¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ / v.17, no.6, 2001³â, pp.47-51
Geocrete¿Í ±Ô»ê¼Ò´Ù¾×À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ¸Å¸³Áö »ç¸é ħÃâ¼ö ´©ÃâÁ¦¾î
( The Role of Geocrete and Soluble Sodium Silicate as a Substitute to Control Leachate Leaking from Landfill Side Wall )
Á¶Àç¹ü;ÇöÀçÇõ;³ªÁø¼º;±èÀÚ¿µ; Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ °ø°ú´ëÇРȯ°æ°øÇаú;Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ °ø°ú´ëÇРȯ°æ°øÇаú;Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ °ø°ú´ëÇРȯ°æ°øÇаú;Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ °ø°ú´ëÇРȯ°æ°øÇаú;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
ºñÀ§»ý¸Å¸³Áö Á¤ºñ¹æ¾ÈÀº ÇöÀå¿¡ ¸Å¸³µÈ Æó±â¹°À» ÆÄ³»¾î ÀçȰ¿ë ¿©ºÎ¿¡ µû¶ó 󸮹æ¹ýÀ» ´Þ¸®ÇÏ´Â ´Éµ¿Àû ¹æ¹ý°ú ÅäÁú ¿ªÇÐÀû ¾ÈÁ¤À» ÇÇÇÏ¿© »ç¸éºÎ ºÒ¾ÈÁ¤À¸·Î ¾ß±âµÇ´Â ºØ±« ¹× Æó±â¹°, ħÃâ¼ö, °¡½ºÀÇ ¿ÜºÎÀ¯ÃâÀ» ¹æÁöÇÏ´Â ¼öµ¿Àû ¹æ¹ýÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ ³í¹®¿¡¼­´Â ¸Å¸³Áö »ç¸éºÎ ºØ±«¿¡ µû¸¥ ħÃâ¼ö À¯ÃâÀ» ¹æÁöÇϱâ À§ÇÑ ¼öµ¿Àû ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î¼­ÀÇ Áö¿ÀÅ©¸®Æ®¿Í ±Ô»ê¼Ò´Ù¾×ÀÇ Àû¿ë°¡´É¼ºÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¹èÇÕºñ I (Áö¿ÀÅ©¸®Æ®:±Ô»ê¼Ò´Ù¾×=1:3.9)°ú ¹èÇÕºñ H (1:2.5)ÀÇ 7ÀÏ ¾ÐÃà °­µµ´Â 5.95kg/$cm^3$, 17.05kg/$cm^3$À¸·Î °¢°¢ ³ªÅ¸³ª ¸Å¸³Áö °ø»ç ÃÖ¼Ò Çã¿ë°­µµÀÎ 5kg/$cm^3$À» »óȸÇÏ¿´´Ù. ³»»ê¼º½ÃÇè °á°ú, ¹èÇÕºñ I, IIÀÇ ¾ÐÃà°­µµ´Â ±Þ°ÝÈ÷ °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´´Ù. Áö¿ÀÅ©¸®Æ®¿Í ±Ô»ê¼Ò´Ù¾×ÀÇ È¯°æ µ¶¼ºÀ» ÆÇ´ÜÇϱâ À§ÇÑ ¾îµ¶¼º½ÃÇè °á°ú, ÁÖº¯È¯°æ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿µÇâÀº ¾ø´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ÇÑÆí Åõ¼ö½ÃÇè °á°ú, ¹èÇÕºñ I, II ¸ðµÎ ¸Å¸³Áö Çã¿ë±âÁØ $(1.0 imes10_{-7}cm/sec)$À» ¸¸Á·ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
There are two strategies to cope with the troubles in landfill site after closure. The first method is active in a way that the wastes are dug up and the recyclable materials are reutilized, meanwhile the materials not recyclable are incinerated in order to minimize the volume of residues to be disposed of. The second method is rather passive and defensive in a way that the source of contamination, that is, buried wastes are not treated. Instead, the transport of leaking leachate and gases generated from the wastes are intercepted and controlled. In this study, as a passive way of the efficient leachate blocking process, applicabilities of geocrete and soluble sodium silicate as a substitute to control leachate leaking from landfill sidewall were investigated. In case of compression test, the strength of mixture I (Geocrete:Sodium silicate=1:3.9 v/v) and mixture II (Geocrete:Sodium silicate=1:2.5 v/v), even after 7 days' curing was higher than the minimum allowance to tolerate the loading(5 kg/$ extrm{cm}^2$). Soaking in the acid fur 4 days and 7 days respectively, the compressive strength of the specimens reduced seriously. The toxicity of geocrete is not detected through the bioassay test, once it was mixed with sodium silicate and the complex was formed. The hydraulic conductivity of the mixtures even after 7 days' curing was lower than the threshold limit $(1.0 imes10_{-7}cm/s)$.
 
Ű¿öµå
Geocrete;Landfill leachate leaking;Leachate blocking process;Soluble sodium silicate;
 
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ³í¹®Áý / v.17, no.6, 2001³â, pp.47-51
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1229-2427
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200111920879482)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿