Geotech Geol Eng

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01411-5 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

ORIGINAL PAPER

Hydraulic Conductivity and Compressive Strength

of Cemented Soils
Estéfano da Silva Menger . Mozara Benetti . Lucas Festugato .
Lidiane da Silva Ibeiro . Renato Dutra Luza

Received: 28 January 2020 / Accepted: 6 June 2020

Ó Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract The addition of cementing agents is a investigated suggests the existence of a grid-like
well-known way of stabilizing an unsatisfactory soil relationship, which can be potentially useful in
for design parameters. This research evaluates three earthworks and more general applications.
soils, namely pink kaolin silty soil, Botucatu weath-
ered sandstone residual soil and Osorio uniform sand, Keywords Ground improvement
Permeability

stabilized with Portland cement type III. Hydraulic Environmental engineering
Earthworks
Hydraulic
conductivity measurements were performed with a conductivity
Cemented soil
flexible wall permeameter, following the recommen-
dations of ASTM D5084; unconfined compressive List of Symbols
strength tests were also carried out, in accordance with C Cement content
ABNT NBR 12025. The result of this research w Water content
observed a gain in compressive strength, best qu Unconfined compressive strength
described as a linear gain with the increase in cement k20 Hydraulic conductivity normalized at 20 °C
content, and as a power function as porosity decreases. g Soil porosity
The measured hydraulic conductivity observed a cd Dry unit weight or dry density
general reduction, similarly, with a linear decrease in
regards to increasing cement content and decreased as Abbreviations
a power function in regards to decreasing porosity. UCS Unconfined compressive strength
The possible correlation of the output variables SRAB Botucatu weathered sandstone residual soil
(in Portuguese)

E. S. Menger (&)
M. Benetti
L. Festugato 1 Introduction

Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
e-mail: menger.estefano@gmail.com There are numerous applications, in a general context
of sanitation and environmental works, that use liners
L. S. Ibeiro as a fundamental part of impact control, limiting the
Department of Civil Engineering, Catholic University of
Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil dispersion of gases and liquids in the environment
(Ehrlich et al. 2019). With the function of preventing
R. D. Luza the transportation of contaminants, the cover and
Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of bottom of landfills and the containment of hazardous
Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

123

waste are just some examples. An essential parameter
in these projects is hydraulic conductivity, which is an
important requirement for the final product, it is
necessary to ensure low permeability in order to not
compromise performance (Divya et al. 2018; Jamshidi
and Lake 2015).
The hydraulic conductivity of a soil is a measure of
its ability to allow fluid to flow through its voids. It is
known that several factors can influence it: in a
physical aspect: the type of soil, the amount of voids,
the specific density, the interconnectivity of said
voids, the degree of saturation, fluid viscosity, etc.
And in a chemical aspect: dissociated salts, soil
plasticity, clay-mineral interactions, etc. (Daniel et al.
1984, 1997; Consoli et al. 2009; Divya et al. 2018;
Bellezza and Fratalocchi 2006; Rowe et al. 2018).
Overall, studies show that soil performance, as well
as earthworks in general, can be improved by the
addition of a binder such as Portland cement (Felt
1955; Nicholson 2015). Thus, physical, mechanical or
hydraulic properties are affected by the cementitious
reactions of the soil–cement. Soil–cement mixtures
are typically used in embankments, road foundations,
earth dam cores, liners, vertical cut-off walls, cement-
based solidification/stabilization remediation, etc.
(Osinubi et al. 2015; Korf et al. 2016; Bellezza and
Fratalocchi 2006).
In this sense, laboratory tests can be performed for a
better control of the geotechnical characteristics of the
soil used, facilitating applications in project design
and its execution.
This study therefore aims to quantify the influence
of cement content and porosity on permeability and
strength of artificially cemented soils and to assess
possible correlations between the studied variables.
2 Experimental Program
The experimental program was carried out in three
parts. First, the characterization on the geotechnical
properties of the material used: soil and cement.
Secondly, a number of unconfined compressive tests
were executed, then hydraulic conductivity was mea-
sured for every planned dosage (permutation of
cement content and dry density—moulding points—
given in Table 2).
123
Geotech Geol Eng
2.1 Materials
Three different soils were evaluated, their character-
istics are presented in Table 1.
The same binding agent was used: Portland cement
of high initial strength (Type III). The fast gain of
strength allowed the adoption of seven days as the
curing time. The specific gravity of the cement grains
is 31.5 kN/m3.
Distilled water was employed both for characteri-
zation tests and for moulding the specimens.
2.2 Methods
2.2.1 Specimens Preparation
Both for the unconfined compressive tests and the
hydraulic conductivity tests, cylindrical specimens,
50 mm in diameter and 100 mm high, were used.
After weighting the soil, cement and water amounts,
the soil and cement were mixed until a visually
homogenous blend was attained.
The optimum moisture content for the modified
proctor compaction effort was then added to the soil–
cement blends, continuing the mixture process until a
uniform paste was created.
The soil–cement blends were statically compacted
in three layers inside the cylindrical split mould, to the
target dry unit weight. The top of the first and the
second layers was slightly scarified. After the mould-
ing process, the specimens were removed from the
mould, and their weights, diameters, and heights were
measured with an accuracy of about 0.01 g and
0.1 mm. Then cured in a humid room at 23 ± 2 °C
and relative moisture of 95%.
The specimens were considered suitable if they met
the following criteria: Dry density within ± 1.5% of
target value; moisture content within ± 1% of target
value; diameter within ± 0.8 mm and height ± 2
mm. The suitability criteria adopted reflected the
majority of the samples made, the authors found these
criteria reasonable when also taking into account
current criteria present on standards for moulding
specimens. The criteria for width and length accep-
tance still considers a correct width-to-length ratio
appropriately, as for the dry density acceptance, it is in
an expected range for earthworks in general, as for the
water content, it was chosen a small range of
acceptance to be sure to not deviate much from the
Geotech Geol Eng
Table 1 soil characteristics
Soil Pink-kaolin
Region Pantano Grande
Grain size distribution Silt (64%), clay (28%) and
fine sand (8%).
Mineralogy Kaolinite, halloysite and ilite
Specific gravity of 26.4
solids (kN/m3)
USCS type ML
optimum content and reach the wet branch which
might lead to a overestimation on hydraulic
conductivity.
Three samples for each dosage were made, regard-
ing the unconfined compressive strength tests, an
evaluation of standardized residuals (using the stan-
dard deviation on a student T function and also a
confidence with alpha equal to 0.05) was made and
specimens that did not meet the criteria were dis-
carded. As for the hydraulic conductivity tests, one
sample was measured for each dosage, the correlation
between each test was made using specimens that met
the same dosage.
2.2.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Tests
This was measured using a flexible wall permeameter
with constant head, as described in ASTM D 5084
(2016). Hydraulic conductivity tests reported in this
study were conducted in three stages: 1) permeation,
2) saturation and 3) hydraulic conductivity phase.
Before mounting the specimens in the equipment, the
drainage lines and flow pumps were flushed to remove
any trapped air bubbles from previous testing, within
the specified curing time stablished, specimens were
also soaked in a water tank for a minimum period of
24 h, and then placed on the equipment, stages two
and three were executed in a time frame to not surpass
the stablished curing time.
The test specimen was placed with top and bottom
porous stone discs with a filter paper in between. A
latex membrane was placed around the specimen with
suitable O-rings to seal the membrane to the base and
top caps. Once the specimen was ready for the test, the
first stage began with a permeation phase in which a
small confining pressure of 30 kN/m2 was applied as
Botucatu weathered sandstone (SRAB) Osorio uniform sand
Porto Alegre Osorio
Silt (44%), fine sand (40%), medium sand Fine sand (67%) and
(10%) and clay (6%) medium sand (33%),
Quartz, kaolinite, feldspar Quartz
26.5 26.3
SM SP
cell pressure and a pressure of 10 kN/m2 was applied
as back pressure on the base drain with the top drain
open to the atmosphere, to allow the flow of water. The
specimen would remain in this phase until permeated
with water for about two times its voids volume.
Afterwards, the saturation phase started: confining
pressure and back pressure were increased in steps
always with a 20 kN/m2 difference in between, up to
480 kN/m2. The Skempton B parameter was success-
fully evaluated for each pressure increment, in regards
to expecting diminishing variation, as to it is attaining
a final value. Specifically, the B parameter observed
varied according to the planned dosage and soil,
among the samples measured it was found values close
to the unit. After the saturation phase, the bottom and
top pressure were set at half gradient in reference to
the confining pressure, such that the pressure differ-
ence gives the desired hydraulic gradient, in accor-
dance with the ASTM D 5084 (2016). Hydraulic
conductivity phase began and continued until the
measured inflow is equal to measured outflow, or
when hydraulic conductivity values achieved stability.
2.2.3 Unconfined Compressive Tests
Unconfined compressive tests have been systemati-
cally used in most experimental programs reported in
the literature in order to verify the effectiveness of the
stabilization with cement or to assess the importance
of influencing factor on the strength of cemented soils
(e.g. Mitchell 1981; Consoli et al. 2010). The tests
followed the Brazilian standard NBR 12025 (ABNT
2012), which is comparable to the ASTM C39 (2018).
An automatic loading machine with a maximum
capacity of 50 kN and proving rings with a capacity
of 10 kN and resolution of 0.005 kN was used for the
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

4000
tests. A displacement ratio of 1.14 mm per minute was 14 kN/m³ KAOLIN
15 kN/m³ KAOLIN
adopted. 3500 16 kN/m³ KAOLIN
After curing in a humid room for 6 days, specimens 16 kN/m³ SRAB
3000 17.2 kN/m³ SRAB
were submerged in a water tank for 24 h to reduce 18.3 kN/m³ SRAB
2500 15 kN/m³ Osorio
suction (Consoli et al. 2011), within the total curing
16 kN/m³ Osorio

qu (kPa)
time of 7 days. Immediately before the test, the 2000

specimens were taken out of the tank, dried superfi-

1500
cially and mounted on the loading machine. The
1000
unconfined compressive test was carried out and the
maximum load achieved recorded. The acceptance 500

criteria stablished was that for specimens with the

0
same characteristics, the result should not deviate 0 3 6 9 12
Cement content, C (%)
more than 10% from the mean strength.
Fig. 1 Variation of unconfined compressive strength with
2.2.4 Experimental Program cement content for all soils

4000 3% KAOLIN
The experimental program was stablished as to 6% KAOLIN
evaluate, separately, the influences of the cement 3500 9% KAOLIN
5% SRAB
content and dry density on the hydraulic conductivity 3000 7% SRAB
9% SRAB
and the mechanical strength of the artificially 3% Osorio
2500
cemented soil, as well as its relationship. 5% Osorio
qu (kPa)

7% Osorio
Moulding points were chosen considering the 2000

modified proctor effort in its optimum moisture 1500

content and its peak dry density, as well as two points
1000
with a lower dry density for comparison. Each dry
density was moulded with three distinct cement 500

percentages as well as a control group without cement, 0

30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51
as indicated in Table 2. The cement percentages were Porosity, η (%)
chosen following previous research results (e.g.
Mitchell 1981; Consoli et al. 2010, 2012; Festugato Fig. 2 Variation of unconfined compressive strength with
et al. 2017). porosity for all soils

for the unconfined compressive strength (qu) of the

3 Results Discussion and Analysis
3.1 Effect of Cement Content and Porosity
on Compressive Strength
Figures 1 and 2 shows data for the cemented speci-
mens. Figure 1 shows the raw data and the fitted lines
cement-stabilized specimens, as a function of the
cement content (C). An increase in cement content is
enough to generate a significant gain in strength. It can
be seen that for the unconfined compressive strength,
the increase in strength is approximately linear with
the increase in cement content. The lines shown are
best fit lines for the different dry densities that were

Table 2 Stablished moulding points

Soil Pink-kaolin Botucatu weathered sandstone (SRAB) Osorio uniform sand

Cement content, C 3%, 6%, 9% 5%, 7%, 9% 3%, 5%, 7%

Dry density, kN/m3 14, 15, 16 16, 17.2, 18.3 15, 16
Optimum water content, x 20.2% 14.0% 10.1%

123
Geotech Geol Eng

established previously, the best fit equations can be Porosity, η (%)

30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51
seen on Table 4. The slope of these lines, with the 1.0E-04

higher dry density having a higher slope, could be due

1.0E-05
to the fact that at higher dry densities there are more
contacts between the products of the cement hydration 1.0E-06

and soil particles and so the effectiveness of the

k20 (m/s)
1.0E-07
cement is better appreciated (Felt 1955; Ingles and
Metcalf 1972; Clough et al. 1981; Consoli et al. 2007). 1.0E-08
Figure 2 shows the unconfined compressive
strength as a function of the specimen’s porosity, best 1.0E-09

fitted with a power function. Strength decreases with 0% KAOLIN 3% KAOLIN 6% KAOLIN 9% KAOLIN
1.0E-10 0% SRAB 5% SRAB 7% SRAB 9% SRAB
the increase of porosity in the cemented specimens.
0% Osorio 3% Osorio 5% Osorio 7% Osorio
The mechanism by which the reduction in porosity
influences the soil–cement strength is again to the Fig. 4 Variation of hydraulic conductivity with porosity for all
existence of a larger number of contacts (Felt 1955; soils
Ingles and Metcalf 1972; Consoli et al.
2007, 2009, 2012). and Metcalf 1972). The hydration of cemented
particles when associated with a higher fines content
3.2 Effect of Cement Content and Porosity may facilitate the development of new coarser grained
on Hydraulic Conductivity particles, virtually making the soil coarser and there-
fore more likely to have a higher hydraulic conduc-
The hydraulic conductivity for the specimens is shown tivity. As for the two former soils, the cement could,
in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively as a function of cement perhaps, clog the water pathways or increase the head
content and porosity, best fit equations can be assessed loss, which results in a lesser water flow.
in Table 4. Figure 4 shows the expected increase in hydraulic
For the Osorio and the Botucatu soils, the hydraulic conductivity with the increase in porosity, due to a
conductivity slightly decreases with a higher cement higher voids volume present in higher porosity
content. Whereas for the kaolin soil, the hydraulic specimens, water flow pathways are larger, better
conductivity slightly increases at higher cement per- connected and more predominant in looser soils.
centages, Fig. 3, this behaviour was already observed
before (Adaska 1985; Pasqualini et al. 2002), and 3.3 Hydraulic Conductivity Assessment
could be related to the effects of flocculation (Ingles as a Function of Compressive Strength

The relationship between UCS and hydraulic conduc-

Cement content, C (%) tivity is shown in Figs. 5, and 6, the raw data is
0 3 6 9 12
1.E-04 presented in Table 3.
Separately, the hydraulic conductivity measured
1.E-05
are predominantly in a single range, allowing to assess
the data on a linear axis, using the best fitted lines for
1.E-06
cement content and dry density, the relationship
k20 (m/s)

1.E-07
depicts a rectangular grid, i.e. on Fig. 5, which, based
upon the linearity of the functions described previ-
1.E-08 ously can correlate both variables, strength and
hydraulic conductivity. It is possible to distinguish
14 kN/m³ KAOLIN 15 kN/m³ KAOLIN
1.E-09 16 kN/m³ KAOLIN 16 kN/m³ SRAB the fitted lines for different cement content and dry
17.2 kN/m³ SRAB 18.3 kN/m³ SRAB density.
15 kN/m³ Osorio 16 kN/m³ Osorio
1.E-10 This grid builds a better understanding of how they
Fig. 3 Variation of hydraulic conductivity with cement content
are linked since both the unconfined compressive
for all soils strength and hydraulic conductivity are dependent on

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 3 Data
Specimen K20 (m/s) Qu (kPa)

kaolin_0c_1.4gd 1.9 9 10-08 0

kaolin_0c_1.5gd 7.1 9 10-09 0
kaolin_0c_1.6gd 9.1 9 10-10 0
kaolin_3c_1.4gd 3.1 9 10-08 636
kaolin_3c_1.5gd 1.6 9 10-08 1420
kaolin_3c_1.6gd 2.6 9 10-09 1718
kaolin_6c_1.4gd 2.7 9 10-08 1425
kaolin_6c_1.5gd 2.1 9 10-08 2264
-08
kaolin_6c_1.6gd 1.1 9 10 2689
kaolin_9c_1.4gd 4.5 9 10-08 2282
kaolin_9c_1.5gd 2.6 9 10-08 3138
kaolin_9c_1.6gd 1.2 9 10-08 3686
Fig. 5 Grid-like relationship for pink-kaolin soil (linear k20 SRAB_0c_16gd 3.0 9 10-06 0
axis) SRAB_0c_17.2gd 2.7 9 10-07 0
-08
SRAB_0c_18.3gd 2.6 9 10 0
SRAB_5c_16gd 4.0 9 10-06 588
SRAB_5c_17.2gd 6.4 9 10-07 855
SRAB_5c_18.3gd 1.0 9 10-08 1196
SRAB_7c_16gd 3.0 9 10-06 766
SRAB_7c_17.2gd 3.0 9 10-07 1202
SRAB_7c_18.3gd 1.1 9 10-08 1640
SRAB_9c_16gd 2.0 9 10-06 1045
SRAB_9c_17.2gd 1.2 9 10-07 1438
SRAB_9c_18.3gd 9.4 9 10-09 2058
-05
osorio_0c_15gd 1.6 9 10 0
osorio_0c_16gd 1.9 9 10-05 0
osorio_3c_15gd 1.5 9 10-05 412
osorio_3c_16gd 1.3 9 10-05 481
osorio_5c_15gd 1.4 9 10-05 723
osorio_5c_16gd 1.3 9 10-05 854
-05
osorio_7c_15gd 1.5 9 10 1042
Fig. 6 Composed view of the grid-like for all soils (log k20 osorio_7c_16gd 1.3 9 10-05 1192
axis)

both cement content and dry density of the specimens.

Furthermore, it serves as another tool for applications
of cement stabilization on the field.
Due to the different ranges of hydraulic conductiv-
ity measurements in the three soils, the overall
perspective is showed in a log scale for k20, even
though these relations are best fitted with a linear
regression (Table 4).
4 Concluding Remarks
From the data presented in this paper and bearing in
mind the limitations of this study, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
The gain in strength in unconfined compressive
tests is approximately linear with the increase in
cement content, and approximate a power function for
porosity.

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 4 Best fit equations

Figure 1 Dry density (kN/m3) Qu (kPa) as a function of C (%) R2

KAOLIN 14 qu = 274.3[C] - 198.5 0.99

15 qu = 286.5[C] ? 554.9 0.99
16 qu = 328.0[C] ? 729.3 0.99
SRAB 16 qu = 114.1[C] ? 0.9 0.98
17.2 qu = 145.7[C] ? 144.9 0.98
18.3 qu = 215.5[C] ? 122.9 0.99
OSORIO 15 qu = 157.4[C] - 61.7 0.99
16 qu = 177.6[C] - 45.8 0.99
Figure 2 Cement content, C (%) Qu (kPa) as a function of g (%) R2

KAOLIN 3 qu = 2 9 1018[g]-9.29 0.92

6 qu = 2 9 1011[g]-4.81 0.85
9 qu = 5 9 108[g]-3.15 0.99
SRAB 5 qu = 2 9 108[g]-3.42 0.99
8 -3.51
7 qu = 4 9 10 [g] 0.99
9 qu = 4 9 108[g]-3.40 0.99
OSORIO 3 qu = 5 9 105[g]-1.92 1
5 qu = 9 9 105[g]-1.91 1
7 qu = 1 9 106[g]-1.92 1

Figure 3 Dry density (kN/m3) K20 (m/s) as a function of C (%) R2

KAOLIN 14 K20 = 2 9 10-09[C] ? 2 9 10-08 0.78

15 K20 = 2 9 10-09[C] ? 8 9 10-09 0.98
16 K20 = 1 9 10-09[C] ? 2 9 10-10 0.92
SRAB 16 K20 = - 8 9 10-08[C] ? 3 9 10-06 0.15
17.2 K20 = - 1 9 10-08[C] ? 4 9 10-07 0.56
-09 -08
18.3 K20 = - 2 9 10 [C] ? 2 9 10 0.84
OSORIO 15 K20 = - 2 9 10-07[C] ? 2 9 10-05 0.41
16 K20 = - 8 9 10-07[C] ? 2 9 10-05 0.77

Figure 4 Cement content, C (%) K20 (m/s) as a function of g (%) R2

KAOLIN 0 K20 = 8 9 10-42[g]19.975 0.99

3 K20 = 1 9 10-45[g]22.457 0.90
-21 7.6142
6 K20 = 6 9 10 [g] 0.98
9 K20 = 7 9 10-22[g]8.2057 0.96
SRAB 0 K20 = 2 9 10-38[g]19.722 0.99
5 K20 = 7 9 10-53[g]28.821 0.95
7 K20 = 6 9 10-48[g]25.595 0.96
-50 26.859
9 K20 = 3 9 10 [g] 0.99
OSORIO 0 K20 = 2 9 10-02[g]-1.954 1
3 K20 = 3 9 10-08[g]1.6738 1
5 K20 = 2 9 10-06[g]0.5034 1
7 K20 = 6 9 10-10[g]2.7029 1

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 4 continued
Figure 5 Group Qu (kPa) as a function of K20 (m/s) R2

KAOLIN cd = 14 kN/m3 qu = 7.9 9 1010[K20] - 1310.4 0.77

3
cd = 15 kN/m qu = 1.6 9 1011[K20] - 1208.7 0.99
cd = 16 kN/m3 qu = 2.5 9 1011[K20] ? 338.0 0.86
C = 0% qu = 0[K20] ? 0 1
C = 3% qu = - 3.9 9 1010[K20] ? 1890.3 0.95
C = 6% qu = - 7.3 9 1010[K20] ? 3555.1 0.87
C = 9% qu = - 4.3 9 1010[K20] ? 4230.2 0.99
Figure 6 Group Qu (kPa) as a function of K20 (m/s) R2

KAOLIN Same equations as presented on Fig. 5

SRAB cd = 16 kN/m3 qu = - 2.2 9 108[K20] ? 1487.1 0.98
cd = 17.2 kN/m3 qu = - 1.5 9 109[K20] ? 1860.4 0.98
cd = 18.3 kN/m3 qu = - 3.4 9 1011[K20] ? 5137.8 0.26
C = 5% qu = - 1.2 9 108[K20] ? 1078.1 0.81
C = 7% qu = - 2.5 9 108[K20] ? 1498.5 0.86
C = 9% qu = - 3.7 9 108[K20] ? 1780.5 0.67
OSORIO cd = 15 kN/m3 qu = 1.6 9 109[K20] - 23197.4 0.25
cd = 16 kN/m3 qu = - 1.0 9 109[K20] ?13965.4 0.85
C = 3% qu = - 3.6 9 107[K20] ? 958.3 1
7
C = 5% qu = - 6.9 9 10 [K20] ? 1756.4 1
C = 7% qu = - 5.7 9 107[K20] ? 1913.5 1

On the pink-kaolin soil, hydraulic conductivity has
increased with the addition of cement in this silty soil,
behaving differently than usual sand-like materials.
Regarding different porosities, denser samples still
presented a lower hydraulic conductivity than looser
samples.
A composed result displaying the relation between
UCS and hydraulic conductivity in a grid-like plot, can
be observed for different soils, suggesting a common
factor that may help in design choices in soil-
structures applications.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to express their
gratitude to the Brazilian Research Council CNPq (Grant
Numbers 407593/2016-0 and 307289/2018-4) for their financial
support.
Funding Brazilian Research Council CNPq (Grant Numbers
407593/2016-0 and 307289/2018-4).
Availability of Data and Material Some raw data and other
remarkable data are included in the present article, for further
data, contact the corresponding author.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that are no conflict of
interest in the present research.
References
ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical Standards) (2012)
Solo-cimento—Ensaio de compressão simples de corpos
de prova cilı́ndricos—Método de ensaio. NBR 12025. Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil: ABNT (in Portuguese)
Adaska W (1985) Soil-cement liners. In: Johnson A, Frobel R,
Cavalli N, Pettersson C (eds) Hydraulic barriers in soil and
rock. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
pp 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP34587S
ASTM C39/C39M-18 (2018) Standard test method for com-
pressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken. https://doi.org/10.
1520/C0039_C0039M-18
ASTM D5084-16a (2016) Standard test methods for measure-
ment of hydraulic conductivity of saturated porous mate-
rials using a flexible wall permeameter. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken. https://doi.org/10.
1520/D5084-16A

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Bellezza I, Fratalocchi E (2006) Effectiveness of cement on
hydraulic conductivity of compacted soil–cement mix-
tures. Proc Inst Civ Eng Ground Improv 10(2):77–90.
https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.2006.10.2.77
Clough GW, Sitar N, Bachus RC, Rad NS (1981) Cemented
sands under static loading. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE
107(6):799–817
Consoli NC, Foppa D, Festugato D, Heineck KS (2007) Key
parameters for strength control of artificially cemented
soils. J Geot Geoenviron Eng 133(2):197–205. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:2(197)
Consoli NC, da Silva Lopes Jr. L, Foppa D, Heineck KS (2009)
Key parameters dictating strength of lime/cement-treated
soils. In: Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers—
geotechnical engineering, vol 162, no. 2, pp 111–118.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.2009.162.2.111
Consoli NC, Cruz RC, Floss MF, Festugato L (2010) Parameters
controlling tensile and compressive strength of artificially
cemented sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136:759–763.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000278
Consoli NC, Rosa DA, Cruz RC, Rosa AD (2011) Water con-
tent, porosity and cement content as parameters controlling
strength of artificially cemented silty soil. Eng Geol
122(3–4):328–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.
05.017
Consoli NC, Corte MB, Festugato L (2012) Key parameter for
tensile and compressive strength of fibre-reinforced soil-
lime mixtures. Geosynth Int 19:409–414. https://doi.org/
10.1680/gein.12.00026
Daniel D, Trautwein S, Boynton S, Foreman D (1984) Perme-
ability Testing with Flexible-Wall Permeameters. Geotech
Test J 7(3):113–122. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10487J
Daniel D, Bowders J, Gilbert R (1997) Laboratory hydraulic
conductivity testing of GCLs in flexible-wall permeame-
ters. In: Well L (ed) Testing and acceptance criteria for
geosynthetic clay liners. ASTM International, West Con-
shohocken, pp 208–229. https://doi.org/10.1520/
STP11804S
Divya PV, Viswanadham BVS, Gourc JP (2018) Hydraulic
conductivity behaviour of soil blended with geofiber
inclusions. Geotext Geomembr 46(2):121–130. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.10.008
Ehrlich M, Almeida MSS, Curcio D (2019) Hydro-mechanical
behavior of a lateritic fiber-soil composite as a waste
containment liner. Geotext Geomembr 47(1):42–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.09.005
Felt EJ (1955) Factors influencing physical properties of soil–
cement mixtures. In: Research and development laborato-
ries of the portland cement association: bulletin D5.
Authorized Reprint from Bulletin 108 of the Highway
Research Board, p 138
Festugato L, Menger E, Benezra F, Kipper EA, Consoli NC
(2017) Fibre- reinforced cemented soils compressive and
tensile strength assessment as a function of filament length.
Geotext Geomembr 45:77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2016.09.001
Ingles OG, Metcalf JB (1972) Soil stabilization—principles and
practice. Butterworths Pty. Limited, Melbourne, p 366
Jamshidi RJ, Lake CB (2015) Hydraulic and strength properties
of unexposed and freeze–thaw exposed cement-stabilized
soils. Can Geotech J 52(3):283–294. https://doi.org/10.
1139/cgj-2014-0100
Korf EP, Prietto PDM, Consoli NC (2016) Hydraulic and dif-
fusive behavior of a compacted cemented soil. Soils Rocks
39(3):325–331
Mitchell JK (1981) State of the art–soil improvement. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 10th ICSMFE, vol 4, pp 509–565
Nicholson P (2015) Soil improvement and ground modification
methods, 1st edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. https://
doi.org/10.1016/C2012-0-02804-9
Osinubi KJ, Moses G, Liman AS (2015) The influence of
compactive effort on compacted lateritic soil treated with
cement kiln dust as hydraulic barrier material. Geotech
Geol Eng 33:523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-014-
9837-5
Pasqualini E, Fratalocchi E, Stella M (2002) Stability of liners:
some particular issues. In: Proceedings of the 4th interna-
tional congress on environmental geotechnics, Rio de
Janeiro, pp 895–912
Rowe RK, Brachman RWI, Hosney MS, Take WA, Arnepallic
DN (2018) Insight into hydraulic conductivity testing of
geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) exhumed after 5 and
7 years in a cover. Can Geotech J 54(8):1118–1138. https://
doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0473
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
123