Mass Stabilized TBT -contaminated sediment as a Part of the Harbour in

Helsinki
M. Leppänen & J. Havukainen & A. Piispanen
Ramboll Finland Ltd, Espoo & Helsinki, Finland

ABSTRACT: In the new Vuosaari Harbour in Helsinki a 75 hectare area of TBT-contaminated sediment was
dredged by accurate techniques and transported into the lagoons. The five metre sediment layer, about 0.5 mil-
lion cubic metres of material spread over 10 hectares was mass stabilized in the lagoons with cement. The sta-
bilized sediment was immediately covered by a fabric and one meter sand embankment for preloading. Later,
the stabilized area was covered by a higher preloading. The QC/QA procedure was based on the controlling of
permeability and shear strength. Also, the settlements during preloading phase were carefully observed. The
QC/QA concept was considered together by the project owner, the geotechnical consultant and the contractor,
and approved by the environmental authorities. Due to the variation of sediment properties, the strength varied
a lot. The preloading and the hardening time have increased the strength significantly. The target value of the
strength and the permeability were achieved throughout. After the removal of the preloading, the stabilized
layer was covered with a drainage and surface layers with an asphalt layer on top. The solidification of con-
taminated dredging sediment by deep mixing proved to be an environmentally and geotechnically safe appli-
cation for the production of structural fill.

1layer
INTRODUCTION onwas dredged by accurate techniques and transportedtop
into the basins by barges and pumping. The work
The new Vuosaari Harbour in Helsinki was planned was controlled according to a specific quality verifi-
to be built on the site of a former shipyard, near to cation program (i.e. sediment sampling and analys-
the residential area of Vuosaari, which is the most ing) approved by the authorities. Finally, at the end
eastern suburb of Helsinki. The Harbour will be the of 2005 the TBT-contaminated sediment was ready
largest cargo harbour in Finland. The total quay to be solidified. The disposal of TBT -sediment was
length will be 3 600 metres with 20 berths. The Port financed by the Port of Helsinki, owned by the City
of Helsinki's VUOSA Project has been responsible of Helsinki. The cost was about 1.5 % of the total of
for developing and building the harbour and the lo- the Harbour Project. The BAT policy proved to be
gistics area next to it (Figure 1). the most economical solution, too.
The total of 90 hectares of the new harbour field
was to be filled from the sea. Prior to that, the clay
and silt sediments from the sea bottom had to be re-
moved. In the spring of 2003 the elevated concentra-
tions of tribultyltin (TBT) were detected in the sur-
face sediment of the prospective harbour area.
Further analysis indicated high TBT concentrations
in surface sediments in the 75 hectares to be
dredged.
The contaminated area was isolated from the sur-
rounding sea by permanent protective embankments
and a temporary silt curtain. The former Niinilahti
Bay in the inner harbour area was prepared to re- Figure 1. The new Vuosaari Harbour has been planned and
built through extensive cooperation among different parties. As
ceive the contaminated sediment and was filled with a project owner the Port of Helsinki's VUOSA Project has been
sand to an elevation of -4.0 m. The basins were responsible for developing and building the harbour and the lo-
formed on sand by blasted rock embankments sealed gistics area next to it. The mass stabilized TBT-sediment was
with a layer of moraine. The contaminated sediment deposited partly to both of the areas.
2 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT the purposes as TBT, was only about 15 % of the
OWNER concentration of TBT in the sediment samples ana-
lysed. The sediments of the north-eastern part of the
2.1 New technology and new consciousness harbour area proved to be practically clean, and the
sediments of the new navigation channel to Vuosaari
The seabed was examined for TBT in connection
Harbour proved to be uncontaminated.
with the water permit application in 1995. The han-
dling of the water permit took a total of six years. A 3.2 Geotechnical properties
lot of new information concerning TBT had become
available, and TBT analysis methods had developed The main characterization test results for optimising
the admixtures for the actual project are shown in
significantly.
Table 1.
According to the water permit, the sediment to be
dredged had to be analysed before the start. This Table 1. The main results from the laboratory tests.
condition was included to ensure that the area to be
dredged would not contain possible new impurities Test Number of Range
or a degree of contamination that can be detected tests
with the most modern technology.
The Port of Helsinki, in co-operation with various w [%] 71 30 – 150
3
experts, carried out extensive and thorough determi- w [kN/m ] 46 13 – 19,5
nations of the occurrence and properties of TBT in organic content 34 1–5%
the seabed, while keeping the environmental authori- pH 9 7.7 – 8.4
ties fully informed.
grain size distribution 21 muddy clay -
2.2 The permit process could not prevent the start fine sand
unconfined compressive 427 (of 617 > 200 kPa fi-
The following permit applications were submitted:
strength [kPa] test samples) nally selected
1. The permit application in accordance with the
Water Law concerning dredging and dumping in the permeability k [m/s] 7 sediment < 5 x 10-9
sea of slightly TBT-contaminated sediments as re- specimens / 23 22/23 (one un-
quired for the construction of embankments to pre- tests of 34 test der the re-
vent spreading of solids; skimming of the most samples quired)
strongly TBT-contaminated embankment area; and
the start of work before the decision becomes legally
effective. 4 THE METHOD: MASS STABILIZATION
2. The permit application in accordance with the
Water Law concerning decontamination dredging of As a project owner, the Port of Helsinki, in co-
the most strongly TBT-contaminated sediments from operation with experts from various fields, devel-
the area isolated by protective structures, and the oped a method for reconditioning the contaminated
start of work before the decision becomes legally ef- seabed. This allowed TBT to be removed from the
fective. bottom sediments in an environmentally safe man-
3. The environmental permit application concern- ner. With this method, TBT can be permanently iso-
ing utilization of the most strongly TBT- lated from the aqueous environment and surround-
contaminated sediments in harbour structures, and ings of the harbour. The most strongly contaminated
the applicability of the decision before it becomes TBT-containing sediment was to be dredged, stabi-
legally effective. lized and used for the harbour’s structures. The
dredged sediment was first to be isolated from the
sea outside. The removal of TBT from bottom sedi-
3 SEDIMENT PROPERTIES ments was a seamless part of the harbour construc-
tion works. It was also environmentally friendly, and
3.1 Contamination the most economically efficient way of solving the
The concentration of TBT was highest in a 20 hec- problem.
tares area outside the former Vuosaari shipyard (ar-
eas TBT1 and TBT2 in Fig. 3). The highest TBT
concentration analysed was about 15 000 g/kg dw 5 PREPARATORY WORKS
(normalised). Elevated concentrations of polychlori-
nated biphenyls, PCBs, were also found in the sedi- To enable the continuation of the construction work,
ment of the most TBT -contaminated area. the environmental authority allowed dredging to be
On average, the concentration of triphenyltin continued outside the contaminated area. The TBT-
(TPhT), another organic tin compound used for same containing surface sediment of the Niinilahti Bay (at
the area of the basins A1, A2, B1 and B2) was designed amount of the binder confirmed by the test
peeled by careful grab bucket dredging, and the soundings 7 and 14 days after stabilization.
peeled sediment, about 20 000 cubic metres in total, Finally, about 0.5 million cubic metres of TBT-
was transferred to a temporary storage basin in contaminated sediment was mass stabilized by a dry
Käärmeniemi (Figure 2). mixing method with Portland cement (Figure 4). The
Preliminary mass stabilization tests were made in amount of cement was 130 kg/m3 of sediment. The
the cylindrical barrels (diameter 1.6 m, volume 8 cu- stabilized sediment was covered immediately by a
bic metres) installed in the temporary basin. Numer- filter fabric and one meter high preloading embank-
ous binders were used, including industrial by- ment. Later, 90 days after stabilization a higher pre-
product components. loading embankment was built at the area to ensure
the compression of the stabilized layer.
The mass stabilization work started in December
PORT OF HELSINKI, VUOSAARI HARBOUR
Matosaari 2005 and was completed in December 2006. The
REMOVAL OF TBT FROM THE SEABED, preloading embankment was removed after 6…14
THE MAIN ELEMENTS
Käring-
months after loading time which was determined ac-
Varissaari holmen cording to the settlement observations. The last pre-
Kalkkisaari loading was removed in June 2007. The drainage
Käärmeniemi temporary and surface layers with an asphalt layer on top, as
storage basin
well as the drainage pipe system to minimize water
Railway embankment pressure to the structure, were built after the removal
A1
A2 of the preloading embankment.
B1

Lehdes-
B2 saari 20 cm

Eastern protective
Niinilahti filling and embankment
50 cm
utisation area
20
100 cm
cm
Former Vuosaari
shipyard area

50 cm 30 cm

Second phase
of the harbour
Ruusuniemi Silt curtain
structure (650 m)

Embankment for deflecting 20 cm Ship gate (50 m)

the cooling waters from
Vuosaari power plant
Opening
Vuosaarenlahti Bay for cooling
waters Southern protective
embankment (breaker)
Vuosaarenlahti
marinas breaker
5.10.2005

Skata
Figure 3. The principal cross-section of the structures of the Ni-
Pikku Niinisaari
= Decomtamination dredging area inilahti filling and utilization area. Sea sand was used as a bear-
ing fill layer. All the embankments were covered by a sealing
layer of moraine.
Figure 2. Removal of TBT from the seabed, the main elements
of the process. The yellow area is the decontamination area.
dredged after the preparation of Niinilahti filling and utilization
area. The numbers in the yellow area indicate the minimum de-
contamination dredging depth. The lagoons A1, A2, B1 and B2
were reserved for TBT-sediment to be stabilized.

6 MASS STABILIZATION PROCESS

The TBT-contaminated sediment was mass stabi-

lized and utilized as the harbour's field structures in
the Niinilahti filling and utilization area. The TBT-
contaminated sediment was deposited as a layer of
about five metres on the bearing fill layer of sea sand
(Figure 3). Mass stabilization work was started in a
test field, where the stabilization techniques includ- Figure 4. The mass stabilization ongoing. The water level was
ing feeding and mixing rate were adjusted and the temporarily above the surface of the sediment during the stabli-
zation work.
7 QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ues of the shear strength after 90 days were around
ASSURANCE 50 kPa and maximum values were around 2 000 kPa.
That is a consequence of the heterogeneity of the
7.1 QC/QA concept dredged sediment, and to some extent of the inaccu-
racy in the mixing work. The water content of the
The quality of the stabilized structure was monitored
sediment varied from 30 % to 150 %, and the ob-
according to the quality control program approved
tained strength was strongly dependent on the water
by the environmental authorities. The QC/QA pro-
content of the dredged material. In addition, the
cedure was based on the control of permeability and
grain size distribution of the sediment varied a lot
shear strength. Also, the settlements under preload-
which has a direct influence to the result.
ing were carefully observed. Core samples were
drilled from the structure, too. The accurate QC/QA
Table 2. The number of the column sounding tests after 14, 28,
concept was considered together by the project 90 days and after preloading (~ 417 days) at the whole area of
owner, the geotechnical consultant and the contrac- 10 hectares in the four lagoons.
tor, and approved by the authorities.
The contractor was responsible to the project Age Number of column Number
owner for the quality, and the project owner was re-
[days] sounding tests of vane tests
sponsible to the environmental authorities.
The quality control during the work was included
in the contract and the project owner made its own
14 165 2
control observations, too. Because of the request for
professional expertise and controlling equipment, the 28 83 3
contractor turned to the QC -consultant.
The final certification was made by the Geotech- 90 46 3
nical Department of the Technical Research Centre ~ 417 58
of Finland, which is an impartial expert organiza-
tion.

7.2 Quality control soundings 270

253
Mean strength
270

240 228

Before the elevation of the embankment the quality 210

control soundings (included in the quality control of

Shear strength, kPa

180
175

the contract) were done in each area 14, 28 and 90 150 ~ 20 kPa Preloading ~ 80 kPa

days after the stabilization had been completed. The 120

The minimum strength of the
results of the soundings represented the shear 90
average diagram of 25 soundings 95

strength in each level of the stabilized layer. In the 60

55
55

design it was required that the values of the meas- 30

50

ured shear strength at each level must be at least 60 0

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510
kPa after 14 days hardening. After 28 days the re- Time, days

quired value was 65 kPa and after 90 days 70 kPa.

The quality of the completed stabilized structure Figure 5. The shear strength/time in the lagoon A1 measured by
was controlled according to the quality control pro- the column sounding tests. The shear strength has increased
under the preloading most significantly at the weakest points of
gram approved by the environmental authorities. It the stabilized mass.
was based on the required minimum shear strength
value ( > 70 kPa) after the removal of the preload- Because a shear strength value of 70 kPa was re-
ing embankment and after at least 90 days hardening quired overall in the stabilized structure, the quantity
time and on the maximum permeability value of the of the binder was kept the same 130 kg/m3 during
stabilized sediment (k < 5 x 10-9 m/s). the whole project and the main interest was focused
The total number of the column soundings was to the weakest points of the mass stabilized struc-
352, of which 294 were included in the mass stabili- ture. The average diagrams of the column soundings
zation contract. The rest of the column soundings tests after preloading in the basin B1 are shown in
were made after the preloading for the final accep- Figure 6. The most difficult zone to obtain the re-
tance by the authorities. These soundings were made quired shear strength has been the upper 1 m layer of
by the project owner and they did not belong to the the sediment. The main reason has been the surplus
mass stabilization contract. In order to estimate the water on the lagoon surface.
results of the column soundings, 8 vane tests were
included in the contract, too, (Table 2). The Nc value
10 was used for the estimation.
The test results showed that the range of the shear
strength is very wide (Figure 5). The minimum val-
 7.4 Settlements
Target 70 kPa
The regular settlement observations of the field were
made during the preloading. 23 settlement observa-
tion plates had been installed on the four stabilized
lagoons. Furthermore, four settlement observation
hoses (l = 50 m) were installed on the stabilized la-
goon A1 (Figure 8).

%!
'
90 days

&!
Target 70 kPa

!"

$
#!
Figure 8. The settlement observation hoses on the stabilized
field in the lagoon A1. The hoses O-P and R-S are situated un-
der the extra overloading embankment.

90 days + preloading 12 months

OP

Figure 6. The average diagram of the column sounding tests in

40
the basin B1after 90 days (14 tests) and 14 months preloading 20 24.5.2006
Settlement (mm)

(16 tests). 0 15.6.2006

-20
29.8.2006
7.3 Stability -40
-60 22.9.2006
During the work it was very important to take into -80 16.10.2006
account the stability of the solidified structure. The -100 30.11.2007
-120
project owner had to assure that the contractor fol- -140
11.1.2007
2.2.2007
lowed the safety regulations. The stability calcula-
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
tions were made to guide the construction of the pre- m

loading after stabilization. The extra loading was

laid by the project owner to assure the overall stabil- Figure 9. An example of the results of settlement observation
hose OP on the stabilized field in the lagoon A1.
ity (Figure 7).
The first metres of the hose O-P show lower set-
Extra overloading 3 m (Tot 140 kPa)
tlements than in the middle of the hose because the
Areal overloading 2 m (Tot 80 kPa) sediment layer has been thinner upon the slope of the
embankment than in the middle of the lagoon. Fur-
Additional preloading 1,5…2 m
thermore, the site near the slope had been stabilized
Primary preloading 1 m several weeks before the other parts of the field.
Anyway the observed settlements in every hose were
Stabilized TBT-sediment 5 m less than 200 mm.
F = 2,605
The settlement plates were installed about 0.5 m
F = 2,076
above the surface of the stabilized field. So the com-
+ 9,0
15 m pression of the preloading embankment falsified the
3m
2m + 4,5
+ 6,0
results only a little. The results from the settlement
The final surface
3,5 m
plates correlated well with the results of the settle-
1 m sea sand layer
W ment hoses (Figures 8 and 9). Attention should be
5m
Shear strength of the stabilized sediment 50 kPa in calculations paid to the fact that the observations were started a
few months after the stabilization of the site, to
Figure 7. The stability was secured during the different stages avoid collapses under the settlement observation
of the work. plates and hoses.
 was not desirable in Vuosaari. However, it was an
Observation day understandable result of many different factors. The
requirements for minimum strength throughout the

2 0 . 1 0 .2 0 0 6
1 0 . 1 1 .2 0 0 6

2 2 . 1 2 .2 0 0 6
1 5 .1 .2 0 0 6
1 5 .4 .2 0 0 6
1 2 .7 .2 0 0 6
1 0 .8 .2 0 0 6

2 2 .9 .2 0 0 6

1 . 1 2 .2 0 0 6

1 2 .1 .2 0 0 7

2 3 .2 .2 0 0 7
1 6 .3 .2 0 0 7
1 0 .4 .2 0 0 7
2 7 .4 .2 0 0 7
2 1 .5 .2 0 0 7

2 9 .6 .2 0 0 7
1 .9 .2 0 0 6

2 .2 .2 0 0 7

7 .6 .2 0 0 7
stabilized structure necessitated of the high average
content of the binder.
-20 In some places the high strength caused difficul-
0
S e t t le m e n t , m m

20 Ei mittauksia ennen 12.7

ties for test piling of the buildings to be established
40
60 at the site. The geotechnical designers considered the
80
100
problem, and guidance was given that the stabilized
120 structure was to be penetrated by boring before pil-
140
160 ing, if needed. Anyway, the cost of piling was raised
180
200 a bit as compared with conventional situation on soft
soils.
PL1 PL 2 PL 3 PL 4 PL 5 PL 6 PL 7 PL 8
The mixing method used and the wide variation
of geotechnical parameters was a challenging com-
Figure 10. The settlement observation results from 8 plates in-
stalled on the lagoon A1. The plate PL 5 was placed under the bination but the only and the best available option in
extra overloading embankment. Vuosaari. The task was not easy but still it suc-
ceeded. The preloading and overloading were clearly
seen as important factors to improve the weakest
8 PROJECT OWNER´S REMARKS points of the stabilized structure. At the same time,
the temporary embankments served as an aggregate
8.1 Importance of research and co-operation storage for ongoing earth works.
The experiences from the Vuosaari Harbour project, 8.3 Vision
with its environmentally challenging subtasks, have
given the port organization of the City of Helsinki In the near future, one of the most important tasks is
the status as a pioneer when it comes to stabilization to find out the solutions to homogenize the quality of
and solidification of contaminated sediments in the final structure. Maybe new methods will be
Finland. The studies were the most comprehensive based on pumping the binder and the soft soil to-
and thorough in Finland so far. gether in the same process. In the western part of
At Vuosaari, the studies had to be started virtually Helsinki, an existing harbour area is being developed
from scratch. The Port of Helsinki, in co-operation into housing, and the same problems and challenging
with various experts, carried out extensive and thor- tasks are waiting.
ough investigations of the properties of the seabed.
Geotechnical engineering and the evolving stabiliza-
tion technology helped to solve the problem at the 9 CONCLUSIONS
right time. At the same time, one of the most impor-
tant issues was to keep the environmental authorities The mass stabilization method has proved competi-
fully informed. This was also an issue for QC/QA tive when ground improvement of soft soils solu-
consideration. tions are sought for benefical use of dredged sedi-
Different parties of the whole field of construction ments. The mass stabilization of TBT-contaminated
have been encouraged to understand the superiority dredged sediment in Vuosaari is an excellent exam-
of the mass stabilization method as an environmen- ple of a successful result of co-operation between the
tally friendly and economical way of solving the dis- project owner, the environmental authorities, the
posal problem of contaminated dredging sediments. binder industry, the contractor and various experts of
Besides the environmental consideration, it is es- environmental and geotechnical engineering.
sential to start the geotechnical investigations at the
site in time. Sampling, curing and testing of different
binders with applicable by-products make it possible REFERENCES
to select the best available admixture. The project
owner has to reserve time enough for preliminary in- Port of Helsinki. Removal of tributyltin from the seabed in
Vuosaari harbour. Vuosaari Harbour Project Publication.
vestigations. 31 p. 2004.
Co-operation is also the most reliable way to as-
sure that the timetable is on schedule in the different
stages of the project.

8.2 Problems of homogeneity

From the project owner´s point of view, the variation
of the strengthening, including too high strengths,