4.7 Article

Optimization of fly ash based soil stabilization using secondary admixtures for sustainable road construction

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 294, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126264

Keywords

Waste mitigation; Enzymes; Fly ash; Lime; Pavement stabilization; Pavement design

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council, Australia [IH150100006]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the efficiency of fly ash stabilized soil when combined with enzymes and lime, finding that the stabilization effectiveness of fly ash can be significantly improved with the addition of enzymes and lime. The research offers a solution to enhance waste mitigation, save natural resources, and improve pavement stability.
Fly ash, despite being a suitable cement substitute, is only utilized at a low rate in engineering appli-cations, hence not contributing to its current waste mitigation efforts. Under a five-part comprehensive testing program, this study investigated the efficiency of fly ash stabilized soil when combined with secondary additives (enzymes and lime). Part one explored the suitable fly ash and enzyme dosages. Parts two and three assessed the effect of time and lime on enzymatic fly ash stabilized soil, respectively. Part four unveiled the mechanism of stabilization by secondary additives. Part five analyzed the sig-nificance and benefits of these additives in pavement stabilization. The study found that the efficiency of fly ash stabilization can be significantly improved when combined with 1% of 1:500 diluted enzyme. Addition of 2% lime has also supplemented with improved load-bearing capacity. Benefits of this research include enhanced fly ash waste mitigation, saving natural resources used as wearing course materials, and development of an alternative solution for pavement stabilization. (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available