This analysis demonstrates superior compressive strength in bottom ash-recycled concrete mixtures, suggesting sustainable pavement potential.
This study investigated a 100% waste-derived material system, using bottom ash (BA) and recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) for sustainable pavement base applications. This innovative approach diverts both construction and power plant waste from landfills while replacing conventional natural aggregates and cement-based binders. Five RCA:BA replacement ratios (90:10 to 50:50) were evaluated with three Na2SiO3:NaOH alkaline activator ratios (1:1, 1:1.5, and 1:2) through unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDX), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. The RCA90BA10 composition with a G/N ratio of 1:2 achieved exceptional performance, reaching 9.14 MPa UCS at 7 days while exceeding the Department of Highways, Thailand, requirement of 2.413 MPa. All geopolymer-stabilized mixtures substantially surpassed minimum specifications, validating the technology for high-traffic pavement applications. Toughness evaluation confirmed superior energy absorption capacity of 107.89 N·m for the optimal formulation. Microstructural characterization revealed that higher G/N ratios promoted extensive sodium aluminosilicate hydrate and calcium silicate hydrate gel formation, creating dense, well-integrated matrices. XRD patterns confirmed successful geopolymerization through pronounced amorphous gel development between 20° and 35° 2θ, correlating directly with mechanical performance improvements. The RCA90BA10 formulation demonstrated optimal balance between reactive aluminosilicate content and structural aggregate framework. This technology offers significant environmental benefits by diverting construction and power plant waste from landfills while achieving mechanical properties superior to conventional materials, providing a scalable solution for sustainable infrastructure development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoy et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: