See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265352154

THE USE OF BURNT COLLIERY SPOIL IN EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION

Article · January 2000

CITATIONS READS

0 249

1 author:

Mike G Winter
Transport Research Laboratory
104 PUBLICATIONS   570 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Scottish Road Network Landslide hazard and risk assessment View project

SAFELAND View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mike G Winter on 10 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE USE OF BURNT COLLIERY SPOIL IN EARTHWORK
CONSTRUCTION

Mike G. Winter1

ABSTRACT

Burnt colliery spoil is a potentially valuable engineering material and is present in significant quantities in
the UK. It can be used successfully as general fill or capping layer. However, due to its high quality it may be
more suited to use as selected granular fill or sub-base. In particular, cement stabilisation will reduce frost
susceptibility and may be a particularly appropriate outlet for burnt colliery spoil for use as sub-base.
However, an increase in control and testing may be required, having an effect on the cost of using such
materials. Conditions under which burnt colliery spoil should not be used are also identified. Although
formulated within the limits of the UK Specification for Highway Works, the advice given should be
transferable for use within other specifications.

INTRODUCTION

Colliery spoil is available in the coal mining areas of the UK in large quantities. The estimated annual
production of colliery spoil was 45 million tonnes during 1988/89 (Whitbread et al., 1991). An estimated
3,000 to 3,600 million tonnes is also available in stock piles from past production, some of which has been
used in land restoration and is therefore not available for use (Sherwood, 1974; 1994). There are two main
types of colliery spoil: burnt and unburnt. Burnt colliery spoil, BCS, (burnt shale or burnt minestone)
generally has better engineering properties than unburnt colliery spoil, UCS, (unburnt shale or unburnt
minestone) and consequently has a higher utility.
The composition of UCS varies according to its origin (i.e., depending on whether it was sourced from
single or multiple coal seams and whether it was processed by a coal washery). The properties of UCS can
therefore vary considerably between and within tips. The most common rock types found in UCS are
mudstones, siltstones, shales, seat earths, sandstone and, in some areas, limestones (West and O’Reilly,
1986). There is also an additional variation arising from combustion in the tip. When combustion occurs the
physical properties and chemical composition are changed such that BCS varies considerably from the UCS.
The availability of BCS is limited. Following the Aberfan disaster of 1966, spoil tip materials are
compacted to high densities and, consequently, low air voids to increase tip stability. This combined with
improvements in coal segregation, means that spontaneous combustion is highly unlikely. BCS is therefore
only available from old tips and is in greater demand than UCS, as it is suitable for use in road sub-base
(Figure 1) and capping layer construction (Sherwood, 1994).

CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Chemical Properties
Typical chemical compositions of BCS and UCS are given in Table 1. The most common minerals in
colliery spoil are quartz, mica and clay minerals and lesser quantities of pyrites and carbonates of calcium,
magnesium and iron.
UCS pH values range from 4 to 9 and particle densities from 2.0Mg/m3 to 2.7Mg/m3 (Rainbow, 1989).
BCS pH values range from 4.2 to 8.5, soluble sulphate contents from 0.6 to 7.0gSO3/L and particle densities
from 2.65Mg/m3 to 2.90Mg/m3 (Sherwood, 1994; 1995).

1
Transport Research Laboratory, Heriot-Watt Research Park, Avenue South, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AP,
Scotland, United Kingdom. Web: http://www.trl/co.uk. Email: mwinter@trl.co.uk.
 The water soluble sulphate content of UCS is generally too low to be a serious problem (Sherwood,
1994). However, in BCS this may reach high concentrations due to the oxidation of the pyrites during
combustion (Sherwood and Ryley, 1970). Sulphates may thus cause problems by migrating from the spoil
and reacting with lime, concrete, cement bound and other cementitious materials (Sherwood, 1994). MCHW
1 (Clauses 601.13 to 14) set upper limits of 1.9gSO3/L and 0.25gSO3/L, respectively, for water soluble
sulphate content of fills placed within 500mm of cementitious and metallic elements of the permanent works.
Sulphides, as iron pyrites, are common in UCS but less likely to be present in BCS as they are oxidised
during combustion. As oxidation
Table 1 - Typical chemical compositions of BCS and UCS.
Chemical BCS (Sherwood and UCS (Rainbow, 1989; reactions produce sulphates it
Component Ryley, 1970) Sherwood, 1975) follows that attack on lime,
SiO2 45-60 37-55 concrete, cement bound or other
Al2O3 21-31 17-23 cementitious materials may occur.
Fe2O3 4-13 4-11 However, even in the absence of
CaO 0.5-6 0.4-4.9 concrete other expansive
MgO 1-3 0.9-3.2 reactions can occur where other
Na2O 0.2-0.6 0.2-0.8 calcium sources are available.
K2O 2-3.5 1.6-3.6 The calculated volume expansion
SO3 0.1-5 0.5-2.5
from iron pyrites reaction
Loss on Ignition 2%-6% 10%-40%
products, such as jarosite, ferric
sulphate and gypsum, is in the range 115% to 170% (Sherwood, 1994). There is a mandatory requirement for
an upper limit on total sulphate content to be set for stabilised materials (Classes 6E, 7E to 7G). For 6E/7G
this is set at 1% in Table 6/1 of the MCHW 1 while for 7E/7F advice is given on appropriate limits in HA74
(Paragraph 7.11, DMRB 4.1.6). In general, this limit is expected to be between 0.25% and 1.0% total
sulphate content.

Physical Properties
Fraser and Lake (1967) demonstrated the effects of compaction on the particle size of BCS. For a well-
graded material (19.05mm and 63µm) the effects of standard 2.5kg rammer compaction included a 20%
increase in the percentage passing 10mm (Figure 2). Figure 2 indicates that, for a 4.5kg rammer, this increase
may be around 40%. Data are not available on the crushing of UCS during compaction. However, since the
burning of colliery shale generally increases both brittleness and strength it can be inferred that the degree of
crushing during compaction of an unburnt material may be less than that of a burnt material.
Particle densities between 2.0Mg/m3 and 2.7Mg/m3 are reported for UCS Rainbow, 1989) and 2.65Mg/m3
to 2.90Mg/m3 for BCSs (Sherwood, 1994; 1995). Results from standard 2.5kg rammer compaction tests on
BCS give values of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of 1.65Mg/m3 to 1.76Mg/m3 and
15% to 19% (Fraser and Lake, 1967; Sherwood, 1975). Rainbow (1987) reports ranges of 1.63Mg/m3 to
2.16Mg/m3 and 8.1% to 16.5% for vibrating hammer test results (BSI, 1990). In this test the energy input is
around 19 times that of the standard 2.5kg rammer test (Head, 1984; Winter, 1989). The choice of test
method depends on the compactive effort that is expected to be achieved in the field. For example, the
standard rammer test is recommended for Classes 6D, 6H to 6J while the vibrating hammer test is
recommended for structural fills (Classes 6N/6P) (HA44 - DMRB 4.1.1).
Sherwood (1994) notes that, when considering compaction requirements on the basis of those given in the
MCHW 1, most UCS is classified as well graded granular or dry cohesive soil. However, while being
acceptable for use as fill, some may have atypically high fines or moisture contents and could more
appropriately be considered as conventional cohesive soils. Certainly, visual inspection of the spoil tip
should be carried out to ensure that the type of material delivered to the site does not vary too frequently,
otherwise control of compaction may be difficult.
Most UCSs are not frost susceptible (BSI, 1989). In contrast, BCSs are usually highly frost susceptible.
Consequently, such fills should not be placed in an untreated state within 450mm of the road surface, the
depth to which it is considered likely that frost will penetrate in Great Britain. The addition of up to 5%
cement may reduce the voids content of the material sufficiently to mitigate frost induced heave (Sherwood,
1975). However, it should be noted that such a treatment is only suitable for relatively low sulphate materials
(HA74 - DMRB 4.1.6) used with ordinary portland cements. However, the use of sulphate resisting portland
cements may prove effective with higher sulphate materials.
 Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse
CLAY COBBLES
SILT SAND GRAVEL
100
Sample 1

Sample 2
80
Sample 3

Sample 4
Percentage passing (%)

60 Sample 5

Grading Limits for Type 1

Sub-base (MCHW 1)

40

20

0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve size (mm)

Figure 1 - Particle size distributions of samples of burnt colliery spoil (after Fraser and Lake, 1967).

Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse

CLAY COBBLES
SILT SAND GRAVEL
100

Before compaction

After standard compaction

80
After heavy compaction
Percentage passing (%)

60

40

20

0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve size (mm)
Figure 2 - Typical effect of compaction on the grading of burnt colliery spoil (after Fraser and Lake, 1967).

The possibility of spontaneous combustion is frequently cited as a reason for the exclusion of UCS as a
general fill material. A survey by Fraser (1974) found that 3.9 million cubic metres of UCS had been placed
on 12 contracts without evidence of spontaneous combustion. Indeed, both Rainbow (1987) and Sherwood
(1994) note that although unburnt coal is present in UCS, spontaneous combustion is highly unlikely. In
order for spontaneous combustion to occur air needs to be present in the compacted material in sufficient
quantity to allow oxidation of the pyrite. However, the Specification (MCHW 1) requires fill materials to be
compacted to low air voids. Experience over nearly 25 years has shown that this is sufficient to mitigate the
possibility of spontaneous combustion (Sherwood, 1994). This fact is recognised in the Specification which
does permit UCS to be used as general fill.

USE OF BURNT COLLIERY SPOIL

Tips may contain unburnt, partially burnt and burnt spoil, and mine tailings all occurring close together. The
combustion of colliery spoil produces a granular material that can be used in place of natural aggregates.
General Fill
BCS can be used as general fill. However, given that BCS is generally acceptable for use as selected fill it
may be uneconomic to use these materials as general fill. Acceptability assessment for compaction should be
by control of the moisture content within set limits of the optimum moisture content. It is important that all
design tests should be carried out on the material in the crushed, post-compaction state, not on the excavated
material (Winter, 1998).

Capping Layer
The Specification (MCHW 1) allows BCS to be used as granular capping layer material, provided that
grading and other requirements are met. However, the 10% Fines Value requirement of 30kN may not be
met (see below).
While BCS may be stabilised to form a capping layer there is generally little reason for doing so as it is
suitable for use in an unbound form (Sherwood, 1994). The only exception to this would be if the capping
layer were within 450mm of the completed road surface as many BCSs are highly frost susceptible and thus
cannot be used in such a location. The addition of 5% or more cement has been shown to reduce the frost
susceptibility to acceptable levels (Fraser and Lake, 1967; Sherwood, 1975). Frost susceptibility is related to
voids content and the use of cement reduces the voids content while having the added benefit of increasing
the inter-particle strength. For this reason, many sub-bases constructed from BCSs have been stabilised with
cement. However, such a treatment is not suitable for relatively high sulphate materials (HA74 - DMRB
4.1.6) when ordinary portland cements are used. To ensure that the material is not susceptible to heave as a
result of the reactions between sulphates and the cement (see Section 4.1) it would be prudent to use the
durability test given in the Specification (MCHW 1, Clause 1036) for CBM1. However, as the frequency of
testing may have to be increased, such a process may become uneconomical. The use of sulphate resisting
portland cements may prove effective with higher sulphate materials. Comprehensive warnings have been
given on the damage caused by mixing high sulphate materials with cement and lime (Perry et al., 1996).

Sub-Base
Figure 1 shows that BCS can be obtained to satisfy the grading requirements of granular sub-base
materials and can therefore satisfy the more relaxed criteria for selected granular materials. Well burnt
colliery spoil is mentioned by name in the Specification (MCHW 1) for many selected granular fill
applications. However, Clauses 803 and 804 of the Specification (MCHW 1), which refer to granular sub-
base, allow “well burnt non-plastic shale” which embraces both BCS and spent oil shale, a broadly similar
material in terms of its engineering properties. The clauses for selected granular fill could usefully be
phrased in the same manner rather than specifically requiring BCS (Sherwood, 1994), effectively excluding
spent oil shale. Similarly, where BCS is excluded then it would be prudent to also exclude spent oil shale by
the use of the phrase “well burnt non-plastic shale”.
Burns (1978), discussing spent oil shale, noted that in the Specification for Road and Bridge Works
(1976) sub-base materials, with the exception of well burnt non-plastic shales, were required to have a
minimum 10% Fines Value of 50kN. This exception specifically acknowledged that crushing could occur
with this material with no apparent structural disbenefit to the completed sub-base. Under the current
Specification (MCHW 1) well-burnt non-plastic shales are specifically included in the allowable materials
but the exception to the minimum 10% Fines Value of 50kN has been removed. Sherwood (1995) notes that
although many BCSs would be suitable for such a use it is unlikely that many would achieve a 10% Fines
Value of 50kN. Further, it is quite possible that a more stable material may result as voids are filled with the
smaller particles created by crushing. BCS materials have been widely used in sub-base construction in the
Central Belt of Scotland with no apparent detriment to performance as a result of their 10% fines values.
Similar arguments may be applied to relaxing the 10% fines values for selected granular fill and capping
layer as are made above for sub-base.

Other Considerations
Visual inspection of BCS at the tip is required to ensure that the material delivered to site does not vary
too frequently and that mine tailings are excluded.
If BCS is to be placed within 500mm of metallic items, lime, concrete, cement bound or other
cementitious materials then the Specification limits (MCHW 1, Clauses 601.13-14) apply. Given the high
sulphate content of most BCSs it is unlikely that they could be used in close proximity to such materials.
Doubts also remain as to the potential reactions between BCS and polymeric reinforcing materials. Recent
reports in the UK press have linked BCS with an episode of thaumasite sulphate attack on a bridge structure.
Whilst it is not yet clear whether BCS caused the attack, the foregoing points are reinforced.
Notwithstanding the above comments on the exclusion of mine tailings, frost susceptibility and the
interaction with cementitious products, the durability of BCSs and spent oil shales is unlikely to pose a
problem. However, it is nonetheless important to ensure that compaction is sufficient to minimise the air
voids of the earthworks and that the requirements of MCHW 1 (Clause 602.15) are followed to ensure that
water ingress does not cause a long-term durability problem.
The transport of waste materials to site incurs a cost for haulage. If a waste material is not available
within an economic haulage distance of the site then it may be rejected on economic grounds. It is generally
accepted that the maximum economic haulage distance for the import of waste materials will depend on a
number of factors. These include the location and nature of the site, the location and nature of the waste
material source, the method of transport, and the relative costs of the waste material and its alternative.
If the waste material is located within economic haulage of the site then its use should be considered and
the factors to be taken into account are summarised by BSI (1985) and Sherwood (1994).
The advantages of using waste materials include the removal of waste tips, the avoidance of borrow pits
and consequent savings in the finite sources of natural aggregates, and the avoidance of liability for landfill
tax. The disadvantages of using waste materials include increased haulage costs, disturbance caused by
haulage, and greater variability of waste materials. Economic and environmental issues surrounding the use
of BCS are considered further by Winter (1998).

SUMMARY

BCS can be used successfully as general fill. However, due to its high quality it is more suited to use as
selected granular fill. In particular, given its frost susceptibility, stabilisation as sub-base seems a particularly
appropriate outlet for this material. However, it would be prudent to use a chemical durability test to ensure
that the material is not susceptible to heave as a result of reactions between sulphates and the cement.
BCS can be obtained to satisfy the grading requirements of granular sub-base materials and can therefore
satisfy the more relaxed criteria for selected granular materials. The relevant clause of the Specification for
granular sub-base refers to “well burnt non-plastic shale” which embraces both spent oil shale and BCS. The
clauses for selected granular fill refer specifically to well-burnt colliery spoil whether including or excluding
such materials from use. In either case, the very similar, spent oil shale is not covered, effectively
disallowing its use where it could be used and allowing its use where it should not be used.
The minimum 10% Fines Value requirement of 50kN for granular sub-base materials is severe. In
previous specifications this requirement was waived for burnt non-plastic shales, such as BCS. Although
limited crushing during compaction will tend to produce a more stable compacted mass many such materials
will be deemed unsuitable on the basis of the 10% fines value. The minimum 10% Fines Value of 30kN
required for some classes of capping layer also seems severe.
BCSs generally have high sulphate contents. Consequently, these materials are unlikely to be suitable for
use close to concrete structures or metallic items. There also remain doubts as to the potential reactions
between BCSs with high sulphate contents and polymeric reinforcing materials.
A mix of economic and environmental benefits must be achieved if waste materials are to be successfully
used in road construction. Without economic benefits contractors will not be use waste materials. Designers
should identify sources of waste materials and allow contractors to select on an economic basis, within the
prevailing environmental legislation. If economic benefits exist then the environmental benefits will accrue.
Such benefits might include savings in the use of finite natural aggregate resources.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is grateful to RA Snowdon and Dr J Perry (TRL) for helpful discussions and suggestions.
© Transport Research Laboratory 2000. This paper has been produced by the Transport Research
Laboratory, under a contract placed by the Scottish Executive and the Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions. Any views expressed in it are not necessarily those of either Department.
 REFERENCES

Anon (2000). New Civil Engineer, 23 March, p. 5 and 20 April, p. 7.

BSI (1985). Guide to the use of industrial by-products and waste materials in building and civil
engineering, BS 6543. London: British Standards Institution.
BSI (1989). Testing aggregates: Part 124, Method for the determination of frost-heave, BS 812. London:
British Standards Institution.
BSI (1990). British Standard methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes: Part 4. Compaction-
related tests, BS 1377. London: British Standards Institution.
Burns, J (1978). The use of waste and low-grade materials in road construction: 6. Spent oil shale. TRRL
Laboratory Report LR 818. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. London: The Stationery Office.
HA 44 - Earthworks: Design and Preparation of Contract Documents (DMRB 4.1.1).
HA 74 - Design and Construction of Lime Stabilised Capping Layers (DMRB 4.1.6).
Fraser, CK (1974). The use of unburnt colliery shale in road construction. TRRL Supplementary Report
SR 20 UC. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Fraser, CK and JR Lake (1967). A laboratory investigation of the physical and chemical properties of
burnt colliery shale. RRL Laboratory Report LR 125. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Head, KH (1984). Manual of soil laboratory testing: Volume 1. Soil classification and compaction tests.
London: Pentech Press.
Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works. London: The Stationery Office. Volume 1:
Specification for Highway Works (December 1991, August 1993 and August 1994) (MCHW 1).
Perry, J, DJ MacNeil and PE Wilson (1996). The uses of lime in ground investigation: a review of work
undertaken at the Transport Research Laboratory. Lime Stabilisation. London: Thomas Telford.
Rainbow, AKM (1987). Minestone and burnt minestone. Ground Engineering, May, pp. 9-13.
Rainbow, AKM (1989). Geotechnical properties of United Kingdom minestone. London: British Coal.
Sherwood, PT (1974). The use of waste and low-grade materials in road construction: 1. Guide to
materials available. TRRL Laboratory Report LR 647. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Sherwood, PT (1975). The use of waste and low-grade materials in road construction: 2. Colliery shale.
TRRL Laboratory Report LR 649. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Sherwood, PT (1994a). A review of waste of waste materials and by-products in road construction. TRL
Contractor Report CR 358. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Sherwood, PT (1994b). The use of waste materials in fill and capping layers. TRL Contractor Report CR
353. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Sherwood, PT (1995). Alternative materials in road construction: a guide to the use of waste, recycled
materials and by-products. London: Thomas Telford.
Sherwood, PT and MD Ryley (1970). The effect of sulphates in colliery shale on its use for roadmaking.
RRL Laboratory Report LR 324. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Specification for Road and Bridge Works (1976). Fifth Edition. Department of Transport, Scottish
Development Department, Welsh Office, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. London: The
Stationery Office.
West, G and MP O’Reilly (1986). An evaluation of unburnt colliery shale as fill for reinforced earth
structures. TRRL Research Report RR 97. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Whitbread, M, A Marsey and C Tannel (1991). Occurrence and the utilisation of mineral and
construction wastes. Department of the Environment. London: The Stationery Office.
Winter, MG (1989). The measurement of reinstatement backfill properties. PhD Thesis. Durham:
University of Durham.
Winter, MG (1998). The determination of the acceptability of selected fragmenting materials for
earthworks compaction. TRL Report 308. Crowthrone: Transport Research Laboratory.

View publication stats