4.6 Article

Structural Performance of Alkali-Activated Soil Ash versus Soil Cement

Journal

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001398

Keywords

Fly ash; Alkaline activation; Soil improvement; Strength; Curing rate

Funding

  1. MCTES/FCT (Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation of Portuguese Ministry of Science and Technology) [SFRH/BPD/85863/2012]
  2. Agencia Nacional de Inovacao [FCOMP-01-0202-FEDER-038899]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/85863/2012] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alkaline activation of fly ash (FA) was used to improve the mechanical performance of a silty sand, considering this new material as a replacement for soil-cement applications, namely, bases and subbases, for transportation infrastructures. For that purpose, specimens were molded from mixtures of soil, FA, and an alkaline activator made from sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate. Uniaxial compression tests showed that strength is highly increased by the addition of this new binder. The results described a high stiffness material, with an initial volume reduction followed by significant dilation. All specimens have clearly reached the respective yield surface during shearing, and peak-strength Mohr-Coulomb parameters were defined for each mixture. The evolution of the microstructure during curing, responsible for the mechanical behavior detected in the previous tests, was observed by scanning electron microscopy. These results were compared with soil-cement data obtained previously with the same soil at similar compaction conditions. The main difference between both binders was the curing rate, with alkali-activated specimens showing a more progressive and long-lasting strength increase. This was analyzed taking into account the chemical process responsible for the behavior of the mixtures. (c) 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available