buildings

Article
Combined Utilization of Construction and Demolition Waste
and Propylene Fiber in Cement-Stabilized Soil
Genbao Zhang 1 , Zhiqing Ding 2 , Runhong Zhang 2,3 , Changfu Chen 4,5 , Guihai Fu 1,6 , Xiao Luo 1 , Yufei Wang 7, *
and Chao Zhang 8

1 College of Civil Engineering, Hunan City University, Yiyang 413000, China; genbao@[Link] (G.Z.);
fuguihai@[Link] (G.F.); luoxiao@[Link] (X.L.)
2 Institute for Smart City of Chongqing University in Liyang, Chongqing University, Liyang 213300, China;
22390016@[Link] (Z.D.); zhangrh@[Link] (R.Z.)
3 College of Aerospace Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
4 Key Laboratory of Building Safety and Energy Efficiency of the Ministry of Education, Hunan University,
Changsha 410082, China; cfchen@[Link]
5 College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
6 Hunan Engineering Research Center of Structural Safety and Disaster Prevention for Urban Underground
Infrastructure, Yiyang 413000, China
7 School of Design and Built Environment, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
8 College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411100, China;
flyheartzc@[Link]
* Correspondence: wangyf0113_suz@[Link]

Abstract: Construction and demolition (C&D) waste has become a research hotspot due to the need for
environmental sustainability and strength enhancement of cementitious materials. However, wider
applications of C&D waste are limited, as its non-homogeneous surface nature limits its workability.



This research evaluated the feasible utilization of C&D waste as aggregates in polypropylene-fiber-


reinforced cement-stabilized soil (CSS) under sulfate-alkali activation. CSS specimens incorporated
Citation: Zhang, G.; Ding, Z.; Zhang,
R.; Chen, C.; Fu, G.; Luo, X.; Wang, Y.;
Portland cement and C&D waste in 10%, 20%, and 30% proportions. Also, polypropylene fiber after
Zhang, C. Combined Utilization of alkali activation by sodium sulfate (at 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.8% dosing level) was defined as 1%, 2%,
Construction and Demolition Waste and 4%. Strength enhancement was examined through unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and
and Propylene Fiber in flexural strength tests at 7, 14 and 28 days. Test results indicated that mechanical properties showed
Cement-Stabilized Soil. Buildings significant improvement with increasing levels of Portland cement and sodium sulfate, while the
2022, 12, 350. [Link] improvement dropped after excessive addition of C&D waste and polypropylene fiber. Optimal
10.3390/buildings12030350 proportioning was determined as 30%, 4%, 20%, and 0.8% for Portland cement, polypropylene fiber,
Academic Editor: Luca Pelà C&D waste, and sodium sulfate, respectively. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis attributed
the enhancement to hydration product (ettringite) formation, bridging effect and increased particle
Received: 7 February 2022
friction. Additionally, the decrease in amplification was ascribed to the destruction of interface
Accepted: 9 March 2022
transition-zone (ITZ) strength, resulting in premature failure.
Published: 14 March 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Keywords: alkali activation; cement-stabilized soil; waste utilization; fiber-reinforced soil; SEM
with regard to jurisdictional claims in analysis; mechanical property; optimum design
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
The rapid development of infrastructure has released numerous construction and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. demolition (C&D) waste, reaching an annual production of 3039 Mt in China alone [1].
This article is an open access article However, solid waste resourcing is still not globally applied, with utilization rates varying
distributed under the terms and dramatically from 5–90%, resulting in resource waste and environmental pollution [2–4].
conditions of the Creative Commons Specifically, the construction process generates greenhouse gas emissions along with solid
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// waste, leading to climate change and soil erosion [5,6]. The sustainable lifecycle of con-
[Link]/licenses/by/ struction activity has therefore become essential to creating eco-friendly architecture [7,8].
4.0/). C&D waste utilization yields application potentials including aggregates in cementitious

Buildings 2022, 12, 350. [Link] [Link]

Buildings 2022, 12, 350 2 of 17

materials and road base materials (embankment, subbase and asphalt pavement) [9,10].
Through grinding–incineration treatment, C&D waste presents enhanced bonding proper-
ties with the binding mixture [11,12]. Moreover, as the production of cement generates up
to 7% of its carbon footprint, utilizing C&D waste tackles the problem with the benefits of
waste utilization and cement usage reduction [13]. However, C&D waste shows weaker
performance, owing to the wall effect and a further quantity of cracks [14–17]. Old interface
transition zones (ITZs) in C&D waste exhibit weaker strength, becoming highly prone to
cracks. Simultaneously, C&D waste weakens density and durability, despite its advantages
in abrasion resistance [18–20]. As a result, the replacement threshold limitation for natural
aggregate is concluded as being 50% with scarified compressive strength [21–23]. Applica-
tion strategies maximizing the potential of C&D waste have therefore become a research
hotspot that has been extensively explored.
The use of C&D waste as aggregates in cement-stabilized soil (CSS) for foundations
has been reported as a rapidly emerging method [24–26]. CSS demonstrates outstanding
suitability, due to its economic effect and simple operation, which can be further enhanced
while being prepared in situ [27,28]. The application fields include foundation treatments,
leakage-stopping and slope reinforcement, where large quantities of low strength materials
are required [29]. As a result, the 50% threshold limitation can be exceeded. The widely
sourced soil incorporated in CSS varies from sand, coal gangue, and volcanic slag to ground
concrete, which enables the material to satisfy the demand for in situ preparation.
In addition, C&D waste represents positive coupling with sulfate dosage. First, C&D
waste particles further develop performance enhancement provided by sulfate. Two previ-
ous studies on salt activators have proved the SO4 2− ions as superior hydration catalysts,
reducing the initial and final setting time of CSS by 81.1% and 67.8%, respectively [30,31].
Meanwhile, cations (such as Na+ , Ca2+ ) fulfill the function of alkalinities, forming more
dispersed glassy phases [32]. C&D waste particles therefore form a compact structure with
the binder, resulting in significant improvement in compressive strength. Second, C&D
waste demonstrates resistance to sulfate erosion. Sulfate attack becomes a bigger issue as
salt proportion increases, which leads to large-scale sulfate heaving, cracking, and structure
failure [33,34]. Tang et al. [35] claimed that C&D waste inhibited the degree of sulfate
erosion and remarkably strengthened the durability.
However, the poor cracking resistance and shrinkage deformation often present hin-
drances in the wider application of C&D waste in CSS. Proven enhancements include
chemical additives, such as lime and cement in the stabilized soil matrix, but the enhanced
blocks are prone to cracking and sudden failure [36–38]. To the authors’ knowledge, previ-
ous literature demonstrates the mitigation provided by increased cement blending [39,40].
However, sulfate erosion depends on many more factors (pH, temperature, aggregates,
etc.) [41]. The coupling has not yet been clearly assessed, which therefore suggests numer-
ous potential scopes for machine-learning research [42–45].
Fibrous materials were introduced to improve the mechanical properties in this sce-
nario, bringing intersecting and bridging effects to the mixture. The randomly distributed
fiber yields the benefits of crack reduction and unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
increments [46]. An increase of up to 115% in UCS was observed in the experimental study,
and the strength can be further enhanced by switching fiber types [47–50]. Polypropylene
fiber showed resistance against sulfate deterioration. Mixtures with polypropylene fiber
inclusion exhibit higher porosity, which allows more space for expansion and consequent
hydrate-phase (gypsum and ettringite) formation [51–53]. Previous literature includes
numerous studies on fiber-reinforcement treatment. However, its combination with the use
of C&D waste has rarely been investigated.
This research presents the mechanical enhancement of CSS by the combination of
C&D waste and polypropylene fiber. Portland cement 42.5 was employed to provide
better stabilization and mechanical performance. Testing variables include admixture of
cement, C&D waste, fiber, and sodium sulfate. Apart from the compressive and flexural
strength test, scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis was conducted to examine the
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 3 of 17

proposed mixture. Ultimately, an optimum mixture design was selected according to the
experimental analysis.

2. Materials and Experimental Program

2.1. Materials Selection
The soil for this research was collected from the under-construction metro station
Zhushan Road of line 5 in Nanjing, and consisted of silty clay taken from 12 m below
the surface. Tables 1 and 2 list the mechanical properties and composition of the soil
sample. Polypropylene fiber was chosen for this research, owing to its superior tensile
strength, chemical stability, and dispersibility. Table 3 shows the performance specifications
of the polypropylene fiber. C&D waste was collected from a construction site in Nanjing
containing waste masonry blocks, fine sand, and gravel. Particles were ground and sieved
to a size less than 5 mm. Portland cement 42.5 and sodium sulfate were used as cemental
binder and alkali catalyst, respectively. The tests were carried out with strict reference to
GB/T50123-1999 [54].

Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of soil sample.

Soil Properties Value

Specific gravity 2.69
Liquid limit (%) 38.87
Plastic limit (%) 21.55
Plasticity index 17.32
Maximum dry density (g/cm3 ) 1.51
Optimum moisture content (%) 25.37

Table 2. Concentration of composition in sample soil.

Composition Concentration Value

Sand 17.8%
Silt 64.6%
Clay 17.5%
Mineral Composition Concentration Value
Quartz 33.8%
Kaolinite 52.4%
Montmorillonite 1.3%
Elixirite 7.6%
Calcite 2.1%
Organic matter 2.9%

Table 3. Physical and mechanical properties of polypropylene fiber.

Polypropylene Fiber Properties Value

Diameter (µm) 10
Cut length (mm) 10
Density (g/cm3 ) 0.91
Tensile strength (MPa) 486
Stretching limit (%) 15
Acid resistance Excellent
Alkali resistance Excellent

2.2. Mixture Design

The adopted testing variable included the dosage of fiber, C&D waste, sodium sulfate
and cement. The content of water was kept constant at 80%. Other contents were defined
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 4 of 17

from Equation (1), where a is the abbreviation for admixture and W is the weight of
pre-dried soil.
Wa
ρa = (1)
W
Specifically, Portland cement and C&D waste were used at 10%, 20% and 30%. Dosing
level of fiber was 1%, 2%, 4% and of sodium sulfate was 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.8% among total
weight. Table 4 provides the mixing percentages for each variable. The integrated mixture
design resulted in 81 combinations of variables along 3 control groups. The specified
mixture design is shown in the Appendix A.

Table 4. Testing variables and proportion.

Testing Variable Proportion

42.5 Portland cement 10%; 20%; 30%
Polypropylene fiber 1%; 2%; 4%
C&D waste 10%; 20%; 30%
Sodium sulfate 0.2%; 0.4%; 0.8%
Water 80%

2.3. Specimen Preparation

The specimens were prepared in accordance with GB/T50123-1999 [54], identifying
with the mixing design presented in Table 4. Pre-dried soil and C&D waste were adequately
ground and sieved to ensure similar gradations. Meanwhile, fiber agglomeration was
avoided by air gun pretreatment and batch incorporation. Specifically, the high-pressure
gas ejected from the air gun blew the polypropylene fiber towards the mortar. Fibers were
grouped into small clusters to avoid weakening the inhibition of agglomeration due to
excessive dosing at one time. The concocted soil-cement mixture was injected into the
mold and vibrated to expel entrapped air. The samples were then wrapped in clean film
and placed in the curing chamber for standard curing (temperature (20 ± 2) ◦ C, relative
humidity above 95%) until the test was conducted. Three replicated samples were prepared
for each variable combination to conduct the compressive and flexural strength test.

2.4. Testing Procedure

Mechanical performance was evaluated in this research conforming to GB/T50123-
1999 [54]. The sample dimensions for UCS and flexural strength test were kept consistent
with the protocol as 50 mm × 50 mm × 50 mm and 40 mm × 40 mm × 160 mm, respectively.
Tests were carried out at 7, 14, and 28 days of curing age. The day before the compres-
sive performance evaluation, specimens were removed from the curing conditions and
immersed in water at 24 ◦ C for 24 h to simulate a real working environment. All laboratory
tests were conducted by YAW-4206 and DY-208JX automatic pressure testers at a strain rate
of 0.04 MPa/s until failure occurs.
SEM analysis was conducted to explore the modification of CSS at the microstructure
level with the inclusion of polypropylene fiber, cement, C&D waste, and sodium sulfate.
The fracture surface of UCS was cut into pieces measuring 1 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm to be
observed.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
Figure 1 depicts the UCS test results of the control groups, indicating the performance
enhancement by increasing Portland cement dosage and curing age. It can be observed
that cement inclusion improved the strength of soil at all curing ages, while the maximum
28 d improvement reached 153.44%. The enhancement was attributed to more cement
hydration products. When the cement content increases gradually, the consequent calcium
silicate (CaSiO3 ) and C-S-H gel fill the porosity and significantly improve the compressive
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17

that cement inclusion improved the strength of soil at all curing ages, while the maximum
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 28 d improvement reached 153.44%. The enhancement was attributed to more cement5 of hy-17
dration products. When the cement content increases gradually, the consequent calcium
silicate (CaSiO3) and C-S-H gel fill the porosity and significantly improve the compressive
strength [55,56]. Simultaneously, UCS increases rapidly in the early curing stage (7–14 d),
strength [55,56]. Simultaneously, UCS increases rapidly in the early curing stage (7–14 d),
and
and the
the growth
growth rate
rate slowed
slowed down
down with
with time.
time. The
Themaximum
maximumincrements
increments from
from 77 to
to 14
14 days
days
and
and 14 to 28 days curing stage were 185.73% and 36.18%, respectively, indicating hy-
14 to 28 days curing stage were 185.73% and 36.18%, respectively, indicating the the
dration
hydrationproducts promoted
products promotedthe increase in bonding
the increase strength
in bonding between
strength cement
between and soil
cement andpar-
soil
ticles. At the
particles. Atcuring age ofage
the curing 28 days,
of 28the hydration
days, reactionreaction
the hydration was thorough, and the strength
was thorough, and the
of the sample gradually stabilized to maintain a stable value.
strength of the sample gradually stabilized to maintain a stable value.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Compressive
Compressive strength
strength enhancement
enhancementfor
for the
the control
control group
group (Note:
(Note: CC represents
represents Portland
Portland
cement).
cement).

However,
However, Portland
Portland cement cement introduced
introduced an an undesired
undesired failure
failure mode
mode as as well.
well. A A brittle
brittle
fracture
fracture surface
surface was
wasobserved
observedafter afterthetheUCS
UCStest,test,presenting
presentingaadistinct
distinctoblique
obliqueshearshearplane.
plane.
The
The failure occurred
occurredwithout
withoutobvious
obvioussigns signsbeforehand,
beforehand, which
which resulted
resulted in soil
in soil spalling
spalling and
and
formform damage.
damage. The effect
The effect can becan be ascribed
ascribed to the alkali–silica
to the alkali–silica reactionreaction (ASR),
(ASR), which which
indicates
indicates that Portland
that Portland cement increases
cement increases the material’s the material’s
brittlenessbrittleness [57–59]. Therefore,
[57–59]. Therefore, the specimen the
specimen
cannot becannot
deformedbe deformed
in response in to
response
externaltoforces.
external forces.
Figure 2 shows
Figure shows the theUCSUCSresults
resultsforforspecimens
specimens dosed
dosed with 10%
with cement,
10% while
cement, Figure
while 2a–c
Figure
are divided
2a–c into the
are divided intoC&D the C&Dwaste dosing
waste levelslevels
dosing of 10%, 20% 20%
of 10%, and 30%. Figures
and 30%. 3 and3 4and
Figures illus-
4
trate the UCS
illustrate of specimens
the UCS of specimens withwith20%20%andand 30%30%
cementcementunder the the
under same logic.
same It isItevident
logic. is evi-
in Figures
dent 2 and2 3and
in Figures that3 polypropylene
that polypropylene fiber fiber
inclusion increases
inclusion UCS UCS
increases performance.
performance. This
can be ascribed to the inhibitory characteristics of fiber against
This can be ascribed to the inhibitory characteristics of fiber against sudden failure. Withsudden failure. With in-
creased percentage, polypropylene fibers form spatial network-like
increased percentage, polypropylene fibers form spatial network-like structures and structures and bridging
effects ineffects
bridging CSS slurry,
in CSSwhich slurry,gradually inhibit crack
which gradually inhibit generation [60,61]. [60,61].
crack generation The fiber Thebridge
fiber
can additionally
bridge produce
can additionally deformation
produce deformation constraints whenwhen
constraints the sample cracks.
the sample Moreover,
cracks. More-
polypropylene
over, fiber provides
polypropylene higher
fiber provides movement
higher movementresistance than that
resistance thanbetween
that between soil parti-
soil
cles [62]. Given that, the friction impedes particle displacement in
particles [62]. Given that, the friction impedes particle displacement in the CSS specimen, the CSS specimen, which
furtherfurther
which exploitsexploits
the strength enhancement
the strength among external
enhancement forces. However,
among external as in Figure
forces. However, as in4c,
a 31.52% degeneration was noticed. This was because with
Figure 4c, a 31.52% degeneration was noticed. This was because with the cement dosagethe cement dosage rising, the
decrease
rising, theindecrease
sample in compactness caused bycaused
sample compactness excessive fiber incorporation
by excessive could no longer
fiber incorporation could
be longer
no neutralized by soil and
be neutralized byC&D
soil andwaste
C&D [63,64].
wasteAs observed
[63,64]. in microstructure
As observed analysis,
in microstructure
numerousnumerous
analysis, fiber/binder ITZs appeared
fiber/binder in the CSS,inwhich
ITZs appeared significantly
the CSS, impaired theimpaired
which significantly bonding
the bonding strength. Notably, the compressive strength again grew significantly atsulfate
strength. Notably, the compressive strength again grew significantly at 0.8% sodium 0.8%
in Figure
sodium 4c from
sulfate in 2–4%
Figurefiber dosage.
4c from 2–4% This may
fiber be ascribed
dosage. This mayto sodium sulfateto
be ascribed activating
sodium
the formation of hydration products, providing strength and fewer air voids and thereby
compensating for the reduction.
 Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17

Buildings 2022, 12, 350 6 ofair

sulfate activating the formation of hydration products, providing strength and fewer 17
sulfate activating the formation of hydration products, providing strength and fewer air
voids and
sulfate therebythe
activating compensating
formation offor the reduction.
hydration products, providing strength and fewer air
voids and thereby compensating for the reduction.
voids and thereby compensating for the reduction.

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2. Unconfined compressive strength of 10% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b)
Unconfined compressive
[Link]
Figure compressive strength
strength of
of10%
10%cement
cementspecimen
specimen with
with(a)(a)
10% C&D
10% waste;
C&D (b) (b)
waste; 20%
20% C&D
Figure 2. waste; (c) 30%
Unconfined C&D waste
compressive (Note: Sofrepresents
strength 10% sodium
cement sulfate;
specimen F represents
with (a) 10% polypropylene
C&D waste; (b)
C&D
20% C&Dwaste; (c) (c)
waste; 30% C&D
30% C&Dwaste
waste(Note:
(Note:SSrepresents
representssodium
sodium sulfate; FF represents
representspolypropylene
polypropylene
fiber).
20% C&D waste; (c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene
fiber).
fiber).
fiber).

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
(a) (b)strength of 20% cement specimen with (a)
Figure 3. Unconfined compressive (c)10% C&D waste; (b)
Figure 3. Unconfined compressive strength of 20% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b)
20% C&D
Figure
Figure waste; (c) 30%
Unconfined
[Link] C&D waste
compressive
compressive (Note: of
strength S represents
20%
20%cement sodium sulfate;
specimen with F(a)
represents
10% C&D polypropylene
waste; (b) (b)
20%
20% C&D waste; (c) 30% C&D wastestrength
(Note: Sof cement
represents specimen
sodium with
sulfate; (a) 10%
F represents C&D waste;
polypropylene
fiber).
C&D
20% C&Dwaste; (c) (c)
waste; 30% C&D
30% C&Dwaste
waste(Note:
(Note:SSrepresents
represents sodium
sodium sulfate; FF represents
representspolypropylene
polypropylene
fiber).
fiber).
fiber).

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4. Unconfined compressive strength of 30% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b)
Figure 4. Unconfined compressive strength of 30% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b)
20% C&D
Figure waste; (c) 30%
4. Unconfined C&D waste
compressive (Note: Sofrepresents
strength sodium
30% cement sulfate;
specimen F represents
with polypropylene
(a) 10% C&D waste; (b)
20% C&D
Figure 4. waste; (c) 30%
Unconfined C&D wastestrength
compressive (Note: Sof
represents sodium
30% cement sulfate;
specimen withF (a)
represents
10% C&Dpolypropylene
waste; (b) 20%
fiber).
20% C&D waste; (c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene
fiber).
C&D waste; (c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene
fiber).
fiber).As shown in the above figures, the UCS test result increased with the increasing C&D
As shown in the above figures, the UCS test result increased with the increasing C&D
wasteAspercentage.
shown in theThe physical
above speculation
figures, the UCSfortestthe performance
result increasedimprovement is thatC&D
with the increasing C&D
wasteAspercentage.
shown inThe thephysical speculation
above figures, for thetest
the UCS performance improvement
result increased with the is that C&D
increasing
waste
waste demonstrates higher strength compared with soil. Particles act as support in the
C&D percentage.
waste waste
demonstrates
The physical
percentage.
higher
speculation
Thestrength
physical for the for
speculation
compared
performance
with the
improvement is that C&D
[Link]
Particles actimprovement
as support in is the
that
specimen,
waste preventing premature collapse. Furthermore, C&D wasteact participates in the
the
C&D demonstrates
waste
specimen, preventing
higher
demonstrates strength
higher
premature
compared
strength
collapse.
with soil.
compared
Furthermore, with Particles
C&[Link] as support
Particles in
act as support
participates in the
hydration preventing
specimen, of cement inpremature
CSS, with collapse.
consequent hydration products
Furthermore, C&D that participates
waste strengthen the in ma-
the
in the specimen,
hydration preventing
of cement premature
in CSS, with collapse.
consequent Furthermore,
hydration products C&D waste participates
that strengthen the ma-
terial [65–67].
hydration During
of cement the with
in CSS, hardening process,
consequent calciumproducts
hydration hydroxide that (CH) generated
strengthen the ma- by
in the hydration of cement in CSS, with consequent hydration products
terial [65–67]. During the hardening process, calcium hydroxide (CH) generated by that strengthen
terial [65–67]. During the hardening process, calcium hydroxide (CH)
the material [65–67]. During the hardening process, calcium hydroxide (CH) generated generated by
by hydration serves as acidic and alkaline catalysts, respectively. The effect is to activate
the hydration of silica, alumina, and old mortar in C&D waste, which produces C-S-H
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 7 of 17

to enhance sample blocks [68–70]. However, for the experimental groups with 10%, 20%
and 30% cement content, the peak compressive strength increments were 54.26%, 42.23%
and 9.19%, respectively. The enhancement receded with cement proportion as the binder
hydration approached completion.
Previous studies have confirmed the role of sulfate as an enhancer of mechanical prop-
erties. The incorporation of sulfate alters the hydration process, leading to the retardation
mechanism of ettringite formation (Equations (2) and (3)) [71,72]. The reason for the phe-
nomenon can be attributed to the ability of C-S-H to adsorb sulfate. The uptake and release
of sulfate ions lead to the rapidly accelerated rate of ettringite production and performance
development occurs during late curing stage. Moreover, the formation of cement hydration
products with increasing sodium sulfate mass ratio was specifically explored, as it improves
CSS performance without introducing impurities. Alkali-activated SO4 2− reacts with Ca2+
in the binder and AlO2− in the liquid phase to form ettringite, which yields mechanical
compensation effect [73–75]. In addition, free Na+ form NaOH, raising the early-age pH
value. Higher alkalinity fulfills the function of accelerating the dissolution of active SiO2
and Al2 O3 , mitigating the hindrance for further ettringite formation [76–78].

C3 A + 3CSH2 + 26H→C6 AS3 H32 (2)

2C3 A + C6 AS3 H32 + 4H→3C4 ASH12 (3)

As illustrated in the figures, the UCS test results developed readily during the 14- to
28-day curing period, but slowly during the early stage. The average growth levels from 7 d
to14 d and from 14 d to 28 d were 15.42% and 30.49%, respectively, a trend consistent with
previous literature. However, the property alteration in this research failed to demonstrate
an increasing trend. UCS showed rapid improvement from 0.2–0.8% sodium sulfate, while
the durability of specimens with 0.4% sodium sulfate appeared not to be influenced by the
dosing level. Compared with samples mixed with 0.2% sodium sulfate, the 0.4% proportion
provided modification ranging from −14–31.36%, which indicates that the inclusion of 0.4%
sodium sulfate impeded the UCS enhancement. Since the dosage was nowhere near the
level of sulfate attack, the causes of the errors can be ascribed to inaccurate data recording
and raw material discrepancies.

3.2. Flexural Strength Test

Figure 5 presents the flexural performance escalation of the control group due to the
raising of the Portland cement proportion. It can be distinctly observed that the flexural
strength increased at higher cement content (20–30%) during all curing ages. The increments
ranged from 16.82–91.19% and 148.95–176.91%, respectively, for the 10–20% and 20–30%
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17
dosing levels. The maximum amplification achieved 1.94 times that for specimens with a
low dosage (10–20%).

Figure
[Link] strength
Flexural enhancement
strength of of
enhancement control group
control (Note:
group C represents
(Note: Portland
C represents cement).
Portland cement).

As illustrated in Figure 6, the polypropylene fiber content demonstrated a positive

effect on flexural strength growth. Mechanical properties were enhanced by up to 82.33%
and 150.31% for the 1–2% and 2–4% dosing levels, respectively. Figures 7 and 8 represent
the same trend, as evidenced by peak improvements in the ranges of 59.02–79.65% and
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 8 of 17
Figure 5. Flexural strength enhancement of control group (Note: C represents Portland cement).

As illustrated
As illustrated in in Figure
Figure 6,6, the
the polypropylene
polypropylene fiber fiber content
content demonstrated
demonstrated aa positive
positive
effect on flexural strength growth. Mechanical properties were enhanced by up to 82.33%
effect on flexural strength growth. Mechanical properties were enhanced by up to 82.33%
and 150.31%
and 150.31% for for the
the 1–2%
1–2% andand 2–4%
2–4% dosing
dosing levels,
levels, respectively. Figures 77 and
respectively. Figures and 88 represent
represent
the same
the same trend,
trend, as
as evidenced
evidenced by by peak
peak improvements
improvements in in the
the ranges
ranges of of 59.02–79.65%
59.02–79.65% and and
38.62–132.72%,respectively.
38.62–132.72%, [Link] Theobservation
observation demonstrates
demonstrates that
that fibrous
fibrous material
material contrib-
contributes
utes
to to flexural
flexural performance
performance modification
modification [79]. Specimens
[79]. Specimens are therefore
are therefore endowed endowed with
with certain
certain strength after the appearance of cracks, mitigating the property
strength after the appearance of cracks, mitigating the property deterioration of weak deterioration of
weak fiber/binder ITZs [80,81]. Moreover, the maximum values of
fiber/binder ITZs [80,81]. Moreover, the maximum values of flexural strength are recorded flexural strength are
recorded
for specimensfor specimens
containingcontaining
30% C&D30% wasteC&Dandwaste andin
4% fiber 4%Figures
fiber in6 Figures 6 andthe
and 7, while 7, while
peak
the peak to
switches switches
20% C&D to 20%
wasteC&D [Link]
in Figure Figure
value8. of
The value strength
flexural of flexural thenstrength thenfrom
decreases de-
creases
2.03 MPa from 2.03MPa
to 1.45 MPaafter
to 1.45
30%MPa
C&D after 30%isC&D
waste [Link]
added. The degeneration may
may be attributed
be excessive
to attributedC&D to excessive C&D waste
waste particles, whichparticles,
impeded which impededeffect
the bridging the bridging
[82]. Aneffect [82].
optimum
An optimum
mixture designmixture
thereforedesign
shouldtherefore shouldtobeachieve
be considered considered to achieve
the balance the balance
between mechanicalbe-
tween mechanical performance
performance and material consumption. and material consumption.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6. Flexural strength of 10% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b) 20% C&D9 waste;
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 17
Figure 6. Flexural strength of 10% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b) 20% C&D waste;
(c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene fiber).
(c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene fiber).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7. Flexural strength of 20% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b) 20% C&D waste;
Figure 7. Flexural strength of 20% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b) 20% C&D waste;
(c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene fiber).
(c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene fiber).

The positive effect of C&D waste dosage on flexural strength can be distinctly seen
from the above figures. This can be attributed to a similar reason as for the UCS results,
which involved the enhancement of hydrate reaction and physical strength. However,
Figure 8c illustrates deterioration, due to the increase in C&D waste leading to more large
particles and entrapped air. Moreover, the peak improvements were 56.83% and 57.2%, as
shown in Figures 7 and 8, while the flexural strength of the 10% cement group remained at
a relatively stable level. The maximum increment in Figure 6 is 21.62%, which is 2.64 times
smaller than the overall peak enhancement. This reveals that cement yields the impact of
activating old mortar and improving bonding strength [83,84].

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8. Flexural strength of 30% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b) 20% C&D waste;
(c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene fiber).
 (a) (b) (c)
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 9 of 17
Figure 7. Flexural strength of 20% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b) 20% C&D waste;
(c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene fiber).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8. Flexural strength of 30% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b) 20% C&D waste;
Figure 8. Flexural strength of 30% cement specimen with (a) 10% C&D waste; (b) 20% C&D waste;
(c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene fiber).
(c) 30% C&D waste (Note: S represents sodium sulfate; F represents polypropylene fiber).

The
The positive
influenceeffect of C&D
of sodium wastedosing
sulfate dosagelevel
on flexural strength
is of special can be
concern, distinctly
since seen
it has been
from the above figures. This can be attributed to a similar reason
proposed as an outstanding mechanical strength enhancer. However, as illustrated in as for the UCS results,
which involved
the figures, the enhancement
the maximum flexuralofstrength
hydrategrowth
reactionreached
and physical
69.96%,strength.
revealing However,
that the
Figure 8c illustrates
contribution deterioration,
of hydration products due
to to the increase
flexural strengthin C&D waste leading
is minimal. Moreover, to more large
compared
particles
with the and entrapped
remarkable air. Moreover,
flexural the peak improvements
strength enhancement were 56.83%
from the 0.2–0.8% and 57.2%,
proportion, the
as shown in Figures
modification 7 and the
effect from 8, while the flexural
0.2–0.4% strength
proportion of the 10% cement
is insignificant. group of
The source remained
error is
at a relatively
similar stable level.
to the reason discussedThe inmaximum
Section [Link] in Figure 6 is 21.62%, which is 2.64
times smaller than the overall peak enhancement. This reveals that cement yields the im-
3.3. Optimum
pact Mixture
of activating Design and improving bonding strength [83,84].
old mortar
The influencemixture
An optimum of sodium sulfate
design dosing in
is proposed level is of
order special
to seek concern,
a balance since it
between has been
mechanical
proposed
propertiesasand an economic
outstanding mechanical
benefits. Tables strength
5 and 6enhancer.
show the However,
rankings ofasUCS
illustrated in the
and flexural
strengths,
figures, therespectively, with the strength
maximum flexural inclusiongrowth
of various admixtures
reached 69.96%, and curing age.
revealing thatCombining
the contri-
the twooftables
bution provides
hydration a reference
products for thestrength
to flexural [Link] minimal. Moreover, compared with
the remarkable flexural strength enhancement from the 0.2–0.8% proportion, the modifi-
Unconfined
Table [Link]
cation from thecompressive
0.2–0.4% strength ranking.
proportion is insignificant. The source of error is similar to
the reason discussed in Section 3.1.
Sodium Curing Time
Cement C&D Waste Fiber UCS (MPa) Ranking
Sulfate (Day)
3.3. Optimum Mixture Design
30% 30% 4% 0.8% 28 2.6572 1
An optimum
30% 10%mixture design
1% is proposed
0.8% in order to 28
seek a balance between mechan-
2.5880 2
ical30%
properties and
10%economic 4%benefits. Tables
0.8% 5 and 6 show28 the rankings of UCS and3flex-
2.4336
ural30% 20%
strengths, respectively, 4% 0.8%
with the inclusion 28 admixtures
of various 2.3720
and curing4age.
30% 30% 1% 0.4% 28
Combining the two tables provides a reference for the selection. 2.3084 5
30% 10% 2% 0.4% 28 2.2816 6
30% 30% 4% 0.8% 14 2.2656 7
30% 10% 4% 0.2% 28 2.2256 8
30% 10% 2% 0.8% 28 2.2148 9
30% 20% 2% 0.4% 28 2.1592 10

It is evidenced that 30% cement content and longer curing time are more likely to
produce peak enhancement than the other combinations. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the
specimens with the top 10 enhancement levels were mixed with 30% cement, while 76.2%
results were obtained after 28 days. In addition, a higher dosing level of polypropylene fiber
presented a prominent performance improvement, as expressed in the tables by 15 speci-
mens that were reinforced by 4% fiber content. It is noteworthy that the specimens ranked 1
to 4 in Table 5 were included 0.8% sodium sulfate, revealing that the effect of this inclusion
tended toward maximum UCS improvement. However, the trend was not pronounced for
flexural strength. Four samples in Table 6 constitute 0.2% and 0.8% sodium sulfate content,
while two samples were enhanced by 0.4% proportion. Various dosages demonstrated
an average influence factor on flexural resistance. C&D waste yielded a negative correla-
tion with strength increment. Rankings in Tables 5 and 6 show that 71.4% of specimens
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 10 of 17

reinforced by a lower C&D waste proportion (10% to 20%) presented peak mechanical
property enhancement. Additionally, flexural strength manifested more sensitivity to C&D
waste content, as indicated in Table 6 by the sole specimens with the inclusion of 30%
C&D waste that were located in lower rankings (5–10). Consequently, the specimen with
variable percentages of 30%, 4%, 20% and 0.8% for Portland cement, polypropylene fiber,
C&D waste, and sodium sulfate, respectively, is considered as exhibiting peak property
enhancement, evidenced by its high rankings in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 6. Flexural strength ranking.

Sodium Curing Time Flexural

Cement C&D Waste Fiber Ranking
Sulfate (Day) Strength (MPa)
30% 20% 4% 0.2% 28 2.0286 1
30% 20% 4% 0.8% 28 1.6752 2
30% 10% 4% 0.2% 28 1.6690 3
30% 20% 4% 0.2% 14 1.6124 4
30% 30% 4% 0.8% 28 1.5334 5
30% 20% 4% 0.8% 14 1.4556 6
30% 30% 4% 0.2% 28 1.4504 7
30% 10% 4% 0.4% 28 1.4320 8
30% 10% 4% 0.4% 14 1.4189 9
30% 10% 4% 0.8% 14 1.3497 10

3.4. SEM Analysis

The specimen that was prepared with 30% Portland cement, 30% C&D waste, 0.4%
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
sodium sulfate, and 4% polypropylene fiber was selected to be observed, as it demonstrated
evident strength reduction. The microstructure was as presented in Figure 9a. When
the specimen failed, polypropylene fiber at the section was pulled out, reflecting the
demonstrated evident strength reduction. The microstructure was as presented in Figure
strengthening mechanism of the bridging effect. Fibers were randomly distributed within
9a. When the specimen failed, polypropylene fiber at the section was pulled out, reflecting
the mixture, forming a spatial mesh structure that effectively reinforced the CSS [85].
the strengthening mechanism of the bridging effect. Fibers were randomly distributed
However,
within significant
the mixture, porosity
forming between
a spatial particles that
mesh structure can effectively
be readilyreinforced
observed,the which
CSS was the
major cause of undesirable mechanical performance. At a low sodium sulfate
[85]. However, significant porosity between particles can be readily observed, which was dosing level
(0.4%), the over-doped fibers underwent an agglomeration effect within
the major cause of undesirable mechanical performance. At a low sodium sulfate dosing the slurry, and
the incompletely
level activatedfibers
(0.4%), the over-doped cement was unable
underwent to produce sufficient
an agglomeration amounts
effect within of hydration
the slurry,
by-products,
and leading
the incompletely to the formation
activated cement wasof numerous
unable weaksufficient
to produce ITZs [86]. Figureof9b
amounts hy-illustrates
dration by-products, leading
the microstructure to the formation
of the specimen of numerous
prepared with theweak ITZs [86]. Figure
aforementioned 9b il- mixture
optimal
lustrates the microstructure
design. The of the specimen
coupling enhancement between prepared with the
the variables is aforementioned
demonstrated by optimal
the aggregates
mixture design. The coupling enhancement between the variables
wrapped by C-S-H and ettringite. The entrapped air voids between the C&D is demonstrated by thewaste and
aggregates
the fibers wrapped by C-S-H
are adequately and ettringite.
filled, resultingThe entrapped airofvoids
in promotion ITZ between
strengththeandC&Dmechanical
waste and the fibers are adequately filled, resulting in promotion of ITZ strength and me-
performance.
chanical performance.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Microstructure of fracture surface after flexural strength test: (a) prior failed specimen; (b)
Figure 9. Microstructure of fracture surface after flexural strength test: (a) prior failed specimen;
optimum mixture design specimen.
(b) optimum mixture design specimen.
Figure 10 compares microstructures of untreated polypropylene fiber with fiber used
for CSS reinforcement. Ordinary polypropylene fiber represents a smooth surface, while
Figure 10b illustrates the unevenness of the alkali-treated fibers. The friction provided by
the crude surface enhances the particle cohesion from a physical aspect as the fibrous ma-
terial cannot participate in the cement hydration [87]. Network-like polypropylene fiber
therefore shows effectiveness in particle movement restriction and crack inhibition. In ad-
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 (a) (b) 11 of 17
Figure 9. Microstructure of fracture surface after flexural strength test: (a) prior failed specimen; (b)
optimum mixture design specimen.
Figure 10 compares microstructures of untreated polypropylene fiber with fiber used
Figure
for CSS 10 compares microstructures
reinforcement. of untreated
Ordinary polypropylene polypropylene
fiber represents afiber with fiber
smooth usedwhile
surface,
for CSS reinforcement. Ordinary polypropylene fiber represents a smooth surface, while
Figure 10b illustrates the unevenness of the alkali-treated fibers. The friction provided
Figure 10b illustrates the unevenness of the alkali-treated fibers. The friction provided by
by the crude surface enhances the particle cohesion from a physical aspect as the fibrous
the crude surface enhances the particle cohesion from a physical aspect as the fibrous ma-
material cannot participate in the cement hydration [87]. Network-like polypropylene fiber
terial cannot participate in the cement hydration [87]. Network-like polypropylene fiber
therefore shows effectiveness in particle movement restriction and crack inhibition. In
therefore shows effectiveness in particle movement restriction and crack inhibition. In ad-
addition, fiber with a rougher surface yields a larger surface area for C-S-H and ettringite
dition, fiber with a rougher surface yields a larger surface area for C-S-H and ettringite
attachment, compensating the reduction in compactness due to fiber incorporation.
attachment, compensating the reduction in compactness due to fiber incorporation.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure10.
[Link]
Microstructureofof
polypropylene fiber:
polypropylene (a) (a)
fiber: untreated fiber;
untreated (b) alkali-treated
fiber; [Link].
(b) alkali-treated

4. Conclusions
This research conducted a series of laboratory tests to examine the enhancement of
cement-stabilized soil (CSS) specimen performance with the inclusion of Portland cement,
polypropylene fiber, construction and demolition (C&D) waste, and sodium sulfate. The
inclusion effects on unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and flexural strength was
evaluated. Primary conclusions drawn from the above analysis are summarized as follows.
(1) Portland cement hydration products raise the UCS and flexural strength results
simultaneously. Ettringite presents effectiveness in enhancing physical performance, while
introducing brittle failure mode.
(2) With increasing dosage of polypropylene fiber, an improvement in flexural strength
is continuous, while UCS enhancement is mitigated at a 30% cement dosage.
(3) UCS and flexural strength increase with the introduction of C&D waste. The lower
dosing level (10–20%) exhibits better effectivity.
(4) Mechanical properties of CSS increase with the addition of sodium sulfate content.
The proportion of 0.8% derives the maximum increment. Meanwhile, 14 d–28 d curing
time represents higher enhancement efficiency.
(5) Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis on the UCS fracture surface explained
the mechanism of alkali-activated fiber reinforcement. Polypropylene fiber generates a
spatial network, wrapping specimens against deformation and cracking. Sodium sulfate
supplements the enhancement by catalyzing cement hydration, thus promoting the strength
of the mechanical bond between fiber, aggregates, and CSS matrix.
(6) The combination of 30% Portland cement content, 4% polypropylene fiber content,
20% C&D waste content, and 0.8% sodium sulfate content is considered the optimal mixture
design. By balancing the dosing level of each variable, the specimen yields the best general
mechanical properties.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.Z.; methodology, G.Z.; writing-original draft, Z.D.;

writing-review & editing, R.Z.; project administration, R.Z.; formal analysis, C.C.; validation, C.C.;
visualization, G.F.; visualization, X.L.; writing-review & editing, Y.W.; formal analysis, C.Z.; resources,
C.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research was supported by Key Project of the Hunan Education Department (grant
number 21A0511), National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 51908201 and
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 12 of 17

51978254), Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (grant numbers 2020JJ5024; 2021JJ50142),
and Hunan Provincial Science and Technology Plan (grant number 2021NK4273). The authors
appreciate their support.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are openly available.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. The Portland Cement, C&D waste, propylene fiber, and sodium sulfate proportion of the
samples in this test.

ID Portland Cement C&D Waste Propylene Fiber Sodium Sulfate

Control 1 10% NA NA NA
Control 2 20% NA NA NA
Control 3 30% NA NA NA
1 0.2%
2 1% 0.4%
3 0.8%
4 0.2%
5 10% 2% 0.4%
6 0.8%
7 0.2%
8 4% 0.4%
9 0.8%
10 0.2%
11 1% 0.4%
12 0.8%
13 0.2%
10%
14 20% 2% 0.4%
15 0.8%
16 0.2%
17 4% 0.4%
18 0.8%
19 0.2%
20 1% 0.4%
21 0.8%
22 0.2%
23 30% 2% 0.4%
24 0.8%
25 0.2%
26 4% 0.4%
27 0.8%
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 13 of 17

Table A1. Cont.

ID Portland Cement C&D Waste Propylene Fiber Sodium Sulfate

28 0.2%
29 1% 0.4%
30 0.8%
31 0.2%
32 10% 2% 0.4%
33 0.8%
34 0.2%
35 4% 0.4%
36 0.8%
37 0.2%
38 1% 0.4%
39 0.8%
40 0.2%
20%
41 20% 2% 0.4%
42 0.8%
43 0.2%
44 4% 0.4%
45 0.8%
46 0.2%
47 1% 0.4%
48 0.8%
49 0.2%
50 30% 2% 0.4%
51 0.8%
52 0.2%
53 4% 0.4%
54 0.8%
55 0.2%
56 1% 0.4%
57 0.8%
58 0.2%
59 30% 10% 2% 0.4%
60 0.8%
61 0.2%
62 4% 0.4%
63 0.8%
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 14 of 17

Table A1. Cont.

ID Portland Cement C&D Waste Propylene Fiber Sodium Sulfate

64 0.2%
65 1% 0.4%
66 0.8%
67 0.2%
68 20% 2% 0.4%
69 0.8%
70 0.2%
71 4% 0.4%
72 0.8%
30%
73 0.2%
74 1% 0.4%
75 0.8%
76 0.2%
77 30% 2% 0.4%
78 0.8%
79 0.2%
80 4% 0.4%
81 0.8%

References
1. Natianal Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2019.
2. Huang, B.; Wang, X.; Kua, H.; Geng, Y.; Bleischwitz, R.; Ren, J. Construction and demolition waste management in China through
the 3R principle. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 129, 36–44. [CrossRef]
3. Construction and Demolition Waste. 2018. Available online: [Link]
construction-and-demolition-waste_en (accessed on 1 March 2022).
4. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Ding, Y.; Colangelo, F.; Tuladhar, R.; Koutamanis, A.D. Advances in Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling:
Management, Processing and Environmental Assessment; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2020.
5. Pierrehumbert, R. There is no Plan B for dealing with the climate crisis. Bull. At. Sci. 2019, 75, 215–221. [CrossRef]
6. Pierrehumbert, R. How to decarbonize? Look to Sweden. Bull. At. Sci. 2016, 72, 105–111. [CrossRef]
7. Alley, R.B.; Marotzke, J.; Nordhaus, W.D.; Overpeck, J.T.; Peteet, D.M.; Pielke, R.A., Jr.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Rhines, P.B.; Stocker,
T.F.; Talley, L.D.; et al. Abrupt Climate Change. Science 2003, 299, 2005–2010. [CrossRef]
8. Jellinek, A.M.; Lenardic, A.; Pierrehumbert, R. Earth’s supecontinental climate control. In EGU General Assembly Conference
Abstracts; European Geosciences Union: Munich, Germany, 2021.
9. Liu, C.; Wu, D.; Li, Y.; Du, Y. Large-scale pavement roughness measurements with vehicle crowdsourced data using semi-
supervised learning. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2021, 125, 103048. [CrossRef]
10. Li, X.; Li, Y.; Jia, T.; Zhou, L.; Hijazi, I.H. The six dimensions of built environment on urban vitality: Fusion evidence from
multi-source data. Cities 2021, 121, 103482. [CrossRef]
11. Ghouleh, Z.; Shao, Y. Turning municipal solid waste incineration into a cleaner cement production. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195,
268–279. [CrossRef]
12. Zhu, W.; Chen, X.; Struble, L.J.; Yang, E.-H. Characterization of calcium-containing phases in alkali-activated municipal solid
waste incineration bottom ash binder through chemical extraction and deconvoluted Fourier transform infrared spectra. J. Clean.
Prod. 2018, 192, 782–789. [CrossRef]
13. García-Taengua, E.; Sonebi, M.; Crossett, P.; Taylor, S.; Deegan, P.; Ferrara, L.; Pattarini, A. Performance of sustainable SCC mixes
with mineral additions for use in precast concrete industry. J. Sustain. Cem. Mater. 2015, 5, 157–175. [CrossRef]
14. Sun, J.; Wang, Y.; Liu, S.; Dehghani, A.; Xiang, X.; Wei, J.; Wang, X. Mechanical, chemical and hydrothermal activation for waste
glass reinforced cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 301, 124361. [CrossRef]
15. Tang, Y.; Feng, W.; Chen, Z.; Nong, Y.; Guan, S.; Sun, J. Fracture behavior of a sustainable material: Recycled concrete with waste
crumb rubber subjected to elevated temperatures. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 318, 128553. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 15 of 17

16. Wang, B.; Yan, L.; Fu, Q.; Kasal, B. A Comprehensive Review on Recycled Aggregate and Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 171, 105565. [CrossRef]
17. Tayeh, B.A.; Alsaffar, D.; Alyousef, R. The Utilization of Recycled Aggregate in High Performance Concrete: A Review. J. Mater.
Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 8469–8481. [CrossRef]
18. del Valle-Zermeño, R.; Giro-Paloma, J.; Formosa, J.; Chimenos, J.M. APC Fly Ash Recycling: Development of a Granular Material
from Laboratory to a Pilot Scale. Waste Biomass Valorization 2017, 8, 1409–1419. [CrossRef]
19. Toraldo, E.; Saponaro, S.F. A road pavement full-scale test track containing stabilized bottom ashes. Environ. Technol. 2014, 36,
1114–1122. [CrossRef]
20. Huang, H.; Xue, C.; Zhang, W.; Guo, M. Torsion design of CFRP-CFST columns using a data-driven optimization approach. Eng.
Struct. 2021, 251, 113479. [CrossRef]
21. Guo, Z.; Tu, A.; Chen, C.; Lehman, D.E. Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of concrete building blocks
incorporating recycled concrete aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 199, 136–149. [CrossRef]
22. Liu, J.; Wu, C.; Wu, G.; Wang, X. A novel differential search algorithm and applications for structure design. Appl. Math. Comput.
2015, 268, 246–269. [CrossRef]
23. Xu, H.; Wang, X.-Y.; Liu, C.-N.; Chen, J.-N.; Zhang, C. A 3D root system morphological and mechanical model based on L-Systems
and its application to estimate the shear strength of root-soil composites. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 212, 105074. [CrossRef]
24. Wen, P.; Wang, C.; Song, L.; Niu, L.; Chen, H. Durability and Sustainability of Cement-Stabilized Materials Based on Utilization of
Waste Materials: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11610. [CrossRef]
25. Ifediniru, C.; Ekeocha, N.E. Performance of cement-stabilized weak subgrade for highway embankment construction in Southeast
Nigeria. Int. J. Geo-Eng. 2022, 13, 1. [CrossRef]
26. Dahale, P.P.; Nagarnaik, P.B.; Gajbhiye, A.R. Utilization of solid waste for soil stabilization: A review. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng.
2012, 17, 2443–2461.
27. Islam, M.S.; Elahi, T.E.; Shahriar, A.R.; Mumtaz, N. Effectiveness of fly ash and cement for compressed stabilized earth block
construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 255, 119392. [CrossRef]
28. Kariyawasam, K.; Jayasinghe, C. Cement stabilized rammed earth as a sustainable construction material. Constr. Build. Mater.
2016, 105, 519–527. [CrossRef]
29. Anagnostopoulos, C.A. Strength properties of an epoxy resin and cement-stabilized silty clay soil. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 114,
517–529. [CrossRef]
30. Donatello, S.; Fernández-Jimenez, A.; Palomo, A. Very high volume fly ash cements. Early age hydration study using Na 2 SO 4
as an activator. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2013, 96, 900–906. [CrossRef]
31. Huang, Y.; An, C.; Zhang, Q.; Zang, L.; Shao, H.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yuan, H.; Wang, C.; Wang, Y. Cost-effective mechanochemical
synthesis of highly dispersed supported transition metal catalysts for hydrogen storage. Nano Energy 2020, 80, 105535. [CrossRef]
32. Huang, L.; Yang, Z. Early hydration of tricalcium silicate with potassium hydroxide and sulfate from pore solution and solid
view. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 230, 116988. [CrossRef]
33. Atashband, S.; Sabermahani, M.; Elahi, H. Internal and External Effects of Sodium Sulfate on the Strength of Soil Cement. Iran. J.
Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2020, 45, 2595–2610. [CrossRef]
34. Tsai, Y.-H.; Wang, J.; Chien, W.-T.; Wei, C.-Y.; Wang, X.; Hsieh, S.-H. A BIM-based approach for predicting corrosion under
insulation. Autom. Constr. 2019, 107, 102923. [CrossRef]
35. Tang, Z.; Li, W.; Ke, G.; Zhou, J.L.; Tam, V.W. Sulfate attack resistance of sustainable concrete incorporating various industrial
solid wastes. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 810–822. [CrossRef]
36. Firoozi, A.A.; Guney Olgun, C.; Firoozi, A.A.; Baghini, M.S. Fundamentals of soil stabilization. Int. J. Geo-Eng. 2017, 8, 26.
[CrossRef]
37. Sharma, L.; Sirdesai, N.; Sharma, K.; Singh, T. Experimental study to examine the independent roles of lime and cement on the
stabilization of a mountain soil: A comparative study. Appl. Clay Sci. 2018, 152, 183–195. [CrossRef]
38. Wu, C.; Wang, X.; Chen, M.; Kim, M.J. Differential received signal strength based RFID positioning for construction equipment
tracking. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2019, 42, 100960. [CrossRef]
39. Wang, L.; Roy, A.; Seals, R.K.; Byerly, Z. Suppression of Sulfate Attack on a Stabilized Soil. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2005, 88, 1600–1606.
[CrossRef]
40. Xu, S.; Wang, J.; Shou, W.; Ngo, T.; Sadick, A.-M.; Wang, X. Computer Vision Techniques in Construction: A Critical Review. Arch.
Comput. Methods Eng. 2020, 28, 3383–3397. [CrossRef]
41. Zhang, W.; Wu, C.; Zhong, H.; Li, Y.; Wang, L. Prediction of undrained shear strength using extreme gradient boosting and
random forest based on Bayesian optimization. Geosci. Front. 2020, 12, 469–477. [CrossRef]
42. Sun, J.; Wang, Y.; Yao, X.; Ren, Z.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, C.; Chen, X.; Ma, W.; Wang, X. Machine-Learning-Aided Prediction of
Flexural Strength and ASR Expansion for Waste Glass Cementitious Composite. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6686. [CrossRef]
43. Sun, J.; Ma, Y.; Li, J.; Zhang, J.; Ren, Z.; Wang, X. Machine learning-aided design and prediction of cementitious composites
containing graphite and slag powder. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 102544. [CrossRef]
44. Sun, Y.; Li, G.; Zhang, J.; Sun, J.; Xu, J. Development of an Ensemble Intelligent Model for Assessing the Strength of Cemented
Paste Backfill. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 1–6. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 16 of 17

45. Zhang, C.; Kordestani, H.; Masri, S.F.; Wang, J.; Sun, L. Data-driven system parameter change detection for a chain-like
uncertainties embedded structure. Struct. Control Heal. Monit. 2021, 28, e2821. [CrossRef]
46. Cristelo, N.; Cunha, V.M.; Dias, M.; Gomes, A.T.; Miranda, T.; Araújo, N. Influence of discrete fibre reinforcement on the uniaxial
compression response and seismic wave velocity of a cement-stabilised sandy-clay. Geotext. Geomembr. 2015, 43, 1–13. [CrossRef]
47. Kumar, A.; Walia, B.S.; Mohan, J. Compressive strength of fiber reinforced highly compressible clay. Constr. Build. Mater. 2006, 20,
1063–1068. [CrossRef]
48. Aslani, F.; Sun, J.; Bromley, D.; Ma, G. Fiber-reinforced lightweight self-compacting concrete incorporating scoria aggregates at
elevated temperatures. Struct. Concr. 2019, 20, 1022–1035. [CrossRef]
49. Wang, J.; Dai, Q.; Si, R.; Guo, S. Investigation of properties and performances of Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) fiber-reinforced rubber
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 193, 631–642. [CrossRef]
50. Wang, J.; Dai, Q.; Si, R.; Ma, Y.; Guo, S. Fresh and mechanical performance and freeze-thaw durability of steel fiber-reinforced
rubber self-compacting concrete (SRSCC). J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123180. [CrossRef]
51. Dobrovolski, M.E.; Munhoz, G.S.; Pereira, E.; Medeiros-Junior, R.A. Effect of crystalline admixture and polypropylene microfiber
on the internal sulfate attack in Portland cement composites due to pyrite oxidation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 308, 125018.
[CrossRef]
52. Wang, J.; Dai, Q.; Guo, S.; Si, R. Study on Rubberized Concrete Reinforced with Different Fibers. ACI Mater. J. 2019, 116, 21–31.
[CrossRef]
53. Yu, X.; Sun, Y.; Zhao, D.; Wu, S. A revised contact stiffness model of rough curved surfaces based on the length scale. Tribol. Int.
2021, 164, 107206. [CrossRef]
54. China MoHaU-RDotPsRo (Ed.) Standard for Soil Test Method, in GB/T 50123-1999; Planning Press: Beijing, China, 1999.
55. Sun, J.; Huang, Y.; Aslani, F.; Wang, X.; Ma, G. Mechanical enhancement for EMW-absorbing cementitious material using 3D
concrete printing. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 41, 102763. [CrossRef]
56. Zhang, W.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; Liu, H.; Chen, Y.; Ding, X. Application of deep learning algorithms in geotechnical engineering: A short
critical review. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2021, 54, 5633–5673. [CrossRef]
57. Amini, O.; Ghasemi, M. Laboratory study of the effects of using magnesium slag on the geotechnical properties of cement
stabilized soil. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 223, 409–420. [CrossRef]
58. Feng, J.; Chen, B.; Sun, W.; Wang, Y. Microbial induced calcium carbonate precipitation study using Bacillus subtilis with
application to self-healing concrete preparation and characterization. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 280, 122460. [CrossRef]
59. Wang, M.; Yang, X.; Wang, W. Establishing a 3D aggregates database from X-ray CT scans of bulk concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
2021, 315, 125740. [CrossRef]
60. Singh, V.; Gu, N.; Wang, X. A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-disciplinary collaboration platform. Autom. Constr.
2011, 20, 134–144. [CrossRef]
61. Xu, J.; Wu, Z.; Chen, H.; Shao, L.; Zhou, X.; Wang, S. Triaxial Shear Behavior of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Loess Based on Digital
Image Technology. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 25, 3714–3726. [CrossRef]
62. Sun, J.; Aslani, F.; Lu, J.; Wang, L.; Huang, Y.; Ma, G. Fibre-reinforced lightweight engineered cementitious composites for 3D
concrete printing. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 27107–27121. [CrossRef]
63. Aslani, F.; Sun, J.; Huang, G. Mechanical Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced Self-Compacting Rubberized Concrete Exposed to Elevated
Temperatures. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019, 31, 04019302. [CrossRef]
64. Hou, L.; Wu, S.; Zhang, G.; Tan, Y.; Wang, X. Literature Review of Digital Twins Applications in Construction Workforce Safety.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 11, 339. [CrossRef]
65. Dimitriou, G.; Savva, P.; Petrou, M.F. Enhancing mechanical and durability properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2018, 158, 228–235. [CrossRef]
66. Xiang, G.X.; Xiang, G.X.; Gao, X.; Gao, X.; Tang, W.J.; Tang, W.J.; Jie, X.Z.; Jie, X.Z.; Huang, X.; Huang, X. Numerical study on
transition structures of oblique detonations with expansion wave from finite-length cowl. Phys. Fluids 2020, 32, 056108. [CrossRef]
67. Zhang, H.; Liu, Y.; Deng, Y. Temperature gradient modeling of a steel box-girder suspension bridge using Copulas probabilistic
method and field monitoring. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2020, 24, 947–961. [CrossRef]
68. Cheng, H.L.; Wang, C.Y. The influence of sodium silicate on the properties of recycled aggregate. Gypsum Cem. Build. 2005, 12,
12–14.
69. Tam, V.W.; Soomro, M.; Evangelista, A.C.J. A review of recycled aggregate in concrete applications (2000–2017). Constr. Build.
Mater. 2018, 172, 272–292. [CrossRef]
70. Nanayakkara, O.; Gunasekara, C.; Sandanayake, M.; Law, D.W.; Nguyen, K.; Xia, J.; Setunge, S. Alkali activated slag concrete
incorporating recycled aggregate concrete: Long term performance and sustainability aspect. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 271,
121512. [CrossRef]
71. Joseph, S.; Skibsted, J.; Cizer, Ö. A quantitative study of the C3A hydration. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 115, 145–159. [CrossRef]
72. Zhao, R.; Zhang, L.; Guo, B.; Chen, Y.; Fan, G.; Jin, Z.; Guan, X.; Zhu, J. Unveiling substitution preference of chromium ions in
sulphoaluminate cement clinker phases. Compos. Part B Eng. 2021, 222, 109092. [CrossRef]
73. Marchon, D.; Flatt, R.J. Mechanisms of Cement Hydration, in Science and Technology of Concrete Admixtures; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 129–145.
Buildings 2022, 12, 350 17 of 17

74. Liu, B.; Spiekermann, R.; Zhao, C.; Püttmann, W.; Sun, Y.; Jasper, A.; Uhl, D. Evidence for the repeated occurrence of wildfires in
an upper Pliocene lignite deposit from Yunnan, SW China. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2022, 250, 103924. [CrossRef]
75. Wang, L.; Yuan, J.; Wu, C.; Wang, X. Practical algorithm for stochastic optimal control problem about microbial fermentation in
batch culture. Optim. Lett. 2017, 13, 527–541. [CrossRef]
76. Mähler, J.; Persson, I. A Study of the Hydration of the Alkali Metal Ions in Aqueous Solution. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 51, 425–438.
[CrossRef]
77. Huang, L.; Yan, P. Effect of alkali content in cement on its hydration kinetics and mechanical properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019,
228, 116833. [CrossRef]
78. Salvador, R.P.; Cavalaro, S.H.; Segura, I.; Figueiredo, A.D.; Pérez, J. Early age hydration of cement pastes with alkaline and
alkali-free accelerators for sprayed concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 111, 386–398. [CrossRef]
79. Xiao, X.; Bu, G.; Ou, Z.; Li, Z. Nonlinear in-plane instability of the confined FGP arches with nanocomposites reinforcement under
radially-directed uniform pressure. Eng. Struct. 2021, 252, 113670. [CrossRef]
80. Zhang, W.; Tang, Z. Numerical Modeling of Response of CFRP–Concrete Interfaces Subjected to Fatigue Loading. J. Compos.
Constr. 2021, 25, 04021043. [CrossRef]
81. Wang, J.; Dai, Q.; Si, R. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Fracture Behaviors of Steel Fiber–Reinforced Rubber
Self-Compacting Concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2022, 34, 04021379. [CrossRef]
82. Shi, T.; Lan, Y.; Hu, Z.; Wang, H.; Xu, J.; Zheng, B. Tensile and Fracture Properties of Silicon Carbide Whisker-Modified
Cement-Based Materials. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2022, 16, 2. [CrossRef]
83. Sun, J.; Lin, S.; Zhang, G.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, J.; Chen, C.; Morsy, A.M.; Wang, X. The effect of graphite and slag on electrical and
mechanical properties of electrically conductive cementitious composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 281, 122606. [CrossRef]
84. Li, J.; Qin, Q.; Sun, J.; Ma, Y.; Li, Q. Mechanical and conductive performance of electrically conductive cementitious composite
using graphite, steel slag, and GGBS. Struct. Concr. 2020, 22, 1–15. [CrossRef]
85. Wang, J.; Dai, Q.; Si, R.; Guo, S. Mechanical, durability, and microstructural properties of macro synthetic polypropylene (PP)
fiber-reinforced rubber concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 1351–1364. [CrossRef]
86. Aslani, F.; Hou, L.; Nejadi, S.; Sun, J.; Abbasi, S. Experimental analysis of fiber-reinforced recycled aggregate self-compacting
concrete using waste recycled concrete aggregates, polypropylene, and steel fibers. Struct. Concr. 2019, 20, 1670–1683. [CrossRef]
87. Xu, J.; Wu, Z.; Chen, H.; Shao, L.; Zhou, X.; Wang, S. Study on Strength Behavior of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Loess by Digital
Image Technology (DIT) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2021, 46, 11319–11338. [CrossRef]