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

net/publication/281358871

Protocol for Testing Flexural Strength, Flexural Modulus, and Fatigue Failure
of Cementitiously Stabilized Materials Using Third-Point Flexural Beam Tests

Article  in  Geotechnical Testing Journal · January 2016

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20140281

CITATIONS READS

11 1,659

4 authors, including:

Tirupan Mandal James M. Tinjum

Wisconsin Department of Transportation University of Wisconsin–Madison
31 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS    84 PUBLICATIONS   590 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tuncer B. Edil
University of Wisconsin–Madison
355 PUBLICATIONS   6,782 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Containment Systems and Landfill Barriers View project

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Backfill Water Infiltration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James M. Tinjum on 09 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotechnical
Testing Journal
Tirupan Mandal,1 James M. Tinjum,2 Ahmet Gokce,3 and Tuncer B. Edil4

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20140281

Protocol for Testing Flexural

Strength, Flexural Modulus, and
Fatigue Failure of
Cementitiously Stabilized
Materials Using Third-Point
Flexural Beam Tests
VOL. 39 / NO. 1 / JANUARY 2016
 Geotechnical Testing Journal

doi:10.1520/GTJ20140281 / Vol. 39 / No. 1 / January 2016 / available online at www.astm.org

Tirupan Mandal,1 James M. Tinjum,2 Ahmet Gokce,3 and Tuncer B. Edil4

Protocol for Testing Flexural Strength,

Flexural Modulus, and Fatigue Failure of
Cementitiously Stabilized Materials Using
Third-Point Flexural Beam Tests

Reference
Mandal, Tirupan, Tinjum, James M., Gokce, Ahmet, and Edil, Tuncer B., “Protocol for Testing Flexural
Strength, Flexural Modulus, and Fatigue Failure of Cementitiously Stabilized Materials Using Third-Point
Flexural Beam Tests,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2016, pp. 1–15, doi:10.1520/
GTJ20140281. ISSN 0149-6115
Manuscript received December 27, 2014;
accepted for publication May 22, 2015;
published online June 25, 2015. ABSTRACT
1
Graduate Research Assistant, In this study, a testing protocol was developed to measure the flexural strength, flexural
Civil and Environmental Engineering modulus, and fatigue failure of cementitiously stabilized materials (CSMs) for both lightly
Department, Univ. of Wisconsin-
and heavily stabilized soils. Four soils (sand, gravel, silt, and clay) and four binders (cement,
Madison, 3346 Engineering Hall, 1415
Engineering Dr., Madison, WI 53706, lime, class C fly ash, and class F fly ash) were used in this study. Beam specimens (100 mm
e-mail: tmandal@wisc.edu high by 100 mm wide by 400 mm long) were prepared and tested using third-point flexural
2
Associate Professor, Department of beam tests. A fatigue distress model was developed, and the data from this study was
Engineering Professional Development, validated using other existing stress-based fatigue models. Results indicated that the testing
Univ. of Wisconsin Madison, 432 N Lake
Street, Ste 833, Madison, WI 53706 protocol could be used to determine the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and fatigue
(Corresponding author), behavior of the cementitiously stabilized layers (CSL). A stress-based fatigue performance
e-mail: jmtinjum@wisc.edu
model was a good fit for the whole range of CSMs, which is needed to predict the fatigue
3
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil performance of CSL in the field and to determine the fatigue life of the CSLs.
Engineering, Yildiz Technical Univ.,
34349 Istanbul, Turkey; formerly
Research Associate, Civil and Keywords
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
testing protocol, flexural strength, flexural modulus, fatigue, cement-stabilized materials
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706,
e-mail: agokce@yildiz.edu.tr
4
Professor Emeritus and Director,
Recycled Materials Resource Center,
Department of Civil and Environmental Introduction
Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-
Madison, 2226 Engineering Hall, 1415 According to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Office of Highway Policy Informa-
Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706, tion, there were approximately 208  106 licensed drivers and approximately 248  106 registered
e-mail: tbedil@wisc.edu
motor vehicles in the United States in 2008. To relieve pressure on an already stressed

Copyright V
C 2015 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 1
2 Geotechnical Testing Journal
transportation system, government agencies in the United
States have constructed new roads at a rate of approximately
21,000 lane miles per year. This rate of construction activity
places significant strain on the availability and quality of natural
aggregates and soils used in highway construction.
Soil stabilization is the practice of improving the engineer-
ing properties of materials used for pavement base course, sub-
base course, and subgrade by the use of additives or binders
that are mixed into the material to effect the desired improve-
ment. The addition of such binders transforms unbound
material layers to bound layers, which can be referred to as
chemically or cementitiously stabilized layers (CSL). The com-
mon improvements by cementitious stabilization results in
increased structural properties like strength, stiffness, and dura-
bility of the pavement layer. Cementitious stabilization also
helps reduce the plasticity index and is most useful when there
is any shortage of natural aggregates (Wen et al. 2011).
Fatigue cracking is one of the major load-related distresses
experienced in pavements, and fatigue cracking occurs when a
pavement layer is subjected to repeated loading under passing
traffic. Pavement fatigue is a form of structural failure. There
are two types of fatigue failure for CSL, bottom tension and top
compression. The repeated tensile stress/strain at the bottom of
CSL induces bottom tension fatigue. When the CSL thickness is
relatively thin, the repeated tensile stress/strain at the bottom of
the CSL induces bottom tension fatigue of the CSL, which
causes alligator cracking and rutting in the hot mix asphalt
(HMA) layer. Top compression fatigue occurs as a result of
repeated compressive stress/strain at the top of the CSL. The
current Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
(MEPDG) only considers bottom tension fatigue (Wen et al.
2010).
Zhang et al. (2010), Paul and Gnanendran (2011), and
Zhang and Wei (2011) studied the flexural strength properties
of cement-stabilized soils. Flexural strength (or modulus of
rupture) is a key parameter in the analysis of fatigue of CSL.
Fracture and failure of cement-stabilized aggregate base course
is mainly caused by the flexural stress and strain produced on
the bottom of the base course. To reasonably evaluate the crack
resistance of cement-stabilized aggregate base course, flexural
strength and flexural modulus of elasticity are two important
performance parameters (Zhang et al. 2009).
Fatigue damage leads to a reduction in the flexural layer
modulus of the CSL, thus affecting pavement response (Yeo
et al. 2002). Several researchers (Pretorius 1970; Otte 1978;
Raad 1982; Litwinowicz and Brandon 1994; Sobhan and Mash-
nad 2003; Midgley and Yeo 2008; Casmer 2011; Li and Dong
2011; Wang et al. 2011) have studied the fatigue behavior of
cement-stabilized soils. The fatigue life (N) of a cemented layer
is due to tension along the bottom and is usually considered to
be a function of either the applied stresses (r), the applied ten-
sile strain (e), or as the ratio of these responses to the breaking
stress (rb) or the breaking strain (eb) of the material (Wen et al.
2010). The general relationship is typically shown as
 
r e
(1) log N ¼ fn or
rb eb
Many studies (Packard 1973; Darter 1977; Freeme et al.
1982; Foxworthy 1985; Darter 1990; Thompson and Barenberg
1992; Jameson et al. 1992; Li and Dong 2011; Yu et al. 2011)
have been done on the fatigue behavior of pavements, and
researchers have developed models that are used to predict the
fatigue life of these pavements. These fatigue models are mainly
developed in terms of the stress (or stress ratio) or strain (or
strain ratio) of the specimens. The stress ratio (SR) is the ratio
of the total tensile bending stress experienced by the pavement
layer (or specimen) to the specimen modulus of rupture.
(2) SR ¼ r=MR
where:
r ¼ total tensile stress due to traffic and environmental load
at critical location, and
MR ¼ modulus of rupture or flexural strength.
The MR is typically obtained from the third-point loading
configuration of beams, after curing (see Eq 3 below). The strain
ratio is the ratio of initial strain (ei) (from fatigue testing) to the
breaking strain (eb) (from monotonic loading tests).
Cementitiously stabilized materials (CSMs) have been used
extensively by highway agencies over the years. While a great
amount of research has been conducted on the properties of sta-
bilized soil and aggregate, there is a significant lack of research
relating the properties to the performances of pavements in
which they are used. The American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Interim MEPDG
Manual of Practice provides a methodology for the analysis and
performance prediction of pavements incorporating such layers.
However, the characterization of CSMs, the changes of their
properties over time, and their distress models have not been
adequately addressed in the MEPDG (Wen et al. 2010). This
paper proposes a testing protocol to study these properties,
which can be incorporated into the MEPDG to allow for
rational analysis and design procedures for flexible and rigid
pavements that are constructed with CSL.
Testing standards/protocols are available to study the
fatigue behavior of concrete and asphalt pavements (e.g., ASTM
C78/C78M-15, ASTM D7460-10); but there are no universally
accepted procedures for CSMs. Midgley and Yeo (2008) studied
and developed a third-point bending beam test for cemented
materials in Australia, which was based on quarry rubble and
crushed rocks as the base materials for cement stabilization.
After considering several approaches including indirect tension
and the third-point bending beam test, a similar approach to
Midgley and Yeo’s (2008) third-point bending beam test was
 MANDAL ET AL. ON PROTOCOL FOR FATIGUE FAILURE OF CSM 3

chosen in this paper to study the flexural strength, flexural
modulus, and fatigue failure properties of CSMs and develop a
testing protocol for CSMs over a wide range of materials and
stabilizing binders beyond what was considered by Midgley and
Yeo (2008). Midgley and Yeo’s (2008) approach is based on a
comprehensive evaluation of various test parameters as was
proposed as a standard.
Materials
The host materials selected for this study are classified as gravel
(GM), sand (SP), silt (ML), and clay (CL) based on the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D2487-11). Testing
performed by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
(WisDOT) indicated that the gravel obtained from the quarry
did not meet specifications for use as a base course without
stabilization (Casmer 2011; Su 2012; Mandal 2012). Index prop-
erties, compaction responses, and classifications of the test soils
are summarized in Table 1. The particle-size distribution curves,
determined using ASTM D6913-04(2009)e1, are shown in Fig. 1.
Except for the clay sample, the other three materials are non-
plastic (NP). The clay had a liquid limit (LL) of 39 and a plastic
limit (PL) of 19.
Four binders were used in this study: Portland cement,
class C fly ash, class F fly ash, and lime. The minimum
cement content that resulted in an unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) larger than 2.1 MPa after 7 days of curing was
selected for mix design based on ASTM D1633-00(2007)
(Portland Cement Association 1992). The FHWA recom-
mends at least 2.8 MPa for the 7-day UCS based on ASTM
D1633 (FHWA 2003). National Lime Association (NLA)
standards recommend that lime-stabilized soils have a UCS of
at least 0.5 MPa after 7 days of curing at 40 C based on
ASTM D5102-09 (National Lime Association 2006). The final
mix designs, the maximum dry density, and optimum
moisture content for all stabilized mixtures are presented in
Table 2 and were selected by conducting mix designs. Three
replicates were used for each UCS test. It is noted that these
mix designs may be different from the methods used by the
other agencies. However, the objective of this study was not to
develop mix design methods. Instead, the mix designs were
conducted to obtain typical mixes for model development. In
addition, depending on the location of a mix in a pavement
(i.e., base or subbase), the binder content could be different
for one soil. A 7-day UCS of 1,380 kPa was used as the crite-
rion to distinguish between heavily and lightly stabilized mate-
rials (i.e., heavily stabilized materials have a 7-day UCS of
 1,380 kPa, and lightly stabilized materials have a 7-day UCS
of < 1,380 kPa) (Wen et al. 2014). Based on this criterion,
clay-lime and silt-class C fly ash mixtures were categorized as
lightly stabilized, and the other seven mixtures were catego-
rized as heavily stabilized materials. These materials (soils and
binders) were selected based on a survey responded to by 28
Departments of Transportation (DOTs) (Wen et al. 2014).
Specimen Preparation
Beam specimens were prepared for flexural strength, flexural
modulus, and fatigue cracking tests. Prismatic molds of dimen-
sions 100 by 100 by 400 mm were used to fabricate the speci-
mens. The specimens were prepared in conjunction with the
appropriate hammer weight, drop height, and compaction effort.
Specimens were prepared as follows:
1. The moisture content of soil was measured, and the soil
was blended with the required percentage by weight of
binders until the mixture had uniform color
throughout.
2. The soil-cement/soil-fly ash/soil-lime mixture was mois-
tened with water to reach the desired optimum moisture
content and blended until uniform; the mixtures were

TABLE 1 Index properties for gravel, sand, silt, and clay.

D50a xopte cdmaxf LL PL Gravel Sand Fines USCS AASHTO

Sample (mm) Cub Cc c
Gsd (%) (kN/m3) (%) (%) Content (%) Content (%) Content (%) Symbol 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

Note: Particle size analysis conducted following ASTM D6913; Gs determined by ASTM D854-14; c, cdmax, and xopt determined by ASTM D698 except
for gravel determined by ASTM D1557; USCS classification by ASTM D2487; AASHTO classification by ASTM D3282-09; and Atterberg limits by ASTM
D4318-10e1.
a
D50 ¼ median particle size.
b
Cu ¼ coefficient of uniformity.
c
Cc ¼ coefficient of curvature.
d
Gs ¼ specific gravity.
e
xopt ¼ optimum water content.
f
cdmax ¼ maximum dry unit weight.
4 Geotechnical Testing Journal

FIG. 1
Particle size distributions for gravel, sand, silt,
and clay.

compacted immediately except for clay-lime, which was
tightly covered in plastic and allowed to mellow for 24 h
before compaction.
3. The specimens were compacted in three equal layers in
the mold to achieve the maximum dry unit weight. The
surface between layers was scarified to a depth of 0.6 mm
to ensure a good bond. The gravel-stabilized specimens
were compacted with modified compaction effort
according to ASTM D1557-12. The sand-, silt-, and clay-
stabilized specimens were compacted with standard
compaction effort according to ASTM D698-12e1.
Through trial and error, necessary compactive effort to
yield a target density corresponding to 98 %–100 % rela-
tive compaction effort was determined and applied.
4. The beam specimens were covered to prevent moisture
evaporation and cured in the molds for 2 days at 23 C
and then were taken to corresponding curing facilities
depending on the binder type.
Different curing procedures were applied to different mix-
tures depending on the binder. Cement-stabilized mixtures
(gravel, sand, silt, and clay) were cured in the moist room
(100 % relative humidity, 23 C) for 28 days (ASTM D558-11).
Fly ash-stabilized mixtures (sand, silt, and gravel), clay-lime,
and silt-lime-class F fly ash were sealed with plastic wrap and
cured in an oven set to 40 C (ASTM C593-06(2011)) for 7 days.
Curing of specimens was maintained until the minimum matu-
rity requirement was reached in terms of strength development.
The maturity necessary for obtaining the minimum strength de-
velopment was set in accordance with ASTM C593. Although
the curing methods of the cement-bound systems and other
binder systems were different, it was ensured that the produced
specimens were comparable in maturity regardless of the binder
type at fatigue testing age. A testing specimen cured to achieve
target maturity is believed to reflect in situ conditions where an
appropriate curing process has been accomplished.

TABLE 2 Final mix design, maximum dry density, and optimum moisture content of stabilized mixtures.

Clay Silt Sand Gravel

a b c
BC OMC MDUW BC OMC MDUW BC OMC MDUW BC OMC MDUW
(%) (%) (kN/m3) (%) (%) (kN/m3) (%) (%) (kN/m3) (%) (%) (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 ashd) 6 19.35 16.47 4/12d 12.44 18.59 — —
Fly ash — 13 10.04 19.05 13 19.05 21.25 13 7.38 21.89
a
BC ¼ additive content.
b
OMC ¼ optimum moisture content.
c
MDUW ¼ maximum dry unit weight.
d
Lime-class F fly ash (Wen et al. 2011).

Method Development
FLEXURAL STRENGTH
Flexural strength (or modulus of rupture) tests of the specimens
were performed within 30 min of removal from the moisture
room/oven. The nominal dimensions of the beam specimens
were 100 mm high by 100 mm wide by 400 mm long. The beam
supports were set 300 mm apart to achieve a span to depth ratio
of 3. The beam specimens were tested with a 25-kN MTS
Systems Model 244.12 servo-hydraulic machine. Constant load-
ing was applied at a rate of 690 6 39 kPa/min until the specimen
failed. This method was used by Midgley and Yeo (2008) to
conduct the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and fatigue
cracking of Australian cemented materials. While the loading
rate suggested by Midgley and Yeo (2008) was used in this
study, more studies on the effect of loading rates will advance
the science.
The load positions were at third-points along the specimen.
The vertical beam displacement was measured using two linear
variable differential transformers (LVDTs) at the midpoint of
the beam to provide an estimate of the strain at break (Fig. 2).
The beam deflection data was sampled at a frequency of
100 Hz, together with the applied load. After the specimen
failed, the peak load and approximate location of the break
point were recorded using a LABVIEW program. Testing was
conducted under normal laboratory environment conditions at
23 C. Flexural strength is expressed in the terms of the modulus
of rupture as shown in Eq 3.
(3) MR ¼ PL=bd 2
FIG. 2 Position of LVDTs for measuring deflection of beam specimens.
MANDAL ET AL. ON PROTOCOL FOR FATIGUE FAILURE OF CSM 5
where:
MR ¼ modulus of rupture (kPa),
P ¼ maximum applied load (N),
L ¼ span length (mm), and
b, d ¼ average width and depth of specimen (mm).
FLEXURAL MODULUS
The same setup for flexural strength was used to conduct the
flexural modulus test. The flexural modulus test was conducted
with a pulse period of 1 Hz. Cyclic haversine load pulses of
250-ms duration and 750 ms as rest period were applied for
each cycle. A contact load, which was more than 22 N but less
than 45 N, was applied to the specimen. The loading for the
flexural modulus test was set to be between 20 and 40 % of the
estimated ultimate breaking load of the specimen. Three loading
magnitudes were used in this study, 20, 30, and 40 %. These
percentages indicate the ratio of applied load to the estimated
ultimate breaking load of the specimen. The cyclic haversine
loading was applied for 100 load pulses. The maximum force
applied to the specimen and the peak displacement for the
haversine load pulses applied for each pulse cycle were recorded
using a LABVIEW program. The first 50 cycles were considered
preconditioning. The data from the second 50 consecutive
cycles were used to calculate the flexural modulus of the
specimen using Eq 4. The average of the second 50 cycles was
considered as the flexural modulus of the specimen.
23PL3
(4) FM ¼ Smax ¼  1; 000
108bd3 dh
where:
Smax (or FM) ¼ flexural modulus (MPa), and
dh ¼ peak mid-span displacement (mm).
Figure 3 shows a sample plot for the change in flexural
modulus during the test at 30 % stress level for three clay-
cement specimens. Equation 5 shows a strong relationship
between the flexural strength and flexural modulus at 30 %
stress level (R2 ¼ 0.95). This relationship was found from the
study, which is valid for the whole range of CSMs.
(5) MR ¼ 1:01ðFMÞ  412:64
where:
MR ¼ flexural strength (kPa), and
FM ¼ flexural modulus (MPa).
FATIGUE FAILURE
The fatigue test was initiated immediately after the modulus test
on the same specimen. The same setup as in the flexural
strength was used to conduct the fatigue test. The peak magni-
tude of the haversine load pulses was increased to a value in the
range of 45 %–95 % of the breaking load (based on identically
prepared beams that were tested for strength). A stress ratio of
less than 45 % is not recommended for practical reasons
6 Geotechnical Testing Journal
FIG. 3
Flexural modulus variation at 30 % stress level
for three clay-cement replicates.
including limiting cycles to less than 100,000—prior experience
of the authors found that fatigue failure did not occur at lower
stress ratios within a reasonable number of loading cycles. The
fatigue test was conducted with a haversine pulse width of 250-ms
duration with 250 ms of rest between pulses for a total 500-ms
pulse period (2 Hz frequency). A contact load, which was more
than 22 N but less than 45 N, was applied to the specimen. The
haversine loading pulse was applied until the beam specimen
failed. The maximum force applied to the specimen and the peak
displacement for the haversine load pulses applied for each pulse
cycle were recorded using a LABVIEW program.
According to Austroads fatigue test protocol (Midgley and
Yeo 2008), the initial modulus of the specimen is defined as the
average modulus determined from the first 50 load pulses
applied to the specimen during the fatigue test. The fatigue life
was defined as the number of pulses applied to the specimen to
reduce the specimen modulus to half of the initial modulus or
failure of specimen. This recommendation by Midgley and Yeo
(2008) was further verified in this study and thus adopted. In this
study, the wide range of CSMs failed at approximately half of the
initial modulus. Figure 4 shows a sample plot for the typical
modulus gradation curve during the fatigue test at 50 % stress
level for gravel-cement specimen. Appendix A shows a proposed
test standard for determining the flexural strength, flexural mod-
ulus, and fatigue cracking for the whole range of CSMs.
Implementation of
Developed Model
Various fatigue models are available for the concrete and
asphalt pavement. But very few fatigue models exist for the
CSMs. The fatigue cracking models by Midgley and Yeo (2008)
are limited to only cemented materials from rubble quarry and
crushed rocks. This study focusses on developing a fatigue
cracking model that can be incorporated on a wide range of
CSMs, both lightly and heavily stabilized soils. The developed
testing protocol can be used to determine the influential factors
governing the fatigue behavior of CSMs in pavement. This test-
ing protocol can serve to study the fatigue behavior of various
CSMs and compare the laboratory data with reported field
measurements of fatigue behavior. From the data in this study,
it was observed that the fatigue life can be estimated from half
of the initial modulus of the specimen. This is an important
criterion for evaluating the fatigue life of the specimens, which
remain unbroken after repeated loading.
DEVELOPMENT OF FATIGUE PERFORMANCE MODEL
A stress-based fatigue model was developed using the two
parameters, stress ratio (SR) and fatigue life (N). Figure 5 shows
the fitting of the model for the beam specimens that were tested
for fatigue cracking. The figure also includes the fatigue per-
formance model for the specimens with change in binder con-
tent and change in density. The general relationship for all
CSMs is
(6) SR ¼ ðaÞlnðNÞ þ b
where:
N ¼ flexural fatigue life, and
a and b are regression parameters.
The SR is defined as
(7) SR ¼ r=MR
 MANDAL ET AL. ON PROTOCOL FOR FATIGUE FAILURE OF CSM 7

FIG. 4
Typical degradation of flexural modulus in a
fatigue test at 50 % stress level (gravel-
cement specimens).

where:
r ¼ flexural tensile stress (kPa), and
MR ¼ flexural strength (kPa).
Equation 6 was found to be a good fit to the data in estimat-
ing the fatigue life. The R2 values for the different specimens
range between 0.70 and 0.95. Table 3 shows the regression
parameters and R2 for each mixture shown in Fig. 3, as well as
per heavily and lightly stabilized materials. The regression
parameter a has a range of 0.02–0.07 whereas the parameter b
has a range of 0.70–1.43. An attempt to develop a strain-based
model using the initial strain (which is calculated from the
fatigue test data) was made. The model had a good fit
(R2 ¼ 0.79) for only the sand-fly ash mixture as shown in Fig. 6.
The general equation for the sand-fly ash mixture is
(8) ei ¼ ðmÞ lnðNÞ þ n
where:
N ¼ flexural fatigue life,
m and n ¼ regression parameters, and
ei is initial strain (le).
This model was not a good fit (R2 values ranged from 0.00
to 0.53) for all other materials. One possible reason for the

FIG. 5
Fatigue modeling of CSLs.
8 Geotechnical Testing Journal

TABLE 3 Regression parameters for highly, lightly stabilized, and all model not being a good fit might be due to the limited data.
mixtures. Also, the strain for specimens at different levels was widespread.
Regression Parameters
VALIDATION OF FATIGUE PERFORMANCE MODEL
Specimen (Binder Content %) a b R2
Smith and Roesler (2003) reviewed and summarized some of
Heavily Stabilized Specimens the common fatigue models that are used in concrete pavement
Clay-cement (12 %) 0.03 1.03 0.82 designs. All these models are in terms of the SR. The models
Gravel-cement (3 %) 0.04 0.9 0.95
and fatigue life equations are presented in Table 4. The concrete
Sand-cement (6 %) 0.04 1.2 0.88
fatigue models described in Table 4 were used for checking the
Silt-cement (8 %) 0.06 1.43 0.87
fit to the laboratory data from this study. Table 4 also shows the
Sand-fly ash (13 %) 0.02 0.8 0.95
R2 between the fatigue life from the laboratory data and that
Silt-lime-fly ash (4/12 %) 0.06 1.28 0.94
Gravel-cement (3 %) [90 % MDDa] 0.07 1.02 0.93 from the models. From Table 4, it can be seen that the Foxwor-
Silt-cement (8 %) [90 % MDD] 0.02 1.02 0.74 thy fatigue model is not a good fit to the laboratory data from
Gravel-cement (5 %) 0.03 0.85 0.89 this study, as the R2 for these models are too low (range
Sand-cement (8 %) 0.03 1.06 0.89 between  2.22 and 0.68), except for the silt-fly ash (18 %)
Average 0.04 1.06 0.89 data (R2 ¼ 0.79). The other models show varying degrees of
COVb 44.10 18.52 7.43 suitability in representing the experimental data (range between
Lightly Stabilized Specimens 0.72 and 1.00).
Clay-Lime (6 %) 0.03 0.99 0.72 The MEPDG fatigue model (Eq 9) was used to validate the
Silt-fly ash (18 %) 0.04 0.70 0.7 laboratory data. Table 5 shows the R2 between the fatigue life
Average 0.04 0.85 0.71 from the laboratory data and the fatigue life calculated from the
COV 20.20 24.27 1.99 MEPDG model, including the regression parameters k1 and k2.
All Stabilized Specimens The MEPDG fatigue model is a good fit for the fatigue labora-
Average 0.04 1.02 0.86 tory data, as the R2 for this model or the different mixtures is in
COV 41.40 20.08 10.61 the range of 0.74 to 1.00. As reference values, the regression
a
MDD ¼ maximum dry density. parameter k1 varies in a range of 0.63–1.92, whereas the param-
b
COV ¼ the degree of variation of the regression parameters and R2. eter k2 varies in a range of 0.05–0.26 for the wide range of
CSMs tested.
2 h r i3
t
k1 bc1 
(9) log N ¼ 4 MR 5
k2 bc2

FIG. 6
Strain based fatigue model for sand-fly ash specimens.
 MANDAL ET AL. ON PROTOCOL FOR FATIGUE FAILURE OF CSM 9

TABLE 4 Validation of laboratory fatigue data using concrete fatigue models.

R2 (Laboratory Fatigue Life Versus Model Calculated Fatigue Life)

Darter Fatigue Foxworthy NCHRP Project 1-26 PCA Fatigue FHWA Zero-Maintenance
Model Fatigue Model Fatigue Model Model Fatigue Model

Specimens (Binder Darter Foxworthy Thompson and Packard Darter

Content, %) (1990) (1985) Barenberg (1992) (1973) (1977)
Equation log N log N log N log N log N
 1:2 MR h r i1:2214 r r
MR ¼ 1.323 þ 0.588 ¼ 2.8127 ¼ 11.810 – 12.165 ¼ 17.61 – 17.61
¼ 2.13 r MR MR MR
r
Clay-cement (12 %) 0.72 0.38 0.74 0.68 0.64
Gravel-cement (3 %) 0.99 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sand-cement (6 %) 0.74 0.99 0.78 0.53 0.42
Silt-cement (8 %) 0.89 0.58 0.80 0.67 0.62
Sand-fly ash (13 %) 0.51 2.22 0.81 0.92 0.98
Silt-lime-fly ash (4/12 %) 0.93 0.68 0.85 0.77 0.67
Clay-Lime (6 %) 0.94 0.16 0.99 0.99 0.98
Gravel-cement (3 %) [90 % MDD] 0.93 0.52 0.89 0.82 0.79
Silt-cement (8 %) [90 % MDD] 0.58 3.51 0.91 0.96 0.94
Gravel-cement (5 %) 0.81 0.58 0.76 0.76 0.68
Sand-cement (8 %) 0.82 0.22 0.88 0.87 0.86
Silt-fly ash (18 %) 0.96 0.79 0.95 0.96 0.96
Average for all CSMs 0.81 0.31 0.86 0.83 0.80

Conclusions and Recommendations stabilized crushed rock since there are no other available guide-
lines for testing CSMs. The current flexural strength test was
In this study, the primary objective was to introduce a fatigue found to be applicable for the whole range of CSMs, both heav-
testing protocol that can be applicable to a wide range of CSMs. ily and lightly stabilized materials. The results from this study
The investigation revealed that the followed methodology viably also indicated that, determination of flexural modulus at a stress
characterizes fatigue performance of CSM systems in general. level of 30 % gives consistent results. A stress-based fatigue
Although, the number of tests for each treated material is model was developed using two parameters, stress ratio (SR)
limited, this research may be conducive to the development of a and fatigue life (N), that resulted in a good fit for representing
practical fatigue testing protocol that uniquely covers soil- the fatigue behavior. The fatigue life was determined from the
cementitious binder systems. The protocol was developed by fatigue tests. The R2 values for the different specimens ranged
the authors based on a model proposed in Australia for cement- between 0.70 and 0.95. The fatigue data from this study was
also validated by fitting the data to the MEPDG fatigue model
TABLE 5 Validation of laboratory fatigue data using MEPDG fatigue and also to most widely used concrete fatigue models with vary-
model. ing levels of success. The strain-based model was a good fit
Specimens (Binder Content %) k1 k2 R2 (R2 ¼ 0.79) for only the sand-fly ash mixture. Otherwise, the
strain-based fatigue model was not found to be a suitable fit to
Clay-cement (12 %) 1.55 0.20 0.74
Gravel-cement (3 %) 0.83 0.07 1.00 the data in this study.
Sand-cement (6 %) 1.89 0.24 0.82
Silt-cement (8 %) 1.92 0.26 0.95 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sand-fly ash (13 %) 0.85 0.05 0.98 The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP
Silt-lime-fly ash (4/12 %) 1.56 0.21 0.98 Project 4-36. The contents solely reflect the views of the
Clay-Lime (6 %) 1.16 0.11 0.99 authors who are responsible for the accuracy of the experimen-
Gravel-cement (3 %) [90 % MDD] 1.12 0.22 0.94 tal data and analysis. The contents do not necessarily reflect
Silt-cement (8 %) [90 % MDD] 1.35 0.12 0.99 the official views of the Transportation Research Board,
Gravel-cement (5 %) 1.29 0.18 0.85
the National Research Council, the FHWA, the AASHTO, or of
Sand-cement (8 %) 1.29 0.13 0.95
the individual states participating in the National Cooperative
Silt-fly ash (18 %) 0.63 0.07 0.96
Highway Research Program. The Washington State University
Average for all CSMs 1.29 0.16 0.93
was the contractor for this study; the University of Wisconsin
10 Geotechnical Testing Journal
served as a subcontractor. Dr. Haifang Wen (WA State Univer-
sity) was the principal investigator. Zhipeng Su, Jefferey
D. Casmer, and Erik Friede assisted during the laboratory
works. Xiaodong Wang and William Lang assisted with the
experimental setups for the flexural beam testing; their assis-
tance is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A: Proposed Standard
Method of Test for Flexural
Strength, Flexural Modulus, and
Fatigue Cracking for Cementitious
Stabilized Materials Using Simple
Beam With Third-Point Loading
1. SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of flexural
strength, flexural modulus, and fatigue cracking of
CSMs by the use of a simple beam specimen subjected
to third-point loading. Modulus of rupture, also
known as flexural strength, is the material’s capability
to resist deformation under an applied load.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the
standard.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is
the responsibility of the user of this standard to estab-
lish appropriate safety and health practices and deter-
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior
to use.
2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
2.1 AASHTO Standards
• T97-14, Standard Method of Test for Flexural
Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with
Third-Point Loading)
• T99-10, Standard Method of Test for Moisture-
Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg Rammer
and a 305-mm drop
• T180-10, Standard Method of Test for Moisture-
Density Relations of Soils Using a 4.54-kg Rammer
and a 457-mm drop
2.2 ASTM Standards
• C593, Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Other
Pozzolans for Use With Lime for Soil Stabilization
• D558, Standard Test Methods for Moisture-Density
(Unit Weight) Relations of Soil-Cement Mixtures
• D653-14, Standard Terminology Relating to Soil,
Rock, and Contained Fluids
• D1632-07, Standard Practice for Making and
Curing Soil-Cement Compression and Flexure Test
Specimens in the Laboratory
• D1635/D1635M-12, Standard Test Method for Flex-
ural Strength of Soil-Cement Using Simple Beam
with Third-Point Loading
3. TERMINOLOGY
3.1 Definitions
3.1.1 Definitions of terms in this practice may be
found in ASTM D653, determined from common
English usage, or combinations of both.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific
3.2.1 flexural strength: the material’s ability to resist
deformation under an applied load. Also known
as “modulus of rupture” or “fracture strength.”
3.2.2 flexural modulus: measure of a specified material
and cross section to resist bending when placed
under stress.
3.2.3 fatigue: it is the series of cracks that is a result of
tensile strains at the bottom of the pavement
layer due to repeated loading.
4. SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD
4.1 Flexural Strength
Third point loading tests are conducted on rectangular
beam specimens to determine the flexural strength of
various mixtures. A constant loading is applied until
the beam ruptures. After the specimen fails, the peak
load and approximate location of the break point are
recorded. Testing is conducted under normal labora-
tory environment conditions at 23 C.
4.2 Flexural Modulus
Third point loading tests are conducted on rectangular
beam specimens to determine the flexural modulus of
various mixtures. A dynamic loading is applied for 100
cycles at a 1-Hz frequency. During the application of
load pulses, the applied peak load and peak displace-
ment of the specimen for each pulse is recorded. Test-
ing is conducted under normal laboratory environment
conditions at 23 C.
4.3 Fatigue Cracking
Third point loading tests are conducted on rectangular
beam specimens to determine the fatigue life of various
mixtures. A dynamic loading is continuously applied at
a 2-Hz frequency until the beam ruptures. During the
application of load pulses, the applied peak load and
peak displacement of the specimen for each pulse is
recorded. Testing is conducted under normal labora-
tory environment conditions at 23 C.
5. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is used to determine the flexural
strength, flexural modulus, and fatigue cracking of
CSMs.
5.2 Flexural strength is a key parameter in the analysis of
fatigue of pavement layers and is used to determine
the slab thickness in the pavement design.
5.3 Flexural modulus is critical for pavement analysis to
determine stress/strain and, thus, performance predic-
tion. Low modulus of CSL may lead to high levels of
tensile stress at the bottom of the surface layer and,

subsequently, bottom tension fatigue cracking. In gen-
eral, high modulus is due from high additive content,
which also may cause high shrinkage rates. Therefore,
the modulus of CSL has to be characterized for pave-
ment design and analysis.
5.4 Fatigue damage leads to a reduction in modulus of
CSL which affects the pavement response. According
to AASHTO T321-14, the fatigue life (N) is defined as
the total number of load repetitions that cause a 50 %
decrease in initial stiffness.
5.5 Fatigue life is critical for pavement analysis to deter-
mine stress/strain and, thus, performance prediction.
Low modulus of CSL may lead to high levels of tensile
stress at the bottom of the surface layer and, subse-
quently, bottom tension fatigue cracking. In general,
high modulus is due from high additive content,
which also may cause high shrinkage rates. Therefore,
the modulus of CSL has to be characterized for
pavement design and analysis. Fatigue damage leads
to a reduction in modulus of CSL which affects the
pavement response.
6. PROCEDURE
6.1 Specimen Preparation: Beam specimens are prepared
in prismatic molds of dimensions 102 by 102 by
400 mm to fabricate the specimens. The moisture
content of soil is measured, and then the soil is
blended with the required percentage by weight of
binders until the mixture has uniform color through-
out. The soil stabilized (with cement or lime or fly
ash) mixture is moistened with water to the reach the
desired optimum moisture content and blended until
uniform; the mixtures are compacted immediately
except for the lime-stabilized mixture, which should
be tightly covered in plastic and allowed to mellow
24 h before compaction. The specimens are then
compacted in three equal layers in the mold to
achieve the maximum dry unit weight. The surface
between layers is scarified to a depth of 0.6 mm to
ensure a good bond. The gravel-stabilized specimens
are compacted with modified compaction effort
(AASHTO T180), whereas the sand-, silt-, and clay-
stabilized specimens are compacted with standard
compaction effort (AASHTO T99). An appropriate
amount of the test material for the specimen is com-
pacted to achieve the target dry unit weight based on
the applicable compaction test.
6.2 Curing: The specimens are cured in the molds for 2
days and covered to prevent moisture evaporation at
23 C and then are taken to corresponding curing
facilities depending on the binder types. Different cur-
ing procedures are applied to different mixtures
depending on the binder. Cement-stabilized mixtures
are cured in the moist room (100 % relative humidity,
23 C) for 28 days (ASTM D558). Fly ash or lime
MANDAL ET AL. ON PROTOCOL FOR FATIGUE FAILURE OF CSM 11
stabilized mixtures are sealed with plastic wrap and
cured in an oven set to 40 C (ASTM C593) for 7 days.
6.3 Test machine: The specimens shall be tested using a
pneumatic or hydraulic testing machine that is capable
of applying an approximately haversine load pulse
with a rise time (defined as the time required for the
load pulse to rise from 10 to 90 % of the peak force) in
the range of 0.03–0.1 s with an accuracy of 60.005 s.
The apparatus shall be designed to incorporate the
following principles:
6.3.1 The distance between supports and points of
load application shall remain constant for a given
apparatus.
6.3.2 The load shall be applied at a uniform rate and in
such a manner as to avoid shock.
6.3.3 Eccentricity of loading can be avoided by use of
spherical bearings.
6.3.4 The machine shall be capable of applying the
load pulse repeatedly until specimen failure.
6.4 Test specimens: Specimens shall be rectangular with
smooth, uniform parallel surfaces (ASTM D1632). The
nominal dimensions of the beam specimens should be
100 mm high by 100 mm wide by 400 mm long.
6.5 Test setup: The procedure shall be as follows:
6.5.1 Measure the dimensions of the specimen to the
nearest 1 mm, taking at least 3 measurements for
each dimension. Calculate the averages of the three
measures for length (l), width (w), and height (h).
6.5.2 Note the span of the apparatus (L).
6.5.3 Place the beam on the apparatus with respect to
its molded position and center it on the lower
half-round steel supports, which have been
spaced. Ensure that the specimen is orientated
with the top of the specimen upwards.
6.5.4 The beam supports are set 300 mm apart to
achieve a span to depth ratio of 3. The load posi-
tions are at third-points along the specimen. A
laboratory testing setup is shown in Fig. B1.
6.6 Flexural strength testing: Flexural strength tests of the
specimens are performed within 30 min of removal
from the moisture room/oven.
6.6.1 A constant load should be applied at a rate of
690 6 39 kPa/min until the specimen ruptures.
6.6.2 Record the total load of failure of the specimen.
6.6.3 At least three replicates should be tested and
averaged.
6.7 Flexural modulus testing: Flexural modulus tests of the
specimens are also performed within 30 min of
removal from the moisture room/oven.
6.7.1 The vertical beam displacement is measured
using 2 LVDTs at the midpoint of the beam to
provide an estimate of the mid-span deflection/
strain.
12 Geotechnical Testing Journal
6.7.2 An appropriate peak load (stress level) is deter-
mined to apply to the specimen such that the
specimen remains within its elastic range. As a
guide, the fatigue test shall be between 20 and
40 % of the estimated ultimate breaking load
(from flexural strength tests) of the specimen.
6.7.3 The test is conducted by applying a haversine
loading to the specimen for 100 load pulses. The
haversine pulse width shall be 250 ms in duration
with a 750-ms rest between pulses making a
1,000-ms pulse period. A contact load more than
22 N but less than 45 N is applied on the
specimen.
6.7.4 Record the maximum force applied to the speci-
men (P) as indicated by the testing machine and
the peak displacement (dh) for the haversine load
pulses applied for each pulse.
6.7.5 At least three replicates should be tested and
averaged.
6.8 Fatigue Cracking Testing: Fatigue tests of the speci-
mens are performed within 30 min of removal from
the moisture room/oven. The same specimens tested
for flexural modulus tests may be used for the fatigue
test.
6.8.1 An appropriate peak load (stress level) is deter-
mined to apply to the specimen to induce fatigue.
As a guide, the fatigue test shall be between 60
and 95 % of the estimated ultimate breaking load
(from flexural strength tests) of the specimen for
the cement-stabilized specimens; for the lime and
fly ash-stabilized specimens, the lower limit can
go down up to 45 %.
6.8.2 The test is conducted by applying a haversine
loading to the specimen continuously until the
beam specimen ruptures. The haversine pulse
width shall be 250 ms in duration with a 250-ms
rest between pulses making a 500-ms pulse
period. A contact load more than 22 N but less
than 45 N is applied on the specimen.
6.8.3 Record the maximum force applied to the speci-
men (P) as indicated by the testing machine, and
the peak displacement (dh) for the haversine load
pulses applied for each pulse.
6.8.4 For better results, at least two specimens should
be tested at the same stress levels and at least six
specimens for each mixture.
7. CALCULATION AND INTERPRETATIONS
OF RESULTS
7.1 Flexural Strength: Calculate the flexural strength as
follows:
MR ¼ PL=bd 2
where:
MR ¼ modulus of rupture (in kPa),
P ¼ maximum applied load (N),
L ¼ span length (mm),
b ¼ average width of specimen (mm), and
d ¼ average depth of specimen (mm).
7.1 Flexural Modulus: The first 50 cycles are considered as
preconditioning for the flexural modulus. The data
from the second 50 consecutive cycles are used to cal-
culate the flexural modulus of the specimen. The aver-
age of the second 50 cycles is considered as the
flexural modulus of the specimen. Calculate the flex-
ural modulus as follows:
23PL3
Smax ¼  1; 000
108 bd 3 dh
where:
Smax ¼ flexural modulus (MPa),
P ¼ maximum applied load (N),
L ¼ span length (mm),
b ¼ average width of specimen (mm),
d ¼ average depth of specimen (mm), and
dh ¼ peak mid-span displacement (mm).
7.2 Fatigue Cracking: The initial modulus and initial strain
are calculated for each specimen.
Average of modulus from cycles 51 until failure is con-
sidered as final modulus of the specimen. Calculate the
strain as follows:
108 dhh
et ¼  106
23 L2
where:
et ¼ strain (le).
Average of the first 50 cycles is considered as the initial
strain of the specimen. Plot the modulus degradation
curve as shown in Fig. A1.
FIG. A1 Typical degradation of flexural modulus in a fatigue test.
 MANDAL ET AL. ON PROTOCOL FOR FATIGUE FAILURE OF CSM 13

8. REPORT 9.1.2 The gravel was classified as GM, the sand as

SP, the silt as ML, and the clay as CL. The
8.1 Report the following, if known.
clay had an LL of 39 and a PL of 19. The remain-
8.1.1Specimen identification number, ing materials were NP, although the silt had an
8.1.2Average width and depth of the specimen, LL of 18.
8.1.3Span length (L) of the apparatus (mm), 9.1.3 The series of tests consisted of 12 different mix-
8.1.4Age of the specimen. tures. Three replicates were prepared for each
For flexural strength testing mixture. The cement binder used was in the
8.1.5 Maximum failure load (N), range of 3 %–12 %, class C fly ash 13 %–18 %,
8.1.6 Flexural strength calculated from the equation. and lime 4 %–6 %. It was noted that the coeffi-
For flexural modulus testing cient of variance for each mixture did not exceed
8.1.7 The peak load (or stress level) applied to the 10 % for flexural strength testing or 30 % for flex-
specimen (N), ural modulus testing
8.1.8 Maximum force applied to the specimen (P) 9.1.4 Three different loading conditions or stress levels
and the peak displacement (dh) for each load were used for each beam specimen viz. 20, 30,
pulse, and 40 % of the average failure load (from the
8.1.9 Flexural modulus calculated from the average of monotonic/flexural strength test) for flexural
the second 50 cycles. modulus testing. The tests were conducted on
For fatigue cracking testing three replicates, and the average was taken for
8.1.10 Initial and final modulus of the specimen each stress level.
(MPa), 9.1.5 The results indicate that determination of flexural
8.1.11 Percent of flexural modulus at the end of the modulus should be done at a stress level of 30 %
test (%), to obtain consistent results while minimizing any
8.1.12 Initial strain of the specimen (le), and potential damage that could occur at the 40 %
8.1.13 Number of cycles till failure (i.e., fatigue life) of stress level. The 20 % stress level is not recom-
the specimen. mended because the load level is low and the
Table A6 shows an example for reporting the accuracy of response may be affected by the sig-
results of the fatigue test. nal noise of the machine.
9.1.6 The flexural modulus for cement stabilized soils
was in the range of 904–1,379 MPa, whereas for
9. PRECISION AND BIAS fly ash and lime stabilized soils the range was
between 454 and 857 MPa. The coefficient of var-
9.1 Precision—The precision of this test method has not
iance for these tests was in the range of
been established by an interlaboratory test program.
2 %–22 %.
However, based on test data that are available, the fol-
9.1.7 The fatigue test results varied from one mixture
lowing may serve as a guide to the variability of flex-
to another. Some of the specimens did even fails
ural strength test results.
after 200,000 cycles of loading. A total of 87
9.1.1 Laboratory tests were performed on clay, silt, beams were tested for fatigue behavior, 19 of
sand, and gravel stabilized (with cement, fly ash, which did not fail after 100,000 cycles.
and lime) specimens. 9.1.8 In general, among the cement-stabilized speci-
mens, the fatigue life was in the range of
2–78,321 cycles for the range of stress levels
50 %–95 %, and for the lime and fly ash-
TABLE A6 A sample table for the summary of the fatigue test results. stabilized specimens, the fatigue life was in the
SNa SLb (%) IFMc (MPa) FFMd (MPa) PFMEe (%) ISf (le) Ng
range of 1–64,557 cycles for the range of stress
levels between 40 and 90 %.
1
2 9.2 Bias—There is no accepted reference value for this test
3 method; therefore, bias cannot be determined.
a
SN ¼ specimen number.
b
SL ¼ stress level.
c
d
IFM ¼ initial flexural modulus. Appendix B: Specimen and Flexural
FFM ¼ final flexural modulus (i.e., flexural modulus at the end of fatigue
test). Beam Test Set Up
e
PFME ¼ percent of flexural modulus at the end of test.
f
IS ¼ initial strain. The schematic of specimen and flexural beam test setup is
g
N ¼ number of cycles at the end of test (i.e., fatigue life). shown in Fig. B1.
14 Geotechnical Testing Journal
FIG. B1 Schematic view of setup for flexural strength test.
References
AASHTO T97-14, 2014: Standard Method of Test for Flexural
Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam With Third-Point
Loading), AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO T99-10, 2010: Standard Method of Test for Moisture-
Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg Rammer and a
305-mm Drop, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO T180-10, 2010: Standard Method of Test for
Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 4.54-kg Rammer
and a 457-mm Drop, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO T321-14, 2014: Standard Method of Test for Deter-
mining the Fatigue Life of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures
Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending, AASHTO,
Washington, D.C.
ASTM C78/C78M-15, 2015: Standard Test Method for Flexural
Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam With Third-Point
Loading), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
ASTM C593-06(2011), 2011: Standard Specification for Fly
Ash and Other Pozzolans for Use With Lime for Soil
Stabilization, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
ASTM D558-11, 2011: Standard Test Methods for Moisture-
Density (Unit Weight) Relations of Soil-Cement Mixtures,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
ASTM D653-14, 2014: Standard Terminology Relating to Soil,
Rock, and Contained Fluids, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
ASTM D698-12e1, 2012: Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort
(600 kN-m/m3), ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, www.astm.org.
ASTM D854-14, 2014: Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer, ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
ASTM D1557-12, 2012: Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort
(2,700 kN-m/m3), ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, www.astm.org.
ASTM D1632-07, 2007: Standard Practice for Making and Cur-
ing Soil-Cement Compression and Flexure Test Specimens
in the Laboratory, ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, www.astm.org.
ASTM D1633-00(2007), 2007: Standard Test Methods for Com-
pressive Strength of Molded Soil-Cement Cylinders, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
ASTM D1635/D1635M-12, 2012: Standard Test Method for
Flexural Strength of Soil-Cement Using Simple Beam With
Third-Point Loading, ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, www.astm.org.
ASTM D2487-11, 2011: Standard Practice for Classification of
Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification
System), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
ASTM D3282-09, 2009: Standard Practice for Classification of
Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction
Purposes, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
ASTM D4318-10e1, 2010: Standard Test Methods for Liquid
Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
ASTM D5102-09, 2009: Standard Test Method for Unconfined
Compressive Strength of Compacted Soil-Lime Mixtures,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
ASTM D6913-04(2009)e1, 2009: Standard Test Methods for
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve
Analysis, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
ASTM D7460-10, 2010: Standard Test Method for Determining
Fatigue Failure of Compacted Asphalt Concrete Subjected to
Repeated Flexural Bending, ASTM International, West Con-
shohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
Casmer, J. D., 2011, “Fatigue Cracking Of Cementitiously
Stabilized Pavement Layers Through Large-Scale Model
Experiments,” M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, Madison, WI.
Darter, M. I., 1977, “Design of Zero-Maintenance Plain Jointed
Concrete Pavement,” Volume I Development of Design Proce-
dure, FHWA-RD-77-111, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C.
Darter, M. I., 1990, “Concrete Slab vs Beam Fatigue Models,” pre-
sented Proceedings of Second International Workshop on the
Theoretical Design of Concrete Pavements, CROW/PIARC,
Siguenza, Spain, October 4–5, pp. 472–481.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), 2003, “Chapter 4
Fly Ash in Stabilized Base Course,” Fly Ash Facts for
Highway Engineers, http:www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling/
fach04.cfm (Last accessed 22 June 2015).
Foxworthy, P. T., 1985, “Concepts for the Development of a
Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation System for Rigid
Airfield Pavements,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL.
Freeme, C. R., Maree, J. H., and Viljoen, A. W., 1982,
“Mechanistic Design of Asphalt Pavements and Verification
Using the Heavy Vehicle Simulator,” Proceedings of 5th
International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt
Pavements, Vol. 1, Ann Arbor, MI, June 5–9, University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 156–173.
Jameson, G. W., Sharp, K. G., and Yeo, R., 1992, “Cement-
Treated Crushed Rock Pavement Fatigue Under Accelerated
Loading: The Mulgrave (Victoria) ALF Trial,” 1989/1991
Australian Road Research Board Report ARR 229, ARRB, VT
South, Australia.

Li, X. and Dong, M., 2011, “Experimental Research on Pavement
Performance of Cement-Stabilized Base Recycled Mixture,”
Appl. Mech. Mater., Vols. 94–96, pp. 31–37.
Litwinowicz, A. and Brandon, A. N., 1994, “Dynamic Flexural
Testing for Prediction of Cement-Treated Pavement Life,”
Proceedings of the 17th ARRB Conference, Gold Coast
Queensland, Australia, August 15–19, Northwestern Univer-
sity, Evanston, IL, pp. 229–247.
Mandal, T., 2012, “Fatigue Behavior and Modulus Growth of
Cementitiously Stabilized Pavement Layers,” M.S. thesis,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Midgley, L. and Yeo, R., 2008, “The Development and Evaluation
of Protocols for the Laboratory Characterisation of Cemented
Materials,” Austroads Technical Report AP-T101/08, Austroads
Inc., Sydney, Australia.
National Lime Association, 2006, “Technical Brief: Mixture
Design and Testing Procedures for Lime Stabilized Soil,”
http://www.lime.org (Last accessed June 16, 2015).
Otte, E., 1978, “A Structural Design Procedure for Cement-
Treated Layers In Pavements,” Ph.D. thesis, University of
Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Packard, R. G., 1973, “Design of Concrete Airport Pavement,”
Engineering Bulletin EB050.03P, Portland Cement Associa-
tion, Skokie, IL.
Paul, D. K. and Gnanendran, C. T., 2011, “Effect of Loading
Rate on the Properties of Lightly Stabilized Granular
Materials by Using Flexural Beam Testing,” Proceedings of
Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, ON,
October 2–6, ISSMGE, London, UK, -unpublished.
Portland Cement Association, 1992, Soil-Cement Laboratory
Handbook, PCA, Skokie, IL.
Pretorius, P. C., 1970, “Design Considerations for Pavements
Containing Soil-Cement Bases,” Ph.D. thesis, University of
California, Berkeley, CA.
Raad, L., 1982, “A Mechanistic Model for Strength and Fatigue
of Cement-Treated Soils,” Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 4, No. 3,
pp. 104–110.
Smith, K. D. and Roesler, J. R., 2003, “Review of Fatigue Models
for Concrete Airfield Pavement Design,” Proceedings of the
ASCE Airfield Pavement Specialty Conference, Las Vegas,
NV, September 21–24, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 231–258.
Sobhan, K. and Mashnad, M., 2003, “Fatigue Behavior of a
Pavement Foundation With Recycled Aggregate and Waste
HDPE Strips,” ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 129,
No. 7, pp. 630–638.
View publication stats
MANDAL ET AL. ON PROTOCOL FOR FATIGUE FAILURE OF CSM 15
Su, Z., 2012, “Durability Performance of Cementitiously Stabi-
lized Layers,” M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison,
Madison, WI.
Thompson, M. R. and Barenberg, E. J., 1992, “Calibrated Mech-
anistic Structural Analysis Procedure for Pavements—Phase
2,” Final Report, NCHRP Project 1-26, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Wang, Y., Zhang, M., Xu, P., and Jian, W., 2011, “Research
on the Fatigue Damage Characters of the Cement Soil
Under Dynamic Load,” Adv. Mater. Res., Vols. 160–162,
pp. 990–995.
Wen, H., Balasingam, M., Edil, T., Tinjum, J., Gokce, A.,
Wang, J., and Casmer, J., 2010, “Characterization of
Cementitiously Stabilized Layers for Use in Pavement
Design and Analysis,” Project 04-36 Interim Report,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Wen, H., Balasingam, M., Edil, T., Tinjum, J., Gokce, A., Wang,
J., Casmer, J., and Su, Z., 2011, “Characterization of Cemen-
titiously Stabilized Layers for Use in Pavement Design and
Analysis,” Project 04-36 Test Procedure Evaluation Report,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Wen, H., Muhunthan, B., Wang, J., Li, X., Edil, T., and Tinjum,
J. M., 2014, “Characterization of Cementitiously Stabilized
Layers for Use in Pavement Design and Analysis,” NCHRP
Report No. 789, Transportation Research Board, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Yeo, R., Vuong, B., and Alderson, A., 2002, “Towards National
Test Methods for Stiffness and Fatigue Characterisation of
Stabilised Materials,” Report RC2028-002 for Austroads,
ARRB Transport Research, Sydney, Australia.
Yu, S., Wei, J., and Ma, S., 2011, “Study on Fatigue Life of Lime
Fly-Ash Treated Aggregate Based on SHRP Standard,”
Adv. Mater. Res., Vols. 261–263, pp. 111–114.
Zhang, P., Li, Q. F., and Huang, C. K., 2009, “Grey relational
analyzing anti-cracking performance of semi-rigid base
courses,” J. Grey Syst., Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 355–364.
Zhang, P., Li, Q., and Wei, H., 2010, “Investigation of Flexural
Properties of Cement-Stabilized Macadam Reinforced With
Polypropylene Fiber,” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., Vol. 22, No. 12,
pp. 1282–1287.
Zhang, P. and Wei, X., 2011, “Study on Flexural Strength and
Flexural Modulus of Elasticity of Cement,” Adv. Mater. Res.,
Vols. 287–290, pp. 990–993.