Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Establishment of best practices for laboratory evaluation of stabilized base

layers and comparative study on influence of different types of stabilizers
Manoj Kumar Shukla a, Ashish Walia a, *, Vedant Purohit b, Vidhi Vyas a, Gagandeep Singh a
a
CSIR – Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi, 110025, India
b
Pandit Deendayal Energy University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382007, India

A B S T R A C T

The stabilization of pavement layers is nowadays widely accepted across the globe due to several issues like scarcity of good quality aggregates, weak subgrade,
presence of undesirable material, heavy loadings, and many more. The present study envisaged the suitability of different stabilizers available commercially for the
stabilization of the base layer. The primary objective of the study is to ascertain the stabilizer which will aid in attaining the required strength with a minimum curing
period while keeping the other characteristics of the stabilized mix under permissible limits. Three different types of cementitious stabilizers were incorporated in the
study, namely polymer-based cementitious material (Commercial Chemical Stabilzer-1 or CCS-1), fiber-based cementitious material (CCS-2), and Ordinary Portland
Cement (OPC) Grade-53. The microstructure analysis of the three stabilizers was also conducted to understand their mineralogical compositions. The desired level of
compaction was achieved through the vibratory hammer approach after adopting different compaction methods during the laboratory study. The optimum content of
stabilizers was determined by a trial-and-error approach, and the corresponding moisture-density relationship was utilized further for sample preparation. Moreover,
several sets of samples were prepared, which were subjected to different curing periods. The samples were prepared in different shapes and sizes as required for
conducting tests such as Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), flexural strength, Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS), and durability. For a detailed investigation of the
stabilizer effect on the stabilized mix, the micro-structure analysis through X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was performed. The
laboratory study concluded that the minimum requisite UCS strength of 4.5 MPa was achieved by adding only 4% of CCS-1 in comparison to 4.5% of the other two
stabilizers, i.e., CCS-2 and OPC-53. Moreover, the strength gains by stabilized mix prepared by the addition of CCS-1 are relatively fast, and the requisite strength was
attained after 3-days curing only. The other test results also demonstrated the superiority of CCS-1 over the other two stabilizers. The microstructure analysis
depicted that the formation of hydration products influencing the mix strength was relatively more for CCS-1.

1. Introduction different aggregates along with a stabilizer to serve as the base of a

A pavement structure is a layered structure to dissipate the high
stresses induced by vehicles plying on its surface to a subgrade level in a
safe and effective manner. The role of different constituent layers is
mostly predefined, and the structural design of pavement structure is
considerably dependent on those assumptions. If any of the layers would
not be able to sustain, the anticipated loads would generally result in the
failure of the entire pavement structure. The presence of the base layer
will facilitate load dissipation to such an extent that the applied stresses
on the subgrade layer will be within its bearing capacity. However, the
scarcity of good quality aggregates compels to increase the strength of
the granular base layer by adopting its stabilization. The cement-treated
base is a popular strategy to enhance the strength characteristics of the
granular layer by incorporating different kinds of stabilizing agents,
namely conventional (i.e., cement, lime) and other commercial chemical
stabilizers (CCS) prevalent nowadays.
Cement Treated Base (CTB) is a mix prepared by constituting
pavement structure to enhance the surface course’s strength, stiffness,
load dispersion capabilities, and durability at a lower cost and without
increasing the overall thickness of the pavement layer [1–3]. CTB is a
totally bonded (stabilized) material with much higher tensile strength
than traditional unbound granular road base material [4]. CTB mixes
use a small amount of stabilizer (about 3 to 6 percent by weight) to treat
aggregate with the optimum moisture content [5]. Cement in CTB ini­
tiates the hydration process by interacting with water. Therefore, it is
vital to minimize the amount of time between mixing and compaction
[6]. Cement dosage and curing period have a major impact on the
strengthening of the CTB material. Higher cement content and a longer
curing time will result in an increased strength [2,7,8]. When cementi­
tious materials are added to the virgin aggregates of the base layer, it
becomes stronger and stiffer, which makes it better at bridging over
lower layers [9]. Several transportation authority’s demands a seven-
day curing time before cement-treated layers may be opened to traffic
[10]. Although this cautious approach protects the freshly built CTB, it

* Corresponding author at: Flexible Pavement Division, CSIR – Central Road Research Institute, Mathura Road, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi, 110025, India.
E-mail address: ashish.crri@nic.in (A. Walia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132691
Received 10 March 2023; Received in revised form 10 May 2023; Accepted 30 July 2023
Available online 5 August 2023
0950-0618/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.K. Shukla et al.
may cause construction delays, higher construction expenses, and
increased discomfort to road users.
This study aims to evaluate the performance of CTB materials or mix
with two distinct Commercial Chemical Stabilizers (CCS) and OPC 53 by
performing various strength, durability, and microstructural assessment
tests. Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), Flexural Strength, and
Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) tests were conducted on samples with
varying curing durations to determine the rate of strength growth during
the curing time. The material treated with stabilizers was subjected to
alternating wetting and drying tests to determine its potential to with­
stand weathering [11]. X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis was used to
examine the mineralogical characteristics of hydrated CTB materials,
and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) analysis was undertaken to
investigate the morphological characteristics of hydrated CTB materials.
2. Literature review
Pavement distresses negatively affects the service life of flexible
pavements. Factors such as heavy vehicular traffic, adverse environ­
mental conditions, and poor construction practices primarily contribute
to the formation of various distresses [12]. Typically, rutting along a
wheel path manifests in the form of permanent settlement. Load-induced
top-down fatigue cracking is also an outcome of high traffic loads
[13,14]. Hence, a strong and stiff base course is required to handle
extreme traffic-induced stresses without excessive deformation or
consolidation in the underlying layers.
Utilizing CTB as a base material makes the pavement structure more
resistant to climate-induced damage, hence increasing its durability and
longevity. CTB reduces pavement deflections under wheel loads because
it offers support that is considerably stiffer than an unbound granular
base. Consequently, the tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer is
reduced, which in turn leads to enhanced pavement fatigue life
[1,15,16]. Being a stiffer layer, CTB dissipates the load to a larger area
which may lead to a reduction in layer thickness. In pavement analysis,
the performance characteristics of cement-stabilized materials are
crucial and directly impact the overall pavement performance.
2.1. Studies on strength characteristics
According to Indian standards, the stabilized mix must have a UCS
strength between 4.5 and 7 MPa [17]. The research work carried out by
Ismail et al. [18], Lv et al. [7,19]; Xie et al. [8] showed that the curing
periods have a significant influence on the strength and fatigue perfor­
mance of cement-treated aggregate base materials. Abd Al-RedhaGhani
et al. [15] conducted the UCS test on samples with varying amounts of
cement binder, and it was concluded that the addition of a high amount
of cement generated fractures in the pavement. The flexural strength of
CTB material can be determined through three Point Beam test, where
actual loading conditions experienced by pavement can be simulated
[4]. Kasu et al. [20] analyzed beam specimens to assess their flexural
strength. It was found that the beam specimen generally fails from the
aggregate-cement slurry interface during the flexural test. The Indirect
Tensile Strength (ITS) test is a standard laboratory test for determining
the tensile strength characteristics of cement-stabilized materials, where
a cement-treated specimen is subjected to a strain-controlled loading
scheme/pattern until vertical cracks appear on the diametrically placed
specimens [21]. Xie et al. [8] have conducted ITS tests with varying
cement dosages and curing times. The indirect tensile strength and
curing periods have been found to be directly proportional to each other
and similar relation was found with cement content as well.
2.2. Studies on microstructural analysis
CTB is a composite material with a hierarchical microstructure
resulting from the mixing of different components and time-dependent
hydration processes [22,23]. The XRD results on CTB material will
2
Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691
provide quantitative data on crystalline structure properties. This
technique is primarily employed for qualitative phase identification and
quantitative phase analysis in cement [23]. Xu et al. [24] observed that
the Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) components react with water to
produce a variety of hydration products, including calcium silicate hy­
drate (C-S-H), calcium hydroxide (CH), and ettringite (AFt). The XRD
investigation done by Chhabra et al. [25] reported that cement is made
out of Portlandite and calcite, while the calcite in it is what causes the C-
S-H gel to form in cement mortar. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)
has become a universal and adaptable device for examining the micro­
structure of solidified cement paste during the past three decades [26].
The SEM is a tool for the characterization of bulk materials that offers
information about the surface [27]. The SEM may be used to examine
the effect of curing temperature and hydration stage through the
microstructure and morphology studies of the CTB specimens [24]. C-S-
H gel and AFt crystals are produced in various phases of the hydration
process, which fill the voids inside the cement slurry so that the total
porosity lowers [28]. Y. Zhang et al. [29] and Kasu et al. [20] reported
the formation of fibrous C-A-S-H(Calcium Aluminate Silicate Hydrate)
gel, needle-shaped AFt, and calcium zeolite in hydrated cement slurry.
The texture and shape of the AFt and C-A-S-H minerals were also short
and thick. Hydration products (such as C-S-H, CH, and AFt) were shown
to precipitate and wrap around the particles’ surfaces.
3. Materials
The present study envisaged determining the influence of different
stabilizers on the CTB mixes prepared by blending different aggregate
sizes. The CTB mix was composed of aggregates, stabilizers, and water,
whose details are discussed in the next section.
3.1. Aggregates
The nominal maximum aggregate size considered for the CTB mix
was 36.5 mm, as per the aggregate gradation recommended in
Table 400–4 of the MoRTH specification [30]. The present study has
considered four different aggregate sizes, i.e., 40 mm, 20 mm, 10 mm,
and stone dust, to achieve the requisite gradation. The gradation of the
individual aggregate sizes was conducted to determine the job mix
formula (JMF). Thereafter, the aggregates were blended as per the
determined JMF to achieve the combined gradation, as shown in Fig. 1.
The resulting aggregate gradation and the specified MoRTH limits are
shown in Fig. 1, which depicts that the achieved gradation is well placed
in the acceptable gradation envelope.
The physical characteristics of the individual aggregates were also
checked to ensure their suitability in the prepared CTB mix. The physical
requirements of the aggregates were determined as per the procedure
given in the relevant guidelines IS:2386 (Part III, IV) – 1963 [30,31].
The result of physical properties obtained for different aggregates is
Fig. 1. Aggregate Gradation Envelope.
M.K. Shukla et al. Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

mentioned in. inadequate compaction effort imparted by the table vibrator method,
Table 1. The results show that the aggregates are sound and suitable the prepared sample for the flexural test got shattered, and therefore, no
for the CTB mix. value is reported for the corresponding test. Table 2 demonstrates that
the compaction using a vibratory hammer provided considerably better
3.2. Stabilizer results than the other two methods, i.e., table vibrator and tamping rod.
The finished surface of CTB samples prepared through different
In the study, the granular materials were bound together using three compaction methods is shown in Fig. 4, where the aptness of vibratory
different cementitious stabilizers, namely, CCS 1 (Polymer based hammer compacted samples can be clearly witnessed. Henceforth, all
cementitious stabilizer), CCS 2 (Fiber based cementitious stabilizer), and the samples prepared in the study adopted the vibratory hammer
OPC Grade − 53. All the stabilizers are odorless fine-grained powders compaction method.
having various cementitious compounds, as shown in Fig. 2. X-Ray
diffraction (XRD) technique can be used for the quantification of 4.2. Selection of optimum dosage of stabilizers
mineralogical properties on a microscale, whose details are discussed in
the subsequent section. XRD analysis was also used to determine the In the present study, the stabilized mixes were prepared with
primary mineralogical composition of the stabilizers considered in the different stabilizer dosages to conduct the modified proctor test as per
present study, as shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 (a, b, c) demonstrates the sta­ ASTM D 558 procedure [32]. The CTB mixes were prepared with
bilizers are made up of Portlandite and Calcite, which is responsible for different stabilizers (i.e., CCS-1, CCS-2, and OPC-53) with varying dos­
the C-S-H gel in cement mortar [25]. The amount of these minerals ages to obtain the corresponding density-moisture relationship, which in
determines the stability of the stabilizers and their early as well as ul­ turn provided the OMC and MDD for different dosages, as shown in
timate strength. In stabilizers, alite compound was found, which is an Fig. 5. For conducting the modified proctor test, a total of 7 Kg mix was
impure type of tricalcium silicate (C3S). Calcium silicate and traces of taken, and different dosages of stabilizer content were added. After
gypsum were also observed in the stabilizers. determining the appropriate moisture content for various stabilizer
dosages, 150 mm cube samples were cast. The CTB samples were cured
for seven days with water-soaked jute bags to replicate field curing
4. Method of sample preparation
conditions at ambient temperature [33].
The UCS samples were prepared with different dosages of stabilizer
The sample preparation of the CTB mix involves the selection of
content while considering their respective OMC and MDD values. Ac­
aggregates and stabilizer, followed by their mixing in the presence of
cording to IRC SP 89 Part II, the laboratory strength for the CTB mix
optimum moisture content. However, after mixing raw materials, the
should be 1.1 times the design strength. The minimum recommended
compaction of the prepared mix in the laboratory was a challenge, for
UCS value of 4.5 MPa and the minimum strength achieved in the labo­
which different equipment was adopted. After the selection of the
ratory should be at least 4.95 MPa. Henceforth, the minimum threshold
appropriate compaction method, the optimum dosage of stabilizing
value for UCS test results of 4.95 MPa was adopted in the study for
material was also determined and discussed subsequently.
determining the optimum dosage of stabilizer [17,30,34]. The lowest
stabilizer content that yields more than or equal to 4.95 MPa UCS value
4.1. Selection of compaction method after 7-days curing is defined as the optimum dosage of additive. Fig. 6
shows the average UCS strength computed by testing three samples of
Three different types of compaction modes using a table vibrator, each combination. The horizontal dashed line represents the 7-day UCS
tamping rod, and vibratory hammer were tried to assess the suitability of threshold value of 4.95 MPa, as shown in Fig. 6. It can be summarized
different compaction methods based on the 7-day UCS and flexural from Fig. 6 that the minimum stabilizer dosages required for CCS-1 are
strengths. The Table Vibrator was used for 9 to 12 s for each layer and 4%, whereas 4.5% for CCS-2 and OPC-53.
the sample was prepared in three layers. A 10 mm diameter tamping rod
was utilized for compaction in three different layers and each layer was 4.3. Sample preparation
subjected to 90 blows. The vibratory hammer compaction method was
also applied in three layers where a square plate (of size lesser than the The CTB samples were prepared differently as per the requirements
casting mold size) was kept on top of loose material. Each layer was of each test. The major steps followed in sample preparation included (i)
subjected to five times of vibratory effects by placing the square plate Batch mix of constituent materials was taken as per JMF. (ii) Inner
once on each corner and at last near the center. surface of the concrete mixer was wetted before the mixing to prevent
The UCS and Flexural strength was determined for the CTB samples moisture loss during the mixing process. (iii) weighted amount of
using the above-mentioned approaches of compaction, and the results moisture was added to the dry mix in two stages to obtain a homoge­
are shown in Table 2. It is required to be mentioned that due to neous mix. (iv) CTB samples were compacted using the vibratory
hammer in three layers. (v) Compacted samples were de-molded after
Table 1 24 h. (vi) 7-days curing by covering with wet jute bags.
Physical Properties of Different Aggregates.
Property Aggregate Size Permissible Test 5. Mix testing
Limit Method
40 20 10 Stone
mm mm mm Dust In the present study, a number of laboratory tests were conducted to
Bulk Specific 3.07 2.58 2.60 2.77 – IS: 2386
characterize the stabilized mixes. Several trials were conducted on the
Gravity Part (III) mixes prepared with different stabilizers to obtain their optimum con­
Apparent 3.11 2.65 2.68 – – IS: 2386 tent. The stabilized mix samples were prepared by considering the pre-
Specific Part (III) determined moisture-density relationship. Thereafter, the laboratory
Gravity
specimens of CTB mixes were prepared to conduct tests such as modified
Water 0.24 1.18 1.19 – ≤ 2% IS: 2386
Absorption Part (III) proctor test, UCS, flexural strength, ITS, and durability tests. For further
(%) detailed investigation of the laboratory prepared mix, advance testing
Aggregate – 22 18 – ≤ 40% IS: 2386 such as XRD and SEM experiments were also performed at CSIR-Central
Impact Part (IV) Building Research Institute (CBRI) Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, and
Value (%)
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (IITR), Uttarakhand, India,

3
M.K. Shukla et al. Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

Fig. 2. Visual Appearance of Different Stabilizers (a) CCS 1 (b) CCS 2 (c) OPC 53.

Fig. 3. XRD Profile of Stabilizers, (a) CCS 1 (b) CCS 2 (c) OPC 53.

5.1. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS)

Table 2
Strength v/s Compaction Efforts of CTB samples.
Method of Compaction
Tests/Strength Table Vibrator Tamping Rod Vibratory Hammer
UCS (7-days) 2.57 3.98 7.88
Flexural strength N.A. 0.10 1.17
respectively, to examine at microscale as discussed in subsequent sec­
tions. These microscale experiments have provided the mineralogical
and morphological characteristics of the dry stabilizer powder as well as
cured CTB samples. A number of samples were prepared in different
shapes and sizes requisite for different above-mentioned tests, as shown
in Table 3. The tick mark shown in Table 3 portrays that the samples
were prepared for the corresponding test and curing period. A minimum
of three samples were prepared for each case, and the total number of
samples prepared for the particular test is mentioned in the last column
of Table 3. It is noteworthy that the flexural and ITS test samples were
not prepared for a 1-day curing period as they were unable to attain the
required strength within one day. Moreover, the samples for durability
were prepared for only 7-days curing period, whereas the microscale
analysis was conducted on 3-days cured sample only.
Many guidelines have recommended unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) as the primary test to characterize the strength of the CTB
mixes [15,35]. The UCS test was conducted to measure the compressive
strength of the stabilized materials as per ASTM C 39 [36], where cube
samples cured for four different curing periods, i.e., 1-day, 3-days,7-
days, and 28-days were prepared and tested. As observed from Table 3, a
total of thirty-six cube samples of dimension 150 mm were prepared.
During UCS testing, the samples were subjected to compressive loading
with a uniform increase in loading rate of 140 kg/cm2/min until the
sample failure occurred [37]. The ultimate load at which failure occurs
was noted to calculate the unconfined compressive strength.
5.2. Flexural strength
The stabilized base layer deflects due to the application of moving
wheel load on the surface layer. Hence flexural properties must be
considered during the pavement design of the CTB layer [1]. This study
estimates flexural strength in terms of the Modulus of Rupture (MOR)
using a three-point beam load test in strain-controlled mode with a
strain rate of 1 mm/min [17]. A total of twenty-seven beam samples
were cast with dimensions of 100 × 100 × 500 mm. However, the actual

Fig. 4. Samples Prepared by Different Compaction Approaches.

4
M.K. Shukla et al. Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

5.3. Indirect tensile strength (ITS)

The ITS test is a typical laboratory method for determining the ten­
sile strength of cement-stabilized materials. A cylindrical CTB mix
sample of 150 mm diameter and 90 mm thickness was subjected to a
strain-controlled loading scheme until mid-span fracture was observed
along the vertical diameter of the specimen [21]. The load was applied
at a constant rate of 1 mm/min to impose a homogeneous transverse
tensile stress along the vertical diameter [38]. Two bearing strips
dispersed the weight to avoid repeated cracks and crushing at the
loading point. This test determined the tensile strength of a material that
had undergone strain-controlled stress path testing in the laboratory.
The ITS is computed using Equation (2).
2×P
στ = (2)
π×D×T

Where, στ = Tensile Strength(N/mm2 ),

P = Failure Load (N),
D = Diameter of Sample (mm),
T = Thickness of Sample (mm)

5.4. Durability

The durability was checked by adopting the procedure mentioned as

Method 2 in Clause 4.7.2 of IRC: SP:89–2010 [34]. A representative
sample of approximately 20 kg weight was taken to prepare four iden­
tical samples having 100 mm dia. and 200 mm height. Two samples
were tested for volumetric changes, and the remaining two were tested
for weight loss after each cycle of wetting and drying. After casting, the
samples were kept aside for 7-days curing, followed by application of 12
cycles of consecutive wetting and drying were applied. Samples were
kept in the water bath at room temperature for 5 h and then in the oven
for 42 h at 70◦ C. After 42 h of oven-drying, samples were kept aside to
cool down. Two of them were measured for volumetric changes, and the
other two were scratched with a wire brush 18 to 20 times on all sides,
and their weight loss was measured. This procedure was then repeated
another twelve times, and the loss of material was noted after the
completion of each cycle. As per prevalent Indian Guidelines, the
maximum permissible loss of material is limited to 14% by weight [34].

5.5. Micro-Scale analysis

Samples of hydrated CTB mix have undergone Scanning Electronic

Microscope (SEM) and X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) investigation to under­
stand their microstructural configuration. The strength of the CTB mix is
determined by its degree of hydration achieved in the presence of
various stabilizers. Microscale examination enabled us to understand the
cause of increased strength in the hydrated mix [39]. The XRD data
Fig. 5. Moisture-Density Relationship considering (a) CCS-1 (b) CCS-2 (c) quantifies the hydration products, whereas the examination of SEM
OPC 53. pictures offered magnified views of the hydrated products. Different
hydration products such as Calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H), Ettringite
dimensions and weights of the samples were recorded before conducting (AFt), and Calcium hydroxide (CH) were observed from SEM images
the flexural test. The failure load was recorded for the computation of [40].
MOR by using Equation (1).
( ) 5.6. X-ray Diffraction (XRD)
P + 3W L
R= 4
(1)
bd2 XRD analysis was used to evaluate the kind and quantity of hydration
products formed in CTB mix samples. The study was carried out using a
Where R = Modulus of Rupture (N/mm2 ), Rigaku X-ray diffractor, D-max 2200. This equipment has a scanning
P = Failure Load (N), angle (2-theta) of 0-167◦ . The X’pert high-score pro program assessed
L = Length of Sample (mm), the difference in the quantity of hydration products. Cubical samples of
b = Average Width of Sample (mm), dimension 150 mm for each of the three stabilizers were prepared and
d = Average Depth of Sample (mm),W = Weight of Sample (N) cured for three days. The material retrieved from the middle of these
cubical samples was oven dried at 60 ◦ C and manually crushed using a
grinder for further mineralogical investigation.

5
M.K. Shukla et al. Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

Fig. 6. Results of UCS Test for Different Stabilizers Dosages (a) CCS-1 (b) CCS-2 (c) OPC 53.

Table 3
Number of CTB Mix Samples Prepared for Different Tests and Curing Periods.
Test Type of Stabilizer Total No. Of Samples

CCS-1 CCS-2 OPC 53

Curing Period (in Number of Days)

1 3 7 28 1 3 7 28 1 3 7 28

UCS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 36
Flexural Strength – ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ ✓ 27
ITS – ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ ✓ 27
Durability – – ✓ – – – ✓ – – – ✓ – 6
XRD – ✓ – – – ✓ – – – ✓ – – 3
SEM – ✓ – – – ✓ – – – ✓ – – 3

5.7. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)
SEM analysis is one of the accurate methods to study the effect of
curing temperature and its duration. It also helps to observe the effect of
hydration on the microstructure and morphology of the CTB mix. The
primary objective of SEM analysis in the present study was to gather
information about the hydration products’ size, shape, surface topog­
raphy, and texture. Therefore, the cured CTB samples were crushed
down to 70 µm for conducting SEM analysis on the powdered form of
samples. The samples for SEM analysis were taken from the same CTB
mix samples on which XRD analysis was conducted. The Zeiss EVO18-
LaB6 filament SEM was utilized to perform the test. The rate of
magnification was varied from 1000x to 10,000x to get topographic and
compositional images of the testing samples.
6. Results and discussions
6.1. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test results
The UCS test was considered the primary test conducted in the lab­
oratory to evaluate the strength characteristics of the stabilized mix. The
UCS values obtained for CTB specimens prepared with different

6
M.K. Shukla et al. Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

stabilizers under different curing periods are shown in Fig. 7. The

ascending nature of the strength is an indication of the favorable impact
of increasing the curing period on the UCS, irrespective of the type of
stabilizer incorporated. The difference in the strength value among
different stabilizers for each curing period provides valuable insight into
the impact of the particular stabilizer in the mix. The value of UCS after
1-day curing was obtained as 3.18 for CCS 1, which is significantly
higher than 1.54 and 1.64 MPa obtained for CCS2 and OPC53, respec­
tively. This shows the desirable early gain in strength of CTB material
prepared with CCS 1. Similarly, the CTB mix prepared with CCS 1 out­
performed the other two stabilizers and obtained considerably greater
strength after being subjected to various curing periods, i.e., 3-days, 7-
days, and 28-days.
The Coefficient of Variation (COV) depicts the relative deviation of
the strength value from the mean value. The present study considered
Fig. 8. COV of UCS at Different Curing Periods.
three different UCS values obtained from a set of three samples for each
curing period to determine the COV, as shown in Fig. 8. It can be wit­
nessed from Fig. 8 that the COV values reduce with an increase in the
curing period, which suggests that the strength gaining ability pattern
varies considerably in the early stage and leads to a similar extent after
attaining almost full strength. After 28 days of curing, the variation in
UCS values among different samples is minimal; therefore, COV values
were found in the range of 1 to 2% for all the stabilizers.
The early strength gain can be ascertained by comparing it with ul­
timate strength, i.e., 28 days cured samples. For simplicity, the ratio of
UCS values at different curing periods with respect to ultimate UCS
value (i.e., 28 days) was determined in percentage as shown in Eq (3) to
compare the rate of strength gain for different stabilizers.
UCSd UCS value for cured sample in d days
= (3)
UCS28 UCS value for cured sample in 28 days
This ratio (UCSd/UCS28) exhibits the percentage of strength gained
by the mix after ‘d’ days of curing with respect to 28 days of cured Fig. 9. Rate of Strength Gain at Different Curing Periods.
samples, as demonstrated in Fig. 9. On comparison of the strength ratio,
it was observed that the CCS 1 gained strength at a faster rate in the early
made for CCS 2 and OPC 53. However, the rate of strength gain is
stage of curing. The CTB mix prepared along with CCS 1 reached 22% of
relatively lesser in both cases when compared to CCS 1.
the ultimate strength in just one day, whereas 43% of the ultimate
strength was noted after 3-days curing, which suggests a more than 20%
increase in UCS strength in the next two days (i.e., second and third 6.2. Flexural strength test results
day). Afterward, the UCS value determined for 7-day cured samples of
CCS 1 achieved 54%, which depicts that it had attained only 11% of Another important property required from the stabilized mix is
ultimate strength in three days. This pattern of strength gaining show­ flexural strength to sustain repeated loading without undergoing failure.
cased that there is rapid attainment of strength at the initial stage, which The CTB mix samples were prepared with various curing periods before
subsides with an increase in the curing period. A similar observation was being subjected to flexural tests. The test results for the flexural strength

Fig. 7. Unconfined Compressive Strength Results. Fig. 10. Results of Flexural Strength Test for Different Stabilizers.

7
M.K. Shukla et al. Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

of CTB mix samples are shown in Fig. 10, where the increase in flexural
strength was observed with an increase in the curing period.
The rate of increase in strength of the CTB mix treated with various
stabilizers over different curing periods is also given in Fig. 11, as
computed for UCS values in the previous section. However, the reduc­
tion pattern of COV with increasing curing period was not found in the
case of flexural strength. Due to their inherently low flexural strength,
the 1-day cured samples prepared for the flexural test didn’t occur and
failed even before applying the prescribed load. The CTB mix comprising
CCS-1 showed almost 22% and 48% of its ultimate flexural strength (i.e.,
28 days) for 3-days and 7-days cured samples, respectively. In contrast,
the CTB mix prepared with CCS-2 was able to attain only 8% for 3-days
and 23% for 7-days curing. On the other hand, the flexural strength for
the OPC based CTB mix grew steadily, reaching 20% for 3-days and 37%
for 7-days of curing, which is considerably more than CCS-2. In the
comparison of the flexural strength of the CTB mix incorporating the
CCS-2 and OPC, it may be mentioned that OPC samples perform better
than CCS-2 samples at early stages and vice-versa for longer curing
periods. Comparing the ultimate strength after 28 days of curing, the
CCS-2 samples acquired a little more strength than the OPC samples.
However, the flexural strength obtained with CCS 1 samples was
significantly higher than the other two stabilizers considered in the
study. Fig. 12. Indirect Tensile Strength Results.

6.3. Indirect tensile strength (ITS) test results

Fig. 12 shows the results obtained from Indirect Tensile Strength

(ITS) test for the CTB mix prepared with different stabilizers. Similar to
the results obtained for UCS and flexural strength tests, the increase in
the curing period of the CTB mix demonstrated improved mechanical
properties, as already witnessed in the previous sections (Fig. 7 and
Fig. 10). Irrespective of the stabilizer, the ITS values increased with an
increase in the curing period, similar to the earlier studied strength
parameters (i.e., UCS and flexural strength). The increase in ITS values
with different curing periods is relatively sharp in CCS 1 compared to
CCS 2 and OPC-53, as indicated in Fig. 12. Although, the ITS values
achieved by CCS-1 and CCS-2 for short curing period were quite com­
parable and relatively higher than OPC-53. But, the ultimate strength of
CCS-1 was significantly higher than CCS-2 and OPC-53.

6.4. Durability test results Fig. 13. Weight Loss (%) for CTB mix prepared with Different Stabilizers.

The durability of stabilized pavement materials is quintessential to
maintaining pavement performance under adverse weather conditions.
This objective was achieved through laboratory simulation by con­
ducting the durability test as per guidelines suggested in IRC SP-89
(Part-2) [17]. The shows the weight loss reported by CTB mixes stabi­
lized by different stabilizers after each cycle. As shown in Fig. 13, CCS-1
has the least weight loss after 12 consecutive wetting and drying cycles,
which is desirable for better performance of the pavement structure
under adverse conditions. The weight loss reported by the mix stabilized
by OPC 53 was recorded highest among all the stabilizers considered in
the study. However, the total weight loss reported for all the stabilized
mixes was found to be substantially lesser than the permissible limit of
14%. It is also essential to highlight that the CCS 1 mix had shown almost
a similar extent of weathering, whereas the other two had shown
decreasing weight loss with an increase in the number of cycles.
Therefore, it may be considered that the CCS 1 had shown much better
results in terms of sustaining weathering effects anticipated due to un­
foreseen events.

6.5. X-ray Diffraction (XRD) test results

The X-Ray diffraction test was performed to determine the crystal­

Fig. 11. Rate of Strength Gain at Different Curing Periods.
lographic structure of the CTB mix stabilized by the three stabilizers.
Fig. 14 presents the results obtained after conducting the XRD test on the
3-days cured mixes prepared with different stabilizers. In Fig. 14, the
development of hydration products can be witnessed and confirmed
their presence experimentally. The phases of hydration products such as
C-S-H, CH, and Ettringite (Aft) can be seen in the CTB mix [23–25,41]. In
addition, CCS-1 has a higher amount of hydration products than the
other two stabilizers. By examining the quantitative analysis of all the
materials, we can determine that the production of C-S-H gel is 61%,

8
M.K. Shukla et al. Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

Fig. 14. Quantitative Analysis of Hydrated Samples by XRD.

44%, and 47% for CCS-1, CCS-2, and OPC, respectively. C-S-H gel is the
primary hydration product produced by the interaction between water
and stabilizer. This amount of C-S-H gel is responsible for early gain in
strength and provides insights into the strength gaining pattern. CCS-1
can acquire an early strength, which can be considered a significant
advantage over the other two stabilizers. Other hydration products, such
as AFt and CH, also significantly influence CTB strength attainment
[22]. The CCS-2 sample included a negligible quantity of calcium
hydroxide; no residues of this hydration product were discovered in the
OPC sample. CTB material with CCS-2 and OPC hydrates much more
slowly than CTB material with CCS-1. The results obtained from XRD
analysis also supported the study findings that the CTB mix prepared
with CCS-1 achieves an early high strength.

9
M.K. Shukla et al.
6.6. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) test results
As discussed earlier, the SEM test was conducted on the samples of
CTB mix to ascertain the extent of hydration that occurred after 3-days
curing of the stabilized mix. It provides a visual assessment of the hy­
dration process at the micro level. The results of SEM images with
different magnification levels are shown in Fig. 15 (a, b, c, d). It illus­
trates the surface morphological properties of hydration products on
CTB particles under different magnification levels. The hydration
products (such as C-S-H) precipitated and enveloped the surface of CTB
Fig. 15. SEM Images of Hydrated CTB Samples at Different Magnification Levels.
10
Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691
material, as shown in Fig. 15, which was observed in earlier studies also
[24,28]. The spaces between CTB mix particles were filled by newly
formed hydration products (i.e., C-S-H), resulting in a dense bond that
portrays the strength attainment in the CTB mix [26]. To further study
the stabilizer’s influence on the CTB material’s micromorphology, the
materials were studied with higher magnification levels of up to
10,000x. Fig. 15 shows that although hydration products are formed for
mixes prepared with different stabilizers, their density varies substan­
tially. The formation of hydration products can be seen under different
magnification levels to establish their predominant presence on the
M.K. Shukla et al. Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

surface of mix particles. However, the 5000x magnification level clearly
depicts the denser formation of hydration products in case of CCS-1
when compared to the other two mixes examined.
7. Statistical analysis of laboratory test results
Statistical analysis was conducted on the laboratory test results for
UCS, flexural strength test, and ITS test for the CTB mixes stabilized by
the three stabilizers. Statistical tests such as analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) technique
were conducted in order to assess the strengths achieved with different
stabilizers at different curing periods.
The ANOVA test assists in finding whether the difference between
test data grouped as per curing periods for different stabilizers is sta­
tistically significant or not. The null hypothesis considered for the
ANOVA test was that there is no significant difference between the
strength achieved while adding different stabilizers. If a significant
difference was found for any test data group, Tukey’s HSD was con­
ducted to identify the materials with higher as well as lower strength.
Both the statistical tests were conducted with Origin Pro software, and a
95% level of significance was considered. The outcomes of statistical
tests conducted on results obtained for the UCS, flexural, and ITS tests
are given in Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6, respectively.
Table 4 compares UCS strengths achieved by CTB mixes prepared
with stabilizers for curing periods of 1, 3, 7, and 28 days. For the case of
CCS-2 vs. CCS-1, negative values of the mean difference (-1.55, − 3.13,
− 2.01, and − 3.49) indicates that CCS-1 outperforms CCS-2 during all
the considered curing periods. Similarly, CCS-1 can be observed to be
better than OPC 53 as well. A p-value less than 0.05 rejects the null
hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the results
obtained with different stabilizers. Hence, the alternate hypothesis is
accepted, and the two datasets have a significant difference. Table 4 also
shows that there is no significant difference between the results of CCS-2
and OPC 53 for early curing periods; however, the difference becomes
significant when 28-day curing strength is compared. Similar observa­
tions can be made from Table 5 and Table 6 for flexural strength and
indirect tensile strength, respectively.
8. Conclusions and recommendations
A series of laboratory tests were conducted to characterize the
strength of the base course material stabilized by three different stabi­
lizers. The vibratory hammer was identified as the best compaction
method due to the accomplishment of the higher compaction level,
resulting in better strength. UCS test was performed on the CTB mixes
with different stabilizer dosages to obtain the optimum dosage of each
stabilizer. The minimum dosage that yields recommended UCS value of
4.95 MPa at the end of 7-days curing was chosen for further
examination.
The UCS, flexural, and indirect tensile strength of stabilized base
materials enhanced with increasing curing period. However, the early
strength attained with increasing curing period is quite significant with
the CCS-1 stabilizer when compared to the other two stabilizers. The
results for the UCS test showcased the attainment of early and higher
strength with CCS-1 stabilizer. Moreover, the required CCS-1 dosage and
water content are less than the other two stabilizers to achieve the
requisite strength. Compared to samples prepared with the other two
stabilizers, the flexural strength achieved by CCS-1 samples had not only
achieved higher peak strength but also attained at a higher rate. The ITS
values obtained for different samples demonstrated that the strength
acquired by CCS-1 and CCS-2 during the early curing period was similar
and more than achieved with OPC 53. However, the ultimate strength
attained by CCS 1 samples outperformed the other two stabilizer sam­
ples. Durability test results show that weight loss recorded by samples
stabilized by OPC 53 was the highest among all three samples, which can
adversely affect the mix performance under various adverse conditions.
Material treated by CCS-1 showed a loss of weight of less than 1%, which
showed its applicability in worst conditions also. XRD analysis provided
the reason behind the strength achieved by stabilized materials. The
amount of hydration products generated in the CTB mixes stabilized by
CCS-1 was significantly more than the other two materials. XRD results
indicated that the strength of stabilized material is highly dependent
upon the amount of hydration products (i.e., C-S-H, CH, AFt) generated.
Analysis of SEM images showed the extent of C-S-H gel formation
around the particles of the stabilized mix, and their density portrays the
strength of stabilized materials. More dense hydrated products were
observed for CTB mixes with CCS-1 than CCS-2 and OPC 53, which again
experimentally validated the conclusion of higher strength achieved
with CCS-1. The statistical analysis has also validated the findings of the
present study. Therefore, it may be concluded that the incorporation of
CCS-1 in CTB mix had provided the necessary characteristics quite aptly
in comparison to CCS-2 and OPC at relatively lesser dosage of stabilizer
and water. The attainment of early strength is another major advantage
with CCS-1 which certainly leads to reduction in curing period, apart
from higher strength.
The present study was limited to laboratory experimentation of the
three different stabilizers and their performance in the stabilized mix.
The study will be further extended to field trials, and the appropriate in-
situ and laboratory testing will be conducted on the field obtained
samples. Moreover, some more detailed laboratory investigations will
also be undertaken for better characterization of stabilized mixes.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Manoj Kumar Shukla: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project
administration. Ashish Walia: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Su­
pervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Vedant
Purohit: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Vidhi Vyas: Methodology, Writing – review
& editing, Supervision. Gagandeep Singh: Project administration,
Methodology, Visualization.

Table 4
Statistical Analysis of UCS Results.
Curing period Stabilizers Mean difference Standard error of mean q value p-value Significance Remarks

1 Day CCS-2 vs CCS-1 − 1.55 0.094 23.28 7.89E-6 YES CCS-1 is better than CCS-2
OPC 53 vs CCS-1 − 1.45 0.094 21.78 1.18E-5 YES CCS-1 is better than OPC 53
OPC 53 vs CCS-2 +0.1 0.094 1.49 0.5715 NO –
3 Days CCS-2 vs CCS-1 − 3.13 0.319 13.88 1.582E-4 YES CCS-1 is better than CCS-2
OPC 53 vs CCS-1 − 3.15 0.319 13.97 1.526E-4 YES CCS-1 is better than OPC 53
OPC 53 vs CCS-2 0.0 0.319 0.08 0.99784 NO –
7 Days CCS-2 vs CCS-1 − 2.01 0.283 10.06 9.466E-4 YES CCS-1 is better than CCS-2
OPC 53 vs CCS-1 − 2.41 0.283 12.02 3.557E-4 YES CCS-1 is better than OPC 53
OPC 53 vs CCS-2 − 0.39 0.283 1.96 0.40423 NO –
28 Days CCS-2 vs CCS-1 − 3.49 0.325 15.21 9.395E-5 YES CCS-1 is better than CCS-2
OPC 53 vs CCS-1 − 4.77 0.325 20.76 1.542E-5 YES CCS-1 is better than OPC 53
OPC 53 vs CCS-2 − 1.27 0.325 5.55 0.01821 YES CCS-2 is better than OPC 53

11
M.K. Shukla et al. Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

Table 5
Statistical Analysis of Flexural Strength Results.
Curing period Stabilizers Mean difference Standard error of mean q value p-value Significance Remarks

3 Days CCS-2 vs CCS-1 − 0.37 0.018 28.60 2.312E-6 YES CCS-1 is better than CCS-2
OPC 53 vs CCS-1 − 0.24 0.018 18.64 2.909E-5 YES CCS-1 is better than OPC 53
OPC 53 vs CCS-2 0.13 0.018 9.95 9.997E-4 YES OPC 53 is better than CCS-2
7 Days CCS-2 vs CCS-1 − 0.78 0.079 14.06 1.474E-4 YES CCS-1 is better than CCS-2
OPC 53 vs CCS-1 − 0.62 0.079 11.14 5.424E-4 YES CCS-1 is better than OPC 53
OPC 53 vs CCS-2 +0.16 0.079 2.91 0.17 NO –
28 Days CCS-2 vs CCS-1 − 0.92 0.070 18.39 3.138E-5 YES CCS-1 is better than CCS-2
OPC 53 vs CCS-1 − 1.02 0.070 20.45 1.690E-5 YES CCS-1 is better than OPC 53
OPC 53 vs CCS-2 − 0.10 0.070 2.05 0.374 NO –

Table 6
Statistical Analysis of Indirect Tensile Strength Results.
Curing period Stabilizers Mean difference Standard error of mean q value p-value Significance Remarks

3 Days CCS-2 vs CCS-1 − 0.04 0.009 7 0.006 YES CCS-1 is better than CCS-2
OPC 53 vs CCS-1 − 0.06 0.009 10 9.786E-4 YES CCS-1 is better than OPC 53
OPC 53 vs CCS-2 − 0.02 0.009 3 0.16 NO –
7 Days CCS-2 vs CCS-1 − 0.03 0.022 1.87 0.43 NO –
OPC 53 vs CCS-1 − 0.13 0.022 8.13 0.002 YES CCS-1 is better than OPC 53
OPC 53 vs CCS-2 − 0.1 0.022 6.25 0.01 YES CCS-2 is better than OPC 53
28 Days CCS-2 vs CCS-1 − 0.15 0.040 5.39 0.02 YES CCS-1 is better than CCS-2
OPC 53 vs CCS-1 − 0.17 0.040 6.10 0.01 YES CCS-1 is better than OPC 53
OPC 53 vs CCS-2 − 0.02 0.040 0.70 0.87 NO –

Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
[1] D.K. Paul, C.T. Gnanendran, Characterization of lightly stabilized granular base
materials using monotonic and cyclic load flexural testing, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28
(1) (2016) 04015074, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001302.
[2] D.K. Paul, C.T. Gnanendran, Determination of stiffness properties of lightly
stabilized granular materials from IDT testing using numerical analysis, Int. J.
Pavement Eng. 14 (3) (2013) 291–308, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10298436.2012.721546.
[3] H. Sadek, M. Hassan, C. Berryman, M. Hossain, I. Idris, Evaluation of asphalt
mixtures’ resistance to cement-treated base (CTB), Reflective Cracking in the
Laboratory (2020).
[4] P. Jitsangiam, K. Nusit, S. Chummuneerat, P. Chindaprasirt, P. Pichayapan, Fatigue
Assessment of Cement-Treated Base for Roads: An Examination of Beam-Fatigue
Tests, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (10) (2016) 04016095, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001601.
[5] X. Chen, J. Yuan, Q. Dong, X. Zhao, Meso-scale cracking behavior of Cement
Treated Base material, Constr. Build. Mater. 239 (2020), 117823, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117823.
[6] A.N. Win Maung, Y.P.K. Lee, N.Y. Ho, Effects of construction time on the
performance of cement treated base, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1075 (1)
(2021), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1075/1/012003.
[7] S. Lv, C. Xia, H. Liu, L. You, F. Qu, W. Zhong, Y.i. Yang, S. Washko, Strength and
fatigue performance for cement-treated aggregate base materials, Int. J. Pavement
Eng. 22 (6) (2021) 690–699.
[8] J. Xie, L. Tang, S. Lv, N. Zhang, T. Huang, H. Liu, Standardization of fatigue
characteristics of cement-treated aggregate base materials under different stress
states, Appl. Sci. 8 (9) (Sep. 2018) 1500, https://doi.org/10.3390/app8091500.
[9] P.C. Association, “Soil-cement information: cement-treated aggregate base”,
publication SR221S, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 2006.
[10] W.S. Guthrie, T.B. Young, B.J. Blankenagel, D.A. Cooley, Early-Age Strength
Assessment of Cement-Treated Base Material, Transp. Res. Rec. 1936 (1) (2005)
12–19, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105193600102.
[11] D. Yuan, S. Nazarian, L.R. Hoyos, A.J. Puppala, Evaluation and Mix Design of
Cement-Treated Base Materials with High Content of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement,
Transp. Res. Rec. 2212 (1) (2011) 110–119, https://doi.org/10.3141/2212-12.
[12] Y. Du, J. Chen, Z. Han, W. Liu, A review on solutions for improving rutting
resistance of asphalt pavement and test methods, Constr. Build. Mater. 168 (2018)
893–905, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.151.
[13] Z.A. Alkaissi, Effect of high temperature and traffic loading on rutting performance
of flexible pavement, Journal of King Saud University - Engineering Sciences 32 (1)
(2020) 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2018.04.005.
[14] Y.H. Dinegdae, B. Birgisson, Effects of truck traffic on top-down fatigue cracking
performance of flexible pavements using a new mechanics-based analysis
framework, Road Materials and Pavement Design 19 (1) (2018) 182–200, https://
doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.1251958.
[15] R. Abd Al-RedhaGhani, M. A. Al-Jummaily, and A. K. Al-Zerjawi, “Study of Cement
Treated Base Agreagate Properties for Pavement Structure”.
[16] X. Zhao, Q. Dong, J. Yuan, X. Chen, J. Yang, Micro-scale characterization of the
heterogeneous properties of in-service cement-treated base material, Constr. Build.
Mater. 264 (Dec. 2020), 120696, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.120696.
[17] “IRC:SP:89 (Part II)-2018 Guidelines for the Design of Stabilized Pavements”.
[18] A. Ismail, M.S. Baghini, M.R. Karim, F. Shokri, R.A. Al-Mansob, A.A. Firoozi, A.
A. Firoozi, Laboratory investigation on the strength characteristics of cement-
treated base, AMM 507 (Jan. 2014) 353–360.
[19] S. Lv, C. Liu, J. Lan, H. Zhang, J. Zheng, Z. You, Fatigue equation of cement-treated
aggregate base materials under a true stress ratio, Appl. Sci. 8 (5) (2018) 691,
https://doi.org/10.3390/app8050691.
[20] S.R. Kasu, K. Manupati, A.R. Muppireddy, Investigations on design and durability
characteristics of cement treated reclaimed asphalt for base and subbase layers,
Constr. Build. Mater. 252 (2020), 119102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.119102.
[21] M. Rashidi and R. S. Ashtiani, “Scale Effects in the Indirect Tensile and Unconfined
Compressive Strength Tests of Cement-Stabilized Base Materials,” pp. 628–639,
Mar. 2019, 10.1061/9780784482124.064.
[22] L. Sorelli, G. Constantinides, F.-J. Ulm, F. Toutlemonde, The nano-mechanical
signature of Ultra High Performance Concrete by statistical nanoindentation
techniques, Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (12) (2008) 1447–1456, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconres.2008.09.002.
[23] K. Scrivener, R. Snellings, B. Lothenbach, A practical guide to microstructural
analysis of cementitious materials, Crc Press Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
[24] W. Xu, Q. Li, B. Liu, Coupled effect of curing temperature and age on compressive
behavior, microstructure and ultrasonic properties of cemented tailings backfill,
Constr. Build. Mater. 237 (2020), 117738, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.117738.
[25] R.S. Chhabra, G.D.R.N. Ransinchung, S.S. Islam, Performance analysis of cement
treated base layer by incorporating reclaimed asphalt pavement material and
chemical stabilizer, Constr. Build. Mater. 298 (2021), 123866, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123866.
[26] H. Zhang, Y. Xu, Y. Gan, Z. Chang, E. Schlangen, B. Šavija, Microstructure informed
micromechanical modelling of hydrated cement paste: Techniques and challenges,
Constr. Build. Mater. 251 (2020), 118983, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.118983.
[27] A. Ul-Hamid, A Beginners’ Guide to Scanning Electron Microscopy. Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2018. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-98482-7.
[28] J. Liu, B. Yu, Q. Wang, Application of steel slag in cement treated aggregate base
course, J. Clean. Prod. 269 (2020), 121733, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.121733.
[29] Y. Zhang, X. Liu, Y. Xu, B. Tang, Y. Wang, E. Mukiza, Preparation and
characterization of cement treated road base material utilizing electrolytic

12
M.K. Shukla et al. Construction and Building Materials 400 (2023) 132691

manganese residue, J. Clean. Prod. 232 (2019) 980–992, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.05.352.
[30] “Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) Specification for road and
bridge works (5th Revision) 2013”.
[31] “IS 2386-3 (1963): Methods of test for aggregates for concrete, Part 3: Specific
gravity, density, voids, absorption and bulking,” p. 22.
[32] “ASTM D 558 : Standard Test Methods for Moisture-Density (Unit Weight)
Relations of Soil-Cement Mixtures”, Accessed: Jun. 09, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.astm.org/d0558-04.html.
[33] T.T.T. Tran, T. Nguyen, P.N. Pham, H.H. Nguyen, P.Q. Nguyen, Thermal
distribution in cement-treated base: Effect of curing methods and temperature
estimation using Artificial Neural Networks, Constr. Build. Mater. 279 (2021),
122528, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122528.
[34] “IRC:SP:89 (Part I)-2010 Guidelines For Soil And Granular Material Stabilization
Using Cement, Lime & Fly Ash”.
[35] “IS 2386-4 (1963): Methods of test for aggregates for concrete, Part 4: Mechanical
properties,” p. 37.
[36] “ASTM, A. (2018). ASTM C39/C39M-18 standard test method for compressive
strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA. ASTM, AI (2018).“ ASTM C, 192.”.
[37] “IS 516 (1959): Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete”.
[38] R. S. Ashtiani et al., “Establishment of Best Practices for Construction and Design of
Cement-Treated Materials,” FHWA/TX-21/0-6949-1, Oct. 2020. Accessed: Mar. 18,
2022. [Online]. Available: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54882.
[39] J. Němeček, V. Králík, V. Šmilauer, L. Polívka, A. Jäger, Tensile strength of
hydrated cement paste phases assessed by micro-bending tests and
nanoindentation, Cem. Concr. Compos. 73 (2016) 164–173, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.07.010.
[40] Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials. Place of publication not
identified: McGraw-Hill Professional., 2014.
[41] W.E. Tabet, A.B. Cerato, A.S. Elwood Madden, R.E. Jentoft, Characterization of
Hydration Products’ Formation and Strength Development in Cement-Stabilized
Kaolinite Using TG and XRD, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (10) (2018) 04018261, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002454.

13