SITE REMEDIATION USING SOIL MIXING TECHNIQUES ON A HAZARDOUS

WASTE SITE: A CASE HISTORY

ANDREW D. WALKER
Geo-Con, Inc.
P.O. Box 17380
Pittsburgh, PA 15235

INTRODUCTION

At 2,400 beds, the $112.5 million Allegheny County Jail in Pittsburgh, PA, will be
one of the nation’s largest county jails.

The disused downtown site chosen by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of

Pittsburgh sits alongside the Monongahela River, adjacent to Liberty Bridge, on
what was previously the old CSX Railroad facility. The southern edge of the site
is bound by the retaining wall of the Parkway East (Interstate I-376); one of the
main transport arteries of the Greater Pittsburgh Area.

Previous investigatory activities at the site had indicated the presence of

hydrocarbon contamination from a former underground storage tank. Limited soil
remediation was therefore necessary in advance of the construction of the 10-
story building.

This case history presents the evolution of these remediation measures, with the
main emphasis on the insitu treatment of the contaminated soils adjacent to the
Parkway structures.

SITE DESCRIPTION

Petroleum hydrocarbons had affected site soils at three separate locations over
the estimated area of approximately 32,000 sq. ft. The depth of contamination
varied from 3 feet in two areas to over 20 ft. in the area next to the retaining wall.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations ranged from less than 50
ppm up to 11,000 ppm with levels varying from the surface to the groundwater
table which was located at 25 ft. below existing grade.

A typical soil description for the excavation area was sandy silt to silty clay with
cinders, rocks, and brick pieces. Standard penetration tests ranged from 2 to 13
blows per foot.
The higher loaded sections of the retaining wall were founded on piles which
apparently transferred load to the underlying bedrock. The present condition of
these timber piles was unknown. In other sections, loads decreased as the
Interstate ramped down, with the wall on spread footings only.

REMEDIATION METHOD CONSIDERATIONS

The remedial approach preferred, from a cost and ease of construction

standpoint, involved the decommissioning and disposal of the existing pumping
station and product lines and the removal of the affected soils to groundwater for
offsite disposal. The excavated areas would then be backfilled with clean fill and
soil.

This immediately raised the question of the stability of the retaining wall and
hence the Parkway if the proposed excavations were made.

The ultimate adoption of two ground improvement techniques to solve this

combined Environmental and Structural problem made this site unique and of
specific interest, as to the author’s knowledge this was their first application in
tandem.

Initial stability assessment focused on two arrangements, namely a cut slope

from the footer level of the walls or the construction of a retaining wall along the
Parkway. The latter method was discounted after discussions with Penn DOT,
the wall owners, since the required bracing or tiebacks may have interfered with
the piles holding the structure in place. In addition, the lengthy design review
process required by the owner and possibly the U.S. Department of
Transportation, since an Interstate highway was involved, could have delayed the
project by up to 12 months.

Discussions with the PA Department of Environmental Resources (PADER)

indicated a willingness to consider a cut slope arrangement; however, they
stipulated that any contaminants left in place must be fixated to reduce their
potential mobility.

Accordingly, the Geotechnical Consultant investigated the potential for limited

fixation of the hydrocarbon contamination insitu to the extent necessary to
support the Parkway East structure.

It was recommended that permeation grouting with a microfine cement grout

would adequately fixate the hydrocarbons and that the zone should extend 25 ft.
at the base of the retaining wall from the foundation level to the groundwater
table. Figure 1 illustrates the area requiring stabilization. This would allow for a
near-vertical excavation to be performed against the grout zone to remove the
remaining contaminants, with minimum factor of safety against failure of 1.5. It
was observed during analysis that the stability of the area was less dependent
upon the strength of the grout zone than on the weight that the grouted zone
produced upon the underlying ground structure.

Therefore, emphasis was placed on the use of a microfine cement grout for
improved permeation, injected using the end of casing method, in order to
optimize filling of soil pores to fixate the hydrocarbons and densify the material.
Although Ordinary Portland Cement would have been adequate in the coarser
general fill and debris, microfine cement was selected for use since portions of
the subsurface contained fine granular soils which required fixation to prevent
water infiltration. The strength requirement was secondary and was specified as
an unconfined compressive strength of 500 psi in order that the zone would be
capable of supporting its own structure on near-vertical slopes.

PADER and Penn DOT both concurred with this approach and the project was
placed out for bid in the Spring of 1991.

Figure 1. Cross Section of Stabilized Area

REMEDIATION METHOD SELECTION

The Specialist Geotechnical Contractor who was low bid on the Remediation
Contract offered a Value Engineering alternate to the microfine cement grouting
specified, namely the use of Shallow Soil Mixing (SSM) in conjunction with
single-phase Jet Grouting. This alternate was attractive both technically and
commercially and was reviewed, accepted and the contract awarded. The
remainder of the cleanup work was implemented as planned.
SHALLOW SOIL MIXING

Although the process of soil mixing originated in the United /states in the 1950's,
its major development has occurred over the last twenty years in Japan. To
date, there have been thousands of projects performed in Japan using some
form of soil mixing, however, the first use for Environmental cleanups was in the
United States. In North America, it has been used for foundation elements, block
stabilization, gravity walls, and fixation/solidification of contaminated soils. the
first geotechnical construction application was completed in 1990 in Canada [1].

The process uses a crane-mounted drill attachment which turns a single-shaft,

large diameter auger head which consists of two or more cutting edges and
mixing blades. As the auger head is advanced into the soil, grout is pumped
through the hollow kelly bar and injected into the soil at the pilot bit. the cutting
edges and mixing blades blend the soil and grout with a shearing action. When
the design depth is reached, the auger head is normally raised to expose the
mixing blades at the surface and then allowed to readvance to the bottom.

The mixing head can also be enclosed in a bottom-open cylinder to allow for
closed system mixing of waste and powdered reagents. The dry treatment
chemicals are then transferred pneumatically.

A total of 110,000 CY of hydrocarbon contaminated sludge ahs recently been

stabilized in this manner at the Amoco Refinery in Whiting, Indiana, using dry
cement as the reagent.

The advantages of the system on the Pittsburgh site were numerous and were
key in the client’s decision to sanction its use.

• The technique is totally independent of soil type. This is a very significant

advantage over permeation grouting which, as previously mentioned, will
prove ineffective in silts and clays. With soil mixing everything in the area is
mixed and treated.
• The system has a vertical blending action which will tend to “average out” the
soil stratigraphy and produce a well-mixed, homogeneous soilcrete block.
• Treatment is carried out in one pass with no additional work in problem areas
as required by the split-space grouting approach.
• Cement grout is metered at a fixed rate into the ground, and the precise
volume of ground treated in an identical manner is precisely known. The
fixed mixing vanes assure the full column diameter and column contact. This
is very important technically. With permeation grouting, the quantity of grout
accepted per unit volume of ground is totally dependent on soil type, is
therefore variable and is difficult to quantify due to the random nature of grout
travel and actual injection elevation.
• Contaminants within the ground are locked in place within the soilcrete after
thorough dispersal. Permeation grouting does not provide this dispersal
 effect with contaminant concentrations remaining at their original levels within
a cement impregnated soil matrix.
• The result is a stabilized mass free of any significant pockets of untreated
materials. This greater quantity of stabilized material generated by these
processes effectively create a more stable end product with typically higher
and more consistent unconfined compressive strengths and lower TCLP
constituent leaching.
• The SSM technique can produce a greater volume of treated ground per day
than traditional grouting, thus easing pressure on the schedule and relieving
the risk of time overruns.
• The soil mixing system does not involve the pressurizing of the ground that is
required during grouting, with no possibility of uplift.

While microfine cement grouting was feasible to treat the areas of low-level
contamination, it had some limitations, in contrast to the advantages of SSM,
namely:
• The soil profile was extremely heterogenous with material varying from rock
and brick fragments to cinder, sandy silts, and silty clays. While the former
may be injected by a cementitious grout, the latter will not be permeated by a
particulate grout [2]. Hydrofracture may well occur if not closely monitored
which, rather than strengthening the soil mass, may create weak sliding
planes with the body. Uniformly consistent treatment throughout the zone is
impossible to achieve since the microfine cement will extend into only
“groutable” soils and voids.
• The use of the end-of-casing method, in which grout is pumped from the
bottom of an open pipe, is often employed with success in loose formations
but has numerous disadvantages. With the method, it is impossible to know
positively at which elevations the grout ahs been accepted into the ground. It
is quite possible for grout to pass up the side of the injection pipe and enter
the soil at a higher elevation than that of the pipe tip. In extreme cases, the
grout may daylight at the surface. Therefore, monitoring of grout takes by
elevation, an important QA/QC control on grouting work, may be difficult and
in some cases, misleading.
• With specified method, it was not possible to inject different grout or grout
mixes successively in the same hole. For instance, highly permeable rubble
which may be present on site would probably accept a more economical
ordinary Portland grout rather than the high-cost microfine cement.
• The extent of ground treatment required cannot be ascertained in advance of
commencing grout injection on site. Work would proceed in a Primary,
Secondary, Tertiary split-spacing manner with grout acceptance monitored
until acceptable reductions in take had been achieved, at which time work
would cease. This increases the risk of schedule overrun on a method which,
in addition, is intrinsically slower than the alternate proposed. This was
significant on a contract let on a very tight schedule, where all risks of time
extensions must be mitigated.
JET GROUTING

Jet grouting is a soil improvement technique which is now beginning to gain wide
acceptance in the United States as the recent conference in New Orleans clearly
demonstrated [3].

There are at present three general forms of jet grouting involving the injection of
a single fluid (grout), two fluids (grout/air), or three fluids (air/water/grout). The
single-phase system (CCP) was used on the Pittsburgh site in which the grout
both excavates and cements the soil. This is in contrast to the two-phase system
in which an air shroud is used to improve cutting efficiency and the three-phase
in which the excavation and cementing operations are separated. In this respect,
the single-phase system can be regarded as more of a jet mixing method rather
than pure replacement.

Whatever, the form, the method relies on the use of ultra-high pressures
(typically 4,000 psi to 6,999 psi) to impart energy to a fluid which is injected at
about 800-1000 ft.sec. the high speed fluid cuts and mixes the native soil
usually, as in the case here, with a neat cement grout. The high velocity is
developed by using 350 HP triplex piston pumps which inject the grout through
small nozzles set in a monitor mounted on the tip of a drill string. Figure 2 shows
the monitor above ground. By varying the rotation speed and the rate that the
drill string is lifted from the bottom of the treatment zone, soilcrete columns of
different sizes may be formed. the type of soil being mixed has a significant
effect on the final properties of the column.

Figure 2. Jet Grout Monitor

SOILCRETE BLOCK DESIGN

In order to create the block of stabilized soil, a total of 2,200 CY of contaminated

soil required treatment, extending 175 ft. along the Parkway and under Liberty
Bridge.

As shown in Figure 3, three rows of 8 ft. diameter columns on a 6 ft. x 6, 7 ft. grid
were installed. They were formed on a primary and secondary sequence within
each row, with the installation of the secondary columns timed to occur before
the adjacent primary columns reached full strength. In this manner, block of
ground over the full width were completed as the soil mixing progressed along
the wall. In order to stabilize/fixate areas that could not be accessed safety with
the 150-ton crane jet grouting was necessary. These zones were limited to
adjacent to the timber piles and under Liberty Bridge. In these areas 3 ft.
diameter jet grout columns were formed, either contiguous or on a 2.5 ft.
triangular grid.

Figure 3. Layout of Soilcrete Columns

For both techniques, the stabilizing reagent was a Portland Cement slurry.

In the case of SSM, based on previous experience, a cement replacement by dry

weight of soil of between 15% and 20% was adopted sufficient water added to
the grout mix to provide enough lubrication for a satisfactory auger penetration
rate.

For the jet grouting, the parameters were set at:

Grout Pressure 5,000 psi

Lift Rate 1 ft./min.
Grout Flow 40 to 45 gals/minute
Rotation 1 rpm (per step)
A neat cement grout of water/cement ratio by weight of one was felt adequate to
produce in excess of the specified 500 psi compressive strength at 28 days.

It was the intention to produce similar strengths for the SSM columns at an
earlier date in order for excavation to proceed quickly after column construction,
thus ensuring compliance with the very tight overall project schedule of 60 days.
Grout control was performed by frequent checks on the grout mix unit weight by
use of a mud balance. The test location was at the batching plant prior to
pumping grout to the SSM and jet grout rigs.

CONSTRUCTION

The SSM rig consisted of a high torque turntable mounted on a 150-ton crane
which powered the 8 ft. diameter auger. Figure 4 illustrates the rig in operation.
Grout was supplied by a high-speed, continuous-mix, colloidal grout plant. This
consisted of a storage silo, 1,000-gallon colloidal mixer and a progressive cavity
pump. this same setup was used for the jet grouting with the exception of the
use of a 350 HP pressure, triplex piton jet pump. This pump was rated at
pressures up to 20,000 psi and flow rates up to 170 gpm. While plant was being
assembled, initial shallow excavation of contaminated material away from the
retaining wall took place, along with concrete removal operations and waste
characterization profile soil sampling. Test pits were also dug along the line of
the wall to confirm the location of the piles.

Figure 4. SSM Rig in Operation

The jet grout drill stem was mounted on a diesel hydraulic DK 70 drill rig fitted
with a Wirth Rotary Head on shown in Figure 5. the 2-1/2 in. grout pipe was
advanced to the groundwater table and a check ball seated at the end of the
grout pipe to initialize lateral flow through jet nozzles located on the sides of the
grout pipe. As the grout was pumped, the pipe was rotated and extracted at the
set levels thus creating the jet grout columns. Exhaust material in small
quantities, of very similar properties to the insitu soilcrete, was channeled into the
open excavation to be incorporated as suitably fixated backfill material.

Figure 5. Jet Grouting in Progress

All grouting work was completed within twenty days with initial excavation of a
vertical face against the stabilized block taking place only four days after column
construction, thanks to the excellent early soilcrete strengths obtained. Figure 6
gives a good indication of the columns produced.

Excavation and backfilling operations involving 10,000 CY of soil went smoothly

with no unforeseen difficulties.

Throughout all operations the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120, the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazardous Waste
Operations and Emergency Response Standard were strictly complied with.

Air monitoring started as soon as work commenced using the HNU, LEL, and
PDM3. At no time did ratings exceed background levels. On this basis, Level D
personal protective equipment (PPE) was stipulated for the SSM work. This was
modified to include a two-piece chemical-resistant splash suit (PE or PVC Tyvek)
and outer inner gloves for the jet grouting work where there was a possibility of
splashing.
 Figure 6. Trial SSM Column with Completed Wall to Left

Thereafter, monitoring was done on an occasional basis by the Health and

Safety Officer (HSO) as site conditions altered, but no change in the level of
protection was found necessary.

STRENGTH RESULTS

Wet samples were retrieved from columns for testing from each day’s work.
these samples were taken by a special sampling tool below the surface of the
column immediately following installation. The tool, mounted on a beam and
deployed by the crane, consisted of a cylinder with a bottom flap that could be
activated from the surface.

Compressive strength tests were performed in accordance with ASTM C39, the
results of which are shown in Figures 7 and 8.

These results indicate some interesting general trends:

1. Higher soilcrete strengths are produced by SSM than by jet grouting for
both short and longer term curing periods.
2. A much quicker early strength gain for the SSM compared with jet grouting
and better strength gain with age.

Even though more cement is used per unit volume of treated soil in jetting, these
results demonstrate that SSM is a more effective tool, producing a technically
superior final material at a lower cost. This is partly the result of the cement
wastage inherent in jet grouting.
 Figure 7. Soilcrete Strengths, Short Term

Figure 8. Soilcrete Strengths, Long Term

These comments only apply to the particular soil conditions on this site, and
results may be radically different for other soils.

CONCLUSIONS

This case history clearly demonstrates the role that the soil mixing technologies,
initially developed for General Civil Engineering work, can and are now playing in
the Environmental market, to provide cost-effective proven solutions in
hazardous site remediation.

As a concluding additional example, the work carried out in Hialeah, Florida,

under the auspices of EPA’s SITE Program is noteworthy [4]. The test program
and follow-on production work involved the use of the Deep Soil Mixing (DSM)
system with a proprietary reagent to create a hardened leachate-resistant mass
from PCB-contaminated soil.
The DSM rig is similar to the SSM rig except that four hydraulically driven 36-in.
diameter augers are used instead of one large mixing unit.

With this method, much greater depths up to 100 ft. may be reached.

REFERENCES

1. Broomhead D. and Jasperse B. H., 1992. “Shallow Soil Mixing—A Case

History,” Grouting, Soil Improvements and Geosynthetics. ASCE Geotechnical
Publication No. 30.

2. Caron, C., 1982. “The State of Grouting in the 1980’s.” Grouting in

Geotechnical Engineering , ASCE Conference, New Orleans.

3. Grouting, Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics, 1992. ASCE Geotechnical

Publication No. 30, pp. 144-206.

4. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. “International Waste

Technologies/Geo-Con Insitu Stabilization/Solidification.” Applications Analysis
Report EPA/540/A5-89/004.