Advertisement

Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 218–228 | Cite as

Compressibility and hydraulic conductivity of sand-attapulgite cut-off wall backfills

  • Wen-bing Zhang
  • Wen-bo RaoEmail author
  • Lei Li
  • Ye Liu
  • Shuai Wang
  • Ke Jin
  • Fang-wen Zheng
Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Soil-bentonite cut-off walls have been used widely to control pollution in landfills but their antifouling property (their ability to prevent contaminants in landfills from polluting the surrounding environment) decreases significantly over time due to a variety of factors (e.g. contaminant concentrations). In recent years, attapulgite has been considered as a backfill material for cut-off walls, but relevant studies are lacking. In this study, the compressibility and hydraulic conductivity of sand-attapulgite backfills were investigated using consolidation and hydraulic conductivity tests. In these tests, attapulgite comprised 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 60%, 80%, or 100% (dry weight) of the backfills. The results showed that (1) the compression (Cc) and swell (Cs) indexes of the backfills increased linearly with increasing attapulgite content (Ap); (2) both the consolidation coefficient (Cv) calculated by the Casagrande and Taylor methods and the hydraulic conductivity (ktheory) calculated according to Terzaghi consolidation theory decreased with increasing attapulgite content. In the case of an effective consolidation stress σ′<100 kPa, ktheory <10−9 m/s when Ap≥30%, which was supported by the hydraulic conductivity tests. Two methods were developed based on laboratory data, for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of sand-attapulgite backfills. We conclude that the use of sand-attapulgite backfills applied to cut-off walls as substitutes for soil-bentonite backfills is technically feasible.

Key words

Attapulgite Sand-attapulgite backfill Cut-off wall Compressibility Hydraulic conductivity 

砂-凹凸棒土竖向隔离墙材料的压缩及渗透特性试 验研究

概 要

目 的

压缩性和渗透性是垃圾填埋场竖向隔离墙材料的 2 个重要指标。本文旨在探讨不同凹凸棒土添加 量对砂-凹凸棒土隔离墙材料压缩性和渗透性的 影响, 并在Kozeny-Carman 方程的框架下建立经 验公式来预测砂-凹凸棒土隔离墙材料的渗透系 数。

创新点

1. 系统全面地研究了不同凹凸棒土添加量对砂- 凹凸棒土隔离墙材料压缩性和渗透性的影响; 2. 建立经验公式, 预测砂-凹凸棒土隔离墙材料的 渗透系数。

方法

1. 通过固结试验和刚性壁渗透试验, 得出不同凹 凸棒土添加量对砂-凹凸棒土隔离墙材料压缩性 和渗透性的影响(图3 和4, 表1); 2. 通过公式 推导, 建立经验公式来预测砂-凹凸棒土隔离墙材 料的渗透系数(公式(3)和(4))。

结论

1. 压缩指数(Cc)和回弹指数(Cs)均随回填料 中凹凸棒土含量(Ap)的增加而增大, 且CcCsAp 均有很好的线性关系: Cc=0.0062Ap+ 0.0161 (r2=0.9914), Cs=0.0009Ap−0.0058 (r2= 0.9888)。2. 用Casagrande 和Taylor 方法计算的固 结系数(Cv)值均随回填料中凹凸棒土含量的增 加而降低。3. 利用太沙基固结理论计算的回填料 渗透系数(ktheory)随回填料中凹凸棒土含量的增 加而降低; 在有效固结压力σ′<100 kPa 的情况下, 只有凹凸棒土含量Ap≥30%, ktheory 才会低于 10−9 m/s; 用刚性壁渗透试验测得的渗透系数kf 与ktheory 有相同的变化特征。4. 基于试验数据提 出了2 种预测砂-凹凸棒土回填料渗透系数的方 法, 其中方法2 更好; 由于这些方法都是经验公 式, 所以它们能否应用于原位场地或其它类型回 填料仍需进一步的研究。

关键词

凹凸棒土 砂-凹凸棒土回填料 隔离墙 压缩性 渗透性 

CLC number

X5 TU41 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Ya-feng HU (Nanjing Forestry University, China) for analyzing the particle size distribution of attapulgite.

References

  1. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), 2001. Standard Test Method for pH of Soils, ASTM D4972-01. ASTM International, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  2. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), 2010. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, ASTM D4318-10. ASTM International, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  3. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), 2011a. Standard Test Methods for One-dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading, ASTM D2435/D2435M-11. ASTM International, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  4. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), 2011b. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM D2487-11. ASTM International, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  5. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), 2014. Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer, ASTM D854-14. ASTM International, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Britton JP, Filz GM, Little JC, 2005. The effect of variability in hydraulic conductivity on contaminant transport through soil-bentonite cutoff walls. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(8):951–957. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2005)131:8(951)Google Scholar
  7. Chapuis RP, Aubertin M, 2003. On the use of the Kozeny-Carman equation to predict the hydraulic conductivity of soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(3):616–628. https://doi.org/10.1139/t03-013Google Scholar
  8. Chegenizadeh A, Keramatikerman M, Dalla Santa G, et al., 2018. Influence of recycled tyre amendment on the mechanical behaviour of soil-bentonite cut-off walls. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177:507–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.268Google Scholar
  9. D'Appolonia DJ, 1980. Soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoffs. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 106(4):399–417.Google Scholar
  10. Day SR, 1994. The compatibility of slurry cutoff wall materials with contaminated groundwater. In: Daniel DE, Trautwein SJ (Eds.), Hydraulic Conductivity and Waste Contaminant Transport in Soils, ASTM STP 1142.American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Dolinar B, 2006. The impact of mineral composition on the compressibility of saturated soils. Mechanics of Materials, 38(7):599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2005.11.003Google Scholar
  12. Dolinar B, Macuh B, 2016. Determining the thickness of adsorbed water layers on the external surfaces of clay minerals based on the engineering properties of soils. Applied Clay Science, 123:279–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.12.029Google Scholar
  13. Du YJ, Fan RD, Reddy KR, et al., 2015a. Impacts of presence of lead contamination in clayey soil-calcium bentonite cutoff wall backfills. Applied Clay Science, 108(5):111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.02.006Google Scholar
  14. Du YJ, Fan RD, Liu SY, et al., 2015b. Workability, compressibility and hydraulic conductivity of zeoliteamended clayey soil/calcium-bentonite backfills for slurry-trench cutoff walls. Engineering Geology, 195: 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.020Google Scholar
  15. Evans JC, Costa MJ, Cooley B, 1995. The state-of-stress in soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff walls. In: Acar YN, Daniel DE (Eds.), Geoenvironment 2000: Characterization, Containment, Remediation, and Performance in Environmental Geotechnics. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, USA, p.1173–1191.Google Scholar
  16. Fan RD, Du YJ, Reddy KR, et al., 2014a. Compressibility and hydraulic conductivity of clayey soil mixed with calcium bentonite for slurry wall backfill: initial assessment. Applied Clay Science, 101:119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.07.026Google Scholar
  17. Fan RD, Du YJ, Liu SY, et al., 2014b. Compressibility and hydraulic conductivity of sand/clay-bentonite backfills. Geo-Shanghai 2014: Geoenvironmental Engineering, p.21–30. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413432.003Google Scholar
  18. Filz GM, 1996. Consolidation stresses in soil-bentonite backfilled trenches. Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, p.497–502.Google Scholar
  19. Galan E, 1996. Properties and applications of palygorskitesepiolite clays. Clay Minerals, 31(4):443–453. https://doi.org/10.1180/claymin.1996.031.4.01Google Scholar
  20. Garvin SL, Hayles CS, 1999. The chemical compatibility of cement-bentonite cut-off wall material. Construction and Building Materials, 13(6):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(99)00024-0Google Scholar
  21. Haden WL, Schwint IA, 1967. Attapulgite: its properties and applications. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 59(9): 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie51403a012Google Scholar
  22. Hong CS, Shackelford CD, Malusis MA, 2012. Consolidation and hydraulic conductivity of zeolite-amended soilbentonite backfills. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138(1):15–25. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000566Google Scholar
  23. Hong ZS, Yin J, Cui YJ, 2010. Compression behaviour of reconstituted soils at high initial water contents. Géotechnique, 60(9):691–700. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.09.P.059Google Scholar
  24. Inazumi S, Kimura M, Nishiyama Y, et al., 2006. New type of hydraulic cutoff walls in coastal landfill sites from H-jointed steel pipe sheet piles with H-H joints. Proceedings of the 5th ICEG Environmental Geotechnics: Opportunities, Challenges and Responsibilities for Environmental Geotechnics, p.725–732.Google Scholar
  25. Joshi K, Kechavarzi C, Sutherland K, et al., 2010. Laboratory and in situ tests for long-term hydraulic conductivity of a cement-bentonite cutoff wall. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(4):562–572. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000248Google Scholar
  26. Kenney TC, van Veen WA, Swallow MA, et al., 1992. Hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite-sand mixtures. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29(3):364–374. https://doi.org/10.1139/t92-042Google Scholar
  27. Keramatikerman M, Chegenizadeh A, Nikraz H, 2017. An investigation into effect of sawdust treatment on permeability and compressibility of soil-bentonite slurry cut-off wall. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.160Google Scholar
  28. Laner D, Fellner J, Brunner PH, 2012. Site-specific criteria for the completion of landfill aftercare. Waste Management & Research, 30(S9):88–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12453610Google Scholar
  29. Li YC, Cleall PJ, Wen YD, et al., 2015. Stresses in soilbentonite slurry trench cut-off walls. Géotechnique, 65(10):843–850. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.14.P.219Google Scholar
  30. Lo IMC, Yang XY, 2001. Use of organoclay as secondary containment for gasoline storage tanks. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 127(2):154–161. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2001)127:2(154)Google Scholar
  31. Malusis MA, McKeehan MD, 2013. Chemical compatibility of model soil-bentonite backfill containing multiswellable bentonite. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(2):189–198. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000729Google Scholar
  32. Malusis MA, Barben EJ, Evans JC, 2009. Hydraulic conductivity and compressibility of soil-bentonite backfill amended with activated carbon. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(5):664–672. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000041Google Scholar
  33. Mishra AK, Ohtsubo M, Li LY, et al., 2009. Effect of salt of various concentrations on liquid limit, and hydraulic conductivity of different soil-bentonite mixtures. Environmental Geology, 57(5):1145–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1411-0Google Scholar
  34. Neaman A, Singer A, 2004. Possible use of the Sacalum (Yucatan) palygorskite as drilling muds. Applied Clay Science, 25(1–2): 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2003.08.006Google Scholar
  35. Olson RE, 1986. State of the art: consolidation testing. In: Yong RN, Townsend FC (Eds.), Consolidation of Soils: Testing and Evaluation, ASTM STP 892. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohoken, USA, p.7–70. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP34606SGoogle Scholar
  36. Professional Committee of Urban Domestic Refuse Treatment of China Association of Environmental Protection Industry, 2017. Development report on treatment industry of urban domestic refuse in 2017. China Environmental Protection Industry, (4):9–15 (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-5377.2017.04.002Google Scholar
  37. Ruffing DG, Evans JC, Malusis MA, 2010. Prediction of earth pressures in soil-bentonite cutoff walls. GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling and Design, p.2416–2425. https://doi.org/10.1061/41095(365)245Google Scholar
  38. Rumer RR, Ryan ME, 1995. Barrier Containment Technologies for Environmental Remediation Applications. Wiley, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  39. Ryan CR, 1987. Soil-bentonite cutoff walls. In: Woods RD (Ed.), Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal’87. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, USA, p.182–204.Google Scholar
  40. Sanzeni A, Colleselli F, Grazioli D, 2013. Specific surface and hydraulic conductivity of fine-grained soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(10):1828–1832. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000892Google Scholar
  41. Sharma HD, Reddy KR, 2004. Geoenvironmental Engineering: Site Remediation, Waste Containment, and Emerging Waste Management Technologies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Sreedharan V, Puvvadi S, 2013. Compressibility behaviour of bentonite and organically modified bentonite slurry. Géotechnique, 63(10):876–879. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.SIP13.P.008Google Scholar
  43. Stern RT, Shackelford CD, 1998. Permeation of sandprocessed clay mixtures with calcium chloride solutions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(3):231–241. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(1998)124:3(231)Google Scholar
  44. Takai A, Inui T, Katsumi T, et al., 2014. Experimental study on the self-sealing capability of soil-bentonite mixture cutoff walls. Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, p.411–416.Google Scholar
  45. Tallard G, 1997. Very low conductivity self-hardening slurry for permanent enclosures. International Containment Technology Conference and Exhibition Proceeding.Google Scholar
  46. Tong X, 2017. Mechanical and Hydraulic Properties of Soil-bentonite and Consolidation Behavior of Cutoff Wall. PhD Thesis, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  47. Wang S, Zhu W, Qian X, et al., 2016. Study of threshold gradient for compacted clays based on effective aperture. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75:693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5502-zGoogle Scholar
  48. Xie HJ, Chen YM, Zhan LT, et al., 2009. Investigation of migration of pollutant at the base of Suzhou Qizishan landfill without a liner system. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A, 10(3):439–449. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A0820299Google Scholar
  49. Xu HQ, Zhu W, Qian XD, et al., 2016. Studies on hydraulic conductivity and compressibility of backfills for soilbentonite cutoff walls. Applied Clay Science, 132–133: 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2016.06.025Google Scholar
  50. Xu Y, Li JX, Yue LP, et al., 2015. Grain-size characteristics of red clay deposits on the eastern edge of Chinese Loess Plateau and its implications for Neogene evolution of East Asian winter monsoon. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(11):7445–7456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3918-xGoogle Scholar
  51. Yeo SS, Shackelford CD, Evans JC, 2005. Consolidation and hydraulic conductivity of nine model soil-bentonite backfills. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(10):1189–1198. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2005)131:10(1189)Google Scholar
  52. Zhu W, Xu HQ, Wang SW, et al., 2014. Hydraulic conductivity of model clay-based cut-off wall backfills. Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, p.1516–1523.Google Scholar
  53. Zhu W, Xu HQ, Wang SW, et al., 2016. Influence of CaCl2 solution on the permeability of different clay-based cutoff walls. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 37(5):1224–1230 (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.16285/j.rsm.2016.05.002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Isotope Hydrology, College of Earth Sciences and EngineeringHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.College of Resources and EnvironmentHenan Agricultural UniversityZhengzhouChina

Personalised recommendations