ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

Effect of Contamination on Soil Properties and it’s

Remediation for Sub-Structural Materials
N. Y. PARMAR 1 L. S. THAKUR 2
and Dr. K. R. BIYANI 3

1,2,3
Applied Mechanics Dept., Fact. of Tech. & Engg., M.S.U., Baroda-390001,
Gujarat, India, e-mail: nironearth@yahoo.co.in, lalitsthakur@yahoo.com.

Abstract: Soil is a specific compartment of the biosphere, because it is not only a

geochemical sink for contaminants, but also acts as a natural buffer, controlling the transport
of chemical elements and substances to the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biota. The paper
presents work on yellow soil contaminated with varying percentages of HCl and CaCO 3 and
their effect on geotechnical properties. It also includes study of effect of soil contamination
on sub-structural materials. It is observed that HCl contamination in all percentage gives
drastic decrease in strength and CBR values. Soil contaminated with CaCO3 shows excellent
improvement in the strength and CBR values thus making the contamination, indirectly
beneficial for soil. Improvement in strength is seen when the contaminated soils are
intermixed with addition of metakaolin.

Keywords: Soil, HCl & CaCO3, Time dependant Study, Sub-Structural Materials,
Metakaolin.

acidity or alkalinity, available water flow,

INTRODUCTION:
The growing population, relentless march
towards development and the subsequent
industrialization have forced man towards
urbanization and industrialization, also
affecting the environment on the whole.
Contamination of land can arise from
industrial processes, waste disposal, illegal
dumping and accidental spillage of
substances.
Soil and water contamination arises when
a chemical that does not degrade naturally
gets into the environment. Likely sources
of contamination include gas stations and
refineries, factories and rail yards.
Potential causes of the ground
contamination like leaks and spillage from
tanks and pipes, storage and transport of
raw materials, intermediate products and
waste materials, disposal of waste
materials on or adjacent to site, stack
emission resulting in widespread
contamination of surrounding environment
has a potentially significant health risk to
residents. Soils respond differently to
various contaminants, depending upon
type of soil composition, pore space,
and contaminant concentration levels,
source and type of contaminant. Acid
deposition is concerned with long-range
effects rather than immediate local effects.
R. K. Parashar, H. C. Gandhi (2000)
presented variation in index and strength
properties of soil due to acidic atmospheric
precipitation on the contaminated soil
samples with nitric acid and sulphuric acid.
The result shows that the reduction in pH
shifts the grain size distribution of soil
towards the coarser side.
Leakage of chemicals into soil or rocks
resulting in changes in their material
properties may induce movements of the
supported structures. Raid R. Al-Omari,
Waleed K. Mohammed,Isam H. Nashaat
and Oday M. Kaseer (2007) investigated
effect of sulphuric and phosphoric acids on
the behaviour of a lime stone foundation
at western Iraqi city. It has been found
that the interaction of either acid with
calcium carbonate leads to the formation
of a soft dough which plugs the pores of
the conventional porous stone and
gradually hardens.

1
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India
Guo Yin, Xu Ri-qing and Shno Yu-Fang
(2007) presented method of stabilization
of soft soil containing humus acid with
cement and XGL-2005. The logarithmic of
unconfined strength of the organic soil
treated with cement and XGL2005 were
found to decrease in a linear fashion with
humus acid content, increased in a linear
fashion with curing time.
Giles M. Marion, James R. Payne, and
Gurdarshan S. Brar (1997) reported site
remediation via dispersion by chemical
reaction (DCR). DCR technologies are a
group of patented waste treatment
processes using CaO (quick lime) for the
immobilization of heavily oiled sludge, oil-
contaminated soil, acid-tars, and heavy
metals in Ca(OH)2 and CaCO3 matrices.
S. Zelmanowitz, W. C. Boyle, D. E.
Armstrong and J. K. Park (1995) studied
ability of various soils to buffer extremely
acidic leachates. Soil-column experiments
were run to evaluate the ability of a sand,
a silty loam, and a silty loam amended
with 4% CaCO3 , to buffer dilute H2SO4
solution (pH 3.5 and 1.5) and a synthetic
coal-pile leachate (a pH 1.5 H2SO4 solution
containing metal sulfate salts).
The present work envisaged a study of
contaminants i.e. HCl & CaCO3 effect on
geotechnical properties of silt soil along
with a methodology to remediate such soil
to a more beneficial environment. In the
lab, it is tried to remediate the soil for
various combinations of contaminated soil
mixed with each other and with different
percentages of metakaoline.
The objectives identified for the given
study are to study variation of physical
and engineering properties of soil with
respect to maturing time i.e. at an interval
of 90 days for a total of 270 days and to
remediate the contaminated soil, after
maturing it for 60 days.
MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Silty soil procured from the Faculty of
Technology and Engineering, Baroda
having following properties as shown in
Table 1.
2
Contaminants:
Contaminants used are Loba Chem HCl
with Assay (acidimetric) as 35-38% and
CaCO3 with Assay (acidimetric) as 98%.
ARTIFICIAL CONTAMINATION:
Virgin soil procured from Faculty of
Technology and Engineering, M. S.
University, Baroda, was hand sampled to
remove any organic materials, stones or
pebbles. It was then pulverized and sieved
through 425 sieve after air drying. The
soil was then weighed and contaminated in
two batches of 30 kgs and 25kgs, with five
different percentages of contaminants i.e.
1%, 3%, 5%, 7% and 10% by weight of
soil. Both contaminants were mixed with
water first and then poured in to the soil,
water content being kept equal to the
liquid limit of the soil irrespective of the
condition whether the contaminant is a
solid or liquid. The 25kg soil batch was
specifically contaminated to keep the
construction material without the soil
being disturbed, where as the 30kgs
batches were contaminated for finding the
physical and engineering properties of the
contaminated soil at an interval of 3
months. Fig. 1 shows the effect of
contamination on soil. The clear colour
difference in the both HCl and CaCO3
contaminated soil is seen.
During sieving and storing pulverized
Hydrochloric acid contaminated soil
sample, soils tends to attract water and
causing visible change in colour. To avoid
above phenomenon, hydrochloric acid
contaminated soils used for sample
preparation considers the moisture and is
used for immediately after drying the soil.
Samples made are kept in dessicator till
experiments are performed.
RESULT:
Various properties like physical and
strength are found out for virgin soil and
contaminated soils using respective tests
as per IS procedures. Strength tests are
performed on various combination of mix
of the two contaminated soil to find
possibility of remediation by intermixing of
contaminated soils itself.
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India
Specific Gravity:
The results of specific gravity for the
contaminated soils and virgin soil shows
that its value decrease with period of
contamination for HCl contaminated soil
but its value increases with period of
contamination for CaCO3. Comparing the
specific gravity value of virgin soil, 2.565,
with contaminated soils, the value
increases by an amount 0.12% initially
then decreases by 0.23% for HCl
contaminated soil whereas specific gravity
value for CaCO3 shows 0.21% increment.
Atterberg’s Limits:
The liquid limit values decreases with the
time elapsed for both HCl and CaCO3.
There is reduction in the liquid limit value
for HCl and CaCO3 contaminated soil of
about 19.31% and 23.98% respectively
with respect to percentage contamination.
Plastic limit value shows 17.09% reduction
for the HCl contaminated soil with respect
to % of contamination, while for CaCO3 the
value range varies from 8.79% decrement
to 5.11% increment.
Shrinkage Value for HCl shows decrement
of 22.06% while shrinkage value for CaCO 3
shows 5.65% decrement to 11.14%
increment. The soil placed in the oven for
shrinkage limit observation, it shows
heaving of soil in shrinkage dish.
Compaction Properties:
Fig. 2 and 3 shows the variation of
optimum moisture content with respect to
time and percentage of contamination. In
comparison with the virgin soil, value the
optimum moisture content value shows
9.28% decrement to 32.01% increment
for HCl contaminated soil, while for CaCO3
the optimum moisture content value gives
3.69% decrement to 12.49% increment as
compared to virgin soil.
Fig. 4 & 5 shows the variation of maximum
dry density with respect to time and also
with respect to percentage of
contamination. In comparison with virgin
value the maximum dry density value
shows 9.84% decrement for HCl
contaminated soil, while for CaCO3 the
maximum dry density value gives 6.58%
increment compare to virgin soil. For the
HCl contaminated soil, moisture required
3
for compaction increases the achieved
density decreases due to the repulsive
forces and HCl being hydroscopic the soil
attaches to itself a large amount of water
not free to be available for the process.
When looking at CaCO3 contaminated soil,
the density increases due to the CaCO3
forming stabilizing effect as well as the
particles filling in the void spaces with
bond formation.
Shear Strength:
Unconfined Compressive Strength
The effect of contamination on unconfined
compressive strength is shown in the Fig.
6 & 7 the decrement in strength value for
HCl contaminated soil was observed, while
increment in strength value was observed
in CaCO3 contaminated soil.
Cohesion and Angle of Internal
Friction
The Cohesion Value shows decrease HCl
contaminated soil while for CaCO3
contaminated soil shows increment. The
variation of angle of internal friction with
respect to time and % increase in
Contamination shows increment in both
HCl and CaCO3 contaminated soil.
California Bearing Ratio:
The CBR Value for HCl varies between
21.39% decrement and 19.09% increment
compare to virgin soil, whereas the CBR
value for CaCO3 shows 340.62%
increment.
Morphology:
Scanning Electron Microscope
This damage to the soil structure is visible
in the samples of 3% and 10% HCl when
put under SEM (Scanning Electron
Microscope) as shown in the Fig. 8. The
decrease in strength due to HCl is basically
due to the breakage of interparticle bonds
of the soil with such low pH. The CaCO3
contaminated soil samples are loaded due
to internal stresses caused by the
cementing property of CaCO3.
REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED
SOIL:
Remediation:
Remediation of contaminated soils was
carried out, for which 25 combinations i.e.
mix in equal proportion of each of the
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

percentage contamination of HCl with each Conclusion:

of the five percentage mix of calcium The following conclusions are deduced
carbonate contamination were selected. from the experimental results:
UCS test is carried out at one day curing  The value of specific gravity
period for all the combinations. decrease with period of
contamination for HCl contaminated
From the five proportions of CaCO3 soil while it shows an increase with
contaminated soil, 1% CaCO3 soil mix has period of contamination for CaCO3.
been selected to mix with three different The Atterberg’s limit i.e. Liquid
proportions of HCl contaminated soil. i.e. limit, Plastic limit and Shrinkage
1%, 5% and 10%, in equal proportions. To Limit decreases with the time
each of these three mixed, three different elapsed for both HCl and CaCO3.
percentages i.e. 1%, 3%, 5% metakaolin  The optimum moisture content
is added. For all these mixes, UCS test is increases with respect to
performed at 1day and 3day curing period. percentage of contamination for HCl
contaminated soil and it decreases
Intermixing of Contaminated Soil with increase in percentage
Fig. 9 shows the strength comparison contamination. For CaCO3
between all the possible combinations of contaminated soil, the optimum
contaminated soils, and also represents moisture content increases uptil 5
the comparison between those percentage contamination and then
combinations and virgin soil as well as that decreases as the percentage
of original value of contaminated soil. contamination increases.
 The maximum dry density
The graph shows that for 1% of decreases with respect to time so
contamination for both the contaminants, also with increases in percentage of
the strength decreases compare to the contamination for HCL contaminated
strength of the virgin soil. Also the soil’s soil. The maximum dry density for
contamination with CaCO3 more than 1% the CaCO3 contaminated soil gets
gives more strength than strength of virgin increases with respect to both
soil, while in case of HCl strength was percentages of contamination
decreasing with increase in the % increment and also with increases in
contamination. Therefore 1% CaCO3 with period of contamination.
different % of HCl is selected for the  The effect of HCl contamination
further procedure of remediation. shows decrement in the unconfined
compressive strength with increases
Unconfined Compression Test with
Metakaoline in contamination as well as with
Fig. 10 shows the comparative chart of the increase in percentage
UCS strength of various mix stabilized contamination, Whereas the
using metakaoline. Maximum strength contamination of virgin soil with
improvement is shown when metakaoline CaCO3 gives increases in strength
is mixed with 1% CaCO3 and 1% HCl with increase in percentage of
mixed in equal proportions any higher contamination also with increase in
percentage of HCl does not allow the the period of contamination.
metakaoline to react with the soil due to  The cohesion for the HCl
the low pH value of the mixed soil. At low contaminated soil decreases with
pH values the acidic nature of the soil increase in the percentage of
breaks the bond formed by calcium contamination as well as with
carbonate and metakaoline, also its increase in elapsed time, whereas
presence in soil hinders the diffusion of for CaCO3 contamination the value
calcium in the system, also reducing the shows an increases with increase in
reacting distance between the soil and the percentage of contamination as
calcium ions in the soil. well as with increase in
contamination duration.

4
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

 The angle of internal friction Purdue University, Lafayette, Vol. 1, pp.

1087-1104.
increases with increase in
[6] R. C. Joshi, X. Pan et al (1994) “Volume
percentage of contamination so also Change in Calcareous Soils due to Phosphoric
with increase in the period of Acids” S11ICSMFE.
contamination for both HCl and [7] R. K. Parashar, H. C. Gandhi et. al (2000),
“Effect of Acid Rain on Index and Strength
CaCO3 contaminated soil.
Properties of Soil” Indian Geotechnical
 HCl contaminated soil shows Conference (IGC-2000).
increment of CBR for 1 % HCl [8] Raid R. Al-Omari, Waleed K.
compare to virgin soil there after it Mohammed,Isam H. Nashaat and Oday M.
Kaseer (2007) “Effect of Sulphuric and
decreases drastically with increases
Phosphoric Acids on the Behaviour of a
in percentage of contamination, as Limestone Foundation” Indian Geotechnical
also it decreases with increase in Conference (IGC-2007).
the period of contamination. A [9] S. Zelmanowitz, W. C. Boyle, D. E.
Armstrong and J. K. Park (1995) “Ability of
phenomenal increase in the CBR is
Sub soils to Buffer Extremely Acidic
noticed with increase in the Simulated Coal-Pile Leachate” Journal of
percentage contamination as well as Environmental Engineering.
with increase in the period of [10] Sridharan et al. (1981) “Heaving of Soil due
to Acid Contamination”, Proceedings of the
contamination of CaCO3. 10th International Conference on Soil
 Remediation with mix of the two Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
contaminated soil in equal Stockholm, Vol. 2, pp. 383-386.
proportions shows least
improvement when 1% CaCO3 is Table 1: Properties of soil
used with different percentage of
HCl contaminated soil. Property Values
 When this mix of 1% CaCO3 Liquid limit 30 %
contaminated soil and 1, 5 and 10% Plastic limit 22 %
HCl contaminated soil is mixed with IS classification ML
1, 3 and 5% metakaoline, it shows Specific Gravity 2.56
maximum improvement in the 1% Cohesion (kg/cm2) 0.131
HCl mix with 5% metakaoline at 3 Angle of internal 18.04
days which is about 13 times the friction(0)
one day strength, showing a brittle California Bearing 1.54 (US) & 1.36
failure pattern. Ratio (S)

References:
[1] A. Sridaharan, T. S. Nagaraj, P. V.
Sivapullaiah, Khinchi (1982) “Heaving of Soil
due to Acid Contamination” Proc. Xth Int.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engg., Stockholm pp
383-386.
[2] Giles M. Marion, James R. Payne, and
Gurdarshan S. Brar (1997) “Site Remediation
via Dispersion by Chemical Reaction (DCR)”
Special Reports of US Army Crops Of HCl Contaminated Soil
Engineers, Cold Regions Research &
Engineering Laboratory.
[3] Guo Yin, Xu Ri-sqing and Shno Yu-Fang
(2007) “Stabilization of Soft Soil Containing
Humus Acid with Cement and XGL 2005”
13th ARC 2007 Kolkata.
[4] Habib-ur-Rahman, Sahel N. Abduljauwad and
Tayyeb Akram (2007) Hsia Yang Fang (1987)
“Soil-Pollutant Interaction Effects on the Soil
Behaviour and the Stability of Foundation
Structures”, Environmental Geotechnics and CaCO3 Contaminated Soil
Problematic Soils and Rocks, pp.155-163. Fig. 1 Soil Samples showing Effect
[5] Lukas and Gnaedinger (1972), “Settlement
due to Chemical Attack of Soils”, Proceedings of Contamination
ASCE Special Conference on the Performance
of Earch and Earth-Supported Structures,

5
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

Fig. 2 Comparative Chart of Optimum Moisture Content for HCl

Contaminated Soil

Fig. 3 Comparative Chart of Optimum Moisture Content for CaCO 3

Contaminated Soil

Fig. 4 Comparative Chart of Maximum Dry Density for HCl

Contaminated Soil

6
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

Fig. 5 Comparative Chart of Maximum Dry Density for CaCO3

Contaminated Soil

Fig. 6 Comparative Chart of UCS for HCl Contaminated Soil

Fig. 7 Comparative Chart of UCS for CaCO3 Contaminated Soil

7
 ACSGE-2009, Oct 25-27, BITS Pilani, India

virgin soil at 500X 3% HCl at 500X 3% CaCO3 at 500X

Fig. 8 Scanning Electron Microscope

Fig. 9 Strength Comparison Chart for Different Combination of Contaminated Soil

Fig. 10 Comparative Chart for Remediation using Metakaoline (1 day and 3 day)