Ap R462 14

Research Report
AP-R462-14
Cemented Materials Characterisation

Final Report
Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Prepared By
Allan Alderson and Geoff Jameson
Publisher
Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Project Manager
Andrew Papacostas
Abstract
This report brings together five years of research into the modulus, strength
fatigue characteristics of cement treated granular materials as used in road
pavements. Laboratory procedures used to prepare, cure and test materials
for flexural modulus, flexural strength and flexural fatigue behaviour of
cemented material beams are reported together with the test results.
Based on the laboratory results, a framework for the revision of the Guide to
Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design has been
suggested and the proposed revised text of the Guide has been prepared.
Keywords
cemented materials, cement treated crushed rock, stabilised granular,
damage exponent, flexural fatigue, flexural modulus, flexural strength,
breaking strain, laboratory test methods, fatigue relationship
ISBN 978-1-925037-72-2
Published June 2014
Austroads Project No. TT1664
Pages 127
Austroads Publication No. AP-R462-14
Austroads Ltd 2014

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright
Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written
permission of Austroads.
About Austroads
Austroads purpose is to:
promote improved Australian and New Zealand
transport outcomes
provide expert technical input to national policy
development on road and road transport
issues
promote improved practice and capability by
road agencies.
promote consistency in road and road agency
operations.
Austroads membership comprises:
Roads and Maritime Services New South
Wales
Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Transport and Main Roads
Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department of Planning, Transport and
Infrastructure South Australia
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and
Resources Tasmania
Department of Transport Northern Territory
Department of Territory and Municipal Services
Australian Capital Territory
Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure
and Regional Development
Australian Local Government Association
New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the
collaboration of member organisations and others
in the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian
leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road transport sector.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport
outcomes by providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences
arising from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular
issues.
Summary
More than 90% of the Australian and New Zealand sealed road network consists of a sprayed seal overlying
granular pavements. Increased traffic loadings are placing increasing pressure on these pavements, with
some non-standard materials no longer being fit-for-purpose. In many rural areas, the use of high quality
crushed rock is not a cost-effective treatment to improve the structure of these pavements. Consequently
there is increasing use of treatments that enhance the existing non-standard materials by adding
cementitious and bituminous binders to allow recycling of scarce resources.
The objective of the research in Austroads research project TT1664 (Cemented Materials Characterisation)
was to develop improved methods to design flexible pavements with cemented materials building on the
research previously undertaken in Austroads research project TT1359 (Cost-effective Structural Treatments
for Rural Highways: Cemented Materials).
The outcomes and findings relating to the laboratory testing were:
Test methods were developed for flexural modulus, flexural strength and fatigue of cement treated
crushed rocks and natural gravels.
Strain-based fatigue laboratory relationships were a better fit to the data than stress-based relationships
and it is proposed to continue use of logN-log fatigue relationship.
Strain damage exponents from 9 to 24 were calculated from the data.
The variation in flexural modulus and strength in relation to density was quantified and procedures
proposed for use in design.
Based on the findings, and in light of the recommended framework for cemented materials characterisation
(Austroads 2014), the report proposes revised text for Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2:
Pavement Structural Design.
Austroads 2014| page i
Contents
1.
Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.
Materials Tested ..................................................................................................................................... 2
3.
3.1
Equipment and Test Method ................................................................................................................. 3

Specimen Preparation Method ................................................................................................................. 3
3.1.1 Material Splitting Procedure ....................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Laboratory Characterisation Process ......................................................................................... 3
3.1.3 Mixing Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 3
3.1.4 Slab Compaction and Cutting Procedures ................................................................................. 4
3.1.5 Curing ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Flexural Beam Test Methods ................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6
3.2.2 Apparatus ................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.3 Flexural Modulus ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.2.4 Flexural Strength and Breaking Strain ....................................................................................... 9
3.2.5 Flexural Fatigue ........................................................................................................................ 10
3.2
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Flexural Modulus Results .................................................................................................................... 12

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Adjustment to Standard Strain ............................................................................................................... 12
Results .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Variation in Modulus with Density .......................................................................................................... 15
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Flexural Strength Results .................................................................................................................... 17

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Results .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Strength Variation with Density .............................................................................................................. 19
Curing Duration ...................................................................................................................................... 20
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
Breaking Strain Results ....................................................................................................................... 22

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Variation in Breaking Strain with Density ............................................................................................... 22
Effect of Cure Duration ........................................................................................................................... 23
7.
7.1
7.2
7.3
Fatigue Results ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Results .................................................................................................................................................... 24
Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 25
7.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 25
7.3.2 Strain-based Fatigue Relationships ......................................................................................... 25
7.3.3 Stress-based Fatigue Relationships ......................................................................................... 27
7.3.4 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 29
8.
8.1
8.2
8.3
Estimation Of Flexural Strength ......................................................................................................... 30

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Predicting Strength from Properties of Constituent Materials ................................................................ 30
Flexural Strength from UCS ................................................................................................................... 33
8.3.1 Review of Data in the Literature ............................................................................................... 33
8.3.2 Measurements .......................................................................................................................... 34
9.
Proposed Guide Revision .................................................................................................................... 36
10.
Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 37
Austroads 2014| page ii
References ...................................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix A Properties of Test Materials ................................................................................................... 40
Appendix B Flexural Beam Test Methods .................................................................................................. 54
Appendix C Modulus, Strength and Fatigue Results ................................................................................ 63
Appendix D Fatigue Plots ............................................................................................................................ 97
Appendix E Proposed Revision of the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2 Section 6.4 ...............110
Appendix F Example of use of Proposed Mechanistic Procedure for Flexible Pavements
with Cemented Materials ...................................................................................................... 122
Tables
Table 2.1:
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
Table 4.4:
Table 4.5:
Table 5.1:
Table 5.2:
Table 5.3:
Table 5.4:
Table 7.1:
Table 7.2:
Table 7.3:
Table 8.1:
Table 8.2:
Summary of material properties ..................................................................................................... 2

Modulus dependency on strain .................................................................................................... 13
Flexural moduli after 28 days moist curing .................................................................................. 14
Flexural moduli after five months moist curing ............................................................................. 14
Flexural moduli after nine months moist curing ........................................................................... 15
Results of regression analysis on the variation of modulus with density ratio .............................16
Flexural strength and breaking strain of laboratory-manufactured test beams after
28 days moist curing .................................................................................................................... 17
five months moist curing .............................................................................................................. 18
nine months moist curing ............................................................................................................. 18
Change in flexural strength with curing ........................................................................................ 21
Properties of fatigue beams after five and nine months moist curing ..........................................24
Strain-based fatigue relationships for each material .................................................................... 26
Stress-based fatigue relationships for each material ................................................................... 28
Data used in development of Equation 12 ................................................................................... 31
Flexural strength and UCS test results ........................................................................................ 34
Figures
Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.2:
Figure 3.3:
Figure 3.4:
Figure 3.5:
Figure 3.6:
Figure 3.7:
Figure 3.8:
Figure 3.9:
Motorised rotary splitter and splitting process................................................................................ 3

Planetary concrete mixer used to mix cemented material ............................................................. 4
BP slab compactor with rectangular mould .................................................................................... 5
Wet sawing a flexural beam specimen in the laboratory ............................................................... 5
Long-term storage of beams .......................................................................................................... 6
Cross-sectional view of flexural beam testing apparatus ............................................................... 7
Flexural beam test .......................................................................................................................... 7
Example flexural modulus load pulse of 1.0 kN ............................................................................. 8
Example flexural strength test graph of load-displacement (weathered granite 3%
specimen A4-2) .............................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 3.10: Example of breaking strain and strain at 95% of the breaking load .............................................10
Figure 3.11: Example flexural fatigue load pulse of 2.7 kN .............................................................................. 11
Figure 3.12: Typical modulus variation during fatigue tests (specimen from quartzite 4%) .............................11
Figure 4.1: Example of flexural modulus dependency on strain over a wider strain range for
individual crushed granite beams cured for five months .............................................................. 12
Figure 4.2: Example of modulus variation with density ratio .......................................................................... 15
Figure 5.1: Density ratio differences of flexural strength and fatigue beams .................................................19
Figure 5.2: Flexural strength variation with density ........................................................................................ 20
Figure 5.3: Change in flexural strength with curing ........................................................................................ 20
Figure 6.1: Variation in breaking strain with density ....................................................................................... 22
Figure 6.2: Change in breaking strain with curing .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 8.1: Comparison of Equation 12 predicted strengths with measured values ......................................31
Figure 8.2: Comparison of Equation 13 predicted strengths with measured values ......................................33
Figure 8.3: Flexural strength variation with UCS ............................................................................................ 34
Figure 8.4: Adjusted flexural strength with UCS ............................................................................................ 35
Austroads 2014| page iii
1. Introduction
The previous Austroads Project TT1359 Cost-effective Structural Treatments for Rural Highways
investigated the fatigue performance of a range of cemented materials (Austroads 2010). An important
finding was that the current fatigue relationship in the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement
Structural Design (Austroads 2012a) needed to be revised. Currently, flexural modulus is used to distinguish
the variation in fatigue performance of different qualities of cemented materials, varying from lightly stabilised
subbase sand to lean mix concrete. The outcome of TT1359 was that flexural modulus may not be the best
parameter to relate to the fatigue behaviour of cement stabilised materials.
Consequently research was then undertaken in Austroads project TT1664 Cemented materials
characterisation with the objective of proposing revised design procedures for the Guide.
In 201213 the aims of the project were to improve procedures for designing flexible pavements containing
cemented materials by addressing the following tasks:
re-analyse the published information previously reported under project TT1359 Cost-effective Structural
Treatments for Rural Highways: Cemented Material (Austroads 2010) and include any new data
develop improved methods to determine design moduli for cemented materials by examination of flexural
beam testing, presumptive values and correlation to other laboratory tests
revise text for Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design, Section 6.4 (where
appropriate), including a new presumptive fatigue relationship for cemented materials.
Section 2 summarises the wide range of cemented materials investigated in projects TT1359 and TT1664.
Section 3 provides details of the sample preparation and test methods and equipment used in the flexural
modulus, flexural strength, breaking strain and fatigue testing. Section 4 to Section 7 summarise the test
results. In the event that measured flexural strength data is not available, methods of estimating flexural
strength from material properties are evaluated in Section 8. A summary of the proposed key changes to
cemented materials characterisation is provided in Section 9. Appendix E is the proposed revised text for the
Guide.
Austroads 2014| page 1
2. Materials Tested
A wide variety of cement stabilised crushed rocks, natural gravels and a recycled crushed concrete were
tested in Austroads projects TT1359 and TT1664. Table 2.1 summarises the materials properties, which are
described in detail in Appendix A.
A general purpose (GP) Portland cement was used in this project for all samples. The cement was provided
in small quantities during the execution of the project by a local company in Melbourne (Victoria). Freshly
manufactured cement was obtained on a regular basis and it was estimated that no cement was older than
one month at the time of use.
It should be noted that previously the material referred in Austroads (2010) as siltstone sourced from Para
Hills in South Australia which had been stabilised with 4% cement, has been renamed to quartzite
throughout this report consistent with recent road agency advice.
Table 2.1:
Summary of material properties
Material
Material
identifier
Cement
Coarse
Fine
aggregate
content
(% > 6.7 mm)
aggregate
content
(% <
4.75 mm)
Basalt (Mt Gambier)
BAM3
1, 9
42
20
Basalt (Purga)
BAP3
40
13
Calcrete limestone
CL3
1, 9
57
21
Calcrete limestone (repeat)
CL3
57
21
Calcrete limestone
CL5
1, 9
57
21
Granite
GR3
46
20
Hornfels
HO3
52
15
Laterite
LAT3
34
56
21
Metagreywacke
MTG3
40
52
Modified prior stream gravel
MPSG
1, 9
47
32
14
Quartzite (repeat)
QZ4_1
5, 9
52
28
Quartzite
QZ4_2
52
28
Prior stream gravel
PSG3
57
14
Prior stream gravel
PSG5
1, 9
57
14
Recycled concrete
RCC3
76
Weathered granite
WG3
1, 9
35
25
Weathered granite
WG5
1, 9
35
25
content
(%)
Curing duration
(months)
Plasticity
index
3. Equipment and Test Method

3.1 Specimen Preparation Method
3.1.1 Material Splitting Procedure
The bulk materials were split into representative samples using a motorised rotary splitter shown in Figure
3.1. The splitter has a large funnel into which the bulk material can be loaded. A conveyor belt then delivers
this material at a constant speed to 12 removable canisters which rotate underneath the belt, also at
constant speed. The process involved splitting two or more batches of 12 numbered (10 L) buckets each.
Corresponding numbers from each of the batches would then be combined for a second (final) round of
splitting to improve uniformity between samples.
Figure 3.1: Motorised rotary splitter and splitting process
3.1.2 Laboratory Characterisation Process

Once materials had been split uniformly a laboratory characterisation process was undertaken to collect the
following properties:
particle distribution using the sieve analysis testing procedure (according to AS 1289.3.6.1)
maximum dry density and optimum moisture contents using a modified compaction test (according to
AS 1289 2.1.1 and 5.2.1)
liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic index using a plasticity index test (according to AS 1289 2.1.1, 3.1.1,
3.1.2, 3.3.1 and 3.4.1).
3.1.3 Mixing Procedure
Batches of aggregate material (usually of 7085 kg) were weighed and preconditioned (addition of moisture)
24 hours prior to mixing. The preconditioned mix was then combined with the remaining water and cement in
a motor-driven planetary concrete mixer with a tank size of 800 mm diameter and 350 mm high (Figure 3.2).
The mixing process was as follows:

The bulk preconditioned (moisture prepared) host material was placed into the mixing tank.
The mixer was run for 15 seconds to spread the material evenly in the tank.
The required amount of GP cement was added.
The final amount of water was added to reach the target moisture content of Modified compaction
optimum moisture content.
The mixer was run for 120 seconds then let stand for 120 seconds.
The mixer was run for a further 120 seconds.
Figure 3.2: Planetary concrete mixer used to mix cemented material
800 mm
350 mm
Following mixing, the material was placed in containers and covered with a plastic sheet and let stand for a
period of time prior to compaction. The intention was to make allowance for the commencement of the
cement binder reaction and also to replicate the field placement of cemented materials which can involve
quarry mixing and then delivery time prior to placement. The standing time was at most 30 minutes as
beyond this time samples were too difficult to compact due to the initial set of the cement binder.
3.1.4 Slab Compaction and Cutting Procedures
A BP slab compactor and a rectangular mould with internal dimensions of 400 mm long x 320 mm wide x
145 mm high were used for slab compaction as shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: BP slab compactor with rectangular mould
400 mm
145 mm
320 mm
A pre-determined mass of wet (cement-treated) material was placed in the slab mould, spread evenly and
tamped manually in three separate layers to commence the compaction process. The mass was selected to
target a density ratio of 95% Modified maximum dry density. The material was then compacted in a single
layer to the specified height of 100 mm using the slab compactor (Figure 3.3). The slab compactor was set at
an initial vertical pressure of 100 kPa while the curved steel compaction head was rocked over the material.
The vertical pressure was increased at 100 kPa intervals for every 10 rocking passes until the pressure
reached 600 kPa (near machine capacity). The compaction process was continued until the total number of
passes reached 100 (the reduction in height beyond 100 passes had previously been found to be
insignificant) or until the entire length (along the 320 mm width) of the slab had been compacted to 100 mm
depth.
Immediately following compaction the slab was retained in the closed mould and covered with a wet cloth
and lid to minimise moisture loss. For a minimum of two days the slab was stored at a controlled temperature
of 23 C prior to de-moulding. Each slab was placed into a fog room of 23 C and humidity greater than 95%.
Slabs were subsequently cut into two beams after a minimum cure period of 24 days to ensure no
disintegration occurred during the wet cutting process (using a diamond tipped saw shown in Figure 3.4).
Beams were replaced back into the fog room for the remainder of their curing duration.
Figure 3.4: Wet sawing a flexural beam specimen in the laboratory
3.1.5 Curing
Prior to testing, the beams were preconditioned in a humidity- and temperature-controlled fog room for at
least 48 hours to ensure a consistent moisture condition for all tests. The beams were exposed to the
ambient laboratory conditions for approximately 15 minutes while their wet densities were checked by
measuring the beam dimensions (to determine the specimen volume) and the wet total mass of the beam.
After the testing the moist beams were then sealed in thin plastic cling wrap (see Figure 3.5) to minimise
moisture loss during extended curing.
The wrapped beams and then placed in a temperature controlled environment of 23 C and cured for either
28 days, 5 months or 9 months.
Figure 3.5: Long-term storage of beams
3.2 Flexural Beam Test Methods

3.2.1 Introduction
The preferred methods for testing cemented material beams are outlined below but all conform to four-point
bending of flexure (beam) specimens (with a span/depth ratio greater than three). The flexural beam test
methods used in this study were devised for materials with a maximum particle size of 20 mm and tested
beam samples which were 100 mm high by 100 mm wide by 400 mm long.
3.2.2 Apparatus
The test apparatus uses a simply supported beam loaded at its third points (Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7). The
beam supports were 300 mm apart so as to achieve a span to depth ratio of three. The beam displacement
was measured at the mid-point. A 14 kN pneumatic loading frame was used to undertake all the flexural
beam tests, with typical loading in the range 1 kN to 6 kN.
The mid sample displacement was measured by two linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) placed
side by side across the width of the beam. The LVDTs were mounted in a cradle that was supported on the
sample. The cradle supports were located above the beam supports and a weak restraining force was
applied between the cradle and the beam support to hold the cradle in place.
Figure 3.6: Cross-sectional view of flexural beam testing apparatus
Source: AS 1012.11 (2000).
The loading and measurements were all controlled and monitored by a personal computer.
Figure 3.7: Flexural beam test
Loading
roller
100 mm
LVDT to measure
beam deflection
100 mm
Lower platen of test machine
100 mm
100 mm
Supporting
roller
3.2.3 Flexural Modulus

The flexural modulus test (Appendix B.1) involved the application of cyclic haversine load pulses of 250 ms
duration. The beam deflection associated with each load pulse was recorded, together with the seating load
(nominally 50 N) and the peak load. The load pulse was one second duration including a 750 ms rest period
between load pulses (Figure 3.8). At least 100 load pulses were applied to the specimen.
As flexural modulus varies slightly with the applied stress/strain consideration needs to be given to load
applied. The moduli in this report have been standardised to values at 50 microstrain. In the event that test
beams are not subsequently tested for fatigue, the modulus testing should be undertaken at a load level that
generates 50 microstrain.
Figure 3.8: Example flexural modulus load pulse of 1.0 kN
However, most of the test beams in the project were tested tor fatigue after modulus testing. In order to
minimise fatigue damage to specimens during the modulus testing the magnitude of the applied load in the
modulus testing was targeted to produce approximately 2030 microstrains.
After completion of the flexural modulus test, the mean peak tensile strain at the bottom of the beam and
mean flexural modulus were calculated from the measured deflection.
Flexural moduli were calculated using Equation 1:
3
E=
23 PL
3
2 10
108WL
where
E
flexural modulus (MPa)
maximum applied force (kN)
distance between the load and reaction clamps (mm)
length between supporting rollers (mm)
average width of test specimen (mm)
average height of test specimen (mm)
deflection at the centre of the beam (mm)
3.2.4 Flexural Strength and Breaking Strain

For the flexural strength (also known as the modulus of rupture) test the MATTA was programmed to load
the specimen with a seating force of 50 N for the first six seconds, after which the load was increased at a
rate of 3.3 kN per minute until the specimen failed (ruptured) as described in AS 1012.11-2000.
The vertical displacement at the beam mid-point was measured using two linear variable differential
transformers (LVDT) mounted in a reference frame (Figure 3.7) placed on the specimen to enable the strain
at break to be calculated using the beam dimensions. The beam deflection data was sampled at a frequency
of 100 Hz, together with the applied load. After the specimen failed, the peak load and approximate location
of the break point were recorded.
An example graph of the measured load-displacement is shown as Figure 3.9, with displacement in blue and
load in red.
Figure 3.9: Example flexural strength test graph of load-displacement (weathered granite 3% specimen A4-2)
Equation 2 was used to calculate the flexural strength:

fcf =
PL(1000)
WH
where
fcf
flexural strength (MPa)
maximum applied force (kN)
average width of test specimen (mm)
height of test specimen (mm)
Breaking strains are reported at 95% of the breaking load as it was found to be more repeatable than the
strain at which the specimen breaks (Austroads 2010). Figure 3.10 shows an example of force/strain history
data from a flexural strength test. In the test the specimen failed at 2.58 kN load with a breaking strain of
approximately 165 microstrain. Ninety-five percent of the breaking load is 95% x 2.58 kN = 2.46 kN. Hence,
the strain at 95% of the breaking load is 130 microstrain for this example.
Figure 3.10: Example of breaking strain and strain at 95% of the breaking load
3.0
Sample Fails
2.5
95% Pmax = 2.46 kN

Pmax = 2.58 kN
Force (kN)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Breaking strain
b = 130
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Microstrain ()
Equation 3 was used to calculate the breaking strain using the displacement at the breaking load. The
equation used to calculate the strain at break was:
=
10808H(1)
23L
where
breaking strain (microstrain)
mid-span vertical displacement at 95% of breaking load (mm)
height of test specimen (mm)
3.2.5 Flexural Fatigue

The flexural fatigue test involved the application of cyclic haversine load pulses similar to those explained for
flexural modulus (Section 3.2.3) using equipment shown in Figure 3.7.
The beam deflection associated with each load pulse was recorded, together with the seating load (nominally
50 N) and the peak load. The pulse period of 2 Hz (twice the rate of flexural modulus testing) was adopted
due to the time-consuming nature of the fatigue test procedure. This period included a 250 ms rest period
between 250 ms load pulses (Figure 3.11).
The magnitude of the load pulses was generally selected to fall in the 5090% range of the breaking load as
determined from the strength tests for the material type. This load pulse range was selected to produce a
variation of calculated strain values of 50100 microstrain corresponding to a range of 1000 to 1 000 000+
cycles up to failure. Note if a specimen did not fail after 1 000 000 cycles the test was programmed to
automatically stop loading.
Figure 3.11: Example flexural fatigue load pulse of 2.7 kN
Historical data from project TT1359 (Austroads 2010) suggests that for flexural fatigue testing the modulus
decreased rapidly from the start of the test (one load cycle, see Figure 3.12). After this initial bedding-in
phase, the modulus decreased at a slow, constant rate. For the specimens that failed within the testing range
a turning point was observed when the modulus attained approximately 80% of the initial modulus. After this
point an accelerated rate in modulus reduction was observed leading to fracture. The point of fracture was
found to repeatedly occur just following the attainment of 50% of the initial modulus. This fatigue nature of
cemented samples under the four point bending test can be seen in Figure 3.12.
Figure 3.12: Typical modulus variation during fatigue tests (specimen from quartzite 4%)
14,000
Initial Modulus
Eini ~ 11500 MPa
For samples that did

not fail this line was
extrapolated from
cycles to
E = 80%Eini
Line adjusted to constant

rate of modulus reduction
10,000
'Bedding-in'
phase
8,000
Accelerated
Modulus
Reduction
'Turning Point'
E ~ 9000 MPa
E ~ 80%Eini
6,000
Failure
Elastic
Modulus
(MPa)
Elastic
modulus
(MPa)
12,000
4,000
Constant Rate of
Modulus Reduction
2,000
~ 65,000
Load Cycles
0
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
Load Cycles
The flexural fatigue test involved the application of continuous load pulses until the beam fatigued. In this
project fatigue life was the number of loadings at which flexural modulus of the beam was half that of the
initial flexural modulus determined after 50 loading cycles:
4. Flexural Modulus Results

4.1 Introduction
The flexural modulus test method described in Appendix B.1 was used on all beams before strength or
fatigue testing was undertaken. Appendix C lists the measured moduli for all materials.
4.2 Adjustment to Standard Strain

In order to minimise fatigue damage to test beams during the modulus test, it is common practice to reduce
the applied load such that the tensile strain is 2030 microstrain. However, such strain levels are well below
those applied in-service. Hence it was decided to adjust all measured moduli to a standard strain of 50
microstrain.
Moffatt (Austroads 2011) examined the load/strain dependency of flexural modulus and reported that the
modulus decreased by 35 to 80 MPa of every microstrain increase in applied strain. Consequently it was
considered necessary to select a standard strain at which to report the flexural modulus results.
To extend the previous research (Austroads 2011) modulus strain dependency to a wide range of material,
the flexural moduli measured at 2030 microstrain were compared to initial flexural moduli at
commencement of the fatigue tests. Typically, fatigue testing induced much greater strain in the beams
during testing so as to induce fatigue in the materials within a realistic timeframe. For example, Figure 4.1
illustrates the variation in modulus of individual test beams of crushed granite stabilised with 3% cement
cured for five months.
Figure 4.1: Example of flexural modulus dependency on strain over a wider strain range for individual crushed
granite beams cured for five months
It can be seen that the lines are reasonably parallel indicating that all beams for this material had a similar
sensitivity to strain level. The slopes for the seven beams ranged from 58 MPa/ to
85 MPa/ with an average of 66 MPa/.
Table 4.1 lists the average modulus dependency on strain calculated for each material. The variation in
these dependencies between materials did not appear related to their modulus values.
Table 4.1:
Modulus dependency on strain
Material
Material ID
Average for individual

beams
(MPa/)
Basalt (Mt Gambier)
BAM3
28
Basalt (Purga)
BAP3
32
Calcrete limestone
CL3
24
Calcrete limestone
CL5
26
Granite
GR3
66
Hornfels
HO3
54
Prior stream gravel
PSG5
29
MPSG
70
Quartzite
QZ4_1
30
Quartzite (repeat)
QZ4_2
33
Recycled crushed concrete
RCC
15
Weathered gravel
WG3
25
Weathered gravel
WG5
34
Average
37
It was concluded that for an increase in strain of 1 the modulus decreases about 40 MPa. Thus if the
measured modulus is 14 000 MPa at an applied strain of 25 microstrain, the modulus adjusted to 50
microstrain is 13 000 MPa.
Based on this data Equation 4 was used to standardise the measured flexural moduli:
E50 = EM 40 x (50 M)
where
E50
flexural modulus standardised to a strain of 50 (MPa)
EM
measured flexural modulus at strain M (MPa)
tensile strain during flexural modulus testing (microstrain)
Note that this standardisation of modulus is not required if the test beams are not subsequently fatigue
tested. In such cases the modulus can be measured at 50 microstrain.
4.3 Results
The measured modulus on each beam is given in Appendix C and the mean moduli are listed in Table 4.2.
The mean density ratios listed are the measured densities divided by the modified compaction maximum dry
density (MDD), expressed as a percentage. The target density ratio was 95%.
Equation 4 was applied to all the individual beam results for each material tested and the mean adjusted
flexural moduli were calculated. The adjusted flexural moduli values are used in the analyses in the
remainder of this report.
Table 4.2:
Flexural moduli after 28 days moist curing
Material(2)
1
2
Number of
beams tested
Mean density
ratio(1)
(%)
Mean tensile
strain
(microstrain)
Mean
measured
flexural moduli
(MPa)
Mean adjusted
flexural moduli
to
50 microstrain
(MPa)
Weathered granite (WG3)
32
94.6
24
8 040
6 980
Weathered granite (repeat)

(WG3_2)
27
8 600
7 670
29
95.7
22
13 720
12 870
Calcrete limestone (CL3)
32
96.7
22
11 240
10 130
32
97.1
23
14 190
13 100
Basalt (Mt Gambier) (BAM3)
32
97.7
25
14 670
13 600
Prior stream gravel (PSG5)
27
95.1
25
11 400
10 400
Modified prior stream gravel (MPSG)
32
93.5
26
12 970
12 000
Lateritic gravel (LT3)
96.9
23
10 260
9 190
Metagreywacke (MTG3)
94.5
27
13 010
12 110
Density ratio is based on modified maximum dry density.

General purpose (GP) cement was used for all materials.
Table 4.3:
Flexural moduli after five months moist curing
Material(2)
1
2
94.6
Number of
beams tested
Mean density
Mean tensile
Mean
Mean adjusted
ratio(1)
(%)
strain
(microstrain)
measured
flexural moduli
(MPa)
flexural moduli
to
50 microstrain
(MPa)
20
96.9
26
9 560
8 600
20
96.5
20
12 120
11 000
Recycled concrete (RCC)
16
96.7
25
9 700
8 670
Hornfels (HO3)
20
94.0
22
20 340
19 200
Basalt (Purga) (BAP3)
16
95.6
25
13 000
11 980
Quartzite (QZ4_2)
12
94.5
21
14 300
13 130
Granite (GR3)
16
96.5
25
16 530
15 530

Table 4.4:
Flexural moduli after nine months moist curing
Material(2)
1
2
Number of
beams tested
Mean density
ratio(1)
(%)
Mean tensile
strain
(microstrain)
Mean
measured
flexural moduli
(MPa)
Mean adjusted
flexural moduli
to
50 microstrain
(MPa)
26
94.5
33
9 260
8 560
25
95.5
31
14 970
14 200
25
96.8
37
9 030
8 450
26
98.0
33
12 450
11 780
Basalt (Mt. Gambier) (BAM3)
26
97.7
33
14 780
14 090
26
95.0
32
12 730
12 000
Modified prior stream gravel (MPSG)
28
94.3
26
17 240
16 260
Quartzite (QZ4_1)
35
97.1
26
15 340
14 400

4.4 Variation in Modulus with Density

In the research project, the compaction for the beams was targeted at 95% of the Modified compaction
maximum dry density. However this was not always able to be achieved as seen from the density ratios in
Table 4.2, Table 4.3 and Table 4.4.
As this also may occur in future application of the proposed Austroads design method (Appendix E), a
procedure was developed to adjust the measured moduli for density.
For each material tested after five months and nine months moist curing, the variation in modulus with
density ratio was plotted. For example Figure 4.2 shows the results for calcrete limestone stabilised with 5%
cement (CL5) after nine months curing.
Figure 4.2: Example of modulus variation with density ratio
For each material linear regression analysis was undertaken to quantify the variation in modulus with density
ratio. The results are given in Table 4.5. Note that for three materials (BAP3, CL3 and PSG5) the results
were too scattered to develop a statistically significant relationship.
Using the regression equations, the percentage changes in modulus for a 1% change in density ratio were
determined as shown in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5:
Results of regression analysis on the variation of modulus with density ratio
Curing period
5 months
9 months
Material
Slope
(MPa/%)
Intercept
(MPa)
Correlation
coefficient
(R2)
Model
statistical
significance
Percentage change in
modulus for 1%
density change
HO3
1083
82 601
0.40
< 0.01
5.6
PSG3
377
27 876
0.34
< 0.01
4.3
PSG5
436
31 090
0.56
< 0.01
4.0
QZ4_2
802
62 674
0.82
< 0.01
6.3
RCC
796
68 324
0.48
< 0.01
9.2
GR3
1080
88 665
0.47
< 0.01
6.9
BAP3
436
29 753
0.43
< 0.01
3.6
BAM3
774
61 511
0.80
< 0.01
5.7
CL5
575
44 615
0.62
< 0.01
4.9
MPSG
1093
86 840
0.55
< 0.01
6.7
QZ4_1
851
68 185
0.35
< 0.01
5.9
WG3
322
21 949
0.18
0.03
3.8
WG5
626
45 607
0.36
< 0.01
4.4
Average
5.5
Assuming a 5% increase in modulus for a 1% increase in density, the following Equation 5 was derived to
adjust measured modulus (Etest) from the value at the test density ratio (DRtest) to a value at the in-service
density ratio (DRin-service).
Ein-service = Etest (1+ 0.05 x (DRin-service DRtest))
5. Flexural Strength Results

5.1 Introduction
Flexural strength is a key material property to explain the fatigue performance of concrete pavements
(Austroads 2012a). In addition, it has been adopted in several other overseas cemented materials fatigue
relationships as previously summarised (Austroads 2010). Consequently, the flexural strengths were
measured to assess whether they could explain the differences in fatigue performance between cemented
materials.
During flexural strength testing a monotonic load was applied to the simply supported beam using third point
loading as described in Section 3. This induced (theoretically) a constant moment in the mid third of the
beam and thus the beam was most likely to break at the weakest point in this zone. During loading the
applied load and the resulting deflection were constantly monitored allowing the tensile stress and tensile
strain at the bottom of beam to be calculated. The test method described in Appendix B.2 was used.
5.2 Results
The test results for each beam are provided in Appendix C and are summarised below in Table 5.1,
Table 5.2 and Table 5.3. It should be noted that there were substantially less beams tested to determine the
flexural strength compared to flexural modulus. Note high variation of 28 day breaking strain for prior stream
gravel may have been due to varying amounts of micro-cracking possible due to handling of these low
strength materials.
Table 5.1:
curing
Flexural strength and breaking strain of laboratory-manufactured test beams after 28 days moist
Material(2)
1
2
Density ratio(1)
Cement
Moist
Number
content
(%)
curing
period
of
samples
tested
Mean
(%)
Weathered granite
28 days
Weathered granite
(repeat)
28 days
Weathered granite
Calcrete limestone
Calcrete limestone
Flexural strength
Breaking strain
Coefficient
of
variation
(%)
Mean
(MPa)
Coefficient
of
variation
(%)
Mean
()
Coefficient
of
variation
(%)
94.0
1.1
0.58
12
196
46
94.6
0.8
0.65
18
138
29
28 days
95.2
0.9
1.14
167
21
28 days
96.5
1.0
0.65
171
20
28 days
96.7
1.1
1.03
14
208
19
Basalt (Mt Gambier)
28 days
97.2
1.5
1.24
160
Prior stream gravel
28 days
95.2
0.5
0.91
10
383
245
Modified prior stream

gravel
28 days
93.2
1.0
0.73
15
100
13
Lateritic gravel
28 days
96.9
1.4
0.67
14
115
10
Metagreywacke
28 days
94.5
1.0
0.80
103
16
Density ratio is based on the modified maximum dry density.

Table 5.2:
curing
Flexural strength and breaking strain of laboratory-manufactured test beams after five months moist
Material(2)
1
2
Density ratio(1)
Cement
Moist
Number
content
(%)
curing
period
of
samples
tested
Mean
(%)
Prior stream gravel
5 months
10
Prior stream gravel
5 months
Recycled concrete
Hornfels
Basalt (Purga)
Flexural strength
Breaking strain
Coefficient
of
variation
(%)
Mean
(MPa)
Coefficient
of
variation
(%)
Mean
()
Coefficient
of
variation
(%)
97.2
1.1
0.78
128
21
96.5
1.2
1.03
12
128
11
5 months
95.7
0.9
0.69
152
14
5 months
94.1
0.9
1.57
125
16
5 months
94.5
1.8
0.98
10
150
Granite
5 months
96.1
1.6
1.13
139
14
Quartzite
5 months
94.6
2.3
1.41
20
179

Table 5.3: Flexural strength and breaking strain of laboratory-manufactured test beams after nine months
moist curing
Material(2)
1
2
Cement
content
(%)
Moist
curing
period
Number
of
samples
tested
Weathered granite
9 months
Weathered granite
9 months
Calcrete limestone
9 months
Calcrete limestone
Basalt (Mt. Gambier)
Density ratio(1)
Flexural strength
Breaking strain
Coefficient
of
variation
(%)
Mean
(MPa)
Coefficient
of
variation
(%)
Mean
()
Coefficient
of
variation
(%)
94.3
1.0
0.96
184
94.2
1.1
1.51
11
169
96.6
0.2
0.97
12
212
24
9 months
97.3
1.0
1.50
10
208
10
9 months
98.0
2.7
1.97
216
Prior stream gravel
9 months
94.2
1.5
1.19
11
130
16
Modified prior stream

gravel
9 months
94.5
1.2
1.27
13
126
16
Quartzite
9 months
96.5
0.7
1.55
155
12
Mean
(%)

5.3 Strength Variation with Density

In Austroads (2014) the usefulness of flexural strength in explaining differences in fatigue performance
between materials was investigated. To undertake this investigation the flexural strength results needed to
be adjusted to the same density ratio as the fatigue test beams. As can be seen in Figure 5.1 for some
materials significant difference in density occurred. Hence a method was required to adjust flexural strength
results for density ratio.
Figure 5.1: Density ratio differences of flexural strength and fatigue beams
Analysis was undertaken to determine the degree of correlation between the flexural strength and density
ratio for each material. Due to the scatter of the data and the low number of test beams most of these
regressions were not statistically significant at the 5% level. Consequently it was decided to pool the data
and analyse the data as follows:
To enable the results of all materials to be pooled, it was decided to express the strength results of each
material in terms of a ratio to the materials strength at a density ratio of 95%.
For each material the five months and nine months flexural strength data was reviewed to assess those
materials for which the strength at 95% density ratio could be estimated without excessive extrapolation.
Materials were deleted from the analysis if they did not at least have one test beam within 0.5% of a
density ratio of 95%.
For each of these materials, regression analysis was used to predict the flexural strength at a density
ratio (DR) of 95% (FS95).
For each material, the relative flexural strength of each beam was calculated by dividing the flexural
strength by the flexural strength at a density ratio of 95% (that is, FSDR/ FS95). Similarly for each beam, its
percentage density ratio was divided by 95% (that is, DR/95).
Pooling all beams of all selected materials, the variation in flexural strength values with density ratio were
plotted and a relationship determined by regression analysis as shown in Figure 5.2. The slope of the
regression line indicates the flexural strength increases 5.1% for a 1% increase in density ratio.
It was concluded that flexural strengths increases 5% for a 1% increase in the density ratio.
As detailed in Appendix E, this density adjustment procedure is proposed to be included in the revision of the
Guide.
Figure 5.2: Flexural strength variation with density
0.25
0.20
y = 0.051x
R = 0.40
0.15
0.10
0.05
FSDR - FS95
--------------------
FS95
0.00
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
0.0
-0.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
Density ratio - 95
5.4 Curing Duration

Several materials were tested after different curing durations and these are shown in Figure 5.3. All eight
materials exhibited the expected response with the flexural strength increasing the longer they were cured.
The error bars on each column represent one standard deviation.
Figure 5.3: Change in flexural strength with curing
The changes in flexural strength were calculated and are shown in Table 5.4. The average increase in
flexural strength from 28 days to 9 months was 51%. These findings relate to GP cement, different increases
are anticipated for slow-setting cement binders. There was insufficient data to estimate the percentage
increase between 28 days and 5 months curing.
Table 5.4:
Change in flexural strength with curing
Material(1)
Cement content
(%)
Flexural strength
(MPa)
28 days moist
curing
Five months
moist curing
Nine months
moist curing
Weathered granite
0.58
0.96
66
Weathered granite
1.14
1.51
32
Calcrete limestone
0.65
0.97
48
Calcrete limestone
1.03
1.50
45
Basalt (Mt. Gambier)
1.24
1.97
59
Prior stream gravel
0.91
1.03
1.19
31
0.73
1.27
74
Quartzite
1.41
1.55
0.95
1.22
1.36
51
Average
1
Increase in
flexural strength
from 28 day to
9 months
(%)
General purpose (GP) cement was used for all materials
6. Breaking Strain Results

6.1 Introduction
Breaking strain was calculated from the deflection during flexural strength testing and has been used in
fatigue models overseas as discussed by Gonzalez et al. (Austroads 2010). Results for all beams tested are
given in Appendix C and summarised in Table 5.1, Table 5.2 and Table 5.3.
6.2 Variation in Breaking Strain with Density

A regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between density ratio and the breaking
strain during flexural strength testing. For the 25 sets of data available, only two were statistically significant
at the 5% level. Consequently similarly to the approach used for flexural strength (Section 5.3) it was decided
to pool the data and analyse the data as follows:
For each material the five months and nine months breaking strain data was reviewed and any material
with breaking strain strength data with at least one point not more than 0.5% different from a density ratio
of 95% was selected.
For each of these materials, regression analysis was used to predict the flexural strength at a density
ratio (DR) of 95% (BS95).
For each material, the relative breaking strain of each beam was calculated by dividing the measured
breaking strain by the predicted breaking strain at a density ratio of 95% (that is, BSDR/ BS95).
Pooling all beams of all selected materials, the variation in these breaking strain values with density ratio
plotted (Figure 6.1).
It was concluded that the breaking strain data was too scattered to quantify the variation in breaking strain
with density ratio.
Figure 6.1: Variation in breaking strain with density
0.25
0.15
0.05
BSDR - BS95
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
-0.05
--------------------
BS95
-0.15
-0.25
-0.35
Density ratio - 95
6.3 Effect of Cure Duration

Several materials were tested after different curing durations and these are shown in Figure 6.2. All of the
eight materials exhibited an increase in breaking strain the longer they were cured. The error bars on each
column represent one standard deviation.
For eight materials tested, the average increase in breaking strain between 28 days and nine months curing
was an increase of 20%, with a range of 0% to 35%. These findings relate to GP cement, different increases
are anticipated for slow-setting cement binders.
Figure 6.2: Change in breaking strain with curing
7. Fatigue Results
7.1 Introduction
Flexural fatigue performance of cement treated beam samples was measured using the 4-point bending
apparatus (Section 3.2.4) and fatigue procedure outlined in Appendix B.3. Flexural fatigue testing was
carried out at a minimum of five months cure age.
The end of fatigue life was defined as the number of load cycles required to achieve half of the initial
modulus. Normally, beam samples failed (broke) before attaining half modulus or only a few load cycles were
applied between half modulus condition and sample breaking.
It was intended that sufficient load would be applied to the beams to induce fatigue failure in the beam within
one million loading cycles. However, about 30 beams had not reached terminal condition before the test was
terminated at one million cycles. In these cases an estimate of the fatigue life was made by extrapolating the
data. However, the estimated fatigue life was capped at a maximum of ten million cycles. This affected less
than 5% of the fatigue lives used in the analysis.
The term initial modulus was applied to the mean flexural modulus determined between pulses 10 to
50 cycles. These initial moduli in the fatigue test varied from the flexural moduli at a strain of 50 microstrain
reported in Section 4.
7.2 Results
Results for all test beams are provided in Appendix C, plotted in Appendix D and summarised in Table 7.1.
The mean initial modulus and the mean estimated fatigue lives have been rounded to the nearest hundred
cycles.
Table 7.1:
Moist
Properties of fatigue beams after five and nine months moist curing
Material(2)
Number of
Mean
Mean initial
Mean initial
Mean initial
Mean
beams
tested
density
ratio(1)
(%)
strain
(microstrain)
stress
(kPa)
modulus
(MPa)
cycles to
half initial
modulus
Recycled concrete (RCC)
14
96.8
60
488
8 800
138 500
Hornfels (HO3)
13
93.6
58
1 075
19 500
2 663 800
Basalt (BAP3)
10
96.3
50
599
12 100
2 234 000
19
94.4
78
640
8 700
151 800
21
95.7
75
1 017
14 300
223 900
21
96.6
70
552
8 500
2 128 000
22
97.9
89
956
11 800
246 600
Basalt (BAM3)
16
97.2
91
1 152
13 800
387 300
17
95.1
68
809
12 300
216 700
Modified PSG (MPSG)
21
94.3
49
764
16 300
199 900
Quartzite (QZ4_1)
21
97.4
82
1 149
14 700
628 900
curing
period
(months)
1
2
Relative to modified maximum dry density.

7.3 Analysis
7.3.1 Introduction
As described previously (Austroads 2010), cemented materials fatigue relationships use either applied strain
or applied stress to predict fatigue performance. In addition, in some relationships the logarithm of fatigue life
is related to the logarithm of strain or stress (so-called log-log models), whilst other relationships are semilogarithmic with the logarithm of fatigue life related to strain or stress.
In analysing the fatigue results these model forms were investigated to compare their ability to explain the
variation in fatigue life.
7.3.2 Strain-based Fatigue Relationships
Linear regression analysis was undertaken on each material using both log-log and semi-log relationships of
the forms as presented in Equation 6 and Equation 7. The resulting relationships are detailed in Table 7.2 for
each material tested. The term a in Equation 6 is the strain damage exponent of the fatigue relationship. In
2
addition, the significance of the strain parameter and the correlation coefficient (R ) values are included in
Table 7.2.
log(N) = a log( ) + b
log(N) = a ( ) + b
where
number of load repetitions to half initial modulus (fatigue life)
initial elastic strain (microstrain)
regression coefficient
Table 7.2:
Material
Strain-based fatigue relationships for each material
(1)
Recycled concrete
Cement
content
(%)
Moist
curing
period
(months)
Number
of test
beams
Mean
density
ratio
(%)
14
96.8
Hornfels
13
94.0
Basalt (Purga)
10
96.3
Weathered granite
18
94.4
Weathered granite
21
95.7
Calcrete limestone
21
96.6
Calcrete limestone
22
97.9
Basalt
(Mt. Gambier)
16
97.2
Prior stream gravel
17
95.1
Modified prior
stream
21
94.3
Quartzite
21
97.4
Fatigue equation
Significanc
e (P-Value)
Adjusted R2
log(N) = 34.48 17.12 log (strain)
< 0.01
0.55
log(N) = 11.53 0.1253 (strain)
< 0.01
0.50
log(N) = 31.21 14.56 log (strain)
< 0.01
0.67
log(N) = 12.21 0.1137 (strain)
< 0.01
0.71
log(N) = 46.64 24.51 log (strain)
< 0.01
0.87
log(N) = 16.00 0.2192 (strain)
< 0.01
0.86
log(N) = 33.91 15.45 log(strain)
< 0.01
0.76
log(N) = 10.60 0.0755(strain)
< 0.01
0.73
< 0.01
0.68
log(N) = 8.77 0.0534(strain)
< 0.01
0.69
< 0.01
0.47
log(N) = 11.26 0.0882(strain)
< 0.01
0.45
< 0.01
0.42
log(N) = 11.23 0.0720(strain)
< 0.01
0.44
< 0.01
0.78
log(N) = 12.18 0.0755(strain)
< 0.01
0.80
< 0.01
0.77
log(N) = 9.788 0.0729(strain)
< 0.01
0.77
< 0.01
0.57
log(N) = 8.982 0.0822(strain)
< 0.01
0.58
< 0.01
0.56
log(N) = 8.863 0.0489(strain)
< 0.01
0.55
It was concluded that there was no significant difference in the fit to the laboratory data between the
logN-log and logN- models. The Guide (Austroads 2012a) currently includes a logN-log model. These
results provide no support to change to a semi-logarithmic model.
It was noted that there was at least a 95% probability that the logarithm of the initial strain was related to the
logarithm of fatigue life in all cases. The average strain damage exponent was calculated to be 14.4.
A linear regression analysis was also conducted on each material similar to that in Equation 6 but also
including a logarithm of modulus term as shown in Equation 8:
log(N) = a log( ) + b log(E) + c
where
number of load cycles to failure (fatigue life)
initial elastic strain (microstrain)
flexural modulus at 50 microstrain (MPa)
strain damage exponent
b, c
regression coefficients
The value of modulus adopted for the analysis was the flexural modulus measured during a separate test
using the method outlined in Appendix B.2 and adjusted to a value equivalent to that which would have been
obtained if it had been tested at 50 .
In all cases, modulus was not a statistically significant factor at the 95% level of significance.
7.3.3 Stress-based Fatigue Relationships
A similar analysis to that done in Section 7.3.2 was repeated substituting initial stress for initial strain. Results
of each material were analysed separately using both log-log and semi-log relationships of the forms as
presented in Equation 9 and Equation 10. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 7.3.
log(N) = a log( ) + b
log(N) = a () + b
10
where
number of load cycles to half the initial modulus (fatigue life)
initial elastic stress (kPa)
It was concluded that there was no significant difference in the fit to the laboratory data between the
logN-log and logN- models.
The term a in Equation 9 is the stress damage exponent of the fatigue relationship. Using the results of
statistically significant relationships, an average stress damage exponent of 12.4 was calculated.
Table 7.3:
Material
Stress-based fatigue relationships for each material
(1)
Hornfels
Cement
content
(%)
Moist
curing
period
(months)
Number
of test
beams
Mean
density
ratio
(%)
13
93.6
Basalt (Purga)
10
96.3
Weathered granite
19
94.4
Weathered granite
21
95.7
Prior stream gravel
17
95.1
Modified prior
stream
21
94.3
Quartzite
21
97.4
Fatigue equation
Significanc
e (P-Value)
Adjusted R2
Log(N) = 46.80 13.60 Log(Stress)
< 0.01
0.61
Log(N) = 11.83 0.00575(Stress)
< 0.01
0.66
0.01
0.58
Log(N) = 13.52 0.0136(Stress)
0.01
0.58
< 0.01
0.62
Log(N) = 12.14 0.0117(Stress)
< 0.01
0.64
< 0.01
0.76
Log(N) = 9.16 0.00429(Stress)
< 0.01
0.74
< 0.01
0.66
Log(N) = 9.788 0.00619(Stress)
< 0.01
0.67
< 0.01
0.43
Log(N) = 7.934 0.00387(Stress)
< 0.01
0.45
< 0.01
0.41
Log(N) = 7.979 0.00271(Stress)
< 0.01
0.39
0.11
0.09
Log(N) = 9.535 0.00802(Stress)
0.10
0.09
0.16
0.05
Log(N) = 7.479 0.00276(Stress)
0.14
0.06
0.80
0.07
Log(N) = 5.747 0.00036(Stress)
0.80
0.07
0.07
0.19
Log(N) = 9.611 0.0106(Stress)
0.06
0.20
Relationships that were not significant at 95% confidence level
Calcrete limestone
21
96.6
Calcrete limestone
22
97.9
Basalt
(Mt. Gambier)
16
97.2
Recycled concrete
14
96.8
A linear regression analysis was also conducted on each material similar to Equation 9 but also including a
logarithm of modulus term as shown in Equation 11:
log(N) = a log( ) + b log(E) + c
11
where
number of load cycles to half initial modulus (fatigue life)
initial elastic stress (kPa)
stress damage exponent
flexural modulus adjusted to 50 microstrain (MPa)
b, c
regression coefficients
The value of modulus adopted for the analysis was the flexural modulus measured during a separate test
using the method outlined in Appendix B.2 and adjusted to a value equivalent to that which would have been
obtained if it had been tested at 50 .
As observed for the strain-based relationship, in all cases, modulus was not a statistically significant factor at
the 95% level of significance. Hence these regressions are not listed in this report.
7.3.4 Summary
It was concluded that strain-based equations provided a better fit to the laboratory data than the stressbased equations. It should be noted that this finding may have been influenced by the fact that in conducting
the fatigue experiments the load applied to each test beam of each material was selected with the objective
of testing each material over a range of applied strains. In other words the loads used favoured the
generation of strain-based fatigue relationships rather than a stress-based fatigue relationship.
In terms of the strain-based equation, the logN-log and logN- models had similar ability to explain the
variation in the laboratory fatigue data.
8. Estimation of Flexural Strength

8.1 Introduction
As summarised in Section 9, it is proposed that the Guide (Austroads 2012a) design procedures include a
method of fatigue life prediction based on the design modulus and design flexural strength.
Whilst the current Guide includes a means of estimating modulus from unconfined compressive strength
(UCS), as flexural strength is currently not required to predict fatigue performance a means of estimating
flexural strength is not currently provided.
Given that the equipment to measure flexural strength is not commonly available in road agency and industry
laboratories at present, as part of the project, methods of estimating flexural strength from commonly
specified properties were investigated.
8.2 Predicting Strength from Properties of Constituent Materials

Alderson (Austroads 2013) developed a method of estimating flexural strength from these properties such as
the properties of the constituent materials, cement content and moist-curing period.
Using data in Table 5.1, Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 from a wide range of cemented materials stabilised with GP
cement, including lean-mix concrete previously report (Austroads 2010), the following relationship was
obtained (Equation 12):
FS = 0.377 + 0.284*CC 0.060*MC 0.031*F4 + 0.001*Age + 0.037*DR 0.027*C6
12
where
FS
CC
GP cement content (percentage by mass)
MC
moisture content before addition of GP cement (percentage by mass)
F4
fine aggregate content (percentage by mass passing 4.75 mm)
Age
period of moist curing prior to testing (days)
DR
density ratio of compacted sample (%)
C6
coarse aggregate content (percentage by mass retained on the 6.7 mm sieve)
The ranges of data used in the development of Equation 12 are given in Table 8.1
Table 8.1:
Data used in development of Equation 12
Variable
Minimum
Mean
Maximum
Flexural strength (MPa)
0.2
1.2
3.8
Cement content (%)
3.0
4.1
10.0
Moisture content (%)
2.8
10.0
15.9
Percentage by mass passing 4.75 mm (%)
24
60
99
Age (days)
27
130
377
91.0
95.8
100.4
Percentage by mass retained on the 6.7 mm sieve (%)
33
100
Plasticity index
20
Density ratio (relative to modified Proctor maximum dry density) (%)
It is generally believed that the plasticity index does influence the strength of the cemented materials, but this
was not evident in the data.
The variables included in Equation 12 are listed in order of statistical significance with cement content being
the most significant. In reviewing Equation 12, most of the correlation factors confirm expectations as follows:
Increasing the cement content increased the flexural strength.
Increasing the moisture content decreased the flexural strength.
Increasing the fine aggregate content decreased the flexural strength.
Increasing the density ratio of the compacted sample increased the flexural strength.
Increasing the curing time increased the flexural strength.
Figure 8.1 compares the measured flexural strengths of individual test beams with the values predicted using
Equation 12. The standard error in predicting the strength of individual test beams was 0.26 MPa. Note that
Equation 12 is not applicable to slow-setting cement binders.
Figure 8.1: Comparison of Equation 12 predicted strengths with measured values
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Predicted
flexural
2.0
strength
(MPa)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Measured flexural strength (MPa)
As the uncertainty in predicting flexural strength is high, the data was reanalysed as follows:
The lean-mix concrete data was removed from the data set as the proposed Guide revision does not
require flexural strength of lean-mix concrete.
As the proposed fatigue relationship based on flexural strength is not applicable to recycled crushed
concrete (Austroads 2014), the recycled crushed concrete were deleted from the analysis.
Given that the design flexural strength is based on the value after 90 days moist curing strengths and as
there is a significant increase in strength between 28 days and 90 days, it was decided to delete the 28
days results from the analysis.
As a method was required to predict the mean flexural strength of a material, for each material the mean
measured flexural strength and the mean density ratio were used in the analysis rather than individual
beam data.
Using regression analysis, the following simplified strength prediction equation was derived (Equation 13):
FS = 83.9/F6 + 0.0015*Age 0.355
13
where
FS
F6
fine aggregate content (percentage by mass passing 6.7 mm)
Age
period of moist curing prior to testing (days)
The standard error in predicting the mean strength was 0.18 MPa. Note that Equation 13 is not applicable to
slow-setting cement binders.
Figure 8.2 compares the flexural strengths predicted using Equation 13 with the mean measured flexural
strengths of each material. It is apparent that the predicted strength can vary from the measured value by
more than 10% for about half of the materials. For example, the crushed granite with 3% cement (GR3) has
a predicted strength of 1.19 MPa compared to its mean measured value of 1.04 MPa, that is the strength is
over-estimated by 14%. If this over-estimated strength was used in the proposed fatigue relationship, the
fatigue life would be over-estimated by about a factor of seven. In addition it would be expected that a
predictive relationship would have included an increase in flexural strength with cement content and density
ratio. In regression analysis both these factors were not statistically significant, possibly due to the limited
amount of data used to derive Equation 13. Furthermore the equation related to materials stabilised with GP
cement and is not applicable to slow-setting binders which limits its usefulness in design. Accordingly it is
proposed not to include this method of predicting flexural strength in the revised Austroads design
procedures.
Figure 8.2: Comparison of Equation 13 predicted strengths with measured values

2.0
1.9
Line of equality
1.8
Bam3
1.7
QZ4
1.6
1.5
CL5
1.4
Predicted
flexural 1.3
strength
(MPa) 1.2
QZ4
CL3
GR3
1.1
HO3
WG3
FS = 83.9/F6 + 0.0015Age - 0.355
Bap3
1.0
0.9
PSG5
0.8
PSG3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
Measured flexural strength (MPa)
8.3 Flexural Strength from UCS

8.3.1 Review of Data in the Literature
To further explore the possibility of estimating the flexural strength (FS) from other material properties, a brief
review of the correlation between the UCS test and the flexural strength test was undertaken. This study was
considered as a pilot study and not a comprehensive review of the topic.
Data from several reports (Doshi & Guirguis 1983, Katsakou & Kolias 2007, Kolias, Kasselouri & Karahalios
2005, Mitchell, Dzwilewski & Monismith 1974, Thompson 1986) was reviewed and while some of these
reports did not specifically investigate the relationship they did measure both properties.
Following a review of the literature, Thompson (1986) recommended the following relationship for use in
design (Equation 14):
FS = 0.2 UCS
14
where
FS
UCS
unconfined compressive strength (MPa)
More recently, Equation 14 has been adopted in the AASHTO mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide
(AASHTO 2008).
8.3.2 Measurements
A limited investigation was undertaken to assess the applicability of Equation 14 for use in the revised
Austroads Guide. Five of the cemented materials previously tested for flexural strength were selected and
UCS samples prepared. These were tested after 28 days moist curing using the Australian standard test
method for UCS and the results compared to the 28-day flexural strength values. After moist curing for 28
days, the UCS specimens soaked in water for four hours at
2025 C and then drained before UCS testing.
The results are shown in Figure 8.3 and are summarised in Table 8.2. The UCS results for the crushed
basalt with 3% cement (BAM3) were unexpectedly low and appear to be erroneous given the high quality of
this crushed rock.
Table 8.2:
Flexural strength and UCS test results
Material
Cement
content
(%)
Flexural strength
Density ratio
(%)
Unconfined compressive strength

Flexural strength
(MPa)
UCS(1)
(MPa)
Density ratio
(%)
Basalt (Mt Gambier) (BAM3)
97.2
1.24
101.7
3.75
96.5
0.65
100.4
5.01
96.7
1.03
100.6
5.97
Granite (GR3)
96.0
1.13
99.9
6.57
Metagreywacke (MTG3)
94.5
0.80
101.6
6.66
Samples were cured in a fog room for 28 days then soaked for four hours at 2025 C, then allowed to drain before testing.
Figure 8.3: Flexural strength variation with UCS

1.5
1.4
1.3
BAM3
1.2
GR3
1.1
Flexural
strength
(MPa) 1.0
CL5
0.9
MTG3
0.8
0.7
CL3
0.6
0.5
3
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
Unconfined compressive strength (MPa)
The density ratios of the UCS and flexural strength specimens differed. The flexural strength beams had an
mean density ratio of 96% while the UCS cylinders had a mean density ratio of almost 101%. Hence, to
assess the correlation between the two tests, for each material the measured flexural strength results were
adjusted to an estimated value at the mean density ratio of the UCS samples assuming 5% increase in
flexural strength for each 1% increase in density ratio (Section 5.3). The resulting data is plotted in Figure 8.4
and compared to Equation 14.
It is considered that currently there is insufficient data to conclude that Equation 14 estimates flexural
strength to the required precision for use in the Guide.
Figure 8.4: Adjusted flexural strength with UCS
1.6
BAM3
1.5
1.4
GR3
1.3
CL5
1.2
Flexural
strength 1.1
at 28 days
(MPa)
MTG3
AASHTO (2008)
FS = 0.2 UCS
1.0
0.9
0.8
CL3
0.7
0.6
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
Unconfined compressive strength at 28 days (MPa)
9. Proposed Guide Revision

The objective of the project was to review the design procedures for cemented materials in the Guide to
Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design (Austroads 2012a). Based on the research
reported here a number of changes have been recommended for the Guide (Austroads 2014) in terms of the
characterisation of cement treated crushed rocks and natural gravels. (Note no changes are proposed to the
design procedures for lean-mix concrete).
In terms of modulus characterisation the proposed changes are:
change the definition of cemented materials design modulus to be the 90-day flexural modulus in situ
a test method to manufacture laboratory test beams and measure flexural modulus
the inclusion of a procedure to determine the design modulus from the measured flexural modulus
the inclusion of a procedure to adjust the measured flexural modulus for differences in density between
the modulus test beams and the density in situ
amendments to presumptive moduli values.
In terms of fatigue characterisation the proposed changes are:
a test method to manufacture laboratory test beams and measure fatigue characteristics and hence
determine a laboratory fatigue relationship
a test method to manufacture laboratory test beams and measure flexural modulus
a procedure to estimate the laboratory fatigue characteristics from the measured flexural modulus and
flexural strength
a procedure to determine in-service fatigue relationships from the laboratory fatigue characteristics
a procedure to determine in-service fatigue relationships from design flexural modulus and design flexural
strength
presumptive in-service fatigue relationships based on presumptive moduli and strengths for three types of
cemented materials.
Appendix E and Appendix F contains the proposed revised text for Section 6.4 of the Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design.
10. Summary
The objective of the project was to review the design procedures for cemented materials in the Guide to
Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design (Austroads 2012a). The report provides the
data which was used to develop a framework for the revision of the Guide as reported elsewhere (Austroads
2014).
In developing this framework cognisance was taken of the following key findings:
It was observed that measured flexural modulus varies with the applied load/strain. Hence a procedure
was developed to standardise measured modulus to a value at 50 microstrain.
In the proposed revision of the Guide a method will be provided to estimate fatigue characteristics which
utilises flexural strength. The preferred method of determining flexural strength is laboratory strength
measurement of test beams. Alternative methods of estimating flexural strength from material properties
such as cement content, particle size distribution, plasticity, density and UCS were investigated. It was
concluded that none of these methods is currently suitable for inclusion in the Guide given the high
dependence of fatigue life on flexural strength.
Flexural moduli and flexural strength values vary with density ratio. Hence procedures were developed to
enable measured moduli and strength to be adjusted for differences between the density of test beams
and in situ densities.
In analysing the laboratory fatigue data both strain-based and stress-based fatigue relationships were
fitted to the data. It was concluded that strain-based fatigue models were a better fit to the measured data
than stress-based fatigue models. However, this conclusion may have been influenced by the fact that
the load levels selected for the test beams of each materials were chosen to give a range of initial strains
rather than a range of initial stresses.
In terms of the alternative strain-based fatigue models, it was concluded that there was no significant
difference in the data fit between logN-log models and semi-logarithmic models (logN-). Based on
this finding it is proposed the Guide continues to use a logN-log for both calculating laboratory fatigue
relationships from measured data and for in-service fatigue relationships.
Using the laboratory results in this report a framework for revision of the Guide has been prepared
(Austroads 2014). Based on this framework the proposed revised text was prepared (Appendix E and
Appendix F). Note no changes are proposed to the design procedures for lean-mix concrete.
References
AASHTO 2008, Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide: manual of practice: interim edition,
MEPDG-1, AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA.
Austroads 2007, Austroads LTPP and LTPPM study: summary report for 2005-06, AP-T81-07, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010, Cost-effective structural treatments for rural highways: cemented materials, AP-T168-10,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011, A laboratory study of the influence of multiple axle loads on the performance of a cement
treated material: interim report, AP-T185-11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
rd
Austroads 2012a, Guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural design, 3 edn, AGPT02-12.
Austroads 2012b, Preliminary investigation of the influence of microcracking on fatigue life of cemented
materials, AP-T198-12, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013, Prediction of flexural strength and breaking strain of cemented materials: laboratory study,
AP-T251-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014, Framework for the revision of Austroads design procedures for pavements containing
cemented materials, AP-R463-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Doshi, SN & Guirguis, HR 1983, Statistical relations between compressive and tensile strengths of soil
cement, Australian Road Research, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 195-200.
Jameson, GW, Dash, DM, Tharan, Y & Vertessy, NJ 1995, Performance of deep-lift in situ pavement
recycling under accelerated loading: the Cooma ALF trial 1994, ARR 265 & APRG report no. 11,
Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Katsakou, M & Kolias, S 2007, Mechanical properties of cement-bound recycled pavements, Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials, vol. 60, no. CM4, pp. 171-9.
Kolias, S, Kasselouri-Rigopoulou, V & Karahalios, A 2005, Stabilisation of clayey soils with high calcium fly
ash and cement, Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 30113.
Mitchell, JK, Dzwilewski, P & Monismith, CL 1974, Behavior of stabilized soils under repeated loading:
report 6: a summary report with a suggested structural pavement design procedure, report no. 3-145,
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station and Pavement Laboratory, US Army Material Command,
Virginia, USA.
Thompson, MR 1986, Mechanistic design concepts for stabilised base pavements, report
UILU-ENG-86-2008, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Australian Standards
AS 1012.11-2000, Methods of testing concrete: method 11: determination of the modulus of rupture.
AS 1289 2.1.1-2005, Methods for testing soils for engineering purposes: method 2.1.1: soil moisture content
tests: determination of the moisture content of a soil: oven drying method (standard method).
AS 1289 3.1.1-2009, Methods for testing soils for engineering purposes: soil classification tests:
determination of the liquid limit of a soil: four point Casagrande method.
determination of the plastic limit of a soil: one point Casagrade method (subsidiary method).
AS 1289 3.3.1-2009, Methods for testing soils for engineering purposes: soil classification tests: calculation
of plasticity index of a soil.
determination of the linear shrinkage of a soil: standard method.
AS 1289.3.6.1-2009, Methods for testing soils for engineering purposes: soil classification tests:
determination of the particle size distribution of a soil: standard method of analysis by sieving.
AS 1289 5.2.1-2003, Methods for testing soils for engineering purposes: soil compaction and density tests:
determination of the dry density/moisture content relation of a soil using modified compactive effort.
AS 2193-2005, Calibration and classification of force-measuring systems.
Appendix A
Properties of Test Materials
A.1 Weathered Granite

The weathered granite used in this study was sourced from Bunyan pit near Cooma, New South Wales. The
material was stabilised with 3% and 5% (by dry mass) of GP cement. The same GP cement was used for all
the cemented mixes prepared in this project. The material has been used as a stabilised material on the
Monaro Highway. The performance of this material, bound with a slag/lime blend, was assessed using
accelerated loading in 1994 (Jameson et al. 1995). Subsequent to the accelerated loading testing, routine
monitoring of associated long term pavement performance (LTPP) sections has shown minimal distress and
indicated that the test sections have performed well (Austroads 2007).
Summary characteristics of the material sourced for this study are listed in Table A 1, with additional data
provided in Austroads (2010).
Table A 1: Summary characteristics of crushed weathered granite as sourced
Particle size distribution
Percentage passing (%)
Parameter
Value
75.0 mm sieve
95
Liquid limit (%)
31
53.0 mm sieve
88
Plastic limit (%)
17
37.5 mm sieve
84
Plasticity index (%)
14
26.5 mm sieve
79
Maximum dry density (t/m3)
2.04(1)
19.0 mm sieve
74
Optimum moisture content (%)
10.2(1)
13.2 mm sieve
73
9.50 mm sieve
71
6.70 mm sieve
69
4.75 mm sieve
65
2.36 mm sieve
53
0.425 mm sieve
25
0.075 mm sieve
14
0.0135 mm sieve
7.5
Using standard compactive effort.
Approximately 20% of the material was greater than 26.5 mm in size, and 12% exceeded 53 mm. As shown
in Figure A 1, the large aggregate pieces were comprised of two forms of rock, with the stronger of these
rocks not present in smaller sizes.
Figure A 1:
Examples of large aggregate on weathered granite material
Due to the presence of oversize particles the provided material was considered inappropriate for the
manufacture of 100 x 100 x 400 mm test beams. Rather than simply removing the oversize material, and
producing a material less representative of the material in field conditions, it was decided that aggregates in
excess of 20 mm would be crushed and remixed with the remaining material. The resulting material
characteristics are shown in Table A 2. Figure A 2 shows the effect of crushing on the grading of the
material.
Figure A 2:
Particle size distribution of souced and modified crushed weathered granite
100
90
80
Percent passing %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0.075
0.0135
0.3 0.425 0.6
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2
19 26.5 37.5 53
75
Sieve size (mm)

Weathered granite (sourced)
Weathered granite (modified)
Table A 2: Summary characteristics of modified crushed weathered granite
Percentage passing
(%)
Parameter
Value
26.5 mm sieve
97
Liquid limit (%)
31
19.0 mm sieve
91
Plastic limit (%)
17
13.2 mm sieve
86
9.50 mm sieve
81
6.70 mm sieve
74
4.75 mm sieve
67
2.36 mm sieve
51
1.18 mm sieve
37
0.600 mm sieve
28
0.300 mm sieve
22
0.150 mm sieve
17
0.075 mm sieve
13
Maximum dry density
(t/m3)
14
2.13(1)
7.9%(1)
Using modified compactive effort.
A.2 Calcrete Limestone

The calcrete limestone used in the study, sourced from a pit near Renmark, South Australia, is a well graded
material (Figure A 3) with a low, large aggregate strength (with typical Los Angeles (LA) abrasion values of
30 and above). The material was combined with 3% and 5% (by dry mass) of cement binder. This material
has been used as unbound basecourse material in the construction of a number of sections of highway in
the area. Some of these sections have subsequently been rehabilitated by in situ stabilisation.
While this material is a crushed quarry product manufactured to a grading envelope, there may be issues
with abrasion and breakdown of the source rock. Summary characteristics of this sourced material can be
found in Table A 2.
A materials fact sheet from the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, South Australia is
Figure A 3:
Particle size distribution for crushed calcrete limestone
100
90
Percent passing %
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0135
0.075
0.15
0.3 0.425 0.6
1.18
2.36
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2
19 26.5 37.5 53
75
Sieve size (mm)

Calcrete Limestone (Renmark, SA)
Table A 3: Summary characteristics of crushed calcrete limestone
Parameter
Value
26.5 mm sieve
19.0 mm sieve
16.0 mm sieve
13.2 mm sieve
9.50 mm sieve
6.70 mm sieve
4.75 mm sieve
2.36 mm sieve
1.18 mm sieve
0.600 mm sieve
0.425 mm sieve
0.300 mm sieve
0.150 mm sieve
0.075 mm sieve
100
94
86
76
62
51
43
33
28
23
21
19
13
8
Liquid limit (%)

Plastic limit (%)
23
19
4
1.95(1)
13(1)
A.3 Basalt (Mount Gambier, SA)

This basalt material tested is a well graded, high quality, non-plastic material (Figure A 4) sourced from a
quarry near Mount Gambier, South Australia. The aggregate was combined with 3% (by dry mass) of cement
binder.
Summary characteristics of the material sourced for this study are shown in Table A 4.
A materials fact sheet from the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, South Australia is
Figure A 4:
Particle size distribution of Mount Gambier crushed basalt
100
90
Percent passing %
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0135
0.075
0.3 0.425 0.6
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2
19 26.5 37.5 53
75
Sieve size (mm)

Basalt (Mount Gambier, SA)
Table A 4: Summary characteristics of Mount Gambier crushed basalt
1
2
Particle size distribution(1)
Parameter
Value
19.0 mm sieve
100
Liquid limit (%)
Non-plastic
13.2 mm sieve
88
Plastic limit (%)
Non-plastic
9.50 mm sieve
77
4.75 mm sieve
57
2.14(2)
2.36 mm sieve
41
12(1)
0.425 mm sieve
20
0.075 mm sieve
Typical values only.

A.4 Prior Stream Gravel

Sourced near Hay, New South Wales, the prior stream gravel material is a fine grained (all passing a
6.70 mm sieve) clayey river sand. It was prepared with 5% (by mass) cement binder. The material has been
used, without binder, in construction of about 300 km of highway in the area and has demonstrated poor
performance. There have also been some road trials of stabilisation of this type of material.
The particle size distribution can be found in Figure A 5. Summary characteristics of the material sourced for
this study are shown in Table A 5, with additional data provided in Austroads (2010).
Figure A 5:
Particle size distribution for prior stream gravel
100
90
Percent passing %
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0135
0.075
0.15
0.3 0.425 0.6
2.36
1.18
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2
19 26.5 37.5 53
75
Sieve size (mm)

Prior Stream Gravel (Hay, NSW)
Table A 5: Summary characteristics of prior stream gravel
Particle size
distribution
Percentage passing
(%)
Parameter
Value
6.70 mm sieve
100
Liquid limit (%)
22
4.75 mm sieve
99
Plastic limit (%)
14
2.36 mm sieve
96
0.425 mm sieve
57
2.12(1)
0.075 mm sieve
29
7.2(1)
0.0135 mm sieve
14
Using modified compactive effort (MDD 2.05 t/m3 and OMC 9.3% using standard compactive effort).
A.5 Modified Prior Stream Gravel

An artificial material comprised of the same prior stream gravel discussed in Appendix A.4 above, combined
with additional larger sized rhyolite aggregates (Table A 6). This modified prior stream gravel was treated
with 3% (by dry mass) cement binder. The resulting grading (Table A 7) lies between the grading of the base
prior stream gravel and a well graded crushed rock. The grading shown in Figure A 6, closely matches
Fullers curve with an exponent n of 0.3, which is generally considered on the fine side of a well graded material.
The objective of including this material in the study was to investigate how much influence grading has on
flexural fatigue behaviour for cementitiously stabilised materials. The material characterisation of the original
prior stream gravel material, provided by the RTA, NSW can be found in Austroads (2010).
Figure A 6:
Particle size distribution for modified prior stream gravel
100
90
Percent passing %
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0135
0.075
0.15
0.3 0.425 0.6
1.18
2.36
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2
19 26.5 37.5 53
75
Sieve size (mm)

Modified Prior Stream Gravel
Table A 6: Composition of modifier for the prior stream gravel material

Component
Proportion of material
Prior stream gravel
55%
20 mm rhyolite aggregate
20%
10%
15%
Table A 7: Summary characteristics of modified prior stream gravel
Particle size
distribution
Percentage passing
(%)
Parameter
Value
26.5 mm sieve
100
Liquid limit (%)
22
19.0 mm sieve
98
Plastic limit (%)
14
13.2 mm sieve
85
9.50 mm sieve
80
2.27(1)
6.70 mm sieve
71
5.2(1)
4.75 mm sieve
63
2.36 mm sieve
54
1.18 mm sieve
42
0.600 mm sieve
35
0.300 mm sieve
29
0.150 mm sieve
22
0.075 mm sieve
16
A.6 Basalt (Purga, QLD)

Sourced from Purga quarry near Ipswich in Queensland, this basalt material was combined with 3% cement
binder. This aggregate has been widely used as unbound base material throughout the south-east of
Queensland. Despite intermediate and coarse aggregates being rather well-graded, fine material was found
to be under-represented (Figure A 7).
Summary characteristics of this material are shown in Table A 8 with additional data provided in Austroads
(2010).
Figure A 7:
Particle size distribution for Purga crushed basalt
100
90
Percent passing %
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0135
0.075
0.3 0.425 0.6
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2
19 26.5 37.5 53
75
Sieve size (mm)

Basalt (Purga, QLD)
Table A 8: Summary characteristics of Purga crushed basalt
Parameter
Value
26.5 mm sieve
100
Liquid limit (%)
19
19.0 mm sieve
96
Plastic limit (%)
13
13.2 mm sieve
85
9.50 mm sieve
76
6.70 mm sieve
67
4.75 mm sieve
60
2.36 mm sieve
41
1.18 mm sieve
25
0.425 mm sieve
13
0.15 mm sieve
0.075 mm sieve
Maximum dry density
(t/m3)
6
2.29(1)
7.75(1)
A.7 Quartzite
This 20 mm maximum size crushed quarry rubble from Para Hills quarry in South Australia was stabilised
with 4% cement. The source rock was a siltstone quartzite (although referred to as siltstone in Austroads
2010, based on recent road agency advice it is called quartzite in this report). This material has been used
extensively in both unbound and cement stabilised forms for highway construction around Adelaide. Material
from this source was previously tested for fatigue using both laboratory and accelerated loading (Austroads
2008).
Summary characteristics of the material sourced for this study are shown in Table A 9 and grading shown in
Figure A 8, with additional data provided in Austroads (2010).
Figure A 8:
Particle size distribution for crushed quartzite
100
90
80
Percentage passing %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.075
0.15
0.3
0.6
1.18
2.36
Sieve size (mm)
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2 19.5
26.5
Table A 9: Summary characteristics of crushed quartzite
Parameter
Value
26.5 mm sieve
100
Liquid limit (%)
25
19.0 mm sieve
98
Plastic limit (%)
17
13.2 mm sieve
85
9.50 mm sieve
70
6.70 mm sieve
57
4.75 mm sieve
48
2.36 mm sieve
39
1.18 mm sieve
34
0.425 mm sieve
28
10.15 mm sieve
23
0.75 mm sieve
19
Maximum dry density
(t/m3)
8
2.09(1)
9.0(1)
A.8 Hornfels
This crushed hornfels from Lysterfield Victoria was treated with 3% cement. As shown in Figure A 9 it is a
well-graded material. Material from this source has previously been tested in the laboratory and under
accelerated load testing (Austroads 2008).
Summary characteristics of the material sampled for this study are shown in Table A 10, with additional data
Figure A 9:
Particle size distribution for crushed hornfels
100
90
Percent passing %
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0.075
0.0135
0.3 0.425 0.6
0.15
2.36
1.18
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2
19 26.5 37.5 53
75
Sieve size (mm)

Hornfels (Lysterfield, VIC)
Table A 10:
Summary characteristics of crushed hornfels
Parameter
Value
26.5 mm sieve
100
Liquid limit (%)
21
19.0 mm sieve
99
Plastic limit (%)
15
13.2 mm sieve
82
9.50 mm sieve
69
2.34(1)
6.70 mm sieve
56
6.0(1)
4.75 mm sieve
48
2.36 mm sieve
35
1.18 mm sieve
24
0.425 mm sieve
15
0.15 mm sieve
12
0.075 mm sieve
10
A.9 Granite
This crushed granite from Oaklands Junction quarry Victoria was treated with 3% (by dry mass) of cement
binder. It is a well graded material (Figure A 10) complying with VicRoads specifications.
Summary characteristics of the material obtained for this study are shown in Table A 11 with additional data
provided in Austroads 2010.
Figure A 10: Particle size distribution of crushed granite
100
90
Percent passing %
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0.075
0.0135
0.3 0.425 0.6
0.15
1.18
2.36
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2
19 26.5 37.5 53
75
Sieve size (mm)

Granite (Oaklands Junction, VIC)
Table A 11:
Summary characteristics of crushed granite
Parameter
Value
26.5 mm sieve
100
Liquid limit (%)
21
19.0 mm sieve
99
Plastic limit (%)
15
13.2 mm sieve
91
9.50 mm sieve
78
2.24(1)
6.70 mm sieve
63
6.5(1)
4.75 mm sieve
54
2.36 mm sieve
44
1.18 mm sieve
32
0.425 mm sieve
20
0.15 mm sieve
12
0.075 mm sieve
A.10 Recycled Concrete

A crushed concrete sourced from Laverton, Victoria was treated with 3% (GP) cement binder. The crushed
concrete is composed of rock fragments coated in cement, sands and/or fillers.
Summary characteristics of the material sourced for this study are shown in Table A 12 and grading shown in
Figure A 11. Detailed laboratory characterisation of the recycled concrete aggregate as well as a fact sheet
for this product can be found in Austroads (2012b).
Note that this material is different from that tested in project TT1339 (Austroads 2010).
Figure A 11: Particle size distribution of recycled crushed concrete
100
90
80
Percent passing %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.075
0.425 0.6
2.36
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2
19 26.5
Sieve size (mm)
Table A 12:
Summary characteristics of recycled crushed concrete
Parameter
Value
26.5 mm sieve
100
Liquid limit (%)
35
19.0 mm sieve
100
Plastic limit (%)
25
13.2 mm sieve
86
10
9.50 mm sieve
76
1.96(1)
6.70 mm sieve
64
14.0(1)
4.75 mm sieve
54
2.36 mm sieve
40
1.18 mm sieve
30
0.6 mm sieve
21
0.3 mm sieve
14
0.15 mm sieve
0.075 mm sieve
Using modified compaction.
A.11 Lateritic Gravel

The lateritic gravel was obtained from Western Australia where it is commonly used in road construction. The
gravel was stabilised with 3% cement. Summary characteristics of the material are listed in Table A 13 and
Figure A 12.
Figure A 12: Particle size distribution of lateritic gravel
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.075
0.15
Table A 13:
0.3
0.6
1.18
2.36
Sieve size (mm)
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2 19.5
26.5
Summary characteristics of the lateritic gravel
Sieve aperture (mm)
Parameter
Value
19.0
100
Liquid limit (%)
21
13.2
88
Plastic limit (%)
None plastic
9.5
76
21
6.7
66
2.07(1)
4.75
56
10.6(1)
2.36
43
1.18
32
0.6
24
0.3
17
0.15
12
0.075
Standard compaction.
A.12 Metagreywacke
The metagreywacke used in the study was obtained from Mount Cotton in Queensland. The summary
characteristics are shown in Table A 14 and the grading is shown in Figure A 13. The metagreywacke was
stabilised with 3% (by mass) of cement.
Figure A 13: Particle size distribution of metagreywacke
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.075
Table A 14:
0.15
0.3
0.6
1.18
2.36
Sieve size (mm)
4.75 6.7
9.5 13.2 19.5
26.5
Summary characteristics of metagreywacke
Sieve aperture (mm)
Percentage passing
(%)
Parameter
Value
19.0 mm sieve
13.2 mm sieve
100
Liquid limit (%)
14.5
88
Plastic limit (%)
14.5
9.5 mm sieve
76
6.7 mm sieve
66
4.75 mm sieve
56
2.36 mm sieve
43
1.18 mm sieve
32
0.6 mm sieve
24
0.3 mm sieve
17
0.15 mm sieve
12
0.075 mm sieve
Maximum dry density
(t/m3)
Non plastic
2.26(1)
6.3(1)
Using modified compaction.
Appendix B
Flexural Beam Test Methods
This appendix contains draft methods for the laboratory determination of flexural modulus, flexural strength,
breaking strain and flexural fatigue. The three test methods use the same test equipment.
B.1 Flexural Modulus

B.1.1 Scope
This procedure describes the method for the determination of the flexural modulus of cemented materials
using third point loading techniques for testing beams.
B.1.2 Referenced Documents
The following documents are referred to:
AS 1012.11-2000
Methods of testing concrete: method 11: determination of the modulus of rupture.
AS 2193-2005
Calibration and classification of force-measuring systems.
B.1.3 Apparatus
The following apparatus is required:
Testing machine pneumatic or hydraulic testing machine that is capable of applying an approximately
haversine load pulse with a rise time (defined as the time required for the load pulse to rise from 10% to
90% of the peak force) in the range of 0.03 s to 0.1 s with an accuracy of 0.005 s. The machine shall be
capable of applying load pulses with peak load adjustable over the range with an accuracy of 0.05 kN
dependent on the range of material stiffness to be tested. As a guide Table B 1 shows typical load
capacity requirements. The pulse repetition period shall be adjustable over the range 0.5 s to 10 s
0.005 s. The machine shall be capable of applying this load pulse repeatedly until sample failure.
Measuring and recording apparatus consisting of:
a load-measuring device of equal to or greater than the maximum capacity of the loading ram, meeting
the requirements of AS 2193 Grade B testing machine when calibrated statically
a recorder able to read and record the individual measurements of load.
Flexural beam roller supports and load rollers beam support apparatus as described in AS 1012.112000 as shown in Figure B 1.
Figure B 1:
Cross-sectional view of flexural beam testing apparatus
Source: Standards Australia (2000).
Vernier calliper or other suitable device capable of measuring the height and diameter of the sample to
the nearest 1 mm.
B.1.4 Test Specimens
Specimen dimensions
Specimens shall be rectangular with smooth, uniform parallel surfaces. The beam specimen dimensions can
vary in cross-section from 80 mm upwards with a typical cross-section dimension of 100 mm. The span to
depth ratio for the beams should be three or greater. Example dimensions for typical samples are shown in
Table B 1. The top and bottom faces of the specimens shall not depart from squareness to the axis by more
than two degrees (about 3 mm in 100 mm).
Table B 1: Typical specimen dimensions (millimetres)
Length of specimen (L)
Width of specimen (W)
400
100 5
Height of specimen (hc)
100 5
Specimen preparation
Laboratory samples should be prepared using the following general guidelines:
Binder should be added to the dry aggregates.
Thorough mixing is required for the whole mix initially with the dry ingredients then after the addition of
the required moisture.
Minimal (zero) delay shall apply between mixing the host material, binder and water and commencement
of compaction.
A means of compacting the beam samples using either vibratory or compressive force in a suitable mould
shall be used for compaction. The BP slab compactor has been found to be suitable apparatus to
manufacture slabs of cemented material. These slabs are cut down to the required specimen dimensions
on a diamond tipped saw prior to testing. The potential for segregation and edge effects from compaction
in a rectangular mould need to be addressed in specimen compaction.
Label the upper surface of the slab marking where each beam shall be cut.
Samples are moist cured initially for at least 48 hours in the compaction mould then for a total of 90 days
at 23 2 C. Samples should be wrapped in wet newspaper and double-sealed in plastic bags for moist
curing.
Field samples can be obtained from material placed and cured in the road bed. A portable diamond saw is
used to extract slabs of the cemented material which are subsequently sawn to the required specimen size in
the laboratory.
Note that all specimens should be placed in a moist curing environment such as a fog room for a minimum of
48 hours prior to testing to ensure consistent, moist specimen conditions for testing.
B.1.5 Procedure
The procedure shall be as follows:
Measure the dimensions of the specimen to the nearest 1 mm; taking four measurements for each
dimension. Calculate the averages of the four measures for length (L), width (W) and height (H).
Note the span of the apparatus (L).
Place the specimen in the loading apparatus, ensuring that the numbered face (the top) is upwards.
Determine an appropriate peak load to apply to the specimen such that the specimen remains within its
elastic range. As a guide, loading for the fatigue test shall be up to 40% of the ultimate breaking load of
the beam. If the beams are to be subsequently tested for fatigue or strength a suitable load will typically
induce about 20 to 30 in the extreme fibre of the beam. Otherwise the load should be adjusted to
induce a standard strain of 50 .
Apply repeated haversine loading to the specimen for 100 load cycles. Record the maximum force
applied to the specimen (P) as indicated by the testing machine, and the peak displacement (h) for the
haversine load pulses applied.
B.1.6 Calculations
The flexural modulus of the specimen shall be calculated for load cycles 50 to 100 using Equation A1:
E=
A1
23PL3
10 3
2
108 WH
where
E
peak force (kN)
distance between the support rollers (mm)
mean beam width (mm)
mean beam height (mm)
The flexural modulus of each specimen is then adjusted to a standard applied strain of 50 microstrain using
Equation A2.
E50 = Em 40 x (50b)
A2
where
E50
resilient flexural modulus at standard bending strain of 50 microstrain (MPa)
Em
resilient flexural modulus calculated using Equation B1 (MPa)
bending strain (microstrain)
The average flexural modulus shall be calculated as the mean of the resilient flexural moduli at a standard
strain of 50 microstrain (E50) between cycle 50 and cycle 100 (inclusive).
B.1.7 Test Report
The following information shall be recorded for each test specimen:
cemented material mixture, identification and relevant component details including nominal mix size,
grading type, binder content and type
for laboratory compacted samples, report the method of the sample preparation including number of
cycles of the BP slab compactor if used
if a field sample, the date of trenching, location in the pavement and direction of traffic flow
date of specimen manufacture or date of placement of layer, if known, age of specimen at date of test
and curing history
date and time of test
moisture condition of the specimen, where applicable
any apparent defects of the specimen
mean height of each specimen to the nearest 0.1 mm
mean width of each specimen to the nearest 0.1 mm
mean length of each specimen to the nearest 0.1 mm
the mean flexural modulus to the nearest 10 MPa
other properties of stabilised material that may be considered to have influenced the results
identification of the operator carrying out the test
job site or laboratory where tested
reference to this test method.
B.2 Flexural Strength

B.2.1 Scope
This procedure describes the method for the determination of the flexural strength of cemented materials
AS 1012.11-2000
AS 2193-2005
B.2.3 Apparatus
the nearest 1 mm.

Specimen dimensions
400
100 5
100 5
of compaction.
shall be used for compaction. The BP slab compactor has been found to be suitable apparatus to
Samples to be moist cured initially for at least 48 hours in the compaction mould then for a total of 90
days at 23 2 C. Samples should be wrapped in wet newspaper and double-sealed in plastic bags for
moist curing.
the laboratory.
B.2.5 Procedure
The same beam as used for the flexural modulus test can be left in the apparatus to perform a fatigue test. If
this is the case steps (1) to (3) below will have already been done as part of the flexural modulus test.
1. Measure the dimensions of the specimen to the nearest 1 mm; taking four measurements for each
2. Note the span of the apparatus (L).
3. Place the specimen in the loading apparatus, ensuring that the numbered face (the top) is upwards.
4. Apply a small seating load (typically about 50 N) for about six seconds prior to commencing loading to
ensure contact between the loading apparatus and the test specimen.
5. Apply a load at 3.3 kN/minute until the beam ruptures.
6. Record the peak load (kN) and the peak mid-span displacement (mm).
B.2.6 Calculations
The flexural strength of the specimen shall be calculated using Equation A3:
FS =
(PL)
A3
WH2 1000
where
FS
peak force (kN)
Calculate the breaking strain at 95% of peak force at which the specimen breaks using Equation A4.
b =
where
12H.h
2
3L
A4
4a2
bending strain
peak mid-span displacement at a force 95% of the peak force at which the specimen
breaks (mm).
distance between load and reaction clamps (mm)
B.2.7 Test Report

stabilised material mixture, identification and relevant component details including nominal mix size,
cycles of the BP slab compactor
and curing history

the peak force at rupture
the peak strain at rupture
the flexural strength
B.3 Flexural Fatigue

B.3.1 Scope
This procedure describes the method for the determination of the flexural modulus of cemented materials
AS 1012.11-2000
AS 2193-2005
B.3.3 Apparatus
the nearest 1 mm.
Specimen dimensions

400
100 5
100 5
of compaction.
shall be used for compaction. The BP slab compactor has been shown to be suitable apparatus to
Samples to be moist cured initially for at least 48 hours in the compaction mould then for a total of 90
days at 23 2 C. Samples should be wrapped in wet newspaper and double-sealed in plastic bags for
moist curing.
the laboratory.
B.3.5 Procedure
The same beam as used for the flexural modulus test can be left in the apparatus to perform a fatigue test. If
this is the case steps (1) to (3) below will have already been done as part of the flexural modulus test.
1. Measure the dimensions of the specimen to the nearest 1 mm; taking four measurements for each
2. Note the span of the apparatus (L).
3. Place the specimen in the loading apparatus, ensuring that the numbered face (the top) is upwards.
4. Determine an appropriate peak force to apply to the specimen to induce fatigue.
5. Note: As a guide the force should be in the range of 60% to 90% of the ultimate failure load for the
material. Typically, 50 to 120 will be induced in the extreme fibre of the beam.
6. Apply a 4 Hz haversine loading pulse. The loading shall comprise a 0.25 s rest period between load pulses.
7. The data sampling rate shall be such that the peak load and displacement for each load pulse can be
determined.
8. Determine the initial flexural modulus which is defined as the mean of the flexural moduli determined
between pulses 10 to 50.
9. Continue applying the loading pulses with rest periods until the flexural modulus of the beam decreases
to half that of the initial flexural modulus or until fatigue failure occurs.
10. Note the appearance of the sample, the location and type of fracture and note if the fracture is unusual.
B.3.6 Calculations
The flexural modulus of the specimen shall be calculated for each load cycle using Equation A5.
E=
A5
23PL3
10 3
2
108 WH
where
E
peak force (kN)
B.3.7 Test Report

stabilised material mixture, identification and relevant component details including nominal mix size,
cycles of the BP slab compactor if used
and curing history
the initial flexural modulus
the number of cycles necessary to achieve fatigue failure. In the event that fatigue failure is not achieved
than the final number of cycles and final flexural modulus should be reported
the peak force applied during the test
Appendix C
Modulus, Strength and Fatigue Results
C.1 Basalt (Mt Gambier) with 3% Cement Content

Table C 1: BAM3 flexural modulus properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
A1-1
2.150
11.2
100.2
385
22.0
19 492
A1-2
2.140
11.2
99.9
402
23.0
19 026
B1-1
2.100
11.2
98.3
363
21.0
18 324
B1-2
2.060
11.2
96.4
366
25.0
15 643
A2-1
2.080
11.2
97.0
360
20.0
18 459
A2-2
2.070
11.2
96.7
357
21.0
18 017
B2-1
2.050
11.2
95.8
379
27.0
14 969
B2-2
2.080
11.2
97.0
356
25.0
15 705
A3-1
2.090
11.2
97.8
338
21.0
16 888
A3-2
2.090
11.2
97.8
364
21.0
18 063
B3-1
2.100
11.2
97.8
366
23.0
16 731
B3-2
2.090
11.2
97.8
366
28.0
15 397
A4-1
2.100
10.9
97.8
366
22.0
17 281
A4-2
2.090
10.9
97.8
367
22.0
17 612
B4-1
2.090
10.9
96.7
361
23.0
16 245
B4-2
2.090
10.9
96.7
365
23.0
16 861
A5-1
2.070
10.9
96.7
356
25.0
14 501
A5-2
2.100
10.9
98.0
333
25.0
13 509
B5-1
1.990
10.9
93.0
240
26.0
9 665
B5-2
1.990
10.9
92.8
236
27.0
9 077
A6-1
2.080
10.9
97.3
304
24.0
12 976
A6-2
2.060
10.9
96.5
315
26.0
12 560
B6-1
2.060
10.9
96.3
302
27.0
11 282
B6-2
2.030
10.9
95.0
295
27.0
11 103
A7-1
2.090
10.9
97.8
264
21.0
13 275
A7-2
2.080
10.5
97.4
318
24.0
13 562
B7-1
2.030
10.5
94.0
298
26.0
11 826
B7-2
2.020
10.9
97.4
298
27.0
11 166
A8-1b
2.070
11.2
97.4
319
62.0
12 779
A8-2
2.080
11.2
97.4
313
25.0
13 009
B8-1
2.030
11.6
94.7
303
25.0
12 497
B8-2
2.030
11.6
94.7
305
26.0
11 987
Table C 2: BAM3 flexural strength properties after 28 days moist curing

Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
()
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
B1-2
2.060
11.2
96.4
437
160.8
1.26
B3-2
2.090
11.2
97.8
272
166.1
1.30
A4-2
2.090
10.9
97.8
414
151.5
1.30
A5-2
2.100
10.9
98.0
240
158.2
1.22
A7-2
2.110
10.5
98.7
273
156.9
1.22
B8-2
2.030
11.6
94.7
423
165.0
1.13
Table C 3: BAM3 flexural modulus properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
A1-1
2.190
A1-2
2.200
A2-1
A2-2
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
8.1
102.0
651
34.0
18 178
7.2
103.0
616
37.0
15 696
2.110
9.4
99.0
482
28.0
16 544
2.090
10.8
98.0
470
33.0
13 532
A3-1
2.110
11.4
98.0
495
31.0
15 231
A3-2
2.130
9.0
99.0
487
29.0
16 112
A4-1
2.150
9.7
100.0
479
30.0
15 275
A5-1
2.090
10.3
98.0
478
30.0
15 243
A6-1
2.090
9.8
98.0
457
30.0
14 576
A6-2
2.060
11.8
96.0
484
34.0
13 504
A7-1
2.100
10.9
98.0
542
33.0
15 607
A8-1
2.090
10.1
98.0
479
34.0
13 357
A8-2
2.090
10.5
98.0
484
33.0
13 943
B1-1
2.140
11.2
100.0
551
32.0
16 412
B2-1
2.070
10.9
97.0
483
38.0
11 961
B2-2
2.090
10.9
98.0
475
31.0
14 631
B3-1
2.120
10.5
99.0
472
30.0
15 067
B4-1
2.110
8.6
99.0
472
32.0
14 044
B4-2
2.120
10.6
99.0
488
33.0
14 072
B5-1
2.000
11.9
93.0
344
32.0
10 252
B5-2
2.010
11.5
94.0
344
32.0
10 238
B6-1
2.040
10.2
96.0
461
33.0
13 289
B6-2
2.050
11.9
96.0
463
37.0
11 804
B7-1
2.030
11.3
95.0
458
37.0
11 683
B7-2
2.030
11.0
95.0
451
37.0
11 504
B8-1
2.070
11.4
97.0
470
32.0
13 995
Moisture
content
(%)
Table C 4: BAM3 flexural strength properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
A4-1
2.150
A7-1
B1-1
B8-1
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
()
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
9.7
100.0
337
216.5
1.96
2.100
10.9
98.1
343
202.0
1.98
2.140
11.2
96.6
385
224.9
2.12
2.070
11.4
100.3
413
219.4
1.82
Moisture
content
(%)
Table C 5: BAM3 flexural fatigue properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
A1-1
2.192
A1-2
2.204
A2-1
A2-2
A3-2
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
Fatigue life
(cycles)
8.1
102.4
646
77
893 936
7.2
103.0
606
78
1 000 000(1)
2.108
9.4
98.5
476
84
743 474
2.089
10.8
97.6
471
86
322 230
2.126
9.0
99.4
481
86
682 233
A5-1
2.092
10.3
97.7
471
85
570 663
A6-1
2.092
9.8
97.8
461
80
696 419
A6-2
2.062
11.8
96.3
477
99
22 608
A8-1
2.087
10.1
97.5
482
86
726 593
A8-2
2.088
10.5
97.5
477
81
689 028
B2-1
2.074
10.9
96.9
481
96
71 145
B2-2
2.089
10.9
97.6
469
99
50 384
B4-1
2.111
8.6
98.6
473
90
795 355
B4-2
2.124
10.6
99.3
481
99
28 707
B6-1
2.045
10.2
95.5
455
90
410 323
B6-2
2.046
11.9
95.6
457
95
107 476
B7-1
2.030
11.3
94.9
456
103
27 517
B7-2
2.026
11.0
94.7
450
92
252 042
Moisture
content
(%)
Test was terminated at one million cycles.
C.2 Basalt (Purga) with 3% Cement Content

Table C 6: BAP3 flexural modulus properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
BA01-1
2.000
7.7
93.7
339
27.6
11 807
BA01-2
2.050
7.4
96.2
309
23.8
12 562
BA02-1
2.050
7.4
96.2
346
26.0
12 874
BA02-2
2.060
7.1
96.9
318
22.4
13 763
BA03-1
2.040
7.6
96.0
322
24.4
12 739
BA03-2
2.040
7.6
96.0
319
23.9
12 917
BA04-1
1.950
8.1
91.6
311
28.9
10 334
BA04-2
2.040
7.8
96.0
284
26.0
10 534
BA05-1
2.030
7.8
95.4
321
23.0
13 588
BA05-2
2.080
6.7
97.7
320
22.4
13 854
BA06-1
2.050
7.5
96.1
317
24.0
12 799
BA06-2
2.050
7.2
96.3
318
23.5
13 138
BA07-1
2.010
8.0
94.3
311
23.7
12 711
BA07-2
2.050
7.8
97.0
319
23.0
13 461
BA08-1
2.050
7.0
96.1
315
25.2
12 068
BA08-2
2.040
7.2
95.9
306
24.4
12 129
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
Table C 7: BAP3 flexural strength properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
BA01-1
2.150
7.7
94.1
285
169.1
0.972
BA02-1
2.200
7.4
96.2
595
148.7
1.003
BA03-1
2.200
7.6
95.9
210
157.3
1.058
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
()
BA04-1
2.110
8.1
92.3
181
138.8
0.783
BA05-1
2.190
7.8
95.6
421
136.7
1.034
BA07-1
2.170
94.7
422
149.4
1.034
Fatigue life
(cycles)
Table C 8: BAP3 flexural fatigue properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
BA01-2
2.201
7.4
96.1
708
66.0
649
BA02-2
2.210
7.1
96.5
657
52.0
66 630
BA03-2
2.197
7.6
96.0
638
56.0
BA04-2
2.203
7.5
96.2
508
42.0
1 000 000(1)
BA05-2
2.215
6.7
96.7
637
48.0
1 000 000(1)
BA06-1
2.201
7.5
96.1
635
50.0
64 047
BA06-2
2.201
7.2
96.1
600
47.0
280 615
BA07-2
2.209
6.9
96.5
590
47.0
188 684
5 808
BA08-1
2.192
7.0
95.7
516
44.0
733 696
BA08-2
2.195
7.2
95.8
507
43.0
1 000 000(1)
C.3 Calcrete with 3% Cement Content

Table C 9: CL3 flexural modulus properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
A1-2
1.866
12.6
95.9
233
22.5
10 747
B1-1
1.890
12.6
97.2
218
19.5
11 760
B1-2
1.873
12.6
96.3
216
20.0
10 909
A2-2
1.892
12.6
97.3
249
22.0
11 394
A2-1
1.890
12.6
97.2
250
21.0
12 247
B2-1
1.857
12.6
95.5
217
22.0
10 086
B2-2
1.864
12.6
95.9
251
22.5
11 585
A3-1
1.850
13.4
95.1
190
21.0
9 141
A3-2
1.881
13.4
96.7
232
23.5
10 217
B3-1
1.890
13.4
97.2
238
21.5
11 438
B3-2
1.883
13.4
96.8
232
20.0
12 087
A4-1
1.882
13.2
96.8
231
20.0
12 020
A4-2
1.874
13.4
96.3
234
20.5
11 577
B4-1
1.853
13.6
95.3
232
22.5
10 349
B4-2
1.879
13.4
96.6
233
21.0
11 579
A5-1
1.895
12.9
97.4
297
24.5
11 748
A5-2
1.874
12.9
96.4
296
25.5
11 465
B5-1
1.834
12.9
94.3
231
22.5
10 553
B5-2
1.906
12.9
98.0
232
22.0
10 960
A6-1
1.900
12.9
97.7
267
26.0
10 791
A6-2
1.902
12.9
97.8
270
24.0
11 540
B6-1
1.899
12.9
97.6
263
21.5
12 235
B6-2
1.875
12.9
96.4
269
24.5
10 908
A7-1
1.895
13.0
97.5
267
23.0
11 558
A7-2
1.894
13.1
97.4
264
23.0
11 104
B7-1
1.863
13.1
95.8
270
27.0
9 780
B7-2
1.891
13.1
97.2
265
22.0
12 007
A8-1
1.899
13.1
97.6
270
21.5
12 868
A8-2
1.880
13.1
96.7
265
24.0
11 129
B8-1
1.875
13.1
96.4
240
24.0
10 243
B8-2
1.872
13.1
96.3
234
19.5
11 878
Table C 10:
CL3 flexural strength properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
A4-1
1.882
13.2
96.5
302
184.1
0.73
B4-1
1.853
13.6
95.0
215
138.5
0.60
B6-1
1.899
12.9
97.4
317
138.1
0.71
A7-1
1.895
13.0
97.2
224
173.0
0.59
A8-1
1.895
13.1
97.2
582
161.9
0.64
Table C 11:
CL3 flexural modulus properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
A2-1
1.810
13.2
92.7
316
33.0
9 578
A2-2
1.890
11.9
97.0
316
40.0
7 904
A3-1(2)
1.860
14.1
96.0
321
65.0
4 945
A3-2
1.860
11.9
97.1
314
30.0
10 480
A4-2
1.890
13.2
96.7
310
30.0
10 344
A5-1
1.880
12.6
96.0
310
35.0
8 849
A5-2
1.880
10.8
97.1
316
32.0
9 888
A6-1
1.890
11.6
98.2
319
32.0
9 982
A6-2
1.920
12.9
96.8
313
32.0
9 779
A7-2
1.890
13.6
97.7
317
37.0
8 558
A8-2
1.910
13.5
96.9
317
32.0
9 919
B1-1
1.870
13.8
96.0
312
38.0
8 208
B1-2
1.870
9.8
95.5
314
40.0
7 844
B2-1
1.860
14.1
94.2
310
39.0
7 938
B2-2
1.840
13.6
95.3
318
36.0
8 835
B3-1
1.860
13.8
96.8
319
32.0
9 961
B3-2
1.890
13.4
97.4
317
32.0
9 916
B4-2
1.900
9.4
96.3
313
34.0
9 216
B5-2
1.920
10.7
96.2
347
39.0
8 886
B6-2
1.880
13.3
97.9
328
35.0
9 368
B7-1
1.910
11.9
95.7
322
40.0
8 058
B7-2
1.870
13.1
97.1
317
35.0
9 060
B8-1
1.890
13.4
95.6
322
39.0
8 253
B8-2
1.860
12.9
95.8
318
35.0
9 080
Table C 12:
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
A4-2
1.885
13.2
96.7
485
250.0
1.07
A8-2
1.889
13.5
96.9
273
201.0
1.06
B4-2
1.878
13.5
96.3
194
143.0
0.84
Table C 13:
CL3 flexural strength properties after nine months moist curing
CL3 flexural fatigue properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
Fatigue life
(cycles)
A2-2
1.892
11.9
97.0
486
68.0
429 991
A3-2
1.893
11.9
97.1
562
59.0
1 000 000(1)
A5-1
1.878
12.6
96.3
511
65.0
225 491
A5-2
1.894
10.8
97.1
536
61.0
1 000 000(1)
A6-1
1.915
11.6
98.2
555
60.0
1 000 000(1)
A6-2
1.888
12.9
96.8
707
87.0
15 950
A7-2
1.905
13.6
97.7
571
80.0
25 470
B1-1
1.875
13.8
96.2
497
67.0
145 663
B1-2
1.862
9.8
95.5
464
66.0
22 453
B2-1
1.838
14.1
94.2
625
98.8
1 106
B2-2
1.859
13.6
95.3
568
73.0
5 865
B3-1
1.887
13.8
96.8
571
64.0
48 482
B3-2
1.899
13.4
97.4
579
66.0
51 171
B5-1
1.920
13.0
98.5
606
92.0
5 138
B5-2
1.876
10.7
96.2
513
64.0
B6-2
1.909
13.3
97.9
661
89.0
B7-1
1.866
11.9
95.7
481
65.0
1 000 000(1)
B7-2
1.894
13.1
97.1
561
70.0
99 456
B8-1
1.864
13.4
95.6
510
68.0
4 665
B8-2
1.869
12.9
95.8
498
60.0
27 869
B9-1
2.015
10.7
94.6
608
75.8
61 509
1 000 000(1)
1 158
C.4 Calcrete (Repeat) with 3% Cement Content

Additional calcrete was sought about one year after the original material was obtained and limited testing
was conducted on the second sample of material.
Table C 14:
CL3_2 flexural modulus (repeat sample) properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
CL01-1
2.056
14.8
94.6
142
23.0
6049
CL02-1
2.051
15.1
94.1
141
25.0
5649
CL03-1
2.041
15.2
93.6
141
25.0
5649
CL04-1
2.041
15.2
93.6
147
25.0
5885
CL05-1
2.055
15.0
94.3
147
21.0
7012
CL06-1
2.056
15.9
93.7
145
32.0
4490
T
able C 15: CL3_2 flexural strength (repeat sample) properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
122.8
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
CL01-1
1.791
14.8
94.6
197
0.32
CL02-1
1.782
15.2
94.1
118
85.6
0.33
CL03-1
1.776
15.2
93.8
213
128.1
0.37
CL04-1
1.772
15.2
93.6
169
110.7
0.32
CL05-1
1.787
15.0
94.3
138
95.3
0.36
CL06-1
1.774
15.9
93.7
106
53.2
0.21
C.5 Calcrete with 5% Cement Content

Table C 16:
CL5 flexural modulus properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
A9-1
1.910
12.8
98.1
388
24.5
15 472
A9-2
1.920
12.8
98.8
383
25.0
15 257
B9-1
1.900
12.8
97.6
352
22.5
15 744
B9-2
1.920
12.8
98.6
349
21.5
16 199
A10-1
1.900
12.8
97.9
351
22.0
16 094
A10-2
1.910
12.8
98.4
358
23.5
14 762
B10-1
1.910
12.8
98.2
383
24.5
16 013
B10-2
1.900
12.8
97.6
318
23.5
13 910
A11-1
1.890
13.4
97.3
321
20.5
15 616
A11-2
1.910
13.3
98.0
321
22.0
14 936
B11-1
1.890
13.3
97.0
317
21.0
15 148
B11-2
1.900
13.3
97.5
318
22.5
13 977
A12-1
1.910
13.3
98.4
320
23.0
14 364
A12-2
1.900
13.3
97.6
319
22.0
14 772
B12-1
1.920
13.3
98.5
323
23.5
13 882
B12-2
1.890
13.3
97.3
315
21.0
15 000
A13-1
1.870
13.3
96.4
263
20.5
13 917
A13-2
1.870
13.1
95.9
262
20.5
13 404
B13-1
1.860
13.1
95.4
303
21.5
14 189
B13-2
1.870
13.3
96.1
267
20.5
13 047
A14-1
1.870
13.3
96.3
306
21.5
14 312
A14-2
1.880
13.3
96.7
311
22.0
14 411
B14-1
1.860
13.3
95.6
312
25.0
12 417
B14-2
1.880
13.1
96.6
303
24.5
12 505
A15-1
1.880
12.9
96.8
308
21.5
14 302
A15-2
1.870
12.9
96.3
311
24.0
12 666
B15-1
1.840
13.1
94.5
263
25.0
11 054
B15-2
1.870
13.1
96.2
301
23.5
12 831
A16-1
1.900
12.6
97.3
310
21.0
15 020
A16-2
1.870
12.6
96.1
314
25.0
12 980
B16-1
1.870
12.6
95.9
308
24.5
12 533
B16-2
1.870
12.6
95.9
315
24.0
13 457
Table C 17:
CL5 flexural strength properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
B10-2
1.900
12.8
97.0
361
213.7
0.99
A11-1
1.890
13.4
97.0
369
283.4
1.17
A12-1
1.910
13.3
98.0
313
181.8
1.10
B13-1
1.870
13.1
96.0
268
190.7
1.11
B15-1
1.840
13.1
95.0
391
190.1
0.77
A16-1
1.900
12.6
97.0
299
185.6
1.06
Table C 18:
CL5 flexural modulus properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
A9-1
1.910
A9-2
1.950
B9-1
B9-2
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
10.9
98.2
388
33.0
12 090
10.1
100.3
383
31.0
13 254
1.905
12.4
97.9
352
31.0
12 800
1.940
12.5
99.7
349
31.0
12 870
A10-1
1.920
11.9
98.7
351
32.0
12 672
A10-2
1.910
12.9
98.2
358
35.0
11 399
B10-1
1.900
9.3
97.7
383
32.0
12 245
A11-2
1.930
12.7
99.2
321
30.0
13 688
B11-1
1.900
13.2
97.7
317
33.0
11 931
B11-2
1.890
13.5
97.2
318
35.0
11 179
A12-2
1.910
13.2
98.2
319
33.0
12 186
B12-1
1.910
11.5
98.2
323
34.0
11 850
B12-2
1.910
12.0
98.2
315
32.0
12 329
A13-1
1.900
11.9
97.7
263
35.0
11 172
A13-2
1.890
11.8
97.2
262
33.0
11 482
B13-2
1.870
13.2
96.1
267
33.0
11 756
A14-1
1.890
11.1
97.2
306
34.0
11 144
A14-2
1.910
12.7
98.2
311
33.0
11 982
B14-1
1.870
13.3
96.1
312
35.0
10 097
B14-2
1.900
12.8
97.7
303
32.0
11 539
A15-1
1.920
12.9
98.7
308
34.0
11 482
A15-2
1.890
13.1
97.2
311
37.0
10 619
B15-2
1.900
11.7
97.4
301
35.0
10 793
A16-2
1.880
13.8
96.4
314
36.0
11 020
B16-1
1.890
13.1
96.9
308
35.0
11 009
B16-2
1.960
13.3
100.5
315
33.0
12 912
Table C 19:
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
B10-1
1.900
9.3
98.0
315
198.0
1.65
A12-2
1.900
13.2
98.0
309
237.9
1.61
B13-2
1.900
13.2
96.0
366
188.2
1.36
A16-2
1.900
13.8
97.0
268
207.5
1.39
Fatigue life
(cycles)
Table C 20:
CL5 flexural strength properties after nine months moist curing
CL5 flexural fatigue properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
A9-1
1.912
10.9
98.0
849
71.5
1 000 000(1)
A9-2
1.954
10.1
100.2
940
74.0
983 908
A12-1
1.920
11.9
98.4
1 017
83.5
268 056
A10-2
1.907
12.9
97.8
914
90.5
102 504
A11-2
1.928
12.7
98.9
1 139
94.5
31 519
A13-1
1.897
11.9
97.3
842
90.5
212 503
A13-2
1.887
11.8
96.8
940
85.5
391 697
A14-1
1.892
11.1
97.0
862
79.0
720 952
A14-2
1.908
12.7
97.8
947
84.5
81 657
A15-1
1.917
12.9
98.3
975
93.0
3 495
A15-2
1.895
13.1
97.2
868
85.0
15 646
B9-1
1.901
12.4
97.5
1 029
85.0
141 943
B9-2
1.943
12.5
99.7
1 129
95.5
4 776
B11-1
1.896
13.2
97.2
1 055
95.0
19 840
B11-2
1.892
13.5
97.0
1 077
105.5
906
B12-1
1.909
11.5
97.9
1 038
92.5
651 150
B12-2
1.912
12.0
98.0
1 061
90.5
497 728
B14-1
1.866
13.3
95.7
818
85.0
111 849
B14-2
1.897
12.8
97.3
948
93.5
2 497
B15-2
1.904
11.7
97.6
823
79.5
114 489
B16-1
1.889
13.1
96.9
792
74.0
36 879
B16-2
1.959
13.3
100.5
999
89.5
32 149
C.6 Granite with 3% Cement Content

Table C 21:
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
GR01-1
2.210
6.9
98.2
457
25.0
18 290
GR01-2
2.160
6.9
96.0
380
25.6
14 835
GR02-1
2.160
7.1
96.0
332
24.8
13 400
GR02-2
2.170
6.7
96.5
432
24.6
17 556
GR03-1
2.110
7.3
93.8
355
25.8
13 766
GR03-2
2.180
6.8
96.9
448
25.3
17 716
GR04-1
2.190
7.0
97.3
408
25.3
16 126
GR04-2
2.160
5.6
96.0
451
24.3
18 543
GR05-1
2.160
6.8
96.0
413
24.1
17 150
GR05-2
2.210
6.4
98.2
469
24.4
19 209
GR06-1
2.140
6.7
95.1
372
25.1
14 808
GR06-2
2.170
6.0
96.4
416
25.6
16 269
GR07-1
2.180
6.7
96.9
467
25.4
18 370
GR07-2
2.160
6.6
96.0
422
27.2
15 519
GR08-1
2.190
7.0
97.3
400
25.2
15 879
GR08-2
2.180
6.6
96.9
416
24.4
17 033
Table C 22:
GR3 flexural strength properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
GR01-1
2.210
6.5
98.0
200
115.7
1.18
GR02-1
2.160
6.6
96.0
231
173.4
1.01
GR03-1
2.110
6.8
93.9
186
143.3
1.03
GR04-1
2.180
6.5
97.0
270
135.1
1.20
GR05-1
2.170
6.4
96.3
270
140.0
1.26
GR06-1
2.150
6.3
95.5
199
126.0
1.08
Table C 23:
GR3 flexural modulus properties after five months moist curing
GR3 flexural fatigue properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
Fatigue life
(cycles)
GR01-2
2.200
6.9
95.8
645.744
48.0
11 356
GR02-2
2.700
6.3
96.9
782.976
48.0
1 000 000(1)
GR03-2
2.950
6.8
96.5
851.657
53.0
34 606
GR04-2
2.650
5.6
96.7
766.17
45.0
88 852
GR05-2
3.350
6.4
98.4
947.705
55.0
36 502
GR06-2
2.550
6.0
96.9
762.736
52.0
36 000
GR07-2
2.350
6.6
96.0
670.516
49.0
584 222
C.7 Hornfels with 3% Cement Content

Table C 24:
HO3 flexural modulus properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
HF01-1
2.089
6.3
94.5
409
19.9
20 532
HF01-2
2.093
5.6
94.7
429
19.1
22 476
HF02-1
2.078
6.3
94.0
411
20.9
19 621
HF02-2
2.081
5.7
94.2
420
22.5
18 700
HF03-1
2.094
6.0
94.8
444
21.1
21 046
HF03-2
2.098
5.3
94.9
448
22.0
20 412
HF04-1
2.058
6.4
93.1
450
24.0
18 771
HF04-2
2.094
6.0
94.7
431
19.4
22 150
HF05-1
2.092
5.6
94.7
453
20.5
22 106
HF05-2
2.074
5.6
93.8
434
22.2
19 581
HF06-1
2.080
6.2
94.1
418
20.5
20 410
HF06-2
2.057
6.0
93.1
448
23.5
19 099
HF07-1
2.076
6.0
93.9
451
25.0
18 045
HF07-2
2.108
5.3
95.4
441
19.3
22 818
HF08-1
2.055
5.6
93.0
438
22.0
19 898
HF08-2
2.075
6.0
93.9
437
22.4
19 501
HF09-1
2.041
6.3
92.4
452
25.7
17 585
HF09-2
2.089
5.8
94.5
450
20.4
22 051
HF10-1
2.053
6.2
92.9
436
21.3
20 478
HF10-2
2.053
6.2
92.9
448
20.9
21 441
Table C 25:
HO3 flexural strength properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
HF01-1
2.223
6.3
95.0
259
150.9
1.76
HF03-1
2.223
6.0
95.0
192
119.4
1.64
HF04-1
2.185
6.4
93.4
213
150.5
1.58
HF05-1
2.211
5.6
94.5
145
103.8
1.66
HF06-1
2.209
6.2
94.4
245
104.3
1.44
HF07-1
2.199
6.0
94.0
315
113.6
1.43
HF09-1
2.171
6.3
92.8
218
135.0
1.53
Table C 26:
HO3 flexural fatigue properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
HF01-2
2.215
5.6
94.6
1 080
54.0
1 000 000(1)
HF02-1
2.205
6.3
94.2
1 091.734
58.0
684 861
HF02-2
2.198
5.7
93.9
1 021.264
62.0
1 000 000(1)
HF03-2
2.215
5.3
94.7
902.823
47.0
1 000 000(1)
HF04-2
2.216
6.0
94.7
1 219.85
62.0
46 750
HF05-2
2.194
5.6
93.8
779.436
42.0
1 000 000(1)
HF06-2
2.182
6.0
93.2
854.544
48.0
1 000 000(1)
HF07-2
2.219
5.3
94.8
1 090.388
52.0
1 000 000(1)
HF08-1
2.168
5.6
92.7
1 008.64
56.0
1 000 000(1)
HF08-2
2.198
6.0
93.9
992.085
59.0
62 955
HF09-2
2.210
5.8
94.5
1 307.136
64.0
18 055
HF10-1
2.182
6.2
93.2
1 228.752
72.0
25 127
HF10-2
2.183
6.2
93.3
1 403.78
74.0
1 456
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
Fatigue life
(cycles)
C.8 Lateritic Gravel with 3% Cement Content

Table C 27:
LT3 flexural modulus properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
LG03-1
2.234
10.8
96.2
241
26.1
9 050
LG04-1
2.219
11.2
95.2
242
26.8
9 243
LG05-1
2.232
10.7
96.3
241
23.3
10 343
LG06-1
2.261
10.9
97.3
232
21.6
10 760
LG07-1
2.298
10.5
99.2
230
20.3
11 265
LG08-1
2.247
10.6
96.9
234
21.5
10 905
Table C 28:
LT3 flexural strength properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
LG03-1
2.016
10.8
96.2
203
119.8
0.55
LG04-1
1.994
11.2
95.2
135
109.0
0.55
LG05-1
2.017
10.7
96.3
163
115.4
0.75
LG06-1
2.039
10.9
97.3
180
127.1
0.74
LG07-1
2.079
10.5
99.2
238
121.6
0.73
LG08-1
2.031
10.6
96.9
127
95.1
0.68
C.9 Modified Prior Stream Gravel with 3% Cement Content

Table C 29:
MPSG flexural modulus properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
PSG1-1
2.140
7.1
94.3
299
23.5
12 761
PSG1-2
2.130
7.1
93.8
340
25.0
13 397
PSG2-1
2.130
7.1
93.8
345
26.5
13 207
PSG2-2
2.110
7.1
93.0
340
27.0
12 367
PSG3-1
2.160
7.1
95.2
341
24.5
13 950
PSG3-2
2.130
7.1
93.8
336
25.0
13 314
PSG4-1
2.110
7.1
93.0
345
27.0
12 558
PSG4-2
2.098
7.1
92.4
312
25.5
12 355
PSG5-1
2.140
7.2
94.3
352
23.0
14 957
PSG5-2
2.140
7.0
94.3
353
27.5
14 308
PSG6-1
2.150
7.2
94.7
362
24.0
14 632
PSG6-2
2.140
7.2
94.3
340
23.5
14 169
PSG7-1
2.090
7.2
92.1
340
26.5
13 066
PSG7-2
2.134
6.8
94.0
382
26.0
14 530
PSG8-1
2.150
7.0
94.7
342
23.5
14 251
PSG8-2
2.106
7.5
92.8
336
24.5
13 456
PSG9-1
2.130
8.0
93.8
340
26.0
13 036
PSG9-2
2.130
8.0
93.8
338
25.5
13 308
PSG10-1
2.090
8.0
92.1
296
26.0
11 247
PSG10-2
2.090
8.0
92.1
303
27.0
10 872
PSG11-1
2.130
8.0
93.8
309
27.5
11 143
PSG11-2
2.120
8.0
93.4
308
26.0
11 609
PSG12-1
2.090
8.0
92.1
314
29.0
10 575
PSG12-2
2.070
8.0
91.2
274
28.0
9 948
PSG13-1
2.130
7.5
93.8
341
23.5
14 473
PSG13-2
2.136
7.3
94.1
345
26.0
13 026
PSG14-1
2.120
7.3
93.4
334
26.0
12 803
PSG14-2
2.110
7.4
93.0
333
27.5
11 955
PSG15-1
2.129
7.4
93.8
345
25.5
13 271
PSG15-2
2.150
7.4
94.7
348
24.0
14 831
PSG16-1
2.130
7.4
93.8
337
25.5
12 900
PSG16-2
2.130
7.5
93.8
336
26.5
12 805
Table C 30:
MPSG flexural strength properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
PSG4-2
2.098
7.1
92.4
175
92.5
0.65
PSG7-2
2.134
6.8
94.0
180
97.4
0.82
PSG8-2
2.111
7.5
93.0
143
107.4
0.81
PSG10-1
2.088
8.0
92.0
125
83.1
0.54
PSG13-2
2.136
7.3
94.1
133
97.1
0.80
PSG15-1
2.129
7.4
93.8
218
121.8
0.78
Table C 31:
MPSG flexural modulus properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile strain
()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
PSG1-1
2.160
7.6
95.0
390
22.0
17 245
PSG1-2
2.150
7.4
94.8
449
25.0
17 359
PSG2-1
2.130
7.0
93.8
444
27.0
15 819
PSG2-2
2.130
7.3
93.7
442
30.0
14 111
PSG3-1
2.160
6.2
95.4
426
25.0
16 478
PSG3-2
2.140
7.1
94.2
424
24.0
17 121
PSG4-1
2.120
7.6
93.4
435
27.0
15 507
PSG5-1
2.120
7.3
93.4
443
24.0
17 864
PSG5-2
2.180
7.1
96.0
463
24.0
18 671
PSG6-1
2.180
7.1
95.8
432
23.0
18 231
PSG6-2
2.140
6.6
94.4
436
24.0
17 582
PSG7-1
2.130
7.6
93.6
441
26.0
16 371
PSG8-1
2.160
7.4
95.2
433
22.0
19 119
PSG9-1
2.150
7.8
94.8
432
24.0
17 424
PSG9-2
2.160
7.7
95.1
441
23.0
18 617
PSG10-2
2.140
7.1
94.2
451
28.0
15 470
PSG11-1
2.150
7.4
94.8
448
28.0
15 378
PSG11-2
2.130
7.5
93.9
427
27.0
15 206
PSG12-1
2.170
6.6
95.4
435
27.0
15 507
PSG12-2
2.110
8.2
92.7
439
31.0
13 534
PSG13-1
2.170
6.6
95.7
439
22.0
19 424
PSG14-1
2.130
7.5
93.9
429
25.0
16 572
PSG14-2
2.130
7.3
93.6
428
27.0
15 259
PSG15-2
2.170
7.2
95.7
456
24.0
18 390
PSG16-1
2.130
7.7
93.7
430
24.0
17 363
PSG16-2
2.160
7.6
95.0
435
23.0
18 353
T1-1
2.090
7.8
92.0
423
28.0
14 503
T1-2
2.100
7.7
92.5
430
30.0
13 697
Table C 32:
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
PSG4-1
2.119
7.6
93.4
251
148.7
1.09
PSG7-1
2.126
7.6
93.6
153
106.8
1.20
PSG8-1
2.160
7.4
95.2
180
112.8
1.32
PSG15-2
2.173
7.2
95.7
177
136.4
1.46
Fatigue life
(cycles)
Table C 33:
MPSG flexural strength properties after nine months moist curing
MPSG flexural fatigue properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
PSG1-2
2.152
7.4
94.8
939
61.0
6 231
PSG2-1
2.129
7.0
93.8
811
54.0
185 559
PSG2-2
2.128
7.3
93.7
746
56.0
16 177
PSG3-1
2.164
6.2
95.4
740
46.0
397 467
PSG3-2
2.137
7.1
94.2
766
46.0
143 766
PSG5-1
2.119
7.3
93.4
920
57.0
19 438
PSG5-2
2.180
7.1
96.0
931
55.0
41 711
PSG6-1
2.176
7.1
95.8
887
53.0
23 737
PSG6-2
2.143
6.6
94.4
754
45.0
442 884
PSG9-1
2.152
7.8
94.8
843
52.0
149 262
PSG9-2
2.158
7.7
95.1
883
52.0
12 565
PSG10-2
2.138
7.1
94.2
635
42.0
1 000 000(1)
PSG11-1
2.151
7.4
94.8
695
48.0
177 530
PSG11-2
2.131
7.5
93.9
709
49.0
53 911
PSG12-1
2.165
6.6
95.4
936
70.0
730
PSG12-2
2.105
8.2
92.7
596
46.0
128 153
PSG13-1
2.172
6.6
95.7
795
43.0
252 835
PSG14-1
2.131
7.5
93.9
673
42.0
81 738
PSG14-2
2.124
7.3
93.6
607
40.0
622 040
PSG16-1
2.128
7.7
93.7
770
47.0
62 438
PSG16-2
2.156
7.6
95.0
776
45.0
43 298
T1-1
2.088
7.8
92.0
663
47.0
40 266
T1-2
2.099
7.7
92.5
622
46.0
337 808
C.10 Metagreywacke with 3% Cement Content

Table C 34:
MT3 flexural modulus properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
MG01-1
2.255
6.6
93.7
345
24.6
13 964
MG02-1
2.272
6.8
94.1
353
32.2
10 962
MG03-1
2.262
6.8
93.7
349
26.6
13 139
MG04-1
2.263
6.7
93.9
351
29.8
11 821
MG05-1
2.295
6.6
95.3
362
26.4
13 716
MG06-1
2.312
6.6
96.0
356
24.6
14 483
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
Table C 35:
MT3 flexural strength properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
MG01-1
2.116
6.6
93.7
138
79.8
0.83
MG02-1
2.127
6.8
94.1
207
116.8
0.80
MG03-1
2.118
6.8
93.7
148
84.7
0.69
MG04-1
2.121
6.7
93.9
221
115.9
0.76
MG05-1
2.153
6.6
95.3
209
104.7
0.86
MG06-1
2.170
6.6
96.0
179
115.7
0.89
C.11 Prior Stream Gravel with 3% Cement Content

Table C 36:
PSG3 flexural modulus properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
W03-1
2.210
10.9
97.1
248
28.0
8 859
W04-1
2.220
11.5
97.1
214
28.0
7 741
W05-1
2.240
10.4
98.9
280
26.0
10 658
W05-2
2.200
11.3
96.6
242
25.0
9 550
W06-1
2.260
11.0
99.1
285
29.0
10 198
W06-2
2.180
11.3
95.7
238
28.0
8 681
W07-1
2.200
11.6
96.3
244
26.0
9 115
W07-2
2.200
10.4
97.1
241
24.0
9 728
W08-1
2.230
11.6
97.4
246
26.0
9 460
W08-2
2.200
10.9
96.7
214
22.0
9 223
W09-1
2.170
10.3
96.1
241
25.0
9 625
W09-2
2.170
10.1
96.3
241
23.0
10 828
W10-1
2.220
11.1
97.3
238
23.0
10 523
W10-2
2.190
10.5
96.8
241
23.0
10 729
W11-1
2.210
11.3
96.8
249
26.0
9 383
W11-2
2.190
10.7
96.4
254
27.0
9 461
W21-1
2.200
11.7
96.1
248
29.0
8 665
W21-2
2.220
10.4
98.2
247
24.0
10 206
W22-1
2.200
11.5
96.1
245
26.0
9 488
W22-2
2.180
10.8
95.9
244
27.0
9 163
Table C 37:
PSG3 flexural strength properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
WA03-1
1.991
10.9
97.1
186
185.6
0.82
WA04-1
1.991
11.5
97.1
238
160.1
0.71
WA05-1
2.028
10.3
98.9
165
113.6
0.87
WA06-1
2.032
11.0
99.1
137
137.3
0.73
WA07-1
1.974
11.6
96.3
150
129.1
0.82
WA08-1
1.998
11.6
97.5
160
123.7
0.81
WA10-1
1.994
11.1
97.3
136
109.6
0.89
WA11-1
1.985
11.3
96.8
228
114.0
0.75
WA21-1
1.970
11.7
96.1
129
108.5
0.70
WA22-1
1.969
11.5
96.1
115
94.2
0.69
C.12 Prior Stream Gravel with 5% Cement Content

Table C 38:
PSG5 flexural modulus properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
WA1-1
2.033
WA1-2
WA7-2
WA2-1
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
9.5
95.9
262
19.5
13 269
2.036
9.5
96.0
198
36.5
6 209
2.012
9.5
94.9
257
20.0
12 669
2.025
9.5
95.5
259
25.5
9 839
WA2-2
2.036
9.5
96.1
264
36.0
7 901
WA8-1
2.031
9.5
95.8
255
39.0
5 495
WA8-2
2.026
9.5
95.6
303
22.5
13 775
WA3-1
2.002
9.8
94.5
258
21.0
12 660
WA3-2
2.012
10.4
94.9
259
22.0
11 981
WA9-1
2.007
10.0
94.7
302
25.0
11 922
WA9-2
2.013
10.0
95.0
254
32.5
8 077
WA4-1
2.004
10.2
94.5
300
23.0
13 142
WA4-2
2.017
10.2
95.1
256
24.0
11 228
WA10-1
2.010
10.0
94.8
251
22.0
11 344
WA10-2
2.013
10.0
95.0
302
26.0
11 489
WB1-2
2.014
10.5
95.0
265
21.5
12 349
WB7-1
2.019
10.5
95.2
255
31.0
10 229
WB7-2
2.001
10.5
94.4
299
23.5
11 977
WB2-1
2.006
10.5
94.6
262
25.5
10 191
WB2-2
2.035
10.5
96.0
265
20.0
13 421
WB8-1
2.015
10.5
95.1
300
23.5
12 799
WB8-2
2.006
10.5
94.6
253
21.0
11 926
WB3-2
1.996
10.4
94.2
299
28.0
10 826
WB9-1
2.011
10.3
94.9
292
24.5
11 875
WB4-2
2.012
10.6
94.9
260
22.5
11 424
WB10-1
2.033
10.4
95.9
284
25.5
10 590
WB10-2
1.989
10.4
93.8
258
21.5
12 159
Table C 39:
Moisture
content
(%)
PSG5 flexural strength properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
WA7-1
WA3-2
WA4-2
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
9.528
2.0
95.8
791
676.9
1.07
10.446
2.0
94.9
160
113.4
0.95
10.151
2.0
95.1
192
155.7
0.82
WB1-1
10.502
2.0
94.8
337
275.1
0.88
WB3-1
10.894
2.0
95.0
505
415.5
0.85
WB4-1
10.002
2.0
95.8
747
659.8
0.87
Dry density
(t/m3)
Table C 40:
PSG5 flexural modulus properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
WA13-1
2.220
WA13-2
2.220
WA14-1
WA14-2
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
10.9
97.5
276
22.0
13 166
9.7
98.6
278
22.0
12 627
2.170
12.7
93.9
288
26.0
11 125
2.110
11.9
91.9
254
25.0
10 303
WA15-1
2.220
11.3
97.2
294
22.0
13 387
WA15-2
2.200
10.3
97.5
264
19.0
13 540
WA16-1
2.140
11.2
93.9
253
23.0
11 122
WA16-2
2.170
10.9
95.6
251
22.0
11 571
WA17-1
2.210
11.4
96.7
269
21.0
12 587
WA17-2
2.200
9.7
97.8
269
20.0
14 061
WA18-1
2.200
11.6
96.2
263
22.0
12 038
WA18-2
2.200
10.4
97.1
267
22.0
12 204
WA19-1
2.200
11.5
96.2
271
23.0
12 161
WA19-2
2.210
7.8
100.0
269
20.0
13 641
WA20-1
2.220
10.6
97.7
237
19.0
12 681
WA20-2
2.180
10.2
96.4
240
20.0
12 259
WA27-1
2.200
10.3
97.4
268
23.0
11 543
WA27-2
2.200
11.2
96.6
272
25.0
11 052
WA28-1
2.190
11.2
96.1
269
25.0
10 472
WA28-2
2.180
10.7
96.1
270
25.0
10 783
Table C 41:
Moisture
content
(%)
PSG5 flexural strength properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
WA13-1
1.999
10.9
97.5
170
144.3
1.21
WA14-1
1.925
12.7
93.9
142
116.4
0.94
WA15-1
1.993
11.3
97.2
173
120.4
1.13
WA16-2
1.960
10.9
95.6
178
124.2
0.81
WA17-1
1.983
11.4
96.7
161
130.2
1.10
WA18-1
1.973
11.6
96.2
206
126.5
1.00
WA19-1
1.972
11.5
96.2
187
150.2
1.11
WA20-1
2.003
10.6
97.7
167
104.7
0.96
WA27-1
1.997
10.3
97.4
157
136.3
1.02
WA28-1
1.971
11.2
96.1
215
141.6
0.94
Table C 42:
PSG5 flexural modulus properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
WA1-1
2.020
10.2
95.4
406
33.3
13 527
WA1-2
2.030
10.1
95.8
395
27.0
10 684
WA2-1
2.030
10.3
95.7
400
32.3
12 916
WA2-2
2.030
8.7
95.6
413
31.3
12 913
WA3-1
2.010
9.9
94.8
407
31.3
12 707
WA4-1
2.020
10.2
95.3
402
31.3
12 564
WA7-2
2.020
10.0
95.3
409
32.3
13 187
WA8-1
2.010
11.2
94.9
391
32.3
12 607
WA8-2
2.010
10.9
94.9
402
31.3
12 554
WA9-1
2.010
11.0
94.6
393
29.4
11 552
WA9-2
2.010
10.6
94.8
396
27.8
10 995
WA10-1
2.010
10.6
94.8
394
29.4
11 581
WA10-2
2.000
11.0
94.3
391
30.3
11 858
WB1-2
2.000
10.4
94.4
397
34.5
13 702
WB2-1
2.010
10.2
95.0
402
31.3
12 562
WB2-2
2.050
9.3
96.6
404
34.5
13 927
WB3-2
1.950
11.8
92.1
380
32.3
12 248
WB4-2
2.010
11.0
94.9
408
33.3
13 584
WB7-1
2.030
10.3
95.9
397
34.5
13 705
WB7-2
2.010
10.6
94.9
392
32.3
12 639
WB8-1
2.020
10.8
95.3
394
34.5
13 602
WB8-2
2.010
11.1
94.8
398
32.3
12 837
WB9-1
2.030
10.9
95.6
411
32.3
13 252
WB9-2
2.000
10.8
94.4
475
21.7
10 324
WB10-1
2.020
9.9
95.5
377
40.0
15 095
WB10-2
1.980
11.5
93.5
389
35.7
13 888
Table C 43:
PSG5 flexural strength properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
WA7-2
2.030
10.0
95.3
163
137.0
1.31
WA9-1
2.010
11.0
94.6
226
155.0
1.29
WB3-2
1.950
11.8
92.1
178
110.0
1.04
WB4-2
2.010
11.0
94.9
153
118.0
1.13
Table C 44:
PSG5 flexural fatigue properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
WA1-1
2.023
10.2
95.4
927
75.4
36 171
WA2-1
2.030
10.3
95.7
773
62.5
142 816
WA2-2
2.028
8.7
95.6
747
64.6
656 492
WA3-1
2.011
9.9
94.8
739
62.6
658 602
WA4-1
2.021
10.2
95.3
768
66.2
443 086
WA8-1
2.012
11.2
94.9
990
88.0
2 843
WA8-2
2.012
10.9
94.9
954
83.7
5 386
WA9-2
2.009
10.6
94.8
755
74.6
291 976
WA10-1
2.010
10.6
94.8
776
74.0
22 739
WA10-2
1.999
11.0
94.3
724
66.1
21 260
WB1-2
2.002
10.4
94.4
835
64.6
45 896
WB2-1
2.015
10.2
95.0
778
67.5
170 826
WB2-2
2.049
9.3
96.6
718
58.0
410 457
WB7-1
2.033
10.3
95.9
1 058
91.0
1 158
WB7-2
2.012
10.6
94.9
697
59.3
362 343
WB8-1
2.019
10.8
95.3
813
66.5
37 827
WB8-2
2.010
11.1
94.8
723
61.4
82 061
WB9-1
2.026
10.9
95.6
966
83.4
4 733
WB10-1
2.024
9.9
95.5
809
58.7
426 919
WB10-2
1.983
11.5
93.5
699
53.2
812 272
Fatigue life
(cycles)
C.13 Quartzite (Repeat Sample) with 4% Cement Content

An additional sample of the quartzite source rock was obtained about one year after the original sample.
Table C 45:
QZ4_1 flexural modulus properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
PH03-1
2.044
9.5
97.8
416
24.5
17 024
PH16-1
2.006
9.8
96.0
416
26.8
15 579
PH03-2
2.042
10.0
97.7
410
24.1
17 046
PH16-2
2.039
9.3
97.6
411
26.0
15 846
PH07-1
2.040
9.8
97.6
430
29.0
14 836
PH07-2
2.048
8.9
98.0
423
27.5
15 377
PH08-1
2.013
9.9
96.3
420
32.4
12 943
PH08-2
2.008
9.7
96.1
416
33.2
12 513
PH12-1
2.000
9.8
95.7
415
28.7
14 421
PH12-2
2.033
9.5
97.3
422
27.8
15 211
PH09-1
2.058
8.1
98.5
428
27.8
15 338
PH19-1
2.031
9.8
97.2
396
24.9
15 915
PH15-1
2.046
9.7
97.9
419
25.8
16 279
PH19-2
2.027
9.3
97.0
400
26.7
14 998
PH20-1
2.017
9.1
96.5
392
25.5
15 415
PH20-2
2.015
9.6
96.4
400
25.1
15 874
PH21-1
2.017
9.8
96.5
394
25.8
15 289
PH21-2
2.024
9.7
96.9
398
25.0
15 951
PH22-1
2.049
9.2
98.0
408
23.9
17 014
PH22-2
2.030
9.9
97.1
415
25.5
16 284
PH23-1
2.053
9.3
98.2
412
23.5
17 485
PH23-2
2.048
9.4
98.0
411
24.3
17 075
PH24-1
2.055
8.2
98.3
403
25.3
15 970
PH24-2
2.016
9.7
96.5
399
25.5
15 640
PH25-1
2.051
9.8
98.1
396
26.1
15 158
PH25-2
2.023
9.8
96.8
404
27.4
14 713
PH26-1
2.029
10.0
97.1
400
31.2
12 827
PH27-1
na
na
na
400
27.2
14 672
PH27-2
2.020
9.8
96.6
400
26.6
15 060
PH28-1
2.014
9.8
96.3
367
25.0
14 670
PH28-2
2.011
10.5
96.2
360
24.0
14 996
PH29-1
2.042
10.2
97.7
379
22.3
16 928
PH29-2
2.019
10.2
96.6
374
25.7
14 581
PH32-1
2.006
9.6
96.0
377
27.2
13 852
PH32-2
2.035
9.2
97.4
383
27.2
14 171
Note: na = not available.
Table C 46:
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
PH16-1
2.040
9.8
97.4
336
131.0
1.64
PH07-1
2.040
9.8
97.6
255
167.0
1.48
PH20-2
2.020
9.6
96.4
310
169.5
1.60
PH28-2
2.010
10.5
96.2
299
151.5
1.46
Initial strain
()
Fatigue life
(cycles)
Table C 47:
QZ4_1 flexural strength properties after nine months moist curing
QZ4_1 flexural fatigue properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
PH03-1
2.044
9.5
97.8
975
64.0
690 662
PH03-2
2.042
10.0
97.7
1 202
80.0
53 843
PH07-2
2.048
8.9
98.0
994
75.0
8 599
PH08-1
2.013
9.9
96.3
869
74.0
61 029
PH08-2
2.008
9.7
96.1
770
66.0
1 000 000(1)
PH09-1
2.058
8.1
98.5
1 037
79.0
17 321
PH12-1
2.000
9.8
95.7
938
71.0
184 606
PH12-2
2.033
9.5
97.3
1 078
78.0
963 343
PH15-1
2.046
9.7
97.9
1 103
73.0
277 318
PH16-2
2.039
9.3
97.6
1 063
72.0
352 095
PH19-1
2.031
9.8
97.2
1 097
75.0
48 313
PH20-1
2.017
9.1
96.5
1 114
78.0
46 245
PH21-1
2.017
9.8
96.5
1 046
74.0
163 908
PH21-2
2.031
9.4
97.2
1 188
81.0
119 682
PH22-1
2.049
9.2
98.0
1 348
87.0
48 045
PH22-2
2.030
9.9
97.1
1 273
90.0
51 904
PH23-1
2.053
9.3
98.2
1 492
96.0
27 995
PH23-2
2.048
9.4
98.0
1 471
101.0
18 823
PH24-1
2.055
8.2
98.3
1 208
83.0
66 231
PH24-2
2.016
9.7
96.5
1 450
105.0
6 397
PH25-1
2.051
9.8
98.1
1 419
114.0
1 302
C.14 Quartzite with 4% Cement Content

Table C 48:
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
SS01-1
1.840
9.2
95.6
301
18.1
16 668
SS01-2
1.830
8.6
95.2
296
19.9
14 860
SS02-1
1.820
9.6
94.3
300
19.8
15 183
SS02-2
1.800
9.3
93.6
300
24.2
12 400
SS03-1
1.830
9.5
94.9
298
20.2
14 789
SS03-2
1.840
8.9
95.4
295
19.8
14 937
SS04-1
1.730
10.1
90.1
277
23.8
11 662
SS04-2
1.740
9.4
90.2
276
24.1
11 460
SS05-1
1.840
9.0
95.8
285
18.4
15 462
SS05-2
1.810
9.5
93.9
292
19.3
15 088
SS06-1
1.830
7.2
95.0
301
20.0
15 008
SS06-2
1.810
8.0
94.3
290
20.6
14 127
Table C 49:
QZ4_2 flexural strength properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
SS01-1
2.010
9.2
96.4
271
196.9
1.79
SS02-1
1.990
9.6
95.3
243
167.1
1.42
SS03-1
2.000
9.5
95.5
320
173.3
1.31
SS04-1
1.910
10.1
91.2
274
178.6
1.13
Table C 50:
QZ4_2 flexural modulus properties after five months moist curing
QZ4_2 flexural fatigue properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
Fatigue life
(cycles)
SS01-2
1.990
8.6
95.2
888
67.0
1 000 000(1)
SS02-2
1.967
9.3
94.1
803
69.0
402 882
SS03-2
2.005
8.9
95.9
872
65.0
580 993
SS04-2
1.900
9.4
95.9
867
65.0
1 000 000(1)
SS05-1
2.006
9.0
96.0
878
64.0
525 884
SS05-2
1.984
9.5
95.0
982
75.0
275 801
SS06-1
10
1.978
7.2
94.7
1 054
85.0
99 692
SS06-2
11
1.964
9.0
94.0
797
63.0
383 970
C.15 Recycled Crushed Concrete with 3% Cement Content

Table C 51:
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
RCL03-1
1.896
11.7
96.7
466
52.0
9 640
RCL03-2
1.899
11.6
96.9
517
60.2
10 090
RCL04-1
1.892
12.4
96.6
474
59.9
9 361
RCL05-1
1.879
12.0
95.9
410
57.4
7 853
RCL05-2
1.903
12.4
97.1
500
60.5
9 209
RCL06-2
1.902
12.3
97.0
557
66.9
10 259
RCL07-1
1.904
12.1
97.1
519
57.4
10 290
RCL07-2
1.892
12.7
96.5
496
57.1
9 638
RCL08-1
1.894
11.7
96.6
505
52.8
10 645
RCL08-2
1.910
10.9
97.5
471
49.8
10 220
RCL09-1
1.922
11.9
98.1
546
64.5
10 278
RCL09-2
1.906
11.6
97.3
504
51.7
11 279
RCL10-1
1.892
11.5
96.5
496
62.2
9 533
RCL10-2
1.877
12.8
95.7
483
58.9
9 422
Table C 52:
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
RCC flexural strength properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
RCL01-1
1.854
14.2
94.6
359
138.4
0.63
RCL06-1
1.853
13.7
94.6
297
162.5
0.63
RCL11-1
1.834
14.7
93.6
192
149.4
0.73
RCL12-1
1.854
14.2
94.6
267
181.8
0.67
RCL13-1
1.869
14.6
95.4
221
126.5
0.76
Fatigue life
(cycles)
Table C 53:
RCC flexural modulus properties after five months moist curing
RCC flexural fatigue properties after five months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content (%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content (%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
RCL03-1
1.896
11.7
96.7
466
52.0
RCL03-2
1.899
11.6
96.9
517
60.2
8 141
RCL04-1
1.892
12.4
96.6
474
59.9
860
RCL05-1
1.876
12.8
95.7
410
57.4
55 060
RCL05-2
1.879
12.0
95.9
500
60.5
61 333
RCL06-2
1.903
12.4
97.1
557
66.9
1 054
RCL07-1
1.881
12.0
96.0
519
57.4
18 929
RCL07-2
1.902
12.3
97.0
496
57.1
4 310
RCL08-1
1.904
12.1
97.1
505
52.8
28 478
RCL08-2
1.892
12.7
96.5
471
49.8
151 080
RCL09-1
1.894
11.7
96.6
546
64.5
10 286
RCL09-2
1.910
10.9
97.5
504
51.7
146 107
RCL10-1
1.922
11.9
98.1
496
62.2
8 375
RCL10-2
1.906
11.6
97.3
483
58.9
5 981
1 000 000(1)
C.16 Weathered Granite with 3% Cement Content

Table C 54:
WG3 flexural modulus properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
A5-1
1.996
11.0
93.7
203
23.7
8 562
A5-2
2.018
10.9
94.7
195
21.9
8 970
B5-1
2.043
10.9
95.9
204
20.8
9 920
B5-2
2.049
10.9
96.2
231
27.1
8 568
A6-1
2.017
10.9
94.7
200
29.9
6 832
A6-2
2.015
10.9
94.6
156
18.0
8 655
B6-1
2.021
10.9
94.9
197
25.1
7 895
B6-2
2.014
10.9
94.5
197
22.8
8 605
A7-1
2.026
10.9
95.1
61
16.9
5 575
A7-2
2.020
10.9
94.8
199
21.8
9 269
B7-1
2.004
10.9
94.1
182
23.4
7 785
B7-2
1.993
10.9
93.6
91
23.6
4 198
A8-1
2.004
10.9
94.1
122
19.6
6 618
A8-2
2.044
10.9
95.9
224
22.3
10 071
A1-1
2.040
10.6
95.8
197
19.5
10 085
A1-2
2.029
11.0
95.2
200
27.6
7 331
B1-2
1.996
11.0
93.7
191
25.9
7 426
B1-1
2.003
11.0
94.0
200
23.3
8 607
A2-2
2.010
11.0
94.4
151
29.3
6 156
A2-1
2.014
11.0
94.5
203
23.2
8 750
B2-2
1.982
11.3
93.1
193
23.8
8 161
B2-1
2.038
11.1
95.7
199
21.8
9 133
A3-1
2.044
11.1
95.9
201
33.0
6 546
A3-2
1.986
11.1
93.2
198
23.8
8 333
B3-1
1.995
11.1
93.7
205
27.9
7 412
B3-2
1.992
11.1
93.5
156
19.5
7 977
A4-1
1.978
11.1
92.9
200
24.7
8 265
A4-2
2.013
11.1
94.5
202
27.7
7 322
A9-1
2.031
10.8
95.3
203
20.8
9 871
A9-2
2.048
10.8
96.2
202
21.1
9 585
B9-1
2.014
10.8
94.6
152
25.0
6 283
B9-2
2.015
10.8
94.6
156
18.5
8 426
Table C 55:
WG3 flexural strength properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
A5-1
1.996
11.0
93.7
209
163.3
0.61
B7-2
1.993
10.9
93.6
482
384.7
0.54
A1-1
2.040
10.6
95.8
214
168.4
0.69
B2-2
1.982
11.3
93.1
156
130.2
0.55
B3-2
1.992
11.1
93.5
235
153.1
0.50
B9-2
2.015
10.8
94.6
210
174.4
0.57
Table C 56:
WG3 flexural modulus properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
A1-2
2.020
10.9
95.0
302
30.0
10 078
A2-1
1.990
11.2
93.6
308
36.0
8 542
A2-2
2.040
10.2
95.6
305
32.0
9 536
A3-1
2.010
10.3
94.3
303
34.0
8 921
A3-2
2.000
10.6
93.8
312
33.0
9 451
A4-1
2.000
10.9
94.0
320
31.0
10 311
A4-2
2.030
10.7
95.3
316
35.0
9 016
A5-2
2.020
10.4
94.6
296
31.0
9 544
A6-1
2.030
10.9
95.2
305
38.0
8 019
A6-2
2.010
11.0
94.5
311
36.0
8 635
A7-1
2.010
11.0
94.4
302
35.0
8 628
A7-2
2.020
10.9
94.8
304
32.0
9 510
A8-1
2.000
11.2
93.8
301
35.0
8 606
A8-2
2.030
10.4
95.4
303
29.0
10 432
A9-1
2.020
10.4
95.0
309
30.0
10 285
A9-2
2.050
10.2
96.4
310
28.0
11 080
B1-1
2.010
10.9
94.6
198
25.0
7 924
B1-2
1.980
11.2
93.0
296
35.0
8 460
B2-1
2.010
11.2
94.1
303
31.0
9 769
B3-1
1.990
11.1
93.6
318
37.0
8 608
B5-1
1.990
10.7
93.6
306
33.0
9 260
B5-2
2.010
10.7
94.5
301
31.0
9 695
B6-1
2.060
8.5
96.6
296
32.0
9 250
B6-2
2.000
11.0
94.1
296
30.0
9 869
B7-1
1.980
11.0
92.9
299
37.0
8 094
B9-1
2.010
10.7
94.6
302
33.0
9 152
Table C 57:
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
A4-2
2.029
10.7
95.3
266
194.3
1.05
A6-1
2.009
10.9
94.3
254
191.7
0.85
B1-1
2.014
10.9
94.6
312
163.6
0.99
B1-2
1.982
11.2
93.0
256
188.4
0.93
Initial strain
()
Fatigue life
(cycles)
Table C 58:
WG3 flexural strength properties after nine months moist curing
WG3 flexural fatigue properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
A1-2
2.023
10.9
95.0
738
85.0
7 312
A2-1
1.995
11.2
93.6
559
73.0
140 757
A2-2
2.037
10.2
95.6
569
69.0
288 370
A3-1
2.009
10.3
94.3
586
72.0
452 472
A3-2
1.998
10.6
93.8
572
67.0
1 000 000(1)
A4-1
2.003
10.9
94.0
723
80.0
39 958
A5-2
2.015
10.4
94.6
794
103.0
152
A6-2
2.013
11.0
94.5
649
84.0
83 557
A7-1
2.011
11.0
94.4
694
94.0
4 103
A7-2
2.020
10.9
94.8
912
117.0
173
A8-1
1.998
11.2
93.8
669
92.0
2 544
A8-2
2.032
10.4
95.4
694
77.0
75 564
A9-1
2.023
10.4
95.0
676
73.0
665 767
A9-2
2.053
10.2
96.4
716
73.0
1 000 000(1)
B2-1
2.005
11.2
94.1
663
78.0
36 048
B3-1
1.993
11.1
93.6
599
78.0
17 858
B5-1
1.994
10.7
93.6
751
96.0
604
B5-2
2.013
10.7
94.5
835
110.0
203
B6-1
2.058
8.5
96.6
598
73.0
220 786
B6-2
2.005
11.0
94.1
720
84.0
1 393
B7-1
1.979
11.0
92.9
481
64.0
1 000 000(1)
B9-1
2.015
10.7
94.6
608
76.0
61 509
C.17 Weathered Granite (Repeat Sample) with 3% Cement Content

A second sample of the weathered granite was obtained about one year after the first sample.
Table C 59:
WG3_2 flexural modulus properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
WG01-1
1.992
9.6
95.3
231
23.7
9756
WG02-1
1.955
10.3
93.5
233
27.5
8466
WG03-1
1.977
10.6
94.6
235
24.0
9773
WG04-1
1.963
10.1
93.9
228
30.3
7541
WG05-1
1.987
9.9
95.0
226
29.6
7662
WG06-1
1.993
10.5
95.3
218
26.0
8389
Table C 60:
WG3_2 flexural strength properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
WG01-1
1.992
9.6
95.3
191
127.5
0.74
WG02-1
1.955
10.3
93.5
433
200.8
0.66
WG03-1
1.977
10.6
94.6
195
163.4
0.81
WG04-1
1.963
10.1
93.9
171
133.4
0.53
WG05-1
1.987
9.9
95.0
128
90.5
0.52
WG06-1
1.993
10.5
95.3
153
110.7
0.64
C.18 Weathered Granite with 5% Cement Content

Table C 61:
WG5 flexural modulus properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
A10-1
2.034
10.1
95.5
264
19.5
13 686
A10-2
2.112
10.1
99.1
204
20.0
11 467
B10-1
2.034
10.1
95.5
260
21.0
12 460
B10-2
2.014
10.1
94.5
258
21.5
12 266
A11-1
2.036
10.2
95.6
298
21.0
15 029
A11-2
2.064
10.2
96.9
268
19.5
13 902
B11-1
2.030
10.2
95.3
287
19.5
14 569
B11-2
2.002
10.2
94.0
260
20.5
12 855
A12-1
2.043
10.5
95.9
327
21.5
15 759
A12-2
2.049
10.5
96.2
262
22.0
12 193
B12-1
2.056
10.3
96.5
263
22.5
11 772
B12-2
2.039
10.5
95.7
308
22.0
13 854
C1-1
2.040
10.5
95.8
246
23.0
10 372
C1-2
2.024
10.5
95.0
337
23.0
14 790
D1-2
2.050
10.5
96.2
351
24.5
14 375
C2-1
2.044
10.2
95.9
326
21.0
15 865
C2-2
2.053
10.2
96.4
264
28.0
11 173
D2-1
2.004
10.2
94.1
285
21.5
13 615
D2-2
2.022
10.2
94.9
255
21.5
12 289
C3-1
2.002
11.0
94.0
324
22.0
14 834
C3-2
2.047
11.0
96.1
294
24.0
12 616
D3-1
2.024
11.0
95.0
297
20.0
15 047
D3-2
2.038
11.0
95.7
319
19.5
16 443
C4-1
2.032
11.0
95.4
202
23.5
8 553
C4-2
2.037
11.0
95.6
357
22.0
15 981
D4-1
2.019
11.0
94.8
295
20.5
14 586
D4-2
2.060
11.0
96.7
358
21.0
17 325
C5-1
2.041
10.2
95.8
255
22.0
11 803
C5-2
2.045
10.2
96.0
322
22.0
14 831
D5-1
2.042
10.2
95.8
259
26.0
10 368
D5-2
2.057
10.2
96.6
324
21.0
16 139
Table C 62:
WG5 flexural strength properties after 28 days moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
B10-1
2.034
10.1
95.5
269
207.2
1.10
A11-1
2.033
10.4
95.4
174
127.8
1.22
B12-1
2.056
10.3
96.5
552
460.2
1.04
C2-2
2.047
10.2
96.1
864
761.8
1.14
C3-1
2.002
11.0
94.0
577
183.7
1.14
C5-2
2.045
10.2
96.0
205
148.7
1.11
Tensile
strain ()
Flexural
modulus
(MPa)
Table C 63:
WG5 flexural modulus properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
A10-1
2.040
10.2
95.7
1 242
33.0
14 272
A10-2
2.060
9.9
96.9
1 293
24.0
15 760
A11-2
2.050
9.9
96.4
1 392
31.0
15 156
A12-1
2.040
9.8
95.8
1 537
28.0
16 336
A12-2
2.050
9.8
96.4
928
29.0
16 056
B10-2
2.030
10.5
95.2
1 070
31.0
14 783
B11-1
2.030
10.7
95.3
1 157
29.0
15 515
B11-2
1.980
11.5
93.0
34.0
13 289
B12-2
2.040
10.4
95.9
1 231
31.0
15 086
C1-1
2.040
10.0
95.6
853
32.0
14 253
C1-2
2.030
10.1
95.2
930
29.0
15 714
C2-1
2.040
9.9
95.7
964
29.0
16 456
C3-2
2.060
10.2
96.9
1 027
30.0
15 675
C4-1
2.030
10.9
95.4
812
36.0
12 998
C4-2
2.030
10.2
95.4
894
30.0
15 423
C5-1
2.030
9.9
95.2
956
32.0
14 292
D1-2
2.010
10.7
94.6
30.0
14 610
D2-1
2.020
10.6
94.7
925
32.0
14 389
D2-2
2.050
10.4
96.3
929
32.0
14 749
D3-1
2.020
11.1
95.0
34.0
13 677
D3-2
2.050
9.9
96.1
906
29.0
15 886
D4-1
2.020
10.9
94.9
969
30.0
14 883
D4-2
2.040
10.3
95.8
976
29.0
15 981
D5-1
2.020
11.0
94.6
937
33.0
13 812
D5-2
2.030
10.8
95.5
976
30.0
15 319
Tensile
stress (kPa)
Table C 64: WG5 flexural strength properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Tensile
strain at
break
(kPa)
Tensile
strain at 95%
breaking
load ()
Flexural
strength
(MPa)
B11-2
1.981
11.5
93.0
294
160.1
1.32
D1-2
2.015
10.7
94.6
221
173.4
1.62
D3-1
2.024
11.1
95.0
226
174.7
1.59
Fatigue life
(cycles)
Table C 65:
WG5 flexural fatigue properties after nine months moist curing
Sample no.
Binder
content
(%)
Dry density
(t/m3)
Moisture
content
(%)
Density ratio
(%)
Initial stress
(kPa)
Initial strain
()
A10-1
2.039
10.2
95.7
1 242
96.0
1 205
A10-2
2.064
9.9
96.9
1 293
95.0
3 111
A11-2
2.054
9.9
96.4
1 392
102.0
6 747
A12-1
2.041
9.8
95.8
1 537
107.0
707
A12-2
2.053
9.8
96.4
928
61.0
373 668
B10-2
2.027
10.5
95.2
1 070
78.0
16 877
B11-1
2.031
10.7
95.3
1 157
83.0
20 438
B12-2
2.043
10.4
95.9
1 231
92.0
C1-1
2.036
10.0
95.6
853
65.0
1 000 000(1)
C1-2
2.028
10.1
95.2
930
63.0
378 685
C2-1
2.039
9.9
95.7
964
63.0
261 899
C3-2
2.065
10.2
96.9
1 027
71.0
26 767
C4-1
2.032
10.9
95.4
812
71.0
303 285
C4-2
2.031
10.2
95.4
894
61.0
286 351
C5-1
2.029
9.9
95.2
956
73.0
703 957
D2-1
2.017
10.6
94.7
925
68.0
54 572
D2-2
2.051
10.4
96.3
929
68.0
27 148
D3-2
2.048
9.9
96.1
906
61.0
185 932
D4-1
2.021
10.9
94.9
969
70.0
68 595
D4-2
2.040
10.3
95.8
976
65.0
134 027
D5-1
2.015
11.0
94.6
937
75.0
34 772
D5-2
2.034
10.8
95.5
976
69.0
122 054
2 633
Appendix D
Fatigue Plots
Plots of the fatigue data of individual materials have been included in this appendix. For each material the
following two plots are provided:
the initial strain plotted against the number of loading cycles to half the initial modulus
the initial stress plotted against the number of loading cycles to half the initial modulus.
Data not used in the analysis in the calculated fatigue relationships are shown as black triangles on the plots.
The data were excluded for a number of reasons such as:
The dry density was considered different from the majority of the other beams.
Either the stress or strain was considered markedly different from the majority of the other beams.
The fatigue life was less than 1000 cycles.
D.1 Basalt (Mt Gambier) with 3% Cement

Figure D 1:
Strain versus logarithm of fatigue
Figure D 2:
Stress versus logarithm of fatigue
D.2 Basalt (Purga) with 3% Cement

Figure D 3:
Figure D 4:
D.3 Calcrete with 3% Cement

Figure D 5:
Figure D 6:
D.4 Calcrete with 5% Cement

Figure D 7:
Figure D 8:
D.5 Granite with 3% Cement

Figure D 9:
Figure D 10: Stress versus logarithm of fatigue
D.6 Hornfels with 3% Cement

Figure D 11: Strain versus logarithm of fatigue
D.7 Modified Prior Stream Gravel with 3% Cement

D.8 Prior Stream Gravel with 5% Cement

D.9 Quartzite with 4% Cement

D.10 Recycled Concrete with 3% Cement

D.11 Weathered Granite with 3% Cement

D.12 Weathered Granite with 5% Cement

Appendix E
Proposed revision of the Guide to Pavement

Technology Part 2 Section 6.4
E.1 Cemented Materials

E.1.1 Introduction
Main characteristics
Cemented materials may be described as a combination of a cementitious binder, water and granular
material which are mixed together and compacted in the early stages of the hydration process to form a
pavement layer which is subsequently cured. The cementitious binder may consist of Portland cement or
blended cements and may include one or more supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash or
ground granulated blast furnace slag. The binder should be added in sufficient quantity to produce a bound
layer with significant tensile strength.
General categories and characteristics of cemented materials are given in Part 4D: Stabilised Materials of
the Guide.
Characterisation for pavement design
Cemented materials are considered to be isotropic. Their elastic response may be regarded as linear in the
normal operating stress ranges of pavements. They are characterised by an elastic modulus and Poissons
ratio. Due to similarities with the loading regime in-service, flexural modulus and flexural strength are the
preferred design inputs. The Poissons ratio may be shown to have relatively little influence on pavement
thickness requirements within the normal range. Commonly, Poissons ratio is assumed to be 0.20. The
fatigue characteristics depend on the materials flexural strength and modulus.
In selecting appropriate parameters for design, the importance of each of these factors must be considered
for the particular case.
E.1.2 Factors Affecting Modulus and Strength of Cemented Materials
Factors affecting the modulus and strength of cemented materials and the effects of increasing these
factors are shown in Table E 1.
Table E 1: Factors affecting modulus and strength of cemented materials and effect of increasing factor values
Factor
Effect of increasing factor
Proportion of coarse angular particles
Increase
Density
Increase
Compaction moisture content
Increase up to an optimum value and then decrease
Stress level
No change
Cementitious binder content
Increase
In-service moisture content
Slight decrease
Age
Increase
Extent of cracking
Decrease
Efficiency of mixing
Increase
Temperature
No change
Rate of loading
No change
Mix composition
The mix composition is dependent on the pavement layer to be stabilised, traffic volume and environmental
conditions, and the mix design procedures for cemented material is covered in Part 4D: Stabilised Materials
of the Guide. The modulus and strength of cementitious materials are not particularly temperature sensitive,
in contrast to asphalt.
The binder content significantly affects the physical properties of material compacted to a specific density.
Generally, for bound materials, the binder content is 3% or more by mass. Whilst the modulus and strength
increases with increased binder content, as the binder content increases so does the potential for
drying/shrinkage cracking.
Density and moisture
These factors are interrelated: varying the moisture content (from optimum) will generally result in a
decrease in density for a given compactive effort. Adequate compaction greatly improves the performance of
cemented materials. Increased resistance to compaction occurs as a result of the rapid formation of
cementitious bonds that resist the applied compactive effort for rapid-setting binders such as GP cement.
Compaction must be completed as soon as possible after the addition of the binder and water within the
early stages of the hydration process. Slower setting binders and retarders can extend the working time of
cemented materials. Where retarders are used, their application has to be carried out by a separate water
tanker to avoid excess application.
Cemented materials are usually constructed and compacted in single layers to eliminate the early pavement
deterioration that can result when sublayers are not bound together. For layer thicknesses in excess of 200
mm, consideration needs to be given to the lower density of the material in the lower half of the layer (e.g.
Moffatt et al. 1998). In such cases, consideration must be given to the effects of any density gradient in the
adoption of representative values for the characterisation of the full cemented layer. Alternatively, the
stabilised layer may be sublayered in the mechanistic model with the sublayer moduli reflecting the in-service
densities.
Despite the likelihood of density gradients in thick cemented layers, this is generally preferable to
constructing two or more thin layers, as any debonding between these layers can lead to substantial
reductions in pavement performance (e.g. Kadar, Baran & Gordon 1989).
Ageing and curing
The modulus and strength of cemented materials stabilised with GP cement increase rapidly in the first one
or two days, after which they increase slowly, providing curing is sustained. The variability of properties over
time is dependent on both the granular material and binder type (e.g.
Moffatt et al. 1998).
Curing is necessary to ensure that there is adequate water for the hydration reactions to proceed and that
drying shrinkage is limited while the hydration reactions are proceeding and the material is strengthening.
The design flexural modulus and flexural strength are normally adopted at 90 days curing.
E.1.3 Determination of Design Modulus
Definition of design modulus
For pavement design purposes the appropriate value of the modulus of cemented materials is an estimate of
the in situ flexural modulus after 90 days curing in the road-bed. It is expected that even slow setting binders
will be substantially cured at this time with little appreciable change in properties expected beyond this time.
Alternative methods
Design moduli may be estimated from:
flexural moduli measurements of laboratory compacted and cured beams, then adjusted to representative
in situ values
UCS tests
presumptive values.
Issues to be considered with the laboratory determination of the design modulus of cemented materials
include:
the availability of test equipment and test protocols, and the suitability of this equipment and protocols for
the determination of flexural modulus
material properties, sample preparation procedures and curing environment

binder type and rate of strength development with time, sample age at testing
the time available for laboratory characterisation with respect to the required curing time and the
construction schedule
relationships between the results of the laboratory characterisation and the properties of the material
cured in situ.
A standardised test for the determination of flexural modulus for design purposes is available (Appendix B).
Laboratory characterisation can be used to verify assumed presumptive design values or to optimise
binder/host material combinations in terms of modulus and/or working time.
Forward planning of laboratory testing is essential due to the long curing times required. Accelerated curing
may be adopted involving increased curing temperatures provided a clear correlation with longer-term,
normal cure strength gains over time are established for the material/binder combination.
Flexural modulus measurement
The Austroads laboratory flexural modulus test (Appendix B.1) is the preferred method to determine the
design modulus of cemented materials as the test conditions are considered to simulate the stress/strain
gradients generated within a pavement layer.
Test slabs should be compacted at the design cement content and grading and compacted as close as
possible to the selected density ratio. The Austroads test method for preparing asphalt slabs using a
segmental roller may be adapted for this purpose. Test beams to the dimensions specified in the test method
are saw cut from the test slabs. The beams are then moist-cured for 90 days prior to modulus testing.
In the test four-point bending of flexure (beam) specimens (Figure E 1) 100 haversine loading pulses (25
millisecond load duration, 75 millisecond rest) are applied to the test beam and the resulting beam deflection
measured. If the test beams are to be subsequently tested for fatigue, the load level applied to the beam is
adjusted such that it does not induce micro-damage during the modulus measurement. As a guide, load
levels up to about 40% of the ultimate breaking load have been observed to be suitable. Otherwise, the
modulus is measured at a load level that results as close as possible to the standard strain of 50 microstrain.
Figure E 1:
Cross-sectional view of flexural beam testing apparatus
The flexural modulus is calculated from the applied peak load, the resulting mid-span elastic displacement,
the distance between the support rollers and the beam width and height. As the modulus varies with the
applied strain, the following equation is used to adjust the measured modulus to a standard strain level of 50
microstrain (Equation A6):
E50 = EM 40 x (50 M)
A6
where
E50
flexural modulus standardised to a strain of 50 (MPa)
EM
measured flexural modulus at strain M (MPa)
tensile strain during flexural modulus testing (microstrain)
The flexural modulus reported is the average of these adjusted moduli calculated between cycles 50 and
100.
The draft Austroads test method is given in Appendix B.
In the event that the laboratory flexural modulus tests were undertaken at a different dry density ratio (DRtest)
to the in-service value (DRin-service), the following relationship may be used to adjust the standardised
measured moduli (E50) (Equation A7):
Ein-service = E50 (1+ 0.05 x (DRin-service DRtest))
A7
where
=
flexural modulus at in-service density ratio (MPa)
measured flexural modulus standardised to 50 microstrain and tested at a density

ratio DRtest(MPa)
DRin-service
density ratio in-service (%)
DRtest
density ratio of test beams (%)
Ein-service
E50
It is recommended that the test specimens be prepared as close as possible to the in-service density ratio.
Equation A7 is limited to up to a 3% difference in density ratio.
Moduli of cemented materials in-service vary markedly within a road project, with the areas low in modulus
having low fatigue life and hence limiting the structural life of the project. To provide a structural design
method that reflects the performance of the fatigue susceptible areas, the design modulus is estimated to be
rd
1/3 of the laboratory measured flexural modulus after 90 days moist curing at in-service dry density.
For cement treated crushed rocks and natural gravels design moduli determined using this procedures are
limited to a maximum of 5000 MPa.
Estimation from UCS

Relationships have been derived between flexural modulus and other parameters such as UCS. A typical
relationship for cemented crushed rock and cemented natural gravel is (Equation A8):
EFLEX = k UCS
A8
where
EFLEX
flexural modulus of laboratory-manufactured beams at 90 days (MPa), unsoaked
UCS
unconfined compressive strength of laboratory specimens at 28 days (MPa),

unsoaked
a constant. Values of 1150 to 1400 are typically used for GP cements, the value
depending on laboratory testing practices and construction specifications for
cemented materials
It should be noted that this relationship was based on laboratory test results obtained for overseas materials
with a range of binder contents (Austroads 2008). The equation should be used as a guide only as there was
significant scatter in the data. Design moduli calculated using Equation A8 are limited to a maximum of 5000
MPa.
Presumptive values
The moduli of cemented materials are dependent on a number of factors such as material quality, binder
content and density. Presumptive values cannot account for variations in these important parameters and
thus should be treated with caution. The modulus values presented in Table E 2 are considered appropriate
for 100% Standard compactive effort and may be used as a guide if no other more reliable information is
available.
Table E 2: Presumptive values for elastic characterisation of cemented materials
Property
Lean-mix concrete
Base 45%
cement(1)
Subbase quality
crushed rock
34% cement(1)
Subbase quality
natural gravel
45% cement(1)
5 00015 000
3 0008 000
3 0006 000
3 0006 000
Typical modulus (MPa)
7 000 (rolled)
10 000 (screeded)
5 000
4 000
3 000
Degree of anisotropy(2)
0.10.3
0.10.3
0.10.3
0.10.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Range of modulus (MPa)
Range of Poissons ratio (vertical,

horizontal and cross)
Typical value of Poissons ratio
1
2
Although figures are only quoted for cement, other cementing binders such as lime, lime fly ash, cement fly ash and granulated slag
may be used. The moduli of such materials should be determined by testing (refer to Part 4D of the Guide).
Degree of anisotropy = Vertical modulus
Horizontal modulus
Presumptive modulus: post-fatigue cracking

Following the initial fatigue cracking, further cracking and degradation of the cemented layer may occur,
resulting in a reduction in the modulus to a value similar to that of the unbound granular material from which
the cemented material was derived. In situations where the cemented layer is a subbase beneath a granular
or asphalt thickness greater than or equal to 175 mm, the post-fatigue cracking life may be estimated as
detailed in Section 8.2.4 of the Guide.
For the purpose of mechanistic modelling in the post-fatigue phase, cemented materials may be assumed to
th
have a presumptive vertical modulus of 1/5 the initial design modulus or 500 MPa (whichever is the lesser)
and a Poissons ratio of 0.35. The layer is not sublayered and is considered to be cross-anisotropic, with a
degree of anisotropy of 2.
E.1.4 Determination of Design Flexural Strength
Definition of design flexural strength
For use in characterising fatigue performance the appropriate value of the flexural strength of cemented
materials is determined from testing laboratory-manufactured beams compacted to representative field
densities, then moist cured in the laboratory for 90 days. It is expected that materials stabilised with GP
cement will be substantially cured at this time with little appreciable change in properties expected beyond
this time.
Alternative methods
Design moduli may be estimated from:
flexural moduli measurements of laboratory compacted and cured beams, then adjusted to representative
in situ values
presumptive values.
Issues to be considered with the laboratory determination of the design flexural strength of cemented
materials are similar to those described in Appendix E.1.3 for modulus.
Flexural strength measurement
The Austroads laboratory flexural strength test (Appendix B.2) is the preferred method to determine the
design strength of cemented materials. The testing is carried out using the same flexure beam testing
(Figure E 1) as used for modulus.
The process to manufacture the test beams is the same as described in Appendix E.1.3 for modulus.
Commonly, the test beams are those previously tested for modulus.
In the test four-point bending of flexure (beam) specimens (Figure E 1), the applied load is increased at 3.3
kN/minute until the beam ruptures. The flexural strength is calculated from the applied peak load, the
resulting peak mid-span elastic displacement, the distance between the support rollers and the beam width
and height. The draft Austroads test method is given in Appendix B.
In the event that the laboratory flexural strength tests were undertaken at a different dry density ratio to the
in-service value, the following relationship may be used to adjust the measured strength provided the density
of the test beams is within 5% of the in-service value (Equation A9):
Fin-service = Fm (1+ 0.05 x (DRin-service DRtest))
A9
where
Fin-service
Fm
DRin-service
DRtest
= flexural strength at in-service density ratio (MPa)

= measured flexural strength at density ratio of test beams (MPa)
= density ratio in-service (%)
= density ratio of test beams (%)
The design flexural strength is the mean of the flexural strengths at the in-service density ratio.
E.1.5 Factors Affecting the Fatigue Life of Cemented Materials

The principal factors affecting the fatigue life of cemented materials include: particle size distribution, particle
shape, density, moisture content, mixing efficiency, and cracking pattern. Some of these factors are in turn
dependent on binder type and content, etc.
Dry density and moisture content
As a general rule, an increase in density results in an increase in the fatigue life of cemented materials.
As an increase in moisture content beyond optimum results in a decrease in modulus, it would be expected
that an increase in moisture content would result in a decrease in fatigue life and an increase in the amount
of shrinkage cracking.
Mixing efficiency and uniformity of binder content
Mixing efficiency plays an important part in ensuring the strength and modulus of cemented materials.
Inefficient mixing may result in pockets of material which are not mixed with binder, thereby resulting in a
zone of weakness. Stress concentrations may occur around these areas and hence lower the fatigue life.
Significantly better uniformity of mixing can be achieved by the use of purpose-built batching plants or
purpose-built in situ stabilisation equipment for binder application and mixing.
Cracking
Cracking in cemented materials is normal due to thermal and shrinkage stresses resulting from hydration of
the binder. The extent of cracking is significantly influenced by the plasticity of the material to be stabilised,
the binder type and content and the moisture content at the time of compaction.
The effect of cracking in cemented materials on pavement performance depends upon factors such as the:
durability of the cemented materials
presence and type of subbase
location of the cemented layer in the pavement structure
type and thickness of material overlying the cemented layer
width of cracks (narrow cracks are less likely to reflect through to the surface than wide cracks and are
easier to bridge and keep sealed if reflection does occur)
effectiveness of crack sealing methods.
Any cracking in pavement surface layers has the potential to allow water entry. This frequently accelerates
distress through weakening of the pavement and subgrade layers, erosion of cemented material or pumping
of fines from below and between cemented layers. Often asphalt or granular material is placed over
cemented materials to minimise reflection cracking. The following measures may be considered to reduce
shrinkage cracking in cemented layers:
Minimise the total cementitious binder content the lower the binder content, the lower the moisture
required, and the less the shrinkage. However, this renders the material susceptible to erosion when
subjected to moisture ingress under loading.
Use slow-setting binders, which promote less shrinkage than GP cement. These binders are also likely to
require less moisture for compaction which also reduces shrinkage.
Minimise the clay content of the material to be cemented by controlling the amount and plasticity of fines
in the aggregate. This can be achieved by limiting the fines content to less than 20% passing the 75 m
sieve and the plasticity index to values not greater than 20.
Treat the existing pavement materials which have an excess of plastic fines by:
pre-treating with lime or lime and cement, followed by stabilisation with fly ash blend cement
mixing in gravel or crushed rock with little or no fines, the amount of material varying with the plasticity
and fines content of the existing pavement compared to the desirable levels and the proposed depth
of stabilisation
applying both of the above treatments
using the existing material as a subbase only or, alternatively, programming for an early overlay
Place a bituminous curing coat as soon as possible after construction to inhibit rapid drying out of the
cemented layer and delay surfacing as long as possible so that cracking occurs before surface
placement.
In addition, whilst the following two measures do not serve to minimise shrinkage cracking they do
ameliorate the influence of shrinkage cracking on overlying layers:
in situations where the final seal is to be placed immediately following curing, apply a SAM (or a SAMI) or
geotextile seal to inhibit potential shrinkage cracking of the surfacing
use an appropriate polymer modified binder asphalt surfacing in preference to conventional asphalt (refer
to Part 3: Pavement Surfacings of the Guide).
The benefits of these treatments are not reflected by the design process because the design model is not
capable of predicting the onset and development of reflection cracking. Therefore, similar pavement
compositions and structures will result regardless of the presence of these treatments. The benefits,
however, can be shown in terms of an improved reliability of the design by providing a surfacing less prone
to the onset and development of reflection cracking. The use of SBS or crumb rubber modifiers has been
shown to provide a more elastic response and hence, provide a surface with a greater capacity to resist
reflection cracking. Further discussion on the selection of appropriate PMBs for this type of application can
be found in the Part 4F: Bituminous Binders of the Guide.
E.1.6 Determining the In-service Fatigue Characteristics from Laboratory Fatigue Measurements
Introduction
In this, the preferred procedure, the in-service fatigue relationship is determined from fatigue testing of
laboratory manufactured beams. Note that the flexural beam test is not the only test that can be used for
fatigue characterisation. It is known that this test does not simulate field conditions accurately. The results
are affected by specimen size, support conditions and differences in test beam condition (e.g. microcracking) from the material in the road bed. Further research is required to develop an improved yet practical
laboratory fatigue test.
The in-service fatigue relationship is of the following general form (Equation A10):
K 12
N = RF
where
A10
allowable number of repetitions of the load
load-induced tensile strain at the base of the cemented material (microstrain)
a constant, calculated by multiplying the laboratory fatigue constant k by the

laboratory-to-field shift factor (SF), 1.8 is the presumptive SF value
RF
the reliability factor for cemented materials fatigue (Table E 3)
Table E 3: Suggested reliability factors (RF) for cemented materials fatigue

Desired project reliability
80%
85%
90%
95%
97.5%
4.7
3.3
2.0
1.0
0.5
th
Note that the procedure assumes fatigue life is related to the 12 power of strain, as a very large number of
fatigue test beams may be required to determine the strain damage exponent from the laboratory fatigue
th
measurements. Austroads (2014) provides the background to the selection of the 12 power.
The steps involved to determine the in-service fatigue relationship from laboratory fatigue testing are as
follows:
1. select the appropriate density ratio at which to test the fatigue beams
2. manufacture the test beams and moist-cure in the laboratory for 90 days and then undertake laboratory
fatigue testing
3. determine the fatigue constant of the laboratory fatigue relationship
4. select an appropriate laboratory-to-field tolerable strain shift factor (SF)
5. determine the in-service fatigue relationship.
The steps are described below.
Test beam density ratio
The fatigue life of cemented materials varies with density to which the material is compacted: fatigue life
increases as the density ratio increases. Consequently it is important that the fatigue beams be tested at a
density ratio representing the in-service level. In selecting this value, consideration may be given to the
minimum field density ratio specified for pavement construction.
Laboratory fatigue testing
Laboratory fatigue testing of cemented materials can be carried out using flexure beam testing (Figure E 1).
The test method is available from the Austroads web site.
Test slabs should be compacted at the design cement content and grading and compacted as close as
possible to the selected density ratio. The Austroads test method for preparing asphalt slabs using a
segmental roller may be adapted for this purpose. Test beams to the dimensions specified in the test method
are saw-cut from the test slabs.
In the beam fatigue testing, repeated application of a haversine load is applied to the upper surface of a
rectangular test beam, while recording the resulting vertical displacement of the centre of the beam. The
loading continues until the flexural modulus of the beam reduces to half the initial value.
The results of fatigue testing vary appreciably between specimens of essentially the same composition
tested on the same apparatus. Due to this variability it is recommended that the fatigue testing be limited to
5
determining the mean laboratory strain with a fatigue life of 10 load repetitions and assume a strain-damage
exponent of 12: to accurately determine the entire fatigue characteristics over a range of fatigue lives
involves testing a very large number of beams. Accordingly, the applied load is adjusted to target a fatigue
5
life of 10 load repetitions.
Consideration needs to be given to the number of fatigue results required to achieve a representative and
5
statistically significant value for the mean strain with a fatigue life of 10 load repetitions. It is anticipated that
4
5
10 to 20 fatigue results will be required with fatigue lives in the range 3 x 10 to 3 x 10 .
Calculation of the laboratory fatigue constant k

Using the fatigue results a laboratory fatigue relationship of the following form is determined:
k 12
N=
where
N
allowable number of load repetitions from laboratory fatigue testing
load-induced tensile strain at the base of the test beam (microstrain)
a constant
A11
The fatigue constant k is calculated by:

for each test beam, using the measured fatigue life and tolerable strain calculate the fatigue constant k for
the beam using Equation A11 (ki)
calculate the mean and standard deviation of the ki values of all test beams
delete any outliers amongst the ki values
recalculate the mean of the ki values.
The laboratory fatigue constant k is the mean of the individual test beam ki values.
Laboratory-to-field shift factor
Due to differences between the laboratory fatigue life and the conditions applying to the in-service pavement,
in-service fatigue lives differ from laboratory fatigue lives. A laboratory-to-field tolerable strain shift factor (SF)
is used to adjust the laboratory fatigue constant k to an appropriate value to predict in-service fatigue life.
Where appropriate pairs of laboratory and field performance data are not available to determine the shift
factor, a value of 1.8 is used in this Part.
In-service fatigue relationship
Equation A10 is the form of the in-service fatigue relationship. The constant K is determined as follows:
K = k x SF
A12
where
K
fatigue constant of the in-service fatigue relationship (Equation A10), subject to

maximum values determined using Equation A13
fatigue constant determine from the laboratory fatigue data
SF
laboratory-to-field shift factor, presumptive value of 1.8
To ensure design thicknesses for cement treated crushed rocks and cement treated natural gravels are not
less than lean-mix concrete, upper limits are placed (Austroads 2014) on the fatigue constant K as follows
(Equation A13):
Kmax =
22 000
A13
where
Kmax
maximum value of fatigue constant of the in-service fatigue relationship
cemented materials design modulus (MPa)
E.1.7 Determining the In-service Fatigue Characteristics from Measured Flexural Strength and
Modulus
An alternative procedure to determine the in-service fatigue relationship from the design modulus and design
strength determined from laboratory testing (Austroads 2014).
The fatigue constant K for use in the in-service fatigue relationship (Equation A10) is the minimum of the
values determined from Equation A14 and the maximum K values obtained from Equation A14.
K = 278FS + 1070000/E 331
A14
where
in-service fatigue constant
FS
design flexural strength (MPa)
cemented material design modulus (MPa)
Figure E 2:
In-service fatigue constants K determined from cemented materials design modulus and strength
480
Flexural strength 1.0 MPa
460
440
420
400
380
360
Kmax
340
Fatigue
constant 320
K
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
4600
4800
5000
Cemented material design modulus (MPa)
This method is limited to cement treated crushed rock and cement treated natural gravels with:
cementitious binder contents in the range 35%
design flexural strengths in the range 1.01.5 MPa
design moduli in the range 30005000 MPa.
E.1.8 Determining the In-service Fatigue Characteristics from Presumptive Flexural Strength and
Modulus
In the event that measured flexural strengths and moduli are not available, in-service fatigue relationships
may be estimated from presumptive strengths and moduli. Table E 4 lists the presumptive fatigue constants
for use in the following in-service fatigue relationship:
K 12
N=
where
A15
allowable number of repetitions of the load
load-induced tensile strain at the base of the cemented material (microstrain)
presumptive constant, as given in Table E 4
Note that reliability factors have yet to be developed for this method to enable design to a selected project
reliability.
Table E 4: Presumptive fatigue constants
Property
Typical modulus (MPa)
Base quality
granular material
45% cement
Subbase quality
crushed rock
34% cement
Subbase quality
natural gravel
45% cement
5000
4000
3000
Typical flexural strength (MPa)
1.4
1.2
1.0
In-service fatigue constant K
272
270
304
Appendix F
Example of use of Proposed Mechanistic

Procedure for Flexible Pavements with
Cemented Materials
Appendix K.2 of the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design (Austroads
2012a) provides an example of the current design procedure for asphalt pavement containing a cemented
material subbase.
To illustrate the method proposed in Appendix E.1.7, the existing Appendix K.2 design example has modified
to reflect proposed process. The example needs to be read in conjunction with Appendix K.2 of Part 2.
As the method proposed in Appendix E.1.7 is applicable to cemented materials with design moduli of 3000
5000 MPa, a design modulus of 3000 MPa has been used in the example rather than 2000 MPa as used in
Appendix K.2 of Part 2.
F.1 Asphalt Pavement Containing Cemented Material Subbase

Following the steps in Table 8.1, Table 8.2 and Table 8.3 of Austroads 2012a:
Step 1
Try pavement composition of:
Material type
Thickness
(mm)
Size 14 mm asphalt, E = 2200 MPa
50
Size 20 mm asphalt, E = 2500 MPa
125
Cemented material, E = 3000 MPa
150
Granular material
200
Subgrade, CBR = 5%
Semi-infinite
The design flexural strength of the cemented material is 1.2 MPa.

As the thickness of asphalt over the cemented material is greater than or equal to 175 mm, the post-cracking
phase of the cemented material life may be considered (Section 8.2.4 of Austroads 2012a).
Step 2
Subgrade CBR = 5%
Ev
50 MPa Section 5,6 of Austroads 2012a
EH
25 MPa
v = H
0.45 Section 5.6 of Austroads 2012a
34.5
Step 3
Top granular sublayer
Minimum of:
=
EV subgrade 2
152 MPa Section 8.2.3 of Austroads 2012a
Ev
210 MPa assuming High Standard crushed rock Table 6.5 of Austroads 2012a
Ev
minimum (152 MPa, 210 MPa) = 152 MPa
EH
76 MPa
v = H
0.35
112.6
EV top of base
(total granular thickness /125)
Step 4
Other granular sublayers
Divide the total granular layer thickness into five equi-thick sublayers (Section 8.2.3 of Austroads 2012a),
each of thickness 200/5 = 40 mm.
Calculate the ratio of adjacent sublayers:
R = (152/50)
1/5
= 1.249
Sublayer elastic properties calculation procedure is shown in the previous example (Appendix K.1 of
Austroads 2012a).
Step 5
Cemented materials
Pre-cracking cemented material phase:
E
3000 MPa (Table 6.7 of Austroads 2012a)
V = H
0.2
Post-cracking cemented material phase:

Ev
500 MPa - Section 6.4.3 of Austroads 2012a
EH
250 MPa
v = H
0.35 Section 6.4.3 of Austroads 2012a
370
No sublayering
Step 6
Asphalt
Size 14 mm asphalt:
EV = EH
2200 MPa
Size 20 mm asphalt:
EV = EH
2500 MPa
V = H
0.4
Elastic properties of all materials, including granular sublayers, are listed in the following table:
Material type
Thickness
(mm)
Elastic modulus (MPa)
Poissons ratio
EV
EH
Size 14 mm asphalt
50
2200
2200
0.4
0.4
1571
Size 20 mm asphalt
125
2500
2500
0.4
0.4
1786
Cemented material
Pre-cracked/post-cracked
150
3000/500
3000/250
0.2/0.35
0.2/0.35
1667/370
Granular
40
152
76
0.35
0.35
112.6
Granular
40
122
61
0.35
0.35
90.4
Granular
40
97
48.5
0.35
0.35
71.9
Granular
40
78
39
0.35
0.35
57.8
Granular
40
62
31
0.35
0.35
45.9
Subgrade
Semi-infinite
50
25
0.45
0.45
34.5
f
value
Step 7
Permanent deformation allowable loading (Equation 3 of Austroads 2012a):
9300 7
N=
A16
Step 8
Cemented material fatigue allowable loading.
1. Calculate the fatigue constant K of the in-service fatigue relationship using the design modulus of 3000
MPa and the design flexural strength of 1.2 MPa (Equation A14):
K = 278FS + 1070000/E 331
A17
K = 359
2. Using Equation A13 check the K value does not exceed the maximum values of K
(Kmax = 402) for a design modulus of 3000 MPa.
Using K = 359 and Equation A15, the in-service fatigue relationship is:
359 12
N = RF
A18
Reliability Factor, RF = 0.5 (Table 6.8 of Austroads 2012a)
Step 9
Asphalt fatigue allowable loading (Equation 11 of Austroads 2012a)
Size 20 mm asphalt
N = RF
6918(0.856 x 11+1.08
0.36
2500
A19
Assuming volume of bitumen (Vb) = 11%

Reliability Factor, RF = 0.67 (Table 6.15 of Austroads 2012a).
Step 10
=
NDT
10 HVAG
A20
Using the example traffic load distribution in Appendix F of Austroads 2012a:

ESA/HVAG
0.70
SAR5/ESA
1.1
SAR7/ESA
1.6
SAR12/ESA
12
Therefore using Equation 17 of Austroads 2012a:

Design traffic loading (ESA)
= ESA/HVAG NDT = 0.70 x 10
= 7 10 ESA
6
Step 11
Standard Axle load as in Appendix K.1 of Austroads 2012a.
Step 12
Critical locations to calculate strains are:
top of subgrade
bottom of asphalt layer
bottom of cemented layer.
All the above strains are calculated directly beneath one of the loaded wheels and midway between the
loaded wheels (Figure 8.2 of Austroads 2012a).
Step 13
Critical strains from CIRCLY output
Pre-cracking cemented material phase:
asphalt maximum tensile strain is 25 beneath a loaded wheel
cemented material maximum tensile strain is 109 between the loaded wheels
subgrade maximum vertical compressive strain is 260 between the loaded wheels.
Post-cracking cemented material phase:

asphalt maximum tensile strain is 168 beneath a loaded wheel
subgrade maximum vertical compressive strain is 439 between the loaded wheels.
Step 14
Calculation of overall allowable traffic loading
As the thickness of asphalt over the cemented material is greater than or equal to 175 mm, the post-cracking
phase of the cemented material life may be considered (Section 8.2.4 of Austroads 2012a). That is, the
allowable loading is the sum of the loading to fatigue cracking of cemented material plus the loading for each
distress mode (i.e. asphalt fatigue, permanent deformation) post-cracking (Section 8.2.4 of Austroads 2012a)
This calculation requires the allowable traffic loadings to be converted from Standard Axle Repetitions to
ESA.
Pre-cracking phase:
Cemented materials fatigue:
N = 0.5
359 12
109
A21
= 8.15 x 10 SAR12
Convert from Standard Axle Repetitions of allowable loading to ESA of allowable loading using SAR12/ESA = 12:
N = 8.15 10 / 12 = 6.79 10 ESA
5
A22
Permanent deformation:
9300 7
N=
260
10
= 7.49 x 10
A23
SAR7
Convert from Standard Axle Repetitions of allowable loading to ESA of allowable loading using SAR7/ESA = 1.6:
N = 7.49 10 / 1.6 = 4.68 10
10
10
A24
ESA
Asphalt fatigue:
6918(0.856 x 11+1.08 5
N = 0.67
11
= 1.06 x 10
25000.36 x 25
A25
SAR5
N = 1.06 10 / 1.1 = 9.63 10
11
10
ESA
A26
Post-cracking phase:
Permanent deformation:
9300 7
N=
439
= 1.91 x 10 SAR7
A27
A28
N = 1.91 10 / 1.6 = 1.20 10 ESA

9
Asphalt fatigue:
6918(0.856 x 11+1.08 5
N = 0.67
A29
= 7.76 x 10 SAR5
25000.36 x 168
A30
N = 7.76 10 / 1.1 = 7.03 10 ESA

6
As discussed in Section 8.2.4 of Austroads 2012a, the total allowable loading of the pre-cracking and postcracking phases are:
Permanent deformation allowable loading using Equation 24 of Austroads 2012a:
Ns = 6.79 x 104 + 1-
6.79 x 104
4.68 x 1010
x 1.20 x 109 = 1.2 x 10 ESA

9
A31
Asphalt fatigue allowable loading using Equation 23 of Austroads 2012a:

NA = 6.79 x 104 + 1-
6.79 x 104
9.63 x 1010
x 7.03 x 106 = 7.1 x 10 ESA

6
A32
Step 15
From Step 14, the following allowable loadings in ESA were calculated:
permanent deformation = 1.2 10 ESA
9
asphalt fatigue = 7.1 10 ESA

6
compared to the design traffic (Step 10) of 7.0 10 ESA.

6
Step 16
As allowable loading for each distress mode exceeds the design traffic, the trial pavement composition is
acceptable.
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street

Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au

Ap R462 14

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ap R462 14

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Research Report

Cemented Materials Characterisation

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Published June 2014

Austroads Project No. TT1664

Austroads Publication No. AP-R462-14

Austroads Ltd 2014

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Austroads 2014| page i

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Materials Tested ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Equipment and Test Method ................................................................................................................. 3

Flexural Modulus Results .................................................................................................................... 12

Flexural Strength Results .................................................................................................................... 17

Breaking Strain Results ....................................................................................................................... 22

Fatigue Results ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Estimation Of Flexural Strength ......................................................................................................... 30

Proposed Guide Revision .................................................................................................................... 36

Austroads 2014| page ii

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Summary of material properties ..................................................................................................... 2

Motorised rotary splitter and splitting process................................................................................ 3

Austroads 2014| page iii

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Austroads 2014| page 1

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Summary of material properties

Basalt (Mt Gambier)

Calcrete limestone (repeat)

Modified prior stream gravel

Prior stream gravel

Prior stream gravel

Austroads 2014| page 2

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

3. Equipment and Test Method

3.1.2 Laboratory Characterisation Process

Austroads 2014| page 3

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

The mixing process was as follows:

Austroads 2014| page 4

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Figure 3.3: BP slab compactor with rectangular mould

Austroads 2014| page 5

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

3.2 Flexural Beam Test Methods

Austroads 2014| page 6

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Figure 3.6: Cross-sectional view of flexural beam testing apparatus

Source: AS 1012.11 (2000).

Lower platen of test machine

Austroads 2014| page 7

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

3.2.3 Flexural Modulus

flexural modulus (MPa)

maximum applied force (kN)

distance between the load and reaction clamps (mm)

length between supporting rollers (mm)

average width of test specimen (mm)

average height of test specimen (mm)

deflection at the centre of the beam (mm)

Austroads 2014| page 8

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

3.2.4 Flexural Strength and Breaking Strain