See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228966562

Estimation of the Compressive Strength and Modulus of Elasticity of Cement-

Treated Aggregate Base Materials

Article  in  Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · January 2003
DOI: 10.3141/1837-04

CITATIONS READS

52 4,145

2 authors, including:

Dan G. Zollinger
Texas A&M University
113 PUBLICATIONS   993 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Characterization of joint sealant system in rigid pavements through image analysis View project

Evaluation of Portland Cement Concrete Containing Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dan G. Zollinger on 04 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ESTIMATION OF THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND MODULUS OF
ELASTICITY OF CEMENT-TREATED AGGREGATE BASE MATERIALS

Seungwook Lim, Ph.D.

Research Engineer
Pavement & Transportation Division
Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc.
5565 Sterrett Place, Suite 312
Columbia, MD 21044
Tel: (410) 997-0400 Fax: (410) 997-8480
Email: swlim@ctlgroup.com

(He was formerly a graduate research assistant in

Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University
where this work has been conducted.)

and

Dan G. Zollinger, Ph.D., P.E

Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Texas A&M University
CE/TTI Building #503E
College Station, TX 77843-3135
Tel: (979) 845-9918 Fax: (979) 845-0278
Email: d-zollinger@tamu.edu

7368 words

Paper for Consideration for Presentation and Publication at the

2003 Meeting of the Transportation Research Board
Washington, D.C.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 1

ABSTRACT
This paper presents an experimental study on the development of strength and modulus of
elasticity of cement-treated aggregate base (CTAB) materials. Unconfined uniaxial
compression tests were conducted with 189 samples in total for sixteen CTAB mixtures at
different ages. Two different aggregates, conventional crushed limestone base and recycled
concrete materials, were used in the test program. Based on the test results, equations were
proposed for estimating the development of compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of
CTAB materials with time. Test results indicated that the relationship between the compressive
strength and elastic modulus of CTAB materials could be expressed in a single equation
regardless of aggregate type and mixture proportions.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 2

INTRODUCTION
Cement-treated aggregate base (CTAB) is defined as a mixture of aggregate material and
measured amount of portland cement and water that hardens after compaction and curing to
form a durable paving material (1). It is widely used as a base course for either flexible or rigid
pavements. Other descriptions, such as cement-treated base, cement-stabilized base or soil-
cement, are sometimes used for this type of application depending on the materials involved.
Compared to the other cement-treated or stabilized materials, CTAB generally involves higher
contents of cement and coarse aggregates, and therefore, higher strength and stiffness. As a
structural layer of pavements, CTAB shows elastic, slab-like response to loading and its
performance is influenced by the strength and modulus of the material. These properties are
also crucial for design procedures that consider the stress-strain relationship and fatigue
characteristics of the CTAB layer (2, 3).
By virtue of the simplicity of the test method, the unconfined compressive strength is
most commonly referred to as the mix design criteria for the construction of CTAB. Many
previous studies proposed empirical relationships between the compressive strength and
flexural or tensile strength of cement-treated materials that are useful for the structural design
of the layer. The flexural and split tensile strength of cement-treated materials were found to
be about 20-25% and 10-15% of the unconfined compressive strength, respectively (4). For the
design and analysis purposes, 10% of the compressive strength is generally regarded as an
acceptable estimate of the tensile strength of CTAB. It is noted that these relations are not
significantly different from the relationships proposed for normal concrete.
Methods to determine an appropriate elastic modulus of CTAB material are
complicated because of the difficulties associated with testing and interpreting the test results.
Because of these difficulties, it was recommended for design purposes to use a relationship
between the strength and modulus of elasticity of the material in lieu of testing. Many previous
studies have proposed relationships between the unconfined compressive strength and modulus
of elasticity of cement-treated materials (5-7). These studies suggest that different relationships
exist for different types of cement-treated materials depending on the quality of aggregates
used. For lean concrete and CTAB materials, Thompson (4) recommended use of the
relationship of normal concrete provided by the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
This study investigated the behavior of CTAB materials related to the development of
strength and elastic modulus under uniaxial compression. Methods of estimating those
properties were revisited and calibrated based on the CTAB data obtained in this study.

TEST PROGRAM
Materials
Two different aggregate base materials, which are currently used in practice for road base
construction in Harris County, Texas, were used in this study for mixing the CTAB test
samples. One is a conventional crushed limestone base material and the other is a recycled
concrete material. Both materials contain particles sized from 2 inches (50 mm) to –No.200
(75 µm) in accordance with the grading requirements of the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) Specification Item 276, Portland Cement Treated Base. Collected
aggregates were divided into seven different sizes (+3/4 in., 3/8 in., No.4, No.10, No.40,
No.200, and –No.200) and re-combined according to the aggregate proportions designed for the

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 3

test mixtures. The maximum aggregate size was limited to 3/4 inches (19 mm) throughout the
test program for fabricating the laboratory sized test samples.
Table 1 shows the specific gravity and absorption of the aggregates averaged from three
to five replications. The content of minus No.200 materials indicates the weight ratio relative
to the total weight of fine aggregates passing No.4 sieve. As indicated, the recycled concrete
material has higher absorption capacity and lower amount of the fines passing No.200 sieve
than the conventional crushed limestone base material. In addition to the aggregates, selected
amounts of Type I portland cement and water were added according to the mixture design of
the test samples.

Experimental Design
Three test variables were selected to investigate the effects of the mixture components and their
proportions on the strength and stiffness of the CTAB mixture. Selected test variables are:

content of coarse aggregates (remaining No.4 sieve),

content of fines (passing No.200 sieve), and

cement content.
Content of each mix component is determined by the weight ratio of the component to total
aggregates. Two different application levels were selected for the respective mixture variables
as shown in Table 2. This two-level, three-variable factorial (23) design resulted in sixteen
different test mixtures in total; eight for each aggregate type, i.e., recycled concrete or crushed
limestone.
Table 3 shows the complete factorial of the test mixtures for each aggregate type. The
symbols (–) and (+) in the table indicate the low and high application levels of the mixing
variables, respectively. As shown, the test mixtures were identified by the numeric
identification code that represents the designated proportioning of the mixing variables. A two-
letter code, RC (recycled concrete) or CL (crushed limestone), was prefixed to the numeric
mixture ID for the identification of the aggregate type used in the respective mixtures. For
example, the identification ‘RC-1’ represents the test mixture that contains recycled concrete
material and all of the three mixture variables are combined at the low application levels.

Mixture Design
Aggregate gradations for the test mixtures were determined in accordance with the grading
requirements of the Grade 1 in the TxDOT Specifications Item 247, Flexible Base, and the
Type I-B in ASTM D 1241, Standard Specification for Materials for Soil-Aggregate Subbase,
Base, and Surface Courses. Table 4 shows the aggregate gradations of the test mixtures.
Corresponding gradation curves are presented in Figure 1. As can be seen, the aggregate
gradations are divided into two groups, fine mixtures (mixtures 1, 3, 5, 7) and coarse mixtures
(mixtures 2, 4, 6, 8), according to the contents of aggregates passing the No 4 (4.75 mm) sieve.
Mixtures in each group have the same aggregate proportioning except the content of fines
passing the No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve. The crossed gradation curves in the lower corner of
Figure 1 represent the different application levels of the fines within the same mixture groups.
As previously indicated, the maximum aggregate size for test specimens was reduced to 3/4 in.
(19 mm). The proportioning of coarse aggregates was accordingly adjusted within the grading
requirements listed in Table 4. The portions required for the aggregates greater than 3/4 in. (19

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 4

mm) were evenly distributed to the portions of aggregates remaining 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) and No.4
(4.75 mm) sieves.
Molding moisture contents of the test mixtures were determined based on the optimum
moisture content (OMC) of the respective mixtures. The OMC of the each of sixteen test
mixtures was determined in accordance with ASTM D 558, Moisture-Density Relations of
Soil-Cement Mixtures. Table 5 shows the results of the OMC tests of the mixtures. It appears
from the results that the content of coarse aggregates is the most influencing factor for the
OMC and density of the CTAB mixtures, while the effects of other two mixing variables are
not considerable. Based on this observation, the OMC test results are decomposed into two
groups in average according to the content of coarse aggregates of the mixtures (Table 6). The
mixtures 1, 3, 5, 7 are designated as the fine mixes since they contain less amount of coarse
aggregates than the mixtures 2, 4, 6, 8, in which the coarse aggregates are mixed at the high
level of application.
Because of the higher absorption of recycled concrete materials, the OMC of the CTAB
mixtures containing the recycled concrete was higher than that of conventional crushed
limestone mixtures. Due to the very high absorption of the coarse particles of recycled
concrete materials, the coarse mixes containing the recycled concrete show higher water
demand for the OMC than the fine mixes, while the opposite is the case for the crushed
limestone mixtures. The maximum density does not show significant difference between the
fine and coarse mixes for a same aggregate source. As indicated in Table 6, the molding
moisture contents of the strength test samples were determined at the average OMC of the
respective mixture groups.

Test Methods
Unconfined compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of the test mixtures were
determined using 4×8 in. (100×200 mm) cylinder specimens in accordance with ASTM C 39,
Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimen, and ASTM C 469,
Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression.
The specimens were fabricated in accordance with ASTM D 1632, Practice for Making and
Curing Soil-Cement Compression and Flexure Test Specimens in the Laboratory.
The specimens were cured at a controlled temperature of 77°F (25°C) and 100 %
relative humidity until the designated ages of testing. The tests were conducted at the ages of
1, 3, 7 and 28 days. Therefore, 64 different test conditions were considered in this test program
by the combination of 2 different aggregate types, 8 different mixture proportions, and 4
different testing ages. Three samples were prepared for the respective test cases.
Uniaxial compressive load was applied to the specimen by a servo-hydraulic MTS
testing system at a constant rate of 0.05 in./min. (1.25 mm/min.). The axial deformation of the
specimen was traced during the test by three linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs)
installed at the middle of the cylinder at 4 in. (100 mm) gage lengths. Figure 2 shows the test
configuration.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 5

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Compressive Strength
Table 7 shows the measured compressive strengths of the test mixtures at different ages. Listed
values represent the average strength of three samples for the respective test mixtures at each
age of testing. The 3-day samples of RC-7 mixtures were not tested because they had handling
damages before testing. Therefore, the actual number of tested samples was 189. As can be
seen, for the same mix proportioning and age, recycled concrete mixtures (RC) produced more
than 30 percent lower strength than conventional crushed limestone (CL) mixtures. The most
responsible cause of this is thought to be the higher water demand of the recycled concrete
materials and subsequent higher water-cement ratio of the RC mixtures. However, all of the
mixtures tested in this study appear to satisfy the strength requirements when the mixture is
properly designed, especially for cement content. Most specifications require the minimum
design strength of CTAB in the range of 350 to 500 psi (2.4 to 3.4 MPa) at 7 days (8, 9).
Figure 3 shows the effect of the mixing variables on the strength of CTAB mixtures.
The average 28-day strengths of the test mixtures were compared in the figure with respect to
the mixing variables and their application levels. For example, the first two columns in the
figure represent the average strengths of the mixtures 1, 3, 5, 7 and the mixtures 2, 4, 6, 8. The
respective mixture groups contain the mixing variable A, i.e., coarse aggregates, at the low and
high application levels. As shown, the cement content appears to be the most influencing
factor for the strength development of CTAB regardless of the aggregate type used.
The other two test variables, contents of coarse aggregates and fines, show some mixed
effects depending upon the aggregate type used. It is supposed that the effect of aggregate
proportioning on the strength development is compounded with many different mixing
variables, e.g., mixture density. Figure 4 shows the scatter plot of the 28-day strength with
respect to the maximum dry density of the test mixtures. It is apparent that the scattered test
data is divided into four groups according to the applied cement content and aggregate type of
the test mixtures. As shown, a weak correlation was found between the density and strength of
the mixtures at certain cement content. Presumably, because of the compounded effects of
many factors on the strength development, it would be very unlikely that any single factor
becomes a decisive strength indicator.
For the estimation of the strength development of CTAB with time, the experimental
coefficients of the strength prediction model proposed by ACI Committee 209 (10) were
calibrated to the data obtained in this study. ACI provided the model in the form of Equation 1
with the coefficients a=4.0 and b=0.85 for normal concrete.

t
f c (t ) = f c (28) (1)
a + b⋅t
where, fc(t) = compressive strength at time t,
fc(28) = reference 28-day compressive strength, and
a, b = experimental coefficients.

Calibration of the ACI model to the CTAB test data resulted in a new set of coefficients
of a=2.5 and b=0.9. This new set of coefficients is expected to be applicable for any CTAB
mixtures regardless of aggregate type and mixture proportioning. Figure 5 shows the strength
prediction curves of the test mixtures projected over the average test data of the mixture groups

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 6

of low (4%) and high (8%) cement contents. As shown, the ACI model and the calibrated
model produce close estimations to each other, yet the ACI model gives some conservative
estimation for the strength of CTAB mixtures in early ages.

Modulus of Elasticity
The development of elastic modulus of CTAB materials was investigated using the stress-strain
relationships of the mixtures identified from the strength tests. Modulus of elasticity is
determined as the initial secant modulus at 25 percent of the ultimate stress. Figure 6 shows
typical stress-strain relationships obtained in this study for the two types of CTAB mixtures at
different ages. It is noted that high strength mixtures follow the typical stress-strain behavior of
brittle materials like concrete, while the response of low strength mixtures shows some yielding
plateau, which is a typical behavior of unbound materials.
Table 8 shows the average modulus of elasticity of the test mixtures at different ages.
Same as the results of strength measurements, the elastic modulus of recycled concrete
mixtures are 20 to 30 percent lower than that of crushed limestone mixtures. The effects of
mixing variables on the development of the modulus of elasticity were also found not much
different from the result of strength tests. Again, for a given aggregate type used, applied
cement content appears to be the most governing factor for the development of stiffness or
modulus of elasticity. The ratio of elastic modulus of high cement (8%) to low cement (4%)
mixtures reaches over 2.0 at the early ages, while it generally ranges from 1.3 to 1.7 for the
mixtures aged more than 7 days.
It is noted that the development of elastic modulus may be inferred from the
characteristics of strength development. Use of ACI model shown in Equation 2 has been
generally accepted for the estimation of elastic modulus of CTAB materials. However, it
should be noted that the ACI model was proposed for concrete applications and it may not be
relevant to CTAB materials. In this regard, relationship between the measured compressive
strength and modulus of elasticity of CTAB test mixtures was investigated. The empirical
coefficient and exponents in Equation 2 were calibrated for the CTAB data obtained in this
study. The calibration resulted in Equation 3 that can be used for the prediction of elastic
modulus of CTAB materials. The time-dependent strength, fc(t), can be estimated by Equation
1. Therefore, when the 28-day compressive strength is known, the time-dependent strength and
elastic modulus of CTAB materials can be estimated by using Equations 1 and 3.

E (t ) = 33 ⋅ w1.5 ⋅ f c (t ) 0.5 (2)

E (t ) = 4.38 ⋅ w1.5 ⋅ f c (t ) 0.75 (3)

where, E(t) = modulus of elasticity in psi at time t,
w = mixture density in pcf, and
fc(t) = compressive strength in psi at time t.

Figure 7 shows the relationships between the compressive strength and elastic modulus
of CTAB mixtures projected over the scatter plot of test data obtained in this study. As can be
seen, the proposed model (Equation 3) provides a good agreement at high correlation with the
test data. The ACI model shows shifted overestimations of the modulus of CTAB mixtures.
Supposedly, the ACI model was developed based on the concrete data having strength ranges

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 7

above 2000 psi. The ACI model then may not be useful even for concrete at lower strength or
early-age concrete. The proposed equation covers all the data for the mixtures of the two
different aggregate types at a wide range of strength from 200 to 2000 psi (1.4 to 13.8 MPa).
Figure 8 shows the scattered comparisons of measured and estimated elastic moduli of the
CTAB test mixtures. The proposed model was used in these comparisons. The coefficient of
determination shown in the figure just represents how well the measured and estimated values
correlate linearly. This may indicate the soundness of the estimation using the proposed model.
The proposed model is expected to be applicable for the estimation of elastic modulus of any
CTAB mixtures regardless of aggregate type and mixture proportioning.

SUMMARY
The behavior of CTAB materials was experimentally investigated with respect to the
development of strength and elastic modulus of the material. Findings of the study may be
summarized as follows.
1. CTAB containing recycled concrete materials develops lower strength and modulus than
the mixtures with conventional aggregate base materials having the same mix proportioning
and age. This might be caused by the higher moisture requirements of recycled concrete
materials.
2. For a given aggregate type, the developments of strength and modulus of CTAB mixtures
are mostly governed by the applied cement content. Other mixing variables, such as
contents of coarse aggregate and fines, are found to be compounded each other, and their
overall effect is less significant compared to the effect of cement content.
3. The development of compressive strength of CTAB mixtures can be estimated by using
Equation 1 regardless of the aggregate types used. Experimental coefficients of the
equation are calibrated for CTAB materials.
4. The ACI equation proposed for the estimation of elastic modulus of normal concrete is
found to overestimate the modulus of CTAB. The equation is refined for CTAB
applications based on the test data obtained in this study.
5. The relationship between the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity is proposed for
CTAB materials (Equation 3). The proposed relationship is expected to cover any types of
CTAB materials having the strength in the range of 200 to 2000 psi (1.4 to 13.8 MPa).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was prepared from a study conducted in Texas Transportation Institute under the
research project 4954, “Use of Recycled Portland Cement Concrete Fines in TxDOT
Applications,” sponsored by Texas Department of Transportation.

REFERENCES
1. PCA. Cement-Treated Aggregate Base. Report SR221.01S. Portland Cement Association,
1979.
2. PCA. Thickness Design for Soil-Cement Pavements. Bulletin EB068.01S, Portland Cement
Association, 1970.
3. George, K. P. Characterization and Structural Design of Cement Treated Base. In
Transportation Research Record 1288, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1990, pp. 78-87.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 8

4. Thompson, M.R. Mechanistic Design Concept for Stabilized Base Pavements. Civil
Engineering Studies, Transportation Engineering Series No.46, University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL, 1986.
5. Lilley, A. A., and R. I. T. Williams. Cement-Stabilized Materials in Great Britain. In
Highway Research Record, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1973, pp.
70-82.
6. Larsen, T. J., and P. J. Nassbaum. Fatigue of Soil-Cement. Bulletin D119, Portland Cement
Association, 1967.
7. Williams, R. I. T. Cement Treated Pavements: Materials, Design and Construction.
Elsevier Publishers, London, UK, 1986.
8. Scullion, T., S. Sebesta, and J. P. Harris. A Balanced Approach to Selecting the Optimal
Cement Content for Soil-Cement Bases. Research Report 404611-1, Texas Transportation
Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2000.
9. ACI Committee 230. State-of-the-Art Report on Soil Cement. Committee Report ACI
230.1R-90, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice: Part I, 1998.
10. ACI Committee 209. Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature Effects in Concrete
Structures. Committee Report ACI 209R-92, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice: Part I,
1998.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 9

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Properties of the Aggregates

TABLE 2 Test Variables and Application Levels for the CTAB Test Mix Design
TABLE 3 Complete Factorial of Test Mixtures for Each Aggregate Type
TABLE 4 Aggregate Gradations for the CTAB Test Mixtures
TABLE 5 Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (γd-max) of the
Test Mixtures
TABLE 6 Determination of the Molding Moisture Contents for the Test Mixtures
TABLE 7 Compressive Strength of the CTAB Test Mixtures at Different Curing Times
TABLE 8 Modulus of Elasticity of the CTAB Test Mixtures at Different Curing Times

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Aggregate Gradation Curves for the CTAB Test Mixtures.

FIGURE 2 Configuration of the Uniaxial Compression Test.
FIGURE 3 Effects of Mixing Variables on the Compressive Strength of CTAB Test
Mixtures
FIGURE 4 Scatter Plot of the 28-Day Compressive Strength and Maximum Dry Density of
the Test Mixtures
FIGURE 5 Prediction of the Compressive Strength Development of CTAB Mixtures
FIGURE 6 Typical Compressive Stress-Strain Relationships of CTAB Mixtures at Different
Ages
FIGURE 7 Relationship between the Compressive Strength and Modulus of Elasticity of
CTAB Mixtures
FIGURE 8 Comparison of the Measured and Estimated Modulus of Elasticity of CTAB
Test Mixtures

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 10

TABLE 1 Properties of the Aggregates

Specific Gravity Content of

Aggregate Aggregate Absorption –No.200
Type Size (%) Materials
Dry SSD (a) Apparent (%)
Coarse 2.249 2.381 2.590 5.847
–
Recycled (+No.4) (0.019) (b) (0.011) (0.005) (0.388)
Concrete
(RC) Fine 2.295 2.363 2.457 2.950 6.99
(–No.4) (0.027) (0.013) (0.001) (0.636) (0.564)
Coarse 2.415 2.507 2.660 3.802
Crushed –
(+No.4) (0.008) (0.004) (0.010) (0.257)
Limestone
(CL) Fine 2.386 2.477 2.542 2.357 18.45
(–No.4) (0.017) (0.009) (0.007) (0.541) (1.770)
(a) Saturated Surface Dry Condition
(b) Standard Deviation

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 11

TABLE 2 Test Variables and Application Levels for the CTAB Test Mix Design

Application Levels
Test Variables Designation
Low (–) High (+)

Content of Coarse Aggregates

A 48 % 58 %
(+No.4 Sieve)
Content of Fines
F 5% 10 %
(–No.200 Sieve)

Cement Content C 4% 8%

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 12

TABLE 3 Complete Factorial of Test Mixtures for Each Aggregate Type

Test Variables and Application Levels

Mix ID
A F C

1 – – –
2 + – –
3 – + –
4 + + –
5 – – +
6 + – +
7 – + +
8 + + +

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 13

TABLE 4 Aggregate Gradations for the CTAB Test Mixtures

Percent Passing
Sieve Size (mm)
Mix 1, 5 Mix 3, 7 Mix 2, 6 Mix 4, 8
1.75 in. 45 100 100 100 100
1 in. 25 90 90 80 80
3/4 in. 19 86 86 76 76
3/8 in. 9.5 65 65 56 56
No.4 4.75 52 52 42 42
No.10 2 40 40 30 30
No.40 0.425 24 24 18 18
No.200 0.075 5 10 5 10

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 14

TABLE 5 Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (γd-max) of the
Test Mixtures

Recycled Concrete (RC) Crushed Limestone (CL)

Mix ID
γd-max γd-max γd-max γd-max
OMC (%) OMC (%)
(g/cm3) (lb/ft3) (g/cm3) (lb/ft3)
1 10.7 2.151 134.3 7.2 2.330 145.5
2 11.2 2.142 133.7 6.4 2.319 144.8
3 10.7 2.151 134.3 7.1 2.321 144.9
4 11.1 2.138 133.5 6.7 2.318 144.7
5 10.8 2.153 134.4 7.3 2.328 145.3
6 11.1 2.145 133.9 6.7 2.316 144.6
7 10.8 2.147 134.0 7.3 2.320 144.8
8 11.3 2.141 133.7 6.8 2.316 144.6

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 15

TABLE 6 Determination of the Molding Moisture Contents for the Test Mixtures
Max. Dry Density Molding
OMC (%)
Aggregate Mixture (lb/ft3) Moisture
Type Group Content
Mean SD (a) Mean SD (%)
Fine Mixes
Recycled 10.75 0.058 121.5 0.418 10.5
(Mix 1,3,5,7)
Concrete
(RC) Coarse Mixes
11.18 0.096 121.3 0.479 11.0
(Mix 2,4,6,8)
Fine Mixes
Crushed 7.23 0.096 134.8 0.312 7.0
(Mix 1,3,5,7)
Limestone
(CL) Coarse Mixes
6.65 0.173 133.7 0.417 6.5
(Mix 2,4,6,8)
(a) Standard Deviation

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 16

TABLE 7 Average Compressive Strength of the CTAB Test Mixtures at Different

Curing Times
Compressive Strength (psi)
Aggregate Mix ID
1 day 3 days 7 days 28 days
1 257.8 243.8 397.4 603.7 (5)
2 195.0 282.2 455.0 646.6 (5)
3 257.7 286.3 454.5 550.8 (5)
Recycled 4 208.2 400.2 (2) 398.8 527.4 (6)
Concrete
(RC) 5 290.3 534.6 759.8 (4) 1070.3
6 345.1 647.3 886.6 1220.5
7 289.1 – 797.0 963.0
8 395.9 676.5 (3) 819.6 908.6
1 378.9 524.3 630.6 1012.1
2 318.1 490.0 519.7 556.9
3 474.2 (1) 598.7 508.3 908.5 (7)
Crushed 4 278.7 543.8 (3) 461.4 734.2 (8)
Limestone
(CL) 5 630.7 1083.8 1221.1 1709.5
6 606.8 988.4 1224.0 1319.3
7 648.0 1224.3 1501.7 (4) 1556.5
8 550.5 921.7 (3) 1190.4 1292.8
(1) Tested at 2 days; (2) Tested at 5 days; (3) Tested at 4 days; (4) Tested at 8 days
(5) Tested at 34 days; (6) Tested at 33 days; (7) Tested at 29 days; (8) Tested at 30 days

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 17

TABLE 8 Modulus of Elasticity of the CTAB Test Mixtures at Different Curing Times
Modulus of Elasticity (×106psi)
Aggregate Mix ID
1 day 3 days 7 days 28 days
1 0.464 0.377 0.628 0.847 (1)
2 0.289 0.391 0.807 0.858 (1)
3 0.380 0.515 0.864 0.996 (1)
Recycled 4 0.322 0.727 (2) 0.804 0.944 (3)
Concrete
(RC) 5 0.475 0.861 1.057 (4) 1.426
6 0.584 0.945 1.298 1.312
7 0.551 – 1.111 1.243
8 0.727 1.110 (5) 1.200 1.276
1 0.561 0.657 0.872 1.050
2 0.760 0.823 0.842 0.878
(6)
3 0.764 0.837 0.843 1.198 (7)
Crushed 4 0.516 0.905 (5) 0.917 1.200 (8)
Limestone
(CL) 5 1.039 1.466 1.744 1.780
6 1.038 1.454 1.614 1.545
7 0.840 1.405 1.786 (4) 1.910
8 1.080 1.463 (5) 1.446 1.678
(1) Tested at 34 days; (2) Tested at 5 days; (3) Tested at 33 days; (4) Tested at 8 days
(5) Tested at 4 days; (6) Tested at 2 days; (7) Tested at 29 days; (8) Tested at 30 days

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 18

100
Gradation limits
Fine Mixtures: 1, 3, 5, 7
80
Coarse Mixtures: 2, 4, 6, 8
Percent Passing

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size (mm)

FIGURE 1 Aggregate Gradation Curves for the CTAB Test Mixtures.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 19

FIGURE 2 Configuration of the Uniaxial Compression Test.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 20

1200
Low Content

Compressive Strength (psi)

1000 High Content

800

600

400

200

0
A (+No.4) F (-No.200) C (Cement)
Test Variables

(a) Recycled Concrete (RC) Mixtures

1600
Low Content
1400
Compressive Strength (psi)

High Content
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
A (+No.4) F (-No.200) C (Cement)
Test Variables

(b) Crushed Limestone (CL) Mixtures

FIGURE 3 Effects of Mixing Variables on the Compressive Strength of CATB Test

Mixtures.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 21

2500
RA, 4% Cement
28-day Compressive Strength (psi)

RA, 8% Cement
2000 CL, 4% Cement
CL, 8% Cement High Cement
Mixtures
1500 R2=0.561

1000

500 Low Cement

Mixtures
R2=0.557
0
130 135 140 145 150
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)

FIGURE 4 Scatter Plot of the 28-Day Compressive Strength and Maximum Dry
Density of Test Mixtures

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 22

2000

Compressive Strength (psi)

1500
4% Cement
1000 8% Cement
ACI 209
This Study
500

0
0 10 20 30 40

Time (day)

(a) Recycled Concrete (RC) Mixtures

2000
Compressive Strength (psi)

1500
4% Cement
1000 8% Cement
ACI 209
This Study
500

0
0 10 20 30

Time (day)

(b) Crushed Limestone (CL) Mixtures

FIGURE 5 Prediction of the Compressive Strength Development of CTAB Mixtures.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 23

1000
28day
Stress (psi) 750

7day
500

3day
250

0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Strain (in/in)

(a) Recycled Concrete Mixtures (RC-5)

2500

2000
28day
Stress (psi)

1500
7day
1000
3day
500

0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Strain (in/in)

(b) Crushed Limestone Mixtures (CL-5)

FIGURE 6 Typical Compressive Stress-Strain Relationships of CTAB Mixtures at

Different Ages.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 24

3.0
Test Data - RC
Test Data - CL
2.5 ACI 209 (Eq.2)
Modulus of Elasticity, E (10 psi)

This Study (Eq.3)

6

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Compressive Strength, f c (psi)

FIGURE 7 Relationship between the Compressive Strength and Modulus of Elasticity

of CTAB Mixtures.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Lim and Zollinger 25

2.0
Test Data
Line of Equality
1.5
Estimated (10 psi)
6

1.0

0.5

R2 = 93.6%
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
6
Measured (10 psi)

(a) Recycled Concrete (RC) Mixtures

2.5
Test Data

2.0 Line of Equality

Estimated (10 psi)
6

1.5

1.0

0.5
R2 = 94.3%
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
6
M easured (10 psi)

(b) Crushed Limestone (CL) Mixtures

FIGURE 8 Comparisons of the Measured and Estimated Modulus of Elasticity of

CTAB Test Mixtures.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.

View publication stats