Coal Combustion and Gasification Products is an international, peer-reviewed on-line journal that

provides free access to full-text papers, research communications and supplementary data. Submission
details and contact information are available at the web site.
2009 The University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research and the American Coal Ash
Association
Web: www.coalcgp-journal.org
ISSN# 1946-0198
Volume# 1 (2009)
Editor-in-chief: Dr. Jim Hower, University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research
CCGP Journal is collaboratively published by the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy
Research (UK CAER) and the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA). All rights reserved.

The electronic PDF version of this paper is the official archival record for the CCGP journal.
The PDF version of the paper may be printed, photocopied, and/or archived for educational, personal,
and/or non-commercial use. Any attempt to circumvent the PDF security is prohibited. Written prior
consent must be obtained to use any portion of the papers content in other publications, databases,
websites, online archives, or similar uses.
Suggested Citation format for this article:
Li, L., Edil, T.B., Benson, C.H., 2009, Mechanical Performance of Pavement Geomaterials Stabilized with
Fly Ash in Field Applications. Coal Combustion and Gasification Products 1, 43-49,
doi: 10.4177/CCGP-D-09-00018.1

ISSN 1946-0198
journal homepage: www.coalcgp-journal.org

Mechanical Performance of Pavement Geomaterials Stabilized with Fly Ash in Field

Applications
Lin Lia,*, Tuncer B. Edilb, Craig H. Bensonb
a
b

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Jackson State University, Jackson, Mississippi, 39217, USA
Recycled Materials Resource Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

ABSTRACT
This paper describes an evaluation of the mechanical performance of fly ash stabilized materials. Soft clay soil, asphaltic
recycled pavement material (RPM), and road-surface gravel (RSG) were stabilized using Class C and off-specification fly ashes
to create working platforms or stabilized base courses for construction of flexible and rigid pavements at six sites in Wisconsin
and Minnesota. California bearing ratio (CBR), resilient modulus (Mr) tests, and unconfined compression (qu) tests were
conducted on the subgrade soil, RPM, and RSG alone and on mixtures prepared in the field and the laboratory to evaluate
improvements in bearing resistance and stiffness. Fly ash stabilization improved the stiffness and strength of the materials
significantly. After 7 d of curing, CBR of the stabilized materials (10 to 150) was two to ten times the CBR of the materials
alone (1 to 50). The Mr of the stabilized materials ranged between 20200 MPa after 14 d of curing, whereas the Mr of the
materials alone was 10,120 MPa. The qu of the unstabilized subgrade is in average of 121 kPa and the field-mix fly ash
stabilized materials have qu between 254 kPa and 368 kPa (mean 5 311 kPa). Lower CBR, Mr and qu were obtained for
stabilized materials mixed in the field relative to the stabilized materials mixed in the laboratory (64% lower for CBR, 25%
lower for Mr, and 43% lower for qu).
f 2009 The University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research and the American Coal Ash Association
All rights reserved.

ARTICLE

INFO

Article history: Received 6 November 2009; Received in revised form 11 December 2009; Accepted 17 December 2009
Keywords: fly ash; soft clayey soil; recycled pavement material; road surface gravel; stiffness; bearing resistance

1. Introduction
As one of the family of coal combustion products, fly ash has been
mainly disposed in landfills. However, the self-cementing properties
characteristic of some fly ashes can be used beneficially to improve
the mechanical properties of soil and other unbound pavement
materials (ACAA 2005, 2008; EPA 2005; FHWA 2003). For example,
fly ash was used to stabilize a soft subgrade soil to provide a stable
working platform for highway construction equipment that is strong
and stiff (Ferguson, 1993; Edil et al., 2002; Thomas and White 2003;
Bin-Shafique et al., 2004; Mackiewicz and Ferguson 2005; White et
al. 2005; Bergman 2007). In base applications, fly ash was used to

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-601-979-1092; E-mail: lin.li@jsums.edu (L. Li)

increase the stiffness of base course materials and to enhance the

structural capacity of the pavement (Trzebiatowski et al., 2004;
Misra et al. 2003).
Fly ash was also reported in stabilization of recycled pavement
material and road-surface gravel (Li et al. 2007, 2008, Hatipoglu et
al. 2008). Recycled pavement material (RPM) is created in-place by
pulverizing and blending the existing hot-mix asphalt, base, and
subgrade associated with a deteriorated roadway. The RPM can be
used in situ to form a base course that is overlain with new hotmix asphalt (HMA). However, residual asphalt and fines from the
underlying subgrade may result in RPM having lower strength and
stiffness compared to compacted virgin base material. Fly ash
stabilization of RPM is one of methods to improve the strength and
stiffness of RPM (Li et al. 2006). Fly ash has also been used to
stabilize existing road-surface gravel (RSG) when upgrading gravel

doi: 10.4177/CCGP-D-09-00018.1
f 2009 The University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research and the American Coal Ash Association. All rights reserved.

44

Li et al. / Coal Combustion and Gasification Products 1 (2009)

Table 1
Pavement Structure and Materials at the Six Sites.
Sites

Scenic Edge

STH 60

STH 32

USH 12

Waseca

Chisago

Location

City street in Cross Plains,

Wisconsin
700 m
100 mm-HMA
175 mm-CA
300 mm-FASM
10%

State highway,
Wisconsin
305 m
125 mm-HMA
225 mm-CA
300 mm- FASM
12%

State highway,
Wisconsin
370 m
230 mm-PCC
200 mm-CA
300 mm- FASM
10%

US highway,
Wisconsin
1200 m
200 mm-PCC
150 mm-CA
300 mm- FASM
12%

City street in Waseca,

Minnesota
500 m
75 mm-HMA
150 mm- SRPM
N/A
10%

Highway CR 53,
Minnesota
3500 m
89 mm-HMA
254 mm- SRSG
N/A
10%b

Project length
Surface material
Base material
Subbase material
Fly ash contenta

Note: STH 5 State Trunk Highway, HMA 5 Hot Mixed Asphalt, PCC 5 Portland Cement Concrete, CA 5 Crushed aggregate, FASM 5 fly ash stabilized material, RPM 5 recycled pavement
material, RSG 5 road-surface gravel, SRPM 5 stabilized recycled pavement material, SRSG 5 stabilized road-surface gravel, N/A 5 no applicable.
a

Class C fly ash in dry weight.

mixing of Class C and Off-Specification fly ash with 1:1 mixing ratio.

roads to paved roads (Hatipoglu et al. 2006). The existing RSG is

blended with fly ash and compacted to form a base course for the
HMA surface. In US, several states, such as Wisconsin, Minnesota,
and Kansas have reported considerable success using fly ash for
stabilization to promote sustainable construction and improve the
pavement structure. However, there is very limited information for
the field evaluations of fly ash stabilized pavement materials (Edil
et al. 2002; Misra 2005; Bergman 2007).
This paper describes field evaluation of mechanical improvement of fly ash stabilized materials (FASM) at six sites in
Wisconsin and Minnesota, US (Table 1). At the six construction
sites, soft clay subgrade soil, RPM, and RSG were stabilized using
self-cementing Class C or off-specification fly ashes to create
working platforms or base course for flexible and rigid pavements.
Similar construction processes were used at the six sites. Fly ash
was spread uniformly on the surface of the unstabilized subgrade,
RPM, or RSG using truck-mounted lay-down equipment (Edil et al.
2002) and then mixed in using a road reclaimer. When needed,
water was added during mixing using a water truck. The in situ
mixture was compacted within 12 h of blending using a tamping
foot compactor followed by a vibratory steel drum compactor.
Each site has difference tonnage of the compaction equipment, but
the contractor was specified to compact the fly ash mixture
following compaction specification. The fly ash stabilized pavement materials (FASM) were cured for 7 d and then overlain with
base/surface materials. The leaching study of CCPs in the six sites
is being conducted and will be reported later.
2. Materials
Disturbed samples of subgrade soil, RPM, and RSG (< 20 kg
each) were collected during construction at specified stations at
each site. Tests were conducted on each sample to determine index
properties, soil classification, water content, dry unit weight,
compaction characteristics, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR).
Samples of fly ash were also collected.
2.1 Subgrade Soil
A summary of the properties of the subgrade at Scenic Edge, STH
60, STH 32, and USH 12 sites is shown in Table 2. The subgrade
soils are fine-grained soils (CL, CL-ML, CH) and coarse-grained
soils (SM, SC, GC) according to the Unified Soil Classification
System. According to the AASHTO Soil Classification System,
subgrade soils are fine-grained silt-clay materials (A-4, A-6, A-76) or coarse-grained soils that classify as A-2-6 (one station in STH

32 site, and 3 stations in USH 12 site). CBR of the subgrade soils

ranges from 2 to 15 (mean 5 5), indicating that the existing
subgrade is soft at each site.
2.2 Recycled Pavement Material (RPM) and Road Surface Gravel
(RSG)
Particle size distribution curves for the RPM at the Waseca site
and RSG from the Chicago site are shown in Fig. 1a and b. The
blending during production of RPM results in a material that is
spatially uniform in particle size distribution, compaction characteristics, and water content. The particle size distribution curves
fall in a relatively narrow band. Most of the RPM consists of sand
and gravel-size particles (. 75 mm), which reflects the presence of
the pulverized asphalt and the original base course at the Waseca
site. The RSG samples consist of well-graded gravelly sand. The
sand content is consistently around 60% and the gravel content is
about 25%. Because of the uniform nature of the RSG along the
alignment at the Chisago site, a single composite sample was

Table 2
Physical Properties and Classifications of Subgrade Soils at Four Sites.
Classification
Station

LL

PI

% Fines

USCS

AASHTO

wN (%) wopt (%)

Scenic Edge

44

20

90

CL

A-7-6

27.0

20.0

STH 60

39

15

95

CL-ML

A-6

25.0

19.0

23
23
23
34
28

13
14
14
16
14

53
46
43
66
35

CL
SC
SC
CL
GC

A-4
A-4
A-4
A-6
A-2-6

10.0
8.1
9.9
11.5
7.6

9.8
11.0
10.6
13.6
9.8

46
40
31
65
38
42
41
27
27
26

29
27
17
49
21
23
24
15
12
11

71
43
35
65
50
56
57
35
44
34

CL
SC
SM
CH
SC
CL
CL
SM
SC
SM

A-7-6
A-6
A-2-6
A-7-6
A-6
A-7-6
A-7-6
A-2-6
A-6
A-2-6

NA
7.8
14.7
7.8
10.8
NA
12.2
6.7
14.3
8.1

15.0
9.0
10.0
15.0
9.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
9.0
10.0

STH 32
615+50
614+50
613+50
612+50
611+50

USH 12
580+00
586+00
590+00
594+00
598+00
602+00
606+00
610+00
612+00
614+00

Note: LL 5 liquid limit, PI 5 plasticity index, USCS 5 Unified Soil Classification System,
AASHTO 5 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, wN 5 in situ
water content, wopt 5 optimum water content.

Li et al. / Coal Combustion and Gasification Products 1 (2009)

45

3. Methods
3.1 Field-Mixed and Laboratory-Mixed Specimens
Water content and unit weight of the field compacted FASM at
each site was measured at each station using a nuclear density gage
(ASTM D 2922) immediately after compaction was completed. Grab
samples (< 20 kg) of FASM were also collected at these locations
and were immediately compacted into a CBR mold (114 mm inside
diameter 3152 mm height) and a resilient modulus mold (102 mm
inside diameter 3203 mm height) to the unit weight and moisture
content measured with the nuclear density gage. Three lifts were
used for the CBR specimens and six lifts were used for the resilient
modulus (Mr) specimens with standard Proctor compaction effort.
After compaction, the specimens were sealed in plastic and stored
at 100% humidity for curing (7 d for CBR specimens, 14 d for Mr
specimens). These test specimens are referred to henceforth as
field-mixed specimens.
Specimens of FASM were also prepared in the laboratory using
separate samples of the pavement materials and fly ash collected
during construction. These specimens, referred to henceforth as
laboratory-mixed specimens, were prepared at the field water
content and dry unit weight. The laboratory-mixed specimens were
compacted and cured using the same procedures employed for the
field-mixed specimens.
3.2 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Tests
The CBR tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1883
after 7 d of curing (field-mixed or laboratory-mixed FASM) or
immediately after compaction (pavement materials). The specimens
were not soaked and were tested at a strain rate of 1.3 mm/min. The
7-d curing period and the absence of soaking are intended to
represent the competency of the surface pavement material (HMA
or PCC) is placed (Bin-Shafique et al., 2004).
3.3 Resilient Modulus (Mr) Tests

Fig. 1. Particle size distributions of the RPM at the Waseca site (a) and RSG at
the Chisago site (b).

prepared for laboratory testing. The composite sample was

classified as gravelly clayey sand according to USCS.

Resilient modulus tests on the FASM and pavement materials

were conducted following the methods described in AASHTO T
292 after 14 d of curing (FASM) and immediately after
compaction (materials). The loading sequence for cohesive soils
was used for the FASM as recommended by Bin-Shafique et al.
(2004) and Trzebiatowski et al. (2004) for soil-fly ash mixtures.
RPM and RSG were tested using the loading sequence for
cohesionless soils.

2.3 Fly Ash

3.4 Unconfined Compression (qu) Tests
Fly ash from Columbia Power Station in Portage, Wisconsin, US
was used for stabilization of subgrade at the STH 60, Scenic Edge,
and USH 12 sites. Fly ash from the Pleasant Prairie Power Station
in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, US was used for stabilization of
subgrade at the STH 32 site. Fly ash from Riverside Power Station
in St. Paul, Minnesota, US was used for stabilization of RPM at the
Waseca site and RSG at the Chisago site. Physical and compositional properties of fly ashes are summarized in Table 3. The
Columbia, Pleasant Prairie, and Riverside 7 fly ashes are Class C fly
ashes according to ASTM C 618, whereas the Riverside 8 fly ash is
referred to as off-specification fly ash because it does not meet
the Class C or Class F criteria in ASTM C 618.

Unconfined compressive strength was measured on specimens of

FASM after the resilient modulus tests were conducted. The strains
imposed during the resilient modulus test may have reduced the
peak undrained strength of the FASM. However, strains in a
resilient modulus test are small. Thus, the effect on peak strength is
believed to be negligible.
A strain rate of 0.21%/min was used for the unconfined
compression tests following the recommendations in ASTM D
5102 for compacted soil-lime mixtures. No standard method
currently exists for unconfined compression testing of materials
stabilized with fly ash.

46

Li et al. / Coal Combustion and Gasification Products 1 (2009)

Table 3
Chemical Composition and Index Properties of Fly Ashes.
Percent of Composition
Parameters

Columbia fly ash

Pleasant Prairie fly ash

Riverside 7 fly ash

Riverside 8 fly ash

Fly ash source

SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3, %
CaO, %
SO3, %
Loss on ignition (%)
Classification (ASTM C 618)
Site location

Portage, Wisconsin
55.5
23.1
3.7
0.7
C
Scenic Edge, STH 60,
USH 12, Wisconsin

Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin

64.0
21.0
2.0
0.6
C
STH 32, Wisconsin

St. Paul, Minnesota

57.0
24.0
2.0
0.9
C
Waseca and Chisago,
Minnesota

39.0
9.0
5.4
16.4
off- Specification
Chisago, and St. Paul,
Minnesota

4. Results and Discussions

4.1 CBR
CBR of the RSG, field-mix SRSG, and laboratory-mix SRSG at
the Chisago site is shown in Fig. 2a. The variation in CBR of the
field-mix SRSG along the alignment suggests that the variability in
the CBR is due to heterogeneity in the material.
The CBR of the RSG is 24, the laboratory-mix SRSG has CBR of
154, and the field-mix SRSG has CBR between 16 and 90 (mean 5
60). Thus, adding fly ash to the RSG increased the CBR appreciably,
although the CBR in the field was 61% lower, on average, than the
CBR of the laboratory-mix SRSG. A similar difference between
CBRs of mixtures prepared with fly ash in the laboratory and field
is reported in Bin-Shafique et al. (2004) for fine-grained subgrade
soils. They report that field mixtures of silty clay and Class C fly
ash typically have a CBR that is two-thirds lower than the CBR of
comparable mixtures prepared in the laboratory.
There was no apparent effect of fly ash type at the Chisago site,
where two different fly ashes were used from Riverside Units 7 and
8 (see Table 3). For instance, off-specification Unit 8 ash was used
at Stations 27+30, 60, and 70, whereas Class C fly from Unit 7 was
used at Station 40. Despite the use of different ashes, there is no
significant difference in CBR between these stations.
Box plots in Fig. 2b show the distribution of CBR of the
pavement materials, field-mix FASM, and laboratory-mix FASM at
five of the sites, except at the STH 32 site. There is no data for
laboratory mixed FASM at the STH 32 site. The centerline in the
box corresponds to the median (50th percentile), the outer edges of
the box correspond to the 25th and 75th percentiles, and the
whiskers correspond to the 10th and 90th percentiles of the CBR.
Fly ash stabilization increased the CBR of the pavement materials
at all five sites. CBR of the fine-grained subgrade soils at the Scenic
Edge, STH 60, and STH 32 increased from 1.53 before
stabilization to 2165 after stabilization, on average. A smaller
increased in CBR was observed for the coarse-grained materials,
which had initial CBR in the range of 324 and CBR in the range of
2960 after stabilization, on average.
The field-mix CBR was 52% lower, on average, than the CBR of
the laboratory-mix FASM in the five sites. Bin-Shafique et al.
(2004) attribute the higher CBR of the laboratory-mix FASM to
more thorough blending of pavement materials and fly ash in the
laboratory compared to the field, resulting in more uniform
distribution of fly ash within the mixture. Residual electrostatic
charges (usually negative) on the surfaces of the fly ash tend to
remain which were produced during their collection in the stacks
and transportation to the field sites. The inter-particulate repulsion

produced by these charges may have an adverse effect on

compaction efficiency and strength improvement.
To quantify the mechanical improvement of fly ash stabilization
on the pavement materials, CBR-ratio is defined as CBR of fieldmix FASM divided by CBR of unstabilized materials. Fig. 2c shows
the ratios at the five sites as a function of CBR of unstabilized
materials. The CBR-ratio tends to decrease when the unstabilized
material with higher CBR. The fly ash stabilization can gain more
improvement for relative soft geomaterials.
4.2 Resilient Modulus
Resilient modulus of subgrade, field-mixed FASM, and laboratory-mix FASM at the USH 12 site are shown in Fig. 3a. These Mr
correspond to a deviator stress of 21 kPa, which represents typical
conditions within the base course of a pavement structure
(Trzebiatowski et al. 2004). As observed for CBR, there is no
systematic variation in Mr along the alignment. Comparison of the
Mr for subgrade and fly ash stabilized subgrade in Fig. 3a indicates
that adding fly ash increased the Mr appreciably. The Mr of the
existing subgrade ranges between 34 and 42 MPa (mean 5
38 MPa), whereas the field-mix FASM had Mr between 60 and
129 MPa (mean 5 88 MPa) and the laboratory-mix FASM had Mr
ranging between 115 and 167 (mean 5 139 MPa). As with CBR, Mr
of the field-mix FASM is lower (37%, on average) and more
variable than the Mr of the laboratory-mix FASM.
Box plots showing the distribution of Mr of pavement materials,
field-mix FASM, laboratory-mix FASM at four of the sites are
shown in Fig. 3b. Adding fly ash increases the Mr of the pavement
materials at each site, a comparable amount (23 times) at each
site. However, the actual Mr of the stabilized material depended on
the material type. For example, the Mr of the clayey subgrade at
STH 32 increased from 14 MPa to 46 MPa, on average. In contrast,
the mean Mr of the field-mix SRSG at Chisago (153 MPa) is
markedly higher than the mean Mr SRPM at Waseca (78 MPa), and
both the SRPM and SRSG have higher Mr than the clayey
subgrades.
As with CBR, Mr of the field mix FASM is lower, on average,
than Mr of the laboratory-mix FASM. The exception was the
Chisago site, where the Mr of the field mix SRSG was higher, on
average, than the Mr of the laboratory-mix SRSG.
Ratio of Mr of field-mix FASM over averaged Mr of unstabilized
materials at the three sites is shown as a function of Mr of
unstabilized materials in Fig. 3c. Similar to the pattern in the CBR
ratio, the lower Mr of unstabilized materials corresponds to higher
ratio of field-mix stabilized Mr over unstabilized Mr. In contrast,
the higher unstabilized Mr corresponds to lower increasing ratio

Li et al. / Coal Combustion and Gasification Products 1 (2009)

Fig. 2. CBR of pavement materials and fly ash stabilized materials (laboratorymix and field-mix) after 7 d of curing: (a) at Chisago site, (b) box plot, and (c)
ratio of CBR of FASM over averaged CBR of unstabilized materials at five sites.
The solid symbol is the mean value, and the error bar is the standard deviation.

with fly ash stabilization. For example, the ratio is in the average of
2 for the fly ash stabilized RPM at the Waseca.
4.3 Unconfined Compressive Strengths
Unconfined compressive strengths (qu) of the subgrade and fieldmixed FASM at the STH 60 is shown in Fig. 4a. There is no systematic

47

Fig. 3. Resilient modulus of pavement materials and fly ash stabilized materials
(laboratory-mix and field-mix) after 14 d of curing: (a) at USH 12 site at four
sites, (b) box plot, and (c) ratio of Mr of FASM over averaged Mr of unstabilized
materials. All resilient moduli are at deviator stress of 21 kPa.

variation in qu of the FASM along the alignment, suggesting that the

variability in the qu is more likely due to heterogeneity in the material
rather than systematic variation in site conditions or construction
methods. The qu of the unstabilized subgrade is in average of 121 kPa
and the field-mix FASM has qu between 254 kPa and 368 kPa (mean
5 311 kPa). Thus, fly ash stabilization increased the qu appreciably

48

Li et al. / Coal Combustion and Gasification Products 1 (2009)

Chisago site. The centerline in the box corresponds to the median

(50th percentile), the outer edges of the box correspond to the 25th
and 75th percentiles, and the whiskers correspond to the 10th and
90th percentiles of the qu. Fly ash stabilization increased the qu of
the pavement materials at all six sites. qu of the fine-grained
subgrade soils at the Scenic Edge, STH 60, STH 32, and USH 12
increased from 90 kPa130 kPa before stabilization to 160 kPa
500 kPa after stabilization, on average.
The field-mix qu was 43% lower, on average, than the qu of the
laboratory-mix FASM in the three sites, except the field-mix SRSG
qu was higher than the qu of the laboratory-mix LRSG at the
Chisago. As similar reasons to the CBR, the more uniform
distribution of fly ash and less residual inter-particulate repulsion
in the fly ash samples cause more improvement of qu in the
laboratory-mixed FASM. There is only one data point for the qu of
laboratory-mix LRSG at the Chisago, which is not enough to
explain the reason of lower qu of laboratory-mix LRSG.
Ratio of qu of field-mix FASM over averaged qu of unstabilized
materials at the three sites is shown as a function of qu of
unstabilized materials in Fig. 4c. The lower qu of unstabilized
materials corresponds to higher ratio of field-mix stabilized qu over
unstabilized qu. For example, the ratio is in the average of 3.3 for
the fly ash stabilized subgrade at the Scenic Edge.
5. Conclusions
Six field sites have been described where Class C and offspecification fly ash were used to stabilize soft clay soil, asphaltic
recycled pavement material (RPM), and road-surface gravel (RSG).
The fly ash stabilized pavement materials were used to create
working platforms or stabilized base for construction of flexible and
rigid pavements. California bearing ratio (CBR), resilient modulus
(Mr), and unconfined compression strength (qu) tests were conducted
on the pavement materials alone and on fly-ash stabilized materials
(FASM) mixed in the field and laboratory to evaluate how addition
of fly ash improved the bearing resistance and stiffness.
The FASM had significantly higher CBR, Mr, and qu than the
pavement materials, which suggests that the FASM should be
beneficial in terms of increasing pavement capacity and service
life. However, the CBR, Mr , and qu of most FASM mixed in the
field were lower than those for FASM mixed in the laboratory (30
66% lower for CBR, 2552% lower for Mr, 43% lower for qu in
average). Similar biases between mixtures prepared in the
laboratory and field have been observed by others and need to
be considered when pavement design is based on data obtained by
testing mixtures blended in the laboratory.
6. Acknowledgement

Fig. 4. Unconfined compressive strength of pavement materials and fly ash

stabilized materials (laboratory-mix and field-mix) after 14 d of curing: (a) at STH
60 site, (b) box plot at six sites, and (c) ratio of qu of FASM over averaged qu of
unstabilized materials.

Box plots in Fig. 4b show the distribution of qu of the pavement

materials, field-mix FASM, and laboratory-mix FASM at Scenic
Edge site and at the STH 60 site. The distributions of qu of the
pavement materials and field-mix FASM at STH 32, USH 12, and
Waseca sites are shown in Fig. 4b. There is no qu data for RSG at

Financial support for this study was provided by the Wisconsin

Department of Transportation, the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, and the Recycled Materials Resource Center
(RMRC). The opinions and conclusions described in this paper are
those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or
policies of the sponsors.
7. References
ACAA, 2005. Coal Combustion Product Production and Use Survey, American
Coal Ash Association, Colorado.
ACAA, 2008. Soil Stabilization and Pavement Recycling with Self-Cementing
Coal Fly Ash, American Coal Ash Association, Colorado.

Li et al. / Coal Combustion and Gasification Products 1 (2009)

Bin-Shafique, S., Edil, T.B., Benson, C.H. and Senol, A., 2004. Incorporating a flyash stabilised layer into pavement design. Geotechnical Engineering,
Institution of Civil Engineers, United Kingdom, 157(GE4), 239249.
Bergman, L.A., 2007. Fly Ash Subgrade Stabilization and PPC Optimization:
Washburn Municipal Airport; Case Study 02; Coal Combustion Products
Partnership. www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/cases/studies.htm.
Edil, T.B., Acosta, H.A. and Benson, C.H., 2006. Stabilizing soft fine-grained soils
with fly ash. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 18(2), 283294.
Edil, T.B., Benson, C.H., Bin-Shafique, S.M., Tanyu, B.F., Kim, W. and Senol, A.,
2002. Field evaluation of construction alternatives for roadways over soft
subgrade. Transportation Research Record, No. 1786, 3648.
EPA, 2005. Using of Coal Ash in Highway Construction: A Guide to Benefits and
Impacts, EPA-530-K-05-002.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2003. Fly Ash Facts for Highway
Engineers, FHWA-IF-03-019.
Ferguson, G., 1993. Use of Self-Cementing Fly Ashes as a Soil Stabilization
Agent; ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 36; American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1993.
Hatipoglu, B., Edil, T.B., and Benson, C.H., 2008. Evaluation of base prepared from
road surface gravel stabilized with fly ash, GeoCongress 2008: Geotechnics of
Waste Management and Remediation (Khire, M.V., Alshawabkeh, A.N.,
and Reddy, K.R. eds), Geotechnical Special Publication 177, ASCE, 288295.
Li, L., Benson, C.H., Edil, T.B., and Hatipoglu, B., 2008. Sustainable construction
case history: Fly ash stabilization of recycled asphalt pavement material.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 26, 177187.
Li, L., Tastan, O., Benson, C.H., and Edil, T.B., 2009. Field evaluation of fly ash
stabilized subgrade in US 12 Highway, Contemporary Topics in Ground
Modification, Problem Soils, and Geo-Support, (Iskander, M., Laefer, D.F.,
Hussein, M.H. eds), Geotechnical Special Publication 187, ASCE, 385392.

49

Li, L., Benson, C.H., Edil, T. B., Hatipoglu, B., and Tastan, O., 2007, Evaluation of
Recycled Asphalt Pavement Material Stabilized with Fly Ash, Soil and
Materials Inputs for Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design, (Tutumluer E.,
Tashman, L., Ceylan H. eds), Geotechnical Special Publication 169, ASCE, 110.
Mackiewicz, S.M., and Ferguson, E.G., 2005. Stabilization of Soil with Self
Cementing Coal Ashes. In Proceedings of the World of Coal Ash (WOCA);
Lexington, KY, April 2005.
Misra, A., Upadhyaya, S., and Biswas, D., 2003. Utilization of Silo Stored and
Ponded Class C Fly Ash in Road Bases. In Proceedings: 2003 International
Ash Utilization Symposium; University of Kentucky Center for Applied
Energy Research, Lexington, KY, 2003.
Misra, A, 2005. Cold In-Place Recycling of Asphalt Pavements Using SelfCementing Fly Ash: Analysis of Pavement Performance and Structure
Number; Project 05-CBRC-M09; West Virginia Water Research Institute
Combustion Byproducts Research Consortium: Morgantown, WV, 2005.
Thomas, Z.G., and White, D. J., 2003. Engineering Properties of Self-Cementing
Fly Ash Subgrade Mixtures. In Proceedings of the 2003 International Ash
Utilization Symposium; University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy
Research. Lexington, KY, 2003.
Trzebiatowski, B., Edil, T.B. and Benson, C.H., 2004. Case study of subgrade
stabilization using fly ash: State Highway 32, Port Washington, Wisconsin.
Beneficial Reuse of Waste Materials in Geotechnical and Transportation
Applications, (Aydilek A., and Wartman, J. eds.), GSP No. 127. ASCE, Reston,
VA, 123136.
White, D.J., Harrington, D., and Thomas, Z., 2005. Fly Ash Soil Stabilization for
Non-Uniform Subgrade Soils: Volume 1 Engineering Properties and
Construction Guidelines; Iowa Highway Research Board Report IHRB Project
TR-461, FHWA Project 4; Iowa State University Center for Transportation
Research and Education, April 2005.