International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2020, Vol.19, Issue 73, pp.

134–140
ISSN: 2186-2982 (P), 2186-2990 (O), Japan, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21660/2020.73.71490
Geotechnique, Construction Materials and Environment

BEARING CAPACITY AND COMPRESSIBILITY ON IMPROVED

LOESS BY COMPACTION AND CEMENT ADMIXTURE

*Dolrerdee Hormdee1, and Piyoros Jirawattana1

1
Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Thailand

*Dolrerdee Hormdee, Received: 30 March 2020, Revised: 21 April 2020, Accepted: 27 April 2020

ABSTRACT: Geotechnical engineering always deals with the field or compacted condition using shear
strength or deformation behavior. Khon Kaen loess soil can be classified as a moderate to moderately severe
in collapse index. With long term infiltration, its cohesion is almost completely gone. Therefore, this research
is aimed to study the behaviors of the bearing capacity and settlement of the compacted Khon Kaen loess soil
with and without cement. The testing results from the laboratory and from the field can be shown that the soil
and soil-cement stabilization are improved by 95% for modified compaction. This is due to the effects of initial
density, initial water content, %cement added, curing time duration and the size of the plate on the bearing
capacity and deformation behavior. The results also show that the increasing in water content has the greatest
influence to reduce in the bearing capacity but increase in compressibility of the specimens. However, for
testing with the same energy of compaction but lower water content, less settlement at any pressures in the
unsoaked condition with the more collapse settlement can be found. On the other hand, the 95% modified
compaction improvement, the collapse potential/ collapse index are almost negligible. Finally, with more
cement added, less settlement with the more bearing capacity can be achieved.

Keywords: Unconfined compressive strength, Collapsibility, Soil-cement stabilization, Plate load test,

1. INTRODUCTION 2. METHODOLOGY

Design and construction in geotechnical A disturbed red loess sample was collected at a
engineering, i.e. considering in slope area, foundation depth of 1.5-2.0m below ground surface in Khon
or excavation and compaction on ground, always Kaen University, Thailand. Some of its index and
deals with the unsaturated soil condition using the engineering properties are shown in Table 1.
shear strength and deformation behavior.
Unfortunately, the strength is sharply reduced and Table 1 Properties of soil
the large settlement is occurred when water content
increased. Especially collapsible soil i.e. Khon Kaen
Property Khon Kaen loess soil
loess, in situ condition, the dry density is relatively
low which is approximately 1.4-1.6 t/m3 but the shear Specific gravity (G s ) 2.59
strength is quite high [1]. As a result, when the %Passing #4 100
moisture content increased, its major bearing capacity %Passing #200 35.5
is reduced and large settlement is occurred. This is the Liquid limit (LL) 19.0%
major reason of buildings damage in Khon Kaen loess Plastic limit (PL) 12.5%
particularly damaging from differential settlement USCS SC
under soaking. OMC (Mod. Proctor) 8.27%
As in situ condition, Khon Kaen loess can be ρ d max (Mod. Proctor) 2.11 t/m3
classified as moderate to moderately severe in Natural water content 7.71%
collapsible index [2]. Therefore, many researchers [3- ρ d,field 1.44 t/m3
8] have been studying its behavior and trying to
eliminate those problems by compaction and To study bearing capacity and compressibility
stabilizing soil with cement. Similarly, this research behaviors, a double oedometer test and an unconfined
studies the behaviors of bearing capacity and compression test are performed in laboratory. While
settlement on improved Khon Kaen loess soil in in the field, a standard penetration test (SPT) and a
laboratory and in the field testing. In addition, the plate load test are utilized.
effects of initial density, initial moisture
content, %cement added, curing time and the size of 3. DOUBLE OEDOMETER TEST
plate on bearing capacity and deformation behavior
are presented. For the double oedometer test, unsoaked as re-

134
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2020, Vol.19, Issue 73, pp. 134– 140

compacted condition and soaked with water over the Table 4 Scope of Double Oedometer Test
specimens are usually used to identify the collapse
potential and collapse index. The collapse potential Type of Re-compacted Testing Curing time
(C p ) for any vertical pressure [9-10] is defined as material condition condition (days)
Soil •As field condition Unsoaked -
 ∆e  ∆H •95% @wet side and soaked
C p =  × 100  = × 100 (1)
•95% @dry side
 1 + eo  Ho
Soil-5% 95% @ wet side Unsoaked
1, 7, 28
cement of OMC and soaked
where
Δe is the differential void ratio due to the
collapse,
e o is the initial void ratio,
ΔH is the vertical settlement of the soil sample,
and H 0 is an initial thickness of the soil sample.

With the definition of the [11], the collapse index

(I e ) which based on different vertical strain between
the soaked and unsoaked condition at a vertical
pressure of 200 kPa can then be defined. However, for Fig.1 Preparation of Oedometer specimen
differential vertical strain under a given pressure, the
potential of soil collapse (I c ) can be indicated. 0.9 As field cond. (soaked)
In addition, the collapsibility which referred on the As field cond. (unsoaked)
collapse potential is shown in Table 2. This collapse 0.8
index is used to classify the degree of collapse
Void ratio, e

according to Table 3. 0.7

Table 2 The potential collapsibility of soil from 0.6

collapse potential [9-10]
0.5
C p (%) Collapsibility
0.4
0-1 No collapse problem 10 100 1000
1-5 Moderately collapse problem Pressure (kPa)
5 - 10 Trouble (weak settlement)
10 - 20 Severe trouble (Medium settlement Fig.2 Double Oedometer testing results on as field
>20 Very severe problem (marked settlement) condition of soil

Table 3 Classification of Collapse Index, I e [11] 0.3

0.28
Void ratio, e

I e (%) Degree of Collapse

0 None 0.26
0.1 to 2.0 Slight
2.1 to 6.0 Moderate 0.24
6.1 to 10.0 Moderately severe
0.22
> 10 Severe 10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)
As using disturbed samples, they were prepared in
‘identical’ fashion by controlling initial water content, Soil @dry side (soaked)
initial dry density and content of cement as shown in Soil @dry side (unsoaked)
Table 4. This can be done by using hydraulic jack to Soil @wet side (soaked)
slowly press the samples into the oedometer ring of Soil @wet side (unsoaked)
61.2 mm in diameter and 25.4 mm in height, as shown
in Fig.1. For curing the soil-cement specimens, the zip
Fig.3 Double Oedometer testing results on 95%
lock plastic bag is also required.
modified compacted soil
In Fig.2 are the results of the re-compacted
specimens from the field condition. It is illustrated
about 1-4.5 (as shown in Fig.6) which classified to
that the deformation with pressure of an unsoaked
moderately collapse problem. However, when the soil
sample is less than that of a soaked sample due to
and soil-cement specimens are improved by 95%
collapsibility. In addition, the collapse potential is

135
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2020, Vol.19, Issue 73, pp. 134– 140

modified compaction with both dry and wet side of Collapsibility

5
optimum moisture content, the e-log p curve presents

Collapse potential, Ic (%)

the same trend for all condition including soaked and 4
unsoaked case as shown in Figs.3 and 4. When the
deformation is compared between that of the field Moderate
3 trouble
condition and that of 95% compaction (as shown in
Fig.5), it shows much less compressibility on 2
compacted soil with less collapsibility (as shown in
Fig.6 and Table 5) for collapse potential and collapse 1
index, respectively. This means that the collapsibility
on this soil can be eliminated by high compaction. Negligible
0
10 100 1000
Pressure (kPa)
0.3 SC 1 day SC 7 days
SC 28 days As field cond.
0.28 Soil @dry side Soil @wet side
Void ratio, e

0.26 Fig.6 Relationship between Collapse Potential, 𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐 , and

pressure
0.24
Table 5 Collapse Index (𝐼𝐼𝑒𝑒 ) and degree of collapse
0.22
10 100 1000 Curing Collapse Degree
Pressure (kPa) Re-compaction
S:C Time Index, I e of
Condition
(day) (%) Collapse
SC 1 day (soaked) SC 1 day (unsoaked)
As field
- 4.36 Moderate
SC 7 days (soaked) SC 7 days (unsoaked) recompaction
100:0 95% @ dry side - 0.37 Slight
SC 28 days (soaked) SC 28 days (unsoaked)
95% @ wet side - 0.06 Slight
95% @ wet side 1 0.52 Slight
Fig.4 Double Oedometer testing results on 95% 95:5 95% @ wet side 7 0.43 Slight
modified compacted soil-cement
95% @ wet side 28 0.26 Slight

1 As field cond. (soaked) Table 6 Scope of Unconfined Compression Test

As field cond. (unsoaked)
0.8
Re-compacted Curing time
Void ratio, e

Material %Cement
0.6 condition (days)
•As field condition
0.4
•100%mod.@OMC
Soil - -
0.2 •95%mod.@wet side
95% compaction of soil and soil cement •95%mod.@dry side
0
10 100 1000 Soil- 95%mod.@ wet side
3, 5, 7% 1, 7, 28
Pressure (kPa) cement of OMC

Fig.5 Comparison of Double Oedometer testing

results on no improved soil, improved soil and
improved soil-cement

4. UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

The admixture and testing program are shown in

Table 6. The amount of mixture was pressed statically
into a 50 mm in diameter and 10 mm in height mold
as shown in Fig.7. A zip lock plastic bag is still used
to cure the soil-cement specimens. The speed of
testing was 1 mm/min and the testing results are Fig.7 Mold and two-step tamper
shown in Table 7.

136
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2020, Vol.19, Issue 73, pp. 134– 140

Table 7 The results of Unconfined Compression Test 350

300

qu (UCS), t/m2
Curing 250
Mat- Avg. % Avg q u Avg.
%Comp.. time
erial %m in Cement (UCS). %m f 200
(day)
As Field 150
S 7.8 - - 1.81 7.6
Cond. 100
S 95 6.5 - - 21.19 6.3 50
S 100 8.7 - - 8.63 8.6
0
S 95 10.9 - - 4.99 10.9 0 2 4 6 8
S-C 95 11.5 3 1 45.94 11.0 % cement
S-C 95 11.7 3 7 79.46 11.2 1 day 7 days 28 days soil only
S-C 95 11.7 3 28 115.52 10.9
S-C 95 10.7 5 1 61.45 10.1 Fig.9 Effect of %cement on UCS of 95% modified
S-C 95 10.8 5 7 146.7 9.8 compacted soil on wet side of OMC.
S-C 95 10.5 5 28 172.60 9.8
350
S-C 95 11.0 7 1 71.47 10.7
300
S-C 95 10.9 7 7 200.69 10.3

qu (UCS), t/m2
250
S-C 95 11.0 7 28 300.27 8.4
200
For the compacted soil with the same energy, the 150
unconfined compression strength (UCS) in Fig.8 100
illustrates a good relationship in term of power 50
function but unlike to the result of re-compacted for
0
the field condition with different energy compaction. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Nevertheless, as the wet side of OMC produces less
of UCS, soil cement mixed is considered at only 95% Curing Time (day)
modified compaction with wet side of OMC. Then, 3%cement 5%cement
the effects of % cement content and curing time on 7%cement Soil only
UCS can be shown in Figs.9 and 10, respectively. It
can be seen that by increasing %cement content Fig.10 Effect of curing time on UCS of 95% modified
results in higher USC and cost. In addition, according compacted soil on wet side of OMC.
to the Standard no. DH-S. 204-2556 from Department
of Highway (DOH) in Thailand, the UCS obtained 5. FIELD TEST
from soil cement stabilization for base or subbase
should not be less than 250 psi or 175.8 t/m2 after 2 The first state is for natural in situ condition which
hours soaked at 7 days curing. In this case, Khon Kaen is the test for SPT and field density. The result of the
loess soil should be mixed with more than 6% cement boring test is shown in Table 8. The second state is for
to meet this requirement. Figure 10 illustrates the 95% modified compaction in wet side of OMC with
effect of curing time on the strengths of soil cement. and without 5% cement stabilization (as the minimum
It can be seen that the strength increasing rate for the requirement of DOH). Each test pits is W5 x L15 x
first week is higher than that of the rest of the curing H2 m. as shown in Figs.11 and 12. The last state is the
time. plate load test which is still the soil cement stabilized
ground. A 0.1 x 0.1 m plate with 25mm thick is mainly
25 used in this research. Piles are also applied as gravity
Dry side of OMC load. Four dial gauges are set at the corner of the plate
20 via the reference beam to record the settlement values
y = 2746.3x-2.654
qu (UCS), t/m2

as shown in Fig.13. The test program is provided in

15 R² = 0.9862 Table 9. For each loading steps, the settlement was
10 measured at 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 30 minutes and after
at OMC Wet side of OMC that for every one-hour interval until 0.2 mm/hour rate
5 of settlement can be achieved [12]. Noted that the load
Re-compacted as was increasing until the total settlement of 25 mm had
0 field condition reached.
6 8 10 12 The test results on compacted soil and soil cement
Moisture content, %
at 95% modified proctor with wet side of optimum
moisture content show that all failure mode is the
Fig.8 The relationship of UCS on the different local shear as shown in Figs. 14 to 16. The ultimate
conditions of compacted soil. bearing capacity is defined as the pressure

137
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2020, Vol.19, Issue 73, pp. 134– 140

corresponding to that break point on the graph (q u (b) )

[13] or the corresponding pressure at 25 mm of
settlement (q u (25) ) [14].The summary of the plate load
test result and SPT are provided in Table 10.

Table 8 The result of boring test in natural ground

condition

Pocket
Depth γ d Penetro-
Sample Type N %m
(m.) (t/m3) meter test
(ksc)
0.0-0.74 Medium dense 11 7.25 1.51 3.1
0.74-1.2 silty Sand(SM) 14 7.00 1.55 2.9
1.2-1.5 16 6.71 1.65 3.8 Fig.13 Plate load test installation
1.5-2.0 15 6.25 1.61 3.5
2.0-2.5 Medium dense 16 6.28 1.64 3.5 Table 9 Scope of plate load test
2.5-3.2 clayey 17 6.15 1.64 3.5
3.2-4.0 Sand(SC) 22 7.02 1.77 4.2 Compacted Plate size Curing
Material
condition (m) time (days)
4.0-4.5 21 7.22 1.75 4.2 95 % 0.1x0.1 ,
4.5-5.0 24 6.33 1.68 4.0 Soil -
@wet side 0.3x0.3
Dense clayey Soil-Cement of OMC 0.1x0.1 7
5.0-5.5 42 6.72 1.59 >4.5
Sand(SC)
0
20 ton/m2
-5
15 m -10
Settlement, mm.

-15 23.4 ton/m2

5m -20
-25
5m -30
-35
Compacted soil -40
Compacted soil-cement 0 10 20 30
Pressure, ton/m2
Fig.11 Layout of field test
Fig.14 Pressure-settlement curve on compacted
ground with 0.1x0.1 m of plate
2
0 12 7ton/m
-5
Settlement, mm.

-10 2
-15 18.2ton/m
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
0 10 20 30
Pressure, ton/m2

Fig.15 Pressure-settlement curve on compacted

Fig.12 Compacted ground with and without cement ground with 0.3x0.3 m of plate
stabilization

138
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2020, Vol.19, Issue 73, pp. 134– 140

0 2 All of the results to estimate the bearing capacity

-5 118 ton/m are illustrated in Table 11. They show that the bearing
-10 capacity obtained from the plate load test is higher
Settlement, mm.

-15 than that from the unconfined compression test and

2 that from the SPT estimation via Bowles and Parry
-20 162 ton/m equation from Eq.(2) and Eq.(3), respectively. One of
-25 the reason that q u (UCS) is less, is the 2 hours soaking
-30 condition before UC testing especially on only soil
-35 specimen. This causes the strength drop. In case of
-40 cement-soil blends permeability decreases and
0 50 100 150 200 strength characteristics increases due to cementation
Pressure, ton/m2 products as well as reducing the effect on decreasing
the strength drop from soaking. Finally, in the case of
Fig.16 Pressure-settlement curve on compacted soil- predicting values from SPT, Khon Kaen loess can be
cement with 0.1x0.1 m of plate classified as clayey sand (SC) that may gain extra
bearing capacity from cohesion. This is difference
Table 10 The results of plate load test and SPT from both equations established by testing on
cohesionless soil.
Soil Soil-cement
Properties
0.1x0.1m 0.3x0.3m @7days Table 11 Comparison in bearing capacity
%m 8.11 10.01 7.51
Dry Density, Soil-cement
2.027 1.98 2.00 Type of material Soil
t/m3 @7 day
% Compaction 96.1 93.8 94.9 UC Test
q u(25) (t/m2) 23.4 18.2 162 • q u (UCS) 4.99 146.70
q u(b) (t/m2) 20 12.7 118 SPT 8 32
SPT @ 0.1 m 8 6 32 • q a (Bowles) 10.3 55.1
• q a (Parry) 15.0 80.1
The results show that at around 4 mm of settlement, Plate Load Test
the ultimate bearing capacity at the break point (q u(b) ) • q u(25) 23.4 162
on load settlement curve can be realized. The ultimate • q u(b) 20.0 120
bearing capacity from the cement stabilized ground at *unit in t/m2
7 days curing is 6-7 times higher than that of the
compacted Khon Kaen loess with similar compaction 6. CONCLUSIONS
condition. From the result of natural ground [15],
q u(25) is about 3.7 t/m2 (36 kPa) for 0.3x0.3 m plate. The main problem when using Khon Kaen loess
This means that the extra q u(25) is about 5 times only as the foundation of building or base of highway is
from the 95% modified compaction on the ground. bearing capacity loss and high collapsibility. In which
Also from the SPT, [13] modifies an approximate Table 11 is a comparison in bearing capacity
50% increase in allowable bearing capacity (q a ) as settlement due to an increasing in moisture content.
shown in Eq.(2). Similarly, from [16-17], the For settlement problem, it can be eliminated only by
distribution equations for computing q a for 25 mm highly compacting ground to change the moderate
settlement can be found. However, in [9] an estimated trouble to negligible collapsibility. However, in term
q a of cohesionless soil from SPT values in Eq.(3) can of bearing capacity on Khon Kaen loess when soaking,
be expressed as only the compaction modification fails to meet the
requirement even for base of highway. When the
qa (kPa) = N55 K d /0.05 ; B ≤ 1.2 m (2) ground were compacted with 95% modified proctor at
further OMC value, soil cement stabilization with
where K d = 1 + 0.33(Df /B) ≤ 1.33 [18] above 6% amount of cement by weight are used to
B = width of foundation in m achieve the requirement. Also in the field test, the
D f = depth of foundation in m bearing capacity of the loess ground from compaction
modification alone is not enough to meet the
requirement. Therefore, cement should be added. For
qa (kPa) = 30NF (3) comparison of the result from laboratory and in situ
test, the bearing capacity obtained from plate load test
where N F = average value of N 55 from D f to 0.75B found a good relationship with the bearing capacity
achieved from UC testing with less the effect of
additional water. Laboratory test is rapidly emerging

139
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Sept., 2020, Vol.19, Issue 73, pp. 134– 140

as a possible alternative to predict the bearing capacity Symp., Consolidation Testing Soils, STP, 126
and settlement. (1951) 9-33.
[10] Jennings, J.E. and Knight, K., 1975. A guide to
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
construction on or with materials exhibiting
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial additional settlement due to collapse of grain
support provided by Khon Kean University. Great structure. Proceedings of the 6th Regional
gratitude is also given to Ms.Supawadee Srilachom Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and
and Ms.Issareeya Fuangsuwan for acquisition of data. Foundation Engineering, Durban, South Africa,
1(1975) 99-105.
8. REFERENCES [11] ASTM D5333-03., 2003. Standard Test Method
for Measurement of Collapse Potential of Soils,
[1] Udomchoke, V., 1991. Origin and Engineering
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Characteristics of the Problem Soil a in the
Khorat Basin, Northeastern Thailand, Ph.D. [12] ASTM - American Society for Testing Material.
dissertation, Asian Institute of Technology, 2000. Standard Practice for Bearing Capacity of
Bangkok, Thailand. Soil for Static Load and Spread Footings (ASTM
[2] Yasufuku, N, Ochiai, H and Hormdee, D. (2006). D 1194-94). West Conshohocken. Pennsylvania
An Empirical Relationship for Predicting Soil [13] Bowles, J.E., 1997. Foundation Analysis and
Collapsibility due to Soaking under Compression Design, 5th Edition, Mc Graw-Hill Book Co.
and Shear. ASCE:Geotechnical Special New York.
Publication. 4thInternational Conference on [14] Meyerhoy, G.G., 1951. The Ultimate Bearing
Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT 2006). 1037-1048. Capacity of Foundations, Geotechnique, Vol.2,
10.1061/40802(189)84. no.4 (1951) 301-331.
[3] Hormdee, D., 2008.Investigation on Collapse [15] Prommin, T and Nuntasarn, R., 2019.
Potential of Loess Soil, Proceedings of the International Journal of GEOMATE, Vol.17,
Eighteenth (2008 International Offshore and
Issue 63 (2019) 87 - 94.
Polar Engineering Conference 6-11 July 2008,
[16] Meyerhoy, G.G., 1956. Penetration Test and
Vancouver, Canada
Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless Soils, JSMFD,
[4] Evstatiev, D., 1988. Loess improvement methods,
ASCE, Vol.82, SM 1 (1956) 1-19.
Eng. Geol. 25 (1988) 341–366.
[17] Meyerhoy, G.G., 1974. General Report: Outside
[5] Adnan, B.A.,Erdil, T.R., 1992.Evaluation and
Europe, 1st ESOPT, Stockhoim, Vol.2.1(1974),
control of collapsible soils, J. Geotechn. Eng.,
pp.40-48.
ASCE 118 (10) (1992) 1491–1504.
[18] Meyerhoy, G.G., 1965. Shollow Foundations,
[6] Rezaei, M.,Ajalloeian, R.,Ghafoori, M., 2012.
JSMFD, ASCE, Vol.91, SM 2, March, pp.21.31.
Geotechnical properties of problematic soils
[19] Parry, R.H.G., 1997. Estimating Bearing
emphasis on collapsible cases inter, J. Geosci. 3
Capacity of Sand from SPT Values, JGED,
(February) (2012) 105–110.
ASCE, Vol. 103, GT 9, Sept 1997, pp.1014-1019.
[7] Cristopher, T.S., 2013. Expedient mitigation of
[20] Ahmad, A.A., Qasim, A.J., and Ali, A.J., 2009.
collapsible loess in Northern Afghanistan, Int. J.
Evaluation of Bearing Capacity from Field and
Geo. Eng. Case Histories 2 (May 2013) 252–257.
Laboratory Tests, Eng. &Tech. Journal, Vol.27
[8] Samir, I.S., 2014. The assessment of the collapse
(2009), No.3.
potential of fills during inundation using plate
load tests, Life Sci. J. 11 (8) (2014) 1001–1006. Copyright © Int. J. of GEOMATE. All rights reserved,
[9] Holtz, W.G. and Gibbs H.J., 1951. Consolidation including the making of copies unless permission is
and Related Properties of Loessial Soils, ASTM obtained from the copyright proprietors.

140