Soil-Cement-Bentonite Slurry Walls

Christopher R. Ryan* and Steven R. Day**

*President, Geo-Solutions Inc., 201 Penn Center Blvd, Suite 401, Pittsburgh, 15235, PA;
PH: 412-825-5164; ASCE Member, Civil Engineer, MS, BSCE; cryan@geo-solutions.com
**Vice President, Geo-Solutions Inc., 26 West Dry Creek Circle, Suite 600, Littleton, CO,
80120; PH: 720-283-0505; ASCE Member, MS, BSCE; sday@geo-solutions.com

Abstract

Soil-Cement-Bentonite (SCB) slurry walls have been used with increasing frequency in
recent years to provide barriers to the lateral flow of groundwater in situations where the
strength of a normal soil-bentonite wall would be inadequate to carry foundation loads.
The addition of cement to the backfill blend allows the backfill to set and form a more rigid
system that can support greater overlying loads.
Construction and quality control for the SCB wall is more demanding than that
needed for conventional soil-bentonite slurry walls. Backfill mixing, sampling and testing
of this type of wall involve more exacting procedures. Recommendations are made herein
for methods to carry out pre-job design mix testing and in-field quality control testing for
the most reliable results.
Designing the SCB backfill is a complex issue involving conflicting actions of the
various materials involved. While the SCB wall provides additional strength, permeability
is one property that generally suffers in comparison to soil-bentonite slurry walls. A normal
permeability specification would be a maximum of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. With special attention
to materials and procedures, a specification of a maximum 5 x 10-7 can be achieved.
Data are presented from design mix studies and field-testing programs to illustrate
the effect of increasing concentrations of the key materials in the mix design and also the
impact of other factors such as time on the measured properties. Comparisons are made
between soil-cement and SCB materials as used in slurry walls and other types of
installations. The SCB material is normally highly variable, even when mixed under
carefully controlled conditions; engineers must account for this variability in designs and
when drafting specifications.

Method Description

A soil-cement-bentonite slurry wall (SCB Wall) is constructed in much the same manner as
a conventional soil-bentonite slurry wall (SB Wall) (Ryan 1985). A narrow trench is
excavated under bentonite slurry, usually with a hydraulic excavator, although clamshells
and other tools may be used. The excavation is completed to the final trench depth with the
slurry acting as a stabilizing agent to keep the walls of the trench from collapsing (Fig. 1).

Ryan & Day 1

 Figure 1. Trenching Under Bentonite Slurry

Once the excavation of the trench has progressed to some point clear of the starting
point, it is backfilled with a blended mixture of soil, bentonite slurry, dry bentonite and
cement. The backfilling procedure is very similar to that used for an SB wall, with a slope
of backfill being formed and allowed to flow into the trench so that the toe of the slope is
close to, but not interfering with the excavation process. The backfill slope of SCB is
usually in the range of 3 to 6:1 (horizontal to vertical), which is much steeper than SB
backfill slopes. The backfill slope of SCB changes daily during the work, as the SCB
hardens.
Backfill is placed in the trench after the excavation is complete by forming a slope
of the mixed material that slumps down and displaces the liquid slurry forward, essentially
the same operation as for an SB wall. The excavation proceeds at the same rate as
backfilling, so that the distance between the excavator and the backfill placement point
remains relatively constant. Since the slope of the backfill is steeper with SCB, the amount
of trench open at one time is reduced, providing greater trench stability than with SB.
Backfill being placed is shown in Figure 2.
Since the SCB material sets, there will be a kind of a joint between materials placed
at different times. The authors do not advocate any measures to treat these joints. All of
the material is relatively low strength and an angled joint with lower strength will have no
significant impact on the performance in most situations. Measures that have been

Ryan & Day 2

 Figure 2. SCB Backfill being placed in the Trench

proposed to clean these joints by scraping them can actually cause more problems due to
trench sidewall disturbance and measures taken to re-excavate a portion of the set slope can
also cause the same problems. Both types of treatment slow production, thereby creating
more joints. In a typical situation, where an extended reach excavator is digging the trench,
the machine can reach only to the toe of the backfill slope, so other equipment, working
alongside the trench, is necessary to perform any cleaning function. In many cases, there is
no suitable access for such equipment.
The actual mixing of the SCB backfill is significantly complicated by the addition
of the cement. A normal SB backfill can be mixed alongside the trench or at a remote
location. Once a batch of SB is mixed, there is no time pressure to place it and even if the
consistency of the material should vary a little with time, it is relatively easy to make
adjustments by adding more bentonite slurry, for example, to bring it back to an acceptable
slump for placement. The SCB material, in contrast, must be placed within a few hours of
batching, or risk affecting the desired final properties.
Usually, SB and SCB backfills are mixed with mobile equipment that can follow the
excavation, such as hydraulic excavators, loaders, bulldozers, and skid-mounted mix plants
and this is a primary reason for the productivity and favorable economics of slurry cutoff
walls. SCB requires more complicated equipment and more equipment that must follow
along the trench mixing and placing the backfill. Mixing near the trench is a distinct
advantage, since transporting the backfill creates a delay in placement and additional costs.

Ryan & Day 3

 Figure 3. Mixing SCB Backfill in an Enclosed mixing Area

Just as one example, the typical SB wall will have backfill mixed on the ground
next to the trench alignment and then placed back into the trench all with the same machine.
It is not uncommon for SCB to have two separate machines (usually hydraulic excavators),
perform the proportioning, mixing and placing. In addition, mixing boxes, mixing pits, and
the like are often used to control proportions (Fig. 3).

Figure 4. Grout plant for Mixing Cement Slurry for Addition into SCB Backfill

Ryan & Day 4

 One method for achieving better quality during mixing is to add the cement in the
form of a pre-mixed grout. Since Portland cement can be 50% of the cost of the
installation, careful proportioning is a practical necessity. Liquid grout is much easier to
thoroughly mix with soil than dry cement and may have other technical advantages. A
typical grout plant as used for this purpose is shown in Figure 4.

SCB Mix Designs

The recipes needed to meet design properties for SCB walls can be complex due to
variability in available soils, project conditions, material costs, and specifications. The
mechanics of making more complicated SCB mixtures may involve several separate steps
or relatively sophisticated measuring and batching of the mixed components.
Typical SCB mixtures may contain 30-150 lbs/cy (18 to 89 kg/m3) bentonite, 50-
150 lbs/cy (30-89 kg/m3) Portland cement, with water contents in the range around 35%.
Addition of clay fines or lignosulfonate-amended bentonite slurries or cement grouts may
be used to meet certain permeability requirements. In this paper the authors use the
convention of proportioning cement and bentonite to the SCB backfill blend as a
percentage of the initial dry weight of the soil. For example, the addition of 5% cement
equals adding 150 lbs/cy (89 kg/m3) to a soil with a dry density of 3000 lb/cy (1785 kg/m3).
SCB backfill is usually sluiced with bentonite slurry and/or cement grout to a slump
of 4-8 inches (102-203 mm) for workability. Sluicing with bentonite slurry is typically
controlled only by workability requirements and may add as little as 0.3% bentonite to the
SCB. Sluicing with cement grout is usually highly controlled to add a prescribed amount of
cement, but still may require adding additional bentonite slurry to achieve the desired
slump.

Typical Applications

Relative to the number of installations of SB walls in the USA, estimated at about 2000, the
number of SCB walls is relatively small, estimated at 50-100 at the present time. For most
groundwater control applications, whether for control of contaminated groundwater or
stopping the flow of clean water under dams and the like, the SB wall is an adequate
solution and it is always more economical. SCB walls are generally more suitable for
special applications.
For projects where a moderate strength and a low permeability is needed, SCB can
be an economical solution. SCB panels have been used as bulkheads when a SB cutoff
wall needs to traverse steep topography, such as dam abutments and landfill slopes
(Zamojski et al, 1995). SCB has been used on a significant number of flood dike projects,
mostly in California, to provide a foundation cutoff that is an impediment to burrowing
animals while still being flexible enough to accommodate earthquake shocks. SCB
sometimes has advantages in dewatering excavations, since the greater strength of SCB can
minimize the circumference of the area enclosed by the cutoff wall. SCB is almost always
more economical than other types of cementitious cutoff walls.
There are other cases where SCB provides necessary strength that is greater than
can be attained by a conventional SB wall. These include cases where structures will
subsequently be founded over the wall or external loads from some other source might be
applied. In a recent small dam repair in Pennsylvania, a deep cut-off was desired through

Ryan & Day 5

an existing embankment and a concrete over-flow sill had to be founded directly on the
wall. An SCB wall was used to provide the required strength.
In some cases, the SCB method is specified due to a lack of data or understanding
of how a conventional SB wall “sets up” with time (i.e. consolidates and thixotropically
“sets”), and might be sufficient to accomplish the desired results without the additional cost
of adding cement to the backfill blend.

Sampling and Testing of SCB Walls

Laboratory testing that is done in advance of a project should model as closely as possible
field conditions that will be expected. It is very important that laboratory protocols follow
as closely as possible the order and method of work in the field. It is relatively useless to
add bentonite in the laboratory as a dry material when in the field it will be added as slurry,
for example. It is also essential that the consistency of the lab mixtures is workable in the
field. It is not very helpful to have a lab design for a zero-slump backfill mix when most
project specifications call for a 4 to 6 inch (102 to 152 mm) slump.
Recommended procedures include the following:
• Take soil samples from full depth borings and blend the soil profile. A simple way
to do this is to take a representative bag sample of the auger cuttings.
• Do sufficient borings to establish the outer bounds of the soil parameters, in
particular fines content. This is important if it is desired to develop one mix to meet
the project specifications at all locations.
• Establish cement contents as a percent of dry soil and then translate this to weight of
cement per unit volume of mix. Determine if cement will be added as a grout or dry
and replicate this process in the lab
• Bentonite will be added as slurry to bring the mixture to a proper slump. In
addition, more bentonite may be added dry or in other cases in the form of a
concentrated slurry. Again, it is important to replicate the order and process as
closely as possible in the lab. Generally, it is not possible to prepare sufficient
sample to run a proper slump cone test. An experienced lab can try to estimate
slump by appearance or use a mini-slump cone (Evans et al, 1999).
• Sometimes, mix designs will include additives such as thinners, retarder or others to
achieve certain design or construction requirements. These too should be added in
the same manner as planned in the field.
• Mixes should be cast in cylinders; 2 x 4 inch (50 x 100 mm) cylinders have been
shown to be adequate for typical applications. Because tests will likely be run at
different time intervals and because of the natural variability of the SCB materials,
it is advisable to cast a large number of samples. It is not unusual to cast 20
cylinders of each mix design.
• These mixes tend to be very sticky and difficult to get into test cylinders without air
being entrained. Use tapping, vibration, rodding, or other methods to remove air
voids as best as possible.
• In the field, the samples are subjected to confining pressure of the overlying
material as they set. It is a current shortcoming of the testing of SCB that the
samples are usually allowed to set without confining pressure. The problem is that,
in a typical design mix program or in a typical field QC program, there may be

Ryan & Day 6

 hundreds of samples setting at a time. It is generally impractical to try to apply
confining pressure to so many samples.
• SCB test specimens are typically made and cured in accordance with ASTM D-
4832 (ASTM, 2000a).
• Testing for Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) is typically done in
accordance with ASTM Method D-4832 or D-1633. Capping of cylinder ends is
usually not necessary (ASTM, 2000b).
• For permeability, the test is done in a triaxial cell according to ASTM Method D-
5084. (ASTM, 2000c). Permeability testing parameters have minimal effect on test
results, since the SCB is a hardened material when it is tested in the laboratory.
Usually, specimens are tested after 14 days of curing at relatively low (10 psi or 69
kPa) confining pressures.
When testing is to be done on field samples, samples should be taken of the material
immediately after mixing and before placement in the trench. Once the SCB material has
set, it is very difficult to sample by coring or similar methods, because it is relatively weak
and brittle (Filz et al, 1995). A photograph of field sample preparation is found in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Casting SCB Backfill Sample Cylinders

Strength of SCB Walls

Nearly all SCB walls have a strength specification. There are numerous factors that should
be considered by the designer in setting minimum (and maximum) strengths for SCB walls.
These include:
• The cost of cement that rises in almost direct proportion to the specified minimum
strengths.

Ryan & Day 7

 • The addition of excessive cement may create joints in the backfill or decrease the
flexibility of the wall under load, potentially leading to cracks caused by crushing,
shaking or shear type of loadings.
• The long-term potential increases in strength over time.
• The negative effect that cement has on wall permeability, leading to greater flow-
through quantities than would be likely with an SB wall.
• The variability of the test results and the difficulty in accurately sampling and
testing these lower strength materials.
These considerations are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs and data are
provided to help guide the designer in making rational choices.
Minimum strength specified for SCB walls is most typically in the range of 15 –100
psi (100 to 700 kPa), with the greater number of recent projects using a minimum of about
30 psi (200 kPa) at 28 days. In the authors’opinion, this lower limit is probably in excess
of actual project requirements for most installations. On many projects, a maximum
strength is also specified; a number like 300 psi (2100 kPa) is often seen in recent
specifications. There seem to be few data available to support this type of figure as being
the threshold for some kind of brittle failure. Whatever the limits chosen, they should
account for the actual loadings anticipated for the project

Dike Cutoff. Data from three actual projects are presented to illustrate the properties of
SCB backfill. The first project is illustrative of a typical preliminary design mix lab study
for a project that involved sealing the foundation of a long earthen dike. The objective was
to find a feasible design mix and basic mix methodology to meet a design spec of 30 to 300
psi (200 to 2100 kPa) at 28 days for UCS. See Figure 6.

28 Day UCS vs Cement Added

120 830 kPa

100
high fines, dry cement
UCS, psi

80
high fines, grout
60 low fines, dry cement
low fines, grout
40
20
0
4 5 6 7 8
Cement Added (%)

Figure 6. Typical Pre-Job Preliminary Mix Design— Strength Data

Ryan & Day 8

 All of the mixes met the strength specification, although it interesting to note that,
those with cement mixed in as grout generally had a lower strength than those where the
cement was added dry. (Other SCB projects have shown exactly the opposite trend
(Zamojsky et al, 1995)). The mixes were cast with soil from two borings, one with high
fines content, 57% and the other with low fines content, 12%. There was not a significant
impact on strength based on fines content.

Mine Barrier. In a second project, only one test was run pre-construction to assess the mix
design. In this case there was a minimum strength requirement of 15 psi (103 kPa). The
cement content selected was 3%. In this case, the SCB was selected to seal fractured rock
and collapsed mine workings to stop the movement of black damp mine gas. Field results
from five field samples were in the range of 15-20 psi (103-138 kPa), while the single pre-
construction test gave a result of 27 psi (186 kPa).

Embankment Cutoff. Of course, one of the aspects of measuring the strength of a

cementitious material is that the properties will change with time. A designer needs to
consider this if there is a concern about brittle failure of an SCB wall. Not only will the
strength increase with time, but it will also likely be stronger with depth as consolidation
pressures increase. Most projects use the strength at 28 days as the point at which strength
is measured. To illustrate the increase of strength over time, we have a large number of
data points that were collected on a third project that was actually done in two phases. The
UCS specification for Phase 1 of the embankment project was 15 psi (103 kPa) (See Figure
7) and for Phase 2 of the embankment, 30 psi (207 kPa) (See Figure 8).

SCB Strength vs Time, Phase 1

120 830 kPa
100
UCS, psi

80

60 415 kPa
40

20

7 DAY 14 DAY 28 DAY

Figure 7. Influence of Time on Strength, Cement Added Dry, Phase 1

Ryan & Day 9

 In this case, the cement content for Phase 1 was 3% and it was added dry. For
Phase 2 of the same project, the cement content was 5% and it was added in the form of a
pre-mixed grout. While there was some variation in conditions over the approximately
three-mile (5000 m) length of this wall, it can be seen that there is considerable variation in
the results obtained. This kind of variability is accounted for in a good specification by

SCB Strength Vs Time, Phase 2

120 830 kPa

100

80
UCS, psi

60 415 kPa

40

20

0
7-day 14-day 28-day

Figure 8. Influence of Time on Strength, Cement Added as a Grout, Phase 2

allowing some variance factor from the specified minimum strengths. A variance factor
may use an average strength or other statistical device to allow some input of engineering
judgment. Some of the lower results may have been caused by poor sample preparation,
although there tends to be an even bigger impact on permeability results from that factor.
There is a fairly consistent trend in the increase of strength over time. On the average, 7-
day results are approximately 60% of the 28-day results and the 14-day results are about
80% of the 28-day results.
SCB can be compared to other low-strength cementitious materials such as cement-
bentonite and plastic concrete for slurry walls, soilcrete as used in deep soil mixing and jet
grouting, and roller compacted concrete as used in dams and road surfacing. The main
difference is that SCB uses a blend of native materials while the other low strength
materials typically (except for soil mixing) use special blends of manufactured materials.
The UCS and impermeability of the other soil-cement materials are known to improve with
time; at one year the UCS can typically be twice that at 28 days, and permeability at one
year can be one order of magnitude lower. (Boggs and Richardson, 1985; Manassero,
1995). It is likely that similar trends will be found for SCB as research on this material
continues.

Ryan & Day 10

Permeability of SCB Walls

The permeability (or hydraulic conductivity) of an SCB backfill is the result of complex
interactions between the various components of the mix. Clearly, Portland cement
interferes with the normal ability of a soil bentonite blend to achieve very low permeability.
A typical SB wall specification will require a permeability of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec, and this is a
level that is relatively easily attainable on almost every project. With SCB backfill, a
specification requirement of 5 x 10-7 cm/sec is typically difficult to meet and may require
special construction procedures and mix components to attain. A specification of 1 x 10-6
cm/sec might be considered a normal SCB wall.
Factors that need to be considered when specifying an SCB mix or when trying to
design a mix to meet specified properties are as follows:
• The addition of Portland cement to the wall has a negative effect on permeability
that generally increases as the cement quantity increases. Not only does Portland
cement chemically affect the ability of bentonite to “swell” and retain water, but it
also requires water to be added to wet the mixture to achieve slumpable material for
placement. More water leads to a less dense and more porous backfill as it sets.
• Increasing bentonite quantity will not necessarily have the same beneficial effect
that it would in a normal SB backfill. Portland cement interferes with its efficiency
and the additional bentonite again requires more water to wet the mix for placement.
• Additives may be helpful in reducing permeability, but they also complicate the
construction process and add to the cost. Additives that have been used include
lignosulfonate retarder and thinners that are used to prepare concentrated bentonite
slurries for addition.
• There is some evidence that a minimum amount of fines may be beneficial in
achieving optimal performance. A minimum of 10% plastic fines is recommended
for a well-proportioned SCB mixture. On the other hand, excessive fines may
require additional water in the form of bentonite slurry for wetting to achieve
placement slump and again may be less dense.
• Adding cement in the form of a grout may provide a benefit in the form of more
consistent results. Again this needs to be assessed on a project-by-project basis.

Dike Cutoff. Returning to the same projects that were reviewed with respect to strength
data, lessons may be learned as to what factors influence permeability. The first case was
the design mix study for the dike project. See Figure 9.
While the strength results for all the mixes met the specification as shown in the
previous section, not all of the mixes meet the 5x 10-7 cm/sec permeability specification. In
this case, it seems that a certain minimum fines quantity will be necessary to consistently
meet the permeability specification— almost all of the tests using the soil sample with 12%
fines failed to meet the requirement. Further testing would be necessary to determine what
the minimum should be. The bentonite content on the X-axis refers to bentonite added as a
dry additive (as a per cent of the dry weight of soil), beyond that which goes in as slurry to
meet the slump requirements. The indication from this preliminary testing is that some dry
bentonite addition will be necessary to meet the permeability requirement. The last piece of

Ryan & Day 11

 Permeability vs Dry Bentonite Added

1.E-05
Permeability, cm/sec

high fines, dry cement

high fines, grout
1.E-06 low fines, dry cement
low fines, grout

1.E-07
0 1 2 3
Bentonite Added, %

Figure 9. Influence of Additional Dry Bentonite on Permeability

information from this plot is that cement added as grout seems to provide a mix with a
more consistent low permeability. This may be due to the grout being easier to mix and
therefore, more homogeneous or due to the fact that pre-hydrating the cement may decrease
the negative effect it has on the bentonite.
The type of testing that these data represent should be done in advance of any
significant SCB project, particularly one that pushes the envelope of feasibility as the low
permeability specified for this project does. Typically, these tests are done by specialty
contractors, not the engineering firms writing the specifications, because the testing must
model the mixing method so closely; mixing methods can vary according to contractor
experience and preference. Usually, design mix tests are run by the contractors, either in
preparation for the bid or perhaps more commonly by the successful contractor in
preparation for the work.

Mine Barrier. The second case study, the mine gas barrier, was for a much smaller project
and the specification was more liberal, 1 x 10-6 cm/sec maximum permeability. The SCB
mix was helped by a relatively high fines content, 40%. For this project only one pre-job
test was run and only five field samples were tested, all passing.

Embankment Cutoff. The last case study is again for the embankment that was done in
two phases. The specification for both phases was for a maximum permeability of 5 x 10-7
cm/sec.
As is the case with strength parameters, the Phase 1 results, presented on Figure 10,
show a slight trend for improvement of permeability measurements with time. There is
considerable variability which is typical of this material and which is partly caused by
sampling problems. In this case, there are a significant number of tests that fell above the
specified minimum. In some cases, these samples were retested using archived samples

Ryan & Day 12

 SCB Permeability vs Time, Phase 1

Permeability, cm/sec 1.E-05

1.E-06

1.E-07

1.E-08
7 DAY 14 DAY 28 DAY

Figure 10. Results of Field QC Testing on Phase 1 of SCB Wall

that subsequently passed, although there was a small portion of this project that was dug up
and remixed. It turned out that the bad section passed through a zone with little fines and
the addition rate of dry bentonite had to be increased.

SCB Permeability vs Time, Phase 2

1.E-05
Permeability, cm/sec

1.E-06

1.E-07

1.E-08
7-day 14-day 28-day

Figure 11. Field QC Data From Phase 2 of SCB Wall Installation

Ryan & Day 13

The backfill for the first phase of the project was mixed on the ground with dry bentonite
added at a 1.8% addition rate (by dry weight of soil). Portland cement was added dry and
the backfill was mixed on the ground in small batches next to the trench. Backfill for the
second phase had no dry bentonite (bentonite by sluicing only); cement was added in the
form of a pre-mixed grout and mixing was done in a mixing box. The field QC data for this
second phase, shown in Figure 11, are actually more consistent than those from the first
phase.
Almost all of the data passed the specified test requirement and the points that failed
were all supplemented by archived samples that passed. Since SCB properties improve
with time, the archiving of samples is always important for a project of this type.

Conclusions

The SCB wall is a technology for constructing barriers to the lateral flow of groundwater
that has seen increasing application in the last 5 years or so. While there are still far fewer
of these installations compared to the more common SB walls, there have been enough to
begin to assess the engineering properties of the final product. The data evaluated to date
indicate that there are a number of factors that work together in a complex way to influence
the principal properties of concern, strength and permeability. These include:
• Characteristics of the base soil, most importantly the average total fines and clay
fines content contained in the excavated soil profile.
• The quantity of bentonite added to the final mix, including that added as slurry
during the excavation process and as dry bentonite or concentrated slurry.
• The quantity of cement added and the method of adding it, whether it is dry powder
or pre-mixed grout.
Strengths in the range of 15-300 psi (105-2100 kPa) are easily achievable on most projects.
A permeability of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec is relatively easily achieved and a permeability less than
5 x 10-7 cm/sec is feasible using more stringent mix designs and construction procedures.
Sampling of the SCB mix, whether it is blended in the lab or taken as a part of the
field QC program, is a particularly difficult task and attention must be paid to getting all air
out of the samples. Taking samples of the material in its wet condition is still preferable to
trying to core the set material.
Given a good understanding of the advantages and limitations of this technology,
the designer will find the SCB wall a valuable addition to the range of options available for
controlling groundwater.

REFERENCES:

API, (1990), “Recommended Practice Standard Procedures for Field Testing Water-Based
Drilling Fluids”, Specification RP 13B-1, Washington, DC.

ASTM, (2000a), “Preparation and Testing of Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM)
Test Cylinders”, Vol. 4.08, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.

Ryan & Day 14

ASTM, (2000b), “Compressive Strength of Molded Soil-Cement Cylinders”, Vol. 4.08,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.

ASTM, (2000c), “Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials

Using Flexible Wall Permeameter”, Vol. 4.08, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.

Boggs, Howard L, and Richardson, Alan, T. (1985), “USBR Design Considerations for
Roller Compacted Concrete Dams,” Proceedings of Roller Compacted Concrete, Kenneth
Hansen, Ed., American Society of Civil Engineers, Denver, CO, pp. 123-139.

Davidson, R.R., Denise, G., Findlay, B., and Robertson, R.B. (1992), “Design and
Construction of a Plastic Concrete Cutoff Wall for the Island Copper Mine,” Slurry Walls:
Design, Construction and Quality Control, STP 1129, David B. Paul, Richard R. Davidson
and Nicholas, J. Cavalli, Eds., ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 271-288.

Evans, J.C., McLane, M., Conners, S., and Keister, J. (1999), “Development and
Calibration of a Lab Size Slump Cone,” Unpublished, Civil Engineering Department,
Bucknell, University, pp 4.

Filz, G.M. and J.K Mitchell (1995), “Design, Construction, and Performance of Soil- and
Cement-Based Vertical Barriers,” International Containment Technology Conference,
Ralph R. Rumer and James K. Mitchell, Eds., US DoE, US EPA, and Dupont Company,
Baltimore, MD, pp 63.

Evans, J.C., Stahl, E.D., and Droof, E. (1987), “Plastic Concrete Cutoff Walls,”
Proceedings of Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal, GSP No. 13, Richard Woods,
Ed., ASCE, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 462-471.

Manassero, M., Fratalocchi, E., Pasqualini, E., Spanna, C., and Verga, F. (1995),
“Containment with Vertical Cutoff Walls,” Proceedings of GeoEnvironment 2000, GSP
No.46, Yalcin B. Acar and David E. Daniel, Eds., ASCE, New Orleans, LA, pp. 1142-
1172.

Ryan, C.R. (1984), “Slurry Cutoff Walls: Applications in the Control of Hazardous
Wastes,” Hydraulic Barriers in Soil and Rock, STP 874, A.I. Johnson, R.K. Frobel, N.J.
Cavalli, C.B. Pettersson, Eds., ASTM, Denver, CO, pp. 9-23.

Zamojski, L.D., Perkins, S.W., and Reinknecht, D. (1995), “Design and Construction
Evaluation of a Slurry Wall at FLR Landfill Superfund Site,” Proceedings of
GeoEnvironment 2000, GSP No.46, Yalcin B. Acar and David E. Daniel, Eds., ASCE, New
Orleans, LA, pp. 1192-1206.

Ryan & Day 15