COMPARISON OF KINETIC TEST RESULTS ON LABORATORY SCALE BY FDCLT METHOD WITH FIELD SCALE FOR FLY ASH LAYERING SCENARIO ON PAF MATERIALS (CASE STUDY: PT ARUTMIN INDONESIA)
Acid mine drainage is one of the water runoffs that comes from mines or rocks containing certain sulfide minerals that are exposed to an oxidized state which has a major impact on environmental conditions. The formation of acid mine drainage is a serious problem for mining companies. Prevention of a...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Final Project |
| Language: | Indonesia |
| Online Access: | https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/61790 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Institut Teknologi Bandung |
| Language: | Indonesia |
| Summary: | Acid mine drainage is one of the water runoffs that comes from mines or rocks containing certain sulfide minerals that are exposed to an oxidized state which has a major impact on environmental conditions. The formation of acid mine drainage is a serious problem for mining companies. Prevention of acid mine drainage (AAT) can be done by covering potentially acidic material (PAF) with non-acidic potential (NAF) material. However, the presence of NAF material is not present in large quantities to isolate all PAF materials. One of the materials that can be used and has the potential to prevent acid mine drainage is fly ash. The Method layering by placing PAF material and neutralizing material in a designed system is one way to prevent the formation of AAT.
From the test results, kinetic test in the layering scenario on a laboratory scale with a PAF Control pH can increase the maximum pH value in the 25% layer scenario without the addition of top soil reaching 5,4% with a pH value of 2,9. In the scenario of adding top soil, the resulting pH value does not have a significant impact on the PAF Control, this can be seen by the average decrease in the pH value of 0.09. In the laboratory scale kinetic test results, the resulting pH value is relatively more stable in the range of 2.6-2.7 compared to the more volatile field scale in the range of 2.1-2.4. This happened because of the difference in the treatment of the wet cycle and dry cycle experienced by the sample. On a field scale depending on local weather conditions, while on a laboratory scale the cycle treatment is carried out constant and the largest percentage of the increase in pH value to PAF Control occurs on a field scale with a 10% coating scenario which can increase the pH value by 11%. |
|---|