Construction and Building Materials 191 (2018) 1120–1127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Mechanical property and microstructure characteristics of geopolymer

stabilized aggregate base
Wei Hu a, Qingke Nie b,c,d, Baoshan Huang a,e,⇑, Aiwu Su f, Yong Du f, Xiang Shu a,c,d, Qiang He a
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
b
School of Civil Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, PR China
c
Hebei Research Institute of Construction and Geotechnical Investigation Co. Ltd., Shijiazhuang 050031 PR China
d
The Technology Center of Geotechnical Engineering of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang 050031, PR China
e
School of Transportation Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
f
Shanxi Highway Administration Lvliang Bureau, Shanxi 033000, PR China

h i g h l i g h t s

 This research explored the possibility of utilizing geopolymer as base stabilizer.

 Two key factors for the geopolymer stabilized base were investigated.
 Different exothermic curves were identified for various stabilizers.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With its potential to replace ordinary Portland cement, geopolymer has been receiving more and more
Received 9 February 2018 attention in cement industry as well as geotechnical engineering. However, research is mainly focused
Received in revised form 6 September 2018 on use of geopolymer to make geopolymer concrete or masonry bricks, little has been done about its
Accepted 13 October 2018
application as a stabilizing agent in pavement base materials. This study explores the feasibility of using
Available online 22 October 2018
geopolymer-stabilized base material in pavement base layer. Two industrial wastes, class F fly ash and
red mud, were utilized to synthesize the geopolymer stabilized aggregate base, and two conventional sta-
Keywords:
bilizing agents, cement-fly ash and lime-fly ash, were also included for comparison purpose. Three curing
Geopolymer
Red mud
conditions were adopted to investigate two key factors in the geopolymerization process, temperature
Class F fly ash and water. Test results show that a standard curing condition was adequate for strength development
Stabilized aggregate base of geopolymer base samples with a compressive strength close to that of the cement-fly ash base sample.
Mechanical properties An increase in temperature from 20 °C to 38 °C accelerated the strength development of both geopolymer
base samples, whereas a decrease in relative humidity from 98% to 45% significantly impaired the
strengths of all conventional and geopolymer base specimens, indicating that a wet condition was still
necessary for geopolymer stabilized base layer. According to the test results, geopolymer stabilized
aggregate bases showed promise to be used as a stabilizing agent in flexible pavement applications.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In flexible pavements, both pavement structure and properties
of layer materials can influence the pavement performance. Among
different layers, the stiffness of the base layer has a significant
effect on the tensile strains in the overlying asphalt layers and
the compressive strains in the underlying subgrade layer. Since
the stiffness of the base course is directly dependent on the
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
E-mail address: bhuang@utk.edu (B. Huang).
properties of base material, the type of base course and base mate-
rial can affect the overall performance of flexible pavements. There
are mainly two types of base courses utilized in flexible pave-
ments: unbound aggregate bases and stabilized aggregate bases.
While unbound aggregate bases consist of untreated granular
materials only, stabilized bases bind granular materials with a sta-
bilizing agent, including asphalt emulsion and Portland cement.
Nowadays, the need for heavy-duty pavements is becoming a
more pressing problem due to higher tire pressures, heavier wheel
loads, and increasing volumes of traffic. Previous studies reveal
that the use of stabilized aggregate bases improves the overall per-
formance of flexible pavements [1,2]. The stabilizing agents used in

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.081
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 W. Hu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 191 (2018) 1120–1127
stabilized aggregate bases can increase aggregate interlock and
facilitate load transfer, which enables load transfer in stabilized
aggregate bases to be more efficient than that in unbound bases.
One of the most commonly utilized stabilizing agents is ordi-
nary Portland cement (OPC). Many studies have evaluated both
the laboratory and field performance of cement stabilized bases
in flexible pavements. It was found that the strength of hardened
base mixture is generally higher than that of untreated aggregate
whereas its plasticity index and permeability is typically lower
than that of untreated aggregates [3]. However, there are also some
concerns about use of cement stabilized bases in flexible pave-
ments. Shrinkage cracks may result from cement hydration in
cement stabilized bases and lead to reflective cracks in asphalt lay-
ers, which negatively impacts the performance of flexible pave-
ments [1,4,5]. Alternatives to OPC as a stabilizing agent in
stabilized aggregate bases are desirable to meet the demand for
sustainable base materials and excellent pavement performance
at the same time.
As an innovative material, geopolymer is a special cementitious
material that has the potential to be an alternative to OPC as a sta-
bilizing agent in the stabilized aggregate bases. Unlike OPC,
geopolymer does not need cement as a binding medium. Instead,
it requires an alumina silicate material and an alkaline reagent as
source materials. By exposing alumina silicate materials to a highly
alkaline environment, a series of reactions occur sequentially
including dissolution of the aluminosilicate species, polymerization
of the dissolved minerals, precipitation of formed hydration prod-
ucts, and final hardening of an inorganic polymer-like structure.
The final product of the chemical reaction is called geopolymer,
which can serve as a binding material [6]. One of the benefits of
geopolymer lies in the utilization of industrial wastes. For example,
as the industrial waste from the alumina industry, red mud can lead
to grave environmental problems due to its high alkalinity. How-
ever, its sodicity guarantees the potential to be utilized into
geopolymer production [7,8]. Previous studies have also revealed
that production of geopolymer may only generate one fifth to half
volume of CO2 when compared to OPC [9]. In addition, geopolymers
have many advantages over OPC such as high strength, minimal
shrinkage, and acid resistance, which makes it well suited as a
potential stabilizing agent for stabilized aggregate bases. However,
most of the previous studies were limited to the characterization of
geopolymer concrete, and the potential of utilizing geopolymer as
stabilizing agent has been neglected. In 2014, a geopolymer con-
crete aircraft pavement was constructed at Brisbane West Well-
camp Airport, Australia [10]. Although a geopolymer concrete
surface layer was successfully applied in the project, it used OPC
instead of geopolymer as the stabilizing agent for the base course.
On the other hand, geopolymer also has some disadvantages which
may hinder the utilization of it as a stabilizing agent. For example,
previous studies concluded that a favorable curing temperature for
class F fly ash based geopolymer ranges from 50 to 80 °C, which was
investigated and partially confirmed based on the characteristics of
raw materials and activators in a previous study by the authors [8].
This temperature range may not be achieved for actual pavement
projects. Therefore, the feasibility of using geopolymer in a stabi-
lized aggregate base should be systematically evaluated.
The objective of this study is to explore the possibility of utiliz-
ing geopolymer as a stabilizing agent in stabilized aggregate bases.
Two different alumina silicate materials, class F fly ash and red
mud, were utilized to produce geopolymer. The compressive
strength, failure strain, and dry shrinkage of the geopolymer stabi-
lized aggregate base samples cured under different conditions
were measured in the laboratory. The properties were compared
with those of two conventional stabilized aggregate base materi-
als: cement-fly ash and lime-fly ash stabilized base, which are
often used in flexible pavements in China.
1121
2. Materials and background
2.1. Materials
Two geopolymers, class F fly ash geopolymer and fly ash-red mud geopolymer,
were utilized to stabilize base material in this study. Two conventional stabilizing
agents, cement-fly ash and lime-fly ash, were also included for comparison purpose.
Therefore, a class F fly ash from the SEFA Group in Tennessee, U.S. and a red mud
from Xinfa Group, Shandong, China, were used as the raw materials for geopolymer
synthesis. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate solution (Na2SiO3, 37 wt%)
from the Fisher scientific were used as alkaline reagents. Calcium hydroxide pow-
der, Ca(OH)2, for conventional stabilized base samples was also obtained from the
Fisher scientific. Type I portland cement, coarse and fine limestone aggregates were
locally available materials.
2.2. Test methods
The ASTM standard D698-12 ‘‘Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Com-
paction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort” and the Chinese standard
JTG E51-2009 ‘‘Test Methods of Materials Stabilized with Inorganic Binders for
Highway Engineering” were followed to prepare aggregate base materials stabilized
with geopolymer and conventional stabilizing agents. According to the results from
sieve analysis of the coarse and fine aggregates, the two aggregates were blended at
a specific proportion to satisfy the gradation requirement of stabilized aggregate
base specified in the Chinese standard. Then a stabilizing agent was mixed with
the blended aggregates with a ratio of 20:80, which is a common ratio used in
the engineering practice in China. The base mixtures were compacted at different
water contents according to ASTM D698-12 to obtain the compaction curve and
to find the optimum water content. At the optimum water content, the conven-
tional stabilized base samples were prepared using the static pressure method with
a MTS to achieve the maximum dry unit weight. The samples were 10.2 cm in diam-
eter and 20.4 cm in height. After demolding, the samples were covered with plastic
film and cured under the designed curing circumstances for six days. Then the sam-
ples were submerged in water at 20 °C for one day before the test. The geopolymer
stabilized aggregate base samples were made by following the same process to that
for the conventional samples, except that an alkaline reagent was used instead of
water. Based on previous studies [11], the alkaline reagent was a mixture of sodium
silicate and sodium hydroxide solution (10 M concentration) with a ratio of 2.5:1 by
mass.
After curing, the base mixture specimens were tested for unconfined compres-
sive strength at a constant loading rate of 0.5%/min using a Material Testing System
(MTS). Specimens with a dimension of 10  10  40 cm were used to test for dry
shrinkage. A laser diffraction particle size analyzer from Malvern Instruments Ltd
was used to test the size distributions of source materials. Also, electron microprobe
(EMP) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were employed to characterize the
chemical compositions and microstructure of geopolymer source materials and
geopolymer base samples. The Cameca SX-100 EMP was used for composition anal-
ysis for raw materials, and the GeminiSEM was used to obtain microstructure
images for both raw materials and geopolymer base samples. The X-ray diffraction
(XRD) patterns of different base samples were recorded using the Panalytical
Empyrean XRD instrument. The I-Cal 8000 isothermal calorimeter was used to mea-
sure the reaction heat of different base samples.
3. Test results
3.1. Geopolymer source materials
Using geopolymer as a stabilizing agent is environmentally
friendly since most of raw materials are from industrial wastes. As
one of the most important source materials for geopolymer, class
F fly ash in this study was a low-calcium by-product obtained from
the burning of coal [12]. In general, fly ash is an acidic material con-
taining acidic oxides such as Al2O3, SiO2 and Fe2O3 which provide a
potential for alkali reaction. Most fly ashes are made up of an inho-
mogeneous mix of aluminosilicate and silica glasses, and other
small amounts of crystalline materials including mullite, quartz,
hematite and magnetite etc. Another source material in this study,
red mud, is an industrial waste from the alumina industry, which
had a global residue around 2.7 billion tons in 2007 [13]. Among
the key properties of red mud, its high alkalinity and high
aluminum-silicon content provide the potential to be utilized into
geopolymer production. Several studies have attempted to use red
mud for geopolymer materials [14–20].
1122 W. Hu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 191 (2018) 1120–1127
Table 1 presents the chemical compositions of class F fly ash
and red mud using EMP. Fig. 1 shows their size distributions, and
Fig. 2 shows the micrographs of source materials using SEM.
Previous studies indicated that particle size distribution and
particle fineness of raw materials strongly affect their reactivity,
whereas silica content is the most important factor from a chemi-
cal perspective [21]. For the fly ash-based geopolymer, a finer par-
ticle size distribution of raw material results in a higher
compressive strength and reduces permeable voids of geopolymer
[22]. As shown in Table 1, The class F fly ash and the red mud were
both rich in silica and alumina, which ensures their suitability as
geopolymer raw materials. Red mud was highly alkaline with a
pH value of 12.5, indicating that the residual alkaline reagent is
available for geopolymer synthesis. The particle sizes of red mud
were generally larger than that of fly ash as shown in Fig. 1. The
particle size of fly ash ranged from 1 to 240 mm, whereas it was
from 1 to 860 mm for red mud. As shown in Fig. 2, the particles
of class F fly ash were mostly small solid spheres or hollow ceno-
spheres, whereas the appearance of red mud is similar to that of
clay.
3.2. Mixture proportion and mechanical properties
After the sieve analysis, one coarse aggregate and one fine
aggregate were mixed at a 1:1 ratio to meet the gradation require-
ment. Table 2 presents the gradation of the aggregate blend.
According to the Chinese standard JTG/T F20-2015 ‘‘Technical
Guidelines for Construction of Highway Roadbases”, the mixture
proportions of conventional cement-fly ash stabilized base and
lime-fly ash stabilized base samples were determined and pre-
sented in Table 3. Two different geopolymer stabilized base sam-
ples, fly ash and fly ash-red mud geopolymers, used the same
aggregate/agent ratio as that in the conventional samples as shown
in Table 3. The ratio of fly ash to red mud and activator was deter-
mined based on previous studies [8,15].
Table 1
Oxide compositions of source materials, wt%.
SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3
Class F fly ash 46.9 19.6 17.5
Red mud 25.5 26.4 23.2
Fig. 1. Particle size distributions of source materials.
Two key factors may influence the strength and properties of
geopolymer. As mentioned above, previous studies have demon-
strated that curing at an elevated temperature improves the
strength of geopolymer at an early age [9]. However, increasing
the curing temperature significantly above ambient temperature
is economically impractical for geopolymer to be used in pavement
construction. The other factor affecting geopolymer properties is
the role of water, which has not been well understood. Some stud-
ies believe that water in geopolymer mixtures acts as a transport
mechanism only for dissolution to occur, whereas others suggest
that water not only acts as the medium but also participates in
geopolymer reactions [23]. Although there is a lack of consensus
about the role of water, previous studies also indicate that the
effect of relative humidity on geopolymer’s strength during curing
may not be as significant as that of temperature [24]. Based on the
above analysis, three curing conditions were adopted for both
geopolymer and conventional base samples: (1). a standard curing
at 20 °C and 98% relative humidity (RH), (2). an elevated tempera-
ture curing at 38 °C and 98% RH, which is feasible during summer,
and (3). a laboratory air curing at 20 °C and 45% RH.
Fig. 3(a) shows the compaction curve for the fly ash geopolymer
base material, indicating that the optimum water content was
approximately 7.5% for the fly ash geopolymer base material. This
optimal water content was close to that for other base materials.
Therefore, the same water content (7.5%) was adopted to prepare
both geopolymer and conventional base materials. As mentioned
above, a mixture of Na2SiO3 and NaOH solution at 2.5:1 ratio was
used for the geopolymer stabilized base materials instead of water.
Fig. 3(b) shows the different samples of base materials after seven
days of standard curing.
According to the Chinese standard JTG E51-2009 ‘‘Test Methods
of Materials Stabilized with Inorganic Binders for Highway Engi-
neering”, for the unconfined compressive strength test, stabilized
base samples must be cured for seven days including the immer-
sion in water for the last day of curing. All base samples were
CaO Na2O MgO K2O SO3
5.6 1.1 1.4 2.0 1.8
1.3 14.9 0.1 0.2 0.8
 W. Hu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 191 (2018) 1120–1127 1123

(a) Fly ash (b) Red mud

Fig. 2. Micrographs of raw materials.

Table 2
The gradation of aggregate blend.

Sieve (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.075

Blend 100 63.1 52.6 42.3 30.7 19.0 2.2
Specification 85  100 55  75 39  59 27  47 17  35 10  25 0  10

Table 3
Mixture proportions of base material samples.

Stabilizing agents Mixture proportion Water or activator Curing condition

(%)Aggregate: agent1: agent2
1 2
Cement Fly ash 80: 4: 16 Water 20 °C, 98% RH
Lime Fly ash 80: 6: 14 Water 38 °C, 98% RH
Fly ash 80: 20 Activator 20 °C, air curing, 45%
Fly ash Red mud 80: 14: 6 Activator RH

prepared by following this process. Fig. 4 shows the unconfined
compressive strength test results after seven days of curing.
As shown in Fig. 4(a), curing at an elevated temperature accel-
erated the strength development of two geopolymer base materi-
als, even though temperature was only increased from 20 °C to
38 °C, which is practical in some areas during summer period. With
the increase in temperature, the unconfined compressive strength
of fly ash geopolymer base material increased from 13.0 MPa to
17.1 MPa, while the strength increased from 10.5 MPa to
16.1 MPa for fly ash-red mud geopolymer base material. Both
geopolymer base materials had a higher strength than the
cement-fly ash base material after an elevated temperature curing,
whereas their strengths were lower than the strength of cement-
fly ash base material under the standard curing condition. An ele-
vated temperature curing also improved the strength of lime-fly
ash base material. However, its strength was still significantly
lower than that of geopolymer base materials for both curing con-
ditions. A decrease in relative humidity from 98% to 45% signifi-
cantly decreased the strength of all conventional and geopolymer
base specimens, indicating that a wet curing is still necessary for
geopolymer stabilized base layer.
Fig. 4(b) shows the failure strains for different specimens. The
failure strains of geopolymer base materials were usually larger
than that of conventional base materials under all three curing
conditions, and a decrease in relative humidity reduced the failure
strain for all the base samples. In general, the difference in failure
strain between different base materials and curing conditions was
not as significant as the difference in strength between them.
According to JTG E51-2009, ASTM C341, and ASTM C490, spec-
imens with a 10  10  40 cm dimension were cured under the
standard condition (20 °C, 98% relative humidity) for seven days.
Then the specimens were dried in the laboratory and the dry
shrinkage was measured up to 28 days. The final shrinkage strain
for different base specimens are shown in Table 4. In general, the
base samples with different stabilizers had similar dry shrinkage
strains, in which the strain of fly ash-red mud geopolymer base
was slightly smaller. Several factors can affect the magnitude
and rate of shrinkage, including the gradation of aggregate and
the raw material properties. Further research is needed to clarify
the drying shrinkage potential of geopolymer base with different
aggregates.
3.3. Characterization of geopolymer microstructure
After the strength test, the micrographs of crushed samples
(cured at elevated temperature) were obtained using SEM as
shown in Fig. 5.
As shown in Fig. 5, different samples show drastically different
microstructures. For the cement-fly ash base sample, it can be
observed that the fly ash spheres were bonded by the hydration
products of the cement, including calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–
H) gel and some needle-like ettringite crystal. The lime-fly ash
base sample had a relatively loose microstructure since the fly
ash–lime pozzolanic reaction is a long-term process. As a compar-
ison, the fly ash geopolymer base demonstrates a denser
microstructure. Some intact spheres of fly ash were evenly
1124 W. Hu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 191 (2018) 1120–1127

(a) Compaction curve

(a) Unconfined compressive strength

(b) Stabilized base samples

Fig. 3. Compaction curve and base samples.

(b) Strain at failure

arranged in a dense and continuous gel-like geopolymer matrix, Fig. 4. Unconfined compressive strength test results.
which indicated that not all fly ash particles were dissolved in
the activator solution. When the fly ash particles were subjected
to the activator, some spheres were broken under alkaline dissolu- Table 4
tion, and the active Al and Si from raw material dissolved and Shrinkage test results for base samples.
formed the sodium aluminosilicate gel, binding the active particles
No Base samples Dry shrinkage Coefficient of
together as a cementitious matrix [25]. Fig. 5(d) shows the co- strain variation (%)
existence of red mud and fly ash in geopolymers. Some needle
1 Cement-fly ash 0.000947 5.94
or lance shaped particles can be observed in the micrograph. Pre- 2 Lime-fly ash 0.000913 7.32
vious studies revealed that SiO2 in red mud is mainly in the form 3 Fly ash geopolymer 0.000851 6.30
of quartz and red mud may behave as inert filler among the 4 Fly ash-red mud geopolymer 0.000648 9.18
geopolymer binder [7,26].

3.4. Calorimeter test

In this study, an 8-channel Isothermal Calorimeter was utilized
to measure the reaction heat of different base stabilizers. The sam-
ples used the same mixture proportions but without the aggre-
gates. The temperature was set as 20 °C and 38 °C respectively to
be consistent with the curing temperature. Fig. 6 shows the ther-
mal power and cumulative heat per unit weight of samples during
the first 72 h. The data of the first hour of reaction was not included
in the figure.
As shown in Fig. 6, the calorimeter provides real-time informa-
tion during the process of hydration reaction, pozzolanic reaction,
and geopolymerization, which has irreplaceable advantages over
other technologies in characterizing these reactions. At ambient
temperature, the cement-fly ash stabilizer generated the maximum
heat compared to the other base samples. The lime-fly ash sample
had an obvious belated exothermic process between 60 and 70 h.
As a comparison, no obvious exothermic peaks can be observed
for the two geopolymer stabilizers after the initial peak at the
beginning of reaction, indicating that the mechanism of geopoly-
merization is different from the hydration reaction. As shown in
Fig. 6(c), an elevated temperature accelerated the reaction for both
cement-fly ash and lime-fly ash stabilizers, since a higher peak with
a shorter duration can be observed compared to the curves at ambi-
ent temperature. The effect of an elevated temperature on the
geopolymer stabilizers is hard to identify according to the peaks.
However, it can be observed that the initial peaks of geopolymer
stabilizers dropped more slowly at an elevated temperature than
at ambient temperature. Fig. 6(b) and (d) show that the two
geopolymer stabilizers released the least amount of heat compared
to the two conventional stabilizers at both 20 °C and 38 °C curing. It
should be noted that a fluctuation for all the samples around 20 h in
Fig. 6(c) was due to the opening of the cover.
 W. Hu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 191 (2018) 1120–1127
(a) Cement-fly ash
(c) Fly ash geopolymer
Fig. 5. Micrographs of stabilized base samples.
3.5. XRD test
Fig. 7 shows the XRD patterns for different base stabilizers and
raw materials. The stabilizers for XRD test were cured at 38 °C and
98% RH for seven days.
As shown in Fig. 7, both the fly ash and the red mud raw mate-
rial contain silicon oxide and iron oxide or iron oxide hydroxide. A
broad hump between 20° and 36° (2h) can be observed on the fly
ash XRD pattern, indicating the existence of amorphous phase. As
a contrast, the red mud shows no observable humps. The
cement-fly ash stabilizer inherits some peaks from the fly ash;
however, some new peaks indicate the presence of hydration prod-
ucts including calcium silicate hydroxide and calcium carbonate.
Similarly, the existence of calcium hydroxide can be identified in
the lime-fly ash stabilizer. The fly ash geopolymer stabilizer shares
the exact same pattern as the fly ash raw material, indicating that
the crystalline phases acted as inactive fillers in the geopolymer
network. A similar phenomenon can be identified from the fly
ash-red mud stabilizer since all the peaks of it are inherited from
the red mud and the fly ash.
4. Discussion of results
Two geopolymer stabilized aggregate bases were tested in this
study, which showed similar mechanical properties to the
cement-fly ash stabilized aggregate base. Only industrial solid
waste materials were used in geopolymer synthesis compared to
conventional stabilized base materials. In this study, class F fly
1125
(b) Lime-fly ash
(d) Fly ash-red mud geopolymer
ash and red mud were used as raw materials to synthesize the
geopolymer binder in the aggregate base.
For the class F fly ash, the presence of highly reactive silica in
the fly ash increased the potential of the aluminosilicate gel forma-
tion contributing to mechanical strength of geopolymers.
Fernandez-Jimenez et al. (31) found that fly ashes with a highly
reactive SiO2 and Al2O3 content and Si/Al ratios close to 2.0 per-
form best under alkaline activation, which is close to the ratio of
the fly ash in this study. Red mud has raised significant environ-
mental concerns due to its huge volume. It can also be used as
raw material for the geopolymer stabilized base materials
[15,27]. This study reveals that its high alkalinity may be beneficial
in the geopolymerization process and a denser structure could be
formed compared to the fly ash only geopolymer. Though the
strength of fly ash-red mud geopolymer stabilized base material
was slightly lower than that of fly ash only material, its mechanical
properties were still comparable to those of the cement-fly ash sta-
bilized base sample with a lower shrinkage strain.
A standard curing at ambient temperature seems adequate for
the mechanical development of geopolymer base samples with a
compress strength slightly lower than the cement-fly ash base
sample, which offers a practical application of geopolymer stabi-
lized base in pavement engineering. However, an elevated temper-
ature curing could make geopolymer develop strength significantly
faster, as shown in Fig. 4. It should be noted that some studies
showed that the increase in temperature only enhance the strength
of geopolymer at an early age. The temperature increase may have
a negative effect at later ages, resulting in a decrease in final
strength [9].
1126 W. Hu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 191 (2018) 1120–1127

[28]. As shown in Fig. 4, insufficient humidity during the curing

significantly impaired the strength of geopolymer stabilized base,
implying that the existence of sufficient water is vital for geopoly-
merization. This study uses the conventional method to determine
the optimum water content for the geopolymer base. Due to the
distinct roles of water in geopolymerization and hydration reac-
tion, it is suggested that varying water contents should be investi-
gated in the future to clarify the suitability of conventional method
for the geopolymer base design.
Previous studies have shown that geopolymer concrete usually
has lower shrinkage properties than conventional concrete [10].
Similarly, the dry shrinkage strain of geopolymer base material
was found to be lower than that of conventional base material in
(a) Thermal power, 20 ºC this study. However, there are several other factors also influencing
the magnitude and rate of shrinkage, including mixture propor-
tions, material properties of individual constituents, and curing
quality. In general, the stabilized base containing a high fine con-
tent exhibits greater shrinkage potential than that with coarser
materials [29]. The effects of stabilizing agents and other factors
on shrinkage should be further investigated in the future.
The geopolymer stabilized samples in this study reached a sig-
nificant high strength with the use of 20% stabilizer, which is a
common ration used in China. However, most design work of sta-
bilized bases in the US requires lower strengths around 2–3.5 MPa,
which can be achieved by using less stabilizer. A further study will
focus on lower strength materials more in line with base specifica-
tions in the US. As an initial exploratory phase of testing, the essen-
(b) Cumulative heat, 20 ºC
tial mechanical properties of geopolymer stabilized base were
investigated in this study. However, in flexible pavements, the base
layer is subjected to a repeated traffic load and an increasing mois-
ture damage due to formation of micro-cracks. It is not clear about
the transfer mechanism of traffic-induced stresses along load car-
rying aggregate chains in the geopolymer stabilized base. More
performance tests including resilient modulus, fatigue test, and
frost resistance test should be considered in the future.

5. Conclusions

(c) Thermal power, 38 ºC
(d) Cumulative heat, 38 ºC
Fig. 6. Calorimeter test results.
Water is important on the geopolymer formation and properties
of the final products since it provides the reaction medium for the
dissolution of aluminosilicates and the transfer of various ions. A
previous study also found that nonevaporable water was necessary
to keep the strength of calcined kaolin-based geopolymer stable
In this study, two industrial wastes, class F fly ash and red mud,
were utilized to produce the geopolymer stabilized aggregate base,
with a mixture of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solution
serving as the activator. Two conventional stabilized aggregate
bases, cement-fly ash and lime-fly ash, were also prepared for com-
parison. Three curing conditions were adopted for all base samples
to investigate two key factors of the geopolymerization process,
temperature and water, which may impede the application of
geopolymer as stabilizing agent for base layer. According to the
test results, both geopolymer stabilized aggregate bases showed
promise to be used in flexible pavement applications at ambient
temperature.
A standard curing at ambient temperature seemed adequate for
the strength development of geopolymer base materials with a
compressive strength close to the cement-fly ash base sample.
With the increase in temperature from 20 to 38 °C, the unconfined
compressive strength increased from 13.0 MPa to 17.1 MPa for the
fly ash geopolymer base material, and the strength increased from
10.5 MPa to 16.1 MPa for fly ash-red mud geopolymer base mate-
rial. A decrease in relative humidity from 98% to 45% significantly
decreased the strengths of all conventional and geopolymer base
specimens, indicating that a wet curing was necessary for the
geopolymer stabilized base layer. A slightly smaller dry shrinkage
strain was observed in the geopolymer base materials compared
to the conventional base materials, indicating that use of geopoly-
mer as a stabilizing agent may be beneficial in alleviating reflective
cracks in asphalt layers.
 W. Hu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 191 (2018) 1120–1127
Fig. 7. XRD patterns of different base stabilizers (I = Iron oxide; S = Silicon oxide; F = Iron oxide hydroxide; C = Calcium hydroxide; H = Calcium silicate hydroxide;
A = Calcium carbonate).
Conflicts of interest
None.
References
[1] S. Sebesta, T. Scullion, Effectiveness of minimizing reflective cracking in
cement-treated bases by microcracking 2004.
[2] O.M. Ogundipe, Strength and compaction characteristics of bitumen-stabilized
granular soil, Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 3 (9) (2014) 218–221.
[3] A. Francois, A. Ali, Y. Mehta, Evaluating the impact of different types of
stabilised bases on the overall performance of flexible pavements, Int. J.
Pavement Eng. 1–9 (2017).
[4] Y. Wang, X. Ma, Z. Sun, Shrinkage performance of cement-treated macadam
base materials. Traffic and Transportation Studies 20102010 p. 1378–86.
[5] Z. Wang, J. Wu, P. Zhao, N. Dai, Z. Zhai, T. Ai, Improving cracking resistance of
cement mortar by thermo-sensitive poly N-isopropyl acrylamide (PNIPAM)
gels, J. Cleaner Prod. 176 (2018) 1292–1303.
[6] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers and geopolymeric materials, J. Thermal Anal. 35 (2)
(1989) 429–441.
[7] Q. Nie, W. Hu, T. Ai, B. Huang, X. Shu, Q. He, Strength properties of geopolymers
derived from original and desulfurized red mud cured at ambient temperature,
Constr. Build. Mater. 125 (2016) 905–911.
[8] W. Hu, Q. Nie, B. Huang, X. Shu, Q. He, Mechanical and microstructural
characterization of geopolymers derived from red mud and fly ashes, J. Cleaner
Prod. 186 (2018) 799–806.
[9] J.C. Petermann, A. Saeed, M.I. Hammons, Alkali-Activated Geopolymers: A
Literature Review. DTIC Document 2010.
[10] T. Glasby, J. Day, R. Genrich, J. Aldred, EFC geopolymer concrete aircraft
pavements at Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport, in: Concrete Institute of
Australia Conference, 27th 2015.
[11] N. Lloyd, B.V. Rangan, Geopolymer concrete: a review of development and
opportunities, in: Proceedings, 35th Conference on Our World in Concrete and
Structures, Singapore Concrete Institute, Singapore, 2010, pp. 25–27.
[12] D. Khale, R. Chaudhary, Mechanism of geopolymerization and factors
influencing its development: a review, J. Mater. Sci. 42 (3) (2007) 729–746.
[13] A. Kumar, S. Kumar, Development of paving blocks from synergistic use of red
mud and fly ash using geopolymerization, Constr. Build. Mater. 38 (2013) 865–
871.
[14] D.D. Dimas, I.P. Giannopoulou, D. Panias, Utilization of alumina red mud for
synthesis of inorganic polymeric materials, Miner. Process. Extractive Metall.
Rev. 30 (3) (2009) 211–239.
1127
[15] G. Zhang, J. He, R. Gambrell, Synthesis, characterization, and mechanical
properties of red mud-based geopolymers, Trans. Res. Record: J. Trans. Res.
Board 2167 (2010) 1–9.
[16] J. He, Synthesis and Characterization of Geopolymers for infrastructural
Applications 2005, Nottingham University, UK, 2012.
[17] J. He, J. Zhang, Y. Yu, G. Zhang, The strength and microstructure of two
geopolymers derived from metakaolin and red mud-fly ash admixture: a
comparative study, Constr. Build. Mater. 30 (2012) 80–91.
[18] J. He, Y. Jie, J. Zhang, Y. Yu, G. Zhang, Synthesis and characterization of red mud
and rice husk ash-based geopolymer composites, Cem. Concr. Compos. 37
(2013) 108–118.
[19] J. He, G. Zhang, Geopolymerization of red mud and fly ash for civil
infrastructure applications, Geo-Front. 2011: Adv. Geotech. Eng.: ASCE
(2011) 1287–1296.
[20] N. Ye, J. Yang, X. Ke, J. Zhu, Y. Li, C. Xiang, et al., Synthesis and characterization
of geopolymer from Bayer red mud with thermal pretreatment, J. Am. Ceramic
Soc. 97 (5) (2014) 1652–1660.
[21] W. Chen, H. Brouwers, The hydration of slag, part 1: reaction models for alkali-
activated slag, J. Mater. Sci. 42 (2) (2007) 428–443.
[22] L.N. Assi, E. Eddie Deaver, P. Ziehl, Effect of source and particle size distribution
on the mechanical and microstructural properties of fly Ash-Based geopolymer
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 167 (2018) 372–380.
[23] J. Xie, O. Kayali, Effect of initial water content and curing moisture conditions
on the development of fly ash-based geopolymers in heat and ambient
temperature, Constr. Build. Mater. 67 (2014) 20–28.
[24] M.N. Qureshi, S. Ghosh, Effect of curing conditions on the compressive strength
and microstructure of alkali-activated GGBS paste, Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invention 2
(2) (2013) 24–31.
[25] F. Pacheco-Torgal, J. Castro-Gomes, S. Jalali, Alkali-activated binders: a review:
Part 1. Historical background, terminology, reaction mechanisms and
hydration products, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (7) (2008) 1305–1314.
[26] F. Pacheco-Torgal, P.B. Lourenco, J. Labrincha, S. Kumar, Eco-efficient Masonry
Bricks and Blocks: Design, Properties and Durability, Woodhead Publishing,
2014.
[27] A. Van Riessen, E. Jamieson, C.S. Kealley, R.D. Hart, R.P. Williams, Bayer-
geopolymers: an exploration of synergy between the alumina and geopolymer
industries, Cem. Concr. Compos. 41 (2013) 29–33.
[28] Z. Zuhua, Y. Xiao, Z. Huajun, C. Yue, Role of water in the synthesis of calcined
kaolin-based geopolymer, Appl. Clay Sci. 43 (2) (2009) 218–223.
[29] W.S. Guthrie, S. Sebesta, T. Scullion, Selecting Optimum Cement Contents for
Stabilizing Aggregate Base Materials (No. FHWA/TX-05/7-4920-2), Texas
Transportation Institute, Texas A & M University System, 2002.