Indian Geotech J
DOI 10.1007/s40098-017-0239-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Unpredictable Behaviour of Gypseous/Gypsiferous Soil:
An Overview
Arvind Kumar Jha1 P. V. Sivapullaiah1
Received: 14 December 2016 / Accepted: 26 May 2017
Indian Geotechnical Society 2017
Abstract Geo-climatic environmental conditions lead to
the formation of gypsum-rich soils which occur in dry
condition throughout world where the annual quantity of
rain water is insufficient for leaching the gypsum from
these soils. Soils containing gypsum, also known as
gypseous/gypsiferous soil, are not preferred as a con-
struction material; however, the scarcity of land and an
increase in the utilization of soils for construction purpose
have drawn an attention of research community to address
the associated problems for its effective uses. The present
article reviews the physico-chemical behaviour of gypsum,
sources of gypsum in the soils, and also reveals the mis-
conceptions on the suitable terminology used for soil
containing gypsum. Further, the various methods proposed
to identify the gypsum containing soil are discussed. The
problems due to the phase transformation and its solubility
characteristics of gypsum on the different construction
activities are also reviewed in brief. The purpose of present
article is to acquaint the impact of gypsum in the properties
of different soils and to bring out the different methods
available for stabilizing the gypsum containing soil. The
refinements herein proposed aim to help understand the
various aspects of gypseous soil and to institute the further
research to be done in this topic.
Keywords Gypsum  Hydration  Identification 
Soil properties  Solubility  Stabilization
& P. V. Sivapullaiah
sivapullaiah@gmail.com
Arvind Kumar Jha
erarvindnp@gmail.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 566012, India
Introduction
The scarcity of land and an increase in the construction
activities have drawn an attention of research community
to address the associated problems regarding unpre-
dictable and intriguing behaviour of various problematic
soils. However, problematic soils such as expansive soil,
soft soil, and marine soil have been used as construction
material with proper precaution and modification by dif-
ferent techniques. On the contrary, soil containing gypsum
has still not been accepted as a constructions material due
to its unreliable and unpredictable behaviour under water
temperaturepressure [1]. However, it is reported that
gypsum is tricky material to use as stabilizer alone or,
along with other stabilizers such as fly ash and GGBS
[24]. Gypsum is well known salt of high solubility and
hence, the presence of gypsum in the soils creates a
detrimental effect on subgrade soils, buildings and earth
structures. Further, gypsum is frequently used as a sodic
soil amendment, particularly due to its low cost. However,
it requires an application in large amounts because its
effect on the reduction of soil pH is not significant [5]. In
contrast, sulphur inoculated with Acidithiobacillus pro-
duces sulphuric acid [6] and also contributes decisively to
the reduction in soil pH and to the improvement of poor
physical conditions, frequently found in alkaline soils [7].
Due to such unpredictable behaviour of soil containing
gypsum, its utilization as a construction material needs
proper attention and precaution. Hence, several laborato-
ries as well as field investigations have been performed all
over the world to identify the properties of soils containing
gypsum and their possible uses in the construction field.
The present article emphasizes the various aspects of
gypsum and its effects in the behaviour of different soils
based on previous researches. The major highlights of the
123

present articles are focused to comprehend in detail about
physical and chemical characteristics of gypsum, incon-
sistencies in the terminology used for soils containing
gypsum, sources of gypsum present in soils, engineering
problems due to the presence of gypsum in soils, methods
to identify the gypsum content in the soil, an alteration in
soil properties due to the presence of various forms of
gypsum, and techniques practicing to stabilize. It is aimed
that collective documentation and information gathered in
the present article provides a guideline for both researcher
and practitioners working in the field of ground improve-
ment to establish further research and working plan.
Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Gypsum
The structure of gypsum consists of parallel layers of
(SO4)2- groups strongly bonded to (Ca)2? ion which are
separated by sheets of water (H2O) molecules with weak
bonds exiting between the H2O molecules in neighboring
sheets [8]. Microstructural examination of the gypsum
powder (Fig. 1) shows the appearance of flakelike struc-
ture of different sizes. The physical appearance of gypsum
is generally found to be either colorless or, it may be of
different colors such as white, gray, red brown or having
various shades of yellow resulting from impurities. Gyp-
sum has low hardness value of 2 in Mohs scale and particle
density of approximately 2.3 [9]. Thermal decomposition
(\200 C) in a vacuum up to 1.33 Pa pressure alters the
monoclinic structure of single gypsum crystal into hexag-
onal and orthorhombic [10]. Gypsum is found in the vari-
ous forms such as calcium sulphate dihydrate
(CaSO42H2O), calcium sulphate hemihydrate (CaSO4-
0.5H2O) and calcium sulphate anhydrite (CaSO4H2O).
Chemically, gypsum consists of 32.6% calcium oxide
Fig. 1 Microscopic image of gypsum powder
123
Indian Geotech J
(CaO), 46.5% sulphur trioxide (SO3) and 20.9% water
(H2O) [8].
Gypsum is one of the most unpredictable material due to
its property of changing the chemical structure at temper-
ature above 60 C or, in situation where water exists
[1, 11, 12]. The dehydration of gypsum (CaSO42H2O)
between 0 and 65 C losses the first 1.5 molecules of H2O,
leading to the formation of hemihydrate (also called bas-
sanite, CaSO41/2H2O). The 1/2H2O of hemihydrate
remains relatively stronger up to 70 C and losses with
further increase in temperature about 95 C, and thereby
converting to anhydrite (CaSO4). However, hemi-hydrate
and anhydrite again convert into gypsum in the presence of
water (Fig. 2) [1, 13, 14]. The phase transformation of
gypsum is presented as follows [15, 16]:
CaSO4  2H2 O Gypsum ! CaSO4  1=2H2 O Bassanite
11=2H2 O Liquid
1
CaSO4  1=2H2 O Bassanite ! CaSO4 Anhydrite
1=2H2 O Liquid 2
CaSO4 Anhydrite 2H2 OLiquid
! CaSO4  2H2 O Gypsum 3
The common properties of various forms of calcium
sulphate such as hydration, setting and solubility control
the strength of calcium sulphate and are described in later
section.
Terminology for Gypsum-Rich Soils: Gypseous
and Gypsiferous
The gypsum containing soils were recognized initially in
the soil science under the name Sulphate Soils by W.
Knop in 1871. Later, few attentions have been given by soil
Fig. 2 Gypsum cycles [17]
Indian Geotech J

scientist to soil containing gypsum which leads to the Table 1 List of distribution of gypseous soil in different countries
misconceptions on the composition and behaviour of soils [27]
with large proportions of gypsum [14]. Several termi- Country km2 % of total area
nologies such as calcium sulphate enrichment, gypsum of country
enrichment, equivalent gypsum content, and sulphate
Africa Morocco 1114.3 2.50
content have been used in the literature to express the soil
Algeria 7966.3 3.30
containing gypsum [18, 19]. The soils in the humid-tem-
Tunisia 1439.8 9.30
perate conditions contain gypsum as a minor component
Libya 3956.8 2.20
due to its continuous leaching. On the contrary, the pres-
Egypt 382.2 0.40
ence of gypsum is more permanent in the arid/dryer regions
Sudan 785.0 0.30
[20]. Two kinds of terminologies such as gypseous and
Somalia 10,161.2 16.20
gypsiferous are generally found in the literature to use for
Ethiopia 1423.4 1.30
soil containing gypsum. The differences in meaning
Mali 2818.3 2.30
between both suffixes -eous and -ferous are full of,
abounding in, given to, and bearing, produc- Mauritania 396.0 0.40
ing, yielding, containing, conveying,, respec- Namibia 5327.7 6.50
tively [21, 22]. However, the term gypseous (using after Southern Asia Syria 3966.6 21.6
1661) is older than gypsiferous (using after 1799). Hence, Jordan 80.5 0.80
the gypseous is more profound word than gypsiferous for Saudi Arabia 82.5 0.04
soils and horizons whose main constituent is gypsum. The Oman 471.6
extensive use of word gypsiferous is probably inherited Yemen A.R. 2931.0 8.80
from wet temperate countries, where gypsum occurs as a Kuwait 354.6
minor component in soils [14]. Gypsiferous soils are soils Iraq 4779.2 11.00
that have a horizon containing more than 1% gypsum in a Iran 4.2
morphologically discernible form [23, 24]. Further, Boy- Pakistan 9.5 0.01
adgiev and Veheye [25] and Eswaran and Gong [26] have India 182.0 0.06
reported that soil containing gypsum more than 40% is Central Asia USSR 5074.1 0.20
termed as gypseous soil whereas soil containing gypsum in Mongolia 60.9 0.04
between 1 and 40% is termed as gypsiferous soil. Hence, China 11,484.9 1.20
suitable terminology to denote the gypsum containing soil Europe Turkey 64.2 0.08
is still a debatable issue. Spain 165.5 0.30
North America New Mexico 78.0

Sources of Gypsum in the Soil

Several sources of sulphate mineral present in the soils are
divided into primary (i.e. direct source of sulphate in their
natural form as sulphate bearing mineral such as gypsum)
and secondary (i.e. the sulphate as a byproduct of oxidation
or other form of chemical interactions) sources.
The sulphate in various forms such as calcium sulphate or
gypsum, sodium sulphate (Na2SO4) and magnesium sul-
phate (MgSO4) are established as primary source. However,
gypsum is the main and most common source of sulphate
present in soils. The extent of soils containing gypsum
around the world has not presented consistently. However, it
has been reported that the gypsum extends more than 20% of
the land surface in the world [1]. Eswaran and Gong [26]
have estimated 207 million ha of soils with gypsic horizons.
In India, gypseous soil is extended over 182.0 km2 area
(0.3% of area of gypseous soils) which is 0.06% of total area
of country. The area covered by the gypseous soil in different
countries is presented in Table 1.
Gypseous soils are found especially in arid and semi
arid regions, where the annual low rainfall is insufficient
for the leaching of the gypsum accumulated in the soil.
Precipitation of Ca2? and SO24 ions lead to the formation
of lenticular gypsum (lensshaped gypsum crystals) in the
soil. The sulphur rich minerals such as pyrite in the parent
materials transform into sulphuric acid by weathering and
oxidation which react with calcium carbonate in the cal-
careous soil to form gypsum. Leaching of saline soils
containing sulphate and calcium in the soil solution also
leads to the accumulation of gypsum in the subsurface
horizon. The formation of gypsum may result from
replacement of NaCl by CaSO4 when the irrigation water
contains a substantial amount of calcium and sulphate ions.
But, it could be also a result of a partial leaching of salt
from the soil because NaCl is much more soluble than
CaSO4.
Ahmed and Ugai [28] reported that approximately 15
million tons of gypsum waste plasterboard is generated

123
 Indian Geotech J

FeS2 14Fe3 8H2 O ! 15Fe2 2SO2
4 16H
7
Many mine industries discharge an alkaline water which
contains 10050,000 ppm of acid as sulphuric acid
(H2SO4). The acid is produced by the action of air and
water upon sulphur compound in the coal or adjoining
rocks, resulting formation of sulphuric acid and iron
sulphate along with aluminum and manganese sulphate
[32]. Hence, the sulphuric acid that is produced by acid
rock drainage and acid mine drainage (Fig. 4), reacts with
calcium in the presence of water and, thereby formation of
gypsum.
H2 SO4 CaCO3 H2 O ! CaSO4  2H2 O CO2 8
Fig. 3 Model for the oxidation of pyrite [31]
The increase in concentration of sulphate in the soil is
due to dissolution of top layer of sulphate which easily
annually in the world due to the production, construction
enters into the stabilized layers of pavement; and
and demolition of plasterboard which is projected to 40
movement of sulphate in upper direction by evaporation
million tons by 2020 [29]. The plasterboard gypsum is used
during dry season [33]. Rollings et al. [34] reported the
in various construction projects to improve the subgrade
failure of pavement due to the transportation of sulphate by
soil. Further, gypsum powder is generally used for agri-
water. Hence, sulphate transported by water is an example
cultural purpose to maintain pH of soil and, for industrial
of secondary source of sulphate contamination.
purpose. The uses of gypsum plasterboard and gypsum
powder introduce the gypsum in soil indirectly and hence,
the soil is referred as an artificially induced gypseous
soil [11]. Further, the oxidation of pyrite (FeS2) produces
Problems with Gypseous Soil
sulphate minerals, insoluble ion oxides, such as goethite
Gypsum is susceptible under an active circulation of water
(FeO (OH)), hematite (Fe2O3) and sulphuric acid (H2SO4).
and variation in temperature. Hence, solubility (dissolu-
The production of sulphate by pyrite oxidation leads to the
tion), hydration, setting and thereby, transition of gypsum
formation of gypsum and other expansive sulphate miner-
to anhydrite and anhydrite to gypsum possess an unpre-
als. The oxidation of phyrite occurs in the following stages
dictable behavior, leading to the potential hazard to the
[30] which are also shown in Fig. 3:
structures construction on gypseous soils.
FeS2 7=2O2 H2 O ! Fe2 2SO2
4 2H

4
Solubility
Fe2 1=4O2 H ! Fe3 1=2H2 O 5
Fe3 3H2 O ! FeOH3 3H 6 The solubility is the measure of amount of material dis-
solved into the given volume of water. Gypsum is the most

Fig. 4 Release of sulphuric

acid due to oxidation of pyrite
[35]

123
Indian Geotech J
Fig. 5 Plot showing particle
size effect on the solubility of
gypsum in water [45]
common sulphate minerals present in the soil due to its
relatively low solubility (2.6 g/L) level compared to Na2-
SO4 (408 g/L) and MgSO4 (260 g/L) [3638]. Solubility
varies somewhat with the concentration, composition of
soil suction and geological conditions. However, solubility
of gypsum mainly depends on various factors such as
temperature, chemical composition of water, pH value, the
particle size and the applied pressure which, in turn, affect
the behaviour of soils [11, 3943]. According to Hulett and
Allen [44], solubility of gypsum depends on its surface
(convex, concave or plane) characteristics. It is reported
that convex surface shows a greater solubility than concave
or plane whereas concave surface undergoes a less soluble
than plane surface. Greater solubility can be observed, if
solid particles are finely divided (Fig. 5). If particle size is
decreased to 0.3 micron, the solubility of gypsum will be
increased by 20%.
Hulett and Allen [44] also reported that maximum sol-
ubility of gypsum occurs at 40 C and reduces thereafter
with increase in temperature. However, the dissolution of
gypsum depends on the ratio of soil and water. For high
gypsum percentages, ratio of soil: water should be lower
[43]. Yilmaz [12] has proposed an equation to explain the
gypsum dissolution as follows:
CaSO4  2H2 O H2 O ! Ca2 SO2
4 3H2 O 9
The amount of gypsum dissolution is controlled by the
molar concentrations of calcium and sulphate ions in
solution. Al-Barrak and Rowell [46] reported that rate of
gypsum dissolution is more in the open system (where
water is trapped with calcium sulphate mineral before and
after the transition) than in closed system (where free water
may enter into the hydration process or be released during
dehydration and leave the system) which may be due to the
increase in abrasion from the magnetic stirrer [47].
Dissolution of gypsum in water occurs in either one or,
in combination of three processes; (1) breakdown of
bonding between soil-gypsum particles and thereby
collapsing the soil structure (also known as immediate
process), (2) consolidation, and (3) continuous flow of
water through the soil mass which leads to progressive
collapse of the soil structure due to the continuous leaching
of gypsum [48].
Hydration
Hydration generally refers the ability of anhydrite and
hemihydrates (a- and b-) to react with water and thereby
formation of dihydrate (i.e. gypsum). The entire hydration
is an exothermic process; however, the formation of
dihydrate is an endothermic process which occurs as:
CaSO4  0:5H2 O 1:5H2 O ! CaSO4  2H2 O
amount of heat evolve
10
The b-hemihydrate is generally responsible for
producing gypsum whereas hydrated product of a-
hemihydrate is not suitable to use as a building material
due to its brittle nature [49]. The two stages such as
dissolution of hemihydrate, and the nucleation and
precipitation of dihydrate are involved in the formation
of gypsum. Further, the whole period of hydration process
undergoes in the three time regions: (1) stable period (also
known as an induction period); (2) an acceleratory period
in which continuous hydration process occurs, and (3) the
completion of hydration reaction which is indicated by a
very slow reaction process (the formation of dihydrate)
(Fig. 6) [4951]. In an induction period, a calcium sulphate
dihydrate nucleus is formed by clustering of hydrate Ca2?
and SO24 ions. After continuous absorption of ions, nuclei
123

Fig. 6 Hydration of hemihydrate as a function of time showing a
sigmoidal distribution [59]
acquires a certain crystal size and thereby, initiation of the
crystallization of gypsum [52]. The various factors that
affect the crystallization process are solution
saturation/supersaturation, impurities, type of hemihydrate
and its surface area, temperature, water/plaster ratio, etc.
[53, 54] (Figs. 7, 8). The mechanism of hydration of
hemihydrate is explained with the kinetic model equation
as follows:
a 1  expatm 11 summarized in Table 2.
where, a, t and m indicate the fraction of hemihydrate,
hydration time and time law for the formation and growth
of an individual crystal, respectively. However, the
hydration process is controlled by various factors such as
the surface area, the resultant consistency and the void
volume of hydrated structure [5557]. Further, the water
content also influences the setting mechanism and the
microstructural development of dihydrate. Huang and
Airey [58] reported that the rapid hydration process of
hemihydrate to form the dihydrate leads to the develop-
ment of a high void ratio and fracture.
Fig. 7 Effect of temperature and time on the formation of gypsum
content [54]
123
Indian Geotech J
Fig. 8 Variation of specific surface area in the hydrating anhydrite at
different temperature with time elapsed [54]
Azam [60] reported that phase transformations (hydra-
tion and dehydration) of gypsum result swell (up to 63%)
and compression (up to 39%) which pose several damages
to the structures constructed on it [42]. The distress in the
structure is mainly observed due to the formation of cavity,
sinkhole collapse and ground subsidence throughout the
world [12]. Several case studies on the failure of subgrade
and pavement reported in the literatures [42, 6165] are
Identification of Gypsum Rich Soil: Methods
to Find Out Gypsum Content in Soil
The identification and determination of gypsum content in
the soil can be analyzed both in the laboratory and field.
Various methods proposed by previous researchers are
summarized in Table 3.
Further, researchers have also proposed the methods to
determine various properties of gypseous soil such as Par-
ticle Size Distribution (PSD) and Cation Exchange Capacity
(CEC). The presence of gypsum in the soils leads to the
change in physical behaviour of soils and thereby, affecting
PSD. Gypsum occurs in the soils in various crystal forms of
different sizes and hence, conventional method to determine
the PSD of gypseous soil can mislead the results. The results
of PSD are affected by several factors such as an extent of
flocculation i.e., partial or full (underestimate when soil
particles are partially flocculated), methods (determination
using Stokes law overestimates the percentage of clay and
silt) and temperature (loss of water molecule from gypsum
underestimates the result) [123125].
Particle size of gypseous soil was determined previously
after leaching the gypsum by using water. Later, leaching
time by converting gypsum into more soluble bassanite
was reduced to improve the methodology [126130].
Researchers have used barium chloride (BaCl2) to
Indian Geotech J

Table 2 Problem due to hydration and solubility of gypsum/anhydrite

References Observations

Ransome [66]
Redfield [67]
Brune [68]
Calcano and Alzura [69]
Alagoz [70] Sink holes and depressions were formed due to dissolution of gypsum along fault traces and discharge of river in
James and Lupton [41]
Hawkins [71]
James and Kirkpatrick [72]
Bogli [73] and White [74]
Lee et al. [75]
Zanbak and Arthur [47] and
Azam [60]
Culsow and Waltham [76]
Cooper [77]
Cooper [78]
Bell [79]
Abduljauwad [80]
Ko et al. [81]
Abduljauwad and Al-Amoudi
[82]
Rahn and Davis [83]
Karacan and Yilmaz [84]
Azam et al. [85]
Eyers et al. [86]
Thompson et al. [87]
Lundgren [88]
Kadhim [89]
More than 400 people life was lost due to damage of St. Francis dam at Los Angeles, caused by the dissolution
of conglomerate containing gypsum
Crack, fracture and gradual heave were appeared in the concrete lining of Vobarno tunnel in Italy due to the
phase transformation of gypsum
An oldest McMillan dam in New Mexico damaged due to the seepage and collapse of gypsum Karst. Also, floor
heave in tunnels and massive rock uplift in dams were observed due to the increase in swell pressure caused
by anhydrite hydration
Earthen dam was damaged due to the dissolution of gypsum/anhydrite and thereby development of an
uncontrollable seepage forces and water leakage
Sivas, Zara and Imranli area
Rapid deteriorating and formation of larger fissures were observed due to the dissolution of anhydrites
Several voids were observed in Keuper series of the Bristol area having gypsiferous horizons
The presence of gypsum in the foundation of dam significantly lost the strength due to seepage of water, leading
to dissolution of gypsum
Dissolution of rocks, covered with gypsum karst, led to the formation of collapses passages of size up to
1001000 m in width and 115 km in length
Differential settlement and related foundation crack were encountered in the apartment building of Syracuse
university. This was due to the dissolution of gypsum and thereby, formation and collapse of cavities beneath
foundation soil
Absorption of water molecule by nearby expansive minerals from gypsum crystal caused an uplifting of
structures in the surrounding areas whereas, dehydration of gypsum led to settlement in the areas due to
reduction in volume by 38%
Gypsiferous rock in Russia was found to be massive, jointed and having large openings and hence, networking
of small diameter passages in Karst features in the gypsum was observed
Formation of several cavities in the Ripon area, UK was observed due to gypsum deposition
Huge collapse due to ground subsidence (hollow of 1080 m dia. and 30 m depth) was occurred in the urban
area of Ripon in England which was caused by dissolution of gypsum
Development of sinkholes and caverns and thereby, collapse of structures situated in areas covered with massive
gypsum were observed mainly due to the high dissolution rate (2100 mg/l) and weaker arching potential
Structures and pavements constructed on gypsiferous soil damaged due to heaving in Eastern Saudi Arabia
Hydration and dehydration of gypsum crystal led to the change in state of stress within the soil deposit and
thereby causing significant deformation and fracturing
Use of gypsum as a cementing agent may create serious damage due to formation of soil pipes which is caused
by the dissolution of gypsum and thereby leaching of fine fraction
Several damages were observed due to ground subsidence, formation of piping in soil and settlement in the
structures constructed on gypsum foundation in the Black Hill area, South Dakota
Networking of joint controlled caves/passages was observed in the south east Sivas area of Turkey covered with
gypsum
Leaching of gypsum and anhydrite led to the formation of cavities and thereby collapse of light structures
Numerous large gypsum blocks were carried by a marl debris flow, leading to the landslide occurrence in the
Marchalico Viicas
Ground subsidence was observed due to spontaneous collapse of individual caverns
Vertical component of ground movement, which is also known as ground subsidence, causes serious damage to
the infrastructures such as building, services and communication
Severe pavement cracking and premature loss of service ability were encountered in various low to medium
volume pavement constructed on the gypseous soil subgrades in Iraq

insolubilize the gypsum in soil [112, 125, 131]. This
technique is based on the concept that formation of BaSO4
by releasing SO4 from gypsum and reacting with Ba of
BaCl2 lead to coat the gypsum particles, preventing the
dissolution. However, alteration in the size of gypsum
particles due to initial suspension, coating with CaSO4, and
abrasion of particle coating during shaking or, stirring for
dispersion affect the results [132]. Also, it has been pro-
posed to determine the PSD of gypseous soils after com-
plete removal of gypsum by using ammonium oxalate,

123
 Indian Geotech J

Table 3 Methods to identify and determine gypsum content in soils

References Proposed methods

Bower and Huss [90] Proposed to determine gypsum content in soils by measuring electrical conductivity (EC) of solution
and its comparison with standard curves of gypsum. The solution is prepared by dissolving soil-
gypsum in a 1:5 (soil:water) ratio and precipitated gypsum by using acetone and water. Despite of
inaccuracy in result obtained from this method, it is suitable to measure gypsum content of soil
affected by salt as salt can interference with electro-conductometric measurement [91, 92]
Richards [93] Proposed the BaSO4 method to determine gypsum content in four steps as extraction of soil from
soil-gypsum sample with water, precipitation of sulphate from solution by using BaCl2 as per
Adams [94], weight the BaSO4 precipitate after filtering and drying, and finally correction for the
non-gypsum sulphate. This method is slow but a reliable one
Coutinet [95] Amended the earlier BaSO4 method proposed by Richards [93]. The steps include; the solution
preparation with 5 g soil and 5% ammonium carbonate and keep for 15 min, precipitate sulphate
by adding 10% hot BaCl2 solution after filtering and acidifying the extract using HCl, filter and
wash the precipitate to eliminate chloride and dried at 900 C
Lagerwerff et al. [96] Proposed two rapid methods (semi-quantitative and quantitative) to determine gypsum. Semi-
quantitative method mainly determines the degree of gypsum-unsaturation (measured before and
after saturating the extract with reagent gypsum) of an aqueous soil extract after diluting
sufficiently to dissolve all gypsum. The error (i.e. difference between the observed and calculated
content of salts in diluted extract) due to exchange of adsorbed cations for Ca2? and formation of
an equivalent amount of sulphate salts during precipitation of the dilute soil extract can be
measured by EC
Quantitative method is a modified version of semi-quantitative method where acetone is used to
precipitate the gypsum in the dilute soil extract
Khan and Webster [97] and Porta [98] X-ray diffraction (XRD) technique is proposed to identify the gypsum in the soils. However, it
requires several repetition of sample to validate the result
Kovalenko [99] Extraction with boiling water is proposed to determine gypsum content. The mixture of air dried soil
(0.20.5 g) and boiled water at the ratio of 1:1000 is heated slightly to 40 C and done periodical
mixing for 1012 h. After heating the mixture to 80 C, the concentration of calcium is measured
by titrimetrically to calculate gypsum content
Nelson et al. [100] Proposed method is based on an oven-dry weight basis (i.e. the loss of water from gypsum crystal
upon heating to 105 C). The obtained percentage of gypsum is equivalent to 1.038 times of
percent gypsum by the standard chemical method ?0.17
Sayegh et al. [101] Gypsum concentration can be evaluated by comparing the results of measured electrical conductivity
of solution with standard curve for concentration. The solution preparation follows the steps as;
mixing of 1 g air dried soil passing through 270 mesh sieve with 500 cm3 of distilled water in flask
and then shakes the mixture for 20 min. After filtering the extract with Whatman No. 41 filter
paper, gypsum is precipitated using acetone and ultimately redissolved the precipitated gypsum
using distilled water
Friedel [102] Proposed the quantitative determination of gypsum content by X-ray diffraction even for lower
gypsum content up to 0.5%. However, comparison of samples and references material (i.e. sample
prepared by dehydrating the original gypsum and adding known quantities of this mineral) is
required to determine quantity of gypsum in the range of 0.520% by weight with an accuracy of
3% (relative)
Dick and Tabatabai [103], Marko-Varga The measurements of Ca2? and SO24 in diluted extract solution by single-column ion
et al. [104] and Nieto and chromatography are done to calculate the gypsum content present in soil
Frankenberger [105]
Elprince and Turjoman [106] Two methods named as Mettler drying unit (Model LP12) and top-loading balance (Model PL60) are
proposed to determine the gypsum in soils. In both methods, second peak (i.e. crystal water of
gypsum) of dehydration curves plotted between rates of weight loss and heating time needs to be
extrapolating to determine the gypsum percentage. However, accuracy of both methods varies
based on the number of tested such as 0.3 and 0.5% gypsum for triplicate and single
determinations
Skarie et al. [107] The single-column chromatography is used to determine the gypsum content for saline soil. Gypsum
content can be calculated either by determining Ca2? or, SO2
4 in the dilute extract. However, the
determination of gypsum based on Ca2? is observed equal to that obtained based on SO2 4 for
highly chloridic soils. On contrary, gypsum content shows lesser value when it is determined based
on Ca2? for sulphatic soils due to loss of Ca2? to the exchange complex during the extraction
process

123
Indian Geotech J

Table 3 continued
References Proposed methods

Frenkel et al. [108] Proposed method is based on the incorporation of a combination of Na- and Cl- resins to dissolve
the gypsum completely so that exchange between dissolve calcium and sulphate ions occurs with
the sodium and chloride. Hence, electrical conductivity of supernatant is used to determine the
percentage of dissolved gypsum. This method is very simple and direct method for quantitative
determination of gypsum
Porta et al. [109] Proposed the qualitative chemical test method to detect the gypsum by identifying SO24 ion in the
soil horizon. The presence of gypsum in the soil can be confirmed, if turbidity in the soilwater
mixture after adding a few drops of 1 M BaCl2 is observed
Berigari and Al-Any [110] The proposed method determines the gypsum content in soil by analyzing the concentration of SO2 4
ions in the supernatant solution with the standard gravimetric BaSO4 and turbidimetric methods.
The supernatant can be prepared as (1) take 2 g of soil sample and wash it with 25-mL portion of
50% ethanol to remove non-gypsum soluble sulphates; (2) perform ultrasonic dispersion with the
twice use of 25-mL increments of 0.5 M Na2CO3 solution for converting the samples to
CaCO3(s) and Na2SO4. This method is simple, rapid, and quite accurate
Stern et al. [111] Proposed wet chemical method to determine gypsum content by measuring concentration of Ca2?
and SO2
4 . Initially, NaCl is used to dissolve all the gypsum into solution. Then, the concentration
of Ca2? is measured by solution using acetone as per Bower and Huss [90], Hesse [112] and ISRIC
[113] whereas concentration of SO2 4 is measured from dissolution of gypsum in sulphuric acid
Ba2? by using gravimetric method [114], methylene blue method [103], and modified University
of Texas, Arlington (UTA) method [115]
Eswaran and Gong [26] and Artieda [116] Proposed method to determine the gypsum content in soil by thermogravimetric analysis (DTA),
particularly for samples containing more than 8% gypsum. DTA method is based on the loss
(dehydration of gypsum) after heating. Gypsum converts to anhydrite at about 200 C
Porta et al. [117] Proposed the identification of gypsum in the field by morphologic investigation. Sulphate test (1 M
BaSO4) and calcium carbonate test (11% HCl) can be used for differentiating the calcium
carbonate (generally seems to be more white) from gypsum veins (yellowish and sugar size grains)
Porta [118] Many methods proposed to determine the gypsum content are based on the complete dissolution of
2?
gypsum in the water and thereby analyzing SO24 content or, Ca content to calculate the original
amount of gypsum in the sample. However, accuracy in the results is a great concern due to
uncertainty in the concentrations of Ca2? and SO24 obtained by those methods. Further, results
2?
may be interfered by the presence of other sources of SO2 4 or Ca and the loss of calcium by
adsorption on the exchange complex. Hence, the soil: water ratio should be low to dissolve all
gypsum as rate of gypsum dissolution increases with an increase in fineness of gypsum crystals
[96, 100, 113]
Artieda et al. [119] Proposed the detection of lower limit of gypsum by the use of thermogravimetric analysis (TGA).
Gypsum content can be determined by measuring loss of water in the soil sample between 70 and
90 C. After comparing the results of proposed method with gravimetric determinations of
precipitated BaSO4, it is observed that this method is valid for gypsum content more than 2%
Lebron et al. [120] Proposed the quantification of gypsum by exploiting the difference in mass between gypsum and
bassanite at constant relative humidity (RH) of 40%. After measuring the mass of samples before
and after heating at constant RH, the clay-water content is found to be constant, leading to the
elimination of error with other thermogravimetric methods. This method is seemed to be even
effective to determine the gypsum content less than 1%
Weindorf et al. [121] and Weindorf et al. Proposed a rapid method to quantity the gypsum content soil by scanning the samples with the field
[122] portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry. Further, effectiveness of portable X-ray
fluorescence (PXRF) spectrometers were checked by comparing results with both traditional
laboratory analysis (thermogravimetry) and elemental analysis

hydrochloric acid, potassium chromate, and ethanol
[95, 112, 118, 125, 131, 133135]. However, Porta [118]
reported that determination of particle size after gypsum
removal does not represent the grain size distribution of
entire soil containing gypsum. Hence, finding out the pre-
cise method to determine the PSD of gypseous soil is still
debatable issue and is a matter for future research.
The convention methods to determine the CEC of
gypseous soil underestimate the results due to incomplete
saturation by index cation. Despite of limitations,
researchers have proposed the various approaches to
overcome the problem of solubility by using various
chemical such as alcohol, sodium oxalate, barium acetate
[101, 136138].

123

Effect of Gypsum Content on Soil Properties
It is well known that gypsum greatly affects both physical
and engineering properties of soils [139]. However, bene-
ficial and adverse effects of gypsum on the properties of
soils mainly depend on the various factors such as type of
soil, mineralogy present in soil, form of gypsum, ground
water condition, size and shape of gypsum crystal and
environmental condition. Several researchers performed to
find out the effect of gypsum compounds on the properties
of different soils are documented briefly in Table 4.
It is also reported that the presence of gypsum/sulphate
in the soil causes an alteration in the properties of stabi-
lized soil. Researchers have reported both beneficial and
adverse effect of gypsum on the properties of stabilized soil
[140158]. Further, several recent case studies reported
that calcium based stabilized projects have experienced a
huge amount of heave, leading to the failure of structures.
The heave induced failures are due to the presence of
sulphate in the soil and, thereby formation of highly
expansive crystalline minerals named as ettringite [Ca6[Al
(OH)6]2(SO4)326H2O)] and thaumasite [Ca6[Si(OH)6]2-
(SO4)(CO3)224H2O] [33, 159164]. The formation of
ettringite and thaumasite in the lime treated soil and,
thereby resulting damage is also termed as Sulphate
Induced Heave, Sulphate Attack or, Manmade
Expansive Soil in the literatures [159, 160, 163, 165]. The
amount of damage due to ettringite formation depends on a
number of factors including: (1) thermodynamic favora-
bility of ettringite precipitation in specific soils, (2) quan-
tity of limiting reactants that stoichiometrically control the
mass of ettringite formed, (3) migration of water, sulphate
and other ions that support continued ettringite nucleation,
(4) strength of the pozzolanic or cementitious matrix, and
(5) spatial arrangement of ettringite crystals in the soil
matrix [166]. The detailed explorations of the effect of
gypsum/sulphate on the behaviour of calcium based sta-
bilized soils are not the scope and hence, are not included
in the present paper.
Stabilization of Gypseous Soil
Gypseous soil is considered as a weak soil under existence of
water. It has generally low bearing capacity and low strength.
Hence, it causes several risks to utilize as a construction
materials. Researchers have reported some techniques to
improve the engineering properties of gypseous soils.
Razouki and Kuttah [190] adopted physical means of stabi-
lize by compacting the gypseous soil with higher compacting
effort. Xeidakis et al. [209] and Najah et al. [210] proposed to
replace the gypseous soil with proper materials which is only
123
Indian Geotech J
been economical when nearby soils meet the requirement.
Grouting is another technique to improve the gypseous soil.
In this technique, liquids and materials in the form of slurry
peculiarly of cementitious and chemical are used to inject
into the ground [63]. However, the water used in grouting
may lead to ground subsidence and dissolution of gypsum.
Further, various types of geosynthetic materials such as
geotextiles, geogrids and steel stripes are used to improve the
properties of soil [63]. Besides all these technique, Taha et al.
[211] reported to stabilize the gypseous soil with the use of
cement, lime and fly ash.
Summary and Conclusion
Various aspects such as physico-chemical structure of gyp-
sum, different terminologies used for soils containing gyp-
sum, sources of gypsum in the soils and identification of
gypsum content in soils have been reviewed in the present
article. Further, the engineering problems, behavioral
changes and stabilization techniques of the gypseous/gyp-
siferous soil are discussed in detail. Based on detailed
review, the following main conclusions can be drawn:
1. Gypsum is unpredictable material mainly due to its
phase transformation characteristics (gypsumbassan-
iteanhydrite) under certain water-temperaturepres-
sure variation. The complex phenomenons (i.e.
hydration, setting and solubility) possess several
engineering problems such as ground subsidence,
heaving, formation of pipes, sinkholes cracks and
fractures in the gypseous/gypsiferous soil.
2. The suitable terminology to introduce gypsum con-
taining soils is still a debatable issue and needs to be
addressed. However, it has been preferred to use
suitable terminology based on gypsum content (i.e.
gypseous and gypsiferous).
3. The extent of gypseous/gypsiferous soil throughout the
world has not been reported consistently. Further, intrusion
of gypsum in the soils indirectly or artificially through
utilization of various gypsum containing waste materials,
pyrite oxidation and acid mine drainage creates a difficulty
for soil scientist to quantify the soil containing gypsum.
4. Methods proposed to determine gypsum content are
based on the indirect measurement of the concentration of
Ca2? or, SO2 4 ions through different techniques. Fur-
ther, analytical techniques such as TGA, PXRF, XRD and
SEM analyses are proposed for qualitative, semi-quan-
titative and quantitative determination of gypsum present
in soils. However, the complexity and limitations
involved in these methods enforce the soil scientist and
geotechnical engineering to develop the viable and direct
technique for gypsum determination in the soils.
Indian Geotech J

Table 4 Effect of gypsum contents on the properties of different type of soils

References Properties Materials Observations

Salas et al. [167] Shear strength Low plasticity clay An increase in gypsum content increases the angle of internal friction
parameter of clay
Lutenegger et al. [168] Swelling/heaving Expansive soil and Expansive pressure from gypsum is observed to be less than that
gypsum caused by montmorillonitic clay but is higher than capillary frost
heave
Keren et al. [114] Permeability Fine and coarse textured Gypsum causes reduction in the permeability due to packing of pores
soils, gypsum with gypsum particles
Ramiah [169] Strength (UCS) Silty clay, gypsum up to Strength of silty clay and gypsum specimen increases for soaked
behavior 10% specimens
Barzanji [170] Infiltration rate Gypsiferous soils (North The increase in gypsum content increases the infiltration rate for
characteristics of Iraq) specimens having the same soil texture and the same initial water
content
Petrukhin and Shear strength Clayey soils, sandy Up to 15% gypsum, specific cohesion of clayey soils increases due to
Arakelyan [171] parameters loam and gypsum reduction in porosity caused by formation of gypsum crystals in soil
pores and reduces thereafter due to failure of crystals bond.
However, angle of internal friction increases up to 20% and reduces
thereafter
Angle of internal friction of sandy loam increases with gypsum
content up to 25% due to the increase in mineral friction, and
reduces thereafter due to increase in porosity
Kattab [172] Compaction Granular gypsiferous The maximum dry density increases gradually with a reduction in
characteristics soil Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) up to 15% and vice versa
thereafter with further increase in gypsum
Subhi [42] Compaction Sandy silty, clay soil Maximum dry density reduces with any gypsum particle size. This is
characteristics, and gypsum particles due to the loss of some compactive effort in breaking the
Permeability of different sizes cementitious bonds developed between clay and gypsum particles.
However, increase and reduction in OMC is observed with addition
of gypsum particle size \63 lm or, between 250355 and
8501000 lm, respectively. Formation of flocculated and
agglomerated matrix reduces plasticity index and thereby
decreasing OMC
Permeability increases and reduces with addition of gypsum particles
of sized between 850 and 1000 and \63 lm, respectively. Many
factors such as non-uniform saturation, migration of fines during
testing and variation in void ratio affect the permeability
Hawkins and Pinches Swelling/heaving The shapes of gypsum crystals such as prismatic, thin acicular crystal
[173] etc. control the heave due to gypsum growth
Seleam [174] Shear strength Sandy soil The angle of internal friction and the effective cohesion in the sandy
parameter soil increase for a gypsum content between 25 and 80%
Al-Qaissy [175] Shear strength Clayey soil Increase in gypsum causes reduction in cohesion and increase in the
parameters angle of friction
Al-Dilaimy [176] Compaction Clayey gypsiferous soil Increase in the maximum dry density with a decrease in the OMC up
characteristics to gypsum content of 5% and vice versa thereafter
Al-Heeti [177] Atterbergs limits; Silty clay gypsiferous Liquid limit and plasticity index reduce with increase in gypsum
Compressibility soil content
characteristics Gypsiferous silty soil exhibits low compressibility during the primary
consolidation, and a secondary consolidation is observed after very
short period
Al-Dabbagh et al. [178] Permeability Compacted clayey and Permeability increases with an increase in gypsum content which is
sandy loam, gypsum mainly due to the formation of cavities between soil particles after
dissolution of gypsum
Al-Ani et al. [179] CBR Silty clay subgrade soil, Soaked CBR value increases with an increase in gypsum content up to
gypsum up to 20% 15% and reduces thereafter
Bell and Maud [180] Base exchange Dispersive (erodible) Solubility of gypsum powder in water and a high pH value control the
capacity soils, gypsum powder rate of base exchange reaction

123
 Indian Geotech J

Table 4 continued
References Properties Materials Observations

Al-Nouri and Saleam Compressibility Gypseous sandy soils Increase in gypsum content to sandy soils leads to the reduction in the
[181] characteristics compression index (Cc) due to the enhancement in the cementing
action of gypsum. However, the leaching causes in an increase in
the value of Cc due to the reduction in the cementing action of
gypsum
Borselli et al. [182] Hydrological, Kaolinitic crusting soil, Treatment of Kaolinitic crusting soil with gypsum powder influences
mechanical and phosphogypsum significantly to the shape of infiltration curve in dry antecedent
porosity powder moisture condition, and thereby improving overall water
properties infiltration. Gypsum enhances the strength by increasing cohesion
and normal stress between soil particles
Azam et al. [183] Atterbergs limits, Highly expansive clay Reduction in the liquid limit and plastic limit and increase in
swell test shrinkage limit of soil are observed with increase in the amount of
gypsum and anhydrite. Further, gypsum acts as inert filler and
thereby reducing the swell of soil
FIPR [184] Strength behaviour Phosphatic soil, gypsum Strength of phosphatic soil samples mixed with gypsum is observed to
be increased after a curing period of 360 days
Azam and Atterbergs limits, Expansive clay, LL and PL reduce as the amount of gypsum and anhydrite in clay is
Abduljauwad [85] Swell test Gypsum and increased. Further, an increase in gypsum content reduces the high
anhydrite up to 20% swell pressure
Razouki and Al-Azawi Strength and Subgrade soil Soaking of subgrade gypsiferous soil causes an adverse effect to the
[185] deformation containing 34% strength, stiffness and deformation
characteristics gypsum
Razouki and El-Janabi CBR value Well graded silty sand, Increase in soaking period reduces CBR drastically within very short
[186], Razouki and silty sand, high period of seven days and thereafter, the loss in CBR took place at a
Ibrahim [187], plastic clay and low smaller rate
Razouki and Kuttah plastic clay
[188], Razouki et al. containing 64, 28, 34
[189] and Razouki and 33% gypsum
and Kuttah [190] respectively.
Razouki et al. [191] Compaction Fine-grained Double peaks of two maximum dry densities and OMC are observed
behaviour gypsiferous soil in the compaction curve of the fine grained gypsiferous soil.
Razouki et al. Shear strength Low plasticity clay soil Cohesion and angle of internal friction of soil containing gypsum
[189, 191] parameters with a gypsum reduce significantly with an increase in soaking period. This is due
content of 33%, to the dissolution of gypsum particles from the contact areas
Sandy lean clay between particles and reduction in bonding forces between particles
containing 33%
gypsum
Ameta et al. [192] Swelling pressure Expansive soil, Gypsum Swelling pressure of soil reduces more than 60% with gypsum
up to 6% amendment
Ismail and Hilo [193] CBR and Sand subgrade soil, CBR decreases during soaking and increases during drying cycles for
deformation Gypsum up to 15% each soaking-drying cycles. On comparison, continuous soaking
characteristics generally undervalues the final deformation of gypsiferous soil
Yilmaz and Atterbergs limits, Expansive clay (Na- Gypsum reduces the liquid limit, plasticity index and swelling
Civelekoglu [194] swell, strength Bentonite), gypsum percentage of soil but improves the unconfined compressive
behaviour up to 10% strength with increase in curing period
Kousa and Jaksa [195] Swell behaviour Expansive soil, gypsum Injecting small amount of gypsum solution to expansive soil leads to
solution the reduction in swell pressure and deformation. Gypsum solution is
observed to be more effective in highly reactive expansive
montmorillonite rich soil
Ahmed et al. [196, 197] Compaction, Poorly graded sand soil, Significant increase in OMC and slight increase in dry unit weight are
compressive and recycled gypsum up observed with increase in recycled gypsum to soil. Gypsum affects
tensile strength, to 20% significantly on compressive strength than tensile strength. This is
capillary rise test due to the hydration of bassanite to gypsum and flocculation of soil
particles due to calcium present in gypsum
Increase in recycled gypsum content reduces rate of capillary rise
which helps to reduce the formation of ice lenses, and thereby
increasing the susceptibility of treated soil against frost heave

123
Indian Geotech J

Table 4 continued
References Properties Materials Observations

Kamei et al. [198] Compaction Soft clay soil, gypsum Increase in dry density and reduction in OMC of soil are observed
characteristics, up to 20% with increase in gypsum content. Strength, volume change and
freezethaw durability of samples subjected to freezethaw cycles improve
cycles on the UCS significantly with increase in gypsum to soil. This is due to the
and durability potential of bassanite to absorb water and development of
hardening between soil particles
Kobayashi et al. [199] Compressive and Cohesion-less soils Enhancement in compressive strength and splitting tensile strength are
split tensile (sandy and silty), observed more in sandy soil compared to silty soil
strength Recycled bassanite up
to 15%
Herrero and Boixadera Hydro-physical and Soil containing gypsum Very high gypsum content increases the mechanical impedance of
[200], Moret- mechanical from 50 to 92% soil, and reduces soilwater infiltration rate, as well as soilwater
Fernandez et al. characteristics retention capacity
[201, 202] and Poch Gypseous soils do not exhibit a less defined microstructure and retain
et al. [203] more water at near saturation conditions as compared to non-
gypseous soils
Ahmed and Issa [204] Compressive Very soft clay soil, Solidification of soil with recycled gypsum in combination of lime or
strength, Recycled gypsum cement controls the deformation due to soaking actions. However,
durability index, mixed with cement increase in the admixture ratios (lime:cement) possess a negative
deformation and lime impact on both the stability and durability of the samples subjected
changes to soaking
Moret-Fernandez and Gravimetric soil 43 samples of gypseous High gypsum content in the soils pronounces high water retention at
Herrero [205] water retention soil containing near saturation and steeper slope of water retention curve (WRC).
different gypsum However, 40% gypsum has been observed as threshold gypsum
content content for influencing WRC
Aldaood et al. [206] Soilwater Gypseous soil Risk of gypsum dissolution in the field could be minimized by
characteristic containing gypsum up maintaining lower water retention for a fixed suction (relative
curve (SWCC) to 25% humidity) which can be achieved by using lower compactive effort
Cruz et al. [207] Clay-gypsum Bentonite, Kaolinite and Addition of gypsum reduces the viscosity of ore-bentonite with
interaction and its gypsum floating behaviour, similar to ore-kaolinite mixtures. Further,
effects on copper addition of gypsum to the orekaolinite mixture enhances the
gold flotation particle entrainment with more mass transport to the foam by
creating aggregate with long string
Kilic et al. [208] Swell and strength High plastic clay, Gypsum reduces the swell percent and 3% of gypsum is found to be
behaviour Gypsum an optimum ratio. The UCS of clay decreases with different ratios
of gypsum and curing periods up to 90 days
Jha and Sivapullaiah Strength behaviour Expansive soil, gypsum Addition of gypsum deteriorates the strength of expansive soil with
[15] up to 6% curing periods

5. The techniques such as washing and solidifying to
determine PSD and CEC of gypseous/gypsiferous soil
mislead the results and hence, finding out the appro-
priate method is still a topic of future research.
6. The properties of gypseous/gypsiferous soils are
controlled by several factors such as types and amount
of clay present in soils, mineralogical composition of
soils, types and form of gypsum, fineness and amount
of gypsum, size and shape of gypsum crystals, various
other salt, calcium and sulphate present in soil,
environmental conditions such as temperature, pres-
sure and water content, wettingdrying conditions.
Hence, prediction of the behavior of these soils is
difficult and complex. Also, several contradictions on
the research findings are observed. Thus, the common
guideline for gypseous/gypsiferous soils needs to be
developed by considering each factors for safe design
and construction of structures on these soils.
7. Stabilization/modification techniques for the
gypseous/gypsiferous soil are not established properly.
Also, proposed methods to improve the behaviour of
gypseous/gypsiferous soils may lead to increase the
overall cost of project. Hence, proper research plan
should be established in order to find out suitable and
economic stabilization/modification techniques for
gypseous/gypsiferous soils.
The present paper summarizes various aspects of soils
containing gypsum and is intended to provide a guideline
for researchers/academician to be familiar with current
areas of research in this topic.

123

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the reviewers/
editor for their valuable/critical review and constructive comments.
References
1. Solis R, Zhang J (2008) Gypsiferous soils: an engineering
problem, in sinkholes and the engineering and environmental
impacts of Karst. In: ASCE, pp 742749
2. Ghosh A, Subbarao C (2001) Microstructural development in fly
ash modified with lime and gypsum. J Mater Civ Eng
13(1):6570
3. Shen W, Zhou M, Zhao Q (2007) Study on limefly ash
phosphogypsum binder. Constr Build Mater 21(7):14801485
4. Sivapullaiah PV, Moghal AAB (2010) Role of gypsum in the
strength development of fly ashes with lime. J Mater Civ Eng
23(2):197206
5. Jalali M, Merrikhpour H, Kaledhonkar MJ, Van Der Zee
SEATM (2008) Effect of wastewater irrigation on soil sodicity
and nutrient leaching in calcareous soils. Agric Water Manag
95:143153
6. El Tarabily KA, Soaud AA, Saleh ME, Matsumoto S (2006)
Isolation and characterization of sulphur-oxidizing bacteria,
including strains of Rhizobium from calcareous sandy soils and
their effects on nutrient uptake and growth of maize (Zea mays
L.). Aust J Agric Res 57:101111
7. Qadir M, Qureshi AS, Cheraghi SAM (2008) Extent and char-
acterization of salt-affected soils in Iran and strategies for their
amelioration and management. Land Degrad Dev 19:214227
8. Hurlbut Jr CS, Klein C (1977) Manual of mineralogy (after JD
Dana). Wiley, New York
9. Blyth FGH (1971) A geology for engineerings, 15th edn.
Edward Arnold Ltd, London
10. Kuznetsova LF, Lomovskii OI (1986) Thermal breakdown of
gypsum crystals. Inorg Mater 21(10):15341536
11. Kuttah D, Sato K (2015) Review on the effect of gypsum con-
tent on soil behavior. Transp Geotech 4:2837
12. Yilmaz IK (2001) Gypsum/anhydrite: some engineering prob-
lems. Bull Eng Geol Env 60:227230
13. Claisse PA, Ganjian E (2006) Briefing: gypsum: prospects for
recycling. Proc Inst Civ Eng Constr Mater 159(CM1):34
14. Herrero J, Porta J (2000) The terminology and the concepts of
gypsum-rich soils. Geoderma 96(1):4761
15. Jha AK, Sivapullaiah PV (2016) Role of gypsum on
microstructure and strength of soil. Environ Geotech 3(2):7889
16. Yamamoto H, Kennedy G (1969) Stability relations in the sys-
tem CaSO4H2O at high temperatures and pressures. Am J Sci A
267:550557
17.
http://thesustainablehome.net/binders-for-natural-plasters-part-
1/gypsum-cycle/
18. Herrero J (1991) Morfologi9a y Genesis de Suelos Sobre Yesos.
INITAA Madrid 447
19. Herrero J, Porta J, Fedoroff N (1992) Hypergypsic soil micro-
morphology and landscape relationships in Northeastern Spain.
Soil Sci Soc Am J 56(4):11881194
20. Drake NA (1997) Recent Aeolian origin of surficial gypsum
crusts in southern Tunisia: geomorphological, archaeological
and remote sensing evidence. Earth Surf Process Landf
22(7):641656
21. Merriam-Webster (1994) Merriam-Websters collegiate dic-
tionary, 10th edn. Merriam-Webster, Springfield, p 1559
22. Portland House (1989) Websters encyclopedic unabridged dic-
tionary of the English language. Random House, New York, p 2078
123
Indian Geotech J
23. Kothekar VS (1986) Classification and diagnostics of soils of the
USSR. Amerind Publishing Co, New Delhi
24. Yamnova IA, Golovanov DL (2010) Morphology and genesis of
gypsum pedofeatures and their representation on detailed soil
maps of arid regions. Eurasian Soil Sci 43(8):848857
25. Boyadgiev T, Veheye W (1996) Contribution to a utilitarian
classification of gypsiferous soil. Geoderma 74:321328
26. Eswaran H, Gong ZT (1991) Properties, genesis, classification,
and distribution of soils with gypsum. In: Nettleton WD (ed)
Occurrence, characteristics, and genesis of carbonate, gypsum,
and silica accumulations in soils, vol 26. Soil Science Society of
America Special Publication, pp 89119
27. Watson A (1979) Gypsum crusts in deserts. J Arid Environ
2:320
28. Ahmed A, Ugai K (2011) Environmental effects on durability of
soil stabilized with recycled gypsum. Cold Reg Sci Technol
66:8492
29. Fisher M (2011) Amending soils with gypsum. In: Crops and
soils magazine. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI,
pp 49
30. Akcil A, Koldas S (2006) Acid mine drainage (AMD): causes,
treatment and case studies. J Clean Prod 14(12):11391145
31. Stumm W, Morgan JJ (1981) Aquatic chemistry, 1st edn. Wiley,
New York
32. Hoffert JR (1947) Acid mine drainage. Ind Eng Chem
39(5):642646
33. Dermatas D (1995) Ettringite-induced swelling in soils: state-of-
the-art. Appl Mech Rev 48:659
34. Rollings RS Jr, Burkes JP, Rollings MP (1999) Sulphate attack
on cement stabilized sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
125(5):364372
35. Smith B, Bush R, Sammut J (1995) Acid sulphate soil in the
Noosa river catchments. Noosa Council Australia, Tewantin
36. Burkart B, Goss GC, Kern JP (1999) The role of gypsum in
production of sulphate-induced deformation of lime-stabilized
soils. Environ Eng Geosci 2:173187
37. Kota PB, Hazlett D, Perrin L (1996) Sulphate-bearing soils:
problems with calcium-based stabilizers. Transp Res Rec J
Transp Res Board 1546(1):6269
38. Puppala AJ, Wattanasantichatoen E, Intharasombat L, Hoyos
LR (2003) Studies to understand soil compositional and envi-
ronmental variables effects on sulphate heave problems. In: 12th
Panamerican conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical
engineering
39. Akili W, Torrance JK (1981) The development and geotechnical
problem of sabkha, with preliminary experiments on the static
penetration resistance of cemented sands. Q J Eng Geol
14(1):5973
40. Freyer D, Voigt W (2003) Crystallization and phase stability of
CaSO4 and CaSO4-based salts. Monatsh Chem 134:693719
41. James AN, Lupton ARR (1978) Gypsum and anhydrite in
foundations of hydraulic structures. Geotechnique
28(3):249272
42. Subhi HM (1987) The properties of salt contaminated soils and
their influence on the performance of roads in Iraq. Ph.D. thesis,
Queen Mary College, University of London
43. Van Alphen JG, Romero FDR (1971) Gypsiferous soilsnotes
on their characteristics and management. International Institute
for Land Reclamation and Improvement Bulletin, no. 12,
Wageningen, Netherlands
44. Hulett GA, Allen LE (1902) The solubility of gypsum. J Am
Chem Soc 24(7):667679
45. FAO Soils Bulletin (1992) Management of gypsiferous soils
(No. 62). Soil Resources, & Conservation Service. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
Indian Geotech J
46. Al-Barrak K, Rowell DL (2006) The solubility of gypsum in
calcareous soils. Geoderma 136:830837
47. Zanbak C, Arthur RC (1986) Geochemical and engineering
aspects of anhydrite/gypsum phase transitions. Environ Eng
Geosci 23(4):419433
48. Petrukhin VE (1989) Collapsible and suffusion deformations in
gypsy soils. In: Proceedings twelfth international conference of
soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 1. Rio de
Janeiro, pp 639642
49. Brouwers QL, Yu HJH, de Korte ACJ (2009) Gypsum hydra-
tion: a theoretical and experimental study. In: Proceedings of
17th international conference in building materials (Interna-
tionale Baustofftagung) Weimar, Germany, vol 1, pp 783788
50. Cunningham WA, Dunham RM, Antes LL (1952) Hydration of
gypsum plaster. Ind Eng Chem 44(10):24022408
51. Sievert T, Wolter A, Singh NB (2005) Hydration of anhydrite of
gypsum (CaSO4. II) in a ball mill. Cem Concr Res
35(4):623630
52. Gan MSJ (1997) Cement and concrete. CRC Press, Boca Raton
53. Singh NB, Middendorf B (2007) Calcium sulphate hemihydrate
hydration leading to gypsum crystallization. Prog Cryst Growth
Charact Mater 53(1):5777
54. Lewry AJ, Williamson J (1994) The setting of gypsum plaster.
J Mater Sci 29(20):52795284
55. Bensted J, Varma SP (1972) The a-b-forms of calcium sulphate
hemihydrate. Cem Technol 3(2):6770
56. Goto M, Molony B, Ridge MJ, West GW (1966) The forms of
calcium sulphate hemihydrate. Aust J Chem 19(2):313316
57. Ridge MJ, Beretka J (1969) Calcium sulphate hemihydrate and
its hydration. Rev Pure Appl Chem 19:1744
58. Huang JT, Airey DW (1998) Properties of artificially cemented
carbonate sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(6):492499
59. Hand RJ (1994) The kinetics of hydration of calcium sulphate
hemihydrate: a critical comparison of the models in the litera-
ture. Cem Concr Res 24(5):885895
60. Azam S (2007) Study on the geological and engineering aspects
of anhydrite/gypsum transition in the Arabian Gulf coastal
deposits. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66(2):177185
61. Blight GE (1976) Migration of subgrade salts damages thin
pavements. ASCE Trans Eng J 102(TE4):779791
62. Cooper AH (1998) Subsidence hazards caused by the dissolution
of Permian gypsum in England: geology, investigation and
remediation. Geol Soc Lond Eng Geol Spec Publ 15(1):265275
63. Cooper AH, Saunders JM (2002) Road and bridge construction
across gypsum karst in England. Eng Geol 65:217223
64. Fookes PC, French WJ (1977) Soluble salt damage to surfaced
roads in the Middle East. J Inst Highw Eng 24(11):1020
65. Razouki SS, Al-Omari RR, Nashat IH, Razouki HF, Khalid S
(1994) The problem of gypsiferous soils in Iraq. In: Proceedings
of the symposium on gypsiferous soils and their effect on
structures, NCCL, Baghdad, pp 733
66. Ransome FL (1928) Geology of the Saint Francis dam site. Econ
Geol 23(5):553563
67. Redfield RC (1963) Report on attendance at the 1st international
conference on public works in Gypsiferous Terrain. US Bureau
of Reclamation Amarillo, Madrid, pp 2029
68. Brune G (1965) Anhydrite and gypsum problems in engineering
geology. Eng Geol 2(1):2638
69. Calcano CE, Alzura PR (1967) Problems of dissolution of gypsum
in some dam sites. Bulletin of the Venezuelan Society on Soil
Mechanic & Foundation Engineering, JulySeptember, pp 7580
70. Alagoz CA (1976) Gypsum karst features around Sivas area,
central Anatolia. A.O.D.I.C.F. 175 Ankara (in Turkish)
71. Hawkins AB (1979) Case histories of some effects of solution/
dissolution in the Keuper rocks of the Severn Estuary region. Q J
Eng Geol Hydrogeol 12(1):3140
72. James AN, Kirkpatrick IM (1980) Design of foundations of
dams containing soluble rocks and soils. Q J Eng Geol Hydro-
geol 13(3):189198
73. Bogli A (1980) Karst hydrology and physical speleology
(translated by June C. Schmidt). Springer, Berlin, p 284
74. White WB (1988) Geomorphology and hydrology of karst ter-
rains. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 464
75. Lee GW, Clemence SP, Bhatia SK, Anagnost S (1984) Subsi-
dence affects due to gypsum solution in Syracuse. International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,
New York, p 44
76. Culshaw MG, Waltham AC (1987) Natural and artificial cavities
as ground engineering hazards. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol
20(2):139150
77. Cooper AH (1988) Subsidence resulting from the dissolution of
Permian gypsum in the Ripon area; its relevance to mining and
water abstraction. Geol Soc Lond Eng Geol Spec Publ
5(1):387390
78. Cooper AH (1989) Airborne multispectral scanning of subsi-
dence caused by Permian gypsum dissolution of ripon, North
Yorkshire. Q J Eng Geol 22(3):219229
79. Bell FG (1993) Engineering geology. Blackwell, Oxford, p 359
80. Abduljauwad SN (1993) Study on the performance of calcareous
expansive clays. Environ Eng Geosci 30(4):481498
81. Ko SC, Olgaard DL, Briegel U (1995) The transition from
weakening to strengthening in dehydrating gypsum: evolution of
excess pore pressures. Geophys Res Lett 22(9):10091012
82. Abduljauwad SN, Al-Amoudi OSB (1995) Geotechnical beha-
viour of saline sabkha soils. Geotechnique 45(3):425445
83. Rahn PH, Davis AD (1996) Gypsum foundation problems in the
Black Hills area, South Dakota. Environ Eng Geosci 2(2):213223
84. Karacan E, Ylmaz I (1997) Collapse dolines in miocene gyp-
sum: an example from SW Sivas (Turkey). Environ Geol
29(34):263266
85. Azam S, Abduljauwad SN (2000) Influence of gypsification on
engineering behaviour of expansive clay. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 126(6):538542
86. Eyers R, Moore JM, Hervas J, Liu JG (1998) Integrated use of
Landsat TM and SPOT panchromatic imagery for landslide
mapping: case histories from southeast Spain. Geol Soc Lond
Eng Geol Spec Publ 15(1):133140
87. Thompson A, Hine P, Peach D, Frost L, Brook D (1998) Sub-
sidence hazard assessment as a basis for planning guidance in
Ripon. Geol Soc Lond Eng Geol Spec Publ 15(1):415426
88. Lundgren LW (1999) Environmental geology. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliff, p 511
89. Kadhim AJ (2014) Stabilization of gypseous soil by cutback
asphalt for roads construction. J Eng Dev 18(1):4667
90. Bower CA, Huss RB (1948) Rapid conductometric method for
estimating gypsum in soils. Soil Sci 66(3):199204
91. Abrisqueta C, Artes F, Romero M (1962) Estudio crtico del metodo
de Bower y Huss para la determinacion de yeso en suelos calizos de
Murcia. Anales de Edafologa y Agrobiologa 21:531538
92. Schleiff V (1979) Determination of gypsum by measurement of
electrical conductivity in water extracts of soils in Saudi Arabia.
Mitt Deutsch Bodenk Gesellsch 2(993):1000
93. Richards LA (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and
alkali soils. Soil Sci 78(2):154
94. Adams F (1971) Ionic concentrations and activities in soil
solutions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 35(3):420426
95. Coutinet S (1965) Methodes danalyse utilisables pour les sols
sales, calcaires et gypseux. Agronomie Tropicale Paris
12:12421253
96. Lagerwerff JV, Akin GW, Moses SW (1965) Detection and
determination of gypsum in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J
29(5):535540
123

97. Khan SU, Webster GR (1968) Determination of gypsum in
solonetzic soils by an X-ray technique. Analyst
93(1107):400402
98. Porta J (1975) Redistribuciones ionicas en suelos salinos,
Influencia sobre la vegetacion halofilay las posibilidades de
recuperacion de los suelos con horizonte gypsico y otros suelos
halomorfos de las margenes del ro Giguela. Tesis doctoral 122. Weindorf DC, Zhu Y, Ferrell R, Rolong N, Barnett T, Allen BL,
ETSIA, Madrid, p 261
99. Kovalenko TA (1972) Determination of gypsum in soil. Soil
Science, Pochvovedenie
100. Nelson RE, Klameth LC, Nettleton WD (1978) Determining soil
gypsum content and expressing properties of gypsiferous soils.
Soil Sci Soc Am J 42(4):659661
101. Sayegh AH, Khan NA, Khan P, Ryan J (1978) Factors affecting
gypsum and cation exchange capacity determinations in gyp-
siferous soils. Soil Sci 125(5):294300
102. Friedel B (1978) Zur bestimmung von Gips in Boden. Zeitschrift
fur Pflanzenernahrung und Bodenkunde 141(2):231239
103. Dick WA, Tabatabai MA (1979) Ion chromatographic deter-
mination of sulphate and nitrate in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J
43(5):899904
104. Marko-Varga G, Csiky I, Joensson JA (1984) Ion-chromato-
graphic determination of nitrate and sulphate in natural waters
containing humic substances. Anal Chem 56(12):20662069
105. Nieto KF, Frankenberger WT (1985) Single column ion chro-
matography: I. Analysis of inorganic anions in soils. Soil Sci
Soc Am J 49(3):587592
106. Elprince AM, Turjoman AM (1983) Infrared dehydration
method for determining gypsum content of soils. Soil Sci Soc
Am J 47(6):10891091
107. Skarie RL, Arndt JL, Richardson JL (1987) Sulphate and gyp-
sum determination in saline soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J
51(4):901905
108. Frenkel H, Gerstl Z, van de Veen JR (1986) Determination of
gypsum and cation exchange capacity in arid soils by a resin
method. Geoderma 39(1):6777
109. Porta J (1986) Edafogenesis en suelos yesferos en medio
semiarido. Doe. difusion restringida, LTSIA Lerida
110. Berigari MS, Al-Any FMS (1994) Gypsum determination in
soils by conversion to water-soluble sodium sulphate. Soil Sci
Soc Am J 58(6):16241627
111. Stern R, Alperovitch N, Levy GJ (1989) Rapid removal of
gypsum by resin prior to particle-size-distribution analysis in
soils. Soil Sci 148(6):448451
112. Hesse PR (1976) Particle size distribution in gypsic soils. Plant
Soil 44(1):241247
113. ISRIC (1987) Procedures for soils analysis. International Soil
Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen
114. Keren R, Kreit JF, Shainberg I (1980) Influence of size of
gypsum particles on the hydraulic conductivity of soils. Soil Sci
130(3):113117
115. Puppala AJ, Kruzic AP, Viyanant C, Perrin L (2002) Evaluation
of a modified soluble sulphate determination method for fine-
grained cohesive soils. Geotech Test J 25(1):8594
116. Artieda O (1993) Factores geologicos que inciden en el desar-
rollo de los suelos en un medio semiarido. El caso de Quinto
(Zaragoza). MS Thesis, University of Zaragoza, Spain (in
Spanish)
117. Porta Casanellas J, Lopez-Acevedo Reguern M, Roquero de
Laburu C (1994) Pedology: for agriculture and the environment.
Ediciones Mundi-Prensa, Spain, p 807
118. Porta J (1998) Methodologies for the analysis and characteri-
zation of gypsum in soils: a review. Geoderma 87(1):3146
119. Artieda O, Herrero J, Drohan PJ (2006) Refinement of the dif-
ferential water loss method for gypsum determination in soils.
Soil Sci Soc Am J 70(6):19321935
123
Indian Geotech J
120. Lebron I, Herrero J, Robinson DA (2009) Determination of
gypsum content in dry land soils exploiting the gypsumbas-
sanite phase change. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73(2):403411
121. Weindorf DC, Herrero J, Castaneda C, Bakr N, Swanhart S
(2013) Direct soil gypsum quantification via portable X-ray
fluorescence spectrometry. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77(6):20712077
Hudnall W (2009) Evaluation of portable X-ray fluorescence for
gypsum quantification in soils. Soil Sci 174(10):556562
123. Vieillefon J (1977) Recherches sur ianalyse granulometrique des
sols gypseux. Ministere de IAgriculture, Direction des Res-
sources en Eaux et en Sols (DRES) et ORSTOM. Tunisie, ES
137 DRES. Translated from Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. 1990. Management of gypsiferous soils
FAO Soils Bulletin, no. 62, Rome
124. Vieillefon J (1978) Etude de iapplication des phenomenes de
deshydration et de rehydration du sulphate de calcium a iesti-
mation des teneurs en eau et en gypse des sols gypseux. ORS-
TOM, Division des Sols. Tunisie, ES 146 DRES, Translated
from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Management of gypsiferous soils. FAO Soils , no. 62, Rome
125. Vieillefon J (1979) Contribution to the improvement of analysis
of gypsiferous soils. Cahiers/ORSTOM Serie Pedologie
17:195223
126. Abrukova LP, Isayev VA (1983) Structural-mechanical prop-
erties of gray-brown gypsiferous soils. Soviet Soil Sci
15(6):90100
127. Agboola AA, Corey RB (1973) The relationship between soil
ph, organic matter, available phosphorus, exchangeable potas-
sium, calcium, magnesium, and nine elements in the maize
tissue. Soil Sci 115(5):367375
128. Baldwin M, Kellogg CE, Thorp J (1938) Soil classification.
Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis
129. Barzanji AF (1973) Gypsiferous soils of Iraq. Doctoral disser-
tation, Ph.D. Thesis State, University of Ghent Belgium
130. Rivers ED, Hallmark CT, West LT, Drees LR (1982) A tech-
nique for rapid removal of gypsum from soil samples. Soil Sci
Soc Am J 46(6):13381340
131. Matar AE, Douleimy T (1978) Note on a proposed method for
the mechanical analyses of gypsiferous soils. ACSAD Publica-
tion. The Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry
Lands Damascus, Syria
132. Pearson MJ, Monteith SE, Ferguson RR, Hallmark CT, Hudnall
WH, Monger HC, West LT (2015) A method to determine particle
size distribution in soils with gypsum. Geoderma 237:318324
133. Gee GW, Orr D (2012) Particle-size analysis. In: Dane JH, Topp
GC (eds) Methods of soil analysis: part 4. Physical methods.
Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 255293
134. McIntyre DS, Loveday J (1974) Particle size analysis. In:
Loveday J (ed) Methods for analysis of irrigated soils. Com-
monwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Wallingford
135. Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy, 12th edn. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Washington
136. Garman M, Hesse PR (1975) Cation exchange capacity of
gypsic soils. Plant Soil 42(2):477480
137. Polemio M, Rhoades JD (1977) Determining cation exchange
capacity: a new procedure for calcareous and gypsiferous soils.
Soil Sci Soc Am J 41(3):524528
138. Tucker BM, Beatty HJ (1974) Exchangeable cations and cation
exchange capacity. In: Loveday J (ed) Methods for analysis of
irrigated soils. Technical Communication, no. 54, Commonwealth
Bureau of soils, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, pp 118130
139. Arakelyan EA (1986) Characteristics of determination of the
physical properties of gypsum soils. Soil Mech Found Eng
23(1):2729
Indian Geotech J
140. Abdi MR (1992) Effect of calcium sulphate on lime-stabilised
kaolinite. Doctoral dissertation Polytechnic of Wales
141. Diamond S (1996) Delayed ettringite formation-processes and
problems. Cement Concr Compos 18(3):205215
142. Hasaba S, Kawamura M, Toiri K (1982) Reaction products and
strength characteristics in the stabilized soil using desulphur-
ization by-product and blast furnace slag. Trans Jpn Soc Eng
14:251253
143. Jha AK, Sivapullaiah PV (2015) Susceptibility of strength
development by lime in gypsiferous soila micro mechanistic
study. Appl Clay Sci 115:3950
144. Jha AK, Sivapullaiah PV (2016) Gypsum-induced volume
change behaviour of stabilized expansive soil with fly ashlime.
Geotech Test J ASTM 39(3):391406. doi:
10.1520/GTJ20150017
145. Jha AK, Sivapullaiah PV (2016) Volume change behaviourof
lime treated gypseous soilinfluence of mineralogy and
microstructure. Appl Clay Sci 119:202212
146. Kawamura M, Torii K, Hasaba S (1986) Reaction process and
microstructure in compacted fly ashes and fly ashchemical
additive mixtures. In: Eighth international congress on the
chemistry of cement, pp 9297
147. Little DN, Nair S, Herbert B (2009) Addressing sulphate-in-
duced heave in lime treated soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
136(1):110118
148. McCarthy MJ, Csetenyi LJ, Sachdeva A, Dhir RK (2012)
Identifying the role of fly ash properties for minimizing sul-
phate-heave in lime-stabilized soils. Fuel 92(1):2736
149. Mehra SR, Chadda LR, Kapur RN (1955) Role of detrimental
salts in soil stabilization with and without cement. Indian Concr
J 29:336337
150. Mehta PK (1973) Mechanism of expansion associated with
ettringite formation. Cem Concr Res 3(1):16
151. Mehta PK (1983) Mechanism of sulphate attack on portland
cement concreteanother look. Cem Concr Res 13(3):401406
152. Sherwood PT (1962) Effect of sulphates on cement-and lime-
stabilized soils. Highway Res Board Bull 353:97107
153. Sivapullaiah PV, Jha AK (2014) Gypsum induced strength
behaviour of fly ash-lime stabilized expansive soil. Geotech
Geol Eng 32(5):12611273
154. Sivapullaiah PV, Sridharan A, Ramesh HN (2000) Strength
behaviour of lime-treated soils in the presence of sulphate. Can
Geotech J 37(6):13581367
155. Sridharan A, Prashanth JP, Sivapullaiah PV (1997) Effect of fly
ash on the unconfined compressive strength of black cotton soil.
Proc ICE Ground Improv 1(3):169175
156. Sridharan A, Sivapullaiah PV, Ramesh HN (1995) Consolida-
tion behaviour of lime treated sulphatic soils. In: International
symposium on compression and consolidation of clayey soils,
Hiroshima, Japan, vol 1, pp 183188
157. Wang L, Roy A, Tittsworth R, Seals RK (2004) Mineralogy of
soil susceptible to sulphate attack after stabilization. J Mater Civ
Eng 16(4):375382
158. Wild S, Abdi MR, Leng-Ward G (1993) Sulphate expansion of
lime-stabilized kaolinite: II. Reaction products and expansion.
Clay Miner 28(4):569584
159. Hunter D (1988) Lime-induced heave in sulphate-bearing clay
soils. J Geotech Eng 114(2):150167
160. Mitchell JK (1986) Practical problems from surprising soil
behavior. J Geotech Eng 112(3):259289
161. Mitchell JK, Dermatas D (1992) Clay soil heave caused by lime-
sulfate reactions. Special Technical Publication No. 1135,
ASTM, West Conshohocken, pp 4164
162. Puppala AJ, Hanchanloet S, Jadeja M, Burkart B (1999) Sul-
phate induced heave distress: a case study. In: Proceedings
transportation research board annual meeting, Washington DC,
USA
163. Puppala AJ, Talluri N, Bhaskar CS, Gaily A (2012) Lessons
learned from sulphate induced heaving studies in chemically
treated soils. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
ground improvement and ground control, vol 1. Research Pub-
lishing, pp 8598
164. Rajasekaran G (2005) Sulphate attack and ettringite formation in
the lime and cement stabilized marine clays. Ocean Eng
32:11331159
165. Mehta PK, Wang S (1982) Expansion of ettringite by water
adsorption. Cem Concr Res 12(1):121122
166. Little DN, Herbert B, Kunagalli SN (2005) Ettringite formation
in lime-treated soils: establishing thermodynamic foundations
for engineering practice. Transp Res Rec 1936:5159
167. Salas JAJ, Justo JL, Romana M, Faraco C (1973) The collapse
of gypseous silts and clays of low plasticity in arid and semiarid
climates. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on
soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Moscow, Dunod
Press, Paris, pp 193199
168. Lutenegger AJ, Wollenhaupt NC, Handy RL (1979) Laboratory
simulation of shale expansion by induced gypsum growth. Can
Geotech J 16(2):405409
169. Ramiah BK (1982) The effect of chemicals on compressibility
and strength of Baghdad silty clay. R.D. 70/82 Baghdad,
Building Research Center
170. Barzanji KKH (1984) Infiltration rate characteristics of gypsif-
erous soils in northern Iraq (Jazirah-Area). M.Sc. thesis Irriga-
tion and Drainage Engineering Department, University of
Mosul, Iraq
171. Petrukhin VP, Arakelyan EA (1984) Strength of gypsum-clay
soils and its variation during the leaching of salts. Soil Mech
Found Eng 21(6):264268
172. Kattab SA (1986) Effect of gypsum on the strength of granular
soil treated and untreated with cement. M.Sc. thesis Civil
Engineering Department, University of Baghdad, Iraq
173. Hawkins AB, Pinches CM (1987) Expansion due to gypsum
growth. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on
expansive soils, New Delhi, pp 183187
174. Seleam SNM (1988) Geotechnical characteristics of a gypseous
sandy soil including the effect of contamination with some oil
products. M.Sc. thesis Building and Construction Department,
University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq
175. Al-Qaissy FF (1989) Effect of gypsum content and its migration
on compressibility and shear strength of the soil. M.Sc. thesis
Building and Construction Department, University of Technol-
ogy, Baghdad, Iraq
176. Al-Dilaimy FK (1989) The effect of gypsum content on the strength
and deformation of remolded clay. M.Sc. thesis Civil Engineering
Department, University of Salah, Al-Deen, Iraq (in Arabic)
177. Al-Heeti AAH (1990) The engineering properties of compacted
gypsified soil. M.Sc. thesis Civil Engineering Department,
University of Baghdad, Iraq
178. Al-Dabbagh T, Al-Diwaji H, Saed S, Hammo N (1990) Effect of
increasing gypsum on the engineering properties of surface
soils. Al-Muhandis J 104:2125
179. Al-Ani H, Sherief J, Mansour S, Hasso H (1988) An investi-
gation into the effect of gypsum on the properties of highway
materials. In: Proceeding of conference on highways, University
of Technology, Iraq, Sept 810
180. Bell FG, Maud RR (1994) Dispersive soils and earth dams with
some experiences from South Africa. Environ Eng Geosci
31(4):433446
181. Al-Nouri I, Saleam S (1994) Compressibility characteristics of
gypseous sandy soils. Geotech Test J 17(4):465474
123

182. Borselli L, Carnicelli S, Ferrari GA, Pagliai M, Lucamante G
(1996) Effects of gypsum on hydrological, mechanical and
porosity properties of a kaolinitic crusting soil. Soil Technol
9(1):3954
183. Azam S, Abduljauwad SN, Al-Shayea NA, Al-Amoudi OS
(1998) Expansive characteristics of gypsiferous/anhydritic soil
formations. Eng Geol 51(2):89107
184. FIPR (Florida Institute of Phosphate Research) (1988) Stabi-
lization of phosphatic clay with lime columns. Report prepared
by Bromwell and Carrier Inc. under a grant sponsored by the
Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Bartow, Florida, p 102
185. Razouki SS, Al-Azawi MS (2003) Long-term soaking effect on
strength and deformation characteristics of a gypsiferous sub-
grade soil. Eng J Univ Qatar 16:4960
186. Razouki SS, El-Janabi OA (1999) Decrease in the CBR of a
gypsiferous soil due to long-term soaking. Q J Eng GeolHy-
drogeol 32(1):8789
187. Razouki SS, Ibrahim AN (2007) Improving a gypsum sand
roadbed soil by increased compaction. In: Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers-Transport, vol 160. Thomas Tel-
ford Ltd., pp 2731
188. Razouki SS, Kuttah DK (2006) Predicting long-term soaked
CBR of gypsiferous subgrade soils. In: Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, vol 159, no. 3. Transport Thomas
Telford Ltd., pp 135140
189. Razouki SS, Kuttah DK, Al-Damluji OA, Nashat IH (2007)
Strength erosion of a fine-grained gypsiferous soil during
soaking. Arab J Sci Eng 32(1B):147
190. Razouki SS, Kuttah DK (2004) Effect of soaking period and
surcharge load on resilient modulus and California bearing
ratio of gypsiferous soils. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol
37(2):155164
191. Razouki SS, Kuttah DK, Al-Damluji OA, Nashat IH (2008)
Using gypsiferous soil for embankments in hot desert areas.
Proc Inst Civ Eng Constr Mater 161(2):6371
192. Ameta NK, Purohit DGM, Wayal AS, Sandeep D (2007) Eco-
nomics of stabilizing bentonite soil with limegypsum. EJGE
12:18
193. Ismail A, Hilo WJ (2008) Deformation of gypsum sand during
cyclic soaking and drying. J Appl Sci 8(24):46104616
194. Yilmaz I, Civelekoglu B (2009) Gypsum: an additive for sta-
bilization of swelling clay soils. Appl Clay Sci 44(1):166172
195. Kousa I, Jaksa M (2010) Treatment of expansive soils using
gypsum solution. In: Cameron DA, Kaggwa W (eds) Proceed-
ings from the 3rd international conference on problematic soils,
Adelaide, South Australia, pp 197206
196. Ahmed A, Ugai K, Kamei T (2011) Laboratory and field eval-
uations of recycled gypsum as a stabilizer agent in embankment
construction. Soils Found 51(6):975990
123
Indian Geotech J
197. Ahmed A, Ugai K, Kamei T (2012) Assessment of recycled
gypsum for organic soft clay soil improvement. In: GeoCon-
gress 2012: state of the art and practice in geotechnical engi-
neering. ASCE, pp 10261035
198. Kamei T, Ahmed A, Ugai K (2013) Durability of soft clay soil
stabilized with recycled bassanite and furnace cement mixtures.
Soils Found 53(1):155165
199. Kobayashi M, Ahmed A, Ugai K (2013) Improvement proper-
ties of cohesion-less soil using recycled bassanite. J Civ Eng
Archit 7(12):1566
200. Herrero J, Boixadera J (2002) Gypsic soils. In: Lal R (ed)
Encyclopedia of soil science. Marcel Dekker, New York,
pp 635639
201. Moret-Fernandez D, Pueyo Y, Bueno CG, Alados CL (2011)
Hydro-physical responses of gypseous and non-gypseous soils to
livestock grazing in a semi-arid region of NE Spain. Agric
Water Manag 98(12):18221827
202. Moret-Fernandez D, Castaneda C, Paracuellos E, Jimenez S,
Herrero J (2013) Hydro-physical characterization of contrasting
soils in a semiarid zone of the Ebro river valley (NE Spain).
J Hydrol 486:403411
203. Poch RM, De Coster W, Stoops G (1998) Pore space charac-
teristics as indicators of soil behaviour in gypsiferous soils.
Geoderma 87(1):87109
204. Ahmed A, Issa UH (2014) Stability of soft clay soil stabilized
with recycled gypsum in a wet environment. Soils Found
54(3):405416
205. Moret-Fernandez D, Herrero J (2015) Effect of gypsum content
on soil water retention. J Hydrol 528:122126
206. Aldaood A, Bouasker M, AlMukhtar M (2014) Soilwater
characteristic curve of lime treated gypseous soil. Appl Clay Sci
102:128138
207. Cruz N, Peng Y, Wightman E, Xu N (2015) The interaction of
clay minerals with gypsum and its effects on coppergold
flotation. Miner Eng 77:121130
208. Kilic R, Kucukali O, Ulamis K (2016) Stabilization of high
plasticity clay with lime and gypsum (Ankara, Turkey). Bull
Eng Geol Env 75(2):735744
209. Xeidakis GS, Torok A, Skias S, Kleb B (2004) Engineering
geological problems associated with karst terrains. In: Bulletin
of the Geological Society of Greece. Proceedings of the 10th
international congress, Thessaloniki, vol 36, pp 19321941
210. Najah L, Ahmad F, Said M, Jayad A (2013) Collapsibility and
compressibility of gypseous soils. Aust J Basic Appl Sci
7(7):196199
211. Taha R, Papagiannakis T, Seals R, Saylak D (1994) The use of
by-product gypsum in road construction: a state-of-the-art
summary. In: Proceedings of the third materials engineering
conference, San Diego, California, pp 170177