Marketing Survey of Beneficial Use of Waste-to-Energy Bottom Ash for Civil Engineering Applications

Ronglong Shen

Advisor: Prof. A.C. (Thanos) Bourtsalas

Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering Fu Foundation School of Engineering & Applied Science

Columbia University

May 10, 2017

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. in Earth Resources Engineering

Research co-sponsored by

2

Marketing Survey of Beneficial Use of Waste-to-Energy Bottom Ash for Civil Engineering Applications

By Ronglong Shen

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Waste to energy (WTE) facilities combustmunicipal solidwaste (MSW) to

disposeofit,produceenergyandmaterialsandreduceGHGemissions.Combustion

ofMSWresults in twoby-products,waste toenergybottomash (WTEBA)and fly

ash (WTEFA).WTEBA is typically processed for the recovery of ferrous and non-

ferrous metals and the remaining ash is sometimes separated into different

fractions and, in some cases, it is used as a replacement for natural derived

aggregatesincivilengineeringapplications.

In 2016, there were 77 WTE facilities in the US located at 22 states and

combusting about 30 million tons of MSW. Assuming that about 20 to 25% by

weightoftheinitialMSWfeedstockisWTEBAand1to5%byweightisWTEFA,it

wascalculatedthatFloridaproducedabout1.2-1.45million-[metric?]tonsWTEBA

in 2011. Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and

VirginiaalsohadhighWTEBAavailability,withmorethan400thousandmetrictons

[thisseemslow]generatedin2011.Theother15statesallgeneratedlessthan230

thousandmetrictonseach,thesameyear.

Mostnaturalaggregatesarederivedfromcrushedstoneandsandandgravel,

naturally occurring from mineral deposits. The demand for aggregate is much

higherthanthesupplyofWTEBAineachstate.Theamountofcrushedstonesoldor

used in amajority of the 22 states increased from 2011 to 2014. The amount of

constructionsandandgravelsoldoruseddidnotchangebetween2011and2013.

Compared with crushed stone, sand and gravel in most of the 22 states was

relatively cheaper. So taking the availability of WTEBA into account, the use of

WTEBA as a substitute for crushed stone in Virginia, Connecticut,Massachusetts,

Florida,PennsylvaniaandNewYorkholdspromise.

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has standard

specificationforaggregatesbutitonlydemonstratestherequirementsforgrading,

3

deleterious substances and soundness of produced constructionmaterials.On the

contrary,EuropeanandBritishStandardsaremoredetailedinthespecificationsof

themechanicalandphysicalpropertiesofaggregatesforconcrete.

Since the demand for crushed stone and construction sand and gravel is

much higher than the amount of WTEBA generated, as long as the WTEBA of a

facility is proven to be up-to-standard by sampling and testing, WTEBA can be

recycledintheformofvariousconstructionmaterialswithindifferentareasofthe

US.RecyclingofWTEBAwillavoidlandfillandalsotheWTEBAcouldhavevalueif

used for civil construction applications. Also, the recycling of WTEBA instead of

landfillingwillresultinseveralenvironmentalbenefits

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisor Professor

Athanasios Bourtsalas for his utmost guidance and support throughoutmy life in

ColumbiaUniversity.ThedoortoProf.Bourtsalasofficewasalwaysopenwhenever

Iran intotroubleorhadaquestionaboutmyresearchorwriting.Heconsistently

allowed this paper to be my own work, but steered me in the right direction

wheneverhethoughtIneededit.

During the study of the thesis, I was enlightened by Professor Nickolas J.

Themelis, whose invaluable expertise in the field of waste-to-energy is an

inexhaustible source of power for my study. I would also like to thank Liliana

Themelisforherwarmth,kindness,andsupportthroughoutthisstudy.

I would also like to acknowledge Covanta Energy and Wheelabrator

TechnologiesforsponsoringthisresearchstudyandprovidingWTEBAsamplesfor

analysisandtesting.

Last,butcertainlynotleast,Iwouldliketoexpressmyprofoundgratitudeto

myparentsandtherestofmyfamily forprovidingmewithunfailingsupportand

continuousencouragementthroughoutmyyearsofstudy.Iwouldalsoliketothank

myboyfriendandmy friends.Thisaccomplishmentwouldnothavebeenpossible

withoutthem.

RonglongShen,NewYorkCity,May9,2017

5

TableofContents

1.Introduction..........................................................................................................................................6

2.WTEBAAvailability.............................................................................................................................6

3.NaturalAggregatesConsumptionandPricingInformation........................................................93.1CrushedStone.................................................................................................................................................93.1.1Consumption................................................................................................................................................93.1.2PricingInformation...............................................................................................................................103.1.3UseAnalysis...............................................................................................................................................11

3.2ConstructionSandandGravel..............................................................................................................123.2.1Consumption.............................................................................................................................................123.2.2PricingInformation...............................................................................................................................13

4.StandardSpecificationsforFineandCoarseAggregates........................................................144.1Grading...........................................................................................................................................................154.2DeleteriousSubstances..........................................................................................................................164.3Others..............................................................................................................................................................17

5.Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................18

Reference...............................................................................................................................................19

ListofFigures

Figure1WTEBAAvailabilityinStateswithWTEfacilityin2011.................................................8

Figure2CrushedStoneSoldorUsedinStateswithWTEfacilityin2011and2014............11

Figure3DifferentUsagesofCrushedStoneinUSin2011and2014........................................12

Figure4ConstructionSandandGravelSoldorUsedinStateswithWTEfacilityin2011and2013.........................................................................................................................................................13

ListofTables

Table1MSWGenerationandManagementin2011......................................................................7

Table2CharacteristicsandTestsofAggregate..............................................................................14

Table3GradingRequirementsforFineAggregate........................................................................15

Table4TypicalUsesforAggregateConformingtotheRequirementsfortheVariousClasses...................................................................................................................................................................15

Table5LimitsforDeleteriousSubstancesandPhysicalPropertyRequirementsofCoarseAggregateforConcrete.......................................................................................................................16

Table6DeleteriousSubstancesLimitsofFineAggregate...........................................................17

6

1.IntroductionWith the irreversible trend of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation

growth, the appropriatemanagementofMSWhasbecomeamajor environmental

issue.WTEfacilitiesdisposeMSWbycombustinginspeciallydesignedpowerplants

equippedwith state-of-the-art air emission control equipment to produce energy

andmaterials.CombustionofMSWresultsintwobyproducts,theWTEbottomash

(WTEBA) and fly ash (WTEFA).WTEBA is typically processed for the recovery of

ferrousandnon-ferrousmetalsandtheremainderfractionafterbeingseparatedin

differentfractionsisbeingused,insomecases,asareplacementofnaturalderived

aggregatesincivilengineeringapplications.TheamountofWTEBAthatistypically

producedamountsto20to25%byweightoftheMSWfeedstock[1]. Sincealarge

quantity of WTE bottom ash is generated every year, the potential for WTEBA

utilizationcouldbelargebotheconomicallyandenvironmentally.

Theaimofthispaperistoconductamarketingsurveyofbeneficialusesof

WTEBAforcivilengineeringapplications.Inordertodoso,thefollowingobjectives

wereevaluated:

l WTEbottomashavailability

l Natural aggregate consumption and pricing information within

geographicalareaswithhighconcentrationsofWTEfacilities

l Standardspecificationsforfineandcoarseaggregates

Accordingtotheaboveanalysis,itispossibletoknowthepotentialapplicability

and the advantages/disadvantages of ash incorporation into civil engineering

products,andalsotoestimatepotentialashusevolumes.

2.WTEBAAvailabilityIn2016,therewere77WTEfacilitiesintheUScombustingabout30million

tonsofMSW.Thesewerelocatedat22states,amongwhichwereFlorida(11),New

York (10), Minnesota (8), Massachusetts (7), Pennsylvania (6), and Connecticut

(5)(rankedinorderofavailabilityof facilities). InFlorida 21.4%ofthetotalMSW

produced(about5.8milliontons)wascombustedfortheproductionofenergyand

materialsin2011.Connecticutprocessed67.1%oftheproducedMSWbyWTE(2.2

7

milliontons).Table1showstheamountofMSWthatwasmanagedineachstateand

theamountofMSWthatwascombustedinWTEplants.

Table1MSWGenerationandManagementin2011[2]

StateNumberofplantsinstate

MSWManagedinstate(Metric

tons)

%ofMSWManagedby

WTE

MSWManagedbyWTEinstate(Metrictons)

Alabama 1 5,395,280 3.3 178,044.2California 3 66,299,346 1.3 861,891.5Connecticut 6 3,208,768 67.1 2,153,083.3Florida 11 27,040,919 21.4 5,786,756.7Hawaii 1 3,884,163 14.1 547,667.0Indiana 1 6,440,739 10.9 702,040.6Iowa 1 3,930,863 1.0 39,308.6Maine 3 1,412,071 33.5 473,043.8Maryland 3 2,352,939 22.6 531,764.2Massachusetts 7 7,520,771 42.2 3,173,765.4Michigan 3 13,780,212 7.2 992,175.3Minnesota 9 5,710,304 20.1 1,147,771.1NewHampshire 2 1,144,568 22.0 251,805.0

NewJersey 5 10,861,083 19.6 2,128,772.3NewYork 10 17,349,855 21.2 3,678,169.3NorthCarolina 1(inactive) 9,137,435 0.0 0.0Oklahoma 1 4,778,966 4.3 205,495.5Oregon 1 3,945,093 4.6 181,474.3Pennsylvania 6 14,135,701 21.8 3,081,582.8Utah 1 2,535,552 5.0 126,777.6Virginia 5 15,359,820 13.3 2,042,856.1Washington 1 8,801,350 3.1 272841.9Wisconsin 2 5,650,450 1.3 73,455.9TOTAL 83 240676248 360.9 28,630,542.1

Themainby-product fromMSWcombustion isWTEash (WTEA),which is

composedofWTEBottomAsh(WTEBA)andFlyAsh(WTEFA).WTEBAaccountsfor

80%to90%ofthetotalWTEA.However,thequantitiesofashproducedaredirectly

related to the combustion technology. WTEBA is normally considered as 20% to

25%byweightof thetotalMSWcombustedandWTEFAabout1to5%byweight

[1].Figure1presentstheWTEBAavailability(tons/year)in22USstateswithhigh

8

concentration of WTE facilities in 2011. Florida had 1.2-1.5 million tonsWTEBA

availablein2011.Connecticut,Massachusetts,NewJersey,NewYork,Pennsylvania

andVirginiaalsohadhighWTEBAavailability,morethan400thousandmetrictons

in2011.Theother15stateseachgeneratedlessthan230thousandmetrictons.

Figure1WTEBAAvailabilityinStateswithWTEfacilityin2011

To landfill WTEA, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP),

Method 1311 is conducted to simulate leaching from waste material placed in a

landfill into ground water, with the assumption of acidic leaching conditions.

Leaching is themobilization, extraction orwashing of soluble constituents froma

solid phase by a contacting solvent which is influenced by the solid’s chemical

composition,thefractionofspeciesavailableforleaching,theparticlemorphology,

the properties of the solvent, especially the pH or the presence of complex

constituents,andtheliquid-solid(LS)ratio intheleachingsystem.Therearemore

than 50 identified leaching tests worldwide. The Leaching Environmental

Assessment Framework (LEAF) is a collection of leaching tests, datamanagement

tools, and leaching assessment approaches developed to identify detailed

1

3

6

11

1 1 1

3 3

7

3

9

2

5

10

01 1

6

1

5

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Num

berofplantsinstate

IBAavailability(thousandmetrictons)

State 20wt.%ofMSWfeedstock 25wt.%ofMSWfeedstock Numberofplantsinstate

9

characteristic leaching behaviors of a wide range of solid materials (e.g., wastes,

soils,constructionproducts,etc.)[3].

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Resource

ConservationandRecoveryhasinitiatedthereviewandvalidationprocessforfour

leachingtestsunderconsiderationforinclusionintoSW-846:Method1313"Liquid-

Solid Partitioning as a Function of Extract pH for Constituents in Solid Materials

usingaParallelBatchExtractionProcedure"Method1314"Liquid-SolidPartitioning

asaFunctionofLiquid-SolidRatioforConstituentsinSolidMaterialsusinganUp-

flow Percolation Column Procedure" Method 1315 "Mass Transfer Rates of

Constituents inMonolithicorCompactedGranularMaterialsusingaSemi-dynamic

TankLeachingProcedure"Method1316"Liquid-SolidPartitioningasaFunctionof

Liquid-Solid Ratio for Constituents in Solid Materials using a Parallel Batch

ExtractionProcedure"Theseprotocolsarederivedfrompublishedleachingmethods

containedintheLEAF[4].Thesefourtestsareenvironmentalleachingassessment

for the evaluation of disposal, beneficial use, treatment effectiveness and site

remediationoptions.

3.NaturalAggregatesConsumptionandPricingInformationMostnaturalaggregatesarederivedfromcrushedstoneandsandandgravel,

presentinnaturalmineraldeposits[5].

3.1CrushedStone

3.1.1Consumption

Asshowninfigure2,allofthe22statesmentionedbeforehadcrushedstone

sold or used more than 3 million metric tons in both 2011 and 2014, which

obviously exceeds the amount of available WTEBA within each state in 2011. It

meansthedemandofaggregateismuchhigherthanthesupplyofWTEBAineach

state. Furthermore, Florida, as the statewith thehighestWTEBAavailability, also

hadthesecondhighestconsumptionof57.2milliontonsin2014.Amongthestates

withhighWTEBAavailability,Pennsylvania,VirginiaandNewYorkrespectivelyhad

thefirst,fourthandsixthhighestdemandforcrushedstone.Indiana,Oklahomaand

Alabamaalsohadahighconsumptionofcrushedstonein2014.So,theyallhavea

10

promisingmarketforWTEBArecycledasareplacementofcrushedstone,especially

thosehadbothhighsupplyanddemand,namelyFlorida,andPennsylvania.

As for the changes in demand from 2011 to 2014, there were 5 states

decreasing (Maine, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin) and 1

unchanged(Iowa).Thechangeswerewithin4,200thousandmetrictonsexceptfor

Florida and Pennsylvania respectively increased 16,500 and decreased 6,800

thousand metric tons, which are relatively big changes. The amount of crushed

stonesoldorusedinamajorityofstatesincreasedfrom2011to2014.

3.1.2PricingInformation

Theunitvaluerangesbetween$6and$19in22statesin2014.Theaverage

priceis$9.65in2011and$10.15in2014[6].Andthedifferencebetween2011and

2014 is not obvious in most of the states. It was most expensive at Hawaii

($19.12/18.9), Virginia ($14.6/15.3), Connecticut ($13.9/15.6), Massachusetts

($11.9/13.8), Florida ($12.7/11.9), Washington ($10.3/13.4), Minnesota

($12.1/11.6),Pennsylvania($10.8/11.6)andNewYork($11.1/11.1).Sotakingthe

availabilityofWTEBA intoaccount, theuseofWTEBAas a substitute for crushed

stone is most promising in Virginia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Florida,

Pennsylvania and New York. In conclusion, thoroughly considering supply and

demand,Florida,Pennsylvania,VirginiaandNewYorkshouldbefirstfocusedonto

developthemarket.

11

Figure2CrushedStoneSoldorUsedinStateswithWTEfacilityin2011and2014

3.1.3Civilengineeringapplications

Crushedstoneisatraditionalbasicconstructionmaterialusedasbothcoarse

aggregate and fine aggregate. As coarse aggregate (+1½ inch), it can be used as

macadam,riprapandjettystoneandifgraded,thenconcreteaggregate,bituminous

aggregateandrailroadballast.Intermsoffineaggregate(-⅜inch),itcanbeusedas

stonesandandbituminousmixorseal.Also,itcanbeusedforgradedroadbaseor

subbase,unpavedroadsurfacing,terrazzoandexposedaggregateorfillorwasteas

coarseandfineaggregates.Figure3showsdifferentusageofcrushedstone inthe

US in2011and2014.Constructionusesaccount for37.4%and35.3%of thetotal

usesin2011and2014respectively,whichequaled433,740and441,422thousand

metrictonsineachyear[6].Unspecifiedusesareaccountedfor52.2%ofthetotalin

2011and53.4%ofthetotalin2014.TheWTEplantsin22statesgenerated5,726to

7,157thousandtonsWTEBAin2011.It’sofgreatpossibilitythatalloftheseWTEBA

couldbe able to use as various constructionmaterialswithindifferent area ofUS

accordingtotheirquantityandquality.

$0.00

$4.00

$8.00

$12.00

$16.00

$20.00

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000

Unitvalue(dollar/ton)

Quantity(thousandmetrictons)

State Quantityin2011 Quantityin2014 Unitvaluein2011 Unitvaluein2014

12

Figure3DifferentUsagesofCrushedStoneinUSin2011and2014

3.2ConstructionSandandGravel

3.2.1Consumption

Constructionsandandgravelisoneoftheearliestmaterialsusedbyhumans

for dwellings and later for outdoor areas such as paths, roadways, and other

construction.Sandandgravelisveryaccessibleandiswidelyusedthroughoutthe

UnitedStates and theworld.However, it became less availableowing to resource

constraintoreconomicconditionsinsomelocales.AsshowninFigure4,exceptfor

Hawaiiallofthestateshadmorethan4millionmetrictonsofconstructionsandand

gravelsoldorusedin2011and2013.14outofthe22statesconsumedmorethan

10millionmetrictonsinboth2011and2013and7statesconsumedmorethan20

million metric tons. These quantities exceed the supply of WTEBA in each state,

includingHawaii,whichonlyconsumedaquantityof962thousandmetric tons in

2011and679thousandmetrictonsin2013.

32,519

160,90054,980

189,883

10,382 8,380106,455

5,948 6,300

667,000

0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000

Quantity(thousandmetrictons)

Use

2011Usage 2014Usage

Construction:433,740in2011441,422in2014

13

Asforthechangesinconsumptionfrom2011to2013,11statesreporteda

decreaseand1wasunchanged(NewJersey).Theamountofconstructionsandand

gravelsoldoruseddidnotsignificantlychangebetween2011and2013.

3.2.2PricingInformation

Comparedwithcrushedstone,sandandgravelinmostofthe22stateswas

lessexpensive.Theunitvaluesrangedbetween$4.9and$15.7in2011andbetween

$4.6and$18.9in2013.Theaveragepricewas8.24in2011and7.62in2013.Itwas

most expensive in Hawaii ($7.5/18.8), Maryland ($11.9/11.6), Virginia

($11.6/11.2), California ($11.0/10.1), Connecticut ($9.8/9.5), Massachusetts

($10.1/9.2), Pennsylvania ($9.0/9.0), and New York ($8.5/8.8). Therefore, these

stateshaveamorepromisingmarketforWTEBArecyclingasareplacementofsand

and gravel, especially for those had a high availability of WTEBA including

Connecticut,Massachusetts,NewYork,PennsylvaniaandVirginia.

Figure4ConstructionSandandGravelSoldorUsedinStateswithWTEfacilityin2011and

2013

4.StandardSpecificationsforFineandCoarseAggregatesFineaggregatesgenerallyconsistofnaturalsandorcrushedstonewithmost

particles smaller than 5 mm (0.2 in.). Coarse aggregates consist of one or a

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000

Unitvalue(dollar/ton)

Quantity(thousandmetrictons)

StateQuantityin2011 Quantityin2013 Unitvaluein2011 Unitvaluein2013

14

combinationofgravelsorcrushedstonewithparticlespredominantlylargerthan5

mm(0.2in.)andgenerallybetween9.5mmand37.5mm(3⁄8in.and11⁄2in.)[6].

The important characteristics of aggregates for concrete are listed inTable 2 and

mostarediscussedinthefollowingsections.

Table2CharacteristicsandTestsofAggregate[8]

*The majority of the tests and characteristics listed are referenced in ASTM

(American Society for Testing and Materials) C 33 or AASHTO (American

AssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials)M6/M80

4.1Grading

15

Theaggregatesareusuallywashedandgradedatthepitorplant.Theaimof

grading is to distribute particle-size by using wire-mesh sieves with square

openings. The grading andgrading limits areusually expressed as thepercentage

(bymass)ofmaterialpassingeachsieve[8].Table2showstheselimitsforcoarse

aggregate.Fineaggregate,whentestedbymeansoflaboratorysieves,shallconform

totherequirementsofTable3.

Table2GradingRequirementsforCoarseAggregates[9,10]

Table3GradingRequirementsforFineAggregate[9,11]

SieveMass,

%Passing

9.5mm(3/8in.) 100

4.75mm(No.4) 95to100

2.36mm(No.16) 80to100

1.18mm(No.16) 50to85

600μm(No.30) 25to60

16

300μm(No.50) 10to30

150μm(No.100) 2to10

4.2DeleteriousSubstances

Aggregatesmustconformtocertainstandardsforoptimumengineeringuse.

CoarseaggregatesshallconformtothelimitsgiveninTable5fortheclassspecified,

whenTable4clarifiesthetypicalusesforaggregateconformingtotherequirements

forthevariousclasses.Theamountofdeleterioussubstanceswithinfineaggregates

shallnotexceedthefollowinglimitsinTable6.

Table4TypicalUsesforAggregateConformingtotheRequirementsfortheVariousClasses

[9,12]

TypicalUses(Suggested) WeatheringExposure ClassofAggregate

Architecturalconcrete,bridgedecks,otheruses

wheresurfacedisfigurementduetopopouts,etc.,

isobjectionable

Severe A

Moderate B

Negligible C

Concretepavements,basecourses,sidewalks

whereamoderatenumberofpopoutscanbe

tolerated

Severe B

Moderate C

Negligible D

Concealedconcretenotexposedtotheweather:

footings,structuralmemberstobecoveredbya

facingmaterial,interiorfloors,etc.

___ E

Table5LimitsforDeleteriousSubstancesandPhysicalPropertyRequirementsofCoarse

AggregateforConcrete[9,12]

Class

Designation

MaximumAllowable%

Clay

Lumps

and

Friable

Particle

Chert

(Less

Than2.40

spgrSSD)

SumofClay

Lumps,Friable

Particles,and

Chert(Less

than2.40spgr

SSD)

Material

Finer

Than75-

μm

(No.200)

Sieve

Coal

and

Lignite

Abrasion

Sodium

Sulfate

Soundness

(5Cycles)

A 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 0.5 50 12

17

B 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 50 12

C 5.0 5.0 7.0 1.0 0.5 50 12

D 5.0 8.0 10.0 1.0 0.5 50 12

E 10.0 — — 1.0 1.0 50 —

Table6DeleteriousSubstancesLimitsofFineAggregate[9,11]

ClassA,

MaxMass,%

ClassB,

MaxMass,%

Claylumpsandfriableparticles 3.0 3.0

Coalandlignite 0.25 1.0

Materialfinerthan75-μm(No.200)sieve:

a.Inconcretesubjecttosurfaceabrasionnotmore

than

2.0 4.0

b.Allotherclassesofconcrete,notmorethan 3.0 5.0

Otherdeleterioussubstances(suchasshale,alkali,

mica,coatedgrains,andsoftandflakyparticles)Note6 Note6

Both fine and coarse aggregate for use in concrete that will be subject to

wetting, extended exposure to humid atmosphere, or contact with moist ground

shallnotcontainanymaterialsthataredeleteriouslyreactivewiththealkalisinthe

cementinanamountsufficienttocauseexcessiveexpansionofmortarorconcrete,

except that if suchmaterials are present in injurious amounts, use of the fine or

coarse aggregate is not prohibitedwhenusedwith a cement containing less than

0.60%alkaliscalculatedassodiumoxideequivalent(Na2O+0.658K2O),ifthereisa

satisfactory service record evaluation, orwith the addition of amaterial that has

beenshowntopreventharmfulexpansionduetothealkali-aggregatereaction.

4.3Others

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has standard

specificationsforaggregatesbutitonlydemonstratestherequirementsforgrading,

deleterious substances and soundness. It does not have any limitation onparticle

shapeorsurfacetexture.However,ASTMC1252describesanindirecttestmethod

18

forparticleshapeof fineaggregate,andASTMD4791forcoarseaggregate.These

methods primarily are utilized in asphaltic concrete specifications, and no

limitations are under consideration for fine or coarse aggregate particle shape

within the ASTM C 33 specification, which is about standard specification for

concreteaggregates.

Formost aggregates used in concrete, the physical properties include bulk

density, relative density (specific gravity) absorption and grading. ASTM C 33 is

silent with regard to requirements for these properties. However, ASTM C 29

provides methods to determine bulk density and void content. Standard test

methods for relative density (specific gravity) and absorption are introduced in

ASTMC127forfineaggregateand128forcoarseaggregate.

Compared to American standards, European and British Standards have

moredetaileddescriptionsofthemechanicalandphysicalpropertiesforaggregates.

5.ConclusionsWTEBA isagranularmaterial containing lithophilicelements, intermingled

with ferrous and non-ferrous metals and other incombustibles. After being

processedfortherecoveryofferrousandnon-ferrousmetals,WTEBAcanconform

totherequirementsstatedabovebybeingseparatedindifferentfractionssothatit

canbeusedas a replacement fornaturalderivedaggregates and furtherused for

civilengineeringapplications.

Also,thedemandforcrushedstoneandconstructionsandandgravelismuch

morethantheamountofWTEBAgeneration in2011.Soas longas theWTEBAin

eachWTE facility is proven to be up-to-standard by sampling (AASHTOT 2) and

testing,whichincludesSieveAnalysisandFinenessModulus(T27),ClayLumpsand

FriableParticles(T112),LightweightPiecesinAggregate(T113),etc.WTEBAcan

berecycledintheformofvariousconstructionmaterialswithindifferentareaofthe

US.

RecyclingofWTEBAwillavoidlandfillandalsotheWTEBAcouldhavevalue

ifused for civil constructionapplications.Also, the recyclingofWTEBA insteadof

landfillingwillresultinseveralenvironmentalbenefits.However,thebeneficialuse

19

ofWTEBAdependson thematerial’sproperties,which in turndependdirectlyon

thecompositionoffeedwasteand,toalesserextent,onthetypeofcombustorand

combustionconditions[13].

References1. Bourtsalas A.C., PhD Thesis, Imperial College London, “Processing The

Problematic FineFraction of Incinerator BottomAsh into a RawMaterial forManufacturingCeramics”,2015,https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/bitstream/10044/1/29480/3/Bourtsalas-A-2016-PhD-Thesis.pdf

2. TedMichaels, “The 2014 ERCDirectory OfWaste-To-Energy Facilities”, 2016,http://energyrecoverycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ERC_2014_Directory.pdf

3. LeachingAssessmentResearchGroupatVanderbiltUniversity,“ACollectionofLeaching Tests, Data Management Tools, And Assessment Approaches”,http://www.vanderbilt.edu/leaching/leaf/

4. GarrabrantsA.C.,D.S.Kosson,H.A.vanderSloot,F.SanchezandO.Hjelmar,“Background information for the Leaching environmental AssessmentFramework(LEAF)testmethods”,2011,https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryID=231332

5. DavidR.WilburnandThomasG.Goonan,“AggregatesfromNaturalandRecycledSources”,1998,http://cimentquebec.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Recycled-Aggregates-Study.pdf

6. U.S.GeologicalSurvey,“USGSMineralsYearbook2014,volumeI”,2016,https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/stone_crushed/

7. U.S.GeologicalSurvey,“USGSMineralsYearbook2013,volumeI”,2016,https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/sand_&_gravel_construction/index.html-mcs

8. M. L.Wilson and S. H. Kosmatka, “Design and Control of ConcreteMixtures”,2002,http://www.ce.memphis.edu/1101/notes/concrete/PCA_manual/Chap05.pdf

20

9. ASTMCommittee C09 on Concrete and ConcreteAggregates and is the directresponsibility of Subcommittee C09.20 on Normal Weight Aggregates,“C33/C33M−16StandardSpecificationforConcreteAggregates”,2016

10. AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials,“AASHTOM 43-05 (2013) Standard Specification for Sizes of Aggregate for Road andBridgeConstruction”,2005

11. AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials,“AASHTOM 6-13 Standard Specification for Fine Aggregate for Hydraulic CementConcrete”,2013

12. AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials,“AASHTOM 80-13 Standard Specification for Coarse Aggregate for Hydraulic CementConcrete”,2013

13. ThemelisN.J.,DiazBarrigaM.E.,EstevezP.,VelascoM.G.,“GuidebookfortheApplicationofWastetoEnergytechnologiesinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean”,2013,http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/pressreleases/Guidebook_WTE_v5_July25_2013.pdf