See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357601728

Optimal water-cement ratio of cement-stabilized soil

Article  in  Construction and Building Materials · February 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126211

CITATIONS READS

0 106

3 authors:

Fangtong Wang Kai-Qi Li

Wuhan University Wuhan University
8 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yong Liu
Wuhan University
156 PUBLICATIONS   1,470 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of inherent spatial variability on global performance of geotechnical structures View project

Marine Geotechnical Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fangtong Wang on 28 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Optimal water-cement ratio of cement-stabilized soil

Fangtong Wang , Kaiqi Li , Yong Liu *
State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Institute of Engineering Risk and Disaster Prevention, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072,
PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Since the water-cement ratio of cement-stabilized soil has a significant influence on strength and stiffness, this
Water-cement ratio study aimed to investigate a new water-cement ratio selection method for deep soil mixing construction. An
Laboratory tests empirical model was established to estimate the optimal water-cement ratio of cement-stabilized soil with
Deep soil mixing
different cement contents based on the results of a series of liquid limit tests, bleeding limit tests, particle grading
Cement-stabilized soil
Boundary moisture content
tests, unconfined compressive tests, and viscosity tests. The water-cement ratio calculated by this model can
satisfy the fluidity of the cement-stabilized soil and prevent bleeding. The test results indicate that the optimal
water-cement ratio changes with the cement content, and it can be accurately described by the proposed model.
Besides, this model can also predict the 7-day unconfined compressive strength and stiffness of cement-stabilized
soil with the optimal water-cement ratios. The cement-stabilized soil with the optimal water-cement ratio can
guarantee the uniformity and strength. The proposed model shall be of practical value in dealing with the en­
gineering problems on the selection of water-cement ratio in deep soil mixing construction.

1. Introduction
Deep soil mixing (DSM) is a widely used ground improvement
technique to control ground movement and permeability [1,2,3]. As an
effective and flexible ground improvement technique, the DSM columns
can be used as the pile foundation, retaining wall, and cut-off wall [4,5].
The DSM columns with various binders and shapes can be constructed
based on the actual project conditions [6,7,8]. Moreover, the current
researches have systematically studied the engineering application and
the main influence factors of mechanical performance of cement-
stabilized soil in various regions. Lee et al. [9] and Flores et al. [10]
studied the strength and stiffness of cement-stabilized Singapore marine
clay and Kaolin clay. The test results indicate that the cemented soil has
better mechanical performance than natural soil. The water content is
the primary influence factor of the strength of cement-stabilized soil. For
expansive soil, red clay, and loess, DSM also has an effective treatment.
Bhadriraju et al. [11] proposed an experimental method for measuring
the strength and small-strain stiffness of cement-stabilized expansive
soil. Madhyannapu [12] improved the DSM method for expansive soil
areas. After improvement, the strength and stiffness of expansive soil
foundation increase significantly, and the swell-shrink characteristic of
in-situ expansive soil also weakens [13]. Osula [14] compared the
reinforcement effect of lime and cement on red clay. Li et al. [15] and Li
et al. [16] pointed that cement can improve the mechanical performance
of red clay, and the water content can significantly affect the strength
and failure mode of cement-stabilized red clay. Evstatiev [17] compared
some common methods of improvement of loess and discussed the
applicability of deep mixing technique in loess areas. Angelova [18]
pointed that the DSM has great promise in the stabilization of collapsible
loess. Thus, the applicability of DSM in various regions has been widely
demonstrated, and the water content can influence the strength of
cement-stabilized soil. In addition, the DSM technique can be divided
into the dry and wet methods, of which the former is more suitable for
the areas with high water content [6,19,20]. Considering the different
applicable conditions and construction technologies, we focused on the
wet method of DSM in this study.
The uniformity of DSM columns can be affected by the slurry vis­
cosity, construction techniques, and construction machines. This study
focused on the slurry viscosity which can be significantly affected by
water content. The water content of cement-stabilized soil is determined
by the water-cement ratio of cement slurry and in-situ water content of
the soil. However, the in-situ water content cannot be controlled arti­
ficially. Thus, an appropriate water-cement ratio can ensure the strength
and uniformity of DSM columns. Otherwise, the quality and safety of the
project cannot be guaranteed. Table 1 summarizes the current studies of
cement-stabilized soil with different mix ratios. Although the cement-
stabilized soil has been widely investigated, the water-cement ratio is

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fangtong@whu.edu.cn (F. Wang), kq_jane@whu.edu.cn (K. Li), liuy203@whu.edu.cn (Y. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126211
Received 12 June 2021; Received in revised form 18 December 2021; Accepted 22 December 2021
Available online 4 January 2022
0950-0618/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Wang et al. Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211

Nomenclature N magnification factor of water content

w/c(op) optimal water-cement ratio
wPs plastic limit of soil S areas between the particle size distribution curves and
wLs liquid limit of soil transverse axis
PI plastic index n number of data points
wn in-situ water content of soil Si area of the ith trapezoid
Gs specific gravity Dmax maximum particle size for all samples
Aw cement content D50 particle size when the cumulative grain-size distribution is
Cw water content of cement-stabilized soil 50%
w/c water-cement ratio D90 particle size when the cumulative grain-size distribution is
wL liquid limit for 0-hour curing time of cemented soil 90%
wB bleeding limit of cemented soil D100 particle size when the cumulative grain-size distribution is
wLc liquid limit for 0-hour curing time of cement 100%
τ shear stress |ΔS| absolute values of the area difference
γ strain rate Ssoil area between the particle size distribution curve of soil and
k consistency index transverse axis
nr rheological index Scement area between the particle size distribution curve of cement
η dynamic viscosity coefficient and transverse axis
ηa apparent viscosity qu unconfined compressive strength
η0 zero-shear-rate viscosity E50 secant modulus when the strength is 50% of the peak
η∞ Newtonian limiting viscosity strength
Cw(op) optimal water content of cement-stabilized soil α fitting parameter in Eq. (15)
a fitting parameter in Eq. (3)

Table 1
Summary of researches on cement-stabilized soil with various mix ratios.
Reference Soil Binder Liquid Limit Binder content Water content Water–binder ratio
wLs (%) Aw (%) (%) w/b

Horpibulsuk et al. (2005) [1] Ariake clay OPC 120 8–33 120–250 7.5–15
Lee et al. (2005) [9] Singapore marine clay OPC 63.9 88–133, 84–105 1.8–1.9
Bhadriraju et al. (2007) [11] Expansive soil OPC/lime 62.7 3–12 26–32 1
Madhyannapu (2008) [12] Expansive soil OPC/lime 62.7 3–12 26–32 0.8–1.2
Xiao and Lee (2008) [21] Singapore marine clay OPC 90 10–100 100–150 1–5
Flores et al. (2010) [10] Kaolin clay OPC/BFSC 58 5–20 95.8–109.5 /
Madhyannapu and Puppala (2014) [13] Expansive soil OPC/lime 45–79 6–12 28–32 0.8–1.3
Kang et al. (2015) [22] Tokuyama port clay OPC 107.6 2–20 161.4–215.2 /
Mizushima port clay OPC 65.3 10–20 99.0–163.3 /
Hibiki port clay OPC 61.2 10–20 91.8 /
Moji port clay OPC 89.5 10–20 134.3 /
Tsuchida and Tang (2015) [23] Tokyo bay clay OPC 124.9 40–70 179–250 1–2
Yokohama port clay OPC 61.8 90–130 76.1–120 1.2
Amagasak port clay OPC 100.2 75–175 119.3–179.9 1
Kobe port clay OPC 71.4 50–110 136.4–220.5 1.2
Ribeiro et al. (2016) [24] Silty sand OPC / 10–13 5.5–23 0.6–2
Kang et al. (2017) [2] Tokuyama marine clay OPC 107.6 11.1–42.9 161.4–215.2 0.5–1
Xiao (2017) [25] Singapore marine clay OPC/FAC 74 20–100 100–133 2.3–6
Wang et al. (2018) [26] Silty soil CMK/OPC 26.4 15 35 /
Yao et al. (2018) [27] Singapore marine clay OPC 74 20–50 100–110 1–3.5
Yao et al. (2018) [28] Singapore marine clay OPC 74 10–100 100–183.3 1–3.5
Kang et al. (2019) [29] Tokuyama marine clay BOFSS 107.2 20–30 128.6–214.3 /
Liu et al. (2019) [30] Soft clay and Kaolin SCM 54.7–42 20 42.7–54.7 /
Luis et al. (2019) [31] Eastern Edmonton soil OPC/fly ash 40.90 20.2–22.5 53.4–54.1 1.4–1.6
Ngoc et al. (2019) [32] Kaolin clay OPC 50 10–20 62.5–79.2 0–1
Suganya and Sivapullaiah (2020) [33] Kuttanad soil OPC 137 / 165–200 3.3–6.5
Bayesteh et al. (2020) [34] Marine clay/sand OPC/stone powder 29.1 20 54–68.3 0.75–1.25

Note: OPC, ordinary Portland cement; BFSC, blast furnace slag cement; FAC, fly ash cement; CMK, coal-bearing metakaolin; SCM, steel slag, ordinary Portland cement
and metakolin composite; BOFSS, basic oxygen furnace steel slag.

mostly selected as an empirical constant. However, the states of cement-
soil mixture with various cement contents and water-cement ratios are
quite different (Fig. 1). As shown in Table 1, the water-binder ratio used
in different studies ranges from 0 to 15. Kang et al. [2,22,29], Luis et al.
[31], and Ngoc et al. [32] used the multiples of soil’s liquid limit to
determine the water content of cement-stabilized soil. However, the
multiples are quite different for various experimental materials due to
no definite standard (range from 1.1 to 2.5). Furthermore, Osula [14]
and Stavridakis [35] represent that the binder addition can change the
liquid limit for 0-hour curing time of soil-binder mixture. Thus, a novel
water-cement ratio selection method was proposed in this study. An
empirical model was established based on the results of a series of
boundary moisture content tests (including liquid limit and bleeding
limit tests), particle grading tests, unconfined compressive tests, and
viscosity tests with different types of soil. The optimal water-cement
ratio with various cement contents and the corresponding strength

2
F. Wang et al. Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211

Fig. 1. Cement-expansive soil mixture with various cement contents and water-cement ratios.

Table 2
Basic physical properties of soils in this study.
Soil Sampling location wPs wLs PI wn Gs
(%) (%) (%) (%)

Expansive soil Nanyang, Henan 19.7 44.9 25.4 15.3 2.74

province, China
Loess Jingyang, Shaanxi 18.3 28.3 10.0 20.0 2.70
province, China
Red clay Wuhan, Hubei 17.4 49.8 32.4 38.7 2.77
province, China
Soft soil Shaoxing, Zhejiang 19.8 49.9 25.4 58.0 2.76
province, China
Montmorillonite Zhengzhou, Henan 21.7 67.6 45.9 / 2.79
province, China

Note: wPs is the plastic limit of soil; wLs is the liquid limit of soil; PI is plastic
Fig. 3. Classification of the experimental materials.
index; wn is the in-situ water content of soil; Gs is specific gravity.

and stiffness of cement-stabilized soil can be calculated by this model.

2. Methodology

2.1. Experimental materials

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution curves of the experimental materials.
Four different soils used in this study are expansive soil, loess, red
clay, soft soil, and montmorillonite, which are suitable for DSM tech­
nique [36,37]. The soils were collected from different cities in China to
verify the universality of the proposed method. The basic physical
properties of the soils are summarized in Table 2. The in-situ water
content of montmorillonite cannot be measured due to it being a mineral
product. The particle size distribution was measured by Bettersize2600
LPSA (laser particle size analyzer) which can measure the particle size
by the scattering angle of laser. The curves are shown in Fig. 2. The
“Finder percentage” means the percentage of particles being less than
the corresponding particle size. The ordinary Portland cement of grade
42.5 (OPC 42.5#) was used as a cementing binder herein since it is
commonly used in ground improvement. The soils and cement can be

3
F. Wang et al. Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211

Fig. 5. Test devices for (a) liquid limit tests; (b) particle grading tests; (c)
viscosity tests.

the wL is the liquid limit for 0-hour curing time of cement-stabilized soil
due to the DSM construction must be completed before the initial
setting. Thus, it was measured without curing in this study. Considering
that the major clay minerals of the soil are hydrophilic, the effect of
mineral composition was not further analyzed. The effect of particle size

Fig.4. Mineral composition of the experimental materials.

classified by the Standard for Engineering Classification of Soil (GB/T

50145–2007) [38]. As shown in Fig. 3, the montmorillonite is classified
as high-liquid limit clay (CH), and others are classified as low-liquid
limit clay (CL).
The X-Ray diffraction (XRD) tests and scanning electron microscope
(SEM) tests were also conducted to analyze the mineral composition and
microscopic morphology of the materials. The XRD test results are
shown in Fig. 4. The main non-clay mineral of expansive soil, loess, red
clay, and soft soil are quartz. The hematite, calcite, and albite also exist
in various soils. Also, as the common clay minerals, the montmor­
illonoid, kaolinite, illite, and muscovite can affect the anisotropy and
Atterberg limits of soil due to the lamellar structure and small particle
size (less than 0.01 mm) [39]. The mineral composition can also cause
the various unique physical properties of soil. For instance, the mont­
morillonoid can cause the swell-shrink characteristics of expansive soil
and montmorillonite; the hematite causes the red clay to appear red and
stiff in the natural environment. The OPC 42.5# is mainly composed of
calcium silicate (includes 3CaO⋅SiO2 and 2CaO⋅SiO2), tricalcium
aluminate, and brownmillerite. The gypsum existed in cement to control
the initial setting time.

2.2. Sample preparation and experimental program

The cement content (Aw), water content of cement-stabilized soil

(Cw), and water-cement ratio (w/c) are herein defined as the mass ratios
of cement to dry soil solid, water to dry soil, and cement solids, and
water of cement slurry to cement solids, respectively. If Cw is relatively
low, the fluidity of the cemented soil is poor, which hinders the appli­
cation of DSM technique, and the uniformity of the cemented soil mixing Fig. 6. The sample preparation procedures of bleeding limit and unconfined
pile is also unlikely to be guaranteed. On the contrary, if Cw is high, compressive tests: (a) mixing the soil powder and cement slurry in mixer at the
bleeding of cemented soil occurs. Lee et al. [9] pointed that the water rotational speed of 130 r/min for about 10 min; (b) mixture placed into a three-
content of cemented soil should be greater than the liquid limit of piece split mold with 50 mm inner diameter and 100 mm height; (c) curing into
cemented soil (wL) and lower than the bleeding limit (wB). Especially, deionized water at 20 ℃.

4
F. Wang et al. Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211

limit is the upper limit water content of the plastic state. Thus, Cw of
each test is 1, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 times wL. The samples were cured into
deionized water for 1 day and then measured the bleeding height. The
bleeding limit means the water content when the bleeding height is 1%
of the total height [9]. The unconfined compressive tests for the soil with
10%, 20%, and 30% cement contents were conducted after 7-days of
curing time, and the Cw and w/c can be determined based on the results
of liquid limit and bleeding limit tests.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Determination of the optimal water-cement ratio

3.1.1. Results of liquid and bleeding limit tests

The liquid limit and bleeding limit of cement-stabilized soil are
focused in this study. The results of liquid limit tests are shown in Fig. 7.
The liquid limit for 0-hour curing time of cement (wLc) was measured as
30.8%. The normalized parameter wL/wLc was used herein for the con­
venience of analysis. The wL tends to wLc with the increase of Aw. It is
Fig. 7. Relationship between wL/wLc and Aw of cement-stabilized soil. consistent with the experimental results of Osula [14] and Stavridakis
[35]. The liquid limit is the boundary between the plastic state and the
flow state, and the fluidity of the slurry must be guaranteed to ensure the
distribution on wL was quantitatively analyzed herein. Besides, to
uniformity of the DSM columns. Thus, the wL should be used as a
facilitate the design and construction for engineering practitioners, the
parameter to determine the optimal Cw and w/c. As shown in Fig. 7, the
corresponding strength and stiffness of cemented soil shall be provided,
relationship between wL/wLc and Aw is nonlinear. Compared with the
and the viscosity of cement slurry also must ensure the continuity of
condition of high cement content, the increase of Aw has a more
pumping during DSM construction. Thus, a series of boundary moisture
noticeable impact on the wL when the Aw is less than 100% which is
content tests, particle grading tests, unconfined compressive tests, and
commonly used in DSM columns. It indicates that the effect of Aw on the
viscosity tests were conducted in this study.
wL of cement-soil slurry cannot be neglected.
The liquid limit tests were carried out by the liquid-plastic limit
To analyze the phenomenon of the wL changing with Aw, the particle
combined method suggested by the Standard for Geotechnical Testing
grading tests were conducted and the results are shown in Fig. 8. It can
Method (GB/T 50123–2019) [40], as shown in Fig. 5 (a). The natural
be found that the particle size distribution curves of cement-stabilized
soil was ground and then passed through the 0.5 mm sieve. The sieved
soil tend to the curve of cement with the increase of Aw. It is similar
soil powder was dried by oven at 110℃. To study the change of wL with
to the variation of wL with Aw. Odell et al. [43] and Polidori [44] pointed
cement content, the liquid limit tests with 0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%,
that the particle size distribution can significantly affect the liquid limit
40%, 50%, 60%, 80%, 100%, 300%, and 500% Aw were conducted. The
of soil. As shown in Fig. 9, the water in soil mainly includes bound water
wL of OPC 42.5# was also measured herein. The liquid limit test process
and free water. Especially, the bound water includes hygroscopic water
of cement and cement-soil mixture is similar to that of natural soil.
and weakly bound water; the free water includes capillary water. In the
However, to reduce the effect of the hydration reaction of cement, each
liquid limit state, the cohesion between the soil particles almost disap­
test of cement and cement-soil mixture was completed in 5 mins, and the
pears, and the gravity water dominates the mechanical properties of soil.
samples were oven-dried immediately at 110 ℃.
Thus, the liquid limit is determined by the ability of soil to form bound
The Bettersize2600 LPSA (Fig. 5b) was utilized herein to measure the
water and capillary water. The clay particles have strong water ab­
particle size distribution of soil and cement powder. The measuring
sorption capacity due to the large specific surface area, strong cation
range is 0.02–2600 μm. The particle grading test for the OPC 42.5#
exchange capacity, and the Van der Waals’ force between clay particles.
powder and the soil with 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% Aw were
It causes the soil with high clay content to have more bound water
conducted to describe the change of particle size distribution of soil with
[45,46]. In addition, the clay particles filling in the void of the soil
various Aw. The Standard for Geotechnical Testing Method (GB/T
skeleton enhance the capillarity. It further increases the liquid limit of
50123–2019) [40] defined that the size of clay particles and fine par­
soil. Hence, the particle size distribution can directly affect the liquid
ticles should be less than 0.002 mm and 0.075 mm, respectively. Thus,
limit. As shown in Fig. 8, the particle size distribution curve of loess is
the oven-dried soil and OPC 42.5# powder were sieved by 0.075 mm to
below the curve of cement which means the fine grain content of loess is
filter out the coarse grains with little effect on wL.
lower than that of cement powder. It is consistent with the experimental
The Code for Construction of Building Foundation Engineering (GB
results that the wLs of loess less than wLc. On the contrary, the particle
51004-2015) [41] pointed that the cement slurry utilized in engineering
size distribution curves of other soils are above that of cement, and the
must ensure the continuity of pumping during DSM construction. The
wLs all greater than wLc.
viscosities of the cement slurry with the commonly used w/c of 0.4, 0.5,
Tan et al. [47] found that the excessive water in the grout–soil mix
0.75, 1, 1.5, and 2 were measured by the rotational viscometer (Fig. 5c).
might lead to the segregation of solids from water and this phenomenon
The shear stresses at 3, 6, 100, 200, 300, and 600 r/min were measured,
is called “bleeding”. The water content at which the settlement height
and then the viscosities can be calculated by the shear stress–strain rate
(hb) reached 1% of the original height (h0) is referred to as the bleeding
curves.
limit. To ensure the accuracy of the measurement, the heights of the
The sample preparation procedures of bleeding limit and unconfined
samples were measured in three different planes with the included angle
compressive tests are based on the recommendations presented by Xiao
of 120◦ . Thus, hb is equal to the h0 minus the average of the three
and Lee [42], as shown in Fig. 6. The height and diameter of the samples
measurements. The results of the bleeding limit tests are shown in
are 100 mm and 50 mm, respectively. The bleeding limit tests for the soil
Fig. 10. The normalized settlement height is the ratio of hb and h0. It can
with 20%, 60%, and 100% Aw were conducted herein. Generally, the
be found that the wB with different soil and Aw are between 1.2 and 1.26
bleeding limit is greater than the liquid limit due to the soil is in the flow
times wL, and the settlement height increases with the increase of water
state when the water content reaches the bleeding limit, and the liquid
content. However, the experimental materials have an insignificant

5
F. Wang et al.
Fig. 8. Particle size distribution of (a) cement-stabilized expansive soil; (b) cement-stabilized loess; (c) cement-stabilized red clay; (d) cement-stabilized soft soil; (e)
cement-stabilized montmorillonite.
effect on wB/wL due to the water absorption capacity almost to the limit
when the Cw equals to wL, and the excess water can cause bleeding.
3.1.2. Results of viscosity tests
The continuous pumping of cement slurry must be guaranteed during
DSM construction. It can obviously affect the construction quality of
DSM columns. Thus, the viscosities of the cement slurry with the
commonly used w/c were measured herein. The test results are shown in
Fig. 11. Yang et al. [48] pointed that the cement slurry is power-law
fluid when w/c is low, and it can be considered as Newtonian fluid as
the increase of w/c. The relationship between the shear stress τ and
strain rate γ can be described as
6
Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211
{
kγ nr Power - law fluid
τ = (1)
ηγ Newtonian fluid
where k is consistency index; nr is rheological index; η is dynamic
viscosity coefficient. The k, n, and η of various w/c are shown in Table 3.
For power-law fluid, the apparent viscosity ηa is defined as the ratio
of τ to γ, and it is not constant. For a Newtonian fluid, ηa is equal to η.
Generally, the zero-shear-rate viscosity η0 and the Newtonian limiting
viscosity η∞ are commonly used in engineering. The viscosities when the
rotational speeds are 3 r/min (γ = 5.11 s− 1) and 600r/min (γ = 1022 s− 1)
are approximately considered as η0 and η∞, respectively. The η0 and η∞
of cement slurry with various w/c are shown in Fig. 12. The relationship
between the viscosities (η0, η∞, and η) and w/c can be described by the
F. Wang et al. Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211

Fig. 9. Schematic of the water in soil.

Fig. 11. Relationship between shear stress and strain rate.
piecewise function. To ensure the fluidity of the cement slurry, w/c must
be greater than wLc. It means that the lower bound of w/c is wLc.
⎧ Table 3
⎨ η0 = 338.65e− 10.17w/c wLc ⩽w/c⩽1 Basic parameters of cement slurry with various w/c.
η = 0.85e− 4.18w/c wLc ⩽w/c⩽1 (2)
⎩ ∞ w/c Classification Consistency Rheological Dynamic R2
η = 0.04e− 1.18w/c w/c > 1
index, k index, nr viscosity
(Pa⋅sn) coefficient, η
3.1.3. Empirical model (mPa⋅s)
The following empirical function was proposed herein to describe 0.4 Power-law 17.72 0.32 / 0.959
the relationship between the wL and Aw based on the experimental 0.5 fluid 5.15 0.43 0.965
results. 0.75 0.19 0.67 0.902
( ) 1 0.02 0.93 0.946
⎧
⎪ wLs 1 1.5 Newtonian / 5.50 0.936
⎪
⎪ − 1 +1 , wLs ⩾wLc
⎨ wLc 1 + Aw /a 2 fluid 4.00 0.976
wL
= ( ) (3)
wLc ⎪ ⎪ wLs − 2wLc 1
⎪
⎩ +1 + 1 , wLs ⩽wLc
wLc 1 + Aw /a

where a is a fitting parameter. When Aw was equal to 0 and positive

infinity, wL degenerates to wLs and wLc, respectively. The fitting result
and the fitting parameters are shown in Fig. 13. The empirical function
can accurately describe the change of wL with Aw. The fitting parameter
a represents the rate of wL approaches to wLc with the increase of Aw.
Since the mixing uniformity and adequate hydration reaction of
cemented soil shall be guaranteed when the cement-soil mixture is fluid.
Meanwhile, the bleeding is unacceptable in construction [9,49,50].
Thus, the water content of cement-stabilized soil should lie between the
wL and wB. The optimal water content of cement-stabilized soil (Cw
(op)) must be in the range to ensure the uniformity, strength, and
stiffness. It can be defined as
Cw(op) = NwL (4)
Fig. 12. Relationship between apparent viscosity and water-cement ratio.

Fig. 10. Bleeding limit test results of various soils and cement content.

7
F. Wang et al. Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211

Fig. 13. Predicted plotted against measured wL based on Eq. (1).

where N is the magnification factor of water content. According to the

results of bleeding limit tests and considering the applicability of
different regions, the range of N is
1⩽N⩽1.2 (5)
It means that the water content of cement-stabilized soil is greater
than its liquid limit. For the fields with in-situ water content being
higher than the liquid limit, the applicability of Eq. (5) should be further
verified.
The water in the cemented soil mainly includes the water in natural
soil and cement slurry. Thus, the relationship between Cw(op) and the
optimal water-cement ratio w/c(op) can be described as
( )
mt C(op) = ms wn + mc w/c(op) (6)

where ms is the mass of dry soil solid; mc is the mass of cement powder;
mt = ms + mc.
By considering
mt = ms (1 + Aw ) (7)
Eq. (4) can be rewritten as
(1 + Aw )Cw(op) − wn
w/c(op) = (8)
Aw
Combining with Eqs. (3), (4) and (8)
⎧ ( )[( ) ]
⎪
⎪ 1 wLs 1 wn
⎪
⎨ NwLc 1 + − 1 +1 − ,wLs ⩾wLc
Aw wLc 1 + Aw /a Aw
w/c(op) = ( )[( ) ]
⎪
⎪ 1 wLs − 2wLc 1 wn
⎪
⎩ NwLc 1 + +1 +1 − ,wLs ⩽wLc
Aw wLc 1 + Aw /a Aw
(9)
The function could calculate w/c(op) for Aw ranging from 0 to positive
infinity. Especially, the optimal water-cement ratio is a range rather Fig. 14. The optimal water-cement ratio of various cement content when (a) N
than a specific value. The water-cement ratios within the range are = 1, (b) N = 1.1, and (c) N = 1.2.
acceptable, and the specific values can be determined in this range based
on the actual construction conditions.
of soft soil is negative when Aw less than 34%, and it is also less than wLc
The optimal water-cement ratios calculated by Eq. (9) are shown in
due to the wn of soft soil is greater than wLs. It is unacceptable in actual
Fig. 14. Due to the wn of montmorillonite cannot be measured, and it is
engineering. Thus, the value of N should be increased appropriately to
the widely distributed in expansive soil areas. It is determined as 15.3%
ensure the w/c is suitable for construction. As shown in Fig. 14c, the w/
herein for calculating w/c(op) which same as the wn of expansive soil. wLc
c(op) of soft soil is feasible when N = 1.2. If the calculated w/c(op) cannot
divides the region into two parts. If w/c is less than wLc, it is unaccept­
meet construction requirements, the bleeding limit shall be remeasured
able due to the cement slurry cannot flow. Within the acceptable range
to update the range of N due to 1.2 is a conservative value. Alternatively,
(w/c > wLc), w/c(op) with appropriate viscosity can be selected by
the use of water reducing agents should be considered. For the areas
adjusting the value of N according to the field construction conditions.
with high water content, especially when the in-situ water content is
The apparent viscosity of cement slurry with w/c(op) can be determined
close to or above the liquid limit of soil, the calculated w/c(op) may not
directly from Eq. (2). Fig. 14a shows that in the case of N = 1, the w/c(op)

8
F. Wang et al. Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211

Fig. 15. Schematic of the simplified calculation method of S.

guarantee the continuity of pumping. For this condition, the bleeding

limit shall be remeasured to update the range of N due to 1.2 is a con­
servative value. Alternatively, the dry method of DSM or the use of water Fig. 16. Calculated results by Eqs. (10) and (12) against the results by Eqs. (11)
reducing agents should be considered to ensure the reinforcement effect. and (12).
In fact, the quantitative analysis of the influence of slurry viscosity on
the quality of DSM columns should be further measured by in-situ tests,
and this study only provides a framework for the optimal water-cement
ratio selection method. The in-situ test results and actual engineering
data are also necessary for further parameter determination and formula
improvement.
The method for determining the fitting parameter a of different soils
was also studied herein to improve the application range of the proposed
empirical model. Due to the significant effect of particle size distribution
on the wL, a special relationship exists between the particle size distri­
bution and a. Thus, the areas between the particle size distribution
curves and transverse axis (S) were calculated. The areas are divided
into ninety-nine trapezoids by one hundred data points herein and can
be approximately calculated by
∑
n− 1
S≈ Si (10)
i=1

where n is the number of data points; Si is the area of the ith trapezoid.
However, this method is computationally cumbersome, and cannot be
applied in actual engineering. Thus, as shown in Fig. 15, the simplified
calculation method was proposed herein based on the characteristic
particle sizes. The areas are approximately equal to the sum of S1, S2, S3,
Fig. 17. Relationship between the fitting parameter a and |ΔS|.
and S4. It can be written as
S ≈ 100Dmax − 45D50 − 25D90 − 5D100 (11) The linear relationship relates the particle size distribution of soil to
the rate at which the wL changes with Aw. The only fitting parameter in
where Dmax is the maximum particle size for all samples. It can also be Eq. (9) can be determined by Eq. (13). Thus, the optimal water-cement
selected as the maximum measurement range of the LPSA; D50, D90, and ratio can be determined by the liquid limit tests of natural soil and
D100 are the particle sizes when the cumulative grain-size distribution cement, in-situ water content tests, and the particle grading tests of
are 50%, 90%, and 100%, respectively. natural soil and cement. The liquid limit tests with various Aw shall be
For analyzing the difference between the particle size distribution of omitted when the model is applied in various construction fields.
soil and cement, the absolute values of the area difference (|ΔS|) are
calculated by
|ΔS| = |Ssoil − Scement | (12) 3.2. Prediction of strength and stiffness

where Ssoil is the area between the particle size distribution curve of soil
and transverse axis; Scement is the area between the particle size distri­
bution curve of cement and transverse axis. As shown in Fig. 16, the
results calculated by Eqs. (11) and (12) are consistent with the previous
method.
Fig. 17 shows the relationship between |ΔS| and the fitting parameter
a. The relationship can be described by
a = 0.44|ΔS| + 0.23
The hydration reaction and pozzolanic reaction can effectively
improve the mechanical properties of soil. The hydration products such
as calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H), ettringite (AFt), and calcium sul­
foaluminate hydrates (AFm) can cement the soil particles. The micro­
structures of natural soil and cement-stabilized soil as shown in Fig. 18.
The hydration products have fibrous, acicular, and irregularly petaloid
structures, which improve the strength and stiffness of soil. The cement
content and water-cement ratio should not only ensure the uniformity of
(13)
mixing, but also ensure the strength and stiffness of cement-stabilized

9
F. Wang et al.
Fig. 18. Microscopic morphology of (a) expansive soil, (b) loess, (c) red clay, (d) soft soil, (e) montmorillonite, and (f) cement-stabilized soil.
soil to meet the design requirements. Thus, the unconfined compressive
tests were conducted in this study.
According to the proposed empirical model of w/c(op), w/c of the
samples for unconfined compressive tests can be determined. The sam­
ples were prepared by following the steps of Fig. 6. The cement content
of the samples in unconfined compressive tests ranged from 10% to 30%,
a common range being used in practice. The value of N is selected as 1.2.
Since the 7-day strength can generally reach 70% of the design strength,
it can be used as a standard strength to evaluate the mechanical prop­
erties of cement materials. Thus, the samples were cured in deionized
water for 7 days at 20℃. Fig. 19 presents the variation of unconfined
compressive strength (qu) and secant modulus (E50) with Aw. E50 refers
to the secant modulus when the strength is 50% of the peak strength. It
can be found that for each type of soil, qu and E50 increase with the
increase of Aw.
Chen et al. [51] proposed an empirical function that could
adequately describe the relationship between qu, Aw, and w/c as follows:
10
Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211
( )
1 + Amw + Amw 2
qu = q0 ( ) (14)
wn
Aw
+ w/c n
where q0, m, and n are fitting parameters. Fig. 20 compares the results of
measured values and the predicted values calculated by Eq. (14). It in­
dicates that this function can accurately describe the correlation of qu,
Aw wn, and w/c. The fitting parameters are shown in Table 4. Fig. 21
shows the E50 of cement-stabilized soil in relation to the qu. A linear
relation is found between qu and E50, and the effect of Aw is less evident.
This result is consistent with the findings of Kang et al. [2] and Lee et al.
[9]. The relationship between qu and E50 was expressed as
E50 = αqu (15)
where α is the fitting parameter, and α for different soils are also shown
in Table 4.
Combining with Eqs. (9), (14), and (15), it could be adopted to
calculate the w/c(op) for different values of Aw, and predict the 7-day qu
F. Wang et al. Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211

Fig. 20. Predicted plotted against measured qu based on Eq. (14).

Table 4
Fitting parameters of different soils for predicting qu and E50.
Soil q0 (kPa) m n α
Expansive soil 5500 0.31 3.0 64.9
Loess 2000 0.29 3.0 97.4
Red clay 5100 0.30 3.0 94.4
Soft soil 5000 0.32 3.0 75.7
Montmorillonite 8800 0.39 3.0 116.6

Fig. 19. Variation of (a) unconfined compressive strength qu and (b) secant
modulus E50 with Aw.

and E50 of cement-stabilized soil. In fact, Eqs. (14) and (15) can also
predict qu and E50 with different curing periods. Thus, the Aw and w/c
can be determined to ensure both fluidity of slurry and mechanical
properties of cement-stabilized soil. Fig. 22 presents the predicted qu and
E50 with different Aw at w/c(op) for cement-stabilized soil. The calculated
results represent that w/c has a significant effect on the strength and
stiffness of cemented soil. Although the w/c(op) of cement-stabilized soft
soil is less than wLc or even is negative when N = 1 and 1.1, the theo­
retical qu can also be calculated by Eq. (14) due to the w/c and wn are Fig. 21. Relationship between secant modulus E50 and unconfined compressive
both considered herein. The proposed method could accurately char­ strength qu.
acterize the variation in strength and stiffness of cemented soil with the
optimal water-cement ratio. (1) The optimal water-cement ratio changes with cement content.
The relationship between them is non-linear and can be accurately
4. Conclusions described by the proposed model. Considering the difference of actual
field and construction conditions, the optimal water-cement ratio can be
An empirical model for determining the optimal water-cement ratio selected in a range by changing the magnification factor N. The results of
of cement-stabilized soil was proposed in this study. This model is bleeding limit tests indicate that the cement-stabilized soil can prevent
verified by a series of tests, and the test results indicate that it is suitable bleeding when N ranges from 1 to 1.2. In addition, the viscosity of
for different types of soil. The optimal water-cement ratio estimated by cement slurry can also be considered as a selection condition of the
this model could satisfy the fluidity of the cement-stabilized soil and water-cement ratio herein to ensure the continuity of pumping.
prevent bleeding. The main conclusions are summarized as follows: (2) As the only fitting parameter of the optimal water-cement ratio

11
F. Wang et al.
Fig. 22. Predicted qu and E50 with different Aw at w/c(op) for cement-stabilized (a) expansive soil, (b) loess, (c) red clay, (d) soft soil, and (e) montmorillonite.
prediction model, the relationship between the fitting parameter a and
the particle size distribution of soil was established. The results of par­
ticle grading tests indicate that the particle size distribution can signif­
icantly affect the liquid limit of cement-stabilized soil. For different
types of soil, the parameter a can be calculated by |ΔS|. Thus, the liquid
limit tests with various Aw shall be omitted during the application in
actual projects with different soils. Only five fundamental tests can
determine the optimal water-cement ratio, which includes the liquid
limit tests of natural soil and cement, in-situ water content tests, and the
12
Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211
particle grading tests of natural soil and cement.
(3) By combining the empirical equation proposed by Chen et al.
[51], the 7-day unconfined compressive strength and secant modulus
with the optimal water-cement ratios can be predicted. Due to the 7-day
strength of cemented soil can reach 70% of the design strength, the
predicted results can ensure the selected water-cement ratio can satisfy
the required strength and stiffness of cement-stabilized soil. It shall be of
practical value to engineering practitioners for designing DSM columns.
F. Wang et al.
Fig. 22. (continued).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fangtong Wang: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original
draft. Kaiqi Li: Validation. Yong Liu: Conceptualization, Writing – re­
view & editing, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the NRF-NSFC 3rd Joint Research
Grant (Earth Science) (Grant No.: 41861144022), and the National
Natural Science foundation of China (Grant Nos.: 51879203 and
52079099).
References
[1] S. Horpibulsuk, N. Miura, T.S. Nagaraj, Clay-water/cement ratio identity for
cement admixed soft clays, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (2) (2005) 187–192,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:2(187).
[2] G. Kang, T. Tsuchida, Y.S. Kim, Strength and stiffness of cement-treated marine
dredged clay at various curing stages, Constr. Build. Mater. 132 (2017) 71–84,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.124.
13
Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211
[3] Y. Liu, J. Hu, Y.P. Li, L.H. Li, Statistical evaluation of the overall strength of a soil-
cement column under axial compression, Constr. Build. Mater. 132 (2017) 51–60,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.098.
[4] K. Yao, N. Li, D.H. Chen, W. Wang, Generalized hyperbolic formula capturing
curing period effect on strength and stiffness of cemented clay, Constr. Build.
Mater. 199 (2019) 63–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.288.
[5] Y. Pan, Y. Liu, A. Tyagi, F.H. Lee, D.Q. Li, Model-independent strength-reduction
factor for effect of spatial variability on tunnel with improved soil surrounds,
Géotechnique 71 (5) (2021) 406–422, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.19.P.056.
[6] M.S. Pakbaz, M. Farzi, Comparison of the effect of mixing methods (dry vs. wet) on
mechanical and hydraulic properties of treated soil with cement or lime, Appl. Clay
Sci. 105-106 (2015) 156–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.11.040.
[7] Y. Yi, S. Liu, A.J. Puppala, P. Xi, Vertical bearing capacity behaviour of single T-
shaped soil–cement column in soft ground: laboratory modelling, field test, and
calculation, Acta Geotech. 12 (5) (2017) 1077–1088, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-017-0555-z.
[8] Y. Yi, S. Liu, A.J. Puppala, Bearing capacity of composite foundation consisting of
T-shaped soil-cement column and soft clay, Transp. Geotech. 15 (2018) 47–56,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.04.003.
[9] F.H. Lee, Y. Lee, S.H. Chew, K.Y. Yong, Strength and modulus of marine clay-
cement mixes, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (2) (2005) 178–186, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:2(178).
[10] L.D. Suits, T.C. Sheahan, R.D.V. Flores, G. Di Emidio, W.F. Van Impe, Small-strain
shear modulus and strength increase of cement-treated clay, Geotech. Test. J. 33
(1) (2010) 102354, https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ102354.
[11] L.D. Suits, T.C. Sheahan, V. Bhadriraju, A.J. Puppala, R.S. Madhyannapu,
R. Williammee, Laboratory procedure to obtain well-mixed soil binder samples of
medium stiff to stiff expansive clayey soil for deep soil mixing simulation, Geotech.
Test. J. 31 (3) (2008) 100936, https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ100936.
[12] R.S. Madhyannapu, Deep mixing technology for mitigation of swell-shrink
behavior of expansive soils of moderate to deep active depths, PhD thesis,
University of Texas Arlington, Texas, 2008.
F. Wang et al.
[13] R.S. Madhyannapu, A.J. Puppala, Design and construction guidelines for deep soil
mixing to stabilize expansive soils, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (9) (2014)
04014051, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001149.
[14] D.O.A. Osula, A comparative evaluation of cement and lime modification of
laterite, Eng. Geol. 42 (1) (1996) 71–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(95)
00067-4.
[15] J.Z. Li, L.C. Zhuo, X. Ni, Behavior of cemented reticulate red clay, Adv. Mater. Res.
446–449 (2012) 1666–1669, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/
AMR.446-449.1666.
[16] X. Li, Y. Yang, H. Zhang, Y. Yi, Mechanical properties and failure mechanism of
cemented red clay under chemical erosion environment, Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 59
(2–4) (2016) 156–168, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2016.079898.
[17] D. Evstatiev, Loess improvement methods, Eng. Geol. 25 (2–4) (1988) 341–366,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(88)90036-1.
[18] R.N. Angelova, Loess-cement long-term strength-a facilitating factor for loess
improvement applications, Geologica Balc 36 (2007) 3–4.
[19] M.J. Timoney, B.A. McCabe, A.L. Bell, Experiences of dry soil mixing in highly
organic soils, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.-Ground Improvement 165 (1) (2012) 3–14,
https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.2012.165.1.3.
[20] H. Pan, G. Du, H. Xia, H. Wang, D. Qin, Quality assessment of dry soil mixing
columns in soft soil areas of Eastern China, Applied Sciences 11 (21) (2021) 9957,
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219957.
[21] H.W. Xiao, F.H. Lee, Curing time effect on behavior of cement treated marine clay,
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 43 (2008) (2008) 71–78.
[22] G. Kang, T. Tsuchida, A.M.R.G. Athapaththu, Strength mobilization of cement-
treated dredged clay during the early stages of curing, Soils Found. 55 (2) (2015)
375–392, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2015.02.012.
[23] T. Tsuchida, Y.X. Tang, Estimation of compressive strength of cement-treated
marine clays with different initial water contents, Soils Found. 55 (2) (2015)
359–374, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2015.02.011.
[24] D. Ribeiro, R. Néri, R. Cardoso, Influence of water content in the UCS of soil-
cement mixtures for different cement dosages, Procedia Eng. 143 (2016) 59–66,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.008.
[25] H. Xiao, Evaluating the stiffness of chemically stabilized marine clay, Mar.
Georesour. Geotechnol. 35 (5) (2017) 698–709, https://doi.org/10.1080/
1064119X.2016.1219891.
[26] L. Wang, X. Li, Y. Cheng, Y. Zhang, X. Bai, Effects of coal-bearing metakaolin on the
compressive strength and permeability of cemented silty soil and mechanisms,
Constr. Build. Mater. 186 (2018) 174–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.07.057.
[27] K. Yao, Q. Chen, J. Ho, H. Xiao, F.H. Lee, Strain-dependent shear stiffness of
cement-treated marine clay, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (10) (2018) 04018255, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002460.
[28] K. Yao, H. Xiao, D.H. Chen, Y. Liu, A direct assessment for the stiffness
development of artificially cemented clay, Géotechnique 69 (8) (2018) 741–747,
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.T.010.
[29] G. Kang, A.A. Cikmit, T. Tsuchida, H. Honda, Y.S. Kim, Strength development and
microstructural characteristics of soft dredged clay stabilized with basic oxygen
furnace steel slag, Constr. Build. Mater. 203 (2019) 501–513, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.106.
[30] L. Liu, A. Zhou, Y. Deng, Y. Cui, Z. Yu, C. Yu, Strength performance of cement/slag-
based stabilized soft clays, Constr. Build. Mater. 211 (2019) 909–918, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.256.
[31] A. Luis, L. Deng, L. Shao, H.A. Li, Triaxial behaviour and image analysis of
Edmonton clay treated with cement and fly ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 197 (2019)
208–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.222.
[32] T. P. Ngoc, B. Fatahi, H. Khabbaz, 2019. Impact of Liquid Whey Waste on Strength
and Stiffness of Cement Treated Clay. Proceedings of the 5th GeoChina
14
View publication stats
Construction and Building Materials 320 (2022) 126211
International Conference 2018-Civil Infrastructures Confronting Severe Weathers
and Climate Changes Conference., Hangzhou 1, 1-10. Springer, Cham.
[33] K. Suganya, P.V. Sivapullaiah, Compressibility of remoulded and cement-treated
Kuttanad soil, Soils Found. 60 (3) (2020) 697–704, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sandf.2019.07.006.
[34] H. Bayesteh, M. Sharifi, A. Haghshenas, Effect of stone powder on the rheological
and mechanical performance of cement-stabilized marine clay/sand, Constr. Build.
Mater. 262 (2020) 120792, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120792.
[35] E.I. Stavridakis, Influence of liquid limit and slaking on cement stabilized clayey
admixtures, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 17 (2) (1999) 145–154, https://doi.org/10.1061/
JSFEAQ.0000628.
[36] G. Chen, F.T. Wang, D.Q. Li, Y. Liu, Dyadic wavelet analysis of bender element
signals in determining shear wave velocity, Can. Geotech. J. 57 (12) (2020)
2027–2030, https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2019-0167.
[37] F. Wang, D. Li, W. Du, C. Zarei, Y. Liu, Bender Element Measurement for Small-
Strain Shear Modulus of Compacted Loess, Int. J. Geomech. 21 (5) (2021)
04021063, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002004.
[38] GB/T 50145-2007, Standard for engineering classification of soil, Ministry of
Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing,
China, 2007.
[39] H.B. Seed, R.J. Woodward Jr, R. Lundgren, Clay mineralogical aspects of the
Atterberg limits, J. Soil Mech. Foundations Division 90 (4) (1964) 107–131,
https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0000628.
[40] GB/T 50123-2019, Standard for geotechnical testing method, Ministry of Housing
and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, China,
2019.
[41] GB/T 51004-2015, Code for construction of building foundation engineering,
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China, Beijing, China, 2015.
[42] H.-W. XIAO, F.-H. LEE, An energy-based isotropic compression relation for cement-
admixed soft clay, Géotechnique 64 (5) (2014) 412–418, https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.13.T.019.
[43] R.T. Odell, T.H. Thornburn, L.J. McKenzie, Relationships of Atterberg limits to
some other properties of Illinois soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 24 (4) (1960) 297–300,
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1960.03615995002400040025x.
[44] E. Polidori, Relationship between the Atterberg limits and clay content, Soils
Found. 47 (5) (2007) 887–896, https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.47.887.
[45] P. Cosenza, A. Tabbagh, Electromagnetic determination of clay water content: role
of the microporosity, Appl. Clay Sci. 26 (1–4) (2004) 21–36, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.clay.2003.09.011.
[46] H. Wang, H. Qian, Y. Gao, Y. Li, Classification and physical characteristics of bound
water in loess and its main clay minerals, Eng. Geol. 265 (2020) 105394, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105394.
[47] T.S. Tan, C.K. Loh, K.Y. Yong, T.H. Wee, Modelling of bleeding of cement paste and
mortar, Adv. Cem. Res. 9 (33) (1997) 75–91, https://doi.org/10.1680/
adcr.1997.9.34.75.
[48] Z.Q. Yang, K.P. Hou, T.T. Guo, Study on the effects of different water-cement ratios
on the flow pattern properties of cement grouts, Appl. Mech. Mater. 71–78 (2011)
1264–1267, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.71-78.1264.
[49] S. Larsson, M. Dahlström, B. Nilsson, Uniformity of lime-cement columns for deep
mixing: a field study, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.-Ground Improvement 9 (1) (2005) 1–15,
https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.2005.9.1.1.
[50] A. Luis, L. Deng, (2020). Development of mechanical properties of Edmonton stiff
clay treated with cement and fly ash, Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 14 (3) (2020) 329–339,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1454387.
[51] E.J. Chen, Y. Liu, F.H. Lee, A statistical model for the unconfined compressive
strength of deep-mixed columns, Géotechnique 66 (5) (2016) 351–365, https://
doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.14.P.162.