SELECTING OPTIMUM CEMENT CONTENTS FOR STABILIZING AGGREGATE BASE MATERIALS

Researchers designed a laboratory test sequence to identify the optimum amount of portland type I cement for stabilizing two aggregates, limestone and recycled concrete, typically used in the Houston District. Smectitic compositions identified through mineralogical investigations corresponded with the poor performance of the untreated aggregates in preliminary testing and substantiated the need for stabilization. Samples were subsequently treated with 1.5%, 3.0%, and 4.5% cement and tested for strength, shrinkage, durability, and moisture susceptibility in the laboratory. Strength was determined with the Soil Cement Compressive Strength Test (TxDOT Test Method Tex-120-E), and a linear shrinkage test was developed to assess shrinkage characteristics. Durability was evaluated with the South African Wheel Tracker Erosion Test (SAWTET), and moisture susceptibility was assessed with the Tube Suction Test (TST). The limestone aggregate was also subjected to modulus testing. Based on these parameters, stabilized samples exhibited markedly improved performance with minimum additions of cement. Based on the results of the laboratory testing, the recommendation of this report is 3.0% cement for the limestone and 1.5% cement for the recycled concrete. For future testing of aggregate base materials to determine optimum cement contents, the joint utilization of the strength test and the TST is recommended. Sufficient quantities of cement should be added to tested samples to obtain minimum unconfined compressive strengths of 300 psi in the former and maximum average surface dielectric values of 10 in the latter. The minimum amount of cement necessary to satisfy both criteria should be recommended for pavement construction. In addition to these tentative specifications, a provisional pre-cracking procedure is also suggested in this report for further evaluation.

[1]  Tom Scullion,et al.  Precracking of Soil-Cement Bases to Reduce Reflection Cracking: Field Investigation , 2002 .

[2]  Soheil Nazarian,et al.  Specifications for tools used in structural field testing of flexible pavement layers , 1998 .

[3]  P. Harris,et al.  Forensic Evaluation of Three Failed Cement-Treated Base Pavements , 1998 .

[4]  Soheil Nazarian,et al.  Evaluation of Strain Variation Within a Triaxial Specimen Due to End Effects , 1998 .

[5]  Tom Scullion,et al.  Using Suction and Dielectric Measurements as Performance Indicators for Aggregate Base Materials , 1997 .

[6]  Prem V. Sharma Environmental and Engineering Geophysics by Prem V. Sharma , 1997 .

[7]  Tom Scullion,et al.  USING ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES TO CLASSIFY THE STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF BASE COURSE AGGREGATES , 1996 .

[8]  Tom Scullion,et al.  EVALUATION OF STABILIZED BASE DURABILITY USING A MODIFIED SOUTH AFRICAN WHEEL TRACKING DEVICE. INTERIM REPORT , 1995 .

[9]  Dallas N. Little,et al.  Stabilization of Pavement Subgrades and Base Courses with Lime , 1995 .

[10]  J Litzka,et al.  COLD IN-PLACE RECYCLING ON LOW-VOLUME ROADS IN AUSTRIA , 1995 .

[11]  Robert H. Kuhlman Cracking in Soil Cement: Cause, Effect, Control , 1994 .

[12]  Yang H. Huang,et al.  Pavement Analysis and Design , 1997 .

[13]  M A Caltabiano,et al.  Treatment of reflection cracks in Queensland , 1992 .

[14]  M De Beer Aspects of the erodibility of lightly cementitious materials , 1989 .

[15]  J. Dixon,et al.  Minerals in soil environments , 1990 .

[16]  S H Carpenter,et al.  THERMAL PAVEMENT CRACKING IN WEST TEXAS , 1977 .

[17]  James K. Mitchell,et al.  Fundamentals of soil behavior , 1976 .

[18]  L T Norling MINIMIZING REFLECTIVE CRACKS IN SOIL-CEMENT PAVEMENTS: A STATUS REPORT OF LABORATORY STUDIES AND FIELD PRACTICES , 1973 .

[19]  William M Moore,et al.  A LABORATORY STUDY OF THE RELATION OF STRESS TO STRAIN FOR A CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE MATERIAL; REPORT NO 99-5F , 1970 .

[20]  R. D. Barksdale,et al.  EXPANSIVE CEMENT STABILIZATION OF BASES , 1968 .