non-destructive testing of cementitiously stabilized materials using

Mandal, Tinjum, and Edil 1

NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF CEMENTITIOUSLY STABILIZED MATERIALS1USING ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST2

3

Tirupan Mandal (Corresponding Author)4

Graduate Research Assistant, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of5Wisconsin-Madison, 3346 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706, PH6(608) 698-9287; FAX (608) 262-5199; E-mail: [email protected]

8

James M. Tinjum9

Assistant Professor, Engineering Professional Development, University of Wisconsin Madison,10432 N Lake St, Ste 833, Madison, WI 53706; PH (608) 262-0785; FAX (608) 262-5199; E-mail:[email protected]

13

Tuncer B. Edil14

Professor Emeritus and Research Director, Recycled Materials Resource Center and Department15of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2226 Engineering16Hall, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706; PH (608) 262-3225; FAX (608) 262-5199;17E-mail: [email protected]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Submission Date: August 1st, 201330

Total words: 4373 + 250×10 (Figures) + 250×2 (Table) = 737331

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting Original paper submittal - not revised by author


ABSTRACT1

In this paper, non-destructive testing of cementitiously stabilized materials (CSM) was studied2using ultrasonic pulse velocity techniques. Flexural strength and flexural modulus tests were3conducted on CSMs (gravel-cement, sand-cement, clay-cement, silt-cement, gravel-class C fly4ash, sand-class C fly ash, silt-class C fly ash, clay-lime, and silt-lime-class F fly ash) and their P-5wave velocity and constrained modulus were recorded. The effect of compaction, curing time,6and binder content is reported and analyzed. For the materials tested, P-wave velocity decreased7with decrease in specimen density, whereas P-wave velocity increased with increase in curing8time and binder content. A strong relationship was found between the P-wave velocity and9flexural strength (R2 = 0.90) and flexural modulus (R2 = 0.70 at 30% stress level). Because the10change in density does not significantly change the fit, P-wave velocity is proposed to compute11flexural strength. This study indicates that the ultrasonic pulse velocity technique is a suitable12method for determining the flexural properties of CSMs.13

Keywords: Cementitiously stabilized materials, Flexural Strength, Flexural Modulus,14Constrained Modulus, P-wave velocity, Ultrasonic testing.15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33



INTRODUCTION1

According to the Federal Highway Administration (1), U.S. road centerline miles have2increased by about 10% between 1960 and 2002, while the number of registered vehicles and3vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has increased by over 300% and 380%, respectively. To maintain4functionality of the roadway transportation system, the U.S. government annually spends $1175billion for maintenance and construction and expands and constructs new roads at a rate of6approximately 13,000 miles per year. Traditionally, mined natural aggregates have been used as7subbase and base materials for supporting the pavement system and distributing traffic loads into8the subgrade. Due to shortages of aggregates and high cost of petroleum resources, soil9stabilization of the subgrade or subbase/base gained limited acceptance beginning in the 1960s10and ‘70s. Soil stabilization is an increasingly employed and valuable alternative to natural11aggregates as global demand for raw materials, fuel, and infrastructure continues to increase (13,1214).13

Soil stabilization is the practice of improving the engineering properties of soil used for14pavement base course, subbase course, and subgrade through the use of additives or binders,15which are mixed into the soil to achieve the desired improvement. The addition of such binders16transforms unbound material layers to bound layers, which are sometimes referred to as17chemically or cementitiously stabilized layers (CSL).18

The common improvements achieved through soil stabilization include increases in the19structural properties of strength, stiffness, and durability of the pavement layer. Soil stabilization20also helps in reducing the plasticity index and is particularly useful when there are limits in the21availability or economics of natural aggregates. Stabilization mechanisms vary widely, from the22formation of new compounds binding the finer soil particles, to the coating of particle surfaces23by the additive to limit the moisture sensitivity. Therefore, a basic understanding of the24stabilization mechanisms involved with each additive is required before selecting an effective25stabilizer that is well suited for a specific application (3).26

Ultrasonic pulse velocity testing is a rapid, non-destructive testing technique that sends27sound waves through the specimen that range in frequency from 20 kHz to 1 GHz. By measuring28the travel time through the specimen, the P-wave or shear wave velocity and related dynamic29properties of the material can be determined. Many studies have been conducted using ultrasonic30pulse velocity tests for quality control and defect detection in civil infrastructures. However,31there are limited studies on the use of non-destructive testing for CSMs.32

BACKGROUND33

The use of seismic modulus tests to monitor the curing or maturity of CSM in a non-34destructive manner has increasingly garnered interest from researchers (9, 13, 17). Since the35ultrasonic pulse velocity test is a non-destructive testing method, the measurement of variation of36P-wave velocity (Vp) with curing time for CSMs is possible. Traditional laboratory ultrasonic37testing methods determine the constrained modulus, shear modulus, and Poisson's ratio of38specimens (14). The P-wave velocity is calculated using Equation 1:39

Vp = (1)40



where L is length of the specimen (m), and t2, t1 are travel times of the P-waves (s). From the P-1wave velocity obtained from the ultrasonic pulse velocity test, the low-strain constrained2modulus (D) can be calculated using Equation 2, where ρ is mass density of the specimen3(kg/m3):4 = (2)5

Several researchers (2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16) have used non-destructive testing for different soils.6For stabilized mixtures, ultrasonic testing has been performed on highly plastic clay stabilized7with lime, cement, and fly ash and a Class F fly ash stabilized with lime and cement (17). The P-8wave velocity for these stabilized mixtures increased with increasing density for both soil and fly9ash and was well correlated to the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of stabilized fly ash10samples. Tests to justify the potential use of the seismic modulus testing method to conduct11QA/QC of base and subgrade layers was conducted by Williams and Nazarian (16) and an12evaluation of the growth in seismic modulus of lime-stabilized soil (LSS) during curing using13free-free resonance testing was performed by Toohey and Money (15). Williams and Nazarian14(16) provided a procedure for relating high strain modulus, Mr, and low strain seismic modulus.15The results showed good correlation between Mr and seismic modulus both in cohesive soil and16granular soil. Toohey and Money (15) conducted tests on 3 stabilized soils and measured17Young’s modulus (E) and shear modulus (G) over a 28-d curing period, for which the growth in18modulus ranged from 250% to 900%. The growth in seismic modulus for each soil exhibited a19power law relationship with curing time. Seismic modulus was found to correlate linearly with20UCS throughout curing. The proportionality of E and UCS remained constant during curing for21each soil beyond day 3.22

Yesiller et al. (15) conducted tests to evaluate the feasibility of using ultrasonic testing in23stabilized mixtures. Ultrasonic testing consisted of determining p-wave velocities of stabilized24mixtures. Tests were conducted on a highly plastic clay stabilized with lime, cement, and fly ash25and a Class F fly ash stabilized with lime and cement. UCS tests were used to determine26compressive strength and modulus of the mixtures immediately after sample preparation and27after 7-d and 28-d curing periods. Ultrasonic tests were conducted on the compaction and28compression test specimens and correlations were made between the test results. Variation of29velocity with water content demonstrated a similar trend as the variation of dry density with30water content for the soil. Yesiller et al. (15) found that velocity increased with increasing31density for both soil and fly ash. For compression characteristics, velocity increased with32increasing modulus for both soil and fly ash. The results showed that the velocity was well33correlated to the UCS of fly ash samples. Su (13) studied the characteristics of ultrasonic wave34on cementitiously stabilized materials and found the P-wave velocity or/and constrained modulus35of the CSMs increased with curing time.36

This paper presents an evaluation of the effect of density, binder content, and curing time37for different CSMs using ultrasonic testing. Using ultrasonic testing techniques, relationships are38derived between stiffness and P-wave velocity and/or constrained modulus.39

MATERIALS40

The source materials used in this study include a silty gravel (GM), poorly graded sand41(SP), and low plasticity silt (ML) and clay (CL) as classified per the Unified Soil Classification42



Systems (USCS) (ASTM D2487) and shown in Figure 1(a). Index properties, compaction1responses, and classifications of the soils are summarized in Table 1(a). According to Atterberg2limit testing, the gravel, sand, and silt were non-plastic (NP). The particle size distribution3curves, determined using ASTM D6913, are shown in Figure 1(b).4

5

6FIGURE 1 (a) Host soils and binders.7

8FIGURE 1 (b) Particle size distributions for gravel, sand, silt, and clay.9

10



TABLE 1 (a) Index Properties for Host Soils1

SampleD50

(mm) Cu Cc Gsωopt

(%)ɣd(max)

(kN/m3)LL(%)

PL(%)

GravelContent

(%)

SandContent

(%)

FinesContent

(%)

USCSSymbol

AASHTOSymbol

Gravel 3.5 110.0 1.3 - 7.0 22.0 NP NP 45.4 40.5 14.1 GM A-1-a

Sand 0.5 2.8 0.83 2.69 11.0 18.7 NP NP 2.1 97.8 0.1 SP A-1-b

Silt 0.01 15.0 6.7 2.72 10.5 19.4 18 NP 3.0 37.0 60.0 ML A-4

Clay 0.015 33.3 2.1 2.62 16.0 16.9 39 19 2.0 18.0 80.0 CL A-6

D50 = median particle size, Cu = coefficient of uniformity, Cc = coefficient of curvature, Gs = specific gravity, ωopt = optimum water2content, ɣd(max) = maximum dry unit weight, LL = liquid limit, PL = plastic limit, NP = non-plastic.3

Note: Particle size analysis conducted following ASTM D6913, Gs by ASTM D854, ɣdmax and ωopt by ASTM D698 except for gravel by4ASTM D1557, USCS classification by ASTM D2487, AASHTO classification by ASTM D3282, and Atterberg limits by ASTM D4315

TABLE 1 (b) Final Mix Design, Maximum Dry Density, and Optimum Moisture Content of the Stabilized Mixtures6

Clay Silt Sand Gravel

BC (%)OMC(%)

MDUW(kN/m3)

BC(%)

OMC(%)

MDUW(kN/m3)

BC(%)

OMC(%)

MDUW(kN/m3)

BC(%)

OMC(%)

MDUW(kN/m3)

No additive N/A 19.12 16.88 N/A 10.39 19.44 N/A 7.15 18.13 N/A 7.74 21.77

Cement 12 17.98 16.22 8 11.12 18.84 6 8.67 19.26 3 6.23 22.01

Lime (Lime-Class F fly

ash*)6 19.35 16.47 4/12* 12.44 18.59 x x

Fly ash x 13 10.04 19.05 13 19.05 21.25 13 7.38 21.89BC = Additive content, OMC = Optimum Moisture Content, MDUW = Maximum Dry Unit Weight; *Lime+Class F Fly Ash (Wen et al. 2011)7



Four different binders were used in this study: cement, Class C fly ash, Class F fly ash,1and lime. The mix water was local tap water. The minimum binder contents were selected from2mix designs based on UCS after 7-d curing. For the cement-stabilized specimens, the UCS was3greater than 2.1 MPa based on ASTM D1633 (8). Lime-stabilized specimens had a UCS of at4least 0.5 MPa after 7-d curing at 40 °C based on ASTM D5102 (6). For the fly ash-stabilized5soils, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommends at least 2.8 MPa for the 7-d6UCS based on ASTM D1633 (1). The final mix designs, the maximum dry density, and optimum7moisture content for all stabilized mixtures are presented in Table 1(b).8

9

SPECIMEN PREPARATION10

Steel molds (102×102×400 mm) and PVC molds (102-mm diameter with a height of 15211mm, and 152-mm diameter with a height of 305 mm) were used for preparing beam and12cylindrical specimens, respectively. Particles larger than 25 mm were removed prior to13compaction. The gravel-stabilized specimens were compacted with modified compaction effort14according to AASHTO T180, “Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils15Using a 4.54 kg Rammer and a 457 mm drop.” The sand, silt and clay stabilized specimens were16compacted with standard compaction effort according to AASHTO T 99, “Standard Method of17Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5 kg Rammer and a 305 mm drop (4).18

Different curing procedures were applied to the mixtures depending on the binder used.19Cement-stabilized mixtures (gravel, sand, silt, and clay) were cured in a moist room (100%20relative humidity, 23 °C) for 28 d (ASTM D558). Fly ash-stabilized mixtures (sand, silt, and21gravel), clay-lime, and silt-lime-class F fly ash were sealed with plastic wrap and cured in an22oven set to 40 °C (ASTM C593) for 7 d.23

24

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS25

Flexural strength and flexural modulus test26

The schematic of the setup for the flexural beam test is shown in Figure 2. Third-point27loading tests for flexural strength and flexural modulus were in accordance with Midgley and28Yeo (5). The load was applied on four points with a span-depth ratio of 1:3. The beam specimens29were tested on a 25-kN MTS Systems Model 244.12 servo-hydraulic machine. A constant30loading was applied at a rate of 690 kPa/min ± 39 kPa/min for the flexural beam tests until the31specimen failed. Flexural strength is expressed in the terms of the modulus of rupture as shown32in Equation 3.33

R = PL/bd2 (3)34

where R = modulus of rupture (kPa), P = maximum applied load (N), L = span length (mm), and35b, d = average width and depth of specimen (mm).36



1FIGURE 2 Diagrammatic view of setup for flexural strength test.2

3

The flexural modulus test was conducted at a frequency of 1 Hz. A contact load (22 N to445 N) was applied to the specimen. The loading for the flexural modulus test used was between520% and 40% of the estimated ultimate breaking load of the specimen. Cyclic haversine loading6was applied for 100 load pulses. The maximum force applied to the specimen and the peak7displacement for the haversine load pulses applied for each pulse cycle was recorded using a8LABVIEW program. The first 50 cycles were considered as pre-conditioning. The data from the9second 50 consecutive cycles were used to calculate the flexural modulus of the specimen using10Equation 4. An average of the second 50 cycles was considered as the flexural modulus of the11specimen.12

Smax = x 1000 (4)13

where Smax is flexural modulus (MPa) and δh is peak mid-span displacement (mm)14

Ultrasonic pulse velocity test15

Non-destructive testing of the CSMs were conducted using the CNS FARNELL PUNDIT16(Portable Ultrasonic Nondestructive Digital Indicating Tester)-Plus Ultrasonic Velocity Test17System. This equipment was used to measure the propagation speed of a pulse of ultrasonic18longitudinal stress waves (Figure 3). The device consists of a transducer and a receiver, which is19connected to an electronic timing device for measuring the time interval between the initiation of20a pulse generated at the transmitting transducer and its arrival at the receiver. The travel time21through the specimen can be read from the PUNDIT-Plus digital display screen (14).22



1

FIGURE 3 Ultrasonic pulse velocity test equipment (PUNDIT-PLUS).2

The beam and cylindrical specimens were tested by the direct transmission of the pulse of3ultrasonic longitudinal stress waves at 54 kHz. ASTM C597 standard was followed for this4study. The transducer and the receiver were contacted to the ends of the specimen. A water-5based jelly (K-Y by Target) was used as the coupling agent to ensure full contact of the6transducers and the surfaces. Travel time and the exact length of the specimens along the7direction of testing were recorded for the calculation of Vp.8

The P-wave velocity measurements were taken after curing. These specimens were then9used for flexural strength and flexural modulus testing. PUNDIT-Plus equipment was used to10record the time required for the ultrasonic P-wave to travel through the beam specimen, which11was then used to calculate the P-wave velocity and the constrained modulus of the specimen. As12the ultrasonic pulse velocity test is a non-destructive type of testing, these tests were conducted13before the specimens were tested for the flexural strength and flexural modulus tests.14

15

RESULTS16

Effect of density on P-wave velocity and constrained modulus17

A subset of CSM mixtures was compacted at various moisture contents to study the effect18of density/compaction. Figure 4 shows the comparison of constrained modulus and p-wave19velocity for the specimens with reduced dry density as compared to those specimens compacted20to target dry density. The average of three replicate specimens for a specific mixture is used.21With decrease in density, constrained modulus and P-wave velocity decreased. The cement-22stabilized soils had a decrease in modulus (and P-wave velocity) in the range of 6% and 47%;23whereas, for the lime- and fly ash-stabilized soils, the decrease ranged from 63% to 87%. Based24on these results, proper compaction of CSMs is required to achieve optimum strength properties.25

Transducer and

Receiver



1

2FIGURE 4 Effect of density/compaction on CSMs.3

4

5

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Silt-Cement(8%)

Clay-Cement(12%)

Gravel-Cement(3%)

Silt-Lime-Flyash (4/12%)

Silt-Fly ash(13%)

Clay-Lime(6%)

P-W

ave

Vel

ocit

y (m

/s)

Specimens

Specimens Compacted toTarget Dry Density

Specimens Compacted toReduced Dry Density



Effect of curing time and binder content on p-wave velocity and constrained modulus1

Since the ultrasonic pulse velocity test is a non-destructive testing method, the2measurement of variation of Vp with curing time for CSMs is possible. Figures 5 and 6 show the3comparison of constrained modulus and Vp for specimens with different binder contents and4curing time, respectively. The average of at least two replicate specimens for a specific mixture5was used. With increase in binder content and curing time of the specimens, constrained modulus6and Vp increased. The clay-cement specimen had the most gain in strength (158%) after 360 d of7curing. The sand-cement specimen had the most increase in strength (127%) when the binder8content was increased.9

10

11FIGURE 5 Effect of binder content on CSMs.12



1

2FIGURE 6 Effect of curing period on CSMs.3

4

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Con

stra

ined

Mod

ulus

(M

Pa)

Days

Sand-Cement (6%)

Gravel-Cement (3%)

Clay-Cement (12%)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

P-W

ave

Vel

ocit

y (m

/s)

Days

Sand-Cement (6%)

Gravel-Cement (3%)

Clay-Cement (12%)



Relationship between constrained modulus and p-wave velocity with flexural strength1

The relationship between constrained modulus and Vp with flexural strength of the CSMs2is presented in Figures 7 and 8. For each mixture, two or more replicate tests were conducted for3comparison of constrained modulus and flexural strength. The flexural strength of CSMs4increased with increasing constrained modulus. A strong relationship between the flexural5strength and constrained modulus was obtained, presented in Equation 5:6

FS = 0.08 (CM) 0.91 [R2 = 0.89] (5)7

where FS is flexural strength (kPa) and CM is constrained modulus (MPa). Similarly, Equation 68may be appropriate to estimate the flexural strength of CSMs from P-wave velocity:9

FS = 9E-05 (Vp) 1.97 [R2 = 0.90] (6)10

where FS is flexural strength (kPa) and Vp is P-wave velocity (m/s). Figures 7 and 8 show the11relationship between constrained modulus and flexural strength, and P-wave velocity and12flexural strength, respectively, for all stabilized soil. The results include all specimens that were13tested for flexural strength, including specimens with varying density, curing time, and binder14content. The relationship between constrained modulus (or P-wave velocity) and flexural15modulus with respect to soil type (i.e., sand, gravel, silt, and clay) and binder (i.e., cement, class16C fly ash, class F fly ash, and lime) are shown in Figure 9. Table 2 summarizes the relationships17developed between constrained modulus and p-wave velocity with flexural strength from the18ultrasonic wave testing on the CSMs. The best-fit curve was chosen to develop the equations.19

TABLE 2 Summary of Relationships between Constrained Modulus and Flexural Strength20

Relationship for Soil Type Relationship R2 Relationship R2

All Stabilized Soils FS = 0.08 CM 0.91 0.89 FS = 9E-05 Vp1.97 0.90

Fine-grained CSMsFS = 1E-06 CM 2 + 0.03 CM +

31.990.92

FS = 0.0002 Vp2 - 0.32 Vp +

196.340.93

Coarse-grained CSMs FS = 0.13 CM 0.86 0.85 FS = 0.0005 Vp1.75 0.83

Silt stabilized with bindersFS = 2E-06 CM 2 + 0.006 CM +

61.660.88 FS = 18.50 e0.0013 Vp 0.85

Clay stabilized with binders FS = 0.06 CM - 20.99 0.98 FS = 2E-05 Vp2.23 0.97

Sand stabilized with binders FS = 0.31 CM 0.77 0.90 FS = 0.003 Vp1.54 0.89

Gravel stabilized with binders FS = 0.04 CM 0.98 0.83 FS = 70.12 e 0.0007Vp 0.85

Cement-stabilized soils FS = 0.92 CM 0.67 0.64 FS = 0.005 Vp1.48 0.66

Class C fly ash-stabilized soils FS = 33.57 e 0.0002CM 0.91 FS = 13.39 e 0.0014Vp 0.87

Lime/class F fly ash-stabilizedsoils

FS = 0.21 CM 0.80 0.96 FS = 0.0005 Vp1.75 0.96

FS = Flexural strength (in kPa); CM = Constrained modulus (in MPa); Vp = P-wave Velocity (in m/s)21



1

FIGURE 7 Relationship between constrained modulus and flexural strength for CSMs.2



1

FIGURE 8 Relationship between P-wave velocity and flexural strength for CSMs.23



1

2

3

FIGURE 9 Relationship between constrained modulus and P-wave velocity with flexural4strength for CSMs.5

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)



The constrained modulus was calculated using the dry density for each specimen. The R21for constrained modulus/P-wave velocity and flexural strength (Table 2) is essentially the same2(difference of 0.01 and 0.02) and slightly higher for the class C fly ash-stabilized specimens3(0.04). Because the change in density does not significantly change the fit, P-wave velocity is4proposed to compute flexural strength. For comparison, Yesiller et al. (17) studied the use of5ultrasonic pulse velocity testing method on stabilized soils and found the strength to increase6over time. Yesiller et al. (17) found good co-relation between velocity and strength for fly ash-7stabilized soil. Su (13) studied the characteristics of ultrasonic wave on cementitiously stabilized8materials and found the P-wave velocity or/and constrained modulus of the CSMs increased with9curing time. Toohey and Mooney (15) found the growth in seismic modulus for lime-stabilized10soil exhibited a power law relationship with curing time. These studies correlate well to the11findings in this paper.12

Relationship between constrained modulus and p-wave velocity with flexural modulus13

Ultrasonic wave testing was conducted before testing for flexural modulus for each14mixture. The constrained modulus for each beam specimen was thus the same, but the flexural15modulus at 20%, 30%, and 40% stress level was different. For each mixture, three replicates16were tested. Figure 10 shows the relationship between constrained modulus and P-wave velocity17with flexural modulus for 20%, 30%, and 40% stress level.18

There was a better co-relation between the constrained modulus and flexural modulus at19the 30% and 40% stress levels (R2 = 0.70 and 0.69, respectively). The R2 values for 20% stress20levels are quite low (0.46). The low R2 values for 20% stress levels may be due to the21insufficiency of the applied loads. Equations 7, 8, and 9 summarizes those relationships, which22can be used to estimate the flexural modulus of CSMs by using the ultrasonic pulse velocity test.23

At 20% stress level, FM = 0.01 CM + 457.49 [R2 = 0.46]24(7)25

At 30% stress level, FM = 405.93 ln(CM) - 2,934.55 [R2 = 0.70]26(8)27

At 40% stress level, FM = 468.89 ln(CM) - 3,422.83 [R2 = 0.69]28(9)29

where CM = Constrained Modulus (in MPa) and FM = Flexural modulus (in MPa). For30comparison, in the study by Yesiller et al. (17), the P-wave velocity increased with increasing31modulus of the mixture. P-wave velocity was directly correlated to the stiffness of the stabilized32mixtures by Yesiller et al. (17), which correlates to the findings in this paper.33



1

2

3

4

FIGURE 10 Relationship between constrained modulus and P-wave velocity with flexural5modulus for CSMs at different stress levels.6

(a)

(c)

(b)

20% Stress Level

30% Stress Level

40% Stress Level



CONCLUSIONS1

Results from ultrasonic pulse velocity tests showed that with decrease in density of the2specimens, constrained modulus and P-wave velocity decreases, whereas, with increase in binder3content and curing time of the specimens, the constrained modulus and P-wave velocity4increases. A relationship was found between the flexural strength and P-wave velocity (R2 =50.90) and also between flexural modulus and P-wave velocity (R2 = 0.70 at 30% stress level).6The ultrasonic pulse velocity tests showed a clear trend of increasing stiffness (constrained7modulus) with time for all mixtures; thus, the method allows for a convenient study of modulus8growth with time.9

10

ACKNOWLEDGMENT11

This study was funded through NCHRP Project 4-36, Characterization of Cementitiously12Stabilized Layers for Use in Pavement Design and Analysis. The contents solely reflect the13views of the authors who are responsible for the accuracy of the experimental data and analysis.14The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Transportation Research Board,15the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association16of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or of the individual states participating in the17National Cooperative Highway Research Program.18

REFERENCES19

1. Ch. 4 Fly Ash in Stabilized Base Course. Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers, Federal20Highway Administration Web Site,21http:www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling/fach04.cfm. Accessed, 2003.22

2. Hilbrich S. L. and Scullion T. Rapid Alternative for Laboratory Determination of23Resilient Modulus Input Values on Stabilized Materials for AASHTO Mechanistic-24Empirical Design Guide. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2026, 2007,25pp. 63-69.26

3. Little, D. N. and Nair, S. Recommended Practice for Stabilization of Subgrade Soils and27Base Materials,” NCHRP Web-Only Document 144, Contractor‟s Final Task Report for28NCHRP Project 20-07, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,29Washington, DC, 2009.30

4. Mandal, T. Fatigue Behavior and Modulus Growth of Cementitiously Stabilized31Pavement Layers, MS Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 2012.32

5. Midgley, L. and Yeo, R. The Development and Evaluation of Protocols for the33Laboratory Characterisation of Cemented Materials, Austroads Technical Report AP-34T101/08, Austroads Inc, 2008.35

6. Technical Brief: Mixture Design and Testing Procedures for Lime Stabilized Soil.36National Lime Association. http://www.lime.org. Accessed, 2006.37

7. Nazarian, S., D. Yuan, V. Tandon, and M. Arellano. Quality Management of Flexible38Pavement Layers with Seismic Methods. Research Report 1735-3. Center for39Transportation Infrastructure Systems, The University of Texas at El Paso, 2005.40

8. Soil-Cement Laboratory Handbook, Portland Cement Association, 1992.41



9. Pucci, M., J. Development of a Multi-Measurement Confined Free-Free Resonant1Column Device and Initial Studies,” MS Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin,2TX, 2012.3

10. Sawangsuriya A., Edil T. B. and Bosscher P. J. Modulus-Suction-Moisture Relationship4for Compacted Soils in Post-Compaction State, Journal of Geotechnical and5Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 135, No. 10,62009, pp. 1390-1403.7

11. Sawangsuriya A., Edil T. B., and Bosscher, P. J. Relationship of Soil Stiffness Gauge8Modulus to Other Test Moduli, Journal of Transportation Research Board, No. 1849,9Paper No. 03-4089, National Research Council, Washington D. C., 2003, pp. 3-10.10

12. Schuettpelz, C. C., Fratta, D., and Edil, T. B. Mechanistic corrections for determining the11resilient modulus of base course materials based on elastic wave measurements. Journal12of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 136, No. 8, 2010, pp. 1086-131094.14

13. Su, Z. Durability performance Of Cementitiously Stabilized Layers, MS Thesis,15University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 2012.16

14. Su, Z., Fratta, D., Tinjum, J.M., Edil, T.B. Cementitiously Stabilized Materials using17Ultrasonic Testing. TRB 2013 Annual Meeting, 2013.18

15. Toohey, N.M., and Mooney, M.A. Seismic modulus growth of lime-stabilised soil during19curing, Ge´otechnique Vol. 62, No. 2, 2011, pp. 161–170.20

16. Williams, R. R. and Nazarian, S. Correlation of Resilient and seismic modulus test21results, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 12, 2007, pp. 1026-1032.22

17. Yesiller N., Hanson J.L., Rener A.T. and Usmen M.A. Ultrasonic testing for evaluation23of stabilized mixtures, Transport Research Record, Vol. 1757, 2001, pp. 32–39.24

18. Wen, H., Balasingam, M., Edil, T., Tinjum, J., Gokce, A., Wang, J., Casmer, J., Su, Z.25Characterization of Cementitiously Stabilized Layers for Use in Pavement Design and26Analysis, Project 04-36 Test Procedure Evaluation Report, prepared for National27Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington D.C, 2011.28


non-destructive testing of cementitiously stabilized materials using

Documents