Accepted Manuscript

Title: Effect of fly ash on properties of crushed brick and

reclaimed asphalt in pavement base/subbase applications

Authors: Alireza Mohammadinia Research Fellow Arul

Arulrajah Professor Suksun Horpibulsuk Professor and Chair,
School of Civil Engineering, and Director, Adjunct Professor
Avirut Chinkulkijniwat Associate Professor

PII: S0304-3894(16)30861-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.09.039
Reference: HAZMAT 18045

To appear in: Journal of Hazardous Materials

Received date: 13-6-2016

Revised date: 16-9-2016
Accepted date: 17-9-2016

Please cite this article as: Alireza Mohammadinia, Arul Arulrajah, Suksun Horpibulsuk,
Avirut Chinkulkijniwat, Effect of fly ash on properties of crushed brick and reclaimed
asphalt in pavement base/subbase applications, Journal of Hazardous Materials
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.09.039

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Effect of fly ash on properties of crushed brick and reclaimed asphalt in
pavement base/subbase applications

Alireza Mohammadinia1, Arul Arulrajah2, Suksun Horpibulsuk3, Avirut Chinkulkijniwat4

1
Research fellow, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC3122, Australia.
Email: amohammadinia@swin.edu.au

2
Professor, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC3122, Australia.
Email: aarulrajah@swin.edu.au

3
Professor and Chair, School of Civil Engineering, and Director, Center of Innovation in
Sustainable Infrastructure Development, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon
Ratchasima 30000, Thailand &
Adjunct Professor, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University
of Technology, Melbourne, VIC3122, Australia
Email: suksun@g.sut.ac.th

4
Associate Professor, Center of Excellence in Civil Engineering
School of Civil Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima
30000, Thailand.
Email: avirut@sut.ac.th

Corresponding Authors:

Prof. Arul Arulrajah,

Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia
Email: aarulrajah@swin.edu.au; Phone: +613 9214 5741

Prof. Suksun Horpibulsuk,

School of Civil Engineering,
Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Avenue, Muang District, Nakhon
Ratchasima 30000, Thailand.
Email: suksun@g.sut.ac.th ; Phone: +66 4422 4322

1
 HIGHLIGHTS

 Fly Ash used as a cementitious material in pavement bases

 Stabilization of crushed brick and reclaimed asphalt pavement
 Strength development and range of geotechnical tests conducted.
 15% fly ash found to be the optimum proportion for pavement bases

ABSTRACT

Fly Ash (FA), an abundant by-product with no carbon footprint, is a potential stabilizer for
enhancing the physical and geotechnical properties of pavement aggregates. In this research,
FA was used in different ratios to stabilize crushed brick (CB) and reclaimed asphalt
pavement (RAP) for pavement base/subbase applications. The FA stabilization of CB and
RAP was targeted to improve the strength and durability of these recycled materials for
pavement base/subbase applications. The Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and
resilient modulus (MR) development of the stabilized CB and RAP aggregates was studied
under room temperature and at an elevated temperatures of 40°C, and results compared with
unbound CB and RAP. Analysis of atomic silica content showed that when the amount of
silica and alumina crystalline was increased, the soil structure matrix deteriorated, resulting in
strength reduction. The results of UCS and MR testing of FA stabilized CB and RAP
aggregates indicated that FA was a viable binder for the stabilization of recycled CB and
RAP. CB and RAP stabilized with 15% FA showed the highest UCS results at both room
temperature and at 40°C. Higher temperature curing was also found to result in higher
strengths.

Keywords: Fly ash; recycled materials; pavement; geotechnical; stabilization.

2
Introduction

The importance of redirecting recycled waste materials in pavement applications has been
researched extensively in recent years. The recycling and reuse of industrial wastes should be
considered in geotechnical and pavement applications in order to generate sustainable
solutions [1]. Billions of tonnes of waste are being generated around the world, which can be
reused and recycled to reduce the potential negative environmental effects and minimize
landfill disposal costs [2]. Huge amounts of natural resources worldwide are furthermore
consumed by pavement industries. Pavement industries are responsible for 30% of global air
pollution and greenhouse gas production and furthermore contributes to approximately a
quarter of total fossil fuel consumption across the world [3]. Replacing natural resources with
high quality recycled materials can significantly reduce the carbon foot-print of roads. The
overall financial and environmental savings due to replacement of natural aggregates can
justify the overburden stabilization cost in pavement applications. Hence, finding alternative
low-carbon, low-cost replacement for conventional binders is actively being sought by
researchers internationally.

Crushed brick (CB) and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) are amongst the largest
contributors to construction and demolition wastes that enter the waste stream in many
countries [4, 5]. Recycled waste materials have been considered for use in non-structural
applications such as foot-path construction and pipe backfilling [6, 7], structural usage in
concrete industries [8, 9] as well as construction of pavement layers [10, 11] and asphalt
mixtures [12, 13]. Fine and coarse fractions of CB were separately used for construction of
concrete by Debieb and Kenai [14] and Khalaf and DeVenny [15]. Although the use of bricks
with lower porosity ended up in production of concrete with comparatively higher
compressive strength, the performance of the concretes made of CB aggregates is limited to
low performance concrete. Arulrajah et al. [16, 17] reported the sensitivity of CB aggregates
to moisture ratio in pavement base/subbase application. The successful use of RAP
aggregates in low-traffic pavement application has been reported by several authors [18, 19].
Studies on usage of recycled waste materials as a high value construction material in
pavement applications have been performed by several authors and there are several cases of
use of recycled materials in footpaths and pavement construction internationally [2, 5-7].

3
Concerns related to the strength of recycled waste materials has led to extensive investigation
on stabilization of recycled aggregates using a variety of binders such as Portland cement,
lime, slag, calcium carbide residue and fly ash [20-23]. Evaluation of cement stabilization of
recycled materials as a viable method to improve the durability, strength and resilient strength
of recycled materials has been reported by [24] and [25]. Cement stabilization of RAP
aggregates in pavement applications has also been investigated comprehensively [20, 26, 27].

The increasing rate of electricity demand in developing countries causes the higher usage of
coal in coal fired power plants. 80% – 85% of burned coal is carried out of the furnace by
means of the flue gases [2]. Air pollution control standards restricted the release of this fume
and power plants are required to capture this fume [28]. The fume can be captured by
electrostatic precipitators to form a fine grained material known as fly ash (FA) which is rich
in silicon dioxide (SiO2), aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and calcium oxide (CaO). The increase in
FA production, due to growing electricity demand, signifies the potential utilization of
pozzolanic properties of FA in various civil engineering applications. Furthermore, as the
Environmental Protection Agency has established that FA is not considered as a hazardous
waste [29], it can be considered as a binder for pavement stabilization applications.

In this study, CB and RAP aggregates were stabilized with 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and
30% of FA as a low-carbon alternative binder for improvement of strength properties of
recycled materials to be used in pavement base/subbase applications. This research evaluates
the effect of high percentages of fly ash for stabilizing CB and RAP, which is a sustainable
and economical solution for these industrial and demolition wastes. Unconfined compression
strength (UCS) and resilient modulus (MR) testing of the FA stabilized CB and RAP was
undertaken with addition of various amounts of FA. The properties of FA when used as a
cementitious stabilizer for recycled materials such as CB and RAP needs to be fully
investigated before practitioners, industry and end-users are willing to consider them in
sustainable applications. The usage of FA in this research for the stabilization of CB and RAP
in pavement bases/subbases is novel and significant and will open new doors for the usage of
FA as a construction material for the stabilization of recycled demolition aggregates in roads.

4
Materials and Methods

CB and RAP aggregates with a nominal size of 20 mm were collected from a recycling
facility in Melbourne, Australia. Black coal FA was collected from a power plant in the state
of Queensland, Australia. The chemical composition of FA is listed in Table 1. CB and RAP
aggregates with different percentage of FA were scanned using Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) to observe the effect of different percentages of FA and heat treatment on
inter-particular bonds between the aggregates in the microstructural scale and to study the
activation process of FA particles. The atomic weight of silica, alumina and calcium in
different blends of CB + FA and RAP + FA were also measured with Energy Dispersive X-
ray spectroscopy method (EDX).

As the addition of FA changes the matrix of CB and RAP aggregates, a series of compaction
test were performed on CB and RAP aggregates to determine the maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content of the blends according to Australian standard [30]. Cylindrical
test samples for UCS and MR tests were prepared with a diameter of 100±1 mm and the
height of 200±2 mm using the modified compactive effort to produce a dense matrix of
aggregate-binder. The dry aggregates were mixed with the relative moisture content 2 hours
before the addition of FA to avoid the absorption of free water in the blend during the curing
period. Four samples were prepared for each blend of aggregates and FA, to minimize the
margin of error and to eliminate sample preparation discrepancies on the results. Three
samples were used to determine the UCS of the stabilized aggregates. The average value of
the three (or more) tests is shown in the test results and the error bars, which represent the
standard variance in distribution of the results for an identical sample. It should be noted in
cases that the error bar was more than the standard normal distribution variance, a fourth test
was performed. A new identical sample was used for determination of the MR. The standard
deviations of UCS values are calculated based on the values obtained from three samples.
Resilient modulus tests were performed based on AASHTO T 307 [31].

The effect of FA size particle sizes have been previously addressed by various researchers
[32, 33]. CB and RAP aggregates were blended with 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30%
conventionally available class F FA to investigate the optimum additive percentage of FA to
gain maximum strength. FA percentages in this study were added to the blend based on the
initial dry weight of the aggregates. The test samples were cured in a moisture chamber with

5
relative humidity of over 98% and room temperature (20±2°C) for 7 days according to the
recommendations of the Texas Department of Transportation [34].

Results and Discussion

The particle size distribution of CB and RAP aggregates and the black coal FA with the mean
diameter of 35 μm are presented in Figure 1 [35]. CB and RAP are classified as well-graded
gravel according to Australian standards AS 1289.3.6.3 [36] and complies with the limits set
by the local road authorities [37].

The dry density variation with moisture content under modified compaction effort for CB and
RAP blended with different fractions of FA is presented in Figure 2. It is observed that in
general the maximum dry density of the blends slightly reduces with the addition of FA for
CB. The lower loose bulk density of FA reduces the overall density of the blend by replacing
a fraction of parent material with higher overall density. This leads to a change in the matrix
of the recycled aggregates. However, RAP aggregates blended with 5% and 10% of FA
experienced an increase in the dry density compared to that of unbound RAP, followed by the
same decreasing trend in dry density as the FA content increases. The scarcity of fine RAP
particles leads to bigger pore media between RAP aggregates compared to CB aggregates
which will be filled with FA additives. After addition of 10% FA, the pores in RAP are filled
and any further addition of FA will result in the same trend of reduction in dry density, which
is observed by addition FA to the CB blends. It should also be noted from Figure 2 that
addition of FA can increase the workability of the CB and RAP blends, which reduces the
need of water for the compaction process. Addition of FA the compaction curves moves to
the left and yields lower optimum water content values except for addition of 5% and 10%
FA to RAP, which can be explained due to larger micro-pores between the RAP aggregates.

The variation of 7-day UCS of CB and RAP aggregates stabilized with 5% to 30% FA in
room temperature was compared with the same blends cured in a 40°C chamber in Figure 3.
The error bar shows the standard deviation of UCS value obtained from the 4 samples.
Addition of 15% to 20% of FA to CB increases the strength of blends and will slightly
decrease by further increasing the FA percentage. The optimum percentage of additive FA for
RAP is between 15% and 20%. The addition of FA to CB and RAP reduces the porosity of
the blends. However the structural matrix of materials changes gradually and distances the

6
coarse aggregates. It has been shown that a continuous network of inter-particular force chain
between the coarse aggregates can increase the overall shear and compression strength of
cemented soils as opposed to soil-cement structures that solely rely on the strength properties
of the binder with coarse aggregates floating in the matrix with no contact [38, 39]. Addition
of excessive amounts of FA causes discontinuity between the coarse aggregates force chain
and will transfer it to smaller sized aggregates and hydrated FA and eventually leads to
reduction of strength.

Samples of CB and RAP with 10% and 30% of FA were prepared to evaluate the
microstructural configuration of FA stabilized aggregates. SEM method was used to compare
the microstructure of these blends. CB and RAP aggregates passing through 2.36 mm sieve
were blended with different ratios of FA and were cured for 7 days at room temperature and
also at 40°C chamber. The SEM analyses of 30% and 10% FA stabilized CB and RAP
samples cured for 7 days are presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively. It is evident
from the figures that porosity of samples has reduced considerably by increasing the FA
content. The EDX analysis of CB and RAP stabilized with 10%, 20% and 30% FA is
presented in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. Although the crystalline content of alumina
and silica increases by addition of FA, the strength of the materials is not constantly
increasing according to Figure 3. It can also be noted from Figure 4 and Figure 5 that more
FA particles have lost their spherical shape by temperature curing, which shows the
formation of products of hydration from the initial FA that bonded the aggregates together.
Also there are bigger voids between aggregates when lower percentage of FA is used.
Although higher percentage of FA can reduce the voids in the blends, unreacted FA particles
in high content FA stabilized sample can have a negative impact at the strength as also
observed in Figure 3.

The MR of FA stabilized CB and RAP aggregates are presented in Figure 8. The MR was
determined under a combination of deviator stress and confining stress in 15 different stages.
The confining stress and the axial stress in each stage are presented along with MR in each
stage. It can be noticed that the heat treatment increases the resilient modulus of CB and
RAP. In addition, an increase in axial stress in a constant confinement will result in a higher
MR. Although the MR increases considerably by addition of 10% FA and 40°C heat
treatment, the addition of excessive amount of FA will change the microstructure of CB and
RAP blended with FA, which in turn reduces the MR.

7
The MR is commonly expressed as a function, bulk stress (θ = σ1 + σ2 + σ3 = 2σ3 + σd) to
include the pressure in all directions. AASHTO T 307 [31] suggests that the bulk stress
model is suitable to predict MR of the granular materials:

𝑀𝑅 = 𝑘1 × 𝜃 𝑘2 (2)

where k1 and k2 are regression constants. The MR is less sensitive to change of mean stress
high stress as can be seen in Figure 9. The regression parameters for bulk stress model are
presented in Table 3 and Table 4 for CB and RAP, respectively.

Since the bulk stress model just accounts for compressive pressures, the shearing behavior of
materials are neglected [40]. To distinguish the effect of confinement and deviator stresses a
new model was suggested by Puppala et al. [20]:

𝑀𝑅 𝜎3 𝑘4 𝜎𝑑 𝑘5
= 𝑘3 × ( ) ×( ) (3)
𝜎𝑎𝑡𝑚 𝜎𝑎𝑡𝑚 𝜎𝑎𝑡𝑚

The equation is normalized to atmospheric pressure (σatm) and hence non-dimensional

parameters can be calculated. The regression parameters of the Three-parameter model are
presented in Table 3 and Table 4 for CB and RAP, respectively. The accuracy of fit for
three-parameter model is compared with that of bulk stress model in Figure 8 for CB and
RAP blends. The three-parameter model was found to be more accurate in predicting the MR
of CB and RAP aggregates and with a higher precision.

Conclusions

The geotechnical properties of CB and RAP stabilized with different proportions of FA were
presented and compared with the requirements of local road authorities. All samples used in
the geotechnical experiments were cured in a humidity controlled box for 7 days and were
subsequently tested. Also, the effect of temperature curing was investigated on strength
development of stabilized samples. The results of geotechnical investigation in this research
showed a considerable increase in MR and UCS of CB and RAP. CB and RAP were found to
be viable for usage as pavement base/subbase construction materials, as their strength and
durability is enhanced with FA stabilization. The following conclusions can be made from
this research study:

8
  Mild temperature curing has a significant positive impact on hydration process of FA.
Stabilized samples cured at 40°C showed a considerably higher UCS than those cured
in room temperature. Temperature curing was found to considerably enhance the MR
of the CB and RAP stabilized blends. The temperature curing increases the amount of
calcium-silicate-hydrate and calcium-aluminate-hydrate production and involves a
larger fraction of FA particles into the hydration process.
 The high amount of added FA exhibits an inverse effect on compressive strength and
stiffness of stabilized materials. The strength properties of both CB and RAP
improved by increasing the FA content by up to 15% additive by weight, decreasing
thereafter. Addition of FA improves the strength and durability of recycled materials
by reducing the porosity and producing an improved interlocking mechanism between
the aggregates. However, the soil structure matrix gradually changes and the
excessive amount of FA, in an amorphous state, changes the initial support structure
of inter-particular force chains and transfers the force flow from the coarse aggregates
to the finer fraction of mix and hence the reduction of strength in the blend.
 CB and RAP stabilized with 15% FA were found to be the optimum proportions for
pavement base/subbase application.
 Bulk stress model and three-parameter model were used to predict the MR of FA
stabilized CB and RAP. The accuracy of the fitted models is high enough; i.e., both
models can be used for the prediction of the resilient modulus. The comparison of the
precision of prediction between bulk stress model and three parameter model shows
that the Three-parameter model has higher accuracy.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported under Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding
scheme (project number LP120100107). The authors would like to thank Alex Fraser Group
(Victoria, Australia) for providing the demolition aggregates used in this research. The
authors would also like to express their appreciation to Mr. Andres Mauricio Torres Casiano
for assisting in performing some of the laboratory tests. The third and last authors are grateful
to Suranaree University of Technology, the Office of Higher Education Commission under
NRU project of Thailand and the Thailand Research Fund under the TRF Senior Research
Scholar program Grant No. RTA5980005.

9
References

[1] A. Choudhary, J. Jha, K. Gill, S.K. Shukla, Utilization of fly ash and waste recycled product
reinforced with plastic wastes as construction materials in flexible pavement, in: Geo-Congress,
2014, pp. 3890-3902.

[2] M.A. Lav, A.H. Lav, Effects of stabilization on resilient characteristics of fly ash as pavement
material, Construction and Building Materials, 54 (2014) 10-16.

[3] R.B. Mallick, A. Veeraragavan, Sustainable pavements in India-the time to start is now, New
Building Materials and Construction World (NBM&CW) Magazine, 16 (2010) 128-140.

[4] N. Serres, S. Braymand, F. Feugeas, Environmental evaluation of concrete made from recycled
concrete aggregate implementing life cycle assessment, Journal of Building Engineering, 5 (2016) 24-
33.

[5] S. Saride, A.J. Puppala, R. Williammee, Assessing recycled/secondary materials as pavement

bases, Ground Improvement, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, UK, 163 (2010) 3 - 12.

[6] A. Arulrajah, M.M.Y. Ali, M.M. Disfani, J. Piratheepan, M.W. Bo, Geotechnical performance of
recycled glass-waste rock blends in footpath bases, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25
(2013) 653-661.

[7] M.A. Rahman, M. Imteaz, A. Arulrajah, M.M. Disfani, Suitability of recycled construction and
demolition aggregates as alternative pipe backfilling materials, Journal of Cleaner Production, 66
(2014) 75-84.

[8] L. Oksri-Nelfia, P.Y. Mahieux, O. Amiri, P. Turcry, J. Lux, Reuse of recycled crushed concrete
fines as mineral addition in cementitious materials, Materials and Structures/Materiaux et
Constructions, (2015).

[9] A.A. Tsoumani, N.M. Barkoula, T.E. Matikas, Recycled aggregate as structural material, Waste
and Biomass Valorization, 6 (2015) 883-890.

[10] M.A. Rahman, A. Arulrajah, J. Piratheepan, M.W. Bo, M.A. Imteaz, Resilient modulus and
permanent deformation responses of geogrid-reinforced construction and demolition materials,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26 (2014) 512-519.

[11] A. Arulrajah, J. Piratheepan, M.M. Disfani, M.W. Bo, Geotechnical and geoenvironmental
properties of recycled construction and demolition materials in pavement subbase applications,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25 (2013) 1077-1088.

[12] B. Gómez-Meijide, I. Pérez, G. Airey, N. Thom, Stiffness of cold asphalt mixtures with recycled
aggregates from construction and demolition waste, Construction and Building Materials, 77 (2015)
168-178.

[13] E. Bocci, G. Cerni, S. Colagrande, Mechanical behaviour of asphalt concrete containing C&D
recycled materials, in: RILEM Bookseries 2016, pp. 557-568.

[14] F. Debieb, S. Kenai, The use of coarse and fine crushed bricks as aggregate in concrete,
Construction and Building Materials, 22 (2008) 886-893.

10
[15] F.M. Khalaf, A.S. DeVenny, Properties of new and recycled clay brick aggregates for use in
concrete, Journal of materials in civil engineering, 17 (2005) 456-464.

[16] A. Arulrajah, J. Piratheepan, M.M. Disfani, M.W. Bo, Resilient moduli response of recycled
construction and demolition materials in pavement subbase applications, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 25 (2013) 1920-1928.

[17] A. Arulrajah, J. Piratheepan, M.W. Bo, N. Sivakugan, Geotechnical characteristics of recycled

crushed brick blends for pavement sub-base applications, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49 (2012)
796-811

[18] A. Arulrajah, J. Piratheepan, M.M. Disfani, Reclaimed asphalt pavement and recycled concrete
aggregate blends in pavement subbases: Laboratory and field evaluation, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 26 (2014) 349-357.

[19] M.H. Maher, W.P. Jr., Recycled Asphalt Pavement as a Base and Subbase Material, ASTM STP
1275, American Society of Testing and Materials, New Orleans (1997).

[20] A.J. Puppala, L.R. Hoyos, A.K. Potturi, Resilient Moduli Response of Moderately Cement-
Treated Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregates, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE,
23 (2011) 990 - 998.

[21] S. Saride, D. Avirneni, S.C.P. Javvadi, A.J. Puppala, L.R. Hoyos, Evaluation of fly ash treated
reclaimed asphalt pavement for base/subbase applications, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 45 (2015)
401-411.

[22] C.T. Gnanendran, J. Piratheepan, Determination of fatigue life of a granular base material lightly
stabilized with slag lime from indirect diametral tensile testing, Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 136 (2010) 736-745.

[23] S. Horpibulsuk, C. Phetchuay, A. Udomchai, A. Arulrajah, Calcium Carbide Residue-A

Cementing Agent for Sustainable Soil Stabilization, (2015).

[24] A. Mohammadinia, A. Arulrajah, J. Sanjayan, M.M. Disfani, M.W. Bo, S. Darmawan,

Laboratory Evaluation of the Use of Cement-Treated Construction and Demolition Materials in
Pavement Base and Subbase Applications, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 27 (2015)
04014186.

[25] A. Arulrajah, M.M. Disfani, H. Haghighi, A. Mohammadinia, S. Horpibulsuk, Modulus of

rupture evaluation of cement stabilized recycled glass/recycled concrete aggregate blends,
Construction and Building Materials, 84 (2015) 146-155.

[26] A. Ebrahimi, B.R. Kootstra, T.B. Edil, C.H. Benson, Practical approach for designing flexible
pavements using recycled roadway materials as base course, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 13
(2012) 731-748.

[27] L.R. Hoyos, A.J. Puppala, C.A. Ordonez, Characterization of cement fiber-treated reclaimed
asphalt pavement aggregates: Preliminary investigation, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
ASCE, 23 (2011) 977 - 989.

[28] A.W. Reitze, Air pollution control law: compliance and enforcement, Environmental Law
Institute, 2001.

[29] EPA, Final rule: disposal of coal combustion residuals from electric utilities, in: E.P. Agency
(Ed.), Washington D.C., 2014.

11
[30] AS 1289.5.2.1, Soil compaction and density tests - Determination of the dry density/moisture
content relation of a soil using modified compactive effort., in: Australian Standard AS 1289.5.2.1,,
Australian Standard, Sydney, Australia, 2003.

[31] AASHTO, Standard method of test for determining the resilient modulus of soils and aggregate
materials, in: AASHTO T 307-99,, AASHTO, American Association of State and Highway
Transportation Officials, 2007.

[32] L. Keyte, Fly ash glass chemistry and inorganic polymer cements, Geopolymers: Structure,
Processing, Properties and Industrial Applications, (2009) 15-36.

[33] S.R. Kaniraj, V. Gayathri, Factors Influencing the Strength of Cement Fly Ash Base Courses,
ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, 129 (2003) 538–548.

[34] Texas Department of Transportation, (TxDOT) Test Procedure for Soil-Cement Testing, in, Tex-
120-E, Austin, TX., 2013.

[35] ASTM D422, D422–63 (2007) Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken. doi, 10 (2007) 1520.

[36] Standards Australia, Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil classification tests -
Determination of the particle size distribution of a soil - Standard method of fine analysis using a
hydrometer, in, Australian Standard, Sydney, Australia, 2003.

[37] VicRoads, Section 812 - Crushed Rock for Pavement Base and Subbase, in, Contract Documents,
VicRoads, 2011.

[38] L. Cheng, R. Cord-Ruwisch, M.A. Shahin, Cementation of sand soil by microbially induced
calcite precipitation at various degrees of saturation, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50 (2013) 81-90.

[39] G. McDowell, M. Bolton, On the micromechanics of crushable aggregates, Géotechnique, 48

(1998) 667-679.

[40] S. Senadheera, P. Nash, A. Rana, Characterization of the behavior of granular road material
containing glass cullet, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas,
USA, (1995).

[41] AS 1141.6.1, Particle density and water absorption of coarse aggregate - Weighing-in-water
method. Australian Standard 1141.6.1, in, Australian Standard, Sydney, Australia, 2000.

[42] AS 1141.5.1, Particle density and water absorption of fine aggregate. Australian Standard
1141.5.1, in, Australian Standard, Sydney, Australia, 2000.

[43] ASTM D2974, Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other
Organic Soils. ASTM Standard D2974, in, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA., 2007.

[44] AS 1289.4.3.1, Soil chemical tests—Determination of the pH value of a soil—Electrometric

method., in: Australian standard AS 1289.4.3.1, Australian standard, Sydney, Australia, 1997.

[45] ASTM D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified
Soil Classification System), in: ASTM standard D2487 - 11, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2011.

[46] BS 812-105.1, Method for Determination of Particle Shape; Flakiness Index. British Standard
812-105.1, in, British Standard Institution, London, UK, 2000.

12
[47] ASTM C131, Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse
Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine, in: ASTM C131 (Ed.), ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006.

13
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Particle size distribution of CB and RAP and FA

Figure 2. Variation of dry density by moisture content for unbound and FA stabilized CB and
RAP

Figure 3. Strength development FA stabilized CB and RAP after 7 days of curing

Figure 4. SEM figure of CB stabilized with FA in 20°C temperature and 40°C

Figure 5. SEM figure of RAP stabilized with FA in 20°C temperature and 40°C

Figure 6. EDX analysis of CB stabilized with FA in 20°C temperature a) CB + 10% FA, b)

CB + 20% FA, c) CB + 30% FA

Figure 7. EDX analysis of RAP stabilized with FA in 20°C temperature a) RAP + 10% FA,
b) RAP + 20% FA, c) RAP + 30% FA

Figure 8. Variation of resilient modulus with confining pressure for FA stabilized a) CB, b)
RAP

Figure 9. Variation of resilient modulus with bulk stress for FA stabilized a) CB, b) RAP

Figure 10. Comparison of predicted resilient modulus of FA stabilized CB and RAP using
bulk stress model and three parameter model with laboratory-measured resilient modulus

14
Figure 1

Sand Gravel

Cobbles
Clay and Silt
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse
0.075 0.425 2.36 4.75 9.6 13.2
100 100
CB RAP
Gravel content: 58.5 63.5
90 Sand content: 33.8 31.8
90
Fine content: 7.7 4.7
80 Cu: 37.9 18.3 80
Cc: 1.6 1.9
USCS: GW GW
70 70
% Passing

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 Subbase Upper Limit 20

CB
RAP
10 10
Subbase Lower Limit
FA
0 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 2

2.00
Material OMC, % MDD, Mg/m3
a) CB
CB - Unbound 10.70 1.974
CB + 5% FA 10.72 1.954
1.95
CB + 10% FA 10.65 1.932
Dry Density (Mg/m3)

CB + 15% FA 10.67 1.901

1.90 CB + 20% FA 10.49 1.859

CB + 25% FA 10.07 1.825

CB + 30% FA 9.34 1.808

1.85

1.80

1.75
5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Moisture Content (%)
2.15
Material OMC, % MDD, Mg/m3
b) RAP
RAP - Unbound 6.89 2.058
2.10 RAP + 5% FA 7.30 2.078

RAP + 10% FA 7.24 2.103

7.71 2.055
Dry Density (Mg/m3)

2.05 RAP + 15% FA

RAP + 20% FA 7.74 2.010

RAP + 25% FA 7.75 1.993

2.00
7.44 1.956
RAP + 30% FA

1.95

1.90

1.85
4 6 8 10
Moisture Content (%)
Figure 3

0 5 10 15 20
2.0
CB : 20°C
a) CB
CB : 40°C
1.6
Strength (MPa)

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
FA content, %
0 5 10 15 20
2.0
RAP : 20°C
b) RAP
RAP : 40°C
1.6
Strength (MPa)

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
FA content, %
Figure 4

Voids FA
FA
Voids
FA

2μm CB + 30 FA @ 20°C 2μm CB + 10 FA @ 20°C

FA
FA
Voids

2μm CB + 30 FA @ 40°C 2μm CB + 10 FA @ 40°C

Figure 5

Voids
Voids

Voids

2μm RAP + 30 FA @ 20°C 2μm RAP + 10 FA @ 20°C

Voids
Voids

Voids
Voids Voids

Voids
2μm RAP + 30 FA @ 40°C 2μm RAP + 10 FA @ 40°C

1
Figure 6

a) 1500 b) 1500 c) 1500 Si

Si

Intensity (a.u.)

Intensity (a.u.)
Intensity (a.u.)
1200 Si 1200 1200

900 900 900

600 Fe Al 600 Fe Al 600 Fe Al

Au
300 Au 300 Au 300 Ca
Ca Ca
K K K
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Energy (keV) Energy (keV) Energy (keV)
Figure 7

a) 1500 b) 1500 c) 1500

Intensity (a.u.)

Intensity (a.u.)
Intensity (a.u.)
1200 1200 1200 Si
Si
900 900 900
Si Fe
600 Fe 600 Fe 600 Al
Al
Al
300 300 300
Au K Ca Au K Ca Au K Ca
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Energy (keV) Energy (keV) Energy (keV)
Figure 8

a) CB
600 600
Unbound CB
CB + 10% FA : 20°C
CB + 10% FA : 40°C
500 CB + 20% FA : 20°C
500
CB + 20% FA : 40°C
Resilient Modulus, MR (MPa)

CB + 30% FA : 20°C
400 CB + 30% FA : 40°C 400

Applied Stress (kPa)

Cyclic Axial Stress
Confining Pressure

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Stress Stage Number

b) RAP
600 600
Unbound RAP
RAP + 10% FA : 20°C
RAP + 10% FA : 40°C
500 RAP + 20% FA : 20°C
500
RAP + 20% FA : 40°C
Resilient Modulus, MR (MPa)

RAP + 30% FA : 20°C

400 RAP + 30% FA : 40°C 400
Applied Stress (kPa)
Cyclic Axial Stress
Confining Pressure

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Stress Stage Number
Figure 9

600
Unbound CB
CB + 10% FA : 20°C
CB + 10% FA : 40°C
CB + 20% FA : 20°C
CB + 20% FA : 40°C
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

400 CB + 30% FA : 20°C

CB + 30% FA : 40°C

200

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
a) Bulk Stress (kPa)

600
Unbound RAP
RAP + 10% FA : 20°C
RAP + 10% FA : 40°C
RAP + 20% FA : 20°C
RAP + 20% FA : 40°C
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

400 RAP + 30% FA : 20°C

RAP + 30% FA : 40°C

200

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
b) Bulk Stress (kPa)
Figure 10

0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000

CB CB

RM, Three Parameter Model Prediction (MPa)

RM, Bulk Stress Model Prediction (MPa)

800 800 800 800

600 600 600 600

400 400 400 400

200 200 200 200

R2= 0.972 R2= 0.990

0 0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
a) Measured Resilient Modulus (MPa) b) Measured Resilient Modulus (MPa)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000

RAP RAP
RM, Three Parameter Model Prediction (MPa)
RM, Bulk Stress Model Prediction (MPa)

800 800 800 800

600 600 600 600

400 400 400 400

200 200 200 200

R2= 0.972 R2= 0.990

0 0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
c) Measured Resilient Modulus (MPa) d) Measured Resilient Modulus (MPa)
LIST OF TABLES

Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.

Table 2. Geotechnical properties of CB and RAP

Table 3. Regression parameters for 7-day cured CB samples

Table 4. Regression parameters of bulk-stress model for 7-day cured RAP samples

Table 1. Chemical composition of FA from X-ray fluorescence analysis

Chemical FA
Composition (wt.%)
Al2O3 25.56
SiO2 51.11
CaO 4.3
Fe2O3 12.48
K2O 0.7
MgO 1.45
Na2O 0.77
SO3 0.24
LoI* 0.57
*
LoI: Loss on Ignition

15
Table 2. Geotechnical properties of CB and RAP
Geotechnical Properties Test Standards CB RAP
Particle density – coarse (Mg/m3) AS 1141.6.1 [41] 2.64 2.60
Particle density – fine (Mg/m3) AS 1141.5.1 [42] 2.61 2.49
Water absorption – coarse (%) AS 1141.6.1 [41] 6.9 2.8
Water absorption – fine (%) AS 1141.5.1 [42] 12.2 4.9
Water absorption - average AS 1141.5.1 [42] 9.4 3.6
Organic content (%) ASTM D2974 [43] 1.6 5.3
pH AS 1289.4.3.1 [44] 10.3 9.5
Fine Content (%) ASTM D2487 [45] 8.1 4.1
Sand Content (%) ASTM D2487 [45] 35.7 34.4
Gravel content (%) ASTM D2487 [45] 56.2 61.5
Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) ASTM D2487 [45] 34.5 21.8
Coefficient of curvature (Cc) ASTM D2487 [45] 1.8 1.2
USCS ASTM D2487 [45] GW GW
Flakiness index BS 812-105.1 [46] 25.1 11.8
Los Angeles abrasion loss ASTM C131 [47] 34.6 21.5
Max dry density (Mg/m3) AS 1289.5.2.1 [30] 1.97 2.06
Optimum moisture content (%) AS 1289.5.2.1 [30] 10.72 6.89

16
Table 3. Regression parameters for 7-day cured CB samples
Bulk stress model Three-parameter Model
Material
Log k1 k2 R2 Log k3 k4 k5 R2
CB (Unbound) 4.08 0.50 0.97 3.36 0.22 0.27 0.97
CB + 10% FA : 20°C 4.03 0.53 0.99 3.37 0.11 0.41 0.97
CB + 10% FA : 40°C 4.27 0.51 0.99 3.58 0.22 0.28 0.97
CB + 20% FA : 20°C 4.09 0.48 0.97 3.32 0.16 0.31 0.96
CB + 20% FA : 40°C 4.21 0.50 0.98 3.49 0.20 0.30 0.96
CB + 30% FA : 20°C 4.06 0.47 0.98 3.25 0.08 0.488 0.95
CB + 30% FA : 40°C 4.03 0.54 0.95 3.41 0.13 0.40 0.97

17
Table 4. Regression parameters of bulk-stress model for 7-day cured RAP samples
Bulk stress model Three-parameter Model
Material
Log k1 k2 R2 Log k3 k4 k5 R2
RAP (Unbound) 4.26 0.49 0.98 3.51 0.19 0.29 0.99
RAP + 10% FA : 20°C 4.10 0.56 0.97 3.55 0.33 0.22 0.99
RAP + 10% FA : 40°C 4.18 0.56 0.96 3.62 0.30 0.26 0.99
RAP + 20% FA : 20°C 3.82 0.64 0.96 3.48 0.41 0.23 0.99
RAP + 20% FA : 40°C 4.05 0.59 0.98 3.57 0.31 0.28 0.99
RAP + 30% FA : 20°C 4.02 0.54 0.99 3.42 0.26 0.28 0.99
RAP + 30% FA : 40°C 3.95 0.61 0.97 3.53 0.35 0.26 0.99

18