Open Engineering 2023; 13: 20220449

Research Article

Rasha A. Al-Fatlawy, Tawfek Sheer Ali*, Mohammed K. Fakhraldin, Nibras A. Hussain and
Ibtihal Y. Abd

Improvement in the California bearing ratio of

subbase soil by recycled asphalt pavement and
cement
https://doi.org/10.1515/eng-2022-0449
received April 04, 2023; accepted April 26, 2023
Abstract: As the subbase layer is one of the important
layers in road construction, it is necessary to use a gran-
ular material to resist traffic loads. Usually, granular soil
with a good gradation is used, which is determined by most
road design codes. Sometimes it is needed to improve the
properties of this soil by adding materials such as cement,
which is considered a high-cost material, so it is necessary
to search for low-cost materials. One of these materials is
recycled asphalt pavement (RAP). Herein, we presented an
experimental study to investigate using RAP and cement
in roadway subbase material improvement. The indicator
of the improvement has been selected as the California
bearing ratio (CBR); many laboratory tests were made for
many percentages of cement and RAP. The study’s main
conclusions are that the CBR value increases when the
cement percentage increases and the RAP percentages
increase up to 12% by the mass of the virgin subbase and
then decrease. Also, using a mix of 12% RAP and 1% cement
blended with the subbase material gives a CBR value of
138.6. This improvement is considered the same as using
6% (133.5) cement but it is of low cost due to the low cost of
the waste material (RAP) as it saved the high cost of 5%
cement.

* Corresponding author: Tawfek Sheer Ali, Structures and Water
Resources Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Kufa, Najaf,
Iraq, e-mail: tawfeeq.shubber@uokufa.edu.iq
Rasha A. Al-Fatlawy: Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Kufa, Najaf, Iraq,
e-mail: rashaa.alfatlawy@uokufa.edu.iq
Mohammed K. Fakhraldin: Civil Engineering Department, Faculty
of Engineering, University of Kufa, Najaf, Iraq,
e-mail: mohammed.fakhruddin@uokufa.edu.iq
Nibras A. Hussain: Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Kufa, Najaf, Iraq
Ibtihal Y. Abd: Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Kufa, Najaf, Iraq
Keywords: subbase improvement, recycled asphalt pave-
ment, CBR improvement, soil improvement
1 Introduction
1.1 Description
Generally, in road construction, the pavement system con-
sists of three layers: pavement layer at the top, subbase,
and subgrade at the bottom. The subbase layer is an aggre-
gate material and sometimes consists of recycled materials.
The recycled materials can be mixed with the subbase soil
to give it an acceptable gradation, stiffness, permeability,
frost resistance, deformation resistance, and low cost. One
recycled material is recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) and
20–50% of it is used. The higher percentages of RAP increase
the stiffness of subbase soil, but incorporating the RAP and
subbase soil limits the use of high percentages. In roadway
construction, the subbase soil must be able to support loads
applied on the surface. One of the strongest indicators is the
California bearing ratio (CBR). Research has indicated that a
CBR of 10 or more can support the traffic loads [1].
In the United States, since 1990, 80% of more than 90
million tons of asphalt pavement is converted to a usable
material every year. Once the asphalt pavement is removed
and processed, it becomes RAP which contains aggregate
and asphalt binder. RAP is used as a granular subbase and
embankment or fill material with low cost than other virgin
materials [2].
Maher et al. [3] evaluated the use of RAP as a base
or subbase material in the roadway of New Jersey by inves-
tigating the resilient strength of RAP in the field and labora-
tory. The laboratory results showed that RAP has the same
strength as a dense base or subbase soil. The field testing
included evaluating the elastic modulus of RAP using spec-
tral analysis of the surface waves method (SASW). The

Open Access. © 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2  Rasha A. Al-Fatlawy et al.
results indicated that the stiffness and elastic modulus are
higher than the dense base aggregate.
Taha et al. [4] conducted a laboratory test to study the
effect of adding RAP to the base and subbase materials. In
this study, the conclusions indicated that the use of 100/0,
80/20, 60/40, 40/60, 20/80, and 0/100% of RAP/subbase could
be expected to use RAP instead of subbase soil. The higher
CBR and dry density are noticed when virgin subbase con-
tent increases. In the Sultanate of Oman roads, RAP and a
conventional subbase material can be used.
Jawad and Baqir [5] studied the effect of using bento-
nite for improving the dry density, cohesion, and angle of
internal friction of sandy soil, 2.5–10%, with a 2.5% incre-
ment percentage of bentonite used. The results showed
that the dry density improves with the increase of bento-
nite, and the cohesion increases significantly, while the
effect on the angle of internal friction was insignificant.
Mohsen and Jawad [6] investigated the use of cement
to improve CBR and Atterberg limits, and the chosen
cement/soil content percentages were 2, 4, 6, and 8%. The
results showed that the CBR increased more than 100% at
6% cement content. Also, the equivalent single axle load
increased by about 45%.
Fakhraldin et al. [7] investigated the use of one of the
waste materials in Iraq, the reclaim of tires industry, as an
additive to the sandy soil. The effect of reclaim mixing with
the sandy soil on CBR was studied. The percentages used
were 0.5, 2, and 4% by the weight of sand under the soaked
conditions. The results showed that the tire reclaim decreased
CBR from 86.8 to 7.6%.
Seferoglu et al. [8] investigated the effects of RAP and
cement on the soaked CBR of base aggregate. The RAP
percentages were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 100%, and 1,
2, and 3% cement. The results showed that the high per-
centages of RAP decreased soaked CBR without cement but
increased with cement. The value of CBR for mixing 100%
RAP and 3% cement with the virgin material gives the same
value of CBR of only 20% RAP, so it can be concluded that
the cement is considered a good stabilizing material.
Kalpakci et al. [9] evaluated the possibility of adding sand
to RAP to improve CBR; the study region was Iraq. The used
RAP/sand percentages were 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 50% sand by
mass of RAP. The results showed that the CBR increased when
the sand percentage increased and could be used 20% or
more sand mixed with RAP in road fill material.
Balkis and Macid [10] studied the effect of adding
cement to different soil types on CBR values, and 3, 7,
and 10% cement by mass of virgin samples were selected.
The study concluded that cement increases the CBR value of
different types of soils within a range of 22–69%. Cement also
improves the strength parameters of subbase or subgrade
layers, ultimately lowering the construction of road costs.
According to the authors, the CBR improvement is mainly
related to improving compressive strength and decreasing
plastic behavior due to cementation.
Aziz et al. [11] examined the shear strength of the gyps-
eous soil using the constant head and direct shear tests to
evaluate the effect of using the proposed stabilizer addi-
tives (vehicle waste oil and asphalt powder) to produce a
composite material as a novel solution. 3, 5, and 7% by dry
soil of burned-oil mixed with a constant quantity of asphalt
powder (10% of the sample weight) to evaluate the shear
strength of the mixture. The conclusions revealed that the
mixture improve the strength of the gypseous soil and the
stabilizer reduces percolation and water leakage and by
forming an impermeable layer with a very fine texture.
Choobbasti et al. [12] studied the effect of nanosilica
and cement on the properties of sandy soil. The used per-
centages of cement were 5, 9, and14% by the mass sample
which were mixed with 0, 5, 10 and 15% by the mass of
silica, and then compacted into a cylindrical specimen. The
study concluded that the addition of the cement and nano-
silica improves the engineering properties. The maximum
dry unit weight increase when the cement content increase
and the presence of nanosilica in optimum percentages
improve the mechanical properties of cement sand.
1.2 Scope of study
In the last few years, Iraq has been experiencing a huge recon-
struction of highways and roadways. The pavement layer
waste is a waste material due to reconstruction operations.
Using RAP in the subgrade, subbase, and pavement layers is
very important. Many problems occurred in the roadways due
to the settlement in subbase layers because of a weak bearing
resistance, so a cheap material should be found to improve
the subbase soil layer. This study investigates using RAP as a
waste material to improve the subbase material’s California
bearing ratio (CBR). Many laboratory tests for the virgin
subbase material and samples with Portland cement and
RAP separately have been presented to evaluate the effects
on CBR. Finally, one test was conducted using the ideal RAP
percentage with 1% cement added to the subbase material to
give a CBR of 6% cement to reduce the high cost of cement.
2 Used materials
2.1 Subbase soil
The soil used in this study represents a subbase granular
material that was brought from one of the quarries of the
 Improvement in the CBR of subbase soil by RAP and cement  3

Table 1: Physical and chemical properties of the subbase soil Table 2: Chemical and physical properties of ordinary cement

Property Test method Result Chemical composition Value (%) Iraqi specifications (%)

Liquid limit (LL) (%) ASTM D423 [13] 33.7 CaO 62.5 —
Plasticity index (%) AASHTO T90 [14] 13.0 SO3 2.0 ≤2.5
Organic content (%) BS 1377, No. 8 [15] 1.3 MgO 2.8 ≤5
SO3 (%) BS 1377, No. 9 [15] 1.3 Fe2O3 3.5 —
Optimum moisture content (OMC) (%) AASHTO T180 [16] 8.2 SiO2 21.1 —
Maximum dry density (MDD) (kN/m3) AASHTO T180 [16] 21.2 Al2O3 5.8 —
CBR AASHTO T193 [17] 19.1 Loss of ignition 1.5 ≤4
Insoluble residue 0.8 ≤1.5
C3A 10.9 —

Physical properties Value (%) Iraqi specifications

Time of setting
Initial setting (h) 1.2 ≥45 min
Final setting (min) 3.6 ≤10 h
Compressive strength (MPa)
3 days 24.3 ≥15
7 days 32 ≥23

the weak subbase soil used in the construction of roads, and

Figure 1: The grain size distribution of the subbase soil.
Bahr Al-Najaf Sea region located in the southwest of
Al-Najaf governorate in Iraq. This soil was used because
most of Iraq’s highways, roads, and other construction
projects use it. Table 1 shows the physical and chemical
properties of this subbase soil. The size distribution of the
subbase grains is shown in Figure 1. The used subbase soil
was classified according to the AASHTO soil classification
system [18] as A-2-6 (0.3), and according to the Standard
Specifications for Roads and Bridges (SSRB) in Iraq [19]
can be classified as Class C.
2.2 Cement
The cement used in this study is an Ordinary Cement produced
in the Kufa Cement Plant; the chemical composition and phy-
sical properties of plant reports are presented in Table 2.
2.3 RAP
Iraq is witnessing reconstruction works for most highways
and roadways, which require removing the old asphalt
layers as waste material. To benefit from the asphalt waste
resulting from these works, it was possible to investigate
the ability to use these wastes to improve the properties of
hence, the idea of this research. In this study, RAP is con-
sidered an additive material, and this material can be mixed
with the granular subbase soil to investigate its effect on
subbase soil. Recycled materials with a suitable grain size
distribution, high stiffness, high permeability, low frost
sensitivity, and high deformation resistance can be good
subbases; one recycled material is the RAP [1]. The typical
percentages of RAP range from 20 to 50%, and using recycled
materials can reduce road construction costs. Still, incorpor-
ating RAP into the subbase soil limits the use of a high
percentage of RAP, although the stiffness may be larger
with a high percentage of RAP [1]. RAP was ground and
mixed with the subbase soil during the laboratory tests.
3 Experimental work
The laboratory work included two stages: first the CBR
of the granular material (subbase soil) without additive
(reference sample [RS]) and with five cement percentages
as an additive, i.e., 0, 1, 2, 4, and 6% by mass of soil was
investigated. CBR is determined according to the procedure
of AASHTO T193 [17]. The strength of the base, subbase, and
subgrade layers of highways, roads, and other projects are
affected directly by the CBR value. Therefore, it is very
important to improve or increase this value. CBR, which
the California Department of Transportation adopted, has
been used assiduously for highways and road design pur-
poses; CBR has been used for soil materials but it was first
adopted for granular aggregates with sizes between 4.75
and 20 mm. The second stage included using RAP as an
4  Rasha A. Al-Fatlawy et al.

additive to the subbase soil at 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 20% 4 Results and discussion
by mass of the granular material.

4.1 Compaction test and CBR test of the RS

The compaction test was conducted to find the MDD and

3.1 Sample preparation
OMC of the soil because they are useful in the preparation
of samples to investigate other soil characteristics para-
The procedure of AASHTO T180 [16] was used to find the
meters such as the density, porosity, CBR, and triaxial
OMC and MDD values; these values were 8.2% and 21.2 kN/m3,
test. This study used modified proctor compaction and
respectively, as listed in Table 1. The sample retained on a
CBR tests on the subbase sample without cement and
19 mm sieve was repaid with equal mass from sieving the
RAP as an RS. The relationship between the dry density
same unused soil passing the 19 mm and retained on the sieve
and moisture content is shown in Figure 3, and it can be
of 4.75 mm. The MDD values of all samples were found with an
seen that MDD and OMC are 21.2 kN/m3 and 8.2%, respec-
OMC of 8.2%. The CBR apparatus has been used to investigate
tively. Figure 4 shows the relationship between displace-
the CBR of many samples without and with additives (cement
ment and pressure of the CBR test for the RS. The higher
and RAP).
pressure values of 2.5 and 5 mm displacement divided by

3.2 CBR testing method

The AASHTO T193 [17] specification procedure of the CBR

test was used as a main test in this study to investigate the
effect of additives on the mechanical properties of soil
samples (the subbase granular material). The 1, 2, 4, and
6% cement by soil mass and 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 20%
RAP were used. Figure 2 shows the CBR testing machine
with one of the samples.

Figure 3: Dry density and moisture content relationship of the RS.

Figure 2: CBR test machine. Figure 4: Displacement and pressure relationship of CBR test for the RS.

mold area give the CBR value of the sample. The CBR value
of the RS was 19.1, as shown in Table 1.
4.2 CBR test with cement
At OMC, the CBR test was conducted using five percentages
of cement, i.e., 1, 2, 4, and 6% of the total mass of subbase
soil, as an additive to study its effect. Figure 5 shows the
load–pressure relationship for the tests; from the figure, it
can be visualized that the increase in cement percentage
increases the CBR. The CBR values were 64, 96.6, 119.5, and
133.5 for 1, 2, 4, and 6% cement, respectively.
4.3 CBR test with RAP
At OMC, the CBR laboratory tests were performed with RAP
addition to study its effect on CBR. The percentages used
were 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 20% by the weight of the
subbase soil–granular material. The relationships between
displacement and pressure of these tests are shown in
Figure 6.
4.4 Discussion
A total of 14 laboratory tests and results that are presented
in previous sections are listed in Table 3.
Figure 5: Displacement and pressure relationship of CBR test using
cement.
Improvement in the CBR of subbase soil by RAP and cement  5
Figure 6: Displacement and pressure relationship of CBR test using RAP.
From the results, it can be seen that the CBR value
increases significantly with an increase in the cement percen-
tage. The specification of roads limits the maximum percentage
of added cement to the subbase soil up to 6%. The percentage in
this study increases CBR about six times of the RS (19.1–133.5).
The relationship between the cement additive percentage and
CBR is shown in Figure 7. The null percentage represents the
CBR value of the subbase soil without any additive (RS).
Figure 8 shows the relationship between RAP percen-
tages and CBR values. As CBR increases up to 12% and then
decreases, it can be said that the ideal percentage of RAW is
12% to give a maximum improvement in CBR. The value of
CBR increased about three times from RS (19.1–79.8). This
can be explained by increasing the voids ratio of the mix,
which leads to higher compressibility and thus a decrease
in the CBR value. Figure 9 shows the results of using
cement and RAP together.
With the comparison of other studies presented in the
introduction of this article, the results are compatible with
previous studies [4,6,8,10].
4.5 Use of cement and RAP
From the results discussed above, it can be concluded that
using 1% cement with 12% RAP to improve the CBR of
subbase soil gives a CBR value of 143.8 (64 + 79.8 = 143.8).
A laboratory test was performed to investigate the effect of
mixing 1% cement and 12% RAP with the subbase soil on
CBR, which gave a CBR value of 138.6. So, it can be concluded
that using 1% cement and 12% RAP improves CBR about six
times the RS and reaches the value corresponding to 6%
6  Rasha A. Al-Fatlawy et al.

Table 3: Summary of results

Additive percentage (%) 0 1 2 4 6 10 12 14 16 20

CBR with cement 19.1 64 96.6 119.5 133.5 — — — — —

CBR with RAW 19.1 21.5 22.1 25.5 35.8 47.6 79.8 51.6 44.2 30.8

Figure 7: Relationship between the cement percentage and CBR.

Figure 9: Relationship between additives and CBR.

cement and RAP. The conclusions of the study can be

Figure 8: Relationship between the RAP percentage and CBR.
cement, so the cost savings will be very large for saving 5%
cement. All results are shown in Figure 9.
5 Conclusions
Herein, we presented an experimental study investigating
RAP and cement in the improvement of roadway subbase
material. The indicator was selected as CBR; many labora-
tory tests were conducted with different percentages of
drawn as follows:
1. The CBR value increases when the cement percentage
increases; the CBR value increases about six times from
the RS of the virgin subbase at 6% cement by mass
(19.1–133.5).
2. The CBR value increases when the RAP percentages
increase up to 12% by the mass of the virgin subbase
and then decreases within the selected percentages (1, 2,
4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 20%).
3. For the subbase granular material used in the study,
which is classified as A-2-6 (0.3) according to the AASHTO,
the ideal percentage of RAP is 12%, improving CBR by about
3.7 times (19.1–79.8).
4. To reach the near improvement of CBR by using 6%
cement (133.5), 12% RAP (CBR = 79.8), and 1% cement
(CBR = 64) can be used; these percentages according to
the separate tests with only 1% cement and only 12%
RAP give a CBR value of 143.8.
5. Experimentally, using a mix of 12% RAP and 1% cement
blended with the subbase material gives a CBR value of
138.6. This improvement is considered the same as using
6% cement but at a low cost due to the low cost of the
waste material (RAP) because it saves the high cost of 5%
cement.

Funding information: The authors state no funding involved.
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: Most datasets generated and
analyzed in this study are in this submitted manuscript.
The other datasets are available on reasonable request from
the corresponding author with the attached information.
Competing interest: The authors state no competing interest.
References
[1] Schaefer VR, White DJ, Ceylan H, Stevens LJ. Design guide for
improved quality of roadway subgrades and subbases. Iowa
Highway Research Board (IHRB Project TR-525). 2008;7:8–72.
[2] Copeland A Reclaimed asphalt pavement in asphalt mixtures: State
of the practice. No. FHWA-HRT-11-021. United States. Federal
Highway Administration. Office of Research, Development, and
Technology; 2011.
[3] Maher MH, Gucunski N, Papp WJ. Recycled asphalt pavement as a
base and sub-base material. ASTM Spec Tech Publ. 1997;1275:42–53.
[4] Taha R, Ali G, Basma A, Al-Turk O. Evaluation of reclaimed asphalt
pavement aggregate in road bases and subbases. Transp Res Rec.
1999;1652(1):264–9.
[5] Jawad T, Baqir A. Improvement of sandy soil properties by using
bentonite. Kufa J Eng. 2009;1(1):29–39.
[6] Mohsen AT, Jawad. TA. Influence of cement as additive in
improving granular material properties. Kufa J Eng.
2010;1(2):176–84.
Improvement in the CBR of subbase soil by RAP and cement  7
[7] Fakhraldin MK, Ali TS, Al-Fatlawy RA. Effect of reclaim on California
bearing ratio of sandy soil. Int Adv Res J Sci Eng Technol.
2016;3(5):1–6.
[8] Seferoğlu AG, Seferoğlu MT, Akpınar MV. Investigation of the
effect of recycled asphalt pavement material on permeability
and bearing capacity in the base layer. Adv Civ Eng.
2018;2018:1–6.
[9] Kalpakci V, Faeq R, Canakci H. Compaction and CBR properties of
RAP/sand blends in Iraq. Arab J Geosci. 2018;11:1–7.
[10] Balkis A, Macid S. Effect of cement amount on CBR values of dif-
ferent soil. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Derg. 2019;16:809–15.
[11] Aziz HY, Maula BH, Abbas BJ. Evaluation of stabiliser material using
a waste additive mixture. Open Eng. 2020;10(1):311–7. doi: 10.1515/
eng-2020-0034.
[12] Choobbasti A, Vafaei A, Kutanaei S. Mechanical properties of sandy
soil improved with cement and nanosilica. Open Eng.
2015;5(1):111–6. doi: 10.1515/eng-2015-0011.
[13] ASTM D-423. Method of test for liquid limit of soils; 2007.
[14] AASHTO T90. Standard method of test for determining the plastic
limit and plasticity index of soils; 2004.
[15] BS 1377-3. Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes,
Chemical and electro-chemical tests; 2018.
[16] AASHTO T-180. Standard method of test for moisture-density
relations of soils using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) rammer and a 457-mm (18-
in.) drop; 2004.
[17] AASHTO T-193. Standard method of test for the California bearing
ratio; 2004.
[18] AASHTO Designation. M145-91. Classification of Soils and Soil-
Aggregate Mixture for Highway Construction Purposes. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation officials
(AASHTO), Washington, USA; 2004.
[19] SSRB. Standard specifications for roads and bridges in Iraq. The
Central Agency for Standardization and Quality Control, Baghdad,
Iraq; 2010.