See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237373288

One-dimensional consolidation behavior of cement-treated organic soil

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · July 2011

DOI: 10.1139/t11-020

CITATIONS READS
46 555

4 authors, including:

Cliff T. Johnston Marika Santagata

Purdue University Haute école de santé Genève
230 PUBLICATIONS   9,477 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   542 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mineral-Water Interaction View project

The nature and properties of mineral and organic matter associations in soils View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cliff T. Johnston on 12 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1100

One-dimensional consolidation behavior of

cement-treated organic soil
Antonio Bobet, Joonho Hwang, Cliff T. Johnston, and Marika Santagata

Abstract: This paper addresses the effects of cement treatment on the one-dimensional (1D) consolidation behavior of a
highly organic soil (LOI ∼ 40%–60%, where LOI is the loss on ignition), based on 1D constant rate of strain and incremen-
tal loading tests. The effects of Portland cement addition are evaluated for dosages ranging from 8% to 100% by dry mass
of soil, corresponding to values of the cement factor of 24 and 296 kg of cement per cubic metre of untreated soil, within
the range used in deep mixing practice. Additional parameters investigated are the impact of curing surcharge and duration.
The most evident effect of the treatment is the development of a cementation-induced preconsolidation stress: the greater the
cement dosage, the greater the preconsolidation stress and the greater the vertical effective stress that can be sustained at
any void ratio. The results also provide a consistent picture of the effects of cement treatment on stiffness, hydraulic conduc-
tivity, coefficient of consolidation, and creep. Comparison to data obtained for the untreated soil demonstrates the “stable”
nature of the structure generated as a result of treatment. The consolidation results are complemented by pH measurements,
extraction tests, elemental analyses, and Fourier transform infra-red (FTIR) spectroscopy analyses, which provide insight
into the interaction between soil organic matter and cement.
Key words: peat, organic matter, cement treatment, deep mixing, consolidation, creep.
Résumé : Cet article discute des effets du traitement au ciment d’un sol hautement organique (LOI ∼ 40–60 %, où « LOI »
est la perte au feu) sur son comportement en consolidation unidimensionnelle (1D), à partir d’essais en chargement en 1D à
taux de déformation constant et incrémental. Les effets de l’ajout de ciment Portland sont évalués pour des dosages variant
de 8 à 100 %, ce qui correspond à des valeurs de facteur de ciment de 24 et 296 kg de ciment par mètre cube de sol non
traité, ceci étant des valeurs typiquement utilisées dans le mélange en profondeur. Les paramètres additionnels qui sont étu-
diés sont l’impact de la surcharge durant le curage et sa durée. L’effet le plus évident du traitement est le développement
d’une contrainte de pré-consolidation induite par la cimentation : plus le dosage de ciment est élevée, plus la contrainte de
pré-consolidation est élevée, et une plus grande contrainte effective verticale peut être soutenue pour tout indice des vides.
Les résultats fournissent aussi une image des effets du traitement au ciment sur la rigidité, la conductivité hydraulique, le co-
efficient de consolidation, et le fluage. Les résultats obtenus sont comparés à des données provenant du sol non traité, ce
qui démontre la nature « stable » de la structure générée suite au traitement. Les résultats de consolidation sont complémen-
tés par des mesures de pH, des essais d’extraction, des analyses élémentaires et des analyses de spectroscopie infrarouge à
transformée de Fourier (« FTIR »). Ces analyses fournissent des informations sur l’interaction entre la matière organique du
sol et le ciment.
Mots‐clés : tourbe, matière organique, traitement au ciment, mélange en profondeur, consolidation, fluage.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction tions are generally available to modify and improve the

Peats and other soils high in organic matter are prone to
large settlements, which derive both from their high compres-
sibility and the significant impact of secondary consolidation.
As a result, construction on these soils poses significant chal-
lenges to the geotechnical engineering profession. Several op-
Received 28 May 2010. Accepted 17 February 2011. Published
at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 12 July 2011.
A. Bobet and M. Santagata. School of Civil Engineering,
Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN
47907, USA.
J. Hwang. Asian Development Bank, 6 ADB Avenue,
Mandaluyong City 1550, Philippines.
C.T. Johnston. Department of Agronomy, Purdue University,
915 W State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Corresponding author: Marika Santagata (e-mail: mks@purdue.
edu).
ground conditions: strengthening of the foundation, elimina-
tion of the problem soils, treatment of the problem soils, and
relocation of the project. In many cases, the only option is
strengthening the foundation or elimination of part of the
problem soils, as the other options are impractical or too ex-
pensive. A widely used approach to the improvement of the
engineering properties of soft soils is the deep mixing
method (DMM), which was developed in Sweden and Japan
in the late 1960s for treatment of soft soils. It was introduced
in North America in the late 1980s and has been widely used
since. Although still limited compared to Europe, there have
been applications of this method in North America to treat-
ment of organic soils; for example, the stabilization of a 3.5
to 5 m thick organic silty clay deposit for construction of a
railroad embankment in a section of the Hudson–Bergen
Light Rail Transit System, New Jersey (Esrig et al. 2003),
and the stabilization of a 2.5 to 7.5 m thick organic clay layer

Can. Geotech. J. 48: 1100–1115 (2011) doi:10.1139/T11-020 Published by NRC Research Press
Bobet et al.
(with organic content from 4% to over 30%) for the I-95 high-
way widening in Alexandria, Va. (Lambrechts et al. 2003).
The principle of deep mixing is the mixing of hardening
agents (generally lime or cement) with soil in situ in con-
trolled proportions to produce columns of hardened material
that display higher strength and stiffness and generally lower
hydraulic conductivity than the original soil. Depending on
the configuration of the deep mixing system used, the binder
agents can be introduced in slurry (wet method) or dry (dry
method) form. The binding agents are mixed with soil at the
distal end or along the drill shaft by pure rotation of the mix-
ing augers or by a combination of rotation and injection of
the binder in slurry form at high pressure (Bruce and Bruce
2003). The properties of deep mixed soils are controlled by a
variety of factors including: (i) physical and chemical proper-
ties of the soil and groundwater, (ii) type and amount of
binder, (iii) curing period, and (iv) mixing effectiveness. To
date, significant research has focused on investigating the fac-
tors influencing the improvement of the strength of inorganic
clays and the geotechnical properties of these soils after treat-
ment. However, despite the considerable work performed in
Sweden over the years (e.g., Åhnberg and Holm 1999;
Åhnberg et al. 2001; Holm 2005), the recent EuroSoilStab
project, and additional recent contributions exploring the ef-
fectiveness of different binders (e.g., Hayashi and Nishimoto
2005; Hernandez-Martinez and Al-Tabbaa 2005, 2009) and
the durability of the treatment (e.g., Butcher 2005), there re-
main many questions on the effectiveness of this method in
treating organic soils. They arise from concerns about the in-
terference of organics with cement hydration reactions, and
on the dissolution of organic matter in high pH environ-
ments. These issues are compounded by the fact that the
term “organic soils” is generally used to refer to a broad set
of geomaterials, with often contrasting geotechnical proper-
ties. Moreover, assessments of the effectiveness of the treat-
ment have, to date, typically focused on the measured
increase in compressive strength (most commonly from un-
confined tests) and, to a lesser degree (e.g., Cortellazzo and
Cola 1999; Tremblay et al. 2001; Hebib and Farrell 2003),
on the one-dimensional (1D) compression behavior. Studies
on other critical properties including coefficient of consolida-
tion and creep coefficient remain very limited.
The objective of this paper is to fill this void by presenting
results from an extensive experimental program of constant
rate of strain (CRS) and incremental loading (IL) tests con-
ducted on a soil with approximately 50% organic content.
The data presented also include chemical data that provide
insight into the interaction of the soil’s organic matter with
cement. The work complements the results presented by San-
tagata et al. (2008), which focused on the 1D consolidation
behavior of the same organic soil in both the undisturbed (tests
on specimens obtained from block samples) and reconstituted
state. While in the field the effectiveness of the treatment
would be measured as improvement over the undisturbed
field conditions, the reconstituted results are used in this pa-
per as the reference against which the changes in mechani-
cal and chemical properties of the soil treated with cement
are assessed. The choice of this baseline removes the effects
of the soil’s initial conditions, which are necessarily site de-
pendent.
1101
Experimental methods
Materials
Soil for this research program was sampled at the south end
of the “Celery Bog” park in West Lafayette, In. Two block
samples and several disturbed soil samples were collected
in April and July 2001 from the bottom of a 4.5 m diameter
pit excavated to a depth of 2 m. Seven (samples S5–S11) of
the 11 disturbed samples collected were used for this study,
and are referenced in this paper based on the sample num-
ber. Borehole data (Earth Exploration, Inc. 1993) indicate
that the layer of organic soil from which the samples were
obtained is 3–4 m thick and underlain by marl and a silty
clay layer, and that the groundwater table lies in the upper
part of the organic soil layer. The surface material at this
location is designated as a Houghton muck (USDA 1998).
The soil is a highly organic (loss on ignition (LOI) in the
40% to 60% range), sapric (∼2% fiber content) soil with
mildly acidic (5.6–5.9) pH. The inorganic fraction is entirely
finer than 0.075 mm, with over 60% in the clay fraction,
which contains highly active clay minerals (smectite and ver-
miculite). The organic fraction, comprised mainly of highly
processed humic substances, functions as a “glueing” agent
between the silt-size and clay-size particles, causing the aver-
age size of the soil particles to increase. In contrast with
nonhumic substances, which are easily attacked by soil mi-
croorganisms and exist in the soil for a relatively short period
of time (Schnitzer and Khan 1972; Sparks 2003), humic sub-
stances refer to naturally occurring, biogenic, heterogeneous
organic compounds of high molecular weight (Sparks 2003).
Humic substances, which represent one of the most chemi-
cally reactive fractions of the soil due to their high surface
area and surface charge, can be divided into three fractions
based on their solubility characteristics: humin, humic acid,
and fulvic acid. Humin refers to the soil organic matter frac-
tion that is insoluble in alkali and remains after extraction of
the humic and fulvic acids with dilute alkali; fulvic acid re-
fers to the colored soil organic matter that is soluble in both
alkali and dilute acid; humic acid is the dark-colored organic
matter that is soluble in alkali, but is insoluble and precipi-
tates in dilute acid. The fulvic fraction, in general, has lower
molecular weight, and contains higher oxygen, but lower car-
bon than humic acid. The fulvic acid fraction also contains
significantly more acidic functional groups, especially carb-
oxyl acid (COOH), and is more reactive than humic acid.
The distribution of the three fractions of soil organic matter
varies depending on the soil type and depth in the soil pro-
file. Santagata et al. (2008) report that the soil used in this
research is comprised of approximately 74% humin and inor-
ganic components, 24% humic acid, and less than 3% fulvic
acid.
All index properties of the soil show significant sample to
sample variability with the specific gravity (Gs) exhibiting a
linear correlation to the LOI (Gs = –0.0104LOI(%) + 2.570),
with measured values of Gs ranging between 1.9 and 2.2
(Santagata et al. 2008). Similarly, both the plastic limit
(PL = 114%–253%) and the liquid limit (LL = 228%–406%)
increase with increasing organic content. The latter decreased
to 24%–36% of its original value as a result of oven drying.
Based on the above, the soil can be classified according to
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS; ASTM 2006)
Published by NRC Research Press
1102
as an organic clay with sand (OH). Details on soil index
properties, mineralogy, and microstructure are provided by
Santagata et al. (2008).
Portland cement (PC) was selected as the binder as it is the
most economic and most widely used cement in practice. Ad-
ditionally, and consistent with data from the literature (e.g.,
Hernandez-Martinez and Al-Tabbaa 2009), unconfined com-
pression tests (Hwang et al. 2004) on the soil treated with
different binders, including cement and lime, showed that ce-
ment provided the most effective treatment. The amounts of
PC used ranged from 8% to 20%, 50%, and 100% by dry
mass of soil, corresponding to values of the cement factor
(mass of cement used per unit volume of untreated soil) of
approximately 24, 59, 148, and 296 kg/m3, respectively.
These values fall in the range employed in practice (FHWA
2000; Bruce and Bruce 2003), particularly when treating
highly organic soils (e.g., Åhnberg and Holm 1999).
Sample preparation
The sample preparation procedure consisted of four steps:
mixing, compaction, curing, and extrusion. The mixing pro-
cedure was specially designed to simulate the kneading ac-
tion applied to the soil during deep mixing. A measurement
of the water content was conducted 24 h prior to mixing to
determine the exact mix proportions (at the same time a loss
of ignition test was also conducted). In the mixing phase, soil
and water were mixed at a water content of 289%, the aver-
age value of the natural water content measured on the April
samples. Portland cement was then added to the mixture in
the form of a slurry with a water to cement ratio of 0.5, a
value typical in practice. The components were then mixed
in a 5 L Kitchen-Aid stand mixer for 2 min.
After mixing, the soil was compacted into plastic cylinders
(diameter = 7.62 cm, height = 15.24 cm) using a modified
mechanical standard Proctor hammer with a reduced diameter
(2.54 cm) to generate a kneading action (Hwang et al. 2004).
A thin film of concrete form oil was applied to the cylinder
wall before placing the soil, to allow for easy extraction of
the sample. The soil mixture was compacted in three layers,
applying 40 blows per layer. After compaction, the cylinder
was cut in half along the plane parallel to the ends to reduce
friction along the walls during the curing and extrusion proc-
esses. A 48 kPa surcharge was applied to the soil by placing
dead weights on a concrete cap positioned on top of the cyl-
inder, to simulate the effect of an overburden stress. During
the curing period the soil cylinders were immersed in tap
water to ensure continued access of the soil and cement to
water, as would occur in the field. To this effect a small
opening was drilled in the bottom of the cylinder, where a
thin Plexiglas plate with a large number of holes was placed.
This was done to ensure access of water to the entire cross
section at the bottom of the specimen during curing and to
facilitate extraction of the soil from the cylinder with mini-
mal disturbance to the soil. Curing lasted 14 days for the ma-
jority of the tests presented in this paper, although a limited
number of tests were conducted on specimens cured for
28 days. At the end of curing, the cylinder was removed
from the water bath and hot water was run over the sides to
facilitate extrusion of the soil from the mold. The cylinder
was then inverted on a piece of wax paper and air pressure
was applied to the opening on its bottom. The rigid plexiglas
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
plate distributed the air pressure uniformly to the specimen,
reducing disturbance as the sample was extruded.
At least two samples were prepared for each cement con-
tent. Specimens with a diameter of 2.5 in. (1 in. = 25.4 mm)
were trimmed from these samples and used to perform a pair
of constant rate of strain (CRS) and incremental loading (IL)
consolidation tests.
Modified curing procedures were used to investigate the
role played by curing surcharge and curing duration (see sec-
tion titled “Effects of curing duration and curing surcharge”).
Consolidation tests
All CRS tests presented in this paper were conducted em-
ploying one of three computer-controlled CRS apparatuses
manufactured by Geotac of Houston, Tex., available in Pur-
due’s Bechtel Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, and fol-
lowing the same procedure. First the soil specimen was
backpressure saturated for 36–48 h. The value of the back
pressure varied depending on the cement content: from
300 kPa for the untreated soil to 560–600 kPa for the higher
dosage of cement. Following backpressure saturation, the
specimen was loaded one-dimensionally at a constant dis-
placement rate corresponding to a nominal strain rate — i.e.,
based on the initial specimen height — of 0.25%–1%/h, de-
pending on the test, until the desired target stress was reached
(200–1600 kPa). This load was maintained for 2–3 days until
dissipation of at least 95% of the excess pore pressure gener-
ated during loading. Then, the specimen was unloaded to
10% of the maximum load at 10% of the displacement rate
employed during loading. The rate reduction was required to
limit the negative excess pore pressure generated during un-
loading. The load was again maintained for 2–3 days until
95% of the negative excess pore pressure dissipated. Finally,
in some cases the specimen was reloaded using the same dis-
placement rate employed for the consolidation phase to a fi-
nal target stress. At this stage a creep test lasting several
cycles was conducted. The nonlinear solution (Wissa et al.
1971) was used for reduction of the CRS data to derive verti-
cal effective stress, coefficient of consolidation (Cv), and ver-
tical hydraulic conductivity (kv) as a continuous function of
the strain (or void ratio) from measurements of vertical dis-
placement, axial load, excess pore pressure developed at the
base of the soil specimen, and cell (back) pressure.
All incremental loading tests were performed using a cell
equipped for backpressure saturation, and under single drain-
age conditions with measurement of the excess pore pressure
at the base of the specimen. Measurements of the base excess
pore pressure were used to determine the end of primary con-
solidation, and the load increments were applied allowing little
to no secondary compression. This was done to limit the im-
pact of changes in soil stiffness with time in the cement-treated
soil (Kassim and Clarke 1999). The specimen was allowed to
creep for at least one cycle of secondary compression at the
maximum effective stress (∼1550–1600 kPa) reached in
each test.
Table 1 summarizes the consolidation testing program. For
each of the tests performed it provides the sample source
number, LOI measured on the soil prior to mixing, cement
content, test type, strain rate used (CRS test only), curing du-
ration and surcharge, and water content (w) and void ratio (e)
at the start of consolidation (i.e., end of curing). As shown in
Published by NRC Research Press
Bobet et al. 1103

Table 1. Summary of experimental program.

Field Strain rate Curing duration Curing sur- w (%) end e end of
Test No. sample LOI (%) PC (%) Test type (%/h) (days) charge (kPa) of curing curing
6 S5 45.3 0 CRS 0.5 14 48 179.2 4.03
7 S5 49.2 0 CRS 0.5 14 48 197.0 4.26
8 S5 43.6 0 CRS 0.5 14 48 219.5 4.26
9 S7 54.4 0 CRS 0.25 14 48 206.6 4.32
10 S7 55.2 0 CRS 1 14 48 214.8 4.45
11 S7 54.4 0 CRS 0.1 14 48 181.9 4.20
12 S9 36.6 0 CRS 0.1 14 48 156.3 3.80
13 S9 37.5 0 CRS 1 14 48 155.4 3.64
14 S7 52.5 0 IL — 14 48 194.4 4.38
15 S8 46.0 0 IL — 14 48 178.5 3.67
16 S9 40.9 18.7 CRS 0.5 14 48 169.0 3.65
17 S9 40.7 18.7 IL — 14 48 166.9 3.74
18 S10 41.7 8.1 CRS 0.5 14 48 174.4 3.75
19 S10 41.7 8.1 IL — 14 48 180.2 3.95
20 S10 44.7 51.4 CRS 0.5 14 48 167.6 3.57
21 S10 44.7 51.4 IL — 14 48 168.0 3.57
22 S10 44.8 103.4 CRS 0.5 14 48 125.2 2.57
23 S10 44.8 103.4 IL — 14 48 126.0 2.58
24 S11 48.0 100.8 CRS 0.5 14 48 129.0 2.69
25 S10 45.0 52.6 CRS 0.5 28 48 171.1 3.65
26 S10 44.8 52.6 IL — 28 48 168.0 3.65
27 S11 42.7 100.8 CRS 0.5 28 48 130.1 2.73
28 S11 42.3 100.8 IL — 28 48 133.0 2.76
29 S10 44.2 52.6 CRS 0.5 14 96 157.7 3.35
30 S10 43.1 52.6 IL — 14 96 158.6 3.40
31 S11 44.7 42.1 CRS 0.5 14 192 137.1 3.01
32 S11 44.6 48.4 IL — 14 192 143.6 3.11

the table, CRS tests on the untreated soil were conducted us-
ing rates in the 0.25%–1%/h range, while all tests on the ce-
ment-treated soil employed the same rate of 0.5%/h. With
one exception (test 10 in Table 1), the maximum pore pres-
sure ratio (Duh/sv, where Duh is the excess pore pressure
and sv is the vertical stress) measured in all the CRS tests
performed on the untreated soil remained below the 30%
threshold fixed by ASTM D4186 (ASTM 1989) (all tests
were performed prior to the 2006 revision of the standard).
For all tests on the cement-treated soil the maximum pore
pressure ratio remained below 5%.
Note that the values of the cement content provided in Table 1
deviate somewhat from the target nominal values of 8%,
20%, 50%, and 100%. For simplicity the latter values (50%
and 100%) are used in the remaining text.
Calculation of the phase relations of the treated soil
presents some challenges, in particular due to the need to es-
timate the specific gravity of the treated soil, which decreases
continuously during hydration (e.g., Lorenzo and Bergado
2004). In this work, calculation of the void ratio of the
cement-treated organic soil was performed treating cement
and soil as separate phases, i.e., calculating the mass and vol-
ume of each of these phases separately. With this assumption
the masses of the two solid phases were calculated from the
post-test oven-dried mass and the mix proportions used to
prepare each cement-treated soil specimen (accounting for
the amount of water reacting with the cement); while the
mass of the water phase was derived from the difference be-
tween initial total mass and final dry mass. For calculation of
the volume of the hydrated cement a value of 2.15 was used
for the specific gravity (Lea 2004). For the soil, the specific
gravity was derived from the linear relationship existing be-
tween Gs and LOI for this particular soil (Santagata et al.
2008), based on measurements of the LOI conducted prior
to mixing the soil with cement. The void ratio was then cal-
culated as the ratio of the volume of water (at the end of the
curing stage all specimens were found to be essentially 100%
saturated) and the sum of the volumes of the two solid
phases. Figure 1 presents average volume phase diagrams for
pre-consolidation (end of curing) conditions for specimens
prepared with 20%, 50%, and 100% cement by dry mass of
the soil. Note from Fig. 1, and from the data in Table 1, that
there is a trend of decreasing void ratio at the start of consol-
idation (i.e., at end of curing), with increasing cement con-
tent. This trend is consistent with the cement and water
added during mixing, the water consumed by the cement hy-
dration reaction, and the deformations measured under the
curing surcharge. The deformation increased with decreasing
cement dosage.
As shown in Table 1, each test has been assigned a se-
quential reference number. This is the same reference number
used in a previous publication (Santagata et al. 2008) focused
on the behavior of the untreated soil. Tests 1–5 performed on
intact block samples of the natural soil are omitted from
Table 1, as they are not directly relevant to the research pre-
sented in this paper.

Published by NRC Research Press

1104
Fig. 1. End of curing volume phase relations for 20%, 50%, and
100% cement-treated soil. Hydr., hydrated.
Chemical tests
pH measurements, fractionation tests, elemental analyses
using a LECO analyzer, and Fourier transform infrared spec-
troscopy (FTIR) analyses were conducted to complement the
consolidation experiments.
pH measurements on the untreated soil were conducted us-
ing a Corning 44 pH meter, a pH glass electrode, and a calo-
mel (reference) electrode in accordance with ASTM D4972
(ASTM 2007). The same device was used for measuring the
pH of the cement-treated soil. For these tests an amount of
soil corresponding to a dry mass of 15 g was mixed with a
cement slurry (with water to cement ratio of 0.5), and water
was added to achieve an overall water to solids ratio of 4.
Measurements were conducted 1 h after mixing, as well as 1
and 7 days later. Between measurements the treated soil was
kept in a tightly sealed glass container to prevent any mois-
ture loss.
Fractionation of both the untreated and treated soil was
performed to quantify the percentage of humin, humic acid,
and fulvic acid present (see section titled “Materials”). For
this purpose, samples were prepared following the same pro-
cedure employed for the samples used for the consolidation
tests, except that no curing surcharge was applied. Instead,
after compaction the samples were stored in a glass jar for
7 days. At this time a sample of mass corresponding to 15 g
of dry soil was fractionated employing the following proce-
dure: (i) the samples were treated with a 0.1 mol/L HCl sol-
ution (with solution to solids ratio of 5) to remove any
carbonates so that the organic matter could be easily sepa-
rated from the mineral portion of the soil; (ii) after continu-
ous shaking for 48 h the samples were centrifuged at
2000 revolutions/min for 15 min and the supernatant solution
decanted; (iii) humic and fulvic acids were extracted using a
highly basic solution (pH > 12); (iv) the humic acid was then
separated from the fulvic acid using a solution with pH < 1;
(v) the humic acids, which can be very strongly bonded to
mineral matter, were purified using an HF solution to elimi-
nate any additional inorganic matter. Note that this is the
same procedure used on the untreated soil (Santagata et al.
2008), except that it avoids pretreatment with a 0.1M HF sol-
ution, as this step, which is used on the untreated soil to
eliminate silicates, would promote dissolution of some of the
cementitious products.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
The elemental (C, H, N) composition of each of the frac-
tions was determined using a LECO CHN-2000 analyzer. In
this technique the carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen content are
determined from analysis of the gases released by the com-
bustion of the soil sample.
The different fractions extracted from both the untreated
and cement-treated soil were further characterized employing
FTIR. This technique is especially suited for the characteriza-
tion of humic substances that have no regularly repeating
structural units, and are, instead, made of a variety of func-
tional groups. FTIR spectroscopy is based on the fact that
molecules vibrate at discrete energies in the infrared (IR) re-
gion of the electromagnetic spectrum. When the frequency of
the incident IR radiation matches the frequency of the partic-
ular vibrational mode (bending or stretching) of a molecule,
IR absorption occurs. FTIR analyses for this research were
conducted using a Perkin-Elmer 1600 spectrophotometer.
Each specimen, prepared in solid form using potassium bro-
mide (KBr), was scanned 640 times from 370 to 4000 cm–1
(the vibration of most organic molecules occurs in the mid-
IR spectral region) with an 0.5 cm–1 interval and 2 cm–1 res-
olution.
Results and discussion
Overview of effects of cement on 1D consolidation
behavior
Results from tests on soil with 0% (reconstituted samples)
and 20% PC (59 kg/m3) are presented in Fig. 2 to illustrate
the consistency in results between CRS and IL tests, and to
highlight some of the changes in 1D consolidation behavior
induced by the addition of cement. As shown in Fig. 2a, the
compression curves for 20% PC obtained from CRS and IL
consolidation tests coincide, indicating reproducibility in the
behavior of the cement-treated soil as well as no significant
strain-rate effects (the two tests necessarily involve straining
of the soil at different rates). Similar observations apply to
the untreated soil (see also Santagata et al. 2008). Figure 2a
is a plot of void ratio with effective stress, Fig. 2b includes
the change of permeability with void ratio, Fig. 2c shows
data of coefficient of consolidation with effective stress, and
Fig. 2d of constrained modulus with effective stress. Figure 2a
indicates that the most notable effect of treatment on the
compression behavior is the increase in the preconsolidation
pressure, s p0 , which, based on determinations using the
strain energy method (Becker et al. 1987), increases by
about 80% (from an average value of 50.2 kPa for the un-
treated reconstituted soil to approximately 94 kPa). As a re-
sult of the development of this cementation-induced s p0 , the
compression curve of the treated soil is shifted to higher ef-
fective stress, with the treated soil able to carry almost
twice the vertical effective stress sustained by the untreated
soil at the same void ratio.
Beyond s p0 the slope of the compression curve for the 20%
PC-treated soil is essentially constant, with values of the
compressibility index (Cc = 1.29–1.33) in the range of those
measured on the reconstituted untreated soil. The effects of
treatment are, instead, apparent in the swelling and reloading
indices measured during unload–reload stages. In the over-
consolidation ratio (OCR) 1–2 range both the swelling and
Published by NRC Research Press
Bobet et al. 1105

Fig. 2. Effect of 20% cement addition on (a) compression behavior, (b) hydraulic conductivity, (c) coefficient of consolidation, and (d) con-
strained modulus of highly organic soil. mv, coefficient of volume compressibility.

the reloading indices decrease by more than 30% compared Fig. 3. Effect of 20% cement addition on excess pore pressure gen-
to the values measured for the untreated soil specimens. erated in CRS test.
Figure 2b shows that, at a given void ratio, the average hy- 200
Excess pore pressure/strain rate,

draulic conductivity of the treated soil is approximately 4.6

times greater than that of the reconstituted soil. Despite this
difference, the slope of the linear portion of the hydraulic 150
conductivity (k) plot (Ck = De/Dlogk) remains almost un-
Duh /ea (kPa/%/h)

changed with treatment. For the soil treated with 20% PC 0% PC

the average value of Ck/Cc is 0.66, in the range of the data 100 No. 13(CRS)
obtained for the untreated reconstituted soil (0.58–0.67). .
Note also the slight difference (∼15%–20%) between the
curves of hydraulic conductivity versus void ratio obtained 50 19% PC
from the IL and CRS consolidation tests. The effects of treat- No. 16(CRS)
ment on permeability are also highlighted in Fig. 3, which
shows the cumulative excess pore pressure generated during 0
loading and normalized by the measured strain rate for both 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
0% and 20% PC. It is seen that only 20% of the excess pore Void ratio, e
pressures produced in the reconstituted soil are generated in
the treated soil at the same void ratio. Given that the con-
strained modulus is not affected by treatment in the normally data) and untreated organic soil. Some discrepancy between
consolidated region (as discussed later), the results presented the IL and CRS data is observed, with the Cv values obtained
in Fig. 3 indicate an increase in the hydraulic conductivity of from the CRS test being consistently two times higher than
the soil with the addition of cement. the IL data. More importantly, the results show that the coef-
Figure 2c shows the variation of the coefficient of consol- ficient of consolidation increases with the addition of PC by
idation with stress level for both the treated (IL and CRS approximately one order of magnitude over the stress range

Published by NRC Research Press

1106
investigated. This is a reflection of the increase in k with the
treatment noted above.
The values of the constrained modulus of the treated soil
are plotted against vertical effective stress in Fig. 2d. In the
overconsolidated region, the treated soil exhibits generally
stiffer response with higher constrained modulus, but once
consolidation proceeds past the preconsolidation pressure,
the constrained modulus of the treated soil coincides with
that of the untreated reconstituted soil.
Effect of cement dosage on 1D consolidation behavior and
structure of cement-treated soil
Having highlighted the general effects that the addition of
cement has on the 1D compression behavior, this section ad-
dresses the role played by the cement dosage. Specifically,
Fig. 4 presents the data for CRS tests conducted with cement
dosage varying between 0% (untreated reconstituted soil) and
approximately 100% (cement factor, 296 kg/m3). Similar to
Fig. 2, Fig. 4a plots void ratio with effective stress, Fig. 4b
void ratio with permeability, Fig. 4c coefficient of consolida-
tion with effective stress, and Fig. 4d constrained modulus
with effective stress. While, as discussed for 0% and 20%
PC, the results of the CRS and IL tests are found to be con-
sistent, for clarity, the data for the latter are not included in
this figure. Key results are summarized in Table 2.
The compression curves of the reconstituted and PC-treated
soil are shown in Fig. 4a. The figure shows that the greater
the cement dosage, the greater the cementation-induced pre-
consolidation stress, the more extended the reloading region,
and the greater the vertical effective stress that can be sus-
tained at a given void ratio.
The figure also highlights the trend of decreasing value of
the void ratio at the start of consolidation (i.e., at end of cur-
ing; see data in Table 1) with increasing cement content. This
trend is consistent with the cement and water added during
mixing, the water consumed by the cement hydration reac-
tion, and the deformations measured under the curing sur-
charge.
While the preconsolidation stress increases with treatment,
the compression index in the normally consolidated region
does not show significant changes with cement addition. As
shown in Table 2, there is no clear trend with cement dosage
and, regardless of the cement content, the values of Cc fall
within the range observed for the untreated reconstituted soil.
Figure 4b shows the increase in hydraulic conductivity of
the organic soil with treatment. Although the initial void ratio
decreases gradually with increasing cement content, the hy-
draulic conductivity of the treated soil increases with cement
percentage at any given void ratio. With 8% PC the effect of
the treatment is modest, with a 18%–26% increase in k at the
same void ratio. However, a much greater increase in hy-
draulic conductivity is observed with higher PC contents,
and for 100% PC the hydraulic conductivity is over one order
of magnitude greater than that of the untreated soil. This ob-
servation is in agreement with past findings (Broms and Bo-
man 1979; Brandl 1981; Buensuceso 1990; Townsend and
Klym 1996; Cortellazzo and Cola 1999; Kang 2011). The in-
crease in hydraulic conductivity with treatment is caused by
the change in the fabric of the soil as a result of the cement
reactions. First, the released Ca2+ and OH– increase the pH
and the ionic strength of the solution; the increase in the Ca2+
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
concentration reduces the double-layer thickness of the phyl-
losilicate minerals present in the organic soil, promoting floc-
culation and aggregation of particles. Second, the formation of
the C–S–H and C–A–H gels binds soil particles together, fur-
ther contributing to aggregation and flocculation (Tremblay et
al. 2001; Al-Rawas 2002) of the soil particles. As a result of
these influences a more open fabric is formed, with macro-
pores, which serve as the main channels for flow, having size
that increases with increasing cement content. These hypothe-
ses are supported by previous observations of the microstruc-
ture of cement-treated clay conducted by Chew et al. (2004)
using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and mercury in-
trusion porosimetry. SEM observations show that the addition
of cement produces a flocculated structure, and both analyses
indicate an increase in the size of the openings formed
amongst soil particle clusters with increasing cement content.
Particle-size analyses on untreated and cement-treated soil
conducted by both Rao and Rajasekaran (1996) and Chew et
al. (2004) also demonstrate an increase in particle size with
cement content.
Note that it is not expected that the same trend of increas-
ing hydraulic conductivity with cement content would extend
to the larger cement dosages used in cutoff walls. In such
cases the high cement dosages employed would ultimately
cause a decrease in kv.
Values of Ck and Ck/Cc derived from the data presented in
Fig. 4 are summarized in Table 2. It is observed that for ce-
ment contents up to 50% there is no clear trend between ce-
ment content and either Ck or Ck/Cc. In fact, for both these
parameters the data for the cement-treated soil fall within the
range observed for the untreated reconstituted soil. However,
with 100% cement, the values of both Ck and Ck/Cc fall
clearly below the range measured on all other specimens.
The decrease in Ck/Cc is especially of interest, as it reflects
the fact that a smaller percentage of the voids that contribute
to the compressibility of the soil contribute to its hydraulic
conductivity. This suggests that the fabric formed as a result
of treatment with 100% cement involves some internal – not
connected pore space. Similar observations are reported by
Kang (2011) for a cement-treated inorganic clay.
The coefficient of consolidation is plotted against vertical
effective stress in Fig. 4c. In general, at the same vertical ef-
fective stress, Cv increases with treatment. Similar to pre-
vious observations regarding s v0 and kv, the effects of
treatment with 8% PC are small. The increase in Cv is due
to the increase in both hydraulic conductivity and constrained
modulus (discussed later). Similar results have been obtained
for other soils treated with lime and cement (Broms 1999;
Cortellazzo and Cola 1999; Kassim and Clarke 1999; Kang
2011).
The effect of cement treatment on the constrained modulus
is illustrated in Fig. 4d, which shows that while cement treat-
ment leads to an increase in the constrained modulus in the
overconsolidated region, the relationship between modulus
and effective stress is independent of cement content in the
normally consolidated region.
The average increase in preconsolidation pressure with
treatment, shown in Fig. 4a, is summarized in Fig. 5, which
shows that the increase in s p0 is relatively modest for low val-
ues of cement (50% and 88% increase in s p0 with 8% and
Published by NRC Research Press
Bobet et al. 1107

Fig. 4. Effect of cement treatment (8%–100% PC) on: (a) compression behavior, (b) hydraulic conductivity, (c) coefficient of consolidation,
and (d) constrained modulus of highly organic soil.

Table 2. Summary of results on cement treated soil.

PC (%) Cc, 2  4s P0 Cr, OCR 4–2 Ck Ck/Cc Ca Ca/Cc
0 1.548 ± 0.207 0.266 ± 0.055 0.95 ± 0.09 0.60 ± 0.04 0.123 0.095
8 1.444 0.057 0.89 0.64 0.106 0.085
20 1.326 0.026 0.87 0.66 0.080 0.063
50 1.699 0.013 0.91 0.61 0.070 0.042
100 1.382 0.005 0.73 0.54 0.029 0.021
Note: Ca, creep coefficient.

20% PC, respectively), but much sharper at higher dosages,
as s p0 increases by approximately 800% and 2300% with
50% and 100% PC, respectively.
Further comparisons between the reconstituted and treated
soils can be made within the framework proposed by Burland
(1990), which relies on the normalization of the compression
curves through the use of the void index, Iv. Iv is defined
based on e100 and e1000 , the intrinsic void ratios, i.e., the
void ratios of the soil in the reconstituted–remolded state at
stresses of 100 and 1000 kPa, respectively, as follows:
e  e100
½1 Iv ¼ 
e100  e1000
With this normalization the compression curves of recon-
stituted–remolded soils all fall around a unique line termed
the intrinsic compression line (ICL), and the in situ state for
a variety of sedimentary natural clays in the normally con-
solidated state plots in a band to the right of the ICL. The
best-fit curve through these data is termed the sedimentation
compression line (SCL). At the same void ratio the SCL lies
at vertical effective stresses approximately five times higher
than the ICL, implying that most naturally sedimented clays
can support five times higher vertical effective stress than re-
constituted clays. Burland (1990) as well as others have
shown that the in situ state of some clays can fall substan-
tially above the SCL.

Published by NRC Research Press

1108
Fig. 5. Effect of cement treatment (8%–100% PC) on preconsolida-
tion stress.
While Burland’s (1990) framework was developed for nat-
ural soils, Kang and Santagata (2006) suggest that the intrin-
sic values of the untreated reconstituted soil may be used to
normalize the data of cement-treated soil, and thus the frame-
work can provide insight into the behavior and the degree of
structuring of cement-treated soils. Figure 6a, which presents
the compression curves of all cement-treated specimens in
the void index (Iv)–logs p0 space, illustrate the results of such
a normalization. Also included in this figure are the data for
the reconstituted soil, which fall on the ICL, and the com-
pression curves for the intact natural soil based on tests on
block samples (Santagata et al. 2008). It is seen that the nor-
malized compression curves of the cement-treated soil are ap-
proximately parallel to the intrinsic and sedimentation
compression lines, and that as the cement dosage increases
the curves shift to the right, reflecting, as discussed earlier,
an increased cement-induced structure. While the curves for
8% and 20% cement fall between the ICL and the SCL, the
curves for 50% and 100% cement fall very close to the SCL,
suggesting a degree of structuring similar to that typical of
many natural sedimentary clays. Similar observations were
reported by Kang and Santagata (2006) for a cement-treated
inorganic clay.
Figure 6a also provides insight into the nature of the struc-
ture generated in the cement-treated clay. Burland (1990)
shows that for natural clays whose stress state lies close or
above the SCL, the post-yield compression curve is markedly
steeper than the SCL, and that at high stresses it tends to ap-
proach the ICL as a result of the progressive collapse of the
soil structure. Baudet and Stallebrass (2004) refer to the struc-
ture associated with this type of behavior as a “meta-stable”
structure. As shown in Fig. 6a, and discussed in more de-
tail by Santagata et al. (2008), this is the behavior observed
when testing the intact block samples. In contrast, Fig. 6a
shows that upon first loading, the post-yield compression
curves of the 50% and 100% cement-treated soil clay re-
main practically parallel to the SCL. This is evidence of
the stable nature of the structure generated as a result of
cement treatment.
Post-yield structure degradation can be described using the
model proposed by Liu and Carter (1999, 2000), which ex-
presses the void ratio of structured soil at any given stress
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
level in the virgin compression region as the sum of two
terms:
 0 b
 
sp
½2 e ¼ e þ De ¼ e þ Dei 0
sv
where e* is the void ratio of the reconstituted soil at the same
vertical effective stress; De is the difference between the void
ratio of the structured soil and that of the reconstituted soil at
a given vertical effective stress s v0 ; Dei is the value of De de-
termined in correspondence to the preconsolidation stress s p0 ;
and b, which is termed the compression destructuring index,
is a parameter that quantifies the rate of reduction in De with
stress level. Data presented by Liu and Carter (2000) suggest
that for natural soft clays, b generally falls in the 0.3–1 range
(although higher values of b are reported). Much smaller va-
lues of b (<0.1) are obtained from the first loading stage (i.e.,
prior to the unload–reload stage) of the 1D compression tests
on the 50% and 100% cement soil specimens (see Fig. 6).
This indicates limited damage to the cement-induced struc-
ture produced by 1D loading.
The compression behavior of the soil following the unload-
ing stage provides additional insight. As shown in Figs. 4
and 6a, and in more detail in Fig. 6b for 50% cement, it is
found that following the unload–reload cycle, the compres-
sion curve for the 50% and 100% PC specimens “overshoots”
the original virgin compression line. This appears to be the
result of the additional cement-induced structure developed
during the creep stage that precedes unloading. Estimates of
the destructuring index b for the second loading stage are in
the 0.4–0.6 range for the 50% and 100% PC specimens, indi-
cating a more rapid destructuring of this component of the
soil structure; with continued loading the compression curve
rejoins that determined from the first loading stage. Similar
observations apply also to the data obtained following differ-
ent curing procedures, which is discussed in the section titled
“Effects of curing duration and curing surcharge”.
Although the compression index does not show significant
change with treatment, the swelling index and the recompres-
sion index decreased with treatment. For example, as shown
in Table 2, which summarizes data from the unload–reload
loops over the same OCR range, the recompression index de-
creased by a factor of approximately 2, 5, 10, and 25 follow-
ing treatment with 8%, 20%, 50%, and 100% PC, respectively.
Finally, creep measurements were performed on soil
specimens treated with different dosages of cement, all at the
maximum vertical stress level reached in the IL tests
(∼1600 kPa). As shown in Fig. 7, these data show that in
the secondary compression regime the log time–deformation
curve is linear (constant creep coefficient Ca) for more than
two log cycles of secondary compression, with Ca decreasing
with increasing cement content (by over a factor of 4 for
100% PC; see also Table 2). As indicated in Fig. 7, Ca of
the reconstituted untreated soil is 0.122, while for 8%, 20%,
50%, and 100% PC the values are 0.108, 0.080, 0.064, and
0.029, respectively, all measured at the same stress level.
Given that Ca is known to vary significantly, depending on
stress level and OCR, it is more insightful to examine the var-
iation of Ca/Cc with cement addition. For a given soil this ra-
tio is generally observed to remain constant, reflecting the
similar nature of the mechanisms that contribute to primary
Published by NRC Research Press
Bobet et al.
Fig. 6. Compression curves of cement-treated soil plotted using void index: (a) 0%–100% cement; (b) detail of different testing stages for 50%
curve.
and secondary consolidation. Moreover, for a given soil
type Ca/Cc is known to vary within a fairly limited range
(Mesri and Castro 1987). As shown in Table 2 and Fig. 8,
Ca/Cc decreases markedly with cement addition, from val-
ues at the high end of the range typical of peats and mus-
kegs, to values characteristic of inorganic clays (50% PC),
and finally to values generally measured on granular soils
(100% PC). This variation in Ca/Cc reflects the modifica-
tions in the nature of the “new” geomaterial formed as a
result of treatment with different percentages of cement.
Given the small change in the compression index with ce-
ment addition noted above, the decrease in Ca/Cc is mainly
due to the reduction of the secondary compression index
with cement content.
Effects of curing duration and curing surcharge
The importance of the curing process on the properties of
chemically stabilized soils has been highlighted by many re-
searchers. Hwang et al. (2004) observed that stiffness and un-
confined compressive strength of organic soils treated with
PC and lime increased with increasing curing time and cur-
ing surcharge. Hebib and Farrell (2003) observed that the un-
confined strength of PC-stabilized peat increased when the
soil was preloaded during curing. They also observed that
the unconfined compressive strength was higher for pre-
1109
loaded soils, and that it increased with increasing curing
time. Åhnberg et al. (2001) observed that the unconfined
compressive strength of cement-treated peat increased when
the surcharge was applied immediately after treatment.
The beneficial effects of prolonged curing are likely to be
twofold. First, the increase in the duration of secondary com-
pression will lead to an increase in the aging-induced precon-
solidation stress. Second, prolonged curing will allow an
increased time for the cement hydration reactions to take
place. In this research, the effects of curing time were eval-
uated by conducting experiments on the organic soil treated
with 50% and 100% cement cured for 14 and 28 days. These
cement contents were selected because they yielded the most
significant changes in engineering properties, and because, as
discussed in the section titled “pH conditions promoting for-
mation of calcium silicate gel”, the pH values measured with
these cement contents indicated conditions that would pro-
mote continued hardening of the calcium silicate gel. The re-
sults obtained from testing these samples indicate no effect of
curing period on the compression behavior of the 50% ce-
ment soil samples. For 100% cement the effects are small,
with a slight increase in the preconsolidation stress (∼7%)
and in the coefficient of consolidation (<10%) measured on
the specimens cured for 28 days, relative to the 14 day re-
sults. While small, these improvements are likely related to
Published by NRC Research Press
1110
Fig. 7. Effect of cement treatment (8%–100% PC) on creep coeffi-
cient.
Fig. 8. Effect of cement treatment (8%–100% PC) on Ca/Cc.
the continuous hardening of the C–S–H gel during the time
frame investigated. Overall, the small changes in behavior
observed with increased curing time justify the selection of
the 14 day curing period used for the majority of the tests.
The effect of the curing surcharge was investigated exclu-
sively for soil treated with 50% cement using surcharges of
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Fig. 9. Effect of surcharge stress on compression behavior of cement
treated soil.
48, 96, and 192 kPa, which represent approximately 2.5, 5,
and 10 m thick fills with a unit weight of 19 kN/m3. Figure 9
presents the compression curves for six tests (two for each
of the stress levels investigated), some of which also in-
volved unload–reload stages. Focusing on the first loading
stage, it is seen that while the specimens cured under a
higher surcharge have a lower initial void ratio, all the com-
pression curves reach the same virgin compression line.
This is consistent with previous observations by Tremblay
et al. (2001) that the virgin compression line of cement-
treated soil is independent of the initial curing void ratio.
The average preconsolidation stress increases from 403.4 ±
1.7 kPa (surcharge = 48 kPa) to 471.4 ± 5.0 kPa (96 kPa),
i.e., an increase of 68 kPa for a surcharge increase of
48 kPa, to 672.7 ± 24.4 kPa (192 kPa), i.e., an increase of
269.3 kPa for a surcharge increase of 144 kPa. The im-
provement in the preconsolidation stress is mainly due to
the decrease in the end of curing void ratio that dictates at
which stress level upon reloading in the consolidation cell
the virgin compression line is reached. This implies that
the yield stress of the treated soil can be improved by cur-
ing the soil under a higher surcharge for the same duration.
Analysis of the data for the three different curing stresses
also shows that the constrained modulus and hydraulic con-
ductivity increase with increasing curing surcharge in the
overconsolidated region, while the effects of surcharge are
negligible in the normally consolidated region. As a result,
the coefficient of consolidation also increases with surcharge,
with the increase in the constrained modulus as the main fac-
tor.
Chemistry of cement-treated soil
The pH measurements, fractionation tests, LECO elemen-
tal analyses (C, H, N), and FTIR analyses were conducted to
complement the consolidation experiments. The overall goal
of this portion of the experimental work was to gain insight
into the interaction between the organic matter and the ce-
ment, and in particular to assess the stability of the organic
matter following treatment, evaluate the reactivity of the dif-
ferent functional groups present, and investigate the composi-
tional changes of the different fractions of the treated soil.
Published by NRC Research Press
Bobet et al. 1111

pH conditions promoting formation of calcium silicate gel Fig. 10. Effect of cement addition on soil pH.
The increase in the preconsolidation pressure and the shift 14
of the compression curves to the higher vertical effective 12.6
stress described are indications of the development of a stiffer 12
soil structure with the treatment. The structure is developed
mainly as a result of the formation of the cement hydration 10

products and their reactions with the soil particles. All these
reactions are very sensitive to the chemical environment, es-
pecially the pH of the soil–cement system. As soon as ce-
ment gains access to water, formation of what are sometimes
referred to in the soil cement literature (e.g., Bergado et al.
1996) as “primary cementitious products” starts. These in-
clude calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H), calcium aluminate
hydrate (C–A–H), and calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). Cal-
cium silicate gel (C–S–H), which is formed from reaction of
the cement’s tricalcium silicate (C3S) and dicalcium silicate
(C2S) with water, is the major source of the strength of the
soil–cement mixture. Its formation requires a pH greater than
12.6. Following these reactions, Ca2+ and OH– ions are re-
leased into the pore water. The released OH– ions increase
the pH of the pore water. Under high pH conditions, silica
(SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3) from the clay minerals are dis-
solved and combine with the released Ca2+ and OH– ions to
form “secondary” cementitious products (C–S–H and C–A–H).
The amount of silica and alumina dissolved, and hence the
amount of secondary cementitious products formed as a re-
sult of the pozzolanic reaction, are markedly dependent on
the pH of the soil–cement system.
Figure 10 shows the pH values measured with different
percentages of cement 1 h and 1 day after mixing. The un-
treated soil (0% PC) was slightly acidic with a pH value of
5.98. Following treatment with 8% PC, the pH increased rap-
idly to 11.13 1 h after treatment. No further change in pH
was observed with additional time. With 20% PC the pH in-
creased to 11.98 in 1 h, and continued to increase to 12.20
after 1 day, with no subsequent increase. With 50% PC, the
pH increased to 12.20 in 1 h, and to 12.61 after 1 day. With
100% PC, the pH increased to 12.32 in 1 h and to 12.77 after
1 day. In each case, no further pH increase with time was ob-
served.
These measurements are in good agreement with the pre-
consolidation stress data (Fig. 5), and the sharp increase in
s p0 with 50% and 100% PC can be related to the increase in
pH to values above 12.6, which allows formation and contin-
ued hardening of the primary cementitious products. The pH
values measured also suggest that for the soil–cement mix-
tures examined in this research, the contribution to the
strength from the “secondary” cementitious products was
negligible, as for values of pH < 14, no major dissolution of
silica and alumina occurs (S. Diamond, personal communica-
tion, 2010).
Interaction of organic matter and cement
As discussed in the section titled “Materials”, the organic
portion of the soil used in this experimental program is com-
prised of humic substances that can be classified according to
their solubility as humin, humic acid, and fulvic acid. Table 3
summarizes the results of the fractionation tests, including
the data obtained for the untreated soil. As mentioned earlier,
two independent measurements were conducted for each ce-
ment content on two separate samples. The data presented in
pH
8
1 day after mixing
7 days after mixing
6
4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cement content (%)
Table 3. Results of fractionation tests on cement treated soil.
Cement Nonextracted fraction Humic Fulvic
content (%) (%) acid (%) acid (%)
0 73.86 23.71 2.43
20 99.18 0.59 0.23
50 99.93 0.01 0.06
100 99.99 0.00 0.01
Table 3 represent the average values from these two measure-
ments. The results show that the amount of humic and fulvic
acid fractions extracted decrease substantially with increasing
cement content. For example, less than 3% of the humic acid
of the untreated soil could be extracted from the soil treated
with 20% cement. With 50% cement this percentage de-
creases to less than 0.1%, and with 100% cement the amount
of humic acid extracted was too small to be measured accu-
rately. The fulvic acid extracted also decreased with increas-
ing cement, but to a lesser degree: with 20% PC, only 10% of
the fulvic acid was extracted, and this amount decreased to
3% and 0.5% with 50% and 100% cement, respectively.
Given that the addition of cement is associated with an in-
crease in the pH (see Fig. 10), and given that under highly
alkaline conditions, dissolution of humic and fulvic acids is
known to occur (see section titled “Materials”), the question
may arise as to the effect of pH on the stability of the organic
matter. Loss on ignition tests conducted at the end of the
consolidation tests and elemental analyses of the three frac-
tions extracted from the cement-treated samples demonstrate
that no dissolution of the organic matter occurred during the
curing process, and that organic matter was not lost during
extraction and fractionation. Thus, the significant reduction
of the extracted humic and fulvic acids following treatment
with cement indicates that the organic matter was bound or
at least encapsulated by the cement hydration products and
was present in the mineral fraction of the soil.
As done for the soil alone, following fractionation, the hu-
mic substances were further characterized employing elemen-
tal analysis and FTIR. Table 4 summarizes the masses of
carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen present in each of the three
fractions (for cement contents greater than 20% no analysis
could be conducted on the humic and fulvic acids due to the
insufficient amounts extracted). All data pertain to samples
with the same amount of dry soil (15 g). The data presented
in Table 4 illustrate that the C, N, and H extracted as humic
acids from the 20% cement sample decreased significantly

Published by NRC Research Press

1112
Table 4. Mass of C, N, and H present in fractions extracted from untreated and cement treated soil.
C (g) H (g)
Cement Nonextracted Humic Fulvic Nonextracted
content (%) fraction acid acid fraction
0 1.601 1.826 0.173 0.354
20 2.981 0.048 0.014 0.482
20 3.106 0.049 0.017 0.500
50 3.126 — — 0.540
50 3.259 — — 0.562
100 3.210 — — 0.630
100 3.540 — — 0.660
compared to the natural soil. In contrast, the carbon, nitrogen,
and hydrogen contents of the nonextracted fraction increased
with cement content. Again this is evidence that a significant
portion of the organic matter present in the natural soil is
bound–encapsulated by the cement hydration products.
Additional perspectives are obtained by examining the
composition of the fulvic and humic acids extracted from the
natural soil and the sample with 20% cement, as done in
Table 5, in which the carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen con-
tents are expressed as a percentage of the mass of humic or
fulvic acid extracted. These data indicate that the chemical
composition of the humic and fulvic acids extracted from the
soil treated with 20% PC changed compared to that of the
acids extracted from the natural soil. Specifically, with addi-
tion of cement the organic carbon percentage decreased,
while the hydrogen and nitrogen percentage increased. This
suggests that different functional groups have different reac-
tivity with the cement.
Further insight about the reactivity with cement of func-
tional groups of the organic matter is provided by the FTIR
spectroscopy analyses, which were performed on each frac-
tion of both the natural and the cement-treated soil, except
for the fulvic and humic acids extracted from the 100% PC
treated soil due to the small amounts available. The objec-
tives of the FTIR analysis were to investigate the composi-
tional changes of the different fractions of the treated soil
and evaluate the reactivity of the different functional groups
present. Two analyses were performed on each fraction for
consistency. These data are reported in Figs. 11a–11c.
Although the frequencies corresponding to the various vibra-
tion modes (symmetric or asymmetric stretching and bending
vibration modes) of organic functional groups have been
studied extensively, the similarity of the chemical composi-
tion of organic functional groups makes it particularly diffi-
cult to accurately quantify the sources responsible for
changes in the FTIR spectra; a qualitative analysis however
provides sufficient insight into the chemical reactions be-
tween the soil and the cement.
Figure 11a shows the FTIR spectra of the nonextracted
fraction of the treated soil (mineral fraction). The most sig-
nificant change in the spectrum with cement treatment is the
gradual increase in the intensity of the broad band in the
3000–3600 cm–1 region. This region represents the symmet-
ric and asymmetric stretching of O–H. According to Yousuf
et al. (1995), the increase in intensity of this band indicates
the formation of Ca(OH)2 and of the C–S–H gel. The sharp
increase in intensity of the bands in the 1415 and 872 cm–1
regions is due to carbonation, i.e., the formation of calcium
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
N (g)
Humic Fulvic Nonextracted Humic Fulvic
acid acid fraction acid acid
0.172 0.011 0.114 0.132 0.005
0.006 0.002 0.196 0.006 0.002
0.006 0.003 0.196 0.006 0.002
— — 0.180 — —
— — 0.202 — —
— — 0.150 — —
— — 0.210 — —
carbonate (CaCO3) from the reaction of CO2 with the
Ca(OH)2 formed by cement hydration. The greater the ce-
ment percentage, the greater the amount of Ca(OH)2 avail-
able; hence, the greater the amount of CaCO3 formed by
carbonation, as reflected in the FTIR peaks. However, car-
bonation is an inevitable reaction following exposure to air,
and therefore has no specific significance for this study. The
band in the 1576–1772 cm–1 region increases gradually
with respect to the baseline in the 2000–2500 cm–1 region.
In the mineral fraction this is the only band that represents
the organic functional groups, which include –C=O stretching
of –COOH (1720 cm–1); C=O stretching of amide groups
(1630–1660 cm–1); aromatic C=C stretching and (or) asymmet-
ric –COO– stretching (1610 cm–1); as well as COO– symmet-
ric stretching, N–H deformation, and +C=N stretching
(1590–1517 cm–1). All the organic functional groups listed
here are composed mainly of C, H, and N. The increase in
the C, H, and N contents in the nonextracted PC-treated
soil can be interpreted as the retention in the mineral frac-
tion of these functional groups by cementation.
Figure 11b presents the FTIR spectra of the humic acid
fraction extracted from the untreated and treated soil. The rel-
atively high intensity band in the 3300–3400 cm–1 region of
the untreated soil indicates the presence of phenolic OH (OH
stretch of phenolic OH). The increase in the intensity of the
broad band in the 3300–3600 cm–1 region may indicate that
part of the Ca(OH)2 and the C–S–H gel were dissolved and
extracted under the highly acidic environment that was cre-
ated during fractionation to precipitate humic acid (pH = 1).
The intensity of the 1234–1262 cm–1 region, which is where
the –C–OH stretching band of phenolic OH occurs, did not
change with treatment. This is an indication that phenolic
OH does not react with cement, which is in agreement with
findings from other researchers (Pollard et al. 1991). The
small peak in the 1718 cm–1 region (corresponding to the
C=O stretching band of –COOH) present in the untreated
soil disappeared in the humic acid fraction of the treated
soil. At the same time the intensities of the bands at
1400 cm–1 and in the 1546–1600 cm–1 region (which reflect
the symmetric and antisymmetric stretching of COO–) in-
creased. These results do not necessarily indicate the reaction
of the carboxyl group (COOH) with cement, but rather the
change of the carboxyl group to carboxylate group (COO–)
under the highly acidic conditions used for precipitation of
the humic acid during fractionation.
Figure 11c presents the FTIR spectra of the fulvic acid. The
strong band around 3390 cm–1 and the small band in the 1245–
1251 cm–1 region in the untreated soil indicate the presence of
Published by NRC Research Press
Bobet et al. 1113

Table 5. Percentage of C, N, and H present in humic and fulvic acid fractions extracted from 0% and
20% PC soil.

Humic acid Fulvic acid

Cement content (%) C (%) H (%) N (%) C (%) H (%) N (%)
0 49.9 4.7 3.6 41.2 2.5 1.1
20 45.4 5.6 5.2 34.8 5.6 4.7
20 45.4 5.5 5.2 39.9 6.3 5.5

Fig. 11. Effect of cement addition on FTIR spectra of (a) mineral
fraction, (b) humic acid, and (c) fulvic acid.
gradually with treatment, while the intensities in the 1560
and 1630 cm–1 region increased. These changes are the op-
posite of the results observed in the humic acid fraction,
which indicate the change of the carboxylate group
(COO–) to the carboxyl group (COOH) under the highly
basic solution created during fractionation.

Summary and conclusions

phenolic OH. Similarly, the small band at 2936 cm–1 corre-
sponds to the C–H stretching of the phenolic –CH2–. The fact
that these regions did not change with treatment indicates
the low reactivity of phenolic OH and –CH2– with cement.
The sharp peak at 1400 cm–1 in the untreated soil decreased
The 1D consolidation behavior of a highly organic soil
treated with Portland cement was investigated by performing
constant rate of strain (CRS) and incremental loading (IL)
consolidation tests on specimens obtained from soil–cement
samples cured under a surcharge of 48 kPa for 14 days. The
cement dosage varied from 8% to 100% by dry mass of the
soil, corresponding to values of the cement factor in the 24–
296 kg/m3 range. The most evident effect of treatment with
cement is the increase in the soil’s preconsolidation stress.
The increase is fairly modest for low dosages of cement, but
as large as eightfold and 25-fold for cement dosages of 50%
(148 kg/m3) and 100% (296 kg/m3), respectively. As a result
of the development of this cementation-induced preconsolida-
tion stress, the compression curves shift to higher effective
stress levels: the higher the cement content the greater the ef-
fective stresses that the soil can sustain at the same void ra-
tio. Additionally, the compressibility of the cement-treated
soil measured in the overconsoliated region also shows a sig-
nificant decrease with increasing cement. These two effects
are an indication of the effectiveness of the treatment in re-
ducing settlements.
In contrast to the above, the compression index (Cc) in the
normally consolidated region does not show any significant
change with cement addition. However, the structure devel-
oped as a result of the addition of cement appears stable,
and does not show significant degradation as a result of 1D
loading beyond the preconsolidation stress.
The hydraulic conductivity and coefficient of consolidation
of the treated soil increase with the addition of cement. The
increase in hydraulic conductivity is caused by the change in
the soil fabric, in particular the increase in size of the macro-
pores serving as the main channels for flow, which arises
from chemical reactions with the cement. Associated with
the increase in hydraulic conductivity is the increase in coeffi-
cient of consolidation: compared with the untreated reconsti-
tuted soil, Cv increases by 1.4 times with 8% PC (24 kg/m3),
8 times with 20% (59 kg/m3) PC, and about 38 times with
50% (148 kg/m3) and 100% (296 kg/m3) PC.
The effects of treatment on the creep behavior of the or-
ganic soil were investigated by performing long-term sus-
tained loading tests at the maximum effective stress reached
in the consolidation tests (∼1600 kPa). The creep coefficient,

Published by NRC Research Press

1114
Ca, measured at this stress level is shown to decrease with
cement content, by as much as a factor of 4 with 100% PC
(296 kg/m3). As a result Ca/Cc also decreases. With 50%
(148 kg/m3) PC, this ratio goes from the value of 0.095
measured on the untreated reconstituted soil to a value of
0.04 typical of inorganic clays. With 100% PC (296 kg/m3),
Ca/Cc further decreases to 0.024, falling in the range of gran-
ular soils (0.02 ± 0.01).
Fractionation tests and chemical and FTIR analyses pro-
vide insight into the interaction between soil organic matter
and cement. The fractionation tests show that with increasing
cement dosage, decreasing amounts of humic acid and fulvic
acid can be extracted from the soil–cement mixture. This in-
dicates that a significant portion of the organic matter is
bound–encapsulated in the cement matrix. Moreover, elemen-
tal analyses show a change in the composition of the humic
acids and fulvic acids extracted from the cement-treated soil.
This suggests that not all functional groups have the same re-
activity with the cement. This hypothesis is supported by the
FTIR analyses, which show, for example, that phenolic
groups have limited reactivity with the cement.
While the research has focused on a particular soil, the ex-
perimental approach and the fundamental conclusions on the
consolidation behavior of cement-treated organic soil and on
the interaction between organic matter and cement can be ex-
trapolated to other organic soils of a similar nature.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Joint Transportation Research
Program administered by the Indiana Department of Transporta-
tion and Purdue University under project no. C-36-50U, grant
SPR-2460. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the au-
thors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the
data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration
and the Indiana Department of Transportation, nor do the con-
tents constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The writers
wish to acknowledge the help of Dr. G.S. Premachandra of Pur-
due University’s Agronomy Department for assistance with the
fractionation and FTIR spectroscopy.
References
Åhnberg, H., and Holm, G. 1999. Stabilization of some Swedish
organic soils with different types of binder. In Dry Mix Methods
for Deep Soil Stabilization, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization,
Stockholm, Sweden, 13–15 October 1999. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 125–153.
Åhnberg, H., Bengtsson, P.E., and Holm, G. 2001. Effect of initial
loading on the strength of stabilised peat. Ground Improvement, 5
(1): 35–40. doi:10.1680/grim.2001.5.1.35.
Al-Rawas, A.A. 2002. Microfabric and mineralogical studies on the
stabilization of an expansive soil using cement bypass dust and
some types of slags. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39(5): 1150–
1167. doi:10.1139/t02-046.
ASTM. 1989. Standard test method for one-dimensional consolida-
tion properties of saturated cohesive soils using controlled-strain
loading. ASTM standard D4186. American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 2006. Standard practice for classification of soils for
engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
ASTM standard D2487. American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 2007. Standard test method for pH of soils. ASTM standard
D4972. American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, Pa.
Baudet, B., and Stallebrass, S. 2004. A constitutive model for
structured clays. Géotechnique, 54(4): 269–278. doi:10.1680/geot.
2004.54.4.269.
Becker, D.E., Crooks, J.H.A., Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G. 1987.
Work as a criterion for determining in situ and yield stresses in
clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24(4): 549–564. doi:10.
1139/t87-070.
Bergado, D.T., Anderson, L.R., Miura, N., and Balasubramaniam, A.
S. 1996. Improvement of soft ground. American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Press, New York.
Brandl, H. 1981. Alteration of soil parameters by stabilisation with
lime. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, 15–
19 June 1981. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
pp. 587–594.
Broms, B.B. 1999. Design of lime, lime/cement and cement columns.
In Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization, Proceedings of
the International Conference on Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil
Stabilization, Stockholm, Sweden, 13–15 October 1999. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 125–153.
Broms, B., and Boman, P. 1979. Stabilisation of soil with lime
columns. Ground Engineering, 12(4): 23–32.
Bruce, D.A., and Bruce, E.C. 2003. The practitioner’s guide to deep
mixing. In Grouting and Ground Treatment, Proceedings of the
Third International Conference, New Orleans, La., 10–12
February 2003. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 120. Edited
by L.F. Johnsen, D.A. Bruce, and M.J. Byle. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, Va. pp. 474–488.
Buensuceso, B.R. 1990. Engineering behavior of lime treated soft
Bangkok Clay. Ph.D. thesis, Asian Institute of Technology,
Bangkok.
Burland, J.B. 1990. On the compressibility and shear strength of
natural clays. Géotechnique, 40(3): 329–378. doi:10.1680/geot.
1990.40.3.329.
Butcher, A.P. 2005. The durability of deep wet mixed columns in an
organic soil. In Proceedings of the International Conference of
Deep Mixing Best Practices and Recent Advances, Deep Mixing
’05, Stockholm, Sweden, 23–25 May 2005. Swedish Deep
Stabilisation Research Centre, Linköping, Sweden. Vol. 1,
pp. 47–54.
Chew, S.H., Kamruzzaman, A.H.M., and Lee, F.H. 2004. Physico-
chemical and engineering behavior of cement treated clays. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(7): 696–
706. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:7(696).
Cortellazzo, G., and Cola, S. 1999. Geotechnical characteristics of
two Italian peats stabilized with binders. In Dry Mix Methods for
Deep Soil Stabilization, Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization,
Stockholm, Sweden, 13–15 October 1999. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 93–100.
Earth Exploration, Inc. 1993. Preliminary geotechnical evaluation:
Proposed improvements to Lindberg Road in West Lafayette,
Tippecanoe County, Indiana. West Lafayette City,. Indiana Internal
report.
Esrig, M.I., Mac Kenna, P.E., and Forte, E.P. 2003. Ground
stabilization in the United States by the Scandinavian lime cement
dry mix process. In Grouting and Ground Treatment, Proceedings
of the Third International Conference, New Orleans, La., 10–12
February 2003. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 120. Edited
Published by NRC Research Press
Bobet et al.
by L.F. Johnsen, D.A. Bruce, and M.J. Byle. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, Va. pp. 501–514.
FHWA. 2000. An introduction to the deep mixing method as used in
geotechnical applications. Federal Highway Administration, Wa-
shington, D.C. Document No. FHWA-RD-99-138.
Hayashi, H., and Nishimoto, S. 2005. Strength characteristics of
stabilized peat suing different types of binders. In Proceedings of
the International Conference of Deep Mixing Best Practices and
Recent Advances, Deep Mixing ’05, Stockholm, Sweden, 23–25
May 2005. Swedish Deep Stabilisation Research Centre, Linköp-
ing, Sweden. Vol. 1, pp. 55–62.
Hebib, S., and Farrell, E.R. 2003. Some experiences on the
stabilization of Irish peats. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(1):
107–120. doi:10.1139/t02-091.
Hernandez-Martinez, F.G., and Al-Tabbaa, A. 2005. Strength
properties of stabilised peats. In Proceedings of the International
Conference of Deep Mixing Best Practices and Recent Advances,
Deep Mixing ’05, Stockholm, Sweden, 23–25 May 2005. Swedish
Deep Stabilisation Research Centre, Linköping, Sweden. Vol. 1,
pp. 69–78.
Hernandez-Martinez, F.G., and Al-Tabbaa, A. 2009. Effectiveness of
different binders in the stabilisation of organic soils. In Proceed-
ings of the International Symposium on Soil Mixing and
Admixture Stabilisation, Okinawa, 19–21 May 2009.
Holm, G. 2005. Keynote Lecture: Towards a sustainable society –
recent advances in deep mixing. In Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference of Deep Mixing Best Practices and Recent
Advances, Deep Mixing ’05, Stockholm, Sweden, 23–25 May
2005. Swedish Deep Stabilisation Research Centre, Linköping,
Sweden. Vol. 1, pp. K13–K24.
Hwang, J., Humphrey, A., Bobet, A., and Santagata, M. 2004.
Stabilization and improvement of organic soils. Report No.
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004/38 for the Joint Transportation Research
Program, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
Kang, Y.I. 2011. Stress–strain–strength behavior of a cement treated
clay. Ph.D. thesis (in progress), School of Civil Engineering,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
Kang, Y.I., and Santagata, M.C. 2006. One-dimensional compression
behavior of cement-treated clay. In Ground Modification and
Seismic Mitigation, Proceedings of Sessions of GeoShanghai 6–8
June 2006, Shanghai, China. Edited by A. Porbaha, S.-L. Shen, J.
Wartman, and J.-C. Chai. Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 152. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va. pp
73–80.
Kassim, K.A., and Clarke, B.G. 1999. Constant rate of strain
consolidation equipment and procedure for stabilized soils.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 22(1): 13–21. doi:10.1520/
GTJ11312J.
Lambrechts, J.R., Ganse, M.A., and Layhee, C.A. 2003. Soil mixing
to stabilize organic clay for I-95 Widening, Alexandria, VA. In
Grouting and Ground Treatment, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference, New Orleans, La., 10–12 February
2003. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 120 Edited by L.F.
1115
Johnsen, D.A. Bruce, and M.J. Byle. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, Va. pp. 575–585.
Lea, F.M. 2004. The chemistry of cement and concrete. 4th ed. Edited
by P. Hewlett. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Liu, M.D., and Carter, J.P. 1999. Virgin compression of structured
soils. Géotechnique, 49(1): 43–57. doi:10.1680/geot.1999.49.1.43.
Liu, M.D., and Carter, J.P. 2000. Modelling the destructuring of soils
during virgin compression. Géotechnique, 50(4): 479–483. doi:10.
1680/geot.2000.50.4.479.
Lorenzo, G.A., and Bergado, D.T. 2004. Fundamental parameters of
cement-admixed clay – New approach. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(10): 1042–1050. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:10(1042).
Mesri, G., and Castro, A. 1987. Ca/Cc concept and Ko during
secondary compression. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 113(3): 230–247. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1987)113:3(230).
Pollard, S.J.T., Montgomery, D.M., Sollars, C.J., and Perry, R. 1991.
Organic compounds in the cement-based stabilization/solidifica-
tion of hazardous mixed wastes — Mechanistic and process
considerations. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 28(3): 313–327.
doi:10.1016/0304-3894(91)87082-D.
Rao, S.N., and Rajasekaran, G. 1996. Reaction products formed in
lime-stabilized marine clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
122(5): 329–336. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:5
(329).
Santagata, M.C., Bobet, A., Johnston, C., and Hwang, J.H. 2008.
One-dimensional compression behavior of a soil with high organic
matter content. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 134(1): 1–13. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)
134:1(1).
Schnitzer, M., and Khan, S.U. 1972. Humic substances in the
environment. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Sparks, D.L. 2003. Environmental soil chemistry, 2nd ed. Academic
Press, New York.
Townsend, D.C., and Klym, T.W. 1996. Durability of lime-stabilized
soils. Highway Research Record, 139: 25–41.
Tremblay, H., Leroueil, S., and Locat, J. 2001. Mechanical
improvement and vertical yield stress prediction of clayey soils
from eastern Canada treated with lime or cement. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 38(3): 567–579. doi:10.1139/cgj-38-3-567.
USDA. 1998. Soil survey of Tippecanoe County. Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Wissa, A.E.Z., Christian, J.T., Davis, E.W., and Heiberg, S. 1971.
Consolidation at constant rate of strain. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(10): 1393–1413.
Yousuf, M., Mollah, A., Palta, P., Hess, T.R., Vempati, R.K., and
Cocke, D.L. 1995. Chemical and physical effects of sodium
lignosulfonate superplasticizer on the hydration of Portland
cement and solidification/stabilization consequences. Cement
and Concrete Research, 25(3): 671–682. doi:10.1016/0008-8846
(95)00055-H.
Published by NRC Research Press
Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats