CTB Process | Road Surface | Construction Aggregate

VARIABILITY IN CONSTRUCTION OF CEMENT-TREATED BASE LAYERS

by Maile Anne Rogers

A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

School of Technology Brigham Young University August 2006

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL

of a thesis submitted by Maile Anne Rogers

This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory.

Date

Kevin Miller, Chair

Date

Jay Christofferson

Date

W. Spencer Guthrie

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

As chair of the candidate’s graduate committee, I have read the thesis of Maile Anne Rogers in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographical style are consistent and acceptable and fulfill university and department style requirements; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts are in place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the graduate committee and is ready for submission to the university library.

Date

Kevin Miller Chair, Graduate Committee

Accepted for the Department Val Hawks Graduate Coordinator

Accepted for the College Alan R. Parkinson Dean, Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology

ABSTRACT

VARIABILITY IN CONSTRUCTION OF CEMENT-TREATED BASE LAYERS

Maile Anne Rogers School of Technology Master of Science

The primary purposes of this research were to identify construction factors most correlated to specific mechanical properties of cement-treated base (CTB) layers and to determine which construction factors exhibit comparatively high variability within individual construction sections of the two pavement reconstruction projects included in this study. In addition, differences between construction sections tested in this research were evaluated. The research focused on the construction of CTB layers in two pavement reconstruction projects in northern Utah, one along Interstate 84 (I-84) near Morgan and one along U.S. Highway 91 (US-91) near Richmond. The significant predictor variables associated with California bearing ratio (CBR), Clegg impact value (CIV), 7-day unconfined compressive strength (UCS), and 28-day UCS at the I-84 sites include reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) content; cement content;

time between mixing and compaction in the field. and 28-day moisture content. The significant predictors of the same response variables on US-91 were in-situ moisture content. cement content. 7-day dry density. On I-84. dry density in the field. while 17 of 26 factors were found to be significantly different between the sites on US-91. The results of this research suggest that tighter specifications are warranted with respect to RAP content. Compaction should be performed as soon as possible after mixing to minimize the adverse effects of cement hydration on the ability to achieve maximum dry density in the field. and time between mixing and compaction. 16 of 27 factors were found to be significantly different between the sites. cement content. and inspection protocols for encouraging improved control of cement content should be implemented during construction to ensure high-quality work. 7-day moisture content. 8. The factors that were found to be the most variable on both I-84 and US-91 were CBR. and time between mixing and compaction for each of the manually compacted specimens.amounts of aggregate particles finer than the No. and 28-day moisture content. No. 200 sieves. 50 sieve. and No. . 28-day dry density. amount of aggregate particles finer than the No. 50. time between mixing and compaction in the field. 7-day moisture content. cement content. Concerning full depth recycling (FDR) projects. milling plans should be utilized to achieve improved uniformity in RAP content.

Ash Brown. Tyler. Adam Birdsall. Appreciation is given to the Utah Department of Transportation for funding this project. and Brandon Blankenagel. Rebecca Crane. I would also like to thank Dr. I couldn’t have done it without them. and friendship. Sy Winkelman. . Dennis Eggett of the Brigham Young University (BYU) Center for Collaborative Research and Statistical Consulting for his assistance in this research. and who has always supported me in everything I’ve done. I would also like to extend my love to my family for their support and patience as I completed this phase of my academic career. honest example. Amiee Birdsall. I love you more than anything. Most importantly.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to give my sincere gratitude to Dr. Spencer Guthrie for his guidance. In addition. I would like to extend my love and appreciation to my husband Tyler who put up with my late nights of research and writing. I am extremely thankful to the following BYU students who have assisted me throughout the course of this research: Ben Reese. Matt Roper.

......................................6 Curing ...........2 Scope...............................3.................................................................3.............5 2.........................3.............................................................................3 Variability in CTB Construction.....................5 2..................1 1.............3 CHAPTER 2 FULL-DEPTH RECLAMATION WITH CEMENT STABILIZATION.......................................................................................................1 Overview..............................................................31 3.......36 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................16 2...............................................................................................................................................4 Cement Content ....................................................17 2.................................. xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .....5 Compaction Density..................1 Overview...............................................................................3........................................................................................ ix LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES......19 3..............................................................................................................................1 1...............................3 Outline of Report .15 2....................4 Summary ..............3.....2 Field Testing .........6 2.........................................................12 2....................2 Process of CTB Construction................3 Moisture Content .........1 Problem Statement ............................2 1........................................................................................................17 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................2 Gradation............................1 RAP Content in Conjunction with FDR Projects ...........14 2..........................19 3.......4 Summary ............14 2........................13 2.....................3........................................................................39 vii .....................................................21 3....................................3 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................

..................................................................................70 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION.......................73 REFERENCES .51 4...4...................................................................................................................................................5 Summary .....................58 4.....................................4..........4...................................65 4.....3 Post-Treatment Data .......................................................................4...........1 Findings.71 5...3 Analysis of Variance.................................................................2 Coefficient of Variation Comparisons .................................39 4.............................................1 Overview.............64 4.......67 4...............4 Statistical Analyses ......................................................71 5....1 Multivariate Regression ..................................................75 viii ............................2 Pre-Treatment Data.............4 Tukey’s Mean Separation Procedure .........................................4.............................................58 4..............................................2 Recommendations.................................................................................................................................39 4.................................................................................................

..56 Table 4..............................Treatment Laboratory Data for I-84 Site A ...54 Table 4.44 Table 4.Treatment Laboratory Data for US-91 Site B ..................................................................22 Post.......................................................21 Post....................42 Table 4.........52 Table 4....................19 Post......................................6 Pre-Treatment Data for US-91 Site C...9 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for I-84 Site C...............Treatment Laboratory Data for US-91 Site A ..Treatment Field Data for US-91 Site C ...........................................................................13 Fineness Modulus Values for I-84.....25 Post.............................40 Table 4..5 Pre-Treatment Data for US-91 Site B...Treatment Field Data for I-84 Site B.....................................42 Table 4..................................Treatment Field Data for I-84 Site C.................7 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for I-84 Site A ....................................................................................................Treatment Field Data for US-91 Site A...4 Pre-Treatment Data for US-91 Site A.....................................53 Table 4............................20 Post.............55 Table 4....8 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for I-84 Site B.........46 Table 4.........................15 Post-Treatment Field Data for I-84 Site A.............1 Pre-Treatment Data for I-84 Site A .......41 Table 4..56 Table 4..........3 Pre-Treatment Data for I-84 Site C.52 Table 4............50 Table 4........................10 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for US-91 Site A........43 Table 4...................................46 Table 4......14 Fineness Modulus Values for US-91 ..........18 Post...............2 Pre-Treatment Data for I-84 Site B..........23 Post........................................Treatment Laboratory Data for I-84 Site C ............................................Treatment Field Data for US-91 Site B ......45 Table 4.54 Table 4.........................................................................................53 Table 4.50 Table 4....................................11 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for US-91 Site B.LIST OF TABLES Table 4.........................24 Post..........55 Table 4....................17 Post......................................Treatment Laboratory Data for I-84 Site B ....41 Table 4....................................................57 ix .........................16 Post.....44 Table 4.................................................................................................................12 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for US-91 Site C........45 Table 4...........

.............................................................61 Table 4.................................27 P-Values and R2 Values for I-84 ........................28 P-Values and R2 Values for US-91..............................57 Table 4............................................26 Post...............69 x ..............29 Average CV for I-84 and US-91.....................Treatment Laboratory Data for US-91 Site C ...........68 Table 4..30 ANOVA Results for I-84 and US-91...................64 Table 4.....................................65 Table 4..............................Table 4.........67 Table 4......................................32 Tukey’s Analysis for US-91 ..........................................................31 Tukey’s Analysis for I-84 .............

......................................5 Figure 2.......20 Layout of Typical Test Site ..1 Figure 3.................27 Figure 3.........................................................2 Particle-Size Distributions for I-84 Site A .....................28 Figure 3.......................................................................................................................................10 Extruding Cement-Treated Specimens............14 Burn-Off Oven.......30 Figure 3.......................................................15 Preparing Gypsum Caps for UCS Testing................................................................................17 Splitting Failure of Cement-Treated Specimen.............3 Figure 3.5 Figure 3...................23 Placing Cement Collection Sheet ...........................................................................10 Watering Process .............................................................................................................2 Figure 3..............16 Unconfined Compressive Strength Testing....................................8 Cement Mixing Process.........26 Compacting Cement-Treated Specimens .......................24 Measuring Weight of Retrieved Cement.................................................................................6 Figure 3.................................................12 Clegg Hammer .......11 Grading Process.....................................33 Figure 3.................................................................................................1 Figure 2...................12 I-84 Corridor..........................11 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer.....................................................................................47 Particle-Size Distributions for I-84 Site B...................7 Figure 3................................................................8 Figure 3.........35 Figure 3...4 Figure 3..................................................31 Figure 3..................9 Compaction Process ......4 Figure 2........23 Retrieving Cement Collection Sheet .......................................36 Figure 4...................................13 Nuclear Density Gauge.............1 Figure 4.........22 Sampling Base Material before Cement Placement .................LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2...............................................................29 Figure 3............................................................3 Figure 2..................34 Figure 3....................7 Cement Placement Process..............47 xi ...................................................................2 Figure 2........................20 US-91 Corridor..................25 Sampling Base Material after Cement Mixing....................6 Figure 3............................9 Pulverization Process.........

......................................................48 Particle-Size Distributions for US-91 Site B..........4 Figure 4..48 Particle-Size Distributions for US-91 Site A........................5 Figure 4..................49 xii ...................6 Particle-Size Distributions for I-84 Site C................Figure 4................49 Particle-Size Distributions for US-91 Site C..............................3 Figure 4............

Although engineers and contractors may carefully adhere to accepted standards of practice for pavement design and construction. aggregate gradation. the optimum type and amount of stabilizer for use in construction should be determined using appropriate laboratory testing. construction procedures. with respect to construction of cement-treated base (CTB) in conjunction with FDR. and the pavement should then be constructed according to the resulting specifications. The reuse of deteriorated asphalt in pavement construction can provide a very economical alternative to removing damaged asphalt. variability in the mechanical properties of the pavement can be caused by differences in RAP content. and climatic factors. the extent to which a newly constructed or reconstructed pavement structure exhibits the expected performance depends on variability in in-situ conditions.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT In the pavement industry. For example.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. but using reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) may require the addition of a stabilizing agent such as Portland cement to achieve the desired engineering properties (1). the use of cement stabilization in conjunction with fulldepth recycling (FDR) for pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction is increasing. material characteristics. moisture content. cement 1 . When stabilization is specified.

The I-84 project utilized FDR in conjunction with cement stabilization. existing publications focus mainly on laboratory testing and field performance of CTB materials. Information addressing variability in construction of CTB layers is expected to assist both pavement engineers and contractors in re-evaluating existing specifications and/or developing new specifications and methods that will ultimately lead to higher quality pavements that more consistently meet design expectations.2 SCOPE The research conducted in this study focused on the construction of CTB layers in two pavement reconstruction projects in northern Utah. 1. the primary purposes of this research were to identify construction factors most correlated to specific mechanical properties of CTB layers and to determine which construction factors exhibit comparatively high variability within individual construction sections of CTB projects. and curing of the finished layer. In addition. while the US-91 project involved 2 . Instead. Therefore. one along Interstate 84 (I-84) near Morgan and one along U. including premature failure of some sections. differences between construction sections tested in this research were evaluated. Such an assumption is usually invalid. and the quality of mixing. Although knowledge of the variability associated with CTB construction would prove very beneficial to pavement designers. in many cases. the literature is generally absent of such information. the engineer may ideally assume that all sections of a pavement project will be constructed uniformly and provide equal service life. compaction. variability in the construction process yields variability in pavement performance.S. Consequently.content. Highway 91 (US-91) near Richmond.

-thick CTB layers. 7-day unconfined compressive strength (UCS). three individual construction sections each 1. Chapter 1 describes the problem statement and scope of the research.3 OUTLINE OF REPORT This report contains five chapters. CBR and CIV were chosen because they are two forms of on-site quality control testing available to contractors and owners. respectively. Within each corridor. CBR and CIV were measured in the field using a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) and heavy Clegg hammer. Testing at I-84 and US-91 was conducted during June and July. and UCS was chosen because it is the primary design parameter utilized in CTB design. while UCS values were determined through laboratory testing of specimens manually compacted in the field from the processed material. Chapter 3 explains the experimental methodology utilized in the research. and Chapter 2 discusses several construction factors that can influence the mechanical properties of CTB layers. Clegg impact value (CIV). respectively. and 28-day UCS. The specific mechanical properties of interest in this research included California bearing ratio (CBR). and Chapter 4 presents the research results and 3 .000 ft in length and 40 ft in width were evaluated. 1. The specifications for both projects required the addition of 2 percent Portland cement by weight of dry aggregate and 8-in. The projects were performed by different contractors during the summer of 2005. the findings of this research may not be readily applicable to CTB layers constructed using different materials or in different climatic conditions.cement stabilization of new aggregate delivered to the site from a local quarry. Because the data collected in this study are specific to these two projects. of 2005.

Chapter 5 of this report offers conclusions and recommendations derived from the study. 4 .statistical analyses.

In particular. finding economical ways of extending pavement service life is a constant necessity for contractors and departments of transportation (DOTs) (3). this research focuses on the use of cement stabilization as an economically attractive method for increasing the strength and durability of aggregate base materials (4).1 OVERVIEW The highway system is a national resource that has allowed the United States to achieve economical. social. 5 . rehabilitation. Numerous roadways are now approaching or have already exceeded their design life expectancies. The cement binds the aggregate particles together. the building of virgin roadways has been largely completed within the continental United States (2). and military sophistication. Although engineers must continue to expand the nation’s transportation systems to meet the growing transportation demands of this nation. and reconstruction (MR&R) of these existing pavements have necessarily become the primary tasks of the highway construction industry. and maintenance.CHAPTER 2 FULL-DEPTH RECLAMATION WITH CEMENT STABILIZATION 2. Because roadway construction is expensive. and the improvement in structural capacity then permits applications of greater traffic loads than may have been previously possible.

moisture content. substantial work takes place even before ground breaking occurs on the site. causes accelerated pavement damage by increasing erosion and susceptibility to deterioration under freeze-thaw cycling. reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) content. other factors associated with pavement base layer construction may also impact pavement performance. highway contractors are ultimately responsible for meeting the specifications and providing highquality projects.2 PROCESS OF CTB CONSTRUCTION In any form of construction. Although pavement engineers are usually responsible for developing and implementing appropriate specifications for controlling these factors. In addition to cement content. and decreases the strength and stiffness of affected layers (5). and curing of the finished layer. 2. because cement hydration causes shrinkage stresses in the layer that can lead to transverse cracking and block cracking of the layer. As stated previously. including aggregate gradation.The amount of Portland cement that is blended with the aggregate base material cannot be excessive. and the quality of mixing. Cracking creates avenues for water ingress into the base layer. In roadway construction. cement content. the use of fulldepth recycling (FDR) in conjunction with cement stabilization is an attractive pavement 6 . the structural requirements of the pavement must be calculated. The following sections describe the process of cement-treated base (CTB) construction and then address specific variables associated with the procedure. and the method of construction must be specified. however. compaction. the type and thickness of each layer must be determined.

Following pulverization. Material may need to be added or removed to satisfy the profile and cross-section design requirements for the facility. To achieve target RAP contents in the reclaimed layer. 7 . the layer should be graded and compacted to approximate final elevations. or it may be blended with cement in a pug mill prior to delivery to the site. the existing asphalt should be removed by milling or another means to expose the base layer in preparation for cement stabilization. For new construction. asphalt milling may be required in certain areas prior to pulverization. If FDR is utilized.1. the cement should be spread over the prepared base layer in a powder or slurry form and mixed with the aggregate to the specified depth of FIGURE 2. For in-situ cement stabilization. the base material may be placed normally for in-situ cement treatment. and engineering perspectives are considered. which is usually accomplished using a reclaimer as shown in Figure 2.reconstruction method when economic. If FDR is not used. environmental.1 Pulverization process (6). the existing asphalt layer should be pulverized with the underlying base material to the depth specified by the engineer.

After being placed. as shown in Figure 2. but the driver may instead rely on experience and trial runs to determine appropriate gate openings and ground speeds for different conditions. The cement content is determined by the engineer. the truck may be equipped with automatic gates for improving the accuracy and uniformity of cement placement. The use of a spreader truck for placement of cement powder is illustrated in Figure 2.2. and is monitored by the driver of the cement truck.3.treatment (7). usually from the results of testing performed according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 559 or ASTM D 560.2 Cement placement process. and water is added as needed to bring the aggregate to the optimum moisture content (OMC) previously determined in the laboratory. with the underlying base material. the cement is mixed. FIGURE 2. 8 .

Final grading is displayed in Figure 2. The compaction process is depicted in Figure 2.5. the cement may not fully hydrate. and the use of a water truck to maintain ideal curing conditions for the CTB layer is shown in Figure 2. 9 . Compaction should then follow as soon as possible after mixing so that the cement hydration does not substantially prohibit the contractor from achieving the density specified for the project.3 Cement mixing process. and shrinkage cracking may occur.FIGURE 2.4. If the base becomes too dry due to evaporation.6.

10 .4 Compaction process.FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2.5 Watering process. 11 .

aggregate moisture content. aggregate gradation. 12 . 2.3 VARIABILITY IN CTB CONSTRUCTION Several construction variables can impact the performance of CTB layers.FIGURE 2. including RAP content. and curing.6 Grading process. cement content. compaction density. Each of these variables and their possible effects on pavement performance are described in the following sections.

Two of the major reasons supporting the use of recycling are lack of quality aggregate in the area and cost of disposing the old asphalt (10). If the project is in a hot climate instead. RAP is typically recycled in place. that surface should be removed instead of being incorporated into the base layer (7). When it is used for CTB. This finding suggests that strong cementitious bonds between aggregate particles coated with asphalt cement do not readily form (11). because of the angular nature of the RAP particles after they are crushed. RAP is typically produced by milling existing asphalt pavement or by crushing chunks of deteriorated pavement previously removed from a site (9). These air voids allow water infiltration that can weaken the base. problems can also arise with the asphalt in the RAP particles melting and creating larger pieces of aggregate.1 RAP Content in Conjunction with FDR Projects Recycling of pavement materials has become a viable alternative to consider in the rehabilitation and maintenance of roads (8). One source claims that if the existing surface still retains most of its original viscosity.2. This can be detrimental to the final compaction of the base because a well-graded mix is required to achieve optimum compaction (12). No concrete evidence is present to prove whether RAP is actually beneficial to CTB or not. compaction is more difficult and leads to excess air voids in the base.3. especially in the presence of freeze-thaw cycling associated with cold climates. 13 . however. recent research indicates that increased RAP contents do require increased cement contents in order to achieve comparable UCS values when all other factors are held constant. Several factors should be considered when determining whether or not to use RAP on a particular project. Some studies show that.

3. resulting in improper particle-size distributions (14). amount of recent precipitation. which in turn impact the compaction characteristics of the material. 2. relative humidity. and wind speed. the strength of the CTB layer. and.2. In addition.2 Gradation Aggregate particle size can affect both OMC and maximum dry density. Well-graded sandy and gravelly materials with between 10 and 35 percent non-plastic fines are generally considered to be the most favorable for CTB construction and require the least amount of cement for adequate hardening (7). thickness.3 Moisture Content With regard to CTB construction. ultimately. While the average moisture content existing in the base material depends to a large measure upon the air temperature. variability in the recycled layer depends to a great degree on the variability associated with material composition.3. in-situ recycling of asphalt in the FDR method can lead to significant variability in aggregate gradation. These uncontrollable factors can cause contractors difficulty in satisfying gradation specifications. additional passes may not be performed in the interest of time. finer gradations generally exhibit increased cement demand (13). Although several passes of the reclaimer may be required to obtain the proper gradation after pulverization. Because the asphalt is pulverized and mixed with the existing base. While particle-size distributions can be controlled to tight tolerances at aggregate processing facilities. which should all be 14 . both the water existing in the base material and the water added during mixing are variables that can affect the compaction characteristics. and mechanical properties of the original pavement layers.

Too little or too much water leads to lower dry density and reduced structural capacity. and the bituminous material placed over the base will eventually crack. for example. drainage features. For these reasons. CTB material should contain enough cement to strip the fines of their water affinity but not enough to bond all the aggregate particles into a solid mass (17).3. If too little cement is added. 2. If too much cement is mixed into the 15 . not all water that is present in the aggregate will affect the quality of the layer. Water absorbed in the aggregate.4 Cement Content As suggested earlier. Although nuclear density gauges are commonly used for measuring both in-situ water content and density in the field. and shaded areas. other factors. the optimum cement content is a function of both material type and gradation (16). the amount of mixing water that should be added by the contractor to achieve the OMC may vary greatly along the construction corridor. can cause spatial variability in the water content of the base layer. Consequently. determining the exact amount of water that should be added in the field can be challenging. accurate detection of water in materials containing RAP can be difficult with this equipment (15). the base will not be stable enough. it will flex under heavy traffic loading. Because contractors cannot easily monitor existing moisture contents in a roadbed. Furthermore.comparatively uniform over the length of a project. Identifying the optimum cement content for each CTB material is therefore crucial to achieving satisfactory pavement performance. will not change the amount of water required for cement hydration. deviations from OMC inevitably result. such as the presence of underwater springs.

3. the Portland Cement Association suggests that compaction should normally be completed within 2 hours of mixing to avoid significant hardening of uncompacted material (7). and the longer the resulting road will last. The denser the base is compacted. each unique combination 16 . these cracks can propagate into the surface layer as well (5). For this reason. Variability in cement content depends upon the method of cement distribution. vibratory steel drums. and the skill and diligence of the contractor in providing uniform cement treatment. each of which may be more suited to a particular project than another (18). the more stable it will be. 2. the use of cement stabilization in construction of a base layer also involves a time constraint. The type of compaction equipment used can also affect the density reached. Some of the different types of compaction equipment include sheep’s foot rollers. the type of equipment utilized. As soon as cement powder comes into contact with water. tamping rollers. If the process of hydration advances too far before compaction is completed. the layer will be too stiff and brittle and likely prone to shrinkage cracking. Because the hydration process binds aggregate particles together with time. and pneumatic tire rollers. Although water content plays an important role in achieving adequate compaction density in all situations.5 Compaction Density Compaction density has been used as a primary measure of pavement quality for decades.base. However. the material may need to be removed and replaced. they become less mobile relative to one another and therefore resist reconfiguration into a denser structure upon compaction. greater time delays between mixing and compaction are typically associated with lower densities. it begins to hydrate.

when compaction begins immediately after mixing of a CTB.4 SUMMARY Several construction variables can impact the performance of CTB layers. The particle-size distribution can affect OMC. Furthermore. control of water content is improved. 2.6 Curing CTB layers gain strength over time as the cement continues to cure. aggregate moisture content. cement content. compaction density. and cement demand. especially beyond the first few days after construction. As illustrated in Figure 2. The existing moisture content and mixing water content 17 . including RAP content. In general. Elevated RAP contents can cause excess air voids in the base material and may interfere with the formation of cementitious bonds between aggregate particles (11). not all CTB construction sections are cured sufficiently.5. 2. Early trafficking of the affected layer often causes premature pavement damage. and subsequent drying often leads to shrinkage cracking mentioned previously (17). Unfortunately. however.of equipment type and material type may require a different number of passes to reach optimum density than other combinations. and required densities are obtained more easily. and curing. because most roadway construction projects follow very tight time schedules necessary to minimize inconvenience to the traveling public. aggregate gradation.3. maximum dry density. however. many contractors do not provide adequate CTB curing time before reopening the facility to traffic. watering during the construction process is therefore important to ensure that adequate moisture is available for cement hydration.

18 . As discussed previously. especially during the first few days after construction. Compaction density is critical because greater compaction density correlates to greater strength and layer stability. while overly stabilized CTB layers are too stiff and brittle and prone to shrinkage cracking. to ensure adequate curing. and the length of curing should be as long as possible to minimize failure due to premature trafficking of the layer. Too little cement provides insufficient stabilization and may allow excessive pavement deflections under heavy traffic loading. all of these factors can directly impact the performance of pavements constructed using CTB layers and were therefore evaluated in this research. CTB layers should be watered frequently.must be closely monitored because too little or too much water leads to lower dry density and reduced structural capacity of the pavement.

thick CTB layers. 19 . The following sections describe the field and laboratory testing conducted in this research. one along Interstate 84 (I-84) near Morgan and one along U.2.1 OVERVIEW The research conducted in this study focused on the construction of CTB layers in two pavement reconstruction projects in northern Utah.1 and 3. Highway 91 (US-91) near Richmond as shown in Figures 3.CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3. The I-84 project utilized FDR in conjunction with cement stabilization. respectively. while the US-91 project involved cement stabilization of new aggregate delivered to the site from a local quarry. The projects were performed by different contractors during the summer of 2005. The specifications for both projects required the addition of 2 percent Portland cement by weight of dry aggregate and 8-in.S.

FIGURE 3. 20 .1 I-84 corridor. FIGURE 3.2 US-91 corridor.

000 ft in length and 40 ft in width were evaluated at 10 locations each. where every possible test area within a given section had an equal chance of being selected. 21 . as shown in Figure 3. One sample. This sample was processed later in the laboratory to calculate in-situ moisture content and to determine the gradation of the recycled base material. one rectangular plastic sheet with an area of 1.4. Figure 3. However. The research assistants were careful to avoid placing the sheets in the wheel paths of the cement truck to ensure that the sheets would remain undisturbed in their original positions during the cement spreading process. three individual construction sections each 1. At each site on both projects. the locations of individual test locations within each section were determined using random sampling techniques. including the 10 randomly selected test locations. aggregate samples were collected at various stages of the construction process. was taken after the reclaimer operator had already pulverized the old asphalt and blended it with the existing base. To facilitate calculation of the actual amounts of cement being placed at each site.2 FIELD TESTING Within each corridor.3.25 square feet was placed at each test area and tacked down with roofing nails as shown in Figure 3. All of the sampling and testing conducted in the research were performed at the same locations at each site. The length of the construction section was determined by the distance over which one truckload of cement was spread by the contractor.3 depicts the typical layout of a construction section.5. The locations of the sections within each corridor were determined by the contractor’s position during the days during which the research personnel were available to conduct the testing.

6. The cement content was calculated by dividing the weight of cement in pounds by the total area of the plastic sheet in square feet. as shown in Figure 3. Once the cement truck placed the cement. The cement was then returned to the location from which it was retrieved. This number was compared to the target percentage that was specified for the project.1000 ft 900 ft 800 ft 700 ft 600 ft 500 ft 400 ft 300 ft 200 ft 100 ft 0 ft 10 ft 20 ft 30 ft 40 ft 0 ft FIGURE 3.7.3 Layout of typical test site. and the cement from each location was transferred into a plastic bag and weighed as shown in Figure 3. the plastic sheets were carefully retrieved. 22 .

FIGURE 3.5 Placing cement collection sheet.4 Sampling base material before cement placement. 23 . FIGURE 3.

water was injected in regulated quantities directly into the mixing chamber to facilitate compaction of the CTB and curing of the cement.8. During this process. Immediately following mixing. The time of mixing at each test location was recorded by research personnel to facilitate measurement of the time delay between mixing of the cement and water into the base and compaction of the blended CTB layer. the effect of time delay on the mechanical properties of the CTB was later assessed. After the cement was placed on the prepared base. One 24 .FIGURE 3.6 Retrieving cement collection sheet. another sample of material was taken as shown in Figure 3. the reclaimer operator mixed the cement into the base to a target depth of 8 in.

FIGURE 3.7 Measuring weight of retrieved cement.

sample was used for on-site compaction of specimens by research assistants, as shown in Figure 3.9. The specimens were compacted in 4-in.-diameter steel molds to a target height of 4.6 in. using the modified Proctor compaction method. Figure 3.10 shows a completed specimen being extruded from the metal form in which it was compacted. Two specimens were compacted from the CTB material sampled from each test location and then placed in sealed plastic bags to prevent moisture loss during curing for a period of 7 or 28 days before being subjected to unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing in

25

FIGURE 3.8 Sampling base material after cement mixing.

the laboratory. Each bag was labeled with the location of sampling and the time of compaction; recording the time allowed the researchers to also assess the effect of time delay between mixing and compaction on the strength of the specimens. After the CTB layer was compacted and graded for the final time, non-destructive quality control testing was performed. Several pieces of equipment were used, including a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP), heavy Clegg hammer, and nuclear density gauge. The DCP, as shown in Figure 3.11, consists of a standard cone tip attached to a metal pole that was driven into the ground by a manually operated falling weight. The

26

FIGURE 3.9 Compacting cement-treated specimens.

penetration rate was recorded and later used to calculate the California bearing ratio (CBR) of the layer at the time of testing. The Clegg hammer, as shown in Figure 3.12, consists of a 44-lb weight with an accelerometer attached to the top that measured the rate of deceleration of the weight when dropped through the guide tube from a height of 12 in. (19). Stiffness was calculated by the device by averaging the deceleration measured in four consecutive drops and then reporting the number in units of gravities on an attached digital display.

27

FIGURE 3.10 Extruding cement-treated specimens.

The nuclear density gauge, as shown in Figure 3.13, was utilized to measure the moisture content and dry density of the CTB layer at each test location. The tip of the probe was set at a depth of 6 in. below the CTB surface, and a 60-second test was conducted.

28

FIGURE 3.11 Dynamic cone penetrometer. 29 .

30 .12 Clegg hammer.FIGURE 3.

All of the testing was performed at the Brigham Young University Highway Materials Laboratory.13 Nuclear density gauge. sieve analyses.3 LABORATORY TESTING Samples returned to the laboratory were subjected to a variety of tests. Samples obtained from I-84 prior to the placement of cement were subjected to oven drying at 140°F for a period of 48 hours to minimize volatilization of the asphalt cement present in the RAP.FIGURE 3. and UCS determinations. 3. while those obtained from US-91 were dried at 230°F for 24 hours. 31 . asphalt content measurements. Moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry weight of the given aggregate sample. including moisture analyses.

8. 1/2 in. No. a burn-off oven was then utilized to measure the asphalt content in the samples collected from I-84. 4. and No. one of the two specimens prepared for UCS testing was allowed to cure for 7 days. No.. including 3/4 in. As previously indicated. which would make the test invalid.. 30. 50. and the asphalt content was then reported as a percentage of the original weight of the sample. The burn-off testing was performed at a temperature of 1000°F until constant weight was achieved. No. while the other was allowed to cure for 28 days.After drying the samples. research personnel performed sieve analyses on approximately 5 lb of each sample. No. Based on the results of the sieve analyses.16. 200 sieves. which were recombined following sieve analyses. Curing was accomplished at room temperature in sealed plastic bags. 100. The samples were separated over ten different sieve sizes. which usually required approximately 90 minutes of heating. A sample of pure RAP that had been obtained from previous research on I-84 was also subjected to burnoff testing in this study to facilitate calculation of RAP content in each of the blended samples containing both RAP and base. As depicted in Figure 3.14.. Manual weight measurements were performed to verify the automated calculations shown on the computer print-out from the burn-off oven. and the specimens were 32 . the total weight retained on each of the sieves and pan was compared with the original weight to ensure that the sample did not lose more than 1 percent of its original weight during the testing process. No. 3/8 in. the fineness modulus of each sample was computed. in addition to the pan. No. For each sample. After the specified curing period. the height and weight of each specimen were measured.

then capped with high-strength gypsum to create flat. level specimen ends as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3.15.FIGURE 3. Figure 3.14 Burn-off oven. which required about an hour after the second cap had been placed. per minute. 33 . Once the gypsum caps were sufficiently hardened.16 shows the typical test setup. The computer then reported the maximum strength of each specimen in kips.17 shows a splitting failure of one of the specimens in the loading machine. the specimens were subjected to computercontrolled compression testing at a constant strain rate of 0.05 in.

15 Preparing gypsum caps for UCS testing. the dry density of each specimen was then computed.FIGURE 3. From these data and the original heights and weights. specimens were dried at 230°F for 24 hours to facilitate moisture content determination. Following UCS testing. 34 .

16 Unconfined compressive strength testing. 35 .FIGURE 3.

4 SUMMARY The research conducted in this study focused on the construction of CTB layers in two pavement reconstruction projects in northern Utah.17 Splitting failure of cement-treated specimen. one along I-84 near Morgan and one along US-91 near Richmond. and specimens were manually compacted on site for UCS testing in the laboratory after a curing period of 7 or 28 days. Samples of the reclaimed layer were obtained both before and after cement placement. and ten locations within each section were randomly selected for evaluation. 3. The time delay between mixing and compaction of the CTB was recorded for each test location in the field and for each 36 . Three construction sections each 1.FIGURE 3. All sampling and testing performed in this study were performed at those locations.000 ft in length and 40 ft in width were established along each project corridor.

sieve analyses. and UCS determinations were performed on the collected samples. In the laboratory. In addition. moisture analyses. and nuclear density gauge tests were performed to assess the quality of the CTB layer after final compaction and grading were complete. Clegg hammer. DCP. 37 .specimen compacted for UCS testing. asphalt content measurements.

38 .

39 . Tables 4. The collected data and statistical analyses are then discussed. 4. and C. and 4. and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) content at each test location for I-84 sites A. asphalt content. standard deviation. while Tables 4. the presence of a hyphen indicates that the data were not measured or were not available. and 4.2 PRE-TREATMENT DATA Pre-treatment data include in-situ moisture content (IM). and the results for US-91 are presented second. respectively.4. In all tables throughout this chapter.6 present the moisture content and cement content for US-91 sites A.CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 4. and C.3 contain the moisture content. The results from I-84 are presented first in each section. as well as asphalt content for samples obtained from I-84. cement content. B. B.1. and coefficient of variation (CV).1 OVERVIEW Test results obtained from samples collected before and after cement was blended into the base layer are presented in the following “pre-treatment” and “post-treatment” sections.2. particle-size distribution. and cement content (Cem) for all samples. 4. respectively. respectively. 4. Also included in the tables are calculations of average value.5.

1 2. while test site B on each project received the specified level of cement treatment.2 5 5.4 9 6.1 65. Dev.5 3.3 50.4 2 Asphalt Content (%) 3.1 11.8 Average 5.0 3.3 lb/ft3 for I-84 and US-91. Therefore.0 49.3 4 5.7 7.9 lb/ft3 and 138.1 1.5 10 4.3 3.73 lb/ft2 and 1.4 12.9 0. The asphalt content in the pure RAP sample was 5.6 8 4.8 0.5 7 5.2 RAP Content (%) 59.8 4. respectively.5 2.3 0.6 0.0 1. test sites A and C within both the I-84 and US-91 corridors were not sufficiently stabilized.3 3 5.5 Cement Content (lb/ft ) 2.0 63.4 3.1 3.4 67.4 56.8 58.84 lb/ft2.Based on maximum dry density values of 129.9 40 . the corresponding target cement contents were 1.3 6 5. TABLE 4. 0.6 3.0 1.6 59.6 Std.2 1.8 CV (%) 14.0 2 6.1 Pre-Treatment Data for I-84 Site A Moisture Content Test Location (%) 1 7.4 71.2 1.0 4.0 4.8 61.4 0.4 3.4 56.9 percent.

7 0.4 8 2.9 2.7 62. Dev.3 1.2 8 3.5 12.7 8.1 3.7 2.9 9 4.2 2.9 9 2.5 2 3.3 1.8 4.5 1.3 4.0 3.TABLE 4.0 41 .6 54.7 68.2 1.2 15.5 Std.2 6.3 1.3 RAP Content (%) 58.9 3.2 63.4 3.5 42.5 3 5.6 66.9 4.1 5 4.3 1.4 4 5.9 5 3.3 61.1 CV (%) 23.9 65.4 0.1 4.3 RAP Content (%) 70.0 46.0 53.4 4.8 2.8 51.8 0.5 63.0 1.8 63.0 2.8 11.0 2.7 3.6 2 Asphalt Content (%) 4.6 1.1 3.2 3.5 6 6.7 Average 4.6 64.5 3.1 67.9 10 2.1 4 3.4 6 2.0 3.2 Pre-Treatment Data for I-84 Site B Moisture Content Test Location (%) 1 4.1 3 4.1 2.3 49.6 43.7 1.2 7 3.2 1.0 1. 1.1 0.6 Cement Content (lb/ft ) 1.4 0.8 Cement Content (lb/ft ) 0.2 CV (%) 35. Dev.9 49.0 TABLE 4. 1.5 2 5.5 16.3 1.6 Std.3 Pre-Treatment Data for I-84 Site C Moisture Content Test Location (%) 1 6.1 2.6 3.9 3.2 60.2 2 Asphalt Content (%) 3.4 24.1 10 3.0 1.7 1.8 7 2.8 47.9 3.4 Average 3.8 53.

5 0.6 48.8 1.1 1.6 9 1.5 9 2.6 0.TABLE 4.3 0.8 0.4 2 2.4 CV (%) 17.8 101.5 Pre-Treatment Data for US-91 Site B Moisture Content Test Location (%) 1 2.9 Std.5 3 1.5 1.1 Std.5 8 1.4 1.8 6 2.0 7 1. 0.9 1.9 Cement Content (lb/ft2) 0.3 2.7 0.7 10 2.9 1.4 5 1.9 0.2 7 2.2 Average 2.1 10 1.2 42 .0 3 2.0 2.4 1. 0.9 6 2.7 1.2 0.5 2.4 1.3 8 2.4 1. Dev.7 6.1 2 1.4 Pre-Treatment Data for US-91 Site A Moisture Content Test Location (%) 1 2.2 TABLE 4.4 CV (%) 22.5 4 2.6 1.0 4 2.4 5 1.8 Average 1. Dev.6 Cement Content (lb/ft2) 0.

1 1. Also included in the tables are calculations for average value. respectively.8 1. and C. B. Figures 4.1 3 2.TABLE 4.0 0.11.4 10 2.5 1.1 2. and 4. respectively. As a bulk quantitative measure of particle-size distribution.8 Average 2. 43 .13 and 4.0 2 2.4 Std. and Tables 4.4 Tables 4. the fineness modulus (FM) was computed for each gradation. 0. and 4. and C. B.0 4 2. Dev.1 to 4.0 1. respectively. 4.6 9 2.7.8. and CV.10. 4.3 CV (%) 12.9 1.4 7 2.8 62.6 2.14 present the fineness modulus values for I-84 and US-91.7 to 4.6 6 2.2 0. Tables 4.3 5 2.7 Cement Content (lb/ft2) 0.5 1.12 contain the sieve analysis results for US91 sites A.12.6 provide graphical depictions of the particle-size distributions presented in Tables 4.9 8 2.6 Pre-Treatment Data for US-91 Site C Moisture Content Test Location (%) 1 2.0 0. The legend in each figure designates the test location.9 contain the sieve analysis results for I-84 sites A. standard deviation.

0 2 98.6 44.2 84.6 42.0 0.2 79.2 1.3 0.2 30.1 10.6 6.0 9 100.9 25.0 3 95. 50 No.9 4.6 45.9 89.7 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for I-84 Site A Percent Passing (%) 3/4 in.4 19.0 3 98.3 2.0 6 98.9 0.4 20.7 2.7 88.0 89.7 91.0 6 96.3 78.2 46.2 4.8 78.3 45.3 76.9 77.5 87.5 39.7 33.1 35.9 87.0 10.5 33.1 10.2 3.3 31.4 24.8 11.5 11.2 36.4 11. 4 No. 3/8 in.5 59.1 28.4 1.1 77.6 54.5 0.2 4.5 2.0 7 96.6 23.5 20. 100 No.6 40.0 87.5 27. 30 No.0 15.2 78.0 87.5 92.9 28.3 33.0 16.5 1.0 5 99.3 49.2 0. 200 Pan Test Location 1 99.5 41.7 0.5 6.6 34.5 0. 8 No.9 14.8 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for I-84 Site B Percent Passing (%) 3/4 in.8 36.4 87.4 41.2 1.5 0.2 80.6 0.6 41.0 44 .5 1.8 1. 4 No.0 4 97.6 56.3 0.4 0.3 4.2 40.0 4 99.1 58.2 87.4 6.7 0.8 8.0 2. No.1 32.7 6.0 37.6 0.6 2. 1/2 in. 50 No.1 2. 100 No.1 7.4 54.3 51.3 20.0 8 97.7 84.4 90.1 22.5 0.4 87.2 23.7 45.7 1.4 6.2 77.2 69.9 19.0 5 98.9 4. 16 No.4 0.3 56. 16 No.0 0.2 43.2 4.5 53.0 TABLE 4.7 23. No.5 29.8 17.8 55.9 57.8 38.3 13.0 95. 1/2 in.4 58.7 2.9 77.TABLE 4.1 45.5 13.9 27.5 42.2 6. 30 No.3 24.5 21.6 5.8 89.9 18.6 83.0 9 97.7 13.6 1.0 39.3 63.6 24.8 39.6 91.0 87.0 16.7 4.5 86.6 87.4 16.0 8 99.3 30.9 54.5 0.7 5.6 55.2 48.7 6.6 76.7 29.5 55.6 0.7 82.0 10 97.2 32. 3/8 in.4 44.2 9.7 14.9 15.9 36.3 0. 8 No.0 10 98.7 74.8 62.4 2.5 33.4 76.3 76.0 2 96.0 26.8 78.0 7 97.1 4.0 71.0 12.8 9.1 56.2 0.6 1.2 29. 200 Pan Test Location 1 98.6 1.5 2.7 6.1 92.7 56.1 55.5 31.

2 4.0 4 98.5 28.2 7.6 34.1 71.0 6 98.0 0.3 52.4 55.1 67.6 0.2 13.0 35.3 90.6 45.7 22.0 TABLE 4.4 17.8 77.5 73.3 7.0 84.6 57.9 17.9 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for I-84 Site C Percent Passing (%) 3/4 in.7 35.9 33.0 4.5 23.1 28.4 36.1 37.1 12.2 79.1 60.4 15.4 25.7 9.3 21.1 0. No.0 42.1 70.8 52.2 3.8 0.2 26.3 30.4 0.2 16.3 74.3 5.9 41.2 8.0 89.6 73. No.3 33. 30 No.0 68.2 70.3 55.8 13. 100 No.0 5 97.5 16.0 2 97. 4 No.7 27.4 29.1 34.1 79.9 12.2 9.0 46. 50 No.1 21.0 4 95.6 21.7 5.4 3.0 6 88.7 29.8 36.4 3.2 52. 8 No.9 71.1 90.0 0. 30 No.5 0.9 1.4 52.2 78.8 14.8 2. 100 No.1 23.1 0. 50 No.0 3 96.6 3.2 0.9 34.5 9.7 86.3 4.8 57.1 24.0 1.3 0.1 87.2 41.4 10.6 74. 200 Pan Test Location 1 99.4 3.4 81.4 3.9 77.6 81.0 0.9 83.1 28.7 78.3 23.4 77.2 43.3 30.4 79.3 0.6 28.1 8.6 7.1 31.2 17.7 89.9 5.3 44.4 6.1 89.7 84.9 44.3 85.1 80.3 3.0 10 98.5 34.7 78.7 5.3 17.8 2.8 17.8 2.2 51.0 8 98.6 0.7 8.0 8 98. 16 No.3 41.6 33.6 22.0 45 .3 0.0 9 94.3 25.7 47. 16 No.3 8.4 15.5 56.9 26.9 52. 8 No.0 1.7 49.2 14.1 5.9 18.9 3. 3/8 in.5 0.9 4.1 2.3 88.0 2 100.6 39.9 34.8 8.2 24.0 7 99.2 30.5 85.3 23.7 57.9 17.0 38.7 27.2 25. 200 Pan Test Location 1 95.9 35.5 73. 4 No. 3/8 in.5 43.10 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for US-91 Site A Percent Passing (%) 3/4 in.TABLE 4.9 40.8 2.1 53.6 0.5 74.2 51.7 38.0 5 93.0 9 98.2 7.0 7 92.9 15.8 41.1 0.8 41.7 0.1 0.9 31.2 2.4 17.6 87. 1/2 in.1 1.2 81.0 10 95.2 18.4 90.8 8. 1/2 in.5 48.2 39.0 0.0 3 99.

3 6.4 0.9 15. 30 No.3 3.2 85.9 30.2 75.5 0.7 52.7 69.5 0.2 84.5 29.6 11.2 7.0 35.2 14.5 38.6 91.2 7.4 88.12 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for US-91 Site C Percent Passing (%) 3/4 in.8 2.4 55.8 72. 4 No.5 17.0 46 .3 0.3 23.5 51.6 23.4 32.0 8 98.6 14.4 15.2 16.6 32.9 0.1 2.0 2 99.5 21.7 31.5 52.3 6.8 86.3 82.0 5 98.3 73.3 90.7 50.6 21.8 0.8 85.6 71.11 Dry Sieve Analysis Data for US-91 Site B Percent Passing (%) 3/4 in.7 9.1 52.7 0.1 14.2 14.8 29.0 0.6 86.4 15.5 28.9 37.4 40.4 11.6 86.8 15. 100 No.2 4.5 85.4 54.0 4 97.9 22.7 7.2 22.0 12.7 2.6 0.5 0.0 91. No.5 0. 8 No.5 52.5 87.9 87.7 88.0 2 97.0 8 96.0 74.3 20.6 3.3 50.8 76.8 3.3 7.0 9 98.0 4 98. 4 No.8 17.0 53.0 41.8 48.4 14.0 10 100.5 45.8 46.7 31.5 74.7 33. 16 No.7 6.3 90.9 7.9 40.0 5 99.5 2.1 24.8 38. 3/8 in.6 39.7 0.1 29. 8 No.5 77.5 7. 200 Pan Test Location 1 99.0 3 96.9 87.1 49.2 72.3 77.7 7.0 TABLE 4.4 2. 200 Pan Test Location 1 98.9 22.0 2.8 3.9 6.2 87.2 51.7 2.8 29.0 0.8 12.8 21.7 20.2 20.0 39.7 27.7 3.9 90.4 0.3 73.4 38.0 78. 50 No.4 7.1 32.8 27.0 7 98.5 74.4 19.7 37.9 77.4 32.2 24.4 42.7 6. 100 No.4 38.1 37.3 3.6 73.4 3.4 45.0 13.5 37.4 14.1 7.4 14.0 6 99.9 35.7 50.9 26. 1/2 in.6 85.2 0.0 7 96.9 0. 50 No.6 5.1 31.0 0.9 17. 3/8 in.9 24. No.2 9.3 2.0 79.1 14.6 4.1 43. 16 No.0 6 98.0 2.0 9 97. 30 No.TABLE 4.7 3.3 2.6 29.9 22.4 27.3 58.0 0.2 22.1 57. 1/2 in.6 87.7 51.7 0.0 3 96.6 23.5 22.7 7.7 7.0 10 99.2 13.3 0.2 23.0 76.6 28.8 73.4 6.3 27.

001 0.1 1 Particle Size (in.1 Particle-size distributions for I-84 site A.001 0.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FIGURE 4.01 0.01 0.1 1 Particle Size (in.2 Particle-size distributions for I-84 site B. 100 Percent Passing (%) 80 60 40 20 0 0.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FIGURE 4.100 Percent Passing (%) 80 60 40 20 0 0. 47 .

1 1 Particle Size (in.001 0.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FIGURE 4.1 1 Particle Size (in.3 Particle-size distributions for I-84 site C.100 Percent Passing (%) 80 60 40 20 0 0.01 0.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FIGURE 4.4 Particle-size distributions for US-91 site A. 48 .01 0. 100 Percent Passing (%) 80 60 40 20 0 0.001 0.

1 1 Particle Size (in.6 Particle-size distributions for US-91site C.001 0.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FIGURE 4. 49 .1 1 Particle Size (in.01 0.01 0. 100 Percent Passing (%) 80 60 40 20 0 0.5 Particle-size distributions for US-91 site B.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FIGURE 4.100 Percent Passing (%) 80 60 40 20 0 0.001 0.

60 3.61 4.81 4.73 4.50 4.52 4.44 5.57 4.91 4.71 4.68 0.23 4.24 0.46 4.54 4.41 4.61 4.81 4.18 4.51 4.19 4.22 5.14 Fineness Modulus Values for US-91 Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.58 4.39 4.80 4.54 4.47 4.58 4.70 4.39 3.56 4.48 4.64 4.63 4.31 4.20 0.51 4.03 4.95 4.72 4.14 0.66 4.39 4.77 4.37 4.61 4.54 4.68 4.60 4. Dev.18 0.87 2.29 50 .41 4.32 4.45 4.53 4. Dev.62 4.81 4.TABLE 4.51 4.57 4.63 4.62 4.65 4.68 4.32 4.67 TABLE 4.65 4.13 Fineness Modulus Values for I-84 Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.11 4.62 0.73 4.25 4.61 4.68 4.55 4.31 4.95 4. CV (%) Fineness Modulus Site A Site B Site C 4.54 4. CV (%) Fineness Modulus Site A Site B Site C 3.37 4.

UCS 28) for specimens cured for 7 and 28 days. and 4. 4. and C. and 4. and C.16. B. respectively. while Tables 4. B.18. B. California bearing ratio (CBR).24. and unconfined compressive strength (UCS 7. and 4. B. respectively. 4. Similarly.22. and C. dry density (DD 7. moisture content in the field (MC F).19. 4. Tables 4. and laboratory data include moisture content (MC 7.20 provide posttreatment field data for US-91 sites A. and CV. 51 . 4. while Tables 4. respectively.26 contain laboratory data for US-91 sites A.17 provide post-treatment field data for I-84 sites A. Clegg impact value (CIV). standard deviation.3 POST-TREATMENT DATA Post-treatment data include both field and laboratory test results. Field data include time between mixing and compaction (T F).21. respectively. and dry density in the field (DD F). and 4. Also included in each of the tables are calculations for average value.25. MC 28).15.23 contain laboratory data for I-84 sites A. Tables 4. DD 28).4. and C.

2 13.7 1.5 3.9 8. Dev. CV (%) CBR CIV Moisture Content (%) 9.1 118.4 16.5 9.8 17.6 120.2 17.5 11.2 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 118.1 11.16 Post-Treatment Field Data for I-84 Site B Time between Mixing and Compaction (min) 13 1 6 6 14 20 14 25 2 32 13 10 76 Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.6 115.2 118.2 8.7 7.9 120.1 16.0 12.8 18.9 16.7 111.8 118.3 115.5 10.9 113.2 3.6 115.0 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 117.0 10.1 TABLE 4.2 1.8 113.3 14.8 13.4 12.4 21.6 19.0 10.2 13. CV (%) CBR CIV Moisture Content (%) 10.7 55 38 32 30 28 94 50 54 101 55 54 25 47 17.4 10.9 111.0 16.3 114.1 15.4 118.1 117.8 14.3 13.5 13.6 2.2 2.8 118.2 9.5 116.5 16.5 2.7 16.15 Post-Treatment Field Data for I-84 Site A Time between Mixing and Compaction (min) 5 2 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 10 3 3 120 Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.3 11.0 13.1 11.7 10.0 10.2 12.6 11.5 2.1 44 42 14 28 31 35 66 110 49 46 47 26 57 23.1 52 .TABLE 4.5 10.1 124.2 13.1 117.7 9.5 14.8 15.0 117. Dev.

18 Post-Treatment Field Data for US-91 Site A Time between Mixing and Compaction (min) 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 96 Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.6 6.8 9.8 7.1 21.0 136. CV (%) CBR CIV Moisture Content (%) 6.1 5.8 2.9 20.4 6.1 120.7 2.0 132.2 6.6 6.6 0.7 132.8 2.2 11.5 120.5 121.1 22.2 7. Dev.2 8.5 TABLE 4.0 2.2 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 120.6 118.5 131.0 7.6 131.7 19.0 122.6 18.17 Post-Treatment Field Data for I-84 Site C Time between Mixing and Compaction (min) 0 0 4 4 1 2 2 0 2 13 3 4 139 Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.4 15.8 79 64 41 49 54 58 61 51 55 53 57 10 18 22.2 5. Dev.4 116.3 53 .9 16.4 20.1 10.6 129.9 7.6 6.4 15.4 15.0 22.7 6.5 45 42 31 35 52 37 32 65 34 39 41 10 25 17.3 8.8 8.8 131.2 133.9 119.7 19.6 126.5 117.3 14.4 8.6 18.7 132.7 117.7 18. CV (%) CBR CIV Moisture Content (%) 10.4 1.7 9.9 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 137.5 17.0 131.8 9.9 1.0 20.9 11.1 14.TABLE 4.1 3.6 14.7 13.0 24.

6 4.7 4.4 127.7 7.4 127. CV (%) CBR CIV Moisture Content (%) 5.8 1.2 36 47 33 35 36 29 51 49 44 52 41 8 20 22.2 2.3 6. Dev.1 129.5 122.2 4.7 4.6 128.5 4.0 54 .0 5.5 TABLE 4.0 19.6 14.7 0.1 4.6 18.8 18.1 1.0 15.3 21.7 2.6 128.8 17.7 18.3 21.3 124.4 5.3 11.20 Post-Treatment Field Data for US-91 Site C Time between Mixing and Compaction (min) 3 2 2 3 0 2 2 4 5 3 3 1 52 Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.6 18.1 21.0 5.6 128. CV (%) CBR CIV Moisture Content (%) 6.6 21. Dev.9 5.6 13.1 1.6 17.5 18.9 15.6 6.6 18.2 128.6 22.4 4.3 6.3 23.2 5.0 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 127.TABLE 4.8 129.9 4.8 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 127.4 21.8 5.8 128.5 2.4 122.3 128.5 124.8 129.2 132.2 2.4 41 78 74 75 30 51 57 61 55 114 64 23 37 22.3 19.8 131.4 125.0 25.1 17.19 Post-Treatment Field Data for US-91 Site B Time between Mixing and Compaction (min) 61 47 47 39 42 36 45 45 21 34 42 10 25 Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.4 121.7 126.1 6.3 5.

8 25.5 28-Day Cure Dry Density (lb/ft3) 125.2 7.8 7.6 7. Dev.1 5.7 7.6 6.0 129.1 131.7 6.6 2.8 1.1 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 129.2 125.8 8.0 6.9 126.21 Post-Treatment Laboratory Data for I-84 Site A 7-Day Cure Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.0 125.4 7.0 7.8 124.1 15. CV (%) Moisture Content (%) 5.9 126.4 6.1 127.5 1.5 28-Day Cure Dry Density (lb/ft3) 127.6 128.4 129.7 5.9 1.9 129.5 UCS (psi) 313 250 371 243 325 263 493 480 423 333 349 91 26 55 .4 7.1 127.2 5.0 129.6 126.9 124.2 128.1 125.2 1.5 8.1 5.8 1.5 127.2 5.4 6.8 6.9 7.4 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 125.9 2.1 127.7 4.3 7.5 131.1 5.2 6.1 UCS (psi) 376 217 305 606 218 310 436 452 510 402 383 125 33 Moisture Content (%) 5.TABLE 4.3 6.22 Post-Treatment Laboratory Data for I-84 Site B 7-Day Cure Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.0 UCS (psi) 197 244 45 146 158 438 228 153 349 413 237 126 53 Moisture Content (%) 4.8 127.9 8.3 124.5 131.2 8.1 1.1 3.2 8.5 138.0 4.0 128.7 6.9 1.9 7.1 6.5 5.8 128.8 30.1 UCS (psi) 633 293 72 210 230 478 291 242 335 362 315 154 49 TABLE 4.5 8.2 126.8 8. CV (%) Moisture Content (%) 3.1 126.5 6.1 16.5 4.9 1.7 6.8 129. Dev.7 7.0 126.

5 7.1 1.5 132. Dev.2 137.5 1.3 136.3 UCS (psi) 441 925 933 608 1133 1146 1182 824 1557 604 935 334 36 56 .9 136.4 129.8 6.2 6.6 UCS (psi) 522 326 585 520 349 509 505 679 336 610 494 121 24 TABLE 4.5 130.0 5.8 136.0 135.23 Post-Treatment Laboratory Data for I-84 Site C 7-Day Cure Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.8 12.1 6.9 13.8 12.9 6. CV (%) Moisture Content (%) 8.1 130.8 5.1 129.1 UCS (psi) 228 581 530 251 624 851 634 433 762 389 528 205 39 Moisture Content (%) 8.2 6.6 5.1 7.2 136.5 6.1 6.1 1.7 122.9 7.24 Post-Treatment Laboratory Data for US-91 Site A 7-Day Cure Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.5 0.1 131.7 6.5 132.5 28-Day Cure Dry Density (lb/ft3) 128.1 138.5 6.1 129.2 136.5 127.3 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 129.2 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 132.7 1.TABLE 4.7 6.6 128.1 136.5 6. Dev.5 128.8 6.2 5.2 6.4 136.1 136.2 5.5 1.9 8.1 130.0 6.4 UCS (psi) 442 193 401 419 299 456 409 496 234 497 385 106 28 Moisture Content (%) 7.4 134.9 128.9 135.9 6.2 7.3 6.7 3.5 6. CV (%) Moisture Content (%) 6.3 7.5 124.4 28-Day Cure Dry Density (lb/ft3) 131.1 137.7 11.2 6.2 7.0 2.1 4.9 130.6 129.7 129.6 5.1 5.5 6.8 135.2 124.7 0.4 134.2 129.5 0.0 135.5 0.4 6.5 6.7 136.1 137.5 7.9 6.4 7.2 2.5 136.7 6.

3 7.3 UCS (psi) 596 622 509 506 232 668 666 557 731 828 591 161 27 Moisture Content (%) 6.9 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 137.6 131.5 2.8 136.1 135.0 3.7 4.6 4.0 134.1 6.5 136.7 14.3 UCS (psi) 970 905 724 1066 326 1181 1012 1192 1209 860 945 268 28 57 .7 7.3 126.0 0.0 135.4 6.5 137.3 125.5 5.0 UCS (psi) 1187 1539 997 715 1017 1471 1354 1077 835 1265 1146 268 23 TABLE 4. CV (%) Moisture Content (%) 6.9 134.3 8.25 Post-Treatment Laboratory Data for US-91 Site B 7-Day Cure Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.1 28-Day Cure Dry Density (lb/ft3) 136.1 5.9 6.0 28-Day Cure Dry Density (lb/ft3) 136.3 136.4 51.5 Dry Density (lb/ft3) 137.1 135.8 140.3 6.3 4.1 2. Dev.7 6.0 1.5 6.7 4.9 2.1 136.4 132.0 134.5 6.9 4.9 14.3 15. CV (%) Moisture Content (%) 4.9 4.0 132.1 130.2 4.6 134.8 5.3 135.9 135.9 5.3 138.8 4.5 141.7 133.6 3.5 5.9 134.0 5.8 5.0 134.3 3.1 5.1 5.8 4.8 6.5 6.6 135.8 4.7 6.2 5.2 140.4 137.2 134. Dev.5 139.3 6.9 14.26 Post-Treatment Laboratory Data for US-91 Site C 7-Day Cure Test Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Std.7 6.1 0.1 137.7 4.4 133.7 5.6 6.8 1.2 132.TABLE 4.8 135.0 5.1 134.7 6.1 UCS (psi) 1032 1042 691 518 578 639 858 789 760 890 780 179 23 Moisture Content (%) 4.2 0.

can be computed for the model. Those predictor variables are given a p-value. a coefficient of determination. CBR and CIV were chosen because they are two forms of on-site quality control testing available to contractors and owners. and Tukey’s mean separation procedure. and UCS was chosen because it is the primary design parameter utilized in CTB design. 7day UCS. including multivariate regression. The predictor variables found to be the most influential on the response variable are used in the formation of the regression model. CV comparisons. or R2 value. 4. 58 . In a stepwise regression process.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSES After the data were collected. The R2 value reflects the percentage of variation in the response variable that is explained by variation in the predictor variables included in the regression model. analysis of variance (ANOVA). several statistical analyses were performed. predictor variables having p-values less than 0. Once a given regression model is formed.1 Multivariate Regression A stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine the most significant predictor variables for each of four separate response variables. which were of primary interest in this research. CIV. In this research. The data were separated by highway and analyzed using a statistical software program to meet the research objectives as described in the following sections.4. including CBR. and 28-day UCS.4. or level of significance. the utility of each of the potential predictor variables is evaluated.15 were included in the regression models. where an R2 value of 1 represents a perfect model (20).

200 sieve. % RAP = recycled asphalt pavement. and time between mixing and compaction associated with the specimens cured for 28 days were used to predict 28-day UCS (T 28). dry density. The regression analyses resulted in the following Equations 4. dry density. % CIV = 2.2) 59 .1 to 4. moisture content in the field. the predictor variables that were used in the regression analysis for both CBR and CIV were RAP content. fineness modulus. and percent passing values for each of the ten sieves. % P8 = percent passing the No. moisture content. fineness modulus.47 ⋅ P200 + 0. The common predictor variables that were used in the regression analysis for 7-day UCS and 28-day UCS were RAP content. The unique variables used to predict 7-day UCS were moisture content. and dry density in the field. and time between mixing and compaction associated with the specimens cured for 7 days (T 7). % (4. cement content.1) where CBR = California bearing ratio RAP = recycled asphalt pavement.37 ⋅ P8 where CIV = Clegg impact value P200 = percent passing the No. time between mixing and compaction in the field.For I-84. cement content.24 ⋅ RAP (4.290 ⋅ RAP − 0. in-situ moisture content.4 for I-84: CBR = −25. 8 sieve. Likewise.81 + 1.929 + 5. percent passing values associated with each of the ten sieves.

psi MC28 = 7-day moisture content. but increasing the amount of particles finer than the No. 50 sieve. RAP.1 indicates that the addition of RAP increases the CBR value of a CTB within the range of values investigated in this study.2 indicates that increasing both the amount of particles finer than the No. 50 sieve yield increases in UCS. 200 sieve and the RAP content leads to a higher CIV. the effect of cement is contrary to expectation. Equation 4. 8 sieve leads to a lower CIV.9 − 80 ⋅ MC 7 + 13.4 ⋅ P50 where UCS7 = 7-day unconfined compressive strength. Equation 4. % P50 = percent passing the No. psi MC7 = 7-day moisture content.3) UCS 28 = 1551.4 indicates that increases in moisture.3 ⋅ RAP − 72 ⋅ Cem where UCS28 = 7-day unconfined compressive strength. % (4.7 − 100 ⋅ MC 28 − 6. The author proposes that 60 . % (4. While the effects of moisture and RAP are consistent with theory and previous research. and that increases in the amount of particles finer than the No. or water above the optimum moisture content (OMC). % Cem = cement content.3 indicates that higher moisture contents decrease the 7-day UCS. Equation 4. yields lower dry densities for a given compaction effort. which is contradictory to earlier research performed on this material (11). reflecting the fact that excess water.UCS 7 = 729. % RAP = recycled asphalt pavement.4) Equation 4. and cement contents all decrease the 28-day UCS.

15 61 .increasing cement content yields lower CTB strength only to the extent that cement hydration begins binding aggregate particles together before the mixture is compacted to maximum density.055 0. The R2 values provided in the table indicate that the equation for 28-day UCS offers the best predictions.102 0. Table 4. the formation of cementitious products within the CTB would reduce the mobility of individual aggregate particles and therefore resist densification during compaction.017 0. 200 Moisture Moisture Content Content R2 CBR CIV 7-Day UCS 28-Day UCS 0. If the proposed explanation is correct.002 0.43 48.27 P-Values and R2 Values for I-84 Predictor Variable p -Values Response Variable RAP Cement Content No. The table shows that RAP content was a significant predictor variable for three of the four response variables evaluated in this research.03 73. while no other predictor variable was used more than once.008 0.000 0. this effect would be most pronounced on projects in which significant time delay occurs between mixing and compaction of the CTB or in climatic conditions that cause accelerated cement hydration. while the equation for CBR offers the least valuable predictions.27 presents the p-values associated with the significant predictor variables and the R2 values associated with each of the regression models developed from the I-84 data. 8 No.93 51.001 0.001 0.000 19. 50 7-Day 28-Day No. TABLE 4.

5 to 4.6) where CIV = Clegg impact value DDF = dry density in the field. min CIV = −24.Except for RAP content. % UCS 7 = −2907 + 33 ⋅ DD7 − 48 ⋅ P50 − 52 ⋅ MC 7 + 43 ⋅ Cem where UCS7 = 7-day unconfined compressive strength.33 ⋅ IM (4.7) 62 . psi DD7 = 7-day dry density. lb/ft3 IM = in-situ moisture in the field.5) where CBR = California bearing ratio TF = time between mixing and compaction in the field.35 + 0. the same predictor variables that were utilized for I-84 were utilized for US-91. 50 sieve. % MC7 = 7-day moisture content. The regression analyses resulted in the following Equations 4.31 ⋅ DDF + 2. % Cem = cement content.43 ⋅ TF (4. % (4.8 for US-91: CBR = 60. lb/ft3 P50 = percent passing the No.17 − 0.

inadequate water was available at some sites to facilitate adequate compaction. 63 .7 indicates that increasing dry density and cement content increase the 7-day UCS. This finding emphasizes the critical nature of timely compaction. Similarly. while the equation for CBR offers the least valuable predictions. psi MC28 = 28-day moisture content.8) Equation 4. while increasing moisture content and the amount of particles finer than the No. lb/ft3 (4. in particular. % DD28 = 28-day dry density. Equation 4. 50 sieve decrease the 7-day UCS.6 indicates that higher values of dry density in the field and in-situ moisture in the field lead to a higher CIV within the range of values evaluated in this study.28 presents the p-values associated with the significant predictor variables and the R2 values associated with each of the regression models developed from the US91 data.UCS 28 = −4670 − 202 ⋅ MC 28 + 51 ⋅ DD28 where UCS28 = 28-day unconfined compressive strength. Table 4. so. where increased time delay causes lower CBR values. As with the I-84 data. the R2 values provided in the table indicate that the equation for 28-day UCS offers the best predictions. Equation 4. Equation 4. unlike most of the I-84 sites. while increasing dry density increases the 28-day UCS.5 indicates that for US-91 the time between mixing and compaction in the field was the most important indicator of CBR. the in-situ moisture contents for the US-91 CTB were generally lower than the OMC for that material.8 indicates that increasing moisture content decreases the 28-day UCS.

026 0. and 28-day UCS.102 0. for example. Table 4.29 indicates that several of the properties vary substantially. and time between mixing and compaction for each of the manually compacted specimens. and Density in Moisture Comp.022 0. even if the means are drastically different from each other (21).90 59.18 66. 50 7-Day Dry Density 28-Day Moisture Content 28-Day Dry Density R2 CBR CIV 7-Day UCS 28-Day UCS 23.28 P-Values and R-Squared Values for US-91 Predictor Variable p -Values Time b/n Dry 7-Day Mix.29 presents the average CVs for each factor for I84 and US-91.TABLE 4.007 0. the variability in these properties is of practical importance in this research.005 Response Variable In-Situ Cement Moisture Content Content No. it is a useful statistical calculation for comparing the degree of variation from one data series to another. Table 4.00 4.000 0. Because both the cement content and the time between mixing and compaction are significant predictors of three of the four mechanical properties of interest in this study.009 0. time between mixing and compaction in the field. 64 .51 38. Because the CV is a ratio of the standard deviation to the mean. The CV represents the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean. cement content. Those that have a CV of above 40 percent.013 0. and because both factors are directly in control of the contractor. in the Field Content the Field 0.4. including CBR. 7-day UCS.2 Coefficient of Variation Comparisons After the multivariate regression was performed.124 0. CV comparisons were performed to identify the most variable factors investigated in the research. are CBR.

1/2 in. 3/8 in.4. 100 No. the p-values generated in 65 .TABLE 4.29 Average CV for I-84 and US-91 Variable CBR CIV RAP IM Cem 3/4 in. This method of evaluation compares multiple population means while controlling the possibility of incorrectly claiming that significant differences exist (22). 8 No. In this research. No.3 Analysis of Variance An ANOVA was performed in this study to determine if significant differences existed between the three sites on each of the two corridors. 200 FM TF MC F DD F UCS 7 MC 7 DD 7 T7 UCS 28 MC 28 DD 28 T 28 Average CV (%) I-84 US-91 43 25 17 12 13 25 18 43 71 2 1 3 2 5 4 7 7 9 9 12 9 15 9 20 9 23 11 28 17 4 4 112 58 14 15 2 2 38 30 19 14 2 2 31 45 33 29 18 26 1 2 45 44 4. 30 No. 16 No. 50 No. 4 No.

17 of the 26 properties were found to be significantly different between the sites. Determination of the specific sites that were different than the others was performed using Tukey’s mean separation procedure as described in the following section. For US-91. 16 of the 27 properties were found to be significantly different between the sites. p-values above 0. 66 .05 indicated that insufficient evidence existed to detect a significant difference between the sites.the ANOVA were compared to the standard error rate of 0. Table 4. For I-84.30 presents the p-values associated with each variable evaluated in the ANOVA. while p-values less than or equal to 0.05.05 indicated that at least one site was different from the others (23).

020 0.000 0.020 0.093 0. 8 No.002 0.095 0.001 0.013 0. 1/2 in.000 0.003 0.TABLE 4. Tables 4.000 0.469 0. 67 .026 0.005 0.086 0.211 0. 50 No.001 0.000 0.008 0.064 0.281 0. 100 No.000 0. No.328 0.681 0.010 0.001 0.612 0. 3/8 in.018 0.31 and 4.30 ANOVA Results for I-84 and US-91 Variable CBR CIV RAP IM Cem 3/4 in.4 Tukey’s Mean Separation Procedure Given that the ANOVA results only indicated whether or not significant differences existed between sites.000 0.034 0.005 0.32 report the significant differences identified between sites at I-84 and US-91.002 0.141 0.000 0. 200 FM TF MC F DD F UCS 7 MC 7 DD 7 T7 UCS 28 MC 28 DD 28 T 28 p -Values I-84 US-91 0. 30 No.895 0.209 0.822 0.453 0.003 0.023 0.546 0.102 0.013 0.4.024 0.029 0.413 0. 4 No.014 0.874 0.090 0.001 0.008 0.026 4.045 0. 16 No. Tukey’s mean separation procedure was utilized to identify those specific sites that were significantly different from the others.

8 No. 16 No. The results of all three possible pairwise comparisons are shown in each table.31 Tukey’s Analysis for I-84 Variable CBR CIV RAP IM Cem 3/4 in.respectively. in which an entry of “x” designates a significant difference in a given factor between two sites. 3/8 in. 1/2 in. 100 No. 50 No. No. 30 No. TABLE 4. 200 FM TF MC F DD F UCS 7 MC 7 DD 7 T7 UCS 28 MC 28 DD 28 T 28 Significant Difference between Sites AB BC AC None x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 68 . 4 No.

16 No. No. 100 No. 50 No.32 Tukey’s Analysis for US-91 Variable CBR CIV IM Cem 3/4 in. Therefore. 8 No.31 indicates that significant differences occurred between sites A and C on I-84 more frequently than between other sites.TABLE 4. 30 No.32 indicates that significant differences occurred between sites A and B on US-91 more frequently than between other sites. 200 FM TF MC F DD F UCS 7 MC 7 DD 7 T7 UCS 28 MC 28 DD 28 T 28 Significant Difference between Sites AB BC AC None x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Table 4. 3/8 in. 4 No. Utah Department of Transportation (DOT) personnel 69 . while Table 4. 1/2 in.

including CBR. After the multivariate regression was performed. dry density. as well as asphalt content for samples obtained from I-84. Pre-treatment data include in-situ moisture content. An ANOVA was performed in this study to determine if significant differences existed between the three sites on each of the two corridors. Post-treatment data include both field and laboratory test results. After the data were collected. ANOVA.5 SUMMARY Test results obtained from samples collected before and after cement treatment were analyzed in this research. including multivariate regression.may expect that differences in CTB performance may be most pronounced between these sites. 4. 70 . and laboratory data include moisture content. Field data include time between mixing and compaction. and cement content for all samples. CIV. 7-day UCS. CV comparisons. and UCS for specimens cured for 7 and 28 days. CBR. particle-size distribution. moisture content in the field. CIV. and dry density in the field. CV comparisons were performed to identify the most variable factors investigated in the research. and Tukey’s mean separation procedure was utilized to identify those specific sites that were significantly different from the others. which were of primary interest in this research. several statistical analyses were performed. and 28-day UCS. A stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine the most significant predictor variables for each of four separate response variables. and Tukey’s mean separation procedure.

and 28-day UCS at the I-84 sites include reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) content. The significant predictors of the four response variables on US-91 were in-situ moisture content. time between mixing and compaction in the field. 50. amount of aggregate particles finer than the No. cement content. cement content. RAP content was found to be a predictor variable three times more often than any other variable. which is significant because it can be controlled by the contractor through the use of milling prior to full-depth reclamation (FDR). 7-day unconfined compressive strength (UCS). 8. 200 sieves. and No.1 FINDINGS The primary purposes of this research were to identify construction factors most correlated to specific mechanical properties of cement-treated base (CTB) layers and to determine which construction factors exhibit comparatively high variability within individual construction sections of the two pavement reconstruction projects included in this study. and 28-day moisture content. amounts of aggregate particles finer than the No. 7-day moisture content.CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 5. dry density in the 71 . differences between construction sections tested in this research were evaluated. 50 sieve. The significant predictor variables associated with California bearing ratio (CBR). Clegg impact value (CIV). No. In addition.

The factors that were found to be the most variable on both I-84 and US-91 were CBR. where differences between sites A and C occurred most frequently. and 28-day moisture content. cement content. both the cement content and the time between mixing and compaction in the field were directly in the control of the contractor. 72 . Like RAP content. 17 of the 26 factors were found to be significantly different between the sites. Therefore. On I-84. and variability in these factors was probably responsible for the comparatively high variability in CBR values measured at the sites. Therefore. On US-91. cement content was indicated as being a significant predictor. time between mixing and compaction in the field. and careful scheduling. both cement content and time delay can be controlled by the contractor through the use of proper equipment. Utah Department of Transportation (DOT) personnel may expect that differences in CTB performance may be most pronounced between these sites.field. 7-day moisture content. differences between sites A and B occurred most frequently. in this case. 16 of the 27 factors were found to be significantly different between the sites. While preparation of the manually compacted specimens was the responsibility of the research personnel involved with the project. and time between mixing and compaction for each of the manually compacted specimens. skilled operators. 7-day dry density. These data indicate that improvements in CTB construction specifications may be warranted to ensure more uniform performance of the pavement sections. 28-day dry density. on both I-84 and US-91 sites.

further research should be performed to assess the effects of construction improvements on variability in properties of CTB layers. Minimizing variability in construction of CTB layers will ultimately lead to higher quality pavements that more consistently meet design expectations. 73 . Compaction should be performed as soon as possible after mixing to minimize the adverse effects of cement hydration on the ability to achieve maximum dry density in the field. and time between mixing and compaction. milling plans should be utilized to achieve improved uniformity in RAP content.2 RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this research suggest that tighter specifications are warranted with respect to RAP content.5. and inspection protocols for encouraging improved control of cement content should be implemented during construction to ensure high-quality work. cement content. Concerning FDR projects. For the purpose of evaluating the efficacy of tighter specifications. Additional research should also be performed to investigate variability in properties of CTB layers constructed in other climatic conditions by different contractors and using other aggregate base materials and cement contents.

74 .

J. No. 4. Eggett. Vol. Skokie. UT. 6. A. and O. IL.lehighnw. J. 2. Al-Turk. pp. IL. In Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. A. Better Roads. Accessed July 18.htm. TRB.. Summer 2005. 7. Brigham Young University. Crane. 20. 1995. R. Portland Cement Association.. 1995. Cooley. Portland Cement Association.. H. Inc. 2005. 10. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Washington. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. James Informational Media. Brecher.. National Research Council. IL. W. January 2006.. D. 9. CD-ROM. Ali.A. Basma.26-27. Recycling Benefits for HMA Producers. National Research Council. Washington. 2. Structural Numbers for Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Base and Subbase Course Mixes. Provo.C. In 75 . Taha. No. Roughness of Flexible Pavements with Cement-Treated Base Layers.com/canada/pages/concrete4. pp. 3. 2005. The Magazine of the Asphalt Institute. 2-4. Des Plaines. SWE. pp. 5. 14-15. A.com/articles/brjul01c. thesis. Effects of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement on Mechanical Properties of Base Materials. Portland Cement Association. A. Infrastructure: A National Priority. W. Guthrie. Skokie. 41. L. 2006.REFERENCES 1. Highter. DeGroot.htm. DC. Full Depth Reclamation With Cement: The Road Recycled. M. 8. S. MacGregor. R. Skokie. and J. 264-269.S. pp. Hanson. D. December 2005. Evaluation of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregate in Road Bases and Subbases. http://www. D. Transportation Research Board. 1652. Vol. G. http://www. No. IL.betterroads. R. Concrete Innovation. Soil-Cement Construction Handbook. 6. Accessed July 12. DC.

and M. Raghavandra. A. L. H. Cambridge. 1031. Texas Transportation Institute. Scullion.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Fifth Edition. UT. National Research Council.org/wood/wd975fs. Lotfi. HyperStat Online Statistics Textbook. CA. Mohammad. 76 . Sebesta. Clegg Impact Soil Tester.investopedia.cwc. 2006. 18. Dexbury. Accessed July 12. Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. 1721. Longnecker. http://www. Brown.S. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. 19. Lowe. August 2006. V.htm. TRB. Full-Depth Reclamation with Cement. Accessed June 13. Ott.cement. Brigham Young University. Investopedia.. 11. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.com/hyperstat/A18652.PDF.asp. United Kingdom. TRB. http://www. W. Cambridge University. A. and T. R. Witczak. S. pp 19-28. 2006. 2006. TX. Portland Cement Association. United Kingdom.asp. B. WA. 15. C.uk/projects/compaction/chapter2. 21. DC.org/pavements/pv_sc_fdr. No. IL. Main Types of Compaction Plant. National Research Council. Accessed June 8. No. Recycling Technology Assistance Partnership. http://davidmlane. Guthrie. W. S. Edinburgh. October 2001. Napier University. HyperStat Online Contents. Texas A&M University System. pp 41-48. Stabilization of Aggregate Base Material Blended with Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement. National Research Council.. 20. Accessed July 12. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.. Report 4920-2. TRB. http://sbe. Washington.asp. pp 22-28. Laboratory Performance Evaluations of Cement-Stabilized Soil Base Mixtures. http://www.html.com. DC. 2006. A. and M.C. Washington D. Clegg. 13. http://www. Accessed July 12. M. 2001.com/terms/c/coefficientofvariation. Quality Control for Recycled Concrete As a Structural Fill Material. 17. 2006. 16. Pacific Grove. 2006. No. L. College Station. Coefficient of Variation. Dynamic Characterization of Cement-Treated Base and Subbase Materials. 2006. 22. Accessed June 13.ac.au/Products.. Seattle. Washington. Provo. 12. 1687. January 1998. thesis. 14. B.com. Skokie.clegg. School of the Built Environment. Selecting Optimum Cement Contents for Stabilizing Aggregate Base Materials. N. Huang..napier... In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful