Sie sind auf Seite 1von 133

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.

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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
Flexural strength and breaking strain of laboratory-manufactured test beams after
five months moist curing .............................................................................................................. 18
Flexural strength and breaking strain of laboratory-manufactured test beams after
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

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 2

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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).

Austroads 2014| page 3

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 4

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 5

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

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).

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

Austroads 2014| page 7

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Austroads 2014| page 8

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

length between supporting rollers (mm)

average width of test specimen (mm)

height of test specimen (mm)

Austroads 2014| page 9

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

length between supporting rollers (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).

Austroads 2014| page 10

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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:

Austroads 2014| page 11

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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/.

Austroads 2014| page 12

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Modified prior stream gravel

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.

Austroads 2014| page 13

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Weathered granite (WG5)

29

95.7

22

13 720

12 870

Calcrete limestone (CL3)

32

96.7

22

11 240

10 130

Calcrete limestone (CL5)

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)

Prior stream gravel (PSG3)

20

96.9

26

9 560

8 600

Prior stream gravel (PSG5)

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

Density ratio is based on modified maximum dry density.


General purpose (GP) cement was used for all materials.

Austroads 2014| page 14

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Weathered granite (WG3)

26

94.5

33

9 260

8 560

Weathered granite (WG5)

25

95.5

31

14 970

14 200

Calcrete limestone (CL3)

25

96.8

37

9 030

8 450

Calcrete limestone (CL5)

26

98.0

33

12 450

11 780

Basalt (Mt. Gambier) (BAM3)

26

97.7

33

14 780

14 090

Prior stream gravel (PSG5)

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

Density ratio is based on modified maximum dry density.


General purpose (GP) cement was used for all materials.

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

Austroads 2014| page 15

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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))

Austroads 2014| page 16

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.


General purpose (GP) cement was used for all materials.

Austroads 2014| page 17

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Density ratio is based on the modified maximum dry density.


General purpose (GP) cement was used for all materials.

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
(%)

Density ratio is based on the modified maximum dry density.


General purpose (GP) cement was used for all materials.

Austroads 2014| page 18

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 19

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 20

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Modified prior stream gravel

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

Austroads 2014| page 21

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 22

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 23

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Weathered granite (WG3)

19

94.4

78

640

8 700

151 800

Weathered granite (WG5)

21

95.7

75

1 017

14 300

223 900

Calcrete limestone (CL3)

21

96.6

70

552

8 500

2 128 000

Calcrete limestone (CL5)

22

97.9

89

956

11 800

246 600

Basalt (BAM3)

16

97.2

91

1 152

13 800

387 300

Prior stream gravel (PSG5)

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.


General purpose (GP) cement was used for all materials.

Austroads 2014| page 24

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

regression coefficient

Austroads 2014| page 25

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

log(N) = 23.21 9.87 log(strain)

< 0.01

0.68

log(N) = 8.77 0.0534(strain)

< 0.01

0.69

log(N) = 33.51 15.44 log(strain)

< 0.01

0.47

log(N) = 11.26 0.0882(strain)

< 0.01

0.45

log(N) = 32.46 14.19 log(strain)

< 0.01

0.42

log(N) = 11.23 0.0720(strain)

< 0.01

0.44

log(N) = 35.79 15.57 log(strain)

< 0.01

0.78

log(N) = 12.18 0.0755(strain)

< 0.01

0.80

log(N) = 27.10 12.17 log(strain)

< 0.01

0.77

log(N) = 9.788 0.0729(strain)

< 0.01

0.77

log(N) = 20.69 9.32 log(strain)

< 0.01

0.57

log(N) = 8.982 0.0822(strain)

< 0.01

0.58

log(N) = 23.63 9.83 log(strain)

< 0.01

0.56

log(N) = 8.863 0.0489(strain)

< 0.01

0.55

General purpose (GP) cement was used for all materials.

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.

Austroads 2014| page 26

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

regression coefficient

regression coefficient

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.

Austroads 2014| page 27

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Log(N) = 55.26 17.97 Log(Stress)

0.01

0.58

Log(N) = 13.52 0.0136(Stress)

0.01

0.58

Log(N) = 54.98 17.95 Log(Stress)

< 0.01

0.62

Log(N) = 12.14 0.0117(Stress)

< 0.01

0.64

Log(N) = 38.53 11.24 Log(Stress)

< 0.01

0.76

Log(N) = 9.16 0.00429(Stress)

< 0.01

0.74

Log(N) = 39.97 12.12 Log(Stress)

< 0.01

0.66

Log(N) = 9.788 0.00619(Stress)

< 0.01

0.67

Log(N) = 24.1 6.64 Log(Stress)

< 0.01

0.43

Log(N) = 7.934 0.00387(Stress)

< 0.01

0.45

Log(N) = 26.81 7.18 Log(Stress)

< 0.01

0.41

Log(N) = 7.979 0.00271(Stress)

< 0.01

0.39

Log(N) = 32.8 10.11 Log(Stress)

0.11

0.09

Log(N) = 9.535 0.00802(Stress)

0.10

0.09

Log(N) = 22.32 5.87 Log(Stress)

0.16

0.05

Log(N) = 7.479 0.00276(Stress)

0.14

0.06

Log(N) = 8.24 0.95 Log(Stress)

0.80

0.07

Log(N) = 5.747 0.00036(Stress)

0.80

0.07

Log(N) = 35.19 11.46 Log(Stress)

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

General purpose (GP) cement was used for all materials.

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

Austroads 2014| page 28

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 29

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

flexural strength (MPa)

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

Austroads 2014| page 30

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Austroads 2014| page 31

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

flexural strength (MPa)

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.

Austroads 2014| page 32

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

flexural strength (MPa)

UCS

unconfined compressive strength (MPa)

More recently, Equation 14 has been adopted in the AASHTO mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide
(AASHTO 2008).

Austroads 2014| page 33

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Calcrete limestone (CL3)

96.5

0.65

100.4

5.01

Calcrete limestone (CL5)

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)

Austroads 2014| page 34

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Austroads 2014| page 35

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 36

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 37

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 38

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.
AS 1289 3.1.2-2009, Methods for testing soils for engineering purposes: soil classification tests:
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.
AS 1289 3.4.1-2008, Methods for testing soils for engineering purposes: soil classification tests:
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.

Austroads 2014| page 39

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 40

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Particle size distribution

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

Plasticity index (%)

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)

Optimum moisture content (%)

14
2.13(1)
7.9%(1)

Using modified compactive effort.

Austroads 2014| page 41

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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
provided in Austroads (2010).
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

Particle size distribution

Percentage passing (%)

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 (%)
Plasticity index (%)
Maximum dry density (t/m3)
Optimum moisture content (%)

23
19
4
1.95(1)
13(1)

Using modified compactive effort.

Austroads 2014| page 42

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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
provided in Austroads (2010).
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)

Percentage passing (%)

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

Plasticity index (%)

4.75 mm sieve

57

Maximum dry density (t/m3)

2.14(2)

2.36 mm sieve

41

Optimum moisture content (%)

12(1)

0.425 mm sieve

20

0.075 mm sieve

Typical values only.


Using modified compactive effort.

Austroads 2014| page 43

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Plasticity index (%)

0.425 mm sieve

57

Maximum dry density (t/m3)

2.12(1)

0.075 mm sieve

29

Optimum moisture content (%)

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).

Austroads 2014| page 44

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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%

15 mm rhyolite aggregate

10%

10 mm rhyolite aggregate

15%

Austroads 2014| page 45

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Plasticity index (%)

9.50 mm sieve

80

Maximum dry density (t/m3)

2.27(1)

6.70 mm sieve

71

Optimum moisture content (%)

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

Using modified compactive effort.

Austroads 2014| page 46

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Particle size distribution

Percentage passing (%)

Parameter

Value

26.5 mm sieve

100

Liquid limit (%)

19

19.0 mm sieve

96

Plastic limit (%)

13

13.2 mm sieve

85

Plasticity index (%)

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)

Optimum moisture content (%)

6
2.29(1)
7.75(1)

Using modified compactive effort.

Austroads 2014| page 47

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Particle size distribution

Percentage passing (%)

Parameter

Value

26.5 mm sieve

100

Liquid limit (%)

25

19.0 mm sieve

98

Plastic limit (%)

17

13.2 mm sieve

85

Plasticity index (%)

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)

Optimum moisture content (%)

8
2.09(1)
9.0(1)

Using modified compactive effort.

Austroads 2014| page 48

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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
provided in Austroads (2010).
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

Particle size distribution

Percentage passing (%)

Parameter

Value

26.5 mm sieve

100

Liquid limit (%)

21

19.0 mm sieve

99

Plastic limit (%)

15

13.2 mm sieve

82

Plasticity index (%)

9.50 mm sieve

69

Maximum dry density (t/m3)

2.34(1)

6.70 mm sieve

56

Optimum moisture content (%)

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

Using modified compactive effort.

Austroads 2014| page 49

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Particle size distribution

Percentage passing (%)

Parameter

Value

26.5 mm sieve

100

Liquid limit (%)

21

19.0 mm sieve

99

Plastic limit (%)

15

13.2 mm sieve

91

Plasticity index (%)

9.50 mm sieve

78

Maximum dry density (t/m3)

2.24(1)

6.70 mm sieve

63

Optimum moisture content (%)

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

Using modified compactive effort.

Austroads 2014| page 50

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Particle size distribution

Percentage passing (%)

Parameter

Value

26.5 mm sieve

100

Liquid limit (%)

35

19.0 mm sieve

100

Plastic limit (%)

25

13.2 mm sieve

86

Plasticity index (%)

10

9.50 mm sieve

76

Maximum dry density (t/m3)

1.96(1)

6.70 mm sieve

64

Optimum moisture content (%)

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.

Austroads 2014| page 51

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Percentage passing %

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)

Percentage passing (%)

Parameter

Value

19.0

100

Liquid limit (%)

21

13.2

88

Plastic limit (%)

None plastic

9.5

76

Plasticity index (%)

21

6.7

66

Maximum dry density (t/m3)

2.07(1)

4.75

56

Optimum moisture content (%)

10.6(1)

2.36

43

1.18

32

0.6

24

0.3

17

0.15

12

0.075

Standard compaction.

Austroads 2014| page 52

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Percentage passing %

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

Plasticity index (%)

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)

Optimum moisture content (%)

Non plastic
2.26(1)
6.3(1)

Using modified compaction.

Austroads 2014| page 53

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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).

Austroads 2014| page 54

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 55

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

flexural modulus (MPa)

peak force (kN)

distance between the support rollers (mm)

mean beam width (mm)

mean beam height (mm)

deflection at the centre of the beam (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

Austroads 2014| page 56

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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
using third point loading techniques for testing beams.
B.2.2 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.2.3 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.
Vernier calliper or other suitable device capable of measuring the height and diameter of the sample to
the nearest 1 mm.

Austroads 2014| page 57

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

B.2.4 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 2. 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 2: Typical specimen dimensions (millimetres)
Length of specimen (L)

Width of specimen (W)

400

Height of specimen (hc)

100 5

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 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.
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.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.
The procedure shall be as follows:
1. 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).
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).

Austroads 2014| page 58

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

B.2.6 Calculations
The flexural strength of the specimen shall be calculated using Equation A3:
FS =

(PL)

A3

WH2 1000

where
FS

flexural strength (MPa)

peak force (kN)

distance between the support rollers (mm)

mean beam width (mm)

mean beam height (mm)

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

mean beam height (mm)

peak mid-span displacement at a force 95% of the peak force at which the specimen
breaks (mm).

distance between the support rollers (mm)

distance between load and reaction clamps (mm)

B.2.7 Test Report


The following information shall be recorded for each test specimen:
stabilised 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 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

Austroads 2014| page 59

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

mean length of each specimen to the nearest 0.1 mm


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


B.3.1 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.3.2 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.3.3 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.
Vernier calliper or other suitable device capable of measuring the height and diameter of the sample to
the nearest 1 mm.
B.3.4 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 3. 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).

Austroads 2014| page 60

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Table B 3: 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 shown 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 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.
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.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.
The procedure shall be as follows:
1. 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).
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.

Austroads 2014| page 61

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

flexural modulus (MPa)

peak force (kN)

distance between the support rollers (mm)

mean beam width (mm)

mean beam height (mm)

deflection at the centre of the beam (mm)

B.3.7 Test Report


The following information shall be recorded for each test specimen:
stabilised 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 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
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.

Austroads 2014| page 62

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 63

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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
(%)

Austroads 2014| page 64

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 65

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Test was terminated at one million cycles.

Austroads 2014| page 66

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 67

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 68

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Test was terminated at one million cycles.

Austroads 2014| page 69

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 70

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 71

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 72

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Test was terminated at one million cycles.

Austroads 2014| page 73

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Test was terminated at one million cycles.

Austroads 2014| page 74

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 75

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Test was terminated at one million 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

Austroads 2014| page 76

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 77

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 78

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Test was terminated at one million cycles.

Austroads 2014| page 79

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 80

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 81

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Austroads 2014| page 82

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 83

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 84

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Austroads 2014| page 85

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 86

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Test was terminated at one million cycles.

Austroads 2014| page 87

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Test was terminated at one million cycles.

Austroads 2014| page 88

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Test was terminated at one million cycles.

Austroads 2014| page 89

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 90

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 91

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Test was terminated at one million cycles.

Austroads 2014| page 92

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 93

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 94

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Austroads 2014| page 95

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Test was terminated at one million cycles.

Austroads 2014| page 96

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 97

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.1 Basalt (Mt Gambier) with 3% Cement


Figure D 1:

Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 2:

Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 98

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.2 Basalt (Purga) with 3% Cement


Figure D 3:

Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 4:

Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 99

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.3 Calcrete with 3% Cement


Figure D 5:

Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 6:

Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 100

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.4 Calcrete with 5% Cement


Figure D 7:

Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 8:

Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 101

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.5 Granite with 3% Cement


Figure D 9:

Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 10: Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 102

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.6 Hornfels with 3% Cement


Figure D 11: Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 12: Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 103

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.7 Modified Prior Stream Gravel with 3% Cement


Figure D 13: Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 14: Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 104

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.8 Prior Stream Gravel with 5% Cement


Figure D 15: Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 16: Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 105

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.9 Quartzite with 4% Cement


Figure D 17: Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 18: Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 106

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.10 Recycled Concrete with 3% Cement


Figure D 19: Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 20: Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 107

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.11 Weathered Granite with 3% Cement


Figure D 21: Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 22: Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 108

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

D.12 Weathered Granite with 5% Cement


Figure D 23: Strain versus logarithm of fatigue

Figure D 24: Stress versus logarithm of fatigue

Austroads 2014| page 109

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 110

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 111

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 112

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 113

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 114

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 115

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 116

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Austroads 2014| page 117

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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 .

Austroads 2014| page 118

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 119

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Flexural strength 1.1 MPa

440

Flexural strength 1.2 MPa

420

Flexural strength 1.3 MPa

400

Flexural strength 1.4 MPa

380

Flexural strength 1.5 MPa

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)

Austroads 2014| page 120

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 121

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 122

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Austroads 2014| page 123

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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)

Austroads 2014| page 124

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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.

Austroads 2014| page 125

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

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

Convert from Standard Axle Repetitions of allowable loading to ESA of allowable loading using SAR5/ESA = 1.1:
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

Austroads 2014| page 126

Cemented Materials Characterisation: Final Report

Convert from Standard Axle Repetitions of allowable loading to ESA of allowable loading using SAR7/ESA = 1.6:
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

Convert from Standard Axle Repetitions of allowable loading to ESA of allowable loading using SAR5/ESA = 1.1:
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.

Austroads 2014| page 127

Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street


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