Stabilized Dredged Material.

I: Parametric Study
Dennis G. Grubb, M.ASCE1; Maria Chrysochoou, M.ASCE2; Charles J. Smith, M.ASCE3; and
Nicholas E. Malasavage4

Abstract: This study presents the results of a treatability study for dredged material 共DM兲 stabilization using 20 combinations of
pozzolanic agents 共lime, cement kiln dust, high alkali and slag cements, and fly ash兲. The DM consisted of CH/OH soil excavated from
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Craney Island confined disposal facility in Hampton Roads, Virginia, having an in situ moisture content
of approximately 130% and void ratio of 3.35. Mix designs were prepared for each stabilized DM 共SDM兲 blend using a 3-day mellowing
period for the SDM blends to become compactable. Typical maximum dry unit weights were on the order of 11.9– 12.9 kN/ m3
共76– 82 lb/ ft3兲, for total dry pozzolan doses to wet DM between 5 and 95%, the upper dosing limit being unconstrained for potential use
of the SDM blends as fill. Unconfined compression strength 共UCS兲 testing of the SDM blends using DM with an initial MC of 132.5%
was completed in accordance with ASTM D1632 and ASTM D1633 for curing times of 7, 28, and 180 days. The 28-day cured specimens
had UCS values up to 800 kPa 共115 psi兲. Leaching analyses of the various SDM blends for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
metals using toxicity characteristic leaching procedure and deionized water solutions for extended durations and contact times illustrated
that the SDM blends were nonhazardous and virtually identical to the raw DM. Overall, the use of industrial by-products in SDM blends
suggests that it may be possible to undertake large-scale fill construction that is sustainable, cost-effective, and environmentally protective
of human health and the environment.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000254
CE Database subject headings: Soil stabilization; Soil cement; Dredging; Recycling; Laboratory tests; Physical properties;
Parameters.
Author keywords: Soil stabilization; Soil cement; Dredge spoil; By-Product utilization; Laboratory tests; Physical properties.

Introduction 2.3 million m3 / year 共3 MCY/year兲 for use as a compacted fill

This study was motivated by the possibility of using stabilized
dredged material 共SDM兲 blends as potential fill material for the
Virginia Port Authority 共VPA兲 Craney Island Marine Terminal
共CIMT兲 expansion project 共2010–2030兲 共Cardno 2007兲. Approxi-
mately 23 million m3 关30 million cubic yards 共MCY兲兴 of fill will
be required to build a commercial cargo facility immediately ad-
jacent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 共USACE兲 Craney
Island confined disposal facility 共CDF兲 in Hampton Roads, Vir-
ginia. The condensed project timeline, the immediate proximity
of the CDF, and the enormous supply of DM fines lead to a
situation where VPA is compelled to consider using SDM blends
for large-scale construction of the backlands fill 共cargo container
staging and lay down areas behind wharf structures兲. One concept
is to utilize several portable pugmills to produce SDM at rates of
1
Senior Associate, Schnabel Engineering LLC, 510 East Gay St., West
Chester, PA 19380 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: dgrubb@schnabel-
eng.com
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269.
3
Associate, Schnabel Engineering LLC, 1901 South Main St., Suite
11, Blacksburg, VA 24060.
4
Engineering Intern, Schnabel Engineering LLC, 510 East Gay St.,
West Chester, PA 19380.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 17, 2008; approved on
September 18, 2009; published online on July 15, 2010. Discussion pe-
riod open until January 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 8, August 1, 2010.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2010/8-1011–1024/$25.00.
material above the waterline.
Generally speaking, stabilization/solidification 共S/S兲 of soils
includes a broad range of applications including environmental
remediation 共U.S. EPA 1989兲, dredged material 共DM兲 stabiliza-
tion, soil cement for site/roadway applications 关Portland Cement
Association 共PCA兲 2006兴, and deep soil mixing for ground im-
provement 关Federal Highway Administration 共FHWA兲 2001; Al-
Tabbaa et al. 2005; Cali et al. 2005a,b; Hernandez-Martinez and
Al-Tabbaa 2005; Osman and Al-Tabbaa 2005兴. In terms of mag-
nitude and soil type, the deep soil mixing work that will be un-
dertaken in the lower Louisiana region for foundation
improvements to dikes, levees, and water control structures on
soft ground is very closely aligned with DM stabilization. It is
estimated that greater than 0.77 million m3 共1 MCY兲 of soft soils
may require deep soil mixing prior to the year 2010 共P. Cali,
personal communication, 2008兲. Further west, the dikes and
levees in the central California region may likewise require deep
soil mixing to improve foundation conditions from an erosional,
geotechnical, and seismic perspective 共Harder 2006兲.
While SDM and deep soil mixing applications may use the
same types of potential pozzolans 关Portland Cement Association
共PCA兲 1992, 1995, 2006; Federal Highway Administration
共FHWA兲 2001兴 for S/S purposes, they differ primarily in the
equipment used, pozzolan dosing rates, and the aging conditions,
i.e., the combined elapsed time for sequential mellowing and cur-
ing. While pozzolan reactions are ongoing from the time of initial
blending, we distinguish between mellowing and curing. Mellow-
ing refers to the time immediately after blending when the DM
and pozzolans are allowed to react in an undisturbed state to
develop a workable consistency 共e.g., in a stockpile兲. Curing be-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.

 gins when the SDM is mined from a production stockpile, re-
worked and placed/compacted in its final configuration 共e.g.,
when no further sample disturbance can break cementation
bonds兲. For deep soil mixing, since the application is in situ, the
mellowing time is taken to be zero except for the interlocking of
adjacent deep soil mixed columns.
The main issue to consider for the SDM mellowing period is
its representativeness to the intended operating conditions in the
field. As such, the duration of mellowing is generally limited to
between 24 and 72 h, which balances between the two main com-
peting constraints. First, sufficient time must elapse after the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
SDM exits the pugmill 共for cement reactions to proceed兲 for it to
become both workable and compactable. Second, the physical
constraints of the project such as available stockpile area, and the
rates of generation and fill construction may limit the residence
time in the SDM stockpile 共or mellowing time兲. For large con-
structed fills, the mellowing period can be relaxed to 72 h as
longer mellowing times favor greater evaporation of water, either
being driven off by the exothermic pozzolanic reactions or by
wind action, both of which aid in lowering the initially applied
pozzolan dose.
Reagents commonly used to stabilize DM and soft foundation
soils include lime 共L兲, lime kiln dust 共LKD兲, portland cement
共PC兲, slag or blended cements, cement kiln dust 共CKD兲, fly ash
共FA兲 共Class C or F兲 or combinations of these materials. Bench
scale treatability studies seek to optimize the amount of added
reagents by monitoring properties such as the moisture content
共MC兲, unconfined compressive strength 共UCS兲, and environmen-
tal 共leaching兲 performance of different mix designs, the latter in
the case of the geoenvironmental stabilization of DM typically
undertaken in the U.S. northeast. In our review of the literature,
we had great difficulty in obtaining data on the relative effects of
different pozzolans on DM except for two main reports: Parsons
Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas 共PBQD兲 共1999兲 and Dermatas
et al. 共1999兲. PBQD conducted a S/S study of fresh DM from the
Arthur Kill Channel 共Newark Bay, New Jersey兲. The DM classi-
fied as a CH/OH soil with a loss on ignition 共LOI兲 of 10.5–14.5%,
an in situ MC of 178–185%, and a void ratio of 4.63. Eight SDM
blends were tested, consisting of 20% LKD, 20% CKD, 7, 7.5,
and 8% PC, 8% PC with 12% FA, and 8% L, using modified
levels of compaction for UCS specimen preparation. Dermatas et
al. 共1999兲 conducted SDM testing at a range of moisture contents
共90–170%兲 with type I PC, also using modified levels of compac-
tion for UCS specimen preparation. Beyond these two studies,
extensive studies on the influence of a variety of pozzolans and
their combinations with wet DM do not appear in the open litera-
ture to guide the technical or economic decision making regarding
DM management.
Accordingly, this study was undertaken to guide the possible
use of SDM blends for marine terminal construction, not just for
bulk fill construction, but applications where the SDM was
viewed to have cost or technical advantages in construction 共pri-
mary goal兲, and to showcase recycling/beneficial use of DM 共sec-
ondary goal兲. For instance, some high FA content SDM blends,
while too expensive from a bulk fill perspective, can be poten-
tially used as compacted subbase materials to reduce the thickness
and costs of aggregate base course supporting the roller com-
pacted concrete pavements at finished grade. It is also not uncom-
mon to place pavement materials directly on soil cement
共eliminating aggregate兲.
1012 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.
Pozzolan Selection
The MC of fresh DM from a dredging scow or barge is on the
order of 100–200% 关Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas
共PBQD兲 1999兴. Unconsolidated DM in active CDFs can have
MCs on this order of magnitude. Since the primary goal for DM
beneficial use or upland disposal is dewatering and improved ma-
terials handling, the blending of amendments to fresh 共or wet兲
DM for S/S purposes is usually referenced to 100% DM 共wet
basis兲 plus the individual additives 共dry兲. Since most additives
will be added dry 共with the possible exception of conditioned
FA兲, their immediate effect is that of a drying agent, which di-
rectly reduces the DM MC by mass averaging 共i.e., dilution兲.
Moisture in the DM may be driven off due to the exothermic
lime-based reactions, and/or by wind action under open condi-
tions. Water may also be incorporated in newly formed hydrates
over time.
In selecting the pozzolanic materials 共including lime for con-
venience兲 for S/S, it is important to consider both the bulk chem-
istry and mineralogy of the pozzolans and media to be stabilized
共in this case, DM兲. The strength gains resulting from S/S of soft
soils including DM are linked to the formation of calcium silicate
hydrate and calcium aluminate hydrate compounds, which are
also the compounds that are generally associated with the chemi-
cal inclusion of heavy metals 共Moon et al. 2006兲. Thus, from a
bulk chemistry perspective, it is important that sufficient reactive
and soluble calcium 共Ca兲, silica 共Si兲, and alumina 共Al兲 are avail-
able at elevated pH for the cement reactions to proceed. Bulk
chemistry data have been used for mix design 共Kamon and Non-
tananandh 1991兲, but it is important to recognize that the native
Ca, Si, and Al in soil media are often bound in crystalline miner-
als with very low solubilities, and in these cases, pozzolans that
can provide soluble Si and Al such as FA are often incorporated
into the mix design. At high pH 共⬃10 to 13兲 for prolonged aging
periods 共60 days兲, the Si and Al that were not available at early
times after mixing tend to increasingly dissolve from clays, FA,
and other amorphous and crystalline phases.
An important drying agent for high water content DM which
also provides for high quantities of reactive calcium is quicklime
共CaO兲, which is usually applied between 5 and 10%. For cement
treated base applications, the typical economic doses less
than 10% 关Portland Cement Association 共PCA兲 2006兴, but
for higher water content media such as DM, effective pozzolan
dosing begins at 10%. A lime/PC dose of 10% to wet DM
共⬃150 kg/ m3兲 also corresponds to the minimum effective dose
used in deep soil mixing applications, including soft foundation
soils that contain elevated organic matter contents 共swamps,
peats兲 共Cali et al. 2005a,b兲, or petroleum contamination 共Day and
Ryan 1995兲. As such, 10% lime was taken to be the “industry
standard,” and the reference basis for all mix selections, see Table
1.
The use of quicklime requires that other sources of reactive Si
and Al be present for cement reactions to take place, either from
the DM, or from other amendments. PC is less effective than lime
from a drying perspective, and the required dosage for similar
performance may approach up to a factor of 2 共10–20%; 10–15%
common in the metro New York City harbor 关Parsons Brincker-
hoff, Quade and Douglas 共PBQD兲 1999; Grubb et al. 2006a,b,
2007兴兲. However, PC contains substantial quantities of reactive
silicates and aluminates to be highly self-cementing. In each case,
the goal is to minimize the 10% L/PC cost by replacing them with
CKD and FA. The main strategy in using CKD is to provide
sufficient free lime 共CaO兲 and some reactive silicates and alumi-
 Table 1. Pozzolan Dosing Matrix and Rationale Materials and Methods
MIX ID L CKD FA Reasoning
This study was completed in two phases. Phase IA, the DM
DM-5/0/0 5 Upper and lower industry standards
source material and 15 SDM blends involving L, CKD, and Class
DM-10/0/0 10 F FA were used 共Table 1兲. Midproject 共Phase IB; 3 SDM blends兲,
DM-0/10/0 10 Upper and lower CKD costs— a high alkali 共E兲 and slag cement 共N兲 were additionally tested for
DM-0/15/0 15 establish CKD baseline
their ability to stabilize the DM, with and without the FA. These
DM-0/20/0 20 performance
supplemental blends were tested on a limited basis for select pa-
DM-10/0/25 10 25 High cost—high anticipated rameters, not necessarily against the full complement of tests
DM-10/0/75 10 75
performance—minimum and 共e.g., leaching tests兲. After evaluation of all 20 SDM blends 共this
maximum of potential FA additions study兲, six SDM blends were selected for additional analyses
DM-0/10/25 10 25 Low cost—low and medium 共Phase II; Grubb et al. 2010兲, based on their potential use as bulk
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DM-0/10/75 10 75 anticipated performance—minimum
and maximum of potential FA
DM-0/20/25 20 25
additions
DM-0/20/75 20 75
DM-2.5/7.5/25 2.5 7.5 25 Mixed blends—optimization of
DM-2.5/7.5/75 2.5 7.5 75 cost versus performance—
DM-2.5/17.5/25 2.5 17.5 25 minimum and maximum of
potential FA additions
DM-2.5/17.5/75 2.5 17.5 75
Note: DM-0/0/0 sample ID denotes 100% DM 共wet兲 plus dry L/CKD/FA
content, except where E and N explicitly appear.
nates to enable pozzolanic reactions to occur at a high pH
共⬎11兲, but at a significantly reduced cost 共60%兲 compared to
lime/PC 共$100–$120/t兲, which means higher doses can be used
for the same pozzolan cost 共Table 1兲. The drawback with CKD is
that it may contain sulfur in concentrations that may contribute to
ettringite 共Ca6Al2共SO4兲3共OH兲12 · 26H2O兲 formation, an expansive
mineral associated with swell and failure in lime-stabilized soils
and cements 共Dermatas 1995; Taylor et al. 2001兲.
With FA, doses have been traditionally limited to 10–30% to
avoid bulking 共volume or weight increase兲 and to minimize con-
taminated DM disposal costs. The limited use of FA, however,
does not necessarily apply to a fill project where bulking may
provide benefits. Significantly more FA can be added, which may
or may not be sufficient on its own to significantly improve the
performance of the DM through pozzolanic reactions, depending
on its geochemistry 共Class F versus C兲. Class C FA contains re-
active Ca that can raise the pH and is self-cementing, while Class
F FA does not contain alkalinity, but only provides reactive Si and
Al for cement reactions. High quantities 共50–75%兲 of dry FA also
may be desirable to make initially very wet DM workable 关Par-
sons Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas 共PBQD兲 1999兴.
With relatively clean DM, and where the end use is not regu-
lated as upland or landfill disposal, the advantages/disadvantages
of DM bulking are a matter of perspective. For a developer or
port authority executing a fill project, bulking can be a benefit—
more volume and/or less cost for the same weight of SDM. How-
ever, if the proposed fill project programmatically serves an
analogous function to a CDF and is linked to a navigation project
where disposal volume is at a premium, then a potential project
sponsor may want to minimize bulking, especially if the com-
pacted SDM blends are not denser than the in situ DM 共as sedi-
ment, or in CDF兲. If the SDM blend is denser than the in situ DM
even when the pozzolan dosing is factored into the final weight/
volume relationships 共as would potentially be the case from min-
ing DM from a CDF兲, then SDM blending presents many clear
advantages for fill construction above the water table 共SDM can-
not be hydraulically placed兲.
fill materials and for subgrade improvement below the anticipated
paved surfaces. One SDM blend 共DM-0/20/0兲 was chosen for
further Phase II testing because it contained the highest sulfate
content, and was used to attempt to bracket the upper limit for
potential ettringite formation and swell.
Dredged Material
Fresh DM classifying as a CH/OH soil by the Unified Soil Clas-
sification System 共USCS兲 共ASTM 2487兲 was acquired from the
southern cell of the Craney Island CDF using a long reach exca-
vator. The actual location was situated approximately two-thirds
along the reach of the cell from the southern edge, several meters
upgradient from free standing decant water. The specific intent
was to collect high fines and water content DM that would rep-
resent some of the more challenging material in the CDF to be
stabilized, if actively mined for large-scale construction. The DM
was obtained from below the surface crust 共15 cm; 6 in.兲, and had
the consistency of toothpaste 共MC⬃ 110 to 130%; ein situ ⬃ 3.35兲,
which readily flowed from the excavator bucket into sealable
drums, see Fig. 1. Decant water collected from the facility drain-
age structure was used to maintain a water chemistry consistent
with the fresh DM, when MC adjustments were necessary.
On average, the DM used in the testing program had a liquid
limit 共LL兲 of 62, plasticity index 共PI兲 of 39, approximately 93%
fines, and a specific gravity 共GS兲 on the order of 2.75, see Table 2.
The ASTM designations are shown in Table 2 where relevant. The
average organic matter content determined by ASTM D2974
共ASTM 2000c兲 共LOI at 450° C兲 was 3.3%. The mineralogy of the
DM is presented and discussed in a companion paper 共Chryso-
choou et al. 2010兲. The maximum dry densities by standard
共ASTM D698兲 and modified 关ASTM D1557 共ASTM 2000a兲兴
Proctor compaction were 15.0 and 16.92 kN/ m3 共95.5 and
107.7 lb/ ft3兲 with optimum moisture contents of 22.1% and
17.5%, respectively.
Pozzolans
The type F FA 共MC⬃ 10– 20%兲 used for this study was acquired
from the Dominion Virginia Power Yorktown station from the
conditioning silos prior to off-site transport. The lime, CKD, type
IE PC 共E兲 and slag cement 共N兲 共NewCem兲 were provided by
Lafarge North America 共Whitehall, Pennsylvania, Ravena, New
York, and Sparrows Point, Maryland兲. Key geoenvironmental pa-
rameters of the DM and pozzolanic materials are presented in
Table 3. It should be noted that the bulk 共oxide兲 chemistry pro-
vided by X-ray fluorescence for the reagents do not necessarily
reflect their actual geochemistry, as illustrated in a companion
paper 共Chrysochoou et al. 2010兲. The LOI values in Table 3 are
referenced to 950° C, and pH was performed at a liquid-solid
共L:S兲 ratio of 1:1 or 2:1 depending on the hydroscopic nature of

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.

 Mix Designs
Based on SDM blend experience in the metro New York City
region, it was decided to develop mix design curves for the SDM
blends for MCs ranging from approximately 80–150% to accom-
modate the natural MC variability in the field. Selection of the
lower MC bound relates to where the DM consistency approaches
a workability that allows it to be directly excavated from a CDF
共Grubb et al. 2008兲 or geotechnically enhanced by other means
共Grubb et al. 2006a,b, 2007兲. Selections of the upper MC bound
was set somewhat lower than the typical MCs of fresh DM 共⬃150
to ⬎200%兲 taken from the navigational channels, recognizing the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

nominal benefit of dewatering that occurs in large active CDFs.

Fig. 1. DM sampling event, USACE Craney Island, Hampton Roads,
Va.
the pozzolan 共L used 2:1兲. Total organic carbon and total carbon
were determined using U.S. EPA SW-846 Method 9060A, with
total inorganic carbon being calculated as the difference.
Containers of DM were conditioned to initial MCs of 80, 97.5,
115, 132.5, and 150% for the mix design process 关ASTM
D558-04 共ASTM 2004兲兴, e.g., the soil-cement analog to standard
Proctor compaction. DM from the storage drums was either dried
back or wetted with Craney Island decant water to achieve the
targeted initial MC of the DM. While the DM water content var-
ied for the mix design, the prescribed blending ratios of the poz-
zolans 共wet basis兲 were maintained.
The sample nomenclature used herein refers to 100% DM
共wet兲 plus the 共L or PC兲/共CKD or NewCem兲/FA contents, added
on a dry basis 共E and N shown in mix ID only when used兲. For
example, DM-10/0/0 refers to DM plus 10% lime 共dry兲 alone. In
this regard, the SDM blend percentages do not sum to 100%. The
sequence for adding admixtures to the wet DM on a percent dry
basis was as follows. DM and FA were first mixed and homog-
enized. The FA dosing rates accounted for its moisture 共⬃20%兲.
The pozzolans were then added and blending continued for 5 min
either by hand or electric hand mixer depending on the volume
and stiffness of the mix. Each blend was then spread across the
bottom of a metal baking tray to a depth of roughly 2.0 cm
共⬃0.75 in.兲 and was mellowed under open conditions for 3 days
共Grubb et al. 2008兲. Afterward, the SDM blends were removed
from their mellowing trays and were pushed through a 0.95-cm
共3/8-in.兲 sieve to simulate the reworking process prior to compac-
tion.
The soil-cement mix design procedure used a 2-in. diameter
rammer to compact the material inside a 4-in. diameter mold, i.e.,
an aspect ratio of 2 between the mold and rammer diameter. The
compaction energy applied to the sample is equivalent to the stan-

Table 2. Index Properties of Dredged Material at Sampled Locations

Particle size Plasticity indices Compaction
共D422兲 共D4318兲 共D698/D1557兲
Water content LOI Specific gravity
DM bulk 共D2974兲 共D2974兲 共D854兲 Percentage Percentage Percentage USCS ␥d,max wopt
sample 共%兲 共%兲 共⫺兲 of gravel of sand of fines LL PL PI 共D2487兲 kN/ m3 共lb/ ft3兲 共%兲
Drum A 117.8 2.9 2.76 0 9.0 91.0 56 23 33 CH 15.0a 共95.5兲 22.1a
Drum B 105.5 3.7 2.73 0 6.2 93.8 63 26 37 CH 16.9b 共107.7兲 17.5b
Drum C 121.8 3.6 2.77 0 5.8 94.2 67 27 50 OH — —
Drum D 122.9 3.0 2.74 0 7.9 92.1 63 26 37 OH — —
Average 117.0 3.3 2.75 0 7.2 92.8 62 26 39
Mix design 132.5 2.74

Note: DM-0/0/0 sample ID denotes 100% DM 共wet兲 plus dry L/CKD/FA, except where E and N explicitly appear; ASTM designations shown for
convenience.
a
Standard compactive effort per ASTM D698.
b
Modified compactive effort per ASTM D1557.

1014 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.

 Table 3. Bulk Chemistry and Select Environmental Parameters of Pozzolans and Dredged Material 共Controls兲
Chemistry 共% dry wt兲 Lime CKD FA Type IE PC NewCem DM
Silicon dioxide 共SiO2兲 1.1 15.16 43.5 18.67 34.17 58.01
Aluminum oxide 共Al2O3兲 0.33 3.96 25.16 5.74 10.39 12.95
Iron oxide 共Fe2O3兲 0.09 2.21 11.53 2.57 0.56 6.14
Calcium oxide 共CaO兲 97.73 46.99 1.85 62.04 37.78 4.01
Magnesium oxide 共MgO兲 1.12 2.8 1.04 2.36 14.42 1.77
Sodium oxide 共Na2O兲 ⬍0.01 0.35 0.43 0.39 0.29 1.82
Potassium oxide 共K2O兲 0.08 2.08 2.26 1.02 0.29 2.46
Sulfur trioxide 共SO3兲 0.06 6.42 0.21 4.18 2.27 1.41
LOI, 950° C 共%兲 0.0 19.17 10.84 1.85 0.0 10.01
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Miscellaneous
pH 12.14 13.03 8.4 13.23 11.12 6.9–7.4
MC 共%兲 0.13 0.15 24.83 0.0 0.0 130
Inorganic total C 共mg/kg兲 3,000 46,700 20,400 ⬍1 , 000 ⬍1 , 000 9,700
Organic total C 共mg/kg兲 ⬍1000 7,870 88,600 ⬍1 , 000 ⬍1 , 000 11,100
Total carbon 共mg/kg兲 3,000 54,600 109,000 ⬍1 , 000 ⬍1 , 000 20,800
Specific gravity 共Gs兲 3.07 2.78 2.30 3.17 3.00 2.74
Note: Oxide analysis provided by the CTL Group, Skokie, Illinois.

dard Proctor test. Conversely, Dermatas et al. 共1999兲 and Parsons
Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas 共PBQD兲 共1999兲 both used
modified Proctor compaction in their studies. Parsons Brincker-
hoff, Quade and Douglas 共PBQD兲 共1999兲 explored compactive
energies as high as two times the modified Proctor effort with
marginal density increase 共5–8%兲.
The criteria for “compactibility” of the SDM after the mellow-
ing period was based on plasticity and the ability to physically
compact the material. Soils at MCs above their plastic limit 共PL兲
tend to deform in the mold around the rammer with limited or no
densification. Hence, while our MC ranges for testing were com-
parable to Dermatas et al. 共1999兲 for wet DM, their compaction
results were based on a mold to rammer aspect ratio of 1.27,
which introduces additional confinement during compaction, po-
tentially allowing wetter media to be artificially compacted in the
laboratory. This is another significant departure between the two
studies, and while this study used a greater aspect ratio for pro-
cedural purposes, it is not known how closely either compaction
approach mimics the ability of SDM to shift and deform during
lift placement and proof rolling in the field.
Unconfined Compression Strength „UCS… Test Speci-
mens
The UCS test specimens were all prepared using DM at an initial
MC of 132.5%. This 共very wet兲 MC was chosen recognizing that:
共1兲 the field operations will not allow sufficient time for DM to
dry back to optimum for any SDM blend and 共2兲 the UCS values
of SDM wet of optimum are nevertheless sufficient for geotech-
nical design in many cases. The selection of the MC wet of opti-
mum is also recommended by the National Lime Association
共2001兲 to mitigate against heave associated with the formation of
ettringite. Lastly, when starting with very wet DM, wind action in
the field can aid in significantly drying the SDM blend during the
mellowing period without the risk of dropping the MC below
optimum, where swell can occur due to rehydration 共in addition to
ettringite formation兲.
Temperature in the laboratory was automated controlled be-
tween 20 and 23° C, though humidity was not directly controlled.
UCS specimens were prepared and mellowed consistent with that
of the mix design. The specimen target wet unit weight was based
on achieving a minimum of 95% relative compaction 共RC兲 of the
wet density that corresponded to the theoretical dry density 共DD兲
from the mix design using DM at an initial MC of 132.5%. Com-
paction of the UCS test specimens was in accordance with ASTM
D1632. Specimens were prepared and tested in triplicate for av-
eraging purposes. UCS specimen breaks were conducted in accor-
dance with ASTM D1633 共ASTM 2007a,b兲, except that the
specimens were not soaked before testing, in accordance with
industry practice and the recommendations of the Portland Ce-
ment Association 共PCA兲 共2006兲.
It is a unique feature of the ASTM D1632 equipment that its
aspect ratio 共mold to rammer diameter兲 is 1, meaning that even if
a SDM blend is not compactable for a given initial MC of DM
共by ASTM D558兲 in a standard Proctor mold 共aspect ratio of 2兲, it
nevertheless can be compacted to a much wetter target wet unit
weight by ASTM D1632. For those few cases where this occurred
共5% L, 10 and 15% CKD兲, each respective mix design curve was
extended downward parallel to the zero air voids curve to the
measured 3-day mellowed MC of the SDM batch to determine the
corresponding theoretical dry 共wet兲 density for compaction pur-
poses. Likewise, since the mix designs and UCS test specimens
were not produced from the same batches 共and because humidity
conditions varied somewhat兲, the MC of the UCS specimen
batches as they mellowed were monitored against the mix designs
which occasionally required the application of fans to the batches
for limited periods of time 共per day; total for time/batch was 4–8
h兲. In this regard, the mix design, MC, and UCS data are used to
monitor reproducibility between different batches of SDM.
Environmental Analyses
The SDM blends were batched as pastes in accordance with the
mix design proportions and were mellowed under open conditions
for 3 days in the laboratory. The samples were then manually
compacted and sealed in high density polyethylene 共HDPE兲 con-
tainers for 7 and 28 days so that the leaching results 共below兲
would be consistent with the UCS data sets.
The DM source material, pozzolans, and original SDM blends
共28-day cured兲 were first analyzed for total metals and anions.
Total RCRA metals were determined using the U.S. EPA 6000/
7000 method series, while the anion concentrations 共except sul-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1015

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.

 17
Note: For SDM blends, data points represent 105
DM initial water contents of 80, 97.5, 115,
16 132.5 and 150%, left to right, as denoted for
the DM-2.5/17.5/75 blend. 100

15 100%DM (ASTM D1557)

95
100%DM (ASTM D698)
DM-5E/0/10
ZAV for 90
14 DM-2.5/7.5/25
Gs = 2.75
DM-0/20/0
Dry Unit Weight, γd (kN/m3)

Dry Unit Weight, γd (lb/ft3)

DM-2.5E/7.5N/10 85
13 DM-2.5/17.5/25
DM-2.5/17.5/75
80
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12
75

11 70
DMi = 80%
DMi = 150%
65
10

60
9
55

8
50
All SDM blend data based on 3-day open mellowing period.
7 45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Moisture Content (%)

Fig. 2. Standard and modified compaction data for DM and mix designs 共ASTM D558兲 for select SDM blends

fate兲 were analyzed using U.S. EPA SW846 method 9056. Due to
the high concentrations of sulfate in the pozzolans and SDM
blends, the sulfate concentrations were determined using a hydro-
chloric acid 共HCl兲 digestion procedure followed by ion chroma-
tography 共Dionex 4000i series兲 with a practical quantitation limit
of 20 mg/kg sulfate 关Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. 共CAS兲
2005兴. This procedure was adopted because it was successfully
used for the analysis of elevated sulfate concentrations in
chromite ore processing residue by Dermatas et al. 共2006兲.
Representative subsamples were taken at 7 days and 28 days
for toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 共TCLP兲 and deion-
ized water 共DIW兲 leaching tests, respectively. The TCLP test was
performed to illustrate the regulatory compliance of the SDM
blends. The DIW extraction was chosen to document the potential
leaching of oxyanions 共As, Cr, Se兲 under the natural alkaline con-
ditions associated with the SDM blends, which was taken to be
more consistent with the anticipated exposure conditions for
large-scale fill construction 共e.g., unbuffered water兲.
The TCLP leaching test was performed according to the U.S.
EPA Method 1311 with slight modifications: 5 g of soil media 共air
dried for 24 h immediately after sampling兲 was placed in 125-mL
HDPE bottles and mixed with 100 g of each respective extraction
solution. For the 100% DM sample, extraction fluid No. 1 was
used 共5.7 mL of glacial acetic acid in 500 mL reagent water per
64.3 mL of 1M sodium hydroxide solution, diluted to a volume of
1 L, pH= 4.93⫾ 0.05兲. Fluid No. 2 共dilute 5.7 mL glacial acetic
acid with reagent water to a volume of 1 L, pH= 2.88⫾ 0.05兲 was
used on the SDM blends. Separate subsamples were individually
tumbled at 30 revolutions per minute for 18, 72, and 336 h. All
leachates were filtered with a 0.45-␮m Whatman glass fiber
membrane filter and the filtrate pH was measured using a pH
meter 共Denver Instruments UB-10, Denver兲. The metals concen-
trations were determined by using Inductive Coupled Plasma-
Optical Emission Spectroscopy 共Varian Vista-MPX, Varian,
California兲. The DIW leaching tests were identical, with the ex-
ception of using DIW as the extraction fluid.
For the TCLP and DIW results, the statistical estimate of the
instrument detection limit was calculated as 3.314 times the stan-
dard deviation based on a calibration study performed in the
ranges of 0.1–2 and 1.5–5 mg/L. The method detection limits
were reported as five times the instrument detection limit.
Results and Discussion
Compaction Behavior
Fig. 2 shows the compaction curves for the DM dried back from
its initial MC to produce standard and modified Proctor curves,
respectively. The drying back of DM took approximately 4 weeks
under laboratory conditions. In Fig. 2, the horizontal axis serves
the dual purpose of denoting the MC of conventional soils 共DM兲
when compacted, but also the MC of the SDM blends at the end
of the mellowing process 共3 days兲 immediately prior to compac-
tion. In this way, the actual data points that comprise the SDM
blend compaction curve also correspond to the different initial
MCs of the DM at the time of blending 共80–150%兲.
The maximum dry unit weight of the Craney Island DM by
modified Proctor effort 共16.92 kN/ m3; 107.7 lb/ ft3兲 is somewhat
higher than the range reported by PBQD 共1999兲 for metro
New York City DM classifying as MH, OH, and CH which had
maximum dry unit weights varying from approximately
11– 15 kN/ m3 共70– 95 lb/ ft3兲 and optimum water content on the
order of 22–43%. However, the metro New York City DM was
characterized by LOIs on the order of 10.5–14.5%. Likewise, the
maximum dry unit weight by standard Proctor effort 共Table 2兲

1016 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.

 Table 4. Measured Parameters for SDM Blends
28-day cured UCS test specimens
Mix design 共ASTM D558兲 Wet unit weight Dry unit weight UCS
␥d,max ␥d,max wopt MC
SDM blend 共lb/ ft3兲 共kN/ m3兲 共%兲 Gs 共%兲 lb/ ft3 kN/ m3 lb/ ft3 kN/ m3 lb/ in.2 kPa Void ratio
100 DM 共ASTM D698兲 95.2 15.0 23.3 2.75 21.8 112.4 17.7 92.3 14.5 39.3 270.7 0.86
DM-5/0/0 2.78 70.6 85.4 13.4 50.0 7.9 4.3 29.6 2.47
DM-10/0/0 76 11.9 32 2.80 52.7 88.6 13.9 58.2 9.1 11.9 81.8 2.00
DM-0/10/0 2.76 74.3 89.3 14.0 51.2 8.0 8.0 55.2 2.36
DM-0/15/0 2.76 66.6 88.3 13.9 53.0 8.3 14.6 100.9 2.25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DM-0/20/0 82 12.9 34 2.76 50.1 99.1 15.6 65.9 10.3 79.7 549.5 1.61
DM-10/0/25 2.62 42.7 92.0 14.4 64.5 10.1 14.5 99.7 1.53
DM-10/0/75 75.5 11.9 35 2.49 34.4 95.4 15.0 71.0 11.1 63.9 440.6 1.19
DM-0/10/25 2.59 55.4 93.2 14.6 60.0 9.4 7.7 52.9 1.69
DM-0/10/75 80.5 12.7 31 2.47 39.3 95.4 15.0 68.5 10.8 10.2 70.1 1.25
DM-0/20/25 2.61 52.7 92.9 14.6 61.7 9.7 49.8 343.4 1.64
DM-0/20/75 76 11.9 35 2.49 37.9 97.0 15.2 70.4 11.1 41.4 285.5 1.21
DM-2.5/7.5/25 80 12.6 32 2.60 48.3 97.1 15.2 64.7 10.2 21.5 147.9 1.51
DM-2.5/7.5/75 77.5 12.2 31 2.47 43.9 94.1 14.8 65.4 10.3 28.9 199.0 1.36
DM-2.5/17.5/25 81.5 12.8 30 2.62 41.7 97.2 15.3 68.1 10.7 88.9 612.6 1.40
DM-2.5/17.5/75 76 11.9 33.5 2.49 36.5 96.3 15.1 70.6 11.1 113.7 783.6 1.20
DM-5E/0/10 2.69 73.4 85.9 13.5 49.5 7.8 33.1 228.0 2.39
DM-2.5E/7.5N/10 2.71 63.8 88.8 13.9 54.2 8.5 107.4 740.8 2.12
DM-2.5/7.5/0 2.77 65.7 90.1 14.2 54.4 8.5 26.1 180.2 2.18
DM-2.5/17.5/0 2.77 52.5 97.8 15.4 64.1 10.1 58.1 400.4 1.70
DM-2.5E/7.5/0 2.79 67.3 93.5 14.7 55.9 8.8 22.7 156.3 2.12
Notes: DM-0/0/0 sample ID denotes 100% DM 共wet兲 plus dry L/CKD/FA, except where E and N explicitly appear; weight averaged 共Gs兲 determined
using ASTM D854; and wet and dry densities and UCS determined in accordance with ASTM D1633.

was also somewhat higher than the reported 9 – 12.5 kN/ m3
共57– 80 lb/ ft3兲. Also shown in Table 4 are the specific gravity
共Gs兲 values for the SDM blends calculated in accordance with
ASTM D854 共ASTM 2006a,b兲 based on the raw material data
shown in Table 3.
Because of the high initial MC chosen for the DM 共80–150%兲,
not all combinations of pozzolans were able to dry back the DM
during the 3-day mellowing period to achieve a maximum dry
unit weight for the mix design. For example, the mix design curve
for the DM-5E/0/10 SDM blend shown in Fig. 2 was entirely on
the wet side of optimum, precluding the reporting of optimal val-
ues in Table 4. However, the DM-5E/0/10 SDM blend was com-
pactable at a very high MC 共⬃87%兲 based on an initial MC of
150% for the DM. On the other hand, only a partial compaction
curve could be developed for the MC range of interest for the
DM-5/0/0 SDM blend 共5% L兲, as it was not compactable above
approximately 115% in a standard Proctor mold 共ASTM D558兲
versus its ability to be compacted as a UCS specimen 共ASTM
D1632兲.
The clustering of the optimum parameters of numerous
SDM blends between maximum dry unit weight values of
11.9– 12.9 kN/ m3 共76– 82 lb/ ft3兲 and MCs of 30–35% suggests
that despite the actual pozzolan共s兲 and dosing rate共s兲, there will be
significant overlap in the SDM blend curves as they parallel each
other on the wet side of optimum. This is the main reason for only
showing six mix design curves in Fig. 2. Because of differences
in composition and especially the FA content, the differences in
the maximum dry unit weight values between SDM blends are
generally related more to differences in the Gs of the source ma-
terials rather than the void ratio 共compare DM-0/20/0 versus DM-
2.5/17.5/75 data兲, though this is not always the case as shown in
Table 4 共compare DM-0/20/0 with DM-10/0/0 data兲.
PBQD 共1999兲 reported compaction data for three SDM blends
共5% L, 10% L, 7% PC兲 in the range of approximately
11– 12.5 kN/ m3 共70– 80 lb/ ft3兲 based on modified Proctor lev-
els of effort and drying/curing periods of 7–28 days given the
high initial MC of the DM in their studies 共⬃185%兲. The range of
optimum moisture contents was approximately 30–40%. While
the reported MC range compares well with this study, the maxi-
mum dry unit weights were somewhat lower, perhaps due to the
higher organic matter content, but also likely due to the extended
times for continually disking and reworking the SDM which may
have contributed to bulking rather than densification 共through the
repeated disturbance of cementitous bonds兲 despite higher levels
of compaction. Dermatas et al. 共1999兲 used 9–13% PC to stabilize
DM with MCs of 90, 130, and 150%. The resulting unit weights
by modified Proctor effort for 3-day mellowed SDM blends
ranged from 8.8– 11 kN/ m3 共56– 74 lb/ ft3兲, the lower values
generally being associated with the higher initial MCs and PC
doses. The corresponding optimum moisture contents were on the
order of 26–45%. Again, compared to this study, their maximum
dry unit weights were on the low side and the optimum moisture
contents were higher despite greater levels of compactive energy.
These lower results may be indicative of the higher LOI values
共9–17%兲, but it also appears that CKD results in denser blends
共higher Gs, lower void ratio兲 than several other pozzolans, based
on the data shown in Table 4.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1017

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Average UCS
UCS Trends
Fig. 3 presents the UCS test results for 7-day, 28-day, and
6-month cured SDM blend specimens, averaged over three repli-
cates in most cases 共162 individual breaks兲. Where specific points
were excluded from the averaging process 共⬍8%兲, this usually
involved the inability to extrude the UCS specimen from the mold
due to adherence and corrosion of the molds 共all at 6 months, nine
replicates兲, sample disturbance 共one replicate兲, and one sample
with a low target unit weight. The average standard deviation on
the 7-day and 28-day UCS strengths were 17.9 kPa and 25.5 kPa
共2.6 psi and 3.7 psi兲 based on 18/18 and 13/18 blends having
triplicate breaks, respectively. The 100% DM data shown in Fig.
3 shows for reference purposes the average UCS strength of
samples dried back to the optimum MC and compacted to 95%
RC of the maximum dry density by ASTM D698 共ASTM 2000b兲.
A companion paper 共Chrysochoou et al. 2010兲 provides mineral-
ogical analyses of the UCS breaks that document the new mineral
formation associated with the ongoing pozzolanic reactions oc-
curring in the UCS specimens.
The strength trends shown in Fig. 3 suggest that the lime and
CKD at individual doses less than 15% are not able to develop
significant strengths 共ⱖ135 kPa; ⱖ 20 psi兲 up to 28 days, even
though amorphous sources of Si and Al were provided via FA
contents up to 25%. However, when lime and CKD are combined
at the 10% level 共DM-2.5/7.5/25兲, the SDM blend appears to
contain sufficiently available Si and Al for the cement reactions to
proceed, allowing the SDM blend to be workable, compactable,
and trafficable. The three SDM blends using the lowest overall
doses of pozzolans to achieve a minimum of 135 kPa 共20 psi兲 at
7 days were the DM-5E/0/10, DM-0/20/0, and DM-2.5E/7.5N/10
SDM blends. At 6 months, the lime-based blends generally expe-
rienced significant strength gains 共Fig. 3兲, mainly because strong
alkaline conditions persisted in these blends 共Chrysochoou et al.
2010兲, allowing for the continued dissolution of Si and Al from
the FA and DM, and thus, ongoing pozzolanic reactions.
Table 4 presents the measured parameters for the UCS test
1018 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.
specimens for the 28-day cured SDM blend specimens, including
two L/CKD blends without FA, and a DM-2.5E/7.5/0 SDM blend
to gauge the interaction between type IE PC and CKD. These
three SDM blends were tested for their 28-day cured UCS perfor-
mance only. A review of the UCS test data in Table 4 illustrates
that depending on the pozzolan type and dosing, a wide range of
MCs 共34–74%兲 may be obtained after 28 days of curing. The
corresponding wet unit weights of the SDM blends were fairly
uniform between 13.4 and 15.7 kN/ m3 共85 and 100 lb/ ft3兲.
Many attempts were made to directly correlate the UCS values
with parameters such as the MC, wet unit weight, dry unit weight,
and void ratio 共e兲 of the SDM blends. Owing to the different
densities of the pozzolans and their mineralogy, no trends could
be quantitatively developed based on the entire suite of SDM
blends.
Fig. 4, however, shows the UCS data as a function of overall
pozzolan dose which does provide insight to the relative roles of
the pozzolans. The void ratio of each SDM blend is shown adja-
cent to each data point, illustrating that there is no consistent
trend between void ratio and strength as would be the case in
conventional soil media 共e.g., a lower void ratio corresponds to
higher strength兲. The main reason for this is that cementation,
vis-à-vis mineralogy, controls. Also, the solid lines in Fig. 4 show
the FA dose to specific cementitious combinations, illustrating
that increasing the FA dose leads to lower void ratios but not
necessarily increased strength. Type IE PC interacts with CKD as
effectively as L at the 10% level. Twenty percent CKD, roughly
1/3 the cost of L or PC 共or equivalent to an 8% L or PC dose兲,
outperforms all of the SDM blends at the 10% cementitious level,
a result which cannot be explained by drying alone. Also at the
20% total dose level, the use of slag cement was decisive in that
the UCS performance of the DM-2.5E/7.5N/10 SDM blend was
essentially unmatched, except for a SDM blend with almost 3
times the total pozzolan dosing rate 共DM-2.5/17.5/75兲.
For the lime/CKD SDM blends at the 10% level, FA does not
appear to enhance the UCS of the SDM blend. Twenty percent
 120

75% FA

75% FA
800

25% FA

25% FA
1.20
DM-2.5E/7.5N/10 DM-2.5/17.5/X
2.12

28-Day Unconfined Compressive Strength (lb/in2)

28-Day Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)
100

600 1.40
1.61
80

100% DM
dried to DM-10/0/X 1.19
60
400 optimum
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.70

1.64 DM-0/20/X
100% CKD 40
1.21
0.86 DM-5E/0/10
2.39 DM-2.5/7.5/X
200 2.18
1.36
2.12 1.51
DM-2.5E/7.5/0 20
2.25
2.00 DM-0/10/X
1.53
DM-5/0/0 1.25
2.36 1.69
2.47 Note: X= 0, 25, 75% Fly Ash
0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Fig. 4. Pozzolan dose 共dry wt %兲 to wet DM

CKD itself performs better without FA, whereas the 20% L/CKD 135– 143 kg/ m3 共estimated兲, their data suggest PC-like doses on
combination was significantly enhanced by FA 共DM-2.5/17.5/X the order of 8–10%, though it is not known what type共s兲 of ce-
series兲. Comparison of the DM-2.5/7.5/25 and DM-2.5/17.5/25, ment products were used. For somewhat comparable SDM blends
75 SDM blends shows that the 10% CKD difference produced a to this study, Dermatas et al. 共1999兲 demonstrated that type I PC
fourfold increase in UCS strength, and the 50% increase in FA dosages of 9–13% 共128– 198 kg/ m3兲 to wet DM with high initial
dose resulted in a 28% gain in strength. The trends shown in Fig. MCs 共90–170%兲 produced 28-day cured UCS values between 22
4 were also generally evident at 7 days and 6 months, with the and 484 kPa 共3–70 psi兲. Shiells et al. 共2003兲 present dry-mix deep
10% lime blends significantly increasing in strength at 6 months, soil mixing data for pozzolan dosages of 100– 200 kg/ m3 for
which suggests that longer evaluation periods for soil-cement ap- quicklime:PC combinations to in situ OH soils 共LOI⬃ 9 to 17%兲
plications are warranted. In all of the foregoing discussions, it is with MCs on the order of 80%. The corresponding 28-day UCS
important to point out that only the lime and type IE PC are values ranged between approximately 100 and 1,250 kPa 共14 and
conventional cementitious products—the DM, CKD, slag cement 182 psi兲. Cali et al. 共2005a,b兲 applied PC/L 共100/0; 50/50兲 doses
共N兲, and FA are 共or were derived from兲 industrial by-products/ of 100– 200 kg/ m3 to deep soil mixed peaty soils 共MC= 160%兲
residual wastes. The use of CKD, slag cement, and FA straight up in New Orleans achieving 28-day UCS values on the order of
or on a comparable cost basis may result in strength values that 115–375 kPa 共15–40 psi兲. Jacobson et al. 共2005兲 reported on dry-
outperform traditional pozzolans when used alone or in combina- mix deep soil mixing data related to stabilizing high plasticity
tion with them. organic soils in northern Virginia having MCs ranging from 69
For comparison purposes, the mellowing and curing proce- to 120% and LOIs from 6 to 15%. The observed 28-day
dures outlined by Dermatas et al. 共1999兲 are closest to this study, UCS strengths for the various L:PC combinations
enabling the most representative comparisons. For their samples 共150– 200 kg/ m3兲 were on the order of 167–1,254 kPa 共24–182
tested with 9–13% type I PC for initial DM MCs of 130%, the psi兲. Lastly, Hernandez-Martinez and Al-Tabbaa 共2005兲 showed
corresponding 28-day UCS values were 103, 185, and 290 kPa that various combinations of PC, L, FA, blast furnace slag, mag-
共15, 27, and 42 psi兲, respectively. The 11% PC dose closely re- nesium oxide, and gypsum at total doses of 250 kg/ m3 produced
sembled the performance of the DM-2.5/7.5/0 data 共Fig. 4兲, but 28-day UCS values of 63–630 kPA 共9–91 psi兲 in an organic clay
the SDM blends in this study would roughly cost 50% less than 共MC= 130– 150%兲. The difference in performance between the
Dermatas’ 11% PC dose. SDM blends and the deep soil mixing results is likely due to the
While SDM studies tend to standardize on a wet DM plus dry MC range, reactivity of the soils, mixing energy, and the role of
pozzolan weight basis, the literature for deep soil mixing stan- confinement.
dardizes on a total pozzolan dose 共usually cement兲 to an in situ
soil volumetric basis, or kg/ m3. While not exhaustive, Fig. 5 puts
Environmental Evaluation
select SDM blend dosing rates in context with dry-mix deep soil
mixing rates from recent studies. The Takenaka and Takenaka A main concern with using recycled materials and industrial by-
共1995兲 UCS data shown in Fig. 5 provide dry-mix results for products in beneficial use projects is environmental quality. Ac-
saturated Japanese soft soils having similar characteristics 共MC, cordingly, the metals, general chemistry, and leaching behavior of
% fines兲 to the Craney Island DM, though the LOI and PI the SDM blends were evaluated, as shown in Tables 5–7. The raw
values were somewhat higher. For doses of approximately materials 共DM and pozzolans兲 contain very low levels of RCRA

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1019

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.

 Table 5. Total RCRA Metals and General Chemistry Parameters on 28-Day Cured SDM Blend Specimens
1020 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010

Nitrate Nitrite
Arsenic 共As兲 Mercury 共Hg兲 Barium 共Ba兲 Cadmium 共Cd兲 Chromium 共Cr兲 Lead 共Pb兲 Selenium 共Se兲 Silver 共Ag兲 Bromide Chloride Fluoride as N as N Sulfatea
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Media EPA 7060A EPA 7471A EPA 6010B SW846 9056

Controls
Lime ⬍1.2 ⬍0.100 9.5 ⬍1 7.8 ⬍100 ⬍12 ⬍2.5 ⬍10.0 17.0 1.00 ⬍1.00 ⬍1.00 957
CKD 6.6 ⬍0.100 110 ⬍1 38 75 ⬍12 2.6 13.0 1,560 16.6 ⬍1.00 ⬍1.00 68,600
FA 150 0.308 750 2.9 33 31 23 ⬍2.5 ⬍12.5 28.1 23.2 3.69 ⬍1.25 2,955
Type IE PC 1.2 ⬍0.1 81 ⬍1 25 ⬍5 ⬍12 ⬍5 ⬍50 50.3 2.47 ⬍5 ⬍5 47,000
NewCem ⬍25 ⬍0.1 450 ⬍1 13 ⬍5 ⬍12 ⬍5 ⬍10 28.8 2.6 ⬍1 1.29 5,030
DM 7.6 ⬍0.148 28 ⬍1.5 23 19 ⬍19 ⬍3.7 30.0 12,400 8.75 ⬍1.48 ⬍1.48 21,750
Treatments
DM-5/0/0 7.6 ⬍0.141 31 ⬍1.4 26 19 ⬍18 ⬍3.5 27.7 10,500 17.7 ⬍1.41 ⬍1.41 7,915
DM-10/0/0 7.1 ⬍0.147 34 ⬍1.5 26 17 ⬍18 ⬍3.7 19.7 11,600 13.0 ⬍1.47 ⬍1.47 7,515
DM-0/10/0 8 ⬍0.147 53 ⬍1.5 33 33 ⬍18 ⬍3.7 24.5 10,300 11.8 ⬍1.47 ⬍1.47 21,000
DM-0/15/0 9.6 ⬍0.141 61 ⬍1.4 35 36 ⬍18 ⬍3.5 23.7 9,720 14.6 ⬍1.41 ⬍1.41 27,150
DM-0/20/0 8.9 ⬍0.136 65 ⬍1.4 34 39 ⬍17 ⬍3.4 25.9 9,970 15.8 ⬍1.36 ⬍1.36 32,500
DM-10/0/25 58 0.164 240 1.4 29 21 ⬍17 ⬍3.5 17.6 6,470 9.75 ⬍1.39 1.39 6,595
DM-10/0/75 72 0.161 320 1.6 23 14 ⬍12 ⬍2.5 11.8 3,290 7.51 ⬍1.18 ⬍1.18 6,015
DM-0/10/25 50 0.161 240 ⬍1.4 31 30 ⬍18 ⬍3.5 22.1 88.1 8.4 ⬍1.42 ⬍1.42 17,250
DM-0/10/75 100 0.222 410 1.9 32 30 13 ⬍2.5 21.6 6,330 9.00 3.23 ⬍1.24 12,800
DM-0/20/25 40 0.133 200 1.2 29 30 ⬍12 ⬍2.5 18.5 7,230 8.18 ⬍1.18 ⬍1.18 24,700
DM-0/20/75 92 0.236 410 1.7 32 33 ⬍16 ⬍3.2 14.6 4,890 9.77 ⬍1.26 ⬍1.26 16,250
DM-2.5/7.5/25 44 0.151 210 ⬍1.4 28 24 ⬍17 ⬍3.4 21.0 8,630 5.54 ⬍1.36 ⬍1.36 15,750
DM-2.5/7.5/75 77 0.211 340 1.6 27 27 ⬍16 ⬍3.2 15.6 4,740 4.73 ⬍1.28 ⬍1.28 11,800
DM-2.5/17.5/25 54 0.147 270 ⬍1.3 32 33 ⬍17 ⬍3.4 19.4 8,020 3.2 ⬍1.35 ⬍1.35 23,750
DM-2.5/17.5/75 92 0.242 390 1.8 31 30 ⬍12 ⬍2.5 15.0 4,980 7.52 ⬍1.21 ⬍1.21 16,150
DM-5E/0/10 12,700
DM-2.5E/7.5N/10 10,750
Note: DM-0/0/0 sample ID denotes 100% DM 共wet兲 plus dry L/CKD/FA, except where E and N explicitly appear; all data in mg/kg.
a
Hydrochloric acid 共HCl兲 digestion followed by ion chromatography 关Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. 共CAS兲 2005兴.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.

 Pozzolan Dosage per DM wet weight percent
0 20 40 60 80 100

1,400
200
SDM Blends (This Study)
Takenaka & Takenaka (1995)
1,200 Dermatas et al. (1999)
Shiells et al. (2003)
Cali et al. (2005) 160
Jacobson et al. (2005)
1,000
Hernandez-Martinez & Al-Tabbaa (2005)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DM-2.5/17.5/75 120

UCS (lb/in2)
800
UCS (kPa)

DM-2.5E/7.5N/10

DM-2.5/17.5/25
600 DM-0/20/0
80

400

100% DM
DM-5E/0/10 40
200
DM-2.5/7.5/25

0 0

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

Pozzolan Dosage (kg/m3)

Fig. 5. Comparison of UCS strengths of SDM blends by pozzolan dosage

metals below 40 mg/kg in all cases, except for arsenic 共150 mg/
kg兲 and barium 共750 mg/kg兲 which had their peak concentrations
in the FA. The peak concentrations of both metals occurred in the
DM-0/10/75 SDM blend. The sulfate concentration of the CKD
was the highest at 7.7%, gypsum or anhydrite being the likely
sources of sulfate in the CKD. The slightly brackish nature of the
DM is reflected by its chloride content 共1.24%兲. The mixing ratios
of the SDM blends affects their composition, and the dilution of
the DM by increasing quantities of pozzolans is best reflected by
the chloride concentrations, with exception of the DM-0/10/25
SDM blend that appears to be an outlier.
The results of the TCLP and DIW extractions for the DM and
SDM blends are shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively, along with
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 共VDEQ兲
Waste Management Board criteria for leaching of constituents
from FA. The VDEQ limits are consistent with the TCLP criteria
for each metal. The relative health risks associated with each
metal are reflected by the numerically different TCLP criteria,
e.g., barium is of significantly less concern than other metal con-
stituents 关in addition, it scavenges sulfate to form barite 共BaSO4兲
and mitigate against ettringite formation兴. Table 6 shows that the
leaching of RCRA metals from the DM under both TCLP and
DIW leaching conditions for the standard tumbling 共equilibration兲
time 共18 h兲 were all below the method detection limits except for
chromium and silver, which were almost two orders of magnitude
below the regulatory criteria. The metals concentrations leached
from DM for extended tumbling times of 336 h under both TCLP
and DIW extraction conditions were identical.
Table 7 shows the pH and measured metals concentrations
above the respective method detection limits for the 28-day cured
18-h tumbled SDM blends. The TCLP-pH reflects the relative
buffering offered by each pozzolan versus the TCLP exposure
condition. The DIW-pH data more closely simulates an in situ or
fill condition. Because metals leaching is often pH controlled,
simulating the long-term in situ condition of the SDM fill is im-
portant. Interestingly, while the FA contained approximately 150
mg/kg As 共Table 5兲, it was never detected in any SDM blend
above the method detection limit 共0.22 mg/L兲 for both the TCLP
or DIW extraction conditions. These high As immobilization
trends 共⬍4% extractable As兲 are consistent with the work of Der-
matas et al. 共2004兲, Moon et al. 共2004, 2008兲, and Moon and
Dermatas 共2007兲 for a variety of pozzolans. The barium concen-
trations were likewise significantly reduced to approximately two
orders of magnitude below the TCLP criteria, with less than 10%

Table 6. TCLP and DIW Extraction Parameters at 28-Day Curing and 18-h Tumbling
Media pH As Hg Ba Cd Cr Pb Se Ag
a
VDEQ limits 5.0 0.2 100 1.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 5.0
DM-TCLP 4.19 ⬍0.22 ⬍0.19 ⬍0.12 ⬍0.08 0.08 ⬍0.07 ⬍0.30 0.08
DM-DIW 7.10 ⬍0.22 ⬍0.19 ⬍0.12 ⬍0.08 0.08 ⬍0.07 ⬍0.30 0.08
a
Virginia Waste Management Board 共9VAC 20-85兲, all concentration data in mg/L.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1021

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.

 Table 7. pH and TCLP/DIW Constituent Concentrations from 28-Day Cured 18-h Tumbled SDM Blends
TCLP DIW
Media pH Ba Cr Ag pH Ba Cr Ag
a
VDEQ limits 100 5.0 5.0 100 5.0 5.0
DM-5/0/0 6.51 0.15 0.08 0.09 12.41 ⬍0.12 0.08 0.08
DM-10/0/0 11.83 ⬍0.12 0.08 0.08 12.57 ⬍0.12 0.08 0.08
DM-0/10/0 5.54 0.28 0.09 0.08 10.99 ⬍0.12 0.08 0.08
DM-0/15/0 6.33 0.38 0.08 0.08 11.29 ⬍0.12 0.08 0.08
DM-0/20/0 6.44 0.36 0.08 0.08 11.42 ⬍0.12 0.09 0.08
DM-10/0/25 7.96 0.91 0.08 0.08 12.44 0.55 0.08 0.08
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DM-10/0/75 12.45 1.47 0.09 0.08 12.49 1.02 0.08 0.08

DM-0/10/25 5.26 0.29 0.10 0.08 11.21 0.14 0.09 0.08
DM-0/10/75 4.84 0.18 0.12 0.08 10.39 0.2 0.08 0.08
DM-0/20/25 6.09 0.62 0.08 0.08 11.32 0.13 0.09 0.08
DM-0/20/75 5.34 0.21 0.10 0.08 11.28 ⬍0.12 0.10 0.08
DM-2.5/7.5/25 5.29 0.40 0.10 0.08 11.54 ⬍0.12 0.08 0.08
DM-2.5/7.5/75 4.99 0.22 0.12 0.08 11.86 ⬍0.12 0.09 0.08
DM-2.5/17.5/25 6.28 0.85 0.08 0.08 11.74 ⬍0.12 0.09 0.08
DM-2.5/17.5/75 5.63 0.28 0.09 0.08 11.73 0.19 0.09 0.08
Note: DM-0/0/0 sample ID denotes 100% DM 共wet兲 plus dry L/CKD/FA, except where E and N explicitly appear. Only metals above detection limit are
shown. All concentration data in mg/L.
a
Virginia Waste Management Board 共9VAC 20-85兲.

of the maximum barium concentration 共410 mg/kg; totals兲 being Acknowledgments

extractable. Trace chromium and silver were detected just above
their respective method detection limits. Comparison of Tables 6
and 7 illustrates that with the exception of barium and pH, the
leaching characteristics of the original DM 共Table 6兲 and the
SDM blends 共Table 7兲 are identical.
Conclusions
Lime, CKD, high alkali cement, slag cement, and Class F FA
were blended in various ratios with DM excavated from Craney
Island. Fifteen of 20 mix designs were compactable using DM at
an initial MC of 132.5%, with 13 of 20 SDM blends having
28-day cured UCS values in excess of 138 kPa 共20 psi兲. While the
raw materials did contain some metals of concern, metals leach-
ability under TCLP and DIW leaching conditions was almost al-
ways below the method detection limits.
In summary, this parametric study on DM stabilization indi-
cates:
• High water content DM can be successfully stabilized using
various pozzolans, including industrial by-products;
• The required mellowing times 共up to 72 h兲 are consistent with
field construction timelines;
• All SDM blends were found to be nonhazardous under both
TCLP and DIW extraction conditions 共and for equilibration
times up to 336 h兲. Most metals were nondetect;
• The SDM blends can have considerable strength 关up to 828
kPa 共120 psi兲兴 at 28 days, making them suitable and feasible
for large bulk, embankment, and structural fill construction,
especially in urban coastal areas; and
• The renewable capacity approaches to CDFs such as that sug-
gested herein insulates construction projects from dredging
windows 共materials supply兲 and the miscellaneous environ-
mental approvals associated with dredging projects 共time,
logistics兲.
Dominion Virginia Power provided the Class F FA to support this
research. Messrs. David Bristow 共Dominion兲 and Ron Birckhead
共Dominion-retired兲 are thanked for their support and involvement.
Messrs. Sam McGee and Carlos M. Quinones of USACE Craney
Island facilitated the DM sample collection. The lime, CKD, type
IE PC, and NewCem were provided by Mr. Jeff Fair of Lafarge
North America 共Whitehall, Pennsylvania兲. Mr. Raymond
DeStephen 共Schnabel兲 and the sponsors provided many useful
comments to the manuscript. Messrs. David Cinsavich, Matt Far-
ley and Dennis Stevens of Schnabel 共Blacksburg, Virginia兲 as-
sisted with the geotechnical testing program. Ms. Alexandra
Srebro of Schnabel 共West Chester, Pennsylvania兲 assisted with the
graphics for this paper. The CTL Group 共Skokie, Ill.兲 evaluated
the bulk chemistry of the materials whereas Test America 共King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania兲 reported on all environmental chemistry
parameters, except sulfate 共Columbia Analytical, Rochester, New
York兲. TCLP and DIW extraction analyses were completed by the
Center for Environmental Systems at the Stevens Institute of
Technology 共Hoboken, New Jersey兲. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are
those of the writer共s兲 and do not necessarily reflect the views of
the project sponsors.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
E ⫽ type IE PC;
N ⫽ NewCem; slag cement;
LOI ⫽ loss on ignition, wt %;
MC ⫽ moisture content, wt %;
RC ⫽ relative compaction, %; and
wt % ⫽ percent by weight, dry.

1022 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.

 References
Al-Tabbaa, A., Hernandez-Martinez, F., Perera, R., and Chitambira, B.
共2005兲. “Accelerated ageing of cement treated soils with elevated
temperatures: Laboratory study.” Project Rep. Prepared for the Na-
tional Deep Mixing (NDM) Research Program, Dept. of Engineering,
Univ. of Cambridge, U.K.
ASTM. 共1963兲. “Standard test methods for particle-size analysis of soils.”
ASTM D422-63, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2000a兲. “Standard test methods for laboratory compaction char-
acteristics of soil using modified effort.” ASTM D1557-00, West Con-
shohocken, Pa.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ASTM. 共2000b兲. “Standard test methods for laboratory compaction char-
acteristics of soil using standard effort.” ASTM D698-00, West Con-
shohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2000c兲. “Standard test methods for moisture, ash and organic
matter content of peats and other organic soils.” ASTM D2974-00,
West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2004兲. “Standard test methods for moisture-density relations of
soil-cement mixtures.” ASTM D558-04, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2005兲. “Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index of soils.” ASTM D4318-05, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2006a兲. “Standard practice for classification of soils for engi-
neering purposes 共Unified Soil Classification System兲.” ASTM D854-
06, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2006b兲. “Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids
by water pycnometer.” ASTM D854-06, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2007a兲. “Standard practice for making and curing soil-cement
compression and flexure test specimens in the laboratory.” ASTM
1633-07, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 共2007b兲. “Standard test method for compressive strength of
molded soil-cement cyclinders.” ASTM 1633-07, West Conshohocken,
Pa.
Cali, P., Woodward, M., and Bruce, D. A. 共2005b兲. “Levee stability ap-
plication for deep mixing 共2兲—Conclusion from test section using dry
mixed soil cement columns.” Proc, Int. Conf. on Dry Mixing: Best
Practice and Recent Advances, Swedish Deep Stabilization Research
Centre, Stockholm, 415–423.
Cali, P., Woodward, M., Bruce, D. A., and Forte, E. 共2005a兲. “Levee
stability application for deep mixing 共1兲—Design for full test section
using dry mixed soil cement columns.” Proc, Int. Conf. on Dry Mix-
ing: Best Practice and Recent Advances, Swedish Deep Stabilization
Research Centre, Stockholm, 405–413.
Cardno, C. A. 共2007兲. “Dredged material cell will experience extraordi-
nary settlement.” Civ. Eng. (N.Y.), 77, 26–28.
Chrysochoou, M., Grubb, D. G., and Drengler, K. L. 共2010兲. “Stabilized
dredged material III: A mineralogical perspective.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 136, 1037–1050.
Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. 共CAS兲. 共2005兲. Standard operating
procedure: Acid digestion for sulfate, Rochester, N.Y., 8.
Day, S. R., and Ryan, C. R. 共1995兲. “Containment, stabilization and treat-
ment of contaminated soils using in-situ soil mixing,” Proc., Geoen-
vironment 2000, Y. B. Acar and D. E. Daniel, eds., ASCE, New York,
1349–1365.
Dermatas, D. 共1995兲. “Ettringite-induced heaving in soils: State-of-the-
art.” Appl. Mech. Rev., 48共10兲, 659–673.
Dermatas, D., Chrysochoou, M., Moon, D. H., Grubb, D. G., Wazne, M.,
and Christodoulatos, C. 共2006兲. “Ettringite-induced heave in chromite
ore processing residue 共COPR兲 upon ferrous sulfate treatment.” Envi-
ron. Sci. Technol., 40, 5786–5792.
Dermatas, D., Dutko, P., and Moon, D. H. 共1999兲. Use of dredged mate-
rials as fill in transportation-related projects, Center for Environmen-
tal Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N.J., 71.
Dermatas, D., Moon, D. H., Menounou, N., Meng, X., and Hires, R.
共2004兲. “An evaluation of arsenic release from monolithic solids using
a modified semi-dynamic leaching test.” J. Hazard. Mater., 116, 25–
38.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1023
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.
Federal Highway Administration 共FHWA兲. 共2001兲. “An introduction to
the deep mixing methods used in geotechnical applications, volume
III: The verification and properties of treated ground.” Rep. No.
FHWA-RD-99-167, McLean, Va., 436.
Grubb, D. G., Chrysochoou, M., and Smith, C. J. 共2008兲. “Dredged ma-
terial stabilization: The role of mellowing on cured properties.” Proc.,
GeoCongress 2008: Geotechnics of Waste Management and Remedia-
tion, M. H. Khire, A. N. Alshawabkeh, and K. N. Reddy, eds., ASCE,
Reston, Va., 772–780.
Grubb, D. G., Davis, A., Sands, S. C., Carnivale, M., III, Wartman, J.,
and Gallagher, P. M. 共2006a兲. “Field evaluation of crushed glass-
dredged material blends.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132共5兲, 577–
590.
Grubb, D. G., Davis, A., Sands, S. C., Carnivale, M., III, Wartman, J.,
and Gallagher, P. M. 共2007兲. “Errata for: Field evaluation of crushed
glass-dredged material blends.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
133共1兲, 127–128.
Grubb, D. G., Gallagher, P. M., Wartman, J., Liu, Y., and Carnivale, M.,
III. 共2006b兲. “Laboratory evaluation of crushed glass-dredged mate-
rial blends.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132共5兲, 562–576.
Grubb, D. G., Malasavage, N. E., Smith, C. J., and Chrysochoou, M.
共2010兲. “Stablized dredged material II: Geomechanical behavior.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136, 1025–1036.
Harder, L. F. 共2006兲. “The flood crisis in California’s central valley.”
Southwest Hydrology, 5, 20–22.
Hernandez-Martinez, F., and Al-Tabbaa, A. 共2005兲. “Mechanical proper-
ties of laboratory-scale wet soil-mixed organic soils: Laboratory
study.” Project Rep. Prepared for the National Deep Mixing (NDM)
Research Program, Dept. of Engineering, Univ. of Cambridge, U.K.
Jacobson, J. R., Filz, G. M., and Mitchell, J. K. 共2005兲. “Factors affecting
strength of lime-cement columns based on a laboratory study of three
organic soils.” Proc., Deep Mixing ’05, Swedish Geotechnical Insti-
tute, Stockholm, Sweden, 87–94.
Kamon, M., and Nontananandh, S. 共1991兲. “Combining industrial wastes
with lime for soil stabilization.” J. Geotech. Eng., 117共1兲, 1–17.
Moon, D. H., and Dermatas, D. 共2007兲. “Arsenic and lead release from
fly ash stabilized/solidified soils under modified semi-dynamic leach-
ing conditions.” J. Hazard. Mater., 141共2兲, 388–394.
Moon, D. H., Dermatas, D., and Grubb, D. G. 共2006兲. “The effectiveness
of quicklime-based stabilization/solidification on lead 共Pb兲 contami-
nated soils.” Environmental geotechnics (5th ICEG), Vol. 1, H. R.
Thomas, ed., Thomas Telford, London, 221–228.
Moon, D. H., Dermatas, D., and Menounou, N. 共2004兲. “Arsenic immo-
bilization by calcium-arsenic precipitates in lime treated soils.” Sci.
Total Environ., 330共1–3兲, 171–185.
Moon, D. H., Wazne, M., Yoon, I. H., and Grubb, D. G. 共2008兲. “Assess-
ment of cement kiln dust 共CKD兲 for stabilization/solidification 共S/S兲
of arsenic contaminated soils.” J. Hazard. Mater., 159共2–3兲, 512–518.
National Lime Association. 共2000兲. “Technical memorandum: Guidelines
for stabilization of soils containing sulfates, Austin white line, chemi-
cal lime, Texas lime.” 具http://www.lime.org/sulfate.pdf典.
Osman, A., and Al-Tabbaa, A. 共2005兲. “Behavior of cement stabilised
soft clay in aggressive environments-laboratory study.” Project Rep.
Prepared for Federal Highways Administration, Dept. of Engineering,
Univ. of Cambridge, U.K., 203.
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas 共PBQD兲. 共1999兲. “Guidance
document for processing and beneficial use of dredged material as
fill.” Rep. Prepared for The Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, New York, 40.
Portland Cement Association 共PCA兲. 共1992兲. “Soil-cement construction
handbook.” Rep. No. EB003.10S, Skokie, Ill., 40.
Portland Cement Association 共PCA兲. 共1995兲. “Soil-cement laboratory
handbook.” Rep. No. EB052.07S, Skokie, Ill., 59.
Portland Cement Association 共PCA兲. 共2006兲. “Guide to cement treated
base 共CTB兲.” Rep. No. EB236.01, Skokie, Ill., 26.
Shiells, D. P., Pelnik, T. W., III, and Filz, G. M. 共2003兲. “Deep mixing:
An owner’s perspective.” Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf., Grouting and
Ground Treatment, ASCE, New Orleans, 489–500.
 Takenaka and Takenaka. 共1995兲. Deep chemical mixing method using
cement as hardening agent, Takenaka Corporation, Tokyo.
Taylor, H. F. W., Famy, C., and Scrivener, K. L. 共2001兲. “Review delayed
ettringite formation.” Cem. Concr. Res., 31, 683–693.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 06/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
U.S. EPA. 共1989兲. “Stabilization/solidification of CERCLA and RCRA
wastes: Physical tests, chemical testing procedures, technology
screening, and field activities.” Rep. No. EPA/625/6-89/022, Cincin-
nati, 79.

1024 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010.136:1011-1024.