INVESTIGATION OF GRADED AGGREGATE BASE (GAB) COURSES

R.L. Baus T. Li

submitted to The South Carolina Department of Transportation and The Federal Highway Administration

February 2006

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
300 Main Street Columbia, SC 29208 (803)777 3614 cee@engr.sc.edu

This research was sponsored by the South Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the SCDOT or FHWA. This report does not comprise a standard, specification or regulation.

(FHWA/SCDOT Report No. FHWA-SC-06-03)

1.

Report No.

2. Government Accession No.

2.

Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-SC-06-03
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Investigation of Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) Courses

February 2006
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

8. Performing Organization Report No

R.L. Baus and T. Li
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of South Carolina Columbia, South Carolina 29208
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 11. Contract or Grant No. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

South Carolina Department of Transportation P.O. Box 191 Columbia, South Carolina 29202
15. Supplementary Notes

Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract

This report summarizes a study undertaken to investigate the feasibility of relaxing current South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) graded aggregate base (GAB) gradation specifications and layer thickness restrictions. The study included a review of historical and current SCDOT specifications and practices, a literature review and survey of state highway agency practice, and laboratory and field data collection and analysis. Seven granular base materials used by the SCDOT were included in laboratory plate load and Soil Stiffness Gauge (SSG) tests. In addition, two field test sections were constructed and tested using a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) and SSG. Routine laboratory tests were also performed on the granular materials to determine basic physical properties and compliance with SCDOT specifications. Based on tests results, it is proposed that the maximum percent passing the No. 4 sieve for Macadam be relaxed from the current specification limit of 50 % to 60% (the current SCDOT limit for passing the No. 4 sieve for Marine Limestone). It is also proposed that the SCDOT allow GAB layer thickness greater than 8 in. on a trial basis. Differences in backcalculated layer coefficients for base layers constructed in the laboratory and at field sites were observed in this study. Laboratory test results are in good agreement with results reported by other researchers. It is recommended that the SCDOT consider the feasibility of re-evaluating layer coefficients used for GAB materials. Also included in the study was a preliminary investigation of SSG applicability for assessing compacted GAB materials. Study results suggest that the SSG offers an alternative tool for pavement material quality assurance and construction control. It is suggested that the SCDOT study the SSG further and consider SSG implementation for material characterization in future mechanistic-empirical pavement design approaches.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Flexible Pavement Structure, Base Layer, Granular Material, Gradation, Base Thickness, Resilient Modulus, Plate Loading Test, FWD Test, Soil Stiffness Gauge
19. Security Classif. (of this report)

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
21. No. of Pages 22. Price

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

Unclassified

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8–72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the South Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Their support is greatly appreciated. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by personnel at the Research and Materials Laboratory of the South Carolina Department of Transportation. Several individuals at the SCDOT provided their time and insights to the project. They include Dr. Andy Johnson, Melissa Campbell, and Mike Lockman. The authors would also like to thank Vulcan Materials Company and Martin Marietta Aggregates for their donations of GAB materials.

ii

..................................................................................................................................................................30 Static Plate Loading and CBR Tests on Subgrade ...................................................................................................................................................................22 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................30 GAB Cyclic Plate Load Tests ...............................INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................5 Gradation and Compaction Requirements (Historical and Current) ..................................................................................................................................................2 Project Tasks .....................................................................16 Factors that Influence Resilient Modulus of Unbound Granular Materials ...............................................32 GAB Static Load Tests ...............................................................................................................................................................................2 Research Approach ......5 SCDOT Practice...................................1 Project Objectives .........................................................................................................................2 Scope of Study ...................................14 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) .13 Resilient Modulus .........................................16 Permanent Deformation Resistance..............................................9 Related Technical Information ................................37 iii ..........................................................................................................................................25 Placement and Test Procedures........................18 CHAPTER 3 – LABORATORY PLATE LOAD TESTING PROGRAM ...13 Triaxial Test ..........................................................................................24 Base Materials ....................28 Experimental Results ............................................................................................................8 Summary of Survey Responses ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Other Testing Techniques .........................................................................................................................................................22 Laboratory Testing Program ............................................................22 Test Pit and Plate Load Apparatus ........7 State Agency Survey..................................................................14 CBR Test .........................................................................24 Subgrade ..4 CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................2 Justification .................TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . iii CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 GAB Layer Coefficient .....................................................................22 Materials for Laboratory Testing ......................................................13 Characterization of Unbound Granular Materials .....................................................................................................................................1 Background Information.

..........................CHAPTER 4 – LABORATORY PLATE LOAD TEST RESULTS ...........68 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................49 Linear Programming to Determine Deflection at Optimum Water Content ....................................................................86 Influence of Base Layer Thickness ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................73 SC 72 Field Test Section without HMA ...................................................................72 Introduction......................................42 Cyclic Plate Load Test Results and Analysis ..................52 Backcalculation of Resilient Modulus ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................62 Introduction....................................91 iv ..............................................................69 CHAPTER 6 ...................................48 Finite Element Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................61 CHAPTER 5 – LABORATORY SOIL STIFFNESS GAUGE TESTING PROGRAM AND RESULTS ...76 US 601 and SC 72 Field Test Section with HMA in Place ......................................................57 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................64 Comparison between SSG and Plate Modulus .............................................................................87 Recommendations and Future Studies.................................86 Summary .............................48 Static Plate Load Test Results and Analysis.....................72 US 601 Field Test Section without HMA ...........................................................................42 Summary .........................48 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................85 CHAPTER 7 – SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..86 Influence of Gradation....................62 SSG Laboratory Testing Results......................................................FIELD SOIL STIFFNESS GAUGE AND FWD TESTING PROGRAM AND RESULTS ............................................................80 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................86 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................62 Experimental Program ..................................90 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................

Compaction shall be done at near optimum moisture until the entire base course is compacted to not less than 100% of maximum laboratory density as determined by AASHTO T 180 (Method D). If the total compacted thickness of the graded aggregate base course is more than 8 inches (a condition not allowed by current SCDOT design 1 . and Crushed Recycled Portland Cement Concrete GAB is used infrequently. Materials retained and passing the No. soil. sand-gravel. and Recycled Portland Cement Concrete).CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Information For flexible highway pavement construction. or other acceptable fine-grained material. It is believed that this policy resulted from an investigation of the relative strength of flexible pavement components conducted for the SCDOT at Clemson University (Busching et al. Marine Limestone GAB is used for some Coastal Plain projects. but allow somewhat fine gradations (specifically. Marine Limestone base course materials are produced from crushed limestone from a single source or deposit. 4. 30. The fine aggregate component of Marine Limestone GAB is limestone particles produced by the crushing or mining operations. The coarse aggregate component of Recycled Portland Cement Concrete GAB consists of sound.. durable particles of recycled portland cement concrete excluding crushed concrete block or pipe. or may be sand. Recycled Portland Cement Concrete base course materials consist of crushed. The fine aggregate component is produced by the concrete crushing operations. respectively. the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) uses three types of unbound graded aggregate base (GAB) materials (Macadam. No. Marine Limestone. 200 sieves are permitted). Marine Limestone gradation specifications are similar. Each type of GAB is described in the SCDOT’s Standard Specifications for Highway Construction as follows: Macadam base course materials are composed of crushed stone (excluding marine limestone) or slag filled and bound with screenings. higher percentages passing the ½-inch. No. The fine aggregate component of Macadam GAB is produced by the crushing operations. graded. Cost and availability govern the contractor’s selection of the GAB type to be used on a construction project. recycled portland cement concrete mixed together with sand. Macadam and Recycled Portland Cement Concrete share the same SCDOT gradation specifications. 4 sieve are the coarse and fine aggregate components of GAB. It is not known how current SCDOT gradation specifications were established. soil or other materials. and No. 1971). Current SCDOT flexible pavement design policy limits GAB thickness to a maximum of 8 inches. Relative usage of the three types of GAB materials for flexible highway construction is as follows: Macadam GAB is commonly used. Current SCDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction state that field compaction shall be done with equipment capable of obtaining the required density to the full depth.

Project Objectives This report summarizes a study conducted for the SCDOT to 1) investigate the feasibility of relaxing current GAB gradation specifications and 2) investigate the feasibility of allowing GAB layer thicknesses greater than 8 inches in flexible highway pavement structures. All laboratory GAB layers were compacted in 3 inch lifts on a supporting subgrade material of compacted sand. 4 sieve from the current limit of 50% to 60% (the current SCDOT limit for passing the No. Four commonly used GAB materials (two granite GABs. Research Approach Justification The performance of unbound GAB pavement layers depends on the properties of the aggregates used. The investigation related to relaxing the current SCDOT GAB thickness maximum of 8 inches was limited to the following. NCHRP Report 453 (Saeed et al.. Scope of Study Time and resource limitations as well as the timeliness of new highway construction projects suitable for the inclusion of GAB test sections necessitated a study of limited scope. The study included only a limited number of the GAB materials used by the SCDOT and a limited number of laboratory and field tests. 2001) states the poor performance of 2 . No Recycled Portland Cement Concrete GAB material testing was conducted to investigate the feasibility of relaxing the passing the No. 9. 4 sieve meeting current SCDOT specifications and with the percent passing the No. The investigation related to relaxing current SCDOT gradation specifications was limited to relaxing the passing No. and one Marine Limestone GAB) were subjected to fullscale laboratory tests with compacted layer thicknesses of 6. 4 sieve specification for Macadam. Therefore. 4 sieve specification condition (as mentioned above). More specifically.practice). All field test section GAB layers were compacted as a single lift. This investigation included full-scale laboratory tests on three commonly used Macadam GABs (tested with the percent passing the No. the general objectives to investigate the technical and construction issues associated with relaxation of GAB gradation specifications and layer thickness restrictions were limited as described below. the Standard Specifications state that the base course should be compacted in two or more layers of approximately equal thickness. relaxing the maximum percent passing the No. and 12 inches. 4 sieve specification from the current value of 50% to the Marine Limestone value of 60%. Two Macadam GAB materials were tested at field test sections with compacted layer thicknesses between 6 and 12 inches. 4 sieve increased to near 60%). The two granite GABs and one marble-schist GAB are Macadam and were tested in both the meeting and exceeding the maximum percent passing the No. 4 sieve for Marine Limestone) was investigated. one marble-schist GAB.

Rutting is indicated by permanent deformations that appear in the wheelpaths. The SCDOT uses AASHTO flexible pavement design methods and Structural Number (SN) to quantify pavement structure. the average value for layer coefficient for untreated granular base course materials was 0. factors that affect GAB stiffness (including in situ stress level. the layer’s ability to function as a structural component of the pavement). layer location in the pavement structure.977 Using this equation. Frost susceptibility is also cited for cold weather applications.unbound GAB layers in flexible pavements may be manifested by fatigue cracking. Layer coefficient may also be influenced by layer thickness. One important AASHO Road Test finding was that rutting was due primarily to decrease in thickness of the pavement layers. and other pavement distresses. The SCDOT currently uses an a2-value of 0. layer thicknesses. traffic level. rutting.14. layer depth and thickness. This suggests that a GAB material’s ability to resist 3 . At the AASHO Road Test. The two classic failure mechanisms for flexible pavements are fatigue cracking and rutting. depth and thickness of the GAB layer. GAB materials are nonlinear and therefore the value of modulus within a GAB layer will depend on the stress magnitude within the layer (which is influenced by the magnitude of the load.18 for all graded aggregate base course materials (corresponding to MR = 44. The relationship is: a2 = 0. An accepted way to quantify the quality of GAB as a component in a flexible pavement structure is to compute layer coefficient a2 as a function of modulus. a GAB resilient modulus value of 30. and other factors that affect mechanical properties) and is a measure of the ability of a unit thickness of the material to function as a structural component of the pavement. Clearly. etc) affect a2 (and. gradation. The value of layer coefficient quantifies the material quality (influenced by the material’s mineralogy.000 psi gives the average AASHO Road Test a2-value of 0. Higher modulus values give higher values of a2. gradation. Strain magnitude is influenced by load magnitude. as stated above.249 x log10MR – 0. AASHTO 1986).300 psi by the Rada and Witczak equation above). and other factors). and the stiffness of the underlying layers. Two important aggregate properties cited as contributors to pavement performance are shear strength and stiffness. Other important properties cited are durability (as might be determined by the Magnesium Sulfate Soundness test).14. A well-known relationship between a2-value for untreated granular base course materials and resilient modulus (MR) was developed by Rada and Witczak (1981). and toughness (as might be determined by the Los Angeles abrasion or Micro-Deval test). Fatigue cracking is influenced by tensile strains in the hot mix asphalt layer. Results summarized in Huang (2004) indicate that about 60% of rutting was due to permanent deformation of base and subbase layers (with the remaining 40% due to surface layer deformation (about 30%) and subgrade deformation (about 10%)). and failure criterion (Appendix GG. The GAB layer’s contribution to SN is the product of GAB layer thickness D2 (in inches) and layer coefficient a2 (in 1/inches).

Task 4. the research approach used was to measure GAB stiffness and resistance to permanent deformation to assess the affects of relaxing current SCDOT gradation specifications for Macadam GAB and allowing layer thicknesses greater than 8 inches for Macadam and Marine Limestone GAB. Task 2. Installation and testing of GAB test sections at SCDOT highway construction projects. Full-scale laboratory plate tests on GAB materials. Analysis of test results. Task 3. Project Tasks The basic research approach for this project included the following tasks: Task 1.000 cycle plate tests). Resistance to permanent deformation was measured by full-scale laboratory pit tests (100.permanent deformations under repeated wheel load repetitions may be important when assessing GAB performance. 4 . In situ GAB stiffness was measured in full-scale laboratory pit tests (static plate tests and GeoGauge tests) and in field test sections (Falling weight deflectometer and GeoGauge tests). In this study. Literature review including a state agency survey.

1 Macadam Base Course Gradation Specifications (1939) Crushed Stone Screen and Dust Min. For a required base layer thickness of 8 inches or less. 2 ½” 100 .2. Gradation specifications are listed in Table 2.1 below.. 5 . 40 10 25 No. the base may be constructed in one layer. Maximum base course layer thickness and density were not specified.3. The earliest gradation specifications that could be found dated back to 1939. Max. 4 25 50 No. Passing No. 10 18 40 No. Acceptable density was determined by the opinion of the Engineer. Specifications at that time stated that base courses were to be placed in two 3-inch layers and were to consist of hard. A few small changes were made to the grading requirements of Macadam base course material as listed in Table 2. Passing No. 4 Sieve 100% Passing 1 ½ ” Screen 100% ..0% SCDOT Macadam base specifications dated 1955 specified that the base course be placed in one uniform layer. the base was to be constructed in two or more layers of approximate equal thickness and the maximum compacted thickness of any one layer should not exceed 6 inches. Max.CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW SCDOT Practice Gradation and Compaction Requirements (Historical and Current) A review of SCDOT gradation and compaction requirements for untreated granular base materials revealed the following. Table 2. Where the required thickness is more than 8 inches. 4 Sieve 0% 4. 2” 95 100 1 ½” 85 98 1” 70 88 ½” 40 65 No.2 Macadam Base Course Gradation Specifications (1955) Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve Designation Min. 200 0 12 Maximum single lift for base courses were specified in the SCDOT specifications dated 1964. The grading requirements for composite mixture of coarse and fine aggregate are listed in Table 2. durable stone with stone dust and screens spread evenly on the surface. No compacted density requirement was specified. Table 2.

The revised gradation specifications are given in Table 2. Maximum single lift was increased from 6 inches to 8 inches. 200 0 12 A compacted density requirement was specified in the SCDOT specifications dated 1986. 4 30 50 No. 40 11 27 No. Gradations specifications were altered with the most notable change being substantial increases in the maximum percent passing the 1” and ½” sieves (from 88 to 100%.. 4 25 50 No. and 67 to 75%. Table 2. 10 19 42 No.4 Macadam Base Course Gradation Specifications (1986) Percentage by Weight Passing Sieve Designation Min. A gradation specification for Marine Limestone GAB was added and is shown in Table 2. Max. As mentioned in Chapter 1. The in-place density was required to be not less than 100 percent of maximum laboratory density as determined by AASHTO T 180 (Method D). 30 11 30 No. respectively). This specification (referenced as South Carolina Department of Highways Specification 45B3) is different from the 1964 and 1986 gradation specifications cited above. the same gradation specifications also apply for Recycled Portland Cement Concrete GAB. SCDOT Research and Materials Laboratory personnel were unable to provide any historical record of this specification. 2” 100 .Table 2.3 Macadam Base Course Gradation Specifications (1964) Sieve Designation Percentage by Weight Passing Min. Max.4 below. 1 ½” 95 100 1” 70 100 ½” 48 75 No. 200 0 12 Liquid Limit: 25 Maximum Plasticity Index: 6 Maximum It should also be mentioned that on page 45 of Busching et al. 6 .5. 2 ½” 100 .. 2” 95 100 1 ½” 85 98 1” 70 88 ½” 40 67 No. Current Macadam base course gradation specifications (2000) remain the same as in SCDOT specifications dated 1986. (1971) there is a reference to an additional SCDOT base course gradation specification that was apparently in effect in 1971.

Table 2.5 Marine Limestone Base Course Gradation Specifications (2000) Sieve Designation Percentage by Weight Passing 2" 100 1 1/2" 95 – 100 1" 70 – 100 1/2" 50 – 85 No. 4 30 – 60 No. 30 17 – 38 No. 200 0 – 20 Liquid Limit 25 Max. Plasticity Index 6 Max. Current (2000) compaction specifications (summarized in Chapter 1 of this report) require GAB compaction at near optimum moisture until the entire base course is compacted to not less than 100% of maximum laboratory density as determined by AASHTO T 180 (Method D). If the total compacted thickness of the graded aggregate base course is more than 8 inches (a condition not allowed by current SCDOT design practice), the base course should be compacted in two or more layers of approximately equal thickness. GAB Layer Coefficient The SCDOT uses a layer coefficient (a2-value) of 0.18 to represent the quality of all unbound GAB materials. This value was established as a result of the investigation conducted by Busching et al. (1971). This investigation is also believed to have led to the SCDOT’s current design policy of limiting untreated granular base layer thickness to 8 inches. The Busching study involved the construction and testing of flexible pavement test sections. The test sections were constructed within the confines of two concrete test pits. Each test section was approximately 8 ft x 12 ft in plan area. The GAB materials used were South Carolina GAB materials (unbound crushed Granite-gneiss and Fossiliferous Limestone) and a Dolomitic Limestone from the AASHO Road Test. GAB layer thicknesses of 5 and 10 inches were tested (supported by different subbase materials placed either 5 or 15 inches thick). Two subgrade conditions were investigated (modulus of subgrade reaction, k = 50 pci and 275 pci). All test sections had a 3-inch asphaltic concrete surface layer. Surface displacements were produced by a dual tire hydraulic loading system. The loads required to produce 0.01-inch and 0.02-inch surface deflections were used for data analysis. “Stiffness modulus” values were computed using the increments of load per inch of base per inch of deflection (using loads corresponding to deflection increments from 0 to 0.01 inch and 0.01 to 0.02 inch). Base layer coefficients were then computed for assumed base layer thicknesses of 4, 6, 8 and 10 inches. A comparison of selected recommended layer coefficients for base thicknesses of 4, 6, 8, and 10 inches constructed with AASHO Dolomitic Limestone and South Carolina Type 2 Macadam (crushed Granite-gneiss) is given in Table 2.6.

7

Table 2.6 Recommended Layer Coefficients for GAB Materials (Busching et al., 1971) Pavement Components Base Layer Coefficient for Base Layer Thickness of: 4” 6” 8” 10” AASHO Dolomitic Limestone 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.11 1 1 1 South Carolina Type 2 Macadam 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.091 - Crushed Granite-gneiss 0.112 0.092 0.072 0.062 (On weak support)1 (On firm support)2 1,2 see Table 28 (page 81) of Busching et al. (1971) for definitions of weak and firm support The findings presented in Table 2.6 show a2-values decreased for the 10-inch layer thickness. Not shown in Table 2.6 are computed a2-values for unbound Fossiliferous Limestone base (0.21 for all base layer thicknesses). It is presumed that the SCDOT’s current a2-value of 0.18 for all GAB materials (unbound Macadam, Marine Limestone, and Recycled Portland Cement Concrete) is based on the approximate average of the Crushed Granite-gneiss, Fossiliferous Limestone, and perhaps the AASHO Dolomitic Limestone a2-values presented in the Busching study. The results in Table 2.6 are based on applied dual tire load vs measured surface deflection data. Modulus values for base course materials were not determined. State Agency Survey To obtain information about relevant recent research activities and state highway agency (SHA) practice, a survey was conducted. In early 2002, a short survey questionnaire (Table 2.7) was sent to all US SHAs. The survey included questions on several topics, including base layer thickness and single-lift thickness requirements, gradation and compaction specifications, and relevant research activities on unbound granular base materials. Twenty-five SHAs responded to the survey. Responding states are shown in Fig. 2.1. Data from the survey and information obtained from the literature, SHA websites, etc. are combined and summarized in this chapter. Table 2.7 Survey Questions______________________________________________ 1. For flexible pavement construction, does your agency permit unbound aggregate base course thickness greater than 8 inches? 2. If your agency does permit unbound aggregate base course thickness greater than 8 inches, a) What is the maximum total thickness permitted? b) What is the maximum single-lift thickness permitted? 3. We would greatly appreciate the following (either in paper or electronic form, or a link on your agency’s web page to online specifications/information): a) Your agency’s unbound aggregate base compaction and gradation specifications, and b) Any research reports or summaries of internal investigations related to unbound aggregate base course thickness for flexible pavement construction. ____________________________________________________________________

8

WA MT OR ID SD WY UT CA CO KS MO IA IL IN KY TN AZ NM OK AR MS TX LA FL AK HI HI HI HI HI
States Responding (25) States Not Responding (25)

ND MN WI MI MI PA OH WV VA NC SC AL GA NY

ME VTNH MA CTRI NJ

NV

NE

MDDE

­

Fig. 2.1 US SHAs Responding to Survey

Summary of Survey Reponses Question 1. For flexible pavement construction, does your agency permit unbound aggregate base course thickness greater than 8 inches? Of the 25 SHAs responding to the survey, 15 SHAs reported unbound aggregate base course thickness greater than 8 inches is permitted (see Fig. 2.2). Kansas indicated unbound aggregate base course is rarely used. Illinois uses unbound GAB for local roads only. Mississippi uses only bituminous base course.

9

2. a) What is the maximum total thickness permitted? Twenty SHAs responded explicitly to this question. Ohio reported using 6” UGAB or 6” UGAB with 4” of permeable base. Fifty percent of the SHAs reported limits greater than 12”. 2. Colorado and Montana reported 24” unbound GAB (UGAB) layers were implemented in projects. Less than or Equal to 8 in.4. Graphical summaries are provided in Fig. 11% of SHAs impose a limit of 8”.2 SHAs Responses to Question 1 Question 2. Fig. and unbound drainable base was limited to 6”. 22% of SHAs had a limit greater than 8” and less than 12”. and 17% of SHAs limited UGAB layer thickness to less than 8”. 10 .3 and 2. and Alaska and Wisconsin limited layer thickness to 6”. Nebraska uses 4” to 5” layer thickness.N/A States Not Responding (25) Greater than 8 in. Kansas reported no layer thickness limit for dense graded base with 8% to 20% fine content.

a) 11 . 11% <8". N/A Fig 2.4. Less than or Equal to 8 in. Greater than 8 in. SHAs Responses to Question 2. 22% =8". Greater than 12 in. 2. 50% Fig.3 UGAB Layer Thickness Reported by SHAs States Not Responding (25) Less than or Equal to 8 in.> 8" and <=12" . 17% > 12".

4 and No.9 Grading Requirements for No. Kentucky. Louisiana has a limit of 12”. 200 sieves for 8 SHAs are compared in Table 2. and corrected by Adjustment Chart Illinois 100% AASHTO T 99 and corrected by AASHTO T 224 Washington Alaska Indiana New Hampshire Utah Wisconsin 95% WSDOT Test Method 98% AASHTO T 180 D 100% AASHTO T 99 95% AASHTO T 99 97% AASHTO T 180 D +/-2% optimum water content AASHTO T 99 C.4 sieve limit above 50%. the SCDOT GAB compact specification is 100% of AASHTO T 180 (Method D). a) Your agency’s unbound aggregate base compaction and gradation specifications. 4 Sieve No. Question 3. The maximum reported limit for material passing the No. As mentioned.9. 200 sieve is 12%. (replacement of the fraction) Grading requirements for percent passing the No. Responding SHAs provided limited information on compaction and gradation and specifications. b) What is the maximum single-lift thickness permitted? Eighteen SHAs gave explicit answers to this question.8 summarizes compaction specification information from survey results and a review of selected agency web sites. Ohio. Table 2. Illinois reported limiting single-lift thickness to 4”. 200 Sieves State Name Percent Passing No. 4 and No.Question 2. Note that all SHAs have a passing No. The remaining 15 SHAs reported a single-lift thickness limit of 6” to 8”. and Kansas reported using strip test to determine density requirements for granular base materials. Table 2. Table 2.8 SHA Compaction Standards State Name Compaction Specification Maine 95% AASHTO T 180 C or D. and New York has a limit of 15”. 200 Sieve Low Limit High Limit Low Limit High Limit Delaware 20 50 N/A N/A Washington 25 N/A N/A N/A Florida 35 60 0 10 Tennessee 35 55 N/A N/A Alaska 30 60 0 6 Nebraska N/A 93 N/A 3 New Hampshire 25 52 0 12 South Carolina 30 50 0 12 12 .

ε r = resilient strain. a study (Kimley-Horn and Associates. 1996) was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of compacting unbound GAB lifts thicker than permitted by the North Carolina DOT. resilient modulus of granular base material can be correlated to layer coefficient a2. 2) estimation by correlation to other 13 . density. In 1996. Resilient modulus is the elastic modulus based on the recoverable (resilient) strain under repeated loads. et al. Density and shear wave velocity were measured using nuclear density gauge and spectral analysis of surface waves techniques. The four approaches are 1) laboratory testing (repeated load triaxial testing). σ d = σ 1 − σ 3 . and water content were maintained throughout the entire depth of the compact lift. 1998). Their findings indicated that density in excess of 100 percent of maximum as determined by AASHTO T 180 can be achieved for thicknesses of up to 21” using standard compact equipment. Reported investigations included the following: Kansas reported investigating aggregate base course drainability. MR was introduced in the 1986 AASHTO flexible pavement design procedures and is a key input property for the mechanistic-empirical pavement design procedures proposed in NCHRP Project 1-37A (2002). MR is expressed as: MR = where σd εr σ d = the applied deviator stress. A similar investigation was conducted by ICAR researchers (John. Iowa reported a study to establish layer coefficients for some local materials. lifts of GAB were successfully placed and compacted. Related Technical Information Characterization of Unbound Granular Materials Resilient Modulus Resilient modulus. For older AASHTO flexible pavement design procedures. M R . is the fundamental material property used to characterize the quality of subgrade and UGAB materials. Five full-scale test sections were constructed using a variety of material types and single lift thicknesses ranging from 12” to 21”.Question 3. b) Research reports or summaries of internal investigations related to unbound aggregate base course thickness for flexible pavement construction. Inc. Study test results demonstrated that 10 and 12 in... Little information was obtained from the survey responses about research activities directly related to unbound aggregate base course thickness. and the required gradation. Georgia reported construction of a test section that includes 12-inch UGAB lifts. Appendix L of AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993) lists four approaches for determining design resilient modulus.

There have been several triaxial test methods presented by AASHTO. produced yet another set of testing procedures for M R determination of unbound materials. There are a number of empirical equations to correlate CBR value to resilient modulus of unbound base or subgrade materials. The minor principle stress in a triaxial cell is kept constant during testing while both major and minor principle stresses are cycled under wheel loadings. This test is used to quantify the quality of compacted soil.. A constant all-around confining pressure applied on the specimen simulates the in situ lateral stresses. 1997). In addition. In this well-known test (AASHTO Test Method T 193). NCHRP Project 1-28. moisture content. F. Despite improvements made over the years.” completed in 1997. CBR Test The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was introduced in 1929 by Jim Porter working as Soils Engineer for the state of California (Brown S. 3) nondestructive testing (NDT) of in situ materials. there are uncertainties as well as limitations associated with triaxial testing. Karasahin et al. Heukelom and Klomp (1962) 14 . inherent instrumentation flaws create uncertainty in the measurement of sample deformation. ASTM. and 4) determination from original design and construction data. and the SHRP LTPP program for measuring M R of soils and unbound granular materials. “Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design. cylindrical specimens are subjected to a series of load pulses applied with a distinct rest period. In order to harmonize these testing methods. (1995) reported that because of the complexity of repeated load triaxial tests. Triaxial Test Laboratory repeated load triaxial tests have been widely used to determine resilient modulus and permanent deformation characteristics of unbound granular materials. and level of compaction. a recommended method was developed in NCHRP Project 1-28A “Harmonized Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design.test results or physical properties. a CBR value is computed from piston force and piston penetration measurements. (1993) demonstrated stress conditions in a triaxial cell are different from those in pavement structures due to inherent equipment flaws. (2000) showed that reproducing the in situ internal structure of granular materials with current laboratory specimen preparation techniques is not possible because of sample disturbance and differences in aggregate orientation. and aggregate base materials using a numerical value of CBR. The total recoverable axial deformation response of the specimen caused by the stress pulses is used to calculate resilient modulus. simulating the stresses caused by multiple wheels moving over the pavement. soil-aggregate combinations. A study by Ke et al. Darter et al. In this test.” This test protocol is reported to reduce testing variability and the time required to complete testing. most SHAs do not routinely measure resilient modulus using triaxial testing but rather estimate resilient modulus from experience or by correlation equations developed from physical properties or CBR test results.

Pavement materials generally function at stress levels within the elastic range. 2004). By varying the drop height and weight. (1987) states that resilient modulus is not a simple function of CBR.proposed a well-known correlation using dynamic compaction and in situ resilient modulus and CBR values. Sensors are used to measure load-deflection history at the center of the plate and deflection history at several radial distances from the plate. Brown et al. the CBR test is widely used to evaluate the strength of paving materials. Research conducted by Rauhut and Jordahl (1992) showed that the coefficient of variation 15 . Pavement surface temperature can also be measured using an infrared temperature sensor. But. This simplification was investigated by Tam and Brown (1989). Materials with CBR values higher than 25 often have their M R values overestimated. The measured deflected shape of the pavement surface under peak impact load is called the deflection basin. (1984). This correlation was primarily developed from data relating modulus measured by wave propagation to in situ CBR results. or hand-portable. Available data indicate that the Heukelom and Klomp equation provides acceptable MR predictions for fine-grained soils and fine sands with CBR values less than about 20 (Huang. partially due to its simplicity and well-acceptance among pavement engineers. whose work indicated the inertial effects were generally insignificant and static modeling can provide reasonable solutions. Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) The FWD has become a popular device for nondestructive measurement of loaddisplacement behavior of constructed pavement structures or pavement layers. The CBR test provides no information about material resilience. The correlation can be expressed as: M R (psi) = 1500 CBR The coefficient 1500 can vary from 750 to 3000. Different testing and analysis procedures may produce different results. Measured load-deflection information is often used in back-analysis procedures for the purpose of computing in situ moduli of the various pavement layers. One involves numerous iterations of a linear or nonlinear elastic analysis program. The other involves matching the measured deflection basin to a number of previously calculated deflection basins. mounted on a trailer. A static pavement response model is usually used in the backcalculation procedure without considering the inertial effects. Another correlation for subgrade soil was proposed by Powell et al.64 The CBR test measures penetration resistance and thus provides an indirect measurement of undrained shear strength. The FWD test involves applying a dynamic load on the pavement surface through a circular metal plate. The device may be van-integrated. a range of peak impact forces can be produced to simulate actual traffic loads. There are two basic types of backcalculation models. and to correlate to resilient modulus. nevertheless. The correlation is: M R (psi) = 2550 CBR0.

They indicated those programs tend to underestimate the modulus of the unbound base course and overestimate the modulus of the asphalt concrete-bound top layer and the subgrade. (Seed. layer thickness. The study indicated that although backcalculated mean modulus values of the asphalt layer were determined to an accuracy of ± 25% and a confidence level of 95% with a relatively small sample size. Johnson and Baus (1993) investigated a number of basin-matching backcalculation programs. Uzan (1992) introduced a universal model. and gradation.k. Penetration resistance can be correlated to in situ modulus. (2001) performed statistical analysis of in situ pavement moduli backcalculated from FWD tests. A relatively new device called the Soil Stiffness Gauge (SSG. etc. In this project. and wheel load magnitude. Lekarp et al. The loading plate is also used in the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing to simulate dynamic wheel load on highway pavements. Collop et al.). The results indicated a good correlation can be found between modulus inferred from the plate load tests and the penetration tests. Factors that Influence Resilient Modulus of Unbound Granular Materials The resilient modulus of granular materials is not a constant stiffness property but depends upon various factors including stress state.a. Konrad and Lachance (2001) performed DCP and plate load tests to evaluate base and subbase materials. Advantages of plate tests include 1) the magnitude of load and the state of stress caused by the load reasonably approximate those in highway pavement structures. Plate load tests have been used on flexible pavement components for design or evaluation purposes. for base layers a rather larger number of samples was required to achieve the same accuracy and confidence level. In this project. dry density. applicable to all types of unbound paving materials ranging from very plastic clays to clean granular bases. (2000) illustrated that the effect of stress level on the resilient behavior is the most significant factor. Thompson. engineering properties of unbound granular base materials were evaluated using the SSG. 1969. Stress level of GAB materials in base courses primarily depends on base layer location within the pavement structure. cyclic and static plate load tests were conducted to access permanent deformation resistance and resilient modulus of the unbound granular base materials. 1971. 1967. a. Granular materials are known to exhibit nonlinear behaviors under traffic load. water content. Other Testing Techniques Wave propagation techniques have also been used for the determination of in situ modulus of subgrade and pavement materials. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing can be used to determine in situ layer thickness and penetration resistance. This model was 16 . and 2) tested materials are either in situ or can be constructed in a way that approximates the in situ internal structure of pavement materials. GeoGauge) measures material stiffness (modulus of subgrade reaction or stress-strain modulus) directly using steady-state vibrations. Hicks and Monismith.(COV) of backcalculated modulus values ranged from 13% to 67% for four Strategic Highway Research Program sections.

A result of this study was a proposed 1 3 17 . K 1 . τ oct = octahedral shear stress. the resilient modulus increases as the percentage passing No. 4 sieve on resilient modulus and permanent strain was not defined. or the sum of the three principle stresses. Shaw (1980) studied the effect of aggregate grading using triaxial test results. Their findings indicated a steady decrease of M R with increasing degree of saturation up to optimum water content and decreasing dry density. which can be expressed as: τ oct = ((σ 1 − σ 2 )2 + (σ 2 − σ 3 ) 2 + (σ 3 − σ 1 )2 )1/ 2 Octahedral shear stress is equal to deviator stress when the stress condition of granular materials in a triaxial test or under real traffic loads has an axis of symmetry. dry density. A comparison was made between 40-mm maximum size broadly graded granular material and a 3-mm single-sized stone from the same source. Kamal et al. while for another material. Rahim and George (2004) investigated the relevance of soil index properties in resilient modulus for Mississippi soils. dependent on material type and physical properties and are obtained from regression analysis. it is known that MR increases with a decrease in moisture content and an increase in density. the opposite trend was observed.used in the NCHRP Project 1-28A on the development of a harmonized M R test protocol. Pa = atmospheric pressure to normalize stresses and modulus. K 3 = regression constants. Hicks and Monismith (1971) used triaxial tests to evaluate the influence of water content. (2000) demonstrated that M R of granular materials increases with increasing confining stress and sum of principal stresses. and confining stress. This model. Numerous other investigations confirm these findings. Santha (1994) studied the effects of the physical properties of 15 granular materials on the resilient modulus.40 sieve. K 2 . but broadly graded materials showed higher shear strengths. Testing results showed the effect of the percentage passing the No. A study by Hicks and Monismith (1971) showed the influence of gradation was not well defined for two types of aggregate materials. (1993) compared the mechanical behavior of six gradings of unbound granular materials. The broadly graded material was found to be stiffer than the singlesize stone. 200 sieve increased. θ = stress invariant. A study by Lekarp et al. For granular materials. It was found that M R decreased slightly with increasing percent passing the No. can be represented as: M R = K1 Pa ( where θ Pa ) K2 ( τ oct Pa + 1) K3 M R = resilient modulus. also known as K 1 − K 3 model. The influence of octahedral stress is minimal. For one material. Thom (1988) conducted a series of repeated load tests on 10-mm maximum sized crushed dolomitic limestone and found high stiffnesses for uniformly graded materials.

Barksdale (1972) conducted repeated load triaxial tests with an average of 100. Another finding was that rutting in the wheel path was primarily caused by lateral movements of pavement materials instead of material densification. highly varied traffic loading. A relationship between deformation and load applications was suggested as: ε 1 p ( N ) = a + b log( N ) where 18 . The tests usually involve applying loading applications of up to 100. have often been used to determine permanent deformation of pavement materials.000. From this work a qualitative rutting index was defined to evaluate pavement performance. 2. A review of the literature suggests that the percent passing the No.9 second period of no load separating the load applications. The load ramped up to the peak value and then back to the trough value in a period of 0. Compared to resilient behavior characterization. AASHO Road Test findings indicated a major part of rutting occurred inside the base and subbase layers.correlation equation that indicates M R decreases with increasing percent passing the No. Gidel and Horny (2001) suggest the following reasons: 1.000 load applications on different granular materials. It is difficult to predict field rut depth from laboratory test results.1 second with a 1. A study by Thompson and Smith (1990). a large number of tests (at least ten each involving a large number of cycles) is therefore necessary to investigate how stress levels affect permanent deformation. but their influence on resilient modulus is not well defined and likely material-specific. 200 sieve. variations in climatic conditions) which is extremely difficult to simulate under laboratory testing conditions. It was suggested that a reasonable range of load repetition is from 100.000 repetitions and recording permanent deformation at a number of designated cycles.000.000 to 1. Permanent deformation tests are expensive and time consuming. typically as an extension of the resilient modulus tests. Only one stress level is generally applied on each specimen per test. showed that permanent deformation under repeated load application may provide a more definite evaluation of pavement materials than resilient modulus in some cases. 200 sieves may be important influencing factors for well-graded granular materials. Permanent Deformation Resistance Permanent deformation characteristics of unbound granular materials are important for flexible pavement performance. confirmed by other researchers. Repeated load tests. In flexible pavements the material has a very complex loading history (initial phase of pavement construction. fewer models have been developed to describe permanent deformation of pavement materials. 4 and No. Permanent deformation is strongly dependent on stress history.

004e4. an equation for cohesionless materials was proposed: ε 1 p ( N ) = Be ex N m where B = value of strain at X = 0 for the first cycle. The Monismith model can be expressed as: ε1 p = aN b One major finding of the Monismith study was that the exponent b depends only on soil type.. n.12 A study by Sweere (1990) on granular materials showed that a log-log approach is appropriate for a large number of cycles: log(ε1 p ( N )) = a + b log( N ) Sweere’s model is essentially the same as the power model proposed by Monismith in 1975 (Monismith et al. 1975) though the later was based on a silty clay with a LL = 35 and PI = 15. An increase of permanent axial strain of about 185% was observed when the material was compacted at 95 % instead of 100 % of maximum compaction density.5. Diyaljee and Raymond (1982) developed an equation using regression methods to predict the permanent deformation under long term repeated loading using static stress-strain data and a minimum number of cycles of repetitive load test data.07 x N 0.332 and an a parameter between 0. The effect of factors such as applied stress history and moisture content are included into parameter a. The tested soils had a b parameter between 0. a and b are regression parameters. An example expression for subgrade sand with 35 kPa of confining pressure would be ε p1 = 0. m = regression parameter. p The Barksdale study showed that permanent deformations were highly dependent on the applied load and increased when confining pressure decreased and deviator stress increased.N = number of load cycles. Based on their results on Conteau Dolomite railroad ballast data from other researchers.154 to 0. The effect of density on the permanent deformation was also investigated. X = the ratio of the repeated deviator stress to the failure deviator stress under static loading. An asymptotic model proposed by Hornych and Paute (1993) for unbound granular materials is: 19 . (AASHTO T 99).0467 and 39. ε 1 ( N ) = permanent axial strain at Nth number of cycles.

at high stress ratios the accumulation of permanent strain was more progressive. Similar results were found by Belt and Ryynanen (1997). This threshold stress ratio is called the shakedown limit. 2. 4 sieve varied from approximately 13% to 60%. A study by Barksdale et al. Kamal et al. (1998) used the repeated load triaxial equipment to test five different granular materials. indicating that a threshold stress ratio must exist above which accumulation of permanent strain will cause failure. However. The results indicated the rut depth was more than twice as great for the open-graded materials as for the well-graded materials. The Belt and Ryynanen study also showed that open-graded or well-graded unbound granular materials do not necessarily behave as well in real pavement structures as would be expected based on repeated load triaxial test results. P0 is a reference stress and is equal to 1 kPa. a and b are regression parameters. (1998). A model proposed by Hyde (1974) can be expressed as: ε1 p = a q σ3 Lekarp et al.5). The percent passing the No. (1997) shows permanent deformation of crushed granite gneiss with 16% fines content was more than twice that for 10% fines content (see Fig. the influence of gradation on permanent deformation may be important. if the stress ratio was low. L is the length of the stress path in kPa. (1993) conducted laboratory and full-scale tests on unbound granular materials with 8 different gradations. Beside the number of load repetitions and stress level. A model that relates permanent axial strain to stress path length and stress level was proposed as: ε p1 ( N ref ) L / P0 where q = a ( )b max p ε p1 ( N ref ) is the accumulated permanent axial strain at a given number of cycles. Lekarp showed that the accumulation rate of permanent strain would eventually reach zero.ε1 p = A[1 − ( N −B ) ] + ε1 p (100) 100 This model assumes that permanent strain approaches a finite limit as N tends towards infinity. Other models relate permanent deformation to applied stresses. Representatives are those by Hyde (1974) and Lekarp et al. This is said to be because the rotation of principal stress directions during real traffic 20 .

Fig.5 Influence of Number of Load Repetitions and Material Quality on Permanent Deformation (Barksdale et al. which significantly influences the permanent deformation behavior of unbound granular materials. (1997)) 21 .loading conditions. 2.

Blacksburg Quarry MCMs Throughout the testing program. full-scale laboratory pavement models were constructed in a concrete test pit housed in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering laboratory facility at the University of South Carolina. Blacksburg Quarry CMs Vulcan Materials Company. and density. and Crushed Limestone (CL) are commonly used in South Carolina to construct base courses. Crushed Granite (CGr). handling. as closely as possible. Columbia Quarry Vulcan Materials Company. 4 sieve. and moisture control. standard methods and procedures of sample splitting. 22 . Laboratory testing apparatus and equipment were carefully maintained and calibrated in accordance with manufacturers’ manuals. sources. Jefferson Quarry Martin Marietta Aggregates.1 Materials Tested in the Laboratory Material Type Crushed Granite Modified Crushed Granite Source Vulcan Materials Company. test conditions were designed to simulate in-service conditions of stress levels. compaction. and 12 inches. Crushed Marble-schist (CMs). Columbia Quarry Abbreviation CGr A MCGr A CL CGr B MCGr B Crushed Marine Limestone Martin Marietta Aggregates. Modified crushed granite and marble-schist are those with additional material passing the No. Laboratory Testing Program Test Pit and Plate Load Apparatus To provide control over material gradations. Berkeley Quarry Crushed Granite Modified Crushed Granite Crushed Marble-schist Modified Marble-schist Martin Marietta Aggregates. and construction. The FWD is maintained by SCDOT technicians. Sample preparation followed. Table 3. Table 3. Jefferson Quarry Vulcan Materials Company. and abbreviations used in this report. water content. 9. moisture.1 lists the material types.CHAPTER 3 LABORATORY PLATE LOAD TESTING PROGRAM Introduction Seven GAB materials were tested in the laboratory with compacted layer thickness of 6.

A schematic plan view of the laboratory test pit is shown in Fig. 3.1. Test apparatus and cross-section of the test pit are illustrated in Fig. 3.2. The test pit was 13 feet by 10 feet in plan. Plate tests were performed with a MTS Axial-Torsion Test System capable of applying an axial load of 50,000 pounds at a frequency range of 0 to 1000 Hz. Plate deflections were measured by three linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs).The LVDTs were mounted on two reference beams and were placed equally apart on a 17.8 in. diameter metal plate. The metal plate had the same diameter as the large plate used for FWD testing. Load was measured by a load cell aligned collinearly with a hydraulic actuator. Deflection and load data were collected to a computer through a high speed digital/analog data acquisition system. An initial attempt had been made to simulate flexible plate conditions by gluing a rubber pad from a Dynatest FWD to the bottom of the metal plate. Initial experiments using the rubber pad showed that deformations of the rubber pad itself dominated total deflection. Therefore the pad was removed and a rigid plate was used. To insure proper contact between the rigid metal plate and the base layer, a thin hydrostone membrane was applied to the contacting area.

Fig. 3.1 Schematic Plan View of the Laboratory Test Pit

23

Fig. 3.2 Cross Section of the Laboratory Test Pit and Plate Test Apparatus

Materials for Laboratory Testing Subgrade The subgrade material was an in-place sand for general geotechnical testing purposes. The thickness of the sand subgrade layer is approximately 10 feet. The sand is underlain by a permeable gravel deposit. The gradation curve for the sandy subgrade material is shown in Fig. 3.3. According to the ASTM soil classification it is medium sand.

24

100 90 80

Subgrade

Percent Passing

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

Particle Size mm-log

Fig. 3.3 Subgrade Sand Gradation Curve Base Materials All of the base (GAB) materials tested in the laboratory were fabricated by the quarries identified in Table 3.1. The materials were shipped then stored in containers at the testing facility. Sieve analysis and moisture-density tests were performed on each GAB material. Gradation results are shown in Table 3.2 and Fig. 3.4.

Table 3.2 Gradations of the Macadam and Limestone GAB Materials
Sieve Designation CGr A 2" 1 1/2" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 30 No. 200
100 100 96 71 45 19 6

Percentage by Weight Passing MCGr A
100 100 90 80 55 35 8

CL
100 97 87 72 52 36 16

CGr B
100 100 93 68 47 23 7

MCGr B
100 100 98 86 64 32 5

CMs
100 100 95 68 40 17 3

MCMs
100 100 93 68 46 13 2

25

3.3.5 shows that dry densities are not particularly sensitive to changes in compaction water content. 3. 3.100 CGr A 90 MCGr A 80 70 Percent Passing 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.4 Gradation Curves for GAB Materials Moisture-density tests were performed in accordance with AASHTO T 180 (Method D).1 1 Particle Size mm-log 10 100 Fig. especially for crushed granite. Fig. Table 3.01 * Density (pcf) ** Optimum water content (%) CL CGr B MCGr B CMs MCMs 0.3 shows that the difference in maximum dry densities for modified and unmodified materials is not remarkable.5 and Table 3. 26 . Results are shown in Fig.

3 Optimum Moisture Content and Maximum Density Material Optimum Water Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) AASHTO T 180 (Method D) CGr A 5 138 MCGr A 5 137 CL 10 124 CGr B 6 133 MCGr B 6 133 CMs 5 153 MCMs 5 150 27 . Water Content for GAB Materials (AASHTO T 180 D) Table 3.160 155 150 145 Dry Density (pcf) 140 CMs 135 130 125 120 115 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Water Content (% ) 10 11 12 13 14 CGr A MCGr A CL CGr B MCGr B MCMs Fig.5 Dry Density vs. 3.

Effort had been made to ensure a leveled base surface for each lift. 1972) indicated the effect of load pulse shape has little effect on the resilient modulus measurements. A GAB material to be tested was spread and shaped in the test pit. (1998) summarized repeated loading test configurations for various permanent deformation studies (see Table 3.4). the base was covered with plastic sheeting to allow even distribution of moisture (curing) through the base depth. the subgrade surface was leveled. Compaction was performed using the electric “Wacker” in 3. Just prior to placement. were constructed and tested.. After compaction. In situ CBR and static plate loading tests were performed to determine its elasticity and strength characteristics. tolerance. the MTS and data acquisition systems were turned on. (1997) suggested the haversine load pulse as the likely best approximation of traffic loading of base materials. lifts. The LVDTs were inspected for wear and verticality with the metal loading plate..0 in. Barksdale. The thickness of each compacted layer was carefully controlled to be within 1/4 in. a hydrostone mixture was applied to the contacting area between the plate and the base layer. Table 3. base layer thicknesses of 6. Prior to placement of the granular material.0 in. Just prior to testing. Meanwhile. Where the base course was deficient by more than ¼ in. Barksdale et al. Previous research (Seed and Fead. 9 in. Compaction commenced immediately and continued without interruption until the desired level of density was achieved. Curing of the membrane took approximately 3 hours.4 shows load frequency variations from 20 to 120 repetitions per minute. Elliott et al. a haversine wave form was used for cyclic loading tests and a triangle wave form was used for static loading tests. and 12 in. The plate was lowered on to the hydrostone and a 10 psi pressure was applied to form a thin hydrostone membrane between the GAB and the loading plate. and confirmed to be fully operational.Placement and Test Procedures An electric “Wacker” compactor was used to compact the in-place subgrade. 28 . GAB materials were transported from the quarry to the testing facility by SCDOT maintenance personnel. conventional oven drying moisture content tests were used to confirm water contents within 1% of optimum. Load durations of 1 second for cyclic loading tests and 1000 seconds for static loading tests were used. For this study. such areas were scarified and re-compacted with base material added. warmed-up. The base materials were mixed with water as necessary to achieve optimum moisture then covered with plastic sheeting for short-term storage prior to placement. For each material.. 1959.

9 0.9 2.1 Rest Period (seconds) 1 1. of Applications (in thousands) 100 60 to 80 100 10 or 100 100 10 10 10 100 29 .7 1.4 0.4 1.2-0.2 2.4 Summary of Test Configurations for Various Permanent Deformation Studies (after Elliott et al.Table 3.1 0. (1998)) Seed and Fead (1959) 20 30 20 120 60 40 Larew and Leonards (1962) 20-22 Barksdale Monismith (1972) et al. (1979) Lentz (1979) Raad and Zeid (1990) Behzadi and Yandell (1996) 40 Elliott et al.9 No.5 0.3 0. (1998) 30 Load Frequency (repetitions per minute) Load Duration (seconds) 0.1 0.33 1.2 1.1 0. (1975) Poulsen et al.

6a).5. from the center test. 3. SSG tests were performed on the GAB material. (Preliminary plate tests directly on the sandy subgrade used a maximum plate pressure of 20 psi). SSG testing is discussed later in Chapter 5. Subsequently. During the cyclic loading test. 100. The cyclic loading test took approximately 28 hours. the plastic sheeting was removed and 3 repetitions of static loading tests were performed approximately every 2 days as the water content decreased due to evaporation. Prior to each cyclic loading and static loading test. CBR test results are shown in Fig. In situ CBR tests were performed on the compacted sand anticipating that CBR values could be correlated with resilient modulus. All base materials achieved above 100% RC except the Crushed Limestone (CL). Load and deflection data were recorded for the third load application. A complete cycle of the tests on one GAB material required about 2 months. Maximum plate pressure on the GAB material was 50 psi.5 Comparison of GAB Test Pit Density and Maximum Laboratory Density (AASHTO T 180 (Method D)) Base Material AASHTO T 180D (pcf) Nuclear Gauge (pcf) Relative Compaction CGr A 138 138 100% MCGr A 137 139 101% CL 124 120 97% CGr B 133 136 102% MCGr B 133 138 104% CMs 153 155 101% MCMs 150 151 100% Experimental Results Static Plate Loading and CBR Tests on Subgrade Preliminary plate tests conducted on the sandy subgrade showed linear pressure-deflection behavior for plate pressures up to 20 psi (see sample data shown in Fig. This might be due to Wacker malfunction when compaction of the 12 in. At the completion of testing for each GAB material. Table 3. The result from one test was disregarded due to testing error and thus the results from eight tests are shown in Fig. Nine CBR tests were conducted with one test at the center of the load plate and eight other tests positioned in a uniform circular pattern 25.5 data confirms that compacted density very near maximum laboratory density was achieved in the testing pit using the “Wacker” compactor and 3. Table 3. which had an RC of 97%. 3. 30 .After the curing.6b. nuclear gauge tests were performed by SCDOT personnel.000 cycles of haversine load with frequency of 1 Hz was applied to the granular base layer.0 inch lifts. crush limestone base layer was performed. including preliminary laboratory moisture-density and sieving analysis. 3. Comparisons of measured density achieved in the test pit and maximum laboratory density (as determined by AASHTO T 180 (Method D)) are given in Table 3.6b. These maximum pressures are assumed to simulate typical stresses within typical flexible pavement structures. the base course remained covered with the plastic sheeting to maintain the moisture of the GAB material.0 in.

) 0.014 0.008 0.018 0.15 0.6a Plate Load Test Results for the Sandy Subgrade #1_sand*2003.05 0.3 0.35 Resistance (psi) Penetration (in.Plate Pressure (psi) 0 0 0. 3.25 0.02 Fig.1 0.6b CBR Test Results for the Sandy Subgrade 31 .2 0.002 0.016 0.xls 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.) Fig.006 0.004 5 10 15 20 25 Subgrade Vertical Deflection (in.012 0. 3.01 0.

which showed that permanent deformation is caused primarily by lateral movements of the materials instead of material densification. two unavoidable schedule changes caused unsuccessful data collection (specifically the 6 in.e. Fig.000 load repetitions were applied. which meant overnight data collection. The test usually began in the late afternoon after GAB compaction and apparatus setup. CGr B base tests).GAB Cyclic Plate Load Tests Plastic behavior of the granular materials in the plate loading test was observed by applying a repeated plate load to the surface of the compacted GAB material (maximum plate pressure = 50 psi) and measuring the accumulation of nonrecoverable deformation versus the number of load cycles. no significant change in resilient deflection was observed as the number of cycles increased. Due to fast data acquisition rate during a cyclic test.8. 3. Deflection and plate pressure data were recorded at a frequency of 100 Hz throughout the test until 100. As resilient deflections are inversely proportional to GAB densities. During the testing program. This required the data collection be performed manually at regular intervals during the 28 hours testing period. To assure proper seating of the loading plate.. the results appear to be in good agreement with AASHO Road Test data. 3. only a few hundred cycles could be recorded at a time. Resilient deflections (i. the first five cycles of loading were regarded pre-test seating cycles. Except for the CMs GAB. recoverable deformations) were calculated by subtracting permanent deformation from total deflection measured at 50 psi. 32 . MCGr A and the 12 in.7 shows typical results obtained from the cyclic plate load tests. Typical results are shown in Fig. This is especially the case after 1000 cycles.

) 0. CGr A Base 0.08 Total deflection 0.1 . CGr A Base 0.) 0.1-2000 Cyclic Loading Test Results for 6 in.08 0.06 0.02 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 Number of Cycles 33 Resilient deflection 0.12 Vertical Deflection (in.14 Resilient deflection Permanent deformation 0.1 Vertical Deflection (in.12 0.02 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 Number of Cycles 1-2000 Cyclic Loading Test Results for 9 in.06 Permanent deformation Total deflection 0.04 0.04 0.

03 0.06 0.025 0.04 0. CGr A 9 in.01 0.005 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Log(Number of Cycles) 6 in.7 Three Typical Cyclic Plate Load Test Results (CGr A) 0. 3.1-2000 Cyclic Loading Test Results for 12 in.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 Number of Cycles Permanent deformation Resilient deflection Fig.035 Resilient Deflection (in. CGr A 34 Total deflection . CGr A Base 0. CGr A 12 in.015 0.02 0.09 0.) 0.) 0.08 0.07 Vertical Deflection (in.

CGr B 9 in.02 0.035 0. MCGr A 12 in. MCGr A 0.03 Resilient Deflection (in.) 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.01 0. CGr B 35 .03 Resilient Deflection (in.0.01 0.015 0.035 0.005 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Log(Number of Cycles) 6 in.) 0.005 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Log(Number of Cycles) 9 in.025 0.

CMs 12 in.03 0.015 0.035 0.8 Resilient Deflection vs Load Repetitions 36 .025 0.005 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Log(Number of Cycles) 6 in.025 0. CMs 0.01 0.01 0.) 0. 3.04 0.02 0. MCGr B 12 in.03 Resilient Deflection (in.0.025 0.015 6 in.035 0.005 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Log(Number of Cycles) 6 in.02 0. MCMs 0.01 0. MCGr B 9 in.03 Resilient Deflection (in.045 Resilient Deflection (in.) 0. MCMs 12 in.005 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Log(Number of Cycles) 9 in.015 0. CMs 9 in. MCGr B 0.05 0.) 0. MCMs Fig.02 0.

0% 9" MCGr A W=0.015 0. a 1% drop in water content results in approximate 0. 0.7% 0 0 10 50 60 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 Decreasing water content 0.02 0. the deflection data were abandoned for one test (6 in.035 6" MCGr A W=4. CGr B). The first two load cycles were considered plate seating. For CGr and MCGr materials.8% 0. decrease in plate deflection at plate pressure of 50 psi.015 0. 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 Decreasing water content 50 60 0 0.03 0.035 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 0.015 0. 3.4% 6" CGr A W=2.03 0.4% 0. 0.01 Decreasing water content 0.9.01 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 0.025 0.005 Vertical Deflectio n (in. The influence of water content is pronounced. Static deflection curves for the seven GAB materials are shown in Fig.10 shows the sensitivity of plate deflection to water content. 0.005 Vertical Deflection (in .015 0.4% 9" MCGr A W=2. three cycles of static loading tests were performed. Due to a power surge that adversely affected data collection.GAB Static Load Tests At the completion of the cyclic loading test. Fig.02 9" MCGr A W=3.005 Vertical Deflection (in. The deflection curves indicate that the granular base materials exhibited stress-hardening properties.001 in. Increasing layer thickness helped decrease plate deflections.025 6" CGr A W=3.2% 0.02 0.025 0.02 9" CGr A W=4.025 0. Vertical deflection and plate pressure data were recorded for the third static load repetition. 0.9% 6" MCGr A W=1.8% 9" CGr A W=1.5% 6" MCGr A W=2.03 9" CGr A W=1.8% 6" CGr A W=3.03 37 .01 Decreasing water content 0.01 0.005 Vertical Deflectio n (in .9% 0. 3.

0% 0. 0.7% 9" CL W=9.02 6" CL W=11.01 0.03 0.0% 0.01 Decreasing water content 0.016 0.005 Vertical Deflection (in.03 0.01 0.4% 12" CL W=4.03 12" CGr A W=2.006 0.7% 38 .005 Vertical Deflection (in.02 0. 0.9% 9" CL W=8.5% 6" CL W=9.005 Vertical Deflectio n (in .0% 0.0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 Decreasing water content 0. 0.018 0.015 0.0% 12" MCGr A W=2.008 0.025 0.3% 6" CL W=8.025 0.012 0.8% 12" MCGr A W=2. 0.1% 6" CL W=6.02 12" CL W=8.0% 0.015 0.015 0.025 0.014 0.01 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 Decreasing water content 0. Decreasing water content 0.02 12" MCGr A W=4.2% 6" MCGr B W=4.0% 0.0% 12" CGr A W=1.002 0.025 0.004 Vertical Deflection (in.03 0 0 0.015 9" CL W=10.01 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 Decreasing water content 0. 0.025 0.01 Decreasing water content 0.02 12" CGr A W=4.035 6" MCGr B W=6.02 0 0 0.005 Vertical Deflectio n (in .005 Vertical Deflectio n (in.015 0.9% 12" CL W=5.6% 6" MCGr B W=2.2% 0.

5% 0.02 6" MCMs W=4.4% 6" CMs W=2.0% 0.3% 0.0% 9" MCGr B W=1.0% 12" CGr B W=1. 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 Decreasing water content 0.01 0.015 0.03 12" CGr B W=3.1% 6" CMs W=3.01 Decreasing water content 0.02 12" MCGr B W=4.015 0.01 0.03 12" MCGr B W=3.3% 0.2% 12" MCGr B W=1.025 0.0% 6" MCMs W=1.0% 9" MCGr B W=3.005 Vertical Deflection (in. 0.025 0.005 Vertical Deflectio n (in .8% 9" CGr B W=0.0 0 0.005 V ertica l D eflectio n (in .5% 0.015 0.7% 0.03 0.01 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 Decreasing water content 0. 0. 0.03 9" CGr B W=0.5% 0.03 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 0.015 0. Decreasing water content 0.02 9" MCGr B W=6.02 12" CGr B W=3.01 Decreasing water content 0.015 0.2% 0 0 0.5% 0.005 Vertical Deflectio n (in .025 0.02 9" CGr B W=2. 0.025 0.005 Vertical Deflection (in .025 0.02 6" CMs W=4.025 39 .015 0.01 Decreasing water content 0.8% 6" MCMs W=1.005 Vertical Deflectio n (in .

0% Fig.005 Vertical Deflection (in.4% 12" CMs W=1.015 0.6% 0.01 0.02 12" CMs W=3.6% 9" CMs W=1.02 9" MCMs W=4.005 Vertical Deflection (in.8% 12" MCMs W=2.015 0.025 0.5% 12" CMs W=1.02 9" CMs W=3. 0.0% 9" MCMs W=1.025 0.025 12" MCMs W=3.0% 9" CMs W=1.9% 12" MCMs W=2.015 0. 3.5% 0.005 Vertical Deflection (in.005 Vertical Deflection (in. 0. Decreasing water content 0.7% 9" MCMs W=1. 0.03 0.0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 Decreasing water content 0.1% 0.01 0.03 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.025 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 Decreasing water content 50 60 0 0 10 Plate Pressure (psi) 20 30 40 50 60 Decreasing water content 0.9 Static Loading Test Results 40 .02 0.

0.025 MCGr A TH*=6in. CGr A TH=6 in.0% 5. MCGr A TH=9 in. CGr A TH=12 in.0% 0.035 Fig.10 Static Deflection vs Water Content for MCGr A and CGr A (Plate Pressure = 50 psi) 41 .) 0. 0.0% 0.015 1.0% Water Content 3. * TH: Layer 0.0% 4. 3. CGr A TH=9 in.0% 2.0% 6.03 MCGr A TH=12 in.02 Vertical Deflection (in.

Log-log plots of the permanent strain ratio against the number of cycles are shown in Fig.1 data suggest that there is no significant difference between parameter b (slope of the trend line) for 6 in. 9 in.. Water content values and regression lines are included as well. 42 . base layers collectively. and 12 in. strain ratio. Permanent deformations were plotted against the number of cycles. The results are in good agreement with work by Monismith et al.CHAPTER 4 LABORATORY PLATE LOAD TEST RESULTS Cyclic Plate Load Test Results and Analysis From cyclic plate load tests.. 19). b is regression parameter. 4. Monismith et al. Fig. The permanent deformation at the100th cycle was introduced into the log-log model to help data interpretations using the following model: log( ε1 p ε 1 p (100) ) = −2b + b log( N ) where ε 1 p (100) is permanent strain at the 100th cycle. some variations were not avoidable.. Log-log plots were found to describe approximately linear relations between permanent deformation and number of cycles. Least-square regression fitting was used for the permanent deformation data for 6 in.1. base layer thickness for any of the GAB materials tested. 4. ε1 p ε 1 p (100) is defined as the permanent Permanent strain is calculated by dividing the measured permanent deformation by the base thickness.1. permanent deformations were obtained by subtracting the resilient deflections from total deformations. and 12 in.. It should be noted that although efforts were made to control base layer water content during each cyclic loading test. Generally high values of coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) are as shown in Fig. 4. 9 in. (1975) mentioned in Chapter 2 (see p. showed b values are dependent only on material type.

100 6 in.7% 12 in.8% Permanent Strain Ratio Least-square regression R-square=0.7% 12 in.2% 9 in. MCGr A W=4.95 10 1 100 1000 Number of Cycles 10000 100000 1000000 43 . CGr A W=4. CGr A W=4.7% Permanent Strain Ratio Least-square regression R-square=0. CGr A W= 5. MCGr A W=5.74 10 b 1 1 100 1000 Number of Cycles 10000 100000 1000000 100 9 in.

CGr B W=3. CL W=11.6% Least-square regression R-square=0. CGr B W=3. CL W=11. CL W=11.95 10 1 100 1000 Number of Cycles 10000 100000 1000000 44 .9% 9 in.100 6 in.2% Permanent Strain Ratio Least-square regression R-square=0.8% 9 in.5% Permanent Strain Ratio 12 in.93 10 1 100 1000 Number of Cycles 10000 100000 1000000 100 6 in.

3% 9 in. CMs W=3.5% Least-square regression R-square=0.2% Permanent Strain Ratio 12 in.96 10 1 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Number of Cycles 100 6 in. CMs W=4. MCGr B W=5. CMs W=4.7% 12 in.8% 9 in.100 6 in. MCGr B W=6.2% Least-square regression R-square=0.84 Permanent Strain Ratio 10 1 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Number of Cycles 45 . MCGr B W=6.

4. the applied stress histories for 6 in.8% 9 in. It is determined mostly by the first few load repetitions hence it is heavily influenced by seating and material conditioning procedures. GAB materials may be compacted in single or multiple lifts and experience unknown load applications due to heavy construction equipment before placement of HMA layer. • According to the literature. measurement of parameter a is prone to be erratic. 46 . the slope of the least-square regression line. 4.. • The primary purpose of the cyclic plate loading test was to compare permanent deformation resistance of the GAB materials. 1975) was not investigated in this study based on the following reasons: • Parameter a is strongly dependent on water content and stress history.8% 12 in. MCMs W=4. In this study.. • The use of parameter a to predict pavement rutting introduces additional uncertainties. and 12 in.65 Permanent Strain Ratio 10 1 100 1000 Number of Cycles 10000 100000 1000000 Fig. In this study. represents the rate of permanent deformation accumulation with load applications. 9 in.6% Least-square regression R-square=0.100 6 in. The influences of water content and stress history were beyond the scope of the project. b parameter is used for comparison of rutting resistance (see Fig. permanent deformations were measured over a range of water contents for the 7 granular base materials.1 Log-Log Plot of Permanent Deformation and Number of Cycles Regression parameter a in Monismith’s power model (Monismith et al. A smaller b value implies a greater resistance to rutting. In addition.2). base layers are different. The value of b is assumed to be an indictor of the GAB material’s inherent resistance to rutting (independent of water content and stress history). Insufficient water content and stress history data were generated by the testing program to allow for meaningful investigation of parameter a. MCMs W=4. MCMs W=4.. The regression parameter b .

From Fig. Results are presented in Table 4. 4 sieve alone may not be a predictor of rutting resistance. The influence of fines content on permanent deformation is not investigated (note that unmodified and unmodified GAB materials used in this study had essentially the same fines content – only the percent passing the No. it appears that the percent passing No. 4.1 along with parameter b values.13 to 0. For one material (CGrB) the b parameter decreased with modification (suggesting an increase in rutting resistance).2 it can be observed that the permanent deformation resistance of CL (limestone) is approximately average of the other 6 GAB (non-limestone) materials. Typically.23 0. 4.0.2 shows b values vary from 0. 4 sieve was increased to modify the GAB material). For two GAB materials (CGrA and CMs) the b parameter increased with modification (suggesting a decrease in rutting resistance). Uniformity and gradation (curvature) coefficients (Cu and Cc) values were computed for each GAB material.35 0.19 MCGr A CL CGr B MCGr B CMs MCMs Material Type Fig.05 0 CGr A 0.25 0. granular materials with a Cu value greater than 6 and a Cc value between 1 and 3 are considered well-graded.2 0.15 0.27 0.13 0.35 0.45 0.19 0.3 0.21 0.4 Regression Parameter b 0. 47 . Also.2 Log-Log Regression Parameter b Fig. 4.1 0. Comparison of parameter b and Cc (all Cu values exceed 6) does not reveal any meaningful relation between rutting resistance and Cc.35.

A relationship between rutting resistance and percent passing the No.3 CGr B 0.0 1.0 73. The static tests were performed for different GAB layer thicknesses (6.4 0.3 Cc 2.3 1.2 2 MCMs 0. • Generally.5 times difference in the b parameter value for unmodified and modified GAB materials is observed.23 7 0.Table 4. approximately a 1.21 8 0.1 GAB Materials Cu and Cc Values b D60 (mm) D10 (mm) D30 (mm) Material Type CGr A 0. • The cyclic plate loading test result confirmed that the b value of the log-log model is an indicator of material type. and is independent of water content and stress history.04 0. • For the 7 GAB materials.13 9. Static Plate Load Test Results and Analysis Introduction Static plate load tests provided surface deflection data for thoroughly conditioned GAB layers (static plate load testing was performed after cyclic testing). and 12 in.8 0. The stress state within a GAB layer varies with pavement geometry.7 175.12 0. 4 sieve could not be established using the limited results from this study.7 MCGr A 0.27 8.53 CMs 0. and the magnitude and configuration of the wheel load. percent passing No.1 0. • A relationship between rutting resistance and gradation curve coefficients could not be established using the limited results from this study. 4 sieve alone is not a determinable parameter for material rutting resistance.5 29. Plate deflections were used to backcalculate resilient modulus of the GAB material. 9. the thickness of GAB layer.19 3. For granular materials. The peak impact load applied through the FWD load plate and corresponding peak surface deflections are used for 48 .19 8.3 1.4 CL 0. Backcalculation of in situ resilient moduli of pavement layer materials is often done using Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) data.3 66.35 6 0.9 Cu 53.5 49.9 0.15 1.1 MCGr B 0.8 0.) and different GAB water contents (at and below OMC).9 0. water content is a function of climate and other factors.4 Summary The following are concluded from the cyclic plate loading tests: • The accumulation of permanent deformation of the 7 GAB materials can be described using a log-log approach.12 1.09 0. resilient modulus is known to be sensitive to stress state and water content.3 32.6 2.3 0.

Cohesive and granular subgrade moduli and granular base materials moduli are dependent on water content. Condition 5 consists of 8 in. Little information concerning the water content of unbound base layers is available. radius.2 summarizes assumed modulus values for Conditions 1 though 5. In this study. Pavement components were characterized as linear elastic materials with Poisson’s ratio of 0.35. FEA was performed using ANSYS. A Linear Programming approach was used to extrapolate the plate deflections at optimum water content. 8 in. A 9kip single wheel load was simulated by a contact pressure of 80 psi applied to circular area of 6 in. Fig. The resulting backcalculated pavement layer moduli provide the basis for pavement analysis and elastic layer design computations. Conditions 1 to 4 consisted of a 4 in. Five conditions were analyzed. Finite Element Analysis Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was performed to determine plate pressure on base layer responses similar to base layer responses within typical flexible highway flexible pavements under a 9-kip single wheel load. 49 . (2005).3a and Fig. It was found that average in situ water content was generally close to compaction OMC from laboratory Proctor tests. Peak loads near 9 kips (one half of the standard 18-kip single axle design load) are typically used for analysis. In one study by Ping et al. GAB layer on subgrade under static plate loading (simulating the laboratory static plate loading condition). in situ water content data for base materials in Florida were collected over a one year period. 4. 4. GAB layer. to simulate flexible pavements under 9-kip single wheel load and base layer under plate load conditions. a commercial finite element program package. A backcalculation program was developed to compute GAB resilient modulus. Backcalculated moduli values represent in situ material conditions at the time of FWD testing.3b present schematic representations of the finite element models for Condition 1 through 5. representing typical changes that may occur in the field due to environmental factors.modulus backcalculation. Table 4. HMA layer. and subgrade. Resilient moduli of the HMA layer and the base layer were varied.

3a FEA Model for Conditions 1 through 4 Fig.Fig. 4. 4.3b FEA Model for Condition 5 50 .

It can be seen that ANSYS and KENLAYER yield essentially the same mid-layer stresses.4a shows predicted vertical stresses in the middle of the 8 in. with a maximum discrepancy not over 5%. base layer for Condition 3. x 1 in.4a Comparison of ANSYS and KENLAYER Linear Solutions for Vertical Stress in the GAB Layer (Condition 3) 51 . Radial Distance (in. 4. The total number of elements was 14. A comparison of solutions was made between the ANSYS results and the results obtained using KENLAYER (Huang. base layer (Ansys) In the middle of the 8 in. Fig. a computer program based on Burmister’s layered theory. 2004).2 Resilient Modulus for FEA Models Typical Flexible Resilient Modulus Resilient Modulus Resilient Modulus Pavement (4" HMA layer) (8" GAB layer) (Subgrade) Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Plate Load Test Condition 5 1400 ksi 100 ksi 500 ksi 500 ksi Average Plate Pressure 30 psi 50 ksi 25 ksi 50 ksi 25 ksi 15 ksi 15 ksi 15 ksi 15 ksi Resilient Modulus Resilient Modulus (8" GAB layer) (Subgrade) 50 ksi 15 ksi Axial symmetric models were used with dimensions of 120 in. each having dimensions of 1 in. x 120 in.400. An 8-node rectangular-element type was used. 4. with each node having two degrees of freedom and 90o element angles. base layer (Kenlayer) Vertical Stress (psi) 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Condition 3 Fig. 4.) 6 8 0 0 2 4 2 4 10 12 14 In the middle of the 8 in. Fig.4b compares vertical deflections at two depths for Condition 1 determined using ANSYS and KENLAYER. The two solutions check quite closely.Table 4.

) 0 0. respectively. base layer thicknesses.6). 4. 9 in.008 0. Results are shown in Figs. Mathematically. To determine the deflections at optimum water content determined with the laboratory Proctor test.) At the surface of the subgrade (Kenlayer) In the middle of the 8 in.at the middle of the 8 in. 4. for each GAB material. base layer (Kenlayer) 0.012 Condition 1 0.Radial Distance (in. The average RMS error is defined as follows: RMS = ∑( i =1 N w0 m − w0 c 2 ) w0 m N 52 . Linear Programming to Determine Deflection at Optimum Water Content Linear relations were observed between deflections at the plate pressure of 30 psi and water content. GAB layer and at the surface of the subgrade.014 Fig.. to find parallel straight lines that best fit the deflection data for 6 in. this requires the regressions produce the smallest average root-mean-square (RMS) error. (see Fig. These figures confirm that a plate pressure of 30 psi approximates the GAB stress and vertical deflection states for a typical highway flexible pavement under a 9-kip single wheel load.010 0.. 4.5b. The problem is. base layer (Ansys) In the middle of the 8 in.5a and 4. a Linear Programming (LP) technique was used. and 12 in.006 Vertical Deflection (in. The former is usually considered as a representative location to compute the modulus of the GAB layer and the later is critical for evaluation of permanent deformation for flexible pavements.4b Comparisons ANSYS and KENLAYER Linear Solutions for Vertical Deflection (Condition 1) Deflection and stress solutions at the axis of symmetry were obtained using ANSYS at two depths .004 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 At the surface of the subgrade (Ansys) 0.

30 In the middle of the 8" GAB layer At the Surface of Subgrade 25 Vertical Stress (psi) 20 15 10 5 0 Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Condition 5 Fig. 4.) 0.025 In the middle of the 8" GAB layer At the Surface of Subgrade 0.5a Comparison of Vertical Stress for Condition 1 to Condition 5 0.02 Vertical Deflection (in.01 0.5b Comparison of Vertical Deflection for Condition 1 to Condition 5 53 .015 0. 4.005 0 Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Condition 5 Fig.

w0 m = measured deflection. The figures clearly demonstrate the linear relation between water content and measured deflection for each GAB material tested.96. LP Regression 1. LP Regression 12 in.0% 6 in.017 0.6.96 0. m = number of curves for a material.015 0.023 0. CGr A 6 in. 4.) 0. The calculated parallel regression lines are shown in Fig 4.011 0.0% 3.009 0.013 0. The LP algorithm produced convincing R 2 values.019 Deflection (in.0% 2. varying from 0. Solutions were obtained using Microsoft Excel Solver. CGr A 9 in. w0 c = calculated deflection.and Average RMS = where ∑ RMS i =1 m m N = number of water content points per base layer.0% Water Content (%) 54 .6. as presented in Fig. LP Regression 9 in.82 to 0. 0.0% 5. CGr A 12 in.021 R-square=0.0% 4.

0% Water Content (%) 0.84 0.0% 0. LP Regression Deflection (in.023 0.) 0.96 1.02 R-square=0.015 0. LP Regression 12 in.) 0. LP Regression 9 in.019 0.011 0.023 0.0% R-square=0.0% 5.01 6 in.0% 10. LP Regression 9 in.013 0. MCGr A 12 in.0% 4.009 0. LP Regression 12 in.0% 6 in.021 R-square=0.) 0.025 0.015 0.0% Water Content (%) 3.0% 4. LP Regression 12 in. LP Regression 4. CL 9 in.0.025 0. MCGr A 9 in.021 9 in.0% 2. LP Regression 1. CL 12 in. MCGr A 6 in.013 0. CL 6 in.009 0.0% 3.019 Deflection (in.0% 5.0% Water Content (%) 0.017 0.82 Deflection (in.0% 12.005 0 2. CGr B 12 in.0% 55 .0% 8.015 0.0% 6.0% 2.017 0.011 0. CGr B 9 in.

LP Regression 12 in.5% 3. CMs 9 in.023 0.005 0. LP Regression Deflection (in.011 0.5% 4.5% 3. LP Regression Deflection (in.95 1.5% 2. MCMs 6 in.021 6 in.019 0.5% 4.011 0.013 0. 4. MCGr B 12 in.025 0. LP Regression 12 in.013 0.5% Water Content (%) 3.95 1.025 0.5% Water Content (%) 0.019 0.007 0.017 0.021 6 in. LP Regression Deflection (in.009 0.023 0.5% 6.5% R-square=0.009 0.5% 5.005 0.015 0.013 0. MCMs 12 in.6 Water Content versus Plate Deflection (Plate Pressure = 30 psi) 56 .90 1.) 0. LP Regression 9 in.015 0.011 0.0% R-square=0.015 0. LP Regression 9 in.0% Water Content (%) 2.5% 5.023 0.0.) 0. LP Regression 9 in.0% 3.) 0. MCMs 9 in.007 0.5% 4. MCGr B 9 in.017 0.019 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% 2.017 0.021 6 in.009 0.0% 4. MCGr B 6 in.025 0.5% R-square=0. LP Regression 12 in.5% 2. CMs 12 in CMs 6 in.0% Fig.5% 5.

6a (Chapter 3) shows the subgrade material exhibits essentially linear elastic properties under the static plate load for load pressures up to 20 psi. Yoder and Witczak (1975) demonstrated that the same factor of 0.6. The modulus of subgrade was calculated directly from plate test results on subgrade. equations presented in Chapter 2. 1986). was developed to back calculate the modulus of the GAB base materials at the optimum water content. a = plate radius. the subgrade modulus value of 15.Backcalculation of Resilient Modulus Deflection values extrapolated at the optimum water content were obtained from Fig.ν = Poisson’s ratio. the modulus of subgrade was calculated as 15. namely. The deflection of the rigid plate can be expressed as follows (Huang 2004): w0 = π (1 − ν 2 )qa 2E where w0 = surface plate deflection. Using the center of a flexible plate deflection equation. 4.822 psi. the average resilient modulus of the subgrade was found to be 16. Fig.e. It should be noted this algorithm produces a mathematically rigorous solution since there is only one variable. respectively. The former is very close to the resilient modulus of the subgrade calculated from plate test results.581 psi calculated from the plate test was used. E = half-space modulus of elasticity. a forward calculation routine and a control module.79 can be applied for layered elastic systems. In this study. 3. Using Heukelom and Klomp and Powell et al.. It consists of two components.480 psi and 11. and is called iteratively by the control 57 . q = average plate pressure. The deflection under the center of a flexible plate can be expressed as: 2(1 − ν 2 )qa E w0 = A comparison of the two equations indicates that the deflection under a rigid plate is 79% of that under the center of a flexible plate. The resilient modulus of the subgrade can also be estimated from the CBR test data. A backcalculation program was developed to compute the resilient modulus of the GAB layer from measured plate deflection. An algorithm.581 psi. The forward routine is based on ELSYM5 (Kopperman. the resilient moduli of the GAB. A computer program was developed in VC++ language. i. Although based on a homogenous elastic half-space. based on layered linear elastic theory.

resilient modulus remained practically the same or dropped slightly when the base layer thickness increased. which became stiffer when the base layer thickness was increased from 6 in. and plate pressures and corresponding deflections. 4. Note the deflection values were divided by the factor of 0. as shown in Fig.4 GHz processor.7. The output of the program is the calculated resilient modulus of the base layer. Poisson’s ratio of the base material. there was a notable reduction in CL modulus for the 12 inch layer thickness. Also. In general. 4 sieve increased. hence it includes the influence of base layer thickness. 58 . requiring only a few seconds on a personal computer with a 2.79 in the backcalculation program to account for the rigidity of the steel loading plate.7 Implementation of the Linear Backcalculation Algorithm Calculated GAB resilient modulus values varied from 13 ksi to 75 ksi. An exception applies for the MCGr A base material. Fig. Computation time of this algorithm is rather short. The input parameters are subgrade modulus. 4.. 4. resilient modulus of the GAB materials.8. base layer thickness. A flow chart presenting the implementation of the algorithm is shown in Fig. It was found that increased percentage passing No. though not significantly. The resilient modulus of CL is remarkably greater than those for other GAB materials. Note the resilient modulus was linearly backcalculated from the static plate load test data.module. The control module repeatedly calls the forward calculation routine until the assumed GAB modulus produces a computed deflection value equal to the measured deflection. to 9 in. then to 12 in.

A well-known expression developed by Rada and Witczak (1981) is: a2 = 0.3.20 and the average a2 for all other materials is 0. M R for unbound granular base materials.90 6 in. The average a2 for CL is 0.xls Fig. with an average value of 0. and 0. and layer coefficient results are summarized in Table 4. a 2 .8 Backcalculated Resilient Moduli of GAB Materials for Different Layer Thicknesses (at Optimum Water Content) An accepted way to quantify the quality of GAB materials as a component in flexible pavement structure is to compute layer coefficient a2 . 4.05 to 0. (1971).10 for Crushed Granite-gneiss. The results are in good agreement with the work by Busching et al. Base Layer Static deflection_regression_7GAB.24.21 for CL. There are many correlations between layer coefficient. backcalculated resilient modulus.11 (see Figure 4. Deflection.249 × log( M R ) − 0. Base Layer 12 in.09. Base Layer 80 70 Resilient Modulus (ksi) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CGr A MCGr A CL CGr B GAB type MCGr B CMs MCMs 15 17 16 18 14 25 25 16 19 39 33 24 26 27 21 18 14 14 59 77 9 in.9). the backcalculated GAB resilient modulus values give layer coefficients ranging from 0. who recommended an a2 value of 0. 59 .977 Using this equation. and resilient modulus.

) Resilient Modulus (ksi) Layer coefficient (1/ in.0.13 MCGr A 22.09 0.1 26. and Layer Coefficient Values for GAB Layer Materials1 Deflection (mil.18 0.3 18.8 19.10 Layer Coefficients.12 0.12 0.7 N/A 22.05 0.03 0. Base Layer 9 in.08 0.9 16.11 0. 9 in.6 58.9 19. CGr A CL CGr B CMs MCMs 1 23.5 15.10 0.08 0.21 N/A 0.07 0.16 0.0 24.12 0.21 0.6 16.10 0.3 20.15 0. 9 in.9 22.) for for for Material Base Layer Thickness of Base Layer Thickness of Base Layer Thickness of 6 in.8 25.3 13.06 0.2 14.4 15.07 0. for GAB Layers Table 4.08 0.24 0.09 0.2 18.11 0.6 13. Resilient Modulus.07 0.07 0.24 0.05 0.8 23.3 17.06 0.06 0. Base Layer 12 in.7 16.1 14.16 0.3 Deflection.06 0.5 19.24 0.12 0. 6 in.2 25. stress state approximates a typical flexible pavement under a 9-kips single wheel load. 12 in.1 22. 12 in.15 Layer coefficient of the base layer 0.6 14. Base Layer 0.06 0.4 0.09 0.8 N/A 19. a2.7 77.1 Evaluated at the optimum water content.9 20. 9 in.6 MCGr B 22.21 6 in.00 CGr A MCGr A CL CGr B MCGr B CMs MCMs GAB type Fig.5 24.07 0.3 17.12 0.06 0.8 27.15 0.13 0.08 0. 6 in.12 0.06 0.6 24.27 0. 12 in. 60 .12 0.1 32.4 38.07 0.6 18.0 23. 4.

(1971). • Increasing percentage passing No.Summary The following may be concluded from the static plate loading tests: • FEA indicated a plate on GAB pressure of 30 psi approximates base layer stress states for a typical highway flexible pavement structure under a 9-kip single wheel load.10 for Crushed Granite-gneiss. These results are in good agreement with the work by Busching et al. • Resilient modulus (and layer coefficient) remains practically the same or drops slightly when the base layer thickness increased from 6 in. to 12 in.09. who recommended an a2 value of 0. • Water content has pronounced influence on granular base materials and a linear relation is suggested between the plate deflection and the water content. and 0. for most of the GAB materials tested. • The average a 2 for CL is 0.21 for CL.20 and the average a 2 for all other materials is 0. 61 . 4 sieve slightly increased the resilient modulus of the GAB materials.

9-in. subbase. (150-mm) diameter was approximately twice the free-field value. A result of this cooperative endeavor is the SSG. ARPA authorized FHWA researchers to supervise the redesign of a military device that used acoustic and seismic detectors to locate buried land mines. Cubical containers with compliant energy-absorbing boundary materials were suggested to reasonably minimize reflected wave energy. MN (Fiedler. introduced to civil engineering field in approximately late 1998. IL. Over the past several decades. of Northridge. it is increasingly desirable to directly measure stiffness or modulus of as-placed pavement materials. wave energy is generated and propagated through the material and bounced back to the exciting source of the SSG ring-shaped foot. and subgrade materials. Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Programs Administration (ARPA). The SSG is a relatively new device that provides a means for the direct measurement stiffness or modulus of in-place materials. Lenke et al. The FHWA’s partners in this cooperative research and development project were Humboldt Manufacturing Co.CHAPTER 5 LABORATORY SOIL STIFFNESS GAUGE TESTING PROGRAM AND RESULTS Introduction In this chapter. (1991) used geotechnical centrifuge modeling technique to evaluate dynamic soil-structure interaction induced by rigid circular footings.4. the SSG stiffness measured in a cylindrical steel mold of 5. Its use has been proposed as an alternative to in situ density tests for construction quality control of pavement materials.1. Using surface measurements. Sawangsuriya et al. and CNA Consulting Engineers of Minneapolis. A study by Phillip and Pu (2003) indicated for soils with Poisson’s ratios up to 0. Experimental Program The SSG measures the impedance at the material surface. In a related study. Their study indicated the boundary effects became negligible for cubical container width 62 . nuclear methods have been widely used to determine in situ material densities for quality control purpose. With the movement of pavement design from empirical to mechanistic-empirical. Beranek & Newman (BBN) of Cambridge. A Humboldt SSG is shown in Fig. (2002) investigated the boundary effects of different sizes of cubical containers using finite element analysis. In a laboratory setup where the SSG testing is conducted on a material within a container (such as steel compaction mold) the boundary conditions may become a concern. Bolt. During SSG measurements. GAB modulus data obtained using a soil stiffness gauge (SSG) are compared to modulus values backcalculated from plate load test data. Their results demonstrated the importance and influence of container shapes and boundary materials to approximate true radiation damping of a vertically excited circular footing. The SSG was originated from a study co-sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. 5.1998). MA. a SSG measures as-placed stiffness or modulus of base.

greater than approximately 24 inches. To evaluate the repeatability of the SSG measurement. after each test. sitting on a ring–shaped foot. In the GAB testing pit. the SSG was placed on the material 63 . In addition. Humboldt Mfg. a thin layer of moist GAB fines (material passing a No. is cylindrical with a diameter of 11 in.. to achieve good seating. Co.. To assure proper seating.) The Humboldt SSG used in this study has a modulus measurement range of 4 to 90 ksi. Fig. A shaker is attached above the foot and excites the footing vertically. The device weighs approximately 22 lbs. 30 sieve) was periodically applied between the SSG foot and compacted GAB surface. a height of 10. SSG tests were performed on the compacted base course prior to every cyclic loading and static loading test. Co.1 Soil Stiffness Gauge (Humboldt Mfg. Two sensors attached to the shaker are used to record the force and displacement time history of the foot. The SSG manufacturer (GeoGauge User Guide. then reseated for a second test. producing small changes in forces and displacements at 25 steady-state frequencies between 100 and 196 Hz. For each base layer. the SSG was lifted from the surface.. Additional information is given in Fiedler (1998) and Wu (1998). . The SSG rests on the soil surface. The soil stiffness is measured at every frequency and the averaged value is displayed. 2000) states good measurements require good contact between the SSG ring-shaped foot and the soil surface (at least 60% of the foot’s surface).5 in. 5. SSG tests were performed at about 10 different locations approximately equally spaced over the base layer surface.

and isotropic half space. Clearly.2 presents SSG GAB modulus values measured over a range of water contents for each compacted GAB material. ν = Poisson's ratio of soil. In general. Hence. Figure 5. This trend is consistent with findings by many other researchers. 64 . ω (n) =0. then twisted approximately 90 degrees a few times under moderate vertical amount of pressure prior to testing. The data point scatter suggests the importance of multiple SSG measurements to get reliable mean values of base modulus. Figure 5. and 9 in. Though some vertical scattering of data for each water content is shown. For unbound granular materials. SSG Laboratory Testing Results Modulus can be calculated from the SSG measured stiffness. The sandy subgrade material used in the test pit was generally less stiff than the compacted GAB materials. a general linear relation can be observed between mean SSG moduli and water. The vertical spread in individual data points at a particular water content is the result of approximately ten SSG measurements on a base layer.35 is assumed. can be related to the stiffness using (Egorov.565). SSG moduli for 12 in. The equation assumes that the underlying soil is a homogeneous and isotropic infinite elastic half-space. (2002). a Poisson’s ratio of 0. 1965): E = K (1 − ν 2 ) where ω ( n) R2 E = modulus of elasticity. ω (n) = a function of the ratio of inside diameter and the outside diameter of the ring (for the SSG. the results may suggest that the influence of layering for SSG testing may extend up to 12 in. who showed the depth of SSG influence may be over 11 in.to be tested. GAB modulus decreases. K = the SSG stiffness measurement.2 indicates that SSG modulus is sensitive to changes in water content. from the surface. base layers. base layers are higher than those for 6 in. as water content increases. from the surface. Computation of layer modulus for the top layer of a layered system needs careful consideration. E . R2 = the outer radius of the SSG foot. The trend lines are plots of mean SSG moduli for each layer thickness and water content. Huang (2004) lists typical Poisson’s ratio for paving materials. This seems to be in agreement with the work by Sawangsuriya et al. For a rigid ring-shaped foot resting on a linear elastic. depending on the relative stiffness of pavement layers. the modulus. homogeneous.

86 cm) base layer 12 in. 6 in. (22. 30 SSG Modulus (ksi) 9 in. (30.45 40 35 SSG Modulus (ksi) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0% 1% 2% 3% Water Content 4% 5% 6% Granular material: CGr A 9 in.48 cm) base layer (a) 35 6 in.86 cm) base layer 12 in. 5% 6% 7% Water Content (b) 65 . 9 in. (30.48 cm) base layer 25 20 9 in. 15 Granular material: MCGr A 10 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 6 in. (22. (15. 6 in.24 cm) base layer 12 in.24 cm) base layer 12 in. (15.

5 0% 1% 2% 4% 5% 6% (d) 66 . 25 20 15 10 Granular material: CGr B 6 in.86 cm) base layer 12 in. Granular material: CL 6 in.48 cm) base layer 30 SSG Modulus (ksi) 12 in. (c) 35 6 in.86 cm) base layer 12 in. 40 30 20 10 0 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% Water Content 10% 12% 14% 6 in. (15. (30.24 cm) base layer 9 in. (15.48 cm) base layer 12 in.24 cm) base layer 9 in. 3% Water Content 9 in. (30.80 70 60 SSG Modulus (ksi) 50 9 in. (22. (22.

50 40 30 20 10 0 0% 1% 2% 3% Water Content Granular material: CMs 9 in.24 cm) base layer 70 60 SSG Modulus (ksi) 12 in. (22. 4% 5% 6% (f) 67 .48 cm) base layer 9 in. 15 6 in.86 cm) base layer 30 12 in.24 cm) base layer 9 in.35 6 in. SSG Modulus (ksi) 25 12 in. 6 in.86 cm) base layer 12 in. (15. (22. (15. 10 Granular material: MCGr B 5 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Water Content 7% 8% 9% (e) 80 6 in. (30. (30.48 cm) base layer 20 9 in.

9 in.24 cm) base layer 70 60 SSG Modulus (ksi) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0% 1% 2% 3% Water Content Granular material: MCMs 6 in. (d) CGr B. (c) CL. about 65 ksi. (15.4 shows a linear relation can be found between measured SSG modulus and the modulus backcalculated from the plate test results. 68 . Note that plate load test results for 6 in. (22. and (g) MCMs Comparison between SSG and Plate Modulus Figure 5. (e) MCGr B. mean SSG moduli are consistent with the plate moduli. (f) CMs. (b) MCGr A. CGr B base layer are not presented as they were disregarded due to testing errors caused by a power surge. Modulus values presented are corrected to optimum water content conditions. (30. The average modulus for Crushed Granite and Crushed Marble-schist is approximately 16 ksi. The results show the Crushed Limestone has the highest average modulus.65 where E p = modulus backcalculated from the static plate test results (ksi). Essg = SSG measured modulus (ksi). 4% 5% 6% (g) Fig.3 compares SSG modulus and modulus backcalculated from the plate test results (Chapter 4). Figure 5. In general.48 cm) base layer 9 in.86 cm) base layer 12 in. The correlation can be expressed as: E p = 0.2 SSG Modulus vs Water Content for Seven GAB Materials: (a) CGr A.66 E ssg + 11. 12 in. 5.80 6 in.

For the GAB materials tested. The following may be concluded from the test results: • SSG modulus is sensitive to changes in water content for unbound GAB materials tested. Summary A large number of SSG and plate load tests have been conducted on seven unbound granular base materials over a range of water content. (15. Caution should be taken in interpreting SSG data for layered conditions especially if the top layer is thin.48 cm) base layers suggest the influence of layer depth for SSG testing may be up to approximately 12 in. the influence of in situ water content and inclusion of independent measurement of water content may be important. a linear 2 correlation was established with a coefficient of determination ( R ) of 0.24 cm).This linear regression produces a coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) of 0. (30. • SSG modulus was found to be in good agreement with modulus backcalculated from plate load test load-deflection data.83. For a field implementation of SSG testing for assessing compacted granular base layers. Further study is recommended. 9 in. indicating a good correlation between SSG and plate modulus. 69 . (22.86 cm) and 12 in.83 for the GAB materials tested. • Results of SSG measurements on 6 in.

base layer (SSG) 9 in. base layer (Plate Load Test) 9 in.90 6 in. base layer (SSG) 6 in.3 Comparison between Moduli from SSG and Plate Load Tests CGr A MCGr B CMs MCMs 70 . 5. base layer (Plate Load Test) 80 70 60 50 40 30 SSG and Plate Modulus (ksi) 20 10 0 MCGr A CL CGr B Material type Fig. base layer(SSG) 12 in. base layer (Plate Load Test) 12 in.

6556x + 11.0 0.xls 100.0 Linear regression 80.0 y = 0.0 80.8322 0. 5.0 30.0 10.Regression.0 40.648 R2 = 0.0 Plate Modulus (ksi) 60.0 50.0 SSG Modulus (ksi) 70.0 40.0 60.4 Correlation between SSG and Plate Moduli for GAB Materials Tested 71 .0 Fig.0 90.0 20.0 20.

. lifts. Gradations for the GAB materials were not available.. The contractor was Satterfield Construction. “US 601” and “SC 72” are used to refer to these two test sections. The second test section is located at SC 72 in Laurens County from South of SC 72/S-46 to E CSX RR near Mountville.. 72 . Field tests were performed during and after construction.. The SC 72 test section includes three 600-ft subsections with base layer thickness of 8 in. GAB base layer without cement stabilized subgrade.. FWD testing was performed.1 in. This test section is 1800 feet long. layer at SC 72 section. 11. and nuclear gauge density-water content testing was performed on exposed compacted GAB layers. and BOUSDEF and concluded all gave remarkably uniform results. In this report. the other three subsections have 6 in.. of cement stabilized subgrade. Ray Miles.9 in.72-in. For FWD tests conducted directly on granular base. Load-deflection data from the 6-kip drops were used for analysis. After HMA layer placement. During construction and without HMA layers in place. They are presumed to meet current SCDOT gradation specifications and to be similar to gradations for the CGr B and CGr A materials used in laboratory testing program. respectively. Johnson (1992) examined three basin-matching programs. a FWD backcalculation program. One subsection has a 6 in. namely EVERCALC. The contractor was C. An exception was the 12 in. One test section is located at US 601 in Chesterfield County from SC 151 to the North Carolina state line. 9. GAB materials utilized for US 601 test section was provided by Martin Marietta Materials Company and GAB materials utilized in SC 72 test section was provided by Vulcan Materials Company.9 in. some FWD. At both test sections the GAB layers were compacted in a single lift.CHAPTER 6 FIELD SOIL STIFFNESS GAUGE AND FWD TESTING PROGRAM AND RESULTS Introduction Two road test sections with compacted unbound GAB lifts were constructed.. 35. GAB layers over 8 in. US 601 test section consists of four 500-ft subsections. and 70. EVERCALC 5. only a limited number of field tests were conducted. The subgrade was not stabilized. Due to construction schedule restrictions and the relatively short time allocated for the field testing.. HMA layer thicknesses were measured from cores (when available) or calculated from design application rates. and 12 in. Deflection sensor spacing was 0 in.0. 10 in. The FWD tests consisted of three drops in the order of approximately 12. diameter FWD plate was used..6 in. However MODULUS and BOUSDEF required considerable judgment in the selection of backcalculation parameters. which was compacted in two 6 in.4 in. and 12 in.. SSG. 10 in. a 17. The test section is 2000 feet long. was used to determine in situ base layer moduli. MODULUS. and 6 kips of peak impact load. The program uses the WESLEA layered elastic analysis program for forward analysis and a modified Augmented Gauss-Newton algorithm for optimization. 53. 23.

1a and 6. diameter FWD plate was used.0045( Ei )1 / 3 where ai = coefficient of relative strength for layer i . dry density was slightly higher along the outer wheel path. In situ density and water content of the base materials were measured at 100 ft intervals using a nuclear density gauge with the probe driven to 3 in. It directly calculates the subgrade modulus from the outer deflection sensor displacements. granular base layer subsections. and 12 in. and 70.9 in.. 6. below the GAB surface. SN eff .1 in. 7.8-in. 6. In general.1a and Fig.4 in. the in situ dry density approximated 95% of the maximum dry density. the other two subsections constructed with 10 in. In situ water contents are included in the plots. the under-plate deflection is used to calculate composite pavement modulus. noticeable variation in dry density for the base layer with cement stabilized subgrade along the center line was observed.. 73 . Both the center line and outer wheel path locations were tested. cement stabilized subgrade were not tested. one subsection with. which is converted to SN eff using the following equation: ai = 0.For FWD tests conducted on HMA layers over GAB. 12. base layers with and without cement stabilized subgrade.1b show FWD and SSG moduli for the two 6 in. Due to construction scheduling issues. and nuclear gauge tests were performed at US 601 on two subsections. the in situ water content was approximately 4% higher than the optimum water content. Ei = modulus of elasticity for layer i . The GAB surface was primed. Compared with the maximum dry density and optimum water content data obtained in the laboratory Proctor compaction tests on a similar granular material (CGr B). 8 in.. Table 6. the other without. Load-deflection data from the 9-kip drops were used for analysis. an 11. SSG. GAB layers on 8 in. FWD data were analyzed using EVERCALC to backcalculate in situ granular base layer moduli. The two subsections had 6 in. Moreover. three SSG tests were performed and averaged. 11.9 in. and 9 kips of peak impact load. FWD. A program SNSC developed by Johnson (1992) was used to compute effective structural number.9 in.6 in. 23. 35. US 601 Field Test Section without HMA In July 2003. GAB thickness.. This program is a computer implementation of the AASHTO NDT Method 2. Fig. cement stabilized subgrade... water content was slightly higher along the center line than along the outer wheel path. The FWD tests consisted of three drops in the order of approximately 16. Deflection sensor spacing was 0 in. At 100 ft intervals. FWD testing intervals were 50 ft or 100 ft. Once the subgrade modulus is known. HMA had not yet been placed and the GAB surface was exposed for direct testing. from FWD measurements. 53.1b summarize nuclear gauge results for the 6 in.

cement stabilized subgrade (Fig.1 Water Content (%) 9.6 ksi and 13.2 125. GAB layer with 8 in.3 122.6 124.1a Nuclear Gauge Results for Base Layer (US 601.1b Nuclear Gauge Results for Base Layer (US 601.8 130.7 ksi along the outer wheel path for FWD and SSG tests. Overall. cement stabilized subgrade) Outer Wheel Path Center Line Station Dry Density Water Content Dry Density Number (pcf) (%) (pcf) 0 127.1 Average 127.8 9. without cement stabilized subgrade) Outer Wheel Path Center Line Station Dry Density Water Content Dry Density Number (pcf) (%) (pcf) 0 128.0 ksi and 16.9 11.Table 6. 6-in.6 200 128.2 11. average SSG moduli were 17.8 9.2 126. Along the center line.5 8. respectively.3 100 127. 6-in granular base layer.7 300 126. may be explained by work by Rauhut and Jordahl (1992). GAB layer without stabilized subgrade (Fig. respectively.4 Average 128.8 123.1 15.3 7.0 9.7 300 128. average moduli were 10. granular base layer.7 100 131.5 Table 6.9 For the 6 in. backcalculated using EVERCALC from FWD results.5 9.3 125.8 8. with 8 in.3 12.1 9. The large variation in the base layer moduli.9 12.2 9.7 124. SSG moduli appear generally more uniform than those backcalculated using EVERCALC.7 200 127.7 118.6 12.1 119.9 ksi and 13.3 Water Content (%) 12.5 13.3 11.7 ksi for FWD and SSG tests.3 128. For the 6 in.8 400 129. a rather larger number of samples was required to achieve an acceptable accuracy and confidence level. 6.1 11. respectively.8 7.8 8. 6. which demonstrated that for base layers. average moduli were 12.9 10.5 117. 74 .6 ksi along the outer wheel path and center line.4 400 128.1a).0 126.0 9.0 10.7 500 124. the SSG measured moduli are in reasonably good agreement with the FWD backcalculated moduli.1b).8 8.

60 12 50 10 Modulus (ksi) 40 Outer W.P. (SSG) Center Line (FWD-EVERCALC) Center Line (SSG) Outer W. (Water content) Center Line(Water content) 8 30 6 20 4 10 2 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 600 Station Number Fig. without cement stabilized subgrade) 75 Water content (%) .P. 6.1a Comparison of FWD and SSG Moduli (US 601. 6 in.P (FWD-EVERCALC) Outer W. granular base layer.

76 Water content (%) 80 Modulus (Ksi) .P. Line (Water Content) Center (Water content) 60 8 40 6 4 20 2 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 600 Station Number Fig. For the 10 in. The HMA surface layer was not in place yet. Test results (see Table 6. and nuclear gauge tests were performed at 200 ft intervals along all three subsections at SC 72. nuclear gauge tests were performed using a probe depth of 4 in. the in situ water content was approximately 2% lower than the optimum water content. SSG. and 8 in.P. Compared with the maximum dry density and optimum water content data obtained by laboratory Proctor compaction tests on a similar granular material (CGr A). nuclear gauge tests were performed using probe depths of 4 in. with dry density ranging from 130 pcf to 138 pcf with a mean of 135 pcf and water content ranging from 2% to 3% with a mean of 2%. Line (SSG) Center (SSG) 18 16 14 12 10 100 Outer W. 6 in. Both the outer wheel path and the center line were tested. cement stabilized subgrade) SC 72 Field Test Section without HMA In September 2003. (SSG) Center (FWD-EverCalc) Center W.P. with 8 in.2) indicate that the in situ dry density and water content of the base layers are relatively uniform.1b Comparison of FWD and SSG Moduli (US 601.P. 6. base layer.P. and 12 in. Line (FWD-EVERCALC) Center W. granular base layer.120 Outer W. FWD.P. the in situ dry density approximated 98% of the maximum dry density. For the 8 in. (Water content) Center W.(FWD-EverCalc) Outer W. base layers.

and 12 in.3 134. 6. theoretically the FWD moduli for granular materials would be higher than the SSG moduli since the stress induced by FWD impact loading is greater than induced by the SSG. and 12 in.7 133.8 133.3.2 54500 Layer 54300 10 in.3 132.9 134. 6.2 1. Johnson and Baus (1993) demonstrated a trend of underestimation of backcalculated unbound granular base moduli and overestimation of subgrade and HMA layer moduli when using basin-matching backcalculation programs.7 2.9 134. base layers. 137.5 1.9 54700 Base 135.2a and 6.7 130.0 136.8 2.3 2.8 3. September 2003) Outer Wheel Path Center Line Station * * Dry Density Water Content Dry Density* Water Content* Number (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) 54900 12 in.5 136.5 134.5 2.3 135. base layers..1 Base 54100 137.5 131. 133. depth Fig.0 1.7 2.6 2.2 2.1 * For 10 in.4 139. 10 in.0 1. the SSG and FWD moduli appear similar. It can be seen that the mean moduli increases slightly with increasing base layer thickness.2b present SSG and FWD moduli (backcalculated using EVERCALC) for the 8 in.1 1.1 1. In general. 134.8 53900 Layer 53700 8 in.1 53300 Layer Average 134.0 2. However.9 2.8 2.2 Nuclear Gauge Results for Base Layers (SC 72. dry density and water content are the average of measurements at 4 in..4 2. SSG moduli are generally slightly higher than the FWD moduli.2 1.5 2.Table 6. Also. This is in agreement with an investigation by Mckane (2000) that demonstrated that SSG moduli were higher than both FWD and portable falling weight deflectometer (PFWD) values. Also shown are overall mean modulus values for each base layer thickness. and 8 in. 77 . FWD and SSG results were averaged and plotted in Fig.9 53500 Base 133.

6. base layer (SSG) 10 in. base layer (SSG) 53200 53400 53600 53800 54000 54200 54400 54600 54800 55000 Station number Fig.20 18 16 14 Modulus (ksi) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 53000 12 in. base layer (FWD-EVERCALC) 12 in.2a Comparison of FWD and SSG Moduli (SC 72. outer wheel path) 78 . base layer (FWD-EVERCALC) 8 in.base layer (FWD-EVERCALC) 10 in. base layer (SSG) 8 in.

base layer (FWD-EVERCALC) 6 4 2 0 53000 10 in.2b Comparison of FWD and SSG Moduli (SC 72.base layer (FWD-EVERCALC) 8 in. 6. base layer (SSG) 10 in.base layer (SSG) 53200 53400 53600 53800 54000 54200 54400 54600 54800 55000 Station number Fig. base layer (SSG) 8 in. center line) 79 . base layer (FWD-EVERCALC) 12 in.20 18 16 14 Modulus (Ksi) 12 10 8 12 in.

FWD tests were performed and the SNSC computer program was used to compute structural numbers. in the absence of cores. total HMA thickness was computed from the total application rate.8 10 8 6 4 2 0 8 in.5 presents results from SC 72 obtained in November 2004. HMA thickness was computed based on these design application rates. In the absence of cores. SN.1 12 9. 6.3 12 in.20 18 16 14 Outer W. the pavement was complete and in use. Table 6. September 2003) US 601 and SC 72 Field Test Section with HMA in Place For the US 601 and SC 72 field test sections with HMA layers placed.5. Structural number of a flexible pavement can be expressed as: SN = a1 D1 + a 2 D2 + a3 D3 80 . At the time of testing. Line (FWD) Center (SSG) CenterW. layer coefficient values ( a 2 ) were computed from structural numbers calculated using the SNSC computer program. (FWD) Outer W. Results are summarized in Table 6.3 presents SNSC results from FWD tests conducted at US 601 in September 2003. Line (SSG) Average Modulus (ksi) 12. HMA layer thicknesses were measured using HMA core samples. Table 6. At this time. To evaluate the base layers.4 and 6. Table 6. base layer 10 in. Again. (SSG) Center (FWD) CenterW. 850 psy of asphalt aggregate base course and 200 psy of binder were in place.3. base layer Base layers Fig.P.4 presents SNSC results from FWD tests conducted at US 601 in October 2004.P.3 Mean FWD and SSG Moduli (SC 72.P. base layer 12. At that time a total of 1250 psy of HMA layer was in place. 6.P.

it is recommended a long-term testing program be conducted to investigate the influence of traffic and environmental factors on the performance of flexible pavements with increased base layer thickness above the current SCDOT limitation of 8 in. and from 8 in. it is not known why the computed a2 values are higher when using the October 2004 data (1250 psy of HMA in place) compared to the September 2003 data (1050 psy of HMA in place). Table 6. 81 . D2 . As only a limited number of tests were performed over a relatively short time. It can be seen that the changes in layer coefficients for base layers are not significant with the increase of base layer thickness from 6 in.44 and a3 = 0. it is not known why the US 601 a2 values are higher than the SC 72 values (where about 5 inches of HMA was in place at the time of testing). To compute a 2 . to 12 in. and a3 are layer coefficients for the surface.) of the surface. This overestimation tendency may be the cause for the high a2 values for the GAB layers under the substantial HMA layer thicknesses at the US 601 site. As a 2 is a measure of the relative ability of a unit thickness of base material to function as a pavement structural component. and D3 are the thickness (in in. base. to 12 in. D1 . for SC 72. and subbase. Johnson (1992) demonstrated that SNSC tends to overestimate backcalculated structural number when the asphalt layer is thick and not distressed. respectively. Also. At the US 601 site. the test results seem to suggest it is possible for SCDOT to relax current layer thickness of 8 in.15 are used. base. for US 601. the above equation is rewritten as: a2 = SN − a1 D1 − a3 D3 D2 In this report. a 2 . to 12 in.Where a1 . respectively.6 lists the calculated a 2 values for base layers at the US 601 and SC 72 test sections. and subbase. theoretical values for a1 = 0.

28 7. Base Layer w/ 8-in.44 7. Cement Stabilized Subgrade Nominal Station Number Effective Structural Number 10-in.97 7.30 7.24 7. Base Layer w/ 8-in.56 5.18 7.22 3.90 7.66 6.96 7.59 7.3% 0 50 100 150 200 251 300 350 401 450 500 550 600 6. Cement Stabilized Subgrade Nominal Station Number Effective Structural Number 12-in.Table 6.82 6.47 7.45 8.02 7.2% 82 .51 6.23 6.49 9.10 7.01 7.52 8.83 6.3 Effective Structural Number from SNSC (US 601: 850 psy of asphalt aggregate base course and 200 psy of binder in place) 6-in.22 7.6% 0 50 100 150 201 250 301 351 400 450 500 550 593 5.14 7.83 6.58 7.21 7.56 6. Cement Stabilized Subgrade Nominal Station Number Effective Structural Number 0 50 100 150 201 251 300 350 400 450 500 551 Mean CV 6.75 7.90 8.90 5.06 6.47 6.79 7.24 5.57 6.36 7.63 8.82 6. Base Layer w/ 8-in.

19 9.66 7.36 9.26 2.09 6.7% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 8.78 9.28 9.4 Effective Structural Number from SNSC (US 601 field test section: nominal 1250 psy HMA thickness) 6-in. Base Layer w/ 8-in.29 10.48 9.79 9.61 7. Base Layer w/ 8-in.77 9.85 7.77 4.32 10.74 8.53 9.17 9.34 9.12 9. Base Layer w/ 8-in.98 7.4% 83 .93 9.76 9.85 8. Cement Stabilized Subgrade Nominal Station Number Effective Structural Number 12-in.51 9.42 9.45 8.9% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 9.08 9.39 9.21 9.18 8.56 10.4 9.56 7.06 7. Cement Stabilized Subgrade Nominal Station Number Effective Structural Number 10-in.79 9.72 7.75 8.11 9.Table 6.08 10.63 6. Cement Stabilized Subgrade Nominal Station Number Effective Structural Number 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 Mean CV 7.

33 3.28 3.26 4.59 3.4% 12-in.20 8.46 3.76 3.67 3.45 3.48 3.89 3.16 3.83 3.45 3.35 3.26 4.97 3.17 3.22 3.1 2.1 3.45 3. Base Layer (HMA layer thickness = 5 in.12 3.38 4. Base Layer (HMA layer thickness = 5 in.48 3.75 in.21 3.61 3.62 3.7% 84 .1% 10-in.44 4.36 5.Table 6.95 8.) Nominal Station Number 53695 53650 53600 53550 53500 53449 53400 53350 53294 53249 53200 53695 Mean CV Effective Structural Number 3.95 2.) Nominal Station Number 54900 54850 54800 54750 54699 54650 54599 54549 54500 54450 54400 54350 54305 Effective Structural Number 4.5 Effective Structural Number from SNSC (SC 72 field test section) 8-in. Base Layer (HMA layer thickness = 4.95 3.55 3.44 3.64 3.) Nominal Station Number 54295 54250 54200 54150 54098 54050 53999 53950 53900 53850 53798 53749 53704 Effective Structural Number 3.36 2.68 3.68 3.25 4.37 2.

22 12-in. suggesting it is possible for SCDOT to relax current maximum layer thickness of 8 in.35 10-in.36 12-in.) 0. cement Stabilized Subgrade 0. 2004 8-in. Cement Stabilized Subgrade 0. Cement Stabilized Subgrade 0.34 a2 SC 72 Nov. Cement Stabilized Subgrade 0. It is recommended that a long-term testing program be conducted to investigate the influence of traffic and environmental factors on the performance of flexible pavements with increased base layer thickness.16 a2 Summary The following may be summarized from the analysis and comparisons of the field test results: • In general..13 12-in. Base Layer (HMA layer thickness = 4. Base Layer w/ 8-in.Table 6. Base Layer w/ 8-in. Base Layer w/ 8-in.75 in.6 Layer Coefficients for Base Layers US 601 1050 psy HMA Sep.14 10-in. and show less variation. • The changes in base layer moduli and layer coefficients are relatively insignificant when base layer thickness increases from 8 in to 12 in. to 12 in. Base Layer w/ 8-in. Base Layer w/ 8-in. Base Layer (HMA layer thickness = 5 in. Cement Stabilized Subgrade 0.21 a2 US 601 1250 psy HMA Oct. 2003 6-in. 85 .) 0. 2004 6-in. Base Layer w/ 8-in. the SSG measured moduli are in good agreement with FWD backcalculated moduli. Cement Stabilized Subgrade 0.) 0. Base Layer (HMA layer thickness = 5 in.24 10-in.

The research approach used is to compare modulus and permanent deformation resistance of the GAB materials. Blacksburg Quarry.1 indicates that modified GAB materials have higher modulus values than unmodified materials. Nuclear gauge tests were performed to measure compacted density and water content. Routine laboratory tests were also performed on the granular materials to determine the soil physical properties. and 12 in. 9 in. Plate load and Soil Stiffness Gauge (SSG) tests were performed on GAB layers compacted in the laboratory. the moduli shown in Fig. 7.. CGr B and MCGr B are Crushed Granite and Crushed Granite with gradation modified by allowing additional material passing the No.1 are averaged modulus values for 6 in. Columbia Quarry. and 12 in. 7. FWD tests results were analyzed using SNSC and EVERCALC programs. Conclusions Influence of Gradation Fig. 7. The backcalculated moduli were compared with field SSG measurements. except for CGR B material whose plate modulus was an average of 9 in. 3. Rutting resistance was measured by full-scale laboratory cyclic plate load tests. respectively. Jefferson Quarry. base layer thicknesses. 4 sieve.1 presents average GAB moduli determined from laboratory static plate load tests and SSG tests. Seven granular base materials used by the SCDOT were tested. evaluated at optimum water content.. GAB modulus was measured in full-scale laboratory pit tests and in field test sections. Fig. 4 sieve. In the laboratory pit tests. The gradations of the GAB materials are shown in Table 3.4. They were produced by Martin Marietta. respectively. base layer thicknesses. For each base material.2 and Fig. CGr A and MCGr A are Crushed Granite that meet current SCDOT gradation specifications and Crushed Granite with gradation modified by allowing additional material passing the No. The GAB moduli inferred from plate load tests were compared with the SSG measured moduli.CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The primary objectives of this study were to 1) investigate the feasibility of relaxing current SCDOT GAB gradation specifications and 2) investigate the feasibility of allowing GAB layer thicknesses greater than 8 inches in flexible highway pavement structures. Two field test sections were installed and tested using a FWD and SSG. In the field sections. CMs and MCMs represent Crushed Marble-schist and Modified Marble-schist produced by Vulcan Materials Company. A linear program was developed to backcalculate the GAB modulus from static plate load test results. They were produced by Vulcan Materials Company. finite element analysis was performed to compare the stressstrain conditions and deflections under wheel load and plate load. suggesting the influence of gradation relaxation is positive in the GAB materials as a structural 86 . Similarly.

modulus decreased from 77 ksi to 39 ksi. gradations for the as-compacted limestone base were not 87 .9 Fig. An exception to this occurred for Crushed Marine Limestone. Increasing the SCDOT’s current 12% fines content limit is not recommended. 35 Average SSG Modulus SSG and Plate Modulus (ksi) 30 25 20 15. base layer thicknesses were 8 in.1 13. 4 sieve from the current limit of 50 % to 60% (the current SCDOT limit for passing the No.9 15 10 5 0 CGr A MCGr A CGr B MCGr B CMs MCMs Material type 13. and 12 in.5 22. Barksdale et al.6. base layer thicknesses were 6 in... Unfortunately... 10 in.. An examination of gradation uniformity of the GAB materials shows that poorly-graded materials tend to have lower rutting resistance than well-graded materials.. 10 in. In the laboratory tests.8 15. Based on the test results. and the base layer thicknesses were 6 in. for which under laboratory compaction.1 28. 4 sieve for Marine Limestone) be included in revised interim SCDOT gradation specifications.3 12. the changes in moduli or layer coefficients of GAB materials are relatively insignificant in the range of base layer thickness of 6 in.4 18.component of flexible pavement structures. 4 sieve alone is not a determinable factor for material rutting resistance. percent passing No. (1997) and other researchers found permanent deformation of GAB materials doubled when fines content increased from 10% to 16%. 7. for the GAB materials tested in this study.0 9.6 Average Plate Modulus 21.1 Average GAB Moduli Measured with Static Plate Load Tests and SSG Tests Cyclic plate load test results suggest that. Influence of Base Layer Thickness Fig. lifts. and 12 in. 7. This may be due in part to material degradation caused by laboratory compaction using 3 in. it is proposed that gradation relaxation of the maximum percent passing the No. and 12 in. and 12 in. Base layer coefficients of US 601 field sections are listed in Table 6. Generally. 9 in.6 6.2 presents moduli of GAB materials measured with the laboratory static plate load tests and field FWD tests.. In the field FWD tests (SC 72 field section).7 15.

It should be pointed out that selection of base layer thickness in pavement design requires consideration of other structural components of flexible pavements.measured for each layer thickness. it seems reasonable to recommend that the SCDOT allow base layer thickness greater than 8 in. the relatively low values of a2 determined for some GABs from the laboratory test results and the somewhat inconsistent a2 results from the FWD data from the field test sections may suggest that the SCDOT should reconsider the use of a2 = 0. Up to 12 in. 88 .18 has produced flexible pavement structures that have performed well for the SCDOT and with the coming change to mechanistic-empirical (NCHRP 1-37A) design procedures. Overall. Although evaluation of a2 values for SCDOT GAB materials was not part of this study. base layer thickness is recommended on a trial basis. Conversely.18 for all GAB materials. since the use of 0. efforts to re-evaluate GAB a2 values may not be warranted.

2 GAB Moduli Measured with Static Plate Load Tests and Field FWD Tests CGr A CMs MCMs SC 72 Field Section 89 . (Plate Test) or 10 in. (Plate Test) or 8 in. (Field FWD Test) Base Layer 59 12 in.90 77 6 in. (Field FWD Test) Base Layer 9 in. 7. Base Layer 80 70 60 50 39 33 25 25 24 14 16 19 21 18 26 27 18 14 14 9 10 12 40 Resilient Modulus (ksi) 30 20 15 17 16 10 0 MCGr A CL CGr B MCGr B GAB type Fig.

Texas. compared to other devices that are either more time consuming. Comparisons of laboratory and field SSG measurements with plate load test results and FWD test results indicate SSG has great potential to directly measure stiffness of base and subgrade materials. Construction and longterm monitoring of new flexible pavement test sections with thick (greater than 8 in. difficult to use.) GAB layers and modified GAB gradations – constructed with careful quality control and appropriate instrumentation – are recommended. requires extensive field calibration partially due to principle stress rotation under moving wheel loads. 90 . reevaluation of the use a2 = 0. It is therefore recommended that a long-term monitoring program be conducted on the two field test sections that have varied base layer thicknesses. are far more complicated than can be reproduced in environment-controlled laboratory setups. Research conducted in North Carolina.Recommendations and Future Studies Conclusions made in this report are based on a limited number of laboratory and field tests. It is recommended that the SCDOT consider implementation of SSG testing as a construction quality control device and consider possible use of SSG stiffness or modulus in future mechanistic-empirical pavement designs. The SSG provides an alternative tool for pavement material quality assurance and control in construction. Field environmental and wheel load conditions. or require cumbersome operational procedures.18 for all GAB materials may be justified. Prediction of unbound material rutting resistance. and other states confirms this potential. As mentioned on page 88. for example. Maryland. and variation of structural components.

91 . and Ehrola. N... 2000. 5-21. DC. “Dynamic Testing as a Means of Controlling Pavements during and after Construction. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. pp.. 3. 1998.Elliot.. P. Phase I: A Test Protocol. “Permanent Deformation of Subgrade Soils. Busching.D. R. Ryynänen. 1965. “Factor Influencing the Resilient Response of Granular Materials.. Vol. P. Appendix: Documentation of Design Procedures. and Qiu..T. 6th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 1972. S.” Proceedings. 1993. Berkman. Version 3. 1971. and Monismith. and Hall. AR. Brown. M. pp. 138. “Soil Stiffness Gauge for Soil Compaction Control.W. ASCE.. pp.. “A New Approach for Investigating the Permanent Deformation Behavior of Unbound Granular Material Using the Repeated Load Triaxial Apparatus. TRB.. J.” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements.. E.. Washington. Third International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavement. Little Rock. Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design: Final Report. C.P. and Schwartz. Rostron.. Dennis. University of Michigan. Vol. A. 1992. S. 1987. 1998. K.. GeoGauge (Soil Stiffness/Modulus) User Guide. 1997. Vol 2. 771-781. H. R.. C. pp.. and O’Reilly. A. and Thom.G. Heukelom.F.” MBTC FR 1069. No. K.. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.. 4.1215-1229. G. A. Vol. 1986.L. 2001. Gidel.L. “Assessing Variability of In situ Pavement Stiffness Moduli. 2001. and Klomp. Washington. 1982. 1962.” Proceedings. and Dimillio.41-45.8. E... Elliott. “Laboratory Evaluation of Rutting in Base Course Materials..” Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Asphalt Pavements. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. No. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Study 20-7.E.. Vol. GT10. Clemson. S. “Repetitive Load Deformation of Cohesionless Soil. Y. Belt. et al. pp. DC. NCHRP Project 1-28. T. Seattle . V.. March.D. Loach. 108. “Calculation of Bed for Foundation with Ring Footing. Nelson. March–April. 34. ASCE. A. Final Report for Research Project No. 1971. Clemson University.. Repeated Loading of Fine Grained Soils. A.. Humboldt Mfg..D. 161-174. 1. 74-81. G. Barksdale R. R. 1997. 2. SC.. Vol.” Public Roads. and Raymond. F. pp.I. Darter....” Bulletin Des Laboratoires Des Ponts Et Chaussées -233.P.P.” J. P. Transp.G.. J.J. Engrg. C. H. R.. C. JulyAugust. pp. J. R. and Horny.. AASHTO. M. Diyaljee. Hicks. TRRL Contractor Report 72. Barksdale. F.E. An Evaluation of the Relative Strength of Flexible Pavement Components.. National Research Council. “Mechanical Properties of Unbound Base Course. 61. Collop.” HRB 345.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering. Co. Roberts. W. pp. Revision of AASHTO Pavement Overlay Design Procedures. 522.REFERENCES AASHTO. 127 (1). Egorov. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.. N. Armitage. Fiedler.

National Research Council. “Use of In situ Penetration Tests in Pavement Evaluation. Vol (1) Jan/Feb. F.. “Boundary Effects in Modeling Foundations Subjected to Vertical Excitation. Research Report Prepared for Vulcan Materials Company. Ph. J. pp. “In Situ Field Testing of Mechanical Properties. H. and Holden. 473-480. A. Washington DC. 1-17. C. Nazarian.. G. A. “Field and Laboratory Evaluation of the Mechanical Behavior of Unbound Granular Materials in Pavement. Abdallah. Netherlands. J. K.. Lekarp. and Pu.R. Increased Single-Lift Thicknesses for Unbound Aggregate Base Courses. International Conference on Centrifuge. Balkema. Kopperman. Ke. DC. 2004. J. L. pp.L. M. Mckane.. and Sha’at. R.. Johnson. T.Huang. C.. S. National Research Council.B. 1991.. TX. R.A. Lenke. A Sensitivity Study of Parameters Involved in Design with Seismic Moduli. Increased Single-Lift Depths for Aggregate Base Course in Highway Construction.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 92 . and Dawson A. Pak.E. Bueno. Washington. Kalinski.M. H.” Transportation Research Record 1406. U.. DC. TRB..L.. “State of Art I: Resilient Response of Unbound Aggregates. . and Lachance. Dawson.H. Department of Transportation. NJ. R.. Johnson. Farouki. R... Research Report 1780-2... A. 133-141. International Center for Aggregates Research. TRB.” Journal of Transportation Engineering. Ogawa. Kamal. 1975. Technical Report ICAR 501-5F. Geotech. R. University of Texas at El Paso.-Y.. Washington. Myers. SC. 1992. Phillips.1993. A.A. Raleigh. D. 2000.” Transportation Research Record 1406.T.” Rep.. Design of Flexible Pavement Overlays by Dynamic Deflections.” 48th Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference. J. Center for Highway Materials Research. J. 1993. 2ed..A. pp. and Tseng...H. K. A.S. 2001. dissertation. 1986.. 2003. Kimley-Horn and Associates.. 1996... and Baus.” Can. Tiller. D.. NC.” Proceedings. ASCE. U. 2000. and Yung. No.. TX. pp. “Applicability of Resilient Constitutive Models of Granular Material for Unbound Base Layers. 1998. Konrad. Lekarp.. L. M.” TRB 537. FHWA-TS-87-206. Upper Saddle River. N. “Interactive Microcomputer Version. M. FHWA. L. I. and Stokoe. J. Transportation Research Board. “Simplified Direct Calculation of Subgrade Modulus from Nondestructive Pavement Deflection Testing. D. 1998. M.” HRB 1406. J.. II. D. Pearson Prentice Hall. and Dawson... L. Pavement Analysis and Design.” TRB RE 960372. Isacsson. of South Carolina... DC. “A Permanent Deformation Characteristics of Subgrade Soils due to Repeated Loading. S. User’s Manual. O.. Allen.M.. Transportation Research Board. Washington. Monismith. “Use of Stiffness for Evaluating Compactness of Cohesive Pavement Geomaterials. University of Minnesota Young Engineering Paper Competition. “Some Influences on the Permanent Deformation Behavior of Unbound Granular Materials.. and Freeme. Univ. S. Inc. and Ko. Darson. O. M. A. 2000. 1993. M. F. 98-107. Karasahin. ELSYM5. Hughes. 2000. 38: 924-935.. R..

Thesis. 1986. South Carolina Department of Transportation. South Carolina Department of Transportation. of Nottingham. Ping. Washington. Performance-Related Tests of Aggregates for Use in Unbound Pavement Layers. Z. and Witczak... Univ. 2001.D. 2004. The Structural Design of Bituminous Roads. K. Thesis. Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. pp. 78-87. 1994. Stress-strain Relationships for Granular Materials under Repeated Loading. G. TRRL Report LR 1132. M. Columbia. “Apparatus for Repeated Loading Tests on Soils.. Washington..D. Washington. H. South Carolina Department of Transportation.. DC. H. Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.W.B. B. W. TRB. L. C.F. No. Rada. NCHRP Report No. SC. National Research Council. DC. 2002. 1967. and Barker. M. 1778. pp.C. C. W.” 83rd Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board. P. A..” Transportation Research Record.N. D.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. “Measuring Resilient Modulus of Granular Materials in Flexible Pavement. and Fead. 62. T. H. Ph. P.. PA. Rahim. M. P. Santha. Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. B.B. “Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils: comparison of two constitutive equations”. Netherlands. Delft University of Technology. SC. pp. Washington DC. Washington. SCDOT. Transportation Research Record 1462. DC..” Transportation Research Record 810. Columbia. “Variability in Measured Deflections and Backcalculated Moduli for the Strategic Highway Research Program Southern Regian. F.. Sweere.E. TRB. Rauhut.” Transportation Research Record. National Research Council. R. Columbia. Monismith. 17-25.. 1964. Mitry. W.W. South Carolina Department of Transportation. G.. 1981. NCHRP Rept. Seed. SC. Washington. 30-37. Powell.” Ph. Transportation Research Board. and Dietrich... SCDOT. Delft. pp 79-90.C. K. C. V.. A. 81-90. Columbia. and Chan. 453. “Subgrade Soil Index Properties to Estimate Resilient Modulus.. SC.” American Society for Testing Materials. Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. DC. 1990. A. and George.Transportation Research Board. Sawangsuriya. Saeed. DC.. TRB. UK. STP No. “Laboratory Evaluation of the Soil Stiffness Gauge. 1984. 254. G. D.. National Research Council. SCDOT.. Philadelphia. 2002. and Jordahl..J. 35. Hall. Washington. 1980. 2001. TRB. 1959. B. “A Comprehensive Evaluation of Laboratory Resilient Moduli Results for Granular Soils. H. SC. and Mayhew. Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. TRB. pp... National Research Council..H. and Edil. DC... 93 .. B. Shaw. pp. No. Liu. J. and Numm.. Seed. Washington. J. Yang. 11-19.. 1939. 1849.L. Potter. P. South Carolina Department of Transportation. Prediction of Flexible Pavement Deflections from Laboratory Repeated Load Tests. Columbia. 1377. pp. 1992. Bosscher. “Unbound Granular Bases for Roads. SCDOT. Transportation Research Board.T. Washington DC. 1955.W. 1808. SCDOT.. J.

Bilyeu.L. M. D. Univ.H. Design of Road Foundations. Harmonized Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design. M. and Brown... ASTM STP 1026. R. Witczak. Thompson. of Nottingham.. 1975.” Non-destructive Testing of Pavements and Back-calculation of Moduli. J. 1988. Austin.. 1989. Using a Stiffness Gauge as an Alternative Quality Control Device in Pavement Construction. of Illinois. 94 . W.” Transportation Research Record 1278. TBR. Texas Department of Transportation.. IL. National Research Council. and Smith K. DC. DC. and Witczak. “Back-analyzed Elastic Stiffness: Comparing between Different Evaluation Procedures. 1985. et al. Uzan. 1990.O. Ph. N. pp. New York. Yoder. 1998. Arellano.R. W. “Repeated Triaxial Characterization of Granular Bases. M. 189-200..” Transportation Research Record 1022. O.. Washington.W. S... Thompson. Washington. F... UK.D. E. 2003. Evaluation of Flexible Pavement Behaviors with Emphasis on the Behaviors of Granular Layers. Univ. TRB.. Thesis. Washington. 1969. 52-59.. TX. “Characterization of Granular Material. Wu. M. Chen. NCHRP Project 1-28A.Tam. S. PhD Dissertation. and He. National Research Council. Wiley. J. Principles of Pavement Design. Thom. DC. J..

50 95 . FHWA-SC-06-03 Investigation of Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) Courses Baus.PRINTING COSTS Report No. Li Total Printing Cost: Total Number of Documents: Cost per unit: $595.00 70 $8.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful