Utilizing Recycled Concrete Aggregate Fines as Co-Additives in Low-Carbon Cement for Problematic Soil Stabilization
Open accessAbstract
Subgrade treatment has traditionally been achieved using calcium-based cement. However, it does not necessarily enhance sustainable design. Recently, low-carbon alternatives such as portland limestone cement (PLC) have gained attention as substitutes for traditional cement. In addition, recycled concrete aggregate fines (fRCA), a waste product, have shown potential for application in transportation infrastructure because of their enhancements in pavements. This study investigates the effectiveness of PLC and fRCA in improving soil properties under different environmental stressors. Clayey soil was treated with PLC (10% PLC or 10C) and PLC-fRCA mixtures at different ratios (8% PLC/15% fRCA or 8C_15fRCA and 8% PLC/30% fRCA or 8C_30fRCA). Improvements in strength, stiffness, and volumetric changes were evaluated through unconfined compressive strength and repeated load triaxial tests after exposure to various environmental conditioning cycles (0, 6, and 12 cycles of wet–dry or freeze–thaw) in the laboratory. Results indicated that untreated soil collapsed within two cycles of environmental conditioning. In contrast, treated soils exhibited significant improvements in strength and resilience to environmental stressors. Stiffness also improved with treatment, and despite some reduction after exposure to environmental conditioning, treated specimens maintained relatively higher stiffness values. These enhancements are attributed to the formation of strong binding gels from hydration and secondary reactions among PLC, fRCA, and soil, which exhibit strong resistance to moisture intrusion, helping to preserve their engineering properties. Overall, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of the potential of using fRCA as a co-additive to PLC, offering a more sustainable and durable alternative for the long-term performance of transportation infrastructures.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 4
- Authors
- Sanei, M., Biswas, N., Chou, S., & Puppala, A. J.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University (US)
- University of Massachusetts Lowell (US)
- Corresponding author
- Puppala, Anand J.
- Venue
- Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2025-10-06
- Volume
- 2679
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 396-410
- ISSN
- 0361-1981 (ISSN-L)
- 2169-4052
- OpenAlex
- W4414850455
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4
- FWCI
- 1.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical and construction materials studies
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Concrete and Cement Materials Research
- Keywords
- Portland limestone cement, low-carbon cement, soil stabilization, clay soil, subgrade treatment, wetting-drying cycles, freeze-thaw cycles, unconfined compressive strength, stiffness, volume change, cement hydration, side reactions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review