U.S. patent number RE30,943 [Application Number 06/068,412] was granted by the patent office on 1982-05-25 for stabilized mixture.
This patent grant is currently assigned to Nicholson Realty Ltd.. Invention is credited to John P. Nicholson.
United States Patent |
RE30,943 |
Nicholson |
May 25, 1982 |
Stabilized mixture
Abstract
A mixture consisting essentially of fly ash and cement kiln dust
which reacts at ambient temperature with water to produce a durable
mass.
Inventors: |
Nicholson; John P. (Toledo,
OH) |
Assignee: |
Nicholson Realty Ltd.
(Sylvania, OH)
|
Family
ID: |
27371331 |
Appl.
No.: |
06/068,412 |
Filed: |
August 21, 1979 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
Issue Date |
|
|
654211 |
Feb 2, 1976 |
4018617 |
|
|
Reissue of: |
765837 |
Feb 4, 1977 |
04101332 |
Jul 18, 1978 |
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
106/707;
106/DIG.1; 106/709 |
Current CPC
Class: |
C04B
18/162 (20130101); C04B 28/04 (20130101); C04B
28/04 (20130101); C04B 18/08 (20130101); C04B
18/16 (20130101); Y02W 30/95 (20150501); Y02W
30/91 (20150501); Y02W 30/92 (20150501) |
Current International
Class: |
C04B
28/04 (20060101); C04B 18/04 (20060101); C04B
18/16 (20060101); C04B 28/00 (20060101); C04B
007/26 () |
Field of
Search: |
;106/85,97,118,DIG.1 |
References Cited
[Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
Primary Examiner: Poer; James
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Barnes, Kisselle, Raisch &
Choate
Parent Case Text
This application is a division of application Ser. No. 654,211,
filed Feb. 2, 1976, now U.S. Pat. No. 4,018,617.
This invention relates to materials which are capable of supporting
surfacing such as pavement bases.
Claims
I claim:
1. A mixture consisting essentially of fly ash and cement kiln
dust.
2. The mixture set forth in claim 1 including an amount of portland
cement.
3. The mixture set forth in claim 1 wherein said cement kiln dust
comprises about 12% by dry weight and said fly ash comprises about
88% by dry weight.
4. The method which comprises mixing fly ash, cement kiln dust and
water and permitting the mixture to react at ambient temperatures
to produce a durable mass.
5. The method set forth in claim 4 wherein said .[.fly ash.].
.Iadd.cement kiln dust .Iaddend.comprises about 12% by dry weight
of the total of fly ash and cement kiln dust and the .[.cement kiln
dust.]. .Iadd.fly ash .Iaddend.comprises about 88% by dry weight of
the total of fly ash and cement kiln dust.
6. The mixture set forth in claim 1 including about 1% portland
cement.
7. The mixture set forth in claim 1 wherein the fly ash comprises
the major constituent.
8. The method set forth in claim 4 including mixing about 1%
portland cement with said fly ash and cement kiln dust.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
In road paving, at one time it was thought that the base for the
surfacing material should comprise a granular or gravel base.
However, more recently, it has been concluded that there was a
considerable difference in the performance between such bases and
cement-aggregate or bituminous (asphalt)-aggregate bases. As
reported in the Highway Research Board Special Report 61E, titled
The AASHO Road Test, Report 5, Pavement Research, publication 954
of National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, there is
a clear superiority of such treated bases over untreated bases. In
recent years, treated bases have become commonly known as
stabilized bases.
In subsequent work, for example, use of asphalt mixtures in all
courses of pavement above the subgrade has been proposed, The
Asphalt Institute, Information Series No. 146, June 1968. Asphalt
stabilized bases have become the most dominant stabilized base
utilized to support a flexible surfacing such as asphalt concrete.
In addition, asphalt concrete has found extensive use as a
resurfacing material for concrete pavement.
It has also been proposed that a lime-fly ash-aggregate stabilized
base be used in road paving. Such a base consists of a mixture of
proper quantities of lime, fly ash, and graded aggregate at optimum
moisture content, in which the stability is greatly enhanced by the
cementing action which results from complex chemical reactions
between the lime and the fly ash in the presence of water.
Stabilized bases are usually employed as base courses under wearing
surfaces such as hot mixed, hot laid asphaltic concrete. A wearing
surface is necessary to resist the high shearing stresses which are
caused by traction, but the stabilized base provides the required
stability to support wheel loads.
A serious obstacle to the expanded use of stabilized bases is the
high energy costs for making the materials.
For example, it is well known that the production of portland
cement which is used in stabilizing bases requires substantial
quantities of coal in manufacture. In fact, the United States
Department of Transportation has suggested that fly ash be
substituted for a portion of the portland cement utilized in
concrete or cement-aggregate bases, Federal Highway Administration
Notice N5080.4, Jan. 17, 1974.
The use of asphalt in asphalt-aggregate bases which is derived from
petroleum processing not only utilizes petroleum which is in short
supply but also requires high energy to produce them.
Similarly, the lime, fly ash and graded aggregate stabilized bases
utilize lime which requires coal in production. Such bases have
been used in limited geographical areas of the United States where
they can compete economically because of availability of lime and
fly ash.
Thus, the predominantly used stabilized bases utilize materials
that are in short supply and require substantial quantities of
energy to produce them. The materials may be termed energy
intensive. There is a need to avoid or minimize the use of such
energy intensive materials in road paving.
Accordingly, among the objects of the invention are to provide a
mixture of materials for producing a stabilized base comprising a
hard, strong, durable mass capable of supporting surfacing which
avoids or minimizes the use of materials which are energy intensive
and, moreover, utilizes materials that normally are waste materials
that are readily available.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In accordance with the invention, the mixture consists essentially
of fly ash and cement kiln dust which reacts at ambient temperature
with water to produce a durable mass.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIGS. 1-3 are curves of compressive strength versus age at test for
various compositions.
FIG. 4 is curves of energy requirements for various pavement
materials.
DESCRIPTION
In accordance with the invention, the pozzolanic load supporting
composition utilizes cement kiln dust.
The solid waste generated by cement manufacture is primarily kiln
dust. This dust contains a mixture of raw kiln feed, partly
calcined material, finely divided cement klinker and alkali
sulfates (usually sulfates). There is economic value in returning
the dust to the kiln, but when the alkali content of the returned
dust is too high for the product klinker to meet specifications,
the dust must be discarded. Up to about 15% of the raw materials
processed may be collected as dust and of this about half may be
low enough in alkalis to be returned to the kiln. The rest is
usually stockpiled as a waste material which must be disposed and
may be a nuisance and possibly a hazard.
Although the chemical reactions occurring in the resultant cement
kiln dust are not well known, typical cement kiln dust has a
chemical analysis as follows:
SiO.sub.2
Al.sub.2 O.sub.3
Fe.sub.2 O.sub.3
CaO
MgO
SO.sub.3
Na.sub.2 O
K.sub.2 O
Loss Ignition
More specifically, typical cement kiln dust may have the following
analyses:
__________________________________________________________________________
Source Source Source Source Source Source Source Source Source Mid-
Ingredient A B C D E F G H I Range
__________________________________________________________________________
SiO.sub.2 28.5% 6.0% 22.4% 11.2% 13.0% 23.5% 14.8% 14.6% 14.7%
17.2% Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 9.6 3.4 4.71 3.2 4.0 3.77 3.4 3.4 3.7 6.4
Fe.sub.2 O.sub.3 5.9 0.8 1.77 1.4 5.0 1.71 2.2 2.2 3.0 3.4 CaO 50.1
16.0 65.0 48.8 47.2 61.3 47.3 46.3 46.5 40.5 MgO 3.4 0.8 2.60 2.1
1.2 4.83 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.8 SO.sub.3 26.3 0.7 1.12 2.4 13.6 1.48 4.8
5.0 8.2 13.5 Na.sub.2 O 3.18 0.08 0.24 0.2 0.45 0.24 0.9 0.9 0.8
1.6 K.sub.2 O 26.23 1.08 1.3 4.2 2.9 1.85 4.1 5.1 3.0 13.7 Loss on
Ignition 32.0% 7.7% 2.50% 26.6% 12.9% 1.84% 21.1% 21.4% 18.2% 17.2%
__________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________ RANGE Ingredient Low % High
% Average % ______________________________________ SiO.sub.2 6.0
28.5 16.5 Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 3.2 9.6 4.35 Fe.sub.2 O.sub.3 0.8 5.9
2.66 CaO 16.0 65.0 47.6 MgO 0.8 4.83 2.34 SO.sub.3 0.7 26.3 7.07
Na.sub.2 O 0.08 3.18 0.78 K.sub.2 O 1.08 26.23 5.52 Loss on
Ignition 2.50 32.0 16.0 ______________________________________
When mixtures made in accordance with the invention and mixed with
water to produce a pozzolanic reaction have been tested in
accordance with the specifications given in ASTM C-593 for fly ash
and other pozzolans for use with lime, it has been found that the
compositions meet or exceed the specifications.
The term "fly ash" as used in connection with stabilized bases is
well known and as used herein is intended to indicate the finely
divided ash residue produced by the combustion of pulverized coal
or lignite, which ash is carried off with the gases exhausted from
the furnace in which the coal is burned and which is collected from
these gases usually by means of suitable precipitation apparatus
such as electrical precipitators. Those finely pulverized ashes
resulting from combustion of oil and from combustion of waste
materials in a large incinerator or natural pozzolans can also be
utilized in the methods described herein providing their chemical
compositions are reasonably similar to pulverized coal fly ashes.
The fly ash so obtained is in a finely divided state such that
usually at least 70% by weight passes through a 200-mesh sieve,
although incinerator ashes may be considerably coarser. Fly ash may
be considered an "artificial pozzolan", as distinguished from a
"natural pozzolan".
The term "aggregate" as used in connection with load supporting
compositions is also well known and refers to natural or artificial
inorganic materials most of which are substantially chemically
inert with respect to fly ash and lime, and substantially insoluble
in water. Typically, aggregate may comprise limestone, sand, blast
furnace slag, gravel, synthetic aggregate and other similar
material.
Aggregates can comprise a wide range of types and gradations,
including sands, gravels, crushed stones, and several types of
slag. Aggregates should be of such gradation that, when mixed with
cement kiln dust, fly ash and water, the resulting mixture is
mechanically stable under compaction equipment and capable of being
compacted in the field to high density. The aggregate should be
free from deleterious organic or chemical substances which may
interfere with the desired chemical reaction between the cement
kiln dust, fly ash and water. Further, the aggregate should
preferably consist of hard, durable particles, free from soft or
disintegrated pieces.
It has been found that a preferable mixture comprises:
______________________________________ Percent by Dry Weight
______________________________________ Cement Kiln Dust 8.0% Fly
Ash 12.0% Aggregate 80.0% Total 100.0%
______________________________________
However, the mixture for use in road stabilizer bases may
preferably vary as follows:
______________________________________ Percent By Dry Weight
______________________________________ Cement Kiln Dust 4-16% Fly
Ash 6-24% Aggregate 60-90%
______________________________________
As indicated above, tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM
C-593. More specifically, the test specimens were molded using a
mechanical compactor, having a 10 pound hammer with an 18 inch
drop. The material was placed in the molds in three equal layers,
and compacted by 25 blows per layer. The machine has a revolving
turntable to evenly distribute the blows over the surface of the
layer being compacted.
After molding, the samples were carefully removed from the molds,
weighed, and sealed in plastic bag, labeled for identification, and
placed in a constant temperature oven at 100.degree. F. to cure
until tested. Two cylinders of each mix were marked for testing at
7, 14 and 28 days of curing. After removal from the oven, the
samples are submerged in water for four hours, removed, and allowed
to drain on a non-absorbant surface, capped, and tested within one
hour after removal from the water. The capping compound used is
"Hydro-Stone" a lime based, quick-hardening compound. Plate glass
was used to obtain even, parallel caps on the test specimens.
Examples of various tests and compositions are as follows:
EXAMPLE I
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Kiln Dust 8.0% 2.4# Fly Ash 12.0% 3.6# Limestone 80.0% 24.0#
Total 100.0% 30.0#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 10.8 4.73 141.9 128.1 12.57 10-16 13,140 1050 B 10.8 4.72 141.6
127.8 12.57 10-16 14,370 1140 C 10.8 4.73 141.9 128.1 12.57 10-23
15,780 1260 D 10.8 4.73 141.9 128.1 12.57 10-23 15,530 1240 E 10.8
4.73 141.9 128.1 12.57 11-06 17,800 1420 F 10.8 4.73 141.9 128.1
12.57 11-06 17,800 1420
__________________________________________________________________________
Remarks: Slight bleeding at bottom of mold.
EXAMPLE II
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Kiln Dust 8.0% 2.4# Fly Ash 12.0% 3.6# Limestone 80.0% 24.0#
Retarder -- 0.96 oz Total 100.0% 30.0#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 10.1 4.73 141.9 128.9 12.57 10-16 -- -- B 10.1 4.73 141.9 128.9
12.57 10-16 -- -- C 10.2 4.73 141.9 128.8 12.57 10-23 1,650 130 D
10.2 4.73 141.9 128.8 12.57 10-23 1,930 150 E 10.3 4.73 141.9 128.6
12.57 11-06 2,300 180 F 10.3 4.73 141.9 128.6 12.57 11-06 2,100 170
__________________________________________________________________________
Remarks: Slight bleeding. Samples 2A and 2B fell apart during the
four (4) hour soaking. There was no intact sample to subject to the
compression test. Samples C, D, E, and F were not subjected to the
four (4) hour soaking, prior to testing.
EXAMPLE III
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Kiln Dust 8.0% 2.4# Fly Ash 12.0% 3.6# Limestone 80.0% 24.0#
Calcium Chloride Solution -- (0.24#) Total 100.0% 30.0#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. in.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 10.4 4.77 143.1 129.6 12.57 10-16 15,160 1210 B 10.4 4.77 143.1
129.6 12.57 10-16 15,750 1250 C 10.0 4.73 141.9 129.0 12.57 10-23
17,250 1370 D 9.9 4.73 141.9 129.1 12.57 10-23 18,950 1510 E 9.8
4.73 141.9 129.2 12.57 11-06 20,600 1640 F 9.7 4.72 141.6 129.1
12.57 11-06 20,700 1650
__________________________________________________________________________
Remarks: Slight bleeding
EXAMPLE IV
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Kiln Dust 8.0% 2.4# Stack Dust 3.0% 0.9# Fly Ash 12.0% 3.6#
Limestone 77.0% 23.1# Total 100.0% 30.0#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 8.5 4.53 135.9 125.3 12.57 10-17 8,200 652 B 8.5 4.54 136.2 125.5
12.57 10-17 8,900 708 C 8.7 4.58 137.4 126.4 12.57 10-24 10,950 871
D 8.8 4.56 136.8 125.7 12.57 10-24 11,775 937 E 9.0 4.58 137.4
126.1 12.57 11-07 16,050 1280 F 9.0 4.56 136.8 125.5 12.57 11-07
14,850 1180
__________________________________________________________________________
Remarks: No bleeding.
EXAMPLE V
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Kiln Dust 12.0% 3.6# Fly Ash 88.0% 26.4# Total 100.0% 30.0#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 9.5 2.87 86.1 78.6 12.57 10-17 2,350 187 B 9.7 2.90 87.0 79.3
12.57 10-17 2,300 183 C 9.7 2.90 87.0 79.3 12.57 10-24 2,075 165 D
9.7 2.90 87.0 79.3 12.57 10-24 1,900 151 E 9.7 2.90 87.0 79.3 12.57
11-07 3,040 240 F 10.0 2.96 88.8 80.7 12.57 11-07 3,230 260
__________________________________________________________________________
Remarks: Had difficulty in reaching the desired moisture content
because of the dust's extremely dry condition. Extremely "fluffy"
material.
EXAMPLE VI
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Kiln Dust 8.0% 2.4# Fly Ash 8.0% 2.4# Limestone 79.0% 23.7#
Limestone Fines 5.0% 1.5# Total 100.0% 30.0# Water added: 1158 +
136 = 1294
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 9.8 4.85 145.5 132.5 12.57 10-20 13,900 1110 B 9.8 4.81 144.3
131.4 12.57 10-20 15,000 1190 C 9.8 4.79 143.7 130.9 12.57 10-27
17,350 1380 D 9.9 4.81 144.3 131.3 12.57 10-27 18,200 1448 E 9.9
4.81 144.3 131.3 12.57 11-10 17,050 1356 F 9.9 4.78 143.4 130.5
12.57 11-10 16,600 1321
__________________________________________________________________________
Remarks: Good compactability. Material was relatively easy to work
with.
EXAMPLE VII
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Fly Ash 8.0% 2.40# Kiln Dust 10.0% 3.00# No. 304 Limestone 82.0%
24.60# (Screened over 3/4" screen) Total 100.0% 30.00#
__________________________________________________________________________
Cyl. Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded(Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
1 11.5 4.73 141.9 127.3 12.57 4-01 9350 745 2 11.1 4.71 141.3 127.2
12.57 4-01 8610 685 3 11.1 4.73 141.9 127.7 12.57 4-01 9290 740 4
11.1 4.74 142.2 128.1 12.57 4-22 14050 1120 5 11.0 4.75 142.5 128.4
12.57 4-22 13500 1075 6 10.7 4.74 142.2 128.5 12.57 4-22 13620 1085
__________________________________________________________________________
A. Slight bleeding at bottom of mold during compaction. B. Material
appeared deficient in limestone fines (#4 material). C. Some free
moisture noted, giving slight "glossy" appearance. D. Samples
slumped, following extraction from molds.
EXAMPLE VIII
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Fly Ash 10.0% 3.00# Kiln Dust 8.0% 2.40# No. 304 Limestone 82.0%
24.60# (Screened over 3/4" screen) Total 100.0 30.00#
__________________________________________________________________________
Cyl. Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
1 9.3 4.72 141.6 129.6 12.57 4-01 8060 640 2 9.4 4.71 141.3 129.2
12.57 4-01 7750 615 3 9.4 4.71 141.3 129.2 12.57 4-01 8000 635 4
9.5 4.69 140.7 128.5 12.57 4-22 9730 775 5 9.6 4.68 140.4 128.1
12.57 4-22 10450 830 6 9.5 4.69 140.7 128.5 12.57 4-22 11490 915
__________________________________________________________________________
A. Samples retained shape following extraction from molds. B. No
free water noticed bleeding during compaction.
EXAMPLE IX
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Fly Ash 8.0% 2.40# Kiln Dust 10.0% 3.00# Fill Sand 82.0% 24.60#
Total 100.0% 30.00#
__________________________________________________________________________
Cyl. Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
1 9.8 4.09 122.7 111.7 12.57 3-31 1800 145 2 10.0 4.12 123.6 112.4
12.57 3-31 1700 135 3 9.9 4.10 123.0 111.9 12.57 3-31 1690 135 4
9.9 4.11 123.3 112.2 12.57 4-21 2810 225 5 10.0 4.10 123.0 111.8
12.57 4-21 2880 230 6 9.8 4.09 122.7 111.7 12.57 4-21 2670 210
__________________________________________________________________________
A. No bleeding of sample during compaction. B. Material stayed in a
ball when packed by hand. C. Slight bulking noticed. D. Easily
compacted.
EXAMPLE X
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Fly Ash 8.0% 2.40# Kiln Dust 10.0% 3.00# Glass (Crushed to approx.
1/2" size) 32.0% 9.60# Fill Sand 50.0% 15.00# Total 100.0% 30.00#
__________________________________________________________________________
Cyl. Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
1 9.4 4.50 135.0 123.4 12.57 4-02 4390 350 2 9.4 4.50 135.0 123.4
12.57 4-02 4590 365 3 9.3 4.51 135.3 123.8 12.57 4-02 4200 335 4
9.2 4.52 135.6 124.2 12.57 4-23 6750 535 5 9.1 4.51 135.3 124.0
12.57 4-23 6870 545 6 9.1 4.47 134.1 122.9 12.57 4-23 6280 500
__________________________________________________________________________
A. Material originally mixed to 10.3% moisture, looked wet,
probably because nonabsorbancy of glass. B. Air dried the mix out
to approximately 9.4% moisture, did not bulk at this moisture
content. C. Surprisingly good cohesion of mix, even with the smooth
faces of glass particles. D. Strength of cylinders higher than
expected, thought the mix would slip off the smooth glass faces,
when put under compression.
EXAMPLE XI
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Kiln Dust 16.0 3.2# Fly Ash 24.0 4.8# No. 304 Crushed
Limestone 60.0 12.0# Total 100.0 20.0#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 16.6 4.50 135.0 115.8 12.57 12/22 5890 470 B 15.1 4.46 133.8
116.2 12.57 12/22 6000 480 C 15.0 4.46 133.8 116.3 12.57 12/22 6150
490
__________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE XII
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Kiln Dust 4.0 0.8# Fly Ash 6.0 1.2# No. 304 Crushed
Limestone 90.0 18.0# Total 100.0 20.0#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 11.1 4.94 148.2 133.4 12.57 12/22 2950 230 B 11.2 4.93 147.9
133.0 12.57 12/22 3570 280 C 11.2 4.93 147.9 133.0 12.57 12/22 3250
260
__________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE XIII
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Kiln Dust 6.9% 140# Fly Ash 11.8% 240# Limestone Screenings
39.4% 800# No. 57 Crushed Limestone 39.4% 800# Water 2.5% 50# Total
100.0% 2030#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 5.6 4.49 134.7 127.6 12.57 11-22 8,950 712 B 5.1 4.51 135.3 128.7
12.57 11-22 8,225 654 C 5.5 4.51 135.3 128.2 12.57 11-22 9,050 720
D 5.4 4.50 135.0 128.1 12.57 11-29 9,610 760 E 5.5 4.49 134.7 127.7
12.57 11-29 8,080 640 F 4.9 4.50 135.0 128.7 12.57 11-29 9,630 770
G 5.1 4.46 133.8 127.3 12.57 12-13 8,820 700 H 5.3 4.51 135.3 128.5
12.57 12-13 9,380 750 I 5.4 4.50 135.0 128.1 12.57 12-13 9,400 750
J 5.3 4.46 133.8 127.1 12.57 02-03 K 5.1 4.51 135.3 128.7 12.57
02-03 L 4.9 4.48 134.4 128.1 12.57 02-03 M 5.0 4.54 136.2 129.7
12.57 For Durablilty Test N 4.9 4.54 136.2 129.8 12.57 For
Durability Test O 4.8 4.47 134.1 128.0 12.57 For Durability Test
__________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE XIV
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Type I 1.0% 20# Cement Kiln Dust 6.8% 140# Fly Ash 11.7%
240# Limestone Screenings 39.0% 800# No. 57 Crushed Limestone 39.0%
800# Water 2.5% 50# Total 100.0% 1050#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded (Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 5.4 4.58 137.4 130.4 12.57 11-21 10,030 800 B 5.4 4.58 137.4
130.4 12.57 11-21 11,780 940 C 5.4 4.58 137.4 130.4 12.57 11-21
14,120 1120 D 5.3 4.58 137.4 130.5 12.57 11-28 15,500 1230 E 5.0
4.58 137.4 130.9 12.57 11-28 18,500 1470 F 5.8 4.46 133.8 126.5
12.57 11-29 14,910 1190 G 5.8 4.46 133.8 126.5 12.57 12-13 17,900
1420 H 5.7 4.46 133.8 126.6 12.57 12-13 20,010 1590 I 5.7 4.46
133.8 126.6 12.57 12-13 14,980 1190 J 5.7 4.46 133.8 126.6 12.57
02-13 K 5.6 4.46 133.8 126.7 12.57 02-13 L 5.6 4.46 133.8 126.7
12.57 02-13 M 5.4 4.49 134.7 127.8 12.57 For Durability Test N 5.4
4.49 134.7 127.8 12.57 For Durability Test O 5.4 4.49 134.7 127.8
12.57 For Durability Test
__________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE XV
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Cement Kiln Dust 7.8% 160# Fly Ash 11.7% 240# Limestone Screenings
39.0% 800# No. 57 Crushed Limestone 39.0% 800# Water 2.5% 50# Total
100.0% 2050#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded(Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 8.1 4.24 127.2 117.7 12.57 11-22 4,650 370* B 7.9 4.24 127.2
117.9 12.57 11-22 5,700 450 C 8.3 4.29 128.7 118.8 12.57 11-22
6,030 D 7.8 4.25 127.5 118.3 12.57 11-29 7,200 570 E 7.7 4.24 127.2
118.1 12.57 11-29 6,850 540 F 7.6 4.26 127.8 118.8 12.57 11-29
8,080 640 G 7.6 4.30 129.0 119.9 12.57 12-13 10,000 800 H 7.6 4.27
128.1 119.0 12.57 12-13 9,500 760 I 7.6 4.27 128.1 119.0 12.57
12-13 8,980 710 J 7.5 4.27 128.1 119.2 12.57 02-13 K 7.3 4.28 128.4
119.7 12.57 02-13 L 7.2 4.26 127.8 119.2 12.57 02-13 M 7.2 4.27
128.1 119.5 12.57 For Durability Test N 7.1 4.24 127.2 118.8 12.57
For Durability Test O 7.2 4.25 127.5 118.9 12.57 For Durability
Test
__________________________________________________________________________
*Sample fractured horizontally during capping Remarks: This product
was produced on November 6, and sampled on November 13. Materials
are the same as in Example XIII This example is a check to see if
the age of the product, before use, has any effect on the strength
results.
EXAMPLE XVI
__________________________________________________________________________
Weight of Percent Batch
__________________________________________________________________________
Fly Ash 11.6% 232# Lime 3.4% 68# No. 304 Crushed Limestone 85.0%
1700# Water -- -- Total 100.0% 2000#
__________________________________________________________________________
Specimen Percent Wt. As Wet Wt. Dry Wt. Area Date Mach. No. Water
Molded(Lbs.) Per Cu. Ft. Per Cu. Ft. (Sq. In.) Tested Load P.S.I.
__________________________________________________________________________
A 10.4 4.60 138.0 125.0 12.57 11-28 10,325 820 B 10.4 4.70 141.0
127.7 12.57 11-28 11,950 950 C 10.2 4.62 138.6 125.8 12.57 11-28
10,650 850 D 10.2 4.67 140.1 127.1 12.57 12-05 19,600 1559 E 10.2
4.66 139.8 126.9 12.57 12-05 18,950 1508 F 11.1 4.65 139.5 125.6
12.57 12-05 19,825 1577 G 10.8 4.66 139.8 126.2 12.57 12-19 21,860
1740 H 10.8 4.66 139.8 126.2 12.57 12-19 20,790 1650 I 10.8 4.64
139.2 125.6 12.57 12-19 21,000 1670 J 10.8 4.70 141.0 127.3 12.57
02-19 K 10.9 4.65 139.5 125.8 12.57 02-19 L 10.9 4.68 140.4 126.6
12.57 02-19 M 10.9 4.66 139.8 126.1 12.57 For Durability Test N
10.9 4.68 140.4 126.6 12.57 For Durability Test O 9.6 4.63 138.9
126.7 12.57 For Durability Test
__________________________________________________________________________
The results of the tests are summarized in FIGS. 1-3.
As shown in FIG. 1, mixtures containing cement kiln dust vary but
in each instant produce a base that is stabilized.
As shown in FIG. 2, the addition of additives or admixtures
generally do not affect the strength except that a retarder tends
to prevent the early development of strength as might be
expected.
As shown in FIG. 3, the strength of mixtures including cement kiln
dust compare favorably with a lime, fly ash, aggregate mixture. In
addition, even a mixture of cement kiln dust and fly ash produces a
stabilized base.
Thus, the mixtures of the present invention result in a stabilized
base that is comparable in strength and required performance
characteristics to cement-aggregate or lime-fly ash-aggregate
stabilized bases and yet are not energy intensive. The mixtures of
the present invention cost less than the predominantly used
asphalt-aggregate bases. Also, the use of mixtures of the invention
releases asphalt for use in resurfacing or as a heavy industrial
fuel.
FIG. 4 is a curve showing the BTU's per mile versus thickness for
various road paving materials taken from Highway Research Circular
titled "Fuel Usage Factors for Highway Construction", Number 158,
July, 1974. It ca be seen that asphalt concrete and cement type
mixtures require substantial energy and only granular base or
sub-base of aggregate has minimal energy requirements in hauling,
spreading, compacting and finishing. Since the mixtures of the
present invention utilize waste materials, namely, cement kiln dust
and fly ash, the energy requirements for making a stabilized base
are only in hauling, spreading, compacting and finishing.
As a result, the mixtures of the present invention have minimal
energy requirements and thereby obviate the energy intensive
materials or prior stabilized bases.
The mixtures of the present invention utilize cement kiln dust
which is a waste product that is relatively available from cement
plants and fly ash which is readily available from power
plants.
* * * * *