Transportation Geotechnics 34 (2022) 100751

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Technical Note

Mechanical behavior and durability of a typical frictional cohesive soil from

Rio Grande do Sul/Brazil improved with Portland cement
Tennison Freire de Souza Junior a, *, Karla Salvagni Heineck, PhD b, Cezar Falavigna Silva c,
Francisco Dalla Rosa d
a
Civil Engineering, Post-Graduate Program in Civil Construction Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99 – 3 floor, Porto Alegre, RS
90035-190, Brazil
b
Post-Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99 –3 floor, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-190, Brazil
c
Consultant and Master’s in civil engineering, Post-Graduate Program in Civil Construction Engineering, Federal University of Paraná, Av. Coronel Francisco Heráclito
dos Santos n◦ 210, Curitiba, PR 81531-970, Brazil
d
Post-Graduate Program in Engineering, University of Passo Fundo, BR 285 – Km292,7, Passo Fundo, RS 90052-900, Brazil

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

Keywords: Lateritic soils are typical of tropical and subtropical climate regions, whose coverage is wide in Brazilian terri­
Lateritic soils tory. These soils are formed by the leaching of oxides and silicates and are found in unsaturated conditions with a
Shear strength high void ratio due to the presence of macropores and micropores. As a result, the soil has drained behavior and
Durability
high compressibility. Given these peculiarities, the use of cementing agents can be a suitable solution to promote
Shear modulus
modifications on the soil’s physicochemical properties to affect bearing capacity and stiffness. This study focuses
Portland cement
on the mechanical behavior of typical cohesive frictional soil in the city of Passo Fundo (Southern Brazil)
improved by Portland cement of high initial strength (Type III) based on the adopted amount of cement C (%)
and γd. Initially, unconfined compression strength tests (qu) were performed for cement contents of 3%, 6%, 9%,
and 12%, and γd equal to 16.4 kN/m3, 15.4 kN/m3, 14.4 kN/m3, 13.6 kN/m3, and 12.7 kN/m3, followed by
ultrasonic pulse velocity tests to determine the G0. Then, tensile tests were performed through Splitting Tensile
Test (qt) considering γd of 16.4 kN/m3, 15.4 kN/m3, and 14.4 kN/m3 for cement contents of 3%, 6%, 9%, and
12%. Finally, the improved soil was studied using durability tests under wetting/drying conditions with γd of
16.4 kN/m3, 15.8 kN/m3, 14.5 kN/m3 and cement content of 3%, 6%, 9%, and 12%. The results indicate that C
and γd are sufficiently significant factors in understanding soil’s behavior regarding wetting/drying of the
mixtures, in that order. Finally, normalized curves of qu, qt, G0 and LM and VR were developed as a function of the
adjusted η⁄Civ for practical purposes of dosages for ground improvement.

pavements, upstream slope protection for dams, protection of river

Introduction
Soil improvement using binders such as Portland cement and lime
are well-known alternatives in ground improvement to establish
changes in the physical properties of the soil [34]. This practice has
become more common on soils with low load bearing capacity, high
compressibility or high permeability.
Catton [5], Dupas and Pecker [16] and Clough et al. [6] were pio­
neers in the use of soil–cement. In geotechnical literature there are many
cases that support the application of this technique on foundations [e.g.,
[27,22,29,32,17]] as base material underlying bituminous and concrete
banks and associated grade-control structures, liners for channels, res­
ervoirs, lagoons, mass soil cement placements for dikes and foundation
stabilization [1]. Consoli et al. [8] proposed the shear strength
normalization as a function of the η/Civ index (porosity/volumetric
cement content). There are several studies already carried out with the
use of Portland cement improvement, such as in Botucatu sandstone [8],
Osorio Sand [19], clays [7], different types of sandy soils [18], and the
lateritic soil of Maringa [15]. In general, these works study the me­
chanical behavior of different types of cement improved soils, regarding
the effect of the parameters ω, Civ and η, but there are no scientific re­
ports about durability, mechanical strength and shear modulus of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tennisongeotec@gmail.com (T.F. de Souza Junior), karla.heineck@ufrgs.br (K. Salvagni Heineck), cezarfalavigna@gmail.com (C. Falavigna
Silva), dallarosa@upf.br (F. Dalla Rosa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2022.100751
Received 30 August 2021; Received in revised form 21 December 2021; Accepted 28 February 2022
Available online 16 March 2022
2214-3912/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.F. de Souza Junior et al.
Nomenclature
cp specimen
CPT cone penetration test
C cement content (percentage of cement mass in relation to
mass of dry soil)
CID consolidate isotropic drained triaxial test
Civ volumetric cement content (percentage of cement volume
in total specimen volume)
qu unconfined compressive strength
qt tensile strength
R2 coefficient of determination
γg specific gravity
γd dry unit weight
ω moisture content
ωo optimum moisture content
national lateritic clays. As an alternative for soil–cement, there are also
lime application studies in the geotechnical field [36,4,21]). Years later,
Consoli et al. [9] proposed a general model that controls the strength -
porosity/binder index behavior of sandy soil-pozzolan-lime blends.
Many soil improvement studies with lime have been carried out in
different soils, such as clayey sand [9], dredged mud [23], soft clays [25]
and silty sand [30]. A recent paper by Consoli et al. [13] proposed the
stabilization of lateritic soil from northern Bolivia with Portland cement
and sand.
This article aims to understand the mechanical performance of a
frictional cohesive soil typical of Passo Fundo/RS improved with Port­
land cement with high initial strength (Type III) based on cement con­
tent C (%) and dry unit weight (γd).
Experimental program
The experimental program was carried out in parts. First, the
research of the geotechnical properties and parameters of the soil in
other works [e.g., [31,35,12] and its complement with a modified
Proctor compaction test. Subsequently, the C% and γd were determined,
and specimens were randomly chosen to assess the G0. Then, unconfined
compression strength and splitting tensile tests were carried out with
varying C% and γd. Finally, wetting and drying durability studies were
done on the soils improved with Portland cement.
Materials
Lateritic soil
Lateritic soil in the experimental field is the result of in situ weath­
ering processes and has characteristics related to these processes, such as
low cementation and high porosity. The studied soil has a cohesive-
frictional behavior and hydraulic conductivity equivalent to granular
soils – k = 1.1 × 10-5 m/s [12]. Under natural conditions, these soils
have a low bearing capacity, however, when compacted they can reach
high mechanical strengths, being suitable for landfills in road
constructions.
Faro [17] performed in situ CPT tests on the respective soil. The
results showed that in superficial layers (depths less than 0.5 m), the tip
strength was between 4 MPa and 6 MPa, as well as values in a range of 1
MPa to 2 MPa for the depths up to 15 m that followed the more resistant
layer. The referred soil is classified as A-5–8 (Silty Soil) by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials – AASHTO
(LL = 41% and IP = 9.02%), and as CL (Clay of low plasticity) by the
Unified System of Soil Classification – SUCS[32]. As for the tropical
classifications (MCT), it belongs to the group LG’ – clay soil with lateritic
behavior[35].
2
Transportation Geotechnics 34 (2022) 100751
η porosity
η/Civ porosity/volumetric cement content
P load applied
D diameter
Le cp height
LM mass loss
γ specific soil weight
Vs S wave velocity
g gravitational acceleration
Δt S wave time
DF degrees of freedom
SS sum of squares
MS mean square
Fc calculated F
Ft tabulated F
VR volume ratio
In a natural state, the studied lateritic soil collected in the first meter
presented as physical indexes: γg equal to 26.7 kN / m3, γnat equal to 16.1
kN / m3, ω equal to 33%, LL equal to 42%, IP equal to 11% (Similar to
[32], void ratio equal to 1.21 and saturation degree of 73%[31]. The
γd value for modified Proctor energy compaction is equal to 16.43 kN/
m3. Regarding the granulometric distribution, Consoli et al.[12]re­
ported that the soil consists of 2.0% medium sand (0.425 mm ≤ diam­
eter ≤ 2.0 mm), 20.0% fine sand (0.075 mm ≤ diameter ≤ 0.425 mm),
22.0% Silt (0.002 mm ≤ diameter ≤ 0.075 mm) and 56% clay (diameter
≤ 0.002 mm).
In undisturbed samples collected from the surface of the experi­
mental field, the average value of axial compression strength was equal
to 54 kPa for deformations of 0.7%.[14]. Regarding the effective pa­
rameters, Rizzon[31]performed CID tests on this same soil with 20 kPa,
40 kPa, and 80 kPa confining stresses and obtained as stresses envelope
parameters φ’ equal to 26.6◦ and c’ equal to 14,9 kPa. Consoli et al. [12]
performed triaxial CID tests, with 20 kPa, 35 kPa, and 50 kPa confining
stresses, and obtained 30.5◦ and 13 kPa for peak friction angle (φ’) and
cohesive intercept (c’), respectively. Regarding the plastic behavior and
the stiffness of the material, for confining stresses of 20 kPa and 35 kPa,
the soil behaved similarly to a ductile material, however, for 50 kPa
confining stress, the material showed a hardening behavior.
Water and cement. The experiment was performed with distilled water.
The binder used was Portland cement with high initial strength (Type
III), which has high reactivity at low ages depending on its grinding
degree.
Methods
The properties of cemented soil are influenced by several factors,
such as: soil type, cement and water content, degree of compaction,
mixing uniformity, curing conditions and age of the compacted mixture
[1]. Therefore, next, all the materials and procedures adopted in the
experiment are stated.
Molding and curing of specimens (CP)
The soil preparation was carried out following common procedures,
such as: removing roots manually, drying by artificial heating, soil clod-
breaking, sieving (sieve # 10), and determining the moisture content of
the material before reserving it in plastic bags. The amount of cement
was calculated as a function of the soil dry mass, and the amount of
water was calculated as a function of the total mass of dry materials
(lateritic soil with cement). The curing time established was seven days,
similar to that used by Consoli et al. [8], Fonseca et al. [19] and Consoli
et al. [10].
T.F. de Souza Junior et al.
For the unconfined compression strength test, the specimens were
molded in a cylindrical geometry and with dimensions of 5 × 10 cm
(diameter × height) based on Guedes et al.[20]. The materials were
weighed and mixed until homogenization was achieved, then the
mixture was divided into three portions. The specimen was molded
through static compaction, and subsequently demolded, as well as the
dimensions were registered. The specimen’s acceptability for the axial
compression test and for tensile by diametrical compression met the
following aspects:
• Degree of compaction between 98% and 102%;
• The moisture content (ω): the specimen’s moisture content values
obeyed a ± 2% variation with the optimum moisture content ob­
tained in the Modified Proctor curve of the soil (ω = 23.5%);
• Specimen dimensions: diameter with 50 ± 0.5 mm and height with
100 ± 2 mm.
After molded, specimens were introduced into plastic bags and the
mass and dimensions were registered. They were subjected to 6 days of
dry curing at 23◦ ±2◦ C. After this period, the specimens were immersed
in water for 24 h in order to reduce the suction effect, increasing the
degree of saturation (see Fig. 1a), and, finally, specimens were tested for
unconfined compression strength. The moisture content value was ob­
tained by drying in an oven with a temperature of approximately 100◦ C
for a period of 24 h to 48 h after molding. For the durability tests the
same procedures were adopted.
Unconfined compression strength and splitting tensile tests
Unconfined compression strength tests help to evaluate the
compressive strength of construction materials, such as wood and con­
crete. Both the unconfined compression strength test and the tensile test
by diametrical compression were adopted to verify the effectiveness of
soil improvement with the studied binders. In this way it is possible to
analyze the effects of the influential parameters to establish the me­
chanical behavior normalization as reported in other studies in the
literature [e.g., [8,9,19.7]]. The tests followed the ASTM D 2166 [3]
standard, similar to the Brazilian standard NBR 5739 (ABNT, 1980),
both simple, fast, reliable, and cheap. Diametrical compression tests
(known as the Brazilian test) were also performed to understand the
tensile behavior of compacted mixtures.
An automatic load frame with a maximum capacity of 50 kN and test
rings with capacities of 10 and 50 kN, as well as resolutions of 0.005 and
0.023 kN, respectively, were used for unconfined compression strength
tests. The displacement rate adopted was 1.14 mm/min. The curing and
water immersion procedures followed the criteria in item 4.1. After both
tests, statistical studies were performed based on the ANOVA method in
order to understand the significance of the investigated variables (γd, C
%) on the response variables (qu, qt and Go).
Fig. 1. Laboratory procedures: a) mold and cure the specimens; b) wet and dry durability test; c) ultrasonic pulse velocity test (Pundit).
3
Transportation Geotechnics 34 (2022) 100751
Pundit Test (Initial shear modulus)
Once removed from the immersion tanks, the specimens were dried
using absorbent papers applied to their surfaces in order to remove the
excess of water. After that, three specimens were selected for Vs mea­
surements using the Pundit Lab® (Portable Non-Destructive Digital
Indication Tester) equipment. The procedures for calibration, mea­
surement, and interpretation of the results generated applied to the
specimens were based on studies by Bortolotto (2017). Fig. 1 illustrates
the procedure for recording the propagation time of S waves (ts) in a soil
specimen improved with cement, which, through the S waves propa­
gation speed was calculated due to the longitudinal distance (height) of
the specimen.
The shear modulus obtained from the Pundit is an idealized value
and is referred as G0, [i.e. the modulus under very small strain][33].
According to Schnaid and Odebrecht (2012), after obtaining the ultra­
sonic S waves propagation speeds, it is possible to calculate the shear
modulus through the elasticity theory. The formulation described in Eq.
(1) is a classic equation of shear Modulus.
γ Le
G0 = ρVs2 = ( )( )2 (1)
g Δt
Durability test
The durability test for wetting/drying cycles was based on ASTM
D559[2]procedures. Cylindrical specimens of 100 ± 0.4 mm in diameter
and 127.3 ± 0.3 mm in height were molded and submitted to a curing
period of 7 days. The durability test was performed through 12 brushing
cycles with wetting/drying of the specimen. The water immersion time
of the specimen was 5 h and the oven drying time was 43 h, totaling a
total time/cycle of 48 h. The brushing cycles were performed 24 brushes
(20 passes on the longitudinal side and 2 on each transverse side). The
weight of the specimen was measured in each cycle using a precision
balance and the volume was measured using a pachymeter at 3 points
(transversal and longitudinal). Fig. 1b illustrates the specimens for the
durability tests produced before the brushing cycle and after wetting/
drying procedures.
Mechanical and durability tests
The program for unconfined compression strength and splitting
tensile testing was established to separately assess the influence of
cement content and porosity/cement content ratio (η/Civ) at the me­
chanical strength of the artificially cemented lateritic soil. The molding
points of the unconfined compression testing program are shown in
Fig. 2, with the respective soil modified Proctor compaction curves with
90% and 100% saturation curves.
It is known that the water needed for the soil–cement is in a range
between 5% and 13%, which would be enough to obtain the maximum
compaction and allow cement hydration at the same time, but to obtain
a satisfactory compaction, the optimum moisture content was adopted
T.F. de Souza Junior et al.
Fig. 2. Lateritic soil compaction test with modified proctor energy.
[1]. However, the ω adopted in the mixture was equal to the ωo in the
modified proctor energy in order to reach the maximum γd of the
mixture. Five γd values were established (16.4 kN/m3, 15.4 kN/m3, 14.4
kN/m3, 13.6 kN/m3 and 12.7 kN/m3), which correspond respectively to
γd1, γd2, γd3, γd4, γd5 (see Fig. 2). Regarding the evaluation of the tensile
behavior by Splitting Tensile, the γd values determined were 16.4 kN/
m3, 15.4 kN/m3, 14.4 kN/m3. Specifically concerning Portland cement
of high initial strength (Type III), the levels adopted were 3%, 6%, 9%
and 12%, which is approximate to what is suggested by Mitchell [26]
and studied by Fonseca et al. [19] regarding granular soils.
For the purpose of statistical representation, five specimens were
molded for each combination of C and γd range in axial compression
tests and for splitting tensile tests. For the shear modulus determination,
three specimens were randomly selected from the unconfined
compression strength test set of samples.
Regarding the durability test under wetting/drying conditions, the
same parameters were chosen, being adopted γd values equal to 16.4
Fig. 3. Unconfined compression strength variation in relation to the cement content introduced in the studied soil.
4
Transportation Geotechnics 34 (2022) 100751
kN/m3, 15.8 kN/m3, 14.5 kN/m3 and cement contents C (%) of 3%, 6%,
9%, and 12%.
Note: In addition to the twelve specimens established by the study
matrix, other five specimens (reproduction of the specimens established
in the test matrix) were produced because they did not meet the
acceptability criteria, even though they were useful when interpreted in
normalized curves.
Results and discussions
In what concerns unconfined compression strength, the tests carried
out met the expectations based on previous studies with other granular
and clay soils [e.g., [28,19,8,18]]. There was an increase in the ultimate
axial compression strength (qu) due to an increase in the dry soil’s
specific weight, and in the incorporated cement content adopted in the
study. In addition to these, soil particle size plays an important role in
shear strength behavior. Grain shapes and respective size distributions
T.F. de Souza Junior et al.
can affect the interparticle arrangements in the compaction, and in­
crease or reduce the specific area for chemical bond development [18].
Considering these aspects, the high fine content presented in the used
soil combined with the presence of natural oxides and silicates may have
been beneficial for increasing the qu value for a certain ratio of η⁄ Civ. In
Fig. 3, it can be seen that the gain in the ultimate axial compression (qu)
followed an exponential growth trend for the studied cement content for
each γ d, although a linear growth in the qu (kPa) vs C (%) relation is
common.
Similarly, the gain in unconfined compression strength on splitting
tensile due to the incorporated cement content range in the studied
γd values followed an exponential growth trend, as shown in Fig. 4.
Effect of the porosity/volumetric cement content (η/Civ) ratio on lateritic
soil shear strength behavior
The data were grouped and interpreted according to the η/Civ
parameter. A unique correlation seen between qu versus η/Civ predicts
the improved soil strength behavior, whose power applied to Civ for
best-fit correlation (R2 = 0.96) was equal to 0.35 as shown in Fig. 5. This
power value is consistent to the value obtained by Consoli et al. [7] in
studies with silty clays and sandy clays. Through this relationship, the
increase in the η values results in the reduction of the qu value is evident,
while this affects the mechanical strength increase of the improved soil,
as demonstrated by Consoli et al. [8,10].
Like the unconfined compressive strength (qu), a normalized curve
was established between the tensile strength by splitting (qt) and the
η/Civ ratio, whose R2 value was equal to 0.90, as shown in Fig. 6. As
cement incorporation associated with the soil densification increased
(increase in γd), the η/Civ0.35 parameter increase as a consequence Fig. 6.
In summary, the data correlations present high quality for uncon­
fined compression tests [Eq. (2)] and tensile by diametrical compression
[Eq. (3)], based on the R2 coefficients, equal to 0.96 and 0.90,
respectively.
( )
η − 5.457
qu = 9.0 × 107 0.35 (2)
Civ
(
η
)− 5.457
qt = 1.44 × 107
Civ0.35
Both unconfined compression and tensile tests show that the intro­
duction of cementing agents provides the development of chemical
Fig. 4. Tensile strength by splitting tensile variation in relation to the cement content introduced in the studied soil.
Transportation Geotechnics 34 (2022) 100751
contacts between particles, just as a greater compaction reflects the
decrease of porosity and the increase in interparticle effective stress,
and, therefore, an increase in the soil’s shear strength. Consoli et al. [8]
concluded that the qt/qu ratio for artificially cemented sand was be­
tween 9% and 14%. However, when comparing the qt and qu values of
the present study through the adjusted equations, it is evident that the qt
values represented 16% of the qu value.
Effect of the porosity/volumetric cement content (η/Civ) ratio on the
lateritic soil shear modulus (Go)
As for the shear modulus (Go), as seen in Fig. 7, the normalized curve
Go vs η/Civ0.35 presents a potential function configuration, so that the
stiffness of the cement improved soil decreases as the η/Civ0.35 index
increases.
The drop in material stiffness occurs in an associated way, that is, the
material cementation reduction affects the number of interparticle
bonds (adhesion) allied to the increase of the soil porosity (random
arrangement of grains and volume void), which in turn is linked to the
magnitude of γd. Although there are some points with higher shear
modulus in the η/Civ0.35 range equal to 23, the relationship can be
considered optimal (R2 = 0.79), also seen in Fig. 7 and Eq. (4). This
behavior can be justified by internal suction generation on the improved
soil due to not having reached the complete saturation stage during the
immersion phase of the specimen, thus increasing the Go value quickly
based on the studies Georgetti et al. (2013).
( )− 4.487
G0 = 4.0 × 109
η
(4)
Civ0,35
Another justification is due to the increased degree of saturation as a
result of the reduction in the void index. The densification of the
soil–cement mixture allowed the expulsion of air from the interparticles,
raised the water/voids ratio and increased the proximity between
cement and lateritic soil particles, creating more chemical bonds.
Apparently, for levels of η/Civ0.35 ≈ 23 these phenomena generate sig­
nificant increase in the value of G0.
The correlation between Go/qu and η/Civ0.35 of the studied mixture is
evinced in Fig. 8 and Eq. (5), and a good relationship between these
(3) parameters is observed when analyzing it (R2 = 0.70). This relationship
is useful to assist in the soil improvement dosage starting from the
cement amount balance and the appropriate minimum density,
providing a mixture that meets the strength and stiffness required by the
5
T.F. de Souza Junior et al. Transportation Geotechnics 34 (2022) 100751

Fig. 5. Unconfined compression strength variation in relation to the porosity/volumetric cement content ratio in the studied soil.

Fig. 6. Tensile strength by splitting tensile variation in relation to the porosity/volumetric cement content ratio in the studied soil.

project[11]. There are other works in the literature addressing Go/qu
with binder elements in clayey sands improved with lime [7], as well as
in Osório/RS sand and in Porto silty sand improved with Portland
cement[11].
( )2.04
Go η content and density significantly affects the durability of the improved
≅ 0.91 0,35 (5)
qu Civ
Effect of porosity/cement volumetric content (η/Civ) ratio on the
specimen’s mass and volume variation in durability test
When carrying out the durability tests with mixtures which the
cement content was 3%, particle dispersion occurred in the second
brushing cycle, regardless of the degree of compaction. Apparently, the
low artificial cementation combined to the geomaterial densification did
not reach a certain level of strength to support the capillary stresses that
occurred during the immersion phase of the specimens. As the speci­
mens were submerged, there was a decrease in effective stresses and this
allowed the dispersion of solids due to low cementation increase[24].
The conclusion reach is that a 3% cement content is inadequate for
assessing the durability of the studied soil, and a minimum cement
content of 6% was then established.
In terms of durability, the test results indicated that the higher the
value of γd and C of the improved soil, the lower was the mass loss and
the volumetric reduction of the cps. This indicates that the cement
material. Fig. 9 illustrates the improved soil mass loss behavior as a
function of the η/Civ parameter and, as predicted, it was possible to see
that there was an exponential growth in the improved soil mass loss as
the η/Civ0.35 value increased. Conceptually, high η/Civ values represent
high levels of porosity and/or less incorporation of chemical binders in
the mixture, which consequently make the geomaterials more suscep­
tible to deterioration by abrasion. Allied to this, since the adjusted curve
was considered to be excellent (R2 = 0.86), it can be inferred that the
parameter η/Civ has the potential to predict mass loss behavior of geo­
materials. In this way, designers and engineers, knowing the necessary
mass loss durability criteria, can specify the improvement dosage for in
situ soils. Next, Eq. (6) informs the curve described in Fig. 9:

6
T.F. de Souza Junior et al.
Fig. 7. Shear modulus variation in relation to the porosity/volumetric cement content ratio in the studied soil.
Fig. 8. Variation of the shear modulus and unconfined compression strength ratio in relation to the porosity/volumetric cement content in the studied soil.
( )1.469
η
LM (%) = 1.7 × 10− 3
(6)
Civ0.35
Fig. 10 illustrates the VR of the improved soil as a function of the
η/Civ parameter and, as predicted, there was a decrease in the volume of
the improved soil with the increase of η/Civ0.35 value. The value of VR
represents ratio of the final volume to the initial volume of the cp. As
previously mentioned, when η/Civ presents higher values, there is a
tendency to abrasion degradation susceptibility and, in this case, this is
reversed into a volumetric reduction of the specimen due to the abrasion
cycles. Equation (7) describes the VR behavior as a function of the
parameter η/Civ with an excellent relationship between its data (R2 =
0.84).
7
Transportation Geotechnics 34 (2022) 100751
( )
η
VR (%) = 1.315e − 0.0012
(7)
Civ0,35
Statistical analyses
Based on the investigated variables, statistical analyzes were per­
formed through two-way ANOVA method. All the factor variations were
significant on the three statistical evaluations, since all the cases pre­
sented Fc (calculated factor) values higher than the Ft value (tabulated
factor). As well, the p-value found was less than 5% in all sources of
variation, which leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis of equal
means. In the unconfined compressive strength (see Table 1) and tensile
strength by diametrical compression (see Table 2) tests, there was a
T.F. de Souza Junior et al. Transportation Geotechnics 34 (2022) 100751

Fig. 9. Relationship between LM (%) and porosity/volumetric cement content parameter in the studied soil.

Fig. 10. Relationship between volumetric ratio VR and porosity/volumetric cement content parameter in the studied soil.

Table 1 Table 2
Statistical evaluation of the investigated variables of unconfined compression Statistical evaluation of the investigated variables of tensile strength (qt) by
strength (qu) tests using the ANOVA method. splitting tensile tests using the ANOVA method.
Variable DF SS (Aj.) MS (Aj.) Fc Ft p- Variable DF SS MS Fc Ft p-
value value value (Aj.) (Aj.) value value value

C(%) 3 48.309 16.103 316.25 2.719 0.000 C(%) 2 1.174 0.391 125.8 3.191 0.000
γd (kN/m3) 4 35.478 8.8696 174.19 2.486 0.000 γd (kN/m3) 3 0.545 0.273 87.62 2.798 0.000
Interaction –γd (kN/ 12 13.157 1.0964 21.53 1.875 0.000 Interaction. γd (kN/ 6 0.185 0.031 9.89 2.295 0.000
m3) vs C(%) m3) vs C(%)
Error 80 4.073 0.0509 Error 48 0.149 0.003
Total 99 101.017 Total 59 2.054

major significant effect of the parameter C% compared to the significant shown in Table 3.
effect γd and the interaction (γd vs C%), as well as in the studies by Foppa
(2005) and Consoli et al. [8]. However, regarding the assessment of the Final considerations
shear module, the main significant effect was the γd parameter
compared to the significant effect C% and the interaction (γd × C%), as Based on the results obtained and the discussions presented, it was

8
T.F. de Souza Junior et al. Transportation Geotechnics 34 (2022) 100751

Table 3 References
Statistical evaluation of the investigated variables of shear module (G0) tests
using the ANOVA method. [1] ACI 230 (2009). Report on soil cement. 5, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, USA.
Variable DF SS (Aj.) MS (Aj.) Fc value Ft p- [2] ASTM D559 (2003). Standard test methods for wetting and drying compacted soil-
value value cement mixtures. American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, USA.
[3] ASTM D2166 (2006). Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of
C(%) 4 1.35E + 08 33,712,130 1,563.19 2.606 0.000
cohesive soil. American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, USA.
γd (kN/m3) 3 62,324,209 20,774,736 963.3 2.839 0.000
[4] Attoh-Okine NO. Lime treatment of laterite soils and gravels. Constr Build Mater
Interaction – 12 1.09E + 08 9,110,475 422.44 2.003 0.000 1995;9(5):283–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-0618(95)00030-J).
γd (kN/m3) [5] Catton, M. D. (1962). Soil-cement technology—A résumé. Research and Development
vs C(%) Laboratories of the Portland Cement Association, Portland, OR.
Error 40 862,651 21,566 [6] Clough GW, Sitar N, Bachus RC, Rad NS. Cemented Sands under Static Loading.
Total 59 3.07E + 08 J. of the Geotech. Engineering Division, ASCE 1981;107(6):799–817. https://doi.
org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0001152.
[7] Consoli, N. C.; Dalla Rosa, A.; Corte, M. B.; Lopes, L. S. Jr; & Consoli, B. S. (2011).
possible to state the following considerations: Porosity/cement ratio controlling strength of artificially cemented clays. J. Mater.
Civ. Engng., 28(8), 1249–1254. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000283).
[8] Consoli NC, Foppa D, Festugato L, Heineck KS. Key parameters for strength control
a) An excellent exponential relationship (R2 = 0.96) was obtained be­ of artificially cemented soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Engng ASCE 2007;133(2):
tween the unconfined compressive strength (qu) and the η/Civ0.35 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:2(197)).
[9] Consoli NC, Lopes Jr LS, Heineck KS. Key parameters for strength control of lime
parameter, indicating that the power value equal to 0.35 represents a stabilized soils. J Materials Civil Engineering ASCE 2009;21(5):210–6. https://doi.
satisfactory adjustment in the prediction in terms of compression org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:5(210).
mechanical behavior, as in Consoli et al. [7], [10] Consoli NC, Lopes Jr LS, Prietto PDM, Festugato L, Cruz RC. Variables controlling
stiffness and strength of lime-stabilized soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2011;137
b) An excellent exponential relationship (R2 = 0.90) was obtained be­ (6):628–32. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000470.
tween the tensile strength by qt and the η/Civ0.35 parameter, indi­ [11] Consoli NC, Fonseca AV, Silva SR, Cruz RC, Fonini A. Parameters controlling
cating that the power value equal to 0.35 represents a satisfactory stiffness and strength of artificially cemented soils. Géotechnique 2012;62(2):
177–83. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.8.P.084.
adjustment in the prediction in terms of tensile mechanical behavior,
[12] Consoli NC, Giese DN, Scheuermann Filho HC, Festugato L, Rocha MM,
as in Consoli et al. [7]. In addition, the value of qt represented 16% of Heineck KS, et al. On porous bonded residual soil in natural and dynamically
the qu of the soil; compacted states through plate load tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Engng ASCE 2020;
146(8):06020011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002321.
c) As well as on the results of unconfined compression strength and
[13] Consoli NC, Párraga Morales D, Saldanha RB. A new approach for stabilization of
tensile strength by diametrical compression, the Go showed good lateritic soil with Portland cement and sand: strength and durability. Acta Geotech
quality in the exponential relation (R2 = 0.79). Also, it was possible 2021;16(5):1473–86.
to establish a normalized curve between G0⁄qu vs η/Civ0.35 with good [14] Dalla Rosa F, Thomé A, Ruver CA. Determinação de alguns parâmetros geotécnicos do
campo experimental de Geotecnia da Universidade Passo Fundo [in Portuguese].
quality (R2 = 0.70), being very useful for soil improvement dosages Simpósio Brasileiro de Jovens Geotécnicos 2004;1:2004.
that consider aspects such as stiffness combined with unconfined [15] De Souza JM, Rudnick RC, Lukiantchucki JA. Evaluation of the incorporation of
compression strength; construction waste (CW) for the stabilization of soil-cement mixtures. Ambiente
Construído 2020;28(4):261–80. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-
d) After carrying out the wetting/drying durability tests, there was a 86212020000400471).
potential growth ratio between mass loss (LM) and η/Civ0.35. The [16] Dupas J, Pecker A. Static and dynamic properties of sand cement. J. of the Geotech.
ratio obtained as a result of the performed tests presented excellent Engineering Division, ASCE 1979;105(3):419–36. https://doi.org/10.1061/
AJGEB6.0000778.
quality (R2 = 0.86) and reflects the idea that the material with low [17] Faro VP. Laterally loaded deep foundations associated with treated soils:
cementation and/or greater mixture porosity becomes more sus­ conception, load tests and design guidelines [In Portuguese.]. In: DSc. Thesis, Post
ceptible to easily wear, and loses mass compared to denser and Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do
Sul; 2014.
cemented mixtures;
[18] Floss, M. F. (2012). Parameters for controlling the strength and stiffness of artificially
e) After carrying out the wetting/drying durability tests, an exponential cemented granular soils [In Portuguese]. D.Sc. Thesis, Graduate Program in Civil
decreasing relation between VR and η/Civ0.35 occurs. The relation­ Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.
[19] Fonseca AV da, Cruz RC, Consoli NC. Strength properties of sandy soil-cement
ship obtained from the tests has an excellent R2 relation (R2 = 0.84)
admixtures. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2009;27:681–6. https://doi.
and reflects the idea that material with low cementation and/or org/10.1007/s10706-009-9267-y.
greater mixture porosity becomes more susceptible to volume [20] Guedes SB, Coutinho RQ, Fonseca AV. Details about unconfined compression tests
reduction compared to denser and more cemented mixtures; and diametral compression tests for tensile strength determination. Geotecnia
2016;136:127–42. https://doi.org/10.24849/j.geot.2016.136.08.
f) When applying the ANOVA method, all variables studied were [21] Herrier G, Chevalier C, Froumentin M, Cuisinier O, Bonelli S, Fry JJ. Lime treated
considered significant. The p-value was less than 5% in all sources of soil as an erosion-resistant material for hydraulic earthen structures. In: 6th
variations, which leads to the equal means null hypothesis rejection, International Conference on Scour and Erosion; 2012. p. 582–95.
[22] Ingles, O. G.; & Metcalf, J. B. (1973). Soil stabilization: Principles and practice.
being the C (%) parameter considered the main one due to its level of Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, 384p.
significance in the study. [23] Jin, Q.; Li, B. (2019) Effects of lime treatment on the geotechnical properties of
dredged mud. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, v. 37, p. 1083 - 1094.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2018.1527421.
Declaration of Competing Interest [24] Lambe, T. W.; & Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil mechanics. John Wiley and Sons: New
York, 553p.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [25] Liu MD, Indraratna B, Horpibulsuk S, Suebsuk J. Variations in strength of lime-
treated soft clays. Proc Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Improvement 2012;
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
165(4):217–23.
the work reported in this paper. [26] Mitchell, J. K. (1981). Soil improvement: State-of-the-art report. Proc. 10th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics, Vol. 4, Stockholm, pp. 509-565.
[27] Nussbaum, P. J.; & Colley, B. E. (1971). Dam construction and facing with soil-
Acknowledgments
cement. Research and Development Laboratories of the Portland Cement
Association: Bulletin.
The authors wish to express their gratitude to CAPES, FAPERGS and [28] Prietto, P. D. (2004). Strength and dilatancy of cemented soils: A theoretical-
CNPq—Brazilian Council of Scientific and Technological Research experimental approach [In Portuguese.] D.Sc. Thesis, Post-Graduate Program in
Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
(Project Produtividade em Pesquisa) for the financial support to the [29] Rattley MJ, Lehane BM, Consoli N, Richards DJ. Uplift of shallow foundations with
research group. cement-stabilised backfill. Proc Institution Civil Engineers - Ground Improvement
2008;161(2):103–10.

9
T.F. de Souza Junior et al.
[30] Rios S, Fonseca AV, Bangaru SS. Silty sand stabilized with different binders.
Procedia Eng Science Direct 2016;143:187–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2016.06.024).
[31] Rizzon, M. M. (2016). Effects of dynamic compaction in residual soil [In Portuguese.]
M.Sc. dissertation, Post-Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Federal University
of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
[32] Ruver, C. A. (2011). Pullout study of isolated foundations in soil treated with cement
[In Portuguese.] D.Sc. Thesis, Post-Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
[33] Schneider, J. A.; Hoyos, L., Jr.; Mayne, P. W.; Macari, E. J.; & Rix, G. J. (1999).
Field and laboratory measurements of dynamic shear modulus of Piedmont
10
Transportation Geotechnics 34 (2022) 100751
residual soils, Behavioral Characteristics of Residual Soils, GSP 92, ASCE, Reston,
VA, pp. 12-25.
[34] Sherwood, P. (1993). Soil stabilization with cement and lime. State of the art review.
Transport Research Laboratory.
[35] Souza Junior, T. F.; Jesus, F. F. S.; Ruver, C. A.; Heineck, K. S.; & Luz, C. C. (2019).
Aplicação do método de classificação MCT ao solo coesivo friccional do município
de Passo Fundo - RS [in Portuguese]. Seminário de Engenharia Geotécnica do Rio
Grande do Sul,10., Santa Maria. Anais... Santa Maria: UFSM, 2019.
[36] Transportation Research Board (1987). Lime stabilization—Reactions, properties,
design, and construction. State of the Art Rep. No. 5, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.