03 11resilmodulus f1

W
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
n
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

DeterminationofTypical
Resilent Modulus Values
forSelectedSoilsin
Wisconsin
SPR#0092-03-11
Hani H. Titi, Mohammed B. Elias, and Sam Helwany
Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics
UW-Mi l waukee
May2006
WHRP 06-06
WisconsinHighwayResearchProgramProjectID0092-03-11
DeterminationofTypicalResilientModulus
ValuesforSelectedSoilsinWisconsin
FinalReport
HaniH.Titi,Ph.D.,P.E.
AssociateProfessor
MohammedB.Elias,M.S.
GraduateResearchFellow
and
SamHelwany,Ph.D.,P.E.
AssociateProfessor
DepartmentofCivilEngineeringandMechanics
UniversityofWisconsinMilwaukee
3200N.CramerSt.
Milwaukee,WI53211
Submittedto
TheWisconsinDepartmentofTransportation
May2006
1. ReportNo. 2. GovernmentAccessionNo 3. RecipientsCatalogNo

4. TitleandSubtitle 5.ReportDate
DeterminationofTypicalResilientModulusValuesforSelected
May2006
SoilsinWisconsin
6.PerformingOrganizationCode
7. Authors
HaniH.Titi,MohammedB.Elias,andSamHelwany
PerformingOrganizationReportNo.
8. PerformingOrganizationNameandAddress
UniversityofWisconsin-Milwaukee
OfficeofResearchServicesandAdministration
MitchellHall,Room273Milwaukee,WI53201
10. WorkUnitNo.(TRAIS)
11. ContractorGrantNo.
WHRP0092-03-11
12.SponsoringAgencyNameandAddress
WisconsinDepartmentofTransportation
DivisionofTransportationInfrastructureDevelopment
ResearchCoordinationSection
4802SheboyganAvenue
Madison,WI53707
13. TypeofReportandPeriod
Covered
14. SponsoringAgencyCode
15. SupplementaryNotes
16. Abstract
Theobjectiveofthisresearchistodevelopcorrelationsforestimatingtheresilientmodulusofvarious
Wisconsinsubgradesoilsfrombasicsoilproperties.Laboratorytestingprogramwasconductedoncommon
subgradesoilstoevaluatetheirphysicalandcompactionproperties.Theresilientmodulusoftheinvestigated
soilswasdeterminedfromtherepeatedloadtriaxialtestfollowingtheAASHTOT307procedure.The
laboratorytestingprogramproducedahighqualityandconsistenttestresultsdatabase.Thehighqualitytest
resultswereassuredthrougharepeatabilitystudyandalsobyperformingtwotestsoneachsoilspecimenatthe
specifiedphysicalconditions.
TheresilientmodulusconstitutiveequationadoptedbyNCHRPProject1-37Awasselectedforthisstudy.
Comprehensivestatisticalanalysiswasperformedtodevelopcorrelationsbetweenbasicsoilpropertiesandthe
resilientmodulusmodelparametersk
i
.Theanalysisdidnotyieldgoodresultswhenthewholetestdatabasewas
used.However,goodresultswereobtainedwhenfine-grainedandcoarse-grainedsoilswereanalyzedseparately.
Thecorrelationsdevelopedinthisstudywereabletoestimatetheresilientmodulusofthecompactedsubgrade
soilswithreasonableaccuracy.Inordertoinspecttheperformanceofthemodelsdevelopedinthisstudy,
comparisonwiththemodelsdevelopedbasedonLTPPdatabasewasmade.TheLTPPmodelsdidnotyieldgood
resultscomparedtothemodelsproposedbythisstudy.Thisisduetodifferencesinthetestprocedures,test
equipment,samplepreparation,andotherconditionsinvolvedwithdevelopmentofbothLTPPandthemodelsof
thisstudy.
17. KeyWords
Resilientmodulus,repeatedloadtriaxialtest,
Wisconsinsoils,statisticalanalysis,
mechanistic-empiricalpavementdesign.
18. DistributionStatement
Norestriction.Thisdocumentisavailabletothepublic
throughtheNationalTechnicalInformationService
5285PortRoyalRoad
Springfield,VA22161
19. SecurityClassif.(ofthisreport)
Unclassified
19. SecurityClassif.(ofthispage)
Unclassified
20. No.ofPages
91
21. Price
ii
Disclaimer
ThisresearchwasfundedthroughtheWisconsinHighwayResearchProgrambythe
WisconsinDepartmentofTransportationandtheFederalHighwayAdministrationunder
Project#0092-03-11. Thecontentsofthisreportreflecttheviewsoftheauthorswhoare
responsibleforthefactsandtheaccuracyofthedatapresentedherein. Thecontentsdo
notnecessarilyreflecttheofficialviewsoftheWisconsinDepartmentofTransportation
ortheFederalHighwayAdministrationatthetimeofpublication.
ThisdocumentisdisseminatedunderthesponsorshipoftheDepartmentof
Transportationintheinterestofinformationexchange.TheUnitedStatesGovernment
assumesnoliabilityforitscontentsorusethereof.Thisreportdoesnotconstitutea
standard,specification,orregulation.
TheUnitedStatesGovernmentdoesnotendorseproductsormanufacturers.Tradeand
manufacturersnamesappearinthisreportonlybecausetheyareconsideredessentialto
theobjectofthedocument.
iii
Abstract
Theobjectiveofthisresearchistodevelopcorrelationsforestimatingtheresilient
modulusofvariousWisconsinsubgradesoilsfrombasicsoilproperties.Laboratory
testingprogramwasconductedoncommonsubgradesoilstoevaluatetheirphysicaland
compactionproperties.Theresilientmodulusoftheinvestigatedsoilswasdetermined
fromtherepeatedloadtriaxialtestfollowingtheAASHTOT307procedure.The
laboratorytestingprogramproducedahighqualityandconsistenttestresultsdatabase.
Thehighqualitytestresultswereassuredthrougharepeatabilitystudyandalsoby
performingtwotestsoneachsoilspecimenatthespecifiedphysicalconditions.
TheresilientmodulusconstitutiveequationadoptedbyNCHRPProject1-37Awas
selectedforthisstudy.Comprehensivestatisticalanalysiswasperformedtodevelop
correlationsbetweenbasicsoilpropertiesandtheresilientmodulusmodelparametersk
i
.
Theanalysisdidnotyieldgoodresultswhenthewholetestdatabasewasused.However,
goodresultswereobtainedwhenfine-grainedandcoarse-grainedsoilswereanalyzed
separately.Thecorrelationsdevelopedinthisstudywereabletoestimatetheresilient
modulusofthecompactedsubgradesoilswithreasonableaccuracy.Inordertoinspect
theperformanceofthemodelsdevelopedinthisstudy,comparisonwiththemodels
developedbasedonLTPPdatabasewasmade.TheLTPPmodelsdidnotyieldgood
resultscomparedtothemodelsproposedbythisstudy.Thisisduetodifferencesinthe
testprocedures,testequipment,samplepreparation,andotherconditionsinvolvedwith
developmentofbothLTPPandthemodelsofthisstudy.
iv
Acknowledgement
ThisresearchprojectisfinanciallysupportedbytheWisconsinDepartmentof
Transportation(WisDOT)throughtheWisconsinHighwayResearchProgram(WHRP).
TheauthorswouldliketoacknowledgetheWisDOTProjectResearchCommittee:Bruce
Pfister,StevenKrebs,andTomBrokaw,fortheirguidanceandvaluableinputinthis
researchproject.TheauthorsalsowouldliketothankRobertArndorfer,WHRP
GeotechnicalTOCChairforhissupportandDennisAlthausforhiseffortandhelpin
collectingsoilsamples.
TheresearchteamwouldliketothankmanypeopleatUW-Milwaukeewhohelpedinthe
accomplishmentoftheresearchproject,namely:J oeHolbuswhomanufacturedthe
specialcompactionmolds,J askaranSinghwhohelpedinperformingexperimentaltesting
ondifferentsoils,DanMielke,whohelpedinsoilpropertiestesting,andRahimReshadi,
whohelpedinvariousstagesduringtheassemblyofthedynamicmaterialstestsystem.
TheeffortandhelpofAdamTitiduringthepreparationofthereportisappreciated.The
authorswouldliketothankDr.MarjoriePiechowskiforthevaluablecommentsonthe
finalreport.
v
TableofContents
Abstract...... iv
Acknowledgement... v
ListofTables.. viii
ListofFigures............ x
ExecutiveSummary. xii
Chapter1:Introduction............... 1
1.1ProblemStatement.. 1
1.2ResearchObjectives.... 2
1.3Scope.. 2
1.4ResearchReport. 3
Chapter2:Background... 4
2.1DeterminationofResilientModulusofSoils......... 4
2.2FactorsAffectingResilientModulusofSubgradeSoils. 8
2.2.1SoilPhysicalConditions...... 8
2.2.2EffectofLoadingConditions.. 8
2.2.3OtherFactorsAffectingResilientModulusofSubgradeSoils 9
2.3ResilientModulusModels. 10
2.4MechanisticEmpiricalPavementDesign... 13
2.5SoilDistributionsinWisconsin.. 14
Chapter3:ResearchMethodology. 18
vi
3.1InvestigatedSoils.. 18
3.2LaboratoryTestingProgram. 18
3.2.1PhysicalPropertiesandCompactionCharacteristics 18
3.2.2RepeatedLoadTriaxialTest. 21
Chapter4:TestResultsandAnalysis 28
4.1PropertiesoftheInvestigatedSoils. 28
4.2ResilientModulusoftheInvestigatedSoils. 34
4.3StatisticalAnalysis.. 51
4.3.1EvaluationoftheResilientModulusModelParameters... 51
4.3.2CorrelationsofModelParameterswithSoilProperties. 53
4.3.3StatisticalAnalysisResults 57
4.4PredictionsUsingLTPPModels... 81
AppendixA
AppendixB
Chapter5:ConclusionsandRecommendations... 86
References 88
vii
ListofTables
Table2.1: Wisconsinpedologicalsoilgroups(AfterHole1980)........................ 14
Table3.1:Standardtestsusedinthisinvestigation... 21
Table4.1:Propertiesoftheinvestigatedsoils.. 29
Table4.2:Resultsofthestandardcompactiontestontheinvestigatedsoils... 37
Table4.3:Typicalresultsoftherepeatedloadtriaxialtestconductedaccordingto
AASHTOT307......................... 38
Table4.4:AnalysisofrepeatabilitytestsonDodgevillesoiltestedatmaximumdryunit
weightandoptimummoisturecontent...
Table4.5:AnalysisofrepeatabilitytestsonDodgevillesoiltestedat95%ofmaximum
dryunitweightandmoisturecontentlessthantheoptimummoisturecontent
(dryside)....................
Table4.6:AnalysisofrepeatabilitytestsonDodgevillesoiltestedat95%ofmaximum
dryunitweightandmoisturecontentgreaterthantheoptimummoisturecontent
(wetside)........
Table4.7:Basicstatisticaldataoftheresilientmodulusmodelparametersk
i
obtained
fromthetestresultsoftheinvestigatedsoils..
46
47
48
53
Table4.8:Constituentsoftheinvestigatedsoils............................................... 58
Table4.9:Correlationsbetweentheresilientmodulusmodelparameterk
1
andbasicsoil
propertiesforfinegrained-soils......
2
andbasicsoil
propertiesforfinegrained-soils......
Table4.11:Correlationsbetweentheresilientmodulusmodelparameter k
3
andbasicsoil
propertiesforfinegrained-soils.....
Table4.12:Correlationmatrixofmodelparametersandsoilpropertiesforfine-grained
soils........
59
59
60
64
Table4.13:Summaryoft-statisticsforregressioncoefficientsusedinresilientmodulus
modelparametersforfine-grainedsoils.........
Table4.14:Characteristicsofparticlesizedistributioncurvesofinvestigatedcoarse-
grainedsoils................................
Table4.15Correlationsbetweentheresilientmodulusmodelparameterk
1
andbasicsoil
propertiesfornon-plasticcoarsegrainedsoils........
2
andbasicsoil
propertiesfornon-plasticcoarsegrainedsoils.......
3
andbasicsoil
propertiesfornon-plasticcoarsegrainedsoils....................................
Table4.18:Correlationmatrixofmodelparametersandsoilpropertiesfornon-plastic
coarse-grainedsoils....................................
64
66
67
67
68
72
viii
modelparametersfornon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils..... 72
1
andbasicsoil
propertiesforplasticcoarse-grainedsoils....................................... 74
2
andbasicsoil
propertiesforplasticcoarse-grainedsoils... 74
3
andbasicsoil
propertiesforplasticcoarse-grainedsoils...... 75
Table4.23:Correlationmatrixofmodelparametersandsoilpropertiesforplasticcoarse-
grainedsoils................................... 79
modelparametersforplasticcoarse-grainedsoils..... 79
ix
ListofFigures
Figure2.1:Repeatedloadtriaxialtestsetup(Instron8802dynamicmaterialstest
system) 5
Figure2.2:Definitionoftheresilientmodulusinarepeatedloadtriaxialtest 6
Figure2.3:SchematicofsoilspecimeninatriaxialchamberaccordingtoAASHTOT
307 7
Figure2.4:Wisconsinpedologicalsoilgroups(Hole,1980).. 15
Figure2.5:WisconsinSoilRegions,MadisonandGundlach(1993).. 17
Figure3.1:LocationsoftheinvestigatedWisconsinsoils 19
Figure3.2:PicturesofsomeoftheinvestigatedWisconsinsoils.... 20
Figure3.3:TheUWMservo-hydraulicclosed-loopdynamicmaterialtestsystemusedin
thisstudy 22
Figure3.4:SpecialmolddesignedtocompactsoilspecimensaccordingtoAASHTOT
307requirements.. 24
Figure3.5:Conditionsofunitweightandmoisturecontentunderwhichsoilspecimens
weresubjectedtorepeatedloadtriaxialtest..... 25
Figure3.6:Preparationofsoilspecimenforrepeatedloadtriaxialtest...... 26
Figure3.7:Computerprogramusedtocontrolandruntherepeatedloadtriaxialtestfor
determinationofresilientmodulus.... 27
Figure4.1:ParticlesizedistributioncurveofDodgevillesoil..... 32
Figure4.2:ResultsofStandardProctortestforDodgevillesoil ........ 32
Figure4.3:ParticlesizedistributioncurveofAntigosoil....... 33
Figure4.4:ResultsofStandardProctortestforAntigosoil............ 33
Figure4.5:ParticlesizedistributioncurveofPlanosoil...... 35
Figure4.6:ResultsofStandardProctortestforPlanosoil...... 35
Figure4.7:ParticlesizedistributioncurveofKewauneesoil-1....... 36
Figure4.8:ResultsofStandardProctortestforKewauneesoil-1.... 36
x
Figure4.9:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonAntigosoilcompactedat95%of
maximumdryunitweight(
dmax
)andmoisturecontentmorethanw
opt.
(wet
side)... 39
Figure4.10:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonDodgevillesoilcompactedat
dmax
)andoptimummoisturecontent(w
opt.
)..... 41
Figure4.11:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonDodgevillesoilcompactedat95%
ofmaximumdryunitweight(
dmax
)andmoisturecontentlessthanw
opt.
(dry
side)............................................................................................................... 43
Figure4.12:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonDodgevillesoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(wet
side)....................................................................................................................... 45
Figure4.13:Theeffectofunitweightandmoisturecontentontheresilientmodulusof
theinvestigatedsoils. 49
Figure4.14:Theeffectofthemoisturecontentontheresilientmodulusofthe
investigatedsoils.. 50
Figure4.15:Histogramsofresilientmodulusmodelparameterskiobtainedfrom
statisticalanalysisontheresultsoftheinvestigatedWisconsinsoils................... 45
Figure4.16:Comparisonofresilientmodulusmodelparameters(ki)estimatedfromsoil
propertiesandki determinedfromresultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialteston
investigatedfine-grainedsoils.. 61
Figure4.17:Predictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofcompactedfine-grained
soils... 65
Figure4.18:Comparisonofresilientmodulusmodelparameters(k
i
)estimatedfromsoil
propertiesandk
i
determinedfromresultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialteston
investigatednon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils.................................................... 69
Figure4.19:Predictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofcompactednon-plastic
coarse-grainedsoils.. 73
Figure4.20: Comparisonofresilientmodulusmodelparameters(k
i
)estimatedfromsoil
propertiesandk
i
investigatedplasticcoarse-grainedsoils.. 76
Figure4.21: Predictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofcompactedplasticcoarse-
grainedsoils.......................................................................................................... 80
Figure4.22: PredictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofWisconsinfine-grained
soilsusingthemodedevelopedinthisstudyandtheLTPPdatabasedeveloped
models. 83
Figure4.23: PredictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofWisconsinnon-plastic
coarse-grainedsoilsusingthemodedevelopedinthisstudyandtheLTPP
databasedevelopedmodels..... 84
Figure4.24: :PredictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofWisconsinplasticcoarse-
grainedsoilsusingthemodedevelopedinthisstudyandtheLTPPdatabase
developedmodels... 85
xi
ExecutiveSummary
AmajoreffortwasundertakenbytheNationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram
(NCHRP)todevelopMechanistic-Empiricalpavementdesignproceduresbasedonthe
existingtechnologyinwhichstateoftheartmodelsanddatabasesareutilized.The
NCHRPproject1-37A:Developmentofthe2002GuideforDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructureswascompletedandthefinalreportandsoftwarewas
publishedonJ uly2004.TheoutcomeoftheNCHRPproject1-37AistheGuidefor
Mechanistic-EmpiricalDesignofNewandRehabilitatedPavementStructures,whichis
currentlyundergoingextensiveevaluationandreviewbystatehighwayagenciesacross
thecountry.
Currently,theWisconsinDepartmentofTransportationusestheAASHTO1972Design
GuideforflexiblepavementdesigninwhichtheSSVisusedtocharacterizesubgrade
soils.Thereisaneedtoadoptthemechanistic-empiricalmethodologyforpavement
designandrehabilitationinWisconsin,whichusestheresilientmodulustocharacterize
subgradesoils.Themechanistic-empiricalapproachtakesintoaccountseveralimportant
variablessuchasrepeatedloading,environmentalconditions,pavementmaterials,and
subgradematerials.Themechanistic-empiricalpavementdesignshouldsignificantly
reducevariationsinpavementperformanceasrelatedtodesignlifeandproduce
significantsavingsfromreductionsinprematurefailuresandlowermaintenanceoverthe
lifecycleofthepavements.
TheWisconsinDepartmentofTransportationiscurrentlyreviewingandevaluatingthe
newguideforadoptionandimplementationinthedesignofpavementstructures.The
newmechanistic-empiricalpavementdesignguiderequiresdesigninputparametersthat
werenotpreviouslyevaluatedbyWisDOTforpavementdesignsuchastheresilient
modulusofWisconsinsubgradesoils.However,conductingresilientmodulustests
requiresspecializedandexpensiveequipment.Inaddition,theresilientmodulustestis
laboriousandtimeconsuming.Theselimitationssignifytheneedfordeveloping
methodologiestoreliablyestimatetheresilientmodulusofWisconsinsubgradesoils
basedoncorrelationswithfundamentalsoilproperties.
Thisresearchprojectwasinitiatedtodevelopcorrelationsforestimatingtheresilient
modulusofvariousWisconsinsubgradesoilsfrombasicsoilproperties.Alaboratory
testingprogramwasconductedoncommonsubgradesoilstoevaluatetheirphysicaland
compactionproperties.Theresilientmodulusoftheinvestigatedsoilswasdetermined
fromtherepeatedloadtriaxialtestfollowingtheAASHTOT307procedure.The
laboratorytestingprogramproducedahighqualityandconsistenttestresultsdatabase.
Thehighqualitytestresultswereassuredthrougharepeatabilitystudyandalsoby
performingtwotestsoneachsoilspecimenatthespecifiedphysicalconditions.
TheresilientmodulusconstitutiveequationadoptedbyNCHRPProject1-37Awas
selectedforthisstudy.Comprehensivestatisticalanalysiswasperformedtodevelop
correlationsbetweenbasicsoilpropertiesandtheresilientmodulusmodelparametersk
i
.
xii
Theanalysisdidnotyieldgoodresultswhenthewholetestdatabasewasused.However,
goodresultswereobtainedwhenfine-grainedandcoarse-grainedsoilswereanalyzed
separately.Thecorrelationsdevelopedinthisstudywereabletoestimatetheresilient
modulusofthecompactedsubgradesoilswithreasonableaccuracy.Inordertoinspect
theperformanceofthemodelsdevelopedinthisstudy,comparisonwiththemodels
developedbasedonLTPPdatabasewasmade.TheLTPPmodelsdidnotyieldgood
resultscomparedtothemodelsproposedbythisstudy.Thisisduetodifferencesinthe
testprocedures,testequipment,samplepreparation,andotherconditionsinvolvedwith
developmentofbothLTPPandthemodelsofthisstudy.
TheresultsoftherepeatedloadtriaxialtestontheinvestigatedWisconsinsubgradesoils
provideresilientmodulusdatabasethatcanbeutilizedtoestimatevaluesformechanistic-
empiricalpavementdesignintheabsenceofbasicsoilstesting(level3inputparameters).
Theequations,developedherein,thatcorrelateresilientmodulusmodelparameters(k
1
,
k
2
,andk
3
)tobasicsoilpropertiesforfine-grainedandcoarse-grainedsoilscanbeutilized
toestimatelevel2resilientmodulusinputforthemechanistic-empiricalpavement
design.Theseequations(correlations)arebasedonstatisticalanalysisoflaboratorytest
resultsthatwerelimitedtothesoilphysicalconditionsspecified.Estimationofresilient
modulusofsubgradesoilsbeyondtheseconditionswasnotvalidated.
xiii
Chapter1
Introduction
1.1 ProblemStatement
Thedesignandevaluationofpavementstructuresonbaseandsubgradesoilsrequiresa
significantamountofsupportingdatasuchastrafficloadingcharacteristics,base,
subbaseandsubgradematerialproperties,environmentalconditionsandconstruction
procedures.Currently,empiricalcorrelationsdevelopedbetweenfieldandlaboratory
materialpropertiesareusedtoobtainhighwayperformancecharacteristics(Barksdaleet
al.,1990).Thesecorrelationsdonotsatisfythedesignandanalysisrequirementssince
theyneglectallpossiblefailuremechanismsinthefield.Also,mostofthesemethods,
whichuseCaliforniaBearingRatio(CBR)andSoilSupportValue(SSV),donot
representtheconditionsofapavementsubjectedtorepeatedtrafficloading.Recognizing
thisdeficiency,the1986andthesubsequent1993AmericanAssociationofState
HighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)designguidesrecommendedtheuseof
resilientmodulus(M
r
)forcharacterizingbaseandsubgradesoilsandfordesigning
flexiblepavements.Theresilientmodulusaccountsforsoildeformationunderrepeated
trafficloadingwithconsiderationofseasonalvariationsofmoistureconditions.
AmajoreffortwasrecentlyundertakenbytheNationalCooperativeHighwayResearch
Program(NCHRP)todevelopMechanistic-Empiricalpavementdesignproceduresbased
ontheexistingtechnologyinwhichstateoftheartmodelsanddatabasesareutilized.The
NCHRPproject1-37A:Developmentofthe2002GuideforDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructureswasrecentlycompletedandthefinalreportand
softwarewaspublishedonJ uly2004.TheoutcomeoftheNCHRPproject1-37Aisthe
GuideforMechanistic-EmpiricalDesignofNewandRehabilitatedPavement
Structures,whichiscurrentlyundergoingextensiveevaluationandreviewbystate
highwayagenciesacrossthecountry.
Currently,theWisconsinDepartmentofTransportation(WisDOT)usestheAASHTO
1972DesignGuideforflexiblepavementdesigninwhichtheSSVisusedtocharacterize
subgradesoils.Thereisaneedtoadoptthemechanistic-empiricalmethodologyfor
pavementdesignandrehabilitationinWisconsin,whichusestheresilientmodulusto
characterizesubgradesoils.Themechanistic-empiricalapproachtakesintoaccount
severalimportantvariablessuchasrepeatedloading,environmentalconditions,pavement
materials,andsubgradematerials.Themechanistic-empiricalpavementdesignshould
significantlyreducevariationsinpavementperformanceasrelatedtodesignlifeand
producesignificantsavingsfromreductionsinprematurefailuresandlowermaintenance
overthelifecycleofthepavements(NCHRPProject1-37ASummary,2000and2001).
Therefore,WisDOTiscurrentlyreviewingandevaluatingthenewguideforadoptionand
implementationinthedesignofpavementstructures.Thenewmechanistic-empirical
pavementdesignguiderequiresdesigninputparametersthatwerenotpreviously
1
evaluatedbyWisDOTforpavementdesignsuchastheresilientmodulusofWisconsin
subgradesoils.However,conductingresilientmodulustestsrequiresspecializedand
expensiveequipment.Inaddition,theresilientmodulustestislaboriousandtime
consuming.Theselimitationssignifytheneedfordevelopingmethodologiestoreliably
estimatetheresilientmodulusofWisconsinsubgradesoilsbasedoncorrelationswith
fundamentalsoilproperties.
1.2 ResearchObjectives
Theprimaryobjectiveofthisresearchprojectistodevelopamethodologyforestimating
theresilientmodulusofvariousWisconsinsubgradesoilsfrombasicsoilproperties.The
followingspecificobjectivesareidentifiedforsuccessfulaccomplishmentofthis
research:
1. Toconductrepeatedloadtriaxialteststodetermineresilientmodulusof
representativeWisconsinsubgradesoils.WisDOTengineersandtheresearch
teamwillselectthesetypicalsubgradesoils.Thefocusisoninvestigatingthe
effectofsoiltype,soilphysicalproperties,stresslevel,andenvironmental
conditionsontheresilientmodulusoftheselectedsoils.Thisworkestablishesa
testresultdatabasethatisusedtodevelopcorrelationsbetweenvarioussoil
propertiesandtheresilientmodulusmodelparameters.
2. Todevelopandvalidatecorrelations(models)betweensoilpropertiesandthe
resilientmodulusmodelparameters.Applicabilityoftheoreticalandstatistical
methodsfordevelopingthesecorrelationsisinvestigated.
1.3 Scope
Thelaboratory-testingprogramisconductedonselectedsoilsthatareconsidered
representativeofthesoildistributionsinWisconsin.Therepeatedloadtriaxialtestis
conductedtodeterminetheresilientmodulusoftheselectedsoilsaccordingtothe
standardprocedure:AASHTOT307.Otherlaboratorytestsareconductedfollowing
standardtestproceduresthatareusedbyWisDOT.Theresilientmoduluscorrelations
withsoilproperties,thataredevelopedandvalidated,arebasedontheresultsofthe
experimentaltestingprogram.
1.4 ResearchReport
ThisreportsummarizestheresearcheffortconductedattheUniversityofWisconsin-
Milwaukee(UWM)toevaluateresilientmodulusofcommonWisconsinsubgradesoils.
Alaboratorytestingprogramwasconductedonsoilsrepresentativeofthesoil
distributionsofWisconsin.Laboratorytestingwasconductedtoevaluatebasicproperties
andtodeterminetheresilientmodulusoftheinvestigatedsoils.Comprehensivestatistical
analysiswasperformedtodevelopcorrelationsbetweenbasicsoilpropertiesandthe
resilientmodulusmodelinputparameters.Theresilientmodulusmodelistheconstitutive
equationdevelopedbyNCHRPproject1-28AandadoptedbytheNCHRPproject1-37A
2
fortheGuideforMechanistic-EmpiricalDesignofNewandRehabilitatedPavement
Structures.
Thisreportisorganizedinfivechapters.ChapterOnepresentstheproblemstatement,
objectivesandscopeofthestudy.Backgroundinformationonresilientmodulusof
subgradesoilsissummarizedinChapterTwo.ChapterThreedescribestheresearch
methodologyandlaboratory-testingprogramconductedonWisconsinsubgradesoils.
ChapterFourpresentsthetestresults,statisticalanalysis,andthemodelsdevelopedto
estimatetheresilientmodulusofWisconsinsubgradesoilsfrombasicsoilproperties.
Finally,ChapterFivepresentstheconclusionsandrecommendationsofthestudy.
3
=
Chapter2
Background
Thischapterpresentsbackgroundinformationontheresilientmodulusofsubgradesoils.
Theinformationincludesadescriptionoftherepeatedloadtriaxialtest,factorsaffecting
resilientmodulus,andmodelsusedtoestimatetheresilientmodulusforpavementdesign
andrehabilitation.Inaddition,backgroundinformationonWisconsinsoilsisalso
presented.
2.1 DeterminationofResilientModulusofSoils
Severallaboratoryandfieldnondestructivetestmethodshavebeenusedtodetermine
resilientmodulusofsubgradesoils.Laboratorytestmethodsincludetherepeatedload
triaxialtest,whichisthemostcommonlyusedmethodforthedeterminationofresilient
modulusofsoils.FieldnondestructivetestmethodsusingDynaflectandFallingWeight
Deflectometer(FWD)havebeenusedtoestimatetheresilientmodulusofsubgradesoils
underexistingpavements.Deflectionmeasurementsofpavementlayersareusedthrough
backcalculationsubroutinestoestimatetheresilientproperties.Bothlaboratoryandfield
methodsareimprovingwithnewdevelopmentsinhardwaretechnologies,particularlyin
dataacquisitionsystemsandcomputertechnology.
Therepeatedloadtriaxialtestisspecifiedfordeterminingtheresilientmodulusby
AASHTOT294:Resilient Modulus of Unbound Granular Base/Subbase Materials and
Subgrade Soils-SHRPProtocolP46,andbyAASHTOT307:Determining the
Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials.Therepeatedloadtriaxialtest
consistsofapplyingacyclicloadonacylindricalspecimenunderconstantconfining
pressure(o
3
oro
c
)andmeasuringtheaxialrecoverablestrain(c
r
). Therepeatedload
triaxialtestsetupisshowninFigure2.1.
Thesystemconsistsofaloadingframewithacrossheadmountedhydraulicactuator.A
loadcellisattachedtotheactuatortomeasuretheappliedload.Thesoilsampleishoused
inatriaxialcellwhereconfiningpressureisapplied.Astheactuatorappliestherepeated
load,sampledeformationismeasuredbyasetofLinearVariableDifferential
Transducers(LVDTs).Adataacquisitionssystemrecordsalldataduringtesting.
Theresilientmodulusdeterminedfromtherepeatedloadtriaxialtestisdefinedasthe
ratiooftherepeatedaxialdeviatorstresstotherecoverableorresilientaxialstrain:
o
d
M
r
(2.1)
c
r
whereM
r
istheresilientmodulus,o
d
isthedeviatorstress(cyclicstressinexcessof
confiningpressure),andc
r
istheresilient(recoverable)strainintheverticaldirection.
4
Figure2.2depictsagraphicalrepresentationofthedefinitionofresilientmodulusfroma
repeatedloadtriaxialtest.
AASHTOprovidedstandardtestproceduresfordeterminationofresilientmodulususing
therepeatedloadtriaxialtest,whichincludeAASHTOT292,AASHTOT294and
AASHTOT307. Thereweresomeproblemsandissuesassociatedwithsome
procedures,whichwereimprovedwithtime.TheAASHTOT307isthecurrentprotocol
fordeterminationofresilientmodulusofsoilsandaggregatematerials.Itevolvedfrom
theLongTermPavementPerformance(LTPP)protocolP46.Detailedbackgroundand
discussiononAASHTOT307ispresentedbyGroegeretal.(2003).
Figure2.1:Repeatedloadtriaxialtestsetup(Instron8802dynamicmaterialstest
system)
5
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
o
)

o
r
S
t
r
a
i
n
(
c
)

D
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
L
o
a
d
(
k
N
)
0.1
0.9
Time(s)
(a)Shapeanddurationofrepeatedload
Resilientstrain,c
r
Strain
D
e
v
i
a
t
o
r
s
t
r
e
s
s
,
o
d

Plasticstrain,c
p
Time(t)
Stress
(b)Stressesandstrainsofoneloadcycle
Figure2.2:Definitionoftheresilientmodulusinarepeatedloadtriaxialtest
6
AASHTOT307requiresahaversine-shapedloadingwaveformasshowninFigure2.2a.
Theloadcycleduration,whenusingahydraulicloadingdevice,is1secondthatincludes
a0.1secondloaddurationanda0.9secondrestperiod.Therepeatedaxialloadisapplied
ontopofacylindricalspecimenunderconfiningpressure.Thetotalrecoverableaxial
deformationresponseofthespecimenismeasuredandusedtocalculatetheresilient
modulus.AASHTOT307requirestheuseofaloadcellanddeformationdevices
mountedoutsidethetriaxialchamber.Airisspecifiedastheconfiningfluid,andthe
specimensizeisrequiredtohaveaminimumdiametertolengthratioof1:2.Figure2.3
showsaschematicofsoilspecimeninatriaxialchamberaccordingtoAASHTOT307
requirements.
Figure2.3:SchematicofsoilspecimeninatriaxialchamberaccordingtoAASHTO
T307
7
2.2 FactorsAffectingResilientModulusofSubgradeSoils
Factorsthatinfluencetheresilientmodulusofsubgradesoilsincludephysicalcondition
ofthesoil(moisturecontentandunitweight),stresslevelandsoiltype.Manystudies
havebeenconductedtoinvestigatetheseeffectsontheresilientmodulus.Forexample,
Zaman(1994)reportedthattheresultsoftherepeatedloadtriaxialtestdependonsoil
gradation,compactionmethod,specimensizeandtestingprocedure.Theeffectofsome
ofthesefactorsontheresilientmodulusofsubgradesoilsissignificant.LiandSelig
(1994)reportedthataresilientmodulusrangebetween14and140MPacanbeobtained
forthesamefine-grainedsubgradesoilbychangingparameterssuchasstressstateor
moisturecontent.Therefore,itisessentialtounderstandthefactorsaffectingtheresilient
modulusofsubgradesoils.
2.2.1 Soil Physical Conditions
Researchstudiesshowedthatthemoisturecontentandunitweight(ordensity)havea
significanteffectontheresilientmodulusofsubgradesoils.Theresilientmodulusof
subgradesoildecreaseswiththeincreaseofthemoisturecontentorthedegreeof
saturation(Barksdale1972,Fredlund1977,Drummetal.1997,Huang2001,Butalia
2003,andHeydinger2003).Butaliaetal.(2003)investigatedtheeffectsofmoisture
contentandporepressuresbuildupontheresilientmodulusofOhiosoils.Testson
unsaturatedcohesivesoilsshowedthattheresilientmodulusdecreaseswiththeincrease
inmoisturecontent.
Drummetal.(1997)studiedthevariationofresilientmoduluswithapost-compaction
increaseinmoisturecontent.Soilsampleswerecompactedatmaximumdryunitweight
andoptimummoisturecontent;thenthemoisturecontentwasincreased.Investigated
soilsexhibitedadecreaseinresilientmoduluswiththeincreaseinsaturation.Heydinger
(2003)statedthatmoisturecontentistheprimaryvariableforpredictingseasonal
variationofresilientmodulusofsubgradesoils.
Theeffectofunitweightontheresilientmodulusofsubgradesoilsalsohasbeenlargely
investigated(e.g.,SmithandNair1973,Chou1976,Allen1996,Drumm1997).Test
resultsindicatedthattheresilientmodulusincreaseswiththeincreaseofthedryunit
weight(density)ofthesoil.However,thiseffectissmallcomparedtotheeffectof
moisturecontentandstresslevelonresilientmodulus(RadaandWitczak1981).Atany
dryunitweight(density)level,theresilientmodulushastwovalues:onewhenthesoilis
testedunderdryofoptimummoisturecontentandanothervaluewhenthesoilistested
underwetofoptimummoisturecontent.Theresilientmodulusofthesoilcompactedon
thedrysideofoptimumislargerthanthatwhenthesoiliscompactedatthewetof
optimum.
2.2.2 Effect of Loading Conditions
Theresilientmodulusisastress-dependentsoilpropertyasitisameasureofsoil
stiffness.AccordingtoRadaandWitczak(1981),themostsignificantloadingcondition
8
factorthataffectsresilientmodulusresponseisthestresslevel.Ingeneral,theincreasein
thedeviatorstressresultsindecreasingtheresilientmodulusofcohesivesoilsduetothe
softeningeffect.Theincreaseoftheconfinementresultsinanincreaseintheresilient
modulusofgranularsoils.Lekarpetal.(2000)reportedthattheconfiningpressurehas
moreeffectonmaterialstiffnessthandeviatororshearstress.
RadaandWitczak(1981)reportedthatforloadingcharacteristics,factorssuchasstress
duration,stressfrequency,sequenceofloadandnumberofstressrepetitionsnecessaryto
reachanequilibrium-resilientstrainresponsehavelittleeffectonresilientmodulus
response.
Laboratoryinvestigationsoftheeffectofstresshistoryontheresilientmodulusresults
showedthattheresilientmodulusincreaseswiththeincreaseoftherepeatednumberof
loads.Thisincreasewasmainlyattributedtothereductioninmoisturecontentofthesoil.
AASHTOT307requiresthespecimentoundergo500-1000conditioningcyclesbefore
testingtoprovideauniformcontactbetweenthesoilspecimenandthetopandbottom
platens.However,Pezoetal.(1992)andNazarianandFeliberti(1993)reportedthat
specimenconditioningaffectedtheresilientmodulusofthespecimenandindicatedthat
stresshistoryplaysanimportantroleinthemodulusofsoils.
Effect of Confining Stress
Mostlaboratorystudiesonsubgradesoilsandunboundmaterialsshowthattheresilient
modulusincreaseswiththeincreaseoftheconfiningstress(Seedetal.1962,Thomson
andRobnett1976,RadaandWitczak1981,andPezoandHudson1994).Thompsonand
Robnett(1979)concludedthattheresilientmodulusoffine-grainedsoilsdoesnotdepend
ontheconfiningpressureandthatconfiningpressuresintheuppersoillayersunder
pavementsarenormallylessthan35kPa(5psi).Ingeneral,theeffectofconfiningstress
ismoresignificantingranularsoilsthaninfine-grainedsoils.Forgranularmaterials,the
increaseinconfiningpressurecansignificantlyincreasetheresilientmodulus(Radaand
Witczak1981).Resilientmodulusofcoarse-grainedmaterialsisusuallydescribedasa
functionofbulkstress.
Effect of Deviator Stress
Theresilientmodulusofcohesivesoilsissignificantlyinfluencedbythedeviatorstress.
Theresilientmodulusoffine-grainedsoilsdecreaseswiththeincreaseofthedeviator
stress.Forgranularmaterials,theresilientmodulusincreaseswithincreasingdeviator
stress,whichtypicallyindicatesstrainhardeningduetoreorientationofthegrainsintoa
denserstate(Maheretal.2000).Resilientmodulusofcohesivesoilsisusuallydescribed
asafunctionofdeviatorstress.
2.2.3 Other Factors Affecting Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils
Thereareotherfactorsthataffecttheresilientmodulusofsubgradesoils.Thesefactors
includesoiltypeandpropertiessuchasamountoffinesandplasticitycharacteristics.In
9
=
addition,thesamplepreparationmethodandthesamplesizehaveinfluenceonthetest
results. Materialstiffnessisaffectedbyparticlesizeandparticlesizedistribution.
ThompsonandRobnett(1979)reportedthatlowclaycontentandhighsiltcontentresults
inlowerresilientmodulusvalues.ThompsonandRobnett(1979)alsoshowedthatlow
plasticityindexandliquidlimit,lowspecificgravity,andhighorganiccontentresultin
lowerresilientmodulus.Otherresearchresultsindicatedthattheamountoffineshasno
generaltrendontheresilientmodulusofgranularmaterials(Chou1976).Lekarpetal.
(2000)reportedthattheresilientmodulusgenerallydecreaseswhentheamountoffines
increases.J anooandBayerII(2001)noticedanincreaseintheresilientmoduluswiththe
increaseinmaximumparticlesize.
Seedetal.(1962)reportedthatthecompactionmethodusedtopreparesoilsamples
affectedtheresilientmodulusresponse.Ingeneral,samplesthatwerecompacted
staticallyshowedhigherresilientmoduluscomparedtothosepreparedbykneading
compaction.
Cyclesoffreezingandthawingmayhaveasignificantinfluenceontheresilientmodulus
ofthepavementsystem.Scrivneretal.(1989)reportedthatfreezingresultsinasharp
reductioninsurfacedeflectionswhilethawingproducesanimmediatedeflection
increase.Chamberlain(1969)reportedthatthedecreaseinresilientmodulus
accompanyingfreezingandthawingwascausedbytheincreaseinmoisturecontentand
decreaseinunitweight.
Inadditiontotheabovementionedfactors,otherfactorsofminoreffectsontheresilient
modulusofsubgradesoilswerealsoinvestigated.PezoandHudson(1994)correlatedthe
resilientmodulustothesoilspecimenageandplasticityindex.Theyshowedthatthe
olderthespecimenisatthetimeoftesting,thelesstheresilientstrain,whichindicates
higherresilientmodulus.
2.3 ResilientModulusModels
Mathematicalmodelsaregenerallyusedtoexpresstheresilientmodulusofsubgrade
soilssuchasthebulkstressmodelandthedeviatoricstressmodel.Thesemodelswere
utilizedtocorrelateresilientmoduluswithstressesandfundamentalsoilproperties.A
validresilientmodulusmodelshouldrepresentandaddressmostfactorsthataffectthe
resilientmodulusofsubgradesoils.
Bulk Stress Model
Thebulkstress(u oro
b
)isthesumoftheprincipalstresseso
1
,o
2
,ando
3
.Thebulk
stressisconsideredamajorfactorforestimatingtheresilientmodulusofgranularsoils.
Theresilientmoduluscanbeestimatedusingthebulkstressfromthefollowingequation:
2
M
r
k
1
u
k
(2.2)
10
=
=
=
whereM
r
istheresilientmodulus,u isthebulkstress=o
1
+o
2
+o
3
,andk
1
andk
2
are
materialconstants.
Althoughthismodelwasusedtocharacterizetheresilientmodulusofgranularsoils,it
doesnotaccountforshearstress/strainandvolumetricstrain.Uzan(1985)demonstrated
thatthebulkstressmodeldoesnotsufficientlydescribethebehaviorofgranular
materials.
MayandWitczak(1981)modifiedthebulkstressmodelbyaddinganewfactoras
follows:
2
M K k u
k
(2.3)
r 1 1
whereK
1
isafunctionofpavementstructure,testloadanddevelopedshearstrain.
Deviatoric Stress Semi- log Model
Thedeviatorstressisthecyclicstressinexcessofconfiningpressure.Theresilient
modulusofcohesivesoilsisafunctionofthedeviatoricstress,asitdecreaseswith
increasingthedeviatoricstress.Thedeviatoricstressmodelwasrecommendedby
AASHTOtoestimateresilientmodulusofcohesivesoils.Inthedeviatoricstressmodel,
theresilientmodulusisexpressedbythefollowingequation:
4
M
r
k
3
o
d
k
(2.4)
whereo
d
isthedeviatorstressandk
3
andk
4
arematerialconstants.
Thedisadvantageofthedeviatoricstressmodelisthatitdoesnotaccountfortheeffectof
confiningpressure.LiandSelig(1994)reportedthatforfine-grainedsoilstheeffectof
confiningpressureismuchlesssignificantthantheeffectofdeviatoricstress.However,
cohesivesoilsthataresubjectedtotrafficloadingareaffectedbyconfiningstresses.
Uzan Model
Uzan(1985)studiedanddiscusseddifferentexistingmodelsforestimatingresilient
modulus.Hedevelopedamodeltoovercomethebulkstressmodellimitationsby
includingthedeviatoricstresstoaccountfortheactualfieldstressstate.Themodel
definedtheresilientmodulusasfollows:
2 3
M k u
k
o
k
(2.5)
r 1 d
wherek
1
,k
2
,andk
3
arematerialconstantsandu ando
d
arethebulkanddeviatoric
stresses,respectively.
11
=
=
=
Bynormalizingtheresilientmodulusandstressesintheabovemodel,itcanbewrittenas
follows:
u (
k
2
o
d
(
k
3
M
r
k
1
P
a
(2.6)
( (
P P
a a
whereP
a
istheatmosphericpressure,expressedinthesameunitasM
r
,o
d
andu.
Uzanalsosuggestedthattheabovemodelcanbeusedforalltypesofsoils.Bysettingk
3
tozerothebulkmodelisobtained,andthesemi-logmodelcanbeobtainedbysettingk
2
tozero.
Octahedral Shear Stress Model
TheUzanmodelwasmodifiedbyWitzakandUzan(1988)byreplacingthedeviatoric
stresswithoctahedralshearstressasfollows:
(
k
2
t (
k
3
u
oct
M k P (2.7)
r 1 a ( (
P P
a a
wheret
oct
istheoctahedralshearstress,P
a
istheatmosphericpressure,andk
1
, k
2
, and k
3
arematerialconstants.
AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Models
Thegeneralconstitutiveequation(resilientmodulusmodel)thatwasdevelopedthrough
NCHRPproject1-28Awasselectedforimplementationintheupcomingmechanistic-
empiricalAASHTO Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures.
Theresilientmodulusmodelcanbeusedforalltypesofsubgradematerials.Theresilient
modulusmodelisdefinedby(NCHRP1-28A):
| o |
k
2
|t |
k
3
b oct
M
r
k
1
P
a
| +1| (2.8)
| |
P P
\ a . \ a .
where:
M
r
= resilientmodulus
P
a
= atmosphericpressure(101.325kPa)
o
b
=bulkstress=o
1
+ o
2
+ o
3
o
1
=majorprincipalstress
o
2
=intermediateprincipalstress=o
3
foraxisymmetriccondition(triaxialtest)
o
3
=minorprincipalstressorconfiningpressureintherepeatedloadtriaxialtest
t
oct
=octahedralshearstress
k
1
,k
2
andk
3
=modelparameters(materialconstatnts)
12
2.4 Mechanistic-EmpiricalPavementDesign
TheNCHRPproject1-37A:Developmentofthe2002GuideforDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructureswasrecentlycompletedandthefinalreportand
softwarewaspublishedonJ uly2004. TheoutcomeoftheNCHRP1-37AistheGuide
forMechanistic-EmpiricalDesignofNewandRehabilitatedPavementStructures,
whichiscurrentlyundergoingextensiveevaluationandreviewbystatehighwayagencies
acrossthecountry.
TheWisconsinDepartmentofTransportationiscurrentlyreviewingandevaluatingthe
newguideforadoptionandimplementationindesignofpavementstructures.Thenew
Mechanistic-Empiricalguiderequiresnumerousdesigninputparametersthatwerenot
previouslyevaluatedbyWisDOTforpavementdesign.Forflexiblepavements,this
includesthedeterminationoftheresilientmodulusofsubgradesoilsasinputparameter.
Thisparametercanbedeterminedbycarryingoutalaboratorytestingprogramfollowing
theAASHTOT307procedure.
DesignproceduresforthenewMechanistic-Empiricalguidearebasedontheexisting
technologyinwhichstateoftheartmodelsanddatabasesareutilized. Designinput
parametersarerequiredgenerallyinthreemajorcategories:(1)traffic;(2)material
properties;and(3)environmentalconditions.
ThenewMechanistic-Empiricaldesignguidealsoidentifiesthreelevelsofdesigninput
parametersinahierarchicalway.Thisprovidesthepavementdesignerwithflexibilityin
achievingpavementdesignwithavailableresourcesbasedonthesignificanceofthe
project. Thethreelevelsofinputparametersapplytotrafficcharacterization,material
properties,andenvironmentalconditions.Thefollowingisadescriptionoftheseinput
levels:
1. Level1:Thesedesigninputparametersarethemostaccurate,withhighestreliability
andlowestlevelofuncertainty. Theyrequirethedesignertoconductlaboratory/field
testingprogramfortheprojectconsideredinthedesign.Thisrequiresextensive
effortandwouldincreasecost.
2. Level2:Whenresourcesarenotavailabletoobtainthehighaccuracylevel1input
parameters,thenlevel2inputsprovideanintermediatelevelofaccuracyfor
pavementdesign.Level2inputscanbeobtainedbydevelopingcorrelationsamong
differentvariablessuchasestimatingtheresilientmodulusofsubgradesoilsfromthe
resultsofbasicsoiltests.
3. Level3:Inputparametersthatprovidethehighestlevelofuncertaintyandthelowest
levelofaccuracy.Theyareusuallytypicalaveragevaluesfortheregion.Level3
inputsmightbeusedinprojectsassociatedwithminimalconsequencesofearly
failuresuchaslowvolumeroads.
13
2.5 SoilDistributionsinWisconsin
Hole(1980)dividedWisconsinsoilsintotenmajorpedologicalgroups.Thesegroupsare
summarizedalongwiththeirgeneralcharacteristicsinTable2.1.Figure2.4depictsthe
distributionofthedifferentpedologicalgroupsinaWisconsinmap.Thetensoilregions
areconsideredasrefinementsoffiveWisconsingeographicprovinces.Withinthesame
group,soilsmayvaryfromcoarse-grainedtofine-grainedororganic.
Table2.1: Wisconsinpedologicalsoilgroups(AfterHole1980)
Group
No.
SoilRegion GeneralCharacteristicsofthesoilsandlandscapes
%Areaof
State
A
SouthwestRidges
andValleys
Siltysoilsoverlyingdolomitebedrockonundulatingto
rollinguplandsandvalleyflats,withsteepstonyslopes
between.
11
B SoutheastUpland
Siltytoloamysoilsonrollingtoleveluplandsand
associatedwetlandsongraybrowncalcareous,dolomite
glacialdrift.
13
C
CentralSandy
UplandsandPlains
Verysandysoilsonplains,rollingupland,andoccasional
buttesofsandstone.
7
D
WesternSand
StoneUplands,
ValleySlopes,and
Plains
Siltytosandyloamsoilsonhillyuplands,valleyslopesand
associatedplains.
9
E
Northernand
EasternSandyand
LoamyDrift
UplandsandPlains
Sandyloamsandloamsofnortheasternrollinguplandsand
plainsoncalcareouspinkglacialdrift.
5
F
NorthernSilty
UplandsandPlains
Siltysoilsonundulatinguplandsonacid,compactglacial
drift
16
G
NorthernLoamy
UplandsandPlains
Sandyloamsandloamsonhillyuplandsandplainsover
acidgravellyandstonyreddishbrownglacialdrift.
17
H
NorthernSandy
UplandsandPlains
Verysandysoilsonhillyuplandsandplainsonsandy
glacialdrift.
7
I
Northernand
EasternClayeyand
ReddishDrift
UplandsandPlains
Siltyandclayeysoilsonnearlyleveltorollinguplandon
calcareousreddishbrownclayeyglacialdrift.
7
J MajorWetlands
Wetsoils,includingsomesiltsandloamsonalluvium;more
siltsandloams,peatsandmucksinwetlands.
8
14
Figure2.4:Wisconsinpedologicalsoilgroups(Hole,1980)
MadisonandGundlach(1993)presentedageologicalmapthatdividesWisconsinsoils
intofiveregionsasfollows:(1)soilsofnorthernandeasternWisconsin,(2)soilsof
centralWisconsin,(3)soilsofsouthernandwesternWisconsin,(4)soilsofsouthern
Wisconsinand(5)statewidesoils.Thefivesoilregionsweresubdividedintosmaller
regions.Figure2.5showsamapofWisconsinsoilregionspresentedbyMadisonand
Gundlach(1993).Thefollowingisadescriptionoftheseregions:
15
(1)SoilsofnorthernandeasternWisconsin
Region E: forested,sandyloamysoilswithuplandscoveredbyloamysoilsunderlainby
calcareoussilt.
Region Er: forested,loamyorclayeysoilsunderlainbydolomitebedrockwithcalcareous
materialsinsomeparts.
Region F: forested,siltysoils.Uplandscoveredbysiltoververydenseacidloamtill,also
AntigoandBrillsoilsoccur.
Region G: forested,loamysoils.Uplandscoveredbysiltymaterialsoveracid.Antigosilt
loamisfoundinsomeareasinwhichsiltoverlaysandandgravel.
Region H: forested,sandysoils.Therearealsosomeplaceswhereloamymaterialsover
acidsandandgravelexist.
Region I: forested, clayey or loamy soils. There are thin silty materials that overlie
calcareousredclaytillexistnearLakeMichiganandsomeotherplaces.
(2)SoilsofcentralWisconsin
Region C: forested,sandysoils.Alsosandymaterialsoverlielimytillinuplands.
Region Cm: prairie,sandysoils.Theregionisdominatedbydarksandysoils.
Region Fr: forested,siltysoilsoverigneousandmetamorphicrock
(3)SoilsofSouthwesternandWesternWisconsin
Region A: forested,siltysoilsordeepsiltyandclayeysoilsthatsometimesoverlie
limestonebedrock.
Region Am: prairie,siltysoils.Siltysoilsoverlyinglimestoneonbroadridgetops.
Region Dr: forestedsoilsoversandstonebedrock.
(4)SoilsofSoutheasternWisconsin
Region B: forested,siltysoils. Organicsoilshaveformedwhereplantmaterials
accumulated.
Region Bm: prairie,siltysoils.Uplandsarecoveredbysiltyloamysoilsoverlayinglimy
till.ClayeysoilsoverlimytilloccurnearMilwaukeeandRacine-Kenosha.
(5)StatewideSoils
Region J: wetlandsoils,occursindepressionanddrainagewaysacrossthestate.Soilsare
variedbetweensiltyclayeyloamysandyaswellasorganicsoils.
16
Figure2.5:WisconsinSoilRegions,MadisonandGundlach(1993)
17
Chapter3
ResearchMethodology
Alaboratorytestingprogramwasconductedonnineteensoils,whichcomprisecommon
subgradesoilsinWisconsin.ThetestingprogramwasconductedattheGeotechnicaland
PavementResearchLaboratoryattheUniversityofWisconsin-Milwaukee.Soilsamples
weresubjectedtodifferentteststodeterminetheirphysicalproperties,compaction
characteristics,andresilientmodulus.Inthischapter,adescriptionofthesoilscollected
andlaboratorytestsandequipmentusedispresented.
3.1 InvestigatedSoils
TheinvestigatedsoilswereselectedbytheWisDOTprojectoversightcommitteeto
representcommonsoildistributionsinWisconsin.Disturbedsoilsampleswerecollected
byWisconsinDOTpersonnelandthendeliveredtoUWM.Thelocationsofthesesoils
areshownonamapofWisconsininFigure3.1.
Theinvestigatedsoilswereselectedsothattestresultscanbeutilizedtoestablishand
validatecorrelationstoestimateresilientmodulusofWisconsinsoilsfrombasicsoil
properties.Thesoilscoverawiderangeoftypesandwereobtainedfromvariousplaces
acrossWisconsinasshowninFigure3.1.Picturesofsomesoilsamplesarepresentedin
Figure3.2.
3.2 LaboratoryTestingProgram
3.2.1 Physical Properties and Compaction Characteristics
Collectedsoilsweresubjectedtostandardlaboratoryteststodeterminetheirphysical
propertiesandcompactioncharacteristics.Soiltestingconsistedofthefollowing:grain
sizedistribution(sieveandhydrometeranalyses),Atterberglimits(liquidlimit,LLand
plasticlimit,PL),andspecificgravity(G
s
).SoilswerealsosubjectedtoStandardProctor
testtodeterminetheoptimummoisturecontent(w
opt.
)andmaximumdryunitweight
(
dmax
).
Laboratorytestswereconductedfollowingthestandardtestproceduresusedby
WisDOT.Therefore,mostlaboratorytestswereconductedaccordingtothestandard
proceduresoftheAmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials(ASTM).Onlythe
StandardProctertestwasconductedfollowingtheAASHTOT99:Standard Method of
Test for Moisture Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg (5.5 lb) Rammer and a 305-
mm (12-in) Drop.Table3.1presentsasummaryofthestandardtestsusedinthisstudy.
Inordertoobtainqualitytestresults,mosttestswereconductedtwice.Theresultsofthe
twotestswerecompared.Athirdtestwasperformedwhentheresultsofthetwo
conductedtestswerenotconsistent.
18
Figure3.1:LocationsoftheinvestigatedWisconsinsoils
19
(a)Dodgevillesoil (b)Ontonagonsoil
(c)Miamisoil (d)Plainfieldsand
Figure3.2:PicturesofsomeoftheinvestigatedWisconsinsoils
20
Table3.1:Standardtestsusedinthisinvestigation
SoilProperty StandardTestDesignation
ParticleSizeAnalysis
ASTMD422:StandardTestMethodfor
ParticleSizeAnalysisofSoils
AtterbergLimits
ASTMD4318:StandardTestMethodsfor
LiquidLimit,PlasticLimit,andPlasticity
IndexofSoils
SpecificGravity
ASTMD854:StandardTestMethodfor
SpecificGravityofSoils
StandardProctorTest
AASHTOT99:StandardMethodofTest
forMoistureDensityRelationsofSoils
Usinga2.5-kg(5.5lb)Rammeranda305-
mm(12-in)Drop
ASTMSoilClassification
ASTMD2487:StandardClassificationof
SoilsforEngineeringPurposes(Unified
SoilClassificationSystem)
AASHTOSoilClassification
AASHTOM145:ClassificationofSoils
andSoil-AggregateMixturesforHighway
ConstructionPurposes
3.2.2 Repeated Load Triaxial Test
Arepeatedloadingtriaxialtestwasconducted,todeterminetheresilientmodulusofthe
investigatedsoils,followingAASHTOT307: Standard Method of Test for Determining
the Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials. Thetestwasconductedon
compactedsoilspecimensthatwerepreparedinaccordancewiththeproceduredescribed
byAASHTOT307.
Dynamic Test System for Materials
TherepeatedloadtriaxialtestwasconductedusingastateoftheartInstronFastTrack
8802closedloopservo-hydraulicdynamicmaterialstestsystematUWM.Thesystem
utilizes8800Controllerwithfourcontrolchannelsof19-bitresolutionanddata
acquisition.AcomputerwithFastTrackConsoleisthemainuserinterface.Thisisafully
digitalcontrolledsystemwithadaptivecontrolthatallowscontinuousupdateofPID
termsat1kHz,whichautomaticallycompensatesforthespecimenstiffnessduring
repeatedloadtesting.Theloadingframecapacityofthesystemis250kN(56kip)witha
series3690actuatorthathasastrokeof150mm(6in.)andwithaloadcapacityof250
kN(56kip).Thesystemhastwodynamicloadcells5and1kN(1.1and0.22kip)for
measurementoftherepeatedappliedload.Theloadcellsincludeintegralaccelerometer
toremovetheeffectofdynamicloadingonthemovingloadcell.Figure3.3shows
picturesofthedynamicmaterialstestsystemusedinthisstudy.
21
(a) Loadingframe
(b)Triaxialcell (c)Controlsoftware
Figure3.3:TheUWMservo-hydraulicclosed-loopdynamicmaterialstestsystem
usedinthisstudy
22
Specimen Preparation
Compactedsoilspecimenswerepreparedaccordingtotheproceduredescribedby
AASHTOT307,whichrequiresfive-liftstaticcompaction.Therefore,specialmolds
weredesignedandusedtopreparesoilspecimensbystaticcompactionoffiveequal
layers.Thiscompactionmethodprovideduniformcompactedliftswhileusingthesame
weightofsoilforeachlift.Figure3.4depictspicturesofthemoldsusedtopreparesoil
specimensandpicturesofspecimenpreparationprocedure.Themoldsweremadein
threedifferentdiameters:101.6,71.1,and35.6mm(4.0,2.8,and1.4in.).
Foreachsoiltype,compactedsoilspecimenswerepreparedatthreedifferentunit
weight-moisturecontentcombinations,namely:maximumdryunitweightandoptimum
moisturecontent,95%ofthemaximumdryunitweightandthecorrespondingmoisture
contentonthedryside,and95%ofthemaximumdryunitweightandthecorresponding
moisturecontentonthewetside,asdepictedinFigure3.5.Inordertoensurethe
repeatabilityoftestresults,aspecialstudywasconductedonsoilspecimensprepared
underidenticalconditionsofmoisturecontentandunitweight.Statisticalanalysiswas
performedonthetestresultstoevaluatethetestrepeatability.Thereafter,arepeatedload
triaxialtestwasperformedontwospecimensofeachsoilatthespecifiedunitweightand
moisturecontent.
Afterasoilspecimenwaspreparedunderaspecifiedunitweightandmoisturecontent,it
wasplacedinamembraneandmountedonthebaseofthetriaxialcell.Porousstones
wereplacedatthetopandbottomofthespecimen.Thetriaxialcellwassealedand
mountedonthebaseofthedynamicmaterialstestsystemframe.Allconnectionswere
tightenedandchecked.Cellpressure,LVTDs,loadcell,andallotherrequiredsetup
wereconnectedandchecked.Figure3.6showspicturesofspecimenpreparationforthe
repeatedloadtriaxialtest.
Specimen Testing
Thesoftwarethatcontrolsthematerialsdynamictestsystemwasprogrammedtoapply
repeatedloadsaccordingtothetestsequencesspecifiedbyAASHTOT307basedonthe
materialtype.Oncethetriaxialcellismountedonthesystem,theairpressurepanelis
connectedtothecell.Therequiredconfiningpressure(o
c
)isthenapplied.Figure3.7
showspicturesofthesoftwareusedtocontrolandruntherepeatedloadtriaxialtest.
Thesoilspecimenwasconditionedbyapplying1,000repetitionsofaspecifieddeviator
stress(o
d
)atacertainconfiningpressure. Conditioningeliminatestheeffectsof
specimendisturbancefromcompactionandspecimenpreparationproceduresand
minimizestheimperfectcontactsbetweenendplatensandthespecimen.Thespecimenis
thensubjectedtodifferentdeviatorstresssequencesaccordingtoAASHTOT307.The
23
(a)Moldsofdifferentsizes (b)Lubricatingthemold
(c)Fillingmoldwithonesoillayer (d)Placingcompactionpiston
(e)Applyingstaticforce (f)Extractingcompactedspecimen
Figure3.4:SpecialmolddesignedtopreparesoilspecimensaccordingtoAASHTO
T307requirements
24
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
Wetside
Dryside
Maximumdryunitweight,
dmax
1 2
3
0.95
dmax
O
p
t
i
m
u
m
m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
,

w
o
p
t

Moisturecontent,w (%)
Figure3.5:Conditionsofunitweightandmoisturecontentunderwhichsoil
specimensweresubjectedtorepeatedloadtriaxialtest
stresssequenceisselectedtocovertheexpectedin-servicerangethatapavementor
subgradematerialexperiencesbecauseoftrafficloading.
Itisverydifficulttoapplytheexactspecifiedloadingonasoilspecimeninarepeated
loadconfiguration.Thisisinpartduetothecontrolsoftheequipmentandsoilspecimen
stiffness.However,theclosed-loopservohydraulicsystemisoneofthemostaccurate
systemsusedtoapplyrepeatedloads.Inthissystem,theappliedloadsandmeasured
displacementsarecontinuouslymonitored.Thisistomakesurethattheappliedloadsare
withinanacceptabletolerance.Ifthereareoutofrangeappliedloadsormeasured
displacements,thenthesystemwilldisplaywarningmessagesandcanbeprogrammedto
terminatethetest.
25
(a)Compactedspecimen (b)Housingaspecimeninthemembrane
(c)Seatingaspecimenonthecellbase (d)Placingthetopcap
(e)Assemblingthetriaxialcell (f)Mountingthecellontheloadingframe
Figure3.6:Preparationofsoilspecimenforrepeatedloadtriaxialtest
26
Figure 3.7: Computer program used to control and run the repeated load triaxial
testfordeterminationofresilientmodulus
27
Chapter4
TestResultsandAnalysis
Thischapterpresentstheresultsofthelaboratorytestingprogram,analysesand
evaluationoftestresults,andstatisticalanalysistodevelopresilientmodulusprediction
models. Physicalandcompactionpropertiesoftheinvestigatedsoilsarepresentedand
evaluated.Inaddition,theresultsoftherepeatedloadtriaxialtesttoevaluatetheresilient
modulusoftheinvestigatedsoilsarediscussed. Statisticalanalysesareconductedto
developcorrelationsforpredictingtheresilientmodulusmodelparametersfrombasic
soilproperties.Acriticalevaluationandvalidationoftheproposedcorrelationsand
discussionoftheresultsarealsopresented.
4.1 PropertiesoftheInvestigatedSoils
Evaluationofsoilpropertiesandidentificationandclassificationoftheinvestigatedsoils
areimportantstepstoaccomplishtheresearchobjectivesincetheresilientmodulusis
highlyinfluencedbysoilproperties.Theinvestigatedsoilscomprisecommontypesthat
occurinWisconsin.Theresultsoflaboratorytestsconductedtoevaluatesoilproperties
arepresentedinTable4.1.SoilnamesinTable1aredescribedaccordingtotheSoil
ConservationServices(SCS).Thesoilhorizondesignationisforthedepthatwhichthe
soilsamplewasobtained.Thedataonsoilpropertiesconsistsofparticlesizeanalysis
(sieveandhydrometer);consistencylimits(LL,PL,andPI);specificgravity;maximum
dryunitweightandoptimummoisturecontent;soilclassificationusingtheUnifiedSoil
ClassificationSystem(USCS);andsoilclassificationusingtheAASHTOmethod
includinggroupindex(GI).Thefollowingisabriefdescriptionofselectedsoils.
Dodgeville Soil (B)
Testresultsindicatedthatthesoilconsistsof97%offinematerials(passingsieve#200)
withaplasticityindexPI=12,whichwasclassifiedasleanclay(CL)accordingtothe
USCSandclayeysoil(A-6)accordingtotheAASHTOsoilclassificationwithagroup
indexGI=13.Figure4.1showstheparticlesizedistributioncurveofDodgevillesoil.
TheresultsoftheStandardProctortestonDodgevillesoilaredepictedinFigure4.2.
Resultsoftest#1showedthatthemaximumdryunitweight
dmax
=15.9kN/m
3
andthe
optimummoisturecontentw
opt.
=19.6%,whileresultsoftest#2indicatedthat
dmax
=
16.25kN/m
3
andw
opt.
=18.0%.Theresultsofthecompactiontestsareconsidered
consistent.
Antigo Soil (B)
Figure4.3depictstheparticlesizedistributioncurveofAntigosoil.Thissoilconsistsof
91%passingsieve#200withplasticityindexPI=11,whichwasclassifiedasleanclay
(CL)accordingtoUSCSandclayeysoil(A-6)accordingtotheAASHTOsoil
classificationwithGI=9.StandardProctortestresultsshowedthattheaveragemaximum
dryunitweight
dmax
=17.5kN/m
3
andthecorrespondingaverageoptimummoisture
contentw
opt.
= 14.5%,asshowninFigure4.4.
28
Table4.1:Propertiesoftheinvestigatedsoils
Soilname, horizon
andlocation
Passing
Sieve#200
(%)
Liquid
Limit
LL
(%)
Plastic
Limit
PL
(%)
Plasticity
Index
PI
(%)
Specific
Gravity
G
s
Optimum
Moisture
Content
w
opt.
(%)
Maximum
DryUnit
Weight
UnifiedSoil
Classification
System
(USCS)
Group
Index
(GI)
AASHTOSoil
Classification
dmax
(kN/m
3
)
dmax
(pcf)
Beecher,B,Kenosha
County
48 29 17 12 2.67 13.9 18.3 116.5
SC
(Clayeysand) 3
A-6
(Clayeysoil)
Chetek,B,Marathon
County
29 NP NP NP 2.67 8.5 20.1 128.0
SM
(Siltysand)
0
A-2-4
(Siltyorclayeygravel
andsand)
Antigo,B,Langlade
County
91 30 19 11 2.63 14.5 17.5 111.4
CL
(LeanClay) 9
A-6
(Clayeysoil)
Goodman,B,Lincoln
County
15 NP NP NP 2.62 10.5 19.1 121.6
SM
(Siltysand
withgravel)
0
A-2-4
andsand)
Withee,B,Marathon
County
35 35 16 19 2.59 15.7 17.4 110.8
SC
(Clayeysand)
2
A-2-6
andsand)
Shiocton,C,Outagmie
County
41 NP NP NP 2.69 11.2 15.9 101.3
SM
(Siltysand)
0
A-4
(Siltysoil)
Pence,B,Lincoln
County
22 NP NP NP 2.66 8.5 19.1 121.6
SM
(Siltysand
withgravel)
0
A-2-4
andsand)
Gogebic,B,IronCounty 32 NP NP NP 2.61 19.0 15.5 98.7
SM
Siltysand
0
A-2-4
andsand)
NP:NonPlastic
2
9
Table4.1(cont.):Propertiesoftheinvestigatedsoils
Soilname, horizon
Passing
Sieve
LiquidLimit
LL
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Specific
Gravity
Optimum
Moisture
Content
Maximum
DryUnit
Weight
UnifiedSoil
Classification
System
(USCS)
Group
Index
(GI)
AASHTOSoil
Classification
andlocation #200
(%)
(%)
PL
(%)
PI
(%)
G
s
w
opt.
(%)
dmax
(kN/m
3
)
dmax
(pcf)
Dodgeville,B,
IowaCounty
97 37 25 12 2.55 18.8 16.1 102.5
CL
(Leanclay) 13
A-6
(Clayeysoil)
Miami,B,Dodge
County
96 39 22 17 2.57 18.1 16.6 105.7
CL
(Leanclay) 18
A-6
(Clayeysoil)
Ontonagon-1,C
AshlandCounty
31 42 20 22 2.63 17.5 17.5 111.4
SC
(Clayeysand) 2
A-2-7
(Siltyorclayey
sandandgravel)
Ontonagon-2,C
AshlandCounty
26 47 22 25 2.64 22.0 16.0 101.9
SC
(Clayeysand)
2
A-2-7
(Siltyorclayey
sandandgravel)
Plainfield,C,Wood
County
2 NP NP NP 2.65 - - -
SP
(Poorlygraded
sand)
0
A-3
(Finesand)
Plano,CDane
County
27 NP NP NP 2.66 7.8 20.5 130.5
SM
(Siltysand)
0
A-2-4
(Siltyorclayey
sandandgravel)
Kewaunee-1,C
WinnebagoCounty
30 NP NP NP 2.64 12.7 18.2 115.9
SM
(Siltysand)
0
A-2-4
(Siltyorclayey
sandandgravel)
Kewaunee-2,C
WinnebagoCounty
48 28 14 14 2.69 13.5 19.0 121.0
SC
(Clayeysand) 3
A-6
(Clayeysoil)
NP:Nonplastic
3
0
Table4.1(cont.):Propertiesoftheinvestigatedsoils
Soilname,
horizonand
location
Passing
Sieve
#200
(%)
LiquidLimit
LL
(%)
Plastic
Limit
PL
(%)
Plasticity
Index
PI
(%)
Specific
Gravity
G
s
Optimum
Moisture
Content
w
opt.
(%)
Maximum
DryUnit
Weight
UnifiedSoil
Classification
System
(USCS)
Group
Index
(GI)
AASHTOSoil
Classification
dmax
(kN/m
3
)
dmax
(pcf)
Dubuque,C,Iowa
County
72 35 23 12 2.55 18.0 16.6 105.7
CL
(Leanclay)
8
A-6
(Clayeysoil)
Eleva,B,
Trempealeau
County
20 NP NP NP 2.64 7.3 20.4 129.9
SM
(Siltysand)
0
A-2-4
(Siltyorclayey
gravelandsand)
Sayner-Rubicon,
C,VilasCounty
1 NP NP NP 2.65 - - -
SP
(Poorlygraded
sandwith
gravel)
0
A-1
(Stonefragments,
gravelandsand)
NP:Nonplastic
Soilname,
horizonand e
max
e
min
location
Plainfield,C, 0.73 0.45
WoodCounty 0.68 0.44
Sayner-Rubicon,
C,VilasCounty
0.71 0.45
3
1
Particlesize(inch)
0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Dodgevillesoil(B)
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
Figure4.1:ParticlesizedistributioncurveofDodgevillesoil(B)
13
14
15
16
17
18
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
Dodgevillesoil(B)
Test1
Test2
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Moisturecontent,w(%)
Figure4.2:ResultsofStandardProctortestforDodgevillesoil(B)
32
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
100
80
60
40
20
0
Antigosoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
Figure4.3:ParticlesizedistributioncurveofAntigosoil
16
17
18
19
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
p
c
f
)
Antigosoil
Test1
Test2
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure4.4:ResultsofStandardProctortestforAntigosoil
33
Plano Soil (C)

Thissoilconsistsof27%passingsieve#200.Itwasclassifiedassiltysand(SM)
accordingtotheUSCSandsiltyorclayeysandandgravel(A-2-4)accordingtothe
AASHTOsoilclassificationwithGI=0.Figure4.5showstheparticlesizedistribution
curveofPlanosoil.StandardProctortestresults(Figure4.6)showedthattheaverage
maximumdryunitweight
dmax
=20.5kN/m
3
andtheaverageoptimummoisturecontent
w
opt.
= 7.8%.
Kewaunee Soil - 1 (C)
Testresultsshowedthatthesoilconsistedof30%passingsieve#200andwasclassified
assiltysand(SM)accordingtoUSCSandsiltyorclayeysandandgravel(A-2-4)
accordingtotheAASHTOsoilclassificationwithGI=0.Figure4.7showstheparticle
sizedistributioncurveofKewauneesoil-1.Figure4.8depictstheresultsoftheStandard
Proctortestinwhichtheaveragemaximumdryunitweight
dmax
=18.2kN/m
3
andthe
correspondingaverageoptimummoisturecontentw
opt.
= 12.7%.
TheresultsofparticlesizeanalysisandtheStandardProctortestfortheinvestigatedsoils
arepresentedinAppendixA.AsummaryoftheStandardProctortestresultsonthe
investigatedsoilsispresentedinTable4.2.
4.2 ResilientModulusoftheInvestigatedSoils
Typicalresultsoftherepeatedloadtriaxialtestconductedontheinvestigatedsoilsare
showninTable4.3.ThetestwasconductedonAntigosoilspecimens1and2compacted
at0.95
dmax
andmoisturecontentw >w
opt.
(wetside).Table4.3presentsthemean
resilientmodulusvalues,standarddeviation,andcoefficientofvariationforthe15test
sequencesconductedaccordingtoAASHTOT307.Themeanresilientmodulusvalues,
standarddeviationandcoefficientofvariationsummarizedinTable4.3areobtained
fromthelastfiveloadcyclesofeachtestsequence.Thecoefficientofvariationforthe
testresultspresentedinTable4.3rangesbetween0.14and1.04%forspecimen#1and
from0.11to0.51%forspecimen#2.Thisindicatesthateachsoilspecimenshowed
consistentbehaviorduringeachtestsequence.
Figure4.9showsagraphicalrepresentationoftheresultspresentedinTable4.3.
InspectionofFigure4.9indicatesthattheresilientmodulus(M
r
)ofAntigoclaydecreases
withtheincreaseofthedeviatorstress(o
d
)underconstantconfiningpressure(o
c
).Under
constanto
c
=41.4kPa,theresilientmodulusdecreasedfromM
r
=49.65MPaato
d
=
12.45kPatoM
r
=28.33MPaato
d
=59.36kPaforAntigosoilspecimen#1.Moreover,
theresilientmodulusincreaseswiththeincreaseofconfiningpressureunderconstant
deviatorstress,whichreflectsatypicalbehavior.Theresultspresentedhereinaretypical
resilientmodulusresultsthatareconsistentwithwhatwasdiscussedinChapter2
Backgroundandaresignificantlyaffectedbythestresslevel.
34
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
0
20
40
60
80
100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
Planosoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
Figure4.5:ParticlesizedistributioncurveofPlanosoil
17
18
19
20
21
22
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
p
c
f
)
Planosoil
Test1
Test2
0 5 10 15 20
Figure4.6:ResultsofStandardProctortestforPlanosoil
35
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
0
20
40
60
80
100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
Kewauneesoil-1
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
Figure4.7:ParticlesizedistributioncurveofKewauneesoil-1
15
16
17
18
19
20
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
p
c
f
)
Kewauneesoil-1
Test1
Test2
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure4.8:ResultsofStandardProctortestforKewauneesoil-1
36

Table4.2:Resultsofthestandardcompactiontestontheinvestigatedsoils
Soil
Test1 Test2 Average
dmax
(kN/m
3
)
w
opt.
(%)
dmax
(kN/m
3
)
w
opt.
(%)
dmax
(kN/m
3
)
w
opt.
(%)
Antigo 17.5 14.5 17.5 14.5 17.5 14.5
Beecher 18.3 14.1 18.3 13.7 18.3 13.9
Goodman 19.1 10.5 NA NA 19.1 10.5
Plano 20.7 8.0 20.3 7.5 20.5 7.8
Dodgeville 15.9 19.6 16.2 18.0 16.1 18.8
Dubuque 16.5 18.0 16.7 18.0 16.6 18.0
Chetek 20.1 8.4 20.1 8.5 20.1 8.5
Eleva 20.2 7.5 20.7 7.1 20.4 7.3
Pence 19.1 8.5 NA NA 19.1 8.5
Gogebic 16.0 17.5 15.0 20.5 15.5 19.0
Miami 16.5 18.4 16.7 17.8 16.6 18.1
Ontonagon-1 17.5 17.5 NA NA 17.5 17.5
Ontonagon-2 16.0 22.0 NA NA 16.0 22.0
Kewaunee-1 18.2 12.8 18.2 12.5 18.2 12.7
Kewaunee-2 19.0 13.0 18.9 14.0 19.0 13.5
Shiocton 16.0 11.0 15.7 11.3 15.9 11.2
Withee 17.6 15.5 17.2 15.8 17.4 15.7
37
Table4.3:Typicalresultsoftherepeatedloadtriaxialtestconductedaccordingto
AASHTOT307
Test
Sequence
No.
Confining
Stress
o
c
(kPa)
Deviator
Stress
o
d
(kPa)
Antigowet#1
M
r
(MPa)
Deviator
Stress
o
d
(kPa)
Antigowet#2
M
r
(MPa)
Mean
SD
CV
(%)
Mean SD
CV
(%)
1 41.4 12.45 49.65 0.30 0.60 12.35 57.96 0.24 0.41
2 41.4 24.91 43.30 0.45 1.04 24.92 51.74 0.14 0.28
3 41.4 36.71 36.72 0.08 0.21 36.94 44.83 0.16 0.36
4 41.4 47.90 30.55 0.08 0.25 48.11 37.13 0.07 0.19
5 41.4 59.36 28.33 0.07 0.24 59.67 34.18 0.05 0.15
6 27.6 12.29 40.79 0.17 0.43 12.24 48.69 0.19 0.39
7 27.6 23.98 30.23 0.09 0.28 24.15 38.65 0.18 0.46
8 27.6 35.51 26.00 0.09 0.34 35.82 32.97 0.11 0.33
9 27.6 48.44 24.22 0.07 0.29 47.79 29.92 0.03 0.11
10 27.6 60.25 23.31 0.03 0.14 59.80 28.28 0.04 0.15
11 13.8 12.08 30.67 0.16 0.53 12.02 37.60 0.19 0.51
12 13.8 23.37 21.42 0.05 0.24 23.83 27.92 0.13 0.46
13 13.8 35.81 18.80 0.06 0.31 35.41 23.88 0.11 0.47
14 13.8 48.43 18.57 0.04 0.20 47.53 22.44 0.05 0.22
15 13.8 60.18 18.68 0.05 0.29 59.22 21.91 0.05 0.24
SD:StandardDeviation
CV:CoefficientofVariation
38

DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Antigo-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
(a)Testonsoilspecimen#1
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Antigo-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
(b)Testonsoilspecimen#2
Figure4.9:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonAntigosoilcompactedat95%of
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
39

Arepeatabilityinvestigationwasconductedtoensurethathighqualitytestresultscanbe
obtained.Thisisessentialsincethedatawillbeusedtodevelopandvalidateresilient
moduluscorrelationsforuseinthemechanistic-empiricalpavementdesign.Inaddition,
repeatedloadtriaxialtestswereconductedontwosoilspecimensofeachinvestigated
soilunderidenticalmoisturecontentandunitweight.
Toinvestigatetherepeatabilityoftestresults,Dodgevillesoilwasselectedwhereseven
soilspecimenswerepreparedatmaximumdryunitweightandoptimummoisture
content,foursoilspecimenswerepreparedat95%ofmaximumdryunitweightand
moisturecontentlessthantheoptimum(dryside),andtwosoilspecimenswereprepared
at95%ofmaximumdryunitweightandmoisturecontentgreaterthantheoptimum(wet
side).RepeatabilitytestresultsareshowninFigures4.10,4.11and4.12,respectively.
AstatisticalanalysiswasconductedonDodgevillesoiltestresultstoevaluatetest
repeatability.Tables4.4,4.5,and4.6presenttheresultsoftheanalysis.Examinationof
Tables4.4-4.6indicatesthatthedeviatorstressappliedbythesystemwasaccuratewith
coefficientofvariationCV(o
d
)rangesfrom0to4.4%.Thecoefficientofvariationforthe
resilientmodulusCV(M
r
)variesfrom0.2to2.9%forthemaximumdryunitweight
specimens,between5.1and13.2%forthe95%ofmaximumdryunitweightspecimens
(dryside),andfrom1.8to20.2%forthe95%ofmaximumdryunitweightspecimens
(wetside).Thebestrepeatabilityresultswereobtainedforthespecimenscompactedat
themaximumdryunitweightandoptimummoisturecontent.Basedonthisrepeatability
analysis,thetestresultsareconsideredconsistentandrepeatable.
Figure4.13presentstheresultsoftherepeatedloadtriaxialtestonAntigoand
Dodgevillesoilscompactedatmaximumdryunitweightandoptimummoisturecontent.
TestresultsonAntigosoil(Figure4.13a)showedthatatconfiningpressureo
c
=41.4
kPa,theresilientmodulusdecreasedfromM
r
=94MPaato
d
=12.6kPatoM
r
=81MPa
ato
d
=61.5kPa.ForDodgevillesoil(Figure4.13b)andunderthesameconfining
pressure,theresilientmodulusdecreasedfromM
r
=75MPaato
d
=12.4kPatoM
r
=59
MPaato
d
=60.6kPa.BothsoilsshowedthatM
r
isdecreasingwiththeincreaseinthe
deviatorstress;however,Antigosoilexhibitedhigherresilientmodulusvaluescompared
toDodgevillesoil.Thisisattributedtothehighermaximumdryunitweightandlower
moisturecontentvaluesoftheAntigospecimencomparedtotheDodgevillespecimen.
TheAntigosoilspecimen#1(Figure4.13a)wassubjectedtotherepeatedloadtriaxial
testat
dmax
=17.4kN/m
3
andw
opt.
=14.6%,whiletheDodgevillespecimen#5wastested
at
dmax
=15.8kN/m
3
andw
opt.
=20.1%.Theresilientmodulusasadynamicsoilstiffness
modulusisaffectedbymoisturecontentandunitweightofthesoil.Soilsunderhigher
unitweightandlowermoisturecontentareexpectedtoshowhigherstiffnessmodulus.
Figure4.14presentstheresultsoftherepeatedloadtriaxialtestonBeechersoilat95%
dmax
andw <w
opt
,at
dmax
andw
opt
, andat95%
dmax
andw >w
opt
.Thisistodemonstrate
theeffectofthemoisturecontentontheresilientmodulusoftheinvestigatedsoils.Test
resultsontheBeechersoilspecimentestedat95%
dmax
andw <w
opt
(dryside)showed
that
40

DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test3
at
dmax
andw
opt.
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test5
at
dmax
andw
opt.
dmax
opt.
)
41
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test6
at
dmax
andw
opt.
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
(c)Testonsoilspecimen#6
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test7
at
dmax
andw
opt.
(d)Testonsoilspecimen#7
Figure4.10(cont.):ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonDodgevillesoil
compactedatmaximumdryunitweight(
dmax
opt.
)
42
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
95%ofmaximumdryunitweight(
dmax
opt.
(dry
side)
43
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test3
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test4
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
Figure4.11(cont.):ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonDodgevillesoil
compactedat95%ofmaximumdryunitweight(
dmax
)andmoisturecontentless
thanw
opt.
(dryside)
44
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
100
80
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
10,000
60
8,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
6,000
40
4,000
20
2,000
10
8
1,000
6
800
600
4
400
2
200
1
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
100
80
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
40
4,000
20
2,000
10
8
1,000
6
800
600
4
400
2
200
1
dmax
opt.
(wet
side)
45
Table4.4:AnalysisofrepeatabilitytestsonDodgevillesoiltestedatmaximumdryunitweightandoptimummoisturecontent
Test
Sequence
o
c
(kPa)
Test#5 Test#6 Test#7 Mean
o
d
(kPa)
Mean
M
r
(MPa)
CV(o
d
) CV(M
r
)
o
d
(kPa)
M
r
(MPa)
o
d
(kPa)
M
r
(MPa)
o
d
(kPa)
M
r
(MPa)
1 12.4 75.0 12.8 76.0 12.5 76.9 12.6 76.0 1.6 1.2
2 24.7 73.1 25.1 73.1 24.9 72.7 24.9 73.0 0.8 0.3
3 41.4 37.3 71.1 37.7 68.7 37.2 68.3 37.4 69.4 0.8 2.2
4 49.2 65.3 49.7 61.8 49.0 62.7 49.3 63.3 0.7 2.9
5 60.6 58.8 61.4 55.5 60.4 56.9 60.8 57.1 0.8 2.9
6 12.4 69.7 12.7 70.6 12.4 70.7 12.5 70.3 1.5 0.8
7 24.5 65.1 24.9 63.1 24.5 63.7 24.6 64.0 0.9 1.6
8 27.6 36.6 60.5 37.2 58.1 36.6 58.8 36.8 59.1 0.9 2.1
9 48.5 56.8 49.2 53.9 48.3 54.9 48.7 55.2 1.0 2.6
10 60.1 53.3 60.9 50.3 60.0 51.8 60.3 51.8 0.8 2.9
11 12.2 62.1 12.6 62.4 12.3 62.3 12.4 62.3 1.6 0.2
12 24.3 55.5 24.6 54.2 24.2 54.5 24.3 54.7 0.8 1.3
13 13.8 36.1 51.6 36.5 49.7 35.9 50.1 36.2 50.5 0.9 1.9
14 47.6 48.5 48.5 46.4 47.4 47.1 47.8 47.3 1.2 2.2
15 59.2 46.0 60.2 43.7 58.9 45.3 59.5 45.0 1.1 2.7
4
6
Table4.5:AnalysisofrepeatabilitytestsonDodgevillesoiltestedat95%ofmaximumdryunitweightandmoisturecontent
lessthantheoptimummoisturecontent(dryside)
Test
Sequence
o
c
(kPa)
Test#1 Test#2 Test#4 Mean
o
d
(kPa)
Mean
M
r
(MPa)
CV(o
d
) CV(M
r
)
o
d
(kPa)
M
r
(MPa)
o
d
(kPa)
M
r
(MPa)
o
d
(kPa)
M
r
(MPa)
1 12.8 109.2 11.9 130.3 12.8 142.3 12.5 127.3 4.4 13.2
2 25.2 126.8 25.4 133.5 25.5 146.4 25.4 135.6 0.5 7.3
3 41.4 37.7 133.6 37.6 133.3 38.0 146.5 37.8 137.8 0.6 5.5
4 50.5 133.5 49.7 133.7 50.5 145.7 50.2 137.6 0.9 5.1
5 62.7 131.6 62.2 131.0 63.1 145.3 62.7 136.0 0.7 6.0
6 12.8 105.0 11.7 125.1 12.2 134.9 12.2 121.7 4.4 12.5
7 25.3 118.7 25.0 126.1 25.3 138.9 25.2 127.9 0.7 8.0
8 27.6 37.8 125.1 37.4 125.7 37.7 138.5 37.6 129.8 0.5 5.8
9 50.2 127.1 49.6 124.2 50.3 138.4 50.0 129.9 0.7 5.8
10 62.6 126.8 62.1 123.2 63.3 138.8 62.7 129.6 1.0 6.3
11 12.4 99.5 11.8 110.8 12.0 123.8 12.1 111.4 2.8 10.9
12 25.0 104.6 24.7 112.4 25.2 126.7 25.0 114.6 1.0 9.8
13 13.8 37.3 109.8 37.1 112.2 37.5 127.3 37.3 116.4 0.6 8.2
14 50.0 113.0 49.4 111.7 50.2 127.7 49.9 117.5 0.8 7.5
15 62.4 114.5 61.9 111.5 63.1 128.8 62.5 118.3 1.0 7.8
4
7
Table4.6:AnalysisofrepeatabilitytestsonDodgevillesoiltestedat95%ofmaximumdryunitweightandmoisturecontent
greaterthantheoptimummoisturecontent(wetside)
Test
Sequence
o
c
(kPa)
Test#1 Test#2 Mean
o
d
(kPa)
Mean
M
r
(MPa)
CV(o
d
) CV(M
r
)
o
d
(kPa)
M
r
(MPa)
o
d
(kPa)
M
r
(MPa)
1 12.6 33.7 12.3 25.3 12.5 29.5 1.4 20.2
2 24.5 24.3 24.5 19.5 24.5 21.9 0.2 15.5
3 41.4 36.6 20.4 35.9 15.5 36.2 17.9 1.2 19.1
4 48.2 17.1 47.3 13.2 47.8 15.2 1.2 18.1
5 59.7 14.9 59.2 13.0 59.5 13.9 0.5 9.5
6 12.0 19.1 12.1 16.7 12.0 17.9 0.2 9.4
7 23.4 13.1 23.6 12.3 23.5 12.7 0.8 4.4
8 27.6 35.5 12.3 36.0 12.0 35.8 12.2 1.0 1.8
9 48.0 12.8 48.3 12.2 48.1 12.5 0.4 3.5
10 59.9 13.2 60.0 12.3 59.9 12.7 0.1 4.9
11 11.9 15.0 11.9 12.8 11.9 13.9 0.0 11.1
12 22.7 10.1 23.5 9.4 23.1 9.7 2.4 5.0
13 13.8 35.1 10.1 36.0 9.4 35.6 9.7 1.9 4.7
14 47.8 11.0 48.5 10.2 48.2 10.6 1.1 5.3
15 59.8 11.9 60.7 11.0 60.3 11.4 1.0 5.6
4
8
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Antigo-Test1
at
dmax
=17.4kN/m
3
andw
opt.
=14.6%
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
40
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
4,000
20
2,000
10
(a)Antigo
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test5
at
dmax
=15.8kN/m
3
andw
opt.
=20.1%
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
40
4,000
20
2,000
10
(b)Dodgeville
Figure4.13:Theeffectofunitweightandmoisturecontentontheresilientmodulus
oftheinvestigatedsoils
49

DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi) DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
200 200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Beecher-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
d
=17.3kN/m
3
andw
.
=10%
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Beecher-Test1
at
dmax
=18.3kN/m
3
andw
opt.
=14%
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
100
80
100
80
10,000 10,000
60 60
8,000 8,000
6,000 6,000
40 40
4,000 4,000
20 20
2,000 2,000
10 10
(a)Dryside (b)Optimum
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Beecher-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
at
d
=17.3kN/m
3
andw =16.3%
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
(c)Wetside
Figure4.14:Theeffectofthemoisturecontentontheresilientmodulusofthe
investigatedsoils
50
atconfiningpressureo
c
=41.4kPa,theresilientmodulusdecreasedfromM
r
=119MPa
ato
d
=12.5kPatoM
r
=114MPaato
d
=60.7kPa.TheBeecherspecimentestedat95%
dmax
andw >w
opt
showedadecreaseintheresilientmodulusfrom M
r
=72MPaato
d
=
13.6kPatoM
r
=42MPaato
d
=60.3kPa.Bothspecimenshavesimilarunitweight
values(
d
=17.3kN/m
3
)anddifferentmoisturecontent.TheBeecherspecimenwith
lowermoisturecontentexhibitedhigherresilientmodulusvaluescomparedtotheother
specimenwithhighermoisturecontentunderthesameunitweight.Theeffectof
increasedmoisturecontentofthesoilonreducingtheresilientmodulusissignificant.
Thesoilspecimentestedat
dmax
andw
opt
exhibitedresilientmodulusvalueslessthanthe
specimencompactedat95%
dmax
andw <w
opt
(dryside).Thisismainlyattributedtothe
moisturecontentsincethespecimencompactedatoptimummoisturecontenthas4%
moremoisture.Eventhoughthespecimencompactedat
dmax
hashigherunitweight,the
influenceofmoisturecontentsurpassedtheeffectofunitweight.
Formanyoftheinvestigatedsoils,theresilientmodulusvaluesofthesoilcompactedat
95%
dmax
onthedrysidearehigherthanM
r
valuesofthesamesoilcompactedat
dmax
and
optimummoisturecontent.Thesoilcompactedatmoisturecontentlessthantheoptimum
and95%
dmax
exhibitedhardeningandshowedhighervaluesofresilientmoduluswiththe
increaseofthedeviatorstress.Thesoilcompactedatunitweightof95%
dmax
onthewet
sideexhibitedlowresilientmodulusvaluescomparedtothesamesoilcompactedat
optimummoisturecontent.
Theresultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestontheinvestigatedsoilsarepresentedin
AppendixB.
4.3 StatisticalAnalysis
Resultsobtainedfrombasicsoiltestingandrepeatedloadtriaxialtestwereusedto
developcorrelationsforpredictingtheresilientmodulusmodelparametersusingthe
resilientmodulusconstitutiveequationselectedbyNCHRPProject1-37Aforthe
mechanistic-empiricalpavementdesign.Repeatedloadtriaxialtestswereconducted,on
average,sixtimesoneachsoiltypeatthreedifferentmoisturecontentlevelsandtwodry
unitweightlevels(i.e.95%
dmax
and
dmax
).ItshouldbenotedthatKewauneesoilwas
subjectedtotestingonlyonceundereachmoisturecontentlevelduetounavailabilityof
soilsamples.
4.3.1 Evaluation of the Resilient Modulus Model Parameters
Theresilientmodulusmodelisageneralconstitutiveequationthatwasdeveloped
throughNCHRPproject1-28Aandwasselectedforimplementationintheupcoming
AASHTOGuidefortheDesignofNewandRehabilitatedPavementStructures.The
resilientmodulusmodelcanbeusedforalltypesofsubgradematerials.Theresilient
modulusmodelisdefinedby(NCHRP1-28A):
51
=
=
=
=
| o |
k
2
|t |
k
3
b oct
M
r
k
1
P
a

|
|

+1| (4.1)
|
P P
\ a . \ a .
where:
M
r
= resilientmodulus
P
a
= atmosphericpressure(101.325kPa)
o
b
=bulkstress=o
1
+ o
2
+ o
3
o
1
=majorprincipalstress
o
2
=intermediateprincipalstress=o
3
inaxisymmetriccondition(triaxialtest)
o
3
=minorprincipalstressorconfiningpressureintherepeatedloadtriaxialtest
t
oct
=octahedralshearstress
k
1
,k
2
andk
3
=materialmodelparameters
Theoctahedralshearstressisdefinedingeneralas:
1
2 2 2
t (o o ) + (o o ) + (o o ) (4.2)
oct 1 2 1 3 2 3
3
Foraxisymmetricstresscondition(triaxial),o
2
= o
3
ando
1
- o
3
= o
d
(deviatorstress),
thereforetheoctahedralshearstressisreducedto:
t
2
(o ) (4.3)
oct d
3
Theresilientmodulus,thebulkstressandtheoctahedralshearstressarenormalizedin
thismodelbytheatmosphericpressure.Thiswillresultinnon-dimensionalmodel
parameters.
Statisticalanalysisbasedonmultiplelinearregressionwasutilizedtodeterminethe
resilientmodulusmodelparametersk
1
,k
2
andk
3.
Thestatisticalanalysissoftware
STATISTICAwasusedtoperformtheanalysis.Inordertodeterminek
1
,k
2
,andk
3
using
theexperimentaltestresults,theresilientmodulusmodelEquation4.1wastransformed
to:
| M | | o | |t |
r b oct
log | logk
1
+ k
2
log | + k
3
log +1| (4.4)
| | |
P P P
\ a . \ a . \ a .
Theresilientmodulusistreatedasthedependentvariable,whilebulkandoctahedral
shearstressesareusedastheindependentvariables.Theanalysiswascarriedoutforeach
soiltypetoevaluatethemodelparameters(k
1
,k
2
andk
3
)fromtheresultsofthe15stress
combinationsappliedduringrepeatedloadtriaxialtest(15loadsequencesaccordingto
AASHTOT307).Atotalof136repeatedloadtestswereusedintheanalysis.Resultsof
thisanalysisaresummarizedinTable4.7.
52
Table4.7:Basicstatisticaldataoftheresilientmodulusmodelparametersk
i
obtainedfromthetestresultsoftheinvestigatedsoils
Parameter Mean Median Minimum Maximum Std.Dev.
Standard
Error
k
1
826.8 832.0 201.2 1318.7 250.4 21.47
k
2
0.517 0.456 0.176 1.083 0.243 0.021
k
3
-2.142 -1.919 -6.013 -0.105 1.373 0.118
Theanalysisshowedthatk
1
rangesfrom201.2to1318.7withameanvalueof826.8.The
magnitudeofk
1
wasalways>0sincetheresilientmodulusshouldalwaysbegreaterthan
zero.Theparameterk
2
which,isrelatedtothebulkstress,variesbetween0.176and
1.083withmeanvalueof0.517.Thevaluesofk
2
werealsogreaterthanzerosincethe
resilientmodulusincreaseswiththeincreaseinthebulkstress(confinement).Sincethe
resilientmodulusdecreaseswiththeincreaseinthedeviatorstress,theparameterk
3
rangesfrom-6.013to-0.105withameanvalueof-2.142.Themodelparametersk
i
obtainedfromthestatisticalanalysisontherepeatedloadtestresultsarepresentedin
histogramsinFigure4.15.
4.3.2 Correlations of Model Parameters with Soil Properties
Theresilientmodulusmodelparametersk
1
,k
2
andk
3
weredeterminedforallsoiltypes.
Theseparametersarethencorrelatedtofundamentalsoilpropertiesusingregression
analysis.Thevaluesofresilientmodulusmodelparameters(k
1
,k
2
andk
3
)were
alternativelyusedasdependentvariableswhilevariousfundamentalsoilpropertieswere
treatedasindependentvariables.Variouscombinationsofsoilproperties(independent
variables)wereusedintheregressionanalysis.Thegeneralmultiplelinearregression
modelisexpressedas:
k | + | x + | x + + | x + e (4.5)
i 0 1 1 2 2 k k
where:
k
i
=thedependentvariablefortheregression,(modelparametersk
1
,k
2
ork
3
)
|
0
=interceptoftheregressionplane
|
i
=regressioncoefficient
x
i
= the independent or regressor variable, (in this study, soil property or a
combinationofsoilproperties)
e =randomerror
Itshouldbenotedthatgeneralnonlinearmodelsthatincludefactorialandpolynomial
regressionwereattemptedinthisstudy.Theresultedcorrelationswerenotsuccessfuldue
totheexistenceofalargeintercorrelationbetweentheindependentvariables.Inaddition,
someofthecorrelationcoefficientsconflictwiththenaturalbehaviorofsoils.Asan
example,theincreaseinthedryunitweightleadstoadecreaseintheresilientmodulus.
53
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
N
o
.
o
f
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
201 335 469 604 738 872 1006 1140 1274

k
1
(a)Resilientmodulusmodelparameterk
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
N
o
.
o
f
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
0.177 0.285 0.394 0.503 0.612 0.720 0.829 0.938 1.047

k
2
(b)Resilientmodulusmodelparameterk
2
Figure4.15:Histogramsofresilientmodulusmodelparametersk
i
obtainedfrom
statisticalanalysisontheresultsoftheinvestigatedWisconsinsoils
54
N
o
.
o
f
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-6.01 -5.30 -4.60 -3.89 -3.18 -2.47 -1.76 -1.05 -0.34
k
3
(c)Resilientmodulusmodelparameterk
3
Figure4.15(cont.):Histogramsofresilientmodulusmodelparametersk
i
obtained
fromstatisticalanalysisontheresultsoftheinvestigatedWisconsinsoils
Selection of Soil Properties
Theresilientmodulusisusedtoevaluatethestiffnessofbound/unboundmaterials.
Factorsthataffectresilientmodulusarestressstate,soiltypeandtheenvironmental
conditionsofthesoilthatinfluencethesoilphysicalstate(unitweightandmoisture
content).Stressstateisexpressedintheresilientmodulusmodelbyincludingbulkand
octahedralstresses.Thesoiltypeandthecurrentsoilphysicalconditionshouldbe
includedinattemptedcorrelationsinordertoobtainvalidestimation/predictionofthe
resilientmodulus.
Setsofindependentvariablesarespecifiedtoreflectsoiltypeandcurrentsoilphysical
condition.Independentvariablesavailablefrombasicsoiltestingthatrepresentsoiltype
andcurrentsoilphysicalconditionare:percentpassingsieve#4(P
No.4
),percentpassing
sieve#40(P
No.40
),percentpassingsieve#200(P
No.200
),liquidlimit(LL),plasticlimit
(PL),PlasticityIndex(PI),LiquidityIndex(LI),amountofsand(%Sand),amountofsilt
(%Silt),amountofclay(%Clay),watercontent(w)anddryunitweight(
d
).The
optimumwatercontent(w
opt
.)andmaximumdryunitweight(
dmax
)andcombinationsof
variableswerealsoincluded.
55
=
Thegoaloftheregressionanalysisistoidentifythebestsubsetofindependentvariables
thatresultsinaccuratecorrelationbetweenresilientmodulusmodelparametersk
i
and
basicsoilproperties.Severalcombinationsofregressionequationswereattemptedand
evaluatedbasedonthecriteriaofthecoefficientofmultipledetermination(R
2
),the
significanceofthemodelandthesignificanceoftheindividualregressioncoefficients.
Inthisstudy,acorrelationmatrixwasusedasapreliminarymethodforselectingmaterial
propertiesusedintheregressionanalysismodels.Themagnitudeofeachelementinthe
correlationmatrixindicateshowstronglytwovariables(whetherindependentor
dependent)arecorrelated.Thedegreeofcorrelationisexpressedbyanumberthathasa
maximumvalueofoneforhighlycorrelatedvariables,andzeroifnocorrelationexists.
Thiswasusedtoevaluatetheimportanceofeachindependentvariable(soilproperty)
amongotherindependentvariablestothedependentvariable(modelparametersk
i
).
Measure of Model Adequacy
Thecoefficientofmultipledeterminationwasusedasaprimarymeasuretoselectthe
bestcorrelation.However,ahighR
2
doesnotnecessarilyimplythattheregressionmodel
isagoodone.AddingavariabletothemodelmayincreaseR
2
(atleastslightly)whether
thevariableisstatisticallysignificantornot.Thismayresultinpoorpredictionsofnew
observations.Thesignificanceofthemodelandindividualregressioncoefficientswere
testedforeachproposedmodel.Inaddition,theindependentvariableswerecheckedfor
multicollinearitytoinsuretheadequacyoftheproposedmodels.
Test for Significance of the Model
ThesignificanceofthemodelistestedusingtheF-testtoinsurealinearrelationship
betweenk
i
andtheestimatedregressioncoefficients(independentvariables).
Fortestinghypothesesonthemodel:
H
0
:|
1
=|
2
=---=|
k
=0
H
a
:|i 0foratleastonei
whereH
0
isthenullhypothesis,andH
a
isthealternativehypothesis.
Theteststatisticis:
SS
R
/p
F
0
(4.6)
SS
E
/(n p 1)
where:SS
R
isthesumofsquaresduetoregression,SS
E
isthesumofsquaresdueto
errors,nisthenumberofobservationsandpisthenumberofindependentvariables.
H
0
isrejectedifF
0
>F
o,p,n-p-1
where,oisthesignificancelevel(usedas0.05forallpurposesinthisstudy).
56
=
Test for Significance of Individual Regression Coefficients

Thehypothesesfortestingthesignificanceofindividualregressioncoefficient|
i
isbased
onthet-testandisgivenby:
H
0
:|
i
=0
H
a
:|
i
0
Theteststatisticis:
.
|
0
i
(4.7) t
.
2
o C
ii
. .
whereC
ii
isthediagonalelementof(X
/
X)
-1
correspondingto|
i
(estimatorof|
i
)ando
isestimatorforthestandarddeviationoferrors,X(n,p)ismatrixofalllevelsofthe
independentvariables,X
/
isthediagonalXmatrix,n isthenumberofobservations,and
pisthenumberofindependentvariables.
H
0
isrejectedif,t
0
,>t
o/2,n-p-1
Multicollinearity Treatment
Multicollinearityisacommonprobleminmultipleregressionanalysis.Itisrecognized
whenalargeintercorrelationbetweentheindependentvariablesexists.Thiscanresultin
anincorrectestimateofregressioncoefficients.Inthisstudy,theinspectionofindividual
elementsofcorrelationmatrixwasusedasaprimarycheckformulticollinearity.Avalue
of0.8indicatesstrongcollinearitybetweentwovariablesandwillinflatethestandard
errorsoftheregressioncoefficients.
Thevarianceinflationfactor(VIF)wasalsousedtodetectmulticollinearityforeach
proposedmodel.TheVIFisthesetelementsinthediagonaloftheinverseofthe
correlationmatrix.Aconservativesuggestionistoconsiderthemaximummagnitudeof
anelementintheVIF>4asamulticollinearityproblem.Someresearchersconsiderthe
maximummagnitudeofanelementintheVIF>8asamulticollinearityproblem(Hines
andMontgomery1980).Forthisstudy,allproposedmodelswerecheckedfor
multicollinearity.
4.3.3 Statistical Analysis Results
Inthefirstattemptofanalysis,alldatapointswereusedtodevelopcorrelationsbetween
theresilientmodulusmodelparameters(k
1
,k
2
andk
3
)andselectedsoilproperties.This
analysisproducedpoorcorrelationsasR
2
valuesweretoolowandmodelswere
insignificantforpredictingtheresilientmodulusconstitutivemodelparameters.Another
57
attemptofanalysiswasmadeinwhichfine-grainedandcoarse-grainedsoilswere
separatedandanalyzedindependently.Table4.8presentsasummaryofthesoil
constituentsbasedonparticlesizeanalysis.
Table4.8:Constituentsoftheinvestigatedsoils
Soil
Type/location
PassingSieve#200
(%)
Sand
(%)
Silt
(%)
Clay
(%)
Antigo 91 - 76 15
Beecher 48 42 33 15
Goodman 15 53 14 1
Plano 27 66 23 4
Dodgeville 97 - 80 17
Dubuque 72 - 57 15
Chetek 29 69 25 4
Eleva 20 80 15 5
Pence 22 64 21 1
Gogebic 32 63 28 4
Miami 96 - 74 22
Ontonagon-1 31 60 22 9
Ontonagon-2 27 63 18 9
Kewaunee-1 30 67 25 5
Kewaunee-2 48 41 32 16
Plainfield 2 98 - -
Sayner-Rubicon 1 82 - -
Shiocton 41 58 41 0.1
Withee 35 62 24 11
Fine-Grained Soils
Regressionanalysiswasconductedontheresultsofthefine-grainedsoils.Differentbasic
soilpropertieswereincludedtoobtaincorrelationswiththeresilientmodulusmodel
parametersk
1
,k
2
,andk
3
.Eachcorrelationwasexaminedfrombothphysicaland
statisticalpointsofview.Ifthemodelwasnotconsistentwiththeobservedbehaviorof
soils,itwasrejected.Manyattemptsweremadeinwhichbasicsoilpropertieswere
included.Tables4.9-4.11presentsummariesoftheregressionanalysisresultsinwhich
modelstoestimatek
1
,k
2
,andk
3
frombasicsoilpropertieswereobtained.Figure4.16
depictscomparisonsbetweenk
i
valuesobtainedfromanalysisoftheresultsofthe
repeatedloadtriaxialtest(consideredhereinasmeasuredvalues)andk
i
valuesestimated
frombasicsoilpropertiesusingtheproposedcorrelations(Tables4.9-4.11).Examination
ofTables4.9-4.11showsthatthesemodelsareconsistentwiththenaturalbehaviorofthe
soils. Thesemodelsarestatisticallyvalidatedlaterinthisreport.ThemagnitudesofR
2
fork
1
correlationsrangebetween0.83and0.88,whichisconsideredacceptable.Lower
R
2
valueswereobtainedfork
2
andk
3
asshowninTables4.10and4.11. Figure4.16also
58
demonstratesthegoodestimationcapabilityofthesemodels.Itshouldbeemphasized
thatthesemodelswereobtainedbasedonstatisticalanalysisontestdatathatarelimited
tofine-grainedsoilscompactedatrelativelyhighunitweight.Extrapolationofthese
modelsatsoilphysicalconditionlevelsbeyondthisisnotvalidatedinthisstudy.
1
andbasic
soilpropertiesforfine-grainedsoils
Variable
k
1
correlations
Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4
Intercept 1262.543 1286.35 404.166 1358.33
w(%) -50.592 - - -
d
(kN/m
3
) - 49.84 52.260 -
PI(%) 41.128 43.13 42.933 48.30
P
No.200
(%) - - - -3.4
d max
d

- - - 123.28
opt .
w
w
- -1478.59 -987.353 -1000.45
. max opt d
d
w
w

-67.949 - - -
w
P
No.200
- -67.03 - -
R
2
0.83 0.88 0.84 0.84
2
and
basicsoilpropertiesforfine-grainedsoils
Variable
k
2
correlations
Model1 Model2 Model3
Intercept 0.25113 1.48741 2.29889
LL(%) - -0.029728
LI - - 0.90482
PI(%) -0.02917 - -0.06352
. max opt d
d
w
w

0.55733 - -0.74418
. max opt
opt
d
d
w
w w

- 0.61868 -
R
2
0.65 0.70 0.76
59
3
and
basicsoilpropertiesforfine-grainedsoils
Variable
k
3
correlations
Intercept -0.20772 -0.14561 -5.5205
d
(kN/m
3
) 0.00367 - -
PI(%) 0.23088 0.23079 0.22765
opt .
w
w
-5.42384 -5.4260- -
opt
w w
- - 0.29906
R
2
0.76 0.76 0.76
60

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
k
1
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
a
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Model-1
Model-2
Model-3
Model-4
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
8
0
0
k
1
estimatedfromrepeatedloadtriaxialtestresults
(a)k
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
k
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
k
2
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
a
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Model-1
Model-2
Model-3
(b)k
2
i
)estimatedfrom
soilpropertiesandk
i
investigatedfine-grainedsoils
61
k
3
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
a
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
k
3
Model-1
Model-2
Model-3
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
(c)k
3
Figure4.16(cont.):Comparisonofresilientmodulusmodelparameters(k
i
)
estimatedfromsoilpropertiesandk
i
determinedfromresultsofrepeatedload
triaxialtestoninvestigatedfine-grainedsoils
62

=
=
=
Basedonthestatisticalanalysisontheresultsoftheinvestigatedfine-grainedsoils,the
resilientmodulusmodelparameters(k
i
)canbeestimatedfrombasicsoilpropertiesusing
thefollowingequations:
| |
w
k
1
404.166+ 42.933PI + 52.260
d
987.353
|
(4.8)
|
w
\
opt
.
|
w
|
| |
k
2
0.25113 0.0292PI + 0.5573
|

d
| (4.9)
|
|
w
\
opt
.
\

d max .
| |
w
k
3
0.20772+ 0.23088PI + 0.00367
d
5.4238
|
(4.10)
|
w
\
opt
.
wherePIistheplasticityindex,wisthemoisturecontentofthesoil,w
opt.
istheoptimum
moisturecontent,
d
isthedryunitweight,and
dmax
isthemaximumdryunitweight.
Table4.12presentsthecorrelationmatrixofsoilpropertiesusedintheregressionand
modelparametersforfine-grainedsoils.Asummaryofregressioncoefficientsobtained
forthefine-grainedcorrelationswitht-statisticsat95%confidencelevelispresentedin
Tables4.13.Theoverallsignificanceofk
i
correlationswasverifiedbasedontheF-test.
Thismeansthatk
i
andtheestimatedregressioncoefficientsofindependentvariablesfor
allcorrelationsconstitutealinearrelationship.Theresultsofthet-statisticsshowedthat,
(ignoringthesignificanceoftheintercept|
0
),thedryunitweightinbothk
1
andk
3
modelswasinsignificantinthecaseoffine-grainedsoils.Thet-statisticswere
determinedas1.23and0.01forthek
1
andk
3
models,respectively.Thet-statisticsarenot
significantiftheabsolutevalueoft
0
(fromtableofparameterestimator)islessthant
o/2,n-
p-1
(fromstatisticstables).Theminimumvalueoft
0
foraparametertobesignificantat
95%confidencelevelis1.96ifalargepopulationwasconsidered.Although
d
ink
1
and
k
3
modelsforthefine-grainedsoilswerefoundtobestatisticallyinsignificant,their
presenceisphysicallysoundbasedonengineeringjudgment.
Equations4.8-4.10wereusedintheresilientmodulusconstitutiveEquation(4.1)to
estimatetheresilientmodulusoftheinvestigatedfine-grainedsoils.Theresultsare
presentedinFigure4.17,whichdepictsthepredictedversusthemeasuredresilient
modulusvalues.InspectionofFigure4.17indicatesthattheresilientmodulusof
compactedfine-grainedsoilscanbeestimatedfromEquation4.1andthecorrelations
proposedbyEquations4.8-4.10withreasonableaccuracy.Itshouldbeemphasizedthat
thesecorrelationsaredevelopedbasedonanalysisoftestresultsonsoilscompactedat
highunitweightvalues(between95and100%of
dmax
)withamoisturecontentrange
aroundtheoptimumvalue.
63

Table4.12:Correlationmatrixofmodelparametersandsoilpropertiesforfine-
grainedsoils
Variable PI
d
w/w
opt
(w/w
opt
)(
d
/
dmax
) k
1
k
2
k
3
PI 1.00 -0.15 0.16 0.03 0.21 -0.32 0.08
d
1.00 -0.15 0.09 0.19 -0.15 0.06
w/w
opt
1.00 0.95 -0.84 0.70 -0.85
(w/w
opt
)(
d
/
dmax
)
1.00 -0.83 0.73 -0.86
k
1
1.00 -0.89 0.79
k
2
1.00 -0.82
k
3
1.00
Table 4.13: Summary of t-statistics for regression coefficients used in resilient
modulusmodelparametersforfine-grainedsoils
Model
k
1
k
2
k
3
Parameter
Parameter
estimator
t-statistic
(95%CL)
Parameter
estimator
t-statistic
(95%CL)
Parameter
estimator
t-statistic
(95%CL)
|
0
404.166 0.55 0.25113 1.37 -0.2077 -0.04
|
1
52.260 1.23 -0.02917 -2.49 0.0037 0.01
|
2
42.933 3.55 0.55733 5.40 0.23088 2.55
|
3
-987.353 -9.46 - - -5.4238 -6.66
R
2
0.84 0.65 0.76
SEE 128.63 0.126 0.869
CL:confidencelevel,SEE:standarderrorofestimate
64
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Fine-grainedsoils
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Measuredresilientmodulus(MPa)
Figure4.17:Predictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofcompactedfine-grained
soils
65
Coarse-Grained Soils
Regressionanalysisconductedonthetestresultsofthecoarse-grainedsoils(lessthan
50%passingsieve#200)resultedinpoorcorrelationsbetweenk
i
valuesandbasicsoil
properties.Thisisduetothefactthatsomeoftheinvestigatedcoarse-grainedsoilsdonot
haveplasticitycharacteristics(non-plasticsoils).Therefore,coarse-grainedsoilswere
separatedintotwogroupsforthepurposeofstatisticalanalysis:plasticcoarse-grained
soilsandnon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils.Thistreatmentsignificantlyimprovedthe
proposedcorrelationsbetweensoilpropertiesandk
i
.Inaddition,parametersrelatedtothe
grainsizecharacteristicsofcoarse-grainedsoilssuchascoefficientofcurvature(C
c
),
coefficientofuniformity(C
u
)andeffectivesize(D
10
)wereincludedintheanalysis
(Table4.14).Theseparametersdidnotimprovetheresultsofthestatisticalanalysisand
thereforewereexcluded.
Table 4.14: Characteristics of particle size distribution curves of investigated
coarse-grainedsoils
SoilType C
u
C
c
D
10
(mm) D
30
(mm) D
50
(mm) D
60
(mm)
Beecher 102 1.29 9.04E-05 0.001 0.0038 0.0092
Goodman 82.91 1.15 0.0011 0.011 0.0422 0.0938
Plano 27.99 6.09 3.34E-04 0.0044 0.008 0.0094
Chetek 47.54 3.27 2.77E-04 0.0035 0.0106 0.0132
Eleva 29.6 6.2 8.00E-04 0.0109 0.0167 0.0232
Pence 38.35 3.93 5.12E-04 0.0063 0.014 0.0196
Gogebic 48.08 2.75 2.23E-04 0.0026 0.0079 0.0107
Ontonagon-C-1 32.19 4.1 2.39E-04 0.0027 0.0069 0.0077
Ontonagon-C-2 23.74 6.53 3.69E-04 0.0046 0.0076 0.0088
Kewaunee-1 28.8 4.58 2.57E-04 0.003 0.0061 0.0074
Kewaunee-2 110.2 1.2 8.88E-05 0.001 0.0038 0.0098
Plainfield 2.38 0.92 0.0066 0.0098 0.0132 0.0158
Sayner-Rubicon 3.03 0.83 0.0093 0.0143 0.0228 0.0281
Shiocton 30.54 4.32 1.25E-04 0.0014 0.0033 0.0038
Withee 47.6 2.77 1.82E-04 0.0021 0.0061 0.0087
C
c
=coefficientofcurvature,C
u
=coefficientofuniformity,D
10
=effectivesize,
D
30
=particlesizecorrespondingto30%finer,D
50
=mediansize,D
60
=particlesize
correspondingto60%finer.
Asummaryoftheregressionanalysisonnon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoilsispresentedin
Tables4.15-4.17.Theresilientmodulusmodelparametersk
i
canbeestimatedfrombasic
soilpropertiesusingthemodelspresentedinTables4.15-4.17.Figure4.18depicts
comparisonsbetweenk
i
valuesobtainedfromanalysisoftheresultsoftherepeatedload
triaxialtestandk
i
valuesestimatedfrombasicsoilpropertiesusingthecorrelations
presentedinTables4.15-4.17.AnexaminationofFigure4.18showsthatk
i
prediction
modelsareacceptablewithR
2
valuesrangefrom0.59to0.79.Thesecorrelationswere
66
obtainedbasedonstatisticalanalysisontestdatathatarelimitedtonon-plasticcoarse-
grainedsoilscompactedatrelativelyhighunitweight.Extrapolationofthesemodelsat
soilphysicalconditionlevelsbeyondthisisnotvalidatedinthisstudy.
1
and
basicsoilpropertiesfornon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils
Variable
k
1
correlations
Intercept 809.547 417.187 698.0361
P
No. 4
10.568 - -
P
No. 40
-6.112 - -0.2280
%Sand - 8.203 -
d
- - 5.7180
w-w
opt
- - -55.0174
max . d
d
opt
w
w

-578.337 -591.151 -
P
No. 200
/ P
No. 40
- 1092.588 -
R
2
0.72 0.71 0.69
2
and
Variable
k
2
correlations
Intercept 0.5661 0.36295 0.2435
P
No. 40
0.00671 -0.00364 0.00372
P
No. 200
-0.02423 - -0.01567
%Sand - 0.00828 -
w-w
opt
0.05849 0.05641 -
w
opt
dmax
0.001242 - -
max . d
d
opt
w
w

- - 0.5671
R
2
0.79 0.74 0.67
67
3
and
Variable
k
3
correlations
Intercept -0.50792 2.4747 -1.7529
P
No. 4
- - 0.8472
P
No. 40
-0.041411 0.02541 0.0403
P
No. 200
0.14820 - -0.8765
%Sand - -0.06859 -0.8849
w-w
opt
-0.1726 -0.17352 -0.17176
w
opt
dmax
-0.01214 -0.00873 -
R
2
0.67 0.65 0.59
68

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
k
1
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
a
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Model-1
Model-2
Model-3
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
4
0
0
k
1
(a)k
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
k
2
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
a
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Model-1
Model-2
Model-3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
k
2
(b)k
2
i
)estimatedfrom
soilpropertiesandk
i
investigatednon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils
69

k
3
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
a
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Model-1
Model-2
Model-3
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
k
3
(c)k
3
i
)
i
triaxialtestoninvestigatednon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils
70
=
=
Basedonstatisticalanalysisontheinvestigatednon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils,the
resilientmodulusmodelparameters(k
i
)canbeestimatedfrombasicsoilpropertiesusing
thefollowingequations:
|
w
|
| |
k
1
809.547+10.568P
No.4
6.112P
No.40
578.337
|

|
| (4.11)
|
d
w
\
opt
.
\ d max .
k 0.5661+ 0.006711P 0.02423P + 0.05849(w w )
2 No.40 No.200 opt
(4.12)
+ 0.001242(w ) ( )
opt d max
k 0.5079 0.041411P + 0.14820P 0.1726(w w )
3 No.40 No.200 opt
(4.13)
0.01214(w ) ( )
opt d max
whereP
No.4
ispercentpassingsieve#4,P
No.40
ispercentpassingsieve#40,P
No.200
is
percentpassingsieve#200,wisthemoisturecontentofthesoil,w
opt.
istheoptimum
moisturecontent,
d
dmax
isthemaximumdryunitweight.
Thecorrelationmatrixforbasicsoilpropertiesandk
i
ofnon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils
ispresentedinTable4.18.Asummaryofregressioncoefficientsobtainedfornon-plastic
coarse-grainedsoilscorrelationswitht-statisticsat95%confidencelevelispresentedin
Table4.19.Fornon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils,k
i
modelsweresignificantbasedonthe
F-test.Withtheexceptionoftheinterceptink
3
model,allindependentvariablesusedink
i
modelsweresignificantbasedont
0
(fromtableofparametersestimates).Theabsolute
valueoft
0
fortheinterceptink
3
is1.
Equations4.11-4.13wereusedtoestimatetheresilientmodulusoftheinvestigatednon-
plasticcoarse-grainedsoils.Figure4.19depictscomparisonofthepredictedversus
measuredresilientmodulusvaluesusingtheseequations.ExaminationofFigure4.19
demonstratesthattheestimatedresilientmodulusvaluesofcompactednon-plastic
coarse-grainedsoilsareconsistentwithvaluesobtainedfromrepeatedloadtriaxialtest
results.Itshouldbeemphasizedthatthesecorrelationsaredevelopedonanalysisoftest
resultsonsoilscompactedathighunitweightvalues(between95and100%of
dmax
)
withmoisturecontentrangearoundtheoptimumvalue.
71

Table 4.18: Correlation matrix of model parameters and soil properties for non-
plasticcoarse-grainedsoils
Variable P
No.4
P
No.40
P
No.200
w-w
opt
w
opt
dmax
d max
d
opt
w
w

k
1
k
2
k
3
P
No.4
1.00 0.88 0.68 0.03 -0.04 0.03 0.05 -0.05 0.07
P
No.40
1.00 0.84 0.09 -0.00 0.09 -0.10 -0.10 0.19
P
No.200
1.00 0.11 0.32 0.12 -0.1 -0.19 0.29
w-w
opt
1.00 -0.14 0.96 -0.83 0.81 -0.51
w
opt
dmax
1.00 -0.11 0.02 -0.11 -0.18
d max
d
opt
w
w

1.00 -0.82 0.75 -0.45
k
1
1.00 -0.84 0.55
k
2
1.00 -0.81
k
3
1.00
modulusmodelparametersfornon-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils
Model
Parameter
k
1
k
2
k
3
Parameter
estimator
t-statistic
(95%CL)
Parameter
estimator
t-statistic
(95%CL)
Parameter
estimator
t-statistic
(95%CL)
|
0
809.547 3.48 0.5661 5.38 -0.5079 -1.00
|
1
10.568 2.75 -0.02423 -4.76 0.1482 6.03
|
2
-6.112 -2.61 0.00671 3.22 -0.041411 -4.12
|
3
-578.337 -9.65 0.05849 11.98 -0.1726 -7.33
|
4
- - 0.001242 2.95 -0.01214 -5.98
R
2
0.72 0.79 0.67
SEE 119.9 0.104 0.503
72
180
Non-plasticcoarse-grainedsoils
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Figure4.19:Predictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofcompactednon-plastic
coarse-grainedsoils
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
73
Theresultsoftheregressionanalysisonplasticcoarse-grainedsoilsaresummarizedin
Tables4.20-4.22.TheresultsarealsopresentedinFigure4.20whichdepicts
comparisonsbetweenk
i
valuesobtainedfromanalysisofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestresults
andk
i
valuesestimatedfrombasicsoilproperties.InspectionofFigure4.20showsthat
thepredictedk
i
areconsistentwithvaluesobtainedfromtestresults.Thecoefficientof
multipledeterminationforthecorrelationsvariesbetween0.58and0.83.These
correlationswereobtainedbasedonstatisticalanalysisontestdatathatarelimitedto
plasticcoarse-grainedsoilscompactedatrelativelyhighunitweight.Extrapolationof
thesemodelsatsoilphysicalconditionlevelsbeyondthiswasnotvalidatedinthisstudy.
1
and
basicsoilpropertiesforplasticcoarse-grainedsoils
Variable
k
1
correlations
Intercept 3596.445 5156.468 8642.873
P
No. 200
-55.975 -63.829 132.643
%Silt - - -428.067
LL -85.870 -87.526 -
PI - - -254.685
d
- 75.395 197.230
d /
dmax
2948.246 - -
w/w
opt
-360.099 - -381.400
(w-w
opt
)/w
opt
- -345.612 -
R
2
0.83 0.76 0.83
2
and
Variable
k
2
correlations
Model1
Intercept 2.3250
P
No. 200
-0.00853
LL 0.02579
PI -0.06224
d /
dmax
-1.73380
w/w
opt
0.20911
R
2
0.58
74
3
and
Variable
k
3
correlations
Intercept -25.9374 -21.3497 -32.5449
P
No. 200
0.7680 - 0.7691
%Silt -1.1371 - -1.1370
LL - -0.2961 -
PI - 0.3618 -
d /
dmax
31.4444 29.9702 31.5542
w/w
opt
-6.4483 -6.0909 -
w-w
opt
- - -0.4128
R
2
0.80 0.81 0.82
75

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
k
1
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
a
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
Model-1
Model-2
Model-3
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
4
0
0
k
1
(a)k
1
k
2
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
a
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Model-1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
k
2
(b)k
2
i
)estimatedfrom
soilpropertiesandk
i
investigatedplasticcoarse-grainedsoils
76

k
3
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
a
s
i
c
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
k
3
Model-1
Model-2
Model-3
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
(c)k
3
i
)
i
triaxialtestoninvestigatedplasticcoarse-grainedsoils
77
=

=

=
Basedonstatisticalanalysisontheinvestigatedplasticcoarse-grainedsoils,theresilient
modulus model parameters (k
i
) can be estimated from basic soil properties using the
followingequations:
k 8642.873+132.643P 428.067(%Silt) 254.685PI +197.230
1 No.200 d
|
w
| (4.14)
381.400
|
|
w
\
opt
.
|
d
|
k 2.3250 0.00853P + 0.02579LL 0.06224PI 1.73380 |
2 No.200
|
\ d max .
(4.15)
| |
w
|
+ 0.20911
|
w
\
opt
.
|
d
|
k
3
32.5449+ 0.7691P
No.200
1.1370(%Silt)+ 31.5542

|
|
0.4128(w w
opt
) (4.16)
\ d max .
whereP
No.200
ispercentpassingsieve#200,%Siltistheamountofsiltinthesoil,LLis
theliquidlimit,PIistheplasticityindex,wisthemoisturecontentofthesoil,w
opt.
isthe
optimummoisturecontent,
d
dmax
isthemaximumdryunit
weight.
Thecorrelationmatrixforbasicsoilpropertiesandk
i
ofplasticcoarse-grainedsoilsis
presentedinTable4.23.Asummaryofregressioncoefficientsobtainedforplastic
coarse-grainedsoilscorrelationswitht-statisticsat95%confidencelevelispresentedin
Tables4.24.Theproposedk
i
modelsobtainedforplasticcoarse-grainedsoilswere
significantbasedontheF-test.Fortestingtheindividualvariablesincludedink
i
models
(ignoringtheinsignificanceoftheintercept|
0
)thepercentpassingsieve#200(P
No.200
)in
k
2
modelwasnotsignificant. Theabsolutevalueoft-statisticsforthisvariablewas0.59.
Althoughthepercentoffines(P
No.200
)wasfoundstatisticallyinsignificant,thepresence
ofthisvariableinthemodelismoreexplanatorythanotherpossiblevariablesandwith
theoverallmodelstillprovidingcloserfittothemeasureddata.
Equations4.14-4.16wereusedtoestimatetheresilientmodulusoftheinvestigated
plasticcoarse-grainedsoils.Figure4.21showsacomparisonofthepredictedversus
measuredresilientmodulusvaluesusingtheseequations.AninspectionofFigure4.21
demonstratesthattheestimatedresilientmodulusvaluesofcompactedplasticcoarse-
grainedsoilsareconsistentwithvaluesobtainedfromrepeatedloadtriaxialtestresults.It
shouldbeemphasizedthatthesecorrelationsaredevelopedontheanalysisoftestresults
onsoilscompactedathighunitweightvalues(between95and100%of
dmax
)with
moisturecontentrangearoundtheoptimumvalue.
78

Table 4.23: Correlation matrix of model parameters and soil properties for plastic
coarse-grainedsoils
Variable P
No.200
%Silt LL PI
d
d max
d

w/w
opt
w-
w
opt
k
1
k
2
k
3
P
No.200
1.00 0.99 -0.96 -0.99 0.79 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.34 0.37 0.11
%Silt 1.00 0.96 -0.99 0.78 -0.00 0.06 0.06 0.31 0.40 0.09
LL 1.00 0.97 -0.79 -0.05 -0.02 -0.03 -0.52 -0.27 -0.22
PI 1.00 -0.75 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.38 -0.39 -0.13
d
1.00 0.50 0.07 0.07 0.46 0.06 0.29
d max
d

1.00 0.05 0.05 0.41 0.39 0.44
w/w
opt
1.00 0.99 -0.37 0.35 -0.70
w-w
opt
1.00 -0.36 0.33 -0.71
k
1
1.00 -0.48 0.81
k
2
1.00 -0.61
k
3
1.00
modulusmodelparametersforplasticcoarse-grainedsoils
Model
Parameter
k
1
k
2
k
3
Parameter
estimator
t-statistic
(95%CL)
Parameter
estimator
t-statistic
(95%CL)
Parameter
estimator
t-statistic
(95%CL)
|
0
8642.873 5.66 2.32504 1.77 -32.5449 -4.93
|
1
197.230 4.92 -0.00853 -0.59 0.7691 2.76
|
2
132.634 3.55 0.02579 2.23 -1.1370 -2.65
|
3
-254.685 -6.48 -0.06224 -2.25 31.5542 4.74
|
4
-428.067 -6.19 -1.73380 -2.36 -0.4128 -8.08
|
5
-381.400 -3.48 0.20911 2.30 - -
R
2
0.83 0.58 0.82
SEE 112.71 0.093 0.849
79
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
Plasticcoarse-grainedsoils
Figure4.21:Predictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofcompactedplastic
coarse-grainedsoils
80
=
=
=

=
=
=

4.4PredictionsUsingLTPPModels
Inordertoinspecttheperformanceofthemodelsdevelopedinthisstudy,comparison
withthemodelsdevelopedbyYauandVonQuintus(2004)basedontheLongTerm
PavementPerformancedatabasewasmade.Itshouldbenotedthatthedatausedto
developLTPPmodelsandthedatabaseofthisstudyarenotsimilar.Onedifferenceis
thattheAASHTOT307wasusedhereintoperformtherepeatedloadtriaxialtest.Other
sourcesthatmayaffecttheoutcomeincludesamplepreparationandnatureofsoils
samples(undisturbedversuscompacted).
LTPPmodels(YauandVonQuintus,2004)areusedtopredicttheresilientmodulusof
Wisconsinsubgradesoilsfromthetestresultsofthisstudy.Theresilientmodulusvalues
ofWisconsinsubgradesoilspredictedbyLTPPmodelsarethencomparedtothevalues
obtainedfromtestresultsandtothevaluespredictedbythemodelsdevelopedherein.
TheLTPPpredictionmodels(YauandVonQuintus,2004)usedarepresentedinthe
followingequations:
LTPP equations for clay soils
k
1
1.3577+ 0.0106(%Clay) 0.0437w (4.17)
k 0.5193 0.0073P
No.4
+ 0.0095P
No.40
0.0027P
No
+ 0.0030LL
2 .200
(4.18)
0.0049w
opt
k 1.4258 0.0288P + 0.0303P 0.0521P + 0.0251(%Silt)
3 No.4 No.40 No.200
|
w
| (4.19)
+ 0.0535LL 0.0672w
opt
0.0026
d max
+ 0.0025
d
0.6055
|
|
w
\
opt
.
LTPP equations for silt soils
k
1
1.0480+ 0.0177(%Clay)+ 0.0279PI 0.0370w (4.20)
k
2
0.5097 0.0286PI (4.21)
k
3
0.2218+ 0.0047(%Silt)+ 0.0849PI 0.1399w (4.22)
81
=
=
=
=
=
=
LTPP equations for sand soils
k
1
3.2868 0.0412P + 0.0267P
No.4
+ 0.0137(%Clay)+ 0.0083LL + 0.0379w
opt 3/8
(4.23)
+ 0.0004
d
k 0.5670+ 0.0045P 2.9810
5
P 0.0043(%Silt) 0.0102(%Clay)
2 3/8 No.4
| |
| | (4.24)
w
5
0.0041LL + 0.0014w
opt
3.4110
d
0.4582
d
| + 0.1779
|
|
|
w
\ d max .
\
opt
.
k
3
3.5677+ 0.1142P
3/8
0.0839P
No.4
0.1249P
200
+ 0.1030(%Silt)+ 0.1191(%Clay)
(4.25)
|
d
|
|
w
|
0.0069LL 0.0103w
opt
+ 0.0017
d
+ 4.3177 | 1.1095
|
|
|
w
\ d max .
\
opt
.
LTPP equations for all soils:
k 0.9848 0.0050P + 0.0011P + 0.0085(%Clay)+ 0.0089LL
1 3/8 No.40
| | (4.26)
w
0.0094PI 0.0235w + 0.3290
|
|
w
\
opt
.
k
2
0.4808 0.0037P
3/8
+ 0.0062P
No.4
0.0016P
No.40
0.0008P
No.200
0.0018(%Clay)
(4.27)
|
d
|
|
w
|
0.0078LL + 0.0019PI + 0.0111w 0.1232 | 0.0009
|
|
|
w
\ d max .
\
opt
.
k 9.6691 0.0302P + 0.0065P + 0.0192P 0.0115P + 0.0040(%Clay)
3 3/8 No.4 No.40 200
|
d
| (4.28)
+ 0.0075LL + 0.0401PI + 0.0020w
opt
0.0039
d max
0.2750w 0.7177 |
|
\ d max .
2
|
w
| |
(
max
)
|
+1.0262
|
+ 5.28x10
6

d
|
| |
\
w
opt
. \
P
No.40 .
Figures4.22-4.24presentcomparisonsofpredictedandmeasuredresilientmodulusof
fine-grained,non-plasticcoarse-grained,andplasticcoarse-grainedWisconsinsoilsusing
theLTPPmodels(YauandVonQuintus,2004).InspectionofFigures4.22-4.24
demonstratesthatthemodelsdevelopedhereinwereabletoestimatetheresilient
modulusofWisconsincompactedsoilsbetterthanthemodelsoftheLTPPstudy.The
differenceinthetestproceduresandotherconditionsinvolvedwithdevelopmentofboth
LTPPandthemodelsofthisstudycontributedtothisoutcome.
82
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180 180
Finegrainedsoils
Finegrainedsoils
160
LTPPmodelforsiltsoils
140
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Measuredresilientmodulus(MPa) Measuredresilientmodulus(MPa)
(a)Usingproposedmodel (b)UsingLTPPsiltmodel
180
160
Finegrainedsoils
LTPPmodelforallsoils
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
(c)UsingLTPPmodelforcombined(all)subgradesoils
Figure22:PredictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofWisconsinfine-grained
soilsusingthemodedevelopedinthisstudyandtheLTPPdatabasedeveloped
models
83
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
180 180
160
Nonplasticcoarsegrainedsoils
160
Proposedmodel
140
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
120
100
80
60
40
20
LTPPsandmodel
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
(a)Usingproposedmodel(b)UsingLTPPsandmodel
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Figure23:PredictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofWisconsinnon-plastic
coarse-grainedsoilsusingthemodedevelopedinthisstudyandtheLTPPdatabase
developedmodels
84
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180 180
Plasticcoarsegrainedsoils
160
LTPPsandmodel
Proposedmodel
140
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
m
o
d
u
l
u
s
(
M
P
a
)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
(a)Usingproposedmodel (b)UsingLTPPsandmodel
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Figure24:PredictedversusmeasuredresilientmodulusofWisconsinplasticcoarse-
grainedsoilsusingthemodedevelopedinthisstudyandtheLTPPdatabase
developedmodels
85
Chapter5
ConclusionsandRecommendations
Thisresearchreportpresentedtheresultsofacomprehensivestudyconductedtoevaluate
theresilientmodulusofcommonWisconsinsubgradesoils.Theprimaryobjectiveofthis
researchprojectwastodevelopamethodologyforestimatingtheresilientmodulusof
variousWisconsinsubgradesoilsfrombasicsoilproperties.Thiswasachievedby
carryingoutlaboratory-testingprogramoncommonWisconsinsubgradesoils.The
programincludedteststoevaluatebasicsoilpropertiesandrepeatedloadtriaxialteststo
determinetheresilientmodulus.Highqualitytestresultswereobtainedinthisstudyby
insuringtherepeatabilityofresultsandalsobyperformingtwotestsoneachsoilreplicate
specimensatthespecifiedphysicalcondition.
TheresilientmodulusmodelgivenbyEquation4.1istheconstitutiveequationdeveloped
byNCHRPproject1-28AandadoptedbytheNCHRPproject1-37AfortheGuidefor
Mechanistic-EmpiricalDesignofNewandRehabilitatedPavementStructures.This
studyfocusedondevelopingcorrelationsbetweenbasicsoilpropertiesandthe
parametersk
1
,k
2
,andk
3
(Equation4.1).
Thelaboratory-testingprogramprovidedtheresearchteamwithhighqualitydatabase
thatwasutilizedtodevelopandvalidatecorrelationsbetweenresilientmodulusmodel
parametersandbasicsoilproperties.Comprehensivestatisticalanalysisincluding
multiplelinearandnonlinearregressionwasperformedtodevelopthesecorrelations.
Statisticalanalysisconductedonalltestresultscombineddidnotproducegood
correlationsbetweenmodelparametersandbasicsoilproperties.Whentestresultsfor
coarse-grainedandfine-grainedsoilsweretreatedseparately,goodcorrelationswere
obtained.Comparisonsofpredictedandmeasuredresilientmodulusvaluesindicatedthat
thecorrelationsproposedbythisstudyareofacceptableaccuracy.
TheLTPPresilientmodulusmodels(YauandVonQuintus,2004)wereusedtopredict
theresilientmodulusofWisconsinsubgradesoilsfromthetestresultsofthisstudy.
ComparisonsofpredictedandmeasuredresilientmodulusshowedthattheLTPPmodels
didnotyieldgoodresultscomparedtothemodelsproposedherein.
Basedontheresultsofthisresearch,thefollowingconclusionsarereached:
1. Therepeatedloadtriaxialtest(whichisspecifiedbyAASHTOtodeterminethe
resilientmodulusofsubgradesoilsforpavementdesign)iscomplicated,time
consuming,expensive,andrequiresadvancedmachineandskilledoperators.
2. TheresultsoftherepeatedloadtriaxialtestontheinvestigatedWisconsin
subgradesoilsprovideresilientmodulusdatabasethatcanbeutilizedtoestimate
valuesformechanistic-empiricalpavementdesignintheabsenceofbasicsoils
testing (level3inputparameters)
86
3. Theequationsthatcorrelateresilientmodulusmodelparameters(k
1
,k
2
,andk
3
)to
basicsoilpropertiesforfine-grainedandcoarse-grainedsoilscanbeutilizedto
estimatelevel2resilientmodulusinputforthemechanistic-empiricalpavement
design.TheseequationsarepresentedinChapter4.
4. Theequations(models)developedinthisresearchwerebasedonstatistical
analysisoflaboratorytestresultsthatwerelimitedtothesoilphysicalconditions
specified.Estimationofresilientmodulusofsubgradesoilsbeyondthese
conditionswasnotvalidated.
Basedontheresultsofthisresearch,theresearchteamrecommendsthefollowing:
1. Theuseoftheresilientmodulustestdatabaseintheabsenceofanybasicsoil
testingwhendesigninglowvolumeroadsasindicatedbyAASHTO.
2. TheuseoftheequationsprovidedinChapter4toestimatetheresilientmodulus
ofsubgradesoilsfrombasicsoilproperties.Thereareonaveragethreedifferent
modelstoestimateeachk
i
foreachsoiltype(fine-grained,non-plasticcoarse-
grained,andplasticcoarse-grained).Theseequationscanbeusedbasedon
availablebasicsoiltestresults.
3. Furtherresearchisneededtoexplorenewlydevelopedfielddevicessuchaslight
dropweight.ThiscanprovideWisconsinDOTandcontractorswithfieldtoolsto
assurequalityofcompactedsubgradesoilsintermsofstiffness.
4. Furtherresearchisneededtoexploretheeffectoffreeze-thawcyclesonthe
resilientmodulusofWisconsinsubgradesoils.Thisisessentialsincetheresilient
modulusishighlyinfluencedbytheseasonalvariationsinmoistureandextreme
temperatures.
87
References
AASHTO 2002 Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated
PavementStructures.NCHRPProject1-37AFinalReportbyERESConsultants,March
2004.
Allen,A.J .(1996).DevelopmentofACorrelationBetweenPhysicalandFundamental
Propertiesof LouisianaSoils.MastersThesis,Dept.ofCivilEng.,LouisianaState
University,BatonRouge.
Barksdale,R.D.(1972).ALaboratoryEvaluationofRuttinginBaseCourseMaterials,
Proceedings of the 3
rd
International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt
Pavements,UniversityofMichigan,pp.161-174.
Barksdale,R.D.,Rix,G.J .,Itani,S.,Khosla,P.N.,Kim,R.,Lambe,C.,andRahman,
M.S.,(1990).LaboratoryDeterminationofResilientModulusforFlexiblePavement
Design,NCHRP,TransportationResearchBoard,InterimReportNo.1-28,Georgia
InstituteofTechnology,Georgia.
Butalia,T.S.,Huang,J .,Kim,D.G.,andCroft,F.,(2003).EffectofMoistureContent
andPoreWaterPressureBuildonResilientModulusofCohesiveSoils,Resilient
Modulus Testing for Pavement Components, ASTM STP 1437.
Chamberlain,E.J .,Cole,D.M.,andDurell,G.F.,(1989).ResilientModulus
DeterminationforFrostConditions,StateoftheArtPavementResponseMonitoring
SystemsforRoadsandAirField,SpecialReport89-23,U.S.ArmyColdRegion
ResearchandEngineeringLaboratory(CRREL),Hanover,H,1989,pp.230-333.
Chou,Y.T.,(1976)EvaluationofNonlinearResilientModulusofUnboundGranular
MaterialsfromAcceleratedTrafficTestData,U.S.ArmyEngineerWaterways
ExperimentStation,Vicksburg,MS,FinalTechnicalReport.
Drumm, E. C., Boateng-Poku, Y., and Pierce, T. J . (1990). Estimation of Subgrade
ResilientModulusfromStandardTests,Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,Vol. 116,
No. 5,pp.774-789.
DrummE.C.,Reeves,J .S.,Madgett,M.R.,andTrolinger,W.D.(1997).Subgrade
ResilientModulusCorrectionforSaturationEffects,Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123,No.7.
Fredlund,D.G.,Bergan,A.T.andWong,P.K.(1977).RelationBetweenResilient
ModulusandStressResearchConditionsforCohesiveSubgradeSoilsTransportation
Research Record No. 642,TransportationResearchBoard,pp.73-81.
Groeger,J .L.,Rada,G.R.,andLopez,A.(2003).AASHTOT307-Backgroundand
Discussion,Resilient Modulus Testing for Pavement Components, ASTM STP 1437.
88
Heydinger,A.G.,(2003).EvaluationofSeasonalEffectsonSubgradeSoils,
Transportation Research Record No. 1821,TransportationResearchBoard,pp.47-55.
Hines,WilliamW.andMontgomery,DouglasC(1980).ProbabilityandStatisticsin
EngineeringandManagementScience.2ndEdition,J ohnWilley&SonsInc.,NewYork.
Hole,F.D.(1980)SoilGuideForWisconsinLandLookers. Bul. 88, Soil Series No.
63, Geological and Natural History Survey University of Wisconsin-Extension and
UniversityofWisconsin-Madison.
Hole,F.D.(1974).SoilRegionsofWisconsin,GeologicalandNaturalHistorySurvey
UniversityofWisconsin-Extension,(Map).
Huang,J .2001.DegradationofResilientModulusofSaturatedClayDuetoPoreWater
PressureBuildupunderCyclicLoading,MasterThesis,DepartmentofCivilEngineering
andEnvironmentalEngineering,TheOhioStateUniversity.
J anoo, V.C., and Bayer II J .J . (2001). The effect of Aggregate Angularity on Base
CoursePerformance,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC/CRREL TR-01-14.
Lekarp,F.,Isacsson,U.andDawson,A.(2000).StateoftheArt.I:ResilientResponse
ofUnboundAggregates,Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 1.
Li,D.,andSelig,E.T.(1994).ResilientModulusforFineGrainedSubgradeSoils,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,Vol. 120, No. 6.
Maher,A.,BennertT.,Gucunski,N.,andPapp,W.J .,(2000)ResilientModulusofNew
J erseySubgradeSoils,FHWA ReportNo.2000-01,WashingtonD.C.
May,R.W.,andWitczak,M.W.(1981).EffectiveGranularModulustoModel
PavementResponses,Transportation Research Record No. 810,Transportation
ResearchBoard,pp.1-9.
Madison,F.W.,andGundlach,H.F.(1993).SoilRegionsofWisconsin,Wisconsin
GeologicalandNaturalHistorySurveyandU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,(Map).
Nazarian,S.,andFeliberti,M.(1993).MethodologyforResilientModulusTestingof
CohesionlessSubgrades, Transportation Research Record No. 1406,Transportation
ResearchBoard,pp.108-115.
NCHRPProject1-37ASummaryofthe2000,2001,and2002AASHTOGuideforThe
DesignofNewandRehabilitatedPavementStructures,NCHRP,WashingtonD.C.
Ooi,PhilipS.K.,ArchillaA.R,andSandefurK.G.(2004).ResilientModulusModels
forCompactedCohesiveSoils,Transportation Research Record No.1874,
89
TransportationResearchBoard,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.,2004,pp.
115-124.
Pezo,R.andHudson,W.R.(1994).PredictionModelsofResilientModulusfor
NongranularMaterials,Geotechnical Testing Journal,GTJ ODJ ,Vol. 17 No. 3,pp.349-
355.
Pezo,R.,Claros,G.,Hudson,W.R.,andStoke,K.H.,(1992).DevelopmentofaReliable
ResilientModulusTestforSubgradeandNon-GranularSubbaseMaterialsForUseinA
RoutinePavementDesign,ResearchReport1177-4F.,UniversityofTexas-Austin.
Rada,G.,andWitczak,M.W.(1981).ComprehensiveEvaluationofLaboratory
ResilientModuliResultsforGranularMaterial,Transportation Research Record No.
810,TransportationResearchBoard,pp.23-33.
Scrivner,F.H.,R.,Peohl,W.M.MooreandM.B.Phillips(1969).DetectingSeasonal
ChangesinLoad-CarryingCapabilitiesofFlexiblePavements,NCHRPReport7,
HighwayResearchBoard,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.
Seed,H.,Chan,C.,andLee,C.(1962).ResilientModulusofSubgradeSoilsandTheir
RelationtoFatigueFailuresinAsphaltPavements,Proceedings,International
ConferenceontheStructuralDesignofAsphaltPavements,UniversityofMichigan,Ann
Arbor,Michigan,611-636.
Smith,W.S.,andNair,K.(1973).DevelopmentofProcedureforCharacterizationof
UntreatedGranularBaseCourseandAsphaltTreatedCourseMaterials,FHWA,Final
Report,FHWA-A-RD-74-61,WashingtonD.C.
Thompson,M.R.andQ.L.Robnett(1979).ResilientPropertiesofSubgradeSoils
TransportationEngineeringJ ournal,ASCE,105(TE1),pp.71-89.
Thomson,M.R.,andRobnett,Q.L.,(1976).ResilientPropertiesofSubgradeSoils,
FinalReport,IllinoisCooperativeHighwayandTransportationSerialNo.160,
UniversityofIllinoisUrbanaChampaign.
Titi,H.H.,Elias,M.B.,andHelwany,S.(2005).EffectofSampleSizeonResilient
ModulusofCohesiveSoils,Proceedingsofthe16
th
InternationalConferenceonSoil
MechanicsandGeotechnicalEngineering(ICSMG),Osaka,J apan,September12-16,
2005,Vol.2,pp.499-502.
Titi,H.H.,Mohammad,L.N.,andHerath,A.(2003).CharacterizationofResilient
ModulusofCoarse-GrainedMaterialsUsingtheIntrusionTechnology,Special
TechnicalPublication1437:ResilientModulusTestingforPavementComponents,
AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterialspp.252-270.
90
Uzan, J . (1985) Characterization of Granular Material, Transportation Research
Record No. 1022, pp.52-59.
Yau,A.,andVonQuintus(2004).PredictingElasticResponseCharacteristicsof
Unbound MaterialsandSoils,Transportation Research Record No. 1874,
Transportation ResearchBoard,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.,pp.47-
56.
Zaman,M.,Chen,D.,andLarguros,J .(1994).ResilientModulusofGranular
Materials,Journal of Transportation Engineering.Vol. 120, No. 6,pp.967-988.
91
AppendixA
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
100
80
60
40
20
0
Antigosoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.1:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforAntigosoil
16
17
18
19
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
p
c
f
)
Antigosoil
Test1
Test2
0 5 10 15 20 25
FigureA.2:ResultsofStandardProctortestforAntigosoil
A-1
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
0
20
40
60
80
100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
Beechersoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.3:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforBeechersoil
19
120
118
116
18
114
112
110
17
108
106
104
16
102
Beechersoil
Test1
Test2
4 8 12 16 20
15
FigureA.4:ResultsofStandardProctortestforBeechersoil
100
98
96
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
p
c
f
)
A-2
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
0
20
40
60
80
100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
Goodmansoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.5:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforGoodmansoil
16
17
18
19
20
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
Goodmansoil
0 5 10 15 20 25
FigureA.6:ResultsofStandardProctortestforGoodmansoil
A-3
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
100
80
60
40
20
0
Planosoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.7:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforPlanosoil
17
18
19
20
21
22
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
p
c
f
)
Planosoil
Test1
Test2
0 5 10 15 20
FigureA.8:ResultsofStandardProctortestforPlanosoil
A-4
Particlesize(inch)
0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Dodgevillesoil(B)
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.9:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforDodgevillesoil
13
14
15
16
17
18
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
Dodgevillesoil(B)
Test1
Test2
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
FigureA.10:ResultsofStandardProctortestforDodgevillesoil
A-5
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
100
80
60
40
20
Cheteksoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
0
FigureA.11:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforCheteksoil
21
0 5 10 15
Cheteksoil
Test1
Test2
132
130
128
20
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
126
124
122
120
118
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
102
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
19
18
17
16
FigureA.12:ResultsofStandardProctortestforCheteksoil
A-6
Particlesize(inch)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001

100
80
60
40
20
Pencesoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
0
FigureA.13:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforPencesoil
17
18
19
20
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
Pencesoil
0 5 10 15 20
FigureA.14:ResultsofStandardProctortestforPencesoil
A-7
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
0
20
40
60
80
100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
Gogebicsoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.15:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforGogebicsoil
17
108
104
16
100
96
15
92
14
13
Gogebicsoil
Test1
Test2
Test3
5 10 15 20 25 30
88
84
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
FigureA.16:ResultsofStandardProctortestforGogebicsoil
A-8
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Miamisoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.17:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforMiamisoil
14
15
16
17
18
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
p
c
f
)
Miamisoil
Test1
Test2
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
FigureA.18:ResultsofStandardProctortestforMiamisoil
A-9
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Ontonagonsoil(C2)
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.19:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforOntonagonsoil-2
14
15
16
17
18
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
Ontonagonsoil(C2)
12 16 20 24 28
FigureA.20:ResultsofStandardProctortestforOntonagonsoil-2
A-10
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
100
80
60
40
20
Kewauneesoil-1
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
0
FigureA.21:ParticlesizedistributioncurveofKewauneesoil-1
15
16
17
18
19
20
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
p
c
f
)
Kewauneesoil-1
Test1
Test2
0 5 10 15 20 25
FigureA.22:ResultsofStandardProctortestforKewauneesoil-1
A-11
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Kewauneesoil-2
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.23:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforKewauneesoil-2
17
18
19
20
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
p
c
f
)
Kewauneesoil- 2
Test1
Test2
0 5 10 15 20 25
FigureA.24:ResultsofStandardProctortestforKewauneesoil-2
A-12
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
0
20
40
60
80
100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
Plainfieldsoil(B)
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.25:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforPlainfieldsoil
A-13
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
100
80
60
40
20
Shioctonsoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
0
FigureA.26:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforShioctonsoil
14
15
16
17
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
Shioctonsoil
Test1
Test2
0 5 10 15 20 25
FigureA.27:ResultsofStandardProctortestforShioctonsoil
A-14
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Witheesoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.28:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforWitheesoil
16
17
18
19
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
Witheesoil
Test1
Test2
0 5 10 15 20 25
FigureA.29ResultsofStandardProctortestforWitheesoil
A-15
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Dubuquesoil
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.30:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforDubuquesoil
14
15
16
17
18
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
p
c
f
)
Dubuquesoil
Test1
Test2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
FigureA.31ResultsofStandardProctortestforDubuquesoil
A-16
114
112
110
17
108
106
104
16
102
100
Ontonagonsoil(C1)
Particlesize(inch)
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
0
20
40
60
80
100
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
f
i
n
e
r
(
%
)
Ontonagonsoil(C1)
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particlesize(mm)
FigureA.32:ParticlesizedistributioncurveforOntonagonsoil-1
18
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
15
98
96
8 12 16 20 24
D
r
y
u
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
(
k
N
/
m
3
)
FigureA.33:ResultsofStandardProctortestforOntonagonsoil-1
A-17
AppendixB
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
20,000
100
90
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Antigo-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
80
70
10,000
60
8,000
50
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20000
100
90
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Antigo-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
80
70
10000
60
8000
50
FigureB-1:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonAntigosoilcompactedat95%of
dmax
opt.
(dryside)
B-1
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Antigo-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
100
90
80
70
10,000
60
8,000
50
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Antigo-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
100
90
80
70
10,000
60
8,000
50
FigureB-2:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonAntigosoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
)
B-2

DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Antigo-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Antigo-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
FigureB-3:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonAntigosoilcompactedat95%of
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-3
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Beecher-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
40
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
4,000
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Beecher-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
d
=17.3kN/m
3
andw
.
=10%
60
40
8,000
6,000
4,000
20
2,000
10
FigureB-4:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonBeechersoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(dryside)
B-4
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Beecher-Test1
at
dmax
=18.3kN/m
3
andw
opt.
=14%
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Beecher-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
FigureB-5:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonBeechersoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
)
B-5
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Beecher-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
at
d
=17.3kN/m
3
andw =16.3%
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Beecher-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
FigureB-6:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonBeechersoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-6
BulkStress,o
b
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
ChaseHill-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
10 20 40 60 80100
BulkStress,o
b
(kPa)
(a) Testonsoilspecimen#1
BulkStress,o
b
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
ChaseHill-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
10 20 40 60 80 100
BulkStress,o
b
(kPa)
FigureB-7:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonGoodmansoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
(dry
side)
B-7
BulkStress,o
b
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
ChaseHill-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
10 20 40 60 80 100
BulkStress,o
b
(kPa)
BulkStress,o
b
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
BulkStress,o
b
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Brighton-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
dmax
opt.
)
B-8
BulkStress,o
b
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
ChaseHill-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
BulkStress,o
b
(kPa)
BulkStress,o
b
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
BulkStress,o
b
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
ChaseHill-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
dmax
opt.
(wet
side)
B-9
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Plano-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
90
80
70 10,000
60
8,000
50
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Plano-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
40
30
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
FigureB-10:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonPlanosoilcompactedat95%of
dmax
opt.
(dryside)
B-10

DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Plano-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
40
6,000
4,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Plano-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
40
6,000
4,000
20
2,000
10
FigureB-11:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonPlanosoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
)
B-11
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Plano-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Plano-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
FigureB-12:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonPlanosoilcompactedat95%of
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-12
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
FigureB-13:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonDodgevillesoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
(dry
side)
B-13
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test3
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test4
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
FigureB-13(cont.):ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonDodgevillesoil
dmax
thanw
opt.
(dryside)
B-14

DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test3
at
dmax
andw
opt.
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test5
at
dmax
andw
opt.
dmax
opt.
)
B-15
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test6
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
40
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
4,000
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test7
at
dmax
andw
opt.
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
FigureB-14(cont.):ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonDodgevillesoil
compactedatmaximumdryunitweight(
dmax
opt.
)
B-16
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
100
80
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
10,000
60
8,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
6,000
40
4,000
20
2,000
10
8
1,000
6
800
600
4
400
2
200
1
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
100
80
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Dodgeville-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
40
4,000
20
2,000
10
8
1,000
6
800
600
4
400
2
200
1
dmax
opt.
(wet
side)
B-17
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Chetek-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Chetek-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
FigureB-16:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonCheteksoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(dryside)
B-18
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Chetek-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
40
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
4,000
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Chetek-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
40
6,000
4,000
20
2,000
10
FigureB-17:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonCheteksoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
)
B-19
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Chetek- Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Chetek-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
FigureB-18:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonCheteksoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-20
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Pence-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Pence-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
FigureB-19:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonPencesoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(dryside)
B-21
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Pence-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Pence-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
FigureB-20:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonPencesoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
)
B-22
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Pence-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Pence-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
FigureB-21:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonPencesoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-23
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Gogebic-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Gogebic-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
FigureB-22:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonGogebicsoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(dryside)
B-24
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Gogebic-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Gogebic-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
FigureB-23:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonGogebicsoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
)
B-25
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Gogebic- Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Gogebic-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
FigureB-24:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonGogebicsoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-26
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Gogebic-Test3
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
FigureB-24(cont.):ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonGogebicsoilcompacted
at95%ofmaximumdryunitweight(
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-27
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Miami-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Miami-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
FigureB-25:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonMiamisoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(dryside)
B-28

DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Miami-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Miami-Test3
at
dmax
andw
opt.
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
FigureB-26:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonMiamisoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
)
B-29
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Miami-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Miami-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
FigureB-27:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonMiamisoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-30
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Ontonagon-C1-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
40
6,000
4,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Ontonagon-C1-Test3
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
40
6,000
4,000
20
2,000
10
FigureB-28:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonOntonagonsoil-1compacted
dmax
opt.
(dry
side)
B-31
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Ontonagon-C1-Test4
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
40
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
4,000
20
2,000
10
FigureB-28(cont.):ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonOntonagonsoil-1
dmax
thanw
opt.
(dryside)
B-32
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Ontonagon-C1-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
40
6,000
4,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Ontonagon-C1-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
100
80
10000
60
8000
6000
4000
40
20
2000
10
atmaximumdryunitweight(
dmax
opt.
)
B-33
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Ontonagon-C1-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Ontonagon-C1-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
100
80
60
40
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
20
2,000
10
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-34
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Ontonagon-C2-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
40
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
4,000
20
2,000
10
dmax
opt.
(dry
side)
B-35
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Ontonagon-C2-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
atmaximumdryunitweight(
dmax
opt.
)
B-36
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Ontonagon-C2-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
60
40
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
20
2,000
10
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-37
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Kewaunee-1- Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
40
6,000
4,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Kewaunee-1-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
40
4,000
20
2,000
10
FigureB-34:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonKewauneesoil-1compactedat
dmax
opt.
(dry
side)
B-38

DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Kewaunee-1-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
40
6,000
4,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Kewaunee-1-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
dmax
opt.
)
B-39
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Kewaunee-1-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Kewaunee-1-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
dmax
opt.
(wet
side)
B-40
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Kewaunee-2-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
40
6,000
4,000
20
2,000
10
FigureB-37:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestKewauneesoil-2compactedat
dmax
opt.
(dry
side)
B-41
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Kewaunee-2-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
100
80
10,000
60
8,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Kewaunee-2-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
40
20
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10
dmax
opt.
)
B-42
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
200
20,000
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Kewaunee-2-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
100
80
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
10,000
60
8,000
6,000
4,000
40
20
2,000
10
dmax
opt.
(wet
side)
B-43
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Shiocton-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Shiocton-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
FigureB-40:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonShioctonsoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
)
B-44
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Shiocton-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Shiocton-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
FigureB-41:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonShioctonsoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
(wet
side)
B-45
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Withee-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Withee-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
FigureB-42:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonWitheesoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(dryside)
B-46
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Withee- Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Withee- Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
FigureB-43:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonWitheesoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
)
B-47
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Withee- Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Withee-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
FigureB-44:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonWitheesoilcompactedat95%
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-48
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Eleva-Test1
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Eleva-Test2
at95%
dmax
(dryside)
FigureB-45:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonElevasoilcompactedat95%of
dmax
opt.
(dryside)
B-49
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Eleva-Test1
at
dmax
andw
opt.
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Eleva-Test2
at
dmax
andw
opt.
FigureB-46:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonElevasoilcompactedat
dmax
opt.
)
B-50

DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Eleva-Test1
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
10 20 40 60 80 100
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
DeviatorStress,o
d
(psi)
2 4 6 8 10
10 100 20 40 60 80
DeviatorStress,o
d
(kPa)
10
100
20
40
60
80
200
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
M
P
a
)
10,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t
M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,
M
r
(
p
s
i
)
o
c
=41.4kPa
o
c
=27.6kPa
o
c
=13.8kPa
Eleva-Test2
at95%
dmax
(wetside)
FigureB-47:ResultsofrepeatedloadtriaxialtestonElevasoilcompactedat95%of
dmax
opt.
(wetside)
B-51

03 11resilmodulus f1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

03 11resilmodulus f1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

W

1. ReportNo. 2. GovernmentAccessionNo 3. RecipientsCatalogNo

Plano Soil (C)

201 335 469 604 738 872 1006 1140 1274

0.177 0.285 0.394 0.503 0.612 0.720 0.829 0.938 1.047

Test for Significance of Individual Regression Coefficients

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001

You might also like