Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 325–335 | Cite as

Influence of Particle Morphology on the Hydraulic Behavior of Coal Ash and Sand

  • Karla Salvagni Heineck
  • Rosemar Gomes Lemos
  • Juan Antônio Altamirano Flores
  • Nilo Cesar Consoli
Original paper

Abstract

Flexible-wall hydraulic conductivity tests were carried out on bottom ash, fly ash and compacted specimens of sand with additions of 0, 3, 6, 9 and 18% of bentonite. In order to study the effect of bentonite inclusion and particle morphology on the hydraulic conductivity of the admixtures, an investigation was undertaken based on thin section micrographs. It was found that, for both bottom and fly ash admixtures, bentonite addition reduced only one order of magnitude the hydraulic conductivity, from 1.78 × 10−6 m/s to 1.39 × 10−7 m/s. On the other hand, the sand hydraulic conductivity was reduced five orders of magnitude, from 3.17 × 10−5 m/s to 5.15 × 10−10 m/s. Among several factors that can be responsible for the difficulty in reducing hydraulic conductivity, such as ash grain size distribution and elevated cation concentration (leached from the ash) in pore water, it can also be recalled the high particle voids observed in the ash by means of microscopic analysis. The same is not true with the sand, which has solid particles, without inner voids.

Keywords

Morphology Hydraulic conductivity Coal ash Sand Bentonite 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to CNPq (projects Produtividade em Pesquisa # 301840/2007-5 and 301869/2007-3, Edital Universal 2007 # 470971/2007-0) for their financial support to the research group.

References

  1. ABNT NBR 10004 (2004) Solid residues. Brazilian Standard Association, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  2. Alston C, Daniel DE, Devroy DJ (1997) Design and construction of sand-bentonite liner for effluent treatment lagoon, Marathon, Ontario. Can Geotec J 34:841–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Standard test method for measurement of hydraulic conductivity of saturated porous materials using a flexible wall permeameter: D 5084. Philadelphia, 8 pGoogle Scholar
  4. American Society for Testing and Materials (1993) Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes: D 2487, Philadelphia, 11 pGoogle Scholar
  5. American Society for Testing and Materials (2000) Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort. D698, Philadelphia, 11 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrade A (1985) Characterization of coal ashes from Candiota. M.Sc. Thesis, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  7. Boynton SS, Daniel DE (1985) Hydraulic conductivity tests on compacted clay. J Geotec Eng 111:465–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandl H (1992) Mineral liners for hazardous waste contaminant. Géotechnique 42:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calarge LM, Silva LIW, Chies F, Zwonok O (1998) Development of bricks of bottom ash and lime I—bottom ash characterization. In: II International symposium on environmental quality, Porto Alegre, p 122–127 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter GW, Stephenson RW (1986) Permeability testing in the triaxial cell. Geotec Test J 9:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniel DE (1994) State-of-the-art: laboratory hydraulic conductivity tests for saturated soils. In: Hydraulic conductivity and waste contaminant transport in soil, Philadelphia. ASTM STP 1142, ASTM, 1994. p 30–78Google Scholar
  12. Daniel DE, Benson CH (1990) Water-content density criteria for compacted soil liners. J Geotec Eng 116:1811–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniel DE, Trautwein SJ, Boynton SS, Foreman DE (1984) Permeability testing with flexible-wall permeameters. Geot Test J 7:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gleason MH, Daniel DE, Eykholt GR (1997) Calcium and sodium bentonite for hydraulic containment applications. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(5):438–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham J, Saadat F, Ggray MN, Dixon DA, Zhang QY (1989) Strength and volume change behavior of a sand-bentonite mixture. Can Geot J 26:292–305Google Scholar
  16. Gupta N, Brar BS, Woldesenbet E (2001) Effect of filler addition on the compressive and impact properties of glass fiber reinforced epoxy. Bull Mat Sci 24:219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Han D (1996) Use potential of fly ash-residual soil mixture as a dyke material. Env Geotec 721–726Google Scholar
  18. Heineck KS (2002) Mechanical and hydraulic behavior of new geotechnical materials. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  19. Kim AG, Kazonich G, Dahlberg M (2003) Relative solubility of cations in class F fly ash. Environ Sci Technol 37(19):4507–4511. doi: 10.1021/es0263691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kozicki P, Harty S, Kozicki JP (1994) Design and construction of soil-bentonite liners and two case histories. In: 1st international congress on environmental geotechnics, July 1994, Alberta, Canada. Proceedings… 1994, vol 1, p 713–719Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell JK (1993) Fundamentals of soil behaviour, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York 437Google Scholar
  22. Pettijohn FJ, Poter PE, Siever R (1987) Sand and sandstone, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York 551 pGoogle Scholar
  23. Sanchez JCD (1987) Heavy metals from fly ash produced by coal-burning electric utilities in southern Brazil. M.Sc. Dissertation, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  24. Sanchez JCD, Teixeira EC, Fernandes ID (1996) Study of element mobility from coal combustion ashes using different methods. In: Ciccu R (ed) SWEMP’1996, Santa Margherita di Puglia, Italy, vol 1, pp 1169–1176Google Scholar
  25. Shackelford CD, Glade MJ (1994) Constant-flow and constant-gradient permeability tests on sand-bentonite-fly ash mixtures. In: Hydraulic conductivity and waste contaminant transport in soil, Philadelphia. ASTM STP 1142, ASTM, 1994, pp 521–545Google Scholar
  26. Sivapullaiah PV, Sridharan A, Stalin VK (1996) Swelling behavior of soil-bentonite mixtures. Can Geot J 33:808–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tessari, MA, Vieira LF, Consoli NC (1998) Interpretation of loading tests bearing on layers of coal bottom ash treated with cement. III International congress on environmental geotechnics, Pedro Seco e Pinto Editor, Lisbon, Portugal, vol 1, pp 727–730Google Scholar
  28. Thomé A, Carraro JAH, Balvedi D, Consoli NC (1998) Utilization of industrial by-products for soil stabilization and the influence of temperature in the development of pozzolanic reactions. In: III International congress on environmental geotechnics, Pedro Seco e Pinto Editor, Lisbon, Portugal, vol 1, pp 721–726Google Scholar
  29. Tovey NK (1986) Microfabric, chemical and mineralogical studies of soils: techniques. Geot Eng 17:131–163Google Scholar
  30. Umedera M, Fujiwara A, Hyodo M, Murata H, Yasufuku N (1996) Effect of suction on the mechanical behavior of bentonite-sand mixtures. Env Geot 169–172Google Scholar
  31. Yan Ree CCD, Weststrate FA, Meskers CG, Bremmer CN (1992) Design aspects and permeability testing of natural clay and sand-bentonite liners. Géotechnique 42:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karla Salvagni Heineck
    • 1
  • Rosemar Gomes Lemos
    • 2
  • Juan Antônio Altamirano Flores
    • 3
  • Nilo Cesar Consoli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringFederal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto Alegre, Rio Grande do SulBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of PelotasPelotasBrazil
  3. 3.Geoscience InstituteFederal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto Alegre, Rio Grande do SulBrazil

Personalised recommendations