Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

An algorithm for the use of MSWI bottom ash as a building material

in road pavement structural layers
Audrius Vaitkus, Judita Gražulytė ⇑, Ovidijus Šernas, Viktoras Vorobjovas, Rita Kleizienė
Road Research Institute, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania

h i g h l i g h t s

 0/2 fraction of MSWI bottom ash improves the soil.

 MSWI bottom ash mixtures (with crushed gravel and without) have high permeability.
 MSWI bottom ash mixtures can be used for unbound base and sub-base layers.
 0/2 fraction of MSWI bottom ash improves asphalt mixture performance.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) bottom ash (constituting approximately 80–90%) and fly ash
Received 21 November 2018 are by-products of the incineration of solid waste. In general, MSWI residues are primarily discarded into
Received in revised form 11 February 2019 landfills. To address the continuous growth of landfills and to implement zero waste and circular econ-
Accepted 3 April 2019
omy policies, researchers are focusing on more efficient ways of using MSWI bottom ash. To that end, the
Available online 6 April 2019
best practices show that MSWI bottom ash is suitable for civil engineering applications, especially roads.
Therefore, the subject of this research was the performance of subgrade and different unbound and
Keywords:
bound pavement structural layers containing bottom ash. An algorithm was also introduced to facilitate
Bottom ash
Building material
the use of MSWI bottom ash as a building material. Soil and mineral aggregate mixtures with different
Municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) percentages (0–100%) of bottom ash were designed and analysed, and more than 10 testing subjects con-
Soil improvement taining a high amount of MSWI bottom ash were tested in the laboratory. The research revealed the suit-
Subgrade ability of the 0/2 fraction of bottom ash to improve soil and to enhance the performance of asphalt
Pavement structure concrete mixture AC 16 PD in which the 0/4 fraction of sand is replaced with the 0/2 fraction of bottom
Base ash. Furthermore, the suitability of mixtures composed of mineral aggregates and MSWI bottom ash or
Asphalt mixture only of MSWI bottom ash (100%) to construct sub-base and base courses was confirmed.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction researchers have attempted to identify the use of MSWI bottom

Every inhabitant of city or town generates municipal solid
waste, which is composted, recycled, incinerated or discarded into
a landfill. Among these disposal methods, the incineration of solid
waste in a waste-to-energy plant is one of the most desirable
approaches, as it reduces the volume by approximately 90% (70%
by mass), changes the composition and recovers a substantial
quantity of energy. The residues produced during incineration
are composed of municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) bottom
ash (constituting approximately 80–90%) and fly ash, which are
typically landfilled. To address the unending growth of landfills
and to implement zero waste and circular economy policies,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: judita.grazulyte@vgtu.lt (J. Gražulytė).
ash instead of transferring it to landfills.
MSWI bottom ash is formed from ash, minerals, ceramics, fer-
rous and non-ferrous metals, glass, unburned materials and
organic carbon [1,2]. Accordingly, because it contains heavy metals
and soluble salts, which have a negative effect on the environment,
not all MSWI bottom ash can be used in alternative applications
(e.g., in civil engineering endeavours) as a substitute for landfilling.
Consequently, the leaching properties of bottom ash constitute a
primary concern for ascertaining possible alternative uses of MSWI
bottom ash.
Two main methods are applied to reduce the leaching of metals.
The first approach is known as MSWI bottom ash ageing (weather-
ing), in which MSWI bottom ash is stored in uncovered stockpiles
with ready access to water. It stabilizes bottom ash because car-
bonates are formed from the reaction of metal oxides and hydrates

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.04.014
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Vaitkus et al. / Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466
with carbon dioxide and the uptake of water from the atmosphere.
However, this process requires at least 1.5–6 months [1,3]. Bottom
ash that has not been aged (weathered) is not used in civil engi-
neering applications and is typically landfilled. The second method
is the recovery of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, which is per-
formed directly after the generation or ageing (weathering) of bot-
tom ash. Each technology of metal recovery results in specific
fractions of bottom ash. For example, the wet separation process
that is applied in the Amsterdam Waste and Energy Company
(AEB) is used to screen bottom ash into fractions of 0/2, 2/6, 6/20
and 20/40 [4], while a dry Dutch method known as advanced dry
recovery (ADR) yields fractions of 0/2, 2/5, 5/12 and 12/50 [5–7].
Furthermore, Germany proposed innovative treatment trains of
MSWI bottom ash lead to fractions of <0.25, 0.25/4, 4/16 and
16/45 in plant A, 0/2, 2/5, 5/18, and 18/60 in plant B, and 0/2,
2/8 and 8/50 in plant C [8]. These fractions of bottom ash can be
used separately or mixed with each other depending on the
required particle size distribution. Such a wide variety of bottom
ash fractions is caused by the ongoing development of recovery
technologies that increase the metal recovery efficiency, particu-
larly the recovery efficiency of non-ferrous metals. Conventionally,
non-ferrous metals are recovered with eddy current separators,
what results in an efficiency of only 30%. However, advanced
recovery methods achieve efficiencies exceeding 70% [5,6,9,10].
The other concern in decisions regarding possible alternative
uses of MSWI bottom ash is the loss of ignition; the corresponding
loss may amount to 2% or even less in modern waste-to-energy
plants, while it can reach 9% in less efficient, outdated plants
[3,11–13].
One of the main factors influencing the chemical and mineral
compositions and characteristics of MSWI bottom ash is the com-
position of incinerated waste, which is heavily affected by human
habits and economic policies at the country and even regional
scale. Thus, if MSWI bottom ash is intended for the use elsewhere
(e.g., in civil engineering application) as a substitute to being land-
filled, the characteristics of the bottom ash have to be periodically
checked, and internal quality assurance procedures and processes
must be implemented. Furthermore, the characteristics of bottom
ash in each waste-to-energy plant must be determined prior to
its use in civil engineering applications.
Studies that focused on the physical and mechanical character-
istics of MSWI bottom ash have demonstrated its potential appli-
cations in civil engineering endeavours, especially as aggregates in
road building materials for embankments and subgrades, unbound
bases and sub-base courses, and hot mix asphalt [14–19]. The
knowledge gaps from previous studies are discussed in detail
in [19].
The main aim of this paper is to determine the performance of
subgrade and of different unbound and bound pavement structural
layers with the bottom ash and to create an algorithm for the use of
MSWI bottom ash as a building material. For this purpose, mix-
tures made of bottom ash generated in Klaipėda and soil or mineral
aggregates (0–100%) were designed and analysed accordingly.
2. Experimental research
The entire experimental plan used to determine the suitability
of MSWI bottom ash for the subgrade and for different unbound
and bound pavement structural layers is shown in Fig. 1. The anal-
ysed MSWI bottom ash was produced in a waste-to-energy plant in
Klaipėda (Lithuania). Ferrous and non-ferrous metals were recov-
ered after more than 3 months of bottom ash storage in uncovered
stockpiles with ready access to water, i.e., after ageing (weather-
ing). The method that was used to recover metals from MSWI bot-
tom ash resulted in five fractions of bottom ash: 0/2, 2/4, 4/8, 5/11
457
and 11/22. These fractions met requirements for flakiness index,
shape index and percentage of crushed and broken surfaces consid-
ering their usage for unbound bases and sub-base courses as well as
for the production of asphalt concrete mixture. The main issue with
the bottom ash generated in this plant is its high water absorption
and susceptibility to freezing and thawing processes [19]. In addi-
tion, according to Lithuanian requirements, bottom ash is not suit-
able for a base course of crushed stone because it has a Los Angeles
coefficient (LA) lower than 35 in most cases [19]. The results from
the first stage of the experimental plan focusing on the physical
and mechanical characteristics of separate fractions of bottom
ash (0/2, 2/4, 4/8, 5/11 and 11/22) and their compliance with the
requirements for the intended purpose as replacement of mineral
aggregate are discussed more detail in [19].
This paper provides the results of only the second stage of the
experimental plan, during which the mixtures produced by mixing
different fractions of bottom ash or mixing bottom ash with soil
and mineral aggregates were analysed. All components were
mixed in different proportions considering the utilization purpose
(subgrade, unbound base/sub-base course or asphalt concrete mix-
ture) to ensure that the requirements for the particle size distribu-
tion were satisfied. To guarantee the same particle size distribution
among all tests, the necessary amount of each mixture was mixed
only once, and the needed amount for each test specimen was
taken by quartering the mixture according to European standard
EN 392-2. No less than three specimens were tested to determine
each characteristic given in subsections No. 2.1–2.3.
2.1. MSWI bottom ash for improving the subgrade soil
To determine whether the bottom ash is suitable for improving
the soil characteristics and to identify a reasonable amount, 5%,
10% and 15% of the 0/2 fraction of bottom ash were mixed with
low plasticity clay (CL), and a reference specimen of only clay
was made. The particle size distribution of the 0/2 fraction of the
bottom ash is shown in Table 1. The following characteristics were
determined for each mixture:
 Proctor density and optimal water content (European standard
EN 13286-2);
 California bearing ratio (CBR) after the 96-h soaking process
(European standard EN 13286-47);
 Resistance to freezing and thawing (according to the Lithuanian
technical document regulating the test methods for soil stabi-
lization BN GSR 12);
 Compressive strength after 7 days and 28 days (European stan-
dard EN 13286-41).
The resistance to freezing and thawing was evaluated according
to changes in the length of the specimen after 12 freeze-thaw
cycles. It was determined only for the mixtures containing MSWI
bottom ash.
2.2. MSWI bottom ash as unbound sub-base and base material
Considering the utilization of MSWI bottom ash for unbound
sub-base and base courses, 6 mixtures containing a high amount
of bottom ash were designed (Table 2). For each mixture separate
bottom ash fractions (0/2, 2/4, 4/8, 5/11 and 11/22) were mixed
with each other, and 20% or 30% of crushed gravel or dolomite
was added if necessary. The amount of each fraction added to
the mixtures were composed entirely of bottom ash selected on
the basis of the mass distribution during metal recovery.
According to the Lithuanian technical document describing the
technical requirements for road mineral materials (aggregates)
(TRA MIN 07), materials are resistant to frost if the amount of
458 A. Vaitkus et al. / Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466

Fig. 1. Experimental plan.

Table 1
Particle size distribution of the 0/2 fraction of bottom ash.
Sieve size, mm
Passing, % 0.063 0.5 1 2
9 40 62 88
water absorption is less than 0.5% or if the resistance to freezing
and thawing does not exceed 4%. The first stage revealed that the
bottom ash is susceptible to frost; the water absorption varied
from 7.3% to 9.3%, and the resistance to freezing and thawing var-
ied from 10.4% to 12.7%. Thus, MSWI bottom ash is not suitable for
the frost blanket course. However, the 0/2 fraction of bottom ash,
which typically is barely permeable, showed permeability that
was more than 3 times better than the required for most signifi-
cant roads (the required permeability is 2
10 5 m/s, while the
determined permeability was on average 7.39
10 5 m/s) [19].
Therefore, the mixtures containing bottom ash for the frost blanket
course were also designed despite the bottom ash susceptibility to
frost assuming that these mixtures will be used on roads with a
low traffic volume in most cases.
According to the Lithuanian technical document describing the
technical requirements for the mixtures used to construct the
unbound sub-base, base and wearing course (TRA SBR 07), bottom
ash is not suitable for the base course of crushed stone because it
does not meet the required resistance to fragmentation (LA).
Though the LA should not exceed 35, it varied on average from
37 to 40 depending on the fraction [19]. Despite this, in this
research the crushed dolomite was used instead of gravel to design
mixtures for the unbound base course. This decision is based on
the particle size distribution of the mixtures used for the base
course of gravel and base course of crushed stone (they are the
same), the thickness of the base course of gravel (it is always
higher than that of a base course of crushed stone), and the cate-
gory of road on which the bottom ash will be used (in many cases
the bottom ash will be used only on low-category roads). All these
findings came from experience in base course construction and lit-
4 erature review of MSWI bottom usage for roads.
100 All the designed mixtures met the requirements for the particle
size distribution considering the utilization purpose, i.e., as a pave-
ment structural layer. The particle size distribution of each mixture
is shown in Fig. 2. The following characteristics were determined
for each mixture:
 Amount of particles smaller than 0.063 mm (European standard
EN 933-1);
 Proctor density and optimal water content (European standard
EN 13286-2);
 CBR before and after the 96-h soaking process and linear swel-
ling (European standard EN 13286-47);
 Coefficient of permeability (European standard CEN ISO/TS
17892-11);
 Resistance to freezing and thawing (according to the German
method).
The coefficient of permeability was determined only for the
mixtures designed for the unbound sub-base course since there
is no requirement regarding the permeability of unbound base
course.
The German method used to assess the resistance of mixture to
freezing and thawing is similar to the European standard EN 1367-
1. However, in the German method the whole mixture is tested,
and the amount of particles smaller than 0.063 mm is determined
both before and after 10 freeze-thaw cycles. The entire amount of
particles smaller than 0.063 mm is calculated by adding the initial
(before the test) and the final (after the test) amounts of particles
smaller than 0.063 mm. The resistance to freezing and thawing
according to the German method was determined only for the mix-
tures made entirely of bottom ash.

Table 2
The analysed mixtures composed of bottom ash.

Pavement structural layer Fraction Mixture components Designation

Unbound sub-base course (frost blanket course or layer of frost-resistant material) 0/11 100% bottom ash 0/11_100
0/16 100% bottom ash 0/16_100
0/16 80% bottom ash + 20% crushed gravel 0/16_80/20
0/16 70% bottom ash + 30% crushed gravel 0/16_70/30
Unbound base course (base course of crushed stone or base course of gravel) 0/32 80% bottom ash + 20% crushed dolomite 0/32_80/20
0/32 70% bottom ash + 20% crushed dolomite 0/32_70/30
 A. Vaitkus et al. / Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466 459

100
90
80
70

Passing, % 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0. 0 6 3 0 .5 1 2 4 5.6 8 11 . 2 1 6 22 . 4 3 1 . 5 4 5
S ieve size, mm
0/11_100 0/16_100 0/16_80/20 0/16_70/30 0/32_80/20 0/32_70/30

Fig. 2. Particle size distributions of the designed mixtures for the unbound sub-base and base course.

2.3. MSWI bottom ash as asphalt concrete content. According to the Lithuanian technical and normative leg-
islation documents, the air void content for AC 16 PD should vary
According to the results of the first part of the experimental from 1.0% to 3.0%, and the minimum bitumen content is 5.2%. To
plan, MSWI bottom ash is not suitable for asphalt wearing course fulfil these requirements, the asphalt mixtures MA and BA + MA
because of its susceptibility to frost (except the 0/2 fraction). How- were produced with three different bitumen contents, and the air
ever, to determine the widest possible spectrum for the use of bot- void content was determined afterward (Table 3).
tom ash and to reveal the performance of the asphalt mixtures The use of minimum binder content (5.2%) to produce asphalt
containing MSWI bottom ash, the bottom ash in this research mixtures with different types of aggregates (i.e., amounts of bot-
was used as an aggregate for producing the asphalt mixture (AC tom ash) showed the obvious effect of the addition of bottom ash
16 PD). AC 16 PD is a conventional asphalt concrete mixture that on how the aggregate particles were coated with bitumen and
simultaneously performs as wearing course and base course. It how they bonded together (Fig. 4). A much more porous asphalt
was chosen because this type of mixture and its components are mixture was obtained when a part of the aggregate (the 0/4 frac-
subjected to lower requirements than other asphalt concrete mix- tion of sand) was replaced with the 0/2 fraction of bottom ash,
tures. In addition, it is expected that the rational use of bottom ash while the bitumen content did not change. The content of air voids
is related to low-class pavement structures, that is, AC 16 PD is in the asphalt mixtures differed by more than 5 times (MA: 2.2%,
used in these pavement structures. BA + MA: 12.1%). The particles of this porous asphalt mixture were
Three different asphalt mixtures were designed (Fig. 3). The first not fully coated with bitumen; this was caused by the lower den-
was composed of only mineral aggregates (designation: MA). In the
second mixture, the 0/4 fraction of sand was replaced with the 0/2
fraction of bottom ash (designation: BA + MA), where the bottom Table 3
Bitumen and air void content.
ash constituted approximately 26% of the whole mixture. The third
mixture was composed only of bottom ash (designation: BA). The Characteristic Aggregates for AC 16 PD
particle size distribution of each mixture is shown in Fig. 3. Bitu- MA BA + MA BA
men 70/100 was used to produce AC 16 PD.
Bitumen 70/100 content, % 5.2 5.2 6.1 6.4 5.2 9.0 10.0
In Lithuania, the bitumen content in an asphalt mixture is Air void content, % 2.2 12.1 2.4 1.8 22.7 9.5 2.9
determined on the basis of air void content and minimum bitumen

100
90
80
Passing, %

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.063 0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 5.6 8 11.2 16 22.4 31.5 45
S ieve size, mm
BA BA+MA MA

Fig. 3. Particle size distributions of the designed asphalt mixtures.

460 A. Vaitkus et al. / Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466

MA BA+MA BA
Fig. 4. Asphalt mixtures with different types of aggregates (i.e., amounts of bottom ash) and the required minimum bitumen content (5.2%).

sity of the bottom ash and a higher absorptiveness compared to 1.95

Proctor density, Mg/m3

1.84
mineral aggregates, resulting in the need for a higher bitumen con- 1.86
1.90 1.84
tent. This tendency was even more notable when only bottom ash
1.83
was used to produce the asphalt mixture. The Marshall specimens 1.85
formed from this type of asphalt mixture broke when handled
manually. It is clear that the bitumen content must be significantly 1.80
higher than that with the use of mineral aggregates to achieve the 1.75
required air void content when using bottom ash during the pro-
duction of asphalt mixture. 1.70
CL CL+5% CL+10% CL+15%
Considering the requirements for the air void content and the
BA BA BA
minimum bitumen content of asphalt mixtures, the following mix- Soil (CL) and bottom ash (BA) mixtures
tures were further analysed:
Fig. 5. Proctor density.
 MA with 5.2% of bitumen 70/100 (air void content 2.2%);
 BA + MA with 6.4% of bitumen 70/100 (air void content 1.8%);
Optimal water content, %

 BA with 10.0% of bitumen 70/100 (air void content 2.9%). 18

13.7
16 14.7
13.6
14 12.8
The following characteristics were determined for each of the 12
above mixtures. 10
8
 Resistance to rutting (B model (in the air) of European standard 6
4
EN 12697–22 + A). The wheel tracking test was performed at 2
50 °C using a typical load of 0.71 kN for 10 000 load cycles. Rect- 0
angular specimens with heights of 60 mm were prepared. CL CL+5% BA CL+10% CL+15%
 Water sensitivity (A method of European standard EN 12697– BA BA
12). S oil (CL) and bottom ash (BA) mixtures
 Stiffness (C method of European standard EN 12697–26). The
Fig. 6. Optimal water content.
test was performed at 20 °C with a 3 s pulse repetition period
(the rise time was 124 ms).
 Resistance to fatigue (Annex E of European standard EN 12697– Proctor density, though the differences between the results are
24). The test was performed at 20 °C using a haversine load sig- not large; the largest difference is 0.03 Mg/m3. This means that
nal with a frequency of 10 Hz. The initial strain amplitude was the use of bottom ash to improve the soil has no significant effect
50 lm/m. on the Proctor density; however, the optimal water content neces-
sary to reach the Proctor density decreases from 14.7% to 12.8%
Furthermore, the adhesion between the bitumen 70/100 and (Fig. 6).
the 8/11 fraction of bottom ash was determined according to Euro- Analysis of the CBR results (Fig. 7) showed that the addition of
pean standard EN 12697-11 using the rolling bottle method. 5–10% of the 0/2 fraction of bottom ash into CL had no significant
effect on the CBR; however, the addition of 15% of the 0/2 fraction
of the bottom ash increased the CBR by approximately 1.5 times.
3. Results and discussion The compressive strength test showed that after 7 days the
compressive strength of the CL mixed with the 0/2 fraction of bot-
3.1. Bounding capacity of MSWI bottom ash tom ash slightly decreased (the largest decrease was 26.2%). How-
ever, 28 days after the formation of the specimens, the
The characteristics of the CL mixed with the 0/2 fraction of bot- compressive strength more than doubled (Fig. 8). After 28 days,
tom ash and a reference mixture made only of CL are shown in independent of the bottom ash content, the compressive strength
Figs. 5–8. Fig. 5 shows that the use of bottom ash increases the of CL mixed with the 0/2 fraction of bottom ash was higher than
 A. Vaitkus et al. / Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466 461

CBR after 96 h soaking, %

Optimal water content, %

8 25
5.5 19.8
7 20 17.4 16.6 16.1
6 4.0
3.7 15
5 3.7 9.5
10 7.4
4
3 5
2 0
1
0
CL CL+5% BA CL+10% CL+15%
BA BA
Soil (CL) and bottom ash (BA) mixtures Mixture

Fig. 7. CBR after the 96-h soaking process. Fig. 10. Optimal water content.

100
Compressive strength, MPa

1.2 before soaking after 96 h soaking

7 days 0.968 0.929 0.944 80
1.0

CBR, %
28 days 58.4 53.5
60 52.9
0.8 39.0 41.1 39.1
0.6 40
67.1 61.7
0.3550.397 0.306 20 37.3
50.4
0.4 0.274 0.262 27.7 29.1
0.2 0

0.0
CL CL+5% BA CL+10% CL+15%
BA BA
Mixture
Soil (CL) and bottom ash (BA) mixtures
Fig. 11. CBR before and after the 96-h soaking process.
Fig. 8. Compressive strength after 7 and 28 days.

0.30
Linear swelling, %
0.5 MPa. According to the Lithuanian methodological guidance on 0.24 0.12
0.25
soil improvement and stabilization (MN GPSR 12) as well as the
0.20 0.15
Rules for Road Works and Subgrade Construction (ĮT ŽS 17),
0.15
bottom ash constitutes a suitable material for soil improvement 0.07
0.03
0.10
purposes. Since the use of more than 5% of the 0/2 fraction of
0.05 0.01
bottom ash for improving the CL had no significant effect on the
0.00
compressive strength after 28 days, 5% of the 0/2 fraction of
bottom ash represents the optimal content for improving Cl.
The method employed for testing the resistance to freezing and
thawing, implemented according to the Lithuanian technical docu- Mixture
ment regulating the test methods for soil stabilization (BN GSR 12),
showed that, regardless of the content of the 0/2 fraction of bottom Fig. 12. Linear swelling.
ash, the CL mixed with the 0/2 fraction of bottom ash is not suscep-
tible to frost; in all cases the change in the specimen length after
Coefficient of permeability,

12 freeze-thaw cycles did not exceed 1‰. 6.00E-03

2.71E-03
5.00E-03 1.93E-03
4.00E-03
3.2. Mixtures with MSWI bottom ash for the unbound sub-base and
3.00E-03
base course
2.00E-03
m/s

1.00E-03 1.88E-04 1.78E-04

The characteristics of the 6 designed mixtures containing a high
0.00E+00
amount of bottom ash are shown in Figs. 9–15. Only two mixtures
(0/32_80/20 and 0/32_70/30) were designed for the unbound base
course.
Mixture

2.000 1.605 1.673 1.684 Fig. 13. Coefficient of permeability.

1.685
Proctor density, Mg/m3

1.600 1.623
1.500
1.000
Fig. 9 shows that the Proctor density was almost the same
0.500 among all of the designed mixtures. However, the optimal water
content differed by more than twice between the mixtures of only
0.000
bottom ash and the mixtures containing both bottom ash and min-
eral aggregates (Fig. 10). However, no relationship between the
optimal water content and the amount of bottom ash was deter-
Mixture mined. The lowest optimal water content was observed for
0/16_100 (7.4%), whereas mixture 0/16_70/30 exhibited the high-
Fig. 9. Proctor density. est optimal water content.
462 A. Vaitkus et al. / Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466

4.0 from 0.04% to 0.12%. The reason of why this mixture performed dif-
2.96

10 freeze-thaw cycles, %
3.5 ferently is unknown; therefore, a more in-depth investigation is
Particles smaller than
0.063 mm after 3.0 2.19 necessary in future.
2.5 Analysis of the water permeability results revealed that the
2.0
mixtures composed of only bottom ash had a permeability that
1.5
1.0 was 1.0–1.5 times higher than that of the bottom ash and crushed
0.5 gravel mixtures (Fig. 13). The permeability of the mixture compris-
0.0 ing bottom ash and crushed gravel of the 0/16 fraction did not
0/11_100 0/16_100 practically change depending on the content of the 11/16 fraction
Mixture of crushed gravel (20% and 30%). After increasing the content of the
11/16 fraction of crushed gravel, the permeability coefficient
Fig. 14. Amount of particles smaller than 0.063 mm after 10 freeze–thaw cycles. decreased by only 0.1  10 4 m/s accounting for 5% of the total.
The lowest value of the permeability coefficient (8.99  10 5 m/s)
was determined for mixture 0/16_ 70/30. In Lithuania, a mixture
6 5.26 is suitable for the frost blanket course and for the layer of frost-
particles smaller than
The whole amount of

5 4.44 resistant material if their permeability is not less than 1.0–

0.063 mm , %

4 2.0  10 5 m/s, depending on the significance of the roads. Thus,

3 all the analysed mixtures fulfil this requirement and are suitable
for constructing the frost blanket course and the layer of frost-
2
resistant material.
1 According to German practice, mixtures containing bottom ash
0 are appropriate material for the frost blanket course if the amount
0/11_100 0/16_100 of particles smaller than 0.063 mm does not exceed 2% after 10
Mixture freeze-thaw cycles and the whole amount of particles, i.e., both
the initial (before testing) and the final (after testing) amounts of
Fig. 15. Whole amount of particles smaller than 0.063 mm.
particles, smaller than 0.063 mm does not exceed 9%. The amount
of particles smaller than 0.063 mm after 10 freeze-thaw cycles is
The CBR values for mixture 0/16_70/30 (containing 70% bottom shown in Fig. 14, and the whole amount of these particles is shown
ash and 30% crushed gravel) with an optimal water content in Fig. 15. It is evident that the first German requirement is not ful-
designed for use in an unbound sub-base course were 28–35% filled; all of the analysed pure MSWI bottom ash mixtures are sus-
higher than those for the mixtures made of only bottom ash, for ceptible to frost and cannot be used to construct the frost blanket
which the CBR values varied from 39.0% to 41.1% (Fig. 11). The course. However, the amount of particles smaller than 0.063 mm
CBR values (39.1%) for mixture 0/16_80/20 (containing 80% bottom after 10 freeze-thaw cycles differs only slightly (0.19–0.96%) from
ash and 20% crushed gravel) were close to the CBR values for the the requirement. It shows that the bottom ash and the mineral
mixtures made of only bottom ash. The higher CBR values for mix- aggregate mixtures may be resistant to frost if MSWI bottom ash
ture 0/16_70/30 (containing 70% bottom ash and 30% crushed mixtures would be appropriately modified. It will be investigated
gravel) resulted from the use of mineral materials, which are dis- in further research.
tinguished by a higher stiffness.
Analysis of the CBR results after the specimens were soaked in
3.3. Asphalt concrete containing MSWI bottom ash
water for 96 h showed that the CBR values for the mixtures made
of bottom ash and mineral aggregates were 1.3–1.8 times higher
The characteristics of the asphalt mixtures containing MSWI
than those for the mixtures made of only bottom ash. The highest
bottom ash and a reference mixture made of only mineral aggre-
CBR after the 96-h soaking process (50.4%) was determined for
gates are shown in Figs. 16–20.
mixture 0/16_70/30 (containing 70% bottom ash and 30% crushed
The wheel tracking test results (Fig. 16) showed that asphalt
gravel), while the lowest (27.7%) was observed for mixture
mixture BA + MA was 28.5% more resistant to rutting than asphalt
0/11_100 (100% bottom ash). The CBR value of all specimens after
mixtures MA and BA, which exhibited the same average values of
the 96-h soaking process decreased by 4–29%. The lowest decrease
the wheel tracking test (15.9 mm). Unfortunately, the rut depth
in the CBR was determined for the mixtures made of both bottom
for asphalt mixture AC 16 PD used in Lithuania has not been regu-
ash and crushed gravel of the 0/16 fraction (80% or 70% bottom ash
lated by any normative documents. Upon analysing the results of
and 20% or 30% crushed gravel).
the rutting speed (Table 4), which is characterized by the wheel
The CBR values for the bottom ash and crushed dolomite mix-
tracking slope in air (WTSAIR), it was determined that the fastest
tures with optimal water contents designed for the use in unbound
base course were similar both before and after soaking
(0/32_80/20: 58.4%, 0/32_70/30: 53.5%) (Fig. 11). This means that 20
a higher content of crushed dolomite has no significant effect on
Rut depth, mm

the CBR value. Analysis of the CBR results after the specimens were 15
soaked in water for 96 h showed that the CBR values for all mix-
10
tures increased by 14.8–15.3%. The reason for this phenomenon
should be identified in future studies. 5
The mixtures made of only bottom ash swelled the most
(Fig. 12). The highest swelling (0.24%) was determined for mixture 0
0/16_100. This is not surprising, because the mixtures composed of 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
only bottom ash revealed the highest CBR reduction after the 96-h Number of load cycles
soaking process. The bottom ash and crushed dolomite mixture MA BA+MA BA
(0/32_70/30) showed the lowest swelling (0.01%). The swelling of
the bottom ash and crushed gravel mixture (0/16_80/20) varied Fig. 16. Rut depth.
 A. Vaitkus et al. / Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466 463

30 Table 4
Results of the wheel tracking tests.
25 22.87
19.81 16.81 Aggregate type Rut depth, mm WTSAIR, mm/103 PRDAIR, %
ITSR, %
20
for AC 16 PD
Avg Std Avg Std Avg Std
15
MA 15.9 0.8 6.1 1.2 26.5 1.3
10 BA + MA 11.4 3.7 4.5 1.2 18.9 6.2
5 BA 15.9 0.2 15.4 0.9 26.6 0.3

0
MA BA+MA BA
Aggregate type for AC 16 PD test. The slowest rutting (4.5 mm/1000 loading cycles) was
observed in asphalt mixture AC 16 PD, where the aggregates were
Fig. 17. Indirect tensile strength ratio (ITSR).
partly replaced with the ash (BA + MA); this mixture was the most
resistant to rutting (the rut depth after 10 000 loading cycles was
11.4 mm).
4000 3301
3500
Asphalt mixtures with aggregate types BA + MA and BA showed
3000 2354 the highest (22.87%) and the lowest (16.81%) ITSR values (Fig. 17).
Stiffness, MPa

2500 The best practices of other countries indicate that the water sus-
1851
2000 ceptibility of asphalt mixtures used for wearing courses should
1500 be at least 80%. The water susceptibility of asphalt mixture AC 16
1000 PD with bottom ash can be reduced by using adhesive additives.
500
With regard to the stiffness (Fig. 18), the best performance
0
MA BA+MA BA (3301 MPa) was exhibited by the asphalt mixture BA + MA, in
Aggregate type for AC 16 PD which the 0/4 sand fraction was replaced with the 0/2 fraction of
bottom ash. The lowest stiffness was determined in the asphalt
Fig. 18. Stiffness. mixture BA (1851 MPa); compared with the stiffness of the con-
ventional asphalt mixture AC 16 PD, the stiffness of mixture BA dif-
fered by 1.3 times.
250000 197519 Fig. 19 shows that the best resistance to fatigue was exhibited
Number of cycles to failure,

by asphalt mixture BA (197 519 loading cycles). This asphalt mix-

200000
ture is able to withstand 6.7 and 3.3 times more loading cycles
150000 than the conventional asphalt mixture AC 16 PD with mineral
59368 aggregates and the asphalt mixture where the 0/4 fraction of sand
100000
-

was replaced with the 0/2 fraction of bottom ash.

29528 Analysis of the adhesion results (Fig. 20) showed that the adhe-
50000
sion of bitumen 70/100 with the 8/11 fraction of bottom was very
0 low, i.e., the surface area of the bottom ash particles covered with
MA BA+MA BA
bitumen 70/100 was 40% after 6 h of rotation and only 30% after
Aggregate type for AC 16 PD 24 h of rotation, whereas the required area should be at least
80%. Due to insufficient adhesion, the asphalt pavement surface
Fig. 19. Fatigue.
under the effect of traffic loads breaks and becomes susceptible
to water impacts. However, insufficient adhesion problems can
be successfully solved with the use of special adhesive additives.
100
Bitumen coverage, %

80
4. Three-level algorithm for the use of MSWI bottom ash in road
60 structures

40 On the basis of a literature analysis and the entire set of exper-

20
0 structures was proposed (Fig. 21). Each level is detailed in Figs. 22–
0 6
Rolling time, h
Fig. 20. Adhesion.
development of rutting took place in asphalt mixture BA, where
the rut depth reached 15.4 mm after 1000 loading cycles, whereas
the value of WTSAIR for asphalt mixture MA was 6.1 mm, and that
for asphalt mixture BA + MA was only 4.5 mm. Moreover, ruts
formed up to 1275 loading cycles on average in asphalt mixture
BA, while they formed up to 6000 loading cycles in asphalt mixture
MA. These results suggest that the asphalt mixture became so com-
pacted that a skeleton of course aggregates was formed, thereby
preventing the asphalt mixture from further rutting. The rutting
in asphalt mixture BA + MA took place evenly during the whole
imental results, which are reported in [19] and in this paper, a
three-level algorithm for the use of MSWI bottom ash in road
24 24. A plus or plus/minus sign below each utilization purpose
(scope of application) defines the suitability of the bottom ash
for that purpose.
If a plus/minus sign is present, the use of bottom ash for that
pavement structural layer is questionable; thus, experimental road
sections under real traffic and environmental conditions must be
constructed to confirm or deny the suitability of bottom ash. It
should be noted that bottom ash, which has passed an initial
assessment, can be used to backfill engineering trenches, except
those for drinkable water and those made of metallic pieces, and
to construct embankments and subgrades. The thickness of an
embankment must be less than 3 m, and the layer of bottom ash
must be covered with at least 50 cm of mineral materials or an
equivalent. Moreover, bottom ash is prohibited in drainage sys-
tems and gravel wearing courses unless it is a temporary road
464 A. Vaitkus et al. / Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466

REGULATION OF
INITIAL GENERAL
BUILDING
ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT
PRODUCTS

Fig. 21. Algorithm for the use of MSWI bottom ash in road structures.

INITIAL ASSESSMENT
Legal act or technical and
Essential conditions Requirements
normative legislation document
Utilization requirements for ash At least 3 months in the atmosphere with ready
Ageing (weathering) produced in waste incineration plants access to water (e.g., in an uncovered stockpile)
and waste co-incineration plants
Directly after bottom ash generation or after
Metals recovery –
ageing (weathering)
Used only if necessary, and it depends on the
Crushing, sieving – metal recovery technology and the utilization
purpose (scope of application)
Leaching properties Utilization requirements for ash Table 1 in utilization requirements
Metal content produced in waste incineration plants 5%
Total organic carbon (TOC) content and waste co-incineration plants 3%
Loss on ignition 6%
Methodical instructions on ash usage site cannot be flooded;
in road constructions groundwater table cannot be higher than the used
Suitability of the site for the use of bottom ash and cannot reach the top of the
bottom ash subgrade
any water source has to be >50 m from the site
where the bottom ash is used

Fig. 22. Initial assessment.

GENERAL ASSESSMENT
Utilization purpose (scope of application)
Unbound sub-base and base course Base
Bottom
course Base course
Layer of lift in two- Asphalt
Soil Frost Base course bound bound with
Point of frost- Base course lift mixture
Characteristic improvement blanket of crushed with bituminous
view resistant of gravel concrete AC 16 PD
(+) course stone hydraulic binders
material (+) pavement (±)
(±) (±) binders (±)
(+) (±)
(±)
Required value / category
Oven-dried particle density Declared Declared Declared Declared Declared Declared Declared
Flakiness index (FI) FI50 FI50 FI50 FI50 FI50 FI20 FI50
Shape index (SI) SI55 SI55 SI55 SI55 SI50 SI20 SI50
Percentage of crushed and broken
CNR C90/3 CNR CNR; C50/30 CNR; C50/30
surfaces
Resistance to fragmentation (Los
Bottom LA40 LA40 LA40 LA40 LA40 LA40 LA40
Angeles coefficient: LA)
ash as
Resistance to fragmentation (Impact
aggregate SZ32 SZ32 SZ32 SZ32 SZ32 SZ32 SZ32
value: SZ)
Resistance to impact (only for
SR 33
particles >32 mm)
Water absorption Wcm0.5 Wcm0.5 Wcm0.5 Wcm0.5 Wcm0.5 Wcm0.5 Wcm0.5
Resistance to freezing and thawing F4 Fdeclared Fdeclared F4 F4 F1
Polished stone value PSVNR PSV44 PSVdeclared
Compressive strength after 28 days,
0.5
MPa
CBR after 28 days, % 30
TRA SBR TRA SBR TRA TRA
Particle size distribution TRA SBR 07
07 07 ASFALTAS 08 ASFALTAS 08
Bottom Maximum amount of particles
5 5 5 5
ash as 0.063 mm, %
building Amount of the coarsest aggregate OC90 OC90 OC90 OC90
material Coefficient of permeability, ·10-
5 m/s 1.0-2.0 1.0-2.0
(mixture)
3-4 Annexes 3-4 Annexes 3-4 Annexes 5 Annex 5 Annex
Stability of volume
of MN PP of MN PP of MN PP of MN PP of MN PP
Minimum bitumen content Bmin, % 3.8 or 4.0 5.2
Minimum air voids content Vmin, % 4. 0 or 5 .0 1.0
Maximum air voids content Vmax, % 10.0 3.0

Fig. 23. General assessment.

and the bottom ash will later be covered or removed. In addition, TRA SBR 07 (EN 13285), TRA ASFALTAS 08 (EN 13043) and MN
the use of bottom ash for bottom lift in two-lift concrete pavement PP are abbreviations of Lithuanian technical and normative legisla-
is considered only for roads of local significance and for pedestrian tion documents. TRA SBR 07 provides technical requirements for
and cycling paths. mixtures used in unbound sub-base, base and wearing courses,
 A. Vaitkus et al. / Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466 465

REGULATION OF BUILDING PRODUCTS

Utilization purpose (scope of application)
Unbound sub-base and
Backfilling of base course
Base Base
engineering Layer of Base Bottom
course course
trenches, frost- course of lift in
Feature bound bound Asphalt
embankments, resistant crushed two-lift
with with course
soil material, stone, concrete
hydraulic bituminous
improvement, frost base pavement
binders binders
subgrade blanket course of
course gravel
System of assessment and
verification of constancy 4 4 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+
of performance
Designation of the
EN 13242 EN 13242
technical specification for EN 13285 EN 13242 EN 13043 EN 13242 EN 13043
EN 13285 EN 13285
the building product
Depends on the
utilization purpose
Essential characteristics

+ + + + + +
and is specified in
the standard
Particle size
+ + +
distribution
Amount of particles
+ + +
0.063 mm
Amount of the
+ + +
coarsest aggregates
Permeability +

Fig. 24. Regulation of building products.

TRA ASFALTAS 08 defines the requirements for asphalt mixtures,
and MN PP provides methodical instructions on the use of bottom
ash in road construction projects.
The compressive strength after 28 days constitutes the main
requirement for soil improvement. However, the CBR after 28 days
can be used instead of the compressive strength. According to
Lithuanian technical and normative legislation document TRA
SBR 07, the coefficient of permeability depends on the road cate-
gory; the coefficient of permeability on roads of category AM and
I (with the highest amount of traffic) should be 2
10 5 m/s, those
on roads of category II-IV should be 1.5
10 5 m/s, and those on
roads of category V (with the lowest amount of traffic) should be
1
10 5 m/s.
MN PP indicates that bottom ash as an aggregate can fail to
meet the required resistance to freezing and thawing (F4) if the
amount of particles smaller than 0.063 mm after 10 freeze-thaw
cycles is not more than 2% and the whole amount of particles,
i.e., both the initial (before testing) and the final (after testing)
amounts of particles, smaller than 0.063 mm does not exceed 9%
(the test method is described in Annex 2 of MN PP). However, prac-
tical experience shows that bottom ash often fails to satisfy this
requirement. Despite this fact, the suitability/unsuitability of bot-
tom ash for the frost blanket course must be determined by exper-
imental road sections under real traffic and climatic conditions,
because mixtures containing a high amount of bottom ash have a
permeability more than four times higher than that required for
main roads.
According to TRA SBR 07, if recycled materials, i.e., bottom ash,
are used to construct the base course of crushed stone, the LA and
SZ should not be higher than 35 and 28, respectively. TRA ASFAL-
TAS 08 states that the minimum bitumen and air void contents
for the asphalt base course depend on the traffic load. If heavy
loads dominate, the minimum bitumen and air void contents are
3.8% and 5.0%, respectively; otherwise, the minimum bitumen
and air void contents are both 4.0%.
The application of the proposed three-level algorithm enables
an assessment of the possibility of using MSWI bottom ash as an
aggregate in producing mixtures for road structures instead of
landfilling this incineration by-product. Furthermore, this algo-
rithm provides all of the main information regarding regulations
for building products. It is crucial to attempt to use bottom ash
as a building product.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents a three-level algorithm for the use of MSWI
bottom ash in road structures, thereby providing an opportunity to
optimally define areas for the use of bottom ash, to choose proper
testing methods, and to establish necessary regulations for prod-
ucts containing high amounts of bottom ash.
Experimental research showed that the 0/2 fraction of bottom
ash is suitable for the improvement of soil; however, curing
between 7 and 28 days is necessary to achieve compressive
strength of 0.5 MPa and higher. The amount of 5% of the 0/2 bot-
tom ash fraction is sufficient for soil improvement purposes and
higher percentages are not needed.
All designed mixtures with pure bottom ash and mixtures with
both bottom ash and different amounts (20% and 30%) of the 11/16
fraction of crushed gravel are suitable for frost resistant layers. The
permeability of tested mixtures is more than four times higher
than required for main roads and averagely vary from
1.78
10 4 m/s to 2.71
10 3 m/s independently from designed mix-
ture combination. Thus, testing on road under real conditions is
needed to finally confirm mixtures with bottom ash to have suffi-
cient resistance to frost.
All the designed mixtures with both bottom ash and different
amounts (20% and 30%) of the 16/32 fraction of dolomite are suit-
able for unbound base layers. However, pure bottom ash mixtures
(fraction 0/11_and 0/16) cannot be used as their max aggregate
size is too small.
CBR values of designed unbound subbase mixtures with bottom
ash and crushed gravel of 30% are significantly higher than that of
mixtures with pure bottom ash. This type of mixture exhibits CBR
466 A. Vaitkus et al. / Construction and Building Materials 212 (2019) 456–466
value of 52.9%, which is by 28–35% higher than the CBR of pure
bottom ash mixtures. Important to note, that CBR values of pure
bottom ash mixtures after specimens soaking in water for 96 h
decrease more than 25%; while mixtures with both bottom ash
and crushed gravel of 30% showed a decrease of only 4.8%.
CBR values of designed unbound base mixtures with bottom ash
and crushed dolomite are slightly dependent on crushed dolomite
percentage (20% and 30%). CBR values of mixtures with 20% of
crushed dolomite vary from 53.1% to 62.2% and are averagely
higher by 8% than those mixtures with 30% of crushed dolomite.
Important to note, that CBR values after specimens soaking in water
for 96 h did not decrease, they increased by 14.8–15.3%. The reason
for this phenomenon should be identified in future research.
Compared to mineral aggregates, bottom ash has significantly
lower maximum density (less than 2.2 Mg/m3); thus, the required
amount of bitumen is 1.2–1.9 times higher for asphalt mixtures
production. It varies dependently on particle size distribution
and amount of bottom ash in the asphalt mixture. Replacement
of 0/4 fraction of sand with the 0/2 fraction of bottom ash in
asphalt concrete AC 16 PD requires 6.4% of bitumen as for tradi-
tional AC 16 PD bitumen content is 5.2%. For asphalt concrete AC
16 PD of pure bottom ash optimal binder content is 10.0%. To use
bottom ash when producing asphalt mixtures, it is necessary to
comprehensively evaluate various economic rationality factors.
However, when using only a part of bottom ash (i.e., the 0/2 frac-
tion) to replace fine mineral aggregates in asphalt mixtures, the
bitumen increase is not significant in comparison when replacing
all mineral aggregates.
Asphalt concrete AC 16 PD with 0/2 fraction of bottom ash exhi-
bits the highest stiffness (3301 MPa), which is 1.4 times higher
than that of the conventional asphalt mixture AC 16 PD. In addi-
tion, it has the lowest susceptibility to water, is 2 times more resis-
tant to fatigue and has the highest resistance to rutting (the rut
depth after 10 000 loading cycles was 11.37 mm, whereas that of
the conventional AC 16 PD mixture reached 15.9 mm).
Conflict of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by Fortum Heat Lietuva, a private lim-
ited liability company.
References
[1] A.J. Chandler et al., Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Residues. Studies in
Environmental Science 67, The International ash Working Group (IAWG),
1997.
[2] J. Chimenos, M. Segarra, M. Fernández, F. Espiell, Characterization of the
bottom ash in municipal solid waste incinerator, J. Hazard. Mater. 64 (3) (Feb.
1999) 211–222.
[3] ISWA, ‘‘Management of Bottom Ash from WTE Plants,” Copenhagen, 2006.
[4] L. Muchová, P.C. Rem, Metal content and recovery of MSWI bottom ash in
Amsterdam, WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 92 (2006) 211–216.
[5] W. de Vries, P. C. Rem, and S. P. M. Berkhout, ‘‘ADR: a new method for dry
classification,” in ISWA International Conference, 2009, p. Lisbon, 12-15
October 2009.
[6] W. de Vries and B. Rem, ‘‘ADR – a classifier for fine moist materials,” in Gente V
and La Marca F (eds) Separating Pro-Environment Technologies for Waste
Treatment, Soil and Sediments Remediation. Sharjah, 2013, pp. 43–58.
[7] L.A. Sormunen, P. Kolisoja, Construction of an interim storage field using
recovered municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash: field performance
study, Waste Manage. 64 (2017) 107–116.
[8] O. Holm, F.-G. Simon, Innovative treatment trains of bottom ash (BA) from
municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) in Germany, Waste Manage. 59
(2017) 229–236.
[9] E.J. Bakker, L. Muchová, P.C. Rem, ‘‘Economic recovery of precious metals from
MSWI bottom ash,”, in: 1st International Conference on Environmental
Management, Engineering, Planning and Economics (CEMEPE 2007), 2007,
pp. 1–5.
[10] M. Grosso, L. Biganzoli, L. Rigamonti, A quantitative estimate of potential
aluminium recovery from incineration bottom ashes, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
55 (12) (Oct. 2011) 1178–1184.
[11] M. Arm, ‘‘Mechanical properties of residues as unbound road materials,”
Doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2003.
[12] A.J. Chandler et al., Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Residues, Stud. Environ.
Sci. 67 (1997) 1–974.
[13] M. Izquiedro, E. Vazquez, X. Querol, M. Barra, Á. López, F. Plana, ‘‘Use of bottom
ash from municipal solid waste incineration as a road material,”, Int. Ash Util.
Symp. Cent. Appl. Energy Res. Univ. Kentucky, (2001) 1–8.
[14] R. Forteza, M. Far, C. Seguı´, V. Cerdá, Characterization of bottom ash in
municipal solid waste incinerators for its use in road base, Waste Manage 24
(9) (2004) 899–909.
[15] H.F. Hassan, K. Al-Shamsi, Characterisation of asphalt mixes containing MSW
ash using the dynamic modulus | E *| test, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 11 (6) (Dec.
2010) 575–582.
[16] H.M. Alhassan, A. Musa, T. International, H.M. Alhassan, A.M. Tanko,
Characterization of solid waste incinerator bottom ash and the potential for
its use, Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2 (4) (2012) 516–522.
[17] I. Hafeez, M.A. Kamal, M.W. Mirza, ‘‘An, experimental study to select aggregate
gradation for stone mastic asphalt”, J. Chinese Inst. Eng. 38 (1) (2015) 1–8.
[18] H.L. Luo, S.H. Chen, D.F. Lin, X.R. Cai, Use of incinerator bottom ash in open-
graded asphalt concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 149 (2017) 497–506.
[19] A. Vaitkus, J. Gražulytė, V. Vorobjovas, O. Šernas, R. Kleizienė, Potential of mswi
bottom ash to be used as aggregate in road building materials, Balt. J. Road
Bridg. Eng. 13 (1) (Mar. 2018) 77–86.