CA1277341C - Fly ash processing method and system and product produced thereby - Google Patents
Fly ash processing method and system and product produced therebyInfo
- Publication number
- CA1277341C CA1277341C CA000549743A CA549743A CA1277341C CA 1277341 C CA1277341 C CA 1277341C CA 000549743 A CA000549743 A CA 000549743A CA 549743 A CA549743 A CA 549743A CA 1277341 C CA1277341 C CA 1277341C
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- fly ash
- sludge
- mixture
- sewage sludge
- dry
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Expired - Fee Related
Links
Classifications
-
- Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
- Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
- Y02P—CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING OF GOODS
- Y02P40/00—Technologies relating to the processing of minerals
- Y02P40/10—Production of cement, e.g. improving or optimising the production methods; Cement grinding
Abstract
ABSTRACT
This invention relates generally to a safe and economical method for disposing of fly ash and sewage sludge. The fly ash and sewage sludge are mixed to ultimately form a disposable, environmentally acceptable mixture. The mixture can be handled relatively inexpensively by conventional earth-handling methods. The system is specifically adapted to above-grade operation.
This invention relates generally to a safe and economical method for disposing of fly ash and sewage sludge. The fly ash and sewage sludge are mixed to ultimately form a disposable, environmentally acceptable mixture. The mixture can be handled relatively inexpensively by conventional earth-handling methods. The system is specifically adapted to above-grade operation.
Description
~773~1 PROCESS ~AND PRODUCT_FOR WASTING FLY ASH AND SEWAGE SLUDGE
Field Of The Invention This invention relates generally to a safe and economical method for disposing of fly ash and sewage sludge and product produced thereby. More particular:ly, the method and product o~
this invention relates to the combining of fly ash and sewage sludge to form a disposable, environmentally acceptable product.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Fly ash is assentially fine solid noncombustible mineral residue typically resulting from coal-burning operations. It does not however include other more coarse coal combustion by-products such as bottom ash, cinders, or slag. Fly ash typically comprises very ~ine particles, usually containing silica (Sio2), alumina (A1203), ferric oxide (Fe203), calcium oxides (CaO), and ~mall quantities of other oxides and alkali2s. Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan and ls generally not cementitious in itself, but ~ith the presence of water and lime compounds it forms a cementitious product. These lime compounds oft~n exist naturally tn the fly ash or can be supplied by the addition of a lime ~ource such as cement or kiln dusts.
Fly ash by-product can be a problem for many coal burning industries, because the fly ash can be swept away by ordinary air curxents, thereby polluting the air and ultimately settling .
34~
Field Of The Invention This invention relates generally to a safe and economical method for disposing of fly ash and sewage sludge and product produced thereby. More particular:ly, the method and product o~
this invention relates to the combining of fly ash and sewage sludge to form a disposable, environmentally acceptable product.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Fly ash is assentially fine solid noncombustible mineral residue typically resulting from coal-burning operations. It does not however include other more coarse coal combustion by-products such as bottom ash, cinders, or slag. Fly ash typically comprises very ~ine particles, usually containing silica (Sio2), alumina (A1203), ferric oxide (Fe203), calcium oxides (CaO), and ~mall quantities of other oxides and alkali2s. Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan and ls generally not cementitious in itself, but ~ith the presence of water and lime compounds it forms a cementitious product. These lime compounds oft~n exist naturally tn the fly ash or can be supplied by the addition of a lime ~ource such as cement or kiln dusts.
Fly ash by-product can be a problem for many coal burning industries, because the fly ash can be swept away by ordinary air curxents, thereby polluting the air and ultimately settling .
34~
in undesirable places. As a result, the coal~burning industry must bs ever mindful o^E present and possible future environmental regulation, potential negative public opinion, and potential legal liability.
The methods of wasting ~ly ash which have traditionally been used are the "sluicing" methocl and the "dampening" method.
The sluicing method mixes fly ash and liquid to a liquid content of greater than ~0% by weight. The mixture is then pumped into a holding pond where it is exposed to ambient conditions and allowed to dry until the next batch of ~ly ash and water is added.
The sluicing process has several disadvantages. First, in arid regions, large quantities of liquid are sometimes not readily available or are only available at a very high cost.
Second, the sluicing method often requires expensive site preparation, including the need for special cell liners and embankments Third, the volume of water used in this method causes it to be very land consumptive, and the necessary land i5 not always available. ~inally, a large holding pond of the end-product can be hazardous, because the ~ell liner or embankment could leak; also, wildlife or curious children could be attracted to the holding pond, and this could result in any one of a number of s~rious consequences.
Due to the aforementioned disadvantages, the sluicing .
_ 3 - ~ ~77~
method of wasting fly ash is not well suited to the needs of today's coal-burning industry.
In the "dampening" method, just su~ficient liquid is added to the dry fly ash to calm the dust, and this facilitates the handling of the fly ash with conventional earth moving equipment. ~lthough the liquid content will vary with the type of fly ash, a liquid content of about 5~ to about 25~ by weight is typically used. Current dampening systems commonly mix a continuous flow of fly ash with a continuous flow of liquid.
Although the liquid flow rate can be easily controlled, the fly ash flow rate often cannot; as a result, the liquid content of the dampened fly ash often varies by 50% or more. This lack of uniformity produces handling problems. At lower liquid concentrations, unwanted fugitive dust is often generated; at higher concentr~tions, the end product becomes a paste or sludge which makes handling more di~ficult. Dampening systems are therefore becoming less suitable for today's needs.
Due to the inadequacies of the sluicing and dampening methods, an innovative alternative method has been creatPd and is disclosed in Pound, U.S. 4,313,7~2, "Method of Wasting Fly Ash and Product Produced Thereby" and Pound U.S. 4,461,601 "Slurry Sy~tem For Wasting Fly Ash Having Nonleachable Self-Sustaining End Product".
Briefly, the Pound patents disclose a fly ash disposal system where, after the fly ash cools and is removed from a ]coal-burning plant boiler, it is transported by conventional ~ 7;3~
means to a closed storage area to await transportation to a site located some distance from the coal-burning facility. The bone dry fly ash iB discharged from the power station storage area into a pneumatic bulk transport truck. After filling, the truck is sealed to prevent dust leakage during transit. The substantially dust free closed chan~ered transport vehicle then brings the fly ash to a processing plant storage unit. The fly ash is ultimately transferred from the storage unit into a slurrier where lt is mixed with an amount of li~uid. The resultant slurry is then moved to a slurry holding tank and ultimately discharged via a slurry pump to a disposal cell.
The msthod and sy tem of the present invention disposes of not only fly ash, but also sewage sludge. Sewage sludge is the end by-product of typical community waste treatment facilities.
In typical sewage treatment facilities, the sludge is chemically conditioned and dewatered by vacuum filters. The dewatered sludge is then transferred to trailer dump trucks and hauled to a disposal site for further treatment or dispocal.
Disposing of sewage sludge has been accomplished by a number of methods. In some waste disposal methods, the sludge is incinerated. However, incineration typically results in high en~rgy costs. Furthermore, incineration disposal methods also produce gaseous by products which may cause environmental concerns.
Other disposal processss involve the transporting of sludge to a disposal site in dump trucks. ~hese trucks are then '~2'77341 driven over re~se located at the disposal Sit2 The sludge, including its contained water, is thereby dumped onto the refuse. The sludge is mixed with the re~use and then compacted with a bulldo~er. In this way, the refuse is intended to soak up the liquid contained in the sludge, thereby reducing the environmental impact upon the surrounding region. The amount of sludge which can be mixed with refuse is typically controlled by regulatory agencies. Whether regulated or not, however, landfills can become saturated with waste, thereby generating environmental hazards and concerns.
Other methods of sewage disposal include burying the sewage sludge at a disposal site dedicated solely for such sludge. ~owever, this method of disposal also raises environmental concerns due to ground water pollution, general instability and undesirable settling of the comple~ed fill, and other hazards.
In Nowicki et al., U.S. 4,472,198, "Process and System of Wasting Fly Ash And Product Produced Thereby", a method and system is disclosed for disposing of fly ash and liquid industrial waste. The product o~ this method is environmentally safe and comprises a mixture of dry fly ash and liquid additive having a liquid additive content o~ about 5%-25~ by weight. The process relates to a mixins operation which closely controls the liquid additive to yield a uniformly conditioned product; this product can be subjected to earth handling equipment pressures almost immediately. The process also typically eliminates cell - 6 - ~Z~7734~-preparation and greatly reduces leaching at the disposal site.
However, the Nowicki process is not applicable ts all forms of waste disposal. The di~clo~ure of Nowicki is directed to liquid waste disposal which may not be suitable for sewage sludge disposal due tc the sludge's non-aqueous physical properties.
As a result, an object of this invention is to provide a fly ash and sewage sludgç wasting method and system which is environmentally 6afe, economical, and reliable.
A further object of this invention is to provide a fly ash and sewage sludge wasting system which results in no bleed liquid being generated at any point in the process.
A further ob~ect of the invention is to provide a method of and system for wasting fly ash and sewage sludge whereby the fly ash is handled during transit and processed in a manner which is pollution free.
Yet a further object is to providP a process and system of wasting fly ash and sewage sludge in which the end product will harden into a stable, environmentally acceptable mass.
Yet another object is to provide a fly ash and sewage sludge wasting system in which the final, hardened product meets all current environmental requirements, and is resistant to leaching and to percol~tion from ground water and rainfall whereby the pollution potential in the disposal area is greatly reduced.
Yet a further object is to provide a fly ash sewage sludge - 7 - ~X~734~
wasting system in which on-site dust at the disposal location is reduced to a minimum.
A further object is to provicle a ~ly ash and sewage sludge wasting system and process which is more economical to operate than other conventional systems.
A further object is to provide a sewage sludge and wasting system which is less land consumptive and more space efficient than previously known methods.
Other ob~ects and ~eatures o~ the invention will become apparent to those skilled in the art from the following specification when read in the light of the annexed drawings.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The process and product of this invention rlates to an ~nvironmen~ally safe, effective, and inexpensive means ~or disposing of fly ash and sewage sludge. The process is reliable, economical, and easy to use; it combines dry fly ash and sewage sludge to ultimately produce an en~ironmentally safe product which can be handled relatively inexpensively by conventional earth-handling methods. The process and product are specifically adapted to above-grade disposal.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The invention is illustrated more or less diagrammatically in the accompanying drawings wherein:
FIGURE 1 is a process flow diagram which illustrates the - 8 - ~Z~773~
preferred handlin~ and processing steps in -the wasting process;
FIGURES 2A and 2B are graphs illus-trating volume of fly ash and sludge after mixing divided by the volume of the fly ash and sludge before mixing vs. ratio of sludge to fly ash.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
Bone dry fly ash is conveyed by any conventional means from a coal burning system to an adjacent storage silo. A bulk transport truck is positioned under the silo to receive the dry fly ash. These trucks are designed to be substantially air tight whenever all hatches and appurtenances are closed and are designed for pneumatic unloading. Trucks of this design are well known and need not be further described here.
After receiving a load of dry fly ash at the generating station storage silo, the truck transport compartment hatches are fastened to form an air tight compartment, and the truck transports the fly ash to the processing plant. Here, the fly ash is pneumatically unloaded into fly ash site storage silos as indicated at lo in the process flow diagram in FIGURE 1. These silos have dust collectors 11, preventing any airborne fly ash from escaping from the silos during transfer and storage.
Sludge is a residual which is removed from conventional community sewage treatment facilities. At the treatment facillty, the sludge is chemically conditioned and dewatered by vacuum filters. The resulting dewatered solids are then transferred to a tractor trailer dump truck, hauled to the - 9 ~ '73~
processing plant, and dumped into a storage building 15. From this building, the sludge is transferred via a rubber tire enloader into sludge hoppers 12.
During disposal operations, t:he sludge i~ pumped from the sludge hopper 12 by means of a sluclge (progressive cavity) pump 14 into a primary pugmill 16. The fly ash i6 transferred by a conventional air slide system from the fly ash storage silos 10 to an intermediate regulating vesse.l 13. This vessel serves to overcome natural fluctuations in fly ash flow as the fly ash is introduced at the top and allows for a more uniform flow of fly ash as it exits from the bottom. The fly ash is transported by gravity through a vane feeder at the base of the regulating vessel, down a c~nduit, and into the primary pugmill 16.
The fly ash is transferred to pugmill 16 simultaneously as the sludge is pumped to the pugmill by the sludge pump 14. Both transfer systems are controlled to provide the proper mix at the pugmill to form a homogeneous and environmentally acceptable mixture. The composition of the mixture is preferably 1/2 to 4 parts fly ash to 1 part sludge by weight, and the composition is controlled by varying the sp~ed of the sludge pump and adjusting the fly ash vane feeder. Variations in the physical properties of the sludge may require some adjustment in the flow rates of the fly ~sh and ~ludge to achieve the proper end product. This end product should not contain too high a proportion of fly ash or fugitive dust may occur. Nor should the end product contain too much sludge, otherwise the end product may not meet - 10 ~ P7;34~
environmental reguirements.
The resulting mixture is transferred by means of a fir~t conveyor belt 18 to a clearing where the mixture is stockpiled.
The processed fly ash and sludge is ultimately loaded with an endloader from these piles into dump trucks. These trucks transport the material to the working areas of a landfill. At the landfill, the material is placed and compacted both above and below grade, using conventional earth-moving e~uipment.
If large amounts of ~ly ash are stored at the disposal facility, the facility can also be equipped with a secondary pugmill 20 having two capabilities. First, the secondary pugmill can be used to mix dry fly ash with water (supplied from water tank 22) to a water content of about 10% by w~ight. The resulting "conditioned fly ash" mixture can then be transferred by a second conveyor belt 24 to be stockpiled at a convenient location.
The stockpiled mixture of fly ash and water can be stored until shortages of dry fly ash become apparent. As is now well-established, the addition of small ~uantities of fly ash to concrete is widely employed, because it enables freshly poured concrete to preserve advantageous flow characteristics and generally results in higher compression strengths; these characteristics are of particular importance when pouring structural concrete. However, demand for fly ash varies with the seasons. During warm weather months when construction activity is at its peak, fly ash generation may not be :
277~41 sufficient to satisfy demand. Conversely, during cold weather months, construction activity may be at a greatly reduced level, and the supply of fly ash may be much greater than demand.
Consequently, stockpiling fly ash during periods of low demand is often advantageous.
By mixing fly ash with water to a water content of about 10~, an environmentally safe "conditioned" fly ash mixture is created. After being exposed to ambient conditions, the mixture becomes pebble-like. ~owever, when fly ash is needed for sludge disposal in accordance with the present invention, this pebble-like mixture can be crushed and used with small quantities of dry fly ash or a calcium containing activator, and the result will be equally as effective as when conventional dry fly ash is used.
When the stockpiled conditioned fly ash is used according to the wasting process and system of this invention, the conditioned fly ash is crush~d and transferred by a fourth conveyor belt 2~ to the process facility and fed into the primary pugmill 16. The same mixing process will take place between the sludge and conditioned fly ash as discussed above using non-conditioned fly ash.
The secondary pu~mill 20 serves as a backup for the primary pugmill 16 or can also be used to provide additional wasting capacity as required, functioning in the same manner as the primary pugmill. The third conveyor belt 26 can be used to transfer the final mixture of fly ash and sludge from the - 12 - ~Z~3~
secondary pugmill to a stockpile area where it is transferred to dump trucks. Consequently, both the first and third conveyer belts 18 and 26, are capable of transferring the fly ash-sludge mixture to stockpiles.
The sludge-fly ash mixture end-product is taken by dump trucks from the stockpiles to a landfill~ The piles can be handled by conventional earth moving equipment when the fly ash hydration reaction has reached the point that the material can support such traffic.
To establish the types of fly ash which would be appropriate for the method and product of this invention, experiments were done on numerous types of fly ash, including fly ash taken from: 1. Commonwealth Edison Co.'s Waukegan Power Station; 2. Wisconsin Electric's Pleasant Prairie Station; 3.
American Fly Ash's Romeoville ash conditioning plant; and 4. a 1:1 mix by weight of Pleasant Prairie ash and Romeoville ash.
Sludge was taken from the North Shore Sanitary District located in Gurnee, Illinois.
Numerous labor~tory tests were performed on the sludge-fly ash mixtures, including measurements of unit weight, moisture content, strength, and permeability. The tests were performed in two phases, the first was to determine the range of mix ratios of sludge and fly ash which could provide an acceptable material ~or landfilling, and the second was to provide more detailed information on those mixes which appeared to be acceptable according to the fir t phase of testing.
13 ~ 77~3~
The testing program included time intervals of 0, 1, 3, and 7 days between mixing and compaction. Strength tests were performed 1, 7, or 28 days after compa~tion by unconfined compression testing. Direct shear testing and triaxial compression testing were also performed where appropriate.
The laboratory test results ~how that the physical properties of the sludge and fly ash mixtures are a function of ash type (either Class C or Class ~ as determined by standard ASTM testing procedures), mix ratio, and curing time. All of the mixes tested produced a material suitable for use in a self-supporting fill. Wet densities of the mixtures, when compacted to approximately 90 percent of ~STM D 698, ranged from 75.5 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to as high as 104.8 pcf.
Compactibility of each mixture was eventually achieved on all samples. Some mixes required curing times prior to compaction approaching ona week due to the presence of free water in the sample. Once free water was adequately reduced, a continued delay in compaction wag generally detrimsntal to achieving greater densities. The mixture compaction data are presented below in Table 1.
.
- 14 - '~L2773~L
q!ABLB 1 WET DE:N8ITY Oli' CONPACT~:D
:L00% ~Ul~EGAN ~I,Y A811/SLl~DG13 DAYS CURED UNCOMPACTED .
1.5:1 10~).0 100O0 99.2 1103.4 2.0:1 103.7 106.7 1104.6 101.4 2.25:1 103.9 107.0 105.5 104.4 2.5:1 106.0 105.8 104.6 9~.4 3.0:1 112.4 100.6 97.8 91.5 WEq! D13N8:CTY OF CONPACTED
100% CONDITIONl~D C~lU8Hl~D P~OM!J30VIL~ JY A~H/8LUDGE:
DAYS CURE:D UNCOMPACTED
MIX RATIO O ~ 3 . 7 1.5:1 192.5 93.8 9~;.7 103.4 2.0:1 ~6.8 9~.3 9~.2 101.4 2.5:1 102.1 101.4 101.5 104.~
3.0:1 102.3 1102.8 102.7 9~1.4 4.0:1 103.0 102.4 100.9 91.5 W~æT DEN5ITY O~ COMP~CT~D
100% ~PLBA~3ANT PRAIRI~ ~LY 1~8~1J8LUD~:~
DAYS CURED UNCOMPP~CTED
MIX RATIO O 1 ~ 3 7 1.0:1 93.4 ~5.8 9~i.8 8~;.0 1.5:1 96.6 90.5 86.0 74.5 2.0:1 98.9 89~1 83.4 80.8 2.5:1 90.7 83.8 81.4 75.5 3.0:1 88.2 82.1 7~.6 76.7 ! DBNgITY O~F CO~1E?ACTED
50% PL3~A~A~;IT P~AIRIB~ 50% CONDI~IONED
CRUBHl~n ROMEOYIIiI,B 3FI~Y A8~1/8LUD~:E
_ DAYS CURED UNCOMPACTED
MIX RATIQ O _1 3 7 1.0:1 92.6 ~2.6 92.2 94.5 1.5:1 99.6 99.2 96.9 B6.1 2.0:1 104.~3 ~36.9 95.1 91.4 2.5:1 99.2 91.1 86.9 81.~
3.0:1 92.3 87.0 84.6 80.5 _ .
Notes: 1~ Results presented as ~et derlsity in pounds per cubic foot imnediately after compaction by Harvard miniature compaction device.
2) Boxed values ir,dicete mix could not sustain full compactive effort of Harvard miniature compaction device.
,, - 15 - ~2'7~734~
Strength values for the mixtures varied greatly and sometimes exceeded 5000 pounds per square foot (psf), see Table 2. Some of the mixes that exhibited low unconfined compression strengths were retested using direct shear and triaxial testing. These tests indicated angles of internal shear and ; triaxial testing. Shear tests indicate angles of internal friction in excess of 35 degrees. Direct shear testing was required because the material in some mixes were insufficiently cohesive. Triaxial testing was perPormed in the second phase testing to assess the effective stress properties. The results of all strength testing are presented below in Table 2.
:: ;
` ' ''`~
:
:::
, ,' ~'773~
TAB~E 2 100X IJAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE 1.0: 1 AS TESTED -¦
NUMBER OF ¦ NUMBER OF ¦ HOISTURE ¦ DE~lSITY DE~lSlTr I SUEAR~
, DAYS CURED , DAYS CURED PERCENT , PCF PCF STRENGTH PE~CENT
U~ICOMPACTED ¦COMPACTED ! DRY ~EIGHT IDRY ~ASIS UET BASIS PSF STRAI~I
I
0 i 7 i5a.9 ~58 ¦ 92 1387 ~ 2.8 Z~) i4~ 59 88 3256 !3.2 - IZ8 ! 55.7~/60.6~ ! s6,/64~ !87~/103~ 2109b ~ 2.0 100X UAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE 1.5: 1 .
AS TESTED
NUMBER OF i NUMBER OF ¦ MOISTURE j DENSITY I DE1151TY ! SHEAR~ l DAYS CURED DAYS CURED PERCENT PCF PCF ~ STRENGTH I PERCE~IT
UNCOMPACTED COMPACTED DRY UEIGHT DRY ~ASIS UET BASIS ~ PSF ~ STRAIN
o i 1 i45.1 i67 ¦ 97 1804 10.0 7 144.6 168 98 1436 7.9 28 144.3 167 1 97 1793 4.9 41.5 169 1 47 673 7.2 7 42.2 169 ! 98 751 6.7 28 40.6 170 1 98 1069 3.9 3 1 1 39.4 I n ¦ 101 880 8.3 7 137.6 173 100 686 3.0 28 ¦39.9 ~71 ¦ 95~98 ~v. 1796 3.1 7 1 133.0 173 1 97 694 2.5 7 133.3 174 98 1099 2.98 28 132.6 174 1 98 ~)47 2.4 0 1 7 145.1 168 ~ 1619 1 4.3 28 166.6 167 96 2160 2.8 2~ !43-41/47-7~ 171~ 95~/105~ ! 2719b ! 1000 aDetermined by unconfined compression test unless noted otherwise.
bTriaxial-consolidated-undrained test with confining pressure =
2304 psf.
CNo test possible sample ~rumbled during extruding.
dDensity determined Prom Drop Test.
eStrength determination by direct shear test.
Note: Moisture content values measured at the time of strength testing.
i = initial moiæture content prior to consolidation~
f = final moisture content subsequent to test.
- 17 ~ ~ 773fl3L
1L~ IAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE 2~0: 1 . AS TESTED
l ... . I
NUMBER OF I UUMBEQ OF MOISTURE I DENSITY DENSITY sllEAR4 ¦ UNCOMPACTED I COMPACTED ! DRY UElGHTDRY BASIS ~IET BASIS PSF STRAIU
0 1 1 1 34.1 ! 75 i101 1380 ! 6.4 7 33.7 76 101 1787 4.0 28 33.8 77 103 2727 3.1 33-5 ¦ 74 I 99 854 I Z.5 7 1 32.7 78 103 1408 2.6 28 ¦ 31.1 78 103 2642 2.0 3 ¦ 1 ¦ 31.5 69 91 372 2.0 7 30.8 73 95 624 1.3 28 1 30.4 79 104 4144 2.5 7 1 1 ¦ 26.6 73 92 a3b 4.6 7 33.8 77 103 1313 6.4 28 ¦ 25.9 80 100 2803 2.1 _ 100X WAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE,2.25: 1 . _ AS TESTED ~
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MOISTURE I DENSITY DEHSITY SHEARn DAYS CURED DAYS CURED PERCEHT PCF PCF STRENGTH PERCENT
UNCOMPACTED COMPACTED~ DRY UEIGHT DRY BASIS WET BASIS PSF SIRAIU
0 1 ~ j 29.3 1 83 107 1851 ~ 4.9 7 ~ 29.2 1 84 108 2647 ¦ 3.3 28 1 29.8 ¦ 83 107 av. 3882 j 3.1 30.8 1 81 105 1131 ~ 5.2 7 ~ 29.8 ! 81 ~05 11232 1 Z-5 !1 ~ 28 I Z9.7 j79 102 1 1938 j 2.5 3 1 1 28.7 71 92 1376 11.9 7 ~ 28.7 ! 73 194 1416 1 1.3 28 j 27.3 j 82 ~10S ~5407 j 2.1 7 ¦ 1 1 26.0 1 79 ¦100 ~ 878 ~ 1.3 7 ! 25.1 1 77 96 ~585 2.2 28 ~_24.4 ! 84 ~ ~04 ~ 6359 ~ 1.4 00X UAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE 2.50: 1 .
AS TESTED I I , ¦ UUMBER OF i UUMBER OF ¦ MOlSTURe ~ DEUSITY ¦ DENSITY ¦ SHEAR~ j DAYS CURED ¦ DAYS CURED I PERCENT IPCF PCF I ST2EIIGTH I PERCE\IT
UNCOMPACTED I COtlPACTED I DRr WEIGNT ! DRY BASIS ~ UET BASIS I PSF I STRAIII
.
0 ¦ 1 1 22.1 j 90 ¦110 ¦ 4592 j 4.4 7 1 23.1 88 108 ~5062 1.5 28 jl 23-8 1 85 1105 1 5315 1 2-0 1 1 26.6 ~ 68 186 1229 1 1.2 ~j 7 1 26.3 ~ 80 ~101 11180 1 2.8 28 ~ 26.9 j 80 j101 j1354 ~ 3.7 3 ¦ 1 1 23.8 ¦ 76 ~94 1 662 ¦ 1.8 7 1 23.5 75 94 ~62g ~1.8 28 ¦ 23.3 ¦ 84/80 ¦104/99 ¦av. 3845 1 ¦
7 ~ 1 1 22.8 1 75 192 1 1019 1 1.3 7 ~ 25.3 ~ 70 ~88 1728 ~ 1.2 28 1 22.S I 75 192 1~513 1 2.1 . . _ .
73~
100% UAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE 3.00: 1 r ~ AS TESTED l -_ UUHrdER OF i NUMBER OF I HO15TURE I DENSITY IDEUSITY iSHEAR'I i ¦ DAYS CURED ¦ DArs CURED I PERCENT I PCF IPCF I
STRENGTH ¦ PERCENT
! UUCOMPACTED ~ COMPACTED ¦ DRY IJEIGHT ! DRY 8ASIS ! ~JET
BASIS ~ PSF I STRAIN
0 i 1 1 22.9 180 i98 j3980 j 0.74 7 121.4 1 81 198 4891 1.3 28 ¦21.6 ¦ 83 ¦1U0 ¦2791/6788 ¦ 1.4/1.8 20.2 1 80 ¦97 1744 ¦ 2.5 7 j20.6 1 78 94 j696 1 2.8 28 122.9 ! 75 ¦93 1~1 1 2.2 3 ¦ 1 ¦ 18.6 j80 ¦94 8t.9 ¦ 3.1 7 18.7 80 95 2250 12.0 28 118-1 1 81 195 1673 j 0.7 7 ¦ 1 ¦ 15-1 ¦79 191 ¦ 695 ¦ 1 4 28d 100% CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROMEOVILLE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 1.0: 1 AS TESTED
NUHBER OF ¦ NUM3ER OF HOISTURE ¦ DENSITY ji DENSITY i SHEARa DAYS WRED DAYS CURED PERCENT PCF PCF STRENGTH I PERCENT
¦ UNCOHPACTED ! CQMPACTED ! DRY l~ElGHT ! DRY ~SIS ! ~IET BAS15 PSF ¦ STRAIN
_ l O 1 7 83.6 48 88 312 8.2 28 1 80.7 ¦ 49 1 89 ¦ 376 ¦ 10.4 28 ¦ 79-1~/63-1~ 1 SOj/76t ¦ 89.81/124l 1 1617~ 1 8.1 Ud I ! - ! - ! 83-9 !
100% CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROMEWILLE FLY ~SH/SLUDGE 1.5: 1 AS TESTED _ L
NUMBER OF i IIUMBER OF I MOISTURE I DENSITY i DEUSIIY I SHEARa ¦ DAYS CURED I DAYS CURED t PERCENT ¦ PCF ¦ PCF ¦ STRENGTH ¦ PERCEIIT
j:! UNCOMPACTED ! COMPACTEDI DRY I~EIGHT I DRY BASIS I ~IET dASlS I PSF I STRAIN
O I1 i62.7 i 58 i94 ¦197 ¦ 10.0 7 ¦64.1 ¦ 57 j94 1182 1 10.0 28 1~4.7 1 57 i93 1av. 233 1 10.0 61.7 ¦ 59 ¦95 ¦171 ¦ 10.0 7 161.9 ~ 61 ~98 159 1 10.0 f 128 j62.3 t 58 j94 121 j 10.0 3 11 161~5 ¦ 59 195 ¦190 ¦ 10.0 7 ¦62-5 1 59 j95 1166 1 14.6 28 161.3 1 59 195 1219 1 10.0 7 11 156,4 t 63 19~ ¦186 1 10.0 7 ¦34-9 ¦ 72 197 1291 j 11.5 28 156.3 1 62 197 1570 1 ~.2 7 163.4 1 5~ 195 t315 1 7-5 28 158.3 1 62 198 474 ~ 7.9 28 ¦67.9~/56.6~ ¦571/951 196~/149~ ¦ 1733~ j 10.0 j od ! ! - ! - 1 54-6 !
.
r ~ LLE FLY ASH~SLUDGE 2.0 ~ 77~41 r ~ -- AS TESTED - - -I UUMBER OF I UUMBER OF MOISTURE ~ DEUSITY ¦ DEUSlTr i SHEAR~
¦ DAYS CURED ¦ DAYS CURED PERCE~T ¦ PCF ~ PCF I STREUGTH PERCENT
I UUCOMPACTED ~ COMPACTED ~ DRY UEIGHT ~ DRY BASIS ~ ~ET BASIS ! PSP STRAIN
., . . . _ . ~
¦ 0 ¦ 1 j S5.1 i 61 94 j 316 6.4 , , 7 , 53.3 ! 62 94 , 237 9.1 j j 28 j 55.1 j 61 94 j 2P0 10.0 ¦ 1 1 1 ¦ 51.0 1 63 95 271 7.9 7 1 54.1 ¦ 64 99 192 8.7 I j 28 49.5 66 98 197 10.0 1 3 1 1 51.6 64 97 307 8.8 1 1 7 53.1 $4 97 220 10.0 j 1 2~ ~9.9 65 97 272 7 j 1 39.2 n 102 4n 5.5 7 39.e 74 103 640 4.5 ~ 28 ~ -100X CONDITIONED CRUSHED R0MEOVILLE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 2.5 : 1 AS TESTED .
NUH8ER OFj UUMBER OF¦ HOISTURE ¦ DEHSITY i DENSITY SHEAR~ i DAYS CUREDDAYS CUREDPERCENT , PCF PCF STREUGTH PERCENT
¦ UNCOHPACTEDCOMPACTED! DRY ~EIGHT ¦ DRY ~ASIS ~ET BASIS PSF STRAIH
I i o ¦ 1 j48.4 ¦63 i9b ¦ 39b i 2.5 7 46.7 ~65 196 330 4.5 1 28 47.9 165 Ig6 286 5.7 1 1 1 146.4 i63 192 ¦ 300 ¦ 2.4 7 144.8 ¦67 1~7 311 1 4.0 : 28 142.8 168 96 1 357 1 5.8 3 1 ¦~4.8 170 100 501 1 7.8 , 7 ,45.0 !65 94 136 2.0 j j 28 j43.5 j66 94 511 4.6 1 7 1 1 ¦34.5 175 101 991 1 2.a ¦ 1 7 135.9 176 103 ¦1156 1 2.8 I ~ 28 134.7 !76 ~103 ,2254 1 1.8 . . .~
: : lOOX CONDITIOUED CRUSHED ROMEOVIELE FLY ASH/SL,UDGE 3.0 : 7 S TESTED ¦ _ i ¦ hUHBER OF ¦ NUMBER OF ¦ ~OISTURE ¦ DENSITY I DENSITY ¦ SHEAR~ i DAYS CURED i DAYS CURED ~ PERCENT ~ PCF ! PCF ~ STRE~GTH ~ PERCEUT
UNCOMPACTED ¦ COMPACTED I DRY UEIGHT ¦ DRY BASIS ¦ UET iASlS ~ PsF ¦ STRAIN
_ _ _ _, , ,,, ~ _ , I
j 0 ¦ 1j 43.2 i 69 i 99 j 459 i 2.7 ¦ ~ 7 1 41.3 ¦ 71 1 101 ¦ 376 1 4.0 i 1 40.2 1 70 1 98 1 3n ~ 5-5 41.3 1 68 1 ~6 ! Z46 1 2-5 7 j 42.3 j 68 j P6 1 481 1 2.5 j 2~ 1 42.3 1 69 1 98 1 235 1 2.3 3 ¦ 1 1 40.2 1 71 ¦ 100 1 441 1 5.6 ~ 43.1 1 6~ ~7 1 259 1 2.2 ¦ ! 28! 42.2 ¦ 71 1 101 1 727 1 3-9 1 7 j 1¦ 37.9 1 71 ! 97 ¦ 412 1 2.2 , 7 , 38.0 ! 7S 1 101 , 458 i 3,7 28 1 ~8.0 1 76 ~ 105 1 1544 1 2.3 ~, ~.
~ 20 ~773~1.
100% CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROMEOVILLE FLY ASH~SL~ Q: 1 AS TESTED I _ ____ _ ï
_ I NUMBER OF I NUMBER OF IMOISTURE I DENSITY DENSITY SHEARa ¦ DAYS CURED ¦ DAYS CURED ¦PERCENT ¦ PCF PCF STRENGTH PERCEiIT
I UNCOMPACTED I COMPACTED I DRY I~EIGHT IDRY BASIS ~IET BASIS I PSF ! STRAIN
, D i 1 1 37 6 1 62 85 1 154 ¦ 1.5 7 I 37 3 I 71 97 I 2B7 Z,5 28 1 36-2 1 69 93 1 552 4.4 36.4 66 90 I 266 1.3 7 37.2 62 85 as 8.4 28 36.2 69 43 274 1.5 3 I 1 34.6 61 82 132 1.7 7 1 35.2 69 93 251 2.3 28 I 35.0 ¦ 75 101 1753 1.8 7 I 1 I 30.2 I n 95 383 2.2 7 I 29.8 I 72 94 420 2.2 328 ! 30-3 ! 76 99 2338 1.8 100X PLEASANT PRAIRIE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 0.5: 1 , ¦ AS TESTED .
NUMaER OF I UUIlBER OF I MOISTURE ~ D~NSITY I DENS17Y SHEARa I DAYS CURED I DAYS CURED I PERCENT PCF I PCF STRE\IGTH PERCEUT
¦ UNCOMPACTED ! CoMPACTED ! DRY IiElGHT DRr 0ASIS ! ~IET BA515 PSF STRAIN
0 1 7 ¦ 94.2 j43 ¦83 j 891 j2.9 2a 103.6 39 79 m 3.5 28 ! ~U0.5i/104.2f ! 39i/47f ! 77i/97f !12~3b ! 0 9 100% PLEASANT PRAIRIE FLY ASH SLUDGE 1.Q_: 1 - AS TESTED
__ ' - --- r NUMBER OF ¦ NUMBER OF I MOISTURE I DENSITY I DENSITY SHEARa ¦ DAYS CURED I DAYS CURED ¦ PERCEIIT ¦ PCF I PCF STRENCTH I PERCENT
I UNCOMPACTED I COMPACTEDI DRY ~IEIGHT I DRY BASIS 3 ~IET ~ASIS PSF I STRAIII
_ .. . _ .
0 I 1 53.8 I 60 I 92 1 2265 I 2.2 7 4S.5 I 63 I 94 ~426 I 7.6 2B ¦ 51.1 ¦ 61 ¦ 93 ¦ 2262 ¦ 4.6 52.0 61 I 93 I 1776 1 5O1 7 I 51.7 59 I gD ~ 2051 I 2.3 28 1 53.3 62 1 ~5 1 2124 1 4.3 3 ¦ 1 ¦ 49.8 I 62 93 ¦ 176U I 2.4 7 ~ 49.9 61 92 2167 3.1 28 1 50.3 ¦ 64 96 ~ 2918 3.6 7 1 1 1 42-6 ¦ 53 I ~4 I 1653 I 1.8 7 1 42.2 I 60 84 I 2559 1 ~-2 28 I 37.9 I 63 87 I 4775 I 1.8 0 I 7 1 49-8 1 64 97 1 4051 I 2.1 I28 , 49.4 60 9~ 4368 I 2.1 ¦28 1 47.31/44.7f ¦ 62i/67f ¦ 91i/106f ¦ 4681b I B.8 od ! ! - ! - ! 92-5 r~ .
. ~ .
- 2~ 734 100X PLEASANT PRAIRIE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 1.5: 1 - ¦ AS TESTED
HUMBER OF I HUMBER OF I MOISTURE ¦DEHSITY DEIISITY ¦ SHEAR~
¦ DAYS CURED ¦ DAYS CURED ¦ PERCEUT I PCF PCF I STRENGTH PERCEIIT
! UNCOMPACTED ICOMPACTED I DRY ~EIGHT IDRY BASIS SIET BASIS ~ PSF STRAIN
D ¦ 1 i 37 5 i 71 ¦ 97 49Z4 i 1.3 7 1 33.6 !74 99 865ll 1.6 ¦ 28 ¦ 33.2 j 72 96 5128 1.4 3~.4 168 92 2192 j 1.8 7 1 34.0 169 92 2298 1.9 28 ¦ 33.8 ¦67 89 Z454 1.8 3 ¦ 1 ¦ 33.1 1 65 87 1515 l.Z
7 32.4 68 90 av. 2299 28 1 3~.5 66 88 2~66 2.1 7 1 1 18.8 169 82 1344 7 13.9 69 79 1978 28 14.0 166 76 11Z8 0 ¦ 7 1 40.1 1 73 103 5211 2.8 28 1 38.3 ~71 98 7548 Z.1 1 28 ¦ 40.51/46.7~ ¦70.91/96~ 98~/141~ ~ 7455C 2.9 od 1 0 1 ~ I - 89.4 ! -:: -100X PLEASANT PRAIRIE_FLY ASH/SLUDGE 2.0 - 1 r I ~s TE5TED -i-j NUMBER OF j ilUMBER OF ¦ HOISTURE ¦ DENSITY ¦ DENSITY i SHEARa I DAYS CURED DAYS CURED I PERCEUT PCF I PCF STREIIGTH PERCENT
j UHCOMPACTED !CoMPACTED ~ DRY ~IEIGHT ! DRY BAS15 ¦ WET BASIS PSF STRAIN
I O i ~ i z75 i 78 j 99 i 10406 1 2-9 !
7 1 22.7 186 1 105 ¦ 7930 Z.8 28 1 28.0 177 1 98 1 4947 1 2.
3 1 1 1 22.4 1 66 181 1 854~t 1 l 7 ! 24.6 177 1 96 ! 874 ! 2-3 !
: ~ I 28 1 21.6 167 i 81 i 1387~ i -7 1 1 1 20.2 1 68 182 1 1051 7 1 12.1 170 i 78 ¦ 960e 28 ! 6-6 !65 ! 70 1 159~ ! -- - , :
7~4i 100X PLEASANT PRAIRIE FLY ASH/SLUDGE Z.5: 1 AS TESTED
I NUMBER OF i UUMBER OFI HOISTURE IDENSITY I DENSITY ¦ SHEARa ¦ DAYS CURED ¦ DAYS CURED ¦ PERCENT I PCF ¦ PCF STRENGTH PERCENT
I UNCOMPACTED ~ COMPACTED~ DRY UEIGHT !DRY BASIS ~ IJET BASIS ¦ PSF ~ STRAIN
jl o 1 1jl 19.6 i75 ¦ 90 3167 1 1.4 7 17.8 89 105 6946 1.9 28 120.4 87 105 551)1 1 20.2 168 82 1851 3.2 7 17.8 72 84 2237 3.3 ZB 14.9 71 82 2909 .
3 ¦ 1 ~16.9 70 81 955 , 7 21.4 68 83 1162 j28 16.5 70 82 1848 7 1 114.0 69 79 1094 7 17.6 70 75 Z074 2B ~5.8 ~71 75 1531 ~77~
100X PLEASANT PRAIRIE FLY ASHISLUDGE 3.0: 1 .
AS TESTED
NUMBER OF ¦ NUMBER OFI MOISTURE ¦ DEIISITY ¦ DEUSITY I SHEARi , DAYS CURED DAYS CURED! PERCENT , PCF , PCF STRENûTH PERCENT
¦ UNCOMPACTED ¦ COMPACTED¦ DRY UEIGUT ¦ DRY BASI~S ¦ UET BASIS PSF STRAIH
0 j 1 ¦ 15.9 j86 1100 ~ 30652 1 2.1 7 , 14.7 ~84 97 11609 2.6 28 1 18.6 j75 89 5259 1 16.9 168 79 1579 7 ¦ 13.6 73 83 1473 3.4 28 1 15.1 71 182 2436 1.8 3 1 1 15.0 74 185 1579 7 1 13.2 71 81 1872 28 1 14.9 74 85 422 7 1 ¦ 14.0 ¦65 74 1109 7 , 8.9 ,70 76 792 28 1 5.9 ~66 170 696 SOX PLEASAUT PRAIRIE, 50X CONDITIOIIED CRUSHED ROMEOVILLE FLr ASH/SLUDGE 1.0: 1 AS TESTED
¦ NUMBER OF ¦ NUMBER OF ¦ MOISTURE ¦ DENSITY I DENSITY ¦ SNEARa , DAYS CURED I DAYS CURED , PERCENT , PCF PCI: , STRENGTH PERCEUT
¦ UNCOMPACTED ¦ C0MPACTED¦ DRY IfEl~;UT ¦ DRY BASIS UET BASIS ¦ PSF STRAIN
.
I I I I ~ I I I
. j 0 1 l 1 62.4 1 56 1 91 1 1250 2.4 :: ~ , 7 , 56.7 ! 58 92 1230 3.9 j 128 1 27.3 j 72 92 4257 66.7 156 93 604 1 4.4 7 1 66.1 1 55 91 719 3.1 28 1 68-5 1 54 1 92 1 897 4.9 3 1 1 65.8 58 196 1 549 5.5 7 1 62.8 58 194 9E4 3.5 28 1 67.3 51 85 878 7 1 1 55.7 59 92 1 1164 4.3 7 ! 53.2 1 6Z 95 ! 1508 3.6 28 1 53.2 ¦ 61 93 1 1951 3.6 0 1 7 1 71.8 1 53 1 91 1 1426 3.6 28 1 63.9 1 53 1 86 ~ 1757 3.2 -28 ! 68-2~/n-5~ ~ 52~59~ !88~103~ 1 2147b ! 4.8 ~7' :.
- 2 3 - ~ ~77341 50X PLEASANT PRAIRIE, 50X CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROMEWILLE FLr ASH/SLUDGE 2.5 : 1 ¦ i AS TESTED l .
¦ NUMBER OF ¦ UUMBER OF I MOISIURE i DENSITY ~ DENSITY ¦ SHEAR~ l , DAYS CURED DAYS CURED I PERCENT PCF I PCF STRENGTH , PERCE~T
¦ UNCOMPACTED ! COMPACTED ! DRY UEIGHT DRY BASIS ! ~ET BA515 PSF i STRAIN
j U ¦ 1 ¦ 35.3 j74 i 100 10Ul 1.0 7 , 32.4 75 99 5588 1 3 j 28 1 48.8 166 99 2252 6 0 ¦ 1 j 1 1 31.1 168 1 89 677 2.8 7 ¦ 31.3 ¦64 84 825 2.0 28 33.8 166 88 2273 1 3 1 1 30.2 I n 95 581 I 1 7 32.9 163 84 117 ! 1 28 1 24.5 73 1 91 ~64 1 7 1 1 1 26.3 70 1 88 ¦902 I , 7 1 21.5 69 1 83 1046 i 1 28 ! 16.6 73 ~ 81 ¦3274 50% PLEASANT PRAIRIE, 50X CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROME0VILLE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 3.0 : 1 -¦ l _AS TESTED
¦ UUMBER OF j NUMBER OF I MOISTURE ¦ DENSITY ¦ DENSITY I SHEAR~ l , DAYS CURED , DAYS CURED I PERCENT PCF PCF I STREHGTH PERCE~T
j UNCOMPACTED ¦ C~MPACTED ! DRr ~EIGRT ! DRY BASIS! ~ET BA515 ! PSF ! STRAIH
U 1 1 i27.5 1 73 ~ 94 ¦1952 j 3.5 7 126.5 1 73 1 9Z 3686 1.5 28 165.5 1 55 1 92 11302 1 4.3 31.8 1 61 81 ¦32g 1 2.4 7 124.3 1 63 7~ 988 2.3 : 1 28 1 30-~ 1 6~ ~3 11558 1.9 3 1 1 126.6 1 76 1 96 1898~ ~ -~ , 7 ,22.4 ! 81 99 !1627 j 1 28 1 8.9 j 70 76 j2515 7 1 1 120.8 1 70 84 !1099 1 _ 7 113.7 1 71 1 80 i1142~ ! -1 28 ! 6-2 ! 69 ! 73 !2934 1 -2 4 - ~773~1 50% PLEASANT PRAIRIE~ 50% CONDITIONED CRUSNED ROMEOVILLE FLY ASN/SLUDGE 1.5 _ 1 l l AS TESTED
¦ NUMBER OF ¦ NUMBER OF ¦ MOISIURE i DENSITY I DENSITY SHEAR~ l ~ DAYS CURED , DAYS CURED , PERCENT PCF I PCF STReNGTH I PERCENT
j UNCOMPACTED ¦ COMPACTED ¦ DRY UEIGHT DRY BASIS ! UET BASIS PSF ! 5TRA,N
¦ O i 1 153.5 i61 1 93 i18a7 3.0 1 7 129.9 173 1 95 12747 4.4 j 1 28 132.2 74 98 14983 51.5 61 92 11148 2.7 , 7 50.4 62 93 11a11 3.6 28 148.9 66 98 12336 3.9 3 1 1 149.2 161 92 11383 2.3 I 1 7 147.8 58 86 11349 Z.~
i 1 28 48.9 65 96 2748 ~.2 ~ 7 1 1 33.9 61 1 82 1341 1 1.4 i 1 7 33.8 65 87 2778 2.1 j 28 35.9 63 85 2569 2.5 ¦ 0 ¦ 7 50.1 165 98 ¦3156 3.6 , 28 150.5 !64 96 3477 , 3.5 28 !52.6l/57.9~ ~62~/85~ 95~/134~ 1 4492b ~ 4.7 .
:
50% PLEASANT PRAIRIE. 50X CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROMEOVILLE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 2.D : 1 l l AS TESTED
j NUMBER OF i NUMBER OF i MOISTURE ¦ DENSITY ¦ DENSITY i SHEAR~
, DAYS CURED DAYS CURED I PERCENT , PCF PCF I STREHGTH PERCEHT
j UNCOMPACTED COMPACTED ! DRr ~EIGHT ¦ DRY SASIS ~ET aAS15 ! PSF STRAIN
i o Ij 1 j 41.2 i 71 i 100 13326 1 2.0 , 7 56.4 ! 64 101 4674 2.7 j 28 ¦ 35-9 1 76 103 ¦5417 2.8 3~.8 ¦ 69 95 11712 1.4 7 1 38.~ ~6 1 92 !1494 ~ 3-1 I 1 28 1 36.2 1 71 1 96 j2703 ~ 2.1 ¦ 3 1 1 1 38.4 1 67 ¦ 93 11127 1 1.8 l 7 ! 35.8 ! 69 ~4 1920 1.8 i 28 j 36.7 1 6~ 93 2571 1.8 7 1 1 1 35.5 1 67 90 ¦1144 2.5 7 1 33.1 1 6~ ~1 ~2045 ! 1-8 28 ! 32-9 ! 67 ~ 89 ~2114 I Z.8 ~.
3L277~
Mixtures of fly ash and sludge initially were found to form a soil-like material with granular properties. The mixtures derived their strengths by chemical reactions which ultimately caused $he soil like mixtures to form a rock-like material after exposurP to typical ambient conditions. This rock-like consistency resulted from the cementitious properties within the fly ash when combined with moisture typically ~urnished by the sludge. The solicls in the sludge do not appear to significantly affect this hydration reaction.
All of the mixtures resulted in material suitable for a self-supporting landfill. Mixtures of sludge and fly ash produce a granular type material with high concentrations of sludge and produce a rock-like material with high concentrations of fly ash, assuming sufficient water is available from the sludge to initiate the fly ash cementing process.
~ ermeability tests were performed on samples of fly ash-sludge mixtures in conjunction with triaxial strength tests. Perm~abillties were measured at two confining pressures. The tests showed permeability values ranging from about 5 x (10)-6 to about 1 x tlO~-7 cm/sec. The permeability test results are presented below in Table 3.
- 26 ~ 73~
_ _ _ D C I.J L R ~ ~ o o C _ D ~
~:~ ~
1. v~ ~ 1~ r~ D 1~ 1~ _ 1~ 7~ ~ _ C ~
~ ~t _ .. _ "_ C~ .. , L~ L ~ rj~
L i I D ~ ~ I U ~Ll r ~ ~
, , - 27 ~ 7'73~
EP toxicity tests were performed on four samples. The analysis consisted of 100 grams of mixture comprising 1.5 parts fly ash to 1 part sludge. Each sample consisted of one of the Pour different types of fly ash in order to cover the range of ash characteristics that might be mixed and landfilled at the site. Parameters analyzed includecl organic compounds and metals listed in Table 4.
:: ~
28 ~L~7~73~L~
C --¦ O ~ Zn O C~ O O O O O O N O O
Z ~ O O O t~ O
V~
W
~J
C~ _ ~
g O C J J J J ~ D J O J J J 1~ 1~ N
Z J C i G C:) GD ~D G . . . a~
C ~ ~ O ~ Cl C:~ O
W~
_ J ~
E J I J J J J J J ~ 1--~ J O J J _ U) N r_ Z O CCCCCCC~tO--C~CCOC_ ~IU')I~ CV
C:~ L~ G ~) ~ G G e~ CD . . ~ . . . . U~
~_ O J er C::~ O C~ O ~ t::~ O ~
~ _ .~ Z ~ ~D L
- ~I'.c~c JJJJJ_J Ir~JgJJJC7~ ~ ~L
c ~ o c ~ ~ c ~ In _~
J C~ J ~ ~ ~ O C O CS
C ~ L~ N
Z=
C V~ J J J J J J J .- N ~D J--J J J ~D J '.D J .~:
L~J O C ~' D C C O C~ O ~ C O D G 1~ ~ O ~J O
~ ~ 3 ~ o o o o ~ o E
:
~-- ~ ~ L c ~_--_ t.~ 7E ~ O G O ~ r S~J c r, ~ N ~ ~, hJ _ ~ ~ O C ~--O D C~ O ~ J C1 0 O O ~ O Lr~ _~ O L
C~ 0 0 0 ~ C~ C O C~ > o d~
_ V~ _ ~ ~ ~ cO
~ .~- ~ I n : c~C~ v~ ~ Q ~
e ~ ~ E E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :
-- ~ E
c~c ~.c ~ ~ -- F ~ L S: _ C~
CS L ~ ~ E ~ c u ~ ~ ~ ~ u. Q~ :
~ r~ e X _~ ~J ~ /,S1 L ~C ~ r -- L C~ O C V S:: ~ ~
C~ ~ Z
:
' `~
` - 29 - ~277~4~
The results of the toxicity tests indicate that any contamination of ~he environment due to the ~ly ash and sludge mixture will be well below the limits established under the Resource Conservation and ~ecovery Act for classifying wastes as hazardous, see Table 4.
To estimate the life span of the landfill, the volume of sludge-fly ash to be disposed versus time was evaluated.
Because of the variability of the unit weight of sludge due to air entrapment, the comparison was made assuming the sludge was fully saturated. The volumes of the constituent materials were then calculated and compared with the observed unit weights of the mixtures. These comparisons are presented in ~IGURE 2 by ash type. These comparisons show that the volume of the mixtures is less than the volume of the constituent material.
Rsgarding the disposal site, run-on water from surface drainage is pre~erably controlled by perimeter ditching during initial development. Surface water resulting from runoff of the exposed ~urface is preferably controlled by ditches and pumped to a holding pond for use in the ash conditioning process conducted at the site, or for on-site dust control.
In the praferred embodiment, the average depth of the planned excavation is about 20 feat below ground level, and the average maximum fill height is about 60 feet above ~round level~ These dimensions typically accommodate construction activities as well as surface drainage during filling and also after completion. Such a fill is significantly less land ~ .
consumptive and more economical than other known disposal system which require large volumes of water or which are not adapted to both above and below grade disposal.
A section of the landfill sh~uld preferably be completed each year using the method of this invention, and thereafter a clay cover and topsoil is preferably placed and vegetative cover planted during the growing ~eason. Daily cover is typically not required because the end product of this method does not lend itself to blowing debris and will not attract rodents and the like.
Prior to disposal start-up, the bottom and side walls of the disposal site preferably comprise about 10 feet of cla~, preferably having a maximum permeability of 1 x (10)-7 cm/sec.
Although a preferred embodiment of the invention has been illustrated and described, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that variations and modificatlons may be made within the scope of the inventive concepts.
Accordingly, it is intended that the scope o~ the invention be limited only by the scope of the hereafter appended claims when interpreted in light of the pertinent prior art, and not by the scope of the specific, exemplary preceding description.
The methods of wasting ~ly ash which have traditionally been used are the "sluicing" methocl and the "dampening" method.
The sluicing method mixes fly ash and liquid to a liquid content of greater than ~0% by weight. The mixture is then pumped into a holding pond where it is exposed to ambient conditions and allowed to dry until the next batch of ~ly ash and water is added.
The sluicing process has several disadvantages. First, in arid regions, large quantities of liquid are sometimes not readily available or are only available at a very high cost.
Second, the sluicing method often requires expensive site preparation, including the need for special cell liners and embankments Third, the volume of water used in this method causes it to be very land consumptive, and the necessary land i5 not always available. ~inally, a large holding pond of the end-product can be hazardous, because the ~ell liner or embankment could leak; also, wildlife or curious children could be attracted to the holding pond, and this could result in any one of a number of s~rious consequences.
Due to the aforementioned disadvantages, the sluicing .
_ 3 - ~ ~77~
method of wasting fly ash is not well suited to the needs of today's coal-burning industry.
In the "dampening" method, just su~ficient liquid is added to the dry fly ash to calm the dust, and this facilitates the handling of the fly ash with conventional earth moving equipment. ~lthough the liquid content will vary with the type of fly ash, a liquid content of about 5~ to about 25~ by weight is typically used. Current dampening systems commonly mix a continuous flow of fly ash with a continuous flow of liquid.
Although the liquid flow rate can be easily controlled, the fly ash flow rate often cannot; as a result, the liquid content of the dampened fly ash often varies by 50% or more. This lack of uniformity produces handling problems. At lower liquid concentrations, unwanted fugitive dust is often generated; at higher concentr~tions, the end product becomes a paste or sludge which makes handling more di~ficult. Dampening systems are therefore becoming less suitable for today's needs.
Due to the inadequacies of the sluicing and dampening methods, an innovative alternative method has been creatPd and is disclosed in Pound, U.S. 4,313,7~2, "Method of Wasting Fly Ash and Product Produced Thereby" and Pound U.S. 4,461,601 "Slurry Sy~tem For Wasting Fly Ash Having Nonleachable Self-Sustaining End Product".
Briefly, the Pound patents disclose a fly ash disposal system where, after the fly ash cools and is removed from a ]coal-burning plant boiler, it is transported by conventional ~ 7;3~
means to a closed storage area to await transportation to a site located some distance from the coal-burning facility. The bone dry fly ash iB discharged from the power station storage area into a pneumatic bulk transport truck. After filling, the truck is sealed to prevent dust leakage during transit. The substantially dust free closed chan~ered transport vehicle then brings the fly ash to a processing plant storage unit. The fly ash is ultimately transferred from the storage unit into a slurrier where lt is mixed with an amount of li~uid. The resultant slurry is then moved to a slurry holding tank and ultimately discharged via a slurry pump to a disposal cell.
The msthod and sy tem of the present invention disposes of not only fly ash, but also sewage sludge. Sewage sludge is the end by-product of typical community waste treatment facilities.
In typical sewage treatment facilities, the sludge is chemically conditioned and dewatered by vacuum filters. The dewatered sludge is then transferred to trailer dump trucks and hauled to a disposal site for further treatment or dispocal.
Disposing of sewage sludge has been accomplished by a number of methods. In some waste disposal methods, the sludge is incinerated. However, incineration typically results in high en~rgy costs. Furthermore, incineration disposal methods also produce gaseous by products which may cause environmental concerns.
Other disposal processss involve the transporting of sludge to a disposal site in dump trucks. ~hese trucks are then '~2'77341 driven over re~se located at the disposal Sit2 The sludge, including its contained water, is thereby dumped onto the refuse. The sludge is mixed with the re~use and then compacted with a bulldo~er. In this way, the refuse is intended to soak up the liquid contained in the sludge, thereby reducing the environmental impact upon the surrounding region. The amount of sludge which can be mixed with refuse is typically controlled by regulatory agencies. Whether regulated or not, however, landfills can become saturated with waste, thereby generating environmental hazards and concerns.
Other methods of sewage disposal include burying the sewage sludge at a disposal site dedicated solely for such sludge. ~owever, this method of disposal also raises environmental concerns due to ground water pollution, general instability and undesirable settling of the comple~ed fill, and other hazards.
In Nowicki et al., U.S. 4,472,198, "Process and System of Wasting Fly Ash And Product Produced Thereby", a method and system is disclosed for disposing of fly ash and liquid industrial waste. The product o~ this method is environmentally safe and comprises a mixture of dry fly ash and liquid additive having a liquid additive content o~ about 5%-25~ by weight. The process relates to a mixins operation which closely controls the liquid additive to yield a uniformly conditioned product; this product can be subjected to earth handling equipment pressures almost immediately. The process also typically eliminates cell - 6 - ~Z~7734~-preparation and greatly reduces leaching at the disposal site.
However, the Nowicki process is not applicable ts all forms of waste disposal. The di~clo~ure of Nowicki is directed to liquid waste disposal which may not be suitable for sewage sludge disposal due tc the sludge's non-aqueous physical properties.
As a result, an object of this invention is to provide a fly ash and sewage sludgç wasting method and system which is environmentally 6afe, economical, and reliable.
A further object of this invention is to provide a fly ash and sewage sludge wasting system which results in no bleed liquid being generated at any point in the process.
A further ob~ect of the invention is to provide a method of and system for wasting fly ash and sewage sludge whereby the fly ash is handled during transit and processed in a manner which is pollution free.
Yet a further object is to providP a process and system of wasting fly ash and sewage sludge in which the end product will harden into a stable, environmentally acceptable mass.
Yet another object is to provide a fly ash and sewage sludge wasting system in which the final, hardened product meets all current environmental requirements, and is resistant to leaching and to percol~tion from ground water and rainfall whereby the pollution potential in the disposal area is greatly reduced.
Yet a further object is to provide a fly ash sewage sludge - 7 - ~X~734~
wasting system in which on-site dust at the disposal location is reduced to a minimum.
A further object is to provicle a ~ly ash and sewage sludge wasting system and process which is more economical to operate than other conventional systems.
A further object is to provide a sewage sludge and wasting system which is less land consumptive and more space efficient than previously known methods.
Other ob~ects and ~eatures o~ the invention will become apparent to those skilled in the art from the following specification when read in the light of the annexed drawings.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The process and product of this invention rlates to an ~nvironmen~ally safe, effective, and inexpensive means ~or disposing of fly ash and sewage sludge. The process is reliable, economical, and easy to use; it combines dry fly ash and sewage sludge to ultimately produce an en~ironmentally safe product which can be handled relatively inexpensively by conventional earth-handling methods. The process and product are specifically adapted to above-grade disposal.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The invention is illustrated more or less diagrammatically in the accompanying drawings wherein:
FIGURE 1 is a process flow diagram which illustrates the - 8 - ~Z~773~
preferred handlin~ and processing steps in -the wasting process;
FIGURES 2A and 2B are graphs illus-trating volume of fly ash and sludge after mixing divided by the volume of the fly ash and sludge before mixing vs. ratio of sludge to fly ash.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
Bone dry fly ash is conveyed by any conventional means from a coal burning system to an adjacent storage silo. A bulk transport truck is positioned under the silo to receive the dry fly ash. These trucks are designed to be substantially air tight whenever all hatches and appurtenances are closed and are designed for pneumatic unloading. Trucks of this design are well known and need not be further described here.
After receiving a load of dry fly ash at the generating station storage silo, the truck transport compartment hatches are fastened to form an air tight compartment, and the truck transports the fly ash to the processing plant. Here, the fly ash is pneumatically unloaded into fly ash site storage silos as indicated at lo in the process flow diagram in FIGURE 1. These silos have dust collectors 11, preventing any airborne fly ash from escaping from the silos during transfer and storage.
Sludge is a residual which is removed from conventional community sewage treatment facilities. At the treatment facillty, the sludge is chemically conditioned and dewatered by vacuum filters. The resulting dewatered solids are then transferred to a tractor trailer dump truck, hauled to the - 9 ~ '73~
processing plant, and dumped into a storage building 15. From this building, the sludge is transferred via a rubber tire enloader into sludge hoppers 12.
During disposal operations, t:he sludge i~ pumped from the sludge hopper 12 by means of a sluclge (progressive cavity) pump 14 into a primary pugmill 16. The fly ash i6 transferred by a conventional air slide system from the fly ash storage silos 10 to an intermediate regulating vesse.l 13. This vessel serves to overcome natural fluctuations in fly ash flow as the fly ash is introduced at the top and allows for a more uniform flow of fly ash as it exits from the bottom. The fly ash is transported by gravity through a vane feeder at the base of the regulating vessel, down a c~nduit, and into the primary pugmill 16.
The fly ash is transferred to pugmill 16 simultaneously as the sludge is pumped to the pugmill by the sludge pump 14. Both transfer systems are controlled to provide the proper mix at the pugmill to form a homogeneous and environmentally acceptable mixture. The composition of the mixture is preferably 1/2 to 4 parts fly ash to 1 part sludge by weight, and the composition is controlled by varying the sp~ed of the sludge pump and adjusting the fly ash vane feeder. Variations in the physical properties of the sludge may require some adjustment in the flow rates of the fly ~sh and ~ludge to achieve the proper end product. This end product should not contain too high a proportion of fly ash or fugitive dust may occur. Nor should the end product contain too much sludge, otherwise the end product may not meet - 10 ~ P7;34~
environmental reguirements.
The resulting mixture is transferred by means of a fir~t conveyor belt 18 to a clearing where the mixture is stockpiled.
The processed fly ash and sludge is ultimately loaded with an endloader from these piles into dump trucks. These trucks transport the material to the working areas of a landfill. At the landfill, the material is placed and compacted both above and below grade, using conventional earth-moving e~uipment.
If large amounts of ~ly ash are stored at the disposal facility, the facility can also be equipped with a secondary pugmill 20 having two capabilities. First, the secondary pugmill can be used to mix dry fly ash with water (supplied from water tank 22) to a water content of about 10% by w~ight. The resulting "conditioned fly ash" mixture can then be transferred by a second conveyor belt 24 to be stockpiled at a convenient location.
The stockpiled mixture of fly ash and water can be stored until shortages of dry fly ash become apparent. As is now well-established, the addition of small ~uantities of fly ash to concrete is widely employed, because it enables freshly poured concrete to preserve advantageous flow characteristics and generally results in higher compression strengths; these characteristics are of particular importance when pouring structural concrete. However, demand for fly ash varies with the seasons. During warm weather months when construction activity is at its peak, fly ash generation may not be :
277~41 sufficient to satisfy demand. Conversely, during cold weather months, construction activity may be at a greatly reduced level, and the supply of fly ash may be much greater than demand.
Consequently, stockpiling fly ash during periods of low demand is often advantageous.
By mixing fly ash with water to a water content of about 10~, an environmentally safe "conditioned" fly ash mixture is created. After being exposed to ambient conditions, the mixture becomes pebble-like. ~owever, when fly ash is needed for sludge disposal in accordance with the present invention, this pebble-like mixture can be crushed and used with small quantities of dry fly ash or a calcium containing activator, and the result will be equally as effective as when conventional dry fly ash is used.
When the stockpiled conditioned fly ash is used according to the wasting process and system of this invention, the conditioned fly ash is crush~d and transferred by a fourth conveyor belt 2~ to the process facility and fed into the primary pugmill 16. The same mixing process will take place between the sludge and conditioned fly ash as discussed above using non-conditioned fly ash.
The secondary pu~mill 20 serves as a backup for the primary pugmill 16 or can also be used to provide additional wasting capacity as required, functioning in the same manner as the primary pugmill. The third conveyor belt 26 can be used to transfer the final mixture of fly ash and sludge from the - 12 - ~Z~3~
secondary pugmill to a stockpile area where it is transferred to dump trucks. Consequently, both the first and third conveyer belts 18 and 26, are capable of transferring the fly ash-sludge mixture to stockpiles.
The sludge-fly ash mixture end-product is taken by dump trucks from the stockpiles to a landfill~ The piles can be handled by conventional earth moving equipment when the fly ash hydration reaction has reached the point that the material can support such traffic.
To establish the types of fly ash which would be appropriate for the method and product of this invention, experiments were done on numerous types of fly ash, including fly ash taken from: 1. Commonwealth Edison Co.'s Waukegan Power Station; 2. Wisconsin Electric's Pleasant Prairie Station; 3.
American Fly Ash's Romeoville ash conditioning plant; and 4. a 1:1 mix by weight of Pleasant Prairie ash and Romeoville ash.
Sludge was taken from the North Shore Sanitary District located in Gurnee, Illinois.
Numerous labor~tory tests were performed on the sludge-fly ash mixtures, including measurements of unit weight, moisture content, strength, and permeability. The tests were performed in two phases, the first was to determine the range of mix ratios of sludge and fly ash which could provide an acceptable material ~or landfilling, and the second was to provide more detailed information on those mixes which appeared to be acceptable according to the fir t phase of testing.
13 ~ 77~3~
The testing program included time intervals of 0, 1, 3, and 7 days between mixing and compaction. Strength tests were performed 1, 7, or 28 days after compa~tion by unconfined compression testing. Direct shear testing and triaxial compression testing were also performed where appropriate.
The laboratory test results ~how that the physical properties of the sludge and fly ash mixtures are a function of ash type (either Class C or Class ~ as determined by standard ASTM testing procedures), mix ratio, and curing time. All of the mixes tested produced a material suitable for use in a self-supporting fill. Wet densities of the mixtures, when compacted to approximately 90 percent of ~STM D 698, ranged from 75.5 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to as high as 104.8 pcf.
Compactibility of each mixture was eventually achieved on all samples. Some mixes required curing times prior to compaction approaching ona week due to the presence of free water in the sample. Once free water was adequately reduced, a continued delay in compaction wag generally detrimsntal to achieving greater densities. The mixture compaction data are presented below in Table 1.
.
- 14 - '~L2773~L
q!ABLB 1 WET DE:N8ITY Oli' CONPACT~:D
:L00% ~Ul~EGAN ~I,Y A811/SLl~DG13 DAYS CURED UNCOMPACTED .
1.5:1 10~).0 100O0 99.2 1103.4 2.0:1 103.7 106.7 1104.6 101.4 2.25:1 103.9 107.0 105.5 104.4 2.5:1 106.0 105.8 104.6 9~.4 3.0:1 112.4 100.6 97.8 91.5 WEq! D13N8:CTY OF CONPACTED
100% CONDITIONl~D C~lU8Hl~D P~OM!J30VIL~ JY A~H/8LUDGE:
DAYS CURE:D UNCOMPACTED
MIX RATIO O ~ 3 . 7 1.5:1 192.5 93.8 9~;.7 103.4 2.0:1 ~6.8 9~.3 9~.2 101.4 2.5:1 102.1 101.4 101.5 104.~
3.0:1 102.3 1102.8 102.7 9~1.4 4.0:1 103.0 102.4 100.9 91.5 W~æT DEN5ITY O~ COMP~CT~D
100% ~PLBA~3ANT PRAIRI~ ~LY 1~8~1J8LUD~:~
DAYS CURED UNCOMPP~CTED
MIX RATIO O 1 ~ 3 7 1.0:1 93.4 ~5.8 9~i.8 8~;.0 1.5:1 96.6 90.5 86.0 74.5 2.0:1 98.9 89~1 83.4 80.8 2.5:1 90.7 83.8 81.4 75.5 3.0:1 88.2 82.1 7~.6 76.7 ! DBNgITY O~F CO~1E?ACTED
50% PL3~A~A~;IT P~AIRIB~ 50% CONDI~IONED
CRUBHl~n ROMEOYIIiI,B 3FI~Y A8~1/8LUD~:E
_ DAYS CURED UNCOMPACTED
MIX RATIQ O _1 3 7 1.0:1 92.6 ~2.6 92.2 94.5 1.5:1 99.6 99.2 96.9 B6.1 2.0:1 104.~3 ~36.9 95.1 91.4 2.5:1 99.2 91.1 86.9 81.~
3.0:1 92.3 87.0 84.6 80.5 _ .
Notes: 1~ Results presented as ~et derlsity in pounds per cubic foot imnediately after compaction by Harvard miniature compaction device.
2) Boxed values ir,dicete mix could not sustain full compactive effort of Harvard miniature compaction device.
,, - 15 - ~2'7~734~
Strength values for the mixtures varied greatly and sometimes exceeded 5000 pounds per square foot (psf), see Table 2. Some of the mixes that exhibited low unconfined compression strengths were retested using direct shear and triaxial testing. These tests indicated angles of internal shear and ; triaxial testing. Shear tests indicate angles of internal friction in excess of 35 degrees. Direct shear testing was required because the material in some mixes were insufficiently cohesive. Triaxial testing was perPormed in the second phase testing to assess the effective stress properties. The results of all strength testing are presented below in Table 2.
:: ;
` ' ''`~
:
:::
, ,' ~'773~
TAB~E 2 100X IJAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE 1.0: 1 AS TESTED -¦
NUMBER OF ¦ NUMBER OF ¦ HOISTURE ¦ DE~lSITY DE~lSlTr I SUEAR~
, DAYS CURED , DAYS CURED PERCENT , PCF PCF STRENGTH PE~CENT
U~ICOMPACTED ¦COMPACTED ! DRY ~EIGHT IDRY ~ASIS UET BASIS PSF STRAI~I
I
0 i 7 i5a.9 ~58 ¦ 92 1387 ~ 2.8 Z~) i4~ 59 88 3256 !3.2 - IZ8 ! 55.7~/60.6~ ! s6,/64~ !87~/103~ 2109b ~ 2.0 100X UAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE 1.5: 1 .
AS TESTED
NUMBER OF i NUMBER OF ¦ MOISTURE j DENSITY I DE1151TY ! SHEAR~ l DAYS CURED DAYS CURED PERCENT PCF PCF ~ STRENGTH I PERCE~IT
UNCOMPACTED COMPACTED DRY UEIGHT DRY ~ASIS UET BASIS ~ PSF ~ STRAIN
o i 1 i45.1 i67 ¦ 97 1804 10.0 7 144.6 168 98 1436 7.9 28 144.3 167 1 97 1793 4.9 41.5 169 1 47 673 7.2 7 42.2 169 ! 98 751 6.7 28 40.6 170 1 98 1069 3.9 3 1 1 39.4 I n ¦ 101 880 8.3 7 137.6 173 100 686 3.0 28 ¦39.9 ~71 ¦ 95~98 ~v. 1796 3.1 7 1 133.0 173 1 97 694 2.5 7 133.3 174 98 1099 2.98 28 132.6 174 1 98 ~)47 2.4 0 1 7 145.1 168 ~ 1619 1 4.3 28 166.6 167 96 2160 2.8 2~ !43-41/47-7~ 171~ 95~/105~ ! 2719b ! 1000 aDetermined by unconfined compression test unless noted otherwise.
bTriaxial-consolidated-undrained test with confining pressure =
2304 psf.
CNo test possible sample ~rumbled during extruding.
dDensity determined Prom Drop Test.
eStrength determination by direct shear test.
Note: Moisture content values measured at the time of strength testing.
i = initial moiæture content prior to consolidation~
f = final moisture content subsequent to test.
- 17 ~ ~ 773fl3L
1L~ IAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE 2~0: 1 . AS TESTED
l ... . I
NUMBER OF I UUMBEQ OF MOISTURE I DENSITY DENSITY sllEAR4 ¦ UNCOMPACTED I COMPACTED ! DRY UElGHTDRY BASIS ~IET BASIS PSF STRAIU
0 1 1 1 34.1 ! 75 i101 1380 ! 6.4 7 33.7 76 101 1787 4.0 28 33.8 77 103 2727 3.1 33-5 ¦ 74 I 99 854 I Z.5 7 1 32.7 78 103 1408 2.6 28 ¦ 31.1 78 103 2642 2.0 3 ¦ 1 ¦ 31.5 69 91 372 2.0 7 30.8 73 95 624 1.3 28 1 30.4 79 104 4144 2.5 7 1 1 ¦ 26.6 73 92 a3b 4.6 7 33.8 77 103 1313 6.4 28 ¦ 25.9 80 100 2803 2.1 _ 100X WAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE,2.25: 1 . _ AS TESTED ~
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MOISTURE I DENSITY DEHSITY SHEARn DAYS CURED DAYS CURED PERCEHT PCF PCF STRENGTH PERCENT
UNCOMPACTED COMPACTED~ DRY UEIGHT DRY BASIS WET BASIS PSF SIRAIU
0 1 ~ j 29.3 1 83 107 1851 ~ 4.9 7 ~ 29.2 1 84 108 2647 ¦ 3.3 28 1 29.8 ¦ 83 107 av. 3882 j 3.1 30.8 1 81 105 1131 ~ 5.2 7 ~ 29.8 ! 81 ~05 11232 1 Z-5 !1 ~ 28 I Z9.7 j79 102 1 1938 j 2.5 3 1 1 28.7 71 92 1376 11.9 7 ~ 28.7 ! 73 194 1416 1 1.3 28 j 27.3 j 82 ~10S ~5407 j 2.1 7 ¦ 1 1 26.0 1 79 ¦100 ~ 878 ~ 1.3 7 ! 25.1 1 77 96 ~585 2.2 28 ~_24.4 ! 84 ~ ~04 ~ 6359 ~ 1.4 00X UAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE 2.50: 1 .
AS TESTED I I , ¦ UUMBER OF i UUMBER OF ¦ MOlSTURe ~ DEUSITY ¦ DENSITY ¦ SHEAR~ j DAYS CURED ¦ DAYS CURED I PERCENT IPCF PCF I ST2EIIGTH I PERCE\IT
UNCOMPACTED I COtlPACTED I DRr WEIGNT ! DRY BASIS ~ UET BASIS I PSF I STRAIII
.
0 ¦ 1 1 22.1 j 90 ¦110 ¦ 4592 j 4.4 7 1 23.1 88 108 ~5062 1.5 28 jl 23-8 1 85 1105 1 5315 1 2-0 1 1 26.6 ~ 68 186 1229 1 1.2 ~j 7 1 26.3 ~ 80 ~101 11180 1 2.8 28 ~ 26.9 j 80 j101 j1354 ~ 3.7 3 ¦ 1 1 23.8 ¦ 76 ~94 1 662 ¦ 1.8 7 1 23.5 75 94 ~62g ~1.8 28 ¦ 23.3 ¦ 84/80 ¦104/99 ¦av. 3845 1 ¦
7 ~ 1 1 22.8 1 75 192 1 1019 1 1.3 7 ~ 25.3 ~ 70 ~88 1728 ~ 1.2 28 1 22.S I 75 192 1~513 1 2.1 . . _ .
73~
100% UAUKEGAN FLY ASH/SLUDGE 3.00: 1 r ~ AS TESTED l -_ UUHrdER OF i NUMBER OF I HO15TURE I DENSITY IDEUSITY iSHEAR'I i ¦ DAYS CURED ¦ DArs CURED I PERCENT I PCF IPCF I
STRENGTH ¦ PERCENT
! UUCOMPACTED ~ COMPACTED ¦ DRY IJEIGHT ! DRY 8ASIS ! ~JET
BASIS ~ PSF I STRAIN
0 i 1 1 22.9 180 i98 j3980 j 0.74 7 121.4 1 81 198 4891 1.3 28 ¦21.6 ¦ 83 ¦1U0 ¦2791/6788 ¦ 1.4/1.8 20.2 1 80 ¦97 1744 ¦ 2.5 7 j20.6 1 78 94 j696 1 2.8 28 122.9 ! 75 ¦93 1~1 1 2.2 3 ¦ 1 ¦ 18.6 j80 ¦94 8t.9 ¦ 3.1 7 18.7 80 95 2250 12.0 28 118-1 1 81 195 1673 j 0.7 7 ¦ 1 ¦ 15-1 ¦79 191 ¦ 695 ¦ 1 4 28d 100% CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROMEOVILLE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 1.0: 1 AS TESTED
NUHBER OF ¦ NUM3ER OF HOISTURE ¦ DENSITY ji DENSITY i SHEARa DAYS WRED DAYS CURED PERCENT PCF PCF STRENGTH I PERCENT
¦ UNCOHPACTED ! CQMPACTED ! DRY l~ElGHT ! DRY ~SIS ! ~IET BAS15 PSF ¦ STRAIN
_ l O 1 7 83.6 48 88 312 8.2 28 1 80.7 ¦ 49 1 89 ¦ 376 ¦ 10.4 28 ¦ 79-1~/63-1~ 1 SOj/76t ¦ 89.81/124l 1 1617~ 1 8.1 Ud I ! - ! - ! 83-9 !
100% CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROMEWILLE FLY ~SH/SLUDGE 1.5: 1 AS TESTED _ L
NUMBER OF i IIUMBER OF I MOISTURE I DENSITY i DEUSIIY I SHEARa ¦ DAYS CURED I DAYS CURED t PERCENT ¦ PCF ¦ PCF ¦ STRENGTH ¦ PERCEIIT
j:! UNCOMPACTED ! COMPACTEDI DRY I~EIGHT I DRY BASIS I ~IET dASlS I PSF I STRAIN
O I1 i62.7 i 58 i94 ¦197 ¦ 10.0 7 ¦64.1 ¦ 57 j94 1182 1 10.0 28 1~4.7 1 57 i93 1av. 233 1 10.0 61.7 ¦ 59 ¦95 ¦171 ¦ 10.0 7 161.9 ~ 61 ~98 159 1 10.0 f 128 j62.3 t 58 j94 121 j 10.0 3 11 161~5 ¦ 59 195 ¦190 ¦ 10.0 7 ¦62-5 1 59 j95 1166 1 14.6 28 161.3 1 59 195 1219 1 10.0 7 11 156,4 t 63 19~ ¦186 1 10.0 7 ¦34-9 ¦ 72 197 1291 j 11.5 28 156.3 1 62 197 1570 1 ~.2 7 163.4 1 5~ 195 t315 1 7-5 28 158.3 1 62 198 474 ~ 7.9 28 ¦67.9~/56.6~ ¦571/951 196~/149~ ¦ 1733~ j 10.0 j od ! ! - ! - 1 54-6 !
.
r ~ LLE FLY ASH~SLUDGE 2.0 ~ 77~41 r ~ -- AS TESTED - - -I UUMBER OF I UUMBER OF MOISTURE ~ DEUSITY ¦ DEUSlTr i SHEAR~
¦ DAYS CURED ¦ DAYS CURED PERCE~T ¦ PCF ~ PCF I STREUGTH PERCENT
I UUCOMPACTED ~ COMPACTED ~ DRY UEIGHT ~ DRY BASIS ~ ~ET BASIS ! PSP STRAIN
., . . . _ . ~
¦ 0 ¦ 1 j S5.1 i 61 94 j 316 6.4 , , 7 , 53.3 ! 62 94 , 237 9.1 j j 28 j 55.1 j 61 94 j 2P0 10.0 ¦ 1 1 1 ¦ 51.0 1 63 95 271 7.9 7 1 54.1 ¦ 64 99 192 8.7 I j 28 49.5 66 98 197 10.0 1 3 1 1 51.6 64 97 307 8.8 1 1 7 53.1 $4 97 220 10.0 j 1 2~ ~9.9 65 97 272 7 j 1 39.2 n 102 4n 5.5 7 39.e 74 103 640 4.5 ~ 28 ~ -100X CONDITIONED CRUSHED R0MEOVILLE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 2.5 : 1 AS TESTED .
NUH8ER OFj UUMBER OF¦ HOISTURE ¦ DEHSITY i DENSITY SHEAR~ i DAYS CUREDDAYS CUREDPERCENT , PCF PCF STREUGTH PERCENT
¦ UNCOHPACTEDCOMPACTED! DRY ~EIGHT ¦ DRY ~ASIS ~ET BASIS PSF STRAIH
I i o ¦ 1 j48.4 ¦63 i9b ¦ 39b i 2.5 7 46.7 ~65 196 330 4.5 1 28 47.9 165 Ig6 286 5.7 1 1 1 146.4 i63 192 ¦ 300 ¦ 2.4 7 144.8 ¦67 1~7 311 1 4.0 : 28 142.8 168 96 1 357 1 5.8 3 1 ¦~4.8 170 100 501 1 7.8 , 7 ,45.0 !65 94 136 2.0 j j 28 j43.5 j66 94 511 4.6 1 7 1 1 ¦34.5 175 101 991 1 2.a ¦ 1 7 135.9 176 103 ¦1156 1 2.8 I ~ 28 134.7 !76 ~103 ,2254 1 1.8 . . .~
: : lOOX CONDITIOUED CRUSHED ROMEOVIELE FLY ASH/SL,UDGE 3.0 : 7 S TESTED ¦ _ i ¦ hUHBER OF ¦ NUMBER OF ¦ ~OISTURE ¦ DENSITY I DENSITY ¦ SHEAR~ i DAYS CURED i DAYS CURED ~ PERCENT ~ PCF ! PCF ~ STRE~GTH ~ PERCEUT
UNCOMPACTED ¦ COMPACTED I DRY UEIGHT ¦ DRY BASIS ¦ UET iASlS ~ PsF ¦ STRAIN
_ _ _ _, , ,,, ~ _ , I
j 0 ¦ 1j 43.2 i 69 i 99 j 459 i 2.7 ¦ ~ 7 1 41.3 ¦ 71 1 101 ¦ 376 1 4.0 i 1 40.2 1 70 1 98 1 3n ~ 5-5 41.3 1 68 1 ~6 ! Z46 1 2-5 7 j 42.3 j 68 j P6 1 481 1 2.5 j 2~ 1 42.3 1 69 1 98 1 235 1 2.3 3 ¦ 1 1 40.2 1 71 ¦ 100 1 441 1 5.6 ~ 43.1 1 6~ ~7 1 259 1 2.2 ¦ ! 28! 42.2 ¦ 71 1 101 1 727 1 3-9 1 7 j 1¦ 37.9 1 71 ! 97 ¦ 412 1 2.2 , 7 , 38.0 ! 7S 1 101 , 458 i 3,7 28 1 ~8.0 1 76 ~ 105 1 1544 1 2.3 ~, ~.
~ 20 ~773~1.
100% CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROMEOVILLE FLY ASH~SL~ Q: 1 AS TESTED I _ ____ _ ï
_ I NUMBER OF I NUMBER OF IMOISTURE I DENSITY DENSITY SHEARa ¦ DAYS CURED ¦ DAYS CURED ¦PERCENT ¦ PCF PCF STRENGTH PERCEiIT
I UNCOMPACTED I COMPACTED I DRY I~EIGHT IDRY BASIS ~IET BASIS I PSF ! STRAIN
, D i 1 1 37 6 1 62 85 1 154 ¦ 1.5 7 I 37 3 I 71 97 I 2B7 Z,5 28 1 36-2 1 69 93 1 552 4.4 36.4 66 90 I 266 1.3 7 37.2 62 85 as 8.4 28 36.2 69 43 274 1.5 3 I 1 34.6 61 82 132 1.7 7 1 35.2 69 93 251 2.3 28 I 35.0 ¦ 75 101 1753 1.8 7 I 1 I 30.2 I n 95 383 2.2 7 I 29.8 I 72 94 420 2.2 328 ! 30-3 ! 76 99 2338 1.8 100X PLEASANT PRAIRIE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 0.5: 1 , ¦ AS TESTED .
NUMaER OF I UUIlBER OF I MOISTURE ~ D~NSITY I DENS17Y SHEARa I DAYS CURED I DAYS CURED I PERCENT PCF I PCF STRE\IGTH PERCEUT
¦ UNCOMPACTED ! CoMPACTED ! DRY IiElGHT DRr 0ASIS ! ~IET BA515 PSF STRAIN
0 1 7 ¦ 94.2 j43 ¦83 j 891 j2.9 2a 103.6 39 79 m 3.5 28 ! ~U0.5i/104.2f ! 39i/47f ! 77i/97f !12~3b ! 0 9 100% PLEASANT PRAIRIE FLY ASH SLUDGE 1.Q_: 1 - AS TESTED
__ ' - --- r NUMBER OF ¦ NUMBER OF I MOISTURE I DENSITY I DENSITY SHEARa ¦ DAYS CURED I DAYS CURED ¦ PERCEIIT ¦ PCF I PCF STRENCTH I PERCENT
I UNCOMPACTED I COMPACTEDI DRY ~IEIGHT I DRY BASIS 3 ~IET ~ASIS PSF I STRAIII
_ .. . _ .
0 I 1 53.8 I 60 I 92 1 2265 I 2.2 7 4S.5 I 63 I 94 ~426 I 7.6 2B ¦ 51.1 ¦ 61 ¦ 93 ¦ 2262 ¦ 4.6 52.0 61 I 93 I 1776 1 5O1 7 I 51.7 59 I gD ~ 2051 I 2.3 28 1 53.3 62 1 ~5 1 2124 1 4.3 3 ¦ 1 ¦ 49.8 I 62 93 ¦ 176U I 2.4 7 ~ 49.9 61 92 2167 3.1 28 1 50.3 ¦ 64 96 ~ 2918 3.6 7 1 1 1 42-6 ¦ 53 I ~4 I 1653 I 1.8 7 1 42.2 I 60 84 I 2559 1 ~-2 28 I 37.9 I 63 87 I 4775 I 1.8 0 I 7 1 49-8 1 64 97 1 4051 I 2.1 I28 , 49.4 60 9~ 4368 I 2.1 ¦28 1 47.31/44.7f ¦ 62i/67f ¦ 91i/106f ¦ 4681b I B.8 od ! ! - ! - ! 92-5 r~ .
. ~ .
- 2~ 734 100X PLEASANT PRAIRIE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 1.5: 1 - ¦ AS TESTED
HUMBER OF I HUMBER OF I MOISTURE ¦DEHSITY DEIISITY ¦ SHEAR~
¦ DAYS CURED ¦ DAYS CURED ¦ PERCEUT I PCF PCF I STRENGTH PERCEIIT
! UNCOMPACTED ICOMPACTED I DRY ~EIGHT IDRY BASIS SIET BASIS ~ PSF STRAIN
D ¦ 1 i 37 5 i 71 ¦ 97 49Z4 i 1.3 7 1 33.6 !74 99 865ll 1.6 ¦ 28 ¦ 33.2 j 72 96 5128 1.4 3~.4 168 92 2192 j 1.8 7 1 34.0 169 92 2298 1.9 28 ¦ 33.8 ¦67 89 Z454 1.8 3 ¦ 1 ¦ 33.1 1 65 87 1515 l.Z
7 32.4 68 90 av. 2299 28 1 3~.5 66 88 2~66 2.1 7 1 1 18.8 169 82 1344 7 13.9 69 79 1978 28 14.0 166 76 11Z8 0 ¦ 7 1 40.1 1 73 103 5211 2.8 28 1 38.3 ~71 98 7548 Z.1 1 28 ¦ 40.51/46.7~ ¦70.91/96~ 98~/141~ ~ 7455C 2.9 od 1 0 1 ~ I - 89.4 ! -:: -100X PLEASANT PRAIRIE_FLY ASH/SLUDGE 2.0 - 1 r I ~s TE5TED -i-j NUMBER OF j ilUMBER OF ¦ HOISTURE ¦ DENSITY ¦ DENSITY i SHEARa I DAYS CURED DAYS CURED I PERCEUT PCF I PCF STREIIGTH PERCENT
j UHCOMPACTED !CoMPACTED ~ DRY ~IEIGHT ! DRY BAS15 ¦ WET BASIS PSF STRAIN
I O i ~ i z75 i 78 j 99 i 10406 1 2-9 !
7 1 22.7 186 1 105 ¦ 7930 Z.8 28 1 28.0 177 1 98 1 4947 1 2.
3 1 1 1 22.4 1 66 181 1 854~t 1 l 7 ! 24.6 177 1 96 ! 874 ! 2-3 !
: ~ I 28 1 21.6 167 i 81 i 1387~ i -7 1 1 1 20.2 1 68 182 1 1051 7 1 12.1 170 i 78 ¦ 960e 28 ! 6-6 !65 ! 70 1 159~ ! -- - , :
7~4i 100X PLEASANT PRAIRIE FLY ASH/SLUDGE Z.5: 1 AS TESTED
I NUMBER OF i UUMBER OFI HOISTURE IDENSITY I DENSITY ¦ SHEARa ¦ DAYS CURED ¦ DAYS CURED ¦ PERCENT I PCF ¦ PCF STRENGTH PERCENT
I UNCOMPACTED ~ COMPACTED~ DRY UEIGHT !DRY BASIS ~ IJET BASIS ¦ PSF ~ STRAIN
jl o 1 1jl 19.6 i75 ¦ 90 3167 1 1.4 7 17.8 89 105 6946 1.9 28 120.4 87 105 551)1 1 20.2 168 82 1851 3.2 7 17.8 72 84 2237 3.3 ZB 14.9 71 82 2909 .
3 ¦ 1 ~16.9 70 81 955 , 7 21.4 68 83 1162 j28 16.5 70 82 1848 7 1 114.0 69 79 1094 7 17.6 70 75 Z074 2B ~5.8 ~71 75 1531 ~77~
100X PLEASANT PRAIRIE FLY ASHISLUDGE 3.0: 1 .
AS TESTED
NUMBER OF ¦ NUMBER OFI MOISTURE ¦ DEIISITY ¦ DEUSITY I SHEARi , DAYS CURED DAYS CURED! PERCENT , PCF , PCF STRENûTH PERCENT
¦ UNCOMPACTED ¦ COMPACTED¦ DRY UEIGUT ¦ DRY BASI~S ¦ UET BASIS PSF STRAIH
0 j 1 ¦ 15.9 j86 1100 ~ 30652 1 2.1 7 , 14.7 ~84 97 11609 2.6 28 1 18.6 j75 89 5259 1 16.9 168 79 1579 7 ¦ 13.6 73 83 1473 3.4 28 1 15.1 71 182 2436 1.8 3 1 1 15.0 74 185 1579 7 1 13.2 71 81 1872 28 1 14.9 74 85 422 7 1 ¦ 14.0 ¦65 74 1109 7 , 8.9 ,70 76 792 28 1 5.9 ~66 170 696 SOX PLEASAUT PRAIRIE, 50X CONDITIOIIED CRUSHED ROMEOVILLE FLr ASH/SLUDGE 1.0: 1 AS TESTED
¦ NUMBER OF ¦ NUMBER OF ¦ MOISTURE ¦ DENSITY I DENSITY ¦ SNEARa , DAYS CURED I DAYS CURED , PERCENT , PCF PCI: , STRENGTH PERCEUT
¦ UNCOMPACTED ¦ C0MPACTED¦ DRY IfEl~;UT ¦ DRY BASIS UET BASIS ¦ PSF STRAIN
.
I I I I ~ I I I
. j 0 1 l 1 62.4 1 56 1 91 1 1250 2.4 :: ~ , 7 , 56.7 ! 58 92 1230 3.9 j 128 1 27.3 j 72 92 4257 66.7 156 93 604 1 4.4 7 1 66.1 1 55 91 719 3.1 28 1 68-5 1 54 1 92 1 897 4.9 3 1 1 65.8 58 196 1 549 5.5 7 1 62.8 58 194 9E4 3.5 28 1 67.3 51 85 878 7 1 1 55.7 59 92 1 1164 4.3 7 ! 53.2 1 6Z 95 ! 1508 3.6 28 1 53.2 ¦ 61 93 1 1951 3.6 0 1 7 1 71.8 1 53 1 91 1 1426 3.6 28 1 63.9 1 53 1 86 ~ 1757 3.2 -28 ! 68-2~/n-5~ ~ 52~59~ !88~103~ 1 2147b ! 4.8 ~7' :.
- 2 3 - ~ ~77341 50X PLEASANT PRAIRIE, 50X CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROMEWILLE FLr ASH/SLUDGE 2.5 : 1 ¦ i AS TESTED l .
¦ NUMBER OF ¦ UUMBER OF I MOISIURE i DENSITY ~ DENSITY ¦ SHEAR~ l , DAYS CURED DAYS CURED I PERCENT PCF I PCF STRENGTH , PERCE~T
¦ UNCOMPACTED ! COMPACTED ! DRY UEIGHT DRY BASIS ! ~ET BA515 PSF i STRAIN
j U ¦ 1 ¦ 35.3 j74 i 100 10Ul 1.0 7 , 32.4 75 99 5588 1 3 j 28 1 48.8 166 99 2252 6 0 ¦ 1 j 1 1 31.1 168 1 89 677 2.8 7 ¦ 31.3 ¦64 84 825 2.0 28 33.8 166 88 2273 1 3 1 1 30.2 I n 95 581 I 1 7 32.9 163 84 117 ! 1 28 1 24.5 73 1 91 ~64 1 7 1 1 1 26.3 70 1 88 ¦902 I , 7 1 21.5 69 1 83 1046 i 1 28 ! 16.6 73 ~ 81 ¦3274 50% PLEASANT PRAIRIE, 50X CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROME0VILLE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 3.0 : 1 -¦ l _AS TESTED
¦ UUMBER OF j NUMBER OF I MOISTURE ¦ DENSITY ¦ DENSITY I SHEAR~ l , DAYS CURED , DAYS CURED I PERCENT PCF PCF I STREHGTH PERCE~T
j UNCOMPACTED ¦ C~MPACTED ! DRr ~EIGRT ! DRY BASIS! ~ET BA515 ! PSF ! STRAIH
U 1 1 i27.5 1 73 ~ 94 ¦1952 j 3.5 7 126.5 1 73 1 9Z 3686 1.5 28 165.5 1 55 1 92 11302 1 4.3 31.8 1 61 81 ¦32g 1 2.4 7 124.3 1 63 7~ 988 2.3 : 1 28 1 30-~ 1 6~ ~3 11558 1.9 3 1 1 126.6 1 76 1 96 1898~ ~ -~ , 7 ,22.4 ! 81 99 !1627 j 1 28 1 8.9 j 70 76 j2515 7 1 1 120.8 1 70 84 !1099 1 _ 7 113.7 1 71 1 80 i1142~ ! -1 28 ! 6-2 ! 69 ! 73 !2934 1 -2 4 - ~773~1 50% PLEASANT PRAIRIE~ 50% CONDITIONED CRUSNED ROMEOVILLE FLY ASN/SLUDGE 1.5 _ 1 l l AS TESTED
¦ NUMBER OF ¦ NUMBER OF ¦ MOISIURE i DENSITY I DENSITY SHEAR~ l ~ DAYS CURED , DAYS CURED , PERCENT PCF I PCF STReNGTH I PERCENT
j UNCOMPACTED ¦ COMPACTED ¦ DRY UEIGHT DRY BASIS ! UET BASIS PSF ! 5TRA,N
¦ O i 1 153.5 i61 1 93 i18a7 3.0 1 7 129.9 173 1 95 12747 4.4 j 1 28 132.2 74 98 14983 51.5 61 92 11148 2.7 , 7 50.4 62 93 11a11 3.6 28 148.9 66 98 12336 3.9 3 1 1 149.2 161 92 11383 2.3 I 1 7 147.8 58 86 11349 Z.~
i 1 28 48.9 65 96 2748 ~.2 ~ 7 1 1 33.9 61 1 82 1341 1 1.4 i 1 7 33.8 65 87 2778 2.1 j 28 35.9 63 85 2569 2.5 ¦ 0 ¦ 7 50.1 165 98 ¦3156 3.6 , 28 150.5 !64 96 3477 , 3.5 28 !52.6l/57.9~ ~62~/85~ 95~/134~ 1 4492b ~ 4.7 .
:
50% PLEASANT PRAIRIE. 50X CONDITIONED CRUSHED ROMEOVILLE FLY ASH/SLUDGE 2.D : 1 l l AS TESTED
j NUMBER OF i NUMBER OF i MOISTURE ¦ DENSITY ¦ DENSITY i SHEAR~
, DAYS CURED DAYS CURED I PERCENT , PCF PCF I STREHGTH PERCEHT
j UNCOMPACTED COMPACTED ! DRr ~EIGHT ¦ DRY SASIS ~ET aAS15 ! PSF STRAIN
i o Ij 1 j 41.2 i 71 i 100 13326 1 2.0 , 7 56.4 ! 64 101 4674 2.7 j 28 ¦ 35-9 1 76 103 ¦5417 2.8 3~.8 ¦ 69 95 11712 1.4 7 1 38.~ ~6 1 92 !1494 ~ 3-1 I 1 28 1 36.2 1 71 1 96 j2703 ~ 2.1 ¦ 3 1 1 1 38.4 1 67 ¦ 93 11127 1 1.8 l 7 ! 35.8 ! 69 ~4 1920 1.8 i 28 j 36.7 1 6~ 93 2571 1.8 7 1 1 1 35.5 1 67 90 ¦1144 2.5 7 1 33.1 1 6~ ~1 ~2045 ! 1-8 28 ! 32-9 ! 67 ~ 89 ~2114 I Z.8 ~.
3L277~
Mixtures of fly ash and sludge initially were found to form a soil-like material with granular properties. The mixtures derived their strengths by chemical reactions which ultimately caused $he soil like mixtures to form a rock-like material after exposurP to typical ambient conditions. This rock-like consistency resulted from the cementitious properties within the fly ash when combined with moisture typically ~urnished by the sludge. The solicls in the sludge do not appear to significantly affect this hydration reaction.
All of the mixtures resulted in material suitable for a self-supporting landfill. Mixtures of sludge and fly ash produce a granular type material with high concentrations of sludge and produce a rock-like material with high concentrations of fly ash, assuming sufficient water is available from the sludge to initiate the fly ash cementing process.
~ ermeability tests were performed on samples of fly ash-sludge mixtures in conjunction with triaxial strength tests. Perm~abillties were measured at two confining pressures. The tests showed permeability values ranging from about 5 x (10)-6 to about 1 x tlO~-7 cm/sec. The permeability test results are presented below in Table 3.
- 26 ~ 73~
_ _ _ D C I.J L R ~ ~ o o C _ D ~
~:~ ~
1. v~ ~ 1~ r~ D 1~ 1~ _ 1~ 7~ ~ _ C ~
~ ~t _ .. _ "_ C~ .. , L~ L ~ rj~
L i I D ~ ~ I U ~Ll r ~ ~
, , - 27 ~ 7'73~
EP toxicity tests were performed on four samples. The analysis consisted of 100 grams of mixture comprising 1.5 parts fly ash to 1 part sludge. Each sample consisted of one of the Pour different types of fly ash in order to cover the range of ash characteristics that might be mixed and landfilled at the site. Parameters analyzed includecl organic compounds and metals listed in Table 4.
:: ~
28 ~L~7~73~L~
C --¦ O ~ Zn O C~ O O O O O O N O O
Z ~ O O O t~ O
V~
W
~J
C~ _ ~
g O C J J J J ~ D J O J J J 1~ 1~ N
Z J C i G C:) GD ~D G . . . a~
C ~ ~ O ~ Cl C:~ O
W~
_ J ~
E J I J J J J J J ~ 1--~ J O J J _ U) N r_ Z O CCCCCCC~tO--C~CCOC_ ~IU')I~ CV
C:~ L~ G ~) ~ G G e~ CD . . ~ . . . . U~
~_ O J er C::~ O C~ O ~ t::~ O ~
~ _ .~ Z ~ ~D L
- ~I'.c~c JJJJJ_J Ir~JgJJJC7~ ~ ~L
c ~ o c ~ ~ c ~ In _~
J C~ J ~ ~ ~ O C O CS
C ~ L~ N
Z=
C V~ J J J J J J J .- N ~D J--J J J ~D J '.D J .~:
L~J O C ~' D C C O C~ O ~ C O D G 1~ ~ O ~J O
~ ~ 3 ~ o o o o ~ o E
:
~-- ~ ~ L c ~_--_ t.~ 7E ~ O G O ~ r S~J c r, ~ N ~ ~, hJ _ ~ ~ O C ~--O D C~ O ~ J C1 0 O O ~ O Lr~ _~ O L
C~ 0 0 0 ~ C~ C O C~ > o d~
_ V~ _ ~ ~ ~ cO
~ .~- ~ I n : c~C~ v~ ~ Q ~
e ~ ~ E E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :
-- ~ E
c~c ~.c ~ ~ -- F ~ L S: _ C~
CS L ~ ~ E ~ c u ~ ~ ~ ~ u. Q~ :
~ r~ e X _~ ~J ~ /,S1 L ~C ~ r -- L C~ O C V S:: ~ ~
C~ ~ Z
:
' `~
` - 29 - ~277~4~
The results of the toxicity tests indicate that any contamination of ~he environment due to the ~ly ash and sludge mixture will be well below the limits established under the Resource Conservation and ~ecovery Act for classifying wastes as hazardous, see Table 4.
To estimate the life span of the landfill, the volume of sludge-fly ash to be disposed versus time was evaluated.
Because of the variability of the unit weight of sludge due to air entrapment, the comparison was made assuming the sludge was fully saturated. The volumes of the constituent materials were then calculated and compared with the observed unit weights of the mixtures. These comparisons are presented in ~IGURE 2 by ash type. These comparisons show that the volume of the mixtures is less than the volume of the constituent material.
Rsgarding the disposal site, run-on water from surface drainage is pre~erably controlled by perimeter ditching during initial development. Surface water resulting from runoff of the exposed ~urface is preferably controlled by ditches and pumped to a holding pond for use in the ash conditioning process conducted at the site, or for on-site dust control.
In the praferred embodiment, the average depth of the planned excavation is about 20 feat below ground level, and the average maximum fill height is about 60 feet above ~round level~ These dimensions typically accommodate construction activities as well as surface drainage during filling and also after completion. Such a fill is significantly less land ~ .
consumptive and more economical than other known disposal system which require large volumes of water or which are not adapted to both above and below grade disposal.
A section of the landfill sh~uld preferably be completed each year using the method of this invention, and thereafter a clay cover and topsoil is preferably placed and vegetative cover planted during the growing ~eason. Daily cover is typically not required because the end product of this method does not lend itself to blowing debris and will not attract rodents and the like.
Prior to disposal start-up, the bottom and side walls of the disposal site preferably comprise about 10 feet of cla~, preferably having a maximum permeability of 1 x (10)-7 cm/sec.
Although a preferred embodiment of the invention has been illustrated and described, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that variations and modificatlons may be made within the scope of the inventive concepts.
Accordingly, it is intended that the scope o~ the invention be limited only by the scope of the hereafter appended claims when interpreted in light of the pertinent prior art, and not by the scope of the specific, exemplary preceding description.
Claims (15)
1. A method for wasting fly ash and sewage sludge, said method comprising:
mixing fly ash and at least partially dewatered sewage sludge to a substantially uniform consistency;
depositing said mixture onto a disposal site until set up occurs;
said disposal site being exposed to ambient air and ground conditions; and hardening the mixture at the disposal site by subjecting said mixture to said conditions.
mixing fly ash and at least partially dewatered sewage sludge to a substantially uniform consistency;
depositing said mixture onto a disposal site until set up occurs;
said disposal site being exposed to ambient air and ground conditions; and hardening the mixture at the disposal site by subjecting said mixture to said conditions.
2. The method of Claim 1 further characterized in that:
said mixture has a fly ash content between about 1/2 to 4 parts fly ash to 1 part sludge by weight.
said mixture has a fly ash content between about 1/2 to 4 parts fly ash to 1 part sludge by weight.
3. The method of Claim 1 wherein said method further comprising the preliminary steps of:
conveying said fly ash in a dry condition from an initial storage location to a processing installation in a closed chamber transport vessel; and substantially precluding the fly ash from contacting ambient atmosphere prior to mixing in a pugmill with sewage sludge.
- Page 1 of Claims -
conveying said fly ash in a dry condition from an initial storage location to a processing installation in a closed chamber transport vessel; and substantially precluding the fly ash from contacting ambient atmosphere prior to mixing in a pugmill with sewage sludge.
- Page 1 of Claims -
4. The method of Claim 1 further characterized in that conditioned fly ash is used.
5. The method of Claim 1 further characterized in that said mixing of said fly ash and said sewage sludge is substantially controlled by the use of a vane feeder during fly ash transfer and by use of a sludge pump during sewage sludge transfer.
6. The method of Claim 5 further characterized in that a regulation vessel is also used during fly ash transfer.
7. The method of Claim 5 wherein said sludge pump is a variable speed sludge pump.
8. The method of Claim 1 further characterized in that depositing of said mixture is accomplished by the use of conventional earth moving equipment, and thereafter the mixture is transferred to a disposal site and placed in a land fill.
9. The method of Claim 8 wherein said land fill prior to disposal operations being about 20 feet below ground level.
- Page 2 of Claims -
- Page 2 of Claims -
10. The method of Claim 9 wherein said mixture is placed in said land fill such that said mixture is piled up to about 60 feet above ground level.
11. The method of Claim 8 further characterized in that said fill is thereafter covered with vegetation.
12. The method of Claim 1 wherein the permeability of the disposal site boundary material is less than 1 x (10)-7 cm.sec.
13. A product comprising at least partially dewatered sewage sludge and fly ash.
14. The product of Claim 13 wherein said product comprises about 1/2 to 4 parts fly ash to 1 part sludge.
15. The product of Claim 13 wherein said fly ash is conditioned fly ash.
- Page 3 of Claims -
- Page 3 of Claims -
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| US92117786A | 1986-10-20 | 1986-10-20 | |
| US921,177 | 1986-10-20 |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CA1277341C true CA1277341C (en) | 1990-12-04 |
Family
ID=25445036
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA000549743A Expired - Fee Related CA1277341C (en) | 1986-10-20 | 1987-10-20 | Fly ash processing method and system and product produced thereby |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CA (1) | CA1277341C (en) |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN113305124A (en) * | 2021-06-24 | 2021-08-27 | 沈阳工业大学 | Daily covering layer material for household garbage landfill and use method |
-
1987
- 1987-10-20 CA CA000549743A patent/CA1277341C/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN113305124A (en) * | 2021-06-24 | 2021-08-27 | 沈阳工业大学 | Daily covering layer material for household garbage landfill and use method |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| US5143481A (en) | Method of treating municipal sewage sludge and product produced thereby | |
| US5051031A (en) | Method of treating municipal sewage sludge and product produced thereby | |
| US5037286A (en) | Incineration residue treatment apparatus | |
| EP0390297B1 (en) | Method of covering waste mounds using a fill | |
| US4354876A (en) | Utilization of dry scrubber waste materials | |
| US3734988A (en) | Use of composted refuse to make construction products | |
| US4472198A (en) | Process and system of wasting fly ash and product produced thereby | |
| US9410386B2 (en) | Process for conversion of intractable oil-bearing, drill cutting wastes from deep gas exploration wells to engineering construction materials | |
| US5340235A (en) | Process for making cementitious mine backfill in a salt environment using solid waste materials | |
| Anthony et al. | Advanced ash management technologies for CFBC ash | |
| US4886393A (en) | Pretreatment of solid wastes, and wastes to be compacted, for introduction into underground salt cavities of salt caverns via a downpipe under the force of gravity | |
| US20030227814A1 (en) | Lightweight aggregate | |
| US4397801A (en) | Method for the production of cementitious compositions and aggregate derivatives from said compositions, and cementitious compositions and aggregates produced thereby | |
| US20100137126A1 (en) | Mixed product | |
| US4313762A (en) | Method of wasting fly ash and product produced thereby | |
| FI95793C (en) | A method of making a hard granular material from fluidized bed ash | |
| US5584792A (en) | Method of stabilizing industrial wastes and fly ash compositions useful in same | |
| UA55449C2 (en) | A process for cold reprocessing THE TOWN solid refuse and/or waste waters into inert materials and installation for realization the same | |
| CA1277341C (en) | Fly ash processing method and system and product produced thereby | |
| US11667568B1 (en) | Drill cuttings with a drying agent | |
| RU2753423C1 (en) | Technology for producing a universal recultivant | |
| SU1547699A3 (en) | Method of safe storage of waste | |
| CN100355676C (en) | Sludge treatment method | |
| US4461601A (en) | Slurry system for wasting fly ash having nonleachable, self-sustaining end product | |
| US6126738A (en) | Method for producing aggregate |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| MKLA | Lapsed |