Center for

By-Products

Utilization

MPU ASH AS A POTENTIAL SOURCE FOR

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

By Tarun R. Naik and Rudolph N. Kraus

Report No. CBU-2001-14

Rep-438

July 2001

Submitted to Raymond F. Sturzl, Manitowoc Public Utilities - Manitowoc, WI

Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics

College of Engineering and Applied Science

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MILWAUKEE

MPU

Ash as a Potential Source for

Construction Materials

A Report Submitted to Raymond F. Sturzl

Manitowoc Public Utilities

Manitowoc, WI

July 2001

REP-438

ii

MPU Ash as a Potential Source for Construction Materials

by

Tarun R. Naik, Ph.D., P.E.

and

Rudolph N. Kraus

UWM Center for By-Products Utilization

Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics

College of Engineering and Applied Science

The University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

P.O. Box 784

Milwaukee WI 53201

Ph: (414) 229-6696

Fax: (414) 229-6958

iii

Executive Summary

TITLE: MPU Ash as a Potential Source for Construction Materials

SOURCE: UWM-CBU Report No. CBU-2001-01, REP-421, 2001

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To conduct physical, chemical, mineralogical, and microstructural tests

for determining properties of three sources of typical Manitowoc Public Utilities (MPU) ashes (Combined

MPU #5 and #7 Bottom Ash, MPU #8 Bottom Ash, and MPU #8 Fly Ash) to evaluate their potential options

for beneficial reuse. The three sources were also selected for evaluation per WI-DNR Chapter NR 538

requirements. The three ash sources were selected based upon their diverse character (such as color, texture,

type of collection system/process, etc.) in consultation with Mr. Raymond F. Sturzl, Manitowoc Public

Utilities. These three ash sources were specifically identified for characterization before their possible use in

a new type of concrete called DPC (Defined-Performance Concrete).

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this project was to recommend alternatives to the normal practice

of landfilling by evaluating potential reuse/recycle applications for these materials, especially in cement-

based, durable, construction materials.

CONCLUSIONS: MPU’s ashes have considerable potential for many applications. However, the

performance of these ashes needs to be established for individual applications. Evaluation of the MPU ashes

conducted per the requirements of WI-DNR Chapter NR 538 indicates that the combined MPU #5 and #7

bottom ash materials meets the requirements of a NR 538 Category 2 material, while the MPU #8 fly ash and

MPU #8 bottom ash meets Category 4 requirements. The following are some of the high-volume applications

that would require further evaluation before their use in actual construction projects. These applications could

consume all of the ashes currently being produced by Manitowoc Public Utilities. Flowable Materials have

up to 1200 psi compressive strength, have flowing-mud type of consistency and fluidity, contain very little

portland cement and a lot of water, and consist mostly of ash or similar materials. It is believed that concrete

Bricks, Blocks, and Paving Stones could also be made with the ashes evaluated. Additionally the MPU #8 fly

ash should be useful for replacement of clay in clay bricks manufacturing. The test data collected also

indicate that the MPU ashes can be used as a partial replacement of aggregates and/or cement in Structural-

grade Concrete. It is also concluded that there is a potential for high-value use of the MPU #8 fly ash in

manufacturing Blended Cements. Soil stabilization or site remediation is another significant potential use of

the MPU ashes tested. Paving applications, such as Roller Compacted Concrete for parking lots and access

roadways, would also be a high-value use of MPU ashes tested. Based upon the this initial testing performed

for the project, these applications have the potential to be a significant source of revenue for MPU. A further

evaluation is very strongly recommended. Probability of success is very high.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Further evaluation is recommended, starting with lab-scale production and

testing of ash use in the above mentioned applications. Cost/benefit analysis and marketing studies should be

undertaken; and a long-term evaluation program for these products should be started. This includes the

development of ash specifications for high-potential, high-value, applications such as DPC (Defined-

Performance Concrete).

iv

Table of Contents

Item Page

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. ii

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................v

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vii

Section 1: Introduction ...........................................................................................................1

Section 2: Tests of MPU Coal Combustion Products ..........................................................3

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM .......................................................................................3

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES ..............................................................................................3

As-Received Moisture Content ................................................................................3

Particle Size Analysis ..............................................................................................4

Unit Weight ..............................................................................................................6

Specific Gravity .......................................................................................................7

SSD Absorption .......................................................................................................7

ASTM C 618 TESTS ........................................................................................................8

Physical Properties per ASTM C 618 ......................................................................8

Cement Activity Index .............................................................................................8

Water Requirement ................................................................................................10

Lime Activity Index ...............................................................................................10

Autoclave Expansion .............................................................................................11

Evaluation with Activators ....................................................................................12

Chemical Properties per ASTM C 618 ..................................................................13

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION .......................................................................................15

ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................15

SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY (SEM) .......................................................16

Section 3: Constructive Use Options for MPU Ashes ........................................................18

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................18

USES OF MPU FLY ASHES .........................................................................................18

Section 4: Suggestions for Further Evaluations .................................................................20

FLOWABLE MATERIALS ...........................................................................................20

BRICKS, BLOCKS, AND PAVING STONES .............................................................21

STRUCTURAL-GRADE CONCRETE .........................................................................21

BLENDED CEMENT ....................................................................................................21

ROLLER-COMPACTED CONCRETE PAVEMENT ..................................................22

SOIL AMENDMENT WITH OR WITHOUT DREDGED MATERIALS ...................22

v

Table of Contents (Continued)

Item Page

Section 5: References ............................................................................................................63

APPENDIX 1: WI-DNR NR 538 Analysis ..........................................................................64

WISCONSIN DNR CHAPTER NR 538 STANDARDS ...............................................65

LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS OF MPU COAL ASHES .....................................65

ELEMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MPU COAL ASH ......................................66

DNR NR 538 SPECIFIED USE OPTIONS ...................................................................67

APPENDIX 2: Modified ASTM C 422 for Particle Size Analysis ....................................78

vi

List of Tables

Item Page

Table 1 - Background Information on the MPU Ash ............................................................24

Table 2 - As-Received MPU Ash Moisture Content ..............................................................26

Table 3 - Sieve Analysis of MPU Ash ....................................................................................28

Table 4 - Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve by Washing .....................................................29

Table 5 - Materials Retained on No. 325 Sieve ......................................................................30

Table 6 - Unit Weight and Voids ……………………...……………………………………35

Table 7 - Specific Gravity .......................................................................................................36

Table 8 - Specific Gravity .......................................................................................................37

Table 9 - Absorption ...............................................................................................................38

Table 10 - Physical Tests Requirements of Coal Fly Ash per ASTM C 618 .........................40

Table 11 - Mortar Cube Compressive Strength ......................................................................41

Table 12 - Strength Activity Index with Cement ....................................................................41

Table 13 - Water Requirement ................................................................................................42

Table 14 - Pozzolanic Activity Index with Lime……...…………………………………….42

Table 15 - Autoclave Expansion or Contraction.....................................................................42

Table 16 - Mortar Cube Compressive Strength with Activators……...…………………….44

Table 17 - Strength Activity Index with Cement with Activators…………………………..45

Table 18 - Chemical Analysis .................................................................................................47

Table 19 - Mineralogy of MPU Ash .......................................................................................49

Table 20 - Elemental Analysis ................................................................................................51

Table 21 - Potential Uses of the MPU Ashes .........................................................................55

vii

List of Tables (Continued)

Item Page

Table 22 - Beneficial Use Methods for By-Products Based Upon Characterization

Category, per NR 538......…………………………..........................................68

Table 23 - Leachate Analysis Data for MPU Ashes....……………………...........................69

Table 24 - Leachate Standards per DNR NR 538...........................………………….......…70

Table 25 - NR 538 Categories for MPU Ashes per Lechate Analysis...……………............71

Table 26 - NR 538 Elemental Analysis for MPU Ashes…………........................................72

Table 27 - Elemental Analysis per DNR NR 538.…………………..................................…74

Table 28 - NR 538 Categories for MPU Ashes per Elemental Analysis.………................…76

viii

List of Figures

Item Page

Fig. 1: Particle Size Distribution of MPU #5 - #7 Bottom Ash ..............................................31

Fig. 2: Particle Size Distribution of MPU #8 Bottom Ash .....................................................32

Fig. 3: Particle Size Distribution of MPU #8 Fly Ash ............................................................33

Figure 4 – 7: SEM Photomicrographs of MPU #5 Bottom Ash .............................................59

Figure 8 – 11: SEM Photomicrographs of MPU #7 Bottom Ash ...........................................60

Figure 12 – 15: SEM Photomicrographs of MPU #8 Bottom Ash .........................................61

Figure 16 - 19: SEM Photomicrographs of MPU #8 Fly Ash………………………………62

1

Section 1

Introduction

The scope of this project was to determine physical, chemical, mineralogical, and microscopical (i.e.,

morphological) properties of the Manitowoc Public Utilities (MPU) coal combustion products from

daily operations. The main objective of this project is to recommend alternatives to the normal

practice of landfilling by recommending potential reuse/recycling applications for these materials.

Four different types of coal combustion products were collected for this project: MPU #5 bottom

ash, MPU # 7 bottom ash, MPU #8 bottom ash, and MPU #8 fly ash. MPU #5 bottom ash and MPU

#7 bottom ash are stored in a combined form at MPU. Therefore, to minimize cost of testing and

using these materials, these two materials were blended in the approximate proportions that they are

available in storage (1/3 MPU #5 bottom ash, 2/3 MPU #7 bottom ash by weight per MPU) before

being tested. Background information on the source of the ash materials was obtained from

Manitowoc Public Utilities describing the type of boilers, coal sources, etc. (Table 1).

It has been established by previous projects at the UWM Center for By-Products Utilization (UWM-

CBU) that properties of coal combustion products (i.e. different types of ashes) vary from boiler to

boiler depending upon the type and source of fuel, how the ash is collected, design and operation of

the boiler, etc. Therefore, it is important to determine physical, chemical, and morphological

properties of the ash for determining their appropriate use options.

Before beginning any quantitative testing, the general physical appearance of the MPU materials

were evaluated. The MPU #5 bottom ash consisted of white, brown, and beige particles, was dry,

and in appearance varied in size from fine sand to approximately 3/8-inch size pieces. The ash

2

pieces were lightweight and easily broken apart. The MPU #7 bottom ash was typically brown in

color, dry, appeared to be a typical coal bottom ash type of material with gradation varying from a

sand-like material with larger pieces up to approximately one-inch. MPU #8 bottom ash was a

mixture of small white and light brown pieces, dry, and generally had a gradation similar to a sand.

Some larger brown to black particles up to 1/4-inch were also present. The MPU #8 fly ash was a

very fine, dry, dark-gray ash.

In order to evaluate the potential of the MPU ashes for various cement-based uses such as for

aggregate or as a substitute for cement, typical ASTM tests were conducted. ASTM provides

standard specifications for both aggregate for use in cement-based products (ASTM C 33) as well as

for coal fly ash use in concrete (ASTM C 618). To judge the suitability of the MPU ash resource for

potential use as a mineral admixture in cement-based materials, tests were performed as described in

the following sections and compared to the requirements specified in ASTM C 33 and C 618.

3

Section 2

Tests of MPU Coal Combustion Products

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

A test program was designed to measure physical, chemical, mineralogical, and microscopical

properties of the ashes from MPU boilers. Four different coal combustion products were received

from MPU. Three sources of bottom ash, MPU #5 bottom ash, MPU #7 bottom ash, and MPU #8

bottom ash; and one source of fly ash MPU #8 fly ash, were selected for evaluation. Prior to testing,

the MPU #5 bottom ash and MPU #7 bottom ash were blended in accordance with the direction of

MPU, one part MPU #5 bottom ash and two parts MPU #7 bottom ash, by weight. In order to

measure various properties of these ash products, the following experiments were carried out.

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

As-Received Moisture Content

As-received moisture content (MC) of the MPU ashes were determined in accordance with the

ASTM Test Designation C 311. Table 2 provides the test data. The results show that all three

materials, MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash, MPU #8 bottom ash, and MPU #8 fly ash had low moisture

contents (0.1%, 0.1%, and 0.4%, respectively). Although all three ash materials would meet ASTM

C 618 requirements for moisture content (3% max.), it is important to maintain consistent, low

moisture contents when using these materials in future applications since there are some significant

negative attributes associated with moisture in any ash:

(1) Moisture/water content leads to cost of shipping water along with the ash to the potential user of

the ash. This, of course, increases the cost to the user in obtaining the ash for beneficial reuse.

4

(2) If the moisture content is not within control, then the variation leads to quality control problems

for the user.

(3) The water content is a critical parameter for manufacturing cement-based products. Therefore, if

the user is planning to use the ash in cement-based materials, then the water content must be

controlled in a narrow range to control the quality of such products.

(4) Wetting the ash with or soaking it in water destroys potential cementitious ability of the ash.

(5) A typical manufacturer of cement-based materials is equipped very well to handle dry or

relatively dry materials. Therefore, wet or variable moisture content ash would make it harder for

MPU to market these ashes for reuse/recycle purposes to such manufacturers.

Particle Size Analysis

Ash samples were first oven-dried at 210 F ± 10 F and then were tested for gradation using standard

sieve sizes (1" through #100), as reported in Table 3, in accordance with ASTM Test Designation

C 136. Ash samples were also tested in accordance with ASTM test designation C 117 to determine

the amount of material finer than No. 200 sieve by washing as reported in Table 4. One ash sample,

MPU #8 fly ash, was not evaluated using ASTM C 136 and C 117 due to the fact that this source of

the ash was too fine to conduct such tests. The MPU #8 fly ash sample was tested for materials

passing No. 325 sieve by washing under pressure in accordance with ASTM Test Designation C 430.

Bottom ash samples were too coarse for the ASTM C 430 test. Results are reported in Table 5. The

particle size distribution of the MPU #8 fly ash sample was analyzed in accordance with ASTM C

422 (hydrometer analysis) since this material has a significant percentage of fine particles (passing

#100 sieve). The complete size distribution of all of the ashes are shown in Fig. 1 to Fig. 3.

Particle size analysis data in Table 3 show that the MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash generally is a coarse

5

material with approximately 60% of the material between 3/8" and #16 sieve (1.18 mm).

Approximately 20% of the MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash sample consisted of particles larger than 3/8"

and 20% of the particles were finer than No. 16 (1.18 mm) sieve. Furthermore, this material had less

than 2% of the total materials passing No. 200 sieve when washed with water (Table 4). The particle

size distribution of the MPU #8 bottom ash more closely resembled the particle size distribution of a

sand rather than a coarse aggregate (Table 3). The particle size distribution of the MPU #8 bottom

ash also shows that the material has more fine particles present than a typical concrete sand (84% of

the materials passing a #30 sieve). The MPU #8 bottom ash also had approximately 6% passing the

No. 200 sieve upon washing, Table 4. ASTM C 33 specifies that for a manufactured sand, free of

clay or shale, a maximum of 5% passing of No 200 sieve is allowed for aggregate used in concrete

subjected to abrasion, and a maximum of 7% for all other concrete. The test data indicates (Table 4)

that the two sources of bottom ash may be acceptable for partial replacement of aggregate in ready-

mixed concrete and/or as both coarse and fine aggregates replacements in dry-cast concrete products

such as bricks, blocks, and paving stones because of its generally coarse gradation. Furthermore, the

MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash and MPU #8 bottom ash materials are not fine enough; i.e., too coarse, to

be used for cement replacement in concrete. These coarser materials (MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash and

MPU #8 fly ash) may be more suitable for use in a backfill material such as in controlled low-

strength materials CLSM. Figs. 1 and 2 show gradation of MPU bottom ashes.

Table 5 data show that the MPU #8 fly ash did not have a considerable amount of material retained

on the No. 325 sieve (22.5%). ASTM C 618 for coal fly ash classifies a value of maximum 34%

retained on the No. 325 sieve as satisfactory for use in concrete. Based upon this criterion for

pulverized coal fly ash, the MPU #8 fly ash meets this requirement of ASTM C 618. These results

6

indicate that, based upon the fineness of the material, the MPU #8 fly ash is quite suitable as a

cement replacement in concrete and also for CLSM-type of flowable slurry products.

Test data for particle size analysis in accordance with the modified ASTM C 422 are presented in

Fig. 3. Appendix 2 provides the details of this modified ASTM test. This figure shows that the

gradation of the MPU #8 fly ash (Fig. 3) is reasonably uniform.

Unit Weight

Unit weight (i.e., bulk density) of the ash was determined in accordance with the ASTM Test

Designation C 29. Table 6 provides the test results. Bulk density of the MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash

and MPU #8 bottom ash was 37, and 96 lb/ft³, respectively. The fine ash material (MPU #8 fly ash)

had a density value of approximately 50 lb/ft³. This is consistent for the gradation of the bottom ash,

which showed a significant amount of coarser fractions of the ash materials. These data indicate that

the MPU #8 bottom ash material may be suitable for replacing regular, normal-weight, sand and the

MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash may be used for coarse aggregates in making semi-lightweight or

lightweight concrete and/or CLSM. Such lightweight construction materials are well suited for

insulating fill for roofs and walls, as well as sound and/or ground vibration barriers. Typical

manufactured light-weight coarse aggregates costs about $45 per ton. Determining the bulk density

value is also necessary for calculations for establishing and modifying cement-based construction

materials mixture proportioning. Percentage of voids in Table 6 indicate amount of free space

available for packing of other materials in making cement-based materials. The higher the percent

voids, the higher the amount of other materials necessary for making cement-based materials.

7

Specific Gravity

Specific gravity tests for the fine ash material (MPU #8 fly ash) were conducted in accordance with

the ASTM Test Designation C 188, Table 7. Results show that the specific gravity for the MPU #8

fly ash is 2.68. This is a similar order of magnitude as a typical coal fly ash, though this ash has a

slightly higher specific gravity value than typical Class F coal fly ash (specific gravity approximately

2.50), and a typical Class C fly ash (specific gravity approximately 2.60). Specific gravity of typical

Wisconsin sand is about 2.7. Specific gravity value is necessary for determining relative substitution

rate for fly ash versus amount of cement or sand replaced in a mixture; and, also for calculations for

establishing and modifying cement-based construction materials mixture proportions.

Specific gravity tests for the MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash and MPU #8 bottom ash were carried out in

accordance with ASTM Test Designation C 128. Test results are shown in Table 8. The MPU #5 -

#7 bottom ash had an average apparent specific gravity of 1.83. This is considerably lower than the

specific gravity for typical aggregates used in concrete, which is around 2.65. Therefore, this source

of ash should be useful as semi-lightweight and/or lightweight aggregates. Specific gravity of MPU

#8 bottom ash, 2.64, is consistent with that of a typical natural aggregate for making conrete.

SSD Absorption

For the coarser ashes (MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash and MPU #8 bottom ash) saturated surface dry

(SSD) moisture absorption tests in accordance with the ASTM Test Designation C 128 were

conducted. Results are shown in Table 9. These ash materials, had SSD absorption values that

were considerably higher than that for typical natural sand or coarse aggregate used in concrete,

which is typically less than 2%. The SSD absorption value is an indication of the porosity of the

8

aggregates. Typical lightweight aggregates used in concrete generally have very high absorption

values and must be pre-soaked in order to manufacture consistent quality workable concrete. SSD

moisture absorption value is also required for calculations for establishing and modifying cement-

based construction materials mixture proportioning. Higher absorption materials may lead to better

curing of the cement-based materials after they are cast; and, therefore, better quality for such

materials.

ASTM C 618 TESTS

Physical Properties per ASTM C 618

ASTM C 618 provides standard specifications for coal fly ash and natural pozzolans for use in

concrete. Therefore, to judge the suitability of the MPU ash resource for potential use as a mineral

admixture in cement-based materials, physical tests were performed as described below in

accordance with the ASTM Test Designation C 618. Table 10 shows physical properties

requirements for coal fly ash and natural pozzolans per ASTM Test C 618. The following physical

properties of the MPU ash were determined: (1) Cement Activity Index; (2) Water Requirement; (3)

Activity Index with Lime; and, (4) Autoclave Expansion.

Cement Activity Index

Cement activity index tests for fine ash materials (MPU #8 fly ash) were performed in accordance

with the ASTM Test Designation C 311/C 109. Two-inch mortar cubes were made in a prescribed

manner using a mixture of cement, sand, and water, without any ash (Control Mixture).

Compressive strength tests were conducted at the age of 3, 7, 14, and 28 days. Actual strength test

results, in psi, are reported in Table 11 for the test specimens made from the Control Mixture.

9

Additional test mixtures were prepared using 80% cement and 20% MPU #8 fly ash, by weight

(instead of cement only without MPU ash as in the Control Mixture). Results are reported in Table

11 similar to the Control Mixture.

Comparison of the MPU ash mixture cube compressive strengths, with the Control Mixture, is

reported in Table 12. These results are designated as Strength Activity Index with Cement. In this

comparison, the Control Mixture was assigned a value of 100, at each age, and all other cube

compressive strength values were scaled from this reference datum.

The cube compressive strength test results, Table 11, for the MPU #8 fly ash mixtures were lower

than that for the Control Mixture without fly ash. The Activity Index with Cement data, Table 12,

for this ash was 60% to 71% (higher than 75% required by ASTM C 618 at either the 7 or 28-day

age) for the compressive strength, compared with the Control Mixture without the MPU ash.

However, the actual test data, Table 11, show that sufficient compressive strength can be achieved

with the MPU #8 fly ash even though these ash mixtures did not perform as well as the no ash

Control Mixture. Based upon the cube compressive strength data, overall, it can be concluded that

the MPU #8 fly ash is suitable for making CLSM (which by the ACI Committee 229 Definition has

up to 1,200 psi compressive strength at the 28-day age), including making typical structural-grade

(up to 5,000 psi compressive strength) concrete for base course and/or sub-base course for pavement

of highways, roadways, and airfields; driveways; parking lots; highway pavements and bridges;

parking garages; and other similar construction applications. This ash source can also be considered

quite satisfactory for housing construction where typically a compressive strength of 3,000 psi

concrete, at the age of 28 days, is used. The MPU #8 fly ash resource can also be used for in-house

concrete construction needs of MPU.

10

In summary, ASTM C 618 classifies a value at 7-day or 28-day age of 75 or above for the Activity

Index with Cement for coal fly ash as passing. Based upon this criterion only, the MPU #8 fly ash

does not pass either the 7 or 28-day requirement.

Water Requirement

Water requirement tests for the MPU #8 fly ash was performed in accordance with the ASTM Test

Designation C 311. This test determines the relative amount of water that may be required for

mixture proportioning of cement-based construction materials. It is well established that the lower

the water required for a desired value of workability for the cement-based material, the higher the

overall quality of the product. Test data for water requirement for the MPU #8 fly ash is reported in

Table 13. The results show that the average value for water requirement for the MPU #8 fly ash was

lower than the maximum value specified in ASTM C 618. ASTM C 618 specifies a maximum value

of 105 or 115, depending upon the type of ash, as an acceptable value for water requirement. For

coal fly ash the acceptable value is 105, while that for natural pozzolan (volcanic ash) it is 115. It is

concluded that the MPU #8 fly ash should perform satisfactorily in cement-based construction

materials. For the same workability as a concrete having no fly ash, a mixture containing MPU #8

fly ash would require approximately the same or less amount of water.

Lime Activity Index

Lime activity index tests for the MPU #8 fly ash were performed in accordance with ASTM test

requirements. Although not currently part of the ASTM test procedures or requirements for coal fly

ash and natural pozzolans, the test was performed to obtain additional information on the MPU

ashes. The activity index with lime provides an indication of the potential long-term reactivity of the

11

ash in a cementitious mixture. Based upon the 1992 ASTM standard, test procedure C 311/C 109

was followed for the testing the MPU #8 fly ash. Two-inch mortar cubes were made in a prescribed

manner using a mixture of lime, sand, water, and MPU #8 fly ash. Cubes were cured for 24 hours at

room temperature (73 F) and then for six days at 131 F. Compressive strength tests were conducted

at the age of 7 days. Actual strength test results, in psi, are reported in Table 14 for these test

specimens. Compressive strength test results for the MPU #8 fly ash was 465 psi at the age of 7

days (Table 14). The 1992 ASTM C 618 specified a minimum requirement of 800 psi for a typical

coal ash. Although the MPU #8 fly ash compressive strength is somewhat lower than the required

minimum value for coal ash, the ash did show pozzolanic activity.

Autoclave Expansion

Autoclave expansion tests for the MPU #8 fly ash was performed in accordance with the ASTM Test

Designation C 311/C 151. Test specimens in the shape of 1"x1"x11" bars were cast using cement

paste containing this MPU ash. The test specimens were then subjected to a high-temperature steam

bath at approximately 295 psi pressure in a boiler (a pressure cooker meeting the requirements of the

ASTM). The test results, given in Table 15, show that the expansion was negligible. The range of

expansion values recorded (-0.05%) for the MPU #8 fly ash samples tested were well below the

acceptable maximum limit of expansion/contraction of 0.8%, as specified by ASTM C 618 for coal

fly ash. Therefore, the MPU #8 fly ash tested is acceptable in terms of long-term

soundness/durability from the viewpoint of undesirable autoclave expansion.

12

Evaluation with Activators

The MPU #8 fly ash was evaluated with chemical activators to determine if the strength

development characteristics of the ash in cementitious materials could be improved. Three different

special activators were used for this evaluation: Activator #1, #2, and #3. Two different cement

replacement rates (20% and 40%) were used to determine if improved compressive strength could be

achieved using more ash. Table 16 shows the actual strength test results at the age of 7 and 28 days.

For comparison, the compressive strength results are also shown in Table 16 for the standard 20%

cement replacement rate without activators. The Strength Activity Index with Cement of the MPU

#8 fly ash mortar cubes, with and without chemical activators, is reported in Table 17. The Activity

Index with Cement for the MPU #8 fly ash without activators was approximately 60% at the 7-day

age, and about 72% at the 28-day age. A minimum of 75% is specified by ASTM C 618 for coal ash

at either the 7-day or 28-day age. Without activators, MPU #8 fly ash does not meet this ASTM

requirement. However, the Activity Index results for the ashes with activators indicate that at the

20% replacement level, all three activators increased the compressive strength of the mortar cubes.

In the case of Activator #2, even at the 40% replacement level the strength increased compared to

the 20% fly ash level without any activators at the 7-day age. Activator #1 at a 20% cement

replacement increases the compressive strength noticeably at the age of 7 days (approximately 73%

vs. 60% without activators). Activator #2 at a 20% cement replacement increases the compressive

strength significantly at the age of 7 days (approximately 85% vs. 60% without activators).

Activator #3 at a 20% cement replacement also increased the compressive strength at the age of 7

days (approximately 67% vs. 60% without activators). At the age of 28 days, the compressive

strength of the mixtures using activators were slightly lower than the mixture without activators at

13

the 20% replacement level. Use of activators generally show that strength of concrete can be

improved due to activators.

CHEMICAL PROPERTIES PER ASTM C 618

Chemical analysis tests were conducted to determine oxides present in the three sources of the MPU

ash. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) technique was used to detect the presence of silicon dioxide (SiO2),

aluminum oxide (Al2O3), iron oxide (Fe2O3), calcium oxide (CaO), magnesium oxide (MgO),

titanium oxide (TiO2), potassium oxide (K2O), and sodium oxide (Na2O). In this method, ignited

samples were fused in a 4:1 ratio with lithium carbonate-lithium tetraborate flux and cast into pellets

in platinum molds. The XRF technique for measuring sulfate (SO3) involves grinding the ash

sample and manufacturing a compressed pellet with boric acid. A double dilution method using a

4:1 and a 10:1 ratio with boric acid was used to correct for matrix effects. These buttons were used

to measure x-ray fluorescence intensities for the desired element, in accordance with standard

practice for cementitious materials, by using an automated Philips PW1410 x-ray spectrometer. The

percentages of each element were derived from the measured intensities through a standardized

computer program based on a procedure outlined for low-dilution fusion. This is a “standard

practice” for detecting oxides in cementitious compounds, including coal fly ash. Tests are reported

in Table 18. Loss on ignition (LOI), moisture content, and available alkali (Na2O equivalent) for the

pre-dried MPU ashes were also determined. These test results are also reported in Table 18.

According to the oxide analysis data, the MPU #5-#7 bottom ash, MPU #8 bottom ash, and MPU #8

fly ash do not meet Class C or F coal fly ash requirements due to one or more of the following: high

LOI, low combined silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, and high sulfate contents. The

14

calcium oxide content for the MPU #8 bottom ash and MPU fly ash is judged to be very good

because the calcium oxide values are above 10 percent. The MPU #8 fly ash contained over 47% of

calcium oxide. Therefore this fly ash may have uses in blended cement applications. Furthermore,

the magnesium oxide values are judged to be quite low for all MPU ash samples to minimize the

soundness/durability related problems created due to a high-MgO value, which is generally accepted

to be greater than five percent. In general, all oxides present, except the combined silicon dioxide,

aluminum oxide, and iron oxide; LOI; and the sulfate content; were within limits specified in the

ASTM C 618 for coal fly ash.

Loss on ignition (LOI) for the MPU #8 fly ash (approximately 14%) is higher than that permitted

(maximum 6%) by ASTM C 618 for coal fly ash. Under certain circumstances, up to 12%

maximum LOI is permitted by ASTM C 618. Recent research at the UWM Center for By-Products

Utilization show that high-LOI coal ash can be effectively used for CLSM as well as no-fines

concrete and roller compacted concrete pavements. Currents practice in Wisconsin and elsewhere

also show that high-LOI coal fly ash should generally perform satisfactorily for CLSM. High-LOI

ashes affect the use of air-entering agent used in concrete to make the concrete resistant to a freezing

and thawing environment. In general, therefore, the MPU ashes may be used for CLSM and

concrete, no-fines concrete, roller compacted concrete pavements, dry-cast concrete products, etc.

These types of construction materials do not require the use of air-entraining agent for freezing and

thawing resistance of concrete.

15

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

The mineral analysis, (i.e., chemical composition) for the MPU ashes were conducted by using the

X-ray diffraction (XRD) method. The results are shown in Table 19. A typical coal fly ash contains

approximately 80% glass (amorphous) phase. Since the glass contents of fly ash contributes to its

potential pozzolanic reactivity, a higher amount of glass phase is preferred when a fly ash is used as

cementitious materials. The MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash contained the highest amounts of glass phase

(54%). The MPU #8 fly ash had glass phase content of only 29% while no glass phases were

detected in the MPU #8 Bottom ash. The MPU #8 bottom ash also had an anhydrite form of CaSO4

content of 72%, which in previous studies by UWM-CBU has had expansive characteristics when

used in cement-based materials and also liberated a significant quantity of heat of reaction when

combined with water. The high anhydrite CaSO4 content of the MPU #8 bottom ash could lead to its

use by industries typically using anhydrite CaSO4 in their manufacturing processes. Anhydrite

CaSO4 is used as a source of sulfates in the manufacture of sulfuric acid and is also used in the

manufacturing of paper, where it is used as a filler material. The MPU #8 fly ash also had a high

amount of anhydrite CaSO4, 46%, and also a relatively high free lime content, 17%, similar to MPU

#8 bottom ash. Both free lime and anhydrite CaSO4, when combined with water, liberates a

noticeable amount of heat. The presence of anhydrite CaSO4 and lime should be taken into account

when using these two materials (MPU #8 bottom ash and MPU #8 fly ash) in a cement-based

product.

ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS

All MPU ash samples were analyzed for total chemical make-up by the Instrumental Neutron

Activation Analysis (INAA). Knowledge of total elemental concentration is necessary because it

16

provides an insight into the possibility of leaching potential characteristics of the material tested.

Leaching of trace metals is known to be highly dependent upon the temperature of the combustion in

the boiler and how these trace elements are converted to chemical compounds. A high concentration

of undesirable elements does not necessarily mean that these undesirable elements will leach. Tests

for leachate characteristics of construction materials, such as TCLP, must be performed in order to

conduct the environmental assessment of the materials proposed to be used and the product (e.g.,

cement-based materials) to be made from it. The results for the elemental analysis performed are

reported in Table 20.

SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY (SEM)

A scanning electron microscope available at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee was employed

for this part of the investigation. SEM pictures (photomicrographs) for the four MPU ashes were

obtained, Figures 4 through 19. These SEM pictures are an important part of understanding the

character and morphology of the particles of the product being evaluated for considering their

constructive use options. For example, studying the morphology allows judgment to be made

regarding the physical and/or mechanical bond that might be possible for the ash in creating new

construction materials. Also, it allows an opportunity to study the contours of the particles and how

they may help in mixing and manufacturing these new types of materials. The particle morphology

also helps in understanding the level of completeness of combustion and microstructure of burned,

partially burned, or unburned particles. This evaluation of level of combustion, and particle size and

distribution, also help in judging the water demand that may be placed upon when making cement-

based materials from such ashes.

17

The MPU #5 bottom ash (Figs. 4-7) consists of large particles which have a glass-like structure. The

particles have small voids (approximately 5 μm) distributed over the surface. The MPU #7 bottom

ash (Figs. 8-11) also consists of large particles; however, they have two different types of features:

some particles have numerous voids, while other particles have a smooth glass-like appearance.

Although bottom ash material with the porous structure would be lightweight, these types of

materials when used as concrete aggregates, may not be very durable when subjected to abrasion.

The MPU #8 bottom ash is considerable finer than the MPU #5 or #7 bottom ashes. The size of the

MPU #8 bottom ash particles closely resemble a fine sand (Fig. 12). At magnifications of 100x up

to 1000x (Figs. 13-15), the surface of the particles show a significant amount of cracking indicating

that either an expansion took place while the particles were rapidly cooled, or the surface of the

particles were more rapidly breakable, soft, and/or friable than the rest of the structure. The interior

of the particles when viewed through the cracks at 1000x (Fig. 15) show a fine angular structure in

contrast to the smooth surface of the particles. SEM micrographs of the MPU #8 fly ash are shown

in Figs. 16-19. The MPU #8 fly ash is a fine material with irregularly shaped particles. These type

of fly ash particles differ from that of typical pulverized coal combustion fly ash that are generally

spherical in shape. The irregularly shaped particles would not be beneficial for reducing water

demand when used in making concrete.

18

Section 3

Constructive Use Options for MPU Ashes

INTRODUCTION

A number of uses of coal combustion products (CCP) in construction materials already exist [1].

However, these applications depend upon physical, chemical, mineralogical, and surface properties

of such products. The same is true for the MPU ashes. The following sections deal with potential

uses of the MPU ashes analyzed in this investigation.

USES OF MPU ASHES

The size distribution of the MPU #8 fly ash is similar to that of conventional coal ash products. In

general, however, MPU #8 fly ash is not as fine as typical coal fly ash. Furthermore, the MPU #8

fly ash is irregular in shape versus spherical shape for coal fly ash. This means that when MPU #8

fly ash is added in mortar or concrete, workability of fresh mortar or concrete may not be helped as

much as that typical with the use of coal fly ash. In fact, some porous particles of unburned or

partially burned or coal (charcoal) may absorb the water added in mortar or concrete and further

reduce the workability of the mixture. Some of the MPU ashes have high-LOI (i.e., unburned or

partially burned organics).

This investigation revealed that the MPU ash samples generally did not conform to all parts of the

ASTM C 618 Class F or C requirements for coal fly ash for applications in cement-based

composites. ASTM C 618 also gives standard specifications for natural pozzolans, e.g., a volcanic

ash. The MPU #8 fly ash is expected to be suitable for use in typical structural-grade (up to 5,000

19

psi) concrete. The MPU ashes are also very suitable for CLSM and grouting applications. The MPU

#5 - #7 bottom ash materials have a low specific gravity and may be useful as a lightweight

aggregate in concrete. For more useful applications, with or without beneficiating MPU ashes,

further study would be needed to develop optimum use options. A list of potential uses of the MPU

ashes are presented in Table 21.

20

Section 4

Suggestions for Further Evaluations

As indicated in Section 3, the MPU ashes have considerable potential for many applications.

However, the performance of these MPU ashes needs to be proven for individual applications.

The following are some of the potential high-volume applications that would require further proof

for various uses. It is anticipated that these applications can consume most of the ash products

produced by MPU.

FLOWABLE MATERIALS

Large amounts of MPU ashes can be utilized in manufacture of flowable fill (a.k.a. manufactured

soil) material. This is defined by ACI Committee 229 as Controlled Low-Strength Material

(CLSM). The compressive strength of CLSM can be very little (10 psi) up to 1200 psi, at the age of

28 days. This material can be used for foundations, bridge abutments, buildings, retaining walls,

utility trenches, etc. as backfill; as embankment, grouts, abandoned tunnel and mine filling for

stabilization of such cavities, etc. See Table 21 for more details.

CLSM can be manufactured with large amounts of MPU ash, low amount of cement and/or lime,

and high water-to-cementitious materials ratio to produce the flowable fill. A previous study by

UWM-CBU evaluated a combination of MPU #8 fly ash and bottom ash in CLSM. The other

coarser bottom ash such as MPU #5-#7 bottom ash may also be used in CLSM fill applications. An

evaluation study is strongly recommended in order to produce CLSM for various applications with

21

this material for approval by local environmental agencies, such as the Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources.

BRICKS, BLOCKS, AND PAVING STONES

The MPU ashes have potential for applications in numerous masonry products such as bricks,

blocks, and paving stones. However, in order to meet the ASTM requirements for strength and

durability, testing and evaluation work is necessary. The results of such testing would be used in

developing specifications for the MPU ash in the manufacture of masonry products. Lab and/or

proto-type manufacturing-scale evaluation is strongly recommended. Probability of success is very

high.

STRUCTURAL-GRADE CONCRETE

The MPU ashes can be used as a partial replacement of sand (MPU #8 bottom ash), coarse aggregate

(MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash), and/or cement (MPU #8 fly ash) in concrete. This is a very broad

conclusion from the work conducted as a part of this test evaluation. Test results show that these

ashes did not meet all ASTM C 618 coal ash requirements for concrete products applications. In

order to determine the effects of optimum inclusion of these ashes on concrete strength and

durability properties, a lab study is very strongly recommended. Probability of success is very high.

BLENDED CEMENT

The highest market value use of the MPU ashes is in the production of blended cements. Blended

cement material is typically composed of portland cement, coal fly ash, and/or other cementitious or

pozzolonic materials, and chemicals. Probability of success is very high.

22

ROLLER-COMPACTED CONCRETE PAVEMENT

The MPU ashes can be used for Roller-Compacted Concrete Pavement (RCCP) in all types of

Wisconsin weather. RCCP using MPU ashes would be a very important application. RCCP

popularity is increasing in Wisconsin. Lab evaluation is very strongly recommended for future

applications. Probability of success is very high.

SOIL AMENDMENT WITH OR WITHOUT DREDGED MATERIALS

Wisconsin dredges a significant tonnage of dredged materials from the Great Lakes and the

Mississippi River to keep the navigation channels open. The MPU ashes would be an excellent

additive to dredged materials to make manufactured topsoil for use in tree farms, sod farms, potting

soil, new growth woods/plantations, etc. These ashes may act as a desiccant, deodorizer, and

chemical activators for dredged materials. The resulting manufactured topsoil can be used as a

fertilizer, and to decrease subsurface porosity and improve infiltration characteristics of soils.

Further lab study is very strongly recommended. Probability of success is very high.

23

MANITOWOC PUBLIC UTILITIES ASH

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

MPU #5 Boiler, MPU #7 Boiler, MPU #8 Boiler

24

Table 1 - Background Information on the MPU Ash

Source

MPU Boiler #5 & Boiler #7

MPU Boiler #8

Make of Boiler Wickes

Foster-Wheeler

Type of Boiler

Stoker

CFBA - Circulating

Fluidized Bed Age of Boiler

40 years

12 years

Type of Fuel

95% Bituminous Coal (PA),

5% Paper Pallets

20% Bituminous Coal (PA),

75% Petroleum Coke,

5% Paper Pallets

Maximum Size of Fuel

1/2" (coal),

1/8" dia. x 1" long wood

1/2" (coal),

~1/8" dia. wood pellets Amount of Fuel Used

Per Year

80,000 tons (coal),

5,000 tons (wood) 35,000 tons

Burning Temperature,

Deg.F 2,650

1,600

Type of Energy Steam

Steam

Amount of Energy 170,000 #/hr

200,000 #/hr

Wet or Dry Ash

Collection Dry

Dry

Amount of Bottom Ash 15,000 tons

15,000 tons

Amount of Fly Ash 5,000 tons

4,000 tons

25

MANITOWOC PUBLIC UTILITIES

ASH CHARACTERIZATION

Combined MPU #5 & #7 Bottom Ash, MPU #8 Bottom Ash,

and MPU #8 Fly Ash.

26

Table 2 - As-Received MPU Ash Moisture Content

Ash Source

Moisture Content, %

Actual*

Average

MPU # 5 - #7

Bottom Ash

0.1

0.1

0.1

MPU #8 Bottom

Ash

0.1

0.1

0.0

MPU #8 Fly Ash

0.0

0.0

0.0

* Moisture content, as-received, % = (as-received sample wt. - dry sample wt.) * 100

dry sample weight

27

MANITOWOC PUBLIC UTILITIES

ASH PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

28

Table 3 - Sieve Analysis of MPU Ash (As-Received Samples)

(Tests conducted per ASTM C 136)

MPU #5 - #7 Bottom Ash

Sieve Size % Passing*

ASTM C 33 %

Passing for No. 6

Coarse Aggregate

ASTM C 33 %

Passing for Sand

1-1/2" (38.1 mm)

100

95 to 100

1" (25.4 mm)

96.7

--

--

3/4" (19.05 mm)

93.8

35 to 70

--

1/2" (12.7 mm)

88.4

--

--

3/8" (9.5 mm)

83.5

10 to 30

100

#4 (4.75 mm)

66.4

0 to 5

95 to 100

#8 (2.36 mm)

41.2

--

80 to 100

#16 (1.18 mm)

19.8

--

50 to 85

#30 (600 μm**)

8.8

--

25 to 60

#50 (300 μm**)

4.8

--

10 to 30

#100 (150 μm**)

3.0

--

2 to 10

MPU #8 Bottom Ash

Sieve Size

% Passing*

ASTM C 33 %

Passing for sand

3/8" (9.5 mm)

100

100

#4 (4.75 mm)

99.8

95 to 100

#8 (2.36 mm)

99.6

80 to 100

#16 (1.18 mm)

97.9

50 to 85

#30 (600 μm**)

84.2

25 to 60

#50 (300 μm**)

54.2

10 to 30 #100 (150 μm**)

11.7

2 to 10

* Values reported for % passing are the average of two tests.

** 1.0 μm = 10-6

m = 0.001 mm

29

Table 4 - Material Finer Than No. 200 Sieve by Washing (As-Received Samples)

(Tests conducted per ASTM C 117)

Ash Source

Material Finer than No.

200 Sieve (%)

Actual Average

MPU #5 - #7 Bottom

Ash

1.8

1.9

2.0

MPU #8 Bottom Ash

20.7

19.8

18.8

MPU #8 Fly Ash

N/A*

N/A*

N/A*

* This test (ASTM C 117) is not applicable, material is very fine.

30

Table 5 - Materials Retained on No. 325 Sieve

(Tests conducted per ASTM C 311/C 430)

Ash Source

% Retained on

No. 325 Sieve

(As-Received Sample)

Actual Average

MPU #5 - #7 Bottom Ash

NA*

NA*

NA*

MPU #8 Bottom Ash

NA*

NA*

NA*

MPU #8 Fly Ash

22.0

22.5

23.0

* NA = This test (ASTM C 311/C 430) is not applicable, material is very coarse.

31

GEN-1109.1

Fig. 1: Particle Size Distribution of MPU #5-#7 Bottom Ash

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

Particle Diameter, mm

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

ASTM C 136 Sieve Analysis

32

GEN-1109.2

Fig. 2: Particle Size Distribution of MPU #8 Bottom Ash

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

Particle Diameter, mm

Per

cen

t P

assi

ng

ASTM C 136 Sieve Analysis

33

GEN-1109.3

Fig. 3: Particle Size Distribution of MPU #8 Fly Ash

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000

Particle Diameter, (mm)

Per

cen

t F

iner

ASTM D 422 Hydrometer Analysis, see Appendix 2

34

MANITOWOC PUBLIC UTILITIES ASH

UNIT WEIGHT, VOIDS, SPECIFIC GRAVITY,

AND SSD MOISTURE CONTENT

35

Table 6 - Unit Weight and Voids

(Tests conducted on as-received samples per modified ASTM C 29,

utilizing 0.10 ft3 measure)

Ash Source

Unit Weight

(lbs/ft3)

Voids

(%) Actual

Average

Actual

Average

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash

37.1

37.3

63.3

62.5

37.5

61.7

MPU #8 Bottom

Ash

96.1

96.1

27.3

27.4

96.0

27.4

MPU #8 Fly Ash

49.6

50.3

70.3

70.0

50.9

69.6

36

Table 7 - Specific Gravity

(Tests Conducted per ASTM C 311/C 188)

Ash Source

Specific Gravity

Actual

Average

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash

N/A*

N/A*

N/A*

MPU #8 Bottom

Ash

N/A*

N/A*

N/A*

MPU #8 Fly Ash

2.67

2.68

2.68

*This test (ASTM C 311/ C 188) is not applicable due to the sample gradation being too coarse.

37

Table 8 - Specific Gravity

(Tests Conducted per ASTM C 128)

Ash Source

Bulk Specific

Gravity

Bulk Specific

Gravity

(SSD Basis)

Apparent

Specific Gravity Actual

Average

Actual

Average

Actual

Average

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash*

1.55

1.57

1.70

1.71

1.82

1.83 1.59

1.72

1.84

MPU #8 Bottom

Ash

2.06

2.12

2.27

2.32

2.62

2.64 2.18

2.36

2.65

MPU #8 Fly

Ash**

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

*Sample was first sieved over No. 8 sieve. Test was conducted on the ash

that passed through this No. 8 sieve since the procedure of ASTM C 128 is for

specific gravity for fine aggregates.

**This test (ASTM C 128) is not applicable because this fly ash sample is too fine.

38

Table 9 - Absorption

(Tests Conducted per ASTM C 128)

Ash Source

SSD Absorption, %

Actual

Average

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash*

9.4

9.0

8.5

MPU #8 Bottom

Ash

10.4

9.3

8.2

MPU #8 Fly Ash

NA**

NA**

NA**

*Samples were first sieved over No. 8 sieve. Tests were conducted on the ash

that passed through this No. 8 sieve since the procedure of ASTM C 128 is for

fine aggregates.

** This test (ASTM C 128) is not applicable for very fine materials such

as MPU #8 fly ash.

39

MANITOWOC PUBLIC UTILITIES ASH

ASTM C 618 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

40

Table 10 - Physical Test Requirements of Coal Fly Ash per ASTM C 618

TEST

ASTM C 618 SPECIFICATIONS CLASS N

CLASS C

CLASS F

Retained on No.325 sieve, (%)

34 max

34 max

34 max

Strength Activity Index with Cement at 7 or

28 days, (% of Control)

75 min

75 min

75 min

Water Requirement (% of Control)

115 max

105 max

105 max

Autoclave Expansion, (%)

±0.8

±0.8

±0.8

Moisture Content, (%)

3.0 max

3.0 max

3.0 max

Loss on Ignition, (%)*

10.0 max

6.0 max

6.0 max

Specific Gravity

-

-

-

Variation from Mean, (%)

Fineness

Specific Gravity

5 max

5 max

5 max

5 max

5 max

5 max

*Under certain circumstances, up to 12% max. LOI may be allowed.

41

Table 11 - Mortar Cube Compressive Strength*

(Tests conducted per ASTM C 311/C 109)

Ash Source

Compressive Strength (psi)

3-Day

7-Day

14-Day

28-Day

Control

3,555

4,245

5,890

6,130

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash

NA

NA

NA

NA MPU #8 Bottom

Ash

NA

NA

NA

NA MPU #8 Fly Ash

2,145

2,570

4,185

4,425

*ASTM C 311 is used in conjunction with ASTM C 618 for evaluation of strength

development of mineral admixtures with portland cement. A mineral admixture is added

as replacement of cement for the test mixture. Each result is an average of three

compression tests. Bottom ash samples were not tested by this test (ASTM C 311/ C

109) because this test is for fine mineral materials only.

Table 12 - Strength Activity Index with Cement*

(Tests conducted per ASTM C 311/C 109)

Ash Source

3-day Test

%

7-Day Test

%

14-Day Test

%

28-Day Test

%

Control

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash

NA

NA

NA

NA MPU #8 Bottom

Ash

NA

NA

NA

NA MPU #8 Fly Ash

60.3

60.5

71.1

72.2

Results obtained from the mortar cube compressive strength results, Table 11.

42

Table 13 - Water Requirement*

(Tests conducted per ASTM C 311)

Ash Source

Water

Requirement

(% of Control)

ASTM C 618

Specifications for Fly Ash Class N

Class C

Class F

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash

NA 115

max

105

max

105

max

MPU #8 Bottom

Ash

NA MPU #8 Fly Ash

100

* Results obtained for the mortar cube mixtures, Table 11.

Table 14: Pozzolanic Activity Index with Lime

(Tests conducted per ASTM C 311/C 109 (1992))

Ash Source

Compressive Strength

7-Day Test

psi

MPU #8 Fly Ash

455

465

490

455

Table 15 - Autoclave Expansion or Contraction

(Tests conducted per ASTM C 311/C 151)

Ash Source

Autoclave Expansion (%)

Actual

Average

MPU #5 - #7 Bottom

Ash

NA

NA NA

MPU #8 Bottom Ash

NA

NA NA

MPU #8 Fly Ash

-0.05

-0.05 -0.05

43

MANITOWOC PUBLIC UTILITIES ASH

EVALUATION WITH ACTIVATORS

44

Table 16 - Mortar Cube Compressive Strength with Activators*

(Tests conducted per ASTM C 311/C 109)

Ash Source

Activator

% Cement

Replacement

Compressive Strength

(psi)

7-Day

28-Day

Control

N/A

0

4,245

6,130

MPU #8 Fly

Ash

None

20

2,570

4,425

1

20

3,115

4,150

40

2,805

3,440

2

20

3,595

4,300

40

3,280

4,095

3

20

2,845

4,050

40

2,480

3,255

*ASTM C 311 is used in conjunction with ASTM C 618 for evaluation of strength

development of mineral admixtures with portland cement. A mineral admixture is added

as replacement of cement for the test mixture. Each result is an average of three

compression tests.

45

Table 17 - Strength Activity Index with Cement with Activators*

(Tests conducted per ASTM C 311/C 109)

Ash Source

Activator

% Cement

Replacement

Strength Activity Index

(% of Control)

7-Day

28-Day

Control

N/A

0

100

100

MPU #8 Fly

Ash

None

20

60.5

72.2

1

20

73.3

67.7

40

66.1

56.1

2

20

84.7

70.1

40

77.2

66.8

3

20

67.0

66.0

40

58.4

53.1

* Results obtained from the mortar cube compressive strength results, Table 16.

46

MANITOWOC PUBLIC UTILITIES ASH

ASTM C 618 OXIDES ANALYSIS

47

Table 18 - Chemical Analysis (oxides, LOI, moisture content, available alkali)

(Tests conducted on as-received samples)

OXIDES, SO3, AND LOSS ON IGNITION ANALYSIS, (%)

Analysis Parameter

Ash Source

ASTM C 618

Requirements MPU #5 -

#7 Bottom

Ash

MPU #8

Bottom

Ash

MPU

#8 Fly

Ash

Class

N

Class

C

Class

F Silicon Dioxide, SiO2

50.4

1.5

6.4

--

--

--

Aluminum Oxide,

Al2O3

27.3

0.8

3.1

--

--

--

Iron Oxide, Fe2O3

10.0

0.7

1.5

--

--

--

SiO2 + Al2O3 +

Fe2O3

87.7

3.0

11.0

70.0,

Min.

50.0,

Min.

70.0,

Min. Calcium Oxide, CaO

2.4

43.7

47.9

--

--

--

Magnesium Oxide,

MgO

0.8

0.9

1.1

--

--

-- Titanium Oxide, TiO2

2.0

0.0

0.1

--

--

--

Potassium Oxide, K2O

1.6

0.04

0.2

--

--

--

Sodium Oxide, Na2O

0.8

0.0

0.4

--

--

--

Sulfate, SO3

0.1

35.9

24.8

4.0,

Max.

5.0,

Max.

5.0,

Max. Loss on Ignition, LOI

(@ 750 C)

4.7

3.5

14.4

10.0,

Max.*

6.0,

Max.*

6.0,

Max.*

Moisture Content 0.1

-0.1

-0.1

3.0,

Max.

3.0,

Max.

3.0,

Max.

Available Alkali,

Na2O Equivalent

(ASTM C-311)

0.7

0.01

0.9

1.5,

Max.*

*

1.5,

Max.*

*

1.5,

Max.

**

* Under certain circumstances, up to 12.0% max. LOI may be allowed.

** Optional. Required for ASR Minimization.

48

MANITOWOC PUBLIC UTILITIES ASH

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

49

Table 19 - Mineralogy of MPU Ash

MINERALOGY (% by Weight) Analysis Parameter

MPU #5 -

#7 Bottom

Ash

MPU #8

Bottom Ash

MPU #8 Fly

Ash Amorphous

53.9

*

28.8

Anhydrite, CaSO4

*

71.9

46.3

Calcite, CaCO3

*

*

3.4

Crisobalite, SiO2

0.3

*

*

Lime, CaO

*

15.5

17.2

Magnetite, Fe3O4

5.7

*

*

Mullite, Al2O3.SiO2

35.0

*

*

Portlandite, Ca(OH)2

*

10.8

2.8

Quartz, SiO2

5.3

*

1.5

* Not Detectable

50

MANITOWOC PUBLIC UTILITIES ASH

ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS

51

Table 20 - Elemental Analysis (As-Received Sample)

ELEMENTAL (BULK CHEMICAL) ANALYSIS

(Average of two samples unless noted otherwise)

Element

Material MPU #5

Bottom

Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #7

Bottom

Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #8

Bottom

Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #8

Fly Ash

(ppm)*

Aluminum (Al)

110492.4

98693.7

106559.5

1304.4

11178.3

Antimony (Sb)

7.2

3.0

5.8

1.1

4.0

Arsenic (As)

46.1

16.6

36.2

73.2

98.8

Barium (Ba)

270.8

125.7

222.5

< 41.1

< 74.6

Bromine (Br)

< 1.1

< 0.8

< 1.0

0.1

32.5

Cadmium (Cd)

< 4101.1

< 3017.0

< 3739.8

1036.8

1182.4

Calcium (Ca)

1679.3

2072.5

1810.4

52159.2

41154.6

Cerium (Ce)

173.6

115.1

154.1

2.0

9.7

Cesium (Cs)

5.1

5.7

5.3

< 0.1

0.9

Chlorine (Cl)

< 100.6

< 71.4

< 90.9

76.9

696.4

Chromium (Cr)

71.5

78.7

73.9

3.7

13.9

Cobalt (Co)

23.8

21.7

23.1

2.2

6.4

Copper (Cu)

< 220.8

< 203.5

< 215.0

< 176.1

< 372.4

Dysprosium (Dy)

2.9

< 2.0

2.6

< 1.3

< 2.8

* Detection Limit Indicated by "<"

52

Table 20 (Continued) - Elemental Analysis (As-Received Sample)

ELEMENTAL (BULK CHEMICAL) ANALYSIS

(Average of two samples unless noted otherwise)

Element

Material

MPU # 5

Bottom

Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #7

Bottom

Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #8

Bottom

Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #8

Fly Ash

(ppm)*

Europium (Eu)

1.8

1.1

1.5

0.0

0.2

Gallium (Ga)

< 228.5

< 158.6

< 205.2

< 104.1

< 209.9

Gold (Au)

< 0.0

< 0.0

< 0.0

< 0.0

< 0.0

Hafnium (Hf)

4.3

3.1

3.9

< 0.2

0.6

Holmium (Ho)

< 11.7

< 7.9

< 10.4

< 0.8

< 3.5

Indium (In)

< 0.2

< 0.2

< 0.2

< 0.1

< 0.3

Iodine (I)

< 7.1

< 5.2

< 6.4

< 3.6

< 6.6

Iridium (Ir)

< 0.0

< 0.0

< 0.0

< 0.0

0.0

Iron (Fe)

45171.5

81217.0

57186.6

2028.1

9322.2

Lanthanum (La)

138.8

73.3

117.0

1.8

9.9

Lutetium (Lu)

4.8

2.1

3.9

0.1

0.4

Magnesium (Mg)

7309.1

7295.4

7304.6

1109.1

2453.8

Manganese (Mn)

2524.5

1263.3

2104.1

739.0

1070.7

Mercury (Hg)

5.6

3.8

5.0

< 0.4

1.1

* Detection Limit Indicated by "<"

53

Table 20 (Continued) - Elemental Analysis (As-Received Sample)

ELEMENTAL (BULK CHEMICAL) ANALYSIS

(Average of two samples unless noted otherwise)

Element

Material

MPU #5

Bottom

Ash (ppm)*

MPU #7

Bottom

Ash (ppm)*

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #8

Bottom

Ash

(ppm)*

MPU

#8

Fly Ash

(ppm)*

Molybdenum

(Mo)

< 217.6

< 148.4

< 194.5

133.5

205.9

Neodymium (Nd)

127.3

60.8

105.1

< 3.8

< 11.3

Nickel (Ni)

< 5449.9

< 4061.1

< 4987.0

16123.4

57069.8

Palladium (Pd)

< 381.9

< 277.8

< 347.2

< 183.5

< 375.1

Potassium (K)

16760.5

14832.1

16117.7

< 261.7

2404.8

Praseodymium

(Pr)

39.8

< 23.5

< 34.4

< 2.3

< 13.5

Rhenium (Re)

96.9

< 75.0

< 89.6

< 9.4

< 39.4

Rubidium (Rb)

< 110.9

126.0

115.9

< 4.8

15.3

Ruthenium (Ru)

23.0

10.3

18.8

0.6

9.0

Samarium (Sm)

33.5

16.5

27.8

0.4

2.0

Scandium (Sc)

22.6

19.0

21.4

0.4

2.0

Selenium (Se)

< 388.3

< 266.7

< 347.8

< 67.3

350.1

Silver (Ag)

< 33.7

< 25.2

< 30.9

< 4.1

< 13.0

Sodium (Na)

3516.1

3633.0

3555.0

110.7

2828.4

* Detection Limit Indicated by "<"

54

Table 20 (Continued) - Elemental Analysis (As-Received Sample)

ELEMENTAL (BULK CHEMICAL) ANALYSIS

(Average of two samples unless noted otherwise)

Element

Materials

MPU

#5

Bottom

Ash

(ppm)*

MPU

#7

Bottom

Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #8

Bottom

Ash

(ppm)*

MPU #8

Fly Ash

(ppm)*

Strontium (Sr)

98.2

60.4

85.6

20.7

< 29.0

Tantalum (Ta)

3.9

1.9

3.3

< 0.1

< 0.6

Tellurium (Te)

1.7

< 0.7

1.4

0.2

< 0.5

Terbidium (Tb)

2.1

< 1.0

1.8

< 0.2

< 0.6

Thorium (Th)

22.1

8.9

17.7

0.2

1.1

Thulium (Tm)

< 2.6

< 1.2

< 2.1

< 0.6

< 1.1

Tin (Sn)

< 943.7

< 686.4

< 857.9

< 151.4

< 414.7

Titanium (Ti)

8266.5

4939.5

7157.5

< 366.6

1324.1

Tungsten (W)

12.2

6.1

10.2

1.0

2.2

Uranium (U)

60.0

16.3

45.4

8.2

9.2

Vanadium (V)

232.3

236.1

233.6

1293.9

2811.1

Ytterbium (Yb)

24.8

11.4

20.3

0.3

1.4

Zinc (Zn)

< 41.8

< 30.6

< 38.0

8.6

41.1

Zirconium (Zr)

279.5

< 269.5

276.2

< 40.8

< 139.2

* Detection Limit Indicated by "<"

55

Table 21 - Potential Uses of the MPU Ashes

Type of Application MPU #5 - #7

Bottom Ash

MPU #8

Bottom

Ash

MPU #8

Fly Ash

1. Recovery of Materials

Low

Low

Medium

2. Filler Material for Polymer Matrix (plastic)

Very Low

Very

Low

Low

3. Filler Material for Metal Matrix Composites

Low

Very

Low

Medium

4. Other Filler Applications:

a. Asphaltic roofing shingles

b. Wallboard

c. Joint filler compounds

d. Carpet backing

e. Vinyl flooring

f. Industrial coatings

Medium

Medium

Low

Low

Low

Very Low

Medium

Medium

Low

Low

Low

Very

Low

Medium

Medium

Medium

Low

Medium

Medium

5. Super Pozzolanic Materials (beneficiated fly ash) Low Low High

MEDIUM TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS 1. Manufacture of Blended Cement

Low

Low

Very High

2. Manufacture of Lightweight Aggregates:

a. Fired

b. Unfired

High

Medium

Medium

Low

Medium

Low 3. Manufacture of Concrete Products:

a. Low-strength concrete

b. Medium-strength concrete

c. High-strength concrete

d. Lightweight concrete

e. Prestressed/precast concrete products

f. Roller compacted concrete

g. No-fines and/or Cellular concrete

h. Manufactured decorative concrete (including

artificial marble, granite, architectural light-

colored panels, etc.)

Very High

Very High

Very Low

High

Low

Low

Medium

Medium

Very

High

Very

High

Low

Low

Low

Medium

Medium

Medium

Very High

Very High

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Very High

Low

4. Filler in Asphalt Mix

Low

Medium

High

HIGH TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS

56

Table 21 (Continued) - Potential Uses of the MPU Ashes

Type of Application

MPU #5 -

#7 Bottom

Ash

MPU #8

Bottom

Ash

MPU #8

Fly Ash

5. Bricks

a. Unfired bricks

b. Fired bricks

c. Clay bricks

High

High

Low

High

High

Low

High

Hight

High 6. Blocks:

a. Building blocks

b. Decorative blocks

High

High

High

High

Very High

Very High 7. Reefs for Fish Habitats

Very High

Very

High

Very

High 8. Paving Stones

Very High

Very

High

Very

High 9. Stabilization of Municipal Sewage Residual

Low

Medium

High

10. Waste Stabilization:

a. Inorganic wastes*

b. Organic wastes*

c. Combined complex wastes

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

Medium

High

High

High

11. Ceramic Products

Low

Low

Low

1. Backfills:

a. Bridge abutment, buildings, etc.

b. Trench and excavation backfills

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High 2. Embankments

Very High

Very High

Medium

3. Site Development Fills Very High

Very High

Medium

4. Stabilization of Landslides – Grouting

Low

High Very High

5. Landfill Cover (as a substitute for soil cover)

Medium

High Very High

6. Pavement Base and Sub-base Courses:

a. Combination with lime or cement and coarse

aggregate

b. Combination with cement or lime

c. Combination with on-site soils without the

addition of lime or cement

Very High

Very High

Medium

Very High

Very High

Medium

Very High

Very High

Very High

7. Subgrade Stabilization or Soil Stabilization:

a. Roadways/Highways

b. Parking areas

c. Runways

Low

Low

Low

High

High

High

Very High

Very High

Very High

*Or a combination of inorganic and organic dredged materials from the Great Lakes and/or the Mississippi River.

LOW TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS

57

Table 21 (Continued) - Potential Uses of the MPU Ashes

Type of Application MPU #5 -

#7 Bottom

Ash

MPU #8

Bottom

Ash

MPU #8

Fly Ash

8. Land Reclamation

a. Agriculture

b. Turf-grass (for example, golf courses)

c. Park Land

Medium

Medium

Medium

High

High

High

Very High

Very High

Very High 9. Soil Amendment (agriculture and/or potting soil)*:

a. Improve infiltration characteristics

b. Decrease Subsurface porosity

c. Fertilizer/Composting

High

Very Low

Low

Medium

Medium

High

Medium

High

High 10. Slurried Flowable Fly ash

Very High

Very

High

Very

High

1. Backfills:

a. Between foundations and existing soil

b. Retaining walls

c. Utility trenches

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High

Very High 2. Excavation in Streets and around Foundation

Very High

Very High

Very High

3. Fills for Abandoned Tunnels, Sewers, and other

Underground Facilities (including mines)

Very High

Very High

Very High

4. Grouts

Low

Medium

High

5. Hydraulic Fills

Medium

Medium

Very High

* With or without other products, such as dredged materials.

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS

58

SCANNING ELECTRON MICROGRAPHS OF

MANITOWOC PUBLIC UTILITIES ASHES

59

Fig. 4: MPU #5 Bottom Ash, Fig. 5: MPU #5 Bottom Ash,

20X Magnification 100X Magnification

Fig. 6: MPU #5 Bottom Ash, Fig. 7: MPU #5 Bottom Ash,

500X Magnification 1000X Magnification

60

Fig. 8: MPU #7 Bottom Ash, Fig. 9: MPU #7 Bottom Ash,

20X Magnification 100X Magnification

Fig. 10: MPU #7 Bottom Ash, Fig. 11: MPU #7 Bottom Ash,

500X Magnification 1000X Magnification

61

Fig. 12: MPU #8 Bottom Ash, Fig. 13: MPU #8 Bottom Ash,

20X Magnification 100X Magnification

Fig. 14: MPU #8 Bottom Ash, Fig. 15: MPU #8 Bottom Ash,

500X Magnification 1000X Magnification

62

Fig. 16: MPU #8 Fly Ash, Fig. 17: MPU #8 Fly Ash,

100X Magnification 500X Magnification

Fig. 18: MPU #8 Fly Ash, Fig. 19: MPU #8 Fly Ash,

1000X Magnification 5000X Magnification

63

Section 5

References

[1] Naik, T. R., and Singh, S. S., “Fly Ash Generation and Utilization – An Overview,”

Recent Trends in Fly Ash Utilization, R.K. Suri and A.B. Harapanahalli, editors, Society of

Forest & Environmental Managers (SOFEM), New Dehli, India, 1998.

64

APPENDIX 1:

WI-DNR NR 538 Analysis

65

Wisconsin DNR Chapter NR 538 Standards

Chapter NR 538 Standards ("Beneficial Use of Industrial By-Products") of the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources (WI-DNR) were used for determining environmental compliance

and potential uses of the CLSM made with the MPU ashes. The ASTM D 3987 water leach tests

and EPA SW-846 elemental test methods were performed on the three sources of MPU ash, MPU #8

fly ash, MPU #8 bottom ash, and combined MPU #5 and #7 bottom ash.

The WI-DNR NR 538 standards specify the allowable leachate and elemental concentrations when

using industrial by-products in various applications. Based upon these leachate and elemental

concentrations, NR 538 specifies a category to the material, one through five. Category 1 material

has the least restrictions placed upon its use, while Category 5 has the most restrictions (Table 22).

The WI-DNR NR 538 standards are applicable to the MPU coal ash samples evaluated as part of this

project. The three samples of ash were analyzed per the NR 538 leachate and elemental analysis

guidelines established for "other" industrial by-products to evaluate all parameters established by NR

538. Parameters not required for coal ash materials have been noted in the results.

Leachate Characteristics of MPU Coal Ashes

The results of the leachate characterization per NR 538 for the PPM ash are presented in Table 23.

The WI-DNR requirements for the leachate concentrations for Category 1-4 are shown in Table 24.

The results of the leachate characterization, compared with the NR 538 standards, are presented in

Table 25. The MPU #5-#7 bottom ash material met the leachate requirements of NR 538 Category 1

with the exception of aluminum, antimony, arsenic, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc, which met

Category 2 & 3 requirements. The MPU #8 fly ash met the leachate requirements of Category 1 for

66

coal ash materials with the exception of antimony (Category 2 & 3) , chromium (Category 2 & 3),

molybdenum (Category 2 & 3), sulfate (Category 4), and thallium (Category 2 & 3). MPU # 8

bottom ash material met the leachate requirements of Category 1 with the exception of antimony

(Category 2 & 3), molybdenum (Category 2 & 3), sulfate (Category 4) and thallium (Category 2 &

3).

Elemental Characteristics of MPU Coal Ash

The results of the elemental characterization of the MPU ash sources are given in Table 26. The WI-

DNR requirements for the elemental concentrations are shown in Table 27. The elemental

concentrations compared with the NR 538 standards, are presented in Table 28. Elemental analysis

results for the MPU #5-#7 bottom ash indicates that the ash meets NR 538 Category 1 requirements

with the exception of arsenic, beryllium, thallium, vanadium, dibenz(ah)anthracene, and total PAHs

which meet Category 2 requirements. NR 538 does not specify a standard value for total PAHs for

Category 1 materials; therefore, the detection of any measurable PAHs automatically places the

material in Category 2. MPU #8 fly ash met Category 1 requirements with the exception of

antimony, beryllium, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, and vanadium, which met Category 2

requirements; and arsenic, which met Category 3 requirements. Levels of antimony, arsenic and

thallium may be lower than the Category 1 limits, but matrix interference prevented lower limits

from being detected. Elemental analysis results of the MPU # 8 bottom ash were similar to the MPU

# 8 fly ash. NR 538 elemental analysis categories obtained for the MPU # 8 bottom ash were the

same as the MPU # 8 fly ash with the exception of molybdenum. The elemental concentration level

of molybdenum met NR 538 Category 1 requirements for the MPU # 8 bottom ash, while the

concentration of molybdenum for MPU # 8 fly ash meets Category 2 requirements.

67

DNR NR 538 Specified Use Options

When the results of the leachate and elemental analysis are combined, the MPU #5 - #7 bottom ash

meets the requirements of NR 538 Category 2, while the MPU # 8 fly ash and MPU # 8 bottom ash

meets NR 538 Category 4 requirements. NR 538 specifies the following beneficial use applications

for a Category 4 material:

raw material for manufacturing a product

waste stabilization/solidification

supplementary fuel source/energy recovery

land fill daily cover/internal structures

confined geotechnical fill

-commercial, industrial or institutional building subbase

-paved lot base, subbase & subgrade fill

-paved roadway base, subbase & subgrade fill

- utility trench backfill

-bridge abutment backfill

-tank, vault or tunnel abandonment

-slabjacking material

encapsulated transportation facility enbankment

Beneficial use methods approved per NR 538 for materials meeting Category 2 requirements

includes all of the uses approved for a Category 4 material as well as the following, additional

applications:

capped transportation facility embankment

unconfined geotechnical fill

unbonded surface course

bonded surface course

decorative stone

cold weather road abrasive

68

Table 22 - Beneficial Use Methods for By-Products Based Upon Characterization Category, per NR 538

Industrial By-Product Category

5 4 3 2 1

(1) Raw Material for Manufacturing a Product

X X X X X

(2) Waste Stabilization / Solidification

X X X X X

(3) Supplemental Fuel Source / Energy Recovery

X X X X X

(4) Landfill Daily Cover / Internal Structures

X X X X X

(5) Confined Geotechnical Fill

(a) commercial, industrial or institutional building subbase

(b) paved lot base, subbase & subgrade fill

(c) paved roadway base, subbase & subgrade fill

(d) utility trench backfill

(e) bridge abutment backfill

(f) tank, vault or tunnel abandonment

(g) slabjacking material

X X X X

(6) Encapsulated Transportation Facility Embankment X X X X

(7) Capped Transportation Facility Embankment X X X

(8) Unconfined Geotechnical Fill X X X

(9) Unbonded Surface Course X X

(10) Bonded Surface Course X X

(11) Decorative Stone X X

(12) Cold Weather Road Abrasive X X

Other General beneficial use in accordance with sect. NR

538.12 (3)

X

69

Table 23 - Leachate Analysis Data for MPU Ashes

Parameter

NR 538 Leachate Analysis

(mg/l)

Fly Ash Type

MPU #5-#7

Bottom Ash

MPU #8

Bottom Ash

MPU #8 Fly

Ash

Aluminum (Al)

3.1

<0.20*

<0.20*

Antimony (Sb)

0.0030

0.023

0.023*

Arsenic (As)

0.010

<0.0018

<0.0018

Barium (Ba)

0.060

0.087

0.25

Beryllium (Be)

<0.000017

<0.000017

<0.000017

Cadmium (Cd)

0.000051

<0.000042

0.000042

Chloride (Cl)

<5.0

6.3

47

Chromium, Tot.

0.0011

0.0030

0.017

Copper (Cu)

0.86

<0.027*

<0.027*

Total Cyanide

<0.0077

<0.0077

<0.0077

Fluoride (F)

0.078

0.12

2.2

Iron (Fe)

0.41

<0.066*

<0.066*

Lead (Pb)

<0.0012

<0.0012

<0.0012

Manganese (Mn)

<0.0018

<0.0018

<0.0018

Mercury (Hg)

0.000051

0.000094

0.000069

Molybdenum (Mo)

<0.072*

0.30

1.5

Nickel (Ni)

0.20

<0.0072*

0.0072*

Nitrite & Nitrate

(NO2+NO3-N)

<0.024

0.032

0.10

Phenol

0.0048

0.022

0.018

Selenium (Se)

<0.0015

<0.0015

<0.0015*

Silver (Ag)

<0.0057

<0.0057

<0.0057

Sulfate

36

2,400

2,100

Thallium (Tl)

<0.0014

<0.0014

<0.0014

Zinc (Zn)

2.6

<0.015*

<0.015*

* Matrix Interference

70

Table 24 - Leachate Standards per DNR NR 538

Parameter

NR 538

Leachate Standard

Material Category

1

2 & 3

4

Aluminum (Al)

1.5

15

--

Antimony (Sb)

0.0012

0.012

0.03*

Arsenic (As)

0.005

0.05

0.25*

Barium (Ba)

0.4

4

10*

Beryllium (Be)

0.0004

0.004

0.02*

Cadmium (Cd)

0.0005

0.005

0.025

Chloride (Cl)

125

1250*

2500*

Chromium, Tot. (Cr)

0.01

0.1

0.5

Copper (Cu)

0.13

1.30*

6.5*

Total Cyanide

0.04*

0.40*

1*

Fluoride (F)

0.8*

8.0*

20*

Iron (Fe)

0.15

1.5*

3*

Lead (Pb)

0.0015

0.015

0.075*

Manganese (Mn)

0.025

0.25

0.5*

Mercury (Hg)

0.0002

0.002

0.01*

Molybdenum (Mo)

0.05

--

--

Nickel (Ni)

0.02

0.20*

0.5*

Nitrite & Nitrate

(NO2+NO3-N)

2

20*

50*

Phenol

1.2*

12*

30*

Selenium (Se)

0.01

0.1

0.25

Silver (Ag)

0.01

0.1

0.25

Sulfate

125

1250

2500

Thallium (Tl)

0.0004

0.004

0.01*

Zinc (Zn)

2.5

25*

50*

* Not Applicable to Coal Ash

71

Table 25 - NR 538 Categories for MPU Ashes per Leachate Analysis

Parameter

NR 538 - Categories - Leachate Analysis

Material Type

MPU #5-#7

Bottom Ash

MPU #8

Bottom Ash

MPU #8 Fly

Ash

Aluminum (Al)

2 & 3

1

1

Antimony (Sb)

2 & 3

2 & 3

2 & 3

Arsenic (As)

2 & 3

1

1

Barium (Ba)

1

1

1

Beryllium (Be)

1

1

1

Cadmium (Cd)

1

1

1

Chloride (Cl)

1

1

1

Chromium, Tot. (Cr)

1

1

2 & 3

Copper (Cu)

2 & 3

1

1

Total Cyanide

1*

1*

1*

Fluoride (F)

1*

1*

2 & 3*

Iron (Fe)

1

1

1

Lead (Pb)

1

1

1

Manganese (Mn)

1

1

1

Mercury (Hg)

1

1

1

Molybdenum (Mo)

1

2 & 3

2 & 3

Nickel (Ni)

2 & 3

1

1

Nitrite & Nitrate

(NO2+NO3-N)

1

1

1

Phenol

1*

1*

1*

Selenium (Se)

1

1

1

Silver (Ag)

1

1

1

Sulfate

1

4

4

Thallium (Tl)

2 & 3

2 & 3

2 & 3

Zinc (Zn)

2 & 3

1

1

* Not Applicable to Coal Ash

72

Table 26 - NR 538 Elemental Analysis for MPU Ashes

Parameter

Elemental Analysis

Fly Ash Type

MPU #5-#7

Bottom Ash MPU #8

Bottom Ash

MPU #8 Fly

Ash Units

Antimony (Sb)

<5.0

<35*

<35

mg/kg

Arsenic (As)

<4

<28*

<28

mg/kg

Beryllium (Be)

49

5.2

50

mg/kg

Boron (B)

5.3

15

80

mg/kg

Cadmium (Cd)

<1.0

<7.0*

<7.0

mg/kg

Chromium, Hex. (Cr)

<0.10

<0.10

<0.10

mg/kg

Lead (Pb)

<5.0

<35*

<35

mg/kg

Mercury (Hg)

oranthene

<0.010

0.021

0.19

mg/kg

Molybdenum (Mo)

<2.5

44

<86

mg/kg

Nickel (Ni)

8.2

520

1,100

mg/kg

Phenol

<0.50

<0.50

2.3

mg/kg

Selenium (Se)

<7.5

52

<52*

mg/kg

Silver (Ag)

<1.0

<7.0*

<7.0*

mg/kg

Stronium (Sr)

53

130

180

mg/kg

Thallium (Tl)

<50

<350*

<350

mg/kg

Vanadium (V)

5.6

1,700

3,400

mg/kg

Zinc (Zn)

1.5

<7.0

80

mg/kg

*Matrix interferences present for this sample

73

Table 26 - NR 538 Elemental Analysis for MPU Ashes (Continued)

Parameter

Elemental Analysis

Fly Ash Type

MPU #5-

#7 Bottom

Ash

MPU #8

Bottom Ash

MPU #8

Fly Ash Units

Acenaphthene <75 <120 <120 μg/kg

Acenaphthylene <130 <210 <210 μg/kg

Anthracene 9.2 <12 <12 μg/kg

Benzo(a)anthracene 60 <12 <12 μg/kg

Benzo(a)pyrene <7.5 <12 <12 μg/kg

Benzo(b)fluoranthene <7.5 <12 <12 μg/kg

Benzo(ghi)perylene <7.5 <12 <12 μg/kg

Benzo(k)fluoranthene <7.5 <12 <12 μg/kg

Chrysene <7.5 <12 <12 μg/kg

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene <11 <19 <19 μg/kg

Fluoranthene 140 <25 <25 μg/kg

Fluorene <15 <25 <25 μg/kg

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene <7.5 <12 <12 μg/kg

1-methyl naphthalene 160 <75 <75 μg/kg

2-methyl naphthalene 450 <62 <62 μg/kg

Naphthalene 180 <75 <75 μg/kg

Phenanthrene 90 <12 <12 μg/kg

Pyrene 90 <12 <12 μg/kg

Total PAHs - - - μg/kg

*Matrix interferences present for this sample

74

Table 27 - Elemental Standards per DNR NR 538

Parameter

NR 538 Standard

Elemental Analysis

(mg/kg)

Material Category

1

2

Aluminum (Al)

Antimony (Sb) 6.3

Arsenic (As)

0.042

21

Barium (Ba)

1100

Beryllium (Be)

0.014

7

Boron (B)

1400

Cadmium (Cd)

7.8

Chromium, Hex. (Cr)

14.5

Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

50

Mercury (Hg)

4.7

Molybdenum (Mo)

78

Nickel (Ni)

310

Phenol

9400*

Selenium (Se)

78*

Silver (Ag)

9400*

Strontium (Sr)

9400*

Thallium (Tl)

1.3

Vanadium (V)

110

Zinc (Zn)

4700

75

Table 27 - Elemental Standards per DNR NR 538 (Continued)

Parameter

NR 538 Standard

Elemental Analysis

(mg/kg)

Material Category

1

2

Acenaphthene

900

Acenaphthylene

8.8

Anthracene

5000

Benz(a)anthracene

0.088

44

Benzo(a)pyrene

0.0088

4.4

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0.088

44

Benzo(ghi)perylene

0.88

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

0.88

Chrysene

8.8

Dibenz(ah)anthracene

0.0088

4.4

Fluoranthene

600

Fluorene

600

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene

0.088

44

1-methyl naphthalene

8.8

2-methyl naphthalene

8.8

Naphthalene

600

Phenanthrene

0.88

Pyrene

500

Total PAHs

100

76

Table 28 - NR 538 Categories for MPU Ashes per Elemental Analysis

Parameter

NR 538-Categories-

Elemental Analysis

Ash Type

MPU #5-#7

Bottom Ash

MPU #8

Bottom

Ash

MPU #8

Fly Ash

Antimony (Sb)

1

2+

2+

Arsenic (As)

2

3+

3+

Barium (Ba)

1

1

1

Beryllium (Be)

2

2

2

Boron (B)

1

1

1

Cadmium (Cd)

1

1

1

Chromium, Hex. (Cr)

1

1

1

Lead (Pb)

Oranthene

1

1

1

Mercury (Hg)

1

1

1

Molybdenum (Mo)

1

1

2+

Nickel (Ni)

1

2+

2+

Phenol

1

1

1

Selenium (Se)

1

1

1

Silver (Ag)

1

1

1

Strontium (Sr)

1

1

1

Thallium (Tl)

2+

2+

2+

Vanadium (V)

2+

2+

2+

Zinc (Zn)

1

1

1

77

Table 28 - NR 538 Categories for MPU Ashes per Elemental Analysis (Continued)

Parameter

NR 538-Categories-

Elemental Analysis

Fly Ash Type

#5-#7 MPU

Bottom Ash

#8 MPU

Bottom

Ash

#8 MPU

Fly Ash

Acenaphthene 1 1 1

Acenaphthylene 1 1 1

Anthracene 1 1 1

Benz(a)anthracene 1 1 1

Benzo(a)pyrene 1 2 2

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 1 1

Benzo(ghi)perylene 1 1 1

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 1 1

Chrysene 1 1 1

Dibenz(ah)anthracene 2 2 2

Fluoranthene 1 1 1

Fluorene 1 1 1

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 1 1 1

1-methyl naphthalene 1 1 1

2-methyl naphthalene 1 1 1

Naphthalene 1 1 1

Phenanthrene 1 1 1

Pyrene 1 1 1

Total PAHs 2 2 2

78

APPENDIX 2: Modified ASTM C 422 for Particle Size Distribution

Tests conducted at the UWM Center for By-Products Utilization (UWM-CBU) had revealed that the standard

ASTM C 422 test method is inadequate to measure particle size distribution of fly ashes, and similar fine

grained materials, especially below 10-micron size particles. This is partially due to agglomeration caused by

very fine particles of fly ash and also potentially due to chemical reaction caused by the cementitious nature of

the fly ash. A significant gel formation occurs during the sedimentation testing of the fly ash. Therefore, in

order to obtain more accurate test results, a modified ASTM C 422 test method was developed by the UWM-

CBU for measuring particle size distribution of fly ash samples by the sedimentation technique. This UWM-

CBU method differs from the standard ASTM C 422 in respect to sample preparation, sedimentation liquid,

size of the sedimentation cylinder, and the hydrometer used. In the UWM-CBU modified ASTM C 422

procedure, the fly ash sample is not subjected to pretreatment prior to the sedimentation test. The particle

concentration in the polymeric suspending liquid used was maintained at about three percent. This new

suspending liquid had a specific gravity of about 0.8. This also necessitated the use of a different hydrometer,

which can measure the density of the liquid containing suspended particles having specific gravity in the

range of approximately 0.8 to 0.9. The size of the sedimentation cylinder was changed to 500 ml instead of

1000 ml used in the standard ASTM C 422 procedure. This was done to more effectively use the

sedimentation liquid. In order to measure the particle size distribution, the fly ash test sample and the liquid

were added in the sedimentation cylinder and were mixed by inverting the cylinder, with open end closed by

hand, 60 times in one minute. Then the sedimentation readings were taken and calculations made in

accordance with the ASTM Test C 422 for determination of particle size distribution. Typical results are

shown in Fig. 3.