FINAL REPORT FOR
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROJECT-
BENEFICIAL USE OF RED AND BROWN MUD
AND PHOSPHOGYPSUM AS ALTERNATIVE
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
REGIONAL APPLIED RESEARCH EFFORT (RARE)
PROJECT
Prepared By:
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
200 Technology Way
P.O. Box 4078
Butte, Montana 59702
Prepared For:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Engineering
and Technology Demonstration
Washington, D.C. 20460
Order #: EP08C000170
August 2008
-------
REVIEWS AND APPROVALS:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Technical Lead
Project Manager
Approved by:
Program Manager
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), with implementation provided by MSE Technology Applications, Inc. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by either of
these agencies.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air,
and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate
and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and
technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and
prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threatens
human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and
their cost effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments, and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. The NRMRL collaborates with both public and private-sector partners to foster technologies
that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ORGANIZATION 1
1.1 General Overview 1
1.2 Background 1
1.3 Previous Studies 1
1.4 Statement of Project Objectives 1
2. MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS/INITIAL CHARACTERIZATION 2
3. RESULTS OF ADDITIONAL TESTING 4
3.1 Plasticity Index Screening Results 5
3.2 Statistical Analysis of the PI Data Set 7
3.3 Selection of Mixtures for Further Testing 11
3.4 Results of Further Testing 12
3.4.1 "Soil" Classification 12
3.4.2 Standard Proctor 13
3.4.3 Saturated Paste pH 13
3.4.4 Consolidation/Swell 13
3.4.5 Triaxial Shear Strength/Permeability 14
3.4.6 Hydraulic Conductivity 14
3.4.8 Direct ShearS 15
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES 15
4.1 Deviations from the QAPP 16
5. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 16
6. REFERENCES 18
in
-------
FIGURES
Page
2-1. (a) aged red mud (top left), (b) fresh red mud (top right), (c) aged phosphogypsum (bottom
left), (d) fresh phosphogypsum (bottom right) 3
3-1. Normal plot of residuals 8
3-2. Externally studentized residuals 9
3-3. Interaction between weight ratio and the age of the red mud 11
TABLES
2-1. Summary of data collected on as received materials 3
3-1. Variable factors, levels, and level descriptions for experimental design 4
3-2. PI and moisture content results from general factorial experiments 6
3-3. Effects list output from Stat-ease 7
3 -4. ANOVA (classical sum of squares—Type III) for selected factorial model 7
3-5. Solutions for 32 combinations of categoric factor levelsfor PI range 10 to 20 9
3-6. Results of UCS/Shrinkage drying tests for 1PGA: 1RMF and aged red mud 12
3-7. Soil classification of selected mixtures 13
3-8. Standard Proctor test results of selected mixtures 13
3-9. Saturated paste pH results for selected materials 13
3-10. Unconsolidated-Undrained "Q-Test" Triaxial Shear Strength results for selected materials 14
3-11. Consolidated-Undrained "R-Test" Triaxial Shear Strength results for selected materials 14
3-12. Saturated hydraulic conductivity results for selected materials 15
3-13. Direct shear testing results for selected materials 15
3-14. Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Shear Strength results for selected materials 15
4-1. Summary of QC checks 16
IV
-------
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ORGANIZATION
1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW
This final report has been prepared specifically for the Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE)
Project—Beneficial Use of Red and Brown Mud and Phosphogypsum as Alternate Construction
Materials. This project was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Research and Development. The project was performed in cooperation with EPA Region 6.
For EPA QA purposes, this project was categorized as a Sampling and Analysis project. According to
MSB's Quality Management Manual's (Ref 1) quality level definitions, this project was considered
Quality Level C.
1.2 BACKGROUND
Red and brown muds are the secondary materials generated from the extraction of alumina from bauxite,
an aluminum-containing sedimentary rock (Ref. 2). Phosphogypsum is the secondary material generated
by the phosphorous fertilizer industry from phosphate-containing sedimentary rock (Ref. 3). These
materials were directly discharged to water bodies until the mid-1970's. Since then, the materials have
been managed in land-based units, either in surface impoundments or as mono-fill landfills. Currently,
there are hundreds of millions of cubic yards of these materials located within the state of Louisiana along
the Mississippi River, and the individual materials are generated annually at a rate of approximately 3
million cubic yards.
Red and brown mud and phosphogypsum, either as individual materials or as a mixture, should be
considered as potential alternate construction materials, possibly in levees and/or levee support systems
along the Gulf Coast. The availability of suitable construction material in southern Louisiana is limited,
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is currently seeking 100 million cubic yards of
clay material to complete construction of hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in southern
Louisiana.
The projected environmental benefit and cost savings of the beneficial use of these secondary materials
could be considerable. An appropriate level of assurance in the environmental performance and system
design, however, is crucial in order for the proposed use of these secondary materials to be successful.
1.3 PREVIOUS STUDIES
In a preliminary geotechnical evaluation funded by EPA Region 6, it was demonstrated that various
mixtures of these materials do exhibit characteristics of construction materials, as set forth by the
USAGE. Additional geotechnical evaluations, however, were performed in this study to determine if
these materials (either individually or as mixtures) meet specified physical and engineering requirements,
as set forth by the USAGE.
1.4 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study outlined in the Statement of Work included:
• Task 1—Create several "soils" by mixing red and brown mud with phosphogypsum to create a
CH (fat clay) or CL (lean clay) classified material, in accordance with ASTM D2487 and the
Unified Soil Classification System, with a Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 10.
-------
Task 2—Test the created "soils" (no more than three due to budgetary constraints) that meet the
criteria identified under task one for specific physical and engineering parameters to determine if
they meet criteria set forth in USAGE EM 1110-2-1906 (laboratory soil testing procedures)
(Ref 4), relevant ASTM standards (Ref. 5 thru Ref 14), and USAGE EM 1110-2-1902 (Ref. 15)
(applicability of the various shear strength tests in stability analyses).
2. MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONS/INITIAL CHARACTERIZATION
U.S. EPA Region 6 arranged for the sampling and shipment of the following four materials to MSE for
testing:
• Fresh red/brown mud;
• Aged red/brown mud;
• Fresh phosphogypsum; and
• Aged phosphogypsum.
Each solid sample that was collected was assigned a unique sample identification (ID) number to
distinguish it from all other samples. All samples were contained in 5-gallon buckets. Fresh red mud
containers were labeled RMF1 to RMF5, and aged red mud containers were labeled RMAl to RMA5
upon receipt. Fresh phosphogypsum containers were labeled PGF1 to PGF10, and aged phosphogypsum
containers were labeled PGA1 to PGA 10 upon receipt.
The materials were assumed to be homogeneous based on the intense processing that the materials have
undergone, and all samples appeared to be homogeneous upon receipt. However, to ensure homogeneity,
each container was rolled on the floor from approximately 1 minute prior to opening and inspection.
Subsamples from the containers were then collected for initial characterization. Figure 2-1 shows
photographs of each material (a) aged red mud, (b) fresh red mud, (c) aged phosphogypsum, and (d) fresh
phosphogypsum.
Fresh red mud had visibly more moisture than aged red mud, and was reddish-brown in color, while the
aged red mud was darker red to maroon in color. Both the fresh and aged phosphogypsum appeared very
similar in moisture and consistency, although the aged phosphogypsum was light-gray in color, while
fresh phosphogypsum was light brown in color.
Prior to beginning the materials testing, all red mud and phosphogypsum samples were screened for
radiation using a calibrated Ludlum 14C Geiger Counter. Measurements were taken 30 cm from the
surface of the containers with the Geiger counter readings on a Ix scale. All samples measured
<0.05uR/hr. This allayed concerns about radiation exposure given the brief nature of the project. Many
background reading of pavement, landscape materials, etc. had similar and higher readings than the red
mud and phosphogypsum samples.
-------
Figure 2-1. (a) aged red mud (top left), (b) fresh red mud (top right), (c) agedphosphogypsum (bottom
left), (d) fresh phosphogypsum (bottom right)
A series of preliminary tests were performed on each of the as-received materials for initial
characterization. The materials were not mechanically dried or hydrated prior to preliminary testing
unless specifically required by an analysis method. The preliminary test results on as received materials
are summarized in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1. Summary of data collected on as received materials.
Material
Fresh Red Mud
Aged Red Mud
Fresh
Phosphogypsum
Aged
Phosphogypsum
uses
Classification
(ASTM
D2487)
CL
CL
ML
ML
Average
Moisture
Content
(%)
(ASTM
D2216)
86.5%±1.7
(n=5)
25.9%±2.8
(n=5)
35.6%±1.0
(n=10)
31.4%±1.1
(n=10)
Minus #200 Sieve
Analysis (ASTM
D422)
91.9
75.3
Not analyzed
Not analyzed
Plasticity
Index (ASTM
D4318)
12
15
No plasticity
(NP)
2
In Situ
Shear
Strength
(lb/ft2)
(Torvane
shear
testing
device)
205 ±19
(n=5)
*see note
*see note
*see note
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
(lb/ft2)
(Pocket
penetrometer)
<500
<500
*see note
*see note
*Note: tests were not completed due to consistency of samples
The red mud materials are classified as CL or lean clays according to the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS), while the phosphogypsum samples are classified as ML or low plasticity silt. This meets
one of the criteria established by USAGE for construction materials for embankments and levees.
-------
The moisture content of the samples indicated that fresh materials had higher moisture contents than their
aged counterparts. Fresh red mud had the highest moisture content at 86.5%.
The material with the highest plasticity index was aged red mud at 15, while the fresh red mud had a PI of
12. Both phosphogypsum materials exhibited little or no plasticity. Dry red mud did fizz when mixed
with sodium hexametaphosphate solution (a reagent used during PI determinations) and the PI
determinations were difficult because the material dried out quickly. Fresh phosphogypsum was
thixotropic and turned to a liquid state when tapped during the liquid limit test. Aged phosphogypsum
was only moderately thixotropic.
Quick assessments of shear and compressive strength were also planned for all materials, but the
consistency of aged red mud and aged and fresh phosphogypsum would not allow the tests to be
performed. Shear tests on fresh red mud yielded an average in situ shear strength of 205 lb/ft2.
Unconfined compressive strength was determined on five samples of both red mud materials using a
pocket penetrometer, and both results were <500 lb/ft2.
The preliminary results were encouraging because the red mud materials did have PIs>10 and were
classified as CL or lean clays, thus meeting some of the USAGE criteria for embankment and/or levee
construction material.
3. RESULTS OF ADDITIONAL TESTING
After initial characterization, the project focused on testing the properties of the red mud and
phosphogypsum materials when mixed together in various ratios. A general factorial design was devised
to determine which mixtures would meet or exceed criteria of PI>10. Variable factors, the number of
levels for each variable, and the level descriptions for the Stat-Ease® experimental design for this
experiment are summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Variable factors, levels, and level descriptions for experimental design.
Factor
Red Mud Age
Red Mud Weight Ratio
Phosphogypsum Weight Ratio
Phosphogypsum Age
Number of Levels
2
4
2
2
Level Description
Fresh or Aged
1,2, 3, or 4
Ior2
Fresh or Aged
The critical response variable was the PI of each prepared mixture.
From previous work, it was known that phosphogypsum has little to no plasticity, so it was expected that
a higher ratio of red mud to a lower ratio of phosphogypsum would be more likely to meet the initial
criteria of PI > 10. Previous work using volumetric ratios of red mud: phosphogypsum of 1:1, 2:1, and
1:2 did not yield a PI > 10 (Ref. 16), so it was surmised that more red mud would be needed to achieve a
PI> 10.
Stat-Ease Design Expert® (version 7.1.5) was used to generate a general factorial design with 2 levels of
red mud age, 4 levels of red mud weight ratios, 2 levels of phosphogypsum weight ratios, and 2 levels of
phosphogypsum age. This factorial design therefore has a treatment structure of 2x4x2x2, with a
completely randomized design structure. Mixing speed and mixing time were held constant for all
mixtures.
-------
3.1 PLASTICITY INDEX SCREENING RESULTS
Samples for plasticity index determinations were prepared by placing 200 grams of each mixture (with
appropriates ratios of red mud and phosphogypsum) in a mixing bowl. The materials were then mixed
with a dual-paddle mixer for 30 seconds, placed in a Ziploc bag, and kneaded by hand for one minute.
Subsamples were then collected for moisture content and plasticity index determinations. Table 3-2
summarizes the plasticity index and moisture content results from the initial mixtures. Samples with
PI>10 are highlighted.
-------
Table 3-2. PI and moisture content results from general factorial experiments.
Run
Order
1
2
o
6
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Factor
1:
Age
red
mud
Fresh
Aged
Aged
Aged
Aged
Aged
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Aged
Fresh
Aged
Aged
Fresh
Aged
Aged
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Aged
Aged
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Aged
Aged
Aged
Aged
Factor
2:
Weight
Ratio
red mud
2
3
4
1
3
2
2
1
1
4
2
2
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
1
4
1
1
1
4
3
4
2
4
1
2
Factor 3:
Weight
Ratio
phospho-
gypsum
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
Factor 4:
Age
phospho-
gypsum
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Aged
Aged
Aged
Aged
Fresh
Aged
Aged
Fresh
Aged
Aged
Aged
Fresh
Fresh
Aged
Fresh
Aged
Fresh
Aged
Fresh
Fresh
Aged
Fresh
Aged
Aged
Fresh
Aged
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Response 1:
Plasticity
Index
(ASTM
D4318)
20 J
NP
16
1
11
5
25 J
NP
20
14J
NPJ
19
Not
analyzed
7
5
4
17
7
23
7
11
Not
analyzed
5
3
NP
2
14
2J
5
NP
4J
2
Moisture
Content
(%)
(ASTM
D2216)
63.5
22.5
70.6
29.2
23.1
27.1
61.0
42.4
51.7
61.4
28.5
51.5
Not
analyzed
27.2
56.0
26.7
24.5
69.6
65.4
53.5
44.7
Not
analyzed
57.6
26.3
31.3
26.4
50.2
66.9
24.4
28.3
27.1
27.5
Comments
1 : 1 replicate of run #24
2:1 replicate of run #7
1 : 1 replicate of run #3 1
1 : 1 replicate of run #9
2:1 replicate of run #29
1 : 1 replicate of run #23
2:1 replicate of run #1
2:1 replicate of run #32
"J" flag indicates that the associated value is estimated.
"NP" indicates no plasticity.
-------
3.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PI DATA SET
Stat-Ease Design Expert® (version 7.1.5) was used to: analyze the PI data to determine which factors
were significant; assess the interactions between factors; optimize the statistical model; and determine the
best mixtures based on the results of the tests. The results of this analysis determined the significant
variables and the interactions among variables.
Two tests #13 (2PGA:4RMA) and #22 (1PGF:4RMF) were not performed, so these rows were ignored by
Stat-ease. Based on the results given in the effects list generated by Stat-ease, model terms selected
included A (age red mud), B (weight ratio red mud), C (weight ratio phosphogypsum, D (age
phosphogypsum), AB (interaction between factors A and B), AD (interaction between A and D), and
ABC (interactions between A, B, and C). Table 3-3 summarizes the effects list below with the selected
model terms highlighted.
Table 3-3. Effects list output from Stat-ease.
Model Term
A — age red mud
B — weight ratio red mud
C — weight ratio phosphogypsum
D — age phosphogypsum
AB
AC
AD
BC
BD
CD
ABC
ABD
ACD
BCD
ABCD
Degrees of
Freedom
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
2
2
Sum of
Squares
326.7
100.05
245.34
286.62
356.40
0.14
61.16
12.59
16.11
0.30
268.74
23.67
2.67
16.75
11.08
Mean
Square
326.7
33.35
245.34
286.62
118.8
0.14
61.16
4.20
5.37
0.30
89.58
7.89
2.67
8.38
5.54
% Contribution
18.9
5.79
14.2
16.6
20.6
0.008
3.54
0.728
0.932
0.017
15.6
1.37
0.154
0.969
0.641
With these model terms selected, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. The results from the
ANOVA are presented in Table 3-4 below.
Table 3-4. ANOVA (classical sum of squares—Type III) for selected factorial model.
Source
Model
A-AgeRedMud
B-Weight Ratio RM
C-W eight Ratio PG
D-Age PG
AB
AC
AD
BC
Sum of Squares
1657.73
319.20
100.17
140.80
378.89
366.14
1.16
116.04
12.59
df
17
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
Mean
Square
97.51
319.20
33.39
140.80
378.89
122.05
1.16
116.04
4.20
F Value
16.58
54. 28
5.68
23.94
64.43
20.75
0.20
19.73
0.71
Prob > F
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0117
0.0004
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.6644
0.0008
0.5624
p-value
significant
-------
Source
ABC
Residual
Cor Total
Standard Deviation
Mean
C.V.%
Sum of Squares
268.74
70.57
1728.30
2.43
8.3
29.22
df
3
12
29
Mean
Square
89.58
5.88
R-squared
Adjusted R-
squared
Adequate
Precision
F Value
15.23
0.9592
0.9013
15.63
Prob > F
0.0002
p-value
The Model F-value of 16.58 implies the model is significant. There is only a 0.01% chance that a Model
F-Value this large could occur due to noise. Values of Prob > F less than 0.0500 indicate model terms are
significant. In this case A, B, C, D, AB, AD, ABC are significant model terms. The Adequate Precision,
which measures the signal to noise ratio (a ratio greater than 4 is desirable), of 15.63 indicates an
adequate signal.
Figure 3-1 Below shows the normal probability plot of studentized residuals and indicated the normality
of the residuals.
Design-Expert® Software
Plasticity Index
Color points by value of
Plasticity Index:
925
o
.Q
03
O
ol
95-
90-
80-
70-
50-
30-
20-
10-
5-
Normal Plot of Residuals
i
0.00
I
1.01
I
2.02
Internally Studentized Residuals
Figure 3-1. Normal plot of residuals.
Figure 3-2 below shows the externally studentized range and all values are with in the appropriate range,
indicating no outliers.
-------
Design-Expert® Software
Plasticity Index
Color points by value of
Plasticity Index:
925
o
4.13 —
(0
•jjj 2.07-
ttl
-c
N
-g 0.00
-t-J
tt>
"ro
CD -2.07-
X
LU
-4.13
Externally Studentized Residuals
a
n a n ° D
a D n •
• a a B
na pn
• D n a
• • D_
a D
i i i . . i . . . . i i . . . i . . . i i . . . . i . . i i i .
1 6 11 16 21 26 31
Run Number
Figure 3-2. Externally studentized residuals.
After determining that the model was valid, the project team narrowed acceptable results to include
mixture ratios that would result in a PI between 10 and 20. Mixtures with values above 20, were
considered to have undesirable characteristics that would be difficult to apply in the field without the
development of specialized handling, placement, and compaction procedures. There were eight model-
generated solutions identified by Stat-ease as presented in Table 3-5. Please note that the PI values are
those predicted by the model constructed from experimental data.
Table 3-5. Solutions for 32 combinations of categoric factor levels/or PI range 10 to 20.
Solution
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Age
red
mud
Fresh
Fresh
Aged
Fresh
Aged
Weight
ratio red
mud
4
1
4
2
4
Age
phosphogypsum
Aged
Aged
Fresh
Fresh
Aged
Weight ratio
phosphpgypsum
2
1
1
1
1
PI
Values
predicted
by Model
13.7
18.2
14.9
16.8
18.1
Desirability
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Comments
Selected based
on equal ratios
which would be
easy to
implement in
the field.
Selected based
on material
consistency and
both aged
materials which
-------
Solution
Number
6
7
8
Age
red
mud
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Weight
ratio red
mud
1
2
3
Age
phosphogypsum
Aged
Aged
Aged
Weight ratio
phosphpgypsum
2
2
2
PI
Values
predicted
by Model
11.2
18.7
15.2
Desirability
1.0
1.0
1.0
Comments
means
availability of
large quantities.
Replicate of
solution #2
Selected based
to determine
how additional
fresh red mud
would influenc
geotechnical
performance
when compared
tolRMF:lPGA
Fresh red mud was a key ingredient to making a mixture in the PI range of 10 to 20, and 6 of the 8
mixtures used fresh red mud. This was probably due to the moisture, which bonded to the
phosphogypsum to create a plastic mixture; however the extra moisture was also a hindrance to mixtures
containing fresh red mud because it made the mixtures sticky and probably not ideal for use in
construction of levees or embankments. In fact, additional red mud whether fresh or aged resulted in
higher PI values as the weight ratio was increased except when fresh red mud was at weight ratio 4. The
high moisture content of fresh red mud was probably the reason for this when used in samples with only 1
part phosphogypsum to 4 parts fresh red mud. Aged red mud in higher ratios yielded higher PI values.
This is illustrated by Figure 3-3, which displays the interaction between weight ratio and the age of the
red mud (with phosphogypsum aged at weight ratio 1).
10
-------
Design-Expert® Software
Plasticity Index 32_
O Design Points
• B1 1
A B22 23.5-
» B33
+ B44 -g
_c
X1 = A: Age Red Mud ><
X2 = B: Weight Ratio RM £
ro
Actual Factors Q_
C: Weight Ratio PG = 1
D: Age PG = Aged 6.5-
-2-
i
1
1
,
1
J
_
1
Interaction
B: Weight Ratio RM
L.PI
r """•--......,
^ x \ T
«-C^ -,....." \
i
5
""•---.... ~ ••^v^
""-•-.., "~\" -n
'*""'"---... """ ,... '
"""---...."' -.... -
, """"""•-•-i
«
)
»
1
i
f
Fresh Aged
A Age Red Mud
Figure 3-3. Interaction between weight ratio and the age of the red mud.
3.3 SELECTION OF MIXTURES FOR FURTHER TESTING
EPA set the requirement that only materials with PI > 10 would be considered for further testing based on
input from USAGE. Eleven of the 32 mixtures did have Pi's greater than 10. These values are
highlighted in Table 3-2 above. The statistical model indicated 8 solutions with PI values between 10 and
20.
In addition to PI, a qualitative measurement of reactivity between the two materials (i.e. temperature,
color, effervescence, shrink/swell, etc.) was considered as another distinguishing factor; however there
was never an indication of a reaction between the two materials when mixed in any of the ratios. Of the
11 mixtures meeting the PI criteria and the 8 solutions provided by Stat-ease, only 3 could be selected for
further consideration because many of the mixtures appeared to be of wet consistency not suitable for
embankment or levee construction without development and implementation of special placement and
compaction procedures.
Based on the statistical analysis, the PI results, and other qualitative factors (usability in the field,
consistency, moisture content, etc.). The three mixtures selected for further testing included:
1) 1 part phosphogypsum aged to 1 part red mud fresh (1PGA: 1RMF);
2) 2 parts phosphogypsum aged to 3 parts red mud fresh (2PGA:3RMF); and
3) 1 part phosphogypsum aged to 4 parts red mud aged (1PGA:4RMA).
11
-------
3.4 RESULTS OF FURTHER TESTING
Large batches (1751b) of the three preferred ratios listed above were mixed for additional testing. After
adding the appropriate amounts of each material in a 5 5-gallon drum, a dual paddle mixer was used to
mix the samples for 30 seconds. The mixture was then rolled in the drum for an additional 30 seconds,
mixed with the paddle mixer for an additional 30 seconds, then placed on plywood and kneaded by hand
for 5 minutes. The mixtures were then stored in sealed 5-gallon containers to await testing.
With further handling of larger quantities of these preferred mixtures, the 1PGA: 1RMF and 2PGA:3RMF
mixtures had excessively high moisture contents and high shrinkage potential upon drying. This was
confirmed by performing shrinkage and unconfined compressive strength testing on samples of the
1PGA: 1RMF mixtures. The UCS testing was performed at EPA's direction to determine if drying of the
samples would increase their strength. Tests after drying were performed for 1PGA: 1RMF and aged red
mud alone. The results of this testing indicated a 22.7% shrinkage and excessive cracking of the
1PGA: 1RMF samples upon drying for 96 hours. It was assumed that the 2PGA:3RMF mixture would
have a higher shrinkage potential and a higher susceptibility to cracking due to its higher water content
than 1PGA: 1RMF. Only approximately 5.5% shrinkage was observed in the aged red mud sample, with
all of the shrinkage occurring in the first 24 hours. Drying of the aged red mud for 96 hours decreased the
strength of the sample by approximately 40%, while drying of the 1PGA: 1RMF sample for the same
amount of time increased its strength by over 500%. The results of these shrinkage and UCS tests on the
1PGA: 1RMF and aged red mud samples are presented in Table 3-6 below. Details of the tests can be
found in Appendix A.
Table 3-6. Results of UCS/Shrinkage drying tests for 1PGA:1RMF and aged red mud.
Sample ID
1PGA: 1RMF (IB) (dried 24 hours)
1PGA:1RMF (1C)
(dried 96 hours)
Aged red mud (4A) (dried for 24 hours)
Aged red mud (4B) (dried for 96 hours)
Unconfined Compressive
Strength (kPa)
103.9
689.4
507.8
358.1
Total
Shrinkage (%)
11.0
22.7
5.5
5.5
Comments
While drying increased strength,
cracks were visible in sample
Further drying again increased
strength, but visible cracks were
noted in sample
No apparent cracks visible
Drying sample decreased
strength
Based on the high moisture content and high shrinkage potential of the 1PGA: 1RMF material, it is MSB's
opinion that the 1PGA: 1RMF and 2PGA:3RMF would not make suitable construction materials without
development of appropriate quality control, special placement, and compaction procedures. Because
these mixtures did not appear to be applicable to the goals of the project, all further analysis on these
materials was suspended and further work focused on aged red mud alone and the mixture of
1PGA:4RMA.
3.4.1 "Soil" Classification
The USCS was used in accordance with ASTM D2487 to classify the three preferred mixtures based on
their Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit (ASTM D2434), and minus #200 sieve analyses (ASTM D422) in
various ratios. The results are summarized in Table 3-7 below.
12
-------
Table 3-7. Soil classification of selected mixtures.
Sample ID
1PGA:4RMA
1PGA:1RMF
2PGA:3RMF
Soil Classification
CL
CL
CL
Visual Observations
Fine silty clay with some
rock fragments, moist, dark
red/maroon with gray
speckles
Fine silty clay, wet,
reddish/brown
Fine silty clay with some
rock fragments, wet, dark
red/maroon
3.4.2 Standard Proctor
Standard Proctor testing (in accordance with ASTM D698) was performed on the 3 preferred mixtures
and the aged red mud. Moisture-density curves for each material are contained in Appendix B. The
results are summarized in Table 3-8 below.
Table 3-8. Standard Proctor test results of selected mixtures.
Sample ID
1PGA:1RMF
1PGA:4RMA
2PGA:3RMF
Aged Red Mud
Optimum Water Content
(%)
30.4
32.4
32.9
32.2
Maximum Dry Density
(Ib/ft5
92.2
97.9
93.0
100.2
As shown by the results above, the maximum dry densities ranged from 92.2 to 100.2 lb/ft3 with aged red
exhibiting the highest maximum dry density. Optimum water contents for the materials tested were in a
range between 30.4 to 32.2%.
3.4.3 Saturated Paste pH
The saturated paste pH of the selected optimum mixture (1PGA:4RMA) and aged red mud was
determined according toMethods of Soil Analysis, ASA Method 10 2.3.1/10 3.2. The saturated paste pH
values are summarized in Table 3-9 below.
Table 3-9. Saturated paste pH results for selected materials.
Sample ID
1PGA:4PGA
Aged Red Mud
Saturated Paste pH
7.4
8.6
The saturated paste pH values indicate that aged red mud has moderately alkaline pH, and the
1PGA:4PGA mixture is near neutral.
3.4.4 Consolidation/Swell
A 1-dimensional consolidation/swell test in accordance with ASTM D2435 was performed on the
1PGA:4RMA mixture and can be found in Appendix C. An undisturbed sample of this material was
collected by driving the consolidation-swell loading ring through a 1PGA:4RMA sample that was
compacted to approximately 90% of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content. The
13
-------
sample was inundated with water at the beginning of the test and remained submerged in water
throughout the remainder of the test. The results, which are presented in Appendix B indicate a
Compression Index (Cc) of approximately 0.136 and a Recompression Index (Cr) of approximately 0.013.
The coefficient of consolidation (Cv) was computed for each increment of load and are presented with the
consolidation curve. The preconsolidation pressure (ap) was determined to be approximately 150 kPa
using the Casagrande method. Due to the relatively large ap, it is presumed that this particular soil will be
overconsolidated under most loading conditions while in place in a typical embankment or levee system.
3.4.5 Triaxial Shear Strength/Permeability
Samples for shear strength were compacted to approximately 90% of maximum dry density at near
optimum moisture content in three lifts with each lift being scarified to encourage bonding between lifts.
The samples were not allowed to dry prior to testing. Samples were subjected to two separate confining
pressures and compressed at a strain rate of approximately 1% per minute. Stress-strain curves for each
sample are presented in Appendices D (Q-tests) and E (R-tests). Tables 3-10 and 3-11 summarize the
results for unconsolidated-undrained triaxial compression tests (Q-test) according to ASTM D2850-03a
and consolidated-drained triaxial compression tests (R-test) according to ASTM D4767, respectively.
Table 3-10. Unconsolidated-Undrained "Q-Test" Triaxial Shear Strength results for selected
materials.
Sample ID
1PGA:4RMA (3A)
1PGA:4RMA (3B)
Total Confining
Stress (kPa)
13.9
34.3
Compressive
Strength (kPa)
12.1
22.8
Major Principal
Total Stress (kPa)
26.0
57.2
Comments
None
No true failure planes
observed
Table 3-11. Consolidated-Undrained "R-Test" Triaxial Shear Strength results for selected materials.
Sample ID
1PGA:4RMA (3F-4)
Effective Minor
Principal Stress
(kPa)
165.0
Effective Major
Principal Stress (kPa)
417.5
Deviator Stress (kPa)
252.6
As shown above and in the detailed results in Appendix B, sample 3B from the UU testing did not shear
diagonally through the sample, but instead broke along two of the layers prior to taking the picture.
Samples 3F-1 and 3F-3 are not included in Table 3-8 and were originally setup for CU testing, but were
accidentally sheared with the pore pressure valves open. The results from Samples 3F-1 and 3F-2, which
were actually tested under Consolidated-Drained (CD) conditions, are presented in section 3.4.8-Direct
Shear "S-Testing".
3.4.6 Hydraulic Conductivity
The triaxial device was also used to determine the hydraulic conductivity of 1PGA:4RMA samples
according to ASTM D5084-03. The samples were compacted to approximately 90% of maximum dry
density at near optimum moisture content in three lifts with each lift being scarified to encourage bonding
between lifts. The hydraulic conductivity results are summarized in Table 3-12 below.
14
-------
Table 3-12. Saturated hydraulic conductivity results for selected materials
Sample ID
3F-1 (1PGA:4RMA)
3F-3 (1PGA:4RMA)
3F-4 (1PGA:4RMA)
Effective Stress (KPa)
27.6
41.4
55.2
Hydraulic Conductivity
(cm/sec)
3.6xlO'4
i.sxitr4:
s.oxitr5
Comments
Value is estimated because
hydraulic conductivity values
did not stabilize such that all
readings were within ±25%
of the mean value. A leaky
membrane was suspected.
3.4.8 Direct Shear S
Direct shear testing was performed on 1PGA:4RMA samples at normal stresses of approximately 1000
lb/ft2, 3000 lb/ft2, and 5000 lb/ft2 according to ASTM D3080. The direct shear results are summarized in
Table 3-13 and in Appendix F.
Table 3-13. Direct shear testing results for selected materials.
Sample ID
1PGA:4RMA
Cohesion (c)
2775
Friction Angle (phi)
69°
As described in section 3.4.5 above, Samples 3F-1 and 3F-3, which were originally to be tested under CU
conditions, but were accidentally sheared under CD conditions, are presented in Table 3-14 below and in
Appendix F.
Table 3-14. Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Shear Strength results for selected materials.
Sample ID
1PGA:4RMA (3F-1)
1PGA:4RMA (3F-3)
Effective Minor
Principal Stress
(kPa)
264.5
414.2
Effective Major
Principal Stress
(kPa)
598.8
695.5
Deviator Stress
(kPa)
334.3
281.3
Comments
Pore pressures allowed to
dissipate during shearing
Pore pressures allowed to
dissipate during shearing
The results displayed in Table 3-11 above can be used to obtain an estimate of the shear strength
parameters c and phi when plotted.
In addition to the Geotechnical testing described in the sections above, MSB also prepared samples of
1PGA:4RMA and shipped them to Vanderbilt University for further leach testing/modeling to determine
how these materials will behave in the environment.
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
Quality assurance activities included independent data review and validation. All calibrations were
verified prior to initiation of testing. A displacement transducer had to be replaced on the triaxial device
prior to initiation of testing. The triaxial device for the consolidated-undrained tests malfunctioned, not
allowing an automatic test, so the tests were run manually at the same strain rate.
15
-------
All QC checks (duplicates) performed during the testing were within control limits except for one falling
head permeability test to determine saturated hydraulic conductivity. This data point was flagged "J" to
indicate that the value is estimated. This is summarized in Table 4-1 below.
Because there was replication built into the factorial design, the Atterberg limits and moisture content
results were also reviewed to determine how closely these results were replicated. While moisture
content percent differences were all in control indicating very good agreement (0.4 to 7.4% relative
percent difference), three of the replicates for PI were not within the ±2 PI units control limit established.
Sample results and replicate sample results were flagged "J" as estimated values. These results are
summarized in Table 4-1 below.
Table 4-1. Summary of QC checks.
Analysis
Falling Head Permeability
(ASTMD5084)
Atterberg Limits
(ASTMD4318)
Sample (Result)
3F-3(1PGA:1RMA)
PGF1:RMF2(20)
PGA1:RMF2(25)
PGF1:RMA1 (4)
Sample Replicate
(Result)
N/A
PGF2:RFM4 (2)
PGA2:RMF4 (14)
PGF2:RMG2 (NP)
Control
Limit
4
consecutive
readings
within ±25%
of the mean
of those 4
readings
Difference
>±2 PI units
Result/Corrective Action
Flag results as "J", estimated.
Flag results as "J", estimated.
4.1 DEVIATIONS FROM THE QAPP
The following deviations from the QAPP were implemented during the project:
• The original test design in the QAPP has 3 levels of red mud weight ratio (2,3, and 4), but a
fourth level (weight ratio 1) was added to cover a wider range of red mud weight ratios.
• The < 20% relative percent difference (RPD) criteria for Atterberg limits given in the QAPP was
not appropriate because the result is rounded to the nearest whole number. Instead, a control limit
of absolute difference of ±2 PI units was used.
• Three samples were to be selected for further testing after PI screening tests. Based on properties
of some of the materials, testing was focused on a 1:PGA:4RMA mixture and aged red mud
alone.
• At EPA's direction, tests to assess the behavior of 1PGA: 1RMF and red mud alone as samples air
dried for 24 hours and 96 hours were added.
5. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to determine the applicability of utilizing red/brown mud and
phosphogypsum as construction materials when mixed in various ratios. The results of this study suggest
that there is potential to utilize these materials for levee construction from a geotechnical standpoint. The
following conclusions were drawn based on this testing:
• The most promising ratio identified for creating a new construction material from red mud and
phosphogypsum wastes was 1PGA:4RMA.
• Fresh red mud in its natural state or as a mixture of 1PGA: 1RMF and 2PGA: 3RMF has an
excessive amount of moisture and would be difficult to use as embankment or levee construction
16
-------
material without the development and implementation of special placement and compaction
procedures. In addition, excessive cracking was observed in the 1PGA: 1RMF samples after air
drying for 96 hours, indicating that this material may not be suitable for embankment, levee or
other impoundment structures.
• Further consideration should be given to using aged red mud alone to provide needed
construction materials. The results of testing described in this report may be used as a starting
point for such additional testing.
Recommendations for further testing include:
• Studying the effect of moisture content and saturation on geotechnical properties of red mud and
red mud mixed with phosphogypsum;
• Focusing testing on the aged red mud material to further optimize the ratios of red mud to
phosphogypsum for this application;
• Exploring how additional additives (i.e., fly ash, polymer, etc.) might further optimize these
created "soils" and result in even belter potential construction materials;
• Challenging this material at pilot-scale utilizing water from the Gulf Coast region to simulate
conditions that the material would be exposed to in practice; and
• Testing materials at conditions and boundaries specified by USAGE to ensure applicability of
results.
Recommendations for utilizing this material in the field include the following.
• Investigating/optimizing mixing and placement procedures.
• Utilizing the created "soil" as the internal construction material of the levee to avoid direct
contact with the environment but provide access to needed construction materials.
• The 1PGA:4RMA preferred composite was relatively easy to handle and to mix thoroughly using
dual-paddle mixers followed by kneading of the material by hand. In MSB's opinion, large-scale
mixing of this material would be feasible using many conventional mechanical mixing
procedures, such as larger twin-shaft rotary paddles, a pug-mill, or other equivalent and
comparable methods.
• The 1PGA:4RMA preferred composite should be placed evenly and properly compacted in loose
lifts not exceeding 1.0 foot in thickness during embankment construction. In order to ensure
proper placement and compaction, a qualified Geotechnical Engineer and testing laboratory
should be retained during initial construction to provide field density testing of compacted
materials. As described in Section 1.7.5-Compaction of the Unified Facilities Guide
Specifications (UFGS), dated May 2008 (Ref 17), each layer of compacted fill shall be
compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 at a
moisture content within 5 above and 3 below the optimum moisture content. If soft or yielding
areas are observed during placement or compaction, a woven geotextile fabric should be placed
between successive lifts. As described in the UFGS, the first layer above the geotextile fabric
should be placed and compacted by construction equipment have a ground pressure no greater
than 4.7 +/- 0.2 pounds per square inch (psi).
• All other pertinent construction recommendations described in the UFGS should be followed
during construction of embankments using the 1PGA:4RMA material.
• Consider the use of red mud alone to avoid the additional mixing step needed to incorporate
phosphogypsum.
Further test work will be performed by Vanderbilt University to determine if the mixtures identified in
this study will be compatible with the surrounding environment. Based on the results of this study,
17
-------
further consideration of using these materials to partially supply the needed clay material for levee and/or
embankment construction is warranted.
6. REFERENCES
1. MSB Quality Management Manual—QP-2
2. Liu, Y.; C. Lin; and Y. Wu, 2007. "Characterization of Red Mud Derived from a Combined Bayer
Process and Bauxite Calcination Method", Jour. Haz. Materials 146(1-2): 255-261.
3. Perez-Lopez, R; A. M. Alvarez-Valero; and J.M. Nieto, 2007. "Changes in Mobility of Toxic
Elements during the Production of Phosphoric Acid in the Fertilizer Industry of Huelva (SW Spain)
and Environmental Impact of Phosphogypsum Wastes", Jour. Haz. Materials 148(3): 745-750.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), 1970. "Laboratory Soils Testing", Engineer Manual
1110-2-1906, Washington, D.C.
5. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2006. " ASTM D2487-06 Standard Practice
for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)," 2006
Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
6. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. " ASTM D4318-05 Standard Test
Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils," 2005 Book of ASTM
Standards, Volume 04.08, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
7. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2003. " ASTM D5084-03 Standard Test
Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a
Flexible Wall Permeameter," 2003 Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
8. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. " ASTM D2435-04 Standard Test
Methods for One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading," 2004
Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
9. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2007. "ASTM D698-07el Standard Test
Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3
(600 kN-m/m3))," 2007 Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
10. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. " ASTM D4767-04 Standard Test
Method for Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test for Cohesive Soils," 2004 Book of
ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
11. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2007. " ASTM D2850-03a(2007) Standard
Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils," 2007
Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
12. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. " ASTM D3080-04 Standard Test
Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions," 2004 Book of
ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
13. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2007. " ASTM D422 - 63(2007) Standard
Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils," 2007 Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
14. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. " ASTM D2216 - 05 Standard Test
Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass,"
2005 Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
18
-------
15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), 2003. "Slope Stability," Engineer Manual 1110-2-1902,
Washington, B.C.
16. Soil Testing Engineers, Data report to TRC Engineering & Environmental Solutions, Inc.,
Submitted to MSB by EPA Region 6, February 2007.
17. USACE/NAVFAC/AFCESA/NASA, May 2008. "Unified Facilities Guide Specifications-Section
31 24 00.00 12-Embankment.
19
-------
APPENDIX A
UCS Test Data
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
IB
Test & Sample Details
Standard
Sample Type
Sample Description
Variations from Procedure
ASTM D2850-03a
Small disturbed sample
1 Part PGA to 1 Part RMF compacted wet
and dried 24 hours
Sample Depth
Sp. Gravity of Solids
Lab. Temperature
NA
2.70
23.0
deg.C
No confining pressure was applied
Specimen Details
Specimen
Reference
Initial Height
Initial Diameter
Initial Dry Unit Weight
Initial Moisture Content*
Void Ratio
Comments
B
104.56 mm
68.26 mm
15.85kN/m3
32.3 %
(trimmings: 31.8
%)
0.73
Stage Reference
Description
Depth within Sample
Orientation within
Sample
Preparation
Degree of Saturation
1
Red Mud and
Phosphogypsum
Composite
NA
NA
Soil was compacted in a
3" diameter by 5.5" long
mold with a rubber
membrane the membrane
was removed and the
sample was allowed to air
dry for 24 hours prior to
test
123.34%
None
* Calculated from initial and dry weights of whole specimen
I
I
•a
o
o
o
Shearing Stage (Stress Vs Axial Strain %)
100
40
20
-0
/
6 8 10
Axial Strain %
12
14
16
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
Page 1
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
IB
Shear Conditions
Rate of Axial Strain
1.00%/min
Cell Pressure
O.OkPa
Conditions at Failure
Failure Criterion
Maximum Deviator Stress
Compressive Strength
103.9 kPa
Major Principal Stress
103.9 kPa
Axial Strain
7.79%
Minor Principal Stress (cT3)
0.0 kPa
Deviator Stress Correction
Applied
0.00 kPa
Final Moisture Content
31.8%
Final Unit Weight
20.88 kN/m3
Tested By and
Date:
Checked By
and Date:
Approved By
and Date:
NAJ 7/18/08
KMP 7/18/08
NAJ 8/18/08
Sample # IB: I Part PGA: I Part RMF
(Compacted Wet. Dried for 24 Hours]
UCS Test l-'inul .Measurements
Mode of Failure
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
Page 2
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
1C
Test & Sample Details
Standard
Sample Type
Sample Description
Variations from Procedure
ASTM D2850-03a
Small disturbed sample
1 Part PGA to 1 Part RMF compacted wet
and dried 96 hours
Sample Depth
Sp. Gravity of Solids
Lab. Temperature
NA
2.70
23.0
deg.C
No confining pressure was applied
Specimen Details
Specimen
Reference
Initial Height
Initial Diameter
Initial Moisture Content*
Comments
c
4.21 mm
65.62 mm
11.1 %
(trimmings: 51.9
%)
Stage Reference
Description
Depth within Sample
Preparation
1
Red Mud and
Phosphogypsum
Composite
NA
Soil was compacted in a
3" diameter by 5.5" long
mold and the sample was
allowed to dry for 96
hours prior to the test
None
* Calculated from initial and dry weights of whole specimen
re
Q.
Q
•O
O
o
Shearing Stage (Stress Vs Axial Strain %)
600.4
400.4
300.4
200.4
100.4
-9974
5 10
Axial Strain %
15
20
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
Page 3
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
1C
^Kioar f^nnrlitinn*^
f?$P£Hi!Qal^f?ltin" ai'ure r>48%/min Cell Pressure n r>kPa
Failure Criterion
Compressive Strength
Axial Strain
Deviator Stress Correction
Applied
Maximum Deviator Stress
689.4 kPa
18.61%
O.OOkPa
Major Principal Stress (ai)
Minor Principal Stress (a3)
Final Moisture Content
689.4 kPa
0.0 kPa
12.8 %
Tested By and
Date:
Checked By
and Date:
Approved By
and Date:
NAJ 7/2 1/08
KMP 7/2 1/08
NAJ 8/18/08
Sample-1C: ] PartPGA:! PartRMF
(Computed \\ el. Dried for % Hours)
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
Mode of Failure
Page 4
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
4A
Test & Sample Details
Standard
Sample Type
Sample Description
Variations from Procedure
ASTM D2850-03a
Small disturbed sample
Aged Red Mud compacted to approx 90%
max dry density at near optimum MC and
air dried for 24 hours
Sample Depth
Sp. Gravity of Solids
Lab. Temperature
NA
2.70
23.0
deg.C
No confining pressure was applied
Specimen Details
Specimen
Reference
Initial Height
Initial Diameter
Initial Dry Unit Weight
Initial Moisture Content*
Void Ratio
Comments
A
138.94 mm
70.28 mm
14.24kN/mJ
20.6 %
(trimmings: 31.2
%)
0.86
Stage Reference
Description
Depth within Sample
Orientation within
Sample
Preparation
Degree of Saturation
1
Aged Red Mud
NA
NA
Soil was compacted in a
3" diameter by 5.5" long
mold and removed and
air dried for 24 hours prior
to test
64.59%
None
* Calculated from initial and dry weights of whole specimen
Shearing Stage (Stress Vs Axial Strain %)
ra
a.
'o
o
399.8
299.8
199.8
7
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
Axial Strair
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
Page 5
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
4A
Shear Conditions
Rate of Axial Strain
0.30%/min
Cell Pressure
O.OkPa
Conditions at Failure
Failure Criterion
Compressive Strength
Axial Strain
Deviator Stress Correction
Applied
Final Unit Weight
Maximum Deviator Stress
507.8 kPa
0.91%
O.OOkPa
17.18kN/m3
Major Principal Stress (aO
Minor Principal Stress (
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
4B
Test & Sample Details
Standard
Sample Type
Sample Description
Variations from Procedure
ASTM D2850-03a
Small disturbed sample
Aged Red Mud compacted to approx 90%
max dry density at near optimum MC and
air dried for 96 hours
Sample Depth
Sp. Gravity of Solids
Lab. Temperature
NA
2.70
23.0
deg.C
No confining pressure was applied
Specimen Details
Specimen
Reference
Initial Height
Initial Diameter
Initial Dry Unit Weight
Initial Moisture Content*
Void Ratio
Comments
B
138.76 mm
70.03 mm
14.31 kN/mJ
5.5 %
(trimmings: 31.2
%)
0.85
Stage Reference
Description
Depth within Sample
Orientation within
Sample
Preparation
Degree of Saturation
1
Aged Red Mud
NA
NA
Soil was compacted in a
3" by 5.5" long mold and
the sample was allowed
to air dry for 96 hours
prior to test
17.31%
None
* Calculated from initial and dry weights of whole specimen
350
Shearing Stage (Stress Vs Axial Strain %)
0.4
0.6
0.8 1
Axial Strain %
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
Page 7
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
4B
Shear Conditions
Rate of Axial Strain
0.30%/min
Cell Pressure
O.OkPa
Conditions at Failure
Failure Criterion
Compressive Strength
Axial Strain
Deviator Stress Correction
Applied
Final Unit Weight
Maximum Deviator Stress
358.1 kPa
0.20%
O.OOkPa
14.98 kN/m3
Major Principal Stress (aO
Minor Principal Stress (
-------
APPENDIX B
Moisture-Density Analysis
-------
MOISTURE-DENSITY ANALYSIS
MSB TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS, INC.
CLIENT: EPA/USACE
PROJECT: Red Mud/Phosphogypsum
WORK ORDER NO. LAB01.141
TEST DATE: 7/10/08
SOURCE: Process Waste Stream
DESCRIPTION: 1PGA:1RMF
SAMPLE NO.: 1
LABI.D.: N/A
SAMPLED BY: Client
TESTED BY : NAJ/KMP
TEST METHOD: ASTM D698
Reviewed By:
Date:
103
101
99
97
95
93
91
HI 89
Q
^ 87
85
83
81
79
• Compaction Density
• Zero Air Voids Density
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
WATER CONTENT (%)
BASE PROCTOR RESULTS
OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT (%): 30.4
MAXIMUM DRY DEN. (LBS/FT3): 92.2
B-l
-------
MOISTURE-DENSITY ANALYSIS
MSB TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS, INC.
CLIENT: EPA/USACE
PROJECT: Red Mud/Phosphogypsum
WORK ORDER NO. LAB01.141
TEST DATE: 7/10/08
SOURCE: Process Waste Stream
DESCRIPTION: 1PGA:4RMA
SAMPLE NO.: 2
LABI.D.: N/A
SAMPLED BY: Client
TESTED BY : NAJ/KMP
TEST METHOD: ASTM D698
Reviewed By:
Date:
1Dfi -r-
104
109
mn
I— QQ
ii y°
(7>
CO 9g
_J^
F 94
(/)
moo
Q
S on
Q
QQ
QC
S4
R9
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
«
z
/
/•
"•^
^- — -~
— ~~^,
""•»
\
\
• Compaction Density
• Zero Air Voids Density
5
\
•
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
WATER CONTENT (%)
35
36
BASE PROCTOR RESULTS
OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT (%): 32.4
MAXIMUM DRY DEN. (LBS/FT3): 97.9
B-2
-------
MOISTURE-DENSITY ANALYSIS
MSB TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS, INC.
CLIENT: EPA/USACE
PROJECT: Red Mud/Phosphogypsum
WORK ORDER NO. LAB01.141
TEST DATE: 7/10/08
SOURCE: Process Waste Stream
DESCRIPTION: 2PGA:3RMF
SAMPLE NO.: 3
LABI.D.: N/A
SAMPLED BY: Client
TESTED BY : NAJ/KMP
TEST METHOD: ASTM D698
Reviewed By:
Date:
102
100
98
96
T-
LU
Q
(/> 92
CD
^ 90
84
82
80
78
76
74
• Compaction Density
• Zero Air Voids Density
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
WATER CONTENT (%)
BASE PROCTOR RESULTS
OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT (%): 32.9
MAXIMUM DRY DEN. (LBS/FT3): 93.0
B-3
-------
MOISTURE-DENSITY ANALYSIS
MSB TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS, INC.
CLIENT: EPA/USACE
PROJECT: Red Mud/Phosphogypsum
WORK ORDER NO. LAB01.141
TEST DATE: 7/10/08
SOURCE: Process Waste Stream
DESCRIPTION: Aged Red Mud
SAMPLE NO.: 4
LABI.D.: N/A
SAMPLED BY: Client
TESTED BY : NAJ/KMP
TEST METHOD: ASTM D698
Reviewed By:
Date:
1 UO
md.
m?
r
n
•t inn
v> 1UU
CD
*— ' QS
(/) Qfi
LU
Q
£
Q
qo
qn
QQ
Xfi
9
/
/
/
/
• Compaction Density
• Zero Air Voids Density
/
/
^
/
/
/
X
«
^
\
*
o
\
\
\
\
\
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
WATER CONTENT (%)
BASE PROCTOR RESULTS
OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT (%): 32.2
MAXIMUM DRY DEN. (LBS/FT3): 100.2
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
Consolidation Swell Tests
-------
One Dimensional Consolidation Properties
(Oedometer)
Client
Project
Location
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
MSB Geotechnical Lab
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3F
Test Details
Standard
Sample Type
Method of Testing (A/B)
Sample Description
Variations from Procedure
ASTM D2435-04
Small disturbed sample
B
Particle Specific
Gravity (Assumed)
Lab. Temperature
2.70
24.0deg.C
1 Part PGA to 4 Parts RMA compacted to approx 90% max dry density at near
optimum MC
None
Specimen Details
Specimen Reference
Depth within Sample
Specimen Mass
Specimen Height
Comments
A
NA
1 34.75 g
19.60 mm
Description
Orientation
within Sample
Condition
Preparation
Red Mud and Phosphogypsum
composite
NA
Near Optimum Moisture
Soil was compacted in a 3"
diameter by 5.5" long mold and the
sample was pushed through the
loading ring without disturbing the
sample
None
Apparatus
Ring Number
Ring Height
Lever Ratio
1
19.60 mm
10: 1
Ring Diameter
Ring Weight
Drainage
63.44 mm
62.88 g
Double-Sided
C-l
-------
One Dimensional Consolidation Properties
(Oedometer)
Voids Ratio Vs Applied Pressure
0.614
0.564
re
Of
at
T3
'o
0.514
0.464
0.414
\
\
10 100
Pressure kPa
1000
10000
Client
Project
Location
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
MSB Geotechnical Lab
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3F
Results
Pre-consolidation Swell Pressure
Preconsolidation Pressure
Compression Index (Cc)
Rebound Index (Cr)
0.5 kPa
150kPa
0.136
0.013
Initial Moisture Content*
Initial Bulk Density
Initial Dry Density
Initial Void Ratio
30.8 %
(trimmings: 31.6 %)
2.18Mg/mJ
1 .66 Mg/mJ
0.6238
Final Moisture Content
Final Bulk Density
Final Dry Density
Final Void Ratio
27.7 %
2.39 Mg/mJ
1.87Mg/mJ
0.4421
* Calculated from initial and dry weights of whole specimen
C-2
-------
One Dime
Pressure
(Loading)
0.00
6.0 kPa
12.0 kPa
25.0 kPa
50.0 kPa
100.0 kPa
200.0 kPa
400.0 kPa
800.0 kPa
1600.0 kPa
3200.0 kPa
800.0 kPa
200.0 kPa
50.0 kPa
9 ^ n VPS
nsional Consolidation Properties
(Oedometer)
Load Increment
Duration
240.000 min
762.000 min
2640.000 min
480.000 min
762.000 min
605.000 min
762.000 min
605.000 min
762.000 min
1260.000 min
240.000 min
1080.000 min
190.000 min
1 ^1 OHO min
Deformation
(Corrected)
0.075 mm
0.104mm
0.235 mm
0.387mm
0.523 mm
0.767 mm
1.069 mm
1.511mm
2.048 mm
2.537 mm
2.425 mm
2.292 mm
2.226 mm
"1 1 Cn mm
dioo (Corrected)
0.071 mm
0.105mm
0.224 mm
0.378mm
0.517mm
0.756 mm
1.063 mm
1.500mm
2.037 mm
2.531mm
Coetfick
kkk^^J
lite:
nt of Consolidation (cv)
8.85 mm2/min
21.91 mm2/min
39.72 mm2/min
5.78 mm2/min
3.04 mm2/min
8.46 mm2/min
7.74 mm2/min
10.10 mm2/min
6.87 mm2/min
3.47 mm2/min
Method of Time Fitting Used
Log Time
Tested By
and Date:
Checked By
and Date:
Approved By
and Date:
NAJ 7/25/08
KMP 7/25/08
NAJ 8/18/08
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohi
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3A
Test & Sample Details
Standard
Sample Type
Sample Description
Variations from Procedure
ASTM D2850-03a
Small disturbed sample
1 Part PGA to 4 Parts RMA compacted to
approx 90 percent of dry max density at
near optimum MC
Sample Depth
Sp. Gravity of Solids
Lab. Temperature
NA
2.70
30.0
deg.C
None
Specimen Details
Specimen
Reference
Initial Height
Initial Diameter
Initial Dry Unit Weight
Initial Moisture Content*
Void Ratio
Comments
A
136.53 mm
71.42 mm
14.19kN/mJ
33.4 %
(trimmings: 30.5
%)
0.87
Stage Reference
Description
Depth within Sample
Orientation within
Sample
Preparation
Degree of Saturation
1
Red Mud and
Phosphogypsum
composite
NA
NA
Soil was compacted in a
3" by 5.5" long mold with
a rubber membrane
104.09%
None
* Calculated from initial and dry weights of whole specimen
s.
OT
O
8
O
O
O
Shearing Stage (Stress Vs Axial Strain %)
Axial Strain %
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohi
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3A
Shear Conditions
Rate of Axial Strain 1.00%/min Cell Pressure 13.9kPa
Conditions at Failure
Failure Criterion
Compressive Strength
Axial Strain
Deviator Stress Correction
Applied
Final Unit Weight
Maximum Deviator Stress
12.1kPa
0.96%
O.OOkPa
19.51 kN/m3
Major Principal Stress (aO
Minor Principal Stress (
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohi
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3B
Test & Sample Details
Standard
Sample Type
Sample Description
Variations from Procedure
ASTM D2850-03a
Small disturbed sample
1 Part PGA to 4 Parts RMA compacted to
approx 90 percent of dry max density at
near optimum MC
Sample Depth
Sp. Gravity of Solids
Lab. Temperature
NA
2.70
30.0
deg.C
None
Specimen Details
Specimen
Reference
Initial Height
Initial Diameter
Initial Dry Unit Weight
Initial Moisture Content*
Void Ratio
Comments
B
136.53 mm
71.12mm
14.56kN/m3
31 .0 %
(trimmings: 30.5
%)
0.82
Stage Reference
Description
Depth within Sample
Orientation within
Sample
Preparation
Degree of Saturation
1
Red Mud and
Phosphogypsum
Composite
0.00 mm
Soil was compacted in a
3" by 5.5" long mold with
a rubber membrane
102.15%
None
* Calculated from initial and dry weights of whole specimen
Shearing Stage (Stress Vs Axial Strain %)
Axial Strain %
-------
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohi
(Quick Undrained)
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3B
Shear Conditions
Rate of Axial Strain
1.00%/min
Cell Pressure
34.3kPa
Conditions at Failure
Failure Criterion
Compressive Strength
Axial Strain
Deviator Stress Correction
Applied
Final Unit Weight
Maximum Deviator Stress
22.8 kPa
2.46%
O.OOkPa
19.57 kN/m3
Major Principal Stress (ai)
Minor Principal Stress (a3)
Final Moisture Content
57.2 kPa
34.3 kPa
34.4 %
Tested By and
Date:
Checked By
and Date:
Approved By
and Date:
NAJ 07/2 1/08
KMP 07/2 1/08
NAJ 8/18/08
Compacted to 90% May. -
".i = 34.5
Mode of Failure
-------
APPENDIX E
Consolidated-Undrained Test Data
-------
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
II
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3F-4
Test Details
Standard
Test Definition
Sample Type
Sample Description
Variations from Procedure
ASTM D4767-04
Consolidated Undrained
Small disturbed sample
Particle Density
Drainage location
Lab. Temperature
2.70 Mg/m3
(Assumed)
Bottom
24.0deg.C
1 Part PGA to 4 Parts RMA compacted to approx 90 percent of dry max density
at near optimum MC
None
Specimen Details
Specimen Reference
Depth within Sample
Initial Height
Preparation
Bulk Density
Comments
A
NA
141.12mm
Soil was
compacted
in a 3"
diameter by
5.5" long
mold
1 .86 Mg/mJ
Description
Orientation within Sample
Initial Diameter
Moisture Content
Membrane Thickness
Red Mud and
Phosphogypsum
Compsosite
NA
70.41 mm
29.2 %
(trimmings: 31 .6 %)
0.41 mm
None
SATURATION STAGE
Saturation Method
Final Cell Pressure
Final B Value
Cell/Back Pressure Increments
550.7kPa
Cell Increments
A Pore Pressure
68.9kPa
Approximately 70 kPa
Approximately 1.0, sample considered saturated
E-l
-------
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
II
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3F-4
69.98
CONSOLIDATION STAGE
Time - Square Root Mins
345
Cell Pressure
Effective Pressure
405.6kPa
55.5kPa
Back Pressure
Final Pore Pressure
350.1kPa
6.2 kPa
E-2
-------
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
II
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3F-4
re
Q.
I
I
I
O
-2
100.3
140.3
-48r3-
-8r7-
Shearinq Stage (Stress vs Axial Strain)
6 8 10
Axial Strain %
12
14
16
18
re
Q.
o
Q.
-2
160.4
130.4
110.4
Shearing Stage (Pore Pressure vs Axial Strain)
6 8
Axial Strai
10
12
14
16
18
-------
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
II
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3F-4
Shear Conditions
Rate of Axial Displacement
Initial Back Pressure
0.0531mm/min
260.8kPa
Cell Pressure
Effective Stress at Start of Stage
316.0kPa
55.2kPa
Conditions at Failure
Failure Criterion
Pore Pressure
Deviator Stress (a'l-cr's)
Axial Strain
Deviator Stress Correction
Density
Maximum Deviator Stress
ISl.OkPa
252.6kPa
14.96%
l.SkPa
2.16Mg/m3
Minor Effective Principal Stress (cj'3)
Major Effective Principal Stress (CT'I)
Effective Principal Stress Ratio
Moisture Content
165.0kPa
417.5kPa
2.531
30.2 %
Tested By and
Date:
Checked By and
Date:
Approved By
and Date:
NAJ 8/2/08
KMP 8/2/08
NAJ 8/18/08
topic «F:J h»rtPGA:4 Parts RMA
testing (8 psi effective stress)
Photo after failure
E-4
-------
APPENDIX F
CD/Direct Shear Test Data
-------
Direct Shear Test
ASTM D3080-04
Client;
'reject:
ob:
III
C*
n
^
w
n
o>
+j
co
c5
Q>
£
CO
MSE Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud and Phosphogypsum
LAB01.141
AJ^*,
^53S^ Shear Stress vs. Normal
1 o nnn
I O,UUU
1 R nnn
I D.UUU
•i/i nnn
I*-4,UUU
•i "J nnn
1 Z.UUU
m nnn
I U.UUU
ft nnn
o , u u u
ft nnn
o , u u u
A nnn
H,UUU
o nnn
Z.UUU
Stress
+
+
+
Best Fit:
4> = 69 degrees
r. = ? 775 n.qf
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Normal Stress (psf)
6000
Max
Nominal
Shear
Stress (psf)
4,943
11,450
15,350
Normal Stress (psf)
1000
3000
5000
F-l
-------
Time
(min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Vertical
Displacement
(in)
Gage: Soil
test
0.001 range
0.1960
0.4835
0.4850
0.4850
0.4860
0.4865
0.4870
0.4873
0.4885
0.4890
Vertical
Displacement
(in)
Gage: Soil
test
0.001 range
0.0000
0.2875
0.2890
0.2890
0.2900
0.2905
0.2910
0.2913
0.2925
0.2930
Constants
Rate
Diameter sample
Diameter sample
Droving ring cal.
Cross sec. Area
Vertical Load
Vertical Load
Normal Stress
0.5mm/min
2.4in
0.20ft
3210lbs/in
0.0314ft2
31.4lbs/in
14.24280042kg
1000psf
Time
(min)
0.001
1
2.5
3
4
5.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30.5
Horizontal
Displacement
(in)
0.87200
0.87600
0.88900
0.89700
0.91400
0.93500
0.94200
0.95500
0.97100
0.98800
0.00200
0.01750
0.03250
0.04650
0.06350
0.08000
0.09600
0.11400
0.13200
0.14650
0.16200
0.17700
0.19550
0.20900
0.22500
0.24350
0.26200
0.27700
0.29700
0.31000
0.33350
Adjusted
Horizontal
Displacement
(in)
Gage: Soil
Test 2"
range
0.00000
0.00400
0.01700
0.02500
0.04200
0.06300
0.07000
0.08300
0.09900
0.11600
0.13000
0.14550
0.16050
0.17450
0.19150
0.20800
0.22400
0.24200
0.26000
0.27450
0.29000
0.30500
0.32350
0.33700
0.35300
0.37150
0.39000
0.40500
0.42500
0.43800
0.46150
Strain
(%)
0.00
0.17
0.71
1.04
1.75
2.63
2.92
3.46
4.13
4.83
5.42
6.06
6.69
7.27
7.98
8.67
9.33
10.08
10.83
11.44
12.08
12.71
13.48
14.04
14.71
15.48
16.25
16.88
17.71
18.25
19.23
Shearing Force (in)
0.09715
0.00990
0.01770
0.02180
0.02380
0.02680
0.02865
0.03050
0.03240
0.03360
0.03500
0.03610
0.03780
0.03960
0.04070
0.04130
0.04165
0.04165
0.04170
0.04205
0.04330
0.04550
0.04525
0.04535
0.04550
0.04550
0.04560
0.04560
0.04680
0.04705
0.04750
Shear Stress at Failure =
Adjusted
Shearing
Force
(in)
Gage:
Soil Test
0.0001"
range
0.00000
0.01275
0.02055
0.02465
0.02665
0.02965
0.03150
0.03335
0.03525
0.03645
0.03785
0.03895
0.04065
0.04245
0.04355
0.04415
0.04450
0.04450
0.04455
0.04490
0.04615
0.04835
0.04810
0.04820
0.04835
0.04835
0.04845
0.04845
0.04965
0.04990
0.05035
Shear
force
(Ibs)
Nick's
0.00
40.93
65.97
79.13
85.55
95.18
101.12
107.05
113.15
117.00
121.50
125.03
130.49
136.26
139.80
141.72
142.85
142.85
143.01
144.13
148.14
155.20
154.40
154.72
155.20
155.20
155.52
155.52
159.38
160.18
161.62
Nominal
Shear
Stress
(psf)
0.00
1303.42
2100.81
2519.95
2724.41
3031.10
3220.22
3409.35
3603.58
3726.26
3869.38
3981.83
4155.62
4339.63
4452.09
4513.42
4549.20
4549.20
4554.32
4590.10
4717.88
4942.79
4917.23
4927.45
4942.79
4942.79
4953.01
4953.01
5075.68
5101.24
5147.25
4,943
o, 5000 00 -
1
«
0 00 -1
,.•«"-•
X
++
±
t
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Horizontal Strain (%>
100 i
I 1
0.1 -
C
c.
******
_..+*+**********
,•-*
^OOiOOOiOOOOO
aaaOQaaoaaa
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
Horizontal Displacement (in)
F-2
-------
Time
(min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Vertical
Displacement
(in)
Gage: Soil
test
0.001 range
0.1045
0.4990
0.5005
0.5013
0.5020
0.5023
0.5028
0.5030
0.5035
0.5038
Adjusted
Vertical
Displacement
(in)
Gage: Soil
test
0.001 range
0.0000
0.3945
0.3960
0.3968
0.3975
0.3978
0.3983
0.3985
0.3990
0.3993
Constants
Rate
Diameter sample
Diameter sample
Proving ring cal.
Cross sec. Area
Vertical Load
Vertical Load
Normal Stress
0.5mm/min
2.4in
0.20ft
3210lbs/in
0.0314ft2
94.2lbs/in
42.72840125kg
3000 psf
Time
(min)
0
1
2
^
i
c
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Horizontal
Displacement
(in)
0.96800
0.96850
0.97000
0.97250
0.97950
0.99000
0.99800
0.00450
0.01450
0.02300
0.03550
0.04750
0.06100
0.07250
0.08400
0.09750
0.11500
0.12600
0.13800
0.16000
0.17300
0.18600
0.20100
0.21200
0.23450
0.24350
0.26500
0.28200
0.29600
0.30900
0.32500
Adjusted
Horizontal
Displacement
(in)
Gage: Soil
Test 2"
range
0.00000
0.00050
0.00200
0.00450
0.01150
0.02200
0.03000
0.03650
0.04650
0.05500
0.06750
0.07950
0.09300
0.10450
0.11600
0.12950
0.14700
0.15800
0.17000
0.19200
0.20500
0.21800
0.23300
0.24400
0.26650
0.27550
0.29700
0.31400
0.32800
0.34100
0.35700
Strain
(%)
0.00
0.02
0.08
0.19
0.48
0.92
1.25
1.52
1.94
2.29
2.81
3.31
3.88
4.35
4.83
5.40
6.13
6.58
7.08
8.00
8.54
9.08
9.71
10.17
11.10
11.48
12.38
13.08
13.67
14.21
14.88
Shearing Force (in)
0.09850
0.01050
0.02850
0.03700
0.04500
0.05600
0.06250
0.06740
0.07270
0.07650
0.07040
0.08410
0.08710
0.09100
0.09500
0.09790
0.09890
0.00070
0.00490
0.00470
0.00380
0.00540
0.00650
0.00750
0.00920
0.01015
0.01015
0.01010
0.01010
0.01030
0.01050
Shear Stress at Failure =
Adjusted
Shearing
Force
(in)
Gage:
Soil Test
0.0001"
range
0.00000
0.01200
0.03000
0.03850
0.04650
0.05750
0.06400
0.06890
0.07420
0.07800
0.07190
0.08560
0.08860
0.09250
0.09650
0.09940
0.10040
0.10220
0.10640
0.10620
0.10530
0.10690
0.10800
0.10900
0.11070
0.11165
0.11165
0.11160
0.11160
0.11180
0.11200
Shear
force
(Ibs)
Nick's
0.00
38.52
96.30
123.59
149.27
184.58
205.44
221.17
238.18
250.38
230.80
274.78
284.41
296.93
309.77
319.07
322.28
328.06
341.54
340.90
338.01
343.15
346.68
349.89
355.35
358.40
358.40
358.24
358.24
358.88
359.52
Nominal
Shear
Stress
(psf)
0.00
1226.75
3066.88
3935.83
4753.66
5878.18
6542.68
7043.60
7585.41
7973.89
7350.29
8750.83
9057.52
9456.21
9865.13
10161.59
10263.82
10447.83
10877.20
10856.75
10764.75
10928.31
11040.76
11142.99
11316.78
11413.90
11413.90
11408.79
11408.79
11429.24
11449.68
11,450
Log Time (rrin)
P a
-i -i O O
n i *-j i i
^* ******** *
P^
> 0 0 0 0
CD CD -* -* hO
o en o en o
CD CD CD CD CD
00000
O CD CD CD CD
0
h-j
a
0
CD
^ *****
000
CO CO -Pi
808
000
CD CD CD
Horizontal Displacement (in)
1 dnnn nn
Q. 1 9nnn nn -
ffl -1 nnnn nn
JS Finnn nn -
l_
Sennn nn
.C
trt dnnn nn
73
c -innn nn
On nn *
****** *~~*
****
/*
+
i-
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Horizontal Strain (%)
F-3
-------
Time
(min)
0.001
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Vertical
Displacement
(in)
Gage: Soil
test
0.001 range
0.3640
0.6890
0.6910
0.6920
0.6930
0.6940
0.6945
0.6945
Adjusted
Vertical
Displacement
(in)
Gage: Soil
test
O.OOIrange
0.0000
0.3250
0.3270
0.3280
0.3290
0.3300
0.3305
0.3305
100
•j 10
4
H
J
0.1
BO
"J 1tO
" wo
! 120
tt
1 100
1 so
- to
.! 40
1 20
^
^ + +^+M** + +++
[
•i
0.00
^H*****
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 t.OO T.OO
H.r!z..t.i sir.;, oo
Constants
Time
(min)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
5
6
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
13.5
14
14.5
15
15.5
16
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
20
20.5
21
21.5
Horizontal
Displacement
(in)
Gage: Soil
Test 2" range
0.91000
0.91050
0.91075
0.91075
0.91100
0.91150
0.91300
0.91550
0.91900
0.92300
0.92450
0.92500
0.92650
0.92850
0.93050
0.93350
0.93600
0.93850
0.94150
0.94450
0.94800
0.95000
0.95200
0.95500
0.95750
0.96000
0.96250
0.96500
0.96550
0.96600
0.96600
0.96650
0.96675
0.96700
0.96775
0.96850
0.97150
Adjusted
Horizontal
Displacement
(in)
0.00000
0.00050
0.00075
0.00075
0.00100
0.00150
0.00300
0.00550
0.00900
0.01300
0.01450
0.01500
0.01650
0.01850
0.02050
0.02350
0.02600
0.02850
0.03150
0.03450
0.03800
0.04000
0.04200
0.04500
0.04750
0.05000
0.05250
0.05500
0.05550
0.05600
0.05600
0.05650
0.05675
0.05700
0.05775
0.05850
0.06150
Strain
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.13
0.23
0.38
0.54
0.60
0.63
0.69
0.77
0.85
0.98
1.08
1.19
1.31
1.44
1.58
1.67
1.75
1.88
1.98
2.08
2.19
2.29
2.31
2.33
2.33
2.35
2.36
2.38
2.41
2.44
2.56
Shearing Force (in)
Gage: Soil Test 0.0001"
range
0.09755
0.00200
0.00900
0.01600
0.02300
0.02950
0.03500
0.04850
0.05550
0.06180
0.06350
0.06490
0.06790
0.07100
0.07400
0.07700
0.07990
0.08260
0.08530
0.08800
0.09050
0.09350
0.09600
0.09830
0.00070
0.00300
0.00520
0.00720
0.09250
0.09420
0.09650
0.09790
0.09930
0.09950
0.00400
0.00750
0.01210
Adjusted
Shearing
Force (in)
Nick's
0.00000
0.00445
0.01145
0.01845
0.02545
0.03195
0.03745
0.05095
0.05795
0.06425
0.06595
0.06735
0.07035
0.07345
0.07645
0.07945
0.08235
0.08505
0.08775
0.09045
0.09295
0.09595
0.09845
0.10075
0.10315
0.10545
0.10765
0.10965
0.09495
0.09665
0.09895
0.10035
0.10175
0.10195
0.10645
0.10995
0.11455
Shear
force
(Ibs)
0.00
14.28
36.75
59.22
81.69
102.56
120.21
163.55
186.02
206.24
211.70
216.19
225.82
235.77
245.40
255.03
264.34
273.01
281.68
290.34
298.37
308.00
316.02
323.41
331.11
338.49
345.56
351.98
304.79
310.25
317.63
322.12
326.62
327.26
341.70
352.94
367.71
Nominal
Shear
Stress
(psf)
0.00
454.92
1170.53
1886.13
2601.74
3266.23
3828.49
5208.58
5924.19
6568.23
6742.02
6885.14
7191.83
7508.74
7815.43
8122.12
8418.58
8694.60
8970.62
9246.64
9502.21
9808.90
10064.47
10299.60
10544.95
10780.08
11004.98
11209.44
9706.67
9880.46
10115.59
10258.71
10401.83
10422.28
10882.31
11240.11
11710.37
F-4
-------
Rate
Diameter sample
Diameter sample
Proving ring cal.
Cross sec. Area
Vertical Load
Vertical Load
Normal Stress
0.5mm/min
2.4in
0.20ft
3210.00lbs/in
0.0314ft2
157 Ibs
71.21400209kg
5000 psf
22
23
24
24.5
25
25.5
26
26.5
27
28
29
29.5
30
0.97500
0.98150
0.99000
0.99500
0.00050
0.00500
0.01000
0.01400
0.01800
0.02750
0.03700
0.04350
0.04800
0.06500
0.07150
0.08000
0.08500
0.09050
0.09500
0.10000
0.10400
0.10800
0.11750
0.12700
0.13350
0.13800
2.71
2.98
3.33
3.54
3.77
3.96
4.17
4.33
4.50
4.90
5.29
5.56
5.75
0.01550
0.02050
0.02550
0.02780
0.02980
0.03180
0.03420
0.03600
0.03800
0.04150
0.04500
0.04640
0.04770
Shear Stress at Failure =
0.11795
0.12295
0.12795
0.13025
0.13225
0.13425
0.13665
0.13845
0.14045
0.14395
0.14745
0.14885
0.15015
378.62
394.67
410.72
418.10
424.52
430.94
438.65
444.42
450.84
462.08
473.31
477.81
481.98
12057.95
12569.09
13080.24
13315.37
13519.82
13724.28
13969.63
14153.65
14358.11
14715.91
15073.71
15216.83
15349.73
15,350
F-5
-------
Consolidated Undrained* Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3F-1
Test Details
Standard
Test Definition
Sample Type
Sample Description
Variations from Procedure
ASTM D4767-04
Consolidated Undrained
Small disturbed sample
Particle Density
Drainage location
Lab. Temperature
2.70 Mg/m3
(Assumed)
Bottom
24.0deg.C
1 Part PGA to 4 Parts RMA compacted to approx 90 percent of dry max density
at near optimum MC
*Sample was accidentally tested under Consolidated Drained conditions
Specimen Details
Specimen Reference
Depth within Sample
Initial Height
Preparation
Bulk Density
Comments
B
NA
143.66 mm
Soil was
compacted
in a 3"
diameter by
5.5" long
mold with a
rubber
membrane
1 .87 Mg/mJ
Description
Orientation within Sample
Initial Diameter
Moisture Content
Membrane Thickness
Red Mud and
Phosphogypsum
Composite
NA
69.42 mm
34.6 %
(trimmings: 31 .6 %)
0.41 mm
None
SATURATION STAGE
Saturation Method
Final Cell Pressure
Final Pore Pressure
Cell/Back Pressure Increments
344.6kPa
Cell Increments
A Pore Pressure
68.9kPa
>68.9kPa
Greater than 1.0, sample considered saturated
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
F-6
-------
Consolidated Undrained* Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3F-1
E
O)
c
V
3
0
(
-0.11 <
29 89 •
"5Q RQ -
4Q RQ .
-------
Consolidated Undrained* Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3F-1
Shearing Stage (Stress vs Axial Strain)
re
a.
I/I
V)
I
55
s_
2
13
Q
•O
o
o
208.8
240.3
100.3
140.3
-2
6 8 10
Axial Strain %
12
14
16
18
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
F-8
-------
Consolidated Undrained* Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
NA
LAB01 141
3F-1
Shear Conditions
Rate of Axial Displacement
Initial Back Pressure
0.0558mm/min
239.7kPa
Cell Pressure
Effective Stress at Start of Stage
270.4kPa
27.6kPa (4 psi)
Conditions at Failure
Failure Criterion
Pore Pressure
Deviator Stress
Axial Strain
Deviator Stress Correction
Density
Maximum Deviator Stress
O.OkPa
334.3kPa
15.21%
l.SkPa
1.92Mg/m3
Minor Effective Principal Stress
Major Effective Principal Stress
Effective Principal Stress Ratio
Moisture Content
264.5kPa
598.8kPa
2.264
32.3 %
Tested By and
Date:
Checked By and
Date:
Approved By
and Date:
NAJ 7/28/08
KMP 7/28/08
NAJ 8/18/08
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
Mode of Failure
F-9
-------
Consolidated Undrained* Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
None
LAB01 141
3F-3
Test Details
Standard
Test Definition
Sample Type
Sample Description
Variations from Procedure
ASTM D4767-04
Consolidated Undrained
Small disturbed sample
Particle Density
Drainage location
Lab. Temperature
2.70 Mg/m3
(Assumed)
Bottom
24.0deg.C
1 Part PGA to 4 Parts RMA compacted to approx 90 percent of dry max density
at near optimum MC
*Sample was accidentally tested under Consolidated Drained conditions
Specimen Details
Specimen Reference
Depth within Sample
Initial Height
Preparation
Bulk Density
Comments
B
NA
139.70 mm
Soil was
compacted
in a 3"
diameter by
5.5" long
mold with a
rubber
membrane
1.91 Mg/mJ
Description
Orientation within Sample
Initial Diameter
Moisture Content
Membrane Thickness
Red Mud and
Phosphogypsum
Composite
NA
70.28 mm
34.2 %
(trimmings: 31 .6 %)
0.41 mm
None
SATURATION STAGE
Saturation Method
Final Cell Pressure
Final Pore Pressure
Cell/Back Pressure Increments
414.2kPa
Cell Increments
A Pore Pressure
68.9kPa
>68.9kPa
Greater than 1.0, sample considered saturated
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
F-10
-------
Consolidated Undrained* Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
None
LAB01 141
3F-3
0.5
CONSOLIDATION STAGE
Time - Square Root Mins
1.5 2 2.5 3
3.5
4.5
0.55
O)
c
re
O
a>
_=
o
20.55
30.55
40.55
50.55
60.55
70.55
80.55
90.55
X
Cell Pressure
Effective Pressure
414.2kPa
43.0kPa
BackPressure
Final Pore Pressure
371.2kPa
0.0 kPa
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
F-ll
-------
Consolidated Undrained* Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
None
LAB01 141
3F-3
re
a.
300
250
I 200
55
2
| 150
1 100
o
o
50
Shearing Stage (Stress vs Axial Strain)
8 10 12
Axial Strain %
14
16
18
20
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
F-12
-------
Consolidated Undrained* Triaxial Compression Test
with measurement of Pore Pressure
Client
Project
Borehole
MSB Technology Applications
Beneficial Use of Red Mud
and Phosphogypsum
NA
Lab Ref
Job
Sample
None
LAB01 141
3F-3
Shear Conditions
Rate of Axial Displacement
Initial Back Pressure
0.0519mm/min
372.23 kPa
Cell Pressure
Effective Stress at Start of Stage
413.6kPa
41.37kPa(6psi)
Conditions at Failure
Failure Criterion
Pore Pressure
Deviator Stress
Axial Strain
Deviator Stress Correction
Density
Maximum Deviator Stress
O.OkPa
281.3kPa
15.07%
l.SkPa
2.27 Mg/m3
Minor Effective Principal Stress
Major Effective Principal Stress
Effective Principal Stress Ratio
Moisture Content
414.2kPa
695.5kPa
1.679
33.5 %
Tested By and
Date:
Checked By and
Date:
Approved By
and Date:
NAJ 8/1/08
KMP 8/1/08
NAJ 8/18/08
Sample #3F: I P;m PGA:4 Part.-, RMA
Compacted to -90% Max. y
CU Testing (6 psi eiVecme sircss)
MSB Technology Applications, Inc.
F-13
------- |