Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 7986

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Evaluating feasibility of modified drilling waste materials in flexible base

course construction
Chang-Seon Shon a,, Cindy K. Estakhri b, Dongoun Lee c, Dichuan Zhang a
a

Department of Civil Engineering, Nazarbayev University, 53, Kabanbay Batyr Ave., Astana, Kazakhstan
Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX 77843-3135, United States
c
Department of Architectural Engineering, Dongseo University, 47 Jurye-ro, Sasang-gu, Busan 617-716, South Korea
b

h i g h l i g h t s

Modified drilling waste materials (MDWMs) were evaluated as base course materials.

MDWMs did not show the same performance as typical flexible granular base aggregate.

3% cement treated MDWMs showed good performance as flexible base course materials.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 11 June 2015
Received in revised form 9 April 2016
Accepted 26 April 2016
Available online 3 May 2016
Keywords:
Modified drilling waste materials
Base course materials
Stabilization/solidification

a b s t r a c t
The study focuses on the evaluation of the engineering properties of modified drilling waste materials
(MDWMs) as base course materials in roadway construction. This goal was accomplished by two main
laboratory test evaluations of the MDWMs which are the basic material characterization and the performance evaluation of base course material. Material characterization results of the MDWMs indicate that
they are relatively high pH, low plastic, and clay sand materials, mainly consisting of quartz and barite
and belonging to Grade 4 category in Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Item 247 Flexible
Base Aggregate. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS), triaxial compressive strength, indirect tensile strength, moisture susceptibility, and seismic modulus test data show that the untreated MDWM is
lower than many of these requirements and is not a granular base material when compared with the typical base course requirements identified in the Item 247. However, evaluation of the MDWMs with 3%
cement treatment in the laboratory showed good performance without sacrificing their abilities as proper
base course materials and satisfied the requirements of Class M base as per TxDOT Item 276. However, it
may be necessary that the quality control of this material be monitored in order to achieve consistent
moisture content and gradation. Moreover, further work to establish optimum stabilizer content and type
would be recommended for this material.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Drilling fluid is a preparation of water, clays, and chemicals circulated in oil-well drilling for lubricating and cooling the bit, flushing the rock cuttings to the surface, and plastering the side of the
well to prevent cave-ins. Drilling fluids are typically classified into
water-based mud, oil-based mud, and gaseous drilling fluid [13].
Theses drilling activities produce large amounts of drilling waste
materials (DWMs) such as drilling mud and cuttings consisting of
both liquid and solid phases. The management of these waste
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: chang.shon@nu.edu.kz (C.-S. Shon), c-estakhri@tamu.edu
(C.K. Estakhri), ldu21@gdsu.dongseo.ac.kr (D. Lee), dichuan.zhang@nu.edu.kz
(D. Zhang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.100
0950-0618/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

materials depends on the types of drilling fluids utilized. While

water-based drilling wastes are simply disposed to open pit
(mud pit), oil-contaminated wastes are typically disposed after
subjecting them to a thermal treatment process. This treatment
brings the oil content under Special Waste classification threshold and produces a more easily handled dry product [4].
Other techniques are used to solidify and stabilize the DWMs.
Cementitious materials such as cement, lime, and fly ash are
typically used in the stabilization and solidification process of
DWMs. Cement-treated stabilization and solidification improve
the physical, chemical, and mechanical properties of DWMs by
binding their contaminants such as oil and metals in a structure
formed by the cementitious materials [57]. As a result, either
thermally-treated or cement-treated DWMs can be transformed
to a soil-like, compactable mixture and may potentially be used

80

C.-S. Shon et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 7986

as a construction material in roadway construction. This material is

called a modified drilling waste material (MDWM).
In recent years, several researchers have investigated the utilization of oil-based drilling wastes as construction materials. Page
et al. [4] suggested three potential options for reuse of drilling
waste in construction applications on the basis of a summary of
previous research: (i) use in cement manufacture; (ii) use in roadway construction; and (iii) use in brick and block manufacture.
Bernardo et al. [8] investigated the feasibility of oil well-derived
drilling wastes as components of the kiln feed during the process
of the Portland cement manufacture. It was found that the drilling
wastes were partially able to replace limestone and clay in the
cement clinker manufacture by up to 45% without degradation in
performance of the hydraulic binders.
Offshore drilling waste was also used in hot mix asphalt (HMA)
concretes as aggregate replacement [9]. It has been found that as
much as 20% drilling waste could be used as aggregate replacement in HMA concrete without sacrificing any of its properties
such as Marshall stability, flow, permeability, and resilient modulus. Tuncan et al. [10] stabilized petroleum-contaminated drilling
waste (PDW) with 20% lime, 10% fly ash, and 5% cement and evaluated them as road subbase materials. They found that significant
increases in the unconfined compressive strength, California bearing ratio, freeze-thaw resistance, and pH, depending on waste
materials grain size, stabilizer type, and inherent composition
property of PDW.
Chen et al. [11] used thermally treated oil-base mud cuttings
from drilling operations to manufacture permeable clay bricks.
Furthermore, they have used these materials as a partial cement
substitute in concrete. They reported that both brick and concrete
made of drilling wastes successfully met Taiwan National Standard
specification requirements in terms of permeability and strength.
El-Mahllawy and Osman [12] have successfully used thermallytreated oil based mud waste to cast clay masonry units for load
and non-load bearing walls construction which met the acceptable
limits of an Egyptian Standard.
It is estimated that approximately 29,097,984 cubic yards of
solid drilling waste are generated annually in the United States
[13]. The drilling waste management to minimize the environmental impact of drilling operations is one of the most important challenges in the petroleum industry. As previously stated, some
research to further exploit the utilization of oil-based drilling
wastes as construction materials has been conducted. However, little data are available on the application of these materials in roadway construction. Furthermore, because of an increasing scarcity
of some sources of conventional aggregate and the high cost of
transporting aggregate to the construction site, the interest in
alternative reliable cost-effective materials that are more available
locally or in-situ for both flexible and rigid road-bases is significantly increasing in Texas.
2. Research objective and experimental scope
The objective of this research was to evaluate the engineering properties of
modified drilling waste materials (MDWMs). As illustrated in Fig. 1, this goal was
accomplished by laboratory test evaluations of MDWMs which are further categorized into two experimental series: Series I-Determination of the basic material
characterization of the MDWMs and Series II-Evaluation of the MDWMs according
to Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Specification Item 247-Evaluation
of Base Course Materials.
Series I focuses on the method for designing a road base material using treated
petroleum-based drilling waste, sampling of MDWMs, and characterization of
chemical, physical, mineralogical, and geotechnical aspects of MDWMs.
In order to assess the performance characteristics of this MDWMs as road base
course materials, the testing protocol in Series II includes the determination of optimum moisture content, unconfined compressive and indirect tensile strengths of
the fabricated specimens, evaluation of the moisture susceptibility using the capillary suction test and triaxial compression test, and seismic properties as per TxDOT
guideline for base course sample evaluation.

3. Production of modified drilling waste materials

As previously stated in Introduction session, a common method
for processing drilling wastes is through solidification and/or stabilization by treating the waste with cementitious materials and
inert materials (aggregates). Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate an overview
of the steps to produce modified drilling waste materials
(MDWMs). The first step is to separate water from drilling fluid
waste received from the oilfield site in the form of either tank liquids or truck solids. Because the water-removed solids are still
coated with contaminants, the solids must be further treated with
centrifuges for further removal of more of the contaminant.
The second step is a stabilization and solidification process,
wherein, treated drilling waste is combined with aggregate and a
binder. The effort to stabilize the waste with cement is to reduce
free moisture and minimize the solubility and mobility of the pollutant inside the waste. The solidification is aimed at increasing the
bearing strength, decreasing the surface area of the waste, and converting the suspension or detached component inside wastes into a
monolithic solid product of high structural integrity [10,14]. To
produce the MDWMs, an approximate ratio of treated drilling fluid
waste to aggregate (sand) of 3 to 1 was used. In addition, 12%
cement kiln dust of the total dry solid materials was added to
the mixture.
The final step is to cure the MDWMs to obtain additional
strength for use as road base course materials in the form of stockpiles. The coarser particles present in the excavated MDWMs are
meant to satisfy the aggregate capacity in the base course. The
unhydrated cement particles would potentially stabilize and bind
the mix together by means of the residual cement hydration intrinsic to the stockpiled material when water is applied during base
course construction. It should be noted that the materials on the
stockpile should be stored properly to avoid rainfalls because the
properties of stockpiled materials could be different if some rain
falls on the stockpiles.

4. Determination of basic material characterization of the

MDWMs
4.1. Material sampling and particle size analysis
As previously noted, the aim of this project is to determine the
acceptability of modified drilling waste materials (MDWMs) for
use in road base course application. In order to obtain accurate test
results for this experimental program, 2 sets of MDWMs (designated as MDWM-A and MDWM-B) were obtained from the plant
stockpile. During stockpile sampling of MDWMs, the excavator
bucket broke through the hardened material and generated both
fine and coarse particles. The sieve analysis of the excavated
MDWMs was performed in accordance with the TxDOT test
method Tex-110-E Particle Size Analysis of Soils. Before sieving,
MDWM agglomerates larger than 44.5 mm were reduced in size,
as permitted by the Tex-101-E test method Preparing Soil and
Flexible Base Materials for Testing in order to achieve a 100% utilization of the material. A suitable size of the MDWMs was
obtained by quartering and splitting. The sieve analysis was performed on the fully dried MDWMs.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Item 247 guideline specifies four different grades of aggregates that can be used
in flexible base construction. Particle size distribution analyses of
MDWMs are given in Fig. 4. While the MDWM-B material conforms to Grade 1, the MDWM-A material does not meet the gradation requirements for Grade 1 through 3 specified by TxDOT Item
247 regardless of using wet or dry sieving. The MDWM-A material
contains more fines than permitted for Grades 1 through 3 as

81

C.-S. Shon et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 7986

Feasibility of Modified Drilling Waste Materials

as Base-Course Materials in Road Construction

Road Base-Course
Evaluation

Basic Material
Characterization

Sampling (ASTM C 1420-99)

X-Ray diffraction
Gradation (TxDOT 247)
Atterberg limits (Tex-104&105-E)
pH test (Tex-128-E)
USCS Classification (ASTM D-2487)

Additional
Stabilizer

Moisture-Density Curve (Tex-113-E)

UCS (Tex-120-E)
Triaxial compression (Tex-117-E)
Capillary suction (Tex-144-E)
Indirect tensile strength (Tex-226-F)
Seismic properties
(Free-free resonant column test)

Beneficial ?
NO
YES
Recommed
Mix Design

Fig. 1. Diagram of research scope and experimental program.

Binder
(cement)
Drilling Fluid Waste

Truck
soild

Step 1
Oil & Gas
Waste Treatment
(seperation & cleaning)

Step 3
Treated drilling
waste component

Mixing

(Clean mud)

Tank
liquid

Modified Drilling
Waste Materials
road base material

Centrifugal Dryer

Aggregate
(sand)
Other reusable
material

Water
(disposal)

Step 2
Stabilization & solidification

Fig. 2. Schematic procedure to produce modified drilling waste materials.

specified by TxDOT Item 247. In particular, the most commonly

referred to sieve No. 4 (4.75 mm) of the specification retained only
23%, which is 22% less than the required minimum of 45%. Use of
this material by TxDOT will require enough process control to
maintain the same grade of the MDWMs whenever they are excavated from the stockpile. Because the gradation is not restricted in
Item 247, Grade 4, this designation may be more appropriate to the
gradation of the material as sampled. Since the MDWMs will be
used under a special specification, the acceptable gradation can
be specified separate from the requirements in Item 247.
Fig. 4 also shows dry and wet sieving results for MDWM-A
material. In general, wet sieving is used when material contains a
very fine powder which tends to agglomerate (e.g. mostly less than

45 lm). The amount of passing No.200 sieve (minus 75 lm) was

calculated to 0.8%.
4.2. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of DMWMs
Fig. 5(a) and (b) show X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) analyses
of MDWM-A and MDWM-B material, respectively. The scan range
was set at 560 and continuous scans for the h2h range were run
at a scan speed of 3/min with a sampling interval of 0.03. There is
not much mineralogical difference between two materials. The
main mineral constituent of the MDWM were quartz (SiO2) and
Barite (BaSO4). Calcite (CaCO3) and kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4) and
were identified as minor minerals. It was not surprising that the

82

C.-S. Shon et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 7986

Mixed aggregatges

Addition of cement kiln dust

(12% of dry solids)
Aggregate addition
(Drilling fluid waste:sand=3:1)

Final MDWMs
Fig. 3. Stabilization and solidification processes to produce modified drilling waste materials.

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

#200 #100

MDWN-A_Wet
#40

#16

#8

MDWM-A_Dry
#4

MDWM-B_Dry

3/8" 5/8" 7/8"1-1/4" 1-3/4"

100
90

Cumulative retained (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01

Grades are as per

TxDOT Item 247
0.1

10

100

Sieve size (mm)

Fig. 4. Particle size analysis of MDWMs.

MDWMs contain the high level of barite because barite comprises

approximately 60% of the minerals and chemicals used in the manufacturing of drilling fluid in United States [15]. The sand used in
the MDWM manufacturing process and stockpiled curing method
in the field corresponds to quartz and calcite minerals.

4.3. In-situ moisture content, Atterbergs limit value, classification, and

pH test
The obtained MDWMs were not totally dried out because they
were stockpiled in the field and subjected to periodic rain fall.

C.-S. Shon et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 7986

Q: Quartz
C: Calcite
B: Barite
K: Kaolinite

C
B

B
Q C

B
Q

BB

B
K

Q B

Q
C C C B

B
B

CC

B
Q

B B C

B QQ
B
C B
Q C C

(a) MDWM-A
Q

Q: Quartz
C: Calcite
B: Barite
K: Kaolinite

B
B

B
B

B
B
Q
B
K

B
C

C
B

Q
C Q

B
B

B
C
C

B
B C

(b) MDWM-B
Fig. 5. X-ray diffraction analysis result of MDWMs.

Table 1
Atterbergs limits and USCS classification, in-situ moisture content, and pH of
MDWMs.
Test method

Materials/Property

Value

Atterbergs limits

MDWM-A

USCS classification
In-Situ moisture content

MDWM-A
MDWM-A
MDWM-B
MDWM-A (before washing)
MDWM-A (after washing)
MDWM-B (before washing)

31
23
8
SC
9.1
14.6
11.3
9.4
11.1

pH

Liquid Limit (LL)

Plastic Limit (PL)
Plasticity Index (PI)
USCS Class symbol

Furthermore, the solidification process involving encapsulation of

fine waste particle and a certain amount of moisture also causes
the MDWMs to be relatively wet. The percentage of water weight
loss for MDWM-A and MDWM-B are given in Table 1. The moisture
content of the MDWM-A was 9.1% whereas the MDWM-B material
contained 14.6% of moisture. Controlling inherent moisture content which being exposure to the elements of MDWMs represents
challenge. It should be noted that the difference of moisture content between these materials must be controlled because the residual moisture content is accounted for in the base course mix design
and the water addition must be adjusted accordingly.

83

Atterbergs limit results and Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS) class symbols of MDWM-A material according to ASTM D
2487-10 are also tabulated in Table 1. Although the MDWM has
no or little clay, it exhibits characteristics of a clayey sand (CS) with
a low liquid limit (LL < 50), so its USCS classification is a CS soil.
During the Atterberg limits tests, the MDWM appeared as a very
sandy material, not exhibiting cohesive behaviors. Upon water
spraying, the dried MDWM, first, eagerly absorbed the water,
barely reached the semi-plastic state, and then, after a few additional sprays, entered the semi-liquid state. With this, the Plastic
Limit value was expected to be very close to the Liquid Limit value
entailing a very narrow range of the water content, where MDWM
is plastic, and a low Plasticity Index (PI) value.
Table 1 also presents pH test results of MDWM-A and MDWMB. For MDWM-A materials, pH values before and after washing
with water was measured. Both unwashed MDWMs-A and -B have
similar pH values, 11.3 and 11.1, respectively, whereas washed
MDWM-A materials shows a relatively lower pH value, 9.4. It can
be seen that the addition of cement during material production
process significantly increases the pH of MDWM material.
5. Evaluation of the MDWMs as base course materials
As previously mentioned, the modified drilling waste materials
(MDWMs) material is a cement-treated material combined with
petroleum-based drilling fluid waste and sand. It is stockpiled at
the processing facility with the intent that the material will cure
in the stockpile and gain strength. The excavated MDWMs contain
not only agglomerated coarse and fine particles due to a prolonged
weathering process in the field, but also unhydrated cement particles due to insufficiently supplied hydration water during the
material production process. If these MDWMs are used in the road
base application, it is supposed that the coarser particles of these
materials would fulfill the aggregate function in the base course
mix, whereas the fines and unhydrated cement particles would
stabilize and bind the mix together by means the residual cement
hydration activity intrinsic to the stockpiled MDWMs.
The same MDWM-A and MDWM-B were tested to evaluate
their feasibility as base course materials. Both materials were initially tested untreated and then with the addition of 3% by dry
solids weight of Type I Portland cement if sufficient strength was
not developed.
5.1. Moisture content-density relationship
In order to derive the moisture-density relationship, the
MDWM was oven dried, re-wetted, and compacted as per Tex113-E test method Laboratory Compaction Characteristics and
Moisture-Density Relationship of Base Materials (similar to ASTM
D 698-07e1 Method D) into 15.24 cm diameter by 20.32 cm height
specimens at four different moisture contents using 4.54 kg
hammer drops at 45.72 cm in height at 50 blows/layer. Each specimen consisted of 4 layers. As per Tex-120-E Soil-Cement Testing,
the following formula was used to adjust the obtained OMC of the
MDWM when adding cement:

W c with cement W opt 0:25  cement%

where, Wc = moisture content treated after treatment with cement

and Wopt = optimum moisture content.
The moisture-density relationship revealed the following characteristics of the MDWM: optimum moisture content (OMC, Wopt)
= 21.2% and maximum dry density (cdmax ) = 1598.6 kg/m3. However, it should be noted that the moisture and/or volatile content
of as-is material was 9.1%. Thus, additional 12.1% moisture was
added to the material to achieve optimum.

84

C.-S. Shon et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 7986

Fig. 6. Unconfined Compressive strength (a) and Indirect tensile strength (b) of MDWM mixture.

700

Fig. 6(a) shows the average unconfined compressive strength

(UCS) results for MDWM-A, MDWM-B, and 3% cement-treated
MDWM-A mixtures after 7-day 100% moist-curing at 23 2 C.
As can be noted, both mixtures containing MDWM-A and
MDWM-B have similar UCS values (182.7 kPa and 174.4 kPa,
respectively) regardless of their different gradations. These values
do not meet the minimum allowable strength (241.3 kPa) for Item
247 Grades 1 or 2.
In fact, the strength of MDWMs depend on the reaction
between pretreated drilling fluid waste, sand, cement, and water
in the process to produce the final material. Especially, the degree
of hydration of cement dominated by the water/cement ratio plays
the important role in the strength development of the MDWM.
Cement hydration is mainly controlled by the amount and availability of water at the cement particle surfaces. The insufficient
amount of water causes the cement to not be fully hydrated, while
the higher amount of water produces higher porosity in the
cement system, and consequently lower strength. Therefore, an
unoptimized material production process makes the strength of
as-is MDWMs low. This is supported by the high in-situ moisture
content of as-is MDWM, producing higher porosity in the matrix
of MDWM.
Interestingly, when 3% by dry solids weight of cement was
added to the mixture, the UCS was drastically increased. TxDOT
Item 276 Cement-Treated Base specifies three classes, L, M, and
N of 2068 kPa, 1207 kPa, and 241 kPa, respectively, as shown
on the plans. The cement-stabilized mixture with an additional
cement content of 3% met the requirement for Class M.
Fig. 6(b) presents the indirect tensile (ITS) strength of the
MDWM-A mixture after 1-day and 7-day curing. This is the as sampled with no additional cement. In general, a longer curing period
resulted in higher ITS. As expected, the specimens had low ITS as
shown in unconfined compressive strength testing.

600

5.3. Triaxial compressive strength

Three samples containing MDWM-A material were prepared for
each confining pressure. Immediately after molding, the specimens
were wrapped in filter paper, placed on and covered by porous
stones, and enclosed in the triaxial cells. The cells were transferred
into the moist-curing room (25 C and 100% R.H.), placed in a water
bath, and subjected to a constant weight surcharge as well as a
confining pressure of 6.9 kPa. The triaxial cells were then allowed
to cure under the capillary conditions for 10 days.

Shear Stress (kPa)

5.2. Unconfined compressive strength and indirect tensile strength

TxDOT Item 247 Grade 2

for s3 = 0 kPa
min s1 = 241 kPa
TxDOT Item 247 Grade 2
for s3 = 103 kPai
min s1 = 1207 kPa

500
400

Failure Envelope
= 42.69
c = 49.64 kPa

300
200
100
s3

s3

s1

s1

0
0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Normal Stress (kPa)

Fig. 7. Triaxial compression of the untreated MDWM mixture.

The results of the triaxial compression of the untreated

MDWM-A specimens are shown in Fig. 7. At the zero confinement
pressure, the average axial compressive strength of the untreated
samples reached 226.8 kPa; whereas, at the 103.4 kPa confinements, the average axial strength reached 765.3 kPa.
Another characterization of the MDWMs can be made on the
basis of its shear strength (as per ASTM D 3397 and Tex-117-E).
For this, a tangent line (failure envelope) to both stress Mohrs circles is drawn. The intersection of the failure envelope with the
shear stress axis defines the cohesion value, c, whereas the slope
of the envelope defines the angle of internal friction, u. Tex-117E test method prescribes a transfer the constructed failure envelope to the Chart for Classification of Sub-Grade and Flexible Base
Material shown in Fig. 8 and classify the material to the nearest
one-tenth of a class. According to a superposition of the failure
envelope and the chart, the untreated MDWM-A can be classified
as Class 2.2 aggregate, falling in-between the Fair and Borderline grades for a flexible base material.
5.4. Capillary suction (tube suction) test
Capillary suction tests were conducted for assessing the moisture susceptibility of base material when exposed to prolonged
capillary soak conditions. The development of both dielectric value
(DV) and absorbed moisture content is shown in Table 2. As
expected, for all mixtures, as moisture content increases, DV also
increases. Both MDWMs-A and -B mixtures exhibit higher average

85

C.-S. Shon et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 7986

207

Weak subgrade

Very weak
subgrade

300.0
200.0

ss
la
C

0.0
1

138

Time (days)
Class 2.2

ss

ss

2.

Cla

Fig. 9. Seismic modulus development over time for different mixtures.

la

Shear Stress, (kPa)

400.0

100.0

Modulus (MPa)

MDWM-A w/ cement

500.0
Failure envelope of the
MDWM-A

MDWM-B

600.0

MDWM-A

General
Description
of Material
Good flexible
base material
Fair flexible
base material
Borderline base
& subbase matl
Fair to poor
subgrade

la
s

Class
of
Material

276

s4

Clas

0.7

5.5. Seismic modulus test

69

ss 5

Cla

s6

Clas
0

69

138

207

Normal Stress, n (kPa)

Fig. 8. Chart for classification of sub-grade and flexible base material.

6. Conclusions

Table 2
Tube suction test (TST) results.
Mixture

MDWM-A
STDEVd
MDWM-B
STDEV
MDWM-A with cement
STDEV
a
b
c
d

Fig. 9 presents the growth in seismic modulus during curing of

mixtures containing MDWMs. While the seismic modulus (SM) of
the cement-stabilized MDWM mixture significantly increases over
time, both untreated MDWM mixtures slowly increased. As
expected, the SM of cement-stabilized mixture was higher than
that of untreated MDWM mixtures. Currently, there is no magic
SM number to determine a good base course material, but typical
values of SM for granular base material range from 159 MPa to
241 MPa at 7-day [16]. Thus, the MS for untreated MDWM mixtures seems to be lower than that of typical base materials while
3% cement-stabilized mixture exceeded the typical SM values.

UCS (kPa)c

Final
DVa

MC (%)b

Before TST

After TST

32.5
1.3
27.9
1.5
14.8
1.2

12.4
2.81
9.50
0.30
6.0
0.07

182.8
4.0
174.3
0.4
1690.6
3.5

161.3
2.3
177.2
2.9
1812.6
4.3

Retained
UCS (%)
88.2
101.7
107.2

DV: Dielectric value.

MC: Moisture content.
UCS: Unconfined compressive strength.
STDEV: Standard deviation.

DV, 32.5 and 27.9 at 10-day, respectively, whereas the cement stabilized specimen stayed below 16 at the same age. As stated, this
indicates that both MDWMs-A and -B mixtures have high moisture
susceptibility with the corresponding poor DV over 16. Addition of
cement improved the moisture susceptibility resistance of MDWM
mixture and resulted in DV nearly half of those exhibited by the
untreated mixtures, which corresponds marginal performance
with blow 16 DV.
As also presented in Table 2, the average compressive strength
values of the samples after capillary suction test were compared to
the baseline strengths after the 7-day moist curing, obtained earlier. The relative retained strength values of both untreated and
3% cement-stabilized mix designs exceeded the threshold value
of 75% recommended by TxDOT. However, overall UCS value for
both untreated MDWM mixtures did not meet the TxDOT minimum allowable strength for Grade 2 flexible base (241.3 kPa).

Material characterization results of modified drilling waste

materials (MDWMs) indicate that MDWM is a relatively high pH,
low plastic, and clay sand material, mainly consisting of quartz
and barite. Since the MDWM contains more fines than permitted
for Grades 1 through 3 as specified by Item 247 Flexible Base
Aggregate, it belongs to Grade 4 category.
When compared with the typical base course requirements
identified in Item 247, the MDWMs tested were lower than many
of these requirements. The unconfined compressive strength, triaxial compressive strength, indirect tensile strength, moisture susceptibility, and seismic modulus test data showed that the
untreated stockpiled MDWM is not capable of producing satisfactory base course values to meet Item 247 specification requirements. However, when MDWMs are used to construct a base
course composed of flexible base, hydraulic cement, and water
according to TxDOT Item 276, the MDWM mixture with 3% cement
treatment in the laboratory showed good performance without
sacrificing their abilities as proper base course materials and satisfied the requirement of Class M base (7-day unconfined compressive strength, min. 1225 kPa) as per TxDOT Item 276. In other
words, although the MDWM was recognized as non-granular base
material and its minimum strength value was not achieved on the
basis of TxDOT Item 276, the MDWM can be used as a base course
material with cement treatment. This means that the evaluation of
MDWMs using current base specifications and specific testing
techniques and procedures used to prepare specimens for each
testing may not be entirely appropriate for this material. Thus,
additional work is recommended to determine if more appropriate
testing procedures are required to reflect observed performance of
MDWMs. Further work to establish optimum stabilizer content
and type would be recommended for this material.

86

C.-S. Shon et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 7986

References
[1] S.A. Leonard, J.A. Stegemann, Stabilization/solidification of petroleum drill
cuttings: leaching studies, J. Hazard. Mater. 174 (2010) 484491.
[2] S.A. Leonard, J.A. Stegemann, Stabilization/solidification of petroleum drill
cuttings, J. Hazard. Mater. 174 (2010) 463472.
[3] M.S. Al-Ansary, A. Al-Tabbaa, Stabilization/solidification of synthetic
petroleum drill cuttings, J. Hazard. Mater. 141 (2007) 410421.
[4] P.W. Page, C. Greaves, R. Lawson, S. Hayes, F. Boyle, Options for the recycling of
drilling cuttings, in: SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental
Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, Paper SPE 80583, Soc. Petrol. Eng., 2003.
Houston, Texas.
[5] J.P. Martin, J.B. Francis, W.T. Robinson, Stabilized petroleum waste interaction
with silty clay subgrade, in: C.E. Bell (Ed.), Petroleum Contaminated Soils, 2,
Lewis Publisher, Chelsea, MI, USA, 1989, pp. 177197.
[6] S. Pamukcu, H. Hijazi, H.Y. Fang, Study of possible reuse of stabilized petroleum
contaminated soils as construction materials. Petroleum contaminated soils,
in: Proceedings of the Conference on Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil, 3, 1989,
pp. 203214.
[7] H.D. Sharma, M.T. Dukes, Sludge solidification/solidification testing for a
hazardous waste management facility surface impoundment, in: 2nd
International Symposium on Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous,
Radioactive, and Mixed Wastes. Williamsburg, VA, USA, 1990, p. 32.
[8] G. Bernardo, M. Marroccoli, M. Nobili, A. Telesca, G.L. Valenti, The use of oil
well-derived drilling waste and electric arc furnace slag as alternative raw
materials in clinker production, J. Res. Conserv. Recycl. 52 (2007) 95102.

[9] P.W. Wasiuddin, N. Ali, M.R. Islam, Use of offshore drilling waste in hot mix
asphalt (HMA) concrete as aggregate replacement, in: Proceedings of ETCE
2002 on ASME Engineering Technology Conference on Energy, Houston, TX,
USA, 2002.
[10] A. Tuncan, M. Tuncan, H. Koyuncu, Use of petroleum-contaminated drilling
waste as sub-base materials for road construction, Waste Manage. Res. 18
(2000) 489505.
[11] T.-L. Chen, S. Lin, Z.-S. Lin, An innovative utilization of drilling wastes as
building materials, in: SPE E&P Environmental and Safety Conference,
Galveston, TX, USA, 2007.
[12] M. El-Mahllawy, T.A. Osman, Influence of oil well drilling waste on the
engineering characteristics of clay bricks, J. Am. Sci. 6 (2010) 4854.
[13] American Petroleum Institute, 2009.
[14] J.P. Martin, F.J. Eiehl, J.S. Browning, E.L. Van-Keuren, Constitutive behaviour of
clay and pozzolan-stabilized hydrocarbon reining waste, in: Geotechnics of
Waste Fills Theory and Practice. ASTM STP 1070, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1990,
pp. 185203.
[15] M.-P. Carignan, C.B. Lake, T. Menzies, Assessment of two thermally treated drill
mud waste for landfill containment applications, Waste Manage. Res. 25
(2007) 394401.
[16] T. Scullion, J.P. Harris, S. Sebesta, S. Nazarian, Heavy-duty Flexible Bases: Field
Performance and Draft Specifications, Report FHWA/TX-06-4358-4, Texas
Department of Transportation, Texas, 2007.