Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEFORMATION OF CLAYS
APPROVED:
Copyright
by
Anup Kedar Sabnis
2008
by
THESIS
MASTER OF SCIENCE
1453852
2008
1453852
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is almost being two and half years that I came to UTEP and started working for the
Center for Transportation Infrastructure Systems (CTIS). Ever since that has been an astonishing
learning experience for me. I owe a lot to this entire center.
My special thanks to Dr. Soheil Nazarian, Professor of Civil Engineering at the
University of Texas at El Paso for giving me this grand opportunity to work in the institute for a
very challenging and exciting project which is very relevant to the Texas Department of
Transportation. He has always being very supportive and encouraging to me in academic and
personal front. I would also like to thank him for giving me opportunity to extend my research
work and to go to Switzerland and work on research project at ETH, Zurich.
I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Vivek Tandon and Dr. Mahesh
Narayan for attending my thesis defense and assessing my research work.
This masters thesis is successful due to the immense support from Mr. Imad Abdallah,
associate director of CTIS. I thank him for his guidance and assistance throughout my tenure at
CTIS. I greatly acknowledge his friendly attitude and advise which certainly helped me to do my
best in my work.
I would like to express my appreciation to the Texas Department of Transportation for
funding this research project.
I am very thankful to my co-workers Mr. Cesar Alvarado, Mrs. Yaqi Wanyan, Mr.
Braulio Garcia, Mr. Carlos Solis, Ms. Lourdes Pacheco, Mr. Samuel Franco, Mr. Carlos
Manzanera, Mr. Alejandro Castillo, Ms. Haydee Arce, Mr. Enrique Portillo, Ms. Maryam Veisi,
Mr. Jose Garibay, Ms. Monica Jurado, Mrs. Adriana Geiger, Mr. Nahum Quezada for their
iv
assistance in laboratory work which brought this study to completion, and most especially their
friendship.
I note with cordial gratefulness the unconditional support of my family. Most especially
my mother, Mrs. Smita Sabnis and my father Mr. Kedar Sabnis, who encouraged me to pursue
masters degree in United States and also supported me financially. You have been a great
inspiration for me throughout my life. Thank you.
Above all I would like to thank God and my grand parents Late Mrs. Raman Sabnis and
Late Mrs. Ranjana Sabnis to whom I dedicate this work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ xii
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT .........................................................................................1
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 3
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 3
2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................3
2.2 HIGH-PI SOILS AND PAVEMENT DISTRESS................................................................3
2.3 PREDICTION OF SWELLING OF EXPANSIVE CLAYS ................................................6
2.4 STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS PROPERTIES OF SOILS ................................................7
2.5 IMPACT OF SEASONAL CHANGES ON SOIL PROPERTIES ......................................8
2.5.1 Strength Properties ........................................................................................................9
2.5.2 Stiffness Properties......................................................................................................16
2.6 EFFECT OF MOISTURE VARIATION ON STIFFNESS PROPERTIES OF CLAYS...24
2.7 CRACKING OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURE...................................................................34
CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................................41
PREPARATION OF SPECIMEN AND CONDITIONING ........................................................ 41
3.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................41
vi
vii
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Map of the U.S. Showing Swell Potential of Expansive Soils................................... 4
Figure 2.2 Distortion and Cracking of Pavements....................................................................... 5
Figure 2.3 Triaxial Test.............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 2.4 Typical Triaxial Test Results.................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.5 Indirect Tensile Strength Test .................................................................................. 11
Figure 2.7 Standard Penetration Test......................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.8 DCP Test Apparatus ................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2.9 Plate Bearing Test Apparatus ................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.10 Cyclic Triaxial Test Apparatus............................................................................... 17
Figure 2.11 Resilient Modulus Test........................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.12 Typical Resilient Modulus Test Results................................................................. 18
Figure 2.13 Typical Deformation Response in Permanent Deformation Test........................... 20
Figure 2.14 Typical Variation in Permanent Strain with Cycles ............................................... 20
Figure 2.15 Free-Free Resonant Column System ...................................................................... 21
Figure 2.16 Fixed-Free Resonant Column System .................................................................... 22
Figure 2.17 Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA) ...................................................... 23
Figure 2.18 Sensor Unit of PSPA .............................................................................................. 23
Figure 2.20 Variation is Seismic Modulus with Moisture Content under Constant Compactive
Effort for a Fine-Grained Material (Yuan and Nazarian, 2003) ........................................... 25
Figure 2.21 Typical Variations of Modulus and Moisture Content with Time ......................... 26
Figure 2.22 Typical Effect of Post-compaction Saturation on Resilient Responses (Drumm et
al, 1997) ................................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 2.23 Typical Effect of Post-compaction Moisture Increase on Resilient Modulus
(Drumm et al, 1997).............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 2.24 Variation of Actual MR with Predicted MR Values .............................................. 30
Figure 2.25 Variation of Resilient Modulus with Moisture Content ......................................... 32
Figure 2.26 Three Point Bend Test ............................................................................................ 37
Figure 2.27 Four Point Bend Test.............................................................................................. 38
Figure 2.28 Different Stages of Cracking Mechanism .............................................................. 39
Figure 3.1 Clay Specimen Subjected To Wetting by Method 1 ................................................ 43
Figure 3.2 Clay Specimen Subjected To Wetting by Method 2 ................................................ 43
Figure 3.3 Clay Specimen Subjected To Wetting by Method 3 ................................................ 44
Figure 3.4 Change in Seismic Modulus and Moisture Content vs. Time .................................. 45
Figure 3.5 Change in Dimension and Volume vs. Time............................................................ 45
Figure 3.6 Cracking of the Specimen Compacted by Method 4 and Subjected to Drying ..... 46
Figure 3.7 Set-up for Wetting for Specimen Compacted by Method 5 ..................................... 46
Figure 3.8 Change in Seismic Modulus and Moisture Content vs. Time during Wetting......... 47
Figure 3.9 Completely Dry Specimen Compacted by Method 5 ............................................... 48
Figure 3.10 Change in Seismic Modulus and Moisture Content vs. Time during Drying ........ 48
Figure 3.11 Change in Dimension and Volume vs. Time.......................................................... 48
Figure 3.12 Preparation of specimen ......................................................................................... 50
Figure 3.13 Static Compaction Apparatus to Prepare Rectangular Specimen........................... 50
Figure 3.14 Rectangular Specimen Preparation Using Static Compactor ................................. 52
Figure 3.15 Variation in Density Using Different Compaction Techniques .............................. 53
ix
Figure 5.22 Typical Variations in Moisture Content and Modulus with Time ....................... 100
Figure 5.23 Typical Variations in Expansion Strains with Time............................................. 100
Figure 5.24 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strains with Normalized Moisture Content
(NMCDFS)............................................................................................................................ 101
Figure 5.25 Typical Variation in Normalized Modulus with Normalized Moisture Content
(NMCDFS)............................................................................................................................ 102
Figure 5.26 Typical Variations in Modulus with Expansion Strains....................................... 103
Figure 5.27 Process in Predicting Shrinkage Strain......................................................... 112
Figure 5.29 Results of Sensitivity Study on the Shrinkage Models ........................................ 117
Figure 5.30 - Comparison of Measured and Predicted Shrinkage Strain Data and Moisture
Content for Three Specimen of the Houston Clay Material ............................................... 119
Figure 5.31 Histograms of Differences between Measured and Estimated Strains.................. 120
Figure 5.32 Application of Model ........................................................................................... 121
Figure 5.32 Variation of Stress at Dry Conditioning and Dry Liquidity Index........................ 127
Figure 5.33 Variation of Strain at Dry Conditioning and Dry Liquidity Index ........................ 128
Figure 5.34 Variation of Strain at Peak Stress at Optimum Conditioning and Liquid Limit ... 128
Figure 6.1 Models for Four Different Moisture Conditioning................................................. 131
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Resilient Modulus Results for Compacted Clay Specimens Tested without Further
Conditioning ......................................................................................................................... 29
Table 2.2 Resilient Modulus Results for Compacted Clay Specimens Tested after Moisture
Conditioning ......................................................................................................................... 29
Table 2.3 Resilient Modulus Results for Compacted Clay Specimens Tested after Drying ..... 30
Table 4.1 Test Matrix Carried Out in This Study ...................................................................... 60
Table 4.2 Loading Sequence for Resilient Modulus Test.......................................................... 71
Table 5.1 - UCS Test Results at Different Moisture Conditions .................................................. 75
Table 5.2 Indirect Tensile Strength Test Results at Different Moisture Conditions ................. 77
Table 5.3 Flexural Test Results at Different Moisture Conditions............................................ 78
Table 5.4 Summary of Test Results during Drying Process...................................................... 81
Table 5.5 Summary of Test Results during Wetting Process .................................................... 82
Table 5.6 Resilient Modulus Test Results at Different Moisture Conditions............................ 84
Table 5.7 Permanent Deformation Test Results at Different Moisture Conditions................... 86
Table 5.8 Typical Best Fit Parameters (Shrinkage Strain vs Normalized Moisture Content,
NMCDFO)............................................................................................................................... 92
Table 5.9 Typical Best Fit Parameters between Normalized Modulus and Normalized Moisture
Content (DFO) ...................................................................................................................... 93
Table 5.10 Typical Best Fit parameters between Normalized Modulus and Shrinkage Strains 94
Table 5.11 Typical Best Fit Parameters (Expansion Strain vs Normalized Moisture Content,
NMCSFO) ............................................................................................................................... 97
Table 5.12 Typical Best Fit Parameters between Normalized Modulus and Normalized
Moisture Content (NMCSFO)................................................................................................. 98
Table 5.13 Typical Best Fit parameters between Normalized Modulus and Expansion Strains
............................................................................................................................................. 100
Table 5.14 Typical Best Fit Parameters between Shrinkage Strain and Normalized Moisture
Content (DFS)..................................................................................................................... 101
Table 5.15 Typical Best Fit Parameters between Normalized Modulus and Normalized
Moisture Content ................................................................................................................ 102
Table 5.16 Typical Best Fit parameters between Normalized Modulus and Expansion Strains
............................................................................................................................................. 104
Table 5.17 Summary of Equations Used to Establish Relationships....................................... 105
Table 5.18 Best Fit Parameters (Shrinkage Strains vs. NMCDFO) ............................................ 106
Table 5.19 Best Fit Parameters (Normalized Modulus and NMCDFO) ..................................... 106
Table 5.20 Best Fit Parameters (Normalized Modulus vs. Shrinkage Strains after DFO Process)
............................................................................................................................................. 107
Table 5.21 Best Fit Parameters (Expansion Strain and NMCSFO) ............................................ 107
Table 5.22 Best Fit Parameters (Normalized Modulus and NMCSFO)...................................... 108
Table 5.23 Best Fit Parameters (Normalized Modulus and Expansion Strain after SFO Process)
............................................................................................................................................. 108
Table 5.24 Best Fit Parameters (Shrinkage Strain and NMCDFS)............................................. 109
Table 5.25 Best Fit Parameters (Normalized Modulus and NMCDFS)...................................... 109
Table 5.26 Best Fit Parameters (Normalized Modulus and Shrinkage Strain after DFS Process)
............................................................................................................................................. 110
xii
Table 5.27 Correlation Analysis between Parameter A from Equation 5.4 and Index Properties
of Clays ............................................................................................................................... 111
Table 5.28 Relationships between Parameter and Index Properties of Soils............................ 114
Table 5.29 Weighting Functions for Each Index Parameter of San Antonio Clay.................. 115
Table 5.30 Estimated A* Parameter for Different Shrinkage Types Using all five Index
Parameters for San Antonio Clay ....................................................................................... 116
Table 5.31 Shrinkage Strains at 14% Moisture Content for San Antonio Clay ...................... 116
Table 5.32 Equations and Parameters ...................................................................................... 124
for Shrinkage and Expansion Strain Models .............................................................................. 124
Note: if no values are provided for the slope, intercept, and R2, that index property was not used
in the model......................................................................................................................... 124
Table 5.33 Equations and Parameters for Modulus Models .................................................... 125
* - 125
Table 5.33 Correlation Analysis between Four Point Test Results and Index Properties of Clays
............................................................................................................................................. 126
xiii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Texas flexible pavement roadway system of low volume roads on high plasticity
index (high PI) clay foundation often fail prematurely. A large number of these roads do not last
as long as they are designed for. One reason is that the design procedures currently used does not
account for the subgrades with high PI clay. It is therefore, important to improve the design and
laboratory procedures to evaluate subsoil conditions and then design pavements accordingly to
extend the life expectancy of these roads. A more realistic approach is needed for these lower
classification roads to reduce distress problems and to lower the maintenance costs. To achieve a
part of this goal or objective, several tasks are carried out in this research project.
The main focus of this study is to carry out laboratory tests and evaluate strength and
stiffness properties of high PI clays. Six different clay materials, consisting of one low PI clay
and five high PI clays, were tested as part of a testing matrix to cover Texas conditions. Part of
the data generated in this study was then used to carry out statistical analysis and to develop
models predicting strains (shrinkage and expansion) and modulus of clays with changing
moisture content.
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This documentation of work carried out for this study starts with a literature review
(Chapter Two), in which the behaviors of high PI clays are critically analyzed with respect to
change in moisture content. That chapter also covers pavement distresses due to the special
properties (strength and stiffness) associated with these expansive soils. The impact of seasonal
variation on strength and stiffness properties of clays is illustrated based on field and laboratory
tests. At the end, cracking of pavement structure is discussed with the introduction of the flexural
test.
In Chapter Three, the laboratory tests for preparation of specimens are described. The
current TxDOT compaction method and its drawbacks as related to clay materials are pointed out
first. Alternative compaction methods were evaluated and compared with the current methods
next. Additionally, the drying and wetting processes of the specimen prepared at the optimum
and tested at dry, optimum and saturated conditions are presented.
Chapter Four discusses the testing program in detail by explaining all strength and
stiffness tests which were performed in this study.
The results from all tests are presented in Chapter Five.
between different parameters measured after dry and wet conditioning are documented. Some of
data were used to develop mathematical models between index properties of clays and their
modulus and shrinkage properties. These models are also described.
Finally in Chapter Six, a summary, several conclusions and recommendations for further
research are offered.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Damage to structures constructed on expansive clay soils occurs throughout the United
States each year. Many pavements fail prematurely due to moisture changes that affect the
engineering and physical properties of the subgrade soils. Aubeny and Lytton (2002)
investigated the modes of distress in pavements constructed on high-plasticity (high-PI) clays.
The sources of distress involve the formation of surface cracks, moisture infiltration through the
cracks, and therefore, a reduction in the strength of the soil. When these high-PI clays are
subjected to drying in hot summer months, they tend to shrink significantly, causing distress,
normally in the form of longitudinal cracking. This chapter provides a brief description of highPI clays as problematic soils, pavement distresses as a result of expansive soils, and a literature
review on evaluation of strength and stiffness properties of high-PI subgrades with changing
moisture content.
2.2 HIGH-PI SOILS AND PAVEMENT DISTRESS
Soils that exhibit significant volume change from soil moisture fluctuations are known as
expansive clay soils. Expansive clays contain highly active minerals that expand or shrink as
moisture is added or removed. Soft clays usually have higher moisture contents and more voids
than stiffer clays. If enough moisture fills the voids and the soil becomes saturated, the clay can
lose nearly all of its strength and stiffness. Excessive moisture can cause costly construction
problems.
Since clays have severe shrink and swell susceptibility, damage to roads, slabs, and foundations
that are constructed on or near clays can occur. Approximately one-half of the land in the United
States contains expansive soils (see Figure 2.1) causing billions of dollars in damage each year to
roads, homes, pipelines and other structures (Krohn and Slosson, 1980).
Soil movements in highway environment caused by swell or shrinkage strains of expansive soils
are attributed to subgrade moisture variation. The water content in the clay can change during or
after construction of a structure in a number of ways. Rain, snowmelt, and poor drainage under
roads can increase the moisture and trap it in the soil.
Trees planted near pavement structures can reduce the water content in soils as the roots
collect water during growth thus resulting in shrinkage problems in soils. Irrigation in the
vicinity of the pavement structures can add moisture to the soil.
Damages sustained by the pavements include distortion and cracking (see Figure 2.2) of
pavements in all directions, as well as heave related bumps which may cause ride discomfort.
Distortion may be caused by swelling of expansive subgrade soils, which sometimes lead to
cracking. Longitudinal racking is mainly attributed to shrinkage of underlying layers which may
also be accelerated by repeated traffic loads (Engineering Manual 1110, 3-138, US Army Corps
of Engineers, 1984). The cracks developed in pavements will further allow moisture infiltration
to subgrade, which results in the weakening and loss of foundation support to pavements. In
general, the magnitude and extent of damages to pavement structures can be extensive.
If the conditions are properly evaluated, the effect of shrink/swell susceptible clay soils on low
traffic roads can be controlled. However, maintenance and repairs requirements can be extensive,
often exceeding the capitol costs.
parameters are very significant in the determination of swelling pressure. Several regression
equations were developed by Hossain et al. (1997) relating swelling to initial dry unit weight,
6
initial water content, liquidity index, liquid limit or plasticity index. But none of the above
equations incorporated the effects of physico-chemical factors on swelling properties of soils.
Nwaiwu and Nuhu (2006) carried out laboratory tests to evaluate the pH, electrical
conductivity, loss on ignition of the soils, grain size distribution (Hydrometer test) and
percentage free swell of expansive clay materials. They concluded that the swelling behavior
can be predicted from a combination of physico-chemical/physico-mechanical and index
properties of clays. According to Nwaiwu and Nuhu (2006), the specific gravity and electrical
conductivity can be used to predict the swell potential, while the same factors along with clay
content and plasticity index can be used to predict the free swell, swelling strain and swelling
pressure of the clay from:
(2.1)
(2.2)
(2.3)
potentials of clay used as a subgrade have shown to have detrimental impact on the strength and
stiffness parameters and, as such, their performance (Saarnketo and Scullion, 1997).
intensity and duration of the dry period as well as the type of vegetation in the vicinity.
In the rainy seasons, moisture penetrates into cracks and diffuses into the soil mass, and
thus, clay exhibits exceptionally low strength and tends to expand. The low strength of the
subgrade thus contributes to the structural damage of the road (Thompson and Elliot, 1985). In
the saturated stage, the subgrade is so weak that the pavement would fail under much smaller
loads than when the same subgrade is at its optimum state. This behavior of the subgrade is so
predominant that the quality of the base layer on the structural performance of the pavement may
become negligible.
The vulnerability of the clay subgrade to such seasonal and water content conditions has
focused attention on the need to maintain more adequately the moisture content of the clay as
constant as possible. Equilibrium moisture beneath highway pavements is critical to pavement
design and construction because moisture directly affects the strength and stiffness of pavement
systems. Therefore, a number of practical steps during the construction and rehabilitation should
be considered to address the issue of maintaining constant moisture levels in the subgrade,
including parameters such as widening the right of way, controlling the types and locations of
trees and vegetations, and providing the appropriate drainage design (Pengelly and Addison,
2001).
membrane is placed over the sample, along with two o-rings, to prevent any water to infiltrate
the specimen or any moisture to escape it. The specimens are then set aside for about 24 hrs.
Each specimen is then tested in compression while being subjected to its assigned confining
pressure (e.g. 3, 7, and 10 psi).
The same procedure is followed for the Texas Triaxial Test, or Test Method Tex-117-E,
with the only difference being that immediately after extruding the specimens from the mold,
they are set aside for 24 hrs and then placed inside Texas triaxial cells. Following the drying
process, the specimens are subjected to capillary wetting. The specimens are maintained under
capillary wetting for a total of 24 hours. Each specimen is then subjected to its assigned
confining pressure (e.g. 0, 5, 10, and 15 psi), and tested in compression.
obtained with these tests are the cohesion, angle of internal friction, and the Texas Triaxial
classification of the materials. The Texas Triaxial design method is used to determine the
required pavement thickness to ensure against subgrade shear failure due to heavy wheel loads.
10
The thickness design can be performed based on the Texas Triaxial classification, the current and
projected traffic, and a design wheel load.
In the indirect tensile strength test (Tex-226-F, see Figure 2.5) a cylindrical specimen is
loaded diametrically across the circular cross section. Figure 2.6 shows the specimen set up for
indirect tensile strength testing. The loading causes a tensile deformation perpendicular to the
11
2 P
(2.4)
D L
where IDT = indirect tensile strength, P = load at failure, D = diameter of the specimen, and L =
IDT =
In-Situ Testing
Field methods for measuring strength parameters involve the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT), Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) Test, and Plate Bearing Test. One of the most widely
used in-situ test is the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). SPT (see Figure 2.7) is performed inside
an exploratory boring using inexpensive and readily available equipment, and thus adds little
cost to the exploration program. The SPT test involves drilling a 2.5 in. to 8 in. diameter
exploratory boring. A standard cylindrical sampler is driven into the bottom of the borehole.
This process is repeated until the sampler has penetrated a distance of 18 in. The number of
blows required to penetrate over the interval of 6 in. to 18 in. are summed to obtain the N-value,
in blows per foot (Coduto, 1998). The N-value is used as a basis for foundation design and as
the primary index of liquefaction resistance.
SPT test data can be corrected for the number of site specific factors to improve its
repeatability. Skempton (1986) gives the procedure for determining the standardized blow-count
which allows the use of hammers with varying efficiency. This corrected blow- count is referred
as N60, which is given by the following formula:
N60 =
Em C B C S C R N
0.60
(2.5)
where, N60 = SPT N-value corrected for field procedure and apparatus, Em = Hammer efficiency,
CB = Borehole diameter correction, CS = Sample barrel correction, CR = Rod length correction,
and N = Raw SPT value recorded in the field.
12
Furthermore, Liao and Whitman (1986) give the overburden correction for the field SPT
N value which is given by:
( N 1)60 = N 60
(2.6)
2000 psf
z '
where, (N1)60 = SPT N value corrected for overburden pressure, N60 = SPT N-value corrected for
field procedure and apparatus, and z = Vertical effective stress.
is first converted to a CBR value (as a measure of strength) and then to a modulus (as a measure
of stiffness).
hydraulic jack is centered on the plate. Three dial micrometers are used to measure deformation
of the soil under load.
The loading system and bearing plate are then seated by applying a load of 700 lb when
the thickness of the pavement is less than 15 in., or a load of 1400 lb when the design thickness
of the pavement is 15 in. or more. The seating load is allowed to remain in place until complete
deformation has taken place. Then, a reading on all three micrometers is taken. This reading is
used as the zero reading. Without releasing the seating load, two load increments of 3500 lb
14
each are applied. Each load increment is held in position until the rate of deformation is less
than 0.0001 in/min. Readings are noted down from all three micrometers at the end of each load
increment. At the end of 7000-lb load increment, average deflection is determined by averaging
the total movement between zero and 7000 lb increment for each dial.
Value of Kw
(2.7)
If the value of Kw is less than 200, the test is considered as complete and the load may be
released. But if the Kw value is 200 or more, an additional load increment of 3500 lb is applied
until the total load of 21000 lb is reached, allowing each load increment to remain until the rate
of deformation is less than 0.0001 in./min. All three dial micrometers are read at the completion
of each load increment. (CRD-C specification, 1995)
15
16
The resilient modulus (MR) is typically determined in the laboratory in accordance with
the AASHTO T307 under conditions of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content.
The resilient modulus is a measurement of the soil response when subjected to repeated loading.
Resilient modulus tests are the primary means of determining the variation in modulus of base
and subgrade materials with moisture. Most modern pavement design methods are based on the
resilient modulus of the supporting subgrade soils.
The resilient modulus test provides a basic relationship between the applied stress and the
resulting deformation of pavement materials (Matthew at el., 2004). This relationship can be
used in the structural analysis of layered pavement systems. The resilient modulus test also
provides a means of characterizing pavement construction materials when tested over a range of
variable conditions, such as moisture, density, and stress conditions in a pavement subjected to
moving wheel loads.
17
The resilient modulus system (Figure 2.11) applies cyclic loading to the soil specimen.
The loading simulates conditions produced by traffic. The loading wave shape is typically a
haversine. A double acting actuator applies axial load. The results of the resilient modulus test
provide a relationship between stiffness and the state of stress of the material being tested. The
typical test results are shown in Figure 2.12.
19
number of cycles increases, the permanent deformation accumulates rapidly. At higher cycles,
the permanent deformation accumulates much slower.
20
The free-free resonant column (FFRC) device is a reasonably low cost device for
measuring the modulus of pavement materials. Due to the nondestructive nature of this test, one
specimen can be tested repeatedly to obtain the variation in modulus with moisture (Nazarian et
al, 2002). Also, the same specimen can be used to measure the change in length and diameter of
the specimen during to saturation and drying. Test results have shown that the modulus from the
FFRC device is reasonably well-correlated to the modulus from the resilient modulus tests and
the angle of internal friction from the triaxial tests (Nazarian, 2003).
To conduct the test, a specimen is prepared similar to the one prepared for the resilient modulus
or triaxial tests. Since the test is nondestructive, the specimen can be tested after FFRC tests for
strength (static triaxial tests) or stiffness (resilient modulus or cyclic triaxial test).
Figure 2.15 shows this procedure. An accelerometer is securely placed on one end of the
specimen, and the other end is impacted with a hammer instrumented with a load cell. A
specimen can be tested, and the test result can be obtained in less than three minutes (Nazarian,
2003).
21
The fixed-free resonant column test (Figure 2.16) is used for measuring the low-strain properties
of soils. The resonant column equipment is used to determine shear wave velocity, shear
modulus and damping ratio of soil under different confining pressure, void ratios, shear strain
amplitude, number of cycles and time of confinement (Xiaoming and Jing, 2002).
The test subjects solid or hollow cylindrical specimens to torsional or axial loading by an
electromagnetic loading system. The soil specimen in fixed-free end conditions is either put to
torsional simple shear or in a fundamental torsional mode of vibration. From theory of elasticity
and geometric properties of specimen, the shear modulus can be determined. Damping ratio is
determined from decaying vibration or hysteresis loop characteristics (Xiaoming and Jing, 2002).
In situ methods include seismic tests and the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) tests.
Seismic methods rely on generation and detection of elastic waves within a medium and
measuring the velocity of propagation of these waves. The measured velocity can be converted
to modulus based on theory of elasticity. The Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA)
(Nazarian et al, 1997) shown in Figure 2.17 is used to estimate the seismic modulus of a soils.
22
The PSPA consists of two transducers and a source packaged into a hand-portable system (see
Figure 2.18). The device is operable from a computer. The major mechanical components of the
PSPA sensor unit are a near and a far accelerometers, and an electric source. The data collected
with the PSPA can be processed to determine the Youngs modulus of the sample being tested
directly through the high frequency surface waves (USW) method.
23
magnitude of the force applied is representative of the load pulse induced by a single heavy
moving wheel load or of that of an aircraft moving at moderate speeds.
The response of the pavement system is measured in terms of vertical deflection, over a given
area. FWD generated data, combined with layer thickness, can be used to obtain the "in-situ"
moduli of a pavement structure. This information can be used in a structural analysis software to
estimate the expected life, and calculate the overlay requirements over a desired design life.
24
The use of seismic modulus in quantifying the variation in modulus with moisture of
pavement materials has been extensively described by Nazarian and Yuan (2003). The moisturemodulus relationship under constant compactive effort can be analyzed. As shown in Figure
2.20, for a fine-grained material the relationship resembles that of a typical moisture-density
curve. The maximum modulus occurs at a moisture content that is less than the optimum
moisture content. For moisture contents greater than the value at which the peak modulus
occurs, the modulus decreases with an increase in moisture. Also a sharp drop in modulus for
moisture contents less than that of the peak modulus is observed.
Figure 2.20 Variation is Seismic Modulus with Moisture Content under Constant
Compactive Effort for a Fine-Grained Material (Yuan and Nazarian, 2003)
Pavement subgrades, while usually compacted close to optimum moisture content and
maximum dry density during construction, experience seasonal variations in water content. Most
fine-grained soils exhibit a decrease in the modulus as the water content is increased. To
simulate this condition, Yuan and Nazarian (2003) carry out seismic test on high-PI clay
specimens prepared at the optimum moisture content. The specimens were first subjected to four
days of drying in a 106OF (40OC) oven. Each day the specimen was removed from the oven and
tested with the FFRC device to obtain the seismic modulus and weighed to determine the
25
moisture content. After the 4-day drying period, which is associated with the change in the
properties of the exposed soil during hot summer days, the specimen was placed in a water bath
allowing for it to soak moisture for the next six days, in order for it to complete a 10-day testing
cycle. Once again, the specimen was removed from the water bath daily, tested with the FFRC
device and weighed. Typical results are shown in Figure 2.21. As the specimen is dried, the
modulus significantly increases and the moisture content decreases. However, as soon as the
water is introduced, the modulus decreases and the moisture content increases.
160
Peak Modulus
Modulus
140
100
80
60
Initial
Modulus
40
Residual Modulus
Moisture
120
20
0
2
0
Drying Cycle
10
Wetting Cycle
Time, days
Figure 2.21 Typical Variations of Modulus and Moisture Content with Time
The moisture content at compaction affects the strength and stiffness properties of the soil
due to the influence of particle orientations during compaction (Seed et al. 1962). For this reason
the soil structure is an important factor that impacts the resilient response.
Elfino and Davidson (1989) conducted resilient modulus tests on specimens subjected to
water content variations after compaction. They found that clay specimens exhibited a decrease
in resilient modulus with an increase in moisture content relative to the conditions at optimum
water content.
26
In a related study, Drumm et al. (1995) evaluated the effect of post-compaction moisture
content on the resilient modulus of subgrade soils in Tennessee. Soils from 11 different sites
were investigated. Three specimens of each soil, ranging from A-4 to A-7-6 in accordance with
AASHTO classification, were compacted at optimum water content and maximum dry density
with two of these specimens being saturated. After the saturation process was completed, the
specimens were stored in a moist curing room for seven days prior to resilient modulus testing.
Figure 2.22 shows a typical reduction in resilient modulus with an increase in the moisture
content and the degree of saturation.
27
drying of specimens, and thus, establish a correlation between resilient modulus and moisture
variation.
Thirty-four clay specimens were prepared and tested for that study. The specimens were
divided into three categories. The first category consisted of 11 specimens subjected to MR
tests, of which four were compacted at OMC-4%, four at OMC, and three at OMC+4%. The
second category included 16 specimens of which 11 were compacted at OMC-4% and five at
OMC. The specimens in this category were wetted and then tested for MR. The third category
consisted of seven specimens, of which four were compacted at OMC+4% and three at OMC.
These specimens were dried and then tested for MR.
The effects of moisture variations on the resilient modulus were observed by evaluating
the changes in MR values at a specific deviatoric stress and confining pressure. Tables 2.1 to 2.3
present the k1, k2, and k3 model parameters for all three categories of specimens. Once
28
Table 2.1 Resilient Modulus Results for Compacted Clay Specimens Tested without
Further Conditioning
Table 2.2 Resilient Modulus Results for Compacted Clay Specimens Tested after
Moisture Conditioning
29
Table 2.3 Resilient Modulus Results for Compacted Clay Specimens Tested after Drying
parameters k1, k2, and k3 are obtained, the resilient modulus of the material at any state of stress
can be determined.
Khuory and Zaman (2004) then predicted the MR values of the wetted specimens
prepared and tested at OMC+4%. A comparison between the predicted MR values of these
specimens and the MR values of the specimens having different moisture gradients but the same
average moisture content (i.e. specimens prepared at OMC-4% and OMC and then wetted till
moisture content equals OMC+4%) is illustrated in Figure 2.24. The effect of the moisture
gradient on the MR values can be considered negligible
30
Khuory and Zaman (2004) indicated that the moisture content of the bulk specimens
influences the resilient modulus. For this reason, the moisture content of the bulk specimens was
used in establishing a MR-moisture content (MR-MC) relationship for specimens compacted at
OMC-4% and OMC, and then wetted to higher moisture contents. The variation in MR values
for specimens compacted at OMC-4% and wetted to approximately OMC+4% are represented by
curve MrMC-1 in Figure 2.24, while curve MrMC-2 represents the MR-MC relationship for
specimens compacted at OMC and then wetted to OMC+4%. Comparatively, for a given
moisture content, the MR values from MrMC-1 are lower than corresponding values from
MrMC-2 indicating that both the initial moisture content and the extent of wetting are important
factors.
The MR-MC relationships for specimens compacted at OMC+4% and OMC and dried to
a lower moisture content were established and are presented by curves MrMC-3 and MrMC-4,
respectively, in Figure 2.25. For a given moisture content, the modulus from Mr-MC-3 is higher
than the MrMC-4 at a moisture content ranging between OMC and OMC-2%. Results show that
the percentage increase in the resilient modulus for specimens compacted at OMC+4% and dried
to approximately OMC-4% is approximately 200%, while specimens compacted at OMC and
dried to OMC-4% exhibited only 80% increase in MR values. From these results it can be
concluded that the changes in MR values due to drying is influenced by the initial moisture
content of a specimen. For a given moisture content, the MR values are higher for a drying cycle
than a wetting cycle (Tinjum et al, 1996).
Heydinger (2003) also studied general expressions for the seasonal variations and changes
of temperature and moisture in a fine-grained subgrade soil at an Ohio test site. An expression
for how the resilient modulus changed with seasonal variation was derived. Resilient modulus
31
tests were conducted on the soil at several moisture contents. Seasonal monitoring program
(SMP) instrumentation was installed in 18 test sections at the test site. The subgrade soil at the
site was an A6 soil by the AASHTO Soil Classification System or CL by the Unified Soil
Classification System. Three probes were placed in the upper 18 inches of subgrade soil, since
the subgrade soil in that range would have the greatest impact on pavement performance.
Heydinger (2003) found that there is no relationship between volumetric moisture content and
precipitation for the probes in the subgrade soil and for probes placed in base layers at other test
sections.
32
the saturated state. Thus, it is concluded that the seasonal variation of subgrade soil moisture can
be predicted independent of precipitation. Data from test sections in Ohio showed that there is a
seasonal variation of moisture content even at the site where there is a high water table and no
drainage. Consequently, a seasonal variation of resilient modulus is prognosticated.
Drumm and Madgett (1997) have shown that resilient modulus is dependent on moisture
content and dry density during compaction and on moisture content or matric suction, thereafter.
Drumm and Madgett (1997) also proposed methods for estimating resilient modulus based on
soil type and properties. Because of the difficulty in determining relationships between matric
suction and moisture content, they recommended to use the seasonal variation of volumetric
moisture content for estimating the variation of resilient modulus. Their research showed that it
may be appropriate to approximate the seasonal variation in moisture content as a function of
day of the year using a sinusoidal curve.
Empirical evidence from other researchers (Drumm and Madgett, 1997; Tian et al., 1998)
shows that there is a strong dependence of soil resilient modulus on the moisture condition of the
soil. The resilient modulus of a fine-grained soil can be expressed as a function of deviator
stress, and is dependent on compaction energy and moisture, changes in moisture after
compaction and freeze-thaw effects. The resilient modulus of fine-grained soils does not depend
on the confining stress (Thompson et al., 1979).
Research work also have shown that the resilient modulus can vary by as much as a factor
of two for a variation in saturation from approximately 85% to 95% which will then lead to a
significant variation in required AC pavement thickness or to a significant reduction in pavement
life.
33
Research on the effects of freezing has shown that resilient modulus can be significantly
affected by freezing and thawing (Simonsen et al., 2002). The resilient modulus of fine-grained
(frost susceptible) soils increases significantly as the temperature decreases to -20C. The
resilient modulus of thawed soils is significantly lower than unfrozen soils.
Li and Selig (1994) described a procedure for predicting resilient modulus as a function
of moisture content and compaction effort for fine-grained soils. They recommended a twoparameter power model relating resilient modulus and deviator stress. The first procedure
included determination of resilient modulus of soils compacted with different compactive efforts
but with the same dry density. The second alternative was described for determining resilient
modulus for soils with the same compactive effort but with different moisture contents. They
also presented an equation for resilient modulus at the optimum water content as a function of
percent clay and plasticity index. Comparisons between predicted and measured values of
resilient modulus were excellent.
34
cracking, crack will appear on the surface that completes one cracking cycle. Thus, cracking
starts at the edges of the asphalt layers and it advances towards the center.
Uzan et al. (1972) prepared a small-scale test specimen, simulating field conditions
regarding thickness and layer composition. The subgrade was loaded with the horizontal jack
and the cracks formed at the subgrade-base interface were measured using LVDTs. LVDTs
were also installed at other layer interfaces to measure the displacements. The subgrade was
then unloaded and then displacement in the model were recorded.
When no further
displacements were observed at the asphalt interface the subgrade was reloaded. Throughout the
test the asphalt layer was visually observed for any fine cracks which were detected at the bottom
of the granular layer.
Uzan et al. (1972) concluded that the following factors affect cracking of asphalt layers:
Small changes in the modulus of clay and base material do not affect the stress in the asphalt
layer.
Possible reasons for this include, small changes in the degree of restrained, lateral
35
and 2) cracks that strongly interact with others. Most cracks of first type eventually develop into
the second (Chertkov, 2002).
Longitudinal cracks are generally developed in structures when strain energy generated
by shrinking or swelling is sufficient enough to break the inter-particle bonds (Raats, 1984).
Most of the fracture mechanics models applied to soils do not account for toughness. These
models use the techniques based on Griffiths (1920) work on the fracture mechanics of ideal
linear elastic materials.
extension to the Griffiths model. However, either approach does not account sufficiently for
plasticity in wet soils (Hallett, 1996). So these approaches are applicable for dry brittle soils but
when it comes to ductile soils like high PI Clays, plasticity can be a dominant sink to the
imposed strain energy.
Chandler (1984) provides a detailed description of crack propagation in soils that
considers plasticity. Lawn (1993) came up with an alternative approach which uses crack
opening displacement (COD) to understand cracking mechanism. Sture et al. (1999) used this
COD approach for stiff soils and found that considerable amount of fracture occurs at a
consistent amount of crack opening. But COD approach fails to predict the ductile growth
adequately (Turner and Kolednik, 1994). Crack opening displacement can also be used in finite
element modeling to characterize the strain dependant fracture of materials (Hallett and Newson,
2001). An ideal testing approach to describe crack growth in soils should account for plasticity,
be easy to conduct and provide theoretically sound parameters.
A test set up for measuring the crack propagation was suggested by Hallett and Newton
(2005). As shown in Figure 2.26, a rectangular specimen is placed on two pieces of thin glass.
36
To minimize the frictional influence, rollers are provided which allow glass slides to move
freely.
= Vpl / a
(2.8)
where, = crack tip opening angle (CTOA), Vpl = crack mouth opening, and a = crack
length.
The 3-point bend test has several drawbacks. In case of ductile soils, excess plastic
deformation at the load points may limit the use of 3-point bend test. Specimens which fail
under self weight can not be used to test for 3-point bend test. At the beginning of the test, if the
length of the crack is not large enough, there is a tendency of the crack to deviate during loading
37
because of the presence of anisotropic stress fields. Turner and Kolednik (1997) suggested
inserting a long preformed crack into the specimen to overcome above problems.
The 4-point bend test, as shown in Figure 2.27, can also be used to evaluate the cracking
properties of ductile soils. According to Hallett and Newton (2005), this test is more robust than
the 3-point bend test. Test specimens are bars measuring about 5.5 in. in length and 1 in. square
in the cross-section. Before starting the test, a crack with a length a0 equals half the specimen
thickness is cut into the sample using a razor blade. The test set up is very similar to the 3-point
bend test with the exception of the additional two rollers added close to the crack.
which is marked by decrease in the applied force. At this point stable ductile crack growth occurs
which can be described using the crack tip opening angle (CTOA) approach.
39
range of moisture content. A combined shrinkage and fracture mechanics models could be
developed that would provide a fundamental understanding of soil structure genesis.
40
CHAPTER THREE
PREPARATION OF SPECIMEN AND CONDITIONING
3.1 INTRODUCTION
First step in any strength or stiffness test is to compact a specimen to a desired moisture
content and density and to carry out appropriate moisture conditioning.
The compacted
specimen should ideally mimic the condition in the field, and should stay intact during the
moisture conditioning, being drying or wetting. A prepared specimen should be easily saturated
in optimum time as well as should be dried in oven without generating major cracks. In this
chapter, the issues of specimen preparation and moisture conditioning are described and
preliminary protocols for executing them are offered.
41
tests, it is not uncommon that the specimens fail at the interface of the lifts. The height of the
specimens (6 in.) may be too short for reliable strength and stiffness tests.
Method 1
Specimens with dimensions of 4 in. by 8 in. were compacted using a kneading compactor
in a plastic mold using the same compaction energy as proposed in Tex-114-E. The plastic molds
had perforations at the bottom part which was glued to the mold to allow the intrusion of water.
The conditioning on these specimens was started with wetting as shown in Figure 3.1. The
specimens in plastic molds were placed on porous stones, which were kept in a water bath. The
specimens quickly absorbed water, and the bottom one-fourth of the specimen became readily
saturated. The waterfront normally never reached above this point. The specimens were weighed
every day. After two days of conditioning, the water absorption in the specimens normally
stopped.
Method 2
One of the concerns with Method 1 was that the fixed plastic base would restrict the
access to moisture.
As such, the plastic base of the mold was made removable and the
conditioning was repeated. Figure 3.2 shows the pictures of a clay specimen subjected to
42
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Method 3
Specimens were compacted and subjected to wetting in the same way as explained in
Method 2. To accelerate the wetting process, suction was applied to the top of the specimens.
After three days, only the first lift of the specimen became saturated. As shown in Figure 3.3, the
specimens sometimes became separated between the first and second lifts.
43
44
30
25
20
4
15
3
10
2
1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Moisture Content, %
180
Time (hrs)
Modulus
Moisture
Figure 3.4 Change in Seismic Modulus and Moisture Content vs. Time
Clay specimens prepared in similar way were then subjected to drying in a conventional
oven at 104 OF (40 OC). As shown in Figure 3.6, the specimens badly cracked, especially at the
Change in
Dimension, %
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Time, hr
45
10
Figure 3.6 Cracking of the Specimen Compacted by Method 4 and Subjected to Drying
Method 5
To overcome the problem with the drying of the specimens, 4 in. by 8 in. specimens were
prepared in one single lift using a static compactor. The specimens were extruded, covered with
cellophane wrap, and subjected to top to bottom saturation as shown in Figure 3.7. Typical
change in moisture content with time is shown in Figure 3.8. The entire lengths of the specimens
were saturated in less than two days. Changes in the dimensions and weights of the specimens
46
35
30
25
10
20
15
5
10
5
0
0.00
Moisture Content, %
15
0
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Time (hrs)
Modulus
Moisture
Figure 3.8 Change in Seismic Modulus and Moisture Content vs. Time during Wetting
were measured, and the FFRC tests were performed on them until the specimens became
saturated throughout.
When the specimens prepared with Method 5 were subjected to drying in a conventional
oven at 104OF (40OC), no major cracks were evident on the specimens (see Figure 3.9). This
temperature is lower than the 140OF normally used in TxDOT. The temperature was reduced to
ensure that the specimens would not suffer severe cracking during drying. As shown in Figure
3.10, about three weeks were necessary to bring the specimens to constant moisture content.
Under these conditions, the modulus increased rapidly during the first ten days, but the change in
modulus is rather small past that time.
Typical shrinkage of the specimens is shown in Figure 3.11. The changes in diameter and
length are more pronounced between 100 hrs and 300 hours, after which the specimen shrinks
rather gradually.
47
250
25
200
20
150
15
100
10
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
Time, hrs
Modulus
500
600
700
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
800
Moisture
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure 3.10 Change in Seismic Modulus and Moisture Content vs. Time during Drying
20
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
Vertical
300
400
Time, hrs
Lateral
500
600
Volumetric
48
700
800
Based on this study, Method 5 is recommended for preparing the specimens. This method
is discussed in detail in Appendix A.
investigated. The compaction apparatus consists of one hollow metallic cylinder and three solid
metallic blocks. The sizes of the metallic block and hollow cylinder were determined in a way
that a specimen can be prepared either in one single lift or five lifts
Figure
3.12
shows the pictorial representation of specimen preparation using Method 5. Step 1 consists of
weighing the exact amount of material required for preparing one specimen. As shown in Step 2,
a 2.45-in.-long solid metal block is placed at the bottom of the mold. The appropriate amount of
soil is placed and spread evenly within the mold (Step 3). As per Step 4, a, 5.65-in.-long solid
block is placed on top of the material in the mold. The assembly is placed under a common
loading system, and the top solid block is axially loaded at a slow rate (see Appendix A) until the
top solid block becomes flush with the mold (see Step 5). The assembly is then turned upside
down, and a 0.5-in.-long solid block is placed on top of the 2.45-in.-long block (Step 6). As
shown in Step 7, an axial load is again applied until the 0.5-in.-long block becomes flush with
the mold. The pressure is maintained for 1 minute before the assembly is removed, and the
specimen is extracted from the mold (Step 8). Step 9 shows the extruded clay specimen.
49
50
51
52
130
125
Density, pcf
120
115
Layer 1
Layer 2
110
Layer 3
Layer 4
105
Layer 5
Density
100
95
Orig. S1
Orig. S2
trial 1
trial 2
trial 3
1/2
2
T
trial 4
trial 5
trial 6
3
B 1
2
1
3
T
1
3
1
B 2
B 3
B 2
step 1
step 2
step 1
step 2
1/2
2
B
3
1
3
B
2
1
2/2
step 1
step 2
step 1
step 2
step 1
step 1
step 2
step 2
1/3
1/3
1
4
3
T
T 2
3
B 1
3
1
B 1/3 T 1/3
2
2
step 3
step 3
1/3
2
1
B
4
step 1
step 2
step 4
2
T 3
1/2
trial 7
1/3
We recommend using static compaction method used in trial 5 and 6 (as discussed in
section 3.4) as it showed least variation in densities along different layers and it was possible to
moisture condition the specimens which were later used for different strength and stiffness tests.
3.7 CONDITIONING
The main area of research of this project was to study the behavior of high-PI clays with
change in moisture content. All clay specimens were prepared in at optimum moisture content
and were subjected to moisture conditioning (either drying or wetting). These procedures are
discussed below and detailed protocols are included in Appendix A.
specimen is wrapped in a cellophane wrap (Step 2). The cellophane wrap covering the specimen
is pricked in about a dozen points to allow for the specimen to release the moisture. The drying
of the specimen is carried out using a conventional oven at 104OF (40OC), as shown in Step 3.
After every 24 hours, the specimen is taken out of the oven, the cellophane wrap is removed, the
specimen is weighed and the length and diameter are measured. The length is measured at four
different sides along the diameter of the specimen (Step 4), and the diameter is measured at top
middle and bottom of the specimen using a pi tape (Step 5). The specimen is then tested for
modulus with the free-free resonant column device (Step 6), rewrapped and is placed back in the
oven. The procedure is repeated until the decrease in weight in two consecutive days is about
0.1%. Figures 3.17 and 3.18 show typical results from drying a specimen.
Typically, the
variations in dimensions, modulus and moisture become reasonably constant after 10 to 15 days.
54
20
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Time, hrs
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
250
25
200
20
150
15
100
10
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
Time, hrs
Modulus
500
600
700
0
800
Moisture
55
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
Shrinkage Strain, %
(3.1)
where Wreqd = required additional amount of absorbed water to saturation, Wti = the initial total
weight of the specimen, i = initial moisture content of the specimen, Dai = maximum dry
density of the clay, and Gs = specific gravity of the clay, w = density of water.
The change in height is measured at four sides along the diameter of the specimen (Step
7). The expansion of the specimen is determined by measuring the distance between thumbtacks.
The diameter is measured at the top center and bottom of the specimen using a -tape (Step 8).
After each measurement, the plastic cylinder is again filled with water. Figures 3.20 and 3.21
show typical results of the wetting phase. As per Figure 3.20, the diameteral expansion of the
specimen was recorded as 1.2% whereas vertical expansion was 4%. As initially moisture
56
Expansion Strain, %
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
Time, hrs
25
30
57
35
Modulus
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture
10
15
20
Time, hrs
25
30
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
35
content increases, seismic modulus also increases after which it starts falling down till it
becomes almost negligible when the specimen gets saturated. The moisture conditioning of a
specimen usually takes two to four days.
58
CHAPTER FOUR
TESTING METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Variation in the moisture content of high-PI clays subgrades drastically affects the
pavement performance. Moisture variation changes the strength and the stiffness
properties of these clays. This chapter describes the test program carried out to determine
the strength and stiffness properties of several clays at different moisture conditions.
These properties can be used as an input into the structural models. Six different clay
materials were tested consisting of five high-PI clays (PI greater than 25) and one low-PI
clay. The high PI clays were brought from Houston, Forth Worth, San Antonio, Paris and
Bryan Districts, whereas the low PI-clay was from El Paso.
The Bryan and El Paso clays were used to develop protocols for all test methods
and to validate the feasibility of the proposed testing program. These preliminary tests
were very useful to differentiate between behavior of high-PI and low-PI clays with
change in moisture content. All test methods used for this project are comprehensively
described in the appendices.
59
four-point bend test was also performed to study the crack propagation properties of the
clays.
AASHTO-T-307) and permanent deformation (PD) tests were carried out to quantify the
stiffness of each clay material. The specimens for stiffness and strength tests were
prepared using a static compactor as described in Chapter Three.
Specimens were prepared and tested under three different moisture conditions.
Table 4.1 demonstrates the tests carried out on each clay and each moisture condition
where O stands for optimum, D for dry and S for saturated. In the first set of tests,
the specimens were prepared and tested at their corresponding optimum moisture
contents. The second moisture conditioning involved drying specimens prepared at their
optimum moisture contents to constant weights. The third set of specimens were again
prepared at their optimum moisture contents then saturated. Methods used for drying and
saturating specimens are described in Chapter Three. The IDT, flexural and RM/PD tests
on saturated specimens could not be carried out simply because the specimens were too
soft to withstand the loads.
Flexural
Seismic
RM/PD
Bryan
El Paso
Houston
Forth Worth
San Antonio
Paris
IDT
Clay Source
Stiffness
UCS
Strength
O-D-S*
O-D-S
O-D-S
O-D-S
O-D-S
O-D-S
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D-S
O-D-S
O-D-S
O-D-S
O-D-S
O-D-S
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
O-D
60
180
160
Unconfined Compressive
Strength
140
Stress, psi
120
100
80
60
Strain at Failure
40
20
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
Strain, %
61
bottom plate and specimen. Then the specimen is centered on that porous stone and a top
plate is placed on top of that specimen. The rubber membrane is then extended from top
and bottom to cover the porous stone and plates (as shown in Step 3). Triaxial test
apparatus is shown in Step 4. The specimen is then centered on the bottom plate of this
triaxial apparatus (see Step 5). As shown in Step 6, the specimen is encased in a plastic
chamber. Top plate is then fixed on this plastic chamber which has a rod at center which
goes inside the grove of the top plate (see Step 7). As shown in Step 8, the loading frame
is then fixed on top of the rod in such a way that it just touches the rod. The specimen is
then loaded till it fails. Step 9 shows the computer generated graph during the testing.
62
(2 P)
( D H )
(4.1)
63
Stress at Failure
Strain at Failure
initiation of the crack growth can be estimated. Step 6 shows the graph generated during
testing.
65
66
Figure 4.7 shows a typical stress-strain curve for a dry specimen. When test is started,
the testing apparatus moves down and the specimen is subjected to bending. Initially as
shown in Figure 4.7, stress on the specimen (load coming from the middle two supports)
increases. This increase in stress is continued until the breakage of the inter-particle bond
is initiated (peak stress). Past that point, the stress decreases until the stress becomes nil.
At this point there is considerable damage inside the specimen evident by the crack
growth in the middle of the specimen. As the specimen fails completely, it cannot even
withstand its own weight which is reflected as a negative stress level. As such, the peak
stress usually coincides with the initiation of the crack, and the zero crossing to the point
where the crack is clearly visible.
67
Depending on the
dimensions and the stiffness of the specimen, energy associated with one or more
frequencies are trapped and magnified (resonate) as they propagate within the specimen.
The goal with this test is to determine these resonant frequencies. Since the dimensions
of the specimen are known, if one can determine the frequency (ies) that are resonating
(i.e. the resonant frequencies), one can determine the modulus of the specimen.
Figure 4.8 shows typical test results while Figure 4.9 shows the pictorial
representation of the test method. A 4 in. by 8 in. clay specimen with a thumbtack at the
center is placed on a pedestal. An accelerometer is placed next to the thumbtack. The
thumbtack is gently tapped using hammer and a frequency is generated. A computer
generated program records the frequency and the data is saved.
68
69
The test is carried out using an MTS testing device. Figure 4.10 shows the
variation in resilient modulus with devioteric stress and different confining pressure. A
constitutive equation in the form of is fitted to the data:
Mr = k1 *ck2 *dk3
(4.2)
where parameters k1, k2 and k3 are the material constants which are obtained after data
reduction. Parameter c is the confining pressure, and d is the deviatoric stress.
following the loading sequence shown in Table 4.2. Step 6 shows the graph of load and
deformation variation during testing.
70
71
= (1 - b)
= (a b)/ resilient
(4.4)
72
1.0E+00
5.6814E-01
y = 5.1368E-06x
2
1.0E-01
R = 0.99
1.0E-02
Permanent Strain
1.0E-03
Resilient Strain
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1
10
100
Cycle
73
1000
CHAPTER FIVE
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the data collected from different strength and stiffness tests are
presented. Since some of the tests may be time-consuming or difficult to perform, the
final sections of this chapter are dedicated to relating the results from different tests to
more readily-available parameters.
74
Material
El Paso
PI = 17
San
Antonio
PI = 26
Forth
Worth
PI = 29
Bryan
PI = 31
2.2
(9.9)
4
(0.0)
9.5
(14.9)
124
(1.1)
1.3
(10.9)
36
(7.9)
1.8
(20.2)
4
(1.8)
9.0
(3.8)
206
(7.6)
0.8
(17.7)
31
(34.8)
1.7
(33.3)
3
(13.3)
9.8
(3.6)
328
(6.0)
1.7
(4.3)
60
(2.4)
1.9
(34.4)
5
(31.4)
8.0
(35.4)
264
(1.6)
0.8
(35.4)
28
1.6
6
10.0
Paris
(20.2)
(26.5)
(9.6)
(7.1)
PI = 36
Note: Numbers in bracket indicate coefficient of variation
199
(24.9)
1.8
(4.0)
Houston
PI = 35
75
76
Table 5.2 Indirect Tensile Strength Test Results at Different Moisture Conditions
Optimum
Dry
Material
Strain at Failure,
Strain at Failure,
IDT, psi
IDT, psi
%
%
El Paso
5 (0.0)*
0.4 (20.2)
53 (17.5)
0.6 (38.6)
PI = 17
San Antonio
PI = 26
14 (5.2)
0.6 (0.0)
88 (26.7)
1.3 (50.9)
Forth Worth
PI = 29
12 (23.6)
0.6 (12.9)
61 (8.2)
0.6 (12.9)
Bryan
15 (18.9)
0.8 (0.0)
131 (10.8)
PI = 31
Houston
18 (20.2)
0.8 (17.7)
108 (2.6)
PI = 35
Paris
10 (42.4)
0.9 (8.3)
69 (4.1)
PI = 36
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate the coefficient of variation
1.2 (6.2)
0.7 (20.2)
1.0 (22.3)
77
Figure 5.4 Strains at Failure under Indirect Tensile Strength Tests at Different
Moisture Conditions
Table 5.3 Flexural Test Results at Different Moisture Conditions
Optimum
Dry
Material
El Paso
PI = 17
Peak Stress,
psi
Strain at Peak
Stress, %
Peak Stress,
psi
Strain at Peak
Stress, %
37(27.6)
1.8 (15.7)
San Antonio
PI = 26
4 (4.9)*
1.1 (16.8)
56 (13.8)
2.7 (18.4)
Forth Worth
PI = 29
3 (17.5)
1.1 (36.7)
55 (22.7)
3.8 (63.3)
Bryan
PI = 31
3 (34.7)
3.5 (33.4)
137 (29.0)
4.1 (22.5)
Houston
PI = 35
5 (67.1)
1.5 (48.3)
99 (9.8)
3.6 (14.2)
Paris
6 (14.5)
1.6 (79.0)
78 (12.5)
PI = 36
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate the coefficient of variation
78
4.1 (7.0)
79
In the case of the high-PI clays, the final moduli are 6 to 15 times the
corresponding initial moduli, while for the low-PI clay, the final modulus was about 30
times greater than the initial modulus.
The initial moisture contents are the moisture contents at which the specimens
were prepared (nominally equal to OMC). The final moisture contents are the moisture
contents after the completion of the drying process. The final moisture contents are
approximately 85 to 95% less than the corresponding initial moisture contents.
The maximum shrinkage strains are presented in Table 5.4 and Figure 5.7. The
high-PI clays shrank drastically more than the low PI clay. The maximum horizontal and
vertical shrinkage strains in high PI clays were found to be 5 to 6%, while the
corresponding shrinkage in low PI clay was just 1 to 2%.
80
Seismic Modulus,
ksi
Initial
El Paso
PI = 17
San
Antonio
PI = 26
Forth
Worth
PI = 29
Bryan
PI = 31
Houston
PI = 35
Paris
PI = 36
Final
Moisture
Content,%
Initial
Final
Horizontal Volumetric
9 (0.0)*
1.2
(20.2)
2.0
(2.3)
5.3
(6.1)
20 (8.3)
5.1
(8.2)
5.0
(9.2)
14.3
(8.3)
13 (3.3)
194 (6.9)
6.0
(2.1)
6.3
(1.7)
17.5
(1.3)
5.7
(35.0)
5.1
(8.8)
6.1
(6.0)
4.9
(16.0)
5.7
(6.9)
6.4
(5.5)
12.8
(21.5)
15.5
(7.1)
17.8
(5.2)
255 (5.0)
4.8 (2.1)
81
estimated frequently. It was very difficult to perform seismic tests on specimens when
they became close to saturation.
The initial (as soon as the specimens were prepared) and final (upon completion of
wetting process) moduli, moisture contents and maximum expansion strains are shown in
Table 5.5. The saturated specimens moduli were less than 6 ksi. The final moisture
contents are 1.3 to 1.6 times greater than the OMC. The maximum expansion strains are
also shown in Figure 5.8. As a general trend, the high PI clays expanded slightly more
than the low PI clay.
The resilient modulus tests were performed on two specimens of each clay at
optimum and dry conditions (see Appendix E). The wet specimens were not stable
enough to test since they deformed excessively during the conditioning cycles. The
resilient modulus stiffness
Seismic Modulus,
ksi
Initial
El Paso
PI = 17
San
Antonio
PI = 26
Forth
Worth
PI = 29
Bryan
PI = 31
Houston
PI = 35
Paris
PI = 36
Final
Moisture Content,%
Initial
Final
Not
16.5 (0.0)* 28.5 (2.7)
Possible
Horizontal Volumetric
1.5 (26.4)
0.6 (26.8)
2.6 (3.8)
19
11
22.6 (0.0)
34.7 (1.8)
2.7 (66.9)
1.5 (31.8)
5.3 (0.7)
12
23.4 (0.0)
34.8 (1.9)
1.7 (26.8)
0.5 (25.9)
2.7 (2.9)
23
21.0 (0.0)
27.5 (0.4)
1.8 (13.9)
0.9 (14.2)
4.1 (14.3)
16
20.7 (0.0)
30.3 (0.5)
1.7 (1.8)
0.3 (81.3)
2.3 (44.7)
22
23.3 (0.0)
35.1 (1.2)
2.2 (9.8)
1.2 (26.4)
4.7 (6.8)
82
The
83
k1
k2
k3
Modulus, ksi
ksi
3 (14.1)*
0.44 (11.8)
-0.22 (-21.3)
4 (5.4)
7 (5.7)
11 (0.0)
0.03 (28.3)
-0.11 (-12.9)
10 (1.0)
18 (0.0)
10 (22.3)
0.05 (47.1)
-0.08 (0.0)
9 (19.5)
15 (4.9)
13 (33.3)
0.14 (15.9)
-0.41 (-5.3)
9 (31.7)
15 (0.0)
14 (0.0)
13 (11.7)
25 (17.0)
13 (42.1)
28 (2.6)
Representative
Resilient
Modulus, ksi
Seismic
Modulus,
ksi
b) Dry Condition
Material
k1
k2
k3
El Paso
49 (7.4)
49 (10.4)
PI = 16
San Antonio
48 (15.3)
48 (4.6)
PI = 26
Fort Worth
36 (1.84)
36 (8.69)
0
0
PI = 29
(assumed) (assumed)
Bryan
64 (18.3)
64 (19.4)
PI = 31
Houston
55 (11.5)
55 (20.3)
PI = 35
Paris
31 (20.7)
31 (4.6)
PI = 36
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate the coefficient of variation
191 (3.3)
129 (9.8)
162 (3.86)
134 (8.9)
242 (6.5)
120 (1.9)
In addition, for the dry state, parameters k2 and k3 should be close to zero. These
two parameters were assumed to be zero as reflected in the table.
As reflected in Figures 5.9, the representative resilient moduli of dry specimens of
the high-PI clays are 2.5 to 7 times greater than the corresponding specimens tested at
84
optimum condition while, this ratio for the low-PI clay was 12. The seismic moduli of the
dry specimens were 4 to 12 times greater than the optimum ones as shown in Figure 5.10.
85
Permanent
Strain,
strain
Permanent Deformation
Parameters
3394 (36.2)
0.84 (16.3)
0.05 (66.6)
267 (107.5)
490 (83.0)
0.49 (61.2)
0.04 (85.2)
163 (55.7)
383 (68.8)
0.49 (14.2)
0.04 (14.7)
211 (66.0)
304 (63.9)
0.77 (2.1)
0.07 (2.1)
Houston
PI = 35
320
470
0.72
0.06
Paris
PI = 36
604 (103.0)
715 (86.9)
0.81 (22.7)
0.05 (19.5)
San Antonio
PI = 26
Forth
Worth
PI
= 29
Bryan
PI = 31
b) Dry Condition
Resilient
Strain, strain
Permanent
Strain,
strain
El Paso
PI = 17
125 (132.9)
San Antonio
PI = 26
Material
Permanent Deformation
Parameters
164 (131.2)
0.82 (10.5)
0.07 (44.5)
162 (23.7)
271 (19.4)
0.68 (6.9)
0.06 (17.7)
Forth Worth
PI = 29
175 (71.0)
257 (45.7)
0.78 (16.9)
0.07 (7.7)
Bryan
PI = 31
66 (29.7)
136 (61.5)
0.56 (28.8)
0.04 (30.7)
Houston
PI = 35
198 (30.2)
317 (68.2)
0.78 (35.5)
0.03 (54.8)
Paris
1.04 (5.1)
2.56 (29.4)
0.43 (38.8)
PI = 36
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate the coefficient of variation
0.03 (58.2)
strain. The resilient and permanent strains of the dry specimens are in most cases less
than those from the specimens prepared at optimum.
86
87
Expansion Strain
DFS Model
SFO Model
Moisture Content
DFO Model
Shrinkage Strain
88
of clay materials. Seismic moduli were normalized by dividing the individual seismic
modulus by the seismic modulus at OMC. Three different approaches were followed to
normalize the moisture content. For the DFO process, the moisture contents were
normalized by dividing individual moisture content by the OMC (Equation 5.1); whereas,
for the SFO process the OMC values were subtracted from the individual moisture
contents and then the obtained value was further divided by the OMC (Equation 5.2).
Similar approach was followed for DFS process as employed for SFO process, the only
difference being a factor of 1 was added in all the obtained numbers to make sure that all
values were positive (Equation 5.3). The reason for this was to facilitate the curve fitting
altogether that was used to determine the best fit curve for these processes.
NMC DFO =
(5.1)
NMC SFO =
(5.2)
NMC DFS =
(5.3)
89
Modulus
100
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture
200
300
400
500
Time, hrs
600
700
800
Moisture Content, %
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
900
Figure 5.12 Typical Variations in Moisture Content and Modulus with Time
the left y-axis, exhibits an increase in modulus for the first 400 hrs, after which it levels
off to a constant value of about 220 ksi. These trends are observed for all clay materials
as shown in Appendix G.
The variations in the vertical, lateral and volumetric shrinkage strains with time
measured on the same specimen are shown in Figure 5.13. The patterns associated with
the three strains are quite similar to that of the modulus in Figure 5.12. In this case, the
specimen shrunk equally in lateral and vertical direction with the maximum shrinkage of
5%. The volumetric strain had a maximum shrinkage strain of 18%. The shrinkage
strain results for all clay specimens are presented in Appendix H.
Shrinkage Strain, %
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Time, hrs
90
900
The shrinkage strains are related to the NMCDFO in Figure 5.14. The shrinkage
strains and moisture content seem well correlated. A NMCDFO of unity corresponds to
OMC, and theoretically a NMCDFO of zero corresponds to a completely dry soil.
Shrinkage strains increase rapidly until NMCDFO is decreased to 0.4 after which, it is
almost constant.
Shrinkage Strain, %
25
Lateral
20
Vertical
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Normalized Moisture Content
Figure 5.14 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strains with Normalized Moisture
Content (NMCDFO)
A number of mathematical relationships can describe the relationships between
the three shrinkage strains and the NMCDFO. Based on extensive curve fitting analysis
the relationship was selected in the form of
es=[A(1 - NMCDFO2)]n
(5.4)
where es = shrinkage strain, and A is the parameter obtained from curve fitting. In the
case of lateral shrinkage strain, the value for n is 2 and for vertical and volumetric
shrinkage it is 1. Figure 5.14 also shows the best fit curves obtained using Equation 5.4.
The best fit curves follow the measured data quite well. The values of A for the three
shrinkage strains are summarized in Table 5.8. All three modes of shrinkages correlated
well with the NMCDFO since the R2 values were close to 1. The results for all clays are
presented in Appendix I.
91
Table 5.8 Typical Best Fit Parameters (Shrinkage Strain vs Normalized Moisture
Content, NMCDFO)
Mode of Shrinkage
Parameter A
R2
6.89
0.98
Vertical
2.83
0.96
Lateral
19.41
0.99
Volumetric
The variation in normalized modulus with NMCDFO is shown in Figure 5.15 The
normalized modulus increases till the NMCDFO decreases to 0.4; after which it is almost a
constant. In this case, the maximum normalize modulus value at dry condition was
approximately 9 with starting value of 1 at OMC which indicates that upon drying
Normalized Modulus
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Based on extensive curve fitting analysis, a relationship in the following form was
selected
E n = (B + (-C) NMCDFO 2 )
(5.5)
where n = normalized modulus, and B and C are the parameters obtained from curve
fitting. The values of B and C for are summarized in Table 5.9. The results for all
remaining clays are included in Appendix J.
92
Table 5.9 Typical Best Fit Parameters between Normalized Modulus and
Normalized Moisture Content (DFO)
Parameter B
Parameter C
R2
2.35
2.69
0.94
The normalized modulus and the three shrinkage strains are related as shown in
Figure 5.16. The normalized modulus increases until the lateral and vertical shrinkage
strain reaches 6%; after which it is almost constant. The model in the form of Equation
5.6 was used to develop this relationship.
En = EXP(D*es)
(5.6)
where D is the empirical best-fit parameter and es is shrinkage strain. The values of D for
the three shrinkage strains are summarized in Table 5.10. The normalized modulus was
well correlated to all three modes of shrinkage strains with R2 values were more than
0.99. The results for all clays are presented in Appendix K.
93
Normalized Modulus
10
8
a) Lateral
6
4
2
0
0
Normalized Modulus
Shrinkage Strain, %
10
8
b) Vertical
6
4
2
0
0
Normalized Modulus
Shrinkage Strain, %
10
8
c) Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure 5.16 Typical Variations in Modulus with Shrinkage Strains
Table 5.10 Typical Best Fit parameters between Normalized Modulus and
Shrinkage Strains
Mode of Shrinkage
Parameter D
R2
Vertical
0.35
0.992
Lateral
0.36
0.992
Volumetric
0.12
0.994
94
20
50
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
Moisture
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
10
Time, hrs
The variations in the vertical, lateral and volumetric expansion strains with time
measured on the same specimens are shown in Figure 5.18. The maximum lateral
expansion strain of this clay was about 1.5% whereas; the vertical expansion was about
6%. The maximum volumetric expansion strain reported for this specimen was about
Expansion Strain, %
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
Time, hrs
95
Moisture Content, %
50
Expansion Strain, %
8
Lateral
Vertical
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
(5.7)
where ee is the expansion strain and E is the parameter obtained from curve fitting.
Figure 5.19 also shows the best fit curves obtained using Equation 5.7. The best fit
curves follow the measured data quite well. The values of E for the three expansion
strains are summarized in Table 5.11. All three expansion strains correlated moderately
well with the NMCSFO since the R2 values were more than 0.78. The results for all clays
are presented in Appendix N.
96
Table 5.11 Typical Best Fit Parameters (Expansion Strain vs Normalized Moisture
Content, NMCSFO)
Mode of Shrinkage
Parameter E
R2
9.09
0.86
Vertical
4.13
0.78
Lateral
10.89
0.84
Volumetric
The variation in normalized modulus with NMCSFO is shown in Figure 5.20. The
normalized modulus initially increases till the NMCSFO increases to 0.4, after which the
normalized modulus starts decreasing until it almost becomes close to 0.5 at a NMCSFO of
Normalized Modulus
about 0.65.
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1
(1 + (-F) NMCSFO
1.5
+ G NMCSFO 2.5 )
(5.8)
where parameters F and G are obtained from curve fitting. The values of F and G are
summarized in Table 5.12. The best fit curve as shown in Figure 5.20 describes the
measured data moderately well. The results for all remaining clays are included in
Appendix O.
97
Table 5.12 Typical Best Fit Parameters between Normalized Modulus and
Normalized Moisture Content (NMCSFO)
Equations
Parameter F
Parameter G
R2
Inverse Polynomial
7.80
12.97
0.75
The normalized modulus and the three expansion strains are well related as shown in
Figure 5.21. With increase in the expansion strain, the normalized modulus initially
increases, reaches a peak value and then starts decreasing again.
The normalized
modulus, En, was related to the Expansion strains, s, using a model in the form of
En =
(5.9)
2.5
(1 + (-H) ee 1.5 + I ee )
where and I are the empirical best-fit parameters. The values of and I for the three
expansion strains are summarized in Table 5.13. The normalized modulus is moderately
well correlated to all three modes of expansion strains with R2 values are more than 0.75,
and as reflected in Figure 5.21. The results for all clays are presented in Appendix P.
98
Normalized Modulus
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
a) Lateral
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Normalized Modulus
Expansion Strain, %
4.0
b) Vertical
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Normalized Modulus
Expansion Strain, %
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
c) Volumetric
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
Expansion Strain, %
Figure 5.21 Typical Variations in Modulus with Expansion Strains
99
10.0
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
50
Modulus
Moisture
40
30
20
10
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
600
Figure 5.22 Typical Variations in Moisture Content and Modulus with Time
The variations in the vertical, lateral and volumetric shrinkage strains with time
measured on the same specimens are shown in Figure 5.23. The lateral and vertical
shrinkage strains of this clay were about 12% whereas; volumetric shrinkage was up to
Shrinkage Strain, %
30% at the end of 550 hours. The results for all clays are presented in Appendix R.
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Vertical
100
Lateral
Volumetric
200
300
400
500
Time, hrs
100
600
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
Table 5.13 Typical Best Fit parameters between Normalized Modulus and
Expansion Strains
Mode of Shrinkage
Parameter I
R2
Parameter
Vertical
0.26
0.04
0.75
Lateral
2.64
2.15
0.88
Volumetric
0.15
0.02
0.81
The relationships of shrinkage strains and NMCDFS (as described in Equation 5.3)
are shown in Figure 5.24. The shrinkage strain initially increases rapidly and then
becomes almost constant as the specimen gets completely dried.
Shrinkage Strain, %
35
Lateral
Series4
30
Vertical
Series5
Volumetric
Series6
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Normalized Moisture Content
2.0
(5.10)
where es is the shrinkage strain and J is the parameter obtained from curve fitting. Figure
5.24 also shows the best fit curves obtained using Equation 5.10. The best fit curves
follow the measured data quite well. The values of J for the three shrinkage strains are
summarized in Table 5.14. All three modes of shrinkage correlated well with the
NMCDFS since the R2 values were close to 1. The results for all clays are presented in
Appendix S.
Table 5.14 Typical Best Fit Parameters between Shrinkage Strain and Normalized
Moisture Content (DFS)
Mode of Shrinkage
Parameter J
R2
2.60
0.98
Vertical
2.38
0.99
Lateral
3.47
0.94
Volumetric
101
The variation in normalized modulus with NMCDFS is shown in Figure 5.25. The
normalized modulus initially decreases rapidly till the NMCDFS becomes 0.5 after which
Normalized Modulus
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
(5.11)
where K and L are the parameters obtained from curve fitting. The values of K and L for
are summarized in Table 5.15.
Appendix T.
Table 5.15 Typical Best Fit Parameters between Normalized Modulus and
Normalized Moisture Content
Equations
Parameter K
Parameter L
R2
Inverse Polynomial
2.13
26.01
0.88
The normalized modulus and the three shrinkage strains are also related as shown
in Figure 5.26. The normalized modulus initially increases slowly with increase in
shrinkage strain. A rapid increase in normalized modulus was recorded for last couple of.
102
Normalized Modulus
12
10
8
a) Lateral
6
4
2
0
0
6
8
Shrinkage Strain, %
10
12
Normalized Modulus
12
10
8
b) Vertical
6
4
2
0
0
6
8
Shrinkage Strain, %
10
12
14
Normalized Modulus
12
10
c) Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure 5.26 Typical Variations in Modulus with Expansion Strains
103
35
percent increase in shrinkage strain. The same trend was observed for all clay materials.
The normalized modulus, En, was then related to the Expansion strains, s, using a model
in the form of
n=EXP((-M)+N*es2)
(5.12)
where and are the empirical best-fit parameters. The values of and for the three
shrinkage strains are summarized in Table 5.16. The R2 values were more than 0.85. The
results for all clays are presented in Appendix U.
Table 5.16 Typical Best Fit parameters between Normalized Modulus and
Expansion Strains
Mode of Shrinkage
R2
Parameter
Parameter
Vertical
3.76
0.03
0.93
Lateral
5.34
0.07
0.87
Volumetric
5.85
0.01
0.91
To summarize all the results, the equations used to describe all relationships are
presented in Table 5.17. The equations highlighted in gray are further used to develop
models predicting strain and modulus values. After establishing relationships for all
tested specimens, the parameters of equations are summarized in Tables 5.18 to 5.26.
Each table provides the parameters for the equations in Table 5.17 for all soil types
tested. Also, the R2 values reported in all tables are typically greater than 0.95, indicating
that relationships introduced in Equation 5.4 through 5.12 are appropriate. Detailed
description of development of models is presented in following section.
104
Moisture
condition
Clay Parameters
Y-Axis
Curve-fit Equation
X-Axis
es=[A(1-NMCDFO2)]2
Lat
Shrinkage
Strain
Ver
Normalized
Moisture Content
es=[A(1-NMCDFO2)]
es=[A(1-NMCDFO2)]
Vol
DFO
Normalized Modulus
Normalized
Moisture Content
Lat
Normalized Modulus
Normalized
Moisture Content
Normalized Modulus
Normalized
Moisture Content
Normalized Modulus
Shrinkage
Strain
DFS
Shrinkage
Strain
Lat
Ver
Vol
Expansion
Strain
SFO
Ver
Vol
Lat
Ver
Vol
Normalized Modulus
Normalized Modulus
Lat
Ver
Vol
En = EXP[B+ (-C)*NMCDFO2)]
Expansion
Strain
En =EXP( D*es)
ee=[E*NMCSFO(1-NMCSFO)]2
En =
1
1 .5
SFO
(1 + (-F) NMC
En =
2 .5
+ G NMCS F O )
1
(1 + (-H) e e
1.5
+ I ee
Normalized
Moisture Content
es=EXP[J(1-NMCDFS3)]
Normalized
Moisture Content
En=EXP(K+(-L)NMCDFS2)
Lat
Ver
Vol
Shrinkage
Strain
105
En=EXP((-M)+Nes 2)
2.5
106
Table 5.20 Best Fit Parameters (Normalized Modulus vs. Shrinkage Strains after
DFO Process)
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Material
2
2
D
R
D
R
D
R2
3.64
0.97
1.57
0.70
0.662
0.82
El Paso
2.66
0.85
1.61
0.84
0.629
0.85
PI = 16
1.97
0.73
1.46
0.94
0.546
0.93
0.36
0.99
0.35
0.98
0.123
0.99
San Antonio
0.38
0.96
0.40
0.97
0.138
0.97
PI = 26
0.33
0.97
0.33
0.94
0.116
0.96
0.47
0.99
0.44
0.99
0.158
0.99
Fort Worth
0.44
0.98
0.43
0.99
0.154
1.00
PI = 29
0.44
0.99
0.42
0.99
0.153
0.99
0.46
0.90
0.43
0.84
0.154
0.87
Bryan
0.43
0.93
0.46
0.87
0.157
0.90
PI = 31
0.33
0.98
0.42
0.87
0.140
0.95
0.54
0.98
0.45
0.95
0.17
0.97
Houston
0.49
0.98
0.44
0.91
0.16
0.93
PI = 35
0.51
0.99
0.46
0.96
0.17
0.97
0.33
0.97
0.33
0.95
0.117
0.96
Paris
0.41
0.97
0.38
1.00
0.139
1.00
PI = 36
0.37
0.78
0.37
0.82
0.130
0.81
Table 5.21 Best Fit Parameters (Expansion Strain and NMCSFO)
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Material
2
2
E
R
E
R
E
R2
1.40
0.55
2.35
0.90
5.06
0.91
El Paso
3.68
0.97
1.30
0.77
4.12
0.99
PI = 16
4.80
0.97
3.10
0.93
6.51
0.99
8.74
0.43
3.61
0.52
10.18
0.45
San Antonio
8.87
0.82
3.07
0.75
9.92
0.80
PI = 26
9.34
0.19
4.70
0.19
11.57
0.19
6.70
0.84
3.62
0.97
8.62
0.95
Fort Worth
6.97
0.77
3.75
0.94
8.98
0.89
PI = 29
6.35
0.90
4.12
0.97
8.77
0.98
7.62
0.98
4.90
0.98
10.38
0.99
Bryan
9.23
0.94
5.42
0.97
12.10
0.98
PI = 31
9.96
0.93
5.56
0.97
12.78
0.95
8.23
0.96
4.26
0.90
10.27
0.95
Houston
7.51
0.58
4.03
0.69
9.50
0.62
PI = 35
8.42
0.96
4.30
0.89
10.47
0.95
9.09
0.86
4.13
0.78
10.89
0.84
Paris
8.35
0.88
4.18
0.76
10.30
0.85
PI = 36
9.68
0.87
4.35
0.81
11.57
0.86
107
108
El Paso
PI = 16
San Antonio PI = 26
Fort Worth
PI = 29
Bryan
PI = 31
Houston
PI = 35
Paris
PI = 36
K
4.79
5.27
5.76
1.87
1.82
2.08
2.04
1.80
2.15
2.85
2.50
2.89
1.66
1.46
2.16
2.13
2.41
2.37
L
11.28
12.34
27.92
12.68
8.86
9.65
2.07
1.58
2.17
3.82
3.27
4.82
5.42
1.37
4.13
8.90
7.60
6.46
109
R2
0.99
0.99
0.96
0.95
0.91
0.98
0.97
0.86
0.93
0.94
0.99
0.90
0.99
0.87
0.96
0.77
0.98
0.95
Table 5.26 Best Fit Parameters (Normalized Modulus and Shrinkage Strain after
DFS Process)
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Material
2
2
M
N
R
M
N
R
M
N
0.00
5.04
0.62
3.47
3.33
0.92
0.86
0.97
El Paso
0.00
2.78
0.82
18.09
5.90
0.89
7.33
1.33
PI = 16
0.00
3.12
0.66
26.08
6.55
0.72
7.07
1.15
6.46
0.89
0.92
12.95
1.57
0.91
11.48
0.52
San
Antonio
4.76
0.68
0.92
8.69
1.38
0.90
7.78
0.42
PI = 26
7.46
0.98
0.94
18.00
2.34
0.93
14.87
0.69
0.29
0.23
0.97
0.82
0.29
0.97
0.78
0.10
Fort
Worth
0.10
0.21
0.87
0.23
0.24
0.84
0.26
0.09
PI = 29
0.00
0.25
0.91
0.93
0.32
0.94
0.57
0.11
0.38
0.34
0.94
1.14
0.47
0.94
1.09
0.16
Bryan
0.80
0.35
0.99
0.99
0.42
0.98
1.12
0.15
PI = 31
0.58
0.38
0.94
1.40
0.48
0.87
1.59
0.18
2.33
0.40
0.98
2.71
0.50
0.98
2.95
0.18
Houston
0.00
0.17
0.65
0.00
0.18
0.68
0.00
0.06
PI = 35
2.12
0.43
0.97
3.32
0.64
0.96
3.78
0.24
9.49
0.89
0.93
12.87
1.42
0.87
13.73
0.52
Paris
3.26
0.41
0.95
4.30
0.61
0.97
4.56
0.22
PI = 36
2.73
0.43
0.88
5.64
0.81
0.96
4.93
0.26
5.5 DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIP WITH INDEX PARAMETERS
In previous section, the relationships were established between different measured
clay parameters.
constants are provided in Tables 5.18 through 5.26. In this section, models developed
to estimate the fit parameters are presented.
development of shrinkage strain and moisture content model for dry from optimum
(DFO) is described in detail followed by its sensitivity and validation analysis. A
summarized table of relationships between fit parameters and index properties of clays is
provided at the end of this section.
The development process started with a correlation analysis among the index
properties and the fit parameters of the equations presented in the previous section.
110
R2
0.89
0.96
0.85
0.92
0.92
0.95
0.97
0.86
0.94
0.95
0.99
0.90
0.98
0.69
0.97
0.91
0.97
0.94
Equation 5.4 was proposed to estimate the shrinkage strains at a particular moisture
contents for DFO process.
parameter A and the index properties of all clay materials except Houston are shown in
Table 5.27. The results from the Houston clay were excluded for validation purposes,
since it is not appropriate to validate a model with data used in the development of
model.
Shrinkage
Mode
Plasticity
Index
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Dry Unit
Weight
Seismic
Modulus at
OMC
Table 5.27 Correlation Analysis between Parameter A from Equation 5.4 and
Index Properties of Clays
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
0.82
0.92
0.85
0.79
0.85
0.83
0.31
0.36
0.33
0.84
0.87
0.89
0.57
0.68
0.62
0.56
0.64
0.51
The values of correlation analysis range between -1 and 1. The values close to
zero represent no correlation; whereas values close to -1 or 1 represent high correlation.
The negative values are for inverse correlation and positive values are for direct
correlation.
absolute value of the correlation coefficient (CC) was between 0.8 and 1.0. When the CC
was between 0.6 and 0.8, the two parameters were considered marginally correlated. All
fit parameters A are correlated or marginally correlated to the plasticity index (PI), liquid
limit (LL), optimum moisture content (OMC) and dry unit weight (DUW), whereas the
plastic limit (PL) and seismic modulus at OMC are poorly or marginally correlated to
Parameter A. As such, only the PI, LL, OMC and DUW were further considered in the
development of the models.
111
Since there was such a strong correlation, the process was expanded to use the
index properties in the prediction of the shrinkage (expansion) strain.
Figure 5.27 provides a flowchart of the three steps of using the index properties
and moisture content in an equation to predict the shrinkage strain. In this case, Equation
5.4 is used as an example for predicting the shrinkage strain. In Step 1, the fit Parameter
A in Table 5.18 is predicted from the index properties of clays such as plasticity index,
liquid limit, etc. The graph presented in Step 1 is detailed in Figure 5.28. As an
example, the PI is used as input in a graph that presents the relationship between the
variations of parameter A for the vertical shrinkage strain with PI. A straight-line fit
based on least squares error is provided to describe the relationship. The R2 is 0.84 in
this particular case.
Appendix V. The best fit line describes the relationship quite well.
Plasticity Index
Step1
3.50
Parameter A
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
y = 0.0543x + 0.6615
1.00
R = 0.84
0.50
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
Plasticity Index
Step2
Step3
es = [A(1-
C
DFO2)]2
Figure 5.27 Process[INA2] in Predicting Shrinkage Strain
112
Figure 5.28 Typical Trend Line for Parameter A with Plasticity Index
Going back to Figure 5.27, since the parameter A can be predicted from the PI
directly, it can then be used as input to Equation 5.4 for predicting the shrinkage strain
(Step 2) knowing the moisture content (Step 3).
shrinkage of these soils as well as the change in their moduli can be predicted just by
knowing the index properties. Respective tables concerning development of remaining
models are presented in Appendix W.
The process presented in Figure 5.27 can be replicated for all other index
properties considered. The slope, intercept and R2 for each set of parameters are shown
in Table 5.28. In general, the OMC and PI are the two parameters that most favorably
correlate with parameter A. Please note that the term parameter A is used as a general
representation of the fit parameters in all the equations presented in Table 5.17 for
simplification.
Since all four index parameters are commonly known, a model was developed to
combine the information from all these parameters. To make the model versatile so that
it can be used with any missing data. The R2 value from each of the relationships in Table
113
5.28 was used as a weighting multiplication factor, F. If the R2 value was equal to or
greater than 0.8, it was multiplied by an F of 4. Similarly, the R2 values between 0.6 and
0.8 were multiplied by an F of 2. For the R2 value less than 0.6, a multiplication factor of
unity was used. The weighting multiplication factors (Fs) for all relationships are also
included in Table 5.28. Finally, the contribution factor, G, was obtained by multiplying
the R2 values and the weighting multiplication factors as reflected in Table 5.28.
Mode of
Shrinkage
Plasticity
Index
Liquid Limit
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Dry Unit
Weight
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Parameter A
Intercept
0.25
0.06
0.58
0.13
0.03
0.30
0.48
0.14
1.12
-0.15
-0.04
-0.35
Slope
-2.46
0.55
-3.16
-2.24
0.65
-2.45
-5.43
-0.58
-9.96
19.45
6.32
48.25
R2
0.82
0.92
0.85
0.79
0.85
0.83
0.84
0.87
0.89
0.57
0.68
0.62
F
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
2
G
3.29
3.70
3.41
1.59
3.42
3.31
3.35
3.49
3.58
0.57
1.36
1.23
The weighting factor for each of the index parameters, Wi, were then calculated
using
Wi =
Gi
Gi
(5.13)
If all the four index parameters are available, the weighted average parameter A,
A* is then calculated from
A* =
114
(5.14)
Where, API = Parameter A from PI relationship in Table 5.28, ALL = Parameter A from
LL relationship, AOMC = Parameter A from OMC relationship and ADUW = Parameter A
from DUW, WA-PI = Weight factor for PI parameter, WA-LL = Weight factor for LL
parameter, WA-OMC = Weight factor for OMC parameter and WA-DUW = Weight factor for
DUW parameter.
This global A* can then be used in the original formula to calculate shrinkage
strains as shown below:
s=[A(1 - CDFO)2]n
(5.15)
The process described above is quite flexible since any or all of the four soil index
parameters can be used to estimate the shrinkage strains. If one or more of the index
properties are not available, their corresponding term in Equation 5.14 can be simply
omitted.
Consider the following example for the San Antonio clay where the four index
parameters are reflected in the first column of Table 5.29. Based on the contribution
factors (Gis) reflected in Table 5.28, the weighting factors (Wis) are obtained when all
four index parameters are used. The weighting functions for the parameter A of the
vertical shrinkage strain model (column 2) for the PI and OMC index parameters are
Table 5.29 Weighting Functions for Each Index Parameter of San Antonio Clay
(See Equation 5.13)
Vertical Shrinkage
Lateral Shrinkage
Volumetric Shrinkage
Index
Property
Strain
Strain
Strain
WPI
0.35
0.31
0.30
WLL
0.17
0.29
0.27
WOMC
0.36
0.29
0.31
WDUW
0.06
0.11
0.12
115
much greater than the other functions, indicating that PI and OMC can more accurately
estimate parameter A. In the contrary, considering the weighting factors for lateral and
volumetric shrinkage (column 3 and 4), the PI, LL and OMC parameters can equally
estimate parameter A; whereas, the DUW is the least desirable parameter for estimating
that parameter since WDUW is much less than the weighting factors of the other three
parameters.
The composite parameter A, A* from Equations 5.13 and 5.14 are reflected in
Table 5.30 and the corresponding estimated shrinkage strains in Table 5.31 for a moisture
content of 14% (a normalized moisture content of 21%). The estimated and measured
strains compare favorably in Table 5.31 especially for vertical strain.
Table 5.30 Estimated A* Parameter for Different Shrinkage Types Using all five
Index Parameters for San Antonio Clay
Parameter
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
4.48
2.15
13.05
A*[INA3]
Table 5.31 Shrinkage Strains at 14% Moisture Content for San Antonio Clay
Shrinkage Strain, %
Shrinkage Type
Estimated
Measured
1.4
2.1
Lateral
2.5
2.2
Vertical
7.2
6.3
Volumetric
To illustrate the flexibility of the model, one, two or three of the index parameters
were eliminated in estimating A* (note that OMC is always required). The results are
summarized in Figure 5.29, where the solid line indicates the calculated shrinkage strain
using all index properties. The estimated strains are normally within 10% to 15% of the
measured strains. This indicates that even though it is desirable to use all the index
parameters, the impact of eliminating one or two of the index parameters is small.
116
2.5
2.5
LL
DUW
PI-LL
PI-DUW
2.1
2.4
PI
2.2
2.4
3.0
2.6
4.0
LLDUW
PI-LLDUW
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
DUW
1.3
LL
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.2
2.0
1.4
0.5
0.0
PI
PI-LL
PI-LL
6.4
DUW
6.5
6.9
LL
7.2
6.8
10
7.4
6
4
2
0
PI
117
The clay material from Houston, which was not used to develop the model, was
used to validate the lateral, vertical and volumetric shrinkage strain models.
The
variations in measured and estimated shrinkage strain with moisture content are
compared in Figure 5.30. The trends between the estimated and measured strains are
quite similar for all three models of shrinkage. To quantify the differences between the
estimated and measured values, the histograms of the errors are shown in Figure 5.31.
The error in this case is defined as:
(EstimatedStrain MeasuredStrain)
Error = abs
100%
MeasuredStrain
(5.16)
Approximately, 90%, 70% and 75% of the values are estimated with a margin of error of
less than 20%.
118
7
6
Predicted
5
4
3
2
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
1
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
7
6
Predicted
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
2
1
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Predicted
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure 5.30 - Comparison of Measured and Predicted Shrinkage Strain Data and
Moisture Content for Three Specimen of the Houston Clay Material
119
Frequency
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
100%
50%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Frequency
Error
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
100%
50%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Frequency
Error
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
100%
50%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Error
Figure 5.31 Histograms of Differences between Measured and Estimated Strains
120
Step-1
A= f(IP, m, b)
Step-2
A*= f(IPi, mi, bi, Ri2)
i = PI, LL, OMC, DUW, SM OMC
Step-3
Step-4
121
Equation 5.14 to determine A*. Step-3 defines the process where A* is a function IPi, mi,
bi , Ri2. IPi is the index property for any i where, i is either of PI, LL, OMC, DUW and
SM at OMC. The remaining three parameters can be determined from a lookup table
such as those presented in Appendix W. Again, parameters mi and bi are the slope and
intercept of the line that relates any index property to its respective parameter A. Last of
the three parameters is the Ri2 values which is described previously as the goodness of fit
parameter between an index property and its respective parameter A (fit of relationship
equation 5.4). This parameter is used as the weighing factor into the model since the
shrinkage strain can be estimated from any of the index properties. Finally, Step-4
provides a summary of the overall model showing that based on the moisture content and
parameters generated from empirical relations, the shrinkage strain can be estimated.
The models for estimating the strain or modulus are simple and versatile. Tables
5.32 and 5.33 provide a summary of all developed models. In Table 5.32 all the
components of the models for shrinkage and expansion strains are presented. First, the
equations for each type of strain and for the three different moisture conditions are
presented. These equations are functions of the NMC and parameter A (please note that
parameter A is used to generalize all the equations developed and is substituted by
parameter B through N depending on which model is used). Parameter A is simply a
representation of the slope, intercept and R2 values for each of the index properties.
Therefore, each equation can be used to determine the strain values based on the NMC
and any of the set of slope, and intercept values from the table. The Table can be used as
a look up table depending on which index property is known. In addition if more than
122
one index property is known then the R2 values are used as presented in Equation 5.14 to
estimate a parameter A* that can be used into the equation for estimation the strain value.
Table 5.33, similar to Table 5.32, summarizes the information for the models
related to estimating the modulus at any moisture condition.
intercept and R2 in the same manner described for the strain.
123
Table 5.32 Equation[INA4]s and Parameters for Shrinkage and Expansion Strain Models
PI
R2
Slope
Intercept
R2
Slope
Intercept
R2
Slope
Intercept
R2
Slope
Intercept
R2
es=[A(1 NMCDFO2)]2[INA5]
Seismic Modulus at
OMC
DUW
Intercept
Lat
OMC
Slope
Model Equations
DFO
Moisture
Condition
LL
0.06
0.55
0.92
0.03
0.65
0.85
0.14
-0.58
0.87
-0.04
6.32
0.68
0.25
-2.59
0.83
0.13
-2.57
0.93
0.47
-5.42
0.93
-0.17
21.13
0.84
Vol
0.59
-3.32
0.83
0.28
-1.7
0.9
1.02
-8.2
0.95
-0.32
44.82
0.73
Lat
0.08
1.62
0.55
0.04
1.49
0.54
0.16
0.28
0.49
-0.06
9.58
0.53
0.09
2.15
0.44
0.28
-0.66
0.61
0.16
-1.4
0.7
0.57
-4.95
0.5
-0.25
30.94
0.75
0.48
-0.62
0.87
Vol
0.28
1.18
0.68
0.16
0.55
0.76
0.58
-3.31
0.58
-0.24
32.44
0.8
0.45
1.62
0.88
Lat
0.05
0.49
0.73
0.03
0.52
0.76
0.13
-0.57
0.74
-0.03
5.5
0.56
0.07
0.93
0.58
0.1
-0.85
0.79
0.05
-0.69
0.73
0.22
-2.56
0.71
-0.05
7.33
0.48
0.12
-0.12
0.67
0.08
0.86
0.8
0.04
0.95
0.78
0.17
-0.57
0.77
-0.05
7.53
0.55
0.09
1.41
0.68
Ver
DFS
SFO
es=[A(1-NMCDFO2)]
Ver
Ver
Vol
ee=[E*NMCSFO
(1-NMCSFO)]2
es=EXPJ[1-NMCDFS3]
Note: if no values are provided for the slope, intercept, and R2, that index property was not used in the model.
124
Model Equations
Slope
Intercept
R2
Slope
Intercept
R2
Slope
Intercept
R2
Slope
Intercept
R2
En = EXP(B+ (C)*NMCDFO2)
-0.05
3.85
0.26
-0.03
4.22
0.42
-0.1
4.58
0.22
0.04
-1.27
0.33
-0.11
4.36
0.75
-0.17
7.96
0.49
-0.11
9.1
0.75
-0.41
11.8
0.56
0.13
-9.73
0.6
-0.26
7.77
0.68
-0.77
37.25
0.35
-0.59
45.17
0.78
-2.37
65.3
0.73
0.74
-59.28
0.81
-3.55
151.8
8
0.31
-2.82
192.6
0.73
-11.14
285.6
0.67
3.62
-313.4
0.8
-0.13
6.38
0.49
-0.09
7.39
0.87
-0.35
10.12
0.75
0.11
-7.92
0.7
-0.38
16.84
0.37
-0.18
15.7
0.33
-0.99
27.13
0.55
0.16
-9.36
0.14
A
*
B
A
B
Seismic Modulus at
OMC
DUW
R2
OMC
Intercept
DFS
SFO
DFO
Moisture
Condition
LL
Slope
PI
En=EXP(K+(L)NMCDFS2)
En =
* - [INA7]
(1 + (-F) NMC
1.5
SFO
2.5
+ G NMCSFO )
Note: if no values are provided for the slope, intercept, and R2, that index property was not used in the model.
125
Four point bend test results were analyzed to develop relationships that can
estimate the stress and strain at failure after DFO and strain at failure for specimens
tested at OMC. A[n8] correlation analysis was carried out between the test results and the
index properties of the clay materials as shown in Table 5.33. The dry liquidity index
was calculated from the following formula:
DryLiquidityIndex =
(OptimumMoistureContent FinalMoistureContent )
( LiquidLimit PlasticLimit )
(5.17)
For the dry specimens, the PI, seismic modulus at OMC and the dry liquidity
index were correlated to the strain at failure. The liquid limit, plastic limit, maximum dry
unit weight, the traditional liquidity index and the dry liquidity index were correlated to
the stress at failure under dry condition. The strain at failure under optimum moisture
content was correlated the most to the liquid limit, and the maximum dry unit weight.
Table 5.33 Correlation Analysis between Four Point Test Results and Index
Properties of Clays
Parameter
Strain at
Failure
(Dry)
Stress at
Failure
(Dry)
Strain at
Failure
(Optimum)
PI
LL
PL
DUW
OMC
Seismic
Modulus
at OMC
Liquidity
Index
Dry
Liquidity
Index
0.8
0.41
-0.14
-0.2
0.43
0.81
0.28
-0.88
0.54
-0.83
-0.93
0.88
-0.62
0.47
0.87
-0.77
0.15
-0.81
-0.74
0.81
-0.47
0.42
0.70
-0.44
But it was observed that most of the correlations were due to horizontal tread-line
and data points being equally oriented on either side of this line. The only good
126
correlations that can be used to predict four point bend test parameters were dry liquidity
index for dry stress and dry strain whereas, liquid limit was the parameter chosen to
predict optimum strain. Stress under optimum condition did not show any correlation
with any of the index properties therefore it is excluded for prediction analysis.
Variation in dry stress and dry strain with dry liquidity index is shown in figure
5.32 and 5.33 whereas, optimum strain results are plotted against liquid limit in figure
5.34. As dry liquidity index and liquid limit are the index properties associated with a
particular type of soil, these graphs can be directly used in prediction of four point bend
test parameters for any type of soil.
Figure 5.32 Variation of Stress at Dry Conditioning and Dry Liquidity Index
127
Figure 5.33 Variation of Strain at Dry Conditioning and Dry Liquidity Index
128
CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 SUMMARY
129
variation in the moisture content. These trends can be correlated to the index properties of
the clays.
The developed models in this research project can be implemented in pavement
design procedures to model the seasonal variations in modulus and shrinkage and
swelling potential.
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The results presented here are specific to five clays from Texas. More types of
clays should be tested in the future to improve the reliability and versatility of the
proposed models.
As shown in Figure 6.1, models for three different moisture conditioning (DFO, SFO,
DFS) have been developed in this research work. Further research can be carried out to
develop models for the condition where the specimens are saturated after they are dried
(SFD) condition. Also a correlation between all four models can be established so that it
will be possible just to use one generalized model to predict results for all four moisture
conditions.
130
Expansion Strain
SFO Model
DFS Model
Moisture Content
SFD Model
DFO Model
Shrinkage Strain
131
REFERENCES[n9]
Aubeny, C., and Lytton, R. (2002). Properties of High-Plasticity Clays, 0-2100,
Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas.
Aubeny, C., and Lytton, R. (2002). Estimating Strength Versus Location and Time
in High-Plasticity Clays, P1-2100, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station,
Texas.
132
EI-Sohby, M. A., and Mazen, S. O. (1987). The Prediction of Swelling Pressure and
Deformational Behavior of Expansive Soils. Regional Conference for Africa on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1, 129133.
133
Hallett, P. D., and Newson, T. A. (2005). Describing Soil Crack Formation using
Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanism. European Journal of Soil Science, 56, 31-38.
134
Krohn, J. P., and Slosson, J. E. (1980). Assessment of Expansive Soils in the United
States. Fourth International Conference on Expansive soils, Denver, CO., 596-608.
Li, Dingqing, Selig, and Ernest, T. (1994). Resilient Modulus for Fine-Grained
Subgrade Soils,. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 6(120), 939-957.
Liao, S. S. C., and Whitman, R. V. (1986). Overburden Correction Factors for SPT
in Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, A.S.C.E., 3(112), 373-377.
135
Nazarian, S., Yuan D., Tandon, V., and Arellano, M. (2002). Quality Management of
Flexible Pavement Layers with Seismic Methods. Research Report 1735-3F, Center
for Highway Materials Research, The University of Texas at El Paso, TX.
Nwaiwu, C. M. O., and Nuhu, I. (2006). Evaluation and Prediction of the Swelling
Characteristics of Nigerian Black Clays. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
1 (24), 45-56.
Pengelly, A., and Addison, M. (2001). In-Situ Modification of Active Clays for
Shallow Foundation Remediation, in Expansive Clay Soils and Vegetative Influence
on Shallow Foundations. American Society of Civil Engineers, 115, 192-214.
136
Saarenketo, T., and Scullion, T. (1997). "Using Suction and Dielectric Measurements
as Performance Indicators for Aggregate Base Materials." Transportation Research
Record, 1577, 37-44.
Sture, S., Alqasabi, A., and Ayari, M. (1999). Fracture and Size Effect Characters of
Cemented Sands. International Journal of Fracture, 95, 405-433.
137
Tian, P., Zaman, M. M., and Laguros, J. G. (1998). Variation of Resilient Modulus
of Aggregate Base and Its Influence on Pavement Performance. Journal of Testing
and Evaluation, 26 (4), 329-335.
Turner, C. E., and Kolednik, O. (1997). A Simple Test Method for Energy
Dissipation Rate, CTOA and the Study of Size and Transferability Effects for Large
Amounts of Ductile Crack Growth. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials
and Structures (UK), 11 (20), 1507-1528.
Uzan, J., Moshe V., and Elisha, S. (1972). Cracking Mechanism of Flexible
Pavement. Transportation Engineering Journal, 17-35.
138
Xiao-ming, Y., and Sun Jing, (2000). Laboratory Experimental Study on Dynamic
Shear Modulus Ratio and Damping Ratio of Soil. Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, 4 (20), 133-139.
139
APPENDIX A
Protocols
140
Contents:
141
Section 1
Overview
Use this test method to determine the relationship between water content and
the dry unit mass (density) and seismic modulus of clay materials.
Measuring compaction characteristics of clay, a sample, 8 in. (200 mm) high and 4
in. (100 mm) in diameter is molded in 4 layers, using a 10 lb (4.5 Kg) hammer
dropped 13 times per layer from a height of 18 in. (460 mm).
Units of Measurement
The values given in parentheses (if provided) are not standard and may not be exact
mathematical conversions. Use each system of units separately. Combining values
from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard.
142
Section 2
Definitions
The following terms and definitions are referenced in this test method:
Maximum Dry Density (Da) - Maximum dry density is the maximum value
obtained by the compaction curve using the specified compactive effort.
Optimum Water Content (opt) - Optimum water content is the water content
at which the soil can be compacted to the maximum dry density.
143
Section 3
Apparatus
The following apparatus are required:
The base plate of the tamper shall be secured to a rigid foundation such as a
concrete block with a mass of not less than 200 lbs (91 kg) on which the base
plate of the tamper is secured. (An alternate foundation support, such as a
rigid stand or table, may be used if the Da produced is within 2% of that
produced by an automatic tamper bolted to a concrete floor.)
Rigid metal compaction mold, with 4 1/64 in. (100 0.4 mm) average inside
diameter and a height of 6 0.0026 in. (150 0.7 mm) with removable collar,
and/or a 6 in., +1/16 or -1/64 in. (150 mm, +1.6 or -0.4 mm) average inside
diameter and a height of 8-1/2 1/16 in. (216 1.6 mm) with removable collar.
Metal stand with a set of standard spacer blocks and a micrometer dial
assembly, with 2 in. (50 mm) travel, for determining height of specimens.
Spacer blocks 1, 4, 6 and 11 in. (25, 102, 152 and 279 mm) accurate to 0.001
in. (0.025 mm)
Balance, with a minimum capacity of 35 lbs (15 kg), accurate and readable to
0.001 lb (0.5 g) or 0.1% of the test mass, whichever is greater
Extra base plate secured on a rigid stand to hold the forming mold
Metal pans, wide and shallow for mixing and drying materials
Circular porous stones, slightly less than 4 in. (100 mm) in diameter and 2 in. (50
mm) high
144
Section 4
Measuring Moisture Density Relationship of Clay
This part uses a 4 in. (100 mm) inside diameter mold and applies only to soils with:
Preparing Sample
Prepare the material according to Part II, Preparing Samples for Compaction and
Triaxial Tests of Test Method Tex-101-E: Preparing Soil and Flexible Base
Materials for Testing. Do not use materials that have been previously laboratory
compacted.
Procedure
The following table lists the steps to measure the compaction characteristics of
subgrade and embankment soils.
Measuring Compaction Characteristics of Subgrade and Embankment Soils
Step
Action
Determine the percent hygroscopic moisture of the representative sample of
1
prepared material according to Tex-103-E: Determining moisture content in
soil materials
Separate sample on 7/8 in. (22.4mm), 3/8 in. (9.5 mm), and in. (6.3 mm)
2
sieves and determine particle size distribution.
Estimate the mass of air dried material that will fill the mold when wetted and
3
compacted.
Using this estimated mass, and the percentages of the various sizes of particles
4
obtained in Step 2, compute the cumulative masses of each to combine to make
a specimen.
Using the masses calculated in Step 3, recombine at least 4 specimens of
5
approximately 7.7 lbs (3.5 Kg) each.
Estimate the optimum % moisture required to attain maximum density.
6
Note: The plastic limit is a good indicator of optimum moisture content,
typically within 2%, or 3-4 % higher for PI > 35 material.
Start the MD curve using a sample with a moisture content of 2% below the
7
estimated optimum moisture content.
For the soils with a low to moderate plasticity index (PI < 35) adjust the
8
moisture content of the remaining samples in approximately 2% increments to
attain 2 samples above and 2 samples below the optimum moisture content.
145
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
For soils with high plasticity index (PI 35) the moisture content may be
adjusted in 4% increments to attain 2 samples above and two samples below the
optimum moisture.
Calculate the mass of the water to be added based on the air-dry mass of the
material.
Weigh out this amount of water into a tared sprinkling jar.
Sprinkle water onto the soil during mixing, in increments.
Thoroughly mix each specimen to ensure even distribution of water throughout
specimen.
Cover the mixed sample and allow sample to stand and cure for at least 12 hr.
before compacting. When the PI is less than 12, the curing time may be reduced
to not less than 3 hr. Cure split or referee samples for the full 12 hr.
Assemble and secure the mold and collar to the base plate.
Thoroughly remix the cured sample.
Obtain approximately 1 lb (450 g) of the sample and determine water content as
described in Calculations in Tex-103-E: Determining moisture content in soil
materials.
Place loose soil into the mold and spread into a layer of uniform thickness.
Before compaction, use hand tools to lightly tamp the soil until it is not fluffy or
loose.
Separate the material in pan into 4 equal portions. Each portion must contain
representative quantities of all sizes and adequate material to compact 4, 2 in.
(50 mm) layers.
For each layer, dump the material into the mold. Spade and level the layer of
material with a spatula to fill cavities around the edge and to ensure an even
distribution of material in each layer before compacting. Do not push this layer
down by hand or other means than that described above.
Compact the specimen in four 2 in. (50 mm) thick lifts at 13 blows per lift with
a drop height of 18 in. (460 mm).
Use the soil mass and compacted thickness of the first lift to adjust the mass and
thickness of the subsequent lifts.
Upon completion of compacting each of the first three lifts, use a knife or other
convenient tool to scarify the surface and to dislodge the uncompacted soils that
extend above the compacted surface.
Upon completion of the fourth lift, the compacted specimen should extend
above the top of the mold but by no more than in. (6 mm). Discard the
compacted specimen if it does not extend above the top of the mold at any point.
Following compaction of the last lift, remove the collar and use a straight edge
or draw knife to carefully trim the compacted specimen even with the top of the
mold.
Invert the mold and trim the bottom of the specimen even with the bottom of the
mold.
Use unused or trimmed soil from the specimen to fill any holes on the trimmed
surfaces and trim again to ensure smooth and level surface.
Determine and record the mass of the specimen and mold as WT to the nearest
0.001 lb (0.5 g) under Calculations of Tex-113-E: Laboratory Compaction
146
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Note:
After compacting the first 2 or 3 specimens, the initial M-D curve can be constructed to
aid in evaluation of the shape of the curve. If necessary adjust the water content of the
other prepared samples by adding additional water or air drying to obtain a well define
compactive curve.
Calculations
147
Graphs
Plot the Dry Density vs. Moisture Content as shown in the following figure.
109
107
105
Da
103
101
99
97
opt
95
10
15
20
25
Moisture Content, %
Density
100% Saturation
80% Saturation
Report the:
148
30
149
Contents:
150
Section 1
Overview
Use this method to compact clay specimens in laboratory.
To perform test, a clay specimen is prepared in laboratory using static compactor and
in one single layer. For strength and stiffness tests, specimen measures 8 in. (200
mm) in height and 4 in. (100 mm) in diameter while for the four point bend test a
rectangular specimen is prepared measuring 1 in. (13 mm) by 1 in. (13 mm) by 5.6
in. (142 mm).
Part-1 of this protocol describes preparation of cylindrical specimen while part-2
deals with the rectangular specimen.
Units of Measurement
The values given in parentheses (if provided) are not standard and may not be exact
mathematical conversions. Use each system of units separately. Combining values
from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard.
151
Section 2
Definitions
The following terms and definitions are referenced in this test method:
152
Section 3
Apparatus
The following apparatus are required:
A hollow metallic mold 16.6 in. (400mm) in height and 4.1 in. (103 mm)
inner diameter
Three solid metallic blocks 4.0 in. (100 mm) in diameter and 5.7 in. (140
mm), 2.45 in. (62 mm) and 0.50 in. (13 mm) high respectively
Static compactor
Balance, with a minimum capacity of 35 lbs (15 kg), accurate and readable to
0.001 lb (0.5 g) or 0.1% of the test mass, whichever is greater
Hydraulic press and a metal ring to extrude molded specimens
Drying oven, maintained at 230 9 oF (110 5 oC)[l10]
Drying oven, maintained at 140 9 oF (60 5 oC)[l11]
Metal pans, wide and shallow for mixing and drying materials
No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve
153
Section 4
Laboratory Compaction of Clay Specimen
This part uses a static compactor to prepare a 4 in. (100 mm) by 8 in. (200 mm)
cylindrical and 1 in. (25 mm) by 1 in. (25 mm) by 5.6 in. (140 mm) rectangular clay
specimen. The clay passing through No. 4 sieve is used to prepare clay specimens.
Part 1: Preparation of Cylindrical Specimen
Preparation of Material
Preparation of Specimen
154
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(e.g. if dry density = 112 pcf, degree of compaction = 95% and the moisture
content = 20%, then the amount of material required to prepare one specimen =
112* 0.95 * / 4 * 42 * 8 /123 * (1 + 0.20) = 7.428 lbs)
Place the 2.45 in. (62 mm) thick solid block at the bottom of the mold and pour the
weighed material inside the mold.
Place the 5.65 in. (140 mm) thick solid block on top of the poured material and
place this assembly in static compactor.
Compact the specimen until the top plate of compactor moves down and the top
block becomes flush with the mold (the compaction speed should be
approximately 2 in./min).
Wait one minute and then start the compactor again to move the top plate up.
Flip the mold so that 2.45 in. (62 mm) thick block is facing top.
Place the 0.50 in (13 mm) thick metal block on top of 2.45 in. (62 mm) solid
block.
Start the static compactor again and move the top plate down so that 0.50 in (13
mm) thick solid block gets flushed with the mold.
Wait for one minute and then start the compactor again to move the top plate up.
Take out the mold and remove the metal blocks from it.
Center the mold on top of hydraulic jack and extract the specimen from the mold.
Cover the specimen with a rubber membrane.
Note:
Just before preparing specimen the mix should be weighed. The mix should
weigh the same as it was initially prepared, if not add additional water in it to
make up for the moisture loss.
Average the moisture contents just before and after preparing the specimen to
make sure the exact moisture content of the specimen prepared.
155
Preparation of Specimen
Calculations
Use the following formula to calculate the weight of the material required for preparing
one specimen:
W = DD C V (1 + MC )
where,
W = Weight of the material required for preparing one specimen in lbs
DD = Dry density of the material in pcf
C = Degree of compaction
V = Volume of the specimen in ft3
156
157
Contents:
158
Section 1
Overview
This procedure is used to determine the volumetric change due to variation in
moisture content. Use this procedure for drying and saturating clay specimens.
The dried and saturated specimens are tested for strength and stiffness properties.
Units of Measurement
The values given in parentheses (if provided) are not standard and may not be exact
mathematical conversions. Use each system of units separately. Combining values
from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard.
159
Section 2
Definitions
The following terms and definitions are referenced in this test method:
Dry cycle: The process a specimen undergoes such that there is no weight loss in
consecutive days weight readings
Wet cycle: The process the specimen undergoes to reach complete saturation.
Saturation: The process in which all air voids are filled with water.
160
Section 3
Apparatus
The following apparatus are required:
Balance, with a minimum capacity of 35 lbs (15 kg), accurate and readable to
0.001 lb (0.5 g) or 0.1% of the test mass, whichever is greater
Circumference measuring device, accurate to 0.05 in. (1.0 mm) such as pi-tape
8 thumb tacks
Cellophane paper
Rubber bands
Vacuum grease
Filter paper
4 in. (100 mm) diameter by 0.253 in. (6.42 mm) thickness porous stone
4 in. (100 mm) diameter hollow plastic cylindrical mold and approximate 6 in.
(150 mm) in height
161
Section 4
162
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
from top. Aligned with the top thumb tacks, use 4 thumbtacks around the bottom
side of the specimen approximately 0.5 in. (12.5 mm) from bottom of the
specimen. (Refer to Fig 1).
Cover laboratory compacted specimen using cellophane paper. Cover the bottom
of the specimen using extra cellophane paper and secure it with a rubber band.
Fold the excess cellophane paper out at the top of the specimen so that we leave
the top exposed. Apply vacuum grease to the folded cellophane paper. Cover the
top of the specimen with a porous stone using a filter paper as a membrane.
Using the rubber membrane cover the inside of the plastic mold. Pull the rubber
membrane to cover the top 0.75 in. (62.5 mm) of the specimen. Place the two orings over the rubber membrane to secure the specimen and prevent water
migration from sides of the specimen. (Refer to Fig 1).
Based on the calculation provided in this section, determine the amount of water
required to fully saturate the specimen. Divide the total amount of water needed
by ten. This allows for ten data points before the specimen is fully saturated.
Determine and record the mass of the specimen to the nearest 0.001 lb (0.5 g)
Using caliper and pi-tape measure and record diameter of the specimen and the
height from the top to bottom thumb tacks for each of the 4 sets.
Lay down specimen horizontally and perform FFRC test from bottom (Follow
Protocol Tex-147-E: Determining Modulus of Base and Subgrade Materials with
Free-Free Resonant Column).
Fill the plastic mold with water up to 4 in. (100 mm) and allow the specimen to
saturate.
The rate of moisture absorption varies with the type of material. Therefore, weigh
the specimen continuously until 1/10 of the water required to reach full saturation
is absorbed by the specimen.
Determine the total amount of time for the specimen to absorb 1/10 of the water
required to full saturation. Use this time as a gauge for Step 11.
Repeat Steps 8 to 11 until the specimen is fully saturated.
163
Calculation
Use the following equation to determine the weight gain required in order to
completely saturate the specimen.
Wreqd = Wti [62.4/{(1+i)*Dai} 1/ {(1+i)*Gs} 1 + 1/(1+i)]
where,
Wreqd = Weight of water required to fully saturate the specimen
Wti = Total Initial weight of the specimen
wi = Water content of the specimen
Dai = Dry unit weight of the material
Gs = Specific gravity of soil (Assume 2.67 if not known)
164
Vo = Initial volume
Graphs
Drying method:
Plot the lateral and vertical shrinkage of the specimen along with the
volumetric shrinkage with respect to time as shown in Figure 2.
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
0
100
200
300
400
Time, hr
Vertical
Lateral
Volume
165
500
Change in Volume, %
Change in
Dimension, %
Plot the variation of moisture content and seismic modulus of the specimen
with respect to time as shown in Figure 3.
200
25
Moisture Content, %
20
150
15
100
10
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Time (hrs)
Modulus
Moisture
30
35
25
30
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
Moisture Content, %
Plot the variation in moisture content and seismic modulus of the specimen
with respect to time as it becomes saturated as shown in Figure 4.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Time (hrs)
Modulus
Moisture
166
Contents:
167
Section 1
Overview
This method determines the unconsolidated, undrained, compressive strength of
cylindrical specimens of cohesive soils in an undisturbed condition, using a straincontrolled application of the axial compression-test load.
The method provides for the measurement of the total stresses applied to the
specimen without correction for pore pressure.
The test provides data for determining strength properties and stress-strain relations
for soils.
Units of Measurement
The values given in parentheses (if provided) are not standard and may not be exact
mathematical conversions. Use each system of units separately. Combining values
from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard.
168
Section 2
Definitions
The following terms and definitions are referenced in this test method:
Triaxial test - The triaxial test is one in which stresses are measured in
three mutually perpendicular directions.
Axial load - Axial load is the sum of the applied load and the dead load
(including the weight of the top porous stone, metal block and bell housing)
applied along the vertical axis of the test specimen.
Axial (major principal stress) stress - The axial load divided by the
average area of the cylindrical specimen.
chamber pressure, and the minor principal stress in the specimen is equal to
the chamber pressure.
170
Section 3
Apparatus
The following apparatus are required:
Triaxial cells
Load frame and assembly
Equipment to measure deformation of specimen, accurate to 0.001 in. (0.025
mm)
Axial load measuring device, calibrated according to Test Method "Tex-902K, Calibrating Force Measuring Devices"
Circumference measuring device, accurate to 0.05 in. (1.0 mm)
Lead weights, for surcharge loads
Pans, curing, at least 2 in. (50 mm) deep, with porous plates
171
Section 4
Triaxial Compression Test for Clay Materials
This part explains the steps followed to perform triaxial compression test on clay
material.
Preparation of Specimen
The specimen is prepared as per the Tex-1-BB: Laboratory Compaction of Clay
Specimen protocol. Cover this specimen properly and leave it aside for 24 hours before
testing.
Triaxial Compression Test
Follow the steps below to perform triaxial compression test:
Triaxial Compression Test
Step
Action
Position the specimen in the chamber and assemble the triaxial chamber.
1
Bring the axial load piston into contact with the specimen cap several times to
2
permit proper seating and alignment of the piston with the cap.
During this procedure, take care not to apply a deviator stress to the specimen
exceeding 0.5% of the estimated compressive strength.
If the weight of the piston is sufficient to apply a deviator stress to the specimen,
exceeding 0.5% of the estimated compressive strength,
The piston should be locked in place above the specimen cap after
checking the seating and alignment
Left locked until application of the chamber pressure.
Position the chamber in the axial loading device.
3
Carefully align the axial loading device, the axial load-measuring device, and the
4
triaxial chamber to prevent the application of a lateral force to the piston during
testing.
Apply approximately 2 lbs (0.907 Kg) of load on the specimen which is
5
considered as the zero reading for the test.
Using Controlled Strain start applying the axial load to produce axial strain at a
6
rate of approximately 2%/minute for clay materials.
Continue loading to 10% strain except:
7
Loading may be stopped when the deviator stress has peaked and dropped 20% or
When 5% axial strain occurs after a peak in deviator stress.
Extract the recorded data to develop the stress-strain curve.
8
172
Calculation
To determine axial strain, average cross-sectional area and Deviator stress, use the
following equations:
1. Calculate Axial Strain ():
o = L/ LO
where:
L = change in length of specimen as read from deformation indicator, in. (mm)
LO = initial length of specimen minus any change in length prior to loading, in. (mm).
2. Determine the principal stress:
o Major principle stress (1):
1 = Deviator Stress
3. Calculate the deviator stress for a given applied load:
o 1= P/A
where:
A = Initial average cross-sectional area of the specimen, in.2 (m2)
P = Applied axial load (corrected for uplift and piston friction, if required),
psi. (Kpa)
Graphs
Graph the relationship between stress and axial strain. The peak in figure 1 shows
unconfined compressive strength of the material.
70
Unconfined compressive
strength
60
Stress, psi
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
Strain, in.
4.0%
5.0%
173
Contents:
174
Section 1
Overview
This protocol describes the laboratory preparation and testing procedures for the
determination of resilient modulus and permanent deformation determining the
modulus and performance of the material respectively. The stress conditions used in
the test represent the ranges of stress states likely to be developed for a pavements
subjected to traffic.
To perform this test, a clay specimen is prepared in laboratory (Follow Tex-1-BB:
Laboratory Compaction of Clay Specimen). The specimen measures 8 in. (200 mm)
in height and 4 in. (100 mm) in diameter.
In addition to axial loading, confining pressure is applied to the specimen to mimic
the type of stresses and strains induced in the subgrade layer of a flexible pavement.
The results from the resilient modulus and permanent deformation test are the
modulus of the material and the permanent deformation properties which are used to
indicate the pavement performance.
Units of Measurement
The values given in parentheses (if provided) are not standard and may not be exact
mathematical conversions. Use each system of units separately. Combining values
from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard.
175
Section 2
Definitions
The following terms and definitions are referenced in this test method:
Resilient modulus (Mr): Ratio of the amplitude of the repeated axial stress to the
amplitude of the resultant recoverable axial strain.
Maximum applied axial load (Pmax): Total load applied to the sample, including
the contact and cyclic (resilient) loads.
Contact load (Pcont): Vertical load placed on the specimen to maintain a positive
contact between the specimen cap and the specimen.
Maximum applied axial stress (Smax): Total stress applied to the sample including
the contact stress and the cyclic stress.
Permanent deformation: When soils are loaded and then unloaded only a portion
of the total strain is recovered, the strain which remains is called as permanent
strain and the corresponding deformation is called as the permanent deformation.
176
Section 3
Apparatus
The following apparatus is required:
A balance with a minimum capacity of 35 lbs (15 kg), accurate and readable to
0.001 lb (0.5 g) or 0.1% of the test mass, whichever is greater.
Equipment to measure dimensions of specimen, accurate to 0.001 in. (0.025 mm)
Proving ring
Load cell (500 lbs capacity)
A pair of LVDT
Pressure gauge
MTS machine
Data acquisition system
Top and bottom plates
Miscellaneous apparatus: Two o-rings, vacuum grease, a pair of rubber
membranes, caliper, Pi tape, moisture content cans
Grout
177
Section 4
Resilient Modulus and Permanent Deformation Test
This part explains the steps to perform resilient modulus and permanent deformation
test.
Preparation of Specimen
Follow the steps below to fix the top and bottom plate on specimen:
Grouting of the Specimen
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Action
Cover laboratory compacted specimen with two rubber membranes.
Prepare a grout paste by adding water to grout in very little increments.
Spread this grout paste on the bottom plate.
Place and center the specimen on bottom plate and remove excess grout from the
sides. Use level to make sure that the specimen is perfectly horizontal.
Prepare the grout paste again as explained in Step 2 and spread it on top of the
specimen.
Place top plate on top of the spreaded grout paste and use level to make sure that
specimen is horizontal.
Fill groves on top and bottom plate using vacuum grease.
Fix O-rings on top and bottom plate in such a way that it perfectly seals the
specimen.
Specimen Set-up
Set-up of the Specimen
Step
1
2
3
4
Action
Warm up the air compressor machine for 10 minutes on low , after that turn it on
high.
Place the specimen on top of the bottom plate of MTS machine.
Using centering rod, center the specimen perfectly. Proper positioning of the
specimen is extremely critical in applying a concentric load to the specimen.
Couple the loading device to the specimen using a smooth steel ball.
178
5
6
7
179
Sequence
Confining
Pressure,psi
Contact
Stress,psi
Contact
Load,lbs
Maximum
Load,lbs
Number of
cycles
0.4061
0.2031
0.4061
0.5446
0.7977
1.0008
0.2031
0.4061
0.5446
0.7977
1.0008
0.2031
0.4061
0.5446
0.7977
1.0008
0.2031
0.4061
0.5446
5
2.5
5
7.6
10.1
12.6
2.5
5
7.6
10.1
12.6
2.5
5
7.6
10.1
12.6
2.5
5
7.6
50.4
25.2
50.4
75.6
100.8
126
25.2
50.4
75.6
100.8
126
25.2
50.4
75.6
100.8
126
25.2
50.4
75.6
1000
Conditioning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
25
25
25
25
Follow the Tex-1-EE-Part 1: Resilient Modulus Test protocol for grouting the
specimen, specimen set-up and then conditioning test on the specimen.
Use this conditioning data to get the permanent deformation test parameters.
Calculations
180
where k1, k2 and k3 parameters are the material constants which are obtained after data
reduction, c is the confining pressure, and d is the deviatoric stress. Note: for the
purpose of curve fitting use c = d = 4 psi.
This model considers the nonlinear behavior of the material under load. After curve
fitting report k1, k2 and k3 parameters and the correlation coefficient (r-square).
where,
and are the rutting parameters while a and b are permanent deformation
parameters.
181
Graphs
9
8
7
6
5
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
6 psi
1
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
Predicted 4 psi
10
Predicted 6 psi
Cumulative Strain
Resilient Strain
0.001
Permanent Strain
0.0001
1
10
100
cycles
182
1000
Contents:
183
Section 1
Overview
This method determines the indirect tensile strength of cylindrical specimens of
cohesive soils in an undisturbed condition, using a strain-controlled application of
the axial compression-test load.
The method provides for the measurement of the total stresses applied to the
specimen without correction for pore pressure.
The test provides data for determining strength properties and stress-strain relations
for soils.
Units of Measurement
The values given in parentheses (if provided) are not standard and may not be exact
mathematical conversions. Use each system of units separately. Combining values
from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard.
184
Section 2
Definitions
The following terms and definitions are referenced in this test method:
Indirect tensile strength test (IDT) - The IDT is one in which stresses are
applied and measured in only lateral directions.
Indirect tensile load Indirect tensile load is the sum of the applied load and
the dead load (including the weight of the top metallic rod) applied along the
lateral axis of the test specimen.
185
Section 3
Apparatus
The following apparatus are required:
186
Section 4
Indirect Tensile Strength Test for Clay Materials
This part explains the steps followed to perform indirect tensile strength test on clay
material.
Preparation of Specimen
The specimen is prepared as per the Tex-1-BB: Laboratory Compaction of Clay
Specimen protocol. Cover this specimen properly and leave it aside for 24 hours before
testing.
Indirect Tensile Strength Test
Follow the steps below to perform indirect tensile strength test:
Indirect Tensile Strength Test
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
Action
Position the specimen in the metallic jig.
Place metallic rod on top of the specimen and center it carefully.
Position the assembly in the loading device.
Apply approximately 2 lbs (0.907 Kg) of load on the specimen which is
considered as the zero reading for the test.
Using Controlled Strain start applying the axial load to produce axial strain at a
rate of approximately 2%/minute for clay materials.
Continue loading to 10% strain except:
Loading may be stopped when the deviator stress has peaked and dropped 20% or
When 5% axial strain occurs after a peak in deviator stress.
Extract the recorded data to develop the stress-strain curve.
187
Calculation
To determine indirect tensile strain and indirect tensile stress use the following equations:
4. Calculate Indirect Tensile Strain ():
o = L/ LO
Where:
L = change in width of specimen as read from deformation indicator, in. (mm)
LO = initial width of specimen minus any change in width prior to loading, in. (mm).
5. Calculate the deviator stress for a given applied load:
o IDT= 2*P/(*D*L)
Where:
IDT = Indirect tensile stress, psi (Pa)
P = Applied lateral load, lb. (N)
D = Diameter of specimen, in. (mm)
L = Length of the specimen, in. (mm)
Graphs
Graph the relationship between stress and strain. The peak in figure 1 shows indirect
tensile strength of the material.
70
Indirect tensile strength
60
Stress, psi
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
Strain, in.
4.0%
5.0%
Figure 1: Stress vs. Strain for Indirect Tensile Strength test of Clay Material
188
Contents:
189
Section 1
Overview
This protocol describes procedure used in laboratory to perform four point bend test
on clay specimens. Instron-5866 machine was used to perform this test. Rectangular
clay specimens were tested measuring 1 in. by 1in. by 5.6 in.
The test was carried out at optimum and completely dry conditions.
Units of Measurement
The values given in parentheses (if provided) are not standard and may not be exact
mathematical conversions. Use each system of units separately. Combining values
from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard.
190
Section 2
Definitions
The following terms and definitions are referenced in this test method:
191
Section 3
Apparatus
The following apparatus are required:
Balance, with a minimum capacity of 35 lbs (15 kg), accurate and readable to
0.001 lb (0.5 g) or 0.1% of the test mass, whichever is greater.
Cellophane wrap
Instron-5866 machine with four point test apparatus
Two digital camcorders
192
Section 4
The specimen was prepared in accordance with Tex 1BB Laboratory Compaction of
Clay Specimen Part 2: Preparation of Rectangular Specimen
Four Point Bend Test
Four Point Bend Test
Step
Action
Set up Instron-5866 machine for four point bend test using load cell with 500N
1
capacity.
Make a cut at the center of this specimen along its length and upto half of the
thickness of the specimen.
Set up this specimen on C-section as shown in the figure 1. Make sure that the
2
specimen rests on two bottom pates and it is centered perfectly. Bring down the
top plate and fix it in position in such a way, that the top contact load is touching
the specimen.
Attach the C along with the specimen to the movable top cross head of the
3
Instron machine.
Bring down the cross head such that the specimen rests on four supports (See
4
Figure 2).
Set up two camcorders in such a way that one is focusing on crack made in the
5
specimen while the other focuses on the computer screen.
Start both the camcorders and immediately start the test.
6
Stop the test when the cut made in the specimen propagates to the top of the
7
specimen.
Note:
One needs to stop the test only when he is running a test at optimum condition,
for the specimen tested at dry condition the test stops itself.
193
Graph
Graph the relationship between stress and strain. The peak in figure 1 shows flexural
strength of the material.
Figure 1: Stress vs Strain for Four Point Bend Test on Clay Materials
194
APPENDIX B
Static Compactor Apparatus Design
195
Block-2
4.05 in.
5.65 in.
12.9 in.
4.50 in.
3.95 in.
Block-3
3.95 in.
2.45 in.
Figure B-1 Static Compactor Apparatus Design to Prepare Specimen in Five Lifts
196
Block-2
2.45 in.
16.6 in.
5.65 in.
3.95 in.
4.50 in.
Block-3
3.95 in.
0.50 in.
197
APPENDIX C
Unconfined Compressive Strength Results
198
a) Optimum 1
70
60
Stress, psi
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
60
50
Stress, psi
40
30
20
10
0
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
Strain, %
199
a) Wet 1
16
14
Stress, psi
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
Strain, %
b) Wet 2
16
14
Stress, psi
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
Strain, %
Figure C.2 Typical Variations in Unconfined Compressive Stress and Strain for
Clay from El Paso District at Wet Condition
200
a) Dry 1
180
160
140
Stress, psi
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
250
Stress, psi
200
150
100
50
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
Strain, %
Figure C.3 Typical Variations in Unconfined Compressive Stress and Strain for
Clay from El Paso District at Dry Condition
201
a) Optimum 1
50
45
40
Stress, psi
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
50
45
40
Stress, psi
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
Strain, %
Figure C.4 Typical Variations in Unconfined Compressive Stress and Strain for
Clay from San Antonio District at Optimum Condition
202
a) Wet 1
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
Strain, %
b) Wet 2
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
Strain, %
Figure C.5 Typical Variations in Unconfined Compressive Stress and Strain for
Clay from San Antonio District at Wet Condition
203
a) Dry 1
160
140
Stress, psi
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
160
140
Stress, psi
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
Strain, %
Figure C.6 Typical Variations in Unconfined Compressive Stress and Strain for
Clay from San Antonio District at Dry Condition
204
a) Optimum 1
50
45
40
Stress, psi
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
50
45
40
Stress, psi
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
Strain, %
Figure C.7 Typical Variations in Unconfined Compressive Stress and Strain for
Clay from Fort Worth District at Optimum Condition
205
a) Wet 1
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
Strain, %
206
8.0%
10.0%
Figure C.8 Typical Variations in Unconfined Compressive Stress and Strain for
Clay from Fort Worth District at Wet Condition
a) Dry 1
300
250
Stress, psi
200
150
100
50
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
300
250
Stress, psi
200
150
100
50
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
Strain, %
207
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
Figure C.9 Typical Variations in Unconfined Compressive Stress and Strain for
Clay from Fort Worth District at Dry Condition
a) Optimum 1
50
45
40
Stress, psi
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
50
45
40
Stress, psi
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
Strain, %
208
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
a) Wet 1
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0% 12.0%
14.0% 16.0%
Strain, %
b) Wet 2
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
Strain, %
209
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
a) Dry 1
450
400
350
Stress, psi
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
600
500
Stress, psi
400
300
200
100
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
Strain, %
210
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
a) Optimum 1
120
100
Stress, psi
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
120
100
Stress, psi
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
Strain, %
211
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
Figure C.13 Typical Variations in Unconfined Compressive Stress and Strain for
Clay from Houston District at Optimum Condition
a) Wet 1
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
Strain, %
b) Wet 2
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
Strain, %
212
a) Dry 1
350
300
Stress, psi
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
300
250
Stress, psi
200
150
100
50
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
Strain, %
213
1.5%
2.0%
a) Optimum 1
45
40
35
Stress, psi
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
45
40
35
Stress, psi
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Strain, %
214
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
a) Wet 1
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
Strain, %
b) Wet 2
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
Strain, %
215
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
a) Dry 1
300
250
Stress, psi
200
150
100
50
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
300
250
Stress, psi
200
150
100
50
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
Strain, %
216
APPENDIX D
Indirect Tensile Strength Test Results
217
a) Optimum 1
8
7
Stress, psi
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
8
7
Stress, psi
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
Strain, %
218
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
Figure D.1 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for
Clay from El Paso District at Optimum Condition
a) Dry 1
80
70
Stress, psi
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
0.4%
0.5%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
80
70
Stress, psi
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
Strain, %
219
Figure D.2 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from El Paso District at Dry Condition
a) Optimum 1
16
14
Stress, psi
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
18
16
14
Stress, psi
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
Strain, %
220
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
Figure D.3 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from San Antonio District at Optimum Condition
a) Dry 1
160
140
Stress, psi
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
160
140
Stress, psi
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Strain, %
221
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
Figure D.4 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from San Antonio District at Dry Condition
a) Optimum 1
18
16
14
Stress, psi
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
18
16
14
Stress, psi
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
Strain, %
222
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
Figure D.5 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from Fort Worth District at Optimum Condition
a) Dry 1
80
70
Stress, psi
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
80
70
Stress, psi
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
Strain, %
223
0.8%
1.0%
Figure D.6 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from Fort Worth District at Dry Condition
a) Optimum 1
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
Strain, %
224
0.8%
1.0%
Figure D.7 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from Bryan District at Optimum Condition
a) Dry 1
160
140
Stress, psi
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
160
140
Stress, psi
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Strain, %
225
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
Figure D.8 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from Bryan District at Dry Condition
a) Optimum 1
30
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
5
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
30
25
Stress, psi
20
15
10
5
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
Strain, %
226
Figure D.9 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from Houston District at Optimum Condition
a) Dry 1
140
120
Stress, psi
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
140
120
Stress, psi
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
Strain, %
227
2.0%
2.5%
Figure D.10 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from Houston District at Dry Condition
a) Optimum 1
20
18
16
Stress, psi
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Strain, %
b) Optimum 2
20
18
16
Stress, psi
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
Strain, %
228
Figure D.11 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from Paris District at Optimum Condition
a) Dry 1
80
70
Stress, psi
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
Strain, %
b) Dry 2
80
70
Stress, psi
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
Strain, %
229
1.5%
2.0%
Figure D.12 Typical Variations in Indirect Tensile Stress and Strain for Clay
from Paris District at Dry Condition
APPENDIX E
Resilient Modulus Test Results
230
a) Optimum 1
10
9
8
7
6
5
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
15
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
10
9
8
7
6
5
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.1 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from El Paso District at Optimum Condition
231
a) Dry 1
70
60
50
40
0 psi
30
2 psi
20
4 psi
10
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
70
60
50
40
0 psi
30
2 psi
20
4 psi
10
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.2 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from El Paso District at Dry Condition
232
a) Optimum 1
12
10
8
6
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
2
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
a) Optimum 2
12
10
8
6
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
2
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.3 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from San Antonio District at Optimum Condition
233
a) Dry 1
60
50
40
30
0 psi
2 psi
20
4 psi
10
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
b) Dry 2
60
50
40
30
0 psi
2 psi
20
4 psi
10
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
15
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.4 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from San Antonio District at Dry Condition
234
a) Optimum 1
12
10
8
6
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
2
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
12
10
8
6
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
2
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.5 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from Fort Worth District at Optimum Condition
235
a) Dry 1
60
50
40
30
0 psi
2 psi
20
4 psi
10
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
15
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
60
50
40
30
0 psi
2 psi
20
4 psi
10
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.6 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from Fort Worth District at Dry Condition
236
a) Optimum 1
14
12
10
8
0 psi
6
2 psi
4 psi
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
16
14
12
10
8
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.7 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from Bryan District at Optimum Condition
237
a) Dry 1
30
25
20
15
0 psi
2 psi
10
4 psi
5
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
30
25
20
15
0 psi
2 psi
10
4 psi
5
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.8 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from Bryan District at Dry Condition
238
a) Optimum 1
18
16
14
12
10
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
6 psi
2
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
18
16
14
12
10
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
6 psi
2
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.9 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from Houston District at Optimum Condition
239
a) Dry 1
70
60
50
40
0 psi
30
2 psi
20
4 psi
10
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
80
70
60
50
40
0 psi
30
2 psi
20
4 psi
6 psi
10
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
15
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.10 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from Houston District at Dry Condition
240
a) Optimum 1
20
18
16
14
12
10
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
20
18
16
14
12
10
0 psi
2 psi
4 psi
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.11 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from Paris District at Optimum Condition
241
a) Dry 1
70
60
50
40
0 psi
30
2 psi
20
4 psi
10
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
15
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
70
60
50
40
0 psi
30
2 psi
20
4 psi
10
6 psi
Predicted 2 psi
0
0
10
Predicted 4 psi
Predicted 6 psi
Figure E.12 Typical Variations in Resilient Modulus and Deviatoric Stress for Clay
from Paris District at Dry Condition
242
APPENDIX F
Permanent Deformation Test Results
243
a) Optimum 1
1.0E+00
4.4174E-02
y = 3.2193E-03x
2
R = 9.9343E-01
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Optimum 2
1.0E+00
1.5087E-02
y = 2.2188E-03x
2
R = 3.2238E-01
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.1 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from
El Paso District at Optimum Condition
244
a) Dry 1
1.0E+00
y = 3.2193E-03x
4.4174E-02
1.0E-01
R = 9.9343E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Dry 2
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.7616E-01
y = 4.7874E-05x
2
R = 9.7036E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.2 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from El
Paso District at Dry Condition
245
a) Optimum 1
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
7.2463E-01
y = 1.3672E-06x
2
R = 9.9592E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Optimum 2
1.0E+00
3.0500E-01
y = 9.5864E-05x
2
R = 9.9147E-01
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.3 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from San
Antonio District at Optimum Condition
246
a) Dry 1
1.0E+00
2.4518E-01
y = 7.1636E-05x
1.0E-01
R = 5.1913E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Dry 2
1.0E+00
3.1563E-01
1.0E-01
y = 3.0850E-05x
2
R = 9.9768E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.4 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from San
Antonio District at Dry Condition
247
a) Optimum 1
1.0E+00
3.9707E-01
y = 8.9024E-06x
1.0E-01
R = 9.4498E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Optimum 2
1.0E+00
y = 1.3018E-05x
1.0E-01
5.0705E-01
R = 8.4187E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.5 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from Fort
Worth District at Optimum Condition
248
a) Dry 1
1.0E+00
3.8912E-01
y = 9.1486E-06x
1.0E-01
R = 0.91
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Dry 2
1.0E+00
2.2336E-01
y = 5.3608E-05x
2
1.0E-01
R = 0.97
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.6 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from Fort
Worth District at Dry Condition
249
a) Optimum 1
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.7080E-01
y = 6.4185E-05x
2
R = 0.96
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Optimum 2
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
2.4558E-01
y = 3.2082E-05x
2
R = 0.95
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.7 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from Bryan
District at Optimum Condition
250
a) Dry 1
1.0E+00
4.3807E-01
y = 6.2329E-06x
1.0E-01
R = 9.3434E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Dry 2
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.5012E-01
y = 1.8484E-05x
2
R = 4.8721E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.8 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from Bryan
District at Dry Condition
251
a) Optimum 1
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
y = 4.0158E-03x
1.0E-02
-6.8229E-01
R = 0.75
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Optimum 2
1.0E+00
2.7915E-01
y = 6.7876E-05x
1.0E-01
R = 0.95
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.9 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from
Houston District at Optimum Condition
252
a) Dry 1
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
2.2387E-02
y = 1.4405E-04x
2
R = 1.5799E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Dry 2
1.0E+00
4.1489E-01
y = 2.7138E-05x
1.0E-01
R = 9.9277E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.10 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from
Houston District at Dry Condition
253
a) Optimum 1
1.0E+00
6.4542E-02
y = 7.4531E-04x
R = 0.91
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Optimum 2
1.0E+00
3.2367E-01
1.0E-01
y = 3.0893E-05x
2
R = 0.90
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.11 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from Paris
District at Optimum Condition
254
a) Dry 1
1.0E+00
2.4177E-01
y = 3.1118E-05x
1.0E-01
R = 0.96
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
b) Dry 2
1.0E+00
5.6814E-01
y = 5.1368E-06x
2
1.0E-01
R = 0.99
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1
10
100
1000
Cycle
Figure F.12 Typical Variations in Permanent Strain and Cycles for Clay from Paris
District at Dry Condition
255
APPENDIX G
Modulus and Moisture Content VS Time DFO Results
256
Modulus, ksi
400
20
Modulus
300
Moisture
15
200
10
100
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
500
Modulus, ksi
400
20
Modulus
300
Moisture
15
200
10
100
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
Moisture Content,
%
b) Specimen 2
500
Modulus, ksi
250
20
Modulus
200
Moisture
15
150
10
100
50
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
Figure G.1 Typical Variations in Modulus and Time for Clay from El Paso District
257
Moisture Content, %
c) Specimen 3
25
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
Moisture
20
100
15
10
50
5
0
0
0
100
200
300
400
Time, hrs
500
600
700
800
Modulus, ksi
150
Modulus
25
Moisture
20
100
15
10
50
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time, hrs
600
700
0
800
Moisture Content, %
b) Specimen 2
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
Modulus
400
500
Time, hrs
600
700
800
Moisture
Figure G.2 Typical Variations in Modulus and Time for Clay from San Antonio
District
258
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
c) Specimen 3
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
150
Modulus, ksi
250
Modulus
25
Moisture
200
20
150
15
100
10
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time, hrs
600
700
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
800
Modulus, ksi
250
25
Modulus
200
Moisture
20
150
15
100
10
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time, hrs
600
700
Moisture Content, %
b) Specimen 2
800
Modulus, ksi
25
Modulus
200
Moisture
20
150
15
100
10
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time, hrs
600
700
800
Figure G.3 Typical Variations in Modulus and Time for Clay from Fort Worth
District
259
Moisture Content, %
c) Specimen 3
a) Specimen 1
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
Moisture
Moisture Content, %
25
150
20
100
15
10
50
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
600
Time, hrs
25
Modulus, ksi
200
Modulus
Moisture
20
150
15
100
10
50
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
Moisture Content, %
b) Specimen 2
500
25
Modulus, ksi
200
Modulus
Moisture
20
150
15
100
10
50
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
Figure G.4 Typical Variations in Modulus and Time for Clay from Bryan District
260
Moisture Content, %
c) Specimen 3
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
25
Modulus
Moisture
20
15
10
5
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
a) Specimen 1
600
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
25
Modulus
Moisture
20
15
10
5
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
b) Specimen 2
600
25
Modulus, ksi
300
Modulus
Moisture
20
200
15
10
100
5
0
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
600
Figure G.5 Typical Variations in Modulus and Time for Clay from Houston District
261
Moisture Content, %
c) Specimen 3
25
Modulus, ksi
250
Modulus
Moisture
20
200
150
100
50
0
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time, hrs
600
700
800
900
Modulus
200
400
Moisture
600
Time, hrs
800
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1000
Moisture Content, %
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
25
Moisture Content, %
b) Specimen 2
c) Specimen 3
Modulus, ksi
200
Modulus
Moisture
150
20
15
100
10
50
0
1000
200
400
600
Time, hrs
800
Figure G.6 Typical Variations in Modulus and Time for Clay from Paris District
262
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
APPENDIX H
Shrinkage Strain VS Time DFO Results
263
Shrinkage Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
8
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
300
350
400
450
300
350
400
450
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
8
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
8
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Time, hrs
Figure H.1 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from El Paso
District
264
Shrinkage Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
20
Vertical
15
Lateral
Volumetric
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
Time, hrs
500
600
700
800
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
20
Vertical
15
Lateral
Volumetric
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Time, hrs
Figure H.2 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from San
Antonio District
265
800
Shrinkage Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
600
700
800
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
d) Specimen 3
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time, hrs
Figure H.3 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from Fort
Worth District
266
Shrinkage Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time, hrs
b) Specimen 2
Shrinkage Strain, %
20
Vertical
15
Lateral
Volumetric
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
350
400
450
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Time, hrs
300
Figure H.4 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from Bryan
District
267
Shrinkage Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
500
600
500
600
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
Time, hrs
Figure H.5 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from
Houston District
268
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time, hrs
600
700
800
900
600
700
800
900
600
700
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
800
Time, hrs
Figure H.6 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from Paris
District
269
900
APPENDIX I
Shrinkage Strain VS Time DFO Results
270
b) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
7
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
c) Specimen 2
Shrinkage Strain, %
7
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Shrinkage Strain, %
d) Specimen 3
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Vertical
0.0
0.2
Lateral
0.4
0.6
Volumetric
0.8
Figure I.1 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from El Paso
District
271
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
b) Specimen 2
Shrinkage Strain, %
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Shrinkage Strain, %
e) Specimen 3
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure I.2 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from San
Antonio District
272
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
20
Vertical
15
Lateral
Volumetric
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure I.3 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Fort
Worth District
273
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure I.4 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Bryan
District
274
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
20
Vertical
15
Lateral
Volumetric
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
20
Vertical
15
Lateral
Volumetric
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure I.5 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Houston
District
275
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
b) Specimen 2
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
c) Specimen 3
Shrinkage Strain, %
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure I.6 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Paris
District
276
APPENDIX J
Normalized Modulus VS Normalized Moisture Content DFO
Results
277
Normalized Modulus
a) El Paso
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Specimen-1
0.0
0.2
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized Moisture Content
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
Normalized Modulus
b) San Antonio
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Specimen-1
0.0
0.2
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized Moisture Content
Normalized Modulus
c) Fort Worth
20
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
278
Normalized Modulus
d) Bryan
12
Specimen-1
10
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
Normalized Modulus
e) Houston
20
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
Normalized Modulus
f) Paris
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.4
0.6
Specimen-1
0.0
0.2
0.8
Specimen-2
0.4
0.6
Specimen-3
0.8
279
APPENDIX K
Normalized Modulus VS Shrinkage Strain DFO Results
280
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
50
Vertical
40
Lateral
Volumetric
30
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
b) Specimen 2
50
Vertical
40
Lateral
Volumetric
30
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
Normalized Modulus
50
Vertical
40
Lateral
Volumetric
30
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure K.1 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from El Paso
District
281
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
10
12
14
16
14
16
Normalized Modulus
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
12
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
10
12
14
16
18
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure K.2 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from San
Antonio District
282
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
10
15
15
10
5
0
0
20
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
Normalized Modulus
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
Normalized Modulus
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure K.3 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Fort
Worth District
283
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
12
14
12
14
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
Normalized Modulus
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
Normalized Modulus
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
10
15
8
6
4
2
0
0
20
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure K.4 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Bryan
District
284
Normalized Modulus
a) Specimen 1
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
16
18
16
18
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
b) Specimen 2
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
10
12
14
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
10
12
14
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure K.5 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Houston
District
285
Normalized Modulus
a) Specimen 1
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Vertical
Lateral
10
Volumetric
12
14
16
18
20
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
b) Specimen 2
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
10
15
20
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Vertical
Lateral
10
Volumetric
12
14
16
18
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure K.6 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Paris
District
286
APPENDIX L
Modulus and Moisture Content VS Time SFO Results
287
30
Modulus
Moisture
25
20
15
10
5
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
a) Specimen 1
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0
10
15
20
25
Time, hrs
30
Modulus
Moisture
25
20
15
10
5
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
b) Specimen 2
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0
10
15
20
25
Time, hrs
30
Modulus
Moisture
25
20
15
10
5
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
c) Specimen 3
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0
10
15
20
25
Time, hrs
Figure L.1 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from El Paso
District
288
Modulus
Modulus, ksi
50
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
Time, hrs
25
30
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
60
35
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture
10
15
20
Time, hrs
25
30
Moisture Content, %
b) Specimen 2
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
35
Modulus
Modulus, ksi
50
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
Time, hrs
25
30
Moisture Content, %
c) Specimen 3
60
35
Figure L.2 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from Bryan
District
289
50
Modulus
Moisture
40
30
20
10
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
a) Specimen 1
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0
4
Time, hrs
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
50
Modulus
Moisture
40
30
20
10
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
b) Specimen 2
0
0
4
Time, hrs
50
Modulus
Moisture
40
30
20
10
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
c) Specimen 3
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0
3
Time, hrs
Figure L.3 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from San
Antonio District
290
50
Modulus
Modulus, ksi
25
Moisture
40
20
30
15
20
10
5
10
0
0
3
Time, hrs
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
30
30
50
25
40
20
30
15
20
10
5
Modulus
10
Moisture
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
b) Specimen 2
0
0
3
Time, hrs
50
25
40
20
30
15
20
10
10
Modulus
Moisture
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
c) Specimen 3
30
0
0
3
Time, hrs
Figure L.4 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from Fort
Worth District
291
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Modulus
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture
3
Time, hrs
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
a) Specimen 1
Modulus
Moisture
3
Time, hrs
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture Content, %
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
b) Specimen 2
Modulus, ksi
c) Specimen 3
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Modulus
Moisture
3
Time, hrs
Figure L.5 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from Houston
District
292
50
50
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
Moisture
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
0
0
5
6
Time, hrs
10
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
Modulus
0
0
Moisture
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
b) Specimen 2
0
5
6
Time, hrs
10
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
Modulus
Moisture
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
c) Specimen 3
0
0
5
6
Time, hrs
10
Figure L.6 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from Paris
District
293
APPENDIX M
Expansion Strain VS Time SFO Results
294
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
2
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
15
20
25
15
20
25
15
20
25
Time, hrs
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
2
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
Time, hrs
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
2
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
Time, hrs
Figure M.1 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and Time for Clay from El Paso
District
295
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
15
20
Time, hrs
25
30
35
25
30
35
Time, hrs
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
Time, hrs
Figure M.2 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and Time for Clay from Bryan
District
296
a) Specimen 1
Expansion Strain, %
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
Time, hrs
b) Specimen 2
Expansion Strain, %
12
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
Time, hrs
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
Time, hrs
Figure M.3 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and Time for Clay from San
Antonio District
297
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
3
Time, hrs
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
7
Vertical
6
5
Lateral
Volumetric
4
3
2
1
0
0
3
Time, hrs
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
3
Time, hrs
Figure M.4 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and Time for Clay from Fort
Worth District
298
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
3
Time, hrs
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
3
Time, hrs
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
3
Time, hrs
Figure M.5 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and Time for Clay from
Houston District
299
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
10
10
Time, hrs
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
4
Time, hrs
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
4
Time, hrs
Figure M.6 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and Time for Clay from Paris
District
300
APPENDIX N
Expansion Strain VS Normalized Moisture Content SFO
Results
301
a) Specimen 1
Expansion Strain, %
2
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
2
Vertical
Lateral
0.1
0.2
Volumetric
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
Figure N.1 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and NMC for Clay from El Paso
District
302
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
c) Specimen 3
Expansion Strain, %
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure N.2 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and NMC for Clay from San
Antonio District
303
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
12
10
8
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
6
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
4
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure N.3 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and NMC for Clay from Fort
Worth District
304
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
Figure N.4 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and NMC for Clay from Bryan
District
305
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure N.5 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and NMC for Clay from
Houston District
306
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
Expansion Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Expansion Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Figure N.6 Typical Variations in Expansion Strain and NMC for Clay from Paris
District
307
APPENDIX O
Normalized Modulus VS Normalized Moisture Content SFO
Results
308
Normalized Modulus
a) El Paso
6
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
4
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Normalized Modulus
b) San Antonio
5
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Normalized Modulus
c) Fort Worth
3
Specimen-1
2.5
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
309
0.6
Normalized Modulus
a) Bryan
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Specimen-1
0.0
0.1
Specimen-2
0.2
Specimen-3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Normalized Modulus
b) Houston
4
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
2
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Normalized Modulus
c) Paris
5
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
310
0.7
APPENDIX P
Normalized Modulus VS Expansion Strain SFO Results
311
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
5
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Lateral Shrinkage Strain, %
0.4
0.5
Normalized Modulus
b) Specimen 2
5
4
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
0.4
0.6
Specimen-3
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.2
0.8
1.0
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
5
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Figure P.1 Typical Variations in Normalized Modulus and Expansion Strain for
Clay from El Paso District
312
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Specimen-1
Normalized Modulus
0.0
0.5
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
1.0
1.5
Lateral Shrinkage Strain, %
2.0
b) Specimen 2
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
3
2
1
0
0
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
10
12
Figure P.2 Typical Variations in Modulus and Expansion Strain for Clay from San
Antonio District
313
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
3
Specimen-1
2.5
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Lateral Shrinkage Strain, %
1.0
1.2
Normalized Modulus
b) Specimen 2
3
Specimen-1
2.5
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
3
Specimen-1
2.5
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Figure P.3 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Modulus and Expansion Strain for Clay
from Fort Worth District
314
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Specimen-1
0.0
0.5
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
1.0
1.5
Lateral Shrinkage Strain, %
2.0
Normalized Modulus
b) Specimen 2
4
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
3
2
1
0
0
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
Figure P.4 Typical Variations in Modulus and Expansion Strain for Clay from
Bryan District
315
Normalized Modulus
a) Specimen 1
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Specimen-1
Normalized Modulus
0.0
0.2
0.4
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Lateral Shrinkage Strain, %
1.4
1.6
b) Specimen 2
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
Figure P.5 Typical Variations in Modulus and Expansion Strain for Clay from
Houston District
316
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
5
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
3
2
1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Lateral Shrinkage Strain, %
1.5
2.0
b) Specimen 2
Normalized Modulus
5
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
3
2
1
0
0
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
5
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
3
2
1
0
0
10
12
Figure P.6 Typical Variations in Modulus and Expansion Strain for Clay from Paris
District
317
APPENDIX Q
Modulus and Moisture Content VS Time DFS Results
318
30
Modulus
Modulus, ksi
500
Moisture
25
400
20
300
15
200
10
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
250
300
350
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
600
400
600
30
Modulus
Modulus, ksi
500
Moisture
25
400
20
300
15
200
10
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
250
300
350
Moisture Content, %
b) Specimen 2
400
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
500
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Moisture
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
250
300
350
Moisture Content, %
c) Specimen 3
600
400
Figure Q.1 Typical Variations in Modulus, Moisture Content and Time for Clay
from El Paso District
319
50
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
Moisture
80
40
60
30
40
20
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
250
300
350
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
100
400
50
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
Moisture
80
40
60
30
40
20
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
250
300
350
Moisture Content, %
b) Specimen 2
100
400
100
50
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
Moisture
80
40
60
30
40
20
20
10
Moisture Content, %
c) Specimen 3
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
250
300
350
400
Figure Q.2 Typical Variations in , Moisture Content and Time for Clay from San
Antonio District
320
Modulus, ksi
120
50
Modulus
100
Moisture
40
80
30
60
20
40
20
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
500
Time, hrs
50
Modulus
Modulus, ksi
100
Moisture
40
80
30
60
20
40
10
20
0
Moisture Content, %
b) Specimen 2
120
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Time, hrs
350
400
450
500
50
100
40
80
30
60
Modulus
Moisture
20
40
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Time, hrs
350
400
450
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
c) Specimen 3
120
500
Figure Q.3 Typical Variations in , Moisture Content and Time for Clay from Fort
Worth District
321
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Time, hrs
350
400
450
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
500
500
Moisture
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Time, hrs
350
400
450
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture Content, %
b) Specimen 2
500
500
c) Specimen 3
500
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
Moisture
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Time, hrs
350
400
450
500
Figure Q.4 Typical Variations in , Moisture Content and Time for Clay from Bryan
District
322
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture
150
100
50
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
Moisture Content, %
a) Specimen 1
200
600
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
Moisture
150
100
50
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture Content, %
200
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Moisture Content, %
b) Specimen 2
600
c) Specimen 3
200
Modulus, ksi
Modulus
Moisture
150
100
50
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
600
Figure Q.5 Typical Variations in , Moisture Content and Time for Clay from
Houston District
323
50
Modulus
Moisture
40
30
20
10
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
a) Specimen 1
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
600
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
50
Modulus
Moisture
40
30
20
10
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
b) Specimen 2
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
600
50
Modulus
Moisture
40
30
20
10
Moisture Content, %
Modulus, ksi
c) Specimen 3
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
0
100
200
300
Time, hrs
400
500
600
Figure Q.6 Typical Variations in , Moisture Content and Time for Clay from Paris
District
324
APPENDIX R
Shrinkage Strain VS Time DFS Results
325
Shrinkage Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
250
300
350
400
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
12
10
8
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
250
300
350
400
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
12
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
250
300
350
400
Figure R.1 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from El Paso
District
326
Shrinkage Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
30
25
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
250
300
350
400
250
300
350
400
250
300
350
400
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time, hrs
Figure R.2 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from San
Antonio District
327
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
25
Vertical
20
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
Time, hrs
300
400
500
300
400
500
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
Time, hrs
c) Specimen 3
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
25
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
Time, hrs
300
400
500
Figure R.3 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from Fort
Worth District
328
Shrinkage Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
Time, hrs
300
400
500
300
400
500
b) Specimen 2
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
30
25
20
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
Time, hrs
300
400
500
Figure R.4 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from Bryan
District
329
Shrinkage Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Vertical
Lateral
100
200
Volumetric
300
Time, hrs
400
500
600
400
500
600
400
500
600
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Vertical
Lateral
100
200
Volumetric
300
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Vertical
100
Lateral
200
Volumetric
300
Time, hrs
Figure R.5 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from
Houston District
330
Shrinkage Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Vertical
Lateral
100
200
Volumetric
300
Time, hrs
400
500
600
400
500
600
400
500
600
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Vertical
Lateral
100
200
Volumetric
300
Time, hrs
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Vertical
100
Lateral
200
Volumetric
300
Time, hrs
Figure R.6 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and Time for Clay from Paris
District
331
APPENDIX S
Shrinkage Strain VS Normalized Moisture Content DFS
Results
332
Expansion Strain, %
a) Specimen 1
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Figure S.1 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from El Paso
District
333
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
b) Specimen 2
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Figure S.2 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from San
Antonio District
334
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
b) Specimen 2
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Figure S.3 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Fort
Worth District
335
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
b) Specimen 2
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Figure S.4 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Bryan
District
336
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
Vertical
25
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
b) Specimen 2
Shrinkage Strain, %
30
25
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
30
25
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Figure S.5 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Houston
District
337
a) Specimen 1
Shrinkage Strain, %
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Vertical
0.0
0.5
Lateral
1.0
Volumetric
1.5
2.0
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Vertical
0.0
0.5
Lateral
1.0
Volumetric
1.5
2.0
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Vertical
0.0
0.5
Lateral
1.0
Volumetric
1.5
2.0
Figure S.6 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Paris
District
338
APPENDIX T
Normalized Modulus VS Normalized Moisture Content DFS
Results
339
Normalized Modulus
a) El Paso
400
Specimen-1
300
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
200
100
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Normalized Modulus
b) San Antonio
8
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Normalized Modulus
c) Fort Worth
10
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
340
2.0
Normalized Modulus
a) Bryan
25
Specimen-1
20
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Normalized Modulus
b) Houston
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Specimen-1
0.0
0.5
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
1.0
1.5
2.0
Normalized Modulus
c) Paris
12
10
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
341
2.0
APPENDIX U
Normalized Modulus VS Shrinkage Strain DFS Results
342
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
200
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
150
100
50
0
0
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
Normalized Modulus
250
Vertical
200
Lateral
Volumetric
150
100
50
0
0
10
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
Normalized Modulus
600
Vertical
500
Lateral
Volumetric
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
12
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure U.1 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from El Paso
District
343
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
Normalized Modulus
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure U.2 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from San
Antonio District
344
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
Normalized Modulus
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
12
Vertical
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure U.3 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Fort
Worth District
345
Normalized Modulus
a) Specimen 1
25
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
25
30
Shrinkage Strain, %
b) Specimen 2
Normalized Modulus
25
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
c) Specimen 3
25
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure U.4 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Bryan
District
346
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
14
12
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
b) Specimen 2
14
12
10
8
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
Normalized Modulus
14
Vertical
12
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure U.5 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Houston
District
347
a) Specimen 1
Normalized Modulus
14
12
10
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
30
35
Shrinkage Strain, %
Normalized Modulus
b) Specimen 2
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
0
0
10
15
20
25
Shrinkage Strain, %
c) Specimen 3
Normalized Modulus
14
Vertical
12
10
Lateral
Volumetric
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Shrinkage Strain, %
Figure U.6 Typical Variations in Shrinkage Strain and NMC for Clay from Paris
District
348
APPENDIX V
Fit Parameters and Index Properties Relationships
349
V.1 Relationship Between A Coefficient and Index Properties for Lateral Shrinkage
Strain and NMCDFO Model
A Coefficient
4
y = 0.06x + 0.55
2
R = 0.92
0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
A Coefficient
4
y = 0.03x + 0.65
2
R = 0.85
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
A Coefficient
4
y = 0.14x - 0.58
2
R = 0.87
0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
350
25
A Coefficient
y = -0.04x + 6.32
2
R = 0.68
2
0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
A Coefficient
4
y = 0.07x + 1.12
2
R = 0.64
2
0
5
10
15
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
351
20
25
V.2 Relationship Between A Coefficient and Index Properties for Vertical Shrinkage
Strain and NMCDFO Model
A Coefficient
8
y = 0.26x - 2.69
6
R = 0.82
4
2
0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
A Coefficient
8
y = 0.14x - 2.34
R = 0.79
4
2
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
A Coefficient
8
y = 0.61x - 7.93
6
R = 0.84
4
2
0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
352
25
A Coefficient
8
y = -0.16x + 20.18
6
R = 0.57
4
2
0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
A Coefficient
8
y = 0.29x - 0.22
6
R = 0.56
4
2
0
5
10
15
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
353
20
25
A Coefficient
20
y = 0.65x - 4.53
16
R = 0.83
12
8
4
0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
A Coefficient
20
y = 0.34x - 4.31
16
R = 0.90
12
8
4
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
A Coefficient
20
y = 1.50x - 17.99
16
R = 0.95
12
8
4
0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
354
25
20
A Coefficient
y = -0.43x + 55.30
16
R = 0.73
12
8
4
0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
20
A Coefficient
y = 0.64x + 2.65
16
R = 0.47
12
8
4
0
5
10
15
20
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
355
25
V.4 Relationship Between E Coefficient and Index Properties for Lateral Shrinkage
Strain and NMCSFO Model
6
E Coefficient
y = 0.08x + 1.62
2
R = 0.55
4
2
0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
6
E Coefficient
y = 0.04x + 1.49
2
R = 0.54
2
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
6
E Coefficient
y = 0.16x + 0.28
2
R = 0.49
2
0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
356
25
6
E Coefficient
y = -0.06x + 9.58
2
R = 0.53
2
0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
6
E Coefficient
y = 0.09x + 2.15
2
R = 0.44
2
0
5
10
15
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
357
20
25
V.5 Relationship Between E Coefficient and Index Properties for Vertical Shrinkage
Strain and NMCSFO Model
E Coefficient
12
y = 0.28x - 0.66
10
R = 0.61
8
6
4
2
0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
E Coefficient
12
y = 0.16x - 1.40
10
R = 0.70
8
6
4
2
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
E Coefficient
12
y = 0.57x - 4.95
10
R = 0.50
8
6
4
2
0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
358
25
E Coefficient
12
y = -0.25x + 30.94
10
R = 0.75
8
6
4
2
0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
E Coefficient
12
y = 0.48x - 0.62
10
R = 0.87
8
6
4
2
0
5
10
15
20
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
359
25
E Coefficient
y = 0.28x + 1.18
2
R = 0.68
6
4
2
0
E Coefficient
10
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
y = 0.16x + 0.55
2
R = 0.76
10
E Coefficient
15
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
y = 0.58x - 3.31
2
R = 0.58
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
360
25
E Coefficient
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
y = -0.24x + 32.44
2
R = 0.80
E Coefficient
80
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
y = 0.45x + 1.62
2
R = 0.88
10
15
20
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
361
25
V.7 Relationship Between J Coefficient and Index Properties for Lateral Shrinkage
Strain and NMCDFS Model
J Coefficient
3.0
y = 0.05x + 0.49
2.5
R = 0.73
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
J Coefficient
2.5
y = 0.03x + 0.52
2.0
R = 0.76
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
J Coefficient
3.0
2.5
y = 0.13x - 0.57
2.0
R = 0.74
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
362
25
J Coefficient
2.5
2.0
y = -0.03x + 5.50
1.5
R = 0.56
1.0
0.5
0.0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
2.5
J Coefficient
y = 0.07x + 0.93
2.0
R = 0.58
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
5
10
15
20
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
363
25
V.8 Relationship Between J Coefficient and Index Properties for Vertical Shrinkage
Strain and NMCDFS Model
J Coefficient
3.0
2.5
y = 0.10x - 0.84
2.0
R = 0.82
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
J Coefficient
3.0
2.5
y = 0.05x - 0.69
2.0
R = 0.78
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
J Coefficient
3.0
2.5
y = 0.22x - 2.59
2.0
R = 0.76
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
364
25
J Coefficient
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
y = -0.06x + 7.74
1.0
R = 0.55
0.5
0.0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
J Coefficient
3.0
2.5
y = 0.13x - 0.17
2.0
R = 0.73
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
5
10
15
20
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
365
25
J Coefficient
y = 0.08x + 0.86
2
R = 0.80
J Coefficient
10
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
y = 0.04x + 0.95
2
R = 0.78
10
J Coefficient
15
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
y = 0.17x - 0.57
2
R = 0.77
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
366
25
J Coefficient
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
y = -0.05x + 7.53
2
R = 0.55
J Coefficient
80
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
y = 0.09x + 1.41
2
R = 0.68
10
15
20
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
367
25
B Coefficient
y = -0.05x + 3.85
2
R = 0.26
0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
B Coefficient
4
y = -0.03x + 4.22
2
R = 0.42
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
B Coefficient
4
y = -0.10x + 4.58
2
R = 0.22
2
0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
368
25
4
B Coefficient
y = 0.04x - 1.27
2
R = 0.33
2
0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
B Coefficient
y = -0.11x + 4.36
2
R = 0.75
0
5
10
15
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
369
20
25
B Coefficient
8
6
4
y = -0.17x + 7.96
R = 0.49
0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
B Coefficient
8
6
4
y = -0.11x + 9.10
2
R = 0.75
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
B Coefficient
8
6
4
y = -0.41x + 11.80
2
R = 0.56
0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
370
25
B Coefficient
8
y = 0.13x - 9.73
6
R = 0.60
4
2
0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
B Coefficient
8
6
4
y = -0.26x + 7.77
2
R = 0.68
0
5
10
15
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
371
20
25
F Coefficient
30
25
20
15
10
y = -0.77x + 37.25
R = 0.35
0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
F Coefficient
30
25
20
15
10 y = -0.59x + 45.17
2
R = 0.78
5
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
F Coefficient
30
25
20
15
y = -2.37x + 65.30
10
R = 0.73
5
0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
372
25
F Coefficient
30
y = 0.74x - 59.28
25
R = 0.81
20
15
10
5
0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
373
105
110
115
G Coefficient
120
100
80
60
40
y = -3.55x + 151.88
20
R = 0.31
0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
G Coefficient
120
100
80
60
40
y = -2.82x + 192.58
20
R = 0.73
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
G Coefficient
120
100
80
60
40
y = -11.14x + 285.56
20
R = 0.67
0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
374
25
G Coefficient
120
y = 3.62x - 313.41
100
R = 0.80
80
60
40
20
0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
375
105
110
115
K Coefficient
6
5
4
3
2
y = -0.13x + 6.38
R = 0.49
0
10
15
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
K Coefficient
6
5
4
3
y = -0.09x + 7.39
R = 0.87
1
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
K Coefficient
6
5
4
3
y = -0.35x + 10.12
R = 0.75
1
0
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
376
25
K Coefficient
6
5
y = 0.11x - 7.92
R = 0.70
3
2
1
0
80
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
377
105
110
115
L Coefficient
y = -0.38x + 16.84
2
R = 0.37
L Coefficient
10
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20
25
Plasticity Index
30
35
40
y = -0.18x + 15.70
2
R = 0.33
10
L Coefficient
15
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
15
20
25
30
35
40
Liquid Limit
45
50
55
60
65
y = -0.99x + 27.13
2
R = 0.55
10
15
20
Optimum Moisture Content, %
378
25
L Coefficient
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
y = 0.16x - 9.36
2
R = 0.14
K Coefficient
80
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
85
90
95
100
Dry Unit weight, pcf
105
110
115
y = -0.20x + 9.64
2
R = 0.06
5
10
15
20
Seismic Modulus at OMC, ksi
379
25
APPENDIX W
Expansion Strain VS Time SFO Results
380
Expansion
Mode
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Dry Unit
Weight
Seismic
Modulus at
OMC
Table W.1 Correlation Analysis between E Parameter from Equation 5.7 and
Index Properties of Clays
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
0.79
0.73
0.81
0.68
0.43
0.61
0.34
0.02
0.23
0.61
0.48
0.58
-0.54
-0.20
-0.44
0.92
0.77
0.93
Liquid Limit
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Dry Unit
Weight
Seismic
Modulus
OMC
Mode of
Shrinkage
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Parameter - E
Slope
Intercept
R2
0.28
0.08
0.28
0.16
0.04
0.16
0.57
0.16
0.58
-0.25
-0.06
-0.24
0.48
0.09
0.45
-0.66
1.62
1.18
-1.40
1.49
0.55
-4.95
0.28
-3.31
30.94
9.58
32.44
-0.62
2.15
1.62
0.61
0.55
0.68
0.70
0.54
0.76
0.50
0.49
0.58
0.75
0.53
0.80
0.87
0.44
0.88
381
F
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
1
4
G
1.22
0.55
1.36
1.40
0.54
1.52
0.50
0.49
0.58
1.50
0.53
3.20
3.48
0.44
3.52
Table W.3 Weighting Functions for Each Index Parameter of Houston Clay
(See Equation 5.13)
Vertical Shrinkage
Lateral Shrinkage
Volumetric Shrinkage
Index
Property
Strain
Strain
Strain
WPI
0.15
0.22
0.13
WLL
0.17
0.21
0.15
WOMC
0.06
0.19
0.06
WDUW
0.18
0.21
0.31
WSM OMC
0.43
0.17
0.34
Table W.4 Estimated E* Parameter for Different Shrinkage Types for Houston
Clay (See Equation 5.14)
Parameter
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
7.87
3.79
9.50
E*
382
Predicted
5
4
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
1
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
Predicted
1.6
Specimen-1
1.2
Specimen-2
0.8
Specimen-3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Predicted
8
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure W.1 - Comparison of Measured and Predicted Expansion Strain Data and
Moisture Content for Three Specimen of the Houston Clay Material
383
Frequency
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
100%
50%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Frequency
Error
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
100%
50%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Frequency
Error
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
100%
50%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Error
Figure W.2 Histograms of Differences between Measured and Estimated Strains
384
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Dry Unit
Weight
Seismic
Modulus at
OMC
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Plasticity Index
Shrinkage
Mode
Table W.5 Correlation Analysis between J Parameter from Equation 5.10 and
Index Properties of Clays
0.91
0.88
0.54
0.87
-0.74
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.57
0.86
-0.74
0.76
0.89
0.89
0.56
0.88
-0.74
0.82
Liquid Limit
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Dry Unit
Weight
Seismic
Modulus
OMC
Mode of
Shrinkage
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
Parameter - J
Slope
Intercept
R2
0.10
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.22
0.13
0.17
-0.05
-0.03
-0.05
0.12
0.07
0.09
-0.85
0.49
0.86
-0.69
0.52
0.95
-2.56
-0.57
-0.57
7.33
5.50
7.53
-0.12
0.93
1.41
0.79
0.73
0.80
0.73
0.76
0.78
0.71
0.74
0.77
0.48
0.56
0.55
0.67
0.58
0.68
385
F
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
G
1.58
1.46
3.20
1.46
1.52
1.56
1.42
1.48
1.54
0.48
0.56
0.55
1.34
0.58
1.36
Table W.7 Weighting Functions for Each Index Parameter of Houston Clay
(See Equation 5.13)
Vertical Shrinkage
Lateral Shrinkage
Volumetric Shrinkage
Index
Property
Strain
Strain
Strain
WPI
0.39
0.26
0.24
WLL
0.19
0.27
0.24
WOMC
0.18
0.26
0.23
WDUW
0.07
0.10
0.08
WSM OMC
0.17
0.10
0.21
Table W.8 Estimated J* Parameter for Different Shrinkage Types for San
Antonio Clay
(See Equation 5.14)
Parameter
Vertical
Lateral
Volumetric
2.28
2.15
3.18
J*
386
12
Predicted
10
8
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Predicted
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
30
25
Predicted
20
Specimen-1
15
Specimen-2
10
Specimen-3
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Figure W.3 - Comparison of Measured and Predicted Shrinkage Strain Data and Moisture
Content for Three Specimen of the Houston Clay Material
387
1.8
Frequency
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
100%
50%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Frequency
Error
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
100%
50%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Error
Frequency
20
100%
15
10
50%
5
0
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Error
Figure W.4 Histograms of Differences between Measured and Estimated Strains
388
Parameter
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Dry Unit
Weight
Seismic
Modulus at
OMC
Table W.9 Correlation Analysis between B and C Parameter from Equation 5.5
and Index Properties of Clays
B
C
-0.51
-0.70
-0.65
-0.86
-0.50
-0.65
-0.46
-0.75
0.58
0.78
-0.87
-0.83
Relationship
Parameter
B
C
B
C
Slope
-0.05
-0.17
-0.03
-0.11
Intercept
3.85
7.96
4.22
9.1
R2
0.26
0.49
0.42
0.75
F
1
1
1
2
-0.1
4.58
0.22
0.22
C
B
C
-0.41
0.04
0.13
11.8
-1.27
-9.73
0.56
0.33
0.60
1
1
2
0.56
Seismic Modulus
-0.11
4.36
0.75
1.50
OMC
-0.26
7.77
0.68
1.36
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
Optimum
Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Table W.11 Weighting Functions for Each Index Parameter of Houston Clay
(See Equation 5.13)
Index Property
WPI
0.058
0.143
WLL
0.001
0.238
WOMC
0.208
0.163
WDUW
0.013
0.218
WSM OMC
0.721
0.238
389
G
0.26
0.49
0.42
1.50
0.33
1.20
Normalized Modulus
Table W.12 Estimated B* and C* Parameter for Different Shrinkage Types for
San Antonio Clay
B*
C*
Parameter
2.26
2.85
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
Predicted
Specimen-1
Specimen-2
Specimen-3
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Figure W.5 - Comparison of Measured and Predicted Normalized Modulus Data and
Moisture Content for Three Specimen of the Houston Clay Material
10
100%
Frequency
8
6
50%
4
2
0
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Error
Figure W.6 Histograms of Differences between Measured and Estimated Strains
390
Parameter
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Dry Unit
Weight
Seismic
Modulus at
OMC
Table W.13 Correlation Analysis between F and G Parameters from Equation 5.8
and Index Properties of Clays
F
G
-0.68
0.08
-0.92
-0.84
-0.78
-0.77
-0.84
-0.54
0.88
0.88
-0.06
0.21
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
Optimum
Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Relationship
Mode of
Shrinkage
F
G
F
G
Slope
-0.77
-3.55
-0.59
-2.82
Intercept
37.25
151.88
45.17
192.58
R2
0.35
0.31
0.78
0.73
F
1
1
2
2
G
0.35
0.31
1.56
1.46
-2.37
65.30
0.73
1.46
G
F
G
-11.14
0.74
3.62
285.56
-59.28
-313.41
0.67
0.81
0.80
2
4
4
1.34
3.24
3.20
Table W.15 Weighting Functions for Each Index Parameter of Houston Clay
(See Equation 5.13)
Index Property
WPI
0.068
0.017
WLL
0.495
0.274
WOMC
0.207
0.086
WDUW
0.230
0.623
391
Table W.16 Estimated F* and G* Parameter for Different Shrinkage Types for
Houston Clay
F*
G*
Parameter
14.30
41.34
Normalized Modulus
2.5
Predicted
2.0
Specimen 1
1.5
Specimen 2
1.0
Specimen 3
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Frequency
Figure W.7 - Comparison of Measured and Predicted Normalized Modulus Data and
Moisture Content for Three Specimen of the Houston Clay Material
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
100%
50%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Error
Figure W.8 Histograms of Differences between Measured and Estimated Strains
392
Parameter
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Dry Unit
Weight
Seismic
Modulus at
OMC
Table W.17 Correlation Analysis between K and L Parameters from Equation 5.11
and Index Properties of Clays
K
L
-0.68
-0.57
-0.93
-0.46
-0.73
-0.20
-0.86
-0.69
0.81
0.27
-0.64
-0.13
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
Optimum
Moisture Content
Dry Unit Weight
Relationship
Parameter
K
L
K
L
K
L
K
L
Slope
Intercept
R2
-0.13
6.38
0.49
-0.38
16.84
0.37
-0.09
7.39
0.87
-0.18
15.7
0.33
-0.35
10.12
0.75
-0.99
27.13
0.55
0.11
-7.92
0.70
0.16
-9.36
0.14
F
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
4
Table W.19 Weighting Functions for Each Index Parameter of Houston Clay
(See Equation 5.13)
Index Property
WPI
0.07
0.35
WLL
0.51
0.17
WOMC
0.22
0.44
WDUW
0.20
0.04
393
G
0.49
0.37
1.74
0.66
1.50
1.10
2.80
0.56
Table W.20 Estimated K* and L* Parameter for Different Shrinkage Types for
Houston Clay
K*
L*
Parameter
2.60
6.20
Normalized Modulus
14
12
Specimen 1
10
Predicted
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Figure W.9 - Comparison of Measured and Predicted Normalized Modulus Data and
Moisture Content for Three Specimen of the Houston Clay Material
10
100%
Frequency
8
6
50%
4
2
0
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
50%
More
Error
Figure W.10 Histograms of Differences between Measured and Estimated Strains
394
CURRICULUM VITAE
Anup Kedar Sabnis was born on January 22, 1983 in Mumbai, India. He is the first child
of two of Smita and Kedar Sabnis. He graduated from Sathaye College, Vile-Parle,
Mumbai, India in the Spring of 2001 and entered Victoria Jubilee Technological Institute
(VJTI, Mumbai) in the Fall of 2001.
After completing his Bachelors degree in Civil Engineering in Spring 2005 he entered in
University of Texas at El Paso in Fall 2005 to pursue Master of Science in Civil
Engineering. While pursuing his graduate degree he worked as a Graduate Teaching
assistant for Fall 2005 and started working as Graduate Research Assistant at the Center
for Transportation Infrastructure Systems from Spring 2006 till Summer 2007.
He was International Student Ambassador Representing India for Spring and Fall of
2007. He also worked as a Research Assistant at ETH, Zurich, Switzerland from
September 2007 till February 2008.
Permanent Address:
601/A, Sukh-Shanti Apartment,
Chikuwadi, Shimpoli, Borivali (W),
Mumbai-400092,
India.
This thesis was typed by Anup Kedar Sabnis.
395