Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166

Malaysian Technical Universities Conference on Engineering & Technology 2012, MUCET 2012
Part 3 - Civil and Chemical Engineering

Innovative Laboratory Assessment of the Resilient Behaviour of

Materials (Rigid, Elastic and Particulates)
Alvian John Lim Meng Siangª*, Devapriya Chitral
a
Wijeyesekeraa, Lim Sin Meia ,Adnan
Zainorabidin
a
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

Abstract

This paper discusses the resilient behaviour of various materials of high rigidity, high elasticity and of particulate materials. The
resilient behaviour is measured by the resilient modulus (M R) test which is the mechanical response of soils to a dynamic cyclic load
which simulates traffic loading conditions and it is an important parameter in the design of both flexible and rigid pavements. The
materials used are of a concrete cylinder, a rubber sample and particulate materials which are sands of different particle size and shape
classification. The design resilient modulus follows a constitutive model and it is used to compare the resilient behaviour of each material.
The constitutive model shows that the design resilient modulus is affected by the particulate characteristics and how it can be related to a
stiff and flexible material.

© 2013
© 2013 The Authors.
The Authors. Published
Published byLtd.
by Elsevier Elsevier Ltd. under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Open access
Selection
Selection and/or peer-review
and peer-review underofresponsibility
under responsibility of the Research
the Research Management & InnovationManagement & Innovation
Centre, Universiti Malaysia Centre, Universiti
Malaysia Perlis.
Perlis
Keywords: Resilient modulus; stiff; flexible; particulate materials.

Nomenclature
Cu Uniformity coefficient
D10 Diameter which 10% of the total soil mass is passing
D60 Diameter which 10% of the total soil mass is passing
Dr Relative Density
emax Maximum void ratio
emin Minimum void ratio
d Deviator stress
Mr Resilient Modulus
R Roundness
S Sphericity
r Resilient strain

* Corresponding author. E
E-mail address: alvinjlms@gmail.com

1877-7058 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Research Management & Innovation Centre, Universiti Malaysia Perlis
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.02.021
 Alvian John Lim Meng Siang et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166 157

1. Introduction

Queen Elizabeth II in her 2012 New Year speech which she mentioned of her admiration for the human beings resilience to
adapt to various natural catastrophes they meet. In the world of materials, its resilience is a function of the make up and
behaviour. Hard as rock or concrete produces high resilience and that it can take large dynamic variations of loading.

form on removal of load. The understanding of resilience important in the application of pavement design as it simulates
traffic loading conditions. The resilient modulus is not a constant stiffness property and its values are generally affected by
factors such as the deviator stress, confining pressure, water content, dry density, method of compaction and freeze-thaw
cycles [1]. Resilient modulus on cohesive soil is mainly a function of the applied deviator stress, whereas granular materials
have an increasing resilient modulus with increasing confining pressure [2]. The axial permanent strain is directly related to
deviator stress and inversely related to confining pressure. Thompson [3]; Hicks and Monismith [4] and Lekarp et. al. [1]
has discussed the effects of the index properties and gradation of the soil on its resilient response. It was found that soil with
increasing maximum particle size show high resilient modulus values than soils with increasing fines content. However,
there is still much to be discussed on the effects of particle shapes characteristics. The resilient modulus value also increases
with increasing density due to the increased number of particle contact per particle in the particulate system. It is also
observe that dry samples have larger resilient modulus than wet samples due to capillary suction [5]. The presence of
moisture content in a particulate assembly has some lubricating effect on particles and increases the deformation with a
consequence in the reduction of the resilient modulus. In well graded materials with high proportion of fines, water is more
readily available in the pores whereas in uniformly graded materials all the water will drain freely and rapidly [1].
In a laboratory test, a desirable series of distinct load pulses can best simulate vehicle loading conditions on pavements
materials. Cylindrical specimens of soil are subjected to a series of load pulses applied with a distinct period, simulating the
stresses caused by multiple wheels moving over the pavement. A constant all around confining pressure is applied on the
specimen to simulate the lateral stress caused by the overburden stress and applied wheel load. The resilient modulus (MR)
values are obtained to a measure the degree to which a soil can recover from stress levels commonly placed upon soils by
traffic [6]. The significance of this is to provide a relationship between stress and deformation of a soil material for the
structural analysis of layered pavement systems. Resilient modulus is defined as:

= (1)

where Mr d r is the recoverable axial strain. As indicated in

Equation 1, the larger the recoverable deformation, the smaller the resilient modulus resulting in a flexible subgrade soils.
The equation is somewhat similar to the stiffness modulus equation which is:

( )
E= (2)
( )

where the difference is in the strain parameter which the stiffness modulus accounts for permanent strain. Fig. 1 shows
typical strain behaviour of a resilient modulus test. At the initial stage of load applications, there can be considerable
permanent deformations as indicated by the plastic strain in the figure. As compared to a static load test, the general stress
versus strain graph as shown in Fig. 2 shows that the elastic behaviour occurs until a point where it changes to a plastic state
and permanent strain occurs after that. Normally for granular soils, it shows that recoverable strains occurs after numerous
loading repetitions as long as the deviator stress applied is not in excess of the shear strength of the soils.
158 Alvian John Lim Meng Siang et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166

Fig. 1. Strain behaviour for a resilient modulus test [7]

Fig. 2. Typical stress versus strain relationship of a static load test [8]

The AASHTO 1986 Guide for Design of Pavements Structures [9] recommended American highway agencies to use
resilient modulus test for the design of subgrades and has led to the efforts of a large number of researchers to obtain more
accurate, straightforward and reasonable Mr values which are representative of the field conditions. Resilient modulus has
been incorporated by American highway agencies for many years [5], and the current standard test method now in the
determination of resilient modulus is according to AASHTO Designation: T 307-99 [9]. Laboratory tests are performed over
a range of vertical stresses and confining pressure to evaluate the nonlinear elastic behaviour of soils. Thus, the resilient
modulus test does not necessary result in a single modulus value, but defines the modulus at different stress levels. Hence,
the modulus is dependent on the stress regime/levels used. Various types of relationship have been suggested to represent
the repeated load resilient modulus test results of coarse-grained soils according to the standard test method
[10],[3],[11],[12]. A constitutive model that has been widely used for fined grain soils is of the form given in equation 3
[12].
K
Mr = K1 d) 2 (3)

d = Bulk stress
K1 and K2 are regression constants

For granular materials, the most significant parameter that influences M R is the 3) and MR is modelled
in terms of the following equation [12]:
K
Mr = K1 3) 2 (4)

3 = Confining stress
K1 and K2 are regression constants

Pezo [10] suggested a stress dependent model that incorporates both deviatoric and confining stresses which can be used
for both cohesive and cohesionless soils.
K K
Mr = K1 d) 2 3) 2 (5)
 Alvian John Lim Meng Siang et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166 159

K1 and K2 and K3 are regression constants

This type of model was found to suit the resilient modulus (M R) value very well for all types of soils and stress
environment as demonstrated by Al-Suhaibani et. al. [13]. In this research, relationships can be established between the
constitutive models of resilient modulus and the particulate properties of the soil.

2. Materials and Testing Methodology

Three types of materials with different characteristics were used for the resilient modulus test. The materials consist of a
rigid, elastic, viscoelastic and particulate materials. A very stiff material of a concrete cylinder is used to simulate a very
rigid material. A rubber and polystyrene sample is also used as flexible materials as shown in Fig. 4 respectively. The
particulate material consists of river sands from Kahang Johor and also Leighton Buzzard sand from UK. Kahang sands are
angular in shape which comprised of well graded sand (SW), uniformly graded sand (SPuKahang) and gap graded sand (SPg).
Leighton B uzzard sand however has rounder particle shapes and is documented as being uniformly graded sand (SPu L.
Buzzard). Classifications of the samples are in accordance with BS 1377-1: 1990. Fig. 3 shows the particle size distribution
curves of all the samples illustrating the different grading curves. The minimum and maximum void ratio (e min and emax) is
obtained by the procedure specified by Head [14] and BS 1377-1: 1990. XRD tests show similar mineral composition where
quartz is the dominant mineral for all the samples, thus minimizing the variables in the test in terms of mineralogy. The
shape of the particles ware quantified by techniques used by Powers [15], Krumbein and Sloss [16] and Cho et. al. [17],
Tsomokos and Georgiannou [18], Lim et. al. [19]. The mean sphericity and roundness of the particles are obtained to
differentiate the shape parameters. Table 1 is a factual summary of all the main properties of the samples in this study.
Higher mean sphericity and roundness values show rounder particle shapes. Fig. 6 shows microscopic images of the sand
particles which show the different grading and shapes.
All the sand samples were homogenized with moisture content of 10%, thoroughly mixing it and storing in a closed
container for 24 hours to enable a uniformly distribution of the water within the soil. The sand samples were formed in a
50mm diameter and 100mm height spilt mould prepared using the under-compaction method [20] where the samples are
compacted with a tamping rod at five parts of equal weight. All the sand samples were prepared with two different relative
densities. A cylindrical concrete and rubber sample of similar dimensions were also tested to compare it resilient
behavioural patterns. The samples are tested on a Geocomp fully automated resilient modulus machine shown in Fig 5
which it uses air pressure as the confining stress. Fig. 6 shows the schematic diagram of the resilient modulus apparatus.

Sand Gravel

Fine Medium Coarse Fine

110
100
90
80
Percent Finer

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1
Particle Diameter

Legend: SW SPu(Kahang) SPu(L.Buzzard) x

Fig. 3. Particle size distribution curve

160 Alvian John Lim Meng Siang et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166

Table 1: properties of the test samples

Type of Sand
Properties SW SPu SPg SPu
Kahang L.Buzzard

D60 1.5 0.65 1.5 0.71

D10 0.38 0.35 0.13 0.48
Cu 3.95 1.86 11.53 1.48
emax 0.91 0.95 0.78 0.73
emiin 0.39 0.57 0.4 0.57
Mean Sphericity (S) 0.616 0.715
Mean Roundness (R) 0.358 0.591

Concrete Rubber Polystyrene

Material Concrete Rubber Polystyrene

3
Density (kg/m ) 2208 1191 26.60

Fig. 4: Cylindrical concrete, rubber sample and polystyrene

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. (a) GEOCOMP fully automated resilient modulus apparatus (b) Schematic diagram of resilient modulus apparatus
 Alvian John Lim Meng Siang et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166 161

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 6: Magnified pictures of the sand particles (a) SW sand (b) SPu Kahang sand (c) SPuL.Buzzard sand (d) GPg sand. (Magnification of x10)

3. Results and Discussions

As stated, the set of loading conditions are based on the AASHTO Designation: T 307-99 [9] standard. The third
constitutive model suggested by Pezo [10] was used to determine the design resilient modulus (MR) value. The MR values
are calculated with a deviator stress of 68.9 kPa and a confining pressure of 41.4 kPa fitted in the equation. Table 2 shows
the summary of the test results from the resilient modulus test together with its regression constants (K1, K2, and K3) which
were automatically generated by the GEOCOMP resilient modulus software. The main finding is described as below:
It can be seen that concrete, due to its high compressive strength and high stiffness has the lowest resilient strain as
r) respectively.
It also can be seen that SPu(L.Buzzard) has a larger value MR as compared to the rest of the sands. Based on the AASHTO
soil classification system, granular soils are said to perform well as good road subgrades, however uniformly graded
r) on the
SPu(L.Buzzard) sand.
Regardless of that, SPu(Kahang) which is also uniform sands however has a lower Mr value than SPu(L.Buzzard). This can only
r) of the sample as angular sands can
be compacted much more than rounder sands.
The table also shows that lower relative density of the sample which is around D r = 0.5 give lower MR values. It is also
appears very interestingly that although SPu(L.Buzzard) has very large MR values, but it also shows that it has the highest
maximum permanent strain. This shows that rounder sand particles tend to have low resilient strain but are more easily
to be compacted.
Fig. 7 shows the resilient modulus values versus its deviator stress according to the confining pressure. It can be seen
that the rubber and polystyrene samples respond very differently from the others as the M R values tend to decrease
he
deviator stress.
The cylindrical concrete sample also behaves differently than the sand samples. It can be seen that, the M R values do not
tend to be affected by the different confining stress levels. It is however that the concrete sample shows drastic increases
in MR values as the deviator stress increases due to its very low resilient strain.
As for the sand samples, the confining stress plays an important factor in the resilient behaviour. The confining stress
shows a direct relationship with the MR values where high confining stress shows high MR values. The increasing
deviator stress also tend to decrease the resilient strain and resulting in higher M R values.
Fig 8 shows the Mr increases with an increase in uniformity coefficient (Cu) at high relative density. At lower Dr, the Mr
only increases slightly, thus it can be said that the M r is dependent on the relative density (Dr) of the samples. This also
shows that the grading characteristics shows an important factor in the resilient behaviour of the soil as gap graded sand
tend to show high Mr values due to the increasing fines content in the soil.
Fig. 9 also shows that the increase in the shape parameters of sphericity and roundness will shows a trend of an increase
in the resilient modulus values.
The effect of the void ratio (e) is shown in Fig. 10, where as the void ratio increases, the M r value however decreases.
Fig. 11 shows the overall maximum resilient modulus (MR) for all the samples based on the concrete, rubber,
polystyrene and sand materials on its density. It can be seen that the concrete samples has the highest density with very
162 Alvian John Lim Meng Siang et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166

high stiffness, resulting in very high MR r). The higher the density of the material, the
lower will be the resilient r) and the higher would be the MR.
The relationship between the Resilient Modulus and the Stiffness Modulus is shown in Figure 12. It can be seen that
Resilient Modulus increases with the Stiffness Modulus.

4. Related Applications

Based on the findings, it is certain that particulates of granular materials show very interesting resilient behaviour. The
Resilient modulus is an important parameter in the application of pavement design and it can be explained in detail by the
mechanistic-empirical method which shows the loading reactions on each of the pavement layers to predict types of distress
[21]. Fig. 13 shows a typical diagram of a pavement showing each of the soil layers and its characteristic. The top layer of
the pavement is made of hot mix asphalt and it can best described as a flexible material. The materials below it are
considered to be stiffer materials. Fig. 14 shows the mechanistic response on the pavement which shows how the loading
inputs are transferred. It can be seen that tensile stress occurs at the hot mix asphalt and compressive stress occurs at the sub
base and subgrade materials. Hence, the resilient modulus can give a good indication of the reaction of each of the layers.
Obviously, the higher the design resilient modulus of a subgrade, the higher will be the tensile stress on the asphalt.
Table 2: Resilient modulus results

MR Max Stiffness
Density Resilient modulus constants Value Max resilient permanent Modulus
Material kg/m3 K1 K2 K3 (MPa) Strain % Strain % (MPa)
Rubber 1191 234010 -1.62 0.457 1.35 2.09 10 3.297
Polystyrene 26.60 4833 -0.11 0.055 3.72 1.42 0.5 -
Concrete 2208 12122 0.711 0.232 583.0 0.01 0.1 30
SW, Dr = 0.76 1729 23958 0.0772 0.354 124.1 0.06 1.6 222.22
SW, Dr = 0.50 1651 17316 0.00869 0.333 62.1 0.14 5.2 -
SPu(Kahang), Dr = 0.71 1573 36882 0.0928 0.172 103.6 0.09 5 208.33
SPu(Kahang), Dr = 0.50 1500 18376 -0.0339 0.413 74.1 0.13 16 -
SPu(L.Buzzard), Dr=0.70 1620 25270 0.276 0.321 268.5 0.03 36 250
SPu(L.Buzzard), Dr=0.48 1588 14261 0.457 0.236 237.6 0.05 40 -
SPg, Dr = 0.70 1758 16966 0.289 0.259 151.2 0.06 0.76 285.71
SPg, Dr = 0.50 1662 10417 -0.018 0.559 77.4 0.13 22.5 -
 Alvian John Lim Meng Siang et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166 163

Fig. 7.

Dr = 0.7
160000
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

140000 Dr = 0.5
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0 5 10 15
Uniformity Coefficient Cu

Fig. 8. The relationship between the resilient modulus values and the uniformity coefficient of Kahang sands

300.0
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Shape parameter

Sphericity Roundness Dr = 0.7 - - - Dr = 0.5

Fig. 9. The relationship between the resilient modulus values and the shape parameters
164 Alvian John Lim Meng Siang et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166

300.0 Rounded Kahang

sands

Resilient Modulus (MPa)

Sands
250.0
L.Buuzzard
200.0
Sannds
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85
Void ratio e

Fig. 10. The effects of the void ratio on the resilient modulus values

700.0
Concrete
600.0
Max Resilient Strain %

500.0 Rounded
400.0 Sands

300.0
200.0
100.0 Rubber
Polystyrene
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Density (kg/m3)

Fig. 11. The maximum resilient strain versus the density of the sample

Fig. 12. Relationship of the Stiffness Modulus and the Resilient Modulus

Fig. 13. Schematic diagram of the pavement layers [22]

Fig. 13. Schematic diagram of the pavement layers [22]

 Alvian John Lim Meng Siang et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166 165

Fig 14. Tensile and compressive strains in flexible pavments [21]

5. Conclusion

The assessment of stiff (rigid), elastic (flexible) and particulate materials of different shapes and gradation
characteristics will lead to a better understanding of the resilient behaviour. The main conclusions from the study are:

The permanent strain is a function of the stiffness modulus whereas the resilient strain is a function of the resilient
modulus.
Elastic materials such as the rubber sample shows the M R values tend to decrease significantly as the deviator
stress increases.
much.
A very stiff sample shows that the MR values do not tend to be affected by the different confining stress levels but
shows significant increase in the MR values as the deviator stress increases due to its very low resilient strain.
For the sand samples, the confining stress plays an important factor in the resilient behaviour. High confining stress
shows high MR values and the increasing deviator stress also tend to decrease the resilient strain, resulting in higher
MR values.
Concrete, due to its high compressive strength has the lowest resilient strain as compared to a rubber sample which
r). This results to large value of the design resilient modulus from the constitutive
model.
SPu(L.Buzzard) has a largest value of the design MR as compared to the rest of the sands. It is also appears very
interestingly that although SPu(L.Buzzard) has very large MR values, but it also shows that it has the highest maximum
permanent strain. This shows that rounder sand particles tend to have low resilient strain but are more easily to be
compacted. Particle shapes tend to be a significant factor in the resilient behaviour.
Mr increases with an increase in uniformity coefficient (Cu).
The effect of the void ratio (e) shows that as void ratio increases, the Mr value decreases.
It can be seen that the concrete samples have the highest density with very high stiffness, resulting in very low r.
r).

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the Research Center for Soft Soil (RECESS) laboratory, the laboratory staffs and
the advices from fellow researchers.

References
[1] Lekarp, F., Isacsson, U. And Dawson, A. State of the Art I: Resilient Response of Unbound Aggregates. Journal of Transporting Engineering.
Jan/Feb 66-75, 2000.
[2] Nazarian S., & Feliberti M., Methodology for resilient modulus testing of cohesionless subgrades, transportation research record 1406, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C. pp. 108-115., 1983
[3] Tompson M.R., Factors affecting the resilient moduli of soils and granular materials, workshop on resilient modulus testing, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon., 1989.
[4] Hicks G.R., and Monismith C.L. Factors influencing the resilient response of granular materials, Highway Research Record 345, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 15-31, 1981
[5] Kim, D., and N. Z. Siddiki. Simplification of Resilient Modulus Testing for Subgrades. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department
of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2006.
166 Alvian John Lim Meng Siang et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 156 – 166

[6] Davish P., Labuz J.F., Guzina B., Drescher A. Small strain and resilient modulus testing of granular soils (Final Report). Minesota Departmet of
transportation research services section, 2004.
[7] Mathew, Significance of cyclic confining stress inrepeated load triaxial testing of granular material. In Transportation Research 113 Record 537,
Transportation Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp 49-58, 2003.
[8] Whitlow,R. (2001), Basic Soil Mechanics, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
[9] AASHTO Designation: T 307-99. Standard method of test for determining the resilitn modulus of soils and aggregate materials. 2003
nd
[10] Pezo, R. A general method of reporting resilient modul Annual meeting of transportation
research board, Jan, 10 14, Washington, D.C., 1993.
[11] Mohammad, C., Puppala, A. and Alavilli, P., Effect of strain measurement on resilient modulus of sands. Dynamic Geotechnical Testing II, ASTM
STP 1213, Ronald J. Ebelher, Vincent P. Drnevich, and Bruce L. Kutter, Eds, American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 2004.
[12] Moussazadeh, J. And Witczak, M. Prediction of subgrade moduli for soil that exhibits nonlinear behaviour, Transportation research board,
Transportation research record 810: 9-17, Washington, D.C., 1981.
[13] Al-Suhaibani, A., Al-Refeai, T. and Noureldin, A. Characterization of subgrade soil in Saudi Arabia; A study of resilient behaviour, KACST Project
No. Ar-12-51, Final report, 1997
[14] Head, K.H. Manual of soil laboratory testing. Vol 1: Soil classification and compaction test. Pentech Press, London, 1992.
[15] Powers, M. G. A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles. Journal ofSedimentary Petrology 23, No. 2, 117-119., 1953
[16] Krumbein, W. C. Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 11,
No.2, 64-72. (1941).
[17] Cho, G.C, Dodds, J. & Santamarina, J.C. Particle shape effects on packing density, stiffness and strength: Natural and crushed sands. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No 5, 2006.
[18]
Vol. 47, Number 5.pg 539 to 551., 2010.
[19] ngth and dilatancy
characteristics. International Journal of Integrated Engineering. (In Press), 2012
[20] Ladd R.S. Preparing test specimen using undercompaction. Geotechnical Testing Journal 1(1), pp. 16 23, 1978.
.[21] Yang, H.,H. Pavement analysis and design. Second Edition. Presntice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2004.
[22] Harold N.,A. Highway Materials, Soils, and Concretes, 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall, Columbus, Ohio, USA