P. 1
Baghdad Subgrade Resilient Modulus and Liquefaction Evaluation for Pavement Design Using Load Cyclic Triaxial Strength

Baghdad Subgrade Resilient Modulus and Liquefaction Evaluation for Pavement Design Using Load Cyclic Triaxial Strength

|Views: 2|Likes:
Published by Alexander Decker
International peer-reviewed academic journals call for papers, http://www.iiste.org
International peer-reviewed academic journals call for papers, http://www.iiste.org

More info:

Published by: Alexander Decker on Dec 03, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/03/2013

pdf

text

original

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.

12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

Baghdad Subgrade Resilient Modulus and liquefaction Evaluation for Pavement Design using Load Cyclic Tria ial Strength
+r.Saad ,.I-rahim ..Sc.* /.Sc.* !h+ 0.E.#./ISS/1E./.I.2S0E* 0ollege of Engineering.* 2l-/ustansiria 3niversit4* .aghdad* Ira5. Email 6 drsaadfarhan74ahoo.com !bstract !avements fail for different reasons8 "oor design* "oor materials and "oor construction methods are the most common. 9he "avement foundation su-grade# re"resents one of the :e4 elements in the "avement design. 9he 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation officials 22S;9(# "u-lished the 22S;9( 1uide for +esign of !avement Structures 22S;9(* 1&'6# in which the use of <esilient /odulus /r# was ado"ted as the "rinci"al soil "ro"ert4 contri-uting to the design of fle=i-le "avements. It can consider that resilient modulus /r# is a :e4 value in "avement design. 9he "resent stud4 uses the standard la-orator4 test for load c4clic 9ria=ial strength to evaluate the resilient modulus and li5uefaction condition of some .aghdad soils *as well as using the neural networ: a""roach to develo" a model that can -e used to "redict resilient modulus values for .aghdad soils . 9he model uses the results of routine la-orator4 tests li:e s"ecific gravit4* water content* 2tter-erg limits* soil classification and unconfined com"ressive strength to "redict /r. It is well-:nown that the !erformance of resilient modulus tests are difficult* e="ensive and time consuming and hence there has -een an interest in ado"ting the (hio State 3niversit4 mathematical model (S3 /odel# introduced -4 >im 2%%4 and confirmed -4 <odgers 2%%6 that satisfactoril4 "redicts resilient modulus values without the necessit4 of a la-orator4 test. It is ver4 im"ortant for a mathematical model to accommodate new data as it -ecomes availa-le. It is concluded that soil -rought from .aghdad 0it4 e=hi-ited the resilient modulus /r# of "avement su-grade soils which has -een ado"ted -4 the 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials 22S;9(# for the "ur"ose of designing fle=i-le roadwa4 "avement s4stems* values ranging from 4% /!a to a-out 1%%/!a. .ased on 2S9/ su-grade resilient modulus criterion* the 2-?-$ and 2-6 untreated su-grade soil would -e classified as fair to "oor unacce"ta-le as a com"etent su-grade#. 9o "rove the ca"a-ilit4 of the networ:* /r "redicted values for .aghdad soil were com"ared with its corres"onding /r measured. It is concluded that .aghdad soils need to -e "rovided with new networ: and model with some modification needed to -e done on the (S3 models to "rovide a good estimation of /r for the .aghdad soils. 9he results of c4clic load test carried out in la-orator4 to conduct @i5uefaction indicate that for a given initial water content and s"ecific dr4 densit4 with initial effective stress* it is concluded that generall4 all sam"les didnAt e=hi-it significant gain in li5uefaction condition and didnAt show conflict values due to the reduction in the rate of "ore water "ressure generation and shear strain of all sam"les su-Bected to c4clic loading. the4 shows withstanding against li5uefaction -4 reaching high value of NormaliCed "rinci"al Stress when reaching to critical -uilt u" of !ore water "ressure which lead to the fact that a li5uefied condition could not "ossi-l4 develo" in those soils. "ey#ords$ <esilient /odulus* 0...<* Su-grade 0om"action* !avement +esign %&'ntroduction !avements fail for different reasons8 "oor design* "oor materials and "oor construction methods are the most common. 9he "avement foundation su-grade# re"resents one of the :e4 elements in the "avement design8 its -ehavior will influence the overall "avement "erformance.Su-grade soils are su-Bected to re"eated loads due to heav4 traffic* which can cause deformations and distress of the overl4ing structures. 9o im"rove and standardiCe design "rocedures* 9he 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation officials 22S;9(# "u-lished the 22S;9( 1uide for +esign of !avement Structures 22S;9(* 1&'6# in which the use of <esilient /odulus /r# was ado"ted as the "rinci"al soil "ro"ert4 contri-uting to the design of fle=i-le "avements. <esilient /odulus /r# is a :e4 value in "avement design. !erformance of resilient modulus tests is difficult* e="ensive and time consuming and hence man4 researchers were develo"ing a mathematical model that satisfactoril4 "redicts resilient modulus values without the necessit4 of a la-orator4 test. It is ver4 im"ortant for a mathematical model to accommodate new data as it -ecomes availa-le. <esilient /odulus is the failure of a fle=i-le "avement structure su""orted on a su-grade soil and 12$

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

su-Bected to re"eated traffic loading* can occur through two "rimar4 mechanisms - colla"se of the "avement structure or crac:ing of the surface of the "avement. 2 colla"se of the "avement structure can occur due to large "lastic "ermanent# deformations in the su-grade soils. ;owever* even when the loads on the "avement are not e=cessive -ut nominal* the "avement surface can crac: due to fatigue* caused -4 the reversal of elastic strains at an4 location in the "avement s4stem. 2s a result of re"eated loads such as those caused -4 moving traffic* cohesive soils in the su-grade incur re"eated elastic deformations. Dhen these deformations e=ceed a threshold value* "remature fatigue failure of the fle=i-le "avement through crac:ing of the "avement surface occurs. >im 2%%4 studied the suita-ilit4 of e=isting regression models and* if necessar4* develo"s an im"roved model for "redicting /r of cohesive soils without conducting e="ensive and time-consuming /r tests. 2dditional tests were "erformed on sam"les com"acted to o"timum conditions -ut allowed to full4 saturate. /r "redicted from si= e=isting models studied showed wide scatter and "oor correlation with the measured /r. 2n im"roved constitutive model was develo"ed to account for the effects on /r of the stress state of the soil and its engineering "ro"erties o-tained from sim"le la-orator4 tests. 1eorge 2%%4 used an e=isting models to stud4 significantl4 overestimated the /r of a cohesive soil* the "ro"osed model "redictions are close to the e="erimental values and are in most cases a slight underestimation. 9his im"lies that /r )alues "redicted -4 the "ro"osed model are generall4 slightl4 conservative* and can -e safel4 used in the design of fle=i-le "avements to -e -uilt on cohesive soils. 9he "ro"osed model can -e a useful and relia-le tool for estimating /r of cohesive su-grade soils using -asic soil "ro"erties and the stress state of the soil. <odgers 2%%6 studied the im"rovement of the (S3 regression method used to estimate the resilient modulus from commonl4 "erformed tests* e="and the model data set and evaluate the modelAs "erformance with additional data. She uses the neural networ: a""roach to develo" a model that can -e used to "redict resilient modulus values for (hio Soils. !ro"er determination of the resilient modulus to -e used in "avement design has -een studied -4 a large num-er of researchers e.g.* Seed* et al. 1&62#* ,redlund et al. 1&??#* +rumm et al. 1&&%#* @i and Selig 1&&4#* !eCo and ;udson 1&&4#* @ee et al. 1&&$#* 1uan et al. 1&&'#* /ohammad et al. 1&&&#* >im 1&&&#* @i and Eu-ain* 2%%3#* and .utalia et al. 2%%3## and several different methods have -een develo"ed for evaluating the a""ro"riate value of /r to use in design. Some of those methods use la-orator4 test results from reconstituted or undistur-ed sam"les to create regression models* relating static soil "ro"erties and* usuall4 the stress state to determine /r. @i5uefaction denotes a condition where* during the course of c4clic stress a""lications* the residual "ore water "ressure on com"letion of an4 full stress c4cle -ecome e5ual to the a""lied confining "ressure* it was seen man4 times that failure occurs in Su-grade cla4e4 la4er due to the ra"id acceleration and -uild u" of "ore water "ressure which leads to initial li5uefaction FSeed* et al.1&?$G. 9he materials used in soil sta-iliCation re5uired to lead to maintain in the stress ration re5uired to cause li5uefaction to "revent this "henomenon from occurs. 2n alternative e="lanation is that during an4 "eriod of c4clic straining* there is a "rogressive change in the soil structure with the result that the volume change occurring in an4 one c4cles decrease "rogressivel4 with increasing num-ers of c4cle so "recautions should -e ta:en in selecting an4 additive to sta-iliCed soil against c4clic loading F<aad*et al.1&&%8@ittle*1&'?G. @i5uefaction of Su-grade soil can cause severe damage to roads and -ridges and earth structures during severe c4clic loading* d4namic forces or earth5ua:e <odrigueC et al. 2%%'# (& Pur)ose of the Study 9he main "ur"ose of this research is to find real and accurate direct values of the <esilient /odulus carried out using c4clic loading availa-le in the la-oratories of soil mechanics in the +e"artment of 0ivil Engineering at the (hio State 3niversit4* the 3nited States to assist highwa4s designer in Ira5 to "ut this "arameter into consideration for cit4 of .aghdad as a "arameter in the design of roads *highwa4s and air"orts* as well as to find out whether these t4"es of soil affected -4 li5uefaction condition at selected relative densities *confining "ressure and c4clic stress ratio. *& Testing Procedure 9he resilient modulus and li5uefaction test is a c4clic tria=ial test usuall4 "erformed on undistur-ed cohesive soils. Since 22S;9( first "ro"osed 92?4-'2 as the testing "rocedure for determining /r of soils* three additional modifications* 22S;9( 92&2-&1* and 92&4-&4* and 93%?-&&* have -een introduced. 9he -asic differences among the four testing "rocedures* 22S;9( 92?4-'2* 92&2-&1* 92&4-&4* and 93%?-&&* are the a""lied waveform and se5uence* sam"le conditioning -efore testing* num-er of loading c4cles* and introduction of a linear varia-le differential transformer @)+9# to measure a=ial dis"lacements. 9a-le 1 summariCes the d4namic waveform* load and c4cle duration for each of the testing "rocedure* and 9a-le 2 lists the confining

126

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

stress* deviator stress* and num-er of loading c4cles. 2fter the 1&'6 ado"tion of /r of soil for the design of "avement structures* the severe sam"le conditioning -efore testing often resulted in distur-ance to the soil sam"le* and sometimes sam"le failure was e="erienced during testing. In 1&&1* 22S;9( 92&2-&1 modified 92?4-'2. 9he se5uence of a""l4ing the confining "ressure and deviator stress to the s"ecimens in the 22S;9( 92&2-&1 testing "rocedure has raised some concerns. 2s shown in 9a-le 1* the 22S;9( 92?4-'2 and 92&2-&1 testing "rocedures allow various waveform and loading fre5uencies* "ermitting the tester to choose among the various o"tions. 9his ma4 lead to different /r )alues for the same s"ecimen. In 1&&4* 22S;9( introduced 92&4-&4 -ased u"on the S;<! "rotocol !-46 as suggested -4 0laros et al. 1&&%#. It has -een re"orted that the 22S;9( 92&4-&4 testing "rocedure 4ields more consistent results than the other two testing "rocedures 0laros* et al. 1&&%#* and 0osentino* et al. 1&&1##. /ohammad* et al. 1&&4# re"orted that the 22S;9( 92&4-&4 testing "rocedure 4ields higher /r than those o-tained -4 using the 22S;9( 92&2-&1 testing "rocedure. 2s shown in 9a-le 1* the 22S;9( 92?4-'2 and 92&2-&1 testing "rocedures allow various waveform and loading fre5uencies. !ermitting the tester to choose among the various o"tions ma4 lead to different results for the same s"ecimen. In 1&&2* 22S;9( introduced 92&4-&2. 9his "rocedure is -ased u"on the S;<! "rotocol !-46 as suggested -4 0laros et al. 1&&%#. 22S;9( formall4 ado"ted this testing "rocedure for measurement of /r in 1&&4* and designated this testing "rocedure as 22S;9( 92&4-&4. It has -een re"orted that the 22S;9( 92&4-&4 testing "rocedure 4ields more consistent results than the other two testing "rocedures 0laros* et al.* 1&&%8 0osentino* et al.* 1&&1#. /ohammad* et al. 1&&4# has re"orted that the 22S;9( 92&4-&4 testing "rocedure 4ields higher /r )alues than those o-tained -4 using the 22S;9( 92&2-&1 testing "rocedure. 9a-le 1 0om"arison of resilient modulus test "rocedures after >im2%%4#
Tes tin g Pr oce du re +ave Ty)e Loa d Dur atio n ,Se c&Cyc lic Dur atio n ,Se c&.d ,/Pa.* ,/Pa0um ber of Cycl es

92 ?4'2

92 &2&1

Sin e* ;av ersi ne* <ec tang ular 9ria ngu lar <ec tang ular 9ria ngu lar ;av ersi ne

? 14 2' $$

%.1

1.% to 3.%

41* 21* % 41* 21* % 41* 21* % 41* 21* %

2%% 2%% 2%% 2%%

6&

41* 21* %

2%%

%.1 to 1.%

1.% to 3.%

21* 34* 4'* 6&* 1%3

21

$%

92 &4&4

%.1

1.%

93%?-&&

;aversine

%.1

1.% to 3.%

14* 2'* 41* $$* 6& 14* 2'* 41* $$* 6& 14* 2'* 41* $$* 6& 14* 2'* 41* $$* 6& 14* 2'* 41* $$* 6& 14* 2'* 41* $$* 6&

41 21 % 41 2' 14

1%% 1%% 1%% 1%% 1%% 1%%

9he current 22S;9( "rotocol for determination of resilient modulus of soils and aggregate material 93%?-&&# is -ased largel4 on @ong 9erm !avement !erformance @9!!# !rotocol !46 22S;9( 92&4-&4#. Similarities and differences -etween @9!! !rotocol !46 and 22S;9( 93%? include the loading s4stem* load cell location* deformation measurement* load and c4cle duration* num-er and t4"e of linear varia-le differential transformers @)+9s# to measured a=ial dis"lacement* s"ecimen siCe* and com"action "rocedures are discussed -4 1roeger et al 2%%3#. 9a-le 2 com"ares the two standard s"ecification 92&4-&4 S;<! !rotocol !46# and 93%?. 9he two "rocedures have similar load control closed loo"#* load cell e=ternal#* deformation measurement e=ternal#* confining fluid air#* load "ulse sha"e haversine#* s"ecimen @H+ ratio IJ 261#* and the num-er of @)+9S used. 93%? also allows the use of a "neumatic loading s4stem -eside the h4draulic one. 12?

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

9a-le 2 0om"arison of !46 and 93%? after 1roeger et al* 2%%3#
Protocol s)ecification 94"e of @oading S4stem P12 ;4draulic uses 2%% "oints and not $%% as in !46* and its c4cle can have duration of u" to 3 seconds8 in addition* :neading com"action can also -e use as an alternative com"action method. 0losed @oo" E=ternal E=ternal 2ir ;aversine %.1 s 1.% s 2 $%% IJ 261 StaticH)i-rator4 T*34 ;4draulicH!neumatic

@oad control

0losed @oo"

@oad 0ell @ocation +eformation /easurement 0onfining ,luid @oad !ulse Sha"e @oad duration 04cle +uration Num-er of @)+9s K of "ts "er c4cle S"ecimen @H+ <atio 94"e of com"action

E=ternal E=ternal 2ir ;aversine %.1 s 1.% s to 3.% s 2 2%% IJ261 StaticH)i-rator4H>neading

1& Parameters !ffecting Resilient Modulus of 5ine 6rained Soils /r is numericall4 e5ual to the ratio of the deviator stress to the resilient or recovera-le strain after large num-er of load c4cles /r J Ld H Mr. 9he resilient modulus value can -e estimated directl4 from la-orator4 testing* indirectl4 through correlations with other la-orator4Hfield tests* or -ac: calculated from deflection measurements the resilient res"onse of a soil has -een studied and documented -4 several researchers over the "ast $% 4ears. 9hese studies evaluated the characteristics of /r for cohesive soils in association with the stress state and engineering "ro"erties* and develo"ed "rocedures for estimating /r. 9he results of these studies show that /r of cohesive soils de"ends on deviator stress* confining stress* water content* and degree of saturation* "lasticit4 inde=* unconfined com"ressive strength* freeCe-thaw action* and "ore water "ressure. /r of cohesive soils at constant confining stress decreased nonlinearl4 with increasing deviator stress Seed* et al. 1&62#* ,redlund* et al. 1&??#* Doolstrum 1&&%#* +rumm* et al. 1&&%#* @i and Selig 1&&4#* !eCo and ;udson 1&&4#* @ee et al. 1&&$#* /ohammad* et al. 1&&&#* >im 1&&&#* ;uang 2%%1#* and /asada and Sargand 2%%2##. /r for cohesive soils stee"l4 decreases with an increase in the am"litude of the c4clic load u" to a deviator stress* called the N-rea:"ointA suggested -4 9homson and <o-nett 1&?6#. 9hen with increasing deviator stress* /r ma4 graduall4 increase* decrease* or remain constant. /r of cohesive soils at constant deviator stress increased as the confining stress increased !eCo and ;udson 1&&4#* @ee et al. 1&&4#* /ohammad* et al. 1&&&#* and >im 1&&&##. >im 1&&&#* and .utalia* et al. 2%%3# showed that the effect of effective confining stress on /r of cohesive soils graduall4 decreases with an increase in the moisture content. ;owever* other researchers have suggested that the confining stress around cohesive soils has no significant effect on the /r ,redlund* et al. 1&??#* /uhanna* et al. 1&&&#* and /asada and Sargand 2%%2##. 9he effect of the num-er of re"eated stresses Seed* et al. 1&62# and <aad and Oeid 1&&%## a""eared to -e negligi-le. 1uan* et al. 1&&'# suggested a "avement design weight factor that can -e calculated on the -asis of seasonal changes in /r o-tained from la-orator4 tests or nondestructive in situ tests. @ee* et al. 1&&$* 1&&?# "ro"osed that the unconfined com"ressive stress at 1P a=ial strain was a good "redictor of /r for cohesive soils. /r for some cohesive soils was re"orted to increase with increasing soil "lasticit4 inde= Doolstrum 1&&%#* !eCo and ;udson 1&&4#* and >im 1&&&##. 9he relationshi" -etween /r and soil engineering "ro"erties as well as the stress state of cohesive soils -ecame the foundation for the develo"ment of models to estimate /r of cohesive soils. ;uang 2%%1# and .utalia et al. 2%%3# tested full4 saturated cohesive soils for resilient modulus characteristics to determine the degradation of resilient modulus due to high "ore water "ressure -uildu". It was o-served that the "ore water "ressure -uildu" significantl4 reduced the resilient modulus of saturated cohesive soils In general* /r of cohesive soils is nonlinear with res"ect to deviator stress. 9he ;4"er-olic* 1+(9* and 30S models include nonlinear modeling. ;owever* 3S+2* 9+(9* and (+(9 models "redict linear -ehavior. 2lthough confining stress can affect /r of cohesive soils* the effect of confining stress is not considered in ;4"er-olic* 1+(9* and (+(9 models. 2lso* the (+(9 model does not include the effect of deviator stress. ;owever* most of these models were not develo"ed on the -asis of results o-tained from /r testing of a wide variet4 of cohesive soils. >im 2%%6# showed that /r "redicted using three of these regression models* 3S+2* ;4"er-olic* and 1+(9 models* did not com"are well with measured /r )alues for 2-4 and 2-6 soil sam"les. In this stud4* soils from four sites in .aghdad-Ira5 are investigated as ela-orated in 9a-le 3.

12'

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

9a-le 3 Summar4 of E=isting /r <egression /odels in 0ommon 3se after >im 2%%4#
E isting Model 3S+2 /odel 0armichael Q Stuart* 1&'6# 'n)ut Parameters 3S0S soil t4"e* !I* w* P "assing No. 2%% sieve* R3* Rd !dvantages Includes effect of6 - R3 - !I -w - Nonlinear model Includes effect of6 - 5u - !I -S - Nonlinear model Includes effect of6 - w and wopt - S and !I - !a Includes effect of6 -w - !I - Sam"le age - R3 - Nonlinear model - Sim"licit4 of /odel - Sim"licit4 of model Includes effect of6 - R3 - !I -w Limitations - @inear model - Soil t4"e

;4"er-olic /odel +rumm* et al.* 1&&%#

5u* P of clay* !I* γ* S* P "assing No. 2%% sieve* ;4"er-olic "arameter a* @@* Rd w, wopt* γd* γd*ma=* P of silt* P of cla4*P swell* P "assing K4% sieve* S* P shrin:age* @@* !I* Rd* !a

- R3 not considered

1+(9 /odel Santha* 1&&4#

- R3 not considered - 0om"le= model - /an4 tests re5uired

9+(9 /odel !eCo Q ;udson* 1&&4# 30S /odel @ee* et al.* 1&&$# (+(9 /odel (+(9* 1&&&#

w, γd* γd*ma=* !I* Sam"le age* R3* Rd

- @inear model - In"ut "arameters have narrow range - R3 at %* 2%.?* 41.4 :!a - 13 :!a S Rd S 6% :!a - @inear model - R3 and Rd not considered - @inear model - R3 and Rd t considered

Su at 1.%P of a=ial strain* R3* Rd 1I P "assing No. 2%% sieve* @@* !I#* 0.< 5u* P of clay* !I* γ* S* P "assing No. 2%% sieve* ;4"er-olic "arameter a* @@* Rd * w, γd* γd*ma=* !I* Sam"le age

(S3 /odel 2%%6

7& Sam)le Collection <e"resentative 0ohesive soil sam"les that are used in "avement su-grade from four sites distri-uted throughout .aghdad 0it4 in <e"u-lic of Ira5 were collected from a de"th of a-out %.$%to1.$# m. from ground surface elevation to re"resent 2l..aladiat Site ..1#* Oaiona .O1#* 2l.>aCalia .>1# and 2l./ansour ./1#. @a-orator4 tests were "erformed on the sam"les to determine their -asic engineering "ro"erties. /r and li5uefaction 9ests were conducted on soil sam"les at three different moisture contents which are dr4 of o"timum +(!#* o"timum (!9#* and wet of o"timum D(!#. 2& Basic Engineering Pro)erties of 8sed Soil @a-orator4 tests were conducted on the four soil sam"les to determine their -asic engineering "ro"erties. @a-orator4 tests conducted were 2tter-erg limits* sieve anal4sis* h4drometer* Standard !roctor com"action* unconfined com"ressive strength* and 33 tests. 2ll soil sam"les collected were trans"orted to the Soil /echanics @a-orator4 at 9he (hio State 3niversit4As +e"artment of 0ivil* Environmental and 1eodetic Engineering. 9he sam"les were oven-dried at 6% °0* for 24 hours and then air-dried in the la-orator4 over a twowee: "eriod. 2ll dried soil sam"les were thoroughl4 "ulveriCed. 2ccording to 3nified Soil 0lassification s4stem in 2S9/ +24'?-&3 and 22S;9( Soil 0lassification s4stem in 22S;9( /14$-&1* the soil t4"e for each soil sam"le was identified on the -asis of the results of 2tter-erg limit* and "article siCe distri-ution tests see 9a-le 4#. In the 3nified Soil 0lassification s4stem* as shown in ta-le 4 were found to -e classified as 0@ low "lasticit4 cla4# for ..1* .O1* ./1 and .:1. 2tter-erg limit tests were "erformed in accordance with 22S;9( 9'&-&6* and 9&%-&6 testing "rocedures. 2s shown in 9a-le 4* the li5uid limit of 2-6 location ranged a-out 3'* and that of 2-?-$ locations were much higher 4% to 4&#. 9he "lasticit4 inde= of 2-6 grou" ranged a-out 1? while it shows higher for 2-?-$ which was a-ove 2%. Sieve anal4ses and h4drometer tests were conducted in accordance with 22S;9( 9''-&?. 2s shown in 9a-le 4* all soil of 2-?-$ had a""ro=imatel4 highest "ercent of 0la4 generall4 ranging from 4%P to $%P#. 9he 2-6 soil had 0la4 ranging -etween 2$P and 3%P. 9he 2-?-$ soil had the lowest amount of sand.

12&

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

9a-le 4 0lassification and Engineering !ro"erties of each location
Soil Location Soil Ty)e !!S>T< 8SCS 6s Liquid Limit LL Plastic Limit PL Passing :(33 5iner Sand ; Silt ; Clay ; <&M&C ; Ma & Dry Density /0=m* TSS ;

P'

BB% BB% BM% B"%

!?2 !?4?7 !?4?7 !?4?7

CL CL CL CL

(&24 (&2A (&2@ (&43

*@&*( 11&12 12&1% 17&4@

(3&*@ (%&%7 (%C31 %@&7(

%4&A1 (*&*% (7&*4 (2&@A

4@&A( @(&%4 @1&(2 @@&1A

(1 %4 (% %A

1A *4 *@ *A

(4 12 1% 1(

%2&A2 %4&17 %4&(% %4&42

%2&@% %2&24 %2&(* %7&4@

%%&( A&A7 @&7% %3&@

Standard !roctor com"action tests were conducted on each soil sam"le in accordance with "rocedure 2 in 22S;9( 9&&-&? testing methods as shown in figure 1. 9a-le 4 summariCes the o"timum moisture content* ma=imum dr4 densit4* sam"le moisture content* sam"le dr4 densit4* and unconfined com"ressive strength for the soil sam"les for each location.
1.7
Dry Density (gm cm!)

1.65 1.6 1.55 1.5 1.45 1.4 1.35 1.3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Moisture Content (%)

BB1 BZ1 BK1 BM1

Fig.(1) Moisture Content Vs. Dry Density For each location (BB1,BZ1,BK1 & BM1)

3nconfined com"ressive strength tests were conducted immediatel4 after sam"le com"action in accordance with 22S;9( 92%'-&6 testing "rocedures. 9he unconfined com"ressive strength tests were conducted on each soil sam"le at three different moisture contents. 2s shown in 9a-le $* the three different moisture contents were dr4 of o"timum moisture content +(!#* o"timum moisture content (!9#* and wet of o"timum moisture content D(!#. 2s shown in 9a-le $* the unconfined com"ressive strength for 2-?-$ grou" were found to higher at dr4 of o"timum moisture content* than values o-tained from (!9 and D(!.In general* the dr4 of o"timum sam"les e=hi-ited the highest unconfined com"ressive strength values. 9he measured strength values t4"icall4 decreased with increasing sam"le moisture content. 9a-le $0om"action and 3nconfined 0om"ressive Strength 9est <esults Soil 94"e Soil 0ondition +( ! ..1 (! 9 D(! +( ! .O1 (! 9 D(! +( ! ./1 (! 9 D(! +( ! .>1 (! 9 D( !

3nconfined 0om"ression Strength 1$6 13& 126 1&2 1?6 13' 1'& 16& 13$ 1?6 162 132 :!a# Soil sam"le for unconfined com"ression tests was com"acted at desired dr4* o"timum and wet densit4 and moisture content -2* %* 92 from o"timum# P res"ectivel4. it is 5uite o-vious that 2-?-$ soil shows good a-ilit4 to withstand higher stress -efore failure than 2-6 soil. 0learl4* saturation adversel4 affects the unconfined com"ressive strength of soils com"acted at o"timum moisture content

13%

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

4& Evaluation of Resilient Modulus ,Testing Procedure9he maBor com"onents of /r testing as "erformed in the Soil /echanics @a-orator4 at 9he (hio State 3niversit4 are shown in ,igure 2. 9he s"ecified load was a""lied -4 a loading s4stem manufactured -4 /9S.9he 9ria=ial "ressure cham-er see ,igure 3# was modified to include a load cell to measure a=ial load* an @)+9 to measure a=ial dis"lacement. 9he @)+9 was mounted on the e=ternal steel rod in the to" cover of the 9ria=ial "ressure cham-er.

,igure 2 /r 9esting S4stem
Confining Pressure ,/Pa41 41 41 41 41 41 21 21 21 21 21 % % % % % Deviator Stress ,/Pa2' 14 2' 41 $$ 6& 14 2' 41 $$ 6& 14 2' 41 $$ 6&

,igure 3 9ria=ial 0ells for /r 9est 9a-le 6 /r 9esting Se5uences for 3nsaturated Sam"les

Sequence 0o& % 1 2 3 4 $ 6 ? ' & 1% 11 12 13 14 1$

0umber of load a))lications 1%%% 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $# 1%% &$ T $#

,igures 4* $*6and 16 show t4"ical results of /r test on ..1* .O1* ./1 and .>1 at +(!*(!9 and D(! for whole sam"les. ,igures 1?* 1' and 1& illustrate the effects of var4ing deviator stresses and <esilient /odulus )alues at different moisture contents. 2s shown in ,igures 4* $* 6* and 1&* /r at constant confining stress graduall4 decreased with an increase in deviator stress. In man4 cases* the decreasing rate at the low deviator stress was more "ronounced than that at high deviator stress. 9his nonlinear trend of /r to deviator stress is similar to o-servations of other researchers Seed* et al. 1&62#* ,redlund* et al. 1&??#* Doolstrum 1&&%#* +rumm* et al. 1&&%#* @i and Selig 1&&4#* !eCo and ;udson 1&&4#* @ee et al. 1&&$#* /ohammad* et al. 1&&&#* >im 1&&&#* ;uang 2%%1#* and /asada and Sargand 2%%2##. /r increased with an increase in confining stress. 2s mentioned "reviousl4* it is noted that /r is closel4 related to the moisture content in soils. /r of the soil sam"les decreased with an increase in moisture content. >im 2%%4 and <odgers 2%%6 confirmed the same results. @& Model Derification 9he "resent stud4 uses the neural networ: a""roach to develo" a model that can -e used to "redict resilient modulus values for .aghdad Soils and can easil4 accommodate new data as this -ecomes availa-le. 9he model uses the results of commonl4 "erformed la-orator4 tests li:e water content* 2tter-erg limits* soil classification and unconfined com"ressive strength to "redict /r. 9he networ: was trained using all la-orator4 test results "erformed in the Soil /echanics @a-orator4 of 9he (hio State 3niversit4 for 2-6 and 2-?-$

131

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

.aghdad soils and the Neural Networ: /ath Dor:s 9ool-o=. It is -elieved that /r of a cohesive soil is de"endent u"on its moisture content. 9o stud4 this "henomenon for the "ro"osed constitutive model* the "redicted and measured /r at various moisture contents dr4 of o"timum* o"timum* and wet of o"timum# were investigated. ,igures 1&* 2%* and 21 show com"arison of the measured /r with the "redicted /r for ..1* .O1* ./1 and .>1 soils* res"ectivel4. 9o "rove the ca"a-ilit4 of the networ:* /r "redicted values for .aghdad soils were com"ared with its corres"onding /r measured as illustrated and e="lained in ,igures 1&* 2% and 21. It can -e o-served that as the sam"le moisture content increases* /r "redicted -4 the model reduces significantl4 and is generall4 close to the e="erimentall4 measured /r* irres"ective of the sam"le moisture content. It can -e o-served that as the sam"le moisture content increases* /r "redicted -4 the model reduces significantl4 and is generall4 close to the e="erimentall4 measured /r* irres"ective of the sam"le moisture content. this model was "erformed "reviousl4 -4 >im 2%%4# and <odgers 2%%6#.It is o-vious that conducting the /r test in la-orator4 on su-grade soil is the -est wa4 to get accurate results. It is concluded that e=isting /r "rediction models investigated in this stud4 significantl4 overestimate /r and show a large scatter of data when com"ared with e="erimental o-servations. 9he "ro"osed model is generall4 slightl4 conservative in its estimation of /r and hence can -e safel4 used in the design of fle=i-le "avements su""orted on cohesive soils.
80 Confining stress 41 kPa 75 # e s il i e n t M o $ u l u s (M ( a ) 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 0 20 40 De)iator *tress (K(a) 60 80 Confining stress 21 KPa Confining Stress 0 KPa

Fig. (" ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BB1 &ocation (D'()

132

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

100

Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa Confining Stress 0 KPa

95 # es ilie n t M o $ u lu s (M ( a )

90

85

80

75

70 0 20 40 De)iator *tress (K(a) 60 80

Fig. (+ ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BZ1 &ocation (D'()

90 Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa 85 #esilien t M o $ u lu s (M ( a) Confining Stress 0 KPa

80

75

70

65 0 20 40 De)iator *tress (K(a) 60 80

Fig. (, ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BM1 &ocation (D'()
65 Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa 60 #esilient M o$ulus (M (a) Confining Stress 0 KPa

55

50

45

40 0 20 40 De)iator *tress (K(a) 60 80

Fig. (- ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BK1 &ocation (D'()

133

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

80 Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa #esilient Mo$ulus (M(a) 75 Confining Stress 0 KPa

70

65

60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 De)iator *tress (K(a)

Fig. (.) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BZ1 &ocation ('(/)

50 Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa 46 #esilient Mo$ulus (M(a) Confining Stress 0 KPa

42

38

34

30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 De)iator *tress (K(a)

Fig. (0 ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BB1 &ocation ('(/)

80

Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa Confining Stress 0 KPa

75 # e s i l i e n t M o $ u l u s (M ( a )

70

65

60

55

50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 De)iator *tress (K(a)

Fig. (11) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BM1 &ocation ('(/)

134

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13
45

www.iiste.org

Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa Confining Stress 0 KPa

# e s il ie n t M o $ u l u s (M ( a )

40

35

30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 De)iator *tress (K(a)

Fig. (11 ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BK1 &ocation ('(/)
40 Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa 35 # es ilie n t M o $ u lu s (M ( a ) Confining Stress 0 KPa

30

25

20

15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 De)iator *tress (K(a)

Fig. (12 ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BB1 &ocation (3'()
60

Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa Confining Stress 0 KPa

55 # e s ilie n t M o $ u lu s (M ( a )

50

45

40

35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 De)iator *tress (K(a)

Fig. (1! ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BM1 &ocation (3'()

13$

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13
40

www.iiste.org

Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa Confining Stress 0 KPa

50

Confining stress 41 kPa Confining stress 21 KPa Confining Stress 0 KPa

36 #esilien t M o $ u lu s (M ( a)

46 # esilien t M o $ u lu s (M ( a)

32

42

28

38

24

34

20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 De)iator *tress (K(a)

30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 De)iator *tress (K(a)

Fig. (1" ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BK1 &ocation (3'()

Fig. (1+ ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BZ1 &ocation (3'()

100 95 90 #esilient Mo$ulus (M(a) 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 0 20 40 De)iator *tress (K(a) 60 80

BB1 BZ1 BM1 BK1

Fig. (1, ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BB1,BZ1, BM1 &ocation (D'() at Con4ining (ressure "15(a
100 BB1 BZ1 90 #esilient Mo$ulus (M( a) BM1 BK1 80

70

60

50

40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 De)iator *tress (K(a)

Fig. (1-) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BB1,BZ1, BM1 &ocation ('(/) at Con4ining (ressure "15(a
60 BB1 BZ1 55 #esilient Mo$ulus (M(a) BM1 BK1 50

45

40

35

30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 De)iator *tress (K(a)

Fig. (1. ) #esilient Mo$ulus From Mr la%oratory test For BB1,BZ1, BM1 &ocation (3'() at Con4ining (ressure "15(a

136

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

1%%

Predicted MrC MPa

'% 6% 4% 2% % % 2% 4% 6% '% 1%% Measured MrC MPa @ine of E5ualit4

Fig.(10) Measure$ an$ 6re$icte$ #esilient Mo$olus 4or all soils at D'(

1%%

Predicted MrC MPa

'% 6% 4% 2% % % 2% 4% 6% '% 1%% Measured MrC MPa @ine of E5ualit4

Fig.(21) Measure$ an$ 6re$icte$ #esilient Mo$olus 4or all soils at '(/

1%%

Predicted MrC MPa

'% 6% 4% 2% % % 2% 4% 6% '% 1%% Measured MrC MPa @ine of E5ualit4

Fig.(21) Measure$ an$ 6re$icte$ #esilient Mo$olus 4or all soils at 3'(

A& Liquefaction Potentenial of Baghdad Soil ,Testing and Results04clic 9ria=ial tests were "erformed to evaluate the li5uefaction "otential and measured with guidance from the standard test method for load controlled c4clic 9ria=ial strength of soil 2S9/ + $311# see ,ig.2#. 9he test was carried out on each soil at wet of o"timum which considered the most worst condition if there than +(! and (!9 conditions. 2ll sam"les should have -e saturated -efore starting the test* the . U )alue of a-out %.&% was re5uired to "erform a c4clic test. ;owever* if the s"ecimen too: longer than 1% da4s to reach re5uired .-)alue* the s"ecimen was tested due to time constraints. 9he li5uefaction test results are "resented in ta-le ?. 2fter reaching re5uired level of saturation. 9o develo" c4clic strength curves* confining "ressure ranged -etween 11$:!a to 2'%:!a and c4clic stress ratios -etween %.1%% to %.4%.9he c4clic stress ratio 0S<# is a non dimensional measure of the induced c4clic stress >ramer*1&&6#.

13?

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

0S< J Vc4cl. HR% 9a-le ? Summar4 of li5uefaction test results on soil sam"les at D(! 04clic 0onfining S(I@ Stress !ressure 0S< 04cles to @i5uefaction 9W!E 2m"litude " "si# si# ..1 .O1 ./1 ?.2 1%.4 1%.' 2% 2% 2% %.1' %.26 %.2? 243 +N@ +N@

.>1 11.6 2% %.2& +N@ +N@ J +id Not @i5uef4 within 4%% c4cles ,igures 22* 23* 24 and 2$ shows the li5uefaction tests results on sam"les ..1* .>1* .O1 and ./1. It could -e concluded from test results that there is no "recautions for cohesive su-grade should -e ta:en concerning li5uefaction.
0.3 0.200 #atio o4 78cess (ore (ressure to 9nitial Con4ining *tress (6si 6si)
!"ess Pore Press#re to Confining Stress Strain $in%in&

0.3

0.160

0.2 0.120 0.2
*train (in in)

,ig. 22# @i5uefaction test results of 2?-$ soil

0.1

0.080

0.1 0.040 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0.000 -0.1

-0.1 Cycles

-0.040

'oa( Ce))
60 50 40 :8ial *tress (6si) 30 20 10 0 -10 0 -20 -30 -40 Cycles 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

,ig. 23# @i5uefaction test results of 26 soil

Load
8 6 4

The curve continues in the same context, whi e access to 400 !"c e

Stress ,lb=inE(-

2 0 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Load

Cycles

,ig. 24# @i5uefaction test results of 2?-$ soil

13'

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13
0#07 0#008 0#006 0#004 0#002 0#04 -1$-17 0#03 -0#002 0#02 0#01 0 0 25 50 75 -0#004 -0#006 -0#008 100

www.iiste.org

Ratio of E cess Pore +ater Pressure to Effective Pressure ,)si=)si-

0#06 0#05

Strain ,in=in-

$xcess %ore %ressure to $&&ective %ressure 'train

Cycles

,ig. 2$# @i5uefaction test results of 2?-$ soil

@& Conclusions and Recommendations Evaluation of .aghdad Soil -rought from four locations was well studied to evaluate the resilient modulus and the following conclusions were drawn6 1. 9he results of all e="erimental "rograms show the real need in evaluating the resilient modulus -4 ado"ting la-orator4 methodolog4. 2. 2 total colla"se of the "avement structure can occur due to large "lastic deformations arising in the su-grade soil due to e=tremel4 heav4 traffic loads. 3. <esilient modulus /r# of "avement su-grade soils has -een ado"ted -4 the 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials 22S;9(# for the "ur"ose of designing fle=i-le roadwa4 "avement s4stems for .aghdad 0it4. 4. ,or natural soils of .aghdad cit4* all sam"les e=hi-ited resilient modulus values ranging from 4% /!a to a-out 1%%/!a. .ased on 2S9/ su-grade resilient modulus criterion* the 2-?-$ and 2-6 untreated su-grade soil would -e classified as fair to "oor unacce"ta-le as a com"etent su-grade# from a resilient modulus criterion "ers"ective#. $. 2 com"arison of the resilient modulus "redictions using the (S3 model originall4 develo"ed for untreated cohesive soils and la-orator4 measured resilient modulus values shows that most of the "redicted resilient modulus values were within the allowa-le "ercent error of around X3% P. ,or sam"les "re"ared at dr4 of o"timum. In "articular* all the soil sam"les were in the allowa-le range if some /r )alues were ruled out and e=cluded* the results of "redicted /r )alue were ver4 close to the measured value. 9his validates the a""lica-ilit4 of the (S3 model to sta-iliCed cohesive soils. 6. @i5uefaction condition didnAt show conflict values and could -e not recommended to conduct this test in stud4 the "ossi-ilit4 of acce"tance of cla4 su-grade in site. ?. It is recommended to ma:e some modifications on (S3 model to -e used and "redict all values of resilient modulus for all location in .aghdad 0it4 which lead to find out the most relia-le formulas to de"end on in evaluating /r. !c/no#ledgement 9he authors would li:e to than: +e"artment of 0ivil Engineering and 1eodetic Science at (hio State 3niversit4* es"eciall4 for !rofessor +r.Dilliam Dolfe and +r..utalia and the Engineers Nate Q .rian their contri-ution to this research. References 1. 22S;9( 1uide for +esign of !avement Structures* 1&&3* 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0. 2. 22S;9( 1uide for +esign of !avement Structures* 1&&'* 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0. 3.22S;9( 9''-%%* Y!article SiCe 2nal4sis of Soils*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0.* 2%%4. 4.22S;9( 9'&-%2* Y+etermining the @i5uid @imit of Soils*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0.* 2%%4. $.22S;9( 9&%-%%* Y+etermining the !lastic @imit and !lasticit4 Inde= of Soils*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0.* 2%%4. 6.22S;9( 9&&-%1* Y9he /oisture-+ensit4 <elations of Soils 3sing a $.$ l- F2.$ :gG <ammer and a 12-in. F3%$

13&

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

mmG +ro"*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0.* 2%%4. ?.22S;9( 91%%-%3* YS"ecific 1ravit4 of Soils*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0.* 2%%4. '.22S;9( 92%'-&6* Y3nconfined 0om"ressive Strength of 0ohesive Soil*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0.* 2%%4. &.22S;9( / 14$-&1* 0lassification of soils and Soil-2ggregate /i=tures for ;ighwa4 0onstruction !ur"oses*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0.* 2%%4. 1%.22S;9( 92?4-'2* YStandard /ethod of 9est for <esilient /odulus of Su-grade Soils*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0.* 1&'4. 11.22S;9( 92&2-&1* YStandard /ethod of 9est for <esilient /odulus of Su-grade Soils and 3ntreated .aseHSu--ase /aterials*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +.0.* 1&&4. 12.22S;9( 92&4-&4 YStandard /ethod of 9est for <esilient /odulus of Su-grade Soils and 3ntreated .aseHSu--ase /aterials U S;<! !rotocol !46*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +. 0.* 1&&$. 13. 22S;9( 93%?-&& YStandard /ethod of 9est for <esilient /odulus of Su-grade Soils and 3ntreated .aseHSu--ase /aterials*Z 2merican 2ssociation of State ;ighwa4 and 9rans"ortation (fficials* Dashington* +. 0.* 2%%%. 14.2S9/ +24'?-&'* YStandard 0lassification of Soils for Engineering !ur"ose 3nified Soil 0lassification S4stem#*Z 2nnual .oo: of 2S9/ Standards* )ol. %4.%'* 2%%%. 1$. .utalia* 9. S.* ;uang* J.* >im* +. U1.* and 0roft* ,.* YEffect of /oisture 0ontent and !ore Dater !ressure .uildu" on <esilient /odulus of 0ohesive Soils*Z Resilient /odulus 9esting for !avement 0om"onents* 2S9/ S9! 143?* 1. N. +urham* D. 2. /arr* and D. @. +e 0roff* Eds.* 2S9/ International* Dest 0onshohoc:en* !2* 2%%3. 16..urcC4:* James /.* >sai-ati* >haled.* 2nderson-S"recher* <ichard.* Y,actors Indluencing +etermination of a Su-grade <esilient /odulus )alue*Z in 9rans"ortation <esearch <ecord 1462* 9<.* National <esearch 0ouncil* Dashington* +.0. 1&&4* "". ?2-?&. 1?.+ai* S* and Oollars* J.* Y<esilient /odulus of /innesota <oad <esearch !roBect Su-grade Soil*Z in 9rans"ortation <esearch <ecord No 1?'6* 9rans"ortation <esearch .oard* National <esearch 0ouncil* 2%%2* "". 2%-2'. 1'.+urham* 1ar4.* /arr* 2llen.* and +e1roff* Dillard.* Y<esilient /odulus 9esting for !avement 0om"onents*Z 2S9/ Stoc: Num-er6S9!143?* 2S9/ International* 2%%3. 1&.+rumm* E. 0.* .oateng-!o:u* W. and !ierce* 9. J.* YEstimation of Su-grade <esilient /odulus from Standard 9ests*Z Journal of 1eotechnical Engineering* 2S0E* )ol. 116* No. $* /a4* 1&&%* "". ??4-?'&. 2%.,ausset* @aurene ).* ,undmentals of Neural Networ:s6 architectures* algorithms* and a""lications* ,lorida Institute of 9echnolog4* !rentice ;all* Englewood 0liffs* NJ %?632* 1&&4. 22.,redlund* +. 1.* .ergan* 2. 9.* and Dong* !. >.* Y<elation -etween <esilient /odulus and Stress <esearch 0onditions for 0ohesive Su-grade Soils*Z 9rans"ortation <ecord No 642 9rans"ortation <esearch .oard* National <esearch 0ouncil* Dashington* +.0.1&??* "". ?3-'1. 23.,rost* /atthew D.* ,leming* !aul <.* and <ogers* 0hristo"her +. ,.* Y04clic 9ria=ial 9ests on 0la4 Su-grades for 2nal4tical !avement +esign*Z Journal of 9rans"ortation Engineering * 2S0E* )ol. 13%* No. 3* /a4 1* 2%%4* "". 3?'-3'6. 24.1eorge* >. !.* “Prediction of Resilient Modulus from Soil Index Properties,” +e"artment of 0ivil Engineering 9he 3niversit4 of /ississi""i* 2%%4 2$.1roeger* J. @.* <ada* 1. <.* and @o"eC* 2.* F22S;9( 9-3%?-.ac:ground and +iscussion*Z <esilient /odulus 9esting for !avement 0om"onents* 2S9/ S9! 143?* 26.1. N. +urham* D. 2. /arr* and D. @. +e 1roff* Eds.* 2S9/ International* Dest 0onshohoc:en* !2* 2%%3 2?.1uan* Wun.* +rumm* Eric 0.* and Jac:son* N. /i:e.* Y Deighting ,actor for Seasonal Su-grade <esilient /odulus*Z in 9rans"ortation <esearch <ecord 161&* 9<.* National <esearch 0ouncil* Dashington* +.0.* 1&&'* "". &4-1%1. 2'.;all* >evin +.* and 9hom"son* /arshall <.* YSoil-!ro"ert4-.ased Su-grade <esilient /odulus Estimation for ,le=i-le !avement +esign*Z 9rans"ortation <ecord No 144& 9rans"ortation <esearch .oard* National <esearch 0ouncil* Dashington* +.0.1&&4* "". 3%-3'. 2&.>hasawneh* /ohammad 2li.* 2%%$* Laboratory Characteri ation of Cohesi!e Sub"rade Materials* 9hesis* +e"artment of 0ivil Engineering 9he 3niversit4 of 2:ron* 2%%$. 3%.>im* +. 1.* 1&&&* #n"ineerin" Properties $ffectin" %he Resilient Modulus of &ine'(rained Soils as Sub"rade* Master %hesis, +e"artment of 0ivil and Environmental Engineering and 1eodetic Science 9he (hio State 3niversit4.

14%

Journal of Environment and Earth Science ISSN 2224-3216 !a"er# ISSN 222$-%&4' (nline# )ol. 3* No.12* 2%13

www.iiste.org

31.>im* +. 1.* 2%%4 )e!elopment of a Constituti!e Model for Resilient Modulus of Cohesi!e Soils, Ph ) )issertation* +e"artment of 0ivil and Environmental Engineering and 1eodetic Science 9he (hio State 3niversit4. 32.@ee* D.* .ohra* N. 0.* 2ltschaeffl* 2. 1.* and Dhite* 9. +.* YSu-grade <esilient /odulus for !avement +esign and Evaluation*Z Joint ;ighwa4 <esearch !roBect Engineering E="eriment Station !urdue 3niversit4* 1&&3. 33.@ee* D. J.* .ohra* N. 0.* 2ltschaeffl* 2. 1.* and Dhite* 9. +.* Y<esilient /odulus of 0ohesive Soils and the Effect of ,reeCe-9haw*Z Canadian (eotechnical *ournal, )ol. 32* 1&&$* "". $$&-$6'. 34.@ee* Wong-Doong* Y2n Evaluation of the Engineering !ro"erties 2ffecting the <esilient /odulus of (hio Su-grade Soils*Z 9hesis* 9he (hio State 3niversit4* 2%%2. 3$.@i* +. and Selig* E. 9.* Y<esilient /odulus for ,ine-grained Su-grade Soil*Z Journal of 1eotechnical Engineering* 2S0E* )ol. 12%* No. 6* 1&&4* "". &3&-&$?. 36.@i* J.* and Eu-ain* .. S.* Y<esilient /odulus )ariations with Dater 0ontent*Z <esilient /odulus 9esting for !avement 0om"onents* 2S9/ S9! 143?* 1. N. +urham* D. 2. /arr* and D. @. +e 1roff* 2S9/ International* Dest 0onshohoc:en* !2* 2%%3* "". $&-6&. 3?./asada* 9. and Sargand* S. /.* 2%%2* Y@a-orator4 0haracteriCation of /aterials and +ata /anagement for (hio-S;<! !roBects 3.S. 23#*Z Jo- No. 146&$ %#* ,inal <e"ort* for (hio +e"artment of 9rans"ortation and ,ederal ;ighwa4 2dministration* (hio 3niversit4* 2thens* (hio. 3'./ohammad* @oua4 N.* .aoshan* ;uang.* !u""ala* 2nand J.* and 2llen* 2aron.* Y<egression /odel for <esilient /odulus of Su-grade Soils*Z 9rans"ortation <esearch <ecord No 16'?* 9rans"ortation <esearch .oard* National <esearch 0ouncil* Dashington* +.0.1&&&* "". 4?-$4. 3&./ohammad* @oua4 N.* !u""ala* 2nand J.* 2lavilli* !rasad.* YInfluence of 9esting !rocedures and @)+9 @ocation on <esilient /odulus of Soils*Z in 9rans"ortation <esearch <ecord 1462* 9<.* National <esearch 0ouncil* Dashington* +.0. 1&&4* "". &1-1%1. 4%./ohammad* @. N.* 9iti* ;. ;.* and ;erath* 2.* YEvaluation of <esilient /odulus of Su-grade Soil -4 0one !enetration 9est*Z 9rans"ortation <esearch <ecord No 16$2* 9rans"ortation <esearch .oard* National <esearch 0ouncil* Dashington* +.0.1&&&* "". 236-24$. 41./uhanna* 2.S.* <ahman* /.S.* and @am-e* !.0.* Y/odel for <esilient /odulus and !ermanent Strain of Su-grade soilsCZ in 9rans"ortation <esearch <ecord 161&* 9<.* National <esearch 0ouncil* Dashington* +.0. 1&&'* "". '$-&3. +,-.eural .etwor/ %oolbox 0ser1s (uide- 9he /athwor:s* Inc.* 2ugust 2%%$. 43.!eCo* < and ;udson* D. <.* Y!rediction /odels of <esilient /odulus for Nongranular /aterials*Z 1eotechnical 9esting Journal* 19J(+J* )ol. 1?* No. 3* 1&&4* "". 34& - 3$$. 44.!ing* D. )irgil.* and 1e* @ing.* Y,ield )erification of @a-orator4 <esilient /odulus /easurements on Su-grade Soils*Z 9rans"ortation <ecord No 1$??. 9rans"ortation <esearch .oard* National <esearch 0ouncil* Dashington* +.0.1&&?* "". $3-61. 4$.Seed* ;. ..* 0han* 0. >.* and @ee* 0. E.* Y<esilience 0haracteristics of Su-grade Soils and 9heir <elation to ,atigue ,ailure in 2s"halt !avement*Z !roc.* International 0onference on Structural +esign of 2s"halt !avement* 3niversit4 of /ichigan* 2nn 2r-or* 1&62* "". 611-636.

141

This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing. More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTE’s homepage: http://www.iiste.org CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and collaborating with academic institutions around the world. There’s no deadline for submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ The IISTE editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified submissions in a fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors. MORE RESOURCES Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/ Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/ IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial Library , NewJour, Google Scholar

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->