ENGEO-04074; No of Pages 8

Engineering Geology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Technical note

A testing procedure for predicting strength in artificially cemented soft soils

Nilo Cesar Consoli a,⁎, Daniel Winter b, Andry Soares Rilho b, Lucas Festugato a, Bruno dos Santos Teixeira b
a
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99 — 3 andar, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil
b
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99 — 3 andar, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It is globally recognized that soft soils will have low strength and high compressibility and that under reduced
Received 7 April 2014 loads might collapse or suffer large displacements. In order to reduce settlements and increase bearing capacity
Received in revised form 14 February 2015 of structures built on such soils, their stabilization using cementitious materials such as Portland cement and/or
Accepted 11 June 2015
quicklime (increasing strength and stiffness) is an efficient technique used worldwide. The focus of this research
Available online xxxx
is to present and check the accuracy of a new testing procedure to evaluate strength gain in very soft soils when
Keywords:
using cementation as a means of improvement. This testing procedure was intended to fasten acquiring strength
Soil stabilization results in artificially cemented soft soils. In short, in the proposed procedure the force applied to embed a flat base
Soft soils rod into a soil mass is measured by using high resolution load rings. The proposed flat base rod embedding test
Strength gain evaluation was shown to be adequate for evaluating the gain in strength of cemented soils. Results of embedding flat base
Artificially cemented soils rod strength have unique linear relations with both unconfined compressive strength and splitting tensile
strength, being independent of type and amount of cementitious material (Portland cement and/or quicklime),
as well as of the curing time period. The wrap up of present studies is that the developed testing procedure
can be used as a substitute of unconfined compression and splitting tensile tests as a dosage test, being easier
to mold specimens (might be molded in the field) and faster in acquiring strength results (can be carried out
in a bucket filled with soil and the cementitious material, in which will be attached to the load ring) in artificially
cemented soft soils.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Soft soils are materials that possess many unwanted properties for
engineering projects, such as low strength and high compressibility.
For engineering projects comprising weak soils, one of the most used
methodologies to improve the soil is through the insertion of cemen-
titious materials. Admixture stabilization is a technique of mixing
chemical additives with soil to improve the consistency, strength, defor-
mation characteristics, and permeability of the soil. This improvement
becomes possible by the ion exchange at the surface of clayey minerals,
bonding of soil particles and/or filling of void spaces by chemical reac-
tion products. Although a variety of chemical additives has been devel-
oped and used, most frequently used additives nowadays are cement
and lime due to its availability and cost. The mechanism of the lime
and cement stabilization has been studied extensively in 1960s by the
highway engineers in relation to the improvement of base and sub-
base materials for road construction. The needs of rapid construction
on difficult soil conditions enhanced the application of mass stabiliza-
tion, a new soil improvement method where stabilizer is mixed into
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: consoli@ufrgs.br (N.C. Consoli), danielwinterpoa@gmail.com
(D. Winter), andrysr@gmail.com (A.S. Rilho), lucas@ufrgs.br (L. Festugato),
brunoteixeiras@hotmail.br (B.S. Teixeira).
peat, mud or soft clay. In such technique the whole soft soil mass is
strengthened to a homogeneous slab structure that behaves like dry
crust (Andersson et al., 2001; Jelisic and Leppänen, 2003). Use of
deep binder mixing, named deep mixing method, was developed in
Sweden and Japan in 1970s. The deep mixing utilizes the mixing blades
or augers to manufacture a treated soft soil column of predetermined
size and shape in situ. The strength of treated soft soils is in the order
of 100 to 1000 kPa in terms of unconfined compressive strength
(Terashi and Juran, 2000). This practice has been widely used, as de-
scribed by Lin and Wong (1999), Andromalos et al. (2001) and Hussin
and Garbin (2012). The research group at Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul, Brazil (e.g., Thomé et al., 2005; Consoli et al., 2008,
2009a,b,c, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013a,b, 2014a,b; Festugato et al., 2013;
Faro et al., 2015) has been studying key parameters dictating strength
and stiffness of lime/cement treated soils.
To evaluate the strength gain of a soft soil resulting from the addition
of a cementitious agent, a laboratory study involving the molding of
specimens is usually required. However, a number of obstacles have to
be considered when molding soft soil–cementitious blends for strength
evaluation. For instance, the bottom and the sides of the molds of soft
soils usually having high moisture contents must be made completely
sealed so as to prevent loss of materials (including water), which
might result in difficulties in the unmolding process, and, consequently,
in damage to the artificially cemented specimens.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.005
0013-7952/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Consoli, N.C., et al., A testing procedure for predicting strength in artificially cemented soft soils, Eng. Geol. (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.005
2 N.C. Consoli et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

The wrap up of present studies is that the newly developed testing Table 1
procedure can be used as a substitute of unconfined compression and Nylon rings used in the experiments showing thickness of the walls, maximum applied
forces, resolution and maximum and minimum stresses.
splitting tensile tests as a dosage test, being easier to mold specimens
(might be molded in the field) and faster in acquiring strength results Ring Wall Maximum Resolution Maximum Minimum
(can be carried out in a bucket filled with soil and the cementitious thickness (mm) force (N) (n) stress (kPa) stress (kPa)

material, in which will be attached the load ring) in artificially cemented 1 10 639 0.515 12,780 1.60
soft soils. By carrying out a fast and simple procedure, it is possible to 2 6 121 0.121 2420 0.30
3 3 35 0.035 700 0.09
evaluate the gain in strength during different curing periods in the
same soil sample, minimizing molding problems.

1.1. Novel testing apparatus and procedure
The testing apparatus consists of one or more load rings of various
resolutions, one or more flat base rods, a recipient to accommodate
the treated soil mass and a simple embedding tool. A detailed descrip-
tion of the apparatus is given below.
1.1.1. Load rings
As shown in Fig. 1, three load rings made of nylon, with external
diameter of 220 mm and different wall thicknesses were built and
used during the tests. The characteristics of each ring are detailed in
Table 1. In order to define the embedding strength and resolution of
the load rings, calibration curves with the utilization of know weights
were constructed. Fig. 2 shows the calibration curve for the 10 mm
wall thickness load ring and Table 2 shows the calibration equations
obtained for the three rings. It should be noticed that the resolution of
the rings may be changed by using different materials, such as PVC,
and different wall thicknesses. All tests carried out in present research
used the 10 mm wall thickness load ring.
pushing. Table 3 shows, for each rod, the area of the base, the maximum
pressure transmitted into the soil, and the resolution for each combina-
tion of rod base area and load ring wall thickness. All tests carried out in
present research used a unique flat base rod (with area of 0.5 cm2).
1.1.3. Embedding system
The embedding system may be manual, since the verticality is guar-
anteed and there is no interference from any external element. For the
experiment reported herein, a manually operated 100 kN reaction
frame was utilized.
1.1.4. Soil recipient
The only requirements for the soil recipients are that they are large
enough so that no edge effects occur and that the thickness of the soil
layer is at least four times as deep as the final depth of the embedded
rod. If more than one test is to be performed in the same specimen, it
is recommended that a thin wall be vertically placed within the mass
of highly cemented soil specimens to prevent fissures from propagating
and making other readings unfeasible.

1.1.2. Flat base rods 1.1.5. Modus operandi

Differently from the conventional cone penetrometer, the flat base
rod was designed to avoid interference from lateral friction during
the embedding process, thus entirely transmitting the force to the soil
through the base area of the rod. Four stainless steel flat base rods
with distinct base areas were built and utilized, as shown in Fig. 3. The
rods present groove marks every 5 mm to be used as a reference during
The test involves the determination of the maximum stress applied
to an artificially cemented soil mass, measured during the embedment
of a flat base rod up to a depth of 10 mm. After the load ring and the
flat base rod, selected based on the estimated strength of the material
to be analyzed, are coupled to the embedding system, the flat base rod
is pushed into the soil up to a depth of 10 mm, using the aforementioned

Fig. 1. Load rings.

Please cite this article as: Consoli, N.C., et al., A testing procedure for predicting strength in artificially cemented soft soils, Eng. Geol. (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.005
 N.C. Consoli et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3

Fig. 2. Calibration of load rings with wall thickness of 10 mm (valid for ring measurement in the interval starting in 0.25 mm and reaching 10 mm).

grooves as a reference. The maximum force applied to the soil mass

during the test is determined from the load ring readings by using the
correspondent calibration curve or equation. By dividing this maximum
force by the base area of the rod, the maximum applied stress is then
determined and recorded. Fig. 4 depicts the test setup.
The use of different combinations of rings and flat base rods, as
mentioned previously, allows the evaluation of the gain in strength for
cemented soils in different states, from very soft to very hard soils.

1.2. Splitting tensile tests

Splitting tensile tests followed Brazilian standard NBR 7222 (ABNT,

1983), which is in accordance with standard ASTM C496 (ASTM,
2011). An automatic loading machine with maximum capacity of
50 kN and a proving ring with capacity of 10 kN and resolution of 1 cm
0.005 kN were used for the splitting tensile tests. After curing in the
humid room, the specimens were submerged in a water tank for 24 h
for saturation to minimize suction (Consoli et al., 2011). The water
(a)
temperature was controlled and maintained at about 20 °C, following
Brazilian standard NBR 7222 (ABNT, 1983). Immediately before the
test, the specimens were removed from the tank and dried superficially
with an absorbent cloth. Then, a cylindrical specimen is placed horizon-
tally between the platens of the compression-testing machine. The
specimen is compressed by loading it along two opposite generatrices
leading to failure in tension along the diameter contained in the plane
formed by these two generators (the maximum load is recorded).
The splitting tensile test was originally developed by Carneiro and
Barcellos (1953) as a tension test for brittle materials. As acceptance
criteria, it was stipulated that the individual strengths of three speci-
mens, molded with the same characteristics, should not deviate by
more than 10% from the mean strength.

Table 2 1 cm
Calibration equations for the load rings.

Ring Calibration equation

(b)
1 51.5 N × [ring measurements (mm)] + 124.89
2 12.11 N × [ring measurements (mm)]
Fig. 3. Flat base rods with different base areas: (a) lateral view and (b) underside view for
3 3.52 N × [ring measurements (mm)]
4.0 cm2, 2.0 cm2, 1.0 cm2 and 0.5 cm2 flat base area.

Please cite this article as: Consoli, N.C., et al., A testing procedure for predicting strength in artificially cemented soft soils, Eng. Geol. (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.005
4 N.C. Consoli et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 3 1.4. Experimental program

Area of the flat base rods showing maximum and minimum stresses for each base used
with different load rings.
The experimental program was carried out in three parts. First, the
Base Wall of 10 mm Wall of 6 mm Wall of 3 mm geotechnical properties of the studied soil were characterized. Then a
area series of splitting tensile and unconfined compression tests for organic
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
(cm2)
stress stress stress stress stress stress soft soil–cementitious materials blend specimens was carried out as
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) discussed below. Finally, a new testing procedure intending to over-
0.5 12.78 12,780 2.42 2420 0.70 700 come the difficulties encountered in molding laboratory specimens for
1.0 6.39 6390 1.21 1210 0.35 350 compression and tensile tests from very soft clays and silts was devel-
2.0 3.20 3195 0.61 605 0.18 175 oped, tested and checked against splitting tensile tests considering dis-
4.0 1.60 1598 0.30 302.5 0.09 87.5
tinct types of cementitious materials, amounts of cement/lime, moisture
contents and curing time periods.

1.3. Unconfined compression tests
Unconfined compression tests have been systematically used in
most experimental programs reported in the literature in order to verify
the effectiveness of the stabilization with cement or to assess the
importance of influencing factors on the strength of cemented soils.
One of the reasons for this is the accumulated experience with this
kind of test for concrete. The tests usually followed Brazilian stan-
dard NBR 5739 (ABNT, 1980), which is in accordance with standard
ASTM C39 (ASTM, 2012), being simple and fast, while reliable and
cheap.
The automatic loading machine was the same used for the splitting
tensile tests and the proving rings with capacities of 10 kN and 50 kN
and resolutions of 0.005 kN and 0.023 kN were used for the unconfined
compression tests. Curing of specimens and acceptance criteria were
exactly the same as for splitting tensile tests.
2. Materials
The soil used in this study was an organic soft clay from Porto Alegre,
southern Brazil. The sample was collected in a disturbed state, by me-
chanical excavation at a depth of 5 m, in sufficient quantity to complete
all the tests. The clay size fraction of the material is 71.8% with 26.2% of
silt and 2% of sand. The basic clay mineral was kaolinite. The organic
matter content is high at 11%, conducting to a pH of 3.7 (acidic environ-
ment). The sample used in this study had a plastic limit of 33%, and a
liquid limit of 74%. The in situ water content was 95%. The specific
gravity of soil grains was 2.60. This soil is classified as organic clay of me-
dium to high plasticity (OH) according to the Unified Soil Classification
System.
Early strength Portland cement and/or quicklime were used as
cementing agents. The specific gravity of the cement and lime grains
are 3.15 and 2.50, respectively.
3. Methods

3.1. Molding and curing of specimens

Before starting the study, a volume of about 400 l of organic soft clay
(with moisture content of 95%) was homogenized using a large rotating
drum. Next, the homogenized material was stored in a sealed container.
The organic clay–cementitious material blend used in the tests was pre-
pared by weighing and mixing a given amount of wet soil (with initial
moisture content of 95%), Portland cement and/or quicklime, and
water (final moisture content of all specimens molded was about
120% — considering dry soil and cementitious agent). Mechanical
mixing of the materials was carried out using a blender for about
5 min to reach a uniform consistency.
Specifically for the splitting tensile and unconfined compression
tests, cylindrical specimens, 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm high,
were used. Each specimen was then statically compacted in ten layers
inside a cylindrical split mold (sealed in the bottom), which was lubri-
cated. After the molding process, the specimens were kept in the split
mold and immersed in a container filled of water at a temperature of
23 °C ± 2 °C for 7, 28 and 90 days of curing. For the embedding flat
base rod test, a recipient 0.40 m diameter and 0.12 m depth filled with
remolded organic soft clay–cementitious material blend, divided verti-
cally with a plastic wall placed within the mass in 4 equal parts.

3.1.1. Program of splitting tensile, unconfined compression and embedding

flat base rod tests
Splitting tensile, unconfined compression and embedding flat base
rod tests were carried out under distinct amounts of cementitious mate-
rials (early strength Portland cement and/or quicklime) and diverse cur-
ing periods. Five different cementitious material quantities: 75 kg/m3,
125 kg/m3, 175 kg/m3, 225 kg/m3 and 275 kg/m3 were chosen following
international and Brazilian experience (Mitchell, 1981; Consoli et al.,
2011) and 7, 28 and 90 days of curing at 23 °C ± 2 °C. Because of the
typical scatter of data for the strength tests, a minimum of three speci-
Fig. 4. Test setup. mens (for both tensile and compression) were tested for each point.

Please cite this article as: Consoli, N.C., et al., A testing procedure for predicting strength in artificially cemented soft soils, Eng. Geol. (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.005
 N.C. Consoli et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 5

4. Results and analysis

4.1. Effect of the cementitious materials quantities and curing time periods

Fig. 5(a), (b) and (c) shows, for all curing time periods studied (7, 28
and 90 days), the influence on the organic soft clay of early strength
Portland cement amounts regarding unconfined compressive strength
(qu), splitting tensile strength (qt) and embedding flat base rod strength
(qe), respectively (plotted points are the average of three results).
Strength increases with the increase in early strength Portland cement
amounts and increase of curing time periods. For each specific curing
time period, all strength tests (qu, qt, qe) carried out present a pro-
nounced strength increase between 75 kg/m3 and 125 kg/m3, mainly
for longer curing time periods (28 and 90 days of curing) and a smooth-
er increase for larger Portland cement amounts. Furthermore, the rate
of strength increase is higher between 7 and 28 curing days, reducing
between 28 and 90 curing days. Such rate reduction can be explained
by the use early strength Portland cement, which is more effective at
initial curing time periods. Such aspect is also observed for the three
strength tests carried out in present research.
Fig. 6(a), (b) and (c) present, for all curing time periods studied
(7, 28 and 90 days), the influence on the organic soft clay of quicklime
amounts regarding unconfined compressive strength (qu), splitting
tensile strength (qt) and embedding flat base rod strength (qe), re-
spectively (plotted points are the average of three results). Strength
increases with the increase of curing time periods. For long curing
time periods (28 and 90 days) all strength tests (qu, qt, qe) carried out
present a maximum strength at 175 kg/m3 and a reduction for larger
quicklime amounts. Besides, the rate of increase of maximum strength
is high for the whole curing period studied. It is important to emphasize
that such aspect is observed for the three strength tests carried out in
present research.
Fig. 7(a), (b) and (c) shows, for all curing time periods studied (7, 28
and 90 days), the influence on the organic soft clay of a cementitious
material blend composed of 50% early strength Portland cement and
50% quicklime amounts regarding qu, qt and qe, respectively (plotted
points are the average of three results). Strength increases with the
increase in cementitious material blend (50% early strength Portland
cement and 50% quicklime) amounts and increase of curing time pe-
riods, mainly for longer curing time periods (28 and 90 days of curing).
Also, the rate of increase of strength is high for the whole curing period
studied.

4.2. Correlations between qu versus qe and qt versus qe considering all

cementitious materials types and quantities and curing time periods

Figs. 8 and 9 present, considering all cementitious materials studied

(early strength Portland cement, quicklime and a blend 50% Portland
cement plus 50% quicklime), all amounts of cementitious material
studied (75, 125, 175, 225 and 275 kg/m3) and all curing time periods
studied (7, 28 and 90 days), sound linear correlations between uncon-
fined compressive strength (qu) and embedding flat base rod strength
(qe) [Eq. (1)] and splitting tensile strength (qt) and embedding flat
base rod strength (qe) [Eq. (2)], respectively, with high coefficients of
correlation (R2) of 0.93 and 0.92.
Fig. 5. Correlation of (a) qu versus cementitious material amount (CMA), (b) qt versus
qu ¼ 0:10qe þ 111:68 ð1Þ CMA and (c) flat base rod strength (qe) versus CMA for mixtures of soil–early strength
Portland cement.

qt ¼ 0:02qe þ 28:04: ð2Þ

Such good quality correlations encompassing distinct cementitious
materials, distinctive amounts of cementitious materials and covering
a range of curing time periods encourage the use of the suggested test-
ing procedure in engineering practice. The main advantages of the
proposed testing procedure are the ease to mold specimens, the option
of carrying out multiple tests in a single specimen and the possibility of
carrying out tests outside the laboratory environment. Additionally, this
set of results demonstrates the usefulness of the proposed approach in
providing a prompt procedure to evaluate strength gain in soft soils
treated with cementitious materials.

Please cite this article as: Consoli, N.C., et al., A testing procedure for predicting strength in artificially cemented soft soils, Eng. Geol. (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.005
6 N.C. Consoli et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Fig. 6. Correlation of (a) qu versus CMA, (b) qt versus CMA and (c) flat base rod strength Fig. 7. Correlation of (a) qu versus CMA, (b) qt versus CMA and (c) flat base rod strength
(qe) versus CMA for mixtures of soil–lime. (qe) versus CMA for mixtures of soil–early strength Portland cement–lime.

5. Conclusions curing times, distinct cementitious agents and distinct amounts

of cementitious agents. The tests may also be performed in the
The following conclusions were established based on the results of field, needing only a simple reaction frame system that guaran-
the present research: tees verticality.
- Results of embedding flat base rod strength have unique relation-
- The proposed flat base rod embedding test was shown to be ships with both unconfined compressive strength and splitting
adequate for evaluating the gain in strength of cemented soils. tensile strength, being independent of type and amount of cementi-
The specimens are easy to mold and may be utilized for varied tious material, as well as of the curing time period.

Please cite this article as: Consoli, N.C., et al., A testing procedure for predicting strength in artificially cemented soft soils, Eng. Geol. (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.005
 N.C. Consoli et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 7

Fig. 8. Correlation between unconfined compressive strength (qu) and flat base rod strength (qe) for mixtures of soil–early strength Portland cement, soil–hydrated lime, and soil–early
strength Portland cement (50%)–hydrated lime (50%).

Fig. 9. Correlation between splitting tensile strength (qt) and flat base rod strength (qe) for mixtures of soil–early strength Portland cement, soil–hydrated lime, and soil–early strength
Portland cement (50%)–hydrated lime (50%).

Notation References
CMA cementitious material amount
Andersson, R., Carlsson, T., Leppänen, M., 2001. Hydraulic cement based binders for mass
PVC polyvinylchloride stabilization of organic soils. Soft Ground Technology. ASCE, pp. 158–169.
qe embedding flat base rod strength Andromalos, K.B., Hegazy, Y.A., Jasperse, B.H., 2001. Stabilization of soft soils by soil
qt splitting tensile strength mixing. Soft Ground Technology. ASCE, pp. 194–205.
ASTM, 2011. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
qu unconfined compressive strength Specimens. (C496, West Conshohocken, PA).
ASTM, 2012. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens. (C39, West Conshohocken, PA).
Acknowledgments Brazilian Standard Association, 1980. Mortar and Concrete — Test Method for
Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Specimens. NBR 5739, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
(in Portuguese).
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Brazilian MCT/CNPq
Brazilian Standard Association, 1983. Mortar and Concrete — Test Method for Split-
(300558/2010-4) (projects Edital Universal, Produtividade em Pesquisa ting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Specimens. NBR 7222, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
and INCT-REAGEO) for the financial support to the research group. (in Portuguese).

Please cite this article as: Consoli, N.C., et al., A testing procedure for predicting strength in artificially cemented soft soils, Eng. Geol. (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.005
8 N.C. Consoli et al. / Engineering Geology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Carneiro, F.L.L.E., Barcellos, A., 1953. Concrete Tensile Strength. Bulletin R.I.L.E.M..
Consoli, N.C., Thomé, A., Donato, M., Graham, J., 2008. Loading tests on compacted soil–
bottom ash–carbide lime layers. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 161 (1), 29–38.
Consoli, N.C., Dalla Rosa, F., Fonini, A., 2009a. Plate load tests on cemented soil layers
overlaying weaker soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 135 (12), 1846–1856.
Consoli, N.C., Lopes Jr., L.S., Foppa, D., Heineck, K.S., 2009b. Key parameters dictating
strength of lime/cement treated soils. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 162 (2),
111–118.
Consoli, N.C., Foppa, D., Festugato, L., Heineck, K.S., 2009c. Key parameters for the strength
control of lime stabilized soils. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 21 (5), 210–216.
Consoli, N.C., Cruz, R.C., Floss, M.F., Festugato, L., 2010. Parameters controlling tensile and
compressive strength of artificially cemented sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE
136 (5), 759–763.
Consoli, N.C., Dalla Rosa, A., Corte, M.B., Lopes Jr., L.S., Consoli, B.S., 2011. Porosity/cement
ratio controlling strength of artificially cemented clays. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (8),
1249–1254.
Consoli, N.C., Johann, A.D.R., Gauer, E.A., Santos, V.R., Moretto, R.L., Corte, M.B., 2012. Key
parameters for tensile and compressive strength of silt–lime mixtures. Géotech. Lett.
2 (3), 81–85.
Consoli, N.C., Ruver, C., Schnaid, F., 2013a. Uplift performance of anchor plates embedded
in cement-stabilized backfill. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 139 (3), 511–517.
Consoli, N.C., Lopes Jr., L.S., Dalla Rosa, A., Masuero, J.R., 2013b. The strength of soil–
industrial by-product–lime blends. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 166 (5), 431–440.
Please cite this article as: Consoli, N.C., et al., A testing procedure for predicting strength in artificially cemented soft soils, Eng. Geol. (2015), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.005
Consoli, N.C., Lopes Jr., L.S., Consoli, B.S., Festugato, L., 2014a. Mohr–Coulomb failure
envelopes of lime-treated soils. Geotechnique 64 (2), 165–170.
Consoli, N.C., Lopes Jr., L.S., Consoli, B.S., Festugato, L., 2014b. A method proposed for the
assessment of failure envelopes of cemented sandy. Eng. Geol. 169, 61–68 (February).
Faro, V.P., Consoli, N.C., Schnaid, F., Thomé, A., Lopes Jr., L.S., 2015. Field tests on laterally
loaded rigid piles in cement treated soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 141,
6015003-1–6015003-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001296.
Festugato, L., Fourie, A., Consoli, N.C., 2013. Cyclic shear response of fibre-reinforced
cemented paste backfill. Géotech. Lett. 3 (1), 5–12.
Hussin, J.D., Garbin, E.J., 2012. Recent advances in the use of dry mass stabilization for
structural support in the United States. Grouting and Deep Mixing. ASCE, pp. 728–737.
Jelisic, N., Leppänen, M., 2003. Mass stabilization of organic soils and soft clay. Grouting
and Ground Treatment. ASCE, pp. 552–561.
Lin, K.Q., Wong, I.H., 1999. Use of deep cement mixing to reduce settlements at bridge
approaches. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 125 (4), 309–320.
Mitchell, J.K., 1981. Soil improvement — state-of-the-art report. Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. International Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, pp. 509–565.
Terashi, M., Juran, I., 2000. Ground improvement — state of the art. Proc., GeoEng 2000,
Melbourne vol. 1, pp. 461–519.
Thomé, A., Donato, M., Consoli, N.C., Graham, J., 2005. Circular footings on a cemented
layer above weak foundation soil. Can. Geotech. J. 42 (6), 1569–1584.