Presented By

Khalil Hanifa, E.I.

Geotechnical Research Engineer

LTRC
10-3GT
Design Values of Resilient Modulus for Stabilized and Non-Stabilized Base

Overview
o

o
o o

o
o
o

o o o

Background Implementation Statement Objective Scope Methodology Discussion of Results (Preliminary) Conclusions/Recommendations (Preliminary) Key Questions from the PRC Updated Testing Scope Questions and Comments

Background
Co-PIs: Gavin Gautreau, P.E. Sr. Geotechnical Research Engineer Murad Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor-Research, GERL Manager Manager: Zhongjie Doc Zhang, Ph.D., P.E. Pavement & Geotechnical Administrator

Implementation Statement

This research is expected to establish resilient modulus design values for stabilized and nonstabilized base course materials which can be used as Level 2 input in AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design (formally DARWin-ME)

Objective
To determine resilient modulus design values for typical base course materials, as allowed by LADOTD specifications.

Scope
Three stabilized soil types (classified as A-2-4, A-4, and A6, according to the AASHTO soil classification) were evaluated as bound base materials. Three aggregates types (Mexican Limestone and Recycled PCC (crushed)) were evaluated as unbound base materials.

Methodology
A laboratory testing program consisting of physical properties tests, tube suction tests, and repeated loading triaxial (RLT) resilient modulus tests were performed on the bound and unbound base materials.

Methodology
Physical properties tests were performed in accordance with LADOTD standard testing procedures to provide characterization and classification information for the tested base materials.

Methodology
Test
Atterberg Limits Sieve/Hydrometer Analysis Sieve Analysis (Aggregates) Moisture-Density Relationship (Standard Proctor) Moisture-Density Relationship

LADOTD Testing Procedure

TR 428-67 TR 407-99 TR 113-11 TR 418-98 Method B (Soils)

TR-418-98 Method G

(Modified Proctor)
Classification of Soils

(Aggregates)
TR 423-99

Methodology

Cement Content for Stabilized Base Materials

LADOTD often utilizes a cement stabilized base course design in accordance with standard testing procedure TR 432-02.

Methodology

Tube Suction Tests

The tube suction test is a procedure to approximate free moisture content in soils through capillary action by measuring its dielectric constant. The measured dielectric constant of a given soil specimen gives an indication of its moisture susceptibility.

Methodology

Tube Suction Test Procedure

Samples Ready for Tube Suction Test

Capacitance Probe

Taking Readings

Methodology

Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) Resilient Modulus Tests

Resilient modulus test were performed in accordance with AASHTO procedure T 307-99 standard method.

Methodology

Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) Resilient Modulus Tests (Sample Preparation)Stabilized Base Materials

Hammer and Mold

Sample Compaction

Compacted Sample

Sample Being Tested

Methodology

Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) Resilient Modulus Tests (Sample Preparation)Unbound Base Materials

Vibratory Compactor and Mold

Sample Compaction

Compacted Sample

Sample Being Tested

Methodology
Material % Cement (By Weight) % to achieve 300 psi % to achieve 300 psi % to achieve 300 psi Target +2% Opt. -2% +2% Opt. -2% +2% Opt. -2% +2% Opt. -2% +2% Opt. -2% 7-day curing 28-day curing 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples

A-2-4

A-4

A-6

Mexican Limestone
Recycled PCC (Crushed)

N/A

N/A

Methodology

Resilient Modulus Testing Sequences

Confining Pressure (psi) (Conditioning) 15 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 10 8 10 9 10 10 15 11 15 12 15 13 20 14 20 15 20 Sequence Number Max. Axial Stress (psi) 15 3 6 9 5 10 15 10 20 30 10 15 30 15 20 40 Cyclic Stress (psi) 13.5 2.7 5.4 8.1 4.5 9.0 13.5 9.0 18.0 27.0 9.0 13.5 27.0 13.5 18.0 36.0 Constant Stress (psi) 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 No. of Load Applications 1000 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Methodology

Review of Resilient Modulus Models

Methodology

Regression Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS Institute Inc. software to evaluate the resilient modulus data and establish k1, k2, and k3 values for each model being evaluated.

Discussion of Results

Physical Properties of Materials Tested

Material
A-2-4 A-4 A-6 Mexican Limestone Recycled PCC (Crushed)

LL (%)
20 23 32

PL (%)
12 14 20

PI (%)
8 9 12

dmax (pcf)
123.0* 121.2* 107.2*

opt (%)
10.4* 11.3* 15.9*

N/A

N/A

N/A

125.1**

10.1**

N/A

N/A

N/A

118.6**

12.0**

Discussion of Results

Physical Properties of Materials Tested

Discussion of Results

Physical Properties of Materials Tested

Standard Proctor Compaction Curves for Raw Soils

Modified Proctor Compaction Curves for Aggregates

Discussion of Results

Cement Content for Stabilized Base Materials

Standard Proctor Compaction Curves for Cement Stabilized Soils

7-day Cement Curves for Cement Stabilized Materials

Discussion of Results

Tube Suction Test Results

12 Marginal 10 Good Maximum DV Value 8 6 4 2 0 A-2-4 A-4 A-6 Mexican Limestone

Recycled PCC (Crushed)

Discussion of Results

Resilient Modulus Tests

Material % Cement (By Weight) Target Moisture Content (%) 7-day curing 28-day curing

A-2-4

A-4

A-6 Mexican Limestone Recycled PCC (Crushed)

N/A

N/A

+2% Opt. -2% +2% Opt. -2% +2% Opt. -2% +2% Opt. -2% +2% Opt. -2%

12.4 10.4 8.4 13.3 11.3 9.3 17.9 15.9 13.9 12.1 10.1 8.1 14.0 12.0 10.0

3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples

Discussion of Results

Resilient Modulus Tests Results Regression Analysis Results

Resilient Modulus Test Results

A-2-4 (Opt.) 7-day Curing Sample Number
3 (psi) d (psi)

1 30.1 33.4 38.4 62.4 62.9 69.5

2 Mr (ksi) 32.4 34.1 36.1 64.7 68.2 70.1

3 28.7 30.3 42.0 52.3 55.0 60.1 AVG 30.4 32.6 38.8 59.8 62.0 66.6 STD 1.87 2.02 2.97 6.60 6.64 5.61 CV (%) 6.15 6.20 7.66 11.03 10.71 8.43

2.8 5.8 8.3 4.6 9.2 13.8

3 (psi)

d (psi)

2.8 5.8 8.3 4.6 9.2 13.8

A-2-4 (Opt.) 28-day Curing Sample Number 1 2 3 Mr (ksi) 70.6 79.4 68.1 67.5 78.6 65.2 62.5 72.5 63.4 118.9 119.0 115.1 105.6 114.0 107.6 93.3 110.9 102.8

AVG 72.7 70.4 66.1 117.7 109.1 102.3

STD 5.94 7.17 5.53 2.22 4.39 8.81

CV (%) 8.16 10.17 8.36 1.89 4.02 8.61

Resilient Modulus Test Results

3 (psi) d (psi)

2.8 5.8 8.3 4.6 9.2 13.8

A-2-4 (-2%) 7-day Curing Sample Number 1 2 3 Mr (ksi) 32.9 32.5 26.3 30.0 29.2 26.1 28.7 28.0 25.4 64.2 56.5 53.4 61.1 57.4 56.1 60.2 61.5 62.4

AVG 30.6 28.4 27.4 58.0 58.2 61.4

STD 3.70 2.06 1.74 5.56 2.59 1.11

CV (%) 12.11 7.24 6.35 9.58 4.46 1.80

3 (psi)

d (psi)

2.8 5.8 8.3 4.6 9.2 13.8

A-2-4 (-2%) 28-day Curing Sample Number 1 2 3 Mr (ksi) 65.3 69.0 63.1 60.2 62.8 58.2 57.9 53.4 56.1 142.3 130.2 116.3 129.4 120.9 113.3 121.5 118.0 111.1

AVG 65.8 60.4 55.8 129.6 121.2 116.9

STD 2.98 2.31 2.26 13.01 8.05 5.29

CV (%) 4.53 3.82 4.06 10.04 6.65 4.53

Resilient Modulus Test Results

3 (psi) d (psi)

2.8 5.8 8.3 4.6 9.2 13.8

A-2-4 (+2%) 7-day Curing Sample Number 1 2 3 Mr (ksi) 25.8 21.0 20.6 28.2 29.3 26.2 31.0 38.4 32.0 51.7 65.5 38.4 43.6 62.6 44.9 50.1 61.8 52.0

AVG 22.5 27.9 33.8 51.9 50.4 54.6

STD 2.89 1.57 4.01 13.55 10.61 6.28

CV (%) 12.88 5.63 11.88 26.13 21.07 11.49

3 (psi)

d (psi)

2.8 5.8 8.3 4.6 9.2 13.8

A-2-4 (+2%) 28-day Curing Sample Number 1 2 3 Mr (ksi) 52.4 51.9 50.1 50.8 47.4 45.1 47.5 46.9 44.3 98.8 96.7 86.2 98.5 92.3 80.9 94.0 89.0 77.0

AVG 51.5 47.8 46.2 93.9 90.6 86.7

STD 1.21 2.87 1.70 6.75 8.93 8.74

CV (%) 2.35 6.00 3.68 7.19 9.86 10.08

Regression Analysis Results

Conclusions

Resilient modulus is not a constant value but varies with stress conditions For stabilized materials at 7-day curing, moisture content has an impact on resilient modulus For stabilized materials, increasing the curing period from 7-day to 28-day caused a significant increase in resilient modulus. Also the impact of moisture content on resilient modulus is not as critical at 28-day curing as compared to 7-day curing For aggregate materials, moisture content has an impact on resilient modulus

Conclusions

The three models evaluated to establish materials coefficients all performed well in predicting resilient modulus The data developed from all three models can be utilized to generate Level 2 inputs for base course resilient modulus in AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design

Recommendations

1.

2.

The following initiatives are recommended in order to facilitate the implementation of this study Make Model 1 (NCHRP Model), Model 2 (UKTC Model), and Model 3 (Uzan Model) for estimating the resilient modulus of bound and unbound base materials readily available for use by the design personnel of LADOTD Implement the results of this study into the current design procedure

Key Questions from the PRC

1.

2.

3.

Resilient Modulus Values Appear To Be Low Based on Literature Review, Resilient Modulus Values Appear To Be Too Low Is There A Relationship Between Unconfined Compressive Strength and Modulus? As Strength Increases Modulus Generally Increases Are There Models That Correlate Unconfined Compressive Strength to Modulus? Yes and the Models That Relate to the Testing Scope of 10-3GT Will Be Investigated

Questions/Comments from PRC

4.

5.

6.

Is There A Minimum Percentage of Cement Required In The Field? Yes, 6% (By Volume) Due to Variation in Spread Rate and to Assure Uniform Mixing k1, k2, and k3 Parameters Can Not Be Used in Pavement ME Design These Models Can Not Be Used For Chemically Stabilized Materials in Pavement ME Design Recommend A Range of Typical Design Values of Resilient Modulus for Each Tested Material A Range of Typical Values Will Be Provided

Key Questions from the PRC

7.

Cement Treated Base (150 psi) and BCS Materials Were Not Included In This Study These Materials and Other Materials Recommended by the PRC Will Be Included in the Updated Testing Scope What base courses are typically constructed for Louisiana roadways? Discussed in the Summary of the Survey Provided to the District Lab Engineers (Upcoming Slides)

8.

Review of District Lab Survey

4 Districts Replied, 5 Districts Did Not Reply

Response District 02 (New Orleans) District 03 (Lafayette) No Response District 04 (Bossier City/Shreveport) District 05 (Monroe)

District 61 (Baton Rouge)

District 62 (Hammond)

District 07 (Lake Charles)

District 08 (Alexandria) District 58 (Chase)

Review of District Lab Survey

1. a. b. c.

d.

Base Courses Constructed in Districts 302: Cement Stabilized Base Course (300 psi) 303: In-Place Cement Stabilized Base Course (300 psi) 308: In-Place Cement Treated Base Course (150 psi) Other: Stone, RPCC, BCS and Asphalt Base Course
Is There a Minimum Percentage of Cement Required in the Field? 6% (By Volume) Due To: Variation in Spread Rate To Assure Uniform Mixing

2.

a. b.

Review of District Lab Survey

3.

a.

b.

How Much Does Variation in Moisture Content (the 2% of Optimum Range Allowed During Construction) Affect Strength in the Field? The Lab Engineers informed me that they have no way of knowing this I suggested that we investigate it since it is related to the scope of project 10-3GT

Updated Testing Scope

1.

Existing Materials
Material Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests +2% A-2-4 A-4 A-6 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples Opt. 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples -2% 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples Resilient Modulus Tests +2% 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples Opt. 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples -2% 3 samples 3 samples 3 samples

Note: A-2-4, A-4 and A-6 will be treated with 6%, 6% and 8% cement (by weight) respectively, an Increase of 2% from previous testing

Testing Plan
2.
a. b. c. d. e.

New Materials
Cement Stabilized Base Course (300 psi design strength) In-Place (Recycled) Cement Stabilized Base Course (300 psi design strength) In-Place (Recycled) Cement Treated Base Course (150 psi design strength)

Recycled Soil Cement (300 psi design strength)

Composite Base Course (4 Stone/8 Soil Cement)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Testing Scope: Gradation/Hydrometer Analysis Atterberg Limits Moisture-Density Relationship Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests (7-day) Resilient Modulus Tests (7-day and 28-day)

Testing Plan
3.
a. b. c. d.

In-House Literature Review

Kentucky Limestone Mexican Limestone BCS Asphalt Base Course
An in-house literature review will be conducted on these materials to gather information as it relates to the testing scope of 10-3GT

Questions?