Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Filters applied. Clear all
. 2019 Jan 26;12(3):387.
doi: 10.3390/ma12030387.

Flexural Strength Prediction Models for Soil⁻Cement From Unconfined Compressive Strength at Seven Days

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Flexural Strength Prediction Models for Soil⁻Cement From Unconfined Compressive Strength at Seven Days

Alaitz Linares-Unamunzaga et al. Materials (Basel). .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Soil⁻cement is an environmentally friendly road construction technique for base and subbase materials, which allows employing soils placed in the right-of-way of the road or in the surroundings, by improving its engineering properties. With this technique, it is possible to reduce the over-exploitation of quarries, the necessity of landfills and the pollutant gas emission due to the reduction of aggregate fabrication and transport. The manufacturing of soil⁻cement is generally controlled by means of the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) test at seven days, according to the regulations of each country. Nonetheless, one of the properties that best defines the performance of soil⁻cement is the Flexural Strength (FS) at long term, usually at 90 days. The aim of this paper is to develop new equations to correlate the UCS and the FS at long term and the UCS at seven days and at 90 days. Obtained results validate the proposed models and, hence, the flexural strength can be predicted from the Uniaxial Compressive Strength at seven days, allowing, if necessary, correcting measures (recalculation or rejection) in early stages of the curing time to be taken.

Keywords: cement treated base materials; cement treated materials; flexural strength; long term; short term; soil–cement; unconfined compressive strength.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Soil granulometry and granulometry range for SC40.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Modified Proctor density of the soil–cement with a 3.5% content of cement.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Device for compacting prismatic specimens.
Figure 4
Figure 4
FS test: (a) placing of the sample; (b) breaking of the sample; and (c) separation of the prismatic parts.
Figure 5
Figure 5
UCS test: (a) placing of the prismatic part; and (b) breaking of the specimen.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Relationship between UCS and FS at long term.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Relationship between UCS (7 days) and UCS (90 days).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Nunes M.C.M., Bridges M.G., Dawson A.R. Assessment of secondary materials for pavement construction: Technical and environmental aspects. Waste Manag. 1996;16:87–96. doi: 10.1016/S0956-053X(96)00030-X. - DOI
    1. López-Uceda A., Ayuso J., López M., Jimenez J., Agrela F., Sierra M. Properties of non-structural concrete made with mixed recycled aggregates and low cement content. Materials. 2016;9:74 doi: 10.3390/ma9020074. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. López-Uceda A., Ayuso J., Jiménez J., Agrela F., Barbudo A., De Brito J. Upscaling the use of mixed recycled aggregates in non-structural low cement concrete. Materials. 2016;9:91 doi: 10.3390/ma9020091. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pérez-Acebo H., Linares-Unamunzaga A., Abejón R., Rojí E. Research trends in pavement management during the first years of the 21st century: A bibliometric analysis during the 2000–2013 period. Appl. Sci. 2018;8:1041 doi: 10.3390/app8071041. - DOI
    1. Salas M.Á., Pérez-Acebo H., Calderón V., Gonzalo-Orden H. Bitumen modified with recycled polyurethane foam for employment in hot mix asphalt. Ingeniería e Investigación. 2018;38:60–66. doi: 10.15446/ing.investig.v38n1.65631. - DOI
Feedback