See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224807765

Solidification/stabilization of dredged marine sediments for road construction

Article  in  Environmental Technology · January 2012

DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2011.551840 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

89 2,151

4 authors, including:

Dongxing Wang Rachid Zentar

Wuhan University IMT Lille Douai
27 PUBLICATIONS   668 CITATIONS    92 PUBLICATIONS   1,530 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Concrete, RCC, Strength, pavement, roads, materials, View project

Dredged sediments valorization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dongxing Wang on 03 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environmental Technology
Vol. 33, No. 1, January 2012, 95–101

Solidification/stabilization of dredged marine sediments for road construction

Dong Xing Wanga,b∗ , Nor Edine Abriaka , Rachid Zentara and WeiYa Xub
a Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Ecole des Mines de Douai, 941 rue Charles Boursul, BP 10838, 59508 Douai
Cedex, France; b Geotechnical Research Institute, Hohai University, 1 Xikang Road, 210098 Nanjing, China
(Received 20 September 2010; final version received 21 December 2010 )

Cement/lime-based solidification is an environmentally sound solution for the management of dredged marine sediments,
instead of traditional solutions such as immersion. Based on the mineralogical composition and physical characteristics
of Dunkirk sediments, the effects of cement and lime are assessed through Atterberg limits, modified Proctor compaction,
unconfined compressive strength and indirect tensile strength tests. The variation of Atterberg limits and the improvement
in strength are discussed at different binder contents. The potential of sediments solidified with cement or lime for road
construction is evaluated through a proposed methodology from two aspects: I-CBR value and material classification. The
test results show the feasibility of solidified dredged sediments for beneficial use as a material in road construction. Cement is
superior to lime in terms of strength improvement, and adding 6% cement is an economic and reasonable method to stabilize
fine sediments.
Keywords: dredged sediments; cement/lime; Atterberg limits; compaction; mechanical properties

1. Introduction fine sediments usually do not satisfy the requirements

Dredging is an essential operation to maintain navigation in
ports, harbours, marinas and inland waterways. The dredg-
ing operation not only generates a considerable amount of
sediments, which present an important problem for seas,
rivers and lakes, but also brings the organic matter and dif-
ferent types of contaminants. In France, about 50 × 106 m3
of sediments are dredged each year from five huge mar-
itime ports and 17 commercial ports [1]. In America, about
300 × 106 m3 of sediments are dredged annually from US
waterways, and close to 46 × 106 m3 of the dredged mate-
rials are disposed in the ocean [2]. The traditional solutions
such as aqueous dumping and inland deposit are increas-
ingly unpopular mainly because of the adverse effect on the
environment. According to the Europe decree no. 2002–
540 [3], the dredged sediments could be classified as waste
under section 17 05 05 (polluted sediments) and section 17
05 06 (other sediments). Therefore, how to deal with such
a large amount of dredged sediments is an interesting but
very difficult issue.
At present, both port authorities and researchers are
attempting to integrate various sediment treatment tech-
niques in order to ensure an effective long-term solution.
There is a shortage of construction materials in civil engi-
neering and public works, and an interesting concept is
being elaborated: to produce a special roadbed material
based on dredged marine sediments [4–9]. The dredged
of road construction. Therefore, several binder materials
are used to stabilize such sediments. It is worth recall-
ing that this solution must comply with construction
standards, environmental requirements and human health
requirements.
The application of stabilizing binders on soils has a long
history, and many kinds of materials, such as organic poly-
mers [10], fly ash [11] and slag [12,13], have been used
as stabilizing binders for construction and building mate-
rials. The objective of these binders is to provide artificial
cementation, thus increasing strength and reducing com-
pressibility. However, it should be recognized that the most
representative and classical binders are cement and lime.
When stabilizing binders are added to soils, a series of
reactions will take place, including pozzolanic reaction,
flocculation and cation exchange. Hence this paper presents
a necessary and systematic study to evaluate the potential
use of dredged fine sediments solidified with cement and
lime for road construction.
The present study focuses on: (1) investigating the basic
characterization of dredged marine sediments, (2) studying
the effect of cement and lime on the Atterberg limits of
sediments, (3) researching mechanical properties of treated
sediments with different lime or cement contents, (4) eval-
uating the feasibility of solidified sediments for beneficial
use in pavement.

∗ Corresponding author. Email: dongxing.wang@mines-douai.fr

ISSN 0959-3330 print/ISSN 1479-487X online

© 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2011.551840
http://www.tandfonline.com
96 D. X. Wang et al.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
The sediments studied in this paper were dredged in 2008
from Dunkirk harbour, which is the largest harbour in the
north of France and the third largest in France. The dredged
sediments are black, liquid and somewhat unpleasant due
to the presence of organic matter.
The cement denoted CEM I 42.5R HSR LA (CIBEL-
COR) is used as a hydraulic binder to form a new mate-
rial resistant to traffic and climatic stresses. The typical
cement contains 63.3% CaO, 21.4% SiO2 , 4.0% Fe2 O3 ,
3.3% Al2 O3 , 2.4% MgO, 2.8% SO3 and 3.28% of other
components.
The classical lime used in this study is of type Lhoist
Proviacal ST. This quicklime contains at least 90% CaO
and 2%, at most, MgO. It is easy for quicklime to react with
water to form hydrated lime and to generate thermal heat
of 15.5 kcal.
2.2. Methods
An experimental programme was performed on raw sed-
iments and sediments mixed with various percentages of
cement or lime to evaluate the changes in engineering
properties and the potential use of the sediments in road con-
struction. Atterberg limit tests were carried out on the mixes,
based on natural fine sediments sieved in a 400 μm diam-
eter sieve [14]. The percentages of lime or cement mixed
with fine sediments were fixed at 3%, 6% and 9% of the dry
mass of raw sediments. The water content corresponding
to 25 drops of the cup, read off from the curve represent-
ing the relationship between water content as ordinates on
the arithmetic scale and the corresponding number of drops
as abscissas on the logarithmic scale, is taken as the liq-
uid limit of the sediments using Casagrande apparatus [14].
The plastic limit of the sediments is the water content at
which the soil will just begin to crumble when rolled into a
thread of 3 mm diameter using a ground glass plate or other
acceptable surface [14].
In France, Proctor tests, I-CBR (Immediate California
Bearing Ratio) tests and tensile strength tests are the impor-
tant experiments recommended to determine the feasibility
of a specific material to be used in road engineering. The I-
CBR index defines the capacity of a material to support the
circulation of building machines, and measures the ratio
of force required for a circular piston to penetrate into a
granular medium in a CBR mould at the speed of 1.27 ±
0.1 mm/min. The prescribed I-CBR values for different
road layers are specified in French standard NF P 98-115
[15]: for a sub-base material – prescribed value of 35%
with a minimum value of 25%; for a base-course material –
prescribed value of 45% with a minimum value of 35%.
Unconfined compression tests and indirect tensile tests
were performed on monolithic samples, which were pre-
pared at the optimum moisture content and at the optimum
dry density as defined by the modified Proctor tests. Before
the mechanical tests, the samples with a diameter of 50 mm
and a height of 100 mm were cured under sealed conditions
in a specified room with a constant temperature of 20 ◦ C and
an average relative humidity of 98%. The tensile strength,
Rt (in MPa) is obtained by the diametrical compression test
[16], using Equation (1):
Rt = 0.8 × Rtb = 0.8 × 2 × 10−2 × Fr /(π ϕh) (1)
where Rtb is the indirect tensile strength in MPa, Fr is the
radial force applied in N, ϕ is the diameter of the cylindrical
samples in cm, h is the height of the cylindrical samples in
cm.
Two engineering parameters, maximum tensile strength
and Young modulus, are reported in a specific abacus
according to both the diametric compression strength and
the Young modulus at 360 days of designed mixes, in order
to determine the material classification for road construc-
tion in NF P 98-114-3 [17]. This French standard prescribes
that the material should be classified in a certain material
classification higher than or equal to S2.
3. Characterization of dredged materials
3.1. Basic characteristics of dredged sediments
The main physical characteristics of dredged fine sediments
are reported in Table 1. The initial water content, measured
by the oven drying method, is about 106.5% at 40 ◦ C, and it
shows that the marine sediment generally has a water con-
tent higher than the liquid limit. The methylene blue test was
carried out to check the activity of the clay fraction in the
sediments. The methylene blue value is about 2.2 g/100 g,
so the studied sediments could be classified as sandy soils.
The organic matter content is about 4.4%, measured by the
ignition method for 3 h at 450 ◦ C according to the stan-
dard XP P 94-047 [18]. The absolute density of dredged
materials, measured with a helium pycnometer, is about
2.58 g/cm3 , which is lower than that of the standard mate-
rials (2.65 g/cm3 ). This is due to the presence of organic
matter in the fine sediments. The liquid limit, defined as
Table 1. Physical characteristics of dredged
sediments
Parameters Values
Initial water content (%) 106.5
Absolute density (g/cm3 ) 2.58
Methylene blue value (g/100 g) 2.2
Organic matter content (%) 4.4
Particle size distribution (%) 14.5
grain size <2 μm 74.7
2 μm < grain size <63 μm 10.8
grain size >63 μm
Liquid limit (%) 51.4
Plastic limit (%) 25.6
Plasticity index (%) 25.8
 Environmental Technology 97

Figure 1. X-ray diffraction analysis of dredged sediment sample.

the water content between a liquid and a plastic state, is

about 51.4%, using the percussion-cup method. The plastic
limit, which defines the point of transition from plastic to
semi-solid state, is about 25.6%, determined by the rolling
test method for the studied sediments. According to the
grain size distribution determined by the laser technique,
the materials are composed mainly of silt, which accounts
for more than 70%.

3.2. Mineralogical composition

The x-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns were measured using a
D8 Bruker horizontal diffractometer operating at 40 kV and
40 mA with Co radiation. The XRD patterns in Figure 1
show the presence of quartz, calcite, halite, aragonite and
clay phases: kaolinite and illite. The quartz and calcite
are the two main crystalline phases present in the dredged
sediments.
4. Results
4.1. Atterberg limits of solidified sediments
The liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of the
untreated and treated sediments are shown in Figures 2
and 3. It is interesting to note that, compared with the sedi-
ments treated with 3% binder, the liquid limits of sediments
treated with 6% binder almost do not change. But the addi-
tion of 9% binder to the sediments could result in a decrease
in the liquid limits. The addition of 6% binder leads to the
maximum value in liquid limits. Thus, all the treated sam-
ples show an increase in liquid limit with the addition of 3%
binder, followed by an almost constant value with subse-
quent addition of 6% binder and a decrease with the addition
of 9% binder. Osula [19] presumed that the reduction in
Figure 2. Effect of lime on Atterberg limits.
liquid limit with the increasing binder content could be the
result of a cation exchange reaction between the cations of
soils and those of binders, which flocculates and cements
the clay particles together and then reduces the clay-size
fraction and the soil surface area.
Figures 2 and 3 show that lime and cement cause an
appreciable increase in the plastic limit when the binder
content ranges from 0% to 9%. The increased plastic limit
generally results in a reduction of the plastic properties of
sediments. Osula considered that this property change is
mainly due to the alteration of the water film surrounding
the clay minerals.
For sediment–binder mixes, a variation in the liquid
limit and a relatively great increase in the plastic limit lead
to a decrease in the plasticity index. Osula [19] believed
that the divalent calcium ions in lime serve to bind the clay
particles close together, and this was proved by himself in
98 D. X. Wang et al.
Figure 3. Effect of cement on Atterberg limits.
1996 [20]. Because of the reduction of the clay fraction in
the treated sediments, the plasticity indexes decrease with
the increase in binder content.
4.2. Compaction characteristics of treated sediments
The results of compaction tests are given in Figure 4 in
terms of dry density (ρd ) and measured moisture contents
(ω). The saturation curves (80% and 100%) are also shown
in Figure 4. As in the case of lime stabilization, the max-
imum dry density (ρdopt ) decreases from 1.74 g/cm3 to
1.56 g/cm3 when the lime content increases from 0% to
6% (Figure 4a and Table 2). A similar trend is found for
cement stabilization of sediments (Figure 4b and Table 2).
Generally, the compaction characteristics depend on both
the grain size distribution and specific gravity of sediments
and binders. The binders initially lead to an increasing affin-
ity for water, and they coat the sediment particles to form
larger aggregates that consequently occupy larger spaces
[21,22].
Figure 4. Compaction curves of treated sediments: (a) lime treatment, (b) cement treatment.
Table 2. Compaction parameters of raw and treated sediments.
ωopt (%) ωdopt (g/cm3 )
Raw sediment 17.4 1.74
Sediment + 3% Lime 19.5 1.64
Sediment + 6% Lime 22.0 1.56
Sediment + 9% Lime 23.4 1.58
Sediment + 3% Cement 18.2 1.71
Sediment + 6% Cement 19.5 1.67
Sediment + 9% Cement 19.7 1.67
It is interesting to find that ρdopt is almost constant when
the binder content increases from 6% to 9%. It seems that
there can be no evident decrease in maximum dry density
when the binder content is higher that 6%. This tendency
is consistent with the conclusion of Hossain et al. [22],
who have recently shown that the maximum dry density
initially decreased with cement or lime content until the
binder compensated for the larger spaces.
The increase in binder contents is accompanied by an
increasing water demand for the reaction between binder
and water. The optimal water content ωopt for lime treatment
increases from 17.4% at 0% lime to 23.4% at 9% lime,
and the ωopt for cement treatment increases from 17.4%
at 0% cement to 19.7% at 9% cement. This pattern is in
agreement with the research results of Al-Amoudi et al.
[23]. The ωopt for lime treatment is much higher than that
for cement treatment at different binder contents, as shown
in Table 2. This phenomenon is due to the fact that lime
requires more water for its hydration, resulting in higher
moisture content compared with cement hydration.
The variation in I-CBR values versus binder con-
tent is reported in Figure 5. The I-CBR values range
from 30.2% to 50.0% for lime addition and from 30.2%
to 45.7% for cement addition when the binder content
increases from 0% to 6%. The increase in I-CBR is mainly
due to the continuous development of C-S-H (calcium
 Environmental Technology
Figure 5. Variation of I-CBR index against binder content.
silicate hydrate), which is considered as the cementitious
compound. The I-CBR of sediments treated with 6% lime
is significant and much larger than that of sediments with
6% cement, but the I-CBR of sediments with 9% lime is
much smaller than that of sediments with 9% cement. The
variation in I-CBR perhaps depends also on the quantity of
the introduced water and on the type and composition of
the studied materials.
4.3. Improvement of strength properties
Figures 6 and 7 show the development of tensile strength
and unconfined compressive strength, respectively, of cured
samples at different binder contents in relation to curing
time. The compressive strength and tensile strength of solid-
ified sediments with lime could be improved with curing
Figure 6. Effect of binder content and curing time on tensile
strength.
99
Figure 7. Effect of binder content and curing time on unconfined
compressive strength.
time, although the strength gains are not very evident.
Compared with sediments mixed with 3% lime, the increase
in lime content to 6% and 9% could not improve the
unconfined compressive and tensile strength of sediments.
It seems that the increase in lime content is ineffective in
improving the mechanical properties of sediments, mainly
because only a small amount of clays is present in the stud-
ied sediments. This will lead to the formation of only a small
quantity of CS- H gel. However, it has been reported by Al-
Amoudi et al. [23] that the strength was not significantly
affected by the quantity of the lime dosage and the results
were more sensitive to the methodology of curing.
The unconfined compressive strength and tensile
strength of sediments mixed with cement could be effec-
tively improved with curing time in the case of a cement
content of 3% to 9%. Similar behaviour was also observed
in other studies using volcanic ash and fly ash [22,24].
The strengths measured at 28 days, 60 days and 90 days
were between 1.0 and 2.5 times larger than the correspond-
ing strengths measured at 14 days for sediment samples at
different cement contents.
Because the strength gains of solidified sediments due
to the addition of lime are considerably lower than the val-
ues obtained at the same dosage of cement, it is inferred
that the effect of cement on strength gain is not only due
to the free lime present in the cement but also to the
hydraulic and pozzolanic reactions. With the increase in
cement content in the mixes, the quantity of C-S-H gel
formed increases inevitably. The C-S-H gel, which pos-
sesses cementing properties, can not only fill the void space
but also bind the sediment particles.
The mechanical characteristics at 360 days of the
designed materials, which are used as the reference for
material classification to estimate their suitability as a
sub-base and base-course material, are reported in Figure 8.
The estimated values at 360 days for materials mixed with
100 D. X. Wang et al.
Figure 8. Tensile strength (Rt ) vs Young modulus (E) at 360
days of designed materials and material classification estimated
based on the results at 90 days for lime treatment and 28 days for
cement treatment.
cement should be calculated from the measured values at the
curing period of 28 days, according to Equations (2) and (3)
[25]. For materials mixed with lime, the estimated values
at 360 days should be calculated from the measured values
at the curing time of 90 days, according to Equations (4)
and (5) [25].
Rt28 days /Rt360 days = 0.60 (2)
E28 days /E360 days = 0.65 (3)
Rt90 days /Rt360 days = 0.70 (4)
E90 days /E360 days = 0.75 (5)
All the proposed lime–sediment mixes and raw sedi-
ments belong to the material class S0, whereas the proposed
cement–sediment mixes belong to material class S2 except
sediments treated with 3% cement located at the border of
class S1 and S2. It should be noted that the minimum class
required for the potential use as a sub-base material is class
S2. Hence, both the mixes with 6% cement and 9% cement
are appropriate to use as a sub-base material in road con-
struction. From the economical point of view, 6% cement is
a better amount for the solidification of dredged sediments.
This conclusion is consistent with a practical project and
the previous study [26].
5. Conclusion
Based on the laboratory tests, the effects of cement and lime
on the stabilization of dredged fine sediments, as a potential
use for road construction, were examined and the following
conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The liquid limits of samples treated with lime or
cement show an initial increase with the addition
of 3% binder, followed by an almost constant value
with 6% binder and a gradual decrease with 9%
binder. The plastic limit increases as a result of the
increase in binder content, which causes a reduction
in plasticity index.
(2) The maximum dry density of solidified sediments
decreases with binder content until the binder com-
pensates for the larger spaces, whereas the opti-
mum moisture content and ICBR value increase.
The optimum moisture content of cement-solidified
sediments is higher than that of lime-solidified
sediments at the same binder content.
(3) The unconfined compressive strengths and tensile
strengths increase with cement content and curing
time, although these parameters for lime-solidified
sediments could not be improved considerably. The
mechanical performance of sediments solidified
with cement is much superior to that of sediments
solidified with lime.
(4) From the point of view of mechanics and applicabil-
ity in road construction, 6% cement is an economic
and reasonable amount to improve the engineer-
ing properties of sediments. This optimal amount
is comparable to other laboratory studies and those
used in standard materials for practical application.
Acknowledgements
This research was undertaken with the financial support of
CSC (China Scholarship Council). Their support is gratefully
acknowledged, as is the help provided by the technicians in the
laboratory.
References
[1] C. Alzieu, Dragages et environnement marin, Ministère de
l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement, Paris,
1999 (In French).
[2] M. Amiran, C.L. Wilde, R.L. Haltmeier, J.D. Pauling, and
J.G. Sontag, Advanced sediment washing for decontamina-
tion of New York/New Jersey Harbor Dredged materials,
Nineteenth Western Dredging Association (WEDA XIX)
Annual Meeting and Conference and Thirty-First Texas
A&M University Dredging Sediment, Louisville, Kentucky,
1999.
[3] Ministre de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environne-
ment, Décret n◦ 2002-540 du 18/04/2002 relatif à la clas-
sification des déchets, J.O.R.F. n◦ 93 du 20 avril 2002,
pp. 7074–7088 (In French).
[4] D. Colin, Valorisation de sédiments fins de dragage en tech-
nique routière, Ph.D. diss., Université de Caen, 2003 (In
French).
[5] V. Dubois, Etude du comportement physico-mécanique et
caractérisation environnementale des sédiments marins –
valorisation en technique routière, Ph.D. diss., Ecole des
Mines de Douai, 2006 (In French).
[6] R. Zentar, V. Dubois, and N.E. Abriak, Mechanical
behaviour and environmental impacts of a test road built
with marine dredged sediments, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
52 (2008), pp. 947–954.
 Environmental Technology
[7] T.N. Thanh, Valorisation de sédiments marins et fluviaux en
technique routière, Ph.D. diss., Ecole des Mines de Douai,
2009 (In French).
[8] R. Zentar, N.E. Abriak, V. Dubois, and M. Miraoui, Ben-
eficial use of dredged sediments in public works, Environ.
Technol. 30 (2009), pp. 841–847.
[9] F. Petavy, V. Ruban, P. Conil, J.Y. Viau, and J.C. Auriol,
Two treatment methods for stormwater sediments – pilot
plant and landfarming – and reuse of the treated sedi-
ments in civil engineering, Environ. Technol. 30 (2009),
pp. 825–830.
[10] S.M. Lahalih and N. Ahmed, Effect of new soil stabilizers on
the compressive strength of dune sand, Constr. Build. Mater.
12 (1998), pp. 321–328.
[11] D. Dermatas and X.G. Meng, Utilization of fly ash for
stabilization/solidification of heavy metal contaminated
soils, Eng. Geol. 70 (2003), pp. 377–394.
[12] B.B. Lind, A.M. Fällman, and L.B. Larsson, Environmen-
tal impact of ferrochrome slag in road construction, Waste
Manage. 21 (2001), pp. 255–264.
[13] J. Setién, D. Hernández, and J.J. González, Characteri-
zation of ladle furnace basic slag for use as a construc-
tion material, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009), pp. 1788–
1794.
[14] NF P 94-051, Soil: investigation and testing – determination
of Atterberg’s limits – liquid limit test using Casagrande
apparatus – plastic limit test on rolled thread, Association
Française de Normalisation, Paris, 1993.
[15] NF P 98-115, Road foundations – construction of pavement
structures – components – mix components and formu-
lae – performance and control, Association Française de
Normalisation, Paris, 1992.
[16] NF P 98-232-3, Tests relating to pavements – determi-
nation of the mechanical characteristics material bound
with hydraulic binders – Part 3: Diametral compression
101
test on hydraulic and pozzolanic binder bound materials,
Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, 2001.
[17] NF P 98-114-3, Roadway foundations – methodology
for laboratory study of materials treated with hydraulic
binders – Part 3: Soils treated with hydraulic binders
possibly combined with lime, Association Française de
Normalisation, Paris, 2001.
[18] XP P 94-047, Soils: Investigation and testing – determination
of the organic matter content – ignition method, Association
Française de Normalisation, Paris, 1998.
[19] D.O.A. Osula, Lime modification of problem laterite, Eng.
Geol. 30 (1991), pp. 141–154.
[20] D.O.A. Osula, A comparative evaluation of cement and lime
modification of laterite, Eng. Geol. 42 (1996), pp. 71–81.
[21] Y. Millogo, M. Hajjaji, R. Ouedraogo, and M. Gom-
ina, Cement-lateritic gravels mixtures: Microstructure and
strength characteristics, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008),
pp. 2078–2086.
[22] K.M.A. Hossain, M. Lachemi, and S. Easa, Stabilized
soils for construction applications incorporating natural
resources of Papua New Guinea, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
51 (2007), pp. 711–731.
[23] O.S.B. Al-Amoudi, K. Khan, and N.S. Al-Kahtani, Stabiliza-
tion of a Saudi calcareous marl soil, Constr. Build. Mater.
24 (2010), pp. 1848–1854.
[24] S. Kolias, V. Kasselouri-Rigopoulou, and A. Karahalios,
Stabilisation of clayey soils with high calcium fly ash and
cement, Cem. Concr. Compos. 27 (2005), pp. 301–313.
[25] NF P 98-113, Road foundations – sand with hydraulic
and pozzolanic binders – definition – composition – clas-
sification, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris,
1994.
[26] Y.F. Shao, X.N. Gong, E.K. Zheng, and Z.Y. Liu, Experi-
mental study on stabilization of dredged silts, Trans. CSAE
23 (2007), pp. 191–194.
View publication stats