CEMENT STABILIZATION OF ORGANIC SOILS FOR CONTROLLING

SECONDARY COMPRESSION BEHAVIOR

by

Juan Ramirez

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

The College of Engineering and Computer Science

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

December 2009

 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Khaled Sobhan for his

guidance throughout my research efforts at Florida Atlantic University. Additionally, I

would like to give thanks to Dr. K. P. George and Dr. D. V. Reddy for their insight at the

early stages of this study. Also, credits are due to Natalia Ramirez and Lacinda Jacobs for

their assistance with the editing.

iii 
 ABSTRACT

Author: Juan Ramirez

Title: Cement Stabilization of Organic Soils for Controlling Secondary

Compression Behavior
Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Thesis advisor: Dr. Khaled Sobhan

Degree: Master of Science

Year: 2009

Western Palm Beach County, FL is characterized by thick deposits organic soils

at shallow depths. Because of their high void ratio and compressibility, these soils

undergo large primary consolidation followed by extended periods of secondary

compression causing excessive premature structural distress. Although soil stabilization

has been largely used with remarkable results in soft, expansive and non-organic soils,

limited research and practice exist in the implementation with highly organic soils. The

main motivation of this research was to investigate the effects of cement stabilization on

the compressibility behavior of organic rich soils, and develop mix design criteria for

optimum cement contents necessary to induce the desired engineering behavior. This

optimized mix design may provide guidelines for Deep Mixing Methods in organic soils.

iv 
 DEDICATION

This Thesis is dedicated to my parents and loved ones for all the support

throughout my graduate studies.

 
 CEMENT STABILIZATION OF ORGANIC SOILS FOR CONTROLLING

SECONDARY COMPRESSION BEHAVIOR

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURE.............................................................................................................. xi

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................... xiv

NOTATIONS.................................................................................................................... xv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND AND LOCATION................................................................... 1

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND MOTIVATION .............................................. 6

1.3 SCOPE OF RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 8

1.4 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 11

2.1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH CONDUCTED ON SR-15/US-98 ........................... 11

2.1.1 Geotechnical site exploration conducted by GEOSOL, inc........................ 11

2.1.2 Surface Pavement Solutions For Poor Subgrade Conditions...................... 14

2.1.3 Primary and secondary compression behavior of Florida organic soil ....... 16

2.1.4 Use of Piezocone penetration test for rapid in-situ characterization of

organic soils ................................................................................................ 20

2.2 STABILIZATION BACKGROUND AND CASE STUDIES ON ORGANIC

SOIL STABILIZATION ................................................................................... 25

2.2.1 Soil stabilization.......................................................................................... 26

v 
 2.2.2 Some Experiences on the Stabilization of Irish Peats ................................. 31

2.2.3 Geotechnical characterization of two Italian peats stabilized with

binders ........................................................................................................ 34

2.2.4 Stabilization and Improvement of Organic Soils ........................................ 38

CHAPTER 3: GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION ........................................... 44

3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 44

3.2 SOIL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 44

3.3 SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES ............................................................................. 45

3.3.1 Moisture Content ........................................................................................ 46

3.3.2 Fines Content .............................................................................................. 47

3.3.3 Ash Content ................................................................................................ 47

3.3.4 Organic Content .......................................................................................... 48

3.3.5 Void Ratio ................................................................................................... 50

3.3.6 Specific Gravity .......................................................................................... 51

3.3.7 Unit Weight ................................................................................................. 52

3.3.8 Atterberg Limits .......................................................................................... 52

3.3.9 Vane Shear Strength ................................................................................... 53

3.3.10 Undrained Shear Strength ........................................................................... 54

CHAPTER 4: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ................................................................ 56

4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 56

4.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION................................................................................ 57

4.2.1 Sample acquisition and transportation ........................................................ 57

4.2.2 Sample Extrusion from Shelby Tubes ........................................................ 57

4.2.3 Cement dosages and mix design ................................................................. 58

4.2.4 Mixing methodology................................................................................... 60

vi 
 4.2.5 Compaction procedure ................................................................................ 60

4.2.6 Curing process ............................................................................................ 61

4.3 EXPERIMENT PROGRAM .............................................................................. 62

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY CONSOLIDATION ........ 66

5.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 66

5.2 TEST SERIES I.................................................................................................. 66

5.2.1 Void ratio for Test Series I.......................................................................... 67

5.2.2 Deformation versus time data for Test Series I .......................................... 71

5.2.3 Specimen Height change for Test Series I .................................................. 79

5.2.4 Preconsolidation pressure data for Test Series I ......................................... 79

5.3 TEST SERIES II ................................................................................................ 83

5.3.1 Void ratio for Test Series II ........................................................................ 83

5.3.2 Deformation versus time data for Test Series II ......................................... 87

5.3.3 Specimen height change for Test Series II ................................................. 94

5.3.4 Preconsolidation pressure data for Test Series II ........................................ 95

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS OF SECONDARY CONSOLIDATION ................................. 99

6.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 99

6.2 TEST SERIES I................................................................................................ 100

6.2.1 Cc values for Test Series I ......................................................................... 100

6.2.2 Cα values for Test Series I......................................................................... 104

6.2.3 Cα versus Cc plots for Test Series I............................................................ 107

6.2.4 Cα/Cc versus cement dosage for Test Series I ........................................... 109

6.2.5 Dial reading versus time plots for Test Series I ........................................ 110

6.3 TEST SERIES II .............................................................................................. 114

6.3.1 Cc values for Test Series II ....................................................................... 114

vii 
 6.3.2 Cα values for Test Series II ....................................................................... 118

6.3.3 Cα versus Cc plots for Test Series II .......................................................... 121

6.3.4 Cα/Cc versus cement dosage for Test Series II .......................................... 122

6.3.5 Dial reading versus time plots for Test Series II....................................... 124

CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 128

APPENDIX 1: e VS. TIME FOR TEST SERIES I ....................................................... 133

APPENDIX 2: e VS. TIME FOR TEST SERIES II ....................................................... 139

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 145

viii 
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Location of Shelby tubes retrieved for the current study. .................................... 5
Table 2: Summary of results by GEOSOL, INC .............................................................. 13
Table 3: Summary of results from Shelby tubes samples by GEOSOL, INC .................. 13
Table 4: Summary of results from triaxial testing or organic soils by GEOSOL, INC .... 13
Table 5: Atterberg Limit Tests Results (Riedy, 2006) ...................................................... 17
Table 6: Summary of properties (Riedy, 2006) ............................................................... 18
Table 7: Primary and secondary consolidation parameters (Riedy, 2006) ....................... 20
Table 8: Range of raw data acquired from CPT testing (Huynh, 2006) ........................... 23
Table 9: Results of the calculated coefficient of consolidation (Huynh, 2006)................ 24
Table 10: Computed values for Su, Eu, M, Cc (Huynh, 2006) .......................................... 25
Table 11: Physical and chemical properties peats tested (Hebib and Farrell, 2003) ........ 31
Table 12: Physical properties peats tested (Cortellazzo and Cola, 1999) ......................... 35
Table 13: Mechanical properties peats tested (Cortellazzo and Cola, 1999) .................... 35
Table 14: Mixture compositions (Cortellazzo and Cola, 1999) ........................................ 36
Table 15: Properties of Lindberg Road soil (Santaga, et al., 2005) .................................. 39
Table 16: Summary of the testing program (Santaga, et al., 2005) .................................. 40
Table 17: Secondary compression index and Cα/Cc ratio (Santaga, et al., 2005) ............ 41
Table 18: Summary of results from CRS and IL tests (Santaga, et al., 2005) .................. 42
Table 19: Summary of moisture content ........................................................................... 46
Table 20: Summary of moisture contents (Riedy, 2006) .................................................. 47
Table 21: Summary of ash content ................................................................................... 48
Table 22: Summary of organic contents ........................................................................... 49
Table 23: Summary of organic contents (Riedy, 2006) .................................................... 49
Table 24: Summary of Void Ratios (Riedy, 2006) ........................................................... 51
ix 
Table 25: Summary of total unit weights .......................................................................... 52
Table 26: Summary of the Vane Shear Strength .............................................................. 54
Table 27: Cement dosage and mix design for Test Series I .............................................. 59
Table 28: Cement dosage and mix design for Test Series II ............................................ 59
Table 29: Loading scheme for Test Series I ..................................................................... 63
Table 30: Loading scheme for Test Series II .................................................................... 64
Table 31: Void ratio with varying cement content for Test Series I ................................. 67
Table 32: Deformation vs. time summary data for Test Series I ...................................... 71
Table 33: Specimen Height with varying cement content for Test Series I ..................... 79
Table 34: σ’p with varying cement content for Test Series I ............................................ 80
Table 35: Void ratio with varying cement content for Test Series II ............................... 84
Table 36: Deformation vs. time summary data for Test Series II ..................................... 87
Table 37: Specimen Height with varying cement content for Test Series II .................... 94
Table 38: σ’p with varying cement content for Test Series II ........................................... 95
Table 39: Cc with varying cement content for Test Series I ........................................... 101
Table 40: Cα with varying cement content for Test Series I ........................................... 104
Table 41: Cα/Cc values for different geotechnical materials (Terzaghi et al, 1996) ........ 109
Table 42: Cα/Cc ratios with varying cement content for Test Series I ............................ 110
Table 43: Cc with varying cement content for Test Series II .......................................... 115
Table 44: Cα with varying cement content for Test Series II.......................................... 118
Table 45: Cα/Cc ratios with varying cement content for Test Series II ........................... 122
 

x 
 LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1: Site Location, Palm Beach County, Fl. ............................................................... 2

Figure 2: Layout of the proposed field test sections on SR-15/US-98 (Sobhan et al.,
2010) ................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 3: Installation of PaveTrac on SR-15/US-98) ....................................................... 15
Figure 4: Typical Consolidation behavior for Florida Muck (Riedy, 2006)..................... 20
Figure 5: Outside (Top) and inside (Bottom) a Hogentogler drill rig (google images,
2009) ................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 6: Pore water pressure dissipation data for site 1, 3, 4 and 6 (Huynh, 2006) ........ 23
Figure 7: Triple auger rig for deep soil mixing (Google images, 2009) ........................... 27
Figure 8: Types of cement column configurations (Van Impe and Verastequi, 2007)..... 30
Figure 9: Unconfined compressive strength for various mixes (Hebib and Farrell,
2003) ................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 10: e-log σ’ for cement treated Ballydermot peat (Hebib and Farrell, 2003)........ 34
Figure 11: Undrained shear strength vs. curing time (Cortellazzo and Cola, 1999) ........ 37
Figure 12: Compressibility behavior for Adria and Correzzola stabilized peats
(Cortellazzo and Cola, 1999) .......................................................................... 38
Figure 13: Correlation of Cα/Cc to cement dosage in treated LR soil (Santaga, et al.,
2005) ............................................................................................................... 43
Figure 14: Peat soil sample ............................................................................................... 45
Figure 15: Pocket Torvane model Humboldt H-4212 ...................................................... 53
Figure 16: Cut shelby tube sections. ................................................................................. 58
Figure 17: Void ratio with varying cement content for Test Series I ............................... 68
Figure 18: e vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series I. ............................... 70
Figure 19: Cv with varying cement content for Test Series I ............................................ 72

xi 
Figure 20: tp with varying cement content for Test Series I ............................................. 73
Figure 21: t90 with varying cement content for Test Series I ............................................ 74
Figure 22: Cv vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series I. ............................. 76
Figure 23: tp vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series I. ............................... 77
Figure 24: t90 vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series I. ............................. 78
Figure 25: Summary of e vs. pressure for all cement contents for Test Series I .............. 80
Figure 26: Variation of σ’p with cement content for Test Series I.................................... 81
Figure 27: e vs. log pressure for all stress levels for Test Series I .................................... 82
Figure 28: Void ratio with varying cement content for Test Series II .............................. 85
Figure 29: e vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series II. .............................. 86
Figure 30: Cv with varying cement content for Test Series II .......................................... 88
Figure 31: tp with varying cement content for Test Series II ............................................ 89
Figure 32: t90 with varying cement content for Test Series II........................................... 90
Figure 33: Cv vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series II. ............................ 91
Figure 34: tp vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series II. ............................. 92
Figure 35: t90 vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series II. ............................ 93
Figure 36: Summary of e vs. pressure for all cement contents for Test Series II ............. 96
Figure 37: Variation of σ’p with cement content for Test Series II .................................. 97
Figure 38: e vs. log pressure for all stress levels for Test Series II .................................. 98
Figure 39: Overall variation of Cc with different cement dosages for Test Series I ....... 101
Figure 40: Cc vs. cement % for all stress levels for Test Series I ................................... 103
Figure 41: Overall variation of Cα with different cement dosages for Test Series I....... 105
Figure 42: Cα vs. cement % for all stress levels for Test Series I ................................... 106
Figure 43: Cα vs. Cc for all cement contents for Test Series I ........................................ 108
Figure 44: Variation of Cα/Cc with cement content for Test Series I ............................. 110
Figure 45: Deformation data with varying cement dosages for Test Series I ................. 112
Figure 46: Dial reading vs. time for all cement contents for Test Series I. .................... 113
Figure 47: Variation of Cc with different cement dosages for Test Series II.................. 116
Figure 48: Cc vs. cement % for all stress levels for Test Series II .................................. 117
Figure 49: Variation of Cα with different cement dosages for Test Series II ................. 119
Figure 50: Cα vs. cement % for all stress levels for Test Series II.................................. 120
xii 
Figure 51: Cα vs. Cc for all cement contents for Test Series II ....................................... 121
Figure 52: Variation of Cα/Cc with cement content for Test Series II ............................ 123
Figure 53: Comparison of the variation of Cα/Cc with cement content .......................... 124
Figure 54: Deformation data with varying cement dosages for Test Series II ............... 126
Figure 55: Dial reading vs. time for all cement contents for Test Series II. ................... 127
Figure 56: e vs. time at 0.00% cement for Test Series I ................................................. 133
Figure 57: e vs. time at 11.29% cement for Test Series I ............................................... 134
Figure 58: e vs. time at 25.18% cement for Test Series I ............................................... 135
Figure 59: e vs. time at 37.46% cement for Test Series I ............................................... 136
Figure 60: e vs. time at 50.27% cement for Test Series I ............................................... 137
Figure 61: e vs. time at 56.48% cement for Test Series I ............................................... 138
Figure 62: e vs. time at 0.00% cement for Test Series II ................................................ 139
Figure 63: e vs. time at 16.90% cement for Test Series II .............................................. 140
Figure 64: e vs. time at 39.05% cement for Test Series II .............................................. 141
Figure 65: e vs. time at 59.37% cement for Test Series II .............................................. 142
Figure 66: e vs. time at 77.91% cement for Test Series II .............................................. 143
Figure 67: e vs. time at 89.68% cement for Test Series II .............................................. 144

xiii 
 ACRONYMS

American Association of State and Inches, in

Highway Transportations Officials,
AASHTO Kilograms per Cubic Meter, Kg/m3

American concrete institute, ACI Kilonewtons per Cubic Meter, kN/m3

American Society of Testing and Kilopascal, KPa

Methods, ASTM Load Increment Ratio, LIR
Ash Content, AC Loss on Ignition, LOI
Constant Rate of Strain, CRS Mile Post, MP
Dry Mixing Method, DMM Moisture Content, MC
End of Primary, EOP Organic Content, OC
End of Primary Incremental Loading, Piezocone Penetration Test, CPTu
EOP-IL
Pounds per Cubic Foot, pcf
Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA Pounds per Square Foot, psf

Florida Atlantic University, FAU Pounds per Square Inch, psi

Florida Department of Transportation, Standard Penetration Test, SPT

FDOT
Station Number, STA
Florida East Coast, FEC
Tons per Square Foot, tsf
Grams, g
Wet Mixing Method, WMM

xiv 
 NOTATIONS

Coefficient of Consolidation, Cv Specific Gravity of Solids, Gs

Compression Index, Cc Time Factor For 90% Consolidation, T90

Cone Tip Resistance, qc Time for 90% Consolidation, t90

Cross Sectional Area, A Time to End of Primary Consolidation, tp

Degree of Saturation, S Time, t

Effective Vertical Overburden Stress, σ’v Total Cone Resistance, qt

Friction Ratio, fr Total Density, ρT

Height of Solids, Hs Total Unit Weight, gT

Moisture Content, w Undrained Shear Strength, Cu

Preconsolidation Pressure, σ’p Undrained Shear Strength, Su

Secondary Compression Index, cα Void Ratio, e

xv 
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND AND LOCATION

SR-15/US-98 is located in the northwestern part of Palm Beach County, Florida running

along a section of the perimeter of Lake Okeechobee. SR-15/US-98 runs from STA 1+00

(MP 19.674) in close proximity to the Palm Beach Canal Bridge to approximately

STA 360+00 (MP 26.519) at the Palm Beach and Martin county line. Typically, to the

east side of the roadway alignment in the vicinity of the subject study, a mix of

residential and commercial properties occupies the area, along with churches and farms.

On the west side of SR-15/US-98, the Florida East Coast (FEC) railroad, Levees and the

Lake Okeechobee can be found (Huynh, 2006). This area of Palm Beach County is

characterized by its soils rich in organic matter found at shallow depths that are

responsible for numerous problems caused to the pavement structures. These weak soils

and the pavement distresses they generate, have encouraged the initiation of various

research projects with the intent of understanding and solving the constant challenges and

costly repairs they demand. Figure 1 shows a map location of the subject roadway

alignment.

1 
 Figure 1: Site Location, Palm Beach County, Fl.

The first study on SR-15/US-98 was undertaken in the year 2004, by GEOSOL, INC.

They carried out a geotechnical site characterization starting at STA 1+00 and extending

up to the northern Palm Beach County line at STA 360+00. The field work of this

geotechnical study included Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and Shelby tube sampling.

A total of 93 SPT tests were performed and six Shelby tubes retrieved. This study helped

characterize the soils underlying the roadway and provided valuable information that was

later in developing a rehabilitation plan.

The reconstruction and improvement project was conducted under Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) management in 2006. The scope of the project consisted of

2
milling and resurfacing the roadway alignment from STA 1+00 to STA 360+00. For

research purposes, and with the goal of coming up with design guidelines and

recommendations, two pilot test sites were selected from the reconstruction stretch. The

conducted research study was focused on the performance of pavement structures

reinforced with different geosynthetic products. The construction of the test sites was

carried out on August 13th and 14th in 2008. This research project is still in progress and

monitoring of pavement distress will continue for several years.

During 2005 and 2006, two research projects were undertaken at Florida Atlantic

University (FAU) on the field and laboratory characterization of the organic subgrade.

One research study consisted of Cone Penetration Test (CPT) with pore water dissipation

experiments for the determination of compressibility and mechanical properties of the

soil underlying the roadway. The second study focused on the acquisition of primary and

secondary consolidation parameters of the subject soil through the use of conventional

incremental loading consolidation tests, along with a battery of other engineering

characterization tests. While one study was concerned with the acquirement of data by

means of cone penetration testing, the other study made use of the traditional laboratory

protocols, but the intent was to compare and confirm the validity of the data gain by in-

situ testing methods against the traditional techniques. A more detailed description of the

studies will be presented in Chapter 2.

During May, 2009, a series of shelby tube samples were retrieved from the test section

locations for use in the current study. Shelby tubes were extracted with the help of a

3 
truck-mounted drill rig provided by FDOT from the state materials office in Gainesville.

Samples were taken from depths ranging from 7.5 to 14 feet measured from the roadway

surface. Since geotechnical studies and soil sampling were performed in the past at the

subject site, the soil underlying the road, and its stratification was known to some extent.

Therefore, the shelby tube sampling in this study was aimed toward a specific soil

stratum. From gained knowledge during previous explorations under SR-15/US-98, it

was known that within the limits of the rehabilitation construction project, the typical

pavement and soil profile includes 12 to 14 inches of asphalt, 12 inches of a lime rock

base material, 3 feet of silty sand subgrade, followed by 4 to 6 feet of dark organic silt

and 8 to 12 feet of fibrous peat (Sobhan, 2007). The targeted soil stratum for the purpose

of this study was the lower layer (fibrous peat) which had the highest organic and

moisture content, was brown to red brown in color and had vast amounts of fibers

developed from dead vegetation (Sobhan, 2007). This layer was of particular interest to

the investigation because due to its known weakness, highly deformable nature, elevated

moisture and organic contents, it is the one responsible for most of the structural

problems reflected on the pavement surface.

Table 1 shows the specific location from where all the shelby tubes were obtained

including location label, station number, depth from the road surface and date retrieved.

The initial plan called for the acquisition of 12 shelby tube samples, but because of time

constrains and equipment availability, only 10 samples were captured during the 4 days

of sample retrieving. The first column of Table 1 makes reference to the location labels

that were assigned to the test sections in the research about reinforced pavement with

4 
geosynthetic membranes (mentioned above). These labels were used for the current

investigation for convenience, given that the start and end of each location was labeled

and stationed with metal benchmarks embedded in the asphalt pavement. This provided

an accurate, fixated and convenient reference point.

Table 1: Location of Shelby tubes retrieved for the current study.

Location Station Depth (ft) Date retrieved

1.0‐1 156+66.67 13 5/18/2009
1.1‐1 161+66.67 14 5/18/2009
1.2‐1 166+66.67 12 5/19/2009
1.3‐1 171+66.67 10 5/19/2009
1.4‐1 176+66.67 7.5 5/20/2009
1.4‐1 176+66.67 10 5/20/2009
1.5‐1 181+66.67 12 5/20/2009
2.0‐2 230+33.33 12 5/20/2009
2.1‐2 235+33.33 14 5/21/2009
2.3‐2 245+33.33 11 5/21/2009

The location number nomenclature is to be used as follows: the first number refers to the

test section number; the second number makes reference to the six subsections that the

two test sections are divided into. These subsections are 500 feet in length and contain

different reinforcement membranes. In addition, the last number refers to the location

within each subsection, where the sample was acquired from, either at the first third (1/3)

or second third (2/3) point. A layout of the test sections proposed in the reinforced

pavements research is presented in chapter 2. Because of the variability of layer

thicknesses and depths, the sampling was not aimed to a specific depth, but rather to the

specific layer as mentioned previously. It was expected that the fibrous peat layer started

5 
at a depth ranging anywhere from 10 to 14 feet. To make sure that the desired stratum

was sampled, a visual methodology was implemented. The drill bit from the rig used for

soil extraction was rotated at a very fast rate while the rate of penetration (vertical

displacement into the ground) was kept slow. This process ensured that when the target

soil was exposed to the surface brought up by the drill bit, only a short depth was

advanced into the soil layer and the entire thickness of the layer was still undisturbed and

available for sampling.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND MOTIVATION

The growing population in South Florida constantly drives the need for land

development. With it, land scarcity increase and sometimes developers are forced to

undertake construction projects where unsuitable soils are encountered. Southeastern

Florida is characterized for having very soft, highly compressible thick organic soil layers

at shallow depths. In fact, the Everglades is known as the largest organic soil body in the

globe, comprised of about 2 million acres in area (Thomas, 1965). More often than not, in

South Florida, organic rich and clayey soils are the cause of damage to infrastructure

when used as foundation material. These soils of problematic nature and high

compressibility often generate structural distresses to the existing roadways and

buildings. Because of their natural high in-situ water content, high void ratio and elevated

permeability rates, organic rich soils undergo large primary consolidation in a rapid

manner and exhibit extended creep stages (Mesri, 1997). What’s more, McVay (2004)

claimed that secondary consolidation can make up to 50% of the total settlement in

highly organic soils which can generate costly construction damage long after projects

6 
are completed due to deformations under sustained structural loads. As a result, both

primary and secondary consolidation mechanics become very crucial design factors in

areas where highly organic soils are common.

With the increasing land demand for construction to satisfy the infrastructural needs of a

growing population, good soil material for development becomes increasingly scarce.

Consequently, in a region where ideal soils are uncommon, soil improvement becomes a

fundamental area in the field of civil engineering and construction so that undesirable

soils can be altered to enhance their performance. Conventional repairs, such as

surcharging or removal of the undesirable material, can often delay construction

schedules and are associated with high construction costs.

Despite the great need for organic soils improvement, organic soil stabilization has been

mainly unexplored and limited research has been conducted in this area. Consequently,

due to the existing need, the main motivation behind this laboratory research was to

explore the stabilization of organic rich soil with cement, and to develop design criteria

for optimum treatment dosages to control the compressibility behavior. This can be put

into practice offering accelerated construction processes and minimal labor effort, while

making use of conventional construction equipment. In addition, since the cement

stabilization efficiency is highly dependent on the soil properties, (such as organic

content) these design guidelines can be implemented in other locations if similar soils are

encountered.
7 
1.3 SCOPE OF RESEARCH

The main focus of this laboratory investigation was three-fold; i) determine all the index

properties of the subject soil, ii) investigate the effects that different cement dosages may

have on the consolidation properties of soil specimens and lastly, iii) provide cement

treatment guidelines for highly organic soils to be used when similar soil characteristics

are encountered.

The objectives of this research program were achieved by conducting a series of

laboratory experiments and consolidation tests carefully planned to investigate the

different zones of consolidation, including the under and overconsolidated zones. This

was important because it is known that certain soil properties are stress dependent. The

testing program was composed of two series of tests (Test Series I and Test Series II)

with each series, consisting of six simultaneous consolidation tests. The two series were

composed of a curing period under water, followed by a conventional incremental

loading and a creeping stage. The increment load ratio utilized in this study was unity,

held constant for a loading period of 24 hours. The specimens were incrementally loaded

up to a desired stress and then secondary consolidation (under constant load) was allowed

for a period of 14 days. The two test series were as follows:

- Test Series I: The soil utilized for Test Series I consisted of a muck soil with an

organic content of 67.0% and was allowed to undergo secondary consolidation

under a load of 2 tsf.

8 
 - Test Series II: The soil utilized for series II was a peat soil with an organic

content of 88.9% and was subjected to a pressure of 1/2 tsf for secondary

consolidation.

With the intent of conducting a behavioral comparison induced by cement, five of the six

specimens within each Test Series had different cement dosages and one had no cement

to act as a reference/control mix. The specimens in Test Series I had cement contents

ranging from 11.29 to 56.48% and those of Test Series II varied between 16.90 and

89.68%. The cement contents were calculated as a percentage of the dry weight of the

soil. Because of the given short period of primary consolidation this soil exhibited under

laboratory conditions (usually within 2 minutes), the specimens were subjected to

secondary consolidation during each of the load increments. In this way, primary and

secondary consolidation data for 12 specimens at varying stress levels and cement

contents were obtained.

1.4 OBJECTIVES

- To determine the index properties of the undisturbed organic soil.

- To perform conventional incremental loading consolidation tests with varying cement

amounts to investigate its effects on the primary consolidation behavior.

- To perform consolidation tests under constant loads to examine the effects of cement

treatment on the secondary consolidation behavior.

9 
- To apply the widely accepted concept of the relationship between Cc and Cα (Cα/Cc)

developed by Mesri and Godlewski (1977) and examine how this correlation is

influenced by cement addition.

- To develop design criteria for optimum cement dosage required to attain the desired

control in the compression behavior that can be implemented elsewhere if similar soil

characteristics are encountered.

10 
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH CONDUCTED ON SR-15/US-98

SR-15/US-98 is located in the northwestern Palm Beach County, Florida near Lake

Okeechobee. The roadway runs from STA 1+00 (MP 19.674) to approximately STA

360+00 (MP 26.519). The area in the vicinity of the roadway segment is characterized by

highly organic soils at shallow depths. These soils are responsible for distresses reflected

on the pavement structures above it. These weak soils and the structural damage they

generate have encouraged the initiation of several research projects with the intent of

characterizing the subject soil and proposing possible solutions to alleviate the constant

challenges and costly repairs they demand. In the next sections, four investigations

conducted on the mentioned roadway alignment will be discussed along with their

documented findings.

2.1.1 Geotechnical site exploration conducted by GEOSOL, inc

In the year 2004, a geotechnical site characterization was carried out by GEOSOL, INC

throughout the SR-15/US-98 roadway alignment that was proposed for reconstruction

under FDOT management. The reconstruction and rehabilitation project consisted of

milling and resurfacing of the stretch starting at STA 1+00 and extending up to STA

360+00. This geotechnical study incorporated Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and

11 
Shelby tube sampling. A total of 93 SPT where perform to a depth of 20 feet. The SPT

locations were

spaced at 500 feet and were staggered along the roadway including both the north and

southbound. From visual observation to the pavement structure during their investigation,

GEOSOL, INC reported three areas where the worst pavement performance was noted.

These stretches included STA 149+00 to 179+00, STA 225+00 to 259+00 and

STA 304+00 to 312+00. Due to the fact that the highest degree of distress was observed

from STA 225+00 to 259+00, the SPT borings were spaced at 200 feet as opposed to 500

feet for the rest of the alignment. Moreover, from these three locations identified as

poorly performing, six Shelby tubes were retrieved for further investigation (Sobhan,

2007). From this site investigation, GEOSOL, INC reported that the asphalt thickness

varied from 7 to 20 inches, the limerock base material from 12 to 18 inches, the sand and

gravel fill from 4 to 13 feet and the organic silt and peat layers combined from 4 to 18

feet. In addition, the ground water table was found at depths ranging from 6.5 to 9.2

below the pavement surface.

GEOSOL, INC conducted an array of laboratory tests on the samples retrieved from the

Shelby tubes and SPT borings, and the testing program included the following:

- 87 moisture contents

- 16 grain size analysis

- 57 fines content tests

- 51 organic contents test

12 
- 12 Atterberg limit tests

- 6 consolidation tests

- 6 unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests

- 6 environmental corrosion tests including pH, resistivity, sulfate and chloride

content.

A summary of the laboratory results obtained by GEOSOL, INC are presented in Tables

2, 3 and 4.

Table 2: Summary of results by GEOSOL, INC

Soil type Moisture Content (%) Organic Content (%) Fines Content (%) Atterberg Limits
Sand and gravel fill 3.4 to 46.8 4 to 6.9 1.7 to 31.5 Test not performed
Sand or Silt 35.5 to 283.1 Test not performed 21.6 to 62.7 non‐plastic
Organic Soils 24.8 to 592.5 7.4 to 100 4.7 to 53.2 Test not performed

Table 3: Summary of results from Shelby tubes samples by GEOSOL, INC

Total Unit Weight (lb/ft3)  67.2 to 74.9 
Moisture Content (%)  80.7 to 458.4 
Fines Content (%)  47.3 to 99.6 
Specific Gravity of solids  1.65 to 2.20 

Table 4: Summary of results from triaxial testing or organic soils by GEOSOL, INC

Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft3)  11.1 to 28.0 
Moisture Content (%)  178.1 to 458.4 
Saturation (%)  92 to 100 
Fines Content (%)  61.9 to 99.6 
Compressive Strength (lb/ft2)  389 to 1454 

13 
2.1.2 Surface Pavement Solutions For Poor Subgrade Conditions

For research purposes, from the reconstruction project on SR-15/US-98 mentioned in the

previous study, two pilot test sites were selected. The research investigation was focused

on the performance of pavement structures when reinforced with different geosynthetic

products. The selection of the test sites was based on the worst scenario supported by the

available geotechnical data previously collected by GEOSOL, INC in 2004 and a visual

observation of the roadway distress conducted on July 4th, 2005 by the principal

investigators. Based on the gathered information, two pilot test sections were identified as

Location 1 and Location 2. See Figure 2 for the test sections layout.

Figure 2: Layout of the proposed field test sections on SR-15/US-98 (Sobhan et al.,
2010)
 

Location 1 extended from STA 155+00 to 185+00 and Location 2 from STA 227+00 to

257+00. Each test section was divided into 6 subsections of 500 feet from which two

were control subsections. These control subsections were located at the two ends of the
14 
seections and had no reinnforcement embedded within
w the asphalt
a to acct as a referrence

point. In the remaining

r 4 subsectionss different geeosynthetic products
p including PaveeTrac,

G
GlassGrid, PeetroGrid andd ARMI werre installed at around 3.5 inches froom the paveement

suurface. The constructionn effort of thhe research segments

s waas undertakeen on August 13th

annd 14th of 2008 wheree the differrent geosynthetic produucts mentioned above were

innstalled. The intent of the sectionns layout was

w to comppare the diffferent paveement

performancess based on the combinned effect off soil propeerties and thhe reinforceement

prroduct impleemented. Figgure 3 the innstallation off PaveTrac on

o SR-15/US
S-98.

Figure 3: Installatiion of PaveT

Trac on SR
R-15/US-98)

T motive behind
The b this sttudy was to recommend
r pavement reehabilitationn strategies which
w

coould be imp
plemented inn a rapid manner
m with minimum disturbance
d and construuction
15 
efforts and to develop design criteria that could be applied in other locations with similar

soil characteristics. Up to date, final conclusions and results have not been reported as

this research is still in progress and monitoring of pavement distress will continue for

several years.

2.1.3 Primary and secondary compression behavior of Florida organic soil

In 2006, Kristopher W. Riedy, a then graduate student at FAU, conducted a

comprehensive laboratory investigation on soil samples obtained from SR-15/US-98. A

total of 22 shelby tube samples were collected from 11 locations, from which a total of

43 consolidation tests were performed. In addition to the consolidation tests, a battery of

engineering classification tests was conducted in order to thoroughly characterize the

soil. The classification tests included the following: fiber content, moisture content, ash

content, organic content, void ratio calculations, specific gravity, unit weight, Atterberg

Limits, undrained shear strength and vane shear.

From all the information collected in this investigation, Kristopher W. Riedy was able to

identify two distinct soil strata found underlying SR-15US-98. The first layer consisted

of a black organic silty sandy soil with shell fragmentations. This layer was said to be

highly plastic and easily moldable to the touch. The second layer consisted of a fibrous

peat mainly brown to light brown in color. It contained a high percentage of

decomposed vegetation and plant roots oriented in a vertical manner. This layer, as

opposed to the one above it, was said to possess very low plasticity, exhibited a higher

moisture and organic content and showed a higher compressive strength. The organic

16 
silt (top layer) was said to range from depths of 1.83 to 2.74 meters and the peat layer

(bottom layer) from 2.44 to 4.47 meters on average.

The top layer was noted to have moisture contents from 162.1 to 327.9% and the bottom

layer from 302.2 to 652.2%. The Organic content was reported to range from 3.5 to

60.2% and from 26.6 to 92.3% for the organic silt and peat layers respectively. A

sequence of in-situ void ratio calculations were conducted on all the 22 shelby tubes

retrieves and the values varied from 3.2 to 5.9 for the top stratum and from 5.7 to 13.9

for the bottom one. What’s more, from each collected sample an Atterberg test was

conducted with a total of 22 tests performed. The minimum, maximum and mean values

are reported are tabulated in Table 5.

Table 5: Atterberg Limit Tests Results (Riedy, 2006)

Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index
Layer Classification
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Mean
Top Muck 182 274 228 92 171 123 104
Bottom Peat 334 632 492 217 489 372 120

A series of unit weight computations were conducted by the researcher. The method

consisted of weighing pre-cut sections of shelby tubes making sure they were

completely filled with soil. These were weighted before and after extrusion of the soil

sample; in this way, the weight of the soil was obtained. In addition, a calculation of the

volume of the cut section of shelby tube was done. With the available data, both the

weight and volume of the soil samples, the unit weight was easily gained. Kristopher W.

Riedy documented unit weights ranging from 69.83 to 74.23 lb/ft3 for the organic silt

layer (top layer) and from 61.75 to 69.90 lb/ft3 for the fibrous peat layer.

17 
Another part of this laboratory program consisted of acquiring the undrained shear

strength indirectly from unconfined compression tests. Values were reported ranging

from 17 to 23 kPa for the top layer and for the bottom layer (peat) they were between 29

and 40 kPa. Furthermore, the value of in-situ saturation was calculated and was found to

vary between 84 to 100% for both layers combined with an average value of 94%. A

summary of results reported by Kristopher W. Riedy is presented in Table 6 where the

minimum, maximum and average values are shown. These properties include naming

from left to right, the in-situ void ratio, moisture content (percentage), organic content

(percentage), in-situ saturation (percentage), unit weight (lb/ft3) and the undrained shear

strength (kPa).

Table 6: Summary of properties (Riedy, 2006)

Unit Weight  Shear 
Layer  Statistics  eo  MC (%)  OC (%)  S (%) 
(lb/ft3)  Strength (kPa)
Organic  min  3.2 162.1 3.5 91.0 69.8  17.0
silt   max  5.9  327.9  60.2  100.0  74.2  23.0 
(top)   average  3.9  205.1  31.7  95.3  72.4  20.0 
Fibrous    min  5.7  302.2  26.6  84.0  61.7  29.0 
Peat  max  13.9  652.2  92.3  100.0  69.9  40.0 
(bottom)   average  9.4  472.8  75.8  93.1  66.1  33.0   

In addition, the consolidation testing program consisted of traditional Incremental loading

and secondary consolidation tests with the intent of acquiring the primary and secondary

consolidation parameters. The consolidation tests were divided into two categories

labeled Series I Test (focused on primary consolidation) and Series II Test (focused on

secondary consolidation). Series I was completed by incrementally loading the samples

18 
past the in-situ overburden pressure and preconsolidation pressure. On the other hand, the

Series II was incrementally loaded up to a desired load and then it was allowed to

undergo secondary consolidation for a period of 2 to 4 weeks.

From the 43 consolidation tests conducted in this study, the maximum, minimum and

mean values were reported by the investigator for all primary and secondary properties

acquired and are shown in Table 7. From the Cc and the Cα data, he was able to apply the

well known correlation postulated by Mesri and Godlewski in 1977 of time stress

compressibility that exists between the compression index (Cc) and secondary

compression index (Cα). Those values are presented as the Cα to Cc ratio (C α/Cc). Also, in

the last Column, values for the coefficient of consolidation (Cv) in units of centimeter

square per second are listed. Since Cc is defined as the slope of the void ratio versus

applied pressure curve both on the compression and recompression range, Cc (virgin

compression zone) and C’c (recompression zone) are meant to distinguish these two

zones. Moreover, the typical behavior for all the specimens tested in this study

representing Florida Muck is shown in Figure 4 (Riedy, 2006).

19 
 Table 7: Primaryy and second
dary consoliidation paraameters (Riiedy, 2006)

Layer  Stattistics  Cc  C'c Cα  Cα/C'c  Cv (cm2/s) 

Orgganic  m
min  1.08 
1 0.28
8  0.008  0.027  0.017 
s
silt   max 
m 2
2.62  1.11
1  0.062  0.077  0.040 
(to
op)   ave
erage  1
1.78  0.58
8  0.029  0.047  0.023 
Fibrous    m
min  2
2.62  0.36
6  0.004  0.011  0.018 
eat 
Pe m
max  6
6.99  7.06
6  0.182  0.052  0.030 
(botttom)   ave
erage  5
5.32  2.46
6  0.074  0.032  0.024 

Figure 4: Typical Consolidatiion behavior for Florid

da Muck (Riiedy, 2006)

2.1.4 Use of Piezocone

P p
penetration t for rapid in-situ ch
test haracterizattion of orgaanic

soils

C
Concurrent to
o the above study, a fielld exploratioon program was undertaaken on the same

sooil along SR
R-15/US-98 by
b Hieu H. Huynh,
H a theen graduate student.
s He focused his work

20 
on validating the capabilities of CPT combined with pore water dissipation testing for

rapid in-situ soil characterization. One of the purposes was to determine the commonly

used consolidation properties from CPT testing instead of conducting traditional

consolidation testing which can be time consuming, expensive, and tedious. Since this

field work was carried out simultaneously with the laboratory work conducted by Riedy

(2006), it was possible to verify the results obtained from this in-situ testing program

against laboratory results.

The scope of work consisted of 12 CPT sounding sites spaced at about 200 to 600 feet

along two areas within the roadway alignment that were identified as having the worst

pavement structural distress. The main objectives of the study were to determine the

organic layer thicknesses underlying SR-15/US-98, to determine the strength and

modulus along with the typical consolidation properties with the implementation of CPT

and pore pressure measurement. Data was collected via Hogentogler hardware and

software which was picked up by the cone’s sensors and fed to an on-board computer

enclosed in a heavy duty Hogentogler drill rig. The Piezocone extension rods utilized to

extend the cone into the soil consisted of segments of 3.28 feet in length that carried the

wiring through their hallow core. Figure 5 depicts a Hogentogler drill rig similar to the

one used in this study.

21 
F
Figure 5: Ou
utside (Top
p) and insidee (Bottom) a Hogentogller drill rig (google imaages,
2009)

T
Typical outpu
ut data provvided by a CPT test coonsists of tip resistant and
a skin friiction

prroduced by the soil annd picked up

u by the seensors in thhe cone. In addition too soil

reesistance, th
he researcherr employed a pore wateer pressure measuring
m deevice to measure

thhe excess po
ore pressure dissipation that is assoociated with consolidatioon behavior. The

seelected deptth for pore pressure dissipation

d r
readings waas 11.5 feet because itt was
22 
esstimated to be at mid-depth of the combined organic
o soil layer.
l Raw data
d collecteed by

thhe piezocon
ne testing protocol
p is shown
s in Table
T 8 whhere qc reprresents the point

reesistance and fr represennts the skinn friction to the CPT prrobe. This innformation made
m

possible the calculation

c o the soil prooperties disccussed later.
of

Tablee 8: Range of
o raw data acquired frrom CPT teesting (Huyn
nh, 2006)
from   to
o  units 
Aveerage qc of orgganic layer  0.77  5.6  tsf 
Ave
erage fr of orgaanic layer  6.6  577  % 
Maxim
mum pore water pressures  1.9  433  psi 

F
Figure ustrates the normalized pore water data collected from sitees 1, 3, 4, and 6.
6 illu

T data obttained from the

The t other sitees was reporrted as out of range and did not provvide a

w defined
well d dissipation curve.

Figure 6: Pore
P water pressure
p disssipation data for site 1, 3, 4 and 6 (Huynh, 20006)

23 
From the avaailable pore pressure
p disssipation dataa, the verticaal coefficientt of consoliddation

w attained for
was f the differrent sites. Taable 9 only shows
s one of the 8 methhods employeed by

thhe investigattor to compuute the coeffficient of coonsolidation; calculationns and resultts for

thhe other 7 methods

m are available
a elseewhere (Huyynh, 2006).

Table 9:: Results of the calculatted coefficieent of consoolidation (Hu

uynh, 2006))

T calculatted values of
The o mechaniccal and com
mpressibility properties reported forr this

s
study are prresented in Table 10. Starting from left to riight, the tabble includess: the

u
undrained shear
s strenggth, Young’s Moduluss, Constrainned Moduluus, and priimary

C n Index for both the orrganic silt and

Compression a fibrous peat
p strata. These calcuulated

v
values were obtained froom the conee resistance data
d offered by the soil and relationnships

a
available in the literaturre. The relattionships aree included as
a a note in the
t lower paart of

T
Table 10.

24 
 Table 10: Computed
C v
values for Su, Eu, M, Cc (Huynh, 20006)

2.2 STABILIIZATION BACKGRO

B OUND AND CASE STU
UDIES ON ORGANIC
O

SOIL ST
TABILIZAT
TION

Soil stabilizattion has beeen successfullly applied throughout

t thhe world in a variety off soils

inncluding graanular, soft, expansive

e annd non-organnic soils, butt organic soiil stabilizatioon for

thhe most part, has not beeen researcheed nor put innto practice extensively.
e Despite the great

need for enh

hancing unssuitable orgganic soils for foundattion materiaals, organicc soil

sttabilization has
h been maainly unexplored and liimited docum
mentation iss available in the

liiterature. On
nly in some parts of Euurope, reseaarch efforts have been dedicated too the

development of design guuidelines forr organic soiil stabilizatioon. In fact, inn 1997 a reseearch

prroject nameed “EuroSoiilStab” was commencedd with the intent of deeveloping design
d

crriteria for th
he stabilizatiion of organnic soils. Thee European soil stabilizaation projectt was

m
mainly focused in the use of the dry and wet deep mixing methods
m as a strategy for soil

25 
stabilization (Hebib and Farrell, 2003). After conducting an extensive literature research,

several case studies were found on the stabilization of organic soils. In the next sections,

these experimental tasks along with a background in soil stabilization are discussed.

2.2.1 Soil stabilization

Some of the existing ground improvement/modification techniques in practice include

static compaction, dynamic compaction, dewatering, reclamation of problematic soil

material, surcharge, soil nailing, stone columns, drain installation, and soil stabilization

among others. Soil stabilization is a well accepted and effective practice that can be

achieved by the Deep Mixing Method or more commonly known as DMM.

The DMM is the method by which a hardening chemical (a pozzolanic agent) usually

cement or lime is mixed in-situ with the unsuitable soil to improve its performance. This

ground improvement method consists of introducing a reagent binding agent into the soil

media by mechanical means which when exposed to the water in the soil (or added water

for soils with low water contents) generates a chemical reaction. Due to the reaction, both

physical and mechanical properties of the subject soil are enhanced. Furthermore,

conventional construction equipment is used in this process, which facilitates its

implementation. Typical equipment for deep soil mixing involves a hallow stem auger

and overlapping mixing paddles supported by a crane. In a simultaneous operation, auger

borings are drilled into the ground with the use of a stem auger, the stabilizer is injected

through the auger’s hallow core and paddle arrangements mix the soil producing cement-

26 
sooil columns in the grounnd (Haywardd Baker deepp mixing broochure). A tyypical auger rig is

depicted in Fiigure 7.

Figure 7: Triplee auger rig for

f deep soill mixing (G
Google imagees, 2009)

T Deep Miixing Method is an efficcient soil stabbilization tecchnique for the solidificcation
The

of weak soilss which was first develooped and putt into practicce in the 19770’s in Japann and

thhe Scandinaavian counttries, and then

t it waas applied in China and
a South Asia

(S i was impleemented throoughout the world incluuding

Senta, 2002)). In the reccent years, it

ment columns are the staandard methood for increasing

thhe United Sttates. Todayy, Lime Cem

27 
the bearing capacity and minimizing settlements for road, railroad and airport

construction in the Scandinavian countries with an estimated 2,000,000 meters of

columns installed each year (Bredenberg and Baltzar, 2001). What’s more, in Japan, deep

soil mixing has been widely use for the stabilization of foundations for offshore

construction and heavy structures.

The deep mixing method can be practiced by 2 methods including the Wet Soil Mixing

(WSM) and the Dry Soil Mixing (DSM) method. Both procedures are undertaken in a

similar manner but differ in the form in which the binding agent is added to the soil

media. Wet mixing method injects the pozzolanic material in a slurry form where the

binder is mixed and injected with water as a transporting medium. On the other hand, Dry

Mix Method introduces the binding agent in a powder state and makes use of the water

available in the soil for the chemical reaction to take place. Bredenberg and Baltzar

(2002) stated that the wet mixing method is recommended for use with soils of moisture

content lower than 75%, for higher moisture contents the dry mixing method was

suggested.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), some of the additives used in soil stabilization include cement, fly ash, lime,

slag and gypsum. Furthermore, a combination of these agents can be implemented to

target the different properties that may need enhancement depending on the structure and

construction needs (FHWA publication FHWA-SA-93-005, 1993). Different structures

may be vulnerable to special properties such as permeability, bearing capacity or long

28 
term settlement and this can be dealt with by mixed treatment. Generally, when fine

materials are stabilized with lime they exhibit a decrease in plasticity, increase in

workability and a notorious reduction in its susceptibility to volume changes due to gain

or loss of moisture.

In addition, strength property improvements can be achieved with lime mixing, but there

are some exceptions depending on the type of soil subjected to stabilization. The response

of soil to cement stabilization is different to that of lime and it is usually more dependent

on the water content, density and confining pressure used during the curing period.

Generally, cement mixing induces a change in optimum moisture content and maximum

dry density for a given compaction energy in a stabilized soil. Additionally, both

compressive and tensile strengths are improved with this chemical addition. The strength

of cement treated soils can range from about 10 to 2,000 psi depending on the soil type,

amount of cement, curing environment and density. In general, the higher fines content a

soil has, the lower strength it can be achieved with this type of treatment (FHWA

publication FHWA-SA-93-005, 1993).

The uses of deep mixing has a variety of applications to both offshore and inland

construction with applications to different structures such as dams, tanks, embankments,

bridges, high-rise buildings, retaining structures, etc. The main intention in using this

method is the improvement in bearing capacity, minimization of settlements or

strengthening of slopes (Van Impe and Verastequi, 2007). In geotechnical engineering

practice, deep mixing soil treatment is most commonly applied for foundation and

29 
tuunneling sup
pport and strrengthening, liquefactionn alleviationn, port constrruction and slope

sttabilization (Hayward
( B
Baker deep mixing
m brochhure). Amonng the most common ceement

coolumn confiigurations ussed in consttruction for soil

s stabilizaation one caan find, the block
b

pattern, panells, grids and isolated soil-cement collumns as deppicted in Figgure 8.

F
Figure 8: Ty mpe and Veerastequi, 2007)
ypes of cement column configuratiions (Van Im

T stabilizattion of soil by
The b the deep mixing methhod not onlyy has applicaations in the field

of foundation
n engineerinng, but also in the disciipline of envvironmental engineeringg and

w
waste contain
nment as well.
w This method
m is commonly
c u
used in the containmennt of

unnderground waste and contamination plums foor the preveention of leakage and waste
w

percolation in
nto undesireed locations. The stabilizzed waste iss immobilizeed and soliddified.

M
Moreover, th
he porosity of the soil media is reeduced and in turn, itss permeabiliity is

diminished. For
F environnmental appllications, diifferent addiitives such as bentonitte for

30 
reeduction of permeability
p y and others for chemicaal neutralizaation are mixxed togetherr with

thhe cementitious agents before

b injecttion into thee ground. Thhe objective is to prevennt the

leeaching of ag
gents such as
a brine, orgaanic or inorgganic acids or
o others preesent in the waste
w

m
material (Bou
ulding, 1996)

2.2.2 Some Experiences

E bilization off Irish Peatss
on the Stab

Heebib and Faarrell (2003)) from the Departmentt of Civil, Structural & Environm
mental

Enngineering, Trinity
T Colleege, Dublin 2, in Irelandd, conductedd a combineed laboratoryy and

fieeld research involving tw

wo peats from
m Ireland. The
T soil sampples were exxtracted from
m two

Iriish raised bo
ogs from Raaheenmore annd Ballyderm
mot. Some of
o the physiical and chem
mical

prooperties of the
t subject peats
p emplooyed by the investigatorrs are presennted in Tablle 11,

whhere RA stan
nds for Raheeenmore andd BA for Ballydermot.

T
Table 11: Ph
hysical and chemical
c prroperties peats tested (H
Hebib and Farrell,
F 2003)

T investigaation was maainly concerrned with thee engineerinng propertiess of the peat soils
The

alltered with different binders.

b Thhe tests connducted in this investigation inclluded

unnconfined compression
c , triaxial annd consolidaation tests. For the staabilization of
o the
31 
peats, five different agents were employed comprised of cement, pulverized fuel ash

(PFA), lime, pelletized blast furnace slag, and gypsum. The dosages of chemical

additives were based on bulk volume at natural moisture content and consisted of 150,

200, and 250 kg/m3. The mixing methodology used in this examination was adopted from

the one presented in the EuroSoilStab project (Design Guide: Soft Soil Stabilization).

For the specimen preparation procedure, the soil mass was mixed in a dry state before

and after addition of the binders to ensure homogeneity. For the unconfined compression

testing specimens, soil-binder mixtures were placed in 2.6 inch diameter and 12 inch

height cylindrical containers and immersed in water under a burden pressure of 18 kPa

for the curing period. On the other hand, those specimens used for the triaxial and

consolidation testing were subjected to the same sample preparation and curing protocol,

but were stored in plastic tubes of 4 inch diameter and 20 inch height.

Results indicated that the compression index (Cc) for the Ballydermot peat (BA) was 6.1

and that for the Raheenmore peat (RA) was 6.5. The preconsolidation pressure values

reported were 15 kPa and less than 5 kPa for the BA and RA peats respectively.

Moreover, results gained from unconfined consolidation testing after 28 days are depicted

in Figure 9. The labels in the x-axis represent what type of binder was employed and

percentage of binder when a mix of binders was used.

32 
Figure 9: Unconfined
U compressivve strength for
f various mixes
m (Hebiib and Farrrell,
2003)

S
Some analysses done on BA peat staabilized withh cement andd tested afteer 28, 90 andd 240

d
days are presented
p beelow. As stated
s by Hebib
H and Farrell (20003), a gaiin in

p
preconsolida
ation pressurre was seen with increassing in curinng time. Morre specificallly, at

2 days the preconsolida

28 p ation pressurre was 210 kPa
k and at 240 days it was
w 520 kPa. This

b
behavior can
n be clearly seen in Figgure 10 as thhe curves off e versus log σv’ shift to
t the

r
right (higherr effective sttress) with inncreased curiing time.

33 
 Figure 10: e-log σ’ for cement treaated Ballyd
dermot peat (Hebib and
d Farrell, 20003)

F
From the datta obtained in
i triaxial teesting, the innvestigators reported
r a hiigh pore preessure

b
buildup even
n at low streesses. The researchers
r a
also studied the effect of
o preloadingg and

c
cement efficciency in terrms of settllement reducction. Preloaading was found
f to be very

s
significant in
i changingg the mechhanical behaavior of the altered material.
m With a

p
preloading of
o 18 kPa duuring the curring period, the strengthh was reporteed to be chaanged

d
drastically, but the perrmeability only
o moderaately with values
v in thee same ordder of

m
magnitude. The
T cement treated soilss exhibited an
a accelerateed consolidaation and thee total

s
settlement was
w reduced by
b 28% wheen comparedd treated withh untreated soils.
s

2.2.3 Geotech
hnical charaacterization
n of two Itallian peats sttabilized witth binders

C
Cortellazzo and
a Cola (19999) from thee Departmennt of Ocean,, Hydraulic and
a Geotechhnical

E
Engineering, Padova Uniiversity, Itally performedd laboratory experiments concernedd with

34 
two peats from Italy treated with various binders. The two peats originated from different

places, had different loading history and natural void ratio, but their organic contents

were similar and both were above 70%. The intention of the study was to investigate the

effects that curing time had on the undrained shear strength and compression behavior.

One of the peaty soils was extracted from the Po delta area and is referred throughout the

paper as Adria; the other one was retrieved from the Adige and Bacchiglione rivers and is

referred to as Correzzola. Adria was sampled from depths ranging from 3 to 6 and

Correzzola from depths of 1.5 to 2.1 meters. The mechanical and physical characteristics

of the undisturbed samples reported in this paper are described in Tables 12 and 13 and

served as a reference point for the properties of stabilized samples. Table 12 presents the

unit weight, moisture content, organic content, fiber content, pH, natural void ratio and

fiber content. Table 13 includes undrained shear strength, preconsolidation pressure and

primary and secondary compression indexes.

Table 12: Physical properties peats tested (Cortellazzo and Cola, 1999)

Site  g (kN/m3) W (%)  O (%)  Gs  pH  eo  F (%) 

Adria  10.3 to 10.7  330 to 421  68 to 75  1.55 to 158  6.5 to 7.2  5.74  25% 
Correzzola  10.3 to 10.8  606 to 790  70 to 72  1.46 to 1.60  4.0 to 5.1  10.5  25% 

Table 13: Mechanical properties peats tested (Cortellazzo and Cola, 1999)
site  Cu (kPa)  σ'p (kPa)  Cc  Cα 
Adria  90 to 160  100  2.75 to 4.5  0.15 to 0.42 
Correzzola  20 to 110  15  2.25 to 7.25  0.15 to 0.50 

35 
T binders used in thiss laboratoryy program inncluded typpe II cementt, fly ash, hemi-
The h

hyydrate gypssum and hyydraulic lim

me. A total of five diffferent com
mbinations of the

chhemical add
ditives were adopted to stabilize thee Adria peatt and four foor the Correzzola

peat. These combinationns are show

wn in Tablee 14. The chemical
c dosages were kept

between 200 kg/m3 andd 250 kg/m3. As statedd by the ressearchers, thhe curing seetting

coonsisted of storing
s the samples
s at 188oC to 22oC under a preessure of 18 kPa and expposed

too water contaact at the bottom and topp of the speccimens.

Table
T 14: Mixture
M comp
positions (C
Cortellazzo and
a Cola, 1999)

Itt was reporteed that the shear

s strenggth reached its
i maximum
m values at about
a 30 daays of

cuuring, and then

t the varriation was minimal.
m Ennhanced unddrained sheaar strengths were

onnly observed on specim

mens containning cement as a treatm
ment agent. For
F peat sam
mples

sttabilized witth fly ash annd lime, the shear strenggth was abouut 30 kPa annd for those with

2 Kg/m3. The
ceement it incrreased up to 180 kPa at dosages of 200 T undrainned shear streength

annd compresssibility behaavior for botth soils is suummarized in

i Figures 11
1 and 12 foor the

different bind
der mixes annd curing peeriods. In Fiigures 12, STD
S stands for
f standardd 70.5

36 
m diameterr cell and Rowe
mm R cell refers to a 755.5 mm diam
meter cell cooupled with pore

prressure meteer.

Figure 11: Undrained shear stren

ngth vs. curiing time (Coortellazzo and Cola, 19999)

37 
 Figure 12
2: Compresssibility behaavior for Ad
dria and Coorrezzola staabilized peaats
(Cortelllazzo and Cola,
C 1999)

2.2.4 Stabilizzation and Improvemen

I nt of Organ
nic Soils

Inn 2005, grad

duate researcch assistants Joonho Hwaang and Aarron Humphreey and profeessors

A
Antonio Bobet and Mariia Caterina Santaga connducted an experimental
e l investigation at

thhe School of
o Civil Enngineering at
a Purdue University,
U Indiana. Thhe research was

cooncerned wiith the cemeent stabilizattion of a soiil retrieved from

f Lindbeerg Road in West

L
Lafayette, IN
N and is refferred throuughout the paper
p R soil. The subject soill was
as LR

chharacterized
d by the prooperties depiicted in Tabble 15. Startting from toop to bottom
m, the

taable lists Lo
oss on Ignittion or morre commonlly known organic content, liquid limit,

plastic limit, specific gravvity of solidss, fiber conteent and clay fraction.

38 
 Table 15: Properties of Lindberg Road soil (Santaga, et al., 2005)

LOI (%)  45 to 52 
LL (%)  327 
PL (%)  162 
Gs  2.05 to 2.12 
Fiber content (%)  2.29 
Clay fraction (%)  40.6 

A series of consolidation and compression tests was conducted in this study to address

the different properties of treated and untreated soils. The types of tests performed

included:

- Constant rate of strain (CRS) consolidation test.

- End-of-primary incremental loading (EOP-IL) consolidation tests with one long term

creep stage (employed same machine as for CRS tests).

- IL consolidation tests for creep behavior evaluation

- Unconfined compression tests to assess the effectiveness of the stabilizer.

The first step of the study was to make use of different stabilizing agents and perform

unconfined compression tests and determine the most effective chemical for the subject

soil. The of the additives used were ordinary Portland Cement, lime, High Calcium Flue

Dust, Marblehead Buffington Dust, and Bentonite (2005). From the obtained results,

cement was established as the most effective chemical additive for the given chemical

composition of the LR soil. For the different tests conducted, cement percentages were

added at typical dosages used in practice ranging from 8 to 100% based on the dry

weight of solids. A summary of the experimental work done in this study is presented in

Table 16. As it can be seen in this table, the study was not only concerned with the
39 
e
effects of bin
nder dosages in the stabilization proocess, but alsso with the surcharge
s appplied

d
during curin
ng and the leength of tim
me for the cuuring stage. In
I Table 16,, MI and MIII are

r
referent to mixture
m I (LO
OI = 9.5%) and
a mixture II
I (LOI = 200%), respectiively.

Ta
able 16: Sum
mmary of th
he testing prrogram (San
ntaga, et al.,, 2005)

T effects of
The o cement onn stiffness were
w investiggated with Constant
C ratee of strain (C
CRS)

coonsolidation
n test, which were identiffied as CRS037, 48, 42, 50 and 54. Both, the peercent

ceement and th
he applicatioon of the weell known Cα/Cc relationnship are shoown in Tablle 17.

T curing peeriod for these tests conssisted of 14 days

The d under a surcharge of
o 48 kPa.

40 
T
Table 17: Seecondary coompression index and Cα/Cc ratio (Santaga,
( ett al., 2005)

T research
The hers reportedd drastic deecrease in the
t Cα/Cc ratio
r as the cement coontent

inncreased. Th
hey stated thhat this behaavior was coorrelated to the
t diminishhed propensiity of

thhe treated so
oil to deform
m under susttain loads. Moreover,
M frrom the acquuired test reesults,

thhe investigattors stated thhat the cemeent treatmennt seems to be

b more effeective in dossages

higher than 50% on a dry weightt basis. In addition, thhe results deemonstratedd that

inncreasing cem
ment amounnts were direectly related to increase in preconsollidation presssure,

inncrease in th
he hydraulic conductivitty, increase in the coeffi
ficient of connsolidation and
a a

reeduction in the
t creep cooefficient forr any testingg stress. Tabble 18 demoonstrates how
w the

prreconsolidattion pressuree and comppression andd recompresssion indexess are affecteed by

ceement additiion.

41 
 Table 18
8: Summaryy of results from CRS and
a IL testss (Santaga, et al., 2005))

T investigaators were able

The a to correlate the acqquired data from
fr test ressults to published

data of Cα/Cc and develooped a relatiionship of cement perceentage to thee performannce of

thhe treated so
oil. They repported that with
w higher cement
c dosaages, the treaated soil behhaved

siimilar to graanular type soils.

s This correlation iss depicted inn Figure 13 where
w the raanges

of Cα/Cc used
d to determinne the material type weere collectedd from reporrted values in
i the

liiterature repo
orted by Mesri in 1997.

42 
Figure 13: Correlation of Cα/Cc to cement dossage in treatted LR soil (Santaga, et al.,
F
2005)

43 
 CHAPTER 3: GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

A few geotechnical field and laboratory studies were performed in the past at the subject

site and from the collected data, the soil underlying SR-15/US-98 and its stratification

was known to some extent. For the current study, the shelby tube sampling was aimed

toward a specific soil stratum. From published data acquired during previous studies, it

was known that the typical pavement and soil profile includes 12 to 14 inches of asphalt,

12 inches of a lime rock base material, 3 feet of silty sand subgrade, followed by 4 to 6

of dark organic silt and 8 to 12 feet of fibrous peat (Sobhan, 2007). The targeted soil

stratum for the purpose of this study was the lower organic layer which had the highest

organic, moisture and fiber content. It was of particular interest because due to its know

weak and deformable nature, it was considered to be the most problematic layer,

responsible for the majority of the structural problems reflected on the pavement surface

(Sobhan, 2007).

3.2 SOIL DESCRIPTION

Upon visual inspection, this soil appeared to be a mixture of brown to light brown and

red in color. It had vast amounts of fibers developed from dead vegetation oriented in a

vertical fashion. In addition, upon manipulation of soil samples, it was seen to be easily

44 
deformable to
o the touch and expelleed a typical smell present in highlyy organic soiils. It

seeemed to haave low plastticity since it

i crumble easily
e when rolled
r up beetween the hands.
h

Furthermore, the texture of the soil was

w rather sppongy; it exxpelled waterr upon squeeezing

w the fingeers and exhibbited a notorrious light weight

with w relativve to its voluume.

Figuree 14: Peat sooil sample

DEX PROP
3.3 SOIL IND PERTIES

Since three geotechnical

g l characterizzation studiees have beeen conducted on the sooil of

innterest, valu
uable data was
w availablee in the liteerature and is presentedd in this chhapter

coomplementeed by the data

d acquireed from testts conducted in the prresent studyy. As

m
mentioned on
n Chapter 2,
2 in sectionn 2.1, soil properties
p fo the samee soil have been
for

reeported by Riedy (20006), Huynh (2006) andd GEOSOL, INC (20004). Only a few

45 
carefully planned tests were performed for the current study and serve as a validating

measure for the available data given that doing all the experiments once again would be

redundant and unnecessary. The characterization test program carried out in this study

included moisture contents, ash content, organic content, void ratio calculations, unit

weight and vane shear tests as discussed in the following sections.

3.3.1 Moisture Content

Multiple moisture content tests were done for each of the shelby tubes and the values

depicted in Table 19 represent the average value for each tube. The tests were carried out

in accordance with ASTM standard D2974-07A. In general, the moisture content varied

between 255.34 and 546.07% with an average value of 445.36%. These values were very

consistent with the reported values by Riedy (2006) shown in Table 20.

Table 19: Summary of moisture content

Location Station Depth (ft) Moisture (%)

1.1‐1 161+66.67 14 540.98
1.2‐1 166+66.67 12 450.28
1.3‐1 171+66.67 10 512.34
1.4‐1 176+66.67 10 408.25
1.5‐1 181+66.67 12 477.55
2.0‐2 230+33.33 12 546.07
2.1‐2 235+33.33 14 255.34
2.3‐2 245+33.33 11 372.04

46 
 Table 20: Summary of moisture contents (Riedy, 2006)

Site Station Depth (m) MC (%)

1 155+00 1.83‐2.44 367.9
2 157+00 1.83‐2.44 382.2
3 159+00 1.83‐2.44 302.2
4 163+00 2.13‐2.74 508.3
5 171+00 2.13‐2.74 582.3
6 227+00 2.13‐2.74 549.1
7 233+00 2.13‐2.74 370.4
8 239+00 2.13‐2.74 568.0
9 249+00 2.13‐2.74 464.7
10 253+00 2.13‐2.74 652.2
11 259+00 2.13‐2.74 453.2

3.3.2 Fines Content

GEOSOL, Inc determined the fines content for the organic layer from samples collected

by shelby tubing. The reported fines content ranged from 61.9 to 99.6% (GEOSOL, Inc.,

2004).

3.3.3 Ash Content

Ash content tests were performed for each of the shelby tubes and the values are shown

in Table 21. These tests were done in accordance with ASTM standard D2974-07A. In

general, the ash content varied between 10.4 and 33.0% with an average value of 18.1%.

47 
 Table 21: Summary of ash content

Location Station Depth (ft) Ash Content (%)

1.1‐1 161+66.67 14 15.8
1.2‐1 166+66.67 12 12.6
1.3‐1 171+66.67 10 11.1
1.4‐1 176+66.67 10 33.0
1.5‐1 181+66.67 12 10.9
2.0‐2 230+33.33 12 10.4
2.1‐2 235+33.33 14 22.6
2.3‐2 245+33.33 11 28.1

3.3.4 Organic Content

Organic content tests were performed for each of the shelby tubes and the values are

shown in Table 22. These tests were done in accordance with ASTM standard

D2974-07A. The organic content, as stated in the ASTM standard, is obtained by

subtracting the ash content from 100%. Moreover, organic soils can be classified

according to their organic content. Organic soils are categorized as follows (McVay,

2004):

- Peat - organic content greater that 75%: “fibrous material at the early process of

humification”

- Muck - organic content between 25% to 75%: “fibrous organic material in the process

of humification covered by amorphous – granular particles”

- Organic silt or clay - organic content less than 25%: “visual appearance of an

amorphous material with high degree of humification.”

48 
By following the classification based on organic content, from the samples examined,

two were muck soils and the rest fell in the range for peat. In general, the organic content

varied between 67.0 and 89.6% with an average value of 81.9%. These values are very

consistent with the reported values by Riedy (2006) shown in Table 23.

Table 22: Summary of organic contents

Location Station Depth (ft) Organic Content (%)

1.1‐1 161+66.67 14 84.2
1.2‐1 166+66.67 12 87.4
1.3‐1 171+66.67 10 88.9
1.4‐1 176+66.67 10 67.0
1.5‐1 181+66.67 12 89.1
2.0‐2 230+33.33 12 89.6
2.1‐2 235+33.33 14 77.4
2.3‐2 245+33.33 11 71.9

Table 23: Summary of organic contents (Riedy, 2006)

Site Station Depth (m) OC (%)

1 155+00 1.83‐2.44 61.0
2 157+00 1.83‐2.44 76.0
3 159+00 1.83‐2.44 61.4
4 163+00 2.13‐2.74 92.3
5 171+00 2.13‐2.74 92.3
6 227+00 2.13‐2.74 26.6
7 233+00 2.13‐2.74 90.6
8 239+00 2.13‐2.74 73.6
9 249+00 2.13‐2.74 84.0
10 253+00 2.13‐2.74 91.5
11 259+00 2.13‐2.74 84.2

49 
3.3.5 Void Ratio

The insitu void ratio was calculated for a total of five soil samples. These values were

attained with the use of basic phase relationships commonly used in soil mechanics. From

fundamental soil mechanics principles, it is known that the specific gravity (Gs) of solids

is the ratio of the density of solid (ρs) to a standard liquid, in this case water (ρw),

Since density is the ratio of mass per unit volume, expanding one gets,

 
 

The samples used for void ratio calculations were assembled in a consolidation ring and

thus the cross sectional area of the soil sample was of constant value. Since the

consolidation ring is cylindrical in shape, volumes within the ring can be expressed as the

multiplication of the cross sectional area (A) and the height (H), thus,

 
   

Solving for the height of solids (Hs),

 
   

Once the Height of solids is attained, the height of voids (Hv) can be easily computed by

subtracting Hs from the total height of the specimen which in fact, is equal to the height

of the consolidation ring. Then, by definition, void ratio (e) is equal to:

 
 

50 
Which can be approximated by the following form given that the cross sectional area of

the specimen is constant and cancels out,

 
 

The outlined procedure was carried out for five specimens and the results for void ratio

varied from 8.64 to 13.42 with an average of 11.03. These values are consistent with the

reported values by Riedy (2006) which ranged from 5.67 to 13.93 and are shown in

Table 24.

Table 24: Summary of Void Ratios (Riedy, 2006)

Site  Station  Depth (m)  eo 
1  155+00  1.83‐2.44  6.1 
2  157+00  1.83‐2.44  7.4 
3  159+00  1.83‐2.44  5.7 
4  163+00  2.13‐2.74  9.8 
5  171+00  2.13‐2.74  10.7 
6  227+00  2.13‐2.74  10.6 
7  233+00  2.13‐2.74  7.4 
8  239+00  2.13‐2.74  12.2 
9  249+00  2.13‐2.74  9.6
10  253+00  2.13‐2.74  13.9 
11  259+00  2.13‐2.74  9.5 

3.3.6 Specific Gravity

Typical values for specific gravity range from 2.5 to 2.7 for non organic soils, but when

the organic factor is added, these values drop drastically because of the lower content of

51 
minerals, which makes it a lighter material. Values were reported from samples collected

in shelby tubes in 2004 by GEOSOL Inc., to vary between 1.65 and 2.20.

3.3.7 Unit Weight

A series of unit weight calculations were conducted in this study. The method employed

consisted of weighing pre-cut sections of shelby tubes making sure they were completely

filled with soil. These were weighted before and after extrusion of the soil sample; in this

way, the weight of the soil was obtained. In addition, a calculation of the volume of the

cut section of shelby tube was performed. With the available data, both the weight and

volume of the soil sample, the unit weight was easily computed. Results for the total unit

weight ranged from 86.45 to 118.33 pcf with an average of 103.29 pcf. All the results are

summarized in Table 25 for each of the locations.

Table 25: Summary of total unit weights

Location Station Depth (ft) Date retrieved Total Unit weight (pcf)

1.0‐1 156+66.67 13 5/18/2009 118.33
1.1‐1 161+66.67 14 5/18/2009 110.54
1.2‐1 166+66.67 12 5/19/2009 86.45
1.3‐1 171+66.67 10 5/19/2009 90.56
1.4‐1 176+66.67 7.5 5/20/2009 117.24
1.4‐1 176+66.67 10 5/20/2009 101.16
1.5‐1 181+66.67 12 5/20/2009 101.56
2.0‐2 230+33.33 12 5/20/2009 113.34
2.1‐2 235+33.33 14 5/21/2009 87.38
2.3‐2 245+33.33 11 5/21/2009 106.35

3.3.8 Atterberg Limits

52 
R
Riedy (2006) reported thee Limit Liquuid to vary between 334 and 632% with
w a mean value
v

of 492%. Fo
or Plastic Liimit, values varied from
m 217 to 4889% with a mean of 372%.

W
What’s more,, the Plasticiity index, whhich is simplly defined ass the liquid menus
m the plastic

liimit (PI = LL
L – PL), had
h a mean value of 1220%. The innvestigator reported
r thaat the

A
Atterberg Lim
mits for highhly organic and
a fibrous soils are nott reliable and should be used

w care.
with

3.3.9 Vane Shear Strenggth

For the calcu

ulations of shhear strengthh, a pocket Torvane
T wass employed. A Torvane shear

device modell Humboldt H-4212

H was used and is depicted in Figure 15.

Figure 15:
1 Pocket Torvane
T moodel Humbooldt H-4212
53 
This device works with three different vanes that are selected depending on the soil to be

tested. The Torvane is pressed into the soil to the full depth of the blades and with a

constant vertical pressure the knob is rotated. As the knob is rotated, the device has

marked dial divisions that are to be recorded to determine the soil strength. Once the

maximum dial division is noted, the number is multiplied by a factor (that depends on the

vane size used) and the shear strength is obtained. Table 26 lists the values obtained for

this soil in both units of psf and kPa. These values are consistent with the results acquired

by an alternative method reported by Kristopher W. Riedy in the following section.

Table 26: Summary of the Vane Shear Strength

Location  1.1‐1  1.2‐1  1.3‐1  1.4‐1  1.5‐1  2.0‐2  2.1‐2  2.3.‐2 
divisions  2.25  2.00  2.00  2.50  4.00  2.50  2.38  1.75 
Shear 
576.05  512.04  512.04  640.05  1024.08  640.05  608.05  448.04 
Strength, psf 
Shear 
27.581  24.517  24.517  30.646  49.033  30.646  29.113  21.452 
Strength, kPa 
 

3.3.10 Undrained Shear Strength

A series of undrained shear strength tests were performed by Riedy (2006). This

mechanical property was derived indirectly from unconfined compression tests. This is an

alternative method to the vane shear described in section 3.3.9. It is known that for

saturated clayey soils, the undrained shear strength equals half the strength in

compression (Riedy, 2006). Based on this statement, the reported variation of undrained

shear strength was between 29 kPa and 40 kPa. Some of the strength was said to be

54 
associated to the content and orientation of fibers within the peat stratum which directly

influenced the strength measurements (Riedy, 2006).

55 
 CHAPTER 4: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The following sections describe the experimental program conducted for this study from

sample acquisition up to the testing stage. It explains all the steps in the sample

preparation including: sampling, transportation, mixing, compaction and curing.

Furthermore, this chapter discusses in detail each test conducted, the purpose behind it

and the procedure implemented for its execution.

As explained in chapter 1, a total of ten shelby tubes were retrieved from the field. From

those ten samples, only two were subjected to the consolidation protocol. The selection

process was based on the organic content of the specimen with the intent of testing

samples with significantly different organic content. It has been proven throughout the

literature that organic content highly influences the cement treatment efficacy.

Considering this fact, the sample selection was made so that a wide spectrum of highly

organic contents was captured in the program. More specifically, a sample from the soil

group denominated as muck (organic content between 25% and 75%) and other one from

the group of peats (organic content above 75%) were tested.

56 
4.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION

4.2.1 Sample acquisition and transportation

From May 18th to May 21st 2009, a total of ten shelby tube samples were retrieved from

the soil underlying SR-15/US-98. The shelby tubes were extracted with the aid of a

truck-mounted drill rig provided by FDOT from the state materials office of Gainesville.

Samples were taken from depths ranging from 7.5 to 14 feet measured from the roadway

surface. Following the sampling task, the shelby tubes were transported to the laboratory

in rectangular wooden boxes of 9in (width) by 9in (depth) by 3ft - 9in (height) in

dimensions. The boxes were subdivided in four compartments. Each of the

compartment’s inner walls was lined with bubble wrap. The bubble wrap offered extra

protection and mitigation of soil disturbance from any vibration generated during

transportation.

4.2.2 Sample Extrusion from Shelby Tubes

Once the shelby tubes were transported to the laboratory, extrusion of the soil mass from

the tubes was necessary for consequent testing. To facilitate the extrusion process, the

shelby tubes were cut in three equal length segments. The steel tubes were cut with a

metal cutting band saw machine. The shortened length tubes offered less resistance while

pushing the soil out of the tubes and ensure minimal disturbance during extraction. Given

the low cohesion of the subject soil, the samples slipped almost effortlessly out of the

tubes with negligible adhesion to the walls. Figure 16 illustrates the cut sections of shelby

tubes.

57 
 Figure 16: Cut shelbyy tube sectioons.

4.2.3 Cementt dosages an

nd mix desiggn

T principall motivationn behind thiss study was to explore the

The t behaviorr of organic soils

w
when subjectted to varyinng cement treatment, theerefore repettitive tests were
w conductted at

different cem
ment dosagess while keepping all othher testing factors
f consttant. The ceement

tyype employeed for testinng was Cem

ment Type I; this is thhe general purpose
p Porrtland

ceement used when the sppecial propeerties of otheer cements are

a not neceessary (Somaayaji,

2001). The cement amouunts were exxpressed as a percentagee based on the

t dry weigght of

thhe soil. Two

o different seeries of tests were condducted with each series consisting of
o six

siimultaneous consolidatioon tests. All samples witthin each Teest Series undderwent the same

looading scheeme, but were

w ment treatment levels. The
subjeccted to diffferent cem
58 
methodology for each Test Series is further explained in section 4.3. Tables 27 and 28

present the different cement quantities used in Test Series I and II expressed in

percentage by dry weight basis and also in Kg/m3, which is a common unit employed in

practice. These tables also depict the mix design for each specimen tested in both Test

Series. Ultimately, after the mixing and compaction of the specimens, they were cured in

the consolidation rings, thus the mix designs shown in Tables 27 and 28 were developed

based on the required amounts to fill a consolidation ring of 2.5in in diameter and

0.8125in in height. Since studying the effects of density in the stabilization were beyond

the scope of this study, the samples were compacted to yield a density representative to

in-situ conditions.

Table 27: Cement dosage and mix design for Test Series I

Specimen # 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cement
dosage percentage 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
kg/m3 0.00 29.22 65.68 99.56 131.12 160.59
soil (g) 15.75 16.91 17.05 17.37 17.05 18.58
Mix
water (g) 42.55 46.58 41.76 40.42 37.48 34.42
design
cement (g) 0.00 1.91 4.29 6.51 8.57 10.50

Table 28: Cement dosage and mix design for Test Series II

Specimen # 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cement
dosage percentage 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
kg/m3 0.00 24.44 55.26 84.23 111.51 137.26
soil (g) 8.74 9.45 9.25 9.27 9.35 10.00
Mix
water (g) 49.26 51.68 48.54 46.77 45.46 42.33
design
cement (g) 0.00 1.60 3.61 5.50 7.29 8.97

59 
4.2.4 Mixing methodology

In the practice of soil stabilization, the Deep Mixing Method is used extensively. From

the two methods that exist, the Wet Mixing Method (WMM) and the Dry Mixing Method

(DMM), the DMM is suggested (Aalto, 2002) when moisture contents exceed the 75 %

threshold. Thus, given the elevated water contents of the subject soil, the mixing

procedure followed in this study was aimed to simulate this particular method. With

water contents well above the 75% limit recommended for the DMM, the specimens had

abundant water available for the chemical reaction with the cement to take place.

The mixing process consisted of combining various amounts of cement (depending on the

desired treatment level) with soil at its natural moisture content, in the effort of

simulating field conditions as per the DMM. The cement was added by small increments

followed by a mixing period of 2 minutes. The mixing process was achieved with the

hands and the aid of a spoon in an effort of keeping any lumps from forming. At first, a

conventional kitchen mixer was used to blend the soil-cement mixture, but given the soil

consistency, it proved to be an impractical method. Moreover, the 2 minute time period

was selected to provide enough time and mixing effort to produce a uniform mixture, but

at the same time, to allow minimal moisture loss during the process.

4.2.5 Compaction procedure

The main goal during the compaction effort was to reach a representative density to that

of in-situ conditions. Thus, the only variable between specimens would be the cement

content and a fair quantitative comparison could be made. Because the specimens were

60 
cured in the consolidation ring, the first step was to determine the weight of soil-cement

mixture required to fill the consolidation ring at the in-situ density. Once that required

weight was computed and weighed, it was placed within the ring and compacted. The soil

was placed in three different layers and the same compaction effort was applied to each

layer. The energy of compaction was determined by a trial an error procedure until the

pre-weighed soil fitted in its totality within the consolidation ring avoiding any leftovers

or voids. The compaction effort changed for every specimen as the cement added

changed the soil’s consistency.

4.2.6 Curing process

When a cementitions material is exposed to water, a chemical reaction referred to as

hydration takes place between the cementitions material (cement in this case) and water.

As the treated material cures, it gains strength because of the reaction taking effect, and

the strength development is a time dependent phenomenon. The length of curing has been

widely demonstrated by various researches to strongly influence the level of efficiency of

cement treatment in soils. Theoretically speaking, concrete will gain strength for an

indefinite period of time if the proper curing environment is provided (ACI technician

workbook Publication CP-1, 2006). This statement also applies to soil-cement mixtures.

Investigating the effects of curing time in the properties of stabilized material is beyond

the scope of this study and thus, it was kept constant for all the specimens tested. Once

the samples were mixed and compacted in the consolidation ring according to sections

4.2.4 and 4.2.5, they were assembled into the odometer device. Next, the consolidation

61 
machines with the sample inside the ring were filled with water and the treated soil was

allowed to cure for a period of 7 days. During the curing time, no overburden pressure

was applied, but any swelling effects exerted by the water were controlled. As mentioned

previously, the intent of the investigation was solely studying the effects of cement

content on the effectiveness of the stabilization process, not of surcharging loads, curing

times or any other testing variables. Once the curing period was completed, the loading

scheme described later in this chapter was executed.

4.3 EXPERIMENT PROGRAM

One of the principal objectives of this research was to investigate the effects that cement

stabilization may have on the primary consolidation properties. This goal was achieved

by conducting a series of consolidation tests carefully planned to investigate the different

zones of consolidation, including the over-consolidated and under-consolidated

compression zones throughout a range of cement dosages. The tests were intentionally

conducted on samples with significantly different organic contents, since it has been

proven throughout the literature that the organic content highly influences cement

treatment efficiency. The testing program was composed of two series of tests, each

consisting of six simultaneous consolidation tests with varying cement dosages. Equally,

the two series included a curing period under water for 7 days, followed by a

conventional incremental loading consolidation test. Here, stress level is defined as the

ratio of vertical applied pressure to the preconsolidation pressure (σ'v/σ'p).

62 
 - Test Series I: this program consisted of 7 days of curing with no surcharge load,

follow by incremental loading up to an applied pressure of 2 tsf; then it was

allowed to undergo secondary consolidation under the last applied load which

represented a stress level of 3.333. The soil utilized for this series consisted of a

muck with an organic content of 67.0% retrieved from location 1.4-1 at station

176+66.67.

- Test Series II: this program consisted of 7 days of curing with no surcharge load,

follow by incremental loading up to an applied pressure of ½ tsf; then it was

allowed to undergo secondary consolidation under the last applied load which

represented a stress level of 4.167. The soil utilized for this series consisted of a

peat soil with an organic content of 88.9% retrieved from location 1.3-1 at station

171+66.67.

The loading protocol for Test Series I and II was very similar; both loading schemes

started at a load of 1/16 tsf and had incremental loads with an Increment Load ratio of

unity. The loading protocol is shown for both Test Series in Tables 29 and 30.

Table 29: Loading scheme for Test Series I

Pressure (tsf)  Stress level (σ'v/σ'p) 
  1/16  0.104 
  1/8   0.208 
  1/4   0.417 
  1/2   0.833 
1  1.667 
2  3.333 

63 
 Table 30: Loading scheme for Test Series II

pressure (tsf)  Stress level (σ'v/σ'p) 
  1/16  0.521 
  1/8   1.042 
  1/4   2.083 
  1/2   4.167 
1  8.333 

In Test Series II, the specimen with the highest cement content (89.68%) did not undergo

any deformation until the third load increment (1/4 tsf). It is known that to apply the

Cα/Cc concept, at least three sets of corresponding Cα and Cc values are required, but

since for the first two stress levels no data was acquired (for the 89.68% cement

specimen), one extra load increment was applied (1tsf). For the other 5 samples in Test

Series II, the loading scheme stopped at the applied load of ½ tsf providing sufficient data

to apply the Cα/Cc concept.

For performance comparison, the six test specimens within each Test Series were

stabilized to different treatment levels; the first specimen with no cement addition acted

as a control/reference point and the other five had increasing cement amounts. The

cement dosages implemented for Test Series I and II are described in section 4.2.3 of this

chapter.

The secondary consolidation testing was initiated once the incremental loading was

completed by allowing consolidation under the last applied load (kept constant) for a

period of 14 days. The stress levels for secondary consolidation were as follows: 3.333

64 
for Test Series I and 4.167 for Test Series II. In Test Series II, the specimen with 89.68%

cement content was the only one consolidated at a stress level different from 4.167. This

sample was allowed to undergo secondary consolidation under a stress level of 8.333 so

that the Cα/Cc concept could be applied; further explanation was provided at the end of

section 4.3.

This protocol was implemented to investigate how cement addition influenced the creep

phenomenon in organic soils. For this phase of the experiment, dial reading data were

collected on a daily basis for each of the six specimens for the two Test Series. This data

helped illustrate the effects of cement stabilization on secondary consolidation.

65 
 CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY CONSOLIDATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The following sections present all the data obtained from the experimental program

conducted for this study. This chapter presents specifically the data acquired from

primary incremental loading consolidation tests and includes results of parameters such

as time to end of primary, time to 90% consolidation, coefficient of consolidation, void

ratio and preconsolidation pressure. Furthermore, this chapter documents the mentioned

parameter for both treated and untreated soils to demonstrate how they changed with

varying cement dosages at a wide range of stress levels. The motive was to understand

how the different cement stabilization levels altered the engineering behavioral

characteristics of the subject soil. More specifically, the stabilization efficiency was

analyzed via soil parameters by comparing their improvements with cement addition

comparing to a control specimen that had no cement added.

5.2 TEST SERIES I

The sample subjected to Test Series I was retrieved from Location 1.4-1 at station

STA 176+66.67. This shelby tube was retrieved on May 20th, 2009 from a depth of 10ft

measured from the roadway surface. The organic content of this sample was

67.0 %, the total unit weight was 101.16 pcf and the water content was 408.25%.

66 
5.2.1 Void ratio for Test Series I

As explained previously in chapter 4, all the specimens assembled in the consolidation

machines were compacted to the same density. The density selected was representative to

that of in-situ conditions and was kept constant given that the effects of density in

stabilization were out of the scope of this study. This section presents plots and tabulated

data of void ratio versus cement contents throughout a range of stress levels, including

pressures above and below the preconsolidation pressure. The data is presented for

cement contents of 0.00%, 11.29%, 25.18%, 37.46%, 50.27% and 56.48% (on a dry

weight basis) for stress ratios ranging from 0.000 to 3.333. The total change in void ratio

at the end of the loading scheme and the percentage these changes represent are also

reported for each specimen.

Table 31: Void ratio with varying cement content for Test Series I

Cement Percentage
stress level 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
0.000 8.637 5.875 5.123 4.418 4.225 3.158
0.104 8.113 5.697 5.010 4.409 4.224 3.158
Void Ratio

0.208 7.866 5.558 4.528 4.375 4.220 3.158

0.417 7.511 5.322 4.343 4.341 4.208 3.158
0.833 6.978 4.955 4.163 4.248 4.073 3.158
1.667 5.950 4.365 3.805 4.101 3.922 3.119
3.333 4.667 3.624 3.194 3.728 3.744 2.945

Δ e 3.970 2.251 1.929 0.690 0.482 0.213

% Δ e 45.97 38.31 37.66 15.62 11.40 6.75

67 
Itt was noted that
t even wiith constant densities, thhe initial void ratio, (beffore any loadd was

appplied) decreeases with inncreasing ceement contennt in a ratherr consistent manner.

m Thiss was

atttributed to the
t addition of fine cem
ment particless that had the capability of filling inn void

sppaces between soil grainns yielding a lower void ratio. From the Table abbove, it wass seen

ween 3.158 and 8.637 for cement contents rannging

thhat the initiaal void ratioo varied betw

between 0.00 and 56.48%

%.

9
8
7
6
5
Void Ratio (e)

4
3
2 0.000
04
0.10
1 0.208
0.417
0 0.833
1.667
00
0.0 11.29 3.333
25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48

Figu
ure 17: Void
d ratio with
h varying cement conten
nt for Test Series
S I

T same daata is presennted in a 3--D plot in Figure

The F 17. It
I was clearrly seen how
w the

o stress levvels becamee narrower with

variation of void ratio for the enttire range of

inncreasing cement contennts. For instaance, by loooking at the extremes,

e thhe change inn void

raatio between
n the stress leevels of 0.0000 and 3.3333 is significaantly higher at 0.00% ceement

68 
than it is as 56.48% cement. The stabilization process was clearly evident; the modified

soil became stronger in resisting void ratio alterations due to applied loads and it was

particularly pronounced with cement contents in excess of about 35%. This is a clear

indication of optimum cement requirements, where the subject soil with organic and

moisture contents of 67.0 and 408.25% respectively, exhibited minor volume alterations

for cement contents above 35%. Figure 18 shows the variation of void ratio with cement

content for all the stress levels tested.

69 
stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833

10 10
8.113
6.978
8 8
5.697
6 6
Void ratio (e)

Void ratio (e)
5.010 4.409 4.224 4.955 4.163 4.248 4.073
3.158 3.158
4 4

2 2

0 0
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

10 10
7.866
8 8
5.950
5.558
6 6
Void ratio (e)

Void ratio (e)
4.528 4.375 4.220 4.365
3.805 4.101 3.922
4 4
3.158 3.119
2 2

0 0
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

10 10

7.511
8 8
Void ratio (e)

Void ratio (e)

5.322
6 6
4.343 4.341 4.208 4.667
3.158 3.624 3.194 3.728 3.744 2.945
4 4

2 2

0 0
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

Figure 18: e vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series I.

70 
5.2.2 Deformation versus time data for Test Series I

The data below was computed from typical dial readings versus time and dial readings

versus square root of time plots. This data demonstrated how the consolidation

parameters changed with varying cement dosages. Table 32 shows all the parameters

calculated including the coefficient of consolidation, time to end of primary and time to

90% consolidation for the different cement amounts and stress levels tested. Because zero

deformation was measured for the first four load increments on the specimen with

56.48% cement, the three parameters were only computed at stress levels of 1.667 and

3.333.

Table 32: Deformation vs. time summary data for Test Series I

      Cement Dosage (%) 
stress 
0.00  11.29  25.18  37.46  50.27  56.48 
   level 
0.104  0.0374  0.0528  0.0265  0.0234  0.0150  ‐ 
Cv (cm2/sec) 

0.208  0.0406  0.0380  0.0634  0.0320  0.0417  ‐ 

0.417  0.0434  0.0471  0.0497  0.0541  0.0553  ‐ 
0.833  0.0381  0.0314  0.0428  0.0392  0.0525  ‐ 
1.667  0.0217  0.0224  0.0479  0.0579  0.0371  0.0465 
3.333  0.0145  0.0189  0.0196  0.0318  0.0344  0.0321 
0.104  0.300  0.330  0.403  1.300  1.075  ‐ 
0.208  0.320  0.340  0.600  1.000  1.200  ‐ 
tp (min) 

0.417  0.290  0.270  0.330  0.340  0.300  ‐ 

0.833  0.380  0.400  0.380  1.200  0.400  ‐ 
1.667  0.180  0.500  1.300  0.330  0.330  0.400 
3.333  0.520  0.430  0.300  1.000  0.470  1.000 
0.104  0.360  0.270  0.548  0.640  1.000  ‐ 
0.208  0.314  0.360  0.194  0.462  0.360  ‐ 
t90 (min) 

0.417  0.300  0.270  0.230  0.270  0.270  ‐ 

0.833  0.270  0.360  0.250  0.360  0.270  ‐ 
1.667  0.360  0.410  0.194  0.230  0.360  0.270 
3.333  0.360  0.360  0.360  0.360  0.360  0.360 

71 
 0.0
070
0.0
060
0.050
0..040
0.030
0.020
0
0.010
0
0.000
0
0.00
11.29
25.18
37.46
50.27
3.333
56.48
8 1.667
0.833
0
0.417
0.208
0.104

Figure 19: Cv with varrying cemen

nt content foor Test Series I

Same data is presented inn a 3-D plott in Figure 19.

1 By studyying this figuure, a shift in
i the

ovverall slope drawn by thhe Cv valuess with respect to cementt content waas seen. The shift

toook place fro

om stress levvels below thhe preconsollidation presssure to those above it. At
A the

sttress levels of 0.104 and

a 0.208, it
i was noteed that the coefficient of consoliddation

decreased witth increasingg cement conntent, depictting a negativve slope. Att a stress leveels of

0.417 and 0.8

833, Cv rem
mained more or less connstant, but a slightly sloope could stiill be

discerned. Th
hen at the strress level off 1.667, a shiift in slope started
s to takke place, andd was

evven more prronounced att the stress level of 3.333, where thee coefficientt of consoliddation

cllearly increaased with cem

ment content outlining a positive sloope.

Cv measures the
t speed annd the amounnt of consoliidation a speecimen exhibbits under a load.

W
What’s more, Cv is direcctly proportiional to settllement and inversely prroportional to
t the
72 
tiime required
d for certain amount of settlement
s too take place.. With that acknowledgm
a ment,

itt was seen th

hat the results demonstraated how thee cement heelped speed up
u the proceess of

coonsolidation
n at stress levvels beyondd the preconssolidation prressure, whicch is at the stress
s

leevels wheree this outcome can be most beneficial. Soils loadded beyondd its

prreconsolidattion pressuree are commoon in construuction sites, where the soil

s is expossed to

looads it nev
ver experiennced beforee, such as those com
ming from structural loads.
l

A
Accelerated consolidation
c n at early coonstruction stages is alw
ways a desirred behaviorr and

esspecially forr this type off soil where extended creeeping stagees are unavoiidable.

1.40
1.2
20
1.0
00
tp (min)

80
0.8
0.60
3.333
0.40 1.667
0.20 0
0.833
0.00 0.417
0.208
8
0.00
11.29 0.104
25.18
37.46
5
50.27
8
56.48

Figure 20: tp with varyying cement content foor Test Seriees I

Figure 20 preesents a threee dimensionnal plot for tp. Drastic fluctuations

f were detectted at

ceement conteents in excesss of about 15%. For alll the stress level combiinations, thee data

73 
w cement dosages of 0.00
with 0 and 11.29% seemeed to be fairrly steady, buut beyond thhat, a

grreat deal off scatter was obvious. Also,

A for streess levels off 0.104, 0.2008 and 0.4177, the

tiime to end of primary increased withh increasing cement conttent in a unifform mannerr, but

foor higher streess levels, no general treend was idenntified.

1.00
0.9
90
0.880
0.770
t90 (min)

0.6
60
0.550
0.40
3.333
0.30
1.667
0..20
0
0.833
0.10
0.00 0.417
0.208
8
0.00
11.29 0.104
25.18
37.46
5
50.27
8
56.48

Figure 21: t90 with varrying cemen

nt content foor Test Series I

Inn a similar manner, a major

m changge was obseerved for thhe variation of t90 at ceement

coontents in excess
e of about
a 15%, as shown in Figure 21.
2 For all the stress level

coombinationss, the data with

w cement dosages
d of 0.00
0 and 11.229% seemedd very uniforrm in

coomparison to
o higher cem
ment dosagees. In contrasst with data for tp, only the t90 valuees for

thhe stress leveel of 0.104 increased

i linnearly with cement
c conteent, for otherr stress levells, no

74 
general tendency was perceived. Another significant observation was that the t90 data

became increasingly even for all the cement content combinations with increasing stress

level. This was clearly evident as the highest stress level where all the t90 data points were

constant for all cement dosages. Figures 22, 23 and 24 show the variation of Cv, tp and t90

with cement content for all the stress levels tested, respectively.

75 
stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833

0.07 0.07
0.06 0.06
0.0528 0.0525
0.05 0.05
0.0381 0.0428 0.0392
Cv (cm2/sec)

Cv (cm2/sec)
0.0374
0.04 0.04
0.0314
0.0265
0.03 0.03
0.0234
0.0150
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

0.07 0.07
0.0634 0.0579
0.06 0.06
0.0479 0.0465
0.05 0.05
0.0406 0.0380 0.0417
Cv (cm2/sec)

Cv (cm2/sec) 0.0371
0.04 0.04
0.0320
0.03 0.03
0.0217 0.0224
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

0.07 0.07
0.0553
0.06 0.06
0.0497 0.0541
0.0471
0.05 0.05
0.0434
Cv (cm2/sec)

Cv (cm2/sec)

0.04 0.04 0.0344

0.0318 0.0321
0.03 0.03
0.0189 0.0196
0.0145
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

Figure 22: Cv vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series I.

76 
stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833
1.40 1.300 1.40
1.200
1.075
1.20 1.20

tp (min) 1.00 1.00

tp (min)
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.403 0.380 0.400 0.380 0.400
0.300 0.330
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

1.40 1.40 1.300
1.200
1.20 1.20
1.000
1.00 1.00
tp (min)

tp (min)
0.80 0.80
0.600
0.60 0.60 0.500
0.400
0.320 0.340 0.330 0.330
0.40 0.40
0.180
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

1.40 1.40
1.20 1.20
1.000 1.000
1.00 1.00
tp (min)

tp (min)

0.80 0.80
0.520 0.470
0.60 0.60 0.430
0.290 0.330 0.340 0.300 0.300
0.40 0.270 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

Figure 23: tp vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series I.

77 
stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833

1.000
1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80
0.640
t90 (min)

t90 (min)
0.548
0.60 0.60
0.360 0.360 0.360
0.40 0.270 0.40 0.270 0.270
0.250
0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80
t90 (min)

t90 (min)
0.60 0.462 0.60
0.410
0.314 0.360 0.360 0.360 0.360
0.40 0.40 0.270
0.194 0.194 0.230
0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80
t90 (min)

t90 (min)

0.60 0.60
0.360 0.360 0.360 0.360 0.360 0.360
0.40 0.40
0.300 0.270 0.230 0.270 0.270
0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

Figure 24: t90 vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series I.

78 
5.2.3 Specimen Height change for Test Series I

The data shown in Table 33 was computed from deformation readings from the

incremental loading consolidation tests. This information demonstrated how the

specimen’s height varied with different cement percentages. More importantly, the data

illustrated how the cement addition enhanced the soil ‘stiffness’ and minimized the height

alterations due to applied loads. It was noted that at 56.48% cement, because of

stabilization effects, it was required to apply a pressure of 1.0 tsf (stress level 1.667) to

induce any deformation upon the specimen. Before this stress level, the specimen’s

height was preserved constant. The rest of the soil specimens with lower cement contents

initiated deforming upon the first load application (1/16 tsf, stress level 0.104).

Table 33: Specimen Height with varying cement content for Test Series I

Cement Percentage
stress level 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
0.000 0.8125 0.8125 0.8125 0.8125 0.8125 0.7500
0.104 0.7683 0.7914 0.7975 0.8111 0.8122 0.7500
height (in)

0.208 0.7475 0.7749 0.7335 0.8061 0.8117 0.7500

0.417 0.7175 0.7471 0.7089 0.8009 0.8098 0.7500
0.833 0.6726 0.7037 0.6851 0.7870 0.7888 0.7500
1.667 0.5860 0.6340 0.6375 0.7650 0.7654 0.7430
3.333 0.4778 0.5465 0.5565 0.7090 0.7376 0.7116

5.2.4 Preconsolidation pressure data for Test Series I

The preconsolidation pressure was calculated for each of the six specimens subjected to

the incremental loading program from the typical void ratio versus log pressure plots

(shown below). The results are presented in Table 34 in units of tons per square feet and

79 
kilopascals. The preconsolidation pressure was seen to fluctuate with cement addition and

no general trend was observed; the observed variation was notoriously scattered.

Although some researchers have reported the preconsolidation pressure to increase with

cement content, the values acquired in the current study did not lead to the same

conclusion. This behavior may be associated with the high organic content within this

soil. Figure 25 shows the variation of void ratio with applied pressure for all the cement

contents used.

Table 34: σ’p with varying cement content for Test Series I
Cement Dosage (%)
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
σ'p (tsf) 0.60 0.33 0.38 0.70 0.37 1.00
σ'p (kPa) 57.46 31.60 36.39 67.03 35.43 95.76

8.5 0.00

7.5
11.29

6.5
Void Ratio

25.18

5.5
37.46
4.5
50.27
3.5

56.48
2.5
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Pressure in Log Scale (tsf)

Figure 25: Summary of e vs. pressure for all cement contents for Test Series I
80 
In the summary of void ratio versus applied pressure plot, it was distinguished how the

three higher cement dosages (37.46%, 50.27% and 56.48%) depicted a rather ‘flat’ curve

when compared to the other three curves with lower cement contents. Also, these three

curves plotted within a narrow range of void ratios. This brings to perspective how the

stabilized soil was beneficially altered and exhibited a higher resistance to volume

change. Moreover, it points out that an optimum cement content was reached somewhere

around 35% since insignificant improvements were noticed at higher values of cement

content. Figure 26 shows the variation of σ’p with cement content.

120
95.76
100

80 67.03
σ'p (kPa)

57.46
60
31.60 36.39 35.43
40

20

0
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%)

Figure 26: Variation of σ’p with cement content for Test Series I

81 
Cement % 0.00 Cement % 37.46

9 σ'p = 0.6 tsf 9 σ'p = 0.70 tsf

8 8

Void Ratio
7 7
Void Ratio

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Pressure in Log Scale (tsf) Pressure in Log Scale (tsf)

Cement % 11.29 Cement % 50.27

9 σ'p = 0.33 tsf 9 σ'p = 0.37 tsf

8 8

Void Ratio
Void Ratio

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Pressure in Log Scale (tsf) Pressure in Log Scale (tsf)

Cement % 25.18 Cement % 56.48

9 σ'p =0.38 tsf 9 σ'p = 1.00 tsf

8 8
Void Ratio

Void Ratio

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Pressure in Log Scale (tsf) Pressure in Log Scale (tsf)

Figure 27: e vs. log pressure for all stress levels for Test Series I

82 
5.3 TEST SERIES II

The sample subjected to Test Series II was retrieved from Location 1.3-1 at station

STA 171+66.67. This shelby tube was retrieved on May 19th, 2009 from a depth of teen

feet measured from the roadway surface. The organic content of this sample was 88.9%,

the total unit weight was 90.56 pcf and the water content was 512.34%.

5.3.1 Void ratio for Test Series II

As explained previously in chapter 4, all the specimens assembled in the consolidation

machines were compacted to the same density. The density selected was representative to

that of in-situ conditions and was kept constant for all the specimens. This section

presents plots and tabulated data of void ratio versus cement content throughout a range

of stress levels including stresses below and above the preconsolidation pressure. The

data is presented for cement contents of 0.00%, 16.90%, 39.05%, 59.37%, 77.91% and

89.68% (on a dry weight basis) for stress ratios ranging from 0.000 to 4.167. Moreover,

the change in void ratio experienced by each specimen after undergoing the entire

loading scheme and the percentage this changes represent (percent settlement) with

respect to the initial void ratios are reported as well.

For the specimen with the highest cement dosage (89.68%), an extra load increment

(8.333 stress level) was applied in order to get the minimum data require to apply the

Cα/Cc ratio concept. All other specimens provided sufficient data and no information was

collected for the 8.333 stress level. That is the reason why Table 35 displays no data for

the last row.

83 
 Table 35: Void ratio with varying cement content for Test Series II

Cement Dosage
stress level 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
0.000 13.165 9.988 8.964 6.891 6.441 5.219
0.521 12.619 9.379 8.921 6.832 6.377 5.219
void ratio
1.042 12.251 8.880 8.807 6.795 6.346 5.219
2.083 11.624 8.173 8.491 6.712 6.261 5.213
4.167 10.114 7.068 7.964 6.517 6.117 5.173
8.333 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.987

Δ e 3.051 2.920 0.999 0.374 0.324 0.232

% Δ e 23.17 29.23 11.15 5.43 5.03 4.44

It was noted that even with constant densities, the initial void ratio, before any load was

applied, decreases with increasing cement content in a relatively consistent manner. This

was attributed to the addition of fine cement particles that have the capability of filling in

void space between soil grains yielding a lower void ratio. From the table above, it was

seen that the initial void ratio varied between 5.219 and 13.165 for cement contents

ranging between 0.00 and 89.68%.

84 
 14

12

10
Void Ratio (e)

8
6
4
2 0.00
00
0.521
1
0 1.042
2.083
0.00
0 16.90 4.167
39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68

Figu d ratio with varying cem

ure 28: Void ment conten
nt for Test Series
S II

Figure 28 cleearly shows how the variation of void

v ratio for
fo the entiree range of stress
s

leevels becamee narrower with

w increasing cement contents. Foor instance, by
b looking at
a the

tw
wo extremess, the changge in void raatio betweenn the stress levels of 0.0000 and 4.167 is

siignificantly higher at 0.00%

0 cemennt than it iss at 89.68%
% cement. The modifiedd soil

became stron
nger in resistting void raatio adjustmeents caused by applied loads and itt was

particularly pronounced
p with cemennt contents in
i excess off about 50%
%. This is a clear

inndicative of optimum ceement contennt, where thhe subject sooil with orgaanic and moiisture

coontents of 88.9
8 and 5122.34% respeectively, exhhibited minoor improvem
ments for ceement

coontents abov
ve 50%. Figuure 29 show
ws the variatiion of void ratio
r with ceement contennt for

alll the stress levels

l testedd.

85 
stress level 0.000 stress level 2.083

14 13.165 14
11.624
12 12
9.988
10 8.964
Void ratio (e)

10 8.173

Void ratio (e)
8.491
6.891
8 8
6.441 6.712 6.261
5.219 5.213
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.521 stress level 4.167

14 14
12.619
12 12
9.379 10.114
10 8.921 10
7.068 7.964
Void ratio (e)

6.832
Void ratio (e)

8 8 6.517
6.377 5.219 6.117 5.173
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0

0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 1.042

14
12.251
12
8.880 8.807
10
6.795
Void ratio (e)

8
6.346
5.219
6
4
2
0
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%)

Figure 29: e vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series II.

86 
5.3.2 Deformation versus time data for Test Series II

The data below was computed from typical dial readings versus time and dial readings

versus square root of time plots. This data revealed how the consolidation parameters

changed with varying cement dosages. Table 36 shows all the parameters calculated

including the coefficient of consolidation, time to end of primary and time to 90%

consolidation for the different cement amounts and stress levels used. Because zero

deformation was measured for the first two load increments on the specimen with 89.68%

cement, the three parameters were only computed at stress levels of 2.083 and 4.167.

Moreover, an extra load increment was applied to this specimen with the highest cement

content. That is the reason why all the other specimens do not have any calculated

properties at that stress level (8.333).

Table 36: Deformation vs. time summary data for Test Series II

      Cement Dosage (%) 
   stress level  0.00  16.90  39.05  59.37  77.91  89.68 
0.521  0.0386  0.0497  0.0104  0.0548  0.0507  ‐ 
Cv (cm2/sec) 

1.042  0.0366  0.0338  0.0405  0.0588  0.0102  ‐ 

2.083  0.0332  0.0291  0.0379  0.0458  0.0398  0.0128 
4.167  0.0295  0.0186  0.0487  0.0546  0.0382  0.0505 
8.333  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  0.0229 
0.521  0.320  0.400  0.403  0.300  0.370  ‐ 
1.042  0.400  2.000  0.320  0.320  1.400  ‐ 
tp (min) 

2.083  0.400  0.400  0.330  0.330  0.320  2.855 

4.167  0.530  0.520  0.400  0.430  0.400  0.280 
8.333  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  0.380 
0.521  0.360  0.270  1.440  0.270  0.292  ‐ 
t90 (min) 

1.042  0.360  0.360  0.360  0.250  1.440  ‐ 

2.083  0.300  0.360  0.360  0.314  0.360  1.000 
4.167  0.314  0.436  0.250  0.250  0.360  0.250 
8.333  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  0.518 

87 
 0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
0.00
16.90
39.05
59.3
37
7
77.91
89.68 0.521
1.042
2
2..083
4.167

Figure
F 30: Cv with varyying cement content foor Test Seriees II

T overall picture
The p descriibed by the Cv data in Fiigure 30 wass found to be scattered and
a is

difficult to make
m any conncise concluusions. The only aspect that looselyy outstands is
i the

faact that for all stress level combinaations, Cv teends to increase with inncreasing ceement

dosages. Thiss trend howeever, is not very pronouunced, and itt is better obbserved from
m the

taabulated valu
ues.

88 
 3.00

2.50
0

2.00
0
tp (min)

0
1.50

1.00

0.5
50 4.167
0.0
00 2.083
1.0
042
0.00
16.90 0.521
05
39.0
59.37
77.91
89.68

Figure 31: tp with varyying cementt content forr Test Seriees II

From the threee dimensionnal plot show

wn in Figuree 31, the data for tp seem
ms to be veryy flat

annd uniform with only a few scatterred peaks, but

b no generral trend waas identified.. One

ellevated valu
ue occurred at
a the stress level of 2.083 with a ceement contennt of 89.68%
% and

tw
wo other spik
kes manifestted at the strress level of 1.042 with cement
c contents of 16.900 and

77.91%.

89 
 1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
t90 (min)

0.80
0.60
0.40
4.167
0.20
2.083
0.00
1.042
0.00
1
16.90
5
39.05 0.521
59.37
77.91
89.68

Figure
F 32: t90 with varyying cementt content for Test Seriees II

Inn a similar manner,

m the data
d in Figurre 32 plottedd in a rather uniform
u fashhion with moost of

thhe values rellatively arouund the samee value. The t90 values deepicted scatttered peaks at
a the

fiirst three strress levels (00.521, 1.0422 and 2.083)) at cement contest of 39.05,
3 77.911 and

89.68% respeectively. Fiigures 33, 34

3 and 35 shhow the varriation of Cv, tp and t90 with

ceement content for all thee stress levells tested resppectively.

90 
stress level 0.521 stress level 4.167

0.07 0.07
0.06 0.06 0.0546
0.0548 0.0507 0.0505
0.0497 0.0487
0.05 0.05
0.0386
Cv (cm2/sec)

Cv (cm2/sec)
0.04 0.04 0.0382
0.0295
0.03 0.03
0.0186
0.02 0.02
0.0104
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 1.042 stress level 8.333

0.07 0.07
0.0588
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
0.0405
Cv (cm2/sec)

Cv (cm2/sec)

0.04 0.0366 0.0338 0.04

0.03 0.03 0.0229
0.02 0.02
0.0102
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 2.083

0.07
0.06
0.05 0.0458 0.0398
0.0379
Cv (cm2/sec)

0.04
0.0332 0.0291
0.03
0.02 0.0128
0.01
0.00
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%)

Figure 33: Cv vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series II.

91 
stress level 0.521 stress level 4.167

2.50 2.50

2.00 2.00
tp (min)

tp (min)
1.50 1.50

1.00 1.00
0.370 0.530 0.520 0.430
0.320 0.400 0.403 0.400 0.400
0.50 0.300 0.50 0.280

0.00 0.00
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 1.042 stress level 8.333

2.50 2.50
2.000
2.00 2.00
tp (min)

tp (min)

1.400
1.50 1.50

1.00 1.00
0.400 0.320 0.320 0.380
0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 2.083

2.855
2.50

2.00
tp (min)

1.50

1.00
0.400 0.400 0.330 0.330 0.320
0.50

0.00
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%)

Figure 34: tp vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series II.

92 
stress level 0.521 stress level 4.167

1.40 1.40
1.440
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
t90 (min)

t90 (min)
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60 0.436
0.360 0.314 0.360
0.40 0.270 0.270 0.292 0.40 0.250 0.250 0.250
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 1.042 stress level 8.333

1.40 1.40
1.440
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
t90 (min)

t90 (min)

0.80 0.80
0.518
0.60 0.60
0.360 0.360 0.360
0.40 0.250 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 2.083

1.40
1.20 1.000
1.00
t90 (min)

0.80
0.60
0.360 0.360 0.360
0.40 0.300 0.314
0.20
0.00
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%)

Figure 35: t90 vs. cement content for all stress levels in Test Series II.

93 
5.3.3 Specimen height change for Test Series II

The data shown in Table 37 was calculated from deformation readings from the

incremental loading consolidation tests. This information demonstrated how the

specimen’s height varied with different cement percentages as the stress level increased.

More importantly, the data illustrated how the cement addition enhanced the soil

‘stiffness’ and minimized the height alterations due to applied loads.

It was noted that at 89.68% cement (because of stabilization effects) it was required to

apply a pressure of ¼ tsf (stress level 2.083) to induce any deformation upon the

specimen. Before this stress level, the specimen’s height was preserved constant. The rest

of the soil specimens with lower cement contents initiated deforming upon the first load

application of 1/16 tsf (stress level 0.521). For the specimen with the highest cement

dosage (89.68%), an extra load increment (8.333 stress level) was applied in order to get

the minimum data require to apply the Cα/Cc ratio concept. All other specimens provided

sufficient data and no information was collected for the 8.333 stress level. That is the

reason why Table 37 displays no data for the last row.

Table 37: Specimen Height with varying cement content for Test Series II

      Cement Percentage 
   stress level  0.00  16.90  39.05  59.37  77.91  89.68 
0.000  0.8125 0.8125 0.8125 0.8125 0.8125  0.7500
0.521  0.7812  0.7675  0.8090  0.8065  0.8055  0.7500 
height (in) 

1.042  0.7601  0.7306  0.7997  0.8027  0.8021  0.7500 

2.083  0.7241  0.6783  0.7740  0.7942  0.7928  0.7493 
4.167  0.6375  0.5966  0.7310  0.7740  0.7771  0.7444 
8.333  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  0.7220 

94 
5.3.4 Preconsolidation pressure data for Test Series II

The preconsolidation pressure was calculated for each of the six specimens subjected to

the incremental loading program from the typical void ratio versus log pressure plots

(shown below). The results are presented in Table 38 in units of tons per square feet and

kilopascals. The preconsolidation pressure was seen to fluctuate with cement addition and

no general trend was observed; the monitored variation was notoriously scattered.

Although some researchers have reported the preconsolidation pressure to increase with

cement content, the values acquired in the current study did not lead to the same

conclusion. This behavior may be associated with the high organic content within this

soil, well into the peat range. Although some increase was seen with cement content, the

correlation was very inconsistent.

Table 38: σ’p with varying cement content for Test Series II

   Cement Dosage 
   0.00  16.90  39.05  59.37  77.91  89.68 
σ'p (tsf)  0.12  0.15  0.10  0.22  0.17  0.50 
σ'p (kPa)  11.49  14.36  9.96  21.07  16.28  47.88 

95 
 13
0.00
12
16.90
11

10
Void Ratio

39.05
9
59.37
8

7 77.91

6
89.68
5
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00
Pressure in Log Scale (tsf)
Figure 36: Summary of e vs. pressure for all cement contents for Test Series II

In the summary of void ratio versus applied pressure plot if Figure 36, it was

distinguished how the three higher cement dosages (59.37%, 77.91% and 89.68%)

depicted a very ‘flat’ curve when compared to the other three curves of the lower cement

specimens. Also, these three curves plotted within a narrow range of void ratios. This

brings to perspective how the stabilized soil was beneficially altered and exhibited a

higher resistance to volume change upon stress applications. Moreover, it points out that

an optimum cement content was reached somewhere around 50%; significant

improvements were noticed at cement percent above this threshold and the ‘flatness’ was

more pronounced. Figure 37 shows the variation of σ’p with cement content and Figure

38 shows variation of void ratio with applied pressure for all the cement contents tested.

96 
 60
47.88
50

40

σ'p (kPa)
30
21.07
20 14.36 16.28
11.49 9.96
10

0
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%)

Figure 37: Variation of σ’p with cement content for Test Series II

97 
Cement % 0.000 Cement % 59.373

14
σ'p = 0.12 tsf 14
12 σ'p = 0.22 tsf
12

Void Ratio
Void Ratio

10
10
8
8

6 6

4 4
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00
Pressure in Log Scale (tsf) Pressure in Log Scale (tsf)

Cement % 16.901 Cement % 77.911

14 14
σ'p = 0.15 tsf σ'p = 0.17 tsf
12 12

Void Ratio
Void Ratio

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00
Pressure in Log Scale (tsf) Pressure in Log Scale (tsf)

Cement % 39.045 Cement % 89.675

14 14
σ'p =0.10 tsf σ'p = 0.50 tsf
12 12
Void Ratio
Void Ratio

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00

Pressure in Log Scale (tsf) Pressure in Log Scale (tsf)

Figure 38: e vs. log pressure for all stress levels for Test Series II

98 
 CHAPTER 6: RESULTS OF SECONDARY CONSOLIDATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the data analysis from the secondary consolidation testing program

and includes results of parameters such as Compression Index (Cc), Secondary

Compression Index (Cα) and the Cα/Cc ratio. Furthermore, this chapter documents the

variation of dial readings with respect to time collected during a period of 14 days for the

last load applied from the loading scheme.

This part of the experiment was conducted for all six specimens for each of the two Test

Series under a constant stress level. For the variation of dial reading and void ratios with

respect to time for all the incremental stress levels cement contents, refer to appendices I

and II. The motivation for this part of the study was to understand how the cement

stabilization altered the engineering behavioral characteristics and how they were

reflected in the secondary consolidation. More specifically, the stabilization efficiency

was analyzed via soil parameters by comparing their improvement with cement addition

with respect to a control specimen with no cement.

99 
6.2 TEST SERIES I

The sample subjected to Test Series I was retrieved from Location 1.4-1 at station

STA 176+66.67. This shelby tube was retrieved on May 20th, 2009 from a depth of teen

feet measured from the roadway surface. The organic content of this sample was 67.0%,

the total unit weight was 101.16 pcf and the water content was 408.25%. The specimen

was the same one used for the primary consolidation testing discussed in chapter 5 under

Test Series I.

6.2.1 Cc values for Test Series I

The data presented in this section was obtained from the typical void ratio versus log of

pressure plots. Even though this data belongs to Chapter 5 (primary consolidation

results), it has been conveniently placed here to be used in the secondary compression

analysis with the Cα/Cc concept. By definition, Cc is the slope of the e versus log (σ’v)

curve [Cc=Δe/Δlog(σ’v)] and is typically computed at the virgin zone of compression

(linear portion of the curve). Because the Cα/Cc concept applies both to the compression

and recompression zones (Mesri et al, 1987), Cc was acquired from the entire range of the

curve, and was subsequently used in the secondary compression analysis.

The data tabulated in Table 39 depicts the values of Cc obtained from samples with six

percentages at each stress level. Similarly, the data presented in graphical form, portrays

the values for Cc for each of the cement contents and provides an overall representation

of the behavior changes with cement stabilization. Because the specimen with 56.48%

100 
ceement underrwent no defformation unntil an applieed load of 1.0 tsf, values for Cc werre not

caalculated forr those stresss levels below it. The sam

me data is shhown in Figuure 39.

Table 39: Cc with varyying cementt content foor Test Seriees I

Cement Percentage
stress le
evel 0.00 11.29 25.1
18 37.4
46 50.27 56.48
0.1044 0.2920
0 0.0996
6 0.06
629 0.00
052 0.0010 ‐
0.2088 0.8190
0 0.4615
5 1.60
023 0.11
108 0.0109 ‐
0.417 1.1805
5 0.7824
4 0.61
159 0.11
152 0.0404 ‐
Cc

0.833 1.7699
9 1.2207
7 0.59
959 0.30
079 0.4491 ‐
1.667 3.4127
7 1.9600
0 1.19
917 0.48
873 0.5005 0.1287
3.333 4.2643
3 2.4591
1 2.02
279 1.24
405 0.5938 0.5794

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Cc

2.0
1.5
3.333
1.0 1.667
0.5 0.833
0.0 0
0.417
0.2
208
0.00
1.29
11 0.104
4
25.18
37.46
50.27
56.48

Figure 39: Overall varriation of Cc with differrent cementt dosages foor Test Seriees I

101 
From the graph above, two consistent trends were obvious; one was regarding the change

of Cc with respect to cement dosages and the other with respect to stress level. It was seen

at plain sight how the variation of the compression index had a consistent tendency to

decrease for any cement dosage for all the stress levels tested. Similarly, for all the stress

levels, Cc decreased with increasing cement content. This parameter indicates how much

the void ratio of a soil specimen changes for a given load increment, and it is directly

proportional to settlement. The reduction of Cc with increasing cement content was proof

of the stabilization effects that cement exerted on the subject soil. These effects were

maximized with cement contents exceeding the 35% threshold, where the values for Cc

were reduced dramatically for any given stress level. Figure 40 shows the variation of Cc

with cement content for all the stress levels tested.

102 
stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833

4 4

3 3
Cc

Cc
1.7699
2 2
1.2207

1 1 0.5959 0.4491
0.2920 0.3079
0.0996 0.0629 0.0052 0.0010
0 0
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

4 4
3.4127

3 3
Cc

Cc

1.9600
2 1.6023 2
1.1917
0.8190
1 0.4615 1 0.4873 0.5005
0.1108 0.0109 0.1287
0 0
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

4 4.2643
4

3 3 2.4591
Cc

Cc

2.0279
2 2
1.1805 1.2405
0.7824
1 0.6159 1 0.5938 0.5794
0.1152 0.0404
0 0
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

Figure 40: Cc vs. cement % for all stress levels for Test Series I

103 
6.2.2 Cα values for Test Series I

The data presented in this section was obtained from the typical void ratio versus time in

semi-log plots. Cα is defined as the change of void ratio with respect to the log of time

[Δe/Δlog(t)]. The data tabulated in Table 40 depicts the values of Cα obtained for all the

cement percentages at each stress level after end of primary. Correspondingly, the data

presented in graphical form, portrays the values for Cα for each of the cement contents

and provides an overall representation of the behavior changes with cement stabilization.

Because the specimen with 56.48% cement underwent no deformation until an applied

load of 1.0 tsf, values for Cα were not calculated for those stress levels below it.

Table 40: Cα with varying cement content for Test Series I

Cement Percentage
stress level 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
0.104 0.0398 0.0104 0.0238 0.0019 0.0008 ‐
0.208 0.0172 0.0095 0.0214 0.0038 0.0008 ‐
0.417 0.0371 0.0218 0.0090 0.0019 0.0020 ‐
Cα

0.833 0.0570 0.0407 0.0271 0.0080 0.0162 ‐

1.667 0.1525 0.0804 0.0622 0.0227 0.0304 0.0055
3.333 0.2453 0.1230 0.0963 0.0694 0.0203 0.0273

104 
 0.250

0.200

0.150
Cα

0.100
3.333
0.050
0 1.667
0.833
0.000
0 0.417
0.208
0.00
1
11.29 0.10
04
8
25.18
37.46
50.27
6.48
56

Figure 41: Overall varriation of Cα with different cementt dosages foor Test Seriees I

T same gen
The neral tendenncy that was observed inn the Cc dataa holds true for
f the seconndary

coompression index. It waas evident inn Figure 41 that

t an inverrsely proporttional correllation

exxists betweeen cement content

c and secondary compression
c n index for any
a of the stress
s

leevels within the loading scheme. Thhe trend of secondary coompression index
i to deccrease

w
with increasiing cement dosage reveals the efffectiveness of cement in
i the efforrts of

soolidifying so
oft highly organic
o soils. This is a significantt achievemeent because with

decreasing seecondary coompression index,

i less deformation
d will be exhhibited by a soil

saample when
n subjected to a consstant load over
o time, such as thoose imposed by

innfrastructuree upon the fooundation sooil. Figure 42 shows thee variation off Cα with ceement

coontent for alll the stress levels

l tested..

105 
stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833

Cα 0.200 0.200

Cα
0.150 0.150

0.100 0.100
0.0570
0.0398 0.0407
0.050 0.050 0.0271
0.0104 0.0238 0.0080 0.0162
0.0019 0.0008
0.000 0.000
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

0.200 0.200
0.1525
Cα

Cα

0.150 0.150
0.0804
0.100 0.100
0.0622
0.0227 0.0304
0.050 0.0214 0.050
0.0172 0.0095 0.0038 0.0008 0.0055
0.000 0.000
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

0.2453
0.200 0.200
Cα

Cα

0.150 0.150
0.1230 0.0963
0.100 0.100 0.0694
0.0371
0.050 0.050
0.0218 0.0090 0.0203 0.0273
0.0019 0.0020
0.000 0.000
0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 0.00 11.29 25.18 37.46 50.27 56.48
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

Figure 42: Cα vs. cement % for all stress levels for Test Series I

106 
6.2.3 Cα versus Cc plots for Test Series I

In the year 1987, Mesri and Castro published a paper where they outlined the procedure

to obtain the Cα/Cc ratio. This concept was first postulated by Mesri and Godlewski

(1977) where they stated that there is a unique relationship between Cα and Cc for any

given combination of time, stress level and void ratio. Following the outlined procedure,

plots of Cα versus Cc were developed in order to obtain the Cα/Cc ratios for the subject soil

and are presented in this section. A Cα versus Cc plot for the specimen with 56.48 cement

content is not presented due to lack of data. At least three sets of data are necessary, but

only two were attained for that specimen. Figure 43 shows the plots of Cα versus Cc for

each of the cement contents used.

107 
Cement % 0.00 Cement % 37.46

Cement % 11.29 Cement % 50.27

Cement % 25.18

Figure 43: Cα vs. Cc for all cement contents for Test Series I

108 
6.2.4 Cα/Cc versus cemen
nt dosage foor Test Series I

T Cα/Cc daata was com

The mputed from
m the Cα verrsus Cc plotts presentedd in the prevvious

seection. In essence, as outlined

o by Mesri and Godlewski (1977), the Cα/Cc ratioo was

obbtained by calculation the slope off the best fiit line throuugh the origin when plootting

coorresponding
g Cα and Cc values. In this section,, the attainedd ratios werre plotted aggainst

ceement conteent to investtigate any poossible correelations. As indicated by

b Figure 444, the

Cα/Cc ratio was

w decreasedd with increasing cemennt. Generallyy speaking, as
a the Cα/Cc ratio

decreases, thee soil engineeering behavvior shifts from

fr that of peaty soils, to organic clays

annd silts, to inorganic clays

c and sillts, to shalee and mudsttone and finnally to graanular

m
material (Teerzaghi et al,, 1996). Grranular matterials are ideal for most type of

coonstructionss, and if cem

ment stabilizzation inducces this typee of behavioor, then it caan be

cllaimed that cement

c is ann attractive trreatment straategy.

T
Table 41: Cα/Cc values for
fo differentt geotechniccal materialss (Terzaghi et al, 1996))

109 
 Table 42: Cα/Cc ratios with varying cement content for Test Series I

Cement (%)   Cα/Cc  % decreased 

0.00  0.052    
11.29  0.048  8.27 
25.18  0.039  24.23 
37.46  0.045  13.27 
50.27  0.021  59.04 
56.48  ‐  ‐ 

0.060
Peat and muskeg
0.052
0.050 Organic clays and silts
0.048

0.040 Inorganic clays and silts

0.039
Cα/Cc

0.030 Shale and mudstone

0.020 0.021
Granular
0.010
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Cement percent by dry weight (%)

Figure 44: Variation of Cα/Cc with cement content for Test Series I

6.2.5 Dial reading versus time plots for Test Series I

In this section, dial reading data was collected during a period of 14 days and plotted

against time in a semi-log scale. Because some of the dial gauges used rotated clockwise

and some counterclockwise, the curves plotted in different directions (concave up or

110 
concave down). This is neither crucial for the data analysis nor representative of the soil

behavior; what is really important here is the profile of the curve itself, not the actual

direction the data portrayed.

The dial readings were monitored for the last load applied from the loading scheme,

which was kept constant for the entire 14 day period. For this Test Series, the last load

was 2 tsf and a corresponding stress level of 3.333. All the data for the different cement

contents was consolidated into one plot for comparison purposes. To make the

comparison process simpler, the dial reading values were adjusted so that all the curves

had a commons start point (dial reading), but the relative changes were not modified.

Figure 45 shows deformation data with varying cement dosages. One of the most

important remarks was how the slope of the curve at lower cement percentages was much

steeper when compared to that of higher cement contents. The most severe change in

slope was experienced at the borderline of about 25% cement, where the curves flattened

out above this threshold. Another noticeable behavior change was that the shape of the

curves shifted from a variable to a linear one. At lower percentages the sloped increased

with time, but at higher contents it was kept more or less constant. This tendency was

greatly observed at dosages above 30% where the profile of the data followed an almost

straight line from the first to the 14 day of testing.

111 
Moreover, it was noted that for a drastic change in overall slope to take place, the cement

content had to differ by more than around 15%. From Figure 45, this can be appreciated

as consecutive cement contents lay almost on top of each other resembling minor

material alteration by the cement addition. Only when the dosages jumped from 11.29 to

25.18 and from 37.46 to 50.27, substantial slope adjustments were noted.

13

12 0.00%

11
11.29%
10
Dial readings (mm)

25.18%
9

8
37.46%
7

50.27%
6

5
56.48%
4
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
time in log scale (min)

Figure 45: Deformation data with varying cement dosages for Test Series I

112 
Cement % 0.00 Cement % 37.46

12 12

10
Dial readings (mm) 10

Dial readings (mm)
8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00
time in log scale (min) time in log scale (min)

Cement % 11.29 Cement % 50.27

0 0

2 2

Dial readings (mm)
Dial readings (mm)

4 4

6 6

8 8

10 10

12 12
0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00
time in log scale (min) time in log scale (min)

Cement % 25.18 Cement % 56.48

12 0

10 2
Dial readings (mm)

Dial readings (mm)

8 4

6 6

4 8

2 10

0 12
0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00
time in log scale (min) time in log scale (min)

Figure 46: Dial reading vs. time for all cement contents for Test Series I.

113 
6.3 TEST SERIES II

The sample subjected to Test Series II was retrieved from Location 1.3-1 at station

STA 171+66.67. This shelby tube was retrieved on May 19th, 2009 from a depth of teen

feet measured from the roadway surface. The organic content of this sample was 88.9%,

the total unit weight was 90.57 pcf and the water content was 512.3%. The specimen was

the same one used for the primary consolidation testing discussed in chapter 5 under Test

Series II.

6.3.1 Cc values for Test Series II

The data presented in this section was obtained from the typical void ratio versus log of

stress plots in semi-log scale. Even though this data belongs to Chapter 5 (primary

consolidation results), it has been conveniently placed here to be used in the secondary

compression analysis with the Cα/Cc concept. By definition, Cc is the slope of the e versus

log (σ’v) curve [Cc=Δe/Δlog(σ’v)] and is typically computed at the virgin zone of

compression (linear portion of the curve). Because the Cα/Cc concept applies both to the

compression and recompression zones (Mesri et al, 1987), Cc were acquired from the

entire range of the curve, and was subsequently use in the secondary compression

analysis.

The data tabulated in Table 43 depicts the values of Cc obtained from samples with six

different percentages at each stress level. Similarly, the data presented in graphical form,

portrays the values for Cc for each of the cement contents and provides an overall

representation of the behavior changes with cement stabilization. Because the specimen
114 
with 89.68% cement underwent no deformation until an applied load of 1/4 tsf, values for

Cc were not calculated for those stress levels below it. Moreover, an extra load increment

was applied to this specimen with the highest cement content. That is the reason why all

the other specimens do not have any calculated Cc values at that stress level (8.333).

Table 43: Cc with varying cement content for Test Series II

Cement Dosage
stress level 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
0.521 0.3038 0.3392 0.0239 0.0324 0.0355 ‐
1.042 1.2244 1.6572 0.3788 0.1226 0.1054 ‐
Cc

2.083 2.0840 2.3497 1.0469 0.2758 0.2821 0.0201

4.167 5.0139 3.6691 1.7517 0.6501 0.4773 0.1331
8.333 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.6170

115 
 6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0
Cc

2.0

1.0 4.167
7
0.0 2.083
1.042
0.00
90
16.9 0.521
39.05
59.37
77.91
89.68

Figure 47: Variatioon of Cc witth different cement dossages for Teest Series II

From Figure 47, two connsistent trendds were obviious; one waas regarding the change of Cc

w respect to
with t cement doosages and thhe other withh respect to stress level. It was notedd that

thhe variation of the com

mpression index had a consistent
c teendency to decrease forr any

ceement dosag
ge for all thhe stress leevels tested. Similarly, for all the stress levells, Cc

decreased with increasingg cement coontent. This parameter indicates

i how
w much the void

raatio of a soil specimen changes foor a given stress

s level increment,
i a it is dirrectly
and

prroportional to
t settlemennt. The reducction of Cc with
w increasinng cement content
c was proof
p

of the stabilizzation effectts that cemennt exerted onn the subjectt soil. The values
v plumm
meted

w cement contents
with c excceeding the 50%
5 threshoold, where thhe values forr Cc were redduced

drramatically for any of thhe stress levvel. Figure 48 shows thee variation of Cc with ceement

coontent for alll the stress levels

l tested..

116 
stress level 0.521 stress level 4.167

5 5 5.0139

4 4 3.6691
Cc

Cc
3 3

1.7517
2 2

1 1 0.6501 0.4773
0.3038 0.3392
0.0239 0.0324 0.0355 0.1331
0 0
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 1.042 stress level 8.333

5 5

4 4
Cc

Cc

3 3

2 1.6572 2
1.2244
1 1 0.6170
0.3788
0.1226 0.1054
0 0
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 2.083

4
Cc

3 2.3497
2.0840
2
1.0469
1
0.2758 0.2821
0.0201
0
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%)

Figure 48: Cc vs. cement % for all stress levels for Test Series II

117 
6.3.2 Cα values for Test Series II

The data presented in this section was obtained from the typical void ratio versus time in

semi-log plots. Cα is defined as the change of void ratio with respect to the log of time

[Δe/Δlog(t)]. The data tabulated in Table 44depicts the values of Cα obtained for all the

cement percentages at each stress level after end of primary. Correspondingly, the data

presented in graphical form, portrays the values for Cα for each of the cement contents

and provides an overall representation of the behavior changes with cement stabilization.

Because the specimen with 89.68% cement underwent no deformation until an applied

load of 1/4 tsf, values for Cα were not calculated for those stress levels below it.

Moreover, an extra load increment was applied to this specimen with the highest cement

content. That is the reason why all the other specimens do not have any calculated Cα

values at that stress level (8.333).

Table 44: Cα with varying cement content for Test Series II

Cement Dosage
stress level 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
0.521 0.0425 0.0494 0.0070 0.0028 0.0023 ‐
1.042 0.0412 0.0533 0.0098 0.0039 0.0021 ‐
Cα

2.083 0.0877 0.0816 0.0316 0.0083 0.0046 0.0012

4.167 0.2631 0.1512 0.0540 0.0200 0.0149 0.0052
8.333 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0228

118 
 0.300

0.250

0.200

0.150
Cα

0.100

0.050 67
4.16
0.000 2.083
1.042
0.00
16..90 0.521
39.05
59.37
77.91
89.68

Figure 49: Variatioon of Cα witth different cement dossages for Teest Series II

A seen in Fiigure 49, thee same geneeral tendencyy that was observed
As o in the
t Cc data holds
h

trrue for the secondary

s coompression index. It waas evident thhat an inversely proporttional

coorrelation ex
xists betweeen cement coontent and secondary
s coompression index for anny of

thhe stress leveels within thhe loading sccheme. The trend of secondary comppression inddex to

decrease with
h increasing cement dosaage reveals the
t effectiveeness of cem
ment in the effforts

of solidifying
g soft highlyy organic sooils. This is a significannt achievemeent because with

decreasing seecondary coompression index,

i less deformation
d will be exhhibited by a soil

saample when
n subjected to a consstant load over
o time, such as thoose imposed by

innfrastructuree upon the fooundation sooil. Figure 50 shows thee variation off Cα with ceement

coontent for alll the stress levels

l tested..

119 
stress level 0.521 stress level 4.167

0.250 0.2631
0.250

0.200 0.200
Cα

Cα
0.1512
0.150 0.150

0.100 0.100
0.0494 0.0540
0.0425
0.050 0.050 0.0200 0.0149
0.0070 0.0028 0.0023 0.0052
0.000 0.000
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 1.042 stress level 8.333

0.250 0.250

0.200 0.200
Cα

Cα
0.150 0.150

0.100 0.100
0.0533
0.0412
0.050 0.050 0.0228
0.0098 0.0039 0.0021
0.000 0.000
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68 0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%) Cement percent (%)

stress level 2.083

0.250

0.200
Cα

0.150
0.0877 0.0816
0.100

0.050 0.0316
0.0083 0.0046 0.0012
0.000
0.00 16.90 39.05 59.37 77.91 89.68
Cement percent (%)

Figure 50: Cα vs. cement % for all stress levels for Test Series II

120 
6.3.3 Cα versus Cc plots for Test Series II

Following the procedure outlined by Mesri and Castro (1987), plots of Cα versus Cc were

developed. These are necessary in order to obtain the Cα/Cc ratios for the subject soil.

Figure 51 shows the Cα versus Cc plots for all the cement contents used.

Cement % 0.00 Cement % 59.37

Cement % 16.90 Cement % 77.91

Cement % 39.05 Cement % 89.68

Figure 51: Cα vs. Cc for all cement contents for Test Series II
121 
6.3.4 Cα/Cc versus cement dosage for Test Series II

The Cα/Cc data was computed from the Cα versus Cc plots presented in the previous

section. In essence, as outlined by Mesri and Godlewski (1977), the Cα/Cc ratio was

obtained by calculation the slope of the best fit line when plotting corresponding Cα and

Cc values. In this section, the attained ratios were plotted against cement content to

investigate any possible correlations. As indicated by Figure 52, the Cα/Cc ratio was

reduced with increasing cement. Generally speaking, as the Cα/Cc ratio decreases, the soil

engineering behavior shifts from that of peaty soils, to organic clays and silts, to

inorganic clays and silts, to shale and mudstone and finally to granular material

(Terzaghi et al, 1996). The lower the Cα/Cc is, the less prone the soil is to undergo

extended creeping stages, and if cement stabilization drives this ratio down, then it can be

claimed that cement is an attractive treatment strategy.

Table 45: Cα/Cc ratios with varying cement content for Test Series II

Cement (%)   Cα/Cc  % decreased 

0.00  0.0589  ‐ 
16.90  0.0492  16.47 
39.05  0.0322  45.33 
59.37  0.0289  50.93 
77.91  0.0284  51.78 
89.68  0.0362  38.54 

122 
The Cα/Cc seemed to have normalized at a cement content of about 60%. With cement

aditions in excess of this value, no change was observed in the engineering behavior of

this soil. Unlike the soil tested in Test Series I, this soil did not enter the granular range as

can be seen in the graph below. This specimen stayed within the shale and mudstone

range.

0.060
0.0589 Peat and muskeg

0.050 0.0492
Organic clays and silts

0.040 Inorganic clays and silts

Cα/Cc

0.0322
0.030 Shale and mudstone
0.0289 0.0284

0.020
Granular
0.010
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Cement percent by dry weight (%)

Figure 52: Variation of Cα/Cc with cement content for Test Series II

Figure 53 shows the variation of Cα/Cc with cement content for 3 different

specimens. For comparison purposes, the plot includes data from Test Series I and

II along with that acquired in the study conducted as Purdue University that was

discussed in the literature research (Santaga, et al., 2005). The soil use at Purdue

University had an Organic content varying between 48 and 50% and a Water

123 
 Content of 240-289 %. The main observation discern from this figure is the fact that

the effectiveness of cement in reducing the Cα/Cc ratio is reduced with increasing

Organic Content. For comparison, the sample from Test Series I has an OC of

67.0%, the sample from Test Series II has an OC of 88.9% and the third one has an

OC between 48 and 50%.

Test Series 1
0.100
Santaga, et al., 2005
0.090
Test Series 2
0.080
Peat and muskeg
0.070

0.060
Cα/Cc

0.050 Organic clays and silts

0.040 Inorganic clays and silts
0.030 Shale and mudstone
0.020
Granular
0.010
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cement percent by dry weight (%)

Figure 53: Comparison of the variation of Cα/Cc with cement content

6.3.5 Dial reading versus time plots for Test Series II

In this section, dial reading data was collected during a period of 14 days and plotted

against time in a semi-log scale. Because some of the dial gauges used rotated clockwise

and some counterclockwise, the curves plotted in different directions (concave up or

concave down). This is neither crucial for the data analysis nor representative of the soil

124 
behavior; what is really important here is the profile of the curve itself, not the actual

direction the data portrayed.

The dial readings were monitored for the last load applied from the loading scheme,

which was kept constant for the entire 14 day period. For this Test Series, the last load

was 1/4 tsf and a corresponding stress level of 2.083. All the data for the different cement

contents was consolidated into one plot for comparison purposes. To make the

comparison process simpler, the dial reading values were adjusted so that all the curves

had a commons start point (dial reading), but the relative changes were not modified.

One of the most important remarks was how the slope of the curve at lower cement

percentages was much steeper when compared to that of higher contents. The most

drastic change in slope was experienced at the borderline of about 50% cement, where

the curves flattened out above this threshold. Another noticeable behavior change was

that the shape of the curves shifted from a variable to a linear one. At lower percentages

the sloped varied with time, but at higher contents it was kept more or less constant. This

tendency was clearly observed at dosages above 60% where the profile of the data

followed an almost straight line from the first to the 14 day of testing.

Moreover, it was noted that for a drastic change in overall slope to take place, the cement

content had to differ by more than around 20%. From Figure 54, this can be appreciated

as consecutive cement contents lay almost on top of each other resembling minor

125 
material alteration by the cement addition. Only when the dosages jumped from 16.90 to

39.05 and from 59.37 to 77.91, substantial slope adjustments were noted.

15.5

15.0 0.00%

14.5
16.90%
14.0
Dial readings (mm)

39.05%
13.5

13.0
59.37%

12.5
77.91%
12.0

11.5
89.68%

11.0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
time in log scale (min)

Figure 54: Deformation data with varying cement dosages for Test Series II

126 
Cement % 0.00 Cement % 59.37

14 14
12
Dial readings (mm) 12

Dial readings (mm)
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00
time in log scale (min) time in log scale (min)

Cement % 16.90 Cement % 77.91

0 0
2 2

Dial readings (mm)
4 4
Dial readings (mm)

6 6
8 8
10 10
12 12
14 14

0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00
time in log scale (min) time in log scale (min)

Cement % 39.05 Cement % 89.68

0
14
2
12
Dial readings (mm)

Dial readings (mm)

4
10
6
8
8
6
10
4
12
2
14
0
0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1,000.00 100,000.00
time in log scale (min) time in log scale (min)

Figure 55: Dial reading vs. time for all cement contents for Test Series II.

127 
 CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

For both, the muck soil (Test Series I) and the peat (Test Series II), the specimens

exhibited substantially different compressibility characteristics at varying cement

contents even when all were subjected to the same loading scheme. The samples with

lower cement contents plotted along a wide range of void ratios as they consolidated. On

the contrary, the ones with higher cement dosages stayed within a very narrow range

depicting a more ‘flat’ appearance. This ‘flatness’ of the curve profiles demonstrated an

enhanced stiffness of the material as it offered greater resistance to void ratio alterations

upon application of the loads.

For the specimen studied in Test Series I, the overall slope drawn by the Cv values with

respect to cement content was seen to shift from negative at stress levels below the

preconsolidation pressure to positive for those stress levels above σ’p. Cv primarily

measures the rate of consolidation a specimen exhibits under a given load. What’s more,

Cv is directly proportional to the average degree of consolidation and inversely

proportional to the time required for settlement to take place. The results demonstrated

how the cement helped speed up the process of consolidation at stress levels beyond σ’p,

which is at the stress levels where this outcome can be most beneficial. Soils loaded

beyond its preconsolidation pressure are common in construction sites, where the soil is
128 
exposed to loads it never experienced before such as those from structural loads.

Accelerated consolidation is always a desired behavior and especially for this type of soil

which frequently exhibits extended secondary compression stages.

A few significant observations were made from the 14 day secondary consolidation

testing (via dial reading versus time plots) for both Test Series. One was how the slope of

the curves at lower cement percentages was much steeper when compared to that of

higher contents. The most drastic change in slope (from steeper to a more horizontal one)

was manifested at cement percentage above 25% and 50% for Test Series I and II

respectively, where the curves flattened out noticeably above this threshold. Another

perceptible performance characteristic was that the slope of the curves shifted from a

variable to a linear one with increasing cement dosage. Furthermore, as demonstrated by

these plots, for a substantial behavioral change to take effect, a cement increase of about

15% for the muck soil (Test Series I) and 20% for the peat (Test Series II) was necessary.

This was demonstrated with the nearly identical profile of the curves that differed in

cement content by less than the stated limits. When the cement dosages exceeded these

critical values, the overall change in the curve profiles were more pronounced.

The calculated Cc values depicted a consistent trend for both Test Series. At plain sight,

the variation of the compression index was observed to decrease with increasing cement

content for all the stress level combinations. This parameter indicates how much the void

ratio of a soil specimen is changed for a given load increment, and thus, it is directly
129 
proportional to settlement. The reduction of Cc with increasing cement content was proof

of the stabilization effects that cement exerted on the subject soil. The values for Cc

plummeted with cement contents exceeding the 35% threshold for the muck soil and 50%

for the peat.

The same general tendency that was observed in the Cc data holds true for the secondary

compression index where the inversely proportional correlation between cement content

and Cα was evident. Just as manifested by the Cc data, the values for Cα plunged with

cement dosages in excess of 30% for the muck and 50% for the soil.

By evaluation the Cα/Cc ratio versus cement content graphs, a strong correlation was

noted between the decreasing Cα/Cc with increasing cement for both Test Series. As the

Cα/Cc ratio decreases, the soil engineering behavior shifts from that of peaty soils, to

organic clays and silts, to inorganic clays and silts, to shale and mudstone and finally to

granular material (Terzaghi et al, 1996). For the muck, the soil entered the granular

behavior range (as described by the Cα/Cc concept) at 35% cement content. On the other

hand, for the peat, the plot entered the Shale and mudstone zone at 35% cement content,

but then it was normalized within this zone and never reached the granular range, even

with cement contents above 85%.

130 
For the muck from the subject site with: OC = 67.0%, w = 408.25% and gT = 101.16 pcf,

the optimum cement dosage was investigated by looking into the primary and secondary

consolidation properties. Most of the properties manifested the most pronounced

behavioral change at cement contents in excess of 35% by dry weight. Above this

treatment level, most of the analyzed properties indicated that the soil was effectively

stabilized, and was able to reach a performance level consistent with granular materials.

Above this optimum dosage, only minor changes in the properties were detected.

For the peat from the subject site with: OC = 88.9%, w = 512.34% and gT = 90.56 pcf,

the optimum cement dosage was investigated by looking into the primary and secondary

consolidation properties. Most of the properties were enhanced to a desirable level at

cement dosages in excess of 55% by dry weight. Above this dosage level, the peat was

effectively stabilized, and was able to reach performance levels commonly exhibited by

shale and mudstone materials. Beyond this optimum dosage, only insignificant changes

were observed.

The most important conclusions are as follows:

• An inversely proportional correlation between cement dosages with Cc and Cα was

evident for any cement addition.

131 
 • For the muck from the subject site with: OC = 67.0%, w = 408.25% and

gT = 101.16 pcf, the optimum cement dosage was around 35% by dry weight

• For the peat from the subject site with: OC = 88.9%, w = 512.34% and gT = 90.56

pcf, the optimum cement dosage was around 55% by dry weight.

132 
 APPENDIX 1: e VS. TIME FOR TEST SERIES I

stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833

9 9
1400 1400

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
8 8
1200 1200
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)
7 1000 7 1000

6 800 6 800

5 600 5 600

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

9 9
1400 1400
Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

8 8
1200 1200
Void ration (e)

7 1000 7 1000

6 800 6 800

5 600 5 600

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

9 9
1400 1400
Void ration (e)

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)

8 8
Void ration (e)

1200 1200

7 1000 7 1000

6 800 6 800

5 600 5 600

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.001000.00
1000.00
10000.00
time (min) time (min)

Figure 56: e vs. time at 0.00% cement for Test Series I

133 
stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833
3.0 60 3.0 60

3.5
Void ration (e) 260 3.5 260

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)
4.0 4.0
460 460
4.5 4.5
660 660
5.0 5.0
860 860
5.5 5.5
1060 1060
6.0 6.0

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

3.0 60 3.0 60

3.5 260 3.5 260

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)
Void ration (e)

4.0 4.0
460 460
4.5 4.5
660 660
5.0 5.0
860 860
5.5 5.5
1060 1060
6.0 6.0

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

3.0 60 3.0 60

3.5 260 3.5 260

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)

4.0 4.0
460 460
4.5 4.5
660 660
5.0 5.0
860 860
5.5 5.5
1060 1060
6.0 6.0

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

Figure 57: e vs. time at 11.29% cement for Test Series I

134 
stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833
5.5 600 5.5 600

5.0 550 5.0 550

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

500 500

Void ration (e)
4.5 4.5
450 450
4.0 4.0
400 400
3.5 350 3.5 350

3.0 300 3.0 300

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

5.5 600 5.5 600

550 550
5.0 Dial Readings (mm) 5.0

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)
500 500
4.5 4.5
450 450
4.0 4.0
400 400
3.5 350 3.5 350

3.0 300 3.0 300

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

5.5 600 5.5 600

5.0 550 5.0 550

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)

500 500
4.5 4.5
450 450
4.0 4.0
400 400
3.5 350 3.5 350

3.0 300 3.0 300

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

Figure 58: e vs. time at 25.18% cement for Test Series I

135 
stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833

4.5 4.5
840 840
4.3 4.3

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
820 820
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)
4.1 4.1
800 800
3.9 3.9
780 780

3.7 760 3.7 760

3.5 740 3.5 740

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

4.5 4.5
840 840
4.3 4.3
Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
820 820
Void ration (e)

4.1 Void ration (e) 4.1

800 800
3.9 3.9
780 780

3.7 760 3.7 760

3.5 740 3.5 740

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

4.5 4.5
840 840
4.3 4.3
Dial Readings (mm)

820 820 Dial Readings (mm)

Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)

4.1 4.1
800 800

3.9 3.9
780 780

3.7 760 3.7 760

3.5 740 3.5 740

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

Figure 59: e vs. time at 37.46% cement for Test Series I

136 
stress level 0.104 stress level 0.833

3.5 900 3.5 900

3.7 3.7

Dial Readings (mm)
950 950

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)
3.9 3.9
1000 1000
4.1 4.1
1050 1050
4.3 4.3

1100 1100
4.5 4.5

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 0.208 stress level 1.667

3.5 900 3.5 900

3.7 3.7
950 950
Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)

3.9 3.9
1000 1000
4.1 4.1
1050 1050
4.3 4.3

1100 1100
4.5 4.5

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 0.417 stress level 3.333

3.5 900 3.5 900

3.7 3.7
950 950
Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)
Void ration (e)

3.9 3.9
1000 1000
4.1 4.1
1050 1050
4.3 4.3

1100 1100
4.5 4.5

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

Figure 60: e vs. time at 50.27% cement for Test Series I

137 
 stress level 1.667
2.90 30
80
2.95
130

Dial Readings (mm)
3.00

Void ration (e)
180
3.05 230
280
3.10
330
3.15 380
430
3.20
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
time (min)

stress level 3.333

2.90 30
80
2.95
130

Dial Readings (mm)
3.00 180
Void ration (e)

3.05 230
280
3.10
330
3.15 380
430
3.20
0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
time (min)

Figure 61: e vs. time at 56.48% cement for Test Series I

138 
 APPENDIX 2: e VS. TIME FOR TEST SERIES II

stress level 0.521 stress level 2.083

9
1400
475 475
12 12

Void ration (e)
Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
8
1200
375 375
Void ration (e)

10
7 10
1000
275 275

8
6 800 8
175 175

5
6 600
75 6 75

0.00 0.10
0.10 10.00
10.00 1000.00
1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00
time (min) time (min)

stress level 1.042 stress level 4.167

9
1400
475 475
12 12
Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

8
1200
375 375
Void ration (e)

10
7 10
1000
275 275

8
6 800 8
175 175

5
6 600
75 6 75

0.00 0.10
0.10 10.00
10.00 1000.00
1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00
time (min) time (min)

Figure 62: e vs. time at 0.00% cement for Test Series II

139 
stress level 0.521 stress level 2.083

5.0 780 5.0 780

Void ration (e) 6.0 6.0

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)
980 980
7.0 7.0

8.0 8.0
1180 1180

9.0 9.0

10.0 1380 10.0 1380

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 1.042 stress level 4.167

5.0 780 5.0 780

6.0 6.0
Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)
980 980
7.0 7.0

8.0 8.0
1180 1180

9.0 9.0

10.0 1380 10.0 1380

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

Figure 63: e vs. time at 16.90% cement for Test Series II

140 
stress level 0.521 stress level 2.083

9.0 9.0
510 510
8.8 8.8

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)
490 490
8.6 8.6

470 470
8.4 8.4

8.2 450 8.2 450

8.0 430 8.0 430

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 1.042 stress level 4.167

9.0 9.0
510 510
Dial Readings (mm)

8.8 8.8

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

490 490
Void ration (e)

8.6 8.6

470 470
8.4 8.4

8.2 450 8.2 450

8.0 430 8.0 430

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

Figure 64: e vs. time at 39.05% cement for Test Series II

141 
stress level 0.521 stress level 2.083

7.0 980 7.0 980

6.9 6.9

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
970 970
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)
6.8 6.8
960 960
6.7 6.7

950 950
6.6 6.6

6.5 940 6.5 940

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 1.042 stress level 4.167

7.0 980 7.0 980

6.9 6.9
Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
970 970
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)

6.8 6.8
960 960
6.7 6.7

950 950
6.6 6.6

6.5 940 6.5 940

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

Figure 65: e vs. time at 59.37% cement for Test Series II

142 
stress level 0.521 stress level 2.083

6.0 675 6.0 675

6.1 695 6.1 695

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)
Void ration (e)

6.2 715 6.2 715

6.3 735 6.3 735

6.4 755 6.4 755

6.5 775 6.5 775

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 1.042 stress level 4.167

6.0 675 6.0 675

6.1 695 6.1 695

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
Void ration (e)

Void ration (e)

6.2 715 6.2 715

6.3 735 6.3 735

6.4 755 6.4 755

6.5 775 6.5 775

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

Figure 66: e vs. time at 77.91% cement for Test Series II

143 
stress level 2.083 stress level 8.333

4.9 950 4.9 950

1000 1000

Dial Readings (mm)

Dial Readings (mm)
5.0 5.0
Void ration (e)
1050 1050

Void ration (e)
5.1 1100 5.1 1100

1150 1150
5.2 5.2
1200 1200

5.3 1250 5.3 1250

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min) time (min)

stress level 4.167

4.9 950

1000
Dial Readings (mm)

5.0
1050
Void ration (e)

5.1 1100

1150
5.2
1200

5.3 1250

0.00 0.10 10.00 1000.00

time (min)

Figure 67: e vs. time at 89.68% cement for Test Series II

144 
 REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute, (2006), “ACI Certification – Concrete Field Testing

Technician Grade I,” American Concrete Institute, Publication CP-1(06), pp 69-

74.

ASTM D2435-04., (2004), “Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Consolidation

Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading.” Annual book of ASTM standards,

American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM D2974-07., (2007), “Standard Test Methods for Moisture, ash, and Organic

Matter of Peat and other Organic Soils” Annual book of ASTM standards,

American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

Cortellazzo, G. and Cola, S., (1999), “Geotechnical Characterization of two Italian Peats

Stabilized with Binders,” Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization,

Proceedings of the International Conference on Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil

Stabilization, Stockholm, Sweden, 13-15 Oct. 1999, pp 93-100.

Das, B. M., (2007), “Principles of Geotechnical Engineering.” 6th edition, PWS

Publishing Company.

GEOSOL, INC., (2004), “SR-15/US-98 Roadway Improvements from North of the Palm

Beach Canal Bridge (MM 19.674 to the Palm Beach/Martin County Line (MP
145 
 25.519) Palm Beach County, Florida.” Preliminary report of roadway soils survey,

FPID No. 413804-1-52-01, Florida Department of Transportation.

Hayward Baker, A Keller Company, (2003), Dry Soil Mixing Brochure: Construction,

Procedure, Performance and Testing Benefits. Available at:

http://www.haywardbaker.com/services/dry_method.htm (Accessed: 20 May,

2009).

Hebib, S. and Farrel, E. R., (1999), “Some Experiences on the Stabilization of Irish

Peats,” Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization, Proceedings of the

International Conference on Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization,

Stockholm, Sweden, 13-15 Oct. 1999, pp 81-84.

Hieu H. H., (2006), "Use of Piezocone Penetration Test for Rapid In-Situ

Characterization of Organic Soils," Master thesis, Florida Atlantic University,

Florida.

Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D., (1981), “An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering.”

Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

Hwang, J., Humphrey, A., Bobet, A. and Santagata, A., (2005), "Stabilization and

Improvement of Organic Soils." Final report, FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004/38, Purdue

University.

J. Russell Boulding, (1996), “EPA Environmental Engineering Sourcebook,” CRC Press,

pp 301-316.

146 
McVay, M. C. and Nugyen, D., (2004), "Evaluation of Embankment Distresses at

Sander’s Creek – SR-20," Final report, BC-354, RPWO # 17, Florida Department

of Transportation.

Mesri, G., and Godlewski, P. M., (1977), “Time-Stress-Compressibility

Interrelationship,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.

103, No. GT5, pp 417-430.

Mesri, G., Castro, A., and Godlewski, P. M., (1987), “Cα/Cc Concept and Ko During

Secondary Compression,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,

ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 3, pp 230-247.

Pousette, K., Macssik, J., Jacobsson, A., Anderson, R. and Lahtinen, P., (1999), “Peat

Soil Samples Stabilized in Laboratory - Experiences from Manufacturing and

Testing,” Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization, Proceedings of the

International Conference on Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization,

Stockholm, Sweden, 13-15 Oct. 1999, pp 85-92.

Riedy, K. W., (2006), "Primary and Secondary Compression Behavior of Florida Organic

Soil," Master thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Florida.

Sobhan, K., (2007), "Surface Pavement Solutions for Poor Subgrade Conditions." Final

Report, BD-546, RPWO # 4, Florida Atlantic University.

Sobhan, K., George, K. P., Pohly, D. and Ali, H., (2010), “Stiffness Characterization of

Reinforced Asphalt Pavement Structures Built Over Soft Organic Soils,”

Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting, 2009.

147 
Somayaji, S., (2001), “Civil Engineering Materials.” 2nd edition, Princeton-Hall, Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey, pp 87-92.

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. and Mesri, G. (1996). “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”,

3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, (1993), “Soil and

Base Stabilization and Associated Drainage Considerations.” Vol. 2, Publication

No. FHWA-SA-93-005, NTIS No. PB94-193315, FHWA.

W. F. Van Impe and R. D. Verástegui Flores, (2007), “Underwater Embankments on Soft

Soil A Case History A Case History,” Taylor & Francis, pp 91-119.

148