You are on page 1of 21

Technical Paper by A. Edinçliler and E.

Güler

GEOTEXTILE-REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT CLAYS - EFFECTS OF A FOUNDATION SOIL CRUST STRENGTHENED BY LIME DIFFUSION
ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of a study of the effects of a lime crust in the foundation soil, obtained by lime diffusion, on the performance of nonwoven geotextile-reinforced embankments. The study consists of laboratory model tests to simulate failure mechanisms during the construction and lifetime of embankments. A 1/100-scale model of the embankment was constructed. Lime was spread over the foundation soils to increase the shear strength of the soil through lime diffusion. In the laboratory experiments, vertical and horizontal deformations of the geotextile were recorded. Spreading of lime reduced the water content of the clay in the crust layer. It was observed that crust formation using lime diffusion increased the shear strength of the foundation soil thereby allowing the soil to carry larger loads. The soil was capable of carrying loads up to five times greater than that of the untreated soil. It was found that the shear strength increase is dependent on the quantity of lime added, temperature, and curing time. KEYWORDS: Reinforced embankment, Geosynthetic, Geotextile, Lime diffusion, Soft clay, Shear strength. AUTHORS: A. Edinçliler, Projects Technical Coordinator, International Union of Local Authorities-Section for the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East Region (IULA-EMME), Sultanahmet, Yerebatan Cad. 2, 34400 Istanbul, Turkey, Telephone: 90/212-511-1010, Telefax: 90/212-519-0060; and E. Güler, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Bogaziçi University, 80815 Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey, Telephone: 90/212-263-1540/1452, Telefax: 090/212-287-2463, E-mail: eguler@boun.edu.tr. PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics Association International, 1801 County Road B West, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-4061, USA, Telephone: 1/651-222-2508, Telefax: 1/651-631-9334. Geosynthetics International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349. DATES: Original manuscript received 15 January 1998, revised version received 18 February 1999 and accepted 20 February 1999. Discussion open until 1 November 1999. REFERENCE: Edinçliler, A. and Güler, E., 1999, “Geotextile-Reinforced Embankments on Soft Clays - Effects of a Foundation Soil Crust Strengthened by Lime Diffusion”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 71-91.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 2

71

EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay - Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation

1

INTRODUCTION

The safe construction and operation of embankments over soft foundations are still major problems for engineers, despite the widespread use of reinforcing materials such as geotextiles. Soft foundations are usually characterized by a high water content, which appreciably decreases their load carrying capacity. The soft soil on which the embankment is constructed must have sufficient strength to support the weight of the embankment and any live loads likely to occur. In addition, the soft soil must also be sufficiently strong to carry construction equipment. There are a number of available methods to increase the bearing capacity of soft foundation soils. Among these, reinforcement materials such as geotextiles and geogrids are widely used. These reinforcing materials can significantly improve the performance of the foundation and increase the factor of safety. A widely used alternative method for soil improvement is the addition of various chemical agents. Lime has been found to be a good stabilizing agent. The reaction of lime with the soil is dependent on the type of soil and environmental factors, such as temperature and humidity. The reaction of lime with soil is also strongly dependent on time. The time interval that elapses while lime is left to diffuse within the soil is called the curing time. Also, lime stabilization reduces the water content and increases the strength of the soil. For the current study, the combination of lime stabilization in addition to geosynthetic reinforcement was investigated. In small-scale models, the soft foundation soil was modeled using kaolin clay, and the nonwoven geotextile reinforcement was placed between the embankment and the foundation. Lime was spread over the foundation soil to increase the shear strength of the surface. The effects of lime stabilization with and without geotextile reinforcement were investigated. 2 2.1 EFFECT OF SURFACE CRUST ON REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS Background

Indraratna et al. (1991) examined the performance of a test embankment that was constructed on soft marine clays. The embankment was built over a soft silty clay layer, which had a weathered crust layer. Using finite element analyses, Indraratna et al. (1991) found that the presence of the crust beneath the embankment resulted in greater resistance to lateral displacements, thus allowing greater embankment heights to be achieved before failure. Indraratna et al. (1991) concluded that this result would encourage the use of chemical additives for surface stabilization. Based on finite element analyses, Rowe and Mylleville (1990) discussed the effect of a higher strength surface crust. The soft clay foundation was modeled using an undrained shear strength and undrained modulus that increased linearly with depth from a given surface value. Geosynthetic reinforcement was placed at the clay surface. Rowe and Mylleville (1990) examined numerical results for undrained strength profiles with and without a high strength surface crust. Based on the presence of the higher strength crust, Rowe and Mylleville (1990) made the following observations:

72

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 2

Michalowski (1992) also stated that the effect of embankment reinforcement on the bearing capacity of cohesive soils with a strong crust is not pronounced. 6. even in the presence of a very high modulus geosynthetic. Humphrey and Holtz (1989) examined the following factors: S The crust strength has a large effect on displacements and embankment height at failure. the effect of the crust dominates. the maximum tensile load in the reinforcement increases as the crust compressibility increases. for a given embankment height. S the maximum strain in the geosynthetic reduces. The crust strength has a large effect on failure height of both reinforced and unreinforced embankments. for soft brittle soils with a high strength surface crust. S The effect of crust thickness was assessed by comparing displacements at the toe of reinforced and unreinforced embankments on foundations with and without a crust. Mylleville and Rowe (1991) suggested that the modulus of the geosynthetic had very little effect on the magnitude of calculated foundation soil shear strains. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. as the crust compressibility decreases the reinforcement tensile load increases. improves the performance of embankments.which commonly overlays soft cohesive deposits.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . Michalowski (1992) investigated the bearing capacity of cohesive soils under embankments. Michalowski (1992) concluded that the strength increase with depth influences embankment reinforcement. Humphrey and Holtz (1989) showed that the properties and the thickness of a surface crust can significantly influence reinforced embankment behavior. A finite element study by Mylleville and Rowe (1991) considered the effects of geosynthetic modulus on the behavior of reinforced embankments over soft brittle clay deposits with and without a higher strength surface crust. NO. Using limit equilibrium analyses. the reinforcement tensile load increases as the crust thickness decreases. Mylleville and Rowe (1991) noted that. and S the magnitude of maximum shear strains in the foundation soil at failure reduces. Rowe and Mylleville (1990) concluded that a surface crust . for cases of strength increase with depth and a strong surface crust. Also. They also concluded that crust compressibility is an important factor. 2 73 . Using a finite element model. The reinforcement becomes more effective as the crust strength increases.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation S the embankment fill thickness increases. It was also found that the width of the embankment and the overall foundation thickness have comparably smaller influences compared to the effect of crust strength. VOL. S For a given embankment height. Finite element analyses indicated that there is no appreciable relationship between the reinforcement tensile load at failure and crust strength. The study indicated that the failure height decreases as the crust thickness decreases and that. Conversely.

1. For the lime crust to form over the foundation soil. During preparation of the foundation soil. q Nonwoven geotextile 0. a 50 mm thick sand layer was placed to drain excess water and air bubbles in the foundation soil.1.754 g/m2. A 1/100-scale model of an embankment was constructed for laboratory modeling (Figure 1).EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . is rectangular with an internal length of 0. 2 .50 m. the kaolin clay was mixed at a water content of 50%. VOL.75 m. which was approximately 1. Before embankment construction. The amount of lime varied between 701 and 1. Based on undrained short-term analyses. unslaked quicklime was spread over the surface of the kaolin.1 General An objective of this study was to observe the effects of lime placed on the surface of soft clay soil layers.2 Procedure A kaolin clay was used as the foundation soil (see Tables 1 and 2 for the physical and chemical properties of the clay). and internal depth of 0.38 m. The tank.75 m Figure 1. All three sides of the tank are glass to enable the observation of soil movements (Edinçliler 1995). internal width of 0. vane shear tests were carried out at four points on the surface Surcharge load. Schematic cross section of the embankment laboratory model. At the bottom of the tank.10 m Crust 0.5 times the liquid limit of the soil. Before filling the tank with the foundation soil. 6.40 m Kaolin foundation soil 0. NO. The tank was then filled with kaolin clay to a depth of 400 mm. which served as a container for the clay foundation. 3.1 PHYSICAL MODELS Laboratory Modeling 3. the inner glass surfaces of the tank were greased to ensure frictionless surfaces. Time periods ranging from one to three months were allowed to pass for the diffusion of lime toward the lower layers of the foundation soil.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation 3 3. a laboratory model was constructed and experiments conducted. This time lapse was necessary for the clay and lime to react and increase the shear strength of the surface soil. 74 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999.

3 CaO 0.wP = plastic limit.6 Activity 0. Wires attached to the surface of the geotextile were connected to three horizontal deformation gauges to measure the horizontal deformations of the reinforcement layer (Figure 2).2 Fe2O3 0.3 kN/m 35% 1.0 Al2O3 15. Geotechnical properties of the kaolin clay. A Typar 3207 geotextile (Table 3) was used as the reinforcement. Table 1.7 Table 3.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay .5 wP (%) 22.0 PI (%) 10. Chemical and mineral properties of the kaolin clay.5 wopt (%) 24. Physical property Test method Value 68 g/m2 0. Gs = specific gravity. and PI = plasticity index. Measured properties of the nonwoven geotextile reinforcement.8 Free quartz 59. Chemical analysis (%) SiO2 78.6 Mineral content (%) Potassium feldspar 0.5 kN/m 30 kN/m 310 kN > 60% ASTM D 3786 580 kPa Polypropylene 0.5 TiO2 0. VOL.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation and at various depths to measure the change in the foundation soil shear strength with the quantity of lime and the elapsed time. wL = liquid limit.to 100_C -40 40 to 55 µm Thermal bonding Mass per unit area Thickness under 2 kPa (average value) Strength (200 mm wide specimen) Elongation at maximum load Tensile strength at 5% elongation Tensile modulus Grab strength (200 mm wide specimen) Elongation at maximum load Burst strength Polymer type Polymer specific gravity Melting point Service temperature range Fibre diameter Type of fibre bonding BS 6906 ASTM D 4632 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999.0 Kaolin 37.0 Gs 2.37 wL (%) 32.2 MgO 0.5 Others 1.5 Note: γdry = dry unit weight.1 SO3 0. NO.36 mm 3.1 Na2O 0. 2 75 . Physical property γdry (kN/m3) Value 13. wopt = optimum water content. Table 2. This low strength geotextile was chosen because the model-scale stresses were expected to be low.6 Sodium feldspar 0.1 K2O 0. 6.91 165_C .

6. Schematic plan view of a model showing the location of the horizontal deformation gauges and the nonwoven geotextile. theembankment surcharge load was applied by placing iron plates on the crest of the embankment. Physical property Specific gravity. the settlement of the original ground surface was recorded by measurements taken through the glass sides of the tank.67 3.1.45 76 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. Properties of the uniform-size fine sand (embankment fill). e Fraction passing: 2. middle. VOL. with the properties shown in Table 4. three control tests were conducted. 2 .5 × 10 --5 m/s 17.075 mm 100% 87% 5% Value 2. The water content of these specimens was then measured. Fine-grained sand. only one half ofa full size embankment wasconsidered. Gs Coefficient of permeability. was used to construct the model embankments. and bottom.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . Due to symmetry about the vertical axis. During thetests. To compare the effect of lime diffusion.00 mm 0.3 Models Unreinforced and reinforced models with and without a crust were constructed to observe the effects of the crust layer on the bearing capacity of the foundation (Edinçliler 1995). Amodel embankment height of0. Thegeometry of the model embankment is given in Figure 1.425 mm 0. Table 4.10 m wasselected. 3. NO. specimens were taken from three locations at different foundation depths: surface.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation 0 55 mm 125 mm 225 mm 350 mm Wire 1 Zone 1 Wire 2 Zone 2 Wire 3 Nonwoven geotextile Figure 2. During each loading stage.8 kN/m3 0. After the loading stage. γdry Void ratio. k Dry unit weight.

and 6) were conducted in January when the average laboratory temperature was 17_C.052. and 10 had lime diffusion treated crusts in addition to geosynthetic reinforcement. Models 4. In addition to the experiments conducted with a lime crust. The following amounts of lime were used for the different models: 1. 4 4. 6. for Models 4. 5. respectively. 8. which induced catastrophic failure. 7. 5.17 kPa. To maintain undrained loading of the foundation soil. The tests were grouped into two sets: Set I model tests (Models 4. 7.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation In order to determine the advantages of foundation improvement techniques. and 9 a one-month period elapsed and for Model 10 a three-month period elapsed before the geotextile was placed and the embankment constructed.754 g/m2 for Models 4 and 7.1 RESULTS Models Without a Lime Treated Crust (Models 1 and 2) For Model 1. 6. excessive vertical settlements occurred. and 9) were conducted in July when the average laboratory temperature was 23_C. which corresponds to 701.47 and 3. To determine the effect of geotextile reinforcement. 1. the embankment was unreinforced and.052 g/m2 for Models 5 and 8. a separate experiment was conducted with a desiccated crust (Model 3). and the embankment was then constructed on the geotextile. A summary of test conditions and measured vane shear strength values are given in Table 5. Because of the embankment self-weight. lime) that was spread over the soil was chosen as 200. sinking of the foundation soil occurred even before subsequent load increments were applied (Figure 3). a model without lime treatment was constructed (Model 2). the time interval between the application of load increments was approximately 10 minutes. At each loading stage. and Set II model tests (Models 7. 8. the geotextile was placed on top. Once the foundation soil was prepared. The embankment was not constructed immediately after the lime was spread over the foundation soil. NO.e. an untreated model was tested. 9. which was a sufficient time to obtain steady readings from the deformation gauges. 1. VOL. For Model 10. the quantity of unslaked quicklime (i.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . during fill placement. and the reinforced embankment was then constructed over the desiccated crust. In each experiment. 8. and 701 g/m2 for Models 6 and 9. 6.754 g/m2 of lime was used. horizontal and vertical deformations were recorded.754 g/m2. A crust formed because of the loss of water by evaporation from the surface. 2 77 . 5. The first load increment was the self-weight of the embankment followed by two surcharge increments corresponding to 1. Seven tests were designed to investigate the effects of several parameters. This model was not treated with lime. the embankment was constructed directly over the foundation soil (Model 1). A crust was formed simply by allowing the foundation soil to stand for a period of one month. 300. In the untreated and unreinforced model. respectively. This model was also used as a basis for comparison of the improvement caused by the lime diffusion treatment. or 500 grams per surface area. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. and 1. 1. The models were loaded until the critical load was reached. Another parameter was the elapsed time before embankment construction over the treated foundation soil. the critical load was defined as the load that produces a sudden increase in the foundation soil displacement.

EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . q) Reinforced (Model 2) (Fill weight + surcharge.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation Table 5.1 3.052 701 1.4 3.052 701 1.7 2.8 3. For this case.3 2. could be applied before failure. only two load surcharges.17 kPa ---200 0 200 Distance from embankment center (mm) Figure 3.754 1. a geotextile was placed over the foundation soil and the same loading procedure as for Model 1 was applied.7 5.. For Model 2.1 135 mm 2.1 3. however. VOL.6 3.1 3.4 3.2 75 mm 1.3 4.5 3. 6.3 4. NO. Comparison between reinforced (Model 2) and unreinforced (Model 1) model embankments.6 4. 2 .8 2.47 and 3.0 4. q) 400 600 800 ---100 q = 1.754 1.47 kPa q = 0 kPa q = 3.3 3.6 5.754 Curing time (month) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Curing temperature (_C) 17 17 17 17 17 17 23 23 23 17 Shear strength values with depth (kPa) 25 mm 2.9 3.47 kPa q = 3. q = 1.4 6.9 2. Crust type No crust No crust Desiccated crust Lime crust Lime crust Lime crust Lime crust Lime crust Lime crust Lime crust Amount of lime (g/m2) 1.3 10 Settlement and heave (mm) 100 q = 1.4 3.17 kPa 0 Unreinforced (Model 1) (Fill weight + surcharge.3 4.8 6. Model number 1 2 3 Set I 4 5 6 Set II 7 8 9 Shear strength values for the embankment models.4 4. it was observed that the use of geotextile reinforcement results in a significant strength improvement during fill placement.17 kPa.5 50 mm 1. 78 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999.5 2.9 5.6 2. The embankment fill did not cause any vertical settlement.

4 kPa at a depth of 25 mm to a minimum value of 1. which was provided by the manufacturer. It was noted that. q (kPa) 1. The effect of the desiccated crust was to improve the strength of the clay foundation.5 kN/m).012 (2) 0.2 Model with a Desiccated Crust (Model 3) For Model 3.6 kPa under the crust at a depth of 50 mm from the surface. J (kN/m) 30 30 ε (dimensionless) 0. In Table 6. NO. In Figures 4a and 4b.5 to 37.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay .2 mm.87 Surcharge load. is less than the tensile load at 5% elongation (T = 1. J = tensile stiffness. The maximum reinforcement tensile load value of 2. especially in the upper sections. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. It can be clearly seen that the inclusion of geotextile reinforcement leads to a considerable reduction in the settlement and. the reinforcement resulted in a 30% reduction in surface settlement. it can be observed that there is a high shear strength in the upper crust region. for this case. 4. at a location of 100 mm from the center of the embankment. is clearly larger than the tensile load in the reinforcement in Zone 2. Thus. As can be seen in Figure 5.049 (1) 0. consequently. T. ε = tensile strain.29 0. at which point a circular slip failure through the foundation soil was observed (see Table 7 for the collapse/failure loads of each model). at the location where larger soil settlements occur (Zone 1). This clearly reflects the benefit of using geotextile reinforcement in embankment model stabilization.0 kN/m was measured during the application of the 7. Figure 5 presents the reinforcement tensile load at each loading stage. 6.043 (1) 0. The tensile load in the reinforcement was calculated using the strain values calculated from the elongation in the wires connected to the dial gauges and the geotextile. VOL. Below this depth. The measured tensile load. the tensile stress in the geotextile for Model 2 was calculated based on the measured reinforcement strains. 125.17 Notes: Superscript (1) and (2) = zone numbers shown in Figure 2a. a desiccated crust was allowed to develop over a period of one month. the shear strength is assumed to increase linearly with depth. the tensile load in the reinforcement. and 225 mm intervals from the center of the embankment. T = tensile load. Tensile load in the nonwoven geotextile reinforcement (Model 2). Table 6. The strain values at two intervals can be calculated using the measured horizontal elongation of the geotextiles at 50. 2 79 . It then increases to 2. heave was also decreased.029 (2) T=Jε (kN/m) 1. the reinforcement reduces settlements from 113. The horizontal geotextile elongations measured by the three dial gauges were recorded during the loading stages.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation The measured foundation soil settlement and heave values for Models 1 and 2 are plotted in Figure 3.47 3. which decreases from a surface value of 2.46 0.4 kPa at a depth of 135 mm.3 kPa surcharge load.36 1.

17 The variation of vertical settlement and heave values for Model 3 (desiccated crust model) are plotted in Figure 6.2 10 47. VOL. 8.7 Model collapse load (kPa) 3. 9.1 6 17.3 4 17.8 8 22.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay .1 9 41. Table 7. (b) Models 7. Collapse load for each model. and 6. 6. A total of 10 loading stages were applied.0 5 18.17 3 15. 2 . Model number 1 2 3. In the first two loading stages. 4. and 10. no settlement was observed. Appreciable settlement begins at an ap- 80 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999.4 7 19. 5. Shear strength profiles for models: (a) Models 3.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation (a) Shear strength (kPa) 6 4 2 Model Model Model Model 3 (desiccated crust) 4 5 6 0 (b) 6 Shear strength (kPa) 4 2 Model Model Model Model 7 8 9 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Depth from foundation surface (mm) Figure 4. NO.

6.7 kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa 800 ---40 ---80 600 Distance from embankment center (mm) Figure 6.3 = 16. VOL.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation 4 Tensile load (kN/m) Zone 1 (see Figure 2) Zone 2 (see Figure 2) 2 0 0 4 8 16 12 Vertical foundation pressure (kPa) 20 Figure 5. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. Settlement and heave values for Model 3 (desiccated crust).1 = 17.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay .33 = 9.96 = 13.2 = 15. Reinforcement tensile load versus vertical foundation pressure for Model 3 (desiccated crust). 80 Settlement and heave (mm) 40 0 Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation 0 200 400 pressure pressure pressure pressure pressure pressure pressure pressure = 4.85 = 7. 2 81 . NO.92 = 6.

at depths of 25. 82 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999.8 kPa.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation plied cumulative foundation pressure = 4. 75. 3.6.92 kPa. which was measured using vane shear tests.754 g/m2 of lime).EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay .3. and 3. however. an almost five-fold increase in the load carrying capacity as compared to the non-crust model. 75. It can be observed that a sudden increase in vertical settlement occurred at a foundation pressure = 15. and 135 mm. As a result. Accordingly. As in the case with a desiccated crust. Below this depth it is assumed that the shear strength increases linearly with depth. reduces the water content. and 10 were constructed to examine the effects of a lime diffusion crust on the stability of the model embankments. the presence of a desiccated crust beneath the embankment resisted the vertical displacements and increased the load carrying capacity. 6.0 kPa at a depth of 135 mm.7. 4. In Model 4 (1. In Model 5 (1. the shear strength decreases with depth to a minimum value of 2. hence. For the models with no crust (Models 1 and 2).7 kPa). a foundation pressure = 15. 5.3 Models with a Lime Crust Models 4. In the surface layer. NO. and 6. If the magnitudes of the loads are examined.052 g/m2 of lime).0 kPa. 7. leading to an increase in shear strength of the soil. Set I) are given in Figure 4a. 6. and 135 mm are 5.3 kPa. and 3.1 Models with a Lime Treated Surface at 17_C The shear strength profiles for this group of models (Models 4. 4. the embankment constructed over the foundation with a desiccated crust failed at a load value of approximately 15. the soil shear strength at a depth of 25 mm is 3. and the maximum heave is 49 mm at the last loading stage.3 kPa was considered to be the critical loading pressure. the undrained shear strength values at depths of 25. The water content fell from 50 to 35% at a depth of 50 mm.1 kPa at 75 mm. 3. the corresponding shear strength values with depth are 4. A maximum settlement of 73 mm occurs at the last loading stage (foundation pressure = 17.5.2 kPa. It is evident in the remaining experiments of Set I that the soil shear strength increases in the upper region of the foundation soil due to the addition of lime (Figure 4a). 9. This unexpected trend in shear strength values can be attributed to the formation of a thin crust over the lime-treated layer that prevents desiccation and. VOL. 2 . This increase in load carrying capacity may be attributed to the loss of water by evaporation.6 kPa. this trend is not as obvious in the lower layers. respectively.3 kPa. For Model 6 (701 g/m2 of lime). The water content values are given in Table 8. then.3.1. Heave begins at a foundation pressure = 13. the embankment constructed over the soft soil with a desiccated crust did not show any settlement at these loads. respectively. 8. increases to 3. In fact. the undrained shear strength decreases with increasing lime content. the data shows that the desiccated crust considerably reduces settlements. the embankments failed at loads of approximately 3.17 kPa.

the effect of the crust dominates even if a geotextile is used.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation Table 8. the increase in crust strength is inversely proportional to the lime content. VOL.0 kPa. and 7c. the water content in the foundation soil decreases at the surface because of the lime added to the surface. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. In addition. and 6 which have a lime crust formed at a temperature of 17_C) are given in Figures 7a. The tensile loads at the critical slip surface are lower than those for Models 4 and 5.3 Model 6 32. 7b. Comparing Figures 7a and 7b. This is in accordance with the reduced shear strength in the surface region due to the addition of excess lime. which was supplied by the manufacturer for the geotextile stress at 5% strain. the tensile load values even at the critical applied load are smaller than the tensile load value.5 kN/m. w (%) Model 4 37. prevents a reduction in water content. If the corresponding stages for Models 5 and 6 are compared (Figure 8a) to Model 4. as mentioned before.0 kPa.7 Depth from foundation surface (mm) 50 150 300 As observed in Table 8. the critical foundation pressure occurs when the applied embankment load reaches 17.8 33. 6. respectively. For these models with a lime crust. the tensile loads are similar to the tensile loads for Model 3 (desiccated crust at a temperature of 17_C): the maximum tensile loads were measured at locations where the failure surface through the foundation soil intersected the reinforcement layer. it is observed that there is a slight difference in the plot of tensile loads versus applied foundation surface pressure between Models 4 and 5.3 kN/m) at a vertical pressure of 18.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . which.4 Model 5 33. it can be seen that even before the other embankments displayed heave in the unloaded zone. Tensile load in the geotextile reinforcement for Set I models (Models 4.1 39.3 kN/m) during the application of a vertical pressure of 16.5 34.3 38. This decreased water content leads to an increase in the shear strength and the load carrying capacity. T = 1. which has the minimum amount of lime. 5.2 34. For Model 4.5 kPa. Figure 7c illustrates the tensile load values for Model 6.2 35. Therefore. the tensile load at the intersection of the observed failure surface reaches a maximum value (2. Water content values for Set I embankment models. The corresponding tensile load for Model 5 (Figure 7b) reaches the maximum value (2. In Figure 7a (Model 4). Model 4 had failed. for the cases considered. it has been demonstrated that for soft clays with a higher strength surface crust. This demonstrates that the foundation of Model 4 was weaker than the foundations of Models 5 and 6. Water content. NO. The same trend can be observed for Models 5 (Figure 8b) and 6 (Figure 8c). 2 83 . Therefore. For Model 6. the horizontal displacements were reduced by using a higher strength surface crust.

Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation (a) Tensile load (kN/m) 4 Zone 2 Zone 1 Model 4 2 0 (b) 4 Tensile load (kN/m) Zone 2 Zone 1 Model 5 2 0 (c) 4 Tensile load (kN/m) Zone 1 Zone 2 Model 6 2 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Vertical foundation pressure (kPa) Figure 7. 6. VOL.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . 84 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. NO. (b) Model 5. Tensile load versus vertical foundation pressure: (a) Model 4. 2 . (c) Model 6.

VOL. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. 6. NO. Comparison of foundation settlement and heave profiles for Set I models at the collapse load of the selected model: (a) Model 4 collapse load. (c) Model 6 collapse load.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . (b) Model 5 collapse load.1 kPa 0 Model 5 Model 4 Model 6 ---200 200 Settlement and heave (mm) (c) Foundation pressure = 17. 2 85 .0 kPa 0 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 ---100 200 Settlement and heave (mm) (b) Foundation pressure = 18.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation Settlement and heave (mm) (a) 100 Foundation pressure = 17.4 kPa 0 Model 6 Model 4 Model 5 ---200 0 200 400 600 800 Distance from embankment center (mm) Figure 8.

EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . The negative influence of the increased amount of lime on the shear strength is clearly evident in Figure 4b. Model 7 failed before Models 8 and 9 showed any significant amount of settlement (Figure 9a). The same argument can be applied for Model 7 when considering the amount of settlement. The critical load for Model 7 occurs at a foundation pressure = 19. 5.8 kPa. Comparison of foundation settlement and heave profiles for Set II models at the collapse load of the selected model: (a) Model 7 collapse load. 8. the effect of the lime addition on the shear strength is the same. and 6. The undrained shear strength decreases to a minimum value and then increases linearly with depth.2 Models with a Lime Treated Surface at 23_C The shear strength profiles for Set II models (Models 7.3. and 9) are given in Figure 4b. How- Settlement and heave (mm) (a) 100 Foundation pressure = 19. NO. (b) Model 8 collapse load. 86 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. The critical load for Model 8 occurs at a foundation pressure = 22. 2 . 6. As seen with Models 4. There are significant differences in the measured soil shear strengths for models with a lime crust depending on the amount of lime and the curing temperature. VOL.1 kPa Settlement and heave (mm) (b) 0 Model 8 Model 9 ---100 0 200 400 600 Distance from embankment center (mm) 800 Figure 9.8 kPa 0 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 ---100 100 Foundation pressure = 22. The shear strength is relatively high at the foundation surface due to lime diffusion.1 kPa.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation 4.

5 CONCLUSIONS The benefit of embankment reinforcement using geotextiles has been identified in the literature. and 10c. 4. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. 2 87 . In the current study. The deformation profiles for each model at collapse are shown in Figure 12. both of which have a curing time of one month. 11b. VOL. Model 7 failed before this load level could be achieved (Figure 9b). 6.5 The Effect of Curing An analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of curing time on embankment stabilization. Model test results show that the inclusion of geotextile reinforcement results in a considerable reduction in settlement and heave. created by spreading lime over the soft clay foundation. it was determined that lime diffusion stabilization depends on the amount of lime introduced. temperature. It has been shown experimentally that the tensile load in the geotextile decreases as the crust strength increases and that the geotextile reinforcement strains are sensitive to small changes in crust strength. 10b. the tensile load in the geotextile decreases as the crust strength increases. and 11c. As indicated by the strength profiles for each model shown in Figures 4a and 4b. It was further found that a lime stabilized crust. results in a significant improvement of the load carrying and settlement behaviour of geotextile-reinforced embankments on soft soil. The degree of improvement obtained through lime stabilization depends on many factors. The critical load for Model 8 occurs at a foundation pressure of 41. 8. 4. NO. A curing time of three months was chosen. It can be seen that the tensile load values for Set II models are lower than the tensile load values for Set I models. It was found that reinforcement strains are also sensitive to small changes in crust strength. As a result. there is a significant difference in bearing capacity. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the quantitative benefits of nonwoven geotextile reinforcement in combination with lime stabilization. Higher crust strengths occur because of the increased diffusion and reaction of lime in the soil with increasing temperature. As a result.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . Set I was conducted during the winter at an average temperature of 17_C and Set II was conducted during the summer at an average temperature of 23_C. The tensile load values in the reinforcement for Set II (Models 7.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation ever.4 The Effect of Temperature The only difference between the Set I and Set II models was the temperature. and type of soil. The amount of lime used was the same as for Models 4 (cured at 17_C) and 7 (cured at 23_C). and 9) are given in Figures 10a. curing time. Set II models performed better than Set I models. As evident in Figure 12. The addition of geotextile reinforcement resulted in a 30% reduction in surface settlement when compared to the unreinforced case. As evident in the model deformation profiles shown in Figures 11a. Model 10 with a three-month curing time has lower settlement values than Models 4 and 7.2 kPa. the settlement values are lower for high strength lime crust models.

Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation (a) Tensile load (kN/m) 2 Zone 1 Zone 2 1 0 8 (b) 2 Tensile load (kN/m) Zone 1 Zone 2 12 16 20 24 1 0 8 (c) Tensile load (kN/m) 3 12 16 20 24 Zone 1 Zone 2 2 1 0 10 40 20 30 Vertical foundation pressure (kPa) 50 Figure 10. 6. (b) Model 8. 2 . VOL.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . NO. (c) Model 9. Tensile load versus vertical foundation pressure: (a) Model 7. 88 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999.

NO. Comparison of foundation settlement and heave profiles for Set I and Set II models at the collapse load of the selected model: (a) Model 4 collapse load. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999.2 kPa 0 ---100 0 200 400 600 800 Distance from embankment center (mm) Figure 11. foundation pressure = 41.1 kPa ---50 Settlement and heave (mm) (b) 0 Model 5 Model 8 ---100 100 (c) Settlement and heave (mm) Model 6.0 kPa ---100 100 Foundation pressure = 18.4 kPa Model 9. 6. (b) Model 5 collapse load. (c) Model 6 collapse load.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . VOL.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation Settlement and heave (mm) (a) 50 0 Model 4 Model 7 Foundation pressure = 17. foundation pressure = 17. 2 89 .

Also. West Conshohocken.8 kPa) Model 4 (17_C. 1 month. A 1. The amount of lime spread over the soil should be carefully estimated because there is an optimum lime content. BS 6906. as evident from the experimental results. and 6. “Standard Test Method for Breaking Load and Elongation of Geotextiles (Grab Method)”. American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken. British Standards Institute. REFERENCES ASTM D 4632. In conclusion it can be stated that the lime diffusion stabilization technique can be successively used in combination with geosynthetic reinforcement to improve foundation soil behavior for embankments constructed on soft clay soils.0 kPa) 0 ---100 0 200 400 600 Distance from embankment center (mm) 800 Figure 12. American Society for Testing and Materials. foundation pressure = 19.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay . and 9 was obtained by increasing the temperature from 17 to 23_C. foundation pressure = 47. A lime content in excess of the optimum value will reduce the maximum benefit that can be derived from the lime stabilization technique. Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. 3 months. foundation pressure = 17. VOL. 6.Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation Settlement and heave (mm) 100 Model 10 (17_C. compared to Models 4. increasing the curing time positively affects lime stabilization. 2 . UK. 90 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999.2 fold improvement in Models 7. respectively. 5.7 kPa) Model 7 (23_C. USA. It can be stated that the increase in temperature increases the effectiveness of the lime diffusion technique. 1 month. NO. A comparison of settlement and heave profiles for experiments carried out at different temperatures (Models 4 and 7) and curing times (Model 10). “Test Method for Hydraulic Bursting Strength of Knitted Goods and Nonwoven Fabrics: Diaphragm Bursting Strength Tester Method”. “Methods of Test for Geotextiles: Determination of Tensile Properties Using a Wide-Width Strip”. ASTM D 3786. London. 8. USA. A practical consequence of this observation is that greater improvement can be obtained if the technique is applied during summer months.

e Gs J k PI q T w wL wopt wP ε γdry = = = = = = = = = = = = = void ratio (dimensionless) specific gravity (dimensionless) tensile stiffness (N/m) coefficient of permeability (m/s) plasticity index (%) surcharge load (Pa) tensile load (N/m) water content (%) liquid limit (%) optimum moisture content (%) plastic limit (%) tensile strain (dimensionless) dry unit weight of soil (N/m3) GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999. “Effect of Surface Crust on Reinforced Embankment”.. Turkey.EDINÇLILER & GÜLER D Embankments on Soft Clay .Lime Diffusion Strengthened Foundation Edinçliler. Balkema.S.D.L. pp. “Bearing Capacity of Nonhomogeneous Cohesive Soils Under Embankments”. 12-33. Dissertation. 1098-1119. A. B.J. 118. R.. R.. 1989. 1991. USA. 131-136. B. and Rowe. Ph. 6. 1992. 2 91 . 395-408.N. pp. Vol. No. Bogaziçi University. VOL. Indraratna. and Holtz. February 1991. Georgia. Vol. Vol. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles.J. 1995. California. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. NOTATIONS Basic SI units are given in parentheses.. Netherlands. S. Istanbul. The Hague. B. “Effect of Crust for Embankments Constructed on Soft Clays”. Geosynthetics ’89. “On the Design of Reinforced Embankments on Soft Brittle Clays”.K. pp. 167 p. 136-147. Geosynthetics ’91.“Performance of Test Embankment Constructed to Failure on Soft Marine Clays”. “Implications of Adopting an Allowable Geosynthetic Strain in Estimating Stability”.L. February 1989. Department of Civil Engineering.L. USA. pp. Mylleville. R. Humphrey. A. May 1990. 1. San Diego. 11. Geomembranes and Related Products. Balasubramaniam. D. 1990. NO.K. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1. Vol. IFAI.. Vol. 118. Atlanta. IFAI.. and Mylleville. Rowe. and Balackandran. 7. pp. 1991..D. R. Michalowski. 1. No.