Application of Laboratory

Evaluation to Develop Stiffness

Values and Layer Coefficients
for Design
Dante Fratta
UW-Madison
Topic 1:
North Central Pavement Research Partnership
2
Outline
Introduction
Seismic modulus/resilient modulus comparison
large box tests
simple tests
Large Scale Testing
gravel equivalency
Geogrid/soil interaction
rotations
modulus change
Introduction
The strain-stress dependency of elastic modulus can be
described with a backbone curve (Seed and Idriss 1970;
Hardin and Drnevich 1972).
The backbone curve describes the ratio of a modulus at a
given strain to the low-strain modulus as a function of
strain.
Kokusho (1980) examined some of the properties affecting
modulus including confining stress. Higher moduli are
expected with a higher confining pressure while the strain
level remains constant.
Previous Studies
Kim and Stokoe (1992) and Tanyu et al. (2003)
demonstrated the effect of strain level in evaluating the
resilient modulus of subgrade and various working
platforms.
Sawangsuriya et al. (2005) used the strain dependency of
elastic modulus to predict the strain level of modulus in the
soil stiffness gauge (SSG) for medium sand and crushed
rock.
Schuettpelz (2008) described the stress and strain
dependency of modulus by finding a correlation between
low-strain elastic modulus (from seismic tests) and
laboratory resilient modulus.
Introduction
Different test equipment and methods result in various
stress and strain levels, so both strain dependency and
stress levels are taken into account in comparing moduli
provided from different test methods and materials.

The effect of confining pressure on the modulus along with
low strain modulus was measured at different bulk
stresses by means of seismic tests. The predicted
modulus of the material from numerical models was
normalized with the low strain modulus for a specific bulk
stress.
6
Seismic modulus/resilient modulus comparison
Wave Propagation in Geomaterials
Stiffness - Hertz Theory




Youngs modulus:
Bulk modulus:
a
R
F
o
3
2
F o
Particulate media
are non-linear!!
3
1
x
E o
3
1
o
B o
Stiffness o
1/3

F
o
Wave Propagation in Geomaterials
Stiffness and Effective Stresses - Hertz Theory

|
oo
0

p
V
V
P
=233m/s (o'
o
/1kPa)
0.20
V
P
=162m/s (o'
o
/1kPa)
0.27
V
P
=293m/s (
o
'
o
/1kPa)
0.17
100
1000
1 10 100 1000
Isotropic confining pressure [kPa]
P
-
w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
m
/
s
]


.
Hertz' theory
Particule diameter = 3.175 (-+ 0.000254) mm
Particule diameter = 3.175 (-+ 0.00127) mm
where = 1/6 for perfectly shaped elastic spheres
= 1/4 for cone tip on a plane surface
= 1/4 for plastic yielding at spherical contact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Simple cubic
packing
arrangement
(Duffy and Mindlin 1957)
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
o + o
o
a
y x
S
P 2
' '
= V
|= 0.36 - o/700
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.
100 200
o-factor [m/s]
|

e
x
p
o
n
e
n
t

Very soft clays
Sands
OC clays
Cemented soils
Frocht
(Santamarina et al. 2001)
Wave Propagation in Geomaterials
P-wave Velocity vs. Resilient Modulus
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
o
o =

=
r
P
p
' D
V
P-wave Velocity Constraint Modulus
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
o
o =
2
r
2
p
'
D
Resilient Modulus
1
k
r
1
p
k Mr
|
|
.
|

\
|
u
=
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Ao

Ao

0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

(
%
)
Portage Sand
Grade 2 Gravel
Class 5 Gravel
RPM
Breaker Run
Pit Run Sand and Gravel
11
Materials
Portage
sand
Grade 2
gravel
Class 5
gravel
RPM
Pit run sand
and gravel
Breaker
run
12
Test Setup Elastic wave velocity measurements
90 cm x 60 cm x 60 cm box
Velocity measured by exciting
P-waves with a hammer
MEMS
accelerometers
Load
Soil
Large
wood test
cell
L
t
L
V
p
=
13
Research Hypothesis
Modulus can be estimated by measuring
geophysical parameters:

Modulus P-wave velocity
Modulus depends on
> effective stress
> void ratio
> strain level

> water content, saturation, particle
shape, etc.


o
c
E
max
E

14 Background - Seismic Modulus/Resilient Modulus Comparison
Relationship Between Velocity and Modulus

2
p
V D=
( )
( )( ) v v
v
c
o
c
2 1 1
1
0
+

=
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
=
E
D
x
z
z
D is the constraint
modulus:
( )( )
( )
2
p
V
1
2 1 1
E
v
v v +
=
z
z
r

M =
Modulus based on Velocity Modulus based on
Traditional M
r
Test
mechanistic
comparison
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Bulk Stress (kPa)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)




.
Portage Sand
Grade 2 gravel
Class 5 gravel
RPM
15
Resilient Modulus (M
r
)
Material
Summary Resilient
Modulus
(at u = 208 kPa)
MPa
Portage sand 230
Grade 2 gravel 183
Class 5 gravel 236
RPM 309
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M
r

T
e
s
t
,

M
r

(
M
P
a
)

Bulk Stress (kPa)
Data: Camargo (2008)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 50 100 150 200 250
Portage sand
Grade 2 gravel
Class 5 gravel
RPM
Pit Run gravel
Breaker Run
16
Modulus Based on P-wave Velocity
Shaded area is range of
M
r
curves
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

P
-
w
a
v
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
M
P
a
)

Bulk Stress (kPa)

2
p
V D=
Mechanistic Modulus Comparison
Level of
Correction
Description of evaluation of resilient modulus
based on P-wave velocities
0 Correlation of moduli from unconfined specimens

I Stress correction and correlation
II Stress and void ratio correction and correlation
III Strain correction and mechanistic evaluation
IV
Strain correction, mechanistic evaluation and conversion
of constraint modulus to Youngs modulus
V Overall mechanistic evaluation of granular soils

not performed in this research

18
I Stress Correction
y = 0.2612x + 25.812
R
2
= 0.918
y = 0.1446x + 25.359
R
2
= 0.7864
y = 0.0829x + 31.519
R
2
= 0.6348
y = 0.1365x + 71.201
R
2
= 0.9217
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 500 1000 1500
Low Strain Constraint Modulus, Seismic Test (MPa)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M


r

T
e
s
t

(
M
P
a
)





.
Grade 2 Gravel
RPM
Class 5 Gravel
Portage Sand
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M
r

T
e
s
t

(
M
P
a
)

Constraint modulus based on P-wave
velocities corrected for stress (MPa)
All Data
M
r
= 0.174(D
o
) + 33.2
R
2
= 0.69



19
II Void Ratio Correction
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M
r

T
e
s
t

(
M
P
a
)

Constraint modulus based on P-wave velocities
corrected for stress, void ratio (MPa)
All Data
M
r
= 0.173(D
o, e
) + 37.7
R
2
= 0.79



y = 0.3357x + 25.812
R
2
= 0.918
y = 0.2616x + 25.359
R
2
= 0.7864
y = 0.1199x + 31.519
R
2
= 0.6348
y = 0.1365x + 71.201
R
2
= 0.9217
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 500 1000 1500
Low Strain Constraint Modulus, Seismic Test (MPa)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M
r

T
e
s
t

(
M
P
a
)





.
Grade 2 Gravel
RPM
Class 5 Gravel
Portage Sand
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01
Shear Strain, g (mm/mm)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

S
h
e
a
r

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

G
/
G


m
a
x

(
M
P
a
/
M
P
a
)



Grade 2
Class 5
RPM
Portage Sand
20
III - Strain Correction Backbone Curve
E
/
D
s
e
i
s
m
i
c

(
M
P
a
/
M
P
a
)

Shear Strain, (mm/mm)
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1

Modulus based on
P-waves = D
max
M
r
Test
29 . 0
D
M
seismic
r

General Correction
y = 0.8188x + 25.812
R
2
= 0.918
y = 0.9022x + 25.359
R
2
= 0.7864
y = 0.6309x + 31.519
R
2
= 0.6348
y = 0.4405x + 71.201
R
2
= 0.9217
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Low Strain Constraint Modulus, Seismic Test (MPa)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M
r

T
e
s
t

(
M
P
a
)





.
Grade 2 Gravel
RPM
Class 5 Gravel
Portage Sand
21
III - Strain Correction
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M
r

T
e
s
t

(
M
P
a
)

Constraint modulus based on P-wave velocities
corrected for stress, void ratio, strain (MPa)
All Data
M
r
= 0.59(D
o, e, c
) + 38.8
R
2
= 0.88



1:1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Low Strain Constraint Modulus, Seismic Test (MPa)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M
r

T
e
s
t

(
M
P
a
)





.
Grade 2 Gravel
RPM
Class 5 Gravel
Portage Sand
IV Conversion Constraint Modulus to Youngs Modulus
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M
r

T
e
s
t

(
M
P
a
)

Youngs modulus based on P-wave velocities
corrected for stress, void ratio, strain (MPa)
All Data
M
r
= 0.95(E
o, e, c
) + 38.0
R
2
= 0.88



( )( )
v
v v +
=
- 1
2 1 1 D
E
1:1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6
23
Summary Modulus Comparison
Portage
sand
Grade 2 Class 5 RPM Pit Run* Breaker
Run*
Soil Type
Traditional resilient modulus test
Modulus based on mechanistic analysis and individual correction factors
Modulus based on mechanistic analysis and global correction factors

M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)

24
Simple Test
Seismic Modulus/Resilient Modulus Comparison
Soil
5-gallon
bucket
MEMS accelerometer
Load Plate
500 g
mass
Direction of wave propagation along soil
surface
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2
25
Simple Test Results Comparison
Grade 2 Pit Run
Soil Type
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
M
P
a
)

Traditional resilient modulus test
Modulus based on mechanistic analysis and global
correction factors large tests
Modulus based on mechanistic analysis and global
correction factors simple tests

26
Lessons Learned
-Seismic Modulus/Resilient Modulus Comparison-
Mechanistic approach increases complexity, but
improves correlation between P-wave velocity results
and resilient modulus test results
Resilient modulus is about 29 % of constraint modulus
based on P-wave velocity measurements when
corrected for bulk stress and void ratio
Large grain soils have a higher modulus than small
grain soils
Simple velocity tests are effective and moduli compare
well to those of the more developed, large scale test
and resilient modulus tests (14 % lower)
27
Large Scale Model Experiments
Introduction
The base course elastic modulus measured in large scale
model experiments is sensitive to the thickness of the layer
being evaluated (i.e., thicker layers have a higher elastic
modulus at a given bulk stress).
The sensitivity of modulus to layer thickness reflects the
varying levels of strain in the layers having different
thicknesses, which is known to affect the elastic modulus
of granular materials (Seed and Idriss, 1970, Hardin and
Drnevich 1972, Edil and Luh 1978).
Recycling of Pavement Materials
Full Depth Reclamation involves pulverizing a
deteriorated surface layer and mixing with existing base
layer and then paving over this new recycled base
material.
When upgrading a gravel road to a paved road, use
existing road surface gravel as base course.
Improve engineering properties of recycled base course
materials with the addition of Class C fly ash (a by-
product of coal combustion)
Time and money saved, while less impact to the
environment.
Objective of Research Study
Determine the Gravel Equivalency (GE) of recycled
pavement material (RPM) and road surface gravel
(RSG) with and without fly ash.
GE factors of these recycled materials can then be
used with MnDOT design methods
GE factors are determined from the resilient modulus
obtained from a Large Scale Model Experiment
(LSME)
RPM is a 50/50 mix of pulverized asphalt concrete
and underlying granular base course
Recycled Materials Tested
Class 5 Gravel
RPM (recycled
pavement material)
RSG (road surface
gravel)

0
20
40
60
80
100
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
Class 5 Lower Limit
Class 5 Upper Limit
Class 5 Tested
RPM
RSG
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

b
y

D
r
y

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
%
)
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand Fines
Material Properties
Material G
s

d
max
(kN/m
3
)
w
opt

(%)
USCS
Symbol
AASHTO
Symbol CBR
Class 5 2.72 20.9 5.0 SP A-1-a 10
RPM 2.64 21.2 7.5 GW-GM A-1-a 22
RSG 2.73 22.6 7.5 SC-SM A-2-4 21
Gravel Equivalency
GE factors provide a means of equating the structural
performance of all bituminous and aggregate courses
constituting a pavement structure with respect to the
structural performance of a select, high-quality,
aggregate base (MnDOT Class 5 gravel).

(HMA) (base) (subbase)

GE = a
1
D
1
+ a
2
D
2
+ a
3
D
3
where a is GE factor and D is
thickness of layer

Gravel Equivalency
The GE factor can be determined from resilient modulus using the
relationship for determining the layer coefficient of granular base
materials from the AASHTO structural number (SN) method:

a
2
= 0.249 log M
r
0.977

where M
r
is the summary resilient modulus (psi) at a bulk
stress of 208 kPa.

Then equating base course terms from the GE equation of Class 5
gravel (a conventional base material with subscript c) with GE
factor equal to 1.00 to an alternative recycled material (with
subscript a) and solving for this unknown GE factor:

0.977 M log 0.249
0.977 M log 0.249
a
c
r
a
r
a

=
LSME Tests used to Determine Mr
Ground Surface
Sand Layer
Base (Test Materials)
Cyclic Load
0.20 - 0.30 m
2.50 m
3.00 m
Circular
Steel Plate
(d = 0.25 m)
Reinforced
Concrete
Pit Walls
36
LSME Setup and Operation
Load Applied to Base: Kenlayer analysis performed to
determine the load at the base layer surface as a
result of a 700 kPa tire load on a 12.7 cm asphalt
surface
Applied for 10,000 cycles with a Haversine pulse (0.1
sec pulse / 0.9 sec rest)
Deflection Data
LVDTs measured deflections
up to 0.005 mm at base
surface and subgrade surface
A back calculation was
performed in MICH-PAVE, a
finite-element program, to
determine Mr
Base
Subgrade
12.7 cm
30 cm
37
LSME test results
Resilient modulus of different recycled materials w & w/o fly ash
Compared with Class 5 gravel
0
1000
2000
3000
C
la
s
s

5

L
a
b
C
la
s
s

5

2
0

c
m
C
la
s
s

5

3
0

c
m
R
P
M

L
a
b

R
P
M

2
0

c
m
R
P
M

3
0

c
m
7

d
a
y

R
P
M
+
F
A

L
a
b
2
8

d
a
y

R
P
M
+
F
A

L
a
b
7

d
a
y

R
P
M
+
F
A
2
8

d
a
y

R
P
M
+
F
A
R
S
G

L
a
b
R
S
G

2
0

c
m
R
S
G

3
0

c
m
2
8

d
a
y

R
S
G
+
F
A

l
a
b
7

d
a
y

R
S
G
+
F
A
2
8

d
a
y

R
S
G
+
F
A
S
u
m
m
a
r
y

R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M
r

(
M
P
a
)





LSME
Lab
5150 MPa
38
Resilient modulus vs. layer thickness
M
r RPM
= 1640 t
M
r Class5
= 1350 t
M
r RSG
= 888 t - 24
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Thickness, t (m)
S
u
m
m
a
r
y

r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

M
r

(
M
P
a
)




.
Class 5
RSG
RPM
Note: Resilient modulus did not change with thickness for the material mixed with fly ash
39
Granular Equivalent Factor
a
FA
= 0.69 t
-0.58
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Thickness, t (m)
G
r
a
v
e
l

E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

f
a
c
t
o
r
,

a





.





RSG
RSG+FA
RPM
RPM+FA
a
RPM
=1.07
a
RSG
= t
0.35
Lessons Learned
The main objective was to develop the Gravel Equivalency
(GE) of recycled materials with and without fly ash
stabilization.
The GE for RPM was determined to be equal to 1.07 and
did not vary with base layer thickness. This response is
similar to that of Class 5 gravel having a GE factor of 1.00.
The GE factor of RSG varied with thickness and was less
than 1.00 indicating that RSG has less desirable structural
properties than Class 5 gravel.
The GE factor of the fly ash stabilized materials decreases
with increasing base layer thickness with the constant
modulus assumed for these materials, becoming
approximately equal to 1.00 at a thickness of 0.55 m.
41
Geogrid/Base Course Interaction
42
Engineering Problem
Evaluate use of geogrid in the flexible
pavement system to:
Reduce surface rutting
Prevent pavement cracking


National Road Maintenance Condition Survey, 2003
5 cm
43
Engineering Hypotheses
Geogrids:
increase bearing capacity
enhance lateral resistance
improve modulus
Bender and Barenberg, 1978
Interlocking
Base
Base or
subgrade
44
Engineering Objectives
1. Determine mechanistic relationship between low-
strain modulus and resilient modulus
2. Quantify the interaction zone between geogrids
and base course
3. Quantitatively assess benefits of geogrids for use
as reinforcement in paved and unpaved roads




45
Research Hypotheses
The interaction zone between geogrids and base course
can be estimated from geophysical parameters:
Modulus P-wave velocity

Lateral confinement Rotation

46
Modeled Rotation Tensor (PLAXIS)
Measured Rotation Angle (Lab Test)
V
in
= 5 V
(split between accelerometer axes)
V
out
= ASensg = 2.5 V
u
1

u
2

V
out1
= ASensgsin(u
1
)
V
out2
= ASensgsin(u
2
)
Original
orientation
New orientation
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c

c
c
=
x
u
u
2
1

y
y
x
xy
PLAXIS calibrated based on surface deflections
47
Measuring Rotation at the Plate Edge
Test Setup
Geogrid/soil Interaction
MEMS accelerometers
Geogrid
Load Plate
25 cm
TENSION
APPLIED
150 mm
20 - 25 mm
48
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Shear Strain Results ()
Shear Strain, (mm/mm)
0
40
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from Load Plate (cm)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from Load Plate (cm)
0

1
0

2
0

3
0

4
0

D
e
p
t
h

(
c
m
)

0

1
0

2
0

3
0

4
0

D
e
p
t
h

(
c
m
)

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35

max
= 36 mm/mm
max
= 35 mm/mm

max
= 27.8 mm/mm
max
= 38.6 mm/mm
Load plate
geogrid
geogrid
geogrid
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
-3 -1 1 3 5
Tilt Angle (degrees)
D
e
p
t
h

(
c
m
)
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
-3 -1 1 3 5
Tilt Angle (degrees)
D
e
p
t
h

(
c
m
)
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
-3 -1 1 3 5
Tilt Angle (degrees)
D
e
p
t
h

(
c
m
)
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
-3 -1 1 3 5
Tilt Angle (degrees)
D
e
p
t
h

(
c
m
)
49
Rotation Results Zone of Influence
7 mm surface displacement - grade 2 gravel
No Geogrid 7.5 cm 10 cm 15 cm
50
Rotation Results Portage Sand
Zone of
Influence?
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Tilt Angle (degrees)
D
e
p
t
h

(
c
m
)
No Geogrid
Geogrid Depth = 7.5 cm
Geogrid Depth = 10 cm
Geogrid Depth = 15 cm
PLAXIS Model (no Geogrid)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Velocity (m/s)
D
e
p
t
h

(
c
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Velocity (m/s)
D
e
p
t
h

(
c
m
)
51
Velocity Results Modulus Change

AV
reinforced
/AV
unreinforced
7.5 cm 1.2x
10 cm 1.6x
15 cm 1.2x
AV
reinforced
AV
unreinforced
AE
reinforced
/AE
unreinforced
7.5 cm 1.4x
10 cm 2.6x
15 cm 1.4x
550 kPa surface load
550 kPa surface load
52
Rotation results most effectively constrain the zone of
influence
The zone of influence is <5 cm on either side of
geogrid reinforcement
The zone of influence depends on the vertical
position of the geogrid and shifts up with increasing
depth of reinforcement
Soil rotation (shear) depends on the interlock between
the geogrid and soil (i.e. particle size)
Velocity results do not appear to effectively constrain
a zone of influence around geogrid reinforcement,
although a change in modulus is visible (up to 2.6x
more than stress changes)
Lessons Learned
-Geogrid/Soil Interaction-
Acknowledgements
Prof. Tuncer Edil
Prof. Craig H. Benson

Ali Ebrahimi
Craig Schuettpelz
Brian Koostra
Xiadong Wang

WisDOT & WRHP (H. Bahia and A. Henz)
MRUTC
54