Deep Soil Stabilization

Design and Construction of Lime and Lime/Cement

Columns

Bengt B. Broms
Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden

0. SUMMARY
0.1. Applications of Lime and Lime/Cement Columns
Soft normally consolidated clays and organic soils with a low shear strength are
usually stabilized in Sweden and Finland by lime or lime/cement columns manufactured
by mixing the soil in-situ with lime, cement, fly ash, gypsum or granulated blast furnace
slag. This soil stabilization method is mainly used to increase the stability and to reduce
the settlements of embankments constructed on soft clay and to stabilize trenches required
for sewer lines, heating ducts or water mains.
The diameter and the length of the columns have increased gradually since 1967
when the method was first introduced and the time required for the manufacture of the
columns has been reduced significantly as well as the costs due to the development of
efficient machines for the installation of the columns. Methods have been developed to
check in-situ the shear strength and the stiffness of the columns.
Lime and lime/cement columns have also been used to reduce traffic vibrations, to
improve the stability of steep slopes and deep excavations. Gypsum, fly ash, granulated
blast furnace slag and other waste products have been added to increase the shear strength
and to reduce the costs. It has been possible to improve organic soils, primarily peat with
cement in combination with granulated blast furnace slag.
0.2. Strength and Deformation Properties.
Soft or very soft inorganic clay or silty clay with a water content less than about
100% to 120% can usually be stabilized with quicklime. An increase of 10 to 20 times the
initial shear strength can normally be expected. The maximum lime content is 10% to
12% with respect to the dry weight of the soil. The shear strength of the stabilized soil is
often reduced if the lime content is increased further. The increase of the shear strength
with quicklime is partly caused by a reduction of the water content due to slaking and
evaporation and partly by an increase of the plastic limit. The long-term increase with
lime and cement is mainly caused by pozzolanic reactions in the soil.
Lime/cement and cement are required to increase the shear strength of organic
soils, peat, gyttja and dy. The shear strength increases in general with increasing cement
1

content and with decreasing water/cement ratio. The shear strength is usually higher with
lime/cement and cement than with lime when the silt and the sand contents are high. Fly
ash and granulated blast furnace slag have been used together with cement to reduce the
costs and to stabilize organic soils, mainly peat.
Lime columns usually function as vertical drains in the soil due to the high
permeability of the columns. The function of lime/cement and cement columns as drains
is uncertain due to the low permeability of the stabilized soil.
0.3. Design of Lime and Lime/Cement Columns
The undrained shear strength of lime and lime/cement is calculated from the
cohesive strength cu,col . The angle of internal friction u,col is equal to 25 a 30 degrees at a
normal pressure less than 150 to 250 kPa. The friction angle is assumed to zero (u,col = 0)
when the normal pressure exceeds 150 to 250 kPa. An effective angle of internal friction
col, which is 30 to 35 degrees, can be used to estimate the stability of slopes,
embankments and excavations. The pore water pressure in the columns, which can be
high, corresponds initially to the pore water pressure in the unstabilised soil around the
columns.
The residual friction angle for the columns and for the unstabilized soil, col, res and
u,col, res, can be assumed to col and u,col, respectively. The residual cohesion ccol,res and
cu,col,res is often neglected, when the long and short-term residual shear strengths are calculated.
The stability of embankments, slopes and excavations could be less than the
average shear strength, when the shear strength is high and the columns behave as short
dowels. Single columns fail when the moment capacity of the columns is exceeded and
one or two plastic hinges develop in the columns at the location of the maximum bending
moments. The maximum undrained shear strength of lime and lime/cement columns,
which can be utilized in design, is usually limited to 100 kPa. A design shear strength of
150 kPa can only be used when the soil conditions are favorable.
It is important that an axial load, which is at least equal to the creep strength, can be
transferred to and from the columns. The shaft resistance could be low and the length of
the transfer zone can be large if the surface dry crust is missing or is poorly developed.
The load in the columns could also be transferred to the soil below the bottom of the
columns by end bearing and by shaft resistance.
The settlements of lime and lime/cement columns have been smaller than calculated
mainly due to the limitation of the maximum shear strength to 100 or 150 kPa, which is
used in design. The compression modulus of the columns, Mcol is often assumed
conservatively to 100 cu,col for clay, silty clay and clayey silt and to 50 cu,col for organic
soils where cu,col is the undrained shear strength of the stabilized soil.
0.4. Construction of Lime and Lime/Cement Columns
The lateral displacement of railroad and road embankments can be reduced with
e.g. geofabric or geonet placed above the columns. The fabric reinforcement should be
designed to resist the total lateral earth pressure in the embankment. Also the transfer of
load from the embankment to the columns is then improved.
It is preferable to locate the columns in the active zone below the embankment
since the shear resistance of single columns in the active zone is at least two to three
times larger than the shear resistance of the columns located in the shear or in the passive
zones outside the embankment.
The extent of the checking should be more comprehensive when lime and
lime/cement columns are used to stabilize embankments, slopes and deep excavations in
comparison with columns, which are used to reduce the settlements.
2

1. CO'TE'T OF LECTURE
The purpose of this lecture is to review
Bearing capacity and compressibility of lime, lime/cement and cement
columns,
Methods to evaluate the stability and the settlements of embankments,
buildings and other structures, where the soft soil has been reinforced by lime and
lime/cement columns as well as the stability of excavations, trenches and slopes and
Field and laboratory methods to check the shear strength and the
compressibility of single columns, column rows, grids and column blocks.

2. APPLICATIO'S OF LIME A'D LIME/CEME'T

COLUM'S
2.1. General
2.1.1. Applications in Sweden and Finland.
Lime/cement (50% lime and 50% cement) are mainly used in Sweden and
Finland to increase the stability and to reduce the settlements of road and railroad
embankments constructed on soft soil. Not less than 85% of all lime and lime/cement
columns manufactured in Sweden the last few years are for this purpose as illustrated in
Fig.1. Only the dry method is used in Sweden and Finland to stabilize soft inorganic
clays, silty clays or soft organic soils.
Lime and lime/cement columns have been found to be competitive in Sweden
and Finland compared with other soil stabilization methods such as embankment piles,
excavation and replacement and preloading. An additional advantage is that the stabilized
soil can often be used as fill. The costs can frequently be reduced by combining lime and
lime/cement columns with other soil stabilization methods such as lightweight fills,
preloading with and without vertical drains and berms.
2.2. Stabilization of Road and Railroad Embankments, Dikes, Airfields,
Fills and Caissons
2.2.1. Road and Railroad Embankments.
The main applications in Sweden and Finland of lime and lime/cement
columns have been stabilisation of road and railroad embankments with a height of 2 to 4
m. Also up to 9 m high embankments have been stabilised successfully (Edstam, 1996).
Initially the reduction of the settlements of road and railroad embankments was the main
function of the columns.
Lime/cement columns have been used successfully to stabilize the
embankments for Mlarbanan, a large railroad project in the central part of Sweden
(Axelsson and Larsson, 1994). Lime/cement columns have also been used in Gothenburg

as discussed by Askmar and Henningsson (1998) to stabilize the embankments for a large
road interchange (bymotet) where the soil consists of gyttja (organic clay) with an

Fig. 1. Applications of Lime/Cement Columns in Sweden 1991-1992

(after hnberg et al. 1996a)
undrained shear strength of 8 to 13 kPa down to a depth of 7 m. The water content was
high, 100% to 200%.
Lime and lime/cement columns have to a large extent replaced other soil
improvement and soil stabilisation methods in Sweden and Finland including piles.
Lime and lime/cement columns can be combined with other soil stabilisation
methods to increase the stability and to reduce the settlements. Lime columns have also
been combined with a lightweight fill (Bjerin et al, 1984) and with berms (Carlsten and
Ouacha, 1993).

Fig. 2. Stabilization of Embankments using Lime and Lime/Cement Columns

The stability is usually analyzed by a cylindrical failure or slip surface through
the columns as illustrated in Fig.2. An average shear strength is normally used in the
analysis assuming that the columns and the soft soil between the columns behave as a
composite material. However, the shear resistance could then be overestimated due to
4

progressive failure. It is also important to check the stability by a slip surface below the
columns where the shear strength of the partly remoulded soil often is low.
The bearing capacity of the columns is reduced when the columns are
displaced laterally and the shear strength is high due to the low failure strain of the
columns. Centrifuge tests by Miyake et al (1996) and by Kitazume et al (1996a) indicate
that the bearing capacity of the columns located within the shear and the passive zones
outside an embankment is low compared with the columns located in the active zone
below the embankment. The strain at the peak shear strength could be as low as 0.5% to
2% for lime, lime/cement and cement columns, when the shear strength exceeds about
300 kPa. The failure strain has a tendency to decrease with increasing shear strength.
The lateral displacements of the columns can be reduced and the bearing
capacity be increased by placing one or several layers with high strength woven geofabric
within or just below the embankment or in narrow trenches just above the columns as
illustrated in Fig. 3 (Broms, 1993). Thereby the transfer of load from the embankment to
the columns is improved. The soft upper part of the columns as well as any loose soil
above the columns should be excavated and replaced by compacted granular fill.
Otherwise the settlements could be excessive since the columns are terminated 0.5 to 1.0
m below the ground surface to prevent blowouts during the manufacture of the columns.

Fig. 3 Embankment Stabilised by Geo-Anchor

(after Broms, 1993)
2.2.2. Dikes for Irrigation and Flood Protection
Lime and lime/cement columns can be used to increase the stability and to
reduce the settlements of dikes for flood protection and irrigation. Column grids or
column blocks are used below the dikes to increase the effectiveness of the columns.
Stage construction could be required when the initial shear strength of the soft soil is low.
There is normally no need to increase the height of the embankments to
compensate the long-term settlements caused by consolidation since the settlements
usually are small with lime and lime/cement columns.

2.2.4. Breakwaters and Quay Walls.

Kawasaki et al (1981) have described a case where up to 40 m long cement
columns were used as foundation for an 18.9 m high quay wall. The undrained shear
strength of the stabilised soil was 200 kPa.
Breakwaters have been stabilised by cement columns as discussed by Porbaha
et al (1998b). A shear strength of 2 to7 MPa could be obtained at a cement content of 150
kg/m3.
Cement columns have been used, for example, to increase the bearing
capacity of a 20 m thick silt layer at the Yantai Port in China (Min, 1996). The
unconfined compressive strength was 2.5 MPa after 90 days at a c/w-ratio of 1.3. The
required cement content was 170 to 190 kg/m3. The in-situ shear strength, which
increased with time, was 1.5 to 1.7 times the shear strength of laboratory samples. The
unconfined compressive strength after 90 days was 1.4 to 1.5 times the 28-day strength.
2.3. Low-Cost Housing, Housing Developments, Warehouses and Light Industrial
Buildings.
2.3.1.Foundation of Buildings and Light Structures.
Lime and lime/cement columns are mainly used in Sweden and Finland to
support relatively light structures, one to two story buildings, warehouses and light
industrial buildings as illustrated in Fig. 4 (Broms and Boman, 1975b, 1979a, 1979b;
Broms et al, 1981; Holm et al, 1981; Bredenberg, 1983; Bredenberg and Broms, 1983;
hnberg and Holm, 1986). The main function of the columns is to reduce the total and
the differential settlements. The bearing capacity of the unstabilised soil for relatively
light structures is usually not a problem.
In Japan 1.0-m diameter cement columns have been used to support up to five
story buildings (Hibino, 1996) where the columns are installed in a square or a
rectangular pattern. The unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized soil was 2 to 4
MPa at a cement content of 200 to 300 kg/m3. The settlements have in general been
small, 10 to 30 mm.
Cement columns have also been used in China in saturated loess to support up
to 12 to 15 story buildings. The area ratio of the 0.5-m diameter columns was 0.22. The
bearing capacity of the columns was 520 to 650 kPa at a cement content of 20%
(Yuewen, 1996).
The thickness of rafts supporting buildings can often be reduced with lime or
lime/cement columns since the rafts will be supported at a large number of points by the
columns. The span lengths and the bending moments will be small compared with a raft
supported by a few high-capacity bored or driven piles.
An additional advantage with a lime, lime/cement and cement column is that
the columns and the soil between the columns can be considered as a composite material.
The number of the columns can then be reduced since the columns will carry only part of
the weight of the building. The remaining part is carried by the unstabilised soil between
the columns.
The columns, which are located along the perimeter of the loaded area, will
govern the differential settlements. The differential settlements can be reduced by
increasing the length of these columns as discussed in the following.
2.3.2. Housing Developments.
Lime and lime/cement columns can be used to control the settlement of
buildings, to stabilize the trenches required for water, sewer lines and other services, to
improve permanent and temporary roads, parking and storage areas, sidewalks and
6

walkways. Lime/cement and lime columns can also provide a smooth transition from the
buildings to the surrounding unimproved ground.
The excavated soil from trenches and other excavations can be used as
fill due to the high shear strength and permeability of the soil when stabilised with lime
or cement. The cost for the transport of the excavated soil and the environmental
problems associated with the dumping of soft soil are then decreased (Paus, 1998).

Fig. 4. Lime and Lime/Cement Columns for Buildings

2.4. Trenches and Excavations.

2.4.1. Trenches.
Lime and lime/cement columns have been used in soft clay as shown in Fig. 5
to increase the stability of the trenches required for sewer lines, heating ducts and water
mains as discussed by Paus (1979a, 1979b), Boman et al (1979), Sahlberg (1979a;
1979b), Ekstrm and Trnk (1979), Holm (1979b), Lahtinen and Vepslinen (1983) and
by Broms (1984a, 1985b). Bracing is required when the sides of the excavation are
vertical or near vertical and the depth exceeds a few meters. Columns are often installed
below the bottom of the excavations to prevent failure by bottom heave. Sewer, water and
heating pipes can be placed directly on the bottom of the stabilized excavation. The
concrete slab, which is necessary when piles are used to support the pipes, is normally not
required with lime and lime/cement columns because of the close spacing of the columns
and the increase of the bearing capacity of the soft soil with lime and cement. Failures
have occurred during or just after a heavy rainstorm, when the cracks behind the columns,
are filled with water. The columns failed by overturning due to the high water pressure.

Fig.5. Lime and Lime/Cement Columns for Stabilisation of Trenches

The stability can be improved by inclining the columns. The maximum depth
is increased to about 1.8 m at an inclination of 1H:3V for 0.5 m diameter columns The
maximum depth is 2.2 m when the side slope is 1H:2V (hnberg and Holm, 1991).
Blom (1992) has described a case at Kllekrr on the Island Tjrn not far
from Gothenburg in Sweden where cement columns were used to stabilize a deep trench.
The soil consisted from the ground surface of gyttja down to a depth of 5 m and of 25 m
with soft to very soft clay. Short overlapping columns with 5 m length were placed as
arches with 4 m diameter next to the trench (Fig. 52). The length of the columns was
increased to 15 m below the bottom of the trench to improve the stability with respect to
bottom heave.
2.4.2. Excavations
Lime, cement and lime/cement columns have been used in Sweden to
stabilize deep excavations as illustrated in Fig. 6 and to increase the stability with respect
to bottom heave. The columns located behind the sheet pile wall will reduce the lateral
earth pressures as well as the settlements. The columns in front to the wall increase the
stability and the factor of safety with respect to bottom heave.
Skauerud and Finborud (1984) used lime columns in Norway to stabilize a 4
to 6 m deep excavation supported by anchored sheet piles. A shear strength of 125 kPa
could be obtained with 7% to 10% quicklime in spite of the low initial shear strength of
the clay, 10 to 20 kPa, and the high sensitivity, above 100. The remoulded soil flowed up
around the columns as a fluid during the installation due to the high sensitivity of the
clay. The shear strength of the stabilized soil was 100 to 200 kPa two weeks after the
installation and over 350 kPa after four weeks compared with a required shear strength of
90 kPa. It was observed that the shear strength of the columns was higher than the shear
strength of samples prepared in the laboratory.
Sahlberg (1979a, 1979b) has described a case in Sweden where a 3.0 to 4.5 m
deep excavation in soft clay was stabilized successfully by 0.5 m diameter lime columns.
The shear strength of the untreated soil was low, 10 kPa. The water content was 70% to
8

80% and thus higher than the liquid limit. The cost was reduced by 30% to 40%
compared with the costs for sheet piles.

Fig. 6. Stabilization of an Anchored Sheet Pile Wall with Lime or Lime/Cement

Columns
A 4.7 m deep excavation has been stabilized successfully by lime columns at
Stenungssund, Sweden (Holm, 1979b). The initial shear strength of the soft clay was low,
5 to 10 kPa and the sensitivity exceeded 100 below 4 m depth. The shear strength of the
stabilized soil was 115 to 270 kPa with 8% lime.
Lime columns have also been used in Norrkping, Sweden to stabilize a 4.5 m deep
excavation for a tunnel. The shear strength of the soft clay was increased with lime from 8
to 11 kPa to 100 kPa. The factor of safety was improved from 0.66 to 1.6 by placing
column rows perpendicular to the axis of the tunnel. A slip occurred next to the stabilized

excavation when the depth of the excavation was 3.5 m. The initial stability of the
excavation was low.
Adestam (1996) has described a case, where lime/cement columns (50/50) were used
successfully to stabilize a 4.5 to 5.0 m deep excavation in soft clay where the inclination
of the slope was 1.0V/1.5H. The undrained shear strength was low, about 10 kPa. The
ground water table was located 1.0 m below the ground surface. The factor of safety of
the slope could be increased to 1.6 when overlapping columns were placed in rows
perpendicular to the excavation. A local slip occurred outside the stabilized area during
the excavation, which showed that the initial stability was low. Lime/cement columns
have also been used to stabilize a deep excavation at Arlanda. The slope of the stabilized
excavation was steep, 1V:1.5H (Redlund, 1995).
Cement columns with 1.0 m diameter were used to stabilize an up to 20.9 m deep
excavation at the Tokyo International Airport (Shiomi et al, 1996; Miyahara et al, 1991,
Tanaka, 1993). The overlap of the columns was 200 mm.
The columns can be reinforced to increase the moment resistance and thus the
stability of column walls with respect to overturning (Kitazume et al, 1996a, 1996b).
Bamboo has been used in Shanghai, PRC as reinforcement to increase the moment
capacity (Chen et al, 1996). There up to 8-m deep excavations in soft clay have been
stabilized by double column rows. The reinforcement should be placed in the columns
just after the installation, when the shear strength of the stabilized soil still is low. The
columns can also be connected at the ground surface as proposed by Dong et al (1996)

2.5. Slope Stabilisation.

2.5.1. Stabilisation of Slopes Using Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns.
Lime columns have also been used successfully to restore areas which have been
affected by landslides e.g. at Tuve in Sweden (Hansbo and Torstensson, 1978) and at
desby (Engstrm et al, 1984). There the lime columns were combined with berms. The
excess pore water pressures were observed to dissipate rapidly after the installation of the
columns since lime columns functioned as vertical drains in the remoulded soil.
Lime/cement columns have also been used successfully to stabilize the riverbanks of
the Gta River at Bohus located in the southwestern part of Sweden. There the factor of
safety was low, 1.1 to 1.3 (Johansson and Norup, 1996). High excess pore-water
pressures were observed during the installation of the columns as well as relatively large
lateral displacements, 0.15 to 0.25 m. Some heave also occurred. The spacing of the
columns was increased in order to reduce the excess pore-water pressures and the lateral
displacements, which increased during the slaking of the lime. The lateral displacements
reduced the shear strength the unstabilized soil as well as the bearing capacity of
previously installed columns.
2.5.2. Stability of Slopes.
Several slope failures have occurred. Engstrm et al (1984) have e.g. described a
failure of a slope next to a river, where lime columns were used to increase the stability.
The installation of the columns was interrupted, when about 85% of the columns had
been installed. A berm was constructed in addition to the lime columns to increase further
the stability of the slope since cracks had been observed outside the stabilized area.
Reinforced cement columns with 0.4 m diameter have been used as soil nails to
stabilize steep slopes in Japan as discussed by Tateyama et al (1996). The columns
functioned as short dowels along potential slip surfaces in the soil. Also steep slopes in
10

Austria have been stabilized successfully by lime columns (Brandl, 1973). The column
diameter was small, 0.08 to 0.5 m.
2.6. Pipe Jacking.
2.6.1.Excavations for Pipe Jacking.
Driven sheet piles have been used to increase the stability of the excavations required
for pipe jacking. However, accidents have occurred, when the holes, which were required
for the pipe jacking, were cut through the sheet pile wall. The soft soil around the
excavation flowed into the excavation through the hole due to the low shear strength of
the clay. This type of failure occurs when the shear strength of the soft soil is low and the
total overburden pressure at the level of the hole is about 6 cu,soil where cu,soil is the
undrained shear strength of the soft clay at the level of the hole (Broms and Bennermark,
1968).
Lime and lime/cement columns can be used as shown in Fig. 7 to increase the
stability. The pipes can be jacked trough the column wall, when the shear strength of the
columns is less than about 300 to 500 kPa. Columns could also be required below the
bottom of the excavation to prevent failure by bottom heave.
The circumferential force in the column wall will be high when the diameter of the
column wall is large. A double column wall might be required to improve the transfer of
the circumferential load through the columns. It is important that the overlap of the
columns is sufficient, at least 60 to 100 mm, depending on the diameter of the columns. It
is often an advantage to use large diameter columns when the diameter of the excavation
is large. Wale beams are normally required around the perimeter of the circular column
wall to prevent failure of the column wall if the overlap is not sufficient. The wale beams
are usually designed to resist the total circumferential force.
Lime/cement columns have been used e.g. in Stockholm at Smista Park and at
rvinge by Sellgren (1991) to support an up to 8 m deep excavation in soft clay. The
diameter of the lime/cement columns was relatively large, 0.8 m, to improve the transfer
of the lateral earth pressure to the columns. Columns were also placed below the bottom
of the excavation to increase the stability with respect to bottom heave. The average shear
strength of the soft clay was low, about 15 kPa.

11

Fig. 7. Lime and Lime/Cement Columns for Pipe Jacking

2.7. Bridge Abutments, Retaining Walls, Quay Walls and Revetments
2.7.1. General.
Lime, cement and lime/cement columns have been used to stabilize soft clay behind
sheet pile walls, bridge abutments, keys and breakwaters. The main function of the
columns has been to prevent failure of the excavation by bottom heave. The lime and the
lime/cement columns will also reduce the settlements behind sheet piles and bridge
abutments. The columns will also contribute to the stability.
2.7.2. Quay Walls.
Cement column blocks have stabilized two wharves at the Tiensin Port in China. The
area ratio was high, 0.5. The water content of the organic silt and clay (muck and mucky
clay) exceeded the liquid limit of the soil. The unconfined compressive strength was 3
MPa after 60 days with a standard deviation of 1 MPa. The cement content was 150 to
170 kg/m3. The water/cement ratio was 1.1 to 1.5 (Choa, 1991; Hosomi et al, 1996).
2.7.3. Bridge Abutments.
Ekstrm and Trnk (1979) and Bengtsson et al (1991) have described cases where
overlapping lime columns were used to stabilize the soft clay behind bridge abutments.
The initial shear strength of the soft clay was low, about 10 kPa. At an average shear
strength of the stabilized soil of 97 kPa, the factor of safety was over 2.0. The shear
strength as determined by field vane tests exceeded 200 kPa. It was observed that the lime
reduced the average water content of the stabilized soil from about 60% to 45%.
The settlements of rigid frame bridges, which traditionally are supported by piles,
have been reduced with lime columns. Hartln and Carlsten (1992) have described a case
where the spacing of the 7 m long lime columns was 0.8 m below the bridge and 0.9 m
12

below the abutments. The stabilized soil was preloaded for three months by a load, which
corresponded to the total weight of the bridge. The maximum settlement after the
preloading was less than 5 mm.
Also Bengtsson et al (1991) have described a case where lime columns were used
to support a rigid frame bridge. The settlement of the bridge after one year was 30 to 80
mm. The costs for the lime columns in 1992 was about 50% of the costs for driven
precast concrete piles.
Lime and lime/cement columns could be combined with preloading, which should be
carried out as soon as possible after the installation of the columns to reduce the time
required for the consolidation of the soft clay between the columns. Lime and possibly
lime/cement columns will function as vertical drains. Thereby the time required for the
consolidation is reduced. There is some uncertainty, however, about the function of
lime/cement columns as drains because of the reduction of the permeability with cement.
The preloading should correspond to at least the weight of the bridge or of the
approach fill to reduce the differential settlement between the bridge and the fill behind
the abutments. A surcharge load in addition to a preloading, which corresponds to the
weight of the structure, is sometimes required to reduce the time for the consolidation and
the creep settlements.
2.7.4. Retaining Walls.
The dry method using cement was used to stabilize the soft soil below a retaining
wall at the Haneda Airport in Tokyo (Miyahara et al, 1991). The area ratio was high since
overlapping columns were used for the column block below the wall. The lateral
displacement of the stabilized retaining wall, which was analyzed by FEM, was small, a
few mm.
The wet method using cement slurry was also tried at the Kansai International
Airport to reduce the settlements of a retaining wail constructed on soft clay. It was
possible to reduce the settlements within the reclaimed area as indicated by Kamon
(1997).
Cement columns have been used in Shanghai as retaining walls to support up to 8 m
deep excavations. The cement content was 200 to 250 kg/m3. The area ratio of the 4.2 m
wide wall was 0.6 to 0.8. Bamboo with 60 mm diameter was used as reinforcement in the
columns (Chen et al, 1996). The factor of safety with respect to a circular slip surface
below the column wall was low, 1.1. The factor of safety of the cement column retaining
wall was 1.2 and 1.3 with respect to sliding and overturning, respectively.
Overlapping cement columns have been used to increase the stability as discussed by
Shintani et al (1991). The stability has been checked by measuring the settlements and the
lateral displacements of the wall. Also the rotation and the distortion of the stabilized
block were determined. Shintani et al (1991) concluded that the best indications of the
stability of the stabilized soil are the axial and the lateral displacements.
2.8.Tunnels.
2.8.1.Stabilization of Tunnels.
At the Trans-Tokyo Bay Highway Project, where two bored tunnels with 14.1 m
diameter and a length of 9.5 km have been constructed, the soft clay was stabilized by
cement columns (Unami and Shima, 1996; Uchida et al, 1994, 1996; Tatsuoka et al,
1996, 1997; Kamon, 1997). The maximum depth of the soft clay was 60 m. The water
content was high, 80% to 120%. Up to eight slurry shield machines were used at the same
time for the construction of the tunnels. Totally 3.77 Mm3 of the soft clay were improved
using cement slurry with a water/cement ratio of 1.0. The cement content was 140 kg/m3
13

and 70 kg/m3. A relatively low cement content was used to limit the maximum shear
strength of the stabilized soil to 500 kPa. The area ratio of the treated soil was high, over
0.99. It was specified that the shear strength of the stabilized soil as determined by
unconfined confined compression tests should be between 0.3 and 1.5 MPa down to a
depth of 30 m. It was expected that the stabilized soil could be difficult to excavate when
the unconfined compressive strength exceeded 1.5 MPa. The lower limit, 0.3 MPa, was
governed by the required stability of the tunnels. The diameter of the overlapping
columns was large, 1.1 m. The spacing of the columns was 0.83 m, which corresponded
to an overlap of 0.37 m.
It has been proposed by Broms (1986) that overlapping lime, lime/cement and
cement columns could possibly be used instead of jet grouting to increase the stability of
tunnels constructed in soft clay. The columns could be installed as blocks or rows
perpendicular to the tunnel axis. Some of the columns should extend down to an
underlying firm layer in order to reduce the settlements. The shear resistance of the block
or of the column rows should be sufficient to resist the total overburden pressure. The
required spacing of the column rows is usually three to four column diameters.
A drilling machine has been developed in Japan (Suguki and Maeda, 1996) where the
soft soil can be stabilized by horizontal cement columns. The diameter of the boreholes,
which can be varied, is up to 0.8 m. The maximum length of the boreholes is 22 m.

2.9. Traffic Vibrations and Vibrations Caused by Blasting and Pile Driving.
2.9.1.Reduction of Traffic Vibrations.
Lime and lime/cement columns have been used to reduce traffic vibrations in soft
clay (Beigler, 1982; Boman and Tholn, 1979; Massarsch and Sanaee,1993) as well as
cement columns (Takemiya et al, 1996). Double column rows or grids with overlapping
columns are usually required for safety. The reduction of the vibration level has been
found to increase with increasing number of columns. The reduction is generally larger
for point bearing than for floating columns.
It has been possible, for example, to reduce the maximum vibration velocity caused
by traffic vibrations by about 50% in soft clay with lime columns for a two-story building
located about 20 m from a heavily trafficked road. Massarsch and Sanaee (1993) have
reported a reduction by 45% of the maximum vibration velocity 10 days after the
installation of lime/cement columns. Boman and Tholn (1979) observed that the
vibration level with lime columns was reduced by 30% to 50% at Sk-Edeby close to
Stockholm in Sweden. A large reduction of the maximum velocity has also been reported
by Takemiya et al (1998). The reduction was the largest at frequencies between 4 and 20
Hz.
Cement columns have also been tried close to Kungsbacka, Sweden to reduce the
vibrations of a railroad embankment constructed on a 5 to 13 m thick clay layer (Ekstrm,
1992). A special mixing toll was developed to inject cement slurry close to the bottom of
the mixing toll. Overlapping columns with 0.8 m diameter were used to increase the
efficiency of the columns. The unconfined compressive strength with 70 kg cement per
meter was 500 to 1000 kPa. The reduction of the vibration level was almost as good as by
a pile supported concrete deck. The columns also contributed to the stability of the
embankment and to a reduction of the settlements (Ekstrm, 1992).

2.10. Stabilisation of Excavated and Dredged Materials.

2.10.1 Stabilisation of Excavated Material and Spoil.
14

The excavated material from trenches stabilized by lime columns has been used
successfully as fill. The lime content of the columns has been sufficient to increase
substantially the shear strength and the permeability and to reduce the water content. The
savings of both time and money have been considerable since it was not necessary to
transport and to dump the excavated soft clay.
2.10.2. Stabilization of Dredged Material
Lime and cement have been used successfully to stabilize dredged materials (Endo,
1976) so that the treated soil can be used as fill. Lime and cement reduce the
compressibility while the shear strength and the apparent preconsolidation pressure of the
stabilized soil are increased. The unslaked lime increases also the permeability while the
permeability is reduced with cement.

2.11. Prevention of Liquefaction.

2.11.1. Reduction of Liquefaction Potential
Cement columns have been used in Japan to reduce the liquefaction potential of
loose sandy soils (Matsuo et al, 1996b; Hatakeda and Fukazawa, 1996). The increase of
the pore water pressure caused by earthquakes is thereby reduced. With lime columns the
high excess pore water pressures, which develop in interbedded sand layers dissipate
rapidly since the columns function as drains.
The columns are installed in a grid to increase the effectiveness of the columns (Taki
and Yang, 1991; Kamon, 1997). Overlapping cement columns have been used also in
USA at the Jackson Dam in Wyoming to reduce the liquefaction potential (Jasperse and
Ryan, 1987).

3. PROPERTIES OF SOFT SOIL STABILISED WITH

LIME, LIME/CEME'T, CEME'T A'D OTHER
ADDITIVES
3.1. Physical Properties.
3.1.1. General.
Several factors affect the shear strength, the compressibility and the permeability of
soft soils stabilized by lime, lime/cement or cement such as water content, grain size
distribution, type of clay mineral (kaolinite, illite or montmorillonite), cation exchange
capacity, amount of soluble silica and alumina, pH-value of the pore water, organic
content, plastic and liquid limits and plasticity index. The properties of the stabilised soil
are very similar to those of an overconsolidated clay.
3.1.2. Grain Size Distribution.
The grain size distribution of the soil as determined by hydrometer tests is affected by
lime. The average particle size is increased due to flocculation and the clay content as
determined by hydrometer tests is reduced (e.g. Assarson, 1972, Wilhelmsson and
Brorsson, 1987). The stabilized soil has a grainy, crumbly or blocky structure.
3.1.3. Density.

15

The unit weight of organic soils, quick clay and peat increases with increasing lime
and cement content, when the initial water content of the soil is high while the density of
inorganic soils, clay and silt, often is reduced.

3.1.4. Liquid and Plastic Limits, Plasticity Index.

The plastic limit is increased by lime and also to some extent by cement due to cation
exchange, while the plasticity index is reduced. When the plasticity index is less than
10% the clay fraction may not be sufficient for the lime to be effective and the increase of
the shear strength will be low.
At least 2% lime is required to affect significantly the plastic limit and the plasticity
index (Bell and Tyrer, 1989). Sherwood (1967) has observed e.g. that the plastic limit for
London Clay increased from 24% to 43% with 4% lime. The plastic limit increases
gradually with time and with increasing lime content. Also the liquid limit is increased,
but the increase is generally less than the change of the plastic limit.
The lime content which is required to increase significantly the shear strength
depends to a large extent on the cation exchange capacity (CEC) and thus on the clay
minerals present in the soil. The exchange capacity is high for the clay mineral
montmorillonite, intermediate for illite and low for kaolinite.
3.1.5. Water Content.
The water content, which is determined by drying the soil for 24 hours at 105oC, can
be overestimated, when the soil contains the clay mineral holloysite, which can loose part
of the hydration water at a relatively low temperature (Newill, 1961).
The reduction of the water content during the slaking of the quicklime affects both
the shear strength and the compressibility. The reduction of the water content corresponds
to 32% of the dry weight of the quicklime. With 10% lime the average water content is
thus reduced by 3.2 percent.
The amount of water required for hydration of cement is about 20% of the dry
weight. The average water content is thus reduced by 2% when the cement content is
10%. The average reduction of the water content with 10% lime/cement (50/50) is 2.6%,
which is less than the reduction with lime alone.
The increase of the shear strength of the remoulded soil can be large when the
plasticity index of the soil is low. The increase could be low when the water content is
low and the free water available in the soil is not sufficient for hydration of the quicklime.
The shear strength will in that case increase when water is added during the mixing.
The water content of the stabilized soil is also reduced by evaporation due to the high
temperature during the slaking and the consolidation of the soil. The reduction can be
large. Ekstrm and Trnk (1979) have, for example, reported that the average water
content was reduced by 15% when 10% lime (CaO2) was mixed with soft clay. The initial
water content of the clay was 60%.
3.1.6. Volume Changes.
Lime and lime/cement columns expand laterally during the slaking when water,
which is required for the slaking, is drawn from the unstabilized soil around the columns.
The volume increase is about 85% of the dry weight of the quicklime. The resulting high
lateral pressure around the columns will consolidate the surrounding soft soil. A few days
after the mixing the volume is reduced. The reduction, which can be relatively large,
increases the permeability of the columns due to cracks and fissures in the stabilized soil.
16

hnberg et al (1995a) have reported that the shrinkage of silty soils both with lime
and with cement has been much larger than for other soil types. It has also been observed
that the permeability of lime and lime/cement columns has been much higher than the
permeability of laboratory samples probably because of cracking during the slaking of the
quicklime in the columns. The columns could be separated from the unstabilized soil
around the perimeter close to the ground surface due to shrinkage after the initial
expansion by the slaking. It is well known that concrete shrinks during the curing. Open
cracks in and around the columns will likely close after a few weeks or months. It has
been observed that the average permeability of the columns decreases with time.
Volume changes have been observed at both drained and undrained triaxial tests.
After an initial increase of the volume the partly saturated samples has a tendency to
dilate. The dilatancy decreases with increasing confining pressure. The dilatancy
contributes to the high friction angles u,col and col, which have been observed at both
undrained and drained triaxial and direct shear tests.

.
Fig. 8. Stabilization with Unslaked Lime
3.2. Shear Strength
3.2.1. General.
The short-term increase of the shear strength with lime (CaO2) is partly caused by
Reduction of water content caused by hydration and evaporation during the
slaking
Ion exchange and the resulting increase of the plastic limit and the reduction of the
plasticity index
Pozzolanic reactions

17

The increase of the short-term shear strength depends mainly on the reduction of the
water content during the slaking, on the increase of the plastic limit and the reduction of
the plasticity index while the long-term shear strength with lime and cement is mainly
governed by pozzolanic reactions in the soil as illustrated in Fig. 8.

3.2.2. Undrained Shear Strength.

The undrained shear strength of the unstabilized soil can be determined by
unconfined compression tests, by fall-cone and vane tests, by undrained triaxial or direct
shear tests (UU-tests). Sometimes consolidated-undrained triaxial tests (CU-tests) are
used, where the confining pressure during the consolidation of the stabilized soil
corresponds to the estimated effective lateral pressure in-situ. The undrained shear
strength as determined by field vane tests and by fall-cone tests should be reduced when
the plasticity index is high before the shear strength of the unstabilized soil can be used to
analyze the stability of embankments, slopes and excavations (Bjerrum, 1972,
Helenelund, 1977, Aas et al, 1986).
The undrained shear strength of the stabilized soil is in general determined by
unconfined compression tests and/or by undrained triaxial tests (UU-tests). Unconfined
compression tests have been found to be an effective and economical method to
determine the lime and the cement content, which is required to obtain the specified shear
strength
The undrained shear strength cu,col is usually assumed to be half of the unconfined
compressive strength qu,col (qu,col = 2 cu,col). It is then assumed that u,col is equal to zero. It
should be noted that u,col > 0 when the normal pressure on the failure plane is less than 150
to 250 kPa.
The undrained shear strength, fu,col increases with increasing normal pressure f on
the failure plane through the columns
fu,col = cu,col + f tan u,col

(3.1)

where u,col is the undrained angle of internal friction of the stabilized soil, which varies
with the soil type and with the water content and cu,col is the undrained cohesion A value
on u,col = 30 degrees can be used up to a normal pressure of 150 to 250 kPa for lime and
lime/cement columns. It should be noted that an estimated undrained shear strength cu,col
= 0.5 qu,col is too high when the normal pressure is less than 150 to 250 kPa since
cu,col = q u,col K a

(3.2)

The ratio 2 cu,col / qu,col is shown in Table 2.1 as a function of the friction angle u,col.
It should be noted that the ratio 2 cu,col / qu,col could be less than 1.0 and that the cohesion
cu,col will be less than 0.5 qu,col which is the value, which is generally assumed in the
analysis of the unconfined compression test. At e.g. u,col = 30 degrees and f,col = 0 then
2 cu,col / qu,col = 0.577. The shear strength is in this case only 57.7% of the assumed shear
strength,
When u,col = 0, the critical normal pressure f,crit is equal to
f,crit / qu,col = (0.5 cu,col / qu,col)/ tan u,col = 0.5 (1 -

K a ) / tan u,col

(3.3)

18

It can be seen in Table 2.1 that the ratio f,crit/qu,col decreases with increasing value on
qu,col. The critical value on f,crit as calculated in Table 2.1 varies from 69.6 kPa at u,col =
25 degrees to 150 kPa at u,col = 45 degrees when qu,col = 150 kPa. This normal pressure
corresponds to the total overburden pressure at a depth of 4.35 m with respect to a
horizontal slip surface at u,col = 25 degrees and 9.38 m at u,col = 45 degrees.
In Table 2.1. is also shown the shear resistance fu,col which increases from 69.9 kPa
at u,col = 25 degrees to 150 kPa at u,col = 45 degrees when qu,col = 150 kPa. The ratio cu,col
/ 0.5 qu,col, which corresponds to the relative increase of the shear strength caused by u,col
is 0.906 at u,col = 25 degrees and 0.707 at u,col = 45 degrees. The undrained shear
strength is thus 9.4% to 29.3% lower than the shear strength as determined by unconfined
compression tests, qu,col, when the normal pressure on the failure plane is 150 kPa.
Table 2.1. Undrained shear strength as determined by unconfined compression tests
at u,col > 0.
u,col
25o
30o
35o
40o
45o

cu,col / 0.5 qu,col

0.637
0.577
0.520
0.466
0.414

f,crit / qu,col

150 tan u,col

0.389
0.366
0.342
0.318
0.292

69.9
86.6
105.6
125.9
150.0

fu,col / 0.5 qu,col

0.906
0.866
0.919
0.766
0.707

The increase of the undrained shear strength of remoulded clay from cuo to cu1 caused
by a reduction of the water content by can be estimated by the following equation
log cu1/cuo = 2 / PIo

(3.4)

where PIo is the plasticity index. When the reduction of the water content is e.g. 0.15 PIo
then log cuo/cu1 = 0.3 and cu1 = 2cuo. The undrained shear strength of the remoulded soil is
thus doubled by a reduction of the water content by 0.15 PIo (Fig. 9).
The shear strength of the remoulded soil is also affected by an increase of the plastic
limit from wpo to wp1 and by a reduction of the plasticity index from PIo to PI1.
log cu2/cu1 = 2(p1 -po) (Lo - 1) / (PIo x PI1)

(3.5)

where Lo is the initial liquid limit and 1 is the water content. At e.g. PIo = 40, PI1 = 20,
1 = 65%, (p1 -po) = 20, and Lo = 80 then cu2 = 5.62 cu1. The shear strength is thus
expected to increase from e.g. 10 kPa to 56.2 kPa at a reduction of the plasticity index
from 40 to 20.

19

Fig. 9. Effect of a Reduction of the Water Content on the Undrained Shear Strength
of a Remoulded Clay

The undrained shear strength of the remoulded clay is also affected by a change of
the liquid limit from Lo to L1 and by an increase of the plasticity index from PI1 to PI2
(Fig. 10).
log cu3/cu2 = 2(PI2 - PI1)( 1 - p1) / PI2 x PI1

(3.6)

where 1 is the water content and p1 is the plastic limit. At e.g. PI2 = 25, PI1 = 20, 1 =
65% and p1 = 60 then cu3 = 1.26 cu2. The shear strength is expected to increase by 26% in
this case.

20

Fig. 10. Effect of a Change of the Plastic Limit on The Undrained Shear Strength
of a Remoulded Clay
The undrained shear strength as determined by unconfined compression tests with
10% lime, cement or lime/cement (25/75) is shown for a silty clay in Fig. 11a and for a
quick clay in Fig. 11b. The increase of the shear strength for silty clay and quickclay is
often large the first month with lime/cement and cement. Thereafter the increase is
generally small. The undrained shear strength for clays and silty clays with low to
medium sensitivity with lime/cement and cement, is usually higher after several months
than the shear strength with only lime.
The undrained shear strength with quicklime alone exceeded after 90 days the shear
strength with lime/cement and cement. After nine months the shear strength of the
quickclay, which had been stabilised with lime, was more than twice the shear strength
with lime/cement or cement. It can be seen that the increase was initially slow with lime.
The reason for this effect is not known.

21

Fig.11. Shear Strength of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns

(after hnberg et al, 1995a)
The design of lime, lime/cement and cement columns is usually based on the
estimated shear strength 28 days after the installation of the columns. The shear strength
of lime columns is often underestimated since a large part of the long-term increase of the
shear strength occurs after 28 days. It is therefore proposed for lime columns, that the
design strength should be the estimated shear strength after 90 days
A relatively high friction angle u,col has been reported for lime and lime/cement,
which has been attributed to dilatation when the confining pressure is low (Serra et al,
1983). A negative pore water pressure can therefore be expected when the load is applied
rapidly and the confining pressure is less than about 20 kPa (hnberg et al, 1995a). A
high undrained friction angle u,col > 0 can also be caused by air present in the columns,
since compressed air is used to force the lime and the cement into the columns during the
installation. It is expected that the degree of saturation will increase and that u,col might
decrease with time. After a few months it is expected that the stabilized soil will be fully
saturated and that the shear strength of the unstabilized soil around the columns will
increase with time as well as the lateral earth pressure when the columns are loaded. The
undrained friction angle u,col decreases with increasing confining pressure It is expected,
however, that the friction angle u,col = 0, when the soil is fully saturated.
22

hnberg et al (1994, 1995a) have found that the undrained shear strength as
determined by unconfined compression tests on cores from actual columns has been about
the same as the undrained shear strength of samples prepared in the laboratory when the
undrained shear strength is 100 to 200 kPa. The laboratory samples often indicate a lower
shear strength than the average shear strength of the columns, when the shear strength is
low.
When the shear strength exceeds about 200 kPa, the shear strength of laboratory
samples is often higher than the in-situ shear strength. Kamon (1991, 1997) has reported
that the in-situ shear strength of cement columns for on-shore projects was only one-half
to one-fifth of the shear strength of laboratory samples. The difference increased in
general with increasing shear strength of the stabilized soil.
A relatively high friction angle u,col has been reported for soils stabilized by lime and
lime/cement, when the confining pressure is low The stabilized soil has a tendency to
dilate at a low confining pressure as pointed out by e.g. Serra et al (1983). A negative
pore water pressure can therefore be expected when the load is applied rapidly and the
confining pressure is low. A negative pore water pressure has been reported by e.g.
Balasubramaniam and Buensuceso (1989).
The undrained friction angle u,col decreases with increasing confining pressure when
the degree of saturation of the soil increases. Tatsuoka (1983) and hnberg et al (1995a)
have e.g. reported that the increase of the shear strength is small when the confining
pressure is high. It is expected that the friction angle u,col = 0, when the soil is fully
saturated and the total normal pressure on the failure plane exceeds 150 to 250 kPa.
Shear strengths of 140 to 280 kPa have been reported by Baker et al (1997) from insitu field tests while laboratory tests indicated a shear strength of 220 to 420 kPa. The
laboratory values were almost twice the in-situ shear strength. The difference increases in
general with increasing shear strength of the stabilized soil.
The shear resistance of the stabilized soil in the overlapping zone has been low.
Yoshida (1996) has reported that the shear strength as determined by vertical direct shear
tests (f = 0) was 23.3% of the unconfined compressive strength. Similar observations
have been made in Sweden. This reduction of the shear strength had to be considered in
the design of column walls.
3.2.3. Undrained Shear Strength with Lime.
The shear strength increases in general at the same lime content with increasing clay
fraction. It is thus expected that the lime content will govern the shear strength when the
clay content is high. If the water content is low, less than about 20%, the water available
in the soil might not be sufficient for the slaking of the quicklime. In that case the shear
strength could even increase when water is added and the water content is increased. The
maximum undrained shear strength with unslaked lime is usually 200 to 300 kPa. The
shear strength with lime is often low for clays with a low salt content. The increase of the
shear strength is also low when the silt content is high.
The shear strength is often low when the clay content is less than about 15% since
lime mainly affects the clay fraction. The required lime content to obtain a certain
specified shear strength increases in general with increasing water content. About 7% to
8% quicklime is required at a water content of 40% to 80% and 12% to 15% when the
water content is 100% to 140% (Wilhelmsson and Brorsson, 1987)
The increase of the shear strength with 5% to 10% lime is typically 10 to 20 times the
initial shear strength for normally consolidated or slightly overconsolidated inorganic
clays or silty clays with an initial shear strength of 5 to 15 kPa. Balasubramaniam et al
(1991) have reported that a five-fold increase of the shear strength can be obtained with
23

lime. Sabry et al (1996) found that the shear strength increased 100% to 200% after 35
days at an area ratio of 0.16 to 0.29. The authors indicate that the behavior of the
stabilized soil was brittle. Mitchell (1981) found that an unconfined compressive strength
of up to 70 kPa could be obtained with well-mixed and compacted soil with 3% to 8%
lime with respect to the dry weight of the soil.
The undrained shear strength increases in general with increasing lime content up to
about 10% to 12% with respect to the dry weight (e.g. Broms, 1984a, 1991, 1992). There
is usually no further increase when the lime content exceeds 10% to 12%. The undrained
shear strength may even decrease. Balasubramaniam and Buensuceso (1989) have, for
example, reported that the shear strength of Bangkok clay was reduced with 15% and
25% lime after three months. Brookes et al (1997) found that the undrained shear strength
of Gault and London Clay in the U.K., which was compacted in the laboratory, decreased
with increasing lime content when the lime content was high.
The undrained shear strength is also affected by the clay fraction and thus by the clay
minerals present in the soil. A high lime content is often required to obtain a certain shear
strength, when the specific surface area of the clay is high as it is for the clay mineral
montmorillonite.
The long-term increase of the undrained shear strength, which depends on the
pozzolanic reactions in the soil, varies greatly. Eriksson and Carlsten (1995) have
reported that the highest undrained shear strength is obtained with lime, when the clay
content of the clay is high and the silt content is low.
Consolidation of the stabilized soil in the columns reduces the water content while
the shear strength is increased. The volume increase caused by the slaking of the
quicklime, when water is drawn from the soft soil around the columns or from pervious
silt and sand layers, increases the lateral pressure around the columns. The resulting
volume increase of the columns reduces the water content of the soil around the columns
and increases the shear strength. The time required for the consolidation is short since the
lime increases the permeability of the stabilized soil.
3.2.4. Undrained Shear Strength with Lime/Cement.
Usually the undrained shear strength is higher with cement and lime/cement than
with lime especially when the clay content and the plasticity index are high. The shear
strength increases in general with increasing lime/cement content and with increasing
content of fines (silt and clay). The increase of the shear strength is often poor for organic
soils when the water content exceeds 200% (Babasaki et al, 1996). Gotoh (1996) has
found that the pH-value of the soil also affects the shear strength. The ignition loss and
the initial water content are also important. The maximum shear strength is about 500 kPa
with 10% to 20% lime/cement (50/50).
The silt and the sand fractions are mainly affected by cement while lime affects
mainly the clay fraction. For many organic soils only cement is effective. Kivel (1994b,
1995a) has reported shear strength of 200 to 300 kPa with 100 kg/m3 (50% lime and 50%
cement). hnberg et al (1994) found that a much higher shear strength could be obtained
with lime/cement for clayey silt than for clay and gyttja.
The additional increase of the shear strength is often small when the lime/cement
content exceeds 150 to 200 kg/m3. The shear strength is expected for clayey silt to be
somewhat higher with cement after four months than with lime/cement while for clayey
gyttja the shear strength is usually higher with lime/cement than with cement (hnberg et
al, 1995a, 1995b).
The increase of the undrained shear strength of the remoulded clay by the reduction
of the water content during the slaking and the mixing can be estimated from Eq. (3.4) as
24

well as the increase caused by an increase of the plastic and liquid limits by Eqs. (3.5) and
(3.6).
Green and Smigan (1995) have reported values on u, col of 30 to 40 degrees
determined by direct shear tests for soils stabilized with lime/cement (50/50 and 80/20)
while values of 41 and 33 degrees were obtained by triaxial tests. Kivel (1996) obtained a
value of 45 degrees by triaxial tests and by direct shear tests (UU-tests).
Axelsson and Larsson (1994) obtained an average angle of internal friction (u,col),
which at direct shear tests was 42 degrees for lime/cement columns from two different
locations and for different orientation of the samples. A friction angle (,col) of 43 to 45
degrees was determined by Bjrkman and Ryding (1996) and by Kivel (1996) at direct
shear tests. The friction angle determined by undrained and drained triaxial tests (UUand CD-tests) was 41 and 40 degrees, respectively.
The cohesion cu,col has been found by Kivel (1996) to be lower at direct shear tests
than at triaxial tests, 160 kPa and 210 kPa, respectively. The shear strength as determined
by triaxial tests has in general been higher than the shear strength by direct shear tests.
Yoshida (1996) has reported that the shear strength from triaxial tests with soils stabilized
with cement was 1.57 times the shear strength from direct shear tests.
The variation of the reported undrained angle of internal friction u,col has been large
since the quality of the columns and of the investigated samples has often been low. Also
the variations of the shear strength and of the lime/cement content over the cross-section
and along the columns have been large as well as the variation of the soil conditions.
Kivel (1994a) found that the water content of the soft soil around the lime/cement
columns was reduced. The water content was 32% at a distance of 10 to 30 mm from the
surface of the investigated column, 37% at 50 to 80 mm, 39% at 80 to 120 mm and 45%
at a distance exceeding 0.5 m. The reduction of the water content was thus large, up to
13% (45% - 32%) next to the columns. This reduction of the water content increases
substantially the shear strength of the unstabilized soil next to the columns.
3.2.5. Undrained Shear Strength with Cement.
Cement had to be mixed thoroughly with the soil compared with lime to obtain a
high shear strength. The increase of the shear strength depends mainly on the pozzolanic
reactions in the soil, while for quicklime the shear strength depends to a large extent on
the reduction of the water content, on flocculation and a reduction of the plasticity index
and on an increase of the plastic limit due to cation exchange.
The undrained shear strength increases in general with increasing cement content and
with decreasing liquid limit (Nagaraj et al, 1996). The maximum undrained shear strength
usually exceeds 500 kPa with cement. In granular soils the cement binds together the
individual soil particles while in cohesive soils the cement affects mainly the particle
clusters.
hnberg et al (1994) have reported that the shear strength increases with increasing
cement content when the cement content is between 6% and 16%. The soil type, the
initial water content and the water/cement ratio also affect the increase of the shear
strength. The effectiveness of the cement will generally decrease with increasing
plasticity index and with increasing clay content. The increase of the shear strength is
often low when the activity ratio is high, which is the case for the clay mineral
montmorillonite.
The increase of the shear strength with cement is often low when the water content
exceeds 200% (Babasaki et al, 1996). The increase has also been low for organic soils
when the ignition loss exceeds 15% even at a cement content above 20%. There is also a
tendency for the shear strength to decrease with decreasing pH-value.
25

The cement type affects also the shear strength. hnberg et al (1995a) have
investigated the effect of different cement types on the shear strength and on the
compression modulus. Fast setting cement has been found to give somewhat higher shear
strengths and a higher bearing capacity than standard Portland cement (hnberg et al,
1995a). Also Bergado et al (1996) have reported that the cement type affects the shear
strength.
The wet method is common in Japan while in Sweden and Finland only the dry
method is used. A higher shear strength can generally be obtained by the dry than by the
wet method at the same cement content (Chida, 1981) due to the increase of the water
content and of the water/cement ratio (w/c-ratio) at the wet method. The w/c-ratio of the
cement slurry is usually 0.6 to 1.3 in Japan at the wet method (Okumura, 1996). A w/cratio of 1.0 is common.
Sandros and Holm (1996) have reported that the undrained compressive strength of
silty clay has been 1.7 to 3.2 times higher by the dry method than by the wet method. The
unconfined compressive strength 60 days after the mixing was about 1.0 to 1.6 MPa at a
cement content of 200 to 350 kg/m3. The increase of the shear strength after 60 days was
small, about 10% up to 180 days after the mixing.
The pozzolanic reactions are initially faster with cement than with lime especially
when finely ground cement is used. The pozzolanic reactions and the resulting increase of
the shear strength with lime will continue for many months and years. The increase of the
ground temperature is less with cement than with lime, which will slow down the
pozzolanic reactions and the shear strength increase with time.
Due to the difficulty to mix dry cement with the soil when the cement content is high,
the variation of the shear strength and of the stiffness of the columns is often less by the
wet method than by the dry method especially when the water content of the soil is low
and the shear strength is high. Also the variation of the shear strength along the columns
is usually less with cement and lime/cement than with lime.
Asano et al (1996) have reported that the shear strength of samples mixed in the
laboratory has been up to 2 to 5 times higher than the shear strength of samples obtained
from actual columns The difference of the shear strength is attributed to the difference in
the mixing in the laboratory and in the field.
3.2.6. Undrained Shear Strength with Gypsum and Fly Ash.
Stabilization of soft soil with gypsum and fly ash has been investigated by Nieminen
(1977) and by Viitanen (1977). Kujala (1983a) has reported a friction angle u,col of 23
degrees by triaxial tests for gypsum and lime and 40 degrees by direct shear tests. Kujala
and Nieminen (1983) found that the friction angle was about 10 degrees higher for soils
stabilized with lime and gypsum than for soils stabilized only with lime.
Also fly ash has been used for soil stabilization (Wu et al, 1993). An increase by 40
times was obtained with 30% fly ash after 28 days mainly due to a reduction of the water
content. The increase of the plastic limit and of the reduction of the plasticity index of the
soil contributed also to the shear strength. One uncertainty is the possible pollution of the
ground water by the heavy metals in the fly ash. This risk can be reduced, however, by
mixing the fly ash with lime or cement.
3.2.7. Undrained Shear Strength with Blast Furnace Slag.
Blast furnace slag does not have any hydraulic properties unless activated by lime
and cement. Often a high shear strength can be obtained with cement and blast furnace
slag also for soils with a high water and organic content such as peat.
26

3.2.8. Undrained Shear Strength with Rice Husk Ash.

Ali Jawaid (1997) has found that silty clay could be stabilized with 10% rice husk
ash and 6% lime. The required lime content is thus low. It might be possible to use rice
husk ash to stabilize also other soil types since the silica content of the ash is high. In
India over about 10 Mt rice husk ash is produced annually. The available amount is thus
very large
3.3. Drained Shear Strength.
3.3.1. General
The drained shear strength fd of the stabilised soil, which governs the long-term
stability of e.g. a slope can be estimated by the following equation
fd = ccol + f tan col

(3.7)

where f is the normal effective pressure on the failure plane.

The drained shear strength parameters (col and ccol) can be determined by
drained triaxial or drained direct shear tests (CD-tests) or by consolidated-undrained
triaxial tests (CU-tests) with pore pressure measurements. A backpressure of about 300 to
400 kPa or higher is often required at the triaxial tests to saturate the samples.
When the confining pressure is high the shear strength as determined by triaxial UU
and CD-tests is about the same. With cement the friction angle col is constant up to an
effective confining pressure of at least 500 kPa.
The long-term bearing capacity could be lower than the short-term bearing capacity
due to creep. The lowest shear strength and the lowest bearing capacity of the columns are
expected just below the stiff crust, when the clay is normally consolidated or slightly
overconsolidated .
The effective friction angle col can be assumed to 30 degrees for lime columns, 35
degrees for lime/cement columns and about 40 degrees for cement columns. It should be
noted that the shear strength as determined by drained triaxial tests is often lower than the
undrained shear strength determined by direct shear tests, when the normal pressure is
low. When the confining pressure is high the shear strength as determined by triaxial UUand CD-tests is expected to be about the same.
3.3.2. Drained Shear Strength with Lime.
The effective friction angle col is relatively high for lime columns. The friction angle
usually increases with increasing lime content. Rogers and Lee (1994a) have found that the
friction angle col increased a few degrees when the lime content was increased. The effective
friction angle col increased also with increasing lime content and with increasing time. The
friction angle col is often lower for lime columns than for cement and lime/cement
columns. The difference is usually small. The highest values have been reported for
clayey silt with both lime and cement (Ekstrm, 1992). The lowest values on col have
been for organic soils.
Balasubramaniam et al (1989) have reported values on col of 38 and 35.8 degrees at a
lime content of 5% to10%. With 15% lime the friction angle was 40.1 degrees. Also Brandl
(1981) has reported very high values on u,col as determined by triaxial tests (UU-tests), 32
to 37 degrees. Gransson and Larsson (1994) determined col to 31 to 36 degrees from
triaxial tests (CD-tests). A friction angle u,col of 33 degrees as determined by direct shear
tests has been reported by Reiment (1978).

27

Brookes et al (1997) found that col was 30 to 42 degrees by consolidated-drained triaxial

tests with Gault Clay from the U.K. at a lime content of 5% to 15%. The friction angle col for
the unstabilized Gault Clay was 23 to 25 degrees. For London Clay it was reported that the
friction angle col was 31 to 41 degrees with 5% to 15% lime. The highest friction angle, 41
degrees, was observed with 5% lime. The friction angle for the unstabilized weathered London
Clay was 17 to 23 degrees.
3.3.3. Drained Shear Strength with Lime/Cement and Cement.
The friction angle col as determined by drained triaxial tests has been of 34 to 36
degrees for organic clay, 34 to 39 degrees for clay and 40 to 44 degrees for clayey silt
with lime/cement. hnberg (1996) found from drained triaxial tests that col was 34 to 44
degrees. The friction angle has been higher for clayey silt than for clayey gyttja.
Bjrkman and Ryding (1996) have reported a value of 40 degrees on col by triaxial
tests with samples from actual lime/cement columns. Triaxial tests with 0.5 m diameter
samples by Steensen-Bach et al (1996) and by Rogbeck (1995) indicated values on col of
37.5 to 39.3 degrees. Ekstrm (1992) has reported that col was 40 degrees for a silty clay
and 25 to 29 degrees for a clay stabilized by lime/cement or cement. Bergwall and
Falksund (1996) determined a value of 57 degrees on col. With lime/cement Ekstrm
(1994b) observed values on col of 38 to 40 degrees at consolidated-undrained triaxial
tests (CU-tests). Values of 40 to 45 degrees have been reported by Wada et al (1991) for
cement columns.
The friction angle for lime/cement and cement columns has a tendency to increase
with time (hnberg et al, 1995a, 1995b). The friction angle col has been constant with
cement up to an effective confining pressure of at least 500 kPa.
.
3.3.4. Drained Shear Strength with Gypsum.
Kujala (1983b) has reported that col was 40 degrees at triaxial tests with gypsum
and lime and 23 degrees with lime alone. The friction angle for gypsum and lime has been
higher than the friction angle with only lime. Brandl (1981) determined values of 35 to 40
degrees by direct shear tests on clays stabilized with lime and with lime and gypsum
when the normal pressure was low. Huttunen et al (1996b) found for peat that col was
36.8 to 41.3 degrees for cement and granulated blast furnace slag. Huttunen and Kujala et
al (1996) have reported that col was 37.1 to 60.6 degrees for peat with cement and
gypsum (Finnstabi) at a stabilizer content of 250 kg/m3. The water content was 174% to
198%. The unconfined compressive strength was 130 to 234 kPa.
3.3.5. Effective Cohesion ccol and csoil
The effective cohesion ccol, has been found to be about 25% to 30% of the undrained
shear strength with lime and about 35% to 45% with lime/cement and cement (hnberg
et al, 1994b, 1995a). The effective cohesion ccol was found to be higher for clayey gyttja
than for clayey silt and clay, which has been stabilised with lime/cement. hnberg (1996)
has reported that the cohesion ccol varied between 50 kPa for clays stabilised by lime and
1600 kPa for clayey silt stabilised by cement. The effective cohesion ccol was 46.2 to 83.6
kPa with cement and gypsum (250 kg/m3) and 37.4 to 48.5 kPa with cement and granulated
blast furnace slag.
The effective cohesion csoil varied between 26 and 55 kPa for the Gault Clay and
between 42 and 77 kPa for the London Clay with 5% to 15% quicklime (Brookes et al,
1997). The effective cohesion csoil was 12 to 18 kPa for the weathered London Clay and

28

10 to 14 kPa for the weathered Gault Clay. Reiment (1978) has reported that the cohesion
intercept cu,col was 25 kPa.
3.3.6. Water/Cement Ratio.
The shear strength of organic soils stabilized with cement is to a large extent
governed by the water/cement ratio as discussed e.g. by hnberg et al (1995a), Kukko
and Ruhomki (1995), Rathmayer (1997), Asano et al (1996) and by Nagaraj et al (1996).
Asano et al (1996) found that the increase of the shear strength depended mainly on the
w/c-ratio and that fly ash and gypsum did not contributed much to the increase of the
shear strength.
Kujala et al (1993) have reported that the shear strength decreased with increasing
w/c-ratio. Test results reported by hnberg et al (1995a) suggest that the undrained shear
strength fu increases with decreasing water/cement ratio (w/c) including the water from
the stabilized soil. It is expected that the shear strength of mainly silty or sandy soils will
increase with decreasing w/c-ratio according to the following equation
fu = fou / (w/c)

(3.8)

where fou is a reference shear strength of the stabilized soil as determined by unconfined
compression tests after 28 days at a w/c-ratio of 1.0 including the initial water content of
the soil. It is thus expected from Eq. (3.8), that the increase of the shear strength is about
100% when the water/cement ratio is reduced by 50% e.g. from 8 to 4.
Edstam (1997) indicates, however, that there is no definite increase of the undrained
shear strength with decreasing water/cement ratio, when the water content is low possibly
due to poor mixing. The scatter of the results is large. Also the organic content and the
pH-value of the pore water have been found to affect the increase of the shear strength.
The unconfined compressive strength is often 2 to 4 MPa at a water/cement ratio of
1.0 (Asano et al, 1996; Matsuo et al, 1996a). When the water/cement ratio is 1.2 to 1.5
the expected unconfined compressive strength is about 1 MPa. Holm (1994) has reported
that the shear strength increases approximately linearly with increasing cement content
and that an unconfined compressive strength of 2 MPa can be expected at a cement
content of 200 kg/m3.
3.3.6. Residual Shear Strength.
The undrained and the drained shear strengths are reduced when the peak strength is
exceeded. The reduction has been large when the peak shear strength is large. This
reduction had to be considered when the peak shear strength of the unstabilised soil is
used in design.
The reduction of the undrained shear strength as reported by Kivel (1996) at direct
shear tests with a clay stabilized by lime/cement are shown in Fig. 12. The shear
resistance decreased rapidly when the peak strength was exceeded. Mainly the cohesion is
affected. The residual friction angle col,res, 45 degrees, is not affected much when the
effective cohesion is neglected. It can thus be assumed that col,res is equal to col.

29

Fig. 12. Peak and Residual Undrained Shear Strength as Determined by Direct
Shear Tests (after Kivel, 1996)
The residual shear strength is typically 70% to 80% of the peak shears strength
(Hansson, 1991). A residual shear strength, which was 74% to 100% of the peak shear
strength, has been reported by Gransson and Larsson (1994). Kivel (1996) and
Bjrkman and Ryding (1996) found that the residual shear strength was 50% to 70% of
the peak shear strengths as determined by undrained direct shear tests with samples from
lime/cement columns (Fig. 13) and 80% to 90% of the peak shear strengths at triaxial
tests (UU-tests). The reduction of the shear strength has been larger at direct shear tests
than at triaxial tests. The difference decreases with increasing normal pressure at the
direct shear tests and with increasing confining pressure at the triaxial tests. The reduction
is typically 50% at drained triaxial tests when the confining pressure is 160 kPa and about
70% at a confining pressure of 80 kPa for soils stabilised with lime/cement (hnberg et
al, 1996).
Axelsson and Larsson (1994) found for lime/cement columns, that the residual shear
strength as determined by undrained direct shear tests (UU-tests) varied between 60% and
96% of the peak shear strength and that the behavior of the soil was similar as that of an
overconsolidated clay. The reduction increased rapidly with increasing shear strength.
When the undrained shear strength exceeds 500 kPa the reduction can be as high as 80%
to 90% when the confining pressure is low as reported by hnberg et al (1996). hnberg
et al (1994) have indicated that the residual strength for clayey silt is typically 50% to
30

60% of the peak undrained shear strength when the shear strength is low. The reduction
of the shear strength is generally relatively small, 10% to 30%, when the shear strength is
less than 100 to 150 kPa.

Fig. 13. Direct Shear Tests with Lime/Cement Columns and Unstabilised Clay
(after Kivel, 1996)
Unami and Shima (1996) observed at undrained triaxial tests that the residual shear
strength was about 85% of the peak shear strength, 600 kPa. Similar results have been
reported by Bergwall and Falksund (1996). Tatsuoka and Kobayashi (1983) found that the
residual undrained shear strength is typically 75% to 100% of the peak shear strength. A
residual shear strength of 600 kPa has e.g. been reported by Holm (1994) for a soil
stabilized with lime/cement with a peak shear strength of 5 MPa. The reduction was
almost 90%.
The reduction of the effective cohesion ccol has a large effect on the shear strength
when the confining pressure is low. hnberg et al (1995) have reported values on ccol of
10 to 30 kPa for soils, which had been stabilized with lime, lime/cement and cement. The
reduction of the angle of internal friction u,col and col is relatively small, less than 5
degrees.
Steensen-Bach et al (1996) have proposed that col could be assumed to be the same
as the residual angle of internal friction col, res when the residual cohesion ccol, res is
31

equal to zero, due to the reduction of the bonding at large deformations of the stabilized
soil.
3.3.7. Failure Strain and Ductility.
The strain f at the peak shear strength can be 10% or higher for lime columns when
the unconfined compressive strength is low, less than about 100 kPa. Sabry et al (1996)
have pointed out that the stabilized soil is brittle when the shear strength is high. The
failure strain has a tendency to decrease with increasing shear strength and with
decreasing confining pressure. The failure strain of lime/cement and cement columns can
be as low as 0.5% to 2% when the unconfined compressive strength exceeds about 200
kPa as shown in Fig. 14 (hnberg, et al, 1995). Ekstrm (1994b) has reported a failure
strain of about 2% when the shear strength exceeded 150 kPa.
A failure strain of only 0.1% to 1% has been reported by Tatsuoka et al (1996),
Tatsuoka and Kobayashi (1983) and by Terashi and Tanaka (1981). Unami and Shima
(1996) found a failure strain of 1% at an unconfined compressive strength of

Fig. 14. Failure Strain (after hnberg et al, 1995a)

1 MPa for soils stabilized with cement. A failure strain of only 0.77% has e.g. been
reported by Holm (1994) at a peak shear strength of 5.0 MPa.
The failure strain has been 0.7% to 0.8% for lime/cement columns with an
unconfined compressive strength of 520 to 760 kPa (Kivel, 1994a). Ekstrm (1994b)
found that the failure strain at unconfined compression tests with lime/cement columns at
a shear strength of 130 kPa was 1.8% to 2.2%. Above 1.0 MPa f was about 1%.
The failure strain of column cores has generally been less than the failure strain of
laboratory samples (Ekstrm, 1994b). The failure strain is often higher for organic than
32

for inorganic soils due to the low shear strength when the soil is organic. hnberg et al
(1996) have reported a failure strain of up to 17% for clayey gyttja.
The axial strain at the peak shear strength increases with increasing confining
pressure. Tatsuoka and Kobayashi (1983) have reported that the failure strain increased
from less than 1.1% to more than 15% when the confining pressure was increased from
20 kPa to 686 kPa. Terashi and Tanaka (1981) found that the failure strain increased from
1.5% at a confining pressure of 50 kPa to about 8% at 400 kPa. Balasubramaniam et al
(1989) has reported that the failure strain for soils stabilized with lime increased from
2.5% at a confining pressure of 50 kPa to about 10% at a confining pressure of 400 kPa.
Rogers and Lee (1994) indicated that the failure strain increased with 3% lime from about
2% to about 13% when the confining pressure was increased from 0 to 600 kPa. Ekstrm
(1994b) has reported for lime/cement columns that the failure strain increased from 7.5%
when the confining pressure was 60 kPa to more than 11% when the confining pressure
was 200 kPa.
The failure strain is about the same for lime, lime/cement and cement columns at the
same shear strength (Ekstrm, 1994b). The failure strain f is usually higher for lime
columns than for lime/cement and cement columns because of the high shear strength of
lime/cement and cement columns. The failure strain at the wet method is often higher
than the failure strain at the dry method at the same cement content due to the higher
shear strength with the dry method. The failure strain increases with increasing water
content due to the reduction of the shear strength with increasing water content. The
failure strain has also a tendency to decrease with time since the shear strength increases
with time (e.g. Brandl, 1995; Sandros and Holm, 1996).
The failure strain is also low for soils stabilized with fly ash (Brandl, 1995) even
when the unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized soil is low. Kujala and
Nieminen (1983) have e.g. reported that the strain at the peak shear strength was reduced
from 4.1% with lime to 1.4% with lime and gypsum.
A failure strain of 5% is recommended in the design of lime columns when the
undrained shear strength is less than 100 to 150 kPa and 3% when the shear strength
exceeds 150kPa. For lime/cement and cement columns a failure strain of 1% can likely be
used. The failure strain can be estimated by triaxial tests (CU- or CD-tests) with a
confining pressure, which corresponds to the in-situ total overburden pressure.
3.3.8. Increase of Shear Strength with Time.
The shear strength and the bearing capacity of lime, lime/cement and cement
columns increase with time as well as the modulus of elasticity. Initially the increase is
much faster with cement than with lime. After 30 days the increase with cement is
generally small. With lime the increase continues for several years.
Okamura and Terashi (1975), Bredenberg (1979), hnberg and Holm (1986) and
Kujala et al (1993) have reported that the undrained shear strength of the stabilized soil
increases with t while Brandl (1981, 1995) and Nagaraj (1996) have proposed that the
shear strength increases with log t when the time after the mixing exceeds three days.
Also Sherwood (1993) has found that the shear strength with cement increases with log t
when the clay content is low. The difference between the two methods can be large.
The increase of the shear strength is often slow initially with lime/cement for clays
with a sulphide content larger than 1% to 3%. The shear strength increases gradually with
time and could eventually be about the same as that for clays with a low sulphide content.
The increase of the shear strength is generally fast when the columns are loaded just
after the installation (Wilhelmsson and Brorsson, 1987). Considerable care is required,
however, so that the bearing capacity of the columns will not be exceeded.
33

The pozzolanic reactions increase rapidly with increasing ground temperature and
with increasing pH-value. The chemical reactions are accelerated since the solubility of
silicate and aluminate in the clay minerals increases with increasing pH-value and with
increasing ground temperature. The lime affects the clay particles mainly along the edges
when the pH-value is high (>12). The rate is reduced when the water content of the soil is
high (Saitoh et al, 1996).
Often the increase of the shear strength with time is slower in the laboratory than in
the field. Bryhn et al (1983) have reported that the shear strength after 30 days was only
half of the in-situ shear strength. It is therefore difficult to predict the increase of the shear
strength of the stabilized soil with time from laboratory tests.
3.3.9. Increase of the Shear Strength with Time with Lime.
Typically 50% of the final shear strength of soils stabilized by lime is obtained after
one month, 75% after three months and about 90% of the final shear strength after one
year. The increase of the shear strength is initially relatively slow compared with
lime/cement or cement. Some long-term increase of the shear strength can usually be
expected with lime after 200 days (Eriksson and Carlsten, 1995). The increase of the
shear strength is usually faster in the field than in the laboratory due to the high ground
temperature caused by the slaking and the high confining pressure. The ground
temperature effects mainly the pozzolanic reactions.
The undrained shear strength of the stabilized soil is normally higher than the shear
strength of the undisturbed clay one to two hours after the mixing even when the
sensitivity of the soft clay is high and a large part of the shear strength is lost during the
mixing. Initially the increase of the shear strength with lime is very slow. The shear
strength 14 days after the mixing is often much lower with lime than with lime/cement.
The long-term increase of the shear strength, which is mainly caused by pozzolanic
reactions, depends on the type of clay minerals present in the soil. A gel of calcium
silicate and calcium aluminate is formed, when the calcium ions react with the clay
particles in the soil. The shear strength increase is often low with lime when the clay
content is low. The pozzolanic reactions take place with lime over several years. The
reactions, which are similar to those caused by the hydration of cement, bind together the
different silt and sand particles
The shear strength of the unstabilized soil next to the columns increases also with
time due to consolidation. The diffusion rate for lime is low in clay, about 10 mm/year
(Holeyman et al, 1983). hnberg et al (1995a) found that the concentration of Ca-, K- and
SO4-ions had been affected only a few centimeters from the columns 3 to 6 months after
the installation. The shear strength is only affected up to about 30 mm from the surface of
the columns. Outside this narrow zone the shear strength could be reduced, by up to 35%
(Bryhn et al, 1983). The stabilizing effect by the lime and the cement is thus mainly
limited to the columns.
3.3.10. Increase of the Shear Strength with Time of Lime/Cement and Cement.
The shear strength increases in general faster with lime/cement and cement than with
lime. When finely ground cement is used, the shear strength increases rapidly the first
month after the installation. However, after three months the shear strength could for
many inorganic soils be lower with lime/cement and cement than with lime even when
the shear strength one month after the mixing is low. The increase of the shear strength by
consolidation of the cement treated soil is similar to that of the unstabilised soil (Kohata
at al, 1996).
34

3.3.11. Increase of the Shear Strength with Time for Gypsum, Fly ash, Lime and Other
Additives.
With gypsum (CaSO3) and lime the shear strength increases very fast the first two to
three months after the mixing (Nieminen, 1978). The long term undrained shear strength
is often higher than the shear strength with only lime. Holm et al (1983a) found that the
increase of the shear strength was relatively slow at a high lime/gypsum ratio. The ratio of
lime and gypsum is usually 3:1 to 1:1.
Kujala and Nieminen (1983) and Kujala (1983b) have reported for lime and gypsum
that the shear strength one month after the mixing has been two to four times the shear
strength with only lime. After one year the shear strength with lime and gypsum has been
about twice the shear strength with only lime. The shear strength of the stabilized soil was
up to 200 kPa. The initial shear strength of the unstabilized clay was low, 6 to 7 kPa and
the water content was high, up to 160%. The proportion of gypsum and lime was 1:1 and
1:2.
It has been possible with lime and gypsum to stabilize soils with an initial water
content of up to 140% (Holm et al, 1983a; 1987). Kuno et al (1989) have reported, that
slaked lime and gypsum could increase the shear strength of soils with an initial water
content as high as 300% to 400%.
Gypsum increases the rate of the chemical reactions in the soil. The needlelike
ettringite particles, which are formed when the SO4-ions in the gypsum react with the clay
particles, contribute to the high shear strength of the stabilized soil (Nieminen, 1979;
Kujala, 1983b; Holm et al, 1983a). Thereby the water content is reduced.
The increase of the shear strength with lime and gypsum can be attributed at least
partly to the volume increase caused by the needle-shaped ettringite particles and by the
resulting increase of the lateral pressure around the columns. An increase of the lateral
pressure by 200 to 500 kPa has e.g. been reported by e.g. Kujala and Nieminen (1983).
However, the shear strength of high-strength columns with low ductility could even be
reduced by the volume increase. Ettringite is only stable, however, when pH >7. The long
term shear strength and bearing capacity of the columns could thus be reduced if the pHvalue of the soil is reduced. It is therefore recommended that gypsum should not be used
to increase the long-term stability of embankments, slopes and excavations.
Cement and gypsum as well as fly ash and cement have been used in Finland to
stabilize peat with a water content as high as 1250% to 1670% (Ravaska and Kujala,
1996). The required amount of stabilizer is high, when the water content is high.
Nieminen (1979) has reported that the cement content could be reduced with fly ash,
blast-furnace slags and gypsum. Blast-furnace slag and fly ash contribute to the
pozzolanic reactions in the soil.
In Japan and India fly ash and gypsum have been used to stabilize peat (Asano et al,
1996; Mishra and Srivastava, 1996). Fly ash has been found to be effective in silty and
clayey soils, where the clay content has not been sufficient (Nieminen, 1979; Holm and
hnberg, 1987). The fly ash particles are spherical, which affects the consistency during
the mixing. The long-term shear strength can be even higher with fly ash and cement than
with only cement. With fly ash the permeability of the stabilized soil is reduced.
Also sand has been found to be effective. Axelsson et al (1996) have reported that the
shear strength was increased by about 30% when 100 kg sand was added per m3. Other
additives have been investigated by Pradines and Bredenberg (1981).

3.4. Long-Term Performance of Columns Stabilised with Lime, Lime/Cement,

Cement and other Additives
35

3.4.1. General
The available information about the long-term performance of lime, lime/cement and
cement columns is very limited compared with the long-term performance of limestabilized subgrades in road construction.
3.4.2. Deterioration by Carbonization
The bearing capacity of lime columns can be reduced when lime reacts with
carbondioxid (CO2) in the air or dissolved in the ground water. Calcium and magnesium
carbonates with a low shear strength are formed with lime, which slows down the
pozzolanic reactions. The shear strength can also be reduced by to the volume changes
caused by the carbonization.
The long term bearing capacity and shear strength of lime columns are affected by
the pH-value of the ground water. The shear strength is reduced at pH < 4.5 to 5.0. It is
likely that only a thin layer at the surface of the columns will be affected by a low pHvalue due to the low permeability of the stabilized soil.
3.4.3. Deterioration Caused by Sulphide
Volume changes caused by the ettringite particles can be detrimental. Mitchell (1986)
has e.g. reported that the bearing capacity of pavements constructed on expansive soil,
which has been stabilized by unslaked lime, has been reduced. The pavement behaved
initially satisfactory but started to deteriorate after about two years. The reduction of the
shear strength was attributed to sodiumsulphate (Na2SO4) and gypsum (CaSO4) present in
the soil and the volume increase caused by the gradual growth of ettringite when lime was
added. The expansion of the soil reduces the bonding and the shear strength.
A similar increase of the volume of the soil, which has been stabilised with lime,
lime/cement or cement, can occur with time when the flowing ground water contains e.g.
sodium sulphate. The sulphate reacts with the calcium ions present in the lime and in the
cement. The volume increase caused by the ettringite particles, which is very large, can
rupture the bonds between the soil particles.
The ettringite, which is formed with gypsum and lime, can be used to stabilize soft
soils since the long stiff needle-shaped ettringite particles function as reinforcement in the
soil. It is then important that the pH-value is high.
3.4.4. Deterioration Caused by Cyclic and Dynamic Loading
Concern has also been expressed about the possible reduction of the shear strength of
lime, lime/cement and cement columns caused by cyclic and dynamic loading. It is
expected that cyclic loading soil will increase both the short and the long term bearing
capacity of lime columns due to the high permeability of the stabilized soil.
The volume has a tendency to decrease when the stress increase by the cyclic loading
is small since the stabilized soil behaves as an overconsolidated clay. The pore water
pressures will gradually increase when the permeability of the stabilized soil is low. The
volume and the water content will gradually decrease with increasing number of load
cycles if sufficient time is available for the consolidation of the soil after each load cycle
or after a few load cycles. This is probably the case for lime columns due to the high
permeability of the stabilized soil.
In lime/cement and cement columns the pore water pressure could gradually increase
with increasing number of load cycles. The time between each load cycles may not be
sufficient for the dissipation of the excess pore water pressure due to the low permeability
of the columns. The resulting gradual increase of the pore water pressure will reduce the
36

shear strength. It is expected that the effective angle of internal friction col will not be
affected by the cyclic loading.
The stabilized soil is expected to dilate when the stress level is high. The resulting
gradual increase of the volume reduces the bearing capacity and the shear strength of the
columns. Mainly the cohesion ccol is affected. The reduction of the bearing capacity of
the columns can be large.
It is expected that the shear resistance with respect to dynamic loads will be higher
than the static shear resistance since the shear strength of clay increases in general with
increasing loading rate.
3.5. Tensile Strength
3.5.1. Tensile Strength of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns.
The tensile strength of soils stabilized with lime, lime/cement and cement can be
determined by Brazilian indirect tension tests. Terashi et al (1980; 1983c) report that the
tensile strength is typically 10% to 20% of the unconfined compressive strength with a
maximum of about 200 kPa. Okabayashi and Kawamura (1991) found from split cylinder
tests that the tensile strength is about 15% of the unconfined compressive strength. However,
the scatter of the results is large.
Brandl (1980) determined by direct tension tests a tensile strength which was 10% to
15% of the unconfined compressive strength and that the tensile strength increased with
increasing lime content and with increasing time after the mixing. The tensile strength as
evaluated by bending tests has been high, 25% to 40% of the unconfined compressive
strength and thus higher than the tensile strength determined by the Brazilian tension
tests.
3.6. Compression Modulus, Modulus of Elasticity and Shear Modulus.
3.6.1. Compression Modulus, M.
The compression modulus Mcol can be estimated from the modulus of elasticity Ecol
and the Poissons ratio col of the stabilised soil
Mcol = Ecol (1- col )/ (1+ col) (1-2 col)

(3.10)

The compression modulus Mcol is equal to 1.35 Ecol when Poissons ratio col is 0.3 up
to about 50% of the ultimate bearing capacity of the columns. The compression modulus
Mcol is equal to 2.14 Ecol when col is 0.40. It should be noted that Mcol is larger than the
modulus of elasticity Ecol and that Mcol increases rapidly with increasing value on col.
The compression modulus Mcol is normally used to estimate the settlement of lime,
lime/cement or cement columns and the load distribution. The compression modulus is
generally determined by oedometer tests, where the applied load is increased every 24
hours. The consolidation tests can also be carried out at a constant deformation rate
(CRS-tests).
The initial compression modulus Mi as determined by CRS-tests is about constant
with lime up to about 0.8 to 1.6 times the undrained shear strength of the soil according to
hnberg et al (1995a) as shown in Fig. 15. After the modulus has been reduced to Mmin at
an axial strain of 2% to 3% the compression modulus M increases approximately
linearly with increasing consolidation pressure. The compression modulus M is equal to
the compression modulus of the unstabilized soil Msoil (M = Msoil). The bonding of the
soil caused by cementation is destroyed when the deformations are large.

37

Fig. 15. Effect of Cementation on the Compression Modulus

(after hnberg et al, 1995a)
Terashi and Tanaka (1983a) and Okumura and Terashi (1975) report that the
compression modulus was reduced at about 1.3 times the unconfined compressive
strength, which corresponds to the apparent preconsolidation pressure of the stabilized
soil. With lime/cement and cement the apparent preconsolidation pressure is
approximately 2.0 to 2.9 times the undrained shear strength at a shear strength of 100 kPa.
At 1000 kPa the preconsolidation pressure is about 0.3 to 0.6 times the undrained shear
strength. Kohata et al (1996) have reported that the apparent preconsolidation pressure for
cement columns is about 1.2 to 1.7 the unconfined compressive strength. When the shear
strength of the stabilized soil is relatively low the preconsolidation pressure is about 1.7
times the unconfined compressive strength at a c/p-ratio of 0.30 and about two times the
unconfined compressive strength at a c/p-ratio of 0.25
The initial compression modulus of the stabilized soil as determined by CRS-tests is
typically 40 MPa for cement columns and 10 to 30 MPa for lime/cement columns about
two months after the installation (Ekstrm, 1992). Gransson and Larsson (1994)
determined a confined modulus Mcol of 20 MPa from load tests with lime/cement
columns. Close to the ground surface the compressibility of the stabilized soil was high
and the compression modulus was low.
38

A low compression modulus, 20 to 30 MPa, has been reported by Arnr et al (1996)

for lime/cement columns at 4 m depth for a test embankment at Norrala. Values of 5 to 10
MPa were measured for the upper part of the columns where the shear strength was low
as reported by Svensson and Jonsson (1996). The columns were installed during the
winter when the air and the ground temperatures were low. A compression modulus Mcol
of 120 to 150 MPa has been reported by Kivel (1994b) for 0.5 m diameter lime/cement
columns at half of the ultimate bearing capacity. The lime/cement content was 20 to 25
kg/m (100 to 125 kg/m3). The undrained shear strength was 200 to 300 kPa, which
corresponds to a Mcol /cu,col-ratio of about 500.
Baker et al (1997) have reported from in-situ measurements of lime/cement columns
that Mcol was 110 to 170 MPa with a mean value of 145 MPa. Unconfined compression
tests on samples from the columns tested in the laboratory indicated a compression
modulus of 45 to 110 MPa with a mean value of 70 MPa. The compression modulus as
determined by unconfined compression tests was low, about 50% of the values from insitu measurements. The in-situ undrained shear strength was 140 to 280 kPa. The
laboratory values were about twice as high, 220 to 420 kPa. The ratio Mcol/cu,col as
determined by field tests was about 700.
The ratio Mcol/cu,col increases in general with increasing shear strength. Deformation
measurements indicate a compression modulus for lime/cement columns of at least 100
MPa at an undrained shear strength of 250 kPa, which corresponds to a compression
modulus Mcol of 400 cu,col.. hnberg et al (1995a) have reported that Mcol as determined
by oedometer tests (CRS-tests) was 60 cu,col to 300 cu,col. up to the preconsolidation
pressure. This ratio is somewhat lower for lime and gypsum, 50 cu,col to 70 cu,col
The compression modulus is often lower for lime columns than for lime/cement and
cement columns at the same undrained shear strength. For lime, lime/cement and cement
columns it is common to assume that Mcol = 50 to 150 cu,col, Mcol = 100 to 200 cu,col and
Mcol = 150 to 250 cu,col, respectively (Ekstrm, 1992). Rogbeck and Trnk (1995) have
recommended that a compression modulus of 50 to 150 cu,col can be used for lime/cement
columns. The lower value, 50 cu,col, is for organic soils and the higher value, 150 cu,col, is
for silty clay.
The compression modulus as determined by oedometer tests has in general been
lower than the in-situ compression modulus. The compression modulus from oedometer
tests can therefore be considered as a lower limit (hnberg et al, 1995a). Also Ekstrm et
al (1994c) have observed that the compression modulus at oedometer tests has been much
lower than the back-calculated modulus. The in-situ modulus was five times higher than
the oedometer values.
It is expected that Mcol will increase with increasing time after the installation due to
the increase of the shear strength. The lateral confining pressure will be higher for lime
than for lime/cement columns due to the volume increase caused by the slaking of the
lime. The compression modulus is generally higher for lime/cement and cement columns
than for lime columns.
3.6.2. Modulus of Elasticity, E
Ekstrm (1994b) has reported a value of 150 on the in-situ E50/cu,col-ratio for
lime/cement columns when the shear strength exceeds 50 kPa and 130 cu,col for cement
columns. For laboratory samples E50 corresponded to 75 cu,col with lime at 50% of the
unconfined compression strength and to 200 cu,col with lime/cement and cement. A lower
limit is 75 cu,col . Kivel (1994a) and Baker et al (1997) determined E50 to 100 MPa to
170 MPa for lime/cement columns, which corresponds to 250 to 350 qu, where qu is the
unconfined compressive strength.
39

Lahtinen and Vepslinen (1993) back-calculated the average modulus of elasticity to

15 to 25 MPa for lime columns. Similar results have been reported by Vepslinen and
Arkima (1992) for cement columns below a 2 m high embankment. The initial shear
strength of the clay was 10 to 15 kPa. The water content was 65% to 90%. The variation
of the modulus of elasticity was large.
Steensen-Bach et al (1996) have reported values on E50 of 45 to 105 MPa from
undrained triaxial tests with lime/cement columns. The undrained shear strength of the
stabilized soil was 127 to 225 kPa at a confining pressure of 20 kPa. The drained modulus
was only 30 to 50 MPa and thus lowers than the undrained modulus.
The ratio E50/cu, col can be assumed to about 200 for lime/cement columns and to
about 250 to 300 for cement columns according to Carlsten and Ekstrm (1995, 1997).
Ou and Wu (1996) have reported that E50/cu,col varied between 200 and 500. Asano et al
(1996) found that the ratio E50/qu varied between 140 and 500 for cement columns and
between 50 and 300 for soils stabilised by fly ash, gypsum and cement. Bjrkman and
Ryding (1996) have reported values of 150 to 200 MPa on Ecol for lime/cement columns
at Norrala with an unconfined compressive strength of about 1100 kPa, which
corresponds to E50/cu,col = 270 to 360.
Kohata et al (1996) and Tatsuoka et al (1997) have pointed out that the bedding error
at column load tests can be large, which will reduce the observed values on Ecol especially
when the shear strength of the stabilized soil is high. It is therefore preferable to measure
the deformations of the columns some distance away from the end caps.
The Ecol/cu,col -ratio has been higher for cement than for lime and lime/cement
columns. This ratio is also higher for cores, than for samples prepared in the laboratory.
Ekstrm et al (1994) have reported that the modulus as determined by unconfined
compression tests on samples prepared in the laboratory has always been higher than the
modulus determined for cores obtained in-situ from actual columns. Ekstrm (1994b)
recommends that Ecol should not be determined from laboratory samples.
In Japan the modulus of elasticity Ecol is often estimated as 0.7 N in MPa
(Babasaki and Suzuki, 1996) where N is the penetration resistance in blows/0.3 m at SPT.
The secant modulus of elasticity decreases rapidly with increasing axial deformation.
Typically the Emax / qu,col -ratio is reduced from about 1,000 at = 0.1% to 100 at = 1%.
This ratio has a tendency to increase with increasing shear strength. The Emax/cu,col-ratio is
generally larger for cement than for lime and lime/cement columns. It is also higher for
samples from actual columns than for samples prepared in the laboratory. The scatter of
the results is, however, large. It is usually not possible to estimate the shear strength cu,col
from Emax because of the difference in strain level.
3.7. Permeability
3.7.1. General
The permeability is usually determined in the laboratory by constant or by falling
head permeability tests or by triaxial and oedometer tests. Relatively small samples
obtained in-situ are used or compacted laboratory samples. The permeability of laboratory
samples can be very different from the in-situ permeability where cracks and fissures in
the columns affect the results. The results from laboratory tests can therefore be
misleading.
It is desirable to determine the permeability of lime, cement/lime and cement
columns and the efficiency of the columns as drains by measuring the pore water pressure
during the consolidation at the bottom of the columns. The flow velocity can be estimated
from the settlement rate.
40

3.7.2. Permeability with Lime.

The permeability of the soil stabilized in the laboratory with lime has been as low as
1.5 to 5 times the permeability of the unstabilized soil (hnberg et al, 1994). Also
Hansson (1991) has found that the permeability of laboratory samples was low with lime,
only twice that of the unstabilized soil.
Mitchell (1981) has e.g. reported that the permeability can be increased up to 1000
times with unslaked lime. Bengtsson and Holm (1984) have estimated that the
permeability with lime is 100 to 500 times the permeability of the unstabilized soil.
Brandl (1981) indicates that an increase of the permeability with lime by one to two
orders of magnitude is possible. Bengtsson and Holm (1984) found that kcol with lime is
about 100 ksoil while Pramborg and Albertsson (1992) have reported that the average
permeability with lime, was 225 times the permeability of the unstabilized soil. The
permeability of organic soils stabilized with lime is in general lower than the permeability
of inorganic soils.
The permeability determined in the laboratory, has in general been low compared
with the in-situ permeability. hnberg and Holm (1986) have reported a permeability,
which for lime columns was 10 to 100 times the permeability of the unstabilized soil.
The permeability of lime columns has been 5 to 10 times the permeability of laboratory
samples as reported by Ekstrm (1992). hnberg et al (1995a) have found that the
permeability depended on the soil type. A higher permeability has been observed for
clayey silt with lime than for clayey gyttja and clay.
Field tests indicate that lime columns function as vertical drains in the soil (Broms
and Boman, 1977a; Leminen and Rathmayer, 1979; Bengtsson and Holm, 1984). The
permeability of the stabilized soil often increases with time with lime possibly due to
shrinkage as reported by Broms (1985a).
Hansbo and Torstensson (1978) found that the lime columns, which were used to
stabilize the remoulded soft clay after the landslide at Tuve in Sweden, functioned as
drains and that the columns reduced the high excess pore water pressures in the soft clay,
which had been affected by the landslide. Also Soyez et al (1983) have reported that lime
columns function as vertical drains and that the time required for the consolidation of the
soil was reduced. The initial water content, which was 55% to 65%, was reduced to 41%
to 42% by the consolidation, which is close to the plastic limit of the soil.
Terashi and Tanaka (1983a) found for marine clay that the permeability decreased
with increasing lime content. Rogbeck and Trnk (1995) have reported that the
permeability of lime columns was 700 to 1000 times the permeability of the unstabilized
soil.
Carlsten and Ekstrm (1995, 1997) have proposed that a permeability, which is 1000
times that of the unstabilized soil can be used to estimate the consolidation rate for lime
columns. This proposed value is likely too high. It is proposed that a permeability, which
is 200 kv,clay, should be used instead.
The variation of the measured permeabilities has been large at both field and
laboratory tests. It is therefore possible that the reported field permeability could be too
high since the observed permeability could have been affected by water losses around the
packers, which were used to seal the borehole at the center of the columns at the in-situ
permeability tests. It is desirable to determine in the field the distribution of the pore
water pressures in the columns during the consolidation so that the hydraulic lag in the
columns can be determined.
3.7.3. Permeability with Lime/Cement.
41

hnberg et al (1995a) have observed from laboratory tests that the permeability of
soils stabilized by lime or lime/cement was only slightly higher than the permeability of
the unstabilized soil and that the permeability was lower than the permeability, which is
generally assumed. A higher permeability has been observed for clayey silt than for
clayey gyttja or clay.
Arnr et al (1996) have reported for an eight-meter high-test embankment at Norrala,
Sweden, that the permeability of the stabilized soil in the columns was about the same as
the permeability of the unstabilized soil. Arnr et al (1996) found also that the excess
pore water pressures in the 5 to 6 m thick clay layer below the embankment had
dissipated fully after 5 months in spite of the low permeability of the columns. The length
of the columns was 6 to 8 m.
Baker et al (1997) indicate that the in-situ permeability of lime/cement columns can
be up to two orders of magnitude higher than the permeability of laboratory samples. The
average permeability for lime/cement columns in the field was 1.4x10-7 m/s. The average
permeability of the laboratory samples was only 2x10-9 m/s. Pramborg and Albertsson
(1992) have reported that the in-situ permeability of lime/cement columns was 200 times
the permeability of the unstabilized clay while Rogbeck and Trnk (1995) found that the
permeability was about 750 to 1000 times the permeability of the unstabilized clay.
The permeability of lime/cement columns has also been investigated by Baker et al
(1997). They found that the permeability of lime/cement columns decreased rapidly with
increasing confining pressure and with time. The reduction was small at a confining
pressure above 150 kPa. The in-situ permeability has a tendency to decrease with
increasing cement content and with time since cementation reduces the size of the pores
in the soil. The permeability decreases also with increasing curing time and with
increasing confining pressure.
Carlsten and Ekstrm (1995; 1997) and Carlsten (2000) have recommend that a
permeability of 200 to 600 times that of the unstabilized soil can be used for lime/cement
columns. These recommended values appear to be too high. It is recommended that a
permeability of 40 kv,clay should be used instead.
It is questionable if lime/cement and cement columns function as effective drains
due to the low permeability with cement and the high hydraulic lag when the length of the
columns is large. Band-drains might be required as a compliment to lime/cement or
cement columns to reduce the time for the consolidation of the soft clay between the
columns.
3.7.4. Permeability with Cement.
The permeability of cement columns is low. The permeability can be even lower than
the permeability of the unstabilized soil (Terashi and Tanaka, 1983a). Suzuki (1982) has
reported that the permeability generally decreases with increasing cement content and that
the permeability can be reduced by two to three orders of magnitude when the cement
content is 15% to 20%. Similar results have been reported by Terashi and Tanaka (1981).
The reduction of the permeability increases with decreasing water content. At a water
content of 100% the permeability has been found to be reduced by two orders of
magnitude when the cement content is increased from 5% to 15%. Tielaitos (1993, 1995)
found that the permeability of peat stabilized with cement decreased from about 10-5 m/s
to about 10-6 to 10-8 m/s. Mitchell (1981) has reported that columns stabilized with
cement, fly ash or a mixture of byproducts were almost impervious.
The reduction of the permeability with cement has been large. The permeability has
also a tendency to decrease with time. Due to the reduction of the permeability, cement
columns do not function as drains in the soil.
42

3.7.5. Permeability with Gypsum.

Gypsum increases in general the permeability due to the volume increase caused by
the formation of ettringite when gypsum reacts with the lime and the clay.
3.8. Ground Temperature.
3.8.1. Heat Generation.
The heat generated by cement is 325 to 450 kJ/kg depending on cement type
compared with 1163 kJ/kg for quicklime. The heat from hydration of cement is about half
to one-third of that for quicklime. The resulting temperature increase depends on the
particle size of the quicklime and of the cement. The time required for the slaking
decreases with decreasing particle size. The slaking is also faster and the heat released is
higher for soft-burned lime than for hard-burned lime. A higher ground temperature can
thus be expected with quicklime than with cement or lime/cement.
3.8.2. Ground Temperature with Lime Columns.
The temperature in lime columns as well as in the unstabilized soil between the
columns increases during the slaking. The slaking occurs rapidly during the mixing and
the temperature reaches a maximum after a few minutes. The increase is typically 40oC to
50oC. The temperature may even reach 100oC at the center of the columns (Kujala, 1984;
hnberg and Holm, 1984).
In Fig. 16 is shown the temperature increase for a clayey silt with 10% lime, 10%
o
cement or 10% lime/cement (50/50). The temperature increased from 8oC to over 50 C
during the mixing with unslaked lime as reported by hnberg et al (1995a). With
standard Portland cement the temperature increased to 27oC about 20 hours after the
mixing. The maximum ground temperature was 46oC with lime, 14oC with cement and
21oC with lime/cement. The initial ground temperature was low, 7oC.
hnberg et al (1989) have reported a maximum temperature of 47oC for single lime
columns as well as for a 3x4 lime columns group a few hours after the installation of the
columns when the spacing of the columns was 1.2 m. The average increase of the ground
temperature around the columns is usually 40oC to 60oC when the spacing of the columns
is small. At a spacing of 0.7 to 1.0 m the increase of the temperature is typically 10oC to
18oC after one week and 8oC to17oC after six months (hnberg et al, 1989). An increase
of the ground temperature has been observed up to one year after the installation of the
columns (hnberg and Holm, 1984).
3.8.3. Ground Temperature with Lime/Cement Columns.
Rogbeck (1997) has reported that the increase of the ground temperature was 5 to 6
degrees between lime/cement columns (50/50) at a depth of 2.5 m to 7.5 m just after the
installation of the columns. The diameter and the spacing of the columns were 0.6 m and
1.0 m, respectively. The lime/cement content was 23 kg/m.
3.8.4. Ground Temperature with Cement Columns
The heat, which is generated with cement, is initially relatively slow possibly due to
the low permeability of the stabilized soil and the low flow rate. The maximum
temperature, 12oC to 14oC, is reached about 10 hours after the mixing. The increase after
about six months is 10oC to 12oC at a spacing of the cement columns of 0.7 to 1.0 m. It
43

should be noted that the temperature has less effect on the increase of the shear strength
for cement columns than for lime columns as pointed out by Kujala and Lathinen (1988).

Fig. 16. Ground Temperature (after hnberg et al, 1995a)

3.8.5. Ground Temperature with Granulated Blast Furnace Slag.
The increase of the ground temperature with granulated blast furnace slag is only a
few degrees. The increase of the shear strength is very slow since the low temperature
retards the pozzolanic reactions. The increase of the shear strength with blast furnace slag
is rapid when the blast furnace slag is combined with e.g. rapid hardening cement
(50%/50%).
3.8.6. Effect of the Ground Temperature on Shear Strength.
The ground temperature affects the shear strength of the stabilized soil. The increase
with time can be different from that of laboratory samples where the temperature during
the storage of the samples is constant. The variation of the temperature in-situ should be
considered when the increase of the shear strength is evaluated.
The high ground temperature affects especially the pozzolanic reactions (hnberg et
al, 1989) since the solubility of silica and alumina increases rapidly with increasing
temperature and with increasing pH-value. It is therefore expected that the shear strength
will increase faster in e.g. Southeast Asia than in Sweden or Finland where the ground
temperature is low, about 7oC to 8oC. In Southeast Asia the ground temperature is about
26oC (Broms, 1999c).
A rapid increase of the shear strength has been observed in the laboratory both with
lime and cement for samples, which have been stored at an elevated temperature
44

(hnberg et al, 1989, Jalali, 1994). This increase of the shear strength can possibly be
utilized to estimate the long-term increase of the shear strength.
The increase of the shear strength will be higher if the samples have been e.g. cured
the first 12 hours at 30oC, followed by 12 hours at 10oC compared with the increase of the
shear strength of samples, which have been cured for 24 hours at 20oC in spite of the
same average temperature as pointed out by Sherwood (1993). The increase of the shear
strength with lime is approximately linear with increasing temperature between 0oC and
30oC. Above 30oC the shear strength increase is faster than the corresponding temperature
increase. The effect of temperature is generally larger for lime than for cement columns.
3.9. Ground Pollution
3.9.1. Contamination by Heavy Metals
Cement, bentonite and other stabilizers have been used to bind the heavy metals
present in the soil. Augers with a diameter of up to 4 m have been used to mix the
stabilizer with the contaminated soil (Day et al, 1995). The cost is low compared with
other methods.
3.9.2. Contamination by Stabilizers.
The ground water can be polluted by the alcaline leachate from stabilizers, which
have been mixed with the soil. The leachate is absorbed and neutralized by the lime in
clayey soils. In sandy soils there is a risk that the ground water could be polluted. It is
therefore important that the columns do not come in contact with flowing ground water in
granular soils (Kamon, 1997).

4. CHOICE OF STABILIZATIO' METHOD.

4.1. Stabilization of Organic and Inorganic Soils
4.1.1. General
Both the undrained and the drained shear strengths can be increased with lime,
lime/cement, cement and other waste products. Quicklime is mainly used to stabilize
inorganic soils with a water content less than 100% to 120% while lime/cement or cement
is required to stabilize organic soils. Cement in combination with granulated blast furnace
slag has been found to be effective in peat, dy, gyttja and other organic soils. The cement
content had to be high to compensate for the often high water content and the relatively
poor mixing in the field. Also sand has been found to be effective when the water content
is high.
4.1.2. Stabilization of Inorganic Soils.
Normally consolidated or slightly overconsolidated inorganic clays with a medium to
low plasticity index and a high sensitivity ratio can usually be stabilized by unslaked lime
(quicklime). Only a small reduction of the water content is required to increase
substantially the undrained shear strength when the plasticity index is low. The increase
of the shear strength with lime is typically 10 to 20 times the shear strength of the
untreated soil.
The long-term increase of the shear strength is caused by pozzolanic reactions of the
lime with the clay. The plasticity index had to be larger than 10% for the lime to be
effective. Lime is usually effective when the maximum water content of the soil is less
than about 100% to 120% and the organic content is less than 0.8% to 1% (BS 1377). The
45

maximum shear strength with lime is usually 200 to 300 kPa. A much higher shear
strength can usually be obtained with lime/cement and cement than with lime. Sodium
and potassium sulphate have a tendency to reduce the shear strength due to the formation
of ettringite.
The increase of the shear strength is often large with lime for clays with a high salt
content as pointed out by Nishida et al (1996) and by Rajasekaran et al (1996b). The
liquid limit is reduced when the salt content is high (Rajasekaran and Rao, 1996a). The
chloride ions (Cl-ions) have a tendency to increase the concentration of calcium ions (Caions) and thus the pozzolanic reactions. The increase of the shear strength for silt has in
some cases been small (Eriksson and Carlsten, 1995) due to the low clay content.
The increase of the ground temperature with unslaked lime contributes also to the
increase of the shear strength. The initial increase of the shear strength is often slow with
lime compared with lime/cement and cement. The increase of the shear strength is often
insignificant the first week after the initial increase caused by the reduction of the water
content and the increase of the plastic limit. However, for quickclays the increase of the
shear strength can be large the first few months with lime and for soft marine clays when
the salt content is high.
Halkola (1983) and Bryhn et al (1983) have reported that the in-situ shear strength of
lime columns can be lower than the shear strength of laboratory samples. In a few cases
the in-situ shear strength has been only 10% of the laboratory values. In most cases the insitu shear strength has been equal to or larger than the shear strength as determined by
unconfined compression tests of laboratory samples when the shear strength has been less
than about 200 to 300 kPa. This is probably due to the high confining pressure in-situ and
the large increase of the ground temperature with lime.
It is preferable to stabilize clay and silty clay with quicklime when the water content
is less than about 90% to 100%, the required shear strength is less than 100 to 150 kPa
and the organic content of the soil is low. A 10 to 20-fold increase of the shear strength
can normally be expected (Carlsten and Ekstrm, 1995, 1997). The increase of the shear
strength with lime is often small for silt and for clayey silt due to the low clay content.
Ekstrm, (1994b) has reported a maximum shear strength of 85 kPa with lime (80 kg/m3)
compared with about 500 kPa with cement (115 kg/m3).
The main advantage with lime is the high permeability of the stabilized soil and that
lime columns function as drains in the soil. The ductility of the columns is high when the
shear strength is low, less than 100 to 150 kPa. Lime is not very effective in organic soils
or silty soils especially when the salt and the clay contents are low. The shear strength can
also be low when the sulphide content is high.
4.1.3. Stabilization of Organic Soils.
Organic soil can usually not be stabilised with lime. The increase of the shear
strength is small or can even be reduced (Sherwood, 1993). The type of organic material
is generally more important with lime than the total amount. The organic material reduces
the pH-value and thus the pozzolanic reactions.
Babasaki et al (1996) have reported that the increase of the unconfined compressive
strength has been small for soils with a water content exceeding 200% even with 35%
cement. Sand and gypsum have also been tried to stabilize soils with a high humus
content. An increase of the shear strength and a reduction of the compressibility of the
stabilized soil have been reported by Thaer and Nutbohm (1997).
It is generally more difficult to mix soft soil with dry cement than with cement slurry.
It might therefore be preferable to use the wet method to stabilize organic soils, when the
required cement content is high. However, the shear strength will generally be lower by
46

the wet method at the same cement content compared with the dry method due to the
difference in water content.
Lime/cement and cement had to be distributed evenly over the column cross-section
and be mixed thoroughly with the soft soil compared with lime. The increase of the shear
strength is often 3 to 10 times faster with cement or lime/cement the first one to three
months after the mixing compared with lime (hnberg et al, 1995a). Thereafter the
increase is relatively slow. The shear strength of samples prepared in the laboratory is
often higher than the shear strength of cores obtained in-situ. Rogbeck (1997) has
reported that laboratory tests often indicate a higher shear strength than the strength
determined by column penetration tests, KPS and FOPS.
Lime affects mainly the clay fraction through ion exchange and reduces the water
content, while cement affects mainly the silt and sand fractions in the soil. It is thus
expected that lime/cement and cement will be more effective than lime to stabilize silty or
sandy soils when the clay content is low and organic soils. Lime together with industrial
waste; have also been used to stabilize soils (Kamon and Nontananandh, 1991).
The largest increase of the shear strength with lime/cement is expected for clays with
a low sensitivity and a water content between 40% and 80%. The undrained shear
strength before stabilization should be less than 10 to 20 kPa. Organic clays with an
undrained shear strength as low as 5 kPa have been stabilized successfully with
lime/cement and cement.
Cement and lime/cement columns have also been used to stabilize organic soils with
a high plasticity index and a high water content. However, the high peak shear strength of
lime/cement and of cement columns cannot in many cases be utilized in design (Kivel,
1997, 1998). Cement and lime/cement columns and the unstabilized soil between the
columns cannot be considered as a composite material, when the shear strength of the
stabilized soil exceeds 100 to 150 kPa, the diameter of the columns is large and the length
of the columns is short.
Babasaki et al (1996) have reported that organic and acidic soils with a low pH-value
have been difficult to improve when the water content exceeds 200% even at a cement
content as high as 30% with respect to the dry weight of the soil The unconfined
compressive strength is usually low when the ignition loss exceeds about 15%.
At a cement content of 500 kg/m3, a shear strength of about 500 kPa can usually be
obtained according to hnberg et al (1995a). An unconfined compression strength of 3.5
MPa has e.g. been reported by Pettersson and Ulvehed (1992) when the water content was
135%. The initial shear strength was low, 10 to 15 kPa.
Lime/cement had to be mixed thoroughly with the soil compared with lime to
obtain the anticipated shear strength. Lime/cement and cement columns are brittle and the
ductility is low when the shear strength is high. Even a small lateral displacement of the
columns could reduce the bearing capacity due to the low failure strain. Full interaction of
the columns with the unstabilized soil between the columns can only be assumed when
the shear strength of the stabilized soil is low, less than about 100 to 150 kPa.
Lime/cement and cement columns have the advantage that a sufficiently high shear
strength can usually be obtained to make the method economical compared with other
soil improvement methods. Lime/cement and cement are mainly effective in silt, silty
clays and clayey silt (Eriksson and Carlsten, 1995, 1997). The in-situ shear strength of
cement columns has been much lower than the shear strength of samples prepared in the
laboratory (Kujala and Lathinen, 1988). The difference has been attributed to poor mixing
of the lime and the cement with the soil in the field. Kukko and Ruhomki (1985) have
investigated the increase the shear strength with cement at different water/cement ratios.
47

They found that the unconfined compressive strength increased with increasing content of
organic material and with increasing content of fines.
It has been difficult to test lime/cement and cement columns in-situ using column
penetrometers, KPS or FOPS, when the shear strength is high, higher than 300 to 600
kPa. The behavior of high-strength columns is often brittle and the reduction of the shear
resistance can be large when the peak strength is exceeded.
4.1.4. Stabilization of Dy and Gyttja.
The increase of the shear strength with lime is usually small for organic soils such as
dy and gyttja. Even a small amount of humus, 2% to 3%, can reduce substantially the
increase of the shear strength with lime. The shear strength of the stabilized soil is also
reduced when the sulphide (FeS2) content of the soil is high (Broms and Boman, 1975a;
Bryhn et al, 1983; Kujala, 1984).
Gyttja and dy, where the plant structure has been completely destroyed, have been
stabilized successfully by cement or by cement and blast furnace slag (Holm et al 1994;
Axelsson et al, 1996). The increase of the shear strength has in general been larger with
rapid hardening cement than with standard Portland cement. A 10 to 20-fold increase of
the shear strength can often be obtained for clays containing gyttja.
The shear strength can often be high with 200 kg/m3 cement for gyttja, which is 2.6
to 6.5 times higher than the shear strength with the same amount of lime/cement (50/50)
as reported by Axelsson at al (1996). The shear strength of clayey gyttja from rebro in
Sweden exceeded 500 kPa after 26 days with 200 kg/m3 rapid hardening cement. The
water content was 151% and the organic content 8.0%. The shear strength of clayey gyttja
from Arlanda with a water content of 205% and an organic content of 17% was 360 kPa
after 26 days with 200 kg/m3 rapid hardening cement.
Cement or lime/cement is normally required to stabilize organic soils such as peat, dy
and gyttja even when the organic content is low (Axelsson et al, 1996). In general the
shear strength will increase with increasing lime and cement content. Also the
compressibility is reduced.
The shear strength of the stabilized soil decreases with increasing water content. A
higher shear strength is often obtained with lime/cement for laboratory prepared samples
compared with the in-situ shear strength probably due to a more thorough mixing in the
laboratory than in the field (Edstam, 1996).
4.1.5. Stabilization of Soils with a High Sulphide Content.
It might be possible to stabilize soils with a high sulphide content (svartmocka)
mainly iron pyrite (FeS2) with lime/cement or cement. Such soils are common along the
coast in northern Sweden and Finland. Only a few test results are available, however,
which indicate the effectiveness of lime/cement or cement
The shear strength of soils with a high sulphide content (FeS2) stabilized with cement
is generally low especially when the organic content is high. The increase of the shear
strength with time is slow possibly due to the volume increase of the soil caused by
oxidation and the formation of calcium sulphate (CaSO4). Cement and blast furnace slag
have also been tried to stabilize soils with a high sulphide content, (svartmocka) where
lime/cement has not been effective. Several failures of excavations have occurred in soils
with a high sulphide content. A large reduction of the shear strength by 50% or more is
normally required of the shear strength as determined by fall-cone or by field vane tests in
stability calculations (Schwab, 1976).

48

4.1.6. Stabilization of Peat.

Peat is common both in Sweden and Finland. About 8% of Sweden is covered by
peat. Peat is generally classified in Sweden with respect to the decomposition of the peat
according to a scale (H1 to H10) proposed by von Post. Fibrous peat (H1 to H4) has a
distinct plant structure compared with amorphous peat (H8 to H10), where the plant
structure is indistinct. Peat often occurs together with soft clay and gyttja.
A high cement content is required to stabilize peat as discussed by Axelsson et al
(1996). The shear strength increases in general with increasing cement content and with
decreasing water content of the soil. An undrained shear strength of 30 to 50 kPa can
usually be obtained after 14 days with 200 kg/m3 cement. An increase of the shear
strength has also been observed for peat when water was added during the mixing
(Axelsson et al, 1996).
Huttunen and Kujala (1996a) have reported a shear strength of 305 kPa after 180
days for a slightly decomposed peat (H2) at a cement content of 400 kg/m3. The water
content was high, 1265%. For decomposed peat of grade H3 a shear strength of 112 kPa
was obtained after 180 days at a cement content of 400 kg/m3 and a water content of
981%. The shear strength with cement has been observed to decrease with increasing
decomposition of the peat and with increasing content of humic acid and fines (Kujala et
al, 1996).
Kuno et al (1989) have reported that peat with a water content less than 300% can be
stabilized with cement irrespective of the humus content. Hoikkala et al (1996) found that
the shear strength of peat was about 105 kPa after 30 days with 300 kg/m3 cement and 35
to 75 kPa with 150 kg/m3 cement. The shear strength can often be increased further with
gypsum and cement. Often the peat had to be excavated and replaced by compacted
granular material.
The largest increase of the shear strength is generally obtained for peat and gyttja
with cement and granulated blast furnace slag. A substantial increase of the shear strength
can be obtained even when the clay content and the ion exchange capacity are low. The
increase of the shear strength is generally small and slow for organic soils when the
content of humus is high and the pH-value is low. The variation of the shear strength is
often less with cement and lime/cement than with lime. The increase of the shear strength
using fly ash and lime has been poor (Axelsson et al, 1996).
Fine sand and silt has also been used to increase the effectiveness of cement and of
cement and granulated blast furnace slag in peat and gyttja. At Kyrksltt close to
Helsingfors in Finland a large increase of the shear strength of peat and gyttja was
observed with rapid hardening cement and sand. The shear strength with 275 kg/m3 rapid
hardening cement and 100 kg/m3 fine sand was over 600 kPa. Several commercial
products are available in Sweden and Finland, e.g. Finnstabi and Lohjamix for
stabilization of peat and gyttja.
4.1.7. Mass Stabilization.
Mass stabilization has been tried in Sweden and Finland during the last few years
(Axelsson et al, 1996) to stabilize peat down to a depth of 4 to 5 m. Mass stabilization
was tried the first time at Veittostensuo in Finland where a 5 m deep peat layer was
stabilized below a 2.5 m high test embankment (Hoikkala et al, 1996; Ravaska and
Kujala, 1996). Mass stabilization of peat using cement or slag/cement is illustrated in Fig.
17.

49

Fig. 17. Mass Stabilisation of Peat Using Cement or Cement/Slag and Geo-Fabric
Mass stabilisation has been tried in Sweden and Finland at about 10 different
locations where peat has been mixed with 150 to 250 kg/m3 standard Portland cement or
with rapid hardening cement and granulated blast furnace slag (50%/50%) as discussed by
Rathmayer (1997) and by Axelsson et al (1996). The increase of the shear strength has
been much faster with rapid hardening cement than with standard Portland cement. Also
the long-term shear strength with rapid hardening cement is often higher than with
standard Portland cement at the same cement content. The increase of the shear strength
with lime or fly ash alone has been small.
A special mixing device has been developed to mix cement and other stabilizing
agents such as blast furnace slag and gypsum (Finnstabi) with peat. Cement or
cement/slag columns are used in Fig. 17 to stabilize the soft soil. The undrained shear
strength of the peat, which was only 5 to 10 kPa before stabilization, could be increased
to 40 to 150 kPa one month after the stabilization. The final shear strength was up to 40
times the initial shear strength for the clay and up to 20 times for the peat. The
permeability was reduced with cement from 10-5 a 10-6 m/s to 10-8 m/s. The initial water
content, which was high, 1250% to 1670%, was reduced to 50% to 200%. Cement
columns were used to stabilize the underlying soft clay. The settlement of the 2.5 m high
test embankment was small, 0.32 m to 0.45 m after stabilization.

50

Mass stabilization has also been tried on Highway 601 at Rne close to Lule in
northern Sweden. The shear strength of the stabilized peat was 40 to 185 kPa and the
settlements were 50 to 200 mm after six months. The construction cost was 2.2 MSEK
(2.2 Million Swedish Crowns) or 220 SEK/m3 (Hoikkala et al, 1997; Parkkinen, 1997).
Andersson et al (1997) have investigated the increase of the shear strength for peat at
different contents of stabilizer (150 kg/m3 and 250 kg/m3) and with different stabilizers
(cement, lime and blast furnace slag). The unconfined compressive strength with 250
kg/m3 standard Portland cement and with rapid hardening cement was 61 kPa and 127
kPa after 14 days, respectively and 111 kPa and 162 kPa after 28 days. With 50%
standard Portland cement and 50% unslaked lime or 50% granulated blast furnace slag
the unconfined compressive strength was 56 kPa and 124 kPa after 14 days and 106 kPa
and 154 kPa, respectively with 250 kg/m3 stabilizer after 28 days. The largest increase of
the unconfined compressive strength was with 50% rapid hardening cement and with 50%
blast furnace slag. The unconfined compressive strength was 146 kPa after 14 days and
162 kPa after 28 days.

5. BEHAVIOUR OF SI'GLE COLUM'S

5.1 Analysis of Single Columns.
5.1.1. Bearing Capacity of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns.
The undrained shear strength, fu,col governs the short-term stability of embankments,
slopes, trenches and excavations as illustrated in Fig. 18
fu,col = cu,col + f tan u,col

(5.1)

where u,col is the undrained angle of internal friction, cu,col is the undrained cohesion
and f is the normal total pressure on the failure plane passing through the columns.

Fig. 18. Undrained Shear Strength of Lime and Lime/Cement Columns

51

The shear strength of lime columns usually increases with increasing clay content and
with increasing plasticity index. The normal stress f,crit can be assumed conservatively to
150 kPa and the friction angle u,col to 30 degrees. The term 2 f,crit tan u,col is equal to
173 kPa, which corresponds to the unconfined compressive strength when cu,col = 0.
The ultimate bearing capacity of the columns depends on the total confining pressure
h, on the modulus of elasticity Esoil, and on Poissons ratio soil. The total confining
pressure h at Eu,soil = 200 cu,soil and soil = 0.5 is equal to
h = vo + 5 cu,soil + msoil qo

(5.2)

where msoil is the stress concentration factor for the unstabilized soil and qo is the
applied unit load from e.g.an embankment. It has been assumed conservatively that the
initial lateral total pressure ho is equal to the total overburden pressure vo
The increase of the undrained shear strength caused by consolidation will contribute
to the bearing capacity. The increase is estimated to 5.4 kPa (0,27x0.2x5x20) at a c/pratio of 0.2 when 27% of the weight of a 5 m high embankment is transferred to the
unstabilized soil. The bearing capacity of the columns is increased by 81 kPa (5x5.4x3)
when the friction angle col is 30 degrees.
5.1.2. Short Term Ultimate Bearing Capacity
When h < 100 to 150 kPa the bearing capacity can be calculated by the following
equation assuming that u,col = 30 degrees
qcol = qu,col + 3 vo+ 15 cu,soil + 3 msoil qo

(5.3)

where qu,col is the unconfined compressive strength of the columns at the ground surface,
vo is the initial total overburden pressure, cu,clay is the undrained shear strength of the
unstabilized clay, msoil is the stress factor for the unstabilized soil and qo is the applied
unit load.
The net bearing capacity, when u,col is equal to 30 degrees, h < 100 to 150 kPa and
the unit weight of the columns corresponds to the unit weight of the unstabilised soil, is
equal to
qcol,net = qu,col + 3 vo + 15 cu,soil + 3 msoil qo vo
(5.4)
.
The net bearing capacity of the columns can be calculated conservatively by the
following equation when u,col = 0 and h > 100 to 150 kPa
qcol,net = qu,col + 5 cu,clay + msoil qo

(5.5)

The term 5 cu,clay is usually not considered since a relatively large lateral
displacement is required of the columns to mobilize the shear strength of the unstabilized
soil.
5.1.3. Long Term Ultimate Bearing Capacity.
The net long-term ultimate bearing capacity of the columns qcol can be estimated by
the following equation at col = 30 and ho = vo + 5cu,soil + msoil qo as discussed by Broms
(1982).
52

qcol = qcol ucol = 3.46 ccol + 3 (vo+ 5 cu,soil + msoil qo - ucol)

(5.6)

where ccol is the effective cohesion of the columns, vo is the initial total overburden
pressure, cu,soil is the undrained shear strength of the unstabilized soil and ucol is the pore
water pressure in the columns.
It is interesting to compare the ultimate bearing capacity with and without the term
15 cu,soil at a depth of 5 m below a 5.0 m high embankment (qo = 100 kPa and fill = 20
kN/m3) as calculated by Eq.5.4. The stress increase in the unstabilized soil by the
embankment is estimated to 27 kPa (0.27x100) at msoil = 0.27 which corresponds to an
area ratio a = 0.3 and a modular ratio Ecol / Msoil of 10. The ultimate bearing capacity qcol
for lime columns at 5 m depth when vo = 80 kPa, soil = 18 kN/m3, col = 30o, ccol = 20
kPa, cu,soil = 15 kPa, ucol = 40 kPa is estimated to 535 kPa (3.47x20+40+3{5x16+ 5x1540+27}) when the term 15cu,soil is considered. The ultimate bearing capacity is reduced to
310 kPa when the term 15cu,soil is neglected. This term, 15cu,soil, has thus a large effect on
the ultimate bearing capacity of the columns.
The ultimate bearing capacity at qu,col = 200 kPa is 382 kPa (200+5x16+5x15+27)
from Eq. 5.5, when u,col = 0. At qu,col = 500 kPa the bearing capacity increases to 682
kPa. The bearing capacity of the lime columns at u,col = 30o will be at least 40% higher
than the bearing capacity of lime/cement and cement columns at 5 m depth at u,col = 0o
and an unconfined compressive strength of 200 kPa. At qu,col = 500 kPa and u,col = 0o the
bearing capacity of lime/cement and cement columns is 27% higher than the bearing
capacity of lime columns. The hydraulic lag has thus a large influence on the bearing
capacity of the columns.
5.1.4. Bearing Capacity of Columns with Weak Sections
Local weak sections in the columns also affect the bearing capacity. When the
effective cohesion ccol,red = 0 the ultimate axial bearing capacity is reduced to
qcol = Kp(vo + 5 cu, soil + msoil qo - ucol) + ucol

(5.7)

where Kp = (1 + sin col)/(1 - sin col). At vo = 80 kPa, soil = 18 kN/m3, ccol = 0 kPa,
cu,soil = 15 kPa, col = 30 degrees, ucol = 40 kPa the bearing capacity is reduced to 466 kPa
(3x80+3x5x15+3x27-3x40+40). The reduction, 69 kPa (535-466), of the bearing capacity
is relatively small.
The bearing capacity of a weak section at cu,col, red when u,col,red = 0 can be estimated
by the following equation
qcol = 2 cu,col, red + vo +5 cu, soil + msoil qo

(5.8)

where cu,col, red is the reduced undrained shear strength of the weak section. At e.g. cu,col,
3
red = 20 kPa, vo = 80 kPa, soil = 18 kN/m , ccol = 0 kPa, cu,soil = 15 kPa and msoil qo = 27
kPa then qcol = 222 kPa (2x20+5x16+5x15+27). It can be seen from Eqs. (5.7) and (5.8)
that the reduction of the bearing capacity by a weak section is much larger for
lime/cement and cement columns than for lime columns due to the low permeability with
cement.
5.1.5. Residual Bearing Capacity
The residual bearing capacity of lime/cement and cement columns at ccol,res = 0 can
be calculated from

53

qcol,res = Kp h = Kp (vo + 5 cu, soil + msoil qo - ucol) + ucol

(5.9)

where Kp = (1 + sin col) / (1 sin col), h is the effective confining pressure and
ucol is the pore water pressure. It is thus assumed that the residual bearing capacity of the
columns corresponds to the peak bearing capacity. At e.g. vo = 80 kPa, soil = 18 kN/m3,
cu,soil = 15 kPa and msoil qo = 27 kPa then qcol,res = 446 kPa (3x80+3x75+3x27+403x50+50).
The residual bearing capacity of lime columns at cu,col,res = 0 and col,res = 30 degrees
can be estimated by the following equation
qcol,res = 3(vo + 5 cu,clay + msoil qo- ucol)+ ucol

(5.10)

At vo = 80 kPa, soil = 18 kN/m3, ccol = 0 kPa, cu,soil = 15 kPa, ucol = 50 kPa and
qu,res = 40 kPa then the residual bearing capacity of the columns qcol,res is equal to 446kPa
(3x5x16+3x5x15+3x27-3x50+50) compared with 382 kPa at qu,col = 200 kPa. The
reduction, 224 kPa (446-222), can thus be large.
5.1.6. Creep Strength of Columns.
The creep strength of the columns can be exceeded for high embankments, which
is estimated to 65% to 80% of the short term bearing capacity of the columns (Broms,
1984a, 1984b). Tatsuoka and Kobayashi (1983) indicate that the creep strength is reduced
by 8% to 10% when the cement content is low and that the creep strength is constant
when the cement content is high.
The creep strength of the columns, which increases with increasing confining
pressure, will affect the load distribution. The unstabilized soil between the columns will
in that case carry the load, which exceeds the creep strength of the columns. The
settlements of the supported structure or of the embankment will then be governed by the
stress increase in the unstabilized soil between the columns.
Mainly the effective cohesion ccol and the unconfined bearing capacity of the
columns qu,col are reduced by creep. The creep strength qcol,creep is equal to
.
qcol,creep - ucol = 2.77 ccol + 3 (vo + 5 cu,soil - ucol + msoil qo)
(5.11)
when the effective cohesion ccol in Eq. (5.11) is reduced by 20% due to creep. For
lime/cement columns the creep strength qcol,creep is equal to
.
qcol,creep = 0.8 qu,col + vo + 5 cu,clay + msoil qo
(5.12)
The creep strength qcol,res for lime columns is 521 kPa (2.77x20+40+3{5x16x5x1540+27}) at 5 m depth as calculated by Eq. (5.12) when vo = 80 kPa, soil = 18 kN/m3 ,
ccol = 20 kPa, cu,soil = 15 kPa and ucol = 40 kPa. The creep strength of lime/cement and
of cement columns is estimated to 342 kPa (0.8x200+5x16+5x15+27) by Eq. (5.12) at qu,
col = 200 kPa. The creep strength increases to 642 kPa at qu,col = 500 kPa.
5.1.7. Analysis of Single Columns.
It has been assumed for simplicity that failure of an embankment takes place along
three straight plain failure surfaces as illustrated in Fig. 19. The straight slip surface in
the active zone through the columns, which is inclined 45 degrees (1V:1H)

54

Fig. 19. Assumed Slip Surfaces

in a total stress analysis using the total shear strength parameters u,soil, cu,soil, u,col, and
cu,col, has been assumed to extend from the embankment to the bottom of the column row
at the edge of the embankment. The horizontal slip surface in the shear zone may pass
through the remoulded clay below the column row, where the shear strength of the soil
has been reduced during the installation of the columns. The length of the slip surface in
55

the shear zone corresponds to the depth of the slip surface below the ground surface or to
the width of the embankment. In the passive zone, which is also inclined 45 degrees, the
assumed slip surface passes through the unstabilized soil from the bottom of the column
row up to the ground surface.
It is possible to determine the failure modes for both single columns and for column
rows in the different zones. The bearing capacity of the unstabilized soil with respect to
the assumed failure surface is 5 cu,soil at an undrained analysis. This bearing capacity is
about 3% lower than the calculated bearing capacity for a circular failure surface, 5.14
cu,soil when the shear resistance between the different zones is neglected.
The inclination of the slip surface in the active zone is assumed to (45o + 0.5 soil) in
an effective stress analysis when the effective shear strength parameters soil, csoil, col
and ccol are used. The slip surface is horizontal in the shear zone and (45o - 0.5 soil) in
the passive zone. The length b of the slip surface in the shear zone corresponds to the
depth of the slip surface below the ground surface or to the length of the sloping part of
the embankment which is 2H where H is the height of an embankment when the slope is
1V:2H..
The main function of the single columns in the active zone is to transfer the weight of
the embankment through the assumed slip surface. The failure modes for the columns
located in the active zone is shown in Fig. 20. The stabilizing effect of the columns
depends mainly on the axial load in the columns at the location of the slip surface and less
on the transverse shear resistance Tcol of the columns. The stabilizing effect of lime,
lime/cement and cement columns is thus different from that of embankment piles where
the total weight of the embankment had to be carried by the embankment piles. The axial
load and the efficiency of the columns are affected by the load transferred to and from the
columns by end bearing top and bottom of the columns as expressed by the stress factor
mo,col of the columns and by shaft resistance above the assumed slip surface. The column
loads are also affected by the shaft resistance below the slip surface and by the point
resistance at the bottom of the columns. The maximum column load is governed by the
creep strength of the columns as discussed in the following. The shear resistance will be
low if the axial column load is low or when the axial load corresponds to the creep
strength of the columns since the moment resistance of the columns will be small in that
case.

56

Fig. 20. Failure Modes for Single Columns in the Active Zone
The shear resistance of single columns will be low due to the low moment capacity
of the columns. Single columns should therefore be used only in the active zone below
the center of an embankment where the axial load in the columns will be high. The lateral
displacement of the columns will be small in that case. Single columns should not be used
in the shear or in the passive zones due to the low lateral resistance of the columns and
the low efficiency of the columns. The stabilizing effect of the columns in the active zone
is two to three times higher than for the columns located in the shear or in the passive
zones.
5.1.8. Transfer Length.
The load distribution between the columns and the unstabilized soil corresponds to
the modulus of elasticity for the columns and the compression modulus for the
unstabilized soil, Ecol and Mclay, respectively.
The settlement of an embankment within the transfer length can be calculated from
the stress increase in the unstabilized soil. The transfer length increases with increasing
stiffness of the columns when the load transferred to the columns is mainly by shaft
resistance. The transfer length will be large, which is often the case for high
embankments, when the shear strength of the unstabilized soil is low as illustrated in Fig.
21.
At an average shaft resistance of e.g. 50 kPa for the surface dry crust and a column
load of 400 kPa the transfer length is estimated to 2d when the load transferred to the
columns is entirely by shaft resistance. It should be noted that the transfer length increases

57

with increasing diameter of the columns.

Fig. 21. Transfer Length

When the dry crust is thin or is poorly developed the average shear strength and the
average shaft resistance could be as low as 10 kPa close to the ground surface. The
transfer length is then increased to 10d or 6 m for a 0.6 m diameter column. This could be
the case when the disturbed soil around the columns has not been excavated and replaced.
A transfer length of 3.2 m, which corresponds to 5.3d for a column with 0.6 m diameter,
has been reported by Holm et al (1983b).
58

The transfer length will decrease with time as the shear strength of the unstabilized
soil is increased due to consolidation. However, the time required for the consolidation
can be large for lime/cement and for cement columns due to the low permeability of the
columns. The time required for 90% consolidation is estimated to about 10 months for a
1.0 thick surface layer at cv = 1 m2/year.
The axial load in the columns had to be transferred from the columns to the soil
below the columns. The transfer length can be large for floating columns. It should be
noted that the shear strength of the remoulded soil below the columns is reduced during
the installation of the columns.
The undrained shear strength for a normally consolidated clay (OCR = 1.0) increases
with increasing effective overburden pressure. The shear strength at e.g. a depth of 10 m
is estimated to 16 kPa at cu/ pv = 0.22. The transfer length is estimated to 3.2 m (4d) for a
0.8 m diameter column at an axial load of 200 kN (400 kPa). At an axial load of 100 kN
(200 kPa) the transfer length is 1.6 m (2d).
The load transfer and the stress distribution between single lime and lime/cement
columns and the surrounding untreated soft clay has been investigated for long term
conditions by Liedberg et al (1996a, 1996b) using the finite element program PLAXIS
and an effective stress analysis. Also Bengtsson and Holm (1984) used FEM to
investigate the stress distribution. The reduction of the settlements at full interaction was
55% and 35% when the spacing of the columns was 1.0 and 1.5 m, respectively at an
undrained shear strength of the stabilized soil of 70 kPa.
The load distribution between the columns and the unstabilised soil depends on the
load transferred to the columns from e.g. an embankment by end bearing and by shaft
resistance and on the stiffness of the columns and of the unstabilized soil. Also weak
layers or patches in the columns also affect the load distribution.
5.1.9. Stress Factor m.
The stress factor mo,col, the ratio of the stress increase in the columns and the applied
unit load, has been estimated for lime/cement columns to 3.0 to 4.5 by Kivel (1994a).
Similar values have been proposed by Liedberg et al (1996a). Vepslinen and Arkima
(1992) have found that mo,col varied between 1.5 and 3.0. However, the stress factor can
be higher than 3.0 when the area ratio is low. At the top of the columns, the stress factor
mo,col could be very low since the columns are terminated 0.5 m to 1.0 m below the
ground surface due to the remoulding of the soil just above the columns.
The failure mode may change when the shear strength of the columns is high and the
ductility of the stabilized soil is low. The columns could fail before the peak shear
resistance of the columns has been mobilized. The horizontal shear resistance of the
columns could be much lower than the weighted average shear strength of the stabilized
soil.
The effectiveness of the columns can also be increased by inclining the columns or
by reinforcing the columns e.g. with bamboo as was done in China (PRC). Thereby the
moment capacity of the columns is increased as well as the ductility of the columns.
5.1.10. Load Distribution.
The load distribution between the columns and the unstabilized soil between the
columns corresponds to the compression modulus, Mclay of the unstabilized soil and to
Ecol for the columns as well as on the area ratio a.
The stabilizing effect of single columns depends mainly on the axial load in the
columns at the location of the slip surface through the columns and thus on the shaft
resistance Qs, a above the slip surface and on the load Qp,a. transferred directly to the
59

columns through end bearing (Fig. 22). The end bearing at the bottom of the columns can
be low due to the remoulding of the soil below the columns during the installation.

Fig, 22. Load Distribution

The main function of the columns is to transfer the load (Qs,a + Qp,a) across the
failure surface when the point resistance at the bottom of the columns is high. For floating
columns the shaft resistance Qs,c and the point resistance at the bottom of the columns
Qp,b below the failure surface will govern due to the low point resistance. Then a load,
which corresponds to (Qs,b + Qp,b), will be transferred across the failure surface.
The stabilizing effect of the columns located in the active zone corresponds to the
axial load in the columns above the assumed failure surface. It should be noted that the
axial column load (Qp,a + Qs,a) at the location of the slip surface corresponds to the sum
of the load transferred to the column by end bearing at the top of the columns Qp,a and by
shaft resistance Qs,a above the assumed failure surface as shown in Fig. 23. For floating
columns the sum of the point and the shaft resistances below the assumed failure surface
is (Qp,b + Qs,b).
The columns will reduce the load from the embankment, which is carried by the
unstabilized soil between the columns. The load carried by the column corresponds to the
smallest of the two loads (Qp,a + Qs,a) and (Qp,b + Qs,b). The maximum long term bearing
60

capacity of the columns is governed by the creep strength of the columns, Qcol,creep (Fig.
23), which is

Fig. 23. Stress Distribution in Lime and Lime/Cement Columns

about 80% of the ultimate short term bearing capacity.

61

The axial load in the columns, which are located in the shear or in the passive zones,
will be low as well as the shear resistance of the columns. The contribution of the
unstabilized soil between the columns is small since the relative vertical displacement of
the unstabilized soil is small. The effectiveness of the columns in the shear zone can be
increased by a berm placed at the toe of the embankment. It is also important to reduce
the lateral displacement of the columns in the shear zone with geofabric or geo-anchors.
Then the columns will carry only part of the embankment. The remaining part and e.g.
traffic loads had to be resisted by the unstabilized soil between the columns.
5.1.11. Lateral Displacement of Single Columns.
The columns located below an embankment will be displaced laterally due to the
lateral earth pressure in the embankment. Large lateral displacements can expected of the
columns located below or outside the sloping sides of the embankment especially when
the stability of the embankment is low and the global factor of safety is less than about
1.5. The installation of the columns has in some cases caused lateral displacements of up
to 0.5 m next to slopes and deep excavations.
The lateral displacements of the soft soil below the embankment are often small,
about 70% of the calculated lateral displacements as has been the case for a 3.5 m high
embankment. The thickness of the soft soil below the embankment was 18 m. A 1.5 m
high surcharge load was used to preload the columns. The global factor of safety was 2.5
and thus relatively high.
A lateral displacement of the columns will reduce the shear resistance as well as the
bearing capacity when the shear strength of the stabilized soil is high and the failure strain
is low. Miyake et al (1991) have e.g. found from centrifuge tests that the bearing capacity
and the lateral resistance of the cement columns, which were used, had been reduced by
the lateral displacements of the columns and that the bearing capacity had been reduced
by progressive failure of the columns. Mainly the columns located close to the toe of the
embankment were affected. The ultimate bearing capacity of the columns depends on the
location and the lateral displacement of the columns.
It is important that the lateral displacements of the columns are small so that the
bearing capacity of the columns is not reduced. The reduction of the bearing capacity
when the columns are displaced laterally is affected by the ductility of the columns and
by the failure strain. The ductility is relatively high when the shear strength of the
stabilized soil is low. The ductility of the columns is reduced with time as the shear
strength of the stabilized soil in the columns is increased. By loading the columns just
after the installation the shear strength and the bearing capacity of the columns can be
increased. The soil in the weak parts of the columns will then consolidate and gain
strength.
Large horizontal displacements have been reported by Hirai et al (1996). A horizontal
displacement of 400 to 500 mm was reported next to an excavation up to a distance of
about 0.8L from the columns where L is the length of the cement columns, which were
used. It was estimated that the lateral displacements could be reduced by 65% to 85% by
removing the soil above the mixing unit during the installation of the columns. The
unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized soil was only 70% of the strength of
conventional cement columns due to the removal of the soil and the lateral displacements
of the columns.
The lateral displacements caused by the installation of cement columns have been
investigated by Kakihara et al (1996). The lateral displacements were found to be large
62

for the columns which have been installed by the wet method when cement slurry was
used compared with the dry method. The lateral displacements increased with increasing
number of columns as could be expected. At the dry method the maximum lateral
displacement was about 40 mm at the ground surface 3 m from the columns. The
diameter of the cement columns was 1.0 m and the length was 27.3 m. The area ratio was
0.785 for the column rows and thus relatively high. The lateral displacements were
negligible at a distance of 1.5L from the columns where L is the column length. At the
wet method the maximum displacement was 400 mm when a third row of columns was
installed.
It has been possible to reduce the lateral displacements by 50% by a 4 m deep trench
next to the columns and by 4 m deep 0.45 m diameter air recovery holes spaced 1.5 m
apart (Uchiyama, 1996). The air recovery holes were filled with crushed stones with a
perforated PVC pipe at the center. Also 0.6 m diameter deformation absorption holes
filled with bentonite slurry have been used to reduce the lateral displacements (Ito et al,
1996).
5.1.12. Shear Resistance of Laterally Displaced Single Columns
It has been observed by Miyake et al (1991) that the cement columns which were
located at the toe of an embankment failed by bending caused by the lateral displacements
of the columns. It is likely that the low back-calculated shear strength of the stabilised soil
has been caused by excessive lateral displacements of the columns during the loading and
by the low tensile strength of the stabilised soil. The moment capacity of the columns is
low at the toe of an embankment because of the low axial load in the columns.
Also Kitazume et al (1996b) have reported that cement columns have failed by
bending at centrifuge tests as illustrated in Fig. 24, which were carried out to investigate
the failure mechanisms of column groups. The area ratio was high, 0.56 and 0.79. The
behavior of the columns, with an unconfined compressive strength of 213 to 750 kPa, was
brittle. It was observed that the columns failed one by one and that the failure was
progressive. An analysis of the test results indicates that only about 10% of the shear
strength was mobilized at failure. The shear resistance of the columns reached a
maximum when the axial load was 75% of the axial bearing capacity of the columns.

Fig. 24. Centrifuge tests (after Kitazume, 1999)

5.1.13. Failure Modes of Single Columns

63

The different failure modes for single columns depend on the location of the failure
plane as shown in Fig. 25. For a shallow failure or slip surface the displaced soft flows
past the rigid columns as illustrated in Fig. 25a. The moment capacity of the columns is
sufficient in this case to resist the mobilized lateral earth pressure. The lateral resistance
of the soft soil depends on the relative displacement of the soil with respect to the
columns. Only a very small displacement, a few mm, is required to mobilize the shear
strength along the two sides of the columns. A relatively large relative displacement,
0.05d to 0.10d, is required to mobilize the maximum shear resistance of the soft soil, 9 cu
to 11 cu.
The failure mode when the depth of the failure plane is increased is shown in Fig.
20b. This failure mode occurs when one plastic hinge develops at the location of the
maximum bending moment in the column. The moment resistance of the column, which
depends on the axial load in the column, has been exceeded in this case. This failure
mode is caused by excessive lateral displacement of the columns at the ground surface.

Fig. 25. Failure Modes of Single Columns (after Kivel, 1998)

The failure modes of the columns, when two plastic hinges develop at the location of
the maximum bending moments in the columns, are shown in Figs, 25c, 25d and 25e. The
columns will fail when the maximum moments in the column exceeds the moment
capacity of the column section. The failure mode for a column which extends into a firm
layer is shown in Fig. 25f. This failure mode occurs when the slip surface is located close
to the bottom of the column. In Fig. 25g is shown the failure mode for a column, where
the slip surface is located close to the bottom of the column. The column moves in this
case through the soft soil as a rigid member. The shear resistance depends on the
mobilized shear resistance of the soil. It should be noted that the shear resistance of the
column is the same as that for the column in Fig. 25a. The failure mode when the shear
strength of the column section governs is shown in Fig. 25h. The shear resistance is in
this case governed by the shear resistance of the stabilised soil. A compression failure of
the column is illustrated in Fig. 25i. The bearing capacity of the failed section is governed
by the shear resistance of the stabilized soil as well as by the shear strength of the
64

unstabilized soil around the columns, the depth below the ground surface and by the load
transferred to the unstabilized soil. The columns located in the passive zone, as shown in
Fig. 25j, is governed by the tensile strength of the columns, which is low.
5.1.14. Failure of Cantilever Single Columns
It has been observed by Miyake et al (1991a, 1991b) that cement columns, which
were located at the toe of an embankment failed by bending. Also Kitazume et al (1996b)
have reported that the cement columns failed by bending at the centrifuge tests as shown
in Fig. 24.
The moment resistance of a laterally displaced column, when the effective crosssection of a column with a square cross-section has been reduced from B2 to B2 is 0.5
B2 (1 - ) qu, col and the tensile strength of the stabilized soil is neglected. The internal
moment arm is 0.5 B (1 - ) as shown in Fig. 26. The effective height of the compression
block of the column cross-section is B. It is also assumed, that the axial stress at failure
qu,col of the column is constant over the cross-section (B2). The difference in moment
capacity is small if the side B of the equivalent square cross-section is assumed to 0.95d
where d is the diameter of the columns.
The depth where the maximum moment occurs in the column is 2f as shown in Fig.
26. The distance f can be evaluated by the following equation
2 Qcol b f + k1 cu,soil B f2 = 0.5 Qcol B (1 - )

(5.13)

where 0.5 Qcol B (1 -) is the moment capacity of the columns Mcol.

At Qcol = B2 qu,col and cu,soil /qu,col = then
(f / B)2 + 2 (f / B) f / k1 = 0.5 (1 - ) / k1

(5.14)

The lateral earth pressure on the columns caused by the displaced soil is k1cu,soil B.
The coefficient k1 is equal to 9 to 11, when the shear strength of the soft soil around a
single column is fully mobilized and the relative displacement of the soft soil with respect
to the column is relatively large, 0.10B to 0.15B. Only a small relative displacement, a
fem mm, is required to mobilize the shear resistance, 2cu,soilB, on both sides of the
columns. The lateral earth pressure has been assumed to be uniformly distributed along
the columns.

65

Fig. 26. Lateral Displacement of Single Column

Failure Mode b
When the difference of the axial strain on both sides of the column decreases from f
at the location of the plastic hinge to zero at a distance equal to B from the hinge, the
angular rotation of the column is f and thus independent of the size of the column. The
lateral displacement at the top of the column is 2f f, when the plastic hinge is located
2f below the top of the column.
The lateral displacement is only 22.1 mm which is required to fail a 0.6 x 0.6 m
lime/cement or cement column (d = 0.6 m), when the axial load is 25% of the unconfined
compressive strength ( = 0.25), the axial strain at failure is 1% (f = 0.01), = cu, soil /qu, col
= 1/20 and k1 = 2.0 ( k1 = 0.1). The lateral displacement of a 0.8x0.8 m column is 29.5 mm.
The lateral displacement at failure is thus expected to decrease with increasing diameter of the
columns.
It is likely that the failure strain in-situ for a column will be larger than the failure
strain at unconfined compression tests. It is expected that the failure will increase with
increasing depth below the ground surface and with increasing confining pressure. If e.g.
the failure strain for a laterally loaded column is three times the failure strain at
unconfined compression tests then the estimated lateral displacement at failure of the
column is increased from 22.1 mm to 58.7 mm at f = 0.03, = 0.25, k1 = 0.1, d = 0.6
m as shown in Fig. 27. The lateral displacement is increased 170%, which is somewhat
less than the increase of the failure strain. The analysis shows that the maximum shear
strength of the soft soil around the columns is not fully mobilized at failure due to the
small lateral displacement of the columns at failure.

66

Fig. 27. Lateral Displacement at Failure

(Failure Mode b)
A relatively large lateral displacement is required to fail a lime column due to the
high failure strain. The lateral displacement, when the axial column load corresponds to
25% of the unconfined compressive strength, is estimated to 106.8 mm at qu,col = 200 kPa,
cu,soil = 10 kPa, k1 = 5, B = 0.6 m and f = 0.1 (10%).
Large horizontal displacements, up to 400 to 500 mm, have been reported by Hirai et
al (1996) next to an excavation. The displacements extended about 0.8L from the cement
columns to stabilize the soil, where L is the length of the columns. It was estimated by
Hirai et al (1996) that the lateral displacements was reduced by 65% to 85% by removing
the soil above the mixing unit during the installation of the columns.
Lateral displacements have also been observed by Kakihara et al (1996) for cement
columns. The lateral displacements were found to be large for the columns, which had
been manufactured by the wet method. At the dry method the maximum lateral
displacement was about 40 mm at the ground surface 3 m from the columns. The lateral
displacements were negligible at a distance of 1.5L. The diameter of the cement columns
was 1.0 m and the length was 27.3 m. The area ratio was 0.785.
5.1.15. Behavior of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns as Short Dowels
The shear resistance Tcol of stiff lime/cement columns located in the shear zone
where the columns function as dowels has been analyzed by Kivel (1997; 1998) based
on a method proposed by Brinch Hansen (1948) and by Broms (1972). The shear
resistance Tcol perpendicular to the column is equal to
Tcol =

2k 1cu , soil dMcol

(5.15)

where Mcol is the moment resistance of the column, k1 is a factor, which depends on the
mobilized shear strength, cu,soil is the undrained shear strength of the unstabilized soil and
d is the diameter of the columns (Fig. 28).
The dowel force calculated by Eq. 5.15 is governed by the moment capacity and thus
by the axial load in the columns since the tensile strength of the stabilized soil is low. The
moment capacity of the columns will be small as well as the dowel force Tcol when the

67

axial load in the columns approaches the ultimate or the creep strength of the columns,
B2qu, col or B2qu, creep.
The effect of a lateral load on the bearing capacity of a column with a square crosssection has been analyzed in Fig.28. The lateral displacement f at failure is equal to 2f f
where f is the distance to the point in the column where the moment is equal to zero. The
length f can be estimated by the following equation
k1 cu, soil B f2 + 2 Qcol f f = 0.5 B Qcol (1 - )

(5.16)

Fig. 28. Dowel Action of a Single Column

At Qcol = B2qu, col and cu, soil /qu, col =
(f / B)2 + 2 (f / B) f / k1 = (1 )/ k1

(5.17)

At Qcol = 0.25 qu,col B2, k1 = 5, cu,soil = 10 kPa, qu,col = 200 kPa and f = 0.1 then f /
B = 0.920. The lateral displacement of the column is in this case 124.0 mm. For
lime/cement and cement columns the lateral displacement of the columns is reduced to
14.6 mm at k1 = 2.0 and f = 0.01 (1%) as shown in Fig, 29. The lateral displacement of
lime/cement and cement columns is thus small at failure compared with lime columns.

68

Fig. 29. Lateral Displacement of a Single Column at Failure by Dowel Action

The shear resistance Tcol is equal to 33.5% and 24.4%, respectively of the shear
resistance of the column cross-section B2 cu,col . The shear resistance of the columns will
in this case be less than 35% of the estimated shear resistance of the column cross-section
when the stabilized soil is considered as a composite material with an average shear
resistance equal to the weighted average shear strength of the stabilized soil. The shear
resistance Tcol of the columns will be lower than B2 cu,col when the unconfined
compressive strength of the columns is only slightly larger than the shear strength of the
unstabilized soil around the columns.
The axial column strength qu,col has a large effect on the shear resistance of the
columns. The coefficient k1 affects the shear resistance as well as the shear strength of the
soil around the columns. However, the lateral resistance is reduced by even a small lateral
deflection of the columns, when the axial load on the columns is high. The lateral
resistance is negligible when the axial load corresponds to the creep strength of the
columns. The lateral resistance of the columns can thus be neglected in the design of
lime, lime/cement and cement columns when the axial bearing capacity is fully utilized
.
5.1.16. Shear Resistance of Laterally Displaced Point Bearing Single Columns
The shear resistance of point bearing columns is estimated below when one plastic
hinge develops in the columns at the level of the maximum bending moment. The
distance f can be estimated by the following equation
0.5 k1 cu, soil B f2 + Qcol f f = 0.5 B Qcol (1 - )

(5.18)

At Qcol = B2 qu,col and cu, soil /qu,col =

69

(f / B)2 + 2 (f / B) f / k1 = (1 )/ k1

(5.19)

Fig. 30. Failure of a Point Bearing Column

Failure Mode f
Eqs. 5.18 and 5.19 are the same as Eqs. 5.13 and 5.14.
The shear resistance of lime columns is 33.5% of the shear resistance of the column
section cu,col B2 at e.g. Qcol = 0.25 qu, col B2, k1 = 5, cu, soil = 10, qu, col = 200 kPa and f =
0.1 as shown in Fig. 31. The corresponding lateral deflection of a 0.6 m diameter lime
column is 124.0 mm.
The lateral resistance of a lime/cement or a cement column is reduced to 24.4% at
Qcol = 0.25 qu, col B2, = 0.25, k1 = 2, = 0.1, cu, soil = 10 kPa, qu, col = 200 kPa and f
= 0.01. The lateral displacement at failure of the column is 22.1 mm.

70

Fig. 31. Shear Resistance of a Point Bearing Column, Failure Mode f.

5.1.17. Effect of Weak Column Sections.
The shear resistance of the columns is affected by weak sections in the columns. The
shear resistance varies greatly along the columns. The bearing capacity of single columns
is reduced even by a small lateral displacement when the shear strength of the stabilized
soil is less than the design strength or the column cross-section is less than the nominal
size of the columns. The shear resistance of the columns could be as low as the shear
strength of the unstabilised soil. It is therefore important that the lateral displacement of
the columns at the working load is small.
The bearing capacity of the columns is reduced when the unconfined compressive
strength is reduced. If e.g. the unconfined compression strength of the weak section of a
column is 20 kPa just below a 1 m thick surface crust and the unconfined compressive
strength is 300 kPa for the rest of the column then the axial bearing capacity of the weak
section is 88 kPa (20+5x10+18) instead of 504 kPa (300+3x5x10 + 3x18) at u,col = 30
degrees. The reduction of the axial bearing capacity of the column is more than 80%.
The ultimate strength qu, col is (quo,col + 3h) where quo,col is the unconfined
compressive strength of the column at the ground surface. It has been assumed that the
angle of internal friction col is 30 degrees. The ultimate strength of the weak section
qu,col is (quo,col + h) where quo,col is the unconfined compressive strength of the column
when the confining pressure is zero (,col = 0) and the thickness of this layer is relatively
large (>2d).
The reduction of the bearing capacity is affected by the confining pressure h , which
is (5cu,soil + vo). The estimated confining pressure is 68 kPa just below a 1.0 m thick
crust, when the shear strength of the unstabilized soil is 10 kPa. The length of the column,
which is required to transfer a unit load of 112 kPa from an embankment to the
surrounding soft normally consolidated clay, is 6d or 3.6 m for a 0.6 m diameter column
at a unit shaft resistance of 10 kPa.

71

Fig. 32. Effect of Horizontal Weak Layers

Fig. 33. Effect of an Inclined Weak Layer

72

5.2. Progressive Failure of Single Columns

5.2.1. Progressive Failure of Lime and Lime/Cement Columns
There is a risk that the bearing capacity of lime, lime/cement and cement columns can be
reduced by progressive failure when the shear strength of the columns is high and the ductility
is low. Test results indicate that the ductility of the columns decreases with increasing shear
strength. Unconfined compression tests by e.g. hnberg et al (1995) have shown that the
failure strain could be as low as 1% to 2% when the unconfined compressive strength is larger
than 200 to 300 kPa. For high strength cement columns the failure strain can be as low as
0.1%.
The estimated bearing capacity of the columns with an unconfined compressive
strength of 300 kPa is 614 kPa when the shear strength of the unstabilised soil just below
a 1.0 m thick crust is 20 kPa instead of 10 kPa. When the unconfined compressive
strength of the weak section of a column is reduced to 40 kPa (2x20) the bearing capacity
of the section is estimated to 158 kPa (40+5x20+18). The reduction is about 75%. The
required transfer length is in this case 2d or 1.2 m for a 0.6 m diameter column.
A stress redistribution will occur next to a weak section, when the axial load is
reduced as discussed by Liedberg (1996a, 1996b). The reduction depends mainly on the
overburden pressure. The transfer length is reduced from 3d to d, when the shear strength
of the unstabilized soil is 20 kPa instead of 10 kPa.
An attempt is made in the following to estimate the possible reduction of the ultimate
bearing capacity of the columns due to progressive failure based on several simplified
assumptions with respect to the stress-strain properties of the stabilized soil in the columns and
of the unstabilized soil between the columns.
In Fig. 34 is shown the failure of an embankment where the underlying soft soil has been
stabilized by lime, lime/cement or cement columns. The embankment is assumed to fail along
a cylindrical slip or failure surface. The center of rotation is located above the mid-point of the
sloping side of the embankment. The failure load is 5.5 fu, where fu is the average undrained
shear strength of the soft soil. The angle m at the center of the circular slip surface is equal to
134 degrees, when the shear strength of the soft soil is constant with depth. The radius R is
governed by either the depth of the soft clay H when the depth is small or by the width B of
the embankment.
The settlements just below the embankment will increase as the soil rotates around the
center of the rotation. The settlement of the embankment is zero just below the center of
rotation. The maximum displacement sfm occurs below the embankment at the location of the
slip surface as shown in Fig. 34.
5.2.2. Relative Displacement
The lateral displacement of the soft soil will vary along the slip surface due to the
compression of the soil. The displacement will decrease along the slip surface since the
normal pressure in the soft soil along the slip surface is reduced by the shear resistance fu
along the slip surface. The axial normal pressure is reduced from qf just below the
embankment to a pressure at the far end of the slip surface, which corresponds to the weight of
the berm at the toe of the embankment or to zero without the berm.
In Fig. 34 is also shown the lateral displacements of the columns (-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
5) located below the embankment. It is mainly the horizontal component of the displacements
of the soft clay along the slip surface, which affects the columns. The axial displacements
along the columns will only increase the axial load in the columns by the shaft resistance.

73

Fig. 34. Progressive Failure of Columns

The following analysis indicates that Column 4 will be subjected to the largest lateral
displacement and that the lateral displacements of the adjacent columns decrease rapidly with
increasing distance from Column 4. Columns 4, 3 and 2 will fail as shown, when two plastic
hinges develop in the columns at the location of the maximum bending moments. The bearing
capacity of the columns is reduced as the lateral displacement of the columns is increased.
Columns -1, -2, and -3 fail in tension if the initial axial load in these columns is small
since the soil around the columns is displaced mainly upward. Thereby the axial load is
reduced in these columns. However, a berm will increase the axial load. Thereby the tension in
the columns is reduced. The columns fail when one or two plastic hinges develop due to the
lateral displacement of the columns caused by the embankment.
The lateral displacement of the columns has been analyzed in Fig. 35. The figure shows
that the lateral displacement of the soft soil will vary along the assumed slip surface due to the
axial compression of the soft soil. The displacement will decrease along the slip surface from
sfm at the central angle m just below the embankment where the applied load is qf / sin m /2
to sf at the angle at the location of Column 2. The maximum unit load is qf below the
embankment in the direction of the displacement. The displacement sf will be less than sfm
due to the compression of the soft soil between Column 5 and Column 2. The horizontal
displacement of the soil, which affects Column 2, is sf cos ( m /2).

74

Fig. 35. Lateral Displacement of Column

The lateral displacement of Column 2 is sufficiently large to develop two plastic hinges.
As a result the bearing capacity of the column is reduced when the column is displaced
laterally. The bearing capacity is e.g. reduced by 50% when the lateral displacement (2h) is
35.6 mm at a failure strain of 1% for a 0.6x0.6 m column. The bearing capacity is reduced by
50% when the axial displacement is 162.4 mm when the failure strain is 10%. The failure
strain has thus a large influence on the reduction of the bearing capacity of the columns with
increasing lateral displacement.
5.2.3. Stress Distribution
In Fig.36 a is shown a strip of the soft soil, which is located just above the slip surface.
The strip has been straightened for illustration purposes. It should be noted that the axial
pressure varies linearly along the strip at failure from qf just below the embankment to zero at
the far end.
The increase of the pressure by qf at the location of Column 3, which corresponds to the
central angle is equal to
qf = (qf / m)
(5.20)

75

It has been assumed that the shear stress caused by the applied load corresponds to the
shear strength fu and that the elastic displacement, which is required to mobilize the shear
strength of the soft soil can be neglected.

Fig. 36. Lateral Displacement of Columns

At the applied load q which is less than the failure load qf, the stress increase q at
Column 3 can be calculated as shown in Fig. 36 by the following equation
q = (qf / m) (qf q) = ( / m - 1 + q / qf)

(5.21)

The displacement just below the embankment sfm can be estimated from the following
equation assuming an average modulus of elasticity of E50
sfm = 0.5 qf m R / 180 E50

(5.22)

The corresponding displacement s is equal to

s = 0.5 q ( / Fs - m + ) R / E50 180

(5.23)
76

This equation can be rewritten as

s = 0.5 ( / m 1 + q / qf) (m / Fs - m + )

(5.24)

Since E50 = 0.5 qf m R / 180 then

s / sfm = ( / m 1 + q / qf) (1/ Fs - 1 + / m)

(5.25)

s / sfm = (1/ Fs - 1 + / m)2

(5.26)

However q /qf = 1 / Fs

The horizontal component 2h of the displacement s is of interest since this component

affects the bearing capacity of the columns
2h = s cos ( m / 2)

(5.27)

2h / sfm = (1/ Fs - 1 + / m)2 cos ( m / 2)

(5.28)

Then

The horizontal displacements have been calculated in Fig. 37 for nine locations of the
columns (-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) which corresponds to the following values on the angle =
33.5 o, 45.4 o, 56.4 o, 67 o, 77.6 o, 88.6 o, 100.5 o, 114.4 o and 134 o. It can be seen that 2h /sfm
varies along the slip surface. The largest horizontal displacement occurs at Column 4. It
should be noted that the displacements decrease rapidly with increasing distance from Column
4. It can also be seen that the horizontal displacements decreases rapidly with increasing
factor of safety. At Fs = 1.5 the maximum displacement of Column 4 is less than half the
displacement at Fs = 1.0
The displacement at failure sfm can be estimated by the following equation when the
shear strength is fully mobilized along the assumed slip surface
sfm = 0.5 qf Lf / E50

(5.29)

where Lf is the length of the slip surface, which is equal to m R / 180.

The failure load qf can be estimated by the following relationship
qf = 5.5 fu sin m / 2 = 5.06 fu

(5.30)

since qf is the applied load in the direction of the displacement sfm. Then from Eqs. 5.29 and
5.30
sfm = 5.92 R fu / E50

(5.31)

The radius R is governed by the width B of the embankment when the shear strength fu
is constant with depth or by the depth H of the soft soil. When the width B governs then
R = 1.09 B

(5.32.)

77

The radius R is related to the depth H of the soft soil by the following relationship
H = 0.609 R

(5.33)

Fig. 37. Lateral Displacement of Columns

In the case H = 6 m then R = 10.46 m. From Equ 5.31 and fu / E50 = 1 /100 the maximum
displacement sfm is estimated to 0.105 m.
The horizontal displacement along the slip surface is shown in Fig. 38 for this case. From
the scale at the far left of the figure it can be seen that the displacement of Column 4 is 0.0517
m or 51.7 mm at failure of the embankment. This lateral displacement is sufficient to fail

78

a 0.6x0.6 m column at a failure strain f = 1%. The lateral displacement is increased to 248
mm when the failure strain is 10%.

Fig. 38. Progressive Failure of Columns

At a factor of safety Fs of 1.5 the lateral displacement of Column 4 is reduced to 19.2
mm. The corresponding reduction of the bearing capacity of Column 4 is about 10% at a
failure strain of 1%. At a failure strain of 10% the reduction of the bearing capacity is
small, only a few percent.
5.2.4. Failure of an Embankment on the Island of Orust, Sweden.
The failure of a road embankment located on the Island of Orust /Road 178) about 80 km
north of Gothenburg in the south-western part of Sweden, which was supported by
lime/cement columns has been analyzed assuming that the failure was progressive. The failure
occurred during the final stage of the construction when the height was about 6 m (Jacklin and
Larsson, 1994). The observed maximum settlement exceeded 1.0 m. The unit weight of the
rock waste, which was used for the construction of the embankment, was 20 kN/m3.
The soil below the embankment consisted of a 1 m thick crust, of 7 to 20 m of soft marine
clay and of bedrock. There was a thin sand layer below the soft clay. The undrained shear
strength as determined by fall-cone tests and by field vane tests, was 12 kPa just below the stiff
crust and about 20 kPa at 15 m depth. The water content, which varied between 80% and
100% was close to the liquid limit, 60 to 100. The sensitivity was 15 to 30. The ground water
table was located close to the ground surface. An average shear strength of 14 kPa has been
used in the following analysis of the stability of the failed embankment.
The 0.6 m diameter lime/cement columns were installed in a square pattern at a spacing
of 1.0 m and 1.8 m. The columns extended into a sand layer below the soft clay or the
columns were terminated at a depth of 15 m. The lime/cement content was 92 kg/m3 (50/50).
The unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized soil in the columns increased from
79

about 800 kPa close to the ground surface to about 2,000 kPa at 8 m depth (Jacklin and
Larsson, 1994). The variation of the unconfined compressive strength of the columns was thus
large. The average unconfined compressive strength of cores obtained in-situ from the
lime/cement columns was 1600 kPa. This average value on the unconfined compressive
strength was used

Fig. 39. Failure of Lime/Cement Columns at Orust, Sweden (fu/E50 = 1/100)

in the following analysis. The factor of safety of the unstabilised embankment without
lime/cement columns was 0.64 (5.5x14/120).
In Figs. 39 and 40 are shown the calculated lateral displacement of the columns located
below the embankment at two different values on the fu / E50-ratio, 1/ 100 and 1/200. The

80

failure surface has been assumed to extend down to a maximum depth of 7 to 8 m below the
ground surface.
.

Fig. 40. Failure of Lime/Cement Columns at Orust, Sweden (fu/E50 = 1/200)

The calculated maximum settlement just below the embankment is 1.42 m and 0.71 m as
shown. The lateral displacements have been calculated for different factors of safety for the
soft marine clay, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0. It can be seen from Figs. 39 and 40 that the lateral
displacements decreased rapidly along the assumed slip surface with increasing distance from
the embankment. At Fs = 2.0 for the soft marine clay the calculated lateral displacement
outside the embankment was negligible. The coefficient k1, which governs the lateral pressure
on the columns, has been assumed to 2.0. A value on = 1/100 (qu,col /cu,soil = 1600/16) has
been used in the calculation of the column loads. A relatively high value has been used on the
unconfined compressive strength of the columns, 1600 kPa. A relatively long transfer length
will be required if the column load is transferred to the columns by the shaft resistance alone.
At a shaft resistance of 14 kPa the required transfer length is 28d (1600/4x14) or 17.1 m for
the columns with 0.6 m diameter.

81

The bearing capacity of the columns has been calculated for different failure strains, 1%,
2% and 5%, as the columns are displaced laterally. It can be seen that the bearing capacity of
the columns decreases rapidly as the columns are displaced laterally.
The maximum settlement of the embankment has been estimated to 1.42 m
(0.5x12x2x5.06/50) at fu / E50 = 1/100. At this displacement the average relative bearing
capacity of the columns has been estimated to 0.800 (0.99, 0.97, 0.88, 0.72, 0.44) at Fs = 2.0
for the soft marine clay (Fig. 39). The contribution of the columns to the bearing capacity of
the embankment is 88.5 kPa (0.800x1600x0.28x0.8/1.82). The corresponding contribution of
the soft marine clay is 38.5 kPa (5.5x14/2.0). The estimated total bearing capacity is 127 kPa
(88.5+ 38.5) which corresponds to a global factor of safety of 1.06 (127/120).
The relative bearing capacity of the columns is estimated to 0.532 (0.90, 0.79, 0.64, 0.32,
0.0) at Fs = 1.5 for the soft marine clay and a failure strain f = 5%. The contribution of the
columns to the bearing capacity of the embankment is 58.8 kPa (0.532x1600x0.28x0.8/1.82) at
a spacing of the columns of 1.8 m. The contribution of the soft marine clay is 51.3 kPa
(5.5x14/1.5). The total bearing capacity is 110.1 kPa (58.8 + 51.3), which corresponds to a
factor of safety of 0.919 (110.1/120).
The factor of safety has been estimated in Fig. 40 at a fu/E50-ratio of 1/200. The
corresponding maximum settlement of the embankment is 0.71 m as shown. The relative
contribution of the columns to the bearing capacity of the columns has been estimated to 0.896
(1.0, 0.98, 0.94, 0.84, 0.72) at a factor of safety Fs = 2.0 for the soft marine clay and a failure
strain f = 1%. The contribution of the columns to the bearing capacity of the embankment is
99.1 kPa (0.896x1600x0.28x0.8/1.82) at a spacing of the columns of 1.8 m. The contribution
of the soft marine clay at Fs = 2.0 is 38.5 kPa (5.5x14/2.0). The estimated total bearing
capacity is 137.6 kPa (99.1 + 38.5), which corresponds to a global factor of safety of 1.15
(137.6/120).
The contribution of the columns at a failure strain of 5% and Fs = 1.2 for the soft marine
clay is 0.646 (0.87, 0.76, 0.62, 0.52, 0.46). The corresponding contribution of the columns is
64.2 kPa (5.5x14 / 1.2) at Fs = 1.2. The estimated total bearing capacity is thus 135.7 kPa (71.4
+ 64.2), which corresponds to a global factor of safety of 1.13.
Table 5.1. Bearing Capacity of Embankment

fu / E50

1/100
1/100
1/50
1/50

Failure strain
f , %
5.0
1.0
2.0
5.0

Soft marine clay

Fs1
1.2
2.0
2.0
1.5

Column load Global factor of safety

Qcol/B2qu,col
Fs2
0.646
0.896
0.800
0.532

1.08
1.12
1.03
0.88

5.2.5. Test Embankment at Horrala

Large horizontal and vertical displacements have been observed of an up to 8 m high
test embankment at Norrala located about 250 km north of Stockholm, which had been
stabilized by lime/cement columns.

82

The soil consisted at the site from the ground surface of a 1 m thick surface crust, 3
m of organic silty clay, 4 to 5 m of soft clay and of dense sand at a depth of 7 to 9 m.
Half of the embankment was stabilized by 0.6 m diameter lime/cement columns while 0.8
m diameter lime/cement columns were used for the remaining half of the embankment.
The water content of the organic silty clay was 110% to 160% and 60% to 90% for the
underlying soft clay. The ground water table was located about 1 m below the ground
surface.
Singular columns were installed below the center of the embankment while column
rows were used below the sloping sides and outside the embankment. The spacing of the
single 0.6 and 0.8 m diameter columns was 1.1 m and 1.4 m, respectively. The
lime/cement content was 100 kg/m2.
The undrained shear strength of the columns as determined by triaxial and by direct
shear tests was 300 to 800 kPa (Ryding and Bjrkman, 1996). The variation of the shear
strength was thus large. The modulus of elasticity as determined by triaxial tests was 100
to 150 MPa. A geogrid was used to reduce the lateral displacement of the embankment
where 0.8 m diameter columns were used. The applied unit load by the embankment was
estimated to 152 kPa.
The total width of the embankment was 19 m. The width at the crest was 5 m, which
corresponds to an effective width of the embankment of 12 m. Since the depth of the soft
soil was 7 to 9 m the estimated radius of the most critical slip surface was 13.1 m
(8.0/0.610).
The
maximum
settlement
was
estimated
to
0.774
m
(2xx5.06x134/360x1/100) at a fu/E50 -ratio of 1/100. The relative displacement along
the assumed slip surface is shown in Fig. 41 for different values on the factor of safety Fs
for the soft soil, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0.
The relative column load at f = 0.5%, k1 = 5, = 1/110 (10/1100) and Fs = 2.0 is
estimated to 0.669 (0.99, 0.97, 0.88, 0.5, 0.0). The load carried by the columns at qu,col =
1100 kPa is 136.0 kPa (0.669x1100x0.28x0.8/1.12). The load carried by the unstabilized
soil between the columns is 27.5 kPa (10x5.5/2.0). The total bearing capacity of the
columns and of the unstabilised soil is 163.5 kPa (136.0+27.5), which corresponds to a
global factor of safety of 1.07.
The average column load is estimated to 0.928 (0.99, 0.98, 0.97, 0.88, 0.82) at f = 1%,
k1 = 5, = 1/110. The load carried by the columns is 189.0 kPa
(0.928x1100x0.28x0.8/1.12). The load carried by the unstabilized soil is 27.5 kPa
(10x5.5/2.0) at Fs = 2.0. The total bearing capacity is 216.5 kPa (189.0 + 27.5), which
corresponds to a global factor of safety of 1.42 (216.5/152). At f = 2.5%, k1 = 5,
=1/110 the average column load is 0.884 (0.97, 0.94, 0.89, 0.84, 0.80). The load carried
by the columns is 180.0 kPa (0.884x1100.0.28x0.8/1.12). The load carried by the
unstabilised soil is 36.7 kPa (10x5.5/1.5) at Fs = 1.5. The total bearing capacity is this
216.7 kPa, which corresponds to a global factor of safety of 1.43 (216.7 / 152).
The calculated factor of safety taking into account the reduction of the bearing
capacity caused by progressive failure is 1.07, 1.42 and 1.43 at a failure strain of 0.5%,
1% and 2.5%, respectively. It was reported that the failure strain as determined by triaxial
tests was 1% to 1.5% and that the columns were relatively brittle. It is thus likely that the
failure strain of the columns has been about 1% and that the failure of the columns has
been affected by progressive failure.
0.8 m diameter lime/cement columns spaced 1.4 m apart stabilized half of the
embankment. Due to the large diameter, the displacement of the columns is increased by
33%. The average column load at f = 0.5%, k1 = 5, = 1/110 is estimated to 0.810
(0.99, 0.98, 0.88, 0.70, 0.50). The load carried by the columns is thus 181.8 kPa
(0.810x1100x050x0.8/1.42). The corresponding load carried by the unstabilised soil is
83

27.5 kPa (10x5.5/2.0) at Fs = 2.0. The total bearing capacity is thus 209.3 kPa (181.8+
27.5), which corresponds to a global factor of safety of 1.38 (209.3/ 152).

Fig. 41. Test Embankment at Horrala, Sweden (tfu/E50 = 1/300)

It has been concluded that the global factor of safety was larger for the part of the
embankment stabilized by 0.8 m diameter lime/cement columns and that the failure strain
of the columns was about 1%. The global factor of safety was 1.07 for the part of the
embankment where 0.6 m diameter columns were used to increase the stability. It has been
concluded that progressive failure has contributed to the failure of the test fill.

6. BEHAVIOUR OF COLUM' ROWS

6.1 Stability of Column Rows
84

6.1.1. Failure Modes

Column rows and caissons normally stabilize slopes, embankments and excavations
as shown in Fig. 42. The lateral resistance of a lime/cement or a cement column is
reduced 75.5% to 24.4% at Qcol = 0.25 qu,col B2, = 0.25, k1 = 2, = 0.1, cu,soil = 10
kPa, qu,col = 200 kPa and f = 0.01. The lateral displacement at failure of the column is
22.1 mm.

(a). Column Walls

(b) Column Caisson

Fig. 42. Column Walls and Caissons.

6.1.2. Behavior of Column Rows
It is common to install the columns in single or double rows along a slope or
perpendicular to an excavation or an embankment to increase the efficiency of the
columns compared with the efficiency of single columns as discussed by e.g. Terashi and
Tanaka (1983), Kitazume and Terashi (1991) and by Kitazume et al (1996b). However,
the columns located in the shear zone of an assumed failure surface will have less effect
on the settlements and on the stability than the columns located in the active zone below
an embankment.
It is usually required that the individual columns in a column row should extend into
an underlying layer with a high shear resistance to prevent failure along a slip surface
below the columns. The overlap of the columns should be at least 50 mm when the
diameter of the overlapping columns in the column rows is 0.6 m. The stability is
analyzed by assuming that failure takes place along a circular slip surface through the
columns. The drained or the undrained shear strength of the stabilised soil in the columns
is used to estimate the stability and the factor of safety.

85

The stability of a 5 m high test embankment supported by single cement columns and
by rows with overlapping cement columns using the dry method has been investigated by
Bergado et al (1996). With 10% cement the shear strength was 20 times the shear strength
of the unstabilized soil. The in-situ shear strength was about half the shear strength of
laboratory samples. The shear strength of the unstabilized soil increased linearly with
increasing depth from about 5 kPa close to the ground surface to about 20 kPa at 10 m
depth. It was observed that the lateral displacements and the settlements were less for the
column rows than for single columns. The column rows failed by sliding.
6.1.3. Failure Modes.
Terashi et al (1983b) have investigated by centrifuge tests the shear resistance at
extrusion of the soil between two adjacent column walls. It was found that the shear
resistance along the column walls corresponded to the undrained shear strength of the
unstabilized soil above the slip surface The shear resistance along the column rows
increases the stability since only a very small displacement, a few mm, is required to
mobilize the shaft resistance along the columns.
The moment resistance of the column rows with respect to overturning has been
found to increase rapidly with increasing width of the column rows and thus with
increasing number of columns in each row. It is thus important that the moment resistance
of the individual column rows is sufficient so that the shear resistance of the columns
along the assumed failure surface through the columns or the shear resistance along the
sides of the column rows above the assumed slip surface will govern rather than the
moment capacity of the columns.
The columns located at both ends of a row with lime or lime/cement column wall
will be heavily loaded, when the column rows rotate or are displaced laterally. The
different failure modes are shown in Fig. 43.

86

Fig. 43. Failure Modes of Column Walls

6.1.4. Extrusion and Separation Failure of Column Rows
Terashi et al (1983b) have investigated by centrifuge tests the shear resistance at
extrusion of the soil between the column walls when the soil is displaced as a rigid body
between the rows. Measurements indicate that the shear resistance along the column rows
above the assumed slip surface corresponds to the undrained shear strength of the
unstabilized soil.
87

Fig. 44. Failure of a Column Row by Separation

Failure caused by separation of the individual columns in a column row, are shown in
Figs. 44 and 45. This failure mode occurs mainly for column rows, which are located in
the shear zone, when the slip surface is located close to the top or the bottom of the
columns. Failure by separation is caused by the low tensile resistance of the columns in
the overlapping zone or by a reduction of the width of the overlapping zone when the
columns are not vertical.

Fig. 45. Failure of a Column Row by Separation

88

The tensile force in the overlapping zone is 2dcu,soil assuming that the cohesion along
both sides of the columns is equal to the undrained shear strength of the unstabilised soil
It is expected that the tensile resistance of the overlapping zone is at least 10% of the
unconfined compressive strength. Terashi et al (1980) have reported that the tensile
strength is 10% to 20% of the unconfined compressive strength. It is possible, that the
tensile strength could be lower than 10% due to the uneven distribution of lime and
cement over the column cross-section and shrinkage of the stabilised soil.
The required tensile strength is estimated to about 4 cu, col when the contact area is
half the diameter of the columns. When the shear strength of the overlapping zone is 50%
of the shear strength of the columns the required unconfined compressive strength is
80cu,soil (4x2x10). The required unconfined compressive strength qu; col is thus 800 kPa at
undrained shear strength of the unstabilized soil of 10 kPa. An even higher unconfined
compressive strength is required if the tensile resistance is less than 10% of the
unconfined compressive strength or the width of the overlapping zone is less than d/2.
6.1.5. Dowel Action of Column Rows.
The shear resistance when the vertical columns function as short dowels can be
estimated by assuming that the mobilized shear resistance of the soil is k1 cu, soil B. The
coefficient k1 is estimated conservatively to 2.0 when the shear strength of the
unstabilized soil is fully mobilized on both sides of the columns and the relative
displacement of the soil with respect to the columns is a few mm. It should be noted that
the horizontal shear resistance of a column row is the same as the horizontal shear
resistance Tcol for single columns.
6.1.6. Shear Failure of Column Rows.
A high shear force will develop in the overlapping zone between the columns. The
maximum shear force occurs at the center of the column row. It is important that the shear
strength of the stabilised soil in the overlapping zone is sufficient and that the width of
the overlap of the columns is sufficient as illustrated in Fig. 46.

Fig. 46. Shear Failure of Column Wall

89

Yoshida (1996) has reported that the shear resistance of the stabilized soil in the
overlapping zone has been low, only two-thirds of the shear strength of the stabilized soil
in the columns. Wada et al (1991) have e.g. found that the shear strength of the stabilized
soil in the overlapping zone was 40% to 70% of the average shear strength of the
columns. Cone penetration tests at Norrala have shown that the shear strength of the
stabilized soil in the overlapping zone could be low due to insufficient mixing of the soil
or insufficient overlap (Larsson and Hkansson, 1998).
It is recommended that a reduced shear strength should be used to calculate the
stability. In the following it has been assumed conservatively that the average shear
strength of the overlapping zone is 50% of the shear strength of the columns.
It is generally required that the spacing of the overlapping columns should not exceed
0.8d for columns with 0.5 m or 0.6 m diameter and 0.9d for columns with a diameter
larger than 0.6 m so that the overlap will be sufficient. It should be noted that the width of
the overlapping zone is 0.5d for a single column row when the overlap is 0.133d and the
spacing of the columns is 0.87d. It is important that the columns are truly vertical since
even a small deviation has a large effect on the width of the overlap at the bottom of the
columns. If the overlap is not sufficient the columns will function as individual short
dowels with a low shear resistance.
The maximum permissible inclination is 15 mm/m (1/65) according to Carlsten and
Eriksson (1995, 1997). This allowable inclination corresponds to a maximum deviation of
150 mm at a depth of 10 m, which exceeds the overlap at the bottom of the columns. The
permissible inclination should thus be reduced especially for long columns when the slip
surface is located close to the bottom of the columns, which is usually the case in the
shear zone.
The shear resistance of the columns can be increased with geofabric or geo-anchors
placed at the bottom of the embankment. The stability can also be increased by a berm as
a counter-weight at the toe of the embankment. Thereby the axial load in the columns and
the moment resistance are increased.
The vertical shear force Tcol/b is equal to cu,soil b at = 0.5, where corresponds to
the location of the slip below the top of the column row. The vertical shear force Tcol/b is
equal to
Tcol/b = 2 cu,soil b

(6.1)

when < 0.5.

At a shear strength of 50% of the shear strength of the columns (qu,col / 4) and an
effective width of d/2 then qu,col > 16cu,soilb/d to prevent shear failure of the column wall.
At = 0.5, qu,col = 200 kPa and cu,soil = 10 kPa then b/d < 2.5 since b/d <
qu,col / 16cu,soil. At b = 5 d, qu,col = 200 kPa and = 0.5 then only an unstabilised soil with
a shear strength cu,soil less than 5 kPa can be resisted. At b = 10d the maximum shear
strength which can be resisted is reduced to 2.5 kPa. Thus the shear strength of the
overlapping zone usually governs the design.
The shear resistance Tcol /b, which increases with increasing value on the coefficient
can be calculated by the following relationship
Tcol/b = 4 cu,soil b (1 0.5 )

(6.2)

The maximum shear force occurs at = 1.0. Then Tcol/b = 2 cu,soil b. However, the
maximum shear stress 2 Tcol/db within the overlapping zone with the width d/2, had to be
less than qu,col /4. In that case 4 cu,soil b/d < qu,col / 4. At qu,col = 200 kPa and b = 5d, then
90

cu,soil < 2.5 kPa. At b = 10d the shear strength of the unstabilized soil cu,soil is reduced to
1.25 kPa.
At = 0.1, when the horizontal slip surface is located just below the top of the
column wall, the shear force Tcol/b = 2 cu,soilb. At a maximum shear stress of qu,col / 4 in
the overlapping zone then the maximum shear resistance of the unstabilized soil cu,soil is
5 kPa at qu,col = 200 kPa. The maximum shear resistance cu,soil of the unstabilized soil is
reduced to 2.5 kPa at b = 10 d.
The shear strength of the stabilized soil in the overlapping zone will usually govern
the shear resistance of the column wall. This shear resistance increases with increasing
shear strength of the stabilized soil and with increasing overlap.
6.1.6. Overturning of Column Rows.
The moment resistance of the column rows with respect to overturning increases
rapidly with increasing width of the rows and thus with increasing number of

Fig. 47. Failure of Column Shear Wall by Overturning

columns in each row. It is thus important that the moment resistance of the individual
column rows is sufficient so that the shear resistance of the columns along the assumed
failure surface through the columns or the shear resistance above the assumed slip surface
will govern rather than the moment capacity of the columns.
The axial load is 4 cu,soil (1 ) / b2 for the column located at the far side of a row
with point bearing columns when the column row rotates in the soil (Fig. 47). This axial
load should be less than the unconfined compressive strength qu,col. At q u,col = 200 kPa,
= 1.0 and b = 5 d then cu,soil < 8 kPa. The maximum shear resistance of the unstabilised
soil is thus reduced to 4 kPa when qu,col = 400 kPa and d/b = 10. The bearing capacity of
91

the columns located at the far end of a column row will therefore govern the maximum
shear strength of the unstabilized soil, which can be resisted.

Fig. 48. Reinforcement of a Column Shear Wall

Reinforcing the column walls as shown in Fig. 48 could increase the shear resistance
of the column walls. The reinforcement should preferably be installed in the enlarged part
of the column wall just after the manufacture of the columns. The anchors should
preferably be preloaded to increase their efficiency. The maximum shear force along the
overlapping zone at the center of the column wall is then be resisted partly by the anchors
and partly by the increased shear resistance caused by the normal force N caused by the
anchors as indicated in Fig. 49.

7. COLUM' GRIDS, ARCHES A'D BLOCKS

7.1. Behavior of Column Grids, Arches and Blocks.

7.1.1. General
The columns can also be installed as grids or blocks as illustrated in Fig.51, which is
common in Japan to improve the interaction of the overlapping columns with the
unstabilised soil (Terashi and Tanaka, 1981; Tsuchiya et al, 1996).
7.1.2. Column Blocks.
The volume to be stabilised is large when the columns are installed in blocks since
almost the total soil volume had to be treated. The costs for the stabilisation is high as
pointed out by Kitazume et al (1996a, 1996b). In Japan the stability is usually calculated
by assuming that failure takes place along a cylindrical failure surface through the column
92

Fig. 50. Shear Resistance of a Reinforced Column Wall

block and that the shear strength is half of the unconfined compressive strength of the
stabilised soil (Kitazume et al, 1996b; Karastanev et al, 1997).
Terashi and Tanaka (1983a) have pointed out that the shear resistance of a cement
treated column block is reduced by progressive failure and that the calculation method
where full interaction is assumed, overestimates the bearing capacity of the block. It has
been proposed by Tatsuoka and Kobayashi (1983), that the residual shear strength of the
columns together with the undrained shear strength of the unstabilised soil between the
columns should be used in a slip circle analysis instead of the peak shear strength.
93

Fig. 50. Application of Lime and Lime/Cement Columns as Walls, Grids and Blocks
Centrifuge tests by Karastanev et al (1997), where cement columns were placed in a
block or as single columns in a soft normally consolidated soft clay, indicated that the
bearing capacity of the columns was only 53% of the unconfined compressive strength of
the columns located just below the caisson when the applied load was vertical. A wedge
of soil was formed below the caisson at failure. The columns located on both sides of the
wedge below the loaded area, were displaced laterally since the lateral resistance of the
columns was low. It should be noted that the lateral displacement reduced the axial
bearing capacity of the columns.
Karastenev et at (1997) found that the bearing capacity of the columns located below
the caisson was reduced by 60% to 70% when a lateral load was applied which was 23%
and 20%, respectively of the vertical load. The unconfined compressive strength of the
columns was 213 kPa to 758 kPa. It was observed that the columns failed one by one
during the loading. The bearing capacity and the effective cross-section were reduced as
the columns rotated in the soft clay. The lateral resistance of the columns increased with
increasing axial load until the column load was 50% to 75% of the ultimate bearing
capacity. The lateral resistance decreased when the vertical load was increased further.
It was not possible to evaluate the bearing capacity by assuming that failure occurred
along a circular slip surface when a shear strength, which was half the unconfined
compressive strength, was used in the analysis (Karastanov et al, 1997) and the reduction
of the bearing capacity of the columns by progressive failure was not considered. It was
necessary to use a shear resistance, which was only 10% of the unconfined compressive
strength to obtain a reasonable agreement with the test results.
7.1.3. Column Arches.
Lime, lime/cement and cement column rows can be connected by arches as proposed
by Blom (1992) and Ekstrm (1992) to increase the efficiency of the columns. This
method was used to stabilize a 340 m long trench in gyttja and soft clay in the
southwestern part of Sweden. The trench barrier shown in Fig. 51 increases the stability
of both sides of the trench. Also the long columns at the bottom of the trench improve the
stability of the trench with respect to bottom heave. The stability of the trench barrier
should be checked with respect to overturning and base heave. The stability of a slip
surface passing through the column wall should also be investigated.

94

Fig. 51. Trench Barrier (after Blom, 1992)

7.1.4. Column Grids.
A grid consisting of overlapping columns has been proposed by Gulin and Wikstrm
(1997) to reduce the lateral displacement of the unstabilized soil.

95

8. SETTLEME'T OF BUILDI'GS A'D OF OTHER

STRUCTURES
8.1. Settlement Calculations
8.1.1. Settlement of Single Columns and Column Groups
The main purpose of soil stabilization in the 1960th and 1970th was to control the
total and the differential settlements of buildings and of other structures. The bearing
capacity of the unstabilized soil without lime, lime/cement or cement columns is often
sufficient to support 2-storey buildings without basement or a 1.5 m high fill when the
clay is normally consolidated or slightly overconsolidated. Most buildings can
accommodate relatively large settlements; 0.2 to 0.3 m or more, without structural
damage provided the differential settlements are not excessive. Much larger settlements
can be accommodated by embankments without serious damage.
The settlement of the soft soil located below a reinforced block is usually calculated
from the stress increase determined by the 2:1 method. It is generally assumed that the
total load is transferred to the bottom of the reinforced block without spreading of the
applied load.
The maximum settlement of a group with lime, lime/cement and cement columns is
usually calculated by assuming
1. that the axial deformations of the columns are the same as the deformations of the
surrounding unstabilised soil,
2. that the reinforced soil behaves as a composite material and
3. that the behavior is similar to that of an overconsolidated clay (Pan et al, 1994).
The settlement of a column group, sgroup, is governed by the weighted average
compression modulus of the unstabilized soil between the columns and by the modulus of
elasticity of the columns, Ecol and Msoil, respectively, when the area ratio is small
sgroup =

aE

hqo
col + (1 a ) Msoil

( 8.1)

where h is the thickness of the different layers, qo is the stress increase from e.g. an
embankment and a is the area ratio. It should be noted that Mcol would decrease with time
due to creep. Eq. 8.1 can thus underestimate the settlements if creep is not considered
(Hansbo, 1987, 1994).
It is generally assumed that the stress distribution is constant along the columns and
that it is no spread of load within the reinforced block. The observed settlement is
therefore often larger than the settlement calculated by Eq. 8.1.
The remoulded soft soil above the columns and the upper weak part of the columns
should be excavated and replaced by compacted granular soil since the columns are
terminated 0.5 m to 1.0 m below the ground surface.
8.1.2. Observed Settlements
Holm et al (1983b) and Edstam (1996) have reported that a reduction of the
settlements by 60% is typical for lime columns. The observed settlements have in many
cases been only 40% of the settlements calculated from e.g. the compression modulus
96

determined by oedometer tests (Carlsten and Trnk, 1992). Rogbeck (1997) has reported
that the observed settlements for organic clays have been about 50% of the estimated
settlements down to about 10 m depth. The difference was much smaller when the results
from triaxial tests were used.
Soyez et al (1983) have found that the settlements were reduced by 50% with lime
columns compared with an unstabilized reference area. The spacing of the 0.5 m diameter
columns was 1.0 to 1.5 m. The reduction of the settlements was small when the spacing
was increased to 2 m.
Holm et al (1983b) have reported that the maximum settlement with lime columns
was 0.4 m after 2.6 years for an applied load of 50 kPa compared with a maximum
settlement of 0.8 m, when sand drains were used. The soil consisted of 7.5 m of soft to
very soft clay with an undrained shear strength of 6 to 9 kPa and a compression modulus
of 60 to 175 kPa. The shear strength of the stabilized soil after 2 years was 100 to 160
kPa. The lime content of the 0.5 m diameter columns was 7% to 12%. The spacing of the
columns was 1.4 m.
Carlsten and Ouacha (1993) have reported that the settlement of an embankment in
Karlstad, Sweden was larger than the settlement estimated by CRS tests assuming a
compression modulus of 75 cu,soil since some of the columns could not be installed. In
addition the height of the test embankment was 0.5 m to 0.8 m higher than assumed
(Nord, 1990). Carlsten and Ouacha (1993) have found that the agreement was satisfactory
between calculated and measured consolidation rates for lime columns supporting an
embankment constructed on an 8 m thick layer with soft clay. The diameter of the
columns was 0.5 m and the spacing was 1.1 m to 1.6 m.
Columns with 0.8 m diameter, which were spaced 0.62 m apart, were used to
stabilize a railroad embankment in Finland, which had been constructed on soft peat. The
maximum settlement after about two months was 175 mm (Hoikkala et al, 1997).
The maximum settlement of a group with lime, lime/cement and cement columns
depends mainly on the compression modulus of the stabilized soil and on the
preconsolidation pressure when the unstabilized clay is overconsolidated. Mainly the
modulus of elasticity of the upper part of the columns is important since the compression
modulus of the unstabilized soil usually increases rapidly with increasing depth. Carlsten
and Trnk (1992) and Ekstrm et al (1994) have back-calculated a compression modulus
of 8 to 10 MPa for cement columns at a surcharge load of 42 kPa while CRS-tests
indicated a modulus of only 1.5 to 2.5 MPa. The compression modulus as determined by
dilatometer tests was 2 to 5 MPa and thus 20% to 50% of the back-calculated values.
The difference between estimated and observed settlements increases in general with
increasing length of the columns. The settlements will in general be smaller for organic
soils stabilized by lime/cement than for lime columns mainly due to the higher shear
strength with lime/cement compared with lime.
The apparent preconsolidation pressure increases with increasing shear strength of
the stabilized soil and thus with increasing cement content (Bergado et al, 1996). The
settlements are also affected by the stress increase in the columns, which depends on the
transfer length and thus on the shaft resistance.
It is important to check that the assumed column load can be transferred from the
embankment to the columns within the dry crust or within the fill. The transfer length
depends on the diameter of the columns and on the shear strength of the unstabilized soil
between the columns. The load, which can be transferred to the columns, can be small,
when the dry crust is thin or poorly developed. In that case the transfer length could be
large.
97

At Norrala the maximum predicted settlement for a test embankment was 0.35 m
based on an estimated compression modulus. The observed maximum settlement was
small, 0.1 m. Triaxial tests by Steensen-Bach et al (1996) indicated an average
compression modulus Mcol at Norrala of 200 cu,col. The compression modulus varied at the
triaxial tests between 175 cu,col and 250 cu,col. The undrained shear strength of the columns
was 115 to 160 kPa.
A weak section in a column will increase locally the settlements and the transfer
length. The increase of the settlement is generally small and can be neglected except for
short columns when the area ratio is small. The settlement at the ground surface is
estimated to 8 mm when the reduction of the column load is 42 kPa, the shear strength of
the unstabilised soil cu, soil = 20 kPa and the transfer length is d.
The shear strength of the unstabilized soil around the columns has a large effect on
the settlements caused by an increase of the transfer length, when the shear strength is
low. A local weak section in a column will only increase slightly the settlements of an
embankment provided the weak sections do not occur at the same level and the column
load can be transferred to the adjacent columns.
The settlements at Norrala were up to ten times larger than estimated settlements
close to the ground surface. This local settlement, which accounted for 40% to 70% of the
total settlement (Arnr et al, 1996), was attributed to the low shear strength of the
columns close to the ground surface.
An alternative is to use high strength woven geofabric, which is placed above the
columns as lining in narrow trenches. The trenches are filled with compacted crushed
stone, gravel or any other coarse granular material as illustrated in Fig. 3. The main
purpose of the geo-anchors is to improve the transfer of load from the embankment to the
columns. The geo-anchors contribute also to the stability of the embankments.
8.1.3. Settlements at Sk-Edeby.
The settlements of two loaded areas at the test field of the Swedish Geotechnical
Institute (SGI) at Sk-Edeby located about 30 km west of Stockholm are shown in Fig. 52
(Boman and Broms, 1975; Broms and Boman, 1979a). There lime columns with a total
length of 6 m were installed below one of the two test areas, which were loaded to about
10 kPa by a 0.6 m high gravel fill. This load corresponds approximately to the weight of a
typical one story family house in Sweden. The size of the two test areas was 12.6 x 18.2
m. There were no columns below the reference area.
The soil below the approximately 1 m thick dry crust consisted of a 5 m thick layer
with soft clay with a relatively high sulphate content and of glacial varved clay down to a
maximum depth of 15 m. The clay was normally or slightly overconsolidated. The shear
strength increased with increasing depth. The undrained shear strength of the soft clay
was low, 6 to 9 kPa as well as the compression modulus, 60 kPa to 175 kPa. The water
content was about 100% at a depth of 3 to 4 m.
The maximum settlement below the center of the two loaded areas increased
gradually with time due to consolidation as shown in Fig. 52. The maximum settlement of
the reference area was almost 120 mm 5 years after the placement of the fill compared
with 30 mm for the stabilized area. The settlement of the soft clay was 18 mm after half a
year for the stabilized block compared with 40 mm for the reference area. It should be
noted that the stress increase would be larger below the stabilized block than for the
reference area as pointed out by Ekstrm (1994b). As a result the settlements below the
stabilized block were larger than the settlements of the reference area as well as the
settlements outside the loaded area due to the high shear stresses around the perimeter of
the loaded column block.
98

Fig. 52. Settlements of Two Test Fills at Sk-Edeby

The average shear stress av along the perimeter of the column group will decrease
with time as well as the shear modulus Gsoil. Test results (Broms and Boman, 1976)
indicate that the reduction of the average shear stress av with time is often larger than the
corresponding reduction of the shear modulus Gsoil. The maximum angular rotation is
therefore expected just after loading of the column group.

8.2. Differential Settlements.

8.2.1. Calculation of Differential Settlements
Structures are mainly damaged by differential settlements, which are caused by large
shear deformations of the unstabilized soil between the columns. The maximum
differential settlement and the maximum angular rotation max (Fig. 53) can be estimated
by the following equation (Broms and Boman, 1979a; Bergado et al, 1996)
max = av /Gsoil

(8.2)

99

where av is the average shear stress along the perimeter of the reinforced block and
Gsoil is the shear modulus of the unstabilised soil. The shear modulus, which depends on
the Poissons ratio soil, is estimated to 0.3 Msoil at soil = 0.3. The short-term shear
modulus is estimated to about 100 cu,soil .

Fig. 53. Differential Settlement of a Lime or Lime/Cement Column Group

The maximum differential settlement usually occurs before consolidation just after
the stabilised column block has been loaded. The maximum shear stress and the
maximum differential settlement occur along the perimeter of the loaded reinforced
block. It is estimated that the average shear force along the perimeter of the loaded block
corresponds initially to about 80% of the total mass Wg of the structure or of an
embankment and that about 20% of the weight is transferred directly to the unstabilised
soil below the bottom of the column block.
Since a very small relative displacement is required to mobilize the shaft resistance
of the columns and the undrained shear strength of the unstabilised soil around the
perimeter of the block and that a large displacement is required to mobilize the point
resistance of the block, then

max = av / Gsoil = 0.8 Wg / 2(B + A) Lcol Gsoil < 1/250

(8.3)

where B and A are the width and the length of the loaded area, respectively and Lcol is the
length of the columns.
At a maximum allowable angular rotation of 1/250 and Gsoil = 100cu,soil, then

av = Gsoil / 250 = 0.4 cu,soil

(8.4)

However, the shear modulus for the unstabilised soil decreases rapidly with
increasing stress level. At a required partial safety factor of 1.5
Lcol / b > q / cu,soil (B/A + 1)

(8.5)

100

Fig. 53. Settlement of Column Group

The length of the columns Lcol should be at least 1.25 B where B is the width of
the loaded area at e.g. B/A = 0.5 and q = 2 cu,clay.
The differential settlements were very small at Sk-Edeby compared with those of
the reference area (Broms, 1984a). The maximum inclination (angular rotation) after1.5
years was only 1:833 for the stabilized area compared with 1:84 for the reference area.
After ten years the maximum differential settlement for the reference area had increased
to 1:37 while the differential settlements were negligible for the stabilized area.
The settlements outside the loaded area were much larger for the stabilized area than
for the reference area indicating that the load from the stabilized area was transferred to
the surrounding soil along the perimeter of the stabilized block mainly through shaft
resistance.
The differential settlements can be reduced by increasing the length of the columns
around the perimeter of the column group. The settlements of the columns are generally
governed by the modulus of elasticity of the columns Ecol, while the settlements of the
unstabilized soil are governed by the compression modulus Msoil.
101

A maximum differential settlement of 1/130 has been reported by Kujala (1983b)

after 30 days for gypsum and lime columns and 1/92 for an area stabilized with lime
columns. The settlements stopped after the height of the embankment was reduced from
2.5 m to 1.5 m. These differential settlements are excessive for most buildings.

8.3. Columns as Drains

8.3.1. Consolidation Rate.
The consolidation of the soft unstabilized soil between the columns occurs rapidly
with lime columns since the columns function as vertical drains as discussed by Broms
and Boman (1977a), Holm et al (1983b), Bjerin et al (1984), Halkola (1984) and by
hnberg and Holm (1986). There are some questions, however, about the function of
lime/cement and cement columns as drains since cement have a tendency to reduce the
permeability.
The time required for the consolidation of a block stabilized by lime columns can be
estimated by the following equation (Barron, 1948; Hansbo, 1979, 1983a, 1983b, 1987).
2
U = 1 - exp [-2 cvh t / R f (n)]

(8.6)

where U is the degree of consolidation, cvh is the coefficient of consolidation with

respect to horizontal drainage, t is the time and R is the radius of influence.
The factor f(n) in Eq (8.6) can be calculated by the following equation

n2
n 2 1 k clay
1
1
[ln(n) - 0.75 + 2 1 2 ] +
f(n) = 2
k col
n 1
n2
n n

L2col
r2

(8.7)

where n = R/r, R is the radius of influence, r = d/2 is the radius of the columns, kclay and
kcol are the permeability of the unstabilized soil between the columns and of the stabilized
soil, respectively, Lcol is the length of the columns, when the soil is drained on one side
only and half the length the when the columns are drained top and bottom. The diameter d
of the columns affects also the consolidation rate since d effects both n and Lcol /r. The
effect of smear around the columns can be neglected, however (Hansbo, 1987).
The settlement rate depends on the average compression modulus, the area ratio a,
the creep strength of the columns, the permeability of the stabilized soil as well as on the
length and the spacing of the columns. The radius of influence R is 0.56 S for a square
pattern of the columns and 0.53 S for a triangular pattern. The spacing S of the columns is
usually 0.8 m to 1.8 m. Silt and sand layers in the soft clay affect the consolidation rate
when the distance between the drainage layers is less than the spacing of the columns. It
is often economical to vary the length of the columns to take into account the variation of
the permeability of the soil and the increase of the compression modulus with depth.
The time required for the consolidation will be short for lime columns, normally a
few weeks, when the spacing of the columns is small. Several months or years are
required for lime/cement and cement columns depending on the permeability and the
spacing of the columns.
8.3.2. Coefficient of Consolidation.
The settlement rate is governed by the coefficient of consolidation cvh = Mav kh,soil /w
and thus by the permeability of the soil in the horizontal direction and by the weighted
102

average compression modulus Mav. It should be noted that kh is often 3 to 5 times the
permeability of the soil in the vertical direction. Usually kh,soil is 2 kv,soil to 3 kv,soil.
The weighted average compression modulus Mav is often 2 to 4 times the
compression modulus of the unstabilized soil. The expected settlement rate could thus be
6 to 20 times the settlement rate of the unstabilized soil due to the high average
compression modulus of the columns and the high permeability. The low permeability of
lime/cement compared with lime columns is in general compensated at least partly by a
high compression modulus due to the high shear strength with lime/cement (Baker et al,
1997).
The coefficient of consolidation cv below the preconsolidation pressure is estimated
to about 10% to 20% of the coefficient of consolidation for the remoulded soil. Above the
preconsolidation pressure the coefficient of consolidation decreases rapidly with
increasing consolidation pressure. The coefficient of consolidation is about one order of
magnitude lower for organic soils than for inorganic soils.
The coefficient of consolidation is usually determined in the laboratory by oedometer
tests and in the field by piezocone tests (CPTU). The coefficient of consolidation cvh with
respect to lateral drainage is expected to be three to five times cvv with respect to vertical
drainage as determined by oedometer tests. Typical values on cvv are 0.5 to 1.5 m2/year
for normally consolidated soft marine clays in Sweden and 1 to 3 m2/year for cvh. The
increase of the compression modulus reduces the time required for the consolidation
compared with sand or band drains as pointed out by Terashi and Tanaka (1983). Since
the coefficient of consolidation of soft clay reinforced by lime columns could be 10 to 20
times higher than the coefficient for the unstabilised soil, the time required for consolidation is
reduced by 90% to 95% (Bergwall and Falksund, 1996).
The agreement between estimated and measured settlements and settlement rates has
in general been satisfactory (Broms and Boman, 1979a, 1979b; Holm, 1979b). Typically
about 90% consolidation is reached after about 3.5 months when the spacing of the
columns is 1.0 m. It is expected that about 6.5 months is required when the spacing is 1.2
m. The spacing of the columns has thus a large influence on the consolidation rate.
Bergado et al (1996) have reported for Bangkok clay that the coefficient of
consolidation with cement as determined by oedometer tests decreased almost linearly
with increasing consolidation pressure and that cv increased with increasing cement
content. However, the reduction of the permeability is compensated at least partly by an
increase of the compression modulus when the cement content is increased.
The time required for the consolidation of the soil can be reduced by 50% to 70% by
preloading. The consolidation rate is only affected by the increased compression modulus
with lime/cement and cement since the columns do not function as vertical drains in the soil.
Band drains could possibly be used in addition to lime/cement and cement columns to
increase the consolidation rate. It should be noted that band drains have not been used so
far in Sweden in combination with lime/cement or cement columns.
A computer program LIMSET has been developed by Carlsten (1989) to calculate the
settlements and the settlement rate, which takes into account the compression modulus of
the stabilized and of the unstabilized soil, the area ratio, the degree of consolidation and
the time between the installation of the columns and the application of load. The
coefficient of consolidation is calculated based on the compression modulus of the
unstabilized soil and a fictitious permeability ratio kcol/kh,soil that is assumed to 1000 for
lime columns and 400 to 600 for lime/cement columns.
8.3.3. Well Resistance for Lime, Lime/cement and Cement Columns
103

Hansbo (1994) has pointed out that the well resistance cannot be neglected for
lime/cement columns. It should be noted that the well resistance decreases with
increasing diameter of the columns (Eq. 8.7).
The last term in Eq 8.7 takes into account the well resistance caused by the low
permeability of the stabilized soil. For a normally consolidated clay, 57%, 34% and 19%
consolidation will be reached after 1.0, 0.5 and 0.25 year, respectively at S = 1.5 m, R =
0.84 m, r = 0.3 m, cvh = 3 m2/year, kcol / kh,soil = 100 and Lcol = 10 m. At kcol / kh,soil = 1000
then 99%, 98% and 85% consolidation is obtained after 1.0, 0.5 and 0.25 year,
respectively. Thus the permeability ratio kcol / kh,soil has a large effect on the consolidation
rate. Bengtsson and Holm (1984) have indicated that about one year is required to reach
80% consolidation at kcol / kh,soil = 100. About 10 years is required at kcol / kh,soil = 1.0.
The consolidation rate depends on the time lag, which can be appreciable due to the
low permeability of lime/cement and cement columns. The consolidation rate for lime
columns at kcol>1000 kh,soil is mainly governed by the permeability of the unstabilised soil
between the columns. At kcol / kh,soil = 100 the reduction of the consolidation rate is to a
large extent caused by the time lag in the columns.
When the coefficient of consolidation cvh is increased from 3 to 10 m2/year then 94%,
75% and 50% consolidation is reached after 1.0, 0.5 and 0.25 years, respectively at S =
1.5 m, R = 0.84 m, r = 0.3 m, kcol / kh,soil = 100 and Lcol = 10 m. At kcol / kh,soil l = 300 and
cvh = 10 m2/year 99%, 98% and 85% consolidation is obtained after 1.0, 0.5 and 0.25
year. It is required that kcol / kh,soil > 1000 for a soft normally consolidated clay if the
columns should function as vertical drains in the soil.
The time lag, which is caused by the low permeability of lime/cement and cement
columns, can possibly be reduced by providing the columns with a hole at the center (Fig.
54). Thereby the drainage path is reduced. The time lag can also be reduced by band
drains, which are installed between the columns. The costs for the band drains and for the
installation of the drains have decreased considerably during the last few years.
The largest uncertainty with presently used design methods is the permeability of
lime, lime/cement and cement columns and the change of the permeability with time. It is
anticipated that the permeability will decrease when the width of cracks and fissures in
the stabilised soil are reduced. The permeability may increase when the soil becomes
saturated. It is therefore important to monitor the settlement rate when lime, lime/cement
or cement columns are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the columns as drains.

9. DESIG' OF LIME, LIME/CEME'T A'D CEME'T

COLUM'S
9.1. Design Considerations.
9.1.1. Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States (ULS and SLS)
In the design of lime, lime/cement and cement columns it is important to consider as
discussed by Broms (1999a)
that the ultimate bearing capacity and the stability of embankments, trenches and
slopes are adequate (ULS) as well as the ultimate bearing capacity of the columns and of
the unstabilised soil between the columns,
that the total and the differential settlements as well as the lateral deformations are
not excessive at the working load (SLS),
104

that nearby buildings as well as buried services and other structures are not damaged
during the installation of the columns. Buildings and other structures are often damaged
by an angular rotation, which exceeds 1/300 to 1/400.

Fig. 54. Manufacture of a Hole at the Center of the Columns

that the short and long-term environmental impact of lime, lime/cement and cement
columns is negligible.
9.1.2. Cost.
Lime and lime/cement columns have been found to be very cost effective for large
jobs in Sweden and Finland compared with other soil improvement methods when only a
105

marginal improvement of the settlements or of the bearing capacity is required. The

establishment costs are relatively high, in Sweden SEK 30,000 to SEK90,000 which
makes the method relatively expensive compared with many other soil stabilization and
soil improvement methods such as preloading with or without vertical drains, excavation
and replacement, light-weight fill and embankment piles.
One disadvantage with lime columns is the relatively high cost for finely ground
quicklime compared with the cost for cement. In Sweden the cost for cement is about
65% of the cost for lime (Ekstrm, 1992). The difference in total cost between lime and
lime/cement columns is often small since less lime is required than lime/cement to obtain
a certain shear strength when the organic content of the soil is low. Longer time is
required for the installation of lime/cement and cement columns than for lime columns
due to the high content of stabilizer required with lime/cement and the low retrieval rate
of the mixing tool. The total cost for lime columns to stabilize inorganic clays with a high
sensitivity or a high salt content could therefore be less than the total costs for
lime/cement or cement columns.
The difference in cost between Portland cement, quicklime and hydrated lime is
usually small. There is, however, a large difference in the costs between quicklime and
hydrated lime with respect to the available content of CaO2 (CAE). The price for the
available CaO2 in hydrated lime is about 30% higher than for quicklime. The price in the
UK in 1989 was about 61 per ton for hydrated lime and about 63 per ton for quicklime
(Sherwood, 1993).
The relative costs for lime and lime/cement columns compared with precast concrete
piles has gradually been reduced. The cost in Sweden in 1985 was 30 to 40 SEK/m for a
0.5 m diameter lime column, which corresponds to 150 to 200 SEK/m3. The cost in
Norway in 1984 was 45 NKr/m for lime columns with 0.5 m diameter or 225 NKr/m3
(Skauerud and Finborud, 1984). The cost in Sweden in 2002 is about 55 to 65 SEK/m for
lime/cement columns with 0.6 m diameter, which corresponds to 195 to 230 SEK/m3.
The costs for lime/cement columns with 0.8 m diameter are about 75 to 90 SEK/m, which
corresponds to 150 to 180 SEK/m3. The cost for lime and cement columns has not
increased much in Sweden or Norway since 1984.
The cost/m3 decreases rapidly with increasing diameter of the columns. It is therefore
economical to use columns with as large diameter as possible since the cross-sectional
area of the columns is increased from 0.2 m2 to 0.5 m2 or by 150%, when the diameter is
increased from 0.5 m to 0.8 m. The corresponding increase of the costs/m is 37%.
About 60% to 70% of the total cost at mass stabilisation is for the stabilizer. To be
competitive it is important to reduce the amount of stabilizer as much as possible as
pointed out by Hoikkala et al (1996). For single columns and for column rows the cost for
the stabilizer is about 50% of the total cost.
A comparison by Nord (1990) and by Carlsten and Ouacha (1993) has shown that
the costs for the stabilisation of embankments with lime columns have only been onethird of the costs for embankment piles, which was the alternate method.
The reduction of the costs for the railroad road embankments at Norrala in the
northern part of Sweden using lime/cement columns (50% lime and 50% cement) has
been estimated to about 50% compared with other soil stabilization methods (Swedish
Deep Stabilisation Research Center, 1995; Kivel, 1995a; Svensson and Jonsson, 1996).
9.1.3. Short and Long-Term Conditions
The short-term bearing capacity of buildings and of other structures supported by
lime, lime/cement or cement columns as well as the stability of embankments, deep
excavations and shallow trenches are governed by either the undrained or the drained
106

shear strength of the stabilized and of the stabilized soil depending on the loading rate and
on the permeability ratio kcol/kh,soil. The lowest short-term bearing capacity and shear
resistance are usually obtained by a combined analysis, where the undrained shear
strength is used to analyze the shear strength of the unstabilized soil and a drained
analysis of the columns. Both the undrained and the drained shear strengths of the
columns depend mainly on the axial column load.
The long-term bearing capacity, which is determined by an effective stress-analysis
of both the columns and of the unstabilized soil between the columns could for an overconsolidated clay be lower than the bearing capacity as evaluated by a total stressanalysis.
9.1.4. Method of Analysis
The same design methods are generally used for lime/cement and cement columns as
for lime columns. Both dead and live loads had to be considered. It should be noted that it
is not necessary to consider creep together with the dead load in the analyses of the longterm stability of embankments, slopes or deep excavations. The stability is usually
analyzed by assuming that failure takes place along a circular or combined slip surface
through the columns. The most critical slip surface is often located in the remoulded soil
below the columns or through weak layers in the columns
The stability and the settlement of slopes, embankments, trenches and excavations
are usually calculated
with a weighted average shear strength f,av assuming full interaction of the columns
with the unstabilized soil between the columns provided the maximum shear strength of
the columns is less than 100 to 150 kPa as proposed in SGF Report 2:2000. This
proposed shear strength could be too high for lime/cement and cement columns, which
are located in the shear or in the passive zone as indicated by the low shear strength,
which was back-calculated by Jacklin and Larsson (1994) for lime/cement columns and
by Terashi and Tanaka (1983c) and Kitazume et al (1996b) for cement columns.
with the peak shear strength of the columns assuming that the columns are carrying
the full weight of the embankment. The contribution of the unstabilised soil between the
columns is neglected. The same design method is thus used as for piles. The maximum
shear resistance of the columns is usually restricted to 500 kPa (Tielaitos, 1997).
with a reduced peak shear strength for the columns and a reduced peak shear strength
for the unstabilized soil between the columns to take into account the reduction of the
shear strength caused by progressive failure. The reduction can be large for brittle
columns with a low failure strain (Broms, 1999b).

107

Fig.55. Proposed Design Method for High Strength Columns

9.1.5. Location of Columns

The location the columns has been discussed by e.g. Terashi and Tanaka (1983c),
Kitazume and Terashi (1991) and by Kitazume et al (1996b). The bearing capacity and
the shear resistance of the columns in the active zone below an embankment are much
higher than the shear resistance of the columns located in the shear or in the passive
zones. It is therefore recommended that the columns should be concentrated to the active
zone where a high area ratio can be used. Also Kivel (1998) has pointed out the low
efficiency of the columns, which are located in the shear and the passive zones. The
contribution of the columns in the active zone below an embankment is at least twice that
of the columns in the shear zone. The stabilizing effect of the columns in the passive zone
is low.
Single columns can be used in the active zone when the area ratio (a) is small, < 0.2
to 0.3 or be placed in double rows when the area ratio is high, > 0.3. The columns, which
are located in the active zone below an embankment should preferably be placed in
double rows perpendicular to the axis of the embankment. The columns should overlap to
reduce the risk that the columns will be displaced laterally. A relatively high area ratio
can be used.
Single or double rows with overlapping columns are installed in slopes, behind
excavations or below or outside embankments to increase the stability. The location of
the columns affect the axial load in the columns as well as the shear resistance as
discussed by Miyake et al (1991a, 1991b). The shear resistance and the bearing capacity
will be high for the columns located below the embankment where the lateral
displacement of the columns is small. There the bearing capacity and the shear resistance
will be high compared with the columns located in the shear and the passive zones
outside the embankment. It is important to check the stability with respect to a horizontal
slip surface through possible weak layers in the columns.
The shear resistance will be low for floating columns, which do not extend into a
layer with a high bearing capacity. It should be noted that lime and cement are injected at
the dry method 0.3 to 0.4 m above the tip of the mixing tool using compressed air. It is
common that there is a layer with remoulded unstabilized soil just above the firm bottom.
It is usually required, that the individual columns in a column row should penetrate an

108

underlying layer with a high bearing capacity to prevent failure along a failure or slip
surface passing below the columns.
9.1.6. Required Lime Content.
The lime content, which is required to stabilize soft inorganic clay is typically 15 to
18 kg/m for columns with 0.5 m diameter to obtain an undrained shear strength of 150 to
300 kPa and 20 to 26 kg/m for 0.6 m diameter columns. This lime content corresponds to
70 a 90 kg/m3 or about 6% to 8% with respect to the dry unit weight of the columns.
The minimum lime content is 2% to 2.5% below which the increase of the shear
strength is insignificant. The shear strength increases rapidly with increasing lime content
(Locat et al, 1990, Sherwood, 1993) up to about 10% to 12% with respect to the dry
weight of the soil. Above 12% the shear strength is often reduced.
Also the initial water content is important. The increase of the shear strength has
been small at a lime content of 10%, even when the initial water content of the soil to be
stabilized was much higher than the liquid limit
9.1.7. Required Lime/Cement Content
For lime/cement columns about 80 to 110 kg/m3 (25/75 or 50/50) is usually required
to obtain a shear strength of 150 to 300 kPa. A shear strength of at least 200 kPa can
generally be obtained with lime/cement (50/50) at a water content of the soil of 25% and
a shear strength of at least 50 kPa when the water content is100% (Edstam, 1997). A high
content of stabilizer, 15% to 20%, is usually required with lime/cement and cement
columns for inorganic soils to obtain the specified shear strength. The shear strength
increases approximately linearly with increasing lime/cement and cement contents.
Lime/cement and cement are recommended for organic soils when the required shear
strength cannot be obtained with unslaked lime. Lime/cement should be considered when
an undrained shear strength of at least 25 to 50 kPa cannot be obtained with lime alone.
Usually 50% lime and 50% cement is used to combine a high shear strength, with a
high permeability and ductility. Also other proportions are used (e.g. 25% lime and 75%
cement as well as 75% lime and 25% cement). Holm et al (1983a) have recommended
that 75% lime and 25% cement should be used for long-term stabilisation of soft clay and
50% lime and 50% cement for temporary stabilisation.
Eriksson and Carlsten (1995, 1997) have reported that the shear strength with 25%
lime and 75% cement is about the same as with 75% lime and 25% cement. The required
lime and cement content increases in general with increasing plasticity index, with
increasing shear strength and with increasing organic content of the soil.
9.1.8. Required Cement Content.
A cement content of about 4% to 13% is usually sufficient to stabilize clayey silt, 6%
to 16% for clay and 16% to 40% for clayey gyttja (hnberg et al, 1994). In Japan a
cement content of 20% to 30% is common which corresponds to 100 to 200 kg/m3
(Okumura, 1996). A higher cement content is normally used in Japan than in Sweden and
Finland.
Axelsson et al (1996) have investigated for peat the increase of the shear strength
with rapid hardening cement when the cement content was increased from 70 to 400
kg/m3. The shear strength of the stabilised soil increased from 80 kPa to over 300 kPa
when the cement content was 150 to 250 kg/m3. However, a reduction of the shear
strength to 280 kPa was observed when the cement content was increased to 400 kg/m3.
The shear strength with cement increased with increasing water content due to the
improved mixing when the water content is high.
109

9.1.9. Required Content of Fly Ash, Gypsum, Blast Furnace Slag, Coal Ash and other
Stabilizers.
Fly ash and gypsum have also been tried in addition to lime and cement to improve
organic soils and silts (hnberg and Holm, 1984; Holm and hnberg, 1987b;
Stepkowska, 1994; Asano et al, 1996). The ratio of lime and fly ash has been 1:1 to 1:4.
For 0.5 m diameter columns about 22 kg/m is required for clay and 33 kg/m for organic
soils at a ratio of 1:4 (20/80). Also fly ash and cement have been used. Mainly the cement
has been found to be effective (Asano et al, 1996). The optimum content of stabilizer is
about 12% (Mishra and Srivastava, 1996).
The increase of the shear strength with fly ash varies greatly depending on the
composition of the fly ash. The major constituents are SiO2 (50%) and Al2O3 (about
20%). Fly ash is an inert material, which is effective in combination with lime. Axelsson
et al (1996) have reported for peat and gyttja that the increase of the shear strength with
fly ash has been low. The stabilizing effect of fly ash has also been investigated by Mishra
and Srivastava (1996) and by Joshi and Nagaraj (1985). Extensive laboratory and field
tests are required to determine the shear strength of the stabilised soil due to the large
variation of the composition of the fly ash.
The largest increase of the shear strength has been obtained for peat with 50% rapid
hardening cement and 50% granulated blast furnace slag. The increase of the shear
strength has been relatively slow for blast furnace slag especially when the ground
temperature is low.
Coal ash has been used together with cement (Asano et al, 1996) mainly to reduce the
swelling. The optimum content of coal ash is about 7.5%.
9.1.10. Coefficient of Variation.
It should also be noted that the variation of the shear strength along the columns
usually is less with cement and lime/cement than with lime. The coefficient of variation,
the ratio of the standard deviation and the mean shear strength, can for lime columns be
as high as 30% to 70% with respect to the undrained shear strength. The coefficient of
variation has a tendency to increase with increasing water/cement ratio from about 25% at
w/c = 1.0 to 40% at w/c = 2.0 (Matsuo et al, 1996a). Yoshizawa et al (1996) have
reported that the coefficient of variation decreased with increasing cement content.
Ekstrm (1992) observed that the coefficient of variation, has a tendency to increase
with time. The coefficient of variation was 10% after one week, about 15% after about
two months and 20% to 35% after about three months mainly due to the increase of the
shear strength of the stabilized soil with time.
9.1.11. Global Factor of Safety
A single global factor of safety, Fs = 2.0 to 3.0, is normally used in Sweden to
determine the allowable load. A global factor of safety of 1.2 to 1.5 is usually required for
embankments and slopes, with respect to the short and long-term stability, respectively.
The factor of safety should be at least 1.5 according to the Swedish Road Board and the
Swedish National Rail Administration. (Wilhelmsson and Brorsson, 1987). The required
factor of safety with respect to bottom heave is usually 1.3.
There are no indications that the shear strength and the bearing capacity of lime,
lime/cement and cement columns in soft soil is reduced with time when the permeability
of the soil is low. Measurements indicate that the shear strength of lime columns is still
increasing even after 2 to 3 years. However, the long-term bearing capacity of lime
110

columns in fibrous peat could decrease with time due to the low pH-value and the
relatively high permeability of the stabilized soil. Additional columns could in that case
be required.
The shear strength could also be reduced when the pH-value of the ground water is
low, less than 5, and there is a continuous flow of ground water through pervious sand
and silt layers next to the columns. It is expected that the reduction of the bearing capacity
will be less for lime/cement and cement columns than for lime columns due to the low
permeability with cement or lime/cement.
For high embankments the lateral displacement of the columns could be excessive
also for inorganic clay and silty clay when the global factor of safety is less than 1.5 to
2.0. An even higher factor of safety might be required for organic soils where the lateral
displacements can be large due to creep.
9.1.12. Load and Partial Safety Factors
Partial safety factors and load factors are used in Sweden and Finland to take into
account the possible variation of the applied load and of the shear strength of the
stabilized soil. A characteristic shear strength is used as well as a material property
coefficient fd (fd = fk m n) where m is a coefficient, which reflects the uncertainty
involved in the evaluation of the shear strength and n is a partial coefficient, which
depends on the safety class. The coefficient takes into account the difference in shear
strength between soil samples and the in-situ shear strength of the columns. A partial
safety factor m of 1.8 is used with respect to the undrained shear strength fu and 1.2 with
respect to the effective friction resistance tan col.
Lime and lime/cement columns are usually designed in Sweden according to Safety
Class 2 where a partial safety factor n of 1.1 is required.
9.1.13. Characteristic Undrained Shear Strength.
Statistical methods are used to evaluate the characteristic undrained shear strength to
be used in design. The maximum characteristic undrained shear strength is 100 to 150
kPa in Sweden when full interaction of the columns is assumed with the surrounding
unstabilized soil. The Swedish National Rail Administration requires that the maximum
characteristic shear strength to be used in design should normally be 100 kPa. A shear
strength of up to 150 kPa can only be applied when the soil and the loading conditions are
favorable (Banverket, 1996, SGF Report 2:2000).
The shear strength to be used in design could possibly be higher than 100 kPa to 150
kPa if the lateral displacement of the columns is reduced,
by locating the columns in the active zone of potential failure surfaces below the
center of the embankment,
by reinforcing the embankment with geofabric or geo-anchors and
by preloading the columns and the soft soil between the columns.
It should be noted that high strength lime/cement columns behave as piles when the shear
strength is high (hnberg et al, 1996).
It might be possible to utilize columns with an undrained shear strength larger than
100 to 150 kPa
by placing the columns in blocks or in double rows in the active zone below an
embankment
by designing the columns to carry the full weight of the embankment
111

by replacing the soft or loose soil above the columns and the weak upper part of the
columns by compacted granular material so that the weight of the embankment and the
traffic load can be transferred to and from the columns without excessive settlements
by resisting the maximum lateral earth pressure in the embankment by one or several
layers with geofabric or by geo-anchors
The interaction of cement and lime/cement columns with the surrounding
unstabilized soil is uncertain when the shear strength of the stabilized soil is high because
of the low failure strain of the brittle columns. The reduction of the bearing capacity is
large, when the peak shear strength of the stabilized soil is high due to the large reduction
of the effective cohesion ccol when the peak shear strength is exceeded.
The characteristic undrained shear strength fu,c that governs the short term bearing
capacity of lime, lime/cement and cement columns, can be evaluated by the following
equation
fu,c = cu,c + f tan u,c

(9.1)

where cu,c is the characteristic undrained cohesion, u,c is the characteristic undrained
angle of internal friction and f is the normal total pressure acting on the failure plane. It
is assumed that the shear strength fu,c increases linearly with increasing normal pressure
up to 150 to 250 kPa. The friction angle u,c which is equal to 25 to 35 degrees for lime
columns, when the confining pressure is low, decreases gradually to zero with increasing
confining pressure. A characteristic undrained shear strength fu,c of up to 100 to 150 kPa
can usually be obtained with lime/cement when the initial water content is about 25% and
about 75kPa when the water content is about 100%.
.
9.1.14. Characteristic Drained Shear Strength
The characteristic drained shear strength fd,c, which governs the long term bearing
capacity can be evaluated by the following equation
fd,c = cc + f tan c

(9.2)

where cc is the characteristic drained cohesion, f is the effective normal pressure on the
failure plane and c is the characteristic effective angle of internal friction. Both u,col and
col are at least 30 and 35 degrees for lime and lime/cement columns, respectively
A friction angle c of 30 degrees is normally used in design (Liedberg et al, 1996a,
1996b. The effective cohesion cc,col has been 25% to 50% of the in-situ undrained shear
strength for 0.6 m diameter columns since mainly the effective cohesion is increased by
cementation. The average effective cohesion cc,col is about 35% of the undrained shear
strength. A value of zero should be assumed on cu,col for the passive zone, 0.1 cu,col for
the columns in the shear zone and 0.3 cu,col for the columns in the active zone to take into
account the reduction of the shear resistance caused by progressive failure according to
Carlsten and Ekstrm (1995, 1997).
The increase of the pore-water pressure has generally been small at unconfined
compression and triaxial tests since the stabilized soil is partially saturated so that u,col is
about equal to col (Bergwall and Falksund, 1996). However, the pore water pressure has
been negative at failure due to dilatancy of the stabilized soil
9.1.15. Ductility
112

A reduction of the shear resistance and of the bearing capacity can be expected when
the peak shear strength of the columns is exceeded. The reduction can be large when the
residual shear strength of the stabilized soil is low, which is often the case when the peak
shear strength is high and the confining pressure is low. It is expected that the reduction
will be large for the columns, which are located in the shear or in the passive zones
outside an embankment.
The ductility of the columns decreases with time when the shear strength is
increased. By loading the columns just after the installation, the reduction of the bearing
capacity and of the shear strength of the columns can be prevented or be greatly reduced.
The weak parts of the columns gradually gain strength so that the difference in bearing
capacity between the weak and strong parts is reduced.
9.1.16. Method of Analysis
The stability of the unstabilised soil is usually calculated by a total stress analysis
while an effective stress analysis is used for the stabilised soil in the columns. The pore
water pressure at short-term conditions corresponds for lime/cement columns to the pore
water pressure in the unstabilized soil between the columns. For lime columns it is
proposed to use a pore water pressure, which corresponds to the ground water table.
The composite shear strength is equal to
fu,av = a fd,col + (1 -a) fu,soil = a (f,col tan col + ccol) + (1 - a) cu,soil

(9.3)

A weighted average shear strength fd,av is normally used to evaluate the long-term
stability of embankments and slopes when failure occurs along a slip surface through the
columns.
The shear strength of the columns fd,col and of the unstabilized soil fd,clay are
evaluated by an effective stress analysis
fd,av = a fd,col + (1 - a) fd,clay =
= a(f,col tan col + ccol) + (1 - a) (f, soil tan soil + csoil)

(9.4)

In this equation clay and cclay are the effective angle of internal friction and the effective
cohesion, respectively.
Eqs. 9.3 and 9.4 can only be used for lime columns, when the columns fail in shear
along a slip or failure surface through the columns and the shear strength is less than 100
to 150 kPa. It is possible that full interaction can be assumed also for lime/cement and
cement columns.
The maximum undrained shear strength fu,col of the columns is limited in Sweden to
100 to 150 kPa. In Japan the maximum shear strength is 100 kPa to 250 kPa. The
undrained shear resistance of the unstabilized soil between the columns corresponds to
the axial strain at the peak shear strength of the stabilized soil (Matsuo et al, 1996a,
1996b; Kitazume et al, 1996c). The shear strength of the unstabilized soil between the
columns is reduced in Japan to evaluate the stability of steep slopes and deep excavations.
The stabilizing effect of the columns in the active zone below an embankment can be
taken into account by considering the columns as piles. It is proposed that the design load
for the columns should be the residual bearing capacity at col equal to 35 degrees for
lime and lime/cement columns and 40 degrees for cement columns. It is also possible to
calculate the stability using the peak shear strength of the stabilized soil.
113

9.1.17. Failure Modes

A single column fails when two plastic hinges develop at the locations of the
maximum bending moment in the columns as shown in Fig. 26. The shear resistance at
failure of a column with a square cross-section BxB can be calculated from Eq.9.5, where
Tcol/B2 = 2k 1 cu, soil M col d when the axial load in the columns is neglected. The lateral
resistance is equal to zero when the axial load is zero. The moment capacity Mcol is equal
to qu, col B3 (1 - ), where B is the width of the compression zone.
The shear resistance of the columns when two plastic hinges develop in the columns
at failure can be evaluated by the following relationship
Tcol/B2 =

k 1 cu , soil qu , col(1 )

(9.5)

The shear resistance had to be larger than fu,col or fd,col depending on the drainage
conditions. Otherwise the shear resistance as evaluated by Eqs. 9.3 and 9.4 will govern.
At fu,col = 0.5 qu,col then qu,col / cu,soil < 4 k1 (1 - ). At k1 = 5 and = 0.1 and 0.9 then
qu,col / cu,soil < 1.8. When the moment resistance reaches a maximum at = 0.5 where
qu,col / cu,soil < 5. At qu,col/cu,soil = 20 then Tcol /B2 = 0.25 qu,col. The axial load affects the bearing
capacity of the columns when the columns are displaced laterally. The shear resistance of the
columns decreases rapidly with increasing lateral displacement when the axial load is high.
The shear resistance of the columns is half the bearing capacity of the column crosssection (qu,col B2) at u,col = 0. Thus the shear resistance at failure of a single column will
almost always govern the shear resistance, when two plastic hinges develop in the columns
9.1.18. Progressive Failure
The interaction of lime, lime/cement and cement columns with the surrounding soft
clay is uncertain, when the shear strength of the columns is high since a relatively large
displacement is required of the columns to mobilize the peak shear resistance of the
unstabilized soil around the columns. Lime/cement and cement columns could fail before
the peak shear strength of the unstabilised soil between the columns has been mobilized.
This could occur for organic soils with a high water content or a high sulphide content
(svartmocka).
The shear resistance of lime/cement and cement columns could be reduced by
progressive failure when the shear strength of the stabilized soil is high and the confining
pressure is low (Broms,1999b). Also columns stabilized with gypsum and fly ash might
be affected. The failure strain could also be small for silty clay compared with e.g. clayey
gyttja and clay (hnberg et al, 1995).
Miyake et al (1991a, 1991b) have found from centrifuge tests that the bearing
capacity can be reduced by progressive failure when the ductility of the columns is low.
Mainly the columns located close to the toe of an embankment were affected. The
reduction of the bearing capacity of the columns by progressive failure is generally
considered to be small when the undrained shear strength is less than 100 to 150 kPa.
9.1.19. Settlement Calculations.
It is generally assumed that the stabilized soil behaves as a composite material and
that the behavior is similar to that of an overconsolidated clay (Pan et al, 1994; Baker et
al, 1997). The settlement of a column group will be governed by the weighted average
compression modulus of the columns and of the unstabilized soil between the columns.

114

The stress distribution and the settlements depend on Ecol for the columns and on
Msoil for the unstabilized soil between the columns. At equal settlements of the columns
and of the unstabilized soil
sgroup =

aE

h q
col + (1 a ) Msoil

(9.6)

where sgroup is the settlement of the column group, h is the thickness of the layer, q is
the stress increase for the layer and a is the area ratio. When there is no stress transfere to
the soil around the column group then q = qo.
Carlsten and Ekstrm (1995) have proposed that Mcol = 50 cu,col can be used for
gyttja, 100 cu,col for clays and 150 cu,col for silty clays. These values can be used to
estimate the maximum settlement if the results from field or laboratory tests are not
available. It should be noted that the average settlement could be much smaller, 40% or
less when these values are used to calculate the settlements.
At e.g. Mcol/Msoil = 20 the estimated stress increase in the columns will be twenty
times the stress increase in the unstabilized soil between the columns The stress increase
in the columns will thus be 400 kPa at a stress increase of e.g. 20 kPa for the unstabilized
soil. At an area ratio a = 0.10 the average unit load carried by the columns and by the
unstabilized soil between the columns is 40 kPa and 18 kPa, respectively. The total
applied unit load, 58 kPa (40+18), corresponds to the stress increase by a three to four
story building or by a 3.1 m high fill with a unit weight of 18 kN/m3. The total load
carried by the columns will in this case be more than twice the load carried by the
unstabilized soil between the columns. The columns will reduce the settlements by about
65% since the stress increase in the unstabilized soil is reduced by about 65% provided
the transfer lengths are not excessive.
The effectiveness of the columns to reduce the settlements increases with increasing
compression modulus of the unstabilised soil. The reduction of the settlements with
floating columns increases with increasing length of the columns.
The settlements of single columns or of groups with lime, lime/cement and cement
columns are usually calculated by assuming that the axial deformation of the columns is
the same as the deformation of the surrounding unstabilised soil except for the lower and
upper parts of the columns where the load is transferred to and from the columns. Large
settlements have, for example, been observed locally just above the columns for the test
embankment at Norrala (Anr et al, 1996). The settlements will be reduced if the soft or
loose soil above the columns is removed and replaced by compacted granular soil.
The estimated settlements within the transfer length Ltr is 0.5qo Ltr / Msoil, where Msoil
is the compression modulus of the unstabilized soil. The transfer length depends mainly
on the shear strength of the soil around the columns, which is expected to increase with
time due to consolidation.
The length and the spacing of the columns can be varied to take advantage of the
increase of the compression modulus of the columns with depth. Thereby the costs for the
columns and the project can be reduced. The length of the lime/cement columns
supporting the embankments for the Svealand railroad line was varied, 5, 10 and 15 m
(Rogbeck, 1997). However, the load transferred to the few columns, which extend down
to a stiff or a hard layer can be very high especially when the shear strength of the
stabilized soil in the columns is high. These columns may fail if the bearing capacity of
the stiff or the hard layer is larger than the compressive strength of the columns. The
115

assumed bearing capacity of the columns could be reduced down to the residual strength
of the columns, when the settlements are large. The large settlements, which have been
observed, when the length of the columns was varied, can possibly be attributed to failure
of the columns, which extend into a layer with a high bearing capacity.
It is often preferable to terminate the columns just above a stiff or a hard layer so that
the point resistance will be less than the bearing capacity of the columns. The resulting
increase of the settlements will in most cases be small even for normally consolidated
clays except when the length of the columns is small and the area ratio is high.
The settlements caused by creep and secondary consolidation can often be eliminated
by a surcharge load, which is 1.2 to 1.5 times the weight of the embankment. The
construction period is increased, however, by the preloading, which had to be considered
in the planning. Eriksson (1997) has indicated that a preload of 120% will be sufficient to
eliminate the secondary settlements for many types of clay.
For normally consolidated clays with a liquid limit exceeding 150% the required
preload could be twice the weight of the embankment. For preloaded soil a weighted
average compression modulus of 300 fu,av can be used to estimate the settlements, where
fu,av is the weighted average shear strength of the unstabilized clay.
9.1.20. Loading of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns.
The columns should preferably be loaded just after the installation when the bearing
capacity of the columns is low. Thereby the time required for the consolidation will be
reduced. The total weight of the fill used for the preloading and the surcharging will then
be transferred to the soft clay between the columns since the bearing capacity of the
columns is low. The load carried by the lime or by the lime/cement columns will
gradually increase with time as the bearing capacity of the columns is increased. The time
required for the consolidation can then be reduced by up to 50% to 70%.

9.2. Design of Embankments, Slopes, Trenches and Excavations

9.2.1. Embankments,
Road and railroad embankments with a maximum height of 3 m to 4 m are usually
stabilized in Sweden and Finland with lime or lime/cement columns. Even embankments
with a height of up to 9 m have been stabilized successfully. The area ratio a is typically
0.10 to 0.25 in Sweden and Finland. At Norrala in Sweden the area ratio was 0.28 for
lime/cement columns with 0.8 m diameter and 0.43 for the columns with 0.6 m diameter
(Svensson and Jonsson, 1996). A much higher area ratio, about 0.5, is generally used in
Japan where it is assumed that the total weight of an embankment or of a fill is carried by
the columns.
The contribution to the stability of the columns located below the center of the
embankment will be high where the axial load in the columns caused by end bearing and
by shaft resistance is high. The contribution of the columns located below the sloping
sides of the embankment is low due to the low axial load caused by the reduction of the
embankment load and of the lateral displacement of the columns.
The stability of the embankment should also be checked with respect to a failure
surface passing below the columns or the column rows located in the shear zone. There
the shear strength could be low due to the remoulding of the soil during the installation of
the columns. However, the shear strength of the remoulded soil will increase with time
due to consolidation of the soil below the columns. It is expected that the consolidation
will be rapid since the thickness of the remoulded layer is small.
It is important that the axial load in the columns is high since the moment capacity
and the shear resistance of the columns depend on the axial load and thus on the transfer
116

of the weight of the embankment to the columns by end bearing as expressed by the
transfer factor mo,col and by the shaft resistance. The axial load in the columns will be low
when the surface crust is missing or is poorly developed, which is often the case when the
ground water table is located close to the ground surface.
The injection of lime and cement is terminated 0.5 to 1.0 m below the ground surface
to prevent blowouts. The shear strength of the soil located above the columns is reduced
by the installation of the columns. The remoulded soil should be excavated and replaced
by compacted granular soil, such as sand, gravel or crushed rock.
The contribution of the columns to the stability of a high embankment assuming full
interaction is uncertain for point bearing columns. The shear resistance of the columns is
reduced when the columns behave as short dowels. This would be the case when the shear
strength of the columns is high and the ductility and the moment capacity of the columns
are low. The shear resistance of the columns could in that case be considerably lower
than the peak shear strength of the stabilised soil.
The stability of embankments should also be checked with respect to a horizontal slip
surface passing through the remoulded soil layer below the columns. The outside columns
could be subjected to a high lateral force as the unstabilized soil is displaced between the
columns. The columns may fail when they are displaced laterally since the failure strain is
low in tension.
Preloading if required should be carried out immediately after the manufacture of the
columns when the bearing capacity and the shear strength are still low in order to
consolidate the remoulded soil below the columns and to consolidate any weak layers or
pockets in the columns. It is important, however, to limit the axial load during the
preloading so that the bearing capacity of the columns is not exceeded. It should be noted
that the ductility of the columns is low when the shear strength is high.
The shear resistance of the columns in the passive zone is governed by the tensile
strength of the columns and by the moment capacity of weak layers in the columns. It
should be noted, however, that the tensile strength of the columns could be exceeded by
even a very small lateral displacement, a few mm. Therefore the tensile resistance of the
columns in the passive zone cannot be taken into account in design.
The stability of embankments and steep slopes can be increased by berms at the toe
of an embankment or at the toe of a slope. This is often a very economical method when
sufficient space and excess fill are available. The berms will also increase the column
loads as well as the efficiency of the columns located in the shear zone. Thereby the shear
resistance of the columns as well as the moment capacity are increased. Berms will,
however, increase the settlements. Increasing the number of columns below the
embankment and thus the area ratio can reduce this increase.
Lightweight fill can be used to reduce the weight of an embankment and the
settlements. Replacing some of the fill in the embankment by lightweight materials such
as expanded shale, styrofoam blocks, compressed peat bundles, seashells, sawdust or bark
can also increase the stability.
The back-calculated shear strength of the columns supporting an embankment on the
Island Orust in Sweden, which failed, was only 60 to 85 kPa and thus about 10% of the
shear strength of cores obtained in-situ from the columns. The thickness of the soft clay
below the embankment, with an initial water content of 70% to 80%, was 15 m. The
initial undrained shear strength was low, 10 to 20 kPa. The maximum length of the 0.5
and 0.6 m diameter columns, which were spaced 1.0 to 1.8 m apart, was 15 m. The
lime/cement content (50/50) was 26 kg/m for the 0.6 m diameter columns and 18 kg/m
for the 0.5 m diameter columns. The failure strain f was 1% to 5%. The global factor of
117

safety was close to 1.0. Jacklin and Larsson (1994) indicate that the bearing capacity of
the lime/cement columns had been reduced by the lateral displacements caused by the
embankment.
Large lateral displacements, up to 0.145 m, of lime/cement columns with 0.6 m
diameter were observed at Norrala, Sweden (Kivel, 1995). These large displacements
indicate that the stability of the 8 m high embankment was low. The lateral displacements
of the part of the embankment, which was supported by 0.8 m diameter columns and
reinforced by a geo-net, were small. The spacing of the 0.8 and 0.6 m diameter single
columns was 1.3 m and 0.6 m, respectively. The spacing of the column rows was 2.6 m
and 1.6 m. The initial water content of the soil was high, 100% to 140 % and the shear
strength was low, 10 to 30 kPa. The sulphide content at the bottom of the 6 m layer with
soft soil was relatively high. The design shear strength was 100 and 150 kPa for the 0.6 m
and 0.8 m diameter columns, respectively. The measured shear strength for the upper part
of the investigated columns exceeded 500 kPa. The shear strength as determined by direct
shear tests and by triaxial tests varied between 300 and 800 kPa. The factor of safety was
1.5 for the critical circular slip surface when a weighted average shear strength was used
to evaluate the stability. The factor of safety without the columns was low, about 0.5. The
stability of the test embankment has also been analyzed taking into account the reduction
of the bearing capacity of the columns caused by progressive failure. A global factor of
safety of 1.07 was calculated at f = 1%. The high sulphate content has likely limited the
shear strength of the stabilised soil as well as the stability of the embankment.
9.2.2. Trenches.
The calculation methods, which are utilized to analyze the stability of gravity
retaining walls, can also be used to analyze the stability of trenches. Failure of the column
rows by sliding or by overturning should also be investigated. The total stability should be
calculated with respect to a circular failure surface through or below the columns.

118

Fig.56. Stabilization of a Trench Using Lime or Lime/Cement Columns

Unreinforced vertical column walls often fail by overturning, when a horizontal crack
develop through the column wall at the bottom of the excavation. The overturning
moment acting on the wall will be high, when the cracks behind and through the column
wall at the bottom of the excavation are filled with water during a heavy rainstorm.
Overlapping columns, which are installed in rows perpendicular to a trench is shown
in Fig. 56. The columns should overlap since the column wall otherwise would fail by
overturning of the individual columns. It is important that the shear strength of the
stabilised soil in the overlapping zone is sufficiently high. There the shear resistance
could be lower than the average shear strength of the columns.
By inclining the columns as well as the sides of the excavation as shown in Fig. 57
the effectiveness of lime and of lime/cement columns can be increased. Bracing will not
be required for shallow trenches, which will facilitate the placement of concrete or steel
pipe segments for sewer lines and water mains in the trench.
It is proposed to use a partial factor of safety of e.g. 1.50 (qcol,res /1.5) to calculate the
allowable unit column load. The allowable unit column load is 309 kPa (463/1.5), which

119

corresponds to an allowable column load of 87.3 kN for a 0.6 m diameter column and
60.6 kN for a 0.5 m diameter column.
The bearing capacity of the unstabilized soil is estimated to 46 kPa (4.6 cu, soil/ 1.5)
before the installation or of lime or lime/cement columns at an average undrained shear
strength of 15 kPa and an area ratio of 0.3. Thus a net unit load of 54 kPa (5x20-46)
caused by the embankment had to be carried by the columns. The required spacing of the
columns with 0.5 m diameter is 1.06 m ( 60.6 / 54 ) at an allowable load of 60.6 kN. The
difference between the total weight of the embankment above the columns hfillfill /S2
(5x20/S2) and the bearing capacity of the unstabilized soil had to be carried by the
columns. The calculated spacing of the columns is conservative since the residual bearing
capacity of the columns is somewhat higher than assumed.
It is also possible to estimate the required column spacing from the creep strength of
the columns qcol, creep and a reduced undrained shear strength of the unstabilized soil
between the columns. The creep strength of the columns is 552 kPa (0.8x200+3.67x42.5
+183x7.5-2.67x25+3.67x0.27x100) at an area ratio of 0.2 and a required spacing of 1.27
m for 0.6 m diameter columns at an allowable load of 87.3 kN and a reduced shear

Fig. 57. Stability of Trench Excavation

strength of 7.5 kPa for the unstabilized soil. The unconfined bearing capacity of the
columns quo,creep is estimated to 200 kPa. The allowable column load for lime and
lime/cement columns with 0.5 m diameter is 54.1 kPa (0.196x552/2.0).
The bearing capacity of the soft unstabilized soil between the columns with a
characteristic average shear strength of 7.5 kPa is estimated to 23 kPa (4.6x7.5/1.5) at a
required factor of safety of 1.5 with respect to the reduced undrained shear strength for
the unstabilized soil. The load to be carried by the columns is 77 kPa, the difference
between the weight of the embankment, 100 kPa, and the bearing capacity of the soft soil,
which is estimated, to 23 kPa. The required spacing of the columns with 0.5 m diameter
is 0.84 m ( 54.1 / 77 ). This spacing is smaller than that at the residual bearing capacity of
the columns. Thus the residual shear strength of the columns and the undrained shear
120

strength of the unstabilized soil between the columns will govern. The required spacing
of the 0.5 m diameter columns is thus 1.06 m.
The lateral resistance Tcol of the columns has not been considered in the evaluation of
the bearing capacity of the stabilized soil. It should be noted that the lateral resistance Tcol
of the columns is small since the moment capacity of the columns Mcol is small when the
axial column load is small or weak layers or pockets are present in the columns. It is
therefore proposed that the lateral resistance Tcol should be neglected in the design of lime,
lime/cement and cement columns.
The pore water pressure around the columns is also increased when the unslaked lime
and the cement react with the water drawn from the soft soil around the columns and the
columns expand. The resulting excess pore water pressures dissipate rapidly after the
installation of the columns.
9.2.3. Slopes
The stability of steep slopes can be increased with lime, lime/cement or cement
columns (Terashi et al,1987). It is also possible to increase the stability of steep slopes by
flattening the slopes, by excavating the soil at the top of the slope or by placing a berm at
the toe of the slope. The long-term stability can be improved by lowering the ground
water table with surface or vertical drains.
Three different cases should be considered in the design of lime, lime/cement and
cement columns. For short-term conditions it is proposed to use the undrained shear
strength of the unstabilized soil together with either the undrained or the drained shear
strength of the stabilized soil, depending on the permeability of the stabilized soil and on
the loading conditions.
A high pore water pressure during the manufacture of lime and lime/cement columns
could reduce the shear strength of the unstabilized soil between the columns, since the
volume of added material, lime, cement and other additives, is large compared with the
volume of the columns. It is important to monitor the pore water pressures during the
installation of the columns since a high air pressure is used to inject the lime and the
cement. The pore water pressure could be increased in pervious sand or silt layers during
the manufacture of the columns, which reduces the stability of nearby slopes.
9.2.4. Excavations.
Lime and lime/cement columns will reduce the active earth pressure on sheet pile and
retaining walls. The passive earth pressure is increased which reduces the risk of toe failure of
the wall.

121

Fig. 58. Soil-Mixed Wall

Lime/cement columns have been used in Oslo, Norway to increase the stability of a 7 m
deep excavation supported by anchored sheet piles (Long and Bredenberg, 1997, 1999). The
lime/cement columns were installed as a 2.0 m wide block at the bottom of the excavation
next to the sheet pile wall and as 4.0 m long column rows in front of the column block. The
spacing of the column walls was 3 m. An analysis of the stability of the sheet pile wall using
PLAXIS indicated that the lime/cement columns reduced the settlements behind the sheet pile
wall by up to 55% compared with a sheet pile wall without lime/cement columns. The heave
at the bottom of the excavation was reduced by 80% to 95% 2 m in front of the wall. The
long-term lateral displacements were reduced by 60% while the calculated reduction of the
short-term lateral displacements was 30%. It was estimated that the lime/cement columns
reduced the bending moments in the sheet piles by up to 66%. The maximum reduction of the
anchor force was estimated to17%.
Tanaka (1993) has proposed that a stability factor Nt = 4 to 5 can be used to evaluate the
stability with respect to bottom heave. The stability of a deep excavation can be improved by
single columns or by blocks or rows with overlapping columns behind or in front of the sheet
pile wall. The columns behind a sheet pile wall will reduce the active earth pressure while the
columns in front of the wall increase the passive earth pressure and thus the stability of the
sheet pile wall with respect to toe failure.

122

Fig. 59. Anchored Sheet Pile Wall

10. FIELD A'D LABORATORY I'VESTIGATIO'S

10.1. Test methods
10.1.1. Field Tests.
Borings, field vane tests and penetration tests (SPT, WST, CPT and CPTU) are
required to determine in-situ the thickness and the lateral extent of the different
characteristic layers, the relative density of cohesionless soils and the shear strength of
123

cohesive soils. A piston sampler should be used to sample soft cohesive soils since high
quality samples are required to determine the shear strength and the compressibility.
Representative soil samples of characteristic layers are required to calculate the increase
of the shear strength with different stabilizers at different times after the mixing. It is also
important to determine with penetration tests and borings if there are boulders, stones,
roots, old timber piles or old fills as well as sewer lines, water mains, buried electric or
telephone cables at the site which could affect the installation of the columns. The ground
water level and its changes should be determined with open standpipes or hydraulic or
pneumatic piezometers.

Fig.60. Stabilisation of Sheet Pile Wall

Sufficient time, 6 to 12 months, must be available with lime or lime/cement
columns for field and laboratory investigations. About one month is required for field
investigations, borings, sampling, field vane and penetration tests, ground water
observations and to determine the strength and deformation properties of the recovered
samples by unconfined compression tests, triaxial tests and by direct shear tests as well as
determination of water content, liquid and plastic limits.
The increase of the shear strength of the stabilised soil at different lime and cement
contents should be investigated for at least three to six months in the laboratory to
establish the increase of the shear strength of the stabilised soil with time. Increasing the
storage temperature above the ground temperature to e.g. 40 to 50 degrees C can possibly
reduce the required time. An increase of the storage temperature is also justified when
lime is used to simulate the temperature increase in-situ due to the heat, which is released
during the slaking of the lime.

124

10.1.2. Laboratory Tests.

The shear strength, which can be obtained with different stabilizers, lime, cement,
gypsum, granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash and coal ash, is generally determined in the
laboratory by mixing the soil with different amounts of possible stabilizers. The main
factors, which affect the shear strength of the stabilized soil are water content, plasticity
index, sulphide and humus contents. The shear strength of the stabilized soil is
determined by unconfined compression tests at different times after the mixing e.g. after
1, 7, 28, 90 and 180 days. A relatively large number of samples are therefore required for
the testing.
The laboratory testing is usually carried out in two stages. During the first stage the
shear strength is determined after e.g. 7 days to obtain a preliminary indication of the
shear strength with different stabilizer, e.g. lime, cement, gypsum, fly-ash and granulated
blast furnace slag. During the second stage the increase of the shear strength is
determined for one or two of the most promising stabilizers.
The undrained shear strength of the stabilized soil is usually determined by
unconfined compression tests, by triaxial or by direct shear tests (UU-tests) or by fallcone tests. Each significant layer should be investigated separately (Ekstrm, 1994b).
Also the grain size distribution, water content, liquid and plastic limits as well as the
content of humus and sulphide should be determined separately for each layer.
10.1.3. Unconfined Compression, Direct Shear and Triaxial Tests.
The increase of the shear strength with different stabilizers is generally evaluated by
unconfined compression tests at different times after the mixing. Also undrained and
drained triaxial tests (UU- and CD-tests) are used. The diameter and the height of the
samples are normally 50 mm and 100 mm, respectively. It is not recommended to use
direct shear tests when the size of the samples is small, because of the large scatter of the
results (hnberg et al, 1995a). The diameter of the samples at the direct shear tests should
be at least 100 mm.
The shear strength as determined by unconfined compression tests with laboratory
samples could be considerably larger than the in-situ shear strength especially when
cement is used and the shear strength of the stabilized soil is high. In Japan it is often
specified that the laboratory strength should be at least four times the design strength. The
required factor of safety is thus high.
Unconfined compression test should be used to evaluate the undrained shear strength
of the soil with different stabilizers at different times after the mixing due to the
simplicity of the test and that unconfined compression tests have been used extensively in
the past.
Undrained triaxial tests (UU and CU-tests) should be used to determine the
undrained and the drained cohesion cu col and ccol as well as the undrained and drained
friction angles u, col and col. Also the increase of the failure strain f with increasing
confining pressure should also be determined by undrained and drained triaxial tests (UUand CD-tests). According to Hosoya et al (1996) the shear strength as determined by
triaxial tests on samples from cement columns can be relied upon compared with the
results from unconfined compression tests.
The water content, liquid and plastic limits as well as the organic content should also
be determined before and after the stabilization. The particle size and the grain size
distribution are also important especially for the permeability. The strain rate is usually
0.04 to 0.5%/min at triaxial and unconfined compression tests
10.1.4. Fall-Cone and Vane Tests.
125

Fall-cone tests often indicate an undrained shear strength, which is 1.5 to 3.0 times
higher than the shear strength as determined by unconfined compression tests. Also
triaxial tests as well as fall-cone and laboratory vane tests indicate a shear strength, which
often is higher than the shear strength determined by unconfined compression tests. The
undrained shear strength as determined by unconfined compression tests of samples cut or
cored in-situ from actual lime columns is often too low due to fissures and cracks in the
stabilized cores. The shear strength as determined by vane and fall-cone tests had to be
reduced, when used in stability calculations. The required reduction depends mainly on
the consistency limits of the soil and on the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) as pointed out
by Bjerrum (1972), Helenelund (1977) and by Aas et al (1986). The required reduction is
large for organic soils especially when the water content is high.
10.1.5. Penetrometer, Pressiometer and Pocket Penetrometer Tests.
Holm (1979b) has reported that the shear strength as determined in-situ by
penetrometer tests, by pressiometer tests and by a pocket penetrometer has been about
50% higher than the shear strength determined in the laboratory by unconfined
compression tests. Also Almqvist and Erikmats (1994) have reported that the shear
strength of lime/cement columns has been higher than the shear strength determined by
unconfined compression tests with laboratory samples. Kujala (1984) found that the insitu shear strength of the stabilized soil, 50 to 250 kPa, was twice that of laboratory
samples.
Pramborg and Albertsson (1992) have compared different methods to measure in-situ
the undrained shear strength of the stabilized soil. A shear strength of 218, 104, 305 and
204 kPa was obtained by pressuremeter, field vane, column soundings (KPS) and by
unconfined compression tests, respectively with samples from the investigated column.
The highest shear strength was obtained with KPS and the lowest by the field vane tests.
The variation of the shear strength as determined by different test methods was large.
It is recommended that the shear strength should be determined in the field by
column soundings and in the laboratory by unconfined compression tests, when the effect
of different stabilizers is investigated.
10.1.6. Preparation of Samples.
The laboratory samples for unconfined compression tests are usually prepared in
Sweden by mixing the soft soil with lime and/or cement for 5 minutes. In Japan the
mixing time is usually 10 minutes. hnberg et al (1995) have reported that the shear
strength of clayey silt and clay increased by almost 100% when the mixing time was
increased from 1 to 7 minutes. No increase was observed for clayey gyttja. The effect of
the mixing time can thus be large.
The soil is usually compacted in 25 to 30 mm thick layers in 50 mm diameter
cylinders after the mixing. Each layer is compacted for 5 to 10 seconds at 100 kPa. A
somewhat lower pressure is used for organic soils. The surface of each layer is scarified to
prevent layering of the compacted samples. The compaction of the soil in the cylinders
should be completed within 30 minutes to reduce evaporation losses. It is also common to
compact the stabilized soil by hand in the cylinders, which is normally the case in
Finland. Usually four samples are prepared at the same time from each batch.
The chosen compaction method affects the shear strength (Jendeby, 1994; Almqvist
and Erikmats, 1994). The shear strength of samples stabilized with lime/cement, which
had been compacted by two different persons at the same laboratory, has varied. A fully
automatic mixing device has therefore been developed at the Swedish Geotechnical
Institute (SGI) where the 50 mm diameter liners, which are used with the Swedish
126

Standard Piston Sampler, are pushed into the stabilized soil after the mixing (Edstam and
Carlsten, 1999). The uniformity of the compacted samples is high.
A simplified compaction method has been developed at the Royal Institute of
Technology in Stockholm (KTH) where lime and/or cement are mixed with the soft soil
directly in the 50 mm diameter sampling tubes using a mixing device attached to an
electric drill. The mixing energy can be adjusted to the mixing energy, which is used in
the field.
A standard mixing time and a standard compaction procedure are therefore
recommended since both the mixing time and the compaction method affect the shear
strength as determined by unconfined compression tests. The mixing can be done
mechanically or by hand. It should be noted that the shear strength with lime is less
affected by the mixing method and by the time required for the mixing compared with
cement (Chida, 1981).
With cement the variation of the shear strength over the cross-section and along the
columns is often large. When the efficiency of the mixing tool is unreliable cement
should not be used as the only stabilizer (Viatek, 1997). Measuring the pH-value of the
stabilized soil can check the homogeneity of the stabilized soil.
The volume of soil, which is required for the laboratory tests, is relatively large when
50 mm diameter samples are used since the number of samples to be tested usually is
high. One to three samples of the same soil and with the same amount of stabilizer are
generally tested at the same time for each significant layer. In the case the shear strength
is investigated after e.g. 7, 14, 28, 90 and 180 days after the mixing at three different lime
or lime/cement contents then up to 45 samples are required for each significant layer.
The volume of soil to be tested can be reduced by over 70% if the diameter of the
samples to be tested is reduced from 50 mm to 36 mm. However, the measured shear
strength has a tendency to increase with decreasing size of the test samples (Futaki et al,
1996). This reduction had to be considered in the interpretation of the results.
The mixing in the laboratory is generally much more thorough than the mixing in the
field. The increase of the shear strength at the laboratory tests is probably the maximum,
which possibly can be obtained. There is therefore a need to develop a testing method,
which better corresponds to the mixing obtained in-situ than the present methods.
The extent of the mixing obtained in the field varies between the machines, which are
used today (2001) for the installation of the columns. It is expected that the mixing in the
field will increase the coming years when new and more efficient machines and mixing
tools are developed.
10.1.7. Storage of Samples.
The sealed cylinders with the stabilised soil should be stored in a moist room or
below water in plastic bags at the estimated ground temperature since the storage
temperature affects the increase of the shear strength with time. In Japan the samples are
stored at 203oC and at a relative humidity of at least 95% (Suzuki, 1982; Kohata et al,
1996). When cement is used the samples are generally stored under water.
hnberg et al (1989) have investigated the effect of storage temperature on the
increase of the shear strength with time. They found that the shear strength of samples,
which were stored at 20oC was more than four times the shear strength of the samples,
which had been stored at 8oC and that the increase of the shear strength was ten times
faster. At 50oC to 70oC the shear strength after one day corresponded to the shear strength
after 90 days at room temperature. The initial water content of the clay was 56%, which is
close to the liquid limit (wL = 53%).
127

It may be possible to reduce considerably the time, which is required to determine the
increase of the shear strength with time by storing the samples at a higher temperature
than the ground temperature (hnberg and Holm, 1987). However, there might be an
upper limit on the storage temperature. hnberg et al (1995) indicate that the maximum
storage temperature is 50oC to 60oC for soils with a high water content and 30oC to 40oC
for soil with a low water content.
In Finland (Viatek, 1997) the temperature during the storage of the samples is often
varied to correspond to the variation of the ground temperature in-situ. The soil, which is
stabilized with lime should be stored at 50oC during the first 2 hours, at 22o C during the
following 46 hours and at 8oC thereafter. Soils stabilized by lime/cement and cement
should be stored for 48 hours at 22oC and at 8oC thereafter. The storage temperature
proposed by Viatek (1997) appears to be reasonable. It is recommended that a variable
storage temperature should be used in Sweden.
An axial load has also been applied during the storage to simulate the stress
conditions in-situ. Axelsson et al (1996) used an axial load, which corresponded to the
effective overburden pressure caused by a 1.0 m thick layer with granular fill.
10.1.8. Testing of Samples.
In Sweden the unconfined compressive strength of the stored samples is usually
determined 10, 30 and 90 days after the mixing. The time intervals can be varied
depending on soil type, stabilizer and available time for the testing. In Japan the samples
are usually tested after 3, 7, 14 and 28 days (Kohata et al, 1996) while in Norway the
stabilized soil is tested after 7, 28 and 90 days (Statens Vegvesen, 1995).
Triaxial tests (CU- and CD-tests) are generally carried out in Japan after 28 days to
determine the effective cohesion and the effective angle of internal friction of the
stabilized soil. The samples had to be saturated at the CU-tests so that the pore water
pressures can be determined. However, it is generally difficult to saturate the samples
when lime/cement or cement is used due to the low permeability. Percolation with deaired water is used in Japan and a backpressure of 100 to 400 kPa. It is generally required
in Japan that the B-value at the triaxial tests should be at least 0.95 (Kohata et al, 1996) to
ensure that the samples are saturated or almost saturated.
10.1.9. Test Columns.
Test columns are usually required for large jobs so that the bearing capacity and the
shear strength can be checked at different times after the installation of the columns. The
test columns should be installed about three to six months before the production columns
to check in-situ shear strength of the columns, which have been manufactured with
different mixing units and the increase of the shear strength with time with different types
and amounts of stabilizer. Then necessary adjustments of the spacing and of the length of
the production columns can be made in time as well as of the lime or of the lime/cement
content. The test columns should be installed in groups with 6 to 10 columns in each
group. At least three columns could be tested at the same time at two different occasions
(Wilhelmsson and Brorsson, 1987).
Only the upper part of the columns down to a maximum depth of 2 m to 3 m is
usually tested. It is important to establish the purpose of the tests in order to limit the
extent of the testing. Close supervision of the installation of the test columns is required.

128

11. I'STALLATIO' OF LIME, LIME/CEME'T A'D

CEME'T COLUM'S
11.1. Installation Methods.
11.1.1. General.
At the dry method dry lime, cement or lime/cement is mixed in-situ with the soft soil
during the installation of the columns using e.g. the mixing tool shown in Fig. 61. Single
columns are generally installed in a rectangular, a square or a triangular pattern. The
spacing of the columns is usually 0.8 to 2.0 m depending mainly on the diameter of the
columns (Edstam, 1997).

Fig. 61. Installation of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns

The columns can also be installed in rows. Every second column is usually installed
during the first phase of the installation and the remaining columns during the second
phase. It is important that the overlap of the columns is sufficient so that the high shear
force, which occurs at the center of the column rows, can be resisted. The spacing of the
column rows is usually 1.6 to 3.0 m and the diameter of the columns is normally 0.6 m in
Sweden and Finland. Also larger diameter columns are used. Inclining the columns can
reduce the shear force. The maximum inclination is 1H:5V.
129

11.1.2. Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Column Machines.

There are three contractors in Sweden and Finland namely Fundator, Herculus
Grundlggning and LC Markteknik, which can install lime and lime/cement columns
(Bredenberg, 1999). The capacity of the machines used in Sweden is about 400 to 1000 m
in eight hours under favorable conditions. About 30 to 40 lime/cement columns with a
length of 10m can normally be installed during an eight-hour shift. The time required for
the manufacture of one lime column is about 60% to 70% of the time required for a
cement column at the same length of the columns and the same rotational velocity of the
mixing tool since a higher retrieval rate can be used for lime compared with cement
columns. The capacity of the machines increases in general with increasing length of the
columns.
The capacity of the machines, which are used on land in Japan, is 100 to 150 m3
per day, which is about the same as the capacity of the machines in Sweden. Two
columns are generally installed simultaneously in Japan while in Sweden only one
column is installed at the same time. The capacity of the floating machines which are
used in Japan for marine works is very high, more than 1000 m3/day. Up to eight
overlapping columns are installed at the same time.
Buried utilities (water, sewer and gas lines, telephone and electric cables) affect the
installation of the columns especially in urban areas. Sometimes the location of some of
the columns had to be changed. Often the columns had to be complemented by berms to
provide sufficient stability of an embankment or of a slope (Carlsten and Oucha, 1993).
Stones, boulders, old timber piles and tree roots in the soil will reduce the capacity
as well as a stiff surface crust or a thick granular fill. The capacity is reduced by about
50% when the penetration resistance at the Swedish weight-sounding test (WST) is 20
ht/0.2 m (Carlsten and Eriksson, 1995). It is also difficult to install the columns during the
winter when the thickness of the frozen ground exceeds about 0.1 m (Eriksson, 1998).
The weight of the lime and the lime/cement column machines in Sweden is high, up
to 39 metric tons, when fully loaded. The height of the mast is 12 to 22 m. The maximum
inclination of the mast is 70 degrees. The contact pressure for most machines is about 24
to 38 kPa. The undrained shear strength of the soft soil to be stabilized should be at least
5 to 7 kPa to ensure that the bearing capacity is sufficient (qult = 5 cu, soil ). The ground
should preferably be level during the installation of the columns. The maximum
inclination is about 1H:10V. The machines are difficult to move when the slope exceeds
about 1V:7H to 1V:11H. This limits the installation of the columns in steep slopes.
The container for the storage of the lime and the cement has one or two
compartments. With only one compartment it is necessary to mix the lime and the cement
before the stabilizers are placed in the storage tank. When the storage tank has two
separate compartments the lime and the cement are mixed during the installation of the
columns. Two different systems are required to monitor separately the amount of lime
and cement, which is injected.
Compressed air is used to force the lime and the cement through the kelly and the
mixing tool into the soil about 0.3 to 0.4 m above the tip during the retrieval of the
mixing tool. The columns are usually terminated 0.5 m to 1.0 m below the ground surface
to reduce the risk of blowouts. There is no lime or cement in the disturbed soil above the
columns down to 0.5 to 1.0 m depth below the ground surface.
The amount of lime and cement, which is added, is recorded at the storage tank
about 20 to 40 m from the mixing tool. Therefore the recorded amount does not
130

correspond to the depth of the mixing tool indicated on the chart as pointed out by
Ekstrm (1994b). It is therefore desirable to control and to measure the amount of
stabilizer at the mixing tool rather than at the storage tank.
11.1.3 Specifications for Lime and Cement.
Mainly standard Portland cement is used for deep soil stabilization. The content of
CaO2 in cement is about 60% to 70%. The SiO2 content is about 15% to 25%, the Al2O3
content is about 5% to 10% and the Fe2O3 content is about 2% to 5%. Also rapid
hardening cements are used. The percentage of lime and cement varies from 10% lime
and 90% cement to 90% lime and 10% cement depending on the soil conditions. The
maximum variation is 10%.
The CaO-content of the unslaked lime, which is required for lime columns, should
be at least 80%. The particle size for 80% of the lime should be less than 0.2 mm to
prevent clogging during the installation of the columns. The maximum particle size
should be less than 1 mm.
A fluidity of at least 70 is often specified for lime and 50 for cement. hnberg et al
(1995) have reported for lime and lime/cement (50/50) that a fluidity of only 40 can be
used without clogging. (The fluidity corresponds to the percentage of lime and cement
passing through a 0.5 mm sieve after a number of well defined shakings, von Imse, 1972).
The determination of the fluidity of lime and cement has been standardized in Sweden
(SS 134005).
hnberg and Pihl (1996, 1998) have investigated the effect of lime type on the
increase of the shear strength of clay from Tuve and Lilla Mellsa in Sweden as
determined by unconfined compression tests. The water content, plastic and liquid limits
and the sensitivity were about the same for the two clays. The main difference was the
salt content. The shear strength of the clay from Tuve was up to ten times the shear
strength of the clay from Lilla Mellsa with a low salt content at a lime content of 90 kg
per m3.
Some differences of the undrained shear strength have been found for unslaked lime
from Sweden (Kping, Rttvik, Boda and Landskrona) and from Poland. The largest
increased of the shear strength was obtained with hard-burned lime from Kping and with
soft-burned lime from Rttvik. The undrained shear strength after 91 days was almost 800
kPa. The lowest increase of the shear strength was obtained with unslaked lime from
Poland due to the low reactivity of the lime possibly due to storage of the lime in open
containers.
11.1.4. Mixing Tool.
It is important that the lime and the cement are mixed thoroughly with the soft soil
to be stabilized. This is particularly important when cement or lime/cement is used. It is
often easier to mix cement with soft soil than lime since standard Portland cement reacts
relatively slowly with the water in the soil. A larger variation of the shear strength and of
the distribution of the lime over the cross-section can therefore be expected compared
with cement or lime/cement.
The variation of the shear strength should be small when the columns are used to
increase the stability of embankments, slopes and excavations. A relatively large variation
is acceptable when the main purpose of the columns is to reduce the settlements since the
settlements depend on the average compressibility of the stabilized soil.
The configuration of the mixing tool has a large influence on the shear strength as
well as on the bearing capacity of the columns as indicated by Johansson and Jons (1985).
Different mixing tools have been developed. Patents protect some of these. It is likely that
131

the configuration of the mixing tool had to be adjusted to the soil type and the shear
strength of the soil. An investigation of the efficiency of the different mixing tools that
are used today (2001) is needed and how the efficiency can be improved.
LC Markteknik (1996) has investigated the effect of the configuration of the mixing
tool on the shear strength of lime/cement columns. It was found that a change of the
configuration of the mixing tool could increased the shear strength of lime/cement
columns by 20% to 30% compared with the shear strength with the conventional mixing
tool shown in Fig. 61. Trnk and Edstam (1997) report, however, that the configuration
of the mixing tool has little effect on the shear strength of the stabilized soil.
It is expected that the effectiveness of the mixing tool will increase with increasing
number of arms or paddles. In Sweden, Finland and Japan the number of arms, which are
used, varies. In Japan 4 to 6 arms are common. However, it is difficult to penetrate a
granular fill, a stiff surface crust or a sand or gravel layer when the number of arms is
large. It is also difficult to penetrate a layer with frozen soil when the thickness of the
frozen layer exceeds about 0.1 m.
The trailing edge of the arms could be serrated in order to increase the mixing as
discussed by Ekstrm and Trnk (1986) and by Larsson (1997). The leading edge could
be provided with teeth in order to improve the penetration. The pitch of the arms also
affects the penetration rate and the mixing. The mixing can probably be improved by
increasing the inclination of the arms or of the paddles.
The mixing can also be improved if two overlapping mixing tools are used instead
of a single tool. The direction of the rotation of the two mixing units should be different
as pointed out by Larsson (1997). It is also important to distribute the lime and the cement
evenly over the cross-section. The distribution of the stabilizer especially for long and for
large diameter columns can likely be improved if the lime and the cement are injected just
below the mixing arms. It is also possible that an increase of the rotational velocity can
improve the distribution over the cross-section when the diameter of the columns is large,
0.8 or 1.0 m.
The extent of the mixing on the shear strength of the stabilized soil has been
investigated. Test results indicate that the shear strength as determined by unconfined
compression tests 21 days after the mixing increased with increasing extent of the mixing.
The distribution of lime and cement became more uniform over the cross-section and
along the samples. The required extent of the mixing is larger for cement than for lime
columns
Also Locat et al (1990) and Nishida et al (1996) have reported that the shear
strength of the stabilized soil increases with increasing extent of the mixing. The required
mixing was found to be less for clays with a high sensitivity ratio to obtain the required
shear strength compared with clays with a low sensitivity ratio. The sensitivity ratio of the
stabilized clay increased gradually with time to about 10 after 300 days (Locat et al,
1990).
The required mixing also increases with increasing plasticity of the clay and with
increasing shear strength of the soil. It is expected that the mixing will be improved and
the required extent of the mixing will be reduced at the wet method using cement slurry
when the initial shear strength of the soil is high and the water content is low compared
with the dry method due to the reduced shear strength of the remoulded soil when the
water content is increased. Layers with pure lime and cement have been found in silt and
silty clay in the columns at the dry method when the shear strength of the unstabilised soil
was high and the sensitivity was low.
132

The distribution of stabilizer over the cross-section will improve with increasing
water content and with decreasing shear strength of the remoulded soil. The high shear
strength of quick clays, which has been stabilized with lime is at least partly caused by the
improved mixing due to the low shear strength of the remoulded soil.
The shear strength of the stabilized soil increases in general with increasing number
of revolutions of the mixing tool and with decreasing retrieval rate. The shear strength has
been found to increase almost linearly with increasing rotation speed and with decreasing
rise/revolution up to about 4 mm/rev. A better mixing and a higher shear strength have
been obtained when the rise/revolution is small (Dong et al, 1996).
A higher shear strength has been obtained when the blades of the mixing tool were
thin compared with the shear strength with relatively thick blades. Johansson and Jons
(1995) have found that a mixing tool with reversed inclination of the blades gave uniform
columns also close to the ground surface. The experience with presently used mixing
tools has in general been satisfactory when the sensitivity of the clay has exceeded 10 and
the liquid limit has been larger than 50 (Eriksson, 1998).
The shear strength of the stabilized soil generally varies along the columns and over
the cross-section even when the mixing had been done thoroughly. Sometimes there has
been a concentration of lime and cement at the center of the columns (e.g. Johansson and
Jons, 1995). There the shear strength has been low with lime (Broms, 1984a). With
lime/cement and cement the shear strength is often high at the center of the columns,
which affects the evaluation of the shear strength especially at reversed penetration tests
(FOPS). There is also a tendency for lime and cement to be concentrated at the periphery
of the columns due to the high air pressure, which is used during the installation of the
columns (Axelsson and Larsson, 1994). Also the proportion of lime and cement can vary
over the cross-section as indicated by Holm et al (1987a).
Measuring the increase of the temperature of the stabilized soil just after the mixing
can check the mixing. It is possible that the effect of the mixing on the shear strength of
the unstabilized soil can be expressed in terms of the rapidity index Rn as proposed by
Sderblom (1974) or by the disturbance ratio as proposed by Massarsch (1976).
It has also been observed that the diameter of some of the excavated columns has a
tendency to decrease with increasing depth (carrot shape) possibly due to the increase
of the confining pressure and of the shear strength of the soft soil with increasing depth. It
may not be possible to distribute the lime and the cement uniformly over the cross-section
when the confining pressure is high as discussed by Larsson (1997). It is expected that a
more uniform distribution can be obtained by the wet than by the dry method when the
initial shear strength is high.
Aggregation is expected with quicklime during the mixing because of the reduction
of the water content of the unstabilized clay locally next to the layers with quicklime. It is
expected that the shear strength of the clay will be high next to a lime layer, where the
reduction of the water content is large. Local pockets with soft clay can therefore be
expected in the columns.
Lime and cement are usually injected during the retrieval of the mixing tool. In
Japan cement slurry is injected either during the penetration or during the withdrawal.
Yoshizawa et al (1996) indicate that is it difficult to use penetration injection for long
columns since the shear strength of the stabilized soil increases very rapidly during the
mixing and that it is difficult to retrieve the mixing tool when the shear strength is high.
The mixing will be reduced, however, if lime or cement is injected during the withdrawal
instead of during the initial penetration. The coefficient of variation will increase in that
case.
133

The lime and the cement contents can be low at the bottom of the columns because
the lime and the cement are injected 0.3 to 0.4 m above the tip of the mixing tool.
Eriksson (1998) has described a case where the stabilizing material was injected close to
the bottom of the mixing tool and where the shape was adjusted to fit the slope of the
underlying steeply sloping rock surface. It was then possible to eliminate the layer with
unimproved soft soil below the columns.
The mixing tool can also be moved up and down a few times at the bottom of the
columns in order to improve the point resistance. According to Eriksson (1998) the
bottom of the columns will be 0.1 to 0.2 m below the hole for the injection of the
stabilizer. The stabilized soil is compacted during the retrieval of the standard mixing tool
since the blades are scewed
11.1.5. Retrieval Rate of Mixing Tool.
The retrieval rate with lime is usually 25 mm/rev while with lime/cement the rate is
often reduced to 15 to 20 mm/rev to improve the mixing and the shear strength of the
stabilized soil. For organic soil and gyttja the retrieval rate is usually 15 mm/rev. The
mixing and the shear strength of the stabilized soil can be improved by decreasing the
retrieval rate since the retrieval rate controls the amount of stabilizer injected into the
columns. Also the air pressure and the rotational velocity of the mixing tool are
important.
The effect of the retrieval rate on the shear strength of lime/cement columns has
been investigated by LC Markteknik (1996). Test results indicate that the shear strength
of the stabilized soil was reduced by 30% to 50% when the retrieval rate was increased
from 20 mm/rev to 35 mm/rev. No further reduction was observed when the retrieval rate
was increased to 50 mm/rev.
hnberg et al (1995) indicate that the penetration and retrieval rates can be
increased to 25 to 35 mm/rev when the mixing tool has been provided with serrated
blades. Johansson and Jons (1995) found that a retrieval rate between 15 and 30 mm/rev
did not affect much the quality and the shear strength of the columns. The mixing was
poor for silt and silty clay with a low sensitivity when the retrieval rate exceeds 30
mm/rev. The largest effect of the retrieval rate is likely for soils with a high shear
strength.
In Japan the penetration and the retrieval rates are 0.5 to 2.0 m/min (Okumura,
1996). Yoshizawa et al (1996) have reported that the shear strength of the stabilized soil
increased with decreasing withdrawal rate. The increase of the shear strength has been
larger for clay than for clayey silt, when the retrieval rate was reduced. The coefficient of
variation was reduced when the withdrawal rate was reduced.
It is important that the distribution of lime and cement is uniform throughout the
columns. The maximum deviation per meter is usually 20% of the specified amount of
stabilizer or 3 kg/m or 10% for a whole column and 2% for the whole project (Eriksson,
1998)
11.1.6. Rotational Velocity of Mixing Unit.
The rotational velocity of the mixing tool during the retrieval, which is normally 80
to 120 rev/min (rpm), has gradually been increased from about 60 rpm to about 200 rpm
A high rotational velocity is often used, up to 200 rev/min, since the time required for the
installation of the columns is then reduced. About 7 to 10 minutes are required to install
an approximately 10 m long column under favorable conditions. The shear strength of the
stabilized soil has a tendency to decrease somewhat with increasing rotational velocity as
reported by LC Markteknik (1996).
134

In Norway a rotational velocity of at least 150 rpm is specified for columns with 0.5
and 0.6 m diameter (Statens Vegvesen, 1995). The rotational velocity for large diameter
columns should be at least 175 rpm. In Japan the rotational velocity is low, usually 20 to
60 rev/min. Yoshizawa et al (1996) have reported that the mixing and the shear strength
of the stabilized soil increased with increasing rotational velocity. A retrieval rate of 2.0
m/min and a rotational velocity of 60 rev/min correspond to a retrieval rate of 33 mm/rev,
which is higher than the retrieval rate used in Sweden and Finland (15 to 25 mm/rev). A
relatively high retrieval rate is thus used in Japan due to the efficient mixing units, which
are used there. The number of mixing arms or blades in Japan is high, 4 to 6, and thus
higher than in Sweden.
There is some uncertainty about the distribution of lime and cement over the crosssection and thus of the uniformity when the rotational velocity of the mixing tool is very
high especially for large diameter columns. In Japan it is common practice to treat the soil
at the bottom of each column for about 2 to 8 minutes to ensure that the mixing is
sufficient. Also in Sweden it is common to rotate the mixing tool for several minutes at
the bottom of the columns. The practice varies between the different contractors.
11.1.7. Air Pressure during Mixing.
The air pressure, which is used to inject lime and cement into the soil, affects the
shear strength and the homogeneity of the columns. A relatively high air pressure, about 2
to 4 bars (200 to 400 kPa), is common at 15 m depth in Sweden (Eriksson, 1998), which
could fracture the soil during the installation of the columns. Air pressures of up to 10
bars (1000 kPa) have been used. It should be noted that an air pressure of 2 bars
corresponds to the total overburden pressure at 12 m to 15 m depth depending on the unit
weight of the soil. It is often observed that the air pressure varies during the installation of
the columns, which affects the amount of stabilizer injected into the soil.
It has often been observed that air escapes through cracks and fissures in the soil
and along adjacent columns due to the high air pressure, which is used. The cracks, when
filled with water, could possibly reduce the stability of slopes and excavations. It is
important that the air pressure is sufficiently low to prevent cracking of the soil, when the
air pressure exceeds the total overburden pressure.
Some air will remain in the columns and in the unstabilized soil between the
columns after the installation, which affects the properties of the stabilized soil since the
soil in the columns no longer is saturated. It is expected that the air will gradually be
dissolved in the pore water below the ground water table and that the degree of saturation
of the soil will gradually increase with time. It is desirable that the air used for the
injection of the lime and of the cement can escape along the shaft rather than along
adjacent columns or trough cracks in the soil.
11.1.8. Column Diameter and Length.
Mainly columns with 0.5 m diameter were used in Sweden and Finland up to 1985.
Today (2002) the diameter of the columns in Sweden is usually 0.6 m. In Finland it is
common that the diameter of the columns is 0.5 m. Columns with 0.8 m and 1.0 m
diameter have also been used in Sweden. In Japan the diameter of the columns is usually
1.0 to 2.0 m. The shear strength and the bearing capacity of the columns have been found
to be independent of the column diameter (Holm et al, 1984).
Columns with a square of rectangular cross-section have also been installed in
Japan using a box-type casing (Mitzutani et al, 1996). The square shape is an advantage
when overlapping columns are installed in rows or in blocks. The coefficient of variation
has been small, 0.383, for the stabilized soil in the corners of 1x1 m2 columns compared
135

with 0.363 at the center. The undrained shear strength was about the same. Also
Wananabe et al (1996) has described a mixing unit, which can manufacture columns with
a rectangular cross-section.
Inclined lime, lime/cement and cement columns can be used to increase the
efficiency when they are used to stabilize trenches for sewer, water or heating pipes. It
should be noted that the lateral earth pressure on a column wall decreases rapidly with
increasing inclination of the wall. The maximum inclination is about 1H:1V.
The maximum length of the columns has gradually increased and today (2002)
columns with a length of up to 15 to 20 m can be installed by most machines. The
maximum length of lime and lime/cement columns is 26 m (Ekstrm, 1992). In the
1970s the maximum length was 10 m.
The column length can be varied depending on the soil conditions, the required
shear strength and the maximum allowable total and differential settlement. In many cases
it is not necessary that the columns extend down to a firm or a stiff layer if the shear
resistance and the factor of safety along a slip surface passing through or below the
columns are sufficient. The shear strength of a normally or slightly overconsolidated clay
increases with increasing depth while the compressibility of the soil is reduced. The
largest settlement usually occurs close to the ground surface.
11.1.9. Lateral Displacement and Heave During Installation.
The lateral displacement of the soil during the installation of cement columns could
damage adjacent structures located up to about twice the length of the columns (Hirai et
al, 1996). Large lateral displacements have been reported during the installation of the
columns by e.g. Kakihara et al (1996) and by Uchiyama (1996) up to a 1.5 times the
column length. The lateral displacements are often larger by the wet than by the dry
method (Kakihara et al, 1996). A heave of 0.2 to 0.3 m has been observed for column
blocks, when the spacing of the columns was small.
The lateral displacements can be reduced by up to 85% by nearby augured holes,
which are filled with bentonite slurry (Ito et al, 1996). The volume of the removed soil
should correspond about to the volume of the injected cement slurry during the
installation of the columns. Uchiyama (1996) has reported that it has been possible to
reduce the lateral displacements by constructing 2 m deep trenches next to the columns or
by coring the soil. The lateral displacement was reduced by 50% when the depth of the
trenches was 4 m and by 65% when the depth was increased to 9 m.
11.1.10. Storage of Lime and Cement.
The storage of the unslaked lime is important. The effectiveness of lime can be
reduced greatly, when lime absorbs moisture and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air when
the quicklime is stored in open containers without a cover. The reactivity of unslaked
lime could be reduced by up to 1/3rd after one week compared with lime, which is stored
in closed containers. Pihl and Kuusipuro (1997) have reported that the reactivity of the
lime was reduced by about 35% after 8 weeks when stored in open containers due to
absorption of moisture and carbon dioxide. Also hnberg and Pihl (1997) have found
that the reactivity decreases rapidly for unslaked lime, when stored in open containers.
Storage of quicklime in open containers should therefore be avoided.
The reactivity should be checked for quicklime, which has been stored for more
than three weeks, The reactivity of the lime can be determined by measuring the increase
of the temperature during the slaking of the lime (Pihl and Kuusipuiro, 1997).

136

The shear strength of the soil stabilised with cement has been found to decrease
with increasing storage time for the cement. The reduction can be as large as 30% after
six months and 50% after two years.
11.1.11. Safety Measures.
It is important that the eyes of the personnel involved are protected during the
installation of lime and lime/cement columns since quicklime can impair the vision or
even cause blindness. Protective clothing is required since bare skin can be affected by
quicklime.
Filling of the storage tanks should be avoided in the vicinity of buildings, roads
with heavy traffic as well as close to nearby streams. Filters should be used during the
discharge of air from the storage tanks during the filling. The air can also be discharged
under water. The stabilizer should be mixed with the soil before the next column is
installed. The discharged stabilizer should be mixed with water and clay at an accident or
at a mechanical breakdown.

12. CO'TROL METHODS

12.1. Field and Laboratory Tests.
12.1.1. Extent of Testing.
The main purpose of the control testing is to ensure that lime, lime/cement and the
cement columns function as intended in the design and to check that the assumed strength
and deformation properties of the columns have been reached as discussed e.g. by
Ekstrm (1994a, 1994b). The method to be used depends mainly on the required shear
strength and the required length of the columns. Also the diameter of the columns is
important as well as the location of single columns and of column rows, grids and blocks
below an embankment, in a slope or next to an excavation.
12.1.2. Testing of Single Columns.
It is important to check the average shear strength and the variation of the shear
strength along single columns. The variation of the shear strength and of the
compressibility should be small for columns with the same function so that the load
distribution between the columns will be uniform (Ekstrm, 1994b).
It is also important to check the weight of the embankment and the weight of the
structures, which are supported by the columns as well as the transfer of the column load
to and from the columns without excessive settlements.
It is generally assumed in the interpretation of the results that the lime and the
cement are uniformly distributed over the cross-section and along the columns. There is
often a concentration of lime and cement along the perimeter of the columns, which
affects the bearing capacity and the interaction of the columns within column rows. There
is sometimes a concentration of lime and cement at the center of the columns in the hole
left after the kelly. This concentration of stabilizer can affect the evaluation of the bearing
capacity and of the compressibility, when the shear strength is checked by penetration
tests e.g. CPT, CPTU, WST and SPT and to less extent by KPS and FOPS.
Also the diameter of the columns should be checked. The maximum deviation of
the column diameter is 20%. The maximum deviation of the location of the columns is
10% of the column spacing or 0.10 m
12.1.3. Checking of Column Rows, Blocks and Grids.
137

It should be noted that the variation of the shear strength, the compressibility and
the overlap of the columns in column rows, grids and blocks has less effect on the
differential and on the total settlements than for single columns.
The shear strength of the soil below the column rows, grids or blocks as well as
below single columns should be sufficient so that the axial load in the columns can be
transferred to the firm strata below the columns. The efficiency of the column rows will
be reduced if there is a layer with soft soil below the columns.
It is particularly important to check that the overlap and the shear strength of the
stabilized soil is sufficient in the overlapping zone for column rows located in the shear
zone of the assumed slip surface The maximum permissible inclination of the columns
which governs the overlap, is 15 mm/m (1/65) according to Carlsten and Eriksson (1997).
This inclination corresponds to a deviation of up to 150 mm at a depth of 10 m, which
exceeds the required overlap, 50 mm.
12.1.4. Checking of Column Groups.
The stability of embankments, slopes and excavations should be checked with and
without the columns. The stability should also be checked for short-term conditions with
respect to the maximum applied load and the maximum slope gradient during and at the
end of the construction period. The stability should also be checked for long-term
conditions taking into account the increase of the shear strength with time of the columns
and of the unstabilized soil between the columns. The factor of safety should also be
investigated for a slip surface passing below the columns as well as through the columns
assuming that the stabilized soil functions as a composite material. A reduced shear
strength should be used in the analysis of the stability, when the columns function as
dowels in the unstabilized soil. The shear strength of the unstabilized soil below the
columns with a thickness of about 0.4 to 0.5 m will increase with time due to
consolidation. The factor of safety should also be calculated during the service stage
including traffic loads
Rejected columns should be replaced. One replacement column is normally
required for small column groups, less than 10 columns, or for single columns for two
rejected columns, when the amount of stabilizer is not sufficient. For large column groups
one replacement column is usually required for every rejected column.
12.1.5. Extent of Checking.
It is desirable to check the columns one to four weeks after the installation so that
additional production columns can be installed in time if required. The shear strength
should also be checked four to eight weeks after the installation by column penetration
tests when the expected shear strength is 100 to 150 kPa. Predrilling is often required
when the shear strength exceeds 200 to 250 kPa (Ekstrm, 1994b). At least three to five
penetration tests are required at any one time so that a representative shear strength of the
columns can be determined as well as the variation of the shear strength between and
along the columns. According the Swedish Road Administration (1987) checking is not
required when the number of columns is less than 200, the soil is inorganic and the water
content is less than 80%.
The number of columns to be checked and the time for the testing depend mainly on
the size of the project and on the main purpose of the columns. The extent of the checking
can be reduced when the main purpose is to reduce the settlements. Extensive checking is
required when the main purpose is to increase the stability of embankments, excavations
or slopes. The columns, which have been installed in different soil types, should be tested
138

to determine the possible variation of the shear strength and of the bearing capacity of the
columns. Usually the longest columns are investigated.
It is not always necessary to check in Sweden and Finland the shear strength and
the bearing capacity of the columns for small jobs when the total length of the columns is
less than about 5,000 m and the factor of safety Fs > 1.0 without the columns (Carlsten
and Ekstrm, 1995, 1997). It is often less expensive for small jobs to increase the number
of columns than to check the shear strength and the bearing capacity of a few columns.
For medium size jobs, when the total length is between 5,000 m and 50,000 m, about 1%
of the total number of columns should be investigated when Fs > 1.0 without the columns.
When the total length of the columns exceeds 50,000 m, at least 0.5% of all columns
should be investigated when Fs > 1.0. Viatek (1997) recommends that 1% should be
tested when the total length exceeds 40,000 m.
When Fs < 1.0 without the columns, about 2% of the total number of columns
should be tested irrespective of the size of the column installation. Special test columns
are required for large jobs (> 50,000 m). The Swedish National Rail Administration
requires that at least 1% of all columns should be tested. The percentage could be reduced
to 0.5% under favorable conditions when the main purpose is to reduce the settlements.
Additional checking might be required when large stones or boulders, old timber
piles etc. occur in the soil, which could affect the installation of the columns and when
the length of the columns is larger than expected. Additional testing is also required when
the deviation with respect to the location and the inclination of the columns is excessive
or the retrieval rate or the rotational velocity of the mixing tool has been excessive. The
bearing capacity of rejected columns should be checked in order to determine to which
extent these columns could be utilized (Eriksson, 1998).
In Japan every 10,000 m3 of the stabilized soil should be investigated for marine
works by borings while for projects on-land every 3,000 m3 should be checked (Okumura,
1996). The extent of the testing is thus less extensive in Japan than in Sweden and
Finland.
12.1.6. Documentation.
The date of the installation of each column should be recorded as well as the
sequence of the installation, the amount of lime and cement added, the type of machine
and mixing tool, which are used, the air pressure, the rotational velocity, the penetration
and the retrieval rates. The location, length and size of the columns as well as the weather
conditions and difficulties encountered during the installation of the columns if any such
as boulders, large stones, tree roots, old timber piles, etc. should also be recorded. It is
also important to document the deviations of the columns if any from the intended
locations. The maximum deviation of single columns is 100 mm while for column rows
the maximum allowable deviation is 50 mm. The maximum deviation from the specified
inclination is usually 20 mm/m. Under favorable conditions the maximum deviation is 10
mm/m. It is especially important for column rows and column grids that the deviation
from the specified location and inclination is as small as possible. Otherwise the overlap
might not be sufficient and the column rows might not behave as intended.
The amount of lime and cement, which is added during the mixing, should be
recorded as a function of the depth. It has been observed that the variation of the cement
and the lime content is often large both along and over the column cross-section, which
will affect the average shear strength and the bearing capacity of the columns. The
maximum allowable deviation is usually 10% or 2.0 to 3.5 kg/m for a 0.6 m diameter
column. The lime and the cement often occur as lenses in the columns, which will reduce
locally the shear strength.
139

It is also important to document all deviations of the location of the columns,

which do not meet the specifications as well as the location of replacement columns, the
heave and the lateral displacements if any within the site.
12.1.7. Retrieval of Columns.
Whole columns have been extracted in Sweden using 11 to 12 m long pipes with
0.6 to 0.7 m diameter as illustrated in Fig. 62 (Broms et al, 1978; Boman, 1979; Broms,
1984a; Hansbo and Torstensson, 1978, Holm et al, 1999). The large diameter pipes can
be split in half so that the recovered columns can be inspected and tested. A vibratory
hammer usually drives down the large diameter steel pipe. A crane is required to drive
and to retrieve the pipe and the column since the required pullout force is high. The
weight of the 12 m long 0.7 m diameter steel pipe and of the retrieved columns is about
7.5 metric tons. The shaft resistance is estimated to almost 40 metric tons at an average
shaft resistance of 15 kPa.

140

Fig. 62. Extraction of Column

Unconfined compression tests have been carried out with 1.0 m long column
segments cut from extracted 0.5 m diameter lime columns. The shear strength of the
excavated part can be determined by e.g. a pocket penetrometer, when the shear strength
is high, or by fall-cone or field vane tests, when the shear strength of the stabilized soil is
low.
The standard deviation of the unconfined compressive strength of the investigated
samples has been less than 10%. The standard deviation for in-situ load tests has been
much larger, about 20% (Boman, 1979). It should be noted that the testing of whole
columns or columns sections, which have been retrieved, is the most reliable method to
determine the shear strength and the bearing capacity. Whole columns have also been
extracted in Finland and tested (Kujala and Lathinen, 1988).
Rogbeck (1997) has described a case, where a 0.6 m diameter steel pipe was used to
recover two columns with a length of 7 to 8 m. Triaxial tests were carried out by
Steensen-Bach et al (1996) with the extracted column segments with 0.5 m length. Also a
number of small diameter samples were tested. The main disadvantages with the method
are the high costs and the time required for the retrieval and the testing of the column
segments. The shear strength of the columns could be affected, however, by the driving of
the large diameter steel pipe around the column and by the retrieval of the column.
It might be possible to determine the shear strength of whole columns by in-situ
triaxial test or of recovered column segments. A confining pressure could be applied insitu by the drilling mud, which is used to stabilize the borehole. A casing is required
which is pushed down around the column to be tested. Hydraulic jacks at the ground
surface apply the axial load.
12.1.8. Excavation of Columns.
Lime and lime/cement columns can usually be excavated down to a depth of 2.0 to
3.5 m to check if the lime and the cement have been uniformly distributed over the crosssection. The Swedish National Rail Administration requires that the columns should be
excavated down to 2 to 3 m depth (Banverket, 1996).
It is also possible to determine the verticality of the excavated columns and the
deviations of the columns from the intended location. The main disadvantage with the
method is that it can only be used down to 3 to 6 m depth.
A weak zone at the center of lime columns has e.g. been reported by Boman (1979),
which has been caused by the kelly during the installation of the columns. Axelsson and
Larsson (1994) have found soft unstabilized parts in lime/cement columns 0.1 to 0.2 m
from the center of the columns. These soft pockets could possibly have been caused by
the high air pressure, which was used during the installation of the columns. The air
pressure, which normally exceeds the total overburden pressure, could have fractured the
columns and the unstabilized soil around the columns.
12.1.9. Column Penetration Tests ( KPS).
The in-situ shear strength of lime, cement and lime/cement columns (hnberg et al,
1989) is usually checked two to four weeks after the installation by column penetration
tests (KPS). At least five columns should be tested at any one time (Viatek, 1997).
Conventional column penetration tests (KPS) should preferably be carried out down to 2
m depth below the bottom of the investigated columns. The column penetrometer (KPS),
141

shown in Fig. 63, is used when the shear strength is less than about 150 to 300 kPa and
the length of the columns is less than about 8 m. The best application of the method is
when the shear strength is less than 100 to 150 kPa and the length of the columns does
not exceed 8 to 10 m (Ekstrm, 1994b). KPS cannot be used in stiff to hard soils due to
the high penetration resistance.

Fig. 63. Column Penetrometer

The penetration rate should be about 20 mm/sec. The maximum deviation from the
desired rate is 50%. A force of 22.5 kN (2.25 t) is required to push down a 0.5x0.015 m
column penetrometer through a column with an undrained shear strength of 300 kPa. It is
often difficult to push down the column penetrometer further due to the high penetration
resistance and the required high reaction force.
The column penetrometer has a tendency to deviate from the columns when the
depth exceeds about 6 to 8 m (Ekstrm, 1992). The risk that the column penetrometer
will deviate is relatively small when the length of the columns is less than 8 to 10 m and
142

the shear strength is less than 100 to 150 kPa (Ekstrm, 1994b). It is often difficult to
determine if the measured low shear strength at KPS corresponds to the shear strength of
the stabilized soil in the columns or has been caused by the deviation of the probe outside
the column. Also the shaft resistance along the column penetrometer can affect the
results.
The width of the penetrometer wings is 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 m to check columns with
0.5, 0.6 and 0.8 m diameter, respectively. The thickness of the lower edge of the
penetrometer wings is 15 or 20 mm depending on the size of the wings. The penetration
rate is usually 20 mm/sec.
Typical results from KPS tests are shown in Fig. 64 for columns stabilized by
lime/cement. It can be seen that the penetration resistance is high compared with that of
the unstabilized soil and that the variation of the penetration resistance is large along the
column. The variation is often larger for lime columns than for lime/cement and cement
columns. The reason for the large variation for lime columns is probably aggregation and
the inhomogeneous structure of the columns. Water is drawn locally from the unstabilized
soft clay next to layers or pockets with unslaked lime. As a result the penetration
resistance of lime columns can locally be very high.
Often the hole after the kelly cannot be used to guide the penetrometer in
lime/cement columns since the shear strength of the stabilized soil at the center of the
columns usually is high. Predrilling can increase the maximum depth, which can be
investigated by KPS. The diameter of the predrilled hole is usually 50 to 65 mm. Ekstrm
(1994b) has reported that 80% of the predrilled holes have been successful down to a
maximum depth of 12 to 15 m in 2 to 4 weeks old lime/cement columns. It is important
that the columns are vertical and that the predrilling of the vertical holes is done very
carefully.
The undrained shear strength of the stabilized soil is calculated at KPS by the
following equation
cu = ap Q / Apen

(12.1)

where Q is the measured penetration resistance and Apen is the cross-sectional area
of the penetrometer. The area of the penetrometer with 0.4 m and 0.5 m wide wings is
0.01 m2. A value of 0.1 is usually used for the column penetrometer factor ap which
corresponds to a bearing capacity factor Nc of 10. The shaft resistance is usually
neglected. The shaft resistance can be estimated by column penetration tests in the
unstabilized soil between the columns.
Test results indicate that the column penetrometer factor can vary between 0.09 and
0.13. Axelsson and Larsson(1994) found that ap varied between 0.10 and 0.092. Ekstrm
(1994a) has reported that the shear strength as determined by KPS was 76% to 126% of
the undrained shear strength determined by pressiometer tests at ap = 0.10 and 76% to
86% of the shear strength determined by in-situ screw plate tests. The variation of the
penetration resistance is often large (Almqvist and Erikmats,1994; Jendeby, 1994)
probably due to an uneven distribution of lime and cement over the column cross-section.
The volume of soil, which is tested at column penetration tests is small, less than
8% for a 0.6 m diameter column. There is thus considerable uncertainty about the
reliability of the results from column penetration tests (KPS) with respect to the average
shear strength and the average bearing capacity of the columns.
An improved column penetrometer is shown in Fig. 64, where the average
penetration resistance is measured for a length, which corresponds at least to the diameter
143

of the investigated column. The penetration resistance determined by the proposed

column penetrometer gives a better indication of the bearing capacity of the columns than
the presently used column penetrometer KPS. Local variations of the shear strength of the
columns will have less effect on the measured penetration resistance with the proposed
penetrometer than at KPS.

Fig.64. Penetration Resistance at Column Penetration Tests

(after Carlsten and Eriksson, 1995, 1997)
12.1.10. Reversed Column Penetration Tests (FOPS).
At a reversed column penetration test (FOPS) the penetrometer shown in Fig.63b is
used, which is installed at the same time or just after the installation of the columns
(Ekstrm, 1992). The width of the wings is 0.4, 0.5 or 0.6 m and the thickness of the
upper enlarged edge of the penetrometer wings is 15 or 20 mm. The width of the
penetrometer wings is 0.1 m less than the diameter of the investigated column. FOPS is
used to investigate columns with a maximum length of 20 m and a maximum shear
144

strength of about 600 kPa. The width of the penetrometer wings can be reduced when the
maximum shear resistance is high, larger than 600 kPa.
It is important to seal the penetrometer shaft carefully when the penetrometer unit is
installed at the same time as the column to prevent leakage of lime and cement through
the annulus at the bottom of the mixing tool during the manufacture of the columns. The
wire should be pulled about 0.1 m a few days after the installation of the penetrometer
unit to

Fig. 65. KTH Penetrometer

145

free the wire from the column in order to reduce the shaft resistance, when the shear
strength of the stabilized soil in the columns is still low. The force to free the wire can be
high, higher than the force to pull the penetrometer unit up through the column. The force
can be up to 100 kN (Ekstrm, 1994b). The additional time, which is required to install
the penetrometer unit at the same time as the column is 10 to 15 minutes.
The penetrometer unit can be installed a few days after the installation of the
columns when the shear strength is still low. In that case the penetrometer unit can be
pushed down through the column by a steel pipe about 2 m below the column to be
tested. There the penetrometer unit is rotated 90 degrees. The penetrometer unit is left in
place until the testing. By measuring the penetration resistance when the penetrometer
unit is pushed down through the column it is possible to check if the penetrometer unit
has deviated from the investigated column.
A high strength steel wire with a tensile strength of about 180 kN is used at FOPS
to pull the penetrometer unit up through the column at a constant velocity, about 20
mm/sec. The shear strength of the stabilized soil as determined by column penetration
tests can be less than the shear strength of samples stabilized in the laboratory when the
undrained shear strength is high, larger than about 150 kPa as reported by hnberg et al
(1989). The difference can be large for cement columns, where the shear strength of the
stabilized soil can be 50% to 70% of the shear strength as determined by unconfined
compression tests with laboratory samples. The shear strength as determined by FOPS is
often 50% to 100% higher than the shear strength determined by CPT due to the high
resistance along the high strength steel wire at FOPS.
The shear strength as determined by unconfined compression tests on cores from
the columns has been about the same as the shear strength determined by FOPS. Ekstrm
(1994b) has reported, that the shear strength with CPT agreed closely with the results
from KPS with a cone factor of 20 at CPT. This value on Nk corresponds to the values,
which have been reported in the literature for stiff to hard clays.
Eq 12.1 is used to evaluate the undrained shear strength of the stabilized soil at
FOPS. However, the penetration resistance can be higher than 10 times the undrained
shear strength of the stabilized soil. The calculated shear resistance from FOPS can be
higher than the shear strength as determined by a conventional column penetration tests
(KPS) or by unconfined compression tests on cores obtained in-situ when the shear
strength is high. Axelsson and Larsson (1994) have observed that the penetration
resistance at FOPS was 70% times higher than the penetration resistance at KPS.
Rogbeck (1997) has reported that the penetration resistance at FOPS has been up to twice
the penetration resistance at KPS. The high penetration resistance at FOPS has been
partly attributed to friction along the preinstalled wire caused by leakage of lime/cement
at the bottom of the mixing tool during the installation of the columns. It is desirable to
install a few wires without the penetrometer unit in a few columns so that the friction
force along the wire can be determined separately. It is also desirable to supplement
FOPS by KPS or by load tests on excavated columns.
FOPS has several advantages compared with KPS since a larger force can be
applied at FOPS than at KPS to pull the penetrometer unit up through the columns. The
required reaction force can easily be provided at FOPS. The shaft resistance along the
wire is generally less with FOPS compared with the shaft resistance at KPS once the wire
has been freed. There is a risk, however, at FOPS to loose the penetrometer unit when the
shear strength at any level in the column is high. The costs for FOPS are about three to
four times the costs for KPS depending on the installation method used for the
penetrometer unit at FOPS.
146

The ultimate bearing capacity of the columns is generally lower than the undrained
shear strength as estimated by penetration or pressuremeter tests because of cracks and
fissures in the stabilized soil. The shear strength as determined by column penetration
tests using a value of 0.1 on column penetration factor ap is often 10% to 150% higher
than the shear strength as determined by unconfined compression tests.
12.1.11. Other Penetration Testing Methods.
Different penetration methods such as SPT, WST, CPT and CPTU are used to
check the shear strength and the bearing capacity of lime, lime/cement and cement
columns as discussed e.g. by Holm et al, 1999).
12.1.12. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT).
Standard penetration tests (SPT) have been used in Japan to check the bearing
capacity of lime and cement columns. The main disadvantage with SPT is the small size
of the sampler and that the penetration resistance is measured only every 1.0 to 2.0 m. A
continuous record of the penetration resistance with depth is not obtained with SPT. SPT
only indicates the penetration resistance at the center of the columns where the shear
strength might not correspond to the average shear strength and the average bearing
capacity of the columns. The borehole required at SPT should preferably be located about
halfway between the center and the periphery of the columns.
12.1.13. Swedish Weight Sounding Method (WST).
The Swedish weight sounding method has also been used to check the shear
strength of the columns when the shear strength is relatively low. At this testing method
the number of half-turn is counted which is required to obtain a penetration of 0.2 m. The
main advantages of this method is the simplicity, the low cost and that the method can be
used in inaccessible areas by unskilled workers, where the bearing capacity of the soft soil
is too low for the heavy equipment required at CPT, KTP or FOPS
12.1.14. Cone Penetration Tests (CPT and CPTU).
Also cone penetration (CPT and CPTU) tests are used when the shear strength of
the stabilised soil in the columns is low (Hosoya et al, 1996). A cone factor of 15 to 20 is
required to evaluate the shear strength. Aas et al (1986) have proposed that a cone factor
Nk of 13 to 21, which corresponds to the shear strength as determined by field vane tests,
should be used. Ekstrm (1994b) has reported that the shear strength as evaluated by CPT
using a cone factor of 20 agreed closely with the results from KPS. This value on the cone
factor corresponds to the values, which have reported in the literature for stiff to hard
clays. A higher cone factor might be required when the shear strength is high. There is
some uncertainty, however, about the cone factor to be used for lime, lime/cement and
cement columns, when the shear strength is high since the variation can be large.
It is possible with CPT to determine the variation of the shear strength with depth
since a continuous record is obtained of the penetration resistance for the whole length of
the columns. The disadvantage with CPT is that only a small volume of the stabilized soil
is tested and that the penetrometer has a tendency to deviate from the column at a depth 4
to 6 m in the same way as the column penetrometer. Because of the risk that the
penetrometer will deviate from the columns, CPT is not a suitable method to check
columns with 0.5 to 0.8 m diameter (Ekstrm, 1994b).
CPTU can be used to determine also the pore water pressure, which is generated
during the penetration. The advantage with this testing method is that the coefficient of
consolidation and the permeability of the stabilized soil can be determined.
147

12.1.15. Pocket penetrometer, Fall-Cone and Pocket Vanes

Pocket penetrometers and pocket vanes have been used to determine the variation
of the shear strength and of the lime and cement contents over the cross-section of the
excavated columns (Axelsson and Larsson, 1994; Johansson and Jons, 1995). These are
inexpensive and relatively rapid methods. They are often combined with column
soundings. Also fall-cone tests have been used to check the variation of the shear strength
along retrieved columns.
12.1.16. Dynamic Penetration Tests.
In Finland the shear strength of the columns is checked by dynamic penetration tests
(Huttunen et al, 1996b). The weight of the hammer, which is used at thus testing method,
is 8 kg and the height of fall is 575 mm. The diameter of the conical point, with an apex
angle of 30 or 60 degrees, is 20 mm.
A light dynamic penetrometer is also used in Japan to check the variation of the
shear strength and the bearing capacity along the columns. The number of blows by a 5 kg
hammer is counted, which is required to penetrate the column 0.1 m. The height of fall of
the hammer is 0.5 m.
In Japan Rotary Penetration Tests (RPT) have been used to estimated the
unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized soil from the drilling energy. A special
drilling bit is required, however, at this testing method (Hosoya et al, 1997)
12.1.17. Soil/Rock Soundings.
At soil/rock soundings the penetration rate at the drilling is measured as a function
of the depth. From the drilling rate the variation of the shear strength can be estimated.
This method is used in stiff to hard columns when the shear strength is too high for other
penetration methods. The drilling rate can, however, not be used to determine the shear
strength of the stabilized soil.
The shear strength is estimated by a 36 mm diameter steel rod, which is provided
with a 20 mm diameter cross bar, which is pushed down through the hole at the center of
the column. The 20 mm diameter cross bar is rotated 90 degrees at the bottom of the
column and slowly pulled up through the column. The required pullout force is measured.
A bearing capacity factor of 20 is used to evaluate the shear strength. A factor of up to 40
might be required when the shear strength is very high. The width of the cross bar
corresponds to 20% to 30% of the diameter of the column. (Ekstrm, 1994b).
12.1.18. Field Vane Tests.
Field vane tests have also been used to determine the shear strength of the stabilized
soil when the shear strength is low (Axelsson and Larsson, 1994). The diameter and the
height of the vane, which is used in Finland to determine the shear strength of the
columns, are 132 mm and 65 mm, respectively (Viatek, 1997). The thickness of the wings
varies from 6 mm next to the shaft to 3 mm for the outer half of the wings. At least three
to eight columns should be tested, when the total length of the installed columns is 5,000
m to 40,000 m. Above 40,000 m at least eight columns should be investigated according
to Viatek (1997). It should be noted that only part of the cross-section is tested, which
corresponds to the diameter of the vane. This testing method is common in Finland
(Ekstrm, 1994b)
The shear strength as determined by field vane tests has been found to agree closely
with the shear strength determined by KPS. The ratio of the shear strengths determined by
148

the two methods has varied between 0.7 and 1.4. The average ratio is close to 1.0
(Axelsson and Larsson, 1994).
Test results reported by Boman (1979) indicate that the thickness of the blades at
the field vane tests can affect the measured shear strength due to the disturbance of the
soil during the insertion of the vane into the columns. The field vane test has the
disadvantages that the method is relatively time consuming and that only part of the
cross-section of the columns is tested.
12.1.19. Plate Load Tests.
The bearing capacity and the shear strength of lime, lime/cement and cement
columns can also be evaluated by in-situ plate load tests (Gransson and Larsson, 1994;
Holmqvist, 1996; Baker et al, 1997). At this testing method two plates are used, which are
placed top and bottom of the investigated column. A high strength steel wire connects the
two plates. A hydraulic jack, which is placed on the top plate, is used to load the two
plates and the column through the wire. The axial deformations of the loaded column are
measured by tell-tales installed at different depths in the column. The measured axial
compression corresponds to the compression top and bottom of the columns within a
length, which corresponds to about 2d, where d is the diameter of the columns. The shaft
resistance along the perimeter of the columns had to be considered in the evaluation of
the test results. The evaluation of the bearing capacity at the bottom of the columns is
uncertain due to the penetration of the bottom plate into the columns during the test.
The bearing capacity and the compressibility of the columns have also been
determined by screw plate tests at different depths, when the shear strength is low so that
the screw plate can be installed. The advantage with this testing method is that the bearing
capacity of the columns and the compressibility can be determined in-situ. The main
disadvantage is the difficulty to install the loading plate especially when the shear
strength of the stabilized soil is high. Viatek (1997) recommends that 2 to 3 columns
should be tested when the total length of the installed columns is 5,000 to 40,000 m.
Above 40,000 m at least three columns should be investigated.
12.1.20. Pressuremeter Tests.
Also pressuremeter tests have been used to evaluate in-situ the shear strength and
the compression modulus of lime, lime/cement and cement columns. There is, however,
some uncertainly about the evaluation of the shear strength for lime and lime/cement
columns due to the possible high permeability of the stabilized soil. The pressuremeter
test is mainly used to determine the compressibility of the columns so that the settlements
of both single columns and of column groups can be estimated. The undrained shear
strength is determined from the limit pressure pl (cu,col = pl / 5.5).
A predrilled hole is required for the installation of the pressure meter. Relatively
long time is required to determine the shear strength and the compressibility at several
levels in the columns. It should be noted that the pressuremeter tests do not give a
continuous record of the shear strength or of the compressibility of the stabilized soil with
depth. Measurements are in general carried out every meter or every two meters. This
testing method is relatively expensive.
12.1.21. Dilatometer Tests.
Dilatometer tests have also been used to determine the strength and deformation
properties of the stabilized soil by Larsson and Eskilsson (1989a,1989b). The agreement
with the results from fall-cone and field vane tests at Lilla Edit and Lrjen has been
satisfactory. The dilatometer has a tendency to deviate from the columns during the
149

installation. At the dilatometer tests, which were carried out by Ekstrm (1994b), the
dilatometer deviated from the investigated columns at 3 to 5 m depth. The measured
compression modulus Mcol corresponded to 300 cu,col. The estimated shear strength was
25% to 50% lower than the shear strength determined by column penetration tests (KPS).

12.1.22. Sonic and Resistivity Testing Methods.

Downhole and crosshole sonic tests have also been tried to check in-situ the quality
of cement and lime/cement columns (Axelsson, 1996; Hane and Saito, 1996). The shear
modulus of the stabilized soil is determined at this method by placing displacement
gauges and geophones at different depth in the columns just after the installation when the
shear strength of the stabilized soil in the columns is still low.
A shear wave is generated at the down-hole tests by striking the columns on the side
by a heavy hammer. The time required for the resulting shear wave to travel to the
different displacement gauges or geophones placed in the columns are measured. The
shear modulus has been found to increase with time and thus with increasing shear
strength of the stabilized soil. There is a need, however, to improve this testing method so
it can be used with confidence to check the shear strength and the quality of lime,
lime/cement and cement columns. This method is time-consuming and therefore
relatively expensive.
Hiraide et al (1996) and Unami and Shima (1996) have indicated that the shear
wave velocity can be used to evaluate the mechanical properties of cement treated soils
and that there is a relationship between the shear wave velocity and the shear modulus
(Gcol) and the unconfined compression strength of the stabilized soil. Hiraide et at (1996)
have proposed the following relationship between the shear wave velocity and the
unconfined compressive strength qu,col in MPa
vs2 = 2.71x105 qu,col

(12.2)

The shear wave velocity vs is related to the modulus of elasticity Ecol as follows
vs2 = Gcol g/col = Ecol g / 2 col (1 + col)

(12.3)

where Gcol and Ecol are the shear modulus and the modulus of elasticity of the stabilized
soil, g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m2/sec) and soil is the unit weight of the
stabilized soil. The modulus of elasticity is related to the unconfined compressive
strength qu,col in MPa as follows
Ecol = 1.25x103 qu,col

(12.4)

Nishikawa et al (1996) have reported, that the increase of the shear wave velocity
with increasing unconfined compressive strength and with increasing shear strength is
small compared with the large scatter of the results.
A sonic testing method has been used by Tamura et al (1996) to check the integrity
of cement columns by striking the top of the column by a light hammer. The response was
measured by a geophone or an accelerometer at the top of the column. The test results are
not very promising, however. Calibration is required for each soil type since the increase
of the compression and of the shear wave velocities (PS-logging) with increasing
unconfined compressive strength is small.
150

The shear wave velocity has also been measured in-situ in Sweden at different
depths of the investigated columns (Axelsson, 1996) by a probe, which is lowered into a
hole which is cored or drilled at the center of the columns. The hole is filled with water to
improve the transmission of the shear waves generated by the probe. There is
considerable uncertainty about the evaluation of the undrained shear strength from the
measured shear modulus since the dynamic shear modulus is affected by the strain level,
the strain rate and by the depth. The experience with the method is limited. Additional
field tests are required before the results can be used with confidence.
Resistivity and density logging have also been used to check the quality of the
columns. Hosoya et al (1996) indicate, however, that the correlation of the resistively
with the unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized soil in the columns is poor.
12.1.23. Coring.
Coring had to be used to check the stability, when the shear strength of the
stabilized soil exceeds 500 to 600 kPa and when it is not possible to check the columns
by column penetration tests, KPS or FOPS. However, the cost for the coring is high,
about 1000 to 1500 SEK/m. The cost is about 8 to 10 times higher than the costs for a
column penetration test.
Coring is common in Japan, where mainly cement columns with a high
compressive strength, are used. A double or triple tube sampler with 102 mm diameter is
used in Japan for the coring depending on the shear strength of the soil, while in Sweden
the diameter is usually 50 mm to reduce the costs. The coring is usually carried out away
from the center of the columns, where the shear strength is more representative of the
average shear strength than at the center where there is often a concentration of stabilizer.
The difference can be large, up to 40% according to Adn and Holm (1993).
The recovered samples are often cracked, which will reduce the measured
unconfined compressive strength (Hosoya et al, 1996) even when the diameter of the
cores is large. Coring has also been used in Sweden to check the shear strength, when the
shear strength of the stabilized soil is high, larger than 600 kPa. Coring cannot be used
when the shear strength is low since the cores have a tendency to fall apart during the
coring and the trimming. Axelsson and Larsson (1994) have reported that it was not
possible to test 90% of the cores from the lime/cement columns installed at Grundbro
along Svealandsbanan, a large railroad project in the middle of Sweden. The core
recovery as reported by Ekstrm (1994b) was 65% to 85%. There is therefore a tendency
to overestimate the shear strength of the columns by coring since only the cores with a
sufficient length and a relatively high shear strength are tested. The core recovery has
been 40% to 90% with a triple tube core barrel with 52 mm inside diameter.
Unconfined compression and triaxial tests (UU- and CU-tests) have been used to
determine the shear strength of the recovered cores. It is generally assumed in the
interpretation of the results from unconfined compression tests that the friction angle u,col
= 0 and that the undrained shear strength cu,col = 0.5 qu,col. However, the undrained friction
angle u,col can be high, about 30 degrees, which affects the evaluation of the shear
strength.
At triaxial consolidated-undrained tests (CU-tests) the effective shear strength of
the soil fd can be determined when the pore water pressures are measured. Ekstrm
(1994b) has reported that the shear strength as determined by unconfined compression
tests on cores has been higher than the shear strength estimated from penetration tests.
Experience in Sweden indicates that the shear strength of recovered cores has been
lower than the in-situ shear strength of retrieved columns, by column penetration tests,
151

CPT and FOPS or the shear strength of column segments. The variation of the calculated
shear strengths has been large. The shear strength of samples from retrieved columns has
been up to 5 to 10 times higher than the shear strength of cores (Christensen et al, 1998a,
1998b).
It might be possible to sample the columns immediately after the installation using a
50 mm piston sampler, when the shear strength still is low and to store the samples in the
laboratory at the anticipated ground temperature until the samples are tested. In this way it
should be possible to obtain more representative values on the in-situ shear strength of the
columns.
The in-situ shear strength of cement columns has been found to correspond to the
unconfined compressive strength of laboratory samples (Chida, 1981). Mizutani et al
(1996) have reported, however, that the unconfined compressive strength of cores
obtained in-situ from columns has been as low as 60% to 75% of the shear strength of
laboratory samples. Nishida et al (1996) have observed that the shear strength could be
only 1/3rd of the shear strength of laboratory samples. This large difference has been
attributed to the difference in mixing energy between laboratory tests and the installation
of the columns. Ekstrm (1994b) has reported that the variation of the unconfined
compressive strength has been very large for cores compared with laboratory samples.
The unconfined compressive strength varied between 1/3rd to 3.0 times the strength of
the laboratory samples.
Bergado et al (1996) have reported that the in-situ shear strength with cement has
been about half of the shear strength of laboratory samples. Also Hermann and Eggen
(1992) have reported that the field shear strength has been considerably lower than the
shear strength of laboratory mixed samples. The shear strength of the stabilized soil was
300 to 500 kPa. The initial shear strength was 15 to 30 kPa and the sensitivity 5 to 40.
The water content was 30% to 40% .
In Japan cores of the installed columns are usually obtained 2 to 3 weeks after the
installation using a double-tube or a triple-tube sampler (Hosoya et al, 1997). The average
shear strength as determined by unconfined compression or by triaxial tests and the
coefficient of variation are used as a measure of the quality of the columns. Also the
penetration rate at the coring has been used in Japan to check the variation of the shear
strength and of the bearing capacity of the columns. However, the correlation between the
coring rate and the unconfined compressive strength had to be established for each site.
Also the core recovery ratio (RQD-value) is used to evaluate the quality of the
recovered samples. The RQD-value generally increases with increasing diameter of the
samples. However, the method of coring, the skill of the driller, the selection of the
samples to be tested and the preparation of the samples had to be considered in the
interpretation of the results. Only the best samples with the highest shear strengths are
usually investigated because the length of the cores is not sufficient when the shear
strength of the stabilized soil is low. The samples often fall apart during the preparation.
The in-situ shear strength as determined by unconfined or by triaxial tests on
samples obtained by coring is often affected by cracks caused by the coring when the
shear strength is high due to bending, locking and rotation of the samples during the
coring (Hosoya et al, 1997). Rogbeck (1997) has reported that the shear strength as
determined by unconfined compression tests has varied between a few kPa to a maximum
of 150 to 210 kPa.
Also the size of the samples affects the results. The unconfined compressive
strength (qu,col) of 60 mm diameter samples has been 87% of the unconfined compressive
strength of 400 mm diameter samples. However, Futaki et al (1996) and Hosoya et al
(1996) have found that the measured shear strength decreased with increasing size of the
152

investigated samples and that the bearing capacity of the columns was governed by weak
layers in the columns. The reduction can be 40% to 60% for large-size columns compared
with the shear strength of small-size samples.
It is recommended that the diameter of the recovered samples should be at least 150
mm since the reduction of the unconfined compression strength is small when the
diameter exceeds 150 mm. There is a need of a standard for unconfined compression tests
of soils stabilized by lime, lime/cement or cement.
It is often difficult to obtain undisturbed cores in-situ from the columns when the
shear strength is high. The measured shear strength will therefore vary with the size and
the location of the samples. The shear strength as determined by unconfined compression
tests on samples prepared in the laboratory is often used to estimate the in-situ shear
strength and the increase of the shear strength, which can be expected with time at
different lime and cement contents. The shear strength increases in general with
increasing time after the mixing and with increasing temperature during the storage of the
samples.
12.1.24. Monitoring of Settlements, Pore Pressures and Lateral Displacements.
It is important to monitor the settlements during and after the installation of the
columns to check if columns function as drains and to determine if a surcharge load will
be required to reduce the time required for the consolidation or if additional columns are
required. Surface markers and tell-tales can be used to check the settlements at different
depths. The settlements can also be checked by a flexible hose, which is placed below the
embankment. The settlements should be measured for at least two years after the
installation of the columns. At unusual soil conditions the settlement observations should
be extended 5 years, preferably 10 years (Viatek, 1997).
The dissipation of the excess pore water pressure in the soft clay below a fill or an
embankment should also be monitored. The interpretation of the results is often difficult
since the measured excess pore water pressures depend on the location of the pore
pressure gauges with respect to the columns. It is important to monitor the pore water
pressure at the bottom of the columns so that the hydraulic lag in the columns can be
determined.
The lateral displacements should be monitored around a fill or an embankment in
order to check the stability during the loading. Excessive lateral displacements could
affect the bearing capacity of the lime, lime/cement and cement columns, which are
located close to the edge of the embankment or the fill.
It is important that settlement plates, tell-tales, pore pressure gauges and
inclinometer tubes are installed before the installation of the columns to obtain stable
reference values and to check the seasonal changes of e.g. the ground water level and the
ground heave. It is also important that the length of the observation period is sufficient so
that the long-term settlement can be determined at different depths below the
embankment or the fill. The instrumentation should preferably be placed in groups to
reduce the risks of damaging the instruments during the construction period.
There is a need to develop methods, where the shear strength for the whole length
of the columns can be checked and to determine the length and the diameter of the
columns. Presently used column penetrometer has a tendency the deviate from the
investigated column at a depth of 7 to 8 m as discussed previously. There is also a need to
form a hole at the center of the columns during the installation to guide the penetrometers
during the testing and to improve the drainage. It is also difficult to push down the
column penetrometer through a column, when the shear strength of the stabilized soil
exceeds about 300 kPa.
153

13. REFERE'CES
Aas, G. et al, 1986. Use of In Situ Tests for Foundation Design. Proc. 14th Specialty
Conf. ASCE, Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, pp 1-30.
Adn, I. and Holm, G., 1993. Hghllfasta kalk/cement och cementpelare p
Arlandabana 3 (High Strength Lime/cement and Cement Columns for Runway 3 at
Arlanda), Bygg & Teknik, No. 8.
Adestam, L. 1996. Kalk-cementpelarfrstrkning fr stabilisering av schaktslnter
(Stabilisation of Cuts Using Lime/Cement Columns). Proc. 12th Nordic Geotechnical
Conference, Reykjavik, 26-28 June, 1996, pp 265-272.
hnberg, H. and Holm, G., 1984. Kalk-flygaska och kalk-gips fr djupstabilisering.
(Lime/Flyash and Lime/Gypsum for Deep Stabilisation). Nordic Geotechnical
Conference, NGM-84, Linkping, Vol. 2, pp 957-964.
hnberg, H. and Holm, G., 1986. Kalkpelarmetoden - Resultat av 10 rs forskning
och praktisk anvndning samt framtida utveckling (The Lime Column Method - Results
from Research and Practical Applications During 10 Years and Future Developments).
Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linkping, Sweden, Report No 31, 122 pp.
hnberg, H. and Holm, G., 1987. Om inverkan av hrdningstemperaturen p
skjuvhllfastheten hos kalk- and cementstabiliserad jord (The Influence of Storage
Temperature on the Shear Strength of Soil Stabilised with Lime and Cement). Swedish
Geotechnical Institute, Linkping, Sweden, Report No 30, pp 93-146.
hnberg, H., Bengtsson, P.E. and Holm, G., 1989. Prediction of Strength of Lime
Columns. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Vol.
2, pp 1327-1330.
hnberg, H. and Holm, G., 1991. Kalkpelare fr ledningsgravar - Frstrkning av
schakter och grundlggning av ledningar (Lime Columns for Pipe Trenches Reinforcement of Excavations and Foundations for Pipes). Swedish Geotechnical
Institute, Linkping, Sweden, Varia 336.
hnberg, H., Holm, G., Holmqvist, L. and Ljungkrantz, C., 1994. The Use of
Different Additives in Deep Stabilisation of Soft Soils. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. a.
Found. Engng., New Delhi, India, Vol. 3, pp 1191-1194.
hnberg, H., Johansson, S.-E, Retelius, A, Ljungkrantz, C., Holmqvist, L. and
Holm, G., 1995a. Cement och kalk fr djupstabilisering av jord - En kemisk fysikalisk
studie av stabiliseringseffekter (Cement and Lime for Stabilisation of Soil at Depth - A
Chemical Physical Investigation of Soil Improvement Effects). Swedish Geotechnical
Institute, Linkping, Sweden, Report No 48, 213 pp.
hnberg, H., Ljungkrantz, C. and Holmqvist, L., 1995b. Deep Stabilization of
Different Types of Soft Soils, Proc. XI European Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found.
Engineering, Copenhagen, 28 May - 1 June, 1995, Vol. 7, pp 7.167- 7.172
hnberg, H, 1996. Stress Dependent Parameters of Cement Stabilised Soil. Proc.
nd
2 Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, IS-Tokyo 96, Tokyo, 14-17 May,
1996, Vol. 1, pp 387-392.
154

hnberg, H. and Pihl, H., 1996. Kalktypens inverkan p stabiliseringsresultatet

(The Influence of Lime Type on Soil Stabilization). Swedish Deep Stabilization Research
Centre, Preliminary Study, Report No 2, 1996-11-26, Linkping, 24 pp + 7 Appendices.
hnberg, H. and Pihl, H., 1998. Effect of Different Quicklimes on Clays - A
Preliminary Study. Proc. 2nd International Conf. on Ground Improvement Techniques, 8-9
October, 1998, Singapore, pp 47-54.
hnberg, H. and Holm, G., 1999. Stabilization of Some Swedish Organic Soils
With Different Types of Binder. Proc. Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization,
Stockholm, Sweden, 13-15 October, 1999, pp 101-108
Ali Jawaid, S.M., 1997. Stabilization of Silty Sand Using Rice Husk Ash and Lime,
Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Vol. 3, pp 1565-1568.
Almqvist, L. and Erikmats, K., 1994. Djupstabilisering med kalkcementpelare - En
flt och laboratoriestudie av inverkande faktorer (Deep Stabilisation with Lime/Cement
Columns - A Field and Laboratory Investigation of Influencing Factors). Final Year
Project 1994:5, Chalmers Technological University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Arnr, E., Kivel, M., Svensson, P.L. and Johnsson, R., 1996. OKB - E4 ver
Norraladalen. Hg provbank visar p bttre utnyttjande av kalkcementpelarfrstrkning
(OKB - E4. A High Test Embankment over the Norrala Valley Indicates an Improved
Utilisation of Lime/Cement Columns), Bygg & Teknik, No 9/96, pp 19-23.
Asano, J., Ban, K., Azuma, K. and Takahashi, K., 1996. Deep Mixing Method of
Soil Stabilization Using Coal Ash. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf on Ground Improvement
Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 393-398.
Askmar, B. and Henningsson, B.-M., 1998. bromotet - En trafikplats i tre plan p
gyttja och lera (bromotet - A Three Level Road Interchange Constructed on Gyttja and
Clay), Bygg & Teknik, Sweden, Vol. 90, No. 1, pp 16-22.
Assarson, K.G. 1972. Stabilisering och jordfrstrkning med kalk (Stabilization
and Soil Improvement Using Lime) Cement och Betong, No 1, 19 pp
Axelsson, A. and Larsson, S., 1994. Provningsmetoder p kalkcementpelare Svealandsbanan. (Test Methods for Lime/Cement Columns - The Svealand Railroad).
Final Year Project 94/10, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Soil and Rock
Mechanics, Stockholm, Sweden, 62 pp + 10 Appendices.
Axelsson, A. 1996. Down hole-mtning i kalkcementpelare (Downhole
Measurements in Lime/Cement Columns) Final Year Project 96/3, Royal Institute of
Technology, Department of Soil and Rock Mechanics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Axelsson, K., Johansson, S.-E. and Andersson, R., 1996. Stabilisering av organisk
jord. Frstudie inom Svensk Djupstabilisering (Stabilization of Organic Soils. A
Preliminary Study within the Project Swedish Deep Stabilisation). Report No. 3, 35 pp +
6 Appendixes.
Babasaki, R., Terashi, M., Suzuki, T., Maekawa, A., Kawamura, M. and Fukazawa,
E., 1996. JGS TC Report: Factors Influencing the Strength of Improved Soil. Committee
Report, Japanese Geotechnical Society, Proc. Int. Conf. on Soil Improvement
Geosystems, IS-Tokyo 96, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 2, pp 913-918.
Baker, S., Liedberg, N.S.D. and Sllfors, G., 1997. Deformation Properties of Lime
Cement Stabilised Soil in the Working State. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a.
Found. Engng., Hamburg, Germany, Vol. 3, pp 1667-1672..
Balasubramaniam, A.S. and Buensuceso, B.R., 1989. On the Overconsolidated
Behaviour of Lime Treated Soft Clay, Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng.,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Vol. 2, pp 1335-1338.

155

Balasubramaniam, A.S., Bergado. D.T. and Alfaro, M.C., 1991. Soil Improvement
for Infrastructure Construction on Soft Bangkok Clay, Proc. 9th Asian Reginal Conf. Soil
Mech. a. Found. Engng., Bangkok, Thailand, Vol. 1, pp 475-478.
Banverket, 1996. Kalk- och kalkcementpelare (Lime and Lime/Cement Columns),
Swedish National Rail Administration, Handbok, BVH 585.16, Borlnge, Sweden, 9 pp.
Barron, R.A., 1948. Consolidation of Fine Grained Soils by Drain Wells. Trans.
ASCE, Vol. 113, pp 718-742.
Beigler, S.E., 1982. Vibrationsdmpning med kalkpelare (Reduction of Vibrations
by Lime Columns.) Swedish Council for Building Research, BFR, Project 800584-9,
1982.
Bell, F.G. and Tyrer, M.J., 1989. The Enhancement of the Properties of Clay Soils
by the Addition of Cement or Lime. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng.,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Vol. 2, pp 1339-1341
Bengtsson, P.E. and Holm, G., 1984. Kalkpelare som drn? (Lime Columns as
Drains?). Nordic Geotechnical Conference, NGM-84, Linkping, Sweden, Vol. 1, pp
391-398.
Bengtsson, P.E., Carlsten, P and Trnk, R. 1991. Bridge Foundations on Soft Clay
Stabilised with Lime Columns. Proc. 10th European Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng.,
Vol. 1, pp 303-306.
Bergado, D.T., Anderson, L.R., Miura, N. and Balasubramaniam, A.S., 1996. Soft
Ground Improvement in Lowland and Other Environments. ASCE Press, New York,
USA, 427 pp.
Bergwall, M. and Falksund, M., 1996. Permeabilitetens och styvhetens inverkan p
konsolideringsfrloppet i kalkcementpelarfrstrkt lera (Consolidation of Lime/Cement
Columns, Effects on Permeability and Stiffness). Final Year Project, 1996:1, Chalmers
Technological University, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Gothenburg,
Sweden, 105 pp.
Bjerin, L., Ekstrm, A. and Andersson, O., 1984. Vg 588 vid Fittja - Ett exempel
p aktiv design vid vgbyggnad. (Road 588 at Fittja - An Example of Active Design at
Road Construction.) Nordic Geotechnical Conference, NGM-84, Linkping, Sweden
Bjerrum, L., 1972. Embankments on Soft Ground. Proc. 5th Speciality Conf.
Performance of Earth and Earth Supported Structures, Vol. 2, pp 1-54.
Bjrkman, J. and Ryding, J., 1996. Kalkcementpelares mekaniska egenskaper
(Mechanical Properties of Lime/Cement Columns). Final Year Project 96/1, Department
of Soil and Rock Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Blom, L., 1992. Kalkpelarfrstrkning i ny tappning. (New Applications of the
Lime Column Method). Byggindustrin, No. 3, pp 16-18.
Boman, P., 1979. Kalkpelarmetoden, projektering och kontroll, (The Lime
Column Method, Design and Control Methods). Seminar on the Applications of the
Lime Column Method in Practice, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Soil and
Rock Mechanics, Stockholm, 27 November, 1979, 18 pp.
Boman, P., Broms, B.B., Paus, K. and Sderlind, G., 1979. Kalkpelarmetoden.
Uppfljning i kv Myren, Huddinge. (The Lime Column Method. Experience at Myren,
Huddinge). Swedish Council for Building Research, BFR, Report R 138:1979, 100 pp.
Boman, P. and Tholn, O., 1979. Kalkpelare fr dmpning av markvibrationer
(Lime Columns for Reduction of Ground Vibrations). Discussion, Nordic Geotechnical
Conference, NGM-79, Esbo, Finland, pp 285-288.
Brandl, H., 1973. Stabilization of Slippage Prone Slopes by Lime-Piles. Proc. 8th
Int. Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Vol. 4.3, Moscow, USSR.
156

Brandl, H., 1981. Alteration of Soil Parameters by Stabilisation with Lime. Proc.
10 Int. Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Stockholm, Vol. 3, pp 587-594.
Brandl, H., 1995. Short and Long Term Behaviour of Non-Treated and Lime- or
Cement-Stabilised Fly Ash. Bengt B. Broms Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering,
13-15 December, 1995, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pp 39-54.
Bredenberg, H., 1979. Kalkpelarmetoden - Berkningsmetoder (The Lime Column
Method - Design Methods). Seminar on the Practical Applications of the Lime Column
Method, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Soil and Rock Mechanics, 27
November, 1979, 11 pp.
Bredenberg, H., 1983. Lime Columns for Ground Improvement at a New Cargo
Terminal in Stockholm. Improvement of Ground. Proc. 8th European Conf. on Soil Mech.
a. Found. Engng., Vol. 2, pp 881-884.
Bredenberg, H. and Broms, B.B., 1983. Lime Columns as Foundations for
Buildings. International Conference on Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment for
Foundations, The Institution of Civil Engineers, London.
Bredenberg, H., 1999. Keynote Lecture.: Equipment for Deep Soil Mixing with the
Dry Jet Mix
Method. Proc. Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization, Stockholm, Sweden,
13-15 Oct., 1999, pp 323-332
Brinch Hansen, J., 1948. The Stabilising Effect of Piles in Clay. CN-Post No. 3,
November, 1948.
Brinch Hansen, J., 1970. A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing Capacity,
Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin No. 28, Copenhagen, 21 pp.
Broms, B.B. and Bennermark, H., 1968. Stability of Cohesive Soils Behind Vertical
Openings in Sheet Pile Walls - Analysis of a Recent Failure. Proc. 3rd Budapest Conf.
Soil Mech. a. Found Engng., Oct 15-18, 1968, pp 404-409.
Broms, B.B., 1972. Stabilisation of Slopes with Piles. Proc. First Int. Symposium
on Landslide Control, Kyoto, Vol. 1, pp 115-123.
Broms, B.B. and Boman, P., 1975a Kalkstabiliserade pelare - Ny
grundlggnngsmetod vid vgbyggnad. (Lime Stabilised Columns - A New Foundation
Method at Road Construction.) Vg- och Vattenbyggaren No. 5, 1975, pp 40-43.
Broms, B.B. and Boman, P., 1975b. Lime Stabilised Columns. Proc. 5th Asian
Regional Conf., Bangladore India, Vol. 1, pp 227-234.
Broms, B.B. and Boman, P., 1976. Stabilisation of Deep Cuts with Lime Columns.
Proc. 6th European Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Vienna, Vol. 1.1, pp 207-210.
Broms, B.B. and Boman, P., 1977a. Lime Columns - A New Type of Vertical
Drain. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 1, pp 427432.
Broms, B.B., Boman, P. and Ingelsson, I., 1978. Investigation of Lime Columns at
Smistavgen, Huddinge, Report, Department of Soil and Rock Mechanics, Royal Institute
of Technology,. Stockholm, Sweden.
Broms, B.B. and Boman, P., 1979a. Lime Columns - A New Foundation Method.
ASCE, Journal. Geotechnical. Engng. Div., Vol. 105, NoGT4, pp 539-556.
Broms. B.B. and Boman, P., 1979b. Stabilisation of Soil with Lime Columns.
Ground Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1979, pp 23-32.
Broms, B.B., Bredenberg, H., Paus, K. and Wikstrm, J., 1981. Grundlggning av
smhus p kalkpelare. Frsksomfattning, frsksutrustning, resultat och utvrdering.
(Foundation of Light Structures on Lime Columns. Extent of Investigations, Testing
Methods, Results and Experiences.). Swedish Council for Building Research, BFR
Report 52752-1, 1981.
th

157

Broms, B.B., 1984a. Stabilisation of Soil with Lime Columns. Design Handbook,
Third Edition, Lime Column AB, 51 pp.
Broms, B.B., 1984b. Stabilisation of Soft Clay with Lime Columns. Proc. Int.
Seminar on Soil Improvement and Construction Techniques in Soft Ground. Singapore,
10-11 January, 1984, pp 120-133.
Broms, B.B., 1985a. Stabilisation of Very Soft Clay in Waste Ponds at Tampines,
Singapore, Proc. 3rd Int. Geotechnical Seminar, Soil Improvement Methods, Singapore,
pp 147-152.
Broms, B.B., 1991. Stabilisation of Soil with Lime Columns. Chapter 24,
Foundation Engineering Handbook, Second Edition, van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
pp 833-855.
Broms, B.B., 1992. Lime Stabilisation. Ground Improvement, Blackie Academic &
Professional, M.P. Mosely Editor, IBN 0-7514-0073-4, pp 65-99.
Broms, B.B., 1993. Geo-Anchors, Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp 215-234.
Broms, B.B. 1999a. Design of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns. Keynote
Lecture. Proc. Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization, Stockholm, Sweden, 13-15
Oct., 1999, pp 125-153
Broms, B.B., 1999b. Progressive Failure of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement
Columns. Proc. Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization, Stockholm, Sweden, 13-15
Oct., 1999, pp 177-184
Broms, B.B., 1999c. Can Lime/Cement Columns be used in Singapore and
Southeast Asia?
3rd GRC Lecture, 19 Nov. 1999, Nanyang Technological Centre,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 214 pp.
Brookes, A.H., West G. and Carder, 1997. Laboratory Trial Mixes for LimeStabilised Soil Columns and Lime Piles, Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report
306, 16 pp.
Bryhn, O., Lken, T. and Aas, G., 1983. Stabilisation of Sensitive Clays with
Hydroxy-Aluminum Compared with Unslaked Lime. Proc. 8th European Conf. Soil
Mech. a. Found. Engng., Helsinki, Finland., Vol. 2, pp 885- 896.
Carlsten, P., 1989. Manual to LIMESET. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Varia
248, 20 pp.
Carlsten, P. and Trnk, 1992. Deep Stabilisation with Lime and Lime/Cement
Columns - A Comparison of Performance, Nordic Geotechnical Conference NGM-92,
Session 1-4, Aalborg, Denmark. Danish Geotechnical Society, DGF Bulletin 9, Vol. 1/3,
pp 25-30
Carlsten, P. and Ouacha, M., 1993. Funktionsuppfljning av kalkpelare (Evaluation
of the Behaviour of Lime Columns). Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linkping, Sweden,
Varia 407, 7 pp.
Carlsten, P. and Ekstrm, J., 1995 and 1997. Kalk- och kalkcement pelare Vgledning fr projektering, utfrande och kontroll. (Lime and Lime Cement Columns Guide for Project Planning, Construction and Inspection),
Swedish Geotechnical
Society, Report 4:95 and 4:95E, ISSN 1103-7237, Linkping, Sweden, 103 and 111 pp.
Carlsten, P. and Eriksson, M., 1995. Tryckfrsk p kemisk stabiliserad jord
(Compression Tests with Chemically Stabilised Soil). Swedish Geotechnical Institute,
Linkping, Sweden, Varia 435.

158

Castel, A.K. and Arulanandan, K., 1979. A New Approach to Predict Lime
Reactivity of Soil. Journal. Geotechnical Engng. Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 105, NoGT4, pp
653-568.
Chen, X.L., Liu, Y.H. and Zhang, S.D., 1996. Design Methods of the Cement-Soil
Retaining Wall. Proc. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Ground Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo, 1417 May, 1996, pp 475-480.
Chida, S., 1981. Development of Dry Jet Mixing Methods. Public Works Research
Institute, Ministry of Construction, Japan, pp 29-35.
Choa, V., 1991. Soil Improvement Works at Tianjin East Pier Project. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Geotechnical Engng. for Coastal Development, Geo-Coast 91, Vol. 1,
Yokohama, Japan, pp 287-292.
Christensen, S., Watn, A. and Nordal, S., 1998a. Grunnforsterkning med K/S peler, SINTEF Bygg og Miljoteknikk, Trondheim, Norway, 44 pp + 22 Figures.
Christensen, S., Watn, A., Nordal, S. and Emdal, A., 1998b. Grunnforsterkning med
kalksementpaeler (Ground Improvement with Lime/Cement Columns), SINTEF, Bygg og
Miljteknikk, Trondheim, Norway, 52 pp + 22 Figures
Day, S.R. and Ryan, C.R., 1995. Containment Stabilization and Treatment of
Contaminated Soils Using In-Situ Soil Mixing, Proc. Geoenvironment 2000, ASCE, pp
1349-1365
Dong, J., Hiroi, K. and Nakamura, K., 1996. Experimental Study on Behaviour of
Composite Ground Improved by Deep Mixing Method under Lateral Earth Pressure.
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo
96, Vol. 1, pp 585-590.
Edstam, T., 1996. Erfarenhetsbank fr kc-pelare (Experiences with Lime/Cement
Columns). Swedish Deep Stabilisation Research Center, Report No 1, Linkping,
Sweden, 154 pp.
Edstam, T. and Carlsten, P., 1999. A New Method for Laboratory Preparation of
Stabilised Clay. Proc. Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization, Stockholm, Sweden,
13-15 Oct., 1999, pp. 315-322
Ekstrm, A. and Trnk, R., 1979. Kalkpelarmetoden. Tillmpningar fr
stabilisering av brostd och rrgrav (The Lime Column Method. Applications at Bridge
Abutment and Trench). Nordic Geotechnical Conf., NGM-79, Esbo, Finland, pp 258268
Ekstrm, J.C., 1992. Kalk och kalkcementpelare - Metod under utveckling, (Lime
and Lime/Cement Columns - A Method under Development). Swedish Geotechnical
Society (SGF), Foundation Engineering Day, 1992, 15 pp.
Ekstrm, J.C., 1994a. Kontroll av kalk- och kalkcementpelare (Checking of Lime
and Lime/Cement Columns) Foundation Engineering Day 94, 9 March 1996, Swedish
Geotechnical Society, Stockholm, Sweden 14 pp.
Ekstrm, J.C., 1994b. Kontroll av kalkcementpelare, Slutrapport med redovisning
av fltfrsk i Ljungskile (Checking of Lime/cement Columns, Final Report with
Reference to Field Tests at Ljungskile), Chalmers Technical University, Gothenburg,
Report B 1994:3, pp 1:1 - 8:4 + 7 Appendices.
Endo, M., 1976. Recent Development in Dredged Material Stabilization and Deep
Chemical Mixing in Japan. Soil and Site Improvement Seminar, University of California,
Berkeley, USA.
Engstrm, P. Sjquist, L.E. and Stl, T., 1984. debyskredet. (The Landslide at
deby). Nordic Geotechnical Conference, NGM-84, Linkping, Sweden, Vol. 1, pp 6776.
159

Eriksson, M. and Carlsten, P., 1995. Tryckfrsk p kemisk stabiliserad jord

(Unconfined Compression Tests with
Chemically Stabilized Soil).
Swedish
Geotechnical Institute, Varia 435, Linkping, Sweden., 19 pp + 13 Appendices.
Eriksson, U.B., 1997. Active Design of Preloading in Combination with Vertical
Drains. Submitted for Publication, 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found Engng.,
Hamburg, Germany, 10 pp
Eriksson, U.B., 1998. Kalk- och kalkcement pelare. Utfrande och toleranser (Lime
and Lime/Cement Columns. Installation and Tolerances), Swedish Deep Stabilisation
Research Centre, Linkping, Sweden, 10 pp
Futaki, M., Nakano, K and Hagino, Y., 1996. Design Strength of Soil-Cement
Columns as Foundation Ground for Structures. Proc. 2nd International Conference on
Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo96, Vol. 1, pp 481-484.
Gransson, M and Larsson, J., 1994. Kalkpelares deformationsegenskaper
(Deformation Properties of Lime Columns). Final Year Project 1994:5, Chalmers
Technological University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Gotoh, M., 1996. Study on Soil Properties Affecting the Shear Strength of Cement
Treated Soils. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May,
1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 399-404.
Green, M. and Smigan, R., 1995. Kalkcementpelare. Materialparametrar och
datorsimulering av enskilda pelares funktion, (Lime/Cement Columns. Material
Properties and Computer Simulations of the Behaviour of Single Columns). Final Year
Project 95/11, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Greenwood, D.A., 1998. Speculations on Methods of Stabilizing Slopes. Ground
Improvement, Vol. 2, pp 103-123.
Gulin, K. and Wikstrm, R., 1997. Stabilization of Horizontal Movements in Weak
Organic Layers. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Vol.3, pp 16891692.
Halkola, H.A., 1983. In-Situ Investigation of Deep Stabilised Soil. Proc. 8th
European Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 1, pp 33-36.
Hane, E. and Saito, H., 1996. Quality Assessment of Cement-Mixed Soil by SWave Tomography. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo, 1417 May, 1996, pp 129-132.
Hansbo, S. and Torstensson, B.A., 1978. Tuveskredet. Analys och sammanstllning
av geotekiska underskningar i skredomrdet. (The Landslide at Tuve. Analysis and
Summary of Geotechnical Investigations of the Landslide Area.), AB Jacobson and
Widmark, Internal Report.
Hansbo, S., 1979. Consolidation of Clay by Bandshaped Prefabricated Drains.
Ground Engineering, July, 1979, Vol.12 , No. 5.
Hansbo, S., 1983a. How to Evaluate the Properties of Prefabricated Drains, Proc.
8th European Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Vol., 2, pp 621-626.
Hansbo, S., 1983b. Specialist Ground Treatment by Other Methods. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment, London, March, 1983, pp 47-76.
Hansbo, S., 1987. Design Aspects of Vertical Drains and Lime Column
Installations. Proc. 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, Vol. 2, pp
8.1- 8.12..
Hansson, A., 1991. Kalk och cementstabiliserad lera. Laboratoriestudie av
vattenkvotens inverkan p hllfasthetsutvecklingen. (Clay Stabilized with Lime and
Cement. A Laboratory Investigation of the Effect of the Water/Cement Ratio on the Shear
Strength.) Final Year Project, 91:2, Chalmers Institute of Technology, Division of
Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering, Gothenburg, Sweden
160

Hartln J., and Holm, G., 1995. Deep Stabilization of Soft Soils Using
Lime/Cement Columns. Bengt B. Broms Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 13-15 December, 1995, pp 173-179.
Hatakeda, H. and Fukazawa, E., 196. Development of Solidifying Material for
Underground Mixing Column Row Consolidation Method in Boulder and Gravel Soils,
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, Vol. 1, pp 405-410.
Helenelund, K.V., 1977. Methods for Reducing Undrained Shear Strength of Soft
Clay , Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Report No. 3, Linkping, 59 pp.
Hermann, S. and Eggen, A., 1992. Kalk/Cement Peler som Fundament for
Anleggsveger p Blt Leire (Lime/Cement Columns as Foundation for the Construction
of Roads on Soft Clay). Proc. 11th Nordic Geotechnical Conference, NGM-92, Aalborg,
Denmark, Vol. 1/3, Danish Geotechnical Society, pp 143-148.
Hibino, S., 1996. Monitoring of Subsidence of Building on Ground Improved by
Deep Mixing Method. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17
May, 1996, IS-Tokyo96, Vol. 1, pp 595-601.
Hirai, T., Ise, J., Kusakari, T., Gotou, M. and Hibi, Y., 1996. Development and
Application of Deep Mixing Soil Stabilization Methods to Control Displacement of
Adjacent Ground. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May,
1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1., pp 485-490.
Hiraide, A., Baba, K. and Azuma, H., 1996. Quality Assessment of Cement
Stabilized Soil by S-Wave Logging. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement
Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96 , Vol. 1, pp 693-606.
Hoikkala, S., Lahtinen, P. and Leppanen, M., 1996. Mass Stabilization of Peat in
Road Construction. Nordic Geotechnical Conference, NGM-96, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp
391-395.
Hoikkala, S., Leppnen, M.S. and Tanska, H., 1997. Blockstabilization of Peat in
Road Construction, Proc. 14th int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Hamburg, Vol.
3, pp 1693-1696.
Holeyman, A. Franki, S.A. and Mitchell, J.K., 1983. Assessment of Quicklime
Behaviour. Proc. 8th European Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Improvement of
Soils, Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 2, pp 897-902.
Holm, G., 1979a. Lime Column Stabilisation - Experiences Concerning Strength
and Deformation Properties. Vg- och Vattenbyggaren, No 7/8, 1979, pp 45-48.
Holm, G., 1979b. Kalkpelarfrstrkning fr urgrvning av vgbank vid
Stenungsund. (Stabilisation of an Excavation for a Road Embankment Strengthened by
Lime Columns at Stenungsund.) Proc. Nordic Geotechnical Conference, NGM-79, Esboo,
Finland, pp 269-284.
Holm, G., Bredenberg, H. and Broms, B.B., 1981. Lime Columns as Foundation
for Light Structures. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Stockholm, Vol.
3, pp 687-694.
Holm, G., Trnk, R and Ekstrm, A., 1983a. Improving Lime Column Strength
with Gypsum. Proc. 8th European Conf. on Soil. Mech. a. Found. Engng., Helsinki,
Finland, Vol. 2, pp 903-907.
Holm, G., Trnk, R., Ekstrm, A. and Torstensson, B.A., 1983b. Lime Columns
under Embankments - A Full Scale Test. Improvement of Ground. Proc. 8th European
Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 2, pp 909-912.
Holm, G., hnberg, H. and Holmqvist L., 1984. Kalkpelarmetoden - Frsk med
strre pelardiameter. (The Lime Column Method - Tests with Columns with Increased
Diameter.) Vg- och Vattenbyggaren, No 7/8, 1984, pp 39-40.
161

Holm, G., Trnk, R. and Ekstrm, A., 1987. Kalkpelare med gips som tillsatsmedel.
(Lime Columns with Gypsum as Additive). Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Report No.
30, pp 5-58.
Holm, G., 1994. Deep Stabilisation by Admixtures. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mech. a. Found. Engng., New Delhi, India, Vol. 5, pp 161-162.
Holm, G., Ruin, M. and Hkansson, S., 1999. Column Penetration Tests and
Extraction of Lime/Cement Columns. Proc. Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil
Stabilization, Stockholm, Sweden, 13-15 October, 1999, pp 311-314
Holmquist, L., 1996. Personal communication
Hosomi, H., Nishioka, S., Takei, S and Qing, C.C., 1996. Method of Deep Mixing
at Tianjing Port, Peoples Republic of China. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo, 14-17 May, 1996, pp 495-498.
Hosoya, Y., Nasu, T., Hibi.,Y., Ogino, T., Kohata, Y. and Makihara, Y., 1966. An
Evaluation of the Strength of Soils Improved by the DMM. Proc. Int Conf. Soil
Improvement Systems, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 2, pp 919-924.
Huttunen, E. and Kujala, K., 1996a. On the Stabilisation of Organic Soils. Proc. 2nd
Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo, 14-17 May, 1996, pp 411-414.
Huttunen, E., Kujala, K. and Vesa, H., 1996b. Assessment of the Quality of
Stabilised Peat and Clay. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems,
Tokyo, 14-17 May, 1996, pp 607-612
von Imse, W., 1972. Messung der Fliessfhigkeit von Cement. (Determination of
the Fluidity of Cement.) Zement-Kalk-Gips, No 3, 1972.
Ito, T., Nishibayashi, K., Ueno, T. and Takahashi, S., 1996. Study on
Characteristics of Deformation Absorption at DMM. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 737-742.
Jacklin, A. and Larsson, U., 1994. Vgbank p kalkpelarfrstrkt lera. Utredning av
kollaps (Road Embankment Reinforced by Lime/Cement Columns Constructed on Clay Analysis of a Failure). Final Year Project 1994:3, Department of Geotechnical
Engineering, Chalmers Technological University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jalali, S., 1994. The Strength Gain of Stabilised Soils - A Unifying Concept. Proc.
th
13 Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., New Dehli, India, Vol. 3, pp 1195-1198
Jasperse, B.H. and Ryan, C.R., 1987. Geotech Import: Deep Soil Mixing, Civil
Engineering, Vol. 57, No. 12, pp 66-68.
Jendeby, L., 1994. Kan vi lita p vra kalkpelare? (Can We Trust our Lime
Columns?). Congratulations to Professor Sven Hansbo on his 70th Birthday 29 December
1994, pp 43-54.
Johansson, C. and Jons, A-K. 1995. Kalkcementpelartillverkning. En studie hur
olika produktionsfaktorer pverkar pelarnas homogenitet och hllfasthet (A study of
Different Factors Affecting the Homogeneity and Shear Strength Capacity of
Lime/Cement Columns). Final Year Project 1995:5, Chalmers University of Technology,
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Johansson, .W. and Norup, J., 1996. Skredfrebyggande tgrder fr
industriomrde vid Gta lv). Prevention of Landslides of an Industrial Area at the Gta
River). Nordic Geotechnical Conference, NGM-96, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp 303-308.
Joshi, R.C. and Nagaraj, T.S., 1985. Flyash Utilization for Soil Improvememnt.
Proc. Symposium on Enviromental Geotechnics and Problematic Soils and Rocks, 2-3
Dec. 1985, AIT, Bangkok, Thailand, pp 1- 24
Kakihara, Y., Hiraide, A. and Baba, K., 1996. Behaviour of Nearby Soil During
Improvement Works by Deep Mixing Method, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo96, Vol. 1, pp 625-630.
162

Kamon, M., 1991. Improvement of Soft Clay Ground. Proc. Int. Conf. Geotechn.
Engng. for Coastal Development. Theory and Practice on Soft Ground, GEO-COAST
96, Sept. 3-6, 1991, Vol. 2, pp 1043-1054
Kamon, M. and Nontananandh, S., 1991. Combining Industrial Waste with Lime
for Soil Stabilization. Journal Geotechnical Engineering Div., ASCE, Vol. 1, Jan. 1991,
pp 1-17
Kamon, M., 1997. Effect of Grouting and DDM on Big Construction Projects in
Japan and the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, IS-Tokyo 96, Tokyo, Japan, 14-17 May, 1996, Vol. 2, pp
807-823.
Karastanev, D., Kitazume, M., Miyajima, S. And Ikeda, T., 1997. Bearing Capacity
of Shallow Foundation on Column Type DMM Improved Ground. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on
Soil Mech. a. Found. Engineering, Vol .3, pp 1621-1624.
Kawasaki, T., Niina, A., Saitoh, S.L., Suzuki, Y. and Honjyo, Y., 1981. Deep
Mixing Method Using Cement Hardening Agent. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a.
Found. Engng., Vol. 3, Paper No 12/30, pp 721-724.
Kitsugi, K. and Azakami, H., 1982. Lime-Column Techniques in the Improvement
of Clay Ground. Symp. on Soil and Rock Improvement Techniques Including
Geotextiles, Reinforced Earth and Modern Piling Methods. Asian Institute of
Technology, Bangkok, 1982., pp B-3-1 to B-3-10.
Kitazume, M., 1991. Evaluation of Improvement Effect by Deep Mixing Method,
Proc. Int. Conf. Geotechn. Engng., GEO-COAST 96, Vol. 2, pp 1061-1062.
Kitazume, M., Tabata, T., Ishiyama, S. and Ishikawa, Y., 1996a. Model Tests on
Failure Pattern of Cement Treated Retaining Wall. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo, 14-17 May, 1996, Vol. 1, pp 509-514.
Kitazume, M, Ikeda, T, Miyajima, S. and Karastanev, D., 1996b. Bearing Capacity
of Improved Ground with Column Type DMM. Proc. Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement
Geosystems, Tokyo, 14 to 17 May, 1996, Vol. 1, pp 503-508.
Kitazume, M., Miyake, M., Omine, K. and Fujisawa, H., 1996c. JGS TC Report:
Japanese Design Procedures and Recent Activities of DMM. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Ground
Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, Tokyo Japan, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 2, pp 925930.
Kivel, M., 1994a. Odrnerade provbelastningar av kalkcementpelare i flt
(Undrained Field Load Tests of Lime/Cement Columns) Royal Institute of Technology,
TRITA - AMI Report 3002, ISSN 1400-1306, Stockholm, Sweden, 62 pp.
Kivel, M. 1994b. Kalkcementpelare som frstrkt jord eller plar? (Lime/Cement
Columns as Reinforced Soil or Piles?). Bygg & Teknik, No 8/94, pp 42-45.
Kivel, M., 1995a. Ostkustbanan E4 ver Norraladalen (The East Coast Railroad
E4 at Norrala (Stabilisation of High Embankments with Lime/Cement Columns). Bygg &
Teknik, No 8/95, pp 50-52, 55.
Kivel, M., 1996. Spnnings-tjningssamband och skjuvhllfasthet hos kalkcement pelare (Stress- Strain Relationships and Shear Strength of Lime/Cement
Columns), Proc. 12th Nordic Geotechnical Conference, Reykjavik, NGM-96, 26-28 June,
1996, Vol. 1, pp 309-314.
Kivel, M., 1997. Undrained Shear Strength of Lime/cement Columns. Proc. 14th
Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Hamburg, Vol. 2, pp 1173-1180.
Kivel. M., 1998. Stability Asnalysis of Lime/Cement Column Stabilized
Embankments, Ph.D. Thesis, Division of Soil and Rocjk Mechanics, Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 170 pp.
163

Kivel, M. and Broms, B.B., 1999. Mechanical Behavior and Shear Resistance of
Lime/Cement Columns. Proc. Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization, Stockholm,
Sweden, 13-15 Oct., 1999, pp 193-200.
Kohata, Y., Maekawa, H., Muramoto, K., Yajima, J. and Babasaki, R., 1996.
Deformation and Strength Properties of DM Cement Treated Soils. Proc. Int. Conf. on
Ground Improvement Geosystems, IS-Tokyo 96, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 2, pp 905-911.
Kujala, K., 1983a. Andvndningen av tillggsmedel med kalk i djupstabilisering.
(Application of Lime as Additive at Deep Stabilisation.) Nordic Seminar on Deep
Stabilisation, Esboo, Finland
Kujala, K., 1983b. The Use of Gypsum in Deep Stabilisation. Proc. 8th European
Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 2, pp 925-928.
Kujala, K. and Nieminen, P., 1983. On the Reactions of Clays Stabilised with
Gypsum Lime. Proc. 8th European Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Helsinki,
Finland, Vol. 2, pp 929-932.
Kujala, K., 1984. Faktorer som inverkar p djupstabiliserade jordars mekaniska
egenskaper. (Factors Influencing the Mechanical Properties of Soil Stabilised at Depth.)
Nordic Geotechnical Conference, NGM-84. Linkping, Sweden, Vol. 2, pp 895-902.
Kujala, K. and Lahtinen, P.O., 1988. The Use of Cement for Deep Stabilisation.
Proc. Nordic Geotechnical Conf., NGM-88, Oslo, Norway, pp 215-218.
Kujala, K., Huttunen, E. and Angelva, P., 1993. Stabilisering av torvmark,
(Stabilisation of Peat). Lime Column Day, 1993, Stockholm, 12 pp.
Kujala, K. Mkikyr, M and Lehto, O., 1996. Effect of Humus on the Binding
Reaction in Stabilized Soil. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems,
Tokyo, 14-17 May, 1996, pp 145-420.
Kukko, H. and Ruohomki, J., 1985. Savien stabilointi eri sideaineilla
(Stabilization of Clays with Various Binders), VIT, Research Notes 1682, Espoo,
Technical Research Center of Finland.
Kuno, G., Kutara, K. and Miki, H., 1989. Chemical Stabilisation of Soft Soils
Containing Humic Acid. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, Vol. 2, pp 1381-1384.
Lahtinen, P.O. and Vepslinen, P.E., 1983. Dimensioning Deep-Stabilisation
Using the Finite Element Method. Proc. 8th European Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found.
Engng., Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 2, pp 933-936.
Larsson, R. and Eskilsson, S. 1989a. Dilatometerfrsk i lera (Dilatometer Tests in
Clay), Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linkping, Sweden, Varia 243.
Larsson, R. and Eskilsson, S. 1989b. Dilatometerfrsk i lera (Dilatometer Tests in
Clay), Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linkping, Sweden, Varia 258.
Larsson, R., 1990. Behaviour of Organic Clay and Gyttja, Swedish Geotechnical
Institute, Report No 38, Linkping, Sweden, 153 pp
Larsson, S., 1997. Inblandningsmekanismer vid djupstabilisering med kalkkalk/cement och cement pelare (Mixing Mechanisms at Deep Stabilization with Lime,
Lime/Cement and Cement Columns), Final Report, Royal Institute of Technology, Dept.
of Soil and Rock Mechanics, Stockholm, Sweden, 1997-06-27, 89 pp.
Larsson, S. and Hkansson S., 1998, CPT-sondering i tv pelarskivor efter skred.
Projekt Hlsingekusten, E4-OKB, Norrala, Sderhamn (CPT Soundings in Two Column
Rows after a Landslide. Project Hlsingekusten , E4-OKB, Norrala, Sderhamn), Royal
Institute of Technology, Dept. of Soil and Rock Mechanics, Sockholm, Sweden, 199804-19, 13 pp.
LC Markteknik AB, 1996. Norralaleden, Sderhamn, Provpelare (Test Columns at
Norrala, Sderhamn), LC Markteknik, Scandinavia, Report 1996-03-26.
164

Leminen, K. and Rathmayer, H., 1979. The Design Parameters of Vertical Drains in
the Light of Field Test Results from Helsinki, Finland. Vg och Vattenbyggaren, No 7-8.
Liedberg, N.S.D., Baker, S. and Smekal, A., 1996a. Samverkan mellan
kalkcementpelare och lera (Interaction of Lime/Cement Columns and Clay). Nordic
Geotechnical Conference, NGM-96, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp 43-48.
Liedberg, N.S.D, Baker, S., Smekal, A. and Ekstrm, J., 1996b. Samverkan mellan
kalkcementpelare och lera (Interaction between Lime/Cement Columns and Clay).
Swedish Railroad Authority, Technical Report 1996:2. Chalmers Technological
University, Report B1996:1, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, 107 pp.
Locat J., Berube, M-A, and Choquette, M., 1990. Laboratory Investigations on the
Lime Stabilization of Sensitive Clays. Shear Strength Development. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp 294-304.
Long, P.H. and Bredenberg, H., 1997. KC-frstrkning fr schakt inom spont,
Filipstad Brygge, Oslo - En numerisk analys med PLAXIS (Stabilization of an
Excavation with Lime/cement Columns, Filipstad Brygge, Oslo - A Numerical Analysis
with PLAXIS), Stabilator AB, Stockholm, Sweden 19 pp
Long, P.H. and Bredenberg, H., 1999. Deep Excavations with Soil Stabilised by
Lime-Cement Columns A Parameter Study Using Finite Element Method. Proc. Dry
Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization, Stockholm, Sweden, 13-15 October, 1999, pp
201-206
Massarsch, R., 1976. Soil Improvement Caused by Pile Driving in Clay. Ph.D.
Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Soil and Rock Mechanics, JoB
Report No 6, Stockholm, Sweden, 261 pp.
Massarsch, R. and Sanaee, F., 1993. Vibrationsisolering med hjlp av kalkcementpelare (Vibration Isolation using Lime/Cement Columns). Royal Institute of
Technology, Department of Soil and Rock Mechanics, Internal Report.
Matsuo, T., Nisibayashi, K. and Hosoya, Y., 1996a. Studies on Soil Improvement
Adjusted at Low Compressive Strength in Deep Mixing Method, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on
Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 421-424
Matsuo, T., Shimazu, T., Goto, Y., Suzuki, Y. and Okumura R., 1996b. Deep
Mixing Method as a Liquefaction Prevention Method. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, Vol. 1, pp 521-526
Mishra, P. and Srivastava, R.K. 1996. Geotechnical Aspects of Industrial Waste
Utilisation. - Indian Experience. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement
Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 1, pp 425-430.
Mitchell, J.K., 1981. Soil Improvement - State-of-the-Art Report. Proc. 10th Int.
Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Stockholm, Vol. 4, pp 510-520 .
Mitchell, J.K., 1986. Practical Problems from Surprising Soil Behaviour. Journal
Geotechnical Engineering Div., ASCE, Vol. 12, NoSM3, pp 259-289.
Mitzutani, T., Kanai, S. and Fujii, M., 1996. Assessment of the Quality of SoilCement of Square and Rectangular Shapes by Deep Mixing Method. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf.
on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 637642.
Miyahara, T., Terayama, T., Moue, S. and Kobayashi, S., 1991. Design for
Retaining Walls Treated with the Cement Mixing Method. Proc. Int. Conf. on Coastal
Development, Geo-Coast 96, Yokohama, Japan, pp 365-368.
Miyake, M., Akamoto, H., Shinomiya, S. and Nagano, T., 1984. Shear Strength
Characteristics of Composite Ground Consisting of Cement Treated Clay and Untreated
Clay, Proc. Symposium on the Strength and Deformation of Composite Ground, pp 159164.
165

Miyake, M., Wada, M. and Satoh, T., 1991. Deformation and Strength of Ground
Improved by Cement Treated Soil Columns. Proc. Int. Conf. on Geotechnical Engineering
for Coastal Development, Geo-Coast 96, Yokohama, Japan, Vol. 1, pp 369-372.
Miyake, M., Akamoto, H. and Wada, M., 1991. Deformation Characteristics of
Ground Improved by a Group of Treated Soil, Centrifuge 91, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp
295-302.
Miyake, M. and Wada, M., 1996. A Study on Horizontal Resistance Force of the
Ground Improved by Cement Treated Soil Columns. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 533-536.
Nagaraj, T.S. Yaligar, P.P., Miura, N. and Yamadera, A. , 1996. Predicting
Strength Development by Cement Admixture Based on Water Content. Proc. 2nd Int.
Conf. Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, Tokyo, pp 431-436.
Newill, D., 1961. A Laboratory Investigation of Two Red Clays from Kenya,
Geotechnique, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 302-318
Nieminen, P., 1977. Lentotuhkan ja kipsin kyttmahdollisus ja vaikutus maalajien
lujuvsaminoasuuksiin (Strength Properties of Soil Stabilized by Flyash and Gypsum)
University of Turku, Finland.
Nieminen, P., 1978. Stabilisation with Gypsum and Lime. Proc. Int. Conf. on the
Use of By-Products and Waste in Civil Engineering, Paris Vol. 1, pp 229-235.
Nieminen, P, 1979. Use of Industrial By-Products as Binders. Nordic Geotechnical
Conference, NGM-79, Esbo, Finland, pp 303-309.
Nishida, K., Koga, Y. and Miura, T., 1996. Energy Consideration of the Dry Jet
Mixing Method, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May,
1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 643-648.
Nishikawa, J., Tada, S. and Yamaguchi, S., 1996. Strength Evaluation Based on
Logging in Ground Stabilized by Deep Mixing Method. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 649-652.
Nord, M., 1990. Comparison Between Calculated and Measured Settlements for a
Road Embankment Reinforced with Lime Columns, Young Geotechnical Engineers
Conference, Delft, Holland, Vol. 1, 4 pp.
Okabayashi, K. and Kawamura, M., 1991. Effect of Improvement on Soft Ground
by Soil Cement Mixing Method, Proc. Int. Conf. on Geotechnical Engng. for Coastal
Development, GEO-COAST 91, Sept. 3-6, 1991, Vol. 1, pp 377-380.
Okumura, T. and Terashi, M., 1975. Deep Lime-Mixing Method of Stabilisation for
Marine Clays. Proc. 5th Asian Regional Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Bangalore,
Vol. 1, pp 69-75.
Okumura, T., 1996. Deep Mixing Method in Japan. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, May 15-17, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 2, pp
879-887.
Pan, Q.Y., Xie, K.H., Liu, Y.L. and Lin, Q., 1994. Some Aspects of the Soft
Ground Improved with Cement Columns. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found.
Engng., New Delhi, India, pp 1223-1226.
Parkkinen, E., 1997. Utilization of Industrial By-Products to Strengthen soft Clayey
and Organic Soils, Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Vol. 3, pp 17011704.
Paus, K., 1979a. Kalkpelarmetoden. Produktionstekniska synpunkter och praktiska
rd fr olika anvndningsomrden. (The Lime Column Method. Advice at Different
Applications). Seminar, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 27 November, 1979, 8
pp.
166

Paus, K., 1979b. Lerans hllfasthet kar med kalkpelare som armering (The
Strength of Clay can be Increased with Lime Columns as Reinforcement). Byggmstaren,
Vol. 58, April, 1979, No 4, pp 12-14.
Paus, K., 1998. Private information.
Pettersson, J. and Ulvehed, P., 1992. Skjuvhllfasthet hos kalk/cementpelare (Shear
Strength of Lime/cement Columns). Final Year Project 92/9, Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pihl, H. and Kuusipuro, K., 1997. Kalk och kalkstabilisering (Lime and Lime
Stabilization) Partek Nordkalk AB, February, 1997, 19 pp.
Porbaha, A., 1998a. State of the Art of Deep Mixing Technology. Part I. Basic
Concepts and Overview. Ground Improvement. Journal of the International Soc. of Soil
Mech. a. Found. Engng., (TC-17) Thomas Telford, Vol. 2, pp 81-92.
Porbaha, A., Tanaka, H. and Kobayashi, M., 1998b. State of the Art of Deep
Mixing Technology, Part II, Applications. Ground Improvement, Vol. 2. pp 125-139.
Pradines, C. and Bredenberg, H., 1981. Investigation of the Effects of Different
Additives in Clay-Lime Mixtures. Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Soil and
Rock Mechanics, Internal Report.
Pramborg, B.O. and Albertsson, B., 1992. Underskning av kalk/cementpelare.
(Investigation of Lime/Cement Columns.) Proc. Nordic Geotechnical Conf., NGM-92,
Danish Geotechnical Society, Bulletin No. 9, Aalborg, Denmark, Vol. 1, pp 149-156.
Rajasekaran G. and Rao, 1996a. Lime Column Technique for the Improvement of
Soft Marine Clay. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May,
1996, Tokyo, pp 443-446.
Rajasekaran G,., Murali, K., Dhanaseelan, B. and Srinivasaragh, R., 1996b.
Influence of some Polutants on Lime Treated Marine Clay. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, Tokyo, Japan, pp 437 442.
Rathmayer, H. and Leminen, K., 1980. Subsoil Improvement by Means of Vertical
Drainage, Field Test in Helsinki, VIT Symposium 8, Technical Research Centre of
Finland, Espoo.
Rathmayer, H., 1997. Deep Mixing Methods for Soft Subsoil Improvement in the
Nordic Countries. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, May 14-17,
1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 2, pp 869-877.
Ravaska, O. and Kujala, K., 1996. Settlement Calculation of Deep Stabilised Peat
and Clay. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, May 14-17, 1996, ISTokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 551-555.
Reiment, S., 1978. Kalkpelarmetoden. Belastningsfrsk i Kv. Myren (The Lime
Column Method. Load Tests in City Block Myren). Final Year Project, Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rogbeck Y. and Trnk, R., 1995. Funktionsuppfljning av kalk- och
kalkcementpelare, E4, Delen Lvstad - Norrkping, stergtlands Ln (Behaviour of
Lime and Lime/Cement Columns, E4, Lvstad - Norrkping stergtland County).
Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Varia 426, 15 pp + 24 Appendixes.
Rogbeck, Y., 1995. Stora triaxialfrsk p kalkcementpelarprover (Large Triaxial
Tests with Lime/Cement Column Samples). Vg och Vattenbyggaren, No 5, pp 34-36.
Rogbeck, Y., 1997. Lime-Cement Columns on the Svealand Rail Link Performance Observations, Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Vol. 3,
pp 1705-1710.
Rogers, C.D.F. and Glendinnings, S., 1993. Stabilisation of Embankment Clay
Using Lime Piles, Proc. Int. Conf. on Engineered Fills, Newcastle upon Tyne, September,
1993, Thomas Telford, pp 226-238.
167

Rogers, C.D.F. and Lee, S.J., 1994a. Drained Shear Strength of Lime-Clay Mixes.
Transportation Research Record No 1440, Design and Performance of Stabilised Bases
and Lime and Flyash Stabilization, Washington, D.C., USA, pp 63-70
Sabry, M.A., Abdel-Ghani, Kh. and El Nahas, A.M., 1996. Strength Characteristics
of Soil-Lime Column Sections. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems,
Tokyo, 14-17 May, 1996, Vol. 1, pp 447-451.
Sahlberg, O., 1979a. Kalkpelarmetoden. Uppfljning av en rrgravsstabilisering i
Sollentunaholm. Del I; Kalkstabilisering av ledningsschakt i ls lera (The Lime Column
Method. Behaviour of a Trench at Sollentunaholm. Part I: Stabilisation of a Trench in
Soft Clay). Swedish Council for Building Research, Project 780745-7.
Sahlberg, O., 1979b. Kalkpelarstabilisering fr djup ledningsschakt i ls lera.
(Stabilization of a Deep Excavation in Soft Clay using Lime Columns). Nordic
Geotechnical Conference, NGM-9, Esbo, Finland, pp 295-297.
Saitoh, S., Suzuki, Y., Nishioka, S. and Okumura, R., 1996. Required Strength of
Cement Improved Ground. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 1417 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 557-562.
Sandros, C. and Holm, G., 1996. Deep Stabilisation with the Wet Cement Mixing
Method. Proc. 12th Nordic Geotechnical Conference, Reykjavik, 26-28 June, 1996, pp
129-134.
Schwab, E.F., 1976. Bearing Capacity, Strength and Deformation Behaviour of Soft
Organic Sulphide Soils, Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Soil and
Rock Mechanics. Stockholm, Sweden.
Sellgren, E., 1991. Konsten att tta finsk/ryska lckor (The Art of Stopping
Finnish/Russian Leakage). Bygg och Teknik, Vol. 83, No. 8, pp 26-27.
Serra, M., Robinet, J.C., Mohkam, M. and Daonh, T. 1983. Soil Improvement of
Dykes by Liming. Proc. 8th European Conf. Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Helsinki,
Finland, Vol. 2, pp 947-950.
Sherwood, P.T., 1967. Views of the Road Research Laboratory on Soil Stabilisation
in the United Kingdom, Lime and Gravel, Vol. 42, No. 9, pp 277-280.
Sherwood, P.T., 1993. Stabilization with Cement and Lime. State-of-the-Art
Review, Transport Research Laboratory, Department of Transportation, London, 153 pp
Shintani, N., Tawara, M., Noriyashi, N. And Sumioka, N., 1991. Construction
Control Systems of Improved Ground by Deep Mixing Method, Proc. Int. Conf. on
Geotechnical Engng. for Coastal Development, GEO-COAST 91, Vol. 1, pp 393-398.
Shiomi, M. Ito, K., Nishimura, D., Tanaka, H. and Tanaka, M., 1996. Slope
Stability Using the Admixture Method. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement
Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 563-568.
Skauerud, S.E. and Finborud, B., 1984. Kalkpeler for Stabilisering av Utgravning
(Lime Columns for Stabilisation of Excavations). Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, NGM84, Vol. 1, pp 191-197
Sderblom, R., 1974. A New Approach to the Classification of Quick Clay
Research. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Reprints and Preliminary Reports No. 55,
Stockholm, Sweden, pp 13-17.
Soyez, B. and Delfaut, A., 1983. Loading Tests on a Clayey Hydraulic Fill
Stabilised by Lime Treated Soil Columns. Proc. European Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found.
Engng., Improvement of Soil, Vol.2, pp 951-954.
Statens Vegvesen, 1995. Veiledning til 018. Veg p blt grund. Grundforsterkning
(Guide to 018. Roads on Soft Ground. Ground Improvement).

168

Steensen-Bach, J.O., Bengtsson P.-E. and Rogbeck, Y., 1996. Large Scale Triaxial
Tests on Samples from Lime-Cement Columns. Proc. 12th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting
in Reykjavik, Iceland, pp 135-146.
Stepkowska, E.T., 1994. Microstructural Reasons of Improvement of an Alluvial
Clay by Admixtures, Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., New Dehli,
India, Vol. 3, pp 1187-1190.
Suzuki, Y., 1982. Deep Chemical Mixing Methods Using Cement as Hardening
Agent. Symposium on Soil and Rock Improvement Technology Including Geotextiles,
Reinforced Earth and Modern Piling Methods, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok,
29 Nov.- 3 Dec., 1982, pp B-1-1 to B-1-24.
Svensson, P.L. and Jonsson R., 1996. Provbank, Norraladalen (Test Embankment,
Norrala Valley). Geoprojektering, GEO No 95881, Stockholm, Sweden, 8 pp + 15
Appendices
Swedish Deep Stabilisation Center, 1995. Djupstabilisering med kalkcementpelare
(Deep Stabilisation with Lime/Cement Columns). Linkping, Sweden, 31 pp.
Swedish Road Board 1987. Kalkpelargrundfrstrkning vid vgbyggnad (Lime
Column Stabilisation at Road Construction). Division for Geotechnical Engineering, VV
Publication 1986:72, Borlnge, Sweden.
Takemiya, H., Nishimura, A., Naruse, T., Hosokani, K. and Hashimoto, M., 1996.
Development of Vibration Reduction System Measure Wave Impeding Block. Proc. 2nd
Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1,
pp 753-758.
Taki, O. and Yand, D.S., 1991. Soil-Cement Wall Technique, Geotechnical
Engineering Congress 1991, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 27, Boulder, Colorado,
USA, June 10-12, 1991, Vol. 1, pp 298-309.
Tanaka, H., 1993. Behaviour of Braced Excavations Stabilized by Deep Mixing
Method. Soils and Foundation, Vol. 33, No 2, pp 105-115.
Tateyama, M., Tarumi, H. and Fukuda, A., 1996. Development of a Large Diameter
Short Reinforced Anchor by the Cement Mixing Method. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 759-765.
Tatsuoka, F. and Kobayashi, A., 1983. Triaxial Strength Characteristics of Cement
Treated Soft Clay. Proc. 8th European Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Helsinki,
Finland, Vol. 1, pp 421-426.
Tatsuoka, F., Kohata, Y., Uchida, K. and Imai, K., 1996. Deformation and Strength
Characteristics of Cement Treated Soils in Trans-Tokyo Bay Highway Project. Proc. 2nd
Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, Vol. 1, pp 453-459.
Tatsuoka, F. Uechida, K., Imai, K., Ouchi, T. and Kohala, Y., 1997. Properties of
Cement Treated Soils in Trans-Tokyo Bay Highway Project, Ground Improvement, Vol.
1, No. 1, pp 37-57
Tamura, M., Futaki, M. and Abe, A., 1996. Use of Non-Destructive Method for the
Evaluation of Reclaimed Soil Column. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement
Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo96, Vol. 1, pp 659-664.
Terashi, M., Tanaka, H., Mitsomoto, T., Niidome, Y. and Honma, S., 1980.
Foundation Properties of Lime and Cement Treated Soils. Report of the Port and Harbour
Research Institute, Vol. 19, No.1, pp 33-62.
Terashi, M. and Tanaka, H., 1981. Ground Improvement by Deep Mixing Method.
Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Stockholm, Sweden, Vol. 3, pp 777780.

169

Terashi, M. and Tanaka, H., 1983a. Settlement Analysis for Deep Mixing Method.
Proc. 8th European Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Helsinki, Finland, Vol. 2, pp
955-960.
Terashi, M., Tanaka, H. and Kitazume, M., 1983b. Extrusion Failure of the Ground
Improved by the Deep Mixing Method. Proc. 7th Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mech. a.
Found. Engng., Haifa, Israel, Vol. 1, pp 313-318.
Terashi, M. and Tanaka, H., 1983c. Bearing Capacity and Consolidation of
Improved Ground of Treated Soil Columns, Report of the Port and Harbour Research
Institute, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp 213-266.
Terashi, M. and Kitazume, M., 1987. Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Top
Surface of Slopes. Proc. 8th Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., Vol.
1, pp 415-418.
Thaer, M. and Nutbohm, N., 1997. Soil Stabilization - A Future Oriented
Alternative for Expansive Earthworks. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found.
Engng., Vol. 3, pp 1711-1713.
Tielaitos, S., 1993. Deep Stabilisation at Veittostensuo. Research Report (in
Finnish). Tielaitoksen selvityksi 81/1993, TIEL 3200205, 87 pp.
Tielaitos, S. 1995. Assessment of the Quality and Functioning of a Test Structure
on the Mire of Veittostensuo. (in Finnish), Tielaitoksen selvityksi 54/1995, TIEL
3200330, 51 pp.
Tielaitos, S., 1997. Syvstabiloinnin motoitusohje (Design Methods for Deep
Stabilisation), Geotekniikan, Infomantiojulkaisuja, 18/1997, Helsinki, Finland, 42 pp
Trnk, R. and Edstam, T., 1997. Produktionskontroll av KC-pelare samt
underskning av effekten av varierande inblandningsmngd och inblandningsvertyg
(Checking of Lime/Cement Columns and the Effect of the Amount of Stabilizer and the
Configuration of the Mixing Tool), Report, Banverket, stra Regionen, 1997-02-19, 6 pp.
Tsuchiya, N., Kubota, T., Kawasaki, H., Yamagata, S. and Takayama, M., 1996.
Effects of Measures Against Lateral Flow Using Multi-Cell Blocks Improved by the
Square Deep Mixing Method. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems,
14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 569-572.
Uchida, K., Shioi, Y. and Kawakase, Y., 1994. Cement Treated Soil in the TransTokyo Bay Highway Project, Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. a. Found. Engng., New
Delhi, India, Vol. 3, pp 1179-1182.
Uchida, K., Imai, K., Tatsuoka, F. and Kohata, Y., 1996. Ground Improvement by
Cement-Treatment in Trans-Tokyo Bay Highway Project, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, Vol. 1, pp 669-674.
Uchiyama, K., 1996. Prevention of Displacements while Using the DJM Method.
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, Vol. 1, pp
675-680.
Unami, K. and Shima H., 1996. Deep Mixing Method at Ukioshima Site of the
Trans-Tokyo Bay Highway. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems,
14-17 May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 777-782.
Vepslinen, P. and Arkima, O., 1992. Holvautuminen, tiepenger, sementtipilari
(The Arching of Road Embankments). Finnish National Road Administration, Research
Report 4/1992, Helsinki, Finland, 163 pp + 8 app.
Viatek, 1994. Blockstabilisering av torv p Veittostesuo (Block Stabilisation of
Peat at Veittostesuo). Viatek Geoteknik 2 pp
Viatek, 1997. Deep Stabilization Guidebook, 55 pp + 2 Appendixes.

170

Viitanen, H., 1977. Eri sideaineiden save tuvuudestabilaintiin (Application

Materials at Soil Stabilization), Tampere University of Technology, Building Department,
Tampere, Finland.
Wanatabe, T., Nishimura, S., Moriya, M. and Hirai, T., 1996. Development and
Application of a New Deep Mixing Soil Improvement Method to Form a Rectangular
Stabilized Soil Mass. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17
May, 1996, IS-Tokyo 96, Vol. 1, pp 783-786
Wu, D.Q., Broms, B.B. and Choa, V., 1993. Soil Improvement with Flyash
Columns, 11th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, 4-8 May, 1993, Singapore, Vol.
I, pp 435-438.
Yoshida, S., 1996. Shear Strength of Improved Soils at Lap-Joint-Face. Proc. 2nd
Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, ISD-Tokyo 96, Vol.
1, pp 461-466.
Yoshizawa, H., Okumura, R., Hosya, Y, Sumi, m. and Yamada, T., 1996. Proc. 2nd
Int. Conf. Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17 May, 1996, Tokyo, Japan, IS-Tokyo
96, Vol. 2, pp 931-937.
Yuewen, Z., 1996. Deep-Cement Mixing Piles Stabilizing the Saturated Loess,
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 14-17, May, 1996, ISTokyo96, Vol. 1, pp 573-576.

14. 'otations and Abbreviations.

Acol = Area of lime, lime/cement of cement columns, m2.
Apen = Cross-sectional area of penetrometer, m2
B = Width of column, m
Cc = Compression index
CPT = Cone penetration test
CRS = Constant rate of strain
E
= Modulus of elasticity, MPa
Ecol = Modulus of elasticity of the columns, MPa
Emax = Modulus of elasticity determined by sonic tests, MPa
Esoil = Modulus of elasticity of the unstabilised soil, MPa
E50 = Secant modulus at qu/2
F = Force, kN
FEM = Finite element method
FOPS= Reversed penetration test
Fs
= Global factor of safety
Gcol = Shear modulus of the stabilised soil in the columns, MPa
Gsoil = Shear modulus of the soil, MPa
H
= Height, m
Ka = Coefficient of active earth pressure
Kp = Coefficient of passive earth pressure
KPS = Column penetration test
L, Lcol = Column length, m
L/C = Lime/cement
Lcrit = Critical depth of borehole, m
= Transfer length, m
Ltr
Ph = Lateral earth pressure, kN
M
= Compression modulus, MPa
Mc,av = Weighted average compression modulus, MPa
171

Mcol = Compression modulus of the stabilised soil in the columns, MPa

Mi = Initial compression modulus, MPa
Mmin = Minimum compression modulus, MPa
Msoil = Modulus of elasticity of the unstabilised soil, MPa
OCR = Overconsolidation ratio
PI, PI0, PI1, PI2 = Plasticity index of cohesive soils
Q
= Applied load, kN
Qcol = Column load, kN
Qpen = Penetration resistance at KPS and FOPS, kN
Qp,a, Qp,b = Point bearing or point resistance of column, kN
Qs,a, Qs,b = Shaft resistance of column, kN
Qcol = Column load, kN
Qcreep = Creep strength of columns, kN
R
= Shear resistance of point bearing columns, kN
R
= Radius of influence, m
R
= Radius of slip surface, m
S
= Shear resistance
SLS = Serviceability limit state
SPT = Standard penetration test
Tcol = Shear resistance of columns, kN
U
= Degree of consolidation, %
ULS = Ultimate limit state
V/L = Height/width ratio
WST = Weight sounding test
a
= Area ratio
a
= Constant
b
= Width of loaded area, m
b
= Width of column group, m
b
= Constant
ccol = Effective cohesion of the stabilized soil in the columns, kPa
ccol,res = Effective residual cohesion of the stabilized soil kPa
csoi = Effective cohesion of the unstabilized soil, kPa
cu, coil = Shear strength of stabilized soil in the columns, kPa
cu, soil = Shear strength of unstabilised soil, kPa
cuo, cu1, cu2, cu3 = Undrained shear strength, kPa
cu / pv = Ratio of undrained shear strength and effective overburden pressure
cu, c = Characteristic undrained shear strength, kPa
= Coefficient of consolidation, m2/year
cv
cvv = Coefficient of consolidation with respect to vertical drainage, m2/year
= Coefficient of consolidation with respect to lateral drainage, m2/year
cvh
d
= Diameter of columns, m
e
= Void ratio
f
= Distance to plastic hinge, m
fd
= Cohesion and angle of internal friction to be used in design
= Characteristic strength of soil
fk
f(n) = Factor (Eq.8.7)
h
= Thickness of soil, m
hfil
= Height of fill or embankment, m
kcol = Coefficient of permeability of the columns, m/s
172

kh
= Permeability in the horizontal direction, m/s
ksoil = Coefficient of permeability of the soil, m/s
= Permeability in the vertical direction, m/s
kv
k1
= Earth pressure coefficient
l
= Length loaded area, m
m, mo = Stress factor
n
= R/r
= Stress concentration ratio
nc
p
= Total pressure, kPa
pcr
= Critical pressure, kPa
t
= Time
q
= Applied unit load, kPa
qcol, creep = Creep strength of column, kPa
qcol, res = Residual strength of column, kPa
qo
= Unit load from embankment, kPa
= Unconfined compressive strength, kPa
qu
qu, col = Ultimate bearing capacity of column, kN
quo, col = Ultimate unconfined bearing capacity of column, kN
r
= Radius of column, m
w/c
= Water/cement ratio
u
= Pore water pressure, kPa
uo
= Initial pore water pressure, kPa
w
= Water content, %
= Liquid limit
wL
wP
= Plastic limit
w
= Change of water content, %
z
= Depth, m

max

f
fill
soil
soil
m ,n
w
h
f

col
soil

f
f
f, col
f, soil
h

= Maximum differential settlement

= Location of slip surface
= Relative width of compression zone
= Partial safety factor with respect to the applied load
= Unit weight of fill, kN/m3
= Unit weight of soil, kN/m3
= Submerged unit weight of soil, kN/m3
= Partial safety factors with respect to the soil and safety class, respectively
= Unit weight of water, kN/m3
= Lateral displacement, m
= Failure strain
= Width of compression block
= Poisson ratio of stabilised soil
= Poissons ratio of unstabilised soil
= Total normal stress, kPa
= Effective normal stress, kPa
= Total stress at failure, kPa
= Effective stress at failure, kPa
= Effective normal stress at failure of stabilised soil, kPa
= Effective normal stress at failure of unstabilised soil, kPa
= Total lateral pressure, kPa
173

h
= Effective lateral pressure, kPa
ho
= Initial total lateral pressure, kPa
h
= Initial effective lateral pressure, kPa
v
= Total overburden pressure, kPa
v
= Effective overburden pressure, kPa
av
= Average shear strength, kPa
f, av
= Weighted average shear strength, kPa
f, soil
= Shear strength of unstabilised soil, kPa
f, col
= Shear strength of stabilised soil, kPa

= Effective angle of internal friction, degrees

col
= Effective angle of internal friction of the stabilised soil, degrees
col, res = Residual effective angle of internal friction, degrees
soil
= Effective angle of internal friction of the unstabilised soil, degrees
u
= Total angle of internal friction, degrees
u,c
= Characteristic total angle of internal friction, degrees
c = Characteristic effective angle of internal friction, degrees
u, col = Total angle of internal friction of the stabilised soil, degrees
u, col, res = Residual total angle of internal friction of the stabilised soil, degrees
u, soil = Total angle of internal friction of the unstabilised soil, degrees
= Load distribution factor
fd = Drained shear strength, kPa
fd, col = Drained shear strength of stabilised soil, kPa
fd, soil = Drained shear strength of unstabilised soil, kPa
fuo = Initial undrained shear strength, kPa
fu = Undrained shear strength, kPa
f, col = Shear strength of stabilised soil, kPa
fu, col = Undrained shear strength of stabilised soil, kPa
f, soil = Shear strength of unstabilised soil, kPa
fu,s oil = Undrained shear strength of unstabilised soil, kPa
col = Poissons ratio for the stabilised soil
soil = Poissons ratio for the unstabilised soil

15. CO'TE'T
0. SUMMARY
0.1. Applications of Lime and Lime/Cement Columns
0.2. Strength and Deformation Properties.
0.3. Design of Lime and Lime/Cement Columns
0.4. Construction of Lime and Lime/Cement Columns
1. CO'TE'T OF KEY-'OTE LECTURE

2. APPLICATIO'S OF LIME A'D LIME/CEME'T

COLUM'S
2.1. General
174

2.1.1. Applications in Sweden and Finland.

2.2. Stabilisation of Road and Railroad Embankments, Dikes, Airfields,

Fills and Caissons
2.2.1. Road and Railroad Embankments.
2.2.2. Dikes for Irrigation and Flood Protection
2.2.3. Breakwaters and Quay Walls.
2.3. Low-Cost Housing, Housing Developments, Warehouses and Light
Industrial Buildings.
2.3.1.Foundation of Buildings and Light Structures.
2.4.2. Excavations.
2.5. Slope Stabilization.
2.5.1. Stabilization of Slopes Using Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement
Columns.
2.6. Pipe Jacking.
2.6.1.Excavations for Pipe Jacking
2.7. Bridge Abutments, Retaining Walls, Quay Walls and Revetments,.
2.7.1. General.
2.7.2. Quay Walls.
2.7.3. Bridge Abutments.
2.7.4. Retaining Walls.
2.8.Tunnels.
2.8.1.Stabilization of Tunnels.
2.9. Traffic Vibrations and Vibrations Caused by Blasting and Pile Driving.
2.9.1.Reduction of Traffic Vibrations.
2.10. Stabilisation of Excavated and Dredged Materials.
2.10.1 Stabilisation of Excavated Material and Spoil.
2.10.2. Stabilisation of Dredged Material
2.11. Prevention of Liquefaction.
2.11.1. Reduction of Liquefaction Potential

3. PROPERTIES OF SOFT SOIL STABILISED WITH LIME,

LIME/CEME'T, CEME'T A'D OTHER ADDITIVES
3.1. Physical Properties.
3.1.1. General.
3.1.2. Grain Size Distribution.
3.1.3. Density.
3.1.4. Liquid and Plastic Limits, Plasticity Index.
3.1.5. Water Content.
3.1.6. Volume Changes.
175

3.2. Shear Strength

3.2.1. General.
3.2.2. Undrained Shear Strength.
3.2.3. Undrained Shear Strength with Lime.
3.2.4. Undrained Shear Strength with Lime/Cement.
3.2.5. Undrained Shear Strength with Cement.
3.2.6. Undrained Shear Strength with Gypsum and Flyash.
3.2.7. Undrained Shear Strength with Blast Furnace Slag.
3.2.8. Undrained Shear Strength with Rice Husk Ash.
3.3. Drained Shear Strength.
3.3.1. General
3.3.2. Drained Shear Strength with Lime.
3.3.3. Drained Shear Strength with Lime/Cement and Cement.
3.3.4. Drained Shear Strength with Gypsum.
3.3.5. Effective Cohesion ccol.
3.3.6. Water/Cement Ratio.
3.3.7. Residual Shear Strength.
3.3.8. Failure Strain and Ductility.
3.3.9. Increase of Shear Strength with Time.
3.3.10. Increase of the Shear Strength with Time of Lime.
3.3.11. Increase of the Shear Strength with Time of Lime/Cement and
Cement.
3.3.12. Increase of the Shear Strength with Time for Gypsum, Flyash, Lime
and other Additives
3.4. Long-Term Performance of Columns Stabilised with Lime,
Lime/Cement, Cement and other Additives
3.4.1. General
3.4.2. Deterioration Caused by Carbonisation
3.4.3. Deterioration Caused by Sulphite
3.4.4. Deterioration Caused by Cyclic and Dynamic Loading
3.5. Tensile Strength
3.5.1. Tensile Strength of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns.
3.6. Compression Modulus, Modulus of Elasticity and Shear Modulus.
3.6.1. Compression Modulus, M.
3.6.2. Modulus of Elasticity, E
3.7. Permeability
3.7.1. General
3.7.2. Permeability with Lime.
3.7.3. Permeability with Lime/Cement.
3.7.4. Permeability with Cement.
3.7.5. Permeability with Gypsum.
3.8. Ground Temperature.
3.8.1. Heat Generation.
176

3.8.2. Ground Temperature with Lime Columns.

3.8.3. Ground Temperature with Lime/Cement Columns.
3.8.4. Ground Temperature with Cement Columns
3.8.5. Ground Temperature with Granulated Blast Furnace Slag.
3.8.6. Effect of the Ground Temperature on Shear Strength.

3.9. Ground Pollution

3.9.1. Contamination by Heavy Metals
3.9.2. Contamination by Stabilisers.

4. CHOICE OF STABILISATIO' METHOD.

4.1. Stabilisation of Organic and Inorganic Soils
4.1.1. General
4.1.2. Stabilisation of Inorganic Soils.
4.1.3. Stabilisation of Organic Soils.
4.1.4. Stabilisation of Dy and Gyttja.
4.1.5. Stabilisation of Soils with a High Sulphide Content
4.1.6. Stabilisation of Peat.
4.1.7. Mass Stabilisation.

5. BEHAVIOUR OF SI'GLE COLUM'S

5.1 Analysis of Single Columns.
5.1.1. Bearing Capacity of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns.
5.1.2. Short-Term Ultimate Bearing Capacity
. 5.1.3. Long-Term Ultimate Bearing Capacity.
5.1.4. Bearing Capacity of Columns with Weak Sections
5.1.5. Residual Bearing Capacity
5.1.6. Creep Strength of Columns.
5.1.7. Analysis of Single Columns
5.1.8. Transfer Length
5.1.9. Stress Factor m
5.1.10. Load Distribution
5.1.11. Lateral Displacement of Single Columns
5.1.12. Shear Resistance of Single Columns
5.1.13. Failure Modes of Single Columns
5.1.14. Failure of Single Cantilever Columns
5.1.15. Behavior of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns as Short Dowels
5.1.16. Shear Resistance of Laterally Displaced Point Bearing Single Columns
5.1.17. Effect of Weak Column Sections

5.2. Progressive Failure

5.2.1. Progressive Failure of Lime and Lime/Cement Columns
5.2.2. Relative Displacement
5.2.3. Stress Distribution
5.2.4. Failure of an Embankment on the Island of Orust, Sweden
5.2.5. Test Embankment at Horrala, Sweden
177

6. BEHAVIOUR OF COLUM' ROWS

6.1 Stability of Column Rows
6.1.1. Failure Modes
6.1.2. Extrusion Failure of Column Rows
6.1.3. Shear Failure of Column Rows.
6.1.4. Separation Failure of Column Rows.
6.1.5. Dowel Action of Column Rows.
6.1.6. Overturning of Column Rows.

7. COLUM' GRIDS, ARCHES A'D BLOCKS

7.1. Behaviour of Column Grids, Arches and Blocks.

7.1.1. General
7.1.2. Column Blocks.
7.1.3. Column Arches.
7.1.4. Column Grids.

8. SETTLEME'T OF BUILDI'GS A'D OF OTHER

STRUCTURES
8.1. Settlement Calculations
8.1.1. Settlement of Single Columns and Column Groups.
8.1.2. Observed Settlements
8.1.3. Settlements at Sk-Edeby.
8.2. Differential Settlements.
8.2.1. Calculation of Differential Settlements
8.3. Columns as Drains
8.3.1. Consolidation Rate.
8.3.2. Coefficient of Consolidation.
8.3.3. Well Resistance for Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns

9. DESIG' OF LIME, LIME/CEME'T A'D CEME'T

COLUM'S
9.1. Design Considerations.
9.1.1. Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States (ULS and SLS)
9.1.2. Cost.
9.1.3. Short and Long-Term Conditions
9.1.4. Method of Analysis
9.1.5. Location of Columns
9.1.6. Required Lime Content.
9.1.7. Required Lime/Cement Content
9.1.8. Required Cement Content.
9.1.9. Required Content of Flyash, Gypsum, Blast Furnace Slag, Coal Ash and
other Stabilisers.
9.1.10. Coefficient of Variation.
178

9.1.11. Global Factor of Safety

9.1.12. Load and Partial Safety Factors
9.1.13. Characteristic Undrained Shear Strength.
9.1.14. Characteristic Drained Shear Strength
9.1.15. Ductility
9.1.16. Method of Analysis
9.1.17. Failure Modes
9.1.18. Progressive Failure
9.1.19. Settlement Calculations.
9.1.20. Loading of Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Columns

9.2. Design of Embankments, Slopes, Trenches and Excavations

9.2.1. Embankments,
9.2.2. Trenches.
9.2.3. Slopes
9.2.4. Excavations.

10. FIELD A'D LABORATORY I'VESTIGATIO'S

10.1. Test methods
10.1.1. Field Tests.
10.1.2. Laboratory Tests.
10.1.3. Unconfined Compression, Direct Shear and Triaxial Tests.
10.1.4. Fall-Cone and Vane Tests.
10.1.5. Penetrometer, Pressiometer and Pocket Penetrometer Tests.
10.1.6. Preparation of Samples.
10.1.7. Storage of Samples.
10.1.8. Testing of Samples.
10.1.9. Test Columns.

11. I'STALLATIO' OF LIME, LIME/CEME'T A'D CEME'T

COLUM'S
11.1. Installation Methods.
11.1.1. General.
11.1.2. Lime, Lime/Cement and Cement Column Machines.
11.1.3. Specifications for Lime and Cement.
11.1.4. Mixing Tool.
11.1.5. Retrieval Rate of Mixing Tool.
11.1.6. Rotational Velocity of Mixing Unit.
11.1.7. Air Pressure during Mixing.
11.1.8. Column Diameter and Length.
11.1.9. Lateral Displacement and Heave During Installation.
11.1.10. Storage of Lime and Cement.
11.1.11. Safety Measures.

12. CO'TROL METHODS

12.1. Field and Laboratory Tests.
179

12.1.1. Extent of Testing.

12.1.2. Testing of Single Columns.
12.1.3. Checking of Column Rows, Blocks and Grids.
12.1.4. Checking of Column Groups.
12.1.5. Extent of Checking.
12.1.6. Documentation.
12.1.7. Retrieval of Columns.
12.1.8. Excavation of Columns.
12.1.9. Column Penetration Tests ( KPS).
12.1.10. Reversed Column Penetration Tests (FOPS).
12.1.11. Other Penetration Testing Methods.
12.1.12. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT).
12.1.13. Swedish Weight Sounding Method (WST).
12.1.14. Cone Penetration Tests (CPT and CPTU).

12.1.15. Pocket penetrometer, Fall-Cone and Pocket Vanes

12.1.16. Dynamic Penetration Tests.
12.1.17. Soil/Rock Soundings.
12.1.18. Field Vane Tests.
12.1.19. Plate Load Tests.
12.1.20. Pressuremeter Tests.
12.1.21. Dilatometer Tests.
12.1.22. Sonic and Resistivity Testing Methods.
12.1.23. Coring.

180