Project Paper - ORIGINAL

INTRODUCTION Page |1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
India, where the modern generation is claiming a fast and imperative infrastructure
development for the overall development of the nation, there is a need to expand the
construction activities in a large scale. Hence, now a days the construction activities have
been expanded to the zones with poor subsoil conditions also. The use of land in such weak
strata challenges geotechnical engineers by the presence of various problematic soils with
various different engineering characteristics. Pile foundations can be used in large scale
projects but in case of small-scale projects where the soil can have some settlement an
alternative technique is needed for improving the ground characteristics. The type of soil
plays a major role behind the mechanics of ground improvement. A method for increasing the
strength of the weak foundation soil is the inclusion of cylindrical columns which are made
up of a material having higher strength characteristics.
Stone column serves as one of the best applications. Stone columns are successfully used
to support the earthen embankments, LPG storage tanks, raft foundations, bridge approach
fills, to increase stability of slopes and to reduce the liquefaction potential of loose cohesion
less soil. But stone columns have got less stiffness and their strength depends upon the
confinement provided by the surrounding soils. Hence, these columns are not suitable in soft
soils, organic soils and peat. To overcome these limitations of granular column a new
technique of using soil stabilizer as columns is introduced. Soil with lime and cement is
vastly used currently for increasing strength of the pavement. Lime being cheaper and by
product of various companies is used most.
The main aim of this thesis is to work with the same concepts of stone column but instead
of granular backfill soil-lime columns are used. The installation and basic assumptions are the
same as the stone column. A number of soil-lime columns are to be studied with various
percentage of lime mixed with the soil.
The soil-lime column is having more stiffness as compared with the surrounding clay and
ultimately it acts as reinforcement for the weak soil. Column supported embankment is one of
the main areas of application of soil-lime columns and it is very useful when the construction
time is short.
1.2 FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF STABILIZATION
When dry un-slacked or quick lime is mixed with the high to very high moisture content
clay soils a combination of beneficial chemical and physical reactions and products occur.
These include cat-ion exchange, ion crowding, flocculation, agglomeration and pozzolanic
cementation. The extent of these reactions and products depend upon the quantity of quick
lime added. One of the first reactions to occur in the clay water system is between quick lime
and water.
CaO + H2O = Ca (OH)2 + Heat
The resulting hydrated lime, Ca (OH)2 adds free calcium and hydroxyl anions to the clay
water system. Cation exchange can then proceed with an abundance of calcium cat-ions in
the elevated pH environment created from excess hydroxyl anions in the system.
Complex reactions of hydrous silica and alumina, dissolved from clay particles in a high
pH environment, with calcium ions from gradually hardening cementitious material. As long
as the pH remains above approximately 10, the reactions continue, but dissolution of silica
and alumina is a hydroxyl consuming process. Adequate quick lime must be introduced into
the system initially to allow for hydroxyl consumption (pH lowering) to occur over a long
period of time in order for strength to continue to gain
Heat produced from the exothermic quick lime and water reaction also accelerate
hydration reactions in-situ mixing allows adjacent under treated soil to provide constant
sources of moisture and cool temperature which are ideal for curing conditions.
1.3 SOIL-LIME COLUMN
The technique of soil - lime column was considered as an alternative to rigid inclusion
and stone column. Actually, the stone column was generally assumed to be too soft in terms
of stiffness and bearing capacity and the rigid inclusions are too stiff, the soil-lime columns
represents the intermediate case which provides better homogenous distribution of load on
the sub-grade layer and provides almost uniform settlement profile. Soil with certain lime
content is mixed and placed inside the columns. Deep mixing is also another type of
placement of columns. This method mixes in situ soil with hardening agent by augers. It can
be accomplished by wet or dry method. In wet method, binder is used in a slurry form, while
dry method uses the binder in a powder form.
1.4 LIME
Lime: Lime can be used to treat soils to varying degrees, which depends on the objective
of a particular project. The least amount is used to dry and treat soils, which provides a
working technique, which produces permanent structural stabilization of soils. Most lime
used for soil treatment is high calcium lime, which contains magnesium oxide or hydroxide.
Lime can be applied in the form of quick lime (calcium oxide – CaO), hydrated lime (calcium
hydroxide Ca [OH]2) or lime slurry to treat the soil. Hydrate lime is created when quick lime
reacts with water. This hydrated lime reacts with clay particle and transform them into a
strong cementitious matrix.
1.5 TERMINOLOGY
 Ultimate load: The maximum load which the column can carry before failure of the
ground or column material, whichever is lower (IS -15284-2003).
 Safe load: Load derived by applying factor of safety on the ultimate load capacity of
the stone column or by the test.
 Factor of Safety: Ratio of the ultimate load capacity of a column to the safe load
capacity of the stone column.
 Allowable Load: The load which may be applied to a column after taking into account
its ultimate load capacity, allowable settlement etc.
 Working Load: The load assigned to a column as per design.
1.6 NEED FOR STUDY
Stone Column although a widely used technique, has its limitations. In case of very soft
soils these load bearing columns usually penetrate through the weak strata as it surrounding
soil has low confining strength. This lateral confinement may not be adequate and the
formation of the stone column itself may be doubtful. The surrounding soft soil will intrude
into the spaces in between the granular backfill material and also the backfill material will
move out of the column area, which causes the loss of backfill and the problem becomes even
worse when the column bulges as a result of highly compressible force from the ground. In
such cases denser backfill material like lime and cement can be used.
1.7 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The main objective of the study is to investigate the Load Vs Deformation characteristics
of the soil-lime columns experimentally and numerically. The Specific objectives of the study
includes
 To investigate the effect of lime content on bearing capacity improvement of soft soil.
 To compare the obtained results of soil-lime columns with improved ground.
 To find the optimum lime percentage for ground improvement.
LITERATURE REVIEW Page |5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
In this chapter review of literature on stone column and soil-lime column is described.
Many researchers have conducted experiments on stone columns in case of group to study the
various parameters. A few literatures available on soil-lime columns is also included. This
chapter includes both experimental analysis and numerical models. Hence a summary of the
results on the studies which they have done is presented.
2.2 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Summary of literature review is shown in Table 1
Table 1: Summary of literature review
Author Year Specification of Type of parameters Comments
work studied
Ahmed et al Soil-cement Number of columns, As water cement ratio
2013 column is used as length of columns increases the
column. and cement dosage compressive strength
rate. of the mixed soil
decreases.
Increasing the
replacement area ratio
results in more
improvement in the
soil.
Study of group The effect of load The group efficiency of
Al-Waily et 2012 efficiency of lime carrying capacity, stone column is more
al columns and stone shear strength and than that of lime
columns installing number of columns columns. Group
in soft clay. on group efficiency. efficiency decreases
with increase in
number of columns for
both lime and stone

columns.
Soft clay, sand, Relationship The load settlement
Ambily and 2007 granular stones as between axial stress behavior of a unit cell
Ghandhi back fill materials and settlement for with entire area loaded
and unit cell. different shear is almost linear.
PLAXIS 2D strength values, and Failure by bulging
software for S/D value. Study has occurs if the column
numerical studies. been conducted also area alone is loaded.
for determining the Single column test with
improvement of entire area loaded
stiffness. compare well with
group test results.
Optimum length Length of the Spacing between
Bora et al 2010 and effective column and spacing columns varies for a
spacing. of columns variation of 2.5 to 3.5
time the diameter.
Cemented Stiffness of the Inter-granular

Juran et al 1991 compacted sand reinforced soil, cementation
columns to settlement response. substantially increases
reinforce the soft the stiffness and
clay brittleness of the
compacted sand
improvement in the
settlement response by
the group effect of
reinforced clayey soil.
Compacted lime- Diameter of the Strength increases with
Malekpoor 2014 soil columns column (D), the diameter and area
and slenderness ratio replacement ratio for
Poorebrahim (L/D) and the area both floating and end
ration (Ar) bearing columns.
Modeling vibrated Length of the Capacity increases

McKelvey 2004 stone columns in column, number of until a length to
et al soft clay the columns, soil diameter of 6.
Lime and cement Settlement and Strength increases and
Melvin and 2001 were used as vertical stresses compressibility
Peter columns. decreases.
Time for the settlement
has been reduced
considerably.
Kaoline clay slurry, Effect of area ratio The main parameters
Shahu and 2011 angular Badarpur and lenth of columns affecting the group of
Reddy sand, cylindrical and thr effect of over floating foundations
tank. consolidation ration are the area ratio and
Abaqus software etc. over consolidation
for numerical Floating and ratio and normalized
studies. penetrating stone column length.
columns. As the relative density
increases the stiffness
increases and
settlement reduces.
More area ratio is
beneficial in reducing
the settlement and
increasing the failure
stress.
Tan et al Stone column in Relationship Column length is
2014 soft soil is analyzed between the number relevant only up to a
using the finite of columns and certain point, which
element package settlement may be considered as
PLAXIS 2D 2011 improvement factors critical length.
Settlement
improvement ratio
increases as the
footprint replacement
ratio increases.
2.3 REVIEW ON EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL MODELS

Ahmed et al (2013) studied ground improvement using various cement content of soil
samples obtained from Nile river in Egypt. Two soil samples were taken and studied. Tests
were performed in moulds have a constant diameter of 100 mm and a length of 150 mm so as
to have samples with a shape factor of 1:1.5. Parameters considered for the study are number
of columns, length of columns and cement dosage rate.
The test results are given below,
Strength of the cemented soils
 As the water cement ratio increases, the compressive strength of the mixed soil
decreases. This trend was the same for both types of the tested soils.
 The strength, stiffness and brittleness of the cemented soil increase with the increase
of cement dose.
Bearing capacity of the stabilized soil
 Increasing the replacement area ratio results in more improvement in the soil
behaviour.
 When the soil is improved by shorter columns, the increase in the replacement area
ratio results in a significant increase in the bearing capacity. Simultaneously, as the
replacement area ratio increases, the settlement reduction of the loaded area increases.
Al-Waily et al (2012) investigated the group efficiency of 16 models of lime and stone
column installed in soft clay. The group efficiency of stone column is defined as the ratio
between the city of each stone or lime column in group to the capacity of single column (Iime
or stone). The total of 16 model tests of soil treated with stone and lime columns were carried
out in cylindrical container to study the efficiency of stone and lime column groups beside
two mode tests of untreated soil for comparison purpose. The diameter of test columns was
30mm and the length to diameter ratio of the column was taken as equal to 9. The soil used
was inorganic sandy silty clay and the crushed stone used as the back fill material for stone
column, while the natural calcium carbonate (lime stone) was used as a back fill material for
lime columns. The test tank has a height of 350mm and diameter of 300mm and made of steel
plate of thickness 6mm. The thickness of soil bed inside the container was 270mm. the
foundation square plate have 120mm of side length and 5mm of thickness.
 The soil bed was prepared after determining the water content and un-drained shear
strength relation, by placing in layers inside the tank, each layer of 40mm. It left for
four days of curing period. Then position of the stone column was marked and using
an auger the soil up to the required length was taken out, and taken for water content
determination.
 Crushed stone and lime was poured in to the hole in layers and compacted gently
using a tamping rod of 10mm diameter. The stone columns and lime columns were
kept for 24 hrs. Before carrying out loading test.
 Then loading is done in the increments of SON. The load cell readings and settlement
readings were noted for each load increments were noted.
 For comparison purpose the tests were also performed on untreated soil sample.
The following are the results obtained from the experimental study:
 The group efficiency of the stone column is more as that of the lime column. For the
soils having same shear strength, tests were conducted on both stone column group
and lime column group. The results obtained shows that both have improved the soft
soil but the stone column group have more group efficiency.
 The soil treated with stone column carried higher load than the soil treated lime
column but when the shear strength is increased the soil -lime and soil cement system
behaved in contrary way.
 The results show that the group efficiency decreases with the increase in the number
of the columns for both lime and stone columns.
By increasing the shear strength of the soil the stone column group efficiency decreases and
in the case of lime column group the group efficiency increases with an increase in shear
strength of soil.
Ambily and Gandhi (2007) studied stone columns improved ground mainly due to higher
stiffness of the columns compared to the soil, hence the most critical factor which controls
the design of the stone column improved ground is the stiffness of the column and load
between column and soil. This paper deals with developing a design procedure considering
load sharing between columns and soil. The behaviour of interior stone columns among a
group of large number of stone columns are analysed by varying parameters like spacing
between the stone columns, shear strength of the clay, angle of internal friction of stone, etc
sharing.
LITERATURE REVIEW P a g e | 10
The analysis has been carried out using a unit cell concept. Deformations in the clay are
restrained within unit cell. Along the periphery of the group columns have deformations even
beyond unit cell and have a different behaviour which isn't considered in this paper. Detailed
experimental investigation is carried out on a single column and group of seven columns to
study the improvements achieved. The stress intensity on the column and the soil is measured
using pressure cells attached to the loading plate and the results are compared with that
obtained in FEM software PLAXIS.
The analysis and parametric study has been carried out assuming a drained condition of
the soft clay surrounding the columns. All experiments were carried out on a 100mm stone
column. Tank of diameter varying from 210mm to 835mm and height of 500mm. The group
of columns were installed in a triangular pattern. For singular column the diameter of the tank
taken was between 210 to 420 mm and for group of stone columns a diameter of 835 mm was
taken.
Two kinds of tests were conducted; one with the column alone loaded and the other with
the entire area loaded in which the former was used to determine the limiting axial stress of
the column and the later was used to study the stiffness of the improved ground. The shear
strength used in their study were 30, 14 and 7 kPa, and moisture content according to the
shear strengths determined using unconfined shear strength test.
FEM analysis was carried out in PLAXIS, axis symmetric analysis using Mohr-Coulomb
criterion for clay and stone. Drained behaviour is assumed for all the materials. Note that the
stress due to column construction is not considered.
The test results are given below, -

Single column: Column area alone is loaded
They have studied the relationship between axial stress and settlement for different shear
strength values (i.e., for 7, 14 and 30 kPa as mentioned earlier) of a single column with S
ratio of 2. Here S refers for the spacing and D is the diameter of the stone column.
Same relationship but for different values of S/D ratios with a particular shear strength
were also studied. The analysis is extended to study the effect of angle of internal friction of
stones by varying the value of angle of internal friction as 35°, 40o, 43° and 45o for different
S/D ratios which varies from 1.5 to 4. For entire area is loaded. This analysis targets at
improvement of the stiffness of the treated ground. The loading of the stone column and
surrounding soil represents almost the actual field condition for interior column of a large
group of stone columns. This test shows that when the entire area is loaded the failure will
not take place even at a settlement of 10mm.
They have studied the axial stress versus settlement relation and which is found to be
linear. So the stiffness of improved ground can be obtained from average slope of the plot.
They studied about the stiffness improvement factor, which is the ratio of stiffness of treated
ground to that of the untreated ground. And from their result it was obtained as this factor is
independent of the shear strength of surrounding clay and beyond S/D 3 there is no
significant improvement in the stiffness.
The interpretations are given below, -
 Failure by bulging occurs if the column region alone is loaded and the bulging is
about 0.5 times the diameter of the stone column.
 Whenever the spacing is increased the axial capacity of the column decreases and the
settlement increases and beyond an S/D ratio if 3 there is no significant increase in
settlement.
 The load settlement behaviour of a unit cell with whole area loaded is almost linear.
 Single column test with whole are loaded match well with group test results so this
concept can simulate field behaviour for an interior column when large number of
columns are all together.
Bora et al (2010) conducted studies to find out the optimum length of stone column and the
effective spacing. For that they have conducted a series of test on floating stone columns in
soft clay. The parameters varied were the length of stone column and the spacing between the
columns. The clay soil used was their locally available silty clay. The diameter of the stone
columns was 100 mm and the aggregates were crushed and its range was from 2mm to 10mm
The tank in which the experiment conducted were of 1m x 1m» L3m. And made of thick mild
steel. A steel plate of 150mm diameter and 30mm thick was used as a model foundation. The
depth of the test tank was 8.6 times the diameter of the footing and the distance between the
centres of the footing to side walls of the tank was found to be 3.3 times the footing diameter
So there won't be any boundary effect. The test series conducted were, on the soft clay bed
only, soft clay bed and stone column with varying spacing and other with varying the length
of the stone column.
The results obtained are given below, -
 The bearing capacity of the clay bed reinforced with stone column has a noticeable
effect as comparing to the bearing capacity of only soft soil.
 As the length to the diameter of stone column ratio increases the bearing pressure also
increases considerably. And the interesting fact was that, the remarkable effect was
seen when the length of stone column was in the range of 3 to 5 times the stone
column diameter.
 As the length of stone column increases its punching reduces and bulging occurs. The
bulging found to be negligible when the length of stone column was more than four
times the diameter of the stone columns.
 In case of the variation in spacing, as the spacing between the column decreases the
bearing pressure increases and this effect was found to be pronounced when the
spacing reduces from 3.5 times the stone column diameter to 2.5 times the stone
column diameter. Further increase in bearing pressure with the decrease in spacing
was found to be negligible.
 As this test was carried out on an un-drained condition so in the actual application in
field were the condition is drained, the bearing capacity could be much higher.
Juran and Riccobono (1991) conducted an experimental study to evaluate the feasibility of
using artificial cemented, compacted sand columns in the reinforcement of the soft cohesive
soils. The primary objective of the study was to investigate the effect of low-level
cementation on the global settlement response and load carrying capacity of a soft clayey soil
reinforced by;1) an isolated column. 2) a group of compacted stone columns. To achieve this
objective, tri-axial compression tests were conducted on composite-reinforced soil samples
made of annular, normally consolidated, kaolinite, reinforced at their centres by either
cemented or untreated columns of river sand. Tri-axial tests are performed on composite
reinforced soil specimens of 100 mm diameter under boundary conditions of, -
a) Constant radial confining pressure.

b) Zero lateral displacement at the external facing of the sample.
 The annular kaolin specimen was prepared by pre-consolidating the remoulded soil to
a liquid limit equal to moisture content twice the liquid limit, under a consolidation
pressure of 25 kPa.
 The cementation reduces the hydraulic conductivity of the natural sand, the effective
radial drainage prevented any generation of excess pore water pressure during
loading, this is because of the coupled reinforcing - cementation of drainage effects.
 The group effect on the global behaviour of the clay specimen reinforced with the
cemented sand column is quite similar to that observed in the specimen reinforced
with an untreated compacted-sand column.
 Under low axial strain (ex < 0.4%), the boundary conditions have almost no effect on
the global behaviour of the reinforced soil. As the axial strain increases, the lateral
expansion of the column and the soil is restrained by increasing the radial confining
pressure applied on the reinforced soil specimen.
Concluding remarks
 The intergranular cemetation substantially increases the stiffness and brittleness of the
compacted sand, implying severe limitations on the allowable axial strain of an
isolated column.
 In clayey soil reinforced by closely spaced columns, the group effect implies an
oedometric stress path at the boundaries of the tributary area of each column, and soil
thereby significantly modifies the settlement response of the composite- reinforced
soil.
 The increase of the confining stress at the soil-column interface, induced by the group
effect, results in a lower mobilization rate of the intergranular cementation bonding
strength, substantially increasing the ductility and large strain shear resistance of
cemented, compacted-sand column.
Kaur et al (2012) discussed the stabilization of soil with lime by varying the lime content.
Process of soil stabilization occurs when lime is added to a reactive soil to generate long-term
strength gain through a pozzolanic reaction. That reaction produces stable calcium silicate
hydrates and calcium aluminate hydrates as the calcium from the lime reacts with the
aluminates and silicates solubilized from the clay. This pozzolanic reaction can continue for a
very long period of time, even decades -- as long as enough lime is present and the pH
remains high (above 10). As a result of this, lime treatment can produce high and long-lasting
strength. Lime in the form of quicklime (calcium oxide-CaO), hydrated lime (calcium
hydroxide-CalOH]2), or lime slurry can be used to treat the soils.
Different tests are performed in this project are 1) Modified Procter Test, 2) Unconfined
Compressive Test, 3) Plasticity Index (PI). Among the tests performed with lime content of
3%, 6%, 9%. Soil which consists of 6% lime gave the highest Unconfined Compressive
Strength and OMC, MDD increased with increase in lime content.
Concluding remarks
 OMC increases with increase in percentage of Lime as Lime absorbs some water at
the start of reaction. The value of MDD decreases with increase in lime percentage.
 Soil gains compressive strength on addition of lime, but it continues only upto a
certain percentage of lime & than starts decreasing as with increase in percentage of
lime reactions b/w soil & lime starts decreasing & one point comes when all the
reactions completes & value of unconfined compression starts decreasing.
Malekpoor and Poorebrahim (2011) conducted large scale laboratory model tests to
investigate the behaviour of Compacted Lime-soil (CL-S) rigid stone columns in soft soils.
The unit cell idealization is used for contruction of composite specimens to evaluate the
influence of different paeameters such as the diameter of the column (D), the slenderness
ratio (L/D) and the area ratio (Ar).
Two experimental setups were used in this investigation. In the first setup, primary tests
were carried out to determine the properties of used materials and to specify the construction
method of the CL-S columns. In the second setup, main tests were conducted on composite
specimens to investigate the performance of CL-S columns on the behaviour of soft soils.
The experiments were carried out on columns with different diameters and different
slenderness ratios. The columns were surrounded by soft soil in cylindrical tanks of 300 to
1200 mm height, and diameters varying from 160 to 470 mm to represent the required unit
cell area of soft soil around each column assuming triangular pattern of installation. Hence,
the tests were conducted with four different area ratios. 5, 10, 15 and 20% which corresponds
to spacing of 4.3D, 3D, 2.5D and 2D, respectively (where D is the diameter of the column).
Experiments were carried out on both floating and end bearing columns. In specimens
containing floating columns, a layer of soft soil with thickness of 2D was used beneath the
column. A 50 mm thick sand layer was placed below the loading plate to serve as a blanket.
It has been stated that CL-S columns with different slenderness ratios increase the load
carrying capacity of the soft soils. When the L/D ratio is small (specimens containing shont
columns), the load carrying capacity is high, and as this ratio increases (specimens containing
slender columns), load carrying capacity of specimens decreases. However, as compared to
untreated clay bed, an improvement of 137% in load intensity has been observed, when the
clay bed is improved using floating CL-S columns with LD ratio of 8. This improvement is
267% for end bearing columns with the same LD ratio. The load carrying capacity decreases
with increasing the diameter, and the variations of load carrying capacity of specimens
reduces by increasing the size of the model. For instant, the change of the load intensity
(corresponding to 15 mm settlement) for floating columns of 50- and 75-mm diameter is 32%
and for columns with diameter of 125 mm and 150 mm is 11%.
Concluding remarks
 The CL-S columns exhibit a stiffer and stronger response com stone column installed
in soft soils.
 The load carrying capacity decreases by increasing the slenderness ratio and this ratio
has significant influence on the behaviour of end bearing columms.
 The load carrying capacity decreases by inereasing the size of models.
 The performance of CL-S column is remarkably enhanced by increasing the area
ratio.
McKelvey and Sivakumar (2004) studied the modelling of vibrated stone columns and
failure mechanisms through a series of laboratory model tests on a consolidated clay bed. The
tests were carried out in two different materials. They were: (a) transparent clay, otherwise as
Trinity College Dublin (TCD) transparent clay; and (b)commercialy available kaolin. The
TCD transparent clay is relatively new in soil modelling which is artificial soil, made up of
known silica, oil blend and Crystal light liquid paraffin. Its properties are similar to soft clay.
Model testing involving TCD were varied with circular and strip footing and length of
the column and number of columns. Results were found for 40mm settlement.
The test results are given below
 In the circular footing tests, an assessment of the load-bearing capacity at a footing

displacement of 20 mm indicated that the performance of the composite sample
increased by about 5% when the column length increased from 150 mm to 250 mm.
Bulging was not symmetrical about the axis of the columns. The main reason for this
is the interaction within the group and the restraint provided by neighbouring
columns.
 The deformation of the centre column was more uniform, whereas bulging and
bending in the edge columns occurred in the unrestrained direction.
 The maximum load-carrying capacity of the unreinforced clay bed was found to be
approximately 1.2 kN at a footing displacement of 38 mm. This increased to 2.8 kN
when the sand columns had been installed to a depth of 150 mm beneath the footing
This corresponds to an increase of 130% in the load-carrying capacity.
Conclusions
 Columns longer than about six times their diamcter did not scem to show further
increases in capacity.
 The stiflness of the clay layer increased when the sand columns were present, and
increased further as the length of the columns increased.
 Beneath the rigid footing, supported on long columns, the columns accepted a higher
proportion of the applied load than the intervening clay, whercas in the footing
supported on short columns, the stress concentration ratio was significantly small.
Melvin and Peter (2001) had background for lime cement column process and some with
other deep stabilization processes are presented. The specific use to support a vertical
mechanically stabilized earth wall between İ 0 and 12.5 m high is described. The wall was
constructed without the need for "'staged" construction and has exhibited no significant
comparisons shear deformations and only small settlements.
 Lime and cement, in proportions seleceted to provide the strength required for each
particular application, are injected in the ground under air pressure of between 200
kPa and 800 kPa, depending up on the depth of the column.
 The column of soil mixed with lime and cement that is formed using the currently
available tools unslaked lime (quicklime) mixed with cement is the most common
additive used in the process. Quicklime is added to the soil to increase the ductility of
the columns.
 The strength of the column produced is a function of a number of variables including
the quality of the aggregate, the water content, water cement ratio, the strength
provided by hydration and pozzalonic reaction, etc.
Cost, Strength and Compressibility, -

The use of lime cement column for ground stabilization is not a remedy or solution for all
soft ground conditions. It is appropriate where modest strength and modest cost are desired
and where sufficient water is present in the ground to hydrate both the lime and +the cement.
The relative cost of this method with comparison to other is listed below.
The total cost of stabilization is related to the spacing of the columns required to
provide the needed stabilization, the need for stabilization through the construction of panels,
and the cost. Stabilization of a mass of ground by the construction of lime cement columns
can be expected to reduce the compressibility of the soil mass (not just of the column) by a
factor of about 5 and to decrease the time for settlement to occur under load by a factor of
about 4 to 5. The reduction in compressibility of the soil mass results from the introduction of
columns that have a much higher modulus than the untreated soil.
The stiff columns accumulate load, much as do the reinforcing bars in a concrete column, and
reduce the stress on the untreated soil. Similarly, the time for settlement is reduced because
the stiffiness of the composite mass has been increased, with little or no change in the
permeability of clay that has been stabilized. The unconfined compression test is the index
that used to determine the effect of lime cement treatment, it is only considered as an index
test because it is understood that curing the treated soil in the ground, where the columns are
subjected to in-situ stresses that will increase the column strength above the strength that
determined in laboratory.
Results obtained, -
 Total settlement of the stabilized ground under the applied wall loads was estimated
during design as between about 200 and 300 mm.
 The stress measurement indicate that the vertical stress applied by the fill about 200
250 kPa is distributed between the relatively stiff columns and the weaker soils in
general accordance with their relative stiffness.
 About 40 kPa were found to be transmitted into the soil and about 400 kPa were
found transmitted to the columns.
 The paper concludes that, the lime cement column stabilized weak ground have an
increased but moderate strength and a substantially reduced compressibility. The total
setlement under the lond has been rehuced signmificantly by the lime cement column
tabilization and also the time for the total settlement has also been reduced
considerably.
Shahu and Reddy (2011) conducted studies on stone column. Stone columns are used for
ling settlement and support structures which may tolerate some settlement (structures like
storage tank, abutment, embankments, etc.). They are constructed cither fully penetrating or
as a foating column Physicnl modelling plays a fundamental role in development of
geotechnical understanding. Model test provide an alternative way to directly reflect the
behaviour of prototype under simulated conditions which are used for validation purpose.
Actual loading conditions of prototype resemble more to the load-controlled loading.
 In this paper load controlled, fully drained model tests on group of stone column mat
foundation of known effective stress state are presented.
 All the tests are conducted in the lab at constant temperature and humidity.
 Effects of various group foundation parameters such as aren ratio and length of
columns are studied in their work.
 Test results are compared with 3D finite element analysis of the model foundation.
In the model tests were performed in Perspex cylindrical tank of 300mm diameter and a wall
thickness of 10mm and with a depth of 600mm. The depth of the clayey layer was equal to
300 mm. Tank boundary is determined based on the fact that the induced stress should be
insignificant at tank boundaries.
 Assuming an equivalent footing located at two third depths of the columns and 2:1
spread. At a depth equal to twice the width of the foundation, the induced stress may
be approximately equal to 1 1 % of applied stress. So at tank boundaries the induced
stress becomes insignificant.
 The tests were mostly conducted on a 13 mm diameter column. Two tests were
conducted on 25 mm diameter column. The length of the column was 100 mm for
floating and 150 mm for fully penetrating columns. The area ratios were 10, 20 and
30%.
 Constant footing diameter of 100 mm and mat thickness of 20mm were used.
 Silicon grease applied on the inner surface of the tank. And its bottom contains sand
filter with drainage outlets.
 The clayey bed was prepared by consolidation and gradually increased the step
loading under double drainage path. For the consolidation phase it took
approximately 20-25 days.
 After that the bed was unloaded. Thus, the stone columns were installed by
replacement method (in a square pattern). Over the stone column the granular mat
was laid and then compacted to a relative density of 80 %.
 The footing load was applied in 10-14 equal load increment of 15 kPa under double
drainage path until the failure occur.
ABAQUS was the software used for the finite element analysis and modified Cam-clay
model was used for clayey soil and Mohr Coulomb's perfectly clastic perfectly plastic model
was used for the stones and mat.
 From normalized applied vertical stress versus normalized settlement graph, the
settlement decreases as the area ratio increases, owing to the corresponding increase
in the stiffness of the foundation.
 So, more area ratio is beneficial in reducing the settlement and increasing the failure
stress.
 From the 25 mm column test with area ratios 25 % and 30 %, both the stiffness and
the strength and the failure stress of the foundation increases with increase in the
normalized column length.
 The effect of sand in its physical state also affects the scttlement, as the settlement of
the column constructed with moist sand is higher comparing with that of the column
constructed with dry sand.
 As the relative density increases the stiffness increaes and settlement reduces and this
effect is insignificant at low level of applied stress and appreciable only near failure
stress levels.
 Same effect has seen with the increase in over consolidation ratio, i.e., as OCR
increases the settlement decreases.
Tan et al (2014) mainly concentrates on investigating the behaviour of small groups of

columns by establishing the relationship between the number of columns and the settlement
improvement factors. Two-dimensional concentric ring approach is adopted. This 2D
approach is validated by comparing the results with a 3D model.
Numerical model: Finite element software package PLAXIS 2D 2011 was used to analyse the
spread footing supported by group of columns. The following are the important fentures in
this model study. Axis symmetrical concentric ring model is used in this study, which
converts the off-centre columns to cylindrical equivalent rings. The properties in the ring
elements are kept the same as the stone column material while the radius and thickness of the
rings are calculated so that the area ratio between column and the footings remains the same.
All columns studied are floating type, the length of the columns is a key variable in
settlement design of stone columns to support spread footings. The standard boundary
conditions in the model were assumed such that the vertical boundaries are free vertically and
constrained horizontally while the bottom horizontal boundary is fully fixed. Ground water
table is located just below the granular bed which represents the worst case. The analysis
considered was drained for all simulations.
The reliability of the ring model is validated through 3D model using Plaxis 3D 2011. To
compensate for the lower order elements used in the 3D model, finer meshes are used. Here
square footing with equivalent area is used instead of circular footing. Good matching results
are obtained for both models, which proves the ability of ring model to reproduce the
behaviour of stone column reinforced ground. The figure below shows a plot which shows
the comparison of 2D ring model and a 3D model.
The first part of the analysis looked into the influence of column length over the settlement
performance. Column length is relevant only up to a certain point, beyond that point,
increasing the length of the columns, L confers no advantage. In this paper studies were
conducted to search the existence of critical length and the relationship of critical column
length with size of footings. The zone which is directly under the footing undergoes plastic
straining ever low stress level especially when low footprint replacement ratio is adopted.
The second thing is that as loading intensity increases, the replacement ratio also increases.
Lastly, the optimum length ratio, □opt, is slightly higher for low footprint replacement ratio
than for high replacement ratio but the difference is rather small.
Figure 1: Comparison of 2D ring model and 3D model at column optimum length for
groups of 4 columns and 16 columns.
The conclusions are
 The geometry of footing governs the depth of stress influence. However, higher
footprint replacement ratio encourages load transfer to a greater depth and thus
increases the optimum length.
 Settlement improvement increases as the footprint replacement ratio increases but the
magnitude of improvement is smaller than the improvement factors obtained through
unit cell model. The relationship between footprint replacement ratio and settlement
improvement factor has been established. It was found that by maintaining the
footprint replacement ratio regardless of number of columns, the settlement
improvement factors obtained are about the same especially when the load levels are
small.
S. Shrestha, J.C. Chai, Y. Kamo (2015) did their studies on A centrifuge model test of
embankment on column improved clayey ground has been simulated by three-dimen-sional
(3D) finite element analysis (FEA). Both measured and simulated results indicate that when
the column is very stiff and strong, the columns tend to fail by overturning, while for weaker
columns, they tend to fail by bending. The maximum bending moment in the model column
is about 0.95 N-m, and for the cross-section geometry of the column, a maximum tensile
stress of 1224 kN/m2 can be estimated. This value is much higher than the tensile strength of
soil-cement column of about 100 kN/m2 which implies possible bending failure mode.
The centrifuge model tests were performed at the Port and Airport Research Institute,
Japan (Kitazume and Maruyama, 2007). The centrifuge test Case 3 consisted of a box with
di-mensions of 0.7 m in length, 0.2 m in width and 0.6 m in depth such that the height of the
embankment was 0.2 m and the subsoil consisted of 0.2 m thick soft clay layer, underlain by
a 0.2 m thick dense sand layer. This model ground was subjected to centrifugal acceleration
of 50 g. The model ground was improved by five rows of acrylic columns with an inner
diameter of 16 mm, and an outer diameter of 19 mm and a length of 0.2 m installed under the
embankment slope in a square pattern with a spacing of 33 mm. The flexural rigidity of the
acrylic pipe, EI, was 9.3 Nm2 with young’s modulus of 2.92 GN/m2. The annular acrylic
pipe was filled with a small steel rod and silicon to make the self-weight of pipe close to the
model ground. In 3D FEA, the column was modeled as a solid one with a square cross-
sectional area. When converting the cross-section, the annular acrylic pipe filled with silicon
and small steel rod was considered as a solid cylinder. The column was defined as a linear
elastic material with modulus of 1000 MN/m2 and an equivalent width of B= 16.7 mm from
equal EI condition. Ten-node tetrahedron elements were used to model the whole geometry
of the model. The material pa-rameters used in 3D analysis are shown in Table 1. The nu-
merical simulation was performed using (PLAXIS 3D 2013).
The centrifuge model test of embankment on soft clay ground with columns has been
simulated by three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA). The simulated results
have good agreement with the centrifuge test results in terms of lateral displacements,
settlements and bending moments. The measured and simulated results indicated that
columns with low modulus have bending failure mode whereas columns with high modulus
failed by overturning. The maximum bending moment in the model column was about 0.95
N-m in a centrifuge scale which corresponded maximum tensile stress of about 1224 kN/m2
in the column and exceeded the tensile strength for ordinary DCM columns.
Takenori HINO et al (2012) concentrates on the The field strengths of cement/lime treated
clays were investigated in the Ariake Sea costal lowlands. The deposition environment of the
investigation location is reconstructed and compared to the present ground environment. The
mechanism of the ground environment changes and its effect on the strength of cement/lime
treated soil are discussed. The strength development of improved soil using cement and lime
in different curing environments was investigated in the laboratory for studying the effect of
environment change on the strength also. It has been found that the strength deterioration of
improved soil in deep mixing method is due to 1) the ground environment changes due to the
secondary oxidation which results in low pH value and high organic content, and 2) the
formations of the porous structures result from the elution of the calcium ions. Also, it has
been found that the initial strength increase of the improved soil is related to the dissolved
silica and that the dissolution of the silica in clay minerals needs long time. When examining
the longterm strength for preventing strength degradation, the effect of environmental change
has to be considered. The importance of measuring pH and oxidation-reduction potential
(ORP) of the ground for cement/lime solidification method is explained.
In the Ariake Sea coastal lowlands, a thick, highly sensitive and compressible soft clay
layer was deposited during the Holocene series (from 10000 years ago to the present) [1].
This soft clay layer requires the measures to improve its mechanical properties for
engineering use. The stabilization is mainly chemical solidification/stabilization and
promotion of physical consolidation which have been used in Japan for 50 and 70 years [2].
However, many unsatisfactory results have been reported. In this paper, the field strength of
cement/lime treated clays in deep mixing method was investigated in the Ariake Sea costal
lowlands, and the reason of solidification failure is interpreted based on the results of the
environmental change in Quaternary period. The ground environment of the investigation
location during the early formative period is reconstructed and compared to the present
ground environment, and the mechanism of the ground environment change is discussed.
Then the strength development of improved soil using cement and lime in different curing
environments was investigated in the laboratory for studying the effect of environment
change on the strength in deep mixing solidification. Assuming pozzolanic reaction of the
improved soil depends on the clay minerals, the strength properties and the elution
characteristics were examined. Based on the in-situ investigation and laboratory test results,
the mechanism of environment changes on the strength deterioration of cement/lime treated
clays is discussed, and the long-term strength change of the improved soil is also discussed.
A. Zahmatkesh & A. J. Choobbasti (2010) investigates the performance of stone columns

in soft clay. Finite element analyses were carried out to evaluate settlement of soft clay
reinforced with stone columns using 15-noded triangular elements using Plaxis software. A
drained analysis was carried out using Mohr-Coulomb’s criterion for soft clay, stones, and
sand. At the interface between the stone column and soft clay, interface elements have been
used. The column installation was simulated for calculating the stresses due to compaction of
soil. From numerical results, coefficient of lateral earth pressure after the installation of stone
column and the settlement reduction ratio (SRR) of the soil has been estimated. On the bases
of this analysis, variation of stress in soft soil after installation of column with distance from
column is significantly reduced. The results are compared with those available in the
literature and the advantages of the numerical analysis were highlighted.
The existing soil on a given site may not be suitable for supporting the desired facilities
such as buildings, bridges, dams and so on because safe bearing capacity of a soil may not be
adequate to support the given load. To improve these soil types to allow building and other
heavy construction, it is necessary to create stiff reinforcing elements in the soil mass. A
number of these techniques have been developed in the last fifty years. The mechanics of
ground improvement depends largely on the type of soil. A method for increase of strength is
the incorporation into a weak foundation soil of cylindrical inclusions (columns) made up of
a material having higher strength characteristics, will obviously result in an increase of its
bearing capacity. Considering for instance a soft clay with a relatively low shear strength, two
kinds of column reinforcement techniques might be envisaged: the ‘stone column’ technique
which consists in introducing within the soft clay a vibrocompacted stone or ballast material,
the friction angle of which may exceed 40 and the ‘lime column’ technique obtained from
mixing the weak soil mass with a given percentage of lime or lime–cement, thus producing a
considerable increase of the soil initial shear strength (up to 20 times), together with a
relatively small friction angle[1].The stone column technique, also known as vibro-
replacement or vibro-displacement, is a ground improvement process where vertical columns
of compacted aggregate are formed through the soils to be improved. These columns result in
considerable vertical load carrying capacity and improved shear resistance in the soil mass.
Stone columns are installed with specialized vibratory probes. The vibrator first penetrates to
the required depth by vibration and air or water jetting or by vibration alone. Gravel is then
added at the tip of the vibrator and progressive raising and repenetration of the vibrator
results in the gravel being pushed into the surrounding soil. The installation of stone column
is accompanied by vibration and horizontal displacement of soil. Many of the researchers for
considering horizontal displacement of soil during the installation of stone column, post-
installation coefficient of earth pressure, k*, considered more than k0, where k0 is coefficient
of lateral earth pressure at rest [2, 3-5]. Elshazly et.al [6] presented the interesting relation
between the inter-column spacing and k* in vibro-installation technique. This relation was
inferred from analyses for load settlement records of various field load tests, performed for
stone columns arrangements with different inter-column spacing values. A well-documented
case history, involving three columns' patterns along with their relevant field and laboratory
test results, was utilized for this study. Moreover, a well-tested-coupled finite element model
was employed in the analysis. The analysis is inversely posed to determine the soil initial
stresses, based on the recorded settlements and the post-installation material properties. Many
of the researchers have developed theoretical solutions for estimating bearing capacity and
settlement of reinforced foundations by stone columns [8-10]. Priebe [2] proposed a method
to estimate the settlement of foundation resting on the infinite grid of stone columns based on
unit cell concept. In this concept, the soil around a stone column for area represented by a
single column, depending on column spacing, is considered for the analysis. As all the
columns are simultaneously loaded, it is assumed that lateral deformations in soil at the
boundary of unit cell are zero. The settlement improvement factor is derived as a function of
area ratio and angle of internal friction of column material. The calculation of the
improvement factor was done by considering the stone columns material is incompressible
and column is based on a rigid layer (end-bearing). Priebe [7] considered the effect of
compressibility of the column material and the overburden. He developed design charts to
calculate the settlement of single and strip footing reinforced by a limit number of stone
columns. Poorooshasb and Meyerhof [8] proposed the performance ratio, which is defined as
the ratio of the settlement of the improved ground to unimproved ground under identical
surcharges. They considered linear elastic behavior for stone column. Balaam et al. [9]
proposed a finite-element approach for soft clay treated with granular piles and reported the
effect of stiffness of granular pile on load deformation behavior. Ambily and Grandhi [10]
conducted experimental and numerical analysis on singles and groups of stone columns. They
presented improvement factor without considering stress due to installation of stone column.
Han and Ye [11] developed a simplified and closed form solution for estimating the rate of
consolidation of the stone column reinforced foundations accounting for the stone column
soil modular ratio. Guetif et al. [12] the installation of stone column in soft clay simulated by
adopting a composite cell model. They reported that the improvement of the Young modulus
of soft clay, due to the consolidation caused by the installation of the vibrocompacted
column, should be considered in the design procedure.
This paper is presented in the following sequences. First, the simulation of stone
column in soft soil in plain strain is introduced. Next, the simulation of the column
installation in soft clay by means of vibrocompaction technique is introduced. Finally,
settlement improvement factor is calculated and is compared with existing theories.
A series of numerical analysis has been carried out to evaluate compaction and
settlement of soil reinforced by a group of stone columns. The clay layer was assumed to be
uniform. The analyses employed an elastic–perfectly plastic constitutive model following the
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion. Based on the results of this numerical study, we can draw
the following conclusions:
 Variation of stress in soft soil after installation of column with distance from column
is significantly reduced.
 The load settlement behavior of model with an entire area loaded is almost linear and
it is possible to find the stiffness of improved ground.
 Effect of the strain on the SRR is small due to vertical stress versus settlement
relation is almost linear.
 Floating stone columns in high area replacement percent, because of used frictional
material significantly reduce the settlement.
Fattah, M. Y. et al (2011) did work in which laboratory experiments have been carried out
to study the value of the stress concentration ratio, n, which is defined as the ratio of vertical
stress acting on the stone column to that acting on the surrounding soil. A laboratory setup
was manufactured in which two proving rings are used to measure the total load applied to
the soil-stone column system and the individual load carried directly by the stone column.
The foundation steel plates have 220 mm diameter and 5 mm thickness. These plates contain
1, 2, 3, and 4 holes. The spacing between all the holes equals twice the stone column
diameter, D, center to center. The stone columns made of crushed stone were installed in very
soft clays having undrained shear strength ranging between 6 and 12 kPa. Two length to
diameter ratios L/D were tried, namely, L/D=6 and 8. The testing program consists of 30 tests
on single, two, three, and four columns to study the stress concentration ratio and the bearing
improvement ratio (qtreared/ q untreated) of stone columns. The experimental tests showed
that the stone columns with L/D=8 provided a stress concentration ratio n of 1.4, 2.4, 2.7, and
3.1 for the soil having a shear strength cu=6 kPa, treated with single, two, three, and four
columns, respectively. The values of n were decreased to 1.2, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.8 when the
L/D=6. The values of n increase when the shear strength of the treated soil was increased to 9
and 12 kPa.
Abbey S. & Ngambi S. (2015) concentrated on the application of deep soil mixing method
of improvement of problematic soils, the soil columns could be installed in blocks, single
columns, panels or stabilised grids depending on the purpose of improvement as shown in
Figure 4.0, (Kitazume and Terashi, 2012). The installation pattern may differ from one
project to the other. The diameter of these columns ranges from 0.5m to 0.75m at spacing of
about 1m to 1.5m centre to centre. A 1.0m diameter column having cement content of 200 to
300 kg/m3 and unconfined compressive strength of about 2 to 4MPa has been used to support
a five-storey building in Japan, (Ali, Kamarudin and Nazri, 2012). The bearing capacity and
other improved parameters of the soil column may be affected by changes in diameter of the
column, cement content, replacement ratio or the testing methods.
The essence of ground improvement is to enhance the engineering properties of weak

soils to provide stability and sufficient bearing capacity for construction purposes. In deep
soil mixing, the amount of binder to be mixed with the weak soil depends on the initial
moisture content of the surrounding soil. Several researchers have reported on this method of
soil improvement through laboratory experiments, in situ testing and numerical modelling.
Most literatures reviewed in this study have shown that research on deep soil mixing had
focused on the mechanical properties of the improved soil. Such as the compressive strength,
stiffness, modulus of elasticity and consolidation behaviour of the improved ground.
2.4 CLOSURE
The basic concept of ground improvement by making vertical columns is to increase the
stiffness of the ground and there by the bearing capacity and as a result, the settlement of the
ground decreases. From various literature reviews it is known that lime and cement can be
used for ground improvement. With the help of finite element software, it is possible to
compare the experimental results and the results obtained from numerical modelling, also it
will help to study more about the concerned problem. Here in this work instead of granular
backfill, lime soil is used for the soil improvement. The soft ground can be effectively
improved by the application of lime.
METHODOLOGY P a g e | 29
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 COLLECTION OF SOIL
The soil samples were collected from surroundings of Rajahmundry.
3.2 DETERMINATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES
The tests conducted for determining the properties of soil are-
 Sieve Analysis
 Liquid Limit Test
 Plastic Limit Test
METHODOLOGY P a g e | 30
 Specific Gravity Test

 Unconfined Compression Test
 Standard Proctor Test
3.3 MODEL TEST
The test planned for finding out the behaviour of soil-lime column are given in the Table
below.
Table 2: Schedule of laboratory model test
Type of column test Test performed
Only soil √
Soil + 3% lime column √
TOTAL 4
3.4 ANALYSIS
For all tests conducted, results of bearing capacity are compared to find out the
percentage increase in bearing capacity.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK P a g e | 31
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
4.1 GENERAL
The main aim of this study is to determine the behaviour of soil-lime column and there by
evaluate the bearing capacity of the improved soft soil. This soil- lime column can be used as
an alternative of stone columns. In very weak soils where soil cannot provide sufficient
confinement to the stone column, leads to the failure of the same. In this work lime are used
as a binding material. A total of 4 numbers of tests has been done one with only soil and then
mixture of soil with 3% lime, soil with 6% lime and soil with 9% lime as a reinforcing
element(column). Prior to all these test series, only soil was tested for its strength without any
reinforcement. Effect of various columns of soil-lime mix on load settlement characteristics
has studied. In this chapter the description of the experimental work carried out is mentioned.
4.2 MATERIAL USED

4.2.1. Soil and its properties: The Soil was obtained from the locality of Rajahmundry has
been used throughout this experiment.
4.2.2 Lime: Lime with CaO content 62% used for this study was obtained from local market
in Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh.
4.3. DETERMINING PROPERTIES OF SOIL
Dry sieve analysis and liquid Limit test along with plastic limit tests were performed. Then
shear strength and UCS test, in order to ascertain the strength in which soil bed has to be
prepared.
4.3.1 TEST TO DETERMINE THE INDEX PROPERTIES OF SOIL

a) Liquid limit and Plastic limit test: The tests were conformed with IS code of practice 2720:
Part V.
b) Particle Size analysis: As it is clear from the above that the presence of clay to determine
particle distribution curve a wet sieve analysis was performed. The test conforms to IS 2720:
Part IV -85.
c) Specific gravity: The specific gravity was determined according to IS 2720: Part III,
section-2 (1980).
Fig 2: Liquid limit test.
Fig 3: Plastic limit test.
Plastic Limit Test
 We took 20gm of air-dried soil, passed through 425mm sieve (In accordance with I.S.
2720: part 1), into an evaporating dish. Then distilled water was added into the soil
and mixed throughly to form uniform paste.
 Several ellipsoidal shaped soil masses were prepared by squeezing the soil between
the fingurs. Took one of the soil masses and rolled it on the glass plate using fingures.
The presure of rolling was enough to make thread of uniform diameter throughout its
length. The rate of rolling was kept between 60 to 90 strokes per min.
 Rolling was continued untill we got the thread diameter of 3mm.
 The process was continud untill the thread crumbles when the diameter is 3mm.
 Then collected the pieces of the crumbled thread for moisture content determination.
 We repeated the test 3 times and took the average of the results calculated to the
nearest whole number.
Table 3: Plastic limit test observation.
Determination No. 1 2 3
Weight of container (W1) 25gm 25gm 19.5gm
Weight of container + 28gm 29gm 22gm

wet soil (W2)
Weight of container + 27.5gm 28.3gm 21.7gm

oven dried soil (W3)
𝐖𝟐−𝐖𝟑 0.33 0.21 0.13

W=
𝐖𝟑−𝐖𝟏
0.33+0.21+0.13
Hence, Average = = 0.22
3
Liquid limit test
 We have taken 250gm of air-drilled soil, passed through 425mm sieve, into an
evaporating dish. Distilled water was added into the soil and mixed it throughly to
form uniform plate.
 Placed a portion of the paste in the cup of liquid limit device and spreaded it with a
few strokes of spatula.
 Then trimmed it to depth of 1cm at the point of maximum thickness and returned
excess of soil to the dish.
 Using the grooving tool, cutted a groove along the centre line of the pat in the cup, so
that clean sharp groove of proper dimension is formed.
 Lifted and dropped the cup by turning crank at the rate of two revolutions per second
untill the two halves of soil cake come in contact with each other for a length of about
13 mm by flow only and recorded the number of blows.
 Took a representative portion of soil from the cup for moisture content determination.
 Repeated the test with different moisture contents for 4 more times and took the
average.
Table 4: Liquid limit test observation.

Determination No. 1 2 3
Weight of container (W1) 24.5gm 24.5gm 24.5gm
Weight of container + 59.5gm 52.5gm 67.5gm

wet soil (W2)
Weight of container + 50gm 45gm 54gm

oven dried soil (W3)
𝐖𝟐−𝐖𝟑 0.37 0.36 0.45

W=
𝐖𝟑−𝐖𝟏
No. of blows 25 22 14
Table 5: Observation of Standard Proctor Test

Determination No. 1 2 3 4 5
Volume (cm3) 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
W1 (Mould weight) (g) 5735 5735 5735 5735 5735
W2 (Weight of mould + 9630 9740 9820 9795 9692

soil) (g)
Compacted soil weight, W 3895 4005 4085 4060 3975

(g)
𝑊 1.9475 2.0025 2.0425 2.03 1.9785

Bulk-density, γb = 𝑉
(g/cm3)
Water content (%) 14.28 15.29 16.98 18.96 20.95
γb 1.704 1.736 1.746 1.706 1.635

Dry density, γd =1+𝑤
(g/cm3)
4.3.2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

To determine the water content and dry density to be placed inside the model tank, for
obtaining soft clay Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests were conducted. The UCS
mould with 50 mm diameter and 100mm height was used for the study. Amount of soil
required for the volume of the mould is calculated and placed inside the sampler. UCS tests
were performed on two water content and the result obtained are discussed below. The dry
density assumed was 1.6 g/cc for one specimen and 1.8 g/cc for other one. Water contents
considered are 15% and 20%. Based on the requirement of cohesion 25 to 50kPa, dry density
and water content selected for the study are 1.6 g/cc and 15% respectively.
PHYSICAL MODELLING P a g e | 36
CHAPTER 5
PHYSICAL MODELLING
5.1 PHYSICAL MODELLING
Evaluating the behaviour of soil can be done through physical modelling methods. Since
finite element is completely based on the values of the modulous of elasticity, Cohesion and
Angle of internal friction, Elasticity value may change from place to place. A physical model
is required for obtaining and checking the real behaviour of soil in site. For this physical
modelling in small scale, steel moulds are used. Dimensions of the model are 14.5cm of
diameter and 16.5cm of height. A steel tube sampler of 4cm diameter has been used for
boring and making columns. Which by application of force, penetrates into the soil bed while
removing comes out with, making a hole in the clay bed prepared.
Fig 4: Model soil-bed

5.2 PROCEDURE OF MODELLING

After conducting preliminary tests on soil, model testing is conducted in various steps as
follows.
5.2.1 PREPARATION OF CLAY BED

Based on the UCS tests, which were performed at various water contents, Soil with requaired
strength is found to be obtained at dry density of 1.6gm/cc and water content of 15%. Soil
was placed in three layers. Amount of soil required taken in a tray and then water is added
into it. Care is taken to avoid forming of lumps. Oil is applied to inner side of the mould to
avoid friction. Soil is then transferred into mould and compacted lightly to achieve required
density and to achieve the required depth for that layer. Two other layers placed in the similar
manner and compacted. Top layers are compacted more than the bottom most layers since
energy transfer takes place whenever its above layers are compacted. In order to cross check
the density, using sampler some amountof soil is taken out and check for density and water
content.
Fig 5: A) Sieving of crushed soil. B) Mixing of soil with certain water content.
C) Model soil bed
5.2.2 PREPARATION AND PLACING OF COLUMNS

After preparation of clay bed, the columns are placed. For this, the sampler tube of
mentioned outer diameter is used. Sampler is placed above the area where column is to be
installed and impressions are made. These impressions are checked using scale for accurate
placing of column. After this, boring is done by applying blows. Care was taken for placing
and boring vertically. After boring each hole, it is filled with columnar reinforcing material
and compacted to a density of 1.6gm/cc (purposefully kept same as density of column).
Material is placed inside the column using a hopper. Compaction is done is using a tamping
rod.
Fig 6: A) Boring in the soil bed. B) Mixing of soil and lime content. C)Placing of soil-lime
mixure inside the bored hole. D)Placed soil-lime column into the soil bed.
5.2.3 CURING OF MODEL CLAY BEDS

Since, lime is a material which requires time for strengthening. For the tests a curing period
of 7 days was given. Lime strengthens due to the chemical reactions takes place with water.
During the Curing period, it is covered with wet jute fibre bag in order to prevent evaporation
from its surface.
Fig 7: Prepared model during curing process.
5.2.4 TESTING OF MODEL SOIL BED

After curing of model soil bed, it was tested. Loading frame was placed on the top of
arrangement and its centre carefully checked. Loading plate is marked for its centre using
chalk and made its centre also coincide with mould. Loading arrangement is placed such that
load transfer is uniform. Special care is taken for maintaining the uniform load transfer. Load
is applied uniformly and corresponding load displacements are recorded. After the
experiment, columns were tried to extract for most length, however columns broke. Attempt
has been made to extract maximum length of the column.
Soil-lime column:
Model tests were conducted on soil-lime columns i.e., soil-lime column with 3%, 6%, 9%
lime. The required amount of lime was calculated by percentage weight and added to dry soil.
Dry mixing is done for uniform mixture of lime with soil. After dry mixing, required amount
of water is added to it and then mixed throughly. This mixing is done separately for each
column based on the volume calculated. The mixture was placed inside the bored hole in the
soil bed and compacted to required density. Since lime reacted with surrounding soil,
diameter of the column removed is more than the diameter placed.
Fig 8: A) Model testing. B) Soil-lime column after model test.

Fig 9: Extracted soil+3% lime column.


RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS P a g e | 43
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
6.1 GENERAL
A series of model experiments are performed for finding the load vs settlement behaviour for
only soil bed and improved soil bed by soil-lime columns with various soil percentage. In this
chapter, results of all the study is explained in detail.
6.2 PHYSICAL MODELLING RESULTS
A total 4 number of model tests were performed as discussed in chapter 3. This section shows
its results. Preliminary tests were conducted on soil and its results are discussed below.
The properties of soil found out in laboratory are given below.
Table 6: Properties of soil
Sieve analysis Soil
Liquid limit (%) 37
Plastic limit (%) 22
Gravel+sand (%) 34.5
Silt+clay (%) 65.5
Specific gravity (%) 2.45
Plasticity index 15
OMC (%) 17
MDD (g/cm3) 1.75
Soil classification CI
6.3 MODEL TEST RESULTS
As mentioned in cahpter 3 schedule, tests were performed and results are plotted in the figure
below. From the results it is clearly seen that soil+6% lime column has got maximum stress
value of 61.14KN/m2, followed by soil+3% lime column has got stress value of 50.95KN/m2,
for soil+9% lime column it is 44.16KN/m2. Results of only soil bed, which gave stress value
of is 16.98KN/m2 also included in order to compare the results. All the values are calculated
at 40mm settlement. When compare to only soil bed all the soil-lime column improved bed
gave more strength. Load vs settlement curve is drawn for the model tests in Figures below.
Fig 12: Load vs settlement curve for only soil bed.
Fig 13: Load vs settlement curve for soil+3%lime column.

Fig 14: Load vs settlement curve for soil+6% lime column.
Fig 15: Load vs settlement curve for soil+9% lime column.

Fig 16: Load vs settlement curve for soil-lime columns
From the obtained results, bearing capacity at 40mm settlement is found for all the
experiments and percentage improvement when compared to only soil is calculated and
tabulated in Table 4. In which soil+3% lime column provides an improvement of 200%
whereas soil+6% lime column gives 260% improvement and soil+9% lime column gives
improvement of 160%.
Table 7: Bearing capacity and percentage improvement for experimental study
Type of Bearing capacity at 40mm %

column settlement improvement
Only soil bed 16.98KN/m2 --
Soil+3% lime 50.95KN/m2 200%
Soil+6% lime 61.14KN/m2 260%
Soil+9% lime 44.16KN/m2 160%

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE P a g e | 47
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE
7.1 CONCLUSIONS
Following are the conclusions obtained from experimental studies, -
 From experimental results, Soil+6% lime column gives the maximum bearing
capacity in all the cases, followed by Soil+3% lime column, Soil+ 9% lime column.
 From the experiment, the bearing capacity obtained from the only soil bed is
50.95KN/m2 at 40mm settlement.
 For soil+3% lime column, the improvement of bearing capacity when compare to
only soil bed is 200% at 40mm settlement.
 For soil+6% lime column, the bearing capacity improved by 260% when compare to
only soil bed.
 The bearing capacity soil improved by 160% by the soil+9% lime column.
 Soil+9% lime column has got less improvement percentage as compared to other
columns because atfer the certain percentage of increase in the lime, reactions
between soil and lime start decreasing and one point comes when all reactions
completes and value of unconfined compression stars decreasing.
 From the over all experimental results, we can say that the mixing of lime at centain
amount is able to improve the strength properties of the soft clayey soil.
7.2 FUTURE SCOPE
Application of soil lime column below road embankment are very common in Japan and it is
achieving popularity in Scandinavian countries and in United States. So, study in this field
could be useful in our country with large coastal area and weak clay deposit such as black
cotton soil.
 This study can be done on field to evaluate the in-situ performance

 Similar study can be done for various soils for finding the behaviour in various types
of soils.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE P a g e | 48
 Use of soil-lime column for ground improvement during small scale construction on
soft soil can reduce cost of foundation.
 A study on group of columns can be performed to evluate the group behaviour of soil-
lime columns in terms of spacing, dia etc.
REFERENCES P a g e | 49
REFERENCES
1. Ahmed Farouk, Marawan.M. Shahien (2013), “Gound Improvement using Soil

-columns: Experimental Investigation", Alexandria Engineering Journal, 733-
740.
2. Ali, K, Shahu, J.T. Sharma, K.G, “Model Test on Stone Columns Reinforced
with Lateral Circular Discs", International Journal of Civil Engineering
Research. ISSN 2278-3652 Volume 5, Number 2 (2014), pp 97-104.
3. Ahnberg, H., and Holm, G., 1999. “Stabilisation of Some Swedish Organic Soils
with Different Types of Binder”, Dry Mix Methods for Deep Soil Stabilisation.
Brendenberg, Holm, and Broms, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.101-108.
4. Ali K, Shahu, J.T. Sharma, K.G(2010), “Behaviour of Reinfonced Stone
Columns in Soils: An Experimental Study” Indian Geotechnical Conference IGS
Mumbai Chapter, 625-628.
5. Ambily, A. P. And Gandhi, S. R. (2007) “Behaviour of Stone Columns Based
on Experimental and FEM analysis.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geo
Envirommental Engineering (2007) ASCE, Vol 133: 405-415.
6. Arman, A, and Munfakh, G.A, 1970. “Stabilization of Organic Soils with
Lime”, Engineering Research Bulletin No. 103, Division of Engineering Research,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
7. Baker, S., 2000. “Deformation Behaviour of Lime/Cement Column Stabilized
Clay”, Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre, Rapport 7, Chalmers
University of Technology, Goteborg.
8. Bell F G (1988a). “Stabilisation and treatment of clay soils with lime”, Part 1 –
Basic principles. Ground Engineering, 21, (1), pp 10-15.
9. Bell F G (1988b). “Stabilisation and treatment of clay soils with lime”, Part 2 –
Some applications. Ground Engineering, 21, (3), pp 22-30.
10. Bredenberg H and Broms B B (1984). “Lime columns as foundations for
buildings, piling and ground treatment”, Paper 7, pp 133-138. Thomas Telford
Ltd, London.
11. British Lime Association (1990). “Lime stabilisation manual”, Second edition,
British Lime Association, London.
12. Bora, Mukul C. Dash, Sujit Kumar (2010). “Load Deformation Behaviour of
Floating Columns in Soft Clay”, Indian Geotechnical Conference IGS Mumbai
Chapter.
13. Broms B B and Boman P (1979b). “Lime columns - a new foundation method”,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering
Division, 105, (4), pp 539-556.
14. Carlsten, P., and Ekstrom, J., 1995. “Lime and Lime/Cement Columns”,
Swedish Geotechnical Society Report 4:95E, Linkoping.
15. David L.D (2003) “Guidelines for Design and Installation of Soil Cement
stabilization”, Grouting and ground treatment Grouting 2003, ASCE.
16. Eades, J.L., and Grim, RE., 1960. “Reaction of Hydrated Lime with Pure Clay
Minerals in Soil Stabilization”, Bulletin 262, Highway Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
17. Eades, J.L., and Grim, RE., 1966. “A Quick Test to Determine Lime
Requirements for Lime Stabilization”, Highway Research Record 139, Highway
Research Board, Washington, D. C.
18. Hunter, D., 1988. “Lime-Induced Heave in Sulfate-Bearing Clay Soils”, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Reston, 114(2), pp.150-167.
19. Indian Standard design and construction for ground improvement- guidelines
part 1 stone columns (IS 15284 (Part 1): 2003).
20. Ilan Juran and Oraccion Riccobono (1991) “Reinforcing Soft soil with
Artificially Cemented Compacted Sand Columns”, Journal of Geotechnical
Enginering, Vol. 117, No. 7, ASCE, 1042-1060.
21. J. Han, J. Huang and A. Porbaha (2005) “2D Numerical Modelling of A
Constructed Geosynthetic-Reinforced Embankment over Deep Mixed
Columns” Contemporary Issues in Foundation Engineering. ASCE, 1-11.
22. Kasali Gyimah and Osamu Taki (2004) “Design and Construction aspects of
Soil Cement columns as Foundation elements”, Grouting and ground treatment
Grouting 2003, ASCE.
23. Kivelo, M., 1998. “Stabilization of Embankments on Soft Soils with
Lime/Cement Columns”, Doctoral Thesis 1023, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden.
24. Kumar Rakesh and Jain P.K (2013), “Soft Ground Improvement with Fibre
Reinforced Granular Pile”, International Journal of Advanced Engineering
Research and Studies Vol. II, Issue III.,42-45.
25. Maki, J. Al-Waily, M., Al-Dabbas, F. (2012) “Laboratary Investigation on
Efficiency of Models Stone and Lime Column Groups”, Journal of Kerbala
University, Vol. 10, NO. 4, 268-278.
26. Malarvizhi S.N., K. Ilamparuthi, (2004) “Load Versus Settlement of Claybed
stabilized with Stone & Reinforced Stone Columns”, Proceeding of the 3rd Asian
Regional Conference on Geosynthetics, GEOASIA, Seoul, Korea (2004), PP. 322-
329.
27. Melvin I. Esrig, P.E., and Peter E. MacKena (2001) “Lime Cement Column
Ground Stabilization For I-15 in Salt Lake City” Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, Vol. 6, No.3, 104-115.
28. Muntohar, S.A., Halaman. (2010), “A Laboratory Test on The Strength and
Load Settlement Characteristic of Improved Soft Soil Using Lime Column”,
Dinamika Teknik SIPL Vol.10, No.3, 202-207.
29. Muzamir bin Hasan, Aminaton binti Marton and Masayuki Hyodo (2011),
“The Strength of Soft Clay Reinforced with Singular and Group Bottom Ash
Columns”, EJGE Vol.16.
30. Ney Augusto Nascimanto, Jose Luiz G. Brandi and Rogerio F. Kuster Puppi
(2012), “Measured Settlement of Mat Foundation on Soft Clay with and
without Reinforcement from Sand Column”, Full scale Testing and Foundation
Design ASCE.
31. Nicholson, P.J., “An Abstract on Cement Soil Mixing in Soft Ground”,
University of Houston, Texas, USA, 1998.
32. Ogundipe, Moses, O (2013) “An Investigation lnto The Use of Lime Stabilized
Clay as Subgrade Material”, International Journal of Scientific & Technology
Research Volume 2, Issue 10, Oct 2013, 82 86.
33. Parampreet Kaur, Gurdeep Singh (2012) “Soil Improvement with Lime", IOSR
Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering IOSRJMCE ISSN: 2278-1684 Vol 1,
Issue 1, 51-53.
34. Pivarc, J (2011) “Stone columns- determination of the soil improvement
factor”, Slovak Journal of Civil Engineering Vol XIX, 2011 No. 3,17-21.
35. Saroglou, I.H. (2009) “Compressive Strength of Soil Improved with Cement”,
International Foundation Contemporary Topics in Ground Modification, Problem
Soils and Geo-Support.
36. Shahu, J. T. and Reddy, Y.R (2011) “Clayey Soil Reinforced with Stone
Column Group: Model Tests and Analyses”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo
Environmental Engineering (2011) ASCE, Vol 137:1265-1274.
37. Tan, S.A, Ng, K.S. and Jie Sun (2014), “Column Group Analysis for Stone
Columrn Reinforced Foundation”, From Soil Behaviour Fundamentals to
Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering: pp. 597-608, ASCE
38. Zahmatkesh, A and Choobbasti, AJ (2010), “Settlement Evaluation of Soft
Clay Reinforced by Stone columns, Considering the Effect of Soil
Compaction”, IJRRAS 3(2), 159-166.

Project Paper - ORIGINAL

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Project Paper - ORIGINAL

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

INTRODUCTION Page |1

1.2 FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF STABILIZATION

CaO + H2O = Ca (OH)2 + Heat

1.3 SOIL-LIME COLUMN

1.6 NEED FOR STUDY

1.7 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

2.2 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

both lime and stone

Cemented Stiffness of the Inter-granular

Modeling vibrated Length of the Capacity increases

2.3 REVIEW ON EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL MODELS

The test results are given below, -

The interpretations are given below, -

The results obtained are given below, -

a) Constant radial confining pressure.

The test results are given below

 In the circular footing tests, an assessment of the load-bearing capacity at a footing

Cost, Strength and Compressibility, -

Tan et al (2014) mainly concentrates on investigating the behaviour of small groups of

The conclusions are

A. Zahmatkesh & A. J. Choobbasti (2010) investigates the performance of stone columns

The essence of ground improvement is to enhance the engineering properties of weak

3.1 COLLECTION OF SOIL

The soil samples were collected from surroundings of Rajahmundry.

3.2 DETERMINATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES

The tests conducted for determining the properties of soil are-

 Specific Gravity Test

3.3 MODEL TEST

Table 2: Schedule of laboratory model test

Type of column test Test performed

Soil + 3% lime column √

Soil + 6% lime column √

Soil + 9% lime column √

4.2 MATERIAL USED

4.3.1 TEST TO DETERMINE THE INDEX PROPERTIES OF SOIL

Fig 2: Liquid limit test.

Fig 3: Plastic limit test.

Plastic Limit Test

Weight of container + 28gm 29gm 22gm

Weight of container + 27.5gm 28.3gm 21.7gm

𝐖𝟐−𝐖𝟑 0.33 0.21 0.13

Liquid limit test

Table 4: Liquid limit test observation.

Weight of container + 59.5gm 52.5gm 67.5gm

Weight of container + 50gm 45gm 54gm

𝐖𝟐−𝐖𝟑 0.37 0.36 0.45

Table 5: Observation of Standard Proctor Test

W1 (Mould weight) (g) 5735 5735 5735 5735 5735

W2 (Weight of mould + 9630 9740 9820 9795 9692

Compacted soil weight, W 3895 4005 4085 4060 3975

𝑊 1.9475 2.0025 2.0425 2.03 1.9785

Water content (%) 14.28 15.29 16.98 18.96 20.95

γb 1.704 1.736 1.746 1.706 1.635

4.3.2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

5.1 PHYSICAL MODELLING

Fig 4: Model soil-bed

5.2 PROCEDURE OF MODELLING

5.2.1 PREPARATION OF CLAY BED

5.2.2 PREPARATION AND PLACING OF COLUMNS

5.2.3 CURING OF MODEL CLAY BEDS

Fig 7: Prepared model during curing process.

5.2.4 TESTING OF MODEL SOIL BED

Fig 8: A) Model testing. B) Soil-lime column after model test.