buildings

Article
Study on Controlled Low-Strength Materials Using
Ultra-Rapid-Hardening Cement and Stone Sludge for
Backfill and Subbase Application in Road Excavation
and Restoration Work
Jongwon Lee and Cheolmin Baek *

Department of Highway and Transportation Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building
Technology, 283 Goyangdae-ro, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang-si 10223, Republic of Korea; asca28@kict.re.kr
* Correspondence: cmbaek@kict.re.kr; Tel.: +82-31-910-0613

Abstract: A significant amount of stone sludge is generated as a by-product during the production of
crushed stone aggregate, and most of it is disposed of in landfill as waste. In order to recycle this stone
sludge, this study evaluated a controlled low-strength material (CLSM) using ultra-rapid-hardening
cement and stone sludge for application as backfill and subbase material for road excavation and
restoration work. In addition, considering the limited construction time of excavation and restoration
work in urban areas, backfill and subbase materials must simultaneously satisfy conditions of fluidity,
workability, quick curing time, and certain levels of strength. Therefore, in this study, CLSM was
manufactured according to various mixing ratios and flow, slump, and compressive strength tests
with age were evaluated. Additionally, the change trend in the microstructure of the CLSM with age
was analyzed. Through indoor experiments, the optimal mixing ratios for backfill and subbase CLSM
were determined, and field applicability and performance of field samples were evaluated through
small-scale field construction. It was concluded that CLSM, which contains a large amount of stone
sludge, can be sufficiently applied as a backfill and subbase material for excavation and restoration
work if appropriate admixtures are adjusted according to the weather conditions at sites.
Citation: Lee, J.; Baek, C. Study on
Controlled Low-Strength Materials Keywords: controlled low-strength materials; road excavation and restoration; ultra-rapid-hardening
Using Ultra-Rapid-Hardening cement; stone sludge; ettringite formation; field applicability evaluation
Cement and Stone Sludge for Backfill
and Subbase Application in Road
Excavation and Restoration Work.
Buildings 2024, 14, 46. https:// 1. Introduction
doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010046
A large portion of recent road pavement construction in South Korea has been car-
Academic Editor: Abdelhafid ried out to repair damaged pavement in urban areas. In particular, small-scale excava-
Khelidj tion and restoration work on urban roads is constantly increasing as the deterioration
of underground utilities progresses. Excavation and restoration work in city centers is
Received: 10 November 2023
Revised: 9 December 2023
mainly performed at night due to traffic control restrictions, and same-day excavation
Accepted: 18 December 2023
and restoration are enforced in principle. Therefore, insufficient compaction occurs due
Published: 22 December 2023 to the insufficient time for sufficient compaction of the backfill layer and subbase layer
during the restoration process. This eventually leads to sagging of the restored section and
damage to the pavement layer. To solve these problems, backfill materials that have the
properties of high flowability, self-compaction, short curing time, and minimum strength
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. for re-excavation are required. Furthermore, it is necessary to investigate mix designs with
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. ultra-rapid-hardening cement or quick-setting agents and mix designs with maximum
This article is an open access article aggregates to reduce the amount of cement used. However, existing research attempting to
distributed under the terms and
resolve these issues is currently insufficient [1].
conditions of the Creative Commons
In the early days of the construction industry, most concrete was produced using river
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
aggregate. However, as river aggregate became scarce, crushed aggregate from quarries
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
began to be used. Currently, crushed aggregate accounts for the largest proportion of
4.0/).

Buildings 2024, 14, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010046 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 46 2 of 19

aggregates used in concrete. Quarries produce crushed coarse aggregate and crushed
fine aggregate through dry and wet processes. The stone sludge generated through these
processes was found to account for approximately 5% of raw stone [2,3]. Based on Korea’s
crushed aggregate production, the annual stone sludge production is estimated to be more
than 15 million tons. Stone sludge can be recycled, but due to transportation and disposal
costs, most of it is illegally landfilled or dumped within construction sites [4–6].
In Europe, it was reported that stone sludge generates approximately 5 million tons
annually and this amount accounts for about 40% of granite and marble production [7,8].
The environmental pollution caused by large amounts of stone sludge waste has been
indicated. Landfills, in particular, have been linked to major contamination of farmland,
biota, surface water, and groundwater in countries with less restrictive environmental
regulations [9].
To address these problems, many studies have been conducted. In the early 2000s,
basic research was conducted on the flowability and strength as a function of water content,
admixture ratio, and other parameters, using stone sludge as an admixture [10]. In 2010,
various studies were conducted to expand its use by proposing a concrete production and
mix design replacing stone sludge with cement and aggregate particulates smaller than
0.08 mm [11–13]. Furthermore, various studies on cement [14,15], mortar [16], concrete [17],
gypsum mortar [18], artificial aggregate [19], and asphalt mixtures [20] utilizing stone
sludge have shown that the chemical composition of stone sludge directly affects the
mechanical properties of final products. Recent studies have succeeded in producing
concrete by replacing 10–15% of cement and fine aggregate with stone sludge. They also
suggest that stone sludge could be a sustainable waste management option as it enables
recycling of natural resources and is a low-carbon material [21–23].
Meanwhile, many road cave-ins, such as sinkholes, which have recently become an
issue, are caused by water leaks due to aging and poor construction and management
of underground pipes such as sewage and water pipes. Accordingly, in order to solve
problems such as difficulty in securing compaction of backfill for underground structures,
various studies are being conducted to develop and put into practice controlled low-
strength materials (CLSMs), which allow self-filling and self-compaction. CLSMs are
made by adding cement or cementitious materials to mud prepared by mixing soil from
construction sites and water [24].
Ling et al. examined 115 reports related to CLSM for backfill and found that the
materials used to produce CLSM varied across countries. They reported that the use of
different materials has a significant impact on CLSM research and field applications [25].
In particular, as CLSM-related research has become more active, more types of industrial
waste for CLSM have been researched. Zhang et al. applied fly ash and coal gangue
as filler materials and reported that when the ratio was 14:5:1 for gangue, fly ash, and
cement, the fluidity of the filler was good and compressive strength was sufficiently
developed [26]. Chen et al. evaluated CLSM using coal industry by-products (coal gangue,
fly ash, bottom ash, gasification slag, desulfurized gypsum) and cement and showed that it
met the criteria of the American Concrete Institute Committee 229 [27]. In particular, in
Japan, there are many reports on the characteristics of CLSM using by-products such as
low sludge aggregate and glass cullet [28–30]. Horiguchi et al. developed a CLSM by using
stone sludge, sludge ash, and sewage. After verifying the mechanical performance of the
fabricated CLSM and using it as an actual backfill material for construction, they concluded
that sewage, sludge ash, and stone sludge can be used as materials for new CLSMs [31].
In South Korea, as part of technological development toward practical applications
of fluidized backfill material for sewer pipes using site-excavated soil generated during
construction, a study presented a basic formulation range of CLSM that can respond to
site soil by considering engineering properties such as flowability, material separation
resistance, early strength, and re-excavation strength [32]. Lee et al. analyzed the physical
properties of CLSM by type of sandy clayey excavated soil and mixing factors. The results
showed that the mixing conditions needed to meet flowability and early compressive
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 3 of 19

strength conditions varied even within the same soil classification. This is mainly due
to the particle size distribution and fine particle content within the same classification.
They reported that the maximum W/B required to meet the flowability and early strength
of CLSM utilizing sandy clayey excavated soil was 300% [33]. Kim et al. evaluated the
characteristics of CLSMs and derived the optimal mix design for fluidized backfill material
for sewer pipes using site-excavated soil generated during construction. Then, they built a
batch plant for on-site production to evaluate the re-excavatability and quality sustainability
of CLSMs after on-site construction [34].
As a result of reviewing the existing literature, it was found that most CLSM studies
were aimed at applications of backfill and did not include stone sludge or used only a
small amount. However, in urban road excavation and restoration work, the time for
sufficient compaction of not only the backfill layer but also the subbase layer constructed
on top of it is limited, causing the problem of sagging after construction. Therefore, the
development of backfill and subbase materials that do not require compaction and cure
quickly is required. To this end, this study developed and evaluated CLSMs as backfill and
subbase materials suitable for urban road excavation and restoration work. In addition, a
high percentage of stone sludge was applied to protect natural resources and expand the
recycling of industrial by-products. Performance evaluation and microstructure analysis
were performed on CLSM for backfill using stone sludge and ultra-fast-hardening cement
and on CLSM for subbase by adding coarse aggregate according to various mixing ratios.
The field applicability of CLSMs with the derived optimal mixing ratio was evaluated
through a small-scale field construction.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Stone Sludge
Stone sludge collected from Ewha Aggregate, an aggregate manufacturing plant in
Gyeonggi-do South Korea, was used for this study. As a result of evaluating the basic
properties, 100% of the stone sludge was found to pass through a 5 mm sieve and 47.54%
passed through a 0.075 mm sieve. The maximum dry density was 1.694 g/cm3 and the
water content of the stone sludge showed an average of 37.09%, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Water content of the stone sludge samples.

Division Sample-1 Sample-2 Sample-3

Wet soil (g) 525 802 731
Dry soil (g) 383 582 536
Water (g) 142 220 195
Water content (%) 37.08 37.80 36.38
Average water content (%) 37.09

2.2. Cement
Ordinary Portland cement from domestic company “Hanil” was used in this study
and Table 2 shows the physical properties and chemical composition ratio of this cement.

Table 2. Characteristics of ordinary Portland cement.

Density Fineness Chemical Composition (%)

(g/cm3 ) (cm2 /g) SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 CaO MgO SO3 Ig.Loss
3.14 3492 21.1 4.64 3.14 62.8 2.81 2.13 2.18

2.3. Ultra-Rapid-Hardening Cement

For the development of backfill material utilizing stone sludge, ultra-rapid-hardening
cement manufactured by domestic Company J was used in this study. The physicochemical
properties are presented in Table 3. The ultra-rapid-hardening cement used in this study
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 4 of 19

belongs to the category of specialty cement, which develops a strength of 30–40% of its
ultimate strength (4 MPa) in less than 4 h of aging.

Table 3. Characteristics of the ultra-rapid-hardening cement.

Density Fineness Chemical Composition (%)

(g/cm3 ) (cm2 /g) SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 CaO MgO SO3 Ig.Loss
3.00 5070 3.02 23.19 0.45 46.15 0.43 24.14 1.24

2.4. Coarse Aggregate

A crushed granite aggregate was used for coarse aggregate. The particle size was be-
tween 5 mm and 25 mm, and Table 4 shows the physical properties of the coarse aggregate.

Table 4. Coarse aggregate properties.

Density Absorption Unit Weight Fineness Sound

(g/cm3 ) (%) (kg/m3 ) Modulus (%)
2.72 0.74 1664 7.03 3.09

2.5. Admixtures
In this study, superplasticizer and retarder were used to improve the workability of
the CLSMs and to ensure adherence to working time constraints. Tables 5 and 6 present the
physicochemical properties of the superplasticizer and retarder.

Table 5. Properties of superplasticizer.

Evaporation
Ingredient pH Density (g/cm3 )
Residual Rate (%)
Polycarboxylate 5.5 0.5 84

Table 6. Properties of the retarder.

Ingredient pH Density (g/cm3 ) Purity (%)

Tartaric acid 7.0~8.5 0.31 95

2.6. CLSM for Backfill Material

2.6.1. Mix Proportion
Based on the results of the properties of the backfill material in the preliminary
study and the economic feasibility, a mix design of the backfill material using ultra-rapid-
hardening cement and stone sludge was created as shown in Table 7 [24]. The OPC-1 mix
using normal Portland cement was included for comparison with the mix using ultra-rapid-
hardening cement. For URHC-1, 2, and 3, the quantity of admixture was adjusted to achieve
excellent workability and adhere to working time constraints through flow measurement.
Furthermore, the compressive strength of the backfill material after 2 h, 4 h, and 1 day was
measured to observe the initial strength development and the compressive strength at 7, 14,
and 28 days was measured to examine the strength-increasing trend. The test also included
the case of the URHC-4 mix, where the amount of stone sludge was increased to reduce the
quantity of cement at 300% W/B.
 Buildings 2024, 14, 46
s 2024, 14, 46 5 of 19 5 of 19
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 5 of 19

Table 7. Mix proportion.

Table 7. Mix proportion.
Table 7. Mix proportion.
Weight 3) 3 )
Weight Composition
Weight Composition
W/B W/B Weight UnitUnit (kg/m
(kg/m Weight Composition
(%/B)
Test ID Test ID
(%)
Binder Type W/B
Binder Type Weight Unit (kg/m(%/B)
3)
(%) Test ID Binder (%/B)R.T.
(%) Water Type
Water Binder Binder
Stone Sludge Stone Sludge
P.C. P.C.
R.T.
Water Binder Stone Sludge P.C. R.T.
OPC-1 OPC-1 Cement
Cement 594
594 250 250 580 580 - - -
OPC-1 Cement 594 250 580 - -
URHC-1 URHC-1 - -- -
URHC-1Ultra- - -
URHC-2 URHC-2
300 300 Ultra- 594
Ultra- 250 580 0.20 0.20
0.20 0.20
rapid-hardening
URHC-2 300 594 250
594 250 580 580 0.20 0.20
URHC-3 rapid-hardening rapid-hardening 0.30 0.20
URHC-3 URHC-3 cement
cement 0.30 0.30 0.20
0.20
URHC-4 503
cement236 752 0.30 0.20
URHC-4 URHC-4 503 503
236 236 752 752 0.30 0.30 0.20
0.20

2.6.2. Flow Test

2.6.2. Flow
2.6.2. Flow Test
Test in this study was evaluated according to ASTM D 6103
The flowability of CLSMs
(Standard Test Method The flowability
The for
flowability of CLSMs
of CLSMsofin
Flow Consistency inControlled
this study
this study Low
was evaluated
was evaluatedMaterial)
Strength according
according to ASTM
to
[35]. ASTM DD 6103
6103
(Standard
Figure 1 shows(Standard Test Method
Test Method
the fabrication for Flow Consistency
for Flow Consistency
and measurement of Controlled
of Controlled
of a CLSM flow Low
Low Strength Material) [35].
test specimen. Strength Material) [35].
Figure 11 shows
Figure shows the
the fabrication
fabrication and
and measurement
measurement ofof aa CLSM
CLSM flow
flow test
test specimen.
specimen.

Figure 1. Flow test.

Figure 1. Flow test.
2.6.3. Compressive
2.6.3.Strength Test Strength Test
Compressive
2.6.3. Compressive Strength Test
ASTM D 4832 (Standard
ASTM D 4832 Test Method
(StandardforTest
Preparation
Method for andPreparation
Testing of Controlled
and TestingLowof Controlled Low
Strength Material ASTMTest
(CLSM D 4832 (Standard
Cylinders)) Test
[36] Method
was appliedforto
Preparation
measure andcompressive
the Testing of Controlled Low
Strength Material (CLSM Test Cylinders)) [36] was applied to measure the compressive
Strength
strength of the strength
CLSMs. of Material (CLSM
Cylindrical Test Cylinders))
specimens, measuring [36]
100 was
mm applied
in heightto measure the compressive
the CLSMs. Cylindrical specimens, measuring 100and
mm50 in mm
height and 50 mm
strength
in diameter, were of the
preparedwere CLSMs. Cylindrical
usingprepared
a 2:1 cylinder-typespecimens, measuring 100 mm in height and 50 mm
in diameter, using a 2:1mold. The testing
cylinder-type temperature
mold. The testing was
temperature was
in diameter,
20 ± 5 °C. The CLSM ◦ C. Thewereand
prepared using aare
2:1shown
cylinder-type mold.
2. The testing temperature was
20 ± 5specimens CLSM testing setup
specimens and in Figure
testing setup are shown in Figure 2.
20 ± 5 °C. The CLSM specimens and testing setup are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Specimens and2.test

Figure setup forand
Specimens compressive
test setup strength test.
for compressive strength test.
Figure 2. Specimens and test setup for compressive strength test.
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 6 of 19

Buildings 2024, 14, 46 6 of 19

Buildings 2024, 14, 46 6 of 19
2.7. CLSM for Subbase Material
2.7.1.
2.7. Mix Proportion
CLSM for Subbase Material
2.7. CLSM for Subbase Material
2.7.1. The
2.7.1. Mixmix
Mix proportion for the subbase layer utilizing stone sludge and coarse aggregate
Proportion
Proportion
was The
derived from the CLSM
mix proportion
proportion themix
for the for backfill
subbase material.
layer utilizing
utilizing Thesludge
stone mixing andquantity of coarse
coarse aggregate
aggregate
The mix for subbase layer stone sludge and coarse
aggregate
was derived was
derived from 40 Vol.%
from the
the CLSMof the
CLSM mix total
mix for volume
for backfill of stone
backfill material. sludge
material. The and
The mixing coarse aggregate.
mixing quantity
quantity of The
of coarse
coarse
was
mixing equipment
aggregate was 40 is shown
40 Vol.%
Vol.% of thein Figure
the 3, and the
total volume
volume mix proportion
of stone
stone sludge and
andis coarse
shown aggregate.
in Table 8. The
aggregate was of total of sludge coarse aggregate. The
mixing equipment
mixing equipment is is shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 3, 3, and
and the
the mix
mix proportion
proportion isisshown
shownin inTable
Table8.8.

Figure 3. Mixing of CLSM.

Figure 3. Mixing of CLSM.
Figure 3.
Table 8. Mix proportions.
Table 8. Mix
Table 8. Mix proportions.
proportions. Weight
Weight Unit (kg/m ) 3 Composition
Weight
W/B Weight
Test ID Binder TypeWeight Unit (kg/m3 ) (%/B)
W/B (%) Weight Unit (kg/m3) Composition
Composition (%/B)
Test ID Binder Type W/B
(%) Test ID Stone Stone Aggregate
Binder Type Water Binder (%/B) R.T.
(%) Water Binder Aggregate P.C.P.C. R.T.
Sludge Sludge
Stone
URHC-5 Water Binder Aggregate P.C. R.T.
URHC-5 Ultra- 489 Ultra- 206 489 206 478 478 478
478 Sludge
300 rapid-hardening
URHC-5 300 rapid-hardening
Ultra- 185 489 206 478 0.300.30 0.20
0.20
URHC-6 URHC-6
cement 394 394 185
588 588 588 478
588
cement
300 rapid-hardening 0.30 0.20
URHC-6 394 185 588 588
cement
2.7.2.Slump
2.7.2. SlumpTest
Test
To
2.7.2.To examine
examine
Slump theworkability
Testthe workabilityof
ofCLSM
CLSMforforthe
thesubbase
subbaselayer
layerusing
usingstone
stonesludge,
sludge,coarse
coarse
aggregate
aggregate and
and ultra-rapid-hardening
ultra-rapid-hardening cement,
cement, aa slump
slump test
test was
was conducted
conducted according
according
To examine the workability of CLSM for the subbase layer using stone sludge, coarse toKS
to KS
F2402
2402(Test
Faggregate (Test Method
Method for
for Concrete
Concrete Slump)
Slump) [37]
[37] as
as with
with the
the slump
slump test
test for
for concrete.
concrete.
and ultra-rapid-hardening cement, a slump test was conducted according to KS The
The test
test
Fsetup
2402isis
setup shown
shown
(Test inFigure
in
Method Figure 4.4.
for Concrete Slump) [37] as with the slump test for concrete. The test
setup is shown in Figure 4.

Figure4.4.Slump
Figure Slumptest.
test.
Figure 4. Slump test.
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 7 of 19
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 7 of 19

2.7.3. Compressive Strength Test

2.7.3. The
Compressive Strength
compressive Testwas measured using cylindrical specimens of ϕ 100 × 200
strength
mm,Theas shown in Figure
compressive 5, according
strength to KS Fusing
was measured 2405 (Test Method
cylindrical of ϕ 100 ×
for Compressive
specimens Strength
200 mm, of
Concrete)
as shown in[38]. Specimens
Figure wereto
5, according tested
KS F at 20 (Test
2405 ± 5 °CMethod
by measuring 2-hour, 4-hour,
for Compressive and
Strength of 1-day
Con-
compressive
crete) strength were
[38]. Specimens valuestested at 20 ±
to observe 5 ◦ Cstrength
initial development.
by measuring 2-h, 4-h,Furthermore, 7-, 14-, and
and 1-day compressive
strength values to observe
28-day compressive initialvalues
strength strength development.
were measured Furthermore, 7-, 14-, and 28-day
to examine strength-increasing
compressive
trends. strength values were measured to examine strength-increasing trends.

Figure5.5.Compressive
Figure Compressivestrength
strengthtest.
test.

2.8.
2.8.Microstructure
MicrostructureAnalysis
Analysis
2.8.1. SEM and EDS
2.8.1. SEM and EDS
The
The microstructure of CLSMs
microstructure of CLSMscontaining
containingstone
stonesludge
sludge was
was analyzed
analyzed using
using scan-
scanning
ning electron microscopy (SEM). The equipment used was a Merlin Compact
electron microscopy (SEM). The equipment used was a Merlin Compact (Carl Zeiss,(Carl Zeiss,
Oberkochen,
Oberkochen, Germany)
Germany) equipped
equipped with
withananin-lens
in-lensdetector
detectorand
andvarious
varioussignal
signalprocessing
processing
functions.
functions. Additionally, the elemental composition of the surface of CLSMparticles
Additionally, the elemental composition of the surface of CLSM particleswas
was
analyzed using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS).
analyzed using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS).
2.8.2. XRD
2.8.2. XRD
Materials generated from the hydration reaction of CLSMs were analyzed using X-ray
Materials
diffraction (XRD).generated from theused
The equipment hydration reaction1ofDimensional
was Bruker’s CLSMs wereLYNXEYE
analyzed detector
using X-
ray diffraction (XRD). The equipment used was Bruker’s 1 Dimensional
and a D8 Advance diffractometer (Billerica, MA, USA). Samples were scanned in the 2θ LYNXEYE
detector
range of 5and
◦ –95a D8 Advance
◦ with diffractometer
a step size of 0.01◦ and a(Billerica,
time of 1Massachuse s, U.S.). Samples
s per step. Qualitative analysis were
was
scanned in the 2θ range of 5°–95° with a step size of 0.01° and
performed by obtaining XRD patterns for CLSM specimens and standard specimens a time of 1 s perunder
step.
Qualitative
identical analysis was performed by obtaining XRD pa erns for CLSM specimens and
conditions.
standard specimens under identical conditions.
3. Results
3. Results
3.1. CLSM for Backfill Material
3.1.1. Flow for
3.1. CLSM TestBackfill
ResultMaterial
3.1.1.The flow
Flow test
Test results of the CLSM for backfill material utilizing ultra-rapid-hardening
Result
cement and stone sludgeof
The flow test results are
theasCLSM
shown forinbackfill
Figurematerial
6. The utilizing
OPC-1 with normal Portland
ultra-rapid-hardening
cement did not show any decrease in flow with the mixing time.
cement and stone sludge are as shown in Figure 6. The OPC-1 with normal However, in thePortland
case of
the URHC-1 mix using ultra-rapid-hardening cement with no admixture,
cement did not show any decrease in flow with the mixing time. However, in the case the flow rate
of
tended to decrease after 5 min of mixing time. In contrast, URHC-2, 3, and
the URHC-1 mix using ultra-rapid-hardening cement with no admixture, the flow rate 4 showed a very
sharp decrease in flow rate when the mixing time exceeded 10 min. URHC-2 and URHC-3
tended to decrease after 5 min of mixing time. In contrast, URHC-2, 3, and 4 showed a
showed a difference of about 80 mm, depending on the quantity of superplasticizer used.
very sharp decrease in flow rate when the mixing time exceeded 10 min. URHC-2 and
Moreover, both mix proportions showed similar trends of decreasing flow with mixing
URHC-3 showed a difference of about 80 mm, depending on the quantity of
time. It was determined that with an increasing quantity of superplasticizer, the flow
superplasticizer used. Moreover, both mix proportions showed similar trends of
increased due to the separation of particles resulting from the increased free water, among
decreasing flow with mixing time. It was determined that with an increasing quantity of
the free water, adsorbent bed water, and recharge water that affected the flow in the cement
superplasticizer, the flow increased due to the separation of particles resulting from the
matrix [39]. The flow of URHC-4 was measured lower than the other mix proportions.
increased free water, among the free water, adsorbent bed water, and recharge water that
This is thought to be due to the reduced free water and increased adsorbent bed water
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 8 of 19

Buildings 2024, 14, 46 affected the flow in the cement matrix [39]. The flow of URHC-4 was measured lower 8than of 19
the other mix proportions. This is thought to be due to the reduced free water and
increased adsorbent bed water resulting from the relatively increased stone sludge in the
URHC-2
resultingand
fromURHC-3 mixes, which
the relatively can stone
increased have asludge
negative impact
in the on flowability
URHC-2 [40]. Using
and URHC-3 mixes,
awhich
retarder
can have a negative impact on flowability [40]. Using a retarder of 0.2% bytime
of 0.2% by weight of ultra-rapid-hardening cement resulted in a mixing of
weight
about 10 min. Thus, it is necessary to increase the retarder to adhere to time
of ultra-rapid-hardening cement resulted in a mixing time of about 10 min. Thus, it is constraints
according
necessaryto tothe work situation,
increase andto
the retarder theadhere
superplasticizer needs to beaccording
to time constraints increasedtoto the
improve
work
the work performance.
situation, and the superplasticizer needs to be increased to improve the work performance.

Figure 6.
Figure Flowtest
6. Flow testresult
resultof
ofCLSM
CLSMfor
for backfill
backfill material.
material.

3.1.2. Compressive Strength Test Results

3.1.2. Compressive Strength Test Results
Figure 7 shows the compressive strengths by age of CLSM for backfill material utilizing
Figure 7 shows the compressive strengths by age of CLSM for backfill material
ultra-rapid-hardening cement and stone sludge. OPC-1, which used ordinary Portland
utilizing ultra-rapid-hardening cement and stone sludge. OPC-1, which used ordinary
cement as a binder, did not cure until 4 h, making it impossible to demold the specimen,
Portland cement as a binder, did not cure until 4 h, making it impossible to demold the
and strength measurement was possible from 1 day of age. The compressive strength was
specimen, and strength measurement was possible from 1 day of age. The compressive
low at 0.84 MPa even at 28 days of age due to the relatively high W/B. When ultra-rapid-
strength was low at 0.84 MPa even at 28 days of age due to the relatively high W/B. When
hardening cement was used, all mix proportions showed an initial strength higher than
ultra-rapid-hardening
0.14 MPa, which is sufficient cement forwas
open used,
trafficallduring
mix proportions showed
the backfilling of buriedan initial
pipes strength
[41]. The
higher
compressive strength values of URHC-1, 2, and 3 were rapidly increased from 2 h toburied
than 0.14 MPa, which is sufficient for open traffic during the backfilling of 7 days
pipes [41].initial
after the The compressive strength values
strength measurement. At 28of URHC-1,
days of age, 2, andexhibited
they 3 were rapidly
a more increased
moderate
from 2 h to
increase in 7strength
days afterwith thevalues
initialof strength
2.01, 1.98,measurement.
and 1.96 MPa, At 28 days of age,
respectively. they
The exhibited
compressive
astrength
more moderate increase in strength with values of 2.01, 1.98, and
tended to decrease as the amount of superplasticizer increased. Although the 1.96 MPa, respectively.
The compressive
fluidity increased strength
due to tended to decrease
the increase in freeaswater
the amount
causedofby superplasticizer
the superplasticizer,increased. the
Although
free water consumed in the CLSM hydration reaction for backfill material wasby
the fluidity increased due to the increase in free water caused leftthe
as
superplasticizer,
pores. This led to thea free water large
relatively consumedvolume in of
thepores,
CLSMreducing
hydration its reaction
strength.forAdding
backfilla
material
retarder was left as the
can inhibit pores. This ledreaction
hydration to a relatively large volume of pores,
of ultra-rapid-hardening cementreducing
for a while.its
strength. Adding a retarder can inhibit the hydration reaction
However, when the hydration reaction was initiated after some time, the final compressive of ultra-rapid-hardening
cement
strengthfordida not
while. However,change
significantly when the duehydration reactionaction
to the exothermic was initiated after by
of hydration some time,
chemical
the final compressive strength did not significantly change due
reaction. Regarding compressive strength, the increase in superplasticizer decreased the to the exothermic action
of hydration strength,
compressive by chemical but thereaction.
difference Regarding compressive
was insignificant, andstrength,
the effectthe increasewas
of retarder in
superplasticizer
insignificant [42]. decreased
URHC-4the compressive
with an increased strength,
amount butofthe difference
stone sludge was insignificant,
at the same W/B
and the effect
showed of retarder
excellent strengthwas insignificant
properties in every [42].
mix URHC-4 with This
proportion. an increased
is because amount
although of
stone sludge at the same W/B showed excellent strength
the amount of binder was relatively reduced, the increase in stone sludge lowered the properties in every mix
proportion.
flowability, andThistheis because
strengthalthough
increasedthe amount
because the of binder was
hydration relatively
reaction reduced,
was initially the
active.
increase in stone sludge
Thus, considering lowered the
the flowability andflowability, and the strength
strength properties of backfill increased
materialbecause
mixed with the
hydration reaction wascement
ultra-rapid-hardening initially
and active.
stone Thus,
sludge,considering the flowability
the most adequate and strength
mix proportions were
properties
thought toofbebackfill
URHC-3 material mixed with
and URHC-4 withultra-rapid-hardening
a W/B of 300%, 0.3%cement and stone (wt./B),
superplasticizer sludge,
andmost
the 0.2%adequate
retarder (wt./B) using ultra-rapid-hardening
mix proportions were thought to be URHC-3 cement asand theURHC-4
binder. with a W/B
of 300%, 0.3% superplasticizer (wt./B), and 0.2% retarder (wt./B) using ultra-rapid-
hardening cement as the binder.
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 9 of 19
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 9 of 19

Buildings
Buildings2024,
2024,14,
14,46
46 9 of 19
9 of 19

Figure 7. Compressive strength test result of CLSM for backfill material.

Figure 7. Compressive strength test result of CLSM for backfill material.
Figure Compressive
CLSM7.7.for
3.2.Figure strengthtest
Subbase Material
Compressive strength testresult
resultofofCLSM
CLSMfor forbackfill
backfillmaterial.
material.
3.2. CLSM for Subbase Material
3.2.1. Slump
3.2. CLSM for Subbase Material
3.2.1. Slump
3.2. CLSM for Subbase Material
3.2.1.
The Slump
target slump of the CLSM for subbase layers utilizing ultra-rapid-hardening
The target slump of the CLSM for subbase layers utilizing ultra-rapid-hardening
3.2.1. Slump
cement, stonetarget
The sludge, andofcoarse
slump aggregate was setlayersat 170utilizing
± 10 mm considering the
cement, stone sludge, and the CLSM
coarse for subbase
aggregate was set at 170 ± 10 mm ultra-rapid-hardening
considering the
flowabilityThe and
cement, stone workability.
target slump
sludge, andof The
the slump
CLSM
coarse test
for results
subbase
aggregate showed
was layers that 20 min
utilizing
set atthat
17020 ±min of mixing time was the
ultra-rapid-hardening
10 mm considering
flowability and workability. The slump test results showed of mixing time was
required
cement, for URHC-5
stone sludge, to achieve
and coarse the targeted
aggregate flowability.
was set at 170The± slump
10 mm could not bethe
considering
required for URHC-5 to achieve the targeted flowability. The slump could time
flowability and workability. The slump test results showed that 20 min of mixing not be was
measured
flowability
required before
and
for achieving
workability.
URHC-5 to theThe
achievetarget
slump
the slump
test
targeted due
resultstoshowed
increased
flowability. that
The flowability,
20
slump min of
could as shown
mixing
not be time inwas
measured
measured before achieving the target slump due to increased flowability, as shown in
Figure 8, achieving
required andfor material
URHC-5 separations
to achieve occurred
the partially.
targeted URHC-6,
flowability. aswhich
The slump reduced the
before
Figure 8, and the target
material slump due
separations to
occurredincreased flowability,
partially. URHC-6, which incould
shown Figure
reduced not be
8,the
and
quantity of binder and increased the quantity of stone sludge, tookflowability,
around 5 min to mix.and
quantity of binder and increased the quantity of stone sludge, took around 5 min to mix.in
measured
material before
separationsachieving
occurred the target
partially. slump
URHC-6, due to
which increased
reduced the quantity as
of shown
binder
A Figure
sharp deterioration in of flowability occurred about 10 minURHC-6,
toafter achieving the targetthein
sharp 8,deterioration
A increased and material
the quantity separations
stone sludge,
in flowability occurred
took around
occurred partially.
about 5 10
min min mix. whichdeterioration
afterAachieving
sharp reduced
the target
slump,
quantityas shown
flowabilityof in and
binder
occurredFigure
about 9.10
Thus,
increased minthepouring
quantity
after should
of
achieving stone
thebesludge,
performed
target took
slump, immediately
around
as shown5 min after
toafter
mix.9.
in Figure
slump, as shown in Figure 9. Thus, pouring should be performed immediately
adequate
AThus,
sharp mixing.
pouring should be
deterioration in performed
flowability immediately
occurred about after10adequate
min after mixing.
achieving the target
adequate mixing.
slump, as shown in Figure 9. Thus, pouring should be performed immediately after
adequate mixing.

Figure 8. Slump test test

Slump of URHC-5.
Figure
Figure 8. 8.
Slump test of of URHC-5.
URHC-5.

Figure 8. Slump test of URHC-5.

Figure 9. Slump test of URHC-6.

Figure 9. 9.
Figure Slump test
Slump of of
test URHC-6.
URHC-6.

Figure 9. Slump test of URHC-6.

Buildings 2024, 14, 46 10 of 19
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 10 of 19

3.2.2. Compressive Strength Test

3.2.2. Compressive Strength Test
To analyze the compressive strength of CLSM for subbase layers utilizing ultra-
To analyze the compressive strength of CLSM for subbase layers utilizing ultra-rapid-
rapid-hardening cement, stone sludge, and coarse aggregate, the specimens were
hardening cement, stone sludge, and coarse aggregate, the specimens were prepared with
prepared with the target slump. Figure 10 shows the results of the compressive strength
the target slump. Figure 10 shows the results of the compressive strength test by age. Both
test by age. Both URHC-5 and URHC-6 mixes, which included 40% of coarse aggregate,
URHC-5 and URHC-6 mixes, which included 40% of coarse aggregate, showed compressive
showed compressive strength values of more than 0.9 MPa at 2 h and more than 1.0 MPa
strength values of more than 0.9 MPa at 2 h and more than 1.0 MPa at 4 h. This ensured
at 4 h. This ensured a compressive strength of 0.7 MPa for the following process (asphalt
a compressive strength of 0.7 MPa for the following process (asphalt layer paving). For
layer paving). For the URHC-6 mix, the quantity of stone sludge was increased to reduce
the URHC-6 mix, the quantity of stone sludge was increased to reduce the unit amount
the unit amount of binder. Thus, it showed a greater compressive strength because the
of binder. Thus, it showed a greater compressive strength because the amount of water
amount of water initially added was relatively reduced and the hydration reaction was
initially added was relatively reduced and the hydration reaction was active at an early
active at an early stage, shortening the mixing time to achieve the target slump. Therefore,
stage, shortening the mixing time to achieve the target slump. Therefore, URHC-6 is thought
URHC-6 is thought to be adequate as a CLSM mix for subbase layers to complete pipeline
to be adequate as a CLSM mix for subbase layers to complete pipeline construction in the
construction in the city
city center targeted incenter targeted
this study in this
within the study within
specified theconsidering
time, specified time,
bothconsidering
workability
both workability and compressive
and compressive strength. strength.

Figure10.
Figure Compressivestrength
10.Compressive strengthtest
testresult
resultofofCLSM
CLSMfor
forsubbase
subbasematerial.
material.

3.3. Microstructure Analysis Results

3.3. Microstructure Analysis Results
3.3.1. SEM and EDS Analysis Results
3.3.1. SEM and EDS Analysis Results
CLSM specimens were taken at 2 h, 1 day, 7 days, 14 days, and 28 days of age and
CLSMby
analyzed specimens
SEM andwere EDS.taken
Figuresat 11
2 h,and
1 day, 7 days,
12 show the14 days,ofand
results 28 days of age
microstructure and
analysis.
analyzed
The CLSM by SEM and EDS.
that used Figures 11 and 12 show
ultra-rapid-hardening cement theasresults of microstructure
a binder initially showed analysis.
a large
The CLSMofthat
quantity used and
ettringite ultra-rapid-hardening
dense microstructures. cement as a binder
Furthermore, initially
as the showed athe
age increased, large
den-
quantity of e ringite
sity of internal and dense increased
microstructures microstructures.
becauseFurthermore,
the hydrationasreaction
the agewithincreased,
the cement the
density
becameofmore internal
active.microstructures
In the early stage,increased
a largebecause
quantity theofhydration
ettringite wasreaction
observed.with the The
cement became more active. In the early stage, a large quantity of e
mechanism of strength development of ultra-rapid-hardening cement is that in the presence ringite was observed.
The mechanism
of SO 2+ ionsof eluting
strength development of contact
ultra-rapid-hardening
with water and cement Al3+ ions is eluting
that in from the
3 , Ca immediately after
presence of SO3, Careact
calcium aluminate 2+ ions
to eluting
produceimmediately
calcium aluminateafter contact
hydratewith ·Al2 Oand
(CaOwater 3 ·nHAl 2 O). ions
3+ Then,

this reacts
eluting fromwithcalcium
gypsum in the cementreact
aluminate to produce (3CaO·Alaluminate
ettringitecalcium
to produce 2 O3 ·3CaSO4hydrate ·32H2 O),
which 2hardens
(CaO·Al O3·nH2O). rapidly,
Then, resulting
this reactsinwith
earlygypsum
strengthindevelopment
the cement to [43]. Consequently,
produce e ringite a
large quantity
(3CaO·Al 2O3·3CaSO of ionic
4·32H components
2O), whichsuch as Al, O,
hardens Ca, andresulting
rapidly, S were detected
in early in thestrength
2 h EDS
mapping as shown in Figure 11. Furthermore, the high fineness
development [43]. Consequently, a large quantity of ionic components such as Al, O, Ca, compared to ordinary
cement
and S were is detected
highly reactive
in the 2when
h EDSmixed
mapping withaswater,
showncausing
in Figurean11.
active hydrationthe
Furthermore, reaction.
high
As a result,
fineness the reaction
compared that produces
to ordinary cement isthe hydrate
highly of ettringite
reactive when mixedoccurs withmore rapidly.
water, causingThis
ansuggests
active that the flowreaction.
hydration value was Asmeasured
a result, lower and the compressive
the reaction that produces strength was higher
the hydrate of
e compared
ringite occurs to ordinary cement.
more rapidly. The
This mix proportion
suggests that the flow with ultra-rapid-hardening
value was measured lower cement
and
showed
the a large amount
compressive strengthofwas ettringite
higherand C–S–H to
compared and C–A–H cement.
ordinary gels at 7 The
daysmix of age as shown
proportion
in Figure 12. In addition, on
with ultra-rapid-hardening cement showed the Ca(OH) surface, thin sheet-shaped C–S–H
2 a large amount of e ringite and C–S–H and gel appeared
widely gels
C–A–H distributed.
at 7 days This indicates
of age that as
as shown in Ca(OH)
Figure 12.2 was
In consumed,
addition, on secondary
the Ca(OH) ettringite
2 surface, was
thin sheet-shaped C–S–H gel appeared widely distributed. This indicates that as Ca(OH)as
formed and C–S–H and C–A–H gels were generated at 7 days of age. At 28 days of age, 2
s 2024, 14, Buildings
46 2024, 14, 46 11 of 19 11 of 19

Buildings 2024, 14, was

46 consumed, secondary ettringite was formed and C–S–H and C–A–H gels were generated 11 of 19
was consumed, secondary ettringite was formed and C–S–H and C–A–H gels were generated
at 7 days of age.
at At 28 days
7 days of age,
of age. At 28asdays
C–S–H gel and
of age, C–A–Hgel
as C–S–H geland
were generated
C–A–H in large
gel were generated in large
quantities around the ettringite nucleus, it was confirmed that the internal structure was
quantities around the ettringite nucleus, it was confirmed that the internal structure was
C–S–H
stabilizing by filling thegel
stabilizing and
by C–A–H
micropores
filling gel were
of CLSM
the generated
using
micropores inusing
large quantities
ofultra-fast-hardening
CLSM around
cement andthe
ultra-fast-hardening ettringite
stone
cement andnucleus,
stone
sludge. it was
sludge. confirmed that the internal structure was stabilizing by filling the micropores of
CLSM using ultra-fast-hardening cement and stone sludge.

Figure11.
Figure 11. EDS mapping
Figure 11. EDSof
result
EDS mapping resultURHC.
CLSM using
mapping result ofCLSM
of CLSMusing
usingURHC.
URHC.

(a) 2 h (×3000) (a) 2 h (×3000) (b) 1 days (×10,000)

(b) 1 days (×10,000)

Figure 12. Cont.

 Buildings 2024, 14, 46 12 of 19

2024, 14, 46
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 12 of 19 12 of 19

(c) 7 days (×10,000) (d) 28 days (×10,000)

Figure
(c) 712. SEM
days image of CLSM using URHC.
(×10,000) (d) 28 days (×10,000)
Figure 12. SEM image
3.3.2. XRDofAnalysis
CLSM using URHC.
Results
Figure 12. SEM image of CLSM using URHC.
Figure 13 shows the XRD analysis results of a sample collected at 28 days of CLSM
3.3.2. XRD Analysis
3.3.2.Results
XRD Analysis Results
using stone sludge and ultra-rapid-hardening cement. The peak of SiO2 became more
Figureevident
13 shows themix
inFigure
the XRD analysis
13using
shows theresults
stone ofThe
a sample
XRD analysis
sludge. collected
results
CLSM at 28 Portland
of ordinary
with a sample days of CLSM
collected at 28 days
cement of CLSM
showed
using stone sludge
using and
stoneultra-rapid-hardening
sludge and cement.
ultra-rapid-hardening The peak
cement. of
very low peaks except for e ringite. This is thought to be due to the relatively SiO
The became
2peak of more
SiO 2 high W/B, evi-
became more
evident in which
the mixdent using
in stone
the mix sludge.
using The
stone CLSM
sludge. with
The ordinary
CLSM Portland
with ordinary
inhibited the smooth hydration reaction. The CLSM with ultra-rapid-hardening cement showed
Portland cement showed very
very low peaks
cement except
low peaksfor except
confirmed e ringite. ThisC–S–H,
is thought
for ettringite.
e ringite, Thisandistothought
be dueto
C–A–H tobe
gelthe relatively
due high W/B,
to theasrelatively
hydrate, shown highSEM.
by W/B,Inwhich
which inhibited inhibited
the smooth the smooth
hydration hydration
reaction. reaction.
The CLSMThe CLSM
with with ultra-rapid-hardening
ultra-rapid-hardening
particular, the e ringite peak clearly appeared in the mix using ultra-rapid-hardening cement
cement. This is determined to be due to the hydration reaction characteristics of ultra- the
cement confirmed confirmed
e ettringite,
ringite, C–S–H, C–S–H,
and and
C–A–H C–A–H gel gel hydrate,
hydrate, as as shown
shown byby SEM.
SEM. InIn particular,
the eettringite
particular,rapid-hardening
ringite peakpeak clearly
cement, as appeared
described in in the
the mix
Section using
mix3.3.1. ultra-rapid-hardening
usingFurthermore,
ultra-rapid-hardening cement. This is
Al2O3 in ultra-rapid-
cement. This is determined
determined to
to be
be due
due totothe
the hydration
hydration reaction
reaction characteristics
hardening cement and SiO2, which is the main component of stone sludge, causecharacteristics ofofultra-rapid-hardening
ultra-
rapid-hardening cement,
pozzolaniccement, asasdescribed
reactions withinCH
described Section
in in the3.3.1.
Section 3.3.1.
cementFurthermore,
Furthermore,
matrix, and Al2AlO23Oin
this ultra-rapid-hardening
3 in ultra-rapid-
accelerates the hydration cement
hardeningreaction and SiO
cement compared , which
and2 SiO2,towhich is the
ordinarymain component
is cement
the main of stone
component
[44,45]. sludge,
of stone
As a result, cause
mixingsludge, pozzolanic
causewith ultra- with
proportions reactions
CH in with
pozzolanicrapid-hardening
reactions the cement
CH
cementinmatrix,
the
may and this
cement
produce accelerates
matrix,
more and the
this
C–S–H hydration
C–A–H.reaction
accelerates
and the compared
Thehydration
C–S–H to ordinary
and C–A–H
reaction compared cementto [44,45]. cement
ordinary As a result, mixing
[44,45]. As a proportions
result, mixingwith ultra-rapid-hardening
proportions with ultra- cement may
are generated through pozzolanic reaction and they are a ached to the surface of stone
rapid-hardening produce more C–S–H and C–A–H. The C–S–H and
TheC–A–H are
andgenerated through poz-
sludge,cement
and the may produce
density more
within C–S–H
the CLSM and C–A–H.
matrix increases,C–S–Hthereby C–A–H harmful
reducing
are generated zolanic
through reaction and they are attached to the surface of stone sludge, and the density within
voids [46]. pozzolanic reaction and they are a ached to the surface of stone
the CLSM matrix increases, thereby reducing harmful
sludge, and the density within the CLSM matrix increases, thereby reducing harmful voids [46].
voids [46].

(a) OPC

Figure 13. Cont. (a) OPC

Buildings 2024, 14, 46 13 of 19
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 13 of 19

(b) URHC
Figure 13. 28-day XRD results for different binders.

4. Evaluation of Field Applicability for CLSMs

4.1. Site Construction Overview
(b) URHC
A field construction evaluation was carried out by applying the optimal mix
proportions
Figure Figure 13.of
13. 28-day URHC-3
XRD
28-day XRD and
results URHC-6
for different
results derived
binders.
for different from the indoor experimental evaluation.
binders.
This process is shown in Figure 14. The mixer used for the on-site production and pouring
4. Evaluation
4. Evaluation
of CLSMs of Field
was of Field
a piece Applicability
Applicability
of dedicated for
CLSM for
CLSMs CLSMs developed as part of this study.
equipment
4.1.
4.1. SiteAs Site Construction
shown
Construction in Figure Overview
Overview 15, before pouring the CLSM for each mix, a slump test and a
flow testAwere conducted to characterize the CLSMs, and specimens were fabricated in the
A field field construction
construction evaluation
evaluation waswas carriedout
carried outbyby applying
applying the
theoptimal
optimalmix
mixpropor-
field. In addition,
tions of URHC-3 to evaluate
and URHC-6 the constructability
derived fromofthe theindoor
upper experimental
layer after construction
evaluation.of This
proportions of URHC-3 and URHC-6 derived from the indoor experimental evaluation.
CLSM material,
process the change
is shown in Figure in hardness of theused
14. The mixer CLSM forlayer was measured
the on-site through
production a soil of
and pouring
This process is shown in Figure 14. The mixer used for the on-site production and pouring
penetrometer
CLSMs was test and aof
a piece Kelly ball test.
dedicated CLSM equipment developed as part of this study.
of CLSMs was a piece of dedicated CLSM equipment developed as part of this study.
As shown in Figure 15, before pouring the CLSM for each mix, a slump test and a
flow test were conducted to characterize the CLSMs, and specimens were fabricated in the
field. In addition, to evaluate the constructability of the upper layer after construction of
CLSM material, the change in hardness of the CLSM layer was measured through a soil
penetrometer test and a Kelly ball test.

(a) Excavation (b) Concrete pipe installation

(a) Excavation (b) Concrete pipe installation

(c) Pilot mixer for CLSM (d) CLSM mixing

Figure 14. Cont.

(c) Pilot mixer for CLSM (d) CLSM mixing

 Buildings
Buildings 2024, 14, 14,
2024, 46 46 14 of 19
14 of 19

Buildings 2024, 14, 46 14 of 19

(e) Backfill CLSM construction (f) Subbase CLSM construction

Figure 14. 14.
Figure Photographs of the
Photographs of field construction
the field of the
construction of CLSMs.
the CLSMs.

As shown in Figure 15, before pouring the CLSM for each mix, a slump test and a
flow test were conducted to characterize the CLSMs, and specimens were fabricated in the
field. In addition, to evaluate the constructability of the upper layer after construction of
CLSM(e) Backfill CLSM construction
material, the change in hardness of the(f)CLSM Subbase CLSM construction
layer was measured through a soil
penetrometer
Figure test and
14. Photographs a Kelly
of the ball test. of the CLSMs.
field construction

(a) Flow test for backfill CLSM (b) Specimen fabrication for backfill CLSM

(a) Flow test for backfill CLSM (b) Specimen fabrication for backfill CLSM

(c) Slump test for subbase CLSM (d) Specimen fabrication for subbase CLSM

(c) Slump test for subbase CLSM (d) Specimen fabrication for subbase CLSM

(e) Soil penetrometer test

(e) Soil penetrometer test

Figure 15. Cont.

Buildings 2024,
Buildings 14,14,
2024, 4646 15 of 19 15 of 19

(f) Kelly ball test

Figure
Figure15.
15.Photographs
Photographsof the fieldfield
of the test test
of the
ofCLSMs.
the CLSMs.

4.2.
4.2. Field
FieldEvaluation
EvaluationResult
Result
4.2.1.Evaluation
4.2.1. Evaluationof of Mechanical
Mechanical Properties
Properties
The
Theflowflowtest result
test of CLSM
result of CLSMfor backfill satisfied
for backfill the ASTM
satisfied D 4832 D
the ASTM standard [36] of [36] of
4832 standard
200
200 mm
mmorormore,
more,asas shown
shown in Table
in Table9. Furthermore,
9. Furthermore,the slump test result
the slump testofresult
CLSMofforCLSM for
subbase
subbaselayers
layersshowed
showed a target slump
a target of 170
slump of ±170
10 mm,
± 10asmm,shown in Tablein
as shown 10.Table
In addition,
10. In addition,
both CLSMs were found to have excellent workability during field construction. As shown
both CLSMs were found to have excellent workability during field construction. As shown
in Table 9, the compressive strength of CLSM for backfill was greater than 0.6 MPa after 2
in Table 9, the compressive strength of CLSM for backfill was greater than 0.6 MPa after
h. The compressive strength of CLSM for subbase layers was larger than 1.0 MPa after 2 h
2 h. The compressive strength of CLSM for subbase layers was larger than 1.0 MPa after
as shown in Table 10. The field test results showed lower flowability and increased
2 h as shown
compressive in Table
strength 10. The
compared to field test results
the indoor showed
test. This lower
difference flowability
occurred because and
of theincreased
compressive strength compared to the indoor test. This difference
change in the water content due to the use of a large amount of stone sludge and the occurred because of
performance difference between the mixer used in the indoor test and the mixer used in and the
the change in the water content due to the use of a large amount of stone sludge
performance
the difference between the mixer used in the indoor test and the mixer used in
field test [47,48].
the field test [47,48].
Table 9. Flow and compressive strength test result of CLSM for backfill.
Table 9. Flow and compressive strength test result of CLSM for backfill.
Compressive Strength
NO. Flow (mm)
(MPa, 2 h) Strength
Compressive
NO. Flow (mm)
1 360 0.66
(MPa, 2 h)
21 370360 0.67 0.66
32 360370 0.63 0.67
3 360 0.63
Average
Average 363.3
363.3 0.65 0.65

Table 10. Slump and compressive strength test result of CLSM for subbase layers.
Table 10. Slump and compressive strength test result of CLSM for subbase layers.
Compressive Strength
NO. Slump (mm)
(MPa, 2 h) Strength
Compressive
NO. Slump (mm)
1 165 (MPa, 2 h)
1.14
21 161165 1.01 1.14
2 161 1.01
3 160 1.12
3 160 1.12
Average
Average 162162 1.09 1.09

4.2.2. Review of Subsequent Process Initiation of CLSMs

4.2.2. Review of Subsequent Process Initiation of CLSMs
To examine the possibility of subsequent processing of backfill material, an
To examine the possibility of subsequent processing of backfill material, an evaluation
evaluation was conducted with a soil hardness meter in accordance with ASTM D 6024,
was conducted with afor
Standard Test Method soilBall
hardness meter
Drop on in accordance
Controlled with ASTM
Low Strength D 6024,
Material (CLSM)Standard
to Test
Method forSuitability
Determine Ball Dropfor
onLoad
Controlled Low Strength
Application [49], and Material (CLSM) to Construction
Tokyo Metropolitan Determine Suitability
for Load Application [49], and Tokyo Metropolitan Construction Bureau Quality Standards
for Fluidized Treated Soil [50]. The construction area was divided into four zones, and each
zone was evaluated every 10 min. The results are summarized in Tables 11 and 12.
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 16 of 19

Table 11. Soil penetrometer test result of backfill material.

Soil Penetrometer (mm)

NO.
10 min 20 min 30 min 40 min 50 min 60 min
1 1.2 2.1 3.1 3.7 4.2 5.2
2 1.3 2.0 3.3 3.9 4.3 5.3
3 1.3 2.8 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.9
4 1.4 2.2 3.5 4.1 4.5 5.5
Average 1.30 2.28 3.33 3.85 4.28 5.23
Kelly Ball (mm)
NO.
10 min 20 min 30 min 40 min 50 min 60 min
1 130.8 123.1 100.5 95.4 82.2 70.5
2 131.5 120.9 107.2 98.0 87.9 75.3
3 132.6 128.1 96.6 93.7 88.8 74.7
4 130.9 120.2 103.3 90.1 84.5 74.0
Average 131.45 123.08 101.90 94.30 85.85 73.63

Table 12. Soil penetrometer test result of subbase material.

Soil Penetrometer (mm)

NO.
10 min 20 min 30 min 40 min 50 min 60 min
1 1.3 2.7 3.5 4.2 4.9 6.2
2 1.5 2.7 3.6 4.8 5.6 6.7
3 1.6 2.4 3.8 4.5 5.3 6.3
4 1.6 2.6 3.4 4.3 5.5 5.9
Average 1.5 2.6 3.58 4.45 5.33 6.28
Kelly Ball (mm)
NO.
10 min 20 min 30 min 40 min 50 min 60 min
1 125.8 108.5 95.2 82.4 73.9 69.5
2 126.3 115.4 99.5 85.1 74.6 70.2
3 132.6 121.3 104.2 86.4 78.1 73.5
4 128.5 118.5 103.8 90.8 79.8 72.5
Average 128.3 115.93 100.68 86.18 76.6 71.43

As a result of the hardness characteristics of the backfill CLSM over time, by using a
soil hardness meter, penetration was measured at 4.28 mm at 50 min after pouring, meeting
the standard value (more than 3 mm). The penetration of subbase CLSM was measured to
be 4.45 mm after 40 min, about 10 min earlier than the backfill CLSM, meeting the standard
(more than 3 mm). As a result of the Kelly ball test, the backfill CLSM and subbase CLSM
values were found to be 73.63 mm and 71.43 mm, respectively, about 1 h after pouring, so
both CLSM met the standard (75 mm or less).

5. Conclusions
In this study, the engineering properties and microstructures of CLSMs for backfill
and subbase layers using ultra-rapid-hardening cement, stone sludge, and coarse aggregate
were analyzed. Additionally, small-scale field construction and testing were performed to
evaluate the field applicability of CLSMs. The following conclusions were drawn through
this study:
(1) For the backfill CLSM using stone sludge and ultra-rapid-hardening cement, the
addition of superplasticizer and retarder is inevitable considering the working en-
vironment of urban centers. Considering the flowability and early compressive
strength, the most adequate mix proportion for backfill CLSM is URHC-3 with a
W/B of 300%, 0.3% (wt./B) superplasticizer, and 0.2% (wt./B) retarder, using an
ultra-rapid-hardening cement as the binder;
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 17 of 19

(2) For the subbase CLSM using ultra-rapid-hardening cement, stone sludge, and coarse
aggregate, it should be poured immediately after appropriate mixing due to the
decrease in flowability with mixing time. Therefore, URHC-6 is judged to be suitable
for subbase CLSM mixes used to complete pipe construction in urban areas within a
given time, considering both workability and compressive strength;
(3) The microstructure analysis results showed that the primary hydration reaction of
CLSM for backfill and subbase layers provided primary initial strength by generating
ettringite. Subsequently, the internal structure of the CLSM was stabilized and the
strength was enhanced as C–S–H and C–A–H gels were generated around SiO2 , the
main component of the stone sludge, and the primary ettringite nucleus;
(4) As a result of small-scale field construction of CLSMs, it was found that they were
sufficiently applicable to the field in terms of constructability and performance. How-
ever, compared to the indoor test, fluidity was lowered and compressive strength was
increased. This is because the moisture content of stone sludge and the performance
of the mixer used in the field are different from those in the laboratory. Therefore, the
quantity of admixture used and the water content of the stone sludge need to be verified
through a water content experiment, considering weather conditions before mixing.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.B.; methodology, J.L. and C.B.; validation, J.L. and C.B.;
formal analysis, J.L. and C.B.; investigation, J.L. and C.B.; resources, J.L. and C.B.; data curation, J.L.
and C.B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.; writing—review and editing, C.B.; visualization,
J.L.; supervision, C.B.; project administration, C.B.; funding acquisition, C.B. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advance-
ment (KAIA) grant funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Grant No.
22POQWB152342-01).
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available in the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Han, S.H.; Yang, S.L.; Lee, J.W.; Back, C.M. Evaluation of fugitive dust emission generated by construction process of pavement
excavation-restoration through the field test. Int. J. Highw. Eng. 2020, 22, 61–68. [CrossRef]
2. Jeong, J.S.; Lee, J.C.; Yang, K.Y.; So, K.H. Utilization of stone sludge produced by stone block manufacturing process as concrete
admixtures. J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. 2008, 8, 83–89. [CrossRef]
3. Han, C.G.; Shin, B.C.; Kim, G.C.; Lee, S.T. Strength and absorption properties of cement mortar produced with various content of
sludge powder at mines. J. Korea Concr. Inst. 2001, 13, 561–567.
4. Ko, D.; Choi, H. Basic performance evaluation of dry mortar recycled basalt powder sludge. J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. 2013, 13,
131–138. [CrossRef]
5. Jeong, J.Y.; Choi, S.M.; Kawg, E.G.; Choi, S.J.; Lee, S.Y.; Kim, J.M. The Strength Properties of Concrete Used Stone Powder Sludge
as Siliceous Material. In Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference, Seoul, Republic of Korea,
1 May 2005; pp. 85–88.
6. Galetakis, M.; Soultana, A. A review on the utilization of quarry and ornamental stone industry fine by-products in the
construction sector. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 102, 769–781. [CrossRef]
7. Graziani, A.; Giovannelli, G.I.L. Lapidei Struttura del Settore e Tendenze Innovative; Centro Studi Fillea: Rome, Italy, 2015. Available
online: http://www.filleacgil.it/nazionale/accordi/all_1817.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2020). (In Italian)
8. Zichella, L.; Bellopede, R.; Spriano, S.; Marini, P. Preliminary investigations on stone cutting sludge processing for a future
recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 866–876. [CrossRef]
9. Nasserdine, K.; Mimi, Z.; Bevan, B.; Elian, B. Environmental management of the stone cutting industry. J. Environ. Manag. 2009,
90, 466–470. [CrossRef]
10. Lim, S.Y.; Song, J.H.; Jaung, J.D. A study on properties of general strength-high folw concrete using sludge of crushed stone.
J. Archit. Inst. Korea 2006, 26, 409–412.
11. Song, J.W.; Choi, J.J. The influence of fine particles under 0.08 mm contained in aggregate on the characteristics of concrete.
J. Korea Concr. Inst. 2013, 25, 347–354. [CrossRef]
12. Seo, J.Y.; Choi, S.J.; Kang, S.T. Physical effect of adding stone dust sludge on the properties of cement mortar. J. Korean Recycl.
Constr. Resour. Inst. 2015, 3, 152–158.
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 18 of 19

13. Hong, K.N.; Lee, J.H.; Han, S.H.; Park, J.K. Mechanical properties of concrete using crushed stone sludge as substitutes. J. Inst.
Constr. Technol. 2012, 31, 79–84.
14. Mashaly, A.O.; Shalaby, B.N.; Rashwan, M.A. Performance of mortar and concrete incorporating granite sludge as cement
replacement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 169, 800–818. [CrossRef]
15. Mashaly, A.O.; El-Kaliouby, B.A.; Shalaby, B.N.; El-Gohary, A.M.; Rashwan, M.A. Effects of marble sludge incorporation on the
properties of cement composites and concrete paving blocks. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 731–741. [CrossRef]
16. Lozano-Lunar, A.; Dubchenko, I.; Bashynskyi, S.; Rodero, A.; Fernández, J.M.; Jiménez, J.R. Performance of self-compacting
mortars with granite sludge as aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 251, 118998. [CrossRef]
17. Sardinha, M.; de Brito, J.; Rodrigues, R. Durability properties of structural concrete containing very fine aggregates of marble
sludge. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 119, 45–52. [CrossRef]
18. Nascimento, A.S.S.; Santos, C.P.; Melo, F.M.C.; Oliveira, V.G.A.; Betânio Oliveira, R.M.P.; Macedo, Z.S.; Oliveira, H.A. Production
of plaster mortar with incorporation of granite cutting wastes. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121808. [CrossRef]
19. Chang, F.C.; Lee, M.Y.; Lo, S.L.; Lin, J.D. Artificial aggregate made from waste stone sludge and waste silt. J. Environ. Manag.
2010, 91, 2289–2294. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Choudhary, J.; Kumar, B.; Gupta, A. Feasible utilization of waste limestone sludge as filler in bituminous concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2020, 239, 117781. [CrossRef]
21. Dobiszewska, M.; Bagcal, O.; Beycioğlu, A.; Goulias, D.; Köksal, F.; Płominski, B.; Ürünveren, H. Utilization of rock dust as
cement replacement in cement composites: An alternative approach to sustainable mortar and concrete productions. J. Build. Eng.
2023, 69, 106180. [CrossRef]
22. Karalar, M.; Özkılıç, Y.O.; Aksoylu, C.; Sabri, M.M.S.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban, E.M. Flexural behavior of
reinforced concrete beams using waste marble powder towards application of sustainable concrete. Front. Mater. 2022, 9, 1068791.
[CrossRef]
23. Zeybek, Ö.; Özkılıç, Y.O.; Karalar, M.; Çelik, A.I.; Qaidi, S.; Ahmad, J.; Burduhos-Nergis, D.D.; Burduhos-Nergis, D.P. Influence of
replacing cement with waste glass on mechanical properties of concrete. Materials 2022, 15, 7513. [CrossRef]
24. Lee, J.W.; Baek, C. Microstructure analysis and mechanical properties of backfill material using stone sludge. Materials 2023, 16, 1511.
[CrossRef]
25. Ling, T.C.; Kaliyavaradhan, S.K.; Poon, C.S. Global perspective on application of controlled low-strength material (CLSM) for
trench backfilling—An overview. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 158, 535–548. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, Q.L.; Wu, X.M. Performance of cemented coal gangue backfill. J. Cent. South Univ. 2007, 14, 216–219. [CrossRef]
27. Chen, T.; Yuan, N.; Wang, S.; Hao, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, D.; Yang, X. The effect of bottom ash ball-milling time on properties of
controlled low-strength material using multi-component coal-based solid wastes. Sustainability 2002, 14, 9949. [CrossRef]
28. Adaska, W.S. Controlled low-strength materials. Concr. Int. 1997, 19, 41–43.
29. Horiguchi, T.; Okumura, H.; Saeki, N. Durability of CLSM with Used Foundry Sand, Bottom Ash, and Fly Ash in Cold Regions;
American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2001.
30. Horiguchi, T.; Saeki, N. Compressive strength and leachate characteristic of new green CLSM with eco-cement and melted slag
from municipal solid waste. In 8th Canmet/ACI Fly Ash Conf.; Malhtra, V.M., Ed.; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills,
MI, USA, 2004; pp. 539–558.
31. Horiguchi, T.; Fujita, R.; Shimura, K. Applicability of controlled low-strength materials with incinerated sewage sludge ash and
crushed-stone powder. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011, 23, 767–771. [CrossRef]
32. Lea, D.H.; Nguyenb, K.H. An assessment of eco-friendly controlled low-strength material. Sustain. Dev. Civ. Urban Transp. Eng.
2016, 142, 260–267. [CrossRef]
33. Lee, J.; Kim, Y.W.; Lee, B.C.; Jung, S.H. Engineering properties of controlled low strength material for sewer pipe by standard soil
classification. J. Rec. Const. Resour. 2018, 6, 182–189.
34. Kim, Y.W.; Lee, B.C.; Jung, S.H. Field applicability assessment of controlled low strength material for sewer pipe using excavated
soil. J. Korean Recycl. Constr. Resour. Inst. 2019, 7, 349–357.
35. ASTM D6103-17; Standard Test Method for Flow Consistency of Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM). ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017. Available online: https://www.astm.org/d6103_d6103m-17.html (accessed on 18 June 2022).
36. ASTM D4832-16e1; Standard Test Method for Preparation and Testing of Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) Test Cylinders.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
37. KS F 2402; Test Method for Concrete Slump. Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2022.
38. KS F 2405; Test Method for Compressive Strength of Concrete. Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2022.
39. Zhao, M.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y. Effect of free water on the flowability of cement paste with chemical or mineral admixtures. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2016, 111, 571–579. [CrossRef]
40. Luo, F.J.; He, L.; Pan, Z.; Duan, W.H.; Zhao, X.L.; Collins, F. Effect of very fine particles on workability and strength of concrete
made with dune sand. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 131–137. [CrossRef]
41. Japan Civil Engineering Research Institute. Technical Notes of Fluidization Surplus Soil. 2007.
42. Kim, G.M.; Choi, J.; Bang, J.; Jung, J.; Park, S.W.; Yang, B. Effect of artificial interior stone sludge on physicomechanical properties
of mortars. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 75, 106949. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 46 19 of 19

43. Gwon, S.; Jang, S.Y.; Shin, M. Microstructure evolution and strength development of ultra rapid hardening cement modified with
redispersible polymer powder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 192, 715–730. [CrossRef]
44. Qing, Y.; Zenan, Z.; Deyu, K.; Rongshen, C. Influence of nano-SiO2 addition on properties of hardened cement paste as compared
with silica fume. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21, 539–545. [CrossRef]
45. Meng, T.; Yu, Y.; Qian, X.; Zhan, S.; Qian, K. Effect of nano-TiO2 on the mechanical properties of cement mortar. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2012, 29, 241–245. [CrossRef]
46. Atta-ur-Rehman; Qudoos, A.; Kim, H.G.; Ryou, J.-S. Influence of titanium dioxide nanoparticles on the sulfate attack upon
ordinary portland cement and slag-blended mortars. Materials 2018, 11, 356. [CrossRef]
47. Liao, X.K.; Kim, D.H. Field applicability evaluation of control low strength materials as utilizing various industrial by-products.
J. Rec. Const. Resour. 2020, 8, 387–394.
48. Bae, Y.S.; Sin, S.Y.; Won, J.S.; Lee, D.H. The Road Subsidence Condition and Safety Improvement Plans in Seoul; The Seoul Institute
Working Paper 2016-PR-09; The Seoul Institute: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2016.
49. ASTM D6024; Standard Test Method for Ball Drop on Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) to Determine Suitability for
Load Application. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
50. Tokyo Metropolitan Construction Bureau. Quality Standards for Fluidized Treated Soil; Tokyo Metropolitan Construction Bureau:
Tokyo, Japan, 2009.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.