You are on page 1of 139

Copyright

by
Rong Luo
2007

The Dissertation Committee for Rong Luo Certifies that this is the approved version
of the following dissertation:
85B

Minimizing Longitudinal Pavement Cracking Due to
86B

Subgrade Shrinkage
87B

Committee:
Jorge A. Prozzi, Supervisor
Kenneth H. Stokoe, II
C. Michael Walton
Jorge G. Zornberg
Loukas F. Kallivokas
Krishnaswamy Ravi-Chandar

Minimizing Longitudinal Pavement Cracking Due to
8B

Subgrade Shrinkage
89B

by
97B

Rong Luo, B.E.; M.E.
90B

Dissertation
91B

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy
92B

The University of Texas at Austin
93B

August 2007
94B

To My Parents .

I extend my gratitude to the other members of my dissertation committee. Dr. Dr. Jan Slack for her kind assistance. Zornberg. Prozzi. Last but not least. Kenneth H. I appreciate my parents and husband. willingness to help and precious support. for their endless help and advice. and Dr. v . It has been a privilege and pleasure to work with him. Krishnaswamy Ravi-Chandar. Jessica Y. Michael Walton. for his invaluable advice. Kallivokas. My special thanks go to Ms. Many thanks go to all my friends at UT for their encouragement. guidance and encouragement through the whole time of my study at The University of Texas at Austin.Acknowledgements 98B I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. who always motivates and supports me to pursue an academic career. Loukas F. Jorge A. I would have never realized my potential or developed a strong passion to be a researcher in the area of pavement design and modeling without his long-term support. Guo. Dr. who are always with me. Jorge G. Stokoe. II. my supervisor. I am sincerely grateful to Dr. Dr. C.

Longitudinal cracking on the Farm-to-Market (FM) network is one of the most prevalent pavement distresses caused by volumetric changes of expansive subgrades. ABAQUS. to determine the shrinkage stresses in the subgrade soil and pavement vi . 2007 Supervisor: Jorge A. The University of Texas at Austin. However. Engineering practice has shown that geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment can effectively reduce the reflection of longitudinal cracking on the pavement over shrinking subgrade.Minimizing Longitudinal Pavement Cracking Due to 95B Subgrade Shrinkage 96B Publication No. Ph._____________ Rong Luo. The non-uniform matric suction change in the subgrade is simulated by a thermal expansion model in a finite element program. The use of geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment is mostly based on empirical engineering experience and has not been addressed in depth. This network has suffered from the detrimental effects of expansive soils in the subgrade for decades.D. Prozzi The State of Texas has the most extensive network of surface-treated pavements in the nation. little is known about the mechanism leading to the propagation of the shrinkage cracks to the surface of the pavement. This dissertation research evaluates the stress field and constitutive models of the subgrade soil subjected to matric suction change.

higher tensile strength and higher fracture toughness. The combination of geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment offers the most benefit for the control of dry-land longitudinal cracking.structure. In a pavement with a lime-treated layer. The lime treatment can improve the mechanical properties of the expansive soil in several ways. where tensile stresses exceed the tensile strength of the untreated soil. which has increased fracture toughness. A geogrid with a higher stiffness further reduces the stress intensity factor at the upper tip of the shrinkage crack. vii . the stress concentration at the initial shrinkage crack tip is large enough to drive the crack to propagate further. Numerical solution by the finite element analysis shows that the most likely location of shrinkage crack initiation in the subgrade is close to the pavement shoulder and close to the interface of the base and subgrade. When the shrinkage crack propagates through the whole pavement structure. The possible location of the shrinkage crack initiation is not in the lime-stabilized soil but in the untreated natural soil close to the bottom of the lime-treated layer. a longitudinal crack develops at the pavement surface close to the pavement shoulder. this dissertation investigates the mechanism of geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment. the best place to install the geogrid is at the interface between the lime-stabilized layer and the untreated natural soil. If using a geogrid with high stiffness. Linear elastic fracture mechanics theory is used to analyze the crack propagation in the pavement. The lime-treated soil has lower plasticity index. The geogrid can significantly reduce the stress concentration at the crack tip if the geogrid is placed at the bottom of the base. the Mode I stress intensity factor may be reduced to a certain level that is lower than the fracture toughness of the pavement material. Based on the analysis of shrinkage crack propagation. Compared to the fracture toughness of the pavement materials. The shrinkage crack is less likely to develop through lime-treated soil.

Table of Contents
9B

List of Tables ...........................................................................................................x
List of Figures ........................................................................................................ xi
Chapter 1 Research Motivation ...............................................................................1
1.1 Background of Expansive Soils ................................................................1
1.2 Engineering Problems due to Expansive Soils .........................................4
1.3 Research Objectives..................................................................................6
1.4 Dissertation Outline ..................................................................................7
Chapter 2 Stress Analysis of Pavement Subgrade ...................................................9
2.1 Stress Analysis on Saturated Soil .............................................................9
2.2 Stress Analysis on Unsaturated Soil .......................................................11
2.3 Volumetric Change Theory of Unsaturated Soil ....................................15
2.4 Determination of Matric Suction Profile ................................................20
2.5 Summary .................................................................................................26
Chapter 3 Modeling of Pavement over Shrinking Subgrade .................................28
3.1 Model Construction ................................................................................29
3.2 Matric Suction Simulation and Model Constraints.................................32
3.3 Finite Element Mesh ...............................................................................47
3.4 Simulation Results and Analysis ............................................................47
3.5 Summary .................................................................................................49
Chapter 4 Propagation of Crack in Pavement........................................................54
4.1 Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics .....................................................54
4.2 Toughness of Pavement Materials ..........................................................58
4.3 Crack Propagation Process .....................................................................60
4.4 Summary .................................................................................................63
Chapter 5 Benefit of Geogrid Reinforcement........................................................66
5.1 Mechanism of geogrid Reinforcement....................................................66
viii

5.2 Modeling of Geogrid...............................................................................69
5.3 Summary .................................................................................................70
Chapter 6 Benefit of Lime Treatment....................................................................74
6.1 Background of Lime Treatment..............................................................75
6.2 Model Construction of Pavement with Lime-Treated Layer..................81
6.3 Crack Development in Untreated Subgrade Soil ....................................89
6.4 Summary .................................................................................................97
Chapter 7 Combined Effect of Lime Treatment and Geogrid Reinforcement.......99
7.1 Determination of Geogrid Location........................................................99
7.3 Modeling of Pavement with Geogrid and Lime Treatment ..................103
7.3 Summary ...............................................................................................107
Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................117
8.1 Conclusions...........................................................................................117
8.2 Recommendations for Further Research...............................................120
Bibliography ........................................................................................................122
Vita ……………………………………………………………………………..127

ix

List of Tables
0B

Table 1.1 Properties of Clay Minerals…………………………………………………….3
Table 2.1 Typical Values of a and b Corresponding to Mineral Classification (Lytton,
2004) ................................................................................................................................. 20
Table 3.1 Matric Suction Distribution in Wet Subgrade Soil........................................... 33
Table 3.2 Matric Suction Distribution in Dry Subgrade Soil ........................................... 34
Table 3.3 Logarithm of Matric Suction Change in Modeled Pavement Subgrade........... 35
Table 4.1 Stress Intensity Factors of Trial Cracks............................................................ 62
Table 6.1 Stress Intensity Factors of Trial Cracks in Pavement with Lime-Treated Layer
........................................................................................................................................... 90
Table 6.2 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks ................................................... 94
Table 7.1 Mode I Stress Intensity Factor of Shrinkage Cracks in Pavement with Geogrid
Reinforcement and Lime Treatment ............................................................................... 102
Table 7.2 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 400 kN/m)
......................................................................................................................................... 108
Table 7.3 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 800 kN/m)
......................................................................................................................................... 109
Table 7.4 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 1600 kN/m)
......................................................................................................................................... 110
Table 7.5 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 3200 kN/m)
......................................................................................................................................... 111
Table 7.6 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 6400 kN/m)
......................................................................................................................................... 112
Table 7.7 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 12800 kN/m)
......................................................................................................................................... 113

x

.2 Chart for the Prediction of Suction Compression Index (McKeen................... 1997) ..............6 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement with Lime-Treated Layer (a)…........10 Multiple Shrinkage Cracks in Subgrade Soil ..... 46 Figure 3.10 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement without Geogrid (Fourth Model Constraint)……………………………………………………………………………...................... 1962) ...3 Relationship between Mode I Stress Intensity Factor of Crack Tip in Base and Geogrid Stiffness ......................................2 Relationship between Plastic Index and Swelling (Seed et al............................ 2007) ......... Jordan.................6 Definition of Thermal Expansion Coefficient in ABAQUS (ABAQUS..........88 Figure 6...............5)………………………………………………………………………………...........8 Single Shrinkage Crack in Subgrade Soil (Model 6........................... 2005) ......................List of Figures 1B Figure 2..............5 Variation of Soil Suction of Road Subgrade with Thornthwaite Moisture Index (Wray........1 Pavement Structure in Finite Element Model………………………………..4 Shrinkage Cracks in High PI Clay Covered by Lime-Treated Layer (Courtesy of Lytton and Scullion) .....................2 Crack Increment in Specimen of Unit Thickness.................8 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement without Geogrid (Second Model Constraint)………………………………………………………………………………........... 19 Figure 2...............1 Three Fracture Modes (Lawn....... 78 Figure 6. 81 Figure 6.............50 Figure 3.9 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement without Geogrid (Third Model Constraint)………………………………………………………………………………....40 Figure 3..............................87 Figure 6..................5)……………………………………………………………………………….. 1991)..........2 Proposed Pavement Model with the First Model Constraint…………………39 Figure 3............................ 1978) ........... 2004) ............................ 92 Figure 6.... 93 xi ............2 Stress Intensity Factors of Cracks in Geogrid-Reinforced Pavement (Unit: MPa·m0................................................1 Coordinates Defined for Stress Analysis of Soils ................72 Figure 5......3 Swell Pressure as a Function of Lime Content and Period of Curing for Irbid...................3 Proposed Pavement Model with the Second Model Constraint……………...1 Mechanism of Geogrid Preventing Crack ...1 Reduction in Plasticity Index by Lime Treatment (Holtz......31 Figure 3.....4 Thornthwaite Moisture Index Spatial Distribution in Texas (Wray....................................... 1993)…………………………………………55 Figure 4................41 Figure 3........3 Mineral Classification (Lytton..................9 Mode II Crack in Shrinking Soil (Konrad and Ayad...... 57 Figure 4...... 77 Figure 6................ Clay (Basma and Tuncer.......3 Stress Intensity Factors of Crack in Non-Geogrid Pavement (Unit: MPa·m0.........84 Figure 6...7 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement without Geogrid (First Model Constraint)……………………………………………………………………………….............7 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement with Lime-Treated Layer (b)…..................1) .............5 Model of Pavement with Lime-Treated Layer………………………………...... 24 Figure 2.. 1980) ....... 1969) . 13 Figure 2. 68 Figure 5......52 Figure 3.…53 Figure 4.. 18 Figure 2......5 Proposed Pavement Model with the Fourth Model Constraint………………42 Figure 3...........................51 Figure 3...................................................................... 73 Figure 6. 76 Figure 6....................4 Proposed Pavement Model with the Third Model Constraint………………................... 25 Figure 3...65 Figure 5........... 91 Figure 6...

.... 114 Figure 7....................................................Figure 6.....6 Mode I Stress Intensity Factor at Lower Crack Tip of Shrinkage Crack .................................1 Pavement Model with Geogrid Reinforcement and Lime Treatment (Model 7...... 115 Figure 7...........1) ............. 104 Figure 7......... 96 Figure 7...............................2 Pavement Model with Geogrid Reinforcement and Lime Treatment (Model 7............... 101 Figure 7........................................................................................................................................................................................11 Comparison of Mode I Stress Intensity Factor in Single Model and Multiple Crack Models .......................... i...... 116 xii ..........................2) .......................... 102 Figure 7..4 Mode I Stress Intensity Factor at Upper Crack Tip of Shrinkage Crack...................................................3 Shrinkage Cracks in Pavement with Geogrid Reinforcement and Lime Treatment .............................5 Mode I Stress Intensity Factor at Upper Crack Tip of Crack No......

such as shales and claystones. The clay structure is another important property of the clay mineral.Chapter 1 Research Motivation 2B 1. The crystal layer lattice may take up substantial quantities of water. in milliequivalent per 100 g of soil. Expansive clay minerals. Expansive soils are the result of a complex combination of conditions and processes for the parent materials. have a large specific surface and carry a large net negative electrical charge that attracts the exchangeable cations (positive ions). The clay mineral with higher cation exchange capacity shows higher Atterberg limit values. as shown in Table 1. which is defined as the charge or electrical attraction for cation per unit mass. montmorillonite.1 (Chen. all of which are the most common exchangeable cations in clay minerals. Expansive soils found in the United States are primarily produced by the parent materials in the second category.1 BACKGROUND OF EXPANSIVE SOILS 12B Expansive soils are generally defined as soils that experience significant volumetric changes when subjected to moisture variation. illite. Of the three most important groups of clay materials. The Atterberg limits of soil materials were found to be related to the type of clay mineral and the nature of the attracted ion. with accompanying large 1 . which are the constituents of shales and claystones. montmorillonite has the largest cation exchange capacity. K+. Volcanic ash and glass. and kaolinite. and Na+. The octahedral or tetrahedral layers of montmorillonite allow weak bonding of exchangeable cations in interlayer positions. NH4+. a socalled “swelling clay” accounting for most of the expansive soil problems. including basic igneous rocks and sedimentary rocks containing montmorillonite (Chen. These cations include Ca2+. 1988). montmorillonite. 1988). e. The ability of clay to absorb cations from the solution can be quantified by the cation exchange capacity.g. Mg2+. H+. can be weathered to montmorillonite.

expansive soils exhibit significant volume changes with the variation of the amount of present water. As a result. 2 ..changes in the clay volume (Snethen et al. 1975).

3 3-15 10-40 70-80 65-180 50-840 Illite Montmorillonite /100g) (milliequivalent Capacity 10-20 meter/g) (square Exchange Kaolinite Clay Mineral Specific Surface Cation (%) 35 81 161 1 27 251 29 61 344 limit Liquid (%) index Plasticity (%) limit Liquid Na+ Table 1.1 Properties of Clay Minerals (After Chen. 1988) 104 38 7 (%) index Plasticity K+ 166 90 34 (%) limit Liquid Cation 101 50 8 (%) index Plasticity Ca2+ 158 83 39 (%) limit Liquid 99 44 11 (%) index Plasticity Mg2+ .

Other commercial stabilizers.1. 1980). which costs the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) millions of dollars to repair every year (Jayatilaka and Lytton. Lime stabilization is the most extensively used alteration for modifying the expansive soils in the subgrade. These noncalcium stabilizers have been shown to increase the strength and stiffness of the treated 4 . A number of methods have been used to treat expansive soils. for example. and iii) geogrid reinforcement. China. Expansive soils are found in 20 percent of the United States (Krohn and Slosson. Pavement and geotechnical engineers have for many years attempted to eliminate the dry-land cracking resulting from the expansive subgrade. 2002). 1997). Roadbond EN1 and EMC Squared. 1997).25 m to 1 m. Problems associated with expansive soils are common worldwide. and South Africa (Chen.2 ENGINEERING PROBLEMS DUE TO EXPANSIVE SOILS 13B Expansive soils in foundations and subgrade can cause serious damage to houses. Australia. Canada. This type of “dry-land crack” initiates in the drying subgrade soil and reflects from the highly plastic subgrade through the pavement structure (Sebesta. roads and pipelines because of the soil’s expansion or shrinkage when moisture levels change. Colorado and Wyoming have the most severe degree of expansive soil occurrences. chemical or physical means. Israel. as have been reported in the United States. The lime treatment thickness can vary from 0. 1988). In Texas. which can be grouped into three categories: i) alteration of expansive material by mechanical. India. ii) control of subgrade moisture conditions. buildings. more than half of the total damage caused by expansive soils occurs on highways and streets. have also been used for treating the expansive soils (Rajendran and Lytton. Texas. Longitudinal cracking on the Farm-to-Market (FM) network is one of the most prevalent pavement distresses due to the volumetric change of the expansive subgrade.

while multiple shrinkage cracks develop in the untreated natural soil beneath the lime-treated layer. little is know about the mechanism leading to propagation of the longitudinal cracks to the surface of the pavement. 2003. However. Lufkin and Bryan Districts. In particular. despite the preliminary success of geogrid in limiting longitudinal cracks.soil. Sebesta (2002) found that the geogrid-reinforced pavement section in the Bryan District had the best observed performance of all the stabilized sections with various treatments for longitudinal cracking. Jayatilaka et al. 2005. reduce the swelling. in the Bryan District (Texas) the geogrid is placed at the interface of the cement-treated or lime-treated subbase and a 3 to 4 inch flexible base.. decrease the permeability. et al. 2005). Lime-treated layers are usually found to be intact without any shrinkage cracks. and the benefit of the lime treatment has not been quantified. To date. Using vertical barriers at the edge of the pavement is a typical method for controlling the subgrade moisture conditions.. The use of lime and geogrid is mostly based on empirical engineering experience to prevent the longitudinal cracks due to expansive subgrade. The mechanism of lime-stabilized soil preventing shrinkage cracks has not been clarified. (1997) found that installing impermeable geomembranes as vertical moisture barriers in pavement sections could reduce the moisture variation in expansive subgrade and then restrain pavement roughness. Tingle et al. However. Kwon. the use of geogrids to control environment-induced pavement distresses 5 . and moderate the suction.. geogrid reinforcement combined with lime treatment is the most effective method to prevent longitudinal cracking on Farm-to-Market (FM) roads caused by the shrinkage of expansive subgrade. Based on the investigation of maintenance base repairs over expansive soils in the San Antonio. Significant research efforts have been spent on geogrid reinforced flexible pavements subjected to traffic loading (Kuo et al. Lime stabilization has been shown to reduce the plasticity index (PI) and swell potential of the expansive soil.

This quantification is based on the functional mechanism of the two methods. The second research objective is to quantify the benefit of geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 14B This dissertation research considers the problem of dry-land longitudinal cracks on pavements over expansive subgrade soils. to simulate the differential moisture change in the shrinkage subgrade soil and to model the crack initiation and propagation. A theoretical approach is desirable to analyze the mechanism of the dry-land longitudinal crack development and to minimize this type of crack by means of lime-treatment and geogrid-reinforcement based on current successful experience. thus. The gradients of moisture variation. The first research objective of this dissertation is. which are two effective methods in practice to control longitudinal cracks due to expansive subgrade. determine the tensile stress distribution and the shrinkage crack initiation. 1. together with the soil expansive properties. The research focus is on two of the issues identified in the preceding section: the development of desiccation cracks and the benefit of treatment methods. The goals of this dissertation are to address the propagation of the shrinkage cracks from the subgrade to the pavement surface and to provide theoretical support to the current treatment methods with respect to the propagation of shrinkage cracks. The quantification will also provide theoretical support 6 . The issue of crack development is rooted in the moisture variation in expansive subgrade soil. which results in the nonuniform moisture change in the subgrade.has never been addressed in depth to date. The impermeable pavement surface layer has a significant impact on water migration into the expansive subgrade beneath the pavement.

Chapter 5 describes the modeling of a geogrid-reinforced pavement. The stress concentration at the crack tips is evaluated to discuss whether the crack is stable or unstable according to the pavement material fracture properties. The chapter further discusses the distribution of tensile stresses in the pavement structure and subgrade soil. Linear elastic fracture mechanics theory is used to simulate the desiccation crack propagation process. The computer program ABAQUS is used for this purpose.for the development of an optimal pavement design method to minimize the dry-land longitudinal cracks. Chapter 4 studies the propagation of the shrinkage cracks from the shrinking subgrade to the pavement surface. This chapter discusses how the geogrid prevents the shrinkage crack from propagating toward the 7 . Chapter 3 describes in detail the modeling of a pavement over shrinking subgrade with expansive soils. 1. The shrinkage crack is modeled using the finite element technique. The available volumetric change theories of unsaturated soils are introduced in order to predict the suction change associated with moisture change. The simulation of the suction change is critical to shrinkage crack development. Chapter 2 analyzes the stresses and strains in the pavement subgrade induced by the moisture variation. This chapter aims at finding an appropriate approach to simulate the differential suction change in the subgrade soil under the impermeable pavement layers. The possible locations of shrinkage cracks initiation are identified under different constraints. Based on the stress and strain analysis in Chapter 2. A twodimensional plane strain pavement model is constructed using the finite element method.4 DISSERTATION OUTLINE 15B This dissertation is organized as follows.

The chapter also presents the sensitivity analysis conducted to study the effect of geogrid properties on its reinforcement benefits. 8 . The ideal installation position of the geogrid is determined based on the analysis of the shrinkage propagation.pavement surface. This chapter discusses the development of single shrinkage crack and multiple cracks in the untreated subgrade soil beneath the lime-stabilized layer. The stress concentration at the crack tips is compared among the studied models with different geogrid properties and the number of shrinkage cracks in the model. Chapter 8 summarizes the main findings and addresses the contributions of the proposed methodologies. Chapter 6 reviews the properties of lime-treated soil and illustrates that the inclusion of lime-treated layer in the subgrade changes the location and propagation of shrinkage cracks. Chapter 7 presents the combined benefit of geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment. It concludes by outlining a number of directions in which the proposed methodologies could be further extended.

1993): σ 12 σ 13 ⎤ ⎡σ 11 − u w ⎢ σ σ 22 − u w σ 23 ⎥⎥ 21 ⎢ ⎢⎣ σ 31 σ 32 σ 33 − u w ⎥⎦ in which u w = pore-water pressure. The subgrade soil consists of unsaturated soil. which is above the water table. Section 2.5 is a summary of this chapter. This stress variable has the following tensor form (Fredlund and Rahardjo.3 explains the available volumetric theories of expansive soils as well as the constitutive relations that can be used to predict the volumetric strain of the soil element.1 STRESS ANALYSIS ON SATURATED SOIL 16B The equilibrium conditions for a saturated soil can be described by the effective stress. The methods used to determine the soil suction are summarized in Section 2. “matric suction” and “osmotic suction”. including the experimental measurement and theoretical prediction. Section 2.1 describes the equilibrium conditions and constitutive relations of the saturated soil. and u w is the pore-water pressure. (σ − u w ) . in which σ is the total stress. 9 . This chapter provides an understanding of the state of the art in the stress analysis and volumetric change theories of the expansive soils. and saturated soil that is under the water table. This section also introduces a number of terms related to soil suction. 2. Section 2. it is necessary to analyze the stress/strain state in the subgrade soil. Matric suction is a critical parameter that will be used through this entire dissertation. Section 2.4.Chapter 2 Stress Analysis of Pavement Subgrade 3B To study the crack initiation in expansive pavement foundations.2 presents the stress variables and the stress-strain relations of the unsaturated soil. including “total suction”.

and x3 directions: σ −u ν ε 11 = 11 w − (σ 22 + σ 33 − 2u w ) E E σ 22 − u w ν ε 22 = − (σ 11 + σ 33 − 2u w ) E E σ 33 − u w ν ε 33 = − (σ 11 + σ 22 − 2u w ) E E (2. σ 31 . x 2 .6) where ε 11 = normal strain in the x1 direction.1) σ 23 = σ 32 (2. The shear stress components have the following relationships under equilibrium conditions: σ 12 = σ 21 (2. (2. σ 23 .6) give the elastic constitutive relations in the x1 . σ 32 .5) and (2.σ 11 − u w = effective stress in the x1 direction.5) (2. ε 22 = normal strain in the x 2 direction.4) (2.2) σ 31 = σ 13 (2. σ 21 = shear stress components. the effective stress variable is used to formulate the constitutive relations with respect to the generalized Hooke’s law. σ 22 − u w = effective stress in the x 2 direction. and ν = Poisson’s ratio for the soil structure. 10 .4).3) Assuming that the saturated soil behaves as an isotropic and linearly elastic material. σ 33 − u w = effective stress in the x3 direction. ε 33 = normal strain in the x3 direction. σ 13 . Equations (2. and σ 12 . E = modulus of elasticity with respect to a change in the effective stress.

soil with lower water content has higher soil suction. The total suction and its components can be measured in laboratory and in the field (Fredlund and Rahardjo. Fredlund and Morgenstern (1976) used two stress variables in the stress analysis of the unsaturated soil: net normal stress. an unsaturated soil has more than one independent stress variable because of the presence of soil suction. In other words. the stress state of the unsaturated soil can be expressed by two independent stress tensors: 11 . Jayatilaka. can be quantified in terms of relative humidity. Osmotic suction arises from the soluble salts in the soil water. u a is the pore-air pressure. Consequently. in which σ is the total normal stress. a number of computer programs have been developed that are capable of estimating the matric suction profile in the pavement subgrade during different climate seasons (Gay. 1980). suction is a parameter indicating the intensity with which the soil will attract water. Total suction consists of two components: matric suction and osmotic suction. 1979. (u a − u w ) . 1999. Due to the existence of soil suction. Matric suction is derived from the negative water pressure associated with capillary phenomenon. 1993). (σ − u a ) .. 1988).2 STRESS ANALYSIS ON UNSATURATED SOIL 17B Unlike saturated soils. Soil suction is a measure of a soil’s affinity for water (Chen. 2004). Generally. The soil suction. Lytton et al. and u w is the pore-water pressure. commonly called “total suction”. The matric suction can also be predicted theoretically by solving the moisture diffusion equation that governs the matric suction distribution in the soil body (Mitchell. which produce the osmotic repulsion forces. Based on the theoretical solution of the diffusion equation.2. more than one independent stress variable is used to describe the equilibrium condition and to formulate the constitutive equations of an unsaturated soil. 1994. and the matric suction.

the constitutive relations can be formulated in terms of the two stress state variables.8) (2.7). Every constitutive equation for the unsaturated soil can be explained as an extension of each corresponding constitutive relation for the saturated soil because of the additional stress variable (matric suction) in addition to the normal stress. (σ − u a ) and (u a − u w ) .9) where E = modulus of elasticity for the soil structure with respect to a change in the net normal stress. u a − u w ⎥⎦ 0 ua − uw 0 The two stress tensors cannot be combined into one because they have different constitutive relations which depend on the soil properties.9) can also be written in incremental forms: 1 1 ν dε 11 = d (σ 11 − u a ) − d (σ 22 + σ 33 − 2u a ) + d (u a − u w ) E E H 12 (2. as shown in Equations (2.10) . (σ − u a ) . (u a − u w ) . 1993): ε 22 ε 33 σ 11 − u a ν ua − uw E E H σ − ua ν u − uw = 22 − (σ 11 + σ 33 − 2u a ) + a E E H σ − ua ν u − uw = 33 − (σ 11 + σ 22 − 2u a ) + a E E H ε 11 = − (σ 22 + σ 33 − 2u a ) + (2.9) (Fredlund and Rahardjo. Equations (2. and H = modulus of elasticity for the soil structure with respect to a change in matric suction. (2.⎡σ 11 − u a ⎢ σ 21 ⎢ ⎢⎣ σ 31 σ 12 σ 13 σ 23 σ 22 − u a σ 32 σ 33 ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ − u a ⎥⎦ and ⎡u a − u w ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢⎣ 0 0 ⎤ 0 ⎥⎥ . Assuming that the unsaturated soil is isotropic and linearly elastic.7). (2.8) and (2.7) (2.8) and (2.

11) dε 33 (2. and x3 be the vertical direction. V is the soil volume at initial state.1 1 ν d (σ 22 − u a ) − d (σ 11 + σ 33 − 2u a ) + d (u a − u w ) E E H 1 1 ν = d (σ 33 − u a ) − d (σ 11 + σ 22 − 2u a ) + d (u a − u w ) E E H dε 22 = (2. x1 (Transverse Direction) x2 (Vehicle Travel Direction) x3 (Vertical Direction) Figure 2. and dε v is the incremental volumetric strain. x 2 be the longitudinal direction which is the vehicle travel direction. the lateral strains (the strain in horizontal directions.1. the incremental volumetric change of an unsaturated soil can be calculated by adding the incremental strains in the three directions: dV = dε v = dε 11 + dε 22 + dε 33 V (2.1 Coordinates Defined for Stress Analysis of Soils 61B If the initial condition is considered after the subgrade construction when the subgrade soil is intact without any cracks. ε 11 and ε 22 ) remain zero before crack 13 .13) in which dV is the volume change of the unsaturated soil. Let x1 be the transverse direction perpendicular to the vehicle travel direction on the pavement. as shown in Figure 2. During the desiccation process of the soil in the pavement subgrade. the initial strains are zero in all three directions.12) Therefore.

so-called the overburden pressure. σ 33 − u a . et al. is produced by the self-weight of the soil and the pavement layers covering the soil. the net normal stress in the vertical direction. which means: σ −u ν u − uw ε 11 = 11 a − (σ 22 + σ 33 − 2u a ) + a =0 E E H σ − ua ν u − uw ε 22 = 22 − (σ 11 + σ 33 − 2u a ) + a =0 E E H (2. (1997) confirmed that drying soils experience a restrained desiccation so that the lateral strains were maintained zero until a crack initiated in the soil. σ 11 = σ 22 ≠ σ 33 (Morris.14) can be rewritten as: σ −u ν u − uw ε 11 = 11 a − (σ 11 + σ 33 − 2u a ) + a =0 E E H By rearranging Equation (2. The field data collected by Konrad et al. Equation (2. equals to σ 33 by setting atmospheric pressure zero. Since the pore-air pressure is atmospheric for most practical engineering problems. γ b = unit weight of mass base material.14) (2. The total vertical stress. γ s = unit weight of mass soil. 1992).15) This fact indicates that the straining is forced to be one-dimensional. If isotropic elasticity remains applicable.initiation because of lateral constraint..18) in which γ a = unit weight of mass asphalt.16).16) (2. the incremental horizontal strains in both transverse ( x1 ) and longitudinal ( x 2 ) directions remain zero before cracking. σ 33 .17) in which (σ 11 − u a ) is the incremental tensile stress in the transverse direction. Therefore. the following equation can be reached: ν (σ 33 − u a ) − E 1 (u a − u w ) σ 11 − u a = 1 −ν H 1 −ν (2. This stress can be calculated by: σ 33 = γ a ha + γ b hb + γ s hs (2. As a result. 14 .

Canada. but the volumetric compliances with respect to net 15 . σ 11 − u a . a large scale tension crack will develop..10) through (2. However. Ayad et al. They reported a tensile strength value of 9 kPa for the tested Saint-Alban clay. For example. 1988. Morris et al.. the criterion is well accepted that if σ 11 − u a exceeds the tensile strength of the soil. relatively small matric suction may reduce the compressive net normal stress to zero or even make it negative. The overburden pressure results in compressive horizontal stresses. hb = thickness of base. which increase with depth. 1997). and this tensile strength has been used in the crack initiation criterion that predicts the onset of large tensile cracks by comparing the tensile strength with the net normal horizontal stress (Lee et al. σ t . approaches zero. 2. Quebec. 1992. soils are considered to have a certain amount of tensile strength. σ t . cracks will develop as the net normal horizontal stress. and hs = depth of point A from the top of the subgrade. The relationship may not be linear between soil’s volume change and the normal stress or the matric suction.13) indicate that the volumetric change of soil can be produced by either net normal stress or matric suction or both. Ayad et al. Equations (2. The matric suction in the soil reduces this compressive horizontal stresses. If the soil cannot sustain any tensile stress. However.ha = thickness of asphalt layer. At shallow depths.3 VOLUMETRIC CHANGE THEORY OF UNSATURATED SOIL 18B One may question the volumetric change formulation if it is based on the assumption that the unsaturated soil is a linearly elastic material because soil behavior is highly plastic in engineering practice.. Even though microcracks may build up and coalesce in early stages. (1997) conducted an experiment to measure the tensile strength of an intact clay deposit at the experimental site of Saint-Alban.

19) in which ε v = volumetric strain of an elastic soil element. and V ∂ (u a − u w ) σ = mean normal stress. C t and C a are referred to as the volumetric deformation coefficients.20) . V hi = initial value of matric suction. 1995. σ i = initial value of mean principle stress. (1992) presented a constitutive equation as: dV dε v = = C t d (σ − u a ) + C a d (u a − u w ) V (2. V = overall volume of the soil element. which are constants for linearly elastic case only. h f = final values of matric suction. The logarithm of the two stress variables are found to be linearly related to the volumetric strain of an unsaturated soil. 2004) developed an empirical model to estimate the volumetric strain of an elemental volume of soil: ⎛ hf ΔV = −γ h log10 ⎜⎜ V ⎝ hi where ⎛π ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞ ⎞ ⎟⎟ − γ σ log10 ⎜⎜ f ⎟⎟ − γ π log10 ⎜⎜ f ⎟⎟ ⎝ πi ⎠ ⎝ σi ⎠ ⎠ ΔV = volumetric strain.normal stress and matric suction can be determined by laboratory experiments. Ct = V ∂ (σ − u a ) ∂V 1 Ca = . ∂V 1 . which indicated that the volumetric deformation coefficients vary from one stress state to another in a nonlinear manner on the curved constitutive surface. (1977. Lytton et al. 16 (2. Morris et al. Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) graphically presented the constitutive surfaces for an unsaturated soil.

or it can be estimated by empirical relationships developed by Mojekwu (1979) as shown in Equations (2.24): PI Ac = % clay CEC meq / 100 g CEAc = % clay (2. in percent.22): CEC = (PL ) meq / 100 g (2. and LL = liquid limit. and γ π = osmotic suction compression index.22) 1. plasticity index (PI).912 where PL = plasticity limit. in percent. 17 . The percent fine clay is calculated by dividing the fine clay (finer than 2 microns) content by percentage passing No.2) developed by McKeen (1980). and cation exchange capacity (CEC). Based on the percent fine clay. McKeen’s method calculates the activity (Ac) and cation exchange activity (CEAc) as in Equations (2.σ f = finial value of mean principle stress. π f = finial value of osmotic suction.21) CEC = (LL ) meq / 100 g (2. This method estimates γ h using percent fine clay.17 0. PI and CEC. The cation exchange capacity can be determined by a routine test procedure in agricultural laboratories. γ σ = mean principal stress compression index. γ h = matric suction compression index.23) (2.24) The calculated Ac and CEAc are used to obtain a guide number of γ h in the Chart for the Prediction of Suction Compression Index (Figure 2. 200 sieve. π i = initial value of osmotic suction.23) and (2.21) and (2. The matric suction compression index ( γ h ) can be predicted by the empirical procedure developed by McKeen (1980).

Lytton (2004) proposed a method for estimating the plasticity index (PI) and the liquid limit (LL) as shown in Equations (2.25) and (2. 2004): γ h ( swell ) = γ h e γ (2.The guide numbers in Figure 2.26) h Figure 2. the guide number determined by Figure 2.27) ⎟ 9 ⎝ ⎠ 18 .2 Chart for the Prediction of Suction Compression Index (McKeen.25) h γ h ( shrinkage ) = γ h e −γ (2. 1980) 62B For lime treated soils.27) and (2.28): ⎛ 9 − % lim e ⎞ PI lim e −treated = PI untreated ⎜ (2. To acquire the value of γ h for real soil. Finally.2 is reduced by multiplying the percent fine clay.26) to compensate for the different initial volume of soil mass during a wetting or drying process (Lytton.2 are γ h for soils with 100 percent fine clay. the obtained suction compression index may be corrected by Equations (2.

Table 2.LLlim e −treated = PI untreated +b a (2.1 shows typical values of a and b corresponding to each soil mineral classification. 2004) 63B 19 . as shown in Figure 2. the matric suction compression index (SCI) can be predicted by McKeen’s method following the above steps.3.3 Mineral Classification (Lytton.28) Parameters a and b in Equation (2. Therefore.28) depend on soil mineral classification. Figure 2.

68 25 2. As a result.20)) can be used to predict the volumetric strain that occurs between the two steady states based on the matric suction changes. Previous research has shown that matric suction can be either measured in the laboratory and the field or predicted theoretically. 20 .4 DETERMINATION OF MATRIC SUCTION PROFILE 19B In order to study the development of desiccation cracks in the subgrade soil during the reduction in water content and increase of matric suction. Consequently.73 20 IV 0.68 25 V 0.1 Typical Values of a and b Corresponding to Mineral Classification (Lytton. the development of shrinkage cracks can be modeled.68 25 VI 0. Lytton’s model (Equation (2.Table 2. it is desirable to estimate the shrinkage stresses generated between two steady state matric suction profiles. the determination of matric suction is necessary for the analysis on the desiccation cracks. Based on the stress distribution. If the two steady state matric suction profiles are known.83 11 II 0.81 14 III 0. 2004) 47B Group a b I 0. the shrinkage stress produced by the matric suction change can be estimated using the stress-strain constitutive relationship of the subgrade soil.

The axis-translation technique is another method to directly measure the matric suction in the laboratory. Once equilibrium is reached. A pore-water pressure measuring probe connects a tube full of de-aired water and the soil specimen. At equilibrium.2.1 Measurement of Matric Suction 42B Matric suction can be measured using filter paper in the laboratory as described in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard. the water in the tensiometer 21 . The water in the tube has a tendency to go into tension producing negative water pressure. and partial water vapor pressure in the air. the soil specimen is placed with filter papers in an airproof container for seven days. By increasing the air pressure in the closed chamber. pore-water vapor pressure in the filter paper. the water has a greater tendency to go into tension. Finally. a calibration relationship is developed between the filter paper water content with soil suction based on the type of filter paper used and the test procedure. a closed pressure chamber is used to contain the unsaturated soil specimen. which is measured by a gauge. Subsequently. which is a simple and economical method for the suction range from 10 to 100. including pore-water vapor pressure in the specimen.000 kPa. The tensiometer allows equilibrium to be achieved between the soil and the measuring system. This duration is sufficient to allow different vapor pressures inside the container to reach equilibrium. the matric suction of the soil can be determined based on the difference between the air pressure in the chamber and the measured negative water pressure. D 5298-03 (2003). the suction of the specimen can be determined using the measured mass of the filter papers and the calibration relationship. During the test.4. 1993). The tensiometer is a device commonly used in the field to directly measure the negative pore-water pressure in a soil. This measurement was originally proposed by Hilf in 1956 for both undisturbed and compacted soil specimens (Fredlund and Rahardjo. In this test method.

29) in which u (0. 2. t ) = U e + U 0 exp⎜⎜ − y ⎟⎟ cos⎜⎜ 2πnt − y⎟ α ⎠ ⎝ α ⎟⎠ ⎝ in which y = soil depth. there are different types of tensiometers available for use in the field (Fredlund and Rahardjo. p = unsaturated permeability.2 Theoretical Model of Matric Suction Prediction 43B Mitchell (1979. in pF. 22 (2. t ) = matric suction at ground surface. 1980) proposed a theoretical model to simulate the effects of climate (evaporation and infiltration) on matric suction at ground surface in a sinusoidal form with frequency n . gravimetric water content. = γw p .has the same negative pressure as the pore-water in the soil. γd c γ w = water density.30) . n = number of suction cycles per second. Mitchell developed a model to estimate the suction u ( y. and c = inverse slope of log suction (in pF) vs. To study the suction not only at the ground surface but along the depth of the soil. as shown in Equation (2. in pF (kPa=0. t ) at any time t and depth y : ⎛ nπ ⎞ ⎛ nπ ⎞ u ( y. in pF. α = soil diffusion coefficient. U e = equilibrium suction.0981×10pF). Currently. and t = time in seconds. γ d = soil dry density. U 0 = amplitude of suction change at ground surface.29): u (0. t ) = U e + U 0 cos(2πnt ) (2.4. 1993).

. Equation (2. and E p = evapotranspiration. ii) allocating available water to storage. 2005). DEF = deficit moisture depth. and iii) totaling monthly runoff moisture depth.32) 23 . 2004). deficit and runoff on a monthly basis. potential evapotranspiration and the depth of available moisture stored in the rotting zone of the vegetation. U e = 3.The equilibrium suction in Equations (2.29) and (2.30) can be estimated for different locations based on the Thornthwaite Moisture Index (TMI) (Wray et al.31). the corresponding equilibrium suction..5633 exp(− 0.4.5 (Wray. 2005) or by a regression equation. 100 R − 60 DEF TMI = Ep (2. TMI is a parameter introduced by Thorthwaite (1948) to characterize the moisture balance in a specific location taking into account rainfall. as shown in Figure 2.0051TMI ) (2. As defined in Equation (2. As the TMI value is determined. The calculation procedure of TMI includes three steps: i) determining monthly potential evapotranspiration.31) where R = runoff moisture depth. Wray (1978) developed a TMI map of Texas based on historical means of TMI. deficit moisture depth and evapotranspiration to obtain annual values. U e . can be estimated using Figure 2.32) (Lytton et al.

1978) 64B 24 .4 Thornthwaite Moisture Index Spatial Distribution in Texas (Wray.Figure 2.

Mitchell (1979) obtained the analytical solution of steady state matric suction within the soil body under a flexible impermeable cover of length L . 2005) 65B If the soil is under a flexible impermeable cover. flexible asphalt pavement.g.Figure 2.5 Variation of Soil Suction of Road Subgrade with Thornthwaite Moisture Index (Wray.. x = distance from the pavement centerline. The matric suction under the impermeable cover has an approximate relationship with the matric suction at the cover edge: u y ( x ) ≈ U e + (u y − U e ) cosh πx 2a πL cosh 4a (2. the matric suction under the pavement center line is different from that under the pavement edge (shoulder).33) where u y ( x ) = matric suction at the location with a distance of x from the pavement centerline in the depth y . L = pavement width. and 25 . e. u y = matric suction at the pavement edge in the depth y .

The horizontal matric suction profile can be predicted using Equation (2. WinPRES (Lytton et al. Some of these data will be selected for use in the proposed finite element models later in this dissertation.. such as FLODEF (Gay. can also be predicted by theoretical methods. 2005).20) because it provides a reasonable and relatively simple relation between the volumetric strain and three measurable variables. The matric suction data will be used as the only load on the proposed pavement model. One variable. matric suction. This model will be used in the following chapters to simulate the differential matric suction change in the subgrade soil. dry and wet conditions predicted by WinPRES in a number of highway construction sites in Texas. 1999). Lytton et al. 2004). Consequently. They also showed the matric suction compression index (SCI) for different layers of soils in the subgrade.. a number of computer programs have been developed to predict the matric suction profiles in the pavement subgrade. Particular attention has been paid to Lytton’s model (Equation 2. under which the soil matric suction has a constant value of U e . and SUCH (Wray et al. The available data of matric suction and matric suction compression index in the literature make is possible to simulate matric suction change. (2004) presented matric suction data at equilibrium.33) based on the vertical matric suction profile. PRES (Jayatilaka. The loading condition differentiates the proposed model from most traditional pavement models that 26 . 1994). the matric suction distribution under a flexible impermeable pavement is obtained at each steady matric suction state. 2.a = soil active zone depth.5 SUMMARY 20B This chapter has discussed the stress and strain state in saturated and unsaturated soils as well as the volumetric change theory of unsaturated soils. Based on Mitchell’s models.

and modeling results.have traffic as the primary load. 27 . Chapter 3 will present the details of pavement model construction. load simulation.

an assumption is made that. and (3) find possible locations of shrinkage crack initiation in the pavement model. Section 3. Before the analysis.3 presents the finite element mesh 28 . However. both pavement and subgrade are in equilibrium condition. As the tensile stress reaches the tensile strength of the soil.1 focuses on the model construction in a finite element computer program. a shrinkage crack will initiate in the subgrade.Chapter 3 Modeling of Pavement over Shrinking Subgrade 4B The stress/strain analysis in Chapter 2 offers the theoretical principles to analyze the stress distribution in the pavement structure over a shrinking subgrade soil. the subgrade is intact with no macro cracks. If the matric suction change is uniform and the soil is not constrained. The aim of this chapter is to (1) establish a pavement model using finite element techniques. Section 3. As the moisture content decreases in the subgrade soil. The stress distribution before crack initiation is critical in order to investigate the potential location and propagation of the shrinkage crack. because the pavement is an impermeable cover. the matric suction change is not uniform in the subgrade soil. Therefore. ABAQUS. right after construction. which results in volumetric changes of the soil. tensile stresses will occur as the matric suction increases. normal strains will occur in each direction unaccompanied by normal stresses. Section 3. the matric suction increases. which is the initial condition in this analysis. and describes the possible constraints at the model boundaries. The chapter is divided into four sections. which are ordered as the general finite element modeling steps. In this initial condition. (2) simulate the matric suction change in the subgrade soil beneath the pavement layers.2 explains the simulation of matric suction change by means of temperature change in the soil body. In addition. the lateral confinement does not allow the soil to have free expansion or shrinkage.

4 discusses the results and findings. and the shear strains ε 12 and ε 32 are assumed to be zero.250 m. 3.. 2004). this subgrade consists of six layers with different soils. to simulate the stress field in the pavement layers and the subgrade. a half-wide (4 m) pavement is studied to reduce computation effort. The width of the subgrade soil is extended to 12 m for the 29 . x 2 is the longitudinal direction which is the vehicle travel direction. linearly elastic. With a total depth of 4. The subgrade of a pavement section in Fort Worth (Texas) is selected for this analysis based on the available data in the literature (Lytton et al. plane strain is defined as a state of strains in which the strain normal to the x1 − x3 plane. The coordinates are consistent with those stated in Chapter 2: x1 is the transverse direction perpendicular to the vehicle travel direction on the pavement. and bonded to the underlying layer. The assumptions of plane strain are realistic for long bodies: for example. a pavement that is infinitely long in the travel direction with constant cross-sectional area subjected to loads that act only in the x1 or x3 directions and do not vary in the x 2 direction.5 m without suction change is added to the bottom of the subgrade to make the subgrade a total depth of 6 m. one more layer of 1. Each pavement layer is assumed to be homogenous. followed by a summary of the chapter in Section 3. and Section 3. and x3 is the vertical direction (see Figure 2. In order to apply proper boundary conditions.025 m. In this dissertation research. ABAQUS. Because of symmetry. and the thickness of the base is 0.1 MODEL CONSTRUCTION 21B A two-dimensional (2D) plane strain finite element (FE) model is developed in a commercial computer program.5. ε 22 .1). The thickness of the asphalt layer is 0.5 m.of the model. each layer has a specific matric suction compression index (SCI). a granular base and a multi-layered subgrade. isotropic. The modeled pavement structure consists of an asphalt surface layer. weightless.

In this model. The use of a constant modulus for subgrade and field soil has a minimum effect on the accuracy level of the modeling results because the elastic moduli of different layers in the subgrade have approximately the same order of magnitude. The Young’s moduli of the asphalt. while the soil not under the pavement (the soil under the edge CD in Figure 3. the soil under the pavement is defined as “pavement subgrade”. 350 and 75 MPa.1) is defined as “field soil”. respectively. Edge AF in Figure 3.purpose of applying different model constraints that will be presented in later sections. a representative average modulus of 75 MPa is used for all subgrade layers and for the field soil. Figure 3.1 shows the details of the constructed pavement model in ABAQUS. The Poisson’s ratio is assumed to be 0.35 for every layer of the pavement structure. base and subgrade are assumed to be 2. Since the moduli of different layers of the subgrade are not available in the reference. the subgrade and the field soil. These definitions make the following model description more clear.500.1 is the centerline of the pavement. 30 .

1 Pavement Structure in Finite Element Model .31 Figure 3.

33)) is used to predict the horizontal matric suction profile under the pavement based on the vertical matric suction profile. the less matric suction change in the subgrade soil is noted. the volumetric change produced by the osmotic suction variation can be ignored. Therefore. and Equation (2.2. Mitchell’s approach (Equation (2. Generally. Therefore. This condition is assumed for the subgrade and field soil in the proposed model. the mean principle stress can also be neglected. Since the subgrade soil is under an impermeable asphalt surface layer.1 Determination of Suction Change 4B For a pavement subgrade without significant content of sulfates.3. the closer the location is to the pavement centerline.1) Matric suction data and compression index to be applied to the pavement structure are selected based on a previous study in Texas. the osmotic suction rarely changes in the subgrade soil. In order to consider the most critical case (a long-term heavy rain followed by an extended dry period). in this research. which means it is not necessary to include the osmotic suction term in Lytton’s model (Equation (2. this study selects two steady state vertical matric suction profiles: one with extremely low matric suction values. the matric suction distribution over the 32 . the matric suction is the only independent variable determining the volumetric change of the subgrade soil under a pavement.2 MATRIC SUCTION SIMULATION AND MODEL CONSTRAINTS 2B 3. another with extremely high matric suction values. Consequently. The selected matric suction data were predicted by the computer program WinPRES developed by Lytton et al.20) can be simplified as: ⎛ hf ⎞ ΔV = −γ h log10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ V ⎝ hi ⎠ (3. the matric suction change in the soil under the pavement centerline is different from the soil under the pavement shoulder. considering a newly constructed pavement structure without traffic loading. In addition. (2004).20)).

5800 2.5546 2.5800 2.5451 2.5480 2.5486 2.5567 2.16 2.5800 2.5579 2.43 2.5624 2.5800 2.5800 2.5333 2.5624 2.5800 2.5610 2.5551 2.00 3.5624 2.5546 2.50 3.5400 0.5800 0.5634 2.15 2.5591 2.5640 2.5451 2.5566 2.5489 2.5400 2.5451 2.5800 2.5528 2.5800 2.5800 2.5607 2.70 2.5449 2.5496 2.74 2.5566 2.5400 2.5500 2.90 2.5507 2.5610 2.5800 2.5800 0.5200 1.5634 2.5595 2.5800 2.5489 2.5579 2.5640 2.5361 2.00 0.5800 2.32 2.05 2.5634 2.5537 2.5382 2.5800 2.5416 2.5483 2.5350 1.5587 2.5500 1.5800 2.5521 2.5800 2.5613 2.5800 2.1 Matric Suction Distribution in Wet Subgrade Soil 48B Distance from the centerline (m) Depth (m) 0.5483 2.5400 2.50 4.5591 2.5587 2.5507 2.5634 2.5640 2.5640 2.5634 2.5587 2.5800 2.5449 2.5546 2.50 1.75 2.5800 2.5560 2.5500 3.5317 2.5515 2.5250 1.5500 33 .5800 2.5567 2.2 presents the matric suction distribution in the subgrade in extremely dry condition.5449 2.5800 2.5537 2.5546 2.45 2.5546 2.5591 2.00 2.5591 2.5567 2.5468 2.5507 2.5489 2.5450 2.5483 2.5566 2.5610 2.01 2.30 2.5624 2.5449 2.5579 2.5524 2.28 2.5567 2.5579 2.5578 2.5451 2.5567 2.5800 2.5579 2.59 2.15 2.5624 2.5400 2.5524 2.5610 2.5800 2.5800 2.5273 2.5521 2.55 2.5500 3.5800 0.5624 2.5537 2.5567 2.1 shows the matric suction distribution in the soil in extremely wet condition.5640 2.5500 2.5521 2.5521 2.5521 2.50 2.5449 2.5591 2.5533 2.5420 2.5537 2.89 2.5500 3.5556 2.5800 0.5300 1. Table 3.5567 2.5800 2.17 2.5361 2.5591 2.5507 2.5524 2.47 2.5450 2.5489 2.5800 2.5411 2.5610 2.5566 2.5800 2.5300 1.5478 2.5566 2.5405 2.5533 2.5610 2.5634 2.5800 2.5634 2.30 2.5640 2.5489 2.5800 2.5587 2.5587 2.5591 2.00 1.5411 2.5372 2.subgrade cross section is obtained under the flexible impermeable pavement at each steady matric suction state.5537 2.5537 2.5448 2.5361 2.5536 2.60 2.5640 2.5300 1.85 2.5493 2.00 2.5533 2.5624 2.5610 2. Table 3.5411 2. Table 3.5537 2.

5689 2.5644 2.5600 4.3983 3.5661 2.4275 3.5683 2.3529 3.90 2.3183 3.4519 3.2914 3.17 3.5661 2.5624 2.5600 4.2217 3.2810 3.6034 3.6000 2.5661 2.0304 3.3069 3.5000 2.1778 3.0277 3.5673 2.9692 4.1694 3.5626 2.6262 3.2960 3.5795 3.5712 2.2144 3.6507 3.1742 3.3221 3.2 Matric Suction Distribution in Dry Subgrade Soil 49B Distance from the centerline (m) Depth (m) 0.50 4.4137 3.2649 3.2750 0.3682 3.00 2.8330 3.2376 3.5600 3.4700 3.3900 2.7163 3.2101 3.5737 2.5605 2.7964 3.5600 4.1824 3.1633 3.0084 3.5700 Table 3.5531 3.5580 2.5747 2.8992 4.5624 2.74 3.1477 4.89 3.5741 2.3.5600 4.5683 2.1900 0.5693 2.5644 2.1456 3.3150 34 .8950 1.5624 2.4836 3.0471 3.50 3.5689 2.6579 3.1237 3.4594 3.2615 3.8878 4.59 3.0927 3.3725 3.0935 3.1150 0.5061 3.4383 3.2964 3.7746 3.5624 2.6546 3.5673 2.8300 1.4797 3.4758 3.3310 3.7700 1.5983 3.1938 3.0392 4.55 3.9940 4.5056 3.1520 3.9931 3.1157 3.3738 3.0664 3.3880 3.0687 4.0460 3.5693 2.4285 3.2775 3.5624 2.2046 3.5644 2.5644 2.5673 2.2463 3.5661 2.45 3.50 2.5450 2.1531 3.7100 1.0704 3.4100 3.5169 3.3650 0.0108 3.9650 1.5624 2.6550 1.5722 2.75 3.85 2.5241 3.5689 2.2914 3.20 2.5667 2.28 3.5730 2.5693 2.1134 3.5662 2.5600 3.60 3.5644 2.5735 3.05 3.00 0.5683 2.4166 3.0753 3.0400 1.5673 2.90 3.3508 3.4580 3.2255 3.5642 2.45 2.0342 3.50 2.3550 2.1379 3.7349 3.6007 3.05 2.35 2.50 1.70 2.00 1.01 3.2104 3.5661 2.2710 3.7687 3.5528 3.5724 3.2531 3.9718 2.5745 2.30 3.00 3.4550 0.2607 3.47 3.1192 3.1438 3.8250 3.7030 3.3870 3.3298 3.5667 3.1206 3.4357 3.0491 3.2378 3.9863 3.60 2.0118 3.5653 2.0885 3.5237 3.4250 2.5689 2.5550 3.1832 3.75 2.5644 2.7623 3.0548 3.3583 3.5315 3.0944 3.3127 3.5689 2.9282 4.5661 2.2267 3.2423 3.8623 4.43 3.0958 3.5693 2.3918 3.15 3.5693 2.5673 2.3344 3.16 3.5683 2.1450 3.4600 2.5683 2.6790 3.6164 3.1918 3.6251 3.5460 3.3456 3.5693 2.5689 2.2268 4.0713 3.5683 2.7116 3.4972 3.6778 3.5673 2.32 3.

The logarithm of the matric suction change in the subgrade ( log10 (h f / hi ) ) is also computed and shown in Table 3.0206 3.2102 0.9462 2.8536 2.2193 0.6866 2.9509 2.9034 2.1575 0.9128 2.8759 2.1758 0.2400 3.9043 2.1245 3.9664 3.1191 0.9886 3.1808 0.1966 0.1380 0.1998 35 .9053 2.1242 0.8877 2.8439 2.9224 2.9984 3.1320 0.1350 3.9434 2.2750 3.2106 0.9229 2.9105 2.30 0.9445 2.1267 0.9874 3.9671 3.9319 2.7195 2.8589 2.0652 0.8279 2.75 1.60 0.7800 The matric suction change at every location of the subgrade from the wet condition to the dry condition is then calculated based on the matric suction distributions at the two steady matric suction states.1886 0.9253 2.0200 4.1542 0.1739 0.2002 0.8094 2.35 2.90 2.3 Logarithm of Matric Suction Change in Modeled Pavement Subgrade 50B Depth (m) Distance from the centerline (m) 0.1716 0.9950 4.7068 2.8525 2.9505 2.0937 3.00 2.1442 0.75 2.1050 3.1267 0.0586 0.8918 2.8701 2.8599 2.2322 0.9419 2.9884 3.20 2.75 0.8695 2.8702 2.9880 3.1898 0.25 3.00 0.1209 3.0353 3.8370 2.75 3.75 4.1463 0. the logarithm of the matric suction change is considered uniform between two steady matric suction states because no impermeable cover exists on the top of field soil.9227 2.2000 3.8232 2. The subgrade soils under the pavement centerline are assumed to have zero matric suction change.8938 2.25 2.1344 0.15 0.1325 0.6906 2.7357 2.60 2.1580 0.2086 0.45 2.1597 3.1401 0.9731 3.25 0.0147 3.1481 0.7557 2.8012 2. For the field soil that is not under the pavement.0411 3.0403 3.2440 0.1508 0.9030 2.0729 0.2027 0.9642 2.1422 0.1644 0.8431 2.3.1449 0.8146 2. Table 3.0750 4.05 2.2283 0.3.9448 2.1385 0.1914 0.1645 0.1529 0.1319 0.9318 2.8748 2.8232 2.0119 3.8868 2.15 2.0598 0.50 2.0124 3.30 2.75 2.25 1.1552 0.0674 3.8379 2.1790 0.0682 0.1635 0.2173 0.9668 2.90 0.0624 0.1216 0.1926 0.0625 3.1650 3.0450 4.8869 2.0648 3.0938 3.1904 3.45 0.9652 3.1711 0.6972 2.

0692 0.1475 0.1166 0.1169 0.0245 0.0275 0.0276 0.47 0.0825 0.0788 0.0639 0.1801 1.1139 3.0840 0.0449 0.0982 0.1161 0.1220 0.0248 0.45 0.0474 0.0942 0.0684 0.0185 0.0632 0.0711 0.0743 0.1108 0.0588 0.75 0.0934 0.0962 0.0838 3.35 0.1448 2.0560 0.0336 0.0717 0.1606 0.0632 0.28 0.0788 0.1220 0.43 0.0501 0.1216 0. Normal strains develop in each direction without inducing any normal stress.0424 0.1167 0.70 0.1575 0.0931 0.1237 2.0907 0.0207 0.15 0.0350 0.0711 0.0403 0.0592 0.0521 0.1106 0.0704 0.0750 0.0556 0.1077 0.0643 0.0703 0.1392 2.1662 1.2. the resultant swelling or shrinkage occurs in such a way as to cause a cubic element of the soil solid to remain cubic.1114 0.1064 0.0500 0.0970 0.0743 0.0876 0.1228 0.0551 0.0934 0.0198 0.0841 0.0527 0.0677 0.1136 0.1318 0.0456 0.0233 0.0649 0.0682 0.0968 0.1126 0.0330 3.0521 0. 36 .0422 0.0809 0.1191 2.1389 0.1681 0.1330 0.0983 0.0665 0.0478 0.1016 0.1060 0.0661 0.1040 3.0311 0.0464 0.0193 0.1524 0.0858 0.1091 0.60 0.50 0.0746 0.1334 0.0715 0.17 0. while experiencing changes of length on each of its sides. In this case.1180 0.0979 0.0751 0.0866 0.0574 0.0620 0.0805 0.0896 0.1642 0.1350 0.0625 0.1232 0.1080 0.0916 0.0544 0.1278 0.0740 0.0930 3.0188 0.59 0.1732 1.1434 0.1176 0.1535 0.1087 3.01 0.0225 0.0927 0.0469 0.0512 0.1030 0.0600 0.0827 0.85 0.0396 0.0443 0.0668 0.16 0.1015 0.1589 1.0433 0.1025 0.0896 0.0718 4.05 0.1061 0.1027 0.0791 0.1707 0.0986 3.1868 0.0972 0.20 0.0413 0.0220 0.0567 0.1045 0.0365 0.1128 0.0498 0.1.0920 0.1160 0.1270 0.89 0.0381 0.2 Model Constraints 45B If the matric suction change is uniform in an unconstrained elastic soil body.1882 1.0604 0.0881 0.1505 0.0753 4.55 0.1370 0.0427 0.32 0.0495 0.1270 0.0515 0.0792 0.0540 0.0775 0.0259 0.1292 0.0880 3.0450 0.0678 0.1515 2.0877 0.0796 4.1342 2.0320 0.0830 0.0782 0.05 0.0208 0.0602 0.0091 0.1290 2.90 0.0400 0.1111 0.00 0.1286 0.0305 0.0776 0.1059 0.0586 0.1968 1.0473 0.0619 0.1414 0.0878 0.30 0.0652 0.0571 0.74 0.1394 0.0825 0.0574 0.1010 0.0762 0.1785 0.0489 0.0547 0.0291 0.1455 0.0382 0.0682 4.1219 0.0831 0.0727 0.1007 0.0862 0.0529 0.

as shown in Figure 3. edge FE is specified zero displacement.3. However.the matric suction change also does not produce shear strains or shear stresses. edge DE is fixed in the horizontal direction (no horizontal displacement allowed) under the assumption that the field soil is intact without macro crack (see Figure 3. In the proposed pavement model shown in Figure 3. the shoulder of the pavement (edge BC ). At edge DE . Since the model size in depth is large enough for the subgrade to assume no significant deformation below 6 m. even if the matric suction change is uniform. or if the soil expansion or shrinkage is prohibited from taking place freely because of restrictions placed on the boundaries. and the surface of the field soil (edge CD ). Because of pavement symmetry. as studied in this research. no constraint is assigned to the pavement surface (edge AB ). four types of model constraint are applied respectively in order to consider both lateral confinement and possible shrinkage cracks in the field soil: • First. As a result.2). which indicates that the field soil is able to deform freely at its right edge (edge DE ). the boundary conditions are directly related to the magnitude of the shrinkage stresses as well as the development of the shrinkage cracks. 37 . no boundary condition is applied at edge DE . • Second. the shrinkage stress will develop in the soil. This case is equivalent to the situation in which a 6-meter-long vertical crack develops at the right edge of the field soil. shrinkage cracks will initiate and develop in the subgrade soil. and the right vertical edge of the field soil (edge DE ). Boundary conditions are specified at three boundaries: pavement centerline (edge AF ). Once the shrinkage tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength of the soil. edge AF in the proposed model is not allowed to have horizontal displacement. if the soil body has a nonuniform suction change field.1. the bottom of pavement subgrade and field soil (edge FE ).

and the rest of this boundary is fixed in the horizontal direction. • Fourth. This case simulates a 2-meter-deep crack developing from the soil surface downward at the right edge of the field soil. 38 .4. as shown in Figure 3. which is 4 m horizontally away from and on the left side of edge DE .• Third.5. the upper 2 m of edge DE is not constrained. while edge DE is not allowed to have horizontal displacement. This case simulates that a shrinkage crack develops in the middle of the field soil in the proposed model but no shrinkage crack is presented at the right edge of the field soil. a 2-meter-deep “top-down” crack is introduced at the location. which is illustrated in Figure 3.

39 Figure 3.2 Proposed Pavement Model with the First Model Constraint .

3 Proposed Pavement Model with the Second Model Constraint .40 Figure 3.

41 Figure 3.4 Proposed Pavement Model with the Third Model Constraint .

42 Figure 3.5 Proposed Pavement Model with the Fourth Model Constraint .

the volumetric change of the expansive soil is evenly distributed in transverse ( x1 ).6) Under the plane strain assumption. Equations (3. longitudinal ( x 2 ) and vertical directions ( x3 ). the strain components due to the matric suction change are: ⎛ hf ⎞ 1 ε 11 = ε 22 = ε 33 = − γ h log10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ 3 ⎝ hi ⎠ ε 12 = ε 23 = ε 31 = ε 13 = ε 32 = ε 21 = 0 (3. In other words.6) can be rearranged as follows: ⎡ (1 − ν )σ 11 − νσ 33 1 ⎛ hf ε 11 = (1 + ν )⎢ − γ h log10 ⎜⎜ E 3 ⎢⎣ ⎝ hi ⎡ (1 − ν )σ 33 − νσ 11 E ⎢⎣ ε 33 = (1 + ν )⎢ ⎞⎤ ⎟⎟⎥ ⎠⎥⎦ ⎛ h f ⎞⎤ 1 − γ h log10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ 3 ⎝ hi ⎠⎥⎦ 43 (3.3.2) (3. all infinitesimal line elements in the volume undergo equal shrinkage since the body is isotropic.8) . let the matric suction h of an elastic isotropic body in an arbitrary zero configuration be increased by a small amount. All line elements maintain their initial directions. but also have strains due to matric suction variations.7) (3. Therefore. According to Equation (3.4) (3.1). the expansive soils not only have strains associated with the displacement functions. ε 22 = 0 .3 Simulation of Matric Suction Change 46B As stated in previous sections.5) (3.4) and (3. Assuming the subgrade soil in this research is linearly elastic and isotropic.3) The matric suction induced strains can be superimposed to the stress induced strains to give: ε 22 ε 33 ⎡ ⎛h 1 (σ 11 − νσ 22 − νσ 33 ) + ⎢− 1 γ h log10 ⎜⎜ f E ⎢⎣ 3 ⎝ hi ⎞⎤ ⎟⎟⎥ ⎠⎥⎦ ⎡ 1 ⎛ h f ⎞⎤ 1 = (− νσ 11 + σ 22 − νσ 33 ) + ⎢− γ h log10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ E ⎢⎣ 3 ⎝ hi ⎠⎥⎦ ⎡ 1 ⎛ h f ⎞⎤ 1 = (− νσ 11 − νσ 22 + σ 33 ) + ⎢− γ h log10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ E ⎢⎣ 3 ⎝ hi ⎠⎥⎦ ε 11 = (3.2.

associated with the temperature change is then: ε t = αT (3. of a small linear element of length L in an unconstrained body is calculated by Equation (3. the stress-strain relations become: E [(1 − νε 11 ) + νε 33 ] − E αT σ 11 = (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν ) 1 − 2ν E [(1 − νε 33 ) + νε 11 ] − E αT σ 33 = (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν ) 1 − 2ν (3. the change of length.15) (3. The constitutive equations are similar for the two problems. et al. these expressions become: ⎡ ⎛h E [(1 − νε 11 ) + νε 33 ] − E ⋅ ⎢− 1 γ h log10 ⎜⎜ f σ 11 = (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν ) 1 − 2ν ⎢⎣ 3 ⎝ hi ⎡ ⎛h E [(1 − νε 33 ) + νε 11 ] − E ⋅ ⎢− 1 γ h log10 ⎜⎜ f σ 33 = (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν ) 1 − 2ν ⎢⎣ 3 ⎝ hi ⎞⎤ ⎟⎟⎥ ⎠⎥⎦ ⎞⎤ ⎟⎟⎥ ⎠⎥⎦ (3..In terms of strain components.11) in which α is the thermal expansion coefficient. the full stress-strain relations are as follows (Ugural.16) In both the matric suction variation problem and the temperature change problem. Considering a change in temperature T ( x.12) For the plain strain problem with ε 22 = 0 . 1995): ⎡ (1 − ν )σ 11 − νσ 33 ⎤ + αT ⎥ ε 11 = (1 + ν )⎢ E ⎣ ⎦ (3. the body has strains associated with the displacement functions as well as strains due to other causes (moisture differential or temperature variation). the thermal strain.14) In terms of strain components.13) ⎡ (1 − ν )σ 33 − νσ 11 ⎤ + αT ⎥ E ⎣ ⎦ ε 33 = (1 + ν )⎢ (3. If a point is allowed to have free expansion. ε t .9) (3. y ) .11): δL = αLT (3. When comparing the corresponding constitutive 44 . δL .10) There is an analogy between the matric suction variation in the soil and the temperature change in a solid.

6. ε th = α (θ . ⎝ 3 ⎠ Because of the analogy between the matric suction variation in a soil and the temperature change in a solid. The thermal expansion model in ABAQUS is able to define thermal expansion effects in terms of thermal strains based on specified thermal expansion coefficients (ABAQUS. θ I = initial temperature. f β )(θ − θ 0 ) − α (θ I . f βI )(θ I − θ 0 ) in which: α (θ . 2006).17) . 45 (3. and θ 0 = reference temperature for the thermal expansion coefficient.⎛h ⎞ equations of the two problems. orthotropic or fully anisotropic. as shown in Figure 3. The thermal strains are generated in ABAQUS according to Equation (3. θ 0 . in this dissertation research. θ = current temperature. ABAQUS requires thermal expansion coefficients. f β ) = thermal expansion coefficient.17). The thermal expansion effects can be isotropic. α . the logarithm of matric suction change ( log10 ⎜⎜ f ⎟⎟ ) is ⎝ hi ⎠ equivalent to the temperature change ( T ). and negative one third of the matric suction ⎛ 1 ⎞ compression index ⎜ − γ h ⎟ is equivalent to α (the thermal expansion coefficient). the logarithm of matric suction change is simulated by the equivalent temperature change using a thermal expansion model in ABAQUS. f β = current values of the predefined field variables. that define the total thermal expansion from a reference temperature.

θ 0 . the subgrade and 46 .Figure 3. In the pavement model proposed in this research. the subgrade is partitioned into a number of grids. 2006) 6B ABAQUS assumes that there is no initial thermal strain when the reference temperature is not equal to the initial temperature. θ I . Because the matric suction change varied from different locations in the subgrade soil.1. the initial temperature of the subgrade is assumed to be zero. and the reference temperature.6 Definition of Thermal Expansion Coefficient in ABAQUS (ABAQUS. and the final equivalent temperature is the logarithm of the matric suction change. Each grid is assigned a “final equivalent temperature” which is the logarithm of the matric ⎛h ⎞ suction change ( log10 ⎜⎜ f ⎟⎟ ) at the corresponding location shown in Table 3.17 which represents the strain due to the difference between the initial temperature. This assumption is enforced by the second term in Equation 3. The thermal expansion ⎝ 3 ⎠ coefficients used in this model have negative values because an increase in matric suction results in shrinkage of the soil instead of expansion. The ⎝ hi ⎠ ⎛ 1 ⎞ thermal expansion coefficient in the simulation is ⎜ − γ h ⎟ . In other words.

8. Each element is a 4-node bilinear plane strain quadrilateral continuum element (CPE4R). The location with the largest tensile stress is the most likely place for the initiation of a shrinkage crack.3 FINITE ELEMENT MESH 23B The finite element mesh distribution is designed to provide adequate accuracy without consuming too much computational effort. 3. Biased seed is assigned to the field soil in order to obtain denser mesh in the location closer to the pavement and sparser mesh in the region farther from the pavement. only a part of the subgrade soil and the pavement in their deformed shape are presented in each figure in order to show the contours more clearly. In total.4 SIMULATION RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 24B The simulation results are represented by contour maps in terms of the distribution of the normal stress in the transverse direction because the tensile stress distribution determines the onset of the shrinkage cracks. 3.10 show the simulation results of the proposed model with the four different boundary conditions. Reduced integration reduces running time by using a lower-order integration to form the element stiffness. respectively. σ 11 max .field soil in the proposed model behave as a “Negative Thermal Expansion” material. Since the stress distribution in the subgrade soil is of the most interest. As can be seen from Figures 3.10.7 to 3. the largest transverse tensile stress in the pavement subgrade.9 and 3. 3. develops in the area close to the pavement shoulder and close to the interface of the 47 . 92. Such an element provides a first-order interpolation with reduced integration. The mesh size is 20 mm for the pavement and the subgrade soil. in all four cases studied with different model constraints.7. Figures 3. which contracts upon heating rather than expanding. 3.800 elements are generated in this model.

fracture mechanics theory will be used to determine whether or not the crack is stable in the next chapter. and σ 11 max is around 0. The difference in the four cases is the magnitude of σ 11 max .5.22 MPa (Figure 3. which is the fourth model constraint shown in Figure 3. the right edge of the field soil is not allowed to move horizontally. In order to reduce calculation effort.9). more strain energy is released. According to the crack initiation criterion. Therefore.8). macro cracks tend to initiate in the pavement subgrade close to the pavement shoulder and close to the interface of base and subgrade.6). This matches the location of the observed longitudinal cracks on in-service pavement sections. independent of the shrinkage cracks in the field soil. These findings indicate that whether the field soil is intact or has shrinkage cracks. When a 2meter-long “top-down” crack develops at the right edge of the field soil (the third model constraint shown in Figure 3.28 MPa (Figure 3. σ 11 max is around 0. the strain energy induced by the nonuniform matric suction variation in the soil body is released by this crack to generate the crack surfaces.. and σ 11 max is found to be 0.25 MPa (Figure 3. which means the right edge of the field soil is allowed to move freely in the transverse direction. σ 11 max decrease to approximate 0.3). 1997).subgrade and the base. the magnitude of σ 11 max is considerably larger than the soil tensile strength reported in the literature (Ayad et al. After the onset of the shrinkage cracks in the pavement subgrade.2. Of the four cases 48 . If the length of this crack increases to 6 m (the second model constraint illustrated in Figure 3.30 MPa (Figure 3.7). only one type of constraint will be assigned at the right edge of the field soil when studying the crack propagation. With the first model constraint shown in Figure 3.4). a crack will develop in the soil if the tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength of the soil. In this case. When the 2-meter-long crack develops closer to the pavement shoulder (4 m horizontally away from the right edge of the field soil).

studied with different model constraints.5 SUMMARY 25B This chapter has identified the possible location of shrinkage crack initiation by constructing a finite element model of pavement over shrinkage subgrade. Consequently. the next chapter will investigate why and how the crack is able to propagate by means of the linear fracture mechanics theory. The largest tensile stress in the subgrade develops in the area close to the pavement shoulder and close to the bottom of the base. If the initial crack is able to propagate to the pavement surface. The distribution of the matric suction change is estimated based on the available matric suction data and the empirical models in the literature. Four different boundary conditions are applied to the proposed model. BC and CD in Figure 3. and • Edge AB . a longitudinal crack will occur at the pavement surface close to the shoulder. The non-uniform matric suction change is simulated using a thermal expansion model in ABAQUS. • Zero displacement at edge FE in Figure 3.1.1 are free to deform. in the analysis of crack propagation. 3. Based on the tensile stress distribution.1. 49 . the boundary conditions of the proposed model will be as follows: • Zero horizontal displacement at edge AF in Figure 3. • Zero horizontal displacement at edge DE in Figure 3.1. This area is the most likely for the initial shrinkage crack to develop. This finding agrees with the field observation in terms of the location of the “dry-land” longitudinal cracks. these model constraints cover a variety of possible conditions in engineering practice. The model constraints and the nonuniform matric suction change in the soil result in tensile shrinkage stresses in the subgrade and the field soil. the most critical case with the largest σ 11 max is the model with the first constraint in which the field soil is intact without any shrinkage cracks.

50 Figure 3.7 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement without Geogrid (First Model Constraint) .

8 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement without Geogrid (Second Model Constraint) .51 Figure 3.

52 Figure 3.9 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement without Geogrid (Third Model Constraint) .

53 Figure 3.10 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement without Geogrid (Fourth Model Constraint) .

4. The chapter begins with Section 4. it may develop in three modes. Mode II and Mode III. Section 4. The chapter concludes with some summary remarks in Section 4. corresponding to different loading conditions shown in Figure 4.1. After the crack initiation. Mode III (tearing mode) corresponds to anti-plane shearing parallel to the crack front.Chapter 4 Propagation of Crack in Pavement 5B The crack initiation criterion described in Chapter 3 determines the onset of the shrinkage crack: a shrinkage crack will initiate in the soil if the tensile shrinkage stress exceeds the tensile strength of the soil.1 FUNDAMENTALS OF FRACTURE MECHANICS 26B As a crack develops in the subgrade.2 presents the fracture properties of the pavement materials. The aim of this chapter is to track the propagation of the initial shrinkage crack and to investigate the mechanism of dry-land longitudinal crack generation. It is important to examine whether the initial shrinkage crack is stable in the subgrade or if it will develop in one or both directions.3 describes the finite element modeling of the crack propagation process in the pavement structure. which introduces the fundamentals of fracture mechanics. Mode I (opening mode) corresponds to normal separation of the crack under the effect of tensile stress applied normally to the crack plane.1. Mode II (sliding mode) corresponds to the in-plane shearing of the crack in a direction normal to the crack front. the specimen geometry and the crack length. The progression of the initial shrinkage crack is critical to the development of the dry-land longitudinal crack found on the pavement surface. In the case 54 . 4. Mode I. The linear elastic fracture mechanics theory provides necessary theoretical support to the analysis of crack propagation. the propagation of the crack depends on a number of factors. Section 4. including the loading condition.

The magnitude of the stress intensity factors depends on the applied loading. the stress and displacement solutions were developed by Irwin for each crack mode with respect to rectangular coordinates and polar coordinates (Lawn. Paris and Sih. Mode I: Opening Mode Mode II: Sliding Mode 55 .of the shrinkage cracks in this study. K II . crack length and specimen geometry. 1965). K III . Mode I is assumed. For linear elastic crack tip field. respectively. 1993. Each crack propagation mode has an associated stress intensity factor. The Irwin crack-tip solution is not included in this discussion but is available in the mentioned references. K . a stress intensity factor. K I . i. is used to quantify the components of stress and displacement at the crack tip.e. Since stress concentration occurs in the vicinity of the crack tip.

let U E be the strain energy in the system and the crack length be a prior to extension. θ = π . For a crack configuration in Figure 4. θ = 0 .1).3) ( in which E ′ = E in plane stress and E ′ = E / 1 − ν 2 56 ) in plane strain. the factor ½ means the proportionality between tractions and corresponding displacements. the stresses σ ij correspond to r = x−a . Define the strain energy release rate as: ⎛ ∂U E ⎞ G = −⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ∂a ⎠ u (4. a ≤ x ≤ a + δa . and the displacements u i corresponds to r = a + δa − x . ( u = constant) δU E = 2 ∫ a +δa 2 (4. 1993) 67B The Irwin crack-tip solution is important for determining the crack propagation from the energy release point of view.2) Using the Irwin crack-tip solution and proceeding to the limit δa → 0 . .Mode III: Tearing Mode Figure 4.1) In Equation (4. the strains energy release rate may be integrated as: K 2 K 2 K 2 (1 + ν ) G = I + II + III E′ E′ E (4.1 Three Fracture Modes (Lawn. The strain energy release may be presented in an integral form over the crack surfaces immediately behind the crack tip per unit width of front: a 1 (σ yy u y + σ xy u x + σ zy u z )dx . the factor 2 indicates the displacement of the two crack surfaces.2.

2 Crack Increment in Specimen of Unit Thickness 68B At energy equilibrium. G . 1968). The J integral is defined as: 57 . As a result.δa a 2u x Figure 4. is equal to the surface energy of the generated two crack surface. when the stress intensity factor is smaller than the fracture toughness. the strain energy release rate. the corresponding stress intensity factor. the crack is unstable and will propagate to release energy until equilibrium is reached. is called the fracture toughness of the material. For a crack in a linear elastic body. 2γ s ( γ s is the surface energy of one crack surface). which is called J integral (Rice. the fracture criterion is: when the stress intensity factor is larger than the fracture toughness of the specimen. K c . the crack remains stable. When G = 2γ s . the strain energy release rate ( G ) and the stress intensity factor ( K ) can be quantified using a path-independent integral. which is a constant material property and can be measured by experiment.

etc. and ds = differential element of arc length along Γ . y = direction normal to the crack line. The stress intensity factor can be estimated by finite element modeling.028 to 0.200 to 0. Ti = σ ij n j .020 MPa ⋅ m as the water content increased from 3 percent to 23 percent. They found K IC varied significantly with the soil type and water content. otherwise the crack will be stable. u = the displacement vector. the J integral is widely accepted as a quasi-static fracture mechanics parameter for linear response.005 MPa ⋅ m as the water content increased from 3 percent to 16 percent. 4. 58 . K IC varied from 0. if the stress intensity factor is larger than the material fracture toughness.. W = ∫ σ ij dε ij . Harison et al. Therefore. lime-treated soil. the crack will propagate. T = the traction vector defined according to the outward normal along Γ . In the linear elastic case. (1994) used a ring test to measure the mode I fracture toughness ( K IC ) of two compacted soils from Kentucky.1. however. 0 Γ = any curve surrounding the crack tip. fracture toughness for soils and pavement materials (HMA.∂u ⎞ ⎛ J = ∫ ⎜Wdy − T ds ⎟ ∂x ⎠ Γ⎝ (4.4) where: ε W = the strain energy density. For the second test clay. K IC decreased from 0. the J integral is identical to the strain energy release rate G and can be used to determine the stress intensity factors. crushed stone. For the first test clay.) has not been well defined to date.2 TOUGHNESS OF PAVEMENT MATERIALS 27B As indicated in Section 4.

For asphalt concrete.050 and 0. If the crack stress intensity factor is larger than the assumed fracture toughness. the K IC of frozen crushed stone was found to be larger than that of the frozen sand. Mobasher et al.040 to 0.060 MPa ⋅ m . the measured K IC values changed from 0.050 to 0. this study conservatively assumes the fracture toughness of each pavement material to be constant and to be close to the lower value presented in the literature.700 MPa ⋅ m when the volumetric ice content increased from 8 percent to 28 percent.Konrad and Cummings (2001) researched the K IC of frozen base and subbase soils in pavement with different ice content. in order to study the crack propagation process. At temperature -5ºC.600 to 1.040 MPa ⋅ m .770 to 1. the K IC of crushed stone samples with an average dry density of 2070 kg/m3 and a porosity of 22 percent increased approximately linearly from 0. For a given volumetric ice content. base and subgrade soil is 0. the K IC of the frozen sand with dry density varying from 1490 to 1690 kg/m3 increased from 0. it is difficult to precisely predict whether or not the initial crack will grow by using the fracture criterion. the crack may not propagate but the probability that it will grow is 59 . The assumed fracture toughness for asphalt.). 0.400 MPa ⋅ m as the volumetric ice content increased from 6 percent to 14. but increased when the binder content increased. For most specimens in their test. Since the fracture toughness of soil and pavement materials reported in the literature is not a constant but depends on a number of variables (temperature. the measured K IC decreased with the increase of temperature.170 MPa ⋅ m . the K IC value was from 0. for asphalt rubber. (1997) tested the K IC of asphalt concrete and asphalt-rubber mixture at different binder content and two temperatures (-1 ºC and -7 ºC). The measured fracture toughness increased with the increase of ice content and soil average grain size. However. respectively. material property.2 percent. etc.700.

4. a number of trial cracks are placed at different vertical locations with a fixed crack length of 0. For this part of the study. For the purpose of creating a 1 / r singularity in strain at the crack tips. a value of 0. a mesh singularity can be obtained at the crack tips. By using these collapsed second-order elements. The crack is modeled as a seam with specified crack tips and crack fronts in the Interaction Module of ABAQUS/CAE. In 60 .6 m horizontally away from the pavement shoulder. defined as an edge in the 2D FE model constructed in the prior sections. the FE program ABAQUS is also used to model the crack and to calculate the J integral and stress intensity factors. ABAQUS/CAE places overlapping duplicate nodes along the seam when the mesh is generated. so the initial crack is assumed to be 0. The stress intensity factors are calculated and compared to determine the vertical location of the initial crack that has the largest stress intensity factor. All the elements in the FE model are eight node biquadratic plane strain (CPE8R) elements.1 m. is originally closed but can open during the analysis.25 is used for the midside node parameter.3 CRACK PROPAGATION PROCESS 28B Based on the finite element modeling of the pavement over shrinking subgrade.greater. This approach will also be used in Chapter 5 to demonstrate the benefit of geogrid reinforcement. The vertical location of the initial crack should not be at the top of subgrade because the high-modulus base tends to prevent cracking and keep the subgrade soil intact. As a result. the largest transverse tensile stress (which is higher than the soil tensile strength) in the subgrade develops close to the pavement shoulder horizontally and at the interface of the base and subgrade vertically. the area with the highest tensile stress is the most likely area for development of the initial crack. The seam. which moves the midside nodes on the element sides adjoining the collapsed edge to the quarter points of the elements. Therefore.

Each contour provides an evaluation of the J integral and stress intensity factors.addition.01 m lower than the first trial crack). In the Step Module of ABAQUS/CAE. Additional contour integrals are computed by adding a single layer of elements to the group of elements that are used to calculate the previous contour integral. even with a finer mesh at the crack tip. The stress intensity factors of all trial cracks are calculated and compared. ABAQUS is capable of calculating the J integral of a number of different contours. the second trial crack has a d of 0.02 m (0. The J integral and stress intensity factors are evaluated in ABAQUS along several contours. Mode I stress intensity factor ( K I ) is of the most interest because it directly relates to the longitudinal cracking on the pavement. the first trial crack has a d of 0. more contours should be evaluated until the value of contour integral stays approximately constant from one contour to the next. the element sides at the crack tips are collapsed with single-node-type degenerate element control. Therefore. The crack tip regions are partitioned to facilitate the generation of focused meshes. a finer mesh is necessary at the crack tips.01 m. the J -integral estimates from different contours may vary because of the approximate nature of the finite element solution. and so on. Defining d as the vertical distance from the upper crack tip to the subgrade top. which are shown in Table 61 . To obtain a contour integral with a high level of accuracy. the first few contour integrals may be inaccurate. The first contour integral is determined using all elements within the crack front and one layer of element outside the crack front. Although the J integral is path independent. ABAQUS automatically finds the elements that form each ring contour at the crack tip. Each contour is a ring of elements completely surrounding the crack tip from one crack face to the opposite crack face. However. history outputs with 20 contours are requested for each crack tip to calculate the J integral and the stress intensity factors.

Therefore.051 Lower Crack Tip 0. The stress intensity factor at the upper crack tip (0.141 MPa ⋅ m .100 0.110 and 0.183 and 0.060 K I ( MPa ⋅ m ) Upper Crack Tip 0. Table 4. the crack 62 .102 0. the stress intensity factors at both crack tips (upper tip and lower tip) increase first and then decrease.102 0.103 0.096 0.108 MPa ⋅ m . which is 0.050 0.020 0. This enlarged crack (Stage 2 in Figure 4.183 MPa ⋅ m ) is much larger than the supposed fracture toughness of the base.030 0.05 m vertically away from the interface of the base and subgrade. As the trial crack moves farther away from the subgrade top.06 m increment is selected to let the upper tip of the crack be 0.6 m horizontally away from the pavement shoulder and the upper tip of which is 0.4. respectively.1.05 m away from the subgrade top) has the largest stress intensity factors at both crack tips. respectively.3) has a total length of 0.040 MPa ⋅ m ).106 0. Based on the fracture criterion.108 0.22 m. which indicates that this crack has the most strain energy release rate to propagate. d (m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.010 0.106 0.044 The stress intensity factor at the upper and lower tips of the initial crack are 0. and the stress intensity factors at the upper and lower crack tips are 0. and both are larger than the assumed fracture toughness of the subgrade soil (0.040 0. Consequently.01 m advance into the base layer so that the non-geogrid case can be compared with the geogrid case in later sections.1 Stress Intensity Factors of Trial Cracks 51B Trial Crack No. the initial crack is assumed to grow in both directions with an increment of 0.06 m. the 5th trial crack is selected as the initial crack. The 0.110 0. The 5th trial crack (upper tip 0.088 0.

This fact does not mean the crack will definitely propagate but indicates that the desiccation crack has a high probability of causing the longitudinal crack on pavement surface. The fracture properties of the pavement materials are critical for crack development. At each crack progress stage. If the fracture toughness of a material is larger than the stress intensity factor at the crack tip inside the material. Compared to the stress concentration level at the shrinkage crack 63 . The stress intensity factors at both crack tips increase as the crack propagates. The stress concentration at the crack tip is evaluated in terms of stress intensity factors. This parameter depends on the loading condition.4 SUMMARY 29B The progression of shrinkage cracks has been analyzed in this chapter for investigating the mechanism of “dry-land” longitudinal cracks at the pavement surface. Stress intensity factor at the crack tip can be determined by the strain energy release rate.continues propagating at an assumed step of 0. Figure 4. the crack will be stable. specimen geometry and crack length. the stress intensity factors are larger than the assumed fracture toughness of the pavement materials.05 m in both upward and downward directions. A higher strain energy release rate is usually associated with a larger stress intensity factor. The linear elastic fracture mechanics theory has been reviewed and used to model the shrinkage crack in the subgrade. otherwise the crack will propagate to release more strain energy. 4. Because the fracture properties of pavement materials have not been well documented. conservative values are assumed for the fracture toughness of each pavement material used in this model based on the available data in the literature. This fact agrees with the principle in fracture mechanics that the Mode I stress intensity factor increases as the crack length increases.3 records the crack development progress from the initial crack (Stage 1) to the final crack (Stage 7) with the crack tip reaching the asphalt layer.

tips. 2) decreasing the stress intensity factor at the shrinkage crack tip. the shrinkage crack develops through the pavement structure to the pavement surface and then generates the longitudinal crack at the pavement surface. The following chapter will examine in detail the mechanism of how geogrid controls the “dry-land” longitudinal crack and will quantify the benefit of geogrid reinforcement. 64 . In order to control the “dry-land” longitudinal crack. As a result. The benefit of geogrid reinforcement or lime treatment can be attributed to their ability to make stress intensity factors smaller than the fracture toughness of the pavement materials. the fracture toughness of pavement materials is not large enough to keep the shrinkage crack stable. the corresponding treatment methods should be effective in one or both of the following: 1) increasing the fracture toughness of the pavement materials.

65 Figure 4.3 Stress Intensity Factors of Crack in Non-Geogrid Pavement (Unit: MPa·m0.5) .

so their effectiveness has been of particular benefit when placed at the interface of base and subgrade to prevent cracks 66 . Field observations show that the geogrids are effective for the control of “dry-land” longitudinal cracks at the pavement surface (Sebesta. the geogrid sheets are unrolled on the prepared surface. and other surrounding materials to function primarily as reinforcement. Section 5. At the project sites. 2002).2 further models the pavement with a geogrid layer at the interface of the base and subgrade. However. earth. The stress intensity factors at the crack tips are calculated with the geogrid reinforcement.3 is a summary of this chapter. To fill the abovementioned gap in the application of geogrid in pavement. this chapter investigates in Section 5.Chapter 5 Benefit of Geogrid Reinforcement 6B Geogrid is defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM. the function mechanism of geogrid reinforcement is not clear.1 the reasons the geogrid prevents a shrinkage crack from developing through the pavement.) to allow interlocking with surrounding soil. placed in a roll or carton. and finally transported to the sites. 2006) as “a geosynthetic formed by a regular network of integrally connected elements with apertures greater than 6. 5. A variety of geogrid stiffness values are used to examine the effect of geogrid properties on the reinforcement benefit.” Geogrids are manufactured in a factory-controlled environment. This section details how the geogrid reduces stress concentration at the shrinkage crack tip using fracture mechanics principles. rock. they are packaged in sheets. overlapped to each other to form a continuous geogrid blanket. and the use of geogrid is based purely on experience.1 MECHANISM OF GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT 30B Geogrids have considerable tensile strength. and often physically joined to each other. Section 5.35 mm (1⁄4 in.

the geogrid can be assumed to be fully bonded with the pavement layer materials. Because the base material interlocks the subgrade soil through the geogrid apertures. However.from developing and propagating due to the shrinkage of the subgrade soils. the assumption of full bonded interface condition is appropriate in this study because it is a conservative approach. If there is interface sliding. However. part of the strain energy will release along the interface. the geogrid has to deform with the crack opening. slippage between the geogrid and the soil results in some level of stress relaxation. Consequently. As opposed to traditional reinforcement where the assumption of full bond is unsafe. as illustrated in Figure 5. 67 . As a result. 2005). for crack propagation. When the crack initiates in the subgrade and propagates upward. The forces tend to restrain the crack from opening and therefore reduce the stress intensity factor at the crack tip. which is conservative and on the safe side. Kwon et al. which is the basic mechanism by which geogrid prevents crack development. Field measurements and modeling studies in the literature showed the development of interface shear stresses at the geogrid-aggregate interface and at the subgrade-geogrid interface under repeated traffic loading (Perkins and Svano. the geogrid applies these “holding” forces directly to the crack faces.1.3). 2004. the Mode II crack develops at the subgrade-geogrid interface. and a small deformation of the geogrid results in significant forces.. the Mode I stress intensity factor ( K I ) will decrease according to Equation (4. Therefore. that is. the assumption of full bonded condition under-estimates the benefit of geogrid reducing crack. then the desiccation crack is even less likely to develop toward the pavement surface. the crack may go through the geogrid since the geogrid is not a physical barrier but has apertures.

there are two forces applied on the surfaces of the desiccation crack in the geogrid-reinforced pavement: i) the shrinkage stress in the soil. the concentrated force is applied to the crack surfaces in the outward direction to let the crack grow. Tada et al. On the contrary.Asphalt Vertical Direction Base P Geogrid P Subgrade Figure 5. 68 . which is the driving force for the crack propagation. the geogrid applies forces to the crack surfaces in an inward direction to let the crack close. (2000) gave a detailed mathematical solution on stress intensity factors of the problem. in the geogrid-reinforcement problem. Freund (1978) studied four plane elastic crack problems with concentrated force applied perpendicularly to the crack faces. If the geogrid can reduce the stress intensity factor of the upper crack tip to a value that is below the fracture toughness of the base material. The stress intensity factors are calculated simply and directly by using the conservation law. The forces provided by the geogrid produce a reduction of the stress intensity factor with the same magnitude as that in the literature. In summary. and ii) the forces from geogrid-reinforcement.1 Mechanism of Geogrid Preventing Crack 69B The magnitude of the stress intensity factor reduction can be analytically calculated using the so-called M -integral conservation law. In the literature. which limit the crack growth. the crack will stop propagating upward to the pavement surface.

600 kN/m stiffness. This modeling approach agrees with current engineering practice in Texas of using geogrid to prevent cracks propagating from the shrinking subgrade. 800. the geogrid is placed at the interface between the base layer and subgrade as reinforcement. 6.5.3.1. There are seven cases in total in the ABAQUS modeling: no geogrid. Crack 1 is the crack developed in the pavement without 69 . The pavement structure and layer properties are the same in each case as presented in Section 3. the size and position of this crack are exactly the same as those of the crack at Stage 2 in Figure 4. The embedded truss elements have identical displacement to the host solid elements. The one-dimensional truss element is selected to model the geogrid because the geogrid is a slender structure that supports loading only along the horizontal direction but cannot resist bending. The use of a range of geogrid stiffness values is to cover a range of materials and to simulate the different tensile strength of the reinforced versus un-reinforced granular layers. geogrid with 1. geogrid with 3. The geogrid is given a fixed Poisson’s ratio of 0.800 kN/m stiffness. In this figure. the truss elements representing geogrid reinforcement are “embedded” in the “host” pavement elements using the embedded element technique offered by ABAQUS.200 kN/m stiffness.400 and 12. that is. The stress intensity factors at crack tips in each case are calculated and compared in Figure 5.400 kN/m stiffness and geogrid with 12. 1. In the 2D finite element model. geogrid with 400 kN/m stiffness. This technique fairly simulates the condition whereby a crack goes through the geogrid without breaking it. the embedded elements are fully bonded to the surrounding materials. geogrid with 6.2 MODELING OF GEOGRID 31B In the finite element model constructed in ABAQUS. A crack is introduced to the pavement and subgrade.2. geogrid with 800 kN/m stiffness.800 kN/m.600. 3.5 and six different representative stiffness values: 400.200.

When the reduced stress intensity factor is less than the fracture toughness of the pavement materials.183 MPa ⋅ m at the upper crack tip. The geogrid with a stiffness of 400 kN/m reduces K I by around 11 percent to 0. 3. 5.2. 800. the shrinkage crack does not propagate but remains stable in the subgrade. The geogrid with higher stiffness is able to provide larger forces to the crack surfaces. As can be seen from Figure 5. respectively. As the geogrid stiffness increases from 400 to 12. the shrinkage crack is able to propagate through the geogrid layer.3 SUMMARY 32B This chapter has described the mechanism of the geogrid controlling “dry-land” longitudinal crack at the pavement surface.400 and 12. Because the geogrid has large tensile strength and stiffness.geogrid-reinforcement.800 kN/m. a small deformation of the geogrid produces considerable forces which are applied to the two crack surfaces directly. K I continues to decrease significantly from 0.600.3 shows the trend of K I decreasing with the increase of geogrid stiffness. and then produces more reduction in the stress concentration at the crack tips.163 MPa ⋅ m to 0. Figure 5. 70 . the reduction rate of K I decreases first and then increases.800 kN/m. Since the geogrid has apertures. 6. It is observed that the geogrid reinforcement effect does not linearly increase with the increase of geogrid stiffness.087 MPa ⋅ m . the geogrid has to deform with the crack opening. As the geogrid stiffness increases. a shrinkage crack is less likely to grow if a geogrid with larger stiffness reinforces the pavement.163 MPa ⋅ m .200. Therefore. These forces tend to close the crack and then reduce the stress intensity factor at the shrinkage crack tip. 1. Therefore. the crack in the pavement without geogrid has a Mode I stress intensity factor ( K I ) of 0. and Crack 2 through Crack 7 are the cracks developed in geogridreinforced pavement with a geogrid stiffness of 400.

However. The next chapter will address the details of lime treatment preventing the “dry-land” longitudinal crack.Different from the function mechanism of geogrid reinforcement. the lime treatment increases the tensile strength and fracture toughness of the subgrade soil. 71 . the lime treatment is not able to reduce the stress intensity factor at the shrinkage crack tips.

72

Figure 5.2 Stress Intensity Factors of Cracks in Geogrid-Reinforced Pavement (Unit: MPa·m0.5)

Mode I Stress Intensity Factor (MPa·m^0.5)

0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Geogrid Stiffness (kN/m)

Figure 5.3 Relationship between Mode I Stress Intensity Factor of Crack Tip in Base and
Geogrid Stiffness
70B

73

Chapter 6 Benefit of Lime Treatment
7B

Lime treatment is the most extensively used chemical alteration method to modify
the swelling properties of expansive soils. Using lime to stabilize expansive subgrade
soils is one of the most effective methods to reduce longitudinal cracking of pavements
due to subgrade shrinkage. The mechanism of lime treatment controlling this type of
longitudinal crack is completely different from that of the geogrid reinforcement. The use
of geogrid aims at reducing the stress concentration at the shrinkage crack tips. On the
other hand, the objective of using lime to treat the subgrade soil is to increase the tensile
strength and fracture toughness of the soil. If the fracture toughness of the soil can be
increased to a level that is larger than the stress intensity factor at the crack tip, the
shrinkage crack cannot propagate through the lime-treated layer to reach to the pavement
surface. Another advantage is that the moisture sensitivity of the subgrade soils is
significantly reduced, which results is less volumetric changes.
This chapter reviews the properties of the lime-treated soil in Section 6.1. The
inclusion of lime in the soil significantly changes the mechanical properties of the natural
soil. The change of soil properties has considerable effect on the initiation and
propagation of the shrinkage crack in the subgrade soil. Section 6.2 describes a finite
element model of pavement with a lime-treated layer. The distribution of the shrinkage
tensile stress is examined in the pavement model in order to estimate the possible location
of shrinkage crack initiation. The development of shrinkage cracks is investigated in
Section 6.3. This section constructs a number of models with different numbers of
shrinkage cracks. In each model, the stress concentration at the crack tips is evaluated in
terms of stress intensity factor. A summary of this chapter is presented in Section 6.4.

74

and swelling property. Modification can successfully provide substantial reduction in an expansive soil’s plasticity. Generally. and two South Dakota soils (Holtz. This fact indicates that a larger percentage of lime is needed when treating soils with higher PI and higher clay content in order to achieve the non-plastic condition. 1970).6. Modification occurs because of two chemical processes: i) exchange of calcium cations supplied by the lime (Ca(OH)2 or hydrated lime) for the normally present cation adsorbed on the surface of the clay mineral. Different percentages of lime are required to reduce plasticity to desired levels for different soils. This figure reflects the immediate effect of lime treatment without long curing time. The soil often becomes non-plastic with lime treatment. The plasticity of expansive soils is reduced most effectively by the first increments of added lime.1 shows the reduction in plastic indices of four soil samples: a Texas soil. a California soil. 1969).. Figure 6. and ii) reaction of the hydrated lime with the clay mineral surface in the high pH environment promoted by the lime-water system (Miller et al. if it can be achieved. 75 . moisture holding capacity.1 BACKGROUND OF LIME TREATMENT 3B Lime treatment of expansive soils can essentially provide two methods of improving soil engineering properties: modification and stabilization. a larger percentage of lime added to the soil provides additional reduction of the plastic index.

3 demonstrates the influence of the amount of lime and the influence of curing time on the reduction of swell pressure of lime-treated clay. the swell potential of a high PI clay with a swell pressure of 2. in which the percent swell was defined as volume change of the soil when the moisture content increased from the optimum moisture content to the saturation moisture content.2. Figure 6. With the reduction in percent swell or volume change.Figure 6. 1969) 71B The reduction of plastic index by lime treatment is a significant indication of the reduction of soil swell potential and swelling pressure. Seed et al. (1962) developed a relationship between PI and swell potential as follows: Percent Swell = 0.700 76 . the swell pressure was considerably decreased by adding lime to the soil.44 (6. Basma and Tuncer (1991) found that lime percentage and curing time profoundly reduce the swell potential and swell pressure of expansive soils.00216 × PI 2.1 Reduction in Plasticity Index by Lime Treatment (Holtz. In their one-dimensional swell tests.600 kPa was reduced to 1.1) This relationship is graphically illustrated in Figure 6.

2004). the soil with smaller γ h will have smaller maximum tensile stress developing in the soil body than the soil with higher value of γ h . 77 . the reduced matric suction compression index can be predicted by the empirical procedure developed by McKeen (1980).. When subjected to the same matric suction change and model constraints. γ h may decreases to 0. Figure 6. which is stated in Chapter 2.kPa with 10 percent hydrated lime (immediately) and was further reduced to 0 kPa with 28 days of cure at only 4 percent hydrated lime. 1962) 72B Associated with a reduction in the swell pressure and swell potential is the decrease in matric suction compression index ( γ h ). if a subgrade soil with an original matric suction compression index ( γ h ) of 0. For example.2 Relationship between Plastic Index and Swelling (Seed et al.27) to estimate the reduced plasticity index of the lime-treated expansive soil. When using Equation (2.0156 (Lytton.0313 is treated by 8 percent of lime.

The long-term pozzolanic reaction provides substantial increases in resilient modulus and tensile strength. The increase of soil stiffness is not beneficial to the shrinkage problem in this study because the increase of the elastic modulus results in the increase of the tensile stresses when the model is subjected to the same matric suction change and constraints. The typical modulus of lime treated soil falls in a range between 210 MPa and 3.Figure 6. Jordan. The pozzolanic reaction may take many years. 1999). Clay (Basma and Tuncer.500 MPa (Little. 78 .3 Swell Pressure as a Function of Lime Content and Period of Curing for Irbid. 1991) 73B Besides modification. In the pozzolanic reaction process. another improvement provided by lime treatment is stabilization. Stabilization offers the soil long-term strength through a long-term pozzolanic reaction. the calcium from the lime reacts with the aluminates and silicates solubilized from the clay mineral surface to produce the formation of calcium silicate hydrates and calcium aluminate hydrates.

lime stabilization considerably 79 . (1970) developed an equation based on experimental results and regression analysis to predict the indirect tensile strength of the lime-treated material if the unconfined compressive strength was known. both modification and stabilization of the lime treatment can significantly improve the engineering properties of expansive soils. Thompson (1964. Evans (1998) used 8 percent lime to treat highly plastic Queensland black clays with original PI’s of near 40. Considerable research has been conducted to estimate the correlation between the unconfined compressive strength and tensile strength of lime-stabilized soil. Metcalf et al. When subjected to the same suction change and constraints. 1966) reported an approximate 0. The lime treatment reduced the PI to below 8 while increasing the 26-week unconfined compressive strength to over 4. if a lime-soil mixture has an unconfined compressive strength of 10 MPa.13 ratio of indirect tensile strength to the unconfined compressive strength of the lime-stabilized soils. In summary.However. The addition of lime decreases the liquid limit and plasticity index of the expansive soils while increasing their shrinkage limit. In addition. the lime-treated soil experiences lower tensile stress development in the soil body than the untreated expansive soils. lime stabilization also increases the unconfined compressive strength and tensile strength of the soil in addition to the stiffness. its tensile strength may be higher than 1 MPa. First. Tulloch et al. Therefore. the modification process decreases the potential expansiveness of the soils from very high to low. Little (1999) stated that the ultimate unconfined compressive strength of lime-soil mixtures can be as high as 7 to 10 MPa or higher. The stabilization may result in a 400 to 1. (1962) found that the tensile strength was between one-twelfth and one-tenth of the unconfined compressive strength for the lime-treated soils.500 percent tensile strength increase. and this ratio exhibited little variation between test samples.5 MPa.

Poisson’s ratio of lime-treated soil is a stress dependent property.2 to 0. Engineering practice has shown that there is little development of shrinkage cracks in well designed lime-treated expansive clays. A typical value of between 0. the lime-stabilized layer showed tensile strength high enough to resist shrinking stress produced by matric suction change. 80 .increases the tensile strength of the expansive soils. Figure 6. the shrinkage crack will not initiate in the soil. The benefit of lime treatment is quantified by finite element modeling of the pavement with lime-treated layer over expansive soil. At higher stress levels. 1987). This picture clearly indicates that the shrinkage cracks developed in the shrinking soil while the lime-treated layer still remained intact. Therefore.1 to 0.2 is usually used for Poisson’s ratio of limestabilized soil (TRB.2 when the stress level is less than 50 percent of the ultimate compressive strength.3.15 and 0. Poisson’s ratio is within the range of 0. The stabilized soil with higher tensile strength is able to resist larger tensile stress developing in the soil. The material comprising the bottom layer of this section is high PI clay. lime treatment provides the most desirable benefit for the expansive subgrade: decreasing the tensile stress induced by suction change as well as increasing the soil’s tensile strength at the same time. the middle section is a lime-treated layer. which is stated in the following section. Poisson’s ratio falls in the range of 0. If the tensile stress induced within the stabilized layer does not exceed the tensile strength.4 shows the cross section of an in-service pavement with a lime-stabilized layer. In this example. and the top layer has granular materials.

2004).4 Shrinkage Cracks in High PI Clay Covered by Lime-Treated Layer (Courtesy of Lytton and Scullion) 74B 6.2 MODEL CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENT WITH LIME-TREATED LAYER 34B A two-dimensional plane strain pavement model is constructed in ABAQUS with the same layers and dimension as the model established in Chapter 3. untreated subgrade soil.75 m and width of 6 m. The difference between these two models is that a part of the subgrade soil and field soil is treated with 8 percent lime. The pavement model with lime-treated layer has the same material properties of the asphalt layer. and untreated field soil as the model in Chapter 3. The lime-treated layer has a depth of 0.0313 to 0. The lime-treated layer is assumed to have an elastic 81 .0156 because of the addition of 8 percent lime to the subgrade. According to available data in the literature (Lytton.Figure 6. the matric suction compression index decreases on average from 0. the base.

The first boundary condition with zero horizontal displacement at edge DE is found to be the most critical. the larger the tensile stresses will be that develop. only one boundary condition. is applied at edge DE in order to reduce computational effort. This is reasonable because the more the material is constrained.5. If lime treatment can successfully prevent shrinkage cracks from developing in the subgrade in the critical case. The matric suction change data used in this model are exactly the same as those used in the model in Chapter 3. In the model with limetreated layer proposed in this chapter. the subgrade is partitioned into a number of grids.5. which are shown in Table 3. Poisson’s ratio used for the limestabilized layer is 0.2 in this model. resulting in the largest σ 11 max in the subgrade. BC and CD in Figure 6.5. The initial temperature of each grid is assigned to a 82 .1. Since the matric suction change varies in the subgrade soils. which produces the critical σ 11 max . The full boundary conditions for this model are: • Zero horizontal displacement at edge AF in Figure 6.2 illustrates the details of the pavement model with lime-treated layers. In Chapter 3. The thermal expansion coefficient used in the thermal expansion model is negative one third of the matric suction compression index of each layer.5 are free to deform. respectively. four different boundary conditions are applied to edge DE in the pavement model without lime-treated layer. • Zero horizontal displacement at edge DE in Figure 6.modulus of 250 MPa and a tensile strength of 1 MPa. • Zero displacement at edge FE in Figure 6. Again. it will definitely be effective for the other cases with less strict boundary conditions. and • Edge AB . the logarithm of matric suction change is simulated by an equivalent temperature change using the thermal expansion model in ABAQUS. Figure 6.

83 .value of zero. the final temperature of every grid is the logarithm of matric suction change at that location.

84 Figure 6.5 Model of Pavement with Lime-Treated Layer .

However. To clearly illustrate the distribution of transverse tensile stresses in the upper part of the subgrade soil and the field soil.2 to 0.5.7 shows another area with large transverse tensile stress in the field soil.3 MPa. the decrease of matric suction compression index contributes to the decrease of tensile stress.6. develops at the interface of base and lime-treated layer close to point C .22 MPa. σ 11 max . the largest transverse tensile stress in the lime-treated layer. Transverse tensile stresses also develop at the surface of field soil (edge GD in Figure 6. On the other hand. the increased elastic modulus (from 75 MPa to 250 MPa) results in increased tensile stress.38 MPa. respectively. The magnitude of σ 11 max is found to be approximately 0. The combined effect of increased elastic modulus and decreased matric suction compression index is of special interest in this study. and close to the interface of the lime-treated layer and the untreated soil. In the lime-treated layer. the shrinkage crack has a low probability of initiation in the lime-stabilized layer under the pavement when it is subjected to the critical matric suction change. The largest tensile stress in this area is around 0.6 and Figure 6. tensile stresses are also found in the untreated subgrade soil and untreated field soil. As a result.60 MPa. Shrinkage cracks have a high probability to initiate in these areas with transverse tensile stresses. This area is within the lime-stabilized layer and close to point G at the field soil surface. the inclusion of a lime-treated layer 85 . It develops close to the vertical line at edge BC in Figure 6.7. Figure 6. the calculation results are displayed in Figure 6. The largest transverse tensile stress in the untreated subgrade soil has a magnitude of 0.The purpose of using the same model constraints and loading in both models is to determine how the lime treatment changes the distribution and magnitude of tensile stresses induced by the same matric suction change.5) with a range of 0. Since the tensile strength of the lime-stabilized soil can be as high as over 1 MPa. As can be seen from Figure 6.

Without lime treatment.changes the location of initial shrinkage cracks. The shrinkage cracks initiating in the subgrade are likely to propagate to the pavement surface. the fracture toughness of the lime-stabilized soil is large enough to maintain the crack stable in the untreated soil beneath the lime-treated layer.4. The lime-treated layer becomes a “protection layer” that keeps the shrinkage cracks a certain distance away from the pavement. as shown in Figure 6. Therefore. shrinkage cracks initiate directly under the base layer and propagate to the pavement surface if the pavement is not reinforced by geogrid. Ideally. the fracture toughness of the lime-treated layer is an important parameter whose magnitude determines whether or not the shrinkage crack initiating in the untreated soil propagates through the pavement structure. 86 . the shrinkage cracks develop in the lower layer of the subgrade and in the field soil that is not next to the pavement shoulder but further away from the pavement shoulder. The possible propagation of the shrinkage cracks is studied in the following section. When treating the upper layer of subgrade and field soil with lime.

6 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement with Lime-Treated Layer (a) .87 Figure 6.

7 Transverse Stress Distribution in Pavement with Lime-Treated Layer (b) G .88 Figure 6.

1.5) is assumed to be 0. Compared to the initial crack in the pavement model without lime-treated layer studied in Chapter 4. The upper crack tip of the first trial crack is 0. 89 . but they are still larger than the assumed fracture toughness of the subgrade soil (0.01 m vertically away from the interface of the lime-treated layer and the untreated layer. 6 trial crack is determined as the initial crack because the stress intensity factor at the upper crack tip is found to be the largest.02 m lower than the first trial crack.3 CRACK DEVELOPMENT IN UNTREATED SUBGRADE SOIL 35B Since the untreated subgrade soil is subjected to large transverse tensile stresses (up to 0.22 MPa). The results are summarized in Table 6. a number of trial cracks are placed at different vertical locations. The horizontal distance between the initial crack and the pavement shoulder (edge BC in Figure 6. and so forth until the critical vertical position is determined. the initial crack studied in this section shows smaller stress intensity factors at both crack tips.040 MPa ⋅ m ). The No. an initial shrinkage crack with a length of 0.01 m downward.1 m is introduced to the untreated subgrade soil under the pavement. To determine the critical vertical position of the initial crack. in which d is the vertical distance between the upper tip of the trial crack and the interface of the lime-treated layer and the untreated subgrade soil. while the horizontal coordinate and length of the trial cracks remain unchanged.6. A total number of 7 trial cracks are studied in terms of the stress intensity factors at the crack tips. The second trial crack is moved 0. the third trial crack is moved 0.2 m.

d (m) 1 K I ( MPa ⋅ m ) Upper Crack Tip Lower Crack Tip 0.089 0.040 0.177 MPa ⋅ m . This model is labeled “Model 6.070 0.083 7 0.085 3 0.030 0. 1987). They found that the cement content was the primary controlling factor for toughness. see Figure 6. the stabilized soil with a cement content of 15 percent by weight had an average 90 . the researchers measured the plane strain fracture toughness of a number of cement-stabilized soil samples in terms of the critical stress intensity factor K IC and the critical energy release rate J IC .081 0. However. If the fracture toughness of the lime-treated layer is larger than K I at the upper crack tip. With the standard compaction effort (ASTM D1557). the stress intensity factor of both crack tips is calculated in ABAQUS.01 m above the interface of lime-stabilized layer and the untreated layer.086 4 0.1 Stress Intensity Factors of Trial Cracks in Pavement with Lime-Treated Layer 52B Trial Crack No.116 MPa ⋅ m . The Mode I stress intensity factor ( K I ) at the upper crack tip is 0.084 0.083 2 0.Table 6.010 0.083 0.086 5 0.076 0. K I at the lower crack tip is 0.086 0. Subsequently.020 0. the fracture toughness value of lime-treated soil has not been found in the literature.07 m so that the upper crack tip is within the lime-treated layer (0.086 0.1”.8). the initial crack is assumed to grow in both directions with an increment of 0.050 0.082 Therefore. theoretically. the crack will remain stable.086 6 0.060 0. In a paper on the fracture properties of cement-stabilized soil (Crockford and Little.

8 Single Shrinkage Crack in Subgrade Soil (Model 6.025 m. 0.230 MPa ⋅ m . the lime-treated soil in this study is assumed to have similar properties to those of the cement-treated soil. and Mode II cracks may be present as well.010 m i 0. the crack is going to propagate in this condition. it is reasonable that K IC of the lime-treated soil has the same order as K IC of the cement-treated soil.200m Lime-Treated Layer 0. second. only one vertical crack (Mode I crack) is considered in the untreated soil. 2500 MPa 4m B A Base. 350 MPa G C 0. Figure 6.092 MPa ⋅ m . Under this assumption. since the magnitude of the stress intensity factor is in the same order of K IC value. Since both lime stabilization and cement stabilization are typically used in Texas to improve the quality of soil in terms of strength and modulus. there may be more than one Mode I crack developing in the untreated soil.K IC of 0. However.750m 0. the model does not include Mode II cracks.152 MPa ⋅ m when the cement content was 10 percent.150 MPa ⋅ m .4 clearly illustrates multiple Mode I cracks and Mode II cracks in the 91 . K IC decreased to 0. Asphalt. the average value of K IC was 0.240 m 6m Single Shrinkage Crack Figure 6.177 MPa ⋅ m ) is larger than K IC . the calculated stress intensity factor (0. In practice. For example.1) 75B If K IC of the lime-stabilized soil has a value of approximate 0. Theoretically. if cement content decreased to 5 percent. 0.250 m. it is possible that the crack will remain stable because the proposed model is extremely critical: first.

and 5 cracks. and so on. 4 cracks.1”. the model with three cracks is “Model 6.9. In field observation. the strain energy release rate at every crack tip should be less than the release rate from a single crack.9 Mode II Crack in Shrinking Soil (Konrad and Ayad. the model with two cracks is “Model 6. multiple Mode I cracks are introduced to the model of the pavement with a lime-treated layer. the initiation of macro cracks at the natural soil surface has spacing between 0. Figure 6. When strain energy is released by multiple cracks simultaneously.024 m at the soil surface (Konrad and Ayad. Figure 6. The models with different numbers of shrinkage cracks are studied individually. as illustrated in Figure 6. the stress concentration should be relieved at each crack tip of multiple cracks. To quantify the reduction in stress concentration. 3 cracks.3”. respectively. The models studied have 2 cracks. the shrinkage cracks are parallel to the initial crack and have the same length and vertical 92 . 1997) 76B The increased number (more than one) of Mode I cracks and the existence of Mode II cracks release more strain energy induced by the differential suction change. 1997). In each model. To differentiate the models. the model with a single shrinkage crack is labeled “Model 6.untreated soil.020 m to 0. As a result. The differential shrinkage in the soil leads to the Mode II fracture or an in-plane shear fracture mode where a crack propagates along the shear plane.2”.10 presents the location and layout of the multiple shrinkage cracks in different models.

350 MPa C G 0. 0. 0. The results are summarized in Table 6.2 m.location. Asphalt.200m 0. 0.200m Lime-Treated Layer 0.750m ii i 6m Multiple Shrinkage Cracks (a) Model 6. 0. 2500 MPa 4m B A Base.025 m.750m iv 6m Multiple Shrinkage Cracks (c) Model 6. 2500 MPa 4m B A Base. 0. The distance between two neighboring cracks is 0.025 m.200m iii 0.025 m. 350 MPa C G 0.2.200m Lime-Treated Layer 0. 0.200m 0.250 m.250 m.200m 0. 2500 MPa 4m B A Base.750m ii i 6m Multiple Shrinkage Cracks (b) Model 6.4: Number of Cracks = 4 93 .2: Number of Cracks = 2 Asphalt.200m iii ii i 0.250 m.3: Number of Cracks = 3 Asphalt.200m 0. 350 MPa C G Lime-Treated Layer 0. The Model I stress intensity factors at crack tips are calculated in every model.

079 ii 0.108 ii 0.107 0.4 6.5 3 4 5 K I ( MPa ⋅ m ) Upper Crack Lower Crack Tip Tip 0. 0.200m Lime-Treated Layer 0.091 94 . 350 MPa C G 0.144 0.149 0.2 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks 53B Label of Studied Model Number of Cracks Crack No.200m iii 0.025 m.095 iv 0.200m 0.125 0. 6.158 0.143 0.082 ii 0.075 i 0.108 0.Asphalt.122 0.150 0.132 0.154 0. 2500 MPa 4m B A Base.2 2 6.116 i 0.121 0.094 iv 0.072 v 0.3 6. 0.750m ii i iv v 6m Multiple Shrinkage Cracks (d) Model 6.057 iii 0.10 Multiple Shrinkage Cracks in Subgrade Soil 7B Table 6.111 0.057 iii 0.250 m.5: Number of Cracks = 5 Figure 6.177 0.061 iii 0.095 i 0.092 i 0.1 1 i 6.146 0.097 ii 0.

To further reduce the possibility of crack propagation. as shown in Figure 6. i decreases at both crack tips. Crack No. the inclusion of a new crack has a different impact on every crack. For each crack. ii have only a slight reduction in K I . The development of more shrinkage cracks releases more strain energy and reduces the stress concentration at the tips of existing cracks. K I of Crack No. while Crack No. iii. ii has a clear reduction in K I because of the occurrence of Crack No. The initiation of a new crack will considerably reduce K I of its neighboring crack but will have little effect on the cracks a certain distance away from the new crack. The reason is that the decrease of K I is dependent on the location of the new crack. For example. iv. When introducing Crack No. K I of Crack No. i continues to decrease because part of the strain energy is released by the other cracks.11 gives good examples: the appearance of Crack No. In other words. i decreases significantly at both crack tips. Figure 6. The same trend applies to the other cracks. The single crack has a larger K I at both crack tips than any one of the other cracks. the inclusion of an additional crack results in different levels of reduction in K I . the reduced K I is still in the same order of the fracture toughness of the lime-stabilized layer. In addition. while Crack No. This fact indicates that it is still possible for shrinkage cracks to propagate through the lime-treated layer. However. K I of Crack No. if the new crack develops next to an existing crack. ii has very slight change in the magnitude of K I with the initiation of Crack No. a geogrid will be placed at 95 . When a second crack develops in the subgrade. which means the decrease rate of K I is not constant. iv significantly but has little impact on Crack No.The Mode I stress intensity factors of the cracks are compared among all studied cases with different numbers of shrinkage cracks. ii decreases when the third crack develops in the subgrade. K I of Crack No. As more cracks develop in the subgrade. v decreases the K I of Crack No. iii and Crack No. iv.11. the existing crack will experience a significant reduction in K I . iii.

06 0. The geogrid may further decrease the stress concentration at the crack tips.18 0.10 0.3 6.16 0.04 0.11 Comparison of Mode I Stress Intensity Factor in Single Model and Multiple Crack Models 78B 96 . the chemical method (lime treatment) and the mechanical method (geogrid reinforcement) will be combined to prevent the shrinkage cracks from developing upward to the pavement surface. Figure 6.08 0.5 0.02 6.14 0. 0.00 i i ii i ii iii i ii iii iv i ii iii iv v Crack No. The modeling and analysis results of the model with both treatments will be presented in the following chapter.2 6. Therefore.1 6.4 6.5) 0.12 0.the interface of the lime-treated layer and the untreated soil.20 Upper Crack Tip Lower Crack Tip Mode I Stress Intensity Factor (MPa*m^.

it is desirable to combine the two methods to be more effective for the control of the “dry-land” longitudinal crack. The theoretical calculation shows that the stress intensity factor at the shrinkage crack tips is of the same order of the fracture toughness of the lime-treated layer. However. As a result. each crack tip has less stress concentration compared to the single shrinkage crack case. The next 97 .6. The design with both geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment provides a safer and more conservative approach for the pavement structure over expansive subgrade. This fact further reduces the probability of shrinkage crack propagating toward the pavement surface. If multiple shrinkage cracks are present in the subgrade. and the lime treatment is able to increase the fracture toughness of the soil. Since the geogrid can reduce the stress concentration at the crack tip. The tensile shrinkage stress developing in the lime-treated layer cannot exceed the tensile strength of the lime-treated soil with proper design of lime treatment.4 SUMMARY 36B This chapter has investigated the mechanism of lime treatment controlling “dryland” longitudinal crack at the pavement surface. The lime-treated soil has lower plasticity index. In other words. The lime treatment can significantly change the properties of the natural soils through the processes of modification and stabilization. the occurrence of multiple shrinkage cracks reduces the stress intensity factor at every crack tip. shrinkage cracks are likely to initiate in the untreated soil beneath the lime-treated layer because of the development of large tensile stress in the untreated soil. shrinkage cracks have lower probability of developing in the lime-stabilized layer. smaller matric suction compression index and higher tensile strength. The lime-treated layer is likely to make the shrinkage cracks stable because the fracture toughness has been considerably increased by the inclusion of lime.

chapter will discuss the proper design and the benefit of combining geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment. 98 .

The aim of this chapter is to appropriately integrate geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment so that both methods can contribute to the prevention of longitudinal cracks due to the shrinkage of expansive subgrade soils. Section 7. 7. As the crack propagates. Section 7.Chapter 7 Combined Effect of Lime Treatment and Geogrid Reinforcement 8B As presented in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6. such as material properties and the magnitude of suction change. The effect of the two methods depends on a number of parameters.3 summarizes this chapter. Therefore. The proper location for placing geogrid ensures the functional effectiveness and efficiency of the geogrid. the combination of the two methods should be more efficient for the control of shrinkage cracks. both geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment are beneficial to the control of shrinkage cracks. the stress intensity factors increase as the crack lengthens. neither offers a definite solution for stopping the shrinkage cracks in the subgrade based on the theoretical calculations presented in this dissertation.1 determines the best location of geogrid in the pavement with a lime-stabilized layer. Even though both methods are promising.1 DETERMINATION OF GEOGRID LOCATION 37B As studied in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. A number of models are constructed in Section 7.2 to investigate the status of single and multiple shrinkage cracks developing in the pavement with both geogrid and lime treatment. they have a low level of stress intensity factors. the ideal location to install the geogrid is at the interface of the base and subgrade where the geogrid will most likely reduce the stress intensity factor to a 99 . Theoretically. When the shrinkage cracks propagate to the interface of the base and the subgrade. shrinkage cracks most probably initiate close to the interface of the base and subgrade.

This fact indicates that in the pavement with a lime-treated layer.1. the lime-stabilized layer changes the tensile stress distribution in the subgrade and also changes the potential location of crack initiation. However. placing a geogrid at the interface of the base and the lime-stabilized soil has little effect on the stress intensity factors at both crack tips. 100 .1 and that in Model 7. which are embedded in the host pavement elements. the magnitude of stress intensity factors does not change according to the inclusion of the geogrid due to the fact that the geogrid provides most reinforcement when the crack propagates through the geogrid and results in the deformation of the geogrid.8) in Chapter 6. In all three models. The first model is labeled “Model 7. Three models are constructed in ABAQUS to study the effects of the geogrid on the stress concentration at the crack tips when the geogrid is placed at the interface of the base and the lime-treated layer.1 (Figure 6.1). A geogrid is placed at the interface of the base and the lime-treated soil (edge HC in Figure 7.level at which the cracks will remain stable. the geogrid may not be effective for the control of shrinkage cracks if it is still placed at the interface of base and subgrade.1 which shows the details of this model). When comparing K I of the crack in Model 6.1”. which has a shrinkage crack with the same location and length as the one in Model 6. The stress intensity factors are calculated at the crack tips (see Table 7. if the upper part of the subgrade soil is treated with lime. the stiffness of the geogrid is assigned a value of 400 kN/m. The modeling technique used for the geogrid in Chapter 5 is applied in this model: the geogrid is modeled using one-dimensional truss elements. As a result.

1) 79B The second model is labeled “Model 7. 101 . The calculated K I is 0.240 m 6m Single Shrinkage Crack Figure 7. Since the initial crack has a length of 0. 0.200m Lime-Treated Layer 0.75 m in both directions.01 m from the interface of the base and the lime-treated layer.1 Pavement Model with Geogrid Reinforcement and Lime Treatment (Model 7. These values are so large that the crack is unlikely to remain stable based on the typical fracture toughness of the base. This result suggests that the geogrid reinforcement is not able to control the shrinkage crack if the geogrid is placed at the interface of the base and the lime-treated layer.750m 0.2”. The detailed layout of this model is shown in Figure 7. which has a crack with a final length of 1. i in Model 7. 350 MPa G Geogrid 0. the crack in Model 7.010 m i 0.Asphalt.2. Crack No.833 MPa ⋅ m at the upper crack tip and is 0.74 m.1). Compared to Stage 2 in Figure 4. i in Figure 7. this crack is likely to develop upward to the pavement surface. The purpose of constructing this model is to determine if the geogrid is able to control the shrinkage crack propagation when the lime-stabilized layer cannot prevent the crack from developing through the layer. The upper crack tip is within the base layer and has a vertical distance of 0.3.025 m.250 m. This model is constructed based on the assumption that the shrinkage crack (Crack No.74 m.1) is not stable in the subgrade and propagates through the limetreated layer. 0.2 has a total final length of 1.1 is assumed to grow 0.287 MPa ⋅ m at the lower crack tip (see Table 7.24 m. 2500 MPa 4m A B H C Base.

but the reduction in K I is not significant enough to keep the crack stable.Asphalt. 0. the geogrid may still reduce the stress concentration at the crack tips to some extent. Comparing the K I values in Model 7. 2500 MPa 4m B A Base. but the model does not include a geogrid. 350 MPa G C H Geogrid 0.2 and Model 7.74 m Single Shrinkage Crack Figure 7. 0. Table 7.928 0.750m i 6m 1.1 Mode I Stress Intensity Factor of Shrinkage Cracks in Pavement with Geogrid Reinforcement and Lime Treatment 54B K I ( MPa ⋅ m ) Upper Crack Lower Crack Tip Tip 0.1 1 i 7.287 7.3) is constructed which has a crack with the same length and location as the one in Model 7. 7.177 0.01 m Lime-Treated Layer 0.2 1 i 0. the geogrid reduces the stress concentration at the upper crack tip.2) 80B Even though the geogrid reinforcement cannot stop the crack in Model 7. The computed K I values are shown in Table 7.2. To quantify the reduction in K I provided by the geogrid.288 .250 m.025 m.3 1 i 102 0.2.833 0.3.1. a third model (Model 7.2 Pavement Model with Geogrid Reinforcement and Lime Treatment (Model 7.116 Label of Studied Model Number of Cracks Crack No.

The material properties of the asphalt.4. Consequently.3).Based on the calculation results of the three models (Models 7. Model 7.8.4. the geogrid should be placed close to the location where the shrinkage crack initiates.5.4 at the bottom of the lime-treated layer (edge IJ in Figure 7. The same difference exists between Model 7. the ideal location to install the geogrid should be at the interface of the lime-treated layer and the untreated soil.5 and Model 6. pavement models are constructed in ABAQUS with a lime-treated layer and a geogrid layer.1 is that a geogrid layer is included in Model 7. The width of the geogrid is 4 m in the transverse direction. Model 7.3 shows the detailed configuration of the pavement structures of the five models. the benefit of including a geogrid layer in a lime-treated pavement can be found by comparing K I between two corresponding models.3). the stress concentration is lower.6 and Model 6. between Model 7. respectively.4 is similar to Model 6.7 and Model 7. Instead.3. 103 .6. Figure 7. which has a single shrinkage crack.3 MODELING OF PAVEMENT WITH GEOGRID AND LIME TREATMENT 38B With the determination of the best location of geogrid in the pavement with a lime-treated layer. labeled as Model 7. 7. Five models with different numbers of shrinkage cracks are studied. The geogrid is placed at the interface of the lime-treated layer and the untreated soil.2. and between Model 7. the geogrid is not able to control shrinkage cracks if the geogrid is installed at the interface of the base and the lime-treated layer.8 and Model 6.4 and Model 6. The only difference between Model 7. Model 7. Model 7. base and lime-treated soil remain the same as the previous models in Chapter 6.1 through 7.7 and Model 6. so the geogrid has a better chance to reduce K I to a level that is less than the fracture toughness of the material. Therefore. between Model 7.1.5. When the crack is at the initiation stage.

250 m.6: Number of Cracks = 3 104 .Asphalt.750m 0. 350 MPa G 0. 0. 0.5: Number of Cracks = 2 Asphalt.4: Number of Cracks = 1 Asphalt.200m Geogrid I 0.250 m. 0.200m ii i J 6m Multiple Shrinkage Cracks (b) Model 7. 2500 MPa 4m A B H C Base.200m iii I 0.010 m Geogrid I 0. 2500 MPa 4m A B H C Base.200m Lime-Treated Layer 0. 0. 0. 350 MPa G 0.250 m.200m Geogrid 0.200m Lime-Treated Layer 0.025 m.025 m.240 m i J 6m Single Shrinkage Crack (a) Model 7.025 m.750m ii i J 6m Multiple Shrinkage Cracks (c) Model 7. 350 MPa G Lime-Treated Layer 0.750m 0. 2500 MPa 4m A B H C Base. 0.

and each set of K I values corresponds to specific geogrid stiffness.200m Lime-Treated Layer 0.4 has a different stiffness value.4 with a single shrinkage crack is analyzed six times in ABAQUS.400 and 12.800 kN/m in order to study the effect of the geogrid stiffness on the lime-treated pavement. 2500 MPa 4m A B H C Base.200. the geogrid is assigned stiffness values of 400.750m ii i iv v J 6m Multiple Shrinkage Cracks (e) Model 7.025 m.8: Number of Cracks = 5 Figure 7.200m iii I 0.250 m. 3. every model has six sets of K I values. 350 MPa G 0. 0. from 400 to 12. Model 7.200m Lime-Treated Layer 0.3 Shrinkage Cracks in Pavement with Geogrid Reinforcement and Lime Treatment 81B In each of the five models (Model 7.200m Geogrid 0. 6.750m iv J 6m Multiple Shrinkage Cracks (d) Model 7.025 m.7: Number of Cracks = 4 Asphalt. in each analysis. 0. 800.600. the geogrid in Model 7. All the calculated stress intensity factors are categorized into six 105 . For example.Asphalt. 0.4 to Model 7. 0. 2500 MPa 4m A B H C Base.250 m.200m iii I ii i 0. 1.8).200m 0. Therefore.800 kN/m. 350 MPa G 0.

2 shows all K I values of every model with a geogrid stiffness of 400 kN/m. the effect of the geogrid stiffness on K I at the upper tip of Crack No. increasing the number of shrinkage cracks does not have a significant impact on K I at the upper crack tips.7 and 7. the additional stiffness significantly reduces K I .8. ii and Crack No.5 shows K I at the upper tip of Crack No. ii and iii.8.800 kN/m).4 to Model 7. At low geogrid stiffness level. iv.2 to 7.3 illustrates K I values of all models with a geogrid stiffness of 800 kN/m. i in Model 7. In this figure. The possible reason is that Crack No. Tables 7. the development of additional shrinkage cracks cannot significantly reduce K I at the upper crack tip of Crack No. i.tables.3). v changes slightly with the increase of the geogrid stiffness. The geogrid stiffness has a considerable effect on K I at the upper crack tip of Crack No. K I at the upper tip of Crack No. However. results in significant reduction in K I .4 to Model 7. Table 7. i.4 summarizes K I values at the upper tips of cracks in Model 7. according to the stiffness value of the geogrid.7. different markers represent different stiffness levels of the geogrid.8. the geogrid has a marginal effect on these two cracks. v is not reinforced by the geogrid. iv is placed at the right end of the geogrid (at point J in Figure 7. i. ii and iii in all five models. A geogrid with higher stiffness provides more reduction in K I values at the upper tips of Crack No. At lower geogrid stiffness level.8.4 to Model 7. the development of Crack No. i. ii and iii in Model 7. In contrast. Figure 7. When the geogrid has an extremely large stiffness (12. and Crack No. at high geogrid stiffness level (12. iv is not constant in Models 7. 106 . i.5 also indicates the nonlinear effect of geogrid stiffness on reducing K I at the upper crack tip of Crack No. and so on.800 kN/m). Figure 7. Figure 7. Table 7. which are next to Crack No. The inclusion of geogrid significantly reduces the Mode I stress intensity factors at the upper crack tips of Crack No. i. Therefore.

The stiffness of the geogrid has an important effect on the stress intensity factors at the crack tips of the shrinkage cracks. the shrinkage crack under the lime-treated layer may develop downward as deep as 2 m. Based on the theoretical calculation. additional shrinkage crack is not able to significantly reduce the stress intensity factor at the crack tips of the existing shrinkage cracks. the shrinkage cracks are likely to propagate downward into the deeper soil. Therefore. According to empirical evidence. the best place to install the geogrid should be at the interface of the lime-treated layer and the untreated subgrade soil. Multiple shrinkage cracks show lower stress concentration at each crack tip. if the upper part of the expansive subgrade is treated by a certain percentage of lime (or a combination of lime and cement).3 SUMMARY 39B This chapter has discussed the combined benefit of geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment for preventing shrinkage cracks from developing through the pavement structure. 107 .while at high geogrid stiffness level. if the geogrid stiffness is extremely large.6. the additional stiffness provides only marginal benefit on reducing K I . At this location. as illustrated in Figure 7. However. The geogrid has little effect on K I at the lower crack tip of all studied shrinkage cracks. 7. the geogrid can provide the most benefit to control the propagation of the shrinkage crack. The overall reduction in stress concentration at the shrinkage crack tips is significant when both geogrid and limetreated layer are included into the pavement model.

Table 7.2 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 400 kN/m)
5B

Label of
Studied Model

Number of
Cracks

Crack No.

7.4

1

i

7.5

2

7.6

7.7

7.8

3

4

5

K I ( MPa ⋅ m )
Upper Crack
Lower Crack
Tip
Tip
0.153
0.116

i

0.137

0.108

ii

0.116

0.075

i

0.133

0.097

ii

0.097

0.062

iii

0.126

0.095

i

0.109

0.081

ii

0.095

0.057

iii

0.124

0.094

iv

0.149

0.092

i

0.107

0.079

ii

0.095

0.057

iii

0.123

0.094

iv

0.105

0.072

v

0.151

0.091

108

Table 7.3 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 800 kN/m)
56B

Label of
Studied Model

Number of
Cracks

Crack No.

7.4

1

i

7.5

2

7.6

7.7

7.8

3

4

5

K I ( MPa ⋅ m )
Upper Crack
Lower Crack
Tip
Tip
0.140
0.116

i

0.127

0.108

ii

0.108

0.075

i

0.123

0.097

ii

0.090

0.062

iii

0.116

0.095

i

0.102

0.081

ii

0.089

0.057

iii

0.115

0.094

iv

0.149

0.092

i

0.100

0.079

ii

0.088

0.057

iii

0.114

0.094

iv

0.099

0.072

v

0.151

0.091

109

Table 7.4 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 1600 kN/m)
57B

Label of
Studied Model

Number of
Cracks

Crack No.

7.4

1

i

7.5

2

7.6

7.7

7.8

3

4

5

K I ( MPa ⋅ m )
Upper Crack
Lower Crack
Tip
Tip
0.126
0.115

i

0.114

0.108

ii

0.099

0.075

i

0.110

0.097

ii

0.083

0.062

iii

0.105

0.095

i

0.093

0.081

ii

0.082

0.058

iii

0.103

0.094

iv

0.148

0.092

i

0.091

0.079

ii

0.082

0.057

iii

0.103

0.093

iv

0.092

0.072

v

0.151

0.092

110

4 1 i 7.084 0.107 ii 0.081 ii 0.091 0.111 0.094 iv 0.092 111 .5 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 3200 kN/m) 58B Label of Studied Model Number of Cracks Crack No.075 i 0.075 0.6 7.152 0.082 0.7 7.075 0.093 iv 0.089 0.091 0.079 ii 0.058 iii 0. 7.093 0.088 0.147 0.Table 7.097 0.072 v 0.8 3 4 5 K I ( MPa ⋅ m ) Upper Crack Lower Crack Tip Tip 0.096 ii 0.095 i 0.5 2 7.057 iii 0.101 0.062 iii 0.092 i 0.076 0.115 i 0.

058 iii 0.085 0.092 112 .115 i 0.094 i 0.6 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 6400 kN/m) 59B Label of Studied Model Number of Cracks Crack No.096 ii 0.093 iv 0.5 2 7.082 0.094 iv 0.080 0.146 0.8 3 4 5 K I ( MPa ⋅ m ) Upper Crack Lower Crack Tip Tip 0.107 ii 0.057 iii 0.062 iii 0.Table 7.069 0.6 7.074 0.088 0.070 0.075 i 0.096 0.080 0.075 0.085 0.081 ii 0.072 v 0.152 0.7 7.092 i 0.069 0.076 ii 0.4 1 i 7.081 0. 7.

058 iii 0.6 7.073 0.096 ii 0.092 i 0.081 ii 0.092 113 .094 i 0.Table 7. 7.7 Stress Intensity Factors of Shrinkage Cracks (Geogrid Stiffness = 12800 kN/m) 60B Label of Studied Model Number of Cracks Crack No.8 3 4 5 K I ( MPa ⋅ m ) Upper Crack Lower Crack Tip Tip 0.064 0.114 i 0.083 0.072 0.146 0.5 2 7.062 iii 0.068 0.075 i 0.067 0.058 iii 0.152 0.065 0.4 1 i 7.106 ii 0.070 0.7 7.071 0.093 iv 0.093 iv 0.072 v 0.065 0.077 0.078 ii 0.074 0.083 0.

200 Mode I Stress Intensity Factor (MPa*m^.020 7.160 0.000 i i ii i ii iii i ii iii iv i ii iii iv Crack No.4 Mode I Stress Intensity Factor at Upper Crack Tip of Shrinkage Crack 82B 114 v .4 7.Stiffness = 0 Stiffness = 400 Stiffness = 800 Stiffness = 1600 Stiffness = 3200 Stiffness = 6400 Stiffness = 12800 0.040 0.6 7.080 0.8 0. Figure 7.140 0.5 7.060 0.180 0.5) 0.120 0.100 0.7 7.

4 Stress Intensity Factor (MPa*m^.060 0.020 0. i 83B 115 14000 .100 0.0.160 Model 7.040 0.140 Model 7.6 0.180 Model 7.000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Geogrid Stiffness (kN/m) Figure 7.120 0.7 0.5 Model 7.8 0.5) 0.080 0.200 Model 7.5 Mode I Stress Intensity Factor at Upper Crack Tip of Crack No.

5 7.Mode I Stress Intensity Factor (MPa*m^.8 0.7 7.000 i i ii i ii iii i ii iii iv i ii iii iv Crack No.150 0.050 7.5) 0. Figure 7.6 Mode I Stress Intensity Factor at Lower Crack Tip of Shrinkage Crack 84B 116 v .100 0.200 Stiffness = 0 Stiffness = 400 Stiffness = 800 Stiffness = 1600 Stiffness = 3200 Stiffness = 6400 Stiffness = 12800 0.4 7.6 7.

logarithm of osmotic suction and logarithm of mean principles stress. where the large tensile stress develops in the subgrade. where and how questions associated with longitudinal cracks at the pavement surface without traffic loading. which indicates the potential for the initiation of shrinkage cracks. However.Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations 9B 8. The volumetric strains in the expansive soil have been found to have a linear relationship with the logarithm of the soil matric suction. The stress concentration at the 117 . the volumetric strain is not accompanied with stress development in the soil. the impermeable asphalt layer induces non-uniform moisture change in the subgrade under the pavement structure. a thermal expansion model in ABAQUS is used to simulate the logarithm of matric suction change in the soil. The non-uniform moisture reduction and the lateral confinement in the subgrade soil result in tensile shrinkage stresses in the soil. The numerical solution obtained by the finite element method shows that the critical tensile stress in the subgrade develops close to the interface of the base and subgrade and close to the pavement shoulder. The first issue addressed in this dissertation research is the understanding of the why. The nature of the expansive soil suggests the development of significant volumetric strains when subjected to moisture variation. The most likely location of shrinkage cracks should be close to the pavement shoulder and close to the bottom of the base.1 CONCLUSIONS 40B An understanding of the mechanism of any type of pavement distress is important to highway agencies that are always interested in seeking effective solutions to extend the pavement service life. The magnitude of the critical tensile stress is in the order of one hundred times the tensile strength of the soil. In order to determine the magnitude of the shrinkage stresses. If the moisture variation is uniform in an expansive soil that does not have any constraint.

Since the initial shrinkage crack develops close to the interface of the base and subgrade. The deformation of the geogrid results in forces that are directly applied to the crack surfaces. this type of longitudinal crack is controlled or minimized by a number of methods. In practice. This longitudinal crack should be close to the pavement shoulder according to the location of the initial crack estimated by theoretical calculation. the Mode I stress intensity factor at the initial shrinkage crack is large enough to drive the crack to propagate further. but their application is limited to local experience. two approaches can be used to control the shrinkage crack propagation: 1) reducing the stress concentration at the shrinkage crack tips. Compared to the fracture toughness of the pavement materials. The geogrid is able to reduce the stress concentration at the crack tip if it is placed at the bottom of the base (directly on top of the subgrade). Geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment are the most effective methods. At this stage. Finite element modeling results show that the Mode I stress intensity factors of the shrinkage crack increase with the increase of the crack length if the loading condition remains unchanged. the shrinkage crack has a relatively low stress intensity factor at its upper crack tip. This finding agrees with the field observations.initial crack tips is evaluated in terms of the stress intensity factor. tending to close the crack. The second issue addressed in this dissertation is the investigation of the mechanism of geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment. When the shrinkage crack propagates through the entire pavement structure. the geogrid has to deform with the crack opening. a longitudinal crack will show at the pavement surface. When the shrinkage crack goes through the geogrid apertures. These forces significantly reduce the stress intensity factor at 118 . and 2) increasing the fracture toughness of the pavement layers. Based on the development process of the longitudinal cracks due to shrinking expansive subgrade. the shrinkage crack is at its early stage when it reaches the geogrid.

The best place to install the geogrid is at the interface of the lime-treated layer and the untreated natural soil. shrinkage cracks are less likely to initiate in the lime-stabilized layer. the strain energy release rate at each crack tip is reduced because the strain energy is released by multiple cracks. When the initial crack propagates into the limetreated soil. The possibility of crack propagation is then further decreased. Therefore. More reduction in stress intensity factor is then produced at the upper tip of the shrinkage crack. If using a geogrid with high stiffness. where tensile shrinkage stress exceeds the tensile strength of the untreated natural soil. the magnitude of the stress intensity factor at the upper crack tip is in the same order of the estimated fracture toughness of the lime-treated soil. The lime treatment can improve the mechanical properties of the expansive soil. Finite element modeling results show that the tensile stress developing in the lime-treated layer is less than the tensile strength of the lime-stabilized soil. The shrinkage crack is less likely to develop through the lime-treated soil with increased fracture toughness. The lime-treated soil has lower plasticity index. higher tensile strength and higher fracture toughness. The possible location of the shrinkage crack initiation is in the untreated soil close to the bottom of the lime-treated layer. the Mode I stress intensity factor may be reduced to a certain level that is lower than the fracture toughness of the pavement material. As a result. The combination of geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment offers the most reduction in the stress concentration at the crack tips. A geogrid with a higher stiffness is able to apply larger forces to the crack surfaces at low deformation. a geogrid with higher stiffness is more efficient for the control of the shrinkage crack.the upper tip of the shrinkage crack. The development of multiple shrinkage cracks can further reduce the 119 . At this location. the geogrid has the most efficient reinforcement. If multiple shrinkage cracks are present in the untreated soil. The geogrid with higher stiffness provides more benefit.

This research found that the geogrid stiffness had a significant effect on the stress concentration at the crack tips. granular material. lime-treated soil and natural soil. A variety of stiffness values were used for the geogrid in the finite element modeling.stress concentration at the crack tips. when the geogrid stiffness is extremely high. 8. the mechanism of the geogrid reinforcement in this particular problem is different from the traditional application of geogrid-reinforced pavements. The fracture properties of pavement materials used on this study were assumed based on the limited literature. it also raises the need for further investigation on a number of research problems. However. The most significant research topics include: 1. These problems must ultimately be resolved if the analytical methodologies proposed in the study are to become practical for pavement design. An extensive laboratory experiment should be developed and conducted to collect detailed data about the fracture toughness of asphalt concrete. The use of tested instead of assumed fracture properties will be beneficial for more accurately judging the dynamic status of the shrinkage crack in the pavement structure. However. The fracture toughness of some pavement materials has not been addressed in the available literature. The forces that the geogrid applies to the crack surfaces are directly from the shear deformation (the deformation in 120 .2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 41B As much as this study has attempted to bridge the gap between current engineering practice and the theoretical analysis for the longitudinal crack problem due to expansive subgrade. The lack of exact data about material fracture toughness makes it difficult to accurately determine whether or not the shrinkage crack is stable in the subgrade. the effect of additional shrinkage cracks is not significant. 2.

These analyses will provide additional support for the preference for any one of the treatment methods. the forces should be placed at the geogrid ribs perpendicular to the rib axial direction. geotextile materials without apertures may also be effective for the control of shrinkage cracks owing to a different mechanism. 3. The geogrid stiffness values used in the proposed model should not be tested by the standard testing method for determining tensile properties of geogrid (ASTM D 6637-01). The Mode I shrinkage crack may stop developing at the interface. it is difficult for the shrinkage crack to propagate through the geotextile. The strain energy is then released by the Mode II cracks at the interface. If the geotextile is not full bonded to the pavement materials but has a slippery surface. Besides geogrid reinforcement and lime treatment. 4.the direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the ribs) of the geogrid ribs instead of the deformation in the axial direction. an experiment should be developed to simulate the actual loading condition of the geogrid. In this experiment. the construction complexity. The financial cost. 1992) can be used to examine the interface crack propagation. and the construction quality control should also be taken into consideration. the mixed mode cracking theory in layered materials (Hutchinson and Suo. 121 . Since the geotextile does not have apertures. For this situation. The use of geotextiles may be a good alternative to properly control longitudinal cracks in response to moisture level changes in expansive subgrade. It is desirable to conduct cost-effective analysis on different treatment methods. The proposed research focused on the benefits of treatment methods from the mechanical point of view. interface cracks (Mode II cracks) may develop at the interface of the geotextile and the subgrade soil. Instead.

D. R. pp 21-276. College Station. pp. H. R. and Tuncer. M. Evans. E. D 5298-03. California. 14. No. W. Washington. National Research council. pp 52-61...G. V 34.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal.. Crockford. (1976) “Constitutive Relations for Volume Change in Unsaturated Soils. N. Chen. and Little. Dissertation. and Morgenstern. Konrad. Presentation to the National Lime Association convention. G. Australia.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 113. (1993) Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils. Gay. 5. 1295. (1988) Foundations on Expansive Soils. (1994) Development of a Predictive Model for Pavement Roughness on Expansive Clay. Inc. Fredlund. A. Texas. D.. A. 122 . New York. Ayad.1..” Journal of Transportation Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (1998) Lime Stabilization of Black Clay Soils in Queensland. D. San Diego. J. M. Texas A&M University.C.. Elsevier Science Publishing Company Inc. New York. No.” International Journal of Solids Structures. (1987) “Tensile Fracture and Fatigue of CementStabilized Soil. Vol. No.. Vol. N.Bibliography 10B ABACUS. Vol. A. Ph. W. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2003) Standard Test Method for Measurement of Soil Potential (Suction) Using Filter Paper. L. 241-250.2. 20. B. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2006) Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Unconfined Tension Creep and Creep Rupture Behavior of Geosynthetics. F. D.. 13. and Soulie..R. H. pp 943-951. John Wiley & Sons. P. Fredlund. D. D 5262 – 06.” Transportation Research Record. (1978) “Stress Intensity Factor Calculations Based on a Conservation Integral. and Rahardjo. Freund. (1997) “Desiccation of a Sensitive Clay: Application of the Model CRACK. (1991) “Effect of Lime on volume Change and Compressibility of Expansive Clays. 3. pp 520-537. D. (2006) ABAQUS User’s Manual. Inc. Basma.

Texas.. 5. Cambridge. and Kim. and Ayad. pp 915-929. and Lee. (1997) Prediction of Expansive Clay Roughness in Pavements with Vertical Moisture Barriers. Jayatilaka. J. (1994) “Fracture Toughness of Compacted Cohesive Soils Using Ring Test. Ph. M. J. Texas A&M University.. and Cummings. (1969) “Volume Change in Expansive Clay Soils and Control by Lime Treatment. M.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal. J. V. 1. Lo. Cambridge University Press. (2001) “Fracture Toughness of Frozen Base and Subbase Soils in Pavement. College Station. and Suo. Holtz.harvard.. (2005) “Development of A Mechanistic Model for Geogrid Reinforced Flexible Pavements. National Research Council. R. Washington D.C. V. M. Krohn. Texas Transportation Institute. pp 929-942.. Vol.” Advances in Applied Mechanics. T. (1980) “Assessment of Expansive Soils in the United States. Lawn. S. J. 114.. W. and Slosson. Kuo.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal. (1997) “Desiccation of A Sensitive Clay: Field Experimental Observations. J. (1992) “Mixed Mode Cracking in Layered Materials. Dissertation. ASCE.” Second International Research and Engineering Conference on Expansive Clay Soils. G.. A. C.seas. College Station. Konrad. CD-ROM.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.” The 84th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting.. Washington D. E. Texas. H H Jayatilaka.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Expansive Soils.C. K. R. and Lytton. and Mahboub. Inc. B. R. Transportation Research Board.. (1993) Fracture of Brittle Solids.. 29. Vol. No. Kwon. D. 38.. Hardin.pdf. Lee. O. K.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 8. J. Texas A&M University.edu/suo/papers/17. J. 123 . (1999) A Model to Predict Expansive Clay Roughness in Pavements with Vertical Moisture Barriers. P. Transportation Research Board. V. J. R. 120. pp 967-981. Texas.. Research Report FHWA/TX-98/18728F. L. 34. Z. National Research Council. W. E. (2003) “Traffic Induced Reflective Cracking on Pavements with Geogrid-Reinforced Asphalt Concrete Overlay. Konrad. and Hsu. B.Harison. Denver. Academic Press. CD-ROM. (1988) “Tension Crack Development in Soils.” The 82nd Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Colorado. Available at http://www. Texas A&M University. pp 872-891. Hutchinson. F.. Vol. pp 596-608. No. College Station. Tutumluer.

N. Vol. pp 1827-1845. M. and Hudson. Texas Transportation Institute. Mitchell. Denver. P.” Journal of Transportation Engineering. (1979) The Structural Analysis of Footings on Expansive Soil. S. R. Kenneth W.” Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments. Texas A&M University. R. Lytton. C. R. Colorado. McKeen.. Adelaide. Volume 1: Summary of Findings.org/SOIL. (1977) “The Characterization of Expansive Soils in Engineering. (1980) “Field Studies of Airport Pavements on Expansive Clay. V. (1970) Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Tensile Properties of Lime-Treated Materials. (1995) “Foundations and Pavements on Unsaturated Soils. (1980) “The Concepts Defining the Rate of Swell of Expansive Soils. B. L.” Presentation at the Symposium on Water Movement and Equilibria in Swelling Soils. Mobasher. Mamlouk.” Proceedings of the Australian Road Research Board..PDF H Lytton. (1994) “Prediction of Movement in Expansive Clay... Aubeny. W. (2004) Design Procedure for Pavements on Expansive Soils. (1999) Evaluation of Structural Properties of Lime Stabilized Soils and Aggregates. G. Texas. Vol. The University of Texas at Austin. Paris.. 1. R. pp 12011220. 1. San Francisco.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Expansive Soils. S. (1997) “Evaluation of Crack Propagation Properties of Asphalt Mixtures. pp 106-116. W. 123. L. H. Miller. Geotechnical Special Publication No. R. J. Research Report 98-4. V. pp 405-413. Smith and Associates. and Lin. pp 242-261. American Geophysical Union. American Society of Civil engineers. California. Part 2. Center for Highway Research. P. W. Colorado. 124 . Mitchell. South Australia. Lytton. College Station. Kennedy. (1962) “A Preliminary Study of the Tensile Stresses in Stabilized Soil Pavements.” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Unsaturated Soils. V.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Expansive Soils. No. S.. Denver. National Lime Association. G. T. Lytton. R. W. 1. Research Report No. B. France. and Frydman. 2.. 1. 40. Metcalf. Research Report FHWA/TX-05/0-4518-1. R. and Bulut.Little. D.lime. New York. M. L. Available at http://www. P. 5. L.

Texas A&M University. (1964) “The Split-Tensile Strength of Lime-Stabilized Soils. E. Rajendran. Texas Transportation Institute. Seed. F. Donald R. Texas A&M University. CD-ROM. (2000) The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook. S. Texas Tech University. R. National Research Council.Mojekwu.” A Report of the Investigation of Lime Stabilization of Soils for Highway Purposes. Thompson. Morris. (2002) Investigation of Maintenance Base Repairs over Expansive Soils: Year 1 Report. R. V 29. Tada. Vol. L. J. R. (1968) “A Path Independent Integral and the approximate Analysis of Strain Concentration by Notches and Cracks. R. Paris. U. C. Lubbock. tech. college Station. G. P.. D. H. Publ. G. pp 379-386. Washington D. H. B. H. 35. M. 125 . Research Report FHWA/TX-03/0-4395-1. and Sih. and Svano. Johnson. and Williams. R. 381. Texas. (2004) “Assessment of Interface Shear Growth from Measured Geosynthetic Strains in a Reinforced Pavement Subject to Repeated Loads. (1992) “Cracking in Drying Soils.. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Engineering Experiment Station. S. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Vicksburg. Patrick.. (1979) A Simplified Method for Identifying the Predominant Clay Mineral. Master Thesis. Mississippi.” The 83rd Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station. Woodward. J. Townsend. D.S.. (1962) “Prediction of Swelling Potential for Compacted Clays.. J. C. P.” Fracture Toughness Testing and its applications. Soils and Pavemetns Laboratory. Perkins. Illinois Cooperative Highway Research Program. pp 263-277. and P. P. (1997) Reduction of sulfate Swell in Expansive Clay Subgrades in the Dallas District. (1965) “Stress Analysis of Cracks. C. Graham. G. Project IHR-76. M. J. Texas. C. Rice. Transportation Research Board. ASTM Spec.. Paris. V. Sebesta. Vedros (1975).. New York. No. and Lytton. D.. SM-7. Department of Civil Engineering.C. Snethen. C. College Station. and Irwin. L. R.” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. Urbana. J. and Landgren. Texas.. A Review of Engineering Experiences with Expansive Soils in Highway Subgrades. Texas Transportation Institute. pp 30. Research Report FHWA-RD-75-48. University of Illinois.” Journal of Applied Mechanics. D. 88.. Research Report 3929-1.

” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Thornthwaite. Prentice-Hall. C. S.. C. S. 92.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. M.” Geographical Review. and A. (1948) “An Approach toward a Rational Classification of climate. and Kennedy.C. No. (2005) “Cyclic Plate Load Testing of GeosyntheticReinforced Unbound Aggregate Roads. College Station. New Jersey.D. J. W. (1978) Development of a Design Procedure for Residential & Light Commercial Slabs-on-Ground Constructed over Expansive Soils. Texas. T. Transportation Research Board (1987) State of the Art Report No. The University of Texas at Austin. and Fenster.. W. Wray. Tingle. 3. Dissertation. (1995) Advanced Strength and Applied Elasticity. a. Hudson. 18. K. B. Ugural. CD-ROM. 131. vol. El-Garhy.. M. W. (2005) “Three-Dimensional Model for Moisture and Volume Changes Prediction in Expansive Soils. V.. Texas A&M University.” The 84th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. S. Transportation Research Board. Youssef. pp 54-94. Tulloch. Ph. K. Vol.. (1970) Evaluation and Prediction of the Tensile Properties of Lime-Treated Materials.Thompson. SMS. 126 . R. National Research Council. Washington D. Inc. R. W. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). A. 5. Lime Stabilization. No. K. (1966) “Lime Reactivity of Illinois Soils. and Jersey. Center for Highway Research. pp 311-324.. W. S. Research Report 98-5. Wray. W. R.

the daughter of Xiuzhong Luo and Xingwen Chen. both in Civil Engineering. Sichuan Province. China. 127 . from Chongqing Jiaotong University. Program in Transportation Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin in August 2003. Overly Memorial Scholarship by the Women’s Transportation Seminar (WTS). she entered Chongqing Jiaotong University in Chongqing. After graduating from Yibin No. She also received the 2007 International Road Federation (IRF) Executive Leadership Fellowship and was named an IRF Executive Leadership Fellow. Sichuan Province 644000 China This dissertation was typed by the author. China on January 12. interaction between truck tire and pavement surface. Her research has been focused on mechanism of pavement cracking development. Permanent address: 6 Chunchang Street. She received a Bachelor’s degree in July 2001 and a Master’s degree in June 2003. 1 High School in 1997. She joined the Ph. and nondestructive pavement testing. She has been appointed as a Young Member of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Geosynthetics Committee and International Activities Committee. She was awarded the 2005 Wanda J. Apartment 1-2-8 Yibin. 1979. Schafer Graduate Scholarship and the 2007 Helene M.D.Vita 1B Rong Luo was born in Yibin. application of geosynthetics in pavement structure.