Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Carbon Footprint Analysis of Coal Gangue in Geotechnical Engineering Applications

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
Indian Geotechnical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Coal gangue is a mine waste generated during the mineral processing phase of coal production. With the surge in demand for coal in thermal power, steel and cement generation industries, the rate of coal gangue generation has reached unprecedented heights. With the realisation of potential threat posed by coal gangue, researchers have made attempts to explore many new avenues of applications for its bulk utilisation. Unfortunately, the implications of coal gangue utilisation on the surrounding environment have not been taken into consideration. In the present study, an attempt has been made to perform carbon footprint analysis on coal gangue to assess the CO2 emissions in utilising it as an embankment material. A similar analysis is done to evaluate the emissions in its disposal process. The results obtained from both the analysis have been compared to assess the feasibility of utilising coal gangue in targeted geotechnical engineering applications. The studies corroborate the fact that the utilisation of coal gangue can lead to a significant decrease in the carbon footprints generation, thus leaving a positive impact on the environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Abbreviations

C′:

The effective cohesion

Φ′:

The effective angle of friction

\(M_{{{\text{CO}}_{ 2 } }}\) :

The total CO2 emissions from the materials in the scenario I

\(T_{{{\text{CO}}_{ 2 } }}\) :

The total CO2 emissions from the haulage of materials in the scenario I

\(S_{{{\text{CO}}_{ 2 } }}\) :

The total CO2 emissions from the site operations in the scenario I

\(T_{{ 1 {\text{CO}}_{ 2 } }}\) :

The total CO2 emissions from stage II in the scenario I

\(T_{{ 2 {\text{CO}}_{ 2 } }}\) :

The total CO2 emissions from stage IV in the scenario I

References

  1. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practice. Rep. no. EPA/600/R-06/060, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati

  2. Hammond G, Jones C (2008) Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE), version 1.6a. Sustainable energy research team (SERT), University of Bath, Bath

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shillaber CM, Mitchell JK, Dove JE (2016) Energy and carbon assessment of ground improvement works I: working model and example. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 142(3):04015084-1-11

    Google Scholar 

  4. Menzies GF, Turan S, Banfill PFG (2007) Life-cycle assessment and embodied energy: a review. Proc Inst Civ Eng Constr Mater 160(4):135–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. de la Barrera B, Hooda PS (2016) Greenhouse gas emissions of waste management processes and options: a case study. Waste Manag Res 34(7):658–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Howard N, Edwards S, Anderson J (2000) BRE methodology for environmental profiles of construction materials, components and buildings. BRE and DETR, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kiani M (2006) The whole life environmental impact of glass within glazed commercial building envelopes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Brighton

  8. Hammond G, Jones C (2011) Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE) version 2.0. Sustainable energy research team (SERT), University of Bath, Bath

    Google Scholar 

  9. Soga K, Chau C, Nicholson D, Pentelidou H (2011) Embodied energy: soil retaining geosystems. KSCE J Civ Eng 15(4):739–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vukotic L, Fenner RA, Symons K (2010) Assessing embodied energy of building structural elements. Proc Inst Civ Eng Eng Sustain 163(3):147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Inui T, Chau C, Soga K, Nicholson D, O’Riordan N (2011) Embodied energy and gas emission of retaining wall structures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(10):958–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Praticò F, Saride S, Puppala AJ (2011) Comprehensive life-cycle cost analysis for selection of stabilization alternatives for better performance of low-volume roads. Transp Res Rec 2204(1):120–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cabeza LF, Barreneche C, Miró L, Morera JM, Bartolí E, Fernández AI (2013) Low carbon and low embodied energy materials in buildings: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 23:536–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Melanta S, Miller-Hooks E, Avetisyan HG (2013) Carbon footprint estimation tool for transportation construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 139(5):547–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Purnell P (2013) The carbon footprint of reinforced concrete. Adv Cement Res 25(6):362–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shillaber CM, Mitchell JK, Dove JE (2016) Energy and carbon assessment of ground improvement works II: working model and example. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(3):04015083-1-9

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harmsel M (2016) Contribution of sand filled geotextile tubes to decrease carbon footprint emissions in building marine structures. Coast Manag 9:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bouazza A, Heerten G (2015) Geosynthetic applications—sustainability aspects. Handbook of geosynthetic engineering. ICE Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wright LA, Coello J, Kemp S, Williams I (2011) Carbon footprinting for climate change management in cities. Carbon Manag 2(1):49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hughes L, Phear A, Nicholson D, Pantelidou H, Soga K, Guthrie P, Kidd A, Fraser N (2011) Assessment of embodied carbon of earthworks—a bottom-up approach. Proc ICE Civ Eng 164:66–72

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pinske MA (2011) Life cycle assessment of ground improvement methods. M.S. thesis, University of California, Davis, CA

  22. ISO (2018) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO 14040, Geneva

  23. ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044, Geneva

  24. Chau C, Soga K, Nicholson D, O’Riordan N, Inui T (2008) Embodied energy as an environmental impact indicator for basement wall construction. In: Proceedings of geo-congress 2008, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp 867–874

  25. Chau C, Soga K, O’Riordan N, Nicholson D (2012) Embodied energy evaluation for sections of the UK channel tunnel rail link. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng 165(2):65–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. IS: 1498 (1970) Classification and identification of soils for general engineering purposes. Indian standards, methods of tests for soils, New Delhi, India

  27. ASTM (2010) D 4318: standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  28. ASTM (2011) D 3080-11: standard test methods for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  29. ASTM (2012) D 698-12e2: standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  30. ASTM (2017) D 6913:17 standard test methods for particle-size distribution (gradation) of soils using sieve analysis. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  31. ASTM (2015) D 5856-15: standard test methods for measurement of hydraulic conductivity of porous material using a rigid-wall, compaction-mold permeameter. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  32. ASTM (2011) D 2435-11: standard test methods for one dimensional consolidation properties of soil under incremental loading. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  33. Keefer RF, Sajwan K (eds) (1993) Trace element in coal and coal combustion residues. Advances in trace substances. Research. Lewis Publishers, Florida

    Google Scholar 

  34. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013) Carbon dioxide emissions coefficients. Environment—U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm. Accessed 26 Sept 2019

  35. Shillaber CM, Mitchell JK, Dove JE (2014) Assessing environmental impacts in geotechnical construction: Insights from the fuel cycle. In: Proceedings of geo-congress 2014, geo-characterization and modelling for sustainability, geotechnical special publication-234 ASCE Reston, VA, pp 3516–3525

  36. Davis SC, Diegel SW, Boundy RG (2012) Transportation energy data book: edition 31. Rep. no. ORNL-6987, U.S. Department of energy

  37. Kecojevic V, Komljenovic D (2011) Impact of bulldozer’s engine load factor on fuel consumption, CO2 emission and cost. Am J Environ Sci 7(2):125–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dash SK, Hussain M (2012) Lime stabilisation of soils: reappraisal. ASCE J Mater Civ Eng 24(6):707–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Chittori B, Puppala AJ, Saride S, Nazarian S, Hoyos LR (2009) Durability studies of lime stabilized clayey soils. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering: the academia and practice of geotechnical engineering At: Alexandria, Egypt, vol 3, pp 2208–2211

  40. Chittori B, Puppala AJ (2011) Quantitative estimation of clay mineralogy in fine-grained soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(11):997–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Moghal AAB, Kareem Obaid AA, Al-Refeai TO (2014) Effect of accelerated loading on the compressibility characteristics of lime-treated semiarid soils. J Mater Civ Eng 26(5):1009–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Moghal AAB, Kareem Obaid AA, Al-Refeai TO, Al-Shamrani MA (2015) Compressibility and durability characteristics of lime treated expansive semiarid soils. J Test Eval 43(2):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Arulrajah A, Mohammadinia A, D’Amico A, Horpibulsuk S (2017) Effect of lime kiln dust as an alternative binder in the stabilization of construction and demolition materials. Constr Build Mater 152:999–1007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cetin B, Aydilek AH, Guney Y (2010) Stabilization of recycled base material using high carbon fly ash. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:879–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sivapullaiah PV, Moghal AAB (2010) Role of gypsum in the strength development of fly ashes with lime. J Mater Civ Eng 23(2):197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Cetin B, Aydilek AH, Guney Y (2012) Leaching of trace metals from high carbon fly ash stabilized highway base layers. Resour Conserv Recycl 58:8–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Moghal AAB (2017) A state-of-the-art review on the role of fly ashes in geotechnical and geoenvironmental applications. J Mater Civ Eng 29(8):04017072(1-14)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Arulrajah A, Yaghoubi M, Disfani MM, Horpibulsuk S, Bo MW, Leong M (2018) Evaluation of fly ash- and slag-based geopolymers for the improvement of a soft marine clay by deep soil mixing. Soils Found 58(6):1358–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yu J, Mishra DK, Wu C, Leung CK (2018) Very high volume fly ash green concrete for applications in India. Waste Manag Res 36(6):520–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the reviewers for their constructive comments which helped the cause of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, India

    Mohammed Ashfaq, M. Heera Lal, Arif Ali Baig Moghal & V. Ramana Murthy

Authors
  1. Mohammed Ashfaq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Heera Lal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arif Ali Baig Moghal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V. Ramana Murthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arif Ali Baig Moghal.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ashfaq, M., Lal, M.H., Moghal, A.A.B. et al. Carbon Footprint Analysis of Coal Gangue in Geotechnical Engineering Applications. Indian Geotech J 50, 646–654 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-019-00389-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-019-00389-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation