| Literature DB >> 31443369 |
Souad El Moudni El Alami1, Raja Moussaoui1, Mohamed Monkade2, Khaled Lahlou3, Navid Hasheminejad4, Alexandros Margaritis4, Wim Van den Bergh4, Cedric Vuye5.
Abstract
Industrial waste causes environmental, economic, and social problems. In Morocco, the Jorf Lasfar Thermal Power Station produces two types of coal ash with enormous quantities: fly ash (FA) and Bottom ash (BA). FA is recovered in cement while BA is stored in landfills. To reduce the effects of BA disposal in landfills, several experimental studies have tested the possibility of their recovery in the road construction, especially as a subbase. In the first phase of this study, the BA underwent a physicochemical and geotechnical characterization. The results obtained show that the BA should be treated to improve its mechanical properties. The most commonly used materials are lime and cement. In the selected low-cost treatment, which is the subject of the second phase of the study, lime is used to improve the low pozzolanicity of BA while calcarenite sand is used to increase the compactness. Several mixtures containing BA, lime, and calcarenite sand were prepared. Each of these mixtures was compacted in modified Proctor molds and then subjected to a series of tests to study the following characteristics: compressive strength, dry and wet California Bearing Ratio (CBR), dry density and swelling. The composition of each mixture was based on an experimental design approach. The results show that the values of the compressive strength, the dry density, and the CBR index have increased after treatment, potentially leading to a valorization of the treated BA for use in a subbase.Entities:
Keywords: CBR; coal bottom ash; lime treatment; modified Proctor; road construction; subbase
Year: 2019 PMID: 31443369 PMCID: PMC6747578 DOI: 10.3390/ma12172674
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Methodology of this study comprising of three phases: characterization, treatment with lime and sand, and implementation in the theoretical design of a pavement structure.
Figure 2(a) Mortar prism (4 × 4 × 16 cm) (b) Compacted test tubes of bottom ash (R = 7 cm, h = 15 cm).
Factor Levels of the Centered Composite Plane.
| Factor Levels | −α = −1.683 | −1 | 0 | +1 | +α = +1.683 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lime dosage (%) | 0 | 1.015 | 2.5 | 3.985 | 5 |
| Water dosage (%) | 21.4 | 21.762 | 22 | 22.238 | 22.6 |
| Sand dosage (%) | 0 | 5.073 | 12.5 | 19.927 | 25 |
Matrix of the tests of the composite centered factorial plan adopted for the treatment of bottom ash (BA).
| Tests | Lime Dosage | Water Dosage | Sand Dosage |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |
| 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 |
| 2 | 1 | −1 | −1 |
| 3 | −1 | 1 | −1 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | −1 |
| 5 | −1 | −1 | 1 |
| 6 | 1 | −1 | 1 |
| 7 | −1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 9 | −α | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | +α | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | 0 | −α | 0 |
| 12 | 0 | +α | 0 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | −α |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | +α |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Elemental composition (%) of bottom ash and used cement.
| Chemical Element | CaO | SiO2 | Fe2O3 | Al2O3 | K2O | Na2O | P2O5 | SO3 | MgO | Free CaO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (JLEC) BA | 1.9 | 52.1 | 8.9 | 23.3 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.1 | <1 | 0.9 | 0.3 |
| BA [ | 4.2 | 50.5 | 10.9 | 27.6 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1.2 | - |
| BA [ | 7.0 | 46.1 | 5.8 | 23.7 | 1.2 | 0.7 | - | - | 1.2 | - |
| Cement CPJ45 | 63.0 | 17.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 1.2 | - | - | 3.3 | 2.3 | - |
Figure 3Mineralogical composition of bottom ash (BA) using X-ray diffraction.
Figure 4Granulometric curve of JLEC BA.
Figure 5Compressive strength of mortar containing bottom ash.
Composition of the mortar mixture and compressive strength at different ages.
| Type | Composition (g) | CS (MPa) at Different Ages (days) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mortar | Cement | Water | Sand | BA | 7 | 15 | 28 | 60 | 90 |
| Reference | 450 | 225 | 1350 | 0 | 28.5 | 34.7 | 39 | 43.8 | 46.4 |
| 25% BA | 450 | 225 | 1012.9 | 337.5 | 15.1 | 19.4 | 22.8 | 29.3 | 29.7 |
| 50% BA | 450 | 225 | 675 | 675 | 5 | 10.3 | 15.4 | 19.7 | 19.8 |
Average results of tests carried out on treated BA.
| Test | Levels of Factors | Average Responses and Standard Deviation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Lime | Water | Sand | |||||
| 1 | 1 | 21.6 | 5 | 79.0 (6.5) | 98.3 (9.0) | 11.7 (0.20) | 0.06 (0.03) | 1.10 (0.09) |
| 2 | 4 | 21.6 | 5 | 82.9 (9.8) | 107.0 (15.8) | 11.5 (0.03) | 0.15 (0.02) | 2.36 (0.08) |
| 3 | 1 | 22.4 | 5 | 58.6 (1.5) | 73.0 (9.0) | 11.0 (0.11) | 0.03 (0.00) | 1.63 (0.03) |
| 4 | 4 | 22.4 | 5 | 75.2 (6.9) | 86.0 (14.3) | 11.5 (0.20) | 0.13 (0.02) | 2.84 (0.02) |
| 5 | 1 | 21.6 | 20 | 74.0 (3.7) | 90.7 (6.6) | 11.6 (0.10) | 0.12 (0.01) | 1.65 (0.07) |
| 6 | 4 | 21.6 | 20 | 80.4 (5.1) | 72.7 (3.1) | 11.3 (0.03) | 0.14 (0.01) | 1.74 (0.00) |
| 7 | 1 | 22.4 | 20 | 74.5 (5.3) | 78.0 (1.6) | 11.5 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.00) | 1.87 (0.05) |
| 8 | 4 | 22.4 | 20 | 66.3 (8.1) | 85.7 (6.6) | 11.9 (0.05) | 0.11 (0.02) | 2.75 (0.08) |
| 9 | 0 | 22.0 | 12.5 | 68.7 (5.2) | 36.3 (5.7) | 10.7 (0.12) | 0.02 (0.00) | 0.43 (0.04) |
| 10 | 5 | 22.0 | 12.5 | 79.2 (0.5) | 83.3 (6.9) | 11.8 (0.15) | 0.12 (0.02) | 2.61 (0.13) |
| 11 | 2.5 | 21.4 | 12.5 | 66.3 (3.9) | 77.3 (13.7) | 11.0 (0.13) | 0.11 (0.02) | 2.02 (0.06) |
| 12 | 2.5 | 22.6 | 12.5 | 59.4 (4.5) | 65.3 (10.3) | 11.7 (0.08) | 0.02 (0.00) | 2.48 (0.14) |
| 13 | 2.5 | 22.0 | 0 | 70.0 (4.9) | 58.3 (6.2) | 10.6 (0.09) | 0.02 (0.00) | 1.97 (0.02) |
| 14 | 2.5 | 22.0 | 25 | 75.0 (6.1) | 59.0 (2.9) | 12.1 (0.15) | 0.01 (0.00) | 1.87 (0.03) |
| 15 | 2.5 | 22.0 | 12.5 | 62.8 (1.4) | 69.0 (11.0) | 11.4 (0.02) | 0.12 (0.02) | 2.08 (0.08) |
| 16 | 2.5 | 22.0 | 12.5 | 62.5 (0.4) | 64.3 (2.5) | 11.3 (0.06) | 0.12 (0.02) | 2.06 (0.04) |
Figure 6(a) Conventional pavement structure, (b) Pavement structure based on TBA.