Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 666–672

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

The long-term performance of two fly ash stabilized fine-grained soil subbases

Sazzad Bin-Shafique a,∗ , K. Rahman b , Mustafa Yaykiran a , Ireen Azfar a
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
b
Public Works Department, City of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78283, USA

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

Article history: An experimental study was conducted to investigate the long-term performance of fly ash stabilized two
Received 22 April 2009 fine-grained soil subbases. One low plasticity clay soil and one high plasticity expansive clay soil were
Received in revised form 23 October 2009 stabilized with a Class C fly ash with fly ash contents of 0%, 5%, 10%, and 20%, and compacted statically at
Accepted 14 November 2009
the maximum dry density (standard Proctor) and at the optimum moisture content of the corresponding
soil to prepare ten sets of replicates from each of the combinations. After curing all specimens for 7 days,
Keywords:
the first set was subjected to plasticity index tests, unconfined compression tests, and vertical swell tests
Long-term performance
to estimate the improvement due to stabilization. Similar tests were also conducted on another nine sets
Fly ash
Wet–dry cycle
of replicates in which six sets were subjected to 12 wet–dry cycles (three sets with tap water and the
Freeze–thaw cycle other three sets with saline water), and the other three sets were subjected to 12 freeze–thaw cycles in
Soft soil a laboratory controlled environment to simulate the weathering action. The effect of wet–dry cycles on
Expansive soil stabilized soils was essentially insignificant; however, the fly ash stabilized soils lost up to 40% of the
strength due to freeze–thaw cycles. Even after losing the strength significantly, the strength of stabilized
soils was at least three times higher than that of the unstabilized soils. The swell potential of stabilized
expansive soils also increased due to freeze–thaw cycles. The vertical swell increases rapidly for first four
to five cycles and then increases very slowly.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tion of plasticity and shrink–swell potential (Abduljauwad, 1995;

After introducing the Federal Coal Combustion Partnership
Program (C2 P2 ), many of the states in the U.S. allow fly ash
for geotechnical applications with minimal regulatory control
(Buckley et al., 2005). In recent years, beneficial reuse of fly ash
in soil stabilization, especially for highway embankments, has
increased significantly throughout the nation and the trend is
expected to grow in future years. In most subgrade applications, fly
ash is used to stabilize the fine-grained soils so that a stable work-
ing platform can be provided for highway construction equipment
(Ferguson, 1993; Nicholson and Kashyap, 1993). A variety of lab-
oratory and field studies have shown that cementitious fly ashes
(Class C) are very effective in improving the geotechnical proper-
ties of fine-grained soils (Bergeson et al., 1985; Edil et al., 2002;
Ferguson, 1993; Misra, 1998; Prabakar et al., 2004; Puppala and
Musenda, 2000; Senol et al., 2006; Turner, 1997). The fly ash sta-
bilized soils are typically strong and stiff, and provides necessary
support as a subbase (Arora and Aydilek, 2005; Edil et al., 2002;
Kolias et al., 2005). Moreover, the stabilization of high plasticity
soft and/or expansive soil(s) with fly ash causes significant reduc-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 210 458 6476; fax: +1 210 458 6475.
E-mail address: sshafique@utsa.edu (S. Bin-Shafique).
Buhler and Cerato, 2007; Cokca, 2001; Nalbantoglu and Gucbilmez,
1998; Nalbantoglu, 2004; Phani Kumar and Sharma, 2004).
For fly ash stabilization, the selection of a mixture of soil, fly
ash, and water usually depends on which one would provide
the intended geotechnical properties on a short-term basis (Bin-
Shafique et al., 2004; Kaniraj and Havanagi, 1999; Kumar et al.,
2007). The long-term performance of fly ash stabilized soils in the
context of field environments after exposure to successive differ-
ent weather cycles, such as wet–dry or freeze–thaw cycles, is often
ignored. Very few studies have been conducted on the effect of
weathering action on fly ash stabilized soils so far; however, the
effect of weathering cycles on natural soils and soils stabilized with
other cementitious materials, such as lime and/or cement, sug-
gests that the weathering action might have a pronounced effect on
the long-term performance of fly ash stabilized soils (Parsons and
Kneebone, 2005; Toutanji et al., 2004; Zhang, 2002). In cold regions,
freeze–thaw damage is one of the major problems in road construc-
tion and earthwork applications (Cruzda and Hohmann, 1997).
Cracking and spalling are the most common results of freeze–thaw
damage in stabilized subbases (Yarbaşı et al., 2007).
The effect of wet–dry cycles on cementitious materials is usually
insignificant. In many cases, the strength of cementitious materials
subjected to wet–dry cycles increases due to long-term hydration
(Rahman, 2007; Toutanji et al., 2004; Yaykiran, 2008). However,

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.11.007
 S. Bin-Shafique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 666–672 667

Table 1
Properties of the soft and expansive soils.

Sample location Soil classification Specific gravity P200 (%) LL (%) PI (%) VS (%) wN (%) wopt (%) ( d )max (kN/m3 )

USCS AASHTO

San Antonio CL A-7-6 (11) 2.69 56 44 26 N/A 12 17 17.6

Helotes CH A-7-6 (57) 2.71 89 81 57 17 22 26 15.1

Note: LL: liquid limit; PI: plasticity index; VS: vertical swell; wN : natural water content; wopt : optimum water content; ( d )max : maximum dry unit weight; N/A: not applicable.

Table 2
Chemical and physical properties of fly ash.

Properties Boral fly ash ASTM C618 Class C AASHTO M295 Class C

Chemical properties
Sum of SiO2 , Al2 O3 , Fe2 O3 (%) 61.70 50.0 min 50.0 min
Calcium oxide (CaO) (%) 25.81 N/A N/A
Sulfur trioxide (SO3 ) (%) 1.48 5.0 max 5.0 max

Physical properties
Moisture content (%) 0.02 3.0 max 3.0 max
Loss on ignition (%) 0.14 6.0 max 5.0 max
Specific gravity 2.69 N/A N/A

Note: N/A: not applicable.

the effect of wet–dry cycles using saline water, which simulates

the groundwater in coastal area, is detrimental to the performance
of cementitious materials (Toutanji et al., 2004). The salt attacks the
bonding of the cementitious materials, thereby causing the mix to
develop cracks and eventually fail. Thus, the effect of wet–dry cycles
on fly ash stabilized soils using saline water needs to be evaluated
to understand the long-term performance.
Despite all the advantages of using fly ash stabilized subbases,
an unacceptable long-term performance would result in roadways
of poor condition and a huge economic burden to a community.
Thus, the evaluation of long-term performance of fly ash stabilized
subbases is essential to assess the technical viability and economic
sustainability of using them in highway construction.
This paper is focused on a systematic study of the effect of
weathering action, such as wet–dry cycles and freeze–thaw cycles
on the performance of fly ash stabilized fine-grained soils. Speci-
mens prepared from low plasticity clay (referred here in as “soft
Fig. 1. Particle size distribution curves of the soils.
soil”) and high plasticity expansive soil (referred here in as “expan-
sive soil”) stabilized with a Class C fly ash were subjected to 12
cycles of wet–dry cycles and freeze–thaw cycles in a controlled lab- expansive soil according to AASHTO classification. The grain size
oratory environment and the change in geotechnical properties of distribution curves for both soils are shown in Fig. 1. The grain size
the weathered fly ash stabilized soils was evaluated to understand distribution is uniform for both soils. The percent fines (P200 ) is 56%
the long-term performance. for the soft soil and 89% for the expansive soil. The compaction char-
acteristics of the soils are shown in Fig. 2. The maximum dry unit
weight (standard Proctor compaction) and optimum moisture con-
2. Materials

2.1. Soils

Two different types of soils were stabilized with fly ash: (1) low
plasticity soft soil and (2) high plasticity expansive soil. The soft soil
was collected from a construction site at Helotes, TX and the expan-
sive soil was collected from the intersection of I-35 and Walters
Street in San Antonio, TX. The soft and expansive soil samples were
collected at a depth of 0.6 and 1.0 m, respectively. The soil sam-
ples were subjected to a series of tests, such as grain size analysis,
specific gravity, Atterberg’s limits, swell potential, and compaction
test to characterize the soils.
The properties of the soils are shown in Table 1. The plasticity
index is 26% for the soft soil and 57% for the expansive soil. Both
soils have similar specific gravity. According to USCS, the soft and
expansive soils are classified as low plasticity clay (CL) and high
plasticity clay (CH), respectively. Both the soils are classified as A-
7-6 with a group index (GI) of 11 for the soft soil and 57 for the Fig. 2. Compaction curves of the soils.
668 S. Bin-Shafique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 666–672
Fig. 3. Experimental set up for the specimens subjected to weathering cycles: (a)
the split mold and (b) the vertical cross-section of the mold.
tent of the soft soil is 17.6 kN/m3 and 17%, respectively. Similarly,
the expansive soil has a maximum dry unit weight of 15.1 kN/m3
and an optimum moisture content of 26%. The sulfate content of
the soils was also measured and was insignificant for both soils.
2.2. Fly ash
Class C fly ash was collected from Boral Material Technologies
in San Antonio, TX. Chemical and physical properties of Boral fly
ash are shown in Table 2 along with the requirements of Class C
fly ash (ASTM C618 and AASHTO M 295). The total percentage of
the three major metal oxides (SiO2 , Al2 O3 , and Fe2 O3 ) is 61.7%, and
the sulfur trioxide (SO3 ) is 1.48%, which satisfies the requirements
of both ASTM C618 and AASHTO M 295. The lime (CaO) content,
which is primarily responsible for cementitious property of fly ash,
is 25.8% and has self-cementing capabilities. The specific gravity of
the fly ash is 2.69. The moisture content is 0.02%, and the loss on
ignition that represents unburned carbon is 0.14% for Boral fly ash.
3. Methods
3.1. Specimen preparation
For a meaningful comparison of the test results, all specimens
were prepared at the maximum dry density (standard Proctor) and
at the optimum moisture content of a specific soil. Specimens were
prepared with the mixture of soil, fly ash, and water. Three fly ash
contents of 5%, 10%, and 20% (by weight), were used along with
the control (0% fly ash). To prepare the mixture of a specimen, the
required amount of soil and fly ash was calculated from the target
dry density and the volume of the specimen. All soil lumps were
broken and sieved through a US # 4 sieve. The required amount of
soil and fly ash was taken in a tray and was mixed in a dry state.
After thoroughly mixing, the required amount of water based on
optimum moisture content of the soil was added to the mixture. All
mixing was done manually and proper care was taken to prepare
homogenous mixture at each stage of mixing. At the end of the
mixing, the tray was weighed, and if required, additional water was
sprayed on the mixture to compensate for any loss of water due to
evaporation. As soon as the mixture was ready, it was transferred to
a mold and compacted statically in a MTS insight electromechanical
testing machine until it achieved the target volume. The machine
is capable to apply 300 kN compressive force.
Thick-wall 50 mm diameter PVC pipes were cut into 375 mm
long pieces for 250 mm long mold with an additional 125 mm
extended collar as shown in Fig. 3. The pieces of pipes were split
and clamped together to use as molds to prepare the specimens
for the unconfined compression tests. To compact all the speci-
mens prepared with expansive soil, a very thin layer of petroleum
jelly was applied inside the molds to minimize skin friction and
boundary effects during vertical swell. The MTS machine was pro-
grammed in such a way so that it would compact the specimen
exactly 125 mm. Ten sets of replicates were prepared from each
combination of soil and fly ash mixtures. In addition, two sets of
replicates were prepared only with expansive soil to measure the
vertical swelling during and after weathering action. After the com-
paction, the molds were wrapped with plastic wrap and allowed to
cure for 7 days in a moist condition. After 7 days, one set of repli-
cates was taken out of the mold and subjected to testing. From
the remaining nine sets, three sets were subjected to freeze–thaw
cycles and six sets were subjected to wet–dry cycles, three sets
using tap water and the other three sets using saline water.
3.2. Weathering action
Specimens that were subjected to weathering action were kept
inside the mold to simulate the confining pressure in the field. Geo-
textiles (adsorbent pad) were used to seal the bottom of the molds
that were placed in plastic tanks. The split molds were secured
tightly and kept in a vertical position using clamps. An additional
surcharge of 7 kPa was added to all specimens to simulate the over-
burden pressure from the base and hot mixed asphalt layer using
base plates (Fig. 3). The extension rod of a base plate for the spec-
imens prepared for swell testing was attached to a dial gauge as
shown in Fig. 3. The reading of the dial gauge was recorded after
each cycle.
For the dry–wet cycles, one of the tanks was filled with tap water
and the other one with saline water, and the specimens were placed
in a submerged condition at room temperature (approx. 25 ◦ C) for
12 h (ASTM D559). Saline water comparable to groundwater in the
coastal area (35 g/L NaCl) was used to create an aggravated sit-
uation. After 12 h, the water was drained out and the specimens
were allowed to dry at room temperature for 12 h to complete one
wet–dry cycle. To enhance the drying process, an air circulating fan
was used.
For the freeze–thaw cycles, the tank was placed in a freezer at
−5 ◦ C for 12 h. Then freezer was disconnected and the door was
opened for 12 h to allow the temperature to rise. The empty 125 mm
of the mold on top of the specimen was filled with crushed ice, and
free potable water was made available to the absorbent pads under
the specimens to permit absorbing water by capillary action during
the thawing period (ASTM D560).
Following the similar procedure, the specimens were subjected
to 12 cycles of weathering action. One set of replicates was taken
out of the mold and subjected to unconfined compression testing
immediately after finishing the 12 cycles of weathering action. The
moisture content of the specimens was also measured. Since the
moisture content increases during the weathering cycles, one set
from each type of weathering cycles were allowed to dry for 6 h and
the other set for 24 h in room temperature before testing to esti-
mate the unconfined compressive strength at different moisture
contents. All specimens were trimmed to 100 mm long before test-
ing to avoid any damage at the two ends of the specimens during
weathering action. After the weathering cycles, the two additional
sets of specimens prepared for swelling tests were kept submerged
until the volume changed.
3.3. Test procedures
Unconfined compression tests were conducted according to
ASTM D2166. A constant axial strain of 2%/min was applied. Load-
ing was continued until the load decreased with increasing strain,
 S. Bin-Shafique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 666–672 669

Table 3
Properties of fly ash stabilized soils before and after weathering action.

Properties Weathering action Soft soil Expansive soil

0% fly ash 5% fly ash 10% fly ash 20% fly ash 0% fly ash 5% fly ash 10% fly ash 20% fly ash

Plasticity index After stabilization & before weathering 26 18 16 12 57 32 27 26

After wet–dry cycles 26 18 15 11 58 29 26 23
After wet–dry cycles (saline water) 19 15 11 8 46 24 19 17
After freeze–thaw cycles 26 17 15 13 57 33 27 25

UC strength (kPa) After stabilization & before weathering 212 520 713 804 180 364 456 567
After wet–dry cycles 180 577 740 934 174 381 479 597
After wet–dry cycles (saline water) 162 480 442 852 191 386 490 618
After freeze–thaw cycles 136 389 456 685 94 211 304 347

Vertical swell (%) After stabilization & before weathering NA NA NA NA 17.2 9.8 5.5 4.1
After wet–dry cycles NA NA NA NA 16.9 10.2 5.6 4.3
After wet–dry cycles (saline water) NA NA NA NA 14.3 8.1 4.6 3.8
After freeze–thaw cycles NA NA NA NA 19.9 11.2 6.4 5.5

Note: UC strength: unconfined compressive strength; NA: not available.

or until 15% strain was reached. The unconfined compressive zolanic reaction and the expulsion of water due to the collapse
strengths were determined from the stress–strain curves. After of a diffuse double layer around clay particles are responsible for
finishing the unconfined compression tests, all specimens were improved unconfined compressive strength (Lambe and Whitman,
subjected to Atterberg’s limit tests to estimate the plasticity index. 1969).
Fly ash stabilization also reduced the vertical swell potential of
expansive soil from 17% to 9.8% for a fly ash content of 5%, 5.5% for
4. Results
a fly ash content of 10%, and 4.1% for a fly ash content of 20%.
4.1. Effect of stabilization
4.2. Effect of wet–dry cycles
The effect of fly ash stabilization and the weathering cycles on The effect of wet–dry cycles on plasticity index of fly ash sta-
the properties of the two fine-grained soils is shown in Table 3. bilized soil is shown in Fig. 5. The plasticity index decreased
The plasticity of the stabilized soils decreased as the fly ash content
increased; however, the rate of reduction decreased at higher fly
ash contents as shown in Fig. 4. The reduction of plasticity of fly
ash stabilized expansive soils was higher than that of soft soils. The
plasticity of stabilized expansive soils decreased 25% (from 57% to
32%) due to adding 5% fly ash and then decreased only 3% (from
32% to 29%) after adding 20% fly ash. Similarly, the plasticity index
of stabilized soft soils decreased 8% (from 26% to 18%) due to adding
5% fly ash and then decreased only 6% (from 18% to 12%) after adding
20% fly ash. The presence of calcium in stabilized soils increases
clay flocculation and reduces soil dispersion, and thus reduces the
plasticity immediately (Tishmack et al., 2001).
A general trend of increasing unconfined compressive strength
with increasing fly ash content was observed, and has been shown
in a later section as “control.” The addition of 20% fly ash increased
the unconfined compressive strength from 210 to 800 kPa for the
soft soil and from 180 to 560 kPa for the expansive soil. The poz-

Fig. 5. Effect of wet–dry cycles on plasticity index of the fly ash stabilized (a) soft
Fig. 4. Effect of fly ash stabilization on plasticity of stabilized soils. soil and (b) expansive soil.
670 S. Bin-Shafique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 666–672
Fig. 6. Effect of wet–dry cycles on unconfined compressive strength of the fly ash
stabilized (a) soft soil and (b) expansive soil.
slightly for specimens prepared with both soils due to wet–dry
cycles using tap water. However, the plasticity index decreased sig-
nificantly for all stabilized soils that were subjected to wet–dry
cycles using saline water. The presence of cations in water
might be the reason for reduced plasticity (Lambe and Whitman,
1969).
The effect of wet–dry cycles on unconfined compressive
strength of fly ash stabilized soils is shown in Fig. 6. A slight increase
of strength was noticed for all specimens subjected to wet–dry
cycles either with tap water or saline water despite of the type
of stabilized soils. The exact reasons for that slightly enhanced
unconfined compressive strength were not investigated. However,
it seems that it might be the consequence of extended curing dur-
ing wet–dry cycles. It must be noted here that all the unconfined
compressive strengths shown in Fig. 6 represent the strengths at
the optimum moisture content of that particular soil, which is 17%
for the soft soil and 26% for the expansive soil. Thus, the strengths of
the weathered specimens are compared to those of the controls at
a constant moisture content to determine the gain/loss of strength
associated with weathering action. In fact, the strength of fly ash
stabilized soils is a function of moisture content, and the strength
decreases with increasing moisture content similar to natural soil
(Bin-Shafique et al., 2004). Thus, the comparison of strength of fly
ash stabilized soils at different moisture contents might lead to seri-
ous inaccuracy. To obtain the unconfined compressive strength, the
three replicates from each type of weathering cycles were allowed
to dry at different degrees before testing so that the strength can
be achieved at three different moisture contents. Then the uncon-
fined compressive strengths were plotted as a function of moisture
Fig. 7. Effect of freeze–thaw cycles on unconfined compressive strength of the fly
ash stabilized (a) soft soil and (b) expansive soil.
content and the strengths at a particular moisture content were
estimated from the plot.
The vertical swelling of the fly ash stabilized expansive soil dur-
ing wet–dry cycles with tap water was only 3.2% for 5% fly ash
content and less than 2% for the 10% and 20% fly ash content. The
vertical swelling was even less when saline water was used. After
12 wet–dry cycles, the moisture content was increased only by
4%, which might be the reason for lower swelling during wet–dry
cycles. However, the vertical swelling increased significantly when
the specimens were continually submerged into water after the
wet–dry cycles. After the wet–dry cycles, the vertical swelling of the
fly ash stabilized soils was essentially the same when tap water was
used and decreased slightly when saline water was used compared
to that of the controls.
4.3. Effect of freeze–thaw cycles
The effect of freeze–thaw cycles on the plasticity of both sta-
bilized soils was insignificant. However, the effect of freeze–thaw
cycles on unconfined compressive strength of the stabilized soils
was noteworthy and is shown in Fig. 7. In Fig. 7, all the unconfined
compressive strengths represent the strengths at the optimum
moisture content of the particular soil as in Fig. 6. The uncon-
fined compressive strength was about 20% lower for stabilized soft
soils and about 40% lower for stabilized expansive soils compared
to those of the controls. However, the unconfined compressive
strength of fly ash stabilized soils was at least three times higher
than that of the unstabilized soils. A reduction of strength of the
unstabilized soils due to freeze–thaw cycles was also noticed. The
 S. Bin-Shafique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 666–672
Fig. 8. Vertical swell of the fly ash stabilized expansive soil during freeze–thaw
cycles.
rate of reduction was essentially similar to that of the stabilized
soils. Again, the exact reason of this observation was not investi-
gated. However, it might be caused from freezing of pore water,
which exerts pressure to expand the volume of the stabilized soil
matrix (Hori and Morihiro, 1998; Toutanji et al., 2004). This pres-
sure might loose the cementitious bonding of the stabilized soils
and causes loss of strength. The higher loss of strength of the fly ash
stabilized expansive soil compared to that of the soft soil might be
due to lower permeability, higher degree of saturation, and pres-
ence of more freezable water, which are often considered as the
reasons for increased volume of fine-grained soil that are subjected
to freeze–thaw cycles (Yarbaşı et al., 2007).
The vertical swelling of the fly ash stabilized expansive soils
during freeze–thaw cycles is shown in Fig. 8. The vertical swelling
of the stabilized soils varied between 5.5% and 7%, and the ver-
tical swelling of the unstabilized soil was about 13% during the
freeze–thaw cycles. During the 12 freeze–thaw cycles, the mois-
ture content was increased only by 7%. After the freeze–thaw
cycles when the swell potential tests were continued, the vertical
swelling of the stabilized soils with 10% and 20% fly ash content did
not increase significantly. However, the availability of more water
increased the swelling from 7% to 11% for stabilized soil with 5% fly
ash and from 13% to 20% for unstabilized soil, which are higher than
those for the controls. Fig. 8 also shows that the vertical swelling
increased rapidly up to four or five cycles and then reached stability,
which is similar to the findings reported by Hai-bin et al. (2007).
5. Conclusions
This study to investigate the long-term performance of fly ash
stabilized soils suggests that the fly ash stabilization increases the
unconfined compressive strength of fine-grained soils three to four
times and decreases the plasticity and swell potential by approx-
imately 50% and 75%, respectively. The wet–dry cycles with tap
water have essentially no significant effect on plasticity, unconfined
compressive strength, and vertical swell potential of the stabilized
soils. Wet–dry cycles with saline water reduced the plasticity but
did not have any effect on strength. A slight decrease of the ver-
tical swelling was also observed after wet–dry cycles using saline
water. Reduction in strength due to salt attack (Toutanji et al., 2004)
or leaching of calcium (Parsons and Milburn, 2003) due to wet–dry
cycles was not observed, perhaps due to low number of cycles.
The freeze–thaw cycles did not change the plasticity of the
stabilized soils. However, the unconfined compressive strength
decreased about 20% for stabilized soft soils and about 40% for
stabilized expansive soils. The loss of strength of stabilized soils
671
is perhaps associated with the volume change of the pore water
when it converted to ice during freezing because similar strength
loss was also observed for unstabilized soil (Abduljauwad, 1995).
Even after losing strength due to freeze–thaw cycles, the strength of
stabilized soils was still at least three times higher than that of the
unstabilized soils. The vertical swelling increased approximately
1% for stabilized expansive soils with 10% and 20% fly ash content,
and increased approximately 2–3% for unstabilized soil and stabi-
lized soil with 5% fly ash content due to freeze–thaw cycles. The
vertical swelling increased rapidly for first four to five cycles and
then increased very slowly.
Acknowledgements
Financial support for the research was provided by the Cen-
ter for Water Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio
(UTSA) and by UTSA through a Faculty Research Grant. The opin-
ions and conclusions described in the paper are those solely of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of
the sponsors or others that assisted with the study.
References
AASHTO M295. Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natu-
ral pozzolan for use in concrete. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials; 2007.
Abduljauwad SN. Improvement of plasticity and swelling potential of calcareous
expansive clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1995;26(1):3–16.
Arora S, Aydilek AH. Class F fly-ash-amended soils as highway base materials. Journal
of Materials in Civil Engineering 2005;17(6):640–9.
ASTM D559. Standard test methods for wetting and drying compacted soil–cement
mixtures. ASTM International; 2003.
ASTM D560. Standard test methods for freezing and thawing compacted
soil–cement mixtures. ASTM International; 2003b.
ASTM D2166. Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of cohesive
soil. ASTM International; 2006.
ASTM C618. Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural poz-
zolan for use in concrete. ASTM International; 2008.
Bergeson KL, Pitt JM, Demirel T. Increasing cementitious products of a Class C fly
ash. Transportation Research Record 1985;998:41–6.
Bin-Shafique MS, Edil TB, Benson CH, Senol A. Incorporated fly ash stabi-
lized subbase into pavement design—a case study. Geotechnical Engineering
2004;157(GE4):239–49.
Buckley TD, Pflughoeft-Hassett DF, Sager J, Ward J. Review of state regulations,
standards, and practices, related to the use of coal combustion products: Texas
review case study. In: World of Coal Ash Conference; 2005.
Buhler RL, Cerato AB. Stabilization of Oklahoma expansive soils using lime and Class
C fly ash. Geotechnical Special Publication 2007;162:1–11.
Cokca E. Use of Class C fly ashes for the stabilization of an expansive soil. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2001;127(7):568–73.
Cruzda KA, Hohmann M. Freezing effect on strength of clayey soils. Applied Clay
Science 1997;12:165–87.
Edil TB, Benson CH, Bin-Shafique S, Tanyu F, Kim W, Senol A. Field evaluation of con-
struction alternatives for roadway over soft subgrade. Transportation Research
Record 2002;1786:36–48.
Ferguson G. Use of self-cementing fly ash as a soil stabilizing agent. In fly ash for soil
improvement. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 1993;36:1–14.
Hai-bin W, Han-bing L, Yi-ping, Chang-yu L, Ying F. Effect of freeze–thaw cycles on
dynamic strength of fly ash soils. Journal of Jilin University (Engineering and
Technology Edition) 2007;37(2):329–33.
Hori M, Morihiro H. Micromechanical analysis on deterioration due to freezing and
thawing in porous brittle materials. International Journal of Engineering Science
1998;36(4):511–22.
Kaniraj SR, Havanagi VG. Geotechnical characteristics of fly ash–soil mixtures. Jour-
nal of Geotechnical Engineering 1999;30(2):129–47.
Kolias S, Kasselouri-Rigopoulou V, Karahalios A. Stabilisation of clayey soils
with high calcium fly ash and cement. Cement and Concrete Composites
2005;27(2):301–13.
Kumar A, Singh B, Asheet B. Influence of fly ash, lime, and polyester fibers on com-
paction and strength properties of expansive soil. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering 2007;19(3):242–8.
Lambe TW, Whitman RV. Soil mechanics. 1st ed. New York: Wiley and Sons; 1969.
Misra A. Stabilization characteristics of clays using Class C fly ash. Transportation
Research Record 1998;1611:46–54.
Nalbantoglu Z. Effectiveness of Class C fly ash as an expansive soil stabilizer. Con-
struction and Building Materials 2004;18(6):377–81.
Nalbantoglu Z, Gucbilmez E. Utilization of an industrial waste in calcareous expan-
sive clay stabilization. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal 1998;25(1):78–84.
672 S. Bin-Shafique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 666–672
Nicholson PG, Kashyap. Fly ash stabilization of tropical Hawaiian soils. In fly ash
for soil improvement. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 1993;36:1134–
47.
Parsons RL, Kneebone E. Field performance of fly ash stabilized subgrades. Ground
Improvement 2005;9(1):33–8.
Parsons RL, Milburn J. Engineering performance of stabilized soil. Transportation
Research Record 2003;1837:20–9.
Phani Kumar BR, Sharma RS. Effect of fly ash on engineering properties of
expansive soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
2004;130(7):764–7.
Prabakar J, Dendorkar N, Morchhale RK. Influence of fly ash strength behavior of
typical soils. Construction and Building Materials 2004;18:263–7.
Puppala AJ, Musenda C. Effect of fiber reinforcement on strength and volume change
in expansive soils. Transportation Research Record 2000;1736:134–40.
Rahman K. Long-term performance of fly ash stabilized expansive soil sub-
base. MS thesis, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio;
2007.
Senol A, Edil TB, Bin-Shafique M, Acosta H, Benson CH. Soft subgrades’ stabi-
lization by using various fly ashes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
2006;46(4):365–76.
Tishmack JK, Peterson JR, Flanagan DC. Use of coal combustion by-product to reduce
soil erosion. In: International Ash Utilization Symposium; 2001.
Toutanji HN, Delatte S, Aggoun R, Danson A. Effect of supplementary cementitious
materials on the compressive strength and durability of short-term cured con-
crete. Cement and Concrete Research 2004;34(2):311–9.
Turner JP. Evaluation of western coal fly ashes for stabilization of low-volume roads.
ASTM Special Technical Publication 1997;1275:157–71.
Yarbaşı N, Kalkan E, Akbulut S. Modification of the geotechnical properties, as influ-
enced by freeze–thaw, of granular soils. Cold Regions Science and Technology
2007;48(1):44–54.
Yaykiran M. The effect of weathering cycles on fly ash stabilized soft soil. MS thesis,
The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio; 2008.
Zhang J. Stabilization of expansive soil by lime and fly ash. Journal of Wuhan Uni-
versity of Technology Materials Science Edition 2002;17(4):73–7.