Chat Stabilization Report 2005

CEMENTITIOUS STABILIZATION OF RAW CHAT FOR
ROADWAY BASE APPLICATION

______________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Prepared by:

Rajul Teredesai
Musharraf Zaman
Gerald A. Miller
Robert Nairn
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science
University of Oklahoma
Norman, Oklahoma 73019

Submitted to:

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677

JULY 13, 2005 (Revised: October 5, 2005)

University of Oklahoma, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science

Cementitious Stabilization of Raw Chat for Roadway Base Application

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would first like to express our sincere appreciation to the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) for providing funding for this project.
Specifically, we would like to thank Dr. Mary Jane Calvey, Tar Creek Supervisor,
ODEQ, and Mr. Dennis Datin and Mr. David Cates, Land Protection Division, ODEQ for
their valuable comments and suggestions during the course of this study.
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to Mr. Naji Khoury, Doctoral
Candidate and Professor Joakim G. Laguros, both from the school of Civil Engineering
and Environmental Science (CEES), University of Oklahoma, for their guidance, advice,
and suggestions throughout the course of this study. Finally, we would like to extend our
thanks to Dr. Thomas Landers, Interim Dean, College of Engineering and Dr. Robert
Knox, Director of CEES for their roles on the Tar Creek projects.



ABSTRACT

This study demonstrated utilization of raw chat from the Kenoyer North Pile in
roadway base applications by stabilizing it with class C fly ash (CFA) or cement kiln dust
(CKD). Raw chat was stabilized with 5%, 10% and 15% CFA or CKD and tested for
unconfined compressive strength (UCS). The results showed a significant gain in strength
(UCS) of raw chat due to stabilization. The UCS of raw chat, stabilized with 10% and
15% CFA was in the range of 500 psi to 700 psi. The corresponding strength of CKD-
stabilized chat was much lower, in the range of 100 psi to 300 psi. Since raw chat does
not have any particles greater than 3/8 inch, it does not satisfy the gradation requirements
for an aggregate base, as specified by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation
(ODOT). Thus, a second batch of tests was performed in which limestone (40%) was
blended with raw chat (60%) and the blend was stabilized with either CFA or CKD. The
UCS of the stabilized chat-limestone blend was higher than stabilized chat without any
limestone. Scanning electron microscopy tests were conducted to examine the reaction
products due to stabilization. Effect of curing time on the strength gain was also
examined. Overall, it was observed that raw chat, can be stabilized with either CFA or
CKD and used as a roadway base. This study was exploratory in nature; a more
systematic study is currently underway as part of the Oklahoma Plan for Tar Creek.
Results of that study will be presented in a future report.



TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................3
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Scope.................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Report Format ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Literature Review...................................................................................................................6
3.0 Materials and Sources ............................................................................................................8
3.1 Chat ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Limestone.............................................................................................................................. 9
3.3 Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) ..................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Class C Fly Ash.................................................................................................................. 10
4.0 Experimental Methods ..........................................................................................................14
4.1 Moisture-Density Relationship ........................................................................................... 14
4.2 Sample Preparation............................................................................................................. 14
4.3 Field Testing (Dynamic Cone Penetration Test) ................................................................ 14
4.4 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test ............................................................................. 15
4.5 Scanning Electron Microscopy........................................................................................... 15
5.0 Discussion of Results ..............................................................................................................20
5.1 Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) Test.............................................................................. 20
5.3 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Test.................................................................. 20
6.0 Flexible Pavement Design......................................................................................................29
6.1 Design Parameters............................................................................................................... 29
6.2 Design Procedure ................................................................................................................ 29
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................................................33
7.1 Concluding Remarks........................................................................................................... 33
7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 34
8.0 References...............................................................................................................................36
Appendix.......................................................................................................................................38



1

LIST OF EQUATIONS

log (CBR) = 2.81 - 1.321 log (DCP) (Equation 5.1)(18)
SN = a
1
D
1
+ a
2
D
2
(Equation 6.1)(29)



2

LIST OF SYMBOLS

CBR California Bearing Ratio
CFA Class C Fly Ash
CKD Cement Kiln Dust
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetration
ESAL Equivalent Single Axle Load
ICI Incremental Cone Index
LOI Loss On Ignition
SEM Scanning Electron Microscopy
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
?PSI Change in the Serviceability Index


3

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Tri-State Mining District in northeast Oklahoma, southeast Kansas and southwest
Missouri was the site of substantial zinc and lead ore extraction starting in the late 19
th
century.
The ore deposits were found at depths between 100 to 400 feet in the Boone Formation, a near-
surface aquifer (Fowler, 1943). Peak production occurred in the early 1920s when the mines
accounted for over 55% of the total zinc production in the country. About 70% of the mill feed
was discarded as coarse chat, while the remaining finer chat was discarded into mine tailings
ponds during the years of active mining (Gray and Stroup, 1943). Approximately 500 million
tons of mine tailings were created during active mining and milling. More than 75% of the mine
tailings have been removed, while about 100 million tons remain (USEPA, 1995). Thus, about
100 million tons of chat is presently stockpiled on the surface of the Tar Creek Superfund Site in
large piles. In its bulk form, chat contains elevated levels of lead, zinc and cadmium which raises
raising potentially serious human health and ecological concerns.
Cementitious stabilization has been widely used in pavement construction. It mainly consists
of mixing stabilizing agents such as fly ash, cement, and kiln dust with aggregates or soil. In the
presence of water, these materials react to form cementitious products that are responsible for the
enhancement of engineering properties pertaining to strength and stiffness. The degree of
enhancement in properties and the mechanisms associated with stabilization can differ from one
stabilizing agent to another (Zaman et al., 1998). For example, cement kiln dust (CKD)
generated during the Portland cement manufacturing process and class C fly ash (CFA) produced


4

in coal- fired thermal power plants exhibit different performances when used in stabilizing
aggregate bases. Several studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of CKD, and/or
CFA on the performance of stabilized soils and aggregates (Laguros and Zenieris, 1987;
Baghdadi et al., 1995; Pandey, 1996; Zhu, 1998; Miller et al., 1999; Hughes, 2002; Khoury and
Zaman, 2002; Khoury et al., 2004).
Limited studies have addressed the influence of such stabilizing agents on the engineering
properties of raw chat. Thus, this study was undertaken to evaluate the performance of raw chat
stabilized with CKD and CFA with the objective of using the product as a base course of a test
road in Miami, Oklahoma. The preliminary results of this exploratory study are presented in this
report. A more systematic laboratory study on chat stabilization is currently underway as part of
the Oklahoma Plan for Tar Creek; results of that study will be presented in a future report.
1.2 Scope
This exploratory study was pursued to examine the potential of using a stabilized chat base
for paving projects in the Tar Creek region. In view of the limited time schedule and budget,
only bench-scale tests were performed to generate data pertaining to pavement design.
This study was divided in two cases: Case I, and Case II. Case I involved the evaluation of
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of chat stabilized with 5%, 10%, and 15% of either CFA
or CKD. In the second phase, Case II, the UCS of a chat- limestone blend stabilized with 5%,
10%, and 15% of CFA or CKD was evaluated. In both cases, a number of specimens were
prepared at near optimum moisture content and maximum dry density. After compaction,
specimens were cured in a moist room for a specific period, namely 14 and 28 days prior to


5

testing for UCS. It is important to note that in Case II, the addition of limestone aggregate with
raw chat helped satisfy the gradation requirements for a Type A aggregate base, as recommended
by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) specifications (ODOT 1999). No such
gradation requirements were met in the first case (Case I) because the goal was to maximize the
use of raw chat in the stabilized base.
1.3 Report Format
Following the background and scope of this study discussed in Section 1, Section 2 presents
a short literature review. An overview of aggregate sources and their engineering properties is
given in Section 3. Section 4 includes the experimental methods, including moisture-density
tests, sample preparation procedure; UCS tests, and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
techniques. A discussion of the results of the dynamic cone penetration (DCP) tests, unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) tests and SEM micrographs are presented in Section 5. Section 6
includes the design of a typical flexible pavement based on the data obtained from this study,
followed by the conclusions and recommendations for further studies in Section 7.


6

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Cementitious stabilization is widely used to transform a weak or unstable road base into a
structurally sound foundation. Previous studies (Laguros and Zenieris, 1987; Baghdadi et al.,
1995; Pandey, 1996; Zhu, 1998; Miller et al., 1999; Khoury and Zaman, 2002; Khoury et. al.,
2004) have shown that cementitious stabilization can significantly improve the engineering
properties such as strength and modulus of an aggregate base. It also has been found to improve
resistance to fracture, fatigue, permanent deformation and the damaging effects of moisture. For
example, Laguros and Zenieris (1987) and MRS (1989) examined the strength characteristics of
five different types of aggregate bases stabilized with fly ash. The UCS of specimens with 35%
fly ash increased from 308 psi (for 28-day cured samples) to 955 psi (for 90-day cured samples).
In a related study, Pandey (1996) reported that unconfined compressive strengths (UCS) of
the aggregate specimens cured for 7 days were approximately three to seven times higher than
those of the raw aggregate specimens; modulus of elasticity values also exhibited increases due
to stabilization. In a recent study, Khoury (2001) reported that a significant increase in resilient
modulus (Mr) can be achieved with CFA stabilization. According to Khoury (2001) ten percent
CFA could be considered the optimum amount of stabilizing agent for a limestone aggregate in
Oklahoma.
According to Zhu (1998), stabilization of aggregates with 15% CKD can yield an increase in
resilient modulus of 120%, over that of raw aggregate. CKD stabilization, however, has little
effect on the flexural strength. As per Zhu (1998), crystals formed during the hydration process
of CKD stabilization contribute to the formation of cementing particles as an integral body,


7

while filling up the intracluster voids of fine particles and minimizing possible elastic
deformation of the aggregate. Also according to Zhu (1998), the layer coefficient, an important
pavement design parameter, the 28-day cured aggregate samples stabilized with 15% CKD was
found to be at least two times higher than the layer coefficient of raw aggregate samples.
Hughes (2002) conducted a laboratory study to evaluate the feasibility of integrating chat and
fly ash into a roadway subgrade. A number of laboratory tests were performed on stabilized
specimens. Among these tests was the UCS test. Aggregates passing the US Std. No. 4 sieve
were used to determine the moisture-density relationship and to prepare Harvard Miniature
specimens developed by Wilson (1950). The apparatus consists of a small cylindrical mold and a
tamper employing a spring- loaded plunger. Results showed that the UCS increased with the
percentages of fly ash. At 14% CFA, the UCS value was approximately 28 psi compared to
approximately 8 psi for raw specimens. It was also found that soaked specimens had lower UCS
values compared to specimens without soaking.
Another study by Khoury et al. (2004) showed that CFA stabilization enhances the flexural
properties of a stabilized aggregate base. It was reported that the flexural strength values of 10%
CFA stabilized specimens cured for 1 hour, 3 days, and 28 days were higher compared to
unbound raw specimens; raw specimens failed under their self weight, and the flexural strength
was considered negligible for these specimens.


8

3.0 MATERIALS AND SOURCES
3.1 Chat
Raw chat from the Kenoyer North Pile, located north of Miami, Ottawa County, Oklahoma
was used in this study. Figure 3.1 shows a photographic view of the Kenoyer raw chat pile. The
physical properties are summarized in Table 3.1. The L.A. abrasion value is approximately 18%.
According to Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), an aggregate base with an L.A.
abrasion value less than 40 is considered a good aggregate and can be used in a pavement
applications. In addition, the aggregate durability of chat is approximately 78% compared to the
minimum value of 40% recommended by ODOT.
The gradation of the raw chat used in this project is shown in Figure 3.2, along with the
gradation curves for a Type A aggregate base in accordance with the ODOT specifications. The
maximum aggregate size of chat from this source is approximately 3/8

inch. The maximum
aggregate size according to ODOT specifications is 1.5 inches. Thus, raw chat does not meet the
gradation requirements for a Type A aggregate base on the coarse end. Also, the chat does not
have a sufficient percentage of particles passing the US No. 200 sieve to satisfy the ODOT
requirements for a type A aggregate base.
The mineralogical properties are summarized in Table 3.2. From Table 3.2, one can
conclude that chat (retained on the US No. 50 sieve) contains about 73% silica, 11% dolomite,
17% calcium carbonate (CaCO
3
), and 1% hemimorphite. On the other hand, chat passing the US
No. 200 sieve has a lower amount of SiO
2
(approximately 65%) and CaCO
3
(7%), and a higher
amount of dolomite (18%), and hemimorphite (10%).


9

3.2 Limestone
Limestone is one of the most abundantly available sedimentary rocks for road construction in
Oklahoma. It is primarily composed of calcium carbonate or a combination of calcium and
magnesium carbonates with varying amounts of impurities, the most common of which are silica
and alumina (Boynton, 1980). Vinita, a limestone-type aggregate, was used in this study to
modify the gradation of raw chat so that the final blend met the ODOT requirement for a Type A
aggregate base gradation. Bulk samples were collected from the Vinita Rock Company, near
Vinita, Oklahoma. A summary of the most important aggregate properties is presented in Table
3.3. The L.A. abrasion value for limestone is 23% , which is higher than that of chat. The
aggregate durability, on the other hand, is slightly lower (71%) than that of raw chat (78%).
Additional physical properties for the Vinita aggregate are presented in Wasiuddin et al. (2005).
3.3 Cement Kiln Dust (CKD)
CKD produced by Lafarge Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma was used in this study. CKD is a
by-product material generated while manufacturing Portland cement. The silica, alumina, and
ferric oxide, (SAF) amount is approximately 20%. The total calcium oxide for this CKD is 48%,
of which approximately 7% is in free form. The loss on ignition (LOI) value is 26. These
properties were provided by the manufacturer. Additional chemical and physical properties are
presented in Table 3.4.


10

3.4 Class C Fly Ash
CFA was also provided by Lafarge Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma. CFA is produced from
the combustion of coal in an electric utility plant. CFA used in this study has an SAF content of
approximately 65% and a calcium oxide (lime, CaO) content of approximately 24%; the free
amount of lime in CFA was not provided and no attempts were made to determine the free lime
amount. Loss of ignition (LOI) is approximately 0.16. Table 3.4 presents a summary of
additional physical and chemical properties.



11

Figure 3.1 Photographic View of the Kenoyer Chat Pile Near, Miami, Oklahoma

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size in mm
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
Type A Lower Type A Upper Raw Chat

Figure 3.2 Gradation of Raw Chat and Type A Aggregate Base


12

Table 3.1 Physical Properties of Chat (Wasiuddin et al., 2005)
TESTS VALUE REQUIREMENT
Coarse Aggregate Angularity 100% Min. 95% for Surface and
Min. 80% for Base
Fine Aggregate Angularity 46% Min. 45% for Surface and
Min. 40% for Base
Flat or Elongated Particles <5% Max. 10%
Sand Equivalent 86% Min. 45%
L.A. Abrasion 18% Max. 40%
Aggregate Durability Index 78% Min. 40%
Insoluble Residue 98.33% Min. 40%

Table 3.2 Mineralogical Properties of Chat (Wasiuddin et al., 2005)
COMPOUNDS Retained on No. 50 Sieve Passing No. 200 Sieve
% Quartz (SiO
2
) 73 65
% Dolomite
[CaMg(CO
3
)
2
]
11 18
% Calcite
(CaCO
3
)
15 7
% Hemimorphite
Zn
4
Si
2
O
7
(OH)
2
.H
2
O
1 10

Table 3.3 Chat and Limestone Properties (Wasiuddin et al. 2005)
PROPERTIES Limestone Chat
L.A. abrasion value 23 18
Aggregate durability 71 78
Insoluble residue (%) 25 25



13

Table 3.4 Chemical and Physical Properties of CKD and CFA
Chemical Composition (%) CKD CFA
SiO
2
14.66 36.55
Al
2
O
3
3.34 21.45
Fe
2
O
3
1.38 6.19
CaO 47.98 24.23
MgO 1.83 5.37
SO
3
2.78 1.17
Na
2
O 0.22 1.42
K
2
O 1.26 --
Na
2
O eq 1.04 --
LOI 26.03 0.16
Free Lime 7.60 -



14

4.0 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
4.1 Moisture-Density Relationship
The optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) of raw chat and
chat-limestone blend (with or without stabilizing agent) were determined in accordance with the
ASTM D 1557 test method. A mechanical rammer was used for compaction. A summary of the
OMC and MDD values is presented in Table 4.1. Results from Table 4.1 were used to prepare
the specimens for unconfined compressive strength test at near OMC and MDD. An increase in
both dry density and OMC, have been noticed compared to the corresponding value of the raw
chat, except for 15% CFA. The OMC for 15% CFA decreased approximately 0.5% compared to
the corresponding OMC of raw chat.
4.2 Sample Preparation
A total of 36 specimens were molded at near OMC and MDD. The test matrix for this study
is given in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. Specimens were prepared in accordance with a laboratory method
recommended by Chen (1994) and modified by Khoury (2001). Specimens were molded in a
cylindrical (6 in x 12 in) mold. After compaction, specimens were cured in a moist chamber
having a controlled temperature of 70
o
F and a relative humidity of 95% ( 2.5%). It is important
to note that stabilized raw chat specimens were cured for 14 and 28 days, while the stabilized
chatlimestone specimens were only cured for 28 days.
4.3 Field Testing (Dynamic Cone Penetration Test)
Dynamic cone penetration (DCP) tests were performed at the proposed test road site shown


15

in Figure 4.1 to estimate California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the existing subgrade soil. The DCP
test was performed at 12 selected locations, at approximately 1000 foot intervals along the length
of the test road. The CBR values obtained from the DCP tests were used in pavement design
discussed in Section 6. Test borings were done at eight selected locations where DCP tests were
conducted to analyze the existing soil strata. Subgrade soils from these borings were collected
for determination of moisture content, moisture-density relationship and index properties. Figure
4.2 shows a photographic view of the dynamic cone penetration test. The DCP data from this
field testing are summarized in graphical form in the Appendix. A discussion of these results is
included in Section 5.
4.4 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
The UCS tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM D 5102 test method. Tests
were performed on specimens stabilized with different percentages of CKD or CFA and cured
for specific periods of time, as shown in Table 4.2 and 4.3. Attempts were made to perform the
UCS test on raw chat specimens molded at near OMC and MDD. However, due to lackof
cohesion, these specimens failed under their self weights and the UCS values were considered
negligible.
4.5 Scanning Electron Microscopy
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) tests were employed in this study to visually observe
the microstructural development in the matrix of chat-CFA or chat-CKD mix, with or without
limestone. The SEM results were useful in identifying the reaction products in the mix due to
different additive types (CFA or CKD). Broken samples from UCS were used to collect a small


16

but representative amount of material for SEM testing. The collected materials were mounted on
the copper stub (sample holder) with the help of carbon paint. The specimens were then coated
with a thin layer of gold palladium to provide surface conductivity. A Tecnics sputter coater
operating under 40 millitor vacuum and 5 milliampere current was used for this purpose. Argon
was used as the ionizing gas. The coated specimens were then placed in a JEOL JSM 880
Scanning Electron Microscope operating at 15 kV. Digital images, called micrographs, were
taken and used to identify the reaction products.


17

Table 4.1 A Summary for Optimum Moisture Content and Maximum Dry Density
MATERIALS OMC (%) MDD (pcf)
Raw Chat
Raw Chat 6.0 128
Chat with CKD
Raw Chat + 5% CKD 7.2 133
Raw Chat + 10% CKD 7.7 137
Raw Chat + 15% CKD 8.1 136
Chat with CFA
Raw Chat + 5% CFA 6.2 136
Raw Chat + 10% CFA 6.6 138
Raw Chat + 15% CFA 5.5 137
Chat-Limestone
Raw Chat + Limestone 5.7 129

Table 4.2 Test Matrix for Raw Chat Stabilized with CFA and CKD

Additive
Type

% Chat
%
Additive
by
weight
Curing
period
(days)
No. of
Samples
14 2
95 5
28 2
14 2
90 10
28 2
14 2
CFA
85 15
28 2
14 2
95 5
28 2
14 2
90 10
28 2
14 2
CKD
85 15
28 2



18

Table 4.3 Test Matrix for Chat-Limestone Blend Stabilized CKD and CFA
Additive
Type
% Chat
%
Additive
by
weight
Curing
period
(days)
No. of
Samples
60 5 2
55 10 2 CFA
40 15 2
60 5 2
55 10 2
CKD
40 15
28
2


19

Figure 4.1 Location of The Test Road Site Near Miami, Oklahoma

DCP Test in Progress

Proposed Test Road Section
Figure 4.2 Dynamic Cone Penetration Test at The Test Road Site
Road E030
Test Road


20

5.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
5.1 Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) Test
Limited field testing was done at the test road site on May 23, 2004, which included DCP
testing at twelve selected locations. Also, eight boring logs were performed for soil classification
purposes. The locations of the eight boring logs are listed in Table 5.1. A description of soil
types from the boring logs is presented in Table 5.2. The incremental cone index (ICI) is the
amount of penetration in mm per blow and is usually plotted along the depth. The ICI results are
summarized graphically in Appendix I. It should be noted that a higher value of ICI indicates a
softer soil stratum. The ICI values were used to calculate the California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
using the relationship
log (CBR) = 2.81 - 1.321 log (DCP).Equation 5. 1
as suggested by the ODOT specifications. The CBR is plotted as a percentage versus depth in
Appendix I. The average CBR was found to be 21%. The subgrade stability is generally related
to the CBR value. This CBR value and the results of the UCS tests were used to estimate
parameters required for the pavement design as described in Section 6.
5.3 Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Test
The UCS values for chat stabilized with CFA are graphically illustrated in Figure 5.1.
Overall, the UCS increased as the percentages of CFA increased from 5% to 15%. The degree of
increase varied with the amount of CFA. For example, the average UCS value for 15% CFA
specimens is significantly (four to seven times) higher than the specimens with 5% CFA and


21

cured for 28 days. This observation is consistent with previous studies (Zaman et al., 1998). In
Zaman et al. (1998), however, the magnitude of increase was much lower and the aggregate type
was different. From Figure 5.1, one can also see that 28-day cured specimens have higher
strengths than 14-day cured specimens. For instance, specimens stabilized with 15% CFA and
cured for 28 days have an average UCS value of 758 psi compared to 296 psi for specimens
cured for 14 days. This observation is also consistent with the results reported by Zaman et al.
(1999) for different type of aggregates.
Figure 5.2 shows the variation of UCS values with the percentage of CKD. The UCS
increased approximately 500% as the percentage of CKD increased from 5% to 15%, for
specimens cured for 28 days. The effect of curing time on CKD specimens is also presented in
Figure 5.2. The UCS values increased with curing time, as expected. For example, the UCS
values for 15%-CKD specimens cured for 28 days is approximately 284 psi compared to 171 psi
for specimens cured for 14 days.
From Figures 5.1 and 5.2 one can conclude that although both the CKD and CFA stabilized
specimens exhibited the same trends; the CFA-stabilized specimens have higher strengths. From
the SEM micrographs, it is believed that more cementitious products were formed in the CFA-
stabilized specimens than the CKD-stabilized specimens. Since raw chat specimens without any
stabilizing agents could not be tested because of lack of cohesion and sample integrity, no UCS
results are available for raw chat.
The results of the UCS tests on chat- limestone specimens, in the presence of stabilizing
agents (CFA or CKD), are graphically illustrated in Figure 5.3. The UCS values exhibited an
increase with the increase in CFA percentage. The average UCS values are approximately 150


22

psi, 275 psi, and 760 psi, for 5% CFA, 10% CFA, and 15% CFA specimens, respectively. As for
CKD specimens, an increase in UCS values was observed when the CKD amount was increased
from 5 % to 10%, beyond which a reduction occurred. No attempts were made to mold
additional specimens to justify such behavior.
5.4 Scanning Electron Microscopy
SEM tests were performed to evaluate the changes in microstructure and to visually examine
the hydration products due to CFA and CKD stabilization. Tests were performed on selective
specimens. Figure 5.4 shows a micrograph of raw chat. These materials do not have any definite
shape but they are generally very angular. The effect of 5% and 15% CKD on the micro-
structural development is illustrated in Figures 5.5 and 5.6. Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show the crystal
formation around the chat and limestone particles as a result of the hydration of CKD. Images of
samples containing chat, limestone and CFA are presented in Figures 5.7 and 5.8. These figures
show the cementing mastic formation in the mix having 5% and 15% CFA. Partially reacted fly
ash can be seen in each figure. The figures show the spherical shape of the fly ash particles.
Needle like crystal structures are also shown in these figures. The crystals create an intricate
structure which binds and envelops the chat particles and partially reacted fly ash particles,
resulting in strength development.
The SEM confirms hydration of CFA and CKD in the chat matrix, which help explain the
results obtained from the UCS test and reinforce the assumption that increase in strength was the
result of hydration of CKD and CFA.



23

Table 5.1 Locations of DCP Tests and Boring Logs at The Test Road Site
Location DCP Borings Chainage(ft)
1 1 B1 150
2 B2 1150
2
3 - 1150
3 4 B3 2150
4 5 B4 3150
5 6 B5 4150
6 7 B6 5150
7 8 - 6150
8 9 B7 7150
9 10 - 8150
10 11 B8 9150
11 12 - 10140

Note: All the distances were measured from the west end of the road.


24

Table 5.2 Description of Soil Profiles from Boring Logs
Soil Profiles in
Depth (in)
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8
0
1
2
3
Silty
coarse
gravel
4
Silty fine to
coarse
sand
(moist),chat
(SM)
"Chat"
silty
sand,
traces
of fine
gravel,
damp,
brown
5
6
Silty
sand
7
Grey
Brown
moist silty
clay (CL)
8
Brown and
silty clay
(CL) damp
Brown
clayey
silt
Brown
grey
clayey
silt,
damp
(CL-
ML)
Brown
grey
clayey
silt,
damp
(CL-ML)
9
10
11
12
Reddish
brown
mottles of
clay (CH)
moist and
plastic
Brown to
brown
grey
sandy silt
(SM),
traces of
clay "
weathered
chat"
13
14
Dark
Brown
clayey
silt
15
Grey
Clayey Silt
(CL-ML)
16
Brown
mottles
(CH) moist
and plastic
Reddish
Brown
Clay
17
Grey
brown
mottle
of clay
, moist
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Brown
mottle of
clay (CH)
moist and
plastic
Moist
Fat
Clay
Grey
Clayey Silt
(more
clayey)(CL-
ML)
Red-
brown
mottled
clay
(CH fat
clay)
damp
Orange-
brown
mottled
clay
(CH fat
clay)
damp
Grey
brown fat
clay,
damp to
moist
Brown
silty
clay
(CL),
moist,
more
clayey
at 19" ,
mottled
red at
23"
light
brown
clayey
silt,
traces
of
gravel
Chainage (ft) 150 1150 2150 3150 4150 5150 7150 9150
Notes:
Distance is measured from the west end of the test road
The soil classification was performed in accordance with Unified Classification System
explained by ASTM D2487.
CL- Low plasticity clay CH- High plasticity clay
ML-Low plasticity silt SM- Silty Sand



25

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20
% CFA
U
C
S
,

p
s
i
14 days 28 days

Figure 5.1 Variation of UCS Values with Time and Percentages of CFA

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5 10 15 20
% CKD
U
C
S
,

p
s
i
14 days 28 days

Figure 5.2 Variation of UCS Values with Time and Percentages of CKD



26

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20
Percentage
U
C
S
,

p
s
i
CFA CKD

Figure 5.3 Variation of UCS of Chat-Limestone Blend with CFA and CKD Percentages

3000x Magnification 10000x Magnification
Figure 5.4 Chat Pan at 3,000x Magnification and 10,000x Magnification



27

Figure 5.5 Chat-Limestone Matrix stabilized with 5% CKD

Figure 5.6 Chat-Limestone Matrix Stabilized with 15% CKD



28

Figure 5.7 Chat-Limestone Matrix Stabilized with 5% CFA

Figure 5.8 Chat-Limestone Matrix Stabilized with 15% CFA


29
6.0 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
The data obtained from the UCS and DCP tests were used to design a flexible
pavement. The AASHTO method of pavement design was used. The design steps are
given by Huang (1993).
6.1 Design Parameters
The proposed test road is a county road. On the basis of existing traffic on the road
and estimated growth in traffic in coming years, the equivalent single axle load (ESAL)
value was assumed as 0.3 million. This is probably a highly conservative estimate,
meaning that the actual ESAL value will probably be much lower. ESAL is a means of
equating various axle loads and configurations to the damage done by a number of
18,000 pound single axles with dual tires on pavements of specified strength over the
design life of the pavement. As recommended by Huang (1993), the Reliability was
considered to be 95% and the Standard Deviation was assumed as 0.35. Change in the
Serviceability Index (?PSI) was assumed to be 2.5. From the DCP test data, the
average value of the CBR was estimated to be 21 using Equation 5.1.
6.2 Design Procedure
Figure 6.1 (Huang 1993) shows a nomograph, also called a design chart, for flexible
pavements, based on the mean value of each input. Using the aforementioned design
input parameters for reliability and overall standard deviation in Figure 6.1, the design
structural number (SN) for the proposed pavement was estimated. Figure 6.2 shows a
correlation chart for estimating the resilient modulus of subbases. For a CBR value of 21,
the modulus of the existing subgrade was estimated to be 13,000 psi. The combined SN


30
was estimated to be 2.4, using Figure 6.1. The modulus of elasticity for asphalt was
assumed to be 350,000 psi, which is a reasonable value in the absence of actual
laboratory/field data. Using the graphical relationship in Figure 6.3, for a modulus value
of 350,000 psi for hot mix asphalt (HMA), the structural coefficient a
1
was estimated to
be 0.4. The nomograph in Figure 6.4 for a cement treated base was used for CFA/CKD
stabilized chat because there is no nomograph available for CFA/CKD stabilized bases.
The layer coefficient for the stabilized base was determined to be 0.14. The (SN) of the
overall pavement was established from the following equation:
SN = a
1
D
1
+ a
2
D
2
..Equation 6. 1
where D
1
and D
2
are thicknesses of surface course and base course, respectively, and a
1

and a
2
are the corresponding layer coefficients. Using a 4- in thick surface course (chat-
asphalt) and a 6- in thick base course (stabilized chat), and the layer coefficients
mentioned above, the SN of the overall pavement was found to be 2.44. This number is
adequate in view of 2.4 which is for a pavement with an estimated ESAL value of 0.3
million.



31

Figure 6.1 Design Chart for Flexible Pavements Based on Mean Values of
Each Input (Huang, 1993)

Figure 6.2 Correlation Chart for Estimating Resilient Modulus of Sub-bases
(Huang, 1993)


32

Figure 6.3 Chart for Estimating Layer Coefficient of Dense-graded Asphalt
Concrete Based on Elastic Modulus (Huang, 1993)

Figure 6.4 Correlation Chart for Estimating Resilient Modulus of Cement Treated
Base Courses (Huang, 1993)


33

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Concluding Remarks
This study was undertaken to evaluate the performance of chat stabilized with fly ash
and cement kiln dust. Specimens were prepared by compaction at near optimum moisture
content and maximum dry density. The moisture-density relationship for raw, and
stabilized chat was established in accordance with the ASTM 1557 test method. After
compaction specimens were cured for 14 and 28 days in a moist room having a controlled
temperature of 71
o
F and a relative humidity of approximately 95%. The unconfined
compressive strength of cylindrical specimens prepared using pile-run chat mixed with
three different percentages (5%, 10%, and 15%) of additives (CFA or CKD) was
determined. Tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM D 5102 test method.
Additional specimens were prepared with chat- limestone blend to meet the gradation
requirements for a roadway base, as recommended by ODOT.
Results from this study showed that the UCS depends on the stabilizing agent,
amount of stabilizing agents, and curing time. The UCS values of CFA specimens
exhibited higher values than the corresponding values of CKD specimens. This is an
indication that more cementitious products were formed in CFA specimens compared to
CKD specimens. Raw chat specimens failed under self weight so no UCS tests could be
conducted.
The effect of curing time on the UCS of stabilized chat was observed on both CKD
and CFA-stabilized specimens. Results showed that the UCS values increased with
curing time.


34
The chat- limestone blend stabilized with CFA exhibited an increase in strength as the
percentages of CFA increased up to 15%. As for CKD, the strength increased with the
increase in CKD amount up to 10%, beyond which a reduction is observed; no attempts
were made to mold up additional specimens to justify such behavior. Also, no efforts
were made to observe the effect of curing time on specimens prepared from chat-
limestone blend stabilized with CFA or CKD.
SEM was used on selective specimens to visually observe the micro-structure
development of cementitious compounds with time and stabilizing agents. The
micrographs showed the presence of crystal formation for chat- limestone specimens
stabilized with with CKD or CFA. The formation of hydration coating and crystal
formation in the specimens is believed to be responsible for the strength gain.
7.2 Recommendations
The preliminary results of this exploratory study are presented in this report. A
more systematic laboratory study on chat stabilization is currently underway as part of
the Oklahoma Plan for Tar Creek; results of that study will be presented in a future
report.
Based on findings from the present study, it is recommended that additional
laboratory tests be performed to determine the resilient modulus of stabilized chat, since,
resilient modulus is a critical parameter for pavement design and better simulates the
field conditions. Permeability of stabilized aggregate base that controls the drainage
should also be addressed in future studies.
It is also recommended that analytical techniques such as X-ray diffraction (XRD),
electron dispersive energy (EDS), among others, be used to identify the cementitious


35
compounds in stabilized chat. Field testing, namely, falling weight deflectometer (FWD),
impulse response (IR), and spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) to identify the
engineering properties for different layers will help examine the performance of the
pavement with stabilized chat base. Correlation between the laboratory and field results
would be beneficial to establish specifications for designing a pavement with stabilized
chat base.



36
8.0 REFERENCES
Baghdadi, Z.A., Fatani, M.N., Sabban, N.A., Soil Modification by Cement Kiln Dust,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, November 1995, pp. 218-
222.

Boynton, R.S. (1980), Chemistry and Technology of Lime and Limestone, 2
nd
Edition,
Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York.

Chen, D.H. (1994), Resilient Modulus of Aggregate Bases and a Mechanistic-Empirical
Methodology for Flexible Pavement, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, Oklahoma.

Fowler, G.M. (1943), Tri-State Geology, Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 144, No.
11, pp. 73-79 Prairieville, Los Angeles., California.

Gray, H.A. and Stroup, R.J. (1943), Transportation, Engineering and Mining Journal,
Vol. 144.

Huang, Y. (1993), Pavement Analysis and Design, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.

Hughes, M. (2002), Sub-grade Stabilization Using Unwashed Mine Tailings From The
Tar Creek Superfund Site, A Report Submitted to Oklahoma Department of
Transportation.

Khoury N. (2001), The effect of Freez-Thaw And Wet-Dry Cycles on Resilient Modulus
of Class C Fly Ash Stabilized Aggregate Base, M.S. Thesis, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, Oklahoma.

Khoury, N. N. and Zaman, M. M. (2002), Effect of Wet-Dry Cycles on Class C Fly Ash
Aggregate Base, Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, Geomaterials, No. 1787, pp.13-21, Washington D.C., 2002.

Khoury, N.N., Srour, C, and Zaman, M. (2004), Performance of Stabilized Aggregate
Base Under Flexural and Compressive Cyclic Load, accepted for publication in the
Geo-Trans 2004 Conference proceedings, July 27-31, 2004, UCLA campus, Los
Angeles, CA, USA.

Laguros, J.G. and Zenieris, P. (1987), Feasibility of Using Fly Ash as a Binder in Coarse
and Fine Aggregates for Bases, Report No. ORA 155-404, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, Oklahoma.



37
Miller, A. G., M.M. Zaman, J. Rahman, and K.N. Tan, Laboratory and Field Evaluation
of Soil Stabilization using Cement Kiln Dust, Draft Report, Item 2144, ORA 125-
5693, submitted to Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), Feb. 1999.

Materials Research Society (1989), Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products:
Characterization, Utilization and Disposal V, Vol. 136, pp. 185.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (1999), Standard Specifications for Highway
Construction, Section 703.02.

Pandey, K.K. (1996), Evaluation of Resilient Modului and Layer Coefficients of a Coal
Ash Stabilized Marginal Aggregate Base for AASHTO Flexible Pavement Design,
Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1995), Fact Sheet on Mine Waste, EPA
Region 7, Texas.

Wasiuddin, N., Zaman, M., Nairn R. (2005), A Laboratory Study to Optimize the Use of
Raw Chat in Hot Mix Asphalt for Pavement Application, A Report Prepared for
Oklahoma Department of Environment Quality, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Wilson, S.D. (1950), Small Soil Compaction Apparatus Duplicates Field Results Closely,
Engineering New-Record, Vol. 145, No. 18, p.p. 34-36.

Zaman M., Laguros J., Tian P., Zhu J., Pandey K., (1998), Resilient Moduli of Raw and
Stabilized Aggregate Bases and evaluations of Layer Coefficients for AASHTO
Flexible Pavement Design, Final report, Submitted to ODOT, Item 2199, ORA 125-
4262, August 1998.

Zhu J. (1998), Charecterization of Cement Kiln Dust Stabilized Base/Subbase Aggregate,
Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science
University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.



38

APPENDIX

Graphical Summary of Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCP)



39

Fig. 10.1 Summary of Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) data
DCP 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50 100
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50 100
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 6
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 20 40
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 7
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50 100
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 9
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 11
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
DCP 12
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50 100
Incremental Cone
Index (mm/bow)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)


40

Fig 10.2 Summary of CBR from DCP test using the relation

CBR 7
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100
CBR
(%)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-10 40
CBR
%
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 500
CBR
%
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100
CBR
%
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50
CBR
%
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100
CBR
%
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 6
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100
CBR
%
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100
CBR
(%)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 9
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50
CBR
(%)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100
CBR
(%)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 11
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 100
CBR
(%)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
CBR 12
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100
CBR
(%)
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)

Chat Stabilization Report 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chat Stabilization Report 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CEMENTITIOUS STABILIZATION OF RAW CHAT FOR

ROADWAY BASE APPLICATION

You might also like