The use of calcium-based stabilizers such as calcium oxide (lime) in sulfate-bearing clay soils has historically led to structural distress because of the formation of a mineral called ettringite and possibly thaumasite. In trying to control the damage associated with such formations, engineers have attempted to determine a threshold level of soluble sulfates–-a quantity that is relatively easy and quick to measure at which significant ettringite growth and, therefore, structural distress occurs. This is indeed a complex problem related to not only soil composition but also construction methods, availability of water, ion migration, and the ability of the void structure to accommodate the expansive mineral growth. Unfortunately, experience alone and rules-of-thumb based on experience are not sufficient to deal with this complex issue. Thermodynamic geochemical models of the lime-treated soil can be used as a first step toward establishing thresholds for problematic levels of soluble sulfates for a specific soil. A foundation for the model development is presented, and two soils are compared to illustrate their sensitivities to ettringite growth on the addition of lime. Because the model predicts ettringite growth on the basis of site-specific properties, the model can be used to assess the potential amelioration effects of soluble silica.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JalladK. N., SanthanamM., and CohenM. D.. Stability and Reactivity of Thaumasite at Different pH Levels.Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2003, pp. 433–437.
2.
WarrenC. J., and ReardonE. J.. The Solubility of Ettringite at 25°C.Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 24, 1994, pp. 1515–1524.
3.
CrammondN. J.The Occurrence of Thaumasite in Modern Construction—A Review.Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 24, 2002, pp. 393–402.
4.
PerkinsR. B., and PalmerC. D.. Solubility of ettringite (Ca6[Al(OH)6]2 (SO4)3·26H2O) at 5-75°CGeochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 63, Nos. 13-14, 1999, pp. 1969–1980.
5.
MitchellJ. K.Practical Problems from Surprising Soil Behavior.Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 112, No. 3, 1986, pp. 259–289.
6.
PetryT. M., and LittleD. N.. Update on Sulfate-Induced Heave in Treated Clays: Problematic Sulfate Levels. In Transportation Research Record 1362, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1992, pp. 51–55.
7.
PetryT. M.Studies of Factors Causing and Influencing Localized Heave of Lime Treated Clay Soils (Sulfate Induced Heave).U.S. Army Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, Miss.,1994.
8.
HarrisP., ScullionT., SebestaS., and ClarosG., Measuring Sulfate in Subgrade Soil: Difficulties and Triumphs. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board, No. 1837, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 3–11.
9.
MooreA. E., and TaylorH. F. W.. Crystal Structure of Ettringite.Acta Crystallographica, Section B: Structural Science, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1970, pp. 386–393.
10.
EdgeR. A., and TaylorH. F. W.. Crystal Structure of Thaumasite, a Mineral Containing Si(OH)6 Groups.Nature, Vol. 224, 1969, pp. 363–364.
11.
ArnettS. J., MacpheeD.E., and CrammondN.J., Solid Solutions Between Thaumasite and Ettringite and Their Role in Sulfate Attack.Journal of Concrete Science and Engineering, Vol. 3, 2001, pp. 209–215.
12.
Thaumasite Expert Group.The Thaumasite Form of Sulfate Attack: Risks, Diagnosis, Remedial Works and Guidance on New Construction.Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, U.K., 1999.
13.
BensteadJ.Thaumasite Formation in Concrete.Word Cement Research,North Adams, Mass.,1998.
14.
JacobsonS. D., SmythJ. R., and SwopeR. J.. Thermal Expansion of Hydrated Six-Coordinated Silicon in Thaumasite, Ca3Si(OH)6(CO3) (SO4)·12H2O.Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, Vol. 30, 2003, pp. 321–329.
15.
BarnettS. J., AdamC. D., and JacksonA. R. W.. An XRPD Profile Fitting Investigation of the Solid Solution Between Ettringite, Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12·26H2O, and Carbonate Ettringite, Ca6A12(CO3)3 (OH)12·26H2O.Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 31, 2001, pp. 13–17.
16.
BarnettS. J., MacpheeD. E., and CrammondN. J.. Solid Solutions Between Thaumasite and Ettringite and Their Role in Sulfate Attack.Concrete Science and Engineering, Vol. 3. 2001, pp. 209–215.
17.
BarnettS. J., MacPheeD. E., LachowskiE. E., and CrammondN. J., XRD, EDX and IR Analysis of Solid Solutions Between Thaumasite and Ettringite.Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 32, 2002, pp. 719–730.
18.
CzerewkoM. A., CrippsJ. C., ReidJ. M., and DuffellC. G.. Sulfur Species in Geological Materials—Sources and Quantification.Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 25, No. 7, 2003, pp. 657–671.
19.
MyneniS. C. B., TrainaS. J., and LoganT. J.. Ettringite Solubility and Geochemistry of the Ca(OH)2-Al2(SO4)3-H2O System at 1 Atm Pressure and 298 K.Chemical Geology, Vol. 148, 1998, pp. 1–2.
20.
DamidotD., and GlasserF. P.. Thermodynamic Investigation of the CaO-A12O3-CaSO4-K2O-H2O System at 25°CCement and Concrete Research, Vol. 23, No. 5, 1993, pp. 1195–1204.
21.
MohamedA. M. O., BoilyJ. F., HosseinM., and HassaniF. P.. Ettringite Formation in Lime-Remediated Mine Tailings; I, Thermodynamic Modeling.CIM Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 995, 1974, pp. 69–75.
22.
HunterD.Geochemistry of Lime Induced Heave in Sulfate Bearing Clay Soils.Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Reno, Nevada,1989.
23.
GrunigD., JordanM. A., ParkerD. F., WilliamsB., and YoungK.. Guidebook of the Geology of Travis County.University of Texas at Austin Student Geological Society, 1977.
24.
DamidotD., and GlasserF. P.. Thermodynamic Investigation of the CaO-Al2O3-CaSO4-H2O System at 50°C and 85°C.Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 22, No. 6, 1992, pp. 1179–1191.
25.
MattigodS. V.Validation of Geochemical Equilibrium Models. SSSA Special Publication 42. Soil Science of Society of America, Madison, Wis. 1995, pp. 201–218.
26.
NordstromD. K., and MunozJ. L.. Geochemical Thermodynamics.Benjamin/Cummings Publishing, Menlo Park, Calif.,1985.
27.
ParkJ.-Y., and BatchelorB.. Prediction of Chemical Speciation in Stabilized/Solidified Wastes Using a General Chemical Equilibrium Model II: Doped Waste Contaminants in Cement Porewaters.Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1999, pp. 99–105.
28.
PlummerL. N.Geochemical Modeling: A Comparison of Forward and Inverse Methods. Presented at the First Canadian/American Conference on Hydrogeology, Practical Applications of Ground Water Geochemistry. National Water Well Association, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 1984.
29.
WaiteT. D.Mathematical Modeling of Trace Element Speciation. In Trace Element Speciation; Analytical Methods and Problems (BatleyG. E., ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 1989.
30.
SkoppJ.Analysis of Time-Dependent Chemical Processes in Soils.Journal of Environment Quality, Vol. 15, 1986, pp. 205–213.
31.
TsangC. F.Comments on Model Validation.Transport in Porous Media, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1987, pp. 623–630.
32.
OreskesN., Shrader-FrechetteK., and BelitzK.. Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences.Science, Vol. 263, No. 4, 1994, pp. 641– 646.
33.
JamesR. V., and RubinJ.. Applicability of the Local Equilibrium Assumption to Transport Through Soils of Solutes Affected by Ion Exchange. In Chemical Modeling in Aqueous Systems (JenneE. A., ed.), American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1979, pp. 225–235.
34.
RubinJ., and JamesR. V.. Transport of Reactive Solutes in Porous Media: Relation Between Mathematical Nature of Problem Formulation and Chemical Nature of Reactions.Water Resources Research, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1983, pp. 1231–1252.
35.
WoleryT. J., JacksonK. J., BoucierW. L., BrutonC. J., VianiB. E., KnaussK. G., andJ. M.Delany.Current Status of the EQ3/6 Software Package for Geochemical Modeling, in Chemical Modeling of Aqueous Systems II (Melchior andD. C., BassettR. L., eds.), American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 104–116.
36.
WildS., KinuthiaJ. M., JonesG. I., and HigginsD. D.. Effects of Partial Substitution of Lime with Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag on Strength Properties of Lime-Stabilized Sulfate-Bearing Clay Soils.Engineering Geology, 1998, Vol. 1, pp. 37–53.
37.
TasongW., WildS., and TilleryR.. Mechanisms by Which Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Prevents Sulfate Attack of Lime-Stabilized Kaolinite.Cement and Concrete Research, 1999, Vol. 29, pp. 975–982.
38.
MillerF. M., and ConwayT.. Use of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag for Reduction of Expansion Due to Delayed Ettringite Formation.Construction Technologies Laboratories, Skokie, Ill.,2005.
39.
MitchellJ. K., and DermatasD.. Clay Soil Heave Caused By Lime-Sulfate Reactions.ASTM Symposium in Innovations and Users of Lime, San Francisco, Calif.,1990.
40.
PerrinL.Expansion of Lime-Treated Clays Containing Sulfates.Proc., 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Vol. 1, ASCE Expansive Soils Research Council, New York, 1992, pp. 409–414.
41.
McCallisterL. D., and TidwellL.. Double Lime Treatment to Minimize Sulfate-Lime Induced Heave in Expansive Clays.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, Miss.,1997.
42.
LittleD. N., and GravesR. E.. Guidelines for Use of Lime in Sulfate Bearing Soils.Chemical Lime Co., Fort Worth, Tex., 1995.
43.
RollingsR. S., BurkesJ. P., and RollingsM. P.. Sulfate Attack on Cement-Stabilized Sand.Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 5, 1999, pp. 364–372.
44.
BergerE., LittleD. N., SmithK., MarvinS., AtkinsonD., EstradaM., WilliamsT., CooverR., HguyenP., and ZarembaT.. South Orange Country Sulfate Study.Chemical Lime Co., Fort Worth, Tex., 2004.
45.
HolmquistD.Supplementary Evaluation of Risk of Adverse Lime/Sulfate Reaction.CTL/Thompson, Inc., 1991.
46.
BurkartB., GossG., and KernJ.. The Role of Gypsum in Production of Sulfate-Induced Deformation of Lime-Stabilized Soils.Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1999, pp. 173–187.
