Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil

CEMENTITIOUSLY STABILIZED MATERIALS USING ULTRASONIC TESTING 1

Zhipeng Su 2
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of 3
Wisconsin-Madison, E-mail: 51221cn@gmail.com 4
Dante Fratta 5
Associate Professor, Geological Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, E-mail: fratta@wisc.edu 6
James M. Tinjum

7
Assistant Professor, Department of Engineering Professional Development, University of Wisconsin- 8
Madison, E-mail: tinjum@epd.engr.wisc.edu 9
Tuncer B. Edil 10
Professor and Research Director, Recycled Materials Resource Center and Department of Civil and 11
Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, E-mail: tbedil@wisc.edu 12
13
14
Submission Date: July, 2012 15
16
17
Word Count: 3808 words + 11 figures +2 tables = 7058 words 18
19
Keywords: Cementitiously stabilized materials, Modulus growth, Ultrasonic testing, UCS. 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
ABSTRACT 1
The effect of curing time, and compaction cementitiously stabilized materials (CSM) was studied 2
using ultrasonic P-wave propagation. In general, the P-wave velocity measurements the mixtures 3
increased with curing time. The trend between unconfined compression strength (UCS) with dry density 4
or compaction water content was the same as the trend with P-wave velocity measurements. For stabilized 5
fine-grained soils, there was a peak in P-wave velocity coinciding with the maximum dry density. The P- 6
wave velocity and constrained modulus were strongly correlated to the UCS for CSMs. A model for 7
prediction of UCS was proposed and verified. These test results provides insights for use of ultrasonic 8
pulse velocity testing method for the determination of mechanical properties of CSM. 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
INTRODUCTION 1
According to Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA, 2000), U.S. road centerline miles have 2
only increased by about 10% between 1960 and 2002, while the number of registered vehicles and vehicle 3
miles traveled (VMT) has increased by over 300% and 380%, respectively. To maintain the roadway 4
transportation system, the U.S. government annually spends $117 billion for maintenance and 5
construction and expands and constructs new roads at a rate of approximately 13,000 miles per year. 6
Traditionally, harvested natural aggregates have been used as subbase and base materials for supporting 7
the pavement system and distributing traffic loads into the subgrade. Due to shortages of aggregates and 8
high cost of petroleum resources, soil stabilization of the subgrade or subbase/base began gaining 9
acceptance since the 1960s and 70s. Soil stabilization is a valuable alternative as global demand for raw 10
materials, fuel, and infrastructure continues to increase. 11
Stabilization of subgrade or subbase/base stabilization is the process of blending and mixing 12
additives to the host materials to improve the engineering properties of the roadway base. The process 13
may include the blending of soils or aggregate to achieve a desired gradation or the mixing of 14
commercially available additives that may alter the gradation, texture or plasticity, or act as a binder for 15
cementation of the soils (Department of Army, Navy, and Air Force 1994). Soil stabilization occurs 16
during the early stages of pavement construction. Correct application of soil stabilization is essential for 17
the proper function of roads, bridges, dams, runways, etc. Pavement design is based on the premise that 18
minimum specified structural quality will be achieved for each layer in the pavement system. The 19
addition of binders transforms unbound material layers to bound layers, sometimes referred to as 20
chemically or cementitiously stabilized material (CSM). 21
One of the main objectives of using cementitiously stabilized layers is meeting the minimum 22
specified structural quality of the subgrade soil or base aggregate for pavement design. Cementitious 23
stabilization improves the engineering properties (e.g., strength, stiffness, durability, etc.) of pavement 24
subgrade soil or base aggregate through chemical reactions, which are known as hydration and pozzolanic 25
reactions (Mohammad et al. 2007; Thompson 1969; Edil et al. 2006; Khoury and Zaman 2005). 26
Generally, the strength or stiffness of the CSM increases with curing time. Researchers are beginning to 27
use seismic modulus test methods to monitor the maturity of CSM in a non-destructive manner (Pucci 28
2010 and Yesiller et al. 2001). 29
In the laboratory, dynamic testing of soils under small strain (smaller than 10
-4
%) is typically 30
performed by resonant column and pulse transmission methods. Ultrasonic pulse velocity testing is a non- 31
destructive testing technique, which generates compression waves (i.e., sound waves) ranging in 32
frequency from 20 kHz to 1 GHz through the specimen (Vary 1980). During the past decade, ultrasonic 33
pulse velocity has been widely used as a simple and quick measurement in manmade and natural 34
materials for quality control and detection of defects. A considerable amount of research has been devoted 35
to the CSM. However, previous research on applying dynamic testing on CSM is limited. 36
In this study, a laboratory method using ultrasonic pulse velocity was developed in order to 37
investigate processes in the stiffness gain of CSM specimens, curing time, moisture content and 38
compaction characteristics. The results were then analyzed for predicting mechanistic properties of CSM. 39
The benefit of the procedure proposed herein is to supplement traditional mechanical testing and predict 40
the mechanical properties, strength and stiffness, through the laboratory ultrasonic pulse wave velocity 41
testing method to characterize CSM. 42
BACKGROUND 43
Elastic Wave Testing 44
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
Small-strain, elastic wave-based testing methods are commonly used for field and laboratory 1
investigations as a non-destructive way to determine the stiffness of materials. Traditional laboratory 2
ultrasonic testing methods determine the constrained modulus, shear modulus, and Poisson's ratio of 3
specimens. The constrained modulus, D, is calculated using 4

, (1) 5
where V
p
is the compression wave (P-wave) velocity, m/s; It is calculated by dividing the length 6
of the specimen by the corresponding wave travel time through the specimen and is the bulk density of 7
the specimen, kg/m
3
. 8
The use of ultrasonic pulse velocity testing has been standardized in ASTM D2845-95 for rock 9
and ASTM C597-09 for concrete. Same testing protocols can be used for testing of design parameters of 10
soil in construction through appropriate test setup and data acquisition software (Stephenson 1978). 11
Researchers have validated the use of seismic modulus testing methods to characterize the mechanistic 12
properties of subgrade/base materials (Hilbrich and Scullion 2007; Nazarian et al. 2005; Williams and 13
Nazarian 2007; Sawangsuriya et al. 2003; Sawangsuriya et al. 2009; Schuettpelz et al. 2010). 14
Yesiller et al. (2001) evaluated the compaction characteristics of cement stabilized clay and 15
compacted clay specimens through ultrasonic pulse velocity testing. P-wave velocity measurements show 16
similar relationship with water content as as dry density varied with compaction moisture content. At 17
large water contents, the constrained modulus of saturated soil specimens were dominated by the 18
incompressibility of the water phase in comparison to the soil skeleton (Stokoe and Santamarina 2000; 19
Fratta et al. 2005). That is, P-wave velocity of saturated specimens is equal to the P-wave velocity of 20
water. Cementation enhances the soil skeleton stiffness significantly by increasing the contact area 21
between particles (Fernandez and Santamarina 2001). 22
MATERIALS 23
Cementitiously Stabilized Materials (CSM) 24
The materials selected in this study represent materials included gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The 25
gravel samples were procured from the Evenson Construction Company quarry in Jefferson County, 26
Wisconsin. Testing performed by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) indicated that 27
the gravel at this quarry does not meet specifications for use as a base course without stabilization. Sand 28
samples were procured locally from Capital Sand and Gravel in Cross Plains, Wisconsin. Commercially, 29
the product is known as torpedo sand. The silt and clay samples were obtained from the Dane County 30
Public Works Landfill on USH 12 in Madison, Wisconsin. Silt samples were brought to the landfill 31
during construction excavation for a project on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, while the 32
clay was part of a remnant stockpile from the landfills clay liner construction (Casmer 2011; Su 2012). 33
Index properties, compaction responses, and classifications of the test soils are summarized in 34
Table 1. The soil samples were classified as gravel (GM), sand (SP), silt (ML), and clay (CL) according 35
to Unified Soil Classification Systems (USCS) (ASTM D2487). Except for the clay sample, the other 36
three materials are non-plastic (NP). The clay had a liquid limit (LL) of 39 and a plastic limit (PL) of 19. 37
Four different binders were used in this study: cement, Class C fly ash, Class F fly ash, and lime. 38
The minimum cement content that resulted in an unconfined compressive strength (UCS) larger 39
than 2.1 MPa (300 psi) after 7-day curing was selected for mix design based on ASTM D 1633 (PCA, 40
1992). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommends at least 2.8 MPa (400 psi) for the 7- 41
day UCS based on ASTM D 1633 (FHWA 2003). National Lime Association (NLA) standards 42
recommend that lime-stabilized soils have a UCS of at least 0.5 MPa (70 psi) after 7-days curing at 40C 43
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
(104F) based on ASTM D 5102 (NLA 2006). The final mix designs, the maximum dry density and 1
optimum moisture content for all stabilized mixtures are presented in Table 2. 2
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS 3
Specimen Preparation 4
The standard proctor size mold with a diameter of 102 mm (4 in.) and a height of 152 mm (4.6 5
in.), in conjunction with the appropriate hammer weight, drop height, and compaction effort, was used for 6
preparation of the specimens. Specimens were prepared as follows: 7
(1) Moisture content of the soil was measured and then the soil was blended with the required 8
percentage by weight of binders until the mixture reached uniform color. 9
(2) Soil-fly ash mixtures were moistened to the target water content and blended until uniformly 10
mixed. The mixtures were compacted immediately except for clay-lime, which was tightly covered and 11
allowed to react for 24 hour before compaction. 12
(3) Soil specimens were compacted in three equal layers in the standard proctor size mold to 13
achieve the maximum dry unit weight. The surface between layers was scarified to a depth of 6 mm ( 14
in.) to ensure continuity between layers. 15
(4) Specimens were then cured. 16
Curing procedures for CSM was dependent on the type of binder being used. Cement-stabilized 17
mixtures (gravel, sand, silt, and clay) were cured in an atmosphere controlled moist room at 100% relative 18
humidity and 21C temperature for 28 days (ASTM D 558). Fly ash-stabilized mixtures (sand, silt, and 19
gravel), clay-lime and silt-lime-Class F fly ash were sealed with plastic wrap and cured for 7 days in an 20
oven at 40C (104 F) (ASTM C 593). 21
Unconfined compression test 22
Cementitiously stabilized mixtures (gravel, sand, silt, and clay) were tested under unconfined 23
compression in accordance with ASTM D 1633 (Method A). Fly ash-stabilized mixtures (sand, silt, and 24
gravel) and silt-lime-Class F fly ash were also tested under unconfined compression in accordance with 25
ASTM C 593: Clay-lime specimens were tested in accordance with ASTM D 5102 (Procedure A). 26
Ultrasonic pulse velocity test 27
All pulse velocity measurements were collected using the CNS FARNELL PUNDIT-plus 28
Ultrasonic Velocity Test System. The device consists of a transducer and receiver connected to an 29
electronic timing device for measuring the time interval between the initiation of a pulse generated at the 30
transmitting transducer and its arrival at the receiver. The travel time through the specimen can be read 31
from a digital display screen. 32
The PUNDIT-plus Ultrasonic Velocity Test System used in this study operated at a frequency of 33
54 kHz. ASTM C597, Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity through Concrete, was followed in this 34
study. Instead of testing concrete beam specimens, cylindrical soil specimens were tested in the direct 35
transmission arrangement in which the transducers are contacted to the ends of the specimens. A water- 36
based jelly was used as the coupling agent to ensure fully contact between the transducers and the 37
surfaces of the specimens. Travel time and the exact length of the specimens were recorded for the 38
calculation of the pulse velocity. A schematic of the test system was shown in Fig.3. 39
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
RESULTS 1
P-wave velocity and constrained modulus vs. curing time 2
Since the ultrasonic pulse velocity test is a non-destructive testing method, the measurement of 3
variation of P-wave velocity with curing time for CSMs is possible. In this study, cement-stabilized soils 4
were cured at 100% relative humidity and 21C temperature for 28 days, while P-wave velocity 5
measurements were taken at the 1st, 7th, and 28th day of curing. Fly ash- and lime-stabilized soils were 6
cured for 7 days in an oven set to 40C (104 F), and P-wave velocity measurements taken after the 1
st
, 7
3
rd
or 4
th
, and 7
th
day of curing. 8
The results for cement-stabilized soils and for fly ash- and lime-stabilized soils are presented in 9
Fig.4 (a) & (b). The P-wave velocity and constrained modulus of the CSM mixtures increased with curing 10
time with exception of silt-fly ash. As curing time increases, the mixtures become stiffer through long- 11
term cementitious hydration or pozzolanic reactions, which are reflected in the enhancement of P-wave 12
velocity and thus constrained modulus. The increase in P-wave velocity and constrained modulus from 13
the 1
st
to 7
th
curing days was more pronounced than the increase from the 7
th
to 28
th
curing days for 14
cement-stabilized soils. Sand-fly ash, gravel-fly ash, silt-lime-fly ash, and clay-lime had large increases in 15
the P-wave velocity and constrained modulus from the 1st to 7th day of curing. A similar trend was 16
observed by Yesiller et al. (2001) for cement- and lime-stabilized soils. Direct comparison of P-wave 17
velocity and constrained modulus between cement and fly ash or lime mixtures was made after 7 days 18
curing (Fig.5): during the first 7 days of curing, the cement-stabilized soils were found to have a larger 19
increase in velocity and constrained modulus than fly ash- or lime-stabilized soils indicating a greater 20
increase in stiffness in general except on sand-cement and sand-fly ash. The small changes in P-wave 21
velocity of silt-fly ash sample indicate that the fly ash used in this study might not be appropriate to 22
stabilize the silt as different fly ash type reacts distinctly (Edil et al. 2006; Rosa 2006). The slower 23
stiffness/strength gain in clay-lime and silt-fly ash can attribute to the slow pozzolanic reaction in lime 24
stabilization (Little 1996; Thompson 1969) and fly ash stabilization (Khoury and Zaman 2002). 25
Compaction Characteristics and P-wave Velocity 26
CSM specimens were compacted at various moisture contents to investigate the relationship 27
between the P-wave velocity and the dry density and compaction moisture content. P-wave velocity 28
measurements were taken for each compacted test specimen in addition to the measurements of the mass, 29
volume, and moisture content. UCS tests were performed on specimens at the end of curing to investigate 30
the effect of dry density on strength. Silt-lime-fly ash, silt-cement, clay-cement, clay-lime sand-cement, 31
sand-fly ash, and gravel-fly ash mixtures were fabricated at four or five different moisture contents or dry 32
densities for this study. 33
The bell-shaped compaction curve of silt-lime-fly ash, silt-cement, clay-cement, and clay-lime 34
indicate that the compacted dry density is highly sensitive to compaction moisture content (see Fig.6 and 35
Fig.7). P-wave velocity measurements were taken for each of the specimens compacted to different 36
moisture contents. Similar trends were observed with the P-wave velocity and the compaction moisture 37
content for each of the mixtures. For silt-lime-fly ash and silt-cement mixtures, the P-wave velocity 38
increased with increasing compaction moisture content up to the optimum dry density and corresponding 39
optimum moisture content then decreased after the optimum, while the compaction moisture content 40
continued to increase. The P-wave velocity of clay-lime and clay-cement also decreased as the 41
compaction moisture content increased above the optimum moisture content). For sand-cement, sand-fly 42
ash, and gravel-fly ash mixtures, the dry density and P-wave velocity were insensitive to compaction 43
moisture content (see Fig.8 and Fig.9). Similar trends were observed by Nazarrian et al. (2005), where 44
numerous natural clay, sand, and granular base materials were tested at various compaction moisture 45
contents. For clay, there was a peak in P-wave velocity coinciding with the optimum moisture content, 46
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
whereas for sand and granular base materials, this trend was not present. The trend between UCS versus 1
dry density was the same as the trend of the P-wave velocity versus dry density. Specimens with higher P- 2
wave velocity possessed higher strength (i.e., UCS) for each CSM mixture. In silt and clay mixtures, the 3
specimens with highest density had the highest UCS and P-wave velocity; while for gravel and sand 4
mixtures, the specimens with lower dry density had relative higher UCS and P-wave velocity. This 5
relationship between strength and P-wave velocity is detailed in the follow section. 6
Density and moisture content measurements are essential for the Quality Control/Quality 7
Assurance (QC/QA) in pavement systems. The empirical relationships developed in the laboratory 8
between P-wave velocity, UCS, and dry density for CSMs provides insights for use of this non- 9
destructive method in QC/QA. However, to close the gap between the field application of seismic testing 10
on QC/QA and laboratory testing results, more design parameters and constitutive relationships require 11
further development. 12
Correlation between Unconfined compression strength (UCS) and constrained modulus 13
The ultrasonic pulse velocity technique is popular as a non-destructive technique to assess the 14
properties of concrete. Although concrete quality is generally assessed by measuring the UCS, there are 15
also a many correlations between UCS and P-wave velocity in concrete (Popovics et al. 2007;Trtnik et al. 16
2007): 17
UCS a e
bV
p
(2) 18
Where UCS is the unconfined compression strength, MPa; a and b are empirical fitting 19
parameters and V
p
is the P-wave velocity of concrete specimens, m/s. 20
In this study, the P-wave velocity was observed to have a strong relationship with the UCS of 21
CSM. For CSM, a strong correlation is anticipated between the square root of constrained modulus and 22
UCS. A model that accounts for the density of CSM is proposed as: 23
UCS a e
bD
(3) 24
Where UCS is the unconfined compression strength, MPa; a and b are empirical fitting parameters and D 25
is the constrained modulus, GPa. 26
Experimental results 27
The UCS and P-wave velocity

were obtained following corresponding procedure. The P-wave 28
velocity was measured prior to UCS testing. The relationship between P-wave velocity and UCS of the 29
CSMs tested is presented in Fig.10 (a). For each mixture, at least three replicates were conducted for 30
comparison of P-wave velocity and UCS. The strength of CSMs increased with increasing P-wave 31
velocity (see Fig.10). These findings demonstrate the feasibility of using Eq.2 for estimating strength of 32
CSMs from P-wave velocity. The The relationship is given as 33
UCS 042e
0001V
P
(4) 34
In porous materials, wave propagation occurs along the fastest path in the material, which is 35
typically correlates to and is used for predicting the stiffness of the material (Yesiller et al. 2001). Many 36
factors, e.g., soil composition, binder type, binder content, density and moisture content etc., influence the 37
stiffness of CSM. The effect of these factors on the strength and P-wave velocity may not be the same 38
way or to the same extent, although higher strengths are generally associated with higher velocities as 39
shown in Eq.4. Thus, the correlations were not very strong due to the lack of consideration of these 40
additional factors. Eq.3 accounts for the effects of density on the UCS of CSMs (D is calculated from V
P
41
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
and density). A better correlation (R
2
=0.87) was determined between UCS and constrained modulus as 1
shown in Fig.10 (b). The relationship is given as 2
UCS 030e
056D
(5) 3
Verification with measured UCS 4
Eqs.4 & 5 were developed to predict the UCS for the saturated specimens from the V
p
and D, 5
respectively. The predicted UCS was less proportional using V
p
than the prediction of UCS using D. 6
Additionally, UCS and P-wave velocity of six different mixtures of at least four various compaction 7
moisture contents were measured in Su (2012). The predicted UCS from Eq.3 vs. unsaturated UCS is 8
plotted in Fig.11. 9
CONCLUSIONS 10
Effect of curing and compaction characteristics on the P-wave velocity for CSM were 11
investigated as in this study. In general, the P-wave velocity and constrained modulus of the mixtures 12
increased with curing time. The increase in P-wave velocity and constrained modulus from the first to 13
seventh curing days was more pronounced than the increase from the seventh to twenty-eighth curing 14
days for cement-stabilized soil. The trend between UCS versus dry density or compaction water content 15
was the same as the trend of the P-wave velocity versus dry density. Therefore, the specimens with higher 16
P-wave velocity possessed higher strength (i.e., UCS) for each CSM mixture. The P-wave velocity and 17
constrained modulus were strongly correlated to the UCS. The strength of CSMs increased with 18
increasing P-wave velocity. The predicted UCS was less proportional using prediction model determined 19
from P-wave velocity than constrained modulus. The prediction model was also verified by the 20
unsaturated UCS. It is expected that the use of this method can lead to less reliance on extensive 21
laboratory mechanical tests. A material-specific relationship is desirable between the UCS and 22
constrained modulus\ for practical use in pavement design procedure. Seismic modulus is useful for 23
developing trends in CSM for pavement design when specific laboratory data are not available. 24
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 25
These results are based on work supported by the NCHRP 4-36 administered by the Federal 26
Highway Administration. The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are 27
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the sponsors. 28
REFERENCES 29
Casmer, J. D., (2011), Fatigue Cracking Of Cementitiously Stabilized Pavement Layers Through Large- 30
Scale Model Experiments, MS Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 31
Department of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, (1994), Soil Stabilization for Pavements, Army 32
TM 5-822-14/Air Force AFJMAN 32-1019. 33
Edil, T., Acosta, H., and Benson, C. H., (2006), Stabilizing Soft Fine-Grained Soils with Fly Ash, J. 34
Materials in Civil Engineering, 18(2), 283-294. 35
Fratta D., Alshibli K.A., Tanner W.M., Roussel L., (2005), Combined TDR and P-wave velocity 36
measurements for the determination of in situ soil density, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 28(6), 553-563. 37
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
Hilbrich S. L. and Scullion T., (2007), Rapid Alternative for Laboratory Determination of Resilient 1
Modulus Input Values on Stabilized Materials for AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide, 2
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2026, pp. 63-69. 3
Khoury, N. N. and Zaman M. M., (2005), Effect of WetDry Cycles on Resilient Modulus of Class C 4
Coal Fly AshStabilized Aggregate Base, Transportation Research Record 1787, pp 13-21. 5
Khoury, N. N. and Zaman, M. M., (2002), Environmental Effects On Durability Of Aggregates 6
Stabilized With Cementitious Materials, Transportation Research Record 1787, pp 13-21. 7
Little, D. N., (1996), Evaluation of Resilient and Strength Properties of Lime-Stabilized Soils from the 8
Denver, Colorado Area, Report for the Chemical Lime Company. 9
Mohammad, L. N., Raghavandra, A. and Huang, B. H., (1981), Laboratory performance evaluation of 10
cement-stabilized soil base mixtures, Transportation Research Record 0361, pp 19-28. 11
Nazarian, S., D. Yuan, V. Tandon, and M. Arellano., (2005), Quality Management of Flexible Pavement 12
Layers with Seismic Methods. Research Report 1735-3. Center for Transportation Infrastructure Systems, 13
The University of Texas at El Paso. 14
Pucci, M., J., (2012), Development of a Multi-Measurement Confined Free-Free Resonant Column 15
Device and Initial Studies, MS Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. 16
Rosa, M. G., (2006), Effect of freeze and thaw cycling on soils stabilized using fly ash, MS Thesis, 17
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 18
Sawangsuriya A., Edil T. B. and Bosscher P. J., (2009), Modulus-Suction-Moisture Relationship for 19
Compacted Soils in Post-Compaction State, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 20
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 135, No. 10, pp. 1390-1403. 21
Sawangsuriya A., Edil T. B., and Bosscher, P. J., (2003), Relationship of Soil Stiffness Gauge Modulus 22
to Other Test Moduli, Journal of Transportation Research Board, No. 1849, Paper No. 03-4089, National 23
Research Council, Washington D. C., pp. 3-10. 24
Schuettpelz, C. C., Fratta, D., and Edil, T. B., (2010), Mechanistic corrections for determining the 25
resilient modulus of base course materials based on elastic wave measurements. Journal of Geotechnical 26
and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 136, No. 8, pp. 1086-1094. 27
Stephenson, R.,W., (1978), Ultrasonic Testing for Determining Dynamic Soil Moduli, Dynamic 28
Geotechnical Testing, ASTM STP 654, American Society For Testing And Materials, pp. 179-195. 29
Stokoe, K.H., II and Santamarina, J.C., (2000), Seismic-Wave-Based Testing in Geotechnical 30
Engineering, International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Invited Paper, 31
GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1490-1536. 32
Su, Z., (2012), Durability performance Of Cementitiously Stabilized Layers, MS Thesis, University of 33
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 34
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
Thompson, M. R., (1969), Engineering Properties of Lime-Soil Mixtures, Journal of Materials -ASTM, 1
Vol. 4, No. 4. 2
Trtnik G., Kavcic F., and Turk G., (2009), Prediction Of Concrete Strength Using Ultrasonic Pulse 3
Velocity And Artificial Neural Networks, Ultrasonics, Vol. 49, pp. 5360. 4
Vary, A., (1980), Ultrasonic measurement of material properties. In Research techniques in 5
nondestructive testing. Edited by R.S. Sharpe. Academic Press, London, UK. Vol. IV, pp. 159204. 6
Williams, R. R. and Nazarian, S., (2007), Correlation of Resilient and seismic modulus test results, 7
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(12): 1026-1032. 8
Yesiller N., Hanson J.L., Rener A.T. and Usmen M.A., (2001), Ultrasonic testing for evaluation of 9
stabilized mixtures, Transport Research Record, 1757, pp. 3239 10
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
Table 1. Index properties for gravel, sand, silt, and clay. 1
Sample
D
50

(mm)
C
u
C
c
G
s

opt

(%)

dmax

(kN/m
3
)
LL
(%)
PL
(%)
Gravel
Content
(%)
Sand
Content
(%)
Fines
Content
(%)
USCS
Symbol
AASHTO
Symbol
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
D
50
= median particle size, C
u
= coefficient of uniformity, C
c
= coefficient of curvature, G
s
= specific gravity,
opt
= optimum water content,
dmax
2
= maximum dry unit weight, LL = liquid limit, PL = plastic limit, NP = non-plastic. 3
Note: Particle size analysis conducted following ASTM D6913, G
s
by ASTM D854,
dmax
and
opt
by ASTM D698 except for gravel by ASTM 4
D1557, USCS classification by ASTM D2487, AASHTO classification by ASTM D3282, and Atterberg limits by ASTM D431 5
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
Table 2. Final Mix Design, Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content of Stabilized Mixtures 1

Clay Silt Sand Gravel

Additive
content
(%)
OMC
(%)
MDUW
(kN/m
3
)
Additive
content
(%)
OMC
(%)
MDUW
(kN/m
3
)
Additive
content
(%)
OMC
(%)
MDUW
(kN/m
3
)
Additive
content
(%)
OMC
(%)
MDUW
(kN/m
3
)
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 21.89
MDUW = Maximum Dry Unit Weight; *Lime+Class F Fly Ash (Wen et al 2011). 2
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
1
2
Fig.1. Host soils and binders 3
4
5
6
7
Gravel Silt
Sand Clay
Cement
Lime
Class C
Fly ash
Class F
Fly ash
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fig.2. Particle size distributions for gravel, sand, silt, and clay. 10
11
12
13
14
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
,

%

Particle size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
Clay-sieve
clay-hydromter
Silt-sieve
Silt-hydromter
Sand
Gravel
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fig.3. Schematic of Pulse Velocity Apparatus (ASTM C 597) 10
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 7 14 21 28
P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

Curing Time (days)
Gravel-cement
Silt-cement
Sand-cement
Clay-cement
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 7 14 21 28
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d

M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
G
P
a
)

Curing Time (days)
Gravel-cement Silt-cement
Sand-cement Clay-cement
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 7 14 21 28
P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

Curing Time (d)
Sand-fly ash
Silt-fly ash
Gravel-fly ash
Silt-fly ash-lime
Clay-lime
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 7 14 21 28
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d

M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
G
P
a
)

Curing Time (d)
Sand-fly ash
Silt-fly ash
Gravel-fly ash
Silt-fly ash-lime
Clay-lime
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
(b) 23
Fig.4. P-wave velocity and constrained modulus change vs. curing time for (a) cement-stabilized soil (b) fly ash- and lime-stabilized soil 24
(a)
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
1
2
3
Fig.5. Comparison of P-wave velocity and constrained modulus of CSM after 7 days curing 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d

M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
G
P
a
)

P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

P-wave velocity
Constrained modulus
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1.80
1.85
1.90
1.95
2.00
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
P
-

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

D
r
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
m
3
)

Compaction Moisture Content (%)
Dry density
28-d P-wave velocity
Poly. (Dry density )
silt-cement
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00
P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

U
C
S
(
M
P
a
)

Dry Density (g/cm
3
)
UCS
28-d P-wave velocity
silt-cement
500
1000
1500
2000
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
0.0% 10.0% 20.0%
P
-

w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

D
r
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
m
3
)

Compaction Moisture Content (%)
Dry density
7-d P-wave velocity
Poly. (Dry density )
silt-lime-fly ash
500
1000
1500
2000
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00
P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

U
C
S
(
M
P
a
)

Dry Density (g/cm
3
)
UCS
7-d P-wave velocity
silt-lime-fly ash
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 (a) 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(b) 17
Fig.6. Compaction characteristics of P-wave velocity and dry density effect on UCS and P-wave velocity for (a) silt-cement (b) silt-lime-fly ash 18
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
12.0% 16.0% 20.0% 24.0%
P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

D
r
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
m
3
)

Compaction Moisture Content (%)
Dry density
28-d P-wave velocity
clay-cement
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
P
-

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

D
r
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
m
3
)

Compaction Moisture Content (%)
Dry density
7-d P-wave velocity
clay-lime
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

U
C
S
(
M
P
a
)

Dry Density (g/cm
3
)
UCS
7-d P-wave velocity
clay-lime
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90
P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

U
C
S
(
M
P
a
)

Dry Density (g/cm
3
)
UCS
28-d P-wave velocity
clay-cement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(a) 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(b) 18
Fig.7. Compaction characteristics of P-wave velocity and dry density effect on UCS and P-wave velocity for (a) clay-cement and (b) clay-lime 19
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
P
-

w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

D
r
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
m
3
)

Compaction Moisture Content (%)
Dry density
28-d P-wave velocity
sand-cement
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10
P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

U
C
S
(
M
P
a
)

Dry Density (g/cm
3
)
UCS
28-d P-wave velocity
sand-cement
1000
1500
2000
2500
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
4.00% 6.00% 8.00%
P
-

w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

D
r
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
m
3
)

Compaction Moisture Content (%)
Dry density
7-d P-wave velocity
sand-fly ash
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20
P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

U
C
S
(
M
p
a
)

Dry Density (g/cm
3
)
UCS
7-d P-wave velocity
sand-fly ash
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
(a) 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
(b) 32
33
Fig.8. Compaction characteristics of P-wave velocity and dry density effect on UCS and P-wave velocity for (a) sand-cement and (b) sand-fly ash 34
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fig.9. Compaction characteristics of P-wave velocity (b) dry density effect on UCS and P-wave velocity of gravel-fly ash 11
12
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0%
P
-

w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

D
r
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
/
c
m
3
)

Compaction Moisture Content (%)
Dry density
7-d P-wave velocity
gravel-fly ash
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40
P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

U
C
S
(
M
p
a
)

Dry Density (g/cm
3
)
UCS
7-d P-wave velocity
gravel-fly ash
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil

R = 0.87
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)

Square root of constrained modulus (GPa
0.5
)
Gravel-Cement
Silt-Cement
Sand-Cement
Clay-Cement
Sand Fly ash
Gravel-fly ash
Silt-lime fly ash
Clay-lime
UCS= 0.42e
0.001Vp

R = 0.70
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
e
d

U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)

P-wave velocity (m/s)
Gravel-Cement
Silt-Cement
Sand-Cement
Clay-Cement
Sand Fly ash
Gravel-fly ash
Silt-lime fly ash
Clay-lime
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(a) (b) 11
12
13
14
Fig.10. Relationship between UCS of CSM with (a) P-wave velocity and (b) square root of constrained modulus 15
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.
Su, Fratta, Tinjum, Edil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Fig.11. Predicted UCS vs. measured UCS (unsaturated) 16
y = 0.91x
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)

Measured UCS (MPa)
Silt-cement
Silt-lime-fly ash
Clay-lime
Sand-fly ash
Gravel-fly ash
Sand-cement
Clay-cement
-20%
+20%
1:1
TRB 2013 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.