Major geotechnical problems in construction involving silty–clayey soils are due to their low strength, durability and high
compressibility of soft soils, and the swell–shrink nature of the overconsolidated swelling soils. Confronted with these problems,
a suitable ground improvement technique is needed, for deep excavations in soft clays, for stability, durability and deformation
control. Cement-stabilization is one of the alternatives. An increase in strength and durability, reduction in deformability
are the main aims of this method. Conventional cement-stabilization methods are used mainly for surface treatment. However,
the use of cement has recently been extended to a greater depth in which cement columns were installed to act as a type of
soil reinforcement (deep cement–soil mixing and cement jet grouting). In situ engineering properties of these silty–clayey soils are often variable and difficult to predict. For this reason cement-stabilization
methods have a basic target to control the aforementioned engineering properties of these clays so that the properties of
a silty–clayey soil become more like the properties of a soft rock such as clayey shale or lightly cemented sandstone. So
cement-stabilization of these soils is essential to control their engineering properties and to predict their engineering
behaviour for construction. In an effort to predict, classify and study the suitability of silty–clayey soils for cement-stabilization
both slaking and unconfined compressive strength tests were carried out on clayey–sand mixtures consisted of two types of
clays, kaolin and bentonite. Finally diagrams were prepared to study the variation of slaking and strength due to compaction,
curing time and cement percentage and also to predict areas of efficient cement-stabilization. 相似文献
This article provides an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the harmonized benchmark-based allocation procedures by comparing two energy-intensive sectors with activities in three Member States. These sectors include the cement industry (CEI) and the pulp and paper industry (PPI) in the UK, Sweden, and France. Our results show that the new procedures are better suited for the more homogeneous CEI, in which the outcome of stricter allocation of emissions allowances is consistent between Member States. For the more heterogeneous PPI – in terms of its product portfolios, technical infrastructures, and fuel mixes – the allocation procedures lead to diverse outcomes. It is the lack of product benchmark curves, and the alternative use of benchmark values that are biased towards a fossil fuel-mix and are based on specific energy use rather than emission intensity, which leads to allocations to the PPI that do not represent the average performance of the top 10% of GHG-efficient installations. Another matter is that grandfathering is still present via the historically based production volumes. How to deal with structural change and provisions regarding capacity reductions and partial cessation is an issue that is highly relevant for the PPI but less so for the CEI.
Policy relevance
After an unprecedented amount of consultation with industrial associations and other stakeholders, a harmonized benchmark-based allocation methodology was introduced in the third trading period of the EU ETS. Establishing a reliable and robust benchmark methodology for free allocation that shields against high direct carbon costs, is perceived as fair and politically acceptable, and still incentivizes firms to take action, is a significant challenge. This article contributes to a deeper understanding of the challenges in effectively applying harmonized rules in industrial sectors that are heterogeneous. This is essential for the debate on structural reformation of the EU ETS, and for sharing experiences with other emerging emissions trading systems in the world that also consider benchmark methodologies. 相似文献