04 Chapter 2
-
Upload
yen-ling-ng -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 04 Chapter 2
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
1/35
Literature Review
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
2.1 Cement treatment of soft clay
2.1.1 Chemical reactions
The fundamental mechanism of cement-treated soil has been outlined by Schaefer et al.
(1997). Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) consists mainly of tricalcium silicate (C3S),
dicalcium silicate (C2S), tricalcium aluminate (C3A) and tetracalcium alumino-ferrite
(C4AF). In these chemical formulae, C represents CaO, S represents SiO2, A represents
Al2O3 and F stands for Fe2O3. In the presence of water, hydration reaction of cement takes
place rapidly, to produce primary cementitious products, which are hydrated calcium
silicates (C2SHx, C3S2Hx), hydrated calcium aluminates (C3AHx, C4AHx) and hydrated
lime (Ca(OH)2). The calcium silicate hydrates are the main cementitious products and the
hydrated lime is deposited as a separate crystalline solid phase. The cement particles bind
the adjacent cement grains together during hardening and formed a hardened skeleton. In
addition, the dissociation of hydrated lime results in increased concentrations of Ca2+
and
OH-, which accounts for the rise in pH value of the pore water. The strongly alkaline
condition promotes the dissolution of silica (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3) from soil, which
then gradually react with the Ca2+
ions, forming the secondary cementitious products,
namely calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) and calcium alumina hydrate (CAH), which
hardened when cured to treat the soil. These secondary reactions are known as pozzolanic
reactions. Pozzolanic reactions further increase the strength and durability of cement-
treated soil due to the enhancement of the bonding among soil particles. Cement hydration
7
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
2/35
Literature Review
and pozzolanic reactions can last for months or even years after the mixing and thus the
strength and stiffness of cement-treated soil are expected to increase with time. The above
reactions between cement, soil and water can be represented by Equations 2.1 to 2.4:
C3S + H2O C3S2HX (hydrated gel) + Ca(OH)2(primary cementitious products)
(2.1)
Ca(OH)2 Ca2+
+ 2 (OH)-
(hydrolysis of lime)
(2.2)
Ca2+
+ 2 (OH)-+ SiO2 (soil silica) CSH
(secondary cementitious product)(2.3)
Ca2+ + 2 (OH)- + Al2O3 (soil alumina) CAH
(secondary cementitious product)(2.4)
The equations above are only applicable to C3S present in OPC. Other main constituents
of OPC (i.e. C2S, C3A and C4AF) also undergo similar hydration and pozzolanic reactions
to produce cementitious materials.
The above discussions were on the main chemical reactions between cement, soil and
water. In the present study, the interest is on the possible effect of addition of some
chemical components (arising from IFA) onto these two chemical reactions.
2.1.2 Liquid limit and plastic limit of cement-treated clayConstant to slight decrease in the liquid limit (LL) of cement-treated Bangkok clay was
observed when cement content or curing time increases, as shown in Figure 2.1 (Uddin et
al., 1997). Figure 2.1 also shows that the plastic limit (PL) of cement-treated Bangkok
clay increases with cement content and curing time.
8
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
3/35
Literature Review
Chew et al. (2004) noted that, LL of cement-treated Singapore marine clay (SMC)
decreases with curing time but remains significantly higher than that of the untreated
marine clay. As shown in Figure 2.2, LL increases significantly at low cement content (e.g.
10%) before dropping slightly at higher cement content. PL of cement-treated SMC
increases monotonically with curing time and cement content, with larger rate of increase
at low cement content. Chew et al. (2004) attributed this to the aggregation and
cementation of particles into larger sized clusters (Locat et al., 1990).
The trend of change in LL with cement/lime content and curing time seems to depend
heavily on the soil type. Sivapullaiah et al. (2000) reported an increasing trend of LL with
curing time on lime-treated black cotton soil. Immediately after addition of lime, LL of
Black Cotton Indian soil decreases with lime content until about 6% lime and stabilizes as
lime content further increases. However, as curing time is extended to 7 days, LL
increases with lime content until about 6% lime and decreases with further addition of
lime, as can be seen in Figure 2.3. As Figure 2.3 shows, immediately after addition of lime,
PL increases with lime content until 1% lime, decreases slightly with further addition of
lime and stabilizes as lime content is beyond 3.5%. As curing time is extended to 7 days,
PL increases with lime content until less than 4% lime and then stabilizes as lime content
further increases.
2.1.3 Pore size of cement-treated clay
Chew et al. (2004) noted that cement-treated SMC has a significantly higher proportion of
larger diameter pores than the untreated marine clay. Pore size also increases with cement
content and decreases slightly with curing time, as shown in Figure 2.4. Chew et al. (2004)
9
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
4/35
Literature Review
suggested that the dissolution of the kaolinite and the flocculation process both lead to a
more open clay structure, with clay-cement clusters interspersed by large voids. The
reduction in pore size as curing time increases could be due to more deposition of CSH
and CASH on and around the flocculated clay clusters.
2.1.4 Unconfined compressive strength of cement-treated clay
The early research works carried out to understand the effects of the various factors on the
strength of cement-treated soil were based on the unconfined compressive (UC) strength
(qu) which is widely used as an index to quantify the effectiveness of the treatment method.
These factors include type of cement, cement content, curing time, type of soil, initial
water content, amongst others (Kawasaki et al., 1981; Taki and Yang, 1991; Chew et al.,
1997; Nagaraj et al., 1996; Uddin et al., 1997; Porbaha et al., 2000; Chew et al., 2004).
UC strength of cement-treated Bangkok clay increases with cement content and curing
time (Uddin et al., 1997), as shown in Figure 2.5. As shown in Figure 2.6, for cement-
treated SMC, the 7-day UC strength increases almost proportionally with cement content
(defined as the mass of dry cement over the mass of dry clay herein) throughout the range
of cement content investigated. However, for the 28-day samples, the strength gain is very
rapid when cement content is in the range of 5 to 50%. Beyond 50% cement content, the
strength gain moderates to a slower rate and then stabilizes (Chew et al., 2004). Figure 2.7
shows that UC strength of cement-treated Singapore marine clay is a function of
water/cement ratio and soil/cement ratio (Lee, 1999).
10
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
5/35
Literature Review
2.1.5 Compressibility of cement-treated clay
The increase in gross yield stress (Hight et al., 1992) and reduction in compression indices
of soft clay due to the addition of cement have been well-documented (e.g. Uddin et al.,
1997; Balasubramaniam et al., 1999; Kamruzzaman et al., 2001). Uddin et al. (1997)
noted that increase in cement content results in an increase in gross yield stress and
reduction in compressibility of the soft Bangkok clay, especially from 0% to 5% cement
content, as shown in Figure 2.8. Kamruzzaman et al. (2001) noted that gross yield stress
increases with increasing cement content and curing time. As shown in Figure 2.9, the
swelling curves of cement-treated clay are almost parallel to the loading portions of the
initial part of the consolidation curves and they are not affected by cement content. The
swelling index (Cr) of the cement-treated clay is also observed to be much smaller than
that of the untreated soil and it decreases with increase in cement content. On the other
hand, the compression index (Cc) shows no significant change with cement content.
2.1.6 pH value of cement-treated clay
Rao and Rajasekaran (1996) found that the pH value of pore fluid of lime-treated clay
increases with curing time. Chew et al. (2004) noted that the pH value of cement-treated
SMC rises rapidly at low cement content but the rate of rise moderates at higher cement
content, as shown in Figure 2.10. Chew et al. (2004) attributed this stabilization of pH
value to the exhaustion of kaolinite rather than the exhaustion of lime. For cement content
of less than 20%, pH value decreases with curing time. At higher cement content (e.g.
30% onwards), curing time almost has no effect on pH value.
11
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
6/35
Literature Review
2.1.7 Microstructural properties of cement-treated clay
Kezdi (1979) suggested that a soil-cement skeleton matrix may be formed owing to the
addition of cement with each skeletal unit consisting of a core of hydrated cement gel
(tobermorite gel) and secondary cementitious products (CSH and CAH) connecting the
adjacent clay particles. In addition, the inter-particle bond strength also increases as a
result of reduction of the diffused double layer and flocculation of the secondary
cementitious materials. A schematic diagram to illustrate the change in soil-cement
structures during hardening was proposed by Saitoh et al. (1985), as shown in Figure 2.11.
Immediately after mixing, cement slurry surrounds clusters of clay particles. The primary
hydration reactions involve the shell of cement slurry, which forms hardened cement
bodies. The pozzolanic reactions involve the inner clay particles, resulting in the
formation of hardened clay bodies.
As shown in Figure 2.12 (A), Locat et al. (1990) suggested that the microstructure of lime-
treated sensitive clay has an open micro-fabric, and individual particles and aggregates
could be clearly observed. Figure 2.12 (B) shows that, after the addition of quicklime and
10 days of curing, the clay flocculated into larger lumps. Figure 2.12 (C) shows the lumps
cemented together by the subsequent pozzolanic reaction products. Figures 2.12 (D-F)
clearly show the cementitious products, namely the platy CASH and the reticular CSH.
Kamruzzaman (2002) studied the microstructural characteristics of cement-treated SMC.
As shown in Figure 2.13 (a), remolded and untreated Singapore marine clay exhibits an
open type of microstructure, with the platy clay particles assembled in a dispersed
arrangement. Figures 2.13 (b) and (c) show the SEM images of 10% and 20% cement-
12
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
7/35
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
8/35
Literature Review
of IFA are poorly graded, but the Brooklyn IFA clearly has a larger uniformity coefficient,
which indicates a larger range of particle sizes. The particle size of Senoko IFA is smaller
than that of Brooklyns IFA, which is in turn smaller than that of Tuas IFA. The ignition
loss for Tuas and Senoko IFAs is about 15%, suggesting that both contain significant
amount of organic compounds. Both the Tuas IFA and the Senoko IFA are alkaline but the
latter registers a significantly higher pH value.
The chemical compositions of both Tuas and Senoko IFAs are listed in Table 2.2. It
should be noted that, only cations present in IFA were reported. The predominant
chemical elements in both IFAs are silicon and calcium. Other major elements are
aluminum, ferrous, potassium, sodium and magnesium. There are also trace amounts of
heavy metals such as zinc, lead, nickel, chromium. Senoko IFA has higher calcium
content than that of Tuas IFA. The high levels of Ca and Si, which are the main strength-
contributing agents in Portland cement, seem to suggest that incineration fly ash can be
used as a cement admixture or pozzolanic material.
2.2.2 Strength properties
Goh and Tay (1993)investigated the use of 10% - 30% IFA to treat Singapore marine clay.
In addition, Goh and Tay (1993) also conducted tests to investigate the effect of adding
5% IFA into 5% cement/lime treated clay. Figure 2.14 shows the undrained shear strength
of the seven types of treated soils, normalized with the undrained shear strength of
untreated clay, versus curing time. By having IFA alone, the undrained shear strength
increases with curing time and IFA content. After 80 days of curing, the undrained shear
strength of the treated clay increases up to 1.9, 2.5 and 3 times of the untreated clay for the
14
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
9/35
Literature Review
10%, 20% and 30% IFA mixes,respectively. Larger gain in strength is observed for both
cement-treated clay and lime-treated clay. Furthermore, the inclusion of 5% IFA
significantly increases the undrained shear strength of the 5% lime-treated clay. The
addition of 5% IFA into the cement-treated clay results in proportionally smaller strength
increase than the lime-treated clay. The above results indicate that IFA could be used as a
replacement material for lime or cement for soft clay treatment, provided that gain in
strength is only required in the order of two to three times. If substantially larger gains in
strength are required, IFA has to be used in combination with either cement or lime.
Moreover, the addition of IFA into cement- or lime-treated clay may have highly variable
effects.
Show et al. (2003) extended Goh and Tays (1993) investigation to higher IFA and cement
contents. As shown in Figure 2.15, there is clear gain in strength over curing time for all
the four treated samples. However, the addition of IFA to the cement-treated soil appears
to result consistently in a drop in the strength. Thus, in contrast to Goh and Tays (1993)
findings, the addition of higher levels of IFA into a cement-treated soil with higher cement
content appears to negate some of the strength improvement of the cement treatment.
2.2.3 Compression indexGoh and Tay (1993) noted that the compression index decreases with IFA content and
curing time, as shown in Figure 2.16. Show et al. (2003) noted that the compression index
decreases with curing time for all mixtures, as shown in Figure 2.17. In Show et al.
(2003)s study, all the treated soils have lower compression index than the untreated soil.
15
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
10/35
Literature Review
However, for a given curing period, samples with IFA have higher compression index
than those treated purely by cement, especially for short curing periods.
2.2.4 Plasticity indexGoh and Tay (1993) notedthat plasticity index (PI) decreases with IFA content and curing
time, as shown in Figure 2.18. All the treated soils show decrease in PI compared to the
untreated clay. Goh and Tay (1993) noted that the mechanism of IFA-treated clay was
similar to that of lime-treated clay. Reduction in PI of IFA-treated could therefore be
attributed to flocculation. Figure 2.18 also shows that, in the case of specimens treated
with 5% cement, the addition of 5% IFA leads to a further decrease in PI.
Show et al. (2003) noted that PI decreases with cement content and curing time, as shown
in Figure 2.19. However, the inclusion of IFA into soil-cement mixes result in a larger PI
than those specimens treated with cement alone. Show et al. (2003) attributed this to the
reduction in the rate of hydration of cement but the mechanism was not clearly stated.
2.2.5 Some issues arising from the above research works
The above discussion shows that the results of Goh and Tay (1993) and those of Show et
al. (2003) indicate clearly opposite trends. In the case of Goh and Tay (1993), the addition
of IFA to the cement-treated soil leads to a further increase in strength together with a
decrease in compressibility and plasticity index. On the other hand, in Show et al.s (2003)
study, the addition of IFA to cement-treated soil leads to a decrease in strength together
with an increase in compressibility and plasticity index. Although both of these
16
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
11/35
Literature Review
researchers claimed that IFA could function as a partial replacement of cement in the
mixture, the results showed the contradictory trends.
It is unclear as to why both studies show opposite trends. Many explanations are possible,
e.g. differences in the constituents of the two batches of IFA, as well as differences in IFA
and cement content. IFA contains significant amount of chemical compounds (e.g.
chlorides, carbonates and sulphates), heavy metals and organic compounds. Thus, these
components may alter the role of IFA in soil-cement mixes. However, the effect of these
chemical compounds on the properties of cement-treated clay has not been
comprehensively studied yet. Some other researches focused on the leachability of
cement-IFA-clay mixes as IFA could cause environmental pollution under some
unfavorable circumstances. Baur et al. (2001) noted that the salts from IFA could be a
bigger problem than the heavy metals, as cement stabilization could immobilize heavy
metals but it could not stabilize sulphate, chloride, and sodium and potassium compounds.
The uncertainty over the specific cause of the opposing trends observed by Goh and Tay
(1993) and Show et al. (2003) can be attributed firstly to the relatively narrow spectrum of
tests which had been conducted. In their studies, only changes in undrained shear strength,
compression index and plastic index of soil-cement mixes due to the inclusion of IFA
have been investigated. Furthermore, the effect of various factors (e.g. cement content,
IFA content and curing time) on the engineering properties and microstructural behavior
of cement-treated clay had not been investigated in detail. Finally, the effect of the
different chemical constituents in the IFA on the hydration and pozzolanic reactions had
not been studied.
17
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
12/35
Literature Review
2.3 Cement-treated clay with chemical compounds
2.3.1 Cement-treated clay with monovalent alkali metal salts
Lambe and Moh (1957) and Lambe et al. (1960) carried out laboratory studies on the
effect of trace amounts of alkali metals on cement treated soils. Generally, among all the
alkali additives, sodium compounds were found to be most beneficial in terms of strength
enhancement, followed by potassium and lithium compounds, as can be seen from Figure
2.20.
In addition, Lambe et al. (1960) investigated the effects of 10 types of sodium compounds
on 11 different kinds of cement-treated soils. It was found that, for each sodium
compound, there is an optimum concentration which corresponds to 0.5-2.5% by weight
depending on the type of additives (Figure 2.21). As shown in Figure 2.22, for New
Hampshire silt (NHS) treated by 5% cement, sodium sulphate and sodium aluminate were
found to be most beneficial at their optimum concentrations, resulting in even higher
strengths than specimens with treated with 10% cement. Sodium metasilicate gave rise to
strengths comparable to those with treated with 10% cement. Sodium hydroxide and
sodium carbonate were less effective, but still provided significant strength improvement
compared to 5% cement-treated soil. The addition of sodium fluoborate only led to a
slight increase in strength. The other three sodium compounds (i.e. sodium fluosilicate,
sodium fluoride and sodium tetraborate) were found to be detrimental to soil-cement
mixes. This suggests that the effects of chemical additives probably depend not only on
the cation but also on the anion. Table 2.3 summarizes the compressive strength results of
three types of silty soils (i.e. New Hampshire silt (NHS), Massachusetts clayey silt (MCS)
and Vicksburg loess (VL)) treated with cement and sodium compounds.
18
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
13/35
Literature Review
The addition of sodium compounds (e.g. sodium hydroxide, sodium sulfite, sodium
sulphate and sodium carbonate) into another three types of clayey soils (i.e. Illinois clay,
and Texas clays 1 and 2) treated with 5% cement did not, however, elicit a similar trend of
behaviour. It should be noted that Texas clays 1 and 2 were both montmorillonitic soils
and were slightly alkaline. As shown in Table 2.4, only sodium hydroxide was found to
improve the strength of soil-cement mixes, and all the other sodium compounds seemed to
have a negative effect on the strength of soil-cement mixes in this case.
Sodium compounds (e.g. sodium hydroxide, sodium metasilicate and sodium carbonate)
were also added into another three types of soils (i.e. Iraq clays 1 and 2, and Iraq clayey
silt) treated with 5% cement. It should be noted that the three types of soils all contained
fairly large amount of carbonates, and Iraq clays 1 and 2 were slightly alkaline. As shown
in Table 2.4, all the three sodium compounds added improved the strength of soil-cement
mixes. Sodium hydroxide proved to be the most effective additive.
Finally, sodium compounds (e.g. sodium hydroxide, sodium metasilicate, sodium sulphate
and sodium carbonate) were added into two types of sandy soils (i.e. Wisconsin sand 1
and 2) treated with 5% cement. As shown in Table 2.4, the addition of sodium hydroxide,
sodium metasilicate and sodium carbonate led to reduction in strength, possibly due to the
high organic content in both of these two soils. However, sodium sulphate added
significantly improved the strength of soil-cement mixes.
19
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
14/35
Literature Review
Hence, it could be concluded that that the effects of sodium compounds on soil-cement
mixes varied with soil type, decreasing with increasing soil plasticity and/or organic
matter content (Lambe et al., 1960).
Moh (1962) extended the above investigation and proposed that the reactions taking place
in soil-cement mixes upon the addition of sodium compounds could be represented by
following equations:
With cement:
Na2X + C3S + H2O CSH (hydrated gel) + CaX + NaOH (2.5)
CSH + Na2X NCSH (hydrated gel) + CaX (2.6)
With soil:
2NaOH + SiO2 (soil silica) NSH (soluble) + H2O (2.7)
NSH + Ca2+ NCSH (hydrated gel)+Na+
Or CSH (hydrated gel) + Na+
(2.8)
in which X stands for the anion of the sodium compounds added and N denotes Na2O.
Moh (1962) noted that, regardless of the type of the anion of the sodium compounds
added, the following changes will take place in soil-cement mixes upon the addition of
sodium compounds: (a) increase in pH value, or increase in the available OH-
concentration; (b) apparent reduction in the calcium ion concentration; (c) increase in the
sodium-calcium ratio in the solution. These will ultimately lead to: (a) increased rate and
20
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
15/35
Literature Review
extent of solubilization of soil silica; (b) retardation of precipitation of calcium silicate gel;
(c) formation of highly hydrated calcium silicate gels with sodium.
Davidson et al. (1960) and Kezdi (1979) noted that the addition of sodium chloride into
lime-treated clay resulted in a caustic reaction with the formation of sodium hydroxide.
Similar reaction was found in the mixture of lime-sodium chloride treated fly ash
(Narendra et al., 2003). It was suggested that the increase in the concentration of hydroxyl
ions caused more silica to be dissolved and hence be available for reactions with lime.
This led in turn to the formation of more cementitious products (e.g. voluminous sodium
calcium silicate hydrate).
2.3.2 Cement-treated clay with divalent alkali metal salts
Rajasekaran and Narasimha Rao (2000) noted that the addition of calcium chloride led to
a significant increase in strength of marine clay treated by quicklime columns, as shown in
Figure 2.23 (b). Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) was detected in the mixture. However,
CaCO3 was not perceived to impart significant improvement to the strength of soil.
Instead, it was proposed that the diffusion of additional calcium ions into the soil system
results in the crowding of the cations near the soil particles. This reduces the double layer
thickness of the soil particles, which was believed to enhance the strength of the soil
system. In addition, Rajasekaran and Narasimha Rao (2000) observed an increase in shear
strength of quicklime-treated clay when calcium sulphate was added, as shown in Figure
2.23 (c). However, the presence of ettringite was not detected.
21
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
16/35
Literature Review
2.3.3 Cement-treated clay with sulphatesRajasekaran and Narasimha Rao (2000) noted that the addition of sodium sulphate led to a
significant reduction in shear strength of quicklime-treated clay, as shown in Figure 2.23
(d). It was suggested that the detrimental effect of sodium sulphate be due to the crowding
of monovalent cations around soil particles and the formation of ettringite which weakens
the soil system with time (Mitchell, 1986; Hunter, 1988).
Ettringite has been well known to be the cause of sulphate attack on concrete (e.g. Irassar
et al., 1996; Collepardi, 2003). Ettringite occupies a greater volume and results in
expansion of the concrete. Sulphate ions were reported to have a detrimental effect on the
strength of cement stabilized soil (e.g. Mehra et al., 1955; Cordon, 1962). Sherwood (1962)
observed cracking and swelling in 10% lime treated heavy clay immersed in the dilute
solutions of sodium sulphate or magnesium sulphate, and suggested that this is due to the
formation of ettringite. Mitchell (1986) noted that lime-treated sulphate-bearing clay
swelled and disintegrated after a few years when used for road construction.
Sivapullaiah et al. (2000) noted that formation of cementitious calcium silicate hydrate
was inhibited and ettringite/thaumasite was formed with the presence of sulphate in lime
stabilized black cotton soil. The sequence of reactions is simplified by Hunter (1988) as
follows:
Formation of ettringite:
6Ca2+
+ 2Al(OH)4
+ 4(OH)
+
3(SO4)2
+ 26H2O Ca6[Al(OH)6]2(SO4)326H2O (2.9)
22
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
17/35
Literature Review
Formation of thaumasite:
Ca6[Al(OH)6]2(SO4)326H2O +
2H2SiO42
+ 2(CO32
+ O2) Ca6[Si(OH)6]2(SO4)3(CO3)2 +
2Al(OH)4
+ (SO4)2
+ 4OH
+
26H2O
(2.10)
While the negative effect of sulphate on cement/lime treated clay is well-documented,
some researchers (e.g. Kozan, 1960; Lambe et al., 1960; Mehta, 1983; Kamon and
Nontananandh, 1991) noted that ettringite could actually contribute to the strength
improvement. Kozan (1960) and Lambe et al. (1960) noted that small amounts of sodium
sulphate increased strength of certain type of cement stabilized soils. Mehta (1983) and
Kamon and Nontananandh (1991) noted that the long and needle-like ettringite (Type I)
was actually non-expansive. Instead, this hardened crystal intercrossed the soil particles
and filled up the voids.
This indicates that the role played by sulphate in soil-cement mixes will have to be
dependent on many factors, like soil type (i.e. soil chemical composition and physical
properties), sulphate concentration and metal cation type. Kinuthia et al. (1999) noted that,
when metal sulphates were added to lime-stabilized kaolinite, the cation exchange process
was dependent on the position of the sulphate metal cation in the lyotropic series. The
latter ranks the cations in the order of their ability to bond to the cation exchange face (Li+
< Na+
< K+
< Mg2+
< Ca2+
< Ba2+
< Al3+
< H+) (e.g. Cobbe, 1988; George et al., 1992).
2.3.4 Some issues arising from the above research works
Notwithstanding the extensive research works cited above, some issues relating to cement-
treated clay with IFA and cement-treated clay with small amount of chemical compounds
23
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
18/35
Literature Review
remain unsolved. It is evident that, if the effect of IFA on cement-treated soil is to be fully
elucidated, further research should be carried out using a wider spectrum of test conditions
and over a larger range of cement, water and IFA contents, and there should also be
consideration on the physico-chemical reaction(s) between cement, clay and IFA. This
forms the theme of the first part of the present study. In addition, so far little or no
research has been carried out to examine the effect of small amounts of chemical
compounds on the engineering properties, physico-chemical and micro-structural behavior
of cement-treated Singapore marine clay. Thus, this forms the theme of the second part of
the present study. The two parts of the study are interconnected since the results of the
second part will be used to explain and predict the results obtained in the first part.
24
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
19/35
Literature Review
Table 2.1 Physical properties of incineration fly ashes from Tuas & Senoko incineration
plant, Singapore, and Brooklyn, New York (after Poran and Ahtchi-Ali, 1989; Goh andTay, 1993; Show et al., 2003)
Properties
Tuas IFA,
Singapore
Senoko
IFA,Singapore
Brooklyn
IFA, USA
Specific Gravity 1.71 2.30 2.51
Effective size (mm)0.085-
0.180.005 0.02-0.04
Average uniformity coefficient 10.9 3.9 49
Average coefficient of curvature 1.5 0.975 10
Particle
size
distributionFines (%) 3-10 - 20
Loss on ignition (%) 15.0 15.72 -
pH value 9.4 11.05/11.14 -
Table 2.2 Chemical compositions of different IFAs (after Goh and Tay, 1993; Show et al.,
2003)
Concentration (% by weight)Chemical elements
Tuas IFA Senoko IFA
Silicon 42.00 34.60
Calcium 15.14 29.47
Aluminum 12.50 1.93Ferrous 3.30 1.98
Potassium 1.24 4.68
Sodium 1.19 1.10
Zinc 0.83 0.77
Magnesium 0.78 1.19
Lead 0.36 0.19
Copper 0.17 0.17
Manganese 0.11 0.33
Nickel 0.037 0.18
Chromium 0.023 0.05
Cadmium 0.0075 0.01
25
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
20/35
Literature Review
Table 2.3 Compressive strengths of three cement treated silty soils with the addition of
various sodium compounds (after Lambe et al., 1960)
Cement content = 5%, dry cement weight by dry soil weight
Compressive strength, psiCombination
Additiveconcentration (%
by dry soil
weight)
Curing days
NHS MCS VL
7 110 300 180Control 0
28 180 375 260
7 165 805 3450.5
28 240 1370 390
7 260 815 340
Sodium
hydroxide1.0
28 360 1185 465
7 345 575 2600.5
28 500 800 2907 370 895 310
Sodiumcarbonate
1.028 375 1125 335
7 325 320 3300.5
28 410 500 300
7 260 685 305
Sodiumsulphite
1.028 445 1030 345
7 359 - 345Sodium
metasilicate1.0
28 - - -
7 260 - 2750.5
28 400 - -Sodium
sulphate 1.0 7 - 590 -
Note: New Hampshire silt NHS, Massachusetts clayey silt MCS, Vicksburg loess VL
26
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
21/35
Literature Review
Table 2.4 Summary of the effects of sodium compounds on the compressive strength of
various 5% cement-treated soils (after Lambe et al., 1960)
Cement content = 5% (weight of cement over dry soil weight)
Effect of adding sodium compounds on different soilsSodiumcompounds
added NHS MCS VL IC TC1 TC2 IC1 IC2 ISC WS1 WS2
Sodium
sulphate - - - -
Sodiumaluminate
- - - - - - - - -
Sodium
metasilicate - - - - -
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
carbonate -
Sodiumfluoborate
- - - - - - - - - -
Sodium
fluosilicate - - - - - - - - - -
Sodium
fluoride - - - - - - - - - -
Sodium
tetraborate - - - - - - - - - -
Sodium
sulphite - - - - -
Note:
(1)New Hampshire silt NHS, Massachusetts clayey silt MCS, Vicksburg loess VL,Illinois clay IC, Texas clay 1 TC1, Texas clay 2 TC2, Iraq clay 1 IC1, Iraq clay
2 IC2, Iraq silty clay ISC, Wisconsin sand 1 WS1, Wisconsin sand 2 WS2
(2)NHS, MCS and VL are silty soils; IC, TC 1 and TC 2 are clayey soils; IC 1 and IC 2are calcareous soils.
(3) stands for the increase in strength due to the addition of sodium compound;stands for the decrease in strength due to the addition of sodium compound.
27
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
22/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.1 (a) Effect of cement content on Atterbergs limits of cement-treated Bangkok
clay (after Uddin et al., 1997)
Figure 2.1 (b) Effect of curing time Atterbergs limits of cement-treated Bangkok clay
(after Uddin et al., 1997)
28
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
23/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.2 Effect of curing time and cement content on Atterbergs limits of cementtreated Singapore marine clay (Wi = 120%) (after Chew et al., 2004)
Figure 2.3 Effect of lime content on Atterbergs limits of lime-treated black cotton soil
(after Sivapullaih et al., 2000)
29
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
24/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.4 Effect of curing time and cement content on pore size distribution of cement-
treated Singapore marine clay (Wi = 120%) (after Chew et al., 2004)
Figure 2.5 Variation of unconfined compressive strength with cement content of cement-
treated Bangkok clay (after Uddin et al., 1997)
30
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
25/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.6 Effect of cement content and curing time on unconfined compressive strength
of cement-treated Singapore marine clay (after Chew et al., 2004)
Figure 2.7 (a) Unconfined compressive strength of cement-treated Singapore marine clay
prepared from clay slurry (7 days of curing) (after Lee, 1999)
31
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
26/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.7 (b) Unconfined compressive strength of cement-treated Singapore marine clay
prepared from clay slurry (28 days of curing) (after Lee, 1999)
Figure 2.8 Void ratio-axial stress relationship of cement-treated Bangkok clay (after 1
month curing time) (after Uddin et al., 1997)
32
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
27/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.9 Effect of cement content and curing time on void ratio-vertical stressrelationship of cement-treated Singapore marine clay (Wi = 120%) (after Kamruzzaman et
al., 2001)
Figure 2.10 Variation of pH of cement-treated Singapore marine clay with cement content
and curing time (solid: water = 1:2.5, Wi = 120%) (after Chew et al., 2004)
33
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
28/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.11 Schematic illustrations of cement improved soil (after Saitoh et al., 1985)
Figure 2.12 Scanning electron micrograph of Buckingham soil at the liquid limit: (A)
remolded, no lime; (B) 4% quick lime, 10 days of curing, showing lumps created by the
flocculation-agglomeration reactions; (C) neoformed phases; (D) platy CASH; (E) and (F)4% quick lime, 100 days of curing, platy CASH and reticular CSH (after Locat et al., 1990)
34
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
29/35
Literature Review
(a) Untreated remolded Singapore marine clay
(b)10% cement treated SMC (Wi = 120% and curing time = 28 days)
35
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
30/35
Literature Review
(c)20% cement treated SMC (Wi = 120% and curing time = 28 days)Figure 2.13 Scanning electron micrograph of untreated and cement-treated Singapore
marine clay (after Chew et al., 2004)
Figure 2.14 Effect of curing time on undrained shear strength of cement/lime-IFA-treated
soils (after Goh and Tay, 1993)
36
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
31/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.15 Variations of undrained shear strength of cement-IFA-treated soils with time
(after Show et al., 2003)
Figure 2.16 Effect of curing time on compression index of IFA-stabilized soils (after Gohand Tay, 1993)
37
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
32/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.17 Variations of compression index of cement-IFA-treated soils with time (afterShow et al., 2003)
Figure 2.18 Effect of curing time on plasticity index of IFA- and cement-stabilized soils
(after Goh and Tay, 1993)
38
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
33/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.19 Variations of plasticity index of cement-IFA-treated soils with time (afterShow et al., 2003)
Note: 1. Cement content for all the treated samples = 5% based on dry soil weight
2. Additive concentration based on dry soil weight
3. All samples tested after 24 hours
Figure 2.20 Effect of alkali metal hydroxides on the strength development of cement-stabilized New Hampshire silt (after Lambe et al., 1960)
39
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
34/35
Literature Review
Figure 2.21 Effect of type and concentration of additives on the strength of NewHampshire silt stabilized with 5% cement (after Lambe et al., 1960)
Figure 2.22 Effect of type of additives (at optimum concentration) on strength of New
Hampshire silt stabilized with 5% cement (after Lambe et al., 1960)
40
-
7/30/2019 04 Chapter 2
35/35
Literature Review
(a) Quicklime column treated soil system (b) Quicklime-calcium chloride treated soilsystem
(c) Quicklime-calcium sulphate treated soilsystem (d) Quicklime-sodium sulphate columntreated soil system
Figure 2.23 Variation in strength with time for soils treated with quicklime and salts in
sea-water set-up (after Rajasekaran and Narasimha Rao, 2000)