Geomechanics and Engineering

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An assessment of the mechanical behavior of zeolite tuff used in permeable reactive barriers

  • Cevikbilen, Gokhan (Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, ITU Ayazaga Campus, Faculty of Civil Engineering)
  • Received : 2021.10.24
  • Accepted : 2022.10.30
  • Published : 2022.11.10
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Permeable reactive barriers used for groundwater treatment require proper estimation of the reactive material behavior regarding the emplacement method. This study evaluates the dry emplacement of zeolite (clinoptilolite) to be used as a reactive material in the barrier by carrying out several geotechnical laboratory tests. Dry zeolite samples, exhibited higher wetting-induced compression strains at the higher vertical stresses, up to 12% at 400 kN/m2. The swelling potential was observed to be limited with a 3.5 swell index and less than 1% free swelling strain. Direct shear tests revealed that inundation reduces the shear strength of a dry zeolite column by a maximum of 10%. Falling head permeability tests indicate decreasing permeability values with increasing the vertical effective stress. Regarding self-loading and inundation, the porosity along the zeolite column was calculated using a proposed 1D numerical model to predict the permeability with depth considering the laboratory tests. The calculated discharge efficiency was significantly decreased with depth and less than 2% relative to the top for barrier depths deeper than 20 m. Finally, the importance of directional dependence in the permeability of the zeolite medium for calibrating 2D finite element flow analysis was highlighted by bench-scale tests performed under 2D flow conditions.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was funded by Istanbul Technical University Research Fund (ITu-BAP; project no MGA-43814) The author would like to thank the ITU, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Laboratories. MATLAB R2018a tools were used to model 1D self-loading and hdyro-compression analysis of zeolite column. PLAXIS 2D (2019) software was used to model 2D flow analysis of bench scale test. Generic Mapping Tools (GMT; Wessel and Smith,1998) software was used to prepare Fig. 1. The author appreciates Dr. Zeynep Camtakan for supporting in bench scale model setup used in this study.

References

  1. Aksoy Y.Y. (2010), "Characterization of two natural zeolites for geotechnical and geoenvironmental applications", App. Clay Sci., 50(1), 130-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2010.07.015.
  2. ASTM D854 (2014), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer, ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
  3. ASTM D2434 (2019), Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head), ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, 2019, USA.
  4. ASTM D2435 (2020), Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading, ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
  5. ASTM D2487 (2017), Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
  6. ASTM D3080 (2011), Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions, ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
  7. ASTM D4253 (2016), Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table, ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
  8. ASTM D4254 (2016), Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density, ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
  9. ASTM D4546 (2021), Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Collapse of Soils, ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, 2021, USA.
  10. ASTM D5890 (2019), Standard Test Method for Swell Index of Clay Mineral Component of Geosynthetic Clay Liners, ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
  11. ASTM D6913 (2017), Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis, ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
  12. ASTM D7928 (2021), Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis, ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
  13. Bagherifam, S., Brown, TC., Fellows, CM. Naidu, R. and Komarneni, S. (2021), "Highly efficient removal of antimonite (Sb (III)) from aqueous solutions by organoclay and organozeolite: Kinetics and Isotherms", App. Clay Sci., 203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2021.106004 .
  14. Bone, B.D. (2012), "Review of UK guidance on permeable reactive barriers", Peoceedings of the Taipei Int. Conf. on Remediation and Mgmt. of Soil and Groundwater Contaminated Sites, Taipei, Taiwan, October.
  15. Bowles M.W., Bentley L.R., Hoyne B. and Thomas D.A. (2000), "In situ ground water remediation using the trench and gate system", Ground Water, 38(2) 172-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2000.tb00328.x.
  16. Camtakan, Z. (2021), "Investigation of the treatment of cesium in waste storage areas with the permeable reactive barrier (PRB) system", Ph.D. Dissertation, Ege University, Izmir.
  17. Cevikbilen, G. and Camtakan, Z. (2020), "Bench-scale studies of a permeable reactive barrier system for radiocesium removal", European Geoscience Union General Assembly, Online, May.
  18. Di Emidio, G., Flores, RDV, Scipioni, C, Fratalocchi, E, Bezuijen, A. (2015) "Hydraulic and mechanical behaviour of cement-bentonite mixtures containing HYPER clay: impact of sulfate attack", Proceedings of the 6th Int. Symp. on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials", Buenos Aires, Argentina, November.
  19. Gavaskar, A.R. (1999), "Design and construction techniques for permeable reactive barriers", J. Hazardous Mater., 68(1-2), 41-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(99)00031-X.
  20. Ghiyas, S.M.R. and Bagheripour, M.H. (2020) "Stabilization of oily contaminated clay soils using new materials: Micro and macro structural investigation", Geomech. Eng., 20(3) 207-220. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2020.20.3.207.
  21. Gueddouda, M.K., Lamara, M., Abou-bekr, N. and Taibi, S. (2010), "Hydraulic behavior of dune sand-bentonite mixtures under confining stress", Geomech. Eng., 2(3), 213-227, https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2010.2.3.213.
  22. Henderson A.D. and Demond A.H. (2007), "Long-term performance of zero-valent iron permeable reactive barriers: A critical review", Environ. Eng. Sci., 24(4). https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2006.0071.
  23. IAEA-TECDOC-1088 (1999), Technical Options for the Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater, Int. At. Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria. https://www.pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1088_prn.pdf.
  24. ITRC (2005), Permeable reactive barriers: Lessons learned/new directions. PRB-4. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Permeable Reactive Barriers Team. Washington, D.C. www.itrcweb.org.
  25. Joseph A.S. and Varghese M. (2017), "Study on amended landfill liner using bentonite and zeolite mixtures", Int. Res. J. of Eng. Tech., 4(4), 1130-1133. https://www.irjet.net/archives/V4/i4/IRJET-V4I4232.pdf .
  26. Kayabali, K. and Kezer, H. (1998), "Testing the ability of bentonite amended zeolite (clinoptilolite) to remove heavy metals from liquids waste", Env. Geology, 34, 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050259.
  27. Korte, N.E. (2001), "Zero-Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barriers: A Review of Performance. United States" Environ. Sciences Division Pub. No. 5056, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DC. https://doi.org/10.2172/814389.
  28. Kutuk, A.C., Yuksel, M., Sozudogru, S., Omer, F. Kayabah, I. (1996), "Gordes zeolitli (klinoptilolit) tuflerinin mineralojisi ve bitki yetistirme ortaminda kullanimi", Jeoloji Muhendisligi 48, 32-39.
  29. Ludwig, R.D., McGregor, R.G., Blowes, D.W., Benner, S.G. and Mountjoy, K. (2005), "A permeable reactive barrier for treatment of heavy metals", Ground Water 40(1), 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2002.tb02491.x.
  30. Mesri, G. (1973), "Coefficient of secondary compression", ASCE J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 99(1), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001840.
  31. Morrison, S.J., Naftz, D.L., Davis, J.A. and Fuller, C.C. (2003), "Chapter 1 - introduction to groundwater remediation of metals, radionuclides, and nutrients with permeable reactive barriers", (Eds., David L. Naftz, Stan J. Morrison, Christopher C. Morrison S.J., Naftz D.L., Davis J.A., Fuller C.C.), Handbook of Groundwater Remediation using Permeable Reactive Barriers, Academic Press, 1-15.
  32. MTA (2021), Zeolite resources in Turkey; MTA, Ankara, Turkey. www.mta.gov.tr/v3.0/sayfalar/hizmetler/images/b_h/ zeolit.jpg.
  33. Naidu, R. and Birke, V. (2015), Permeable Reactive Barrier: Sustainable Groundwater Remediation, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
  34. Navarro, A., Chimenos, J.M., Muntaner, D. and Fernandez, A.I. (2006), "Permeable reactive barriers for the removal of heavy metals: Lab-scale experiments with low-grade magnesium oxide", Groundwater Monit. Remediation, 26(4), 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2006.00118.x.
  35. Oren, A.H. and Kaya, A. (2014) "Compaction and volumetric shrinkage of bentonitic mixtures", Proc. of the Inst. of Civil Eng. Geot. Eng., 167(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.11.00043.
  36. Oren, A.H., Kaya, A. and Kayalar, A.S. (2011), "Hydraulic conductivity of zeolite-bentonite mixtures in comparison with sand-bentonite mixtures", Canadian Geot. J., 48(9), 1343-1353. https://doi.org/10.1139/t11-042.
  37. Oren, A.H. and Ozdamar, T. (2013), "Hydraulic conductivity of compacted zeolites", Waste Mgmt. Res., 31(6), 634-640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X13479434.
  38. Park, J.B., Lee, S.H., Lee, J.W. and Lee, C.Y. (2002), "Lab scale experiments for permeable reactive barriers against contaminated groundwater with ammonium and heavy metals using clinoptilolite (01-29B)", J. Hazardous Mater., 95(1-2), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00007-9.
  39. Powell, R.M., Puls, R.W., Blowes, D.W., Vogan, J.L., Gillham, R. W., Powell, P.D., Schultz, D. Landis, R. and Sivavec, T. (1998), "Permeable reactive barrier technologies for contaminant remediation", U.S. Environ. Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-98/125 (NTIS 99-105702).
  40. Rajapakse, J.P., Gallage, C., Dareeju, B., Madabhushi, G. and Fenner, R. (2015), "Strength properties of composite clay balls containing additives from industry wastes as new filter media in water treatment", Geomech. Eng., 8(6), 859-872. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2015.8.6.859.
  41. Smith, W.H.F. and Sandwell, D.T. (1997a), "Measured and estimated seafloor topography (version 4.2) ", World Data Centre-A for Marine Geology and Geophysics research publication RP-1, poster, 34" × 53".
  42. Smith, W.H.F. and Sandwell, D.T. (1997b), "Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth soundings", Science, 277, 1957-1962.
  43. Smyth, D. (1995), University of Waterloo Research Efforts, Remediation Technologies Development Forum, Permeable Barriers Work Group, Meeting Summary, Wilmington, Delaware USA, May.
  44. Thiruvenkatachari, R., Vigneswaran, S. and Naidu, R. (2008), "Permeable reactive barrier for groundwater remediation", J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 14(2), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2007.10.001.
  45. Tuncan, A., Tuncan, M., Koyuncu, H. and Guney, Y. (2003), "Use of natural zeolites as a landfill liner", Waste Mgmt. Res.: The J. for a Sust. Circ. Econ., 21(1), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X0302100107.
  46. USEPA (2002), "Field applications of in-situ remediation technologies: Permeable reactive barriers", Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC.
  47. Villalobos, F.A., Leiva, E.A., Jerez, O. and Poblete, M.E. (2018), "Experimental study of the fine particles effect on the shear strength of tuff zeolites", J. Const., 17(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.7764/RDLC.17.1.23.
  48. Vignola, R., Bagatina, R., D'Auris, A.F., Flego, C., Nalli, M., Ghisletti, D., Millini, R. and Sisto, R. (2011), "Zeolites in a permeable reactive barrier (PRB): One year of field experience in a refinery groundwater-Part 1: The performances", Chem. Eng. J., 178, 204-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.10.050.
  49. Walker, K.L. Jr., McGuire, T.M., Adamson, D.T. and Anderson, R. H. (2020), "Long-term evaluation of mulch biowall performance to treat chlorinated solvents", Groundwater Monit. Remediation, 40(1), 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12364.
  50. Wang, C.B. and Zhang, W.X. (1997), "Synthesizing nanoscale iron particles for rapid and complete dechlorination of TCE and PCBs", Environ. Sci. Technol., 31(7) 2154-2156. https://doi.org/10.1021/es970039c.
  51. Wessel, P. and Smith, W.H.F. (1998), "New, improved version of the Generic Mapping Tools released", EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 7.
  52. Widomski, M.K., Musz-Pomorska, A. and Franus, W. (2021), "Hydraulic and swell-shrink characteristics of clay and recycled zeolite mixtures for liner construction in sustainable waste landfill", Sustainability, 13(13), 7301. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137301.