Accepted Manuscript

Resilient modulus of black cotton soil

K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh

PII: S1996-6814(16)30131-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.008
Reference: IJPRT 72

To appear in: International Journal of Pavement Research and

Technology

Received Date: 28 June 2016

Revised Date: 25 January 2017
Accepted Date: 28 January 2017

Please cite this article as: K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh, Resilient modulus of black cotton soil, International Journal
of Pavement Research and Technology (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.008

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 RESILIENT MODULUS OF BLACK COTTON SOIL
Mamatha K H1 and Dinesh S V2

1.
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumkur,
Karnataka, India, 572103.
2.
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumkur,
Karnataka, India, 572103.
Tel: +91-9449852695; dineshsv2004@gmail.com
Corresponding Author

1
 RESILIENT MODULUS OF BLACK COTTON SOIL
Mamatha K H1 and Dinesh S V2

1. Introduction

Flexible pavement design is based on dimensioning multi-layered system where layer

thicknesses vary depending on the subgrade load carrying capacity. An excessive plastic and

repeated elastic deformation in a pavement leads to cracking of the structure. The resilient

properties of the pavement components influence the short term deformations of the pavement

structure. Resilient modulus is a measure of the elastic modulus of the material at a given stress

state. Therefore, resilient modulus of subgrade soil is one of the key material property that is

required for the mechanistic-empirical (M-E) design/analysis of multi-layered flexible pavement

system. The use of the resilient modulus for pavement design is recommended by the AASHTO [1-

3] to replace bearing capacity parameters such as CBR and SSV.

The 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures [2] describes four different

approaches i.e., laboratory testing, back calculation using non-destructive testing, estimation of MR

from correlations with other properties and estimation of MR from original design and construction

data for the determination of design resilient modulus value.

The factors that influence the resilient modulus of subgrade soils include physical condition of

the soil (i.e., moisture content and unit weight), stress level and soil type. Many studies have been

conducted to investigate these effects on the resilient modulus. The resilient modulus of soils is not

a constant stiffness property but depends on stress state, which includes the deviator and confining

stress, soil type and its structure [4], soil gradation, compaction method, specimen size and testing

procedure [5]. The effect of some of these factors on the resilient modulus of subgrade soils is

significant. Research studies showed that the resilient modulus of subgrade soil decreases with an

increase of the moisture content or the degree of saturation [6-10]. Unsaturated cohesive soils

showed that the resilient modulus decreases with the increase in moisture content and pore pressure

build-up [9]. The resilient modulus increases with an increase in the dry unit weight of the soil [8,

2
11-13]. However, this effect is small compared to the effect of moisture content and stress level on

resilient modulus [14]. In general, the increase in the deviator stress results in decrease of the

resilient modulus of cohesive soils due to the softening effect [14]. Several models [15 – 32] have

been proposed for the prediction of resilient modulus of soils based on soil physical characteristics

and stress state. But, these models are region specific and there is need to verify these models for

prediction of MR of local soils. There are limited studies on the prediction of MR values of stabilized

soils [33, 34]. These studies have reported the prediction model for resilient modulus in terms of

unconfined compressive strength (q u) [33] and back calculated falling weight Deflectometer (FWD)

modulus in terms of qu [34]. The correlation developed by Thompson [33] is recommended to

determine the design resilient modulus for lime stabilized subgrade [3, 35]. But, it is reported that

the MR values predicted from the correlations developed by Thompson [33] and Little et al. [34]

demonstrated the lack of clear relationship between MR and q u [36] and these relations have a severe

limitation as they do not take into account the stress state. The literature demonstrates that the

clayey soils can be effectively altered with lime stabilization. Lime stabilization reduces plasticity,

swell potential and improves strength and stiffness of the soil [37-45]. Cation exchange and

flocculation/agglomeration reactions takes place relatively rapidly and produces quick changes in

plasticity, workability and engineering properties [39]. The cementation is mostly by pozzolonic

reaction and can significantly improve the long term performance of the lime stabilized soils [46,

47].

Black cotton soils are formed by the weathering of Deccan lava in the major parts of India. The

black cotton soils are inorganic clays characterized by high plasticity, higher fraction of fines, low

strength, high compressibility and are expansive in nature. These soils show very high swell –

shrink behaviour due to moisture variations which makes them unsuitable for foundations,

subgrades etc. There are many failures of road bases, foundations, canal slopes founded on such

expansive soils. BC soils are formed over large geographical areas and replacement of such soils

locally will not be cost effective. Therefore, such soils have to be stabilized and MR values are to be

3
determined to develop empirical correlations for the prediction of MR values for the pavement

design.

This paper reports the results of resilient modulus of black cotton soil at relative compaction

levels of 95% and 100% under both standard and modified proctor conditions. An attempt is made

to explore the effectiveness of lime for stabilization for improving the resilient modulus of

expansive black cotton soil subgrade, verify the suitability of existing models for prediction of MR

and development of a new model for the prediction of MR of lime stabilized BC soil.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Materials

Black cotton soil which is widely available in several parts of Karnataka state, India is

considered for the present investigation. Black cotton soil was collected from Bagalkot, Karnataka,

India and tested for its engineering properties. All the tests were carried out as per relevant Indian

standard guidelines and Table 1 shows the engineering properties of the selected soil.

The soil consists of 10% sand, 36% silt and 54% clay and figure 1 shows the grain size

distribution curve. The soil is classified as A-7-C as per HRB classification system and A-7-6

AASHTO classification system [48] and highly compressible clay with the group symbol CH as per

IS classification system and unified soil classification system [49]. The liquid limit and plasticity

index of the soil are 71% and 48% respectively. The BC soil has a free swell of 34% and the soil is

classified as low swelling clayey soil [50]. The soaked CBR is less than 2% under modified proctor

conditions. The unconfined strength is 89kPa under unsoaked condition and the soil showed

collapse behaviour when it is subjected to soaking. As per MoRT&H [51] guidelines the soil having

liquid limit greater than 71% and plasticity index greater than 45% respectively is unsuitable for

subgrade. In addition, the MoRT&H [51] guidelines specifies minimum dry unit weight of 18kN/m3

for compacted subgrade. IRC:SP:72-2007 [52] specifies the use of unit weight corresponding to

standard proctor condition for low volume roads. The selected soil fails to meet the MoRT&H

criteria (i.e., liquid limit, plasticity index and unit weight requirements) to be used as subgrade for

4
low volume roads (village roads). The selected soil shows reasonably good strength under unsoaked

condition but under soaked conditions strength is low. In view of the above, the BC soil considered

for the present study is a problematic soil. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the strength of soil

by adopting any of the available strength improvement techniques. In the present case, additive

stabilization is considered and industrial lime is selected for stabilization. Tables 2 and 3 show the

physico-chemical properties of black cotton soil and industrial lime (quick lime) respectively. The

specific surface area of the selected soil is 300m2/gm and cation exchange capacity is 49.35milli

equivalence per 100gm. The higher specific surface area leads to higher reaction capacity of the soil

during hydration and pozzolonic reaction and this justifies the selection of lime as additive for

stabilization.

2.2 Methods

2.2.1 Sample Preparation

For preparing untreated sample, calculated quantity of oven dried soil was mixed with

calculated volume of water and mixed thoroughly to get a homogeneous soil mass. In the

preparation of lime treated soil specimens, it was observed that when dry lime powder was added to

the soil, it absorbed water present in the soil and there was a noticeable change in the consistency of

the soil lime mixture. This will interfere with the role of water content in soil stabilization. In the

field application, lime is added in the form of slurry in the jet grouting method. By trial and error, it

was found that by using water content equal to 100% by weight of lime, not much change was

observed in the consistency of the specimen. Therefore, additional water content equal to 100% by

weight of lime was provided to prepare lime treated specimens. The samples were prepared at

standard and modified proctor conditions by static compaction. The untreated samples were tested

immediately after compaction and the lime treated samples were cured for 7, 14 and 28 days in a

desiccator at 100 percent relative humidity at a temperature of 23°C [53] in a temperature controlled

chamber so that reaction between soil particles and lime is continued. In case of unsoaked

condition, the samples were tested immediately after curing, whereas under soaked condition the

5
samples were soaked for one day after curing. For soaking, the samples were covered by a

membrane with the filter paper and porous stones kept at top and bottom and then immersed in a

water bath where the height is maintained below the top surface of compacted soil sample such that

water enters through porous stones from bottom by capillary action. The soaked samples were kept

in air for drying for about one hour and then testing was carried out. The unconfined compression

tests were carried out on samples prepared at modified proctor condition. The repeated load triaxial

tests were carried out on samples prepared at standard and modified proctor conditions. Also, the

samples prepared at 95% of dry and wet sides of optimum density for both standard and modified

proctor conditions were considered for the repeated load tests.

2.2.2 Repeated Load Test

Untreated and lime treated black cotton soil samples of 50mm diameter and 100mm [54] height

were prepared at the desired moisture contents and dry unit weights for determining resilient

modulus. A lime content of less than 2% is not sufficient to improve the strength of the soil and

therefore, for preparing treated samples, lime contents of 2, 2.25, 2.5, 2.75 and 3% were considered

for the experimental study. The dosage of lime content was fixed from the consideration of

development of a minimum unconfined compressive strength value of 420kPa [55] for subgrade

applications. A series of repetitive load tests were conducted on both lime treated and untreated

samples. Untreated black cotton soil samples were tested under both unsoaked and soaked

conditions and lime treated samples were tested under soaked condition.

A repeated axial cyclic stress of fixed magnitude with a load duration of 0.1 second, followed by

a 0.9 second rest period was applied to cylindrical test specimen. Load and rest period together

constitutes one loading cycle (1 sec) which amounts to 1 Hz frequency. The stress pulse shape was

haversine in nature. The repeated load tests were performed at the confining pressure and deviator

stress levels recommended by the AASHTO T-307-99 [56]. The sample in the repeated load test

was subjected to a combination of three confining pressures and five deviator stresses. Each

combination is applied in 100 cycles after preconditioning of 500 cycles. The total resilient or

6
recoverable axial deformation response of the specimens were measured and used to calculate the

resilient modulus. The last five cycles in each combination of confining pressure and deviator stress

were considered to calculate resilient modulus and then the mean resilient modulus was determined

and reported. This yields 15 resilient modulus values for each sample for different stress state. The

tests were terminated when the total vertical permanent strain exceeds 5% [56].

3. Results and Discussions

3.1 Lime Fixation

Lime rapidly modifies the clay fraction of the material involving ion exchange and flocculation

when sufficient stabilizer is available, continues with the development of hydrated calcium and

alumina silicates and eventual cementation. Cementation usually takes longer than modification and

will continue provided clay, moisture, and a pH in excess of about 12.0 is available. During this

process, the clay mineral structure is broken down and forms colloidal gels of calcium aluminate

and silicate hydrates which have cementing properties similar to those of portland cement. The lime

– soil proportion requirement of soil stabilization was carried out as per ASTM D 6276 – 99a [57].

The lime dosage was varied from 1% to 10% in an increment of 0.5%. It was observed that a lime

content of 2% yielded a stable pH of 12.6. Thus, lime contents of 2% to 5% with an increment of

1% were considered for the determination of consistency limits, compaction characteristics and

unconfined compressive strength of lime stabilized black cotton soil.

3.2 Consistency Limits

The effect of lime stabilization on consistency limits was evaluated for lime stabilized soil with

lime content varying from 2 to 5%. Figure 2 shows the variation of consistency limits with lime

content. It is observed that the addition of lime to the soil reduced liquid limit and plasticity index.

The plastic limit was found to increase with the lime content. With a lime content of 2%, the liquid

limit and plasticity index were reduced to 64% and 38% respectively from 71% and 48% making

the soil suitable for subgrade application [51]. With 5% of lime, the liquid limit reduced from 71%

7
to 58% and plasticity index reduced from 48% to 28%. The reduced plasticity index is attributed to

flocculation and agglomeration that occurs with the addition of lime to the soil. At this stage, the

calcium ions from lime gets attracted to the surface of clay particle and displace water and other

ions imparting improved workability and reduced plasticity index of soil.

3.3 Compaction Characteristics

The compaction characteristics of lime stabilized black cotton soil was investigated under both

standard and modified proctor conditions. The soil was mixed with lime paste (as detailed in section

2.2.1) and mixed uniformly to get a homogeneous mixture. Water was then added to the soil – lime

mixture and mixed thoroughly. The uniform mix thus obtained was filled into the compaction

mould followed by compaction in accordance with ASTM D 698 – 07 [58] and ASTM D 1557-09

[59]. Figures 3 and 4 shows the compaction curves for the lime stabilized black cotton soil under

standard and modified proctor conditions respectively. It is observed that the addition of lower lime

contents (2 to 3%) has no significant effect on the maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture

content. As the lime content increases (>3%), the maximum dry unit weight was found to reduce

and optimum moisture content increased slightly. The addition of higher percentages of lime to the

BC soil results in rapid cation exchange phenomenon which ultimately results in soil-lime

interaction causing the soil particles to possess flocculated structure resulting in lower dry unit

weight. This is due to the resistance offered by the flocculated structure to the impact applied during

compaction. The flocculated structure of the soil requires additional amount of water to fill the

voids resulting in increased water contents compared to untreated soil [40, 60, 61]. With a lime

content of 5%, the maximum dry unit weight is reduced from 14.6kN/m3 to 13.6kN/m3 and

optimum moisture content increased from 24% to 28% under standard proctor condition. Similarly,

the maximum dry unit weight reduced from 16.8kN/m3 to 15.9kN/m3and the optimum moisture

content increased from 19% to 22% under modified proctor condition.

3.4 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

8
 A series of unconfined compressive strength tests were carried out to study the strength

behaviour and to obtain the optimum lime content corresponding to standard proctor condition to

achieve a reasonable strength of 420kPa which is the minimum strength requirement for subgrade

as per NCDOT [55].

Untreated and lime treated black cotton soil samples of 38mm diameter and 76mm height were

prepared at the modified proctor condition as detailed in section 2.2.1 for determining unconfined

compression strength. The test specimens were prepared at the respective maximum dry unit weight

and optimum moisture contents as obtained from figure 4. The specimens were tested in accordance

with ASTM D 2166 – 13 [62] and ASTM D 5102 – 09 [53] respectively for untreated and lime

treated conditions. The soil was treated with 2%, 3%, 4% and 5% lime and cured for 3, 7, 14 and

28 days. All the prepared samples were tested under soaked condition and soaking was performed

as detailed in section 2.2.1. Figure 5 shows the variation of unconfined compressive strength with

curing period and lime content. It is evident that the addition of lime to black cotton soil shows

improvement in strength. The strength further improves significantly with curing period. It is

observed that the soil possesses a strength of 420kPa at a lime content of 3% when cured for 3 days.

NCDOT [55] specifies that a lime treated soil having strength of 420kPa can be used as subgrade.

Though the lime stabilized soil possesses higher strength with increase in lime content and longer

curing period, a lime content yielding the subgrade strength requirement of 420kPa with a nominal

curing period of 7 days has been considered for further investigation. Higher lime contents yielding

higher strength will be uneconomical. During the pavement construction, it is necessary to open for

traffic at the earliest. A curing period of 28 days is too long and cannot be adopted practically.

Therefore, an optimum lime content of 2.5% and a nominal curing period of 7days was considered

for durability studies and CBR test based on the minimum strength criteria in terms of unconfined

compressive strength as per NCDOT [55]. For resilient modulus determination, lime content

varying from 2 to 3% which provides an unconfined compressive strength in the range of 300kPa to

750kPa was considered.

9
3.5 Durability

A set of unconfined compressive strength samples were prepared at a lime content of 2.5%

based on minimum strength requirement of 420kPa at 7 days. The samples were subjected to 7 day

curing followed by alternate wetting and drying cycles. The 7 day cured samples were submerged in

potable water at room temperature for about 5 hours and then removed. Then the soaked samples

were placed in an oven at 71°C for about 42 hours for drying. This wetting for 5 hours and drying

for 42 hours constitutes one wetting – drying cycle [63]. In case of untreated BC soil, the samples

were submerged in water with a thin membrane around the soil specimen as the samples showed

collapse tendency on saturation during wet cycle. At the end of each wetting and drying process, the

volume of the specimen was recorded to determine the volumetric strain during wetting, drying and

differential strain. The unstabilized samples subjected to wetting and drying showed an expansion

of 22.5% compared to initial volume and the sample showed immediate collapse. Figure 6 shows

the variation of volumetric strain on wetting, drying and differential strain with number of cycles of

alternate wetting and drying of lime stabilized samples. Results show that volume change of the

specimen decreases as the number of wetting and drying cycles increase. It is observed that the lime

stabilized sample show 50% decrease (i.e., 22.5% to 12.3%) in volumetric expansion in the first

wetting cycle when compared with unstabilized soil sample. The differential volumetric strain has

decreased from 4.12% to 0.23% at the end of 8 cycles. However, at the end of 5 cycles, the lime

stabilized sample attains volume stability.

3.6 Resilient Modulus of Unstabilized and Lime Stabilized Soil

A series of repeated load tests were conducted on untreated and lime stabilized black cotton

soil samples under both unsoaked and soaked conditions. The lime contents considered for the

determination of MR are lower (2 to 3%), the effect of lime stabilization on the maximum dry unit

weight and optimum moisture content for the above range is not significant (as noticed from figures

3 and 4). The lime treated samples were compacted at the respective standard and modified proctor

conditions. Also, both dry and wet of optimum under standard and modified proctor conditions

10
were considered for investigation in order to simulate the field compaction condition. As MoRT&H

[51] specifies 95% relative compaction for clayey subgrade, the densities corresponding to 95% of

both standard and modified proctor conditions were considered. Table 4 shows the unit weights and

water contents considered for investigation. Three samples were prepared at each test condition and

tested. For analysis purpose, the averaged values are reported.

Table 5 shows the test results of resilient modulus on untreated black cotton soil. The soil is found

to possess reasonably higher MR values under unsoaked condition irrespective of unit weights and

water contents considered. The soil samples corresponding to standard proctor condition collapsed

upon soaking and figure 7 shows the photographic views of collapsed samples. On the other hand,

the soil samples corresponding to modified proctor condition were found to be stable after soaking

at OMC at 41.4lPa and 27.6kPa and on the dry side of OMC at 41.4kPa confining pressure. At low

confining pressures (i.e., 13.8kPa) and on the wet side of OMC samples are unstable. The samples

show large deformation at different stages depending on the sample density and water content and

figure 8 shows the sample subjected to large deformation during testing. The measured strains are in

the order of greater than 5%. The samples showed collapse behaviour during testing. This confirms

the MoRT&H [51] guidelines of minimum proctor density for subgrade soils and therefore black

cotton soil cannot be used as subgrade material when compacted to proctor conditions when unit

weight is less than 18kN/m3. Since densification does not provide reliable results, black cotton soils

have to be stabilized by suitable additives to yield desirable MR values for pavement design.

Effect of lime on MR values

Tables 6 to 10 show the test results of resilient modulus on black cotton soil treated with 2%,

2.25%, 2.5%, 2.75% and 3% lime respectively for curing periods varying from 7 to 28 days. Under

standard proctor condition, the MR values range from 67MPa to 243MPa, 73MPa to 272MPa,

80MPa to 302MPa, 87MPa to 331MPa and 94MPa to 360MPa respectively for the above lime

contents and curing periods with varied stress state. On the dry and wet side of the standard proctor

condition, the lime treated samples showed collapse behaviour upon soaking. Under modified

11
proctor condition, the MR values range from 79MPa to 326MPa, 86MPa to 357MPa, 94MP to

388MPa, 101MPa to 419MPa and 108MPa to 450MPa under the above lime content and curing

period. On the dry and wet side of modified proctor condition the MR values decreases due to

density effect and water content. The MR values range from 40MPa to 322MPa and 32MPa to

305MPa respectively on dry and wet side of modified proctor condition with lime contents varying

from 2% to 3% over a curing period of 7 to 28 days with varied stress conditions. At the end of MR

testing, the total permanent strain was reduced from greater than 5% to less than 3% in case of lime

stabilized BC soil compared to unstabilized soil. The MR values show the general trend of increase

with an increase in confining pressure and decrease with an increase in deviator stress and this trend

is in agreement with those of Rada and Witczak, Seed et al., Pezo and Hudson, Thomson and

Robnett and Maher et al. [14, 64-67]. At a constant density, the samples compacted to dry side

showed higher MR values when compared with those compacted to wet side. In general, the MR

values were found to increase with an increase in density and decrease with increase in water

content. The MR values were found to increase with an increase in the lime content and curing

period.

3.7 Comparison of CBR based MR and Laboratory MR

The CBR of black cotton soil treated with lime content corresponding to desired strength

requirement of subgrade i.e., 2.5% was investigated. The soaked CBR of lime (2.5%) stabilized 7

day cured black cotton soil was found to be 5% at modified proctor condition. Based on MR

correlation with CBR (equations 1 and 2) as per IRC:37-2012 [68], the MR values of untreated

(CBR<2) and lime treated (CBR = 5%) black cotton soil were found to be less than 20MPa and

around 50MPa respectively. From the results of repeated load tests with the above mentioned test

conditions (i.e., corresponding to modified proctor condition under soaked condition) the range of

MR values vary between 70 - 105MPa and 94 - 272MPa respectively for untreated and lime treated

black cotton soil. This clearly indicates that the laboratory MR values are not in agreement with

those determined from the widely used CBR based correlation. Therefore, it is desirable to use the

12
resilient modulus values which are experimentally determined or predicted from appropriate

prediction equations that are either developed or validated for local soil conditions for pavement

design.

MR = 10*CBR for CBR ≤ 5………………………………………………………………..Eq.(1)

MR = 17.6*CBR0.64 for CBR > 5…………………………………………………………..Eq.(2)

For a CBR of 2% with a traffic of 0.1 to 0.2msa (million standard axels), the pavement thickness as

per IRC:SP:72-2007 [52] works out to be 425mm. The stress analysis was carried out using

KENPAVE for the designed pavement section. The results of the analysis show a confining

pressure of 60kPa and a deviator stress of 26kPa including geostatic stresses and stresses due to

applied load at the top of subgrade. For these stress conditions, the MR values are observed as

99MPa unstabilized subgrade under modified proctor condition. As untreated soil is not suitable for

subgrade based on unit weight criteria, the stabilized MR should be used for pavement design. The

improved CBR of 5% due to lime stabilization reduces the total pavement thickness to 300mm

traffic being kept constant. For this pavement section, the stress analysis showed a confining

pressure of 58kPa and deviator stress of 13kPa inclusive of geostatic stresses and stresses due to

applied load at the top of lime stabilized subgrade. Under these stress conditions, the MR value is

observed as 272MPa under modified proctor condition with 7 days curing period. The MR value

reduces from 272MPa to 172MPa and 162MPa respectively under dry and wet of optimum

considering 95% of relative compaction (under soaked condition) specified by MoRT&H [51].

Under these conditions, the conservative design MR is 162MPa (wet of OMC) as against 50MPa

from CBR based design criteria (at OMC). Therefore, any pavement design should consider

compaction control criteria mentioned by various codes of practices for selection of design MR

value.

3.4 Prediction of MR of Unstabilized Soil

The resilient modulus of untreated black cotton soil under soaked condition was predicted from

the existing models. Figure 9 shows the comparison of laboratory MR with the predicted MR values
13
from the prediction models developed by Carmichael and Stuart [19] and Amber and Quintus [29].

The resilient modulus prediction model developed by Carmichael and Stuart [19] is a function of

plasticity index, water content, % passing 75µ, confining pressure, deviator stress and soil type and

is given by equation 3. On the other hand, the model developed by Amber and Quintus [29] is a

function of bulk stress and octahedral shear stress and is given by equation 4. The regression co-

efficients in the model are dependent on % passing 4.75mm, 425µ and 75µ, plasticity index, % of

clay and silt, liquid limit, optimum water content and density, ratio of moulding water content to

optimum water content and density of the sample. It was observed that the resilient modulus values

predicted from Carmichael and Stuart [19] prediction equation overestimates MR values greater than

100%. On the other hand, there exists a close relationship between the MR values predicted from

Amber and Quintus [29] compare well with laboratory MR values. Other prediction equations

developed by Dai et al. [31] and Mohammad et al. [32] cited in this paper were found to be not

suitable for the prediction of resilient modulus of the selected soil.

MR = 37.431 – 0.4566(PI) + 0.6179(wc) – 0.1424(P200) + 0.1791(σ3) + 0.3248(σd) +

36.722(CH) + 17.097(MH)……………………………………………………………………..Eq.(3)

Where, PI = Plasticity index (%)

P200 = % passing #200 sieve (i.e., 75µ IS sieve)

wc = Water content (%)

σ3 = Confining stress (psi)

σ1 = Deviator stress (psi)

CH = 1 for CH soil

= 0 otherwise (i.e., for MH, ML or CL soil)

MH = 1 for MH soil

= 0 otherwise (i.e., for CH, CL or ML soil)

M R = k 1 Pa (θ / Pa )
k2
[(τ oct / Pa ) + 1]k 3

……………………………………………………………..Eq.(4)

Where, Pa = Atmospheric pressure

14
 θ = Bulk stress [σ1 + σ2 + σ3]

τ oct = Octahedral shear stress  ((σ 1 − σ 2 ) )2 + (σ 2 − σ 3 )2 + (σ 3 − σ 1 )2 ) 

1 1/ 2

3 
k1, k2 and k3 = Regression co-efficients determined from soil properties and are given by

equations 5 to 7.

k1 = 1.3577 + 0.0106(%Clay) – 0.0437wc

…………………………………………………..…..Eq.(5)

k2 = 0.5193 – 0.0073P4 + 0.0095P40 - 0.0027P200 – 0.003LL – 0.0049wopt…………………….Eq.(6)

k3 = 1.4258 – 0.0288P4 +0.0303P40 – 0.0521P200 + 0.0251(%Silt) + 0.0535LL – 0.0672wopt –

0.0026γopt + 0.0025γs – 0.6055(wc/wopt )

…………………………………………...…………..Eq.(7)

3.5 Prediction Model for Resilient Modulus of Lime Stabilized Soil

The available prediction equations were found to be not suitable for the prediction of resilient

modulus of the black cotton soil except the one developed by Amber and Quintus [29]. There is a

good comparison between laboratory MR values and those predicted by Amber and Quintus [29].

However, black cotton soil shows low subgrade strength because of collapse behaviour under

soaked conditions when compacted to standard and modified proctor conditions. Therefore,

treatment is necessary to improve the soil properties and therefore, lime is used to treat the BC soil.

There are limited models for the prediction of lime treated MR and they are purely based on

unconfined compressive strength of the treated soil. These models do not consider other properties

of soil and stress states. The suitability of these models is questioned by Toohey et al. [36] for the

prediction of lime treated MR. The model developed by Thompson [33] for lime treated soils was

found to underestimate the resilient modulus value when compared with laboratory MR values and

this is in agreement with the findings of Toohey et al. [36]. There is a need to develop a prediction

model considering basic soil properties, stress state, additive content and curing period. Hence, an

attempt is made to develop a new prediction model for the prediction of resilient modulus of lime

treated black cotton soil. Multiple linear regression analysis was carried out. The soil state is

15
considered in terms of water content and density, the stress state is considered in terms of bulk

stress and octahedral stress and the stabilizer effect is considered in terms of lime content and

curing period. The proposed model is as follows.

k3
 γ 
k1θ  s
k2  (CP )k 4
( L) k5
γ 
MR =  opt  …………………………………………………………….…Eq.(8)
k7
ω 
τ oct k6  s 
 ω opt 
 

Where, MR = Resilient modulus in MPa

θ = Bulk stress [σ1 + σ2 + σ3] in kPa

1 
τ oct = Octahedral shear stress  ((σ 1
2 2
)
2 1/ 2
− σ 2 ) ) + (σ 2 − σ 3 ) + (σ 3 − σ 1 )  in kPa
3
γ s = Unit weight in kN/m3

γ opt = Maximum unit weight in kN/m3

ω s = Moulding water content in %

ωopt = Optimum water content in %

k1, k2, k3, k4, k5, k6 and k7 are regression co-efficients

CP = Curing period in days

L = Lime content in %

Figure 10 shows the graphical representation of laboratory MR and MR predicted from Eq.(8).

The variables considered are bulk stress, octahedral shear stress, density ratio, water content ratio,

curing period and lime content. The bulk stress varies from 65.2kPa to 193.1kPa and octahedral

shear stress varies from 6.51kPa to 32.48kPa.The unit weight ratio varies from 0.95 to 1 and water

content varies from 0.75 to 1.25 and are given in Table 4. The curing period varies from 7 days to

28 days and lime content varied from 2% to 3%. The regression co-efficients obtained for the black

cotton soil are listed in Table 11. Eq.(8) predicts the resilient modulus of lime treated black cotton

soil with an error of 12% which is acceptable for practical applications.

16
4. Conclusions

A series of repetitive load tests were carried out on unstabilized and lime stabilized black cotton

soil samples compacted to optimum, dry and wet of optimum for both standard and modified

proctor conditions. The unstabilized samples were tested under both unsoaked and soaked

conditions and lime stabilized samples were tested under soaked condition. Based on the test

results, following conclusions are drawn.

The black cotton soil shows collapse behaviour under saturated condition and the soil is not

suitable for subgrade application under both standard and modified proctor conditions and it

fails to meet the MoRT&H criteria. Lime stabilization is effective in improving the resilient

modulus of black cotton soil under modified proctor conditions as lime treated samples are

not stable under standard proctor conditions. Therefore, it is recommended to compact the

subgrade to modified proctor condition with suitable additive stabilization for all types of

roads including rural roads.

The lime treatment is found to be very effective in reducing the plasticity of the black cotton

soil. With, 5% of lime the plasticity index of the soil is reduced significantly (by 42%)

compared to untreated soil.

Lime stabilized black cotton soil show stable behaviour beyond 5 wetting and drying cycles.

However, there is 50% reduction in volumetric strain in the first wetting cycle when

compared with untreated soil samples.

Resilient modulus follows a general trend of increase with increase in confining pressure and

decreases with an increase in deviator stress.

The water content has a significant effect on resilient modulus of soil. At a constant density,

samples compacted to dry side of optimum possesses higher resilient modulus values than wet

side of optimum.

17

The CBR based correlation underestimates the resilient modulus of the soil and it is

recommended to use the experimentally determined resilient modulus or from any suitable

validated prediction equations for pavement design.

Pavement design should consider compaction control criteria mentioned by various codes of

practices for the selection of design MR value. The MR value obtained for optimum condition

shall be reduced by an appropriate reduction factor to arrive at the design MR value

corresponding to wet of optimum condition.

The MR values of lime stabilized black cotton soil predicted using the prediction model

developed in this study compare well with the experimental values with an error of 12%

which is acceptable from practical consideration.

18
 Table 1. Engineering properties of black cotton soil

Black
Sl No. Property
cotton soil
1 Specific Gravity 2.72
Grain Size Distribution (%)
(1) Gravel 0
2
(2) Sand 10
(3) Silt 36
(4) Clay 54
Soil Classification
3 (1) I.S Soil classification CH
(2) H.R.B classification A-7-C
Consistency Limits
(1) Liquid Limit (%) 71
4 (2) Plastic Limit (%) 23
(3) Plasticity Index (%) 48
(4) Shrinkage Limit (%) 12
Compaction Characteristics
Standard Proctor Test
(a) OMC (%) 24
5 (b) Maximum Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3) 14.6
Modified Proctor Test
(a) OMC (%) 19
(b)Maximum Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3) 16.8
Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)
6 (1) Unsoaked 89
(2) Soaked -
CBR (%)
Under Modified Proctor Condition
7
(1) Unsoaked condition 4
(2) Soaked condition <2
8 Swelling Index (%) 34

19
 Table 2. Physico-chemical properties of black cotton soil

Parameter Value
SiO2 68.30%
Fe2O3 6.20%
Al2O3 13.3%
CaO 3.10%
MgO 7.5%
Others 1.6%
pH 7.53
Specific Surface 300m2/gm
Cation Exchange Capacity 49.35 milli equivalence/100gm
Organic Matter 1.86%

20
Table 3. Physico-chemical properties of industrial lime

Parameter Value
Minimum assay 90%
Molecular weight 56.08gm/mole
Chlorides 0.04%
Sulphates 0.4%
Aluminium, Iron and Insoluble
1.0%
matters
Arsenic 0.0004%
Lead 0.004%

21
 Table 4. Unit weights and water contents considered for investigation

Water
Unit weight Unit weight Water Content
Sample Condition content ratio
(kN/m3) rato (γ s / γ opt ) (%) ( ws / wopt )
Unstabilized BC Soil
Standard Proctor Condition
Dry side 13.8 0.95 20 0.83
Optimum 14.6 1 24 1
Wet side 13.8 0.95 28 1.16
Modified Proctor Condition
Dry side 16.0 0.95 17 0.89
Optimum 16.8 1 19 1
Wet side 16.0 0.95 23 1.21
Lime Stabilized BC Soil (2%)
Standard Proctor Condition
Dry side 13.8 0.95 21 0.84
Optimum 14.5 1 25 1
Wet side 13.8 0.95 28 1.12
Modified Proctor Condition
Dry side 15.8 0.94 17 0.85
Optimum 16.7 1 20 1
Wet side 15.8 0.95 23 1.15
Lime Stabilized BC Soil (3%)
Standard Proctor Condition
Dry side 13.8 0.95 22 0.88
Optimum 14.5 1 25 1
Wet side 13.8 0.95 30 1.20
Modified Proctor Condition
Dry side 15.8 0.95 15 0.75
Optimum 16.7 1 20 1
Wet side 15.8 0.95 25 1.25

22
 Table 5. Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil

Dry side of Wet side of

Dry side of Std. Wet side of Modified
Confining modified modified
Sl Deviator std. proctor Proctor std. proctor Proctor
Pressure proctor proctor
No. Stress (kPa) condition condition condition condition
(kPa) condition condition
U S U S U S U S U S U S
1 13.8 121 124 209 101 281 105 184
2 27.6 115 119 187 91 268 99 162
3 41.4 41.4 107 115 161 88 238 91 138
4 55.2 98 98 127 71 219 79 119
5 68.9 93 97 123 65 212 78 106

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed
6 13.8 96 109 127 202 104 147
7 27.6 91 98 119 192 93 114
8 27.6 41.4 87 91 114 173 90 98

Sample Collapsed
9 55.2 80 78 112 145 72 88
10 68.9 70 74 110 131 70 70
11 13.8 90 96 106 148 95

Collapsed
12 27.6 85 89 97 133 85

Sample
13 13.8 41.4 81 86 93 119 72
14 55.2 70 79 85 105 62
15 68.9 42 58 67 96 50

U – Unsoaked condition

S – Soaked condition

23
 Table 6. Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil treated with 2% lime

Dry side of Wet side of

Dry side of Wet side of Modified
Confining Deviator Std. Proctor modified modified
Sl std. proctor std. proctor Proctor
Pressure Stress condition proctor proctor
No. condition condition condition
(kPa) (kPa) condition condition
7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28
1 13.8 177 222 243 151 211 237 233 291 326 132 188 208
2 27.6 167 188 213 143 190 208 204 238 288 118 157 178
3 41.4 41.4 149 169 193 131 175 192 191 219 272 108 136 158
4 55.2 127 149 175 114 159 175 169 189 255 85 119 137
5 68.9 Sample Collapsed 92 121 155 86 132 156 136 168 238 59 102 120
Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed
6 13.8 147 186 214 117 172 194 180 215 287 112 155 179
7 27.6 130 154 191 102 138 171 159 184 271 93 128 156
8 27.6 41.4 115 132 177 82 115 157 142 171 258 77 109 142
9 55.2 95 118 156 67 95 136 127 162 238 65 88 121
10 68.9 77 99 139 50 89 119 113 156 224 44 76 104
11 13.8 115 162 195 99 139 176 149 182 256 92 127 161
12 27.6 101 142 170 82 122 149 123 158 230 70 113 134
13 13.8 41.4 88 119 159 63 101 139 102 132 223 56 95 124
14 55.2 76 102 143 55 87 123 94 127 201 44 79 108
15 68.9 67 91 128 40 72 107 79 116 187 32 65 94

U – Unsoaked condition

S – Soaked condition

24
 Table 7. Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil treated with 2.25% lime

Dry side of Wet side of

Dry side of Wet side of Modified
Confining Deviator Std. Proctor modified modified
Sl std. proctor std. proctor Proctor
Pressure Stress condition proctor proctor
No. condition condition condition
(kPa) (kPa) condition condition
7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28
1 13.8 198 249 272 162 229 258 252 318 357 147 210 232
2 27.6 187 210 238 152 204 225 220 258 315 131 174 198
3 41.4 41.4 167 189 216 136 185 205 203 235 295 119 151 176
4 55.2 141 165 195 116 168 185 178 200 275 95 133 153
5 68.9 Sample Collapsed 102 134 172 84 136 163 140 176 255 63 112 132
Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed
6 13.8 165 208 240 131 192 217 194 234 315 125 174 200
7 27.6 145 172 214 113 154 191 170 198 295 103 142 174
8 27.6 41.4 129 147 198 90 127 175 149 182 279 85 121 158
9 55.2 105 131 174 74 105 151 131 171 257 71 97 134
10 68.9 84 110 155 54 98 131 115 162 239 47 83 115
11 13.8 128 182 219 110 155 197 166 203 287 102 141 180
12 27.6 112 159 190 91 136 167 137 176 257 78 126 150
13 13.8 41.4 98 132 178 70 111 155 113 147 248 61 105 138
14 55.2 84 113 160 59 95 136 103 141 224 48 88 120
15 68.9 73 100 142 43 79 119 86 128 207 34 72 104

U – Unsoaked condition

S – Soaked condition

25
 Table 8. Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil treated with 2.5% lime

Dry side of Wet side of

Dry side of Wet side of Modified
Confining Deviator Std. Proctor modified modified
Sl std. proctor std. proctor Proctor
Pressure Stress condition proctor proctor
No. condition condition condition
(kPa) (kPa) condition condition
7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28
1 13.8 219 275 302 172 248 280 272 344 388 162 232 257
2 27.6 206 233 264 161 219 242 235 278 341 144 192 219
3 41.4 41.4 184 208 238 142 196 218 216 251 317 131 166 193
4 55.2 155 182 215 119 176 196 186 212 294 104 147 169
5 68.9 Sample Collapsed 111 147 190 83 140 170 144 184 271 68 123 145
Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed
6 13.8 182 231 266 144 212 239 207 252 342 137 192 221
7 27.6 161 191 237 124 169 210 181 212 320 113 157 192
8 27.6 41.4 142 163 219 99 140 192 155 192 300 93 133 174
9 55.2 116 145 192 80 114 165 136 179 275 77 106 147
10 68.9 92 120 170 57 106 144 116 169 254 51 91 125
11 13.8 142 201 243 121 171 217 183 225 317 113 156 199
12 27.6 124 176 211 99 149 184 150 194 284 85 139 165
13 13.8 41.4 108 146 197 76 122 170 123 161 274 67 116 152
14 55.2 93 125 176 64 104 150 113 154 247 51 96 131
15 68.9 80 110 157 45 85 130 94 140 228 36 78 113

U – Unsoaked condition

S – Soaked condition

26
 Table 9. Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil treated with 2.75% lime

Dry side of Wet side of

Dry side of Wet side of Modified
Confining Deviator Std. Proctor modified modified
Sl std. proctor std. proctor Proctor
Pressure Stress condition proctor proctor
No. condition condition condition
(kPa) (kPa) condition condition
7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28
1 13.8 240 302 331 183 266 301 291 371 419 177 254 281
2 27.6 226 255 289 170 234 259 251 298 367 157 210 239
3 41.4 41.4 201 228 261 147 207 231 228 267 340 142 181 211
4 55.2 169 199 235 122 185 206 195 223 314 114 161 185
5 68.9 Sample Collapsed 121 160 207 81 144 177 148 192 288 73 133 157
Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed
6 13.8 200 253 292 157 232 262 221 270 369 150 210 242
7 27.6 176 209 260 135 185 230 192 226 345 123 171 210
8 27.6 41.4 155 178 240 107 152 210 162 202 321 101 145 190
9 55.2 126 158 210 86 124 180 140 188 293 83 115 160
10 68.9 100 131 186 61 115 156 117 175 269 54 98 136
11 13.8 156 221 267 132 187 238 200 246 348 123 171 218
12 27.6 136 193 231 108 163 201 164 212 311 93 152 181
13 13.8 41.4 118 160 216 82 133 186 134 176 300 72 126 166
14 55.2 101 136 193 69 113 163 122 168 270 55 104 143
15 68.9 87 120 171 48 92 141 101 152 249 38 84 123

U – Unsoaked condition

S – Soaked condition

27
 Table 10. Results of repeated load tests on black cotton soil treated with 3% lime

Dry side of Wet side of

Dry side of Wet side of Modified
Confining Deviator Std. Proctor modified modified
Sl std. proctor std. proctor Proctor
Pressure Stress condition proctor proctor
No. condition condition condition
(kPa) (kPa) condition condition
7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28 7 14 28
1 13.8 261 329 360 194 284 322 310 398 450 192 276 305
2 27.6 246 277 314 179 249 276 267 318 393 170 228 259
3 41.4 41.4 218 248 284 152 218 244 240 283 363 153 196 229
4 55.2 183 216 255 125 194 216 204 234 334 124 175 201
5 68.9 Sample Collapsed 131 173 224 79 148 184 152 200 305 78 143 169
Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed

Sample Collapsed
6 13.8 218 275 318 170 252 285 235 288 396 163 228 263
7 27.6 191 227 283 146 201 250 203 240 370 133 185 228
8 27.6 41.4 168 193 261 115 164 228 169 212 342 109 157 206
9 55.2 136 171 228 92 134 195 144 197 311 89 124 173
10 68.9 108 142 202 65 124 168 118 181 284 57 105 147
11 13.8 170 241 291 143 203 259 217 267 379 133 186 237
12 27.6 148 210 251 117 177 218 178 230 338 101 165 197
13 13.8 41.4 128 174 235 88 144 202 145 191 326 77 136 180
14 55.2 109 147 210 74 122 176 131 182 293 59 112 155
15 68.9 94 130 185 51 99 152 108 164 270 40 90 133

U – Unsoaked condition

S – Soaked condition

28
 Table 11. Regression co-efficients

k1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7
12.935 0.473 6.98 0.428 0.809 0.508 0.373

29
 100
90 C
l Silt Sand Gravel
80 a
70 y

60
% Finer

50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Paricle Size (mm)

Fig. 1 Grain size distribution of black cotton soil

80

70
Consistency Limits (%)

60

50

40
30

20 LL
10 PI
PL
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Lime Content (%)

Fig. 2 Variation of consistency limits with lime content

30
 17

Maximum Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)

0%

16 2%
3%
15 4%
5%
14

13

12
10 15 20 25 30 35

Water Content (%)

Fig. 3 Compaction curves of lime stabilized black cotton soil under standard proctor condition

17
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)

0%
16 2%

3%
15 4%

5%
14

13

12
10 15 20 25 30 35

Water Content (%)

Fig. 4 Compaction curves of lime stabilized black cotton soil under modified proctor condition

31
 2000

Unconfined Compressive Strength (kPa)

2%
3%

1500 4%
5%

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Curing Period (Days)

Fig. 5 Variation of unconfined compressive strength of black cotton soil with curing period and

lime content under soaked condition

14
Volumetric strain during wetting
12
Volumetric Strain (%)

Volumetric strain during drying

10
Differential strain (%)
8

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
No. of Cycles

Fig. 6 Variation of volumetric strain on wetting, drying and differential strain with no. of cycles of
alternate wetting and drying for lime treated soil sample

32
Fig. 7 Collapsed samples after soaking (standard proctor condition)

Fig. 8 Sample subjected to large deformation during testing

33
 250

200

Resilient Modulus (MPa)

150

100

AASHTO T 307
50 Carmichael and Stuart
Amber and Quintus

0
0 20 40 60 80
Deviator Stress (kPa)

Fig. 9 Comparison of laboratory MR with the predicted MR

500

400 R2 = 0.875
Predicted MR

300

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500

Laboratory MR

Fig. 10 Comparison of laboratory MR with predicted MR values for lime treated black cotton soil

34
References

1. AASHTO (1986). Guide for Design of Pavement structures, American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

2. AASHTO (1993). Guide for Design of Pavement structures, American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

3. AASHTO (2008). Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide, Interim Edition: A Manual

of Practice, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,

D.C.

4. Li, D. and Ernest, T.S. (1994). Resilient Modulus of Fine Grained Subgrade Soils, Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, 120(6), pp. 939 – 957.

5. Musharraf Zaman, Dar-Hao Chen and Joakim Laguros (1994). Resilient Moduli of Granular

Materials, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 120(6), pp. 967-988.

6. Barksdale, R.D. (1972). A Laboratory Evaluation of Rutting in Base Course Materials,

Proceedings of the 3 rd International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements,

University of Michigan, pp. 161-174.

7. Fredlund, D.G., Bergan, A.T. and Wong, P.K. (1977). Relation between Resilient Modulus and

Stress Research Conditions for Cohesive Subgrade Soils, Transportation Research Record,

Issue No. 642, Transportation Research Board, pp. 73 - 81.

8. Drumn, E.C., Reeves, J.S., Madgett, M.R. and Trolinger, W.D. (1977). Subgrade Resilient

Modulus Correction for Saturation Effects, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental

Engineering, 123(7), pp. 663-670.

9. Brutalia, T.S., Haung, J., Kim, D.G. and Croft, F. (2003). Effect of Moisture Content and Pore

Water Pressure Buildup on Resilient Modulus of Cohesive Soils in Ohio,

The Symposium on Resilient Modulus Testing for Pavement Components, Utah, pp. 70 – 84.

10. Heydinger, A.G. (2003). Evaluation of Seasonal Effects on Subgrade Soils, Transportation

Research Record, Issue No. 1821, Transportation Research Board, pp. 47 - 55.

35
11. Smith, W.S. and Nair, K. (1973). Development of Procedure for Characterization of Untreated

Granular Base Course and Asphalt Treated Course Materials, FHWA, Final Report, FHWA-A-

RD-74-61, Washington D.C.

12. Chou, Y.T. (1976). Evaluation of Non-linear Resilient Modulus of Unbound Granular

Materials from Accelerated Traffic Test Data, Final Technical Report, U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment station, Vicksburg.

13. Allen, A.J. (1996). Development of Correlation between Physical and Fundamental Properties

of Louisiana Soils, Master’s Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Louisiana State

University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

14. Rada, G. and Witczak, M.W. (1981). Comprehensive Evaluation of Laboratory Resilient

Moduli Results for Granular Material, Transportation Research Record, Issue No.810,

Transportation Research Board, pp. 23-33.

15. Heukelom, W. and Klomp, A.J.G. (1962). Dynamic Testing as a Means of Controlling

Pavements During and After Construction, Proceedings of the First International Conference on

Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan, pp. 495 - 510.

16. Webb, W.M. and Campbell, B.E. (1986). Preliminary Investigation into Resilient Modulus

Testing for new AASHTO Pavement Design Guide, Georgia Department of Transportation,

Atlanta, GA.

17. The Asphalt Institute (1982). Research and Development of the Asphalt Institute’s Thickness

Design Manual, Ninth Edition, Research Report No. 82-2, Ninth Edition, Asphalt Institute,

Lexington, KY.

18. Yeh, S.T., and Su, C.K. (1989). Resilient Properties of Colorado Soils, Report No. CDOH-DH-

SM-89-9, Colorado Department of Highways and Federal Highway Administration.

19. Carmichael, R.F. and Stuart, E. (1985). Predicting Resilient Modulus: A Study to Determine

the Mechanical Properties of Subgrade Soils, Transportation Research Record, Issue No. 1043,

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

36
20. Drumm, E.C., Boateng-Poku, Y. and Johnson Pierce, T. (1990). Estimation of Subgrade

Resilient Modulus from Standard Tests, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 116(5), pp. 774-

789.

21. Farrar, M. and Turner, J. (1991). Resilient Modulus of Wyoming Subgrade Soils, Report No.

MPC 91-1, Mountains-Plains Consortium, Fargo, ND.

22. Rahim, A.M. (2005). Subgrade soil Index properties to Estimate Resilient Modulus,

International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 6(4), pp. 163 – 169.

23. Dunlap, W.A. (1963). A Mathematical Model Describing the Deformation Characteristics of

Granular Materials, Technical Report 1, Project 2-8-62-27 (HPS–1–27), Texas Transportation

Institute, Texas A & M University, Texas.

24. Seed, H.B., Mitry, F.G., Monismith, C.L. and Chan, C.K. (1967). Prediction of Flexible

Pavement Deflections from Laboratory Repeated Load Tests, NCHRP Report, Issue No. 35,

Transportation Research Board.

25. Moossazadeh, J. and Witczak, M.W. (1981). Prediction of Subgrade Moduli for Soil that

Exhibits Nonlinear Behavior, Transportation Research Record, Issue No. 810, Transportation

Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 9-17.

26. May, R.W. and Witczak, M.W. (1981). Effective Granular Modulus to Model Pavement

Response. Transportation Research Record, Issue No. 810, Transportation Research Board,

National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 1 – 9.

27. Uzan, J. (1985). Characterization of Granular Material, Transportation Research Record, Issue

No. 1022, Transportation Research Record, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp

52-59.

28. Stubstad, R.N. (2002). LTPP Data Analysis: Feasibility of using FWD Deflection Data to

Characterize Pavement Construction Quality, NCHRP Web Document 52, Project 20-59 (9),

Washington, D.C.

37
29. Yau Amber and Von Quintus, H.L. (2002). Study of LTPP Laboratory Resilient Modulus Test

Data and Response Characteristics, FHWA, Final Report, FHWA-RD- 02-051, Federal

Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

30. Santha, B.L. (1994). Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils: Comparison of Two Constitutive

Equations, Transportation Research Record, Issue No. 1462, Transportation Research Board,

National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 79-90.

31. Dai Shongtao and John Zollars (2002). Resilient Modulus of Minnesota Road Research Project

Subgrade Soil, Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board

Volume. 1786, Washington, DC, pp. 20-28.

32. Mohammad, L.N., Huang, B., Puppala, A.J. and Allen, A. (1999). “Regression Model for

Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils, Transportation Research Record, Journal of the

Transportation Research Board, Volume 1687, Washington, D.C., pp. 47-54.

33. Thompson, M. R. and Marshall, S. (1966). Shear Strength and Elastic Properties of Lime Soil

Mixtures, Highway Research Board, 139, pp. 1-14.

34. Little, D. N., Scullion, T., Kota, P. B. V. S. and Bhuiyan, J. (1994). Identification of the

structural Benefits of Base and Subgrade Stabilization, FHWA/TX-94/1287-2, Texas

Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, Arlington, Texas, USA.

35. Mallela, J., Von Quintus, H. and Smith, K. L. (2004). Consideration of Lime Stabilized Layers

in Mechanistic – Empirical Pavement Design, Report submitted to The National Lime

Association, National Lime Association, Arlington, Virginia.

36. Toohey, N. M., Mooney, M. A. and Bearce, R. G. (2013). Relationship between Resilient

Modulus and Unconfined Compressive Strength for Lime Stabilized Soils, Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(11), pp. 1982-1985.

37. Holtz, W. G. (1969). Volume Change in Expansive Clay Soils and Control by Lime Treatment,

Proceedings of 2 nd International Research and Engineering Conference on Expansive Clayey

Soils, Texas A&M Press, Texas, pp. 157-174.

38
38. Thompson, M. (1970). Soil Stabilization for Pavement Systems – State of the Art, Technical

Report – Department of Army, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign,

Illinois.

39. Bell, F. G. (1988). Stabilization and Treatment of Clay Soils with Lime, Part – 1, Basic

Principles, Ground Engineering, pp. 10-15.

40. McCallister, L. D. and Petry, H. (1990). Property Changes in Lime Treated Expansive Clays

Under Continuous Leaching, Final Technical Report, Report No. GL-90-17, U.S Army Corps

of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

41. Little, D. N., Scullion, T., Kota, P. and Bhuiyan, J. (1995). Guidelines for Mixture Design and

Thickness Design for Stabilized Bases and Subgrades, FHWA/TX-95/1287-3F, Texas

Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, Texas.

42. Bell, F. G. (1996). Lime Stabilization of Clay Minerals and Soils, Engineering Geology

Journal, 42(4), pp. 223-237.

43. Rao, S. M. and Thyagaraj, T. (2003). Lime Slurry Stabilization of an Expansive Soil,

Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering, 156(3), pp. 139-146.

44. Consoli, N., Rosa, A. and Saldanha, R. (2011). Parameters Controlling Strength of Industrial

Waste Lime Amended Soil, Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society, 51(2), pp.

265-273.

45. Dash, S. K. and Hussain, M. (2012). Lime Stabilization of Soils: Reappraisal, Journal of

Materials in Civil Engineering, 24(6), pp. 707-714.

46. Rogers, C. Boardman, D. and Papadimitriou, G. (2006). Stress Path Testing of Realistically

Cured Lime and Lime/Cement Stabilized Clay, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,

18(2), pp. 259-266.

47. Khattab, S. A. A., Al-Mukhtar, M. and Fleureau, J. M. (2007). Long Term Stability

Characteristics of a Lime Treated Plastic Soil, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(4),

pp. 358-366.

39
48. ASTM D 3282 – 09. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures

for Highway Construction Purposes.

49. ASTM D 2487 – 11 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes

(Unified Soil Classification System).

50. Prakash, K. and Sridharan, A. (2004). Free Swell Ratio and Clay Mineralogy of Fine Grained

Soil, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 27(2), pp. 220-225.

51. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (2013). Specifications for Roads and Bridges, 5 th

Edition, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.

52. IRC:SP:72 (2007). Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements for Low Volume Rural

Roads, The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.

53. ASTM D 5102 – 09. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of

compacted Soil - Lime Mixtures.

54. Ping, W. V. and Ching Chin Ling (2007). Enhancement of Resilient Modulus Data for the

Design of Pavement Structures in Florida, Final Report BD-543-4, Florida A&M University,

Florida State University, Tallhassee, Florida.

55. Cement and Lime Stabilization of Subgrade Soils (2007). Project Special Provisions, North

Carolina Department of Transportation.

56. AASHTO T – 307 – 99 (2007). Standard Method of Test for Determining the Resilient

Modulus of Soils and Aggregate Materials, American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

57. ASTM D 6276 – 99a. Standard Test Method for using pH to Estimate the Soil-Lime Proportion

Requirement for Soil Stabilization.

58. ASTM D 698 – 12. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil

Using Standard Effort.

59. ASTM D 1557 – 12. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil

using Modified Effort.

40
60. Suhail A Khattab, Ibrahim M Al-Kiki and Abderrahmane H Al-Zubaydi (2011). Effects of

Fibres on Some Engineering Properties of Cement and Lime Stabilized Soils, Engineering and

Technology Journal, 29(5), pp. 886-905.

61. Naveena, P. C., Dinesh, S. V., Gowtham, G. and Umesh, T. S. (2016). Prediction of Strength

Development in Black Cotton Soil Stabilised with Chemical Additives, Indian Geotechnical

Journal, DOI: 10.1007/s40098-016-0209-3 (In Press).

62. ASTM D 2166 – 13. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive

Soil.

63. ASTM D 559 - 03. Standard Test Methods for Wetting and Drying Compacted Soil-Cement

Mixtures.

64. Seed, H., Chan, C. and Lee, C. (1962). Resilient Modulus of Subgrade Soils and Their Relation

to Fatigue Failures in Asphalt Pavements, Proceedings of International Conference on the

Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan, Michigan, pp. 611-636.

65. Pezo, R. and Hudson, W. (1994). Prediction Models of Resilient Modulus for Non granular

Materials, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 1(3), pp. 349 -355.

66. Thompson, M. R. and Robnett, Q. L. (1979). Resilient Properties of Subgrade Soils,

Transportation Engineering Journal, 105(1), pp. 71-89.

67. Maher, A., Bennert, T., Gucunski, N. and Papp, W. J. (2000). Resilient Modulus of New Jersey

Subgrade Soils, Final Report, Report No. FWHA-NJ-2000-01, New Jersey Department of

Transportation, New Jersey.

68. IRC:37-2012. Guidelines for the design of Flexible Pavements, Indian Roads Congress, New

Delhi.

41