Advertisement

Study of Suction Versus Water Content of Soil of Turamdih Area Mixed with Bentonite and Its Implication on the Liner Property of Tailing Dam: A Case Study of East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, Eastern India

  • Brahm Deo Yadav
  • Sunil Kumar Gupta
  • Sahendra Singh
Conference paper
Part of the Water Science and Technology Library book series (WSTL, volume 78)

Abstract

The pressure difference between air and water component in soil void is a key variable in the analysis of hydromechanical behavior of unsaturated soils. Capillary action is directly related to the free energy of the pore water in a soil and can be used to classify the relative swelling potential of expansive soil. Lower hydraulic conductivity requirement of compact clay liner (CCL) is fulfilled through addition of bentonite to the locally available soil material. Thus, the nature of CCL becomes expansive. It is clear from the test data that higher the suction pressure, lower is the hydraulic conductivity and higher is the swelling. The behavior of alternate swelling and shrinking is harmful in other case, but in the area of linear application it is always saturated under wet tailings. So, in between high swelling and low hydraulic conductivity, suction gives positive response towards liner design in uranium ore tailing dams. The relationship between the affinity of soil to retain water and suction can be measured based on the filter paper technique of total section. The obtained value of total suction was thereafter used to estimate the expansiveness of soils. Compacted soils have been widely used as landfill barriers because of many favorable characteristics such as low permeability and high swelling. Compacted clay liner made of different alternatives are normally unsaturated and therefore, suction can be used as a behavior indicator in addition to generally used factor such as water content, dry density, void ratio hydraulic conductivity, etc. This study is mainly focused on investigating suction characteristics of CCL mixtures. Suction was measured using filter paper method for these combinations. The laboratory results were analyzed to provide on understanding of the suction concept. It was found that suction depends primarily on the water content and the bentonite content of the mixture.

Keywords

Suction Compacted clay liner Landfill barrier Hydration Hydraulic conductivity Swelling Filter paper 

References

  1. Blatz JA, Graham J, Chander NA (2002) Influence of suction on the strength and stiffness of compacted sad-bentonite. Can Geotech J 39(5):1015. doi: 10.1139/t02-056
  2. Brackley JA (1980) Prediction of soil heave from suction measurements. In: Proceedings of the 7th regional conference for Africa on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Accra, vol 1, pp 159–166Google Scholar
  3. Bulut R, Lytton RL, Wray WK (2001) Soil suction measurements by filter paper. In: Vipulanandan C, Addison MB, Hasen M (eds) Expansive clay soils and vegetative influence on shallow foundation. American Society of Civil Engineering Geotechnical Special Publication No. 115, Reston, VA, pp 243–261Google Scholar
  4. Chen FH (1988) Foundation on expensive soils. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Dineen K, Colmenares JE, Ridley AM, Burland JB (1999) Suction and volume changes of a bentonite-enriched sand. Proc Inst Civil Eng Geotech Eng 137:197–201Google Scholar
  6. Fredlund DG (1979) Second Canadia Geotechnical Colloquim: appropriate concepts and technology for unsaturated soils. Can Geotech J 16(1):121–139. doi: 10.1139/t79-011
  7. Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee HC, Wray WK (1995) Technique to evaluate soil suction—a vital unsaturated soil water variable. In: International conference on unsaturated soils, Paris, pp 615–622Google Scholar
  9. Likos WJ, Lu N (2003) Automated humidity system for measuring suction characteristics of clay. Geotech Test J 26(2):179–190Google Scholar
  10. Lucian C (2009) Spatial variability of expensive soil properties at different scale within Kibaha, Tanzania. Global J Agric Sci 8(1):95–100Google Scholar
  11. McKeen RG (1981) Characterization of expansive soils. Transportation Research Borad Washington, D.C., Transportation research record 790, pp 73–78Google Scholar
  12. Mckeen RG (1992) A model for predicting expansive soil behavior. Proc 7th Int Conf Expansive Soils 1:1–6Google Scholar
  13. Rao SM, Shivananda P (2005) Role of osmotic in swelling of salt-amended clays. Can Geotech J 42:307–315Google Scholar
  14. Ridley AM, Dineen K, Burland JB, Vaughan PR (2003) Soil matrix suction: some examples of its measurement and application in geotechnical engineering. Geotech 53(2):241–253Google Scholar
  15. Sreedeep S, Singh DN (2006) Methodology for determination of osmotic suction of soils. J Geotech Geol Eng 24(5):1469–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stewart DI, Cousens TW, Students PG, Tay YY (1999) Design parameters for bentonite-enhance sands as a landfill liner. Proc Inst Civil Eng Geotech Eng 137:189–195Google Scholar
  17. Studds PG, Stewart DJ, Cousens TW (1998) The effects of salt solutions on the properties of bentonite-sand mixtures. Clay Miner 33:651–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yong RN (1999) Soil suction and soil water potential in swelling clays in engineering clay barriers. Eng Geol 54(1–2):3–13. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7952(99)00056-3

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brahm Deo Yadav
    • 1
  • Sunil Kumar Gupta
    • 1
  • Sahendra Singh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines)DhanbadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Applied GeologyIndian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines)DhanbadIndia

Personalised recommendations