![]() |
![]() |
Geotechnical Properties of Fly Ash and Lime - Fly Ash Stabilized Coal Mine Refuse by Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois Vijay K. Puri Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois Braja M. Das Professor and Dean, College of Engineering & Computer Science, California State University, Sacramento, Sacramento, CA Bimal C. Devkota Former Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois |
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the results of a study which was primarily directed to the determination of geotechnical properties of stabilized fine coal refuse obtained from one of the mines in southern Illinois to assess its suitability for highway construction work. Coal refuse samples used were stabilized by treating with flyash, and lime-flyash mixtures in various proportions. The geotechnical properties investigated were: (a) compaction characteristics, (b) triaxial shear strength, (c) CBR, and (d) hydraulic conductivity. It was observed that addition of about 10-15% flyash to coal refuse, increased the shearing strength by more than 35%. Addition of small amounts of lime caused a significant increase in shear strength of coal refuse. CBR tests showed a trend similar to that observed for shear strength. The hydraulic conductivity of lime-flyash treated samples was in the range of 4 x 10-8 cm/sec to 1.4 x 10-7 cm/sec, and showed a decreasing trend with increase in curing time. The fine coal refuse, alone or with flyash or lime-flyash admixtures, possesses acceptable compaction characteristics. It appears from the test results that the fine coal refuse used in this study can be properly stabilized for use in construction of highway subgrades and embankments, thus eliminating the need for additional land for stockpiling.
KEYWORDS: Coal refuse, flyash, lime
INTRODUCTION
Coal continues to be one of the primary sources of energy in the United States and there is an increased emphasis on coal mining. The mining of coal results in the production of large quantities of coal refuse. sIt is estimated that over 500 million tons of coal mining and preparation refuse are produced annually in the United States (Maneval, 1974; Roth et. al., 1977; and Sexena et al., 1984). This refuse is mostly disposed of in the form of refuse piles and behind embankment type retaining structures. Increased mining of thinner seams and/or of inferior coal may lead to even larger amounts of coal refuse, resulting in serious environmental and stability problems. Random disposal of coal mine wastes has resulted in failure of several such facilities in the past (Bishop et. al., 1969 and McQuade and Glogowski, 1980). Combustion of coal also results in the production of wastes such as flyash, bottom ash, and fluidized bed combustion (FBC) and flue gas desulphurization (FGD) materials.
It is important to find alternate uses for coal mine refuse and flyash, the two important byproducts of coal industry, so that their disposal without adverse environmental effects becomes possible. Realizing the economic and environmental consequences, efforts have recently been made to study the physical and engineering properties of stabilized and unstabilized mixtures of coal refuse and flyash for construction of highway embankments and base courses (Butler, 1974; Drake, 1976; Head et. al., 1982; Moulton et al., 1974; Wilmoth and Scott, 1974; and EPRI, 1989) and other engineered constructions.
Ghafoori and Cai (1997) used coal combustion by products in roller compacted concrete. Recently, use of coal combustion by products in roadways and parking lots was investigated by Ghafoori (2000). Kumar et al. (2000) studied the use of coal combustion by-products in construction of deep foundations.
There are two major concerns in using coal mine refuse in engineered construction, namely, (i) the possibility of spontaneous combustion, and (ii) the acidic leachates and other harmful ingredients that may contaminate the ground water. Studies have shown that well-compacted coal mine refuse is unlikely to show spontaneous combustibility or support combustion from an external source (McQuade and Glogowski, 1980 and Head et. al., 1982).
The effects of acidic leachates from coal refuse can be reduced by addition of flyash and by maintaining proper drainage control. The stabilized coal refuse may then be used in construction of highway embankments and base courses provided it meets the requirements for material and construction specifications. These requirements are compaction characteristics, shearing strength, load bearing properties, permeability, and durability. The emphasis of this investigation was to study the geotechnical properties of stabilized fine coal refuse only.
Coal refuse stabilization can be achieved in many ways, one of them being carbonate bonding (i.e., cementation reaction of lime) by treatment of coal refuse with lime and flyash. Addition of flyash to coal refuse, not only improves its properties but also provides an environmentally safe disposal method for this coal combustion waste. Coal refuse is a highly variable material which depends on the complex process of coal formation in nature, the geology of the area where the mine is located, the mining process used, and the thickness of the coal seam.
The present study relates to the determination of the geotechnical properties of coal refuse from one of the several mines in southern Illinois, with the objective of assessing the possibility of using it, along with flyash produced by burning of local coal in the area, in construction of highway embankments and base courses. Laboratory tests have been conducted to determine gradation, standard Proctor compaction characteristics, triaxial shear strength, CBR, and hydraulic conductivity. Degradation of refuse particles as a result of the compaction process has also been investigated. The laboratory studies were conducted on untreated specimens and also on specimens stabilized with varying amounts of flyash and lime-flyash mixtures. According to ASTM C628, this may be classified as a type F flyash. Flyash used in treating the coal refuse samples was obtained from a power plant that uses the coal from southern Illinois mines. The details of the tests conducted and the results obtained are discussed herein.
LABORATORY TESTS
The coal refuse samples for the present study were obtained from a selected mine. The samples were collected over a period of six months. The geotechnical properties of the coal refuse were determined by conducting the following laboratory tests:
1. Grain Size Distribution: Tests for sieve, and the hydrometer analysis, were performed after removing any unusually big chunks of coal. The test procedure provided in ASTM test designation D422 was followed. Hydrometer analysis was performed on the fraction passing U.S. Sieve No. 40 (0.425 mm opening). The grain size analysis was conducted before and after conducting standard Proctor tests on coal mine refuse to ascertain any possible particle degradation.
2. Specific Gravity: These tests were conducted separately for the coal refuse fractions passing, and those retained on U.S. Sieve No. 10 (2.0 mm) following the procedure given in ASTM test designation D854 and ASTM C127 respectively.
3. Atterberg Limits: The liquid and plastic limits of the fraction passing U.S. Sieve No. 200 (0.075 mm) were determined in accordance with ASTM test designation D4318.
4. Standard Proctor Density: These tests were conducted on the coal refuse fraction passing U.S. Sieve No. 4 (4.75 mm) for determination of the moisture density relationship (ASTM D698). The tests were also performed on coal refuse samples treated with varying amounts of flyash, lime, and lime-flyash admixtures as shown in Table 1.
5. Triaxial Tests: The specimens for triaxial tests were prepared at optimum moisture content as determined from standard Proctor tests. They measured 66 mm in diameter and 132 mm in height. They were saturated using vacuum followed by application of back pressure. The "B" coefficient was measured to check saturation. Consolidated-undrained tests were conducted for this phase of the study. The triaxial tests were also conducted on samples treated with lime and lime-flyash mixtures (Table 1). Samples treated with lime and lime-fly ash were cured for 7 and 14 day periods in humid condition at a temperature of 72 ± 3ºF.
6. CBR Tests: California Bearing Ratio tests were conducted using the procedure given in ASTM test designation D1883-87. The samples were soaked for 4 days before performing the tests. A penetration rate of 1.25 mm per minute was used. The test parameters are given in Table. 1.
7. Hydraulic Conductivity: These tests were conducted on 66 mm diameter and 66 mm high specimens in the flexible-wall triaxial cell, using the principle of falling head permeability test. The samples were saturated using a low vacuum followed by back pressure saturation. A differential head was applied across the sample and the quantity of water flowing through the sample was measured. Deaired distilled water was used as the permeant. Other details of permeability tests performed are shown in Table 1.
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Grain Size Distribution
As expected, the grain size distribution obtained from various refuse samples showed some variation. The range of grain size distribution as observed is shown in Fig. 1. The fine fraction passing U.S. Sieve No. 200 was generally in the range of 5 to 7%. The uniformity coefficient (Cu) ranged from 8 to 22.6 and coefficient of curvature (Cz) was observed to be between 1 and 3, indicating that the coal refuse samples were well graded.
Specific Gravity
The average specific gravity of fine coal refuse fraction passing U.S. Sieve No. 10 was observed to be 2.59, and that of the material retained on Sieve No. 10 after pulverizing was 2.61. The bulk specific gravity of the material retained on U.S. Sieve No. 10 varied in the range of 2.1 to 2.6.
Atterberg Limits
The range of the observed values of liquid limit and plastic limit are as follows:
Liquid Limit = 30 – 33%
Plastic Limit = 20 – 24%
Plasticity Index = 6 – 13%
Table 1. Test Parameters
![]() | ||||
Sample Composition | Tests Performed | |||
Standard Proctor | Triaxial(a,c) Shear | CBR(a) | Hydraulic Conductivity |
|
![]() | ||||
Coal Refuse Only | X (C1-6) |
X (TC1-6) |
X (CB1-4) |
X (HC1-4) |
Coal Refuse + Flyash
95% + 5% 90% + 10% 85% + 15% 70% +30% |
X (CF1-6) X (CF7-12) X (CF13-18) X (CF19-26) |
X (TCF1-6) X (TCF7-12) X (TCF13-18) X (TCF19-24) |
X (CFB1- 4) X (CFB5- 8) X (CFB9- 12) X (CFB13- 16) |
|
Coal Refuse + Lime 97.5% + 2.5% 95% + 5% |
X (CL1-6) X (CL7-12) |
X (TCFL1-6) X (TCFL7-12) |
X (CLB1-4) X (CLB5-8) |
X (HCL1-4) X (HCL5-8) |
Coal Refuse + Lime +Flyash 87.5% + 2.5% + 10% 80% + 5% + 15% |
X (CLF1-6) X (CLF7-12) |
X (TCFL1-6) X (TCFL7-12) |
X (CLB1-4) X (CLB5-8) |
X (HCL1-4) X (HCL5-8) |
![]() |
Notes:
(a) Specimens with lime or lime–flyash mixtures were cured for 7 and 14 days at temperatures of 72° ±3°F
(b) Specimens with lime or lime–flyash mixtures were cured for 7 days at temperature of 72° ±3°F
(c) Tests were performed at confining pressures of 70 kPa and 140 kPa.
Figure 1. Range of grain size distribution
Soil Classification
Based on the results of grain size analysis and Atterberg limits, the fine refuse samples used in this study may be classified as SW-SM to SP-SC, according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
Compaction Tests
Figure 2 shows typical plots of dry unit weight versus moisture content for some of the compaction tests. Curve C1 in Fig. 2 shows the data obtained during one of the compaction tests on a coal refuse sample. The maximum dry density observed in this test was 1863.7 kg/m3 and the optimum moisture content was 13.8 %. The coal refuse alone gave maximum dry densities ranging from 1847.3 kg/m3 to 1895.0 kg/m3 at optimum moisture contents varying from 13.0% to 15.0%. The average values of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were 1871.2 kg/m3 and 13.0% respectively as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Results of compaction tests
![]() | |||
Sample Description | No. of Samples | Maximum Dry Density (kg/m3) | Optimum Water Content (%) |
![]() | |||
Coal Refuse Only | 6 |
1847.3 – 1895.0 (1871.2) |
13.0 – 15.0 ( 14.0 ) |
Coal Refuse + Flyash
95.0% + 5.0% 90.0% + 10.0% 85.0% + 15.0% 70.0% + 30.0% |
6 6 6 4 |
1831.2 – 1847.5 (1839.4) 1857.8 – 1871.2 (1864.0) 1877.6 – 1888.7 (1883.2) 1871.2 – 1880.8 (1876.0) |
11.9 – 13.5 ( 12.7 ) 15.1 – 16.1 ( 15.6 ) 12.0 – 12.9 ( 12.5 ) 15.2 – 16.7 ( 16.0 ) |
Coal Refuse + Lime
97.5% + 2.5% 95.0% + 5.0% |
6 6 |
1852.0 – 1875.0 (1864.5) 1860.0 – 1892.0 (1876.0) |
16.2 – 18.6 (17.3) 20.0 – 23.5 (21.2) |
Coal Refuse + Lime + Flyash 87.5% + 2.5% +10.0% 80.0%+5.0% +15.0% |
6 6 |
1779.0 – 1807.5 (1793.3) 1780.5 – 1815.5 (1798.0) |
19.35 – 20.0 (19.7) 20.3 – 20.8 (20.5) |
![]() |
Curve Number | Test No. | Coal Refuse (%) | Fly Ash (%) |
1 | C1 | 100 | 0 |
2 | CF1 | 95 | 5 |
3 | CF7 | 90 | 10 |
4 | CF13 | 85 | 15 |
5 | CF19 | 70 | 30 |
Figure 2. Typical moisture-dry density curves from standard Proctor tests
Data from the compaction tests on a sample consisting of coal refuse 95% and flyash 5% is shown as Curve CF1 in Fig. 2. The maximum dry density in this case is observed to be 1831.2 kg/m3 at an optimum moisture content of 11.9%. The results of different compaction tests on coal refuse samples treated with 5% flyash gave maximum dry densities in the range of 1831.2 to 1847.5 kg/m3 with optimum moisture contents in the range of 11.9% to 13.5% (Table 2). The maximum dry density of coal refuse samples treated with 5% flyash thus shows a slight decrease as compared to that of coal refuse alone. The optimum moisture content is also smaller compared to the coal refuse-only samples.
Typical data of compaction tests on samples consisting of coal refuse and flyash mixtures in proportions of (90% + 10%), (85% + 15%) and (70% + 30%) are shown as CF7, CF 13, and CF 19, respectively in Fig. 2. The test numbers are marked on these plots. The ranges of maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents observed during these tests are shown in Table 2. A comparison of the data of compaction tests on flyash- treated samples of coal refuse with those obtained on coal refuse-only samples indicates that with the addition of small amounts of flyash (about 5%), the maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content decrease somewhat. However, as the flyash content was increased the maximum dry density increased. The optimum moisture content also showed a general increasing trend. For example, when the flyash content was 15% by weight of coal refuse, the maximum dry density was in the range of 1877.6 to 1888.8 kg/m3 with optimum moisture content in the range 12.0 to 12.9%. As the flyash content was increased from 15 to 30% by weight of coal refuse, the maximum dry density did not show any appreciable change but the optimum moisture content increased. The results of this study thus indicate that a flyash content of about 10-30% will impart good compaction characteristics. Similar results were also observed by other investigators (Moulton et. al., 1974 and Usmen, 1986).
The results of standard Proctor tests on samples consisting of 87.5% coal refuse, 10% flyash and 2.5% lime, gave a maximum dry density in the range of 1779.0 to 1807.5 kg/m3 with optimum moisture contents in the range of 19.35 to 20.0%. The compaction tests on samples having 80% coal refuse, 15% flyash, and 5% lime, gave maximum dry densities in the range of 1780.0 to 1815.5 kg/m3 with optimum moisture content in the range of 20.3 to 20.8%. Coal refuse samples treated with 2.5% and 5% lime (Table 2) gave maximum dry densities in the range of 1852.0 to 1875.0 kg/m3 and 1860 to 1890 kg/m3 respectively. It was thus observed that the coal refuse samples treated with lime-flyash combinations used in this study gave smaller compaction densities than those of coal refuse alone, or coal refuse-flyash samples. The optimum moisture content for lime-flyash treated samples of coal refuse was higher than those of coal refuse or coal refuse- flyash samples. The relatively low unit weight of lime-flyash treated samples of coal refuse coupled with the observed increase in shearing resistance (as discussed later in the paper) is an important consideration in determining suitability of lime-flyash treated coal refuse for highway construction work.
Degradation of fine coal refuse particles. The results of grain size analysis following the compaction test on coal refuse samples showed no measurable degradation of fine coal refuse particles. The grain size distribution for the "after Proctor condition" was seen to be in the range marked on Fig. 1.
Shear Strength Tests
Typical plots of deviator stress versus axial strain for untreated and flyash-treated samples of coal refuse are shown in Fig. 3 for triaxial tests conducted at an effective confining pressure of 70 kPa. Curve TC1 in Fig. 3 shows the data of deviator stress versus axial strain for a coal refuse-only sample (Test Number TC1). The deviator stress at failure for this sample is 135 kPa. The magnitude of average deviator stress at failure for coal refuse samples treated with 5, 10, 15, and 30% flyash were 166, 210, 203, and 145 kPa respectively (Fig. 3). The deviator stress at failure, and hence the shearing strength, is thus seen to increase as the flyash content of the samples increases initially. However, when the flyash content exceeds about 15%, the shear strength shows a tendency to decrease.
Curve Number | Test Number | Coal Refuse (%) | Fly Ash (%) |
1 | TC1 | 100 | 0 |
2 | TCF1 | 95 | 5 |
3 | TCF7 | 90 | 10 |
4 | TCF13 | 85 | 15 |
5 | TCF19 | 70 | 30 |
Figure 3. Typical Stress-strain behavior of untreated and flyash treated samples of coal refuse
Typical plots of deviator stress versus axial strain behavior of samples prepared from coal refuse alone and also of coal refuse samples treated with flyash and lime-flyash mixtures are shown in Fig. 4.
Curve Number | Test Number | Coal Refuse (%) | Lime (%) | Fly Ash (%) |
1 | TC1 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
2 | TCF7 | 90 | 0 | 10 |
3 | TCFL1 | 87.5 | 2.5 | 10 |
4 | TCL1 | 97.5 | 2.5 | 0 |
Figure 4. Typical Stress-strain behavior of untreated coal,
and flyash and lime-flyash treated coal refuse samples
The deviator stress at failure for coal refuse-lime (97.5% + 2.5%) specimens (Test TCL-1) cured for 7 days and tested at an effective confining pressure of 70 kPa was found to be 262 kPa, and for coal refuse-lime-flyash (87.5%, 2.5%, 10%) specimens (TCFL-1) at 7 day curing was about 235 kPa. This shows that the treatment of coal refuse with 2.5% lime is more effective in improving shearing strength than treatment with lime-flyash (2.5% + 10%). The shearing strength of lime-treated samples showed much higher strength after 14 day curing than the samples treated with lime-flyash mixtures. The shearing strength of treated samples of coal refuse was found to increase with increase in the lime content.
From the values of observed deviator stress at failure corresponding to the different confining pressures used in conducting the triaxial tests, the values of cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction (φ) were calculated. The values of shear strength parameters obtained for different types of samples tested as a part of this study are shown in Table 3. It is observed from these results (Table 3), that the addition of lime, flyash and lime-flyash mixtures to coal refuse increases the cohesion component significantly but has a smaller influence on the values of angle of internal friction. The cohesion component tends to improve further with increase in curing time. The qualitative trend of these results is similar to data reported by other investigators (Moulton et. al., 1974 and Usmen, 1986).
CBR Tests
The results of CBR tests for various treated and untreated samples of coal refuse are shown in Table 3. These values are based on 2.54 mm penetration. Comparison of CBR values for the different tests indicates that the significant improvement in CBR values can be achieved by treating samples of coal refuse with lime or lime-flyash admixtures.
Hydraulic Conductivity Tests
The values of hydraulic conductivity obtained from the various tests are shown in Table 3. The hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted on samples using standard Proctor compaction at optimum moisture content. The values of hydraulic conductivity for untreated coal refuse samples used in this study were in the range of 2.65 x 10-5 cm/sec to 3.35 x 10-5 cm/sec. The hydraulic conductivity of coal refuse-lime (97.5% + 2.5%), and coal refuse-lime-flyash (87.5% + 10% + 2.5%) samples after 7 days curing were in the range of 0.5 x 10-7 to 3.1 x 10-7 and 1.2 x 10-7 to 5.12 x 10-7 cm/sec respectively. Increase in lime content further decreases the value of hydraulic conductivity. It may be mentioned here that these values of hydraulic conductivity are for intact samples. In field situations, the hydraulic conductivity can be several times higher due to the presence of macrostructure. The value of hydraulic conductivity are also effected by the type of test conducted.
Table 3. Test Results
![]() | |||||
Sample Description | Triaxial Tests | CBR Test Values | Hydraulic Conductivity, k (cm/sec) | Remarks | |
Cohesion, c (kPa) | Angle of Internal Friction, f |
||||
![]() | |||||
I. Coal Refuse only | 28.0 | 18.0 | 6 - 8 | 2.65 10-5 to 3.35 10-5 |
|
![]() | |||||
II. Coal Refuse + Flyash 95% + 5% 90% + 10% 85% + 15% 70% + 30%
|
896 1540 840 1120 |
21.0 17.0 24.0 11.0 |
18 – 27 26 – 34 27 – 38 24 - 33 |
||
![]() | |||||
III. Coal Refuse + Lime
97.5% + 2.5% 95% + 5% |
1260 1428 1925 2590 |
24.0 25.5 19.8 20.4 |
40 - 45 42 - 53 56 - 69 61 - 70 |
0.5 10-7 to 3.1 10-7 - - |
7 day curing 14 day curing 7 day curing 14 day curing |
![]() | |||||
IV. Coal Refuse + Lime + Flyash 87.5% + 2.5% + 10% 80% + 5% + 15% |
1932 2604 1890 2590 |
19.8 24.6 20.8 16.0 |
40 – 46 43 - 49 47 – 51 47 - 53 |
1.2 10-7 to 5.12 10-7 4.0 10-7 to 1.4 10-7 |
7 day curing 14 day curing 7 day curing 14 day curing |
![]() |
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of different tests conducted on untreated and treated samples of fine coal refuse, the following conclusions may be drawn:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This investigation was supported by the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of Interior under the NMLRC cooperative agreement.
REFERENCES
Bishop, A.W., Hutchinson, J.N., Panman, A.D. and Evans, H.E., Geotechinical Investigations into Causes and Circumstances of the Disaster of 21st October 1966, A Selection of the Technical Repots Submitted to the Aberfan Tribunal, HMSO, London, England, pp. 1-80 (1969).
Butler, P.E., Utilization Coal Mine Refuse in the Construction of Highway Embankments, First Symposium on Mine and Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal, Kentucky, pp. 237 –255 (1974).
Drake, W.B., Coal Refuse in Highway Embankment and Aggregates, Proceedings, Second Kentucky Coal Refuse Disposal and Utilization Seminar, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky., pp. 17 – 19 (1976).
EPRI, Ash Utilization in Highway: Pennsylvania Demonstration Project., EPRI GS – 6431, Interim Report (1989).
Ghafoori, N., Large-Scale Utilization of Illinois PCC Bottom Ash in Roadways and Parking Lots of a Youth, Sports, Safety Complex. DCCA grant number 96-205103 (CRG 27) February (2000)
Ghafoori, N., and Cai, Y., "Laboratory Investigation of Pulverized Coal Combustion Bottom Ash as a Fine Aggregate in Roller compacted Concrete," accepted for publication in the Proceedings of the third Canmet/ACI International Symposium on Advances in Concrete Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, August 24-27 (1997).
Head, W.J., McQuade, P.V., and Anderson, R.B., Coal Refuse and Flyash Compositions: Potential Highway Base Course Materials, Transportation Research Record No.839, Soil Stabilization, pp. 11 – 19 (1982).
Kumar, S., Ghafoori, N, and Puri, K. "Field Utilization of Illinois PCC Fly ash and Bottom Ash in Deep Foundations" Final Report submitted to Illinois Clean Coal Institute, January (2001).
Maneval, M.R., Recent Foregin and Domestic Experience in Coal Refuse Utilization, First Symposium on Mine and Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal, NCA/CBR, pp. 256 – 262 (1974).
McQuade, P.W. and Glogowski, P.E., Investigation of the Use of Coal-Flyash Compaction on Highway Base Course Material State of the Art and Optimum Use Area Determination, FHWA-RD, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., pp.78-208 (1980).
Moulton, L.K., Anderson, D.A., Seals, R.K. and Hussian, S.M., Coal Refuse: An Engineering Material, First Symposium on Mine and Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal, Kentucky, pp. 1 – 25 (1974).
Pierre, J.J., and Thompson, C.M., Users Manual: Coal Mine Refuse in Highway Embankments, FHWA-TS-80-213, A Manual Prepared by L. Robert Kimball and Associates, Pennsylvania for the Federal Highway Administration (1979).
Roth, L.H., Ceasare, J.A., and Allison, G.A., Rapid Monitoring of coal Refuse Embankments, Proceedings of the Conference on Geotechnical Practice for Disposalof Solid Waste Materials, ASCE, pp. 428–443 (1977).
Saxena, S.K., Lourie, D.E. and Rao, J.S., Compaction Criteria for Eastern Coal Waste Embankments, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.110, No.Gt2, pp. 262 - 284 (Feb.1984).
Usmen, M.A., Properties, Disposal and Stabilization of Combined Coal and Refuse, International and Symposium on Environmental Geotechnology, Vol.1., Environmental Publishing Co. (1986).
Wilmoth, R.C. and Scott, R.B., Use of Mine Refuse and Coal Flyash as a Road Base Material, First Symposium on Mine and Preparation Plant Refuse Disposal, Kentucky, pp. 263 – 275 (1974).
![]() | |
© 2002 ejge |