1
INTRODUCTION
A flexible pavement system basically
consists of an asphalt surface layer,
a base course, a sub-base and the
subgrade. The sub-base layer is
employed as subsurface drainage
layer, whereas, the base course which
is in between the surface layer and the
sub-base plays a very prominent role
in transferring the loads coming onto
the surface layer. Thus, base courses
in flexible pavements help to distribute
the traffic load. This ability to
distribute load is primarily a function
of stiffness and depth of base course.
The quality of the base course material
also affects the load distribution. While
distributing the load, the base course
itself must not be a cause of failure.
Therefore, the base course must have
enough strength to carry loads without
shear failure. Traditionally natural
aggregates derived from a variety
of rock sources have been used as a
road base material. But the extraction
of these natural aggregate resources
is increasingly being constrained
by urbanization, increased costs
and environmental concerns. Thus,
Recycling of pavement materials
has become an alternative in road
maintenance and rehabilitation by
TECHNICAL PAPERS
that stabilized RAP material able to
function as conventional sub-base
material. Another study conducted by
Thammovong et al (2006) evaluated
the RAP material stabilized with
cement as treated base by conducting
laboratory tests like UCS, ITS and
Resilient modulus(Mr) tests and
found that stabilization of RAP with
cement drastically increases the
strength with increase in stabilizer
dosage and curing period. Similar
study conducted by Grey et al (2011)
found that cement stabilized pavement
layer from 1% to 3% cement content
should be modeled as lightly bound
material and cement content greater
than 3% yields bound material.Solanki
et al (2010) investigated the effects of
different percentages of one traditional
additive- hydrated lime and two byproducts Class C fly ash (CFA) and
cement kiln dust (CKD) on the resilient
modulus (Mr) of four different clay
subgrades. It was found that at lower
application rates (3% to 6%), the
lime-stabilized soil specimens showed
highest enhancement in the Mr values.
At higher application rates (10%
to 15%), however, CKD treatment
provided maximum improvements.
Chai et al(2005)conducted a case
study of in-situ stabilization of road
base trial section in Malaysia. The
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
was adopted to determine the in situ
stiffness of the cement stabilized
road base material. The FWD would
assess the compressive strength and
the material stiffness of the cement
stabilized layer. The improvement
in the stiffness of the stabilized base
layer was monitored. FWD was
found to be useful for the structural
assessment of the cement stabilized
base layer prior to the placement of
asphalt layers. Using the FWD data,
Chai et al proposed an empirical
relationship between the deflection
and the stiffness modulus of the
Test
RAP
New Aggregate
Standard Values as
per MoRTH
Crushing Test
15.63%
26.92%
---
Impact Test
21.45%
23.45%
Max 27%
2.15
2.68
---
Specific gravity
TECHNICAL PAPERS
Table 2 Grain Size Distribution of Materials
Gradation
Sieve
Size,
mm
% Passing
MoRT&H Limits
(Stabilized Base, Table
400-4)
RAP
12.5 mm
down
Dust
Desired
Grading
(DG)
Lower Limit
Upper
(LL)
Limit (UL)
37.5
100
100
100
100
95
100
19.0
98.00
100
100
99
45
100
9.50
66.98
66.7
100
77
35
100
4.75
33.06
1.10
99.6
45
25
100
0.60
6.50
0.25
47
17
65
0.30
3.86
0.20
34
12
40
0.075
0.81
0.20
11
10
MDD in g/cc
CBR (%)
Unsoaked 7 Days Cured
8.60
2.177
104
95
8.40
2.150
85
123
8.60
2.170
76
185
9.20
2.163
102
228
4.5 Unconfined
Compressive
Strength (UCS) Test
In order to study the effect of
stabilizer dosage and curing period
on strength of RAP mix, UCS test
was carried out as per IS:2720
Part-10 on 100 mm diameter and
200 mm height cylindrical specimens
TECHNICAL PAPERS
predicted values of UCS is given in
Fig. 4.
UCS = -1347.73 + 429.90*(1) +
14.93*(2)
... Equ (1)
Where,
UCS = Unconfined Compressive
Strength in kPa
1 = Stabilizer dosage in %
2 = Curing period in days
period for
stabilizer.
different
dosage
of
Where,
E = Dynamic Youngs Modulus in
MPa
= Density in kg/m3
TECHNICAL PAPERS
dosages of stabilizer. The results of
UPV test are presented in Table 4.
Stabilizer Dosage in
%
Dynamic Youngs
Modulus, E in MPa
1069
2047
1740
5477
2248
9106
Stabilizer
Dosage in
%
UCS in kPa
14 Days Cured
under Damp
Sand
% UCS of Soaked
Sample w.r.t
Normal Cured
Sample
(a)
(b)
(c)
(c/b*100)
591
602
101.86
993
1030
103.73
1034
1121
108.41
CONCLUSIONS
With increase in dosage of stabilizer there is no significant variation in OMC and corresponding
MDD.
TECHNICAL PAPERS
REFERENCES
1.
10
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.