DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF COHESIVE SOILS TREATED WITH LIME

By K. Fahoum,· Associate Member, ASCE, M. S. Aggour,2 Fellow, ASCE,

and F. Amini,3 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Dynamic properties of three compacted cohesive soils, kaolinite, sodium montmorillonite, and
calcium montmorillonite, which were treated with up to 8% lime, were determined under a wide range of strains
and confining pressures. The soils had plasticity indices ranging from 18 to 514. Lime treatment affected and
improved the dynamic properties of the three soils. For all of the soils, the cyclic secant shear modulus decreased
and the equivalent viscous damping ratio increased with increased strain levels. By increasing the lime content,
the shear modulus of the sodium montmorillonite dramatically increased and the damping ratio decreased. Similar
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

behavior was noted for the calcium montmorillonite. The difference in response between the two montmorillonite
soils was attributed to the presence of calcium already in the calcium montmorillonite soil. The response of the
kaolinite soil to lime treatment was moderate. Normalized plots of treated soils with respect to values of untreated
soils are presented. These plots provide a useful guide for the preliminary estimation of lime requirements to
improve the dynamic properties of soils.

INTRODUCTION uate the dynamic properties of various lime-treated (and un-

The behavior of soils subjected to various types of dynamic
loading (earthquakes, ocean waves, machine vibrations, and
blasts) is being understood more, particularly with recent ad-
vances in analytical and testing procedures. Analysis of an
engineering problem involving dynamic loading of soils and
soil-structure interaction systems requires the determination of
two important parameters, the secant shear modulus G and the
equivalent viscous damping ratio D of the soil. These two
parameters are usually determined either in the laboratory or
in the field.
Numerous data about dynamic properties of soils (cohesive
and cohesionless) and static properties of lime-stabilized co-
hesive soils, both in the laboratory and in the field, are avail-
able in the literature. However, very few studies have been
performed on weak cohesive soils stabilized with different
types of chemicals, such as lime, to improve their dynamic
properties. Such studies, while showing promising results,
have been confined primarily to very low strain amplitude lev-
els and to a specific type of soil (Chae and Chiang 1978; Au
and Chae 1980). To further understand the mechanical char-
acteristics of lime-soil mixtures, it is very important to conduct
a comprehensive analysis that incorporates various types of
soils, which is critical since different soils behave differently
upon lime treatment. For instance, lime treatment of soils con-
taining sulfate was found to induce heave instead of reducing
it (Mitchell and Dermatas 1990). This particular problem,
however, can be avoided by adding barium compounds prior
to lime treatment (Ferris et al. 1991). A recent workshop spon-
sored by the National Science Foundation was held in Seattle
under the title, "Soil Improvement and Foundation Remedi-
ation with Emphasis on Seismic Hazards" (Kramer and Holtz
1991). One outcome of this workshop was an emphasis on the
need for more research in the area of deep chemical stabili-
zation (including lime) of various soils to improve their seis-
mic resistance.
The main objective of this research, therefore, was to eval-
'Staff Engr., Geotechnol., Inc., St. Louis, MO 63146.
'Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD
20742.
'Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC 20008.
Note. Discussion open until October I, 1996. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on October 14, 1994. This paper is part of the lour-
nal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No.5, May, 1996. ©ASCE,
ISSN 0733-9410/96/0005-0382-0389/$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No.
9450.
382/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996
treated) cohesive soils under a wide range of strain amplitudes
simulating different types of dynamic loading conditions. The
confining pressures chosen for this study simulated a relatively
wide range of depths. Vucetic and Dobry (1991) showed that
the plasticity index (PI) is the main factor controlling the shear
modulus and damping for a wide variety of soils. Three types
of cohesive soils were chosen to represent a wide range of
plasticity indices.
As suggested by Eades and Grim (1960), studying the pure
clay minerals serves as a good indication of behavior of co-
hesive soils containing those minerals. Thus, three pure, com-
mercially available clay minerals were used in this study: ka-
olinite, sodium montmorillonite, and calcium montmorillonite.
Samples were prepared by compacting soil-lime mixtures at
specified water contents. The dynamic properties of the soils
were then determined using an automated dynamic triaxial ap-
paratus. This device was fully automated and capable of ob-
taining accurate measurements over a wide range of strain lev-
els.
The paper presents the results of a comprehensive program
of testing and evaluation undertaken to determine the dynamic
properties of lime-stabilized cohesive soils. It shows the re-
sponse of each soil to lime treatment and can thus be used as
a guide to determine whether lime would be an effective ad-
ditive to improve the dynamic properties of soils.
SOILS TESTED
Three pure, commercially available soils were chosen: ka-
olinite (Hydrite R), calcium montmorillonite (Panther Creek
Bentonite), and sodium montmorillonite (Super Gell X). All
were obtained commercially in powdered form (50 Ibs. per
bag) ensuring purity and uniformity. Hydrite R is a kaolinite
clay obtained from the Dry Branch Kaolin Company in Dry
Branch, Georgia. The kaolinite mineral is the simplest and best
understood clay mineral. This clay has a relatively low plas-
ticity index (PI = 18) and was used as the low end of the
plasticity index range. Panther Creek Bentonite is more than
90% calcium montmorillonite. This soil was obtained from the
American Colloid Company located in Arlington Heights, Il-
linois. This soil has a medium PI (35) and, therefore, was used
to simulate medium-plasticity soils. This soil has also been
used by other researchers (Ho and Handy 1963; Marcuson and
Wahls 1978). Super Gell X contains more than 90% sodium
montmorillonite. It was also obtained from the American Col-
loid Company. The PI of this soil is very high (514), which
makes it suitable for simulating highly expansive soils and
therefore forms the other extreme soil for this study. This soil

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1996.122:382-389.

 has also been used by Ho and Handy (1963) and Au and Chae TABLE 1. Compaction Data for All Solis Tested
(1980). Sodium Calcium
The lime chosen for this research was selected according to Kaolinite Montmorillonite Montmorillonite
ASTM specifications with regard to lime for soil stabilization
Optimum Optimum Optimum
use (ASTM C 977-89). This specification requires the use of
Lime moisture moisture moisture
high calcium hydrated lime Ca(OHb which was obtained
content content "IdmD. content "Idmax content "Idmax
from Chemstone Corporation in Strasburg, Virginia. (%) (%) (KNlm3 ) (%) (KN/m3 ) (%) (KN/m3 )
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
EQUIPMENT 0 31 13.73 30.5 12.12 41 10.81
2 38 12.20 34 11.22 42 9.82
The Automated Triaxial Testing System, developed by C. 11.91 36.8 10.40 44.7 9.48
5 39
K. Chan, was used for the determination of G and D. The 8 40 11.90 32.9 10.30 47 9.40
system is described in detail by Li et al. (1988). This equip-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ment is capable of performing both static and dynamic testing.

In the automated system, computer-programmed electronic
signals for frequency and magnitude of loading are applied to
an electro-pneumatic (e1p) transducer, which then controls
pneumatic amplifiers for the application of the loads. Two con-
trol channels allow independent and synchronized adjustment
of the axial load and chamber pressure. The equipment con-
sists of a loading frame, together with a triaxial cell and load-
ing piston, volume measuring device with three pressure trans-
ducers, dual pneumatic loading system, signal conditioning
unit, process interface unit, microcomputer, and dot-matrix
printer. The triaxial cell is built with the latest low-friction
piston rod seal (Chan 1975). Th~ loading system consists of a
dual-channel electro-pneumatic system to convert the com-
mand electronic signal to pneumatic pressure, which in tum
applies axial loads or chamber pressure. A complete descrip-
tion of the electro-pneumatic system is given in Chan (1981).
The loading system also consists of a load frame and double-
acting (push/pull) actuators capable of performing strain as
well as stress-controlled tests. A total of five sensors can be
used in this system: a load cell to monitor the axial load, an
LVDT to measure the vertical displacements, and three pres-
sure transducers to detect the chamber pressure, effective pres-
sure, and volume change. The conditioned output of these sen-
sors are then received by the process interface, which forms
the communication link between the computer and the loading
system. The process interface converts analog signals to digital
signals and vice versa. The computer controls the whole sys-
tem; it receives and stores the real-time data in its memory
and issues control signals to conduct the required tests. The
printer provides hard copies of the results in either tabular or
graphic form.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Sample Preparation
Samples were prepared by first mixing a measured amount
of powdered dry soil with a predetermined amount of water
at the optimum moisture content (OMC) as shown in Table 1.
Mixing was done first by hand and then by a mechanical
mixer. For the stabilized soils, the required amount of lime
(0%, 2%, 5%, and 8%) by dry weight was first mixed with
the dry soil, then the water was added. Mixing continued for
about 5 min to produce a uniform mix. Compaction was per-
formed immediately for the kaolinite soil. However, a 2 h re-
laxation period was allowed for the other two soils to allow
for any possible expansion before compaction.
The standard Proctor compaction method (ASTM D-698)
was selected as the compaction procedure by which all sam-
ples were prepared. Since this procedure requires a large
amount of soil for each sample (approximately 2.25 kg), it
was necessary to develop an equivalent procedure that re-
quired less soil, that is, to produce an energy level equivalent
to the standard Proctor compaction energy level while using a
smaller mold and a special small hammer that operates in the
TABLE 2. Mold and Hammer Used In Testing Program
Hammer drop
Mold volume Hammer weight height
Mold type (cm3 ) (N) (mm)
(1 ) (2) (3) (4)
Standard Proctor 944 24.5 304.8
Model mold 715 11.7 298.5
same manner as the standard Proctor compaction hammer. A
similar approach was used previously (Andy 1963; Au and
Chae 1980; Ford et al. 1982). The dimensions of the mold and
hammer were selected so that the ratio between the diameters
of the mold and the hammer in both the standard Proctor pro-
cedure and the model compaction remained constant. Data on
the standard Proctor and the model mold and hammer are
given in Table 2. Using the same standard Proctor compaction
energy (593 kJ/m3 ) and assuming that the compaction was
done in five layers, the number of blows per layer was cal-
culated to be 25. This procedure was tried and found identical
to the standard Proctor procedure (Fahoum 1994). The model
mold also had the advantage of rendering 7.1 cm samples that
could be mounted directly in the triaxial cell without the need
for trimming.
At least two duplicates of each sample were prepared to
ensure repeatability of test results. Lime-treated samples were
cured for 48 h at 48°C and 100% humidity in an oven to
accelerate the curing process (Thompson 1969). This was ac-
complished by wrapping each sample in two layers of Saran
wrap and putting them in a special curing tank developed for
this research (Fahoum 1994). The purpose of the curing tank
was to provide 100% humidity while maintaining the required
temperature. This procedure minimized any loss of moisture
from the samples during oven curing. After extracting the sam-
ples from the oven, they were allowed to cool for a period of
2 h in the moisture room before being mounted in the triaxial
device. The untreated samples were also cured for 48 h in the
moisture room to maintain similar conditions among all of the
samples.
Testing Procedure
Isotropic consolidation was performed on cured samples un-
der three different confining pressures: 50 KPa, 100 KPa, and
150 KPa. Bowles (1979) stated that in triaxial consolidation
of unsaturated samples, monitoring of the LVDT movement is
a good indication of the progress of the consolidation process.
Therefore, the axial strain was monitored throughout the con-
solidation process and the consolidation was considered com-
plete when the LVDT reading remained constant for 1 h. The
confining pressure was applied in segments.
Cyclic loading was applied directly after consolidation by
simultaneously varying both the vertical and horizontal
stresses to simulate a horizontal ground subjected to earth-
quake loading conditions (Seed and Silver 1972). The stress
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996/383

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1996.122:382-389.

 t C1d / 2 '"C1d/2
engineering projects. They also suggested a value of 0.5 for
fully-saturated soils and a value of 0.35 for low-saturated soils.

~
3

C1d/2~
It has also been suggested, for lime-stabilized compacted soils,
C1d/2+ C1 C13~ C1d/2 C1A3+C1d/2
that a value of 0.31 is reasonable ("Lime" 1987). Hicher et
al. (1987) used a value of 0.3 in their dynamic testing using

C13
~~~ 90% saturated cohesive soils. For these reasons a value of 0.3
was selected as Poisson's ratio for all of the tests in this study.
(a) (b) Ji
The axial strain E was converted to shear strain 'Y using the
'" C1d/2 , C1d/2
following equation:
FIG. 1. Stress Condition of Applied Cyclic Loading: (a) Load-
Ing; (b) Unloading 'Y = £ (1 + v) (3)
The damping ratio can be calculated from Fig. 2 using
TABLE 3. Sequence of Applied Cyclic Stress
D =...!.... (Area of the lOOP) (4)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Confining pressure Stress sequence ad 211" oab + oed

(kPa) (KPa)
(1 ) (2) After all of the calculations were performed, two main sets
50 20 40 60 80 - of plots were obtained, shear modulus versus shear strain and
100 20 40 80 120 180 damping ratio versus shear strain. All of the data were col-
150 40 80 140 200 280 lected at the 10th cycle because it was found that cycles ex-
ceeding 10 have little effect on G and D (Fahoum 1994).
DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF TESTED SOILS
Data Obtained
Two main sets of plots are presented: shear modulus G ver-
sus shear strain ('Y) and the damping ratio D versus the shear

1000
o SM
.. SM+2L
-(J [I SM+5L

100 [I • [I
....Dc··.
[I [I
a
• SM+8L

~ it- q,
Cl.. 0 II ...
6 0
o 0
o •
FIG. 2. Idealized Hysteresis Loop Produced by Cyclic Load-
0 0
,: ..
ing 10 0

conditions produced by this loading are shown in Fig. 1. Cy-

clic loading was conducted using a staged testing procedure
(Silver and Park 1975) in which cyclic stress was applied in
sequences ranging from low to high, as shown in Table 3. A 1 L..-.........~........L.-..........................L . - - ' -................." - -..........................J
.001 .01 ~ 1 10
relaxation period was allowed between successive stressing to
allow for dissipation of pore pressure. The relaxation period y(%)
required to render accurate results was found to be 10 min FIG. 3. Shear Modulus Versus Shear Strain as Function of
(Fahoum 1994). Lime Content (SM Solis, 0'3 150 KPa) =
Data Calculation 20
o SM
A typical stress-strain curve forming a hysteresis loop dur-
ing cyclic loading is shown in Fig. 2. From such a loop, two
parameters can be determined. The first parameter is the com-
pression modulus, or Young's modulus E, and the second pa-
15
.. SM+2L
[I SM+5L

• SM+8L 0
0
..
rameter is the damping ratio D. The Young's modulus E is
calculated from the hysteresis loops using the following equa-
tion:
20'd
E=-- (1)
£. + ~

where O'd = deviator stress; and £1 and £z are the vertical 5

strains. The shear modulus G is then calculated in terms of E
and Poisson's ratio v using
E
G = 2(1 + v) (2)

Lambe and Whitman (1969) indicated that v has a relatively FIG. 4. Damping Ratio Versus Shear Strain as Function of
small effect on the resulting prediction of G for most civil Lime Content (SM Solis, 0'3 150 KPa) =
384/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1996.122:382-389.

 strain 'Y. The following abbreviations were used for the three
soils under consideration: SM for sodium montmorillonite,
CM for the calcium montmorillonite, and K for the kaolinite.
Lime was also abbreviated by the letter L and any soil-lime
mixture was expressed by the abbreviation of both materials.
For instance SM + 5L means sodium montmorillonite treated
with 5% lime. Figs. 3-8 show these plots at 150 KPa confin-
ing pressure as an example of the data obtained. For all of the
soils, G decreased and D increased with 'Y, which is the ex-
pected behavior of soils during dynamic loading due to the
nonlinear characteristics of soils.
From Fig. 3 it is evident that G decreases with the increase
in the shear strain for the SM soil. Further, G increases with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
during such loading the strain energy released during unload-
ing is less than the strain energy stored during loading. Hence,
at higher strain levels, more slippage and rearrangement occurs
and, therefore, more damping would be anticipated. This ex-
plains the increase of D with strain amplitude observed from
Fig. 4. The decrease in D at any strain amplitude, when the
lime content is increased, can be explained by the same ra-
tionale. Since the treated materials were found to be more rigid
than the untreated soil and this rigidity was found to increase
with lime content (Fig. 3), less slippage and particle rearrange-
ment would be anticipated at comparable stress levels. There-
fore, damping would be less in treated soils than in untreated
soils. This is probably the reason behind Dobry's and Vuce-

added lime at any strain amplitude. For instance, G increased
by 240% at 0.1 % strain amplitude with the addition of 8%
lime for the SM material (Fig. 3). This is attributed to the
cementation effect of lime on the treated soils, which is a
product of pozzolanic reaction ("Lime" 1987; Little 1987).
The treated soils behaved more rigidly than the untreated soils,
which results in higher values of G.
With respect to damping, Fig. 4 shows plots of D versus 'Y.
It is evident that D increases with strain amplitude and de-
creases with lime content. Damping is a representation of how
much energy is dissipated during cyclic loading. As stated in
"Soil" (1972), as the particles slide upon adjacent particles
tic's (1987) speculation about the probable decrease of D with
the cementation of cohesive soils.
Fig. 5 shows plots of G versus 'Y for the calcium montmo-
rillonite (CM) soil. Similar trends to those of Fig. 3 were ob-
served with regard to the decrease and increase of G with 'Y
and lime, respectively. As shown in Fig. 6, D increased with
the shear strain amplitude and decreased with the addition of
lime.
The kaolinite (K) soil behaved somewhat differently. Spe-
cifically, G decreased with strain for all soils with varying lime
content in which the K + 2L-soil curve is above all the other
curves, indicating that maximum response to stabilization oc-

1000 1000
.. CM 0 K
0 CM+2L + K+2L

...•
.
CM+5L A K+5L
.. • ....... CM+8L •
.. •
K+8L
"
100
• • • N ..
" 100 "'1. ...
'2
0
.. 1:1
.. . .0
'2 41 ......
l:l.. t ~o
.. Bo ~ OA~~
6 '-'

0
AA
.. ..
0
0 O~
0
4
10 10 .,.+

l'--"""'- "'--- ~ ...... lL..--'-.....................--'-.........~........_ .........~........."'--.............................J

. 001 .01 .1 1 10 . 001 .01 .1 1 10

1(%) 1(%)

FIG. 5. Shear Modulus Versus Shear Strain as Function of FIG. 7. Shear Modulus Versus Shear Strain as Function of
Lime Content (CM Solis, 0'. = 150 KPa) Lime Content (K Solis, 0'. 150 KPa) =
N CM
.. CM+2L
12
o CM+5L
• CM+8L
10

8
~
Q
6

0 o'---'-.....................--'o~~ ......._~~~"'-~-'-............J
.01 .1 1 10 . 001 .01 .1 1 10

y(%) 1 (%)
FIG. 6. Damping Ratio Versus Shear Strain as Function of FIG. 8. Damping Ratio Versus Shear Strain as Function of
Lime Content (CM Solis, 0'. = 150 KPa) Lime Content (K Solis, 0'. = 150 KPa)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996/385

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1996.122:382-389.

 curred at about 2% lime content (see Fig. 7). The curves at
5% and 8% lime content are located between the K + 2L and
the K soils, though much closer to the K-soil curve. Similar
behavior was observed with regard to damping (Fig. 8). From
this figure, it is clear that the K + 2L-soil curve is at the
bottom of the plot and the K-soil curve is at the top. The other
two curves almost coincide and are located below and much
closer to the K-soil curve. For all of the K soils, D increased
with "y due to the permanent strain occurring at each strain
amplitude described previously.
Normalization of Data
The effect of lime treatment was presented for each soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
values for the SM soil at 150 KPa confining pressure (see Figs.
9 and 10). The normalized data are presented as a plot of
lime content versus the normalized shear modulus values,
G (treated)/G (untreated), and lime content versus the normal-
ized damping ratio values, D(treated)/D(untreated). The nor-
malized values will be referred to as GT/G U and DT/D u . From
these two figures it appears that the normalized values of the
shear modulus were slightly affected by the strain amplitude
and the normalized values of the damping ratios were more
affected by the strain amplitude. However, for all practical
purposes this effect could be neglected and the data could be
plotted independently of the strain amplitudes. Similar data
that was independent of strain amplitude was obtained at both

100 KPa and 50 KPa confinement pressures.

separately in the previous section. The following presents a All of the data, regardless of confining pressure, were sub-
comparison of the response of the soils to lime treatment. In jected to a regression analysis. For the SM and eM soils a
order to make this comparison more effective, it was necessary third-degree polynomial provided the best fit, where as for the
to normalize all the shear modulus and damping ratio values K soils a gamma distribution provided the best fit. As shown
for the treated soils with respect to the G and D values of the in Figs. 11 and 12, all data for the SM soils can be represented
untreated soils. This normalization was performed for each soil by one equation with some approximation. Such a plot can be
at each confining pressure and at various strain amplitudes. particularly useful for preliminary design purposes.
For instance, for the SM soils, G values at 0.01%, 0.03%, Normalized plots were also obtained for the other two soils
0.1 %, 0.4%, and 1% strain amplitudes, and D values at 0.07%, (Fahoum 1994). Figs. 13-16 show the normalized plots for
0.2%, and 0.4% strain amplitudes, for the SM + 2L, SM + the calcium montmorillonite and kaolinite. These cuves are
5L, and SM + 8L soils, were divided by their corresponding good representations of the effect of lime on each soil.
For purposes of comparison, all of the data for the soils
5
• £=0.01% 5
£=0.03%
£=0.1%
• 0"= 150 KPa
D 0"= 100 KPa
:a- 4 II £=0.4% II 0"= 50 KPa
~ + £=1%
:a-.,
4
~
c: til
2- 3 I
~
0
-- * ::J
.......
3

:a-
.,B
o:l
2
~ 2
~ ~.,
C
0
...
1 C
0 1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Lime (%) Lime(%)
FIG. 9. Normalized Shear Modulus Plot of SM Solis for Differ-
FIG. 11. Normalized Shear ModUlus Plot for SM Solis for Dif-
ent Strain Levels
ferent Confining Pressures

1.2 1.2
D £=0.07% • 0"= 150 KPa
1.1 + £=0.2% A 0"= 100 KPa

:a- 1.0
• £=0.4%
:a-., 1.0 . 0"= 50 KPa
~
., D til
~ 0.9 + ~
::J • c:
::J
0' ....... 0.8
--:a-., 0.8

D ~.,
til 0.7 + .,...
til
~ •
C 0.6 C 0.6
Cl Cl
D

0.5
•+
0.4 o. 4 L--'-_..L-........._..J.....--''---L_'----J..._''---.I
0 2 4 6 8 10 o 2 4 6 8 10
Lime(%) Lime (%)
FIG. 10. Normalized Damping Ratio Plot of SM Solis for Differ- FIG. 12. Normalized Damping Ratio Plot for SM Soils for Dlf·
ent Strain Levels ferent Confining Pressures

386/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1996.122:382-389.

 5 4
• 0= 150 KPa 0 0= 150 KPa
D 0= 100 KPa • 0=100 KPa
4 • 0=50 KPa
;;;-
D 0=50 KPa
;;;-
~ • ~
~
3

~c:: 3 :>
'-'
2- Q 2
Q
,..., ;;;-
'0
u
4) 2 '<iJ
'<iJ u
~
S
0
0 1
1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Lime(%)
Lime (%)
FIG. 15. Normalized Shear Modulus Plot for K Solis for Dlffer-
FIG. 13. Normalized Shear Modulus Plot for CM SOlis for DIf· ent Confining Pressures
ferent Confining Pressures
1.2
1.2
• 0= 150 KPa 1.1 •
1.1
•.. 0=100 KPa
0=50 KPa ;;;- 1.0
I
;;;- 1.0 £<II
~ l:! 0.9
~ 0.9 C
c:: ::::l
'-'
:> •
e:;;;- 0.8 ~ 0.8
'0
•
0
'<iJ 0.7 g~ 0.7

S
Cl 0.6
Cl 0.6

0.5
0.4
0 2 4 6
Lirne(%)
FIG. 14. Normalized Damping Ratio Plot for CM Solis for Dlf·
ferent Confining Pressures
were combined into two figures. Fig. 17 shows the normalized
shear modulus versus the lime content for the three soils at all
confining pressures, and Fig. 18 shows the plot for the nor-
malized damping ratio. These two figures show the trends ob-
served for each soil and serve as a useful tool for comparison
purposes. Figs. 17 and 18 are also presented in table form to
provide insight into the behavior of the soils when lime is
added. Table 4 shows the normalized shear modulus as well
as the rate of increase (or decrease) of the normalized values
as a function of the lime content. Table 5 shows the normalized
damping ratio and its rate of decrease (or increase) as a func-
tion of the lime content. The rate of increase (or decrease)
used here is the ratio of the change in the normalized shear
modulus (or damping) over the change in the lime content,
that is, the slope of the plot.
Discussion and Interpretation of the Data
The results indicate that, first, SM soil responds well to lime
treatment. The GT/G U values increased continuously with the
addition of lime. However, the rate of increase lessened be-
yond a lime content of 7 -8%. Second, CM soils have almost
the same response as the SM soil up to 2% lime, after which
the increase in GT/G U is not as high as for the SM soils. The
rate of increase for the CM soils was at its maximum at a lime
0.5
0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10
8 10
Lime(%)
FIG. 16. Normalized Damping Ratio Plot for K Solis for Differ-
ent Confining Pressures
content of 3-4%, then lessened more rapidly than for the SM
soils. Both the SM and CM soils showed a continuous de-
crease in the damping values. Finally, the K soils have a clear
maximum GT/G U value at 1-2% lime content, then GT/G U and
DT/D u become almost 1. The results also indicate that no max-
imum response for the normalized shear modulus for both the
SM and CM soils were noted in the plot. It is expected that a
maximum will occur at a lime content larger than the 8% used
in this study. However, a lime content of more than 8% is
seldom used in practice. To determine an optimum lime con-
tent (OLC) with regard to the dynamic property similar to that
associated with the static property, we define the amount of
lime at which the maximum rate of increase in the dynamic
property occurs as the dynamic optimum lime content
(DOLC). For the soils tested, the DOLC is 7 -8% for the SM
soils, 3-4% for the CM soils, and 1-2% for the K soils.
These observations are further explained through examina-
tion of the literature that deals with the static strength of lime-
treated soils. The literature indicated that the quantity of lime
required for the development of strength is mineral dependent
(Eades and Grim 1960). Kaolinite minerals, which have strong
hydrogen bonds between its sheets, are very stable and have
a low plasticity and, therefore, a low cation exchange capacity.
Conversely, montmorillonite minerals, which have a charge
deficiency, smaller particles, and high plasticity, have a much
higher cation exchange capacity to satisfy this charge defi-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996/387

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1996.122:382-389.

 6,----..-...,...-....----..,r--.......-....,....-...--...,--'-..........-, TABLE 4. Normalized Shear Modulus and Its Rate of Increase
as Function of Lime Content
SM-·-
5 Sodium Calcium
CM----
Kaolinite Montmorillonite Montmorillonite
K
Lime Rate of Rate of Rate of
content increase increase increase
(%) Gr/Gu (%) Gr/Gu (%) Gr/Gu (%)
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
0 1 0 1 0 1.0 0
1 1.75 75 1.18 18 1.13 13
2 1.52 -23 1.44 26 1.41 28
3 1.36 -16 1.76 32 1.70 29
1 4 1.25 -11 2.11 35 1.98 28
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5 1.17 -8 2.49 38 2.26 28

6 1.12 -5 2.87 38 2.53 27
0'--........- .......- .......--.;..............- ......._.---1_.........---1 7 1.08 -4 3.25 38 2.77 24
o 2 4 6 8 10 8 1.05 -3 3.62 37 3.0 23
9 1.04 -1 3.95 33 3.20 20
Lime(%) 10 1.03 -1 4.25 30 3.35 15
FIG. 17. Normalized Shear Modulus Plot for All Solis
TABLE 5. Normalized Damping Ratio and Its Rate of Decrease
1. 2 ,--..--,.---...,...-.....---,---.---r----, as Function of Lime Content
Sodium Calcium
Kaolinite Montmorillonite Montmorillonite
.....
'0
1.0 Lime Rate of Rate of Rate of
~ content decrease decrease decrease
~ (%) Dr/Du (%) Dr/Du (%) Dr/Du (%)
c

'"
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
::>
e:
:0-
0.8
....
'~ ....
0
1
1.0
0.85
0
15
1
0.92
0
8
1.0
0.93
0
7
v .~ .... 2 0.84 1 0.85 7 0.87 6
<;
... .....
--.
.........................
.~ 3 0.92 -8 0.79 6 0.81 6
60 0.6
SM-.-
CM- -
4
5
0.99
1.05
-7
-6
0.73
0.68
6
5
0.76
0.71
5
5
K 6 1.09 -4 0.63 5 0.67 4
7 1.12 -3 0.59 4 0.63 4
8 1.13 -1 0.56 3 0.59 4
o . 4 ' - - - - - ' - -.......- - ' - - -..............- .......- - ' - -........---1
9 1.14 +1 0.53 3 0.56 3
o 2 4 6 8 10
10 1.14 0 0.51 2 0.54 2
Lime (%)
FIG. 18. Normalized Damping Ratio Plot for All Solis
in stiffness development between the two montmorillonite
soils is mainly attributable to the fact that lime first converts
ciency (Little 1987). The first step in lime-soil reaction is the the sodium montmorillonite to calcium montmorillonite (Ho
cation exchange. Since kaolinite has a low cation exchange and Handy 1963). The CM soil, which already contained some
capacity, it requires much less lime to satisfy this reaction than calcium, needed less lime to become calcium saturated and
does the montmorillonite. Eades and Grim (1960) conducted reach its OLC than did the SM soil. This is supported by the
a comprehensive investigation of the pozzolanic reaction of findings of Eades and Grim (1960), as they observed that so-
kaolinite, montmorillonite, and other clay minerals, and con- dium montmorillonite required more lime to develop strength
cluded that kaolinite, due to its low exchange capacity, reacts than did kaolinite and calcium montmorillonite. The SM soils
easily and fast with lime and the reaction starts with the first benefited the most from lime treatment followed closely by
increments of lime. They also noted that the strength increases the CM soils. The kaolinite did respond to lime treatment, but
as soon as calcium starts attacking the edges of kaolinite. Con- the effect was much less than for the other two soils.
versely, montmorillonite, with its high exchange capacity, was
found to require a certain amount of lime in order for the CONCLUSIONS
strength to start increasing substantially. Ozier and Moore
(1977) concluded that soils of high surface and high exchange Lime treatment affected and improved the dynamic prop-
capacity would develop less strength at low-lime content than erties of the three soils tested. The cyclic secant shear modulus
those with a smaller surface area and lower exchange capacity. G decreased and the equivalent viscous damping ratio D in-
Similar findings were also obtained by Moore and Jones creased with the increase in the shear strain, which is the nor-
(1971) and by Ford et al. (1982). This explains the pronounced mal behavior of soils during dynamic loading.
response of kaolinite at 1-2% lime as compared with the re- By increasing the lime content, the shear modulus of the
sponse of the montmorillonite soils shown in Fig. 17. The sodium montmorillonite dramatically increased and the damp-
decrease of G beyond the DOLe could be attributed to the ing decreased. The amount of lime at which the maximum rate
fact that at higher lime contents (5% or 8%), the maximum of increase of the normalized shear modulus occurred, was
dry density decreases (Table 1), and hence, the stiffness de- defined as the dynamic optimum lime content (DOLC). The
creases (Alexander et al. 1972). DOLC for the SM soils was between 7 and 8%. Similar be-
As seen from Fig. 18, both montmorillonite soils continued havior was also noted for the calcium montmorillonite with
to gain stiffness with lime. However, the CM soils benefited the DOLC between 3 and 4%. The difference in response be-
less from lime treatment than did the SM soils. The difference tween the two montmorillonite soils was attributed to the pres-
388/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING I MAY 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1996.122:382-389.

 ence of the calcium already in the calcium montmorillonite
soil. The response to lime treatment in the kaolinite soil was
moderate. A peak in the response was noted at a DOLC of
1-2%.
It can be concluded that lime can be used as an effective
additive for improving the dynamic properties of cohesive
soils. Pure minerals were used in this study, which provides a
good indication of the behavior of cohesive soils containing
these minerals. To detennine the DOLC of a natural clayey
soil, a similar testing program would need to be undertaken.
Nevertheless, the results provide a useful guide for the engi-
neer responsible for the preparation of a lime-soil stabilization
design.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 06/22/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Alexander, M. L., Smith, R. E., and Shennan, G. B. (1972). "Relative
stabilizing effect of various limes on clayey soils." Hwy. Res. Rec.
381, Hwy. Res. Board, Washington, D.C., 27-33.
Andy, M. C. (1963). "Curing lime-stabilized soils." Hwy. Res. Rec. 29,
Hwy. Res. Board, Washington, D.C., 13-26.
Au, W. C., and Chae, Y. S. (1980). "Dynamic shear modulus of treated
expansive soils." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 106(3),
255-273.
Bowles, J. E. (1979). Physical and geotechnical properties of soils. Mc-
Graw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.
Chae, Y. S., and Chiang, Y. C. (1978). "Dynamic properties of lime and
LFA treated soils." Proc., Earthquake Engrg.. and Soil Dynamics.
ASCE Specialty Con!, Vol. 1, Pasadena, Calif., 308-324.
Chan, C. K. (1975). "Low-friction seal system." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div.,
ASCE, 101(9),991-995.
Chan, C. K. (1981). "An electropneumatic cyclic loading system." J.
Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 4(4),183-187.
Dobry, R., and Vucetic, K. (1987). "State-of-the-art report; Dynamic
properties and response of soft clay deposits." Proc., Int. Symp. on
Geotech. Engrg. of Soft Soils, Vol. 2, 51-87.
Eades, J. L., and Grim, R. E. (1960). "Reaction of hydrated lime with
pure clay minerals in soil stabilization." Hwy. Res. Board, Bull. No.
262, Nat. Res. Council, Washington, D.C., 51-63.
Fahoum, K. (1994). "Dynamic properties of lime-stabilized cohesive
soils," PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, Md.
Ferris, G. A., Eades, J. L., Graves, R. E., and McClellan, G. H. (1991).
"Improved characteristics in sulfate soils treated with barium com-
pounds before lime stabilization." Transp. Res. Rec. 1295, Transp. Res.
Board, Washington, D.C., 45-51.
Ford, C. M., Moore, R. K., and Hajek, B. F. (1982). "Reaction products
J. Geotech. Engrg. 1996.122:382-389.
of lime-treated southeastern soils." Transp. Res. Rec. 839, Transp. Res.
Board, Washington, D.C., 38-40.
Hicher, P. Y., EI Hosri, M. S., and Homsi, M. (1987). "Cyclic properties
of soils within a large range of strain amplitude." Developments in
geotechnical engineering 42, soil dynamics and liquefaction, A. S.
Cakmak, ed., Elsevier Science Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., 365-378.
Ho, C., and Handy, R. L. (1963). "Characteristics of lime retention by
montmorillonitic clays." Hwy. Res. Rec. 29, Hwy. Res. Board, Wash-
ington, D.C., 55-69.
Kramer, S. L., and Holtz, R. D. (1991). "Soil improvement and foun-
dation remediation with emphasis on seismic hazards." Rep., National
Science Foundation, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil mechanics. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Li, X. S., Chan, C. K., and Shen, C. K. (1988). "An automated triaxial
testing system." Advanced triaxial testing of soil and rock, ASTM STP
977, R. T. Donaghe, R. C. Chaney, and M. L. Silver, eds., ASTM,
Philadelphia, Pa.
"Lime stabilization." (1987). State-of-the-Art Rep. 5, Transp. Res. Board,
Washington, D.C.
Little, N. D. (1987). "Fundamentals of stabilization of soil with lime."
Bull. 332, National Lime Assoc., Arlington, Tex.
Marcuson, W. E, and Wahls, H. E. (1978). "Effect of time on damping
ratio of clays." Symp. on Dynamic Geotech. Testing, ASTM STP 654,
ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 126-147.
Mitchell, J. K., and Dennatas, D. (1990). "Clay soil heave caused by
lime-sulfate reaction." Innovations and uses for lime, ASTM STP 1135,
D. D. Walker, T. B. Hardy, D. C. Hoffman, and D. D. Stanley, eds.,
ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 41-64.
Moore, J. C., and Jones, R. L. (1971). "Effect of soil surface area and
extractable silica, alumina, and iron on lime stabilization characteristics
of Illinois soils." Hwy. Res. Rec. 351, Hwy. Res. Board, Washington.
D.C., 87-92.
Ozier, J. M., and Moore, R. K. (1977). "Factors affecting unconfined
compression strength of salt-lime treated clay." Transp. Res. Rec. 641,
Transp. Res. Board, Washington, D.C., 17-23.
Seed, H. B., and Silver, M. L. (1972). "Settlement of dry sands during
earthquakes." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 98(4),
381-397.
Silver, M. L., and Park, T. K. (1975). "Testing procedure effects on
dynamic soil behavior." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 101(10),
1060-1083.
"Soil behavior under earthquake loading conditions." (1972). Evaluation
of soil characteristics for seismic response analysis, Rep. Prepared for
u.s. Atomic Energy Commission, llD-26444, Shannon and Wilson, and
Agbabian-Jacobsen Associates, Seattle, Wash.
Thompson, M. R. (1969). "Engineering properties of lime-soil mix-
tures." J. Mat., 4(4), 968-969.
Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R. (1991). "Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic
response." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(1),89-107.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / MAY 1996/389