Transportation Research Record 1721 ■
Paper No. 00-1404
Laboratory Performance Evaluation of
Cement-Stabilized Soil Base Mixtures
Louay N. Mohammad, Amar Raghavandra, and Baoshan Huang
In-place cement-stabilized soils have served as the primary base mater-
ial for the majority of noninterstate flexible pavements in Louisiana for
many years. These materials are economically and easily constructed
and provide outstanding structural characteristics for flexible pave-
ments. However, these cement-treated materials crack due to shrinkage,
with the cracks reflecting from the base to the surface. A laboratory
study examined the performance of four different cement-stabilized soil
mixtures recently used in the construction of test lanes at the Louisiana
Pavement Testing Facilities. Laboratory tests included the indirect ten-
sile strength and strain, unconfined compressive strength, and indirect
tensile resilient modulus tests. The four mixtures were (a) in-place-mixed
cement-treated soil with 10 percent cement, (b) plant-mixed cement-
treated soil with 10 percent cement, (c) plant-mixed cement-treated soil
with 4 percent cement, and (d ) plant-mixed cement-treated soil with
4 percent cement and fiber reinforcement. The results indicated that
there was no significant difference in performance between the plant-
mixed and in-place-mixed cement-treated soil mixtures. The inclusion of
fiber to the cement-treated soil mixture significantly increased the indi-
rect tensile strain and the toughness index. Increases in compaction effort
maintained or significantly increased the indirect tensile strength and
unconfined compressive strength. Increases in curing period maintained
or significantly increased indirect tensile and unconfined compressive
strength as well as the resilient modulus of the mixtures.
Compacted soil-cement is a hardened material formed by curing
granular soil with 5 to 14 percent portland cement by volume and
water (1). Cement-stabilized soil is a semihardened mixture of gran-
ular soil, less than 5 percent portland cement by volume, and water.
This mixture has a soil-like consistency and a less-rigid structure.
Cement-treated soil contains enough cement to interact with the fine
particles and to restrict the fines of their water affinity but not enough
to bond all the soil particles into a coherent mass (2).
The practice of soil treatment using cement is well established
and accepted in highway construction. Cement-stabilized pavement
bases have been commonly used in areas that lack quality aggre-
gate sources and in areas subjected to heavy loads. The use of cement-
stabilized bases has been in practice since 1935 (3). Grogan and
Weiss (4) reported that cement-treated soil bases performed very well
for pavements to support large airplanes in the Atlanta and Dallas-
Fort Worth international airports. Numerous successful application
of cement-stabilized bases are widely reported in the literature (3–9).
Although cement-treated soil bases have been reported to be
superior in load-spreading characteristics, it is sometimes avoided
in asphalt pavements due to the problem of shrinkage cracking. The
cement-treated soil bases shrink due to drying, either from loss of
moisture or from moisture depletion caused by cement hydration.
Louisiana State University, Louisiana Transportation Research Center, 4101
Gourrier Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70808.
19
The shrinkage will be restrained by friction between the cement-
treated soil base and the subgrade so that tensile stresses are set up.
When the tensile strength of the material is exceeded, cracks will
develop. Some of the shrinkage cracks in the soil-cement base may
reflect through the asphalt-concrete surface and are called reflec-
tive cracks. Reflective cracks increase the surface roughness of
pavements and accelerate water infiltration through the asphalt sur-
faces, thus causing moisture-induced distresses and reducing the
pavements’ structural capacity.
Kuhlman (10) and Ashraf and George (11) analyzed the mecha-
nism of shrinkage cracks in cement-treated soil bases and concluded
that the shrinkage cracks could be alleviated by (a) controlling the
maximum amount of clay particles; (b) using admixtures such as fly
ash and organic compounds; (c) controlling the construction qual-
ity, including maximum density, proper curing, and uniformity of
mix; and (d) controlling the reflection cracking through the asphalt-
concrete surface, such as precracking, and increasing the thickness.
Sobhan et al. (12) reported that the inclusion of fiber into the cement-
treated soil improved the tensile strength of the material signifi-
cantly and thus reduced the potential for shrinkage cracks. Maher
and Ho (2) conducted a comprehensive laboratory study of fiber-
reinforced, cement-treated sand under static and cyclic loads and
concluded that the addition of fibers in cement-treated sand would
significantly increase its peak compressive strength, tensile strength,
and energy absorption capacity.
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
has been constructing pavements with cement-treated soil bases for
more than 50 years (10). The main method of producing cement-
treated soil bases was by in-place mixing with 10 percent cement by
volume, soil, and water. Reflective cracks to the asphalt surface have
always been problems associated with the shrinkage of cement-
treated soil bases (13). To curb the problem caused by shrinkage
cracking and improve the performance of asphalt pavements with
cement-treated soil bases, alternative design and production proce-
dures have been studied for cement-treated soil bases in Louisiana.
This paper reports the findings of a laboratory study of the perfor-
mance of cement-treated soil bases with different cement contents
and mixing methods (in-place and pugmill plant mixing), as well as
the effects of the addition of synthetic fibers.
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
The objective of the study was to compare the performance of
cement-treated soil bases through laboratory tests. Four different
cement-treated soil-base materials at two compaction levels (95 and
100 percent of maximum dry density) and two curing periods (28 days
and 56 days) were studied. These mixtures were (a) Louisiana stan-
dard design of 10 percent cement in-place-mixed cement-treated soil,
20 Paper No. 00-1404 Transportation Research Record 1721

(b) 10 percent cement plant-mixed cement-treated soil, (c) 4 percent
cement plant-mixed cement-treated soil, and (d ) 4 percent cement
plant-mixed cement-treated soil with fiber reinforcement.
Laboratory tests included unconfined compressive strength, indi-
rect tensile strength and strain, and indirect tensile resilient modulus.
Triplicate samples were tested for each mixture type.
Laboratory (ASTM D1632). The compacted samples were wrapped
in plastic bags and stored in a controlled-humidity room for the
appropriate curing period. Table 2 presents the mixture designations
and descriptions of the corresponding cement-treated soil bases.
Table 3 shows the results of the standard Proctor test conducted on
each cement-treated soil mixture.

MATERIALS MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION TEST

Samples were prepared from the soil-cement mixtures used in the
construction of base courses for test lanes at the Louisiana Pavement
Testing Facilities (14). The soil used in the mixtures was silty clay
(AASHTO A-4). Table 1 presents the basic soil properties.
Two cement content levels were used, 4 and 10 percent by vol-
ume of the mixture (throughout this paper, percentages of cement
refer to percent by volume). In addition, one of the mixtures with
4 percent cement was reinforced with fibrillated polypropylene
fibers at 0.3 percent by weight. The fibers were 50.8 mm (2 in.) long.
ITS Test
The ITS test was conducted according to the modified Standard
Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sam-
pling and Testing (AASHTO T245). A 101.6-mm (4-in.) in diam-
eter × 63.5-mm (2.50-in.) high specimen was loaded to failure at
a deformation rate of 50.8 mm/min (2 in./min). The load and
deformations were recorded and ITS and strain were computed
as follows:

6.27 Pult
ST = (1)
SAMPLE PREPARATION t

Two types of samples were prepared for laboratory tests: 101.6 mm and
(4 in.) in diameter × 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) high and 71.1 mm (2.8 in.) in
diameter × 142.2 mm (5.6 in.) high. The 101.6-mm (4-in.) × 63.5-mm
⑀ T = 0.0205 HT (2)
(2.5-in.) samples were prepared for indirect tensile strength and
strain test (ITS) and indirect tensile resilient modulus tests, whereas
where
the 71.1-mm (2.8-in.) × 142.2-mm (5.6-in.) samples were used in the
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test. ST = tensile strength (kPa),
All materials used in preparing the samples were obtained from Pult = peak load (N),
the field and compacted to the appropriate sizes and densities. Spec- t = thickness of the sample (mm),
imens were prepared according to Standard Practice for Making and ⑀T = horizontal tensile strain at failure, and
Curing Soil-Cement Compression and Flexure Test Specimens in the HT = horizontal deformation at peak load (mm).

TABLE 1 Basic Soil Properties

TABLE 2 Test Lanes with Cement-Treated Soil Bases

TABLE 3 Average Wet Weight Density at 100-Percent and 95-Percent

Compaction
Mohammad et al.
Toughness Index
Toughness index is a parameter that describes the toughening char-
acteristics in the post-peak region. It is computed from the indirect
tensile test results. Figure 1 presents a typical normalized indirect
tensile stress and strain curve. A dimensionless indirect tensile
toughness index, TI, is defined as follows:
A⑀ − Ap
TI = (3)
⑀ − ⑀p
where
TI = toughness index,
A⑀ = area under the normalized stress-strain curve up to strain ⑀,
Ap = area under the normalized stress-strain curve up to strain ⑀p,
⑀ = strain at the point of interest, and
⑀p = strain corresponding to the peak stress.
This TI compares the performance of a specimen with that of an
elastic, perfectly plastic reference material, for which the TI remains
a constant of 1. For an ideal brittle material with no post-peak load-
carrying capacity, the value of TI equals zero. Similar analyses were
reported by Sobhan et al. (12). In this study, the values of indirect ten-
sile toughness index were calculated up to tensile strain of 1 percent.
UCS Test
The UCS test was conducted according to ASTM D1633. A 71.1-mm
(2.8-in.) in diameter × 142.2-mm (5.6-in.) high specimen was loaded
at an axial strain rate of 1 mm/min (0.05 in./min) using a United
Compressive Testing machine. The load to failure was recorded, and
the UCS was computed as follows:
Pu
UCS = (4)
A curing period. Detailed results of statistical analysis are presented in
where Pu is maximum load (N) and A is the cross-sectional area (m2).
FIGURE 1 Typical normalized ITS curve.
Paper No. 00-1404 21
Indirect Tensile Resilient Modulus Test
The indirect tensile resilient modulus test was conducted according
to ASTM D4123 (15). A 2-Hz, cyclic haversine load (0.1-s loading
and 0.4-s relaxation) was applied to a 101.6-mm (4-in.) in diameter
× 63.5-mm (2.5-in.) thick specimen, and the load and deformations
were continuously monitored. The resilient modulus was computed
as follows:
3.59 䡠 P
MR = (5)
t 䡠 ∆VT
where
MR = Resilient modulus (Pa)
P = Repeated load (N)
t = Specimen thickness (mm), and
∆VT = Total recoverable vertical deformation (mm).
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The results from the ITS, indirect tensile resilient modulus, and
unconfined compressive strength tests were statistically analyzed
using the t-test, general linear model, and Tukey’s procedures pro-
vided by SAS software. Detailed descriptions of those statistical
methods can be found elsewhere (15, 16 ). A significance level of
5 percent was used.
ITS Test
Figure 2 presents the ITS for 28-day and 56-day curing periods at
95 percent and 100 percent compaction efforts. In general, higher
compaction level resulted in higher ITS. As expected, samples sta-
bilized with 4 percent cement had lower ITS than those with 10 per-
cent cement. Both plant-mixed and in-place-mixed soil-cement
mixtures with 10 percent cement presented similar ITS at a 56-day
Table 4, in which each data cell contains two alphabetic characters.
If a cell contains A and A, that indicates no significant difference in
the variance. For example, the data cell of mixture P_10 (shaded)
for the 28-day curing period at different compaction efforts indicates
no significant difference. If a data cell has A and B or B and A, that
indicates a significant difference in the variance, with A having a
higher value than B. An example of such a case is the data cell of
mixture I_10 (diagonally hatched) for the 28-day curing period at
different compaction efforts. It shows that 100 percent compaction
has a significantly higher ITS than 95 percent compaction.
Figure 3 presents the results of ITS at failure. Figure 4 shows the
TI of the ITS test. Similar statistical analyses were performed on
these data. It was found that the inclusion of fiber significantly
increased the strain at failure as well as the TI. As described earlier,
the TI represents the brittleness of mixtures. The higher the TI val-
ues become, the more energy the mixture can absorb under tensile
strain, thus the lower the chances are of developing cracks.
Indirect Tensile Resilient Modulus Test
Indirect tensile resilient modulus test results are shown in Figure 5.
The corresponding statistical analyses are presented in Table 5. The
FIGURE 2 Indirect tensile strength with (a) 28-day curing, (b) 56-day curing, (c) 95 percent compaction,
and (d ) 100 percent compaction.

TABLE 4 Variance Analysis for ITS

FIGURE 3 Indirect tensile strain with (a) 28-day curing, (b) 56-day curing, (c) 95 percent compaction,
and (d ) 100 percent compaction.

FIGURE 4 TI of indirect tensile strength test with (a) 28-day curing and (b) 56-day curing. (continued
on next page)
 FIGURE 4 (continued ) TI of indirect tensile strength test with (c) 95 percent compaction, and (d ) 100 percent
compaction.

FIGURE 5 Indirect tensile resilient modulus test results with (a) 28-day curing, (b) 56-day curing, (c) 95 percent
compaction, and (d ) 100 percent compaction.
Mohammad et al.
TABLE 5 Variance Analysis for M R
resilient modulus (MR) is an elastic property of the mixture. It mostly
influences the stress and strain distribution of in-the-pavement struc-
ture under the traffic loads. The higher the MR value, the stiffer the
mixture is. It was shown that mixes with 10 percent cement were
generally stiffer than those with 4 percent cement. Mixes compacted
to 100 percent of maximum dry density exhibited higher stiffness
than those compacted to 95 percent. With the exception of plant-
mixed samples with 10 percent cement (P_10), the increase in cur-
ing period from 28 to 56 days did not increase the indirect tensile
resilient modulus. Although it appears that the inclusion of fiber
slightly increased the stiffness (Figure 5), statistical analysis re-
vealed no significant difference due to this factor (Table 5). Plant-
mixed cement-treated soil at 10 percent cement exhibited higher
stiffness at 100 percent compaction effort and 56-day curing period.
FIGURE 6 Unconfined compressive strength test results with (a) 28-day curing and (b) 56-day curing. (continued on
next page)
Paper No. 00-1404 25
UCS Test
Figure 6 presents the test results from the UCS test. The corre-
sponding statistical analyses are presented in Table 6. It appears that
the UCS from samples compacted to 100 percent of maximum dry
densities were higher than those compacted to 95 percent of maxi-
mum densities with the exception of Mix P_10. The samples mixed
in place and those mixed in a pugmill mixer exhibited similar UCS
values. As expected, mixtures with higher cement content (10 per-
cent) exhibited stronger UCS than those with lower cement content
(4 percent). Increases in both compaction effort (from 95 to 100 per-
cent of maximum dry density) and curing time (from 28 days to
56 days) generally increased UCS. The addition of fiber reinforcement
did not increase the UCS.
26 Paper No. 00-1404 Transportation Research Record 1721

FIGURE 6 (continued ) Unconfined compressive strength test results with (c) 95 percent compaction and (d ) 100 percent
compaction.

TABLE 6 Variance Analysis for UCS

Strength Envelope Characteristics

Mixture strength envelopes were developed through the combi-

nation of indirect tensile and UCS based on the Mohr-Coulomb
principle (Figure 7). Figures 8 and 9 present the mean of the Mohr-
Coulomb friction angle (ϕ) and cohesion (c), respectively. The
range of the Mohr-Coulomb friction angle is between 35° and 47°.
As expected, mixtures with 10 percent cement showed much
higher cohesion than those with 4 percent cement. Mixtures with
56-day curing consistently showed stronger cohesion than those
with a 28-day curing period. The inclusion of fiber increased the
cohesion of the mixtures. FIGURE 7 Mohr-Coulomb strength envelope.
 FIGURE 8 Mohr-Coulomb friction angle with (a) 28-day curing, (b) 56-day curing,
(c) 95 percent compaction, and (d ) 100 percent compaction.

FIGURE 9 Mohr-Coulomb cohesion with (a) 28-day curing and (b) 56-day curing. (continued on next page)
28 Paper No. 00-1404
FIGURE 9 (continued ) Mohr-Coulomb cohesion with (c) 95 percent compaction and (d ) 100 percent compaction.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
A laboratory study was conducted to evaluate the performance of
cement-treated soil bases with different cement content and mixing
methods (in-place and pugmill plant mixing), as well as the effects
of the addition of synthetic fibers.
Based on the analysis of laboratory tests, the following observations
can be drawn for the cement-treated soil bases in this study:
• The performance of plant mixtures and field mixtures was sim-
ilar. This indicates that a uniform mixing can be achieved through
in-place mixing construction techniques.
• Increase in compaction effort maintained or significantly
increased the ITS and UCS.
• Increase in curing period maintained or significantly increased
ITS and UCS as well as the resilient modulus of the materials. Also,
the indirect tensile strain was maintained or significantly reduced
with the increase of curing period.
• The inclusion of fiber reinforcement significantly increased the
ITS and indirect tensile toughness index.
• Decrease in cement content significantly reduced the ITS,
UCS, and resilient modulus.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was sponsored by the Louisiana Transportation Re-
search Center (LTRC) and the Louisiana Department of Trans-
portation and Development. The UCS tests were conducted at the
Geotechnical Laboratory at LTRC. The authors would like to express
their thanks to Hadi Shirazi, Ken Johnson, and all who provided
valuable help in this study.
REFERENCES
1. Soil-Cement Construction Handbook. Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, Ill., 1979.
2. Maher, M. H., and Y. C. Ho. Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced Cemented
Sand under Static and Cyclic Loads. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
GTJODJ, Vol. 16, No. 3, Sept. 1993, pp. 330–338.
Transportation Research Record 1721
3. Djakfar, L., and F. L. Roberts. Performance Comparison of Base Mat-
erials Under Accelerated Loading. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1655, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 211–218.
4. Grogan, W. P., and C. A. Weiss, Jr. Performance of Cement-Stabilized
Base Courses at High-Volume Airports. Presented at 78th Annual Meet-
ing of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1999.
5. Tayabji, S. D., P. J. Nussbaum, and A. T. Ciolko. Evaluation of Heav-
ily Loaded Cement-Stabilized Bases. In Transportation Research Re-
cord 839, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1982,
pp. 6–11.
6. Huntington, G., K. Ksaibati, and W. Oyler. Sulfate Expansion of Cement-
Treated Bases. In Transportation Research Record 1486, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 59–67.
7. Thompson, M. R. High-Strength Stabilized Base Thickness Design
Procedure. In Transportation Research Record 1440, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 1–7.
8. Ksaibati, K., and T. L. Conklin. Field Performance Evaluation of Cement-
Treated Bases With and Without Fly Ash. In Transportation Research
Record 1440, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994,
pp. 16–21.
9. Kota, P. B. V. S., T. Scullion, and D. N. Little. Investigation of Perfor-
mance of Heavily Stabilized Bases in Houston, Texas, District. In Trans-
portation Research Record 1486, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 68–76.
10. Kuhlman, R. H. Cracking in Soil Cement—Cause, Effect, Control.
Concrete International, Aug., 1994, pp. 56–59.
11. Abd El-Rahim, A. M., and K. P. George. Optimum Cracking for Im-
proved Performance of Cement-Treated Bases. Presented at 78th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1999.
12. Sobhan, K., M. R. Jesick, E. J. Dedominicis, J. P. McFadden, K. A.
Cooper, and J. R. Roe. Soil-Cement-Fly Ash Pavement Base Course
Reinforced with Recycled Plastic Fibers. Presented at 78th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 1999.
13. Cumbaa, S. L., W. H. Temple, H. R. Paul, and R. M. Griffin. Construc-
tion and Comparison of Louisiana’s Conventional and Alternative Base
Courses Under Accelerated Loading. Research Study, FHWA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1993–1996.
14. King, W. M., K. Gillespie, G. E. Crosby. Construction and Comparison
of Louisiana’s Conventional and Alternative Base Courses Under
Accelerated Loading. Interim Report, Louisiana Transportation
Research Center, 1996. Standard Specifications for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, AASHTO, 1997.
15. Ott, R. L. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis.
4th ed., Duxbury Press, Wadsworth, Inc., Belmont, Calif., 1993.
16. SAS Institute, SAS User’s Guide, Version 6, Cary, N.C., 1996.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Cementitious Stabilization.