archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/acme

Review

Geotechnical properties of the soils modified with

nanomaterials: A comprehensive review

Navid Ghasabkolaei a, Asskar Janalizadeh Choobbasti a, Nader Roshan a,

Seiyed E. Ghasemi b,*
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Babol University of Technology, Babol, Iran
b
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran

article info abstract

Article history: In recent years, large steps have been taken in the eld of nanotechnology, and many
Received 31 July 2016 nanotechnology-based breakthroughs have been made in geotechnical engineering. It is
Accepted 29 January 2017 apparent that nanomaterials will be used to improve the geotechnical properties of soils in
Available online 24 February 2017 the near future, extensively.
In this paper, we discussed previous studies on the use of nanoparticles in soil, their
Keywords: properties, their effects on soil and the equipment used in nanotechnology. A new categori-
Nanomaterials zation was introduced and the signicant effects of nanoparticles on the properties of soil
Soil were studied. According to the new categorization, clay particles vary between 0.1 and 2 mm,
Geotechnical engineering while nanosol contains particles in the range of 1100 nm.
Clay 2017 Politechnika Wrocawska. Published by Elsevier Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Review study

1. Introduction
The ideas and concepts behind nanoscience and nanotech-
nology started with a talk entitled There's Plenty of Room at
the Bottom by physicist Richard Feynman at an American
Physical Society meeting at the California Institute of
Technology on December 1959, long before the term nano-
technology was used [1,2]. Since then, various denitions have
been proposed for nanotechnology. The National Nanotech-
nology Initiative (NNI) presented a comprehensive denition
that includes the following three denitions: [3]
(1) Technology development and research at atomic, molecu-
lar, or macro-molecular levels on the scale of 1100 nm;
(2) Creating and using structures, tools, and systems that have
new properties and performances due to their small size or
medium limit;
(3) Ability to control or manipulate at atomic levels.
Utilizing the properties of nanoscale material provides
some characteristics, advantages and prots that are funda-
mental from medical, scientical, environmental and com-
mercial. Among the benets that have been recognized to date
are reducing energy consumption, economic savings, time
savings, increased quality of products, all of which can
contribute to increased quality of life and healthier lifestyles.
They can also reduce our dependence on other advanced
technologies and their higher costs and increase the national

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ghasemi.seiyed.e@gmail.com (S.E. Ghasemi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.01.010
1644-9665/ 2017 Politechnika Wrocawska. Published by Elsevier Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
640 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650
income. Unfortunately, the amazing effect of nanotechnology
and its use have not been recognized well to date in
geotechnical engineering. Perhaps this is due to the fact that
nanotechnology studies are of interdisciplinary nature, which
requires researchers to have wide range knowledge to
understand the extended necessities of nanotechnology and
to determine their roles in this new and exciting eld [4].
However, in recent years, some signicant steps have been
taken to evaluate the potential uses of this technology in
geotechnical engineering and given the promising results
of these studies, it should not be surprising when this
technology is embraced and utilized in geotechnical
engineering.
In this paper, we describe the nanosol concept, which is a
new classication of soil. Then, we discuss the equipment
used to analyze the structure of soil and some cases in which
nanoparticles can be used to improve the geotechnical
properties of soil. Therefore, nano particles can be entitled
as an additive for stabilization of soils.
2. Soil classication based on nano-approach
Soil is any uncemented or weakly-cemented accumulation of
mineral particles [5] with size ranging from as small as 1 nm to
as large as 75 mm [6]. Such a wide range of particle sizes has
made soil one of the most complicated materials to study,
understand, model, and utilize. In classical geotechnical
engineering, four categories of soil are generally recognized,
i.e., gravel, sand, silt, and clay; the dimensions of which are
provided in Table 1 [7].
Although this classication has solved two problems
related to soil mechanics. First, as the sizes of the particles
decrease to the nanoscale, their properties can change
dramatically. Second, according to the classical denition,
clay particles include particles smaller than 2 mm, which
means that the sizes of clay particles range from 1 nm to 2 mm.
Therefore, the ratio of the size of the largest particles to the
size of the smallest particles is 2  10 6/1  10 9 = 2000, which
is much greater ratio than for other fractions. Thus, Zhange [7]
proposed the new range of 0.12 mm for clay particles, giving
them a ratio of 20. In so doing, the ratio was changed from 2000
to 20, which is about the same as the ratio for other fractions.
Similarly, in the proposed new denition, the sizes of
nanoparticles were designated to be in the range of 1
100 nm, giving them a ratio of 100. Thus, a new category of
particles, called nanosol, was devised to dene these soil structure of soils at the nanometric scale. The transmission
nanoparticles that have properties that are remarkably
different from those of clay [7].
Table 1 The size range of soil particle [7].
Particle Lower limit Upper limit Ratio
Gravel 4.75 mm 75 mm 15.8
Sand 0.075 mm 4.75 mm 63.3
Silt 2 mm 75 mm 37.5
Clay (classical) 1 nm 2 mm 2000
Clay (proposed) 0.1 mm 2 mm 20
Nanosol 1 nm 100 nm 100
3. Applying nanomechanics in geotechnical
engineering
The concept of nanomechanics is related to geotechnical
engineering for the following reasons:
 Soil and rock minerals are nanomaterials: nanoparticles exist in
soil environment, including smectite, imogolite, halloysite,
palygorskite, sepiolite, allophane, hematite, and goethite [7].
 Nanomechanics can be used to gain a better understanding of the
mechanical behavior of soil and rock (e.g. friction, creep, thermal
effects, and chemical effects): nanoparticles interact very
actively with other soil constituents (including the liquid
phase, cations, organic matter and clay minerals) due to
their exceptionally high specic surface area (SSA) (i.e., the
total surface area per unit mass) and reactive surfaces with
charges, and thus they have profound inuence on the
microstructure and the physical, chemical and engineering
properties of soils, even when they represent only a very
small weight fraction of the material [7].
 Nanomechanics can predict the behaviors of geotechnical materials
in special conditions: The soils are natural materials that
possess complex physical and chemical properties, so
predicting the behavior of soil denitely is challenging,
even with modern geotechnical engineering techniques [8].
 The interaction of soils and rocks with uids (e.g., weathering) is a
nanoprocess: Some nanoparticles are porous and contain
intraparticle-nanoscale voids. The presence of nanoporosity
signicantly increases the SSA and hence the absorption
capacity (e.g., water retention, organic absorption) and also
reduces bulk density. Therefore, porous nanoparticles can
inuence soil properties very dramatically, even when they
are present as a very small weight fraction [7].
Clay is a nanomaterial and the behavior of its particles is
controlled by nanomechanics [9].
4. Equipment used to study the nanostructure
of soil particles
The microscopic structure of ne-grained soils can be used as
an index to identify diverse environments and evaluate their
strength [10].
New methods have been proposed for observing the
electron microscope (TEM), scanning electron microscope
(SEM), and atomic force microscope (AFM) are among the
direct methods for taking images of nanoscale particles, and
they provide information concerning their dimensions,
shapes, and morphologies [11,12].
SEM was invented in 1931 by Knoll and Ruska. It provides
larger images using electrons. In this method, an electron ray
perpendicularly shines on the specimen. As an interaction
between the ray and specimen in vacuum, electrons and X-
rays are emitted. Sensors receive the emitted X-rays, the initial
electrons, and the electrons that result from the interactions of
the initial electrons. The sensors convert them into signals and
transmit the signals to monitors that provide the nal image
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650 641

[13]. This method can be also used to investigate the sizes and
distributions of the nanoparticles [1416].
TEM was invented in 1939 by two German scientists,
Siemens and Halska, to simplify the analysis process and
improve the accuracy of images [17]. TEM, like SEM, uses
electron emissions by passing the electrons through the
specimen and to a phosphorus detector to provide a plan of the
specimen's structure [18]. TEM is able to take images of the
nanoscale particles that are produced so that the sizes and
morphologies of the particles can be scrutinized. It also can be
used to study inorganic materials in soils [19]. In addition, it
enables the identication and analysis of features on a
signicantly sub-micrometer scale [20]. Fig. 1 Unconfined compressive strength of sand samples
AFM was invented in 1986 by Binning, Quate, and Gerber grouted with various percentages of colloidal silica (data
[21]. It has many applications in determining surface topog- obtained from paper of Persoff et al. [34]).
raphy and studying surface cavities [22]. AFM consists of a
cantilever with a sharp tip at its end that is used to scan the
specimen's surface. Unlike an electron microscope, which
provides a two-dimensional projection or a two-dimensional targeted, 10 wt% provided sufcient stabilization with accept-
image of a sample, AFM provides a true three-dimensional able strain levels. Although using more than 10 wt% colloidal
prole of the surface. High resolution AFM is comparable to silica limited the strain even further, it was not economically
SEM and TEM. AFM images are used in geotechnical feasible (Fig. 2).
engineering to study the roughness of surfaces and the Also, Rodriguez and Izarraras [37] investigated the reduc-
friction angle between soil particles [23,24]. A major advantage tion of liquefaction potential of liqueable sand with colloidal
of AFM is that, unlike electron microscopes, it can operate in silica. Adding 15 wt% of colloidal silica to liqueable loose sand
air, vacuum, and liquid environments [22]. This technique is signicantly increased the soil resistance against liquefaction.
still relatively new to study the nanostructures of cementitious Thus, by adding colloidal silica grout, the behavior of treated
materials [2531]. loose sand was similar to that of dense untreated one. Kodaka
et al. [38] investigated the effect of colloidal silica gel on the
cyclic shear characteristics of sand. Consequently, the cyclic
5. Practical records of using nanoparticles in torsional shear test was conducted, and they found that
soils adding 4 wt% of colloidal silica signicantly decreased the
strength of loose sand against liquefaction. Gallagher and Lin
5.1. Coarse-grained soils [39] presented a theory related to the mitigation of the
liquefaction potential of loose sand. The results of their
5.1.1. Colloidal silica unconned compression test indicated that 5 wt% of colloidal
Yonekora and Miwa [32] determined unconned compressive silica was suitable for mitigating the risk of liquefaction
strength of 335 kPa in sand grouted with 32 wt% (weight because the colloidal silica increased the cohesion of the sand
percent) colloidal silica. In a pilot study, Noll et al. [33] obtained and its resistance against liquefaction. Gallagher et al. [40]
reduced permeability and metal absorption by using colloidal studied the stabilization of liqueable sand using colloidal
silica gel that contained loose sand. After 5 wt% of colloidal silica in the grout with centrifuge modeling. They reported that
silica treatment, the permeability ranges from 10 8 to 10 7 cm/ 6 wt% of colloidal silica was the optimal content for sand
s. The study by Persoff et al. [34] indicated that the compressive stabilizing. Gallagher et al. [41] injected colloidal silica gel as an
strength of sand increased as the concentration of colloidal additive into wells that contained sand to reduce the settling of
silica in the grout was increased up to 27 wt% after seven days,
reaching approximately 400 kPa (Fig. 1). The silica content was
4.9, 7.4, 9.8, 19.7, and 27.7%. For concentrations of silica
particles greater than 7.4 wt%, the hydraulic conductivity was
less than 1.0  10 1 cm/s. Also, in this range, the log of the
hydraulic conductivity decreased approximately linearly with
concentration of the colloidal silica particles.
Towhata and Kabashima [35] conducted triaxial tests and
studied the reduction of foundation subsidence on liqueable
sand. They reported that specimens with 40% relative density
treated with 4.5 wt% of colloidal silica exhibited deformation
behavior and liquefaction resistance similar to those of
untreated dense sand with relative density of 75% or more.
Gallagher and Mitchell [36] showed that 5 wt% of colloidal Fig. 2 Unconfined compressive strength of sand samples
silica considerably mitigated the risk of liquefaction of loose grouted with various percentages of colloidal silica (data
sand in case of seismic loading. When strain limitation was obtained from paper of Gallagher and Mitchell [36]).
642 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650
liqueable soils by explosion. After the explosion, 40% less
settlement was reported in the modied zones. This mecha-
nism could be justied by the bound between colloidal silica
and grains of individual sand particles. The colloidal silica gel
encapsulated the soil and maintained it during dynamic
loading. Spencer et al. [42] studied the effects of colloidal silica
on the dynamic properties of sand, including the shear
modulus and the damping ratio, using 5, 7 and 9 wt% of colloidal
silica in the resonant column test. The effect of colloidal silica on
the damping ratio was negligible in the applied strain range.
Thus, the presence of silica gel did not affect the damping ratio
signicantly. By adding 5 wt% of colloidal silica, the shear
modulus increased by 6 MPa over 28 days.
Rodriguez et al. [43] assessed the effect of colloidal silica on
the reduction of the liquefaction potential in silty sand using
the cyclic simple shear test and concluded that colloidal silica
can be efciently used to stabilize soil against liquefaction.
They reported that 14.5 wt% of colloidal silica can considerably
reduce pore pressure and shear strain during cyclic loading at
the age of seven days. Conlee et al. [44] ran centrifuge tests to
evaluate the effectiveness of colloidal silica for mitigating
liquefaction. The centrifuge test evaluated the response of
untreated loose sands and loose sands that were treated with
4, 5 and 9 wt% of colloidal silica. Ground deformations were
reduced by adding colloidal silica; also, the shear wave velocity
was greater. The centrifuge tests indicated an increase in the
cyclic resistance ratio and a decrease in the cyclic shear strain
when the concentration of colloidal silica was increased.
5.1.2. Nanoclay
Ouhadi and Bakhshalipour [45] investigated the effect of
nanoclays on the behavior of collapsible soil. Natural benton-
ite particles were smashed into nanoscale particles using a ball
mill. An odometer test was conducted to evaluate the soil
collapsibility. The size of the particles in the clay fraction and
the plasticity index of the clay governed soil collapsibility
(Fig. 3).
Mohamadzadeh Sani et al. [46] conducted Atterberg limits
and direct shear tests on clayey sand specimens by varying the
weight percentage (0.5, 1 and 2 wt%) of nanoclay. The results
showed that the addition of nanoclay reduced the plasticity
Fig. 3 Variations of collapse index versus different
percentages of clay fraction for three series of samples
(data obtained from paper of Ouhadi and Bakhshalipour
[45]).
Fig. 4 Atterberg limits of soil and its mixtures (data
obtained from paper of Mohamadzadeh Sani et al. [46]).
index and increased the shear strength. When 1 wt% of
nanoclay was added, the liquid limit and the plastic limit
increased by 13% and 38%, respectively, and the plasticity
index decreased by about 40%. Also, adding 0.5 wt% of
nanoclay signicantly improved the shear strength. Signi-
cant improvement was not achieved by adding more than 0.5%
of nanoclay. According to special application, if it is necessary,
nanoclay can be used to decrease the plasticity index. For this
purpose, more research is needed on this particular applica-
tion of nanoparticle for scientic purpose (Fig. 4).
Arabani et al. [47] studied the use of nanoclay to improve
the mechanical properties of sand stabilized with cement
using the unconned compressive strength (UCS) test and the
California bearing ratio (CBR) test. A cement percentage of 7 wt
% of the dry weight of soil and nanoclay contents of 0.5, 1, 2, 3,
and 5 wt% were used in the soil. The results showed that the
nanoclay improved the strength properties of the cement-
stabilized soil after 7, 14, and 28 days. They reported that, by
adding 2 wt% of nanoclay, the elastic modulus in tension
increased from 7.6 to 11.23 MPa after 28 days of curing. Also,
after 7 days of curing, the CBR values increased from 84.66 to
112.75. When a small quantity of nanoclay were uniformly
dispersed in the cement mortar, during hydration, the hydrate
products will deposit on the nano particles due to their great
surface energy and grow to form conglomeration containing
the nano particles as nucleus.
Janalizadeh et al. [48] studied the permeability of silty sand
improved with nanoclay with falling head tests. The speci-
mens were prepared by mixing soil with 0.25, 0.5, and 1 wt% of
nanoclay. Fig. 5 shows that, by adding nanoclay to soil, a
remarkable reduction of permeability occurred with maxi-
mum reduction with 0.25 wt% of nanoclay. Adding nanoclay to
soil increased the ne content and lled the voids between
larger particles, which reduced the facility of water movement
via decreasing the porosity.
5.2. Fine-grained soils
5.2.1. Carbon nanotube (CNT)
Taha and Ying [49] studied the effect of carbon nanotubes
(CNTs) on the geotechnical behavior of kaolinite soil. Atterberg
limit and consolidation tests were conducted for ranges from 0
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650
Fig. 5 Hydraulic conductivity of samples of silty sand
mixed with various contents of nanoclay for water
contents of 16% and 20% (data obtained from paper of
Janalizadeh et al. [48]).
to 0.5 wt% by dry weight of CNTs and 01% by dry weight,
respectively. Fig. 9 shows that the addition of CNT to the
mixture increased the plasticity index by 22%. Also, the
compression index increased by 32% and the swelling index by
11%. Hydraulic conductivity was however reduced.
5.2.2. Nano alumina
Luo et al. [50] investigated the use of nano alumina oxide to
stabilize cohesive soil with sewage sludge ash/cement. The
intended mix ratio for sewage sludge ash and cement was 3:1.
In this study, 15% of the clay soil was replaced by sewage
sludge ash/cement to produce the treated soil and nano-Al2O3
contents of 0, 1, 2 and 3 wt% was applied. The effect of nano-
Al2O3 was studied including Atterberg limits, unconned
compressive strength (UCS), swell potential, and California
bearing ratio (CBR). It was found that 1% nano-Al2O3 was the
optimum amount to add to the mixture of sewage sludge ash/
cement. This shows that the UCS of the soil treated with 1%
nano-Al2O3 was 4.2 higher than that of untreated one after
seven days of curing. The PI value for 1% nano-Al2O3 was
smaller than for the others. Also, the smallest swell potential
was observed for soil treated with 1% nano-Al2O3. The CBR
values for treated soil with 0 and 1% nano-Al2O3were 60.2 and
70.1, respectively.
5.2.3. Nanoclay
Baziar et al. [51] assessed the effect of adding nanoclay on the
plasticity properties of clayey soil. In order to do so, 1, 2, 4 and
8 wt% nanoclay was added to clay, and the results were
compared with those of nano-free soil. Fig. 11 shows that the
nanoclay had no considerable effect on the plastic limit, but it
increased the liquid limit. Also, adding nanoclay increased the
plasticity index. Adding 8 wt% nanoclay resulted in a 60%
increase in the plasticity index, which was considerable. This
issue can be useful in many geotechnical projects, like the clay
core of earth dams, because a high plasticity index can reduce
the risk of cracks formation, increases the resistance against
piping and the stability of the dam. Ghazi et al. [52] studied the
compressive strength of clay treated with nanoclay. The
643
addition levels of nanoclay were 2, 4, and 8 wt%. For the
nanoclay content of 8 wt%, the compressive strength in-
creased from 389.01 to 521.99 kPa, which resulted in a total
34.2% increase that decreased ductility and increased stiff-
ness.
Kananizadehn et al. [53] studied the effect of nanoclay on
permeability reduction of clay (case study of the Kahrizak
landll). The specimens were prepared by mixing soil with 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5 wt% of nanoclay and using the falling head
permeability test. It was found that nanoclay addition
decreased the plasticity index. Adding 4 wt% nanoclay was
tested as optimum percentage to reduce permeability to
7.74  10 11 cm/s and the thickness of the lining layer was
reduced to 0.6 m due to economic concern. Swelling was also
reduced (Fig. 6).
Taha and Taha [54] studied the effect of nanomaterial on
the expansion and shrinkage behaviors of soil. Each one of
three types of nanoparticles, i.e., nanoclay, nano-alumina, and
nano-copper nanoparticles, were mixed with the clayey soil at
0.05, 0.075, 0.1, 0.15, and 0.3 wt%. They found that adding the
optimum percentage of nanomaterial decreased the volumet-
ric strains (shrinkage and expansion strains) and reduced the
crack intensity factor (CIF) without any decrease in hydraulic
conductivity. Shrinkage and expansion strains in soil result in
cracks, which increase the permeability, thereby reducing the
resistance against sliding. In this case, the nanoclay particles
had very little effect on the properties of the soil, and
sometimes their effect was negative rather than positive.
Improvement with nano-copper, due to reduced volumetric
strains, was better than that of nano-alumina because the
particle density of nano-copper was greater. When the nano-
alumina particles were used in the mixture, the specic gravity
of the mixture was higher, and this led to an increase in
maximum dry density. Thus, shrinkage and expansion strains
were reduced. Moreover, the increase of agglomerated
particles content led to dry density decrease and voids
increase, which the water content increased. Nano-copper
particles were twice the size of the nano-alumina particles and
nano-copper particles had lower density. Thus, nano-copper is
a better option for improving the soil. Majeed and Taha [55]
studied the geotechnical properties of soft soil with 0.1, 0.2,
and 0.3 wt% nanoclay. The Atterberg limits and the plasticity
index decreased and the maximum dry density of the soil
increased. With nanoclay content, the strength properties of
soil were also improved.
Fig. 6 Effect of nanoclay on hydraulic conductivity of soil
(data obtained from paper of Kananizadeh et al. [53]).
644 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650
Fig. 7 Effect of nanoclay treatment on unconfined
compressive strength of soils (data obtained from paper of
Nikookar et al. [56]).
Nikookar et al. [56] studied the strength characteristics of
silt (ML and MH) stabilized with nanoclay. In their study,
unconned compressive strength (UCS) and California bearing
ratio (CBR) tests were conducted on specimens that contained
0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 wt% nanoclay. Fig. 7 shows that the optimum
contents of nanoclay for ML and MH were 1.5 and 1 wt%,
respectively. The CBR values for the untreated soil were 8 and 5
for ML and MH, respectively. Adding 1.5 and 1 wt% of nanoclay
to ML and MH increased the CBR values to 36 and 16,
respectively.
When small amounts of the nanoclay were uniformly
dispersed in the soil, nanoparticles can improve the strength
through the lling effect. In other words, nanoclay as ller for
void between particles, create a micro structure in soil,
therefore soil strength increases.
Bahari et al. [57] studied the stabilization of silt (ML and MH)
by adding nanoclay to the specimens at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 wt% in
order to analyze the improvements in the geotechnical
properties of the stabilized silt. Fig. 8 shows that the nanoclay
increased the liquid limit and the plastic limit of the silt. As a
result, an increase in nanoclay content leads to increase in
both angle of internal friction and cohesion. The results of
direct shear tests also showed that 1.5 wt% nanoclay in ML
increased its cohesion value by 93% (from 7.5 to 14 kPa) while
the internal friction angle increased by 68. The cohesion value
of MH increased up to about 62% (from 13 to 21 kPa), and the
internal friction angle increased by 68.
Fig. 8 Variation of PI of the mixtures of nanoclay and soils
(data obtained from paper of Bahari et al. [57]).
Fig. 9 Variations of collapse index versus different
percentages of nanoclay (data obtained from paper of Fazeli
et al. [58]).
Fig. 10 Soil compressive strength with different levels of
freezing cycles (data obtained from paper of Zahedi et al.
[59]).
Fazeli et al. [58] studied the rehabilitation of collapsible soil
with nanoclay at levels of 5, 10, 15, and 20 wt%. Fig. 9 shows
that increasing nanoclay percentage resulted in decreasing the
collapsible index intensity. Thus, the issue of the collapsibility
of ML can be improved by using up to 20 wt% nanoclay.
Zahedi et al. [59] studied the resistance to freezing cycles of
clay modied with nanoclay at levels of 0%, 1.5%, 3%, 4.5% and
6% by weight. Adding nanoclay will increase SSA, which can be
partly cause of non-effective increasing nanoclay in soil
resistance. Also, freezing cycle effects the soil compressive
strength. They reported compressive strength of soil with 4.5%
nanoclay in more than all. Increasing levels of freezing cycle
decreases the soil resistance (Fig. 10).
5.2.4. Nanosilica
Ghazavi and Bolhasani [60] prepared cylindrical clay speci-
mens with 1, 3, and 5 wt% lime and 0, 3, 5, and 7 wt%
nanosilica. The unconned compressive strength (UCS) test
was conducted on the specimens containing lime and
nanosilica at wet curing times of 7, 28, and 90 days. The
results indicate that nanosilica alone had no effect on strength
in the short term, but as these particles were active, the
pozzolanic reaction was initiated if they contained lime
particles and the strength increased considerably (Fig. 11).
Compressive strength of the improved clay increased with
time.
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650
Fig. 11 Effect of nanosilica in the UCS of soillime mixture at various curing times: (a) 1 day, (b) 7 days, (c) 28 days, (d) 90 days
(data obtained from paper of Ghazavi and Bolhasani [60]).
Ghazi et al. [61] investigated the effect of adding nanosilica
on the compressive strength of clay soil stabilized with 6%
cement, and the results indicated that there was a signicant
strengths increase of the specimens that contained 0.5, 1, and
2 wt% of nanosilica. By adding 2% nanosilica, the strength
increased from 1645.49 to 2346.83 kPa, so 42.6% increase.
Seyedi Gelsedi and Mamaghanian [62] studied the compres-
sive strength of clay soil improved with nanosilica. 5 wt% of
Lime was added, and the nanosilica contents of the clayey
soillime mixture were 1, 3, and 5 wt%. The results indicated
that the addition of nanosilica is very effective in improving
the UCS of the soillime mixture. According to results 3%
nanosilica was selected as the optimum amount, when the
UCS of the soillime mixture increased up to three times more
than that of the nanofree specimens after 28 days of curing
Fig. 12 Effect of nanosilica on compressive strength of soil
lime mixture after 28 days curing (data obtained from
paper of Seyedi Gelsefidi and Mamaghanian [62]).
645
(Fig. 12). A signicant increase was observed with curing time
of UCS for the mixture containing nanosilica.
Bahmani et al. [63] studied the effect of nanosilica on
Atterberg limits, hydraulic conductivity and the compressive
strength of cement-treated residual soil. The specimens were
prepared using kaolinite clay with 4, 6, and 8% cement with
0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, and 1% nanosilica (Fig. 13). The results
indicate that the addition of nanosilica reduced PI. The
specimen with 0.4% nanosilica exhibited a signicant (80%)
increase in its compressive strength. The lowest conduc-
tivity among the specimens occurred when 0.4% nanosilica
was added.
Ghasabkolaei et al. [64] investigated the effect of nanosilica
on geotechnical properties of cement-treated clayey soil. The
cement percentage used in the clayey soil was 9%. To disperse
Nanosilica in the water, Ultrasonic device has been used.
Nanosilica was added in percentages of 1, 1.5, 2 and 3%, by
weight of cement. To control strength parameters of soil,
Unconned Compressive Strength and California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) tests were performed.
They found that small amount of nanosilica investigated
(1.5% by weight of cement) produced a signicant (38%)
strength increase of cement treated clay (Fig. 14). Also, the
incremental rate of compressive strength was greater during
the rst seven days, after which the increasing trend gradually
became slower. When it mixed with cement-treated clayey
soil, the cement hydration is accelerated due to their high
activity.
The images of scanning electron microscope (SEM) were
used to verify the results. According to the SEM images (Fig. 15),
the specimens that contain nanosilica were denser and more
homogeneous than the nanofree specimens. The following
646 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650
Fig. 13 Variation of PI of the nanosilica-cemented soil (data
obtained from paper of Bahmani et al. [63]).
Fig. 14 Effect of nanosilica on compressive strength of soil
cement mixture after 28 days curing (data obtained from
paper of Ghasabkolaei et al. [64]).
explanation is a key reason for the improvement of soil
strength.
5.2.5. Other nanosoils
Taha [65] investigated the effect of nanosoil obtained from
ball mill operations on the geotechnical properties of soil.
Fig. 15 SEM images of the specimens: (a) specimen treated with 9% cement, (b) specimen treated with 9% cement and 1.5%
nanosilica.
Fig. 16 Unconfined compressive strength of soil-cement-
nanosoil (data obtained from paper of Taha [65]).
Atterberg limits and unconned compressive strength (UCS)
tests were conducted on kaolinite soil after nanosoil was
added. The soilnanosoil mixture was prepared by mixing
98% of the original soil and 2% nanosoil by weight. In order to
investigate the effects of the nanosoil on the strength of the
cementsoil mixture, 1 and 2 wt% amounts of nanosoil were
added, and the liquid limit increased less than the plastic
limit, and consequently the plasticity index decreased. After
seven days of curing, compressive strengths of the 0, 1, and
2 wt% nanosoil specimens were 689, 1149, and 1493 kPa,
respectively. After soil mixing with 4% cement and 2%
nanosoil the compressive strength of the specimen was
twice higher than for the nanofree specimen (Fig. 16).
Khalid et al. [66] studied the inuence of nanosoil produced
from pulverization process on soft soil stabilization. Atterberg
limits, unconned compressive strength and direct shear tests
were conducted after 2%, 3% and 4% nanosoil was added.
Addition of 24% nanosoil increased the compressive strength
of sandy silt from 3% to 22% and the angle of internal friction
from 7% to 17%. However, the addition of nanosoil decreases
the plasticity index (Fig. 17).
Table 2 Existing experimental research findings.
Researchers Type of soil Type of Percent Experiments Results
nanoparticles
Increase Reduce
1 Yonekoura and Miwa Sand Colloidal silica Up to 32 wt% of soil UCS Compressive strength _
2 Noll et al. Sand Colloidal silica 5 wt% of soil Permeability _ Permeability
3 Persoff et al. Sand Colloidal silica 7.4, 19.7 and 27 wt% of soil UCS Permeability Strength Hydraulic conductivity
4 Tawahata and Sand Colloidal silica 4.5 wt% of soil Triaxial shear Liquefaction resistance _
Kabashima

archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650

5 Gallagher and Mitchel Sand Colloidal silica 5, 10, 15 and 20 wt% of soil Cyclic triaxial strength, UCS Strength _
6 Rodriguez et al. Sand Colloidal silica 15 wt% of soil Cyclic simple shear Liquefaction resistance
7 Kodaka et al. Sand Colloidal silica 4 wt% of soil Cyclic torsional shear Liquefaction resistance
8 Gallagher and Lin Sand Colloidal silica 5 wt% of soil UCS Liquefaction risk
9 Gallagher et al. Sand Colloidal silica 5 wt% of soil Centrifuge modeling Deformation resistance Liquefaction potential
10 Spencer et al. Sand Colloidal silica 5, 7 and 9 wt% of soil Resonant column Shear modulus, Damping ratio _
11 Rodriguez et al. Silty Sand Colloidal silica 14.5 wt% of soil Cyclic simple shear Liquefaction resistance Pore pressure, shear
strain
12 Taha Clay Nano-soil 1 and 2 wt% of soil UCS, Atterberg limit tests Compressive strength Plasticity Index(PI)
13 Taha and Ying Clay Carbon 01 wt% of soil Atterberg limit tests, Plasticity Index, Hydraulic conductivity
nanotube (CNT) Consolidation Compressibility,
Swelling Index
14 Ouhadi and Sand Nanoclay 5, 10, 20 and 30 wt% of soil Measurement of Collapse Collapse Index
Bakhshalipour Potential of Soils
15 Ghazavi and Clay Nanosilica 3, 5 and 7 wt% of soil UCS Compressive strength
Bolhassani Clay + Lime
16 Mohamadzade et al. Sand Nanoclay 0.5, 1 and 2 wt% of soil Atterberg limit tests, Shear strength PI
containing clay Direct shear
17 Baziar et al. Clay Nanoclay 1, 2, 4 and 8 wt% of soil Atterberg limit tests PI
18 Ghazi et al. Clay Nanoclay 2, 4 and 8 wt% UCS Compressive strength
Clay + Cement 0.5, 2 and 4 wt%
19 Kananizadeh et al. Clay Nanoclay 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 wt% of soil Permeability Hydraulic conductivity
20 Tapidia et al. Clay Nano CaCl2, 10 wt% of soil UCS, Atterberg limit tests, Shear strength Permeability, Liquefaction
Nano CaO, Concolidation potential
Sand Nano KNO3 Direct shear, Cyclic triaxial
21 Conlee et al. Sand Colloidal silica 4, 5 and 9 wt% of soil Centrifuge tests Shear wave velocity, cyclic Ground deformation,
resistance ratio cyclic shear strain
22 Arabani et al. Sand + Cement Nanoclay 0.5, 1, 2, 3 and 5% by weight CBR, Indirect tensile Strength properties _
of cement strength, UCS
23 Taha M.R. and Clay Nano alumina 0.05, 0.075, 0.1, 0.15 and 0.3 wt% Measurment of hydraulic Shrinkage, Expansive
Taha O.M.E Nano copper 0.075, 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7% wt conductivity strain
Nanoclay 0.05, 0.1,0.15, 0.3 and 0.5 wt%
24 Lou et al. Clay + Sewage Nano-Al2O3 1, 2 and 3 wt% of soil Atterberg limit, UCS, Strength properties Swell potential, PI
sludge swell potential, CBR
ash/Cement
25 Majeed and Taha OL Nano Cu, 01 wt% of soil UCS, Atterberg limit PI, gdmax, Strength properties
Nano MgO, tests, Proctor compaction
Nanoclay

647
648 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650

Hydraulic conductivity

Hydraulic conductivity
Reduce

Collapse Index

PI

_
Results

Strength properties PI C,

PI- vi opt Strength properties

Strength properties C,
Increase
Strength properties

Strength properties

Strength properties
Fig. 17 Atterberg limits of soil and its mixtures (data
obtained from paper of Khalid et al. [66]).

6. Conclusions
Measurement of Collapse
CBR, UCS, Atterberg limit

UCS, Atterberg limits,

Experiments

Atterberg limit tests,

Proctor compaction,

In this paper, we traced the advances of nanotechnology in

tests, Direct shear

UCS, Permeability

Potential of Soils

geotechnical engineering. Soil mechanics embraced a new

category of soil particles called nanosol in a scale of 1
Permeability

Direct shear
UCS, CBR

100 nm in order to separate them from clay particles. In order

to investigate the nanostructures of soils SEM, TEM, and AFM
UCS

UCS

imaging methods were used.

Nanoparticles have novel properties because of their
extremely small size resulting in extremely high specic
0.2, 0.4, 0.8 and 1 wt% of soil

surface areas (SSA) and surface charges. As a result, these

0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 wt% of soil

1.5, 3, 4.5 and 6 wt% of soil

1, 1.5, 2 and 3% by weight

0.25, 0.5 and 1 wt% of soil
5,10,15 and 20 wt% of soil

particles react very actively with other particles in the soil

1, 3 and 5 wt% of soil

2, 3 and 4 wt% of soil

matrix.
Percent

The presence of even very small amount of nanomaterial

can have signicant effects on the engineering properties of
soil.
of cement

The use of nanoparticles in a soil mixture increases

strength, swelling index and compressibility as well as
decreases permeability, liquefaction potential, settlement
and volumetric strains.
nanoparticles

It should be noted that the behaviors of nanomaterial vary,

Type of

depending on the type of particles and the soil they are mixed.
Nanosilica

Nanosilica

Nanosilica
Nanoclay

Nanoclay

Nanoclay
Nanoclay
Nanosoil

Table 2 provides the results obtained by various researchers.

This table contains information that can be useful when the
soil to be stabilized with nanoparticles.
Clay + Cement

Clay + Cement
Type of soil

7. Possible future studies

Clay + Lime

Clay
Clay
Silt

Silt

Silt

1. Assessing the geotechnical properties of soils treated with

chemical additives and nanoparticles.
2. Assessing the simultaneous effects of nanosilica and
Nikookar and Bahari
Seyedi Gelsedi and

Ghasabkolaei et al.

microsilica on the geotechnical properties of soil.

Researchers
Table 2 (Continued )

Janalizadeh et al.

3. Research involving the use of nanoparticles with problem-

Bahmani et al.
Mamaghanian

Zahedi et al.

Khalid et al.

atic soils.
Fazeli et al.

4. Effect of nanoparticles on the durability of soil stabilized

with chemical additives by wettingdrying and freezing
thawing cycles.
5. Development of behavioral models of the soils stabilization
26

27

28

29

30
31
32

33

with chemical additives and nanoparticles.

 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650
references
[1] M. Golabchi, K. Taghizade, E. Sorooshnia, Nanotechnology in
Architecture & Construction Engineering, Published by
University of Tehran Press (UTP), Iran, 2011.
[2] R. Feynman, There is plenty of room at the bottom,
Engineering and Science (California Institute of Technology)
23 (1960) 2236.
[3] NSTC, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic
Plan, Executive Ofce of the President of the United States, 2007.
[4] R. Booker, E. Boysen, Nanotechnology for Dummies, Wiley
Publishing, 2005. p. 384.
[5] R.F. Craig, Craig's Soil Mechanics, 7th ed., Taylor & Francis
Group, 2004.
[6] T.W. Lamb, R.V. Whitman, Soil Mechanics, John Wiley &
Sons Publishing, 1969.
[7] G. Zhang, Soil nanoparticles and their inuence on
engineering properties of soils. Advanced in measurement
and modeling of soil behavior, ASCE (2007).
[8] K.K. Jha, An Energy Based Nanomechanical Properties
Evaluation Method for Cementitious Materials, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Florida International University, Miami, FL,
USA, 2012.
[9] M.S. Gutierrez, Nano-geomechanics potential applications of
nano-mechanics in geotechnical engineering, in: Proc. of the
International Workshop on Micro-Geomechanics Across
Multiple Strain Scales Cambridge, UK, 2005, 2930.
[10] R.H. Bennett, W.R. Bryant, M.H. Hulbert, Microstructure of
Fine-Grained Sediments: From Mud to Shale, Springer, 1991.
[11] M.R. Yalamanchili, S. Veeramasuneni, M.A.D. Azevedo, J.D.
Miller, Use of atomic force microscopy in particle science and
technology research, Colloids and Surfaces A:
Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 133 (1998) 7788.
[12] G. Kollensperger, G. Friedbacher, A. Krammer, M.
Grasserbauer, Application of atomic force microscopy to
particle sizing, Journal of Analytical & Bioanalytical
Chemistry 363 (4) (1999) 323332.
[13] W.P. Hawkes, Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, vol.
181, Academic Press, 2014.
[14] F.P. Ganneau, From Nanohardness to Strength Properties of
Cohesive-Frictional Materials Application to Shale Materials,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004.
[15] J.A. Yamamuro, F.M. Wood, Effect of depositional method on
the undrained behavior and microstructure of sand with silt,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 751760.
[16] D.F. Lin, K.L. Lin, M.J. Hungc, H.L. Luoa, Sludge ash/hydrated
lime on the geotechnical properties of soft soil, Journal of
Hazardous Materials 145 (2007) 5864.
[17] N. Ghasabkolaei, The Effect of Using Nanoparticles on
Geotechnical Properties of Cement-Stabilized Clay, MS
Thesis, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Iran, 2013.
[18] R. Zhu, S. Lau, A hiqh-resolution TEM investigation of
nanoparticles in soils, Journal of Molecular Environmental
Soil Science at the Interfaces in the Earth Critical Zone (2010)
282284.
[19] D.B. Williams, C.B. Carter, Transmission Electron Microscopy.
Materials Science, 2nd ed., Springer, 2009.
[20] A.M. Wilson, N.H. Tran, A.S. Milev, G.S.K. Kannangara, H.
Volk, G.Q.M. Lu, Nanomaterials in soils, Journal of Geoderma
146 (2008) 291302.
[21] I.G. Richardson, G.W. Groves, The microstructure and
microanalysis of hardened ordinary Portland cement
pastes, Journal of Materials Science 28 (1993) 265277.
[22] K.M. Lang, D.A. Hite, R.W. Simmonds, R. McDermott, D.P.
Pappas, J.M. Martinis, Conducting atomic force microscopy
for nanoscale tunnel barrier characterization, Review of
Scientic Instruments 75 (8) (2004) 27262731.
649
[23] D. Sarid, Exploring Scanning Probe Microscopy with the
Mathematica, College of Optical Sciences university of
Arizona, 2007.
[24] H. Uchikawa, S. Hanehara, T. Shirasaka, D. Sawaki, Effect of
admixture of hydration of cement, adsorptive behaviour of
admixture and uidity and setting of fresh cement paste,
Cement and Concrete Research 22 (1992) 11151129.
[25] A. Kauppi, K.M. Andersson, L. Bergstrm, Probing the effect of
superplasticizer adsorption on the surface forces using the
colloidal probe AFM technique, Cement and Concrete
Research 35 (2005) 133140.
[26] L.D. Mitchell, M. Prica, J.D. Birchall, Aspects of Portland
cement hydration studied using atomic force microscopy,
Journal of Materials Science 31 (1996) 42074212.
[27] A. Nonat, The structure and stoichiometry of CSH, Cement
and Concrete Research 34 (2004) 15211528.
[28] V.G. Papadakis, E.J. Pedersen, H. Lindgreen, An AFM-SEM
investigation of the effect of silica fume and y ash on
cement paste microstructure, Journal of Materials Science 34
(1999) 683690.
[29] C. Plassard, E. Lesniewska, I. Pochard, A. Nonat, Investigation
of the surface structure and elastic properties of calcium
silicate hydrates at the nanoscale, Ultramicroscopy 100 (34)
(2004) 331338.
[30] T. Yang, B. Keller, E. Magyari, AFM investigation of cement
paste in humid air at different relative humidities, Journal of
Physics D: Applied Physics 35 (2002) 2528.
[31] T. Yang, B. Keller, E. Magyari, K. Hametner, D. Gnther, Direct
observation of the carbonation process on the surface of
calcium hydroxide crystals in hardened cement paste using
atomic force microscope, Journal of Materials Science 38
(2003) 19091916.
[32] R. Yonekura, M. Miwa, Fundamental properties of sodium
silicate based grout, in: Proc. of the Eleventh Southeast
Asia Geotechnical Conference, 48 May, Singapore, (1993)
439444.
[33] M.R. Noll, C. Bartlett, T.M. Dochat, In situ permeability
reduction and chemical xation using colloidal silica, in:
Proc. of the Sixth National Outdoor Action Conference, Las
Vegas, NV, (1992) 443457.
[34] P. Persoff, J. Apps, G. Moridis, J.M. Whang, Effect of dilution
and contaminants on strength and hydraulic conductivity of
sand grouted with colloidal silica gel, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenviromental Engineering, ASCE 125 (6) (1999) 461
469.
[35] I. Towhata, Y. Kabashima, Mitigation of seismically-induced
deformation of loose sandy foundation by uniform
permeation grouting, in: Proc. Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering Satellite Conference, XVth International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, (2001) 313318.
[36] P.M. Gallagher, J.K. Mitchel, Inuence of colloidal silica grout
on liquefaction potential and cyclic undrained behavior of
loose sand, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (9)
(2002) 10171026.
[37] J.A.D. Rodriquez, V.M.A. Izarraras, Mitigation of liquefaction
risk using colloidal silica, in: 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 16 August
2004, 2004.
[38] T. Kodaka, F. Oka, Y. Ohno, T. Takyu, N. Yamasaki, Modeling
of cyclic deformation and strength characteristics of silica
treated sand, Geomecahnics: Testing, Modeling and
Simulation, ASCE (2005) 205216.
[39] P.M. Gallagher, Y. Lin, Column testing to determine colloid
silica transport mechanisms, Sessions of Geo-Frontiers
Congress, ASCE (2005).
[40] P.M. Gallagher, A. Pamuk, T. Abdoun, Stabilization of
liqueable soils using colloidal silica grout, Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE (2007) 3340.
650 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 17 (2017) 639650
[41] P.M. Gallagher, C.T. Conlee, K.M. Rollins, Full-scale eld
testing of colloidal silica grouting for mitigation of
liquefaction risk, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 133 (2) (2007) 186196.
[42] L.M. Spencer, G.J. Rix, P.M. Gallagher, Colloidal silica gel and
sand mixture dynamic properties, in: Proc. of the conference
of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
IV, Sacramento, California, ASCE, (2008) 10381047.
[43] J.A.D. Rodriguez, V.M.A. Izarraras, P. Bandini, J.A.L. Molina,
Cyclic strength of a natural liqueable sand stabilized with
colloidal silica grout, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45 (2008)
13451355.
[44] T.C. Conlee, P.M. Gallagher, W.B. Boulanger, R. Kamai,
Centrifuge modeling for liquefaction mitigation using
colloidal silica stabilizer, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 138 (2012) 13341345.
[45] V.R. Ouhadi, H. Bakhshalipour, Impact of nano clays on the
behavior properties of collapsible soils, in: Proc. of 9th
International Congress on Advanced in Civil Engineering,
2730 September 2010, Karadeniz Technical University,
Trabzon, Turkey, 2010.
[46] A. Mohamadzadeh Sani, M. Arabani, A.K. Haghi, R.J. Chenari,
Effect of nanoclay additive on the geotechnical properties of
silty sands, in: Proc. of 4th International Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics, Tehran, 23
November 2010, 2010 (in Persian).
[47] M. Arabani, A.K. Haghi, A. Mohamadzadeh Sani, N.
Kambozia, Use of nanoclay for improvement the
microstructure and mechanical properties of soil stabilized
by cement, in: Proc. of the 4th International Conference on
Nanostructures (ICNS4), 1214 March, Kish Island, Iran, 2012.
[48] A. Janalizadeh, H. Nazarpoor, M. Ebrahimi, Effect of nanoclay
on permeability of silty sand, in: Proc. of 8th National
Congress on Civil Engineering, 78 May, Babol Noshirvani
University of Technology, Mazandaranan, Iran, 2014 (in
Persian).
[49] M.R. Taha, T. Ying, Effects of carbon nanotube on kaolinite:
basic geotechnical behavior, in: ICCE-18, Anchorage, Alaska,
USA, 2010.
[50] H.-L. Lou, D.-H. Hsiao, C.-K. Lin, Cohesive soil stabilized using
sewage sludge ash/cement and nano aluminum oxide,
International Journal of Transportation Science and
Technology 1 (1) (2012) 83100.
[51] M.H. Baziar, H. Ghazi, S.M. Mirkazemi, Effect of nanoclay
additives on the properties of engineering geotechnical soil,
in: Proc. of 4th International Conference on Geotechnical
Engineering and Soil Mechanics, Tehran, 23 November 2010,
2010 (in Persian).
[52] H. Ghazi, M.H. Baziar, S.M. Mirkazemi, Assess of the
improvement of the behavior of soil strength in the
presence of nanoscale additive, Assas Journal of Science
and Technology (2011) 4550 (in Persian).
[53] N. Kananizadehn, T. Ebadi, S.E.M. Rizi, S.A. Khoshniat,
Behavior of nanoclay as an additive in order to reduce
Kahrizak landll clay permeability, in: 2nd International
Conference on Environmental Science and Technology,
Singapore, 2628 February 2011, 2011.
[54] M.R. Taha, O.M.E. Taha, Inuence of nanomaterial on the
expansive and shrinkage soil behavior, Journal of
Nanoparticle Research 14 (1190) (2012).
[55] Z.H. Majeed, M.R. Taha, Effect of nanomaterial treatment on
geotechnical properties of a Penang soft soil, Asian Scientic
Research 2 (11) (2012) 587592.
[56] M. Nikookar, M. Bahari, H. Nikookar, M. Arabani, The strength
characteristics of silty soil stabilized using nanoclay, in: Proc.
of 7th Symposium on Advances in Science & Technology
(7thsastech), 78 March 2013, Bandar-Abbas, Iran, 2013.
[57] M. Bahari, M. Nikookar, M. Arabani, A.K. Haghi, H.
Khodabandeh, Stabilization of silt by nanoclay, in: Proc. of
7th National Congress on Civil Engineering, 78 May 2013,
University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran, 2013.
[58] A. Fazeli, A. Johari, F. Davoodi, Rehabilitation of collapsible
soil with nanoclay, in: Proc. of 8th National Congress on Civil
Engineering, 78 May 2014, Babol Noshirvani University of
Technology, Mazandaranan, Iran, 2014 (in Persian).
[59] M. Zahedi, M. Sharifpour, F. Jahanbakhshi, R. Bayat, Nanoclay
performance on resistance of clay under freezing cycles,
Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Management
18 (3) (2014) 427434.
[60] M. Ghazavi, M. Bolhasani, Unconned compression strength
of clay improvement with lime and nano-silica, in: Proc. of
6th International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics,
New Delhi, India, 810 November 2010, (2010) 14901495.
[61] H. Ghazi, M.H. Baziar, S.M. Mirkazemi, The effect of
nanomaterial additives on the basic properties of soil, in:
Proc. of 14th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Hong-Kong, 2327 May 2011, 2011.
[62] S.A.R. Seyedi Gelsedi, J. Mamaghanian, Stabilization of weak
low plasticity clay soil using nanomaterial, in: Proc. of 5th
International Young Geotechnical Engineers, 2013, 134137.
[63] S.H. Bahmani, B.B.K. Huat, A. Asadi, N. Farzadnia,
Stabilization of residual soil using SiO2 nanoparticles and
cement, Construction and Building Materials (2014) 350359.
[64] N. Ghasabkolaei, A. Janalizadeh, M. Jahanshahi, N. Roshan, S.
E. Ghassemi, Physical and geotechnical properties of cement-
treated clayey soil using silica nanoparticles: an
experimental study, The European Physical Journal Plus 131
(5) (2016) 111.
[65] M.R. Taha, Geotechnical properties of soilball milled soil
mixtures, in: Proc. 3rd Symp Nanotechnology in
Construction, Springer-Verlag, 2009 377382.
[66] N. Khalid, M.F. Arshad, M. Mukri, K. Mohamad, Inuence of
nano-soil particles in soft soil stazilization, Electronic Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering 20 (2015) (2015) 731738.