Transportation Geotechnics 25 (2020) 100409

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Fly ash-based geopolymer as A4 type soil stabiliser T

a b c d,⁎
Jhonathan F. Rivera , Armando Orobio , Nuno Cristelo , Ruby Mejía de Gutiérrez
a
Composites Materials Group, (GMC-CENM), Universidad del Valle, Calle 13 # 100-00, Cali, Colombia
b
Applied Research in Construction Group, Calle 13 # 100-00, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
c
CQ-VR, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
d
Composites Materials Group, (GMC-CENM), Universidad del Valle, Calle 13 # 100-00, Cali, Colombia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The goal of this paper is the use of a fly ash with high unburned carbon which generally has lower demand in the
Soil stabilization market because, according to ASTM C618, it cannot be used in Portland cement concrete. Alkali-activated ce-
Alkali-activated cement ments (AACs) based on this industrial by-product were prepared using granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS) and
Fly ash lime (L) as calcium sources. The AACs were used for A-4 type soil improvement. The unconfined compressive
High unburned carbon content
strength, flexure strength, and durability (volume change and mass loss) of the soil treated were evaluated. The
Volume change
Wetting–drying cycles
results showed that under soaked conditions the compressive strength increased up to 119.4% at 7 days of curing
and 78.6% at 28 days of curing. Additionally, the mass loss percentage after twelve (12) wetting and drying
cycles was less than that allowed by Colombian specifications for stabilized soil. This demonstrated that it is
possible to use this type of fly ash as an environmentally sustainable alternative to replace Portland cement as
soil stabilizer in applications for road construction. The proposed solutions are thus considered competitive with
current chemical stabilization techniques. However, further studies on the long-term performance of AACs
stabilized soils, and the cost of applying AACs in soil stabilization are worth being conducted.

Introduction
Soil stabilization is a very common practice in engineering, espe-
cially in transport infrastructure applications, such as road construc-
tion. Roads are basically composed of different layers of stabilized soil
for the purpose of providing geometric regularity, linearity and proper
transmission of loads to the underlying soil [1]. Soil improvements in
these applications are carried out physically or chemically. Chemical
soil stabilization is generally the most used, and in practice, soils are
usually mixed with various chemicals, cement, lime, chlorides, asphalt
products and some salts to improve the engineering properties of the
native soil such as bearing capacity, mechanical strength, durability,
permeability and a volumetric stability during wetting and drying cy-
cles [2].
In addition to traditional chemical additives such as cement and
lime, industrial waste and by-products have been used in recent dec-
ades as stabilizing agents for various types of soil. Ground blast furnace
slag (GBFS), fly ash (FA) and cement kiln dust have been used in large
proportions for soil stabilization, and bottom ash and ash from muni-
cipal waste incinerators have been used in smaller proportions. The
advantage of using such by-products and wastes is that they are in
powder form and that their mixing with native soils is easier, making
the process relatively inexpensive [1,3].
Recently, alkali-activated cements (AAC) have emerged as an al-
ternative to traditional cements, Portland cement and lime, which are
greatly used in these types of geotechnical applications [2]. AACs can
be synthesized from industrial by-products and wastes characterized by
their high SiO2 and Al2O3 (aluminosilicates) content. Fly ashes from
coal combustion (FA) and steel slags are the most used precursors or by-
products; however, in theory, any aluminosilicate can be alkali-acti-
vated [4,5]. According to Shi et al. [6], the chemical composition of the
precursor serves as the criterion for classifying AACs in slag-based ce-
ments and pozzolan- or lime-pozzolan-based cements, as well as AACs
mixed with calcium aluminate and AACs mixed with Portland cement
(OPC), also known as hybrid cements.
The few studies on the use of AACs in geotechnical applications
have shown that the cementation of the particles of a soil stabilized
with this type of cement is quite effective because the reaction products
that develop, either sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (NASH) and/or
calcium aluminosilicate hydrate (CASH) gels, provide a more compact
microstructure that improves the mechanical properties of the treated
soil [7–11]. Rios et al. [12] showed that compaction and cement

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jhonathan.rivera@correounivalle.edu.co (J.F. Rivera), armando.orobio@correounivalle.edu.co (A. Orobio), ncristel@utad.pt (N. Cristelo),
ruby.mejia@correounivalle.edu.co (R. Mejía de Gutiérrez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100409
Received 7 February 2020; Received in revised form 1 July 2020; Accepted 16 July 2020
Available online 21 July 2020
2214-3912/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.F. Rivera, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 25 (2020) 100409

content are very important parameters in soil stabilization for transport

infrastructure; however, slightly compacted mixtures can also be
greatly improved with this type of cement. The researchers observed
that the types of cementation between soil–cement and between soil-
AACs are very similar, and the difference between them is the curing
rate since soil stabilized with cement hardens faster. With soil-AACs,
the cementation process is somewhat slower, gradual and durable, and
the best strengths are achieved at 28–90 days of curing and even longer,
as reported by Cristelo et al. [7], who declared significant strengths at
365 days of curing in soft soils stabilized with FA-based AACs. Recent
studies using FA-based geopolymer activated with NaOH or NaOH/
sodium silicate have been published, giving validity for the use of this
type of materials as an alternative of stabilization of soils [13–16].
At present, a methodology has not been defined to establish the
parameters required for these types of cement in geotechnical appli-
cations. In general, the agglomeration capability of such cements has
been evaluated through basic unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
tests due to their practicality; however, it is important to conduct fur-
ther studies with advanced soil mechanics models to learn more about
the behaviour of soils stabilized via this novel technique. Additionally,
it is noted that the FA used in these studies has a very low unburned
Fig. 1. Granulometry of the A-4 soil and precursors.
carbon content (less than 3%), this is a proper characteristic of most fly
ash generated in industrial process in the different countries, United
States, Spain, among others. However, in Latin American countries, the Table 2
coal combustion processes may, in some cases, be poorly controlled or Chemical compositions of the raw materials and mean particle size (D4,3).
carried out in equipment such as boilers with old designs, leading to the Compound (wt.%) F1 F2 GBFS Lime OPC A-4 Soil
generation of FA with high levels of unburned carbon.
Considering the above, the objective of this investigation was to SiO2 28.11 28.53 37.74 2.48 21.23 68.20
Al2O3 17.47 19.18 15.69 0.91 4.92 18.81
evaluate the application of an industrial by-product for which there is
Fe2O3 5.27 8.80 1.85 0.39 4.88 4.12
no commercial interest. This waste corresponds to a very low-quality fly CaO 2.34 6.68 40.30 54.48 64.27 0.19
ash (FA) with high percentage unburned carbon (up to 38.8%) which SO3 3.73 2.70 – 0.43 – –
generally has lower demand in the market because, according to ASTM MgO 0.83 2.24 1.3 0.30 1.61 0.19
C618, it cannot be used in Portland cement concrete. In this study, TiO2 1.03 1.62 0.5 0.05 0.24 1.45
Na2O 1.09 7.94 0.2 0.11 0.26 0.14
alkali-activated binders based on FA were used in order to stabilize a LOI 38.76 20.67 – 40.37 – 6.42
soil A-4 for its implementation as base material or sub-base in road Molar ratio (SiO2/ Al2O3) 2.73 2.53 4.09 – – 6.16
infrastructure applications. Mechanical and durability properties were D4,3 (µm) 37.06 24.97 27.73 24.74 – 96.4
studied, and the interpretation of results were based on Colombian
regulations. As reference material was used Portland cement (OPC).
a rhodium tube. OPC is a cement without addition, classified as Type
GU (ASTM C1157), hydraulic cement for general use in construction. F1
Methodology and F2 contain 38.76% and 20.67% of unburned carbon (LOI) and
SiO2/ Al2O3 molar ratios of 2.73 and 2.53 respectively. The high per-
Materials centage of carbon of the ashes used limits its use in construction ma-
terials based on Portland cement (ASTM C618). The particle size dis-
The soil used for this study was collected in the metropolitan area of tribution of F1, F2 GFBS and lime was also included in Fig. 1. This test
the city of Cali, Valle del Cauca, southern Colombia, at latitude 3° 16′ was performed after a grinding process for 2 h of the fly ashes and slag
27.257′’N and longitude 76° 34′ 59.03′’O. The soil was air dried and using a ball mill.
remaining clogs were eliminated using a disc mill. Table 1 shows the A mixture of sodium hydroxide (NaOH, 98.22% purity) and sodium
Atterberg limits and the corresponding soil classification based on silicate (Na2SiO3) which chemical composition was SiO2 = 32.09%,
AASHTO M 145-91 [17] and ASTM D4318 [18] standards, which was Na2O = 11.92%, and H2O = 55.99% was used as alkaline activator.
A-4. Fig. 1 shows the particle size distribution of the collected soil used
to synthesize the cementitious materials. The test was performed by
Synthesis of the AACs: Experimental design
laser granulometry using a Mastersizer-2000 equipment, from Malvern
Table 2 shows the chemical compositions of the precursors -fly ash type
The response surface methodology (RSM) and Minitab 17 software
1 and 2 (F1, F2)-, of the calcium sources -granulated blast furnace slag
were used to design the AACs. RSM is a mathematical and statistical
(GBFS) and Hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide)-, of the reference ce-
technique that is very useful when the response variable is influenced
ment (OPC) and of the A4 soil. The chemical composition was obtained
by several independent variables and the final objective is to optimize
by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) using a Phillips-PANalitical MagiX Pro PW
this response. The independent variables of the designed models were
2440 spectrometer with a maximum power of 4 kW and equipped with
the SiO2/Al2O3 and Na2O/SiO2 molar ratios, which varied from 3.0 to
5.0 and from 0.2 to 0.4 respectively. These molar relations of the
Table 1
mixtures were calculated taking into account the proportions of each
Atterberg limits and classification of the soil.
component present in the precursor and the activator. The dependent
Atterberg Limits (%) Soil Classification variable was the 28-days unconfined compressive strength. This was
LL PL PI
measured using cylindrical specimens with 50 mm height and 25 mm
37 27 10 A-4 diameter.
The models were optimized to find the best combination of

2
J.F. Rivera, et al.
Fig. 2. Contour graphs of the synthesis variables of the AACs. (a) F1L, (b) F2G.
independent variables that maximizes the mechanical strength (de-
pendent variable). The contour diagrams, which reflect the degree of
interactions between the variables, SiO2/Al2O3 and Na2O/SiO2 and the
compressive strength at 28 days of each mix, are presented in Fig. 2.
The AACs are called F1L (Fig. 2a) and F2G (Fig. 2b). F1L was developed
as an alkaline cement composed of 80% F1 and 20% lime, and its in-
dependent variables were optimized with SiO2/Al2O3 = 3.0 and Na2O/
SiO2 = 0.3 yielding a 28-day mechanical strength of 21 MPa. Mean-
while, F2G was synthesized as a binary alkaline cement composed of
80% F2 and 20% GBFS, and the variables of this cement were optimized
with SiO2/Al2O3 = 3.9 and Na2O/SiO2 = 0.32 to present a 28-day
mechanical strength of 23 MPa.
Sample preparation and Compaction test
Three systems of stabilizing binder were added to the soil, these
include two AACs (F1L, F2G) and a reference system. OPC was selected
as reference because it is the conventional stabilization method used.
The usual range in cement requirements for A-4 soil is from 7 to 12% by
weight, and 10% is recommended as the estimated cement content
[19]. The two types of systems (soil-F1L and soil-F2G), were prepared
in proportions of: 20% and 30% F1L, and 30% F2G by dry soil weight.
The soil mixtures with the different alkali-activated cements were made
manually until a homogeneous coloration of the solids was obtained.
The amount of alkaline activator was calculated based on the optimal
molar ratios previously established in the experimental design for each
cementitious material (Fig. 2). The reference soil-OPC cement speci-
mens were dosed with the average amount of OPC used for this com-
paction test (10% OPC) [19] as based on the AASHTO classification of
the soil. Modified Proctor compaction tests were performed to find the
maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum water content (OWC) of the
native soil without stabilizer, the soil stabilized with OPC and the soil
stabilized with AACs. It was used a 101.6-mm inside diameter and
116.4-mm height mould and modified compaction energy according to
ASTM D1557 [20]. The compaction test was repeated several times to
establish a relationship between the dry unit weight and the molding
water content of the soil. The values of MDD and OWC were determined
from the compaction curve.
Tests procedure
Unconfined compressive strength, flexure strength and durability
tests were realized. Compression test specimens were made by com-
pacting the stabilized materials in 52-mm diameter cylinders with a
length: diameter ratio of 2, and additional rectangular beams-of
50 mm X 50 mm X 150 mm were compacted for flexure test according
to the specifications in (ASTM D1632) [21]. Curing was carried out in a
climate chamber at 30 °C and 80% relative humidity (RH). These
3
Transportation Geotechnics 25 (2020) 100409
conditions of curing were selected since the objective of this work is to
evaluate the soil stabilization using AACs for application in roads in
tropical climates such as Cali (Colombia) where the soil was taken from.
The range of temperature and relative humidity in the city is from 28 to
35 °C and 65 to 85% H.R. respectively.
Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests (ASTM D1633) [22]
were conducted after 7 and 28 days curing under unsoaked and soaked
conditions (ASTM D1635). The flexural test was conducted after
28 days curing under unsoaked conditions (ASTM D1635). The me-
chanical tests were carried out using an INSTRON 3300 series universal
testing machine.
Durability tests (W-D cycles) were performed according to (ASTM
D559) [23] to determine the mass loss and volume change (%) of the
stabilized soils. Each cycle consists of immersing the specimens for 5 h
in water and then extracting them from the water to dry them at 71 °C
for 48 h. To calculate the volume change in the stabilized soil speci-
mens, the height and diameter are measured under wetting and dry
conditions. To calculate mass loss under the dry condition, in each
cycle, the specimen of compacted stabilized soil is brushed across the
entire surface with a steel brush and weighed each time until the end of
the cycles.
Results and discussion
Maximum dry density and optimum water content
Table 3 shows the maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum water
content (OWC) obtained with modified Proctor test for each mix of soil-
OPC and soil-AACs. The MDD changes after stabilization, regarding the
non-stabilized soil, depend on several factors: binder type, (ii) mor-
phology of binder particles and (iii) flocculation of soil particles.
The use of OPC increases the MDD relative to that of the untreated
soil. Evidently, the nature of the cement added to the soil mixture in-
creases the MDD since the OPC possesses a greater specific weight [24].
Furthermore, when AACs were used, in general, the MDD decreases
relative to that of the soil without stabilizer and the soil stabilized with
OPC; this change depends on the type and proportion of AAC(s) used.
Table 3
Maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum water content (OWC).
Soil Binder WB (%) OWC (%) MDD (kN/m3)
– – 15.48 18.14
OPC 10 15.96 19.42
A-4 20F1L 20 17.56 16.87
30F1L 30 18.38 16.28
30F2G 30 16.77 17.16
WB: Binder percent by dry soil weight.
J.F. Rivera, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 25 (2020) 100409

For the same type of AAC but in different proportions, as the proportion reaction of precursor F1 due to its high unburned carbon content.
of AAC in the soil mixture increases, the MDD decreases (soil with According to several studies, unburned carbon can delay reactions and
20F1L vs soil with 30F1L) from 16.87 kN/m3 to 16.28 kN/m3. In this hinder the dissolution processes of the precursor since it can remove
case, in addition to the cement nature, the morphology of the cement cations from the alkaline activator and delay the generation of ce-
particles and their initial agglomeration are also factors that determine mentitious gel [30–32].
MDD changes in compacted soil mixtures with different proportions of For F2G cement added at 30% by weight of dry soil (30F2G) and
AAC. The precursor materials are materials with high unburned carbon under unsoaked conditions, with respect to the reference soil stabilized
contents, as Table 2 shows (F1 = 38.76% and F2 = 20.67%). In this with OPC, the UCS increases by 8.01% (UCS7 = 3.12 MPa) at 7 days
case, for the stabilization of the soil using the F1L alkali-activated ce- and 12.00% (UCS28 = 4.33 MPa) at 28 days. In general, F2G exhibits a
ment composed mainly of F1, a proportion change causes an increase in more effective response than that of F1L. This effect can be due to,
the amount of unburned carbon, which results in a cement with a lower among other reasons, the lower unburned carbon content of the main
specific weight and consequently a mixture with less MDD. In addition, precursor of F2G (Table 2) compared with F1L, the calcium source used
the increase in the proportion of F1L cement raises the amount of Ca2+ in F2G alkali-activated cement (GBFS), or the fast reaction of GBFS with
ions originating from the calcium source (lime) and results in a higher the alkaline activator, which converts the additive into an accelerator
initial flocculation of particles in the soil that produces a more porous or catalyst of polycondensation reactions allowing the reaction pro-
structure initially [25,26]. ducts to facilitate cementing of the soil particles [33–36].
Moreover, when the same proportion of AAC was used to stabilize Fig. 3b shows the results of the UCS tests of the stabilized soil
the A-4 soil (30% F2G Vs 30% F1L), the MDD of the soil stabilized with mixtures under soaked condition. In general, all stabilized soil mixtures
F2G is higher (17.16 kN/m3 Vs 16.28 kN/m3) (see Table 3). This result lose strength after water immersion, but maintain integrity, except for
is attributed to the type of main precursor, F2, of the F2G alkali-acti- the compacted non-stabilized soil, which disintegrated completely a
vated cement, which has a low unburned carbon content compared to few minutes after water immersion. The particle arrangement of the
that of F1. In addition, since F2 is mixed with the calcium source compacted non-stabilized soil is responsible for the friction that, to-
(GBFS), it causes the F2G cement to exhibit a specific gravity higher gether with the interparticle electrostatic forces and the internal suction
than that of F1L [27–29]. generated by the unsoaked condition, provides strength to the material.
However, as the degree of saturation increases, the suction and the
effective stress on the particles disappear, until eventually the material
Mechanical and microstructural characterization
collapses completely. When a chemically stabilized soil (either with
OPC or AAC) is submerged, the loss of links in the cementitious gel is
The UCS tests at ages of 7 and 28 days were conducted under un-
reduced, but not to a point when the physical integrity of the specimens
soaked and soaked conditions. The soaked condition of the stabilized
is destroyed [37].
soil specimens was obtained by submerging the specimens for 4 h, as
Under soaked conditions, at 7 days of curing, the mechanical
stated in (ASTM D1633) [22]. Table 4 and Fig. 3 show the results of the
strength of the specimen of the reference soil stabilized with OPC is
UCS tests of the A-4 soil without stabilizer and that stabilized with
UCS7 = 0.93 MPa; and at 28 days, the specimen strength is
different types of cements.
UCS28 = 1.31 MPa. The soil stabilized with 20F1L yields a
In the unsoaked UCS tests (Fig. 3a), the mechanical strengths at 7
UCS7 = 0.59 MPa and UCS28 = 0.66 MPa, and the soil with 30F1L
and 28 days of the specimens of compacted A-4 soil without stabilizer
showed a UCS7 = 0.52 MPa and UCS28 = 1.98 MPa. It should be
were UCS7 = 1.93 MPa and UCS28 = 3.14 MPa, respectively. By
noticed that using the same type of cement (F1L) but with different
stabilizing the soil with the reference OPC cement, the strength at
proportions, 30F1L and 20F1L, at 7 days of curing, both AACs provide
7 days of curing improves by 48.70% to UCS7 = 2.87 MPa, while at
approximately the same strength; as mentioned earlier in this case, the
28 days of curing, the strength of the soil stabilized with OPC improves
deceleration of the dissolution reactions caused by the unburned carbon
by 21.33% (UCS28 = 3.81 MPa); these values are with respect to the
content, critical condition during the early days of curing. At 28 days of
strength of the non-stabilized A-4 soil.
curing, the soil stabilized with the largest proportion of F1L cement
With the addition of F1L cement at 20% and 30% by weight of dry
(30F1L) performs better than the reference soil stabilized with OPC,
soil (20F1L and 30F1L), after unsoaked conditions for 7 days of curing,
with a 33.84% improvement in strength under this soaked condition.
the specimens present lower strengths, i.e., UCS7 = 1.10 MPa and
Moreover, the soil stabilized with 30F2G again provides the best
UCS7 = 0.91 MPa, relative to that of the reference OPC-stabilized soil
performance under the soaked condition in water, with a mechanical
and even relative to that of the non-stabilized soil. At 28 days of curing,
strength at 7 days of UCS7 = 2.04 MPa and at 28 days of
the soil mixed and compacted with 20F1L has a UCS28 strength lower
UCS28 = 2.34 MPa, evidencing improvements in performance of
than that of the reference OPC-stabilized soil; however, the strength
54.41% at 7 days and 44.02% at 28 days with respect to the specimens
value of UCS28 = 3.13 MPa is similar to that of the soil without sta-
of the reference compacted soil stabilized with OPC. These results
bilizer. In addition, the soil mixed with the higher proportion of cement
suggest a high content of cementitious gel in the soil stabilized with
(30F1L) shows improvement, and at 28 days of curing, the specimen
30F2G and probably a very dense structure [38].
even reaches the strength achieved by the soil stabilized with OPC
For the mixtures evaluated (OPC, 20F1L, 30F1L, 30F2G), the soil
(UCS28 = 3.78 MPa). This phenomenon can be attributed to the slow
stabilized with 20F1 has the lowest flexural strength (0.51 MPa). The
soil stabilized with 30F1L and 30F2G report slightly higher flexure
Table 4
Mechanical properties. strength (FS) than OPC stabilized soil (up to 10% higher). Flexural
strength was found to increase with more binder content, FS reported
Soil Binder UCS-U UCS-U UCS-S UCS -S 28d FS by 30F1L was twice as high as 20F1L, which is expected as increasing
7d (MPa) 28d (MPa) 7d (MPa) (MPa) 28d (MPa)
the binder content means increasing the bonding between the soil and
A4 no 1.93 3.14 – – – the binder. In general, the values of FS are between 40 and 77% of the
A4 OPC 2.87 3.81 0.93 1.31 0.90 UCS (Table 4), and the maximum values were obtained for 30F1L and
A4 20F1L 1.10 3.13 0.59 0.66 0.51 30F2G, coinciding with the mixtures that reported maximum UCS. The
A4 30F1L 0.91 3.78 0.52 1.98 0.99
A4 30F2G 3.12 4.33 2.04 2.34 0.96
relationship between FS and UCS (soaked) obtained in this study,
considering all the specimens, can be expressed as:
U = Unsoaked S = Soaked UCS = Unconfined compressive strength FS = 0.678(UCS)0.52 (with R2 = 0.88).
FS = Flexural strength. Fig. 4 shows the microscopy images of the soil treated with the

4
J.F. Rivera, et al.
Fig. 3. UCS tests of (a) unsoaked and (b) soaked specimens.
different stabilizing binders at 28 days of curing. The micrographs show
that the percentage of alkali-activated cement added to the soil to
stabilize its structure is significant, since comparing soils stabilized with
the same type of AAC (F1) but in different amounts, the soil with the
higher proportion (30F1L) exhibits a structure slightly more compact
and cemented than that of the soil treated with less AAC (20F1L). It
should be highlighted, that the specimens obtaining higher mechanical
strength (30F2G) exhibit micrographs with an apparent higher com-
pacted structure.
Durability
Fig. 5 shows the volume change of the stabilized specimens. At the
end of the 12 cycles, the average volume change of the reference spe-
cimens stabilized with OPC is 0.22% in expansion and −0.30% in
contraction.
The volume change in the soil stabilized depends on the proportion
of the AAC, i.e., 20F1L and 30F1L; using 20F1L as the stabilizer yields
0.42% in expansion and −0.49% in contraction and using 30F1L pro-
duces 0.20% in expansion and −0.34% in contraction. According to
Fig. 4. Microstructures of the treated soils with OPC and alkali-activated binders.
5
Transportation Geotechnics 25 (2020) 100409
Ahmed and Ugai [37], with an increase in the proportion of cement, as
the photomicrographs of Fig. 4 show, the soil stabilized with 30F1L
apparently develops a more rigid structure that allows it to better tol-
erate the W-D cycles and to expand and contract less than the soil
stabilized with a lower percentage of cement (20F1L). Additionally, the
binary AAC 30F2G, which delivers the best performance in the UCS
tests, gives for the wetting and drying cycles volume changes of 0.20%
in expansion and −0.24% in contraction, which are slightly lower than
those of the reference soil stabilized with OPC. This result indicates
there is a good particle cementation that provides adequate rigidity to
the structure and therefore good soil stabilization when treated with
this cement. Table 5 summarizes the volume changes of the soil stabi-
lized by the various cements and the mass loss calculated after the W-D
cycles.
The exposure of the stabilized soil to the W-D cycles causes the
cementation to lose its effect over time, because as the number of cycles
increases, so does the rate of water absorption, and this causes the
precipitates in the cemented soil to dissolve [39]. In theory, this phe-
nomenon is more evident in soils stabilized with an incorrect amount of
cement, which causes mass loss over time and thus reduces the
J.F. Rivera, et al. Transportation Geotechnics 25 (2020) 100409

Fig. 5. Wetting and drying cycles.

Table 5 of the asphalt layer in flexible pavements and greatly decreases pave-
Volume change and mass loss of the treated soils. ment durability [40]. Fig. 6 shows the mass loss during the wetting and
Soil/Binder Expansion (%) Contraction (%) Loss of mass (%)
drying cycles of each stabilized soil specimen.
At the end of the 12 cycles, the reference specimen consists of a
A4/OPC 0.22 −0.30 4.38 4.38% loss of its initial mass, while the specimens of soil stabilized with
A4/20F1L 0.42 −0.49 7.45 30F1L and 30F2G experience mass losses slightly lower than that of the
A4/30F1L 0.20 −0.34 3.33
reference specimen with 3.33% and 4.09% respectively. Finally, the
A4/30F2G 0.20 −0.24 4.09
specimen of soil stabilized with 20F1L expresses the greatest mass loss
with 7.45%, almost double the mass lost by the other specimens, and
exhibits a reduced stabilization ability compared to the other cements
used.

Interpretation of results based on Colombian regulations

According to the current regulations in Colombia, the soil stabilized

with cement (named SC in Table 6) for use in road infrastructure ap-
plications, can be designed under two criteria, as indicated by the In-
stituto Nacional de Vias (INVIAS) [41].

Table 6
SC design criteria for bases and subbases (INVIAS, Colombia). Taken and .
adapted from [41]
Test SC-D SC-R

Durability
Maximum mass loss of the compacted mixture in
wetting and drying test (%):
-Soils A-4 10 10
Resistance
Resistance behaviour with:
-Increase in OPC content Increase Increase
-Increase in age Increase Increase
Fig. 6. Mass loss after wetting and drying cycles. Resistance to UCS to 7 days (MPa):
-Minimum (Note 1) 2.1
-Maximum 4.5 (Note 2) 4.5
mechanical performance, although this action also depends heavily on
the cementation ability of the additive. Mass loss is one of the most Soil-cement Durability (SC-D); Soil-cement Resistance (SC-R).
critical parameters of stabilized soils used in road construction appli- Note 1: The minimum strength will be that obtained from the mixture that
cations; a premature mass loss in the base or subbase generates cracking meets the durability criterion.
Note 2: In the project it can be established a greater resistance to 7 days.

6
J.F. Rivera, et al.
The SC used for road construction in Colombia can be designed
under the durability criterion (SC-D) or the durability and resistance
(SC-R) criteria, such as is shown in Table 6. Based on these design
criteria, the mixture of A-4 soil stabilized with 30F2G meets the
minimum requirements established by the Colombian regulations, since
at 7 days under soaked conditions, the UCS is within the allowable
parameters, and the mass loss after the W-D cycles is well below the
maximum allowed for cement mixtures with A-4 soil in these applica-
tions. In addition, even though there is no parameter that defines a
maximum or minimum volume change for this type of application, the
behaviour of the soil stabilized with 30F2G experiences smaller volume
changes than those recorded with the soil stabilized by the reference
OPC cement
It should be remembered that this standard is aimed at the
minimum parameters of mixtures of soil stabilized with cement, but we
highlight that since there are no standards for the use of ACC in this
type of application, it was adopted as a valid guide in order to de-
monstrate a possible real application of this type of alkali-activated
cements based on FA, an industrial by-product of reduced commercial
value.
Conclusions
The improvement in mechanical performance and durability of
stabilized soils for road applications is an engineering challenge.
Therefore, the search for alternative materials to those used tradition-
ally in transport infrastructure works is of major importance. The in-
dustrial by-product used was a fly ash for which there is no commercial
interest due to the high unburned carbon (up to 37%). This material
according ASTM C618 cannot be used in concretes based on Portland
cement. This research showed that it is possible to implement alkali-
activated cements (AACs) based on fly ash with high content of un-
burned carbon as a chemical additive to stabilize an A-4 type soil and to
improve some of its geotechnical properties to a performance level
above the obtained results of 10% of OPC, which is already a high
binder content in the range traditionally used in such applications.
The results obtained allow to conclude:
• The nature of the precursor materials used in the design of the AACs
and the proportion used in the mixture are factors that determine
the cementation ability and adequate soil stabilization. In this study,
F2G alkali-activated cement in a proportion of 30% (30F2G) was the
AAC that yielded the best mechanical strength and volume stability.
• Compared to the soil stabilized with OPC, the soil stabilized with
30F2G improved its uniaxial UCS performance by 8.01% at 7 days of
curing and by 12.00% at 28 days of curing under unsoaked condi-
tions. Under soaked conditions the improvement was more evident
with 54.41% at 7 days of curing and 44.02% at 28 days of curing
compared to those of the reference soil. The specimen also provided
better particle cementation and a greater structural rigidity, which
allowed it to better withstand the saturation condition.
• In regards to the durability under the wetting and drying tests, the
soil stabilized with cement 30F2G had less of a volume change after
12 cycles than did the other stabilized soils and even showed a
4.09% of mass loss at end of the test, slightly lower than the mass
loss of the reference soil (4.38%). These values are even within the
allowed range for this type of soil. Based on the durability test and
the resistance of AAC 30F2G, it can be asserted that, under
Colombian regulations, this material meets the minimum require-
ments for the design of a cemented soil to be a viable alternative for
road construction.
• Finally, it should be noted that although there are still no regula-
tions in Colombia for applications in road infrastructure of alkaline-
activated cements (AACs), the results of the study indicate that it is
possible to use a low quality fly ash with high percentage of un-
burned carbon as precursor of AACs for to be used in soil
7
Transportation Geotechnics 25 (2020) 100409
stabilization processes. The development of these cementitious
materials based on low commercial value waste is an en-
vironmentally sustainable alternative for the replacement of cement
and lime traditionally used in geotechnical applications.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Administrative Department of Science,
Technology and Innovation (Colciencias) for the support received
during the project “Prototype construction of rural housing at scale
using innovative materials with low carbon footprint”, contract No.
096-2016, under which this research was conducted.
References
[1] Manso JM, Ortega-López V, Polanco JA, Setién J. The use of ladle furnace slag in
soil stabilization. Constr Build Mater 2013;40:126–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2012.09.079.
[2] Sargent P, Hughes PN, Rouainia M. A new low carbon cementitious binder for
stabilising weak ground conditions through deep soil mixing. Soils Found
2016;56:1021–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.11.007.
[3] Cabrera M, Rosales J, Ayuso J, Estaire J, Agrela F. Feasibility of using olive biomass
bottom ash in the sub-bases of roads and rural paths. Constr Build Mater
2018;181:266–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.035.
[4] Martinez-Lopez R, Escalante-Garcia JI. Alkali activated composite binders of waste
silica soda lime glass and blast furnace slag : Strength as a function of the compo-
sition. Constr Build Mater 2016;119:119–29.
[5] Xu H, Van Deventer JSJ. Geopolymerisation of multiple minerals. Miner Eng
2002;15:1131–9.
[6] Shi C, Fernández-Jiménez A, Palomo A. New cements for the 21st century : The
pursuit of an alternative to Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 2011;41:750–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.016.
[7] Cristelo N, Glendinning S, Teixeira Pinto A. Deep soft soil improvement by alkaline
activation. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Gr Improv 2011;164:73–82. https://doi.org/10.
1680/grim.900032.
[8] Cristelo N, Glendinning S, Miranda T, Oliveira D, Silva R. Soil stabilisation using
alkaline activation of fly ash for self compacting rammed earth construction. Constr
Build Mater 2012;36:727–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.037.
[9] Cristelo N, Glendinning S, Fernandes L, Pinto AT, Teixeira A. Effect of calcium
content on soil stabilisation with alkaline activation. Constr Build Mater
2012;29:167–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.049.
[10] Sargent P, Hughes PN, Rouainia M, White ML. The use of alkali activated waste
binders in enhancing the mechanical properties and durability of soft alluvial soils.
Eng Geol 2013;152:96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.10.013.
[11] Zhang M, Guo H, El-Korchi T, Zhang G, Tao M. Experimental feasibility study of
geopolymer as the next-generation soil stabilizer. Constr Build Mater
2013;47:1468–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.017.
[12] Rios S, Cristelo N, Viana da Fonseca A, Ferreira C. Structural performance of alkali-
activated soil ash versus soil cement. J Mater Civ Eng 2015;28. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001398.
[13] Rios S, Ramos C, Viana da Fonseca A, Cruz N, Rodrigues C. Mechanical and dur-
ability properties of a soil stabilised with an alkali-activated cement. Eur J Environ
Civ Eng 2019;23:245–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2016.1275987.
[14] Sukprasert S, Hoy M, Horpibulsuk S, Arulrajah A, Rashid ASA, Nazir R. Fly ash
based geopolymer stabilisation of silty clay/blast furnace slag for subgrade appli-
cations. Road Mater Pavement Des 2019:0629. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.
2019.1621190.
[15] Phummiphan I, Horpibulsuk S, Sukmak P, Chinkulkijniwat A, Arulrajah A, Shen SL.
Stabilisation of marginal lateritic soil using high calcium fly ash-based geopolymer.
Road Mater Pavement Des 2016;17:877–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.
2015.1132632.
[16] Teerawattanasuk C, Voottipruex P. Comparison between cement and fly ash geo-
polymer for stabilized marginal lateritic soil as road material. Int J Pavement Eng
2019;20:1264–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2017.1402593.
[17] AASHTO M 145-91. Standard Specification for Classification of Soils and Soil-
Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes. AASHTO Stand 2012;M
145-91:1–6. Doi: 10.1520/D3282-09.
[18] ASTM D4318. ASTM D4318 − 17e1 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic
Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. ASTM 2017. Doi: 10.1520/D4318-17E01.
[19] Portland Cement Association. Soil-Cement Laboratory Handbook. 5420 Old Orchad
Road, Skokie, Illinois 60077-1083: 1992.
[20] ASTM D1557. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of
Soil Using Modified Effort. ASTM Stand Guid 2003;3:1–10. Doi: 10.1520/D1557-
J.F. Rivera, et al.
12.1.
[21] ASTM D1632. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Soil-Cement Compression
and Flexure Test Specimens in the Laboratory. ASTM Stand Test Method 2012:1–6.
Doi: 10.1520/D1632-07.2.
[22] ASTM D1633. ASTM D1633-17 Standard Test Methods for Compressive Strength of
Molded Soil-Cement Cylinders. ASTM 2017. Doi: 10.1520/D1633-00R07.combine.
[23] ASTMD559. Standard Test Methods for Wetting and Drying Compacted Soil-Cement
Mixtures 2011;04:1–8. Doi: 10.1520/D0559-03.Annual.
[24] Oluwatuyi OE, Adeola BO, Alhassan EA, Nnochiri ES, Modupe AE, Elemile OO, et al.
Ameliorating effect of milled eggshell on cement stabilized lateritic soil for highway
construction. Case Stud Constr Mater 2018;9. Doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00191.
[25] Siddiqua S, Barreto PNM. Chemical stabilization of rammed earth using calcium
carbide residue and fly ash. Constr Build Mater 2018;169:364–71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.209.
[26] Behnood A. Soil and clay stabilization with calcium- and non-calcium-based ad-
ditives: A state-of-the-art review of challenges, approaches and techniques. Transp
Geotech 2018;17:14–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.08.002.
[27] Sharma AK, Sivapullaiah PV. Strength development in fly ash and slag mixtures
with lime. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Gr Improv 2016;169:194–205. https://doi.org/10.
1680/jgrim.14.00024.
[28] Phummiphan I, Horpibulsuk S, Rachan R, Arulrajah A, Shen S, Chindaprasirt P.
High calcium fly ash geopolymer stabilized lateritic soil and granulated blast fur-
nace slag blends as a pavement base material. J Hazard Mater 2017;341:257–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.07.067.
[29] Osinubi KJ. Influence of compactive efforts on lime-slag treated tropical black clay.
J Mater Civ Eng 2006;18:175–81. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-
1561(2006)18:2(175).
[30] Lee S, Seo MD, Kim YJ, Park HH, Kim TN, Hwang Y, et al. Unburned carbon re-
moval effect on compressive strength development in a honeycomb briquette ash-
based geopolymer. Int J Miner Process 2010;97:20–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Transportation Geotechnics 25 (2020) 100409
minpro.2010.07.007.
[31] Shearer CR, Provis JL, Bernal SA, Kurtis KE. Alkali-activation potential of biomass-
coal co-fired fly ash. Cem Concr Compos 2016;73:62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2016.06.014.
[32] Fernández-Jimenez A, Palomo A. Characterisation of fly ashes. Potential reactivity
as alkaline cements☆. Fuel 2003;82:2259–65. Doi: 10.1016/S0016-2361(03)
00194-7.
[33] Fernández-Jiménez A, Sobrados I, Sanz J, Palomo A. Hybrid cements wih very low
opc content. 13th ICCC, Madrid 2011:1–7.
[34] Bernal SA, Rodríguez ED, Mejia De Gutiérrez R, Provis JL, Delvasto S. Activation of
metakaolin/slag blends using alkaline solutions based on chemically modified silica
fume and rice husk ash. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2012;3:99–108. Doi: 10.
1007/s12649-011-9093-3.
[35] Lee WKW, Van Deventer JSJ. The effect of ionic contaminants on the early-age
properties of alkali-activated fly ash-based cements. Cem Concr Res
2002;32:577–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00724-4.
[36] Puertas F. Cementos de escorias activadas alcalinamente : Situación actual y per-
spectivas de futuro. Mater Constr 1995;45:53–64.
[37] Ahmed A, Ugai K. Environmental effects on durability of soil stabilized with re-
cycled gypsum. Cold Reg Sci Technol 2011;66:84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
coldregions.2010.12.004.
[38] Kovalchuk G, Fernandez-Jimenez A, Palomo A. Alkali-activated fly ash.
Relationship between mechanical strength gains and initial ash chemistry. Mater
Constr 2008;58:35–52.
[39] Oti JE, Kinuthia JM, Bai J. Engineering properties of unfired clay masonry bricks.
Eng Geol 2009;107:130–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.05.002.
[40] Si Z, Herrera C. Forensic case studies on low-volume roads in Texas. Transp Res Rec
J Transp Res Board 2007;1989:327–35. https://doi.org/10.3141/1989-80.
[41] INVIAS. Capítulo 3 Afirmados subbases y bases. Artículo 350-13 suelo-cemento.
Inst. Nac. Vias Colomb., 2013.