performance evaluation of modified marine dredged soil …€¦ · · 2013-05-09performance...

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2013) 17(4):674-680DOI 10.1007/s12205-013-0178-3

− 674 −

www.springer.com/12205

Geotechnical Engineering

Performance Evaluation of Modified Marine Dredged Soil and Recycled In-Situ Soil as Controlled Low Strength Materials for Underground Pipe

Kwan-Ho Lee* and Ju-Deuk Kim**

Received June 28, 2011/Revised May 31, 2012/Accepted July 15, 2012

···································································································································································································································

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to present engineering properties of Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) with recycled in-situ soil and marine dredged soil as backfill materials for underground pipe line system. The proper mixing ratio was determined,based on the specified criterion of flowing size and unconfined compression strength. Laboratory tests were carried out in thisresearch included particle analysis, unconfined compression test, direct shear test, dynamic creep test and small scaled laboratorychamber test. The unconfined strength and flow of controlled low strength materials satisfied the criteria for construction materials,which was above 250 kPa. The measured creep strain at 1200 sec longing was 178 µm for Case 3 (natural sand with dredged soilCLSM) and 178 µm for Case 4 (recycled in-situ soil with dredged soil CLSM), and 471.9 µm for natural soil only. The use of CSLMcan reduce the settlement of backfill materials for underground pipe line system. The use of CLSM as backfill materials made a largereduction of earth pressure applied on underground pipe. The use of small amount of cement gives the cementation effect for bothCLSM and hardening effect. Keywords: backfill materials, small scaled chamber test, controlled low strength materials, flow, underground pipeline system

···································································································································································································································

1. Introduction

Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) is a mixture of coalfly ash, water, Portland cement and other construction orrecycling materials that flows like a liquid, sets up like a solid, isself-leveling, and requires no compaction or vibration to achievemaximum density. This is an extremely versatile constructionmaterial that has been used in a wide variety of applications.Among the many successful applications of controlled lowstrength materials are pavement bases, backfill for retainingwalls, culverts, and underground pipe trenches (ACAA, 2003).Flowing fill offers a number of advantages over conventionalearth-fill materials that require controlled compaction in layers.The advantages include ease of mixing and placement and abilityto flow into hard-to-reach places, as well as the self-levelingcharacteristics of the fill (Misra et al., 2005).

A large amount of soft soil has been dredged from navigationchannels and construction sites of large-scale port and harborprojects such as Busan New Port, Korea. Most of the dredgedmaterial is clayey soil with high water content that is too soft tobe used for backfilling material without some type of processing.The annual generation of dredged soil from 1990 to 2004 inBusan, Korea, continuously increases due to large constructionprojects associated with new industrial complexes. Dredged soilis usually dumped in waste disposal sites at sea (Kim et al.,

2008). This, however, is becoming increasingly difficult due toenvironmental considerations, and pressure has been increasingto reuse the dredged soil in port and harbor construction projects(Park et al., 2011).

Since dredged material invariably falls under the category ofwastes, which like other more mundane domestic and industrialwastes, can adopt the general model of ideal waste managementby being re-introduced into the production cycles of secondaryraw materials (Kan, 2009). From the engineering point of view,the dredged soils can be classified as a very soft geo-materialwith limited strength and high water content, where potentialreutilization or reproduction for a second life first requirescertain treatment to improve the material’s inherent properties. Inorder to provide improved management of the dredged materials,much effort has been expended to treat the materials prior tocontainment, so that they can be reused as conventional geo-materials in construction. Induced solidification by chemicaladmixtures is a treatment technique able to transform the dredgedmaterials to usable forms.

Research effort in developing the induced solidification methodfor dredged soils is not lacking over the years. For instance, Sunet al. (2010) demonstrated that the Nagoya Port dredged soilsmixed with cement and gypsum neutral stabilizer produced animproved material with a slow rate of structure decay and loss ofover-consolidation, both indicators of enhanced stiffness. Also,

*Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kongju National University, Cheonan 330-717, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail : [email protected])**Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kyungsung University, Busan 314-79, Korea (E-mail: [email protected])


Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 675 −

Okumura et al. (2000) developed the Super Geo Material (SGM); alightweight treated soil formed by introducing air bubbles orexpanded polystyrene beads into the waste soils. Such improvedmaterials have been successfully used for backfilling retainingstructures while effectively containing the possible contaminationby the dredged soils. Advancement in machinery and operationshas seen custom-made ships equipped with a proprietary cementtreatment system for simultaneous dredging and treatment of thedredged materials.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the engineeringproperties of modified dredged soil, recycled in-situ soil, and flyash, as flowing fill materials. Extensive laboratory tests, includingparticle size analysis, unconfined compression test, dynamiccreep test, and small scaled laboratory chamber test, wereconducted to verify the engineering properties and performanceof soil-based controlled low strength materials as constructionbackfill materials for underground pipe line systems.

2. Literature Review on Controlled Low StrengthMaterials for Underground Pipe Lines

The American Concrete Institute (ACI, 1994) defines a controlledlow strength material as a cemented material that is in a flowingstate at the time of placement and has a specified compressivestrength of 8275 kPa or less at the age of 28 days. The lower-endstrengths of 150 to 700 kPa are used in applications, which mustbe excavated at some future time. A controlled low strengthmaterial in the 2000 to 8000 kPa is a permanent, lean concretefill that has a bearing capacity much grater than compactedgranular soils, but less than rock. CLSM is mixed and deliveredlike ready-mixed concrete except the proportions consist of lessPortland cement and more fly ash or aggregate. The resultingmix is more fluid than conventional concrete. The fluid mixhardens into either a stiff soil-like mass or a rock-like mass,depending on the mix design (Lim et al., 2002; Hoopes, 1998).

The pipe material and shape, the support of the materialbeneath and to the sides of the pipe all affect the maximumloading that pipes are capable of carrying (McCarthy, 2002). Thebedding under the pipe supports vertical loads, the side-fillprevents pipes from deflecting outward, and the haunch zone is apart of both sections. Good support in the haunch zone is veryimportant to carry vertical loads and to prevent lateral deformations.The difficulty of filling and compacting conventional backfillmaterials in the haunch zone causes large variability in support inthis area. However, controlled low strength materials can easilyflow into this zone and provide uniform and continuous supportto the pipe. Generally, if the bedding and backfill are shaped tothe contour of the pipe, better support and higher permissibleloads are obtained (Chua, 1986).

The available load bearing capacity of rigid pipes is typicallydetermined using three-edge bearing test load. However, thethree-edge bearing test represents a severe loading condition andgenerally buried pipes are capable of supporting greater loadsthan determined by the test based on the quality of their beddings

and backfill. Spangler (1941) determined the load factor (Lf) ofsoil beddings from pipes and represented a classification systemfor them (known as Marston Spangler bedding classification). Aload factor is the ratio of permissible field load to three-edgebearing test load. The load factors greater than unity indicate thatthe magnitude of the allowable field loading are greater than thatfor the test load (McCarthy, 2002). The Marston Spanglerclassifications are (Du, 2001):

• Class D (Impermissible bedding): Little or no effort is takento shape the bedding to fit the invert of the pipe or to fill thehaunch zone. Backfill is partially compacted.

• Class C (Ordinary bedding): Earth bedding is pre-shaped tofit the invert of the pipe for a width of at least 50 percent ofthe pipe diameter. The pipe is surrounded to a height of atleast 0.15 m above its crown by granular materials that areshovel placed and shovel tamped to completely fill allspaces under and adjacent to the pipe.

• Class B (First class bedding): The pipe is placed on beddingmade out of fine granular materials. The bedding is shapedto fit the invert of the pipe with a template for a width of atleast 60 percent of the pipe diameter. The pipe is surroundedto a height of at least 0.3 m above its crown by granularmaterials that are carefully placed to completely fill thehaunch zone and the side-fill area. Granular materials arethoroughly compacted on each side and under the pipe inthin layers not exceeding 0.15 m (0.5 ft) in thickness.

In addition to the Marston Spangler classifications, there areStandard Installation Direct Design (SIDD) models that wererecently adopted by ASCE and AASHTO. The StandardInstallation Direct Design differentiates between four types ofbackfill designs. Type I is a densely compacted backfill. Type IIis a slightly lower quality installation that is approximatelyequivalent to Class B Marston Spangler bedding. Type III isroughly equivalent to Class C, and Type IV is roughly equivalentto Class D Marston Spangler bedding (Halmen, 2005).

3. Testing Materials

3.1 MaterialsIn this study, three different types of soils; marine dredged soil,

soil in construction site and natural sand in Pusan, Korea, and fly

Table 1. Selected Properties of the Soils and Fly Ash used in theStudy

Test Natural Sand

Recycled in-situ soil

Dredged Soil Fly Ash

Specific Gravity 2.556 2.565 2.321 2.173Water Content (%) 3.55 14.06 46.00 -Classification (UIUC) SP SW MH -Cu (uniformity coefficient) 2.37 7.29 14.29 16.44Cc (coefficient of gradation) 0.78 1.70 1.71 0.63D10 Size mm 0.03 0.18 - -D30 Size mm 0.27 0.67 - -D60 Size mm 3.70 2.10 - -

Kwan-Ho Lee and Ju-Deuk Kim

− 676 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

ash were used. Selected properties of the soils and fly ash areshown in Table 1. The characteristics of the recycled in-situ soiland the marine dredged soil were relatively uniform and theirwater contents were around 14% and 46%. The fly ash used inthis research was generated at Tae-An Thermoelectric PowerPlant in Tan-An Peninsula where anthracite coal was used forfuel. Up until 1997, all the fly ash not used as cement admixturehad been disposed in waste ponds at the plant. The fly ash was atthe stage of the process just before refining for using cementmixing. It was classified as class-F fly ash, according to ASTMclassification. Type I Portland Cement (ASTM-150), which wassupplied by Sungshin Industries, Korea, was used for solidifyingthe materials. Selected chemical properties of the cement andfly-ash are presented in Table 2.

3.2 Determination of Optimum Mixing RatioTo find the Point of Minimum Water Demand (PMWD), the

quantity of the sand or the soil was fixed in the first stage whilethe quantities of cement, fly ash, marine dredged soil and waterwere varied. Then, flow test and unconfined compressivestrength test were carried out to determine the optimum mixingratio. For flow test, a 7.6 cm of diameter by 15.2 cm of height ofopen-ended cylinder and 50 cm by 50 cm smooth glass platewere used. The open-ended cylinder was place on a smoothleveled surface underneath which was the glass plate. Given thesetting, the cylinder was completely filled with the flowing fillmix, and its surface was leveled off with straight edge. Then thecylinder was quickly lifted and the diameter of the circularsection of the flowing fill formed on the glass plate was taken asspread. The specified flowing size was 20 cm to 30 cm (Nantung,1996). Also, the unconfined compressive strength tests werecarried out. From the results of flow test and unconfinedcompressive strength test, the relationship between the water andcement ratio and unconfined compressive strength is obtained.After the getting the water and cement ratio corresponding tominimum unconfined compressive strength (250 kPa) of 7-daycuring specimen, which is the selected strength for excavation byman or common equipments. The optimum mixing ratio shouldsatisfy the specified flowing size (20 cm to 30 cm) and unconfinedstrength (minimum 250 kPa). The PMWD gives the minimum

water-solid ratio, and therefore, should correspond to the minimumporosity. It is also important to consider, while designing a mix,the ease of handling the flowing fill, the homogeneity of the mix,and the possibility of segregation. The optimum mixingcomposition by weight was shown in Table 3.

4. Testing Methodology and Results

4.1 Unconfined Compression Test The unconfined compression apparatus made by Marui in

Japan was used in this testing. The objective of the testingprogram was to obtain the undrained elasticity modulus versuscuring time. The diameter of the test material was 5 cm, and itslength was 12.5 cm. The compression velocity was 2 mm/min,which was equivalent to 1.6% strain per minute for the 5 cmdiameter samples tested in this study. Cured specimens after 0, 3,and 7 days were used.

Table 4 presents all the testing results, including the type ofsoil, and the unconfined compression strength with curing time.The unconfined strength values for Case A were 250.1 kPa and404.5 kPa, and for Case B were 250.9 kPa and 336.6 kPa after 3and 7 days of curing, respectively. For the recycled in-situ soilwithout cement, the unconfined strength was 69.7 kPa. For

Table 2. Selected Chemical Properties of Cement and Fly Ash (Unit: %)Type SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 TiO2 SO3 CaO MgO K2O Na2O P2O5 L.O.I

Cement 21.80 4.40 2.90 - 2.60 63.2 3.60 - 0.62 - 0.67Fly Ash 60.33 24.78 3.82 1.06 0.88 2.39 0.84 0.86 0.59 0.50 4.84

Table 3. The Optimum Mixing Composition (%) by Weight

CLSM Type Soil (with 10% fly ash)

Dredged Soil Cement Water

Case A(1) 32.1 27.8 3.7 36.4Case A(2) 51.0 17.9 3.7 27.4

(1)Natural Sand + Fly Ash + Dredged Soil + Cement + Water(2)Recycled In-Situ Soil+ Fly Ash + Dredged Soil + Cement + Water

Table 4. Unconfined Compressive Strength Time and Strength

Type Curing (day) Strength (kPa)

Case A3 250.17 404.5

Case B3 250.97 336.6

Table 5. Test Result of Direct Shear Test

CLSM Curing (day)

Normal Stress (kPa)

Maximum Shear Stress

(kPa)

Friction Angle

(degree)Cohesion

(kPa)

Case A

311.9 84.6

9.5 90.421.6 93.134.2 104.6

711.5 111.2

11.2 116.621.6 114.434.2 131.4

Case B

310.5 91.6

8.2 98.321.0 102.831.4 109.4

710.4 103.4

12.6 119.221.9 128.030.8 133.5


Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 677 −

comparison purposes, the standard for unconfined compressivestrength is 100.0 kPa for construction materials in Korea.

4.2 Direct Shear Test The direct shear test was conducted to get the cohesion and

internal friction angle of each mixture. The test procedure wasfollowed by ASTM D 3080-90. The test results were shown inTable 5. As curing time increase, the cohesion and friction angleincrease.

4.3 Creep Test The continuous time dependent deformation under constant

stress or load is called creep. Inherent to engineering materials isthe characteristic to undergo some level of deformation whensubjected to an externally applied load, and the deformationcontinues indefinitely as the load remains. Creep deformation fora given stress level is plotted versus elapsed time and the creepdeformation is divided into three stages. In the primary stage therate of deformation increases very rapidly. In the stage wheresteady-state is reached, the deformation rate is constant. The thirdis the failure stage, in which the deformation again increasesrapidly.

In this study, the confined dynamic creep test was performed toassess the creep behavior of each case using the apparatus shownin Fig. 1. For recycled in-situ soil in construction site withoutcement, the test specimen was trimmed with block sampling.Testing temperature approximately was around 21oC and the

confining pressure was 40 kPa which was recommended byAASHTO. The applied load was 0.67 kN. The applied loadingcycle for each second was two stages, 0.2 sec loading and 0.8 secunloading in Fig. 2. The total loading cycle was 1200 sec and therest cycle without loading was 300 sec.

The creep test results are shown in Fig. 3 and the detaileddeformation values for critical point are shown in Table 6. Asshown in Fig. 3 and Table 6, the creep deformation of recycledin-situ soil without cement was around 470 µm and that of otherCLSM was less than 200 µm. The use of CLSM as backfillmaterials showed lower strain than that of only soil. Thedifference of strain between 1200 sec and 1500 sec is shown therecovered strain during unloading. The measured strains at 3 daycuring specimen showed relatively higher than at 7 day curingspecimens.

5. Small Scale Laboratory Chamber Test

5.1 Testing Instruments and SetupA small-scale chamber test was carried out to get the

performance of underground pipe-CLSM system. The dimensionof small-scale chamber was 1.4 m × 0.6 m × 0.9 m and thechamber was reinforced with flat metal strips in the horizontaland vertical direction as shown in Fig. 4. As seen in the figures, aFig. 1. Creep Test Equipment

Fig. 2. Loading Cycle

Fig. 3. Measured Deformation with Curing Time

Table 6. Measured Displacement (µm) by Creep Test

Displacement (µm)Time(sec)

Case A Case B Recycled In-SituSoil only3 day 7 day 3 day 7 day

1200 178.2 108.3 144.9 142.2 471.91500 177.1 104.7 144.7 139.8 463.4



square metal plate with an elliptical hole is attached to the box bymeans of bolts and nuts. A rubber membrane sheet was placed inbetween the chambers and the plate before tightening the plateand a 20-cm circular hole was cut in it to insert the pipe. Themembrane was placed to ensure water tightness withoutaffecting the behavior of the pipe. The loading system withfloating plate on top of the chamber and two metallic blocks overthe plate are shown in Fig. 5. A metal beam is placed with a loadcell in between the metal blocks and the beam. The maximumcapacity of each load cell was 2 tons. The load cell was pre-calibrated using 5 tons universal testing machine. The LinearVariable Differential Transformer (LVDT) shown in Fig. 6 to getthe vertical and horizontal deflection of the pipe was installed.Two pressure measurement devices for soil or CLSM shown inFig. 7 were installed against the pipe at crown and spring-line.Also, devices to measure strains in the pipe wall at 6 equallyspaced locations at the center of the pipe were installed, shown inFig. 8. An automated data acquisition system was employed forcollecting the data. Different conditions of the test are presented

in Table 7. The natural sand was used as bedding materials. ThePoly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe with 30 cm diameter and 0.7 cmthickness was installed. Its modulus of elasticity and Poisson’sratio were 3,490 MPa and 0.31, respectively.

5.2 Testing Results and AnalysisA comparison of vertical deformations of for the four cases is

shown in Fig. 9. Case 1 and case 2 without cement and fly ashrepresent the rapid increase of vertical deformation with loadingincrease. The PVC pipe is categorized as flexible pipe whichdeformation depends on lateral earth pressure with arching effectof backfill materials. The use of CLSM for case 3 and case 4made a reduction of vertical deformation of pipe. The measuredvertical deformation was less than 2 mm. The main reason forthe vertical deformation reduction was the cementation effect ofCLSM, even though it was cured for only 3 days.

The lateral deformation of each case is shown in Fig. 10. Incase of without cement, the lateral deformation was relativelylarge, up to 6.5 mm which indicates that the potential for failureof PVC pipe failure. On the other hands, the use of CLSMshowed just less than 1.3 mm of lateral deformation, with only0.2 mm of deformation for case 4. This means that the use of

Fig. 4. Small-Scale Chamber

Fig. 5. Loading System

Fig. 6. LVDT

Fig .7. Pressure Meter

Fig. 8. Strain Gauge on PVC Pipe mm

Table 7. Test Condition with Different Backfill MaterialsCase Type Backfill Materials

1 Soil Natural sand only2 Soil Recycled in-situ soil only

3 CLSM Natural sand, marine dredged soil, fly ash,cement, water

4 CLSM Recycled in-situ soil, marine dredged soil, fly ash,cement, water


Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 679 −

CLSM as backfill materials increases the stiffness of flexiblepipe.

Figure 11 shows the transverse strain at 25 mm on pipe crown.As shown in this figure, the measured strains for both CLSMwere smaller than for natural sand and recycled in-situ soil withmarine dredged soil.

The measured lateral earth pressure for each case is shown inFig. 12. In case of flexible pipes, such as PVC, the lateral earthpressure depends on the type of backfill material, degree ofcompaction, as well as arching effect. The use of CLSM asbackfill materials made a large reduction of earth pressureapplied on underground pipe. The ratio of lateral earth pressureover vertical earth pressure, which is called a Ko, is shown in Fig.13. In cases of 3 and 4, the use of small amount of cement gives

the cementation effect for both CLSM and hardening effect. Thesmall Ko means that smaller earth pressure applies on flexiblepipe.

6. Conclusions

The research presented in this paper aimed to characterize theengineering properties of recycled in-situ soil and marinedredged soil as controlled low strength materials to be usedaround underground pipe lines. The number of laboratory testswas carried out to evaluate the index properties, unconfinedcompressive strength, dynamic creep test and small-scaledlaboratory chamber test. Despite the possible limitations in thelaboratory tests, the following conclusion can be drawn.

1. Based on the flow test and unconfined compressive strength,the optimum mixing ratio was determined. The mix ratio ofsoil with fly ash, marine dredged soil, cement and water bytotal weight was 32.1%, 27,8%, 3.7%, 36.4% for naturalsand CLSM (Case A) and 51.0%, 17.9%, 3.7%, 27.4% forthe recycled in-situ soil CLSM (Case B).

2. The unconfined strength of Case A and Case B was 404.0kPa and 336.6 kPa for 7 day curing, respectively. Theseresults for the modified backfill materials satisfied the crite-ria (250 kPa) of underground pipe line construction forfuture excavation or maintenance. The friction angle of bothCLSM for 7-day curing was 11.2o and 12.6o.

3. The purpose of creep test is to determine the long term set-tlement in geotechnical engineering. The creep deformationof recycled in-situ soil without cement was around 470 µm

Fig. 9. Vertical Deformation (Compression) of Each Case

Fig. 10. Lateral Deformation (Expansion) of Each Case

Fig. 11. Transverse Strain at 25 mm

Fig. 12. Lateral Earth Pressure

Fig. 13. The Ratio (Ko) of Vertical over Lateral Earth Pressure



and that of other CLSM was less than 200 µm. The use ofCLSM as backfill materials showed lower strain than that ofonly soil. The difference of strain between 1200 sec and1500 sec is shown the recovered strain during unloading.The measured strains at 3 day curing specimen showed rela-tively higher than at 7 day curing specimens.

4. Judging from the small-scale laboratory chamber test, due tothe effect of hardening of CLSM materials, their use decreasethe deformation and earth pressure on flexible pipe line sys-tem. Case 1 and case 2 without cement and fly ash representthe rapid increase of vertical deformation with loadingincrease. The PVC pipe is categorized as flexible pipe whichdeformation depends on lateral earth pressure with archingeffect of backfill materials. The use of CLSM for case 3 andcase 4 made a reduction of vertical deformation of pipe. Themeasured vertical deformation was less than 2 mm.

5. In case of without cement, the lateral deformation was rela-tively large, up to 6.5 mm which indicates that the potentialfor failure of PVC pipe failure. On the other hands, the useof CLSM showed just less than 1.3 mm of lateral deforma-tion, with only 0.2 mm of deformation for case 4. Thismeans that the use of CLSM as backfill materials increasesthe stiffness of flexible pipe.

6. The use of CLSM as backfill materials made a large reduc-tion of earth pressure applied on underground pipe. Theratio of lateral earth pressure over vertical earth pressure iscalled Ko. In cases of 3 and 4, the use of small amount ofcement gives the cementation effect for both CLSM andhardening effect. The small Ko means that smaller earthpressure applies on flexible pipe.

7. Judging from the extensive testing in the lab, the use ofrecycled in-situ soil and marine dredged soil as CLSM as con-struction materials in civil engineering can be a potentialoption to reinforce or stabilize underground pipe line system.

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Korea ResearchFoundation Grant (2009) funded by the Korean Government.

References

ACI (1994). “Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM).” Concrete

International, American Concrete Institute Committee 229, ACI229R-94 Report, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 55-64.

American Coal Ash Association (2003). Fly ash facts for highwayengineers, Report No. FHWA-IF-03-019, Federal HighwayAdministration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Chua, K. M. (1986). Time-dependent interaction of soil and flexiblePipe, PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M.

Du, L. (2001). Laboratory investigations of controlled low-strengthmaterial, PhD Dissertation, the University of Texas at Austin.

Halman, C. (2005). Physicochemical characteristics of controlled lowstrength materials influencing the electrochemical performance andservice life of metallic materials, PhD Dissertation, Texas A&MUniversity.

Hoopes, R. J. (1998). “Engineering properties of air-modified controlledlow strength.” The Design and Application of Controlled Low-strength Materials (Flowing Fill), ASTM STP 1331, A.K. Howardand J. L. Hitch, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 87-101.

Kan, A. (2009). “General characteristics of waste management: A review”,Energy Education Science and Technology, Part A, Vol. 23, pp. 55-69.

Kim, Y. T., Kim, H. J., and Lee, K. H. (2008). “Mechanical behavior oflightweight soil reinforced with waste fishing net.” Geotextile andGeomembranes, Vol. 26, pp. 512-518.

Lim, S., Jeon, W., Lee, K., Lee, J., and Kim, N. (2002). “Lime and flyash solidification of water and waste water treatment sludge.” WaterResearch, Vol. 36, No. 17, pp. 4177-4184.

McCarthy, D. F. (2002). Essential of soil mechanics and foundations –Basic geotechnics, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Misra, A., Upadhyaya, S., Gustin, F., Roohanirad, A., and Stokes, J.(2005). Full depth cold on-place recycling of asphalt pavementusing self-cementing fly ash: Field and laboratory study, 2005World Coal Ash, Lexington, KY, April 11-15.

Nantung, T. E. (1993). Design criteria for controlled low strengthmaterials, PhD Dissertation, Purdue University, pp. 344.

Okumura, T., Noda, S., Kitazawa, S., and Wada, K. (2000). New groundmaterial made of dredged soil for port and airport reclamationprojects, Coastal Geotechnical Engineering in Practice, Nakase andTsuchida.

Park, J. B., Woo, H. S., Lee, K. W., and Lee, W. J. (2011). “Problems ofdisposal of dredged materials and increment of recycling.” TheJournal of the KSCE, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 65-74.

Spangler, M. G. (1941). The structural design of flexible pipe culverts,Iowa Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 153, Ames, IA.

Sun, K., Nakano, M., Yamada, E., and Asaoka, A. (2010). “Mechanicalbehavior of compacted Geomaterial changed from the dredged soilin Nagoya Port by mixing with some stabilizers.” Proceedings of theGeo-shanghai International Conference, China.

performance evaluation of modified marine dredged soil …€¦ · · 2013-05-09performance...

Documents