Effects of cement and lime on clay properties

International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development

18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran
Effects of cement and lime treatment on

geotechnical properties of a low plasticity clay
M. Bayat*1, M.R. Asgari2, M. Mousivand3
1. PhD Student, Civil Department of Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

2. Islamic Azad University, Farahan Branch, Civil Engineering Department, Farahan, Iran
3. Islamic Azad University, Gonbad Kavoos Branch, Civil Engineering Department, Gonbad
Kavoos, Iran
Abstract
In the current study, the effects of two types of additive for the soil (i.e. lime/cement) on
the geotechnical and engineering properties of a soil are studied. The results of the study
indicate that optimum moisture content, maximum dry unit weight and plasticity index
are affected by the addition of cement or lime. Also cement treatment result in increase of
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the soils significantly. Whereas the test results
indicate that there is an optimum of lime content so that the addition of a few percentage
of lime results in increase of unconfined compressive strength. Generally, improvement
in mechanical behaviours of the soil due to cement treatment was noticeably higher than
lime treatment. Also the results of tests show that the change of UCS of the specimens
with the initial water content and curing time is significant, so that decreasing of initial
water content or increasing of curing time results in increase of USC of the specimens.
Also, the current study sought to characterize the relationship between secant modulus
(E50) and UCS, curing time and cement or lime content.
Key words: Lime; Cement; Initial water content; Geotechnical properties; Secant modulus
1. Introduction
The improvement of engineering properties of soil by adding chemicals such as cement, fly
ash, lime, or a combination of these, often alters the physical and chemical properties of the
treated soil. There are the two primary mechanisms by which chemicals alter:
1. Increase in particle size due to cementation, increase in shear strength, change in the
plasticity properties, and reduced deformation potential.
2. Absorption and chemical binding of moisture that will facilitate compaction.
It is more than several years that the focus of the researches has been on the stabilization of
soils using various additives such as lime, cement, fly ash, industrial waste products,
potassium nitrate, calcium chloride and phosphoric acid [1-18].
A construction project near Johnsonville, South Carolina in 1935 was one of the first
stabilized construction project in which cement was used as a soil stabilizer in the United
States [19]. The beneficial effects of cement treatment on the performance of a broad range of
soils have been widely presented by previous researches [20-30]. Cement stabilization
develops from the cementations links between the calcium silicate and aluminate hydration
products and the soil particles [31]. Previous studies indicated that addition of cement to clay
soil reduces the liquid limit, plasticity index and swelling potential and increases the
shrinkage limit and shear strength [32]. Cement treatment causes chemical reaction similar to
lime and can be used for both modification and stabilization purposes. Cement can also be
used for stabilization of a wide range of soils. However cement can be applied to stabilize any
type of soil, except those with organic content greater than 2% or having pH lower than 5.3
[33]. Many studies showed that stabilization with cement has significant effect for granular
soils and clayey materials with low plasticity index [34].
It is note that reduction in plasticity index is due to an increasing of plastic limit, which is
highly affected by cement content and curing time [35].
Lime is one of the oldest and still popular additives used to improve of engineering properties
of soils. Construction of Denver International Airport is an example of using lime
stabilization method. Following are the four major lime-based additives used in geotechnical
construction; hydrated high calcium lime Ca(OH)2, Calcitic quick lime CaO, monohydrated
dolomitic lime Ca(OH)2 MgO, and dolomitic quick lime CaO MgO.
Lime treatment of soil facilitates the construction activity in following ways [36]. First, a
decrease in the liquid limit and an increase in the plastic limit results in a significant reduction
in plasticity index. Reduction in plasticity index facilitates higher workability of the treated
soil. Second chemical reaction between soil and lime results in a reduction in water content.
Further, lime addition increases the optimum moisture content but decreases the maximum
dry density and finally immediate increase in strength results in a stable platform that
facilitates the mobility of equipment.
Croft (1967) indicated that the addition of lime significantly reduces the swelling potential,
liquid limit, plasticity index and maximum dry density of the soil, and increases its optimum
moisture content, shrinkage limit and strength [6]. Bell (1996) indicated that the optimum
addition of lime needed for maximum modification of the soil is normally between 1% and
3% lime by weight, and further additions of lime do not bring changes in the plastic limit, but
increase the strength [8]. However, other studies reported the use of lime between 2% and 8%
in soil stabilization [4]. Ola (1978) and Gillot (1989) have reported that stabilizer type, soil
type, composition, mineralogy, particle shape and particle size distribution influence the
results of soil stabilization [38-39].
Improvement of soils strength using cement stabilization occurs through the same type of
pozzolanic reactions found using lime stabilization. Both lime and cement contain the calcium
required for the pozzolanic reactions to occur; however, the origin of the silica required for
the pozzolanic reactions to occur differs. With lime stabilization, the silica is provided when
the clay particle is broken down. With cement stabilization, the cement already contains the
silica without needing to break down the clay mineral. Thus, unlike lime stabilization, cement
stabilization is fairly independent of the soil properties; the only requirement is that the soil
contains some water for the hydration process to begin. Also similar to lime stabilization,
carbonation can also occur when using cement stabilization. When cement is exposed to air,
the cement will react with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to produce a relatively
insoluble calcium carbonate. Thus, similar to lime, proper handling methods and expedited
construction procedures should be employed to avoid premature carbonation of cement
through exposure to air.
Although extensive researches have been done on soil stabilization with cement or lime, but
the literature indicates minimal studies on the stabilization of clayey soils with low plasticity
with both lime and cement for different time intervals. Therefore, this study was carried out to
add new information to the literature in this area.
The aim of current study is to investigate effects of lime content or cement content, initial
water content and curing time on engineering properties of the low plasticity clay. To achieve
this goal the optimum moisture content was considered with different initial water contents
(dry, wet, and optimum moisture). Furthermore 3%, 5%, 7% and 9% weight percentages for
lime and cement were chosen. Stabilized soils were tested in 7, 14, 21, 28 and 60 day periods
(intervals). Results related to uniaxial resistance tests on the untreated and treated soil with
lime and cement are shown in the following sections.
2. Materials and method
First stage in the current study is collection of samples from the site of project. Due to vast
domain of site and also variation in the soil and their characteristics throughout the field, the
studied field was divided into ten regions, so that the soil samples derived from these regions.
The initial physical properties of specimens are given in Table 1. The values in this table are
average values obtained from all specimens in the current study. The grain size distribution
and compaction test result (ASTM D, 1557, 2002, Method A) obtained by using the Standard
Proctor Compaction method are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively [40]. Moreover, in
identification of the field soil, Atterberg limits test was performed on the soil. Atterberg limit
tests were conducted on the original and mix soils according to ASTM D, 4318 [41].
Table 1 Classification properties of soil

Liquid limit % 29
Plastic limit % 20
Plasticity index % 9
ɣd-max ( gr/cm3) 1.7
ωopt % 18.5
Gs 2.6
Passing 200 sieve (%) 98
Soil type: (unified system) CL
Figure 1: Grain size distribution curves Figure 2: Standard Proctor compaction curves
3. Laboratory tests
Despite its limitations on replicating conditions in the field, the unconfined compression test
is one of the widely used laboratory tests in pavement application and soil stabilization
application. The unconfined compression strength is often used as an index to quantify the
improvement of soils due to treatment. In the current study, unconfined compressive strength
testing was performed on all extracted specimens using a constant strain rate (2%/min). Each
specimen was loaded until peak stress was obtained. The procedure involved mixing the soil
with the stabilizer and allowing the mixture to mellow in a sealed container. The specimens
were compacted in plastic molds and sealed with plastic lids. The sealed specimens were
submerged in water at room temperature to prevent drying by diffusion of moisture out of the
sealed compaction molds. The experimental work included the addition of different
percentages of Portland cement/lime (3, 5, 7 and 9% of dry weight of soil) to the host soil.
The specimens were cured for different periods of time, then extracted from the molds and
subjected to unconfined compressive strength testing. In fact, the specimens tested at 7, 14,
21, 28 and 60-days intervals with different initial water content (optimum moisture content
(O.M.C), 2% more than O.M.C (wet side) and 2% less than O.M.C (dry side)) of the optimum
moisture contents.
4. Results and discussions

1-4- Atterberg limits
In this stage Atterberg limits tests with different cement or lime contents were done to
determine the effect of stabilizer contents on the Atterberg limits of the soil. For this purpose,
Atterberg limits tests were conducted 30 minutes after addition of cement according to ASTM
D, 4318. Whereas the Atterberg limits were done on the soil samples two-days after addition
of lime. The liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of the treated soil samples are
shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b) for the different cement or lime contents, respectively .
Figure 3: Consistency limits of the: (a) cement-soil mixture; (b) lime-soil mixture
Fig. 3(a) indicate that initially liquid limit of the soil-cement mixture specimens increased
slightly at the addition of 3% cement and after which liquid limit decreased with an increase
in cement content. In other words, cement caused the maximum increase in liquid limit (32%)
at the addition of 3% cement. While plastic limit increased slightly relatively constant.
Consequently the plasticity index of soil-cement mixture increased initially (in cement
content equal to 3%) followed by a decrease with increasing of cement content.
For the soil-lime mixture specimens Fig. 3(b) indicate the variation of the liquid limit, plastics
limit and plasticity index. According to the tests results, the liquid limit and plastic limit of
the soil-lime mixture increased slightly due to increasing of lime content. Also with lime
added to make up approximately 3%, plasticity index starts to increases slightly and soil
samples maintained an overall decrease in plasticity index by the further addition of lime.
2-4- Compaction characteristics

For the current research, standard Proctor compaction test was used in order to minimize
variations in compaction energy. This allowed for more consistency throughout sample
production and, ultimately, more consistent results. The results of compaction tests are given
in Figs. 4(a) and (b) for soil-cement mixture and soil-lime mixture. It can be seen from Fig. 4
that at the addition of 5% cement, we will have minimum value of optimum moisture content
and maximum value of dried specific weight. However this value is less than specific weight
of untreated soil. Also it can be seen that more added cement decrease dried specific weight.
In other words, least specific weight will be met at the addition of 9% cement.
Figure 4: Variation of: (a) optimum water content; (b) maximum dry unit weight
Also as shown in Fig. 4, adding lime to the soil has effect on the maximum dried specific
weight and optimum moisture content. The results indicate that by adding of 7% lime, the
dried specific weight of soil reduced slightly after which the dried specific weight of soil
increased slightly due to adding. Maximum dry density reduction due to added lime is 6-11%
approximately. On the other hand, the optimum moisture content will increase by adding lime
to the soil. At the addition of 3% or 9% weight of lime, the lowest and highest increase of
optimum moisture content can be achieved, respectively (see Fig.4).
Generally the maximum dry density of the soil-lime mixture is lower than in the soil-cement
mixture. However, the maximum dry density in the treated soil is lower than in the untreated
soil. Also it can be observed that, generally, the soil the optimum moisture content will be
more increased due to adding lime than adding cement.
3-4- Unconfined compressive strength

The effects of cement and lime treatment on unconfined compressive strength of the soil in
different intervals are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. These figures present peak axial
shear stress versus cement or lime content. As shown in Fig. 5 the peak axial stress increases
significantly due to cement treatment. Also as shown in Fig. 6, effect of lime content is not
the same effect of cement content. In fact, the effect of lime content is more dependent on
initial moisture content of sample than effect of cement content. In other words, optimum
lime content is not constant in varying moisture content. The result of tests indicated that
optimum lime content is dependent on initial moisture content of soil. As show in results,
generally, optimum lime content decreases due to decreasing of initial moisture content.
Figure 5: Variation of UCS with respect to cement content at the end of: (a) 7 days curing
period; (b) 14 days curing period; (c) 21 days curing period; (d) 28 days curing period; (e) 60
days curing period
In the specimens in dry side, low lime content has significant effect on strength improvement.
However, cement content has a significant effect on strength, producing an accelerating
increase in strength with increasing cement content.
4-4- Moisture content

Figs. 7 and 8 depict the effect of the initial water content and unconfined compressive
strength of the cement or lime treated soil. Based on performed uniaxial tests on the soil
samples that were treated with different water content (i.e. dry side, O.M.C and wet side), it is
seen that compressive strength of treated soil samples in dry side is more than the other water
contents. In other words, the results of this research suggest that the water-stabilizer ratio (the
ratio of moisture content of the soil to the stabilizer content) is the significant factor on
mechanical behaviour of treated soil. In fact, test results indicated that increasing initial water-
stabilizer ratio produced decreasing strength of the treated soil.
Figure 6: Variation of UCS with respect to lime content at the end of: (a) 7 days curing period;
(b) 14 days curing period; (c) 21 days curing period; (d) 28 days curing period; (e) 60 days
curing period
Figure 7: Variation of UCS with respect to Figure 8: Variation of UCS with respect to
curing time for various cement content curing time for various lime content
5-4- Curing time

Curing times of 7, 14, 21, 28 and 60 days were used in this research. The test results from the
curing study are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for soil-stabilizer mixture. The data points represent
the unconfined compressive strength for the samples at varying curing times .
The logarithmic trend lines shown provide a good fit for the strength versus curing time data
obtained from this research. The trend lines were fit to the data in the form as the equation
below:
qu= qu0 + a ln(t) (1)
Where: qu is unconfined compressive strength; t is time; and qu0 and a are coefficients
obtained by least-squares regression. All referenced strength values refer to the strengths
obtained from the trend lines fit to the data. The values of coefficients (qu0 and a) are
presented in Table 2.
Table 5: Values of a and t parameters
a T
Cement Content (%) Dry side O.M.C Wet side Dry side O.M.C Wet side
3 364 134 203 1108 1185 335
5 430 536 265 1972 1181 885
7 957 390 266 1638 2113 1491
Lime Content (%)
3 222 176 79 512 529 307

5 122 214 98 665 188 280
7 157 116 113 547 370 256
9 208 46 49 200 199 125
6-4- Modulus of elasticity

The secant modulus E50 is evaluated at the stress level equal to 50% of unconfined
compressive strength from stress-strain curve. Figs. 9 and 10 show the secant modulus (E50)
of the treated soil versus cement content and lime content, respectively. As shown in Figs.9
and 10, E50 value of the treated specimen with cement is more than the treated specimen with
lime at given moisture content and curing time. Also the results indicate that E50 values is
changed by change of moisture content or curing time for both specimens treated with cement
and lime, so there is an indirect relationship between E50 values and moisture content.
Eventually, the E50 values appear to be less sensitive to curing time than moisture content.
Figure 9: Variation of Young’s Secant modulus E50 versus cement content of: (a) 7 days curing
days curing period
Figure10: Variation of Young’s Secant modulus E50 versus lime content of: (a) 7 days curing
days curing period.
5. Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from the current experimental study:
The plasticity index of treated soil with cement increased initially (for the cement content low
than 3%) followed by a decrease with increasing of cement content. Thus, cement added soils
have better workability. While, with lime added to make up approximately 3%, plasticity
index starts to increases slightly and the further addition of lime to soil samples result in an
overall decrease in plasticity index.
According to the results of compaction tests, the effect of lime is more than effect of cement
on optimum water content and maximum dry unit weight. So that the changes of optimum
water content and maximum dry unit weight due to addition of cement content does not have
a general tendency. Whereas addition of lime decrease maximum dry unit weight and also
increase optimum water content.
Cement treatment leads to significant increase in unconfined compressive strength. Whereas,
there exist an optimum lime content when lime is used to treat soil. The optimum lime content
is function of initial water content and curing time. In generally, improvement in unconfined
compressive strength of soil due to cement treatment was noticeably higher than lime
treatment.
Increasing of unconfined compressive strength due to addition of cement or lime is affected

by initial water content and curing time, so that unconfined compressive strength of the
treated soil increases by increasing of curing time or decreasing of initial water content. Also
the treated soil exhibited much more brittle behavior compared with untreated soil. Beside,
unconfined compressive strength of treated soil with lime or cement is more sensitive to
initial water content than curing time.
Secant modulus of soil is affected by cement or lime content, so that secant modulus of the
treated specimen with cement is more than the treated specimen with lime at given moisture
content and curing time. Also the results indicate that secant modulus is affected by moisture
content or curing time for both specimens treated with cement and lime, so there is an indirect
relationship between secant modulus and moisture content. Eventually, the secant modulus
appears to be less sensitive to curing time than moisture content.
References
[1] Rahman A. The Potentials of Some Stabilizers for the Use of Lateritic Soil in Construction.
Building and Environment; 21(1): 57-61, 1986.
[2] Rahman AA. Comparative Study of the Potentials of Rice Husk Ash on Cohesive and
[3] Bryan AJ. Soil/Cement as a Walling Material I. Stress/Strain Properties. Building and
Environment; 23(4): 321-330, 1988.
[4] Basma AA, Tuncer ER. Effect of lime on volume change and compressibility of expansive clays.
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, TRR No; 1296: 54–61, 1991.
[5] Al-Rawasa AA, Hagoa AW, Al-Sarmib H. Effect of lime, cement and Sarooj (artificial pozzolan)
on the swelling potential of an expansive soil from Oman. Building and Environment; 40: 681–687,
2005.
[6] Croft JB. The influence of soil mineralogical composition on cement stabilization. Geotechnique
17, London, England; 119–135, 1967.
[7] Sherwood PT. Soil stabilization with cement and lime: state of the art review. Transport Research
Laboratory, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1993.
[8] Bell FG. Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils. Engineering Geology; 42: 223–37, 1996.
[9] Miller G, Azad S. Influence of soil type on stabilization with cement kiln dust. Construction and
Building Materials; 14(2): 89–97, 2000.
[10] Nalbantoglu Z, Gucbilmez E. Improvement of calcareous expansive soils in semi-arid
environments. Journal of Arid Environments; 47(4): 453–63, 2001.
[11] Rao SM, Reddy BVV, Muttharam M. The impact of cyclic wetting and drying on the swelling
behaviour of stabilized expansive soils. Engineering Geology; 60(1–4): 223–33, 2001.
[12] Al-Rawas AA, Taha R, Nelson JD, Beit Al-Shab T, Al-Siyabi H. A comparative evaluation of
various additives used in the stabilization of expansive soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ,
ASTM; 25(2):199–209, 2002.
[13] Aiban SA, Al-Ahmad HM, Asi AM, Siddique ZU, Al-Amoudi OSB. Effect of geotextile and
cement on the performance of sabkha subgrade. Building and Environment; 4: 807–820, 2006.
[14] Kalkan E. Utilization of red mud as a stabilization material for the preparation of clay liners.
Engineering Geology; 87 (3–4): 220-229, 2006.
[15] Guney Y, Sari D, Cetin M, Tuncan M. Impact of cyclic wetting–drying on swelling behavior of
lime-stabilized soil. Building and Environment; 42: 681–688, 2007.
[16] Segetin M, Jayaraman K, Xu X. Harakeke reinforcement of soil–cement building materials:

Manufacturability and properties. Building and Environment; 42: 3066–3079, 2007.
[17] Degirmenci N, Okucu A, Turabib A. Application of phosphogypsum in soil stabilization.
Building and Environment; 42: 3393–3398, 2007.
[18] Yilmaz Y, Ozaydin V. Compaction and shear strength characteristics of colemanite ore waste
modified active belite cement stabilized high plasticity soils. Engineering Geology; 155: 45-53, 2013.
[19] Das BM. Principle of foundation engineering, PWS-KENT publishing company, Boston; 1990.
[20] Balmer GG. Shear strength and elastic properties of soil-cement mixture under triaxial loading.
Portland Cement Association Research and Development Laboratories; 1958.
[21] Rocha M, Folque J, Esteves VP. The application of cement stabilized soils in the construction of
earth dams. Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris,
France; 1961.
[22] Nash JKTL, Jardine FM, Humphrey JD. The economic and physical feasibility of soil-cement
dams. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Montreal, Canada; 2, 517-521, 1965.
[23] Wissa AEZ, Ladd CC, Lambe TW. Effective stress-strength parameters of stabilized soils.
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Montreal, Canada; 1965.
[24] Abboud MM. Mechanical properties of cement-treated soils in relation to their use in
embankment construction, Ph.D dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, CA; 1973.
[25] Mitchell JK. The Properties of Cement-Stabilized Soils, Proceeding of Residential Workshop on
Materials and Methods for Low Cost Road, Rail, and Reclamation Works, Leura, Australia. Unisearch
Ltd; 1976.
[26] Baghdadi AZ, Rahman MA. The Potential of Cement Kiln Dust for the Stabilization of Dune
Sand in Highway Construction. Building and Environment; 25(4): 285-289, 1990.
[27] Uddin Tabatabi AM. Pavement [Roosazi Rah]. University’s publication center, Tehran, Iran;
1997.
[28] Lo SR,Wardani SPR. Strength and dilatancy of a stabilized by a cement and fly ash mixture.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal; 39 (1): 77–89, 2002.
[29] Lorenzo AL, Bergado DT. Fundamental parameters of cement-admixed clay-new approach.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE; 130 (10): 1042–1050, 2004.
[30] Sariosseiri F. Critical State Framework for Interpretation of Geotechnical Properties of Cement
Treated Soils. Ph.D. Dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman, WA; 2008.
[31] Currin DD, Allen JJ, Little DN. Validation of Soil Stabilization Index System with Manual
Development. Report No. FJSRL-TR-0006. Frank J. Seisler Research Laboratory, United States Air
Force Academy, Colorado;1976.
[32] Nelson JD, Miller JD. Expansive soils: problems and practice in foundation and pavement
engineering. New York: Wiley; 1992.
[33] ACI 230.1R-90. State-of-the-Art report on soil Cement. ACI Material Journal; 87 (4), 1990.
[34] Engineering manual 1110-3-137. Soil stabilization for pavements mobilization construction,
Department of the Army, Corps of engineers office of the chief of engineers, 1984.
[35] Bergado DT, Anderson LR, Miura N, Balasubramaniam AS. Soft ground improvement. ASCE
Press; 1996.
[36] Mallela J, Quintus HV, Smith K. Consideration of lime-stabilized layers in mechanistic-empirical
pavement design. The National Lime Association; 2004.
[37] Bell FG. Engineering treatment of soils. E & FN Spon, London; 10–160, 1993.
[38] Ola SA. Geotechnical properties and behavior of some stabilized Nigerian lateritic soils.
Engineering Geology; 11: 145–160, 1978.
[39] Gillot JE. Clay in engineering geology, Elsevier, New York; 1989.
[40] ASTM 1557-02. Designation D, Standard test method for laboratory compaction characteristics
of soil using modified effort. Annual book of ASTM standards. American Society for Testing and
Materials; 255–260, 2002.
[41] ASTM D 4318-00. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken; PA: 1-14, 2002.

Effects of cement and lime on clay properties

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of cement and lime on clay properties

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Conference on Civil Engineering

Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development

Effects of cement and lime treatment on

M. Bayat*1, M.R. Asgari2, M. Mousivand3

1. PhD Student, Civil Department of Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

2. Materials and method

Table 1 Classification properties of soil

4. Results and discussions

2-4- Compaction characteristics

3-4- Unconfined compressive strength

4-4- Moisture content

5-4- Curing time

3 222 176 79 512 529 307

6-4- Modulus of elasticity

Increasing of unconfined compressive strength due to addition of cement or lime is affected

[16] Segetin M, Jayaraman K, Xu X. Harakeke reinforcement of soil–cement building materials:

You might also like