You are on page 1of 78


Mechanical properties and behaviour of a partially saturated lime-treated, high
plasticity clay
Xiwei Zhang, Maria Mavroulidou, M.J. Gunn

doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.05.007
ENGEO 4044

To appear in:

Engineering Geology

Received date:
Revised date:
Accepted date:

3 March 2014
27 April 2015
9 May 2015

Please cite this article as: Zhang, Xiwei, Mavroulidou, Maria, Gunn, M.J., Mechanical properties and behaviour of a partially saturated lime-treated, high plasticity clay,
Engineering Geology (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.05.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.


Mechanical properties and behaviour of a partially saturated lime-


treated, high plasticity clay


Dr Xiwei Zhanga,(BEng, MSc, PhD);


Dr Maria Mavroulidoub*(Dipl-Ing, D.E.A, PhD, MTEE-Greece);


Prof M.J. Gunnc ;


a. Address during the presented research: London South Bank University, 103 Borough
Road, London, SE1 0AA, UK Present address: Associated research fellow, Key Laboratory of


Ministry of Education on Safe Mining of Deep Metal Mines, Northeastern University,


Shenyang, Liaoning, 110819, China;


b. Reader of Geotechnical Engineering, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road,
London, SE1 0AA, UK


c. Emeritus Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, London South Bank University, 103
Borough Road, London, SE1 0AA, UK
Manuscript submitted to the journal Engineering Geology

Date written: February 2014
Date of first revision: December 2014; Second revision: April 2015
Word count:

10,968 (including abstract, keywords, notation, references, table and

figure captions)
Number of Figures: 17 figure captions
Number of Tables: 8


uk 2 . (please use preferably email) AC CE P TE D Email: mavroum@lsbu. Science & the Built Environment IP T Dr Maria Mavroulidou London South Bank University 103 Borough Road NU London SE1 0AA MA Tel (work): 02078157646.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT *Corresponding author SC R Faculty of

using the axis translation technique. The tests MA concerned isotropic compression and two different types of shearing tests (a) shearing at constant suction and (b) shearing at constant water content. Based on the D results. partially saturated soil. A series of triaxial tests were performed on statically compacted London Clay and lime-treated London Clay specimens. Keywords: lime-treated clay. b1 and b2 curve fitting parameters c′ cohesion (true or apparent) cv coefficient of consolidation e void ratio f(c) lumped cementation bonding shear strength component Gs specific gravity 3 .ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Mechanical properties and behaviour of a partially saturated lime- IP T treated. a2 . the effects of suction and lime-induced bonding are evaluated and quantified within an CE P TE elastoplastic partially saturated soil framework. curve fitting parameters representing intercepts at zero suction B1 and B2 curve fitting parameters (slopes) a1 . suction controlled triaxial testing AC Notation A1 and A2. high plasticity clay SC R ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the effect of suction and lime treatment on the volumetric and shear behaviour of a partially saturated high plasticity clay (London Clay). These NU were prepared at the same target void ratio and tested under partially saturated conditions.

here denoted as D p mean stress MA nc suction-dependent cementation bonding shear strength component TE pat reference pressure (atmospheric pressure) CE P p´c yield effective stress (apparent preconsolidation pressure) q and qp deviator stress and peak deviator stress respectively AC qc cementation bonding (‘true’ cohesion) at saturated state RL the loading rate of the ramped consolidation s suction (kPa) sd yield suction factor during wetting Sr degree of saturation ua air pressure uex excess pore pressure uw pore water pressure (ua-uw) matric suction 4 .ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT h specimen height M critical state stress ratio IP T Mα critical state stress ratio with respect to the mean net stress (partially saturated soil) SC R Mb critical state stress ratio with respect to the matric suction (partially saturated soil) N(s) the intercept of the normal compression line Ny intercept of the line of isotropic compression yield points NU na and nb components of shear strength associated respectively with (p-ua) and (ua –uw) (p-uα) mean net stress.

 p . NU κs elastic stiffness parameter with respect to a change in matric suction λs plastic stiffness parameter with respect to a change in matric suction D λy slope of the line of isotropic compression yield points TE ρd dry density CE P (σ-ua)f is the net stress normal to the shear plane at failure τf shear strength of the soil a and internal angle of friction. With this application in mind. and critical state angle of friction AC   . peak angle of friction.  c b friction angle terms associated respectively with net stress and matric suction effects 1 Introduction Chemical soil improvement using additives such as lime is a technique that has been used extensively in construction. the slope of the normal compression line. most commonly for pavement applications. most international literature on lime treated soils focuses on simple tests such as California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or unconfined compressive 5 .ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT v soil specific volume vw specific volume of water IP T vκs specific volume corresponding to the yield suction SC R w water content (gravimetric) εv volumetric strain θ volumetric water content MA λ(s).

6 . based on suction-controlled triaxial testing. Al-Rawas et al. With an increasing use of the technique in a wider range of applications. 1993) as well as shrinkage and swelling characteristics (provided that sulphates are not present) (e. as lime-treated soils are typically compacted after treatment and hence. Background 2. partially saturated. The latter aspect is particularly relevant.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT strength (UCS) tests. the need has emerged for more sophisticated testing and thorough IP T experimental evidence of the soil parameters involved in constitutive models able to SC R describe the behaviour of lime-treated soils under saturated and partially saturated conditions. by definition. The AC results are interpreted in terms of elasto-plastic modelling parameters within an unsaturated soil mechanics framework. 2.1 Lime treatment of clayey soils The treatment of clayey soils with lime is a widely used technique of ground improvement. quality suction-control triaxial testing data is required. using the axis translation technique. Therefore NU prior to constitutive modelling. The improvement consists in a more or less instantaneous reduction in plasticity (Sherwood. D The aim of this paper is to present results from an extensive experimental programme TE funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) on CE P the hydro-mechanical properties of a high plasticity lime-treated clay (London Clay). MA To the Authors’ knowledge such data has been lacking in the literature. 1996. 2005). Bell.g.

following a modification of the electrolyte content in the water due to the increased exchangeable calcium ion concentration. 1996.45). Bell. They are caused by the highly alkaline environment upon lime addition. UCS and CBR were shown to continue to increase potentially over long time periods. 2004. flocculation and agglomeration of the soil particles occurs NU and transforms the plastic soil to a granular and less plastic material (Bell. frequently CE P reported in the literature (see e. 1965). through slower pozzolanic reactions between lime. If enough lime beyond the Initial Consumption of Lime (ICL) content is present (i. It MA was also argued that this flocculation could also be due to the early formation of small quantities of calcium silicate or calcium aluminate hydrates. 1996). Sherwood. are attributed to rapid ion exchange IP T reactions between exchangeable clay ions and calcium ions provided by the lime. 1993). 1996). Sherwood.e. 2004).ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT These immediate/short term effects on the soil upon lime treatment.g. The compounds dissolved from the clay mineral lattice react with calcium ions in pore water to form calcium silicate hydrates. Bell. These reactions are usually reported as ‘stabilisation’ reactions (NLA. these could create some D bridging between particles and consequently flocculation (Diamond & Kinter. 1993.35-12. TE This could justify the increase in CBR and UCS shortly after lime addition. commonly mentioned as ‘lime modification’ (NLA. silica and alumina. Sherwood. SC R Cation exchange would be the first step towards more permanent changes. which produce cementing agents (Brandtl. AC the lime percentage which increased the pH of the soil to 12. which promotes dissolution of siliceous and aluminous compounds from the clay mineral lattice. 1993). calcium aluminate hydrates and hydrated calcium alumino7 . 1981.

2002).. 1976. a weak cement whose CE P formation is normally undesirable.2 The mechanical behaviour of partially saturated soils The mechanical behaviour of partially saturated uncemented soils in terms of volume change and shear strength characteristics was extensively investigated in the last four decades (e. as the reaction consumes lime which would have otherwise been used in pozzolanic reactions for the formation of stronger cementitious AC bonds.g. Fredlund & Morgenstern.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT silicates. when the CO2 is dissolved in the soil pore water it reacts with the TE D hydroxyle ions. Ho & Fredlund. NU Hausmann 1990). Namely. 1982. 8 . 1996). which subsequently react with the calcium ions. This results in the formation of caclium carbonate CaCO3. 2. forming carbonate ions. MA An additional reaction between soil and lime is carbonation in the presence of carbon dioxide. it may in fact IP T decrease upon excessive lime addition as cementation is limited by the available SC R amount of silica. Another undesirable effect of carbonation is the fact that it delays penetration of ions on the surface of the clay and increases the time for these to reach the reaction sites (Barker. when all silica in the clay is used up. further lime addition would not result in the formation of any new cementation products. thus any further lime may reduce strength as lime has no good frictional properties (Bell 1988. Brandtl 1981. Alonso et al. which coat the soil particles and subsequently crystallise to bond them (Bell. However strength does not increase linearly with lime content.

1986. 1996. Romero. 2005). It is IP T common knowledge that suction increases the shear strength of the soil. c ' is the cohesion (true or apparent). using two TE D independent stress state variables (net stress and matric suction). Fredlund et al.. 2000. Rampino et al.. 1990. An early expression for the shear strength behaviour of partially saturated NU soils was proposed by Bishop (1959). Sharma. Modifications of the above 9 . Later. Cui & Delage. using an effective stress approach. Wheeler & Sivakumar. new experimental evidence from tests including higher suctions. Cabarkapa. 2001. Later MA Fredlund et al (1978) suggested an expression of the shear strength for partially saturated soils in terms of an extended Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Toll. Cabarkapa. the net stress normal to the shear plane at failure. 1987. written as:   c'  u  tan    u  u  tan  a f a w b (Eqn. 1995.   is the angle of AC   ua  f is internal friction related to the applied net normal stress and considered equal to that of saturated soils. Based on data fitting from other researchers’ work. (1978) suggested that the value of b would be a constant.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1990. The efforts of SC R experimental work have however focused on the mathematical description of the shear strength of a partially saturated soil as a function of the selected stress state variables. within suction ranges between 0 and 200 kPa. 2001). Jotisankasa. and b a friction angle term associated with matric suction ua  uw  effects. 1998. early work by Fredlund et al. 1) CE P f where  f refers to the shear strength of the soil. demonstrated that the increase of shear strength due to suction becomes nonlinear when the range of suction is extended to large values (Escario & Saez. 1999.

as well as on the particular path followed from the initial to final state (Alonso et al. Vanapalli et al. concerning the effect of the suction under a certain constant mean net stress (p-uα). the D slope of the loading and unloading-reloading curve of a partially saturated soil is not TE the same as that of the same soil in a saturated state (i. suction tends to stiffen the CE P partially saturated soils against the loading).e. upon isotropic or 1-D unloading. It was reported that the gradient of the partially saturated soil swelling lines is almost independent of suction (e.g. 1996. some rebound/swelling of the partially saturated soil occurs.1990). SC R Concerning the main aspects of the volumetric behaviour of a partially saturated uncemented soil upon isotropic/one dimensional loading and unloading under a certain constant suction it was shown that the volume change response of a partially NU saturated soil depends on the initial and final stress state with respect to the mean net MA stress and matric suction. The yield stress increases with increasing suction.e. under the combined effect of suction and mean net stress (i. it may either swell at low mean 10 . A soil subjected to a wetting or drying path (i. decreasing or increasing suction respectively). Sivakumar.e.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT criterion were therefore suggested to introduce an appropriate expression for the non- IP T linear variation of the parameter b (Fredlund et al. 1993). may swell or shrink. As for AC saturated soils. 1996). as a result of cementation. This behaviour is similar to that manifested in natural fully saturated cemented soils. it was shown that a change in suction may induce irrecoverable volumetric strain for most clay soils. On the other hand.

as described e. For compacted expansive clays the volume change due to MA variations in suction upon drying/wetting was found to be much larger than for nonexpansive clays. both stiffness and shear strength behaviour are likely to be affected by the relative magnitude and interaction between chemically-induced bonding and suction. often with an apparent yield point beyond which an irreversible volumetric contraction can be observed. Cui et al. 1990). there is paucity in experimental evidence concerning the behaviour of partially saturated chemically stabilised soils. It is therefore of interest to investigate how the trends followed by these soils relate to the findings concerning untreated partially saturated soils. 1968 or Alonso et IP T al. Substantial irreversible shrinkage or swelling strains may occur. D Whether irreversible swelling or shrinkage will occur depends on the history of TE compaction pressure and subsequent stress paths (as a function of suction or net CE P stress) and not solely on the soil type (e. 2002). and contract upon the drying path. 3 Materials and methods 11 . in Matyas & Radhakrishna. shrinkage is generally observed for most soil specimens that SC R are initially saturated. AC Whereas the above findings have now been established for compacted soils that have not been subjected to chemical treatment. For such soils. Upon drying.g.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT net stress values or collapse upon wetting at high mean net stress values.g. 1999). Experimental evidence shows that this threshold value (yield suction) depends both on the suction history and the initial void NU ratio (Chen et al.

Heathrow Terminal 5).g. Note the presence of smectite. The soil was air- TE dried at an average temperature of 220 C and a relative humidity of 60% for a month CE P and was subsequently pulverised.1 Materials The soil used in this study was London Clay. Its suitability for soil 12 . (represented by the two different curves in Fig. a high plasticity stiff overconsolidated IP T marine clay (in its natural state) extensively encountered in construction in the SC R London area and the South Eastern England (a very densely populated area with intensive industrial activity) including pavement construction. which causes the London Clay soil to manifest a swelling/shrinking soil behaviour. embankment and building foundation construction. 1 Particle size distribution of the London Clay soil Table 1 Composition of London Clay soil used in this study Commercially available hydrated lime was used in this research. The composition of the soil is shown in Table 1.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3. Fig. The London Clay samples used in this study came from an excavation at Westminster D Bridge in London and depths between 30-31 m below ground level. Figure 1 shows the particle size distribution of the portion of two samples of the pulverised soil passing the BS 425 μm sieve (BSI AC 1990a). airports (e. underground railway (an example of recent engineering works being the MA NU Crossrail project). 1).

e.88:1. AC Table 2 Physical characteristics of untreated and 4% lime treated London Clay soils 3. Plasticity tests performed on London Clay SC R mixed in dry condition with lime at percentages of 0%-8% lime by dry mass of soil showed no change in the plasticity characteristics of the lime-treated soil beyond approximately 4% of lime addition. and 100 mm height and 50 mm diameter for the two suction unloading (i. The main physical CE P TE characteristics of the two soils (treated vs untreated) are shown in Table 2. Due to available equipment limitations some of the independent isotropic compression tests. 2013a and b). Hence 4% was considered to be the minimum NU necessary lime percentage for treating this clay.00 based on chemical analysis on IP T the lime sample carried out in duplicate.2 Specimen preparation Specimen dimensions were 76 mm height and 38 mm diameter for all suction controlled triaxial tests. suction decrease over a wetting path) tests. Therefore an D amount of 4% lime by dry soil mass was used to treat this soil. Note that although for the latter set of results 13 . 2011 and included here for the sake of comparison) were also conducted using specimens of 100 mm height and 50. The percentage was confirmed by MA initial consumption of lime (ICL) test results (BSI 1990b) which showed that the ICL of this soil was between 3 and 4% (see Mavroulidou et al. (presented in Mavroulidou et al. as well as some of the saturated soil triaxial tests performed at zero suction. The relative proportion of calcium hydroxide to calcium oxide was found to be 4.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT stabilisation was confirmed (BSI 1990b).

while acknowledging that the variation of either parameter would have some effect on the 14 . The loading ram was then CE P held in contact with the soil for another five minutes to reduce the rebound upon unloading (Jotisankasa 2005). Sharma. 1993. untreated) had different dynamic (standard Proctor compaction) characteristics due to the effect of lime treatment (see Table 2). 2005). Jotisankasa. The soil was placed in the split moulds in six or eight equal layers (for the 76 mm and D 100 mm height specimens respectively) and compressed at a monotonic displacement TE rate of 1 mm/min until the required height was reached. It was observed that the two soils (treated vs. a decision had to be made to keep either the same target compaction dry density or the same compactive effort for the two soils during static compaction. Thus for consistent comparisons and due to the length of the tests limiting the amount of feasible investigations within the research time scales. 1998. Similarly. the results of the isotropic compression tests conducted on larger specimens (100 mm height and 50mm diameter) were confirmed to be consistent with the isotropic stage results of the smaller triaxial testing specimens (of 76 mm height MA NU and 38 mm diameter). This static compaction procedure was selected as the AC best way of exerting sufficient control over the compaction process of a clayey soil (Sivakumar. it was subsequently found that all strength results plotted as unique strength IP T lines and hence the difference in the specimen size did not have an effect on the SC R results. so that almost identical specimens were prepared.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (saturated soil testing at zero suction) two different specimen sizes were used (see Table 3).

1999.e. untreated vs. for the lime treated specimens an additional 2% of water was used CE P (also dry of the Proctor optimum of the lime treated soil).g. i. 2008).ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT resulting properties and behaviour of the compacted soils (see e. treated soil) Proctor optimum characteristics (although this resulted in a higher compactive effort for the lime-treated soil.e. The water content for both types of specimen was MA kept to the dry side of the respective Proctor optimum to ensure that the resulting structure after compaction was qualitatively similar for the two soils. Alonso and Pinyol. Chen et al. approximately 650 kPa for untreated London Clay and 600 kPa for 4% lime treated London Clay specimens. It was decided to compact IP T statically all specimens at the same target dry density of 1. with average as-compacted degrees of saturation of about 74 % and 78% respectively for the two soils. 2000.e.e. 550 kPa for the untreated NU vs. 30% for the treated vs 26% for the untreated soil). the lime treated specimens were left to cure for the required time (one week) in several layers of cling film and stored at controlled environmental 15 . 1000 kPa for the treated soil). to ensure that enough water was available for chemical reactions. Sivakumar and Wheeler. After compaction. considering that the optimum water content of AC the treated soil was higher than that of the untreated soil (i. Thus for the D untreated London Clay the water content was about 25% (which is slightly drier of the TE Proctor optimum).43 g/cm3 (corresponding to SC R the maximum standard Proctor dry density of the untreated soil) and not at each soil’s (i. Using the filter paper method the suctions of the ascompacted specimens were determined and found to be fairly consistent i.

The required curing time of one week was determined based on prior Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) triaxial testing. This IP T showed that for this amount of lime (4%) and curing method. 2 Deviator stress vs axial strain UU testing plots for different curing periods TE The characteristics of triaxial testing specimens after compaction as well as the list of CE P tests presented are summarised in Table 3. These were published elsewhere (Mavroulidou et al. curing beyond seven days did not result in any MA of the cementation reactions (see Fig 2). Table 3 List of tests and specimen characteristics after compaction Figure 3 shows indicative Soil Water Retention Curves derived from filter paper testing of compacted specimens (subject to subsequent saturation. NU further improvement of the shear strength of the soil. followed by a drying and then a wetting path). hence they are not shown in detail in this paper. These curves are included here to illustrate the partially saturated behaviour of the two soils (untreated and treated) and place these in 16 . and for six different SC R curing periods between 1 day and 166 days (the latter period covering the typical duration of the tests presented here). suggesting no further evolution D Fig. Note that in places the tests will be discussed in comparison with results based on a set of triaxial tests conducted at s= AC 0kPa. 2011).ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT conditions (constant temperature and humidity).

50. namely 0 kPa (saturation). It can also be seen that the treated soil appears to present a point of maximum curvature / ‘air entry value’ at lower suctions compared to the untreated soil (which is expected due to the flocculation of the NU particles induced by lime). CE P TE Fig.1 cm3/d for specimens of 38 mm diameter and 17 . Conversely the slope of the curves of the treated and MA untreated soils beyond these points of maximum curvature (which is linked to the D microporosity of the soils) is similar. From the figures it can be seen that according to the filter paper tests the IP T compacted soils subjected subsequently to a wetting path are likely to be partially SC R saturated in the range of suctions considered.044 cm3/d and 0.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the context of the partially saturated soils analysis carried out in the following sections of the paper. 100. A small mean net stress of 20 kPa was applied throughout the suction equalisation stage. avoid damaging of the membranes and ensure a good contact of the soil with the ceramic disk interface. to minimise specimen disturbance. Based on Sivakumar (1993) the suction equalisation stage was considered to have been completed when the rate of the pore water volume change was less than 0. 200 and 300 kPa respectively. 3 Indicative Soil Water Retention Curves based on filter paper tests 3.3 Testing procedure AC As the suctions of the specimens at compaction were higher than the target suctions for triaxial testing. the specimens had to be wetted (following a suction unloading/decrease path) to achieve the target suction levels for testing.

was calculated as AC (Sivakumar. The suction equalisation period typically varied from 10 to 30 NU days depending on the suction level. and specimens of 50 mm diameter and 100 mm height respectively. MA After suction equalisation. a rate of 0. h is the height of the specimen. 2) where uex is the excess pore water pressure. the particular suction level was maintained IP T for a further 48 hours as an additional precaution.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 76 mm height. During loading. the mean net stress (p-ua) was incremented at a TE sufficiently slow rate to minimise the development of excess pore water pressure and CE P maintain constant suction during testing (Zhan. Taking into account the above equation and based on average cv values derived from preliminary tests. 1993): uex  RL h 2 2cv (Eqn. When the above flow criteria were met. RL is the loading rate of the ramped consolidation. 2003). This also gave the specimen enough time to deform under the applied suction. the specimens were isotropically consolidated at the required mean net stress. The required loading was applied in one single step (ramped D consolidation). cv is the coefficient of consolidation. ensuring suction uniformity SC R throughout the specimen. The maximum excess pore pressure uex induced in the partially saturated soil by the loading.6 kPa/h on the mean net stress was used for the isotropic 18 .

two suction unloading (wetting path) tests were performed in the triaxial cell under two different constant mean net stresses of 100 kPa and 200 kPa. After suction equalisation at the target suction. during these tests the specimens were sheared at a MA very slow rate of 1. while maintaining a constant cell pressure and a constant suction during the shearing (confirmed by the D monitoring of the pore water pressures during shearing). which showed that this rate allowed for excess pore SC R IP T pressure dissipation during testing. Following isotropic compression. three constant water content (CW) tests were performed under undrained conditions at a constant rate of axial strain (2. The rate of shearing was TE consistent with rates used by other researchers (summarised in Delage. and hence the suction changes were determined. They aimed at studying the effects of the mean net stress on the deformation of the lime-treated soil during wetting. During the suction unloading 19 .42 µm/min). The majority of the specimens were sheared under constant suction (CS) (at constant suctions NU varying between 100-300 kPa). following a q/(p-ua)=3 path. a number of specimens were sheared. In CE P addition.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT loading/unloading tests. its adequacy was confirmed by the monitoring of the pore water pressures during testing. The faster rate adopted for AC the latter tests was justified as these were undrained tests. In addition to the triaxial tests. the specimens were compressed isotropically up to the target mean net stress of 100 kPa or 200 kPa (see column 5 of Table 3).14 μm/min. 2004). During shearing the pore water pressure was measured.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT /decrease tests (following a wetting path) performed in the triaxial cell. are plotted together in Fig. the above mean net stresses were then kept constant (and so was the air pressure) while the pore IP T water pressure changed at a specified rate 1 kPa/hour to the respective target value SC R resulting in a decrease in suction. normalised for a 20 . For the purposes of comparison the results of the wetting tests at all different net stresses in terms of specific volume versus matric suction (v-s). Mavroulidou et al. 20 kPa net stress (obtained from the suction equalisation stage preceding triaxial testing) and mean net stress of 100 kPa and 200 kPa (wetting soil water retention curves obtained using the triaxial cell). Water volume changes and overall volume changes were recorded during NU the testing. 2013a and b). namely: zero mean net stress (based on filter paper results not detailed here). 4 (a) and (b). Presentation of results AC 4. This was followed by a 2-4 day period during which suction was maintained for excess pore water pressure equilibrium within the specimen. Mavroulidou et al. 2012. 2010. Mavroulidou TE D et al. not discussed here in detail as many of these were published elsewhere (Zhang et al.. the results of these tests were MA complemented by filter paper results. CE P 4. To find the suction decrease line. 2011. The latter plots the same results of the in a semi-logarithmic scale (v: ln[(s+pat)/pat)].1 Wetting induced swelling The presented results refer to wetting induced-swelling from different tests and hence conditions.

1. indicating yielding due to wetting. Specimens LTLCW1 and LTLC-W2 subject to wetting under a mean net stress of 100 and 200 kPa 21 .e. Specific volume vs. but after a suction of approximately 200 kPa was reached. the specific volume initially AC appears to increase rather linearly. The maximum specific volume is about 2. 4. The specific volume after wetting versus suction under the 20 kPa mean net stress curves (i. To indicate qualitatively the differences IP T during swelling between the untreated and the lime-treated soil. shows deformation patterns similar to those of the tests under zero mean net stress tests but the suction yield stress point can now be identified at about 180 kPa.06 (i. specific volume SC R versus suction results from filter paper testing and some available results of wetting under 20 kPa net stress of untreated London Clay soil are also added. From Figures 4(a)-(b) it can be seen that although the lime-treated soil still shows some swelling NU under low confinement stresses.e. at a zero mean net stress). (b) semi-logarithmic scale CE P Based on the curves of the wetting path results from the filter paper specimens (i. This representation will be used for the analyses of the results shown in section 5. this is considerably reduced across the suction ranges MA considered. it can be seen that upon wetting.e. suction: (a) arithmetic scale. some considerable swelling was observed. from the suction equalisation stage in the triaxial test).ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT reference pressure pat (atmospheric pressure). if compared to the untreated London Clay soil. much smaller than that for tests under zero net stress) as swelling was partly suppressed due to the higher mean net stress. TE D Fig.

1). These yield stress points were subsequently used to establish the LC yield curve in the s: space. a likely yield point during wetting was identified at about 90-100 kPa suction corresponding to an increase in the rate of change of the specific volume during wetting (swelling).e.7% and 0. the swelling deformation decreased. Comparative isotropic compression results Despite the limited pressure ranges.2 Isotropic compression D 5. after swelling) shown in Fig 4(a) and (b)). respectively.. For the specimen LTLC-W1 tested at 100 SC R kPa mean net stress. For the specimen tested at a mean net stress of 200 kPa. the NU yield suction was not possible to identify as the swelling deformation curve was MA linear. CE P Figure 5 presents isotropic compression results in terms of specific volume against mean net stress for both untreated and lime-treated specimens. showed swelling volumetric strains of 0.e. Fig. i. with an increase in the mean net IP T stress. it will therefore be assumed to be zero in the analysis of the results (see section TE 4. as discussed later (see section 5. yield stress points (noted c) were identified using Casagrande’s method (see Table 4).. 5. 22 .2). The exact positions of AC the starting points in the plot were controlled by the specific volumes of the specimens at the end of the suction equalisation stage (i.3% for a mean net stress of 100 kPa and 200 kPa.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT respectively.

e. i. However. p is the mean total stress and uα the air pressure. the gradient λ(s) during the de-bonding processing would be expected to continually increase with the mean net stress until the cemented soil curve coincides with that of 23 .: TE compression curves. Note that the slope λ(s) value for the lime-treated soil was not clearly identifiable as the curves were slightly non-linear. was used as a reference pressure to make the expression dimensionally consistent. 3) AC where the atmospheric pressure.e. for which Wheeler and Sivakumar (1995) suggested a linear v  N ( s)   ( s) ln p pat (Eqn. This is realistic because. these values are commonly used to describe the post-yield CE P relationship. respectively the intercept at the reference pressure and the slope of the normal compression line) for different suctions. if extrapolated to higher mean net stresses that the available equipment for this study could not match. for the lime-treated soil the additional effect of chemically-induced bonding was proven to be considerable. is the mean net stress (p-uα). as for the untreated SC R partially saturated soil. which is consistent with the IP T behaviour of bonded geomaterials. It can also be seen that. although suction increased the yield stress for both soils. Table 4 also shows the values MA of N(s) and λ(s) (i. pat =100 kPa. For uncemented partially D saturated soils. it can be seen that the yield stresses of the lime-treated soil were higher than that of the untreated soil at the same suction level.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT From Table 4. comparing the yield NU stress values of the two soils at the same suction level. yield stress increased with suction.

partial breakage of the cementation bonds but not that corresponding to full destructuration. According to Rao & Shivananda (2005). 5). Moreover the findings are consistent with those obtained from suction-controlled oedometer apparatus (K0 compression) testing for the same soils (which reached higher 24 .g. Alonso et al.. 1990. Wheeler & Sivakumar. TE An interesting observation made based on Figure 5. In this study. which was also noted for the untreated London Clay soil tested here (see Fig. The isotropic compression stage results of all subsequent shearing triaxial tests (not shown here for the sake of brevity) based on additional specimens. 1995). This implies that the range of pressures applied. This is unlike the behaviour of uncemented partially saturated soils reported in the literature (e.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the uncemented soil when the breakage of all cementation bonds is complete. who tested saturated lime-treated black NU cotton soil specimens. the compressibility line of the cemented lime-treated soil did not eventually IP T converge to that of the untreated soil. were very consistent with the independent isotropic compression testing results shown in Figure 5. a more dramatic yield point corresponding to complete MA destructuration was reached at pressures of 3-13 MPa. confirming the findings. is that for the lime-treated soil CE P there is no clear indication that suction allows the Normal Compression Line (NCL) to cross the zero suction NCL of the lime-treated soil (assuming extrapolated NCL AC curves due to the limited extent of the actual experimental curve). SC R only captured perhaps some initial yield linked to the beginning of a gradual. far beyond the ranges D achievable by the available equipment in the current study.

AC Table 4 Soil parameters from isotropic compression data 4. For this statement to be conclusive the data MA the triaxial equipment used in this study. Table 5. A summary of the results is also given in Table 5. Results of suction-controlled shearing tests 25 . Due to the number of results. also considering the critical state line of the untreated London Clay soil. it can be concluded that lime D treatment generally had a favourable effect on the compressibility behaviour of the CE P TE material compared to the untreated soil.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT compression levels. these are plotted in several figures for the sake of clarity. These also showed that the partially saturated lime-treated soil NCL did not cross the IP T zero suction NCL. up to 2000 kPa) published previously (Mavroulidou et al 2013a). based on the results in Table 4 and Figure 5.3 Shearing The results are presented in terms of peak and ultimate (end of test) strengths. This would indicate that the behaviour of the lime-treated soil in SC R isotropic compression for the ranges of suction studied was largely controlled by the lime-induced bonding rather than suction. which were beyond the capacity of Overall. NU needs to be extrapolated to yet higher pressures.

axial strain plots (a) CS tests of lime-treated soil for suctions TE of 100 and 200 kPa. (c) CE P comparative results for untreated and lime treated soil for p' or of 200 kPa AC comparative results for untreated and lime treated soil for p' or of 100 kPa (d) From Figures 6(a)-(d).ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figures 6(a)-(d) show comparative stress-strain plots. 6(b) plots constant suction (CS) testing results for SC R specimens sheared at a suction of 300 kPa and varying mean net stresses. The lime treatment thus causes a similar behaviour to that of overconsolidated clays. compared with the respective constant water content (CW) results for specimens subjected to an initial suction of 300 kPa. it can be seen that whereas the untreated compacted London Clay specimens show a strain hardening behaviour without any apparent peak in the stress. this was followed by strain softening presumably due to the breakage of cementation bonds. namely: 6 (a) shows limetreated specimens sheared under constant suction (CS) at suctions of 100 and 200 kPa IP T and varying mean net stresses. 6(c) and (d) compare the lime treated soil results with NU available results from untreated London Clay specimens to assess the differences in MA strength and behaviour. (b) comparative CS and CW results for suctions of 300 kPa.6 % of axial strain. 6. D Fig. all lime-treated specimens show a very pronounced peak in the strength within relatively low strain levels. Deviator stress. with the stress decreasing dramatically after only 2–5. which is consistent with the observations by Leroueil and Vaughan (1990) regarding similarities in the behaviour between naturally cemented 26 .

TE shown in Fig. SC R Increasing suction resulted in an increase in the peak strength and stiffness of the lime-treated London Clay. The stress-strain curves obtained from constant water content (CW) tests are similar to those obtained from constant suction (CS) shearing. in this instance. Both MA types of soil approach constant values of deviator stress as the tests proceed (which is also consistent with the behaviour noted from the volumetric strain curves and the D pore pressures for the constant suction and constant water content tests respectively. The lime-treated specimens tested under CE P the same mean net stress reached essentially the same ultimate strength irrespective of the suction level considering the usual scatter in the experimental results (with some AC anomaly in one point of the 200 kPa suction results from specimen LTLC-CS5). Cui and Delage. 7a and b and discussed later). 8. Conversely the peak deviator stress is shown to clearly increase with mean net stress.3 below. Whereas this is the expected behaviour of partially saturated uncemented soils due to the effect of suction. 2008). plotting the deviator stress versus matric suction results as well as the q-p´ results plotted in Fig 14 in section 5. the peak strengths are slightly 27 .g. the behaviour NU is likely to be due to the combined effect of suction and the cementation bonds.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT geomaterials (soft rocks) and overconsolidated clays. This is also clearly depicted in Fig. The elastic behaviour range is IP T easily identifiable in the loading stage within 1 % strain. This is consistent with the observed behaviour of uncemented partially saturated soils (e. 1996 and Hamid.

MA NU which is difficult to explain. The former devices were not adequate in measuring post peak volume changes of brittle specimens as they soon lost alignment and their measurements became meaningless (see Zhang et al. This could be attributed to the reduction in the matric suction. Figure 7(a) presents selected volumetric strain vs. 2014). Fig. 2012 and Zhang et al. 7 (a) Volumetric strain and (b) pore water pressure variation with axial strain 28 .ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT lower compared to the CS tests (see Fig. with a discrepancy noted between the LTLC-CS8 and LTLC-CW2 only (at 200 kPa suction). Namely two of the triaxial systems were equipped with local LVDT transducers whereas one system used the newly developed and validated laser sensor AC volume change measurement apparatus presented in Zhang et al (2012) and Zhang et al (2014). The reason why D the latter plots are shown for some of the specimens only is because not all triaxial TE systems used in this study could give reliable volume change measurements for the CE P brittle specimens. Hence only the volumetric strain data based on the latter system (able to cover the whole range of strains involved in the testing) are shown in this paper. These ultimate stresses were essentially the same as those of the respective CS specimens. In the post peak region the pore SC R pressures gradually reduced until ultimate stresses were achieved. consistent with the increase in pore water pressure IP T when reaching the peak (plotted in Figure 7 (b)). axial strain results. 6(b)).

dilatancy increased with increasing suction. On the other hand. axial strain results (Fig. as it would be the case for an uncemented particulate material but instead due to the cementation bonding created by lime treatment. 7(a)) show that as opposed to the untreated London Clay specimens. The figures are complemented with peak stress results for the saturated lime-treated soil.e. Note that the lime-treated specimens showed the CE P dilating tendency after. Hamid.. 29 .g. the peak strength was mobilised well before the maximum rate of dilation. The amount of contraction decreased with increasing suction. 1993) and implies that the extra component of strength manifested as peak strength is not due to dilatancy.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The volumetric strain vs. 2008). which is consistent with the stress–strain behaviour TE of the soils presented in Fig. Figure 8 shows plots of peak and ultimate deviator stress versus matric suction. Vaughan. which were continuously contracting (consistently IP T with the stress–strain curves). It can thus be argued that as dilation only happens upon softening. With continuous shearing. rather than before the peak stress. 1990. the majority of the specimens appear to tend towards D constant total volumetric strains. the lime-treated specimens showed an initial SC R contraction followed by some dilation. This conforms with published AC results on lithified materials (Leroueil and Vaughan. higher net stresses NU appear to increasingly suppress dilatancy of the specimens. for the same level of mean net stress. this is consistent with the breakage of the cementation bonds created by lime treatment. which is consistent with MA the reported behaviour of partially saturated uncemented soils (e. i. 6(a)-(c). whereas for the same suction.

2003).1 Wetting induced swelling: Identification of the Suction Decrease (SD) yield line AC The analysis refers to the results of the suction unloading (suction decrease due to wetting) tests of the lime-treated soil plotted in Figure 4(b). SC R whereas the ultimate deviator stress is shown to be practically unaffected by the levels of suction considered in this study (there is some variation and one anomaly for the 200 kPa suction-200 kPa net stress results -noted earlier. the ‘turning point’ between the two lines can be defined as the yield suction (Zhan.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT based on results presented elsewhere (Mavroulidou et al. the MA usual scatter of the experimental results). Figure 8 clearly illustrates the dependence of the peak deviator stress on the suction level and IP T suggests a non-linear relationship between peak shear strength and matric suction. NU variation in the rest of the results does not appear to be considerable. The results will be analysed using the concept of a suction decrease (SD) yield locus postulated in the well-known BBM model (Alonso et al. 2011 and 2013b). Mathematical description of the results 5. 1990). 4a) 30 . The bilinear relationship was identified as: v  vs   s ln( s  Pat ) within the elastic zone pat (Eqn. From Figure 4(b) it can be seen that for low mean net stresses the resulting curve tends to be bilinear. 8 Peak and ultimate deviator stress envelopes for various suction levels CE P 5. to refer to the occurrence of plastic deformation due to wetting.but other than this. in view of the TE D Fig.

Fig.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT s  Pat ) within the plastic zone pat (Eqn. This is consistent with the improvement brought about by lime in terms of volumetric stability upon wetting noted in section 4. which can give inclination angles of the SD yield line larger than 45° (e. AC 2003).2 Isotropic compression: Identification of the Loading Collapse (LC) yield curve Consistently with the analysis presented in the previous section. 4(a) and (b)). The assumption of zero yield at 200 kPa net stress gives a straight SD yield line inclined at 45° in the s: plane as CE P initially suggested by Gens & Alonso (1992).g. Zhan. the isotropic compression results will be analysed using the 31 . using the concept of the SD yield curve. Combining the yield suction at different mean net stress obtained from the various MA tests (see Fig. vκs is the specific volume corresponding to NU the yield suction and Ns is the specific volume at zero suction. respectively. 9 SD yield line for lime-treated London Clay 5. which showed that the nature of the initially shrinking/swelling London Clay soil changed to that of a soil of low swelling potential due to lime treatment. the SD yield line s  p  200 was plotted in Figure 9. and unlike data for expansive soils. D The inclination of the SD yield line shows the effect of the mean net stress on the TE yielding of the lime treated London Clay upon wetting. 4b) T v  N s  s ln( IP where  s and s are stiffness parameters with respect to a change in matric suction in SC R the elastic and plastic zone.1 above.

1990) 32 . which can be attributed to the effect of the lime on the soil structure /cementation bonding. The increased yield stress of the lime-treated soil indicates that the elastic range is enlarged. The two curves reflect the considerable increase in the yield stress of the lime treated London Clay compared to that of the untreated London Clay and for this AC reason the lime-treated LC curve moved to the right-hand side of the untreated soil LC. Although only three points were available for the TE untreated soil these were also used to draw a tentative LC curve for the purposes of CE P comparison. This curve is defined from the yield points of specimens with IP T identical stress histories subjected to isotropic loading under constant suction. The LC hardening behaviour (Gens & Alonso. 1992). 1990). The shape of the resulting LC yield curve was consistent with that D proposed by Alonso et al. 10 LC yield curves of lime-treated and untreated London Clay based on isotropic compression tests To express the LC curve mathematically. (1990).. both the BBM model (Alonso et al. SC R will expand once the load applied exceeds the yield stress.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT concept of the Loading. Fig.Collapse (LC) yield curve. reflecting the suction NU The Loading Collapse (LC) yield curves of the lime treated soil based on the isotropic MA loading tests were identified according to the approach proposed by Alonso (1990) (see Fig 10). postulated in the BBM model (Alonso et al.

However as discussed above the value of λ(s) was not easily identifiable due to the non-linearity IP T of the NCL of the lime-treated soil and due to the fact that the slopes λ(s) for lime- SC R treated soil found in this study are likely to be related to initial yield rather than yield associated with the complete breakage of cementation bonds. 5a) (Eqn. 5b) where A1 and A2 are the intercepts at suction s=0 kPa of the lines defined in Eqn 5a and 5b respectively. Therefore both paths were considered in the suggested alternative mathematical expression of the LC D curve. To demonstrate the procedure. namely a bilinear and a double exponential expression:  Case A: bilinear fitting v  A1  B1 ln( s  pat s  pat ) .ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT and Wheeler and Shivakumar’s (1995) model involve the parameter λ(s). This reflects the fact that the isotropic MA yield behaviour is associated with both the loading and wetting paths. first the relationship of wetting-induced swelling with respect to CE P the decrease in suction in the v:s space from data plotted in Figure 11(a) was established (in this figure the plotted v values represent the final specific volumes AC recorded during wetting at each suction level). ln( )  sd pat pat v  A2  B2 ln( s  pat ). pat ln( s  pat )  sd pat (Eqn. An expression that would not involve the post yield parameter λ(s) was therefore introduced for the NU description of the presented experimental data. To express this relationship mathematically two different fitting expressions were tried. B1 and B2 are the slopes of the lines defined in Eqn 5a and 5b 33 . data of the wetting path under a mean net stress TE of 20 kPa was used.

The yield points identified using Casagrande’s method presented in Table 4 are also added on the graph (Fig. 7) TE v  a1 exp(b1 D  MA NU v  2.045  0. sd is the yield suction factor during the wetting where pat is the IP T atmospheric air pressure (100 kPa). 6a) (Eqn. b1 and b2 are curve-fitting parameters. Based on the experimental data. 6b) Case B: double exponential function fitting: s  pat s  pat )  a2 exp(b2 ) pat pat (Eqn. 11(b)).03 pat pat (Eqn.03 ln( CE P where a1 . Using units of kPa for the suction and atmospheric pressure. ln( )  1.9876  0. a2 . it can be noted that in the v: plane.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT respectively. the curve-fitting gave the AC following expression: (Eqn. the resulting curve-fitting equations were as follows: ln( s  pat )  1. From this figure. This can now be plotted against mean net stress.092 ln( s  pat ). the yield points can be reasonably assumed to fall on a straight line. This line can be fitted as: 34 . pat SC R v  1.03 pat s  pat s  pat ) . 8) The final specific volume recorded during wetting is the initial specific volume prior to the isotropic compression.

For AC example using the double-exponential function (Eqn 7) and Eqn (9). SC R For the case of the lime-treated soil the fitted line was found to be:  p   v  2. the LC yield curve (Fig 11 (c)). and equating the right hand side parts of the two equations gives: a1 * exp(b1  p  s  pat s  pat  )  a2 * exp(b2 )  N y  y ln  pat pat  pat  (Eqn. thus described without the use of the parameter λ(s). 9) T where Ny and λy are respectively the intercept on the yield compression line at a IP reference pressure of pat and is the slope of the yield compression line in v: plane. an CE P expression relating directly suction and yield stress can be obtained and hence. 11 Demonstration of an alternative procedure to mathematically describe the LC yield curve based on the wetting and isotropic loading paths 35 . Fig. 11) Note that following the above procedure a relationship can also be determined between suction and isotropic compression yield mean net stress shown in Figure 11. 10) NU Note that before yield the change in specific volume of the lime-treated soil was very MA small and was therefore ignored. TE Working with the above mentioned relationships in the v:s and v: planes.0625  0.086 ln   pat  (Eqn.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT  p   v  N y   y ln   pat  (Eqn. Thus the specific volumes represented in Figure D 11(a) (end of wetting stage volumes) are also assumed to be the same until the yield.

the results of 36 . suction CE P Fig. From the figures it can be seen that both expressions fit the available results very well. The predicted LC curves using the above procedure and the two different SC R descriptions of the v:s curves are shown in Figure 13. On the same graph. The peak strength and ultimate (end of test) strengths identified in section 4.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The predicted specific volume and suction relationship using the two different descriptions of the curve (bilinear and double exponential respectively) is shown in IP T Figure 12. together with the critical state line of the untreated London Clay soil. 13 Predicted LC yield curve AC 5.3 Shear behaviour of the lime-treated soil For the sake of convenience the shearing testing results will be interpreted by considering separately the contributions from mean net stress and suction. the Peak Strength Line (PSL) and Ultimate Strength Line (USL) were therefore plotted in Figure 14. 12 Predicted specific volume vs. more experimental data would be needed to confirm which MA expression gives the closest fit in this range. Based on the values of Table 5.3 above will be used for the analysis. there are some small observed differences in the fitted curves based on the two different expressions at suctions NU higher than 100 kPa. TE D Fig.

88 corresponding to an angle of internal friction of  c D =22. 1968). 0. 14) the ultimate strength lines according to the results appear to be slightly different than the CSL of the saturated soils. For the saturated lime-treated soil it NU was found that the peak angle of friction was  p =26.86 and 0. 2011). with a slope of M=0. For the partially saturated lime-treated soil (Fig. This implies that lime did not CE P affect the frictional characteristics of the clay soil and that the observed improvement in the shear strength manifested in terms of peak strengths was thus due to the AC differences in the soil structure before and after lime treatment (including bonding due to cementing compounds induced by lime). 200 kPa and 300 kPa respectively (presumably due to suction effects) giving however an average slope of 0. of 100 kPa.82.88 which is the value of the 37 . The volumetric strain behaviour upon shearing confirmed this.95 for suctions s.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT saturated lime treated and untreated London Clay specimens published elsewhere (Mavroulidou et al.5°. This value is consistent with values reported in the TE literature for London Clay (Schofield and Wroth. According to Mavroulidou et al (2011). 2011) were also included for the sake of comparison between IP T saturated and partially saturated states. the SC R saturated lime-treated soil specimens also showed a strain softening behaviour whereas the untreated soil presented a typical hardening behaviour. whereas the results for both MA soils (treated and untreated) could be expressed by a unique Critical State line in the q:p' plane. from linear regression the slopes of the USLs were found to be 0.5˚ (Mavroulidou et al.

and 17 CE P TE Fig.88 (where M is the critical state parameter of the saturated soil) the values of Mb were calculated as shown in 1 The anomalous point of the LTLC-CS5 was excluded from the analysis of the results (curve fitting and determination of the parameter Mb) 38 . while maintaining the slope M of the CSL for saturated conditions. Based on Alonso et al (1990) assumptions that Mα=M=0. Note that in the original BBM model.e. 14 q-p' plots (drained shearing / CS tests) The critical state of the partially saturated soil in the q-(p-uα) plane can be written as AC (Toll. 1990): q= Mα (p .. 14).ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT critical state parameter M of the saturated untreated (and treated) soil1. Alonso et al (1990) suggest that a critical state line (CSL) IP T for non-zero suction will represent the increased strength induced by suction in terms SC R of an increase in the apparent cohesion.uα) and Mb is the critical state stress ratio with respect to the matric suction (uα.uα)+Mb(uα. about 50 kPa for NU s=100 kPa. MA could be considered the same due to the usual scatter of experimental data). 46 kPa for s=200 kPa (which is actually quite close to that of 100kPa and D kPa for s= 300 kPa (see Fig. 12) where Mα is the critical state stress ratio with respect to the mean net stress (p .uw). The intercepts of the best fit lines through the ultimate stress points for each suction level are found to decrease with suction i.uw) (Eqn.

Unlike the findings in Toll et al (2008) for an artificially bonded sand. 0.64 for suctions of 100 kPa.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 6. Toll and Ong. showing NU that for  a =   (equivalent to Mα=M) the angle  b exceeded   which is unrealistic MA (hence Toll et al suggested that a value of  a >   should have been used to overcome this issue). AC variables CE P Table 6. linear regression gave the slopes of the PSLs as 0. 39 .e. it was found that Mb was not a constant and generally decreased with suction (with one irregularity in the trends for the LTLC-02 IP T specimen. 1996. suggesting that the additional peak strength is mainly dependent on the lime-induced bonding. This implies SC R that there is a drop in Mb with the gradual desaturation of the material as reported elsewhere for untreated partially saturated soils (Vanapalli et al.73. The PSL was much higher than the USL in each individual suction level. Partially saturated lime-treated specimens: critical state values of the state From Figure 14. 200 kPa and 300 kPa respectively. To fit the presented data.69 and 0. the PSL slope decreased with suction. clearly TE D lower than Mα. 2003). i. probably because the test terminated earlier than the others). here the value of Mα set equal to M gave sensible values of Mb.

15) 40 . which is a function of suction (because the difference in CE P peak values between the treated and untreated partially saturated soil was not constant for different suctions). whereas qc is the cementation bonding (‘true’ cohesion) at saturated conditions and can be taken as 80 kPa.. i. 14) c where nc is the suction-dependent cementation bonding component. applicable for partially saturated conditions. the value of the intercept of the PSL of the saturated lime treated soil in Figure 14.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT For the mathematical description of the peak strength of partially saturated lime treated specimens we adapted Toll’s (1990) critical state line expression for partially IP T saturated soils. 13) MA where the stress ratio parameters na and nb describe the components of shear strength associated respectively with the uncoupled stress state variables (p-ua) and (ua –uw) in TE D a similar fashion as in Toll (1990) and Toll and Ong (2003). Substitution of Eqn 14 into Eqn 13 yields: q  n ( p  u )  (n  n )(u  u )  q a a b c a w c (Eqn. It was thus assumed that the peak strength of artificially cemented SC R specimens could be associated with three components: (a) a mean net stress component. (b) a suction component and (c) a cementation bonding component. f(c) can thus be expressed as: f (c)  n (u  u )  q AC c a w (Eqn. the PSL was represented by the following equation: q  n ( p  u )  n (u  u )  f (c) a a b a w (Eqn. f(c) is the additional cementation bonding effect.e. NU Therefore.

in addition to those of the lime-treated partially saturated soil. whose effect is likely to be coupled 2. the above IP T equation reduces to the PSL expression for saturated soils.7873 a a w (Eqn. It should be noted that the SC R value of (ηb+ηc) is expected to vary for different lime percentages.0005 * (u  u )  0. 1990 due to the narrow ranges of Sr considered in this study). The mathematical expression of ηa and mean (ηb+ηc) according to the experimental curve-fitting of the results are respectively: n  0. For the constant suction tests ηa was found from regression analysis of the NU experimental data for each specimen.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT where (ηb+ηc) is the stress ratio incorporating chemically-induced bonding and suction. For the constant water content tests the parameters ηa and average (ηb+ηc) were AC determined as a function of suction (and not a function of the degree of saturation. 41 . 16) 2 To determine each one of these two parameters nb and nc individually. as in Toll. The calculated parameters ηa and mean (ηb+ηc) and resulting predictions of CE P TE deviator stresses for the constant suction tests are given in Table 7. respectively and their values shown in Table 7. When suction is zero. which would necessitate a large number of data on the untreated partially saturated soil. The value of (ηb+ηc) was then determined from MA Eqn 15. The experimental data and fitting curves for ηa and mean (ηb+ηc) are plotted in Figures 15 and 16. The average value of (ηb+ηc) at each suction level was then calculated and used for the prediction of the peak strength according to Eqn 15 (note that ηa was not D averaged). a relationship between cementation bonding component and suction is needed. Sr .

CE P Table 7. (ηb+ηc) and predicted peak deviator stresses qp for lime treated AC specimens (CS tests) Table 8.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT n  n  55. 16 Variation of term (nb + nc) with suction SC R IP T Fig. compression and shearing was investigated via suction-controlled triaxial testing. (see Table 8 and TE D Figure 17 depicting the predicted and the measured peak deviator stresses).42 * (u  u ) b c a 0.606 (Eqn. The paper 42 .37%). the peak deviator stresses qp of the three CW specimens MA were successfully predicted (with a maximum error of -1. Conclusions The mechanical behaviour of lime treated London Clay during wetting. 17 Predicted peak deviator stress qp 6. Predicted peak deviator stresses qp for lime treated specimens (CW tests) Fig. Values of ηα. 17) w Fig. 15 Variation of parameter nα with suction NU Using the above expressions.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT provided valuable data of suction controlled testing of lime-treated soils and addressed the corresponding behaviour of the lime-treated soil. It was thus shown that the partially saturated lime treated soil could be described within the framework of constitutive models commonly used for untreated partially saturated soils with only occasional modifications. They TE also indicated that for the range of suctions considered in this study chemically CE P induced bonding had a major effect on the properties and behaviour of the soil. with the exception of the compressibility behaviour of the lime-treated soil. Although the results presented are specific to London SC R Clay. Thus. the behaviour of the partially saturated lime treated soil presented behaviour trends consistent with the reported behaviour of uncemented partially saturated soils regarding the effect of suction or mean net stress. AC It was also shown that although the properties of the soil have obviously changed upon lime treatment. increased yield stress and reduced compressibility upon compression) and shear strength within ranges of strain D relevant to engineering design (despite the observed strain softening behaviour). within an unsaturated IP T soil mechanics framework. experience indicates that the behaviour of other highly plastic clays treated with lime will follow similar trends. some simple procedures for the analysis of the results of this type of soil were suggested and successfully applied to the mathematical 43 . NU Overall the experimental results showed the beneficial effect of the lime on the MA volumetric properties (reduced swelling upon wetting.

H.. E. 44 . A. E.M. 3-32. .. Josa. These consisted in (a) an alternative. Alonso. cement and Sarooj (artificial pozzolanic) on the swelling potential of an expansive soil from Oman.E. and Pinyol N. A. Durham. Unsaturated Soils: Advances in Geo-Engineering.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT description of the results.40(3). Al-Rawas. NU Acknowledgements MA The work presented in this paper was carried out at London South Bank University during the doctoral studies of the first author. 681–687. 1990. A. CRC Press/Balkema. simple method of determining the LC yield equation combining the wetting induced swelling curve and IP T the LC yield compression lines and (b) an expression used to interpret the peak SC R strengths of the partially saturated lime treated soil to account for the combined effect of mean net stress. A constitutive model for partially saturated AC soils. W. pp. Building and Environment.. 40 (5). Al-Sarmi. Augarde CE. Géotechnique. July 2-4 2008. Wheeler SJ (eds). 2008. A. CE P References Alonso. A. E. . Hago. 2005. funded by the UK Engineering and TE D Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) through grant EP/E037305/1. suction and cementation bonding. E-UNSAT 2008. 405-430. Effect of lime. Unsaturated soil mechanics in earth and rockfill dam engineering In: Toll DG.. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Unsaturated Soils. Gallipoli D.. Gens. UK. London.

Milton Keynes. Methods of test for Soils for Civil TE Engineering Purposes. “Alteration of soil parameters by stabilization with lime”. 46(2).. D British Standards Institution BSI.. Vol. IP T Bell F.K. Chen. Engineering Geology. pp.-H. 321-329. 233-250. water volume change.. D. BSI. H. and yield associated with an unsaturated compacted loess. M. J. PhD Thesis. Canadian geotechnical journal 36. Mechanical behaviour and modelling of unsaturated soils.. Gan. 64.. In: MA Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Cui. Overall volume change.1996.. 1999. CE P British Standards Institution BSI. 587-594. BS 1377: Parts 2-5.G.. Yielding and plastic behaviour of an unsaturated compacted silt. 223-237. Engineering Geology.. The principle of effective stress. Y.. BS 1924: Part 2. 1990b. 291-311. 1981. NU Brandl. UK. South Bank University. 2002. P.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Barker J. 2002. 3. Cui. Delage. Géotechnique. 2001. AC Cabarkapa. SC R 42. 1959.. University of Birmingham.. Stabilized Materials for Civil Engineering purposes. Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils. Y. and Delage. E. Ion migration associated with lime piles. Fredlund. UK. 1990a. Z. PhD thesis. Bishop. BSI. Stockholm 15-19 June 1981. P. A. W. London. A model for the volume change behavior of heavily compacted swelling clays. 45 . J. Z. Tecknisk Ukeblad 106 (39): 859-863. Milton Keynes. Yahia-Aissa.. 1996.

India. N. 261-276. 1996. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Unsaturated Soils. Gan...A.. Constitutive relations for volume change in unsaturated soils. Canadian Geotechnical J. Rahardjo. G. Fredlund. 313-321. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. UNSAT’2002. The shear strength of TE unsaturated soils. R. D. 33 (3). A. V. vol 3. Nonlinearity of strength envelop for unsaturated soils. Balkema. K. Xing.. and Alonso. E. 13(3). 1986. Juca JFT. A. 49-54. Escario. J. NU Géotechnique. 1978. G. 1992. Canadian geotechnical journal. . M. Mechanisms of soil-lime stabilization: an interpretive review. 973-996.B. Morgenstern.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Delage. R.L. 15(3). J.B. 83–101. D. pp. P. T. and Morgenstern. and Saez. Unsaturated Soils: Advances in Geo-Engineering. . Augarde CE. The shear strength of partly saturated soils. Recife. Rotterdam.. 92. Fredlund. Conf.D.. 36(3). E. In: Unsaturated soils Proc. Hamid T. N. CE P Fredlund.. Conf. 11-22. on Unsaturated Soils.. Ultimate shear strength of unsaturated soils. In: Proc. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 453-456.. Widger R.. 2008. 6th Int. Wheeler SJ (eds).... In: Toll DG. Brazil. Experimental unsaturated soil mechanics. D Fredlund.. . Gens. 440-448. Highways Research Board Record. S. F. SC R Diamond S and Kinter E. 2004. E-UNSAT 2008. Gallipoli D. The relationship of the unsaturated soil shear strength to the soil-water characteristic curve. R. AC Balkema. 46 . New Delhi. M. Barbour. De Campos IP T TMP. D. MA Fredlund. 1987. Marino FAM (eds). A framework for the behaviour of unsaturated expansive clays. pp. on Expansive Soils.G. 1965. J. 33. 1976. D. 3rd Int.

J. Stabilizer Diffusion in Swelling Soils. 1982. . TE Imperial College London. . 432-448. pp. R. pp. 2005. CE P Leroueil. G. Geotechnics of Hard Soils and Weak Rocks. 1990. Gunn M. F. AC Matyas. Volume change characteristics of partially saturated soils. In: Unsaturated Soils 47 . 5(1/2). Cabarkapa Z...H. 1013-1018 Mavroulidou M. S. 2009. UK. A. Tsatsanifos C. 18-25..ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Durham. SC R GSP 187. (eds) Proceedings of the XV European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal. July 2-4 2008. 2011. L.. 1990. A multi-stage triaxial test for unsaturated soils. Athens 12-15 September 2011. Scullion T. M.. D. and Geo-Support. 18.. Iskander M.. NU New York MA Ho. D Jotisankasa. London. (Eds) ASCE ISBN (print): 978-0-7844-1023-3 Hausmann MR . Géotechnique. D. E. Laefer D. F. McGraw-Hill.J. Harris P. Problem Soils. Y. Zhang X. 467-488. CRC Press/Balkema. Mechanical properties of a saturated lime-treated clay soil. Engineering principles of ground modification.. H. P.. 1968. The general and congruent effects of structure in natural soils and weak rocks.. 2012. An investigation of the effects of cementation and suction on lime treated London Clay. Géotechnique. 40(3). IOS Press Amsterdam. . UK. S. and Radhakrishna. X. In: GeoFlorida IP T 2009 Contemporary Topics in Ground Modification. PhD thesis. and Hussein.. Zhang. Pachakis M. and Fredlund. In: Anagnostopoulos A. and Vaughan. Collapse behaviour of a compacted silty clay. 429-434. Gunn M. Mavroulidou M.

ISBN: 987-616-7522-77-7 SC R Mavroulidou M. NLA. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 1151-1154. Zhang X. Spain.. Rao. Jotisankasa et AC manual2004. 31(4). Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. (eds). 37. C. Paris 2-5 September 2013. 2005. F. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.. Characterization and thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour of unsaturated Boom clay: an experimental study. Bulletin 326.. M.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2011: Theory and Practice.J. 1999. Cabarkapa Z. Proceedings of the 5th Asian-Pacific Conference on Unsaturated Soils.. Lime-treated soil construction manual. In: 18th International Conference for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. P. Kichou Z. S.. Hydro-mechanical MA properties of lime-treated London Clay. 2004. 309-319... Gunn M. Accessed 19/11/2014 Rampino. PhD thesis. and Shivananda. 748763. Gunn M J. . Compressibility behaviour of lime-stabilized clay. 2000.lime. NU Mavroulidou M. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. pp. Arlington (Online). 2013b. D National Lime Association (NLA) . E.. and Vinale. Papaya.. pp. 2013a. C.. Barcelona.. Thailand . Mancuso. Zhang X.. Romero. Kasetsart University IP T Thailand.pdf . Experimental behaviour and modelling of an unsaturated compacted soil. 527-532. 23. CE P Available from TE Lime stabilization & lime modification. http://www. 1171-1185. High Plasticity Clay. 48 . Water Retention and Compressibility of a Lime-Treated.

40(1). 2000. UK. D. SC R PhD Thesis. A. University of Oxford. V. 2003.. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Influence of compaction procedure on the D mechanical behaviour of an unsaturated compacted clay Part 1: Wetting and isotropic TE compression. G. 49 . Géotechnique. Gallipoli. K. G. MA University of Sheffield. Sivakumar. and Wroth. McGraw Hill.. S. PhD Thesis. AC Toll. P. Toll. W. 1993.. pp... B. UK. and Ong. 33. D.. J. 93–103. 1968. IP T Sharma. Ali Rahman. Critical state parameters for an unsaturated residual sandy clay... J. Critical State Soil Mechanics. CRC Press. S. E. Soil Stabilization with Cement and Lime. P. G. H. Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction. Fredlund. Z. C. & Wheeler. 2008. S. 1990. Augarde.. D.. R. A. 53(1). D. A critical state framework for unsaturated soils..T.. London. A framework for unsaturated soil behaviour. D. 359-368 31-44. Sherwood.. 1998. 379-392. G. London. Géotechnique. G. Mechanical behaviour of unsaturated highly expansive clays. D.) Proceedings 1st European Conference on Unsaturated Soils. Gallipoli. E. Vanapalli. Clifton. 1996.. 435-440. In: Toll. Pufahl. Géotechnique 50(4). and Wheeler.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Schofield.. S. D. (eds. D. NU Sivakumar. Critical state conditions for an unsaturated artificially bonded soil. CE P Toll. V. 1993.HMSO. Durham..

M. 2014. S. 1995. J.. vol 3. 6-8 September 2010. Barcelona. L. V. 2012. Kichou Z. Application of a novel laser sensor volume measurement system to the triaxial testing of an unsaturated lime-treated soil. Cabarkapa Z.. Gunn MJ. 751-763 Zhang X. and Sivakumar. Géotechnique 50 ( 4). Sutton J. pp. Field and Laboratory study of an unsaturated expansive soil TE associated with rain-induced slope instability. Rotterdam.R. Sutton J. pp. Mavroulidou M. 35-53. In: 5th International Conference on Unsaturated Soils UNSAT2010.. J... 369-376 D Zhan. Engineering behaviour of soft rocks. 2010. Acta Geotechnica 9: 945–957. 1-5.. Géotechnique.. Mavroulidou M. Cabarkapa Z. Wheeler. Gunn M. Some answers and some questions. 2000.. 50 . 45(1).. Cabarkapa. X. T. Z.. Kalteziotis and Frank (eds) IP T Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks.J. In: Anagnostopoulos. V.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Vaughan P. SC R 1741-1766.. 2003.. Zhang X. Influence of compaction procedure on the MA mechanical behaviour of an unsaturated compacted clay. Zhang. An elasto-plastic critical state framework for unsaturated soil. Gunn M. A novel laser sensor measurement system for the triaxial testing of unsaturated soils. Part 2: shearing and constitutive modelling. NU Wheeler. Mavroulidou.. Balkema. Schlosser..J. and Sivakumar. Geotechnical Testing Journal 35 (5). A study of soil water AC retention characteristics of lime-treated and untreated London Clay. 1993. Hong Kong University of CE P Science and Technology.. S.. PhD thesis.

73 30 1.75 26 1.26 IP GS 38 35 TE Soil Type MA Table 2 Physical characteristics of untreated and 4% lime treated London Clay soils 89 54 London Clay AC (4% lime) 51 .ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 1 Composition of London Clay soil used in this study Clay content % 51 SC R 50 26 15 9 4% 45% NU Illite (%) Smectite (%) Kaolinite (%) Chlorite (%) Sand Silt IP T of which: (%) (%) 64 CE P Lime-treated wP D London Clay wL 26 Standard Proctor wopt (%) Standard Proctor ρdmax (g/cm3) 2.43 2.

97 0.930 78.9 200 δσ3=0 CS 26.78 0.87 0.923 73.945 76. kPa Stress Path Initial conditions Type w (%) e Sr (%) 0% 50 0 100 δσ3=0 Drained 24.938 77.928 78.940 78.9 100 N/A* N/A 26. kPa p' or (p-ua).82 0.5 100 δσ3=0 CS 26.923 73.82 0.90 0.6 20-530-23-100 N/A N/A 26.931 78.3 200 δσ3=0 CW 26.80 0.941 77. mm Suction level.930 73.3 100 δσ3=0 CS 26.8 300 20-1200 N/A N/A 26.07 0.931 78.78 0.8 0.9 LC-CS1 0% 38 200 100 δσ3=0 Drained LC-CS2 0% 38 300 200 δσ3=0 Drained 24.7 38 300 δσ3=0 CS 26.925 79.5 300 δσ3=0 CS 26.92 0.931 78.2 N/A N/A 26.928 78.76 0.2 LC-SAT2 0% 38 0 200 δσ3=0 Drained 25.95 0.91 0.8 LTLC-IS1 4% 38 0 300 N/A LTLC-IS2 4% 38 50 20-400-20 LTLC-IS3 4% 38 100 LTLC-IS4 4% 50 LTLC-IS5 4% 50 LTLC-CS1 4% 38 LTLC-CS2 4% 38 LTLC-CS3 4% LTLC-CS4 4% LTLC-CS5 4% LTLC-CS6 4% LTLC-CS7 4% LTLC-CS8 4% LTLC-CS9 4% LTLC-CW1 4% LTLC-CW2 4% 38 LTLC-CW3 4% 38 LTLC-W1 4% 50 LTLC-W2 4% 50 NU LC-SAT1 AC SC R Lime % Specimen ID Shearing IP Consolidation/ Compression T Table 3 List of tests and specimen characteristics after compaction 73.5 200 δσ3=0 CS 26.918 80.4 300 δσ3=0 CW 26.9 38 100 δσ3=0 CS 26.938 77.00 0.80 0.9 LC-IS1 0% 38 0 5-570-5 N/A N/A 24.7 200 N/A* N/A 26.4 38 100 δσ3=0 CW 27.9 N/A 27.82 0.931 78.932 78.6 200 δσ3=0 CS 26.60 0.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Specimen Dia.931 100 200 38 38 38 300 300 500-0 (wetting path) 25 *These were Soil Water Retention Curve tests demonstrating the effect of stress state (see Fig 4a and b) 52 .931 77.93 0.8 38 300 δσ3=0 CS 26.931 78.60 0.928 73.9 200 20-1000-20 N/A N/A 26.89 0.9 LC-IS2 0% 38 300 200 N/A N/A 24.69 0.921 74.0 D TE CE P 38 MA 0.97 0.931 78.00 0.933 78.

Results of suction-controlled shearing tests 784 849 LTLC-CS6 300 966 3% 2.25 4.53 2.53% LTLC-CS7 LTLC-CS8 100 200 836 957 5% 5.96% 300 870 945 1015 1.047 0.048 2.16 2. 300 880 2.22 2.53 2.2% AC 100 200 200 300 LTLC-CS9 LTLC-CW1 100 LTLC-CW2 200 LTLC-CW3 300 4.11 4. Soil parameters from isotropic compression data p c  (s) N (s) 0 200 300 0 50 100 200 300 35 80 180 130 180 260 340 400 0.38 2.62%.27 N/A 2.049 IP T s (kPa) SC R Specimen LC-IS1 LC-CS1* LC-IS2 LTLC-IS1 LTLC-IS2 LTLC-IS3 LTLC-IS4 LTLC-IS5 NU *Specimen LC-CS1 was used to complement the data for the yield stress but the λ(s) MA and N(s) could not be determined due to the limited extent of the data LTLC-CS0* LTLC-CS4 LTLC-CS5 TE LTLC-CS1 LTLC-CS2 LTLC-CS3 Peak Strain range (%) for Mean net Ratio of peak Suction deviator peak strength stress /ultimate (kPa) stress (kPa) deviator stress (kPa) 3% 100 689 3. 3.95 1.027 0.064 0.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 4.1% 4.065 2.041 2.6%.22 2.80 3.031 0. Partially saturated lime-treated specimens: critical state values of the state 53 .66% 2.59 2% 100 200 791 2.2% 50 668 1.139 N/A 0.25 *Not plotted in Figures 6(a)-(b) for the sake of clarity in the presentation of the plots Table 6.67 CE P Specimen ID D Table 5.014 2.028 2.29 4.6 300 1032 3.058 0.

88 0.85 LTLC-CW3 247 1010 637 0.336 3.88 0.64 1.243 779 849 483 0.564 859 791 364 0.31 0.73 3.88 0.799 1.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Mα Mb 0.840 1.64 1.564 677 784 461 0.243 862 957 619 0.18 IP (uα -uw) (kPa) 100 100 100 200 200 300 300 300 SC R (p-uα) (kPa) 162 289 439 162 443 158 295 450 NU q (kPa) 192 268 417 186 429 174 283 450 T variables MA Table 7.822 878 966 522 0.935 -0.899 936.891 856.822 961 1032 644 0.98 (p-ua)p (kPa) na (nb+nc) regressed mean qp(kPa) predicted Error (%) 54 .828 1.65 1.69 2.88 0.78 5.300 2.65 2.166 668 689 330 0.88 0.166 5.672 3.37 LTLC-CW2 274 945 515 0.243 956 880 393 0.20 0.88 0.69 2.65 1.12 0.22 0. (ηb+ηc) and predicted peak deviator stress qp for lime treated LTLC-CS0 (ua-ua)p (kPa) 50 LTLC-CS1 LTLC-CS2 100 LTLC-CS4 LTLC-CS5 LTLC-CS6 200 AC LTLC-CS7 LTLC-CS8 na regressed (nb+nc) calculated (nb+nc) mean 300 LTLC-CS9 qp(kPa) predicted 668 423 0.49 0.73 3.88 0.564 773 836 579 0.64 1.73 3.683 3.249 2.070 -0. Values of ηα.822 1039 CE P LTLC-CS3 qp(kPa) (p-ua)p Measured (kPa) TE Specimen ID D specimens (CS tests) Table 8.179 2.021 1000.69 2. Predicted peak deviator stresses qp for lime treated specimens (CW tests) Specimen ID (ua-ua)p (kPa) qp(kPa) Measured LTLC-CW1 276 868 389 0.125 -1.08 0.88 0.14 0.



























Fig. 12












Fig. 13












Fig. 14





triaxial T  IP testing) We described the behaviour of the lime-treated soil  This was done within an unsaturated soil mechanics framework  We proposed simple expressions for the analysis of results for this soil type AC CE P TE D MA NU SC R  77 . compression.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights We investigated the mechanical behaviour of lime treated London Clay  We performed suction-controlled tests (wetting path.