm)

Coefficient of 18.50 16.30 7.51 11.91 14.40 8.67 11.54 >4

uniformity
(Cu)

Max Dry 2.10 2.04 1.92 1.98 1.90 1.96 1.93 >1.76
Density
(Mg/m3)

Opt. 9.5 10.80 11.60 11.2 11.00 18.00 14.5 -

moisture
content (%)

33
CBR 67 74 76 75 48 38 43 >80
(unsoaked
%)

CBR 22 29 29 29 27 22 25 >30
(soaked %)

B. Properties of Lateritic soils in South Western Nigeria

The study area is located in Mohammad Buhari Estate in Abeokuta-North local

government area, Abeokuta the capital of Ogun State, Nigeria. The area is accessed

through Sagamu Abeokuta express road, Oke Mosan. It lies within longitude 03°21’54”

E to 03°22’48” E of the Greenwich Meridian and between latitude 07°9’38” N to

07°10’22” N of the Equator. Study sites constitute active burrow pit from which

construction materials used for road works within Abeokuta are gotten.

Tests and Results

Five representative samples were collected from 0.25m deep from the ground. This was

followed by oven-drying of the samples. Large soil particles (clods) in the sample were

broken with a wooden mallet. The materials used during the collection of the samples were

sample bags, Geographic positioning system (GPS), masking tape for labeling, marker for

field indentation and soil auger. Laboratory procedures were followed in the determination of

natural moisture content of the samples. Thereafter, several of the required geotechnical

analyses were carried out. These include particle size analysis. Atterberg limits test, standard

compaction test and the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test.

34
 The result of the laboratory analyses is summarized in Table 4 while Table 5 shows the

summary of results analysis as compared with Nigeria Standard of soil classification for

roads and bridges in accordance to Federal Ministry of Works and Housing (1997)

specification.

Conclusion
The result showed that the studied soil samples are classified as clay, silty clay easily

compactable with good drainage. The soil samples tested from the study area indicate a

general cohesive nature with low moisture content, high granular material, which is

suitable for road construction. These data obtained from the geotechnical analysis can be

useful for civil engineers in the design and construction of roads in Abeokuta and

environs for maximum durability and efficiency.

Table 4: Summary of Laboratory Results

Particle
Depth of size Compaction Atterberg Limit
Samples Samples analysis test Unsoaked Specific
No (m) (%) CBR gravity
passing
OMC MDD LL PL PI
% mg/m3

1. 0.25 99.32 28.30 1.73 32.50 21.00 20.40 15.10 2.57

2. 0.25 31.16 18.20 1.43 21.80 22.00 5.90 12.52 2.63

3. 0.25 24.64 22.45 1.60 40.10 10.00 2.80 42.30 2.89

4. 0.25 12.70 21.00 1.48 15.80 20.70 12.4 55.84 2.51

35
 5. 0.25 11.16 25.00 1.81 12.00 18.50 19.50 30.25 2.69

Table 5: Summary of Results Analysis as Compared with Nigeria Standard of Soil

Classification for Roads and Bridges

Samples 1 2 3 4 5

Particle size 99.32 31.16 24.64 12.70 11.16

analysis Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass

OMC 28.30 18.20 22.45 21.00 25.00

Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

MDD 1.73 1.40 1.60 1.48 1.81

Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail

LL 32.50 21.80 40.10 15.80 12.80

Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass

PL 21.00 22.00 10.00 20.70 18.50

Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

PI 20.40 5.90 2.80 12.40 19.50

Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail

Specific gravity 2.57 2.63 2.89 2.51 2.69

Good Good Poor Good Good

36
CBR 15.10 12.52 42.30 55.84 30.25

Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

Overall rating Sub-base Sub-base Base Base Base

C. Properties of lateritic Soils in North Central Nigeria

The study area is Sauka-Kahuta industrial layout, behind the Minna building material

market. It lies within longitude 06°28’11” E to 06°32’13” E of the Greenwich Meridian

and between latitude 09°35’22” N to 09°30’36” N of the Equator. The study area has an

undulating topography drained by river chanchaga and its tributaries. The area is within

the Guinea Savannah with an annual rainfall of about 1100 mm in the northern part and

1600 mm in the southern part.

Tests and Results

The sub-soil conditions were investigated by excavating five trial pits from existing ground

level to a maximum of 4.5 m according to British standard code of practice for site

investigation (1981), depending on topography and overburden. Disturbed samples soil

samples were collected from the trial pits and analyzed at civil engineering laboratory,

Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria for relevant geotechnical analysis.

The laboratory analysis was performed according British standard methods of test for soil

for civil engineering purposes (BS 1377: Part 1-9, 1990). The laboratory test carried out

to determine the suitability of the lateritic soils for use as base and sub-base material

using the AASHTO standard method in relation to the generation specification for roads

and bridges.

37
The result of the laboratory analyses is summarized in Table 6 while the Federal Ministry

of Works and Housing general specification for road and bridges is shown in table 7.

Conclusion

The result showed that the studied soil samples are classified as sandyclay,

incompressible, easily compactable with good drainage. The soil samples tested from the

study area indicate a general cohesive nature with low moisture content, high granular

material which is suitable for road construction except location 5.

These valuable data obtained from the geotechnical analysis can be useful for

civil engineers in the design and construction of roads in Minna and environs for

maximum durability and efficiency. It is recommended that engineering confirmatory test

be carried out before embarking on any construction such as road. Location 5 which

failed lateritic soil should be stabilized with either of the traditional stabilizers in order to

meet the sub-base or base course requirement.

Table 6: Summary of Laboratory Results

Sieve Compaction Atterberg Limit California

Analysi Test Test Bearing Ratio
s

Tria Depth of % MDD OM LL PL PI Soake Unsoake

l Pit Samplin passing (g/cm3 C d d
No g ) (%)

L1 2.0 1.41 2.05 12.10 34.5 21. 13. 11.0 28.0

0 5

38
 L2 2.0 31.9 2.06 13.20 36.6 24. 12. 40.0 3.0
5 1

L3 2.0 0.8 2.18 7.81 33.5 22. 11. 18.0 30.0

0 5

L4 2.0 2.1 2.33 6.30 23.5 14. 9.2 64.9 77.5

3

L5 2.0 2.5 2.35 6.50 22.5 13. 8.7 72.7 83.3

8

L6 2.0 0.0 2.11 9.05 35.5 23. 12. 36.0 48.0

0 0 5

L7 2.0 34.4 2.08 10.80 37.5 24. 13. 54.0 0.0

2 3

L8 2.0 56.8 1.79 14.30 49.6 28. 21. 5.1 1.0

0 6

L9 2.0 2.2 2.19 9.50 15.8 12. 3.8 9.0 40.0

0

L10 2.0 55.9 1.81 14.40 41.4 22. 19. 7.7 0.0
0 4

Table 7: Nigerian Standard of soil classification for roads and bridges

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sample P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

34.5 36.6 33.5 23.5 22.5 35.5 Pass 49.6 Pass 41.4
L.L (≤35%) Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail 34.5 Fail 34.5 Fail
Pass

39
 P.I(≤12%) 13.5 12.1 11.5 9.5 8.7 12.5 Pass 21.6 13. 19.4

Fail 3
comment Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail 11.3 Fail
5 Fail

C.B.R soaked 11.0 40.0 18.0 64.90 72.70 36.0 54 5.1 9.0 7.7

for subbase
Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail
(≥30%)

C.B.R

unsoaked Base 32.0 ND 30.0 77.5 83.8 48.0 ND ND 40.0 ND

course Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail
(≥80%)

Overall Rating Sub Sub Sub Base Base Sub Sub Poor Poor Poor

base base base base- base-

ND: not determined

2.5 Previous work on Biopolymer Stabilization

A. Jayaprakash Reddy Joga and Varaprasad

This study explored the use of Xanthan Gum as a biopolymer to treat expansive soil, aiming

to create a more sustainable environment and reduce the adverse effects of traditional

admixtures in soil stabilization. Various tests, such as Standard Proctor Test, Unconfined

Compressive Strength (UCS), One-Dimensional Consolidation, and Standard Direct Shear

40
tests, were performed on virgin soil and biopolymer-treated soils with Xanthan Gum

content ranging from 0 to 2.5%. The major findings of the study can be summarized as

follows:

The addition of Xanthan Gum resulted in a reduction in Maximum Dry Density

(MDD) and an increase in Optimum Water Content (OMC) of the soil. Unconfined

Compressive Strength (UCS) increased by four times with 1% Xanthan Gum addition

after a 28-day curing period. Soil compressibility decreased by 65% during this curing

period, while shear parameters of treated soil improved with Xanthan Gum content.

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) analysis revealed the presence of white

lumps in the soil fabric, indicating the formation of a cementitious gel that filled the soil

structure's pores, thus improving soil stabilization. Furthermore, the resistance to shear

and compressibility of the treated samples increased with curing times, demonstrating the

efficacy of Xanthan Gum as a soil stabilizing material.

B. Antonio Soldo et al., 2020.

In response to the demand for sustainable solutions to enhance soft soil properties prior to

construction, this research explored the potential of five biopolymers – Xanthan Gum,

Beta 1,3/1,6 Glucan, Guar Gum, Chitosan, and Alginate – as eco-friendly substitutes to

chemical stabilizers such as cement. The study evaluated the impact of these biopolymers

on soil strength enhancement through unconfined compression, splitting tensile, triaxial,

and direct shear tests, considering various concentrations of biopolymers and curing

periods. The susceptibility of plain soil and biopolymer-treated specimens to natural

elements was also assessed by exposing them to real atmospheric conditions. The study's

key findings are as follows:

41
 Soil strength improvements were generally observed with increased biopolymer

concentrations and longer curing times. However, beyond a specific biopolymer

concentration and curing time, the improvements were not significant. Biopolymer-

treated specimens demonstrated higher resistance to environmental conditions compared

to plain soil specimens. Xanthan Gum, Guar Gum, and Beta 1,3/1,6 Glucan emerged as

the most promising biopolymers for sustainable engineering applications due to their

potential in enhancing soil properties while minimizing environmental impact.

C. Kajal Swain, 2015.

This research explores stabilizing expansive and dispersive soil with geopolymers and

biopolymers to improve their engineering properties. Sodium-based alkaline activators

and fly ash were employed as geopolymers, while Xanthan gum and Guar gum served as

biopolymers. The efficacy of geopolymers and biopolymers was evaluated through

various tests.

In geopolymer stabilization, the use of 40% fly ash and 15% bentonite resulted in

a significant reduction in swelling pressure, demonstrating the effectiveness of

geopolymers for controlling expansive soil properties. Alkali-activated fly ash effectively

managed bentonite dispersiveness. Unconfined compressive strength and durability tests

showed improved performance with the addition of 40% fly ash and 10% solution to

bentonite.

For biopolymer stabilization, dispersion tests showed that dispersive soil and pond

ash mixed with Xanthan gum and Guar gum were not dispersive and displayed better

durability compared to ordinary bottom ash and untreated dispersive soil samples. Guar

42
gum was found to provide higher confined compressive strength and durability than

Xanthan gum, making it a more effective biopolymer for soil stabilization.

D. Idoui Imane et al., 2021.

This research explores the potential of utilizing wheat straw, a natural fibrous waste, to

stabilize swelling clay soils in northern Algeria. The primary goal is to enhance the

physical and mechanical properties of these soils while promoting sustainable

development and waste management in wheat-producing areas. Traditional clay treatment

methods, such as lime, cement, and pozzolans, can pose environmental issues, which has

led to a growing interest in biotechnological engineering applications, including

biopolymers, bacteria, enzymes, and natural fibers.

A series of laboratory tests, such as Atterberg limit, Proctor test, direct shear test,

Oedometer test, and unconfined compressive strength test, were performed on

reconstituted clay soil with defined initial properties and varying percentages of wheat

straw to assess its impact on soil stabilization.

The study's findings demonstrated an improvement in the compressibility

characteristics of the treated soil and a substantial reduction in both swelling index and

compressibility index as the wheat straw content increased. These results highlight the

potential of wheat straw as an environmentally friendly and effective stabilizing agent for

clay soils.

E. Josif Josifovski and Aleksandra Nikolovska, 2022.

This research focuses on using xanthan gum, a natural biopolymer, as an eco-friendly

solution for slope stabilization. Climate change can negatively impact slope stability 43
through various factors, making it essential to introduce techniques that increase erosion

resistance, reduce water infiltration, and are environmentally friendly. The testing

methodology was divided into two phases:

Phase 1 involved laboratory tests on natural and biopolymer-treated soil samples

with varying xanthan gum concentrations. The results showed that xanthan gum

significantly increased soil strength, up to 50% after 14 days of curing. While phase 2

involved testing treated and untreated slopes during simulated rainfall. The treated slope

displayed excellent erosion resistance, with no soil erosion during the test. In contrast, the

untreated slope had an erosion rate of 9.5%.

The study concludes that xanthan gum offers an efficient and sustainable solution

for erosion control and slope stabilization. Its application fills soil pores, limits water

infiltration, and improves interparticle cohesion, ultimately enhancing erosion resistance.

Xanthan gum can also promote vegetation growth, ensuring long-term erosion control

and slope stability.

44
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Site Selection

In this study, the objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of agar biopolymer in

enhancing soil properties, improving stability, and providing a sustainable solution for

addressing issues such as erosion, settlement, and deformation.

The study area chosen for this investigation is Ile-Ife in Osun State, Southwestern

Nigeria. Ile-Ife consists of four Local Government Areas (Ife central, Ife South, Ife South,

and Ife North). with Ife Central and Ife East located within Ile-Ife Township, having a

combined population of 501,952 (Ajala and Olayiwola, 2013; Udama et al., 2017)

3.1.1 Sample Collection

The soil sample was collected from a dredging site within the Ile-Ife study area. The

samples were then transported to the Civil Engineering Geotechnical Lab at Obafemi

Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State where a comprehensive analysis of the sample

was conducted.

3.2 Methods

The following procedures listed below, will be carried out in order to achieve the

objective of this study.

i. Determination of the index properties of the lateritic Soil in its natural state

ii. Determination of the strength properties of the lateritic soil in its natural state

45
 iii. Preparation of agar biopolymer

iv. Geotechnical analysis of the lateritic soil in their stabilized state

v. Determination of effect of stabilized soil from statistical analysis of the test result

obtained.

3.2.1 Determination of the Index Properties of the lateritic Soil in its Natural State

To measure the initial moisture content, the collected soil sample was accurately weighed

using a balance, following the guidelines set forth in ASTM D2216-10. The sample was

o o
then placed in an oven at a specified temperature, typically 105 C or 110 C, until a

constant weight was achieved. This process ensured the complete removal of water

content from the soil.

Subsequently, the moisture content was calculated using the following formula:
− × %

The samples will then be airdried before using being subjected to other tests to determine

their other index properties.

The specific gravity test was conducted as per ASTM D792 standard. It determines

the ratio of solid soils to water. The sample was oven-dried to a constant weight between

o o
105 C and 110 C. A clean, dry pycnometer and stopper were also weighed, and 100g of the

dried soil was placed into the pycnometer. The pycnometer was then filled with distilled

water, ensuring complete immersion of the soil, and air bubbles were removed by gently

tapping the pycnometer. The combined weight of the pycnometer, water, and soil was

measured, and the density of water at the test temperature, typically 20oC, was determined.

46
Simultaneously, a 500g of collected sample was accurately weighed according to ASTM

D422 specifications. A set of standard sieves with sizes ranging from 4,75mm to 75µm

were arranged in decreasing order of mesh size. The sample was initially subjected to a

wet wash through 75µm, 425µm, and 1,18mm sieves. After the wet wash, the soil was

oven dried at 100oC for 24 hours and then manually sieved through the standard sieves.

The percentage passing (Pi) through each sieve was calculated using the formular:
( )
× %

The Atterberg limits tests was performed according to the procedures given in

ASTM D4318. The liquid limit (LL) will be determined using the Casagrande apparatus

method with Particles passing through 0.425 mm (sieve No. 40). The test procedure will

be repeated four times and the moisture content corresponding to 25 blows on the semi-

log scale is taken as the LL

A portion of the soil sample prepared for the Liquid Limit (LL) test will be used

for the Plastic Limit (PL) test. The Plastic limit (PL) will be obtained by rolling he

sample into thin threads of about 3mm and continuing with the procedure until the thread

breaks. This procedure will be repeated four times and the average taken as the PL value.

The plasticity index (PI) of the soils will thus be obtained from the LL and PL

value of the sample according to the formula:

= −

47
3.2.2 Determination of the Strength Properties of the lateritic soil in its natural state

Laboratory tests such as compaction, California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and unconfined

compressive strength (UCS) tests are used to determine strength properties such as the

dry density, bearing capacity and compressive strength of soils.

The soil compaction test was conducted using the west African standard method,

employing a 4.5kg rammer with a drop height f0.45m and a mold volume of 0.002124m3.

compaction will be carried out in 5 layers with 27 blows each, and the test will be repeated 5

times increasing the moisture content b 2% for each successive test. The compaction curve,

max dry density, optimum moisture content will be obtained from this test.

The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was performed according to ASTM

D1883, using the OMC obtained during the soil compaction test to determine the CBR

value of the soils at their MDDs. The force values at 0.25mm penetration intervals will be

taken up to a maximum penetration of 7,5mm, and the CBR test graph will be plotted.

The CBR value will be calculated using the equation:

× %

The greater of the values obtained for the 2.5mm and 5mm test unit loads will be

considered the CBR value of the sample.

For the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) test, 38mm × 76mm cylindrical
samples will be molded at a determined moisture content, following the procedures outlined
in ASTM D2166. The samples will be subjected to a constantly increasing axial force, and
the force measuring gauge and axial deformation will be read simultaneously at

48
regular intervals. The stress strain curve will be plotted, and the unconfined compressive

strength will be determined from these readings.

3.2.3 Preparation of agar biopolymer

The biopolymer solution was prepared according to Naman et al (2021). Different

concentration (0.3%, 0.06%, 0.12%, and 0.2%) of agar solution was prepared by mixing a

calculated amount of agar powder to distilled water on the basis of weight/volume ratio.

For example, when preparing for 0.2% of agar solution, 8g of agar powder will be mixed

o
with 870ml (OMC) of water. The mixture will then be heated at 100 C for 5 minutes to

reduce the viscosity of the solution. Additional water was added to compensate for the

water loss due to evaporation during the heating process. The resulting solution was then

mixed immediately with 6000g of the lateritic sample.

3.2.4 Geotechnical Analysis of the lateritic soil in their stabilized state

As said earlier, the soil was treated with biopolymer solution containing varying

concentration of Agar (0.03%, 0.06%, 0.12% and 0.2% W/V) at three different curing

periods (0 day, 7 days and 28 days). The curing periods for the biopolymer-treated soils

o
samples were conducted at both room (23 C) and at elevated temperature (preferably

o
60 C). This approach allowed for the investigation of the effects of different temperatures

on the curing process and the resulting properties of the treated soil.

After the curing period, we then carry out the index property test (Atterberg limit test),

and the strength property (UCS test to be precise) using the procedures outlined earlier,

allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of the soil’s properties and the effects of the

biopolymer treatment.

49
Table 8 shows a simple explanation of how the curing periods/tests will go.

Table 8: Experimental Program

Concentration (% by Curing Time (Days) o

Curing Temperature ( C)

mass)

0 23, 60
0.03 7 23, 60

28 23, 60

0 23, 60
0.06 7 23, 60

28 23, 60

0 23, 60
0.12 7 23, 60

28 23, 60

0 23, 60
0.20 7 23, 60

28 23, 60

3.2.5 Determination of effect of stabilizer

The effect of the stabilizer on the treated soil sample will be evaluate by doing

comparative analysis of the results obtain with the result obtained from the preliminary

analysis of the soil in its natural state.

50
 CHAPTER 4
STAGE REACHED AND EXPECTED RESULT
4.1 General Overview

This chapter provides a summary of the progress made in the project, highlighting the

importance of the results achieved thus far. It outlines the anticipated contributions of the

research to the existing knowledge base and assesses the viability and potential of using

agar biopolymer as a sustainable solution for soil stabilization techniques.

4.2 Stage Reached

4.2.1 Collection of Soil Sample and procurement of stabilizer

A lateritic soil sample was collected from a road construction borrow pit in Ile-Ife, Opa

community, Ago Iwoye Rd Osu, Osun State, Nigeria (Lat. 7° 32'56" N, Lon. 4° 25'7" E).

The sample was transported to the Obafemi Awolowo geotechnical laboratory, where the

natural moisture content was immediately determined using the Oven drying method

(BS-1377-2), resulting in a value of 14.23%. The excavated soil was then air-dried before

further testing in its natural state.

Dr. (Mrs.) A. L. Ayodele procured 500g of agar biopolymer powder, adhering to

the specifications provided by the Hi-Media data library.

4.2.2 Preliminary Analysis of soil sample in its natural state.

At the time of this report, a series of standardized tests have been conducted to characterize

the engineering properties of the undisturbed soil. These tests encompass the Atterberg limit

test, particle size distribution analysis, specific gravity test, compaction test to determine the

Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and Optimum Moisture Content (OMC), as

51
well as the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and Undrained Shear Strength

assessments. The purpose of these tests is to gain a thorough understanding of the soil's

properties and behavior in its natural state.

The Atterberg limit test revealed a liquid limit (LL) of 38.6% and a plastic limit

(PL) of 24.9%, resulting in a plasticity index of 13.7. These findings provide information

about the soil's consistency and plasticity. Based on the Atterberg limit results, the soil is

classified as A-6 (gravelly organic clay with sand) using the AASHTO system and CL

using the USCS system, indicating high plasticity index and clay content.

The specific gravity test yielded a value of 2.67, which suggests a high degree of

laterization in the soil (Lambe and Whiteman, 1969). Detailed analyses supporting these

values can be found in Appendix A.

The compaction test results revealed a Maximum Dry Density of 1.33 g/cm³ and

an Optimum Moisture Content of 14.53%, which are essential for understanding the soil's

compaction behavior. The Unconfined Compressive Strength test resulted in 1.77 MPa,

indicating the soil's load-bearing capacity, while the Undrained Shear Strength test

showed 0.84 MPa, reflecting its resistance to shear stresses.

These tests provide a comprehensive understanding of the soil's properties, which

serve as a basis for implementing biopolymer-based soil stabilization techniques to

improve its strength and stability in geotechnical applications. Further testing will be

conducted on treated soil samples with various stabilizing percentages at different curing

times to examine their effects on unconfined compressive strength and Atterberg limits

through comparative analysis. A summary of all test results is presented in Table 8.

52
4.3 Expected Result

By the conclusion of the research, it is anticipated that treated soil samples at different

concentrations will exhibit significant changes in unconfined compressive strength and

Atterberg limits (LL and PL). These changes will serve as the foundation for evaluating the

impact of agar biopolymer as a potential stabilizer, and its feasibility as an alternative to

traditional stabilizers. This research will also provide valuable insights into the possibility of

adopting agar biopolymer for large-scale use in soil stabilization applications.

4.4 Expected Contribution to Knowledge

The exploration of agar biopolymer as a soil stabilizer holds significant potential to

revolutionize sustainable construction practices and geotechnical engineering in various

aspects:

i. The investigation of agar biopolymer for soil stabilization purposes may contribute to

the creation of eco-friendly and sustainable construction practices, ultimately

decreasing dependence on conventional, less environmentally-conscious methods

ii. The findings of this study may reveal key characteristics of agar biopolymer that

contribute to its efficacy as a soil stabilizer, ultimately deepening the

understanding of its potential uses within the field of geotechnical engineering.

iii. By showcasing agar biopolymer's ability to enhance soil engineering properties,

such as unconfined compressive strength and Atterberg limits, this research could

positively impact numerous construction and infrastructure projects that rely on

stable and durable soil structures.

53
iv. This research could lead to the creation of novel soil stabilization techniques

utilizing agar biopolymer, which may provide cost-efficient, effective, and

sustainable options as compared to existing methods.

v. Through demonstrating the efficacy of agar biopolymer, this study has the

potential to broaden the application of biopolymers in geotechnical engineering,

positioning them as environmentally-friendly and practical substitutes for

conventional soil stabilizers.

54
 Table 8: Preliminary analysis Results of Soil in its Natural State

Type of Test Outcome

Natural Moisture (%) 14.23

Liquid Limit (%) 38.6

Plastic Limit (%) 24.9

Plasticity Index (%) 13.7

Specific Gravity 2.67

Optimum Moisture Content 14.53

Maximum Dry Density (g/cm )

3 1.33

Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 1.77

Undrained Shear Strength 0.85

% Passing Sieve No. 200 55.99

% Passing Sieve No. 10 99.28

% Passing Sieve No. 4 100

AASHTO Classification A-6

USCS Classification CL (gravelly organic clay with

sand)

55
 REFERENCE
Behnood A., (2018) “Soil and Clay Stabilization with Calcium-and Non-Calcium-Based

Additives: A State-of-The-Art Review of Challenges, Approaches and Techniques,”

Transp. Geotech., Vol. 17, Pp. 14–32.

Das, B.M. (2014). Principles Of Foundation Engineering.

Mcdowell C (1959) Stabilization of Soils with Lime, Lime-Fly-Ash, And Other Lime Reactive

Materials. Highway Res Board Bull 231:60–66

Abu-Farsakh M, Dhakal S, Chen Q (2015) Laboratory Characterization of Cementitiously

Treated/Stabilized Very Weak Subgrade Soil Under Cyclic Loading. Soils Found

55(3):504–516

Chittoori Bcs (2008) Clay Mineralogy Effects on Long-Term Performance of Chemically

Treated Expansive Clays, Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas At Arlington

Puppala A. J, Hanchanloet S, Jadeja M, Burkart B (1999) Sulfate Induced Heave Distress: A

Case Study. In: Proceedings, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,

Washington Dc, Usa

Cole, D. M., Ringelberg, D. B., And Reynolds, C. M. (2012). “Small-Scale Mechanical

Properties of Biopolymers.” Journal Of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 138(9), 1063-1074

M. S. Jeong, D.-H. Noh, E. Hong, K. S. Lee, And T.-H. Kwon, “Systematic Modeling Approach

to Selective Plugging Using in Situ Bacterial Biopolymer Production and Its Potential for

Microbial-Enhanced Oil Recovery,” Geomicrobiology Journal, Vol. 36, No. 5, Pp. 468–

481, 2019.

56
H. Lin, M. T. Suleiman, D. G. Brown, And E. Kavazanjian, “Mechanical Behavior of Sands

Treated by Microbially Induced Carbonate Precipitation,” Journal Of Geotechnical And

Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 142, No. 2, Article Id 04015066, 2016.

M. E. Hassan, J. Bai, And D. Q. Dou. Biopolymers; Definition, Classification and Applications

Lahaye M, Rochas C, Chemical Structure and Physico-Chemical Properties of Agar,

Hydrobiologia, 221 Pp137-148 (1991)

Latifi, N. Et Al. Improvement of Problematic Soils with Biopolymer-An Environmentally

Friendly Soil Stabilizer. A10.1061/(Asce) Mt.19435533.0001706 (2016).

Chang, I. & Cho, G.-C. Geotechnical Behavior of a Beta-1,3/1,6-Glucan Biopolymer-Treated

Residual Soil. Geomech. Eng, Https://Doi.Org/10.12989/Gae.2014.7.6.633 (2014).

N. Rhein-Knudsen, M. Ale, And A. Meyer, “Seaweed Hydrocolloid Production: An Update on

Enzyme Assisted Extraction and Modification Technologies,” Marine Drugs, Vol. 13,

No. 6, Pp. 3340–3359, 2015.

Petry, T. M., And Little, D. N. (2002). “Review Of Stabilization of Clays and Expansive Soils In

Pavements And Lightly Loaded Structures-History, Practice, And Future.” J. Mater. Civil

Eng., 10.1061/(Asce) 0899-1561 (2002)14:6(447), 447-460.

Booze-Daniels, J. N., Daniels, W. L., Schimdt, R. E., Krouse, J. M., And Wright, D. L. _2000_.

“Establishment Of Low Maintenance Vegetation in Highway Corridors.” Reclamation Of

Drastically Disturbed Lands, American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wis., 887–

920.

57
T.M. Petry and J.C. Armstrong, 1989, “Stabilization of Expansive Clay Soils.” Transportation

Research Record 1219, P. 103-112.

Azzam, W.R. 2014. Utilization Of Polymer Stabilization for Improvement of Clay Microstructure.

Applied Clay Science 93-94 (2014), 94-101.

Qingquan, L., Qing, W.D. And Zhijing, G., 2004. The Application of Ono-Standard Stabilizers

to The Base Course of Rural Roads. International Conference on Sustainable

Construction Management, June 10-12 2004, Singapore.

Naeini S. A. And Mirzakhanlari M 2008 The Effect of Geotextile And Grading On The Bearing

Ratio

Tingle, J.S. And Santoni, R., 2003. Stabilization of Clay Soil with Nontraditional Additives.

Transportation Research Record 1819, Paper No. Lvr8-1136.

Anggraini V, Huat Bbk, Asadi A, Nahazanan H (2014) Effect of Coir Fibre and Lime on

Geotechnical Properties Of Marine Clay Soil. In: 7th International Congress on

Environmental Geotechnics: Iceg2014, Engineers, Australia. P 1430

R. Saadeldin and S. Siddiqua, “Geotechnical Characterization of a Clay-Cement Mix,” Bulletin of

Engineering Geology and The Environment, Vol. 72, No. 3-4, Pp. 601–608, 2013.

Latifi, Nima, Aminaton Marto, And Amin Eisazadeh. “Physicochemical Behavior of Tropical

Laterite Soil Stabilized with Nontraditional Additive.” Acta Geotechnica 11, No. 2

(March 3, 2015): 433–443. Doi:10.1007/S11440-015-0370-3.

58
Shahruzzaman Mohammad, Sakib, Md Nurus, Biswas Shanta, Rahman Mohammed, Haque

Papia, Mallik Abul. Pharmaceutical Applications of Agar-Agar, 2019.

10.1201/9780429328299-3

Al-Jabban, W., Knutsson, S., Laue, J. And Al-Ansari, N. 2017. Stabilization Of Clayey Silt Soil

Using Small Amounts of Petrit T. Scientific Research Publishing, Engineering, 2017,9,

540-562

Ayaldeen M And Kitazume M, 2017. Using Fiber and Liquid Polymer to Improve the Behaviour

of Cement Stabilized Soft Clay. Geotextiles And Geomembranes 45 (2017) 592-602

Andrew, R.M., 2017. Global Co2 Emission from Cement Production. Earth Syst. Sci. Data

Discuss

Teja, P.R.K., Suresh, K. And Uday, K.V. 2015. Effect Of Curing Time on Behaviour and

Engineering Properties of Cement Treated Soils. International Journal of Innovation

Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 4(6): 4649-4657.

Chen, Y., Tan, Y., 2012. Test Study on Road Performance of Soils Stabilized by Liquid

Stabilizer in Seasonally Frozen Regions. Adv. Eng. Forum 5, 310–315.

Indraratna, B., Athukorala, R., Vinod, J.S., 2013. Estimating The Rate of Erosion of a Silty Sand

Treated with Lignosulfonate. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 139 (5), 701–714.

Metz, B., Davidson, O., De Coninck, H., Loos, M. & Meyer, L. Carbon Dioxide Capture and

Storage. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University

Press (2005).

59
Umar, M., Kassim, K. A. & Chiet, K. T. P. Biological Process of Soil Improvement on Civil

Engineering: A Review. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 8, 767–774 (2016).

Ashraf, M. S., Azahar, S. B. & Yusof, N. Z. Soil Improvement Using Micp and Biopolymers: A

Review. Mater. Sci. And Eng. 226, 012058 (2017).

Aguilar, R. Et Al. The Potential Use of Chitosan as A Biopolymer Additive for Enhanced

Mechanical Properties and Water Resistance of Earthen Construction. Constr. Build.

Mater. 114, 625–637 (2016).

Gheorghita, R., Norocel, L. A., Filip, R., Dimian, M., and Covasa, M., 2021 Polymers 13(6)

2729-2739

Dilipkumar & Srinivas Ganta, “Soil Stabilization Using Geopolymer and Biopolymer”,

Anveshanna’s International Institute of Research Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2016.

F. Garcıá-Ochoa, V. E. Santos, J. A. Casas, And E. G´Omez, “Xanthan Gum: Production,

Recovery, And Properties,” Biotechnology Advances, Vol. 18, No. 7, Pp. 549–579, 2000.

S. Smitha and A. Sachan. Use Of Agar Biopolymer to Improve the Shear Strength Behavior of

Sabarmati Sand. Int. J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 10, No. 4, Pp. 387–400 (2016).

R. J. Chudzikowski, “Guar Gum and Its Applications,” Journal of The Society of Cosmetic

Chemists, Vol. 22, Pp. 43–60, 1971.

D. C. Flanagan, K. Chaudhari, And L. D. Norton, “Polyacrylamide Soil Amendment Effects

on Runoff and Sediment Yield on Steep Slopes: Part I. Simulated Rainfall Conditions,”

Transactions Of The Asae, Vol. 45, No. 5, 2002.

60
Hirano S, Kitaura S, Sasaki N, Sakaguchi H, Sugiyama M, Hashimoto K, Et Al. Chitin

Biodegradation and Wound Healing in Tree Bark Tissues. J Environ Polym Degrad 1996;

4:261–5. Https://Doi.Org/10.1007/Bf02070695.

Chang I. Biopolymer Treated Korean Residual Soil: Geotechnical Behavior and Applications.

Ph.D Thesis. Dept. Of Civil and Environmental Engineering: Korea Advanced Institute of

Science and Technology; 2010.

I. Chang, A. K. Prasidhi, J. Im, H.-D. Shin, And G.-C. Cho, “Soil Treatment Using Microbial

Biopolymers for Anti-Desertification Purposes,” Geoderma, Vol. 253-254, Pp. 39–47,

2015.

Edward, B., Madras: Printed at The Scottish Press, 1857. Sri Lankan Journal of Applied Sciences

Vol.1.1 (2022) 18-30 29

Alexander, L.T. And Cady, F.G. (1962). Genesis And Hardening of Laterite in Soils.

Technical Bulletin 1282. Us Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C, P.90.

Gidigasu, M.D., (1976). Laterite Soil Engineering: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,

Amsterdam 749

Reyment, R.A. (1964). Review Of Cretaceous, Cenozoic Stratigraphy of Nigeria Journal Min,

Geology, 2(2), 61-80

Reyment, R.A. (1965). Aspects Of the Geology of Nigeria. University Of Ibadan Press, 145

Simon, A.B., Giesecke, J. & Bidlo, G., (1973). Use Of Lateritic Soil for Road

Construction in Northern Dahomey. Engineering Geology, 7, 197-218

61
A. Soldo, M. Miletić, And M. L. Auad, “Biopolymers as A Sustainable Solution for The

Enhancement of Soil Mechanical Properties,” Sci. Rep., Vol. 10, No. 1, Pp. 1–13, 2020.

Swain, K.: Stabilization of Soil Using Geopolymer and Biopolymer. Doctoral Dissertation.

National Institute of Technology, Rourkela (2015)

62
 APPENDIX
Preliminary Analysis Result

Table 9: Natural Moisture Content Result

S/NO Can Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Moisture

Label of of can of can of wet of dry of Content
empty + wet + dry soil (g) soil (g) water (%)
can (g) soil (g) Soil (g)
(g)

1 BB3 3.49 20.7 18.62 17.21 17.21 2.08 13.75

2 BB1 3.46 24.84 22.1 21.38 18.64 2.74 14.70

(13.75 + 14.70)
Average Moisture content =
2

= 14.23

63
 Table 10: Data from Compaction Test on the Test in its Natural State.

Initial Mass of the Soil, 6

[kg]
Volume of Mold (m^3) 0.00283
Mass of Proctor, [kg[ 6.86
Trial 1 2 3 4 5
Weight of Water added 6% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Mass of Proctor + Wet 10.64 11 11.26 11.36 11.34
Soil, [kg]
Mass of Wet Soil in 3.78 4.14 4.4 4.5 4.48
Proctor, [kg]
Can Label CC6 CC4 CC5 CC9 D8 B1 5C
CC2 CC8 CC3 CC7 CC1 BB1 BB2 BB3 Group1
Mass of Can, [g] 3.48 3.03 3.01 3.64 2.93 3.65 3.64 3.55 3.47 3.48 3.7 3.5 10.99 5.87 6.85
Mass of Can + Wet Soil, 28.31 44.94
[g] 33.91 24.84 28.52 29.62 19.34 25.63 24.75 27.91 32.56 31.35 26.05 54.14 35.95
Mass of Can + Dry Soil,
[g] 31.06 22.83 25.99 26.96 17.63 23.38 22.32 25.11 29.17 27.78 25.24 23.17 48.27 31.89 39.72
Mass of Wet Soil, [g] 30.43 21.81 25.51 25.98 16.41 21.98 21.11 24.36 29.09 27.87 24.61 22.55 43.15 30.08 38.09
Mass of Water [g] 2.85 2.01 2.53 2.66 1.71 2.25 2.43 2.8 3.39 3.57 3.07 2.88 5.87 4.06 5.22
Mass of Dry Soil, [g] 27.58 19.8 22.98 23.32 14.7 19.73 18.68 21.56 25.7 24.3 21.54 19.67 37.28 26.02 32.87
Moisture Content [%] 10.33 10.15 11.01 11.41 11.63 11.40 13.01 12.99 13.19 14.69 14.25 14.64 15.75 15.60 15.88
Average Moisture 10.50 11.48 13.06 14.53 15.74
Content, [%]
Bulk Density, [KN/m3] 13.1 14.35 15.25 15.6 15.53
Dry Density, [KN/m3] 11.86 12.87 13.49 13.62 13.42

64
 Moisture Density Relationship
13.8

13.6

13.4

13.2
Dry Density KN/m3
13

12.8

12.6

12.4

12.2

12

11.8

11.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Moisture content (%)

Figure 10: MDD VS OMC Curve of the Soil in its Natural State

OMC =14.5%
3 3
MDD =13.64 KN/m or 1.39g/cm

65
 Table 11: Specific gravity result

Weight of Jar (g) 76.27

Weight of Jar + Soil (g) 176.27

Weight of Jar + Soil + Water (g) 394.53

Weight of Jar + Water (g) 332.43

Specific Gravity 2.64

Specific Gravity = 2.64

Table 12: Plastic Limit result

Can No Q3 P2

Mass of Can(g) 10.93 5.59

Mass of Can + wet soil(g) 16.94 11.53

Mass of dry Soil + Can (g) 15.71 10.38

Mass of Water (g) 1.23 1.15

Moisture Content (%) 25.73221757 24.00835073 24.9

Plastic Limit = 24.9

66
 Table 13: Liquid Limit Result

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Can No CC5 BB1 BB2 CC8 CC1 CC3

Mass of Can(g) 3.01 3.48 3.7 3.48 3.47 3.64

Mass of Can + wet soil(g) 13.68 13.86 14.42 18.6 12.61 13.96

Mass of dry Soil + Can (g) 10.77 11 11.39 14.36 9.87 10.82

Mass of Water (g) 2.91 2.86 3.03 4.24 2.74 3.14

Moisture Content (%) 37.5 38.0 39.4 38.9 42.8 43.7

Average Moisture content 37.8 39.2 43.3

Number of Blows 30 23 16

67
 Chart Title
35
30
30

25 23

No of
Blows 20
16
15

10

0
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Moisture Content

Figure 11: Liquid Limit Curve

Liquid Limit = 38.6

Table 14: Particle Size Distribution Table

Sieve Mass of Mass (sieve + Mass %

Size(mm) sieve (g) soil) retained retained retained % Passing

4.75 460 460 0 0.00 100.00

2 420 458.58 38.58 7.72 92.28

1.18 480 501.24 21.24 4.25 88.04

0.425 360 401.38 41.38 8.28 79.76

0.15 300 378.21 78.21 15.64 64.12

0.075 400 440.63 40.63 8.13 55.99

68
 Particle size distribution curve
120
100

80

60
% Passing

40
20

Sieve Size (mm)

Figure 12: Particle Size distribution Curve

Stress against displacement

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
Stress (MPa)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 Displacement6 8 10 12

Figure 13: UCS Curve

69
 Table 15: UCS result

Displacement (mm) Load (kN) Stress (MPa)

0 0 0

0.775 0.17 0.150

1.08 0.293 0.258

1.371 0.364 0.321

1.677 0.427 0.377

2.538 0.561 0.495

2.878 0.619 0.546

3.140 0.675 0.595

3.551 0.761 0.671

3.838 0.838 0.739

4.163 0.913 0.805

4.602 1.037 0.914

5.262 1.193 1.052

5.663 1.284 1.132

6.337 1.469 1.295

6.820 1.562 1.377

7.502 1.688 1.488

8.243 1.804 1.591

8.834 1.898 1.674

9.218 1.928 1.700

9.611 1.768 1.559

70