Durability of Alkali-Activated Slag - Bentonite Cutoff Wall Exposed to Sodium Sulfate and Pb-Zn Solution

  • Haoliang Wu
  • Jing Ni
  • Luo Zeng
  • Mengyu Huang
  • Yanjun DuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


This paper addresses the reactive magnesia (MgO) activated ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) blends with bentonite (GMB)as the cutoff wall mixture, compared with Portland Cement with bentonite (CB) for enhancing durability performance. A range of tests have been conducted to investigate the durability of the two batches cutoff wall (GMB and CB) as subjected to sodium sulfated and Pb-Zn solution, including unconfined compressive strength (UCS), hydraulic conductivity, and microstructure analyses with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The influence of curing age, GMB and CB content, and soaking solution type on the durability are also addressed. The UCS of GMB mixture is lower 73.6% and 11.2% than the CB reference after curing 28-days and 90-days. The hydraulic conductivity of GMB is much lower than the cutoff wall commonly accepted limits of 10−6–10−7 cm/s, regardless of soaking in sodium sulfated and Pb-Zn solution. The microstructural analyses show the hydrotalcite-like phases (Ht) could be formed during the hydration of GMB, and C-S-H could be founded in GMB and CB mixture. The characteristic H-O-H bond stretching is noticed around 3460 and 3620 cm−1, followed by shallow wide transmittances, which indicates the presence of Portlandite (Ca(OH)2) and brucite (Mg(OH)2). The brucite and Ht are confirmed in the SEM images of GMB mixture.


Cutoff wall MgO GGBS Durability Sodium Sulfated 



This research is financially supported by Financial support for this research is partially obtained from the Environmental Protection Scientific Research Project of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. 2016031), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41472258), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. BK2012022), Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province Plans to Graduate Research and Innovation (KYLX16_0242), and the Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Southeast University (Grant No. YBJJ1735).


  1. 1.
    EPA (1998) Evaluation of subsurface engineered barriers at waste sites. In: United States environmental protection agency. EPA 542-R-98-005 EPA Office of Research and Development’s (ORD)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evans JC, Shackelford CD, Yeo SS, Henning J (2008) Membrane behavior of soil-bentonite slurry-trench cutoff walls. Soil Sediment Contam 17(4):316–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malusis MA, Evans JC, McLane MH, Woodward NR (2008) A miniature cone for measuring the slump of soil-bentonite cutoff wall backfill. Geotech Test J 31(5):373–380Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soga K, Joshi K (2015) Cement bentonite cutoff walls for polluted sites. In: Multilevel modeling of secure systems in QoP-ML, p 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Du YJ, Fan RD, Liu SY, Reddy KR, Jin F (2015) Workability, compressibility and hydraulic conductivity of zeolite-amended clayey soil/calcium-bentonite backfills for slurry-trench cutoff walls. Eng Geol 195:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    China Ministry of Environmental Protection (2010) The First National Pollution Source Census Bulletin. China Ministry of Environmental Protection, Beijing, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Opdyke SM, Evans JC (2005) Slag-cement-bentonite slurry walls. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 131(6):673–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ryan CR, Day SR (2002) Soil-cement-bentonite slurry walls. In: Deep foundations: an international perspective on theory, design, construction, and performance, pp 713–727Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koch D (2002) Bentonites as a basic material for technical base liners and site encapsulation cut-off walls. Appl Clay Sci 21(1–2):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yi Y, Liska M, Al-Tabbaa A (2013) Properties of two model soils stabilized with different blends and contents of GGBS, MgO, lime, and PC. J Mater Civil Eng 26:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jin F, Gu K, Al-Tabbaa A (2015) Strength and hydration properties of reactive MgO-activated ground granulated blastfurnace slag paste. Cem Concr Compos 57:8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu HL, Jin F, Bo YL, Du YJ, Zheng JX (2018) Leaching and microstructural properties of lead contaminated kaolin stabilized by GGBS-MgO in semi-dynamic leaching tests. Constr Build Mater 172:626–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D’Appolonia DJ (1980) Soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoffs. J Geotech Eng Div 106(4):399–417Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garvin SL, Hayles CS (1999) The chemical compatibility of cement–bentonite cut-off wall material. Constr Build Mater 13(6):329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    China Ministry Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Environmental Quality Standard for Drink WaterGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neville A (2004) The confused world of sulfate attack on concrete. Cem Concr Res 34(8):1275–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matschei T, Bellmann F, Stark J (2005) Hydration behavior of sulphate-activated slag cements. Adv Cem Res 17(4):167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Du YJ, Bo YL, Jin F, Liu CY (2016) Durability of reactive magnesia-activated slag-stabilized low plasticity clay subjected to drying–wetting cycle. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 20(2):215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xu H, Zhu W, Qian X, Wang S, Fan X (2016) Studies on hydraulic conductivity and compressibility of backfills for soil-bentonite cutoff walls. Appl Clay Sci 132:326–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Angulo-Ramírez DE, de Gutiérrez RM, Puertas F (2017) Alkali-activated portland blast-furnace slag cement: mechanical properties and hydration. Constr Build Mater 140:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu J, Yu Q, Zuo Z, Yang F, Duan W, Qin Q (2017) Blast furnace slag obtained from dry granulation method as a component in slag cement. Constr Build Mater 131:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang YL, Reddy K, Du YJ, Fan R (2017) SHMP amended calcium bentonite for slurry trench cutoff walls: workability and microstructure characteristics. Can Geotech J (ja)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sinha Ray S, Okamoto K, Okamoto M (2003) Structure − property relationship in biodegradable poly (butylene succinate)/layered silicate nanocomposites. Macromolecules 36(7):2355–2367CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haoliang Wu
    • 1
  • Jing Ni
    • 1
  • Luo Zeng
    • 1
  • Mengyu Huang
    • 1
  • Yanjun Du
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban Underground Engineering & Environmental Safety, Institute of Geotechnical EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations