Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Remediation Techniques by Use of Ground Improvement

Masashi Kamon 1

Abstract

Ground improvement technologies have high potential applying to the geo-

environmental problems. In this paper, deep mixing method (DMM) and soil mixing
wall methods used for geo-environmental works are described. A major advantage of
these two methods is their ability to treat the soft clay soils at great depths without
excavation, shoring, or dewatering. Thus, the methods have a relatively low cost and
allow the least exposure of contaminants. Based on the results of in-situ applications,
they can be applied to remedy sites contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and also to construct a vertical barrier wall for containment.

Introduction

The prevention of environmental risks due to human activities is one of the

most important subjects in the geo-environmental problems. Uncontrolled release of
heavy metals and organic chemical substances into the ground has resulted in
widespread ground and groundwater contamination. A quality survey of groundwater
in Japan revealed that the groundwater in urban areas has been widely contaminated
by many kinds of toxic chemical substances. Hence, the remediation work for
contaminated sites should be performed as soon as possible. Decontamination is the
most preferred remedial measure, but it is not cost effective. Containment must be
ascertained to eliminate any risk to humans and the environment. Ground
improvement techniques have been recently extended for solving several geo-
environmental problems effectively. The soil mixing wall method can be used to
isolate the waste disposal sites and to prevent the movement of toxic substances into
the groundwater, and thus protect the environment. In addition, deep mixing method
(DMM) using quicklime powder and compressed air injection can be applied to
remedy the contaminated sites.

~Professor, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University,

Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011 Japan

374

Soft Ground Technology

 SOFTGROUNDTECHNOLOGY 375
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

General Concept of Ground Improvement

The purpose of ground improvement is to stabilize the ground which lacks the
strength to carry the design loads of the structure or to increase the required safety
factors of the ground and its stability. Various factors need to be considered in
ground improvement applications since the type and/or serviceability of the
structures are numerous. Ground improvement applications can be generally
classified into the following three categories.

(1) Improvement on mechanical problems:

Increasing bearing capacity, deformation prevention, earth pressure
reduction, slope stability, etc.
(2) Improvement on hydrological problems:
Liquefaction prevention, cut-off effect, prevention of erosion due to drainage
and running water, etc.
(3) Solutions to geo-environmental problems:
Containment of wastes, clean up of contaminated sites, etc.
The final target is environmental preservation and waste management.

To solve these problems, we must determine the most suitable method by

considering the following five technical aspects of ground improvement:

(1) Replacement
(2) Dewatering
(3) Densification
(4) Solidification
(5) Reinforcement

The need to use ground improvement is determined by factors such as the

significance of the structure, applied load, site conditions, and period of construction
work. The appropriate method is based on soil types and their problems. Various
ground improvement methods simply be divided into two groups, namely, shallow
ground improvement and deep ground improvement methods. Solidification
techniques can be used for both shallow and deep ground improvement.
Solidification is effective in the early stage of execution because we obtain the
improved effect by only one month (Kamon, 1991). Solidification is used for the
geo-environmental problems, and thus, the following sections will be focused on this
method.

Characteristics of Solidification

Solidification is mainly achieved by using grouting and/or admixture

stabilization techniques, while the technique to freeze pore water in the ground can
also be included in this category. The main improving principle is to add the bonding
force between particles and to embed cementitious materials in the pore space. The
ground improved by these techniques has high strength and low permeability, and

Soft Ground Technology

 376 SOFTGROUNDTECHNOLOGY
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

these effects strongly depend on the properties of cementitious materials added into
the ground and the quality of construction.

Chemical admixture soil stabilization, which is a representative method of

solidification, is the oldest and most widespread technique among the ground
improvement methods. Soft soils with high water content have been stabilized by
lime or cement and used in a road subgrade and base courses. These applications are
classified as shallow ground improvement. Recently, dredged clay slurry and
industrial waste materials were reclaimed by mixing with lime or cement and in some
cases used as construction materials.

The in-situ mixing of stabilizers with soft soils to form columns, walls, grids
or blocks in the ground has been developed and applied extensively in civil
engineering practice since the 1970s. The mechanical mixing method has been
developed for mixing stabilizers under deep ground conditions. This deep mixing
method is abbreviated as DMM. As stabilizing materials, quicklime was used
initially, but now portland cement is more popularly used in both slurry state and dry
powdered state because of the compatibility of the cement with Japanese clay soils.

In general, the improved strength directly depends on the mixing efficiency,

and thus, the obtained strengths in the field are quite different from those in the
laboratory. From the observed results as shown in Figure 1, we can expect that field
strengths, quf, are half to one-fifth of the laboratory strengths, qub determined in the
laboratory. These results were obtained from improved grounds on land. In the case
of the sea bed improvement, larger values of quf than qul are sometimes obtained.
Because of adiabatic temperature rise, the ground temperature in the sites becomes
much higher than that in the laboratory in the case of wails or blocks type
improvement. Therefore, it is considered that this high temperature accelerates the
improving effect. The improved mass becomes very stiff and the consolidation
settlement decreases considerably with increasing strength. Because the apparent
preconsolidation pressure, Pc, increases with the increased strength, qu, we can ignore
settlement until the pressure loading exceeds the preconsolidation stress.

Horizontal displacement during construction depends on the design cross-

section of the sites and the observed results are shown in Figure 2 (Nakamura, 1978).
Although DMM does not generate a large horizontal displacement around the
construction sites, this figure shows that construction should be performed carefully,
especially when the application design sections belong to the cases such as C and D.

Because DMM makes a firm structure in soft ground, two steps are required
during the design stage, i.e. checking the internal and external stability. The internal
stability is equivalent with the design strength of the improved ground, whereas the
design procedure for external stability is almost the same as the ordinary structural
design. Also, bearing capacity, sliding, overturning, etc. should be checked.

Soft Ground Technology

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Soft Ground Technology

SOFT GROUNDTECHNOLOGY

Figure 1. Difference between the field and laboratory strength

377
 378 SOFTGROUNDTECHNOLOGY
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 2. Horizontal displacement and construction patterns of DMM

Negative Environmental Impacts of Solidification Techniques

Although the solidification technique of ground improvement has become

more popular in the last decade, there may be potential environmental problems. We
must avoid contaminating the ground during and after the application of
solidification techniques. The environmental problems induced by the addition of
stabilizers into the ground can be divided into two: alkaline leaching from the cement
or lime stabilizer, and groundwater contamination by the migration of injected
chemicals.

The alkaline leachate occurs under various conditions of improved grounds

and design methods. Because the surrounding soils inherently have the buffer ability,
the alkaline leachate from the stabilized soils can be absorbed and neutralized by the
surrounding soils. The degree of alkaline restraining of soils varies with the soil type,
and finer grained soils have higher alkaline restraining ability.

Kitsugi (1989) reported that lime columns installed into a soft clay ground
exhibited a high pH 10 to 30 cm away from the columns, but the clay soil more than
30 cm away from the lime columns had the same pH as the original ground. Because
sandy soils have low alkaline restraining ability, we must avoid stabilized sandy soils
from directly contacting groundwater.

Groundwater contamination by the injected chemicals is more serious. A very

serious accident occurred in Japan caused by chemical grouting. Polyacrilamid was

Soft Ground Technology

 SOFT GROUND TECHNOLOGY 379
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

injected into the ground without any careful control, and thus, unreacted monomer
contaminated the groundwater. Severe adverse health effects occurred to people who
drank this contaminated water. This contamination triggered the establishment of
strict governmental guidelines for chemical grouting in Japan and only waterglass is
allowed to be used as grouting chemicals as per the guidelines. The groundwater
during grouting should have a pH below 8.6 and have permanganate consumption
below 10 ppm. Since the new guideline, only inorganic grouts such as clay, cement,
and waterglass have been used in most cases. Portland cement also has a risk of
heavy metal (Cr +6) leaching. It was revealed that ordinary Portland cement normally
has 30 to 100 mg/kg of chromium metal. The chromium is originally included in raw
materials of cement. Table 1 shows an example of the chromium contents in the raw
materials. When these materials are sintered in the cement kiln, they are oxidized to
six-valent chromium. According to leaching tests, a considerable volume of Cr +6 was
detected in Japanese cements supplied by several cement factories, as summarized in
Table 2. These results indicate that we must pay careful attention to the
environmental risks of in-situ application of almost all cements. Because the
Japanese environmental standard for Cr +6 is less than 0.05mg/1. Six-valent chromium
leaching from cement itself highly contaminates the surrounding environment. We
conducted leaching tests for cement stabilized soils to determine in the level of Cr +6
in the leachates. The different additive content was selected in each soil to obtain the
almost same improved strength. As shown in Table 3, Cr +6 levels in the leachate
from cement stabilized soils was high, depending on the type of the treated soils. The
scattering of Cr +6 amount in each stabilized soil depends on the different sampling
points of the specimen. In the case of alluvial clay soils, little Cr § was leached. In
sand and/or loam soils, leaching was significant. The additive content, of course,
affected the leachate volume. Based on these results, the Japanese Ministry of
Construction recently requested all the Japanese contractors to provide an
environmental guarantee by leaching tests. These tests are required to be performed
before and after cement stabilization.

Table 1. An example of chromium content in raw materials for Portland cement

Material Total Cr (mg/kg) Material Total Cr (mg/kg)
Limestone 10.6 Silica 11.1
Clay 8.0 Fire-brick 6.5
Fe-slag 14.1 Gypsum 1.1
Cu-slag 7.6

Table 2. Total chromium content in cement and Cr § amount from cements

Total Cr (mg/kg) Crr Leachate (mg/l)
C1 14.7 1.34
C2 23.8 2.17
Portland
C3 4.1 0.41
cement
C4 12.4 0.93
C5 7.0 0.53
S1 0.2 0.17
Slag cement $2 0.3 0.01
$3 4.3 0.33

Soft Ground Technology

 380 SOFT GROUNDTECHNOLOGY
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. Cr 6§ levels in leachate from cement stabilized soil

Soil type Additive content (kg/m3) Cr~ Leachate (mg/1)
0.146
Sandy soil 60 0.233
0.310
ND
Silty soil 100 0.024
0.103
ND
ND
Clayey soil
100 0.05
(alluvial)
0.06
0.079
0.295
Loam soil 0.499
120
(Kanto-loam) 0.715
0.102
Peaty soil 150 0.210
ND stands for no detection

Because the slurry state stabilizer generates an outflow of waste slurry during
the mixing process, the treatment of this slurry waste is very important. Proper
disposal of this waste is costly and leaking of this waste can cause environmental
problems. This slurry waste, however, has a potential to harden, and thus it has been
recently used as filling materials.

Positive Environmental Impacts of Solidification Techniques

Uncontrolled release of heavy metals and organic chemical substances into

the ground has resulted in widespread ground and groundwater contamination. The
remediation of sites with contaminated ground should be performed as soon as
possible. Solidification techniques have the potential to stabilize or treat soils which
would result in safe containment.

Soft ground remediation by DMM

The soil-mixing technique has increasingly been relied upon for in-situ
remediation of contaminated soils (Day and Ryan, 1995). Depending on the
application, different diameter mixing augers (1 to 4 m) can be used to inject
cement, bentonite, and other stabilizers to modify the soil properties and thereby
remedy contaminated sites. A major advantage of DMM is its ability to treat soils at
great depths without excavation, shoring, or dewatering. Thus, it has relatively low
cost and allows less exposure of wastes. When quick lime powder is injected into a
contaminated clay ground, the heat induced by the reaction of quick lime with water
can easily remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The following introduces an
example of Japanese experience with DMM (Higaki et al., 1996 and Yabuta et al.,
1996).

Soft Ground Technology

 SOFTGROUNDTECHNOLOGY 381
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3 shows the remediation system for a site contaminated by VOCs

using DMM with quick lime mixing. One of the advantages of this method is that it
can be applied to a clay soil, where the most popular Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
Method cannot be applied. Another advantage is its ability to work under a
removable hood. The hood is an open-bottom cylinder used as the surface cover of
the column, while mixing is performed directly below. The hood is lowered onto the
soil and the mixing blades are started while quick lime is introduced. A negative
pressure may be kept on the head space of the hood to remove any vapors into a
vapor treatment system during construction of a column. The installed columns
overlap each other in order to treat all the desired areas. The soil profile of the site is
shown in Figure 4. The contaminated layer extended from the ground surface to the
deep clay layer and the improved depth was from the ground surface to 5.5 m below
the ground surface. The contaminating substances were TCE, PCE, c-DCE, etc. and
the maximum contaminant concentrations were 265.5 mg/kg-dry soil of TCE and
329.7 mg/kg-dry soil of c-DCE. The operating conditions are shown in Table 4.
After injection of 100 kg/m3 of quick lime over two mixing cycles (one cycle means
downward injection and upward mixing), a large volume of VOCs was extracted
from a column of contaminated ground, as shown in Figure 5. According to
extracted VOCs amount from the soil at the monitoring zone A, almost 99 % of the
contaminants could be extracted at the end of the second mixing cycle. The extracted
amount was quite little in the third mixing cycle (downward-3 and upward-3 as
shown in Figure 5).

Figure 3. Remediation system by DMM with quick lime mixing

Soft Ground Technology

 382 SOFT GROUND TECHNOLOGY
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4. Soil profile of the contaminated site

Table 4. Operating conditions

Items Conditions
Amount of quick lime 100 and 150 kg/m3
Shaft driving rate 0.4 m/min
Blade rotation speed 300 rpm
Compressed air rate 1.3 and 2.5 m3/min
Shaft rotation speed 30 rpm
Suction rate 3-4 ma/min
Column diameter 0.8 m
Depth GL - 5 m

Figure 5. Extracted VOCs after quick lime mixing cycles

Soft Ground Technology

 SOFTGROUNDTECHNOLOGY 383
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Contamination levels in the ground before and after treatment at the zones A,
B, and C, where the monitoring has been performed, are summarized in Figure 6.
After the treatment, the contaminating level in the clay layer is on the order of 1
mg/kg-dry soil. The amount of removed VOCs in the field agreed well with the
values computed from the air flow rate. As a result, it was clear that the remediation
work by DMM with quick lime mixing was applicable to cohesive and impermeable
soils.

Figure 6. Cleanup result of the contaminated sites (A, B, and C zones)

Vertical barrier by newly developed soil mixing wall method

The common construction methods for diaphragm walls fall into two
categories. The first one is a method by excavating a ditch and discharging the soil
completely by an excavation mechanism, such as a bucket, a reverse circulation drill,
etc. This is followed by inserting the reinforcing steel in the ditch, casting the
concrete, and constructing the reinforced concrete walls in the ditch. The other is a
method of injecting a solidifying liquid agent into the ground, mixing it with the in-
situ soil, and constructing soil mixing walls. Compared to the former method, walls
built by the latter method are inferior in quality. However, less time and money are
required, less than one half that of the former, and the soil mixing walls constructed
provide satisfactory performance for isolating groundwater.

The soil mixing walls can be used as the vertical barrier of a waste disposal
site. In this case, the wall is used to cut-off leakage of toxic substances from the
disposal site. The newly developed soil mixing wall method is conducted with a
chain-saw type cutter device, and thus, the continuity of the vertical wall has been
substantially improved (Kamon et al., 1998). It is called as TRD method.

Soft Ground Technology

 384 SOFTGROUNDTECHNOLOGY
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 7 shows the excavating and mixing mechanisms of the TRD method.
In general, with the bit pressed against the ground, the cutter is driven in the upward
direction and excavation takes place. The pressing force is set to be low, a large
number of bits fixed on the cutter post are moved at high speed, and the ground is
thinly scraped and loosened. The scraped soil is carried by the ascending current of
slurry generated by the cutter rotation. Then, the slurry gradually passes through the
clearance between the cutter post and the surface of the excavated ditch. This way,
the cutter post is advanced toward the portion of scraped and loosened ground. The
soil which has been scraped is mixed with the solidifying stabilizer and forms fluid
slurry in the excavated ditch. By the motion of the chain, the slurry around the cutter
forms eddies and a convection current occurs; then the soil and the solidifying
stabilizer are completely mixed. The soil mixed with the stabilizer is filled in the
ditch; it solidifies within a specified time and forms continuous walls in the ground.

This method has the following characteristics:

1) The continuity and low permeability of the wall are excellent.
2) The wall constructed is homogeneous from the bottom to the top as shown
in Figure 8.
3) The digging ability of the construction device is excellent.
4) The height of the construction device is short, and thus, the machine is stable.

Figure 7. Schematic of TRD method

Soft Ground Technology

 SOFTGROUNDTECHNOLOGY 385
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 8. Permeability of the improved wall by TRD

A continuous diaphragm wall is generally made in a vertical direction. To

incline the wall in the ground by the TRD method, it is necessary to ensure that the
ditch made during the construction of the wall does not collapse and get buried
before the completion of the wall. The solidification material is injected at the same
time as the inclined ditch is being dug with the cutter, and it is mixed with the in-situ
soil. This becomes a compound soil-cement slurry, which has a high specific gravity,
and fills ditch preventing collapse. This compound slurry solidifies in time and
becomes a wall. A method for making an inclined wall in the ground for the
protection of rivers free from erosion of the dyke has been developed (Kamon et al.,
1998). In addition to this application, the inclined-wall technology could be directly
applied to waste containment systems. In this case, the wall must be made down to
the depth of the impermeable layer. When the impermeable layer is deep, we can
make diaphragm walls intersect to prevent a downward leakage from the inclined
wall itself, without extending the wall construction to the deep impermeable layer
which is costly.

A construction equipment for the continuous diaphragm wall inclined at an

angle of 60 degrees from vertical is illustrated in Figure 9. This wall was built for
the river dyke erosion protection. We confirmed the following based on the in-situ
work.

(1) The inclined continuous diaphragm wall was constructed according to the
designed dimensions (450 mm in thickness and 6.4 m in length). The accuracy
of the installation was very high and the errors on the inclined wall depth was

Soft Ground Technology

 386 SOFTGROUNDTECHNOLOGY
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

less than 3%. Thus the angle of inclination can be easily varied from 60 to 90
degrees. According to the load on the cutter post, this equipment could build
much longer inclined walls up to 12 m.
(2) The strength of the walls depends on the amount of solidification agent added,
which is the same as that for vertical wall construction and there was no
influence due to the inclination of the wall.
(3) It is most important to homogeneously mix the soil with solidifying agent for
the construction of a continuous diaphragm wall. The speed of progression of
the cutter is a critical factor in the quality of the wall. The mixing time depends
on the progression speed because the driving speed of the cutter is constant.
When the progression speed is slower, the strength of the wall is more
homogeneous due to the sufficient amount of mixing time.

Figure 9. Construction equipment used for inclined wall construction

Conclusions

Many remediation techniques are available using various engineered systems.

However, remediation might still be a daunting problem from technical and
regulatory standpoints. Agencies at various levels, working together with the
industries and the public, have made progress in developing the regulatory and
technical approaches to cleaning up heavily contaminated sites, and to identify sites
that require urgent action. No single regulatory or technical approach will work in all
situations. Increasing recognition of the problem by various authorities, and with
additional resources and new approaches being applied on all fronts, we appear to be
on the way to reducing the environmental impact of hazardous contaminated sites.

In the present paper, the author demonstrated that the solidification technique
is one of the most useful ground improvement techniques available for the
remediation of contaminated sites. The advantages of the DMM and soil mixing wall
methods among the many kinds of ground improvement methods were emphasized.

Soft Ground Technology

 SOFT GROUNDTECHNOLOGY 387
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 11/12/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Examples of geo-environmental application of solidification techniques for ground

improvement were presented. These techniques can be used to prevent geo-
environmental disasters, in particular, leaching of toxic substances from waste
landfills and/or contaminated grounds. Further research, however, is required to
investigate the quantitative mechanisms of the improvement effect. The long-term
stability of the improved soils should be evaluated and established in the future.

References

Day, S.R. and Ryan, C.R. (1995). "Containment, stabilization and treatment of
contaminated soils using insitu soil mixing," Proc. Geoenvironment 2000, ASCE,
1349-1365.

Higaki, T., Iwasaki, T., Sueoka, T., and Nagatoh, T. (1996). "In situ cleanup of
VOCs contaminated cohesive soil by lime mixing, Proc. JSCE, No. 546, 113-123.

Kamon, M. (1991). "Recent development of soil improvement," Proc. Intern. Syrup.

on Soil Improvement and Pile Foundation, Nanjing, China, Vol. 1, 26-41.

Kamon, M., Ohta, H., Aoi, M., and Ashida, S. (1998). "Development of new river-
protection method by continuous inclined diaphragm wall," Proc. Third International
Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, Lisbon, Vol. 1, 35-38, Balkema.

Kitsugi, K. (1989). "Environmental aspects accompanied with weak soil ground

improvement techniques," Jour. CAJ, No. 511, 104-115.

Nakamura, R. (1978). "DMM by cement slurry," Reclamation and Dredging, No. 79,
23-38 (in Japanese).

Yabuta, H., Ujiie, M., Iwasaki, T., and Higaki, K. (1996). "Removal of volatile
organic compounds from clay layer," Proc. IS-Tokyo 96, Tokyo, Vol. 1,787-792,
Balkema.

Soft Ground Technology