Development of In-Situ Mass Stabilization Technique in Finland

P. Lahtinen
Ramboll Finland Oy, Luopioinen, Finland

V. Niutanen
Biomaa Oy, Nurmijärvi, Finland

ABSTRACT: Mass stabilization technology has been developing to complete the more established column
stabilization technology in Finland since the beginning of the 1990’s. Along with this development the ex-
ploitation of the deep stabilization technology has been extending and diversifying. Compared with column
stabilization mass stabilization is more effective in increasing the stability of an embankment, an excavation
or a slope. Mass stabilization has also made it possible to stabilize soft soil like peat and soft mud in an eco-
nomical way. Thick and weak soft soil sites have been stabilized in a technically and economically ideal way
by combining column stabilization with mass stabilization. Consequently, mass stabilization has won popu-
larity for the stabilization of soft soil in several European countries as well as in the North and South America
during the 2000’s. Also the equipment for the mass stabilization has been developing. The newest technical
development has lead to so-called process stabilization equipment for the treatment of dredged or excavated
soft soil masses. In connection with the new applications also new possibilities of binder (or stabilizer) ad-
mixtures have been studied and developed. The research and development work of binders for peat and con-
taminated mud has been especially challenging and will continue also in the future. The binders for contami-
nated mud need to meet criteria to an environmental, technical and economical optimum. The optimal
solution for peat soil will be searched for with help of stabilization and pre-compaction.

1 INTRODUCTION and the soil mass both vertically and horizontally

The basis for the development of the mass stabiliza-
tion technology was the need for a method to con-
struct roads on soft peat soil without pile foundation
and mass exchange. The R&D started in the geo-
technical laboratory of Ramboll (former Viatek) in
Luopioinen in 1989. The R&D required three steps:
The first studies concentrated on the use of commer-
cial binders only. These commercial alternatives
proved to be ineffective and very expensive. The
second step included mixing of the commercial sta-
bilizers with different industrial by-products like e.g.
slag, fly ash and gypsum. With the new admixtures
it was possible to obtain better but not yet adequate
strength and economy. The third step was definitely
for the best: pre-compaction was combined with the
best binder admixture with surprisingly good results.
The laboratory simulation of mass stabilization and
pre-compaction of the soft peat soil resulted in a
compression strength level of even 1,0 MPa.
The prototype of the first mass stabilization
equipment was manufactured by the Finnish con-
tractor YIT on the basis of the principles given by
Ramboll. The mixing head of the prototype was a
swinging screw which was able to mix the binder
even into a depth of 3,0 meters. Mass stabilization of
peat was used for the first time for an pilot embank-
ment in Veittostensuo along highway 12 in the
southeast of Finland in 1993 (Figure 1). The stabili-
zation work was very successful. The settlements
and strength development of the peat embankment at
the site have been surprisingly close to the corre-
sponding values obtained by the laboratory simula-
tion tests. The settlements of the peat embankment
have been observed already for 15 years without no-
ticeable settlements or strength decrease (Figure 2).
After the pilot of Veittostensuo mass stabilization
technology was successfully continued in road and
rail applications in Sweden and in Finland. The first
mass stabilization of dredged mud was carried out as
a pilot in Port of Hamina in 1996. Nowadays the
contaminated dredged mud is becoming a growing
and significant problem for most of the ports. Con-
taminated dredged mud may not be dumped back
into the sea. Also the possibilities to deposit these
masses on shore are scarce, difficult and expensive.
On the other hand the stabilized dredged masses can
be used e.g. for the filling in the port area.
 stabilized soil material but in general it varies be-
tween fifty and hundred cubic meters per hour. Fig-
ure 5 shows mass stabilization of soft dredged mud
of a foundation for a container storage area of Port
of Valencia, in Spain in 2006.

Figure 1. The test embankment of Veittostensuo for the mass

stabilization of peat (about 500 m3) and column stabilization
of clay (about 2000 meters). The height of embankment is
about 1,5 meters, the height of mass stabilized peat about 3
meters and the height of columns 10 – 15 meters. Settlements
0,25 – 0,4 meters during the first 6 years.
Figure 3. The mixing drum of ALLU Stabilization System

Figure 2. Observations of the settlements of Veittostensuo test

embankment for twelve years (1993 – 2005) Figure 4. The mass stabilization system of ALLU

2 DEVELOPMENT OF EQUIPMENT

A new type of mass stabilization equipment was de-

veloped and entered the market at the beginning of
the 2000’s. The ALLU mass stabilization system
was developed and is manufactured by the Finnish
company ALLU Finland Ltd. In the newer system
the swinging screw was replaced by a rotating drum
mixer (Figure 3). The mixer can be mounted into a
standard excavator and the binder can be fed from
one (or two) feeding unit(s) by using compressed
air. The feeding unit runs on tracks and it is driven
and controlled via a control panel in the excavator
cabin (Figure 4). Figure 5. Mass stabilization of a foundation for a container
The new mass stabilization system can process storage area of Port of Valencia in 2006.
different types of soil materials at different condi-
tions even into a depth of six meters depending on The treatment procedure of dredged mud has in-
the choice of the mixing head and the reach of the volved transport of dredged material with barges
excavator. The working depth of six meters gives from the dredging site to the shore and further, even-
possibilities for new applications of deep stabiliza- tually, pumping or carrying it with trucks to the fill-
tion, for example combinations of lamella and mass ing basin for mass stabilization. In case the depth of
stabilization in order to consume less binder in the the basin has been more than six meters it has not
lower layers of the foundation. The working capac- been possible to stabilize all of the dredged mud.
ity of a mass stabilization system depends on the Additionally, the mass stabilization would need
some excess amount of binder material because of
the insufficient homogeneity of the stabilized mass.
For these reasons the Finnish contractor Biomaa Oy
has been developing a so-called process stabilization
system for the treatment of dredged mud. In this sys-
tem the dredged mud will be transferred directly
from the barge to the mixing unit of the system. The
binder in exact portions will be also fed into the
mixing unit. After mixing the mixture of dredged
mud and binder is pumped into the filling basin. The
dosage and usage of binder is efficient and the stabi-
lization independent from the depth of the basin.
The prototype of the process stabilization equip-
ment has been developed and tested during EU
LIFE-Environment project Stable (LIFE06
ENV/FIN/195) in Port of Turku. Figure 6 shows the
prototype equipment in Turku in the autumn 2007.
The process stabilization was carried out parallel
with the normal mass stabilization in order to com-
pare the stabilization quality and other, technical and
environmental aspects of the systems. The mass sta-
bilization with two different types of mixing drums
was conducted in the barge from which the mixtures
were moved to a stabilization basin. Figure 7 gives
an example of the results for homogeneity of the sta-
bilized masses for comparison. There is a distinct
difference between the results with different mass
stabilization mixing drums but the result with proc-
ess stabilization is superior.
Figure 6. Process stabilization prototype working in Port of
Turku in the autumn 2007.
350 Process stabilisation, 36 d
300
Mass stabilisation, a, 28 d Process stabilisation:
Compression strenght [
y = 2,1742x - 79,435
250
Mass stabilisation, b, 28 d 2
R = 0,9949
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
3
Binder amount by titration [kg/m ]
Figure 7. Comparison of homogeneity of stabilized dredged
material when used process stabilization and mass stabilization
with two different mixing drums. The binder amount of sam-
ples from process stabilized basin is very homogeneous in
comparison with the binder amounts from the mass stabiliza-
tion basins. The figure also indicates direct correlation between
the compression strength and the binder amount.
3 DEVELOPMENT OF BINDERS
The development of a proper recipe for mass stabili-
zation involves much more challenges than for the
more conventional column stabilization. One of the
reasons is that mass stabilization is mainly applied to
quite soft peat or muddy soils including often con-
taminated dredged mud which are difficult to stabi-
lize or solidify. Additionally, the development of a
cost efficient binder admixture is important because
the costs of binder materials are easily even 70 - 80
per cent of the total costs of the stabilization process.
Pre-compaction is essential to the peat stabiliza-
tion. The required amount of pre-compaction varies
depending on the type of peat. In a soil laboratory
the pre-compaction can be simulated and varied with
help of a special pre-compaction equipment or pre-
compaction bench like shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Pre-compaction equipment for the stabilization tests
of peat samples in the soil laboratory of Ramboll.

The test pieces for the stabilization and pre-
compaction are prepared according to Eurosoilstab
Design Guide methods (2002), and the pre-
compaction with a predetermined press will start
immediately after this. During the pre-compaction
and at certain time intervals the compaction rate of
the test piece will be measured and documented. The
pre-compaction will continue for all the stabilization
test period (e.g. for 30, 90 or 180 days).
The binder admixtures which perform best in the
stabilization of peat are different from the binder
admixtures for clay. For example lime is a proper
and effective binder component for clay but not as
good for peat. On the other hand cement in different
binder admixtures is mostly effective for peat. How-
ever even cement may be inefficient probably due to
certain acids in peat. The impact of the acids is not
yet very well known.
Certain industrial by-products have a significant
role in the successful peat stabilization as these com-
ponents enable economically and often also techni-
cally feasible binder admixtures. Combined with
some cement types the blast-furnace slag and some
fly ashes have proven to have good performance as
binder components (Figure 9).
The stabilization of dredged mud is as challeng-
ing as the stabilization of peat. Some dredged mate-
rials are very difficult to stabilize and solidify and
require the use of multiple binder components. In
case of contaminated dredged mud the technical
challenges are increased by the environmental re-
quirements: The contaminants have to be stabilized
and/or the dredged material made so solid and im-
permeable that any leaching or other release of the
contaminants into the surrounding environment is
impossible.
One of the significant current problems of the ports
is TBT (tri-butyl tin) in the seabed which has to be
dredged. In case of high average content of TBT in
the sediment (in Finland: over 200 μg/kg, normal-
ized) the eventually allowed dredging operation
needs to be careful and safe for the sea environment
and the leaching of TBT from the dredged material
back to the sea prevented. There is need for special
binder admixtures which perform effectively both
with respect to technical and environmental but also
economical requirements.
For the development of binder admixture to stabi-
lize dredged mud it is necessary to study the per-
formance with admixtures of two to four different
components. Different combinations may perform in
the stabilization of different dredged materials in
surprisingly different ways. Therefore the appropri-
ate binder admixture always has to be developed
case by case. The commercial component alterna-
tives are cement or lime. Most dredged sediment
materials can be effectively stabilized with cement
only but there are cases where lime has been effec-
tive. Certain industrial by-products are quite essen-
tial to the economics of the stabilization. It also
seems that the chemical stabilization of certain con-
taminants is more effective when using some indus-
trial by-products like certain fly ashes. Also blast-
furnace slag and process gypsum are found impor-
tant. Examples are given in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

250

Sample 1
Sample 2
200
Sample 3

150
kPa

100

50

0 Figure 10. Stabilization test results of dredged material from

Cem 150 Gypsum Cem 30 Cem 30 + Fly Cem 25 + Cem 25 + Port of Trondheim. Samples from different spots of the seabed
mixture 150 Ash 150 (BF)Slag 25 (BF)Slag 25
+ Fly Ash have been stabilized with three different binders (components:
100 RC = cement, Sil = Silica, Ash = Fly Ash) for 28 days before
testing the unconfined compression strength.
Figure 9. Strength development as unconfined compression
strength [kPa] after 28 days stabilization of some soft soil ma-
terials as average results from different projects. Three types of
soft soil and different binder admixtures [kg/m3] with compo-
nents: Fly Ash; Cem = cement; gypsum mixture = admixture of
process gypsum with cement; (BF) Slag = blast-furnace slag,
pulverized.
 Cumulative leaching of TBT [mg/m ]
2 drops to even 50 kg/m3. Additionally it seems that
NVN 7547
16.9.2005 an admixture of cement with fly ash and blast-
1,0
SRC furnace slag gives significant long-term strength de-
0,9
velopment. These tests also show that the tests for a
0,8
stabilization recipe have to involve tests for long-
term strength development. Certain forecasts can be
0,7 C

obtained also with help of heat treatment.

0,6

The recycling of industrial by-products in stabili-

0,5

zation projects is beneficial with respect to the envi-

0,4

ronment and economy. The costs of cement in the

0,3

0,2

0,1
SRC+FA+DSR
case of Aurajoki would be about 10 Millions Euro.
0,0
SRC+FA The production and transports of the cement would
consume significant amount of energy involving an
Not stabilized
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 C+FA80 90 100

airborne release of more than 100 000 tons of CO2.

Days after the start of leaching test

The corresponding costs of the binder admixture of

Figure 11. The cumulative leaching of TBT from dredged mud. cement with blast-furnace slag and fly ash would be
Leaching test was “Tank Test” based on the Dutch pre- only about 3,4 Millions Euro, and the corresponding
standard NVN 7347. Dredged materials was stabilized for 28
days before starting the test. Binders were different (compo-
CO2 release about 26 000 tons.
nents: Two different cements SRC and C; Fly Ash = FA;
desulphurization residue = DSR). Note: also a not stabilized
sample was tested! 4 CONCLUSIONS

An example of dredged material being difficult to Mass stabilization has rapidly developed to a sig-
stabilize is the TBT-contaminated dredged material nificant area of deep stabilization technology along-
from Aurajoki, Turku. Extensive stabilization tests side with the column stabilization. Along with this
have been carried out during the LIFE-Environment development the exploitation of the deep stabiliza-
project Stable. The binder components for the stud- tion technology has been extending and diversifying.
ies included different types of cement, lime, coal fly Mass stabilization increases the use of deep stabili-
ash, oil shale ash from Estonia, pulverized blast- zation for the road, rail and municipal construction
furnace slag and process gypsum from chemical in- projects as it makes it possible to apply deep stabili-
dustry. Figure 12 shows some of the test results. zation on the areas of soft soil like peat and mud.
Also, mass stabilization is a feasible solution for
600
many stability problems of embankments and
Stab for 90 d, +8°C
trenches. Further, mass stabilization has brought
500
Stab for 180 d, +8°C about economically feasible and sustainable exploi-
400
tation of soft and even contaminated dredged mate-
Target level: 100 kPa rials for the development of the port infrastructure.
300
3
Mass stabilization is furthering the sustainable in-
200
Increase of OSA 150 → 250 kg/m
frastructure development in many ways. The binder
admixtures involve the recycling of many industrial
100
residues or by-products. This is economically bene-
0
ficial for the ports and other developers, and envi-
ronmentally beneficial due to the savings of energy
C1+OSA C1+OSA CA+OSA C1 (200) C1 (250) C2+BFS+FA C2+BFS+FA
(50+150) (50+200) (50+250) (45+105+100) (70+150+100)

and smaller amounts of airborne releases in com-

Figure 12. Stabilization test results for TBT-contaminated parison with commercial binder components. Also
dredged material from Aurajoki, Turku in 2007. The sample the exploitation of non-renewable natural aggregate
material has been stabilized with different binders and results
are given as unconfined compression strength UCS after 90 resources will be saved for the most important pro-
and 180 days stabilization at 8 degrees Celcius. The target jects as mass stabilization technology also makes it
level for UCS was 100 kPa. The binder components are: C = possible to exploit low-quality soil material in con-
cement 1, CR = cement 2, OSA = oil shale ash, FA = coal fly struction projects.
ash, BFS = blast furnace slag. The amount of binder compo- The development of the mass stabilization tech-
nent for each admixture is given as kilograms of component
per cubic meter of dredged material.
nology has involved the development of the equip-
ment characterized by versatile use, relatively high
The results given in Figure 12 indicate that in or- capacity and high stabilization quality. The devel-
der to obtain the targeted strength (UCS 100 kPa) opment of the equipment continues, The newest sys-
the stabilization process needs e.g. 250 kg/m3 ce- tem is called process stabilization.
ment. In case cement is combined with non-
commercial binder components the need for cement
REFERENCES

ALLU stabilization system, ALLU Finland Ltd:

http://www.allu.net/index.php/en_en/stabilisation-system

Eurosoilstab Design Guide (2002). Design Guide Soft Soil Sta-

bilisation. EuroSoilStab, Development of design and con-
struction methods to stabilise soft organic soil. European
Community CT97-0351, BE 96-3177. Project report. EP60.
Published by BRE Press (www.ihsbrepress.com). 94.p

Havukainen, J., Leppänen, M. and Piispanen, A.. Mass Stabili-

zation of peat, clays and sediments – Case Vuosaari. A pa-
per for OKINAWA2009. 6 p. 2008.

Lahtinen, P.. Fly Ash Mixtures as Flexible Structural Materials

for Low-Volume Roads. Doctoral Thesis for Helsinki Uni-
versity of Technology, Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering. Published by Finnish Road Admini-
stration, Finnra Reports 70/2001. 95 p. + annexes 55 p.
Helsinki 2001.

Stable, LIFE-Turku, LIFE06 ENV/FIN/195.

http://projektit.ramboll.fi/life/stable/