Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01082

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Effect of curing conditions on the strength of soil cement

Salisa Chaiyaput a, *, Nakib Arwaedo b, Namthip Kingnoi c, Trong Nghia-Nguyen d,
Jiratchaya Ayawanna c, *
a
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, Thailand
b
Regional Irrigation Office 17, Royal Irrigation Department, Narathiwat 96000, Thailand
c
School of Ceramic Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
d
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

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

Keywords: An experimental program was directed to the evaluation of the strength of soil (ball clay)-cement,
Cement-treated soil and soil (soft clay)-cement samples with different curing conditions; tap water, lime-saturated
Compressive strength water, plastic wrapping, and open ambient air at 28 days. The compression, and the scanning
Soft clay
electron microscopy results were used to describe the effect of curing conditions on the
Curing
Lime-saturated water
compressive strength of soil-cement samples. The compressive strength of soil-cement samples
was ~ 50% that of the plain cement sample. The compressive strength of the soft clay-cement
samples was slightly higher than the ball clay-cement samples because of the coarse particles
of soft clay containing a high amount of quartz, allowing the water to react with cement powder
and increased the strength of soil-cement samples. The tendency of compressive strength devel­
opment in the soil-cement samples was similar to that of the cement sample. The highest
compressive strength was obtained for the lime-saturated water cured samples, suggesting a
higher rate of hydration process by the protection of CaCO3 leaching from cement in the lime
water. Thus, the compressive strength in soil-cement samples was enhanced by the binding of
cement hydration products between the adjacent soil particles.

1. Introduction

At the construction site, the cement concrete is usually laid on the soil foundation to make the structural element for connecting and
transferring load to the ground such as floor slab, shallow foundation, pile foundation, retaining wall, etc. During concrete laying, the
soil is unintentionally mixed up into the cement concrete. The strength, which depends on the component of cement concrete could
occasionally change. Since the inevitability of cement concrete contamination with soil is always there, the strength of cement concrete
is considered to be improved by adoptable curing period and curing method [1–3].
According to ASTM C 109/C 109M-05 [4], the standard of concrete and mortar specimens for the compressive strength test is cured
in saturated-lime water. Nevertheless, the report of Bediako et al. [5] revealed that 95% of concrete and mortar tested in the laboratory
were cured in freshwater. Also, most of the studies were extensively focused on the curing conditions of cement, mortar, and cement
replacement samples [6,7]. It was noticed that there is no concern and monitoring about the effect of curing conditions on the strength
of the mixed-up soil-cement samples as in the real situation.
Nowadays, the natural soil was intentionally mixed with Portland cement to obtain “soil cement”, which is subject to the strength

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: salisa.ch@kmitl.ac.th (S. Chaiyaput), jiratchaya@sut.ac.th (J. Ayawanna).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01082
Received 14 January 2022; Received in revised form 9 April 2022; Accepted 13 April 2022
Available online 14 April 2022
2214-5095/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Chaiyaput et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01082

Table 1
Chemical composition of ordinary Portland cement, ball clay, and soft clay.
Chemical composition OPC Ball clay Soft clay
(wt%)

Na2O – 17.09 –
SO3 0.86 – –
MgO 1.61 7.91 –
Al2O3 1.28 8.14 20.92
SiO2 3.00 26.03 44.20
K2O – 2.45 9.76
CaO 86.05 1.26 –
TiO2 – 3.07 4.62
Fe2O3 7.20 34.05 20.48

improvement of soil for highway construction [8,9]. This is one of the ground improvement techniques, which is required for the
construction on a low strength and low bearing capacity of a soft ground foundation to increase the strength before construction. The
chemical technique is an alternative method to improve the strength of natural soft ground by mixing a lot of chemical additives not
only traditional calcium-based material (inorganic-chemical material) such as cement, lime, fly ash [9–11], but also some
organic-chemical material such as polymers, lignin and so on [12]. Wang and Korkiala-Tanttu [13] mentioned that the cement-lime
treatment on the soil affects the compression index, coefficient of consolidation, and hydraulic conductivity. The strength of soil
cement is a major factor for construction design. An initial strength of soil cement is attributed to the hydration reaction between
cement powder and water in a short period. However, the long-term strength is developed by the pozzolanic reaction between SiO2 and
Al2O3 in soil minerals and calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), a by-product of hydration reaction [14].
In the design of soil-cement strength, the optimized mixing ratio between cement powder and natural soil is determined in the
laboratory before practical mixing at the construction site. The natural soil samples were extracted from the practical construction area
and mixed with several cement contents in the laboratory. The mixed soil-cement samples were cured for 3, 7, 14, and 28 days
depending on the experimental design before being subjected to a compressive test. Many researchers have extensively focused on the
strength development of soil-cement samples with various factors such as soil types, cement contents, curing times, water contents, and
water-cement (w/c) ratios [14,15]. Wang et al. [16] mentioned that the strength and modulus of lime/cement-treated marine soil
increase with the increasing cement content, curing time, and curing temperature, leading to the decrease in failure strain.
The earlier reports by Horpibulsuk et al. [17] and Chaiyaput et al. [18,19] revealed that the distinct strength of the cement-treated
soft Bangkok Clay could be improved by increasing the cement ratio and curing time. Kharun and Svintsov [20] studied the curing
conditions of limestone-treatment soil cement in the air-humid condition using wet sawdust, and the thermal-humid treatment in a
steam chamber. The higher strength of limestone treatment soil-cement was obtained under the thermal-humid conditions compared
with the air-humid treatment conditions. Moreover, Wang and Zentar [21] were studied the influence of stabilized dredged marine
soils with class-F fly ash, cement, and lime under water immersion and thawing-freezing. Meanwhile, the study by Ho et al. [22]
revealed that the compressive strength of the cement-treated sand mixture and the cement-treated sand-loam mixture under dry-curing
conditions was higher than that of the curing under sealed conditions because of carbonation and suction. Several earlier studies
showed different favorable curing conditions for the soil-cement test such as tap water- [21,23], lime water-, plastic wrapping- [24,
25], and open ambient air-curing conditions [22]. These four types of curing conditions are separately used in many research works on
the strength development of the mixed-cement samples and the soil-cement samples. None of the research works has been revealed the
comparative study of the suitable curing condition or the reason to use their method. However, the literature review found that each
curing conditions have their good points to serve the cement or cement-mixed samples under the specific preparation.
Curing in open ambient air is the simplest curing method for both research work and actual work, but it tends to quickly lose
moisture into the open air and end the strength development. The curing in tap water and plastic wrapping can keep more moisture to
promote the hydration reaction of cement powder and develop strength. However, in these conditions, especially in the tap water, the
CaO from the cement precursor can easily dissolve into the tap water during curing and therefore decelerate the reaction for strength
development. Curing in lime-saturated water could probably overcome the problem of tap water. Due to the saturated Ca ions in the
lime-saturated water, the dissolved CaO from the cement-mixed samples could be suppressed, and therefore the cement hydration
keeps going on. The outcome from all the above studies leads to a question “What is the best curing condition to increase the soil-
cement strength?” that has never been clearly discussed. This finally brings us to study the effect of 4-extensive curing conditions
on the strength of soil-cement samples in this study.
The different behaviors of soil-cement samples regarding the different curing conditions were investigated and revealed for
applying to the practical work. The soil-cement samples were separately prepared from ball clay and soft clay mixed with ordinary
Portland cement. The ordinary Portland cement, which is the traditional-additive material, was selected to represent the behavior of
soil cement under different curing conditions. Both clays are sediments from different origins and major mineral compositions. Soft
clays are generally encountered under the form of deposited layers in coastal areas [26], while ball clay is formed from the weathering
and transportation by water of parent rocks which are deposited nearby river basins [27]. However, they are both categorized to be
problematic soils for construction engineering, and attractive to be investigated in this work. The compressive strength test of
soil-cement samples was thus carried out on both soils after curing based on the 4-extensive curing method such as tap water-, lime
water-, plastic wrapping, and open-ambient air at 28-curing days. Mineral and chemical compositions of both soils were characterized

2
S. Chaiyaput et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01082

Fig. 1. XRD patterns of soft clay, ball clay and Portland cement.

and compared to discuss the effect of curing conditions on the soil-cement strength. Furthermore, scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
was used to evaluate and find out the answer of “What is the best curing condition to increase the soil-cement strength?”.

2. Materials characterization

Portland cement, ball clay, and soft clay used in this work were characterized by non-destructive analytical techniques. The
chemical composition was determined using Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) Horiba XGT-5200 X-ray Analytical Mi­
croscope. Meanwhile, the mineral composition was examined using Bruker D2 PHASER X-ray diffractometer (XRD) with Cu-Kα ra­
diation over the 2θ range of 10–60◦ .
The chemical compositions of those three raw materials in this research are shown in Table 1. The ordinary Portland cement (Type
I) or OPC reveals a major environmental-friendly component of 86.05% lime (CaO) in OPC powder. This is a major component for
processing a hydration reaction in hardened soil-cement samples [28]. The other trace compositions in cement powder are SO3, MgO,
Al2O3, SiO2, and Fe2O3. The ball clay has three major components of 34.05% Fe2O3, 26.03% SiO2, and 17.09% Na2O. Meanwhile, SiO2
(44.20%) and Al2O3 (20.92%) are major components in soft clay, which is found to be higher than that in ball clay.
The chemical component results are consistent with the mineral compositions detected in Portland cement, ball clay, and soft clay
as shown in Fig. 1. High CaO content in OPC is detected in the mineral form of dicalcium silicate (C2S), tricalcium silicate (C3S),
aluminate (C3A), tetracalcium aluminoferrite (C4AF), and gypsum (CaSO4⋅2H2O) compounds. These compounds (C2S, C3S, C3A, C4AF)
are well-known as main precursors in hydration reaction with water to form cementitious strengthen products: calcium silicate hydrate
(CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH) in mixed cement samples [29]. An aluminosilicate clay mineral in form of halloysite
(Al2Si2O5(OH)4) was observed in ball clay accompanied with quartz (SiO2) and hematite (Fe2O3) mineral. These three minerals are
also presented in soft clay accompanied with other aluminosilicate clay minerals in form of kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4) and muscovite
(KAl2(AlSi3O10)(OH)2).

3
S. Chaiyaput et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01082

Fig. 2. Curing conditions: (a) in tap water (TW), (b) in lime water (LW), (c) in plastic wrapping (PW), and (d) in open ambient air (A).

3. Testing condition and methods

3.1. Testing conditions

The effect of curing conditions on the strength of soil-cement samples was investigated and compared between 2 types of soil: ball
clay and soft clay, which contained some different clay minerals as mentioned above. The soil-cement samples prepared from both soils
were given a name code as follows;.

1) Soil (ball clay)-cement is called SBC.

2) Soil (soft clay)-cement is called SSC.

The soils (ball clay and soft clay) were separately mixed with Portland cement powder and tap water in the ratio of 240 g: 600 g:
216 ml, respectively (The trial mixture test is not shown here). To understand the effect of curing conditions on the strength of SBC and
SSC samples, the 4-different curing conditions, which were extensive curing conditions, were designed and given a name code as
follows;.

(i) Curing in tap water (TW).

(ii) Curing in lime water (LW).
(iii) Curing in plastic wrapping (PW).

(iv)Curing in open ambient air (A).

Fig. 2 shows the 4-curing conditions proceeded in a period of 28 curing days following the standard ASTM C 150 [30] and ASTM
C-109/C 109M-05 [4]. Each condition was performed in triplicate to obtain reliable experimental data. The strength of SBC and SSC
samples were also compared with the strength of the 100%-cement sample in each testing condition.

3.2. Compressive strength test

Ball clay and soft clay were dried in an oven for 24 h. The 240-g dried-soil samples were separately mixed with 600-g Portland
cement and 216-ml tap water until the homogeneous color and texture were obtained from the soil-cement mixtures. The SBC and SSC
samples were transferred into 5 cm × 5 cm × 5 cm cube-shaped molds [4]. After molding, the SBC and SSC samples were kept in the
open ambient-air or moist room for 24 h. The SBC and SSC samples were removed from the molds and kept separately in 4-curing
conditions; tap water (TW), lime water (LW), plastic wrapping (PW), and open ambient air (A) for 28 days. Before the compressive
strength test, the SBC and SSC samples were dried for 24 h. The dimensions and weights of cured samples were measured and recorded.
In each experiment, at least 3 parallel samples were used for the compressive strength test of solidified clay.
The compressive strength of cured SBC and SSC samples was determined using a compressive strength test machine with 500 kN
maximum capacity (K. Thaithamrong Engineering, model TTR-080G). The load was applied to the SBC and SSC samples with the range
of 900–1800 N/s until the failure took place [4]. The maximum load was recorded, and then the compressive strength was calculated
through the relationship below:
Compressive strength = Maximum load/Area of load surface (1)

After the compressive test, microstructures of the cured SBC and SSC samples were examined by JEOLJSM-6010 LV scanning electron

4
S. Chaiyaput et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01082

Fig. 3. Compressive strength of soil-cement samples in comparison to the cement samples after 28-days curing in tap water (TW), in lime water
(LW), in plastic wrapping (PW), and in open ambient air (A).

microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDS Oxford Instrument X-MaxN).

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Compressive strength

The compressive strength of soil-cement samples, SBC, and SSC, in all curing conditions after 28 days are shown in Fig. 3. In each
condition, the compressive strength was tested and repeated at least three times. The average compressive strength of cement samples
was 67.27 MPa, 73.06 MPa, 56.25 MPa, and 52.70 MPa for curing in tap-water, lime-water, plastic wrap, and open-air, respectively.
The average compressive strength of SBC samples was 38.35 MPa, 41.78 MPa, 30.44 MPa, and 27.01 MPa in order of curing condi­
tions. Meanwhile, the average compressive strength of SSC samples was 41.08 MPa in tap-water curing, 44.30 MPa in lime-water
curing, 38.93 MPa in plastic-wrap curing, and 36.96 MPa in open-air curing.
The average compressive strength of cement was the highest in every curing condition, while the compressive strength of SSC and
SBC samples was approximately 50% that of the plain cement sample. This was as usual for the cement samples because of the hy­
dration reaction during curing. However, the purpose of making soil-cement samples is not to be comparable to the plain cement, but
to strengthen soil by the soil-cement mixing method, which is a superior method for the limitation of settlement by improving the
strength of ground [31]. When using cement as an admixture agent in soil, a produced soil-cement material is a consolidative product
of cement hydration and soil. The soil-cement samples are compacted to a higher density and become similar to soft rock. Shrestha [32]
also revealed that the unconfined compressive strengths of the compacted soil-cement samples could be typically 10–20% that of plain
concrete and could be considered as an engineered low strength concrete.
The average compressive strength of cement, SBC, and SSC samples were similar in trend. Fig. 3 shows that the highest compressive
strength for the samples was achieved under LW-curing conditions, followed by TW-, PW-, and A-curing conditions, respectively.
Moreover, the standard deviation can be used to indicate the discrepancy of compressive strength values in each condition. The
standard deviation of LW-curing conditions for all sample types was nearly the mean. In other words, the difference between each
testing value under the same testing condition was low. On the other hand, the standard deviation of the TW-curing condition for all
sample types was a wide magnitude value from their mean.
According to the ASTM C511 [33], the reason for adding lime to the water is to prevent CaCO3 from leaching out of the mixed
cement samples. When lime (CaO) is mixed with water, the calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) is formed through the highly exothermic
reaction with a large amount of released heat in the process [34]. Therefore, the curing soil-cement samples in lime-water solution
resulted in a higher initial curing temperature of the soil-cement samples.
This resulted in the rate of hydration process and strength development since an early age of the mixed cement samples compared
to the curing in the tap water [11,34]. Meanwhile, the curing in plastic wrapping (PW) gave comparable compressive strength to the
samples curing in the tap water. This was probably because the moisture retention in plastic wrap was sufficient for the hydration
process in the soil-cement samples. On the contrary, the lower strength of the soil-cement samples in open ambient air (A) was due to
the gradual loss of moisture when exposed to an uncontrollable temperature air. This resulted in the strength development only at an
early age but not much increased at the later age of 28 days.

4.2. Microstructure

Among 2 different soils, the compressive strength of the SSC samples was slightly higher than the SBC samples. This could be

5
S. Chaiyaput et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01082

Table 2
Particle size and SiO2 content detected in soft clay and ball clay.
Clay type SiO2 (wt%) Particle size (μm)
from XRF D (V,0.5)

Soft clay 44.20 34.7

Ball clay 26.03 11.3

Fig. 4. Microstructures of cement samples after 28-days curing (a) in lime water (LW),(b) in tap water (TW), (c) in plastic wrapping (PW), and (d) in
open ambient air (A).

Fig. 5. Microstructures of (a) soil (soft clay)-cement samples and (b) soil (ball clay)-cement samples after 28-days curing in lime water.

explained by the different characteristics between soft clay and ball clay. Table 2 shows the particle size (μm) of both soils determined
by Laser particle size analysis accompanied with the presence of SiO2 in these soils. The average particle size of soft clay was larger
than that of ball clay. Moreover, the high SiO2 content from XRF analysis was detected in the soft clay, which was confirmed the coarse
particle of the soft clay compared to the ball clay. The coarse particles of soft clay led to low water retention in the soil. Hence, with the
same water ratio in the soil-cement samples, the excess water in the soft clay could more react with the cement powder resulting in high
strength in the SSC samples compared to the SBC samples [18,19].
Fig. 4 shows the microstructures of cement samples cured under different curing conditions at 28 days. The morphology in Fig. 4(a)
shows crystal-like Ca1.5SiO3.5⋅xH2O (CSH) phase promoting strength, and a small amount of Ca(OH)2 were precipitated in the cement
sample cured in saturated-lime water. In addition, the needle-like ettringite did not appear in the cement sample cured in saturated-

6
S. Chaiyaput et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01082

Table 3
Elemental analysis from EDS point scanning of soil (soft clay)-cement samples (SSC) and soil (ball clay)-cement samples (SBC), and cement samples
after 28-days curing in lime water.
Sample Point Element (wt%)

O Al Si Ca Aua

SSC (Fig. 5a) 1 25.59 – 8.38 27.36 38.67

2 41.16 – 23.33 1.37 25.13
3 46.55 1.40 7.38 20.55 24.12
SBC (Fig. 5b) 4 30.89 2.04 27.05 4.69 35.33
5 37.25 3.82 8.23 22.57 28.12
Cement (Fig. 4) 6 32.74 3.32 – 19.25 44.68
7 27.82 – – 28.37 43.81
8 31.31 – 5.82 28.83 34.04
a
Au is conductive coating layer for SEM-EDS analysis.

lime water. The elemental analysis by Energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) technique confirmed the Ca/Si ratio with detection of Al
element in ettringite phase (Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)2⋅26H2O). Meanwhile, the other cement samples cured in tap water, plastic wrapping,
and open-air (Fig. 4(b)–(d)) showed some evidence of ettringite. Needle-like ettringite and crystal-like Ca(OH)2 phases, which are not
served the strength were found in these cement samples. The elemental ratio of Al/Ca from the EDS technique showed comparable
value among those cement samples cured in tap water, plastic wrapping, and open air. As evidence from microstructure, therefore, low
compressive strength in the cement samples cured in tap water, plastic wrapping, and open-air was caused by low hydration process
leading to the absence of CSH phase, but remaining of needle-like ettringite phase [35].
Fig. 5(a) and (b) show microstructures of SSC samples and SBC samples after 28-days of curing in lime-saturated water. The overall
microstructure showed the compacted soil particles due to the plate-like clay mineral components such as kaolinite, muscovite, and
halloysite in these soils as previously shown in Fig. 1. From Fig. 5, the discrepancy between the microstructures of the SSC sample and
SBC samples was also slightly under their different compositions. The SSC sample (Fig. 5(a)) appears a non-uniform distribution of
quartz particles, while the SBC sample (Fig. 5(b)) contains small tube-like halloysite crystals among the compacted-soil matrix. Table 3
shows an elemental analysis from EDS point scanning of SSC and SBC samples (Fig. 5) in comparison to the cement samples (Fig. 4)
after 28-days curing in lime water. The elemental analysis of SSC samples revealed a presence of quartz particles (point 2) with high Si
and low Ca content compared to other areas at points 1 and 3. Meanwhile, the elemental analysis of SBC samples showed a major
content of Si and Al with low Ca in the small tube-like halloysite crystals (point 4), compared to another area in point 5. It can be
implied that these minerals did not react with the cementitious compounds during the hydration process. In addition, compared to the
cement samples in Fig. 4 and elemental analyzing results in points 6–8, the products of the hydration reaction were rarely observed in
both soil-cement samples. However, it was likely to be randomly dispersed in the soil matrix and acted as the binder between the
adjacent soil particles [31]. This was confirmed by the enhancement of compressive strength of soil matrix under a similar trend as
evidenced in Fig. 3. Therefore, the strength development deduced from the curing condition of soil-cement samples was favorable to be
in the lime-saturated water followed the strength development in a cement sample.

5. Conclusions

Among all the curing conditions in tap water, lime water, plastic wrapping, and open ambient air conditions monitored at 28 curing
days, the tendency of compressive strength development in the soil-cement samples was similar to that of the plain cement sample.
However, the compressive strength of soil-cement samples was approximately 50% less than that of the plain cement sample. The
highest compressive strength appeared in the lime-saturated water cured samples, which contributed to a higher degree of hydration
process by the protection of CaCO3 released from cement into the lime water. The compressive strength in soil-cement samples thus
was induced by the binding effects between the adjacent soil particles. The soft clay-cement samples showed a slightly higher
compressive strength than the ball clay-cement samples in all curing conditions. This is due to the coarse particles of soft clay con­
taining a high amount of quartz, leading to low water retention in the soil, and therefore the excess water reacts with cement powder.

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.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (Grant no. 2564-02-01-021), Suranaree University
of Technology (SUT), Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI), and National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF)
(Project code 90464).

7
S. Chaiyaput et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e01082

References

[1] American Concrete Institute (ACI), Specifications for Structural Concrete. Technical Committee Document 301, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan, USA, 2005.
[2] J.Z. Zemajtis, Role of concrete curing, Portland Cement Association, 2014. 〈https://www.cement.org/learn/concrete-technology/concrete-construction/curing-
in-construction〉, (Accessed 8 November 2021).
[3] M.O.W. Afaf, J. Yanmin, A.M.A. Abubaker, Curing effects on high-strength concrete properties, Adv. Civ. Eng. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1683292,
1683292.
[4] ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens). ASTM C-109/C
109M-05(2005), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.
[5] M. Bediako, J.T. Kevern, E.O. Amankwah, Effect of curing environment on the strength properties of cement and cement extenders, Mater. Sci. Appl. 6 (2015).
[6] Y. Nahata, N. Kholia, T.G. Tank, Effect of curing methods on efficiency of curing of cement mortar, APCBEE Procedia 9 (2014) 222–229, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apcbee.2014.01.040.
[7] A.M. Zeyad, Effect of curing methods in hot weather on the properties of high-strength concretes, J. King Saud. Univ. Eng. Sci. 31 (2017), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jksues.2017.04.004.
[8] Y. Yuksel, E. Jongwan, G. Aysegul, Individual and combined effect of Portland cement and chemical agents on unconfined compressive strength for high
plasticity clayey soils, Geomech. Eng. 16 (2018) 375–384, https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2018.16.4.375.
[9] D. Wang, R. Zentar, N.E. Abriak, S. Di, Long-term mechanical performance of marine sediments solidified with cement, lime, and fly ash, Mar. Georesour.
Geotechnol. 36 (2018) 123–130, https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1320600.
[10] H. Jun, Z. Lei, W. Hong, D. Juan, Experimental study of the compressive strength of chemically reinforced organic-sandy soil, Geomech. Eng. 16 (2018)
247–255, https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2018.16.3.247.
[11] O. Okan, S. Cagrihan, Stabilization of meles delta soils using cement and lime mixtures, Geomech. Eng. 19 (2019) 543–554, https://doi.org/10.12989/
gae.2019.19.6.543.
[12] T. Zhang, Y.L. Yang, S.Y. Liu, Application of biomass by-product lignin stabilized soils as sustainable geomaterials: a review, Sci. Total Environ. 728 (2020),
138830, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138830.
[13] D. Wang, L. Korkiala-Tanttu, 1-D compressibility behaviour of cement-lime stabilized soft clays, Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 24 (2020) 1013–1031, https://doi.
org/10.1080/19648189.2018.1440633.
[14] M. Kitazume, M. Terashi, The Deep Mixing Method, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis, London, UK, 2013.
[15] N.C. Consoli, D. Foppa, L. Festugato, K.S. Heineck, Key parameters for strength control of artificially cemented soils, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (2007)
197–205.
[16] D. Wang, R. Zentar, N.E. Abriak, Temperature-accelerated strength development in stabilized marine soils as road construction materials, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29
(2016), 04016281, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001778.
[17] S. Horpibulsuk, R. Rachan, A. Suddeepong, A. Chinkulkijniwat, Strength development in cement admixed Bangkok clay: laboratory and field investigations,
Soils Found. 51 (2011) 239–251, https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.51.239.
[18] S. Chaiyaput, S. Manandhar, S. Karki, J. Ayawanna, Characteristics of cement treated soil: a case study from soft Bangkok clay and red soil of Nepal, Lowl.
Technol. Int. 22 (2020) 178–191, https://doi.org/10.0001/ialt_lti.v22i2,%20Septemb.876.
[19] S. Chaiyaput, J. Ayawanna, P. Sertsoongnern, W. Pratumwan, N. Kingnoi, The strength of soil-cement columns on the soft Bangkok clay: equation and practical
test, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Smart Materials and Nanotechnology, Pattaya, Chonburi, Thailand, 2020.
[20] M. Kharun, A.P. Svintsov, Soil-cement ratio and curing conditions as the factors of soil-concrete strength, Key Eng. Mater. 730 (2017) 358–363, https://doi.org/
10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.730.358.
[21] D. Wang, R. Zentar, Durability and swelling of solidified/stabilized dredged marine soils with class-F fly ash, cement, and lime, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (2018),
04018013, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002187.
[22] L.S. Ho, K. Nakarai, Y. Ogawa, T. Sasaki, M. Morioka, Strength development of cement-treated soils: effects of water content, carbonation, and pozzolanic
reaction under drying curing condition, Constr. Build. Mater. 134 (2017) 703–712, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.065.
[23] R. Daniel, N. Raquel, C. Rafaela, 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.
[24] S. Horpibulsuk, R. Rachan, A. Suddeepong, Assessment of strength development in blended cement admixed Bangkok clay, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011)
1521–1531, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.08.006.
[25] P. Jamsawang, H. Poorahong, N. Yoobanpot, S. Songpiriyakij, P. Jongpradist, Improvement of soft clay with cement and bagasse ash waste, Constr. Build. Mater.
154 (2017) 61–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.188.
[26] M. Bouassida, M. Klai, Challenges and improvement solutions for Tunis’ soft clay, Int. J. GEOMATE 3 (2012) 298–307, https://doi.org/10.21660/2012.5.1o.
[27] P.W.Olupot, S. Jonsson, J.K. Byaruhanga, Electroporcelains from raw materials in uganda: a review, in: Proceedings from the International Conference on
Advances in Engineering and Technology, 2006, pp. 454–64. 〈https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045312-5/50049-2〉.
[28] A. Jullien, C. Proust, T. Martaud, E. Rayssac, C. Ropert, Variability in the environmental impacts of aggregate production, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 62 (2012)
1–13.
[29] F. Kontoleontos, P. Tsakiridis, A. Marinosa, N. Katsiotis, V. Kaloidas, M. Katsioti, Dry-grinded ultrafine cements hydration. Physicochemical and microstructural
characterization, Mater. Res. 16 (2013) 404–416, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-14392013005000014.
[30] ASTM International, Standard Specification for Portland Cement. ASTM C 150(2009), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009.
[31] A. Farouk, M.M. Shahien, Ground improvement using soil–cement columns: experimental investigation, Alex. Eng. J. 52 (2013) 733–740, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aej.2013.08.009.
[32] R. Shrestha, Soil Mixing: A Study on Brusselian Sand Mixed with Slag Cement Binder (M.Sc. Thesis), University of Ghent, Belgium, 2008.
[33] ASTM International, Standard Specification for Mixing Rooms, Moist Cabinets, Moist Rooms, and Water Storage Tanks Used in the Testing of Hydraulic Cements
and Concretes. ASTM C511, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2019.
[34] A.W.O. Nwikiabeh, T. Dornubari, C.A.U. Petrolina, Improving the compressive strength of concrete by curing in water/lime solution, ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 13
(2018) 2438–2442.
[35] N. Makul, D. Agrawal, Comparison of the microstructure and compressive strength of type 1 portland cement paste between accelerated curing methods by
microwave energy and autoclaving, and a saturated-lime deionized water curing method, J. Ceram. Process. Res. 13 (2012) 174–177, https://doi.org/
10.36410/jcpr.2012.13.2.174.