4.5 Article

Cement-fly ash stabilisation/solidification of contaminated soil: Performance properties and initiation of operating envelopes

Journal

APPLIED GEOCHEMISTRY
Volume 33, Issue -, Pages 64-75

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2013.02.001

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was aimed at evaluating the mechanical and pH-dependent leaching performance of a mixed contaminated soil treated with a mixture of Portland cement (CEMI) and pulverised fuel ash (PFA). It also sought to develop operating envelopes, which define the range(s) of operating variables that result in acceptable performance. A real site soil with low contaminant concentrations, spiked with 3000 mg/kg each of Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn, and 10,000 mg/kg of diesel, was treated with one part CEMI and four parts PFA (CEMI: PFA = 1: 4) using different binder and water contents. The performance was assessed over time using unconfined compressive strength (UCS), hydraulic conductivity, acid neutralisation capacity (ANC) and pH-dependent leachability of contaminants. With binder dosages ranging from 5% to 20% and water contents ranging from 14% to 21% dry weight, the 28-day UCS was up to 500 kPa and hydraulic conductivity was around 10(-8) m/s. With leachant pH extremes of 7.2 and 0.85, leachability of the contaminants was in the range: 0.02-3500 mg/kg for Cd, 0.35-1550 mg/kg for Cu, 0.03-92 mg/kg for Pb, 0.01-3300 mg/kg for Ni, 0.02-4010 mg/kg for Zn, and 7-4884 mg/kg for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), over time. Design charts were produced from the results of the study, which show the water and/or binder proportions that could be used to achieve relevant performance criteria. The charts would be useful for the scale-up and design of stabilisation/solidification (S/S) treatment of similar soil types impacted with the same types of contaminants. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available