PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 18, 2026European Journal of Soil Science1 citationsOpen Access

Stabilisation of Sulphide‐Bearing Clays as a New Building Ground

View Full Paper
TKThomas KronbergJEJan‐Erik ErikssonMNMiriam Nystrand

Key Points

  • The research aims to find effective methods for stabilising fine-grained sulphide-bearing clays to ensure their safe use in construction.
  • Collected clay samples from various locations in Turku, Finland.
  • Developed stabilisation formulations using cement, blast furnace slag, quicklime, and ash.
  • Measured unconfined compressive strength of samples at three intervals (7, 28, and 91 days).
  • Assessed leaching of elements and morphology using SEM/EDS.
  • Up to 65% of cement could be replaced with blast furnace slag without reducing long-term strength.
  • Stabilised AS clay samples showed significantly lower compressive strength than non-AS clays.
  • Stabilisation prevented pH decrease and the leaching of harmful metals.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Fine‐grained, sulphide‐bearing marine clays are found along the Finnish coastline. When excavated and exposed to air, the sulphides within these soils react with oxygen to form sulfuric acid. Such soils are classified as hypersulphidic soils. The acid can then lower the soil's pH, causing harmful elements to be released into the environment through runoff water. Once the oxidation process has been initiated, these soils are classified as sulphuric soils, and together with hypersulphidic soils, they form subgroups of acid sulphate (AS) soils. Stabilising the soils (i.e., hypersulphidic soils) can prevent the leaching of metals and metalloids. Clay‐rich AS (AS clay) and non‐AS (non‐AS clay) soil materials were collected from different areas in the city of Turku in Southwestern Finland. The aim was to find solutions for stabilising urban fine‐grained sulphide‐bearing clays to enable a safe beneficial use. Another objective was to study possible differences in strength development between AS clays and non‐AS clays. Stabilisation formulations for the soils were systematically developed using cement, blast furnace slag, quicklime and ash. Different levels of binders mixed with the clays were pressed into cylindrical samples, and the unconfined compressive strength was measured after 7, 28 and 91 days. The leaching of elements was determined on the stabilised samples. The morphology of the stabilised samples was analysed using SEM/EDS. Industrial side streams were successfully utilised for the stabilisation of the clays. Up to 65% of cement could be replaced with blast furnace slag without decreasing the long‐term strength values, suggesting a significant reduction in carbon footprint, calculated as CO 2 emissions. The compressive strength was significantly lower for the stabilised AS clay samples, implying more binders are needed to achieve the same strength as for the non‐AS clays. It should be noted that water content and particle size also influenced the compressive strength. When the AS soil samples were incubated, harmful metals were leached out as expected. However, stabilising the soils prevented the decrease in pH, effectively immobilising harmful elements in AS soils and making them suitable as building ground material.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kronberg et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/696c77d4eb60fb80d1396060https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.70279
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper