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

net/publication/242400499

IMPROVEMENT FOR SUBSOIL BY CEMENT COLUMN - A CASE STUDY IN

THAILAND

Article

CITATIONS READS

0 430

4 authors, including:

Saravut Jaritngam Sommart Swasdi

Prince of Songkla University Prince of Songkla University
13 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Danupon Tonnayopas
Prince of Songkla University
116 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

cyclic loading View project

foam concrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Danupon Tonnayopas on 24 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IMPROVEMENT FOR SUBSOIL BY CEMENT COLUMN – A CASE STUDY IN THAILAND

Saravut Jaritngam Sommart Swasdi

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering Master’s Degree Student
Prince of Songkla University Prince of Songkla University
Thailand Thailand
Saravut.j@psu.ac.th Sommart.s@psu.ac.th

Danupon Tonnayopas Pipat Thongchim

Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering
Prince of Songkla University Prince of Songkla University
Thailand Thailand
Danupon.t@psu.ac.th Pipat.t@psu.ac.th

ABSTRACT

For road construction on soft clay, controlling of the settlement is important. In Thailand, the
allowable post-construction settlements are 0.25 m for normal section. There are several methods to
reduce the construction settlement. Improving soft soil by cement column is one of the methods
whereby the soil is mechanically blended with cement to form soil-cement column. This method is
widely employed for highway project because it can rapidly improve of soil strength and also
relatively safe to the environment. The cement column is adopted to serves as an excellent
foundations, and resist stability during construction process. It has recently been used to improve the
strength and deformation characteristics of these soft clays. For the abovementioned reasons, a
comprehensive laboratory testing programme was carried out in order to study the effect of inclusion
of cement on physical and engineering behaviour of a soft clay. A series of tests was carried out by
varying proportion of Portland cement and soft clay. In this paper, the physical characteristics, index
properties, unconfined compressive strength, CBR of soil-cement treated soft clay, the field
conditions, the laboratory testing results in Thailand are given and discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Since the aggregate being used in producing the engineered "low strength" concrete insitu is the
native soils, pre-construction soil borings, testing of the mix design with the in-situ soils is a must.
One to two cubic feet of the soils is sufficient to run the required laboratory, pre-production tests on
the soil cement mix. Various water cement ratios are considered, usually between 1:1 and 1.5:1 (by
weight). The amount of cement, again by weight, is typically 5-15% of the weight of the soil to be
treated.

Various methods of soil mixing, mechanical, hydraulic, with and without air, and combinations
of both types have been used widely in Japan for about 20 years and more recently have gained wide
acceptance in the United States. The soil mixing, ground modification technique, has been used for
many diverse applications including building and bridge foundations, retaining structures, liquefaction
mitigation, temporary support of excavation and water control. Names such as Jet Grouting, Soil
Mixing, Cement Deep Mixing (CDM), Soil Mixed Wall (SMW), Deep Soil Mixing, (DSM), Dry Jet
Mixing (DJM), and Lime Columns are known to many. Each of these methods has the same basic
root, finding the most efficient and economical method to mix cement (or in some cases fly ash or
lime) with soil [1, 2, 3, 4].

The cement column is not a new technology for Thailand; it was introduced since 1990s by both
government and private sectors. Nevertheless, there is still no engineering practice for construction of
cement column considering quality control. Construction of cement column consists of two processes.
Wet process (both high and low pressure) is rather slow in production and relatively needs more
cement content but many people believe that the final product of cement column has higher quality.
Dry process is relatively faster to produce (up to 2 times quicker than wet process) also the product
needs less cement content.

There are important considerations related to the sampling and testing of treated soil. Terashi
(1997) summarized the factors influencing the strength of treated soil (Table 1). With respect to
temperature, this is related to the size of the treated soil mass, as well as the quantity of binder
introduced. In laboratory testing, there is no way to vary and simulate factors III and IV from Table 1,
except for the amount of binder and the curing time. Laboratory testing therefore standardizes these
factors, with the result that the strength data obtained during testing are “not a precise prediction,” but
only an “index” of the actual strength. Likely field strengths can then be estimated using empirical
relationships established from previous projects.

Treated soil properties (recalling that cohesive soils require more cement to give equivalent
strengths than cohesionless soils) are usually in the ranges shown in Table 2. It must be remembered
that techniques can be developed to specifically provide higher (or lower) strengths or lower
permeabilities, and thus the figures cited in Table 2 are gross ranges only.

Table 1. Factors affecting the strength increase of treated soil.

I Characteristics of hardening 1. Type of hardening agent

agent 2. Quality
3. Mixing water and additives
II Characteristics and 1. Physical chemical and mineralogical properties of soil
conditions of soil 2. Organic content
(especially important for 3. pH of pore water
clays) 4. Water content
III Mixing conditions 1. Degree of mixing
2. Timing of mixing/re-mixing
3. Quality of hardening agent
IV Curing conditions 1. Temperature
2. Curing time
3. Humidity
4. Wetting and drying/freezing and thawing, etc.

Table 2. Typical data on soil treated by cement column

PROPERTY WET MIX DRY MIX

UCS (MPa) 0.5 – 10 0.3 – 10 (DJM)
k (m/s) 10-7– 10-10 Depends on cement content
Tensile strength 8-20% UCS 10-20% UCS
Undrained shear strength 20-50% UCS 33-50% UCS
Elastic modulus, E50 100-1000 UCS 100-600 UCS
Poisson’s ratio 0.19-0.45 -

It was reported that nearly 60% of on-land applications in Japan and 85% of Nordic applications
are to reduce settlement and improve stability of embankment [6]. At the present time, the total
volume of soil mixing work performed in the south of Thailand is about 144,600 cubic meters. Much
of their soil mixing has been to treat soft clays in Thailand, developing strengths of 5-20 kg/cm2 (75-
300 psi).
SOIL INVESTIGATION

The site is located in the south of Thailand. Soft soil sample was collected from excavations at a
depth of 1 to 3 m (Figure 1). Table 3 shows the approximate soil properties based on borelogs. The
site is mantled by a layer of 18 m of very soft clay. The underlying material is a soft clay. The total
unit weight and the standard penetration test (SPT) N-value of the soft clay are 1.679 t/m3 and 0
blows/30 cm respectively. The total unit weight and N-value of the stiff clay are 1.8-2.0 t/m3 and
exceed 20 respectively.

Figure 1. Soil Sampling for the soil mixing.

Table 3. Soil Properties before mixed at Songkla, Thailand.

Soil Properties Unit Values

Specific Gravity, Gs 2.648
Liquid Limit, LL (%) 93.00
Plastic Index, PI 46.67
Soil Classification, USCS CH
Soil Classification, AASHTO A-7-5(20)
3
Unit Weight, ton/m 1.679

SAMPLE PREPARATION

A required amount of water was added to the soil sample and mixed thoroughly by a high
speed-rotating stirrer to obtain saturated conditions. Afterwards a quantity of cement in powder form
was added to the saturated soil and the whole mixture was stirred in short time (5 min) to avoid
hardening of the soil-cement mixture. Quantities of the added cement to the soil slurry were 0, 5 and
10% w/s.w. (weight by soil weight). The samples for unconfined compression (Figure 2) and
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests (Figure 3) were kept in plastic bags to prevent moisture loss
until the 1, 7 and 28 days of curing.
 Figure 2. The sample for unconfined compression test.

Figure 3. The sample for unconfined compression test.

Treated Soil Characteristics

The soil mixing, a ground modification technique, has been used for many diverse applications
including building and bridge foundations, retaining structures, liquefaction mitigation, temporary
support of excavations, water control and structures that protect the natural environment. This method
has a basic target, to find the most efficient and economical method of mixing cement with soil, so
that, the soft soil obtains properties more like to those of a soft rock, such as a clayey shale or lightly
cemented sandstone.

The modulus of elasticity and unconfined compressive strengths are typically 1/5 to 1/10 that of
normal concrete. Almost all soil types are amenable to treatment; however, soils containing more than
10% peat must be tested thoroughly prior to treatment. Mixing of soft, clay soils must be carefully
controlled to avoid significant pockets of untreated soils. However, there are methods readily
available to insure competent mixing and methods of testing to insure that adequate mixing and
treatment has been achieved.

Quality Control and Testing

Several minimum requirements must be satisfied in order to improve adequately the physical
and engineering properties of soft soils. If a soft soil is stabilized by cement, factors as compressive
strength (bearing capacity), durability under environmental conditions of wetting-drying (strength of
cement-soil bonds), porosity (water or waste leakage through the pore grains), permeability
(containment walls can be constructed with permeability of approximately 5x10-7 cm/sec),
compression index (consolidation-settlement of foundations) should be taken into consideration.
 Because of the extensive use of cement stabilization in pavements, CBR determinations have
been made. The relationship between CBR and cement content for soft clay at Songkla, Thailand
treated with different amounts of cement.

For these reasons, tests of unconfined compressive strength (Figure 4) and CBR (Figure 5) were
carried out for soft clay stabilized with 0, 5 and 10% cement w/s.w., cured for 1, 7 and 28 days. The
main concept in this research work is the study of the influence of cementing agent on the
stabilization-engineering parameters.

Figure 4. Unconfined compression test of soil cement sample.

Figure 5. California Bearing Ratio test of soil cement sample.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results for soil-cement mixing for soft clay at Songkla, Thailand are presented in Figure 6 to 11
and summarised in table 4.
 11
10
1 Day
9
8
7 Days

UCS, (ksc)
7
6 28 Days
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Percent of Cement, (%)

Figure 6. Unconfined compressive strength vs. cement percentage for treated soil.

12
0% Cement 5% Cement 10% Cement
10

8
UCS, (ksc)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time, (days)

Figure 7. Unconfined compressive strength vs. curing time for treated soil.

Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the stress-strain behaviour of treated soil for different cement content
after 1, 7 and 28 days curing period, respectively. It was found that all soil-cement stabilized samples
cured for 28 days revealed higher unconfined compressive strength compared with soil-cement
stabilized samples cured for 0 day. The difference in strength was 799% and 1196% for 5 and 10%
w/s.w. cement respectively. The strength increases proportionally with increasing cement content. For
this study, the strength increases about 4.5 ksc for every 5% increase in cement content.

The relationship exists between unconfined compressive strength and cement content, for
cement content up to 10 percent and the curing period of 28 days. For the data in Figure 2 the
relationship between unconfined compressive strength and cement content may be expressed, for the
most of the data by

(UCS)c = nc + 0.4493

Where (UCS)c = UCS for soil-cement mixed at cement content, c (ksc), c = cement content
(percent weight by soil weight), n = 0.909 for 28 days of curing.
 70
65

Water Content, (%)

60 0% Cement 5% Cement 10% Cement
55
50
45
40
35
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time, (days)

Figure 8. Water content vs. curing time for treated soil cured for 1, 7 and 28 days

The water content in relation to cement content of treated soil aged for 1, 7 and 28 days (Figure
8). The addition of 5%, 10% cement w/s.w., decreased the water content to about 38.2% and 34.21%
correspondingly, in 28 days from 66.87% of the untreated soil.

15
14 0% Cement 5% Cement 10% Cement
13
12
Failure Strain, (%)

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time, (days)

Figure 9. Failure strain vs. curing time for treated soil cured for 1, 7 and 28 days.

Figures 9 and Table 4 also reveal that higher cement content treated soil exhibits more ductile
behaviour. More brittle type of failure with low values of failure strain was observed for lower cement
content treated soil in both curing periods. In general, the failure strains are less than 1.0%, which
indicates that, as compared with soils, the soil-cement mixing is a relatively brittle material.

40
35 1 Day
7 Days
30
28 Days
CBR, (%)

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Percent of Cement,(%)

Figure 10. CBR vs. cement percentage for treated soil cured for 1, 7 and 28 days.
 40
35
30 0% Cement
25 5% Cement

CBR, (%)
20 10% Cement
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time, (days)

Figure 11. CBR vs. curing time for treated soil cured for 1, 7 and 28 days.

Table 4. Summary of test result.

UCS
Time, days

0% 5% 10 %
UCS UCS UCS
%* %* %*
(ksc) (ksc) (ksc)
1 0.536 0 2.417 351 6.880 1184
7 - - 3.723 595 8.395 1466
28 - - 4.821 799 9.626 1696
Water Content
Time, days

0% 5% 10 %
w w w
%* %* %*
(%) (%) (%)
1 66.87 0 51.42 -23 40.54 -39
7 - - 40.98 -39 38.24 -43
28 - - 38.21 -43 34.21 -49
Failure Strain
Time, days

0% 5% 10 %
εf εf εf
%* %* %*
(%) (%) (%)
1 11.89 0 10.49 -12 5.59 -53
7 - - 8.39 -29 4.48 -62
28 - - 6.29 -47 3.22 -73
CBR
Time, days

0% 5% 10 %
CBR CBR CBR
%* %* %*
(%) (%) (%)
1 0.73 0 7.47 923 23.16 3073
7 - - 11.64 1495 27.52 3670
28 - - 16.15 2112 36.00 4832

*compare with 0% cement

 Figure 10 and 11 show the effect of cement contents on CBR values at three conditions of
cement content: 0%, 5% and 10%. CBR values increased proportionally with increases in cement
content after initial setting time of cement was completed. The cement content caused a major
increase in CBR values. For the low cement content (low strengths) failure in the CBR test is of the
punching type. At higher cement content (high strengths) a more general shear failure of the soil
develops. Data from Mitchell (1981) for other treated soils are also shown [5].

CONCLUSIONS

There is an overall improvement in the strength characteristics of the soil and this behaviour has
been confirmed from unconfined compression and CBR tests. This can be realized with increase in
the induced UCS and CBR values. Most of the strength behaviour are taking place in a time period of
about 28 days. There is an increase in the strength of the soil by about 18 times for 10% cement
w/s.w. when compared to the untreated soil.

Based on the results of this investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. The higher the percentage of cement added the higher the increment in strength and stiffness
of treated soil.

2. CBR values are improved significantly as the cement content is increased.

3. The increase of cement content reduces the water content of soil-cement mixing samples.
Strength characteristics and CBR values were improved strongly as the cement content was
increased. Curing time had only marginal effect on this improvement. The addition of 5, 10% cement
w/s.w., decreased the water content and failure strain correspondingly.

After this study, soil-cement mixing was used for highway construction on soft subsoil for
construction an embankment over soft clay with low strength and high compressibility, the
engineering task is to prevent the failure of embankment and control the subsoil deformation. Several
methods have been developed for economically and safely constructing embankment on soft subsoil.
Soil-cement mixing method is one of the methods. With soil-cement mixing, the maximum ground
settlement is reduced. It can be used to strengthen the soft clay as a stiff clay layer. It has been
successful used in this project.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors acknowledge the support provided by Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkla
University, Thailand for conducting this research.

REFERENCES

1. Jaritngam, S. [2002]. “The soil improvement for road embankment on soft clay by using jet
grouting method”, International Conference on Road & Airfield Pavement Technology, China,
pp.144-153.
2. Jaritngam, S. [1996]. “Method of reducing soil movements for deep excavations in soft clay”,
M.Eng. Thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
3. Broms, B. [1983]. “Stabilization of soft clay with lime columns”, International Seminar on
Construction Problems in Soft Soils, Singapore, pp.120-133.
4. Miki, H. [1997]. “Design of deep mixing method of stabilization with low improvement”, the first
seminar on ground improvement in highways, 27 August 1997, Department of Highways & Japan
International Cooperation Agency, Bangkok, Thailand.
5. Mitchell, J.K. [1981]. “Soil improvement: state-of-the-art.” Tenth International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, June 15-19.
6. Terashi, M. (2002). “Long-term Strength Gain vs.Deterioration of Soils Treated by Lime and
 Cement.” Proceedings of Deep Mixing Workshop, The International Workshop of Deep Mixing,
Edited by Masaki Kitazume and Masaaki Terashi, Toyko, Japan, October 15-18, pp. 39-57.
7. Terashi, M. (1997). “Deep mixing method – Brief state-of-the-art.” 14th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 4 p.

View publication stats