Moisture Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity of Coarse-Textured Soils Amended with Coal Combustion Fly Ash

  • J. C. Seaman
  • S. A. Aburime
  • B. P. Jackson
  • T. Punshon


Previous studies have suggested that an increase in water holding capacity or matric potential (ψ) may result from the addition of coal combustion fly ash (FA) to coarse-textured soils, but common laboratory techniques for evaluating such characteristics can be time-consuming and difficult to replicate. Therefore, centrifuge-based methods were used to assess the matric potential (ψ) and hydraulic conductivity (K) as a function of the degree of saturation for a coarse-textured surface soil from the Southeastern US that was amended with acidic FA at application rates ranging from 0­15% (wt/wt). In repacked columns, a low ionic strength rainwater surrogate was used as the leaching solution. For comparison, similar amounts of standard clays and sand (i.e., kaolinite (KA); montmorillonite (MONT); and ottawa sand (OS)) were added to the test soil to demonstrate the sensitivity of the centrifuge-based methods. The water dispersible clay (WDC) content, an indicator of the susceptibility of the soil clay to dispersion, was also evaluated for the amended soils. A minor increase in matric potential was observed only at the highest FA application rates, while saturated K (Ksat) actually increased and then leveled off with increasing FA addition. In contrast, the matric potential and K for the other tested amendments was altered in the expected manner. KA and MONT decreased HC and increased matric potential at a given moisture content, while OS addition increased the soil HC and decreased the water holding capacity. Consistent respective trends were also evident in the particle size analyses of the amended soil. The seemingly inconsistent behavior observed for the FA amended columns may reflect changes in pore-water composition resulting from soluble FA components that increased the background ionic strength of the soil solution for the readily dispersive surface soil, as column effluents were generally less turbid with increasing FA addition. Changes observed in WDC for the various amendments support such a mechanism as the dispersible clay decreased and the ionic strength increased significantly for the FA amended soils.


Hydraulic Conductivity Matric Potential Savannah River Site Soil Matric Potential Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adriano, D. C., Page, A. L., Elseewi, A. A., Chang, A. C. and Straughan, I., Utilization and disposal of fly ash and other coal residues in terrestrial ecosystems: A review, J. Environ. Qual., 11, 563, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, A. C., Lund, L. J., Page, A. L. and Warneke, J. E., Physical properties of fly ash-amended soils, J. Environ. Qual., 6, 267, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacobs, L. W., Erickson, A. E., Bern, W. R. and MacKellar, B. M., Improving crop yield potentials of coarse textured soils with coarse fly ash amendments, Proc. Ninth International Ash Use Symposium, 3, 59, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghodrati, M., Sims, J. T. and Vasilas, B. L., Evaluation of fly ash as a soil amendment for the atlantic coastal plain: I. Soil Hydraulic properties and elemental leaching, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 81, 349, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Punshon, T., Adriano, D. and Weber, J., Restoration of eroded land using coal fly ash and biosolids, TR-113940, EPRI, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adriano, D. C. and Weber, J. T., Influence of Fly Ash on Soil Physical Properties and Turfgrass Establishment, J. Environ. Qual., 30, 596, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ishak, C. F., Seaman, J. C., Miller, W. P. and Sumner, M., Contaminant mobility in soil amended with fly ash and flue-gas desulfurization gypsum: Intact soil cores and repacked columns, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, In Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carlson, C. C. and Adriano, D. C., Environmental impacts of coal combustion residues, J. Envorn. Qual., 22, 227, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keefer, R. F., Chapter 1: Coal ashes- Industrial wastes or beneficial byproducts?, in Trace elements in coal and coal combustion residues, R. F. Keefer and K. S. Sajwan, Eds., Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, 1993, 3.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kukier, U., M.E. Sumner, and W.P. Miller, Boron release from fly ash and its uptake by corn, J. Environ. Qual., 23, 596, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sims, J. T., B.L. Vasilas, and M. Ghodrati, Evaluation of Fly Ash as a soil amendment for the Atlantic Coastal Plain: II. Soil chemical properties and plant growth, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 81, 363, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nimmo, J. R., Stonestrom, D. A. and Akstin, K. C., The feasibility of recharge rate determinations using the steady-state centrifuge method, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 58, 49, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nimmo, J. R., Akstin, K. C. and Mello, K. A., Improved apparatus for measuring hydraulic conductivity at low water content, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 56, 1758, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wright, J., Conca, J. L. and Chen, X., Hydrostatigraphy and recharge distributions from direct measurements of hydraulic conductivity using the UFA method, PNL-9424, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khaleel, R., Relyea, J. F. and Conca, J. L., Evaluation of van Genuchten-Maulem relationships to estimate unsaturated hydraulic conductivity at low water contents, Water Resour. Res., 31, 2659, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    UFA Method Technical Procedures, UFA Ventures, Inc. Richland, WA 99352.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ASTM, Test method for determining unsaturated and saturated hydraulic conductivity in porous media by steady-state centrifugation, D18. 21, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nimmo, J. R., Rubin, J. and Hammermeister, D. P., Unsaturated flow in a centrifugal field: Measurement of hydraulic conductivity and testing of Darcy’s Law, Water Resour. Res., 23, 124, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gamerdinger, A. P. and Kaplan, D. I., Application of a continuous-flow centrifugation method for solute transport in disturbed, unsaturated sediments and illustration of mobile-immobile water, Water Resour. Res., 36, 1747, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mattigod, S. V., Rai, D., Eary, L. E. and Ainsworth, C. C., Geochemical factors controlling the mobilization of inorganic constituents from fossil fuel combustion residues: I. Review of major elements, J. Environ. Qual„ 19, 188, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klute, A. and Dirksen, C., Chapter 28: Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: Laboratory methods, in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, A. Klute, Ed., American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, 1986, 687.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klute, A., Water retention: Laboratory methods, in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods-Agronomy Monograph no. 9, A. Klute, Ed., American Society of Agronomy-Soil Science Socity of America, Madison, WI, 1986, 635.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strom, R. N. and Kaback, D. S., SRP Baseline Hydrogeologic Investigation: Aquifer Characterization Groundwater Geochemistry of the Savannah River Site and Vicinity (U), Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Environmental Sciences Section, 98, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Burt, R., Reinsch, T. G. and Miller, W. P., A micro-pipette method for water dispersible clay, Commun. Soil Plant Anal., 24, 2531, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller, W. P. and Miller, D. M., A micro-pipette method for soil mechanical analysis, Commun. Soil Plant Anal., 18, 1, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaplan, D. I., Bertsch, P. M., Adriano, D. C. and Miller, W. P., Soil-borne colloids as influenced by water flow and organic carbon, Environ. Sci. Technol., 27, 1193, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kretzschmar, R., Robarge, W. P. and Weeds, S. B., Flocculation of kaolinitic soil clays: Effect of humic substances and iron oxides, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 57, 1277, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller, W. P. and Radcliffe, D. E., Soil crusting in the southeastern US, Soil crusting: Chemical and physical processes, 233, 1992.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaplan, D. I., Sumner, M. E., Bertsch, P. M. and Adriano, D. C., Chemical conditions conducive to the release of mobile colloids from ultisol profiles, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 60, 269, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Conca, J. L. and Wright, J., The UFA method for characterization of vadose zone behavior, in Vadose Zone: Science and Technology Solutions,on CD, B. B. Looney, B. B. and Falta, R. W., Eds., Battelle Press, Columbus, 2000Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J. W., Chapter 15: Particle Size Analysis, in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd Edition, 9, Ed., A. Klute, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, 1986, 383.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E., Total carbon, organic carbon, organic matter, in Methods of Soil Analysis,2,Eds., Page, A. L., Miller, R. H. and Keeney, D. R., Eds., American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, 1982, .Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carter, D. L., Mortland, M. M. and Kemper, W. D., Specific Surface, in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, A. Klute, Ed., American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, 1986, 413.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. C. Seaman
    • 1
  • S. A. Aburime
    • 2
  • B. P. Jackson
    • 1
  • T. Punshon
    • 1
  1. 1.Savannah River Ecology LaboratoryThe University of GeorgiaAikenUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of EngineeringClark Atlanta UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations