Subgrade Soil Stabilization Using Low-Quality Recycled Concrete Aggregate

Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 310 235
Subgrade Soil Stabilization Using Low-Quality Recycled Concrete Aggregate

Masoumeh Tavakol, S.M.ASCE1; Mustaque Hossain, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE2;
and Stacey E. Tucker-Kulesza, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE3
1
Ph.D. Candidate and Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 2156 Fiedler Hall, Kansas
State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506. E-mail: mtavakol@ksu.edu
2
Munger Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 2118 Fiedler Hall, Kansas State Univ.,
Manhattan, KS 66506. E-mail: mustak@ksu.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 2122 Fiedler Hall, Kansas State Univ.,
Manhattan, KS 66506. E-mail: sekulesza@k-state.edu
ABSTRACT
Recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) results from the recycling of Portland cement concrete
pavements. The use of RCA as aggregates on paving projects, where virgin quality aggregates
are scarce, offers economic and environmental benefits. RCA is commonly used in the unbound
base or subbase layer in pavements. Lower quality RCA (i.e., from D-cracked pavement) can be
used in subgrade soil stabilization. In this study, a clay subgrade soil was stabilized using RCA
and three different cementitious materials (lime, Class C fly ash, and a combination of Portland
cement and fly ash). Clay soil-cement mixtures containing 0%, 50%, and 100% RCA, from two
D-cracked concrete pavements, were designed following the United States Army Corps of
Engineers method. The methodology uses standard Proctor compaction and unconfined
compressive strength test results. These results indicate RCA, in conjunction with all
cementitious materials except lime, improves the clay soil strength.
KEYWORDS: RCA, D-Cracked pavements, Cementitious materials, Subgrade soil
stabilization.
INTRODUCTION
Soil stabilization refers to the techniques used for treating and improving engineering
properties of unsatisfactory natural soil for a specific use. For pavement purposes, soil
stabilization is used where there are poor subgrade conditions or when there is a need for dust
control, moisture control, and salvaging old roads (Yoder and Witczak 1975). Soil stabilization
methods are divided into five main categories of mechanical, physical, chemical, biological, and
electrical treatment (Latifi et al. 2017). Selection of a suitable method for highway subgrade soil
stabilization depends on soil properties, economic benefits, and project conditions (Banda 2003).
The focus of this research is chemical stabilization.
Chemical treatment involves the process of adding stabilizers to the soil resulting in a
chemical reaction and consequently improving/modifying soil physical properties (Banda 2003).
Different admixtures can be used for soil stabilization. They include cementing agents,
modifiers, miscellaneous chemicals, and recently nontraditional liquid additives (e.g., enzymes,
geopolymers, lignins) (Latifi et al. 2016; Phummiphan et al. 2016). Common cementing agents
used for soil stabilization include portland cement, lime, and fly ash (Hossain and Mol 2011).
Portland cement consists of four major components namely, tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate,
tricalcium aluminate, and tetracalcium aluminoferrite. Cementitious products are produced as
these components come in contact and react with water. Fly ash is produced from the combustion
of coal in electric power plants. Fly ash particles are spherical with sizes ranging from 0.01 μm
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2019
to 100 μm (Ozdemir 2016). Fly ash is a pozzolan, which primarily consists of silicon, aluminum,
iron and calcium oxides. Fly ashes are classified as Class C or Class F. Class F fly ash has
pozzolanic properties whereas Class C fly ash has both pozzolanic and cementitious properties.
Lime is the product of burning limestone and can be used to stabilize soil. This stabilizer can be
either calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide. Soils with plasticity index ranging from 10 to 50
usually change volume with fluctuating moisture content and can be stabilized with lime (Bell
1993). However, lime may result in deleterious heaving when used to stabilize high sulfate-
bearing clay soils (Little et al. 2009).
Mechanical and chemical soil stabilization have been extensively used, and the effects and
mechanisms are known to a great degree. RCA is the product of demolition concrete structures
and pavements (McNeil and Kang 2013). It is composed of a minimum of 90%, by mass, from
portland cement-based wastes and natural aggregates (Silva et al. 2016). RCA is known to have
inferior physical properties, causing performance degradation when incorporated into new
concrete mixtures (Snyder 2016). Additionally, some state department of transportations
(DOTs), like the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), are facing further issues with
RCA from distressed pavements, such as, D-cracked pavements. D-cracking refers to a form of
concrete pavement deterioration that originates in the coarse aggregates of concrete due to
freeze-thaw. It appears on the pavement surface as a series of closely-spaced cracks generally
parallel to the transverse and longitudinal joints.
State DOT’s are reluctant to use RCA materials, especially in the surface layer, due to
limited experience. However, using such materials for subgrade soil stabilization is one way to
utilize this abundant material. Arulrajah et al. (2012) investigated five recycled construction and
demolition materials to characterize their basic properties- shear strength parameters, resilient
modulus, and permanent deformation. RCA was found to have geotechnical properties
equivalent or superior to that of typical quarry subbase materials. Poon and Chan (2006) showed
that the use of RCA increased the optimum moisture content (OMC) and decreased the
maximum dry density (MDD) of subgrade materials. The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values
of the subbase materials prepared with 100% RCA were found to be lower than those of natural
subbase materials. Cabalar et al. (2017) evaluated mixtures of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%
and 100% clay and RCA. These researchers concluded that clay addition to all gravel-size RCA
materials increased OMC. The MDD value of the clay-RCA mixtures prepared at OMC
increased up to certain clay content and then reduced. Their results showed that adding clay to
the RCA materials resulted in increased energy absorption. As RCA has been shown to be
equivalent to the quarry subbase materials, using these materials for lower layers like subgrade
raises fewer concerns for state DOTs. It further prevents lower quality RCA disposal into
landfills, resulting in economic and environmental benefits (Oikonomou 2005).
Many state DOTs have used recycled concrete as aggregates in pavement construction;
however, the experience of using RCA in pavement applications has been somewhat mixed
(Verian et al. 2013; Cabalar et al. 2017). RCA has different properties when compared to natural
aggregates, primarily due to the recycled mortar present in RCA. Therefore, the altered
performance of pavement layers when incorporating RCA is expected and, as such, many
highway agencies are reluctant to use RCA for the surface layer. As a result, these materials are
mostly used in unbound bases. There is also a potential for performance improvement using
RCA for subgrade soil stabilization. The use of RCA as subgrade material can be an alternative
to address concerns regarding the massive production of RCA. However, experience on using
RCA for such purpose is very limited, especially where RCA is from lower quality sources, like
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2019
D-cracked pavements. To date, there has been no known work to evaluate the effectiveness of a
combination of RCA and chemical stabilizers for subgrade soil stabilization. The primary
objective of this study was to investigate the suitability of D-cracked RCA for stabilizing
subgrade layer beneath hot-mix asphalt (HMA) pavements. The use of RCA containing
aggregates from the D-cracked pavements and different cementitious additives (lime, Class C fly
ash, and a combination of portland cement and fly ash) in the stabilized subgrade layers was
evaluated through laboratory tests to assess potential improvement in clay soil strength.
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Materials
Two different sources of RCA were collected from pavements with D-cracking in Kansas.
RCA materials were used in combination with three different chemical stabilizers commonly
used in Kansas for pavement applications. The stabilizers included lime, fly ash (Class C), and a
combination of portland cement and fly ash. All stabilizers met current KDOT requirement for
use in subgrade soil stabilization. The first RCA was collected from a rehabilitation project of
Topeka Blvd in Topeka, Kansas. The second source was obtained from the Kansas City (KC)
airport runway. Slabs were removed from both the Topeka and KC projects and were crushed by
a crusher company to the maximum aggregate size of one inch for use in this study. Both RCA
sources consisted of limestone aggregates in their original mixtures. The clay soil used in this
study was an AASHTO A-6 soil with a liquid limit of 38 and plasticity index of 15. Figure 1
shows Topeka and KC RCA and the clay soil used in this study. Sieve analysis and hydrometer
tests were conducted following ASTM D 422 (ASTM 2007) procedure (Figure 2).
Figure 1 Topeka and KC RCA and the A-6 clay soil used in this study.
Methodology
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) method (USACE 1994) was followed with a
few minor modifications. Modifications were made to meet the KDOT needs and unforeseen
effects of RCA on the studied soil-cement mixtures. The USACE method is based on both
strength and durability requirements. However, KDOT, like most state DOTs, focuses on the
compressive strength alone (Guthrie et al. 2002). This focus on strength only is due to shorter
required testing time and higher availability of equipment and trained technicians. Thereby, in
this study mixture design objective was to achieve a target strength, as evaluated by the
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test (ASTM D 1633).
The USACE requires a design UCS of 250 psi. for stabilizing subgrade soil for flexible
pavements. This is the target UCS regardless of the stabilizer type but the required age of
mixture to achieve this strength depends on the type of stabilizer used. For all chemical
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2019
stabilizers in this study, the UCS needed to be determined at 28 days. In this research, the UCS at
seven days was also measured. Mixture design required performing the standard Proctor
compaction and UCS tests. Mixtures of 100% clay, 50% clay-50% RCA, and 100% RCA with
different stabilizers were developed.
Figure 2 Aggregate gradation for RCA and clay soil.

Mixture Design for Subgrade Soil Stabilized with Lime
The first step in the design of lime mixtures was to estimate the initial percentage of lime
following ASTM D 6276 (ASTM 2006). Different slurries of soil (passing the #40 sieve)
incorporating water and varying percentages of lime were made. According to ASTM D 6276,
the lowest percentage of lime in the soil-lime mixtures that gives a pH of 12.4 is the approximate
lime percentage for stabilizing that soil. Once the initial lime percentage, based on the total dry
weight of soil, was fixed, a standard Proctor test, ASTM D 698 (ASTM 2012), was performed on
the mixture with the estimated initial lime content. The soil-lime specimens were then made
according to ASTM D 1632 (ASTM 2017a), the standard method for making and curing soil-
cement compression and flexure test specimens in the laboratory. Specimens were cylindrical
and 4 in. x 8 in. or 3 in. x 6 in. in size. The specimen size in ASTM D 1632 varied according to
the amount of coarse aggregates (RCA) in the mixture. All mixtures incorporating clay required
3 in. x 6 in. specimens, whereas 100% RCA mixtures called for 4 in. x 8 in. specimens based on
the ASTM requirements. To maintain a uniform specimen size, trial specimens of 4 in. x 8 in.
were made for all mixtures. However, specimens containing clay did not develop sufficient early
strength, and failed upon removal from the mold. The smaller 3 in. x 6 in. test specimens did not
effectively represent 100% RCA formed mainly from coarse aggregates. Thus, the sample size in
this study varied according to the requirements of ASTM D 1632. The measured strength
decreases as the specimen size increases. However, the effect is negligible when comparing a
four-inch to a three-inch specimen (Mindess et al. 2003). Three replicate specimens were made
for each mixture. Required dry weight and moisture content were calculated based on the OMC
and MDD obtained from the standard Proctor test. A total of six specimens for testing at seven
and 28 days were compacted and kept in the mold for 24±2 hrs. in a sealed box to prevent
moisture loss. Then the specimens were removed from molds using a hydraulic extruder. They
were put in plastic bags and transferred to a moist room with 96% relative humidity. The last
step in the design procedure was to run the UCS test at both seven and 28 days following ASTM
D 1633 (ASTM 2017b). The specimens were tested immediately after they were removed from
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2019
the curing room. Specimens were subjected to a constant rate of strain to produce an approximate
rate of 0.05 in./min. The load was applied to the specimen until failure. The maximum load
carried by the specimen during the test was recorded and used to calculate the UCS.
Mixture Design for Subgrade Soil Stabilized with Fly Ash

The first design step for fly ash mixes was to estimate the initial percentage of fly ash. Based
on the USACE method, the initial percentage of fly ash could be estimated through two different
ways. The first method was used in this study and described here. A moisture content close to the
OMC of soil-fly ash mixtures was estimated. This estimation was done by obtaining the OMC of
the clay soil and using it as the estimated OMC for fly ash-soil mixtures. Then a single point
compaction test at fly ash contents of 10-20% was conducted. The water content was kept the
same for all mixtures while fly ash content varied between 10-20%. Then a plot of dry density
versus fly ash content was drawn. The fly ash content that yielded maximum density was
determined from the plotted curve and selected as the initial design binder (stabilizing agent)
content. The standard Proctor test was performed on the mixture with the estimated initial fly ash
content. The UCS specimens were made as was described for the lime mixtures.
Mixture Design for Subgrade Soil Stabilized with Fly Ash & Portland Cement
For the combination of fly ash and portland cement, the estimated initial percentages of fly
ash, as defined in the previous section, was used as the total binder. But the ratio of portland
cement to fly ash yielding the highest strength needed to be determined. In order to do so,
different trial UCS specimens with cement to fly ash ratio of 1:1 and 1:2 (selected for this study)
were made. All steps remained the same as the previously mentioned design procedure for fly
ash only mixtures. Figure 3 shows a UCS test and a failed specimen.
Figure 3 The UCS test on soil-cement specimens (ASTM D 1633).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Initial Binder Estimation and Trial Mixtures

Mixtures of 100% clay, 50% clay-50% RCA, and 100% RCA were developed. For lime, the
initial estimation was 6% for all mixtures. Therefore, trial mixtures with 6% and 8% lime were
developed. For fly ash, the initial estimation was 19% for 100% clay, so trial mixtures of 19±3%
were developed. For 50% clay-50% RCA, the initial fly ash estimation was 14%. However, the
initial results of the compression test indicated 14% fly ash was not sufficient to reach the target
strength. Thus, trial mixtures with 17±3% fly ash were developed. For 100% RCA, 5% was
selected (based on some previously available data on RCA). For a combination of fly ash and
portland cement, ratios of fly ash to cement of 1:1 and 1:2 were chosen. The total binder
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2019
(portland cement + fly ash) was equal to the mentioned initial estimated fly ash content (19% for
100% clay, 14% for 50% clay-50% RCA, and 5% for 100% RCA).
Table 1 Standard Proctor test results of different mixtures.

Mixture OMC (%) MDD (Ib/ft3)
100% Clay Untreated 18.2 97.3
19% fly ash 16.0 104.1
6% lime 19.8 96.0
50%Clay-50%KC Untreated 16.0 103.3

14% fly ash 15.6 106.3
6% lime 17.1 101.7
50%Clay-50%Topeka Untreated 15.3 106.4
14% fly ash 15.6 109.3
6% lime 17.4 104.2
100% KC Untreated 7.7 106.4
5% fly ash 8.1 109.0
6% lime 9.0 103.4
100%Topeka Untreated 9.1 113.5
5% fly ash 10.2 116.9
6% lime 10.8 114.2
Standard Proctor Test Results

Standard Proctor tests were run on mixtures containing estimated binder content. OMC
results are shown in Table 1. Replacement of 50% RCA into clay soil resulted in decreased
OMC and increased MDD. The mixes with 100% RCA had lower OMC and higher MDD as
compared to both 100% clay and 50% clay-50% RCA mixtures. Also, results of this study
confirmed previously known effects of lime and fly ash on the compaction curve parameters.
Lime resulted in decreased MDD and increased OMC. The effect of fly ash was opposite of the
effect of lime where fly ash improved the compaction curve parameters. There could be varied
reasons for the observed effects of lime and fly ash on compaction curve parameters. Fly ash
particles, with specific gravity higher than that of clay, would fill the voids causing a higher
MDD of the compacted clay soil-fly ash mixture. The decrease in OMC can be attributed to the
lower affinity of fly ash to water. For lime mixtures, a decrease in MDD is possibly due to the
specific gravity of lime that is lower than that of clay soil of this study. Other possible reason can
be aggregation of the particles, altering the clay soil fabric. The higher OMC can be due to the
pozzolanic reaction of lime and clay soil (al-Swaidani et al. 2016; Osinubi 1998).
It should be noted that MDD and OMC of stabilized mixtures depend greatly on the delay
between the mixing and the final compaction of the mixture. The addition of fly ash or lime to
clay soil results in flocculation and agglomeration of clay particles. Flocculated particles have
less tendency to be compacted. Thus, a part of the compactive effort must be used to overcome
the cementation, resulting in decreased MDD (Banda 2003). In this study, the delay between
mixing and compaction was about one hour for both lime and fly ash mixtures. The explained
effects of lime and fly ash were the same for all mixtures, even in the presence of RCA.
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2019
Figure 4 Seven- and 28-day UCS of different mixtures.

UCS Test Results
Three replicate specimens were made for each mixture. The UCS of specimens, made at
OMC and MDD, was measured at seven and 28 days. The UCS was calculated as follows:
F
UCS  max
A
where:
UCS = Unconfined compressive strength (psi),
Fmax = Maximum recorded load of the specimen during test (lb), and
A = Specimen cross section (in2).
The average of three specimens was reported as the mixture UCS as shown in Figure 4.
The UCS value of untreated 100% clay was 27 psi. For untreated 50% clay-50% KC RCA,
the corresponding value was 12 psi, and for 50% clay-50% Topeka RCA it was 9 psi. Thus, it
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2019
was evident that mechanically stabilizing clay soil with 50% RCA was not effective as it lowered
the strength of untreated clay. Based on the results of chemically and mechanically stabilized
clay soils with RCA and different stabilizing agents, as shown in Figure 4, lime caused
improvement in UCS of all mixtures. However, the improvement was not sufficient to reach the
target strength where the average UCS of lime mixtures was notably lower than the target design
strength of 250 psi (the maximum UCS reached was 65 psi). Also, blend of 50% clay and 50%
RCA did not cause any gain in additional strength.
For fly ash mixtures, there was an improvement in the UCS of mixtures. However, the
improvement was not notable compared to the target strength, except for the 50% clay-50% KC
mixture that had a UCS of 106 psi. None of the fly ash mixtures achieved the target design
strength of 250 psi. The replacement of 50% RCA by clay soil helped to achieve higher strength
levels as compared to 100% clay, though lower quantities of fly ash were used. The only binder
type reaching the design target was combinations of fly ash and portland cement. However, this
was only possible where RCA was present in the mixture. As shown in
Figure 4, 50% clay-50% RCA mixtures with fly ash and portland cement showed
considerable improvement in strength. The maximum observed strength for 100% clay was 148
psi, whereas for 50% clay-50% RCA it was 335 psi. The higher strength was achieved despite
the lower total quantity of binder in the mixtures containing RCA. Higher strength of 50% clay-
50% RCA mixtures as compared to 100% clay mixtures can be attributed to higher strength of
RCA aggregates and improved interface of aggregate-cementitious products bond. Mixtures with
50% clay and 50% RCA had considerably higher amounts of chemical binders as compared to
the mixtures with 100% RCA, and thus developed higher compressive strength. The selected
binder content was based on trial mixtures to achieve to the target design strength of 250 psi.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study the following conclusions were drawn:
 Replacement of 50% RCA in clay soil changed the compaction curves. It decreased OMC
and increased MDD of clay-RCA mixes as compared to clay-only mixes.
 Lime in soil resulted in lower MDD and higher OMC, while the effect of fly ash was the
opposite. This pattern was observed for mixtures with or without RCA.
 Mechanically stabilizing clay with 50% RCA lowered the UCS of the untreated clay.
Therefore, it was concluded that RCA alone was not effective for soil strength gain.
 Except for lime, replacement of 50% RCA improved the UCS of stabilized mixtures with
stabilizing agents as compared to 100% clay.
 Fly ash with portland cement was the most effective stabilizer to gain higher strengths.
These were the only mixtures that reached the specified target of 250 psi at 28 days.
 The UCS of clay-RCA-fly ash mixtures was higher than that of the clay-fly ash mixtures.
Thus, the combination of RCA and fly ash was found effective for subgrade soil
stabilization.
 The UCS did not improve for clay-RCA-lime mixes as compared to the clay-lime mixes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This project was sponsored by the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) under its
Kansas Transportation and New Developments (K-TRAN) program.
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2019
REFERENCES
Al-Swaidani, A., Hammoud, I., and Meziab, A. (2016). "Effect of adding natural pozzolana on
geotechnical properties of lime-stabilized clayey soil." Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, 8(5), 714-725.
Arulrajah, A., Piratheepan, J., Disfani, M. M., and Bo, M. W. (2012). "Geotechnical and
geoenvironmental properties of recycled construction and demolition materials in pavement
subbase applications." J.Mater.Civ.Eng., 25(8), 1077-1088.
ASTM. (2017a). Standard Practice for Making and Curing Soil-Cement Compression and
Flexure Test Specimens in the Laboratory.ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM. (2017b). Standard Test Methods for Compressive Strength of Molded Soil-Cement
Cylinders. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using
Standard Effort. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007). Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2006). Standard Test Method for Using pH to Estimate the Soil-Lime Proportion
Requirement for Soil Stabilization. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Banda, S. K. (2003). Laboratory Evaluation of Chemical Stabilization of Kansas Embankment
Soils. Master's Thesis, Kansas State University.
Bell, F. G. (1993). "Engineering Treatment of Soils." Taylor & Francis Group.
Cabalar, A. F., Zardikawi, O., and Abdulnafaa, M. D. (2017). "Utilisation of construction and
demolition materials with clay for road pavement subgrade." Road Materials and Pavement
Design, 1-13.
Guthrie, W. S., Sebesta, S., and Scullion, T. (2002). "Selecting optimum cement contents for
stabilizing aggregate base materials." Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M
University System.
Hossain, K., and Mol, L. (2011). "Some engineering properties of stabilized clayey soils
incorporating natural pozzolans and industrial wastes." Constr.Build.Mater., 25(8), 3495-
3501.
Latifi, N., Meehan, C. L., Majid, M. Z. A., and Horpibulsuk, S. (2016). "Strengthening
montmorillonitic and kaolinitic clays using a calcium-based non-traditional additive: a micro-
level study." Appl.Clay.Sci., 132 182-193.
Latifi, N., Vahedifard, F., Ghazanfari, E., Horpibulsuk, S., Marto, A., and Williams, J. (2017).
"Sustainable Improvement of Clays Using Low-Carbon Nontraditional Additive."
International Journal of Geomechanics, 18(3), 04017162.
Little, D. N., Nair, S., and Herbert, B. (2009). "Addressing sulfate-induced heave in lime treated
soils." J.Geotech.Geoenviron.Eng., 136(1), 110-118.
McNeil, K., and Kang, T. H. (2013). "Recycled concrete aggregates: A review." International
Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 7(1), 61-69.
Mindess, S., Young, J. F., and Darwin, D. (2003). Concrete. Prentice Hall, upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Oikonomou, N. D. (2005). "Recycled concrete aggregates." Cement and Concrete Composites,
27(2), 315-318.
Osinubi, K. J. (1998). "Influence of compactive efforts and compaction delays on lime-treated
soil." J.Transp.Eng., 124(2), 149-155.
Ozdemir, M. A. (2016). "Improvement in Bearing Capacity of a Soft Soil by Addition of Fly
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2019
Ash." Procedia Engineering, 143 498-505.

Phummiphan, I., Horpibulsuk, S., Sukmak, P., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Arulrajah, A., and Shen, S.
(2016). "Stabilisation of marginal lateritic soil using high calcium fly ash-based
geopolymer." Road Materials and Pavement Design, 17(4), 877-891.
Poon, C. S., and Chan, D. (2006). "Feasible use of recycled concrete aggregates and crushed clay
brick as unbound road sub-base." Constr.Build.Mater., 20(8), 578-585.
Silva, R. V., de Brito, J., and Dhir, R. K. (2016). "Establishing a relationship between modulus
of elasticity and compressive strength of recycled aggregate concrete." J.Clean.Prod., 112
2171-2186.
Snyder, M. B., (2016). "Concrete Pavement Recycling and the Use of Recycled Concrete
Aggregate in Concrete Paving Mixtures."
http://www.cproadmap.org/publications/MAPbriefMarch2016.pdf (May 2017).
USACE. (1994). "Soil Stablization for Pavements, Design Procedures for Soil Modification or
Stabilization Production." No. 5-822-14.
Verian, K. P., Whiting, N. M., Olek, J., Jain, J., and Snyder, M. B. (2013). "Using recycled
concrete as aggregate in concrete pavements to reduce materials cost." Joint Transportation
Research Program.
Yoder, E. J., and Witczak, M. W. (1975). "Principles of pavement design." John Wiley & Sons.
© ASCE
Geo-Congress 2019

Subgrade Soil Stabilization Using Low-Quality Recycled Concrete Aggregate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subgrade Soil Stabilization Using Low-Quality Recycled Concrete Aggregate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geo-Congress 2019 GSP 310 235

Subgrade Soil Stabilization Using Low-Quality Recycled Concrete Aggregate

Figure 2 Aggregate gradation for RCA and clay soil.

Mixture Design for Subgrade Soil Stabilized with Fly Ash

Figure 3 The UCS test on soil-cement specimens (ASTM D 1633).

Initial Binder Estimation and Trial Mixtures

Table 1 Standard Proctor test results of different mixtures.

50%Clay-50%KC Untreated 16.0 103.3

Standard Proctor Test Results

Figure 4 Seven- and 28-day UCS of different mixtures.

Flexure Test Specimens in the Laboratory.ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Ash." Procedia Engineering, 143 498-505.

You might also like