Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity of Cement and By ... · Cement contents of 4%, 8%, 12% and 16%...

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 13, Number 10 (2018) pp. 8684-8694

© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

8684

Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity of Cement and By - Product

Cementitious Materials Improved Soil

*Samuel Jonah Abbey1, Samson Ngambi2, Adegoke Omotayo Olubanwo3, and Francis Kofi Tetteh4

1Lecturer in Structural/Geotechnical Engineering, University of South Wales, United Kingdom.

2Senior Lecturer in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnics, Coventry University, United Kingdom.

3Lecturer in Structural Engineering and Finite Element, Coventry University, United Kingdom.

4PhD Candidate Birmingham University, and Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Aspin Group, United Kingdom.

(* Corresponding author)

Abstract

This paper presents an experimental investigation on strength

and hydraulic conductivity of a fine grained soil mixed with

cement, Pulverised Fly Ash and Ground Granulated Blast Slag.

Strength and permeability are important properties that defines

the engineering behaviour of deep mixing improved soils.

Cement contents of 4%, 8%, 12% and 16% by weight of dry

soil were added using wet soil mixing technique. The

percentages of cement were reduced and replaced with PFA,

GGBS and Bentonite at 33.3% and 50% reductions

respectively. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and

permeability tests were conducted on cement, PFA/GGBS and

Cement/Bentonite mixtures prepared at their respective

optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density

(MDD) and cured for different periods. The results show that

an increase in % of additives causes decrease in porosity and

increase in density of cement and cement/PFA stabilised soil

and hence, increase in UCS. Except at some optimum values of

12% and 16% of additives in C+PFA combinations where the

density of the improved soil decreases at fairly constant

porosity resulting to an increase in UCS. This implies that % of

additive and the type of additive controls the UCS of improved

soils more than the influence of porosity and density on UCS.

Decrease in porosity of samples improved using

C+PFA+GGBS and C+B with increase in % of additives,

resulted to increase in UCS but however, the reduction in

density and increase in UCS also shows dominance of % and

type of additive on strength over porosity and density. Cement-

Bentonite and combination of PFA /GGBS with reduced

amount of cement were observed to better improved

permeability of the soil. This study has also defined the

functional relationships between hydraulic conductivity and

additive type based on the investigated % of additives and

combinations.

Keywords: Strength, Permeability, Hydraulic conductivity,

Deep Soil Mixing, Improved Soil, Cement, PFA, GGBS,

Bentonite, fine grained soil

INTRODUCTION

Weak soils are generally regarded as problematic in terms of

their resistance to shear deformation, hydraulic conductivity,

excessive settlement and limited bearing capacity. Deep soil

mixing is one technique that has been used to improve these

properties and enhanced performance, (Abbey et al. 2015; Eyo,

et al., 2017; Terashi, 2009; Abbey et al. 2017, Mousavi and

Wong 2016). The inclusion of different binder type and cement

during soil mixing process can generate similar hydration

products, (Abdulhussein Saeed, Anuar Kassim, and Nur 2014).

The unconfined compressive strength of Portland cement (PC)

improved soils are usually high making PC the most commonly

used binder in soil improvement, (Holm, Terashi, 2003;

Makusa 2012; Consoli et al. 2015; Oana, 2016, Abbey et al.

2016). Chen, Liu and Lee (2016) examined the variation in

unconfined compressive strength of marine clay, improved

with cement during wet deep mixing work at the Marina Bay

Financial Centre in Singapore. In their study, the UCS of the

improved clay was found to vary from about 700 kPa to about

5 MPa. The 28 day UCS of samples improved with cement and

prepared using wet mixing method is always higher than those

prepared by dry method, Pakbaz and Farzi (2015). According

to Chen, Liu and Lee (2016), strength distribution in deep

mixing improved soils is affected by in-situ soil properties and

the chemical reactions between soil and Cementitious

constituent. UCS increases with increase in cement content

especially for non-plastic soils (Asturias and Lorenzo 2015,

Abbey et al., 2016, 2017). For applications of soil mixing in

ground water barrier walls, the permeability of the improved

soil, defines the hydraulic conductivity of the barrier walls and

of great importance. Enhancement of permeability of soil

formations is also important in construction of other hydraulic

structures such as dams, power houses, tunnels and in a wide

variety of special cases. Cement - bentonite mixture has been

used in the UK for impermeable cut-off slurry walls (Talfirouz

2013) and it has also been used severally in the US to form

permeable reactive barriers(PRB) in contaminated soil

(Bullock 2007). Åhnberg (2003) and Higgins, (2005) observed

that cement-based binders significantly reduces the

mailto:[email protected]






8685

permeability of tested Swedish soil while lime-based binders

produced more rapid result in terms of increase in permeability.

Yi, Liska and Al-Tabbaa (2013) reported the initial increase in

permeability upon addition of lime and cement as being due to

hydration reaction that takes place when quick lime and the

lime content in cement comes in contact with soil pore water.

This reaction causes flocculation of the clay, forming a coarser

structure than that of the natural soil owing to the formation of

Ca(OH)2 and ion exchange with soil particles (Åhnberg 2003,

2006). Mousavi and Wong (2016) reported that permeability of

cement stabilised clay reduces as cement content increase from

8% to 18% and according to EuroSoilStab (2002), the

permeability of a soil can increase up to 100 to 1000 times when

stabilized with binders. Mixture of cement and bentonite has

also been used to consistently reduce permeability with

increasing cement content and this combination is commonly

used in construction of hydraulic impermeable barriers (Takai,

2014) but establishing the percentage of cement and bentonite

required to enhance hydraulic conductivity of a fine grained

soil would be considered in this paper. According to (Wang et

al., (2015), Puppala (2003), Axelsson et al. (2002),

Keramatikerman et al., (2016) and Ali et al. (2013)) use of

cement, lime, PFA and GGBS in soil stabilisation can improve

the strength property of a weak soil. Undoubtedly, cement deep

soil mixing has been widely employed in the construction field

and has effectively reduced soil permeability. But lately,

problems particularly associated with cost and the

environments have emerged due to CO2 emission. Therefore, it

becomes necessary to investigate into the possible use of by-

product materials such as PFA and GGBS with reduced amount

of cement in deep mixing of weak soils to possibly reduce the

environmental impact of cement soil mixing operations.

Therefore, this study will also focused on the effect of inclusion

of cementitious by-product materials with reduced amount of

cement on unconfined compressive strength and hydraulic

conductivity of a fine-grained soil and establish the functional

relationship between percentage of additive and hydraulic

conductivity.

MATERIALS

Model soil and additives

The model soil consisted of a silty soil of 24% moisture

content, liquid and plastic limits of 47.8% and 24.3%

respectively. The untreated model soil has hydraulic

conductivity of 4.4 x 10-10 under effective stresses of 200kPa

and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 145kPa as

presented in Table 1.0 The binders considered are cement,

GGBS, PFA and cement-bentonite. The hydration of cement in

the presence of water involves different reactions often

occurring at the same time and the product of this reaction (C-

S-H) gradually bond particles of the improved soil together and

consequently enhances strength. The investigated soil has been

treated with cement and inclusion of by-product cementitious

materials such as GGBS and PFA based on the environmental

concern on the use of cement. Ground improvement projects,

especially in remediation of contaminated sites, soil bentonite

mixtures have been used to form slurry wall hydraulic barriers

based on the hydrophilic property of bentonite and ability to

absorb organic contents. Cement-bentonite mixtures have been

employed in the UK as impermeable cut-off slurry walls

(Talfirouz 2013) and in the US as permeable reactive barriers

in contaminated soil (Bullock 2007). The chemical

compositions and physical properties of the materials used are

shown in Table 2.0 and Table 3.0 respectively.

Table 1.0: Physical properties of untreated soil

Properties Characteristic values

Water content, w (%) 27

Liquid limit, wl (%) 47.8

Plastic Limit, wp (%) 24.3

Plasticity index, IP (%) 23.5

Hydraulic conductivity, k (m/s) 4.4 x 10-10

UCS (kPa) 145

Table 2.0 Chemical compositions of Cement, PFA and GGBS

Binder

Oxides (%)

SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O P2O5 SO3 LOI

CEM I

19.63

0.26

4.71

3.25

0.09

1.17

64.09

0.27

0.73

0.20

2.94

3.22

PFA

52.15

0.87

19.61

7.10

0.07

2.00

4.40

1.06

1.93

0.45

0.54

9.48

GGBS

33.28

0.57

13.12

0.32

0.316

7.74

37.16

0.33

0.474

0.009

2.21

4.42



8686

Table 3.0 Compositions and other properties of bentonite

Typical Chemical Analysis

Typical Mineralogy

Other Typical Properties

SiO2 57.1% Na2O 3.27% Montmorillonite 92%

Bulk Density 800–900 kg/m3

Al2O3 17.79% K2O 0.9% Calcite 4%

Swelling Volume 29 ml/2g

Fe2O3 4.64% TiO2 0.77% Feldspars 2% Moisture Maximum 14% by weight

CaO 3.98% Mn2O3 0.06% Quartz 1%

Cation Exchange Capacity 78 meq/100g

MgO 3.68% LOI 7.85% Dolomite 1%

- -

METHODOLOGY

Sample preparation and test procedure

The investigated soil was treated in four phases using Cement,

blend of Cement and PFA, Cement/PFA/GGBS and

Cement/Bentonite. In the first phase of mixing, cement

contents of 4%, 8%, 12% and 16% by weight of dry soil were

added using wet soil mixing technique, (Abbey et al., 2017).

The second phase of mixing consisted of Cement/PFA

improved soils with a 50% reduction in Cement content and

inclusion of equal amount of PFA. In the third phase, Cement

content was further reduced to 33.33% and replaced with equal

amounts of PFA and GGBS to produce Cement/PFA/GGBS

improved soil, (Abbey, et al., 2017). Finally, the 50% Cement

reduction as were in the second phase was replaced with equal

amount of Bentonite. In all, the total percentage of binder was

kept constant, summing up to 4%, 8%, 12% and 16%. During

mixing, the percentage of water added to each mix

corresponded to the optimum moisture content of the individual

mix. All improved samples were then sealed, wrapped with a

thick plastic and cured under water for 7 and 28days

respectively. The coefficient of permeability was evaluated for

90% degree of consolidation (U = 90%) using Taylor’s

settlement-root time method of curve fitting. The laboratory

testing program was designed to determine the strength and

hydraulic conductivity of the improved and unimproved

samples. The Atterberg limit and oedometer test were

conducted following the procedures outlined in BS 1377-

2:1990 and 1377-5:1990 respectively. The permeability

properties of the samples were determined through one-

dimensional consolidation test in a standard oedometer using

incremental loading up to a maximum effective stress of

200kPa.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this study, the joint activation of fly ash/ground granulated

blast furnace slag (GGBS) mixtures has been evaluated to find

its suitability in geotechnical and geo-environmental

applications in terms of strength and hydraulic conductivity.

Permeability is an important soil property that defines the

hydraulic conductivity of the soil. This soil property is

influenced by a wide range of factors, ranging from soil

sedimentation and particle size distribution, to the stress history

of the soil. The chemical reactions between binder or mixture

of binders and soil pore water and particles can contributes

significantly to changes in properties of the stabilized soil

material. These binder-soil reactions can also vary with binder

types; however, formation of similar hydration products at the

end of the reaction stages is obtainable. The major hydration

products formed, which includes calcium silicate hydrate gel

(CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrate gel (CASH) may vary in

quantity depending on the chemical composition of the binders.

This paper has investigated the performance of a fine-grained

soil in terms of strength and hydraulic conductivity at varying

percentages of binders and binder combinations. The author has

used the terms unstabilized and unimproved soil

interchangeably, to refer to the untreated states of the

investigated soil sample in terms of its index and mechanical

properties. The term hydraulic conductivity has also been used

interchangeably with the term coefficient of permeability to

refer to the ease by which water flows through soils. The results

plotted in Figure 1.0(a-d) and Figure 1.0(e-h) show the

variation of void ratio of the stabilized soil with effective stress

for different binder types and combinations.



8687

Figure 1.0(a-d): Variation of void ratio of stabilised soils with effective stress

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1.100

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id r

atio

, e

log p (kPa)

Cement - 7days

Unstabilized 6C 8C 12C 16C

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1.100

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id r

atio

, e

log p(kPa)

Cement+ Bentonite - 7days

Unstabilized 3C+3B 4C+4B

6C+6B 8C+8B

(b)

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1.100

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id r

atio

,e

log p (kPa)

Cement +PFA - 7days

Unstabilized 3C+3PFA 4C+4PFA

6C+69FA 8C+8PFA

(c)

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1.100

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id r

atio

, e

log p (kPa)

Cement+PFA+GGBS - 7days

Unstabilized2C+2PFA+2GGBS2.667C+2.67PFA+2.67GGBS4C+4PFA+4GGBS5.33C+5.33PFA+5.33GGBS

(d)

(a)



8688

Figure 2.0(e-h): Variation of void ratio of stabilised soils with effective stress after 28-days

The results show reduction in void ratio with increase in

effective stress as expected, due to increase in overburden.

Irrespective of binder types, void ratio decreases with an

increase in % of binder due to bonding effect of additives with

solid soil particles. The inclusion of by-product cementitious

materials increases the volume of solid particles and bonding

area. The void ratio of the improved soils decrease as the % of

binder combinations increases. However, 8% cement-bentonite

mix shows almost linear and lower variation in void ratio with

increasing overburden after 7 and 28days as shown in Figure

1.0(b) and Figure 1.0 (h). This is due to the expansive behaviour

of bentonite when in contact with water.

Effect of porosity and density on UCS

In a study on use of fly ash and GGBS as partial replacement

of cement and lime by (Chao, Songyu and Yongfeng 2015), it

was observed from a microstructural analysis that fly ash

mainly alters the distribution of pore volume of the soil, and

produces more hydration compounds as a result of secondary

hydration and pozzolanic reactions. The present study has

investigated other properties of soil improved using

combination of this additives with reduced amount of cement.

The effect of porosity and density on unconfined compressive

strength (UCS) has been investigated. The results show that an

increase in % of additives causes decrease in porosity and

increase in density of cement and cement/PFA stabilised soil

0.500

0.550

0.600

0.650

0.700

0.750

0.800

0.850

0.900

0.950

1.000

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id r

atio

, e

log p(kPa)

Cement - 28days

Unstabilized 6C8C 12C16C

(e)

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1.100

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id r

atio

, e

log p (kPa)

Cement+PFA - 28days

Unstabilized 3C+3PFA4C+4PFA 6C+6PFA8C+8PFA

(f)

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1.100

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id r

atio

, e

log p(kPa)

Cement+PFA+GGBS - 28days

Unstabilized

2C+2PFA+2GGBS

2.67C+2.67PFA+2.67GGBS

4C+4PFA+4GGBS

5.33C+5.33PFA+5.33GGBS

(g)

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1.100

1 10 100 1000

Vo

id r

atio

, e

log p (kPa)

Cement+Bentonite - 28days

Unstabilized 3C+3B

4C+4B 6C+6B

8C+8B

(h)



8689

and hence, increase in UCS. Except at higher % of additive

(12% and 16% of additives) in C+PFA combinations as shown

in Figure 4.0, where the density of the improved soil decreases

at fairly constant porosity resulting to increase in UCS. This

implies that the % of additive and type of additive controls the

UCS of improved soils more than the influence of porosity and

density on UCS. This means that UCS depends more on the %

of additive and the type of additive than on porosity and density

of the improved soil. The porosity of samples improved using

C+PFA+GGBS and C+B also decreases with increase in % of

additives, resulting to increase in UCS as shown in Figure 3.0,

however, the reduction in density and increase in UCS shown

in Figure 4.0 again, is due to predominance of % and type of

additive on strength over porosity and density.

Figure 3.0: Variation of unconfined compressive strength and porosity with % of binder

Figure 4.0: Variation of unconfined compressive strength and density with % of binder



8690

Hydraulic conductivity changes with binder inclusion

The coefficient of permeability 𝑘 values obtained from one-

dimensional consolidation test showed a bit of scatter as

expected however, some important trends were observed. The

results plotted in Figure 5.0 and 6.0 show the variation

hydraulic conductivity with degree of saturation of the

improved soil materials at different binder percentages after 7

and 28 days. Figure 5.0 shows that the addition of 6% - 16%

drops the degree of saturation of the improved samples below

degree of saturation line of the unimproved soil due to

hydration reaction of cement and water, resulting to reduction

in hydraulic conductivity. A reduction in % of cement to 3%,

2% and 5.33% and inclusion of equal amount of PFA and

PFA+GGBS also reduces the degree of saturation and

hydraulic conductivity of the improved soil at the early stage of

hydration process.

Figure 5.0: Variation of hydraulic conductivity and degree of saturation with % of binder

Figure 6.0: Variation of hydraulic conductivity and degree of saturation with % of binder



8691

The permeability and compressibility of stabilized soil is also

expected to vary with curing time due to the continuous binder-

soil reaction that occurs because of cement hydration (Åhnberg

2003). Figure 7.0 also shows that hydraulic conductivity

decreases with reduction in cement content and inclusion of

PFA and GGBS contents in the different combinations of

additives after 28days due to reduction in porosity of the

improved soils as % of additive increases as shown in Figure

7.0. Soil matrix consists of pores of numerous different sizes,

and the pores-fill performance of these additives differs and this

causes the variation in porosity of the improved soil across the

different additives and combinations as shown in Figure 7.0.

Figure 7.0: Variation of hydraulic conductivity and porosity with % of binder after 7 and 28 days.

The ease by which water flows through soil is highly dependent

on porosity and it is evident that reduction in porosity

accompanied by reduction in hydraulic conductivity of the

improved soil is because of decrease in distances between

individual soils particles due to bonding. The dependency of

coefficient of hydraulic conductivity of soils on porosity has

been explained using existing empirical relations as shown in

Equations 1.0, (Slichter, (1899), Kozeny (1927)). Equations 1.0

empirically shows the direct proportionality of coefficient of

permeability (hydraulic conductivity) on porosity (n) and pore

radius (r).

𝑘 = 𝑛𝑟2

8 =

n3

aAV2 Eq. 1.0

From Figure 7.0, it is evident that the inclusion of GGBS and

Bentonite causes a smooth reduction in porosity, hence,

decrease in permeability due to consistent fineness and particle

shape of the GGBS powder, and hence, increase in surface area.

Equation 1.0 shows that permeability coefficient is directly

dependent on porosity and inversely dependent on surface area

of the particles per unit volume of porous matrix (Av), where

the parameter (a) is an empirical term and depends on porosity.

This study has shown that hydraulic conductivity of the

improved soil depends on porosity, % of additives, type and

combination of additives as shown in Figure 8.0 and Figure 9.0.



8692

Figure 8.0: Variation of hydraulic conductivity with porosity

Figure 9.0: Variation of hydraulic conductivity with % of binder

The porosity in turn depends on the type and % of additive.

Therefore, this study has defined the functional relationships

between hydraulic conductivity and additive type based on the

% of additives and combinations considered in this study as

presented in Table 4.0. The values of the coefficients of

determination defines how the functions explain the variability

of the response data around its mean.

0

5E-11

1E-10

1.5E-10

2E-10

2.5E-10

3E-10

3.5E-10

4E-10

4.5E-10

5E-10

30 35 40 45 50

Hyd

rau

lic C

on

du

ctiv

ity(

m/s

)

Porosity (%)

Soil-Cem Soil-Cem/PFA Soil-Cem/PFA/GGBS Soil-Cem/Bentonite

0

5E-11

1E-10

1.5E-10

2E-10

2.5E-10

3E-10

3.5E-10

4E-10

4.5E-10

5E-10

0 5 10 15 20

Hyd

rau

lic C

on

du

ctiv

ity

(m/s

)

% of additive




8693

Table 4.0 Functional relationship between hydraulic conductivity and percentage of additive

Function

Mixed soil type


Coefficient of Determination, R2

Linear 0.8285 0.8417 0.9470 0.9297

Exponential 0.8792 0.8942 0.8577 0.9398

Polynomial 0.9487 0.982 0.9476 0.9454

CONCLUSION

This study has considered the effect of Cement and

combinations of cement with materials such as PFA, GGBS

and Bentonite on the strength and hydraulic conductivity of a

fine-grained soil, and the following conclusions have been

drawn.

The strength increase and reduction in hydraulic

conductivity (permeability) of an improved fine-

grained soil depend on the type and amount of additives

and not solely on changes in the physical properties of

the investigated soil.

The combination of Bentonite and Cement, mixed with

fine-grained soil produces an improved soil with

enhanced permeability compared to other additive

combinations due to the hydrophilic property of

bentonite.

Small percentages of the investigated additives and

combinations (<6%) have no significant effect on the

permeability of the improved soil at early age (𝑘 after

7 days of curing).

The least permeability was achieved with 8C+8B

combination but additive content and combinations of

16%C and 5.33C+5.33PFA+5.33GGBS also reduced

the permeability of the fine-grained soil.

List of abbreviations symbols

BS - British Standard

B - Bentonite

C - Cement

CASH - Calcium Aluminate Silicate Hydrate

CSH - Calcium Silicate Hydrate

GGBS - Ground Granulated Blast Slag

PFA - Pulverised Fly Ash

UCS - Unconfined Compressive Strength

k - Hydraulic conductivity

REFERENCES

[1] Abbey, S.J, Ngambi, S., and Ganjian, E. (2017)

‘Development of Strength Models for Prediction of

Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cement/By-

product Material Improved Soils.’ Geotechnical Testing

Journal, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 928-935.

doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20160138. ISSN 0149-6115

[2] Abbey, S.J., Ngambi, S., Coakley, E. (2016) ‘Effect of

Cement and by-product material inclusion on plasticity

of deep mixing improved soils’. International Journal of

Civil Engineering and Technology, 7 (5), pp. 265-274.

[3] Abbey, S.J., Ngambi, S., Olubanwo, A.O. (2017) ‘Effect

of overlap distance and chord angle on performance of

overlapping soil-cement columns’. International Journal

of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8 (5), pp. 627-

637.

[4] Abbey, S.J., Ngambi, S., Ngekpe, B.E. (2015)

‘Understanding the performance of deep mixing

improved soils - A Review’ International Journal of

Civil Engineering and Technology, 6 (3), pp. 97-117.

[5] Ali, D.B, Kamarudin, A. and Nazri, A. (2012) ‘Initial

Settlement of Mat Foundation on Group of Cement

Columns in Peat –Numerical Analysis’. Journal of

Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering 17

2243-2253.

[6] Axelsson, K., Johansson, S. E., and Andersson, R.

(2002). ‘Stabilization of Organic Soils by Cement and

Pozzolanic Reactions: Feasibility Study’. Report 3,

Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Center,

Linkoping, Sweden, 51 pages.

[7] Eyo, E.U., NgAmbi, S., Abbey, S.J. (2017)

‘Investigative modelling of behaviour of expansive soils

improved using soil mixing technique’. International

Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12 (13), pp.

3828-3836.

[8] Abdulhussein Saeed, K., Anuar Kassim, K., and Nur, H.

(2014) 'Physicochemical Characterization of Cement

Treated Kaolin Clay'. Građevinar 66 (06.), 513-521.

[9] Åhnberg, H. (2006) Strength of Stabilised Soil-A

Laboratory Study on Clays and Organic Soils Stabilised

with Different Types of Binder. [online] Doctorate

thesis or dissertation: Lund University.

https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20160138.%20ISSN%200149-6115



8694

[10] Åhnberg, H. (ed.) (2003) Grouting and Ground

Treatment. 'Measured Permeabilities in Stabilized

Swedish Soils': ASCE.

[11] Barnard, L., Bone, B., and Hills, C. (2003) Guidance on

the use of Stabilisation/Solidification for the Treatment

of Contaminated Soil. Bristol, UK: R&D Technical

Report P5-064/TR, Environment Agency.

[12] Bruce, D. (2001) 'Practitioner's Guide to the Deep

Mixing Method'. Ground Improvement 5 (3), 95-100.

[13] Bullock, A. (ed.) (2007). 'Innovative Uses of Organo-

Philic Clays for Remediation of Soils, Sediments and

Groundwater': WM Symposia, 1628 E. Southern

Avenue, Suite 9-332, Tempe, AZ 85282 (United States).

[14] Chao, Y., Songyu, L., and Yongfeng, D. (2015)

'Experimental Research for the Application of Mining

Waste in the Trench Cutting Remixing Deep Wall

Method'. Advances in Materials Science and

Engineering 2015.

[15] Consoli, N.C., Winter, D., Rilho, A.S, Festugato, L. and

Teixeira, B.S. (2015) “A testing procedure for predicting

strength in artificially cemented soft soils”, Journal of

Engineering Geology, 195 pp. 327- 334.

[16] Eurosoilstab (2002) Development of Design and

Construction Methods to Stabilize Soft Organic Soils:

Design Guide for Soft Soil Stabilization. Project No.

BE-96-3177 edn: European Commission, Industrial and

Materials Technologies Programme (Rite-EuRam III).

[17] Higgins, D. (2005) 'Soil Stabilisation with Ground

Granulated Blastfurnace Slag'. UK Cementitious Slag

Makers Association (CSMA).

[18] Holm, G., (2003) “State of practice in dry deep mixing

methods,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International

Conference on Grouting and Ground Treatment, pp.

145–163, ASCE, New Orleans, La, USA, February.

[19] Jawad, I. T., Taha, M. R., Majeed, Z. H., and Khan, T.

A. (2014) 'Soil Stabilization using Lime: Advantages,

Disadvantages and Proposing a Potential Alternative'.

Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and

Technology 8 (4), 510-520.

[20] Keramatikerman, M., Chegenizadeh, A., and Nikraz, H.

(2016) ‘Effect of GGBFS and Lime Binders on the

Engineering Properties of Clay’. Applied Clay Science

[online] 132–133, 722–730. available from

<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2016.08.029

[21] Kozeny, J. (1927), Uber kapillare Leitung der Wasser

in Boden, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, 136, 271–306.

[22] Makusa, G. P. (2012) Soil Stabilization Methods and

Materials. [online] PhD thesis or dissertation. Luleå,

Sweden: Luleå University of Technology.

[23] Mousavi, S. E. and Wong, L. S. (2016) 'Permeability

Characteristics of Compacted and Stabilized Clay with

Cement, Peat Ash and Silica Sand'. Civil Engineering

Infrastructures Journal 49 (1), 149-164.

[24] Oana, C., (2016) “Soil Improvement by Mixing

Techniques and Performances” Energy Procedia 85, pp.

85-92.

[25] Slichter, C.S. 1899. Theoretical investigations of the

motion of ground waters. U.S. Geological Survey 19th

Annual Report, Part 2.

[26] Talfirouz, D. (2013) The use of Granulated Blast-

Furnace Slag, Steel Slag and Fly Ash in Cement-

Bentonite Slurry Wall Construction. [online] thesis or

dissertation: MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL

UNIVERSITY.

[27] Terashi, M. (2009) ‘Current Practice and Future

Perspective of Quality Assurance and Quality Control

for Deep-Mixed Ground’. Okinawa Deep Mixing

Symposium.

[28] Wang, F., Wang, H. and Al-Tabbaa, A. (2015), ‘Time-

dependent Performance of Soil Mix Technology

Stabilised/Solidified Contaminated Site Soils’ Journal of

Hazardous Materials, 285, 503–508.

[29] Yi, Y., Liska, M., and Al-Tabbaa, A. (2013) 'Properties

of Two Model Soils Stabilized with Different Blends

and Contents of GGBS, MgO, Lime, and PC'. Journal of

Materials in Civil Engineering 26 (2), 267-274.

Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity of Cement and By ... · Cement contents of 4%, 8%, 12% and 16%...

Documents

Transcript of Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity of Cement and By ... · Cement contents of 4%, 8%, 12% and 16%...