Technical Papers
Sep 11, 2020

Waterfront Toronto: Soil–Cement Mix Designs in Sands and Peats for Proposed Brownfields Redevelopment Project

Publication: Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
Volume 25, Issue 1

Abstract

Fifteen soil–cement mix designs, cured for up to 270 days, were tested on sand and peaty sands from a Waterfront Toronto Brownfields site having a total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPHC) concentration of approximately 20,000 mg/kg. The peaty sand was created using fibrous peat and sands from the site blended at a 25:75 v/v ratio to reflect the lithology targeted for stabilization/solidification (S/S). Portland slag–cement blends (6–14 wt%) added to wet soil with 0.5 wt% bentonite applied to the sandy soil provided 28-day unconfined compressive strengths (UCSs) of the order of 400–2,500 kPa, which increased to approximately 700–4,300 kPa by 56 days. The performance of the peaty sands was lower: 8–25 wt% cement blends with 0.5 wt% bentonite had UCSs of approximately 140–1,725 kPa at 28 days and 175–3,400 kPa by 56 days. Brazilian tensile strengths of the S/S-treated soils were 10%–16% of UCSs. The minimum cement doses to pass the freeze/thaw test (12 cycles; ASTM D560) after 28 days were 10 and 25 wt% for the sandy and peaty sand soils, respectively. For similar reagent doses, the sandy soil mixes were typically 3–130 times less permeable than the peaty sand mixes after 28 days curing, with all mix designs except one having a hydraulic conductivity less than 10−6 cm/s. Total (n) and effective (neff) porosity testing conducted at 210 days showed that the sandy soil mixes had values of n and neff that were, respectively, 20% and 85%–90% less than the peaty sand mixes. The maximum values of neff of the S/S-treated sands and peaty sands were 9% and 14%, respectively. Computed tomography (CT) of the S/S-treated soils at 210 days confirmed the porosity trends and provided insight into the freeze/thaw failures of the peaty sands. TPHC leaching of the untreated soils and select 28-day cured mix designs as a function of the liquid/solid (L/S) ratio were similar, consistent with other studies where particle crushing of the S/S-treated materials occurred.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Specifically, the S/S treatability study was performed under a subcontract to Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc., for Waterfront Toronto as part of the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure Project (PLFP). The mix design and geotechnical work was executed by Golder Associates with analytical support provided by Maxxam Analytics and TestAmerica-Applied Sciences Laboratory (now Eurofins). The 210-day K and porosity testing was completed by Core Labs (San Bernardino, CA). Numerous Jacobs staff contributed to the work effort associated with the WP3 Area, sampling, and data sets related to contaminant distributions (M. Abolfazlzadeh, T. Andrews, B. Bahman, A. Bates, A. Biczok, S. Montagna, B. Whiffin, to name a few). Notwithstanding the Green Municipal Fund support, the views expressed are the personal views of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for them.

References

Åhnberg, H. 2003. “Measured permeabilities in stabilized Swedish soils.” In Grouting and Ground Treatment, Geotechnical Special Publication 120, edited by L. F. Johnsen, D. A. Bruce, and M. J. Byle, 622–633. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Åhnberg, H., and S. E. Johansson. 2005. “Increase in strength with time in soils stabilised with different types of binder in relation to the type and amount of reaction products.” In Deep Mixing ‘05, 195–202. Sweden: Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre.
API (American Petroleum Institute). 1998. Recommended practices for core analysis. 2nd ed. Recommended Practice 40. Washington, DC: API.
ASTM. 2010. Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture) content of soil and rock by mass. ASTM D2216–10. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2014. Standard test methods for moisture, ash, and organic matter of peat and other organic soils. ASTM D2974-14. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2015. Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete. ASTM C143/C143M-15a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2016a. Standard test methods for freezing and thawing compacted soil–cement mixtures. ASTM D560/D560M-16. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2016b. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of intact rock core specimens. ASTM D3967–16. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2016c. Standard test method for laboratory miniature vane shear test for saturated fine-grained clayey soil. ASTM D4648/D4648M–16. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2016d. Standard test methods for measurement of hydraulic conductivity of saturated porous materials using a flexible wall permeameter. ASTM D5084-16a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2016e. Standard test method for dynamic viscosity and density of liquids by Stabinger viscometer (and the calculation of kinematic viscosity). ASTM D7042. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017a. Standard test method for centrifuge moisture equivalent of soils. ASTM D425M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017b. Standard practice for making and curing soil–cement compression and flexure test specimens in the laboratory. ASTM D1632–17. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017c. Standard test methods for compressive strength of molded soil–cement cylinders. ASTM D1633–17. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017d. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM D2487–17. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017e. Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils. ASTM D4318-17e1. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017f. Standard test methods for particle-size distribution (gradation) of soils using sieve analysis. ASTM D6913/D6913M-17. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018a. Standard test method for density, relative density, and API gravity of liquids by digital density meter. ASTM D4052. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018b. Standard test method for density, relative density, and API gravity of crude oils by digital density analyzer. ASTM D5002. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Bates, E., and C. Hills. 2015. “Stabilization and solidification of contaminated soil and waste: A manual of practice.” HyggeMedia.
Bruce, M. E. C., R. R. Berg, J. G. Collin, G. M. Filz, M. Terashi, and D. S. Yang. 2013. Federal highway administration design manual: Deep mixing for embankment and foundation support. Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-13-046. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2001. Reference method for the Canada wide standard for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil—Tier 1 method. Publication No. 1310. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: CCME.
CH2M (CH2M HILL Canada Limited). 2018. Revised community-based risk assessment (CBRA) for the port lands flood protection and enabling infrastructure project. Toronto, ON: Waterfront Toronto.
City of Toronto Web Map Services. 2018. 100 Queen St. W., Toronto, ONM5H 2N2, Canada. https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/maps/purchase-maps-data/orthoimagery-specifications/.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2009. Leaching assessment methods for the evaluation of the effectiveness of in situ stabilization of soil material at manufactured gas plant sites. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.
EuroSoilStab. 2001. Development of design and construction methods to stabilize soft organic soils. Design Guide Soft Soil Stabilization, EC Project No. BE 96-3177. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Gentry, J. L., M. R. Niemet, D. G. Grubb, M. Bruno, D. R. Berggren, and C. D. Tsiamis. 2014. “Gowanus canal superfund site. II: Stabilization/solidification of MGP-impacted sediments.” J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 19 (1): C4014004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000252.
Hartlén, J., and W. Wolski, eds. 1996. Vol. 80 of Embankments on organic soils. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Hughes, P., and S. Glendinning. 2004. “Deep dry mix ground improvement of a soft peaty clay using blast furnace slag and red gypsum.” Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 37 (3): 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1144/1470-9236/04-003.
Kitazume, M., S. Miyajima, T. Ikeda, and D. Karastanev. 1996. “Bearing capacity of improved ground with column type DMM,” In Grouting and deep mixing, edited by R. Yonekura, M. Terashi, and M. Shibazaki, 503–508. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Kitazume, M., T. Ikeda, S. Miyajima, and D. Karastanev. 1996. “Bearing capacity of improved ground with column type DMM.” In Proc., IS-Tokyo 96 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 503–508.
Mesri, G., and M. Ajlouni. 2007. “Engineering properties of fibrous peats.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (7): 850–866. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:7(850).
Moayedi, H., S. Kazemian, and B. B. Huat. 2013. “Shear strength parameters of improved peat by chemical stabilizer.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 31 (4): 1089–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-013-9635-5.
Moayedi, H., and R. Nazir. 2018. “Malaysian experiences of peat stabilization, state of the art.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 36 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0321-x.
OMECP (Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks). 2011. Soil, ground water and sediment standards for use under part XV.1 of the environmental protection act. Toronto, ON: OMECP.
Timoney, M. J., B. McCabe, and A. L. Bell. 2012. “Experiences of dry soil mixing in organic soils.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 165 (1): 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.2012.165.1.3.
Tremblay, H., J. Duchesne, J. Locat, and S. Leroueil. 2002. “Influence of the nature of organic compounds on fine soil stabilization with cement.” Can. Geotech. J. 39 (3): 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-002.
USEPA. 2004. SW-846 Test method 9045D: Soil and solid waste pH. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods SW-846 Method 9045D. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2017. SW-846 Test method 1316: Liquid-solid partitioning as a function of liquid-to-solid ratio in solid materials using a parallel batch procedure. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods SW-846 Method 1316. Washington, DC: USEPA.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
Volume 25Issue 1January 2021

History

Received: Dec 6, 2019
Accepted: May 1, 2020
Published online: Sep 11, 2020
Published in print: Jan 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Feb 11, 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

D. G. Grubb, M.ASCE [email protected]
Senior Principal Technologist, Jacobs Engineering, Inc., 2301 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19103 (corresponding author). Email: [email protected]
D. R. V. Berggren
Remediation Technologist, Jacobs Engineering, Inc., 1100 NE Circle Blvd, Suite 300, Corvallis, OR 97330.
J. C. Cullen
Senior Project Engineer, Golder Associates Ltd., 210 Sheldon Drive, Cambridge, ON, Canada N1T 1A8.
K. Barfoot
Principal—Environmental Services, Stantec, Ltd., 100-300 Hagey Blvd., Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 0A4.
Director, Waterfront Toronto, 1310-20 Bay St., Toronto, ON, Canada M5J 2N8. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4561-8723.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share