Laboratory and FEM Study on Construction & Demolition Waste and Fly Ash for Use as a Pavement Material

ISGTI 2018
7-8April2018, IIT Delhi, India

Laboratory and FEM Study onConstruction &Demolition Wasteand Fly

Ashfor Use asaPavement Material
Rohan R. Deshmukh
PhD Student, Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat, Gujarat, India-395007. E-mail: rohandeshmukh520@gmail.com
S. Patel
Assistant Professor, Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat, Gujarat, India-39500. E-mail: spatel@amd.svnit.ac.in
J.T. Shahu
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, IIT, Huaz Khas, New Delhi, India-110016. E-mail: shahu@civil.iitd.ac.in

ABSTRACT:The basic aim of the research is to evaluate laboratory and the FEM performance of C&D waste
material and fly ash for the effective utilization in base/sub-base course along with Geogrid. Various laboratory
test was conducted on C&D waste to check its suitability in base/sub-base course and finite element analysis
was done by using Plaxis 2D to check the effectiveness of Geosynthetic reinforcement. Fly-ash was used for
stabilization of subgrade soil (B.C.soil) and also usedin the form compacted layer over a stabilized subgrade to
improve the bearing ratio. Geogrid reinforcement was used to reduce the critical strains in the pavement. It is
concluded that Geosyntheticat middle of base course shows least settlementof pavement and reducingcritical
strain.
Keywords: Construction & Demolition Waste (C&D); Fly-ash; Black Cotton Soil; Geosynthetic; Base and Sub-
base course; FEM; Plaxis 2D

1. Introduction section 42 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957

For construction, maintenance and widening of roads,
a large quantum of construction material is required.
On the other hand, due to increasing demands for
electricity in India, largely depends upon thermal
power plant which is responsible for the generation of
huge quantity of Ash. Also Construction &
Demolition activity is responsible for the generation
of huge quantity of waste which creating a
tremendous threat to public health and ecology.
1.1 Objectives: Bulk utilization of this solid waste in
road construction along with Geosynthetics can solve
the following three problems with one effort:
(a) Solid waste disposal problem, preserving
valuable land from huge dumps of waste; and
(b) Provision of much needed construction
material, thus protecting fast depleting
natural resources of aggregates.
(c) Application of Geosynthetics in flexible
pavement act as reinforcing element and also
help to minimize the base/subbase course
thickness, rutting and fatigue cracking.
1.2 Fly Ash: In India, one of the major sources of
electric power is through thermal power plants.
Thermal power station using pulverized coal as fuel
generates large quantities of ash as a byproduct. The
production of coal ash in India has increased
phenomenally to about 112 million tons per year, but
hardly about 37.5% of the total production of coal ash
is utilized for gainful application (Dhadse et al. 2008)
1.3 Construction & Demolition waste: Means ‘the
waste comprising of building materials, debris
andrubble resulting from construction, re-modeling,
repair and demolition of any civil structure’. The
volume of Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D
Waste) generated in Delhi has increased considerably
in recent years due to the rapid pace of development
in the city and it is increasing day by day. As per
(amended to date), disposal of unclaimed C&D Waste
from its jurisdiction is the obligatory function of
North DMC. It is estimated on a conservative basis
that over 25-30 million tons of C&D waste are
generated annually that clogs rivers, blocks traffic and
occupies dumping space.
2. Methodology
The study is divided into three parts. The
methodology worked out to achieve the above
mentioned objectives is as follows.
1) In the first part emphasis was given toLaboratory
evaluation of construction and demolition waste. The
properties like crushing value, impact value, specific
gravity, Los Angeles abrasion are compared with the
properties of natural aggregate as mentioned above
and according to that suitability of replacement of
natural aggregate with construction and demolition
waste is decided.Similarly conducted some laboratory
testto check suitability of Fly ash for use as a
compacted layer to improve bearing ratio of weak
subgrade.
2) The second part is devoted for stabilization of
black cotton soil using fly ash. As black cotton soil is
not suitable road pavement due to its expansive nature
and there is a need to improve its properties using fly
ash.
3) In the third part Finite element analysis were done
on the road section constructed with solid waste and
different combination of Geosynthetics location to
find out the exact location for their effective
utilization.

206
 Brick waste is more than 35% (50-53%), so it is very
weak for road surfaces and hence cannot consider
C & D Waste
C & D waste
Natural Concrete Ceramic Crushed
Natural Concrete Ceramic Crushed Sample aggregate waste waste brick
Sample aggregate waste waste Brick
1 17.99% 27.30% 17.50% 52.64%
1 11.04% 14.75% 10.31% 52.52%
2 18.65% 26.25% 16.39% 51.58%
2 10.11% 18.67% 14.49% 51.32%
3 17.29% 25.49% 18.25% 54.68%
3 10.00% 13.17% 12.38% 53.22%
brick waste as sub-base material.
According to Indian Road Congress (IRC),
the Maximum impact value is up to 30% is
consideredfor bituminous surface dressing penetration
macadam, bituminous carpet concrete & cement
concrete wearing course.As the crushing value of the
Fig. 1 Typical cross-section of conventional Natural Aggregate is less than 30%, it is suitable for
flexible road pavement (Yang H. Huang, 2004) surface or wearing course.Table-3 Crushing Value
3. Results and Discussion
Test
Table-1 Impact Value Test Results

Impact Value
Crushing Value
60.00%
50.00% 60.00%
Value

Crushing Value

40.00% 50.00%
30.00% 40.00%
Impact

20.00% 30.00%
10.00% 20.00%
0.00% 10.00%
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 0.00%
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Natural Aggregate Concrete Waste
Ceramic Waste Crushed Brick Natural Aggregate Concrete Waste
Ceramic Waste Crushed Brick
Fig. 2Graphical Representation of Impact Value
Test Fig. 3Graphical Representation of Crushing Value
Test
Table-2 Impact Value Test Reference
Aggregate Table-4 Crushing Value Test Reference
Impact Value Classification A.C.V. Not
Type of road construction more than %
<10% Exceptionally strong
Flexible pavements
10-20% Strong
Satisfactory for road A)soiling 50
10-30% surfacing B)water bound macadam 40
>35% Weak for road surfacing C)bituminous macadam 40
The natural aggregate were studied comes under the D)bituminous surface dressing
category of igneous rock type and crushed bricks or thin premix carpet 30
collected from demolition site were common burnt
red clay brick. As the impact value of the Natural E)dense mix carpet 30
Aggregate lies between 10-20%, it is classified as Rigid pavements
strong. The Impact Value of concrete waste lies
between 10-20%, hence it is classified as strong. A)other than wearing course 45
TheImpact Value of Ceramic waste lies between 10- B)surface or wearing course 30
20%, it is classified as strong. The Impact value of

207
Laboratory and FEM Study on Construction & Demolition Waste and Fly Ash for Use as a Pavement Material

The Crushing value of concrete waste lies between

20-30%, hence it is suitable for both rigid and flexible
pavement. The Crushing value of Ceramic waste lies
between 10-20%, it is suitable for surface or wearing
course. The Crushing value of Brick waste is more
than 30% (50-55%), it is very weak for road surfaces
and hence cannot consider brick waste as surface or
wearing course.
Even though concrete and ceramic waste
fulfilling the criteria given by IRC for use in surface
or wearing course, but still for FEM analysis using in
sub-base only.

208
 Table-5 Los-Angeles Abrasion Test Result Table-7 Physical properties of Fly ash
Physical properties Fly Ash
Sample Natural aggregate C & D Waste
Coefficient of uniformity 2.22
1 23.50% 19.24% Coefficient of curvature 4.54
Specific gravity 2.11
2 22.65% 19.66% Liquid limit NP
Plastic limit NP
3 23.41% 20.24% Permeability (cm/s) 4.122* 10-4
OMC (%) 28
MDD (kN/m3) 11.40
Los-Angeles Abrasion Test
25.00% 3.1.1 Fly Ash for Stabilization
Fly ash with different proportion used in B.C. soil for
20.00%
Abrasion Value

stabilization purpose. Fly ash possess pozzolonic

15.00% property due to which it can stabilize the expansive
type of soil (Neeraj Kumar Sharma et al. 2012).
10.00% Pozzolans are natural or artificial siliceous and
5.00% aluminous substances which react with lime in the
presence of water at atmospheric pressure and
0.00% temperature to form a cementitious compound. As
1 2 3 stated in methodology, there is a need to stabilize
natural aggregate C & D Waste expansive BC soil.
Table-8 Test result of Black Cotton Soil

Fig. 4 Graphical Representation of Los-Angeles Sr. No Name of Test Black cotton soil
Abrasion Test 1 Specific Gravity 2.67
Table-6 Los-Angeles Abrasion Test Reference 2 Liquid limit 58.40 %
Sr. Limiting 3 Plastic limit 30.37 %
no. Type of pavement value
4 Plasticity Index 28.03 %
1 W.B.M sub-surface course 60
W.B.M base course with 5 Shrinkage limit 8.93 %
2 bituminous surfacing 50
6 IS classification CH
3 Bituminous bound macadam 50
7 Free Swell Index 103 %
4 W.B.M surface course 40
8 OMC 24.5 %
Bituminous penetration
5 macadam 40 9 MDD 1.53 gm/cm3
Bituminous surface dressing,
cement concrete surface 10 UCS 0.291 Kg/cm2
6 course 35
Bituminous concrete surface 11 Fine Sand 31.5%
7 course 30 12 Silt and Clay 68.5 %

As the abrasion value of the Natural Aggregate is less
than 30%, it is suitable for bituminous concrete
surface course. The Abrasion value of concrete waste
lies between 15-30%, hence it is suitable for
bituminous concrete surface course. According to
I.R.C, the Maximum abrasion value is up to 30% and
hence C&D wastecan consider as a bituminous
concrete surface course.
3.1 Physical Properties of Black Cotton Soil and Fly
Ash
Different physical properties for BC soil and fly ash
were found out from laboratory testing (following IS-
code) and summarized in Table. 7 and 8.
From Table No.8 it is concluded that Black cotton
(BC) soil comes under the category of expansive type
of soil due to its high value of liquid limit (>50%) and
low values of shrinkage limit.
3.1.2 Compacted Fly Ash Layer
In case the subgradesoil is of poor quality it can be
improved in respect of its bearing ratio (CBR) by
replacing the top part of the soil with fly ash
(Ashimanta Sengupta et al. 2017). In order to increase
the bearing ratio of weak subgrade soil, compacted fly
ash layer with 250mm thickness is utilized above
stabilized and unstabilized subgrade soil

209
Laboratory and FEM Study on Construction & Demolition Waste and Fly Ash for Use as a Pavement Material

Table-9 Test results of BC Soil+ Fly Ash element analysis are done on different road section
constructed with solid waste in sub-base layer and
Sr. Name of % Fly Ash different combination of Geosynthetics location to
No Test 5% 10% 15% 20% find out the exact location for their effective
utilization. The loading (tire pressure) is 565kPa and
1 Liquid limit 57.61 56.25 55.7 53.2 Radius of loading is 150mm consider in the study.
% Boundary conditions of the model were chosen in
order to that the influence of the stress distribution
2 Plastic limit 30.15 29.79 29.64 28.96 would be minimized. A fixed support was used as a
% horizontal base for no movement. Vertical
displacement allowed for both vertical sides of the
3 Plasticity 27.46 26.46 26.06 24.24 model and no horizontal movement allowed at the
Index % sides of the mesh. Unreinforced and reinforced
models used for the study the effect of reinforcement
4 Shrinkage 20.69 25.92 27.7 27.91 on the pavement section.
limit % Table-10 Physical Properties of FEM model
5 Free Swell 88 79 71 62 Soil E γ c,ϕ Material
Model
Index % kN/m2 kN/m3 kN/m2

6 OMC % 23.84 22.34 22.59 22.86 Subgrade 4×104 17.9 1×10-4, Mohr-
(15% FA)
30o Columb
7 MDD 1.56 1.64 1.61 1.59
gm/cm3 Fly Ash 6×104 11.4 0, 41o Mohr-
Columb
8 UCS 0.327 0.391 0.348 0.306
Sub-base 1×105 21.4 1×10-4, Mohr-
2
Kg/cm 49o Columb
(C&D)
Base 1.2×105 21.8 1×10-4, Mohr-
By comparing Table No.8 and 9 it is concluded that
48o Columb
due to addition of fly ash (in varying %) in the BC
soil liquid limit decreases and shrinkage limit DBM 2×106 22.6 - Linear
increases. Compressive strength also increases by Elastic
12.37% by adding 5% Fly ash (FA) and for 10% FA
BC 2×106 23.3 - Linear
increase by 34.36% further addition of FA start
Elastic
decreasing the UCS value so maximum 10% FA are
suitable for BC soil. (E- Modulus of Elasticity, γ -Unit weight, C- Cohesion)

4. Finite Element Analysis by PLAXIS 2D for To check the performance of this geogrid reinforced
Effective Geosynthetic Inclusion C&D waste in pavement against rutting and fatigue
Three locations of the Geosynthetic reinforcement are cracking, critical strains were measured such as ϵ xx
studied by (Bassam Saad et al. 2006), namely the andϵ ZZat bottom of DBM and top of subgrade.
base–asphalt concrete interface, the base–subgrade
interface,
And inside the base layer at a height of 1/3 of its
thickness from the bottom. In the current study finite
Table-11 Critical Strain value in Pavement from FEM analysis
All strains in 250mm 250mm Compacted Fly Ash +
micron Compacted Fly Geogrid (EA=1000 kN/m)
Ash
Strains Without With In Base In Subbase

ϵ xx 36 21.68 13.41 21.22

ϵ ZZ 180 172.3 89.19 165

210
 a) Without Geogrid b) With Geogrid (EA = 1000 kN/m)
Fig.5 FEM model for Recycled C&D waste GSB and Fly Ash stabilized Subgrade

a) Without Geogrid b) With Geogrid (EA = 1000 kN/m)

Fig.6 FEM model for Recycled C&D waste GSB, Compacted Fly Ash and Fly Ash stabilized Subgrade

211
Laboratory and FEM Study on Construction & Demolition Waste and Fly Ash for Use as a Pavement Material
5. Results and Discussions
In table-11 horizontal tensile strains (ϵ xx) at the
bottom of DBM layer and vertical compressive strain
(ϵ ZZ) at the top of the subgrade is given. Traffic
intensity, consider in this FEM analysis is 150 MSA
as per IRC: 37-2012. It is concluded that due to the
installation of 250mm compacted fly ash layer
horizontal strain at the bottom of DBM is reduced by
66.05 % and vertical strain at top subgrade reduced by
4.43%. It is concluded that among all the combination
of Geosynthetic inclusion in base and sub-base layer,
Geosynthetics in middle of base course gives good
results, it reduces down horizontal strains by 168%
and vertical strains by 101%. There is no significant
change observed for Geogrid in sub-base due to less
tension in geogrid. The performance of C&D waste in
base/subbase layer is improved due to this geogrid
inclusionwhich helps to minimize the pavement
failure, such as rutting and fatigue cracking by
reducing critical strains. The improvement in
performance geogrid reinforced C&D waste material
is mainly due to tensile effect of geogrid, friction
between recycled aggregate and geogrid.
6. Conclusions
1. The C&D waste Impact Value is between 10-
20%. Hence, classified as strong for flexible
pavement and the brick waste cannot be used
for sub-base due to high impact value.
2. The C&D waste Crushing value is between
20-30%. Hence, classified as strong for
flexible as well as rigid pavement and the
brick waste cannot be used for sub-base due
to high crushing value.
3. The C&D waste Abrasion value is between
15-30%. Hence, classified as strong for a
bituminous concrete surface course.
4. In the second part fly ash is used as an
additive with 10% contribution shows
comparatively strong results with reduced
OMC (8.82%) and increased MDD (7.18%)
and UCS (34.36%).
5. It is concluded that due to the installation of
250mm compacted fly ash layer horizontal
strain at the bottom of DBM is reduced by
66.05 % and vertical strain at top subgrade
reduced by 4.43%.
6. FEM results shows that Geosynthetics
(Geogrid, EA= 1000 kN/m) at middle of the
base gives good result among all the
combinations of Geosynthetic location. It
reducesor minimizes the chance of rutting
and fatigue cracking by reducing vertical
compressive strain on top of subgrade by
101% and horizontal tensile strain at the
bottom of DBM by 168%.
212
References
A. Arulrajah, J. Piratheepan, M. M. Disfani, and M.
W. Bo (2013). Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Properties of Recycled
Construction and Demolition Materials in
Pavement Subbase Applications. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. ASCE, 25(8), pp. 1077-1088
Ambarish Ghosh (2010). Compaction Characteristics
and Bearing Ratio of Pond Ash Stabilized
with Lime and Phosphogypsum. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. ASCE, 22(4), pp. 343-351
Ashimanta Sengupta, Sibapriya Mukherjee, Ambarish
Ghosh (2017). Improvement of Bearing
Ratio of Clayey Subgrade UsingCompacted
Flyash Layer. Geotech Geol Eng, Springer.
(DOI 10.1007/s10706-017-0179-y)
Bassam Saad, Hani Mitri, and Hormoz Poorooshasb
(2006). 3D FE Analysis of Flexible
Pavement with Geosynthetic Reinforcement.
J. Transp. Eng. ASCE, 132(5), pp. 402-415
IRC (Indian Roads Congress). (2012). Tentative
guidelines for the design of flexible
pavements. IRC 37, New Delhi, India.
K. Lini Devi, R. G. Robinson (2015). Pond Ash
Based Controlled Low Strength Flowable
Fills for Geotechnical Engineering
Applications. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground
Eng. Springer
M. A. Rahman, A. Arulrajah, J. Piratheepan, M. W.
Bo and M. A. Imteaz (2014). Resilient
Modulus and Permanent Deformation
Responses of Geogrid-Reinforced
Construction and Demolition Materials. J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. ASCE, 26(3), pp. 512-519
Neeraj Kumar Sharma, S. K. Swain, Umesh C. Sahoo
(2012). Stabilization of a Clayey Soil with
Fly Ash and Lime: A Micro Level
Investigation. Geotech Geol Eng. Springer
(30), pp. 1197–1205
Yang H Huang (2004). Pavement Analysis and
Design, Pearson Education, Inc.