Milestone 7 - Final Evaluation Report - 1

SMART WATER FUND
GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
BIOSOLIDS AND THEIR SUITABILITY AS
STABILIZED FILL
Milestone 7: Final Evaluation Report
August 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Smart Water Fund is an initiative of the Victorian Government and the Victorian water
industry aimed at encouraging innovative solutions to water conservation, water management
and biosolids management. This project involves expertise in the areas of civil engineering
and geotechnical engineering. By the application of advanced soil mechanics concepts, the
geotechnical strength properties of aged biosolids (with and without additives) obtained from
a major sewerage treatment plant in Victoria were assessed for use in stabilized fill
applications. Biosolids samples obtained from three stockpiles at the Biosolids Stockpile
Area, Western Treatment Plant were tested to investigate the geotechnical characteristics of
biosolids and the suitability of biosolids as stabilised fill material.
PROJECT OUTCOMES
Laboratory Testing
Extensive geotechnical laboratory tests were subsequently conducted at Swinburne University
of Technology. The tests included triaxial shear strength, consolidation tests with oedometers,
consolidation tests with Rowe cells, permeability tests, compaction tests, California bearing
ratio (CBR) tests, grain size distribution, atterberg limits, moisture content and other
geotechnical tests to assess the geotechnical characteristics of stabilised biosolids as a fill
material.
The biosolids samples are classified as organic fined-grained soils of medium to high
plasticity with a group symbol of OH as per Australian standard for the geotechnical site
investigation (AS 1276, 1993). The biosolids samples contain approximately 5% gravel size,
50% sand size, 40% silt size and 5% clay sized particles.
The shear strength test results from the laboratory triaxial tests indicate that the biosolids
stabilised with the required proportions of additives possess sufficient shear strength to make
them suitable for use as fill material. The CBR values of biosolids stabilised with a minimum
of 5% lime, 3% cement, 3% bauxsol and 30% crushed brick satisfies the VicRoads
specification for Type B fill material which requires a minimum CBR of 2%.
Finite Element Modelling

Finite element analysis was conducted to analyse the behaviour of an embankment using
biosolids stabilised with lime, cement, bauxsol or crushed brick, as well as untreated
biosolids. The residual settlement of the biosolids stabilised with various additives including
lime (5%), cement (3%, 5%), bauxsol (3%, 5%) and crushed brick (30%, 40%, 50%) were
found to be within VicRoads residual settlement requirement of a maximum of 50 mm over a
period of 20 years after 6 months of preloading.
The results of the finite element analysis agree well with the laboratory results and indicate
that biosolids, when stabilised with additives to the required percentages, can be used as
stabilised fill in embankments. To negate the effect of long term decomposition of organic
matter in biosolids, the maximum allowable total thickness of the stabilised biosolids within a
road embankment should be limited to 0.5 m. Use of an impermeable geomembrane separator
or 0.5 m impermeable clay layer is recommended to encapsulate the biosolids and prevent any
seepage or leaching of biosolids into the fill material. The cost of encapsulating the stabilised
biosolids with a geomembrane or clay liner is minimal as the geomembrane or clay liner has
been included solely for separation purposes.
Technical Note
A technical note has been developed to provide standard best practice for the usage of
biosolids as stabilised fill in embankments. Due to the nature of the material, occupational
health and safety measures, suitable transportation, controlled storage, site management and
environmental management controls have been outlined in this technical note. Biosolids
should be stabilised with one of the following additives to the specified minimum mix
proportions:
lime (5%), cement (3%), bauxsol (3%), 20 mm crushed brick (30%);
In addition, a brief has been prepared for the construction of future instrumented trial
embankments to confirm the expected settlement of the stabilised biosolids when used as
embankment fill and to compare this with the laboratory testing and finite element modelling
results. An estimate of the cost of the stabilised trial embankments has also been included and
was found to be only marginally higher than that of a traditional embankment without
biosolids.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................2
1
PROJECT BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................22
PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................23
SITE DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................25
PROJECT PLAN.................................................................................................................29
4.1 Project Work Plan ..........................................................................................................29
4.2 Project Timeline .............................................................................................................30
4.3 Personnel
.................................................................................................................31
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................33

5.1 Geotechnical Characteristics of Sludge and Biosolids...................................................33
5.2 Laboratory Testing of Biosolids and Sludge..................................................................37
5.2.1. Classification Test ............................................................................................. 37
5.2.2. Laboratory Vane Shear Test ............................................................................. 42
5.2.3. Compaction Test................................................................................................ 42
5.2.4. California Bearing Ratio Test (CBR Test) ........................................................ 44
5.2.5. Consolidation Test............................................................................................. 46
5.2.6. Permeability Test............................................................................................... 47
5.2.7. Triaxial Test ...................................................................................................... 48
5.3 Biosolids Stabilisation....................................................................................................50
5.3.1. Stabilisation with Lime...................................................................................... 50
5.3.2. Stabilisation with Cement.................................................................................. 52
5.4 Finite Element Analysis of Biosolids Embankments.....................................................54
5.5 Conclusions: Literature Review.....................................................................................54
FIELD TESTING ................................................................................................................56

6.1 Field Works .................................................................................................................56
6.1.1. Borehole Sampling and Testing ........................................................................ 57
6.1.2. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test ....................................................................... 63
6.1.3. Bulk Sampling ................................................................................................... 64
6.2 Assessment and Discussion............................................................................................66
6.2.1. Standard Penetration Test Results .................................................................... 66
6.2.2. Field Vane Shear Test Results........................................................................... 67
6.2.3. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results ........................................................ 68
6.3 Conclusions: Field Works ..............................................................................................70
LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................71
7.1 Overview of Laboratory Testing....................................................................................71
7.2 Existing Specifications for Engineering Fill ..................................................................72
7.2.1. Type A Material................................................................................................. 72
7.2.2. Type B Material................................................................................................. 73
7.3 Stabilisation of Biosolids with Additives.......................................................................74
7.3.1. Lime
.............................................................................................................. 74
7.3.2. Cement .............................................................................................................. 74

7.3.3. Bauxsol .............................................................................................................. 75
7.3.4. Crushed Brick.................................................................................................... 76
7.4 Laboratory Testing Methodology ..................................................................................77
7.4.1. Moisture content................................................................................................ 77
7.4.2. Specific gravity (Particle Density) .................................................................... 77
7.4.3. Particle size analysis)........................................................................................ 77
7.4.4. Atterberg limit test............................................................................................. 78
7.4.5. Standard compaction test .................................................................................. 78
7.4.6. Consolidation test.............................................................................................. 79
7.4.7. Triaxial test ....................................................................................................... 79
7.4.8. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test................................................................. 79
7.4.9. Permeability test................................................................................................ 80
7.5 Engineering Properties of Untreated Biosolids..............................................................81
7.5.1. Index properties................................................................................................. 82
7.5.2. Standard compaction test results ...................................................................... 83
7.5.3. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results ..................................................... 84
7.5.4. Triaxial (Consolidated Drained) test results .................................................... 86
7.5.5. Triaxial (Unconsolidated Undrained) test results ............................................ 88
7.5.6. One dimensional consolidation test results....................................................... 89
7.5.7. Rowe Cell consolidation test results ................................................................. 90
7.5.8. Permeability test results .................................................................................... 92
7.6 Engineering Properties of Biosolids Stabilised with Lime ............................................93
7.6.1. Index properties................................................................................................. 96
7.6.2. Standard compation test results ...................................................................... 100
7.6.3. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results ................................................... 102
7.6.4. Triaxial (Consolidated Drained) test results .................................................. 104
7.6.5. One dimensional consolidation test results..................................................... 105
7.6.6. Rowe Cell consolidation test results ............................................................... 107

7.6.7. Creep consolidation test results ...................................................................... 108
7.6.8. Permeability test results .................................................................................. 109
7.7 Engineering Properties of Biosolids Stabilised with Cement ......................................110
7.7.1. Index properties............................................................................................... 113
7.7.2. Standard compaction test results .................................................................... 117
7.8 Engineering Properties of Biosolids Stabilised with Bauxsol......................................129
7.8.1. Index properties............................................................................................... 132
7.9 Engineering Properties of Biosolids Stabilised with Crushed Brick ...........................146
7.10 Comparison of Laboratory Test Results for Untreated and Stabilised Biosolids ........150
7.11 Conclusions: Laboratory Testing .................................................................................152
8
FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING ................................................................................154

8.1 Overview of Finite Element Modelling .......................................................................154
8.2 Finite Element Modelling Theory................................................................................155
8.2.1. Geometry model .............................................................................................. 155
8.2.2. Finite element mesh for embankment.............................................................. 157
8.2.3. Soil models ...................................................................................................... 158
8.2.3.1. Mohr-coulomb model ...................................................................................... 158
8.2.3.2. Soft soil creep model ....................................................................................... 159
8.2.4. Material properties of subsoil and fill material .............................................. 160
8.3 Finite Element Analysis of Embankments using Biosolids Stabilised with Lime.......162
8.4 Finite Element Analysis of Embankments using Biosolids Stabilised with Cement...167
8.5 Finite Element Analysis of Embankments using Biosolids Stabilised with Bauxsol ..174
8.6 Finite Element Analysis of Embankments using Biosolids Stabilised with Crushed
Brick
...............................................................................................................181
8.7 Finite Element Analysis of Embankments using Untreated Biosolids ........................188
8.8 Conclusions: Finite Element Modelling.......................................................................191
9
TECHNICAL NOTE.........................................................................................................193
9.1 Specification on Use of Biosolids as Stabilised Fills...................................................194
9.2 Technical Note for the Usage of Stabilized Biosolids as Type B Embankment Fill ...198
9.3 Brief for Future Trial Embankment .............................................................................201
9.3.1. Trial Embankment Construction ..................................................................... 201
9.3.2. Proposed Field Instrumentation...................................................................... 202
9.3.3. Approximate Construction Cost of Future Trial Embankment ....................... 203
9.4 Conclusions: Technical Note .......................................................................................208
10 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................209
10.1 Literature Review.........................................................................................................209
10.2 Field Testing ...............................................................................................................209
10.3 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................210
10.4 Finite Element Modelling ............................................................................................211
10.5 Technical Note .............................................................................................................213
11 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................214
APPENDIX A
Borehole Logs
APPENDIX B
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Results
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Western Treatment Plant, Werribee (Melways Map 205, 12F). ..... 25
Figure 2. Aerial view of Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria. ................................. 27
Figure 3. Biosolids stockpile area located at the Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria.
............................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4. Biosolids stockpiles at the Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria................ 28
Figure 5. Dry sludge granulometry curve in Spain, (Valls et al., 2004). ................................. 40
Figure 6. Density-water content relationships for compaction in United Kingdom, ............... 43
Figure 7. Relationship between optimum moisture Contents (OMC) and dry density............ 43
Figure 8. The relationship between permeability and void ratio of the sludge samples in
Korea, (Lim et al., 2002). ...................................................................................... 48
Figure 9. Variation of undrained shear strength with water content in United Kingdom,
(Kelly, 2005). ........................................................................................................ 49
Figure 10. Micrographs of original waterworks and wastewater sludge in Korea, ................. 51
Figure 11. Micrographs of modified sludge mixtures by lime and fly ash in Korea, .............. 51
Figure 12. Compressive strength according to sludge content for concrete with three different
curing times in Spain (Valls et al., 2004). ............................................................. 52
Figure 13. Flexural strength according to the sludge content with three different .................. 53
Figure 14. Elastic modulus of concrete according to the sludge content after 90 days in Spain,
(Valls et al., 2004). ................................................................................................ 53
Figure 15. Location of boreholes at the Biosolids Stockpile Area........................................... 58
Figure 16. Augering for biosolids samples at a borehole location........................................... 59
Figure 17. Sample tube retrieved from a biosolids stockpile................................................... 60
Figure 18. Standard penetration test (SPT) at a borehole location........................................... 61
Figure 19. Field vane shear tests (FVT) at a borehole location ............................................... 61
Figure 20. Dynamic cone penetration (DCP) tests at a field test location ............................... 63
Figure 21. Locations of bulk sampling..................................................................................... 64
Figure 22. Collection of biosolids bulk samples ...................................................................... 65
Figure 23. Bulk sampling bags................................................................................................. 65
Figure 24. Layout diagram of dynamic cone penetrometer (Australian Standards, AS1289). 68
Figure 25: Sieving process to get a uniform consistency of bauxsol, ...................................... 75
Figure 26: Crushed brick (20 mm) stock pile - Alex Fraser Recycling, Laverton................... 76
Figure 27: Plasticity chart for biosolids samples ..................................................................... 82
Figure 28: Particle size distributions of biosolids samples ...................................................... 83

Figure 29: Variation of dry density of untreated biosolids with moisture content .................. 83
Figure 30: CBR results of untreated biosolids ......................................................................... 84
Figure 31: Swell results after 4 days for untreated biosolids ................................................... 85
Figure 32: Consolidated drained triaxial test results for biosolids in stockpile 1 .................... 86
Figure 35: Variation of void ratio with vertical stress for biosolids in stockpiles 1, 2 and 3 .. 89
Figure 36: Rowe Cell test result for biosolids in stockpile 1 ................................................... 90
Figure 37: Rowe Cell test results for biosolids in stockpile 2.................................................. 91
Figure 38: Rowe Cell test results for biosolids in stockpile 3.................................................. 91
Figure 39: Moisture content variation with percentage of lime added to biosolids................. 96
Figure 40: Atterberg limits variation with percentage of lime added to biosolids in stockpile 1
............................................................................................................................... 97
............................................................................................................................... 97
............................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 43: Particle size distribution of biosolids samples stabilised with lime in Stockpile 1 99
Figure 44: Particle size distribution of biosolids samples stabilised with lime in Stockpile 2 99
Figure 45: Particle size distribution of biosolids samples stabilised with lime in Stockpile 3
............................................................................................................................. 100
Figure 46: Variation of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) with percentage of lime................. 101
Figure 47: Variation of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) with percentage of lime.......... 101
Figure 48: CBR results of biosolids stabilised with lime....................................................... 102
Figure 49: Swell results after 4 days for biosolids stabilised with lime................................. 103
Figure 50: Consolidated drained triaxial test results for stabilised biosolids with 3% lime .. 104
Figure 51: Consolidated drained triaxial test results for stabilised biosolids with 5% lime .. 104
Figure 52: Variation of void ratio with vertical stress for biosolids in stockpile 1................ 105
Figure 55: Rowe Cell test results for stabilised biosolids with 3% lime................................ 107
Figure 56 : Variation of secondary consolidation for biosolids stabilised with 5% lime ...... 108
Figure 57: Permeability of stabilised biosolids with lime...................................................... 109
10
Figure 58: Moisture content variation with percentage of cement added to biosolids .......... 113
Figure 59: Atterberg limits with percentage of cement added to biosolids in stockpile 1 ..... 114
Figure 62: Particle size distribution of biosolids stabilised with cement in Stockpile 1........ 116
Figure 65: Variation of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) with percentage of cement ............ 118
Figure 66: Variation of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) with percentage of cement ..... 118
Figure 67: CBR results for biosolids stabilised with cement ................................................. 119
Figure 68: Swell results after 4 days for biosolids stabilised with cement ............................ 120
Figure 69: Consolidated drained triaxial test results for stabilised biosolids with 3% cement
............................................................................................................................. 121
............................................................................................................................. 121
Figure 74: Rowe Cell test results for stabilised biosolids with 3% cement ........................... 125
Figure 75 : Variation of secondary consolidation for biosolids stabilised with 3% cement .. 126
Figure 76 : Variation of secondary consolidation for biosolids stabilised with 5% cement .. 127
Figure 77: Permeability of biosolids stabilised with cement ................................................. 128
Figure 78: Moisture content variation with percentage of bauxsol added to biosolids.......... 132
Figure 79: Atterberg limits with percentage of bauxsol added to biosolids in stockpile 1 .... 133
Figure 82: Variation of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) with percentage of bauxsol ........... 135
Figure 83: Variation of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) with percentage of bauxsol .... 135
Figure 84: CBR results of biosolids stabilised with bauxsol ................................................. 136
Figure 85: Swell results after 4 days for biosolids stabilised with bauxsol. .......................... 137
Figure 86: Consolidated drained triaxial test results for stabilised biosolids with 3% bauxsol
............................................................................................................................. 138
............................................................................................................................. 138
11
Figure 91: Rowe Cell test results for stabilised biosolids with 3% bauxsol .......................... 142
Figure 92: Variation of secondary consolidation for biosolids stabilised with 3% bauxsol .. 143
Figure 93: Variation of secondary consolidation for biosolids stabilised with 5% bauxsol .. 144
Figure 94: Permeability of untreated and stabilised biosolids with bauxsol.......................... 145
Figure 95: Variation of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) with percentage of crushed brick .. 147
Figure 96: Variation of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) with percentage of crushed brick
............................................................................................................................. 148
Figure 97: CBR results of biosolids stabilised with crushed brick ........................................ 149
Figure 98: Swell results after 4 days for biosolids stabilised with crushed brick .................. 150
Figure 99: Coordinate system of geometry. ........................................................................... 155
Figure 100 : Typical geometry of embankment with stabilised biosolids on basalt formation.
............................................................................................................................. 155
Figure 101 : Typical geometry model for a 5m high embankment using stabilised biosolids.
............................................................................................................................. 156
Figure 102 : Finite element mesh for the geometry model of a 5m high embankment. ........ 157
Figure 103 : Finite element mesh with nodes for the geometry model of a 5m high
embankment. ....................................................................................................... 157
Figure 104 : Finite element mesh with stress points for the geometry model of a 5m high
embankment. ....................................................................................................... 158
Figure 105 : Derivation of elastic modulus from triaxial tests............................................... 159
Figure 106 : Typical geometry for embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% lime .... 163
Figure 107 : Deformation mesh of 5 m embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% lime
............................................................................................................................. 164
Figure 108 : Vertical settlement of 5 m embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% lime.
............................................................................................................................. 164
Figure 109 : Variation of vertical settlement of 5 m embankment using biosolids stabilised
with 5% lime. .................................................................................................... 165
Figure 110 : Variation of vertical settlement of various embankments using biosolids
stabilised with 5% lime. ...................................................................................... 166
Figure 111 : Typical geometry for embankment using biosolids stabilised with cement...... 168
12
Figure 112 : Deformation mesh of 5 m embankment using biosolids stabilised with 3%

cement. ................................................................................................................ 169
Figure 113 : Vertical settlement of 5m embankment using biosolids stabilised with 3%
cement. ................................................................................................................ 169
with 3% and 5% cement.................................................................................... 170
stabilised with 3% cement................................................................................... 171
Figure 117 : Typical geometry for embankment using biosolids stabilised with bauxsol..... 175
bauxsol................................................................................................................. 176
Figure 119 : Vertical settlement of 5 m embankment using biosolids stabilised with 3%
bauxsol................................................................................................................. 176
with 3% and 5% bauxsol. .................................................................................. 177
stabilised with 3% bauxsol. ................................................................................. 178
Figure 123 : Typical geometry for embankment using biosolids stabilised with crushed brick.
............................................................................................................................. 182
crushed brick. ...................................................................................................... 183
crushed brick. ...................................................................................................... 183
with 30%, 40% and 50% crushed brick. ........................................................... 184
stabilised with 30% crushed brick....................................................................... 185
stabilised with 40% crushed brick..................................................................... 185
13

stabilised with 50% crushed brick..................................................................... 186
Figure 130 : Typical geometry for embankment using untreated biosolids........................... 189
Figure 131 : Collapsed deformation mesh of 5 m embankment using untreated biosolids. .. 190
Figure 132: Details of proposed future instrumented trial embankment no. 1 (with
geomembrane separator). .................................................................................... 201
Figure 133: Details of proposed future instrumented trial embankment no. 2 (with 0.5 m
impermeable clay layer). ..................................................................................... 202
14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of moisture content testing of biosolids treated with lime in Victoria,
(Golder Associates, 2006). .................................................................................... 34
Table 2. Summary of average UCS test results on cement treated biosolids in stockpile 23 in
Victoria, (Golder Associates, 2006). ..................................................................... 34
Table 3. Summary of average UCS test results on cement treated biosolids in stockpile 7 and
14 in Victoria, (Golder Associates, 2006)............................................................. 35
Table 4. Unconfined compressive strength (kPa) for each modified mixture in Korea,.......... 36
Table 5. Statistical summary of geotechnical tests in Victoria (Golder Associates, 2006). .... 38
Table 6. Some properties of the tested sewage sludge in Trinidad (Stone et al., 1998). ......... 39
Table 7. Index properties of sludge and each modifier in Korea, (Lim et al., 2002). .............. 40
Table 8. Index properties of modified sewage sludge in Korea, (Lim et al., 2002)................. 41
Table 9. Summary of CBR tests results on trial embankment material in stockpile 23 in
Table 10. Summary of CBR tests results on trial embankment material in stockpile 7 and 14
in Victoria, (Golder Associates, 2006).................................................................. 45
Table 11. Results of CBR of modified wastewater sludge mixture in Korea, ......................... 45
Table 12. Comparison of coefficient of volume compressibility (mv) from oedometer test in
Table 13. Comparison of secondary consolidation values (c) from oedometer test in
Table 14. Summary of triaxial undrained compression testing on treated biosolids in
Victoria,(Golder Associates, 2006). ...................................................................... 48
Table 15. pH values of modified sludge with curing time in Korea ........................................ 50
Table 16. Summary of borehole sampling and testing............................................................. 62
Table 17. SPT values of the biosolids at selected borehole location ....................................... 66
Table 18. Summary of field vane shear test results.................................................................. 67
Table 19. Summary of dynamic cone penetrometer test results .............................................. 69
Table 20 : Numbers of laboratory tests undertaken ................................................................. 71
Table 21 : Engineering requirement for Type A fill material .................................................. 72
Table 22 : Engineering requirement for Type B fill material .................................................. 73
Table 23 : Summary of engineering properties of untreated biosolids .................................... 81
Table 24 : Summary of Unconsolidated Undrained triaxial test results of untreated biosolids88
15
Table 25 : Falling head permeability of untreated biosolids.................................................... 92

Table 26 : Summary of engineering properties of biosolids stabilised with 1% lime ............. 93
Table 29 : Secondary consolidation (creep) values for biosolids stabilised with lime. ......... 108
Table 30 : Summary of engineering properties of biosolids stabilised with 1% cement ....... 110
Table 33 : Secondary consolidation (creep) values for biosolids stabilised with cement...... 126
Table 34 : Summary of engineering properties of biosolids stabilised with 1% bauxsol ...... 129
Table 37 : Consolidation (creep) values for the biosolids stabilised with bauxsol. ............... 143
Table 38 : Summary of engineering properties of biosolids stabilised with 30% crushed brick
............................................................................................................................. 146
............................................................................................................................. 146
............................................................................................................................. 146
Table 41 : Comparison of engineering laboratory tests results for untreated and stabilised
biosolids............................................................................................................... 151
Table 42 : Summary of finite element model parameters for basalt and engineered fill. ...... 161
Table 43 : Material properties of biosolids stabilised with 5% lime...................................... 163
Table 44 : Summary of total and residual settlement of embankments using biosolids
stabilised with 5% lime. ...................................................................................... 166
Table 45 : Material properties of biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5%cement. .................... 168
Table 48 : Material properties of biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5% bauxsol. .................. 175
16

Table 51 : Material properties of biosolids stabilised with 30%, 40% and 50% crushed brick.
............................................................................................................................. 182
Table 55 : Material properties of untreated biosolids. ........................................................... 189
Table 56 : Summary of residual settlement, total settlement and unit weight of biosolids. .. 192
Table 57: Description of various fill material types (VicRoads, 2007). ................................ 198
Table 58: Comparison of construction cost for proposed trial embankments........................ 204
Table 59: Construction cost of proposed trial embankment 1 Geomembrane separator .... 205
Table 60: Construction cost of proposed trial embankment 2 Clay liner separator ............ 206
Table 61: Construction cost of an embankment without biosolids - for comparison purposes.
............................................................................................................................. 207
17
GLOSSARY
Additives:
Additives are introduced materials which when blended with soils enable the soils to increase
in strength.
Allowable bearing capacity:
Allowable bearing capacity is the working pressure that would ensure a margin of safety
against collapse of soil due to shear failure.
Auger:
A tool consisting of a twisted rod of metal fixed to a handle used commonly in site
investigation with a drilling rig.
Biosolids:
Biosolids refers to dried sludge having the characteristics of a solid typically containing 50%
to 70% by weight of oven dried solids.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR):
The California Bearing Ratio of a material is the load expressed as a percentage of a standard
load (based on Californian Limestone samples), required to penetrate a specimen of soil for a
specified distance at a given rate.
Cohesion ():
Cohesion is the adhering together of particles within soil.
Compaction:
Compaction refers to the process of packing soil particles more closely together by rolling or
other mechanical means so that air is removed from the voids thus increasing the dry density
of the soil.
Consistency:
Consistency in the natural state corresponds to the degree of compaction of the soil and is
usually evaluated by noting the ease by which the soil can be excavated or penetrated.
18
Dilatancy angle ():

Dilatancy angle is the ratio between the rate of volumetric strain and the rate of shear strain
Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP):
The dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) is an instrument designed to determine the penetration
resistance of a soil to the penetration of a steel cone of 30 degree angle and 20 mm diameter
driven with a 9 kg mass from a drop height of 510 mm.
Field vane shear test (FVT):
A field test to determine the shear strength of soil in the field by measuring the required
torque to cause a vane blade to shear the soil.
Fill:
The compacted embankment placed above natural surface level after removal of topsoil.
Friction angle ():
The friction angle is the maximum angle of a stable slope determined by friction, cohesion
and the shapes of the particles.
Liquid Limit:
Liquid limit is defined as the threshold water content at which soil changes from the plastic
state to the liquid state.
Moisture Content:
The moisture content (or water content) is the ratio of the mass of water to the mass of the
biosolids sample.
Peak shear strength:
Peak shear strength is the maximum internal resistance of undisturbed soil to applied shearing
forces.
Plasticity Index:
Plasticity index (PI) is the difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit.
19
Plastic Limit:
Plastic limit is defined as the threshold water content at which a soil changes from the semi
plastic state to the plastic state.
Poisson's ratio ():
The ratio of the change in strain perpendicular to the direction of loading to the change in
strain caused in the same direction.
Residual shear strength:
Residual shear strength is the internal resistance of a remoulded soil to applied shearing
forces.
Sensitivity:
The sensitivity is the ratio between peak and residual shear strength.
Shear strain:
The angular distortion or change in shape of a body of material.
Sludge:
Sludge refers to solids-water mixture pumped from wastewater treatment lagoons having the
characteristics of a liquid or slurry typically containing between 2% to 15% of oven dried
solids.
Specific Gravity:
Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of solid particles to the density of water.
Standard penetration test (SPT):
A method of testing to determine the resistance of soils to the penetration of a sampler, and
obtaining of disturbed samples of soils for identification purposes.
Sub grade:
Subgrade is the upper line of the formation on which the pavement including shoulders is
constructed.
20
Undrained shear strength:

The shear strength of a soil when sheared in undrained condition at a constant volume.
Unit weight ():
Unit weight of a soil mass is the ratio of the total weight of soil to the total volume of soil.
Volumetric strain:
The ratio of the change in volume to the original volume.
Young's modulus (E):
The ratio of the change in applied uniaxial stress to the induced direct axial strain, when the
lateral (radial) stress remains constant. It also known as stiffness modulus.
21
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Smart Water Fund is an initiative of the Victorian Government and the Victorian water
industry aimed at encouraging innovative solutions to water conservation, water recycling and
biosolids management. Swinburne University of Technology was successful in a Smart Water
Fund research grant application on research into the geotechnical characteristics of biosolids.
This submission addresses the requirements of Milestone 6: Technical Note.
By the application of advanced soil mechanics concepts, the geotechnical strength properties
of aged biosolids (with and without additives) obtained from a major sewerage treatment
plant in Victoria were assessed for use in stabilized fill applications. Biosolids samples
obtained from three stockpiles at the Biosolids Stockpile Area, Western Treatment Plant were
tested to investigate the geotechnical characteristics of biosolids and the suitability of
biosolids as stabilised fill material.
Biosolids refers to dried stabilised sewerage sludge having the characteristics of a solid
typically containing 50% to 70% by weight of oven dried solids. Sludge refers to solids-water
mixture pumped from wastewater treatment lagoons having the characteristics of a liquid or
slurry typically containing between 2% to 15% of oven dried solids.
Currently, the majority of biosolids in Victoria is stabilised through air-drying and storing for
three years at which point the biosolids are available for beneficial use. It is estimated that the
annual production of biosolids in Victoria is approximately 67,000 dry tonnes per annum. A
large quantity of this is produced by two major treatment plants in Victoria. There are
believed to be significant stockpiles of aged biosolids (air-dried and stored for greater than 3
years) at various other major treatment plants in Victoria that are suitable for this research
purpose. EPA Victoria has identified that biosolids should be investigated as a beneficial,
sustainable resource rather than being treated as a waste material that requires disposal.
The short and long term geotechnical characteristics of biosolids with and without the
addition of additives were extensively investigated in the laboratory. An advanced
geotechnical finite element software model was used to study the deformational
characteristics of biosolids and to develop a geotechnical model of the biosolids as stabilized
fill. A technical note for the use of biosolids as stabilized fill was also developed.
22
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Sludge Management at the various treatment plants in Melbourne is becoming increasingly

more complex due to a number of operational and regulatory pressures. A Biosolids
Management Strategy has been investigated at various treatment plants in Victoria. The
objectives of the strategy are:
To implement sustainable biosolids recycling;
To provide an opportunity for biosolids recycling;
To minimise business risk in a cost effective way;
The preferred option provides for biosolids management and handling at the various treatment
plants to be consistent with requirements for recycling. The Biosolids Management Strategy
at the various treatment plants enables the various treatment plant operators to dry, harvest,
stockpile and maintain an inventory of biosolids produced at the plants on a regular basis.
This will ensure that all biosolids are stockpiled according to age and quality at the various
treatment plants in accordance with Environment Protection Authority requirements for the
recycling of biosolids off-site.
The normal process at the Western Treatment Plant is for sludge from treatment lagoons to be
pumped into sludge drying pans. Drying in the sludge drying pans typically takes 6-9 months
and the biosolids are then harvested and stored in a Biosolids Stockpile Area for a minimum
of 3 years. The Biosolids Stockpile Area is a purpose built facility to stockpile the biosolids
after they have achieved a certain physical requirement and have been air-dried to the
required moisture content in Sludge Drying Pans. The Biosolids Stockpile Area consists of
earthen embankments that are designed with a freeboard to ensure the bunds are constructed
above 100 year flood levels. Following the harvesting and subsequent storage of biosolids in
stockpile areas, the air-dried biosolids are available to any potential markets for the use of the
biosolids in a sustainable manner.
It is to be noted that though Swinburne has the capability to carry out chemical testing of the
biosolids, this has not been allowed for in this research as the chemical composition of the
biosolids and sludge has already been ascertained by the water authority.
23
It is noted that geotechnical investigations have been carried out previously on the biosolids at
a treatment plant in Victoria, however, the biosolids at the plant were not typical due to the
very high clay content associated with the excavation of the clay liner during the harvesting
process. It is the objective of this investigation to research into biosolids uncontaminated by
high levels of clay since contemporary sludge drying pans are typically constructed with a
hardened cement treated crushed rock or cement/lime base which avoids scouring and mixing
with the biosolids during the harvesting process. It is noted that the uncontaminated biosolids
possess low geotechnical strength properties and the stabilization of these uncontaminated
biosolids to meet the requirements or specifications for stabilized fill is a primary objective of
this research project.
Extensive laboratory tests undertaken in this project included physical tests, consolidation
tests, permeability tests and compaction tests. Compaction testing involved the addition of
different percentages of additives such as lime or cement to improve the strength of the
biosolids and to obtain recommended mixing ratios. Consolidation tests investigated both the
primary consolidation characteristics as well as the long-term secondary consolidation or
creep characteristics of the biosolids. In-situ testing included geotechnical drilling and testing,
dynamic cone penetrometer testing and field density tests. Finite element modelling of the
biosolids deformation was carried out with the Plaxis geotechnical finite element modelling
code. Finite element modelling has not been reported for biosolids previously either
nationally or internationally. The suggested dimensions and layout of proposed field
instruments was included in the brief for future trial embankments.
24
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Biosolids Stockpile Area is located at the Western Treatment Plant (WTP), Werribee in
Victoria, which is located approximately 50 km to the west of Melbourne CBD. The Biosolids
Stockpile Area is approximately 18 ha in size and was recently constructed on a parcel of land
in Melbourne Waters Western Treatment Plant. The biosolids stockpile area is located on a
parcel of land in an area immediately north of the existing Sludge Drying Pans (SDP) 1-16.
The Biosolids Stockpile Area is bounded by Tyquins Lane and 160 South Road in the North
West corner.
Following the construction, approximately 150,000 m3 of biosolids were harvested from
sixteen existing Sludge Drying Pans and stockpiled in the Biosolids Stockpile Area. The
existing Sludge Drying Pans (1-16) were clay-lined and the biosolids originating from these
pans were used in this research project. The biosolids were stockpiled in the Biosolids
Stockpile Area for approximately 1.5 years prior to sampling. A further 150,000 m3 of
biosolids from an additional thirteen existing Sludge Drying Pans is expected to be harvested
in the near future. The Biosolids Stockpile Area was constructed with provision for the
stockpiling up to 7 rows of biosolids stockpiles in 5 meters high and separated by access
roads. To date, 3 rows of stockpiles have been constructed and the field sampling and testing
were carried out on these stockpiles. Figure 1 shows the location of the Western Treatment
Plant in Werribee, Victoria (Melways Map 205,12F).
Figure 1. Location of the Western Treatment Plant, Werribee (Melways Map 205, 12F).
25
The Eastern and Western treatment plants are the main sewage treatment plants in Victoria.
The Eastern Treatment Plant treats sewage from about 1.5 million people in Melbournes
south-eastern and eastern suburbs. About 92% of the sewage that flows into the Eastern
Treatment Plant each year is from residential and commercial sources, and the remaining 8%
is from trade waste. The Western Treatment Plant at Werribee is a significant public asset,
with more than 100 years of history. Before the construction of Western Treatment Plant,
Melbournes sewage was collected in open channels and discharged into the Yarra River and
Hobsons Bay. In 1892 the newly established metropolitan works began buying land at
Werribee and developing the site. The first Melbourne homes were connected to the sewage
system in 1897 (Melbourne Water Corporation, 2000).
The Western Treatment Plant continues to provide an essential public health service, treating
approximately 456 million litres a day (Melbourne Water Corporation, 2006). This serves
about 1.6 million people in the central and northern and western suburbs. The Western
Treatment Plant is almost 11,000 hectares in area and is a world leader in environmentally
friendly sewage treatment. Sewage is now treated at the Western Treatment Plant through the
lagoon systems. Treated effluent is discharged under licence or recycled to various on and
off-site customers. Figure 2 shows the aerial view of the Western Treatment Plant in
Werribee, Victoria (Melbourne Water Corporation, 2000). Figure 3 and Figure 4 show
biosolids stockpiles at the Western Treatment Plant in Werribee, Victoria.
The Western Treatment Plant, comprises 3 modern lagoon systems. A lagoon system is made
up of 10 lagoons or ponds. Sewage flows slowly through these lagoons, allowing bacteria
already in the water to break down the organic material. The water gets cleaner and cleaner as
it flows through each of the lagoons. There are two main types of lagoons used in lagoon
treatment - aerobic (with oxygen) and anaerobic (without oxygen). This is because there are
different types of bacteria that could survive in either environments. Both types of bacteria are
required to work together to break down the organic material and treat the sewage. The first
stage of lagoon treatment is anaerobic (without oxygen). An anaerobic lagoon has no oxygen
because of the high amount of sewage in it. Sewage typically does not have
oxygen. Anaerobic lagoons can produce strong, unpleasant smells and release dangerous
greenhouse gases and therefore some of the lagoons are partly covered with methane covers.
Covering these lagoons means that the unpleasant smells and the greenhouse gases can be
26
captured. The captured gases, called biogas, are used as fuel to generate electricity to run the
plant. Sludge settles to the bottom of the lagoons as part of the wastewater treatment process.
As sewage flows through one lagoon after another, more oxygen becomes available in the
water. In some lagoons, a lagoon is aerated (air is pumped into the water using an aerator or
diffuser) to introduce oxygen into the water. In other lagoons, it happens naturally. As
lagoons becomes more aerobic (with oxygen), smells becomes less of a problem. By the 10th
lagoon, sewage is known as treated effluent, and is ready for the next stage of the water cycle.
The normal process at the Western Treatment Plant is for sludge from treatment lagoons to be
pumped into sludge drying pans. Drying in the sludge drying pans typically takes 6-9 months
and the biosolids are then harvested and stored in a Biosolids Stockpile Area for a minimum
of 3 years. The Biosolids Stockpile Area is a purpose built facility to stockpile the biosolids
after they have achieved a certain physical requirement and have been air-dried to the
required moisture content in Sludge Drying Pans. The Biosolids Stockpile Area consists of
earthen embankments that are designed with a freeboard to ensure the bunds are constructed
above 100 year flood levels. Following the harvesting and subsequent storage of biosolids in
stockpile areas, the air-dried biosolids are available to any potential markets for the use of the
biosolids in a sustainable manner.
Figure 2. Aerial view of Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria.

(Melbourne Water Corporation, 2000)
27
Figure 3. Biosolids stockpile area located at the Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria.
Figure 4. Biosolids stockpiles at the Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria.
28
4
4.1
PROJECT PLAN
Project Work Plan
The following milestones were identified for the various phases of the research as part of this
project. Milestone reports were submitted at the completion of each of the project milestones.
Milestone 1 Submission of Detailed Project Plan

Submission of the detailed project plan and project timeline.
Milestone 2 Literature Review
The literature review incorporated a review of existing publications of biosolids or similar
materials used in engineered fills as well as in-situ techniques suitable for use in the research.
The review incorporated international experiences of work with biosolids as an engineered
fill.
Milestone 3 Field Testing

This phase included the collection of soil samples from the field with the use of drilling rigs,
excavators and other hand held equipment as appropriate.
Milestone 4 Laboratory Testing

The laboratory testing of the samples was extensive and a major component of this research
proposal. Laboratory tests were carried out on various stabilisation methods such as soil
mixing with cement, lime, bauxsol and crushed brick.
Milestone 5 Finite Element Modelling

Using various geotechnical parameters obtained through testing, finite element modelling was
carried out with the use of the Plaxis geotechnical finite element code. The finite element
modelling technique required geotechnical input parameters which were obtained from the
earlier laboratory testing results.
29
Milestone 6 Development of Technical Note or Specifications

This phase of research developed a technical note for the usage of stabilized biosolids from
the Western Treatment Plant for road construction. This phase also identified the VicRoads
requirement for biosolids used in road construction.
Following the completion of the earlier phases of work, a brief was developed for a future
trial embankment. The brief studied the requirement for the implementation of field
instrumentation and plate load tests in the proposed field trial embankment. The geometry and
location of instruments and plate load tests were developed in this phase. The construction
and research cost of the proposed trial embankment was also formulated.
Milestone 7 Final Evaluation Report

Submission of final evaluation report (this report) which summarises the project and research
outcomes.
4.2
Project Timeline
The identified milestones for this project were as follows:

Milestone 1: Detailed Project Plan
Start date: 1 March 2007
Scheduled completion date: 30 April 2007
Actual completion date : 30 April 2007
Milestone 2: Literature review
Start date: 1 May 2007
Scheduled completion date: 30 June 2007
Actual completion date : 30 June 2007
Milestone 3: Field testing
Start date: 1 July 2007
Scheduled completion date: 31 August 2007
Actual completion date : 31 August 2007
Milestone 4: Laboratory testing
Start date: 1 September 2007
Scheduled completion date: 31 March 2008
Actual completion date : 31 March 2008
30
Milestone 5: Finite element modelling

Start date: 1 April 2008
Scheduled completion date: 31 December 2008
Actual completion date : 30 September 2008
Milestone 6: Development of technical note
Start date: 1 January 2009
Scheduled completion date: 30 June 2009
Actual completion date : 30 March 2009
Milestone 7: Final evaluation report
Start date: 1 July 2009
Scheduled completion date: 30 November 2009
Actual completion date : 30 July 2009
4.3
Personnel
A key feature of this project was the collaboration of the chief investigators who as a team
have extensive research and consulting experience in the field of geotechnical engineering,
field testing, field instrumentation, in-situ testing, numerical analysis and civil engineering.
Dr Arul Arulrajah (Senior Lecturer, Swinburne University of Technology) has over 15 years
experience as a professional civil engineer in industry in the Asia-Pacific region. He has
expertise in geotechnical engineering, site investigation, in-situ testing, field instrumentation,
geotechnical design and civil project management. Prior to joining Swinburne University of
Technology in mid-2006, he was working as a Design Phase Project Manager with Melbourne
Water Corporation (under secondment from Connell Wagner Pty Ltd) for close to 9 months
on the Western Treatment Plant, Solids Handling Biosolids Management Project. He was
responsible during this period for management of the design phase for the construction of new
sludge drying pans, the biosolids stockpile area, dredging infrastructure, haulage roads,
supernatant discharge pipelines, pumping stations, rising mains and other associated
infrastructure works related to the project.
Robert Evans (Lecturer, Swinburne University of Technology) has over 15 years of
professional engineering experience in industry and academia. In the field of geotechnical
engineering, he has specific expertise in site investigations and understanding the behaviour
and performance of light structures founded on expansive soils (including pavements).
31
Furthermore, he has managed the NATA registered geotechnical laboratory at Swinburne

since its establishment in 1998.
Prof John Wilson (Professor of Civil Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology) has
over 25 years experience as a professional civil engineer with 10 years in industry and 15
years as an academic at University of Melbourne and Swinburne University of Technology.
He has expertise in infrastructure systems and has had wide experience leading and
contributing to multi-disciplinary collaborative research and consulting projects.
Julia Lamborn (Lecturer, Swinburne University of Technology) has over 24 years experience
as a professional civil, chemical and environmental engineer with 8 years in industry and 16
years as an academic at Swinburne University of Technology. She has a wide range of
expertise in environmental engineering, waste management and environmental impact
assessment. Her other areas of experience are in power station design/cooling water systems
and engineering heritage.
Several full-time research engineers and a full-time PhD student from Swinburne University
of Technology worked on this project and undertook the necessary day-to-day tasks
associated with the various phases of this research. The full-time research engineers were
assisted by a geotechnical technician during the field and laboratory testing phases of the
project. The chief investigators and the research engineer interacted closely with regular
meetings and discussions.
32
5
5.1
LITERATURE REVIEW
Geotechnical Characteristics of Sludge and Biosolids
Geotechnical aspects of sewage sludge have been studied in recent years in various countries
but few reported investigative studies have been carried out in Australia. Similarly, few
studies investigating the geotechnical aspects of biosolids have been published
internationally. This could be due to varying treatment processes for sewage sludge such as in
the case of the United Kingdom and Hong Kong where untreated sludge is disposed of
directly in landfill and is not treated to enable them to be termed biosolids.
Golder Associates (2006) reported that, clay-rich biosolids samples were collected from the
Eastern Treatment plant (ETP), Victoria. The clay rich biosolids samples were collected from
three different stockpiles in the ETP and the samples were used for various testing purposes.
Bulk sample were collected from the top, middle and bottom of the each stockpile by digging
test pits with excavators. The laboratory results of these tests are discussed later in Section
4.2.
Golder Associates (2006) reported that the moisture content of many of the samples recovered
from the stockpiles in the Eastern Treatment Plant (ETP), Victoria were above optimum
moisture content. Golder Associates (2006) also reported on the moisture content of biosolids
stabilized with lime and cement. Table 1 presents the average and optimum moisture content
and the maximum dry density of the cement treated biosolids samples. The moisture content
of the sample close to the optimum moisture content was denoted as dry biosolids material.
The moisture content of the sample higher than the optimum moisture content was denoted as
medium and wet biosolids materials respectively.
Golder Associates (2006) reported that the addition of lime is most effective where the
moisture content is close to optimum moisture content (dry biosolids material). The difference
between average and optimum moisture content of dry sample is 12.5% for 0% lime addition
and the moisture content reduces to 8.7% for 5% lime addition. The addition of lime to wet
biosolids material was reported to be ineffectual in reducing the moisture content. The
difference between average and optimum moisture content of wet sample is 21.8% for 0%
lime addition and 19.0% for 5% lime addition.
33
Table 1. Summary of moisture content testing of biosolids treated with lime in Victoria,
(Golder Associates, 2006).
Relative MC
Lime Added
0%
Avg MC (%)
41.5
MDD (t/m3)
1.37
OMC (%)
29.0
Avg MC OMC (%) 12.5
Note: MC = moisture content;
content.
Dry
Medium
3% 5%
0%
3% 5%
39.4 37.7
39.0
37.5 36.2
1.32 1.28
1.38
1.34 1.32
27.0 31.0
25.5
21.5 23.0
10.4
8.7
13.5
12.0 10.7
MDD = maximum dry density; OMC
Wet
0% 3%
5%
54.8 54.4 52.0
1.19 1.15 1.14
33.0 33.0 32.0
21.8 21.4 19.0
= optimum moisture
Golder Associates (2006) reported that the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the
modified biosolids increases with the percentage of the cement. Table 2 represents the
unconfined compressive strength of the trial embankment material in stockpile 23 at ETP. The
unconfined compressive strength of the reference trial embankment material was 50kPa. The
UCS of the sample with 3% of cement, increased from 150kPa after two days of curing to
240kPa after 14 days of curing. Between the same number of curing days, the UCS of the
sample with 5% of cement rose from 200 kPa to 270 kPa.
Table 2. Summary of average UCS test results on cement treated biosolids in stockpile 23 in
Victoria, (Golder Associates, 2006).
Days Cured
0
2
7
14
Samples
9
6
6
6
0% Cement
50 kPa
-
3% Cement 5% Cement
150 kPa
200 kPa
220 kPa
260 kPa
240 kPa
270 kPa
Table 3 represents the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the trial embankment
material in stockpile 7 and 14 at the ETP. An unconfined compressive strength of 100 kPa
was obtained for the reference trial embankment material. The UCS after two days of curing,
was 90 kPa for 1% of cement addition and to 110 kPa for 5% of cement addition. The UCS
after fourteen days of curing, increased to 110 kPa for 1% of cement addition and to 210 kPa
for 5% of cement addition.
34
Table 3. Summary of average UCS test results on cement treated biosolids in stockpile 7 and
14 in Victoria, (Golder Associates, 2006).
Days Cured
0
2
7
14
Samples
2
6
6
6
0% Cement 1% Cement 3% Cement 5% Cement

100 kPa
90 kPa
80 kPa
110 kPa
100 kPa
150 kPa
170 kPa
110 kPa
140 kPa
210 kPa
Chu et al. (2005) has reported on the consolidation properties of cement-treated anerobically
digested sewage sludge in the Republic of Singapore with the use of prefabricated vertical
drains. Chu et al. (2005) and Goi (2004) have reported on the geotechnical properties of
sewage sludge in Singapore and proposed the option of using cement-treated sewage sludge
as a fill material for land reclamation activities in Singapore. Pore pressure dissipation of the
sewage sludge was measured during the consolidation process in a large-consolidometer to
enable the consolidation around prefabricated vertical drain to be studied. Ordinary Portland
cement and hydrated lime were used as binder materials for the consolidation test using an
initial sample height of 450 mm. A settlement of 298 mm was measured using the largeconsolidometer for the test that lasted 550 hours. The Asaoka (1978) and Hyperbolic methods
(Tan 1995, 1996) were found to be able to accurately determine the ultimate settlement and
degree of consolidation of cement-treated sludge in Singapore. The ultimate settlement
predicted by the Asaoka method was 330.7 mm and by the Hyperbolic method was 336.8
mm. The average degree of consolidation at the end of the test was 89.1%
Lo et al. (2002) reported on the geotechnical characterisation of dewatered sewage sludge
generated from the Stonecutters Island treatment plant in Hong Kong. Compaction tests
carried out indicated that the dewatered sewage sludge exhibits compaction characteristics
similar to that of clayey soils. The practice in Hong Kong is noted to be similar to the United
Kingdom in that sewage sludge is disposed into landfills. Lo et al. (2002) also confirmed the
findings of Klein and Sarsby (2000) that sludge once placed in landfills can be considered as
geotechnical material similar to non-consolidated cohesive material with high organic
content. In addition to consolidation and compaction tests, direct shear tests were also carried
out on the sludge mixtures.
Kelly (2004, 2005, 2006) reported on the various geotechnical characteristics of sludge at the
Tullamore wastewater treatment plant in the United Kingdom in terms of their strength,
35
compaction, compressibility and other geotechnical properties. Kelly (2004) reported that in
the United Kingdom, the sewage sludge is eventually disposed of in landfill (sludge-tolandfill) which is different from the typical requirement of air-drying and subsequent 3 year
stockpiling of biosolids in Australia. Kelly (2004) stated that sludge material in various
treatment plants can have different engineering properties due to different input levels of
domestic and industrial wastewater. Kelly (2006) reported on consolidation tests conducted
on liquid sludge and compacted sludge with oedometers and Rowe hydraulic consolidation
cells. Lab vane shear tests were used to obtain the undrained shear strength of the sludge.
Klein (1995) has also reported on the geotechnical characteristics of lagoon sewage sludge in
the United Kingdom. These test methods were stated as applicable for determining the
geotechnical properties of sewage sludge.
Lim et al. (2002) have reported in Korea, the unconfined compressive strength of wastewater
sludge with lime, fly ash and loess in various mixing proportion, by the unconfined
compression test.
Table 4 represents the unconfined compressive strength for each modified mixture, it clearly
states that the unconfined compressive strength of water treatment sludge and wastewater
treatment sludge mixture increases as the amount of lime and fly ash increases. Similarly, the
unconfined compressive strength of the modified sludge increase with the curing time.
Further, the unconfined compressive strength of the construction materials in Korea is 100
kPa achieved by adding lime and fly ash in specific ratio (by weight).
Table 4. Unconfined compressive strength (kPa) for each modified mixture in Korea,
(Lim et al., 2002).
Sludge
Wastewater
Lime (%) Ash (%) Loess (%)

0
0
0
10
50
0
36
0 Day
8.4
5.9
7 Days
9.3
98.3
28 Days
18.0
161.0
Vajirkar (2000) reported on the strength characteristics of biosolids when mixed with
municipal solid waste based on cone penetration tests carried out in Florida, USA whilst
Kocar et al. (2003) has reported on that fly ash has been successfully used as an additive in
the stabilisation of biosolids and sludge in Turkey.
5.2
Laboratory Testing of Biosolids and Sludge
The determination of the geotechnical parameters is required to calculate the bearing capacity,
slope stability, earth pressure and settlement of the element. The wide range of laboratory
tests will help to determine these geotechnical parameters.
5.2.1. Classification Test

Golder Associates (2006) has presented the moisture content, organic matter and total organic
content of the clay rich biosolids sample in three different locations such as top, middle and
base of the stock pile from the Eastern Treatment Plant (ETP), Victoria. Generally the
moisture content in the middle of the stockpile had a higher value than the top and base of the
stockpile. The organic matter and the total organic content in the base were found to be higher
than that at the other parts of the stockpile.
Golder Associates (2006) further reported the geotechnical properties of the clay rich
biosolids based on laboratory testing and this is summarised in Table 5. The sludge in ETP
had an average value of 25.9% moisture content for test pits sample and 29.7% for the
composites sample. Also it had 64 %, 25% and 40% of liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic
index respectively. The maximum dry density has the lowest standard deviation and liquid
limit and the plasticity index have higher standard deviation among the geotechnical
properties from the number tests which they used to find these properties.
37
Table 5. Statistical summary of geotechnical tests in Victoria (Golder Associates, 2006).

Test
Samples Average
Organic Content (%) test pits
264
7.8
Moisture Content test
Moisture Content (%) test pits
264
25.9
Moisture Content (%) composites
28
29.7
Atterberg Limit and Linear Shrinkage Test
Liquid Limit (%)
23
64
Plastic Limit (%)
23
25
Plasticity Index (%)
23
40
Linear Shrinkage (%)
23
14.8
PSD Test
% Gravel
28
3
% Sand
28
48
% Fines (< 75micron)
28
49
Compaction Test
MDD1 (t/m3)
28
1.35
2
OMC (%)
28
29.98
CBR Test
CBR Swell3 (%)
28
3.23
4
CBR Value (%)
28
3.04
Std Dev
4.1
Max.
29.9
Min.
0.9
8.5
10.0
44.8
46.1
5.8
6.0
13
8
10
2.9
78
38
54
17.0
23
11
12
3.5
2
9
9
7
78
66
0
33
19
0.16
8.33
1.76
43.00
1.14
15.00
1.27
1.84
5.50
7.90
1.50
0.53
Notes : 1-MDD- Standard Maximum Dry Density, 2-OMC- Standard Optimum Moisture Content
3-CBR Swell After Applied at the end of Soak Period, 4-CBR Value at 95% MDD at OMC,
5-PSD-Particle Size Distribution
38
Stone et al. (1998) has stated physical properties of sewage sludge which was stabilised at the
point of collection in five different locations in Trinidad. Wastewater in the treatment plant
was first passed through primary sedimentation tanks where the sewage sludge settled. The
liquid limit of the sewage sludge in the Trinidad was reported to vary between 66% to 165%
and saturated hydraulic conductivity of the four sewage sludge varies between 0.11 to 0.56
cm/h. Other physical properties of the sewage sludge in five various treatment plants in
Trinidad are also tabulated in Table 6.
Table 6. Some properties of the tested sewage sludge in Trinidad (Stone et al., 1998).
117
165
16.6
San Fernando
Residential
25.3
49.1
24.1
0.4
80.6
114
144
0.56
13
33.1
52.8
0.37
65.4
80
0.16
Residential
and Industrial
ignition
method
Loss-on-
Oxidation
sludge
Trincity
conductivity /(cm/h)
Liquid limit /(%,w/w)
71.3
Saturated hydraulic
Plastic limit /(%,w/w)
0.41
/(Mg/m3)
40.3
Air-dry bulk density
67.2
/(%,w/w)
30.9
content (%)
method
Air-dry water content
Residential
Source of wastewater
Valencia
Location of sewage
Solid content / (%)
Organic matter
Arima
Residential
21.4
41.7
28.9
0.54
77.6
101
104
0.13
Santa Cruz
Residential
10.8
14.3
10.8
0.83
90.3
57
66
0.11
Valls et al. (2004) have reported physical, chemical and mechanical properties of the dry
sewage sludge from a sewage treatment plant in Spain. The sludge had been totally dried at
105 degrees for the grading, because of residual humidity of the sludge. Valls et al. (2004)
reported that, the granulometry of the dry sludge is similar to that of fine agglomerate and
also it was a very spongy material with a very low density in the order of 10 kN/m3. The
granulometry of the dry sludge is given in Figure 5. Valls et al. (2004) further reported that,
there were no clays in the dry sludge from the mineralogical characterization of sludge by Xray diffraction analysis.
39
Figure 5. Dry sludge granulometry curve in Spain, (Valls et al., 2004).
Lim et al (2002) reported that the characteristics of wastewater treated sludge shows seasonal
variation. There was no mention in the publication if the sludge was primary or secondary
treated sludge. Further they have found both had high water content, up to 250% for the
wastewater treatment sludge. Also hydrated lime had a higher value (48.26) of uniformity
coefficient (Cu) and Coefficient of gradation (Cc) than fly ash (16.44). Table 7 describes the
index properties of the hydrated lime, fly ash and sludge from wastewater in Korea.
Table 7. Index properties of sludge and each modifier in Korea, (Lim et al., 2002).
Test
Specific gravity
Water Content (%)
Classification (UIUC)
Cu (uniformity coefficient)
Cc (coefficient of gradation)
Mean Size(m)
Wastewater
sludge
2.059
217.0
OH/Peat
9.34
1.18
123.7
40
Hydrated
lime
2.199
48.26
2.75
232.4
Fly ash
2.173
16.44
0.63
111.0
Lim et al. (2002) reported that all index properties of the modified wastewater sludges
decreased with the increasing percentage of additives. Positive effect was encountered on the
plastic index (PI), except for 200% of fly ash with added lime. The index properties of the
modified sludge mixtures in South Korea with the different percentage of lime and fly ash are
given in Table 8 from the Lim et al. (2002), where LL, PL, PI and SL refer as liquid limit,
plastic limit, plastic index, non plastics material and shrinkage limit respectively. A large
dosage of fly ash was found to can make modified-sludge mixtures non-plastic materials.
Table 8. Index properties of modified sewage sludge in Korea, (Lim et al., 2002).
Sludge
Wastewater
Lime (%) Fly ash (%)

LL
PL
PI
SL
0
0
233.3
182.2
51.1
39.6
10
0
193.5
180.0
13.5
43.3
10
50
140.5
129.8
10.7
46.5
10
100
120.0
115.0
5.0
46.5
10
200
88.0
NP
NP
NP
15
0
182.0
175.0
7.0
52.3
15
50
136.8
128.9
7.9
54.1
15
100
126.5
120.0
6.5
54.6
15
200
88.4
NP
NP
NP
Note: LL refers to liquid limit; PL refers to plastic limit; PI refers to plastic index and SL
refers to shrinkage limit.
The details of the experimental procedure used for the particle size distribution tests (sieve
and hydrometer analysis) are described in the Australian Standard for Soil classification (AS
1289.3.6.1-1995 and AS 1289.3.6.2-1995).
41
5.2.2. Laboratory Vane Shear Test

The laboratory vane is a small scale device with a blade height of about 12.7mm and a width
of about 12.7mm.The small size of the laboratory vane makes the device unsuitable for testing
samples with fissuring or fabric, and therefore it is not very frequently used. The laboratory
vane test will be carried out according to British Standards (BS 1377, 1990). Head (1994) has
described the preparation of the sample, type of testings and guide lines for the measurements
of the experiment.
Kelly (2006) has reported the undrained shear strength properties of sludge decreases with
increasing water content. Undrained shear strength properties of the sewage sludge can be
determined by the laboratory vane apparatus and unconsolidated-undrained triaxial
compression test. The current knowledge of the geotechnical properties and in particular the
shear strength properties of sewage sludge and biosolids are limited.
5.2.3. Compaction Test

Laboratory compaction tests are intended to model the field process and to indicate the most
suitable moisture content for compaction (the 'optimum moisture content') at which the
maximum dry density will be achieved for a particular soil. The testing procedure of standard
compaction test is outlined in the Australian Standards (AS 1289.5.1.1-2003).
In the United Kingdom, Kelly (2004) has achieved the maximum dry density of 0.56 tonne/m3
and optimum moisture content of 85% (54% of solid contents) for the air dried sludge
material by the standard compaction test. Kelly (2004) has reported that bulk density and dry
density values are low but consistent with the low range of specific gravity of solid values
measured. Figure 6 illustrates the density variation with the water content by compaction. The
bulk density increase from 0.65 tonne/m3 for dry sludge material, which compacted poorly, to
1.10 tonne/m3 for sludge material with moisture content values above optimum moisture
content.
42
Figure 6. Density-water content relationships for compaction in United Kingdom,

(Kelly, 2004).
Lim et al. (2002) in Korea has reported that, the optimum moisture content and the maximum
dry density of the wastewater sludge are 68.4% and 8.1kN/m3, the values of the optimum
water content decreases and also the value of dry density increase with the increasing of
mixing of lime and fly ash in percentage. Figure 7 illustrates the variation of the dry density
with the water content and the percentage of the lime and cement from Lim et al. (2002).
Figure 7. Relationship between optimum moisture Contents (OMC) and dry density
With addition of lime and fly ash in Korea, (Lim et al., 2002).
43
5.2.4. California Bearing Ratio Test (CBR Test)

Golder Associates (2006) has reported the CBR value of reference biosolids (0% of modifier)
and modified biosolids in the ETP, Victoria. The test was carried out on samples compacted
to about 95% maximum dry density at optimum moisture content. Table 9 shows the CBR test
results of stockpile 23 in ETP. The CBR values of biosolids in stockpile 23 at ETP increased
with the percentage of the cement addition. The CBR values at 18 days of the modified
biosolids rose from 5% to 12 % for 3% of cement addition and from 14% to 15% for 5%
cement addition respectively.
Table 9. Summary of CBR tests results on trial embankment material in stockpile 23 in
Sample Location
Samples
Trial Embankment Materials
% Gravel
9
0
% Sand
9
48 - 70
% Fines (<75microns)
9
30 - 52
3
Maximum Dry density (t/m )
2
1.37
Optimum Moisture Content (%)
2
20.0 - 20.5
Percentage Organics (%)
2
12.3 - 13.5
CBR Value with Cement Added
0%
3%
5%
+
CBR at 0 Days (%)
3
1.5 5.0
CBR at 18 Days (%)
4
5 - 12
14 - 16
CBR Swell After Soak (%)
7
1.43 - 3.2
0.62 - 1.41
0.05 - 0.19
Note: CBR denotes California Bearing Ratio
+
Number of Days curing before 4 days soak
Table 10 represents the test results at stockpile 7 and 14. The CBR values of biosolids in
stockpile 7 and 14 at ETP were reported to increase with the percentage of the cement
addition with the biosolids. The CBR values at 14 days of the modified biosolids increased
from 5.5% to 6.5 % for 1% of cement addition with biosolids and from 19% to 20 % for 5%
cement addition respectively.
44
Table 10. Summary of CBR tests results on trial embankment material in stockpile 7 and 14
in Victoria, (Golder Associates, 2006).
Sample Location
Samples
Biosolids Materials
% Gravel
2
0
% Sand
2
51 - 53
% Fines (<75microns)
2
47 - 49
1
3
MDD (t/m )
2
1.15
2
OMC (%)
2
42
Organics (%)
2
9.6 - 12.4
4
CBR Value
0% Cement 1% Cement 3% Cement 5% Cement
CBR at 0 Days (%)
2
3.5
CBR at 14 Days (%)
6
5.5 - 6.5
11.0 - 12
19 - 20
3
CBR Swell (%)
8
0.91 - 1.20 0.27 - 0.53 0.15 - 0.38 0.1 - 1.11
Notes : 1-MDD- Standard Maximum Dry Density, 2-OMC- Standard Optimum Moisture Content
3-CBR Swell After Applied at the end of Soak Period, 4-CBR Value at 95% MDD at OMC
Lim et al. (2002) have reported the CBR, swelling and absorbed water content for the
modified wastewater sludge mixture with lime and fly ash in Korea. Table 11 shows the
values of CBR, swelling and absorbed water content for the modified sludge in Korea, the
value of the CBR represents that an alternative method needs to be sought for the use of
construction materials due to its low CBR. But CBR value of modified sludge increased with
the percentage of the added modifier.
Table 11. Results of CBR of modified wastewater sludge mixture in Korea,
(Lim et al., 2002).
Lime (%)
Fly ash (%)
Absorbed water (%)
Expansion (%)
CBR (%)
0
10
10
10
0
50
100
200
3.70
6.45
9.33
10.0
1.37
2.39
2.31
2.30
2.74
3.49
4.52
5.13
California Bearing Ratio test was carried out to determine the CBR value for the compacted
specimen and also the swelling index of the specimen. The method and the procedures of
California Bearing Ratio test are stated in the Australian Standard (AS1289.6.1.1-1998).
45
5.2.5. Consolidation Test

Golder Associates (2006) has reported the consolidation parameters by conducting the
oedometer test on biosolids. Table 12 compares the primary consolidation properties of the
natural clay, untreated biosolids and the treated biosolids. The coefficient of volume
compressibility (mv) values inferred from the oedometer test results for both treated and
untreated biosolids indicate that the biosolids samples are slightly more compressible than the
natural clay under the applied loads. The mv values for biosolids with high moisture content
indicate that they are more compressible than the cement treated biosolids. Golder Associates
(2006) further reported that, the biosolids samples behave more like organic materials than
typical clays, and also they mentioned it is not possible to distinguish between the primary
and secondary consolidation phases of the biosolids.
Table 12. Comparison of coefficient of volume compressibility (mv) from oedometer test in
Soil Type
Loading Stage
0 to 50 kPa
50 to 100 kPa
100 to 150 kPa
Natural
Untreated
Clay
Biosolids
Soils
Biosolids
High
MC1
Biosolids
+ 1%
Cement
Biosolids
+ 3%
cement
Biosolids
+ 5%
cement
Coefficient of Volume Compressibility - inferred mv (m2/year)

0.00018
0.00029 - 0.00002 - 0.00036 - 0.00027 - 0.00016 0.00054
0.00134
0.00056
0.00031
0.00050
0.00028
0.00006 - 0.00001 - 0.00002 - 0.00012 - 0.00006 0.00004
0.00008
0.00056
0.00020
0.00017
0.00007
0.00003
0.00005 0.0010
0.00001 0.00036
0.00014 0.00048
0.00008
0.00004 0.00008
Note : 1 - MC - Moisture Content
Table 13 compares the long term creep properties of the natural clay, untreated biosolids and
the treated biosolids. The secondary consolidation values (c) indicates that the natural clay
samples have c values of 0.46% to 0.70% , which are less than the values for the biosolids
(0.60% to 2.05%). The c values for biosolids with high moisture content values are higher
than those for normal biosolids. The cement stabilised biosolids samples have generally lower
c values than both the natural clay and untreated biosolids. The rate of secondary
consolidation doest not appear to be load dependent, which is accordance with pre-trial
expectations.
46
Table 13. Comparison of secondary consolidation values (c) from oedometer test in
Average c (% Strain/Log Cycle Time)
Untreated Biosolids Composite
Untreated Biosolids Composite (High Moisture
Content)
Biosolids Composite + 1% Cement
Natural Clay Sample
Load Stage (kPa)

0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
0.76
0.91
0.72
2.05
0.76
0.60
0.70
1.68
0.51
1.07
0.73
0.49
1.11
0.66
0.70
0.92
0.46
Rowe (1966) and Head (1975) have described the details of the Rowe Cell consolidation
apparatus and testing procedure. The Rowe cell has many advantages over the traditional
oedometer consolidation apparatus. The main features responsible for these improvements are
the hydraulic loading system, the control facilities and ability to measure pore water pressure,
and the capability of testing large diameter samples.
5.2.6. Permeability Test

Lim et al. (2002) reported that the permeability of modified wastewater sludge in Korea
varies between 1 10-8 cm/s to 1 10-4 cm/s. Figure 8 represents the relationship between
permeability and void ratio of the modified sludge. It states that, void ratio of the reference
sludge (unmodified) has the highest void ratio whilst sludge with 10% of lime and 20% of fly
ash has the lowest void ratio.
47
Figure 8. The relationship between permeability and void ratio of the sludge samples in
Korea, (Lim et al., 2002).
5.2.7. Triaxial Test

Golder Associates (2006) has reported the friction angle, cohesion and undrained shear
strength of the treated biosolids sample in the Eastern Treatment Plant (ETP) estimated from
undrained triaxial compression testing. Table 14 represents the summary of undrained triaxial
compression testing of treated biosolids with 3% added lime and 3% added cement in ETP,
Victoria. The biosolids with 3% added lime and 3% added cement achieved an average
friction angle of 49 and a maximum friction angle of 75 as well as an average cohesion of
29 kPa and a maximum cohesion of 32 kPa.
Table 14. Summary of triaxial undrained compression testing on treated biosolids in
Victoria,(Golder Associates, 2006).
Parameter
Average
Standard Deviation
Max
Min
49
22
75
33
Cohesion, c
29 kPa
3 kPa
32 kPa
27 kPa
Undrained shear strength, Su
208 kPa
23 kPa
230 kPa
185kPa
Friction angle,
48
Kelly (2004) reported that the undrained shear strength of the wastewater sludge increases
exponentially with reducing water content. He reported that sludge which was wetter than
180% of water content had negligible shear strength. Kelly (2005) has proposed Equation 1 to
find the solid content from the water content of the sludge material.
100
(% )
SC =
1 + (WC / 100 )
Equation (1)
The undrained triaxial compression test and the laboratory vane shear test provided similar
characteristics for the shear strength of the sludge. Figure 9 from Kelly (2005) illustrates the
behaviour of the undrained strength of the sludge with water content. The effective angle of
friction has been reported by Kelly (2004) to range between 32 and 37 for moderate and
strong levels of sludge digestion, whilst the effective cohesion is reported as zero.
Figure 9. Variation of undrained shear strength with water content in United Kingdom,
(Kelly, 2005).
49
5.3
Biosolids Stabilisation
5.3.1. Stabilisation with Lime

Lim et al (2002) reported in Korea, that hydrated lime was used for the purpose of sterilizing
micro-organisms in sludge.
Lim et al (2002) has determined the optimum mixing ratio of lime by measuring the pH value
of the sludge. Further it was reported that high pH was obtained by modified wastewater
sludge mixing with 10% to 15% of lime. Lim et al (2002) determined that the optimum
mixing ratio of lime was 10% for the wastewater sludge respectively. Table 15 illustrates
clearly the pH values with curing time for two different sludges with the different percentage
of lime as mentioned by Lim et al. (2002).
Table 15. pH values of modified sludge with curing time in Korea

(Lim et al., 2002).
Sludge
Wastewater
Lime (%)
8
10
15
0
12.1
12.4
12.5
Curing Time (min)

30
60
120
12.1
12.0
11.8
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.5
12.4
12.2
180
11.7
12.1
12.1
240
11.6
12.0
12.0
Lim et al. (2002) also presented the microstructure of the original sludge and the modified
sludge mixtures with lime and fly ash. The micrographs of the sludge are shown in Figure 10
(a) and (b). The black areas represent the voids in the sludge and indicates that the
microstructure of the sludge is not dense.
Figure 11 (a), (b), (c) and (d) represents the modified sludge with lime and fly ash after 28
days of curing, it indicates that an increase of calcium compounds induced the increase in
strength of the modified-sludge mixtures.
50
Figure 10. Micrographs of original waterworks and wastewater sludge in Korea,

(Lim et al., 2002).
Figure 11. Micrographs of modified sludge mixtures by lime and fly ash in Korea,
(Lim et al., 2002).
51
5.3.2. Stabilisation with Cement

Valls et al. (2004) in Spain have reported on the compressive strength, flexural strength and
elastic modulus of concrete with added dry sludge which would be similar to the behaviour of
biosolids stabilized with cement. Figure 12 illustrates the compressive strength according to
sludge content for concrete with three different curing times. The compressive strength
decreased appreciably as the proportion of sludge increased with the curing time. The flexural
strength also decreased with the increase in the amount of sludge in the different samples and
increases with curing time, as illustrated in Figure 13.
Figure 12. Compressive strength according to sludge content for concrete with three different
curing times in Spain (Valls et al., 2004).
52
Figure 13. Flexural strength according to the sludge content with three different
curing times in Spain, (Valls et al., 2004).
Valls et al. (2004) further reported that, the elastic modulus of the concrete with added dry
sludge decreased to 20000 MPa for specimens with 10 % of dry sludge content compared
with approximately 30000 MPa for the reference specimen with 0 % of dry sludge. Figure 14
shows the variation of the elastics modulus of concrete with the proposition of the added dry
sludge.
Figure 14. Elastic modulus of concrete according to the sludge content after 90 days in Spain,
(Valls et al., 2004).
53
5.4
Finite Element Analysis of Biosolids Embankments
From the various geotechnical parameters obtained, finite element models are proposed to be
developed with the Plaxis (2002) geotechnical finite element code to model the behaviour of
biosolids as engineered fill in embankments. Finite element modelling to predict biosolids
deformation and behaviour is an innovative modelling technique that has not been previously
reported for biosolids either nationally or internationally and this will be another innovative
feature of this research. Finite element modelling will be used to predict settlement and pore
pressure dissipation of biosolids when subjected to fill loads.
The finite element modelling technique used for soft soils will be used to model the biosolids,
since soft soils and biosolids are similar from a geotechnical perspective. Finite element
modelling of soft soils has been investigated by various authors including Arulrajah (2004)
and Lin et al. (2000). These modelling techniques will be revisited and modified when
developing a geotechnical finite element model for biosolids.
Karstunen et al. (2006) reported the numerical and finite element modelling of an
embankment on soft clay using five different models to analyse the behaviour of the
embankment on soft clay. Two of the models were isotropic elasto-plastic models whilst the
other three were plastic anisotropy. Three plastic anisotropy models were analysed using the
Plaxis geotechnical software.
Vajirkar (2000) reported on the slope stability analysis of a landfill in Florida, USA with
municipal solid waste only as well as municipal solid waste and biosolids using SLOPE/W
geotechnical software analysis. The minimum factor of safety for the landfill batter slopes for
was reported as 1.5 (Shafer, 2000).
5.5
Conclusions: Literature Review
This Literature Review chapter has been prepared based on laboratory testing and research
studies conducted on sludge and biosolids locally and around the world and discusses the
geotechnical characteristics of the sludge and the biosolids. The stabilisation of sludge and
biosolids by using additives such as lime, fly-ash and cement are also discussed in this report
together with the finite element modelling and analysis conducted on sludge and soft soil in
recent decades.
54
The major findings of this literature review include:
Geotechnical sampling and testing of clay-rich biosolids has been carried out
previously at the Eastern Treatment Plant, Victoria (Golder Associates, 2006).
For the clay-rich biosolids at the Eastern Treatment Plant, stabilisation of the biosolids
was carried out with lime and cement (Golder Associates, 2006).
The geotechnical characteristics of the clay-rich biosolids at the Eastern Treatment

Plant has been reported by Golders Associates (2006).
There is limited information on the geotechnical characteristics of biosolids in other

countries.
There is no information to date regarding the acceptability of biosolids (without clay)

as a geotechnical fill based on current literature available. Current literature available
internationally reports more on stabilised sewage sludge than on biosolids.
Geotechnical characteristics of sewage sludge stabilized with lime, cement and fly-ash
has been reported in various countries.
The geotechnical characteristic of sewage sludge in Australia has not been reported on
previously other than the Golder Associates (2006) report.
To date there are limited publications on finite element modelling and geotechnical
analyses of biosolids embankments worldwide.
55
FIELD TESTING
6.1
Field Works
Swinburne University of Technology engaged Connell Wagner Pty Ltd to undertake the
geotechnical testing and sampling of biosolids. Field tests were carried out at the Biosolids
Stockpile Area at Melbourne Waters Western Treatment Plant, Werribee. The field
investigation was carried out to determine the field geotechnical properties as well as to
obtain biosolids samples for laboratory testing. This report is based on the site investigation
works carried out in the Biosolids Stockpile Area at the Western Treatment Plant.
This phase of the project included the collection of biosolids samples from the field with the
use of drilling rigs and bulk samples as well as field testing with field vane shear tests,
standard penetration tests and dynamic cone penetrometer tests. The collected bulk and tube
samples were subsequently sent to the Geotechnical Laboratory at Swinburne University of
Technology for laboratory testing, the results of which will be discussed in the next chapter of
laboratory testing .
The scope of the field testing and sampling carried out in this phase was as follows;
Sample collection with a geotechnical drilling rig.

Twelve boreholes were carried out from the top of the biosolids stockpile area
for the full depth of the biosolids (estimated at 4-5 meters high).
Four undisturbed samples were obtained with 100 mm diameter sample tubes in
each borehole (total of 48 samples).
All samples collected were appropriately labelled.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Four SPT tests were carried out at four borehole locations.
Field vane shear tests (FVT)

Twenty field vane shear tests were carried out at six borehole locations.
Field vane shear tests were carried out at 1 m depth intervals.
56
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests

Twelve DCP tests were carried out at locations just adjacent to the boreholes to
a depth of 1.6 m.
Bulk sample collection

Total of 2500 kg of biosolids was obtained from the biosolids stockpile area.
Bulk samples were collected in 130 bags which were sealed with rubber bands
to retain the natural moisture content of the biosolids in the field.
6.1.1. Borehole Sampling and Testing

The boreholes (BH) for this investigation (Figure 15) comprised of tube sampling, standard
penetration tests and field vane shear tests and were carried out on the following dates.
BH1 Stockpile No.1 on Monday 13th August 2007
BH2 - Stockpile No.1 on Monday 13th August 2007
BH3 - Stockpile No.1 on Tuesday 14th August 2007
BH10- Stockpile No.3 on Monday 16th August 2007
57
Figure 15. Location of boreholes at the Biosolids Stockpile Area

Chadwick T&T Ltd was engaged by Connell Wagner to carry out the drilling of the boreholes
on the site. A wheel mounted Edson 100 drilling rig was used to carry out augering of the
boreholes. The Edson 100 drilling rig was considered suitable for the investigation due to its
small size and ability to dry auger. Dry augering works were preferred in order to get actual
field moisture of biosolids at stockpile. All works were carried out under the full-time
supervision of Connell Wagner. Research engineers from Swinburne University were present
throughout the works. Each borehole was drilled to approximately 4.0 m to 5.2 m depth.
Figure 16 shows augering at a borehole location.
58
Figure 16. Augering for biosolids samples at a borehole location

Sample tubes of 100 mm diameter samples were collected at 1 m interval for each borehole.
Both ends of the sample tubes were filled with wax to retain the in-situ moisture content.
Figure 17 shows a sample tube collected during borehole drilling operation at the Biosolids
Stockpile Area.
Standard penetration tests were undertaken at four borehole locations at the Biosolids
Stockpile Area. Figure 18 shows the standard penetration test being carried out at a borehole
location.
The Geotechnique Geovane with the dimensions of 19 mm in width and 30 mm in height was
used in the investigation. Figure 19 shows the field vane shear test being carried out at a
borehole location.
59
Figure 17. Sample tube retrieved from a biosolids stockpile.
60
Figure 18. Standard penetration test (SPT) at a borehole location
Figure 19. Field vane shear tests (FVT) at a borehole location

61
The details of boreholes and the location of sample tube, SPT and field vane shear tests are
summarised in Table 16. The borehole logs for the geotechnical investigation works are
presented in Appendix A.
Table 16. Summary of borehole sampling and testing
Borehole
Depth (m)
BH1
0.0 - 1.4
1.4 3.0
3.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 5.2
0.0 - 1.5
1.5 2.5
2.5 3.5
3.5 4.9
0.0 2.0
2.0 3.0
3.0 4.0
4.0 4.9
0.0 - 1.5
1.5 2.5
2.5 3.5
3.5 4.0
0.0 2.0
2.0 4.0
4.0 4.5
4.5 5.2
0.0 - 1.5
1.5 2.5
2.5 3.5
3.5 4.4
0.0 - 1.5
1.5 2.5
2.5 3.5
3.5 5.0
0.0 - 1.5
1.5 2.5
2.5 3.5
3.5 4.5
0.0 - 1.5
1.5 2.5
2.5 3.5
3.5 4.5
0.0 - 1.4
1.4 3.0
3.0 - 4.0
4.0 4.5
0.0 1.5
1.5 2.5
2.5 3.5
3.5 4.5
4.5 5.0
0.0 - 1.4
1.4 3.0
3.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 4.5
BH2
BH3
BH4
BH5
BH6
BH7
BH8
BH9
BH10
BH11
BH12
Material
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
100 mm sample
tube depths
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
1.5 m
2.5 m
3.5 m
4.5 m
1.1 m
2.6 m
3.5 m
4.5 m
0.6 m
1.6 m
2.6 m
3.6 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
4.0 m
4.8 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0m
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.5 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
1.6 m
2.7 m
3.5 m
4.5 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
62
SPT depths
1.5 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
2.0 m
-
Field vane shear

test depths
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
1.1 m
2.1 m
3.1 m
4.1 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
1.0 m
2.0 m
3.0 m
4.0 m
6.1.2. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test

In total, twelve numbers of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests (Figure 20) were carried
out at locations just adjacent to each borehole at top of stockpile area on the following dates.
DCP1 Stockpile No.1 on Monday 14th August 2007
Figure 20. Dynamic cone penetration (DCP) tests at a field test location
63
6.1.3. Bulk Sampling

Bulk samples that totalled approximately 2500 kilograms of biosolids in total (130 bags) were
collected from the Biosolids Stockpile Area. The samples were sent to the Geotechnical
Laboratory at Swinburne University of Technology for future laboratory testing. The
approximate location of the bulk sampling is indicated in Figure 21.
Bulk samples were collected in polythene bags and the bags were tightened with rubber bands
to maintain the in-situ moisture content. Figure 22 shows the collection of biosolids bulk
samples while Figure 23 shows the bulk sampling bags with biosolids.
Figure 21. Locations of bulk sampling
64
Figure 22. Collection of biosolids bulk samples
Figure 23. Bulk sampling bags

65
6.2
Assessment and Discussion
The approximate height of the biosolids in the stockpiles varied between 5.0 m to 5.2 m.
Generally the material encountered in the twelve boreholes can be classified as being firm to
very stiff.
6.2.1. Standard Penetration Test Results

The standard penetration test (SPT) was used to determine the resistance of biosolids to the
penetration of a sampler, and to obtain disturbed samples of the biosolids for identification
purposes. The SPT test was performed by driving a standard spilt spoon sampler into the
stockpile by blows from a drop hammer of mass 64 kg falling 760 mm. The number of blows
(N) recorded for a depth of 300 mm (the initial 150 mm is ignored) is called the standard
penetration value. From the standard penetration value, the allowable bearing capacity of the
biosolids was determined.
Table 17 summarises the geotechnical engineering parameters for various depths at four
different borehole locations based on the field investigation and SPT tests results. The firm
layer of the biosolids (4< SPT <8) was encountered in BH3, BH5 and BH11 at depths ranging
from 1.5 m to 3.0 m. The very stiff layer of the biosolids (16< SPT <30) was encountered in
BH7 at depth of 4.0 m.
The allowable bearing capacity of the biosolids was found to vary between 70 to 80 kPa at a
depth of 1.5 m to 3.0 m in BH3, BH5 and BH11. The allowable bearing capacity of the
biosolids in BH7 was found to be 230 kPa at depth of 4.0 m.
Table 17. SPT values of the biosolids at selected borehole location
Borehole
Stockpile
No.
BH3
BH5
BH7
BH11
1
2
2
3
Depth
(m)
1.5
3.0
4.0
2.0
SPT N
(blows)
7
8
23
8
Material
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
Biosolids
66
Allowable Bearing
Capacity (kPa)
Consistency
70
80
230
80
Firm
Firm
Very Stiff
Firm
6.2.2. Field Vane Shear Test Results

The field vane shear test was used to determine the shear strength of biosolids in the field.
This was done by measuring the torque required to cause a vane blade to shear the biosolids at
various depths. The vane shear device consists of four thin metal blades welded orthogonally
(900) to a rod. The vane is pushed to the desired depth and a torque is applied at a constant
rate (approximately 60 per minute) by a torque head device. Rotation is continued until the
material is sheared and a maximum torque value has been reached. From the test results, the
undrained shear strength, sensitivity and consistency of the biosolids was determined. The
term sensitivity is defined as the ratio between peak and residual shear strength
Table 18 summaries the field vane shear peak and residual strengths and the consistency of
the biosolids. Field vane shear test results are also presented in the borehole logs in Appendix
A. The field vane shear tests results indicate that the undrained shear strength of biosolids
generally increases with the depth of stockpile. Consistency of the biosolids can be classified
as very stiff to hard. The sensitivity of the biosolids was found to vary between 2.3 to 6.8.
Table 18. Summary of field vane shear test results
Borehole
No.
Stockpile
No.
Depth
BH2
BH4
BH6
BH8
BH10
BH12
1.0m
2.0m
3.0m
4.0m
1.1m
2.1m
3.1m
4.1m
1.0m
2.0m
3.0m
4.0m
1.0m
2.0m
3.0m
4.0m
1.0m
2.0m
3.0m
4.0m
1.0m
2.0m
3.0m
4.0m
Peak Shear
strength
(kN/m2)
190
113
224
222
174
206
157
222
49
143
209
97
127
190
193
141
78
209
224
128
49
89
151
222
Residual Shear
strength
(kN/m2)
49
76
33
48
49
54
21
21
48
30
29
36
51
35
17
48
65
33
17
22
36
63
67
Sensitivity
Consistency
2.31
2.92
5.27
4.29
3.20
4.11
2.33
6.80
4.35
3.23
4.38
5.27
3.78
4.02
4.59
4.35
3.44
3.88
2.88
4.04
4.19
3.52
Very Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Hard
Very Stiff
Hard
Very Stiff
Hard
Firm
Very Stiff
Hard
Stiff
Very Stiff
Very Stiff
Very Stiff
Very Stiff
Stiff
Hard
Hard
Very Stiff
Firm
Firm
Very Stiff
Hard
6.2.3. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results

The dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) is an instrument designed to determine the penetration
resistance of a soil to the penetration of a steel cone (30 degree angle and 20 mm diameter)
driven with a 9 kg mass dropped a height of 510 mm (Figure 24). The number of blows per
graduation interval (100 mm) is counted and this is defined as the DCP value or the
penetration resistance. DCP values were used to determine the in-situ California bearing ratio
(CBR) and allowable bearing capacity of the biosolids.
Dynamic cone penetrometer tests results are summarised in Table 19. The table indicates the
approximate California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and allowable bearing capacity values based on
the DCP blows counts. The detailed analysis of the DCP test results is summarised in
Appendix B. The DCP test results obtained from stockpiles 1 and 2 indicate that the biosolids
is firm to very stiff at depths from 0 to 0.5 m. Below the depth of 0.5 m, the biosolids are
found to be stiff to hard. The DCP test results obtained from Stockpile 3 indicate that the
biosolids is firm to stiff at depths from 0 to 0.5 m. Below the depth of 0.5 m, the biosolids are
found to be stiff to very stiff.
Figure 24. Layout diagram of dynamic cone penetrometer (Australian Standards, AS1289).
68
Table 19. Summary of dynamic cone penetrometer test results

Stockpile
No.
1
DCP No.
DCP1
DCP2
DCP 3
DCP 4
DCP 5
DCP 6
DCP 7
DCP 8
DCP 9
DCP 10
DCP 11
DCP 12
Depth (m)
CBR
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.9
0.9 1.6
29
14 17
17 25
29
14 17
14 17
26
6 14
14 17
2 11
6 17
9 17
2 11
69
9 17
29
9
9 17
29
6 11
6 11
29
6 11
11 17
24
24
2 11
24
46
4 11
29
69
6 11
26
4 11
9 19
69
Allowable Bearing
Capacity (kN/m2)
46 183
275 320
320 458
46 183
275 320
275 320
46 137
137 275
275 320
46 229
137 320
183 458
46 229
137 183
183 320
46 183
183
183 320
46 183
137 229
137 229
46 183
137 229
229 320
46 92
46 92
46 229
46 92
92 137
92 229
46 183
137 183
137 229
46 137
92 183
183 366
Consistency
Firm Very Stiff
Very Stiff Hard
Hard
Firm Very Stiff
Very Stiff Hard
Very Stiff Hard
Firm Stiff
Stiff Very Stiff
Very Stiff Hard
Firm Very Stiff
Stiff Hard
Very Stiff Hard
Firm Very Stiff
Stiff Very Stiff
Very Stiff Hard
Firm Very Stiff
Very Stiff
Very Stiff Hard
Firm Very Stiff
Stiff Very Stiff
Stiff Very Stiff
Firm Very Stiff
Stiff Very Stiff
Very Stiff Hard
Firm Stiff
Stiff Stiff
Firm Very Stiff
Firm Stiff
Stiff
Stiff Very Stiff
Firm Very Stiff
Stiff Very Stiff
Stiff Very Stiff
Firm Stiff
Stiff Very Stiff
Very Stiff Hard
6.3
Conclusions: Field Works
This chapter is based on field testing and sampling works which were undertaken by Connell
Wagner for Swinburne University at the Western Treatment Plant in Werribee. This phase
describes the collection of biosolids with 100 mm diameter tube samples from the field with
the use of drilling rigs as well as bulk sample collection. This chapter also presents the field
testing results and presents the results obtained from field vane shear tests, standard
penetration tests and dynamic cone penetrometer tests. The height of the three biosolids
stockpiles at the site ranges between 5.0 m to 5.2 m.
The standard penetration test (SPT) results indicated that the estimated allowable bearing
capacity of the biosolids in the stockpiles was found to vary between 70 to 80 kPa at a depth
of 1.5 m to 3.0 m in boreholes BH3 (Stockpile 1), BH5 (Stockpile 2) and BH11 (Stockpile 3).
The allowable bearing capacity of the biosolids in borehole BH7 (Stockpile 2) at depth of 4.0
m was found to be 230 kPa. The standard penetration test results indicate that the consistency
of the biosolids in all the stockpiles is firm to very stiff.
The field vane shear test results indicate that the consistency of the biosolids is very stiff to
hard. The undrained shear strength of biosolids was found to generally increase with the
depth.
In general, the estimated California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values from dynamic cone
penetrometer tests increases with the depth of the biosolids stockpile. The CBR results
indicate that the consistency of the biosolids in the stockpiles is firm to hard.
It is noted that the various field testing methods consistently indicate that the biosolids at the
stockpiles are firm to hard. The slight variability between the various field testing methods is
expected due to the various assumptions and empirical equations used in each test methods.
The next chapter of this project is the laboratory testing phase which will accurately confirm
the geotechnical engineering characteristics of the untreated biosolids as well as determine the
engineering characteristics of biosolids when treated with additives.
70
LABORATORY TESTING
7.1
Overview of Laboratory Testing
Geotechnical laboratory tests were subsequently carried out to determine the geotechnical
characteristics of biosolids and these results are presented in this report. The geotechnical
laboratory tests were conducted at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.
Information on the geotechnical characteristics of biosolids is essential to evaluate the
suitability of biosolids as stabilised embankment fill material. The moisture-density
relationships, shear strength, consolidation properties, permeability properties and California
bearing ratio (CBR) of biosolids needs to be verified to assess the suitability of biosolids
stabilised fill material. Other physical properties of biosolids such as grain size distribution
and atterberg limits are needed to characterise the biosolids. This report presents the results of
geotechnical laboratory testing of untreated and stabilised biosolids.
Table 20 presents the number of geotechnical laboratory tests carried out for the project.
Table 20 : Numbers of laboratory tests undertaken

Numbers of tests
completed
Numbers of
tests proposed
Moisture content test
60
60
Particle size analysis
42
30
Atterberg limit test
30
30
Standard compaction test with and without admixture
51
50
One dimensional consolidation test
20
20
Creep consolidation test
Rowe consolidation test
Triaxial test - Consolidated Drained
10
10
Triaxial test - Unconsolidated Undrained
California bearing ratio (CBR) test with and without admixture
51
50
Falling head permeability test
20
20
Test
71
7.2
Existing Specifications for Engineering Fill
Fill material should be capable of being spread and compacted and should have adequate
shear strength and bearing capacity to carry traffic loads. The VicRoads specifications for
earthworks (VicRoads, 2006), defines three types of engineered fill material: Type A, Type B
and Type C. The scope of this project is to investigate the usage of untreated and stabilised
biosolids as a Type B fill material. Type C fill material is a lesser quality material which does
not meet the requirements of Type A and Type B.
7.2.1. Type A Material

Type A fill material should be spread and compacted in layers not exceeding a compacted
thickness of 200 mm. It should be a superior quality material and should be free of topsoil,
deleterious and /or perishable matter. The requirements for Type A fill material as specified
by VicRoads is presented in Table 21.
Table 21 : Engineering requirement for Type A fill material
Engineering properties
Unit
VicRoads requirements
(Deer Park Bypass)
CBR (min)
Swell (max)
1.0 2.5
Permeability(max)
m/s
5 x 10-7
75 mm
100
4.75 mm
40 80
0.075 mm
10 - 40
Plasticity Index x percentage passing 0.425 mm Post Compaction
1000
Plasticity Index post compaction
6 - 25
Limits of Grading (% passing)

Post Compaction Sieve Size AS (mm)
72
7.2.2. Type B Material

This project will investigate the usage of untreated and stabilised biosolids as a Type B fill
material. Type B fill material is a lesser quality material than fill material Type A. Type B fill
material shall have a minimum assigned CBR of 2 to 5 % and should be free of topsoil,
deleterious and /or perishable matter. The particle dimension is to be not more than 150 mm
within 400mm of subgrade level after compaction. The requirements for Type B fill material
as specified by VicRoads is presented in Table 22.
Table 22 : Engineering requirement for Type B fill material

Engineering properties
Unit
CBR (min)
VicRoads requirements
(Deer Park Bypass)
2
There is no further VicRoads requirements specified for Type B fill materials apart from that
detailed in Table 3. However, considerable geotechnical tests have been undertaken by
Swinburne to determine in detail the geotechnical characteristics of biosolids. Furthermore
advanced geotechnical tests such as triaxial tests, consolidation tests and Rowe cell tests have
been undertaken to obtain input parameters for the finite element models that will be
developed in the next stage of the project.
73
7.3
Stabilisation of Biosolids with Additives
Various percentages of additives being lime, cement, bauxsol and crushed brick were added
by weight to the biosolids to improve the biosolids strength properties.
7.3.1. Lime
1%, 3% and 5% of lime were used to stabilise the biosolids in this project. Hydrated lime was
used in this project which is principally calcium hydroxide (85-95%). It is a strong alkali,
derived from limestone by expelling carbon dioxide and hydrating the resulting quicklime
with water. This material is then stabilised by a mechanical separation process to remove
impurities. The resulting clean white powder (hydrated lime) is used in a large numbers of
industrial, agricultural and construction applications (National Lime Association, 2007).
Lime can be used for chemically transforming unstable soils into a structurally sound
construction foundation. Lime is particularly important in road construction for modifying
and improving the engineering properties of subgrade soils, subbase materials, and base
materials to improve engineering characteristics of biosolids (Austroads, 1998).
Lime stabilization creates a number of important engineering properties in soil, including
improved strength, improved resistance to fracture, fatigue, permanent deformation, improved
resilient modulus properties, reduced swelling and resistance to the damaging effects of
moisture (Little, 1999). The curing period of 24 hours is often implemented prior to
laboratory testing of lime stabilized materials.
7.3.2. Cement
1%, 3% and 5% of cement were used to stabilise the biosolids in this project. Portland cement
is composed of calcium-silicates and calcium-aluminates that, when combined with water,
hydrate to form the cementing compounds of calcium-silicate-hydrate and calcium-aluminatehydrate, as well as excess calcium hydroxide. Because of the cementitious material, Portland
cement may be used successfully in stabilizing both granular and fine-grained soils, as well as
aggregates (Herzog, 1963).
74
A pozzolanic reaction between the calcium hydroxide released during hydration and soil
alumina and soil silica occurs in fine-grained clay soils and is an important aspect of the
stabilization of these soils. The permeability of cement stabilized material is greatly reduced
as compared to untreated material. The result is a moisture-resistant material that is highly
durable and resistant to leaching over the long term. Portland cement can be used either to
improve and modify the quality of soil or to transform the soil into a cemented mass, which
significantly increases its strength and durability (Austroads, 1998).
7.3.3. Bauxsol
1%, 3% and 5% of Bauxsol were used to stabilise the biosolids in this project. Bauxsol is an
inert stabilised by-product of the aluminium industry and is a carefully modified residue from
alumina refineries, also known as red mud. The first application of this product was to treat
contaminated acid mine water to convert it to drinking water standards or better. Subsequently
it was experimentally added to soil for agricultural and construction purposes (Maddocks et
al., 2004). Figure 25 illustrates the sieving process to attain the uniform consistency of
bauxsol material for several applications.
Figure 25: Sieving process to get a uniform consistency of bauxsol,

(Department of Environmental Protection, 2008)
75
7.3.4. Crushed Brick

30%, 40% and 50% of crushed brick were used to stabilise the biosolids in this project.
Crushed brick material is commonly obtained from construction and demolition (C&D)
activities. Construction wastes are produced during different phases of construction such as
transportation, stocking or working. Crushed brick main characteristics are heterogeneous.
Demolition waste materials arise from demolition activities and are generally homogeneous
by nature.
Crushed brick for this project was collected from an Alex Fraser Recycling site which is
located at Laverton North, approximately 20 km west of Melbourne. Crushed brick from the
Alex Fraser Recycling site typically comprises approximately 70% brick and 30% other
materials such as asphalt, concrete and rock. The samples collected comprised aggregates up
to 20 mm in size. Figure 26 shows the crushed brick (20 mm) stockpiles at Alex Fraser
Recycling, Laverton.
Figure 26: Crushed brick (20 mm) stock pile - Alex Fraser Recycling, Laverton
76
7.4
Laboratory Testing Methodology
The following geotechnical tests were performed on untreated and stabilised biosolids
samples to determine their geotechnical engineering characteristics. Laboratory tests were
performed according to the Australian Standards (AS) methods of testing soils for engineering
purposes. The triaxial tests were undertaken in accordance to American Society for Testing
and Material (ASTM).
7.4.1. Moisture content

The moisture content (or water content) is the ratio of the mass of water to the mass of the
biosolids sample. The moisture of the biosolids was determined using AS 1289.2.1.1,
Determination of the moisture content of a soils Oven dried method. This parameter is of
interest for the geotechnical characterisation of biosolids.
7.4.2. Specific gravity (Particle Density)

Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of solid particles to the density of water. Particle
density can be measured by using any other liquid such as kerosene for soluble solid material.
Kerosene was used to determine the specific gravity of biosolids, because it was identified as
a partly soluble material in water. The specific gravity (particle density) of biosolids was
measured using AS 1289.3.5.1, Determination of the particle density of a soil Standard
method. The specific gravity of inorganic soil generally varies from 2.5 to 2.7. Organic soils
generally possess lower specific gravity values as compared to inorganic soils.
7.4.3. Particle size analysis)

Particle size analysis consists of sieve and hydrometer analysis. Sieve analysis was used to
determine the distribution of coarse fraction (>0.075mm) of biosolids and hydrometer
analysis was performed to determine the distribution of fine fraction (<0.075mm) of biosolids.
The coarse and fine fractions of biosolids were determined from particle size distribution
curves.
77
Sieve analysis was performed using AS 1289.3.6.1, Determination of the particle size
distribution of soil Standard method of analysis by sieving and hydrometer analysis was
carried out using AS 1289.3.6.3, Determination of the particle size distribution of a soil
Standard method of fine analysis using a hydrometer.
7.4.4. Atterberg limit test

Atterberg limits are used to define the consistency of soil and it comprises of liquid limit (LL)
and plastic limit (PL). Liquid limit is defined as the threshold water content at which soil
changes from the plastic state to the liquid state. Plastic limit is defined as the threshold water
content at which a soil changes from the semi plastic state to the plastic state. Plasticity index
(PI) is the difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit.
Liquid limit was determined using AS 1289.3.1.1, Determination of the liquid limit of a soil
Four point Casagrande method. Plastic limit was determined using AS 1289.3.2.1,
Determination of plastic limit of a soil Standard method and Plastic index was calculated
using AS 1289.3.3.1, Calculation of the plasticity index of a soil.
7.4.5. Standard compaction test

Compaction refers to the removal of air voids from material by the application of mechanical
energy. Basically there are two types of compaction methods available in engineering
practices which are the standard and modified compaction. The compaction method is
selected according to the engineering application of the material. The standard compaction
method was selected to compact the biosolids material as per the VicRoads requirement for
Type B fill.
The optimum moisture content (OMC) is the moisture content at which maximum dry density
(MDD) will develop and this can be determined from compaction tests. The OMC and MDD
are used to express compaction criteria for a material. Moisturedensity relationships for
biosolids were determined using standard proctor testing procedure in accordance with AS
1289.5.1.1, Determination of the dry density/moisture content relation of a soil Standard
compaction effort.
78
7.4.6. Consolidation test

Consolidation parameters are required to estimate the settlement of embankments. The rate of
settlement of soils depends on the rate of dissipation of pore water pressure created by the
increased loading. One dimensional consolidation and Rowe consolidation tests were
undertaken to evaluate the consolidation properties of the biosolids.
One dimensional consolidation characteristics of biosolids were determined using AS
1289.6.6.1, Determination of one dimensional consolidation properties of a soil Standard
method. Rowe consolidation tests were performed using AS 1289.6.6.1, Determination of
one dimensional consolidation properties of a soil Standard method and BS 1377: Part 6,
Consolidation and permeability tests in hydraulic cell and with pore pressure measurement.
7.4.7. Triaxial test

Shear strength of biosolids is an important engineering properties used in the design of
bearing capacity, slope stability and pavement design. Shear strength can be defined as the
ultimate or maximum shear stress a soil can withstand. Shear strength is dependent on the
applied
consolidation
and
drainage
conditions.
Consolidated-Drained
(CD)
and
Unconsolidated-Undrained (UU) triaxial compression tests were conducted to determine the

shear strength of biosolids.
Consolidated-Drained (CD) triaxial compression tests were carried out in accordance with
ASTM D 4767, Standard test method for consolidated-drained triaxial compression test on
cohesive soil. Unconsolidated-Undrained (UU) triaxial compression tests were carried out in
accordance with ASTM D 2850, Standard test method for unconsolidated-undrained triaxial
compression test on cohesive soil.
7.4.8. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of biosolids was determined using AS 1289.6.1.1,
Determination of the California Bearing Ratio of a soil standard laboratory method for a
remoulded specimen. CBR values are useful to evaluate the suitability of biosolids as
79
engineered fill material. The samples were prepared at the optimum moisture content which
was obtained from the standard compaction test. Standard compaction effort was applied to
the sample to measure the suitability of biosolids as fill material in accordance with the
VicRoads specification.
7.4.9. Permeability test

Permeability of the construction material is an important characteristic in embankment and
road construction. Permeability of biosolids was measured from falling head permeability
tests in accordance to AS 1289.6.7.2, Soil strength and consolidation test Determination of
the permeability of soil Falling head method for remoulded specimen. The samples were
prepared at the optimum moisture content which was obtained from the standard compaction
test.
80
7.5
Engineering Properties of Untreated Biosolids
Laboratory tests were carried out on the bulk biosolids collected at 3 stockpiles in the
Biosolids Stockpile Area at the Western Treatment Plant in Victoria. Table 23 summarises the
engineering properties of untreated biosolids
Table 23 : Summary of engineering properties of untreated biosolids

Geotechnical Characteristics
Unit
Natural Moisture Content
Atterberg
Limit
CBR
Laboratory
Vane Shear
Consolidation
- Rowe Cell
Triaxial
Compression
Falling Head
Permeability
47.6
58.6
49.2
53.5
1.79
56.6
1.76
46.8
1.75
2.0mm to 0.06mm (sand)
58
44
54
50
58
46
0.06mm to 0.002mm (silt)
34
51
40
46
34
51
<0.002mm (clay)
Liquid Limit
100
104
110
Plastic Limit
79
80
83
Plasticity Index
%
t/m3
Maximum Dry Density
21
24
27
Standard
Standard
Standard
0.84
0.86
0.84
0.83
0.87
0.83
Optimum Moisture Content
56
54
51
55
48
52
CBR Swell*
0.36
0.47
0.56
0.43
0.30
0.73
CBR Value
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
Vane Shear Strength

Remoulded Vane Shear
Strength
e0
Coefficient of Consolidation
Consolidation
- Oedometer
Stockpile 3
60.0mm to 2.0mm (gravel)
Type of Compaction effort

Compaction
Stockpile 2
t/m3
Particle density of biosolids

Particle Size
Analysis
Stockpile 1
N.O
N.O
N.O
N.O
N.O
N.O
0.911
0.865
1.048
0.5
0.5
kN/m
kN/m
m2/year
Coefficient of Permeability
m/s
Preconsolidation Pressure
kN/m2
10.1x 10
-11
0.4
8.8 x 10
-11
4.2 x 10-11
190
195
210
Compression Index
0.625
0.563
0.640
Recompression Index
0.044
0.038
0.045
200
100
110
kN/m2
Type of Test
UU
CD
UU
CD
Cohesion
kN/m
24
25
Phi Angle
Degree
9.0
18.2
10.0
10.2
Permeability
m/s
* - CBR swell after load applied at the end of soak period

N.O - Not Obtainable
UU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial test
CD Consolidated Drained Triaxial test
81
1.60 x 10-7
1.24 x 10-7
UU
CD
24
10.0
16.8
1.31 x 10-7
7.5.1. Index properties

Figure 27 shows a plot of the Atterberg limits of biosolids samples at the three stockpiles on
the Plasticity Chart. Atterberg limit tests conducted on air-dried biosolids indicated Liquid
Limits (LL) ranging between 100 and 110 and Plasticity Index (PI) ranging between 21 and
27. Figure 27 indicates that the biosolids can be classified as organic fine-grained soil of
medium to high plasticity OH based on Australian standard for geotechnical site
investigation (AS1276, 1993).
Figure 27: Plasticity chart for biosolids samples
Figure 28 shows a combined grained-size distribution plot for the biosolids at the three
biosolids stockpiles. The biosolids samples in the three stockpiles contain 2% to 4% of gravel
sized particles; 44% to 58% sand sized particles; 34% to 51% silt sized particles and 1% to
4% clay sized particles respectively.
82
100.0
90.0
Stockpile 1- Sample 1
Persentage Passing (%)
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
Clay
0.1
Silt
Sand
0.002
0.06
10
100
Gravel
Cobbles & Boulders
1000
60
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 28: Particle size distributions of biosolids samples
7.5.2. Standard compaction test results

Figure 29 shows the variation of biosolids with the moisture content when standard
compaction effort was applied to the biosolids sample. The maximum dry density (MDD)
varies between 0.83 t/m3 to 0.87 t/m3 and the optimum moisture content (OMC) ranges
between 48% and 56%.
0.90
Stockpile 1-Sample 1
0.85
Dry Density (t/m )
0.80
0.75
0.70
40
45
50
55
Moisture Content (%)
60
65
70
Figure 29: Variation of dry density of untreated biosolids with moisture content
83
7.5.3. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results

CBR test for untreated biosolids were conducted on two samples in each stockpile. Figure 30
summaries the CBR results for the untreated biosolids. CBR values of untreated biosolids
varied from 0.8 to 1.1 %. The swell value of the untreated biosolids varies between 0.3 to
0.73.
From the results in Figure 30, it is apparent that untreated biosolids does not satisfy the
VicRoads minimum requirement of 2% CBR for Type B fill material.
2.5
CBR value (%)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
2
Stockpile Number
Figure 30: CBR results of untreated biosolids
Figure 31 shows the CBR swell results after 4 days for untreated biosolids in three stockpiles.
The swell value of untreated biosolids varied from 0.30% to 0.73% for biosolids sample from
all 3 biosolids stockpiles.
84
0.80
0.70
0.60
Swell (%)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
Stockpile Number
Figure 31: Swell results after 4 days for untreated biosolids
85
7.5.4. Triaxial (Consolidated Drained) test results

Figure 32 presents the Mohr coulomb circle for consolidated drained triaxial test on the
compacted untreated biosolids in stockpile 1. From the consolidated drained triaxial test of the
compacted untreated biosolids, the effective friction angle was 18.2 degrees while the
effective cohesion was 0 kPa.
Figure 32: Consolidated drained triaxial test results for biosolids in stockpile 1
86
87
7.5.5. Triaxial (Unconsolidated Undrained) test results

Unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial test were performed on untreated biosolids after
standard compaction. Table 24 summarises the unconsolidated undrained triaxial test results
for the untreated biosolids after compaction. The cohesion results for the untreated biosolids
varied between 24-25 kPa while the friction angle varied between 9 and 10 degrees.
Table 24 : Summary of Unconsolidated Undrained triaxial test results of untreated biosolids

Stockpile
Stockpile 1
Stockpile 2
Stockpile 3
Cohesion (kN/m2)
24
25
24
Friction Angle (Degree)
9.0
10.0
10.0
88
7.5.6. One dimensional consolidation test results

Figure 35 presents the behaviour of the void ratio with the vertical stress of untreated
biosolids samples from the one dimensional consolidation test. Standard compaction effort
was applied to the untreated samples prior to commencing the consolidation test. Preconsolidation pressures of between 190 kN/m2 to 210 kN/m2 were obtained from stockpiles 1,
2 and 3.
1.10
Stockpile 1
1.00
Stockpile 2
0.90
Stockpile 3
0.80
Void Ratio (e)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
10
100
Vertical Stress (kN/m2)
Figure 35: Variation of void ratio with vertical stress for biosolids in stockpiles 1, 2 and 3
89
1000
7.5.7. Rowe Cell consolidation test results

Figure 36 presents the behaviour of the displacement with the vertical stress of untreated
biosolids samples in stockpile 1 from the Rowe Cell consolidation test. Standard compaction
effort was applied to the untreated samples prior to commencing the consolidation test. A preconsolidation pressure of 200 kN/m2 was obtained from the untreated biosolids in stockpile 1.
Figure 36: Rowe Cell test result for biosolids in stockpile 1
biosolids samples in stockpile 2 from the Rowe consolidation test. Standard compaction effort
was applied to the untreated samples prior to commencing the consolidation test. A preconsolidation pressure of 100 kN/m2 was obtained from the untreated biosolids in stockpile 2.
90
Figure 37: Rowe Cell test results for biosolids in stockpile 2

biosolids samples in stockpile 3 from the Rowe consolidation test. Standard compaction effort
was applied to the untreated samples prior to commencing the consolidation test. A preconsolidation pressure of 110 kN/m2 was obtained from the untreated biosolids in stockpile 3.
Figure 38: Rowe Cell test results for biosolids in stockpile 3

91
7.5.8. Permeability test results

Falling head permeability test results indicated that there was little variation in the
permeability of the untreated biosolids. Standard compaction effort was applied to untreated
biosolids before commencing the permeability tests. The coefficient of permeability of
untreated biosolids is presented in Table 25 and ranges between 1.24 x 10-7 m/s to 1.60 x 10-7
m/s.
Table 25 : Falling head permeability of untreated biosolids

Stockpile
Coefficient of Permeability (m/s)
Stockpile 1
Stockpile 2
Stockpile 3
-7
-7
1.31 x 10-7
1.60 x 10
92
1.24 x 10
7.6
Engineering Properties of Biosolids Stabilised with Lime
Table 26 to 29 summaries the engineering properties of biosolids stabilised with 1%, 3% and
5% lime respectively.
Table 26 : Summary of engineering properties of biosolids stabilised with 1% lime

Unit
Stockpile 1
Stockpile 2
Stockpile 3
47.9
42.7
49.5
51.0
37.5
44.9
56
45
53
46
56
48
38
51
40
48
39
46
<0.002mm (clay)
Liquid Limit
Moisture Content
Particle Size
Analysis
Atterberg Limit
CBR
92
94
Plastic Limit
75
71
75
Plasticity Index
13
21
19
Standard
Standard
Standard

Compaction
88
Maximum Dry Density
t/m
0.91
0.89
0.88
0.89
43
41
40
40
CBR Swell*
0.84
0.31
0.45
0.54
CBR Value
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.3
93

Unit
Stockpile 1
Stockpile 2
Stockpile 3
45.4
40.5
45.0
47.3
35.3
41.7
55
45
52
46
55
48
39
51
41
48
40
46
Moisture Content
Particle Size
Analysis
Atterberg Limit
<0.002mm (clay)
Liquid Limit
82
83
80
Plastic Limit
70
64
60
Plasticity Index
12
19
20
Standard
Standard
Standard

Compaction
CBR
Maximum Dry Density
t/m
0.93
41
42
38
CBR Swell*
0.14
0.56
0.52
0.95
CBR Value
1.6
1.4
1.7
0.808
m2/year
m/s
kN/m2
Recompression Index
Falling Head
Permeability
0.90
42
Compression Index
Triaxial
Compression
0.92
Consolidation
- Rowe Cell
0.93
e0
Consolidation
- Oedometer
kN/m
Type of Test
0.863
0.4
5.4 x 10
0.3
-11
2.8 x 10
1.7
0.909
0.2
-11
2.9 x 10-11
200
250
280
0.513
0.522
0.537
0.031
0.034
0.040
120
kN/m2
CD
0
Cohesion
Phi Angle
Degree
44.5
1.23 x 10-7
1.21 x 10-7
1.34 x 10-7
Permeability
m/s

94

Unit
Stockpile 1
Stockpile 2
Stockpile 3
45.4
41.6
43.1
48.4
32.3
42.0
54
44
49
46
54
48
40
52
44
48
40
46
<0.002mm (clay)
Liquid Limit
76
80
77
Plastic Limit
60
67
61
Plasticity Index
Moisture Content
Particle Size
Analysis
Atterberg Limit

Compaction
CBR
t/m3
Maximum Dry Density
Falling Head
Permeability
16
Standard
0.91
0.90
0.89
0.90
40
42
39
41
CBR Swell*
0.46
0.52
0.17
0.35
CBR Value
4.2
3.3
4.0
4.7
0.853
0.872
Triaxial
Compression
13
Standard
e0
Consolidation
- Oedometer
16
Standard
m /year
m/s
kN/m2
0.7
7.0 x 10
0.699
0.2
-11
2.2 x 10
0.3
-11
4.1 x 10-11
250
300
300
Compression Index
0.475
0.458
0.467
Recompression Index
0.027
0.024
0.029
CD
0
45.4
1.13 x 10-7
1.36 x 10-7
1.27 x 10-7
Type of Test
2
Cohesion
kN/m
Phi Angle
Degree
Permeability
m/s

95

Moisture content tests were undertaken on samples of biosolids stabilised with 1%, 3%, and
5% of lime. The results as shown in Figure 39 indicate variation in moisture content between
biosolids stabilised with lime and the untreated biosolids. Moisture content was noted to
decrease with increasing percentages of lime.
70
60
50
40
30
Untreated biosolids
20
Stablised biosolids with 1%Lime

10

0
0
Percentage of lime added to biosolids (%)
Figure 39: Moisture content variation with percentage of lime added to biosolids
Liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic index tests were undertaken on the biosolids stabilised
with various percentages of lime. Figure 40 to 43 presents the Atterberg limits results of
biosolids from stockpiles 1 to 3 after stabilisation with 1%, 3% and 5% of lime as compared
to untreated biosolids. It was noted that the liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic index in all
three stockpiles generally appeared to decrease with the addition of increasing amounts of
lime.
96
120
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
100
Plastic Index
Moisture content (%)
80
60
40
20
0
0
120
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
100
Plastic Index
80
60
40
20
0
0
97
120
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
100
Plastic Index
80
60
40
20
0
0
Figure 43 to 46 shows a combined grained-size distribution plot for the untreated and
stabilised biosolids with lime in stockpile 1, stockpile 2 and stockpile 3 respectively. All three
figures indicate that there are only small changes in the percentage of sand and silt particles
when lime added to the biosolids.
The biosolids samples stabilised with 1% lime contain 4% to 6% of gravel sized particles;
45% to 56% sand sized particles; 38% to 51% silt sized particles and up to 2% clay sized
particles respectively. The biosolids samples stabilised with 3% lime contain 4% to 6% of
gravel sized particles; 45% to 55% sand sized particles; 39% to 51% silt sized particles and up
to 2% clay sized particles respectively. The biosolids samples stabilised with 5% lime contain
4% to 6% of gravel sized particles; 44% to 54% sand sized particles; 40% to 52% silt sized
particles and up to 2% clay sized particles respectively.
98
100
90
80
Percentage Passing (%)
70
60
50
40
Sample 1- 0% Lime
Sample 2- 0% Lime
Sample 1- 1% Lime
Sample 2- 1% Lime
Sample 1- 3% Lime
Sample 2- 3% Lime
Sample 1- 5% Lime
Sample 2- 5% Lime
30
20
10
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
Clay
0.1
Silt
0.002
10
Sand
100
Gravel
0.06
1000
Cobbles & Boulders
60
Particle Size (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Sample 1- 0% Lime
Sample 2- 0% Lime
30
Sample 1- 1% Lime
Sample 2- 1% Lime
20
Sample 1- 3% Lime
Sample 2- 3% Lime
Sample 1- 5% Lime
Sample 2- 5% Lime
10
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
Clay
0.1
Silt
0.002
10
Sand
0.06
100
Gravel
1000
Cobbles & Boulders
60
Particle Size (mm)
99
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Sample 1- 0% Lime
Sample 2- 0% Lime
Sample 1- 1% Lime
Sample 2- 1% Lime
Sample 1- 3% Lime
Sample 2- 3% Lime
Sample 1- 5% Lime
Sample 2- 5% Lime
30
20
10
0
0.0001
0.001
Clay
0.01
0.1
Silt
0.002
10
Sand
0.06
100
Gravel
1000
Cobbles & Boulders
60
Particle Size (mm)
7.6.2. Standard compation test results

The Maximum Dry Density (MDD) and Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) results was
obtained from the standard compaction test results of biosolids stabilised with 1%, 3% and
5% of lime.
Figure 46 presents the maximum dry density of biosolids stabilised with various percentages
of lime as compared to untreated biosolids. The maximum dry density of stabilised biosolids
varied from 0.88t/m3 to 0.91t/m3 with the addition of 1% of lime; 0.90t/m3 to 0.93t/m3 with
the addition of 3% of lime and between 0.89t/m3 to 0.91t/m3 with the addition of 5% of lime.
In general, increasing the proportion of lime had little effect on the maximum dry density of
the biosolids.
Figure 47 shows the optimum moisture content of biosolids stabilised with various
percentages of lime as compared to untreated biosolids. The optimum moisture content of
stabilised biosolids was 40% to 43% with 1% of lime; 38% to 42% with 3% of lime and 39%
to 42% with 5% of lime. The addition of lime had decreases the optimum moisture content of
the biosolids as compared with the untreated biosolids.
100
1.00
Maximum Dry Density (t/m 3)
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0%Lime
1%Lime
0.75
3%Lime
5%Lime
0.70
0
Figure 46: Variation of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) with percentage of lime
70
60
50
40
30
0%Lime
1%Lime
20
3%Lime
5%Lime
10
0
Figure 47: Variation of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) with percentage of lime
101

Figure 48 presents the CBR results for biosolids stabilised with 1%, 3% and 5% of lime as
compared to untreated biosolids. The CBR value of stabilised biosolids varies from 1.2% to
1.6% with the addition of 1% of lime; 1.4% to 1.7% with the addition of 3% of lime and 3.3%
and 4.7% with the addition of 5% of lime. In general, the stabilisation of biosolids with lime
increases the CBR value of biosolids.
From the results in Figure 48, it is apparent that biosolids stabilised with 5% lime satisfies the
VicRoads minimum requirement of 2% CBR for Type B fill material
5.0
4.5
4.0
CBR Value (%)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0

0%Lime
1%Lime
3%Lime
5%Lime
VicRoads Requirement
Figure 48: CBR results of biosolids stabilised with lime
Figure 49 shows the CBR swell results after 4 days for biosolids stabilised with 1%, 3% and
5% of lime. The swell value of stabilised biosolids varied from 0.31% to 0.84% with the
addition of 1% of lime; 0.14% to 0.95% with the addition of 3% of lime and 0.17% and
0.52% with the addition of 5% of lime. It was noted that there was minimal difference in the
swell properties of untreated and stabilised biosolids.
102
1.45
1.25
1.05
Swell (%)
0.85
0.65
0.45
0.25
0.05
0
0%Lime
1%Lime
3%Lime
Figure 49: Swell results after 4 days for biosolids stabilised with lime
103
5%Lime

stabilised biosolids with 3% lime. From the consolidated drained triaxial test of the stabilised
biosolids with 3% lime, the effective friction angle was 45.4 degrees while the effective
cohesion was 0 kPa.
Figure 50: Consolidated drained triaxial test results for stabilised biosolids with 3% lime
stabilised biosolids with 5% lime. From the consolidated drained triaxial test of the stabilised
biosolids with 5% lime, the effective friction angle was 44.5 degrees while the effective
cohesion was 0 kPa.
Figure 51: Consolidated drained triaxial test results for stabilised biosolids with 5% lime
104

Figure 52 presents the behaviour of the void ratio with the vertical stress of biosolids
stabilised with 3% and 5% lime at stockpile 1 as compared to untreated biosolids from the one
dimensional consolidation test. Standard compaction effort was applied to the biosolids prior
to commencing the consolidation test. Pre-consolidation pressure for biosolids in stockpile 1
stabilised with 3% lime was 250 kN/m2 and 250 kN/m2 for biosolids stabilised with 5% lime.
1.0
0% Lime
3% Lime
0.9
5% Lime
Void Ratio (e)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
10
100
1000
Figure 52: Variation of void ratio with vertical stress for biosolids in stockpile 1
105
1.0
0% Lime
3% Lime
0.9
5% Lime
Void Ratio (e)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
10
100
1000
1.2
0% Lime
3% Lime
1.0
5% Lime
Void Ratio (e)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10
100
106
1000

Figure 55 presents the behaviour of the displacement with the vertical stress of stabilised
biosolids sample with 3% lime from the Rowe consolidation test. Standard compaction effort
was applied to the stabilised sample prior to commencing the consolidation test. A preconsolidation pressure of 120 kN/m2 was obtained for stabilised biosolids with 3% lime.
Figure 55: Rowe Cell test results for stabilised biosolids with 3% lime
107
7.6.7. Creep consolidation test results

The creep consolidation tests were conducted to determine the secondary compression index
for the finite element analysis. The long-term creep consolidation tests were undertaken by
applying each load increment for seven days (as compared to the traditional 1 day load
increment). The results from these creep consolidation test results were used as input
parameters in the finite element analysis of embankments using stabilised biosolids with 5%
lime.
Table 29 summarises the creep consolidation test results of biosolids stabilised with 5% lime
and also Figure 56 presents the variation of secondary consolidation (creep) with applied
stress for the biosolids stabilised with 5% lime.
Table 29 : Secondary consolidation (creep) values for biosolids stabilised with lime.
Secondary consolidation value- C (% of strain per log cycle)
Stabilised biosolids
Biosolids + 5% Lime
Applied vertical stress (kPa)

50
0.013
100
0.031
200
0.134
400
0.108
800
0.223
C (% of strain per log cycle)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
Figure 56 : Variation of secondary consolidation for biosolids stabilised with 5% lime
108
1000

Figure 57 presents the permeability of biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5% of lime compared
to untreated biosolids. Standard compaction effort was applied to the stabilised biosolids
before undertaken falling head permeability test. The permeability of untreated compacted
biosolids ranges between 1.24 x 10-7 m/s to 1.60 x 10-7 m/s. The permeability of stabilised
biosolids with 3% lime varied from 1.23 x 10-7 m/s to 1.34 x 10-7 m/s and the permeability of
stabilised biosolids with 5% lime varied from 1.13 x 10-7 m/s to 1.36 x 10-7 m/s. In general
there is little difference in the permeability value between biosolids stabilised with the
addition of 3% and 5% lime as compared to the untreated biosolids.
Permeability ( x10-7 m/s)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0

0%Lime
3%Lime
Figure 57: Permeability of stabilised biosolids with lime
109
5%Lime
7.7
Engineering Properties of Biosolids Stabilised with Cement
5% cement respectively.
Table 30 : Summary of engineering properties of biosolids stabilised with 1% cement

Unit
Stockpile 1
Stockpile 2
Stockpile 3
49.9
51.1
42.2
54.8
39.9
45.5
58
46
52
48
59
51
38
50
42
48
37
45
<0.002mm (clay)
Liquid Limit
97
95
89
Plastic Limit
78
73
71
Plasticity Index
Moisture Content
Particle Size
Analysis
Atterberg Limit

Compaction
CBR
t/m3
Maximum Dry Density
19
22
18
Standard
Standard
Standard
0.85
0.84
0.85
0.85
40
40
0.52
0.40
1.9
1.7
39
CBR Swell*
0.15
38
0.34
CBR Value
1.8
2.0
110

Unit
Moisture Content
Particle Size
Analysis
Atterberg Limit
CBR
48.4
44.3
39.7
48.7
36.2
38.9
56
44
51
48
54
47
35
51
42
47
40
46
<0.002mm (clay)
Liquid Limit
80
77
81
Plastic Limit
65
60
62
Plasticity Index
15
17
19
Standard
Standard
Standard
t/m3
Maximum Dry Density
Triaxial
Compression
Falling Head
Permeability
0.87
0.88
0.87
0.86
40
40
40
38
CBR Swell*
0.24
0.12
0.51
0.77
CBR Value
2.0
2.4
2.2
0.667
2.1
Consolidation
- Rowe Cell
Stockpile 3
e0
Consolidation
- Oedometer
Stockpile 2

Compaction
Stockpile 1
0.851
2
m /year
m/s
kN/m2
0.5
9.7 x 10
0.2
-11
4.7 x 10
0.638
0.5
-11
5.0 x 10-11
220
230
280
Compression Index
0.410
0.395
0.409
Recompression Index
0.029
0.022
0.032
180
kN/m2
Type of Test
CD
Cohesion
kN/m
Phi Angle
Degree
45.1
1.17 x 10-7
1.32 x 10-7
1.10 x 10-7
Permeability
m/s

111

Unit
Moisture Content
Particle Size
Analysis
Atterberg Limit
CBR
45.7
43.2
38.6
47.0
31.5
36.5
56
43
49
45
54
47
35
52
43
48
40
46
<0.002mm (clay)
Liquid Limit
74
82
75
Plastic Limit
60
65
60
Plasticity Index
14
17
15
Standard
Standard
0.87
0.88
0.87
0.88
t/m3
Maximum Dry Density
Falling Head
Permeability
Standard
37
40
37
36
CBR Swell*
0.59
1.29
0.52
0.28
CBR Value
4.1
4.6
3.8
4.5
0.789
0.809
Triaxial
Compression
Stockpile 3
e0
Consolidation
- Oedometer
Stockpile 2

Compaction
Stockpile 1
m /year
m/s
kN/m2
0.5
8.1 x 10
0.785
0.5
-11
4.9 x 10
0.4
-11
2.9 x 10-11
220
300
320
Compression Index
0.275
0.325
0.295
Recompression Index
0.021
0.028
0.025
Type of Test
CD
Cohesion
kN/m
Phi Angle
Degree
39.5
9.31 x 10-8
1.05 x 10-7
8.54 x 10-8
Permeability
m/s

112

5% of cement. The results as shown in Figure 58 indicate variation in moisture content
between biosolids stabilised with cement and the untreated biosolids. Moisture content was
noted to decrease with increasing percentages of cement.
70
60
50
40
30
20
Untreated biosolids
Stablised biosolids with 1%Cement
10
0
0
Percentage of cement added to biosolids (%)
Figure 58: Moisture content variation with percentage of cement added to biosolids
Liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic index tests were undertaken on biosolids stabilised with
various percentages of cement. Figure 59 to Figure 61 presents the atterberg limits results of
biosolids from stockpiles 1 to 3 after stabilisation with 1%, 3% and 5% of cement. It was
noted that the liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic index in all three stockpiles generally
decreased with the addition of increasing amounts of cement.
113
120
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
100
Plastic Index
80
60
40
20
0
0
Figure 59: Atterberg limits with percentage of cement added to biosolids in stockpile 1
120
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
100
Plastic Index
80
60
40
20
0
0
1
3
114
120
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
100
Plastic Index
80
60
40
20
0
0
1
3
Figure 62 to Figure 64 shows a combined grained-size distribution plot for the untreated and
stabilised biosolids with cement in stockpile 1, stockpile 2 and stockpile 3 respectively. All
three figures indicate that there are only little changes in the percentage of sand and silt
particles when cement added to the biosolids.
The biosolids samples stabilised with 1% cement contain 2% to 4% of gravel sized particles;
46% to 59% sand sized particles; 37% to 50% silt sized particles and up to 2% clay sized
particles respectively. The biosolids samples stabilised with 3% cement contain 2% to 6% of
gravel sized particles; 44% to 56% sand sized particles; 35% to 51% silt sized particles and
1% to 5% clay sized particles respectively. The biosolids samples stabilised with 5% cement
contain 4% to 5% of gravel sized particles; 43% to 56% sand sized particles; 35% to 52% silt
sized particles and 1% to 5% clay sized particles respectively.
115
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
Clay
0.1
Sample 2- 0% Cement
Sample 1- 1% Cement
Sample 2- 1% Cement
Sample 1- 3% Cement
Sample 2- 3% Cement
Sample 1- 5% Cement
Sample 2- 5% Cement
Silt
0.002
Sample 1- 0% Cement
10
Sand
100
Gravel
0.06
1000
Cobbles & Boulders
60
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 62: Particle size distribution of biosolids stabilised with cement in Stockpile 1
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
Clay
0.1
Silt
0.002
Sample 1- 0% Cement
Sample 2- 0% Cement
Sample 1- 1% Cement
Sample 2- 1% Cement
Sample 1- 3% Cement
Sample 2- 3% Cement
Sample 1- 5% Cement
Sample 2- 5% Cement
10
Sand
0.06
100
Gravel
1000
Cobbles & Boulders
60
Particle Size (mm)
116
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Sample 1- 0% Cement
Sample 2- 0% Cement
Sample 1- 1% Cement
Sample 2- 1% Cement
Sample 1- 3% Cement
Sample 2- 3% Cement
Sample 1- 5% Cement
Sample 2- 5% Cement
20
10
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
Clay
0.1
Silt
0.002
10
Sand
0.06
100
Gravel
1000
Cobbles & Boulders
60
Particle Size (mm)

5% of cement.
of cement as compared to untreated biosolids. The maximum dry density of stabilised
biosolids varied from 0.84t/m3 to 0.85t/m3 with the addition of 1% of cement, 0.86t/m3 to
0.88t/m3 with the addition of 3% of cement and between 0.87t/m3 to 0.88t/m3 with the
addition of 5% of cement. In general, increasing the proportion of cement had little effect on
the maximum dry density of the biosolids.
Figure 66 presents the optimum moisture content of biosolids stabilised with various
percentages of cement as compared to untreated biosolids. The optimum moisture content of
stabilised biosolids was 38% to 40% with 1 % of cement; 38% to 40% with 3 % of cement
117
and 37% to 40% with 5% of cement. The addition of cement had little effect on the optimum
moisture content of the biosolids as compared with the untreated biosolids.
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0%Cement
1%Cement
0.75
3%Cement
5%Cement
0.70
0
Figure 65: Variation of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) with percentage of cement
70
60
50
40
30
0%Cement
1%Cement
20
3%Cement
5%Cement
10
0
Figure 66: Variation of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) with percentage of cement
118

Figure 67 presents the CBR results for biosolids stabilised with 1%, 3% and 5% of cement as
compared to untreated biosolids. The CBR value of stabilised biosolids varies from 1.7% to
2.0% with the addition of 1% of cement; 2.0% to 2.4% with the addition of 3% of cement and
3.8% and 4.6% with the addition of 5% of cement. In general, the stabilisation of biosolids
with cement increases the CBR value of biosolids.
From the results in Figure 67, it is apparent that biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5% cement
satisfies the VicRoads minimum requirement of 2% CBR for Type B fill material
5.0
4.5
4.0
CBR Value (%)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0%Cement
1%Cement
3%Cement
5%Cement
Figure 67: CBR results for biosolids stabilised with cement

5% of cement. The swell value of stabilised biosolids varied from 0.15% to 0.52% with the
addition of 1% of cement, 0.12% to 0.77% with the addition of 3% of cement and 0.28% and
1.29% with the addition of 5% of cement. It was noted that there was minimal difference in
the swell properties of untreated and stabilised biosolids.
119
1.45
1.25
1.05
Swell (%)
0.85
0.65
0.45
0.25
0.05
0
0%Cement
1%Cement
3%Cement
5%Cement
Figure 68: Swell results after 4 days for biosolids stabilised with cement
120

stabilised biosolids with 3% cement. From the consolidated drained triaxial test of the
stabilised biosolids with 3% cement, the effective friction angle was 45.1 degrees while the
stabilised biosolids with 5% cement. From the consolidated drained triaxial test of the
stabilised biosolids with 5% cement, the effective friction angle was 39.5 degrees while the
121

stabilised with 3% and 5% cement at stockpile 1 as compared to untreated biosolids from the
one dimensional consolidation test. Standard compaction effort was applied to the biosolids
prior to commencing the consolidation test. Pre-consolidation pressure for biosolids in
stockpile 1 stabilised with 3% cement was 220 kN/m2 and 220 kN/m2 for biosolids stabilised
with 5% cement.
1.0
0% Cement
0.9
3% Cement
5% Cement
0.8
Void Ratio (e)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
10
100
122
1000
with 5% cement.
1.0
0% Cement
0.9
3% Cement
5% Cement
0.8
Void Ratio (e)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
10
100
123
1000
with 5% cement.
1.1
0% Cement
1.0
3% Cement
5% Cement
0.9
Void Ratio (e)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
10
100
124
1000

biosolids sample with 3% cement from the Rowe consolidation test. Standard compaction
effort was applied to the stabilised sample prior to commencing the consolidation test. A preconsolidation pressure of 180 kN/m2 was obtained for stabilised biosolids with 3% cement.
Figure 74: Rowe Cell test results for stabilised biosolids with 3% cement
125

cement and 5% cement.
Table 33 summarises the creep consolidation test results of biosolids stabilised with 3%
cement and 5% cement. Figure 75 presents the variation of secondary consolidation (creep)
with applied stress for the biosolids stabilised with 3% cement and Figure 76 presents the
variation of secondary consolidation (creep) with applied stress for the biosolids stabilised
with 5% cement.
Table 33 : Secondary consolidation (creep) values for biosolids stabilised with cement.
50
100
200
400
Biosolids + 3% Cement
0.043
0.037
0.1
0.1
0.001
0.053
0.072
0.085
800
0.239
0.194
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Figure 75 : Variation of secondary consolidation for biosolids stabilised with 3% cement

126
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Figure 76 : Variation of secondary consolidation for biosolids stabilised with 5% cement
127
Figure 77 presents the permeability of biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5% of cement as

compared to untreated biosolids. Standard compaction effort was applied to the stabilised
biosolids before undertaken falling head permeability test. The permeability of untreated
compacted biosolids ranges between 1.24 x 10-7 m/s to 1.60 x 10-7 m/s. The permeability of
stabilised biosolids with 3% cement varied from 1.10 x 10-7 m/s to 1.32 x 10-7 m/s and the
permeability of stabilised biosolids with 5% cement varied from 0.85 x 10-7 m/s to 1.05 x 10-7
m/s. In general, the permeability of stabilised biosolids with cement decreases slightly at a
cement content of 5%.
1.5
1.0
0.5
0

0%Cement
3%Cement
Figure 77: Permeability of biosolids stabilised with cement
128
5%Cement
7.8
Engineering Properties of Biosolids Stabilised with Bauxsol
5% bauxsol respectively.
Table 34 : Summary of engineering properties of biosolids stabilised with 1% bauxsol

Unit
Moisture Content
Atterberg Limit
Stockpile 3
54.6
50.9
44.3
52.1
54.6
45.7
89
92
91
Plastic Limit
71
78
75
Plasticity Index
18
14
16
Standard
Standard
Standard
Maximum Dry Density
t/m
0.88
0.86
0.91
0.89
48
44
44
45
CBR Swell*
0.50
0.38
0.52
0.25
CBR Value
1.7
2.1
1.9
2.0

CBR
Stockpile 2
Liquid Limit

Compaction
Stockpile 1
129

Unit
Moisture Content
Atterberg Limit
CBR
44.0
55.5
43.2
74
Plastic Limit
62
60
61
Plasticity Index
14
17
13
Standard
Standard
Standard
Maximum Dry Density
t/m
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.91
46
45
43
44
CBR Swell*
0.56
0.97
0.34
1.11
CBR Value
2.0
2.1
2.5
0.817
m2/year
m/s
kN/m2
Recompression Index
Falling Head
Permeability
49.5
49.1
77
Compression Index
Triaxial
Compression
53.8
76
Consolidation
- Rowe Cell
Stockpile 3
e0
Consolidation
- Oedometer
Stockpile 2
Liquid Limit

Compaction
Stockpile 1
kN/m
Type of Test
0.810
0.3
6.2 x 10
0.6
-11
14.6 x 10
2.7
0.752
0.3
-11
3.1 x 10-11
300
280
280
0.501
0.472
0.487
0.032
0.029
0.034
170
kN/m2
CD
Cohesion
Phi Angle
Degree
43.1
1.24 x 10-7
1.33 x 10-7
9.59 x 10-8
Permeability
m/s

130

Unit
Moisture Content
Atterberg Limit
CBR
Falling Head
Permeability
50.3
48.4
43.6
50.7
53.2
43.9
75
72
76
Plastic Limit
60
57
60
Plasticity Index
15
15
16
Standard
Standard
Standard
0.88
0.90
0.89
0.89
Maximum Dry Density
t/m
41
40
38
40
CBR Swell*
0.50
1.23
0.60
0.47
CBR Value
3.7
3.1
3.3
3.5
0.843
0.744
Triaxial
Compression
Stockpile 3
e0
Consolidation
- Oedometer
Stockpile 2
Liquid Limit

Compaction
Stockpile 1
m2/year
m/s
kN/m2
0.5
3.2 x 10
0.697
0.4
-11
4.2 x 10
0.5
-11
7.0 x 10-11
300
230
220
Compression Index
0.412
0.409
0.389
Recompression Index
0.032
0.023
0.019
CD
43.0
1.09 x 10-7
1.08 x 10-7
9.01 x 10-8
Type of Test
2
Cohesion
kN/m
Phi Angle
Degree
Permeability
m/s

131

5% of bauxsol. The results as shown in Figure 78 indicate variation in moisture content
between biosolids stabilised with bauxsol and the untreated biosolids. Moisture content was
noted to decrease marginally with increasing percentages of bauxsol.
70
60
50
40
30
20
Untreated biosolids
Stablised biosolids with 1%Bauxsol
10

0
0
Percentage of bauxsol added to biosolids (%)
Figure 78: Moisture content variation with percentage of bauxsol added to biosolids
Liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic index tests were undertaken on biosolids stabilised with
various percentages of bauxsol. Figure 79 to Figure 81 presents the atterberg limits results of
biosolids from stockpiles 1 to 3 after stabilisation with 1%, 3%, and 5% of bauxsol as
compared to the untreated biosolids. It was noted that the liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic
index in all three stockpiles generally decreases with the addition of increasing amounts of
bauxsol.
132
120
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
100
Plastic Index
80
60
40
20
0
0
Figure 79: Atterberg limits with percentage of bauxsol added to biosolids in stockpile 1
120
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
100
Plastic Index
80
60
40
20
0
0
1
3
133
120
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
100
Plastic Index
80
60
40
20
0
0
1
3

5% of bauxsol.
of bauxsol as compared to untreated biosolids. The maximum dry density of stabilised
biosolids varied from 0.86t/m3 to 0.91t/m3 with the addition of 1% bauxsol; 0.89t/m3 to
0.91t/m3 with the addition of 3% bauxsol and 0.88t/m3 to 0.90t/m3 with the addition of 5%
bauxsol. In general, increasing the proportion of bauxsol had little effect on the maximum
dry density of the biosolids.
percentages of bauxsol as compared to the untreated biosolids. The optimum moisture content
of stabilised biosolids was 44% to 48% with 1% bauxsol, 43% to 46% with 3% bauxsol and
38% to 41% with 5% bauxsol respectively. The addition of bauxsol was found to slightly
134
decrease the optimum moisture content of the biosolids as compared with the untreated
biosolids.
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0%Bauxsol
1%Bauxsol
0.75
3%Bauxsol
5%Bauxsol
0.70
0
Figure 82: Variation of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) with percentage of bauxsol
70
60
50
40
30
0%Bauxsol
1%Bauxsol
20
3%Bauxsol
5%Bauxsol
10
0
Figure 83: Variation of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) with percentage of bauxsol
135

Figure 84 presents the CBR value results for biosolids stabilised with 1%, 3% and 5% of
bauxsol as compared to untreated biosolids. The CBR value of stabilised biosolids varies from
1.7% to 2.1% with the addition of 1% of bauxsol; 2.0% to 2.7% with the addition of 3% of
bauxsol and 3.1% and 3.7% with the addition of 5% of bauxsol. In general, the stabilisation of
biosolids with bauxsol increases the CBR value of biosolids.
From the results in Figure 84, it is apparent that biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5% bauxsol
satisfies the VicRoads minimum requirement of 2% CBR for Type B fill material.
5.0
4.5
4.0
CBR Value (%)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0%Bauxsol
1%Bauxsol
3%Bauxsol
5%Bauxsol
Figure 84: CBR results of biosolids stabilised with bauxsol

5% of bauxsol. The swell value of stabilised biosolids varied from 0.25% to 0.50% with the
addition of 1% of bauxsol; 0.34% to 1.11% with the addition of 3% of bauxsol and 0.47% and
1.23% with the addition of 5% of bauxsol. It was noted that there was minimal difference in
the swell properties of untreated and stabilised biosolids.
136
1.45
1.25
1.05
Swell (%)
0.85
0.65
0.45
0.25
0.05
0
0%Bauxsol
1%Bauxsol
3%Bauxsol
5%Bauxsol
Figure 85: Swell results after 4 days for biosolids stabilised with bauxsol.
137

stabilised biosolids with 3% bauxsol. From the consolidated drained triaxial test of the
stabilised biosolids with 3% bauxsol, the effective friction angle was 43.1 degrees while the
stabilised biosolids with 5% bauxsol. From the consolidated drained triaxial test of the
stabilised biosolids with 5% bauxsol, the effective friction angle was 43.0 degrees while the
138

stabilised with 3% and 5% bauxsol at stockpile 1 as compared to untreated biosolids from the
stockpile 1 stabilised with 3% bauxsol was 300 kN/m2 and 300 kN/m2 for biosolids stabilised
with 5% bauxsol.
1.0
0% Bauxsol
3% Bauxsol
0.9
5% Bauxsol
Void Ratio (e)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
10
100
139
1000
with 5% bauxsol.
0.9
0% Bauxsol
3% Bauxsol
0.8
5% Bauxsol
0.7
Void Ratio (e)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
10
100
140
1000
with 5% bauxsol.
1.2
0% Bauxsol
1.1
3% Bauxsol
5% Bauxsol
1.0
0.9
Void Ratio (e)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
10
100
141
1000

biosolids sample with 3% bauxsol from the Rowe consolidation test. Standard compaction
effort was applied to the stabilised sample prior to commencing the consolidation test. A preconsolidation pressure of 170 kN/m2 was obtained for stabilised biosolids with 3% bauxsol.
Figure 91: Rowe Cell test results for stabilised biosolids with 3% bauxsol
142

bauxsol and 5% bauxsol.
Table 37 summarises the creep consolidation test results of biosolids stabilised with 3%
bauxsol and 5% bauxsol. Figure 92 presents the variation of secondary consolidation (creep)
with applied stress for the biosolids stabilised with 3% bauxsol. Figure 93 presents the
variation of secondary consolidation (creep) with applied stress for the biosolids stabilised
with 5% bauxsol.
Table 37 : Consolidation (creep) values for the biosolids stabilised with bauxsol.
50
100
200
400
Biosolids + 3% Bauxsol
0.088
0.061
0.02
0.048
0.055
0.046
0.069
0.06
800
0.190
0.143
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Figure 92 : Variation of secondary consolidation for biosolids stabilised with 3% bauxsol
143
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Figure 93 : Variation of secondary consolidation for biosolids stabilised with 5% bauxsol
144
Figure 94 presents the permeability of biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5% of bauxsol as

compared to untreated biosolids. Standard compaction effort was applied to untreated and
stabilised biosolids before undertaken falling head permeability test. The permeability of
untreated compacted biosolids ranges between 1.24 x 10-7 m/s to 1.60 x 10-7 m/s. The
permeability of stabilised biosolids with 3% bauxsol varied from 0.96 x 10-7 m/s to 1.33 x 10-7
m/s and the permeability of stabilised biosolids with 5% bauxsol varied from 0.90 x 10-7 m/s
to 1.09 x 10-7 m/s. In general there is little difference in the permeability value of biosolids
stabilised with 3% and 5% of bauxsol as compared to the untreated biosolids.
1.5
1.0
0.5
0

0%Bauxsol
3%Bauxsol
5%Bauxsol
Figure 94: Permeability of untreated and stabilised biosolids with bauxsol
145
7.9
Engineering Properties of Biosolids Stabilised with Crushed Brick
Table 38 to 41 summaries the engineering properties of biosolids stabilised with 30%, 40%
and 50% crushed brick respectively. The crushed brick used was of a maximum size of
20mm.
Unit
Stockpile 1
Stockpile 2
Stockpile 3
Standard
Standard
Standard
1.04
1.10
1.04

Compaction
CBR
Maximum Dry Density
t/m
35
40
36
CBR Swell*
1.61
0.17
0.52
CBR Value
5.2
3.6
4.2
Unit
Stockpile 1
Stockpile 2
Stockpile
3
Standard
Standard
Standard
1.06
1.01
1.06

Compaction
CBR
Maximum Dry Density
t/m
36
39
34
CBR Swell*
0.26
0.54
0.93
CBR Value
3.6
4.2
4.5
Unit
Stockpile 1
Stockpile 2
Stockpile
3
Standard
Standard
Standard
1.06
1.07
1.06

Compaction
CBR
Maximum Dry Density
t/m
39
35
34
CBR Swell*
0.29
0.15
0.38
CBR Value
4.7
5.5
6.1
146

50% crushed brick.
Figure 95 presents the maximum dry density of untreated and biosolids stabilised with various
percentages of crushed brick as compared to untreated biosolids. The maximum dry density of
stabilised biosolids varied from 1.04 t/m3 to 1.10 t/m3 with the addition of 30% crushed brick;
1.01 t/m3 to 1.06 t/m3 with the addition of 40% crushed brick and 1.06 t/m3 to 1.07 t/m3 with
the addition of 50% crushed brick. In general, biosolids containing 30-60% crushed brick had
increased the maximum dry density compared to untreated biosolids.
1.50
1.40
Maximum Dry Density (t/m )
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percentage of crushed brick added to biosolids (%)
0%Crushed Brick
30%Crushed Brick
40%Crushed Brick
50%Crushed Brick
Figure 95: Variation of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) with percentage of crushed brick
percentages of crushed brick as compared to untreated biosolids. The optimum moisture
content of stabilised biosolids was 35% to 40% with 30% crushed brick; 34% to 39% with
40% crushed brick and 34% to 39% with 50% crushed brick respectively. The addition of
147
crushed brick was found to decrease the optimum moisture content of the stabilised biosolids
as compared to the untreated biosolids.
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
0%Crushed Brick
30%Crushed Brick
40%Crushed Brick
50%Crushed Brick
Figure 96: Variation of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) with percentage of crushed brick

Figure 97 presents the CBR results for biosolids stabilised with 30%, 40% and 50% of
crushed brick as compared to untreated biosolids. The CBR value of stabilised biosolids
varies from 3.6% to 5.2% with the addition of 30% of crushed brick; 3.6% to 4.5% with the
addition of 40% of crushed brick and 4.7% and 6.1% with the addition of 50% of crushed
brick. In general, stabilisation of biosolids with increasing proportions of crushed brick
increases the CBR value of the stabilised biosolids.
From the results in Figure 97, it is apparent that biosolids stabilised with 30%, 40% and 50%
crushed brick satisfies the VicRoads minimum requirement of 2% CBR for Type B fill
material
148
6.5
5.5
CBR Value (%)
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
0%Crushed Brick
30%Crushed Brick
40%Crushed Brick
50%Crushed Brick
Figure 97: CBR results of biosolids stabilised with crushed brick

Figure 98 shows the CBR swell results after 4 days for biosolids stabilised with 30%, 40%
and 50% of crushed brick. The swell value of stabilised biosolids varied from 0.17% to 1.61%
with the addition of 30% of crushed brick: 0.26% to 0.93% with the addition of 40% of
crushed brick and 0.15% and 0.38% with the addition of 50% of crushed brick.
149
1.45
1.25
1.05
Swell (%)
0.85
0.65
0.45
0.25
0.05
0
10
20
30
40
50
0%Crushed Brick
30%Crushed Brick
40%Crushed Brick
50%Crushed Brick
Figure 98: Swell results after 4 days for biosolids stabilised with crushed brick
7.10 Comparison of Laboratory Test Results for Untreated and Stabilised Biosolids
The geotechnical test results of the untreated biosolids with the stabilised biosolids mixed
with various types and proportions of additives is summarised in Table 41.
150
Table 41 : Comparison of engineering laboratory tests results for untreated and stabilised biosolids.
Biosolids
Type of Stabiliser
None
Amount of stabiliser
Natural Moisture Content
Particle density of biosolids
Particle Size
Analysis
Atterberg Limit
Crushed Brick
3%
5%
1%
3%
5%
1%
3%
5%
30%
40%
50%
46.8 - 58.6
37.5 51.0
35.3 - 47.3
32.3 - 48.4
39.9 - 54.8
36.2 - 48.7
31.5 - 47.0
44.3 - 54.6
43.2 - 55.5
43.6 - 53.2
1.75 - 1.79
60.0mm to 2.0mm
2-4
4-6
4-6
4-6
2-4
2-6
4-5
2.0mm to 0.06mm
44 - 58
45 - 56
45 - 55
44 - 54
46 - 59
44 - 56
43 - 56
0.06mm to 0.002mm
34 - 51
38 - 51
39 - 51
40 - 52
37 - 50
35 - 51
35 - 52
<0.002mm
1-4
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
1-5
1-5
Liquid Limit
100 - 110
88 - 94
80 - 83
76 - 80
89 - 97
77 - 81
74 - 82
89 - 92
74 - 77
72 - 76
Plastic Limit
79 - 83
71 - 75
60 - 70
60 - 67
71 - 78
60 - 65
60 - 65
71 - 78
60 - 62
57 - 60
Plasticity Index
21 - 27
13 - 21
12 - 20
13 - 16
18 - 22
15 - 19
14 - 17
14 - 18
13 - 17
15 - 16
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
0.83 - 0.87
0.88 0.91
0.90 - 0.93
0.89 - 0.91
0.84 - 0.85
0.86 - 0.88
0.87 - 0.88
0.88 - 0.91
0.89 - 0.91
0.88 - 0.90
1.04 1.10
1.01 1.06
1.06 1.07
48 - 56
40 - 43
38 - 42
39 - 42
38 - 40
38 -40
36 - 40
44 - 48
43 - 46
38 - 41
35 - 40
34 - 39
34 - 39
0.14 - 0.95
0.17 - 0.52
0.34 - 0.52
0.12 - 0.77
0.28 - 1.29
0.25 - 0.52
0.34 - 1.11
0.47 - 1.23
0.17 1.61
0.26 0.93
0.15 0.38
Maximum Dry Density
t/m
CBR Swell*
0.30 - 0.73
0.31 0.84
CBR Value
0.8 - 1.1
1.2 - 1.6
1.4 - 1.7
3.3 - 4.7
1.7 - 2.0
2.0 - 2.4
3.8 - 4.6
1.7 - 2.1
2.0 - 2.7
3.1 - 3.7
3.6 - 5.2
3.6 - 4.5
4.7 - 6.1
0.865 - 1.048
0.808 0.909
0.699 0.872
0.638 0.851
0.785 0.809
0.752 0.817
0.697 0.843
0.4 -0.5
0.2 - 0.4
0.2 - 0.7
0.2 - 0.5
0.4 - 0.5
0.3 - 0.6
0.4 - 0.5
e0
Coefficient of
Consolidation
Oedometer
Consolidation
Bauxsol
1%
t/m

CBR
Cement
0%

Compaction
Lime
m /year
m/s
kN/m2
4.2 x 10-11 10.1 x 10-11
2.8 x 10-11 5.4 x 10-11
2.2 x 10-11 7.0 x 10-11
4.7 x 10-11 9.7 x 10-11
2.9 x 10-11 8.1 x 10-11
3.1 x 10-11
- 14.6 x 1011
3.2 x 10-11 7.0 x 10-11
190 - 210
250 - 280
250 - 300
220 - 280
220 - 320
280 - 300
220 - 300
0.513 0.537
0.031 0.040
0.458 0.475
0.024 0.029
0.395 0.410
0.022 0.029
0.275 0.325
0.021 0.028
0.472 0.501
0.029 0.034
0.389 0.412
0.019 0.032
Compression Index
0.563 - 0.640
Recompression Index
0.038 - 0.045
100 - 200
120
180
170
% of strain
/ log cycle
0.013
0.037
0.001
0.088
0.046
Rowe Cell
Consolidation
Creep
Consolidation
Secondary consolidation
values - C
Triaxial
Compression
(Drained)
Cohesion
kN/m2
Phi Angle
Degree
10.9 - 18.2
45.4
44.5
45.1
39.5
43.1
43
Cohesion
kN/m
24 - 25
Phi Angle
Degree
9 - 10
Triaxial
Compression
(Undrained)
Falling Head
Permeability
kN/m2
-7
Permeability
m/s
1.24 x 10 1.60 x 10-7
-7
1.21 x 10
-1.34 x 10-7
-7
1.13 x 10
-1.36 x 10-7
151
-7
1.10 x 10
-1.32 x 10-7
-7
0.85 x 10
-1.05 x 10-7
-7
0.96 x 10
-1.33 x 10-7
-7
0.90 x 10
-1.09 x 10-7
7.11 Conclusions: Laboratory Testing

Biosolids samples obtained from three stockpiles at Biosolids Stockpile Area, Western
Treatment Plant were tested to investigate the geotechnical characteristics of biosolids and the
suitability of biosolids as stabilised fill material. Based on the geotechnical laboratory test
results the following conclusions can be made:
plasticity with a group symbol of OH as per Australian standard for the geotechnical site
investigation (AS 1276, 1993). The biosolids samples contain approximately 5% gravel size,
50% sand size, 40% silt size and 5% clay sized particles.
The biosolids samples in the three stockpiles have high moisture content, liquid limit and
plasticity indices that are comparable to common inorganic soils. The moisture content, liquid
limit and plasticity indices decrease when biosolids are stabilised with lime, cement and
bauxsol. The particle density of biosolids was found to be approximately 1.75 t/m3.
The shear strength test results from the triaxial test indicate that the biosolids stabilised with
the required proportions of additives indicate that the stabilised biosolids possess suitable
shear strength to make them suitable for use as fill material.
Consolidation test results of stabilised biosolids with additives provided coefficient of
consolidation results that need to be reviewed for the modelling of the biosolids embankment
in the next phase of this project. This is because the design input parameters will be
dependant on the imposed embankment loads.
Long-term laboratory testing of secondary consolidation settlement (creep characteristics) of
the biosolids were used as input parameters in the finite element analysis of embankments
using stabilised biosolids. The creep consolidation tests were conducted to determine the
secondary compression index for the finite element analysis. The long-term creep
consolidation tests were undertaken by applying each load increment for seven days (as
compared to the traditional 1 day load increment).
152
The coefficient of permeability from falling head permeability test results indicated that the
untreated and stabilised biosolids have low permeability similar to that of clay type materials.
The CBR values of biosolids stabilised with a minimum of 5% lime, 3% cement, 3% bauxsol
and 30% crushed brick satisfies the VicRoads specification for Type B fill material which
requires a minimum CBR of 2%.
The composition of the biosolids will have an impact on the geotechnical testing results as
will other factors such as formation history, treatment process, drying duration, drying
method, storage methods, storage period and handling methods.
153
8
8.1
FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

Overview of Finite Element Modelling
Embankment design comprises of three vital design criteria: settlement, slope stability and
bearing capacity. Finite element modelling is a useful tool to simulate the in-situ field
conditions and to predict embankment behaviour. Presently, there are various finite element
softwares available for the analysis of embankments and other geotechnical issues. For this
project, Plaxis Version 8 (Plaxis, 2006) was used to analyse the behaviour of embankments
when biosolids were used with various additives as an engineered fill in the embankments.
This report presents the results of the finite element analysis of biosolids when stabilised with
cement, lime, bauxsol and crushed brick based on laboratory parameters obtained from
geotechnical laboratory testing on biosolids.
To negate the effect of long term decomposition of biosolids and after discussions with
VicRoads, the thickness of the stabilised biosolids layer was restricted to 0.5 meters for the
various embankment scenarios analysed. Finite element modelling was undertaken for
embankments with heights ranging from 2 to 5 meters.
As basalt is commonly obtained in the Western suburbs and the drained parameters for basalt
are readily available, the stabilised biosolids embankments were studied when constructed on
basalt formations.
Discussions with VicRoads indicated that their requirement for the embankment would be for
a residual settlement not exceeding 50 mm over a period of 20 years after a maximum of 6
months of preloading.
154
8.2
Finite Element Modelling Theory
8.2.1. Geometry model

The plane strain model was used in the analysis as it is suitable for embankments with a
uniform cross section, corresponding stress state and loading scheme over a certain length
perpendicular to the cross section (z-direction as shown in Figure 99). Displacement and
strain in z-direction was assumed to be zero but the normal stresses in z-direction are fully
taken into account in this model.
Figure 99 : Coordinate system of geometry.

A typical full scale geometry of a stabilised biosolids embankment on basalt formation is
illustrated in Figure 100. In the analysis the ground water was assumed to be at a level of 1m
below the ground surface.
X = 3H
30m
X = 3H
Impermeable geomembrane separator or
0.5 m impermeable clay layer
1.5
Type B fill
Type C fill
Type C fill
Biosolids
0.5m
Basalt
Figure 100 : Typical geometry of embankment with stabilised biosolids on basalt formation.
155
An impermeable geomembrane separator or 0.5 m impermeable clay layer is used to

encapsulate the biosolids and to prevent any seepage or leaching of biosolids into the fill
material. The geomembrane and clay layer acts as a separator and will furthermore provide a
transition between the stabilised biosolids and the engineered fill.
Due to the symmetry of the embankment, only half of the embankment was analysed with the
appropriate boundary conditions. The side boundaries of the embankment were specified as
free in the vertical direction. The bottom boundary was specified as a fixed in the vertical and
horizontal directions. To avoid any influence of the outer boundary, the model was extended
in horizontal (x-direction) a total length of 20m from the toe of the embankment.
Vicroads defines Type B fill as material which has a minimum assigned CBR of 2 to 5 %, be
free from organic matter and has a particle dimension not more than 150 to 450 mm
depending on the place of use. VicRoads defines Type C fill as material which has lesser
quality material than Type B and shall be capable of spreading in layers of not more than
500mm.
The geometry model of a typical 5m embankment with 0.5m of stabilised biosolids is
presented in Figure 101. In the analysis, the Type B engineered fill material was specified as
being placed in three stages. Furthermore the final layer of Type B fill was placed
simultaneously as the Type C fill layer.
Figure 101 : Typical geometry model for a 5m high embankment using stabilised biosolids.
156
8.2.2. Finite element mesh for embankment

Finite element meshes were generated by using 15 node triangular elements. More elements
were generated at the toe of the embankment as that is the critical point for slope stability
analysis. The mesh coarseness was selected as fine for element distribution in the models as
a finer finite element mesh gives the more accurate results than a coarser mesh.
Figure 102 presents the finite element mesh for the geometry model of a typical 5m high
embankment. Figure 103 presents the nodal elements for the geometry model of a typical 5 m
high embankment. Figure 104 presents the stress points for the geometry model of a typical
5m high embankment.
Figure 102 : Finite element mesh for the geometry model of a 5m high embankment.
Figure 103 : Finite element mesh with nodes for the geometry model of a 5m high
embankment.
157
Figure 104 : Finite element mesh with stress points for the geometry model of a 5m high
embankment.
8.2.3. Soil models

Plaxis is capable of analysing eight different soil model types. The Mohr-coulomb models and
soft soil creep models were the appropriate models in this case and were used in the analysis
of the embankments.
The Mohr-coulomb model was specified for the subsoil comprising basalt and the engineered
fill. The soft soil creep model was specified for the stabilised biosolids in the embankment to
analyse the long-term creep behaviour of the stabilised biosolids.
A minimum pore water pressure of 0.01 kN/m2 was specified in the analysis which enables a
conservative analysis of consolidation settlement of the embankments. A traffic load of 20kPa
was specified in the analyses prior to the preloading period.
8.2.3.1. Mohr-coulomb model

The Mohr-coulomb model is known as perfect plastic model. The Mohr-coulomb model is a
constitutive model with a fixed yield surface, i.e. a yield surface that is fully defined by model
parameters and not affected by plastic straining. The Mohr-coulomb model requires the
following input parameters:
E
Youngs modulus (kN/m2)
Poissons ratio
Friction angle (Degree)
158
Cohesion (kN/m2)
Dilatancy angle (Degree)
The Youngs modulus is the basic stiffness modulus in the Mohr-coulomb model. Figure 105
presents the computation of the Youngs modulus in the Mohr-coulomb model. E0 and E50 is
the initial slope and the secant modulus at 50% strength respectively in the stress versus strain
variation obtained from triaxial tests. The deviator stress is denoted as (1 3).
Figure 105 : Derivation of elastic modulus from triaxial tests.
8.2.3.2. Soft soil creep model

Biosolids behaviour is similar to a soft soil with a high degree of compressibility. The
compressibility and creep consolidation properties of biosolids play a vital role in engineering
behaviour of embankment. As such, the soft soil creep model was considered the best soil
model to be used to simulate the compressibility behaviour of stabilised biosolids in actual
field conditions. The soft soil creep model requires the following input parameters:
Friction angle (Degree)
Modified compression index
Modified swelling index
Secondary compression index
The modified compression index (*), modified swelling index (*) and secondary
compression index (*) were determined from the one dimensional consolidation (oedometer)
test results.
159
The secondary compression index (*) is the important parameter in the analysis of the creep
properties of biosolids. The secondary compression index was obtained from long-term creep
consolidation tests using oedometers.
The modified compression index (*), modified swelling index (*) and secondary
compression index (*) were subsequently derived using equations 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
* =
Cc
2 . 3 (1 + e 0 )
(1)
* =
2C r
2 . 3 (1 + e 0 )
(2)
* =
C
2 . 3 (1 + e 0 )
(3)
where Cc is the compression index, Cr is the recompression index and C is the secondary
compression index which were parameters derived from the long-term creep consolidation
test results.
8.2.4. Material properties of subsoil and fill material

The finite element model parameters for the basalt formation underlying the embankment and
the engineered fill (Type B and C) was obtained from various local reports on the property of
these materials in Victoria. The geotechnical parameters used in the models for basalt and
engineered fill material is presented in Table 42.
160
Table 42 : Summary of finite element model parameters for basalt and engineered fill.
Mohr-Coulomb
Unit
Parameter
unsat
Basalt
Engineered Fill
Drained
Drained
[kN/m]
19
19
sat
[kN/m]
21
19
kx
[m/day]
ky
[m/day]
Eref
[kN/m]
35000
25000
[-]
0.3
0.35
Gref
[kN/m]
13450
9250
Eoed
[kN/m]
47115
40125
cref
[kN/m]
[]
25
25
[]
161
8.3
Finite Element Analysis of Embankments using Biosolids Stabilised with Lime
This section discuss the results of finite element analysis of an embankment using biosolids
stabilised with 5% lime. To negate the effect of long term decomposition of biosolids, the
thickness of the stabilised biosolids layer was restricted to 0.5 meters for the various
embankment scenarios analysed. VicRoads indicated that their requirement for the
embankment would be for a residual settlement not exceeding 50 mm after a maximum of 6
material. The geomembrane or clay layer act as a separator and will furthermore provide a
Finite element modelling was undertaken in the analysis for embankments of 2 to 5 meters in
height. The typical geometry for the finite element analysis of embankments using biosolids
stabilised with 5% lime is presented in Figure 106.
fill (Type B and C). The soft soil creep model was specified for the stabilised biosolids in the
embankment to analyse the creep consolidation behaviour of the biosolids after 6 months of
preloading. A minimum pore water pressure of 0.01 kN/m2 was specified in the calculation
phase of the analyses to determine the residual settlement after 6 months of preloading which
enables a conservative analysis of consolidation settlement of the embankments. A traffic
load of 20 kPa was specified in the analyses prior to the preloading period.
The material properties for engineered fill and basalt was presented previously in Table 42.
The material properties of biosolids stabilised with 5% lime is summarised in Table 43. These
material properties were used as input parameters for the finite element models and were
derived from the laboratory testing results.
Figure 107 presents the finite element deformation mesh for the 5 m embankment using
biosolids stabilised with 5% lime. Figure 108 presents the vertical settlement of the 5 m
embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% lime.
162
X = 3H
30m
X = 3H
1.5
3
1
Type B fill
Type C fill
H
Type C fill
0.5m
Biosolids + 5% Lime
Basalt
Figure 106 : Typical geometry for embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% lime
Table 43 : Material properties of biosolids stabilised with 5% lime.

Soft Soil Creep
Unit
Biosolids + 5% Lime
Undrained
Parameter
unsat
[kN/m]
sat
kx
[kN/m]
13.4
[m/day]
0.01
ky
[m/day]
0.01
[-]
0.1
[-]
0.01
[-]
0.06
ur(nu)
[]
[]
[-]
45
0
0.15
0nc
[-]
0.43
[kN/m]
163
12.1
Figure 107 : Deformation mesh of 5 m embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% lime
Figure 108 : Vertical settlement of 5 m embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% lime.
Figure 109 presents the variation of total vertical settlement as well as the residual settlement
with time for the finite element analysis of the 5m high embankment using biosolids stabilised
with 5% lime.
A residual settlement of 27 mm was obtained after 6 months of preloading for the 5 m high
embankment which meets the VicRoads requirement of a maximum of 50 mm over a period
of 20 years after 6 months of preloading. It was noted that as the curve flattens out, no to
minimal settlement occurs after the period of 20 years. A total vertical settlement of 449 mm
was obtained for the 5 m high embankment.
164
Time (Day)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350
400
27mm
450
500
6 months preloading period

with 5% lime.
Figure 110 compares the variation of total vertical settlement with time for the 2 to 5 m high
embankments using biosolids stabilised with 5% lime. As expected, the magnitude of
settlement and residual settlement increases with the height of the embankment.
Table 44 summarises the total and residual settlement and time taken to complete the
settlement after 6 months of preloading of embankments using biosolids stabilised with 5%
lime. In total, 401 days were taken to complete the total settlement for the 5 m high
embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% lime.
165
50
100
150
Time (Day)
250
200
300
350
400
450
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
5m Embankment
4m Embankment
3m Embankment
2m Embankment

stabilised with 5% lime.
stabilised with 5% lime.
Embankment
height (H)
Total settlement
(mm)
Residual settlement*
(mm)
Total time
(days)
2m
380
28
377
3m
398
21
344
4m
429
26
379
5m
449
27
401
* denotes after 6 months of preloading

The residual settlement of the embankments analysed were all found to be within VicRoads
residual settlement requirement of a maximum of 50 mm over a period of 20 years after 6
months of preloading. The residual settlement reported is until the completion of total
settlement based on a minimum pore water pressure of 0.01 kN/m2 that was conservatively
specified in the calculation phase of the analyses (as compared to the traditionally
recommended minimum pore water pressure of 1 kN/m2).
166
8.4
Finite Element Analysis of Embankments using Biosolids Stabilised with Cement
This section discusses the results of finite element analysis of an embankment using biosolids
stabilised with 3% and 5% cement. To negate the effect of long term decomposition of
biosolids, the thickness of the stabilised biosolids layer was restricted to 0.5 meters for the
various embankment scenarios analysed. VicRoads indicated that their requirement for the
embankment would be for a residual settlement not exceeding 50 mm over a period of 20
years after 6 months of preloading.
Finite element modelling was undertaken for embankments of 2 to 5 meters in height. The
typical geometry for the finite element analysis of embankments using biosolids stabilised
with 3% and 5% cement is presented in Figure 111.
load of 20 kPa was specified in the analyses prior to the preloading period.
The material properties for engineered fill and basalt were presented previously in Table 42.
The material properties of biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5% cement is summarised in
Table 45. These material properties were used as input parameters for the finite element
models and were derived from the laboratory testing results.
167
biosolids stabilised with 3% cement. Figure 113 presents the vertical settlement of the 5 m
embankment using biosolids stabilised with 3% cement.
X = 3H
30m
X = 3H
1.5
Type B fill
Type C fill
Type C fill
0.5m
Basalt
Figure 111 : Typical geometry for embankment using biosolids stabilised with cement.
Table 45 : Material properties of biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5%cement.

Soft Soil Creep
Unit
Undrained
Undrained
11.6
11.6
Parameter
unsat
[kN/m]
sat
kx
[kN/m]
13.3
13.3
[m/day]
0.01
0.01
ky
[m/day]
0.01
0.01
[-]
0.1
0.08
[-]
0.02
0.01
[-]
0.05
[kN/m]
0.07
1
ur(nu)
[]
[]
[-]
45
0
0.15
40
0
0.15
0nc
[-]
0.42
0.51
168

cement.
Figure 113 : Vertical settlement of 5m embankment using biosolids stabilised with 3%

cement.
with time for the finite element analysis of the 5 m high embankment using biosolids
stabilised with 3% and 5% cement.
embankment using biosolids stabilised with 3% cement. A residual settlement of 17 mm was
obtained after 6 months of preloading for the 5 m high embankment using biosolids stabilised
with 5% cement. The residual settlement of 5 m embankment using biosolids stabilised with
3% and 5% cement, as such meet the VicRoads requirement of a maximum of 50 mm after 6
169
Time (Day)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0
50
100
150
Settlement (mm)
200
250
300
17mm
350
400
30mm
450
500

with 3% and 5% cement.
A total vertical settlement of 435 mm was obtained for the 5 m high embankment using
biosolids stabilised with 3% cement. A total vertical settlement of 317 mm was obtained for
the 5 m high embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% cement.
embankments using biosolids stabilised with 3% cement. Figure 116 compares the variation
of total vertical settlement with time for the 2 to 5 m high embankments using biosolids
stabilised with 5% cement. As expected, the magnitude of settlement increases with the height
of the embankment.
170
50
100
150
Time (Day)
250
200
300
350
400
450
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500

5m Embankment
4m Embankment
3m Embankment
2m Embankment

stabilised with 3% cement.
Time (Day)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
50
Settlement (mm)
100
150
200
250
300
350
5m Embankment
4m Embankment
3m Embankment
2m Embankment

171
400
cement. In total, 418 days were taken to complete total settlement for the 5 m high

Embankment
height (H)
Total settlement
(mm)
Residual
settlement* (mm)
Total time
(days)
2m
348
26
360
3m
388
24
376
4m
415
27
392
5m
435
30
418
cement. In total, 356 days were taken to complete total settlement for the 5 m high

Embankment
height (H)
Total settlement
(mm)
Residual
settlement* (mm)
Total time
(days)
2m
265
17
336
3m
282
15
329
4m
303
17
354
5m
317
17
356
172
residual settlement requirement of a maximum of 50 mm after 6 months of preloading. The
residual settlement reported is until the completion of total settlement based on a minimum
pore water pressure of 0.01 kN/m2 that was conservatively specified in the calculation phase
of the analyses (as compared to the traditionally recommended minimum pore water pressure
of 1 kN/m2).
173
8.5
Finite Element Analysis of Embankments using Biosolids Stabilised with Bauxsol
This section discuss the results of finite element analysis of embankment using biosolids
stabilised with 3% and 5% bauxsol. To negate the effect of long term decomposition of
biosolids, the thickness of the stabilised biosolids layer was restricted to 0.5 meters for the
various embankment scenarios analysed. VicRoads indicated that their requirement for the
embankment would be for a residual settlement not exceeding 50 mm over a period of 20
years after 6 months of preloading.
stabilised with 3% and 5% bauxsol is presented in Figure 117.
load of 20kPa was specified in the analyses prior to the preloading period.
The material properties of biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5% bauxsol is summarised in
Table 48. These material properties were used as input parameters for the finite element
models and were derived from the laboratory testing results.
174
biosolids stabilised with 3% bauxsol. Figure 119 presents the vertical settlement of the 5 m
embankment using biosolids stabilised with 3% bauxsol.
X = 3H
30m
X = 3H
1.5
Type B fill
Type C fill
Type C fill
0.5m
Basalt
Figure 117 : Typical geometry for embankment using biosolids stabilised with bauxsol.
Table 48 : Material properties of biosolids stabilised with 3% and 5% bauxsol.

Soft Soil Creep
Unit
Undrained
Undrained
12.5
11.9
Parameter
unsat
[kN/m]
sat
kx
[kN/m]
13.4
13.4
[m/day]
0.01
0.01
ky
[m/day]
0.01
0.01
[-]
0.12
0.11
[-]
0.02
0.02
[-]
0.05
0.04
ur(nu)
[]
[]
[-]
43
0
0.15
43
0
0.15
0nc
[-]
0.45
0.45
[kN/m]
175

bauxsol.

bauxsol.
with time for the finite element analysis of the 5m high embankment using biosolids stabilised
with 3% and 5% bauxsol.
embankment using biosolids stabilised with 3% bauxsol. A residual settlement of 6 mm was
obtained after 6 months of preloading for the 5 m high embankment using biosolids stabilised
with 5% bauxsol. The residual settlements of 5 m embankment using biosolids stabilised with
176
3% and 5% bauxsol, as such meet the VicRoads requirement of a maximum of 50 mm after 6

Time (Day)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
6mm
350
17mm
400
450

with 3% and 5% bauxsol.
A total vertical settlement of 398 mm was obtained for the 5m high embankment using
biosolids stabilised with 3% bauxsol. A total vertical settlement of 330 mm was obtained for
the 5m high embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% bauxsol.
embankments using biosolids stabilised with 3% bauxsol. Figure 122 compares the variation
of total vertical settlement with time for the 2 to 5 m high embankments using biosolids
stabilised with 5% bauxsol. As expected, the magnitude of settlement increases with the
height of the embankment.
177
50
100
Time (Day)
200
150
250
300
350
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
5m Embankment
4m Embankment
3m Embankment
2m Embankment

stabilised with 3% bauxsol.
Time (Day)
50
100
150
200
250
50
Settlement (mm)
100
150
200
250
300
350
5m Embankment
4m Embankment
3m Embankment
2m Embankment

178
300
bauxsol. In total, 344 days were taken to complete total settlement for the 5 m high
embankment using biosolids stabilised with 3% bauxsol.

Embankment
height (H)
Total settlement
(mm)
(mm)
Total time
(days)
2m
329
18
334
3m
349
14
312
4m
375
13
301
5m
398
17
344

bauxsol. In total, 244 days were taken to complete total settlement and residual settlement
respectively for the 5 m high embankment using biosolids stabilised with 5% bauxsol.

Embankment
height (H)
Total settlement
(mm)
Residual
settlement* (mm)
Total Time
(days)
2m
270
255
3m
286
223
4m
312
237
5m
330
244
179
residual settlement requirement of a maximum of 50 mm after 6 months of preloading. The
residual settlement reported is until the completion of total settlement based on a minimum
pore water pressure of 0.01 kN/m2 that was conservatively specified in the calculation phase
of the analyses (as compared to the traditionally recommended minimum pore water pressure
of 1 kN/m2).
180
8.6
Finite Element Analysis of Embankments using Biosolids Stabilised with Crushed

Brick
This section discuss the results of finite element analysis of embankment using biosolids
stabilised with 30%, 40% and 50% crushed brick. To negate the effect of long term
decomposition of biosolids, the thickness of the stabilised biosolids layer was restricted to 0.5
meters for the various embankment scenarios analysed. VicRoads indicated that their
requirement for the embankment would be for a residual settlement not exceeding 50 mm
over a period of 20 years after 6 months of preloading.
stabilised with 30% crushed brick is presented in Figure 123.
fill (Type B and C). The Mohr-coulomb model was also specified for the stabilised biosolids
with crushed brick to analyse the consolidation behaviour of the biosolids after 6 months of
preloading. The particle size of the crushed brick used in the triaxial test was 13.2 mm and
less in order to fit the samples into the triaxial cell.
A minimum pore water pressure of 0.01 kN/m2 was specified in the calculation phase of the
analyses to determine the residual settlement after 6 months of preloading which enables a
conservative analysis of consolidation settlement of the embankments. A traffic load of 20kPa
was specified in the analyses prior to the preloading period.
The material properties for engineered fill and basalt was presented previously in Table 42.
The material properties of biosolids stabilised with 30%, 40% and 50% crushed brick is
summarised in Table 51. These material properties were used as input parameters for the
finite element models and were derived from the laboratory testing results.
181
biosolids stabilised with 30% crushed brick. Figure 124 presents the vertical settlement of the
5m embankment using biosolids stabilised with 30% crushed brick.
X = 3H
30m
X = 3H
1.5
Type B fill
Type C fill
Type C fill
0.5m
Biosolids + 30% Crushed Brick
Basalt
Figure 123 : Typical geometry for embankment using biosolids stabilised with crushed brick.
Table 51 : Material properties of biosolids stabilised with 30%, 40% and 50% crushed brick.
Mohr-coulomb
Unit
Biosolids + 30%
Crushed Brick
Drained
Biosolids + 40%
Crushed Brick
Drained
Biosolids + 50%
Crushed Brick
Drained
Parameter
unsat
[kN/m]
14
13
14
sat
[kN/m]
16
17
18
kx
[m/day]
0.01
0.01
0.01
ky
[m/day]
0.01
0.01
0.01
Eref
[kN/m]
4650
5000
5000
cref
[-]
[kN/m]
[]
0.35
1
43
0.35
1
44
0.35
1
44
[]
182
crushed brick.
crushed brick.
with time for the finite element analysis of the 5 m high embankment using biosolids
stabilised with 30%, 40% and 50% crushed brick.
There was no residual settlement obtained after 6 months of preloading for the 5 m high
embankment using biosolids stabilised with 30%, 40% and 50% crushed brick. This meets the
VicRoads requirement of a maximum of 50 mm after 6 months of preloading.
183
Time (Day)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
10
Settlement (mm)
15
20
25
30
0mm
35
0mm
40
Biosolids + 30% Crushed brick

with 30%, 40% and 50% crushed brick.
A total vertical settlement of 34 mm was obtained for the 5m high embankment using
biosolids stabilised with 30%, 40% and 50% crushed brick.
embankments using biosolids stabilised with 30% crushed brick. Figure 128 compares the
variation of total vertical settlement with time for the 2 to 5 m high embankments using
biosolids stabilised with 40% crushed brick. Figure 129 compares the variation of total
vertical settlement with time for the 2 to 5 m high embankments using biosolids stabilised
with 50% crushed brick As expected, the magnitude of settlement increases with the height of
the embankment.
184
50
100
Time (Day)
200
150
250
300
350
10
Settlement (mm)
15
20
25
30
35
40
5m Embankment
4m Embankment
3m Embankment
2m Embankment

stabilised with 30% crushed brick.
50
100
Time (Day)
200
150
250
300
10
Settlement (mm)
15
20
25
30
35
40
5m Embankment
4m Embankment
3m Embankment
2m Embankment

185
350
50
100
Time (Day)
200
150
250
300
350
10
Settlement (mm)
15
20
25
30
35
40
5m Embankment
4m Embankment
3m Embankment
2m Embankment

crushed brick. In total, 200 days were taken to complete total settlement for the 5 m high
embankment using biosolids stabilised with 30% crushed brick.
Embankment
height (H)
Total settlement
(mm)
(mm)
Total time
(days)
2m
14
200
3m
22
200
4m
27
200
5m
34
200

186

Embankment
height (H)
Total settlement
(mm)
(mm)
Total time
(days)
2m
14
200
3m
22
200
4m
27
200
5m
34
200

Embankment
height (H)
Total settlement
(mm)
(mm)
Total time
(days)
2m
14
200
3m
22
200
4m
27
200
5m
34
200

The total and residual settlement of the embankments using biosolids stabilised with 30%,
40% and 50% for all four heights remains same. The residual settlement of the embankments
analysed were all found to be within VicRoads residual settlement requirement of a
maximum of 50 mm after 6 months of preloading.
187
8.7
Finite Element Analysis of Embankments using Untreated Biosolids
This section discusses the results of finite element analysis of embankment using untreated
biosolids. To negate the effect of long term decomposition of biosolids, the thickness of the
stabilised biosolids layer was restricted to 0.5 meters for the various embankment scenarios
analysed. VicRoads indicated that their requirement for the embankment would be for a
residual settlement not exceeding 50 mm after a maximum of 6 months of preloading.
height. The typical geometry for the finite element analysis of embankments using untreated
biosolids is presented in Figure 130.
fill (Type B and C). The soft soil creep model was specified for the untreated biosolids in the
load of 20kPa was specified in the analyses prior to the preloading period.
The material properties of untreated biosolids is summarised in Table 55. These material
properties were used as input parameters for the finite element models and were derived from
the laboratory testing results obtained.
188
X = 3H
30m
X = 3H
1.5
3
1
Type B fill
Type C fill
Type C fill
0.5m
Untreated Biosolids
Basalt
Figure 130 : Typical geometry for embankment using untreated biosolids.
Table 55 : Material properties of untreated biosolids.

Soft Soil Creep
Unit
Untreated Biosolids
Undrained
Parameter
unsat
[kN/m]
sat
kx
[kN/m]
13.61
[m/day]
0.01
ky
[m/day]
0.01
[-]
0.15
[-]
0.02
[-]
0.2
ur(nu)
[]
[]
[-]
11
0
0.15
0nc
[-]
0.81
[kN/m]
12.05
The finite element analysis of embankment using untreated biosolids was not completed
successfully. This was because the low shear strength and friction angle of the untreated
biosolids was found to be inadequate to carry the embankment and traffic load.
189
Figure 131 presents the collapsed finite element deformation mesh for the 5m embankment
using untreated biosolids. The analysis confirms that biosolids has to be stabilised before
usage as embankment fill material and, as such, untreated biosolids cannot be used in such
embankment applications.
Figure 131 : Collapsed deformation mesh of 5 m embankment using untreated biosolids.
190
8.8
Conclusions: Finite Element Modelling
Finite element analysis was conducted to analyse the behaviour of embankment using
stabilised biosolids with lime, cement, bauxsol and crushed brick as well as untreated
biosolids.
The residual settlement of the biosolids stabilised with various additives including lime (5%),
cement (3%, 5%), bauxsol (3%, 5%) and crushed brick (30%, 40%, 50%) were found to be
within VicRoads residual settlement requirement of a maximum of 50mm over a period of 20
years after 6 months of preloading. The results of the analysis agree well with the laboratory
testing results and indicate that biosolids, when stabilised with additives to the required
percentages, can be use as stabilised fill in embankments. The residual settlement reported for
the stabilised biosolids with lime, cement and bauxsol was until the completion of total
settlement based on a minimum pore water pressure of 0.01 kN/m2 that was conservatively
specified in the calculation phase of the analyses (as compared to the traditionally
recommended minimum pore water pressure of 1 kN/m2).
An analysis was undertaken for untreated biosolids but the analysis could not be completed
successfully. This was because the low shear strength and friction angle of the untreated
biosolids was found to be inadequate to carry the embankment and traffic load. The analysis
confirms that biosolids has to be stabilised before usage as embankment fill material and, as
such, untreated biosolids cannot be used in such embankment applications.
An impermeable geomembrane separator or 0.5 m impermeable clay layer is recommended to
be used to encapsulate the biosolids and to prevent any seepage or leaching of biosolids into
the fill material. The geomembrane or clay layer acts as a separator and will furthermore
provide a transition between the stabilised biosolids and the engineered fill. The cost of
encapsulating the stabilised biosolids with a geomembrane is minimal as the geomembrane
has been included solely for separation purposes. The stabilised biosolids is thus confined and
encapsulated 3 dimensionally and there is furthermore conservation of mass but not volume
of stabilised biosolids as the stabilised biosolids will still contain air and moisture voids.
No additional fill for surcharging of the embankment has been provided in this study.
Topping up of the embankments is required to the specified finish levels following the
191
completion of the 6 month preloading period. This is to compensate for the total settlement of
the embankment during construction and preloading.
The summary of the residual and total settlement range for 2 to 5 m embankments using
various additives is summarised in Table 56 and the unit weight of biosolids stabilised with
various additives is also summarised in Table 56.
It is evident that the residual and total settlements for biosolids stabilised with crushed brick is
minimal. Blending of biosolids with crushed brick reduces significantly the consolidation
properties of the biosolids, due to the higher percentages of crushed brick that can be
economically applied as compared to traditional stabilisers (lime, cement, bauxsol). The usage
of crushed brick as an additive increases the shearing and strength properties of biosolids and
is an economical method of stabilising biosolids. Crushed brick has traditionally been
considered as a waste material and its reuse would enable this material to be used as a
resource material and in this case as an additive for the stabilisation of biosolids.
Table 56 : Summary of residual settlement, total settlement and unit weight of biosolids.
Residual
Settlement
(mm) *
21 - 28
Total
Settlement
(mm) *
380 - 449
24 - 30
348 - 435
13.3
15 - 17
265 - 317
13.3
13 - 18
329 398
13.4
3-8
270 - 330
13.4
14 - 34
16.2
14 - 34
17.1

* Settlement range for 2 m to 5 m embankments
14 - 34
18.0
Stabilised Biosolids
Biosolids + 5% Lime
192
Saturated unit
weight (kN/m3)
13.4
TECHNICAL NOTE
This section presents the specification and technical note for the usage of stabilized biosolids
as embankment fills. Various aspects of the handling, storage, placement and site and
environmental controls have been considered in the preparation of this technical note.
embankments to confirm the expected settlements of the stabilised biosolids when used as
embankment fills and to compare this with the laboratory testing and finite element modelling
results.
193
9.1
Specification on Use of Biosolids as Stabilised Fills
Occupational Health and Safety Considerations

Although biosolids may appear inoffensive after air drying and stockpiling for a number of
years, it should be noted that they are products from human wastes and must be handled
appropriately. In general contractors, site operators and management in the industry should
abide by the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (2004) and have policies
in place to protect the health and safety of employees when dealing with biosolids. An
Occupational Health and Safety Plan should be prepared, staff trained and safe practices
integrated into day to day work procedures (EPA Victoria, 2004).
As biosolids may contain chemical contamination or micro-organisms that could be harmful
to people who come into contact with the material, proper care should be undertaken when
handling this material. The following is suggested as minimum practices (EPA Victoria,
2004):
Adequate protective clothing should be worn, including eye protection, rubber gloves and
boots where appropriate. When working in a dusty environment mask or respirators and
eye protection should be worn;
Washing of hands and scrub nails well with soap before eating, drinking or smoking, and
at the end of each work day;
No consumption of food and drinks, or smoking while working with biosolids;
Ensure change of work clothes everyday for hygiene;
Adopt techniques that minimise generation of mists and airborne dust;
Exercise extra care in handling biosolids when they are wet from significant rainfall, in
case of possible regrowth of bacteria;
194
Provision of washing facilities and showers to the employees; and
Adequate immunisation cover, especially Hepatitis A and Tetanus, should be provided for
any person in regular contact with biosolids.
Transportation of Biosolids
Transportation of biosolids is not subject to EPA prescribed waste regulations. However,
biosolids is considered a controlled waste under the NEPM (Movement of Controlled Wastes
between States and Territories). Therefore, the approval of the relevant regulator is required
before interstate movement.
When vehicular transport of biosolids is required, it should be done in a manner that prevents
spillage, odours, or contamination of the surrounding environment by biosolids.
Suggested best practice measures (EPA Victoria, 2004) include:
Choosing transport routes and sites so as to minimise impacts on public amenity;
Ensure the quantity of biosolids supplied to the transporter is delivered to the user;
Using fully enclosed or sealed tankers or trailers with locks, water-tight tailgate seals,
and waterproof covers for loads at all times (particularly if biosolids are excessively wet
or dry/dusty);
Ensuring vehicles used to transport biosolids are not contaminated with wastes (for
example residues of prescribed wastes) that will impact upon biosolids quality;
Thorough cleaning of truck tailgates and tyres prior to leaving production and
application sites to avoid carryover or spills to roads; and
Preparation and implementation of an incident management plan to ensure rapid cleanup of transport spills. Dry clean up methods are always preferred. Flushing of biosolids
down drains is prohibited and will result in enforcement action being taken by the EPA.
195
Storage of Biosolids
Biosolids should be stockpiled in an area in a manner that avoids impacts on groundwater and
surface waters, and avoids generation of offensive odours and dust beyond the site boundary.
Medium to long term biosolids storage should occur at dedicated facilities located at the
generation or treatment site. Only short term storage (< 60 days and preferably < 30 days)
should typically occur at the end use / application site, unless logistics require longer term
storage and environmental protection can be assured (EPA Victoria, 2004). If biosolids are
stored at the application site, the recommended measures include (EPA Victoria, 2004):
Biosolids that will be regularly stored at a particular site or stored for longer than 30 days,
should be stored undercover or retained within a bunded storage area with an
impermeable to low permeability base and designed to capture the first flush of
contaminated runoff. Runoff could contain any soluble chemical contamination within the
biosolids.
Where bunding and an impermeable base is not practical at the application site, the
stockpiles should be located on flat land, stockpiles should be sloped to reduce water
penetration and stormwater flow into storage site should be diverted. Increased buffer
distances to surface waters may be required and the duration of storage should be
minimised.
Stockpile areas should be located on a slope of less than five percent;
The buffer distances listed in EPAs Biosolids Land Application (2004) document must be
adopted;
Stockpiles should not be turned or broken up on windy dry days, to prevent off-site odour
and dust generation (light watering of stockpiles could be undertaken to control dust
generation); and
196
Site and Environmental Management Controls

Stormwater management
External surface water from the surrounding land should be prevented from flowing into the
application site. Suggested measures to control run off include placing diversion banks and
cut-off drains around the application site, where applicable (EPA Victoria, 2004).
Biosolids should not be applied within 48 hours of heavy rains being forecast. Where light
rain is forecast within 48 hours, application can proceed provided sites do not have ratings
above moderate for hydraulic capacity and slope. If these requirements are not met, site
specific consideration of stormwater run-off and collection controls will be needed (EPA
Victoria, 2004).
Signage and site access

Site access to the biosolids application should be restricted. The erection of warning signs
must be placed that comply with AS1319 Safety Signs for the Occupational Environment.
The signage should be located on points of access during the works period. The need for
fencing should be considered based on the likelihood of inadvertent or intentional public
access to the site during the works period (EPA Victoria, 2004).
197
9.2
Technical Note for the Usage of Stabilized Biosolids as Type B Embankment Fill
This technical note addresses the use of stabilized biosolids as fill material in road
embankment construction.
Biosolids are the residual material produced from the primary and secondary sewage
treatment process. Melbourne Water Corporation (MWC) produces approximately 67,000
tonnes of biosolids annually at its treatment plants in Victoria. The sludge produced during
sewage treatment is stored in sludge drying pans. Following the air-drying of the biosolids,
biosolids are stockpiled for more than 3 years at the treatment plant and have the potential to
be used as a road embankment construction material. (Vicroads, 2007).
There are three types of road formation construction material described in VicRoads Standard
Specification for Roadworks and Bridgework, Section 204 (Reference 4).
Table 57: Description of various fill material types (VicRoads, 2007).

Type A
Used principally as structural material and/or verge material. Type A is a

superior quality material. Free from organic material, CBR values usually 6,
swell < 1.5% and may have permeability criteria depending on the location of
use.
Type B
A lesser quality material than Type A. Type B is free from organic material,
CBR value (preferably 2) and has a particle dimension not more than 150 to
400mm depending on the location of use.
Type C
A lesser quality material than Type A and Type B. Type C shall be capable
of spreading in layers of not more than 500mm.
The biosolids should not be used as Type A material.

If the biosolids are to be used as Type C material, it is recommended that an impermeable
clay layer of at least 0.5m thick should be used to fully encapsulate the biosolids (Vicroads,
2007).
198
If the biosolids are to be used as Type B material, a contract specific clause allowing the use
of the biosolids should be included in the contract specification with the following limitations:
1
Biosolids should be stabilised with one of the following additives to the specified
minimum mix proportions:
lime (5%),
cement (3%),
bauxsol (3%),
20 mm crushed brick (30%);
The biosolids should be placed above the design flood level (min requirement 1 in 100
year flood level) and at least 1m above the maximum known groundwater table;
To negate the effect of long term decomposition of biosolids, maximum allowable total
thickness of biosolids within a road embankment should be limited to 0.5 m
The residual settlement of the biosolids stabilised with various additives including lime,
cement, bauxsol and crushed brick should be within the commonly used VicRoads
residual settlement requirement of 50 mm (maximum) over a period of 20 years.
Preloading for a minimum 6 months of should be undertaken prior to the placement of
the final pavement layers. Nominally embankment heights should be kept below 5 m to
ensure latent stability issues are avoided.
Prior to the placement of any fill, an appropriate settlement monitoring system should be
installed to monitor settlement behaviour of biosolids. Settlement monitoring should be
undertaken during construction and over the entire contract defects liability period.
An impermeable geomembrane separator or 0.5 m impermeable clay layer is

recommended to be used to encapsulate the biosolids and to prevent any seepage or
leaching of biosolids into the fill material.
199
An instrumented field trial embankment is required to monitor and confirm the expected
settlements of the stabilised biosolids when used as embankment fills and to confirm the
laboratory testing and finite element modelling results.
Consideration of biosolids as stabilised embankment fill should be included in the

Technical Specification for the works as specified by VicRoads standard specification
sections used by VicRoads and Councils for road construction. The key inclusions should
also include, but not limited to:
Setting out and constructing each section of the work within the prescribed
tolerance limits.
Remediation of any work in which the prescribed tolerance limits are exceeded
Surface preparation under embankment
Placement of the fill
Moisture conditioning of the fill
Compaction requirements of the fill
It is recommended that chemical and biological contaminant testing be undertaken in

accordance with EPA Biosolids Land Application Guidelines (2004) to assess the
contaminant grade of the biosolids. If an unrestricted grade was obtained, then
application of the biosolids is significantly easier. Restrictions are placed on the use and
application of biosolids particularly if the contaminate grade is C2 or C3. If biosolids
contains heavy metals at a contaminant level of C3 then an EPA works approval and
licensing would be required (Current EPA biosolids guidelines do not cover C3
contaminant levels).
200
9.3
Brief for Future Trial Embankment
9.3.1. Trial Embankment Construction

To demonstrate the application of biosolids as stabilised fill material, it is proposed that 2
future trial embankments be constructed and post construction monitoring be undertaken. The
stabilised biosolids layer should be no more than 0.5m thick and be encapsulated by an
impermeable geomembrane separator for the first trial embankment and a 0.5 m impermeable
clay layer for the second trial embankment. Biosolids stabilised with 30% crushed brick (20
mm) is recommended to be used for both trial embankments. Each trial embankment will
furthermore be subjected to a maximum of 1000 passes of a 10 ton vehicle (laden truck or
cart) and the settlement monitored. Figure 132 below depicts the trial embankment with
geomembrane separator and instrumentation locations. Figure 133 depicts the trial
embankment with 0.5 m impermeable clay layer and instrumentation locations.
Figure 132: Details of proposed future instrumented trial embankment no. 1 (with
geomembrane separator).
201
Figure 133: Details of proposed future instrumented trial embankment no. 2 (with 0.5 m
impermeable clay layer).
9.3.2. Proposed Field Instrumentation

The use of field instrumentation is essential for assessing the degree of consolidation of the
stabilised biosolids layer under the embankment fill. Field instrumentation monitoring will
provide a continuous record of the biosolids under the fill and surcharge load right from the
point of the initial instrument installation. Field instruments recommended for monitoring the
trial embankment include the following:
Survey nails installed on the surface of the shoulder, levelled to 0.1 mm.
Settlement Plates
-
Placed 0.5m below the embankment surface
Placed just above the geomembrane or impermeable clay layer covering the
stabilised biosolids.
202
Plate Load Test

-
To be undertaken at the top of embankment.
Maximum plate size of 3 m x 3 m has been suggested though smaller plate

sizes may also be proposed.
The installation of these instruments is briefly described in the following sections.
Settlement Plate
Settlement plates comprise a base plate (usually in the order of one metre diameter) welded to
a suitable length of casing extending to the surface level. For the trial embankments, it is
proposed that three base plates be placed at the top of the biosolids fill layer after laying the
impermeable geomembrane separator or 0.5 m impermeable clay layer but just prior to the
placement of the Type B clay fill. An additional three surface settlement plates are to be
installed 0.5m below the surface level of the embankment once the embankment is
constructed. The base plate should be placed. A rod of known length can be introduced into
the casing from the surface to the base plate. A reading of the settlement of the underlying
surface can be undertaken by surveying the top of the rod.
Plate Load Test

The overall aim of undertaking the plate load tests on the trial embankment is to measure the
elastic and creep characteristics of the biosolids material as placed and compacted. The plate
load tests results can also be compared to the results to those predicted from the laboratory
tests and the finite element models. The plate load test frame should be placed on the top of
embankment surface.
9.3.3. Approximate Construction Cost of Future Trial Embankment

The cost estimate for the construction of the trial embankments was undertaken based on
current construction industry rates (Rawlinsons, 2007). Several key assumptions were adopted
for the estimation including:
Embankment will be constructed as a fill only (no cut) and materials will be imported.
Biosolids will be hauled 20 km to the trial location.
Type A and B fill will be sourced from a 5 km radius.
Embankment height (H) will be 5m and will span 20m length.
203
Each trial embankment will be subjected to a maximum of 1000 passes of vehicular

traffic with a truck or cart of approximately 10 ton in load.
No contingency has been included in the costs.
The estimated cost to undertake the construction of the trial embankment with geomembrane
separator is $220,880. The estimated cost to undertake the construction of the trial
embankment with clay liner separator is $224,271. The estimated cost of an embankment
without biosolids was undertaken for cost comparison purposes and was found to cost
$210,839. The construction cost of the embankments with stabilised biosolids is found to be
only marginally higher than that of a traditional embankment without biosolids. Table 58
summaries the key cost items for the 2 trial embankments as well as the comparison of cost
with a traditional embankment without biosolids.
Table 59 and Table 60 present a detailed breakdown of the trial embankment costs. Table 61
provides a detailed breakdown of the cost of an embankment without biosolids for cost
comparison purposes.
Table 58: Comparison of construction cost for proposed trial embankments.
Item
Quantity
Management and
Trial Embankment 1
Trial Embankment 2
(Geomembrane Separator)
(Clay Liner Separator)
Unit Rate
Cost
Unit Rate
Cost
30 hours
$ 100
$ 3,000
$ 100
$ 3,000
363 m3
$ 36.85
$ 13,378
$ 36.10
$ 13,105
4,137 m3
$ 27.56
$ 113,997
$28.79
$ 119,092
4,500 m3
$ 15.76
$ 70,905
$ 15.44
69,474
$ 19,600
$ 19,600
$ 220,880
$224,271
$ 210,839
Admin
Haulage of Biosolids
Haulage of Fills
(Clay, Type B and C)
Construction of
Embankment
Post Construction
Monitoring
Total
Embankment without biosolids
204
$ 210,839
Table 59: Construction cost of proposed trial embankment 1 Geomembrane separator

Volume of Compacted Fills
Variables (Based on Embankment Design)
Embankment Width =
H=
Biosolids Thickness =
Trial Length =
30
5
0.5
20
No
1
2
3
Item
Biosolids
Type B Fill
Type C Fill
h
0.5
4.5
5
Area m^2
18.17
148.50
58.33
225
Volume m^3
363.33
2970.00
1166.67
4500
Project Management and Administration

PM and Admin =
$3,000
Haulage of Biosolids & Stabilising Agent

Volume of Biosolids =
Volume of Stabilising Agent =
254.33
109.00
Variables
Volume of insitu fill per load of 20T (m^3) =
Loads per hour =
20T Rate Per Hour =
10.87
0.8
90
Excavation
Bulk Volume =
Excavation rates =
Biosolids Excavation Cost =
317.92
17.25
$5,484
Assuming factor of 0.8 & 70% Biosolids
No. of BS Loads =
No. of hours =
Loading allowance =
Biosolids Haulage Cost =
24
30
10
$3,000
70% Biosolids
Miscellanous =
$1,000
i.e Waterproofing truck(s), washdown etc.
Stabilising Agent (crushed bricks) =

Density of crushed bricks =
Amount of crushed bricks =
Haulage cos (per tonne) =
Crushed Brick Material and Haulage =
$19
1.6
174
$3.33
$3,894
Alex Fraser Cost (Per Tonne)
70% Biosolids
30% Crushed Bricks
Rawlinsons 2007 - Vehicle Capacity Assuming Clay Fill

Rawlinsons 2007 -Loads per hour assuming 20km to site
Rawlinsons 2007 - Haulage Rate (VIC)
Rawlinsons 2007 - Excavation Rate (VIC)
Tonne/m^3
Tonnes
Alex Fraser - $100 per 30 tonnes
Haulage of Type B and C Fills

Variables
Loads per hour =
20T Rate Per Hour =
Excavation
Bulk Volume =
Loading rates =
10.87
2.59
90

Excavation Cost =
5170.83
17.25
$89,197
Haulage Cost =
381
148
10
$14,800
Miscellanous =
$10,000
i.e. Cost for material from supplier
$630
$700
$5,000
$64,575
Rawlinsons 2007 - Level and grade (VIC)
No. of Loads =
No. of hours =
Loading allowance =
Assuming factor of 0.8

Construction of Embankment
Site Preparation =
Stabilise Biosolids =
Geomembrane separator =
Fill and Compact =
i.e. material and labour

Instrumentation and Post Construction Monitoring

Instrumentation (Settlement Plate)
$3,600
Instrumentation (PLT)
$10,000
Monitoring
$6,000
Total
$220,880
205
Table 60: Construction cost of proposed trial embankment 2 Clay liner separator
Embankment Width =
H=
Clay liner height =
Biosolids Thickness =
Trial Length =
No
1
2
3
4
30
5
1
0.5
20
Item
Biosolids
Type B Fill
Type C Fill
Clay liner
h
0.5
3.5
5
1
Area m^2
17.83
113.16
58.33
35.68
225
Volume m^3
356.60
2263.20
1166.67
713.60
4500

PM and Admin =
$3,000
Haulage of Biosolids & Stabilising Agent

Volume of Biosolids =
Volume of Stabilising Agent =
249.62
106.98
Variables
Loads per hour =
20T Rate Per Hour =
10.87
0.8
90
Excavation
Bulk Volume =
Excavation rates =
Biosolids Excavation Cost =
312.03
17.25
$5,382
Assuming factor of 0.8 & 70% Biosolids
No. of BS Loads =
No. of hours =
Loading allowance =
Biosolids Haulage Cost =
23
29
10
$2,900
70% Biosolids
Miscellanous =
$1,000
i.e Waterproofing truck(s), washdown etc.
Stabilising Agent (crushed bricks) =

Density of crushed bricks =
Amount of crushed bricks =
Haulage cos (per tonne) =
Crushed Brick Material and Haulage =
$19
1.6
171
$3.33
$3,822
Alex Fraser Rate (Per Tonne)
70% Biosolids
30% Crushed Bricks

Tonne/m^3
Tonnes
Alex Fraser - $100 per 30 tonnes
Haulage of Type B and C Fills & Clay Material

Variables
Loads per hour =
20T Rate Per Hour =
Excavation
Bulk Volume =
Loading rates =
10.87
2.59
90

Excavation Cost =
5179.33
17.25
$89,344
Haulage Cost =
382
147
10
$14,749
Miscellanous =
$15,000
$630
$700
$13,808
$54,336
No. of Loads =
No. of hours =
Loading allowance =

Site Preparation =
Stabilise Biosolids =
Clay Liner =
Fill and Compact =


$3,600
$10,000
Monitoring
$6,000
Total
$224,271
206
Table 61: Construction cost of an embankment without biosolids - for comparison purposes.
Embankment Width =
H=
Trial Length =
30
5
20
No
1
2
Item
Type B Fill
Type C Fill
h
5
5
Area m^2
166.67
58.33
225
Volume m^3
3333.40
1166.67
4500

PM and Admin =
$3,000
Haulage of Type B and C Fills

Variables
Loads per hour =
20T Rate Per Hour =
Excavation
Bulk Volume =
Loading rates =
10.87
2.59
90

Excavation Cost =
5625.08
17.25
$97,033
Haulage Cost =
414
160
10
$16,000
Miscellanous =
$10,000
$630
$64,576
No. of Loads =
No. of hours =
Loading allowance =

Site Preparation =
Fill and Compact =

$3,600
$10,000
Monitoring
$6,000
Total
$210,839
207
9.4
Conclusions: Technical Note
A technical note has been developed in this submission to provide standard best practices for
the usage of biosolids as stabilised fill in embankments. Due to the nature of the material,
occupation health and safety measures, proper transportation, controlled storage, site
management and environmental management controls have been outlined in this technical
note.
Biosolids should be stabilised with one of the following additives to the specified minimum
mix proportions:
lime (5%),
cement (3%),
bauxsol (3%),
To negate the effect of long term decomposition of biosolids, the maximum allowable total
thickness of the stabilised biosolids within a road embankment should be limited to 0.5 m. An
impermeable geomembrane separator or 0.5 m impermeable clay layer is recommended to be
used to encapsulate the biosolids and to prevent any seepage or leaching of biosolids into the
fill material.
embankments to confirm the expected settlement of the stabilised biosolids when used as
results. An estimate for the cost of the stabilised trial embankments has also been estimated
and compared to that of a traditional embankment without biosolids. The construction cost of
the embankments with stabilised biosolids is found to be only marginally higher than that of a
traditional embankment without biosolids.
208
10 CONCLUSION
10.1 Literature Review
The Literature Review for this report was undertaken for laboratory testing and research
studies conducted on sludge and biosolids locally and around the world and discusses the
geotechnical characteristics of the sludge and the biosolids. The stabilisation of sludge and
biosolids by using additives such as lime, fly-ash and cement are also discussed together with
the finite element modelling and analysis conducted on sludge and soft soil in recent decades.
10.2 Field Testing

The field testing and sampling works which were undertaken by Connell Wagner for
Swinburne University at the Western Treatment Plant in Werribee. The following conclusions
can be made based on the field testing results:
The standard penetration test (SPT) results indicated that the estimated allowable
bearing capacity of the biosolids in the stockpiles was found to vary between 70 to 80
kPa at a depth of 1.5 m to 3.0 m in boreholes BH3 (Stockpile 1), BH5 (Stockpile 2)
and BH11 (Stockpile 3). The allowable bearing capacity of the biosolids in borehole
BH7 (Stockpile 2) at depth of 4.0 m was found to be 230 kPa. The standard
penetration test results indicate that the consistency of the biosolids in all the
stockpiles is firm to very stiff.
The field vane shear test results indicate that the consistency of the biosolids is very
stiff to hard. The undrained shear strength of biosolids was found to generally increase
with the depth.
In general, the estimated California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values from dynamic cone
penetrometer tests increases with the depth of the biosolids stockpile. The CBR results
indicate that the consistency of the biosolids in the stockpiles is firm to hard.
It is noted that the various field testing methods consistently indicate that the biosolids
in the stockpiles are firm to hard. The slight variability between the various field
209
testing methods is expected due to the various assumptions and empirical equations
used in each test method.
10.3 Laboratory Testing

Biosolids samples obtained from three stockpiles at Biosolids Stockpile Area, Western
Treatment Plant were tested to investigate the geotechnical characteristics of biosolids and the
suitability of biosolids as stabilised fill material. Based on the geotechnical laboratory test
results the following conclusions can be made:
plasticity with a group symbol of OH as per Australian standard for the geotechnical
site investigation (AS 1276, 1993). The biosolids samples contain approximately 5%
gravel size, 50% sand size, 40% silt size and 5% clay sized particles.
The biosolids samples in the three stockpiles have high moisture content, liquid limit
and plasticity indices that are comparable to common inorganic soils. The moisture
content, liquid limit and plasticity indices decrease when biosolids are stabilised with
lime, cement and bauxsol. The particle density of biosolids was found to be
approximately 1.75 t/m3 as compared to typical soil value of 2.6 to 2.75 t/m3.
The shear strength test results from the triaxial test indicate that the biosolids
stabilised with the required proportions of additives possess sufficient shear strength
to make them suitable for use as fill material.
Consolidation test results of stabilised biosolids with additives provided coefficient of

consolidation results that need to be reviewed for the modelling of the biosolids
embankment in the next phase of this project. This is because the design input
parameters will be dependant on the imposed embankment loads.
Long-term laboratory testing of secondary consolidation settlement (creep

characteristics) of the biosolids were used as input parameters in the finite element
analysis of embankments using stabilised biosolids. The creep consolidation tests
were conducted to determine the secondary compression index for the finite element
210
analysis. The long-term creep consolidation tests were undertaken by applying each
load increment for seven days (as compared to the traditional 1 day load increment).
The coefficient of permeability from falling head permeability test results indicated
that the untreated and stabilised biosolids have low permeability similar to that of clay
type materials.
The CBR values of biosolids stabilised with a minimum of 5% lime, 3% cement, 3%

bauxsol and 30%, 40% or 50% crushed brick satisfy the VicRoads specification for
Type B fill material which requires a minimum CBR of 2%.
The composition of the biosolids will have an impact on the geotechnical testing
results as will other factors such as formation history, treatment process, drying
duration, drying method, storage methods, storage period and handling methods.
10.4 Finite Element Modelling

Finite element analysis was conducted to analyse the behaviour of an embankment using
untreated biosolids and biosolids stabilised with lime, cement, bauxsol or crushed brick.
The residual settlement of the biosolids stabilised with various additives including
lime (5%), cement (3%, 5%), bauxsol (3%, 5%) and crushed brick (30%, 40%, 50%)
were found to be within VicRoads residual settlement requirement of a maximum of
50 mm over a period of 20 years after 6 months of preloading.
It is evident that the residual and total settlements for biosolids stabilised with crushed
brick is minimal. Blending of biosolids with crushed brick reduces significantly the
consolidation properties of the biosolids, due to the higher percentages of crushed
brick that can be economically applied as compared to traditional stabilisers (lime,
cement, bauxsol). The usage of crushed brick as an additive increases the shearing and
strength properties of biosolids and is an economical method of stabilising biosolids.
Crushed brick has traditionally been considered as a waste material and its reuse
would enable this material to be used as a resource material and in this case as an
additive for the stabilization of biosolids.
211
The results of the analysis agree well with the laboratory testing results and indicate
that biosolids, when stabilised with additives to the required percentages, can be use as
stabilised fill in embankments.
The residual settlement reported for the stabilised biosolids with lime, cement and
bauxsol was until the completion of total settlement based on a minimum pore water
pressure of 0.01 kN/m2 that was conservatively specified in the calculation phase of
the analyses (as compared to the traditionally recommended minimum pore water
pressure of 1 kN/m2).
An analysis was undertaken for untreated biosolids but the analysis could not be
completed successfully. This was because the low shear strength and friction angle of
the untreated biosolids was found to be inadequate to carry the embankment and
traffic load.
The analysis confirms that biosolids has to be stabilised before usage as embankment
fill material and, as such, untreated biosolids cannot be used in such embankment
applications.
An impermeable geomembrane separator or 0.5 m impermeable clay layer is

recommended to be used to encapsulate the biosolids and to prevent any seepage or
leaching of biosolids into the fill material. The geomembrane and clay layer acts as a
separator and will furthermore provide a transition between the stabilised biosolids
and the engineered fill.
The cost of encapsulating the stabilised biosolids with a geomembrane is minimal as

the geomembrane has been included solely for separation purposes. The stabilised
biosolids is thus confined and encapsulated 3 dimensionally and there is furthermore
conservation of mass but not volume of stabilised biosolids as the stabilised biosolids
will still contain air and moisture voids.
No additional fill for surcharging of the embankment has been provided for in this
study. Topping up of the embankments is required to the specified finish levels
212
following the completion of the 6 month preloading period. This is to compensate for
the total settlements of the embankment during construction and preloading.
10.5 Technical Note

A technical note has been developed in this submission to provide standard best practices for
the usage of biosolids as stabilised fill in embankments. Due to the nature of the material,
occupation health and safety measures, proper transportation, controlled storage, site
management and environmental management controls have been outlined in this technical
note.
Biosolids should be stabilised with one of the following additives to the specified minimum
mix proportions:
lime (5%),
cement (3%),
bauxsol (3%),
To negate the effect of long term decomposition of biosolids, the maximum allowable total
thickness of the stabilised biosolids within a road embankment should be limited to 0.5 m. An
impermeable geomembrane separator or 0.5 m impermeable clay layer is recommended to be
used to encapsulate the biosolids and to prevent any seepage or leaching of biosolids into the
fill material.
embankments to confirm the expected settlements of the stabilised biosolids when used as
results. An estimate for the cost of the stabilised trial embankments has also been prepared
and found to be only marginally higher than that of a traditional embankment without
biosolids.
213
11
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (2003). Standard test methods for unconsolidated
undrained triaxial compression test for cohesive, ASTM D 2850 03.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2004). Standard test Method for consolidated
undrained triaxial compression test for Cohesive Soils, ASTM D 4767 04.
Arulrajah, A., Nikraz, H. and Bo, M.W. (2004). Finite Element Modeling of Marine Clay
Deformation under Reclamation Fills, Ground Improvement, Journal of the International
Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, July, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 105-118.
Austroads (1998). Guide to stabilisation in road works. Austroad, Sydney, Australia.
Bo Myint Win, Arulrajah, A., Choa, V. and Na, Y. M. (1999) One-dimensional compression
of slurry with radial drainage, Soil and Foundation, Vol. 39, November 9-17, Japanese
Geotechnical Society.
Bo Myint Win, Wong, K.S., Choa, V. and Teh, C.I. (2003). Compression Tests of Ultra-Soft
Soil Using a Hydraulic Consolidation Cell, ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 26,
Issue 3, September.
British Standards (1990). Methods of testings for soil for civil engineering purposes: Part 5:
Shear strength test (Total stress), BS 1377-5: 1990.
British Standards (1990). Methods of testings for soil for civil engineering purposes: Part 6:
Consolidation and permeability tests in hydraulic cells and with pore pressure measurement,
BS 1377-6: 1990.
Chu, J., Goi, M.H. and Lim, T.T. (2005). Consolidation of Cement-Treated Sewage Sludge
using Vertical Drains, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 528-540.
214
Department of Environmental Protection (2008), a pile of Bauxsol is passed through a

mechanical device that processes it to provide a uniform consistency, viewed 22 February
2008, http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/news/.
EPA Victoria (2004). Publication 943, Guidelines For Environmental Management
Biosolids Land Application, April.
EPA Victoria (2004). Biosolids Land Application, Guidelines for Environmental
Management, Australia.
Goi, M.H. (2004). Use of Stabilized Sewage Sludge for Land Reclamation, MEng Thesis,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Golder Associates (2006). Geotechnical Assessment of Clay Rich Biosolids For Use As
Road Embankment Fill, November, Melbourne, Australia.
Head, K.H. (1994). Manual for Soil Laboratory Testing, Soil Classification and Compaction
Tests, Pentech Press Limited, London, Vol. 1, 3rd edition.
Head, K.H. (1994). Manual for Soil Laboratory Testing, Permeability, Shear Strength and
Compressibility Tests, Pentech Press Limited, London, Vol. 2, 2nd edition.
Herzog A. Mitchell, J.K. (1963). Reactions accompanying stabilization of clay with cement,
Highway Research Board, No. 36, pp. 146-171.
Little, D.N. (1999). Evaluation of structural properties of lime stabilised soils and aggregates,
Report of Summary of finding for National Lime Association.
Karstunen, M., Wiltafsky, C., Krenn, H., Scharinger, F., and Schweiger, H. F. (2006).
Modelling the Behaviour of an Embankment on Soft Clay With Different Constitutive
Models, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol.
30, pp. 953-982.
215
Klein, A. and Sarsby, R.W. (2000). Problems in Defining the Geotechnical Behaviour of
Wastewater Sludges, Geotechnics of High Content Materials, American Society of Testing
Materials, pp. 74-87.
Klein, A. (1995). The Geotechnical Properties of Sewage Sludges, M.S. Thesis, Bolton
Institute, Bolton, United Kingdom.
Kocar, F.O., Alkan, U. and Baskaya, H.S. (2003). Use of Lignite Fly Ash as an Additive in
Alkaline Stabilisation and Pasteurisation of Wastewater Sludge, Waste Management &
Research, Vol. 21, No. 5, 448-458.
Lim, S., Jeon, W., Lee, J., Lee, K. and Kim, L. (2002). Engineering properties of
water/wastewater-treatment sludge modified by hydrated lime, fly ash and loess, Water
Research, Vol. 36, pp. 4177-4184.
Lo, M.C., Zhou, W.W. and Lee, M.K. (2002). Geotechnical Characterization of Dewatered
Sewage Sludge for Landfill Disposal, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 11391149.
Maddocks G., Lin C., and McConchie D. (2004). Effects of BauxsolTM and biosolids on soil
conditions of acid-generating mine spoil for plant growth, Environmental Pollution, Vol. 127,
p. 157-167.
Melbourne Water Corporation (2000). Conservation Management Action Plan, July.
Melbourne Water (2001). Sands, Crushed rock and crushed scoria, Specification 21.A.038,
August.
Melbourne Water Corporation (2003). Future land use at Western Treatment Plant.
Melbourne Water Corporation (2006). Melbourne Water Sustainability Report, 2005-2006.
National Lime Association (2007), Fact Sheet: Properties of Lime. National Lime
Association, Virginia, USA.
216
OKelly, B.C. (2004). Geotechnical Aspects of Sewage Sludge Monofills, Proceeding of

the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer 157 (ME3), September 2004, pp. 193197.
OKelly, B.C. (2005a). Consolidation Properties of a Dewatered Municipal Sewage Sludge,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 1350-1358.
OKelly, B.C. (2005b). Mechanical Properties of a Dewatered Municipal Sewage Sludge,
Waste Management , Vol. 25, pp. 47-52.
OKelly, B.C. (2006). Geotechnical Properties of Municipal Sewage Sludge, Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, 24, pp. 833-850.
Plaxis (2006) Plaxis Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses, 2D-Version 8. Plaxis
BV, The Netherlands.
Rawlinsons (2007). Edition 25 Australian Construction Handbook
Rowe, P. W. (1966). "A New Consolidation Cell," Geotechnique, Vol. 16, No. 2, p. 162.
Shafer, A. L., Hargrove, J. Q and Harris, J. M. (2000), "Stability Analysis for Bioreactor
Landfill Operation.
Standards Australia (1993). Geotechnical site investigations, AS 1276-1993.
Standards Australia (2005). Methods of testings soil for engineering purposes: Method 2.1.1:
Soil moisture content testsDetermination of the moisture content of a soilOven drying
method (standard method), AS 1289.2.1.12005.
Soil classification testsDetermination of the liquid limit of a soilFour point Casagrande
method, AS 1289.3.1.11995.
217
Soil classification testsDetermination of the plastic limit of a soilStandard method, AS
1289.3.2.11995.
Soil classification testsCalculation of the plasticity index of a soil, AS 1289.3.3.11995.
Soil classification testsDetermination of the soil particle density of a soilStandard
method, AS 1289.3.5.12006.
Soil classification tests-Determination of the particle size distribution of a soil- Standard
method of analysis by sieving, AS 1289.3.6.11995.
Soil classification tests-Determination of the particle size distribution of a soil- Analysis by
sieving in combination with hydrometer analysis, AS 1289.3.6.21995.
Soil compaction and density tests-Determination of the dry density/moisture content relation
of a soil using standard compactive effort, AS 1289.5.1.12003.
Soil strength and consolidation tests-Determination of the California Bearing Ratio of a soilStandard laboratory method for a remoulded specimen, AS 1289.6.1.11998.
Soil strength and consolidation tests-Determination of the shear strength of a soil-Field test
using vane, AS 1289.6.2.12001.
218
Soil strength and consolidation tests-Determination of compressive strength of a soilCompressive strength of a specimen tested in undrained triaxial compression without
measurement of pore water pressure, AS 1289.6.4.11998.
Soil strength and consolidation tests-Determination of compressive strength of a soilCompressive strength of a saturated specimen tested in undrained triaxial compression with
measurement of pore water pressure, AS 1289.6.4.21998.
Soil strength and consolidation testsDetermination of the one-dimensional consolidation
properties of a soil Standard method, AS 1289.6.6.11998.
Soil strength and consolidation testsDetermination of the permeability of a soil Falling
head method for a remoulded specimen, AS 1289.6.7.22001.
Stone, R. J., Ekwue, E. I. and Clarke, R.O. (1998). Engineering Properties of Sewage Sludge
in Trinidad, J. Agric. Engr Research., Vol. 70, pp.221-230.
Tan, Siew-Ann (1996). Comparison of the Hyperbolic and Asaoka Observational Method of
Monitoring Consolidation with Vertical Drains Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Vol. 36, No. 3, June, pp. 31-41.
Tan, Siew-Ann (1995). Validation of Hyperbolic Method for Settlement in Clays with
Vertical Drains Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Vol. 35, No. 1, March, pp. 101-113.
Vajirkar (2000). Slope Stability Analysis of Class 1 Landfills With Co-Disposal of Biosolids
Using Field Test Data, MSc Thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando, United States.
219
Valls, S., Yague, A., Vazquez, E. and Mariscal, C. (2004). Physical and mechanical
properties of concrete with added dry sludge from a sewage treatment plant, Cement and
Concrete Research., Vol. 34, pp.2203-2208.
VicRoads(2005). Standard Specification for Roadworks and Bridgework, Section 204
VicRoads (2006). Standard Specifications for Earthworks and Bridge works, Section 204,
Flexible pavement construction, July.
VicRoads (2006). Standard Specifications for Earthworks and Bridge works for Deer Park
Bypass Project (V1299/C/S/204/WD/A), Section 204, Flexible pavement construction, July.
VicRoads (2007). Technical Note 90, Use of Clay Rich Biosolids As Fill Material For Road
Embankment Construction
220
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared solely for the use of the Smart Water Fund in accordance with
the Contract Agreement between the Smart Water Fund and Swinburne University of
Technology. This report has not been prepared for the use by parties other than the Smart
Water Fund and its respective consulting advisers.
221

Milestone 7 - Final Evaluation Report - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Milestone 7 - Final Evaluation Report - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SMART WATER FUND

Milestone 7: Final Evaluation Report

Finite Element Modelling

lime (5%), cement (3%), bauxsol (3%), 20 mm crushed brick (30%);

PROJECT BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................22

PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................23

SITE DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................25

LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................33

FIELD TESTING ................................................................................................................56

7.3.2. Cement .............................................................................................................. 74

7.6.6. Rowe Cell consolidation test results ............................................................... 107

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING ................................................................................154

Figure 28: Particle size distributions of biosolids samples ...................................................... 83

Figure 112 : Deformation mesh of 5 m embankment using biosolids stabilised with 3%

Figure 129 : Variation of vertical settlement of various embankments using biosolids

Table 25 : Falling head permeability of untreated biosolids.................................................... 92

Table 50 : Summary of total and residual settlement of embankments using biosolids

Dilatancy angle ():

Undrained shear strength:

Sludge Management at the various treatment plants in Melbourne is becoming increasingly

To implement sustainable biosolids recycling;

To provide an opportunity for biosolids recycling;

To minimise business risk in a cost effective way;

Figure 2. Aerial view of Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria.

Figure 4. Biosolids stockpiles at the Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria.

Milestone 1 Submission of Detailed Project Plan

Milestone 3 Field Testing

Milestone 4 Laboratory Testing

Milestone 5 Finite Element Modelling

Milestone 6 Development of Technical Note or Specifications

Milestone 7 Final Evaluation Report

The identified milestones for this project were as follows:

Milestone 5: Finite element modelling

Furthermore, he has managed the NATA registered geotechnical laboratory at Swinburne

0% Cement 1% Cement 3% Cement 5% Cement

Lime (%) Ash (%) Loess (%)

Laboratory Testing of Biosolids and Sludge

5.2.1. Classification Test

Table 5. Statistical summary of geotechnical tests in Victoria (Golder Associates, 2006).

Liquid limit /(%,w/w)

Plastic limit /(%,w/w)

Air-dry bulk density

Solid content / (%)

Figure 5. Dry sludge granulometry curve in Spain, (Valls et al., 2004).

Lime (%) Fly ash (%)

5.2.2. Laboratory Vane Shear Test

5.2.3. Compaction Test

Figure 6. Density-water content relationships for compaction in United Kingdom,

5.2.4. California Bearing Ratio Test (CBR Test)

Fly ash (%)

Absorbed water (%)

5.2.5. Consolidation Test

Coefficient of Volume Compressibility - inferred mv (m2/year)

Note : 1 - MC - Moisture Content

Load Stage (kPa)

5.2.6. Permeability Test

5.2.7. Triaxial Test

Undrained shear strength, Su

5.3.1. Stabilisation with Lime

Table 15. pH values of modified sludge with curing time in Korea

Curing Time (min)

Figure 10. Micrographs of original waterworks and wastewater sludge in Korea,

5.3.2. Stabilisation with Cement